-
extracted text
-
THE EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE
Build it and they will come; a cost-effective analysis of salmon habitat restoration
techniques in the Pacific Northwest.
by
Patricia Sun Garcia
A Thesis: Essay of
Distinction Submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2011
i
2011 by Patricia S. Garcia. All rights reserved.
ii
This Thesis for the study of Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Patricia Sun Garcia
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College by
Tom Rainey, PhD
Member of the Faculty
______________________________
Date
iii
ABSTRACT
Build it and they will come; a cost-effective analysis of salmon habitat restoration
techniques in the Pacific Northwest.
Patricia Sun Garcia
Pacific salmon species are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in western
Oregon and Washington state. Recovery efforts for the five listed species include various
restoration techniques such as the input of large woody debris (LWD) into streams and
the creation of artificial side channels in old oxbows and river meanders. Millions of
dollars are spent annually creating or enhancing habitat for salmonids and other fish
species. Much of these projects vary in cost and size. A cost effective analysis of LWD
and side channels was conducted to assess which project type is most economical. The
analysis revealed LWD as more cost effective than side channels over time. Fish densities
were used as a metric of responsiveness to treatment, and plotted over time against
annual expenditures. While both restoration types demonstrated increased fish density
soon after implementation of treatment, over time, density values decreased considerably
as annual expenditures increased over time. No significant relationship was detected in
the percent change of fish density for both LWD or side channels. This study
recommends that restoration projects take into consideration the measurable variables
with future cost effectiveness analysis in mind before implementation, and prioritizing
and identifying key actions and measures of restoration effectiveness before allocating
precious and limited funding dollars.
Table of Contents
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..v
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………..……vi
Chapter 1: Overall Introduction..………………………………………………………….1
Chapter 2: Detail of restoration types and methods……………………………………….9
Chapter 3: Methods………………………………………………………………………17
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………..……26
Conclusion and Discussion………………………………………………………………32
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..38
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Construction of Illabot artificial side channel (a) before (b) after……………..12
Figure 2. Instream restoration with LWD………………………………………………..15
Figure 3. Locations of reference and treatment side channels western Washington…….18
Figure 4. Locations of LWD reference and treatment sites…………...…………………20
Figure 5. LWD cost effectiveness for salmonids and species breakdown…………….…27
Figure 6. Percent change of total salmonid density (LWD)……………...……………...28
Figure 7. Channel fish density versus annual life cycle cost…………………………….29
Figure 8. Percent change of total salmonid density channels………………..…………..30
Figure 9. Channels versus LWD with salmonids and salmonid species annual cost.…...31
Figure 10. LWD versus channels and annual costs …………………………..…………32
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Total costs for projects Oregon and Washington…………………….… …22–24
Table 2. Total Costs for Projects Oregon and Washington……………………………...25
Table 3. Definitions of different off-channel habitat restoration techniques……..……..38
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my reader and advisor Dr. Tom Rainey for his expertise and
advice, and for seeing me to completion of this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr.
Ralph Murphy for his continued support and encouragement to realize finally my goal
after thirteen years. I would also like to thank the following people and organizations for
their collaboration and for providing data; Chris Detrick of the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Karen Chang, Phil DeCillis, and Roger Nichols of the
United States Forest Service (USFS), Brian Erickson of the Columbia-Pacific Resource
Conservation & Economic Development District (RC & EDD), and the Salmon Data
Management Team of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). To Sarah
Morley, and Todd Bennett of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center for working with
me as a team and collecting data during those years through rain, sunshine and snow. I
would also like to thank Dr. Phil Roni, Director of the Watershed Program of the
Northwest Fisheries Science Center for being a terrific mentor and friend. This thesis
would not have happened without his suggestion and support. To Louis Lim, MD, MPH,
for the statistics and late night musings of food. A very big thank you to my friends and
family for your loving encouragement and support. I am very grateful, despite
everything that has been to have this opportunity to complete this chapter of my life and
list this as a cherished accomplishment after all these years. Finally, for all it’s worth,
this one’s especially for Montana and me.
vii
Chapter 1. Overall Introduction
Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) are an economic mainstay and a cultural icon
of the Pacific Northwest. For centuries, the revered fish has sustained the indigenous
people and settlers, and the abundant flora and wildlife in the region. In 2001, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed several species of Pacific salmon as
threatened and endangered in Washington and Oregon states. The listing of the Pacific
salmon falls under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA). In Washington
state alone, there are at least twenty listed stocks including Puget Sound chinook, Hood
Canal chum and Coastal coho salmon.
The listing of salmon has not come without its controversies. The populations of
Pacific salmon (chinook, chum, and coho to name a few), especially the wild stocks of
chinook salmon in Puget Sound, have been diminishing significantly for the last three
decades. Federal and state agencies, private, tribal and non-profit groups have tried to
address the issue with hatchery supplementation and broodstock programs. The result of
the listing is a final acknowledgement that despite much of the efforts to address the low
numbers, recovery of the Pacific Northwest’s salmon populations are at a point of
decline, perhaps facing extinction.
Human activities have destroyed habitat and is one of the main factors causing the
decline of Pacific salmon. Floodplains of rivers are important geographic areas for sidechannels, which provides critical rearing and overwintering habitat for juvenile salmon
1
(Peterson 1982a, 1982b; Scarlett and Cederholm 1984; Brown and Hartman 1988;
Nickelson et al. 1992a, 1992b). Restoration of stream, riparian, and estuarine habitats is
a priority for state, tribal and federal government agencies, and for non-profit groups
attempting to recover listed salmon stocks.
Millions of dollars are being spent annually in the PNW in order to create or
enhance habitat for salmonids and other fish species. The Salmon Recovery Funding
Board (SRFB), an organization in charge of allocation of restoration funding in
Washington, has allocated upwards to 477 million dollars to over 1700 projects aimed at
habitat restoration and recovery (SRFB 2011)). Large portions of these funds have been
distributed to local government agencies and watershed community groups.
While diminished or altered habitat may be one of the major factors for salmonid
species decline, other activities have contributed to the decline of the species. Dams,
recreational and commercial fisheries, and hatcheries have all been implicated and
extensively evaluated. Collectively known as the “4 H’s”, habitat, hydroelectricity,
harvest and hatchery are main focal points attributed to the gradual decline in the last
century (Nehlsen et al. 1991).
Hydroelectrical power, the by-product of the dams, affect the migration of
juvenile and adult salmon. There are over 2000 man made structures in Washington state
alone. Four of the most contentious, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and
the Lower Granite impede passage on the Snake river a major tributary of the Columbia
2
river, once known as the largest and most productive salmon runs in the world. While the
dams provide cheap power and electricity for much of the PNW and California, it has
come at a considerable cost economically and environmentally, especially for Indian
tribes that once fished areas now flooded by reservoirs.
Management of harvest has almost exclusively been at the state level.
Commercial and recreational fisheries are managed yearly based upon forecasting
escapement and return of fish runs from each system. Though managed jointly, the
relationship of commercial and recreational fishers remains contentious with poor fish
returns and numbers. The local tribes address their own fishery and harvest requirements
separate from the state as sovereign nations based on their treaty rights.
