South Slough Salmon Rearing Habitat Enhancement Project
South Slough NERR Coos Watershed Association Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Transportation
2004 Funding: FishAmerica Foundation / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coos Bay South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve North Bend
Coos Bay Charleston
South Slough NERR
South Slough Watershed Project Location
Tree Source Area
South Slough Reserve Boundary
South Slough Watershed Boundary
Project Location
Tree Source Area Helicopter flight path
Helicopter Refueling Area
Tree Placement Area
Project Goals:
1. To evaluate the effectiveness of placing large wood in estuarine channels for improved habitat for juvenile salmonids.
2. To contribute to the development estuarine wetland restoration and management recommendations for placement of large wood in tidal channels for watershed councils, natural resource agencies / scientific community and the general public. Project Goals:
1. To evaluate the effectiveness of placing large wood in estuarine channels for improved habitat for juvenile salmonids.
2. To develop recommendations for placing large wood in tidal channels for habitat restoration/enhancement purposes (mainly targeting watershed councils, natural resource agencies / scientific community). N
A
B
D C
South Slough NERR administrative boundary A1
A2
A3 A1 A4
6 Trees 29” Bottom 38” 36” 27” Top 35” 29” 36” 27” 25” 35” 38” Bottom
25” Top N
32” Bottom *26” Top
A3 18”
5 Trees 32” *26” 23” 23” 18” 18”
*Short A1
18” A2
A3 A4 N
Tree Source
Destination
Study Locations
11 . Mouth of Tom’s and A1 43 Dalton Creeks 1 43
. In tidal channels A2 7 . Mainstem Winchester 9 Creek 8 2
5 A3 6 12 A4 10 Restoration Monitoring Questions: . Are there higher densities of juvenile salmonids near LWD compared with habitats lacking LWD? . Does placing LWD at the mouths of tidal creeks create a staging area for fish to hold before foraging up tributary tidal creeks during flood or ebb tide? . Is the presence of LWD increasing fish prey resources? Restoration Monitoring
Questions: . Does placing LWD in tidal channels create habitat for juvenile salmonids (e.g., scour pools)? . What significant changes in temperature or water flow occurs with the placement of LWD? . Does the wood move?
Restoration Monitoring People: . Stan van de Wetering and Ryan French, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians . Ayesha Gray, Cramer Fish Sciences (now mgr. Grand Bay NERR, MS) . Russ Faux, Watershed Sciences, Inc. (now Quantum Spatial) . Bruce Miller, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ret.) . Jena Lemke, Michele Koehler, ABR, Inc. . Craig Cornu, South Slough NERR (now semi-ret./ETG) Project Conclusions Q: Are there higher densities of juvenile salmonids near LWD compared with habitats lacking LWD? (van de Wetering and French) A: A qualified "Yes“ Project Conclusions Q: Are there higher densities of juvenile salmonids near LWD compared with habitats lacking LWD? A: A qualified "Yes“ Project used three methods to determine whether estuarine fishes (juvenile salmonids in particular), would use the LWD: 1. Underwater videography (van de Wetering and French) 2. Electrofishing/block netting, and seining (Lemke and Koehler) 3. Acoustic tagging (Miller) Fish Monitoring Method 1: Underwater Videography Fish Monitoring Method 1: Underwater Videography . Despite the frustratingly low salmonid numbers observed in the channel, underwater videography suggested that juvenile salmonids congregated in sampling locations with LWD. Fish Monitoring Method 1: Underwater Videography . Despite the frustratingly low salmonid numbers observed in the channel, underwater videography suggested that juvenile salmonids congregated in sampling locations with LWD. . Wood located at the mouth of the Dalton Creek tidal channel provided the most optimal habitat for both age-0+ and age- 1+ salmonids especially during 2005. Fish Monitoring Method 1: Underwater Videography . Despite the frustratingly low salmonid numbers observed in the channel, underwater videography suggested that juvenile salmonids congregated in sampling locations with LWD. . Wood located at the mouth of the Dalton Creek tidal channel provided the most optimal habitat for both age-0+ and age- 1+ salmonids especially during 2005. . Greater activity at Dalton is attributed to the complexity of the LWD and associated high quality cover, prey availability, optimal