POST PROJECT MONITORING REPORT FOR THE WASHINGTON HARBOR RESTORATION PROJECT

Transcription

1 POST PROJECT MONITORING REPORT FOR THE WASHINGTON HARBOR RESTORATION PROJECT Report Prepared by: Jamestown S Klallam Tribe 1033 Old Blyn Highway, Sequim WA (360) PA-00J Submitted to: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission March 31, 2015

2 Introduction This report details changes, with a focus on juvenile salmon usage, to the Washington Harbor estuary after the removal of 600 feet of roadbed and associated fill that had isolated 37 acres of saltmarsh from the rest of the estuary. Washington Harbor is the largest pocket estuary on the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait s third largest estuary overall. Formed by Bell Creek and two spits - Gibson and South, it contains estuarine marshes that provide superb, productive marine nearshore habitat for a variety of species, including juvenile ESA listed Chinook and chum salmon as well as juvenile pink salmon, herring, smelt and sand lance. The estuary was crossed by a 1,300-foot long road, with only two 6-foot culverts which allowed flow into the northern 37 acres of the estuary. The roadbed disrupted habitat connectivity, tidal hydrology and habitat forming processes in the northern portion of the estuary (Todd et. al. 2006). In the summer of 2013 a 600 foot long bridge was constructed and the associated roadbed was removed. Final removal occurred in August. This reestablished connectivity of the northern part of the marsh with the southern part of the marsh and thence Sequim Bay. It is hoped that with the restoration of connectivity fish access will have improved, but also over time eelgrass will reestablish itself and sediment and wood transport will improve. Prior to removal the roadbed, fish access into this area was possible only through the culverts which were perched and discharged flood and ebb tides at extremely high velocity. While fish could swim through the culverts at slack tides, at no time in the tidal cycle could chum fry migrate into the northern 37 acres while remaining in their preferred shallow water habitat. During much of the tidal cycle velocities through the culverts were too high to allow fish passage against the flow, however based on the observation of fry in the northern lagoon, it is likely that fry were swept through the culverts. The roadbed and culverts also created a 2-hour lag in tidal processes in the northern 37 acres, which also caused Washington Harbor s main inlet to narrow by 28% since the road was constructed in the mid 1960 s (Ghitis, Eliza and T. Abbe October 2010, Washington Harbor Restoration Project Geomorphic Assessment). The removal of the roadbed was also recommended in the WRIA 18 Limiting Factors Analysis for Salmon and Steelhead: Restore unrestricted tidal flow and flushing to the north end of Washington Harbor (Haring, 1999). The restoration project removed the culverts and 600 feet of road and associated fill and replaced them with a 600-foot bridge (Figure 1 and 2). Jamestown staff monitored changes to the system and of fish usage after this removal to determine if access for fish had improved, especially juvenile chum and chinook to the northern section of Washington Harbor. Goals were also to

3 restore tidal hydrology and eliminate possible hyper-saline conditions and temperature impairments in the estuary s northern 37 acres. By allowing for the movement of wood and sediment from the southern section of the estuary to the northern section, habitat forming processes in the estuary should also be restored, improving conditions for a nearshore fish species, shellfish and marine birds. Jamestown staff monitored fish presence in the southern (outside of the impoundment) and northern sections of Washington Harbor prior to and after road removal by deploying a beach seine. Visual observations were also made of fish movement after project completion. Temperature data loggers were also placed both north and south of the project site to determine if temperature regime changes occurred. Flow velocities were measured through the culverts before the project and then measured under the new bridge after the project was completed. Figure 1: Project area prior to road removal taken from the south looking north. Figure 2: Washington Harbor post-project showing the bridge from the north looking southwest. Numerous juvenile salmon were observed using the tidal channels in the foreground. Methods Flow Velocity Flow through the culverts was measured pre-project during a flood tide using a Marsh- McBurney flow meter. Instantaneous flow velocity was measured, however a due to the high flow velocities, an accurate total flow was not obtained. Post project flow volume was estimated per Department of Ecology standard methodology for measuring stream-flow by taking series of flow measurements. Temperature