Hatcheries, which are managed by the tribes and the state, and receive aid from
private and local organizations, enhance harvest. Hatchery supplementation programs
were once considered the premier technology for producing fish for the rivers. This has
fallen out of favor as artificial propagation of a species leads hatchery fish out-competing
wild fish for habitat and food. Years of selection bias by hatchery managers have
produced stocks with certain phenotypes versus their wild counterparts. This selection
provides smolts an advantage for survival during outmigration to the ocean waters.
Hatchery fish are larger and more aggressive than their wild cousins.
Focus has been on habitat restoration as a primary means of addressing fish
recovery; specifically, the restoration of spawning and rearing habitat on rivers, channels,
3
sloughs and off-channel areas (Cederholm & Scarlett 1988, Cederholm et al. 1991, Lister
and Finnigan 1997; Morley et al. 2005, Roni 2001, Roni et al. 2002). Funding for
environmental projects are under more scrutiny by the general public and legislature
during economically lean years. Budget cuts to state agencies reduce funding sources,
which diminish resource dollars to local groups attempting restoration or habitat
improvements. Limited resources make it more difficult to protect habitat and lands by
purchasing and/or restricting use altogether. Restoration presents more possibilities for
forming partnerships with nonprofits, state agencies and local watershed parties involved
in improving fish habitat. These improvements include replacing culverts and improving
fish passage to key habitat areas. Unlikely allies and cooperation minimize the impact of
government oversight and regulation and much perceived infringement on private owners
and lands, as well as reduce the potential for lawsuits.
Restoration of fish habitat for stock recovery may be the only acceptable remedy
available that is easily applicable as other attempts, i.e. hatcheries, harvest management
or dam removal, have produced inadequate results or have been economically unfeasible.
While research studies (Beechie et al Cederholm et al. 1991, Morley et al. 2005, Roni et
al. 2001, Roni et al. 2006,) demonstrate limited positive trends with habitat restoration, its
benefits economically, politically and scientifically are more likely than a controversial
removal of a large dam or strict regulation. Restoration of fish habitat is certainly more
cost effective when juxtaposed against dam removal, providing a much cheaper
alternative for attaining recovery goals. Additionally, restoration measures in an attempt
4
for species recovery, is mandated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in addition to
federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Beechie et al 2008).
There is a paucity of data overall on the effectiveness of various habitat
restoration techniques or how or where to implement restoration projects (Reeves et al.
1991; Frissell and Nawa 1992; Beschta et al. 1994; Chapman 1996). The effectiveness
and success of restoration efforts have been evaluated by research fisheries scientists,
(Beechie el al. 2008, Beschta et al. 1994, Chapman 1996, Everest et al. 1991, Frisell and
Nawa 1992, Pess et al. 2005, Reeves et al. 1991, Roni et al. 2006, Roni el al. 2010), and
follow-up monitoring for fish usage is increasing (SRFB Report 2008). Many
researchers dedicated to the study of salmon recovery view this as an opportunity at
examining a trend that looks towards recovery of a listed species under the ESA.
Economic analyses for the restoration of salmonid habitats remain limited
(Beschta et al. 1994, Cederholm et al. 1988, 1997; Cederholm and Scarlett, 1991; Everest
et al. 1991; Roni et al 2006, Roni et al. 2010). Assessing economic efficiency of the
options available in habitat restoration is difficult. Placing an economic value on
fisheries is problematic as valuation can be very subjective, difficult to quantify and
influenced by economic climate and priority (Plummer 2005). Additionally, salmon are
not just commodities, but a cultural icon in the PNW. There is great difficulty placing a
monetary value on cultural symbols. Most, if not all cost-effective analyses are generally
limited to health care, national defense issues, business and economics and education
(Boardman et al. 1996; Levin and McEwan 2001). Most economic analyses of salmonids
5
have focused on harvest, fisheries allocation and recreational values of sport fishing such
as willingness to pay (WTP) rather than habitat restoration (Changeaux et al. 2010,
Haisfield et al 2010, Homelund and Hammer 1999; Plummer 2005, Postel and Carpenter
1997).
Successful restoration projects are difficult to define and the variables used as
metrics of success can be a varied depending on the overall goal i.e increased fish
numbers, fish usage, and access to critical habitat (Plummer 2005, Roni 2002, Roni et al.
2006, Roni et al. 2010). Successful projects have found increased population counts of
trout fry, improved rearing habitat for coho salmon and a more diverse benthic
community in stream waters (Morley et al 2005, Roni et al 2006, Pess et al. 2005). For
instance, Morley (et al) found increase fish usage and density in side channel areas and
ponds after construction of these areas. Total smolt numbers provide the measure for
quantifying the success of the project. Roni (et al) measured smolt size in relation to
habitat and project types. Both projects found beneficial increases in areas important for
salmonid propagation and survival.
Habitat restoration efforts and stream restoration
Restoration efforts up until recently have been limited to a few methods and
techniques such as shoreline plantings, large wood placement (also known as large
woody debris (LWD)), gravel placement and enhancement, and culvert replacement.
Enhancement or restoration in various forms has been occurring for more than 50 years in
North America (Roni 2001). For instance, the addition of large wood pieces or boulders
6
and rocks to streambeds has been practiced at least since the 1930s (Roni 2001). Newer
methods are now employed; the techniques ranging from a variety of methods including
the addition of woody debris to streams, to the creation of artificial channels in areas
where old river channel meanders once existed.
Gore (1985); Koski (1992); and the National Research Council (NRC) (1992)
define restoration as returning an ecosystem or habitat to its predisturbed state.
Restoration can be defined as the reestablishment of the structure, functions, and natural
diversity of an area that has been altered from its natural state (Cairns 1988; National
Research Council [NRC] 1992). However, the two techniques described in this thesis,
commonly referred as restoration, are actually enhancements or improvements and
habitat creation. Enhancement usually encompasses placement of boulders, wood or
gravel into a given area and creation introduces additional habitat where it no longer
exists or has long been removed from the natural regime and process. Both typically are
considered enhancement techniques as existing conditions are supplemented rather than
restored to its predisturbed or original state. The two terms have caused some confusion
and are used interchangeably, but for these purposes, restoration is used as a general term
to describe habitat improvements.
There are generally six types of restoration techniques currently employed by
restoration groups and government agencies. These are the following: 1) the
reconnection of old habitats such as sloughs, ponds and channels with the active stream
channel, 2) riparian restoration involving replacing riparian vegetation with conifers, 3)
7
road removal or improvement, 4) instream restoration such as the placement of wood
and/or structures, 5) nutrient additions of inorganic materials or salmon carcasses, and 6)
habitat creation and excavation of new channels and wetlands (Morley 2005, Roni et al.
2002, Roni et al. 2006). These techniques usually focus on repairing or augmenting
specific habitat structural features instead of addressing restoration of whole complete
watershed processes. Additionally, restoration is easier to implement and pursue on
public lands. Private areas require greater coordination, effort and negotiation.
