POTENTIAL GAINS IN ANADROMOUS SALMONID
PRODUCTION FROM RESTORATION OF BEAVER
CREEK (SANDY RIVER BASIN, OREGON)
Steven P. Cramer, Jason Vaughan, Mark Teply, and Shadia Duery
Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District
February 2012
Table of Contents
TABLE OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE AND OUR APPROACH TO ITS
SOLUTION............................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 4
Need .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 8
Approach ................................................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER 2: HABITAT FACTORS THAT DETERMINE CARRYING CAPACITY ..... 13
Conceptual Model of Fish Use ............................................................................................... 13
Coho Salmon................................................................................................................... 14
Fall Chinook Salmon ...................................................................................................... 14
Steelhead Trout ............................................................................................................... 15
Chum Salmon.................................................................................................................. 16
Life Stages Modeled ....................................................................................................... 16
Relationships of Fish Use to Habitat Features ........................................................................ 17
Spawning Habitat Preferences ........................................................................................ 17
Spawner Carrying Capacity ............................................................................................ 20
Rearing Habitat Preferences ........................................................................................... 20
Rearing Capacity Prediction ........................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3: HABITAT CONDITIONS IN BEAVER CREEK .......................................... 32
Habitat Survey Methods ......................................................................................................... 32
Survey Findings ...................................................................................................................... 32
Watershed Characteristics ............................................................................................... 32
Flow and Temperature .................................................................................................... 32
Habitat Characterization by Reach ................................................................................. 35
Habitat Features .............................................................................................................. 43
Fish Passage Conditions ................................................................................................. 44
Innovative Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
i|Page
Predicted Width and Depth Change at Higher Flow ...................................................... 50
CHAPTER 4: ESTIMATED PRODUCTION POTENTIAL FOR BEAVER CREEK ......... 52
Life Stage Survival Rates........................................................................................................ 52
Estimation of Adult Equivalent Production ............................................................................ 53
Findings and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 56
Spawning Distribution and Capacity .............................................................................. 56
Rearing Distribution and Capacity.................................................................................. 57
Adult Production Capacity .............................................................................................. 61
Contribution by Life History Type ................................................................................. 63
CHAPTER 5: LIMITING FACTORS AND POTENTIAL REMEDIATION...................... 65
Limiting Factors ...................................................................................................................... 65
Spawning Habitat ............................................................................................................ 65
Low Summer Flow ......................................................................................................... 65
High Summer Temperatures ........................................................................................... 65
Low Fall Flow ................................................................................................................. 66
Adult Passage at Road Crossings .................................................................................... 66
Poaching .......................................................................................................................... 67
Contaminated Runoff ...................................................................................................... 67
Potential Measures for In-stream Restoration......................................................................... 67
Benefits of Upgrade Adult Passage Facilities ................................................................. 67
Potential Habitat Restoration and Benefits ..................................................................... 69
Habitat Enhancements .................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 72
REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................................... 73
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 78
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
ii | P a g e
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Flows in October and November 2010 and 2011 at the time of upstream salmon
migration. USGS data at Troutdale gauge. ............................................................. 7
Figure 2.
Photo of weir and fish trap on lower Beaver Creek used during spring 2010 to
sample juvenile emigrants....................................................................................... 8
Figure 3.
Basin map, showing study reaches and road crossings where fish passage may be
impaired. ............................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4.
Conceptual model of life-history pathways for coho salmon in Beaver Creek. ... 14
Figure 5.
Conceptual model of life-history pathways for Chinook salmon in Beaver Creek.
............................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 6.
Conceptual model of life-history pathways for steelhead in Beaver Creek.......... 16
Figure 7.
Spawning microhabitats selected by salmonid fishes in relation to body size. .... 18
Figure 8.
Median diameter (D50) of gravel used by salmonids for spawning plotted against
spawner body length. ............................................................................................ 19
Figure 9.
Mean coho salmon density grouped by 2 ˚C increments of maximum weekly
average temperature (MWAT) in 44 Oregon coastal survey sites during the
summer, 2003-2006.. ............................................................................................ 23
Figure 10.
Effect of temperature on parr rearing capacity for coho. Temperature is expressed
as the summer maximum of the 7-day running average. ...................................... 25
Figure 11.
Diagram of data input and calculation steps used in the UCM to estimate stream
carrying capacity for Chinook parr. ...................................................................... 29
Figure 12.
Diagram of the data input and calculation steps used in the UCM to estimate
stream carrying capacity for steelhead parr. ......................................................... 30
Figure 13.
Mean daily discharge values at 20%, 50%, and 80% exceedance for Beaver Creek
at the Troutdale gauge (USGS 14142800) calculated using data from 1999-2010.
33
Figure 14.
Relationship between flow and exceedance probability for Beaver Creek at the
USGS gauge near Troutdale during the early spawning season for salmon. ........ 34
Figure 15.
Seven-day running average of stream temperature in Beaver Creek at Kiku Park
(km 2) during 2002, 2004, 2006-07, and at Division St (km 3.7) during 2009. ... 34
Figure 16.
Predicted mean flow in specified months for selected reaches of Beaver Creek. 35
Figure 17.
Photos of stream features in Reach 1 (mouth of Beaver Creek to Kiku Park). .... 36
Figure 18.
Photos of stream features in Reach 2 (Kiku Park to Troutdale Rd)...................... 37
Figure 19.
Photos of Reach 3. ................................................................................................ 38
Innovative Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
iii | P a g e
Figure 20.
Photos for Reach 4 and 5 (Stark St to Cochran Rd). ............................................ 39
Figure 21.
Photos for Reach 7 (Cochran Rd to Division Rd)................................................. 40
Figure 22.
Photos for Reaches 9 and 11 (Troutdale Rd at Division St to 302nd St.). ............. 41
Figure 23.
Photos of overgrown vegetation in creek and road and driveway crossings in
Reaches 9 and 11. ................................................................................................. 42
Figure 24.
Photos for Reach 10 (North fork Beaver Creek).. ................................................ 43
Figure 25.
Area composed by different channel unit types in each reach surveyed, Beaver
Creek, October, 2011. ........................................................................................... 45
Figure 26.
Depth frequency of pools and riffles in each reach surveyed in the Beaver Creek
watershed, October, 2011. .................................................................................... 48
Figure 27.
Cover complexity rating for pools in each reach surveyed during October, 2011.
Rating of 1 is lowest and 4 highest. ...................................................................... 49
Figure 28.
Substrate composition in riffles for each reach surveyed, October 2011.. ........... 49
Figure 29.
Contrasting rates of change in velocity and depth between pools and riffles in
response to increasing flow for a stream with mean annual flow of 3 m3/sec.. .... 51
Figure 30.
Predicted number of redds that can be supported at November flows in each
reach, by species, as determined by suitable depths and substrate in patches of
sufficient area to support a spawning pair. ........................................................... 59
Figure 31.
Predicted carrying capacity for parr, by reach and species. .................................. 60
Figure 32.
Predicted number of adult salmon and steelhead (Adult Equivalents) the Beaver
Creek watershed can produce at capacity from each reach under average
environmental conditions. ..................................................................................... 63
Figure 33.
Proportional contribution of each life-history pathway to predicted adult
production for each species. .................................................................................. 64
Figure 34.
Predicted adult production from Beaver Creek watershed at carrying capacity
under average conditions.. .................................................................................... 68
Figure 35.
Flows in October and November 2010 and 2011 at the time of upstream salmon
migration. .............................................................................................................. 69
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
iv | P a g e
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1.
Adults and redds counted in Beaver Creek during spawning surveys by ODFW in
the 1990s and Mt Hood Community College in 2010. ........................................... 5
Table 2.
Salmon counts in Beaver Creek during 2010 by Mt Hood Community College. .. 6
Table 3.
Salmonid counts in Beaver Creek during 2011 by Mt Hood Community College. 6
Table 4.
Summary of characteristics for Beaver Creek watershed overall and its primary
tributaries. ............................................................................................................... 9
Table 5.
Models used for predicting watershed carrying capacity for ESA-listed salmonids
based on habitat measurements.. ........................................................................... 11
Table 6.
Standard parr densities (fish/100m2) used in the UCM for each channel unit type.
............................................................................................................................... 21
Table 7.
Scaling factors and levels at which the factors apply in Chinook parr. ................ 27
Table 8.
Dimensions of stream reaches surveyed in the Beaver Creek watershed, October
2011....................................................................................................................... 46
Table 9.
Channel unit composition (by count) and average depths in each survey reach of
Beaver Creek, October, 2011. ............................................................................... 46
Table 10.
Fecundity and life-stage survival values used to calculate potential production of
juveniles through each life-history pathway to estimate the average number of
adult equivalents produced. .................................................................................. 52
Table 11.
Functions used to scale fish densities based on specific habitat features.
Abbreviations are L = length, W = width, D = depth.. ......................................... 55
Table 12.
Comparison of parr carrying capacity estimates for coho at different seasons. The
raw summer capacities are based on stream morphology without adjustment for
high temperatures.. ................................................................................................ 61
Table 13.
Effect of scalars on the four factors specified. Percentages less than 100% indicate
the factor resulted in a decrement to production. .................................................. 66
Innovative Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
v|Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides estimates of potential gains in production of salmon and steelhead that
could result from aquatic habitat restoration actions in Beaver Creek, a tributary to the lower
Sandy River, Oregon. Foremost to be considered were the effects of upgrading adult passage
facilities for three road crossings (Troutdale Rd., Stark St. and Cochrane Rd.) that have been
identified as likely impediments to upstream passage. These road crossings are approximately
midway within the portion of the watershed where anadromous fish are most frequently
observed.
Models were constructed that related carrying capacity for spawning and rearing of each
species to the habitat features that determined the maximum density of fish that would occupy
that habitat. Habitat features that determined spawning capacity were gravel availability, area
defended per spawning pair, and minimum depth for spawning. Habitat features that determined
rearing capacity were channel unit composition, surface area, depth, substrate, cover, and
temperature. Habitat measurements were scaled to flows in May for Chinook parr, flows at
summer low for coho and steelhead parr, flows in November for salmon spawning, and flows in
April for Steelhead spawning.
We used a modified ODFW protocol to survey habitat features in 12.5 km of stream
throughout all watershed reaches currently thought to be accessible to anadromous salmonids.
These habitat measurements served as the inputs for our modeling of potential salmon and
steelhead production. Pools dominated stream surface area in most reaches below Division St
(km 7.4), with the exception of the steeper canyon reach (km 1.8-3.2) dominated by riffles and
boulders. There was substantial beaver activity in reaches 3, and 4 where beaver ponds
composed 10.5% and 9.0% of the reach respectively. Most riffles were too shallow (< 15 cm) to
be useful for rearing salmonids during the low flow season. Cover complexity in most pools (>
60%) was lacking, with only 5-10% of pools scoring the highest complexity rating of 4 in most
reaches. The percentages of fines in substrates were sufficiently low to have little impact on egg
survival or rearing capacity. Stream temperatures exceeded optimum levels for salmonids, with
the maximum of the weekly averages reaching (21°C) above Cochran Rd, and 19°C in reach 2
(km 1.9).
In the watershed’s present condition and assuming unimpaired adult passage, our model
predicted that 148 Chinook, 261 chum, 240 coho, and 146 steelhead could be produced at full
spawner seeding and average environmental conditions. Actual production will vary widely
with the environment, and naturally low flows in the fall are likely to impair access to Chinook
more often than other species. The flow regime is most suited for salmon stocks adapted to
spawn after mid-November, which is later than most spawning at present.
The Stark St. crossing appeared most likely to substantially impair upstream passage at all
but some intermediate flow levels. This crossing probably prevents passage for 50-100% of the
run attempting to pass for all species in many years. The culverts at Troutdale Rd and Cochran
Rd crossings appear passable under most flow conditions.
The habitat capacity model that we developed incorporated the influence of multiple factors
influencing production of adult salmon and steelhead, and its predictions for adult production
Innovative Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
1|Page
potential matched reasonably with observations of spawner abundance in recent decades. Key
functions built into the model accounted for:








Maximum rearing densities supportable for each species based on measured stream
features for which salmonids have been demonstrated strong preference or avoidance.
Maximum densities of spawning redds that could be supported for differing space and
depth requirements between species.
Differences in rearing preference for depth and cover between species
Differences in life history pathways within and between species
Differences in flow between reaches throughout the watershed, based on gauged flow at
only one location.
Changes in channel unit depths and widths across seasons with different flows. This
included differing rates of change between pool, riffle, and glide units.
Fish movements, and their associated survival costs, at multiple life stages.
Differences in survival from one life stage to the next for each species
Predicted spawning capacity was distributed among reaches differently by species, the total
redds that could be supported was 70 for Chinook salmon, 83 for Chum salmon, and 242 each
for coho salmon and steelhead. Chum salmon would spawn predominantly in reach 1. Chinook
spawning capacity was split 49% in reach 1 and 51% upstream of the Troutdale and Stark St
crossings in reaches 4, 5, and 7. For coho and steelhead, only 24% of spawning capacity was
below the Troutdale Rd crossing in reaches 1 and 2, and 75% was in reaches 4, 5, and 7 above
the Troutdale and Stark St crossings.
Capacity for rearing of parr was greatest in reaches 1 and 2 below Troutdale Rd and
relatively low in all other reaches for both Chinook and steelhead. This was due to the high
temperatures during summer, and shallow depths in riffles, which provided almost no rearing
capacity except in the canyon (reach 2). The capacity for coho parr was distributed 34% in
reach 1, with the other 66% spread across the remaining reaches.
After integrating capacities for spawning and rearing, and accounting for survivals between
life states, the predicted number of adults that would be produced under average conditions was
148 Chinook, 261 chum, 240 coho, and 146 steelhead. These estimated capacities compare well
with rough estimates of run sizes in the 1950s when passage impediments were likely less.
Flows will be inadequate for successful spawning of Chinook even through November in at least
20% of years, so a Chinook population may not be sustainable through extended drought
sequences.
Only 36% of adult production for all four species resulted from juveniles that reared to
smolting within Beaver Creek, so production was substantially dependent on fish that emigrated
as fry or parr to rear in the Sandy and Columbia rivers. In Beaver Creek, 82% of adult steelhead,
27% of coho, and 24% of Chinook were estimated to be produced by either fry or parr migrants
that finished rearing outside the watershed. This high percentage of coho rearing completed
outside of Beaver Creek reflects the combined limitation that low flow and high temperature
places on juvenile rearing.
We used the production potential model to simulate how the number of adults produced
would be affected by passage. If passage were completely blocked at either Troutdale Rd or
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
2|Page
Stark St crossings, about three-fourths of steelhead production, one-third of Chinook production,
and half of coho production would be lost, compared to full passage at all crossings.
The key factors other than passage found to limit production potential were low base flow,
high summer temperature, and limited cover complexity. Low flows led to shallow riffles that
were nearly all eliminated as suitable rearing habitat. High temperatures resulted in 34% to 85%
of rearing capacity lost in each reach compared to optimal temperatures. Low cover complexity
resulted in 4% to 42% of rearing potential in pools being lost in each reach.
A variety of restoration and enhancement actions were identified and all would depend on
the extent of cooperation from landowners and public agencies. Options included riparian
plantings, flow restoration, addition of gravel and large woody debris, channel modifications,
spawning channel construction, and supplementation.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
3|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
POTENTIAL GAINS IN ANADROMOUS SALMONID
PRODUCTION FROM RESTORATION OF BEAVER CREEK
(SANDY RIVER BASIN, OREGON)
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE AND OUR APPROACH TO ITS
SOLUTION
Purpose
This report provides estimates of potential gains in production of salmon and steelhead that
could result from aquatic habitat restoration actions in Beaver Creek, a tributary to the lower
Sandy River, Oregon. These estimates of potential benefits to fish production will contribute to
the feasibility stage of a project being considered by the Portland District U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). The project is being studied under Section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act in cooperation with the local sponsor, Multnomah County. The Portland
District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for conducting a cost-effectiveness
and incremental cost analysis of alternatives, which is integral to selecting the preferred
construction alternative. Environmental benefits of this project will be focused on improving fish
passage and habitat for anadromous salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
including Chinook salmon, coho salmon, Chum salmon, and steelhead.
Need
Beaver Creek has gone through major land use changes over the last half a century, going
from an undeveloped stream to one with major impact of housing developments and farming.
General surveys of fish and habitat in Beaver Creek in the 1940s and 1950s reported that good
runs of coho, steelhead and chum salmon returned to the creek (Mattson 1955). Matson gives the
following account for Beaver Creek;
“Beaver Creek, a minor tributary entering the lower main stem at Troutdale, has
been a producer of silver (coho) and chum salmon and steelhead. Prior to the
development of the agricultural potential of this watershed, apparently considerable
numbers of all three species of anadromous salmonids were produced in this stream. In
recent years several hundred silver (coho) and steelhead have maintained themselves,
and only a few dozen chum salmon. Due to rapidly increasing irrigational water
demands, the future potential of these species cannot be expected to be more than 300400 silvers and steelhead and 200 chum salmon.”
This summary from Mattson (1955) is notable in that it identifies chum salmon as present in
Beaver Creek, but it does not mention Chinook salmon as present. Mattson further clarified his
observation that Chinook were not historically present as a sustaining population in Beaver
Creek when he reported, “The most valuable of the minor tributaries of the Sandy River from the
standpoint of natural propagation is Gordon Creek…. It is the only minor sized tributary that
supports a population of Chinook salmon as well as slivers (coho) and steelhead.” Matson goes
on to note that Gordon Creek was uniquely productive among the small tributaries because is
sustained flows through the summer of about 20 cfs, which was high for a watershed of its size.
In contrast, the low flows during fall in Beaver Creek limit the opportunities for Chinook
spawners to enter the stream before mid-November, but the early occurrence of low flows and
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
4|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
high temperatures in the spring also require juveniles to reach smolting size by late May. So, the
flow regime in Beaver Creek likely has too narrow of an opportunity window between spawning
and smolting to consistently support a fall Chinook population.
Studies and fish management reports in recent decades have established the fish species that
presently reside in Beaver Creek. Salmon and steelhead spawning has been sporadically
surveyed by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 1994) and its predecessor, the
Oregon Fish Commission. Surveys through 1989 showed a declining trend in coho redd counts;
going from 32 in 1957, 6 in 1958, 7 in 1967, 2 in 1969, to 0 in 1989. Limited spawning surveys
have been completed since then by ODFW and Mt Hood Community College (MHCC; Table 1).
Several dozen coho and steelhead were observed during surveys in the mid-1990s, and 14
Chinook were observed in 1995 (Table 1). Counts of live adult Chinook and coho by MHCC
were greater yet in 2010 (Table 2). The ODFW surveys were conducted on Metro property
upstream of the Stark St crossing adjacent to MHCC, but their frequency varied, so it is unclear
how comparable the ODFW and MHCC counts are. The counts in 2010 followed several flow
events exceeding 60 cfs, and establish that adult salmon can pass the Stark St crossing given
those flows. In contrast, the low number of fish observed in 2011 were all (except 1)
downstream of Troutdale Rd (Table 3), indicating that lower flows impaired passage at the road
crossings, and probably past shallow riffles as well.
In an effort to increase the coho production of Beaver Creek in the 1980s, ODFW released
hatchery coho as fry and presmolts, but the absence of spawning coho found during the 1989
survey suggests that any returns were few in number. The number of hatchery coho released was
summarized by Massey (1987) as follows:





1980
1981
1982
1983
1987
Table 1.
pre-smolts
fry
pre-smolts
fry
pre-smolts,
30,000
62,000
26,000
63,000
51,000
Adults and redds counted in Beaver Creek during spawning surveys by ODFW in the 1990s and
Mt Hood Community College in 2010.
Adults
Reference
Year
Chinook
Live
Carcasses
1992
ODFW
19921996
MHCC
2010 2011(OctFeb)
Coho
Live
Steelhead
Carcasses
Live
Redds
Carcasses
37
1993
27
1994
38
1995
14
4
2010 2011
41
2
23
1
86
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
26
6
14
4
3
5|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
Table 2.
Salmon counts in Beaver Creek during 2010 by Mt Hood Community College.
Troutdale Rd to Kelly Cr
Kelly Cr to 100 yards
upstream of Cochrane Rd
Kelly Cr to Pond
Date
Live
Dead
Live
Dead
Live
Dead
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
10/08/10
0
14
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10/11/10
0
0
0
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10/18/10
14
14
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
10/27/10
0
0
0
6
-
-
-
-
0
15
0
2
11/02/10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
1
11/03/10
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
11/04/10
14
13
0
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/17/10
13
0
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/21/10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
11/22/10
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
11/29/10
0
16
0
1
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
12/03/10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
1
12/07/10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
12/08/10
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12/15/10
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
12/22/10
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
12/27/10
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
01/04/11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
01/10/11
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01/01/11
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
01/11/11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
01/20/11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
01/27/11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
02/02/11
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
02/09/11
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41
57
2
22
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
4
Subtotal
Table 3.
Salmonid counts in Beaver Creek during 2011 by Mt Hood Community College.
Kiku Park to
Troudale Rd
2011
Months
Live
Troutdale Rd to
Kelly Cr
Dead
Live
Dead
Kelly Cr to Pond
Live
Dead
Kelly Cr to 100
yards upstream of
Cochrane Rd
Live
Dead
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
Ch
Co
October
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
November
2
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
December
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal
2
0
2
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
6|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
200
2010
Daily Mean Discharge (cfs)
180
2011
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
10/1
Figure 1.
10/8
10/15
10/22
10/29
11/5
Date
11/12
11/19
11/26
Flows in October and November 2010 and 2011 at the time of upstream salmon migration. USGS
data at Troutdale gauge.
Recent sampling of juvenile fishes in Beaver Creek confirms that some salmon and steelhead
smolts continue to be produced. Out-migrant juveniles were sampled with a weir trap (Figure 2)
near the stream mouth in 2009 by the City of Portland Water Bureau (Strobel 2011); however,
the weir was inoperable on increasing and high flows and fished less than half the days it was
present from March 10 to May 26. The trap captured 11 steelhead parr and smolts, and one coho
smolt. The Wild Fish Conservancy (2011) sampled fish assemblages during September 2010 by
electrofishing in four separate reaches of the watershed downstream of Division St, and in select
locations above there. They found that native reticulate sculpin (31%) and speckled dace (25%)
were the most abundant species in Beaver Creek followed by non-native western mosquitofish
(11%), native coho salmon (9%), redside shiner (7%), and rainbow trout / steelhead (5%).
