Sitka Sedge Tech Team Meeting #2 –SL Limiting Factors Analysis and

Restoration Prioritization10/24/19

Sand Lake working group

GoalsWork with the Sand Lake community: present to the community throughout the process and solicit feedback, collaborate with landowners for data collection, work with the community to prioritize restoration

Increase our understanding of the health of the Sand Lake aquatic ecosystem: fish & invertebrate use, water quality, stream function, estuary health

Bring together local, state and federal agencies to share data and management plans for the basin

Identify the primary factors limiting coho productivity

Identify and prioritize restoration projects

Implement restoration projects

Scope of WorkWater temperature

Dissolved oxygen data

Aquatic Habitat Inventory: gravel, pools, wood, channel complexity etc

Estuary footprint- historical/current tidal extent, channels, alterations

Limiting factors analysis document

Restoration focal areas

Management Goals Improve water quality

Restore ecosystem health and services

Enhance fish habitat

Community engagement

Improve transportation system in a manner that is compatible with natural resources

Limiting Factor Analysis and Restoration PrioritizationPrepared by River Design Group for NNSL WC

Existing Conditions• Physical characteristics• Fish Species and Habitat

Data Collection

AnalysisLimiting Factors Analysis- Biological, physical or chemical conditions and associated ecological processes and interactions that limit a species’ viability (NOAA-Fishers 2016). Identify the processes and habitat characteristics that currently limit Coho salmon productivity

Restoration prioritization

SL Basin CohoSalmonids in basin: Coho, Chum, fall chinook, winter steelhead, coastal cutthroat

Also: Western brook lamprey, pacific lamprey, 3 spec. of sculpin

Dependent on strays from Nestucca, but exhibit unique life history

Estuaries = larger, faster growth (Jones et. al 2014)

2009 survey (S. Trask, Bio-Surveys, LLC) estimated 6,056 juvenile cohowere produced in the basin

9.5 miles of rearing habitat

Floodplain (right) vs non-floodplain (left) raised Chinook juvenilesCosumnes River, CA

SL Basin CohoUnique “spring nomad” strategy- Coho fry outmigrate to estuary shortly after emergence from spawning gravels. Remain in habitat within .5 miles of tribmouth due to salinity sensitivity

As they mature, they venture farther into the estuary- juveniles may redistribute to habitats other than their natal streams

Optimal rearing conditions include cool water habitats, complex low velocity habitats and abundant food sources

These unique nomads reflect genetic diversity within Oregon Coast cohosalmon

Whitney Hassett

SL Basin WQSalinity: Winter = high freshwater inflows= low salinitySummer = low freshwater inflows = high salinityBehind dike and in modified norther portion of estuary lower salinityWetlands behind dike provide rearing habitat Temperature: varies by location and time. Low tide inflows of freshwater or air tempHigh tide Ocean waterDO: warmer, more saline water Lower DOCooler, less saline water Higher DO

LFA MethodologyWQ and temperature: thermographs and data sondes from late springearly fall 2018

Temp, DO, pH, specific conductance (salinity) every 15 to 60 minute intervals

3 WQ sondes in estuary, temperature sondes on Andy, N & S Fork Jewel, Reneke & Rover

Compared with air temperature and tidally-influenced water level

Compared with Oregon DEQ standards: temp standard for Salmonid rearing (

LFA MethodologyStream Habitat Data (Aquatic Inventory Surveys):

Single point in time-channel and valley morphology, sediment, habitat features, vegetation, wood and stream temperature

“Habitat benchmark metrics”- desirable or undesirable

WQ and AQI data provides “snapshot” of basin habitat conditions

Whitney Hassett

Table 3-2. AQI metrics with habitat benchmark values.

AQI Metric

Benchmarks

Desirable Undesirable

Width:depth ratio (W:D) < 15 > 30

All LWD (≥3 m x 0.15 m)/100 m > 20 < 10

LWD volume (m3)/100 m > 30 < 20

Key pieces (≥12 m x 0.60 m)/100 m > 3 < 1

Riffle fines (% wetted area) < 10 > 20

Riffle gravel (% wetted area) > 35 < 15

Pool area (% total wetted area) > 35 < 10

Complex pools (≥3 LWD pieces/pool) > 2.5 < 1

Pool frequency (channel widths/pool) 5 to 8 > 20

Residual pool depth (m, avg) > 0.5 < 0.2

Canopy closure, avg (%) > 70/601 < 60/501

Temp (Days ≥18⁰C) 0 > 1

Results – Estuary TempWQ/Temp: Estuary- excess of fish use designation temperature (18C) for most of summer (although DEQ temp standards do not apply to estuarine waters)Temps reached maximum values in early AugustMax water temps > max air temps for N and S sondes. Coolest temp in Central sondeGreatest temperature swings in S sondeTemperature may correlate with tidal range, where it may be lower and higher during periods with large and small tidal rangesLow tides decreased temperatures for North and Central sondes (driven by freshwater inputs)N and Central sondes lowest water temps occur when low tide coincides with cold air temps

Results – Trib TempCooler in upstream reaches (steeper, shaded) than valley floor reaches (lower gradient, less shade)

