Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Sub-basin Assessment and Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3: Restoration Opportunities

Coho spawner. Photo Coos WA, 2003.

Table of Contents Restoration Strategy ............................................................................. 110 Potential Restoration Actions .................................................................. 110 Prioritization Process ............................................................................ 112 CHAPTER 3A: Catching Slough Sub-basin Restoration Opportunities ................ 115 Prioritization of Potential Restoration Actions.............................................. 115 Sediment Reduction.............................................................................. 123 Solar Load Reduction ............................................................................ 124 CHAPTER 3B: Daniel’s Creek Sub-basin Restoration Opportunities .................. 127 Prioritization of Potential Actions ............................................................. 127 Sediment Reduction.............................................................................. 130 Solar Load Reduction ............................................................................ 131 CHAPTER 3C: Heads of Tide Restoration Opportunities................................ 134 Prioritization of Potential Actions ............................................................. 134 Sediment Reduction.............................................................................. 137 Solar Load Reduction ............................................................................ 138

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3

Restoration Strategy This chapter is devoted to prioritizing restoration of watershed processes within the assessment areas, and is divided into four sections. Chapter 3: Restoration Opportunities explains the Coos WA approach to restoration, defines the restoration actions, and describes the prioritization process. The following sections Chapter 3A, 3B, and 3C discuss restoration potential in the three assessment areas based on data analysis and the prioritization of potential actions. The goal of this restoration strategy is to capitalize on project opportunities that improve the function of ecological processes while preserving or enhancing economic utility of the land and the overall livability of these sub-basins for the community. The goal of restoration, in this case, is to rehabilitate watershed conditions that allow for habitat connectivity, and sustained anadromous fish populations, as well as other ecological functions such as water quality, and natural sediment transport. Our intention is to combine landowner interests, concerns and local economics with a strictly biological ranking to determine which restoration actions have the most synergistic potential. Once the restoration actions are prioritized, which is a product of this assessment effort, Coos WA is then guided by the priority level of an action as well as the organization’s internal restoration strategy matrix. The Coos WA restoration strategy matrix table is in Appendix D.

Potential Restoration Actions Below are short discussions of 15 potential restoration actions considered in this restoration strategy, followed by a description of the scoring and ranking system used to prioritize the actions within regions of each sub-basin. Actions were scored for a series of biological criteria and socio-economic criteria for the region(s) appropriate for that action (see Appendix A: Prioritization Methods and Prioritization Scoring Tables). 1. Add or restore secondary and off-channel features would involve excavation of pools or ponds adjacent to the stream to recreate winter rearing habitat for coho salmon. The ponds must be constructed with freshwater flow that will keep the outlet of the pool open and connected to the main stream. The freshwater flow must be from a clean source that does not produce significant amounts of sediment that would cause the pool to fill. Quality salmon habitat is characterized by a diversity of pools and pool types. Pools provide critical salmonid habitat for resting, rearing, finding cover from predators and high winter flows, as well as coolwater refuge during summer’s high temperatures. 2. Culvert replacements would involve removing existing culverts and replacing them with culverts or bridges that are able to pass the anticipated 100-year flood event and which are at least as wide as the bank full width of the stream. New culverts would be embedded to create a stream-simulation to ensure full fish passage. 3. Landslide area protection, essentially head wall protection, would involve retaining additional conifers in steep, landslide prone tributary draws. This land management action would be implemented with the long-term intent of large wood recruitment to streams. Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3

110

4. Large wood (LW) placement helps rehabilitate natural stream conditions by the strategic placement of large logs into the stream channel using heavy equipment. While natural recruitment of wood into the stream channel is best, manual placement of large wood into the channel has the potential to improve habitat conditions over time by altering the flow velocity and pattern which contributes to natural development of other aquatic habitat features such as pools, gravel recruitment and sorting, and secondary channels. 5. Levee removal would involve end-hauling or spreading existing levees thinly to allow the stream to flood pasture areas. This project may involve building levees to protect houses or other infrastructure. The project would cause land to flood more often, but may allow land to drain more quickly as flood waters subside. Also, sediment would be deposited on floodplains which would reduce channel sediment deposition and build up potentially productive land, countering the subsidence processes. 6. Levee setback would involve moving levees away from stream banks to allow for improved stream function including meandering, localized flooding and development of natural streamside vegetation. 7. Reshape stream channel would involve reconstructing stream channels by creating a natural, meandering channel pattern in places in which channels have been ditched or banks hardened. This would usually only be done in cases in which riparian planting and fencing was going to occur at the same time. 8. Riparian forestry would involve leaving a wider no-harvest riparian buffer and retaining more conifers in the riparian areas than are required under the Oregon Forest Practices Act. This action would be most significant in non-fish-bearing streams where no requirement currently exists to maintain riparian buffers. 9. and 10. Riparian planting and fencing would involve excluding livestock from the stream with appropriate fencing designs. Fences would usually be set 15 to 35 feet off the stream and buffers would be planted with a diverse mix of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs. Planting prescriptions would be designed to meet both landowner and biological objectives using native trees and shrubs. 11. Road upgrades typically would involve upgrading or adding additional cross-drain culverts or upgrading stream crossing culverts in order to help prevent ditch water from discharging into streams and help prevent road fills from becoming saturated and failing. 12. Tide gate relocation would involve removing the tide gate from its existing stream crossing and moving it, usually upstream in order to maximize the tidal exchange. This action would involve construction of levees to protect infrastructure and pasture. 13. Tide gate removal would involve removing tide gates from stream crossing bridges or culverts to allow tidal water to flow upstream. The project may involve raising levees to protect upstream landowners and replacing the stream crossing structure to increase the flow capacity for tidal fluctuation. 14. Tide gate replacement would involve replacing the existing, top-hinged gates with improved, fishfriendlier designs including side-hinged gates or gates with a mitigator device that holds the gate open longer. Replacement gates would be expected to maximize the amount of time that the gate remains open, allow fish passage during the entire open time, and allow a saltwater mixing zone upstream of the tide gate. Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3

110

15. Wetland restoration would involve restoring hydrological processes to allow an area that was historically inundated at least seasonally by removing tide gates and levees. Supplemental restoration activities may include planting native vegetation, constructing drainage networks or pools, and placing large wood. Various project types considered in our restoration strategy may raise questions within adjacent communities as to the implications and impacts of these projects. Their function in terms of ecological processes, as well as how the project may affect landowners, is discussed below. At this point, these are conceptual project actions only and only in a few cases have specific projects been proposed. Tide Gates Tide gates have a major influence on lowland estuarine streams. Mainstem tide gates significantly change the movement of water, sediment, and fish into and out of the stream systems. Smaller tributary tide gates also cause potentially valuable salmon rearing areas to be inaccessible to migrating fish. While technology in ‘fish-friendlier’ tide gates is advancing, the ability of newer designs to significantly improve fish passage and to address problems with sediment movement and water temperature have not been proven. Although relocating or removing the main tide gate is considered from strictly biological perspective, the Coos WA does not make any assertions about the viability of such a project. Such large scale changes would require a significant engineering and design study and does not match well with most landowner concerns. Removal of some of the smaller culvert tide gates, especially in association with culvert improvement, does seem to have the potential to improve conditions. Even with these smaller projects, care would need to be taken in design to protect adjacent landowners. Wetlands Land historically drained for agricultural cultivation is often difficult to maintain for its current purpose and many bottomland owners are in constant battle against field drainage issues. In these conditions, wetland plants threaten to reestablish dominance over preferred crops – often rendering pastures marginal or economically unproductive for grazing. Coos WA sees the potential for mutual benefits to landowners and to watershed function with strategic wetland restoration. Many contemporary land managers are finding that taking advantage of natural systems helps increase productivity of their operation. Properly managed, wetlands have the ability to attenuate and desynchronize flooding in other downstream areas of the sub-basin by allowing large volumes of water to be stored during peak flow events, especially when located in the mid reaches of a stream system. Wetlands increase ground water recharge and in some cases can extend dry season stream flow. Wetlands are prime off-channel and over-wintering fish habitat, which in many sub-basins, is the habitat limiting factor to coho production. Wetlands could potentially be designed specifically for the purpose of storing water during high flow periods while allowing downstream areas to drain more effectively. The use of strategic dikes around the wetland could be employed to protect nearby areas from possible flooding. Wetlands also function as natural sediment catchments and could function for this purpose in sub-basins suffering from Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3