Most restoration efforts are on a “reach scale”, a discontinuous rather than
contiguous scale that connects and sustains existing habitats and the ecosystem. The
projects overall are interrupted patchworks along select riparian corridors in various
watersheds that cross various state and local jurisdictions. Restoration efforts thus are
scaled down due to the complications of land ownership, legalities or limited funding and
time restraints. Many restoration techniques have varied lifespans and fish response,
(Beechie et al. 2005, Polack et al. 2005, Roni et al. 2002). For instance, LWD in
waterways remain much longer in the ecosystem if coniferous species such as pine and
cedar are utilized versus the deciduous species (big leaf maple, alder). Biological
breakdown by microbes is sustained over longer time periods (months versus years),
providing a more sustainable nutrient resource for benthic invertebrates, and smolts that
rely on these as a food source (Naiman and Bilby 1998). Various restoration projects are
species specific such as the creation of new off-channel areas for coho salmon (O.
kisutch) (Gianico and Hinch 2003, Morley et al 2005, Roni et al 2006b) and benefit only
8
that species at the expense of other fishes such as trout (Plummer 2005, Morley et al.
2005, Roni et al. 2006).
This thesis will focus on the cost effectiveness of two particular restoration
methods, notably the addition of large woody debris and the creation of artificial stream
channels. Various agencies use these two restoration techniques in regions along the
rivers known as off-channel areas or habitats (Cederholm et al 1988, Nichelson et al
1992b, Norman 1998, Peterson et al 1983, Paulin & Associates 1991, Swales et al 1989,
Bonnel 1991, Sheny et al 1990, House et al 1988, Cowan et al 1995).
Chapter 2. Detail of Restoration Types and Methods
Off-channel Background
Off channel areas are naturally found within a geological floodplain of a river.
These areas can be defined as riparian or forested wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000),
or interfaces between terrestrial and aquatic systems with distinct environmental and
community processes (Naiman and Bilby, 1998 and 2001). Riparian ecosystems have
distinct vegetation and soil characteristics and are found whenever streams or rivers
occasionally flood beyond their channel confines (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).
Three major features distinguish these riparian areas from other ecosystem types.
These systems have linear form due to the proximity to the streams and rivers, energy and
matter that passes through the system occurs in much larger amounts as a result of being
9
an open system, and they are functionally connected to upstream and downstream
ecosystems as well as upland and aquatic systems (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). This
concept and its complement the River Continuum Concept (Vannote et al. 1980 from
Naiman and Bilby 1998 and 2001) regards river systems as continuous gradients of
physical conditions and associated processes with recognizable patterns in community
structure and organic matter and energy (Naiman and Bilby 1998 and 2001).
Decades of anthropogenic disturbance such as urbanization, timber harvest,
stream cleaning, agricultural use and diking, flood control, road building, gravel mining,
livestock grazing and ranching has contributed to the degradation of these habitats.
Increased pressures from commercial and recreational fisheries too have contributed to
the steady decline of many salmon stocks. Prior to European settlement, the Skagit River
and many of its tributaries, for example, were allowed to meander across its floodplain
creating new side-channels and oxbows (Beechie et al. 1994). The simplification of
physical habitat in rivers along with the channelization and diking of the larger streams
and rivers for commercial and human interests has contributed to the loss of many of
these off-channel habitats (Beechie et al. 1994). Tim Beechie (et al.), a research fish
scientist with NOAA Fisheries estimated a loss of greater than 50 percent of these areas
in the Skagit basin of Washington, and Thomas Nickelson (et al.), retired Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist (1992b) demonstrated that less than one
percent in area for off-channel habitats exist now in parts of Oregon.
10
These off-channel areas, such as sloughs, oxbows, alcoves, wall-based channels,
ponds, wetlands and other permanently and seasonally flooded areas are recognized as
important rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids (Peterson 1982, Cederholm and Scarlett
1984, Swales and Levins 1989) after extensive years of research and observation by
fisheries experts. These off-channel areas are some of the most critical anadromous fish
production areas in the Pacific Northwest (Doyle 1984). These areas are a focal point of
many of the restoration efforts since the listing of several stocks in Washington and
Oregon. Current research has concentrated on off-channel habitats as important rearing
areas for juvenile coho salmon (Oncorynchus kisutch) and coastal cutthroat trout (O.
clarki clarki). Tim Beechie (et al.) (1994) found that loss of these habitat areas is the
largest factor limiting coho smolt production in the Skagit Basin, Washington. Offchannel habitats have been restored or created using various techniques such as blast
pools (Cederholm and Scarlett 1991), excavation (Koning and Keeley 1997),
reconnecting or connecting isolated wetlands and ponds (Richards et al. 1992), alcoves or
small-excavated ponds adjacent to the main channel (Johnson et al. 1994).
The role of off-channel areas as habitats for juvenile coho salmon has been well
documented by fisheries researchers such as D.R. Bustard and D.W. Narver 1975, Phil
Peterson 1982, Si Simenstad 1982, S. Swales and C. Levings 1989, B. Ward 1996, Jeff
Cederholm and Warren Scarlett 1982, and Phil Peterson and L. Reid 1984. Warren
Scarlett and Jeff Cederholm, salmon biologists for the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources (1988) reported utilization of off-channel areas during fall and winter
along Washington coastal rivers. Juvenile fish migrate into these areas seeking refuge
11
from high waters where they feed and grow until the following spring season for
migration to the ocean. This provides optimal opportunity for growth and protection
from predation, and moderated hydrologic and temperature regimes increasing the
likelihood of survival. Studies have shown that overwintering in the off-channel areas
increases smolt survival (Bustard and Narver 1975, Groot and Margolis 1991, Peterson
1982a and 1982b).
While juvenile coho salmon utilize off-channel areas during fall and winter for
rearing, adult salmon utilize these areas for reproduction. Salmonids are semelparous,
reproducing only once after returning from the ocean. The adults use the mainstem river
and the smaller tributaries for spawning, building redds to deposit eggs and then dying
after mating (Groot and Margolis 1991). The young alevins hatch in the interstitial
spaces of the gravel beds growing until strong enough to rear and feed in larger portions
of the river and the off-channel areas (Cederholm et al. 1988) preparing them for
migration as smolts to the sea (Groot and Margolis 1991, Holtby et al. 1990, Nickelson et
al. 1992, NRC 1996, Peterson 1982, Simenstad et al. 1982, Swales and Levings 1989).
Creation of Side Channels
Creation or excavation of artificial habitats involves building new off-channel
areas such as side-channels, connected ponds and sloughs and other wetland areas for fish
utilization. The most common technique is the excavation of side-channels with large
construction equipment (Figure 1).
12
Figure 1. Construction of Illabot artificial side channel (a) before (b) after (Morley et al.
