NSEA Salmon Spawning Grounds Surveys 2013REPORT+-+FINAL.pdf2013 NSEA Spawning Grounds Survey Report...

2013 NSEA Spawning Grounds Survey Report

Conducted in Selected WRIA 1

Nooksack River and Independent

Drainages.

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement

Association

NSEA Salmon Spawning Grounds Surveys 2013



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Program Manager:

Annitra Ferderer

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Monitoring Coordinator:

Katie Duane

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Intern Surveyors:

Brandon Osterlund, James Berntson, Amy Oppfelt, Sarah Sekijima, Casey Pruitt

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Volunteer Surveyors:

Victor Andreson

Bellingham Technical College Fisheries and Aquaculture students

Data Management/Report Compilation:

Katie Duane, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association

Henry Kei, BTC

Brandon Osterlund

James Berntson

Amy Oppfelt

Sarah Sekijima

Casey Pruitt

Thank you to the NSEA volunteers who provided valuable time, support and

knowledge to this project. We would also like to express our gratitude to the many

landowners who show their support of NSEA’s salmon recovery efforts by allowing

us to conduct spawning grounds surveys on their properties.

Training for surveyors was provided by the WDFW River Stock Assessment Fish

Biologist Natasha Geiger, NSEA Monitoring Coordinator Katie Duane, and BTC

Fisheries Program Instructor Ryan Vasak.

Funding for this project was provided by a WDFW Aquatic Lands Enhancement

Account (ALEA) grant. Other funding for this project was provided by an

appropriation from the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association and generous

contributions from Whatcom County community members.


1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................... 0

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Quantitative Measurements ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.1.1 Live Counts ................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1.2 Redd Counts .............................................................................................................................................. 8

2.1.3 Carcass Documentation............................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Qualitative Measurements .............................................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Survey Reaches ................................................................................................................................................. 9

3.0 Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 Survey Conditions and Effort ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Results by Species ........................................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.1 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ...................................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) .................................................................................................... 18

3.2.3 Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) ....................................................................................................... 19

3.2.4 Uknown Salmonids ................................................................................................................................ 19

3.3 Reach Results and Habitat Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 20

3.3.1 Upper Anderson Creek .......................................................................................................................... 21

3.3.2 Bertrand Creek ........................................................................................................................................ 22

3.3.3 Lower Deer Creek ................................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.4 Upper Deer Creek ................................................................................................................................... 24

3.3.5 Lower Fishtrap Creek ............................................................................................................................. 25


2

3.3.6 Upper Fishtrap Creek ............................................................................................................................. 26

3.3.7 Landingstrip Creek ................................................................................................................................. 27

3.3.8 Landingstrip Creek Tributary ............................................................................................................... 28

3.3.9 Lower Macaulay Creek .......................................................................................................................... 29

3.3.10 Upper Macaulay Creek ........................................................................................................................ 30

3.3.11 Mitchell Creek ....................................................................................................................................... 31

3.3.12 Padden Creek......................................................................................................................................... 32

3.3.13 Silver Springs Creek ............................................................................................................................. 33

3.3.14 Smith Creek ............................................................................................................................................ 34

3.3.15 Squalicum Creek ................................................................................................................................... 35

3.3.16 Tawes Creek ........................................................................................................................................... 36

3.3.17 Terrell Creek .......................................................................................................................................... 37

3.3.18 Tinling Creek ......................................................................................................................................... 38

3.3.19 Lower Whatcom Creek ......................................................................................................................... 39

3.3.20 Upper Whatcom Creek ......................................................................................................................... 40

4.0 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................ 41

4.1 Data Limitations and Caveats ....................................................................................................................... 41

4.2 Notable Redd Counts ..................................................................................................................................... 42

4.3 Historical Trends in Redd Counts ................................................................................................................ 44

4.4 Future Work .................................................................................................................................................... 45

5.0 Past Reports ......................................................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix A. Directions to Spawning Grounds Survey Reach Locations ........................................................ 48

Appendix B. Materials and Equipment ................................................................................................................. 52

Appendix C. WDFW Survey Protocol ................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix D. Scale Card Instructions ..................................................................................................................... 54


3

Appendix E. WDFW Scale Card Example ............................................................................................................. 56

Appendix F. Spawner Survey Photos .................................................................................................................... 57

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of NSEA spawning grounds survey reaches. .............................................................................. 10

Figure 2. Map of NSEA spawning grounds s ....................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3. Nooksack River discharge in cubic feet per second from September 1, 2013, to February 27, 2014.

Data recorded at the Ferndale US Geological Survey Gauging Station and can be obtained at

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=12213100. ................................................................................ 14

Figure 4. The total number of live salmon, dead salmon, and redds of each species depicted as percentage

of total observed during 2013 Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association spawning grounds surveys. . 16

Figure 5. Total Chinook redds observed during NSEA spawning surveys from 1999 to 2013...................... 18

Figure 6. Total Coho redds observed during spawning surveys from 1999 to 2013. ...................................... 18

Figure 7. Total Chum redds observed during spawning surveys from 1999 to 2013...................................... 19

Figure 8. Total redd counts by reach and species observed during 2013 NSEA spawning surveys. ............ 20

Figure 9. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Anderson Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in upper Anderson

Creek during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below). ................................................................................................. 21

Figure 10. The number of live fish counted in Bertrand Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Bertrand Creek during NSEA surveys

since 1999 (below). .................................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 11. The number of live fish counted in the lower reach of Deer Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in lower Deer Creek

during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below). ............................................................................................................ 23

Figure 12. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Deer Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in upper Deer Creek


Figure 13. The number of live fish counted in the lower reach of Fishtrap Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in lower Fishtrap



4

Figure 14. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Fishtrap Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in upper Fishtrap


Figure 15. The number of live fish counted in Landingstrip Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning

surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Landingstrip Creek during

NSEA surveys since 2005 (below). ......................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 16. The number of live fish counted in Landingstrip Creek tributary throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Landingstrip

Creek tributary during NSEA surveys since 2009 (below). ................................................................................ 28

Figure 17. The number of live fish counted in the lower reach of Macaulay Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in lower Macaulay


Figure 18. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Macaulay Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in upper Macaulay


Figure 19. The number of live fish counted in Mitchell Creek tributary throughout 2014 NSEA spawning

surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Mitchell Creek tributary


Figure 20. The number of live fish counted in Padden Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Padden Creek during NSEA surveys

since 2009 (below). .................................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 21. The number of live fish counted in Silver Springs Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning

surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Silver Springs Creek during

NSEA surveys since 1999 (below). ......................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 22. The number of live fish counted in Smith Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Smith Creek during NSEA surveys

since 1999 (below). .................................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 23. The number of live fish by species counted in Squalicum Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys. .................................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 24. The number of live fish counted in Tawes Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Tawes Creek during NSEA surveys

since 2006 (below). .................................................................................................................................................... 36


5

Figure 25. The number of live fish counted in Terrell Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Terrell Creek during NSEA surveys

since 2003 (below). .................................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 26. The number of live fish counted in Tinling Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Tinling Creek during NSEA surveys

since 1999 (below). .................................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 27. The number of live fish counted in the lower reach of Whatcom Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in lower Whatcom


Figure 28. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Whatcom Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in upper Whatcom


Figure 29. The annual total number of coho redds counted in the tributary to Landingstrip Creek during

NSEA surveys since 2009. ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 30. The annual total number of redds by species counted in Upper Fishtrap Creek during NSEA

surveys since 1999. .................................................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 31. The total number of redds observed per species each year during NSEA spawning surveys,

including the 15 year average for each species. Unknown species redds are not shown. .............................. 44

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Table containing stream WRIA Number, River Miles Surveyed, Survey Window, Number of

Surveys, and which organization performed the surveys for each of the 21 reaches. “Spot check” surveys

that consisted of going to the reach and confirming it to be either too turbid or unsafe to survey are not

included in the number of surveys count. ............................................................................................................. 12

Table 2. Number of live and dead salmon and redds by species and reach observed on NSEA spawning

grounds surveys in the fall 2013 season. ............................................................................................................... 15

Table 3. The number of salmon carcasses counted during NSEA 2013 spawning surveys with a clipped,

unmarked, and unknown adipose fin status for each species in each survey region of the Nooksack River

basin. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 4. The number of live and dead pink salmon and pink redds counted during NSEA 2013 spawning

surveys in Nooksack River tributaries and Whatcom County independent drainages. ................................ 17


6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) is a community-based

nonprofit organization dedicated to restoring sustainable wild salmon runs in Whatcom

County. In order to gain more information about the health of local salmon populations

and to monitor the effectiveness of NSEA restoration sites, NSEA staff and volunteers

conduct annual salmon population monitoring.