Juvenile coho were found up to the Division Street crossing, which is the upper limit of perennial
flow, and juvenile rainbow trout were found in the North Fork Beaver Creek below the culvert
under NE 302nd Av. Most coho (n = 109) and steelhead (n = 59) captured were age 0+, and three
age 1+ and one age 2+ steelhead were captured. The Wild Fish Conservancy concluded that,
“Together, these observations suggest that despite extensive intact riparian corridors
and numerous beaver dams that create and maintain excellent salmonid rearing habitat
(Pollock et al 2004), salmon and trout populations in Beaver Creek are likely reduced
relative to their historic abundance. Continued habitat restoration efforts, including
improved fish passage at road crossings and efforts to address degraded water quality
and hydrology, would likely improve their status. Fish passage improvement projects at
the Troutdale Road, Stark Street, and Cochran Road culverts would likely improve fish
access to the upper watershed.”
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
7|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
Figure 2.
Photo of weir and fish trap on lower Beaver Creek used during spring 2010 to sample juvenile
emigrants. From (Strobel 2011).
The three road crossings (Troutdale Rd, Stark St and Cochrane Rd) that have been identified
as likely impediments to upstream passage are about midway within the portion of the watershed
where anadromous fish are most frequently observed. Although some coho and steelhead pass
above all three culverts, it appears that velocities and approaches to the fishways are only
passable at a limited range of flows that may occur infrequently.
The purpose of this study was the estimate the potential increase in production of ESA-listed
coho, fall Chinook, steelhead and chum salmon that could result if full fish passage was restored
at each of the three road crossings. Further, the study was to determine the potential for
additional gains in production of these fish that might be achieved through other habitat
restoration or mitigation strategies. The USACE will use these estimates to evaluate the
feasibility of completing a project to design and build fish passage facilities and restore selected
habitat features.
Study Area
Beaver Creek is a low elevation watershed that drains portions of the landscape within
Gresham and Troutdale, and it enters the Sandy River at km 4.8 (Figure 3). Maximum elevation
in the 32.9 km2 of watershed is only ~225 m msl. The watershed has been substantially
developed in the last half century for urban and agricultural uses (Table 4). The land use
transitions from a mix of urban and rural residential in the lower reaches up to the Stark Street
crossing, to a riparian conservation zone for the next 1.2 km along Metro property adjacent to
MHCC and then extends largely through agricultural and rural residential uses upstream to
origin. The watershed has three major tributaries; Kelly Creek entering at km 4, Arrow Creek
entering at km 6.25, and the North fork entering at km 7.25 (Figure 3). There are small
impoundments at the headwaters of the main stem well upstream of present anadromy, and at km
0.25 of Kelly Creek where it passes through the Mt Hood Community College campus. The dam
on campus is the upstream limit to migration in Kelly Creek, and there is little habitat value for
anadromy above that point.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
8|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
Table 4.
Summary of characteristics for Beaver Creek watershed overall and its primary tributaries.
Note the impervious area is not separate from urban, but rather is mostly within urban areas.
Rural/residential and agriculture would be other land uses not summarized here. USGS data
online at: http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gisimg/Reports.
Area
(km2)
Mean (m)
Elevation
Stream Length
(km)
Beaver Creek (Total)
12.9
136
Kelly Creek
11.8
Arrow Creek
Watershed
Land Cover
Forest
Urban
Impervious
37.5
17%
51%
21%
129
12.9
12%
80%
33%
2.53
151
2.93
18%
20%
12%
Beaver North Fk
5.41
174
7.89
15%
14%
8%
Beaver Upper
5.88
173
6.44
36%
24%
14%
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
9|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
Figure 3.
Basin map, showing study reaches and road crossings where fish passage may be impaired.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
10 | P a g e
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
Streamflows have been recorded at a single gauge in the basin (Stark St; km 4), and average
monthly flows (1999-2010) range from a high of 60 cfs in December, to a low under 1 cfs in late
summer. There is little variation in summer low flow, but substantial variation during winter,
with the peak flow recorded since 2000 of 1,080 cfs. The Troutdale gauge represents the stream
reach of greatest flow in the watershed, since all notable tributaries enter upstream of the gauge.
Flows become intermittent during the summer above the confluence of Arrow Creek (km 6.25),
and irrigation spread throughout the watershed withdraws up to 1.5 cfs leaving less than 1 cfs in
the lower main stem during August and September of most years. The low elevation and low
gradient of the basin lead to low velocities and high temperatures during summer in perennial
sections of stream. Stream temperatures in residual pools of the intermittent reach above the
Arrow Creek confluence have daily fluctuations correlated to air temperature, and reach
maximums up to 28°C. Temperatures tend be slightly cooler in the perennial reach below
Troutdale Rd, where maximums reach 22°C.
Approach
Due to the limited sampling of fish populations in the Beaver Creek watershed, a habitatbased approach was adopted to estimate carrying capacity and probable survival rates for the
various life histories that could be supported for each species. The Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) surveyed stream habitat in the lower watershed in 1993 (18 years ago), but
their survey extended only from the mouth up to Troutdale Rd. There was uncertainty about the
effect that land uses and floods may have had on the stream habitat since 1993, and there were
no surveys of habitat above the culverts believed to impair passage. Thus, we surveyed habitat in
the entire basin within reaches where salmonids have been observed during recent spot sampling
of the fish assemblages. We used measurements of habitat features from these surveys to
determine the quantity and quality of habitat suitable for spawning, rearing and migration of
coho, steelhead, fall Chinook, and chum salmon. We used models published in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature as our basis to estimate carrying capacity of the available habitat for steelhead
parr, coho smolts, Chinook smolts, and chum spawners (Table 5).
Table 5.
Models used for predicting watershed carrying capacity for ESA-listed salmonids based on
habitat measurements. Special adaptations of these models for fish life histories and physical
circumstances in Beaver Creek are described in the text.
Species
Life Stage
Model Name
Source
steelhead
Summer Parr
UCM
Cramer and Ackerman 2009b
Chinook
Subyearling Smolts
UCM
Cramer and Ackerman 2009a; Teply et
al. in press
coho
Yearling Smolts
HLFM
Nickelson et al. 1998
Chum, steelhead,
Chinook and coho
Spawners
Burner
Burner 1951
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
11 | P a g e
Chapter 1: Introduction to the issue and our approach to its solution
All of the models we used conformed to the basic principles of the Unit Characteristic
Method (UCM) for linking fish production to the availability of suitable habitat, as reviewed in
Cramer and Ackerman (2009a). The key principles underlying these methods are:
1. Salmonids exercise strong and repeatable preferences for a suite of habitat features they
will use, and these preferences determine the type of channel unit in which they choose to
reside.
2. These preferences have repeatable patterns of change between life stages and in response
to extremes in environmental variation.
3. The suite of habitat features available is related to the type of channel unit (e.g. pool,
riffle, glide, etc.), and differs between these channel unit types.
4. Therefore, densities of salmonid use follow consistent differences between types of
channel units.
5. Habitat capacity for a particular life stage of salmonid can be predicted as the product of
the expected density of fish supportable in a particular channel unit, multiplied by the
surface area of the unit, and then summed with such products for all channel units in the
stream.
While Cramer and Ackerman (2009a) describe the general utility of the UCM for
understanding population function of salmonids in streams, Cramer and Ackerman (2009b)
provide specific examples for application of the UCM to estimate carrying capacity for steelhead
in streams throughout Oregon. The method has also been used to estimate carrying capacity for
Chinook salmon for all streams in the Hood River Basin (Underwood et al. 2003) and Willamette
Basin (Teply et al. in press), and bull trout in the Tieton River Basin (Underwood and Cramer
2007). The Habitat Limiting Factors Model (HLFM), developed specifically for coho salmon,
applies the UCM principles, and has been used throughout Oregon (Nickelson and Lawson 1998)
and throughout the Klamath River Basin (Courter et al. 2008).
In addition to the models cited in Table 5, we also developed models to account for habitat’s
influence on capacity to support spawning, and survival rates during each life stage. Some
habitat restoration actions will affect survival in addition to or instead of carrying capacity, so we
incorporated anticipated changes in fish survival, due either to improved fish passage or habitat
enhancements, into a calculation of fish benefits expected from USACE scenarios to improve
passage and habitat. Predicted fish benefits from each action were accumulated across all life
stages and translated into the common currency of adult-equivalent change in fish production the
watershed could produce under average conditions. Adult-equivalents are the expected number
of returning adults that would result in the absence of fishing. For example, if it takes 100
hundred fry to produce one adult, then 100 fry are one adult equivalent
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
12 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
CHAPTER 2: HABITAT FACTORS THAT DETERMINE CARRYING CAPACITY
Conceptual Model of Fish Use
In order to estimate carrying capacity of a watershed to support each species, we first had to
describe how each species could be expected to use the habitat. We identified the most common
life history pathways for each species, and identified the habitat features that fish on each
pathway would rely on at each life stage. Fish patterns of habitat use (which we refer to as
habitat preferences) determine the proportion of available habitat that is suitable for fish use at a
given life stage. So, we measured the amount of available habitat and its features, we projected
how these measurements would change across seasons, and then we overlaid the habitat
preferences of each fish life stage with the amount of habitat each fish would need to determine
the habitat carrying capacity for that life stage of each species.
Below, we describe the conceptual model we applied to each of the four target species to
estimate their potential production in Beaver Creek. Given that habitat restoration actions,
including improved fish passage facilities, can affect both carrying capacity and survival, we
needed to include survival as a factor in our models to predict changes in fish production that
would accrue from habitat restoration.
Production of steelhead, coho and Chinook is most often limited by the capacity for juvenile
rearing (Cramer and Ackerman 2009a; Quinn 2005), but factors constraining production can
vary between stream reaches, and migration can enable fish to overcome some of these
limitations by moving to another reach. Salmonid rearing capacity in Beaver Creek and its
tributaries is substantially limited during summer by low flow and high temperatures. So, the
primary life stages that a given reach supports may be juvenile rearing during spring, spawning
during seasons of cooler, higher flows, or winter refuge for rearing. We define the juvenile life
stages as follows:
fry
Juveniles in their first 30 days of life prior to establishing territories.
Maximum fork lengths of fry are assumed to be: Chinook ≤45 mm fork
length, coho ≤40 mm, steelhead ≤35mm.
parr
Juveniles rearing and defending territories. Fork lengths assumed to be
Chinook 45 to 80 mm, coho 40 to 80 mm, and steelhead 35 to 150 mm.
presmolt
Parr at the conclusion of summer and through overwintering until they smolt
in the spring.
smolt
Juveniles that have undergone the physiological transformation to live in
saltwater and are actively migrating to sea.
In cases where spawning is the principal life stage supported, successful juveniles would be
those that migrate downstream to find suitable habitat for rearing. Such downstream habitats
could include areas within Beaver Creek, the Sandy River, or the Columbia River. In our
modeling, we directly estimate carrying capacity within Beaver Creek, and we assume that
suitable rearing habitat is available and not limiting outside the watershed. However, we assign
extra mortality during the act of migrating to find that habitat, because migrating fish expose
themselves to ambush predators such as pikeminnow and larger salmonid juveniles.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
13 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
In the following paragraphs, we describe the life history pathways we anticipated and
modeled in Beaver Creek.
Coho Salmon
Coho salmon spawning could spread throughout channels with perennial and intermittent
flow wherever water depths in the fall were sufficient for migration and spawning. Essentially all
juvenile coho rear in freshwater through a full year and smolt as yearlings in their second spring
of life (Figure 4). All juveniles originating in intermittent sections would have to migrate
downstream as fry or parr in the spring to continue rearing in perennial sections of Beaver Creek,
the Sandy River, or the Columbia River. Many of the parr that survive through summer would
again redistribute in fall to find refuge habitat for overwintering. The redistribution would be
principally downstream to enter alcoves, off-channel areas, and beaver pond, or upstream into
small tributaries.
Figure 4.
Conceptual model of life-history pathways for coho salmon in Beaver Creek.
Fall Chinook Salmon
Fall Chinook are large bodied fish that spawn in large channels and do not penetrate as far
upstream to spawn as coho and steelhead. The upstream limit of their spawning is likely limited
by the year-to-year consistency with which they can find suitable depths for holding and
spawning. Burner (1951) observed in rivers where coho and Chinook spawned at the same time,
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
14 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
the Chinook spawned in the main channel and none used small side channels where coho
spawned in high numbers. Only the lowest section of Beaver Creek below the Kelly Creek
confluence frequently has sufficient depths during October-November for Chinook spawning.
Large bodied fish spawning in small streams are highly vulnerable to predators (including
people), so pre-spawning mortality may limit success of Chinook in Beaver Creek. Upon
emergence of juveniles in early spring, many of the fry would migrate downstream to rear in the
Sandy and Columbia Rivers, while most would rear to smolt size (≥ 80 mm) and emigrate to sea
during mid-May to mid-June in their first year of life (Figure 5). No juvenile Chinook would be
expected to remain in Beaver Creek after mid-June.
Figure 5.
Conceptual model of life-history pathways for Chinook salmon in Beaver Creek.
Steelhead Trout
Steelhead spawn in the late winter into spring, emerge as fry in late spring to early summer,
and typically rear through one or two summers in freshwater before smolting in the spring at age
1+ or 2+ (Figure 6). Rearing capacity for parr in the summer is typically the limiting factor
(Cramer and Ackerman 2009b). Given the limited rearing opportunities in Beaver Creek during
summer, most age 0 steelhead would be expected to migrate to the Sandy River by early summer
to find rearing opportunities. The rarity of gravel-cobble substrate in the lower Columbia River
makes it unlikely that juvenile steelhead would rear there for extended periods, given that they
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
15 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
rely on interstices in the substrate as their source of cover. Therefore, rearing through the
summer would likely be limited to Beaver Creek and the lower Sandy River.
Figure 6.
Conceptual model of life-history pathways for steelhead in Beaver Creek.
Chum Salmon
Chum salmon typically emerge from the gravel and migrate to sea as fry with little growth in
freshwater. As a result, carrying capacity for chum salmon is typically determined by the
availability of suitable spawning habitat. Further, spawning of Chum salmon tends to be
distributed near the mouth of a watershed, even into tidally influenced areas, and only extends
upstream from there in response to high spawner density. Thus, it appears that the homing
imprint is set at the fry stage in response to the change in water chemistry at the transition of one
stream entering another or an estuary. Historically, spawning of chum salmon in the Columbia
Basin was observed primarily in the lower most reaches of tributaries to the lower Columbia
River (Mattson 1955). This was true of Beaver Creek as well, so we would not expect spawning
of chum upstream of the low gradient reach that extends to km 1.7.
Life Stages Modeled
Based on these conceptual models, we determined that habitat capacity across all species of
interest could be a limiting factor for four life stages: (1) spawning, (2) rearing through spring for
juveniles that smolt as sub-yearlings, (3) summer rearing for parr, and (4) overwintering refuge
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
16 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
for juveniles. Accordingly, our approach included an accounting for stream features that
determine suitability to support each of these life stages.
Relationships of Fish Use to Habitat Features
Carrying capacity is a function of the types of habitat features for which fish consistently
exercise preference and how well those preferences can be satisfied by the types of habitat that
are available in a given stream. We now turn to describing the functional relationships that
describe how fish use of a stream at each life stage is affected by specific habitat features.
Spawning Habitat Preferences
There is such commonality of preferred spawning habitat features across anadromous
salmonid species that we used the same generalized model to predict spawner carrying capacity
for all species. However, the distribution of spawning in a basin is influenced by where the
juvenile life histories of a species can be supported, so we will point out species specific
influences on spawner distribution under our separate descriptions of the rearing capacity models
for each species.
Anadromous salmonids show broad overlap in the range of depths, velocities, and substrate
composition they choose to spawn in (Burner 1951; Kondolf and Wolman 1993; Keeley and
Slaney 1996) and studies have generally revealed that predictable differences in preferred
spawning habitat are related to the size of the spawning fish rather than its species (Figure 7).
Fish of different species but similar size would tend to spawn in the same type of habitat. Larger
fish tend to spawn in deeper, faster water with larger diameter substrate than their smaller
cohorts choose (Keeley and Slaney 1996) (Figure 7 & Figure 8). The data presented by Kondolf
(2000) show that salmonids can spawn in gravels with median diameters up to 10% of their body
length (Figure 7), although movement of such large particles would also likely correspond to
spawning in water velocities at the maximum of the observed range.
As an apparent consequence of these habitat preferences, few anadromous salmonids spawn
in third order streams and most spawn in fourth and fifth order streams (Platts 1979; House and
Boehen 1985). Data compiled by Platts 1979 in Idaho streams, and House and Boehen (1985) in
Oregon streams showed that as stream order increased, gradient decreased while width and depth
decreased. These factors, combined with spawner preferences for depth, velocity, and substrate
result in most anadromous salmonids spawning in higher order stream reaches of low gradient
with pool-riffle combinations composing most of the channel length (Isaak and Thurow 2006;
Montgomery et al. 1999). Buffington et al. (2004) found from extensive surveys in three river
basins of Washington that suitable gravel size for salmon spawning was seldom produced in
channel reaches with gradients >3%. Gradient and flow are key factors that drive where
spawnable size substrate will settle out. Researchers consistently report that salmon and
steelhead most frequently spawn in pool tailouts and heads of riffles below a pool (Bjornn and
Reiser 1991; Mull and Wilzbach 2007; Keeley and Slaney 1996), because these are the zones
where depth, velocity and substrate most frequently are met in combination.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
17 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Figure 7.
Spawning microhabitats selected by salmonid fishes in relation to body size. From Keeley and
Slaney (1996)
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
18 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Figure 8.
Median diameter (D50) of gravel used by salmonids for spawning plotted against spawner body
length. Solid squares are samples from redds, and open triangles are potential spawning gravel
nearby. From Kondolf (2000)
Measurements of depth, velocity, and substrate size at salmon redds lead to the conclusion
that minimum depth and velocity are the factors that limit use of appropriate sized gravels.
Keeley and Slaney (1996) concluded that across a range of salmon species, water flows greater
than 10 cm/sec velocity and 10 cm deep were the minimum amounts of water fish would spawn
in. Swift (1979) summarized relationships between spawnable area for salmon and flow in 84
reaches of 28 steams in Washington, and deduced that minimum depths in which salmon would
spawn were 30.5 cm for Chinook salmon, and 15.24 cm for coho, pink and chum salmon.
Further, he concluded that Chinook needed a minimum velocity of 0.31 m/sec while coho needed
only 0.08 m/sec and chum needed 0.23 m/sec.
Where minimum depth, velocity and appropriate substrate sizes occur, salmonids also need a
minimum amount of territory in which to construct and defend their redd. The most widely cited
study for determining spawning territory size is that of Burner (1951) who measured
characteristics for a large number of redds for several salmon species in the Lower Columbia
basin. Burner found that inter-redd spacing was proportional to redd size, which in turn was
proportion to spawner size. Burner concluded that the total average area necessary for a pair of
spawning fish was about four times the area of the average redd. Burner obtained his
measurements of redd sizes in the lower Columbia Basin, and he reported minimum area
required per spawning pair was as follows:
fall Chinook -
24 square yards
spring Chinook - 16 square yards
coho -
14 square yards
chum -
11 square yards
sockeye -
8 square yards
Forty-five years after the work of Burner (1951), Keeley and Slaney (1996) reviewed 33
studies of microhabitat selected at spawning by 13 species of salmonids, and concluded that
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
19 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
available data continued to support Burner’s conclusion; territory size for spawning salmonids is
roughly four times that of the redd area. Accordingly, we used Burner’s estimates for area
needed per spawning pair in our model.
The amount of fine sediment mixed with the gravels can have a strong effect on egg survival.
Even when depth, velocity and substrate criteria preferences are satisfied, egg survival is reduced
when fines compose more than 25% of the substrate. Bjornn and Reiser (1991) summarized
research showing that egg survival begins to decline at 25% fines in otherwise suitably-sized
gravel, and approaches zero when fines exceed 55%. Thus, we scaled egg capacity to decline
directly proportional to this survival effect wherever a suitable gravel patch had fines greater
than 25%.
Spawner Carrying Capacity
We used the functional relationships of fish use to habitat features to develop a protocol for
calculating spawner carrying capacity, because spawning habitat could potentially be a limiting
factor for all anadromous salmonids.
A list of calculation steps to estimate spawning capacity follows:
1. Identify the pools, riffles and glides that contain potentially suitable gravels for spawning
2. Exclude units where suitable gravel has noticeable lateral slope
3. Exclude units where the gravels contain greater than 40% fines
4. Exclude units with less than 15 cm depth for steelhead, coho and chum, and with less
than 30 cm depth for Chinook. Assume depth of pool tailout is 1/3 of pool max depth
5. Pool spawnable area is the tail out, and is assigned length equal to one channel width
(area upstream of tail out is assumed unsuitable)
6. Glide spawnable area is assumed to be half of the glide area with suitable substrate
7. Riffle spawnable area is the full area of the riffle with suitable substrate.
8. Multiply spawnable area in each unit by the scalar for fines exceeding 25%
9. Sum qualifying suitable area across all units
10. Redd capacity = qualifying suitable area/(4 * avg redd area)
Rearing Habitat Preferences
Stream carrying capacity for anadromous salmonids that rear to the smolting stage in
freshwater can be predicted from a sequence of cause-response functions that describe fish
preferences for macro-habitat features. The channel unit (e.g., pool, glide, and riffle) is a useful
stratum for quantifying rearing capacity for salmonids, and is a hydrologically meaningful unit
for predicting the response of stream morphology to watershed processes. Thus, channel units
are the natural link between habitat-forming processes and habitat requirements of salmonids.
Maximum densities of juvenile salmonids that can be supported in a channel unit are related to
availability of preferred habitat features including velocity, depth, cover, and substrate. Within
channel unit types, maximum densities of salmonid parr will shift predictably as availability of
cover from wood and boulders increases.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
20 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Cramer and Ackerman (2009a) summarized a number of studies demonstrating that rearing
densities (fish/m2) of juvenile salmonids consistently differ between channel unit types (pool,
riffle, glide, etc.), and that stratification of parr densities by channel unit type was a useful
starting point for estimating habitat capacity to rear parr. We used the fish rearing densities
reported by Cramer and Ackerman (2009a) in our models of rearing capacity. For all species of
anadromous salmonids, pools supported the highest fish densities and riffles supported the
lowest (Table 6). Cramer (2001) also found evidence that use by steelhead and spring Chinook
drops to near zero in the calm mid-section of pools longer than 4 channel widths. Therefore, we
assigned a density of 0 to the midsection of such large pools.
Channel Unit Definitions:
pool: a unit with no surface turbulence, except at the inflow, and has depth extending
below the plane of the streambed
riffle: a unit with discernible gradient and surface turbulence
glide: a unit that has relatively uniform velocity down the channel, little surface
turbulence, and no depth below the plane of the streambed
Table 6.
Standard parr densities (fish/100m2) used in the UCM for each channel unit type. Derivation of
these values has been described for steelhead by Cramer and Ackerman 2009b, for Chinook by
Underwood et al. 2003, and for coho by Nickelson 1998.
