Clearwater River Wild Steelhead Spawning Timing

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Clearwater River Wild Steelhead Spawning Timing CL EARWATER R IVER WILD STE ELHEAD SPAWNING TIMING C. J . Cederholm Washington State Department of Natural Res our ces Rural Route 1, Box 1375 Fo rks, Washington 98331 ABSTRACT: Steelhead spawning timing in the mainstem and tributar­ ies of the Clearwater River was monitored from 1973 t o 1980. Gen­ erally, spawning begins in Janua ry and lasts until late June with mos t tributaries peaking i n Mar ch and April, and the main river peaking in e arly Ma y . Th e spawning timing in the t r ibutaries is more protracte d whe n compared to the main rive r which is sharply peaking . Spawning genera lly occurs in the spring, well after the ma jor annual freshets of No vember through February . It is sug­ gested that this spring spawning timing is an adaptation to avoid egg l oss caused by streamb ed scour, and to e l i minate competition with salmon spawners. Commencement of spawning co inc ides with springtime dec lining streamflows and increasing water tempe ratures . Spawning escapements in the Clearwater Ri ver have increased stead­ ily over the study peri od, due mainly to r educ tions in the Quinault Tribal commercial gil l ne t fi shery catch at Quee ts , and possibly due to an ove rall improvement in l ogg ing road construc­ tion and maintenance pract i ces in the watershed . Th e l argely ind i genous na tive steelhead spawning populations of the Clearwater Ri ver ma y also be influenced by straying adults r e t urning from extens i ve hatchery smol t plants in the Qu eets and c losely adjoining rivers. This paper could provide background data for future comparis ons betwe en pre- and post-hatchery plant spawning populations. INTRODUCTION s t ee l head spawning counts on the Clearwater River in J e fferson Co unty have been conducted to do c u­ Wild winter- run steelhead are an important r enew­ ment spawning population size and annual varia­ able natural resource base for several small com­ tions in abundance, timing, and distribution . munities along the western coast of the Ol ympic Peninsula . They provide several months of out ­ I have become concerned about the high level of door enjoyment for sportsfishermen , income for hatchery stee lhe ad smolt plants being made on local businesses, and a commer c ial fishery f or several Ol ympic Pe ninsula coastal rivers, by both several Indian tribes . Over the pa s t 8 years the State and l oc al Tribal entities. This is 257 occurring on the Queets, Quinault, Hoh, and Quil­ It is also my intention to discuss how steelhead layute Rivers; where each spring, plants of may have adapted t o a late spring spawning timing 50-300,000 smolts per river are made. It is to avoid the streambed scour which is character­ apparent that these fish have a h i gh degree of istic of fall and winter streamflow periods. wi t hin- and between-river straying (Larry Lestelle , Quinault Fisheries and Jim Jorgenson, Hoh Fisheries pers. comm.) , and may be inter­ METHODS breeding with the wild strains of similar spawn­ ing timing. In the long-term, spawning timing, During the winter-spring period (January through growth, and survival of wild fish could be June) of 1973 through 19 80, steelhead spawning changed with a continued pol i cy of ha t chery smo lt redds were surveyed and counted in the lower planting. Recent research by the Washington mainstem and selected tributaries of the Clear­ State Department of Game on the Ka lama River water River, The Clearwater River, a tributary (Chilcote 1983) indicates that hatchery/wi ld of the Queets Rivers is located approximately crosses on t he spawning beds result in a lower 40 kilometers south of Forks, and east of High­ survival of offspring, when compared with wild/ way 101 (fig . 1) . In general, mainstem surveys wild crosses . At this point in time the spawning were carried out by viewing spawning redds from a popu lations in the Clearwater River system are helicopter, and tributary counts were determined still dominated by the ind i genous native strains; by foot surveys. An average of six aerial counts and therefore I felt it would be a good time to and five foot counts of each index area were made present this steelhead spawning timing data on per year . wild Clearwater River stocks, for it may be use­ ful in determining the hatchery influence in the Each mainstem count consisted of a helicopter future. flight from the mouth of the Cl earwat er River to Clearwater River Basin I Morrison's Bridge ~ I I ' \ I Oueets I ,.L Figure 1. Location of the Clearwater River basin, and tributary and mainstem steelhead redd survey index locations. 