In the fall of 2013, NSEA conducted spawning grounds surveys for Chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), and chum salmon (O. keta).

Surveyors also counted pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), but because surveys began in

October and the pink runs normally begin in August, the whole run window was not

observed. Pink salmon return every two years, spawning in odd years in the Nooksack

basin. While pink salmon are not a target species of NSEA surveys, they are counted

and recorded if seen during surveys for Chinook, coho, and chum.

Surveys were conducted under the direction of the Department of Fish and Wildlife

(WDFW) in select Nooksack River basin tributaries and independent drainages in

Whatcom County. Information collected supplements salmonid population data that is

collected annually by Nooksack basin fisheries co-managers, including: Lummi Nation,

the Nooksack Indian Tribe, and WDFW. NSEA has conducted spawning grounds

surveys for fifteen years, and this extensive historical data set allows for monitoring

long-term trends at the stream reaches surveyed.

In 2013, NSEA surveyed 20 designated reaches in 15 streams, located in the Water

Resource Inventory Area 1 (WRIA 1). Surveys began in early October and finished mid-

February. Students from Bellingham Technical College’s (BTC) Fisheries and

Aquaculture Sciences program also volunteered with NSEA to conduct surveys in select

reaches. Maps and descriptions of all NSEA survey reaches can be found in Figure 1

and Appendix A. Surveyed streams are located in several regions throughout Whatcom

county, including: the Nooksack River upper main stem, lower main stem, and south

fork, as well as Whatcom County independent drainages (Figure).


7

2.0 METHODS

NSEA spawning grounds survey protocol was developed to meet WDFW reporting

requirements (Appendix C). Surveys were conducted every 7-10 days, depending upon

stream visibility and surveyor availability. Parameters recorded include: temperature,

pH, time in, time out, live count, carcass count, redd count, carcass scale card

information, weather, visibility, and flow. Otolith samples were also recovered from

Chinook carcasses in reaches that NSEA surveyed (BTC surveyors did not collect

otoliths). For a list of which reaches NSEA surveyed, see Table 1. All data, except for

the information on the scale cards, was entered into a NSEA spreadsheet as soon as

possible after the survey. Extreme care was taken to avoid habitat and redd disturbance

by walking around redds or exiting the stream if fish were actively digging redds or if it

was impossible to avoid redds by staying in the stream. If the creek became too deep or

turbid at points, the survey was done from the stream bank. Surveys continued until no

new redds, carcasses, or live fish were seen for two consecutive weeks.

At least two surveyors recorded qualitative and quantitative data on Rite in the Rain®

notebooks during survey, and results were compared at the end to reduce error. Each

member of the survey team was supplied with a complete survey tool kit, so that there

would be backup equipment, in case tools were broken or lost during a survey.

Surveyors wore polarized sunglasses to increase stream visibility and walked upstream

to prevent increased turbidity.

2.1 QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS

Water temperature and pH were measured and recorded at the entry point of each

reach. Temperature was measured with a field thermometer. The pH was measured

using semi-qualitative Hach® water quality pH test strips. Time of entry and exit was

also recorded.

2.1.1 LIVE COUNTS

Live fish were counted and recorded, and the species were identified when possible. A

minimum wait time of 7 days was adhered between surveys to reduce the possibility of

recounting the same live fish. A hand held counting device was used if large quantities

of live fish were found to reduce counting errors. When circumstances did not allow for

accurate identification of a fish, due to the fish swimming into deep pools or hiding

under woody debris, the fish was documented as an “unknown” species.


8

2.1.2 REDD COUNTS

Redd sightings were recorded and identified by fish species. Surveyors tagged each

redd by placing labeled flagging tape on a near-by branch or rock to avoid being

walked on or recounted during future surveys. The flagging tape label included the

following information: redd species, date, organization conducting the survey, and

surveyor’s initials. When circumstances did not allow for accurate identification of the

fish species that constructed the redd, due to no fish on or near the redd, it was

documented as “unknown”. Redds were only counted when both a depression and a

downstream mound of clean, non-compacted substrate were present. Redd sightings

were confirmed by accompanying surveyors to reduce counting errors.

2.1.3 CARCASS DOCUMENTATION

Carcasses were counted and the following information collected: species, sex, fork

length, adipose fin presence or absence, coded wire tag absence or presence, and

spawning state (amount of remaining eggs or milt). Surveyors extracted otoliths from

Chinook salmon carcasses and placed them in a vial with ethanol preservative to be

submitted to the WDFW at the end of the season. Additionally, the carcass count,

species, and otolith vial numbers were recorded in the surveyor’s data notebooks.

Carcass examinations were completed in several steps. First, the scale card information

was completed with the stream name, WRIA number and sub-basin code, date, river

miles, species, sex, adipose fin presence or absence, type of survey (foot), and the

sampler’s initials. Identification of the fish was based on seasonal run times and

defining characteristics of the different salmon species. To confirm the sex, an incision

was made from the vent to the pelvic fins. Evidence of eggs, milt, or the reproductive

organs verified the sex of the fish. If the adipose fin was absent, the carcass was checked

for a coded wire tag (CWT) with a CWT detector wand by placing it near and in the

mouth of the carcass. If the device emitted an audible beep, indicating that a CWT was

present, the head was removed and placed in a plastic bag with a label to be submitted

to the WDFW. Next, three scales from each side of the fish were extracted and placed

onto the scale card. Scales were collected using tweezers and taken ideally from above

the lateral line and posterior of the dorsal fin, depending upon the state of carcass

decay. Care was taken to not flip the scales upside down when transferring to the scale

card to ensure proper reading in the lab. Information on gill and eye conditions was

also recorded to be used as a time of death estimate. Gill condition was noted as red,

pink, grey or unknown (if absent). Eye condition was noted as clear, cloudy, or

unknown. After the data was collected and recorded, the caudal fin (the tail) was cut off


9

to avoid re-counting and re-sampling of the same fish. If a carcass was too decomposed

to sample, it was recorded in the data notebook but not sampled. If a carcass was too

decayed to identify, it was recorded as an “unknown” species. After the caudal fin was

removed, the carcass was returned to the location it was found.

2.2 QUALITATIVE MEASUREMENTS

At the start of each survey the weather was recorded and the air temperature was

estimated. Weather was recorded as sunny, overcast, raining, windy, or a combination

of thereof. Rain was further described as light, moderate/drizzle, heavy, or other

equivalent language.

After the survey was completed, the surveyors estimated the visibility and flow of the

entire reach based on the pre-determined WDFW code. Flow was estimated by speed

and volume of water in the stream and relative to each individual creek. Visibility was

estimated by turbidity of the stream (water clarity) as well as the amount of the stream

bed that was visible throughout the survey reach. If there were dark pools, large woody

debris, or other obstructions, the reach would receive a lower visibility rating.

2.3 SURVEY REACHES

Survey reaches were originally selected based on the available WDFW data. For

logistical reasons, the streams were selected based on their accessibility and also their

proximity to past or future NSEA stream restoration sites. The data collected on

spawning grounds surveys helps measure the effectiveness of NSEA habitat restoration

projects completed on those streams. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 for maps of NSEA

survey reaches across Whatcom County and Table 1 for a list of reaches surveyed, with

river miles and the number of surveys completed.


10

Fig

ure

1. M

ap o

f N

SE

A s

paw

nin

g g

rou

nd

s su

rvey

re

ach

es.


11

Fig

ure

2. M

ap o

f N

SE

A s

paw

nin

g g

rou

nd

s su

rvey

wat

ersh

eds.


12

Table 1. Table containing stream WRIA Number, River Miles Surveyed, Survey Window, Number of

Surveys, and which organization performed the surveys for each of the 21 reaches. “Spot check”

surveys that consisted of going to the reach and confirming it to be either too turbid or unsafe to

survey are not included in the number of surveys count.