4 Water temperature north and south of project site was monitored using continuous temperature loggers set at the same tidal elevation. However, a direct comparison of temperatures north and south of the culverts could not be made since data loggers were lost prior to retrieval. Fish Sampling Sites Pre-project a total of six beach seining sites were sampled; three on the North Side of the roadway and three on the South Side of the roadway, as depicted in Figure3. The sites were fairly uniform in terms of substrate, which was predominantly mixed fine (mud + sand) within the area sampled. On the north side the upper tidal elevation was mixed gravel and cobble. On the south side the upper tidal elevation was rip rap. Post project, most of the roadbed had been removed and sites were chosen southwest, northwest, northeast and southeast of the bridge (Figure 4). Figure 3 Pre-project seining sites (approximate). Figure 4 Post-project seining sites (approximate). Sampling Gear In 2013 a 37-m long beach seine of the standard Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) design was deployed with the following dimensions: 18-m long by 2-m high wings of 3-cm black stretch mesh, and a bag 2-m high by 2.4-m wide by 2.3-m deep of 0.6 cm green stretch mesh. The top rope of the net was kept at the surface by bullet floats spaced at approximately 1-m intervals. The bottom edge of the net was held down by a solid-core lead line. The tow ropes were 30-m long and made of floating polypropylene. We deployed the beach seine approximately 30 m from shore and parallel to the beach, using a rowboat and three to four field crew. One or two individuals stood on shore holding the 30-m rope attached to one end of the net until the reversing boat had pulled the rope taut. Once the rope was taut, the rower fed the net from the stern of the boat into the water in an arc parallel to shore. The rope on the opposite end of the net was then rowed stern-first to shore. On each end of the net, teams of two individuals spaced about 40 m apart on shore then pulled the net toward shore at a steady rate. When the net was approximately 10 m from shore, the two teams moved together (within 10 m of each other) closing down the net. Two individuals waded out to grab the poles, ensuring that the lead line stayed on the bottom during the last 10 m of retrieval. Once the poles were on shore, the net was then brought onto shore with two standing people pulling on either end of the float line and two kneeling people simultaneously pulling in

5 the two lead lines. In 2013 sampling was led by Dave Shreffler of Shreffler Environmental with assistance from Jamestown S Klallam Tribe staff. In 2014 Jamestown S Klallam Tribe staff led the seining effort. In 2014 a larger seine was acquired and deployed due to concerns that the smaller seine deployed in 2013 was not reaching the bottom for a substantial amount of the retrieval time thereby allowing fish to escape under the net. This seine was deeper and longer, measuring 120 (36.6m) long by 12 (3.7m) deep with a 1/8 (0.3cm) mesh size. A 16ft skiff was used to deploy this seine, but otherwise deployment and retrieval was similar to the smaller net. A crew of 5 to 6 was found to be ideal for pulling the net and processing the catch in a timely manner. Sampling Frequency During the March to May outmigration period of juvenile chum salmon from Jimmycomelately Creek, we sampled on the following dates: March 19, April 15, and May 7, Due to construction activity we were unable to seine after this date. We selected actual sampling dates based on optimal tidal conditions which occurred when the predicted tide for the Sequim Bay entrance was between approximately +7 ft MLLW and +4 ft MLLW. Sampling within this tidal range was essential to avoid dragging captured fish through shallow water and mud. Post project we again sampled during these same tidal heights but were able to sample earlier and later in the year. We sampled January 29 th, February 14 th, February 28 th, March 12 th, April 7 th, May 6 th, June 3 rd and August 8 th in Data Recording On each sampling date, the data recorder made note of the time of day, water temperature, salinity, weather conditions, and habitat characteristics on a standard, waterproof data form. We also took digital photos to document our sampling methods, gear types, and fish catches. Catch Processing Following each beach seine set, we made a quick visual estimate of the size of the catch, in order to determine whether we could process the entire catch or needed to process a subsample. We made every effort to process the catch quickly and efficiently to minimize handling and stress to the captured fish. When possible, ESA-listed salmon species were processed first. In instances where sedating juvenile salmon was necessary to calm them down and measure them, we used MS-222. Measured juvenile salmon were then put in covered 5-gallon recovery buckets with battery-operated air stones to keep the water as well oxygenated and cool as possible. When subsampling was necessary, we took several random (i.e., not species or size selective) dip nets out of the seine collection bag. We then transferred the subsample to buckets and processed the fish as outlined below. We identified each individual fish to species and recorded fork lengths (mm) for to several hundred of each salmon species. We did not measure any non-salmon species except smelt and herring. All fish (salmon and non-salmon) were released alive. There was no intentional lethal take of ESA-listed species as part of this study. Strategy for Minimizing Potential Mortality of ESA-Listed Species The following methods were used to minimize mortality of ESA-listed species (in particular, Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound Chinook). If the take thresholds specified in our sampling permit (0 chinook fry, 30 chum fry) was exceeded at any time, all sampling would have stopped. This did not occur. Our strategy for minimizing mortality was:

