Nisqually chinook habitat strategy and actions

1,407 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,407
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
333
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Take out tier 3 restoration and tier 2 and 3 preservation; 2 slides
  • Slide series
  • Protection means ownership
  • Protection means ownership
  • Protection means ownership
  • Protection means ownership
  • Potential for fully fit population
  • Nisqually chinook habitat strategy and actions

    1. 1. 1<br />Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan Annual Review – Habitat Strategy and Actions<br />Florian Leischner<br />Restoration Biologist – Nisqually Indian Tribe<br />Nisqually Wildlife Refuge<br />February 8, 2011<br />
    2. 2. Chinook Habitat Recovery Strategy<br />Based on Ecosystem Diagnosis und Treatment (EDT) model results that compares current with historic habitat conditions for a fully fit population<br />Defined by stream reaches and priorities for restoration and protection <br />Historically focused on Estuary Restoration-Mainstem Protection -Mashel and Ohop Restoration<br />Modified in 2010 to be more specific and include Steelhead Trout<br />2<br />
    3. 3. 2010 Update<br />3<br />
    4. 4. 4<br />
    5. 5. 5<br />
    6. 6. 2010 Update<br />6<br />
    7. 7. 7<br />
    8. 8. 8<br />
    9. 9. 9<br />2010 Update<br />
    10. 10. Chinook Habitat Recovery StrategyPriorities <br />Estuary Restoration and Protection<br />Mainstem Protection<br />South and Central Sound Nearshore Restoration<br />Lower Nisqually Restoration (I-5 to Riverbend)<br />Mashel Restoration and Protection<br />Ohop Restoration<br />* Centralia City Light Dam Passage<br />10<br />
    11. 11. Estuary Restoration and Protection – <br />Nisqually Chinook is mostly estuary rearing population <br />Carrying capacity limitations (lost historic capacity)<br />Doubling in natural Chinook production can be achieved after restoration <br />Lose large part of the population if estuary would be degraded<br />11<br />Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems <br />
    12. 12. Mainstem Protection<br />Mainstem spawner – core population, <br />Good habitat throughout mainstem <br />Large areas in lower Nisqually and some areas in“upper” Nisqually are protected, <br />Middle Nisqually is largely unprotected<br />Tacoma dams effect on mainstem is mostly negligible <br />12<br />Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems <br />
    13. 13. South and Central Sound Nearshore Restoration<br />Wide-spread degradation due to shore encroachment <br />EDT model is weak in this area<br />Recognize that these are large areas<br />13<br />Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems <br />
    14. 14. Lower Nisqually Restoration (upstream of I-5 to Riverbend campground) <br />Nearly all Chinook use this reach twice in their life<br />Along Thurston Co. shoreline: heavy bank hardening, lack of riparian, low wood<br />14<br />Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems <br />
    15. 15. Mashel River Restoration and Protection<br />Mashel River Chinook is a secondary population<br />Historic high steelhead usage (based on EDT habitat model)<br />Lower Mashel and some upper areas includes good habitat<br />Suffers from legacy effects from decades of heavy logging, effecting stream sediment, water and wood loading. Most of the basin is still in commercial forestry production<br />Water quantity and quality also major limiting factor<br />15<br />Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems <br />
    16. 16. Ohop Restoration<br />Secondary Population, with some spawning<br />Most benefit derived from lower valley rearing and refuge habitat; life history benefits for both species<br />4 miles of ditched creek and 450 acres cleared land<br />Lost 1/3 of upper watershed to Puyallup<br />16<br />Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems <br />
    17. 17. Centralia City Light Dam<br />At RM 26.2 –fish ladder and canal juvenile by-pass structure<br />No studies on effects on adult upstream and juvenile downstream fish passage <br />For model we used professional judgment for passage and delay<br />17<br />Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems <br />
    18. 18. Accomplishments in Priority Areas2001 to 2010 <br />18<br />
    19. 19. Estuary Restoration and Protection<br /> Red Salmon Slough Restoration <br /> 1996 – 2011: in 3 dike removal projects and 2 re-vegetation projects restored tidal access to over 150 acres, upstream fish access to additional 40 acres of wetland, and 60 acres of surge plain forests.<br />Nisqually Wildlife Restoration<br /> 2010: 5 mile loop dike removal restored tidal access to 760 acre (incl. surge plain)<br />19<br />
