1. 1 Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan Annual Review – Habitat Strategy and Actions Florian Leischner Restoration Biologist – Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually Wildlife Refuge February 8, 2011

2. Chinook Habitat Recovery Strategy Based on Ecosystem Diagnosis und Treatment (EDT) model results that compares current with historic habitat conditions for a fully fit population Defined by stream reaches and priorities for restoration and protection Historically focused on Estuary Restoration-Mainstem Protection -Mashel and Ohop Restoration Modified in 2010 to be more specific and include Steelhead Trout 2

3. 2010 Update 3

4. 4

5. 5

6. 2010 Update 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9 2010 Update

10. Chinook Habitat Recovery StrategyPriorities Estuary Restoration and Protection Mainstem Protection South and Central Sound Nearshore Restoration Lower Nisqually Restoration (I-5 to Riverbend) Mashel Restoration and Protection Ohop Restoration * Centralia City Light Dam Passage 10

11. Estuary Restoration and Protection – Nisqually Chinook is mostly estuary rearing population Carrying capacity limitations (lost historic capacity) Doubling in natural Chinook production can be achieved after restoration Lose large part of the population if estuary would be degraded 11 Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems

12. Mainstem Protection Mainstem spawner – core population, Good habitat throughout mainstem Large areas in lower Nisqually and some areas in“upper” Nisqually are protected, Middle Nisqually is largely unprotected Tacoma dams effect on mainstem is mostly negligible 12 Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems

13. South and Central Sound Nearshore Restoration Wide-spread degradation due to shore encroachment EDT model is weak in this area Recognize that these are large areas 13 Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems

14. Lower Nisqually Restoration (upstream of I-5 to Riverbend campground) Nearly all Chinook use this reach twice in their life Along Thurston Co. shoreline: heavy bank hardening, lack of riparian, low wood 14 Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems

15. Mashel River Restoration and Protection Mashel River Chinook is a secondary population Historic high steelhead usage (based on EDT habitat model) Lower Mashel and some upper areas includes good habitat 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 Water quantity and quality also major limiting factor 15 Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems

16. Ohop Restoration Secondary Population, with some spawning Most benefit derived from lower valley rearing and refuge habitat; life history benefits for both species 4 miles of ditched creek and 450 acres cleared land Lost 1/3 of upper watershed to Puyallup 16 Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems

17. Centralia City Light Dam At RM 26.2 –fish ladder and canal juvenile by-pass structure No studies on effects on adult upstream and juvenile downstream fish passage For model we used professional judgment for passage and delay 17 Habitat Recovery Strategy Priorities –assumption and problems

18. Accomplishments in Priority Areas2001 to 2010 18

19. Estuary Restoration and Protection Red Salmon Slough Restoration 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. Nisqually Wildlife Restoration 2010: 5 mile loop dike removal restored tidal access to 760 acre (incl. surge plain) 19

20. 20

21. September 1997 Source: USFWS

22. Summer 2006 Source: NAIP

23. Summer 2009 Source: Thurston County

24. December 2009 Source: USGS

25. 25

26. Estuary Restoration and Protection Monitoring results: Dikes gone – water comes 26

27. 27

28. Estuary Restoration and Protection Monitoring results: Dikes gone – water comes Water comes – stuff comes and stuff changes 28

29. Summer 2006 Source: NAIP

30. Summer 2009 Source: Thurston County

31. December 2009 Source: USGS

32. March 2010 Source: USGS

33. 33

34. Estuary Restoration and Protection Monitoring results: Dikes gone – water comes Water comes – stuff comes and stuff changes Stuff changes – critters like it 34

35. Post-Restoration Channel Use by Salmon: Opportunity Assessment Phase 1 Unmarked Chinook Phase 2 Unmarked Chinook

36. Post-Restoration Invertebrate Composition and Abundance: Capacity Assessment Post-Restoration Chinook Salmon Diet Composition: Realized Function Assessment Phase 1 2004 and 2005 Chinook Diet Composition 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.

37. Estuary Restoration and Protection Monitoring results: Dikes gone – water comes Opportunity Water comes – stuff comes and stuff changes Capacity Stuff changes – critters like it Realized Function 37

38. Accomplishments in Priority Areas 38

39. Accomplishments in Priority Areas Mainstem Protection 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 39

40. 40

41. Accomplishments in Priority Areas Nearshore 41

42. Accomplishments in Priority Areas Nearshore : 3 Nearshore assessments covering: Nisqually Reach / Thurston County shoreline Point Defiance to Nisqually Kitsap/Key Peninsula and Island Beachcrest Pocket estuary restoration Devil’s Head Shoreline protection 42

43. Accomplishments in Priority Areas Lower Nisqually Lower Nisqually River Restoration Project: Concept Design Alternatives (completed 2008) Actively seeking funding for 2 projects identified 43

44. Accomplishments in Priority Areas Ohop Creek Ohop Valley Restoration Plan to restore 450 acres of lower Ohop valley floodplain and 4 mile or ditched creek in 3 phases. Completed Phase 1 in 2010 and restored one mile of creek. In process to restore 90 acres of floodplain. 44

45. 45

46. 46

48. Eatonville Mashel Restoration Project Phase 1 (completed 2007): 12 log jams, side-channel creation and bank hardening removal

50. 49

51. Accomplishments in Priority Areas Mashel River - Monitoring 50

53. Boxcar canyon properties: 0.5 miles of river (left bank)

54. Van Eaton / Little Mashel Confluence: 0.4 miles of river (both banks)

56. Examples of implication of monitoring …on strategy Validate estuary assumptions of mostly estuary-rearing population; Estuary fish assessment shows extended rearing …and future projects Mashel Log jam size 2004 project versus 2006 and later projects 53

57. Locally Adapted Chinook abundance –potential for fully fit population 54

58. Hatchery dominated Chinook abundance(*before harvest) 55

59. Questions? 56