Fish Populations and Aquatic Riparian Habitat

8/9/2019 Fish Populations and Aquatic Riparian Habitat

1/42

Clackamas Basin Summary

Fish Populations and Aquatic Riparian Habitat

Prepared For

Clackamas River Basin Council

Clackamas, Oregon

May 2005

Boise, Idahowww.watershednet.com

John Runyon and Ed Salminen
http://www.watershednet.com/http://www.watershednet.com/


2/42

Clackamas Basin Summary

Fish Populations and Aquatic-Riparian Habitat

Table of Contents1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1

2.0 METHODS..............................................................................................................................1

3.0 HISTORIC AND CURRENT FISH USE AND POPULATIONS.....................................8

3.1 C HINOOK SALMON .....................................................................................................................93.2 C OHO SALMON ........................................................................................................................143.3 STEELHEAD AND RAINBOW TROUT ................................................................................................163.4 MIGRATORY AND RESIDENT CUTTHROAT TROUT ......................................................................193.5 B ULL TROUT ...........................................................................................................................193.6 L AMPREY ................................................................................................................................193.7 O THER FISH SPECIES ..................................................................................................................20

4.0 AQUATIC - RIPARIAN HABITATS AND FISH LIMITING FACTORS....................21

4.1 T HE ROLE OF HEADWATERS , TRIBUTARIES , AND CLACKAMAS RIVER ..................................................214.2 F ACTORS IMPACTING AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISH POPULATIONS .......................................................21

4.2.1 T HE PGE P ROJECTS ..........................................................................................................214.2.2 D ESCRIPTION OF AQUATIC -R IPARIAN HABITATS , F ISH USE AND LIMITING FACTORS FOR THE

GEOGRAPHIC AREAS ......................................................................................................234.3 F ACTORS IMPACTING AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISH POPULATIONS : M AINSTEM , L OWER BASIN , U PPER

BASIN ...............................................................................................................................26

4.3.1 M AINSTEM .......................................................................................................................264.3.2 L OWER BASIN ..................................................................................................................284.3.3 U PPER BASIN ..................................................................................................................31

5.0 KEY ACTION ISSUES........................................................................................................32

5.1 M AINSTEM ..............................................................................................................................335.2 L OWER BASIN .........................................................................................................................335.3 U PPER BASIN ..........................................................................................................................34

6.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................35

Appendices

Appendix 1: Smolt Trap Data, 1994-2003

Clackamas Basin Summary May 2005 Page ii Fish Populations and Aquatic Riparian Habitat


3/42

List of Tables

TABLE 1. KEY INFORMATION SOURCES FOR FISH POPULATIONS ANDAQUATIC-RIPARIAN HABITAT IN THE CLACKAMAS RIVER BASIN. ... ......2

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF SELECTED FISH FOUND IN THE CLACKAMAS RIVER BASIN AND THEIR STATUS UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGEREDSPECIES ACT AND OREGONS RULES (ODFW 2000, 2001). ...............................9

TABLE 3. NATIVE AND INTRODUCED FISH SPECIES FOUND IN LOWER ROCK CREEK IN ADDITION TO SALMON AND TROUT SPECIES (ECOTRUST2000). ...............................................................................................................................20

TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESERVOIRS DEVELOPED BYPORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC IN THE CLACKAMAS RIVER BASIN(CRAMER & ASSOCIATES 2001)...............................................................................22

TABLE 5. KEY HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY COMPONENTS CONTRIBUTING

TO THE EDT MODEL RATINGS FOR THE CLACKAMAS RIVER BASINGEOGRAPHIC AREAS. ..............................................................................................24

TABLE 6. FACTORS LIMITING FISH POPULATIONS IN EACH OF THE 17GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN THE CLACKAMAS RIVER BASIN. .........................25

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AND SUB-AREAS DEFINED FOR THECLACKAMAS BASIN......................................................................................................7

FIGURE 2. SPRING CHINOOK SALMON DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THECLACKAMAS RIVER BASIN......................................................................................11

FIGURE 3. RETURNING WILD AND HATCHERY SPRING CHINOOK SALMONCOUNTED AT FARADAY-NORTH FORK FISH LADDER, 1983 2003 (PGE2004). MARKED (ADIPOSE FIN-CLIPPED) HATCHERY FISH WERESEPARATED BEGINNING IN 2000. (A PORTION OF THE HATCHERY FISHARE NOT MARKED.)....................................................................................................12

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CFS Cubic Feet Per Second (a measure of stream flow volume)CRBC Clackamas River Basin Council (refers to the Council and partner organizations)EDT Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment modelFERC Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionODFW Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifePGE Portland General ElectricRM River Mile

Clackamas Basin Summary May 2005 Page iii Fish Populations and Aquatic Riparian Habitat


4/42

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document summarizes fish populations and aquatic-riparian habitat in the Clackamas River Basin. The summary is one of four background documents prepared to synthesize the relevantinformation needed to produce the Clackamas River Basin Action Plan. The other threecompanion documents provide: 1) a watershed overview, 2) summary of water qualityconditions, and 3) a summary of wildlife issues. These documents provide the Council and the

public with a general understanding of conditions, trends, and key issues affecting fish, wildlifeand water quality/quantity throughout the Clackamas Basin.

2.0 METHODS

This summary is designed to provide Clackamas River Basin Council members and other basinstakeholders with a general understanding of fish populations and riparian conditions in theClackamas River Basin. Technical details are kept to a minimum and the summary relies

primarily on existing reports and studies. Fortunately, there is an abundance of studies andreports covering the fish population and aquatic habitats within the basin. Table 1 outlines the

primary sources of information for this summary.

In addition to summarizing relevant reports, watershed assessments and other documents, thesummary relies on an evaluation of fish habitat and populations completed through theEcosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) modeling process (Willamette Restoration Initiative2004). The EDT assessment of habitat conditions focused on key Clackamas River Basinanadromous (sea-going) steelhead and trout populations. The EDT model evaluates existinginformation (watershed assessments, fish habitat and riparian inventories, and other studies) todescribe current and historic habitat conditions throughout the basin. The model thensummarizes the factors limiting fish populations under current habitat conditions relative to thehistoric potential. These results provide a framework for evaluating potential habitat restorationopportunities and there impact on salmon and steelhead populations. While the focus of themodel is on salmon and steelhead, the results offer insights to resident fish and other fish species.Fish passage barriers, for example, impact both migrating salmon and resident fish populations.

Technical information to support this summary is incorporated in Appendix 1 (Smolt trap data,1994-2003); in two fish passage barrier assessments completed for Clear/Foster Creeks (Robisonand Walsh, 2003) and Deep/Goose/Eagle Creeks (WPN, 2004b); and in two riparian and channelcondition assessments completed for Clear/Foster Creeks (WPN, 2002) and Deep/Goose Creeks(WPN, 2004).

Clackamas Basin Summary May 2005 Page 1 Fish Populations and Aquatic Riparian Habitat


5/42

Table 1. Key information sources for fish populations and aquatic-riparian habitat in theClackamas River Basin.

Citation Summary

WatershedProfessionals

Network 2004.

Report Title: Deep and Goose Creek Watershed Assessment.

This report evaluates watershed conditions, riparian and aquatic habitat, and fish populations the Deep and Goose Creek Watersheds (53.4 mi 2) in the lower Clackamas River Basin.

Implication for Basin Plan The report provides recommendations on habitatrestoration projects and priority locations within the Deep and Goose Creek Watersheds. Urban growth and other development will continue in these lower

basin watersheds, which presents opportunities and challenges for habitatrestoration and protection. Most of the degraded habitat is in the upper portions of the watershed, while some high quality riparian-aquatic habitat areas remain in thesteep canyons within the lower watershed. There is some existing higher qualityhabitat existing on the upper portions of Tickle Creek and the mainstem DeepCreek, but these areas are under increasing pressure from urban expansion anddevelopment in the Sandy area.

http://clackamasriver.org/projects.htm

WatershedProfessionalsNetwork 2004b .

Report Title: Deep, Goose, and Eagle Creek Fish Passage Assessment andPrioritization Project

This report summarized the findings from a field inventory of road crossings a nddams and evaluates the crossings for fish passage. The evaluation includesrecommendations for priority actions to address fish passage in Deep, Goose andEagle Creek watersheds.

Implication for Basin Plan This report provides a prioritized list of fish passage barriers for the Deep, Goose, and Eagle Creek watersheds that can be used todevelop restoration projects.

http://clackamasriver.org/

WatershedProfessionalsNetwork 2002

Report Title: Clear and Foster Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan.

This report evaluates watershed conditions, riparian and aquatic habitat, and fish populations for Clear and Foster Creek Watersheds (76.2 mi 2) in the lower Clackamas River Basin.

