March 24, 2011 Miranda Wecker Director, Marine Program University of Washington Olympic Natural Resources Center PO Box 160 Naselle, WA 98638 RE: Shoreline Master Program Amendment Cycle for Clallam County (WRIA 20) Dear Ms. Wecker Wild Salmon Center (WSC) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendment cycle for Clallam County (WRIA 20) that the University of Washington Olympic Natural Resource Center is facilitating. WSC is an international non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to identify, understand, and protect the most important wild salmon ecosystems of the Pacific Rim. In 2006, WSC established the North American Salmon Stronghold Partnership (NASSP)—a public-private partnership that aims to protect the last remaining healthy river systems where wild salmon are most abundant, biologically diverse, and have the best chance of surviving the long-term impacts of development and climate change. The Quillayute watershed is currently recognized as a salmon stronghold by NASSP and the Quileute Tribe. Scientific analyses conducted by WSC indicate that the Calawah and Bogachiel Rivers (two of four major Quillayute tributaries) produce the most abundant and diverse wild salmon populations across the entire Washington coast (Attachment 1). These populations also provide some of the most viable treaty and non-treaty fisheries in the state and are inextricably linked to the economic health of the City of Forks. A major goal of the Shoreline Management Act (1971) is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provides statutory guidance that “Master programs shall assure no net loss of shoreline ecological function” resulting from agriculture, aquaculture, boating facilities, commercial development, forest practices, industry, in-stream structural uses, mining, recreational development, residential development, transportation and parking, and utilities (WAC 173-26-241).

WSC reviewed http://www.clallam.net/RealEstate/html/onrc_wria_20_maps.htm, a map cabinet located on the county’s website, to develop a series of recommendations for the current SMP amendment cycle. The focus of our comments are on the SMP Environment Designations (WAC 173-26-211), including designations for non-designated shorelines and changes to existing designations (WAC 173-26-201). Designations are recommended with the intent to minimize any loss of shoreline ecological function necessary to support healthy wild salmon and steelhead populations and to promote public safety (EXHIBIT A). Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the current SMP amendment cycle--we understand it may be 20 years until the next amendment cycle. Please direct questions, further inquires and follow up material to Devona Ensmenger at devona@wildsalmoncenter.org and by phone (360) 640-2631. Sincerely,

Devona Ensmenger Washington Program Manager cc Guido Rahr President & Chief Executive Wild Salmon Center

Dr. Jeff Baumgartner Executive Vice President Wild Salmon Center Rich Lincoln Director State of the Salmon

EXHIBIT A Recommendations for SMP Environment Designations in Clallam County (WRIA 20) (WAC 173-26-211) WSC provides the following recommendations only for “natural” and “conservancy” Environment Designations (designations). Within both categories, designations are listed in order of ecological priority based upon WSC analyses. WSC defers “rural,” “suburban,” and “urban” designations to the municipalities and other jurisdictions best equipped to do so--though WSC is poised to evaluate and refute designations as necessary within all five categories. NATURAL

1. Elk Creek a. East line of parcel 132802330040 upstream to west line of parcel number

13281222000

JUSTIFICATION Elk Creek is five miles long, yet produces one-third of total redds in the Calawah river system (Attachment 2—pg 7). The creek valley contains extensive wetlands, spring fed side wall channels, and second growth forested floodplain with isolated old growth characteristics. The valley is prone to landslides and erosion (http://www.clallam.net/Maps/assets/applets/Critarea_p14.pdf). Upland habitat (256 acres) within this proposed designation area was conserved through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and is currently owned and managed as conservation land by the North Olympic Land Trust.

2. Sitkum River

a. From the confluence of Sitkum River and S. Fork Calawah River upstream to end of SMP jurisdiction (20 cfs/RM 12.7), including Rainbow Creek (to RM 0.6) and S. Fork Sitkum (to RM 2.3)

JUSTIFICATION WSC surveys and analysis indicate that the Sitkum River contains high concentrations and a broad distribution of quality rearing habitat used by 0-age trout, steelhead parr, and cutthroat trout (Attachment 3—pgs 41, 42). The Sitkum River flows through mature ecologically complex forests within the Olympic National Park and USDA Forest Service that largely remain untouched. However, uplands of the Sitkum’s south draining tributaries are largely characterized by clear cuts and younger aged forests. However, all but two of these shorelines fall outside of SMP jurisdiction.

3. Lost Creek a. From the confluence of Lost Creek and S. Fork Calawah River upstream to end of

SMP jurisdiction (20 cfs/RM 2.3)

JUSTIFICATION Lost Creek flows through mature ecologically complex forests within the Olympic National Park and USDA Forest Service that largely remain untouched. WSC surveys and analysis indicate that Lost Creek is a critical low water rearing refugia for coho. (Attachment 3—pg 41)

CONSERVANCY

1. Elk Creek a. From the confluence of Elk Creek and Calawah River upstream to east line of

parcel 132802330040 b. From the east line of parcel 13281222000 upstream to end of SMP jurisdiction

(20 cfs /RM 4)

JUSTIFICATION As described under Natural (1. a.).

2. S. Fork Calawah River a. From the west line of parcel 122806onf001 upstream to the confluence of the S.

Fork Calawah River and Sitkum River, including Hyas Creek (to RM 3.8).

JUSTIFICATION WSC surveys and analysis indicate that the S. Fork Calawah River contains high concentrations and a broad distribution of quality rearing habitat used by 0-age trout, and steelhead parr (Attachment 3—pgs 41, 42).

3. N. Fork Calawah River

a. From the west line of parcel 112915200000 upstream to the end of SMP jurisdiction (20 cfs/RM 20.2), including Pistol Creek (to RM 2.2)

JUSTIFICATION WSC surveys and analysis indicate that the N. Fork Calawah River, just beyond a frequently dry reach (RM 11.5 to RM 18.5), contains a two-mile long concentration of quality rearing habitat used by coho, 0-age trout, and steelhead parr (Attachment 3—pgs 41, 42).

4. Boagachiel River a. From the confluence of Bogachiel River and Calawah River upstream to south line

of parcel 142822310000 b. From south line of parcel 142823110000 upstream to east line of parcel

132834wtr001.

JUSTIFICATION Flood prone (100-year) and critical aquifer recharge area with high gravel recruitment suited to non-permanent use of biological resources. Land ownership is predominantly private timber. Sources: Based on evaluations of land ownership from Clallam County Assessor Parcel maps (http://www.clallam.net/aimsxwebsite/CA_pacs/viewer.htm), maps and aerial photos from Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update map cabinet (http://www.clallam.net/RealEstate/html/onrc_wria_20_maps.htm), the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program report revised June 16, 1992 (http://www.clallam.net/realestate/assets/applets/SHORELINE_MASTER_PROGRAM.pdf) and Google Earth.

5. Sol Duc River a. From east line of parcel 132929200000 upstream to south line of parcel

132921410105

JUSTIFICATION Most significant and expansive floodway in Clallam County (WRIA 20) and critical aquifer recharge area with high gravel recruitment suited to non-permanent use of biological resources. Land ownership is a mix of private timber and residential. Sources: As described under Conservancy (4. a., b.).

Western Washington Strong Populations

02.10.11 Wild Salmon Center

1 Strong Population

2 Strong Populations

3 Strong Populations

4 + Strong Populations

Ecoregions

Strong Populations determinedusing a Decision Suport Modeland displayed by HUC5 units.

North Olympic40f8 02-1545AElk Creek Acquisition

BACKGROUND

Elk Creek is the major tributary to the mainstem Calawah at RM 9.2, a part of the CalawahRiver Basin which joins the Quillayute River and enters the Pacific Ocean at La Push, W A atthe Quileute Indian Tribe Reservation. As a Class I, Tier I stream, Shoreline of the State, ElkCreek provides approximately five miles of continguous low elevation, low gradient, highquality spawning and rearing habitat for salmonid.

Elk Creek Acquisition Project is aimed at a 1.8 linear mile section of main channel spawningand rearing habitat as well as extensive wetlands, springs and spring fed channels, flood plainsand numerous (many more than are currently mapped) feeder streams that provide year-roundquality habitat for wild Coho, steelhead, cut-throat trout and an occasional Fall Chinook. Itincorporates 220 acres of forested wetlands, steep and unstable hillsides subject to heavyrainfall and run-off during the winter and spring with an average annual rainfall of 120inches/year. (Annual rainfall pattern and slope stability geomorphic features as documented byWRIA 20). The ponds and spring-fed side wall channels are not currently delineated byWDFW, DNR or USGSs maps. (Limiting Factors Data gap -WRIA 20).

This riparian area is a highly productive wildlife corridor that has a naturally reseeded multi-storied canopy of spruce, alder and hemlock with many old snags and sizeable stumps overgrown with rain forest type vegetation of moss and ferns. The valley floor resembles an old-growth type forest with open areas, grassland, and large diameter trees. Elk Creek meandersthrough this valley providing optimal salmonid habitat.

The main channel is in very good condition with large woody debris, refugia and buried logsproviding deep pools alternating with shallow gravel sections used extensively by wild Cohoand steelhead for spawning purposes. Where the channel braids, there are stands of varyingages of alder which provide leaf litter and shade and provide small pools that Coho utilizethroughout the summer. These pools are fed by underground water sources and the temperatureremains constant. Juvenile Coho thrive in these pools until fall water levels reconnect these

pools with the main channel.

