Seminar 6, May 8. Linking salmon to nearshore and estuaring habitat characteristics
The session goals are to identify important features of estuarine/marine habitat to include in models, including the relationship between salmon population status and estuarine/marine habitat quantity or quality; e.g., effects of estuarine and nearshore habitat attributes on salmon at different life stages, and 2) discuss bounds for scenarios for these features.
Lead Speakers:
Charles Simenstad, University of Washington
Charles A. ("Si") Simenstad (simenstd@u.washington.edu), Research Associate Professor at the University of Washington's School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences (SAFS), is an estuarine and coastal marine ecologist and Coordinator of the Wetland Ecosystem Team (WET). Si has studied estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems throughout Puget Sound, the Washington coast, and Alaska for over thirty years. Much of this research has focused on the functional role of estuarine and coastal habitats to support juvenile Pacific salmon and other fish and wildlife, and the associated ecological interactions that are responsible for enhancing their production and life history diversity. His research concerns primarily natural (e.g., basic) ecosystem-, community- and habitat-level interactions, with emphasis on predator-prey relationships, the sources, organization and flow of organic matter through food webs, and landscape-scale interaction between estuarine circulation and ecological processes. Recent research has integrated ecosystem dynamics with applied issues such as restoration, creation and enhancement of estuarine and coastal wetland ecosystems, and ecological approaches to evaluating the success of coastal wetland restoration at ecosystem and landscape scales. He holds a B.S. (1969) and M.S. (1971) from the School of Fisheries at the University of Washington.
Kurt L. Fresh, National Marine Fisheries Service
Kurt Fresh (klfwineo@seanet.com) is currently a Research Scientist working for the National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center. He recently started at NMFS after working in the Science Division of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for most of the last 25 years. At WDFW Kurt was involved in research and development related activities; Kurt has also been employed as a consultant and a biologist with the University of Washington. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of the Pacific in Central California and a M.S. in Fisheries from the University of Washington.
Throughout his professional career, Kurt's research has focused primarily on the life history and ecology of juvenile salmon in stream, lake, estuarine, and nearshore habitats of Western Washington. His research in estuarine and nearshore areas has included studies throughout Puget Sound and in Washington coastal estuaries. He has investigated effects of the exotic plant Spartina on estuarine fish communities in Willapa Bay, food habitats of juvenile salmon and their potential competitors and predators in Puget Sound, how applications of chemicals to control exotic species affects plant and animal communities, the trophic linkages between eelgrass and juvenile salmon in Puget Sound, and the effects of the Grays Harbor estuary on the survival of juvenile coho salmon. In stream habitats, Kurt has investigated effects of urbanization on stream fish communities, effects of predation on outmigating juvenile salmon, and how to improve post release survival of hatchery fish. Kurt has used radio telemetry to study the estuarine and freshwater migratory behavior of adult chinook salmon destined to spawn in the Lake Washington Watershed.
In recent years, Kurt has been a leader of multi agency efforts investigating reasons for the decline in abundance of the sockeye salmon and chinook salmon populations in the Lake Washington Watershed. His most recent work has been studying: 1) how to mitigate effects of overwater structures on eelgrass in the nearshore area of Puget Sound, 2) how development of the shoreline of Lake Washington affects predation by smallmouth bass on juvenile salmonids, 3) use of nearshore, estuarine habitats in Shilshole Bay and Sinclair Inlet by juvenile salmonids, 4) use of the Lake Washington environment by juvenile Chinook, and 5) the life history and ecology of hatchery and wild origin sockeye salmon in the Cedar River.
Student Questions:
Simenstad
1) Once estuarine habitats have been removed or extensively modified by development, how successfully can their functionality as salmon rearing habitats be restored (can you rewind the function of estuarine areas, once disturbed)? Is restoration of moderate to highly disturbed estuarine areas an effective use of management dollars, or would these funds be better spent limiting development and modification of less disturbed estuarine areas?
2) Can you discuss to what level researchers have been able to quantify the effects of individual factors on the estuarine environment (on smolt survival) and distinguish salmon estuarine survival from marine survival. Are more studies needed in this area? In what areas are we missing information, i.e what types of studies should be prioritized to understand and enhance estuarine survival of juvenile salmonids?
Fresh
1) We know that something on the order of 70% of Puget Sound estuarine wetland areas have been lost to development, but we have seen some large recent runs of chum salmon in the south Puget Sound area. In other areas, like Hood Canal, chum salmon remain listed and returns relatively low. Can we correlate the drainages with greater chum returns with available estuarine areas, or are other factors at work?
2) Much of your recent work has involved chinook salmon in Lake Washington. Juvenile chinook spend a significant period of time rearing in Lake Washington before moving into estuarine areas, a somewhat unusual behavior for the species. Are these fish substituting the lake environment for an estuarine rearing habitat (are the two areas serving similar ecological functions?). Do Lake Washington Chinook spent a correspondingly lesser time in estuarine areas than other chinook populations that do not pass through a lake environment during their outmigration?
3) Can you contrast patterns of use and relative importance of estuarine areas to chum and fall chinook populations in Puget Sound?