2005)
This method is often used by state agencies that have greater resource dollars. The new
habitat is constructed adjacent to the mainstem river or stream channel that also serves as
the inlet/outlet access. Channels are carved into areas with existing groundwater
upwelling and reinforced with large boulder or riprap banks. Gravel substrate and
riparian plantings are added along with wood debris structures that have been attached
with wire cable to withstand seasonal flood events. These artificial channels act as old
oxbows, sloughs and meandering side-channels that would have developed over the
natural course of the river. Groundwater presence and old swales are most sought after
13
for design consideration, as they seem to produce thermal and hydraulic regularity.
Research by Everest (et al.) indicates that groundwater areas have regular temperature
regimes in comparison to the mainstem river and other investigations by researchers
support this observation (Morley et al. 2005).
Instream Restoration
Instream restoration, specifically, the placement of large woody debris (LWD)
involves the placement of wood debris, log structures or logjams, root wads with short
sections of trunk, and root wads within the active stream channel (Figure 2). LWD is
sized usually greater than 10 cm in diameter and 2 m in length and coniferous to assure
stability and long-term function (Slaney and Zaldokas, 1997). Conifers are preferred
over the more readily available deciduous species due to its longevity in water (Naiman
and Bilby 1999 and 2000) and greater size. Wood is placed into streams to create habitat
and enhance the biota itself or is used in conjunction with other restoration techniques
such as the creation of artificial channels or the reconnection of old habitats.
14
Figure 2. Instream restoration with LWD
In the early part of the century, upland areas with low gradient tributaries
provided optimal spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon (O. kisutch) (Beechie et
al. 1994). Logging and stream cleaning, in addition to other factors, have contributed to
the reduction of important geomorphic components on floodplain areas. Structural
elements assist in the creation of microhabitats such as pools and riffles, adding to the
complexity of the stream channel (Beechie and Sibley 1997, Sedell et al. 1990 and 1994).
The alteration of these natural processes and habitats has had a profound effect on the
Pacific Northwest’s anadromous salmonid species (Beechie and Sibley 1997).
The addition of deflector logs, weirs, root wads with tree trunks and cover logs
are some design features for LWD placement. Key pieces are strategically placed to
influence geomorphic changes hydraulically and physically in the stream channel
(Cederholm et al. 1997, Roni et al. 2001, Sedell et al. 1984, Slaney and Zaldokas 1997).
Artificial wood placement mimics biological processes removed from the naturally
15
occurring regime. These placements are artificial in nature due to the deliberate input of
wood pieces into streams. Whereas, naturally wood entered streams from events such as
windthrow, decay, beaver, and flood events (Naiman and Bilbly 1998 and 2001, Sedell et
al. 1984), the artificial placements attempt to recreate and supplement these lost inputs
from the system.
Pacific salmon are endemic to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, California and
Canada. This thesis is an analysis of fish data collected over several years from Oregon
and Washington states. The two geographic areas were chosen for the specific
restoration techniques implemented in each project (wood inputs and channel creation).
The Washington state data encompasses artificially constructed channels whereas the
Oregon data set is of large woody debris placement into various stream channels.
The two restoration methods differ in several aspects, which includes monetary
specifics. The construction of large channels is labor intensive and requires large
overhead capital such as heavy construction equipment and trained operators. Wood
placement is limited to materials cost such as tree stumps and slash lumber, often a byproduct of commercial logging. The former requires considerable detailed forethought
and planning for creating a waterway that is either nonexistent or isolated from the
mainstem. The goal is to mimic a similar habitat that salmonids find suitable for rearing
and overwintering. The latter is limited in that additional biological inputs are only the
primary goal for habitat restoration. In order to assess the feasibility of the two different
16
techniques, a cost analysis associated with each method is prudent, especially if funding
is somehow limited or restricted.
Cost assessments can be problematic and difficult. It is difficult to measure
biological or environmental variables under a common metric as each project often
measures success or failure differently based on biological response. Project success is
often quantified by biological metrics such as fish production or increase of smolts, fish
abundance or growth parameters (Plummer 2005).
Chapter 3. Methods
Data and Study Areas
The study areas are located in several watersheds and river basins throughout
western Washington and Oregon. I obtained the cost data of the side channels from the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) biologist Chris Detrick. These
sites were constructed over the last two decades in the Skagit, Hoh and Quillayute River
basins. I collected the juvenile smolt numbers by snorkeling and electrofishing with
Sarah Morley, Research Fisheries Biologist of NOAA Fisheries Watershed Program for
our study of fish utilization of the side channel areas during the years 2001 to 2003. The
headwaters of these river systems are located in the forested mountain regions of the
North Cascades and Olympic mountains. These lands are managed for park wilderness,
recreation and commercial logging, while land use in the lowland regions is composed of
17
mixed commercial forestry, hobby farms and rural low-density housing (Morley et al
2005).
Figure 3. Locations of reference and treatment side channels western Washington
(Morley et al. 2005)
Winters are mild and summers cool allowing for a variety of tree species such as
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Western
red cedar (Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), red alder (Alnus rubra), and big
leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) to flourish in the wet Pacific Northwest (Pojar and
MacKinnon 2004, Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Here, a variety of fish species including
the five species of Pacific salmon, Chinook, coho, chum, pink and sockeye, along with a
various char (Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malmo) and bull trout (S. confluentus)), cutthroat
(O. clarki), rainbow and steelhead trout (O. mykiss), whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni),
three spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), sculpin (Cottus spp.) and lampreys
18
(genus Lampetra) inhabit the waters (Morley et al. 2005, R.S. Wydoski and R.R.
Whitney 2003) and the terrain composed of volcanic, sedimentary or glacial alluvial soil
deposits (Franklin and Dyrness 1973 and 1988).
The research sites were evaluated for biological responses such as increased fish
usage, temperature regimes differences and habitat changes after different restoration
techniques were applied to stream channels. In western Washington, eleven artificially
constructed side channels were paired with naturally occurring side channels for
comparison of fish abundance, density and usage (Figure 3). The eleven artificial
channels are located in various river basins along the Puget Sound and coastal regions in
Washington whereas the twenty-one LWD streams were almost exclusively along coastal
and inland areas of Oregon with the exception of five located in Washington state (Figure
4).
19
Figure 4. Locations of LWD reference and treatment sites (Roni 2001)
The western Oregon and Washington LWD fish abundance data was compiled
from various agencies, which then analyzed for a Northwest Fisheries Science Center
20
(NWFSC) project completion report (Roni 2001). Thirty streams paired with reference
sites were treated with large woody debris placement within the active channel and
monitored for fish response. Cost data was available for only twenty of the streams
studied and were provided by various agencies. Average stream lengths varied from 200
to 1000 meters for artificial channels whereas the LWD streams were 75 to 120 meters
long.
Method
This analysis was conducted with only fiscal measures in mind and serves as a
preliminary exploration of providing an additional tool when considering restoration
measures. While biological factors are an important component to restoration priorities,
this analysis evaluates only the costs of implementing certain restoration techniques and
not the biological indices. Analysis of these project costs is possible as each project
collected the same biological metric though the treatment methods differed. According
to Mark Plummer, economist with NOAA Fisheries, this is allowable as long as the
evaluation weighs the project’s ability to deliver biological benefits against its economic
costs. Projects must use the same technological and biological indicators (Plummer
2005, SRFB 2008). The comparison of physical and biological variables as benefits to
actual costs of a project is also known as “bang for the buck” (Plummer 2005, SRFB
2008). This analysis meets this requirement for the LWD input and channel creation
projects evaluated. This evaluation is a preliminary effort in determining and identifying
the more cost effective technique of the two project types.