Unit Type
Steelhead
Chinook
Backwater
5.0
13.0
120.0
Beaver Pond
7.0
19.0
180.0
Cascade
3.0
2.4
20.0
Glide
8.0
7.0
8.0
Pool
17.0
24.0
170
Rapid
7.0
2.4
1.0
Riffle
3.0
2.4
1.0
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
Coho
21 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
As salmonids grow, their habitat preferences change and the preferred habitat associated with
their increasing size becomes less and less available. Further, territory size of salmonids
increases exponentially with fish length, such that the demand for territory to support surviving
members of a cohort increases at least through their first year of life. Changing habitat
preferences and space demands, juxtaposed against shrinking habitat availability with the onset
of summer low flows often results in a bottleneck to rearing capacity in wadable streams for
salmonids greater than age 1. Additional habitat factors accounted for within each habitat unit
are described below.
Influence of Depth
Densities within each unit type were strongly influenced by depth and cover. Combined
observations from several experiments indicate that steelhead exercise habitat preferences in the
priority order of depth first, velocity second, and cover third. Parr of all salmonid species
strongly avoided areas with depths <0.2 m, and a variety of studies showed that parr densities
increased as unit depths increased up to at least 1 m. Everest and Chapman (1972) found a highly
significant correlation between fish size and the depth or velocity at which juvenile Chinook and
steelhead choose to position.
Influence of Cover
A study by Johnson et al. (1993) was able to quantify the benefit of cover by assigning a
cover complexity score to the pools in which fish were sampled. Parr density in pools for both
steelhead and cutthroat increased about three fold as woody debris complexity increased from
none to high complexity. Similar effects have been demonstrated for Chinook. Boulders provide
a form of cover in streams, particularly in riffles. Steelhead and spring Chinook show strong
preference to hold adjacent to much faster velocities, and their densities in boulder dominated
riffles, where they held behind boulders, are several times greater than in riffles dominated by
other substrate types.
Influence of Substrate
Substrate embeddedness with fines is a key factor that influences both the production of
invertebrate drift and the cover for juvenile salmonids. Hawkins et al. (1983) found that
increasing percentages of fines in riffles across reaches in 13 coastal streams of Oregon was
correlated to reduced production of both invertebrates and juvenile salmonids. Bjornn and
Reiser (1981) summarize data from several studies on the effects of fines, and show that rearing
densities decline as fines rise above 10% of the substrate in riffles. The measurement of fines in
riffles is used an index for the effect on fish in the entire reach rather than just in riffles.
Overwinter Habitat
Coho have a strong tendency to seek off-channel and protected habitats during winter; their
area required for winter habitat is often the factor limiting their carrying capacity (Nickelson
1998). In contrast to coho, Chinook and steelhead do not seek off channel habitat for winter, and
have a strong tendency to enter interstices of cobble and boulder substrates within the same
channel types they occupy during summer (Hartman 1965; Bustard and Narver 1975; Hillman et
al. 1987; Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Therefore, summer rearing habitat usually determines the
carrying capacity for yearling Chinook and steelhead, in contrast to the usual winter habitat
limitation for coho.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
22 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Stream Temperature
In order to scale down the rearing capacity as temperatures reaches stressful levels (> 16°C)
we estimated the proportionate effect based on densities of coho parr in 44 Oregon coastal
survey sites where temperatures were also measured. Sites were selected based on the criteria
that the coho sampling location and the temperature monitoring location were within 2 km of
each other on a single stream segment. Further, the two sampling activities needed to be
conducted in the same year. For each site, we calculated the MWAT from the continuous
temperature monitoring data and examined the relationship between the MWAT temperature and
juvenile coho rearing densities.
The analysis suggests that juvenile coho rearing densities are highest at MWAT temperatures
between 14-16°C (Figure 9). The highest MWAT at which coho were observed was 23°C. Low
sample size and variability in the data make the form of the decreasing slope in densities between
the lower and upper thresholds difficult to ascertain, but the data suggest that mean densities at
an MWAT of 20°C are approximately 30% of those at optimal temperatures.
1.8
5
Mean coho density (no. / m2)
1.6
1.4
1.2
11
1.0
0.8
10
0.6
12
0.4
0.2
1
4
1
22.1-24
24.1+
0.0
12-14
14.1-16
16.1-18
18.1-20
20.1-22
MWAT (oC)
Figure 9.
Mean coho salmon density grouped by 2 ˚C increments of maximum weekly average
temperature (MWAT) in 44 Oregon coastal survey sites during the summer, 2003-2006. Error
bars represent 2 standard errors.
We found several studies of fish assemblages in streams spread over a broad geographic area
that showed salmon and trout were consistently found at highest densities where stream
temperatures in summer were near their physiological optimum of 12 to 16°C (Huff et al. 2005;
Ott and Marret 2003; Waite and Carpenter 2000). These studies showed that salmonids still
persisted, but at lower densities, in stream reaches with temperatures above this range. Although
densities declined with increasing temperature, we did not find consistent evidence that mortality
rate of rearing fish increased until temperatures reached incipient lethal levels.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
23 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Field studies of the foods and feeding strategies of salmon and trout in streams indicate that
the amount of preferred habitat decreases as stream temperature increases. Because salmonids
like other fishes are poikilotherms, their metabolic demands increase as temperature increases, so
their feeding rates also increase (Brett 1971). Salmonids feed on drifting macro-invertebrates in
streams (Rader 1997), and the volume of drift at any point in a stream is generally greater where
velocity is greater (Smith and Li 1983). Therefore, salmonids tend to seek positions of increasing
velocity in a stream as temperature increases (Smith and Li 1983). However, the strategy of
moving to higher velocities is only effective as long as the net energetic gain to the fish stays
positive. Swimming performance declines above optimum temperature (Brett 1971), while
performance of warmer-adapted competitors, such as redside shiners, improves. Reeves et al.
(1987) found in a laboratory stream that water temperature affected the outcomes of competition
between age 1+ juvenile steelhead and redside shiners. In experiments with cool water (12-15°C)
trout abundance and distribution was unaffected by the presence of shiners. However, in warmer
waters (19-22°C), juvenile steelhead abundance decreased by 54%, and their distribution was
altered when shiners were present. Conversely, at cooler temperatures shiners were negatively
affected by trout, but not at warmer temperatures. Thus, temperature forces fish to compete for a
decreasing number of stream positions that will satisfy their bioenergetic needs. Increased
competition results in migration of those that do not win satisfactory stream positions. The
overall effect of temperature above the optimum range for salmonids is thus that it decreases
carrying capacity of habitat that is otherwise suitable.
Rearing Capacity Prediction
We assumed that carrying capacity at the emergent fry life stage was not a bottleneck to
production, and we did not calculate its carrying capacity. Subyearling Chinook smolts that
emigrate to sea in late spring was the first juvenile stage for which capacity was estimated.
Steelhead and coho both have life histories that include rearing of parr through the summer, so
we calculated summer parr capacity for each of those species. No Chinook or chum juveniles
were assumed to remain through the summer. Coho production is most often limited by
overwintering habitat capacity (Nickelson 1998), but steelhead is generally not (Cramer and
Ackerman 2009b), so we calculated a winter capacity only for coho.
The UCM predicts a stream’s carrying capacity under average conditions by multiplying fish
density by surface area in each unit, and then adjusts for differences between stream reaches in
factors that influence food supply, as described in the section below. The general form of the
predictor for a given species in a specific stream reach is:
Capacityi = (Σ areak · denj · chnljk · depjk · cvrjk)
Where;
i = stream reach. “Reach” is a sequence of channel units that compose a geomorphically homogenous
segment of the stream network,
j = channel unit type,
k = individual channel unit,
area = area (m2) of channel unit k,
den = standard fish density (fish/m2) for a given species in unit type j,
dep = depth scalar with expected value of 1.0,
cvr = cover scalar with expected value of 1.0,
chnl = discount scalar for unproductive portions of large channels with expected value of 1.0, and
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
24 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
We used scalars to represent the proportionate change in standard fish densities that would
occur if habitats differed from the standard in their depth, cover, substrate, or nutrients. For
steelhead, we used the functions described by Cramer and Ackerman (2009b), and for Chinook
we used the factors as described in the following paragraphs. For coho, we only applied the
densities by channel unit type as described by Nickelson (1998). For all three species, we also
scaled capacity down when the maximum of weekly average stream temperatures (MWAT)
during the period of rearing exceeded 16°C. We first describe the temperature scalar that we
applied to all three species.
Temperature Scalar
The highest MWAT at which coho were observed was 23°C. Low sample size and variability
in the data make the form of the decreasing slope in densities between the lower and upper
thresholds difficult to ascertain, but the data suggest that mean densities at an MWAT of 20°C
are approximately 30% of those at optimal temperatures. We chose a logistic function to fit the
decrease in maximum observed densities by fitting it through values of 0.95 at WAT = 16°C and
0.05 at WAT = 23°C (Figure 10). Temperature tolerances of all three species are quite similar so
it is reasonable to use the same scalar for all three species.
This function is:
Equation 3:
Tsi 
1
1  e a bTi
where
Tsi = Temperature scalar for capacity for reach i in a given week.
a = intercept of logit(Tsi) = 19.63;
b = slope of logit(Tsi) = -0.98;
T = WAT for reach i in a given week.
This scalar is then multiplied by the habitat capacity for rearing in the reach.
Capacity Scalar
1
0.8
0.6
shallow
0.4
deep
0.2
0
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Temperature (Co)
Figure 10.
Effect of temperature on parr rearing capacity for coho. Temperature is expressed as the
summer maximum of the 7-day running average. Dashed line applies to pools >1m deep, which
we assume thermally stratify and provide a thermal refuge at depth that is 2°C cooler than
surface flow.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
25 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Chinook
The scaling factors for Chinook rearing, were derived from data from the Coldwater River,
B.C. Relationships were developed by comparing the geometric mean of Chinook densities in
strata of each variable. The number of strata were maximized while maximizing sample size and
testing for significant differences between mean densities in those strata (p<0.05). We pooled
strata that were not significantly different until all strata had significantly different geometric
means. Scaling factors were determined using the following equation:
Scaling Factor = Geo MeanS/Geo. MeanT
Where:
Geo. MeanS = Geometric mean of units within the strata
Geo. MeanT = Geometric mean of all units within that unit type
And:
Geo. MeanT Pools = 24 Chinook/100m2
Geo. MeanT Glides = 7 Chinook/100m2
Geo. MeanT Riffles = 2 Chinook/100m2
Scaling factors were multiplied by the capacity to obtain the adjusted capacity. The
adjustment proportions and the level at which each adjustment applies for all the habitat
variables analyzed can be seen in Table 7.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
26 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Table 7.
Scaling factors and levels at which the factors apply in Chinook parr.
% Boulder Cover Adjustments
Pools
Glides
Riffles
<2%
> 2%
0%
1-6%
> 6%
<11%
<11%
Geo. Mean Density
11
29.5
4
6
11
2
4
Adjustment factor
0.46
1.23
0.57
0.86
1.57
1.00
2.00
% Non-Boulder Cover
Pools
<2%
> 2%
Geo. Mean Density
11
27
Adjustment Factor
0.46
1.13
Avg. Depth (cm)
Glides
Riffles
<30
>30
<10
10-15
15-24
24-35
<35
Geo. Mean Density
4
14
0
1
2
7
15
Adjustment Factor
0.57
2.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
3.50
7.50
A list of calculation steps for estimating Chinook parr capacity follows:
Channel Units





Surface area was determined for each pool, glide, riffle, rapid, cascade, beaver pond
and backwater unit within each reach.
Surface area was deducted for calm, mid-sections of pools. No credit for length
greater than 4 widths.
Raw parr capacity in each unit was calculated by multiplying the area for each unit by
the average maximum parr density for that unit type.
Raw capacity was adjusted up or down in each unit according to whether depth was
more or less than average.
Capacity for each unit was further adjusted up or down in each unit according to
whether cover complexity was more or less than average. Cover in pools was derived
from wood complexity and boulder abundance. Cover in glides and riffles were
derived from boulders abundance.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
27 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Reaches




Reaches of homogenous flow, gradient and turbidity were separated.
Raw capacity for each reach was calculated by summing the adjusted capacities for
all of its component units.
Capacity for each reach was discounted further, if embeddedness in riffles averages
greater than 10%.
Capacity was reduced in accord with the temperature scalar in reaches where MWAT
temperature exceeded 16°C.
Stream

Raw capacity for the stream was calculated by summing the adjusted capacities for all
reaches.
Steelhead
The steelhead UCM calculated the capacity of a stream, or reaches in a basin, to produce age
1+ parr. The UCM for steelhead operates in the same manner as the UCM for Chinook, except
that densities assigned to each habitat unit type were different, and the response to deviations in
habitat features from average was specific to steelhead. Raw parr capacity was derived from the
surface area of different unit types, and it was subsequently adjusted up or down based on cover
and depth (Figure 11). The utility of UCM for predicting steelhead carrying capacity has
previously been corroborated against actual smolt production in several river basins spread
throughout Oregon (Cramer and Ackerman 2009b). The functional relationships between habitat
features and parr densities, as used in the UCM, are presented in Appendix 1. The calculation
steps for estimating steelhead parr capacity followed the same sequence as described for
Chinook, but the densities for each unit type differ, as do some of the coefficients for functions
the scale the effects of depth, cover and substrate.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
28 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Figure 11.
Diagram of data input and calculation steps used in the UCM to estimate stream carrying
capacity for Chinook parr.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
29 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
ESTIMATION OF STREAM CARRYING CAPACITY
Steelhead
POOL
AREA
RIFFLE
AREA
GLIDE
AREA
BACKWATER
AREA
RAPID
AREA
CASCADE
AREA
BEAVER
POND
RAW PARR DENSITIES
RAW PARR DENSITIES
(area * standard density)
(area * standard density)
Depth**
Depth**
Depth**
Wood**
Boulder**
Wood**
REACH TOTAL
REACH
TOTAL
OF PARR
OF PARR
FOOD PRODUCTION
ADJUSTMENTS
% Riffle
% Alkalinity**
% Turbidity**
Embededness**
STREAM PARR
STREAM
PARR
(Sum
of Reaches)
(Sum of Reaches)
Winter Cover**
(% Cobble)
STREAM PARR
STREAM PARR
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
** = Adjustment Factors
Figure 12.
Diagram of the data input and calculation steps used in the UCM to estimate stream carrying
capacity for steelhead parr.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
30 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Habitat factors that determine carrying capacity
Coho
Rearing capacity of parr for the entire range of potential coho distribution was estimated
using the Habitat Limiting Factors Model (HLFM) described by Nickelson (1998). This model
assigns different rearing densities to each habitat unit type (e.g. pools, glides, riffles, cascades),
and the number of parr that can be reared in each unit type are summed within each reach to
determine the parr capacity of the reach.
A list of calculation steps for the summer parr capacity of coho modified from HLFM
follows:
Channel Units






Surface area was determined for each pool, glide, riffle, rapid, cascade, beaver pond and
backwater unit within each reach.
Surface area was deducted for calm, mid-section of pools.
Surface area was discounted for any mid channel farther than 40 ft from shore in pools,
riffles, and glides.
Raw parr capacity in each unit was calculated by multiplying the area for each unit by the
average maximum parr density for that unit type.
Raw capacity was adjusted up or down in each unit according to whether depth was more
or less than average.
Capacity for each unit was further adjusted up or down in each unit according whether
cover complexity was more or less than average. Cover in pools and glides were derived
from woody debris. Cover in glides and riffles were derived from boulder abundance.
Reaches





Reaches of homogenous flow, gradient and turbidity were separated.
Raw capacity for each reach was calculated by summing the adjusted capacities for all of
its component units.
Capacity for each reach was discounted if the percentage of area composed by riffles is
less than 50%. This accounts for low availability of invertebrate drift, the principle food.
Capacity for each reach was discounted further, if embeddedness in riffles averaged
greater than 10%.
Capacity for each reach is decremented according to the amount that MWAT stream
temperature exceeded 16°C.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
31 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
CHAPTER 3: HABITAT CONDITIONS IN BEAVER CREEK
Habitat Survey Methods
Habitat surveys were conducted over a period of three weeks during early fall of 2011 while
flows remained near summer lows. The study area from the mouth of Beaver Creek to its
junction of 302nd Av and Division St was divided into 11 reaches, including three tributary
reaches (Figure 3). Reaches 1 to 7 contained perennial flow, and reaches 8 to 11 had intermittent
flow.
Our survey methods followed protocols used by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Moore et al. 2002), and modified to suit the specific needs of this study as described here.





We did not distinguish pool types, with the exception that pools created by beaver dams
were classified as beaver ponds.
Pools, riffles and glides were scored either yes or no as to whether they contained suitable
gravels for spawning. Units with suitable sized gravels were disqualified if they sloped
laterally to the direction of flow (per Geist et al. 2000), or if fines composed more than
40% of the substrate (per Bjornn and Reiser 1991).
We did not measure riparian vegetation.
We noted areas well suited to some type of restoration either by addition of wood, gravel
supplementation or connection/excavation of off-channel habitat.
Cover complexity in pools was scored on a range of 1 to 4, with 1 lacking complexity and
4 have multiple sources of cover distributed in the pool.
Temperature and flow data were obtained from the USGS gauge on Beaver Creek near Stark
St, and temperature data for three additional stations higher in the watershed were obtained from
Multnomah County.
Survey Findings
Watershed Characteristics
The portion of the stream network we surveyed passed through three types of land uses;
forested areas, rural residential areas, and farm land. Riparian zones and shade along the creek
was most intact in forested areas and least in farm lands. The three types of uses were
interspersed throughout the watershed so the areas of highest quality habitat were not contiguous.
Despite land development, much of the riparian corridor retains function to provide shade and
woody debris, and substrate quality is satisfactory. The basalt geology of the watershed provides
a sustainable source of gravel, cobbles and boulders. The most notable problems in the watershed
are low base flow (< 1 cfs in late summer), high stream temperatures in summer, and potentially
impaired passage at culverts on the main stem and tributaries.
Flow and Temperature
The flow and temperature regimes of Beaver Creek provide dramatically different
opportunities between seasons for use by anadromous salmonids. High temperatures exceeding
18C (Figure 15) and low flows near 1 cfs (Figure 13) during summer severely restrict salmonid
use through summer. The flow and temperature range are suitable for spawning and rearing
during late fall through spring in most years, but can limit access of anadromous spawners in
years of low flow. In particular, flows in October average under 5 cfs at the stream mouth in over
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
32 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
70% of years (Figure 14), and can remain that low through November in 20% of years. By
December, flows are sufficient for adult access in nearly all years. Thus, the flow regime is most
suited for salmon stocks adapted to upstream migration and spawning after mid-November.
Spring spawning, typical for steelhead, is supportable, but results in fry emergence in late spring
just as flow and temperature become highly restrictive. Flow patterns indicate that a sub-yearling
life history for juveniles that emigrate before June can be supported, but opportunities for yearround life histories are substantially limited due to harsh conditions for salmonids during
summer.
Temperature data are only available through the summer and early fall season. Multiple years
of temperature were only recorded at the Troutdale gauge, and showed an average MWAT
across years of 19.2°C. Temperatures in Kelly Creek and at the uppermost perennial pool in
Beaver Creek (at confluence with Arrow Creek), were recorded only in 2009 and show nearly
identical patterns corresponding to the rise and fall of atmospheric temperatures. The 7-day
running average for those stations peaked at 23.6°C (this is the MWAT) during an unusually hot
spell, so the peak would likely be less in other years. Flows are nearly stagnant during low flow
at both of these locations, which likely accounts for their similar correspondence with
fluctuations in air temperature. Other than the peak temperature episode in 2009, the temperature
in the upstream stations was generally about 2°C warmer than at the Troutdale gauge. The stream
is intermittent in late summer above Division St, and lacks good shade cover in most areas above
Cochran Rd, but has good shade and perennial flow below there. So, we assumed for the
purposes of our modeling that MWAT was 2°C higher in the reaches above Cochran Rd (21°C),
and we used MWAT values of 19°C below Cochran Rd.
100
80% exceedance
Mean Daily Discharge (cfs)
90
50% exceedance
80
20% exceedance
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Oct
Figure 13.
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Mean daily discharge values at 20%, 50%, and 80% exceedance for Beaver Creek at the
Troutdale gauge (USGS 14142800) calculated using data from 1999-2010.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
33 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
140
Mean Daily Discharge (cfs)
120
November
October
60
80
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
100
% Exceedance
Figure 14.
Relationship between flow and exceedance probability for Beaver Creek at the USGS gauge near
Troutdale during the early spawning season for salmon. Probabilities from Oregon Department
of Water Resources.
23.59
7-day avg mean temp (C)
25
23
21
19.15
19
17
15
13
11
Kiku Park (avg 02, 04, 06, 07)
2009 Beaver atTroutdale/Division
MWAT
9
7
5
6/1
7/1
8/1
9/1
10/1
11/1
Month
Figure 15.
Seven-day running average of stream temperature in Beaver Creek at Kiku Park (km 2) during
2002, 2004, 2006-07, and at Division St (km 3.7) during 2009. Data from Multnomah County.
Translation of Summer Survey Conditions to Other Seasons
Stream width and depth have a strong influence on stream carrying capacity, and both factors
increase as stream flow increases. Accordingly, we needed to translate the widths and depths we
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
34 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
measured during the low flow season to the widths and depths that would be likely in the late fall
at the time of spawning, and in the spring during rearing of subyearling juveniles.
Given the low elevations throughout the watershed, we assumed the amount of flow
delivered by each sub-watershed was proportional to its watershed area (results displayed in
Figure 16). Further, we assumed the spawning flow used in our habitat analysis should be
represented by the November mean (18 cfs), and the springtime rearing flow for subyearling
Chinook should be represented by the May mean (6.3 cfs). For each of these seasonal means, we
then assumed the flow in upstream reaches was less by the proportional reduction in watershed
area remaining above that reach.
50 percentile discharge (cfs) (1999-2010)
45
December
November
May
September
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
mouth
km 3
km 4.5
km 6.8
km 4 (Kelly
Cr)
km 6.3
(Arrow Cr )
km 7.3 (NF
BC)
Location at Beaver Creek (km)
Figure 16.
Predicted mean flow in specified months for selected reaches of Beaver Creek. Flows are
cumulative, so the top of each fill type within a bar corresponds to the average flow for the
month represented.
Habitat Characterization by Reach
The study area was divided in 11 reaches that extended over 12.5 km of surveyed streams.
Channel unit composition and notable features are summarized here for each reach.