    20. 20. 20<br />
    21. 21. September 1997<br />Source: USFWS<br />
    22. 22. Summer 2006<br />Source: NAIP<br />
    23. 23. Summer 2009<br />Source: Thurston County<br />
    24. 24. December 2009<br />Source: USGS<br />
    25. 25. 25<br />
    26. 26. Estuary Restoration and Protection<br />Monitoring results:<br />Dikes gone – water comes<br />26<br />
    27. 27. 27<br />
    28. 28. Estuary Restoration and Protection<br />Monitoring results:<br />Dikes gone – water comes<br />Water comes – stuff comes and stuff changes<br />28<br />
    29. 29. Summer 2006<br />Source: NAIP<br />
    30. 30. Summer 2009<br />Source: Thurston County<br />
    31. 31. December 2009<br />Source: USGS<br />
    32. 32. March 2010<br />Source: USGS<br />
    33. 33. 33<br />
    34. 34. Estuary Restoration and Protection<br />Monitoring results:<br />Dikes gone – water comes<br />Water comes – stuff comes and stuff changes<br />Stuff changes – critters like it<br />34<br />
    35. 35. Post-Restoration Channel Use by Salmon: Opportunity Assessment<br />Phase 1 Unmarked Chinook<br />Phase 2 Unmarked Chinook<br />
    36. 36. Post-Restoration Invertebrate Composition and Abundance: Capacity Assessment<br />Post-Restoration Chinook Salmon Diet Composition: Realized Function Assessment<br />Phase 1 2004 and 2005 Chinook Diet Composition<br />The Phase 1 sampled invertebrate community composition is 68% similar to the unmarked Chinook diet composition and 88% similar to the hatchery Chinook diet composition. <br />
    37. 37. Estuary Restoration and Protection<br />Monitoring results:<br />Dikes gone – water comes Opportunity<br />Water comes – stuff comes and stuff changes Capacity <br />Stuff changes – critters like it Realized Function<br />37<br />
    38. 38. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br />38<br />
    39. 39. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br />Mainstem Protection<br />From 2001 to 2010: Protection increased from 63% to 74% (conservation ownership of streambanks) Increased is mostly due to on-going Nisqually Land Trust protection<br />39<br />
    40. 40. 40<br />
    41. 41. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br /> Nearshore <br />41<br />
    42. 42. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br /> Nearshore :<br />3 Nearshore assessments covering:<br />Nisqually Reach / Thurston County shoreline<br />Point Defiance to Nisqually<br />Kitsap/Key Peninsula and Island <br />Beachcrest Pocket estuary restoration <br />Devil’s Head Shoreline protection<br />42<br />
    43. 43. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br /> Lower Nisqually<br />Lower Nisqually River Restoration Project: Concept Design Alternatives (completed 2008)<br />Actively seeking funding for 2 projects identified<br />43<br />
    44. 44. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br />Ohop Creek<br />Ohop Valley Restoration Plan to restore 450 acres of lower Ohop valley floodplain and 4 mile or ditched creek in 3 phases.<br />Completed Phase 1 in 2010 and restored one mile of creek.<br />In process to restore 90 acres of floodplain.<br />44<br />
    45. 45. 45<br />
    46. 46. 46<br />
    47. 47. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br /> Mashel River -Restoration <br />47<br /><ul><li>Lower Mashel Restoration Project (completed 2004): 7 log jams near mouth
    48. 48. Eatonville Mashel Restoration Project Phase 1 (completed 2007): 12 log jams, side-channel creation and bank hardening removal
    49. 49. Eatonville Mashel Restoration Project Phase 2 (completed 2010): 23 log jams, side-channel creation activation and bank hardening removal</li></li></ul><li>48<br />
    50. 50. 49<br />
    51. 51. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br /> Mashel River - Monitoring <br />50<br />
    52. 52. Accomplishments in Priority Areas <br /> Mashel River - Protection <br />51<br /><ul><li> Lower Mashel @ Hwy 7: 1.3 miles (rightbank)
    53. 53. Boxcar canyon properties: 0.5 miles of river (left bank)
    54. 54. Van Eaton / Little Mashel Confluence: 0.4 miles of river (both banks)
    55. 55. Smallwood Park extension 0.2 miles (one bank)</li></li></ul><li>52<br />
    56. 56. Examples of implication of monitoring<br />…on strategy<br />Validate estuary assumptions of mostly estuary-rearing population; <br />Estuary fish assessment shows extended rearing<br />…and future projects <br />Mashel Log jam size<br />2004 project versus 2006 and later projects<br />53<br />
    57. 57. Locally Adapted Chinook abundance –potential for fully fit population<br />54<br />
    58. 58. Hatchery dominated Chinook abundance(*before harvest)<br />55<br />
    59. 59. Questions? <br />56<br />

    ×