111

chronic sediment issues. Dense vegetation can filter sediment from runoff entering the wetland from adjacent land uses. Wetlands can reduce sediment coming downstream by slowing the rate of flow and catching the sediment that falls out of the water column. Wetland restoration, although not feasible for the entirety of historical wetlands, would help alleviate some of the top landowner concerns if strategically placed and managed, as well as provide key habitat and improved watershed function.

Prioritization Process Prioritization regions were designated with the intent of focusing the prioritization scoring process on the actions most appropriate for the landscape type or region within the sub-basin. Regions were determined roughly by elevation, stream order and watershed processes with consideration of dominate vegetation, tidal influence and channel width. Region designations were not intended to remain static or to disallow an action otherwise determined appropriate. While data collected from the AHI reaches provide an important snap-shot representation of sub-basin stream conditions, restoration actions are certainly not limited to these streams or reaches. The biological scoring of potential actions was not based exclusively on data from of these reaches, but rather a combination of specific stream data and a broader knowledge of region conditions and watershed function. Restoration prioritization was determined by Coos WA through a process of scoring and ranking of each potential action for two sets of criteria within each prioritization region appropriate for that action. One set of criteria was used to evaluate actions for biological efficacy towards habitat restoration based on assessment data and limiting factors analysis. Scores for biological criteria are assigned within the context of current watershed conditions and the amount of biological benefit estimated as a result of the potential action. The other set of criteria addressed socio-economic feasibility question. Appendix A contains detailed information about the methods of prioritization, score definitions and the scoring tables for each sub-basin. The prioritization scoring process results in two sets of combined weighted scores for each action using higher scores to indicate the likelihood of successful results. The six biological criteria include the action’s estimated ability to restore watershed processes, restore connectivity, address habitat limiting factors, longevity of the project type, preservation of a unique habitat type, and the extent that the action type has been proven effective. The socio-economic feasibility criteria, used as a filter to the identified biological priorities, include the action’s estimated likelihood of success, educational benefit, ability to address local landowner concerns, measurability of effects, implementation feasibility (i.e. local politics), fundability, and cost range. Contrasting of the aggregate scores, based on the

Table 3-1 Priority Levels and Implications Priority Implications and Coos WA Approach Implementation would be easier and project would have a high biological return. Coos WA would support the project and seek funding. Implementation would be harder, but project would have a high biological return. Coos WA would seek to build partnerships and educational demonstration opportunities. Implementation would be easier, but project would have a lower biological return. Coos WA may assist with project design, but would not be a lead in funding development. These projects either have low scores for biological returns and socio-economic feasibility, or received a score of zero for a particular criterion. Implementation is considered unlikely.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3

112

two sets of criteria for each action, was done using a threshold of two, and particular criteria acting as ‘deal killers’ if receiving a score of zero. The score threshold system was used to determine levels of priority and inform the nature of Coos WA’s involvement with project development. The levels of priority and Coos WA approach are indicated in the sub-basin restoration prioritization charts using the colors shown in Table 3-1. The levels are shown in Table 3-1 in descending order from green or high priority, to red or low priority. A potential action that scores above a two in both categories (biological and socio-economic) falls into the green priority level. These projects are more likely to be easily implemented and data analysis shows that such projects will have high biological returns. Actions receiving a yellow priority level were scored above a two in the biological category and below a two in the socio-economic category. Coos WA will seek opportunities to build partnerships and provide educational materials to interested landowners to increase project support. Actions within the blue priority level were scored below two for biological returns and above two for socio-economics. In this case Coos WA may assist with project design but would not take a lead role in funding development due to the lower biological benefits. Actions in the red priority level are those that scored low in both categories, or received a zero for particular criteria. See Appendix A for prioritization methods and score sheets.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3

113

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Sub-basin Assessment and Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A:

Catching Slough Sub-basin Restoration Opportunities

Seelander Creek wetlands, Coos WA 2008.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A

114

CHAPTER 3A: Catching Slough Sub-basin Restoration Opportunities This section introduces the potential for watershed restoration actions based on assessment data analysis (see Chapter 2A: Catching Slough Sub-basin Assessment) and the prioritization process. Following the Prioritization of Potential Restoration Actions are two supplemental discussions related to restoration; Sediment Reduction presents recommendations for road and stream-crossing treatments based on road sediment survey data presented in Chapter 2A, Solar Load Reduction presents the amount of solar load, heat from the sun, potentially reduced under different planting scenarios.

Prioritization of Potential Restoration Actions Potential restoration actions and their score-derived priority ranking within each of the four prioritization regions are listed in Table 3A-1. Detailed score tables for each action based on the series of biological and socio-economic criteria are in Appendix A. The colored cells next to each action in Table 3A-1 corresponds to the prioritization score level or rank described earlier in Chapter 3: Restoration Opportunities. Figure 3A-1 and Figure 3A-2 show the locations and boundaries of the four prioritization regions and the aquatic habitat inventory (AHI) reaches within those regions. Region 1, Mainstem Slough, contains Petock reach 1 and only the outlets of several adjoining AHI stream reaches. The Ross and Stock Slough reaches are all within Region 2, Tide-gated Sloughs. The majority of AHI reaches lie in Region 3, Tributaries. Wilson reaches 6, 7 and 9 extend from Region 3 up into Region 4, Uplands, and Wilson reach 8 is entirely within Region 4. Region 1 Mainstem Slough This region is located along the main floodplain of Catching Slough. The ability to implement actions within this region is partly limited by the location of the county road that runs along much of the slough’s immediate edge, essentially on top of a dike. The road and the large agricultural dikes on the adjacent side of the slough pose a significant obstacle to many types of restoration actions in that part of the riparian area. The Catching Slough channel was not included in the aquatic habitat surveys due to its size (protocol is limited to “wadable” streams) therefore less data exists for this waterway that may otherwise strengthen the immediacy for action. In the Mainstem Slough region there were no actions ranked as green or top priority level actions. Yellow ranking was given to three actions in this region including riparian planting, levee removal and wetland restoration. These actions scored higher for biological return than they did for socio-economics. Riparian planting would have been a green priority action if it had not received a low score for the landowner concerns criteria. Riparian planting along the main slough would, in many cases, involve planting on the existing dike which poses additional risks to project integrity that Coos WA is unwilling to undertake at this time. Shade produced by riparian plantings would, over time, improve mainstem slough temperature conditions by reducing the solar load. Potential for solar load reduction, blocking the sun with

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A

115

shade, is discussed ahead in “Solar Load Reduction”. Increasing shade on tributary streams would also help reduce main slough temperatures.