258 Stequaleho Creek mouth, covering about 36 kilo­ used to measure water velocity. The streamflow meters. This standard index area was broken into records are reported in Larson and Jacoby (1976), five subsections, which were areas designated Larson and Jacoby (1977) , Abercrombie et al . between tributary mouths and bridges. The sec­ (1978), and Abercrombie et al. (1979). tions were as follows: · mouth to Morrison's Bridge, Morrison's Bridge to Hunt Creek , Hunt Creek to Gross Bridge, Gross Bridge to Goodyear RESULTS Bridge, and Goodyear Bridge to Stequaleho Creek ( fig. 1). The helicopter would fly at an alti­ Over the course of eight spawning seasons (1973- tude of 30-100 meters above the water surface, 80), 52 helicopter surveys were conducted on the always traveling in an upstream direction along main rive r index area. During these surveys a the west edge of the river . Each full sized nest t otal of 2,234 redds was counted (table 1) , with or combination of nests that was judged to con­ the lowest total annual count in 1974 (45) and stitute one female's digging was counted as one the highest annual count in 1980 (629) . redd. Over all, there was an average o f 1.2 nests per redd. Survey timing was separated by In most years, the peak count occurred on or near about 2-4 weeks, depending on the weather . On the first or second we ek of May . The two notabl e each survey, all fresh and complete (larger than exceptions were in 1975 when the peak was late 1 m2 in are a) redd s were counted. There was a (June 7), and in 1978 wh en it was e arly (April danger of recounting redds from previous surveys; 29). On most years, few redds were counted until however, care was taken to minimize this as a April, however some r edds were noted as early as serious source of error. January . Du e to frequent freshets and the lack of algae on the substrate during the winter and The tributary foot surveys were carried out in early spring, it was difficult t o ensure that all the upstream direction by a person walking in the the spawning activity was detected. Although no creeks. Surveys were conducted during 1978, surveys wer e conducted after June 27th, it 1979, and 1980. Ind ex sections were established appears that spawning in the main river is on representative streams, and these sections essentially ove r by the e nd of June. The general were walked several times over a spawning season . trend was that major spawning activity would Ind ex sections covering a total of 22 kilometers begin in April, peak in May, and be over by the were established on five different tributaries. end of June (fig. 2). These tributaries were West Fork Miller Creek (4.0 km) , Stequaleho Creek (2. 7 km), Solleks A total of 68 separate foot surveys for count ing River (2.2 km), Snahapish River (8 . 5 km), and r edds in the tributaries was made in 1978, 1979, Shale Creek (4.2 km) (fig . 1). On each succeed­ and 1980 (table 2). ing survey, newly count ed r edds were marked with colored plastic ribbon to avoid duplication of The timing of tributary spawning varied widely counts on future surveys . between streams . Generally, major spawning activity was spread over a longer period of time A supplemental experiment was conducted during than in the main river ( fig . 3) . Spawning activ­ the 1974-75 winter season to determine changes 1n ity in most tributaries peaked prior to peaking streambed elevation from summer to midwinter and in the mainstem, and spawning activity was noted from midwinter to the following summer . We were as early as January and as late as June . Spawn­ interested in knowing the degree of streambed ing activity in Stequaleho Creek and Solleks scour over a winter season , to give some measure River continued strong into late May, while the of potenti al redd loss. Net streambed scour and activity wa s earlier in Shale and West Fork deposition rates were est imated by a survey tech ­ Miller Creeks . Spawning was intermediate in tim­ nique descr ibed by Cederholm ( 1972 ) . Wood bench­ ing, in the Snahapish River with the peaks marks were establ ished on each stream embankment usually occurring in March and April . at each of 39 c r oss sect ions. A c r oss sect ion was located every 150 meters, with nine or ten During the winter of 1974-75 the changes 1n cross sections on each of four spawning tributar­ streambed cross-sectional area (i . e . , scour and ies. The c r oss sections were not always located depositon) in four steelhead spawning tributaries at potential spawning sites, they were meant as were measured.