Implication for Basin Plan The report outlines recommendations on habitatrestoration projects and priority locations within the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds. Future growth and residential development will continue in thesewatersheds. There are high quality aquatic-riparian habitat areas within thesewatersheds, particularly in Clear Creek.

http://clackamasriver.org/cfassess.htm

http://clackamasriver.org/projects.htmhttp://clackamasriver.org/http://clackamasriver.org/cfassess.htmhttp://clackamasriver.org/projects.htmhttp://clackamasriver.org/http://clackamasriver.org/cfassess.htm


6/42

Citation Summary

Robison andWalsh 2003.

Report Title: Clear and Foster Creeks Fish Passage Assessment andPrioritization Project

This report summarized the findings from a field inventory of 81 road crossings

and evaluates the crossings (primarily culverts) for fish passage. The evaluationincludes recommendations for priority actions to address fish passage in Clear andFoster Creek watersheds.

Implication for Basin Plan This report provides a prioritized list of fish passage barriers for the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds that can be used to developrestoration projects.

http://clackamasriver.org/pdf/cfishpassage.pdf

Robison andWalsh 2003.

Report Title: Clear and Foster Creeks Fish Passage Assessment InteractiveTool.

The interactive, web-based tool provides two ways to examine road crossing datacollected during the 2002 Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage assessment: 1)Viewing the 81 crossings of concern prioritized based on habitat or habitat andcost of replacement; or 2) to search for a particular crossing on a basin map.

Implication for Basin Plan This database provides a prioritized list of fish passage barriers for the Clear and Foster Creek watersheds.

http://www.upstreamconnection.com/client/clack/starthere.cfm

Ecotrust 2000. Report Title: Rock and Richardson Creek Watershed Assessment and ActionPlan.

This report evaluates watershed conditions, riparian and aquatic habitat, and fish populations for Rock and Richardson Creek Watersheds (14 mi 2) in the lower Clackamas River Basin.

Implication for Basin Plan The report provides recommendations on habitatrestoration priorities and information gaps within the Rock and Richardson Creek Watersheds, which will continue to experience urban growth and other development. The report includes recommended core areas for protecting andrestoring salmon and trout habitat.

http://clackamasriver.org/rrassess.htm

http://clackamasriver.org/pdf/cfishpassage.pdfhttp://www.upstreamconnection.com/client/clack/starthere.cfmhttp://clackamasriver.org/rrwa.htmhttp://clackamasriver.org/pdf/cfishpassage.pdfhttp://www.upstreamconnection.com/client/clack/starthere.cfmhttp://clackamasriver.org/rrwa.htm


7/42

Citation SummaryWillametteRestorationInitiative 2004 .

Report Title: Willamette Subbasin Plan.

This plan evaluates fish and wildlife habitats and populations throughout theWillamette Basin and provides habitat restoration priorities. The plan includes a

detailed assessment of fish population status and habitat and other factors limitingspring and fall Chinooks salmon, winter steelhead trout, and coho salmon

populations in the Clackamas River Basin.

Implication for Basin Plan The Willamette Subbasin plan provides detailedinformation on aquatic habitat limiting factors that helps guide restoration project

priorities.

http://www.nwppc.org/fw/subbasinplanning/Willamette/default.asp

Taylor 1999. Report Title: Salmon and Steelhead Runs and Related Events of theClackamas River Basin -- A Historical Perspective.

The report provides historical information on the Clackamas River, primarilyfocusing on salmon and steelhead runs.

Implication for Basin Plan This report outlines the major factors impacting fish populations and provides historical information helpful for developing habitat andfish population restoration goals.

http://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/history/default.asp

S. P. Cramer &Associates 2001.

Report Title: Issue F2: Documentation of existing and historic habitat, andnative and introduced fish in the Clackamas Basin.

Documents existing and historic habitat and fish population information in theClackamas River Basin. Provides data on mainstem river habitat characteristicsand summarizes other studies, including an inventory the Timothy Lake adfluvialcutthroat trout population.

Implication for Basin Plan This report outlines the major factors impacting fish populations and provides baseline information helpful for developing habitat andfish population restoration goals.

http://www.pge-hl.com/get_pdf.cfm?DID=4015

http://www.nwppc.org/fw/subbasinplanning/Willamette/default.asphttp://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/history/default.asphttp://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/history/default.asphttp://www.pge-hl.com/get_pdf.cfm?DID=4015http://www.nwppc.org/fw/subbasinplanning/Willamette/default.asphttp://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/history/default.asphttp://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/history/default.asphttp://www.pge-hl.com/get_pdf.cfm?DID=4015


8/42

Citation SummaryMyers et al. 2003 . Report Title: Historical population structure of the Willamette and Lower

Columbia River Basin Pacific salmonids. Willamette / Lower Columbia TechnicalRecovery Team Report.

The report evaluates salmon and steelhead populations and historical trends anddelineates significant population units.

Implication for Basin Plan This report underscores the importance of theClackamas Basins Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead populations for maintaining and restoring lower Columbia River fish runs.

http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/popid_report.htm

Johnson et al.1999.

Report Title: Status Review of Costal Cutthroat Trout from Washington, Oregon,and California.

Evaluates the status of Cutthroat Trout populations in the three states. Concludesthat, while listing under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted, there isevidence for declines in some populations, particularly for sea-run populations.Factors leading to there decline include degraded habitat and fish passage barriers.

Implication for Basin Plan The evaluation points to the decline of the ClackamasRiver sea-run trout population, and its importance for maintaining populationswithin the Lower Columbia River system.

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm37/cutthroat.pdf

Kostow 2002. Report Title: Oregon Lamprey: Natural History Status and Problem Analysis.

Provides information on lamprey status throughout Oregon with specific

population data for the Clackamas River Basin Implication for Basin Plan Lamprey are declining throughout Oregon. TheClackamas River Basin, particularly lower basin tributaries, provide importantPacific and brook lamprey habitat.

http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/information/docs/fishreports/FinalOregonLampreysReport.pdf

http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/popid_report.htmhttp://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm37/cutthroat.pdfhttp://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/information/docs/fishreports/FinalOregonLampreysReport.pdfhttp://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/information/docs/fishreports/FinalOregonLampreysReport.pdfhttp://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/popid_report.htmhttp://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm37/cutthroat.pdfhttp://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/information/docs/fishreports/FinalOregonLampreysReport.pdfhttp://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/information/docs/fishreports/FinalOregonLampreysReport.pdf


9/42

Citation Summary

Wampler 2004. Report Title: Draft report: reconnaissance evaluation of large wood inClackamas River below River Mill Dam.

An aerial photo interpretation of pre- and post-dam large wood in the Clackamas

River below River Mill dam. Some wood is retained in the project reservoir,though there is little quantitative information. There appears to be less wood inthe lower Clackamas River channel but it is difficult to pinpoint the mechanisms.In addition to the dams, additional mechanisms that can reduce wood loadinginclude: 1) increased rip-rap protection (limits lateral erosion); 2) incision anddecreased lateral erosion following dam construction; 3) decreased wood supplydue to flood plain and riparian tree removal.

Implication for Basin Plan There is limited large wood and associated complexfish habitat the lower Clackamas River. This information provides guidance for restoring wood levels with the lower river and side channels areas.

http://www.pge-hl.com/get_pdf.cfm?DID=4133

Seventeen Geographic Areas were defined for the Clackamas River Basin ( Figure 1 ). TheGeographic Areas correspond to major tributary watersheds (for example, Clear Creek, theCollawash River) and parts of the Clackamas River where there are important changes in habitat(for example below North Fork Dam where the river enters a broad valley). The geographicareas provide a common framework for assessing fish populations and aquatic habitat conditionsthroughout the Clackamas River Basin.

http://www.pge-hl.com/get_pdf.cfm?DID=4133http://www.pge-hl.com/get_pdf.cfm?DID=4133


10/42

Figure 1. Geographic areas and sub-areas defined for the Clackamas Basin.



11/42

3.0 HISTORIC AND CURRENT FISH USE AND POPULATIONS

Throughout the year, there is a steady flow of fish moving through the Clackamas River and

tributaries. Spring Chinook salmon begin the annual spawning migration, followed by fallChinook, coho salmon, and winter steelhead trout. Migratory runs of lamprey and sea-runcutthroat trout also move between the Pacific Ocean and lower Columbia River and theClackamas River. Historically, the basin supported some of the most diverse and productive fish

populations in the Columbia River system. In 1877 Livingston Stone, employed by the US FishCommission to explore potential fish hatchery sites throughout the Columbia River Basin,declared:

Probably no tributary of the Columbia has abounded so profusely with salmonin past years as this river (the Clackamas).(US Commission of Fish and Fisheries 1877, reported in Taylor 1999)

Today the Clackamas River Basin still supports regionally significant fish runs. However, fish populations in the basin and the lower Columbia River have declined from historic levels, withsome fish runs diminished to the point of being federally listed as endangered species. Table 1-2describes the status of key anadromous and resident Clackamas Basin fish species. The keyfederal fish management agency, NOAA-Fisheries, defines anadromous (sea-going) fish

populations based on their historical abundance and genetic attributes. A core population is onewith historical abundance important to recovery, while genetic legacy populations retain themost intact expression of the genetic character of the stock. The Clackamas spring Chinook salmon run is a core and genetic legacy population; the winter steelhead run is a core population.Because their populations have been declining, Clackamas River coho are a species of concern.

