HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog191
e
e
Juvenile Salmonid Use of Tidal Creek
and Independent Marsh Environments in North Hood Canal:
Summary of First Year Findings
Ron Hirschi, Thomas Doty, Aimee Keller, Ted Labbe
Summary - Working under contract with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Ron Hirschi
and Thomas Doty conducted monthly and twice monthly hand -seine sampling of small,
independent marshes and tidal creek environments in North Hood Canal during 2002.
The goal of this work was to characterize species use and relative abundance at 12
representative small estuary sites across the year to better understand the significance of
these environments to fish. This report documents first year findings; a second year of
sampling is now being implemented and the study area has been expanded to all of Hood
Canal, working in cooperation with the Skokomish Tribe.
Introduction and Background - Though the importance of large- river estuaries to
migrating juvenile salmon has long been known, biologists have only recently come to
appreciate the significance of the estuarine-nearshore environment to migrating salmon-
that is, the more extensive shallow, tidal areas fringing Puget Sound and Hood Canal
(Simenstad et al. 1985, Simenstad 2000).
The numerous independent marshes and tidal portions of small creeks that drain to Puget
Sound are also integral components of this "estuarine landscape". Though small and
often ignored, these tidal creek and independent marsh environments harbor productive
juvenile salmon habitats. Very limited past biological sampling in these environments
limits our understanding of their significance to regional at- risk salmonid populations.
A popular Washington Department offish and Wildlife fishery management practice in
Hood Canal identifies watersheds as "chinook", "summer chum", or 'just coho/fall
chum" streams, based on present-day spawning population distributions. In response to
recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings, local counties have largely adopted this
approach - excluding certain areas from additional habitat protection measures based on
the presumed absence of threatened stocks. In shaping their land use polices, the counties
have emphasized expanded resource protection measures in the "ESA watersheds" that
harbor present-day spawning populations of threatened chinook and summer chum
salmon, with lesser protection outside these areas.
At first sight, this might appear to be a reasonable conservation approach. However, very
limited juvenile salmon sampling has ever been conducted in these various estuarine
environments. Since we know little about how early life stages are using these habitats
we have little information with which to determine the validity of the WDFW/county
management approach. We sampled independent marshes and tidal creek environments
to evaluate species presence/absence and relative abundance across the year. Sites were
randomly selected from a larger pool of similar potential sites, as a means of generalizing
results to other areas. Here we define "independent marsh" as those saltmarsh
environments fringing the main body of Hood Canal, often with a well-developed tidal
lof6
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources
lift
e
e
channel network and enclosing sand spit but little/no freshwater inputs. "Tidal creeks"
encompass the lowermost reaches of small streams draining directly to Hood Canal that
are under tidal influence, and which include some saltmarsh and tidal channel networks
but where there is strong freshwater mixing.
Survey Methods and Timing - Based on pilot work conducted during July-October
2001, potential sites were identified and stratified by type (independent marsh/tidal creek)
and location (Northeast, West Central, East Central, and Northwest Hood Canal- see
Map 1 ). We randomly selected sites from this list, working to ensure an even distribution
of sites in space and by type (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Sites were sampled once monthly December 200 I-January 2002 and twice monthly from
February-October 2002. At each site visit, water temperature, time, weather conditions,
and relative tidal stage were recorded as well as species and abundance of fish captured
in multiple, replicate seine hauls. Since all sites offered their own sampling challenges, a
seining routine was established that was best suited to each location and in subsequent
visits this routine was repeated. The munber and length of tows, sampling time, and
other effort measures were also recorded for each site visit. At most sites, a minimum of
four tows was generally suitable.
Total number offish by species is detailed below in Table 2. Fork length and weight for
up to 20 individuals per species was recorded. In year one we did not complete a detailed
habitat characterization at each site that would support comparisons with other areas -
this will be accomplished in year two.
Foulweather Bluff Marsh Marsh NE T 28 N, R 1 E, S 12
Martha John Creek Tidal Creek NE T 27 N, R 2 E, S 16
Cougar-Kinman Creek Tidal Creek NE T 27 N, R 1 E, S 22
Little Anderson Creek Tidal Creek EC T 25 N, R 1 W, S 12
Seabeck Creek Tidal Creek EC T 25 N, R 1 W, S 29
Spear/Fir Lagoon * Marsh EC T 25 N, R 2 W, S 25
Fulton Creek Tidal Creek WC T 25 N, R 2 W, S 31
Walcott Slough Marsh WC T 26 N, R2 W, S 35
Camp Discovery Creek Tidal Creek WC T 27 N, R 1 W, S 22
Bridgehaven Spit! T 27 N, R 1 E, S 16
Indian Island Marsh * Marsh NW and T 29 N, R 1 E, S 7
Shine Creek Tidal Creek NW T 28 N, R 1 E, S 32
South Ludlow Marsh NW T 28 N, R lE, S 17
* Due to logistical problems, the Spear Lagoon sampling site was replaced in July 2002
with a site at nearby Pretty Impressive Fir Creek (also classified as a marsh-type site,
since the stream here is seasonal). Similarly, in September 2002 the Bridgehaven Spit
marsh site was replaced with a comparable site at the south end of Indian Island.