Recommended publications
  • Olympic Invasives Working Group 2018 Annual Report
    Olympic Invasives Working Group 2018 Annual Report Bohemian knotweed on Fisher Cove Rd, Clallam County, leading to Lake Sutherland, treated for the first time as part of the Clallam County Road Department Integrated Weed Management Plan. Report Prepared by Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board A patch of knotweed found growing on Ennis Creek in Port Angeles. Report prepared by Jim Knape Cathy Lucero Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board January 2019 223 East 4th Street Ste 15 Port Angeles WA 98362 360-417-2442 [email protected] http://www.clallam.net/weed/projects.html This report can also be found at http://www.clallam.net/weed/annualreports.html CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 7 2018 PROJECT ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... 7 2018 PROJECT PROTOCOLS ..................................................................................... 11 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 14 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 15 PROJECT ACTIVITIES BY WATERSHED ................................................................... 18 CLALLAM COUNTY ...........................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Trends of Sport Fishing on Critical Fishery Resources in Olympic National Park Rivers and Lake Crescent
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Understanding Trends of Sport Fishing on Critical Fishery Resources in Olympic National Park Rivers and Lake Crescent Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/OLYM/NRTR—2012/587 ON THE COVER Creel Survey on Lake Crescent, July 29, 2010 Photograph by: Phil Kennedy, Olympic National Park Understanding Trends of Sport Fishing on Critical Fishery Resources in Olympic National Park Rivers and Lake Crescent Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/OLYM/NRTR—2012/587 Samuel J. Brenkman, Lauren Kerr, and Josh Geffre National Park Service Olympic National Park 600 East Park Avenue Port Angeles, Washington, 98362. June 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Coho Supplementation in the Queets River, Washington
    Coho Supplementation in the Queets River, Washington Larry Lestelle, Biostream Environmental February 2012 Purpose of presentation: . Summarize results of coho supplementation in the Queets River 1989-2002 . Two papers summarized, along with more recent results: Lestelle, L.C., G.R. Blair, S.A. Chitwood. 1993. Approaches to supplementing coho salmon in the Queet s River, Washi hitngton. IIn L. Berg and PPW.W. DDlelaney (eds.) Proceedings of the coho workshop. British Columbia Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, BC. Sharma, R., G. Morishima, S. Wang, A. Talbot, and L. Gilbertson. 2006. An evaluation of the Clearwater River supplementation program in western Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:423– 437. The Queets watershed – west coast of the Olympic Peninsula, WA (450 square mile basin) Focus in this review on the work in the Clearwater R Land-use ownership and jurisdictions Stream habitats very diverse Diverse in-channel habitats Diverse off-channel habitats Long-term monitoring has occurred in Clearwater R . Extensive smolt enumeration efforts (began 1980) . Sppgawning escapements monitored with redd surveys (mid 1970s to present) . Similar level of monitoring in Queets subbasin The Problem (as perceived in 1980s): . Believed that coho run badly underescaped • Extensive ocean and freshwater fisheries • Highest harvest rates in BC – outside domestic control • Federal court-ordered escapement goal range • Treaty-reserved Indian fisheries squeezed Ocean Recruits and Spawner Escapement 25,000 Age‐3 recruits 20,000 ber 15, 000 Num 10,000 5,000 Spawners 0 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 Spawning year Ocean Recruits and Spawner Escapement 25,000 Age‐3 recruits 20,000 ber 15, 000 Num 10,000 Escape goal range 5,000 Spawners 0 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 Spawning year Supplementation to be used .