feeding lanes, and refuge from tidal currents. Fish Monitoring Method 2: Electrofishing and Seining Fish Monitoring Method 2: Electrofishing and Seining . Focused on Dalton Creek (LWD) and Tom’s Creek (no LWD) tidal channels. Winchester Creek was sampled to confirm fish presence in system and determine any possible preferences for the mainstem tidal channel. Fish Monitoring Method 2: Electrofishing and Seining . Focused on Dalton Creek (LWD) and Tom’s Creek (no LWD) tidal channels. Winchester Creek was sampled to confirm fish presence in system and determine any possible preferences for the mainstem tidal channel. . Overall, fish were more abundant in Dalton Cr (LWD) reaches than Tom’s Cr (no LWD) reaches. Fish Monitoring Method 2: Electrofishing and Seining . Focused on Dalton Creek (LWD) and Tom’s Creek (no LWD) tidal channels. Winchester Creek was sampled to confirm fish presence in system and determine any possible preferences for the mainstem tidal channel. . Overall, fish were more abundant in Dalton Cr (LWD) reaches than Tom’s Cr (no LWD) reaches. . While only a small number of salmonids were observed in the study area, all tributary tidal creek salmonids were found in Dalton Creek (LWD) the first year of sampling and in both creeks the second year (cutthroat trout only found in Dalton 2nd yr). Fish Monitoring Method 2: Electrofishing and Seining . All salmonids in Dalton Creek were found under an old wood weir structure, not associated with the placed LWD (may be explained by the difficulty of sampling under the placed LWD, where branches and deep water limit the effectiveness of electrofishing). Fish Monitoring Method 2: Electrofishing and Seining . All salmonids in Dalton Creek were found under an old wood weir structure, not associated with the placed LWD (may be explained by the difficulty of sampling under the placed LWD, where branches and deep water limit the effectiveness of electrofishing). . Young-of-the-year coho were observed in Dalton Creek, while primarily coho smolts were observed in Winchester Creek. Fish Monitoring Method 2: Electrofishing and Seining . All salmonids in Dalton Creek were found under an old wood weir structure, not associated with the placed LWD (may be explained by the difficulty of sampling under the placed LWD, where branches and deep water limit the effectiveness of electrofishing). . Young-of-the-year coho were observed in Dalton Creek, while primarily coho smolts were observed in Winchester Creek. . No significant differences in water temperature, salinity, or conductivity were observed between Dalton and Tom’s Cr reaches. Fish Monitoring Method 2: Electrofishing and Seining . All salmonids in Dalton Creek were found under an old wood weir structure, not associated with the placed LWD (may be explained by the difficulty of sampling under the placed LWD, where branches and deep water limit the effectiveness of electrofishing). . Young-of-the-year coho were observed in Dalton Creek, while primarily coho smolts were observed in Winchester Creek. . No significant differences in water temperature, salinity, or conductivity were observed between Dalton and Tom’s Cr reaches. . Unclear whether results are influenced by the presence of LWD, or other factors. Fish Monitoring Method 3: Acoustic Tagging Fish Monitoring Method 3: Acoustic Tagging . Acoustic tagging focused on juvenile cutthroat trout due to the lack of size-appropriate coho smolts both years. Fish Monitoring Method 3: Acoustic Tagging . Acoustic tagging focused on juvenile cutthroat trout due to the lack of size-appropriate coho smolts both years. . There was a clear overall trend showing juvenile cutthroat trout presence in zones with LWD present. Fish Monitoring Method 3: Acoustic Tagging . Acoustic tagging focused on juvenile cutthroat trout due to the lack of size-appropriate coho smolts both years. . There was a clear overall trend showing juvenile cutthroat trout presence in zones with LWD present. . Juvenile trout preferences were the Cox natural wood reach (includes old, naturally-occurring LWD). The natural LWD has formed much more complex scour pool and bar habitat for fish than the newly placed LWD structures have so far. Fish Monitoring Method 3: Acoustic Tagging . In addition, interesting behavioral patterns associated with habitat use were observed: some fish exhibited strong fidelity to one or two sites (“stayers”) and while others used many different habitats (“movers”).