Stream Surveyed WRIA

Number

River

Miles

Surveyed

By Survey Window

Number of

Surveys

Anderson Creek, Upper 01-0228 2.7 - 4.0 BTC 10/18/13 - 2/7/14 13

McCauley Creek, Lower 01-0235 0.5 - 1.0 NSEA 10/17/13 - 2/11/14 17

McCaulay Creek, Upper 01-0235 1.0 - 1.5 NSEA 10/17/13 - 2/11/14 16

Mitchell Creek 01-0236 0.3 - 1.0 NSEA 10/17/13 - 2/11/14 15

Smith Creek 01-0234 2.5 - 3.5 BTC 10/20/13 - 2/8/14 10

Bertrand Creek 01-0201 8.2 - 8.7 NSEA 10/14/13 - 1/29/14 14

Deer Creek, Lower 01-0165 0.5 - 0.8 BTC 10/18/13 - 1/23/14 11

Deer Creek, Upper 01-0165 3.2 - 3.7 BTC 10/18/13 - 2/12/14 10

Fishtrap Creek, Lower 01-0210 4.9 - 5.7 NSEA 10/10/13 - 2/12/14 10

Fishtrap Creek, Upper 01-0210 8.8 - 9.2 NSEA 10/10/13 - 2/5/14 28

Silver Springs Creek 01-0189 0.0 - 0.5 BTC 10/18/13 - 1/22/14 12

Tawes Creek 01-0247 0.4 - 0.5 NSEA 10/16/13 - 2/5/14 15

Tinling Creek 01-0250 2.0 - 2.3 NSEA 11/14/13 - 1/30/14 9

Landingstrip Creek 01-0263 0.4 - 1.0 NSEA 10/16/13 - 1/29/14 15

Landingstrip Creek

Tributary 01-0263 0.0 - 0.4 NSEA 10/16/13 - 2/11/14 15

Whatcom Creek, Lower 01-0556 1.4 - 1.9 BTC 10/18/13 - 1/23/14 10

Whatcom Creek, Upper 01-0556 1.9 - 2.7 BTC 10/18/13 - 1/22/14 10

Terrell Creek 01-0089 4.9 - 5.3 BTC 10/18/13 - 1/23/14 14

Padden Creek 01-0622 0.0 - 0.8 BTC 10/18/13 - 1/23/14 11

Squalicum Creek 01-0522 0.0 - 0.5 BTC 10/18/13 - 1/23/14 13

Total 268


13

3.0 RESULTS

The following section details the results of the 2013 NSEA spawning grounds surveys in

three sections, including: Survey Conditions and Effort, Results by Species, and Results

by Survey Reach.

3.1 SURVEY CONDITIONS AND EFFORT

The 2013 salmon spawning season began with above average rainfall during the month

of September. This resulted in all streams except Tinling and Deer creeks being

accessible to spawning salmon by the time surveys began in October. Below average

rainfall for the month of October made for optimal surveying conditions throughout the

month. Flow in Deer creek increased due to the rainfall, allowing access for spawning

salmon.

The month of November was characterized by heavy rain events followed by long

periods of little to no rain. This rain pattern continued into the beginning of December.

This periodic rain pattern caused less than ideal survey conditions for many of the

reaches. During November and December many reaches that are within the urban

sprawl of Bellingham such as Squalicum and Whatcom creeks were too turbid to

survey. By mid-November the rainfall increased the flow in Tinling creek enough to

make it accessible to spawning salmon.

During mid-December air temperatures stayed below freezing causing all of the reaches

to freeze. Streams that were surveyed had poor visibility conditions due to the ice and

turbidity. Temperatures rose in late December and the combination of snow/ice melt

and rain events of significant volume, caused the Anderson and Deer creek reaches to

be too turbid to survey.

In early January, many of the streams near Bellingham could not be surveyed due to a

combination of frozen streams and high flow causing increased turbidity. The creek bed

of Tinling creek was dry after January 30th.

Surveys continued into February in order to have two consecutive surveys with zero

fish or new redds counted, ensuring that the runs were finished. However some of the

final zero count surveys were not performed due to elevated turbidity and/or frozen

streams. These included the lower reach on Fishtrap creek on February 4th, the

Landingstrip reaches and Mitchell creek reach on February 5th, and the Fishtrap creek

reaches on February 12th. Live spawning salmon were not observed after January 23,

2014. In total, 268 surveys were completed (Table 1).


14

Figure 3. Nooksack River discharge in cubic feet per second from September 1, 2013, to February 27,

2014. Data recorded at the Ferndale US Geological Survey Gauging Station and can be obtained at

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=12213100.


15

3.2 RESULTS BY SPECIES

Table 2. Number of live and dead salmon and redds by species and reach observed on NSEA

spawning grounds surveys in the fall 2013 season.

2013 NSEA Spawning Grounds Survey Summary

Survey Reach Chinook Coho Chum Unknown

Live Dead Redds Live Dead Redds Live Dead Redds Live Dead Redds

Upper Mainstem (Deming, WA area) Nooksack Tributaries

Anderson, upper 22 10 6 1 1 1

Macaulay, lower 19 17 16 1

Macaulay, upper 17 4 2 5

Mitchell 43 33 26 2 3

Smith 9 4 2 8 6 1

Total 0 0 0 110 68 52 0 0 0 11 7 11

Lower Mainstem Nooksack Tributaries

Bertrand 10 2 3 30 20 13 1 12 1 17

Deer, lower 12 6 2

Deer, upper 14 3 5

Fishtrap, lower 1 3 10 3 21

Fishtrap, upper 33 22 20 69 43 29 1 1 9 6 48

Silver Springs 3 1

Total 43 25 23 131 82 52 1 2 0 22 7 86

South Fork Nooksack River Tributaries

Tawes 3 1

Tinling 17 3 7 1

Landingstrip 5 6 11 1

Tributary of Landingstrip 38 20 22 2 3 5

Total 0 0 0 63 29 40 0 0 0 9 5 9

Independent Whatcom County Drainages

Whatcom, lower 14 3 2 2 3 3 8

Whatcom, upper 1 2 1 1 1

Terrell 16 4 4

Padden Creek 1 2 3 15 2 2

Squalicum Creek 1 9 8

Total 15 4 2 27 17 9 18 2 2 0 3 9

Total All Reaches 58 29 25 331 196 153 19 4 2 42 22 115


16

Figure 4. The total number of live salmon, dead salmon, and redds of each species depicted as

percentage of total observed during 2013 Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association spawning

grounds surveys.

2013Totals by Species

Chum

4% Pink

3%

Unknown

9%

Chinook

9%

Coho

52%

Chum

1%

Unknown

38%

Total Live (all species): 450 Total Dead (all species): 251

Total Redds (all species): 201

Chinook

12%

Coho

78%

Chum

1%

Unknown

9% Chinook

12%

Coho

75%

Chum

4%

Unknown

9%


17

Table 3. The number of salmon carcasses counted during NSEA 2013 spawning surveys with a clipped,

unmarked, and unknown adipose fin status for each species in each survey region of the Nooksack

River basin.

2013 NSEA Spawning Grounds Survey Carcass Adipose Fin Data

Region Creek Chinook Coho

Clipped Unmarked Unknown Clipped Unmarked Unknown

Lower Mainstem Bertrand 2 0 0 3 11 0

Fishtrap 11 5 1 3 40 0

Upper Mainstem Macaulay

0 0 0 2 12 1

Mitchell 0 0 0 1 23 2

South Fork Landingstrip

(main & trib.) 0 0 0 5 15 0

Total 13 5 1 14 101 3

* Note: Adipose fin data was not collected on creeks surveyed by Bellingham Technical College,

including: Padden, Whatcom, Squalicum, Terrell, Deer, Silver Springs, Anderson, and Smith Creeks.

Table 4. The number of live and dead pink salmon and pink redds counted during NSEA 2013

spawning surveys in Nooksack River tributaries and Whatcom County independent drainages.

2013 NSEA Spawning Grounds Survey Pink Salmon

Survey Reach Live Dead Redds

Smith 9 5 4

Bertrand 1 2 2

Fishtrap, Upper 3 4 1

Landingstrip Tributary 3 17 7

Squalicum Creek 0 3 0

Total 16 31 14

* Note: Pink Salmon begin spawning in mid to late August in the Nooksack River basin, and NSEA

surveys began early October, so only the end of the spawning season was surveyed for pinks. Pink

salmon spawn during odd years, returning on a two year cycle. While pinks are not a target species for

surveys, NSEA does record pinks that are observed during surveys for Chinook, coho, and chum salmon.


18

3.2.1 CHINOOK SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA)

There was an eighty seven percent increase in Chinook salmon redds from 2012 to 2013.