20f6
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources
e
e
Figure 1. Map of Sampling Sites in North Hood Canal
Site Type
. Marsh
.. Tidal Creek
Initial Findings - Patterns of fish use and timing varied considerably among the twelve
sampled sites. Coho and chum salmon were the most abundant salmonids captured
(Table 1). Other abundant fish species included larval plainfin midshipman (numbering
in the thousands), staghom sculpin, three- spine stickleback, and shiner perch. Coho and
chinook salmon were generally more abundant at tidal creek sites, while chum and pink
salmon were most abundant at independent marsh sites (Figure 2). Coho salmon were
present at nine of the 12 sites (75%), chum present at all 12 sites, while pink salmon were
sampled at 4 sites (33%) and chinook at 6 sites (50%).
The timing of peak abundance also varied significantly by species. Cutthroat trout were
generally more abundant during summer- fall. Chum and pink salmon peak abundance
occurred in April- May, and April was also the month most chinook were encountered. In
contrast, peak coho abundance varied by site ranging April-September.
3of6
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources
f~t("',,,
.....".......... ..:.".-."'"
".- {/
:~-,''''"$
.,,~"--""",.,-_..~
e
.
Figure 2. Total Salmon Abundance at All Sites
1000
10
100
Q)
o
c: 1
co
-g 1000
;:)
.0
<X: 800
.s:::
.!!1
u. 600
200
400
o
#~///
~ 01 ~
~/
~
~
/ ///~ /
Tidal Creek Sites
Marsh Sites
Since none of the sampled sites are in watersheds that support chinook or pink salmon,
we surmise that these fish immigrated to these areas from other watersheds in Hood
Canal or Puget Sound. Juvenile chinook salmon from the Fraser River, B.C. have been
captured in Sinclair Inlet, near Bremerton, W A (Doris Small, WDFW personal
communication). In our study, nearly all chinook were captured between March and June
and ranged 45-70 mm suggesting these were young-of-the-year fish. Chinook salmon
were captured in the lower reaches of Cougar- Kinman, Seabeck, Little Anderson Fulton
creeks, and Spear Lagoon Gust north of Stavis Creek). In previous sampling by Ron
Hirschi and Jim Lichatowich, chinook salmon have also been captured in the lowermost
reaches of Shine Creek - one of our "tidal creek" sites.
Another significant finding was the year-round presence of abundant coho populations in
tidal environments, a habitat that is not generally associated with this species. Though
the timing of peak coho abundance varied considerably by site, nearly all sites where they
occurred harbored some coho across the year. Also significant was the timing of chum
fry peak abundance; though most fish biologists associate March- April as the period of
peak chum fry counts, we observed abundant chum fry in tidewater at many sites in
January-February (Figure 3). These sites included Cougar-Kinman, Little Anderson, and
Seabeck creeks. At this time we are uncertain if these may be early emigrating summer
chum salmon. However, a similar early and late chum out-migration peak was observed
in the Hamma Hamma River, where a rotary screw smolt trap was in operation during
winter-summer 2002 (c. Gray, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and Long Live the Kings
unpublished data).
4of6
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources
e
e
Figure 3. Salmonid Abundance at Little Anderson Creek Mouth
111I Coho III Chum D Chinook IiiiI Cutthroat Trout 1
30
25
Q) 20
0
c
ro
'0
c 15
:J
.D
<(
..c: 10
(/)
u::
5
0
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Table 2. Total number of fishes collected, all sites December 200l-0ctober 2002.
Species Number
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 1527
Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta ) 2734
Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) 677
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 37
Cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) 265
Unidentified salmonid 13
Unidentified trout (<60 rom) 25
Unidentified sculpin 128
Staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) 3147
Tidepool sculpin (Oligocottus maculosus) 756
Prickly sculpin (Cottus asper ) 853
Three-spine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus) 6724
Bay pipefish (Syngnathusgriseolineatus) 35
Sand sole (Psettichthys melanostictus ) 2
Shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) 2336
Gunnel (Pholis spp.) 13
Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) 404
Unidentified flounder 3
Plainfin midshipman (Porichthys notatus), adults only * 1
Unidentified blenny (Family Stichaeidae) 1
Surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus ) 21
Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) 5
* Larval plainfin midshipman were the most abundant fish sampled (numbering in the thousands).
Due to their extremely high counts, we did not quantify their absolute abundance.) r,(~
l",,\,,_.l
5 of6
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources
e
e
Management Implications - While we do not presently know the overall significance of
tidal creek and independent marsh environments to regional fish populations, their use of
these habitats means we must not continue to ignore these areas in our fishery and land
use management policies. In an often-cited study, Reimers (1973) examined returning
chinook scale patterns to determine that over 90% of the spawning adult population was
composed of the few juveniles rearing for extended periods in the relatively small Sixes
River estuary. That these tidal creek and independent marsh environments are relatively'
small does not mean their significance to regional fish populations is negligible. Juvenile
salmon often congregate in areas that favor high detritus retention since their preferred
invertebrate food sources themselves feed on detritus (Healey 1985). In this respect the
tidal creek and independent marsh environments we sampled are similar to eelgrass beds,
and are no less important components of the "estuarine landscape" that is critical to
salmon in Puget Sound.