    [Show full text]
  • QIN Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
    Quinault Indian Nation Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Quinault Indian Nation Taholah, Washington March 2017 Quinault Indian Nation Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Project Information Project: QIN Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Prepared for: Quinault Indian Community Development and Planning Department Charles Warsinske, Planning Manager Carl Smith, Environmental Planner Jesse Cardenas, Project Manager American Community Enrichment Reviewing Agency Jurisdiction: Quinault Indian Nation, made possible by a grant from Administration for Native Americans (ANA) Project Representative Prepared by: SCJ Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 SCJ Alliance teaming with AECOM Lacey, Washington 98516 360.352.1465 scjalliance.com Contact: Lisa Palazzi, PWS, CPSS Project Reference: SCJ #2328.01 QIN Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report 03062107 March 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Shoreline Analysis Areas (SAAs) Overview ................................................................. 3 1.3 Opportunities for Restoration .................................................................................... 4 2. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Baseline Data
    [Show full text]
  • 638 Quinault Ridge 618 Matheny 615 Clearwater 612 Goodman 607 Sol
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! South Fork 1 Soleduck 36 Forks 1 31 31 North Fork River 31 T29-0N R9-0W T29-0N T29-0N R9-0W Soleduck Alckee 36 110 Creek T29-0N R8-0W Æ Mill Creek River Soleduck River · CalawahRiver R10-0W MundenCreek 602 Bogachiel River Sitkum River 1 d[ Grader Creek 1 6 Elk Creek Canyon Creek Mink Lake Weeden Creek North Fork Hidden Dickey Bogachiel 607 Lost Creek Bogachiel Lake River d[ River North ForkBoulderCreek T28-0N Quillayuted[ Blackwood Creek Blackwood Lake R15-0W River Bogachiel Bogachiel Bear Creek South Fork Calawah River T28-0N River Soleduck River River Bogachiel SolCoon Duc Hyak Creek River R10-0W T28-0N Creek R10-0W Deer Lake Canyon Soleduck Lake BogachielRiver Maxfield Creek Ring Lake R14-0W Creek Long Lake South Fork Creek Clear Bridge Maxfield Kahkwa Elbow Creek T28-0NMorgenroth Haigs T28-0N Latlah Creek Game Management Unit Creek T28-0N R11-0W Lake T28-0N Creek R8-2W Lake Lake R13-0W T28-0N LunchR8-2W Lake R8-0W 31 Bogachiel River Eaton R8-0W 36 36 R12-0W Sunday 615 - Clearwater 31 Creek Creek 36 31 d[ 36 31 Creek Bogachiel River Warkum T27-0N Morganroth Creek Creek 1 Dry Creek Mosquito 36 31 Bogachiel Hoh Lake R15-0W Kloshe Creek 36 6 Murphy Creek 1 Indian Creek Slide Creek 6 1 Bogachiel River Bee Creek 6 River Spruce T27-0N Boulevard Creek T28-0N R9-0W Creek T28-0N R9-0W Hoh Creek 2021 - 2022Hunting 2021- Season Bogachiel6 Hemp 1 R13-0W 6 36 Scott Dowans Riverd[ Hill T27-0N 31 Creek 1 Cultus T27-0N R11-0W 1 6 All-in Creek 6 Cougar Olallie Creek
    [Show full text]
  • Queets River Natural Coho Rebuilding Plan Environmental
    QUEETS RIVER NATURAL COHO SALMON REBUILDING PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ANALYSIS, REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW, AND INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS REGULATORY IDENTIFIER NUMBER 0648-BJ05 PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS AN INTEGRATED DOCUMENT DESIGNED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL’S PACIFIC SALMON FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROVIDE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REQUIRED UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. Pacific Fishery Management Council National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, BIN C15700 Portland, OR 97220-1384 Seattle, WA 98115-0700 (503) 820-2280 (206) 526-6150 www.pcouncil.org www.noaa.gov/fisheries This document may be cited in the following manner: Pacific Fishery Management Council and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2020. Environmental Assessment: Salmon Rebuilding Plan for Queets River Natural Coho. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220- 1384 and National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, Washington 98115. A report of the Pacific Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number NA15NMF4410016A. Environmental Assessment for Queets Coho Rebuilding Plan December 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Salmon Technical Team, NMFS, and the Council staff express their thanks for the expert assistance provided by those listed here and numerous other tribal and agency personnel in completing this report. Dr. Michael O’Farrell, STT Chair National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Cruz, California Mr. Jon Carey, STT Vice-Chair National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, Washington Ms. Wendy Beeghley, STT member Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Montesano, Washington Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Queets Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment
    Queets Vegetation Management United States Environmental Assessment Department of Agriculture Olympic National Forest Forest Service Jefferson County, Washington Pacific Northwest Region June 2015 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Abstract: This Environmental Assessment documents the proposed action, two alternatives to the proposed action, and the no action alternative considered for commercially thinning timber; conducting road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; treating activity-generated slash (fuels); and implementing connected actions within the Late-Successional Reserve, Adaptive Management Area, and Riparian Reserve land allocations of the Queets River watershed on the Olympic National Forest, Pacific Ranger District. The Queets Vegetation Management project proposed treatment units are located within the Late-Successional Reserve and Adaptive Management Area land allocations, and also include Riparian Reserves which overlay these other land allocations.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Rivers - Special Rules