PROBLEM STATEMENTII.

Timely protection for this productive salmon stream is being sought. A forest practice clear-cutharvest plan is currently underway with a proposed harvest occurring in Spring 2003. Ourconcern is the areas of Coho utilization have not been adequately documented and potential forharm to rearing and over-wintering habitat is likely. At a minimum, the multiple feederstreams, their branches, and the seeps and springs present in this riparian lowland need to bethoroughly inventoried so that proper protection under Fish and Forest Practice Rules can beapplied when a Forest Practice Application is submitted. Given the steep terrain of the valleywalls and confluence of side channel tributaries, potential harmful sedimentation to the mainchannel spawning gravel is likely during the heavy rainfalls experienced in this watershed.(Limiting Factors Analysis -Habitat -WRIA 20)

Important to understanding the problem of a clear-cut harvest in this productive salmon habitatarea is a clear visualization of the terrain. First, the proposed area of harvest is a narrow strip(1/4 mile wide x 1.25 miles long) section that borders both sides of Elk Creek and includes themany tributaries and wetlands as described above. Secondly, multiple confluent feeder streamsfrom the steep hillsides show evidence of past slides in their channels with the potential forfurther slide. A deep seated slide occurred sometime in the past on the southern ridge whichimpacted Elk Creek and moved its channel migration zone to the north.

Providing adequate buffers to these fish bearing streams, wetlands, correctly assessing thechannel migration zone, and preventing clear-cut on unstable slopes will require an intenselycomplex forest harvest plan. There are no passable roads going into or out of the valley andnew road building or helicopter logging would be required to access the timber on these verysteep hillsides. There is an abandoned road grade that has washed out or slid in several places.All of the original stringer bridges utilized in the 1930's harvest have washed out and are part ofthe large woody debris forming deep pools and refugia. Re-utilization of this stream borderingroad grade would require increasing its width, further road building through wetlands, multiplebridge crossings, multiple culverts and other potential fish impacting measures.

III. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objective of the Elk Creek Acquisition grant proposal is a direct conservation purchasefrom ITT Rayonier. ITT Rayonier has expressed interest in this conservation purchase and hasbeen helpful to the applicant in exploring funding options. This project proposes a directpurchase from Rayonier with a transfer of deed to WDFW for land management and long-termprotection of fish and wildlife habitat. This would remove the risks associated with acommercial timber harvest in this riparian corridor.

The Elk Creek Acquisition project directly addresses WRIA 20 limiting factors analysis for data

gaps including:1. "updating and mapping and typing of all streams and wetlands" (WDFW as contributing

partner will accomplish this)2. "more complete salmon and trout distribution" and "measurements that link fish

production to freshwater conditions" (This will be accomplished by The Wild SalmonCenter using their snorkel and habitat assessments research surveys.)

3. "Floodplain mapping is needed in all basins in WRIA 20," "Assessments are needed tomap the entire channel migration zone / 100 year foodplain throughout WRIA 20. Thiswill help enforce regulations to protect shoreline habitat" (WDFW -partner

contribution)

The Elk Creek Acquisition project also directly addresses limiting factorsRECOMMENDATIONS FOR SALMONID HABITAT RESTORATION ACTION IN WRIA20

12.

3

"Efforts to purchase intact floodplain habitat for conservation should be a high priority""Large wood within the floodplain should not be removed. Increase enforcement ofcurrent regulations is needed.""Maintain and conserve off-channel habitat and associated riparian. More protection isneeded for floodplain habitat""Riparian surrounding wetlands should be protected to insure ground water recharge"4

IV. PROJECT APPROACH

a) Elk Creek Acquisition Project targets a Class I, Tier I waterway in the QuillayuteRiver System and involves 1.8 miles of contiguous freshwater salmon spawning andrearing habitat as well as extensive (unmapped) wetlands, spring-fed side wallchannels and flood plains. It functions primarily as a very productive Cohospawning and rearing habitat as well as providing suitable habitat for steel head anda large number of cut-throat trout. Year-round habitat is provided by the extensiveand diversified wetland areas including large flood plains and side channel streams.

b) Individuals who have provided information and support for this project include:

Frank Geyer, TFW Biologist, Quileute Natural Resources

(multiple site visits, preliminary stream typing, redd counts supervisor,

matching funds)Bill Peach, Forest Manager, m Rayonier, Forks

(information, maps, assistance with understanding conservation acquisitions)

Katie Krueger, Environmental Attorney, Quileute Natural Resources

site visits and photographs, technical questions and information, letter of

support)John McMillian, Salmon Ecologist, Wild Salmon Center

(multiple site visits, data collection, technical information assistance)

Dave King, Fish Habitat Enhancement Biologist, WDFW

(supervisory support, site visits, matching funds partner)

Theresa Powell, Fish Habitat Biologist, North Coastal Field Statoin, WDFW

(site visits, technical information, assistance with maps)

Terra Hegy, Watershed Steward -WRIA 20, WDFW

(site visit, coordinator for technical data information, assistance with habitatresource information and coordination of matching funds)

Jennifer Nixon, NOPLE Salmon Recovery Coordinator

(Invaluable assi~;tance with helping applicant put forth this project proposal.Very helpful in coordinating and understanding the SRFB process. Site Visit)

Dan DaFoe, Area Habitat Biologist, WDFW

(information and resource assistance)

Pat Crane, Clallam County Biologist

(site visits, inforrnation and assistance with completing SRFB application)

Carl Chastain, Pacific Salmon Coalition, Forks

(site visit, information on salmon habitat, SRFB information, restoration

project considerations)

Dick Goin, Local Fisheries Expert

(multiple site visits, presentation at preproposal to NOPLE, habitatinformation, redd count information, SRFB application assistance, coordinatetechnical resource information)

Dave Parks, HydrologiSt/Geologist, DNR

(information regarding DNR review of Forest Practice Applications and WACrules pertaining to wetlands and unstable slopes)

Cathy Lear, C/a//am County Salmon Coordinator

(site visit, habitat information, matching funds information)

Charles Toal, Dept. of Ecology

(information regarding review of Forest Practice Applications)

Paul Kennard, Staff Scientist, Washington Forest Law Center

(information regarding WAC regulations)

Dave Warren, Pacific Forest Trust

(information regarding matching funds)

Rod Fleck, City Attorney and Mayor Nedra Reed, City of Forks

(letter of support- member of WRIA 20)

C/allam County Str,eam-Keepers

(monitoring assistance, donated labor and equipment for matching funds)

C) Elk Creek Acquisition Project plans to monitor long-term protection byits partners contributions.

1) Quileute Natural Resources, Quileute Tribe will continue their redd count surveysfor Coho and Steel head in Elk Creek as it is a significant Coho component of theCalawah River System in Ithe Quileute Usual and Accustomed Area.

2) The Wild Salmon Center will be performing professional fish and habitat surveywork by Salmon Ecologist, John McMillian and Field Biologist, James Starr. They willbe conducting ongoing fish surveys using snorkel diving techniques for both adult andjuvenile salmonids, as well as habitat characteristics surveys and monitoring usingcurrent, scientifically approved methods and protocols. These surveys will take placeduring several seasonal periods to provide a more complete description of the fish useover time. This work will occur in 2002 and 2003.

3) Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife personnel, Theresa Powell, Fish HabitatBiologist, North Coastal Field Station, will complete a thorough inventory of all off-channel habitat in the Elk creek system. This inventory will map and recordundocumented habitat, verify documented habitat, record fish observations and verifyand/or update current water type information

If the Elk Creek Acquisition Project is funded, land title will be transferred to WDFWfor long-term stewardship of this valuable fish and wildlife habitat.

4) Stream Keepers of Clallam County will set up four reach sites on Elk Creek forlong-term monitoring of water quality including macroinvertebrate collection and fecalcoliform counts. Data will be collected four times a year and entered into a data

management inventory system which can be accessed at the Clallam CountyCourthouse.

S) The Dickson Family will donate a conservation easement of their riparian areawhich borders 1000' of mainstem channel as well as a cash donation. It is at thisproperty site where suitable spawning gravel begins to appear in this tributary. It istheir commitment to protect this valuable resource and provide what assistance theyare able in accomplishing the goal of this worthy project.

Site access is easily gained at this property via an abandoned road grade that canbe utilized by all monitoring personnel.

D) Consequences of not conducting this project at this time include a high,almost certain risk of increased sedimentation of Elk Creek and its prime spawninghabitat. On the southern ridge that borders Elk Creek the convergent headwalls of thesteep channeled drainage~s fill with torrents of water at times of high winter rains. Atthe bottom of these drainages an alluvial pattern of debris and piles of alder arepresent. On the hillsides that border these drainages are steep, almost cliff-like bankswith mature stands of hemlock; some with pistol butted trunks. Removal of thesehemlock and their protective canopy could cause mass sheeting, erosion andpotentially even a land-slide that would directly impact Elk Creek. (Naturally occurringdeep seated slides have occurred in the past in this area).

WlRA 20 Limiting Factors Analysis has documented the slope failure of this sub-basindue to its geomorphic features making it "particularly susceptible to such erosion anddegradation." The heavy rain fall (120 inches / yr average) and the occasional rain onsnow occurrences at the ridge tops creates the potential for a cumulative impact ofrun-off from the multiple ,drainages that enter into Elk Creek in the acquisitionproperty .