(Lower Columbia River Coho are classified as Endangered by the state of Oregon). This run is probably the last substantial wild population remaining in the lower Columbia River (Myers etal. 2003). The Clackamas River Basin also supports important populations of migratorycutthroat trout and Pacific lamprey. While there is limited information on the population statusof migratory cutthroat and lamprey, they also appear to be declining.



12/42

Table 2. Summary of selected fish found in the Clackamas River Basin and their statusunder the federal Endangered Species Act and Oregons rules (ODFW 2000, 2001).

Common Name(Population

Segment) Scientific Name

Life-History

Forms

Federal / StateEndangered Species

StatusChinook Salmon(L. Columbia R.) Oncorhynchus tschawytscha

Anadromous(fall and spring

runs)Threatened / Threatened

Coho Salmon(L. Columbia R.) Oncorhynchus kisutch Anadromous Candidate / Endangered

Steelhead / RainbowTrout

(L. Columbia River)Oncorhynchus mykiss

Anadromous(winter steelhead),resident (rainbow)

Threatened / Critical(Steelhead)

Cutthroat Trout(L. Columbia R.) Oncorhynchus clarki

Anadromous,fluvial, adfluvial,

resident

Proposed / Critical(Anadromous Form)

Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Fluvial, resident Threatened / Critical

Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentanta Anadromous No status / Vulnerable

Note to Table :Fish-life history forms are as follows: Anadromous populations migrate from the ocean /Columbia estuary with spawning and juvenile rearing in the basin; Fluvial populations undergowithin-basin migrations between small spawning tributaries and Clackamas / lower WillametteRivers; Adfluvial populations migrate between spawning tributaries and lakes; Resident

populations usually occur in small headwater streams and exhibit minimal instream movement.

3.1 CHINOOK SALMON

The Clackamas River basin has both spring and fall runs of Chinook salmon. The basinhistorically produced large numbers of salmon, particularly spring Chinook. Wild populations of

both fish declined from commercial fishing, habitat changes, and hatchery practices. For muchof the early 1900s, the spring Chinook run was prevented from reaching spawning grounds in theupper basin due to egg-taking operations and the failure of the Cazadero (which later becameFaraday) Dam fish ladder. Hatchery practices and the limited access to the upper basin havealtered the genetic character of the basins spring Chinook salmon population. The present

population of Clackamas River spring Chinook is very similar genetically to the upper Willamette stock. Fish derived from upper Willamette spring Chinook stock have been released

in the basin since the late 1950s.

In 1980, the first spring Chinook salmon began returning to the newly completed Clackamashatchery at McIver Park. This hatchery, which is funded by PGE, the State of Oregon, the Cityof Portland and NOAA-Fisheries, currently produces about 1.7 million Chinook smolts eachyear, of which 1.2 million go into the Clackamas River.



13/42

Spring Chinook spawn in the river and larger tributaries ( Figure 1 ). Most of spawning areas arein the upper basin above River Mill Dam, but there is significant use of the lower river. Theriver channel above North Fork dam and the Collawash River are important spawning areas.There is additional spawning in the lower portions of Fish Creek, Roaring River, and Oak GroveFork. In the lower basin, Chinook spawn in the mainstem and lower portions of Clear, Deep and

Eagle Creeks. Historically, before the entire flow of the upper Oak Grove Fork was diverted for hydroelectric generation, the Oak Grove Fork was also a spawning stream for spring Chinook.

Spring Chinook spawning in the Clackamas River Basin has been on the rise since 1980 (Figure2). The additional spawning is closely associated with increases in returns of adults to theClackamas Hatchery. A majority of hatchery-produced fish return to the river after two or threeyears in the ocean.

On their way to the ocean, juvenile spring Chinook salmon migrate through and rear in the lower portions of tributaries and the Clackamas River. Juvenile Chinook use slow current areas and backwaters for feeding and escaping high winter flows. Juvenile Chinook have been impacted

through loss of these rearing areas, a result of river channelization, reduced side channel areas,and limited wood in the channel, particularly large wood jams.

The native run of Clackamas River fall Chinook salmon is probably extinct. Because they spawnin the lower portion of the basin, fall Chinook were particularly impacted by early land use

practices and water pollution in the lower Willamette River. The current runs are probablyderived from hatchery-developed fish. Fall Chinook enter the Clackamas and spawn in Augustand September and some spawning may occur into early November. All spawning is in the mainriver below River Mill Dam and some lower river tributaries (Figure 3). Fall Chinook have not

been stocked in the Clackamas since 1971.



14/42

Figure 2. Spring Chinook salmon distribution within the Clackamas River Basin.



15/42

Figure 3. Returning wild and hatchery spring Chinook salmon counted at Faraday-NorthFork fish ladder, 1983 2003 (PGE 2004). Marked (adipose fin-clipped) hatchery fishwere separated beginning in 2000. (A portion of the hatchery fish are not marked.)



16/42

Figure 4. Fall Chinook salmon distribution in the Clackamas River Basin.



17/42

3.2 COHO SALMON

The Clackamas has two stocks of coho salmon, an early- and late-run. The early-run fish returnfrom August through October and spawn in November. Most of these fish, which run 5 to 10

pounds, are headed for Eagle Creek hatchery. There is natural production in lower river tributaries and in the upper Clackamas above North Fork Dam. Substantial numbers of wild fishreturn to the upper river. For example, in 2001 over 2,800 early run fish passed over North Fork Dam.

The late run coho are all wild fish. Most of the late-run Clackamas River coho spawn above North Fork Dam. These fish are larger than the early run coho, averaging 8 to 12 pounds, withsome up to 16 pounds. The late-run fish return from November to April and spawn from lateJanuary through March. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the early- and late coho runs in theClackamas River Basin.

Historically, coho salmon probably spawned throughout the basin, though the lower portions of the basin probably supported most of the population. Coho salmon prefer spawning and juvenilerearing habitats in low gradient streams with complex pools, which were more prevalent in thelower basin. Large numbers of coho likely returned to Clear, Deep, and Eagle Creeks and other tributaries (S.P. Cramer and Associates 2001).

Coho salmon on their way to spawn in the upper basin are counted at North Fork Dam (Figure5). Since 1983 coho salmon counts have fluctuated widely, ranging from less than 200 in 1996to over 5,000 in 2001, most of which were wild fish.

Coho salmon juveniles spend a year growing in tributary streams before moving to the ocean.Because the juveniles reside in small streams they are vulnerable to actions that impact habitatand water quality. Juvenile coho require cool water and complex pool habitats with abundantlarge wood in the channel, all of which have been reduced from historic conditions. Fish passage

barriers that limit access into spawning and juvenile rearing areas have also impacted coho populations.



18/42

Figure 5. Coho salmon distribution (early- and late-run) within the Clackamas RiverBasin.



19/42

Figure 6. Returning wild and hatchery coho salmon counted at Faraday-North Fork fishladder, 1983 2003 (PGE 2004). Wild and hatchery fish were not separated before 2000.

3.3 STEELHEAD AND RAINBOW TROUT

There are three stocks of winter steelhead in the Clackamas: Introduced early-run Big Creek andEagle Creek stocks, and a late-run wild stock. The stocking of Big Creek steelhead wasdiscontinued in the 1990s, at which time a broodstock program was developed from native fish.The early run is supported by hatchery releases made in Eagle Creek by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service at the Eagle Creek Fish Hatchery. These fish are only released below River Mill Dam in order to not influence the native run; the native winter steelhead spawn throughoutthe basin. Because they spawn and the juveniles rear in high gradient tributaries, steelhead arethe most widely distributed anadromous fish in the Clackamas River Basin (Figure 6).

The early run winter steelhead begin to enter the Clackamas in November, with most of them

spawning in tributaries below River Mill Dam from January to April. Most of the fish return toEagle Creek hatchery. There is some natural reproduction, particularly in Clear Creek and DeepCreek.

The late run of wild steelhead tends to be slightly larger in size than the hatchery-produced earlyrun fish. They return to the Clackamas in from February through June, with peak spawninggenerally observed in May.



20/42

Figure 7. Winter steelhead distribution within the Clackamas River Basin.