Actions given a red priority level in this region are restoration of secondary and off-channel features, levee setback and large wood placement. Restoration of secondary and off-channel features scored very high in terms of restoring watershed processes, but all of its other scores were low, and it received a zero for implementation feasibility which gives the action a red priority level regardless of its overall scores. Levee setback would be a very large undertaking in this area of the sub-basin, with relatively fewer biological returns, due to the size of the slough, the size of the levee, or dikes, and the surrounding agricultural land uses. Large wood

2: Tide-gated sloughs 3: Tributaries

Blue priority actions in this region include riparian fencing and road upgrades. Riparian fencing was considered very feasible for implementation, but scored zeros for restoring floodplain connectivity and providing a unique habitat. Fencing alone would not provide these biological benefits especially with the existing dikes in place. Road upgrades in this region, while socio-economically feasible, received three zeros under biological criteria.

4: Uplands

Similarly, wetland restoration, which received the highest rank for this region, scored high for all biological criteria but low for socio-economics and especially low for landowner concerns and implementation feasibility. Existing or intended agricultural land use is often seen as conflicting with wetland restoration. This potential action is one that the Coos WA intends to encourage acceptance of through outreach education and potentially innovative project designs as capacity allows. Large areas of historical or dysfunctional wetlands along the main slough have significant restoration potential, and would help improve habitat limiting factors and water quality.

1: Mainstem Slough

Levee removal scored very high for almost all biological criteria, but low landowner concerns and implementation feasibility. Again, significant levees or dikes exist in this region that most landowners are Table 3A-1 Prioritized Actions unwilling to remove, and / or major roads are built Region Priority Action Riparian planting on the dikes.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Levee removal Wetlands Riparian fencing Road upgrades Restore secondary/off-channel Levee setback LW placement Riparian planting Culvert replacements Tide gate removal Levee removal Wetlands Tide gate replacements Riparian fencing Levee setback Road upgrades Reshape channel Tide gate relocation Restore secondary/off-channel LW placement Riparian planting Riparian forestry Levee removal Levee setback Culvert replacements LW placement Road decommissions Wetlands Reshape channel Riparian fencing Restore secondary/off-channel Road upgrades Riparian forestry Culvert replacements Landslide area protection Road decommissions Road upgrades

Chapter 3A

116

placement ranked the lowest of all actions scored for this region. Large wood placement received scores of zero for two biological criteria – restoring connectivity and providing a unique habitat. Additionally, there is a lack of local experience with large wood placement in tidal mainstem channels of this size. Region 2 Tide-gated Sloughs This region refers to tide-gated tributaries to the main slough, such as Ross and Stock Sloughs. This region also includes two smaller tide-gated tributaries on the west side of Catching Slough. Additional tide gates exist within the sub-basin, but are less significant and/or are not on direct tributaries to the main slough. The presence of tide gates at or near the mouths of streams in this region had a compromising influence on the biological scores assigned to many of the potential actions below. While the existing tide gates remain in place many of the biological benefits that would result from restoration actions upstream are diminished. Top ranking actions with green priority level in this region are culvert replacements and riparian planting. Culvert replacements received the highest possible scores for the biological criteria of restoring processes, and for the socio-economic criteria of implementation feasibility. The road sediment survey analysis also recommends culvert replacements in this region (see “Sediment Reduction” ahead in this chapter). Riparian planting received the highest possible score for the biological criteria of longevity and scored high for addressing habitat limiting factors and for proven technique. Ross Slough has high summer stream temperatures in Reach 1, and all Region 2 streams have significant shade deficit. Ross and Stock Slough both need more than an 80% increase in shade to meet their potential shade levels. Reducing stream temperatures in these waterways would help reduce the extremely high temperatures, the habitat limiting factor, in the mainstem Catching Slough. Actions ranked at the yellow priority level in this region include tide gate removal, levee removal, and restoring wetlands. Tide gate removal and levee removal, which both scored a four for restoring processes and longevity, would have significant biological returns. However, they both scored low for socioeconomic criteria of landowner concerns and implementation feasibility. Wetland restoration scored very similarly to the previous two yellow-ranked actions. Wetland restoration received the highest flat (non-weighted) combined score for biological returns in this region, but the socioeconomic score, again, dropped below two due to low scores for landowner concerns and implementation feasibility. Coos WA intends to encourage wetland restoration through education and outreach to landowners as capacity allows. Blue-ranking actions in Region 2 include tide gate replacements, riparian fencing, levee setback, and road upgrades. Tide gate replacement scored ones or twos for all biological criteria, while it received a four for implementation feasibility. Tide gate replacement would entail upgrading the tide gate to a more fishfriendly model, however the habitat to which fish would then have improved access remains undesirable until additional actions are implemented. Riparian fencing also scored very low for biological criteria receiving zeros for restoring connectivity and providing a unique habitat. This action received a flat score of only six for all biological criteria combined, while it received fours for the socio-economic criteria of implementation feasibility and cost giving the action a high socio-economic score. Road upgrades were ranked blue in this region because it scored zeros for three biological criteria. The action of levee setback received less divided scores between biological and

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A

117

socio-economic criteria than the previous actions in this region, but scored just high enough in socioeconomics to rank blue. Its socio-economic scores were all twos except a one for measurability and a three for cost. Actions receiving the red priority level in Region 2 are reshaping the channel, large wood placement, tide gate relocation, and restoration of secondary and off-channel features. The action of reshaping the channel would have been received a yellow priority level if it didn’t have a “deal breaker” score of zero for implementation feasibility. This action received high scores of four for restoring processes and longevity. Large wood placement scored a three for restoring processes but a zero for restoring connectivity of habitats. This action, similar to the remaining red priority actions, also scored low for landowner concerns. Tide gate relocation and restoration of secondary and off-channel features generally scored low for both sets of criteria. Similar to Region 1, Region 2 is characterized by the presence of strong agricultural land use and dikes in addition to the tide gates. The foreseen longevity of these characteristics influenced prioritization scores in both sets of criteria for this region. Region 3 Tributaries Region 3 encompasses the remaining, non-tide-gated tributaries to Catching Slough and is where the majority of AHI study reaches are located. These tributary streams have the potential to provide significant habitat resources for anadromous fish (see Intrinsic Potential in Chapter 2A), as well as influencing downstream conditions such as stream temperature and sediment delivery. This region contains eight green priority level actions. The highest ranked green priority action is restoration of wetlands. This action received scores of three and four for all biological criteria, and scores of two and three for all socio-economic criteria. Wetland restoration in this mid-watershed region could provide significant winter habitat for coho, sediment catchment, and restore highly impaired watershed processes such as floodplain connectivity. Properly placed, functioning wetlands can also help reduce flooding downstream; a common landowner concern. Culvert replacements received the second highest rank next for the green priority level. This action scored higher in socio-economics than for biological criteria. Culvert replacements received a zero for providing unique habitat, but a high score of four for the biological criteria of restoring processes. See “Sediment Reduction” below in this chapter for recommended culvert upgrades and locations. Culvert replacements provide improved access to habitat for fish, as well as improving sediment transport and road bed integrity. Riparian planting scored very similar overall for each of the two sets of criteria receiving its highest score for longevity and the lowest score for unique habitat. Riparian planting, over time, would address many of the biological concerns presented in the assessment, and is becoming more favorable in terms of socioeconomics. Riparian planting along tributary streams would provide needed bank stabilization, shade to help reduce mainstem temperatures and would eventually recruit large wood to the stream channel. See Solar Load Reduction below in this chapter for more discussion of the effects of riparian plantings. Levee removal scored higher for biological returns than for socio-economics. Levee or dike removal received scores of four for restoring processes and longevity, as well as fours for the socio-economic criteria of fundability and cost. Levees in this region are generally smaller and in some cases may even impede the