The overall extensive complexity of the drainages, the large quantity of drainages, thefish presence in these drainages, and the documentation of unstable slopes make theprospect of a forest clear-cut in this area difficult to conceive. While Fish and ForestRegulations and WAC rules would apply to a harvest proposal in this region, concernover the ability of DNR to thoroughly assess and evaluate total impact in this complexwatershed and enforce th,e rules is of concern. WRIA 20 limiting factors address datagaps for this watershed in:cluding mapping of floodplains, updating stream typing, andinventorying and mapping wetlands. This project proposes to address these limitingfactors.

The Elk Creek Acquisition project proposes to acquire this property and therebyremove the risk of irreparable harm to this high quality, productive Coho spawning andrearing habitat by eliminating the potential for inadvertently missed seeps, drainages,

unstable slopes, springs and wall based side channels with fish presence that have notbeen adequately typed. Acquisition of this property would leave protected an areathat provides one-third of all redd counts for the entire Calawah Basin. It wouldprotect the best spawning habitat, the adjacent floodplains (prevent large tree removalin floodplains -WRIA 20 limiting factors), wetlands, and spring-fed side wall channelsthat provide optimal rearing and over-winter habitat for juvenile salmonids.

e.) PROJECT DESIGN ,AND IMPLEMENTATION

A formal timber cruise and land value determination is pending as per Bill Peach,Forest Manager for Rayonier.

A formal appraisal by an independent contractor will be necessary to determine finalvaluation of the acquisition property and is a requirement of the project sponsor (cashcontributor) as outlined in attached letters of support. Consideration of value of treesnot available for harvest in the riparian buffers, the floodplains and the unstable slopeswill be an important factor in determining the property value.

Other approaches and considerations that were given to achieve the project'sobjectives included contacting the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, NatureConservancy f Audubon Society" North Olympic Land Trust, and Pacific Forest Trust fordirect conservation purchase. DNR was contacted and information sent forconsideration in the state Heritage Program. lAC was contacted regarding possiblerecreational site designation and WDFW land management personnel were contactedregarding money available for direct land purchase.

Project Partners: (Please see attached letters of support outlining each partners

participation)The Wild Salmon Center (Applicant)

Quileute Natural Resources

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Clallam County Stream-Keepers

Sol Duc Medical Clinic -Dr. and Mrs. Richard Dickson

V. TASKS AND TIME SCHEDULE

List and describe the major tasks and time schedule you will use to complete the

project.1) Ongoing connmunication with Bill Peach, Timber Manager for Rayonier

regarding tirnber cruise and land valuation.2) Continue communication with WDFW Land's Management Personnel,

Alice Beals, to coordinate land acquisition with WDFW. Region 6.3) If SRFB grant is awarded, contact John Halberg, Appraiser (360-928-

3341) for independent appraisal. Mr. Halberg works with Jim Vadnais,Timber Cruiser (360-457-9533).

4) Negotiate fair market value with Rayonier.

VI. CONSTRAINTS AND UNCERTAINnES

Constraints:Determining buffer requirements based on up-dated stream typing, mapping offloodplains and wall based channels, and determining location of steep and unstableslopes on maps will be important criteria upon which a formal appraisal can be based.

Uncertainties: How will timber value in these areas be determined and how will itaffect the purchase price'?

VII. STRATEGY

The North Olympic Peninsula is an exceptionally large and diverse region containingapproximately 215 miles of marine shoreline and 90 independent watersheds flowingdirectly into the Pacific Ocean or Straits of Juan de Fuca. The Quillayute Basin is oneof these watersheds and is rated as a -ner 1 because of its high productivity in regardsto salmon habitat and numbers of fish.

Elk Creek, a ller 1 stream, is very deserving of this ranking as its production of reddcounts and importance as a spawning sub-basin have been demonstrated by datacollected from 1996-2000 by WDFW and Quileute Personnel. (please see attachedgraph and data information gathered for Calawah Tributaries) .

The Elk Creek Acquisition project targets the most important spawning habitat in thissub-basin where the combination of the low gradient floodplain habitat, spring-fed wallbased channels and wetlands provide a full suite of spawning and rearing habitat forsalmonids. It is unlike the mouth of Elk Creek which is more confined and the upperreaches of Elk Creek whic:h are more incised. This project proposes to protect "thebest of the best" intact, functioning and productive salmon habitat in this basin. Itaddresses WRIA 20 limiting factors as outlined in the Project Objectives and addressesNOPLE strategy to "protec:t the best" and "main or strengthen the strong stocks".

Protecting the high quality habitat that exist in this acquisition project makes this astraight-forward and worthy project. Preventing the degradation of habitat, asoutlined in the consequence of not conducting this project at this time, makes itparticularly timely as we face overall loss of our salmon stocks.

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

SUMMARY 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

TITLE: Evaluating salmon habitat prioritization metrics: comparing existing data with

newly collected continuous sampling data.

AUTHORS: John McMillan, G. Pess, J. Starr, X.. Augerot, and D. Hockman-Wert

JOURNAL: North American Journal of Fish Management, American Fisheries Society

TOPIC: Prioritizing streams for conservation actions is a primary component of salmon

recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Most models prioritize streams based on

metrics characterizing habitat conditions thought to be important to salmonids (e.g., pool

frequency) and metrics quantifying salmonid abundance. While the intent is clear,

models rely heavily on existing data and assumptions about habitat conditions to

prioritize streams for species and life stages that lack information. These assumptions are

rarely validated, which has raised a high level of concern about the ability of existing data

to effectively prioritize habitat for data-poor salmonid species and life stages.

APPROACH: We conducted continuous snorkel and stream habitat surveys during the

summer, and in short reaches during the winter, to characterize stream conditions and

estimate the distribution and relative abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal

cutthroat trout. Using existing adult redd count data and our newly collected data we

generated five different prioritization metrics, including habitat, adult, juvenile, and

cutthroat trout metrics. Streams were ranked according to the level of their respective

metric to generate different prioritization hierarchies, with the top two sites being

selected as conservation priority areas.

RESULTS: The habitat and adult metrics prioritized different main-stem river sections

than the summer juvenile salmonid metric, although they generally matched the coastal

cutthroat metric. In tributaries, the adult and juvenile salmonid metrics prioritized the

same streams, while the habitat and winter juvenile salmonid metrics did not equally

1

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

prioritize the same streams as the summer juvenile metric. In addition, we were able to

successfully identify ‘hotspots’ in salmonid abundance at the reach scale, something that

was impossible to do with spatially fragmented redd surveys.

IMPLICATIONS: Because of the complex prioritization patterns, each tributary and

main-stem river section was prioritized among the top two streams in at least one metric

hierarchy. These results underscore two important points. First, it can be difficult to

prioritize one place over another when multiple species and life stages are considered.

Thus, conservation actions based on prioritization are only likely to be effective if they

are meshed with efforts to maintain and restore watershed-scale processes. Second,

existing data and habitat assumptions were generally ineffective in prioritizing streams

for juvenile salmonids. This means it is imperative to clearly define conservation

objectives and to match them with an appropriate metric, which may require collecting

new data to fill information gaps. A reliance on mismatched metrics or poorly defined

goals may lead to prioritization efforts that unintentionally mislead decision-makers.

2

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

Evaluating salmon habitat prioritization metrics: comparing existing data with newly

collected continuous sampling data.

John McMillan1, George Pess2, James Starr1, Xan Augerot3, and Dave Hockman-Wert4

1425 SE Bridgeway Ave.

Corvallis, OR 97333

2Northwest Fisheries Science Center

2725 Montlake Blvd East

Seattle, WA 98112

3Pangaea Environmental, LLC

1615 SE Bethel Street

Corvallis, OR 97333

4Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

3200 SW Jefferson Way

Corvallis, OR 97333

3

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

ABSTRACT 94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

We evaluated the ability of existing adult salmonid data and assumptions about habitat

conditions to prioritize streams for data-poor salmonid species (coastal cutthroat trout)

and life stages (juvenile coho, steelhead parr, age-0 trout). To estimate the distribution

and relative abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat we conducted

continuous snorkel and stream habitat surveys during the summer across the majority of

the Calawah River watershed, and in short reaches during the winter. We then ranked

tributaries and main-stem river sections according to five different metrics with the top

two in each category being selected as conservation priority areas. In main-stem rivers

the metrics reflecting assumptions about habitat and the metric based on existing adult

data did not match the streams prioritized by the summer juvenile salmonid metric,

although they did often match the coastal cutthroat trout metric. In tributaries, the adult

and summer juvenile salmonid metrics prioritized the same streams, while the habitat,

winter juvenile, and summer juvenile salmonid metrics did not equally prioritize the same

streams. In addition, the location of reach-scale hotspots varied between species

suggesting complementary habitat use by different salmonid species and life stages.

These results indicate that existing data and assumptions about habitat conditions may not

always effectively prioritize streams for data-poor species and life stages and that the

collection of new data maybe necessary to match conservation goals with an appropriate

metric.

