![Page 1: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids?
Blake Feist (NWFSC)
Richard Hicks (NWFSC)
Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC)
Charles Simenstad (UW Fisheries)
![Page 2: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Question
Which is more “important” to Pacific salmon, estuarine or terrestrial habitat?
Both?
![Page 3: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Objective
Compare the “condition” of various chinook and coho populations as a function of the “condition” of their associated estuarine and terrestrial habitats
![Page 4: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Approach
Assess population “condition” at a local scale Annual population growth rates (Lambda)
Assess habitat “condition” at a landscape scale Estuarine: loss or gain of estuarine salt marsh
vegetation Terrestrial: loss or gain of various land cover and
land use types
![Page 5: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Population Condition
![Page 6: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Population Time Series
1978 – 2000 By age structure: adult, jack, sub-adult Chinook Coho Lambda
Mean yearly growth rate of a population If > 1, reproducing faster than dying If < 1, dying faster than reproducing
![Page 7: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
More on Lambda
Dennis-Holmes method based on Holmes 2001 and Dennis et al. 1991
“Markedly robust to severe sampling error” “Allows estimates of rates and risks of
population decline with a well established tool (diffusion approximations) by using age- or stage-specific censuses that are corrupted with sampling error”
![Page 8: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Estuarine Habitat
![Page 9: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Definition & Sources
Salt Marsh: percent habitat remaining on grassland areas bordering estuaries to landward extent of salt marsh vegetation National Wetland Inventory - estuarine vegetation classifications; Collins and Sheikh Report 2003 for NWFSC; Topographic & Hydrographic Sheets (t-sheets, h-sheets)
Intertidal: percent estuarine habitat remaining from ~EHW to ~ELW for any given delta Simenstad et al. 1982 (synthesis of several older sources); Simenstad unpubl; Bortleson et al. 1980; Good 2000 (unpubl. Estuarine Ecosystem Health Summary Report); Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2003 (synthesis); Topographic & Hydrographic Sheets (t-sheets, h-sheets)
![Page 10: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Why salt marsh & not intertidal? Intertidal describes area
of MLLW to MHHW, and accuracy of assessment was poor;
In many places true loss of vegetation is masked;
Don’t need all those damn h-sheets!
![Page 11: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Comparison of Marsh & Intertidal Methods
Average % Loss Marsh = 70.8 ± 31.8 (n = 14) Average % Loss Intertidal = 50.5 ± 33.3 (n = 14) Relationship with methods?
r2 = 0.58
![Page 12: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Everett Harbor
- Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ)
![Page 13: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Everett Harbor
Current Conditions
- Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ)- National Wetland Inventory shapefiles- System: Estuarine- Subsystem: Intertidal- Class: Emergent, Scrub-shrub, Forested
![Page 14: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Everett Harbor
Current Conditions
- Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ)- New shapefile delineating NWI classes
![Page 15: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Everett Harbor
Historical Conditions
- Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ)- T-sheet georeferenced to DOQs
![Page 16: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Everett Harbor
Historical Conditions
- T-sheet- Best available historical information- In this case, figure from Collins Report 2003 for NWFSC
![Page 17: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Everett Harbor
Historical Conditions
- T-sheet- Best available historical information- New shapefile delineating historical conditions
![Page 18: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Everett Harbor
Determining Percent Habitat Change
Percent Change = current area – historical area / historical area * 100 %
= 58.6 ac – 385.2 ac/385.2 ac* 100 %
~ 85 %
![Page 19: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Terrestrial Habitat
![Page 20: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Definition
Percent change in given habitat category over the catchment draining into a given estuary *
Based on Northwest Habitat Institute Wildlife-Habitat Types
* By 6-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC6) that stream flows through
![Page 21: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Washington Northwest Habitat Institute Wildlife Types
![Page 22: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Northwest Habitat Institute (NWHI)Agriculture, Pasture, & Mixed EnvironsAlpine Grasslands & ShrublandsBays & EstuariesCeanothus-Manzanita ShrublandsCoastal Dunes and BeachesCoastal Headlands and IsletsEastside (Interior) GrasslandsEastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer ForestEastside (Interior) Riparian WetlandsHerbaceous WetlandsLakes, Rivers, Ponds, and ReservoirsLodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands
Marine NearshoreMontane Coniferous WetlandsMontane Mixed Conifer ForestPonderosa Pine & Eastside White Oak Forest & WoodlandsSouthwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood ForestSubalpine ParklandUrban and Mixed EnvironsShrub-SteppeWestside GrasslandsWestside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood ForestWestside Oak & Dry Douglas-Fir Forest & WoodlandsWestside Riparian Wetlands
![Page 23: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Historic and Current – Snohomish
HUC6 for Chinook PopulationsMontane Mixed Conifer ForestAgriculture, Pasture, & Mixed EnvironsLakes, Rivers, Ponds, & ReservoirsWestside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood ForestUrban & Mixed EnvironsAlpine Grasslands & ShrublandsWestside Oak & Dry Douglas-Fir Forest & WoodlandsHerbaceous WetlandsBays & EstuariesWestside Riparian-WetlandsSubalpine Parkland
““Pre-Settlement”Pre-Settlement” ““Current”Current”
![Page 24: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Historic and Current – Everett Harbor
Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skykomish, Pilchuck, & Wallace Rivers
Agriculture, Pasture, & Mixed EnvironsAgriculture, Pasture, & Mixed Environs 65.9%
Urban & Mixed EnvironsUrban & Mixed Environs 33.0%33.0%
Montane Mixed Conifer ForestMontane Mixed Conifer Forest 29.5%
Subalpine ParklandSubalpine Parkland 2.4%
Montane Coniferous WetlandsMontane Coniferous Wetlands 1.0%
Bays & EstuariesBays & Estuaries 0.3%
Westside Oak & Dry Douglas-Fir Forest & WoodlandsWestside Oak & Dry Douglas-Fir Forest & Woodlands 0.0%
Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, & ReservoirsLakes, Rivers, Ponds, & Reservoirs -2.2%
Alpine Grasslands & ShrublandsAlpine Grasslands & Shrublands -5.4%
Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood ForestWestside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest -22.1%
Herbaceous WetlandsHerbaceous Wetlands -49.8%
Westside Riparian-WetlandsWestside Riparian-Wetlands -53.4%
![Page 25: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Results:Terrestrial Habitat
![Page 26: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Wests ideLowlandsConifer-
HardwoodFores t
Wests ideOak & Dry
Douglas-firFores t &
Woodlands
MontaneMixed
ConiferFores t
LodgepolePine Fores t
&Woodlands
SubalpineParklands
AlpineGrass lands
&Shrublands
Wests ideGrass lands
Agriculture,Pasture, &
MixedEnvirons
Urban &Mixed
Environs
Lakes,Rivers ,
Ponds, &Reservoirs
HerbaceousWetlands
Wests ideRiparian-Wetlands
MontaneConiferousWetlands
NWHI Wildlife Category
Me
an
Ch
an
ge
Change in Wildlife-Habitat Types
All Chinook Populations in Washington
![Page 27: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Chinook & Coho Lambda vs. Change in Agriculture, Pasture, & Mixed Environs
R2 = 0.001
R2 = 0.0077
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Agriculture, Pasture, & Mixed Environs Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1)Linear (Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1)
![Page 28: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Chinook and Coho Lambda vs. Change in Herbaceous Wetlands
R2 = 0.0129
R2 = 0.0371
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10%
Herbaceous Wetlands Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1)Linear (Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1)
![Page 29: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Chinook and Coho Lambda vs. Change in Urban & Mixed Environs
R2 = 0.007
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Urban & Mixed Environs Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1
Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1
Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda< 1)
![Page 30: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Chinook & Coho Lambda vs. Change in Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest
R2 = 0.0666
R2 = 9E-05
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1)Linear (Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1)
![Page 31: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Chinook and Coho Lambda vs. Change in Westside Riparian Wetlands
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
Westside Riparian Wetland Change
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1
Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1
![Page 32: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Results: Estuarine Habitat
![Page 33: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Chinook and Coho Lambda vs. Estuarine Habitat Loss
R2 = 0.0472
R2 = 0.0887
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Estuarine Habitat Loss
Mea
n P
rob
abili
ty L
amb
da
< 1
Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1Linear (Mean Probability Chinook Lambda < 1)Linear (Mean Probability Coho Lambda < 1)
![Page 34: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Estuarine Habitat Loss and Lambda
R2 = 0.0438
0
1
2
3
4
5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Estuarine Habitat Loss (%)
Lam
bd
a
![Page 35: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Conclusions
Amount of remaining estuarine habitat seems important
Terrestrial habitat does not appear to be as important
![Page 36: The Estuary vs. the Watershed: Which Matters More for Anadromous Salmonids? Blake Feist (NWFSC) Richard Hicks (NWFSC) Jonathan Hoekstra (NWFSC) Charles](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081421/5697bfd51a28abf838cad1e9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Next Steps
Finish estuarine habitat loss assessment Finish assessing terrestrial habitat “condition”
at local scale Assess terrestrial habitat “condition” using
static categories Run appropriate statistical tests for
significance