6 If possible, ESA-listed species were always processed first. Handling of all fish, and especially salmon, was minimized. When possible, fish were counted in the water and released directly from the net without handling. When handling of fish was necessary, wet hands and/or small aquarium dip nets were used. Fish were not handled with bare, dry hands. With larger catches, juvenile salmon were sedated using MS-222 prior to measuring fork lengths. The salmon were then transferred immediately into recovery buckets with lids and air stones. Recovery bucket where then emptied back into the water gently well away from the seine net. Results Fish utilization: We caught a total of 6824 salmon and a total of 17,301 fish through 51 seine sets in 2013 and The most common fish caught were various cottids (sculpin) with 6037 individuals followed by pink salmon with 5311 caught. Salmon caught are summarized in Table 1. Fish utilization by species is shown in Figures 5-8. Figures 5 and 6 show fish species caught preproject with north being inside the impoundment created by the roadbed and culverts. Figures 7 and 8 show fish species caught after the roadbed was removed. Figures 9 and 11 show the types and number of salmon caught each sampling day in 2013 and Table 1: Salmon Species Common name Pre-project north side of culverts Pre-project south side of culverts Post-project north side of bridge Post-project south side of bridge Number caught Catch per unit effort Number caught Catch per unit effort Number caught Catch per unit effort Number caught Chum Pink Coho 2.12 Chinook Cutthroat Number of seine sets Catch per unit effort Chum were the most numerous salmon in 2013 whereas pink were the most numerous salmon in Fewer chum were caught in 2014 than in 2013 even though there were nearly twice as many seine sets in Shiner perch, saddleback and prickleback gunnels were more numerous in 2014 than in (figures 5-8).

7 flatfish, 10 stickleback, 35 juvenile flatfish, 29 Chum, 55 Pink, 3 Cutthroat, 5 Smelt (larvae), 7 Smelt Juvenile, 2 Sandlance, 33 Smelt Juvenile, 20 Smelt, 42 juvenile flatfish, 15 stickleback, 6 Smelt (larvae), 119 Sculpins, 130 sandlance (juv), 6 saddleback gunnel, 18 Chinook, 1 Pink, 46 Sculpins, 168 Chum, 1252 Figure 5 Species breakdown of fish caught north of the culverts pre-project. Total number caught 321 in 9 seine sets. Figure 6 Species breakdown for fish caught south of the culverts pre-project (2013). Total number of fish caught in 9 seine sets: 1698 gunnel, 154 prickleback gunnel, 318 saddleback gunnel, 510 flatfish, 131 juvenile flatfish, 170 cuddlefish, 3 stickleback, 156 unid Cottidea, 5 shiner perch, 1221 pipefish, 15 Chum, 128 Coho, 2 Pink, 969 Sculpins, 2956 Figure 7 Species breakdown north of bridge postproject fish caught in 17 seine sets. Chinook, 4 Cutthroat, 7 Smelt, 464 Smelt Juvenile, 33 Herring, 5 Sandlance, 2 sandlance (juv) 5 flatfish 22 stickleback 8 saddleback gunnel 37 juvenile flatfish 31 Sculpins 2783 Sandlance 1 gunnel 9 prickleback unid gunnel 4 juvenile rockfish 1 Figure 8 Fish species breakdown south of bridge post project individual fish caught in 16 seine sets. In addition to the fish caught and counted we observed juvenile salmon when conditions allowed. On March 12 th, 2014, large numbers (>1000) of juvenile salmon (most likely pink shiner perch 771 unid Cottidea 4 Chum 59 Pink 4293 Smelt Juvenile 1