4

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

INTRODUCTION 125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

Prioritizing streams for conservation actions is a key component of many salmon

recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest (Roni et al. 2002). The rationale is that certain

streams represent conservation priorities within a watershed because they support a high

level of salmonid abundance and diversity (Fausch et al. 2002; Rosenfeld and Hatfield

2006). Several prioritization models have been developed. They generally prioritize parts

of the stream network (e.g., tributaries, main-stem rivers) based on metrics characterizing

habitat conditions thought to be important to salmonids (e.g., pool frequency, channel

gradient) and metrics quantifying the distribution and abundance of salmonids (e.g.,

Lichatowich et al. 1995; Frissell et al. 2000; May and Peterson 2003). While the intent is

clear, the estimates of salmonid abundance and diversity used to prioritize streams are

often based on existing data. However, existing data is rarely available for all salmonid

species and life stages of concern. Consequently, explicit assumptions are often made

about relationships between habitat and salmonids. The assumptions are rarely validated,

so pressing concerns remain about the ability of existing data to effectively prioritize

habitat for data-poor salmonid species and life stages (Bisson et al. 2001).

Several factors may influence whether or not existing data can effectively prioritize

streams for different salmonid species and life stages. For example, adult redd count data

is collected annually to estimate adult escapements in many Pacific Northwest

watersheds, but similar data is rarely available for juveniles. Prioritizing streams for

juveniles based on available redd count data might not be effective because spawning

adults often rely on different habitat than rearing juveniles (Groot and Margolis 1991;

Quinn 2005). Second, favorable habitat conditions and organism abundance are not

always positively correlated (Van Horne 1983; Railsback et al. 2003), so assumptions

about relationships between habitat and salmon could me misleading. For instance, many

prioritization models rely heavily on assumed correlations between habitat characteristics

and salmonid abundance (e.g., pool habitat is positively correlated with juvenile coho

abundance), which may not be effective (Bisson et al. 2001). Lastly, data in many

watersheds is strongly focused on commercial species (e.g., coho, chinook, and steelhead

in the Pacific Northwest), which could mischaracterize the distribution and abundance of

5

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

species such as coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii). Any one factor or

a combination of factors could mislead decision-makers resulting in conservation efforts

that fall short of their intended goals.

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

One way to examine some of the potential limitations is to collect stream habitat and

juvenile salmonid data in a watershed where existing data is only available for spawning

adults. This can be accomplished by continuously sampling a stream network via

snorkeling and stream-walking during the summer months (Hankin and Reeves 1988;

Dolloff et al. 1993). The potential benefits of continuous sampling are two-fold. First, the

estimates of relative abundance obtained for the juveniles could be coupled with the

habitat data and the existing adult data to develop a variety of prioritization hierarchies to

test a series of hypothetical assumptions. Second, the continuous juvenile data also

provides an opportunity to try and refine the scale of resolution for conservation from a

large-scale geomorphic context (e.g., sub-basins, main-stem rivers) to a scale defined

more naturally by fish use (Fausch et al. 2002). For example, studies that have

continuously sampled salmonids were able to identify peaks in salmon abundance or

‘hotspots’ at scales ranging from 100’s to 1000’s of meters (Torgersen et al. 1999;

Gresswell et al. 2006; Torgersen et al. 2006). Successful identification of hotspots would

be valuable for site-scale conservation actions, such as easements and acquisitions, which

can be used to compliment broader watershed-scale strategies focused on restoring

processes (Lucchetti et al. 2005).

In this study we evaluate the ability of several habitat and salmonid metrics to prioritize

tributaries and main-stem river sections in the Calawah River basin, Washington State.

First, we analyzed existing adult redd count data to generate a metric estimating adult

redd abundance. We then continuously sampled stream habitat and salmonids across the

majority of stream kilometers accessible to salmonids to generate metrics reflecting

habitat conditions and the relative abundance and distribution of summer rearing juvenile

salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout. Finally, we conducted snorkel surveys of juvenile

salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout at the reach-scale during the winter to generate a

winter density metric. We combined our data with existing data to determine whether;

6

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

(1) adult redd count metrics and metrics reflecting assumptions about habitat features

prioritized the same areas as the summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout

metrics, (2) summer salmonid metrics prioritized the same places as winter salmonid

metrics, (3) hotspots in salmonid abundance were present, and (4) if present, did the

location of hotspots vary between species.

METHOD

Survey sites and existing data

The Calawah River basin (196 km2) is a tributary of the Bogachiel River, which is

located within the Quileute River basin on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula (Figure

1). We delineated the Calawah River stream network into four main-stem river sections

and four tributaries (Frissell et al. 1986) (Table 1). Main-stem river sections were

defined as streams with mean bankfull widths greater than 20 m. Tributaries were defined

as streams that drained discrete hydrological areas and had mean bankfull widths less

than 20 m. The North Fork Calawah River was unique because the stream naturally goes

dry during the summer from river km 13 to river km 25. The wetted stream sections at

either end are very different in size, so we classified the lower section classified as main-

stem river and an upper section as a tributary.

Existing data at the watershed-scale is limited to adult redd counts for commercially

important salmonids, including winter steelhead (O. mykiss), fall coho (O. kisutch), fall

and spring/summer chinook (O. tshawytscha). On the other hand, watershed-scale data

on the distribution and abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout (O.

clarkii clarkii) is almost completely lacking. This is an important data gap because

juvenile coho and steelhead (hereafter referred to as ‘juvenile salmonids’), and coastal

cutthroat trout rely heavily on freshwater streams for rearing (Quinn 2005). Knowledge

of their distribution is presumably critical to the conservation of each species. In contrast,

most juvenile chinook in the Calawah River migrate to the ocean during their first

summer. Consequently, our summer snorkel surveys were largely unable to account for

juvenile chinook.

7

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

Habitat and salmonid data 218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

Extent of surveys

We conducted continuous snorkel surveys and stream habitat surveys along

approximately 85% of the stream habitat accessible to salmonids during the summer of

2002 to estimate the relative abundance and distribution of juvenile salmonids and coastal

cutthroat trout (Figure 1). The surveys were repeated in the summer of 2003, but we were

unable to complete a survey of the main-stem Calawah because early fall freshets

reduced the water clarity to an unacceptable level. We did not survey relatively short

sections in uppermost Elk and Lost Creeks because they became too shallow to snorkel

(depth consistently less than 0.2 m; Table 1). The upper South Fork Calawah (above

river km 15.0) was not surveyed because it is permanently protected by Olympic National

Park, and our study was focused on prioritizing unprotected stream habitat.

In total we surveyed 57.1 km of stream that included 460 individual habitat units in the

main-stem river sections during the summer of 2002 compared to 38.4 km and 448

habitat units in 2003. In tributaries we surveyed 13.7 km of stream that included 401

individual habitat units in 2002 compared to 13.9 km and 429 habitat units in 2003. The

summer surveys took 28 days to complete and the two-man crew was able to cover 1 – 4

km of stream per day.

Adult salmonid abundance and distribution

We used existing adult redd counts from 1994-2003 (Unpublished Data, Quileute Indian

Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) to estimate the relative

abundance of spring/summer chinook, fall chinook, fall coho, and winter steelhead. Redd

counts for each species were conducted once every 10 days in index reaches during their

respective spawning seasons (Egan 1977). Some years did not allow the same survey

frequency because of inclement weather conditions. To reduce variation associated with

survey frequency we used data collected over a ten-year period

Habitat characteristics

8

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

Habitat data collection focused on estimating two metrics that have been found to be

positively correlated with the relative abundance of spawning and rearing salmonids,

including an estimate of pool habitat (Everest et al. 1985; Rosenfeld et al. 2000; Sharma

and Hilborn 2001) and an estimate of the pool-riffle and forced pool-riffle channel types

(Montgomery et al. 1999; Pess et al. 2002; Pess et al. 2003). We defined stream habitat

units as pools or non-pools and measured the wetted length and width at a single transect

in each unit (Hankin and Reeves 1988). Channel type was classified as pool/riffle, forced

pool/riffle, plane bed, cascade, or step-pool at distinct reach breaks according to

Montgomery and Buffington (1997). The metrics allow us to determine if habitat

characteristics are an effective surrogate for prioritize streams for juvenile salmonids.

Juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance and distribution

We used snorkel surveys to estimate the relative abundance of juvenile salmonid and

coastal cutthroat trout during the summer months (Dolloff et al. 1993; Thurow 1994).

The same experienced diver and habitat recorder sampled all survey sites to reduce bias

associated with multiple divers (Hankin and Reeves 1988; Locke 1997). The diver

conducted a single pass in an upstream direction through the thalweg of each habitat unit.

An additional pass was made along each channel margin in the main-stem Calawah

(summing the fish counts) because some wetted channel widths were much wider (20 –

30 m wider) than in other streams. While multiple divers are often used in such large

streams (Thurow 1994), we used a single diver because the greatest wetted widths were

relatively infrequent and they occurred in broad shallow pools where juvenile fish were

tightly focused in small schools or they were absent. Salmonids were classified based on

size (estimated fork length) as juvenile coho, juvenile chinook, juvenile age-0 trout (trout

< 100 mm), juvenile steelhead parr (> 100 mm), and coastal cutthroat trout (> 100 mm).