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A

118

drainage of agricultural and residential land. Levee removal would help restore watershed processes by allowing streams to flood onto the floodplain. This interaction would improve sediment delivery and tidal and nutrient exchange. Floodplain access is also an important winter habitat feature for coho. Road decommissions also received high scores of four for restoring processes, and longevity. Unused timber access roads can continue to be a source of sediment and erosion long after their useful life. See Sediment Reduction in this chapter for recommended road decommission sites. Large wood placement scored slightly higher for its socio-economics than for the biological criteria. While large wood placement did not score a zero for the biological criteria of restoring connectivity, like the action was scored in other regions of the sub-basin, it received only a score of one for this criterion – its lowest score for any criterion in this region. Aquatic habitat inventory data in Chapter 2A show the extreme lack of large wood in this region. Increasing amounts of large wood in tributary streams would help improve other important habitat features such as pools, winter habitat and spawning gravel. Riparian forestry practices received scores of two and three for all criteria except for the biological criteria restoring connectivity and providing unique habitat, for which it received scores of one. Riparian forestry scored slightly higher for socio-economics than for biological criteria. Levee setback also scored slightly higher for socio-economics than for biological criteria. It received scores of almost all twos except for a one for unique habitat, one for measurability and a four for cost. Levee or dike setback may provide some reduction in down stream flooding while allowing some existing land use to remain behind the levee. Only one potential action, reshaping the channel, was placed at the yellow priority level in this region. This action scored very high for biological returns with scores of four for both restoring processes and for longevity. Socio-economic scores for this action were low overall with scores of one for both landowner concerns and implementation feasibility. Blue level priority actions in Region 3 include road upgrades, riparian fencing and restoration of secondary and off-channel features. While road upgrades received a very high overall score for socio-economic criteria, its biological scores were low with zeros in both restoring connectivity and providing unique habitat. Riparian fencing also received zeros for the same two biological criteria. Restoration of secondary and off-channel features scored low biologically with all ones except for a two for addressing limiting factors. Region 4 Uplands This region is generally located on the slopes and uplands of the sub-basin, or what has not been addressed in the previous three regions centered on water bodies. Green priority level actions in this region include culvert replacements, which ranked highest, and riparian forestry. Culvert replacements received its highest score, four, for implementation feasibility. Its lowest score was a zero for providing unique habitat making the socio-economic overall score for this action significantly higher than the overall biological score. See Sediment Reduction below in this chapter for recommended culvert replacements and other road upgrades. Riparian forestry had overall scores for both sets of criteria that were much closer. This action received scores of two or three for all criteria except a one for addressing limiting factors.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A

119

The only yellow priority level action, landslide area protection, scored just below the green level ranking for socio-economics. Its highest score, a four, was for the biological criteria of longevity. The two blue priority level actions in this region are road upgrades and road decommissions. Road upgrades scored very high overall for socio-economics, receiving three fours in that category, while it received two zeros in biological criteria for restoring connectivity and providing unique habitat. Road decommissions received a zero for addressing a limiting factor which brought its overall score down from receiving a green level priority.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A

120

Figure 3A-1 Aquatic Habitat Reach Locations within Prioritization Regions

Stock Slough Area

#

Matson Creek Area

#

Streams Catching Slough Sub-basin Prioritization Regions 1: Mainstem Slough 2: Tidegated Sloughs 3: Tributaries 4: Uplands

#

Aquatic Habitat Reaches

Upper Wilson Creek Area

Petock 1 Petock 2

#

Ross 1

N

Ross 2 Seelander 1

Catching Creek Area

Seelander 2 Seelander 3

0.5

0

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

0.5

1 Kilometers

Chapter 3A

121

Figure 3A-2 Detail Area Aquatic Habitat Reach Location within Prioritization Regions Catching Creek Area

Prioritization Regions

Catching 8

1: Mainstem Slough

Catching 7

N

2: Tidegated Sloughs

#

#

3: Tributaries

#

Catching 1

#

4: Uplands

Catching 2 Catching 3

#

Boone 1

Stock Slough Area

#

#

Boone 2

#

Wilson 1

#

Stock 8

Boone 3

Stock 10

# #

#

Boone 4 #

Stock 2

Catching 6

#

# #

Stock 6

Stock 4

#

Stock 1 #

Boone 5

Stock 5 #

Stock 3

#

Catching 5

#

#

Stock 7

Catching 4 #

Stock 11

#

Catching 10

#

Stock 9

#

0.5

Catching 9

0.5

0

0

#

0.5 Kilometers

0.5 Kilometers

Upper Wilson Creek Area

Matson Creek Area

#

#

Matson 11 Matson 8

Matson 7 #

#

Matson 9

Wilson 3

#

#

Wilson 4

Wilson 9

Wilson 7

#

#

#

#

Matson 1 # #

#

Matson 6

#

Matson 10 Matson 5

Wilson 2 Wilson 5

#

Matson 4 Matson 2

Wilson 6

#

#

#

Matson 3

Wilson 8 #

Matson 12 #

0.5

0

0.5 Kilometers

0.5

0

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

0.5 Kilometers

Chapter 3A

122

Sediment Reduction Sediment input to streams, best treated at its source, can be addressed in many ways. Careful consideration should be taken when planning landuse activities that disturb the erodable soils in the Catching Sub-basin area. Carefully directing the drainage of run-off through proper culverts, road-side ditches and away from road surfaces will reduce its erosion potential. Table 3A-1 contains treatment recommendations based on the Catching Slough sub-basin road sediment survey presented in Chapter 2A of this document. “New structures needed” are based on Oregon Department of Forestry (2003) Best Management Practices addressing ditch lengths. “Replacement structures needed” address all road drainage features, and are based on surveys conducted by the Coos WA.

Figure 3A-3 Road Sediment Treatment Recommendations

r r r

Ú Ê

â Ú Ê Ê Ú

r

Ú Ê r

â

Ú Ê

r

r r r

r Ê r r Ú Ú Ê

r

Ú Ê r

r

Ú Ê

rr

r r

r r

rr r

r

Table 3A-2 below shows the road treatment r â ÿr rr recommendations. The Catching Slough subâ #Sumner Ì r r r òò r ÿ r Ì basin road system needs a total of 131 new r Ú Ê r r structures and 42 replacement structures. Of â ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚâ r ââ Ú Ê â the existing 188 stream crossing structures Ú Ê Ú Ê surveyed, 29 culverts need to be replaced. â â r r Nineteen of these are rusted with road fill r r rr r r r Î r eroding around the pipe, and another 10 of r N Î r r r Ú Ê r these culverts are fish passage barriers. The r r Î r r rr r survey also determined that 40 new cross drain ÿ ÿ culverts are needed to meet ODF Best 1 0 1 Kilometers Catching Sub-basin Management Practices. Of the 227 existing Roads ditch relief culverts, 3 are rusted and need Recommended Treatments Ê replacing, and an additional 34 new culverts Ú Replace Culvert (Erosion) are needed. At the 103 ditch out sites â Replace Culvert (Passage) Ì Cut Ditch surveyed, eight water bars and two culverts Install Culvert Î Armor Fill Downstream r should be replaced, along with installation of Install Water Bar(s) Install Ditch Out ò ÿ 44 new cross drain culverts, three new ditch outs, and three new water bars. Of the three potential landslide sites, all need the unstable fill excavated. Of the seven ponding road surface sites, one new cross drain culvert and six new water bars are needed to control sediment. Figure 3A-3, shows the locations of recommended treatment sites. Drainage sites with high upgrade immediacy should be addressed first. These sites include five stream crossings, one ditch out, and one landslide. These sites have the greatest potential for future erosion from excessive ditch lengths, unstable fill, culvert failure, and active erosion.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A

