Salmonid Fish Monitoring in Winchester Creek: ODFW databases - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Salmonid Fish Monitoring in Winchester Creek: • ODFW databases • Monitoring trends • A future for coho salmon?

Oregon Coast ESU Naturally Produced Coho Salmon 900000 800000 Pre-fishery population 700000 Total spawners 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds • Voluntary restoration actions by private landowners • Coordinated state and federal agency and tribal actions to support private restoration, manage public lands, promote awareness • Oversight by an independent panel of scientists who evaluate the plans effectiveness, guide research investments • Monitoring watershed health, water quality and salmon recovery to document existing conditions, track changes, and determine the impact of programs and actions

Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring Project • Estimate abundance of returning adult salmonid fishes and downstream-migrating juvenile fish • Estimate marine and freshwater survival rates for coho salmon

Coho salmon life-history • Three year life cycle • Spawn in fall, fry emerge in late winter • Juveniles spend one full year in freshwater (through summer low-flow period and winter high-flow period) • Migrate to ocean in spring as age-1 smolts • Spend 1 ½ years in ocean before returning to spawn

LCM Trap Sites

Monitoring in Winchester Creek • Coho spawner returns and smolt out-migrants • Sea-run cutthroat trout out-migrants • Aquatic habitat inventory (5-10 year cycles) • Short-term studies of juvenile coho and cutthroat trout life-history (using PIT-tag and acoustic tag technology) • Beaver dam/pool habitat

Smolt to adult (marine) survival • Most mortality occurs during first month or two following ocean entrance • Varies widely, depending on: – Timing of spring transition from nearshore down-welling to up-welling conditions (forced by northwest winds) – Strength and duration of upwelling cycles, which drive primary production (salmon food)

Winchester Creek: Coho Salmon Marine Survival (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Coho salmon marine survival (%) 25 25 NF Nehalem River WF Smith River 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 25 25 Siletz Mill Creek Winchester Creek 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Winchester Creek Coho Salmon Female Recruits [R] 200 -0.4483 y = 465.81x 2 = 0.6028 R 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 Female Spawners

WF Smith River Coho Salmon 200 y = 6015.6x -0.8812 Female Recruits [R] R 2 = 0.8667 150 100 50 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Female Spawners

More Wild Coho Salmon • Given that marine survival rate determines number of returning adults: more returning adults more wild smolts better habitat higher carrying capacity

1200 Smolts / KM Rearing Habitat 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NF Siletz Mill Cascade Lobster WF Smith Winchester Nehalem

Beaver Habitat Monitoring • Fall surveys (summer habitat for fish) in 2008, 2009, 2010 • Spring surveys (overwinter habitat for fish) began 2010 • Document dam distribution, fish-passage barriers, and pool area/volume

Annual Changes (Fall 2008 -Fall 2009)

Beaver Pool Volume: Total Basin 3500 Pool Volume (m 3 ) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Fall Fall Spring Fall 2009 2008 2010 2010

Lower Big Creek

Upper Big Creek

Big Creek coho salmon surveys Survey Peak Total 1993 0 0 2009 24 25 2010 28 44

Big Creek (Trib. B) coho salmon surveys Survey Peak Total 2008 0 0 2009 3 3 2010 1 2

Five Mile Creek

Five Mile Creek Habitat survey in 1969; predominantly fine in- stream sediments, limited spawning gravel, adjacent hillsides clear-cut, no fish-passage barriers Spawning surveys in 1992, 1993, 1994; no coho salmon observed Juvenile fish surveys in 1969 (seine), 1995 and 2010 (electro-fisher); no coho salmon observed, cutthroat trout widely distributed

Three Mile Creek Two Mile Creek

Three Mile Creek Habitat survey in 1969; predominantly fine in-stream sediments, little spawning gravel, adjacent hillsides clear-cut, no fish passage barriers No spawner surveys, but a note was recorded in 1969 stating “local residents noted salmon spawned in creek before opening of Seven Devils Mine” [chromite mine, operated 1943] Juvenile fish surveys in 1969 (seine), 2010 (electro-fisher); no coho salmon observed, only cutthroat trout Primary drainage basin for currently planned mineral sand mining areas

Two Mile Creek Habitat survey in 1969 (entire creek) and 2005 (0.5 km reach) ; predominantly fine in-stream sediments, little spawning gravel, lower reach gorse-covered pasture, upper reaches clear-cut, no fish passage barriers Juvenile fish surveys in 1969 (seine), 2005 and 2010 (electro-fisher); no coho salmon observed, only cutthroat trout

Coho Salmon Production in the Oregon Coast ESU 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 Number of Adults 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Coho Salmon Production in the Oregon Coast ESU 1000000 900000 800000 Number of Adults 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Coos County Forest Land Land Use •Managed for timber harvest •Maintained ~2008 trails used for recreational East Fork ATV riding •Potential methane gas 2009-10 extraction West Fork •Potential mineral sands mining Trib C Middle Fork ~2006-7

• Northwest Environmental Advocates v. Locke, et al. [state of Oregon] won lawsuit in Sept. 2010 • Suit alleged current regulations (Forest Practices Act) do not adequately protect riparian areas and prevent non- point pollution (impairing water quality) resulting from forestry activities (timber harvest and associated road networks) • EPA and NOAA do not advise revision of the Forest Practices Act. • Alternatively, ODEQ and ODF have until May 2014 to develop a “…prescriptive TMDL approach” to comply with requirements for non-point pollution control mandated by EPA and NOAA, or lose federal Coastal Zone Management Act grant funding

Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan: 2007 • Habitat enhancement and improvement is the key to protecting and enhancing coastal coho • Much of the most important coho habitat is on private land • Habitat improvement on private land is most likely to occur through incentive-based cooperative partnerships with landowners • The Oregon Plan provides the best vehicle for securing these partnerships and implementing habitat improvements