We also conducted winter (February) snorkel surveys in 2003 and 2004 to capture

potential seasonal differences in relative salmonid densities between tributaries (Bustard

and Narver 1975; Cunjak 1996). The surveys were conducted at night (Roni and Fayram

2000) in shorter reaches (7 – 10 bankfull widths in length) because access was difficult.

9

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

Main-stem river sections were not surveyed in the winter because they were too large to

sample and visibility too poor to sight juvenile fish.

A potential bias in visual estimates of fish abundance is observer error, which is due to

variation from direct over- or under-counting of target species (Hankin and Reeves

1988). The relative level of count precision may vary in relation to fish abundance and

habitat type. To examine the relative precision of diver counts we conducted bounded

counts, or three successive but separate counts of the same habitat unit, in a subset of

pools and non-pools (Hankin 1984). To determine whether the relative variation in fish

counts varied between habitat types (pools and riffles) and increased with fish abundance

we compared the mean abundance to the coefficient of variation (C.V. %) for the

bounded counts. This allowed us to assess the amount of variation in our counts

associated with measurement error, versus the relative differences in fish abundance

between habitat units.

Stream prioritization

Metric evaluation

The goal of our evaluation was to determine if existing adult salmonid and habitat quality

and quantity metrics would prioritize the same streams as the juvenile salmonid and

coastal cutthroat trout metrics. To do this we combined the existing adult redd count data

with our summer (2002) and winter (2003 and 2004) field data to generate five different

metrics (Table 2). Use of 2003 summer data was precluded because data was not

collected in the main-stem Calawah. Each main-stem river section and tributary was

ranked according to their respective metrics under the assumption that streams supporting

a high level of a particular metric represent conservation priorities when compared to

streams supporting lesser levels of the same metric. Under this assumption the top two

main-stem river sections and tributaries, and their contributing watersheds, were

identified as salmon conservation priority areas and mapped in ArcGIS to allow for a

visual comparison of their locations throughout the watershed. To quantify the

comparisons we used the 2002 summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout

10

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

metric as a pseudo-control to estimate the relative proportion of the different species that

would be conserved using the adult and habitat metrics.

Juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout hotspots

We used a kernel density estimator in ArcGIS (Silverman 1986) to quantify spatial

variation in fish counts for all summer salmonid species except chinook, which were

rarely observed. The kernel density function estimated a smoothed distribution of the

relative abundance of fish by calculating the number of fish in a specified search radius

(i.e., bandwidth) around each habitat unit. ArcGIS used a quadratic, bounded kernel in

its calculations, which weighted fish more heavily the closer they are to the habitat unit

(de Smith et al. 2007). After the raster was generated, we classified the values using a

“natural breaks (Jenks)” algorithm that identified natural groupings inherent in the data

and created break points that minimized within-class variance and maximized between-

class variance (Jenks and Caspall 1971; de Smith et al. 2007). In our maps, variations in

relative salmonid abundance were described by a warm to cool color scale where red

represented high relative abundance (hotspot areas) and blue represented low relative

abundance. The maps allowed us to determine: 1) if the data revealed hotspots in

salmonid abundance, and 2) if those hotspots varied between species, suggesting either

overlap or segregation.

RESULTS

Habitat metrics

Main-stem rivers

We found minimal differences in the proportion of stream surface area consisting of pool

habitat and pool-riffle channel types among main-stem river sections in the summer of

2002 (Figure 3a and 3b). The highest levels of each metric were found in the main-stem

Calawah and lower N.F. Calawah Rivers. The Sitkum was notable because it did not

contain the pool-riffle channel type and was the only main-stem river to contain the

steeper cascade and step-pool channel types (7%).

Tributaries

11

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

Differences in the habitat metrics among tributaries were larger than the differences

among main-stem rivers (Figure 4a and 4b). For example, we found a relatively large

difference in the proportion of pool habitat between Hyas (54 %) and Lost Creeks (22 %).

A similarly large difference was found in the proportion of the pool-riffle channel types

between Elk (96 %) and Lost Creeks (74 %). Overall, Hyas and Elk Creek supported the

greatest proportion of pool habitat and the highest percent of the two pool-riffle channel

types. However, differences in the channel type metric between second-ranked Hyas

Creek and the third-ranked upper N.F. Calawah were minimal.

Salmonid metrics

Main-stem rivers

The main-stem Calawah and lower N.F. Calawah Rivers supported the greatest relative

abundance of redds from 1994 to 2003, and the Sitkum the least (Figure 3c). Redd

counts were dominated by winter steelhead at all sites, while the greatest relative

abundance of fall coho and fall chinook were counted in the lower N.F. Calawah.

In contrast to the adult metric, the Sitkum River and S.F. Calawah River contained the

greatest relative abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout in 2002

(Figure 3d). Juvenile coho were the dominant species at all sites except for the Sitkum

River, which was dominated by age-0 trout and steelhead parr. In fact, the Sitkum

contained 76% of all steelhead parr counted in main-stem river sections and 50% of all

parr counted during the entire summer survey of 2002 (Figure 3e). Coastal cutthroat

trout were most abundant in the main-stem Calawah and Sitkum River.

Annual variation in the relative abundance of juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat

trout was similar in the S.F. Calawah (difference of 1,532 fish from 2002 to 2003) and

Sitkum Rivers (difference of 1,459 fish) (Figure 3f). There was a larger annual

difference of 17,821 fish in the lower N.F. Calawah. The difference would have changed

the rankings from 2002 to 2003, although the Sitkum would still have been identified as

an SCPA both years.

12

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

Tributaries 370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

Elk Creek and the upper N.F. Calawah displayed the greatest relative abundance of adult

redds among tributaries (Figure 4c). However, there were only minimal differences

between Hyas, Lost, and upper N.F. Calawah. Coho were the dominant species at all

sites.

The upper N.F. Calawah and Elk Creek also supported the greatest relative abundance of

juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout during the summer of 2002, although the

differences between the Elk, Hyas, and Lost were negligible (Figure 4d).Juvenile coho

and age-0 trout were the dominant species at all sites. Unlike the main-stem river

sections, patterns in relative abundance were generally similar for each creek in 2002 and

2003 (Figure 4e).

In the winter of 2003 we counted 518 juvenile coho, 200 age-0 trout, 102 steelhead parr,

and 36 coastal cutthroat trout compared to 252 juvenile coho, 183 age-0 trout, 156

steelhead parr, and 87 coastal cutthroat trout in 2004. Lost Creek and the upper N.F.

Calawah had the highest mean density of juvenile salmonids (Figure 4f). Similar to

summer, juvenile coho and age-0 trout were the dominant species.

Bounded counts

We conducted bounded counts in 24 pools and 21 riffles (13 pools/12 riffles in

tributaries, 11 pools, 9 riffles in main-stem river sections during the summer of 2002.

The mean C.V. for all habitat units was 10% (range: 3 – 36%), including 10% for pools

(range: 3 – 36%) and 9% for riffles (range: 4 – 13%) (Figure 3). The relative variation

did not increase with fish abundance. In fact, variation between habitat units was 4 to 5

times greater than the variation between counts, suggesting a relatively consistent level of

precision associated with observer error.

Stream prioritization

Main-stem rivers

13

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

The four metrics prioritized two different combinations of main-stem river sections

(Table 3). Habitat quantity, habitat quality, and adult redd count metrics prioritized the

main-stem Calawah and the lower N.F. Calawah as conservation priority areas (Figures

6a and 6b). Conserving these areas would include 32% of the juvenile salmonids and

59% of the coastal cutthroat trout based on the summer 2002 estimates. In contrast, the

summer juvenile abundance metric prioritized the S.F. Calawah River and Sitkum River

(Figure 6c). These sites would conserve 68% of the relative juvenile salmonid and

coastal cutthroat trout abundance, including the majority of most individual species.

The hypothetical rankings highlight several relevant points. First, each of the main-stem

river sections was prioritized in the top two spots of the hierarchy by at least one metric.

Second, the habitat metrics were too similar to rationalize a choice of one river section

over another. Third, the proportion of coastal cutthroat trout being conserved was

relatively equal under all the different scenarios. Fourth, in contrast with coastal

cutthroat trout, the habitat and adult redd count metrics did not track well with the

summer juvenile salmonid metric. This is especially clear in the Sitkum River, which

was ranked last or near last under the habitat and adult scenarios, but was ranked highly

under the juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout scenario. The comparisons

indicate that habitat metrics and the adult metric effectively prioritized main-stem rivers

for coastal cutthroat trout during the summer, but not for the juvenile salmonids.

Tributaries

Five metrics prioritized three possible combinations of streams at the top of the different

hierarchies. The two habitat metrics prioritized Elk and Hyas Creek as conservation

priority areas (Figure 7a), which would conserve over 50% of the relative juvenile

salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance in tributaries (Table 3). On the other

hand, the adult redd metric and the juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout metric

prioritized Elk Creek and the upper N.F. Calawah (Figures 6b and 6c). This would

conserve the greatest level of juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance.

The winter juvenile salmonid density prioritized Lost Creek and the upper N.F Calawah,

14

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

which would conserve a similar level of fish as the adult and juvenile salmonid scenarios

(Figure 6d).