    Puget Sound and Coastal Rivers - Special Rules With various fish populations across the state being listed under the Endangered SpeciesAct, WDFW must provide as much protection as possible for all life stages of these populations, in particular for rearing juveniles. For many years, the standard stream rule opened rivers, streams, and beaver ponds to fishing for Game Fish from the first Saturday in June – October 31, with an 8" minimum size, 2 fish/day limit. Consequently, much of the juvenile rearing habitat for resident trout and Dolly Varden and anadromous salmon, steelhead, cutthroat, and Bull Trout was open for fishing. As a result, these juvenile salmonids were at risk of being incidentally caught and may have not survived being handled and released, especially if bait was used. In 2010 we adopted a new management strategy that offered additional protection to stocks in streams draining into Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In 2012 this strategy was extended to the Coast. The basic rule in these waters is that all rivers, streams, and beaver ponds are CLOSED to fishing unless they are listed in the following tables within the Puget Sound, Strait, and Coastal River sections of the pamphlet (see pages 23-51). These tables detail ALL of the fishing opportunity in these drainages. Areas open to fisheries are presented by river system unless the waters drain directly to salt water. All other waters in these drainages are closed to fishing. Beaver ponds located within or connected to streams listed as open toTROUT and Other Game Fish follow the same rules as the stream unless otherwise listed.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts from the 3Rd Symposium on the Hydrogeology of Washington State
    Abstracts from the 3rd Symposium on the Hydrogeology of Washington State October 16 – 18, 2000 Landmark Convention Center Tacoma, Washington Presented By: The Washington State Department of Ecology The Washington Hydrologic Society The United States Geological Survey Table of Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................................... ii Abstracts for Oral Presentations, by Session Gravel Mining ........................................................................1 Contaminant Fate and Transport ..........................................5 Water Availability.................................................................11 Aquifer Test Design.............................................................18 Watershed Management.....................................................22 Contaminated Ground Water and Sediments .....................28 Flooding and Geologic Hazards..........................................33 Databases ...........................................................................40 Aquifer Protection................................................................44 Remediation Technologies..................................................47 Ground Water Contaminant Topics.....................................51 Ground Water-Surface Water Interaction............................55 Riparian Ecology .................................................................62 Geophysical Investigations..................................................69 Abstracts for Poster Presentations,
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 State of Our Watersheds Report Queets – Chehalis Basins
    2016 State of Our Watersheds Report Queets – Chehalis Basins he evidence is abundantly clear. We know how Tto manage our fish. We understand sustain- ability. The problems fish are facing are not of our making. But we are definitely a big part of the solution, with the work we do in habitat res- toration and protection, good management and education. – FAWN SHARp, PRESIDENT QUINAULT INDIAN NATION Quinault Indian Nation The Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) consists of the Quinault and Queets tribes and descendants of five other coastal tribes: Quileute, Hoh, Che- halis, Chinook and Cowlitz. Quinault ancestors lived on a major physical and cultural dividing line. Beaches to the south are wide and sandy, while to the north, they are rugged and cliff- lined. Quinault people shared in the cultures of the people to the south as well as those to the Seattle north. Living in family groups in longhouses up and down the river, they were sustained by the land and by trade with neighboring tribes. Salmon runs, abundant sea mammals, wildlife and forests provided substantial material and spiritual wealth. A great store of knowledge about plants and their uses helped provide for the people. The western red-cedar, the “tree of life,” provided logs for canoes, bark for clothing, split boards for houses and more. The Quinault are the Canoe People, the people of the cedar tree. Tribal headquarters are located in Taholah, Washington. 190 Quinault Indian Nation Queets – Quinault – Chehalis Basins The Quinault Indian Nation’s Area of Interest for this report covers three Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) includ- ing the Queets-Quinault basin (WRIA 21) and Chehalis basin (WRIAs 22 and 23).