Reach 1
Reach 1 started at the mouth of Beaver Creek and ended at the upper foot bridge in Kiku
Park at km 1.8. City of Troutdale staff at Kiku Park reported that this entire reach has become
backwater during periods of high flow in the Sandy and Columbia rivers. Reach 1 was the
longest and lowest gradient reach. Pools composed 82% of the area and 62% of the channel unit
count (Figure 25 & Table 9). A majority (58%) of pools were deeper than 90 cm. In contrast,
100% of the riffles were less than 15 cm deep (Figure 26). Cover complexity in pools was low
with 62% having the lowest score 1 out of a possible 4 (Figure 27). Schools of small fish were
observed in this reach. Some spawning gravel was present within Kiku Park where gradient
increased slightly.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
35 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 17.
Photos of stream features in Reach 1 (mouth of Beaver Creek to Kiku Park). Photos from top
and left to right show the mouth of Beaver Creek entering the Sandy River, examples of pools
and spawning gravels in the Kiku Park area.
Reach 2
Reach 2 extended from the Kiku Park upper foot bridge (km 1.8) to the culvert under
Troutdale Rd (km 3.2) (Figure 18). Upstream passage at Troutdale Rd. may be impaired by high
velocity through the culvert at high flows, and limited depth at low flows, but should be adequate
at typical flows for November through May. Gradient was steeper in this reach as the creek
passed through a steep-walled canyon with a healthy riparian zone (Figure 18). Riffles
represented 47% of the habitat units (Table 9), but 72% of surface area in the reach (Figure 25).
Substrate in riffles is coarser than in Reach 1, and was predominantly cobble and boulder (Figure
28). Pools composed 47% of channel units (Table 9), but 26% of the area (Figure 25). Most
(70%) pools were less than 60 cm of depth, but 50% of the riffles were greater than 15 cm of
depth (Figure 26). Thus, pools tended to be shallower but riffles deeper than in Reach 1.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
36 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 18.
Photos of stream features in Reach 2 (Kiku Park to Troutdale Rd). Photos from top and left to
right show the culvert and fish ladder under Troutdale Rd., and typical boulder-cobble riffles in
this higher gradient canyon reach.
Reach 3
Reach 3 extended from Troutdale Rd crossing (km 3.2) to Stark St crossing (km 3.7). The
fish ladder to the Stark St culvert has partially collapsed and is likely a passage impediment to
Reaches 4 and above at most flows. Reach 3 had abundant beaver activity, with beaver ponds
composing 11% of channel units (Table 9), and adding habitat complexity (Figure 27) to this
short reach. Pools composed 47% of channel units and 46% of area while riffles composed 42%
of units but only 23% of area (Figure 25 & Table 9). Thus, riffles tended to be shorter than pools
in this low gradient reach, in contrast to the higher gradient Reach 2 where riffles tended to be
substantially longer than pools. Pool depths were evenly distributed from 5 to 90 cm (Figure
26).
Reaches 4 and 5
Reaches 4 and 5 had similar morphology and were divided by the entry of Kelly Creek.
Reach 4 started at the Stark St crossing (km 3.7), and Reach 5 ended at the Cochran Rd crossing
(km 5.4). Passage under Cochran Rd to upstream reaches should be suitable under all but the
highest flows. These two reaches were forested with an intact riparian zone, and were on Metro
property adjacent to Mt Hood Community College. Beaver activity expressed in presence of
beaver ponds in Reach 4 was slightly lower than in Reach 3, representing 9% of the channel
units and 23% of the area (Table 9 & Figure 25). Pools represented 29% of channel units and
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
37 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
35% of the area in Reach 4 and 43% of units but 71% of area in Reach 5 (Table 9 & Figure 25).
Riffles represented 43% of units and 21% of area in Reach 4, and 39% of units but 17% of area
in Reach 5(Table 9 & Figure 25). Gravel composed 62% in Reach 4 and 56% in Reach 5 of
substrate in riffles (Figure 28), and they had the highest suitable area for salmon and steelhead
spawning in the watershed.
Figure 19.
Photos of Reach 3. The fish ladder and culvert under Stark St, and staff gauge at the USGS
Troutdale gauge.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
38 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 20.
Photos for Reach 4 and 5 (Stark St to Cochran Rd). Photos from top and left to right show a
beaver pond, graveled riffles and a complex pool.
Reach 6
Reach 6 extended 191 m up Kelly Creek from its mouth at Beaver Creek km 4.7 to the dam
impounding a small reservoir on the Mt Hood Community College campus. Riffles composed
57% of channel units and 75% of area in this steeper reach (Table 9 & Figure 25). Substrate on
riffles was equally composed by gravel, cobble, and boulder (Figure 28), but no patches of gravel
suitable for spawning were large enough to support the area requirements of a spawning pair of
salmon.
Reach 7
Reach 7 extended from Cochran Rd at km 5.4 to the confluence of Arrow Creek at the
Division St crossing (km 7.4). Land use along this reach was mixed rural residential and
agriculture, and several pumps for small water diversions were present. Riparian shade was
diminished in some portions of the reach along agricultural lands. Pools represented 27% of
channel units and 40% of the area, and riffles 42% and 35% of the area (Table 9 & Figure 25).
Most pools were less than 75 cm of depth, and 95% of the riffles were less than 15 cm of depth
(Figure 26). Riffle substrate was composed of mostly gravels and cobble and offered some
spawning area (Figure 28).
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
39 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 21.
Photos for Reach 7 (Cochran Rd to Division St). Photos from top and left to right show spawning
gravels, a cobble riffle, the pool downstream of the Cochran Rd crossing, a beaver pond, and the
pool below the Division St crossing.
Reach 8
Reach 8 was Arrow Creek from its confluence with Beaver Creek at km 7.8 extending 1.6
km upstream to the 282nd St crossing. Most water was contained in residual pools. The reach is
entirely within a forested area with the riparian zone fully intact. The wetted stream area was
composed by 48% of riffles, 36% glides, and 15% pools (Table 9). Half of the pools were under
45 cm deep (Figure 26). Cobble and boulder composed most of the riffle substrate, and gravel
patches suitable for spawning were limited (Figure 28).
Reach 9 and 11
Reaches 9 and 11 extended from the Troutdale Rd crossing adjacent to Division St (km 7.4)
to the 302nd Ave crossing at km 9.5. The reaches were divided by entry of the North Fork Beaver
Creek. Passage under Troutdale Rd does not appear to be an impediment. This reach is located
along farm land, has little riparian shading, some livestock access to the stream, and several
private drive crossings that may impair passage as some flows. Similar to Reach 7, surface area
was relatively balanced among glides (31%, 44%), pools (23%, 20%), and riffles (37%, 36%)
(Table 9). In Reach 9 pools evenly distributed from 30 to 105 cm of depth, and in Reach 11 over
50% of the pools were less than 50 cm deep (Figure 26). Substrate quality was degraded from
local land use practices with fines composing about 16% (Reach 9) and 21% (Reach 11)
substrate in riffles (Figure 28).
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
40 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 22.
Photos for Reaches 9 and 11 (Troutdale Rd at Division St to 302nd Ave). Photos from top and left
to right show crossing at Division St, agricultural road crossing on private property, a broken up
cement structure, a culvert under a private driveway.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
41 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 23.
Photos of overgrown vegetation in creek and road and driveway crossings in Reaches 9 and 11.
Reach 10
Reach 10 was the North fork of Beaver Creek from its mouth at km 8.4 of Beaver Creek
extending 1.6 km upstream to a crossing at 302nd Street. This reach crossed agricultural land with
little riparian vegetation in its lower section, but entered a forested area with excellent riparian
shading. In the forested area, we observed juvenile fish in two pools that appeared to be
salmonids. Riffles composed 49% and pools 33% of the channel units. Fifty percent of pools
were under 60 cm deep (Figure 26). Substrate in riffles was composed mostly by cobble and
boulder (Figure 28), so opportunities for spawning were limited.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
42 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 24.
Photos for Reach 10 (North fork Beaver Creek). Photos show examples of complex wood cover,
an agricultural road crossing the creek, intermittent flow in riffles, potential spawning gravel,
and a likely passage barrier at 302nd St crossing.
Habitat Features
Channel unit composition (pool, riffle, glide) in each reach is summarized according to
surface area in Figure 25, and by number of channel units in Table 9. There was substantial
beaver activity in reaches 3, and 4 where beaver ponds composed 10.5% and 9.0% of the reach
respectively (Table 9). Only the steepest reaches had more area in riffle than in pools, and those
were the canyon reach (reach 2), Kelly Creek, Arrow Creek, and North fork Beaver Creek
(Figure 25). Pools composed most of the area in reaches 1, 3, and 5, and average pool depth was
near 70 cm in the first 7 reaches.
Stream depths can have a substantial effect on carrying capacity, because juveniles strongly
avoid depths under 15 cm and show preference for increasing depth up to 100 cm. The depth
frequency plots shown in Figure 26 indicate that most pools have desirable depths only in reach
1 and then occasionally in other reaches. All main stem reaches had at least one pool over 90 cm
deep and reaches 5 and 7 had several (Figure 26). The depth frequencies also show the most
riffles are too shallow (< 15 cm) to be useful for rearing salmonids during the low flow season,
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
43 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
although they would continue through the summer to be modest producers of invertebrates prone
to drift and favored as food by juvenile salmonids inhabiting pools. Only in reach 2 were there
multiple riffles deep enough (15-30 cm) to support limited juvenile rearing (Figure 26). The
deeper riffles in that canyon reach are a by-product of the high fraction of boulders (Figure 28)
that create pocket water in that high gradient reach.
Cover complexity in most pools (> 60%) was lacking, with only 5-10% of pools scoring the
highest complexity rating of 4 in most reaches (Figure 27). Ten to twenty percent of pools in
most reaches had a log in or across them and rated a cover score of 2. Reaches 1-4 that extend up
to the confluence of Kelly Creek had the most frequent cover, with 25% to 40% of pools having
ratings of 2 or higher (Figure 27).
Spawning gravel, as indexed by substrate composition in riffles, was most abundant in
reaches 1 and 4 - 7 (Figure 28). These were the lower gradient reaches of the main stem. Gravel
composed only 10-15% of riffle substrate in reaches 2 and 3 where riffle gradients were higher,
and cobbles plus boulders were predominant. Gravels in reach 11, which flows through
agricultural and residential development, averaged about 20% fines (Figure 28), which is high
enough (> 10%) to begin reducing invertebrate production and warrants a small decrement to
rearing capacity (see Appendix 1). The percentages of fines in substrates of other reaches were
below levels that would impact either egg survival or spawning, so substrate quality was
generally good throughout the watershed.
Fish Passage Conditions
The low flow of 1.4 cfs at Troutdale at the time of our survey in early October provided
demonstration that access for salmon spawners may often be limited until mid-November by lack
of depth across riffles. The low flow also aggravates passage through the culverts under
Troutdale Rd, Stark St, and Cochran Rd. The shallow flow through the box culverts under
Troutdale Rd may have only been passable a few days in October 2011, and the few adult
salmon observed during spawning surveys by Mt Hood Community College staff and students
through mid-November were all downstream of Troutdale Rd. Once flows reach some modest
level for the wet season, perhaps sustained at or above 10 cfs, passage should be satisfactory
through the existing fish facilities under Troutdale Rd. Coho salmon native to the lower
Columbia Basin typically spawned through December and into January, and would have
circumvented low flow challenges that ended by mid-November. Native Fall Chinook on the
other hand tend to spawn in October and November and would be imparted by low flows prior to
mid-November. Although extreme high flows may create a temporary velocity barrier to
passage, such high flows are rarely sustained for more than a few days at a time.
Passage at Stark St, the next road crossing upstream appears highly improbable at low flows,
because the lower steps of the ladder have been washed away by high flows. It appears that
passage at this location may only be possible at moderately high flows that are sufficient to back
up the pool elevation at the ladder base. This crossing will clearly impede passage over a wide
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
44 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
range of flows, and probably prevents passage for 50-100% of the run attempting to pass in
many years. Winter steelhead, which can hold for extended periods until a suitable flow occurs,
are most likely of the anadromous salmonids to have a majority of the run succeed in passing this
location in most years.
The culvert under Cochran Rd is low gradient and has an excellent holding and jump pool at
its base, so passage there would only be impaired during low flow, and brief periods of high
flow. Velocity through the culvert may be a temporary impediment to passage during high flows.
There were multiple culverts in branches of the basin above Division St, some of which
could be impassable at most flows. Culverts under Division St appeared passable for a wide
range of flow. Stream reaches above that point are intermittent during summer and too shallow to
offer much spawning opportunity until December. We did not carefully evaluate passage at
culverts above Division, but the photo collection for those reaches should make it clear that
several culverts in those reaches would likely to impede adult passage if adults reached there.
BP
P
GL
RA
RI
Habitat type composition by reach
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Area (m2)
Figure 25.
Area composed by different channel unit types in each reach surveyed, Beaver Creek, October,
2011.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
45 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Table 8.
Dimensions of stream reaches surveyed in the Beaver Creek watershed, October 2011.
Survey
Stream
Avg
Active
Channel
(m)
Creek Name
Location
(Rkm)
date
flow
(cfs)
Drainage
Area
(km2)
1
Beaver
0 - 1.8
9/22/2011
0.36
32.9
1.8
11,968
12
2
Beaver
1.8 - 3.2
9/23/2011
0.31
30.8
1.4
8,427
10
3
Beaver
3.2 - 3.7
9/28/2011
1.99
29.2
0.5
3,379
9
4
Beaver
3.7 - 4.7
9/28/2011
1.99
28.2
1.0
4,822
11
5
Beaver
4.7 - 5.2
9/29/2011
1.46
27.5
0.6
3,054
10
6
Kelly
5.2
9/29/2011
1.46
11.8
0.2
824
10
7
Beaver
5.2 - 7.4
10/4/2011
4.16
15.5
2.1
10,618
8
8
Arrow
Upper
Beaver A
7.4
10/6/2011
5.73
2.6
1.1
3,002
4
7.4 - 8.3
10/12/2011
5.07
11.7
0.9
4,509
6
8.3
10/18/2011
3.16
5.4
1.6
4,443
7
8.3 - 9.5
10/19/2011
3.31
5.8
1.2
3,008
6
12.5
58,055
Reach
9
10
11
NF Beaver
Upper
Beaver B
Total
Table 9.
Area
(m2)
Channel unit composition (by count) and average depths in each survey reach of Beaver Creek,
October, 2011.
% of Channel Unit Counts
Reach
Length
(km)
Creek Name
Average Depth (cm)
BP
P
GL
RA
RI
Beaver
Pond
Pool
Riffle
1
Beaver
0%
62%
15%
3%
21%
-
82
9
2
Beaver
4%
47%
2%
0%
47%
82
53
14
3
Beaver
11%
47%
0%
0%
42%
84
58
10
4
Beaver
9%
29%
20%
0%
43%
74
73
11
5
Beaver
0%
43%
17%
0%
39%
-
71
9
6
Kelly
0%
43%
0%
0%
57%
-
72
10
7
Beaver
3%
27%
28%
0%
42%
84
72
9
8
Arrow
0%
15%
36%
0%
48%
-
48
8
9
Upper Beaver A
9%
23%
31%
0%
37%
67
61
10
10
NF Beaver
0%
33%
18%
0%
49%
-
47
7
11
Upper Beaver B
0%
20%
44%
0%
36%
-
51
10
3%
32%
22%
0%
43%
77
61
10
Total
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
46 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
47 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 26.
Depth frequency of pools and riffles in each reach surveyed in the Beaver Creek watershed,
October, 2011.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
48 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
1
2
3
4
Pool wood complexity by reach
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
20%
Figure 27.
40%
60%
Percent of wood complexity rate (1 to 4)
80%
100%
Cover complexity rating for pools in each reach surveyed during October, 2011. Rating of 1 is
lowest and 4 highest.
RI - Sum of Fines
RI - Sum of Boulder
RI - Sum of Total Gravel
RI - Sum of Bedrock
RI - Sum of Cobble
Riffles substrate composition by reach
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percent of substrate
Figure 28.
Substrate composition in riffles for each reach surveyed, October 2011. Gravel and small cobbles
are in the size range used for spawning.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
49 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Predicted Width and Depth Change at Higher Flow
Stream dimensions were measured while flows were at their lowest of the year, so we needed
to predict how both the width and depth of each channel unit would increase at the higher flows
during fall for spawning capacity or during spring for rearing capacity. We applied basic
relations for hydraulic geometry to predict these differences, given the assumed flows for fall
spawning and spring rearing discussed earlier. Leopold and Madock (1953) described trends in
average channel width and depth as simple power functions of river discharge:
W = aQb
D = cQf
V = kQm
where W is average channel width; D is depth; V is velocity; Q is discharge; b, f and m are
exponents for the increase in width, depth, and velocity, respectively, with increase in discharge;
and a, c and k are coefficients for the respective power functions. These relationships also have
the property that the sum of the exponents must equal unity (b + f + n = 1), and so must the
product of the coefficients (ack = 1). Rosenfeld et al. (2007) describes the use of these hydraulic
geometry relations to predict how characteristics of fish habitat change with flow. Rosenfeld et
al. (2007) also point out that pools are deeper and slower than riffles during low flow conditions,
so their exponents for width and depth differ from each other (Figure 29). Velocity increases
more rapidly and depth more slowly in pools than in riffles as flow increases, such that depth and
velocity of the two unit types converge at bankfull flow (Figure 29). Width, on the other hand
tends to change at a similar rate between unit types. Rosenfeld et al. used exponents for depth
change of f = 0.22 in pools and f = 0.46 in riffles to represent typical values estimated from
stream field studies (Figure 29), and we used those values to estimate the rate of depth change
with increasing flow in Beaver Creek. We used the width exponents estimated by Hogan and
Church (1989) for a coastal stream in British Columbia.
We used the hydraulic geometry equations to calculate channel unit widths and depths in
May and November, the seasons for determining age 0+ Chinook smolt capacity, and adult
salmon spawning, respectively. We then calculated the ratio of width in each season to that
which we measured at low flow in September (e.g. [May width/Sept width] and [May depth/Sept
depth]), and repeated the process for depths. These ratios of width or depth in one season to that
at base flow in September were used as expansion factors (scalars) for each channel unit to
determine their dimensions in May and November. The value of Q for each of these seasons was
1.4 cfs in September, 18 cfs in November, and 6.3 cfs in May. Flows were converted to m3/sec
before we applied the hydraulic geometry equations, because the exponents were determined
from flows expressed in metric flow units. We compared our scaled width and depth values to
measurements taken at 72 different sites in the Oregon Coastal Range and found that our values
fell within the range of observed values in the field (Romer et al. 2008).
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
50 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Habitat conditions in Beaver Creek
Figure 29.
Contrasting rates of change in velocity and depth between pools and riffles in response to
increasing flow for a stream with mean annual flow of 3 m3/sec. From Rosenfeld et al. (2007).
The predicted effect of 18 cfs flow in November (spawning season) compared to the 1.4 cfs
during our surveys was that pools would average 75% deeper and wider than in September, and
depths in riffles would more than tripled. The increase in riffle depths would be sufficient that
most riffles in reaches 1-4 would be 30 - 40 cm deep, which meets minimum depth for salmon
spawning (minimum depth is 30 cm for Chinook salmon and 15 cm for other salmon and
steelhead). Predicted depths in pools and glides would also be sufficient for spawning. However,
riffle depths barely meet the minimum for Chinook spawning, so flows below average in
November would reduce spawning habitat for Chinook salmon.
The predicted effect of 6.3 cfs flow at Troutdale in May (age 0+ Chinook rearing/smolting)
was that riffle depths would double and pool depths would increase by about 50% compared to
values we measured in October 2011. Widths for all channel types would also increase about
50%. These changes together would considerably increase the suitable area for juvenile rearing,
and stream temperatures in May would be expected within the optimum range (10-16°C) for
growth of juvenile salmon and steelhead (projected from Figure 15).
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
51 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
CHAPTER 4: ESTIMATED PRODUCTION POTENTIAL FOR BEAVER CREEK
In this chapter we describe how data on habitat availability, carrying capacity, and species
specific life history values are integrated in a simulation model to estimate the maximum number
of adults the Beaver Creek watershed can produce under average conditions for each species of
interest. We previously described how carrying capacity can be estimated, and now we must first
describe the expected survival of eggs and fish from one life stage to the next before we can
simulate the number of adults the watershed is capable of producing.
Life Stage Survival Rates
Survival rates differ for each of these life stages, and the number of adults produced from all
pathways described in the conceptual model diagrams must be summed to estimate overall
production at carrying capacity for the watershed. Survival for each life-history pathway differs
between species, and not all life-history pathways will be supported for each species. We derived
best available estimates for life-stage survival rates through extensive review of published
scientific literature and fishery agency reports. The values we used and the primary source from
which they were derived are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10.
Fecundity and life-stage survival values used to calculate potential production of juveniles
through each life-history pathway to estimate the average number of adult equivalents produced.
Life History Parameter
Value
Source
Chinook
Fecundity
5,000
Life history of tule fall Chinook salmon (Rawding et al 2010)
Egg to Fry Survival
17.5%
Life history of tule fall Chinook salmon (Rawding et al 2010)
Fry to Parr Survival
25%
Life history of tule fall Chinook salmon (Rawding et al 2010)
Parr to Smolt Survival
76%
Life history of tule fall Chinook salmon (Rawding et al 2010)
Smolt to Adult
Survival
1.5%
Lewis River Fall Chinook Report (Cramer 1997)
Chum
Fecundity
3,000
Egg to Fry Survival
7%
Salo 1991. Calculated from length vs. fecundity relationship applied to female
Chum lengths in Washington streams
Salo 1991. Chum in Minter Creek, WA with range of 2.8 – 16.9% survival
Bradford 1995 reported 8% geometric mean across salmon species.
Fry to Adult Survival
1.5%
Salo 1991. Chum in Minter Creek, WA
Coho
Fecundity
2,500
Nickelson and Lawson 1998. Oregon coastal coho.
Egg to Fry Survival
7.5%
Johnson and Cooper 1995. Derived from estimates fry-to-smolts survival across 9
broods and egg-to-smolt survival across 15 broods, Snow Creek, WA
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
52 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
Fry to Parr Survival
64%
Derived from Nickelson 1998. Oregon coastal coho.
Parr to Pre-smolt
Survival
80%
Derived from Nickelson 1998. Oregon coastal coho.
Smolt to Adult
Survival
6%
Suring et al. 2009. Average for 9 broods of wild coho in NF Scappoose Creek
Overwinter Survival
20%
Ebersole et al. 2009; Figure 3 survival value
in watershed of similar size to Beaver Creek
Steelhead
Fecundity
3,674
Straw 2009. Clackamas wild steelhead average for 2006-2008 returns.