Cooler than estuary temps

Reached max values in late July to early august

Shaded, upstream reaches had water temperatures less than DEQ rearing and migration temps

Jewel and all three Sand Creek thermographs recorded T values greater than DEQ standards for more than 10 days of the summer

Results- Estuary DOAll 3 sondes frequently recorded DO levels below DEQ standard (6.5 mg/L)N sonde had higher values of DO than C. S sonde recorded highest values in mid- July and low values in late July. North sonde- peaks in DO associated w peaks in daily air temp, minimum water temp and low tidesCentral sonde- DO tracks w tide; low tide corresponds to high DO (increased freshwater)South Sonde- Highest peaks in DO during warmer air temps and lower low tides

AQI ResultsAndy, Rover and Sand creek had the most metrics in the “desirable” range

Gurtis, Jewel and Reneke have most metrics in the “undesirable” range

Metrics most frequently in desirable range: Stream temp, width to depth ratios, pool area, number of complex pools

Metrics most frequently in undesirable range: Volume of LWD, number of key LWD pieces, mean residual pool depth

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. 2018 AQI data, where green, pink, and red highlights correspond to desirable, intermediate, and undesirable values, respectively, relative to habitat benchmarks in Error! Reference source not found..

Metric1 Rover Creek

Sand Creek

Sand Creek Upper

Trib

Sand Creek Trib to Upper

Trib

Sand Creek Lower Trib

Andy Creek

Jewel Creek

- Lower

Jewel Creek

- Upper

Jewel Creek

- South Fork

Gurtis Creek

Reneke Creek

L (m) 943 2738 840 387 449 2970 1537 2145 717 455 455 S (%) 2.9 3.4 6.2 13.0 5.9 3.3 1.6 4.5 4.5 8.0 2.4 W (m) 3.2 4.7 4.8 3.7 3.3 5.8 5.5 6.2 9.4 4.6 3.5 W:D 9.8 10.8 13.3 8.9 10.0 18.9 16.0 16.5 26.8 16.9 13.5 NLWD 11.9 20.7 34.5 19.9 19.8 16.1 1.8 7.9 10.5 18.7 2.4

VLWD (m2) 32.4 21.9 14.4 55.8 10.6 11.5 1.6 9.7 16.6 10.6 0.6 NKLWD 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 AF,rif (%) 25 19 17 15 20 16 28 15 11 11 32 AG,rif (%) 24 23 31 35 28 32 33 29 35 45 51 AP (%) 37.9 41.0 24.1 11.0 29.1 38.7 48.5 17.9 6.9 5.7 38.2 NP 6.0 13.1 9.3 2.4 12.6 7.6 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 FP 6.0 3.3 2.8 5.5 3.0 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.1 8.2 4.4 DP (m) 0.22 0.23 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.27 0.38 0.28 0.18 0.17 0.18 C (%) 62 65 68 60 52 74 14 72 68 61 26 NT>TDEQ 0 30 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0

Desirable 6 4 4 5 3 4 1 2 3 2 4 Undesirable 2 1 3 2 4 2 5 3 5 5 7

Table 42. 2018 AQI data, where green, pink, and red highlights correspond to desirable, intermediate, and undesirable values, respectively, relative to habitat benchmarks in Table 32.

Metric1

Rover Creek

Sand Creek

Sand Creek Upper Trib

Sand Creek Trib to Upper Trib

Sand Creek Lower Trib

Andy Creek

Jewel Creek - Lower

Jewel Creek - Upper

Jewel Creek - South Fork

Gurtis Creek

Reneke Creek

L (m)

943

2738

840

387

449

2970

1537

2145

717

455

455

S (%)

2.9

3.4

6.2

13.0

5.9

3.3

1.6

4.5

4.5

8.0

2.4

W (m)

3.2

4.7

4.8

3.7

3.3

5.8

5.5

6.2

9.4

4.6

3.5

W:D

9.8

10.8

13.3

8.9

10.0

18.9

16.0

16.5

26.8

16.9

13.5

NLWD

11.9

20.7

34.5

19.9

19.8

16.1

1.8

7.9

10.5

18.7

2.4

VLWD (m2)

32.4

21.9

14.4

55.8

10.6

11.5

1.6

9.7

16.6

10.6

0.6

NKLWD

1.0

0.7

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.3

0.0

0.0

AF,rif (%)

25

19

17

15

20

16

28

15

11

11

32

AG,rif (%)

24

23

31

35

28

32

33

29

35

45

51

AP (%)

37.9

41.0

24.1

11.0

29.1

38.7

48.5

17.9

6.9

5.7

38.2

NP

6.0

13.1

9.3

2.4

12.6

7.6

1.2

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

FP

6.0

3.3

2.8

5.5

3.0

3.3

4.0

4.7

5.1

8.2

4.4

DP (m)

0.22

0.23

0.17

0.19

0.15

0.27

0.38

0.28

0.18

0.17

0.18

C (%)

