Presentation to Nisqually River Council, January 2019

1. DYNAMIC HABITAT MODELS FOR
ESTUARY-DEPENDENT SPECIES
Melanie Davis
University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, USGSWestern
Ecological Research Center
With collaborators:
IsaWoo, Susan De La Cruz (USGS)
Glynnis Nakai (USFWS)
Chris Ellings, Sayre Hodgson (NisquallyTribe)

2. COASTAL HABITAT CHANGE

3. ESTUARINE RESTORATION
(Elliott et al. 2016)
Pristine Degraded
Restoring Restored?

4. CLIMATE IMPACTS
Peterson et al. 1998, Gunderson 2000

5. Restoration
?Degradation
Climate change

6. Restoration
?Degradation
Climate change

7. Photo: Russ McMillan

8. Offshore
Nearshore
Delta Flats
Emergent Marsh
Transition
Forested Riverine
Freshwater Tidal
2009
2002
1996
2006
Puget Sound
Washington, USA
N
Weinstein et al. 2013: “Restoration planners should and must view
restoration goals in the context of the full estuarine mosaic”

9. Pilot (1996)
Phase I (2002)
Phase III (2009)
Phase II (2006)
2005

10. Pilot (1996)
Phase I (2002)
Phase III (2009)
Phase II (2006)
2010

11. Pilot (1996)
Phase I (2002)
Phase III (2009)
Phase II (2006)
2015

12. OBJECTIVES
 1) Model change in the restoring habitat mosaic through time
 2) Determine prey availability in each habitat type
 3) Figure out which prey taxa are being consumed by juvenile
Chinook salmon and in what quantity
 4) Use a bioenergetics model to estimate the “quality” of
estuarine habitat as the mosaic shifts

13. OBJECTIVES
 1) Model change in the restoring habitat mosaic through time
 2) Determine prey availability in each habitat type
 3) Figure out which prey taxa are being consumed by juvenile
Chinook salmon and in what quantity
 4) Use a bioenergetics model to estimate the “quality” of
estuarine habitat as the mosaic shifts
?

14. CHAPTE
R 1
Cahoon et al. 2009

15. Chapter 1

17. Marani et al. 2007. Alternative stable elevations in a
vegetated salt marsh

18. No management actions Intermittent dredging
Raised marsh platform 1 m
Moderate Sea-level Rise (0.63 m by 2100)
Doubled sediment inputs

19. No management actions Intermittent dredging
Doubled sediment inputs Raised marsh platform 1 m
High Sea-level Rise (1.35 m by 2100)

20. OBJECTIVES
 1) Model change in the restoring habitat mosaic through time
 2) Determine prey availability in each habitat type
 3) Figure out which prey taxa are being consumed by juvenile
Chinook salmon and in what quantity
 4) Use a bioenergetics model to estimate the “quality” of
estuarine habitat as the mosaic shifts

22. Plum Island LTER

24. Salt MarshForested Transition Mudflat Eelgrass

25. Davis et al. 2018 (in review)

26. Davis et al. 2018 (in review)

27. 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
< 60 61-80 81-90 91-100 >100
Stomachenergycontent(kJ)
Size class
Unmarked Hatchery
*
*

28. OBJECTIVES
 1) Model change in the restoring habitat mosaic through time
 2) Determine prey availability in each habitat type
 3) Figure out which prey taxa are being consumed by juvenile
Chinook salmon and in what quantity
 4) Use a bioenergetics model to estimate the “quality” of
estuarine habitat as the mosaic shifts

29. Brandt et al. 1992
Temperature
Prey density
Growth potential
Spring Summer

30. Luo et al. 2001

31. Budy et al. 2011

32. CHAPTER 4

33. May June July
MTL
MHW

34. 2%
6%
4%
6%
5%
∑ = ?
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT GROWTH
POTENTIAL

35. SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT GROWTH
POTENTIAL

36. APPLICATIONS BEYOND SALMON

37. APPLICATIONS BEYOND SALMON

38. APPLICATIONS BEYOND SALMON

39. PARTNERS AND COLLABORATORS
USGSWERC: Lennah Shakeri, Sierra Blakely,Angie Munguia, Larisa Lamere, Anna Hissem,
Chase Freeman, KelleyTurner, Lisa Belleveau, Sam Kaviar, JohnTakekawa, Ashley Smith,
Jessica Donald, William Chan, Charlie Norton
USGSWFRC: Kim Larsen, Angie Lind-Null, LisaWetzel, Karl Stenberg, Steve Rubin
Nisqually IndianTribe: Chris Ellings, Sayre Hodgson, Jennifer Cutler,Walker Duval, Emilio
Perez, Aaron David
USFWS: Glynnis Nakai, Jesse Barham, Doug Roster, Marian Bailey, JeanTakekawa
Graduate Supervisory Committee: Dave Beauchamp, Julian Olden, Si Simenstad, Christian
Torgersen