Lister and Walker 1966 estimated average Chum egg-to-fry survivals ranging
from 5.0% to 17.0% under natural varying flow, and of 25% when flows were
stabilized. Chum fry survival can be estimated easily by trapping downstream
migrants, because most emigrate as fry. Steelhead fry do not migrate, so
estimation of their survival is difficult. We assume fry of the two species should
survive similarly. Beaver Creek flows vary widely in the spring to early summer,
so we assumed 15% survival, a value mid-way between those for variable and
stable flow conditions with chum fry.
Egg to Fry Survival
15%
Fry to Parr Survival
39%
Parr to Smolt Survival
28%
Johnson and Cooper 1995. Average across 11 broods of steelhead in Snow Creek,
WA
Smolt to Adult
Survival
1.5%
Lower Columbia Steelhead Report (Cramer et al. 2003). 1.5% is the approximate
average value across 11 and 18 broods of data for smolt-to-adult survival of winter
steelhead at Eagle Creek National Fish Hatchery and Kalama River Hatchery.
Johnson and Cooper 1995. Average across 10 broods of steelhead in Snow
Creek, WA
Estimation of Adult Equivalent Production
The predicted number of juveniles that could be produced through each life-history pathway
were accumulated across all life stages and translated into the common currency of the predicted
number of adults they would produce under average conditions. Survivals applied in this process
are summarized in Table 10. The assignment of fish to different life history pathways was
influenced by the distribution of spawners among reaches and the carrying capacity limitations
that their offspring encountered. Adults were assigned to spawn in all suitable redd capacity for
their species in all reaches where such capacity occurred. Redd capacity was estimated using the
data collected during our field surveys, but with depth and width values scaled up to those at the
higher flows in November, as described previously. The equations used to scale depth and width
of the different habitat unit types are described in Table 11. The number of redds supported was
then multiplied by species-specific fecundity values to calculate the number of eggs that would
be produced within each reach. Eggs were assigned a fixed survival to the fry stage, and fry were
allowed to follow two separate pathways: (1) 25% of fry emigrated from Beaver Creek to rear in
the Sandy or Columbia Rivers, and (2) the other 75% of fry remained in Beaver Creek. The fry
that remained in the creek were then subjected to a fry-to-parr survival rate, and those in excess
of parr rearing capacity were assigned as migrants to other reaches where any vacancy in parr
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
53 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
capacity existed. Any excess parr that did not fit in Beaver Creek were assumed to migrate to the
Sandy or Columbia rivers, and suffered a parr migration mortality of 25% before they finished
rearing to the smolt stage. Any parr movements between reaches were only assigned the
downstream direction for Chinook, and steelhead, but coho parr were allowed to move upstream
as well (typical behavior for coho). Parr capacities for each reach of Beaver Creek were
estimated as previously described, based on habitat measurements during the lowest flow that
parr would have experienced (May flow for Chinook and September flow for coho and
steelhead).
Chum salmon were treated differently, because they emigrated to sea as fry shortly after
emergence. Accordingly, chum adult equivalents were calculated as the product of fry abundance
and the fry-to-adult survival estimate.
The transition from parr to smolt was treated differently for each of the three remaining
species.



Chinook parr were subjected to a parr-to-smolt survival rate and then all Chinook smolts
emigrated to sea in the late spring. Smolts were then assigned a smolt-to-adult survival
rate and this converted smolts from each pathway to their adult equivalents.
Coho juveniles remain in freshwater through one full year, so parr were subjected to a
parr-to-presmolt survival rate and any parr in excess of summer carrying capacity were
assigned to fill any capacity vacancy within other Beaver Creek reaches. Any fry
exceeding watershed carrying capacity were assumed to migrate to the Sandy or
Columbia rivers for rearing until smolting the following spring. Pre-smolts within Beaver
Creek at the end of summer had to fit into winter habitat capacity in Beaver Creek and
any excess again migrated to the Sandy or Columbia rivers to rear overwinter. These fish
that made a freshwater migration before smolting were assigned additional mortality as
they migrated in search of a new rearing opportunity. All pre-smolts were assigned an
overwinter survival. Smolts migrated to sea the following spring, and were assigned a
smolt-to-adult survival to become adult equivalents.
Steelhead juveniles can smolt and migrate to the ocean at either 1+ or 2+. Forty percent
of steelhead parr spend just one winter in the creek and the other 60% stay an additional
winter and then smolt. Any parr in excess of carrying capacity migrated to the Sandy or
Columbia rivers to rear overwinter. These fish that made a freshwater migration before
smolting were assigned additional mortality as they migrated in search of a new rearing
opportunity. All parr were assigned a parr-to-smolt survival rate, but the 60% that
remained an additional year were assigned an additional 50% mortality for that year.
Both age 1+ and age 2+ smolts are assigned the same smolt-to-adult survival rate to
convert them to adult equivalents.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
54 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
Table 11.
Functions used to scale fish densities based on specific habitat features. Abbreviations are L =
length, W = width, D = depth. All measurements are in meters, and flow measurements in cfs.
Depths measured are the maximum in pools and the mean in riffles and glides.
Redd Capacity Scalars
Cramer 2001. Derived from Sandy and
Clackamas Basin surveys
Pool Length
If L > 4*W: L = 4*W
Pool Depth
Measured Depth *( November Flow0.22/September Flow0.22)
Exponent values from Rosenfeld et al. 2007
Glide Depth
Measured Depth * (November Flow0.33/September Flow0.33)
Exponent midway between that for pools
and riffles by Rosenfeld et al. 2007
Riffle Depth
Measured Depth * (November Flow0.46/September Flow0.46)
Exponent values from Rosenfeld et al. 2007
Pool Width
Measured Width *( November Flow0.19/September Flow0.19)
Exponent values from Hogan and Church
1989
Glide / Riffle
Width
Measured Width*( November Flow0.16/September Flow0.16)
Exponent values from Hogan and Church
1989
Parr Capacity Scalars
Pool Depth
Measured Depth* (May Flow0.22/September Flow0.22)
Exponent values from Rosenfeld et al. 2007
Pools
If D is <0.10: 0.0*D
Beecher et al. 1993. Puget Sound steelhead
habitat preference
If D is 0.10 – 0.80: (0.30* D – 0.027)/0.17
Dambacher 1991. Steelhead parr
If D is >0.80: 0.22/0.17
Bisson et al. 1988. Steelhead parr
Glide Depth
Measured Depth* (May Flow0.33/September Flow0.33)
Exponent midway between that for pools
and riffles by Rosenfeld et al. 2007
Riffle Depth
Measured Depth*( May Flow0.46/September Flow0.46)
Exponent values from Rosenfeld et al. 2007
Riffles
If D is <0.1: 0.0*D
Beecher et al. 1993. Puget Sound steelhead
habitat preference?
If D is 0.10 – 0.16: (0.5*D – 0.050)/0.03
Bovee 1978
If D is 0.16 – 0.30: (0.29*D – 0.017)/0.03
D. B. Lister and Associates, unpublished
data, steelhead and Chinook parr
If D is 0.30 – 0.80: (0.25*D – 0.003)/0.03
D. B. Lister and Associates, unpublished
data, steelhead and Chinook parr
If D is 0.80 – 0.90: 0.20/0.03
D. B. Lister and Associates, unpublished
data, steelhead and Chinook parr
If D is 0.90 – 1.50: (–0.32*D + 0.485)/0.03
Conner et al. 1995. Steelhead parr
If D is >1.50: 0
Conner et al. 1995. Steelhead parr
If % Fines < 10: 1.0
Bjornn et al. 1977
If % Fines ≥ 10: 1.11 – 1.1 * % Fines
Bjornn et al. 1977
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
55 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
Pools and Glides
If wood complexity = 1: 0.58
Johnson et al. 1993. Oregon coast streams
If wood complexity = 2: 1.00
Johnson 1985. Washington rivers. Steelhead
If wood complexity = 3: 1.42
Johnson et al. 1993. Oregon coast streams
If wood complexity = 4 or 5: 1.84
Johnson et al. 1993. Oregon coast streams
If % Boulder < 25: 1.0
Johnson 1985. Washington rivers. Steelhead
If % Boulder is 25 – 75: 1 + 12 * (% Boulder – 0.25)
Johnson 1985. Washington rivers. Steelhead
If % Boulder > 75: 7.0
Johnson 1985. Washington rivers. Steelhead
Findings and Discussion
Spawning Distribution and Capacity
Suitable flows and substrate for spawning were found in several reaches, and the distribution
for the number of redds that could be supported differed between species. Chinook are the largest
spawners, and require greater depth (≥ 30 cm) than coho, steelhead or chum (≥ 15 cm). As a
result, the number of Chinook redds that could be supported were fewer (70 redds) than other
species, and half were located downstream of the first road crossing at Troutdale Rd (Figure 30).
Another 44% were located on the Metro property adjacent to MHCC in reaches 4 and 5, which
means the fish would have to pass the Stark St crossing. Another 5 redds could be supported in
reach 7, the next reach upstream and above the Cochran Rd crossing.
Spawning requirements for steelhead and coho are similar, so their predicted distributions of
spawning were the same, with 242 redds supportable. Due to differences in spawn timing, coho
eggs would have already hatched and fry would be mobile and leaving the gravel at about the
time steelhead begin spawning. Thus, super imposition of coho redds by steelhead is not a risk.
Although coho were assumed to spawn in November and steelhead in March and April, the flows
in these months are similar (see Figure 13), so the model used the same flow at their times of
spawning. The distribution of coho and steelhead redds was somewhat evenly distributed
downstream of the Troutdale Rd crossing (59 redds = 24%), between the Stark St and Cochran
Rd crossings (90 redds = 37%) and between Cochran Rd and Division St crossings (91 redds =
38%) (Figure 30). Only one redd was predicted between the Troutdale Rd and Stark St crossings,
so there would be little gain in spawning opportunity accomplished by improving passage at
Troutdale Rd without improving the more serious passage impediment at Stark St. No spawning
was predicted above the Division St crossing, and this prediction was related to inadequate
depths rather than to impaired passage at Division St.
The unique spawning behavior of chum salmon to always spawn in the lowermost suitable
areas of a watershed resulted in their distribution being confined to the two lowermost reaches.
The predicted capacity was 75 redds in reach 1 and 8 in reach 2 (Figure 30).
The number of redds that could be supported was sufficient to fully seed rearing capacities
of the watershed for steelhead, but there were exceptions for coho, chum, and Chinook. Rearing
capacity for chum salmon is not limiting, since they migrate to sea shortly after emerging as fry.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
56 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
Thus, for chum salmon alone, the number supportable in Beaver Creek is limited by the
spawning capacity. Thus, any expansion of spawning opportunity in reaches 1 and 2 could
increase production of chum salmon.
Spawning capacity for coho salmon was contained primarily in reaches 1, 4, and 7 (Figure
30) while spring parr capacity was predominantly in reach 1. Because a portion of coho fry do
move downstream after emergence, the fry produced from spawning in reaches 4 and 7 will help
fill in capacity for rearing in downstream reaches, including reach 1. The distribution of rearing
capacity in the winter is more evenly spread among stream reaches (Table 12) and upstream
movement of fry from some reaches would be required to fill all capacity. Given the need for
redistribution of juvenile at both the fry and presmolt stages to utilize available rearing capacity,
it is likely that a more even distribution of spawning capacity among reaches would improve full
age of all rearing capacity.
For Chinook salmon, there was no suitable spawning habitat where there was some rearing
capacity for parr in reaches 8-11 (Figure 31). These reaches have too little flow to accommodate
migration and spawning by large bodied Chinook. Juvenile Chinook generally move downstream
to fill out suitable habitat, so few if any juvenile Chinook would be expected above Division St.
Reach 2 (Canyon reach) was also an exception that was predicted to have greater rearing
potential than spawning could supply. This was related to desirable depths for rearing that were
created by pocket water behind boulders, but few patches of gravel suitable for spawning.
Because there were good numbers of spawning sites and parr production predicted both below
and above this reach, we assumed that fish would be attracted from both below and above to fill
the rearing capacity of this reach.
Rearing Distribution and Capacity
The capacity for parr rearing was unevenly distributed in the watershed, with gradient and
depth being major factors contributing to the variation. Parr capacity was greatest in reaches 1
and 2 (below Troutdale Rd) for both Chinook and steelhead parr during summer low flow, and
were relatively low in all other reaches (Figure 31). This was due to the shallow depths and high
temperatures, particularly in riffles, which provided almost no rearing capacity except in the
canyon (reach 2). Parr avoid water less than 15 cm deep and most riffles were less than 15 cm
deep during the low flow season. Also, Cramer (2001) summarized evidence that use by juvenile
steelhead and Chinook drops to near zero in the calm mid-section of pools longer than 4 channel
widths. Therefore, the model assigned a density of 0 to the midsection of such long pools. The
low gradient of Beaver Creek in reach 1 led to a preponderance of long pools with little velocity
detectable in their mid-section, so the majority of pool area in this reach assigned zero value for
rearing. In contrast, pools were only occasionally longer the 4 channel widths in reaches 3-11,
and 100% of pools in the higher gradient canyon reach were shorter the 4 channel widths. The
pocket-water effect created by a high frequency of boulders in the canyon reach also resulted in
greater depth in the riffles, such that some received credit for supporting parr rearing.
Capacity for parr rearing for coho changed substantially between spring and summer. During
May when flow averages 6.3 cfs at the Troutdale gauge, and temperatures remain optimal for
growth, there is good capacity for coho parr throughout Beaver Creek main stem up to Division
St crossing and even upstream in the main fork and North Fork. However, by fall the capacity
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
57 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
was reduced by 70%, and 40% of the remaining capacity was contained in reach 1 (Figure 31)
where temperatures are coolest and pools are predominant.
Rearing capacity for coho is typically constrained more severely by availability of refuge
habitat during winter high flows than summer low flows (Nickelson 1998). Accordingly, we
compared the calculated carrying capacity in summer to that in winter for coho. We made this
comparison for three different stages of prediction: (1) the summer parr capacity without any
decrement for high temperature, (2) the pre-smolt capacity in fall that had been decremented for
high temperatures during summer, and (3) the winter capacity predicted by the ODFW regression
equation (Rodgers et al. 2005) that accounted for change in coho parr preferences and habitat
availability during winter. This comparison showed that both the pre-smolt capacity and the
winter capacity were far less than the parr capacity at the end of spring (Table 12). Although
both low flow and high stream temperature substantially restricted the number of parr
supportable to the presmolt stage, the winter capacity was still about 30% less. In coastal streams
where the MWAT temperatures do not exceed 16°C, the presmolt capacity is generally on the
order of four times that for winter capacity. Thus, late summer and winter habitat capacities in
Beaver Creek are much closer to each other than is typical for coho streams.
In order to determine which capacity was more appropriate to use in our model of potential
for adult-equivalent production, we further compared the parr-to-smolt survival values that have
been estimated for the two different metrics of carrying capacity. Nickelson (1998)
recommended a 90% survival from winter parr to smolting, but he showed that field studies of
coho parr marked in the late summer indicated that observed survival from fall parr to smolting
was most often in the range from 10-30%. If survival of winter parr-to-smolt were 90%, then
much of the cause for higher fall parr to smolt mortality must have been accounted for by the
large reduction in parr capacity between fall and winter habitat. In more recent studies, Ebersole
et al. (2009) also found that overwinter survival estimated for coho parr marked in the late
summer and detected emigrating as smolts the next spring was most frequently in the range of
10-30%. Further, Ebersole et al. (2009) found that fall parr-to-smolt survival was correlated to
basin size, and that expected overwinter survival for coho in a basin the size of Beaver Creek
would be about 20%. So, if we multiply our fall presmolt capacity by 20% survival, we find that
the estimate of smolts produced is much smaller that if we multiply the winter-parr capacity by
90% survival. We concluded from this exercise that use of the fall presmolt capacity and an
assumed 20% parr-to-smolt survival was most appropriate for our modeling, because it reflects a
more limiting bottleneck to adult production than obtained based on a predicted winter parr
capacity.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
58 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
Number of Redds
40
Chinook
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
Number of Redds
100
4
Reaches
5
6
7
5
6
7
5
6
7
Steelhead
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
Number of Redds
100
4
Reaches
Coho
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
Number of Redds
80
4
Reaches
Chum
60
40
20
0
1
Figure 30.
Reaches
2
Predicted number of redds that can be supported at November flows in each reach, by species, as
determined by suitable depths and substrate in patches of sufficient area to support a spawning
pair.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
59 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
Parr Capacity
5,000
Chinook
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1
2
3
4
Parr Capacity
6,000
5
6
Reaches
7
8
9
10
11
7
8
9
10
11
7
8
9
10
11
Steelhead
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
Parr Capacity
8,000
6
Reaches
Coho
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1
Figure 31.
2
3
4
5
6
Reaches
Predicted carrying capacity for parr, by reach and species. Capacities for steelhead and coho
parr correspond to the summer low flow condition during our survey, but values for Chinook
are scaled to flow in May when age 0+ smolts would emigrate.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
60 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
Table 12.
Comparison of parr carrying capacity estimates for coho at different seasons. The raw summer
capacities are based on stream morphology without adjustment for high temperatures. Winter
capacity is predicted from the regression equation developed by ODFW (Rodgers et al. 2005)
that predicts winter capacity as a function of summer capacity and reach-level stream features.
Reach
Raw Summer
Parr
Temperature
Scaled
Presmolts
Predicted
Winter
Capacity
1
16,699
6,123
3,347
2
5,909
1,408
1,270
3
3,678
1,373
831
4
5,914
1,914
1,279
5
3,702
1,003
849
6
457
172
232
7
7,160
1,814
8
313
59
117
9
2,587
490
580
10
1,002
137
292
11
497
59
181
47,420
14,495
Total
1,477
10,273
Adult Production Capacity
After spawning and rearing capacities have each been determined, our potential production
model begins with the spawning capacity by reach and propagates production forward through
each life stage following the species specific survival rates. Whenever more fish are produced at
given life stage than the reach has capacity for, the extra fish are assumed to move successively
downstream until stopping in a reach with available capacity. If no excess capacity exists within
Beaver Creek, the fish are assumed to migrate to the Sandy or Columbia rivers for continued
rearing, and are assigned a migration mortality in addition to that for smolting. Only coho are
assumed to move upstream into reaches without spawning. Chinook and steelhead are assumed
to move upstream only to reaches where spawning already occurs. We refer to migrants that
exceed carrying capacity as parr migrants in our model results. The adult equivalent production
of each species from each reach and the cumulative total across reaches through all life-history
pathways are displayed in Figure 32. This figure can be used to identify the distribution of
production in the stream and to identify the proportion of production coming from downstream
or upstream of a given reach. For example, the Stark St crossing divides reaches 3 and 4, so we
can see that 25% of Chinook, 17% of coho, and 11% of steelhead adult equivalents are produced
downstream of reach 4 and the Stark St crossing. Impairment in passage at Stark St then applies
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
61 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
to all remaining production of each species that could be produced above that point. The Cochran
Rd crossing is the division between reaches 5 and 7 (reach 6 is Arrow Creek), so any impediment
to passage at Cochran Rd would affect the potential adult equivalents in reaches 7 and higher.
The predicted number of adult equivalents that would survive from each life-history pathway
for each species under average conditions summed to 148 Chinook, 261 chum, 240 coho, and
146 steelhead. These numbers represent the best case situation without any habitat modification,
i.e. the situation with no impediments to fish passage. It is unlikely that this condition is
presently true, so the current production is less than these estimates of potential production.
These predictions can serve as benchmarks from which current levels of impairment to
production can be estimated and potential gains from improvement of fish passage and habitat
enhancement can be estimated.
The capacity for adult production that we have estimated given current habitat conditions
compare reasonably with recent and historic observations of fish spawning in the Beaver Creek
watershed. During occasional spawning surveys in selected reaches of the watershed during the
1990s, ODFW staff counted live coho and steelhead observed from bankside to number in the
30s and 20s respectively (see Table 1). These numbers might easily have represented run sizes of
100-200 fish. The Oregon Fish Commission (Mattsen 1955) estimated in the early 1950s, prior to
much of the development that currently exists in the watershed, that, “in recent years several
hundred silver (coho) and steelhead have maintained themselves, and only a few dozen chum
salmon.” The culverts under road crossings at Troutdale Rd, Stark St, and Cochran Rd were
already in place before the mid-1930s, but decades of scour at those outfalls has likely
aggravated any passage impediment those culverts caused decades ago. Another change that
likely impacted anadromous fish production was installation of Kelly Creek Dam at MHCC in
1968. That dam blocked all access above about 200 m of the tributary, which likely had good
habitat for salmon production prior to extensive urban residential development now in place
there.
Before using the model to compare fish benefits of various restoration scenarios, several
caveats should be noted for interpreting these results.



These predictions are deterministic (they give a single value for average conditions), but
actual survival varies several fold between years both in freshwater and in the ocean.
Thus, it should be expected that actual production is likely to vary 10-fold around these
values, if they accurately represent values for Beaver Creek.
Survival values and habitat preference relationships used in the model include a
substantial level of uncertainty because they were derived from regional studies rather
than from specific data for fish in Beaver Creek.
The predicted value of Chinook in particular is likely to represent a condition that cannot
be sustained across years. Low flows in the fall that can block Chinook from migrating
and provide insufficient depths for spawning have a high frequency of occurrence. It is
likely that an extended sequence of drought conditions could eliminate Chinook by
blocking their access to any usable spawning gravel. This possibility is the likely reason
that Mattsen (1955) reported that Beaver Creek did not support Chinook salmon,
although he estimated it was supporting returns of coho, chum and steelhead in the early
1950s of comparable magnitude to our predictions here.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
62 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reach
8
9
10
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cumulative Production
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Cumulative Production
Adult Equivalents
Chinook
11
Adult Equivalents
Coho
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reach
8
9
10
11
50
200
40
150
30
100
20
50
10
0
0
1
Figure 32.
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reach
8
9
10
Cumulative Production
Adult Equivalents
Steelhead
11
Predicted number of adult salmon and steelhead (Adult Equivalents) the Beaver Creek
watershed can produce at capacity from each reach under average environmental conditions.
These predictions assume that upstream passage of adults is unimpaired, and that only coho
juveniles will migrate upstream to rear in areas above all spawning.