21/42

Summer steelhead were first introduced to the Clackamas River in 1970. While a few fish enter the river as early as February, good numbers are not observed until mid-April. They spawn inJanuary and February the following year. Traditionally, summer steelhead smolts have beenreleased above North Fork Dam. Since 1999 juvenile fish have been released downstream at theClackamas Fish Hatchery.

Rainbow trout are the same species as steelhead, but a resident form that does not migrate to theocean. Rainbow trout reside in most of the tributaries in the basin. Their production isespecially good in areas above falls and other fish passage barriers where they do not have tocompete with anadromous species (Cramer & Associates 2001).

Roads, land use development, and fish passage barriers have impacted steelhead and rainbowtrout populations throughout the basin. Increased water temperatures and sedimentation, andlimited complex pool habitats with abundant wood, particularly in the lower basin, have reducedsteelhead and rainbow trout populations. Because spawning steelhead ascend far into theheadwater tributaries, fish passage barriers can have a pronounced impact on this population.


Figure 8. Returning wild and hatchery steelhead trout counted at Faraday-North Fork fish ladder, 1984 2003 (PGE 2004). Wild and hatchery fish were not separated before1992.


22/42

3.4 MIGRATORY AND RESIDENT CUTTHROAT TROUT

Cutthroat trout have the widest distribution of any trout in the Clackamas River Basin. Four lifehistory patterns are native to the basin: sea-run (anadromous) populations that migrate from theocean or the Columbia estuary; populations (migratory) that undergo within-basin migrations

between small spawning tributaries and Clackamas and lower Willamette Rivers; a population inTimothy Lake that migrates between spawning tributaries and the lake (adfluvial); and resident

populations that occupy small streams throughout the basin and are the dominant species in smallheadwater tributaries.

There have been very few systematic studies of Clackamas Basin cutthroat trout populationtrends. Resident cutthroat trout are likely lower in abundance due to spawning and rearinghabitat loss and fish passage barriers (Johnson et al. 1999). Cutthroat trout habitat loss isespecially pronounced in the lower basin tributaries that have experienced urbanization and other development. Habitat loss and passage barriers that impact cutthroat trout have beendocumented in Rock, Richardson, Clear, Foster, Deep, Goose and Eagle Creeks (Ecotrust 2000,WPN 2002 and 2004).

Migratory cutthroat trout in the Clackamas River Basin are all wild fish and were probably muchmore abundant historically than they are today (Johnson et al. 1999). Entering the river inSeptember and October, migratory cutthroat trout average 12 to 18 inches in length. The historicupstream distribution of migratory cutthroat trout in the basin is not known, but Cazadero (nowFaraday) Dam blocked all upstream passage during the period 1917-1939. No migratorycutthroat trout have passed above North Fork Dam since 1958 (Johnson et al. 1999). The currentspawning populations of migratory cutthroat trout are found in the larger tributaries below River Mill Dam, including Clear, Deep and Eagle Creeks.

3.5 BULL TROUT

Bull trout were native to the Clackamas River Basin, with resident fish residing in small streamsand river (fluvial) populations that moved throughout the system. Like cutthroat trout, migratoryruns of bull trout ranged between the Clackamas, lower Willamette and Columbia rivers. Whileit is difficult to accurately gauge the historic population size, bull trout were described asplentiful in the river and tributary streams (Cramer & Associates 2001). For many yearsfisherman killed bull trout because they were believed to be insatiable predators of other fish.Bull trout now appear to be extinct from the Clackamas River Basin. Because the upper portionsof the basin still retain the cold waters and high quality habitat that bull trout prefer, the US Fishand Wildlife Service considers the basin to be a potential recovery area for the species.

3.6 LAMPREY

Two species of lamprey are distributed in the Clackamas River Basin. The Pacific lamprey is alarge, anadromous species that has received the most research and management attention. Thewestern brook lamprey is smaller and resides in small streams throughout all life stages(nonanadromous). Because a serious decline in abundance has been noticed since the 1950s,



23/42

both lampreys are listed as an Oregon State sensitive species. There have been few systematicinventories of lamprey distribution and abundance in the Clackamas River Basin. Mostobservations of lamprey have been incidental observations during electrofishing surveys, streamhabitat inventories, spawning surveys, or incidental catches in smolt traps.

While lamprey abundance has been declining, the Willamette Basin is probably the mostimportant production area for Pacific lamprey in the Columbia River system (Kostow 2002).Lamprey abundance can vary dramatically from one stream to the next and from one year to thenext. This variability in abundance is reflected in juveniles collected in smolt traps in 2001 ontributaries to the lower Clackamas River. Because it is very difficult to distinguish between

juvenile brook and Pacific lamprey, they were not identified to species. Clear Creek hadextremely large numbers of juvenile lamprey (9,480), while far fewer were observed in Deep(173) and Eagle (101) creeks (Kostow 2002). Lamprey populations have been declining fromthe same factors impacting other fish species habitat loss and restricted access to upstreamareas. In-stream barriers including road crossing culverts and other obstructions substantiallyrestrict lamprey distribution. There is evidence that lamprey have difficulty pass above fish

ladders, including the North Fork dam fish ladder on the Clackamas River (Kostow 2002).

3.7 OTHER FISH SPECIES

Other fish species reside in the Clackamas River Basin. Salmon and trout species dominate theupper basin while there is increasing diversity of other fish species in the lower basin. Some of these fish include introduced (non-native) species that thrive in the warmer waters of the lower

basin, including bluegill and bass. Brook trout, and introduced species, is common in the upper basin streams, particularly in tributaries to Timothy Lake. A snapshot of fish species found inthe lower basin is described in the Rock and Richardson Creek Watershed Assessment (Table 3).

Table 3. Native and introduced fish species found in lower Rock Creek in addition tosalmon and trout species (Ecotrust 2000).

Native Fish SpeciesCommon (Scientific) Name

Introduced Fish SpeciesCommon Name

Largescale Sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) PumpkinseedRed Side Shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) BluegillReticulate Sculpin (Cottus perplexus) Largemouth BassLongnose Dace (Rhinicthys cataractae) Brown BullheadW. Brook Lamprey ( Lampetra richardson)

Northern Pikeminnow ( Esox Lucieus )

Torrent Sculpin (Cottus rhotheus)



24/42

4.0 AQUATIC - RIPARIAN HABITATS AND FISH LIMITINGFACTORS

4.1 THE ROLE OF HEADWATERS, TRIBUTARIES, AND CLACKAMAS RIVER

As in all river systems, aquatic habitat in the Clackamas River Basin, naturally transitionsthrough a continuum of habitat changes as water flows from headwater channels, throughtributary streams, and into the river. All of the parts in the stream system are linked and have animportant role in supporting productive fish populations. Tiny headwater streams that do notcontain fish provide water quality to downstream fish-bearing areas. These seasonal headwater streams with intact streamside vegetation yield cool, sediment-free water to downstream areas.Tributary streams provide spawning gravels for salmon and trout and deep pools for young fish.Fish move through the Clackamas River, spawn in key parts of channel, and juvenile fish rear inthe rivers pools, side channels, and slow backwaters.

4.2 FACTORS IMPACTING AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISH POPULATIONS

Impacts to the river and land use development throughout the Clackamas River basin have, over time, impacted aquatic and riparian habitats and reduced fish populations from their historicabundance. Major developments within the basin have included extensive logging and log drivesdown the river in the early part of the century, construction of Faraday, River Mill and NorthFork Dams in the middle Clackamas River, development of the Oak Grove Project LakeHarriet Dam and Timothy Lake in the upper basin, hatchery-bred fish releases, and extensiveagricultural, residential, and urban development in the lower basin. Roads, many along the river and other streamside areas, have been constructed throughout the basin. These developmentshave affected fish passage, water quality, and the quantity and quality of stream and riparianhabitats.

4.2.1 The PGE Projects

The PGE water development projects impact the Clackamas River Basins aquatic habitat andfish populations. Table 1-2 outlines the characteristics of the PGE facilities. From 1907 to 1939,Chinook were trapped at the Cazadero and River Mill dams to be used for hatchery brood stock.In 1917 the fish ladder at Caradero dam washed out, blocking spring Chinook, coho andsteelhead access to the upper basin (Taylor 1999). After the ladder was repaired in 1939, theremnant populations from the lower river seeded the upper Clackamas River Basin.



25/42

Table 4. Characteristics of the reservoirs developed by Portland General Electric in theClackamas River Basin (Cramer & Associates 2001).