21
The methods for this analysis are modeled from the Salmon Recovery and
Funding Board (SRFB) Annual Progress Report for 2008. The total costs of each project
were divided by life expectancy calculations to derive an annual expenditure over time
(Table 1). Life expectancy of restoration project types was garnered from Roni et al.
(2002) where restoration types were evaluated for effectiveness based on estimated
response time after implementation and longevity of action. Life expectancy for LWD
and Channel Connectivity are averages calculated where longevity was estimated
between 5 to 20 years for natural LWD placement and 10 to 50 years for off-channel
projects (Table 2).
Table 1. Total costs for projects Oregon and Washington
Project Total Cost
Annual Life-Cycle
Cost
Project Name
Category
Bear Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$2,000
$133.33
Bergsvik Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$4,966
$331.07
Bewley Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$4,948
$329.87
Buster Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$9,780
$652
Deer Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$9,661
$644.07
Elliot Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$8,203
$546.87
Farmer Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$225
$15.00
Kenusky Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$6,063
$404.20
22
Killam Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$1,900
$126.67
Klootchie Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$9,588
639.20
Lobster Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$6,000
$400
Louisgnot Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$11,979
$798.60
N. Fork Rock Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$8.761
$584.07
S. Fork Little
Nestucca R
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$1,924
$128.27
Tobe Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$14,000
$933.33
Beaver Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$7150
$550.00
French Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$33,506
$2,577.38
Hoppers Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$42,975
$3,305.77
Porter Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$88,700
$6,823.08
Shuwah Cr
Instream Structures
(LWD)
$25,000
$1,923.08
Illabot II
Channel
Connectivity
$553,753
$18,458.43
Taylor
Channel
Connectivity
$500,024
$16,667.47
Illabot I
Channel
Connectivity
$160,377
$5,345.90
Park Slough II
Channel
Connectivity
$77,072
$2,569.07
Constant
Channel
Connectivity
$152,654
$5,088.47
23
Park Slough I
Channel
Connectivity
$86,931
$2,897.70
Rayonier
Channel
Connectivity
$136,000
$4,533.33
Nolan
Channel
Connectivity
$156,000
$5,200.00
Young Slough
Channel
Connectivity
$162,000
$5,400.00
Lewis
Channel
Connectivity
$134,600
$4,486.67
Mosley
Channel
Connectivity
$41,700
$1,390.00
* Adapted from SRFB 2008
The instream wood data includes species breakdown and totals of all salmonids sampled.
Species differences for the channel projects were not evaluated for this analysis. This
was conducted in the original study (Morley et al. 2005) and is published in the Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences where primary usage of the off-channel areas
was demonstrated to be greater than 90% coho species. This analysis focuses only on
total salmonid species for this restoration type.
24
Table 2. Projected Life Expectancy for each project by Restoration Type
Project Category
Instream Structures Large Woody Debris
(LWD)
Channel Connectivity Off-Channel Areas
Life Expectancy for Project (yrs)
Average Value Used (yrs)
5 – 20
13
10 – 50 +
30
Adapted from Roni et al. (2002) and SRFB Annual Progress Report (2008).
STATA 11.1 was used to determine all statistical calculations and analysis in
addition to Microsoft Excel for Mac 2008 for graphic comparisons. Fish counts were
calculated for density values (number of fish/area m2) across all species of salmon in the
LWD projects and for all salmonids for LWD and channel projects. These values for the
project types were then plotted against the calculated annual life cycle costs for each site.
A simple linear regression was used with robust standard errors in order to determine a
difference in values for both project types.
The linear regressions were used to examine the relationship(s) between percent
fish densities change (percent change fish treatment density/reference density) and annual
expenditure per year. The data was log transformed to improve linearity, sample
distribution and variances. The percent change of fish densities was calculated as a
geometric mean. Two sites were excluded in the calculations for LWD and two sites for
the simple linear regression of the percent change of fish density of channels due to low
or negative values. The results were graphed to demonstrate trends and relationship(s).
25
Chapter 4. Results
Analysis of the data revealed a consistent trend for both project types. The LWD
projects plotted against annual expenditure revealed density values demonstrating
positive responses to the project effort. However, over time, the fish density (fish/m2)
values diminished against annual life cycle cost (dollars/year) and revealed a negative
trend (Graph 1). Projects were beneficial for increasing the fish densities at each site, but
overall were expensive and not cost effective. Salmonids as a group benefited from
wood input, but individual species response revealed minimal change and response as
opposed to the total salmonids density. Individual species density values resembled the
salmonids densities for wood projects. Values increased initially in the early years and
then diminished significantly over time demonstrating a negative trend as annual
expenditure increased.
26
Figure 5. LWD cost effectiveness for salmonids and species breakdown
27
A regression analysis of the percentage change in fish density values revealed a
negative trend supporting the diminished return of fish densities observed against the
annual expenditures, but no significant relationship could be attributed to the changes (p
> 0.51) (Figure 6). There was no remarkable significance in relationships with or without
the inclusion of two LWD sites.
Figure 6. Percent Change of Total Salmonid Density (LWD)
28
Fish density values demonstrated a positive response immediately after
completion of the channels. However, when evaluated over time, density decreased as
costs increased or annual expenditures rose (Figure 7). The values of the channels
resemble that of the LWD projects analysis.
Figure 7. Channel fish density versus annual life cycle cost
No significant relationship was detected in the percent change of fish density
(Figure 8) as costs increased yearly (p > 0.145). No changes were detected with the
exclusion of two sites. An analysis without exclusions made no significant changes in
the relationship of the percent change for channel projects though exclusion did improve
linearity and normality thus improving p-values as a whole.
29
Figure 8. Percent Change of Total Salmonid Density Channels
The two project types directly compared supported the findings of a positive
response to treatment application. However, analysis of the two side by side provided
decreased fish density overall as annual life cycle cost increased. Overall, all salmonids
benefited as a whole to both treatment types, but the comparison did show LWD to be
more cost effective than the channels (Figure 9 & 10).
30
Figure 9. Channels versus LWD with salmonids and salmonid species annual cost
31
Figure 10. LWD versus channels and annual costs
Conclusion & Discussion
Instream restoration and channel creation is beneficial for juvenile salmonids.
Research demonstrates that restoration can increase fish density and response to
treatments such as LWD and artificial channel creation (Roni 2001, Roni 2002, Roni et
al. 2006, Morley el al. 2005). The study results of this analysis revealed a demonstrated
fish response immediately after implementation of restoration measures for both projects
types. This is consistent with other studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest (Beechie
et al. 1994, Burgess 1980, Morley et al. 2005, Nickelson et al. 1992, Pess et al. 2005,
SRFB 2008, Roni et al. 2006). However, the cost effectiveness of restoration for juvenile
salmonds is still virtually unexplored.