Contribution by Life History Type
Model results indicate that roughly 15% of adult production would result from fish that
emigrated from the watershed as fry, while 9-63% would have emigrated as parr, and 18-76%
would have reared in Beaver Creek until smolting (Figure 33). These percentages indicate adult
production in Beaver Creek is dependent on rearing opportunities that juveniles find in the Sandy
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
63 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Estimated production potential for Beaver Creek
and Columbia rivers. Such dependence is not uncommon. For example, the studies by Leider et
al. (1986) in Gobar Creek and by Bjornn (1978) in Big Springs Creek demonstrated that most
returning steelhead in those small streams were produced from juveniles that had migrated out of
those streams to complete their rearing in a larger river. In the case of Gobar Creek, 70% of
steelhead adults were found to have completed at least their last winter of freshwater rearing in
the Kalama River. In Beaver Creek, 82% of adult steelhead, 27% of coho, and 24% of Chinook
were estimated to be produced by either fry or parr migrants that finished rearing outside the
watershed. This high percentage of coho rearing completed outside of Beaver Creek reflects the
combined limitation that low flow and high temperature places on juvenile rearing.
Coho
Chinook
Steelhead
14%
15%
18%
9%
76%
19%
13%
73%
63%
Fry migrants
Figure 33.
Parr migrants
Smolts
Proportional contribution of each life-history pathway to predicted adult production for each
species.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
64 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Limiting factors and potential remediation
CHAPTER 5: LIMITING FACTORS AND POTENTIAL REMEDIATION
Limiting Factors
Spawning Habitat
Spawning habitat was the factor most limiting to chum, but not other species. Chum salmon
spawning was largely confined to the first reach (90%) where low gradient also constrains
formation of riffles. Since chum salmon emigrate to sea as fry, rearing space is not an issue for
them.
Low Summer Flow
Low flow in the summer is probably the most limiting factor in the watershed, with flows
dropping under 1 cfs in late summer at the Troutdale gauge in most years. At such low flows,
only the pools, beaver ponds, and some glides are capable of supporting juveniles through the
summer, and both their size and depth are restricted. In spite of the low flows, pool depths were
sufficient that those in the lower basin received extra credit from the pool depth scalar, while
those in the uppermost reaches were decremented for shallow depths (Table 13). Agricultural,
residential and urban development have undoubtedly altered runoff patterns by increasing
surface runoff in the winter, and reducing base flows in summer. Portions of the basin upstream
of Division St reportedly supported salmon and steelhead runs well past the mid-1900s, but
summer flow is now intermittent in reaches above Division St.
High Summer Temperatures
Stream temperatures in the summer rise to levels that exceed the preferred range for
salmonids, and this further reduces the number of juveniles that will remain in the watershed.
The temperature scalar used in the model for this effect was derived from numerous field studies
that demonstrate salmonid densities in a given body of water drop at a rate directly proportional
to the increase in temperature above the optimum for growth (~16°C). The maximum of the
weekly average temperature (MWAT) has been the most common metric for relating fish
response to stream temperature in a natural setting, and virtually all salmonids become obligated
to seek out thermal refuges or die when MWAT exceeds 23°C. Temperature records in the
Beaver Creek watershed are sparse, but data from 2009 indicate that MWAT > 23°C were
reached during a hot spell in several parts of the upper basin. Temperatures recorded in the lower
canyon area at Kiku Park indicate temperatures remain about 2°C cooler there than elsewhere in
the basin. These temperature differences indicate that improved riparian shading in exposed
areas of the stream may provide improved temperatures for salmonids.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
65 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Limiting factors and potential remediation
Table 13.
Effect of scalars on the four factors specified. Percentages less than 100% indicate the factor
resulted in a decrement to production.
Reach
Factor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cover
96%
71%
74%
87%
91%
58%
89%
81%
67%
74%
58%
Pool Depth
124%
88%
105%
109%
122%
121%
114%
78%
105%
70%
80%
Fines / Reach
99%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
92%
99%
88%
Temp / Reach
66%
55%
48%
43%
37%
53%
28%
19%
20%
18%
15%
Low Fall Flow
Seasonal low flows extend into the fall until sufficient rains have occurred, and this is
delayed into November in some years. Peak spawning time for chum, coho, and Chinook that
currently use the basin extends from late October through November. Historically, peak spawn
timing for coho in the lower Columbia Basin was December and it presently is December for
chum salmon spawning on Washington tributaries to the Columbia. Flows are higher in
December, so access to suitable spawning would be more consistent in December. While
December is suitable for coho and chum, it may be too late for fall Chinook. Fall Chinook must
spawn early enough that their offspring can reach smolt size (≥80 mm) in most years by midMay. The window of opportunity may be too narrow in some years to support fall Chinook in
Beaver Creek, early fall entry to the stream is often blocked or impaired, and early reduction of
flows in the spring may prevent successful rearing to smolts by mid-May. An inadequate
window of opportunity between time of spawning and time of smolting may be the reason that
ODFW reports in the 1950s indicate that Gordon Creek (not Beaver Creek) was the only
tributary to the lower Sandy River that supported a Chinook run.
Adult Passage at Road Crossings
A primary purpose for this study was to determine if the potential to improve salmon and
steelhead runs in Beaver Creek was sufficient to warrant construction of new fish passage
facilities at any or all of three road crossings; Troutdale Rd, Stark St and Cochran Rd. Our
cursory examination of these crossings indicated the potential for passage impairment was high
at the Stark St crossing, modest at the Troutdale Rd crossing, and low at the Cochran Rd
crossing. Detailed calculation of hydraulic conditions at these crossings for a range of flows is
the subject of separate investigations by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Results of simulations with our model indicate that about three-fourths of steelhead
production, one-third of Chinook production, and one half of coho production would be lost with
no passage at Stark St, compared to 100% passage at all three road crossings. There is little
habitat between Troutdale Rd and Stark St Crossings, and passage impairment is likely much
greater at Stark St than at Troutdale Rd. For Chinook, the models estimate that 51% of redd
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
66 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Limiting factors and potential remediation
capacity exists above Stark St, although flows less than the average we modeled would likely
impair Chinook migration above Kelly Creek, which delivers approximately one third of basin
flow. For coho and steelhead, 24% spawning capacity was downstream of the Stark St, 38% was
between the Stark St and Cochran Rd crossings, and 38% was upstream of Cochran.
The distribution of adult spawning capacity also has implications about the urgency of
ensuring the fish facilities can pass juveniles upstream. For both coho and steelhead, the greatest
concentration of spawning capacity is in the uppermost reach (Cochran Rd to Division St)
producing anadromous fish. Since the most colonization of available rearing habitat occurs in the
downstream direction from the location of spawning, the predicted spawning distribution
indicates the available rearing habitat will be seeded by juveniles moving downstream. Further,
coho presmolt capacity where juveniles would overwinter is most concentrated (42%) at the
bottom of the system in reach 1. In the case of steelhead, 71% of parr capacity is in the first 2
reaches and below any road crossing. This distribution of spawning and rearing capacity suggests
the very little would be gained by providing upstream passage for juveniles at the three focal
road crossings.
Poaching
Poaching and harassment of adult salmonids in a small stream is likely to be a constant
problem in an urban area along a stream with many well hidden settings. No estimates of its
magnitude are available.
Contaminated Runoff
Unspawned salmon in apparently healthy condition have been found occasionally on
spawning surveys, and one possible cause of death is contaminated runoff. Most of the
watershed is in agricultural, residential and urban development, so the first large runoff event
each fall is likely to transport contaminants that have accumulated in the watershed into the
stream. Prespawning mortality of coho salmon in Puget Sound urban streams has been a
common occurrence and believed to be due to such a mechanism.
Potential Measures for In-stream Restoration
Benefits of Upgrade Adult Passage Facilities
The Habitat Capacity model can readily be used to predict the magnitude of change in adult
production potential achievable through different restoration scenarios. We have initially
demonstrated this capability by simulating production that would result if passage was
completely blocked at the Stark St crossing. Results comparing this no-passage scenario to that
for full passage at all three crossings of concern are presented in (Figure 34) Results indicate
that about three-fourths of steelhead production, one-third of Chinook production, and half of
coho production would be lost with no passage at Stark St, compared to 100% passage at all
three road crossings. There is essentially no spawning habitat between the Troutdale Rd and
Stark St crossings, so any impediment to passage at Troutdale Rd would have the same effect as
an impediment at Stark St.
As described for limiting factors, there is no indication from the distributions of spawning
and rearing capacity that addition of upstream passage for juveniles would have a notable effect
on adult production. The highest concentration of spawning habitat was above all three road
crossings of concern, while juvenile rearing capacity was concentrated below all of the road
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
67 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Limiting factors and potential remediation
crossings. Available rearing habitat above the road crossings will be more than adequately
seeded by juveniles distributing from the spawners in reach 7.
300
Total Adult Equivalent Quantities
250
200
150
Full Passage
No Passage
100
50
0
Steelhead
Figure 34.
Chinook
Coho
Chum
Predicted adult production from Beaver Creek watershed at carrying capacity under average
conditions. Scenarios shown are (1) 100% passage at first three culverts (black bars), and (2) no
passage above Stark St. (hatched bars).
The contrasting flows and fish counts during spawning surveys in 2010 and 2011 indicate that
low flows can be an impediment to fish passage. Only the stream segments adjacent to MHCC
property were surveyed in 2010 (these are upstream of the Stark St crossing) and good numbers
of spawners were counted there. In contrast, additional surveys were added in the Kiku Park
area below all culverts in 2011, and it was only in that reach that more than one fish was
observed in 2011. Only one carcass was found in 2011 adjacent to MHCC property. The lack of
upstream movement in 2011 appears related to the low flows, which did not exceed 20 cfs until
the third week in November, and only exceeded 10 cfs prior to that on one day in November
(Figure 35). Flows were much greater through both October and November in 2011, and exceed
60 cfs as early as October 10. Clearly, the higher flows in 2010 provided good access for adult
salmon over all three road crossings of focus, while low flows in 2011 appeared to halt fish
passage below the Troutdale Rd crossing, and perhaps even below riffles downstream of there.
This demonstrates that modifications to enable adult passage during low flows would benefit
upstream access. Possible passage impediments at high flows are short lived, but low flows can
persist through the migration season.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
68 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Limiting factors and potential remediation
200
2010
Daily Mean Discharge (cfs)
180
2011
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
10/1
Figure 35.
10/8
10/15
10/22
10/29
11/5
Date
11/12
11/19
11/26
Flows in October and November 2010 and 2011 at the time of upstream salmon migration. USGS
data at Troutdale gage.
Potential Habitat Restoration and Benefits
Riparian Plantings
Plantings of riparian trees along residential and agricultural sections of the stream would
improve stream temperatures and recruit woody debris to add cover complexity to the stream.
Added riparian shade would have the greatest benefit along reaches 7, 9 and 11, and would
require cooperation from local land owners. High stream temperatures in these reaches result in
72 to 85% loss of rearing potential (Table 13). Lack of cover complexity in pools also reduced
rearing potential by an additional 11% to 42% (Table 13). Any benefits achieved in these stream
reaches would extend downstream as the flow transports cool water and woody debris (during
high flow) to downstream reaches. The magnitude of benefits would depend on extent of
plantings, and the expected change in temperature could be predicted with available temperature
models developed by Oregon DEQ (Heat Source) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (SNTEMP).
Flow Restoration
Water diversion records from Oregon Water Resources Department indicate that water
diversion in summer remove at least half of what little flow exists during base flows. Purchase or
conservation agreements to keep some of this water in stream during July – September could
reduce stream temperatures and improve stream area and depths during this critical season.
Water becomes stagnant in residual pools in reaches above Division St, and nearly stagnant in
reaches 5 and 7 down to the confluence with Kelly Creek during summer, and temperature
recordings show that water averages about 2°C higher (perhaps more during hot spells) in these
reaches than downstream at Kiku Park (base of reach 2). The magnitude of fish benefits achieved
would depend on the location and magnitude of flows that could be restored, but conceivably
increase production in all reaches from reach 5 upstream.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
69 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Limiting factors and potential remediation
Addition of Gravel and wood in Kelly Creek
Kelly Creek below the dam at Mt Hood Community College is lacking in supply of gravel
and woody debris that previously originated above the reservoir. This is a short reach of stream
(~200 m), but has the unique advantage that fish production could be used to advantage with the
educational opportunities in the fisheries program at MHCC. If a combination of wood, boulders,
or bedrock excavation could be used to create pools in this high gradient reach, then the addition
of gravel at the MHCC campus would create spawning opportunities at pool tail outs in Kelly
Creek. The presence of functional production for anadromous salmonids in Kelly Creek could be
integrated with the educational program at MHCC, and could serve a public outreach function.
Habitat Enhancements
Channel Modifications
The steep gradient (4.7%) in the Beaver Creek Canyon (reach 2) has resulted in a
predominance of riffle channel units and boulder substrate that creates good pocket water for
rearing. However, opportunities for spawning are lacking, because pockets of gravel are small
and few. Spawning opportunities and enhanced rearing potential could be generated if pools
were created in this reach. The gradient is steeper than the 1-3% level that is generally found
suitable for large wood to be retained and create pools, so pools would have to be created by
excavating bedrock, perhaps in combination with boulder placement. Pool size and frequency
would require engineering to design features that created sustainable habitat. Natural stream
transport would deliver gravel to the pools and this would create spawning opportunities at pool
tailouts. Rearing potential would also be enhanced by the pool habitats during the low flow
season.
Spawning Channel Construction
Construction of a spawning channel could expand the production of chum salmon, if
appropriate water supply could by secured. Such a facility could be linked to education
opportunities in the MHCC fisheries program. Spawning channels are presently providing
substantial increases to chum spawning on the Washington side of the Columbia. Schroder
(2009) provides recommendations for the gravel composition and channel design that is being
used in Washington. Design features include that each channel should have a velocity that ranges
from 0.75 to 1.25 feet per second (fps) and be approximately 12 to 18 inches deep. Schroder
(2009) also recommends chum fry be reared until they reach a weight between 1 to 1.5 grams
(50- 57 mm fork length). Lister and Walker (1966) estimated that egg-to-fry survival of chum
salmon in the Big Qualicum River rose from an average of 11% under the natural flow regime to
an average 60% in the controlled flow spawning channel. Survival in the natural setting was
negatively correlated to the magnitude of peak flow, presumably reflecting an effect of eggpocket scour at high flows, which may be also be a problem in Beaver Creek where spikes in
flow are amplified by the high level of impervious surface in developed areas of the watershed.
Supplementation and Public Education
Substantial fish benefits to the public and for education could be achieved by establishing a
small hatchery operation at MHCC. Beaver Creek is uniquely an urban stream that has some of
its best habitat along property adjacent to MHCC. The urban setting and extensive land
development in the watershed will continue to limit return of the watershed to its former
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
70 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Limiting factors and potential remediation
productivity for salmon, yet it offers outstanding opportunities for public demonstration and
collegiate education. The fisheries program at MHCC is intended to prepare students for field
studies and fish culture. The potential for this enhancement option would require cooperation of
ODFW and MHCC, followed by an extensive permitting process.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
71 | P a g e
Chapter 6: Conclusions
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS






Beaver Creek has demonstrated potential under current conditions to produce salmon and
steelhead.
The predicted number of adult equivalents the watershed is presently capable of
supporting under average conditions and without any passage impediment is 148
Chinook, 261 chum, 240 coho, and 146 steelhead.
Over half of the watershed’s productive potential exists above the Stark St crossing.
Upstream passage of adults is possible at all three of the road crossings of focus, but is
clearly impaired at lower range of fall flows.
Without improvements to its passage facilities, adult equivalent production will be
reduced by half in years of low flow in October and November, and in the range of 2040% most other years.
A variety of opportunities exist to rehabilitate degraded habitat, enhance some habitat,
and enhance fish production. All options will require negotiations and cooperation with
landowners and public agencies, and will also require design work once willingness on
the part of necessary cooperators has been established.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
72 | P a g e
References Cited
REFERENCES CITED
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. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
117: 262-273.
Bjornn, T. C. 1978. Survival, production, and yield of trout and salmon in the Lemhi River,
Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Bulletin 27: 57.
Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83-138.
Bradford, M.J. 1995. Comparative review of Pacific salmon survival rates. Can J. Fish Aquat Sci
52: 1327-1338.
Brett, J.R.. 1971. Energetic responses of salmon to temperature. A study of some thermal
relations in the physiology and freshwater ecology of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka). Series: Am Zool, Vol. 11, Page(s): 99-113.
Buffington, J.M., D.R. Montgomery, and H.M. Greenberg. 2004. Basin-scale availability of
salmonid spawning gravel as influenced by channel type and hydraulic roughness in
mountain catchments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61:2085-2096.
Burner, C.J.. 1951. Characteristics of spawning nests of Columbia River salmon. Intranet, Series:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish Bulletin, Vol. 52, Page(s): 97-110.
Bustard, D. R. and D. W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of winter ecology of juvenile coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 32:667–680.
Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large
salmonids. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 117: 1-21.
Conner, E., D. Reiser, and P. DeVries. 1995. Site specific habitat suitability curves for the White
River, Washington: 1993-1994 study results. Report of R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. to
Perkins Coie, Redmond, Washington.
Courter, I., S.P. Cramer, R. Ericksen, C. Justice, B. Pyper. 2008. Klamath Coho Life-Cycle
Model Final Report. Cramer Fish Sciences contract report to US Bureau of Reclamation,
Klamath Falls, OR. Available online at http://www.fishsciences.net/reports/index.php.
Cramer, S., Nicklaus K. Ackerman. 2009a. Linking stream carrying capacity for salmonids to
habitat features. American Fisheries Society, Series: Symposium, Vol. 71, Page(s): 225254.
Cramer, S., Nicklaus K. Ackerman. 2009b. Prediction of Stream Carrying Capacity for Steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss): the Unit Characteristic Method. American Fisheries Society,
Series: Symposium, Vol. 71, Page(s): 255-288.
Cramer, S.P. 1997. Comparative contribution to catch and escapement of fall Chinook
fingerlings from Cowlitz Hatchery to that of wild fish from the Lewis River. Cramer Fish
Sciences, contract report prepared for Tacoma Public Utilities, Tacoma, Washington, 30 pp.
Available online at http://www.fishsciences.net/reports/index.php.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
73 | P a g e
References Cited
Cramer, S.P.. 2001. The relationship of stream habitat features to potential for production of four
salmonid species. S. P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. contract report to Oregon Building
Industry Association, Salem, Oregon. Available online at
http://www.fishsciences.net/reports/index.php.
Dambacher, J. M. 1991. Distribution, abundance, and emigration of juveniles steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and analysis of stream habitat in the Steamboat Creek basin,
Oregon. Masters’s thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Ebersole, J.L., M.E. Colvin, P.J. Wigington, S.G. Leibowitz, J. p. Baker, M. Robbins Church,
J.E. Compton, B. A. Miller, M. A. Cairns, B.P. Hansen, and H.R. LaVigne. 2009.
Modeling stream network-scale variation in coho salmon overwinter survival and smolt
size. Trans Am. Fish. Soc. 138: 564-580.
Everest, F.H.; Chapman, D.W.. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile
Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. Journal Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Vol. 29, Num. 1, Page(s): 91-100.
Geist, D.R.; Jones, J.; Murray, C.J.; Dauble, D.D.. 2000. Suitability criteria analyzed at the
spatial scale of redd clusters improved estimates of fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) spawning habitat use in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. NRC, Series:
CJFAS, Vol. 57, Page(s): 1636-46
Hartman, G F. 1965. The role of behavior in the ecology and interaction of underyearling coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). NRC, Series:
CJFAS, Vol. 22, Page(s): 1035-80.
Hawkins, Charles P.; Michael L. Murphy, N. H. Anderson, and Margaret A. Wilzbach. 1983.
Density of Fish and Salamanders in Relation to Riparian Canopy and Physical Habitat in
Streams of the Northwestern United States. Series: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 40, Num. 8, Page(s): 1173-1185.
Hillman, T. W, J. S. Griffith, and W. S. Platts. 1987. Summer and winter habitat selection by
juvenile Chinook salmon in a highly sedimented Idaho stream. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 116:185–195.
Hogan, D.L. and M. Church. 1989. Hydraulic geometry in small, coastal streams; progress
toward quantification of salmonid habitat. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 844-852.
House, R. A. and P. L. Boehne. 1985. Evaluation of instream enhancement structures for
salmonid spawning and rearing in a coastal Oregon stream. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 5: 283-295.
Huff, D.D., S.L. Hubler, and A.N. Borisenko. 2005. Using field data to estimate the realized
thermal niche of aquatic vertebrates. N. Am. J. Fish. Mngmnt.25:346-360.
Isaak, D.J. and R.F. Thurow. 2006. Network-scale and temporal variation in Chinook salmon
redd distributions: patterns inferred from spatially continuous replicate
surveys. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:285-296.
Johnson, S. L., M. F. Solazzi, and J. D. Rodgers. 1993. Development and evaluation of
techniques to rehabilitate Oregon’s wild salmonids. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Fish Research Project F-125-R, Annual Progress Report, Portland.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
74 | P a g e
References Cited
Keeley, E. R., and P. A. Slaney. 1996. Quantitative measures of rearing and spawning habitat
characteristics for stream-dwelling salmonids: guidelines for habitat restoration. Province
of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Parks and Ministry of Forests,
Watershed Restoration Project Report 4, Vancouver.
Kondolf, G.M., and M.G. Wolman. 1993. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Intranet,
Series: Water Resources Research, Vol. 29, Page(s): 2275-2285
Kondolf, G.M.. 2000. Assessing salmonid spawning gravels. AFS, Series: TAFS, Vol. 129,
Page(s): 262-81
Leider, S. A., M. W. Chilcote, and J. J. Loch. 1986. Movement and survival of presmolt
steelhead in a tributary and the main stem of a Washington River. N.Am J. Fish.
Mangmnt 6: 526-531.
Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock. 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some
physiographic implications. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. USGS Prof. Pap. 252.
Lister, D. B, and C. E. Walker. 1966. The effect of flow control on fresh water survival of chum,
coho, and chinook salmon in the Big Qualicum River. Canadian Fish Culturist 37: 3-25.
Massey. 1987. Sandy River System – coho. Memorandum available at ODFW at Clackamas. 8
pages.
Mattson, C. 1955. Sandy River and its anadomous salmonoid population. Oregon Fish
Commission. Memorandum available at ODFW at Clackamas.
Montgomery, D.R., Beamer, E.M., Pess, G.R., and Quinn, T.P. 1999. Channel type and salmonid
spawning distribution and abundance. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 377–387.
Moore, K., K. Jones, and J. Dambacher. 2002. Methods for stream habitat surveys. Aquatic
Inventories Project. Natural Production Program. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Corvallis, OR.
Mull, K.E. and M.A. Wilzbach. 2007. Selection of Spawning Sites by coho Salmon in a Northern
California StreamNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:1343–1354,
2007.
Nickelson, T. E. 1998. A habitat-based assessment of coho salmon production potential and
spawner escapement needs for Oregon coastal streams. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Information Report 98–4.