ReservoirFirstYear Stream Impounded

RiverMile

SurfaceArea(Acres)

Fish PassageStatus

Faraday 1907 -- 26.2 26 NA

River Mill 1911 Clackamas River 23.3 63 Yes

Harriet 1924 Oak Grove Fork 4.8 22 No

Timothy 1956 Oak Grove Fork 15.2 1,282 No

North Fork 1958 Clackamas River 31.1 330 Yes

Today the PGE dams and reservoirs in the upper basin alter fish habitat and influence bothupstream and downstream fish migration patterns. The reservoirs have eliminated approximately12.4 miles of stream and river habitat and added more than 1,700 acres of standing water habitatin the reservoirs (S.P. Cramer & Associates 2001). There is no fish passage at the Oak Grovefork facilities. These facilities are above a natural 20-foot waterfall that blocks anadromous fishruns, but they do impact the movement of resident trout. Timothy Lake provides habitat for large adfluvial population of cutthroat trout that move between the lake and tributaries S.P.(Cramer & Associates 2000).

Salmon and steelhead migrating up the Clackamas River are delayed as they move through the

mainstem PGE facilities. The fish first must ascend the River Mill fish ladder (RM 23.3). After proceeding through 2.9-mile long Estacada Lake the fish then encounter the Faraday Powerhousetailrace. The powerhouse is located off the channel but fish must detect and move into theusually much smaller flow in the diversion. The diversion reach has a minimum flow of 120 cfsand powerhouse flow can be as high as 4,900 cfs (Shibahara 2004a and 2004b). After passingthe Faraday Powerhouse tailrace, migrating fish move through the 2.2-mile long diversion reachto the Faraday Diversion Dam. At the diversion dam, fish enter the 1.7-mile long North Fork fish ladder. Approximately 300 yards upstream of the fish ladder entrance, the fish ladder is

blocked and all fish enter a trap for sorting of wild and hatchery fish (which are identified bytheir adipose fin clip). Wild fish are either transported upstream to the head of the North Fork Reservoir or released back into the fish ladder above the block. Seventeen miles upstream of the

North Fork Dam, fish pass through the tailrace of the Oak Grove Powerhouse, which is not a physical barrier. Water diverted out of the Oak Grove Fork above the natural barrier enters theClackamas River at this point and fish may be attracted to the powerhouse flows (Shibahara2004a). While there appears to be little direct mortality from the fish passage facilities, themigration delay places fish under some stress.

The PGE dams also have some impact on juvenile salmon and steelhead migrating downstream.An evaluation of passage effectiveness at the North Fork Dam found (depending on the season



26/42

and the measurement method) that 76% to 95% of the juvenile spring Chinooks, 82% to 100% of the juvenile coho, and 100% of the juvenile steelhead effectively moved downstream through thefacilities (Karchesky et al. 2004).

Alternatives for improving fish passage at the PGE facilities are being examined through the

FERC process for re-licensing the Clackamas River hydroelectric projects.

4.2.2 Description of Aquatic-Riparian Habitats, Fish Use and Limiting Factors for the Geographic Areas

The Clackamas River and Tributary streams were divided into 215 streams reaches for the EDTmodel evaluation of fish populations. The reaches were defined based on the known extent of anadromous fish use in the basin. Reach lengths were delineated based on land use or geomorphic (for example narrow valley or wide valley stream reaches) characteristics. Habitatand other conditions (for example, hatchery fish impacts) were input into the EDT model for each of the reaches, based on data or professional judgment. For this summary the reaches andassociated EDT outputs were grouped into the seventeen Geographic Areas.

The EDT model provides ratings of the relative degree that sixteen habitat attributes impactanadromous fish populations. These attributes provide key indicators of the quality and quantityof aquatic and riparian habitat and their impact on fish populations. For this summary, weselected six of the attributes that focus on key conditions limiting fish populations:

1) Channel Function2) Flow3) Habitat Diversity4) Sediment Load 5) Water Temperature6) Key Habitat Quantity

A number of aquatic and riparian habitat characteristics contribute to the ratings for each of thesix EDT attributes (Table 5). Multiple factors go into the ratings since they reflect interactions

between riparian and aquatic characteristics that together influence fish habitat quality. For example, Flow is a combination of flow patterns and habitat quality such as in-channel wood;channel stability incorporates changes in the bed of the stream, the quality of the riparian area,and large wood in the channel.

In addition to these factors, known fish passage barriers throughout the basin were also evaluatedthrough the EDT model and found to be a significant factor limiting fish populations. However,for the purpose of this summary, we are not using the EDT evaluation of fish passage barriers.Robison and Walsh (2003) and WPN (2004b) summarize fish passage barriers throughout the

basin. This summary provides a comprehensive and detailed review of natural and artificial barriers in the basin from CRBC, USFS and County.



27/42

Table 5. Key habitat and water quality components contributing to the EDT model ratingsfor the Clackamas River Basin Geographic Areas.

Limiting Factor Components Contributing to the RatingChannel Function Bed scour, riparian function, in-channel woodFlow Intra-daily flow variation, riparian function, wood, backwater pools,

modified channel confinementHabitat Diversity Modified confinement (eg. rip-rapping, channelization), riparian

function, in-channel woodSediment Load Turbidity, substrate embeddednessWater Temperature Daily maximum water temperatureKey Habitat Quantity Small cobble/gravel riffles (spawning areas), backwater pools

(rearing), beaver ponds (rearing), primary pools (rearing), glides(rearing)

Table 6 provides the ratings for the six factors for the Geographic Areas within the ClackamasRiver Basin. The factors limiting fish population for the individual reaches are combined toyield average ratings for each of the Geographic Areas. The EDT ratings for these six factorsrange from no impact to extreme.

Changes in riparian condition, large wood in tributary streams and in the Clackamas River, andmodified channels and side channel habitats are influencing the majority of factors limiting fish

populations throughout the Clackamas River Basin. Loss of riparian areas and cover impactsstream temperatures, flow, habitat diversity, and the quantity of habitat available to spawningand rearing fish. There is limited wood in streams and the Clackamas River, which limits theformation of complex habitats that create deep pools and retain spawning gravels. Ditching,riprap and other actions that straighten channels reduce meandering (magnified by the limitedwood in tributaries and the river) reduce channel complexity and the quality of fish habitat. Theactions that confine channels, combined with minimal large wood, increase water velocities,reducing important slow-water habitats, particularly for juvenile fish during winter and springhigh flow events. Sediment loads are also impacting fish habitat throughout the basin. Most of the impacts are more pronounced in the lower basin where there is more land use developmentand the human population is concentrated. In general, the upper basin, where there is aconcentration of Forest Service land and minimal human population, has higher quality riparianand aquatic habitats. There are exceptions such as the Fish Creek Geographic area wherehistoric timber harvest and road building practices are still impacting stream habitat, which isreflected in the EDT ratings.

Water temperature and other water quality issues are also affecting fish populations. Theseissues are described in more detail in the Water Quality and Water Quantity Summary.

The sections below provide more detail on the aquatic and riparian conditions impacting fish populations for the major portions of the basin the Clackamas River mainstem, and the Upper and Lower Basin.Clackamas Basin Summary May 2005 Page 24



28/42

Table 6. Factors limiting fish populations in each of the 17 geographic areas in theClackamas River Basin 1.

Number Geographic Area

M o d

i f i e d

C h a n n e l

F u n c

t i o n

M o d

i f i e d

F l o w

H a b

i t a t

D i v e r s i

t y

I m p a c

t s

S e d i m

e n t

L o a d

I m p a c

t s T e m p e r a t u r e

I m p a c t s

I m p a i r e

d

K e y

H a b

i t a t

Q u a n t

i t y

1 Lower Clackamas Mainstem High Moderate Extreme High High High3 Middle Clackamas Mainstem Low Moderate High Low Low Moderate4 Upper Clackamas Mainstem Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate

5 Lower Clackamas Tribs.5a Cow Creek Moderate Moderate High High High High5b Sieben Creek Moderate Moderate High High High High5c Edna/Johnson Creek Moderate Moderate High High High High5d Foster Creek High Moderate High High High High5e Goose Creek High Moderate High High High High6 Rock / Richardson Creeks

6a Rock Creek High High High High High High6b Richardson Creek High High High High High High7 Clear Creek

7a Lower Clear Creek Moderate Moderate High High High High7b Little Clear Creek Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate7c Middle Clear Creek Low Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate7d Upper Clear Creek Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate8 Deep Creek

8a Lower Deep Creek Moderate Moderate High High High High8b Upper Deep Creek High Moderate High High High High8c N.F. Deep Creek Extreme Moderate Extreme High High Extreme8d Tickle Creek Moderate Moderate High High Moderate High9 Eagle Creek

9a Lower Eagle Creek Moderate Low High Moderate High High9b Upper Eagle Creek Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate10 North Fork Eagle Creek Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate11 Middle Clackamas Tribs.