32
The most recent research suggests that certain restoration types benefit specific
species of salmon such as coho (Gianico and Hinch 2003, Morley et al. 2005, Plummer
2005, Roni 2001, Roni et al. 2002, Roni et al. 2006, SRFB 2008). Restoration in
conjunction with harvest management is a primary measure to address the loss of habitat
and listing of the species. This analysis found that LWD is more cost effective over time
than the channel projects. Salmonids benefited best with LWD input and over time,
LWD was more cost effective than channel restoration projects. Individual species
demonstrated no significant benefit overall with wood input though annual costs over
time were less than the compared channel projects. As a whole, both LWD and channel
projects are expensive to implement and demonstrated decrease fish density values as
annual expenditure increased. This is consistent with the available research of cost
effectiveness studies (SRFB 2008).
Many of these projects require significant capital and multiple sources to fully
fund a project. Addressing funding limitations while implementing restoration has
become a priority during lean economic years. Past studies by J. Cederholm and W.
Scarlett (1988) and J. Cederholm et al. (1991) factored into consideration limited funding
in their restoration efforts. More recently, researchers are considering and implementing
cost effectiveness analyses in their studies for a host of projects in various parts of the
world (Changeaux et al. 2001, Haisfield et al. 2010, SRFB 2008, Thomas & Blakemore
2010) and now the PNW (SRFB 2008). Research scientists are scrutinizing efforts and
creating protocols to prioritize measures that integrate cost effectiveness in watershed and
33
restoration actions (Beechie et al. 2003, Beechie et al. 2008, Pess et al. 2005, Roni et al.
2002, Roni et al. 2010, SRFB 2008) to maximize restoration effectiveness.
Limitations and Recommendations
Small sample sizes of each project type did limit the analysis and inclusion or
exclusion of outliers revealed no significant changes or effect on the relationship
outcome. Additional sample sites for a larger pool may provide better results statistically
and reveal a more powerful relationship in the final evaluation. This can be
accomplished with additional monitoring data and by increasing efforts to monitor
projects after completion (Beechie et al. 2003, SRFB 2008). Calculating percentage
changes for fish densities proved limiting with the minimal data points available.
Utilizing ratios in lieu of percent change may have provided a stronger outcome without
having to manipulate the data extensively. The end result would reduce the need to log
transform the data to minimize error and normalization.
These projects were monitored for only two years. Limited monitoring data
reduces the likelihood of finding stronger statistical trends among the study sites. New
research suggests monitoring restoration projects for a minimum of 5 years for fish
response and habitat improvement. This is considered the minimum expected response
time to restoration treatment measures for LWD and artificially created channels
(Beechie et al. 2003, Roni 2002). Morley (el al) found a positive correlation of fish
density with project age where physical habitat may have been a key factor as sites with
more mature canopy cover or fewer disturbances provides optimal conditions for rearing
34
juvenile salmonids. Additional years of monitoring are suggested for sampling sites, as
this will increase the robustness of the collected data (SRFB 2008, Roni et al. 2010).
Continued monitoring will provide opportunity to detect changes in an intact continuum
and providing an opportunity of a better financial return on the initial restoration
investment as projects mature.
The data utilized for this analysis was designed by pairing treatment and reference
streams. Baseline fish data was not collected prior to restoration. This particular design
collects data only after treatment has been initiated and the baseline for the treatment site
is a reference stream chosen elsewhere based on similar morphology and habitat
characteristics, usually in the same watershed. This method does not take into account
the variability that may be present in the two different sites and is often difficult to
control for variability thus providing for challenges statistically. It is recommended that
study project designs take into consideration the measurable variables with future cost
effectiveness analysis in mind before implementation, and by prioritizing and identifying
key actions and measures of restoration effectiveness (Beechie el al. 2008, Roni et al.
2010). Pre and post project analysis of study designs, watershed assessments, and
conforming protocols and parameters from many different projects allows for evaluation
of commonalities and cost analyses (Beechie et al. 2008, SRFB 2008)). An increased
sample size with improved monitoring may reduce project costs especially if agencies
increase collaboration with the pooling of their efforts (personal communication Jennifer
O’Neal, research ecologist Tetra Tech). The SRFB currently utilizes these methods to
evaluate and monitor project effectiveness in the PNW.
35
Both LWD and channel restoration projects can vary in size and cost. Typically,
creations of side channels tend to be larger and more expensive. The larger costs tend to
result in a diminished return on the investment. Densities of fish usage need to be quite
large to actualize a modest return in the investment. This was evident in the overall
analysis. For restoration projects in off channel areas, research substantiates a
relationship of area and size to decreased productivity of juvenile smolts (Morley 2005,
Roni et al. 2006) and other researchers have suggested limitations on project size in order
to maximize coho smolt production. Given the considerable costs associated with
restoration efforts, it is suggested that smaller and more numerous site selections may
prove more cost effective when considering restoration and/or habitat improvement. This
analysis indicates that channels are the least cost effective for increasing juvenile
salmonid density versus LWD projects. The costs of the LWD efforts are considerably
less with some projects at a minimal investment at $250 dollars. It may prove that
smaller and more numerous site selections as more efficient and productive for increasing
fish production in greater numbers than few or one large and more costly project such as
a side channel. Protection of intact or pristine environs or reconnecting existing habitat
areas, is a strategy available that is a less costly alternative for restoration (Roni et al.
2002). Funding sources could then be applied more selectively and judiciously after
taking into consideration habitat and watershed factors (Roni et al. 2002).
While these findings do not suggest a positive relationship of fish densities to
annual cost expenditure, nor does it indicate restoration as a whole as cost effective, it
does demonstrate trends that could be useful for future study. The importance of cost
36
analyses as a vital component of restoration priorities cannot be overstated especially
during fiscally austere years. Evaluating cost effectiveness in restoration efforts is key to
setting priorities and identifying actions and final goals. Monitoring efforts of projects
are often too inadequate reducing the likelihood of measuring the long term effectiveness
of restoration projects. We as biologists and environmentalists need to consider cost
analyses as an additional tool in justifying the recovery of species.
37
Table 3. Definitions of different off-channel habitat restoration techniques modified from
references in the literature.
HABITAT TYPE
Constructed
Alcove
Blast Pool
DEFINITION
Slack water area excavated along the
channel margin and separated from the main
current by the streambank or large channel
obstruction; similar to backwater pool.
Machinery….also impounded.
Holes blasted in mud substrate by explosives
and subsequently flooded by a small lowhead dam; often arranged in series to create
a “beaded-channel”.
CITATION
Nickelson et al. 1992a,b
Solazzi et al. 2000
Cedarholm & Scarlett
1988, 1991
Poulin et al. 1991
Constructed
Groundwater
Channel
Groundwater-fed side channel excavated on
old river swale; often includes log weirs for
gradient control, rip-rap for bank armoring,
and gravel placement for spawning.