123

Solar Load Reduction Solar loading - heating of the stream by direct sunlight - can be reduced by increasing the stream’s shade with riparian vegetation. Coos WA calculated the current and potential shade for each stream (weighted average of reaches) using the SHADOW model. Inputs to the model use the existing conditions (tree height, tree-channel distance, canopy overhang, canopy density, valley morphology, and aspect) to calculate current shade. The model calculates potential shade using estimates for climax vegetation characteristics along with known features (aspect and valley morphology). Appendix C provides more details on how the SHADOW model was used.

Table 3A-2 Road Sediment Treatment Recommendations Site Type

New Structures Needed

Replacement Structures Needed

Stream Crossing

40 Cross Drain Culverts

29 Culverts (19 Erosion) (10 Fish Passage)

Ditch Relief

34 Cross Drain Culverts

Ditch Out

44 Cross Drains 3 Ditch outs 3 Water bars

Potential

3 Cross Drain Culverts 8 Water bars 2 Cross drain culverts Excavate Unstable

Figure 3A-4 shows the distribution of potential solar Landslide Fill load reduction for assessment area streams based on climax vegetation. Table 3A-3, below, displays Ponding/ Gullied 1 Cross Drain Culverts various shade values and the potential solar load Road Surface 6 Water bars reduction for each assessment stream. The ‘unshaded’ 131 42 values are gigacalories/day of solar energy load that Totals would warm the stream if no shade were present. In this case, Catching Slough, Ross Slough and Matson Creek would receive the most solar load. The ‘current shade’ values are gigacalories/day that are reaching the stream under existing conditions. Currently, Catching Slough is receiving the most solar load, having virtually zero shade cover. This is greatly due to the large width of the slough and its aspect. The ‘restored full potential shade’ values represent the solar loading under potential shade conditions. Potential shade is the shade that would be created if native trees were allowed to populate the riparian area unhindered by human impacts. These values show that even with full potential shade there is some amount of solar loading due to stream width, orientation, and potential shade densities. The ‘potential reduction’ values represent the change in solar load between current shade conditions and potential shade conditions.

Table 3A-3 Potential Solar Load Reduction Solar Load (gigacalorie per day) Kcal*/day/ft Current Restored Potential Potential Potential load Streams Unshaded Shade Potential Shade Reduction Reduction Reduction Boone Creek 82.4 38.9 0.8 38.0 46.2% 1666.3 Cardwell Creek 43.8 8.3 0.0 8.3 19.0% 715.6 Catching Creek 110.3 61.7 1.8 59.9 54.3% 2141.7 Catching Slough 3872.2 3585.6 2057.1 1528.5 39.5% 23646.5 Matson Creek 268.7 163.6 32.8 130.7 48.6% 3758.4 Panther Creek 29.9 1.0 0.0 0.9 3.1% 95.0 Ross Slough 333.4 251.8 16.1 235.7 70.7% 4471.2 Seelander Creek 111.6 33.9 1.0 33.0 29.5% 1341.7 Stock Slough 140.6 88.3 2.3 86.0 61.2% 2515.6 W. Sumner Trib. 26.6 15.2 0.2 15.0 56.5% 2027.7 Wilson Creek 123.2 32.8 0.8 32.0 25.9% 1070.5 * A temperature reduction of one kilocalorie is equal to cooling one kilogram of water (approximately equal to 35.3 ounces or 2.2 pounds of water) by one degree Celsius. Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3A

124

On a typical stream, the majority of heat gains come from air temperature and insolation, both of which are directly affected by solar load amounts. Therefore, restoring the riparian canopy in the upper stream reaches with high reduction potential should reduce stream temperatures. Potential reduction in percentages and per linear stream foot should be considered when making riparian management decisions. These values indicate those streams that are most vulnerable to solar loading and where riparian planting will be the most effective per foot for reducing stream temperatures. As indicated in Table 3A-2, Ross Slough has the greatest reduction potential (70.7%), followed by Stock Slough (61.2%), and W. Sumner Tributary (56.5%).

Figure 3A-4 Potential Solar Load Reduction

N

Streams

1

0

1 Kilometers

Catching Sub-basin Potential Load Reduction Resulting from Climax Riparian Vegetation (Kcal/day/foot)

0 - 1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 4000 4000 - 6000 6000 - 8000

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

8000 - 10000 10000 - 12000 12000 - 14000 14000 - 16000 16000 and above

Chapter 3A

125

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Sub-basin Assessment and Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3B:

Daniel’s Creek Sub-basin Restoration Opportunities

Riparian restoration project on Daniel’s Creek, Coos WA 2008

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3B

126

CHAPTER 3B: Daniel’s Creek Sub-basin Restoration Opportunities This section introduces the potential for watershed restoration actions based on assessment data analysis (see Chapter 2B: Daniel’s Creek Sub-basin Assessment) and the prioritization process. Following the Prioritization of Potential Restoration Actions are two supplemental discussions related to restoration; Sediment Reduction presents recommendations for road and stream-crossing treatments based on road sediment survey data presented in Chapter 2B, Solar Load Reduction presents the amount of solar load, heat from the sun, potentially reduced under different planting scenarios.

Prioritization of Potential Actions

Figure 3B-1, shows the prioritization region locations and the aquatic habitat reaches. Region 1 consists of the narrow, bottom valley. Region 2, the larger remaining area, consists of the hill slopes and upland forest.

Table 3B-1 Prioritized Actions Region Priority Potential Action Tide gate removal Riparian planting Levee removal Reshape channel Large wood placement Wetlands Tide gate replacements Riparian fencing Restore secondary/off-channel Culvert replacements Road upgrades Levee setback Region1: Valleys

Potential restoration actions and their score-derived priority level within each region are listed in Table 3B1. Detailed score tables for each action based on the series of biological and socio-economic criteria are in Appendix A. The color next to each action corresponds to the prioritization score level or rank described earlier in Chapter 3: Restoration Strategy. Chapter 3 also contains a general description for each of the potential restoration actions listed here.