8 Pink Cutthroat and/or chum) were observed in the tidal channel north east of the bridge. Hundreds were observed swimming under the bridge s eastern half where there is shallow habitat. Hundreds of juvenile salmon were observed using Washington Harbor north and south of the bridge, freely swimming under it on May 6 th, Salmon caught per sampling date Chum /19/13 4/15/13 5/7/13 8 Ch in oo k 1 4 Pink Coho Chinook Cutthroat Figure 9 Salmon caught per sampling trip in all seine both north and south of pre-project. Note logarithmic axis. Six seine sets per sampling trip- three on each side of the culverts. In 2013 the greatest number of salmon caught on a single day were the 1092 chum caught on April 15 th, of these, all except two, were caught south of the culverts (Figure 9). One cutthroat was caught on April 15 th and four were caught on May 7 th all of them north of the culverts. One chinook was caught on May 7 th south of the culverts.

9 Salmon caught per sampling date /29/2014 2/14/2014 2/28/2014 3/12/2014 4/7/2014 5/6/2014 6/3/2014 8/7/2014 Chum Pink Coho Chinook Cutthroat Figure 10 Salmon caught in all seines sets per sampling day. Note logarithmic scale. Number of seines sets per day: n=3 for 1/29, 5/6, 6/3 and 8/7; n=4 for 2/28; n=6 for 2/14, 3/12 and 4/7. In 2014 no salmon were caught on January 29 th and August 7 th (Figure 11). On March 12 th and May 6 th thousands of pink salmon were caught with 2423 and 2694 respectively. The most chum salmon (129) were caught on May 6 th along with seven cutthroat and two coho. The cutthroat ranged in size from 135 to 182mm and the coho were 142mm and 172mm. The coho and cutthroat were caught in the same seine set northwest of the bridge. Four chinook were caught north of the bridge on June 3 rd and measured between 59 and 79mm. Flow Velocity Pre-project: Flow was measured during ebb tide with a tidal drop of 1ft/hr. Flow velocity ranged from 5.57 ft/s to 4.17ft/sec in the eastern culvert and the depth was estimated at 3ft. In the western culvert flow velocity measured between 2.9 and 3.14 ft/sec with an estimated depth of 4ft. Post project: Flow velocity was measured at seven points under the bridge and ranged from 0.09 to 0.23 ft/sec with a depth ranging from 1 to 6 feet. Using the as-built diagrams for the bridge and the flow taken at the midpoint between each piling a rough estimate of total flow volume under the bridge can be reached of 243 cfs. Temperature The temperature logger placed north of the site pre-project was lost while it was deployed. Temperature loggers were then redeployed. After retrieval it was found the one of the loggers malfunctioned and no usable data could be attained. This series of events did not allow for any direct comparison of data from the control (south site) with the restoration site.