Anderson receiver not functional before 5/25 (JD 145)
Cutthroat 3705 Cox receiver not functional after 6/19 (JD 170), and other 170 mm receivers (except Anderson) not fucntional after JD184, so Released 5/1/07 tag may have expired while fish was just above or below Cox receiver Anderson receiver not functional before 5/25 (JD 145) (Julian day 121) (but probably a mortality near Cox) Cutthroat 3702 254 mm Fish passed Hinch bridge several times undetected Released 4/25/07 Charleston Bridge 4.5 (Julian day 115) Exited South Slough 5/23 after 28 days Crown Point 4.0 Charleston Bridge 4.5 28 days DangerPt (NW) 3.5 Crown Point 4.0 Tom's (W) 3.0 DangerPt (NW) 3.5
Dalton (W) 2.5 Tom's (W) 3.0
Hinch Bridge (NW) 2.0 Dalton (W) 2.5 38 days, June 8 Cox reach (W) 1.5 Hinch Bridge (NW) 2.0 Cox reach (W) Fredrickson (NW) 1.0 1.5 Fredrickson (NW) 1.0 Anderson (W) 0.5 Anderson (W) 0.5 Release site 0.0 Release site 0.0 Above trap (W) -0.5 Above trap (W) -0.5 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 120 130 140 Julian Day Julian Day
Typical pattern of acoustic tag detections for a “stayer” Typical pattern of acoustic tag detections for a “mover” NW = no wood site; W = wood site. Each black dot represents one detection. (Figures courtesy of Bruce Miller, ODFW) Project Conclusions Q: Does placing LWD at the mouths of tidal creeks create a staging area for fish to hold before foraging up tributary tidal creeks during flood or ebb tide? (van de Wetering and French) A: A qualified "Yes“ LWD at the Mouths of Tidal Creeks . LWD at Dalton Creek mouth showed increased activity into the marsh tributary at the beginning of the flood, the beginning of the ebb, and the end of the ebb tide. LWD at the Mouths of Tidal Creeks . LWD at Dalton Creek mouth showed increased activity into the marsh tributary at the beginning of the flood, the beginning of the ebb, and the end of the ebb tide. . Results suggest tidal current velocities were a limiting factor: age-0+ fish were observed migrating into and out of the salt marsh only during those periods when the velocities were at a minimum. LWD at the Mouths of Tidal Creeks . LWD at Dalton Creek mouth showed increased activity into the marsh tributary at the beginning of the flood, the beginning of the ebb, and the end of the ebb tide. . Results suggest tidal current velocities were a limiting factor: age-0+ fish were observed migrating into and out of the salt marsh only during those periods when the velocities were at a minimum. . Speculation that the timing of upstream movement may be feeding activity- movement during times of low current velocities and optimal prey resource drift -and/or- during times when predators are not as likely to be in or near the LWD. Project Conclusions Q: Is the presence of LWD increasing fish prey resources? (Gray)
A: A qualified "Yes“ Macroinvertebrate Monitoring . Sampling targeted infaunal benthic community. Macroinvertebrate Monitoring . Sampling targeted infaunal benthic community. . Total density of benthic invertebrates was found to be significantly greater at LWD sites compared with paired sites lacking LWD. Macroinvertebrate Monitoring . Sampling targeted infaunal benthic community. . Total density of benthic invertebrates was found to be significantly greater at LWD sites compared with paired sites lacking LWD. . Taxonomic richness was found to be significantly greater at LWD sites compared with paired sites lacking LWD by May 2006. Macroinvertebrate Monitoring . Sampling targeted infaunal benthic community. . Total density of benthic invertebrates was found to be significantly greater at LWD sites compared with paired sites lacking LWD. . Taxonomic richness was found to be significantly greater at LWD sites compared with paired sites lacking LWD by May 2006 (end of study). . No differences in community composition were detected. Total Density Taxa Richness Comparison of total density and
May 2005 May 2005 taxonomic richness by sampling 18
p = 6 p = period. “NW” and “Wood” refer to 16
0.199 5 0.691 paired sampling sites with no wood 14
4 and LWD placements, respectively.
12
3
10
Average Density
Average Taxa Richness
2
8
1
6 0
NW Wood NW Wood No sig. Difference between Wood/NW first spring following LWD placement
September 2005 September 2005 15
12 p = p = 14
10 0.007 0.071
13
8
12
6
Average Density
11
Average Taxa Richness
4
10
2 9
NW Wood NW Wood
May 2006 May 2006 4 p = 16 p =
0.011 14 0.034
3
12
2
10
Average Density
Average Taxa Richness
8
1
6 0
NW Wood NW Wood
No Wood (NW) or Wood Sites No Wood (NW) or Wood Sites Total Density Taxa Richness Comparison of total density and
May 2005 May 2005 taxonomic richness by sampling 18
p = 6 p = period. “NW” and “Wood” refer to 16
0.199 5 0.691 paired sampling sites with no wood 14
4 and LWD placements, respectively.