    [Show full text]
  • Old-Growth Forests
    c.i5 Fishand WildlifeRelationships in Old-GrowthForests Proceedingsof a Symposium Sponsoredby Alaska District, American Institute of FisheryResearch Biologists Northwest Section, The Wildlife Society AlaskaCouncil on Scienceand Technology Held in Juneau,Alaska, 12-15 April 1982 Symposium Editors William R. Meehan TheodoreR. Merrell,Jr. ThomasA. Hanley SuggestedCltatlon: (Eds.). 1984. Fish and ttilliam R., TheodoreR. Merrell, Jr. and Thornas^A' Hanlev lleehan, in Juneau,Alaska' ltiiaiiie-ietaiionstrips in 0ld-GrowthForests: Proceedingsof a syrnpoiiumheld 12-15April 1982. Ainer.Inst. Fish. Res.Biol' 425p' Published by the American lnstitute of Fishery Research Biologists December 1984 Availablefrom John W. Reintjes,Rt. 4, Box 85, MoreheadCity, NC 28557 Price920. *'"' &,,4 HABITATSAND SALMONIDDISTRIBUTION IN PRISTINE. E SEDIMENT-RICHRIVER VALLEY SYSTEMS: S. FORKHOH AND .€ ii OUEETSRIVER, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK € E JamesR. Sedell I USDA, ForestService. Corvallis, Oregon il ri Joseph E. Yuskaand RobertW. Speaker Oregon State University,Corvallis, Oregon :]: ABSTRACT Four distinct running-water habitats are defined and examined on the South Fork Hoh River and Upper Queets River-main river channel, river off-channel areas, terrace tributaries, and valley-wall tributaries. Speciescompositions, densities, and total fish biomassesare distinctly different for each habitat examined. Habitat formed by the main river channel and its tributaries is controlled by the valley terrace structure and the modifyingeffects of large woody debris. Large woody debris is important to all habitats regardless of size of stream. Without large wood, spawning and rearing-habitat quality would be poorer, even in the large, sediment-rich main channel. large wood-capped side channels had eight times the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) densities as side channels without debris.
    [Show full text]
  • Valley Formation by Fluvial and Glacial Erosion
    Valley formation by ¯uvial and glacial erosion David R. Montgomery Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA ABSTRACT Cross-valley pro®les from the west slope of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, are used to investigate the relative effects of ¯uvial and glacial erosion on valley formation. Unlike most ranges where glaciers and rivers sequentially occupied the same valleys, neighboring valleys in the Olympic Mountains developed in similar lithologies but were subject to different degrees of glaciation, allowing comparison of the net effect of glacial and ¯uvial processes integrated over many glacial cycles. Upslope drainage area was used to normalize comparisons of valley width, ridge-crest-to-valley-bottom relief, and valley cross-sectional area as measures of net differences in the mass of rock excavated from below ridgelines for 131 valley-spanning transects. Valley width, relief, and cross-sectional areas are similar for glaciated, partly glaciated, and unglaciated (¯uvial) valleys with drainage areas of ,10 km2, but diverge downslope. Glaciated valleys draining .50 km2 reach two to four times the cross-sectional area and have to 500 m greater relief than comparable ¯uvial valleys; partly glaciated valleys have intermediate dimensions. At dis- tances of .5 km from valley heads, the cumulative upstream volume of rock removed to form valleys is two to four times greater in glacially incised valleys than in ¯uvial valleys. The ®nding of strong differences in the net result of valley excavation by ¯uvial and glacial erosion supports the interpretation that alpine glaciers are more effective erosional agents than are rivers and implies that large alpine valleys deepened and enlarged in response to Pleistocene glaciation.
    [Show full text]