62

65

68

60

52

74

14

72

68

61

26

NT>TDEQ

0

30

0

0

0

0

19

0

0

0

0

Desirable

6

4

4

5

3

4

1

2

3

2

4

Undesirable

2

1

3

2

4

2

5

3

5

5

7

So What?Basin stakeholders may use this information to prioritize restoration efforts by protecting high function reaches and improving moderately functional reaches

Reaches with low production potential and degraded habitat may be lower priorities

Limiting Factors Analysis- previous plansOregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (ODFW)

Final ESA Recovery Plan (NOAA)

Lack of stream complexity- LWD, pools, connections to side channels, beaver ponds, lakes, wetlands, floodplains

Degraded rearing habitat

Lack of access to freshwater habitats surrounding estuary-connectivity issues may raise temperature

Loss of floodplain habitat

Climate change

Improve: stream complexity, water quantity, water quality

Sand Lake Basin Limiting FactorsFor Coho, but also affect other salmonidsFish Passage: Perched, undersized or poorly functioning tidegates and culverts. Partial barriers may limit fish access during critical periods of the year. Or for juveniles.

Table 5-1. Priority fish passage concerns in the Sand Lake Basin.

Reach Location Feature Priority Rationale

Beltz Dike Dike Tidegate HighImprove connectivity with south

marsh, tributaries

Rover Creek Camp Meriwether Back

RoadPerched culvert High

Recognized dependent population access directly to

ocean

Jewel Creek Sandlake Road Submerged culvert HighImprove access to low gradient

system

Reneke Creek Sandlake Road Submerged culvert HighImprove access to low gradient

system

Beltz Creek Sandlake Road Perched culvert HighImprove access, but higher

gradient system

Davis Creek Lookout Road Perched culvert/weir Medium Private property impacts

Gurtis Creek Sandlake Road Undersized, steep culvert MediumCold water source but channel

gradient >8%

Water Temp and QualityUpper, forested reaches had water temps below DEQ standardWater temps on lower reaches (3 on Sand Creek, 1 on Lower Jewel and 3 estuary locations) exceeded salmon and trout rearing and migrationHigh water temps limit summer rearing habitat capacity, especially if juveniles are unable to move between habitats due to barriersEnsuring channel connectivity between warmer, lower valley bottom tribs and cool water tribreaches may be important for juveniles

Table 5-2. Reaches with high water temperatures.

StreamDays Exceeded 18°C

Standard1 % of Record Water 18°C

Standard Exceeded Explanation for High Temperatures

Sand Creek (lower) 13 - 30 10 - 30Narrow riparian buffers on forested and agricultural properties

Jewel Creek (lower) 19 15 Narrow riparian buffers on agricultural properties

Sand Lake Estuary 36 - 87 53 - 93 Exposure, shallow water depths

Water Quality- DO concentrations at estuary sites were below DEQ standard-most extreme at S sonde.

Low DO is stressful for fish, may cause them to seek areas with higher DO

Similar concerns for Temp- connectivity is key

Improvement of tidal flushing may help- replacing Beltz dike tidegate w larger , functioning tidegate- or a breach in Beltz dike

Habitat ComplexityLack of large wood- Sand cr, Andy cr and Lower Jewel Creek

Channel complexity- lack of floodplain habitat. Beaver habitation increases habitat capacity by slowing water and raising stream stage

Spawning gravel availability-lower gradient reaches have good riffle gravels. However, fines were either at intermediate or undesirable levels. Addressing land uses that increase fine sediment inputs can improve spawning activity

Restoration PrioritizationBeltz Dike – Replace tidegate with larger, functional gate or breach Beltz Dike. Increase tidal flushing, fish passage to Beltz & Reneke.

Reneke Creek- Restore creek to topographic low point improve channel function, fish habitat and reduce County Road maintenance costs. Replace undersized crossing at Sand Lake Rd. Large wood placement may increase channel complexity, increase riparian buffer shading & wood recruitment

Beltz Creek- Same as Reneke

Rover Creek- Culvert replacement at Camp Meriweather. Additional key pieces of large wood. Beaver dam analogues near existing dams to increase extent and create more stable dams

Restoration Prioritization Contd.Upper Sand Creek- Replace 4 undersized culverts. Most important spawning reach in the basin. Large wood, expand riparian buffer. Manage livestock access to Sand Creek upstream from Cape lookout Road

Upper Andy Creek- 2nd highest spawning counts. Large stable wood placement

Lower Jewel Creek- West of SL Road- expand riparian buffer, place large wood in-channel, promote beaver

Upper Jewel Creek- Large wood placement

Sitka Sedge Tech Team Meeting #2 – SL Limiting Factors Analysis and Restoration PrioritizationSand Lake working groupGoalsScope of WorkManagement Goals Limiting Factor Analysis and Restoration PrioritizationSL Basin CohoSL Basin CohoSL Basin WQLFA MethodologyLFA MethodologySlide Number 12Slide Number 13Results – Estuary TempResults – Trib TempResults- Estuary DOAQI ResultsSlide Number 18Slide Number 19So What?Limiting Factors Analysis- previous plansSand Lake Basin Limiting FactorsSlide Number 23Slide Number 24Water Temp and QualitySlide Number 26Habitat ComplexityRestoration PrioritizationRestoration Prioritization Contd.