Similar to the main-stem river sections, each tributary was prioritized in the top two spots

of the hierarchy at least once during the hypothetical prioritization process. The adult

redd count metric and juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout metrics prioritized the

same places, while the habitat metrics prioritized Elk Creek but not the upper N.F.

Calawah. It is also interesting that the adult and juvenile salmonid (summer and winter)

metrics implied very different levels of relative use between Elk Creek and the upper

N.F. The results suggest the existing data effectively prioritized summer juvenile

salmonid and coastal cutthroat rearing habitat, while the habitat metrics were less

effective.

Juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout distribution and hotspots

We found several interesting distribution patterns. First, there was a high level of overlap

between species and all species were found up to the anadromous barriers in the upper

N.F. Calawah River, Hyas Creek, and Lost Creek. Second, juvenile coho, age-0 trout,

and steelhead parr were absent in much of the main-stem Calawah River where their

distribution was restricted to a few plane bed channel reaches with boulders and deeper

riffles (> 0.3 m deep). The Calawah channel type composition was otherwise dominated

by a pool-riffle morphology that included shallow riffles (< 0.3 deep) and long stagnant

pools (200 – 500 m in length) with low levels of cover. Juveniles were rarely observed in

those habitats. Third, the distribution of juvenile steelhead parr was focused in the upper

sections of the watershed compared to other species. For example, they were absent in

most of the lower N.F. Calawah River, a location with a high relative abundance of

steelhead and coho redds, juvenile coho, and age-0 trout. Lastly, coastal cutthroat trout

were distributed more broadly across the watershed than other species because they were

relatively abundant in the main-stem Calawah.

We were able to successfully identify hotspots, or peaks, in the relative abundance of

juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout at the reach scale. The number and

15

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

location of hotspots varied among species. For example, we identified four hotspots in

juvenile coho abundance, including the lower part of the lower and upper N.F. Calawah

River sites, lower Lost Creek, and the lower S.F. Calawah River a few kilometers above

its confluence with the N.F. Calawah River (Figure 7a). There were also four hotspots

for age-0 trout, including the lower N.F. Calawah River, two different locations in the

Sitkum River, and the lower part of the upper N.F. Calawah River (Figure 7b). In

comparison, the only distinct hotspot for juvenile steelhead was located in the upper part

of the Sitkum River (Figure 7c) and the only hotspot in coastal cutthroat trout abundance

was located in the lower main-stem Calawah River (Figure 7d). The variations in

hotspot locations imply that there is a level of segregation, or complementary habitat

utilization, where different species and life stages rely on slightly different parts of the

stream network during the summer.

DISCUSSION

Stream prioritization

We were interested in evaluating the ability of metrics based on assumptions about

habitat characteristics and existing adult data to prioritize tributaries and main-stem rivers

for juvenile salmonids and coastal cutthroat trout. The habitat and adult metrics

prioritized different main-stem river sections than the summer juvenile salmonid metric,

although they generally matched the coastal cutthroat metric. In tributaries, the adult and

juvenile salmonid metrics prioritized the same streams. However, the habitat and winter

juvenile salmonid metrics did not equally prioritize the same streams as the summer

juvenile metric. Inferences about these results should keep in mind that our data was

limited to a two-year period, which does not account for long-term trends in salmonid

abundance and habitat conditions. Watersheds are dynamic landscapes with changing

habitat conditions (Reeves et al. 1995) and annual variation in salmonid abundance and

distribution can be extensive (Groot and Margolis 1991; Quinn 2005). While we did

observe annual variation, it was only great enough to influence the hierarchical rankings

in one situation. Despite the constrained temporal scope, the results highlight several

limitations associated with using existing adult salmonid data and assumptions about

stream habitat characteristics to prioritize streams for juvenile salmonids.

16

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

We prioritized streams using two habitat metrics characterizing the proportion of pool

habitat and the proportion of pool-riffle channel types. Pools are important rearing

habitats for many juvenile salmonid species (Everest et al. 1985; Bisson et al. 1988;

Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Rosenfeld et al. 2000), and pools occur more frequently in pool-

riffle channel types (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Previous studies have found

positive correlations between juvenile coho abundance and pool-riffle channel types at

the reach-scale (Pess et al. 2003) and pool habitat at the sub-basin scale (Nickelson et al.

1992a; Sharma and Hilborn 2001). Thus, we reasoned that our habitat metrics might

track well with the summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout metric. The

habitat metrics did not track well with the juveniles, but they did prioritize streams that

provided the greatest protection for coastal cutthroat. Consequently, we concluded that

our assumptions about pools and low-gradient channel types were ineffective for

prioritizing summer juvenile stream habitat.

The difference in habitat and juvenile prioritization hierarchies was most notable in the

Sitkum and upper N.F. Calawah Rivers. These sites were prioritized at a low level by

habitat metrics. However, they supported the greatest relative abundance of juvenile

salmonids in their respective stream categories, including the highest levels of age-0 trout

and steelhead parr. While coho tend to prefer pools and low-gradient stream reaches,

age-0 trout and steelhead parr also rely heavily on riffles, cascades, and plunge pools

where cover is provided by boulders and turbulence (Everest et al. 1985; Bisson et al.

1988; Smith et al. 2005). Riffles tend to predominate in plane bed channel morphologies

and cascades and plunge pools in cascade and step-pool channel types (Montgomery and

Buffington 1997). Such geomorphic features were most common in the Sitkum and

upper N.F. Calawah Rivers where age-0 trout and steelhead parr were most abundant.

Accordingly, we may have focused too strongly on pools and future approaches might

improve on our study by incorporating metrics reflecting habitat characteristics more

typically associated with use by age-0 trout and steelhead.

17

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

The adult metrics prioritized the same locations as the summer juvenile metric in

tributaries, but not in the main-stem river sections. This was expected to some degree

because juveniles may have different habitat requirements than adults (Bjornn and Reiser

1991; Groot and Margolis 1991; Quinn 2005). It is possible that the variation in relative

abundance between adults and juveniles in particular streams could be explained by

demographic processes (Angermeier and Schlosser 1995). For example, the relative

abundance of adult steelhead redds and juvenile trout and steelhead parr abundance

contrasted sharply within and between the main-stem Calawah and Sitkum River. One

hypothesis is that main-stem Calawah was a sink, while the Sitkum River was a source.

Age-0 trout and steelhead parr survival might be lower in the main-stem Calawah where

deep riffles, plunge pools, and boulder cover were scarce and higher in the Sitkum where

those habitat features were common. A patchy population model may also provide some

explanation. Juvenile salmonids can undertake extensive movements from their natal

habitat (Cederholm and Scarlett 1981; Peterson 1982; Kahler et al. 2001; Bramblett et al.

2002). Juveniles may simply have emigrated from areas where they were spawned. We

cannot determine if either model or a combination of both models contributed to the

patterns in distribution. Regardless, our results imply that existing redd count data should

be used with caution when prioritizing streams for different life stages.

Inferences about the utility of our winter juvenile salmonid metric are limited because the

sites were not randomly selected and because the reaches were relatively short in length.

Nonetheless, the differences in relative density were important because the metric

prioritized Lost Creek. In the hypothetical prioritization Lost Creek was ranked last or

next to last with all other prioritization metrics. Other studies have shown that juvenile

salmonids may rely on different habitat during the winter compared to summer (Bustard

and Narver 1975; Campbell and Neuner 1985; Cunjak 1996). Our results raise the

hypothesis that winter juvenile metrics may prioritize different areas than summer

juvenile metrics, which could be important if winter habitat is a limiting factor for

juvenile survival. .

Summer salmonid distribution and ‘hotspots’

18

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

We found that the relative abundance of juvenile coho was higher in tributaries during the

summer, while the relative abundance of age-0 trout, steelhead parr, and coastal cutthroat

trout was higher in main-stem river sections. The differences in distribution between

tributaries and main-stem rivers for coho and juvenile trout is largely consistent with

other studies (Bramblett et al. 2002; Pess et al. 2002). Less information is available on

the continuous distribution of juvenile coho, steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout within

a watershed. Two other studies did continuously survey juvenile coho and steelhead in

sections of different streams in the South Umpqua River basin, Oregon. In one study

juvenile coho were rare in main-stem rivers and abundant in low-elevation tributaries,

whereas juvenile steelhead displayed their highest densities in the upper main-stem rivers

and tributaries (Scarnecchia and Roper 2005). These patterns generally match what we

found, although coho were locally abundant in some of our main-stem rivers. The other

study reported the highest density of steelhead parr in the middle reaches of the

watershed and the highest density of age-0 steelhead in the upper reaches (Roper et al.

1994). Our hotspots suggest just the opposite, with the lone steelhead parr hotspot

occurring in the upper watershed. Despite some differences, there is a common theme:

high levels of distribution overlap between species and spatial segregation of hotspots

suggest there is complementary habitat utilization by different species.

A major benefit of continuous sampling was our ability to successfully identify hotspots

so that conservation stakeholders could potentially refine the resolution of prioritization

from the scale of main-stem river sections and sub-basins to the reach scale (100’s –

1000’s m). This scale could be useful in guiding conservation activities focused on

protecting hotspots, such as land acquisitions and conservation easements. The use of

acquisitions and easements in salmon recovery efforts has grown considerably in recent

years and permanent protection of salmon hotspots may be important (Lucchetti et al.