The number of Chinook redds (25) in 2013 is well below the average of fifty Chinook

redds since NSEA began surveying in 1999.

There were no live or dead Chinook or Chinook redds observed in the south fork or the

upper mainstem tributaries of the Nooksack River during NSEA spawning surveys.

Figure 5. Total Chinook redds observed during NSEA spawning surveys from 1999 to 2013.

3.2.2 COHO SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS KISUTCH)

There was a nineteen percent increase in coho redds from 2012 to 2013. The fall 2013

season ranked 6th for the most coho redds identified over the past 15 years. Since 1999,

a downward trend is seen for coho redds from 2005 to 2008, but from fall 2009 to 2013

an upward trend is observed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Survey Year

Annual Chinook Redd Totals

Figure 6. Total Coho redds observed during spawning surveys from 1999 to 2013.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Survey Year

Annual Coho Redd Totals


19

3.2.3 CHUM SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS KETA)

Nineteen live chum salmon were counted during 2013. Fifteen of the nineteen were

found at Padden Creek. The vast majority of chum redds have been found in Squalicum

and Padden Creeks over the past 15 years. Since 2007, chum redd totals have been low,

averaging only two redds counted per survey season.

There were no live or dead chum or chum redds observed in the Upper Mainstem

Nooksack Tributaries or in the South Fork Nooksack River Tributaries on NSEA

spawning grounds surveys.

3.2.4 UKNOWN SALMONIDS

In 2013, one hundred and fifteen redds were documented during NSEA surveys as

being created by an unknown species. Seventeen of these unknown redds were

observed in Bertrand Creek and sixty nine were recorded in the Upper and Lower

Fishtrap reaches. These redds were most likely coho or Chinook redds since they are

primarily coho and Chinook streams and the redds were observed during the usual

coho or Chinook spawning window. To avoid errors, NSEA records a redd as unknown

unless a live fish or carcass is seen on or near the redd. In many cases, redds are

observed without accompanying fish, and are therefore identified as an unknown

species. See Table 2 for a complete listing of where unknown species redds were seen.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Survey Year

Annual Chum Redd Totals

Figure 7. Total Chum redds observed during spawning surveys from 1999 to 2013.


20

Figure 8. Total redd counts by reach and species observed during 2013 NSEA spawning surveys.

3.3 REACH RESULTS AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Survey Reach

2013 Redd Counts by Survey Reach

Chinook

Coho

Chum

Unknown


21

3.3.1 UPPER ANDERSON CREEK

The upper Anderson Creek reach runs through both agricultural zones and forested

areas. Throughout the reach mature riparian vegetation offers ideal environments for

salmon. Off-channel habitat varies from residential to agricultural to forested stretches.

Figure 9. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Anderson Creek throughout 2014

NSEA spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in upper

Anderson Creek during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho

Chum


22

3.3.2 BERTRAND CREEK

The Bertrand Creek survey reach runs through agricultural fields and the water often

has high flow and is turbid which affects overall visibility and the ability to complete

surveys. There are a couple of irrigation ditches feeding into the creek depositing

sediment and excess nutrients often exhibiting a rusty orange color. The upper portion

of Bertrand Creek reach consists of some mature riparian areas providing shade. The

reach has diverse instream habitat with deep pools, some large woody debris, and

glides and riffles.

Figure 10. The number of live fish counted in Bertrand Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning

surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Bertrand Creek during

NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

02468

101214161820

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Chinook

Coho

05

101520253035404550

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho

Chum


23

3.3.3 LOWER DEER CREEK

The habitat of the lower Deer Creek reach consists of a mature riparian zone that

provides ample shade, sections of coarse gravel suitable for spawning between areas of

sand and fine gravel, alternating pool and riffle sequences, and log jams formed by

large woody debris.

Figure 11. The number of live fish counted in the lower reach of Deer Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in lower Deer

Creek during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

CohoChum


24

3.3.4 UPPER DEER CREEK

The habitat of the upper Deer Creek reach is characterized by a mature riparian zone

that provides ample shade. However, essentially no woody riparian vegetation is

present in the upstream end of the reach as the property is an easement for high voltage

power lines. There are riffles and runs with mixtures of cobble and coarse gravel, side

channels that are wetted during high flows, and deep pools formed by large woody

debris jams. The water is clearer and less tannic than the Lower Deer Creek reach. Early

in the survey season there were a few weeks where the reach was dry.

Figure 12. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Deer Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in upper Deer

Creek during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

CohoChum


25

3.3.5 LOWER FISHTRAP CREEK

The lower Fishtrap Creek reach is urban in character and heavy runoff from Lynden

city streets dramatically increases turbidity and deposits trash into the stream.

However, portions of the reach are well shaded and contain many areas of spawning

gravel. The reach has a diversity of instream habitat with alternating pools and riffles;

however, the reach has little off-channel habitat due to rip rap and bulkheads placed on

the banks. There are two large stormwater culverts feeding into the reach located at the

beginning and end that often have a high output of brown or orange turbid water.

Figure 13. The number of live fish counted in the lower reach of Fishtrap Creek throughout 2014

NSEA spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in lower

Fishtrap Creek during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

1

2

3

Live

Fis

h

Date

Coho

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho

Chum


26

3.3.6 UPPER FISHTRAP CREEK

The upper Fishtrap Creek reach flows through blueberry fields and is channelized. A

narrow riparian buffer provides shade in some areas, whereas other areas are more

open with recent riparian plantings. The channel is a mix of wide, shallow areas with

spawning gravel and fast flowing deep areas with reed canary grass lining the majority

of the stream banks. A few irrigation ditches feed into the reach often inputting visible

orange or brown sediment.

Figure 14. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Fishtrap Creek throughout 2014


Fishtrap Creek during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Chinook

Coho

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho

Chum


27

3.3.7 LANDINGSTRIP CREEK

Landingstrip Creek is located on land recently cleared of a poplar plantation and

owned by Whatcom Land Trust. NSEA has been actively involved in restoration on the

site. Beginning in 2010, the channel was enhanced and modified with spawning gravel,

large woody debris placement, and riparian planting. Restoration work was completed

in 2012.

Figure 15. The number of live fish counted in Landingstrip Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning

surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Landingstrip Creek

during NSEA surveys since 2005 (below).

0

1

1

2

2

3

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Coho


28

3.3.8 LANDINGSTRIP CREEK TRIBUTARY

The tributary of Landingstrip Creek was in an underground tunnel for over 50 years

before NSEA day-lighted the stream in 2009. Extensive restoration work, including

large woody debris placement, spawning gravel placement, and riparian planting, was

completed in 2012. The majority of spawning activity occurred along shallow gravel

bars, installed by NSEA during the restoration process, which are spaced between

deeper pools. During some of the surveys, fish carcasses were found on the banks and

elk tracks were also found traversing the streams.

Figure 16. The number of live fish counted in Landingstrip Creek tributary throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Landingstrip

Creek tributary during NSEA surveys since 2009 (below).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s C

ou

nte

d

year

Coho


29

3.3.9 LOWER MACAULAY CREEK

The lower Macaulay Creek reach runs through an NSEA restoration project. The

restoration work was completed in 2009 and 2010 and included riparian planting,

channel modification, and large woody debris placement. The upper most portion of

the reach is ditched along Highway 542 and has reed canary grass lining the banks,

although it was recently replanted with native vegetation. The water is often turbid due

to runoff from the highway with heavy silt flows at various times throughout the

spawning season.

Figure 17. The number of live fish counted in the lower reach of Macaulay Creek throughout 2014


Macaulay Creek during NSEA surveys since 2010 (below).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s C

ou

nte

d

Year

ChinookCoho


30

3.3.10 UPPER MACAULAY CREEK

The upper Macaulay Creek reach is comprised of two distinct portions separated by a

large sediment pond in the center. The lower portion of the reach is wide with minimal

shade, no large woody debris installments, few resting pools, and fine to medium

gravel suitable for spawning. The upper portion of the reach runs through a heavily

wooded area with large gravel and boulders not conducive to spawning. Flow is

generally low, even following heavy rain events and visibility is high.

Figure 18. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Macaulay Creek throughout 2014


Macaulay Creek during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho


31

3.3.11 MITCHELL CREEK

The Mitchell Creek reach is well shaded and shallow. Some small pools provide resting

areas, large woody debris is present, and spawning gravel is abundant. Riparian

vegetation is mature in some areas, but the creek also borders the backyards of several

properties with few trees.