Region 1 Valleys Region 2: Upland Forest

Tide gate relocation

Riparian forestry Actions with green, or top priority in this region Culvert replacements include tide gate removal, riparian planting and levee removal. Tide gate removal scored high since the Road decommissions existing, known tide gates are located on small side Landslide area protection tributaries, are old and presumed to have little if any Large wood placement functional use. Tide gate removal is always biologically Road upgrades beneficial, though less in this case since the tide gates are on very small tributary streams with limited habitat. Riparian planting in this region will be effective at providing needed shade. Levee removal received the highest combined score in this region. Although it scored low for landowner concerns, levee removal received the highest possible score for two biological criteria - restoring watershed processes and longevity of the project.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3B

127

The yellow priority level actions scored high biologically and low for socio-economics. These actions include reshaping, or increasing meanders in the stream channel, large wood placement, and restoration of wetlands. Channel reshaping received the highest possible scores for the biological criteria restoring watershed processes and longevity of the project. Placement of large wood in this region would have high biological returns – none of the study reaches met benchmark levels for any of the large wood categories. However, large wood placement is less favorable in terms of landowner concerns and implementation feasibility. Almost the same scenario exists with the action of wetland restoration – it scored high for biological criteria but low for landowner concerns due to land use. Actions the Coos WA will be less active in pursuing are the blue and red priority levels. The blue priority level actions are more favorable for socio-economic criteria than they are for biological criteria. These actions include tide gate replacement, riparian fencing, restoration of secondary and off-channel habitats, culvert replacements and road upgrades. Red priority actions, levee setback and tide gate relocation, will not be implemented or pursued. Both of these actions received a ‘deal-breaker’ score of zero for the criteria of restoring watershed processes. These actions would have been a blue priority level since they both received a high score of two for overall socio-economics. Region 2 Upland Forest This region is located in the higher gradient, headwater areas that are most commonly forested. Green priority actions in this region include riparian forestry, culvert replacements, road decommissions, and landslide area protection. Culvert replacements received the highest ranking of these actions with the highest scores for restoring connectivity, landowner concerns and implementation feasibility. Road decommissions received the next highest ranking in this region. While this action received scores of zero for addressing limiting factors and unique habitat, it scored very high for restoring processes, longevity and likelihood of success. Landslide area protection received the highest possible score for longevity and cost of the project. Riparian forestry received a zero for restoring habitat connectivity, but high scores for longevity. Large wood placement is a yellow priority action in this region, as well as in region one. Again, the action received higher scores for biological returns than it did for socio-economics. It’s lowest scores were for landowner concerns and implementation feasibility. Road upgrades, a blue priority action, scored very low for biological returns receiving zeros for restoring connectivity, addressing limiting factors, and providing unique habitat.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3B

128

Figure 3B-1 Aquatic Habitat Reach Location within Prioritization Regions Daniels 1

Daniels 2

Morgan 1 Wren Smith 1 Wren Smith 3 N

Wren Smith 2 Daniels 3 Daniel's Creek Sub-basin Streams Prioritization Regions Region 1: Valleys Region 2: Uplands

Beaver Branch 1

Daniels 4

Daniels TJ #11

Daniels 5 Daniels 7 Beaver Branch 2 Daniels 6 0.5

0

0.5

1 Kilometers

Beaver Branch TJ #7

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3B

129

Sediment Reduction Sediment inputs to steams, best treated at its source, can be addressed in many ways. Careful consideration should be taken when planning landuse activities that disturb the local erosionprone soil. Directing the drainage of run-off and other surface water through proper culverts, road-side ditches and away from road surfaces will reduce erosion potential. Table 3B-2 displays treatment recommendations based on the road sediment survey analysis. “New structures needed” are based on Oregon Department of Forestry (2003) Best Management Practices addressing ditch lengths. “Replacement structures needed” address all road drainage features, and are based on surveys conducted by the Coos WA.

Table 3B-2 Road Sediment Treatment Recommendations New Structures Replacement Site Type Needed To Structures Meet BMP Needed 7 Culverts Stream 11 Cross Drain (6 Erosion) Crossing Culverts (1 Fish passage) Ditch 34 Cross Drain Culverts 4 Cross Drain Culverts Relief 1 Ditch Out Ditch Out Potential Landslide Ponding/ Gullied Road Surface Totals

5 Cross Drain Culverts 5 Water Bars

0

1 Cross Drain Culvert

(Excavate Unstable Fill)

1 Water Bar

N/A

57

11

Figure 3B-2 Road Sediment Treatment Recommendations

r

Ú Ê Ú Ê

rr r

r r r

Ú Ê Ú Ê

r r Êr Ú Êrr Ú r

Ê Ú ÊÚ

r Ú Ê

âÚÊ

r

Roads

r

r r r rr

r Ú Ê rr

Daniel's Creek Sub-basin Recommended Treatments

r

ò d Ú Ê â

r r

d

ò r r

ò

r r r

Ú Ê

N

r

r

r r

Install Culvert Install Ditch Out

r

Install Downspout Replace Culvert (Erosion)

0.5

r

Replace Culvert (Passage)

r

0.5

1 Kilometers

r

r

ò

0

r

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3B

130

Table 3B-1 shows the road treatment recommendations. Based on the Coos WA road sediment surveys, the Daniel’s Creek road system needs a total of 57 new structures installed and 11 structures replaced. Of the existing 112 stream crossing sites surveyed, 11 new cross drain culverts should be installed, and seven culverts need to be replaced. These seven include six that are rusted out and eroding the road fill around the pipe, and one listed as a fish passage barrier. Of the 200 existing ditch relief sites, 34 cross drains and one ditch out should be installed, and four rusted out culverts need to be replaced. Additionally, five culverts and five water bars should be installed at ditch out sites. The potential landslide site needs the unstable fill excavated and a culvert installed. The one ponding road surface site needs one new water bar. Drainage sites with high upgrade immediacy should be addressed first. These sites include stream crossings, ditch outs, and potential landslides. These sites have the greatest potential for future erosion from excessive ditch lengths, unstable fill, culvert failure, and/or active erosion. Figure 3B-2 shows the general locations of recommended treatments, however, many sites will require multiple treatments that are not practical to display on this map.

Solar Load Reduction Solar loading - heating of the stream by direct sunlight - can be reduced by increasing the stream’s shade with riparian vegetation. Coos WA calculated the current and potential shade for each stream (weighted average of reaches) using the SHADOW model. Inputs to the model use the existing conditions (tree height, tree-channel distance, canopy overhang, canopy density, valley morphology, and aspect) to calculate current shade. The model calculates potential shade using estimates for climax vegetation characteristics along with known features (aspect and valley morphology). Appendix C provides more details on how the SHADOW model was used. Table 3B-3 displays shade values and the potential solar load reduction for each assessment stream. The ‘unshaded’ values are gigacalories/day of solar energy load that would warm the stream if no shade were present. In this case, Daniel’s Creek and Morgan Creek would receive the most loading. The ‘current shade’ values are gigacalories/day that reach the stream under existing conditions. Currently, Daniel’s Creek is receiving the most solar load, having only minimal shade cover. This is greatly due to the fairly large width of the stream and its aspect. The ‘restored potential shade’ values represent the solar loading under potential shade conditions. Potential shade is the shade that would be created if site-appropriate trees were allowed to populate the riparian area unhindered by human impacts. These values show that even with full potential shade there is some amount of solar loading due to stream width, orientation, and potential shade densities. The ‘potential reduction’ values represent the change in solar load between current shade Table 3B-3 Potential Solar Load Reduction Solar Load (gigacalories per day) Kcal*/day/ft Restored Potential Current Potential Potential load Potential Streams Unshaded Reduction Reduction Reduction % Shade Shade Beaver Branch 32.0 2.3 1.2 1.1 4% 143.2 Daniel’s Creek 378.8 218.3 27.2 191.2 50% 3182.7 Morgan Creek 250.0 116.5 27.2 90.8 36% 244.9 Wren Smith Creek 85.9 12.4 3.9 8.5 10% 415.2 * A temperature reduction of one kilocalorie is equal to cooling one kilogram of water (approximately equal to 35.3 ounces or 2.2 pounds of water) by one degree Celsius.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3B

131

conditions and potential shade conditions. Potential solar load reduction values are also displayed in Figure 3B-3, below. On a typical stream, the majority of heat gains come from air temperature and insolation, both of which are directly affected by solar load amounts. Therefore, restoring the riparian canopy in the upper stream reaches with high reduction potential should reduce stream temperatures. Potential reduction in percentages and per linear stream foot should be considered when making riparian management decisions. These values indicate those streams that are most vulnerable to solar loading and where riparian planting will be the most effective per foot for reducing stream temperatures. As indicated in Table 3B-3 above, Daniel’s Creek has the greatest potential reduction (50%), followed by Morgan Creek (36.0%), then Wren Smith Creek (10%). See Appendix C for estimated shade produced from various riparian planting techniques.