10 Discussion The goal of the Washington Harbor restoration project was to increase habitat for juvenile salmon, in particular ESA listed juvenile summer chum and chinook salmon. There are several pieces of post-project evidence that show that the project was a success in this regard: juvenile salmon were seen swimming back and forth under the bridge, although more salmon in total were caught south of the bridge more chum were caught north of it, juvenile chinook were found north of the bridge and large numbers of juvenile salmon were seen utilizing tidal channels north of the bridge post project. It is important to note that this monitoring effort was designed as a fish presence study rather than a quantitate study, however the data is informative and suggestive for fish usage of the estuary, outmigration timing and overall fish species composition in Washington Harbor. Direct observations of fish swimming under the bridge, especially the shallow water habitat under the eastern half indicate that the bridge is allowing juvenile salmon to swim into and out of the northern section of Washington Harbor. This is also supported by the flow data that shows that flow velocities were reduced from 3-5ft/sec through the culverts to 0.23 to 0.09 ft/sec. under the bridge. 0.6 to 0.9foot/sec is considered a velocity barrier to juvenile chum (Smith and Carpenter, 1987). Observation of large numbers (estimated in the thousands) of juvenile salmon using the tidal channels northeast of the bridge also indicate that they are now able to access the northern section of the marsh. Although the overall number was low (4 individuals) the presence of juvenile chinook (all unfinclipped wild) in the northern section of the harbor was also encouraging. It can be stated that goal of increasing habitat for juvenile salmon has been achieved. The success of the project is also supported by analyses of the juvenile chum catch data (Table 2). Pre-project 22.8 times more chum were caught per seine set in the control sites south of the road than were found north of the project site (Table 2). Post- project twice the number of juvenile chum were found north of the project site than south of it. Table 2 CPUE* Chum South CPUE Chum North Ratio CPUE South: North Pre-project Post- project *Catch per unit effort (per seine set) The only path pre-project for juvenile chum to enter the northern section of the estuary was to swim through the culverts at a slack tide or to be swept through the culverts on a flood tide. Once

11 juvenile salmon were in the northern section of the estuary, in order to continue their migration, they either needed to find their way through the culverts at a slack tide or be swept back out by an ebb tide. Also found north of culverts were cutthroat trout which prey on juvenile salmon. The overall number of salmon caught south of the bridge (4352) in 2014 was more than that caught north (1110) of the bridge, however the overall ratio of salmon caught south versus north decreased from 20.6 pre-project to 3.92 post -project. A confounding factor is that large number of pink salmon present in the estuary in 2014 due, most likely to the large run (estimated at 409,000) in the Dungeness River the previous fall compared to an estimated 8000 summer chum spawning in Jimmycomelately Creek- the nearest chum stream. Chum salmon were found mixed with pink salmon in the seine and were likely schooling with them. Overall we found fewer chum in 2014 than in 2013 (187 versus 1307) even though the number of seine sets increased. Perhaps this is a reflection of the much higher proportion of pink salmon in the system versus the number of chum. These results illustrate the importance of this newly opened habitat for, not only the ESA listed summer chum, but also pink salmon out-migrants and other species of fish including smelt, herring and sand lance. Time of maximum use of Washington Harbor by juvenile chum and pinks is in the March through May time period (Figures 7 and 9). Fewer salmon were caught in February and June with none in late January or early August. Our visual observations of large schools of juvenile salmon in March and May back this fish usage window. Chum also increased in size later in the season (Appendix 1). Appendix 1 contains size distribution graphs of the juvenile chum caught. Cutthroat were found in May of both years and were large enough that they were most likely preying on the smaller chum and pinks. The coho were also caught in May. A single chinook was captured in May of 2013 and four were captured in June of 2014, these too were large enough to be preying on the smaller species of salmon in the estuary although they may have also been preying on smelt or other forage fish. The size of the Chinook (59mm to 79 mm) is similar to the size distribution of wild chinook subyearlings found in the Dungeness River estuary in 2007 (Sather 2008). These chinook were not fin-clipped and were most likely wild (not hatchery). Sources of error in this report include the use of different seines between the two sample years, some variability of sampling sites and the general patchy distribution of schooling fish. The use of the larger and deeper seine would lead to a presumed increase in catch rate as well as a larger catch area. This use of deeper net may be expressed in the data by the huge increase in the capture of saddleback and prickleback gunnels, which are bottom dwelling fish, in the second year of the study (Figures 5-8). It could also be that these fish moved into newly available habitat north of the bridge after the project. In 2013 seines were set along the base of the riprap on either side of the roadbed. Since the roadbed was largely removed in the restoration project seines were set along the shoreline to the northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast of the bridge (Figure 4). The generally patchy distribution of the schools of juvenile chum and pinks was noticed when we would sometimes pull up a seine devoid of salmon only to see large schools swimming