12
3
10
Average Density
Average Taxa Richness
2
8
1
6 0
NW Wood NW Wood No sig. Difference between Wood/NW first spring following LWD placement
September 2005 September 2005 15
12 p = p = 14
10 0.007 0.071
13
8
12
6
Average Density
11
Average Taxa Richness
4
10
2 9
NW Wood NW Wood Sig. Density Difference but Not Sig. Richness difference one yr. following LWD placement May 2006 May 2006
*Could density difference be attributed to seasonal variation? 4 p = 16 p =
0.011 14 0.034
3
12
2
10
Average Density
Average Taxa Richness
8
1
6 0
NW Wood NW Wood
No Wood (NW) or Wood Sites No Wood (NW) or Wood Sites Total Density Taxa Richness Comparison of total density and
May 2005 May 2005 taxonomic richness by sampling 18
p = 6 p = period. “NW” and “Wood” refer to 16
0.199 5 0.691 paired sampling sites with no wood 14
4 and LWD placements, respectively.
12
3
10
Average Density
Average Taxa Richness 2
8 Cautious Interpretations:
1 6
0 1)Changes in invertebrate abundance and composition occur
NW Wood NW Wood No sig. Difference between Wood/NW first spring following LWD placement soon (within one year) after restoration; and
September 2005 September 2005 2)The addition of LWD may result in the increase in benthic 15
12 p = p = macroinvertebrate density and taxa richness. 14
10 0.007 0.071
13
8
12
6
Average Density
11
Average Taxa Richness
4
10
2 9
NW Wood NW Wood Sig. Density Difference but Not Sig. Richness difference one yr. following LWD placement
May 2006 May 2006 4 p = 16 p =
0.011 14 0.034
3
12
2
10
Average Density
Average Taxa Richness
8
1
6 0
NW Wood NW Wood Sig. DifferenceNo in Wood both (NW) or WoodDensity Sites and Richness difference 20 mo.No Woodfollowing (NW) or Wood LWD Sites placement Project Conclusions Q: Does placing LWD in tidal channels create habitat for juvenile salmonids (e.g., scour pools)? A: “Inconclusive” LWD and Channel Morphology/Fish Habitat . We detected major changes in channel morphology in 2006 and 2007: sediment deposition and channel bottom scour associated with LWD. LWD and Channel Morphology/Fish Habitat . We detected major changes in channel morphology in 2006 and 2007: sediment deposition and channel bottom scour associated with LWD. . However, site conditions are highly dynamic. Three relatively large scour holes detected in 2006 were filled by the time of the 2007 the survey. LWD and Channel Morphology/Fish Habitat . We detected major changes in channel morphology in 2006 and 2007: sediment deposition and channel bottom scour associated with LWD. . However, site conditions are highly dynamic. Three relatively large scour holes detected in 2006 were filled by the time of the 2007 the survey. . Some of the scour hole filling was due to LWD movement. LWD and Channel Morphology/Fish Habitat . We detected major changes in channel morphology in 2006 and 2007: sediment deposition and channel bottom scour associated with LWD. . However, site conditions are highly dynamic. Three relatively large scour holes detected in 2006 were filled by the time of the 2007 the survey. . Some of the scour hole filling was due to LWD movement. . Elsewhere it’s less clear what why scour holes filled. LWD and Channel Morphology/Fish Habitat . While the presence or absence the LWD structures notably influencing channel morphology, how these changes “increase habitat quality” for salmonids is far from clear. LWD and Channel Morphology/Fish Habitat . While the presence or absence the LWD structures notably influencing channel morphology, how these changes “increase habitat quality” for salmonids is far from clear. . Since subtidal and intertidal channel fish habitat around LWD will take some time to develop it’s too soon to make judgments about the habitat quality. Changes in Channel Morphology
Watershed Sciences Channel Profile Survey
Bathymetric changes detected from 2006 to 2007 along Winchester Creek. Areas shown in deep green to blue indicate areas of aggradation. Areas seen in red are areas of erosion and degradation.
RTK Transect 40 In the northern half of the 2.90 LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK survey area, at transects 40 2.40 and 55, two significant areas of deposition occurred. In 1.90 both cases, large holes seen in 1.40 the 2006 surveys were no
0.90 RTK 2006 longer there. RTK 2007 elevation (m) 0.40
-0.10 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.60
-1.10 Distance along transect from left bank (m)
RTK Transect 55 3.50 LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK 3.00
2.50 RTK 2006 RTK 2007 2.00
1.50
1.00 elevation (m) 0.50
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -0.50
-1.00 Distance along transect from left bank (m) Project Conclusions Q: What significant changes in temperature or water flow occurs with the placement of LWD? A: Temp: Inconclusive- limited data show no change in water temperatures; Flow: Inconclusive?- data indicated detectable changes in flow.