Nickelson, Thomas; Peter Lawson. 1998. Population viability of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus
kisutch, in Oregon coastal basins: application of a habitat-based life cycle model.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 55, Page(s): 2383-2392.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1993. ODFW aquatic inventory project
stream report, Beaver Creek, Sandy River. ODFW, Clackamas.
Ott, D.S. and T.R. Marret. 2003. Aquatic assemblages and their relation to temperature variables
of least-disturbed streams in the Salmon River Basin, central Idaho, 2001. US Geological
Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4076. 46 pp.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
75 | P a g e
References Cited
Platts, W. S. 1979. Relationships Among Stream Order, Fish Populations, and Aquatic
Geomorphology In An Idaho River Drainage. Series: Fisheries, Vol. 4, Num. 2, Page(s):
5-9
Pollock, M.M., Pess, G.R. , T.J. Beechie. 2004. The importance of beaver ponds to coho salmon
production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington, USA. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management. 24:749-760.
Quinn, T. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout.
Rader, Russell B.. 1997. A functional classification of the drift: traits that influence invertebrate
availability to salmonids. Series: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
Vol. 54, Num. 6, Page(s): 1211-1234.
Rawding, D, T. Cooney and C. Sharpe. 2010. Life history of tule fall Chinook salmon in lower
Columbia River tributaries with estimates of juveniles survival, intrinsic productivity, and
capacity from life cycle studies. Working draft report. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.
Reeves, G. H., F. H. Everest, and J. D. Hall. 1987. Interactions between the redside shiner
(Richardsonius balteatus) and the steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon:
the influence of water temperature. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 44:1603–1613.
Rodgers, J.D., K.K. Jones, A.G. Talabere, C.H. Stein, and E.H. Gilbert. 2005. Oregon Coast
Coho Habitat Assessment , 1998-2003. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Report
Number: OPSW-ODFW-2005-5, Corvallis. 60 pp.
Romer, J. D, K. J. Anlauf, and K. K. Jones. 2008. Status of Winter Rearing Habitat in Four Coho
Population Units, 2007. Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2008-7, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
Rosenfeld, J.S., J. Post, G. Robins, and T. Hatfield. 2007. Hydraulic geometry as a physical
template for the river continuum: application to optimal flows and longitudinal trends in
salmonid habitat. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 64: 755-767.
Salo, E.O. 1991 Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). In: Groot, C. and Margolis,
L. editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Pp. 231310.
Sandy Subbasin Alternate Smolt Production Estimates: ODFW coho, MHNF all Species, NPPC
all species, WDW steelhead (G.A.F.M). 1889. Memo available at ODFW at Clackamas,
OR.
Schroder, Steven L. 2009. Monitoring and evaluation plan for the Duncan Creek chum salmon
reintroduction program. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, 32 pp.
Smith, J. J., and H. W. Li. 1983. Energetic factors influencing foraging tactics of juvenile
steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri. Pages 173–180 in D. L. G. Noakes, editor. Predators and
prey in fishes. D. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands.
Straw, D. 2009. Clackamas hatchery annual distribution, 2006-2008. In: Fisheries partnerships in
action accomplishments report for Clackamas River Fisheries Working Group, 2006,
2007, and 2008. Portland General Electric, Portland, OR.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
76 | P a g e
References Cited
Strobel. B. 2011. Sandy River Basin smolt monitoring 2010. Report by Portland Water Bureau,
25 pp.
Suring, E., K.A. Leader, C.M. Lorion, B.A. Miller, and D.J. Wiley. 2009. Salmonid Life-Cycle
Monitoring in Western Oregon Streams 2006-2008. Monitoring Program Report No.
OPSW-ODFW-2009-2, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem..
Swift, C.H. III. 1979. Preferred stream discharges for salmon spawning and rearing in
Washington. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 77-422, Tacoma, Washington.
Teply, M., S.P. Cramer, and N.N. Poletika. In press. A spatially and temporally explicit model
for determining the exposure of juvenile salmon to agricultural pesticides in freshwater.
Journal of Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Underwood, K,. S. P. Cramer. 2007. Simulation of Human Effects on Bull Trout Population
Dynamics in Rimrock Reservoir, Washington. American Fisheries Society Symposium,
Vol. 53, Page(s): 191-207
Underwood, K. D., Colin G. Chapman, Nicklaus K. Ackerman, Kenneth L. Witty, Steven P.
Cramer, and Michael L. Hughes. 2003. Hood River Production Program Review 19912001. Cramer Fish Sciences contract report to Bonneville Power Administration.
Available online at http://www.fishsciences.net/reports/index.php.
USGS data online at: http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gisimg/Reports.
Waite,I.R. and K.D. Carpenter. 2000. Associations among fish assemblage structure and
environmental variables in Willamette Basin streams, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129:
754-70.
Wild Fish Conservancy. 2011. Fish species composition, distribution, and biotic integrity in
Beaver Creek, a tributary to the Sandy River in Multnomah County, Oregon. Contract
report to Multnomah County Water Quality Program, Portland, OR. 26 pp.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
77 | P a g e
Appendices
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.
The functional relationships between habitat features and parr densities, as used in the UCM
to predict rearing capacity for steelhead. From Cramer and Ackerman (2009b)
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
78 | P a g e
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
5
5
7
6
5
5
5
6
8
5
9
5
9
9
12
7
2
7
5
4
9
9
6
8
4
3
5
5
10
7
12
7
9
7
4
8
12
9
7
7
3
7
6
5
4
2
8
5
2
7
3
4
7
6
4
7
5
5
11
2
7
4
7
3
6
4
8
2
5
5
3
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
3
2
10
4
4
7
5
19
13
16
9
12
7
10
12
9
12
8
7
8
7
7
3
12
5
8
11
6
3
10
3
6
6
3
4
5
12
8
6
4
5
3
5
4
2
8
5
5
2.5
4
8
4
3
79 | P a g e
10
10
20
10
10
10
40
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
10
10
20
10
10
10
20
20
10
90
10
10
10
10
10
5
30
10
30
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
20
10
10
10
10
0
20
10
70
20
20
10
10
10
30
10
5
10
10
5
10
10
10
5
10
5
10
10
5
10
30
20
10
10
10
20
10
20
20
30
5
30
25
10
10
10
20
80
10
10
20
20
20
20
40
40
25
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
0
20
5
50
50
60
30
20
20
40
50
20
10
40
60
50
10
60
20
5
10
10
0
10
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avg Fines Calc
0
6
5
8
8
1
4
1
0
3
2
4
4
3
0
2
3
3
4
4
8
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
3
0
3
5
0
0
10
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
Gravel Area Spawnable
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
Bank-Full Width
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
Fines
Depth 10
Depth 9
Depth 8
Depth 7
Depth 6
Depth 5
Depth 4
Depth 3
Depth 1
Depth 2
7
90
90
70
90
80
90
80
60
80
70
80
40
70
70
0
70
70
70
80
60
60
10
50
10
40
20
20
10
40
0
60
10
40
20
20
20
20
5
10
10
10
60
10
20
LWD Count
5
5
7
6
4
5
3
6
4
4
4
9
13
7
7
36
26
10
30
36
25
36
6
23
9
36
10
36
36
12
36
36
36
36
36
36
2
32
4
34
2
9
3
36
6
31
3
24
14
18
3
36
4
30
7
7
19
3
33
Wood Complexity
6
2
8
5
7
3
Width 10
8
3
Width 9
10
3
6
8
8
6
5
5
4
7
7
9
19
3
9
8
5
6
12
7
Width 8
7
5
4
7
6
6
4
5
4
2
7
5
13
17
4
7
7
7
7
6
6
4
4
2
5
7
4
5
4
4
5
5
6
3
6
7
3
8
5
5
6
4
6
6
Width 7
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
41
59
94
26
98
87
55
17
12
74
43
52
92
71
16
18
95
95
59
93
80
3
92
18
27
12
55
22
49
6
28
7
36
28
8
37
38
14
38
18
16
13
9
33
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
P
P
GL
P
P
P
P
GL
P
GL
P
GL
P
P
RA
P
P
P
P
P
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
GL
P
RI
P
RI
P
GL
RI
P
RI
P
Width 4
Length (m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Width 3
Habitat Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Sandy River to Log Bridge
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12
Y
Y
Y
11
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
3
5
6
7
4
6
4
6
5
4
6
4
3
6
3
7
4
6
3
6
3
5
3
4
6
5
7
6
3
4
3
6
5
7
5
5
5
4
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
7
6
3
3
6
7
8
8
6
3
4
2
5
6
6
3
2
3
2
3
7
10
10
6
4
4
3
4
7
6
8
4
7
5
6
6
9
6
8
4
5
5
6
8
8
8
6
80 | P a g e
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
0
5
5
5
10
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
10
5
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
15
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
0
10
5
5
5
20
5
10
10
10
0
10
5
5
5
10
5
0
10
5
5
5
10
10
5
20
0
0
0
0
30
30
40
20
40
35
35
30
30
30
30
35
35
30
30
40
15
25
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
20
30
30
20
30
30
30
20
30
30
20
30
20
20
30
20
30
10
30
60
30
30
30
10
30
30
30
25
40
50
50
30
30
35
30
25
60
60
40
30
50
40
10
40
30
20
30
30
30
40
60
50
30
30
50
30
20
60
50
50
30
50
40
60
80
60
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
8
0
2
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
5
6
8
0
0
0
0
10
N
N
12
N
12
N
15
N
N
N
Y
10
?
10
N
9
7
9
8
N
N
N
Avg Fines Calc
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
0
0
10
0
10
5
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
0
10
5
0
0
5
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
Gravel Area Spawnable
10
10
10
55
15
20
20
40
20
15
10
20
20
20
15
20
10
15
20
25
10
20
30
20
10
20
20
30
10
20
5
10
20
25
20
10
15
5
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
Bank-Full Width
Depth 10
6
Depth 9
6
LWD Count
6
3
Wood Complexity
6
2
6
2.5
Bedrock
3
5
Boulder
4
7
4.5
Cobble
7
4
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
4
5
5
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
4
5
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
7
5
Fines
5
8
3
4
Depth 8
8
4
Depth 7
7
4
19
3
18
2
25
2
32
7
17
4
16
20
13
3
24
3
36
5
15
3
4
12
16
4
33
7
22
4
19
4
20
3
20
22
4
24
5
18
7
20
7
22
5
19
5
13
Depth 6
11
Depth 5
11
4
9
6
8
4
8
6
7
6
4
6
7
6
5
5
9
6
2
4
7
7
7
2
7
3
12
Depth 4
10
Depth 3
9
Depth 2
5
Depth 1
6
Width 10
8
4
9
Width 9
7
3
7
Width 8
5
4
8
12
7
6
9
7
7
6
8
7
6
6
3
7
11
7
8
3
5
4
3
5
6
7
7
1
7
6
7
4
6
7
4
7
7
5
6
3
6
4
2
2
7
3
6
Width 7
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
34
9
48
5
49
7
21
12
17
11
13
7
7
5
11
11
16
7
17
3
12
9
9
7
7
12
9
6
18
7
4
5
23
4
8
21
22
7
12
12
9
20
7
18
5
21
7
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
P
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
RI
P
P
RI
P
RI
P
GL
P
RI
P
RI
P
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
Width 4
Length (m)
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67a
67b
68a
68b
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Width 3
Habitat Type
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
7
5
5
6
9
8
12
7
9
9
8
7
4
5
5
4
2
7
6
3
4
2
4
7
7
9
5
2
3
5
4
6
7
7
5
7
4
1
6
6
6
5
6
9
4
5
6
9
6
7
5
7
5
8
7
11
3
4
8
9
5
3
7
7
6
7
6
8
7
10
6
7
7
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
7
8
7
9
8
6
8
5
6
6
5
7
8
8
6
8
8
4
9
6
10
6
5
8
4
7
7
8
7
7
8
7
4
6
4
3
3
5
8
9
4
3
8
3
4
5
6
4
4
6
5
6
3
4
5
3
5
6
4
7
4
9
6
6
8
9
6
8
7
4
6
5
2
5
4
6
6
3
81 | P a g e
10
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
10
5
10
0
5
0
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
10
10
5
10
0
0
0
0
5
10
10
0
10
0
10
5
40
10
15
10
20
30
20
30
10
10
40
15
10
20
30
10
10
30
20
40
25
45
80
80
10
50
30
30
40
30
30
40
0
30
60
40
35
10
30
30
60
40
40
60
60
20
30
30
20
20
60
50
50
30
40
50
30
60
35
40
50
70
20
40
30
50
70
50
50
50
0
10
0
30
70
50
60
60
70
60
30
30
20
30
35
80
30
30
10
20
30
10
20
40
30
40
10
40
10
10
20
10
20
20
50
30
20
35
40
10
20
30
50
10
10
10
5
5
0
0
40
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
1
0
3
0
2
6
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
8
Avg Fines Calc
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
10
5
Gravel Area Spawnable
5
20
0
30
0
20
20
0
10
0
5
0
0
0
20
10
10
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
50
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
40
20
15
10
30
10
40
40
20
20
10
30
10
40
10
15
Bank-Full Width
Depth 10
Depth 9
Depth 8
Depth 7
Depth 6
Depth 5
5
6
LWD Count
6
8
8
Wood Complexity
9
8
6
Bedrock
7
3
6
4
12
7
5
9
9
10
9
Boulder
7
7
8
8
Cobble
11
9
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
11
7
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
9
9
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
8
8
Fines
7
3
6
3
6
4
8
Depth 4
4
3
8
7
6
Depth 3
5
5
8
8
3
7
4
5
5
5
8
3
4
4
4
4
8
5
5
8
24
8
20
7
4
16
7
18
6
31
9
20
8
31
5
15
7
17
7
18
6
30
5
36
5
18
6
19
4
15
4
36
5
15
5
30
2
30
32
5
12
6
11
4
36
3
18
Depth 2
5
Depth 1
4
5
Width 10
5
3
Width 9
4
6
Width 8
3
3
6
5
3
4
8
7
7
2
8
6
4
7
6
4
5
2
6
5
5
4
4
7
7
4
4
6
4
7
4
7
9
8
7
8
7
11
6
7
10
7
8
5
4
10
2
3
Width 7
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
4
12
12
3
48
12
7
5
12
52
12
21
5
18
19
35
11
64
8
72
11
52
12
13
14
55
5
47
7
31
7
7
22
44
5
11
15
4
30
63
7
16
16
7
5
94
7
23
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
RI
P
RI
P
RI
RI
P
RI
P
RI
BP
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
BP
RI
BP
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
BP
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
BP
RI
P
Width 4
Length (m)
91
92
93
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Width 3
Habitat Type
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Log Bridge to Troutdale Road
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
N
9
N
8
12
11
10
N
N
8
10
Y
8
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
2
7
3
4
4
2
4
4
6
2
2
3
2
3
3
5
5
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
1
5
8
7
4
9
3
3
6
12
5
8
2
14
3
7
3
6
4
2
6
14
6
16
82 | P a g e
20
20
10
20
0
0
0
0
10
20
20
25
20
25
25
20
25
25
20
25
25
25
20
20
20
25
25
20
25
25
25
25
25
20
25
25
20
15
20
20
25
25
25
15
20
25
20
30
25
35
20
20
25
45
25
25
15
25
25
20
20
20
25
25
25
20
20
25
10
20
15
15
10
10
25
15
25
40
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
25
30
10
15
1
1
0
1
20
25
25
20
25
25
25
25
25
20
25
25
40
40
20
20
25
40
20
25
20
25
30
30
25
25
35
35
45
35
25
25
35
10
5
15
15
15
5
25
30
30
30
25
15
10
20
40
40
25
10
30
25
20
25
40
1
4
2
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
8
3
3
0
4
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
0
3
3
1
3
2
3
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
35
25
45
45
20
20
25
35
50
Avg Fines Calc
20
20
60
20
15
5
Gravel Area Spawnable
10
10
10
10
25
25
Bank-Full Width
Fines
5
5
10
5
25
25
10
10
5
20
LWD Count
5
2
3
5
5
5
5
25
25
10
10
10
10
Wood Complexity
4
7
3
Bedrock
4
7
Boulder
7
4
4
Cobble
4
4
10
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
5
4
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
12
40
40
5
40
10
20
80
70
40
10
0
15
10
0
30
20
10
25
10
20
0
0
0
30
0
10
10
25
0
0
0
0
0
15
20
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
6
Depth 10
13
8
8
Depth 9
10
10
4
2
Depth 8
9
Depth 7
6
Depth 6
6
Depth 5
6
24
34
3
29
3
10
22
36
27
6
3
30
3
3
25
36
5
23
8
36
4
20
5
36
3
32
8
19
3
36
7
36
5
10
36
4
4
19
4
8
3
14
4
10
4
11
2
Depth 4
4
Depth 3
4
Depth 2
6
5
Depth 1
7
7
Width 10
7
6
6
5
Width 9
6
4
6
5
2
4
Width 8
5
5
7
5
6
5
4
10
5
1
2
4
1
2
7
5
2
4
2
4
6
5
4
7
1
8
6
5
2
7
5
5
2
8
6
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
Width 7
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
60
34
18
52
18
29
12
71
25
7
7
24
21
21
33
14
14
17
12
17
17
8
28
19
19
25
17
20
6
19
16
7
15
12
16
40
35
7
5
9
6
8
6
19
18
11
10
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
P
P
RI
P
RI
GL
BP
BP
P
RI
RI
P
RI
RI
P
BP
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
BP
GL
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
GL
P
GL
RI
BP
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
Width 4
Length (m)
16
17
18
19
1
2
3
4
5
6A
6B
7
8A
8B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19A
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29A
29B
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Width 3
Habitat Type
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Troutdale Road to Stark Street
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
9
12
9
Y
9
Y
Y
Y
Y
14
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
4
3
3
6
8
10
5
4
2
8
5
6
2
4
2
2
2
1
12
4
3
4
9
3
3
5
3
2
6
4
3
2
2
7
3
3
4
4
3
5
4
9
5
3
7
7
2
1
4
6
3
1
14
3
2
6
2
3
3
1
4
5
6
3
4
1
5
3
4
3
4
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
2
3
2
6
7
7
9
12
4
2
5
6
6
12
11
1
10
6
2
6
11
2
2
4
3
3
10
3
4
2
10
4
5
3
7
5
3
3
6
2
5
5
5
7
2
2
7
3
4
5
7
6
5
9
4
10
7
4
2
3
13
9
4
2
5
7
4
2
83 | P a g e
15
15
10
15
60
20
60
50
80
90
10
20
20
25
10
25
20
10
10
10
60
0
0
0
0
10
30
25
10
15
15
25
25
30
10
20
20
5
25
20
5
10
10
20
25
10
25
20
20
10
25
20
30
20
25
25
10
20
20
20
20
30
10
20
0
0
10
0
20
15
10
25
35
35
20
25
30
35
20
20
20
15
20
5
10
5
5
25
10
25
10
25
15
10
25
20
20
20
25
25
10
20
20
20
20
30
10
20
0
10
10
20
20
5
25
65
35
30
35
35
40
50
50
60
70
20
30
30
20
10
10
5
70
15
15
25
35
30
30
40
60
40
50
15
30
30
40
30
30
30
40
0
20
30
10
10
5
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
20
10
15
30
30
20
30
10
50
20
50
20
20
20
10
Avg Fines Calc
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
5
8
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Gravel Area Spawnable
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Bank-Full Width
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
Fines
Depth 10
Depth 9
Depth 8
Depth 7
Depth 6
Depth 5
Depth 4
Depth 2
Depth 1
Depth 3
3
13
25
25
LWD Count
4
3
4
4
10
5
25
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
0
80
70
50
25
50
5
25
10
30
10
20
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
50
30
50
30
Wood Complexity
6
4
8
5
34
25
4
22
4
12
4
28
10
4
11
2
26
3
29
4
19
2
36
2
36
36
13
4
36
4
10
2
22
5
14
14
3
10
3
36
6
5
22
3
27
4
36
25
7
3
7
3
Bedrock
4
8
4
3
4
6
7
Width 10
5
Width 9
4
6
Width 8
7
4
2
2
6
5
4
5
4
6
5
10
8
1
6
6
6
7
5
9
6
12
4
3
11
2
8
3
4
4
3
3
2
3
2
8
5
4
3
1
4
2
13
4
3
2
4
5
Width 7
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
39
17
5
13
23
35
18
11
19
10
13
2
30
33
19
10
6
32
68
7
62
63
18
16
18
20
22
37
22
15
8
15
17
11
7
31
39
20
7
18
13
76
18
8
15
5
13
54
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
P
P
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
GL
P
RI
P
P
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
P
GL
RI
GL
RI
Width 4
Length (m)
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
72
73
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
Width 3
Habitat Type
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Stark Street to Kelly Creek
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek to Cochrane Road
Kelly Creek
Kelly Creek
Kelly Creek
Kelly Creek
Kelly Creek
Kelly Creek
Kelly Creek
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
Y
Y
Y
2
Y
Y
9
Y
11
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
6
Y
0
Y
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
13
4
5
3
5
8
3
4
5
2
2
2
6
4
3
5
3
9
3
5
6
6
3
6
4
4
4
3
5
4
6
5
5
5
6
6
9
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
6
7
8
9
7
9
5
3
4
14
3
8
4
9
8
2
8
12
3
9
6
4
10
7
5
7
2
12
4
4
10
3
11
5
12
4
12
11
2
6
3
4
2
4
4
7
5
2
11
12
3
9
1
7
4
13
2
7
3
5
14
3
5
84 | P a g e
0
30
30
10
0
20
70
70
70
30
10
10
10
20
10
30
25
30
20
30
10
30
30
10
10
30
10
30
30
20
30
30
30
10
10
10
30
10
30
20
30
20
30
10
30
30
10
20
10
30
30
5
30
15
10
80
30
60
40
10
5
30
30
40
30
0
40
0
20
10
0
30
40
40
30
30
40
50
40
50
30
30
0
10
0
40
0
60
10
30
10
0
0
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
5
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
10
10
20
10
20
10
15
20
10
30
10
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
3
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
3
0
8
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
3
0
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
9
7
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
8
Y
Y
Y
Y
Avg Fines Calc
0
30
20
10
0
0
10
0
15
10
0
10
10
15
10
30
10
30
10
30
20
20
30
10
10
30
20
10
0
10
10
10
5
0
5
30
10
10
30
30
20
20
5
10
30
Gravel Area Spawnable
0
20
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
30
0
0
0
10
20
5
30
10
10
30
10
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
25
30
10
10
0
5
5
Bank-Full Width
60
10
30
50
60
50
5
0
0
50
5
40
5
20
60
5
30
10
30
0
50
5
5
40
60
10
10
10
10
30
5
10
0
30
5
0
10
70
5
20
0
50
0
50
0
LWD Count
Depth 10
Depth 9
Depth 8
Depth 7
Depth 6
