Intensively Monitored Watersheds Validation Monitoring for Salmon Habitat Restoration

1. Intensively Monitored WatershedsValidation Monitoring for Salmon Habitat Restoration

2. Background • Can habitat restoration produce more fish (outmigrants)? • Can we use the information gained to inform and guide restoration efforts? • Both require that we know the causal mechanisms affecting production

3. Location of Study Watersheds

4. IMW Concept-Coho Steelhead Complexes • Long-term, paired-watershed experiments • Fish and habitat responses to treatments are conducted at multiple spatial scales from reach to whole watershed • Coho and steelhead • Species with at least 1 year of freshwater residency • Often utilize small watersheds for spawning and rearing • Treatments can be applied to a large proportion of the watershed • Increased potential to detect a response by the fish

5. Design • Before-After/Control-Impact • Hierarchical monitoring scheme at nested spatial scales • Reach scale-effects of specific restoration actions • Sub basin scale-effects of multiple restoration actions • Basin scale-cumulative effects of all actions

6. Treatment Basins Reference Basin Reach Scale • Project-specific monitoring to determine effectiveness • Example: LWD addition • Habitat effects • Juvenile abundance • Survival to smolting

7. Treatment Basins Reference Basin Sub-basin Scale • Look for opportunities to treat entire sub basins within treatment basin. • Use reference sub basin within reference basin and possibly within treatment basin.

8. Treatment Basins Reference Basin Basin Scale • Most appropriate scale to assess fish population response • Ultimate measure of success is downstream migrant (smolt) production • Also assess habitat, juvenile (parr) and adult abundance at this scale

9. Treatments • Wood placement • Off-channel habitat creation • Barrier removal • Nutrient augmentation? • Land use - urbanization Status • SJF complex - Habitat treatments completed in 2007 • Skagit Estuary - Treatments began in 2000 • Hood Canal (L. Anderson Cr.) - Began in 2007 • L. Columbia - Restoration plan due in 2008

10. Strait of Juan de FucaSome Results from Years 1-4 • Timing of juvenile fish emigration (West Twin and East Twin) • Influence of wood addition on coho survival (West and East Twin)

13. Deep Cr-LWD projects Width:Depth % pool habitat 60 70 Km 1.7-2.9 Km 1.7-2.9 Km 3.4-6.0 Km 3.4-6.0 50 60 Width:Depth ratio % pools 40 50 30 40 20 30 1992 1995 1997 2003 1992 1995 1997 2003

14. East Twin-LWD projects % pool habitat Width:Depth 30 50 Km 0.0-1.8 Km 1.8-2.7 25 40 Width:Depth ratio % pools 20 30 15 10 20 2002 2007 2002 2007

15. Coho Emigration from East Twin River

16. Effects on Coho Survival

17. Skagit River Delta Hw: Restoring estuary habitat increases salmon production (connectivity and capacity)

18. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Treatments Skagit Estuary • Dike removal/flooding to restore habitat • Connectivity-improve access to existing habitat • Barrier removal-self regulating tidegates, other infrastructure • Long lead times and complex planning required but hundreds of acres affected.

20. Deepwater Slough(dike removal) D - Distributary Channel Habitat, 2001 A - Blind Channel Habitat, 2001 35,000 35,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 Wild juvenile Chinook salmon per 20,000 20,000 Reference Reference hectare hectare Wild juvenile Chinook salmon per Treatment Treatment 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 Mar Apr May Jun Jul March April May June July E - Distributary Channel Habitat, 2002 B - Blind Channel Habitat, 2002 35,000 35,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 Wild juvenile Chinook salmon per Wild juvenile Chinook salmon per 20,000 20,000 Reference Reference hectare hectare Treatment Treatment 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 Mar Apr May Jun Jul March April May June July C - Blind Channel Habitat, 2003 F - Distributary Channel Habitat, 2003 35,000 35,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 Wild juvenile Chinook salmon per 20,000 20,000 Reference Reference hectare hectare Wild juvenile Chinook salmon per Treatment Treatment 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 Mar Apr May Jun March April May June July

21. Fornsby SRT(opened in 2006) SRT

22. Habitat Restoration Passive Restoration Active Restoration

26. Frequent Concerns • When will results be available? • What magnitude of change can be detected?

27. Coho production Power Analysis Post-restoration Pre-restoration

28. Seabeck Cr-Minimum DP

29. Conclusions • Well-designed monitoring program can detect relatively small (20-40%) increases in smolt production • Understanding why is critical to differentiate between restoration impacts and other factors

30. Oversight Committee: Washington Dept. of Ecology - Bill Ehinger Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife - Tim Quinn NOAA Fisheries (NWFSC) - Phil Roni, Correigh Greene Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe - Mike McHenry Skagit River System Coop - Eric Beamer Weyerhaeuser - Bob Bilby IMW Partners: Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board - Jeff Breckel Hood Canal Coordinating Council - Richard Brocksmith Salmon Recovery Funding Board IMW Program Participants