11a N.F. Clackamas River Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate11b S.F. Clackamas River Low Low Low Low Low Low

11cPup/Cat/Whale/Sandstone/ Big Low Low Low Low Low Low

11d Dinner/3 Lynx/Cripple/Bull Low Low Low Low Low Low12 Fish Creek Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate

1 Assessment is based on the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model output, 2004, and consultation withlocal biologists. The ratings are based on average values for steelhead, spring / fall Chinook and coho salmon.

North Fork Reservoir and Estacada Lake (geographic area # 3) was not rated.Clackamas Basin Summary May 2005 Page 25



29/42

Number Geographic Area

M o d

i f i e d

C h a n n e

l

F u n c

t i o n

M

o d i f i e d

F l o w

H a b

i t a t

D i v e r s

i t y

I m p a c

t s

S e d

i m e n

t

L o a d

I m p a c

t s T e m p e r a

t u r e

I m p a c

t s

I m p a i r e

d

K e y

H a b

i t a t

Q u a n t

i t y

13 Roaring River Low Low Low Low Low Low14 Oak Grove Fork Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low High15 Upper Clackamas Tribs.

15a Tag/Switch Creeks Low Low Low Low Low Low15b Trout Creek Low Low Low Low Low Low15c Headwaters Tributaries Low Low Low Low Low Low

16 Collawash River Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate17 Hot Springs Fork Low Low Low Low Low Low

4.3 FACTORS IMPACTING AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISH POPULATIONS:MAINSTEM, LOWER BASIN, UPPER BASIN

The section below summarizes the key factors limiting fish populations derived from the EDTanalysis, watershed assessments, and other studies. More detailed information on the EDToutputs, fish passage barriers, and riparian conditions are found in Willamette RstorationInitiative (2004), Robison and Walsh (2003), WPN (2002), WPN (2004), WPN (2004b). Thelimiting factors are discussed within three geographic groupings within the Clackamas River

Basin: 1) The mainstem, which includes the Clackamas River and small tributaries that draindirectly into the river (Geographic Areas 1-4; Figure 1); 2) The Lower Basin, which includes allmajor tributary drainages downstream of River Mill Dam (Geographic Areas 5-10; Figure 1);and 3) the Upper Basin, which includes all areas upstream of River Mill Dam, with the exceptionof the areas defined as the Mainstem (Geographic Areas 11-17; Figure 1).

4.3.1 Mainstem

The Mainstem includes the lower, middle, and upper Clackamas River. The lower river is primarily in private ownership, while the Forest Service primarily manages the middle and upper river. Fish must pass over the PGE dams and move through the reservoirs to access the middle

and upper Clackamas River. Below River Mill Dam, the river emerges from a confined canyoninto the broad valley of the lower Clackamas River (Geographic Area 1). Coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead all use the lower Clackamas River for migration and juvenile rearing. FallChinook salmon spawn in this portion of the river. For this reason, and because there isextensive loss of historic habitats, the EDT model results underscore the importance of the lower and middle Clackamas river for habitat protection and restoration actions. There are floodplainareas that offer opportunities for protection and actions to restore off channel features andenhance habitat complexity. The major factors impacting fish populations in the lower river are



30/42

channel stability, habitat diversity, sediment loads and water temperatures. Channel stability has been changed through the placement of dikes and channelization, which has restrictedconnections between the river and floodplain. Habitat diversity has been impacted through lossof large wood in the channel and loss of side channels and other off-channel areas (Wampler 2004). The narrowing of the channel has impacted key habitats for fish. Temperature is a major

limiting facture during the late summer and early fall, particularly for the fall and spring Chinook salmon that spawn during this period. Changes in sediment patterns and storage are alsoimpacting fish populations. The river channel in the first two miles below River Mill Dam iscoarsening and downcutting (Wampler 2003), which affects the quality of spawning habitats.Sediments, nutrients and other pollutants also flow into the lower river from the urbanizingtributaries, such as Rock, Richardson and Deep Creeks.

Confinement of the lower Clackamas River channel, loss of large wood, and reduced streamsidetrees and other riparian vegetation has contributed to the loss of side-channels and other habitats.Processes that transport and retain large wood in the lower river have been altered throughmodified streamside forests, removal of wood from the channel, channel confinement, and

retention the rivers dams (Wampler 2004). Slow water habitats such as side channels, alcovesand the margins of complex wood jams, provide a diverse array of water depths and velocities,which provide cover for adult fish and refuge areas for juveniles.

Above River Mill Dam the middle Clackamas River is more confined, but historically there werestill extensive side channels, other backwater areas and floodplain forests (Geographic Area 3).Because the river in this section provides important spawning and rearing habitat for all of theanadromous species, the EDT results ranks this area as a high value for restoration. Most of theloss of habitat in this section is the result of reductions in large wood in the river, channelconfinement from roads and other actions, and impacts to riparian areas. Road 46, which

parallels a large portion of the river, prevents channel meandering and restricts the channel, all of

which increases channel flow velocities and minimize complex, slow water habitats. The river cannot meander through the historic floodplain and access side channels and other habitats.

The upper Clackamas River includes the mainstem from Oak Grove Fork to the headwaters.This portion of the river is a key spawning and rearing area for coho salmon and steelhead

populations, and it provides important habitat for spring Chinook salmon as well. The areaincludes Big Bottom, which is generally considered to be the highest quality spring Chinook salmon habitat in the Clackamas River Basin. (Appendix 1, Smolt Trap Data, 1994 2003

provides information on out-migrant coho salmon and steelhead from the portions of the Upper Basin.)

Because of the quality habitat, this section of the river has high protection values. There arerestoration needs within this section, primarily due to issues related the loss of riparian habitatsand narrowing of the rivers channel as a consequence of the highway that parallels the river.There is a large number of restoration opportunities n the Oak Grove Fork. The entire Oak Grove Fork is diverted at Harriet Lake Dam and the channel is usually dry at the base of the damin summer.



31/42

4.3.2 Lower Basin

The Lower Clackamas River Basin is comprised of tributary streams that drain into the lower river, including small drainages (Foster, Goose and other streams) and the larger watersheds of Rock-Richardson, Clear, Deep, and Eagle Creeks. This portion of the basin is primarily under

private management, with the exception of scattered Bureau of Land Management holdings andsome Forest Service Land in the upper portions of Clear and Eagle Creeks. The Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness is partially within the North Fork Eagle Creek Watershed.

Coho, spring and fall Chinook and steelhead spawn and rear in Lower Basin streams. FallChinook salmon spawn in the lower reaches of Clear Creek. Spring Chinook salmon spawn inthe lower reaches of the larger tributaries (Clear, Deep, and Eagle Creeks). Coho spawn and rear in streams and low gradient tributaries, while steelhead access higher gradient reaches. All of the streams provide habitat for migratory and resident cutthroat trout and anadromous andresident lamprey.

Appendix 1, Smolt Trap Data, 1994 2003 provides information on out-migrant coho salmonand steelhead from the lower basin tributaries. There is significant coho and steelhead smolt

production from Clear, Deep, and Eagle Creeks.

Relative to the Upper Basin, the Lower Basin tributary streams have been subject to the greatestland use and other changes that have modified aquatic and riparian habitats. As a result, thereare important opportunities for habitat restoration in the Lower Basin. Key factors impactingresident and anadromous fish populations in the Lower Basin watersheds include fish passage

barriers that limit the amount of accessible fish habitat, reduced riparian cover and associatedshade contributing to increased water temperatures, and minimal habitat diversity and habitatquantity, primarily from limited large wood in stream channels and ditched channels.

Because there is extensive loss of historic habitats, the EDT model results emphasize theimportance of restoration actions in the Lower Clackamas River Basin streams. Historicallythese streams played a key role in contributing to the basins fish population abundance anddiversity. Fish populations have adapted to the unique flow and habitat conditions in the Lower Basin streams. These unique adaptations provide genetic and life history diversity to the entireClackamas River Basin, particularly spring Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead.

The following is a summary of riparian and aquatic habitat conditions for the larger Lower Basinwatersheds:

Rock and Richardson Creeks (Ecotrust 2000):

Stream Habitat Conditions

These watersheds are rapidly urbanizing, which impacts stream flows (particularly rapidrunoff from paved surfaces), riparian vegetation and shade, and water quality.



32/42

There is limited wood in the stream channels.

Fish Passage Barriers

A 20-foot waterfall lies about six-tenths of a mile upstream of Rock Creeks mouth.

Anadromous fish make use of the area below the falls for spawning and rearing. In-stream barriers in lower Rock Creek may inhibit movement during low flow periods.

Two small tributaries below the falls in Rock Creek also provide some limited habitat,although culverts just upstream block these.

In middle Rock Creek, resident cutthroat trout have been found in a stretch of themainstem between Foster Road and SE 172 nd Avenues. These fish may be hemmed in byculvert blockages both upstream and down.