3
Wood Complexity
7
2
5
5
8
Bedrock
3
3
4
12
13
Boulder
2
1
3
2
4
2
6
4
3
7
6
4
5
2
6
7
4
4
3
7
2
6
4
2
12
Cobble
4
3
13
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
6
8
13
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
5
5
3
4
4
4
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
3
4
5
8
Fines
9
1
4
3
7
Depth 5
5
Depth 4
6
3
26
1
7
15
27
11
2
36
4
12
3
17
3
10
36
3
13
5
11
2
36
8
3
11
36
5
10
3
26
5
2
9
4
12
5
32
2
16
1
8
1
24
3
11
4
Depth 3
4
Depth 2
3
Depth 1
4
4
Width 10
13
3
2
Width 9
5
4
5
Width 8
4
4
4
3
5
4
5
3
2
5
5
4
4
4
6
3
2
3
4
1
7
3
4
6
5
3
9
3
4
8
1
4
3
7
4
6
5
6
4
3
3
6
5
3
3
Width 7
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
27
22
13
9
24
16
5
17
6
22
6
13
13
18
50
2
17
13
9
7
54
22
17
28
13
24
31
22
18
9
32
9
43
16
31
43
3
13
22
35
8
32
2
18
34
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
P
RI
GL
P
BP
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
BP
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
BP
GL
RI
GL
P
RI
GL
RI
P
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
Width 4
Length (m)
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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Width 3
Habitat Type
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
4
2
10
6
4
4
4
3
6
9
5
6
5
4
3
7
3
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
3
5
8
3
6
4
2
3
7
4
5
2
7
3
4
6
3
2
3
7
15
4
14
4
6
2
14
3
12
14
4
11
17
11
10
10
16
9
16
4
13
6
5
3
3
6
4
3
6
7
10
3
6
12
4
5
10
5
6
4
11
1
1
85 | P a g e
10
20
20
0
30
30
30
30
10
30
30
20
30
20
30
0
30
10
30
0
20
10
20
0
30
10
20
20
10
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
30
10
10
30
15
10
30
0
30
30
30
10
30
30
30
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
10
30
0
30
0
30
25
30
15
30
10
10
30
20
20
0
30
20
30
40
10
30
30
30
10
30
0
30
10
30
40
30
0
50
30
0
10
30
30
30
0
30
30
30
30
10
30
30
30
30
45
40
35
30
30
20
40
30
35
20
20
30
0
70
60
60
0
0
0
0
40
0
10
30
30
10
5
0
5
10
0
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
5
5
5
5
10
0
0
20
25
35
20
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
25
60
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
3
2
2
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Avg Fines Calc
0
0
20
0
0
10
30
5
0
10
30
0
10
0
10
10
10
10
0
20
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
30
10
10
30
15
10
30
0
0
Gravel Area Spawnable
10
15
50
15
0
30
10
0
30
0
10
20
0
20
0
70
0
50
0
50
0
20
0
50
0
50
20
0
0
0
0
20
10
0
0
0
10
50
50
20
0
80
0
60
10
Bank-Full Width
Depth 10
Depth 9
Depth 8
5
Depth 7
5
Depth 6
24
LWD Count
6
5
5
4
14
12
Wood Complexity
4
6
6
10
4
Bedrock
4
5
2
7
3
3
Boulder
2
5
6
4
5
6
15
6
8
2
Cobble
7
8
5
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
2
7
6
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
1
8
12
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
3
5
2
6
10
3
Fines
4
6
2
6
4
6
4
4
5
8
3
5
6
6
8
6
6
5
3
10
1
25
7
3
36
8
2
36
5
10
27
4
27
4
19
3
36
7
29
6
27
5
33
4
28
5
3
3
12
4
14
36
14
3
10
1
15
25
9
2
36
5
30
4
Depth 5
4
Depth 4
3
9
7
5
4
5
6
4
2
Depth 3
4
2
6
3
4
Depth 2
4
3
5
4
5
4
Depth 1
5
Width 10
4
Width 9
6
8
Width 8
5
6
5
3
2
8
4
8
5
7
3
5
2
6
1
5
2
6
4
5
3
9
3
5
7
5
3
1
4
5
2
5
9
7
4
6
3
6
9
3
3
6
5
6
2
Width 7
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
29
10
6
14
16
7
32
18
36
5
13
22
55
33
10
14
6
13
13
31
22
22
18
26
27
12
18
86
82
22
38
27
69
47
14
47
7
27
14
20
23
23
9
21
25
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
GL
RI
P
GL
RI
P
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
P
RI
P
RI
P
GL
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
RI
RI
GL
RI
GL
P
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
P
GL
RI
P
RI
P
RI
Width 4
Length (m)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
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
94
95
Width 3
Habitat Type
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Cochran Road to Division Street
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
5
3
2
4
3
2
2
2
4
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
4
5
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
3
3
4
1
5
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
1
3
2
3
2
4
5
5
3
5
16
4
14
3
12
3
12
3
6
10
4
3
3
4
10
2
11
3
2
3
5
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
11
3
7
3
8
2
3
3
4
6
2
11
3
4
4
5
8
3
4
1
5
5
2
9
4
3
8
5
7
5
3
4
2
8
3
8
4
3
9
3
10
4
9
2
2
6
11
4
3
11
4
4
5
1
4
2
2
9
2
10
7
8
3
1
86 | P a g e
0
0
20
10
0
10
0
30
10
10
15
5
10
15
10
10
30
20
20
15
5
5
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
5
10
10
20
20
50
50
30
30
40
10
30
30
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
50
0
60
20
40
30
0
30
50
35
50
20
40
10
80
10
30
30
30
30
50
30
0
0
5
5
0
10
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
15
0
15
5
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
10
10
10
30
10
10
10
30
0
0
15
20
0
0
10
20
0
5
10
10
10
15
10
20
20
50
40
60
60
60
30
40
30
40
40
40
20
60
40
20
0
10
10
0
60
30
30
80
10
30
30
40
10
0
20
20
20
20
20
50
40
20
60
30
20
20
80
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
30
30
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Avg Fines Calc
0
0
20
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
20
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel Area Spawnable
70
30
50
10
70
10
50
10
10
5
15
0
60
0
50
0
10
0
20
10
30
5
30
10
10
30
0
10
10
20
10
0
10
10
0
20
5
20
0
80
70
60
80
0
60
60
5
75
30
15
0
Bank-Full Width
Depth 10
Depth 9
Depth 8
Depth 7
Depth 6
Depth 5
Depth 4
Depth 3
Depth 2
4
LWD Count
4
4
Wood Complexity
1
3
Bedrock
2
2
4
3
Boulder
1.5
3
3
3
1
3
4
2
3
3
2
Cobble
2
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
2
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
3
2
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
2
30
3
8
2
18
5
14
3
11
4
8
5
12
4
27
1
10
4
8
3
8
4
16
3
10
8
4
10
4
9
3
16
2
2
4
18
1
7
2
15
1
13
7
1
1
27
2
8
3
9
2
Fines
5
Depth 1
Width 10
Width 9
Width 8
9
2
4
2
4
1
3
2
2
1
2
0.5
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
5
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
4
3
5
3
2
2
2
5
6
2
3
1
3
5
2
1
2
2
1
1
Width 7
2.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
13
9
2
55
5
28
15
19
7
6
8
11
12
5
7
1
2
8
9
9
9
25
4
13
13
4
26
7
5
8
19
5
21
7
6
6
25
16
9
3
9
4
8
14
8
7
1
5
1
6
8
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
GL
RI
GL
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
Width 4
Length (m)
96
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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Width 3
Habitat Type
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Cochran Road to Division Street
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
5
N?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
4
5
2
3
4
1
3
2
3
2
4
2
3
2
3
3
2
1
2
0.5
2
3
6
5
4
5
2
1
2
4
2
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
5
4
5
5
1
2
5
2
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
1
7
5
5
3
2
2
1
2
4
7
1
2
1
3
2
6
5
4
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
5
4
6
4
6
3
5
9
9
8
5
2
2
5
3
3
6
1
5
3
7
5
3
10
3
11
5
4
5
2
5
6
11
4
5
11
5
4
4
4
2
3
1
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
6
4
4
2
4
4
4
5
6
4
3
5
3
2
5
3
4
5
4
2
3
14
4
13
6
4
8
3
11
4
3
13
6
5
6
3
6
5
3
5
3
87 | P a g e
10
0
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
30
0
10
0
0
10
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10
30
0
30
30
0
30
20
10
0
10
10
10
5
20
30
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
30
0
10
0
20
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
20
0
20
10
0
30
0
10
10
0
0
0
30
40
30
50
30
40
40
30
30
30
30
40
30
50
50
20
30
0
20
30
60
30
20
10
40
0
20
10
30
20
10
35
30
30
30
20
20
50
40
40
30
50
50
40
10
20
20
30
0
40
0
0
30
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
10
40
30
30
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
40
10
30
30
40
20
50
60
35
40
50
50
0
0
20
30
30
20
10
30
30
35
30
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
10
0
0
20
10
20
20
20
10
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
10
10
30
30
30
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Avg Fines Calc
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
10
15
0
0
0
0
0
10
60
0
10
10
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel Area Spawnable
30
10
30
30
0
0
40
0
10
10
10
15
40
0
15
20
30
90
10
60
20
60
40
40
10
60
20
40
0
10
10
10
10
0
20
80
50
30
10
20
20
10
10
10
15
20
20
30
Bank-Full Width
LWD Count
4
4
Wood Complexity
4
3
Bedrock
1
1
5
Boulder
2
6
2
Cobble
5
4
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
1
2
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
2
2
4
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
2
4
6
9
4
9
4
9
5
8
2
Fines
1
2
Depth 10
2
3
Depth 9
1
2
3
Depth 8
3
3
3
10
3
13
2
10
Depth 7
3
11
5
10
3
9
3
7
Depth 6
4
10
3
8
2
10
1
7
4
9
2
6
4
7
3
7
2
10
19
3
5
2
12
4
9
2
11
3
17
5
3
14
6
9
2
36
13
2
12
6
17
5
10
2
8
4
22
5
22
Depth 5
1
Depth 4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
Depth 3
3
Depth 2
2
Depth 1
4
Width 10
2
5
3
1
4
2
Width 9
4
3
4
2
1
4
2
Width 8
3
1
2
4
2
2
3
5
3
4
2
1
3
3
2
4
4
4
1
2
1
2
5
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
3
2
2
1
5
6
5
6
4
4
4
4
6
6
5
3
2
5
Width 7
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
5
18
10
10
8
21
10
8
9
47
6
30
8
4
11
40
17
4
10
12
29
7
58
7
7
14
55
8
53
16
6
12
6
34
10
13
27
17
7
20
6
9
20
28
23
7
21
71
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
BP
Width 4
Length (m)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Width 3
Habitat Type
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Arrow Creek
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
N
N
11
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
4
2
3
3
3
2
2
4
2
3
3
2
3
6
4
2
2
3
5
3
2
1
4
2
1
1.5
2
1
2
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
5
1
2
3
2
2.5
2
3
2.5
4
11
5
10
3
14
6
4
7
6
3
2
9
10
6
5
12
9
16
7
2
7
3
14
3
11
5
4
4
10
4
7
7
7
15
2
9
13
12
4
5
11
14
14
10
4
15
13
11
3
14
7
7
3
8
4
2
9
11
1
5
9
2
10
7
5
11
6
16
6
5
11
3
12
17
13
7
11
12
11
11
5
8
8
7
16
2
88 | P a g e
0
0
0
30
30
0
0
5
10
0
30
0
0
0
5
10
0
10
10
20
20
0
10
10
10
0
30
0
0
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
30
30
0
15
0
0
25
0
0
0
5
10
20
30
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
10
10
10
0
0
30
30
30
10
20
10
40
20
30
20
30
30
15
10
10
15
0
30
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
30
30
30
30
20
40
30
30
30
50
50
50
30
30
10
20
30
30
10
30
0
0
10
40
50
60
20
0
20
10
10
10
45
40
50
30
20
30
30
30
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
40
20
20
0
10
10
10
10
5
0
0
10
10
25
10
30
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
5
20
20
40
10
10
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
10
10
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
10
10
10
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bank-Full Width
Depth 10
Depth 9
Depth 8
Depth 7
Depth 6
3
10
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
5
5
10
30
10
0
5
5
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
30
30
0
20
10
10
0
0
Avg Fines Calc
4
10
4
12
20
30
40
20
10
10
30
20
40
50
0
30
30
30
60
10
0
80
50
10
0
30
40
70
30
70
0
70
10
20
20
20
40
5
30
0
40
80
0
100
30
30
100
60
60
60
40
30
Gravel Area Spawnable
7
6
11
16
4
LWD Count
6
4
3
10
2
9
6
10
11
6
Wood Complexity
5
17
4
Bedrock
8
3
10
3
Boulder
4
5
11
2
Cobble
6
7
3
12
2
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
3
2
8
4
4
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
5
1.5
4
2
4
2
2
2
4
3
6
8
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
3
2
3
4
3
3
8
Fines
1
2
5
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
2
6
7
5
10
28
8
2
24
11
8
21
9
3
10
4
7
24
5
36
36
29
12
2
8
9
5
2
10
2
7
4
3
15
4
17
6
13
4
29
24
9
14
1
7
10
9
4
14
6
5
Depth 5
8
5
2
3
5
4
5
5
5
1
Depth 4
4
2
9
Depth 3
6
1
4
3
3
Depth 2
4
2
7
4
5
7
3
7
6
2
6
Depth 1
5
Width 10
4
7
4
2
1
Width 9
2
7
4
5
3
Width 8
3
4
7
4
2
7
3
2
3
3
2
4
2
9
9
3
9
6
7
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
4
4
2
3
5
3
2
5
3
2
3
1
2
1
1.5
1.5
3
1.5
1
Width 7
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
20
19
47
14
12
6
50
24
32
16
10
24
52
71
32
40
8
93
49
30
7
15
99
86
10
20
9
11
30
21
24
29
5
34
8
45
12
18
10
13
5
75
64
33
56
4
17
15
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
RI
GL
BP
GL
RI
P
GL
RI
P
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
P
RI
P
P
BP
GL
RI
GL
GL
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
GL
GL
GL
P
GL
RI
Width 4
Length (m)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
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
Width 3
Habitat Type
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek A
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
N
17
N
N
N
N
N
N
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
3
11
13
11
14
11
5
4
6
3
13
5
6
7
18
2
11
3
2
5
13
1
5
6
12
6
10
2
4
6
4
3
5
1
5
1
4
2
4
2
3
1
1
2
4
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
11
13
6
4
3
89 | P a g e
0
10
20
0
30
0
10
10
30
30
30
20
20
0
10
20
30
10
0
30
10
10
10
30
10
30
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
30
10
0
50
50
10
30
20
30
30
10
10
0
0
0
30
10
10
0
10
50
0
10
15
20
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
30
30
20
10
20
20
0
0
30
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
30
10
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
10
10
10
55
40
50
30
15
10
30
10
60
40
50
40
40
40
60
50
70
60
30
30
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
30
20
40
40
20
0
30
20
20
0
20
20
20
10
10
30
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
6
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Avg Fines Calc
2
14
0
10
10
0
30
0
20
10
30
30
30
0
0
0
10
20
10
10
0
30
20
10
20
30
10
30
10
10
10
0
10
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel Area Spawnable
3
2
10
13
5
10
40
80
60
80
40
100
70
80
10
20
20
20
20
90
50
40
30
10
80
30
70
80
60
10
60
30
80
70
25
40
30
5
30
5
30
10
60
10
30
10
30
10
20
10
10
0
10
10
Bank-Full Width
3
7
1
1
LWD Count
1
1
1
3
12
3
3
Wood Complexity
2
3
2
10
11
3
11
2
Bedrock
2
2
9
14
7
6
12
2
17
2
10
4
Boulder
4
2
5
11
5
9
4
Cobble
4
2
3
1
4
13
1
8
4
11
6
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
4
4
2
5
2
3
3
1
9
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
2
3
2
2
5
4
2
1
5
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
3
3
13
Fines
3
2
1
18
Depth 10
3
2
1
2
3
4
15
Depth 9
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
17
Depth 8
1
2
5
15
5
Depth 7
2
3
1
5
Depth 6
1
1
3
2
2
Depth 5
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
1
Depth 4
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
4
3
3
22
9
5
25
6
23
3
14
2
13
2
7
4
18
2
11
4
7
11
5
10
22
13
3
6
2
14
15
3
6
7
3
15
2
15
2
10
2
27
3
21
4
14
5
16
2
16
5
Depth 3
2
Depth 2
3
Depth 1
1.5
Width 10
2
2.5
Width 9
3
2
3
5
3
3
2
2.5
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
4
1.5
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
0.5
4
Width 8
2
2
1
3
2.5
4
0.5
4
0.5
4
1
3
1
5
3
3
1
1
3
0.5
2
3
1
2
2
1
3
4
0.5
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
1
3
3
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
5
4
Width 7
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
8
47
13
9
7
12
18
13
15
26
9
13
13
19
14
18
7
36
26
9
14
7
6
32
19
10
9
6
32
40
89
17
11
54
10
82
5
44
9
31
10
23
9
17
7
14
8
24
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
P
GL
GL
P
GL
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
GL
RI
GL
RI
GL
P
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
P
RI
GL
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
Width 4
Length (m)
62
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Width 3
Habitat Type
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
Upper Beaver Creek B
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
N
N
N
6
?
?
?
?
?
N
N
?
5
N
21
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
4
3
1.5
2
1
3
1
1.5
1
1
1.5
3
2
2
2
2
1
4
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
4
5
7
1
1
2
4
3
5
3
1
2
2
2
4
1.5
3
3
4
2
4
2
5
6
6
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
5
4
4
4
2
3
5
1
2
1
1
3
3
4
3
2
1
2
4
11
4
2
3
11
4
1
2
5
4
2
9
1
2
7
5
4
7
3
2
2
3
3
10
2
3
9
2
3
12
9
4
2
1
1
3
11
2
2
1
5
3
11
2
2
13
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
90 | P a g e
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
30
30
0
0
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
10
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
10
10
30
30
20
30
30
0
0
10
20
10
10
10
0
10
0
0
30
30
10
15
40
10
10
10
10
20
10
30
20
20
10
0
10
10
10
0
0
0
60
40
40
30
60
20
60
10
10
20
40
30
60
20
60
10
50
50
40
30
50
40
30
20
15
5
30
30
50
60
30
50
50
60
30
70
50
50
60
60
50
60
50
60
60
60
50
50
20
40
20
30
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
20
30
10
40
30
10
10
0
35
5
0
0
30
20
0
10
20
20
30
5
30
10
10
10
10
20
10
20
10
30
30
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
4
1
2
1
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
3
3
0
2
0
2
5
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
8
Avg Fines Calc
4
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
20
10
30
10
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel Area Spawnable
6
20
0
0
20
20
0
60
30
60
60
70
0
40
10
40
0
90
10
10
30
10
10
40
30
50
50
90
10
10
10
5
10
20
10
10
30
5
10
10
10
10
30
10
30
5
20
10
20
Bank-Full Width
4
Depth 10
3
Depth 9
Depth 8
1
LWD Count
1.5
1
Wood Complexity
2.5
2
5
Bedrock
2
3
2
1
2
Boulder
2
2
3
Cobble
1.5
1
3
2
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
4
3
3
1
3
2
2
5
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
1
3
4
2
2
3
1
4
2
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
3
4
1
Fines
3
2
Depth 7
2
Depth 6
4
Depth 5
3
Depth 4
2
22
2
25
2
13
1
19
2
31
1
17
4
16
5
15
3
19
2
8
16
6
10
22
2
20
4
8
2
6
9
3
16
4
7
3
13
3
24
1
7
2
17
2
27
4
9
5
14
Depth 3
2
Depth 1
4
Width 10
2
Width 9
3
Depth 2
4
5
3
2
3
4
Width 8
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
4
6
2
4
2
3
2
1
1.5
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1.5
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
6
2
5
1.5
4
2
Width 7
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
Width 6
Width 1 (m)
18
52
7
62
6
8
5
61
5
4
11
20
7
17
10
18
7
25
6
6
10
11
11
14
4
12
14
9
25
10
9
5
16
13
14
7
27
6
23
12
12
7
3
14
24
13
32
9
Width 5
Reach Length (Km)
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
GL
P
RI
GL
P
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
Width 4
Length (m)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
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
63
64
65
66
67
Width 3
Habitat Type
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Width 2
Unit #
Reach
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
Appendices
Unit Characteristic Method Calculations
Appendix 2.
5
4
4
4
3
2.5
1
2.5
2
4
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
4
8
1
9
1
2
4
9
3
2
2
4
13
4
2
6
8
3
11
5
9
4
2
9
0
10
5
10
0
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
10
10
0
10
0
0
10
5
0
0
0
0
20
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
0
20
10
10
10
30
10
10
10
10
5
60
60
60
40
40
30
40
40
30
30
40
30
30
30
30
40
40
30
30
20
30
30
50
20
10
20
10
20
10
40
30
40
10
30
10
60
40
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
30
30
20
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avg Fines Calc
1
10
10
5
10
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel Area Spawnable
3
1
10
10
10
30
20
30
5
10
5
40
10
30
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
Bank-Full Width
4
4
Depth 10
2
5
Depth 9
1
4
Depth 8
Depth 7
Depth 6
4
2
3
9
Depth 5
1
9
3
LWD Count
2
3
Wood Complexity
4
4
3
Bedrock
3
3
1
Boulder
5
2
2
Cobble
5
7
5
Gravel 3 (41 - 60 mm)
3
3
Gravel 2 (21-40 mm)
1
3
Gravel 1 (2-20 mm)
5
2
4
2
16
1
20
5
19
3
11
2
18
4
15
2
10
4
10
3
15
2
10
4
3
2
Fines
4
6
3
Depth 4
3
Depth 3
1
Depth 2
Width 4
3
3
2
4
5
4
3
3
2
5
6
5
4
3
5
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
Depth 1
Width 3
4
2
6
2
4
2
2
2
4
3
5
4
2
2
3
1
4
1
3
1
2
1
6
Width 10
Width 2
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
Width 9
Width 1 (m)
30
5
9
15
21
12
8
6
46
10
52
8
9
8
13
10
8
9
40
14
5
13
32
Width 8
Reach Length (Km)
RI
P
RI
P
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
P
RI
GL
RI
GL
RI
Width 7
Length (m)
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Width 6
Habitat Type
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Width 5
Unit #
Reach
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
North Fork Beaver Creek
Reach #
Existing Habitat Survey Data - Late Summer Habitat and Spawning Habitat
11
Stream feature measurement recorded for the Beaver Creek Watershed during surveys completed by Cramer Fish Sciences in October
2011.
Scientific Solutions for Fisheries and Environmental Challenges
91 | P a g e