LWD and Water Temp . Water temperature data was collected using Onset TidBit temperature data loggers deployed around various LWD structures. LWD and Water Temp . Water temperature data was collected using Onset TidBit temperature data loggers deployed around various LWD structures. . Data collection for this part of the project was not completed, in part because many of the TidBit loggers were buried under shifting LWD logs. LWD and Water Temp . Water temperature data was collected using Onset TidBit temperature data loggers deployed around various LWD structures. . Data collection for this part of the project was not completed, in part because many of the TidBit loggers were buried under shifting LWD logs. . What little data was retrieved indicated that water temperature was no different near or under LWD structures than water temperature in areas with no LWD. LWD and Water Flow . Water velocity measurements were taken by CTSI contractors as part of their underwater videography fish monitoring. LWD and Water Flow . Water velocity measurements were taken by CTSI contractors as part of their underwater videography fish monitoring. . Current velocities in Winchester Creek were found to vary between LWD structures and between habitats around the LWD structures. LWD and Water Flow . Water velocity measurements were taken by CTSI contractors as part of their underwater videography fish monitoring. . Current velocities in Winchester Creek were found to vary between LWD structures and between habitats around the LWD structures. . Higher velocities were recorded during ebb tide flows. Project Conclusions Q: Does the wood move?
A: “Yes.”
Several LWD structures moved, as expected, during extreme winter high tides and moved both upstream and downstream, with the net direction of movement being downstream. LWD Movement 1A, 1B LWD Initial Locations 2A, 2B, 2C 3
4A, 4B
5 6A, 6B 7A, 7B 8A, 8B, 8C 9A, 9B
10
11A, 11B 1A, 1B
2A, 2B, 2C 3
4A, 4B
5 6A, 6B 7A, 7B 8A, 8B, 8C 9A, 9B
10
11A, 11B 1A, 1B
2A, 2B, 2C 3
4A, 4B
5 6A, 6B 7A, 7B 8A, 8B, 8C 9A, 9B
10
11A, 11B Detail 1 Trees 10, 11A, 11B
September 2004
10
11A, 11B Detail 1 Trees 10, 11A, 11B
September 2004 Detail 1 Trees 10, 11A, 11B
May 2006 Detail 1 Trees 10, 11A, 11B
October 2006 Detail 1 Trees 10, 11A, 11B
January 2007 1A, 1B
2A, 2B, 2C 3
4A, 4B
5 6A, 6B 7A, 7B 8A, 8B, 8C 9A, 9B
10
11A, 11B Detail 2 Trees 3, 4A, 4B
3
4A, 4B September 2004 Detail 2 Trees 3, 4A, 4B
September 2004 Detail 2 Trees 3, 4A, 4B
May 2006 Detail 2 Trees 3, 4A, 4B
October 2006 Detail 2 Trees 3, 4A, 4B
January 2007 Detail 2 Trees 3, 4A, 4B
January 2007 Reports van de Wetering, S, R. French. 2008. Tidal Fish Migration Patterns in Winchester Creek: Final Report. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Report, Siletz, OR. 45 pp.
Lemke, J.L. 2006. Fish Use of Estuarine Tidal Channels Enhanced With Large Woody Debris. Final report prepared for the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. ABR Inc. Forest Grove, OR. 12 pp.
Watershed Sciences. 2007. RTK Data Collection and LiDAR Integration South Slough Estuarine Reserve, OR. Final report submitted to the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. Watershed Sciences. Corvallis, OR. 17 pp.
Cornu, C.E., S. van de Wetering, R. French, A. Gray, J. Lemke, M. Koehler, R. Faux, B. Miller. 2008. Effectiveness Monitoring for LWD Placement in South Slough Tidal Wetlands: Final Report Summary Submitted to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve Report, Charleston, OR. 61 pp.
Contact
Craig Cornu, Estuary Technical Group, Institute of Applied Ecology [email protected] Stan van de Wetering, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians [email protected] Ayesha Gray, Grand Bay NERR [email protected]
South Slough NERR Jenni Schmitt: [email protected] Bree Yednock: [email protected]