Lower Richardson Creek anadromous and resident salmonid populations range from themouth of the Creek up one and a half to two miles. A debris dam caused by a slopefailure is located about six tenths of a mile above highway 224 and may be temporarily or

partially blocking upstream fish migration.

Riparian and Channel Conditions

The valley floor riparian areas are only moderately forested. Agriculture, subdivisions,golf course construction, and roads have heavily altered the valley floor riparian zones.Generally, these areas are characterized by a narrow (10 to 30 feet) band of shrubs andsmall trees (willow, dogwood, ash, and blackberry).

The lower creek canyon mainstems of both Rock and Richardson Creeks are mostlyforested. This forest is fairly mature, and even includes individual old growth conifers,as well as cottonwood, alder, maple, and oak.

Sections of valley streams have been channelized, further impacting the riparian zone.

Some stream sections have no riparian cover at all, including parts of the golf course, thestream that flows through Damascus, and several stream sections in Pleasant valley.Other areas have orchards, nurseries, and berry fields crossing right over streams.

Clear and Foster Creeks (WPN 2002):


Habitat diversity and key habitat quality have all been impacted, particularly in themainstream of Clear Creek and the lower watershed tributaries by limited wood inchannels, and loss of riparian vegetation.



33/42

There is considerable coho and steelhead production in Clear Creek. (See Appendix 1,Smolt Trap Data, 1994-2003.)

Fish Passage Barriers (Robison and Walsh, 2003)

A total of 81 fish passage barriers are identified, of which 27 are complete barriers and 54are partial barriers.

The highest priority barriers for replacement or other action to improve fish passage aresummarized in the Action Plan.

Riparian and Channel Conditions (WPN, 2002)

The percentage of riparian areas dominated by non-tree riparian vegetation (for example,shrubs, grass-like plants, or pastures or crops) range from 9% in Upper Clear Creek to39% in lower Clear Creek.

Most of the streams in the watershed are well-shaded.

Most of the streams have adequate buffers. Areas with narrow riparian tree bufferscomprise 3% of the stream network.

There has been extensive loss of wetlands. Wetlands occupy only 13% of their historicalarea.

Deep and Goose Creeks (WPN 2004, Willamette Restoration Initiative 2004):


Flow, habitat diversity, and key habitat quality have all been impacted by channelization,water withdrawals, limited wood in channels, and loss of riparian vegetation.

Erosion from agricultural lands (nursery, Christmas trees, and others), gravel and dirtroads, and from bare soil exposed during home building or other development iscontributing to sediment deposition in stream channels.

There is considerable coho and steelhead production from Deep Creek. (See Appendix 1,Smolt Trap Data, 1994-2003.)

Fish Passage Barriers (WPN, 2004b)

Over 39 fish passage barriers have been identified within the Deep Creek Watershed.



34/42

Three of the top ten priority fish passage barriers are dams or weirs. The highest priority barriers for replacement or other action to improve fish passage are identified in WPN(2004b).

Riparian and Channel Conditions (WPN, 2004)

The steep canyons of lower Deep and Tickle Creek provide good riparian habitat thathave high protection values. There are ditched channels in Goose, lower Deep, andTickle Creeks.

Areas dominated by non-riparian vegetation (primarily cultivated fields, pastures, lawns,and developed areas) range from 6% in Upper Deep Creek subwatershed to 28% in the

North Fork Deep Creek subwatershed.

The North Fork of Deep Creek, particularly in the areas above Boring, is characterized byflatter topography and greater channel and riparian impacts. Reduced riparian width,limited streamside trees, and minimal shade characterize many of the reaches in thissection. A number of sections of the North Fork and tributary streams have also beensubstantially ditched.

There are low shade levels in along streams in many headwater areas, particularly in the North Fork Deep Creek subwatershed.

Eagle Creek (WPN 2004, Willamette Restoration Initiative 2004):


Reduced wood in stream channels, particularly on private lands, is limiting the formationof deep pools and minimizing habitat complexity.

Fish Passage Barriers (WPN, 2004b)

The highest priority fish passage barrier in Eagle Creek is a dam that crosses the NorthFork, which is a complete barrier.

Riparian and Channel Conditions

Mature riparian trees have been reduced, particularly in the lower watershed.

4.3.3 Upper Basin

The Upper Clackamas River Basin is comprised of tributary streams that drain into the Middleand Upper River, including the watersheds of the North and South Forks, Fish Creek, RoaringRiver, Oak Grove Fork, Collawash River, and smaller tributary streams. This portion of the



35/42

basin is almost entirely managed by the Forest Service. The Upper Basin includes the Bull of theWoods Wilderness, encompassing the upper reaches of the Collawash River and Hot SpringsFork.

Coho, spring Chinook, steelhead and resident cutthroat and rainbow trout spawn and rear in

Upper Basin streams. In the context of the entire Clackamas River Basin, the Upper Basin is thekey stronghold for the production of wild fish. (Appendix 1, Smolt Trap Data, 1994 2003 provides information on out-migrant coho salmon and steelhead from the portions of the Upper Basin.)

Because of the Upper Basins importance for wild fish, it is important to restore degraded areasand protect high quality habitats. Because much of the Upper Basin is characterized by old-growth and mature forests, a large proportion of the Upper Basin streams have high qualityriparian and aquatic habitats. There are exceptions. Fish Creek Watershed, for example, is nowrecovering from extensive road building and harvest. There are localized impacts to riparianareas from streamside harvest; and roads have reduced riparian trees, isolated floodplain side

channels, and created fish passage barriers. The location of known fish passage barriers in theUpper Clackamas Basin are shown in the companion Action Plan document.

5.0 KEY ACTION ISSUES

Stream habitats and fish population conditions began to improve throughout much of theClackamas River Basin in the 1970s as a result of improved forestry and land use practices and

better management of fish populations and hatcheries. In addition, active habitat restoration byland managers, the Clackamas River Basin Council and others have helped to improve the

basins fish habitats. There remain, however, important areas for improving stream and riparianhabitats to benefit fish populations. Urbanization with the associated changes in water quality,streamside vegetation, and stream habitat continues in the lower basin; many of the rivers sidechannels and other backwater areas have been lost; there are fish passage barriers at roadcrossings and other sites on most of the basins streams; trees and other vegetation have been lostfrom streamside areas; and there is little large wood in stream channels to provide cover and

pools for fish. It will take time and focused effort to address these impacts to the basins streamand river habitats.

The following is a list of action issues that the CRBC can focus on when developing theClackamas Basin Action Plan. The following habitat restoration and protection actions focus on

three critical issues that are impacting fish populations in the Clackamas River Basin reducedaquatic habitat complexity, degraded riparian areas and floodplain forests, and fish passage

barriers.

The issues are discussed within three geographic groupings (defined above) within theClackamas River Basin: 1) Mainstem Clackamas River; 2) Lower Basin; and 3) the Upper Basin.The companion Action Plan document provides information on locations and high priority areasfor recommended actions by EDT reaches, fish passage barriers, and riparian channel



36/42

modifications. Site-specific habitat restoration and protection projects will be identified throughthe CRBCs action planning process.

5.1 MAINSTEM

Aquatic Habitat Complexity

Protect and restore side channels in the rivers wide floodplain below River Mill Dam.Actively reconnect side channels that have become disconnected from the river throughactive restoration.

Restore and enhance side channels in the Middle and Upper Clackamas River that have been reduced through the placement of Highway 46 and other actions.

Add wood to existing side channels and other backwater areas in the Lower, and MiddleClackamas River to improve habitat complexity. Where possible, create logjams with

multiple pieces of wood.

Riparian and Floodplain Forests

Protect and restore existing high quality floodplain forests and riparian areas throughvoluntary measures with landowners. Emphasize areas along the Lower ClackamasRiver.

5.2 LOWER BASIN


To improve aquatic habitat complexity, add wood to stream channels and existing andcreated side channels and other backwater areas. Emphasize areas used by juvenileChinook, coho and steelhead.

Restore meanders to channelized and stream sections.

Use snorkel surveys to identify juvenile coho and steelhead production areas in Clear andDeep Creeks. (See Appendix 1, Smolt Trap Data, 1994-2003.)

Riparian Areas

Protect high quality riparian and floodplain forests.

Restore riparian areas focusing on areas with water quality issues and large wood deficits.

Fish Passage Barriers



37/42

Address high priority fish passage barriers. Address anadromous barriers first and thenthose impacting resident fish populations.

5.3 UPPER BASIN

Side Channels and Other Floodplain Habitats

Reconnect side channels cutoff or impinged by road building in the past.

Enhance side channel habitat where it may already exist and is functioning.

Where road building and maintenance has reduced or eliminated instream wood in sidechannel habitats and stream margin areas, restore this important hiding and rearinghabitat component.