2005). However, juvenile summer rearing hotspots existed at the reach scale and

represented only a small fraction of the stream network. Such patches will only persist if

the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that generate those features are maintained

within the context of a broader watershed-scale recovery plan (Reeves et al. 1995;

Beechie and Bolton 1999).

19

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

Implications

Stakeholders in salmon recovery efforts are challenged with the task of effectively

prioritizing streams for conservation actions ranging from instream restoration to land

acquisitions (Roni et al. 2002). To prioritize streams scientists and stakeholders often

rely on existing data and assumptions about relationships between salmonids and habitat

(Bisson et al. 2001). We found that existing adult data and our habitat metrics, which

reflected assumptions about salmonid use, did not always effectively prioritize streams

for the juvenile life stage in the Calawah River basin. In addition, there was seasonal

variation in the prioritization of juvenile salmonid streams and at least one hotspot in

juvenile salmonid abundance was documented in each stream. Because of the complex

prioritization patterns, each tributary and main-stem river section was prioritized among

the top two streams in at least one metric hierarchy. These results underscore two

important points. First, it can be difficult to prioritize one place over another when

multiple species and life stages are considered. Thus, conservation actions based on

prioritization are only likely to be effective if they are meshed with efforts to maintain

and restore watershed-scale processes (Beechie and Bolton 1999). Second, existing data

and assumptions about habitat conditions may not necessarily be effective for other life

stages and species. This means it is imperative to clearly define conservation objectives

and to match them with an appropriate metric at the watershed-scale, even if that requires

collecting new data to fill information gaps. A reliance on mismatched metrics or poorly

defined goals may lead to prioritization efforts that unintentionally mislead decision-

makers.

20

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

REFERENCES 615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

Beechie, T., and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid habitat-forming

processes in Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 24 (4), 6-15.

Bisson, P.A., K. Sullivan, and J.L. Nielsen. 1988. Channel hydraulics, habitat use, and

body form of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout in streams.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 262-273.

Bisson, P.A., C.C. Coutant, D. Goodman, R. Gramling, D. Lettenmaier, J. Lichatowich,

E. Loudenslager, W. Liss, L. McDonald, D. Philipp, and B. Riddell. 2001. Model

synthesis report: an analysis of decision support tools used in Columbia River basin

salmon management. Independent Scientific Advisory Board: report 2001 – 1a.

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams.

Pages 83-138 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland

management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19.

American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland.

Bramblett, R. G., M. D. Bryant, B. E. Wright, and R.G. White. 2002. Seasonal use of

small tributary and main-stem habitats by juvenile steelhead, coho salmon, and

Dolly Varden in a southeastern Alaska drainage basin. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 131:498–506.

Bustard, D.R., and D.W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of winter ecology of juvenile coho

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmon gairdneri). Journal of

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:667-680.

Cederholm, C. J., and W. J. Scarlett. 1981. Seasonal immigrations of juvenile salmonids

into four small tributaries of the Clearwater River, Washington. Pages 98-110 in E.

L. Brannon and E. O. Salo, (eds.) Proceedings of the first international symposium

21

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

for salmon and trout migratory behavior. University of Washington, School of

Fisheries, Seattle.

Cunjak. R.A. 1996. Winter impacts of selected stream fishes and potential impacts from

land-use activity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:267-282.

de Smith, M.J., M.F. Goodchild, and P.A. Longley. 2007. Geospatial Analysis: A

comprehensive guide to principles, techniques and software tools. 2nd ed. Troubador

Publishing Ltd, Leicester, United Kingdom: 514 pp.

Dolloff, C. A., D. G. Hankin, and G. H. Reeves. 1993. Basinwide estimation of habitat

and fish populations in streams. U.S. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station, General Technical Report SE-GTR-83, Asheville, North

Carolina.

Egan, R. 1977. Salmon spawning ground data report, State of Washington Department of

Fisheries progress report. 17:1-346.

Everest, R.H., N.B. Armantrout, S.M. Keller, W.D. Parante, J.R. Sedell., T.E. Nickleson,

J.M. Johnston, and G.N. Haugen. 1985. Salmonids. Pages 199-230 in E. R.

Brown, editor. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western

Oregon and Washington. Publication R6-F&WL-192-1985. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Fausch, K.D., Torgersen, C.E., Baxter, C.V., and Li, H.W. 2002. Landscapes to

riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes.

Bioscience 52: 483-496.

Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley.1986. A hierarchical

framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a catchment

context. Environmental Management 10:199–214.

22

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

Frissell, C. A. 1993. A new strategy for watershed restoration and recovery of pacific

salmon on the Pacific Northwest. Report prepared for The Pacific Rivers Council,

Eugene, Oregon.

Frissell, C. A., P. H. Morrison, S. B. Adams, L. H. Swope, and N. P. Hitt. 2000.

Identifying priority areas for salmon conservation in the Puget Sound Basin. Pacific

Biodiversity Institute Open File Report Number 2000-1.

Gresswell, R.E., C.E. Torgersen, D.S. Bateman, T.J. Guy, S.R. Hendricks, and J.E.B.

Wofford. 2006. A spatially explicit approach for evaluating relationships among

coastal cutthroat trout, habitat, and disturbance in small Oregon streams. American

Fisheries Society Symposium 48: 457 – 471.

Groot, C., and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada: 564 pp.

Hankin, D.G., and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat

area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 834-844.

Hankin, D.G. 1984. Multistage sampling designs in fisheries research: applications in

small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1575-1591.

Jenks G.F., and F.C. Caspall. 1971. Error on choroplethic maps: Definition,

measurement, reduction. Annals of American Geographers 61: 217-44.

Kahler, T.H., P. Roni, and T.P. Quinn. 2001. Summer movement and growth of juvenile

anadromous salmonids in small western Washington streams. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1947-1956.

23

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

Lichatowich, J.A., L. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the

diagnosis and treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in Pacific

Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 20(1):10-18.

Locke A. (1997) Precision of diving and canoe-based visual estimates of Atlantic salmon

(Salmo salar) abundance. Fisheries Research 29: 283–287.

Luchetti, G., K.O. Richter, and R.E. Schaefer. 2005. Monitoring of acquisitions and

conservation easements. Pp278 – 311 in Roni, P. (ed.). Monitoring Stream and

Watershed Restoration. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, MD.

May, C., and G. Peterson. 2003. Landscape assessment and conservation prioritization

of freshwater and nearshore salmonid habitat in Kitsap County: Kitsap salmonid

refugia report. Kitsap county, WA.

Montgomery, D.R., E.M. Beamer, G.R. Pess, G.R., and T.P. Quinn. 1999. Channel type

and salmonid spawning distribution and abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences 56: 377-387.

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain

drainage basins. GSA Bulletin, V.109, no. 5: p.596-611. Department of Geological

Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Nickelson, T., J. Rodgers, M.F. Solazzi, and S. Johnson. 1992a. Seasonal changes in

habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal

streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 783 – 789.

Pess, G.R., D.R. Montgomery, A.E. Steel, R.E. Bilby, B.E. Feist, and H.M. Greenburg.

2002. Landscape characteristic, land use, and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

abundance, Snohomish River, Wash., U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences 59: 613 – 623.

24

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

Pess, G. R., T. J. Beechie, J. E. Williams, D. R. Whithall, J. I. Lange, and J. R. Klochak.

2003. Watershed assessment techniques and the success of aquatic restoration

activities. Pp 185-201 in R. C. Wissmar and P. A. Bisson, (eds.). Strategies for

restoring river ecosystems: sources of variability and uncertainty in natural and

managed systems. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland.

Peterson, N. P. 1982. Immigration of juvenile coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch into

riverine ponds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:1308-1310.

Quinn, TP. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. University of

Washington Press, Seattle.

Railsback, S.F., H.B. Stauffer, and B.C. Harvey. 2003. What can habitat preference

models tell us? Tests using a virtual trout population. Ecological Applications

13(6): 1580 – 1594.

Redd counts from 1994-2003 (Unpublished Data, Quileute Indian Tribe and Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A

disturbance-based approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of

evolutionary significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest.

American Fisheries Society Symposium 17: 334 – 349.

Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and G. R. Pess. 2002.

A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for

Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal

of Fisheries Management 22:1–20.

25

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

795

796

797

798

Roni, P., and A. Fayram. 2000. Estimating Winter Salmonid Abundance in Small

Western Washington Streams: A Comparison of Three Techniques. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:683-692.

Roper, B.B., D.L. Scarnecchia, and T.J. La Marr. 1994. Summer distribution of and

habitat use by chinook salmon and steel head within a major basin of the South

Umpqua River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123: 298 –

308.

Rosenfeld, J. S,, and T. Hatfield. 2006. Information needs for assessing critical habitat

of freshwater fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:683-698

Rosenfeld, J., M. Porter, and E. Parkinson. 2000. Habitat factors affecting the abundance

and distribution of juvenile cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

57:766774.

Scarnecchia, D.L., and B.B. Roper. 2000. Large-scale, differential summer habitat use

of three anadromous salmonids in a large river basin in Oregon, U.S.A. Fisheries

Management Ecology 7: 197 – 209.

Schlosser, I.J., and P.L. Angermeier. 1995. Spatial variation in demographic processes of

lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for

conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:392-401.