Figure 3B-3 Potential Solar Load Reduction

Streams Sub-basin Boundary

Potential Solar Load Reduction Based on Shade from Climax Riparian Vegetation (kcal/day/ft) 0 - 500 500 - 1000 1000 - 1500

N

1500 - 2500 2500 - 4000 4000 - 6000 6000 - 8000 0.5

0

0.5

1 Kilometers

8000- 10000 10000 and Above

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3B

132

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Sub-basin Assessment and Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3C: Heads of Tide Sub-basin Restoration Opportunities

Woodruff Creek wood placement project, Coos WA, 2004

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3C

133

CHAPTER 3C: Heads of Tide Restoration Opportunities This section introduces the potential for watershed restoration actions based on assessment data analysis (see Chapter 2B: Daniel’s Creek Sub-basin Assessment) and the prioritization process. Following the Prioritization of Potential Restoration Actions are two supplemental discussions related to restoration; Sediment Reduction presents recommendations for road and stream-crossing treatments based on road sediment survey data presented in Chapter 2B, Solar Load Reduction presents the amount of solar load, heat from the sun, potentially reduced under different planting scenarios.

Prioritization of Potential Actions

This region is located on agricultural bottom land adjacent to the Coos and Millicoma Rivers, and the narrow agricultural valleys along the lower reaches of some tributary streams. The score-derived, colorcoded rank indicates that top priority, or green, actions in this region include tide gate removal, riparian planting, restoring secondary/off-channel habitat, and wetland restoration. These actions would have high biological returns and are considered socio-economically acceptable. Many existing tide gates on tributaries are in disrepair and are non-essential to current land management. Removal of tide gates, along with riparian planting, creation of off-channel habitat and wetland restoration could provide a substantial benefit to coho, other wildlife and water quality improvement (i.e. temperature) without presenting a challenge to socio-economics in this region of the sub-basin.

Region 2: Tributary Streams

Region 1 Mainstem River Agricultural Land

Region 3: Upland Forest

Figure 3C-1 shows the locations and boundaries of the three prioritization regions and the aquatic habitat inventory reaches within those regions.

Region 1:Mainstem River Ag. Land

Potential actions and their prioritization level within each region are listed in Table 3C-1. Detailed score tables for each action based on the series of biological and socio-economic criteria are in Appendix A. The color next to each action corresponds to the prioritization score level or rank described earlier in Table 3C-1 Prioritization of Potential Actions Chapter 3: Restoration Strategy. Chapter 3 also Region Priority Potential Actions contains a general description for each of the Tide gate removal potential restoration actions listed here.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Riparian planting Add secondary/off-channel Wetlands Levee removal Tide gate replacements Riparian fencing Levee setback Reshape channel LW placement Riparian planting Culvert replacements LW placement Road decommissions Riparian forestry Riparian fencing Add secondary/off-channel Reshape channel Road upgrades Riparian forestry Landslide area protection Road decommissions LW placement Road upgrades Culvert replacements

Chapter 3C

134

One action, levee removal, received a yellow priority level, meaning it scored high for biological criteria but low for socio-economic criteria. This action received the highest biological score in region 1. While levee removal would be effective at restoring watershed processes and would be self-maintaining, it is unlikely to be pursued until landowner concerns and overall feasibility are changed. Actions which received a blue priority level include tide gate replacements, riparian fencing, levee setback and reshaping of the channel. These actions ranked high socio-economically and low biologically. While these actions are generally beneficial to both the watershed and to land management goals, it would be relatively more difficult for Coos WA to secure funding based on biological returns. Of these blue priority actions, tide gate replacement ranked the highest due to landowner acceptance and implementation feasibility. Large wood placement received a red, or lowest, priority level ranking because it scored low for both sets of criteria in this region. Less is known about placing large wood in stream reaches with tidal inundation or, for that matter, in tidally-influenced mainstem rivers and this action scored a zero for restoring connectivity. Region 2 Tributary Streams This region refers to areas within drainage basins of tributary streams. Top priority actions in this region include riparian planting, culvert replacements, large wood placement, road decommissions and riparian forestry. Large wood placement and road decommissions ranked the highest in this region. Both of these actions received the highest possible scores for restoring watershed processes, and large wood placement would significantly address coho habitat limiting factors in both summer and winter. Blue priority actions include riparian fencing, restoring secondary or off-channel features, reshaping the channel, and road upgrades. Of these actions, road upgrades ranked highest and riparian fencing ranked lowest. All of these blue priority actions scored high in socio-economics and low for biological criteria. Region 3 Upland Forest This region is located in the higher gradient, headwater areas that are most commonly forested. Actions which received green, or top priority, ranking in this region include riparian forestry, landslide area protection, and road decommissions. Of these actions, road decommissions ranked the highest with top scores for longevity and low cost. Actions which received a blue priority ranking include large wood placement, road upgrades, and culvert replacements. Culvert replacements received the highest rank in the blue priority level.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3C

135

Figure 3C-1 Aquatic Habitat Reach Locations within Prioritization Regions Caroline Bar Cr Deton Cr #

# #

Woodruff Cr Mart Davis Cr #

Straw Gulch Cr

Bridges Cr

#

#

Packard Cr

McKnight Cr

#

Hendrickson Cr

Bessey Cr

Rogers Cr

#

Streams Stream Basin Boundaries Heads of Tide Assessment Area

Salmon Cr

Key to Reach ID Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5

Salmon Trib 1 Woodruff Trib 10 Woodruff Trib 13 Deton Trib 1

Dellwood Trib Cr

N

0.5 0 0.5 1 Kilometers

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3C

136

Sediment Reduction Sediment loading, the erosion and run-off of soil particles, is best treated at its source and can be addressed in many ways. Careful consideration should be taken when planning landuse activities that disturb the local erosion-prone soil. Directing the drainage of run-off and other surface water through proper culverts, road-side ditches and away from road surfaces will reduce erosion potential. Table 3C-2 displays treatment recommendations based on the road sediment survey analysis. “New structures needed” are based on Oregon Department of Forestry (2003) Best Management Practices addressing ditch lengths. “Replacement structures needed” address all road drainage features, and are based on surveys conducted by the Coos WA.