12 nearby. If we caught a fish we proved that type of fish was present but the lack of fish in a seine set did not prove that the fish were not using an area. The use of multiple seine sets helped even out this variability. Also, on days of direct visual observations of large numbers of salmon there were also large numbers of salmon caught in at least some of seine sets (indeed in May we reduced the number of seine sets from six to three due to the large amount of time it took to process the catch). If this study was repeated to get a stronger quantitative indication of salmon usage more frequent seine sampling days would be recommended. This would also help to gain a stronger understand of salmon outmigration timing. Inter-annual variability could also be reduced by using the same seining sites and equipment from year to year. There is concern that part of the reason that we caught so many fish at the site southwest of the bridge was because fish were schooled up there avoiding the deeper water along the remaining riprap along the west abutment for the bridge. The two highest catches of schools of pink and chum occurred at this site: 2423 in March, 2014 and 1889 in May, Juvenile salmon access to the northern part estuary may have been further improved with the removal of all of the riprap and fill back to the natural western shoreline. This would have allowed movement of juvenile chum in through their preferred shallow water habitat along both the western and eastern shoreline of Washington Harbor. Further monitoring of vegetation changes, eelgrass reestablishment and fish usage are recommended to gauge the long term effectiveness of this project. Aerial photography analyses is scheduled for five years post project to determine any changes in the shoreline and vegetation type in the northern section of Washington Harbor as well as determine if the inlet of the estuary to Sequim Bay increases in size.

13 Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the volunteer help we received seining from Cheri Scalf and Al Davis (WDFW) and Emily Larson, Mesa Maddux and Oliver Lawrence (Sequim High School). This project would not have been possible without the cooperation and permission from the landowners: Mark Burrows and Charlie, Matthew and Gaylord Kellogg. References Haring, Donald, December 1999, Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors Water Resources Inventory Area 18 Final Report, Washington Conservation Commission Sather, Nicole Oct 31, Aspects of the Early Life History of Juvenile Salmon in the Dungeness River Estuary. Master Thesis. Oregon State University Todd, Steve, N. Fitzpatrick, A. Carter-Mortimer, and C. Weller. December Historical Changes to Estuaries, Spits, and Associated Tidal Wetland Habitats in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Regions of Washington State, Final Report. PNPTC Technical Report 06-1

14 % of Total Fish Measured % of Total Fish Measured Appendix A: Salmon size distribution figures 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Length in mm(smoothed by 5's) -20% /12/2014 0% 56% 25% 13% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4/7/2014 0% 0% 15% 38% 31% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5/6/2014 0% 3% 6% 34% 22% 22% 9% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 6/3/2014 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% % of Total Composite 0% 7% 12% 10% 13% 15% 18% 13% 7% 2% 0% 1% 0% Figure A1: Post- project 2014 juvenile chum salmon length frequency distribution expressed as percent of total catch. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% Length in mm(smoothed by 5's) /19/13 North 4% 39% 43% 9% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3/19/13 South 0% 0% 6% 12% 29% 18% 18% 12% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4/15/13 North 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4/15/13 South 0% 13% 26% 18% 18% 10% 9% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5/7/13 North 0% 0% 0% 13% 9% 0% 6% 22% 25% 13% 0% 9% 3% 5/7/13 South 0% 1% 2% 4% 12% 23% 30% 17% 9% 2% 0% 0% 0% % of Total Composite 0% 7% 12% 10% 13% 15% 18% 13% 7% 2% 0% 1% 0% Figure A2: Pre-project 2013 juvenile chum salmon length frequency distribution expressed as percent of total catch.