Figure 19. The number of live fish counted in Mitchell Creek tributary throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Mitchell Creek

tributary during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

5

10

15

20

25

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho


32

3.3.12 PADDEN CREEK

The Padden Creek reach meanders along the interurban trail and is well shaded. While

the reach contains three fish ladders, in-stream habitat remains advantageous to

spawning with shaded pools, riffles, and spawning gravel throughout. The mouth of

the creek is brackish and tidally influenced.

Figure 20. The number of live fish counted in Padden Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Padden Creek during NSEA

surveys since 2009 (below).

0

5

10

15

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

Chum

0

1

2

3

4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s C

ou

nte

d

Year

Coho

Chum


33

3.3.13 SILVER SPRINGS CREEK

The Silver Springs reach runs entirely through agricultural land. The first .25 mile runs

through grazing pastures, and has a dense riparian buffer of young trees, shrubs, reed

canary grass and large woody debris placed during a 1994-1995 restoration project. The

next section has an open riparian zone with more reed canary grass than the lower

section and a lack of spawning gravel. The upper portion of the reach has a mature

riparian zone from a previous planting and runs alongside a dairy barn for about 0.1

miles, then through agricultural fields. The substrate of the reach is mostly silt and sand

with patches of spawning gravel, which are generally less than 3 meters long, placed by

restoration work. The stream is fed mostly by groundwater so the water remains clear

even after rain events; however, reed canary grass mats reduce the visibility. A beaver

dam was observed blocking fish passage, and cow travel was evident in and around the

stream.

Figure 21. The number of live fish counted in Silver Springs Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning

surveys (above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Silver Springs Creek

during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho

Chum


34

3.3.14 SMITH CREEK

The Smith Creek reach is partially shaded with mature riparian zones and blackberry

lined banks that provide limited shade and nutrients. The lower section of the reach is

mostly a deep, U-shaped channel with a streambed made of primarily sand and silt.

The upper section of the reach has a more complex channel containing large woody

debris, riffles, glides, and pools, and abundant coarse spawning gravel.

Figure 22. The number of live fish counted in Smith Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Smith Creek during NSEA


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho


35

3.3.15 SQUALICUM CREEK

The Squalicum Creek reach runs through urban areas of Bellingham and consists of a

mixture of native and invasive plant species within the riparian zone. On the south side

of the creek, a large buffer zone helps to minimize the effects of urban runoff. Substrate

and stream consist of sand, pebbles, and cobbles with alternating pool and riffle

sequences. Much of the channel has been modified by extensive beaver activity.

Figure 23. The number of live fish by species counted in Squalicum Creek throughout 2014 NSEA

spawning surveys.

Although live and dead fish have been counted since NSEA began surveying

Squalicum Creek in 2009, no redds have been counted from 2009 to 2013.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Live

Fis

h

Date

Coho

Chinook


36

3.3.16 TAWES CREEK

The Tawes reach is a short .1 mile stretch of forest bordered by a reed canary grass field

downstream and by a culvert going under highway 9 on the upstream end. There was

little activity observed in this reach until the end of the survey season. Washington State

Department of Transportation flagging was observed along the reach, where it appears

a larger culvert may be installed under highway 9.

Figure 24. The number of live fish counted in Tawes Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Tawes Creek during NSEA


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Coho


37

3.3.17 TERRELL CREEK

Habitat of the Terrell Creek reach is low - gradient with ample shade, pools and riffles,

abundant large woody debris, and mixed substrate, ranging from boulders to clay. The

stream water is often dark brown and tannic, which reduces visibility.

.

Figure 25. The number of live fish counted in Terrell Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Terrell Creek during NSEA


0123456789

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Coho


38

3.3.18 TINLING CREEK

The Tinling Creek reach was restored by NSEA in summer of 2012 after a landslide

washed out the creek bed. The project entailed channel modification, placement of large

woody debris, and riparian plantings. Downstream of the survey reach, a culvert was

also removed and replaced with a bridge to enable fish passage.

This reach contains mostly large sharp, granitic substrate. The creek meanders through

deciduous forest, and was seen to have low pH (4 to 6) and low temperatures

throughout the survey season. The stream was unpredictable, and dried out three times

during the survey season, causing spawning adults to die and eggs in the seven

previously dug redds to dry up.

Figure 26. The number of live fish counted in Tinling Creek throughout 2014 NSEA spawning surveys

(above) and the annual total number of redds by species counted in Tinling Creek during NSEA


0123456789

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

02468

101214161820

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Coho


39

3.3.19 LOWER WHATCOM CREEK

Land usages within the Whatcom Creek watershed include residential, commercial,

industrial, and forestry. There are three parks along Whatcom Creek, the largest being

Whatcom Falls Park and Maritime Heritage Park, as well as two hatcheries and a water

treatment plant. Whatcom Creek provides almost four miles of accessible spawning

habitat downstream of Lake Whatcom. The lower .5-mile reach meanders through

flatter, more urban habitat with sufficient spawning gravel.

Figure 27. The number of live fish counted in the lower reach of Whatcom Creek throughout 2014


Whatcom Creek during NSEA surveys since 2012 (below).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Liv

e F

ish

Date

Coho

Chinook

Chum

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s C

ou

nte

d

Year

Chinook

Coho


40

3.3.20 UPPER WHATCOM CREEK

Land usages within the Whatcom Creek watershed include residential, commercial,

industrial, and forestry. There are three parks along Whatcom Creek, the largest being

Whatcom Falls Park and Maritime Heritage Park, as well as two hatcheries and a water

treatment plant. Whatcom Creek provides almost four miles of accessible spawning

habitat downstream of Lake Whatcom. The upper portion of the reach is comprised of

smooth Chuckanut sandstone and has more drastic elevation gain through a wooded

park.

Figure 28. The number of live fish counted in the upper reach of Whatcom Creek throughout 2014


Whatcom Creek during NSEA surveys since 1999 (below).

0

1

2

Live

Fis

h

Date

Coho

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s C

ou

nte

d

Year

Chinook

Coho

Chum


41

4.0 DISCUSSION

The discussion section of this report details data limitations and caveats, notable fish

sightings, and historical trends in redd counts.

4.1 DATA LIMITATIONS AND CAVEATS

The discussion section of this report is necessarily limited. Only the trends over time at

specific NSEA survey reaches can be analyzed, rather than drawing basin-wide

conclusions. Salmon species have complex life cycles that span broad temporal and

spatial ranges. Therefore, there are many environmental and anthropogenic factors that

can influence any given salmon population at any time. Commercial and recreational

fishing, urbanization, land use, fish passage barriers, and ocean conditions can all have

detrimental effects on salmon populations. With these variables in mind, a cause and

effect relationship between any particular activity and an increase or decrease in

returning salmon cannot be assumed for any given year.

NSEA spawning grounds surveys have consistently covered many of the same reaches

since 1999. While these surveys alone are not extensive enough to show trends in

overall populations, they do allow us to investigate the roles that specific streams play

in salmon life histories by examining yearly data from the survey reaches. This data can

also be used by Nooksack River basin co-managers in combination with other spawning

surveys to estimate basin-wide return trends.

In addition to limitations with the size and scope of our surveys, certain methodological

constraints should be considered when interpreting spawning survey data. The

frequency of surveys and the likelihood of seeing salmon that are present in the streams

are dependent upon viewing conditions, stream accessibility, and timing. Late fall and

early winter commonly receive large amounts of precipitation in the Pacific Northwest.

The severity and timing of these rain and snowfall events can have significant impacts

on migrating salmon and the likelihood that surveyors see them. Whereas heavy rains

often draw spawning salmon upstream, they also can prevent human access to these

streams; potentially leaving many fish and redds uncounted. Carcasses are often

washed downstream and redds can be scoured out or filled in with sediment beyond

recognition. Surveys will have slightly different timing and frequency each year (based

on rainfall patterns), which will affect fish and redd counts from year to year.

Using the number of live fish observed as a population indicator presents an obstacle as

miscounts and recounts are more likely with live fish than with carcasses or redds.

Using carcasses as an indicator of populations could also lead to inaccurate estimates of


42

returning salmon. For example, streams located in more rural or forested settings, such

as Macaulay, Mitchell, and Anderson creeks, typically have low numbers of carcasses

recovered in relation to live fish sightings. This is likely due to the prevalence of wildlife

in these areas that scavenge salmon carcasses for food and drag carcasses far from

streams.