Sheng et al. 1990
Cowan 1991
Constructed
Groundwater Pond
Similar to groundwater channel described
above but with pond morphology (no
gradient, greater depth, etc.); connected to
river by short access channel.
Henderson 1997
Constructed
Dammed Pond
A pond created by the placement of
structures (gabions, logs, boulders, or
concrete) across the full width of a channel;
rootwads and small trees often added.
Nickelson et al. 1992b
Solazzi et al. 2000
Gravel Pit
Reclamation
Abandoned sand and gravel mining sites
enhanced via connection to river channel,
addition of cover (such as LWD and aquatic
vegetation), and bank revegetation.
Richards et al. 1992
Norman 1998a,b
Mill Pond
Reclamation
Similar to gravel pit reclamation but with
ponds abandoned from old mill operations.
C. Detrick, WDFW,
pers. comm. 2000
38
Bibliography
Anderson, S.E. 1999. Use of off-channel freshwater wetlands by juvenile chinook and
other salmonids: Implications for habitat restoration in Puget Sound. Thesis. The
Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA.
Andrus, C.W., D.H. Landers, M.L. Erway, D. Sharps and S.P. Cline. 1997. Ecological
Functions of Off-Channel Habitat, Willamette River, Oregon. Final Research
Plan. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Western Ecology Div.; Dynamac Corp., Corvallis, OR. 100 pp.
Beechie, T., G. Pess, P. Roni and G. Giannico. 2008. Setting river restoration priorities: a
review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing
actions. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 891-905.
Beamer, E.M. and R.A. Henderson. 1998. Juvenile salmonid use of natural and
hydromodified stream bank habitat in the mainstem Skagit River, northwest
Washington. Technical report prepared for Skagit System Cooperative.
Belknap, W.C. 1994. Wall-base channels in Western Washington: Location, detection,
mapping, and winter use by juvenile salmonid fishes. Masters Thesis. University
of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Bonnel, R.G. 1991. Construction, operation, and evaluation of groundwater-fed side
channels for chum salmon in British Columbia. Fisheries BioEngineering
Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10: 109-124.
Brown, T.G. 1985. The role of abandoned stream channels as over-wintering habitat for
juvenile salmonids. Masters Thesis. University of British Columbia,Vancouver,
BC.
Brown, T.G., and G.F. Hartman. 1988. Contribution of seasonally flooded lands and
minor tributaries to the production of coho salmon in Carnation Creek, British
Columbia. American Fisheries Society Transactions 117(6): 546-551.
Bryant, M.D. 1984. The role of beaver dams as coho salmon habitat in southeast Alaska
streams. Pages 193-192 in J.M. Walton and D.B. Houston, editors. Proceedings of
the Olympic Wild Fish Conference, Fisheries Technology Program, Peninsula
College, Port Angeles, Washington.
Burgess, S.A. 1980. Effects of stream habitat improvements on invertebrates, trout
populations, and mink activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 44 (4).
Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, E. S. Bernhardt, M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander,
K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S.
39
DRAFT THESIS
Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake,
R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O'Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth.
(2005). "Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts." Science (Washington)
308(5722): 636-637.
Bustard, D. R., and D.W. Narver. 1975a. Aspects of the winter ecology of juvenile coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish.
Res. Board Can.(32): 667-680.
Bustard, D. R., and D.W. Narver. 1975b. Preferences of juvenile coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) relative to simulated
alteration of winter habitat. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. (32): 681-687.
Cedarholm, C. J. and W. J. Scarlett. 1991. The beaded channel: A low-cost technique for
enhancing winter habitat of Coho salmon. Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium.
J. Colt and R. J. White. Bethesda, Maryland, American Fisheries Society. 10:
104-108.
Cedarholm, C.J., W.J. Scarlett, and N.P. Peterson. 1988. Low-cost enhancement
technique for winter habitat of juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 8: 438-441.
Changeux, T., F. Bonnieux and C. Armand. 2001. Cost benefit analysis of fisheries
management plans. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 8, 425-434.
Cowan, L. 1991. Physical characteristics and intragravel survival of chum salmon in
developed and natural groundwater channels in Washington. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 10: 125-131.
Everest, F.H., G.H. Reeves, J.R. Sedell, D.B. Hohler, and T. Cain. 1986. The effects of
habitat enhancement on steelhead trout and coho salmon smolt production, habitat
utilization, and habitat availability in Fish Creek, Oregon, 1983-86. Project 84-11.
U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portand, OR.
128p.
Garrett, A. M. 1998. Interstream movements of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki) in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. Masters Thesis.
The Evergreen State College. Olympia, WA.
Haisfield, K.M., Fox, H.E., Yen, S., Mangubhai, S., and P.J. Mous. 2010. An ounce of
prevention: cost-effectiveness of coral reef rehabilitation relative to enforcement.
Conservation Letters 3, 243–250.
Hall, J. L., Timm, R. K. and R. C. Wissmar. 2000. Riparian ponds as Sockeye Salmon
spawning habitat in the Cedar River, Washington. Pages 89-94 in P. J. Wigington
and R. L. Beschta (eds). Riparian ecology and management in multi-land use
40
DRAFT THESIS
watersheds. American Water Resources Association. Middleburg, Virginia. 616
pages.
Hartman, G.F. and T.G. Brown. 1987. Use of small, temporary, flood plain tributaries by
juvenile salmonids in a west coat rain-forest drainage basin, Carnation Creek,
British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44: 262270.
Johnson, S.L., Solazzi, M.F. and Rodgers, J.D. 1993. Development and evaluation of
techniques to rehabilitate Oregons wild coho salmon. Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Fish Research Project F-125-R, Annual Progress Report, Portland.
Koning, C.W. and E.R. Keeley. 1997. Salmonid biostandards for estimating production
benefits of fish habitat rehabilitation techniques. In Fish habitat rehabilitation
procedures. Watershed restoration technical circular No. 9. Slaney, P.A and
Zaldokas, D.O. (eds.). Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, British Columbia.
Leopold, L., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1995. Fluvial processes in geomorphology.
W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, California.
Lister, D.B. and Finnigan, R.J. 1997. Rehabilitating off-channel habitat. In Fish habitat
rehabilitation procedures. Watershed restoration technical circular No. 9. Slaney,
P.A and Zaldokas, D.O. (eds.). Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia.
Lister, D.B., and W.E. Dunford. 1989. Post-construction monitoring of compensatory fish
habitat at Cook Creek (1987-1988). Prepared for CN Rail Engineering Services,
Edmondton, AB. 53p.
Lister, D.B., D.E. Marshall, and D.G. Hickey. 1980. Chum salmon survival and
production at seven improved groundwater-fed spawning areas. Canadian
Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1595: 58p.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins, editors. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of
North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Morley, Sarah A., Patricia S. Garcia, Todd R. Bennett, and Philip Roni. 2005. Juvenile
salmonid (Oncorhynchus spp.) use of constructed and natural side channels in
Pacific Northwest rivers. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62(12): 2811– 2821.
Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries techniques, second edition.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science,
Technology and Public Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
41
DRAFT THESIS
Nehlson, W., J.E. Willliams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the
crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.