Riparian and Floodplain Forests

Where old growth or mature forest has been eliminated along riparian areas, implement,where appropriate, silvicultural treatments to promote and hasten development of lateseral forest characteristics beneficial to native fish species.

Where past timber harvesting has taken place, implement actions that will speed growthand recovery of young tree stands bordering stream and wetland areas where appropriate.

Where roads impinge on streamside riparian areas there are alternative roads to meetcurrent and future transportation needs, obliterate and return the roads to productiveforest.

Where disbursed recreation activities are impacting riparian areas, attempt to mitigate or if conditions worsen or persist, discourage use and restore riparian conditions.


In the hydroelectric diverted reaches of the Oak Grove Fork, restore some level of instream flows, habitat complexity, and gravel/sediment recruitment conditions that willrestore instream habitat and will benefit all anadromous fish species.

In mainstem and tributaries where changes to stream channels such as historic riparianclear cutting and stream cleaning took place, restore high quality habitat features thatwere degraded. These actions should include instream wood placement

Provide good stream access for salmonids through road system culverts.



38/42

6.0 REFERENCES

Ecotrust. 2000. Rock and Richardson Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan. Reports

prepared by Ecotrust for the Clackamas River Basin Council.

Karcheskey, C.M. T.D. Brush, M.M. Sharp, and D. Mathur. 2004. Final Report: Evaluation of Downstream Migration of Juvenile Spring Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead at the North Fork Development, 2003. Prepared for PGE, Portland Oregon and the Clackamas River ProjectFish Passage Technical Subgroup.

Kostow, K. 2002. Oregon Lampreys: Natural History Status and Problem Analysis. OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, and A. Marshall. 2003. Historical Population Structure of

Willamette and Lower Columbia River Basin Pacific Salmonids. National Marine FisheriesService, Seattle, WA.

Johnson, O.W., M.H. Ruckelshaus, W. S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, A.M. Garrett, G.J. Bryant, K. Neely, and J.J. Hard. 1999. Status Review of Coastal Cutthroat Trout from Washington,Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle WA.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Sensitive Species. Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife. Salem, OR. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/pdf/sensitive_species.pdf

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Listed Species of Fish in Oregon. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR.http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/PDFs/comptefishlist.pdf

PGE (Portland General Electric). 2004. Clackamas River Fish Runs.http://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/clackamas_fish_runs.asp

Robison, G. and J. Walsh. 2003. Clear and Foster Creeks Fish Passage Assessment andPrioritization Project. Report prepared for the Clackamas River Basin Council.

Shibahara, T. 2004a. Draft: Evaluation of Upstream Migration Characteristics of Coho Above

River Mill Dam, Clackamas River, 2003. Prepared for PGE, Portland Oregon and theClackamas River Project Fish Passage Technical Subgroup.

Shibahara, T. 2004b. Draft: Evaluation of Upstream Migration Characteristics of SteelheadAbove River Mill Dam, Clackamas River, 2003. Prepared for PGE, Portland Oregon and theClackamas River Project Fish Passage Technical Subgroup.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/pdf/sensitive_species.pdfhttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/PDFs/comptefishlist.pdfhttp://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/clackamas_fish_runs.asphttp://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/clackamas_fish_runs.asphttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/pdf/sensitive_species.pdfhttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/PDFs/comptefishlist.pdfhttp://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/clackamas_fish_runs.asphttp://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_and_env/hydropower_and_fish/clackamas/clackamas_fish_runs.asp


39/42

S.P. Cramer & Associates. 2001. Issue F2: Documentation of Existing and Historical Habitat,and Native and Introduced Fish in the Clackamas Basin. Report prepared for PortlandGeneral Electric Company. S.P. Cramer and Associates, Inc.

Taylor, B. 1999. Salmon and Steelhead Runs and Related Events of the Clackamas River Basin

A Historical Perspective. Report prepared for Portland General Electric.

Wampler, P. 2004. Draft report: reconnaissance evaluation of large wood in Clackamas River below River Mill Dam. Report prepared for Portland General Electric Company.

Wampler, P. 2003. Geomorphic Changes Resulting From River Mill Dam Operations. Report prepared for Portland General Electric Company.

Watershed Professionals Network (WPN). 2004. (Draft) Deep and Goose Creek WatershedAssessment. Report prepared by Watershed Professionals Network for the Clackamas River Basin Council.

Watershed Professionals Network (WPN). 2004b. (Draft) Deep, Goose, and Eagle Creek FishPassage Assessment and Prioritization Project. Report prepared by Watershed Professionals

Network for the Clackamas River Basin Council.

Watershed Professionals Network (WPN). 2002. Clear and Foster Creek Assessment andAction Plan. Reports Prepared by Watershed Professionals Netwokr for the ClackamasRiver Basin Council.

Willamette Restoration Initiative. 2004. Willamette Subbasin Plan. Report prepared by theWillamette Restoration Initiative for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.



40/42

Appendix 1

Smolt Trap Data, 1994 - 2003

Table 1. Estimated number of steelhead smolts migrating from subbasins of theClackamas River, 1994-2003.

Year Fish Cr. Oak Gr. Big Bot. NF Clack NF Eagle Clear Cr. Deep Cr.Est. CI* Est. CI Est. CI Est. CI Est. CI Est. CI Est. CI

1994 8532 10 680 80 3243 17 - - - - - - - -1995 3857 11 369 58 2061 48 - - - - - - - -1996 1018 15 64 - 1687 34 - - - - - - - -1997 2334 18 - - - - 1219 26 - - - - - -1998 4697 12 1582 7 2982 14 2024 14 1496 145 - - - -

1999 2187 - 1190 15 3388 - 1805 27 3750 10 - - - -2000 4013 12 854 41 2750 21 1179 23 2248 40 6824 110 - -2001 4144 6 910 16 1302 43 884 36 1507 11 5092 53 2403 312002 1528 12 586 73 - - 582 170 2319 25 - - 2557 182003 2628 48 337 98 - - 244 141 1119 23 - - 2924 29

* A 95% confidence interval (CI) is expressed as a percentage of the population estimate.

Table 2. Estimated number of coho smolts migrating from trapped subbasins of the Clackamas River, 1994-2003.

Year Fish Cr. Oak Gr. Big Bot. NF Clack. NF Eagle Clear Cr. Deep Cr.

Est. CI* Est. CI Est. CI Est.

CI Est. CI Est. CI Est. CI

1994 8276 16 4249 25 24012 13 - - - - - - - -

1995 65 - 96 - 4789 38 - - - - - - - -

1996 106 - 70 - 29280 12 - - - - - - - -

1997 129 57 - - - - 30 75 233 371 - - - -1998 13** - 219 13 19154 8 4* - 828 51 - - - -

1999 243 - 921 10 39378 - 77 124 3246 22 - - - -2000 1** - 0 - 43589 9 61 34 598 174 6529 55 - -

2001 0 - 0 - 17263 20 2* - 3121 31 11889 29 7387 12

2002 388 21 4705 12 - - 357 25 3250 21 10490 30 16072 16

2003 659 35 2247 10 - - 244 141 1119 23 11062 96 7977 15

* A 95% confidence interval (CI) is expressed as a percentage of the population estimate.** Represents minimum estimate. Traps operational but counts were too low to expand. Actual capture shown.

Table 3. Other fish species captured in smolt traps, 2002.

Fish Populations and Aquatic Riparian Habitat June 1, 2005 Page 1 APPENDIX 1: Smolt Trap Data


41/42

Species Fish Ck Oak Grove Big Bottom NF Clack NF Eagle Clear Ck Deep Ck

Cutthroat Adults 5 - - - 4 1 1

Cutthroat Smolts 1 1 - - 30 6 80

Cutthroat Juveniles 1 - - 3 15 - 6

Rainbows 32 5 2 1 1 1 -

Salmonid Fry - - 140 - 237 262 22Hatch Steelhead* - - - 3 4 1 17

Hatch Coho* - - - - - - 3

Brown Trout - 4 - - - - -

Whitefish 23 - - 15 - - -

Longnose Dace 58 - - 27 - 209 1210

Speckled Dace - - - - 1 47 455

Sculpin 5 4 3 6 6 10 4

Redside Shiners - - - - - 30 39

N Pikeminnow - - - - - 4 8

Catfish - - - - - - -

Lamprey** - - - 5 18 24 19

Pumpkinseed - - - - - - 1

Table 4. Other fish species captured in smolt traps, 2003.

Species Fish Ck Oak Grove NF Clack NF Eagle Clear Ck Deep Ck

Cutthroat Adults - 1 - - - 1

Cutthroat Smolts - - - 33 3 38

Cutthroat Juveniles - 10 - 18 - 3

Rainbows - 6 - 5 1 -

Salmonid Fry - - 1 - - -

Hatch Steelhead* - - 2 20 1 13