In contrast to live and dead fish, redds may remain visible for a longer time period and

give a better estimate of the number of spawning fish, if it is assumed that for every

redd counted a minimum of two spawning adults returned to the stream. This

conservative number gives us an estimate of effective spawners as opposed to

escapement estimates, which show us how many individuals were able to make it back

to their spawning grounds. Additionally, salmon have been found dead during each

survey season before spawning for various reasons. If the goal is to assess the number

of effective spawners in a population, then using redds as a marker is more important

than counts of live or dead fish. However, redds can be tricky to identify no matter

how knowledgeable and experienced the surveyors are.

4.2 NOTABLE REDD COUNTS

One of the reasons NSEA conducts spawning grounds surveys is to measure the

effectiveness of restoration projects in improving salmon habitat. In 2013, several creeks

with NSEA restoration projects had notable fish sightings compared to previous years.

The number of coho redds in the tributary to Landingstrip Creek in 2013 was the

highest since NSEA began surveying it in 2010 (Figure 16). In 2009, NSEA completed a

restoration project on this tributary, day-lighting the creek after being underground in a

tunnel for over 50 years. Before NSEA completed this project, it was impossible for

salmon to spawn in this tributary; now the redd counts in this creek show an increasing

trend since the restoration project was completed (Figure 30).

Another creek with notable 2013 redd counts is the upper reach of Fishtrap Creek.

Although redd counts in Fishtrap Creek have not steadily increased since NSEA began

surveying here, there is an overall increasing trend in the number of coho redds

counted from 1999 to 2013 (Figure 30). In contrast, the lower reach of Fishtrap that

NSEA surveys exhibits decreasing trends in redd counts for all fish species surveyed

(Figure 13). This lower reach flows through urban and residential areas and faces

degraded water quality due to storm water runoff and loss of riparian habitat. Whereas

the upper reach of Fishtrap Creek only has a narrow riparian buffer (enhanced by an

NSEA planting project) and flows through agricultural fields, it does offer areas of

quality spawning gravel and may have fewer anthropogenic impacts than the lower,

more urban reach.


43

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s C

ou

nte

d

year

Tributary of Landingstrip Creek

Coho

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Year

Chinook

Coho

Chum

Coho

Trendline

Upper Fishtrap

Figure 30. The annual total number of coho redds counted in the tributary to Landingstrip Creek

during NSEA surveys since 2009.

Figure 29. The annual total number of redds by species counted in Upper Fishtrap Creek

during NSEA surveys since 1999.


44

4.3 HISTORICAL TRENDS IN REDD COUNTS

The total number of coho redds observed during NSEA spawning grounds surveys in

2013 were higher than the 15 year average, but Chinook and chum salmon redds were

lower than the 15 year average. Chinook and coho redd counts from 2010 to 2013 have

been in general higher than they were from 2006 to 2009, but they still have not been

consistently increasing. The chum redd counts from 2010 to 2013 are higher than 2007 to

2009, but are still low and show a decreasing trend (Figure 31).

Figure 31. The total number of redds observed per species each year during NSEA spawning surveys,

including the 15 year average for each species. Unknown species redds are not shown.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Nu

mb

er o

f R

edd

s

Survey Year

Number of Redds Per Year

Chinook

Coho

Chum


45

4.4 FUTURE WORK

Spawning grounds surveys should continue following WDFW protocols and be

conducted in the same survey reaches each year so long-term assessment of WRIA 1

salmon spawning populations can continue. The following list provides suggestions

and guidance about spawning grounds survey methodology:

1. Continue to collect survey data on stream temperature, pH, sex, fork length, and

adipose fin presence for all carcasses.

2. Continue to assist WDFW in conducting steelhead trout spawning surveys so

that WRIA 1 fisheries co-managers have a more comprehensive picture of

steelhead escapement in the Nooksack River basin.

3. In odd years, start surveys earlier to capture as much of the pink salmon run as

possible.

4. Further investigate future restoration projects at stream reaches that need

invasive plant removal, large woody debris placement, or channel modification

to improve spawning habitat. Specific streams that were noted as needing

improvement in 2013 were Smith Creek (extensive Himalayan blackberry

infestation along banks) and Macaulay Creek (needs further channel

reconstruction and invasive removal).

5. Add a new reaches where NSEA has completed restoration projects, especially

ones where fish passage barriers have been removed. One recommendation

would be to add a reach on the newly reconstructed tributary to Landingstrip

Creek. In 2012, NSEA completed a restoration project on this tributary to

Landingstrip that flows into the tributary that NSEA currently surveys, and a

reach could be added to assess the effectiveness of this project in improving

spawning habitat.

6. Continue to partner with Bellingham Technical College’s Fisheries &

Aquaculture program to facilitate further community involvement and provide

valuable field experience for students.


46

5.0 PAST REPORTS

Moore, S. NSEA Salmon Spawner Survey 1999. Report on file, Nooksack Salmon

Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview Road, Bellingham, Washington.

Moore, S. Nooksack Enhancement Association Salmon Spawner Survey 2000. Report on

file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview Road,

Bellingham, Washington.

Timmer, D. Salmon Spawner Survey 2001 Yearly Report. Report on file, Nooksack

Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview Road, Bellingham, Washington.

Krancus, L. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Spawner Survey 2002. Report

on file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview Road,

Bellingham, Washington

Hovezak, M. Lower Nooksack River Basin 2003 Salmon Spawner Survey. Report on file,

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview Road, Bellingham,

Washington.

Roberts, M. Lower Nooksack River Basin 2004 Salmon Spawner Survey. Report on file,

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview Road, Bellingham,

Washington.

Roberts, M. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association 2005 Salmon Spawner Survey.

Report on file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview Road,

Bellingham, Washington.

Brecha, C. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association 2006 Salmon Spawning

Grounds Survey Report on file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East

Bakerview Road, Bellingham, Washington.

Van Leaven, K. Salmon Spawning Grounds Survey 2007. Report on file, Nooksack

Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview Road, Bellingham, Washington.

Lundgren, N. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association 2008 Salmon Spawning

Grounds Survey. Report on file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East


Hines, E. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association 2009 Salmon Spawning Grounds

Survey. Report on file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East



47

Riordan, C. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association 2010 Salmon Spawning

Grounds Survey. Report on file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East


Kunkel, N. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Spawning Grounds Surveys

2011. Report on file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview

Road, Bellingham, Washington.

Rohrer, K. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Spawning Grounds Surveys

2012. Report on file, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, 3057 East Bakerview

Road, Bellingham, Washington.


48

APPENDIX A. DIRECTIONS TO SPAWNING GROUNDS SURVEY REACHES

Directions to stream reach locations where NSEA surveys are conducted. RM indicates River Mile. Reaches

are listed in order by WRIA numbers so that creeks listed next to one another should be in relatively close

in proximity. Landowner contact information is available at the NSEA office.

2013 Spawning Grounds Survey Reach Locations and Directions

Terrell RM

4.9-5.3

Drive west on Grandview Road to Blaine Road. Turn right onto Blaine Road and take

the first left to the gated parking area. Find a small hunter’s path that follows the edge

of the trees that surround the creek. Walk next to the trees for about 0.25 miles until

you see an opening down to the stream (it should be marked with pink flagging). Start

your survey here. Walk upstream through the culvert unless water levels are too high

to make it through safely. Should this be the case, find your way up the bank, cross the

street, and scramble back down to the creek upstream of the culvert. Continue past the

culvert upstream for 0.4 miles. There are pink flags marking the end of the reach near a

small fork in the creek. Walk up the left bank and take the hunter’s path back to the

parking area.

Deer, lower RM

0.5-1.1

Turn south onto Judy Way off of Axton Road. Drive down Judy Way past the private

driveway sign and cross the bridge over the creek. Park in the pullout on the right side

of the driveway immediately past the bridge. Continue on foot along the right fork in

the road, walking downstream about 0.25 miles until you see pink flagging marking

the start point. There is a path here that leads to the creek. If you reach the hill, you

have gone too far. Enter the creek here and survey upstream to an old fallen wooden

bridge, and then stop. Turn around here and walk back downstream until reaching the

bridge where your vehicle is parked. Call the landowner before each survey (Fred

Lively: 360-312-8328).