Fisheries 16(2):4-21.
Nickelson, T. E., J.D. Rodgers, S.L. Johnson and M.F. Solazzi. 1992a. Seasonal changes
in habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhyncus kisutch) in Oregon coastal
streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 783-789.
Nickelson, T. E., M. F. Solazzi, S.L. Johnson, and J.D. Rodgers. 1992b. Effectiveness of
selected stream improvement techniques to create suitable summer and winter
rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ) in Oregon
coastal streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49(4): 790-794.
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, ESA Salmon
Listings website. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon
Listings/upload/snapshot-7-09.pdf accessed on March 2, 2011
Norman, D.K. 1998. Reclamation of flood-plain sand and gravel pits as off-channel
salmon habitat. Washington Geology 26(2/3): 21-28.
Pess, G. R., S. A. Morley, J. L. Hall, R. K. Timm. 2005. Monitoring floodplain
restoration. Pages 127-166 in Roni, P. (Ed.) Methods for monitoring stream and
watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Peterson, N.P. 1980. The role of spring ponds in the winter ecology and natural
production of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the Olympic Peninsula
Washington. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Peterson, N. P. 1982a. Immigration of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ) into
riverine ponds. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39(9): 1308-1310.
Peterson, N. P. 1982b. Population characteristics of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) overwintering in riverine ponds. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39: 1303-1307.
Peterson, N.P. 1985. Riverine pond enhancement project: October 1982-December1983.
Washington State Department of Fisheries and Department of Natural Resources.
Report 233. Olympia, WA. 48pp.
Peterson, N.P. and L.M. Reid. 1983. Wall-base channels: Their evolution, distribution,
and use by juvenile coho salmon in the Clearwater River, Washington. In: J.M.
Walton and D.B. Houston (eds.). Proceedings of the Olympic Wild Fish
Conference. Fisheries Technology Program, Peninsula College, Port Angeles,
Washington. pp. 215-225.
42
DRAFT THESIS
Plummer, M.L. 2005. Chapter 12: The Economic Evaluation of Stream and Watershed
Restoration Projects. Pages 313 – 330 in P. Roni, editor. Monitoring Stream and
Watershed Restoration.
J. Pojar and A. MacKinnon. 2004. Plants Of The Pacific Northwest Coast: Washington,
Oregon, British Columbia & Alaska. Vancouver; Lone Pine Publishing;
Prange, B.B. 1992. Guidelines and mitigation potential for gravel-pit wetland creation.
Thesis. Evergreen State College, 82 pages.
Poulin, V.A., and Associates Ltd. 1991. Stream rehabilitation using LOD placements and
off-channel pool development. Victoria, B.C., B.C. Ministry of Forests.
Puget Sound Shared Strategy. 2003. A primer on habitat project costs. Available at
http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/files/PrimeronHabitatProjectCosts.pdf
(Accessed on 23 August 2011).
Reeves, G. H., F. H. Everest, and J. R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of anadromous salmonids
to habitat modification: How do we measure them? Fisheries Bioengineering
Symposium 10. J. C. a. R. J. White. Bethesda, Maryland, American Fisheries
Society. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 10: 62-67.
Richards, C., P. J. Cernera, M.P. Ramey and D.W. Reiser. 1992. Development of offchannel habitats for use by juvenile chinook salmon. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 12: 721-727.
Roni, P, G. Pess, T. Beechie, S. Morley. 2010. Estimating changes in coho salmon and
steelhead abundance from a watershed restoration: How much restoration is
needed to measurable increase smolt production? North American Journal of
Fisheries Management.
Roni, P., K. Hanson, G. Pess, T. Beechie, M. Pollock, and D. Bartley. 2005. Habitat
rehabilitation for inland fisheries: global review of effectiveness and guidance for
restoration of freshwater ecosystems. Fisheries Technical Paper 484. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
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 pp.
Roni, P. 2001. Responses of fishes and salamanders to instream restoration efforts in
western Oregon and Washington. Report to BLM Project completion, Interagency
Agreement No. 1422H952-A98-3007, NMFS, NWFSC, Seattle, WA, 132 p.
43
DRAFT THESIS
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.
Roni, P., S. A. Morley, P. S. Garcia, C. Detrick, I. D. King, E. M. Beamer. 2006. Coho
salmon smolt production from constructed and natural floodplain habitats.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 135:1398.
Samuelson, Don; Harrison, Jim; Brooks, David; Keiran, T. J.; Craig, Ben; England,
Amber; Ambrose, Doug; Arndt, Wrndt; Brumfield, Scott; Evans, Scott1997. Final
Report: Weyerhauser-Briscoe off-channel overwintering ponds salmonid habitat
restoration project. Grays Harbor College Fisheries and Natural Resources
Technology Programs.Washington, USA.
Sedell, J.R., Swanson, F.J., and Gregory, S.V. 1984. Evaluating fish response to woody
debris. In Pacific Northwest Stream Habitat Management Workshop. Edited by
T. J. Hassler. American Fisheries Society, Humboldt Chapter, Humboldt State
University, Arcata, CA. pp. 222-245.
Scarlett, W.J. and C.J. Cedarholm. 1984. Juvenile coho salmon fall-winter utilization of
two small tributaries of the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In:
J.M. Walton and D.B. Houston (eds.). Proceedings of the Olympic Wild Fish
Conference. Fisheries Technology Program, Peninsula College, Port Angeles,
Washington. pp. 227-242.
Sheng, M.D., M. Foy, and A.Y. Fedorenka. 1990. Coho salmon enhancement in British
Columbia using improved groundwater-fed side channels. Canadian Manuscript
Report Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2071: 81p.
Slaney, P.A. and D. Zaldokas, editors. 1997. Fish habitat rehabilitation procedures.
Watershed restoration Tech. circular No. 9.Watershed Restoration Program,
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia.
Solazzi, M.F., T.E. Nickelson, S.L. Johnson, and J.D. Rogers. 2000. Effects of increasing
winter rearing habitat on abundance of salmonids in two coastal Oregon streams.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 906-914.
Swales, S. and C. D. Levings 1989. Role of off-channel ponds in the life cycle of coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and other juvenile salmonids in the Coldwater
River, British Columbia. Can. J. Fish, Aquat. Sci. 46: 232-242.
Thomas, R. and Blakemore, F.B. 2010. Elements of a cost–benefit analysis for improving
salmonid spawning habitat in the River Wye. Journal of Environmental
Management 82, 471–480.
44
DRAFT THESIS
Tschaplinski, P. J. and G. F. Hartman. 1983. Winter distribution of juvenile coho salmon
(Oncorhyncus kisutsch) before and after logging in Carnation Creek, British
Columbia, and some implications for overwinter survival. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 452-461.
Wydoski, R.S. and R. R. Whitney. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington State.
University of Washington Press; Seattle, Washington.
Zarnowitz, J.E. and K.J. Raedeke. 1984. Winter predation on coho fingerlings by birds
and mammals in relation to pond characteristics. Report (Contract 1480) to
Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia.
45