References
Healey, M.C. 1985. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system. Pgs.
415-428, in: A. Yanez Arancibia (ed.) Fish community ecology in estuaries and
coastal lagoons, towards an ecosystem integration, UNAM Press, Mexico City.
Reimers, P.E. 1973. The length of residence of juvenile fall chinook salmon in the Sixes
River, Oregon. Res. Rpts. Fish Comm. of Oregon, Portland.
Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1985. The role of Puget Sound and
Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated
function. Pgs. 343-363, in: Kenndy, V.S. (ed.) Estuarine comparisons, Academic
Press, N ew York.
Simenstad, c.A. 2000. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de
Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. Pgs. A3 .111-132, in: WDFW
and PNPTT. Summer chum salmon conservation initiative, available at
www.wa.gov/wdfW
6of6
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources
R1W ~
EndofShKlyAnla *
~
?'
~1E
~
r'"
t<l
,..,
1'30
\
u'
,
_ i b...~
:J 'I jl~
~"I.... i
L~....~.....-:,j J
1- .._~,_-
t<l
~
d
r'"
o
'Y'
,.L.
KALA POINT
cJl
C.
,..,
INDIAN
~
r
';Xl
o:l
o
,
t
1'29
LEGEND:
Stream Mouths. KAOllII'n or Suapeeted Sehonld USlI
SandLan<;e
Sl,Irfemek
. E"~
. SaltMarsh
YhterFe-':ures
." FeederBluff
IV Contributing Bluff
t.,j Drift Cell Origin
N Drift Cell lhlOspon Zone WE-#}
Acef81ion Shorefonn
~<=t~~4:.~~~~~~'
TALA POINT
1'28
BllginningofStudyAnNI
CRITICAL AREAS RELATIVE TO CRITICAL NEARSHORE HABITATS
TALA POINT TO KALA POINT, JEFFERSON COUNTY
f"
W5"'.........~'.............."'""'"'K.........,.1bM
~~fg~0&~.::.:.
~~b~~
"'......._......_-~.._......
June 1999
d..."...
~
~~~~~~-
~
e
e
Figure 20. 1994 WDOE oblique photo showing log storage and rafting activities
near the mouth of Ludlow Creek.
Relative Condition
Recognizing some loss of tidal flat and reduction in tidal exchange of sediments at the
creek mouth because of a roadbed, we consider the Relative Condition of this complex
"Moderately Impaired".
e
e
Figure 19. 2001 WDOE oblique photo of the mouth of Ludlow Creek. Notice tidal
marsh and scrub/shrub wetland at the far left of the image, immediately upstream
of the roadbed.
LJ1f:~=-
e
e
Figure 18. 1957 air photo of the Ludlow Creek (far left) and South Ludlow Lagoon
(lower right) habitat complexes. Notice the apparent lack of tidal marsh vegetation
immediately upstream of the road crossing at the mouth of Ludlow Creek, where
marsh, scrub/shrub, and upland vegetation has since developed (see Figure 19
below). The black arrow points to a pier near the base of the spit at the Ludlow
Lagoon habitat complex (see Ludlow Lagoon narrative below).
Along the shoreline to the northeast of Ludlow Creek, a log storage yard and loading area
was active for many decades (apparently well into the 1990s)(Figure 20). The site today
appears abandoned and future plans for restoration of the site are unknown.
;~:''',\ ,i, ""'/"'" r'~' "~11
i;f/ p".,~.._~
~II c",".a'~""--"
" .,,,_,0- "II" ..,.
r
e,_
e
Note: the apparent north/south offset in tidal flat habitats as a result of an imperfect
georectification of historic and contemporary data layers. .
Description of Historical Habitat Changes
A roadbed crosses the mouth of the creek today and has resulted in the filling over of
historical tide flat. However, a limited amount of tidal marsh has developed at the creek .
mouth immediately upstream of the roadbed, apparently within the past 50 years (Figure
19). A 1957 air photo of the creek mouth does not seem to indicate marsh upstream of
the road crossing where marsh occurs today (Figure 18). It is speculated that the position
,of the road crossing and fill has resulted in accretion of stream and possibly tidally-
transported sediments immediately upstream of the road, and allowed for the growth of
marsh and scrub-shrub vegetation over the past several decades.
/1/1
/'--
e
e
Habitat Complex: Ludlow Creek
Complex Type: Stream-delta
Physical Description
The 1855 T sheet shows a narrow creek mouth with tide flat entering the west end of
Ludlow Bay (See Figure 14 in the North Ludlow Spit habitat complex narrative above).
A long footbridge or boardwalk appeared at the mouth of the creek. Tidal marsh was
apparently absent at the time of the early surveys. The July 1859 GLO survey notes
Ludlow Creek as 30 links (20 feet) wide at its mouth (Trutch 1859).
RE: new log items / Ludlow c_n / attached Port Gamble S'Klallam T.e report & 11/... Page 2 of3
11/2/2006