Deer, upper RM

3.2-3.7

Turn North onto Manthey Road off of W Smith Road, directly across from North

Bellingham Golf Course. Halfway down the road, park at the barn (5390 Manthey

Road). Walk ENE (east-northeast) through fields for 0.25 miles. You will have to pass

through two separate fences. Walk on the left side of this field near the trees until you

come to a small stand of alders where you will see an entrance to the creek (and pink

flagging). Survey from here upstream to where the creek crosses under the power lines.

Exit creek on the right side and walk back through the fields to your vehicle.

Silver Springs,

lower

RM

0.0-0.5

Drive North on the Guide Merdian. Turn right on Hemmi Road. Park in the right of

way on the north side of the road near the dairy farm where the creek crosses under

Hemmi Road. Walk down the driveway and straight back through the farm north

downstream to the confluence with Tenmile Creek. Start your survey here and follow

the stream back to Hemmi Road. Cross the street and survey the stream until it goes

under the barn. Walk around the barn and join the stream where it exits the barn. Walk

up the creek until you reach a barbed wire fence. Contact the landowner before

surveying.


49

Bertrand RM

8.2-8.7

Drive north on the Guide Meridian to H Street. Turn left and drive west to the bridge

over the creek. Park vehicle in the pullout near the bridge. Begin survey under bridge

and walk upstream. You will pass by some old bridge stanchions part way through the

reach. Pass the stanchions and continue walking until you see long flagging tape

marking the exit point, which is about .25 miles past a large logjam and clay slide area.

Once you reach the flagging, back track to the old bridge stanchions and when you see

a barbed wire fence on your left, exit the creek on the left bank (left hand side when

facing downstream). Walk up bank, over the barbed wire fence, through the

field/gravel pit area. Follow the gravel driveway (crosses back over the creek) out to H

St. If you miss the exit flags, you can walk to the border and turn around. Leave a note

on your vehicle for Border Patrol.

Fishtrap, lower RM

4.9-5.7

Drive to Lynden on Hannegan Road. Take a left on Main Street and then a right on

Depot Road. The entrance to Lynden City Park will be on your right. Park in the

parking lot. The reach begins 100 meters downstream of the Depot Road bridge and

continues all the way to Bender Road. Follow paved path through the park back to

vehicle.

Fishtrap, upper RM

8.8-9.2

Drive north on Northwood Road (east of Lynden) 0.8 miles past Pangborn Road. Take

a left at the gravel road immediately south of the house at 9621 Northwood Road.

Drive down the gravel road to where it crosses Fishtrap Creek. Park near the stream

and survey upstream to where the creek flows under an impenetrable thicket of

blackberries. Leave a note on your vehicle for Border Patrol.

Anderson, Upper RM

2.7-4.0

This reach is from E. Smith Road through to Kelly Road. Park one vehicle at the Kelly

Road Bridge and the second vehicle (recommended) at the Smith Road Bridge. Walk

upstream from the E Smith Road Bridge to the bridge on Kelly Road.

Smith RM

2.5-3.5

Drive east on Mt. Baker Highway (SR 542) and pass through Nugent's Corner. Park

one vehicle in gravel area next to the bridge where Smith Creek passes underneath SR

542 for the second time (upstream). If you get to Hillard Rd., you’ve gone too far. Walk

the train tracks and the highway to the first bridge and survey upstream.

Second vehicle option: After parking the first vehicle, get back on Mt. Baker Highway

in the second vehicle and drive west. Park in the driveway of the first house east of the

Smith Creek bridge (3957 Mt. Baker Hwy), where the creek passes under Mt. Baker

Highway for the first time. The drive way will be on your left when coming from the

east and is right after the Shumway’s Berries sign. Park on the right side of the

driveway/edge of the grass. Talk with the landowner at the beginning of the season

before you do the first survey. If you cannot get in touch with the landowner, another

option is to park the second vehicle in the public right-of-way on Deming Road. Walk

upstream to the bridge with the train tracks where vehicle is parked.

Macaulay, Lower RM

0.5-1.0

Going east on Mt. Baker Highway (SR 542), turn left on Green Acres Rd. (between

Nugent's Corner and Deming). Just after the crossing the bridge over the creek, turn

left onto a gravel pullout and park there. Walk through the fields west of Green Acres

Rd., following the creek, walking downstream until you cross a small foot bridge over a


50

side channel. Continue along Macaulay Creek until you reach a small bridge, which is

the starting point. Survey upstream from the small bridge until you are back at the

bridge that crosses over Green Acres Rd, where your vehicle is parked.

Macaulay, Upper RM

1.0-1.5

Going east on Mt. Baker Highway (SR 542), turn left on Macaulay Road, which is the

next street after Green Acres Rd where the lower reach is. Drive down Macaulay Rd.

until you cross the creek. Turn right just after the bridge onto a dead-end gravel

road/pullout. Park here. Start this survey at the bridge on Macaulay Road, and survey

upstream until you reach a barbed wire fence running across the stream. Exit to the left

and follow the fence back to where the vehicle is parked.

Mitchell RM .3-

1.0

Going east on the Mt. Baker Highway (SR 542), turn left on Scarlett Road (a private

driveway with a sign advertising One Heron Pond Pottery Studio). Follow the

driveway past the first house and workshop and keep driving until you cross over the

creek. Park off the road, near the creek, or you can park in the driveway of the house

that is straight ahead after crossing the bridge (with land owner permission). Start the

survey at the bridge and walk upstream to the third bridge. You will know it is the

correct bridge because it is wooden and as you climb out and look to the left you will

see a "Private Forest" sign on the closest tree. Walk towards the highway on Mitchell

Road, then along the highway back to your vehicle.

Tinling RM

2.0-2.25

Take Strand Road off of SR 9 to Clipper Road. Park just past the creek in the driveway

at 3235 Clipper Rd (the red house on the right). Follow Tinling Creek downstream on

the trail/road behind the house for about 0.25 miles, until it reaches a swampy area

marked with pink and green flagging. Survey upstream to Clipper Road then cross the

road and continue upstream until you reach a small stream flowing into Tinling Creek

on the right hand side. Turn around here and walk back to Clipper Road. Contact the

Landowner at the beginning of the season.

Tawes RM

0.4-0.5

Take Mt. Baker HWY to HWY 9 South. Head south on HWY 9 for about 1.5 miles. The

house you can park at is at the large U curve just before Van Zandt (across the street

from Williams Lake Rd). Park on the far right of the driveway at 4298 HWY 9 (small

tan house on the right). Make sure to ask permission from the landowner at the

beginning of the season. Walk past the old outbuildings behind the house, on a narrow

trail, until you reach the stream. Survey about 0.1 miles of Tawes Creek, ending at SR 9.

This stream is located just off of SR 9 South.

Tributary of

Landingstrip

RM

0.0-0.4

Head south on SR 9 and go through Acme. Take a left onto Rothenbuhler Road. Park

just before the creek in the pullout by an apple tree. First, survey upstream of the

Rothenbuhler Road culvert until you reach a second culvert, just upstream of the

railroad bridge.


51

Landingstrip

RM

0.4-1.0 Typically this reach is surveyed in conjunction with the tributary of Landingstrip

Creek. After finishing the tributary survey, continue walking down (east) Rothenbuhler

road. Begin surveying at the bridge that crosses over the creek, just before the road

becomes privately maintained. The survey ends at the bridge upstream of

Rothenbuhler road.

Squalicum RM

0.0-0.5

On Squalicum Way park at the small parking area near the dumpsters on the corner of

Squalicum Way and Eldridge Ave (across from Bellingham Cold Storage). Start the

survey at the overpass and continue upstream until creek crosses under Squalicum

Way. Walk back along the road to the vehicle.

Second vehicle option – On Squalicum Way park the second vehicle at the small

turnout where the creek passes under the road.

Padden RM

0.0-0.8

Head down Harris Avenue towards the Fairhaven bus and ferry terminals. Just after 8th

Street Padden Creek passes under the road. Park on the left-hand side of the street on

the gravel. This reach begins directly upstream of the road. Note that the mouth of

this creek is tidally influenced and harbor seals have been known to swim through here

- be cautious! The creek may, at times, seem high at the mouth, but it may become

lower further upstream. Walk through the first fish ladder, but get out and walk

around the next two; crossing over the interurban trail each time. Reach ends at the

fish ladder in Fairhaven Park. Get out on right side and take interurban trail back to

vehicle.