Sharma, R., and R. Hilborn. 2001. Empirical relationships between watershed

characteristics and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolt abundance in 14

western Washington streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

58: 1453-1463.

26

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

Silverman, B. W. 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and

Hall, New York.

Smith, D.L., and E.L. Brannon. 2005. Response of juvenile rainbow trout to turbulence

produced by prismatoidal shapes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

134: 741 – 753.

Thurow, R.F. 1994. Underwater Methods for Study of Salmonids in the Intermountain

West. United States Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-GTR-307.

Torgersen, C. E., C. V. Baxter, H. W. Li, and B. A. McIntosh. 2006. Landscape

influences on longitudinal patterns of river fishes: spatially continuous analysis of

fish–habitat relationships. Pp 473–492 in R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P.W.

Seelbach, (eds.). Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological

assemblages.American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.

Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of

Wildlife Management 47(4): 893 – 901.

27

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

TABLES 830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

Table 1. Description of main-stem river survey sites and tributary streams, including total

length of stream (km) accessible to anadromous salmonids, total stream length surveyed

during the 2002 summer, drainage area (km2), mean gradient (%) with range, mean

bankfull width (BFW) with range, and mean bankfull depth (BFD) with range. NA- not

applicable because drainage area is part of a larger discrete basin.

Stream Length (km)

Drainage Area (km2)

Gradient (%)

Mean BFW (m)

Mean BFD (m)

Stream Survey

Main-stem rivers

Calawah 18.3 18.3 NA 1.6 (1.2 – 4.2)

54.5 (29.0 – 95.0)

2.5 (1.2 – 5.4)

S.F. Calawah 24.8 9.9 120 1.5 (1.1 –

1.9) 40.9 (19.5 -

69.4) 2.4 (1.3 –

4.8)

Lower N.F. Calawah

13.0 13.0 NA 1.3 (0.7 – 2.1)

27.6 (14.1 – 55.1)

1.6 (0.6 – 5.2)

Sitkum 15.9 15.9 68 1.8 (0.3 – 15.0)

21.8 (9.2 – 53.2)

2.2 (0.6 – 6.7)

Tributaries

Elk Creek 6.4 4.9 14.5 1.3 (0.6 – 6.0)

14.2 (6.7 – 21.2)

1.5 (0.9 – 2.8)

Hyas Creek 3.0 3.0 20.1 1.8 (1.0 –

11.0) 14.1 (6.8 -

23.4) 2.3 (0.5 –

8.2)

Lost Creek 3.5 2.9 14.5 2.8 (0.7 – 14.5)

13.5 (8.2 – 28.5)

1.3 (0.6 – 3.2)

Upper N.F. Calawah 2.9 2.9 NA 1.9 (0.8 –

6.5) 19.2 (11.9 –

51.3) 1.6 (0.9 –

2.8)

28

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

838 Table 2. Description of habitat and salmonid metrics used to prioritize critical habitat.

Metric Description

Habitat Quality The total proportion (%) of the wetted surface area (m2) of stream during summer months consisting of pool habitat.

Habitat Quantity The total proportion (%) of the stream surface area (m2) during summer consisting of pool-riffle and forced pool-riffle channel types.

Relative adult redd abundance Sum of estimated redd abundance for spring/summer chinook, fall chinook, coho, and winter steelhead from 1994 – 2003.

Relative summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance

Cumulative relative abundance of salmonids (juvenile coho, juvenile unidentifiable age-0 trout, juvenile steelhead, and coastal cutthroat) for each survey site during 2002 summer.

Mean winter salmonid density Annual mean winter density of salmonids (m2, same species as above) for each survey site for 2003 and 2004.

839

840

29

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

Table 3. The proportion of the relative summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat

trout abundance that would be conserved using the habitat quantity (HQT), habitat

quality (HQL), relative adult redd abundance (AD), summer relative juvenile salmonid

and coastal cutthroat trout abundance (SJ), and the winter juvenile salmonid density (WJ)

metrics in main-stem river sections and tributaries in the Calawah River Basin (based on

2002 summer juvenile data). WJ metric only available for tributaries. Grey highlighted

cells indicate metrics that would conserve the greatest proportion of salmonids.

Sites Type Coho 0-age Trout Chinook Stlhd. Cutthrt. Total

Mainstem river sections

Calawah & Lower N.F. Calawah

HQT, HQL, AD

39% 27% 1% 4% 59% 32%

S.F. Calawah and Sitkum

SJ 0.61 0.73 0.99 0.96 0.41 0.68

Tributaries

Elk & Hyas HQT, HQL 45% 43% 100% 53% 60% 45%

Elk & Upper N.F. Calawah

AD, SJ 56% 56% 100% 68% 54% 56%

Upper N.F. Calawah & Lost

WJ 55% 61% 0% 46% 41% 55%

849

850

851

30

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

FIGURES 852

853

854

855

Figure 1. Map of the Calawah River Basin, Washington State, including the stream

lengths surveyed during the summer months.

856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872

31

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

873

874

875

Figure 2. The coefficient of variation (C.V. %) v. the number of fish for bounded counts

conducted during summer and winter of 2002/2003. Black filled diamonds denote pools

and hollow rectangles denote non-pools.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0 50 100 150 200 250Maximum number of fish during a count

C.V

. (%

)

876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894

32

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

Figure 3. (a) The proportion of the stream surface (m2) area existing in (b) pool habitat

and (b) each channel type, (c) adult salmonid redd abundance from 1994 – 2003, (d) 2002

and (e) 2003 summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance, and (f)

2002 juvenile steelhead parr abundance in each main-stem river section. In (b) black

denotes pool riffle, grey denotes forced pool riffle, white denotes plane-bed, slashed

denotes cascade, and stippled denotes step-pool. In (c) black denotes fall coho, slashed

denotes fall chinook, white denotes s/s chinook, and grey denotes winter steelhead. In (d)

and (e), black denotes coho, white denotes trout, grey denotes steelhead parr/rainbow

trout, hollow rectangles denote cutthroat, and stippled denotes chinook.

895

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904 a.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum

Prop

ortio

n (%

) of s

urfa

ce a

rea

905 906

907

908

909

910

911

912

913

33

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

914 b.

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum

Prop

ortio

n (%

) of s

urfa

ce a

rea

915 916 c.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum

Num

ber o

f red

ds

917 918

919

920

34

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

921 d.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum

Num

ber o

f juv

enile

s

922 923 e.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum

Num

ber o

f juv

enile

s

924 925

926

927

35

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

928 f.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Calawah S.F. Calawah L. N.F. Calawah Sitkum

Num

ber o

f juv

enile

s

929 930

931

932

933

934

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

36

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

Figure 4. (a) The proportion of the stream surface (m2) area existing in (a) pool habitat

and (b) each channel type (m2), (c) adult salmonid redd abundance from 1994 – 2003, (d)

2002 and (e) 2003 summer juvenile salmonid and coastal cutthroat trout abundance, and

(f) mean winter juvenile salmonid density (m2) with standard error bar in each tributary.

In (b) black denotes pool riffle, grey denotes forced pool riffle, white denotes plane-bed,

slashed denotes cascade, and stippled denotes step-pool. In (c) black denotes fall coho,

slashed denotes fall chinook, white denotes s/s chinook, and grey denotes winter

steelhead. In (d) and (e), black denotes coho, white denotes trout, grey denotes steelhead

parr/rainbow trout, hollow rectangles denote cutthroat, and stippled denotes chinook.

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

953

954

955 a.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Elk Ck. Hyas Ck. Lost Ck. U. N.F.Calawah

Prop

ortio

n (%

) of s

urfa

ce a

rea .

956 957

958

959

960

961

962

963

964

37

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

965 b.

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Elk Ck. Hyas Ck. Lost Ck. U. N.F.Calawah

Prop

ortio

n (%

) of s

urfa

ce a

rea .

966 967 c.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Elk Creek Hyas Creek Lost Creek U. N.F. Calawah

Num

ber o

f red

ds

968 969

970

38

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

971 d.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Elk Creek Hyas Creek Lost Creek U. N.F. Calawah

Num

ber o

f juv

enile

s

972 973 e.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Elk Creek Hyas Creek Lost Creek U. N.F. Calawah

Num

ber o

f juv

enile

s

974 975

976

977

978

39

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

979 f.

Elk Ck. Hyas Ck. Lost Ck. U. N.F. Calawah0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

980 981

982

983

984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

993

40

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

994

995

996

997

Figure 5. Spatial distribution and hotspots for (a.) juvenile coho, (b.) 0-age trout, (c.)

steelhead parr, and (d.) coastal cutthroat for the summer of 2002. The relative abundance

of trout was estimated using a kernel density function.

a.

998 999 b.

1000 1001

41

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

1002 c.

1003 1004 d.

1005 1006

1007

1008

1009

42

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

Figure 6. Location of top two salmon SCPA’s for main-stem river section and tributary

habitat areas identified by using hypothetical prioritization scenarios, including (a) the

habitat quality and quantity metric, (b) the adult redd abundance metric, (c) the summer

juvenile and coastal cutthroat metric, and (d) the winter juvenile density metric.

a.

1015 1016 b.

1017 1018

1019

43

Calawah River critical habitat manuscript DRAFT

44

1020 c.

1021 1022

1023

d.

1024