Table 3C-2 Road Sediment Treatment Recommendations Site Type

New Structures Needed To Meet BMP

Stream Crossing

31 Cross Drain Culverts

Ditch Relief

183 Cross Drain Culverts

14 Culverts (13 Erosion) (1 Fish Passage) 18 Cross Drain Culverts

Ditch Out

126 Cross Drain Culverts

8 Water Bars 2 Cross drain culverts

Potential Landslide

6 Water Bars

(Excavate Unstable Fill)

Ponding/ Gullied Road Surface Totals

Replacement Structures Needed

2 Cross Drain Culverts 2 Water Bars

Table 3C-2 shows the recommended road treatments. Based on the Coos WA road sediment 350 42 surveys, the Heads of Tide road system needs a total of 350 new structures and 42 structures replaced. Of the 97 stream crossing sites surveyed, 31 new culverts are needed, and 14 culverts should be replaced, including 13 for erosion control and one for fish passage. Three hundred forty ditch relief sites were surveyed resulting in recommendation of 183 new culverts, and 18 rusted culverts that need to be replaced. Ditch out survey sites totaled 169 resulting in recommendation of 126 new culverts and replacement of eight water bars and two culverts. Of the five potential landslide sites, all need the unstable fill excavated and six new water bars should be installed. Of the seven ponding road surface sites, two culverts and two water bars should be installed to upgrade these sites. Drainage sites with high upgrade immediacy should be addressed first. These sites include: six stream crossings, four ditch relief culverts, two ditch outs, two landslides, and two road surface sites. These sites have the greatest potential for future erosion from excessive ditch lengths, unstable fill, culvert failure, and/or active erosion. The general locations of recommended treatment sites are shown in Figure 3C-2, however, many sites will require multiple treatments that are not practical to display.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3C

137

Figure 3C-2 Road Sediment Treatment Recommendations rr rr r

r r

Ú ÊÚ Ê Ú Ê Ú Ê Ú Ê rr

r r rr rrr rr

Ú Ê

r

r r

r

r

r

a % rrr

r rr

r rrr

Ú Ê

Ú Ê

r

Ú Ê

Recommended Treatments

Î Ì S #

Cut Ditch Decommission

a %

Excavate Unstable Fill

r

Install Culvert

ð

Install Ditch Out

Ú Ê

Replace Culvert (Erosion)

â

Replace Culvert (Passage)

ÿ

Water Bar(s)

Ú Ê

ð

ð

Ú Ê

Ú Ê

Ú Ê

Ì Ì ÿ

Ú Ê

ÿ Ê Ú

Ú Ê

â

Ì

r

r

Ú Ê Ê Ú

Ú Ê

ð

r

Ú Ê

Ú ÚÊ Ê d

r r r r r rr r r r r r

Ú Ê

North and South Sub-basin Boundaries Streams

r r r r

Ú Ê

r rr r

r r

r

Roads

r

Ú Ê

ÿ

Ú Ê

Armor Fill Downstream

r

r r rr r r r r r rr rrr S r # r r r r r r r r r r rr r S rr r S# # r S # r r r r r rrr#S r S # r rr r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r r rr r r r r r r r #S#S r r r r r #S#S r r r r r S # r r S S# # rr r r r rr r r r r r r rr r rr r r

Ê Ú Ú Ê

Ú Ê

r r r r r r r r r r

Î

r r r r r r r r r

a %

r r

r

r r r r r r rr r r rr r r rr r rr

â

r rr a % r r r r rr

r r

r

N

rr

0.5 0 0.5 1

1.5 Kilometers

Solar Load Reduction Solar loading, heating of the stream by direct sunlight, can be reduced by increasing the stream’s shadecover with riparian vegetation. Coos WA calculated current and potential shade values for each stream (weighted average of reaches) using the SHADOW model. Inputs to the model include data describing the existing conditions (i.e., tree height, tree-channel distance, canopy overhang, canopy density, valley morphology, and aspect) which were used to calculate current shade. The model calculated potential shade using estimates for climax vegetation characteristics along with known features (aspect and valley morphology). Appendix A and C provide more details on using the SHADOW model. Table 3C-3 displays various shade values and the potential solar load reduction for each assessment stream. The ‘unshaded’ values are gigacalories/day of solar energy load that would warm the stream if no shade

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3C

138

were present. In this case, Deton, Packard and Woodruff Creeks would receive the most solar load. The ‘current shade’ values are gigacalories/day that contact the stream under existing shade conditions. At the time of the survey, Hendrickson Creek was receiving the most solar load, virtually having zero shade cover. The ‘restored potential shade’ values represent the solar loading under potential shade conditions. Potential shade is the shade that would be created if native trees were allowed to populate the riparian area unhindered by human impacts. These values show that even with full potential shade there is some amount of solar loading due to stream width, orientation, and species shade densities. Deton, Bessey, Salmon, and Dellwood Tributary Creeks would receive more solar load under potential shade conditions than they are under current shade conditions. This is due to higher shade density in current vegetation than in the potential, more mature stands. The ‘potential reduction’ values represent the change in solar load between current shade conditions and potential shade conditions. These values are also displayed in the map in Figure 3C-3, below. Table 3C-3 Heads of Tide Streams Potential Solar Load Reduction Solar Load (gigacalorie/day) Kcal*/day/ft Restored Potential Potential Current Potential Potential Reduction Load Stream Unshaded Shade Shade Reduction % Reduction/ft 82.1 18.4 2.2 16.5 89% 884.3 Rogers 139.1 22.1 3.7 18.7 84% 1028.1 Packard 5.9 4.4 0.3 4.1 93% 2013.6 Straw Gulch 96.5 11.6 4.0 10.2 88% 721.9 Mart Davis 107.3 4.4 5.0 1.6 36% 85.1 Deton 131.2 13.5 3.7 10.4 77% 711.3 Woodruff 52.4 0.3 1.7 0.0 0% 0.0 Bessey 43.0 23.1 3.1 20.0 87% 3435.4 McKnight 31.7 1.3 1.7 0.0 0% 0.0 Salmon 39.1 1.6 1.9 0.0 10% 20.1 Dellwood 45.0 6.1 1.3 4.8 0% 0.0 Bridges 33.1 33.1 1.0 32.1 97% 7518.2 Hendrickson 5.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 55% 15.3 Caroline Bar * A temperature reduction of one kilocalorie is equal to cooling one kilogram of water (approximately equal to 35.3 ounces or 2.2 pounds of water) by one degree Celsius.

On a typical stream, the majority of heat gains come from air temperature and insolation, both of which are directly affected by solar load amounts. Therefore, restoring the riparian canopy in the upper stream reaches with high reduction potential should reduce stream temperatures. Potential reduction in percentages and per linear stream foot should be considered when making riparian management decisions. These values indicate those streams that are most vulnerable to solar loading and where riparian planting will be the most effective per foot for reducing stream temperatures. As indicated in Table 3C-3 above, Hendrickson Creek has the highest potential for solar load reduction both as a percent change and per foot. McKnight and Straw Gulch Creeks also have high potential for solar load reduction.

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

Chapter 3C

139

Figure 3C-3 Potential Solar Load Reduction

N

Potential Solar Load Reduction Based on Shade from Climax Riparian Vegetation (kcal/day/ft) 0 - 200 200 - 400 400 - 600 600 - 1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 3000 3000 - 5000 5000 - 8000 8000 - 12000

Streams North & South Sub-basin Boundaries Stream Sub-basins

Catching Slough, Daniel’s Creek and Heads of Tide Assessment & Restoration Opportunities

0.5

0

0.5

1 Kilometers

Chapter 3C

140