Second vehicle option- Park the second vehicle in Fairhaven Park behind the tennis

courts.

Whatcom, Lower RM

1.4-1.9

Park on at the trail head Meador Ave where it passes under I-5. Walk down the trail to

the creek. The reach begins here and continues to the foot bridge at the end of Racine

Street. Walk back along the trail to the vehicle.

Second vehicle option - Park at the end of Racine St. and take the trail to the creek.

Whatcom, Upper RM

1.9-2.7

Park at the end of Racine St. and walk down the trail to the foot bridge. The reach

begins here and continues to Pixie Falls about 0.15 miles past the Woburn Street. Exit

on the right bank and scramble up the dirt embankment to a fence. Continue left down

the trail until it meets with Woburn St. Walk south on Woburn until it meets with the

trail again. Follow the trail back to the vehicle. Second vehicle option - Park at the right-

of-way on Yew St, near the intersection with Woburn.


52

APPENDIX B. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

Recommended Materials and Equipment for Spawner Surveys

Sampling Kit (each surveyor):

polarized sunglasses

knife

pencils and sharpies

measuring tape

pH strips

scissors for tissue samples

hand pruners

otilith and/or DNA sample vials

thermometers

Rite in the Rain notebook binder

scale cards

survey flagging

head bags and labels

tweezers

forceps

fish counter devise

Additional equipment:

fish peughs

chest waders and felt-soled boots

survey vest

extra socks

extra pants

rubber gloves

map of area being surveyed

camera

watch or cell phone for time and emergencies

Coded Wire Tag (CWT) wand


53

APPENDIX C. WDFW SURVEY PROTOCOL

WDFW Protocol for Surveying Chinook, Chum and Coho in the Nooksack River Basin --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary objective is otolith and scale recovery from All Chinook and coded wire tag recovery from chinook. The run has a Double Index Tag (D.I.T.) Groups (both clipped and non-clipped tag-bearing fish). ALL ACCESSIBLE CHINOOK CARCASSES SHOULD BE WANDED. Secondary objective; Collect DNA samples from all CHUM Salmon (depending on freshness of carcass) and scales.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surveyors should, in each stream reach:

Count all live fish (including chinook, coho, sockeye, pink & chum salmon).

Count all visible completed chinook and coho redds. Flag completed Chinook Redds with tape.

Count all chinook AND other species carcasses.

Count all chinook carcasses previously sampled (tailcuts).

WAND ALL ACCESSIBLE CHINOOK CARCASSES.

CUT TAILS OFF ANY SAMPLED FISH (SCALES AND/OR WANDED OR OTOLITHS) recover and attach freshwater labels to all tag-bearing heads.

Maintain a tally of non-adipose clipped versus adipose clipped chinook carcasses that are checked.

COLLECT OTOLITHS and SCALES FROM ALL CHINOOK

COLLECT DNA TISSUE SAMPLES and SCALES FROM ALL CHUM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Record at end of survey for each reach:

Data For Chinook Total live chinook. Total dead chinook Total pre-sampled carcasses

D.I.T. and Hatchery versus Wild discrimination

Number of adipose clipped/No CWT checked- Marked/No Beep-MNB Number of non-adipose clipped/No CWT checked- Unmarked/No Beep UMNB Number of adipose clipped w/CWT collected- Marked Beep-MB Number of non-adipose clipped w/CWT collected-UnMarked Beep-UNB

Data For Chinook Redds Total visible chinook redds, new and old

Data for Other Salmon Species Total number of live coho, pink, sockeye and chum.

Total number of dead coho, pink, sockeye and chum. Total redds, if any, associated with each species.


54

APPENDIX D. SCALE CARD INSTRUCTIONS

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCALE SAMPLING SALMON SPAWNERS AND

HOW TO FILL OUT THE SCALE CARD

The standard salmon scale card (scale card form WDFW 548) should be used for routine scale

sampling of chinook, chum, coho, and sockeye in the Puget Sound and coastal escapements.

Scales from genetically sampled fish should be mounted on the Genetics Scale Card (see

genetics sampling protocols). Please refer to the “GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR SCALE

SAMPLING SALMON SPAWNERS” for the best method for collecting and mounting scales.

The minimum number of scales per fish to be mounted are: chinook and sockeye – 3, chum – 2,

and coho (hatchery/wild) – 6. The coho scales should be mounted within two scale spaces

(maximum 10 fish per card).

FILLING OUT THE SCALE CARD:

Use a number 2 pencil and write legibly as the data on the chinook and chum cards are entered

directly from the card. Coding for the various fields on the card follows.

STREAM/HATCHERY/BUYER: Stream or hatchery name. THIS IS OPTIONAL.

WEEK field: 2-digit WDFW statistical week number

YEAR field: last 2 numbers in the year

MONTH field: 2-digit month number

DAY field: 2-digit number

AREA field: 2-digit WRIA number (01, 02, …..24)

SUB-A field: 4-digit numeric stream code

GEAR field: one single number circled; the only allowable escapement gear codes are:

1 = hatchery rack

2 = broodstock (any method other than at a hatchery rack)

3 = spawning ground survey

4 = stream trap (fish released)

SP. field: 2 digit field indicating race first and species second. RACE CODE IS

OPTIONAL.

Race codes: 1 = spring 2 = fall

3 = winter 4 = summer

Species codes : 1 = chinook

2 = chum


55

4 = coho

5 = sockeye

TYPE field: 3-digit number. The first digit indicates the Sample Type, the second digit

indicates Sampler Type, and the third digit indicates Fish Condition Type.

Sample Type codes: 1 = “random” sampling

2 = non-CWT fish only

4 = surplused fish (gear code 1 only)

7 = “select” sampling

Code 1 would be used primarily with gear codes 2,3,4; and with gear code 1

where the fish have not been electronically sampled for CWTs prior to scale

sampling. Code 2 would be used primarily with gear code 1 for scale sampling

fish that are not CWTed (i.e., sampling fish where the age is not known). Code 7

would be used rarely (e.g., fecundity samples at a hatchery rack).

Sampler Type codes: 1 = WDFW or co-op samplers

2 = tribal samplers

Fish Condition Type codes: 2 = carcasses 4 = fish released live

R.M. field: 6-digit number used primarily for spawning ground surveys, indicating the

river mile of the upper end (“U”) of the survey and the lower end (“L”) of the

survey. Each end of the survey should coded to the nearest tenth of a mile and

contain 3 digits (e.g., U: 09.6, L: 00.0). Single locations (spot checks) or stream

trap location should be coded in the “L” space. There is no need code this field

for hatchery rack sampling.

SAMPLER field: 2-digit alpha code of the sampler’s initial or sampler’s alpha-numeric code

(tribal sampled).

CARD field: 2-digit number indicating that day’s card number

INDIVIDUAL FISH DATA:

FKL column: 2 or 3-digit number; fork length to the nearest centimeter

SEX column: single digit number; 1 = male, 2 = female

AGE column: LEAVE BLANK!

MARK column: write an “AC” for an adipose fin-clipped fish, or” NM” for non-clipped

OTHERWISE LEAVE BLANK!

LABEL column: this column is used primarily to record snout label numbers for CWTed

fish, but can be used for any other data (e.g., otolith sample number,

other fin clips, or female egg retention). DATA IN THIS COLUMN

ARE NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUGET SOUND “BIOLOGICAL

DATABASE” AT THIS TIME.


56

APPENDIX E. WDFW SCALE CARD EXAMPLE


57

APPENDIX F. SPAWNER SURVEY PHOTOS

NSEA interns, Amy Oppfelt (left) and Casey Pruitt

(right) sample scales from a coho salmon at

Landingstrip Creek.

NSEA intern, Brandon Osterlund, with a coho

salmon carcass at Fishtrap Creek.


58

NSEA AmeriCorps members, Katie Duane and

Claire Woodward, surveying Chuckanut Creek.

NSEA assisted WDFW in surveying Chuckanut

Creek during December.

NSEA intern, James Berntson, surveying

Chuckanut Creek.


59

Chinook salmon at Fishtrap Creek.

Chinook redd at Bertrand Creek. When identifying redds, surveyors look for a clean mound of

gravel downstream of a depression.

Date post:	10-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhxuyen
View:	218 times
Download:	2 times

NSEA Salmon Spawning Grounds Surveys 2013REPORT+-+FINAL.pdf2013 NSEA Spawning Grounds Survey Report...

Documents