Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Nisqually chinook habitat strategy and actions

1,435 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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 />

×