The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-06-086_Report 01r Lake Washington Lake Wg~-J9i1NMilfoil Control 0')-~,<; Economi c Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Pl ann ,n g +(~ )+ Alex Piet sc h.Administrnjtjl O 7 2006 I.?'£:. :'./..?: G. lle l Rosano c::J Affected Areas t:'N~O 29 June 2006 RECEIVED 0 1000 2000 ~ I : 12000 • "" () ~ oc " UJ S) " 0-. "" "' ,m, F.F.-Ell.V: -1,:;,~ .~.;!• e, -:L~ ,~JI '~eUO(HU..0 '\, _2ZJri~BEND 0f -l,~_]''1..U4 VALVE-MJ -~·t.LSl..£1:.14 CO.ll.!=?.LIN4 __ .!?'<!/ J . \ .. Y 2-4~· BE.NDS•SH.ACKL'E ROOS ' .!J \4, ·c ,f RE.BAR t EXrsTfli~.t..-CJ_ SJi. ~AQ:A(;L ~co.ti1r_s:ro . .in-~J2.R},.,_lK~ _ __ P~~E.--1"0 .:..t..Al(E:...:._-___ _ ~>-7..---z ~---=-..-. VALVE 3013, 3015 a.310lMT._'llE_W_AV.E. N.#8 (6''l ~ (COLEMAN POINT) LAKE WA5H/f/(;TON ,-.9 !..--7.,".:J:D:-:-f'·R ISER --:-0.:e·.o-:1.,;· m.w ltc1cLJ-..-_.::.r= ~-- ·=:t."_x:rnooa:R:" lt4LVE ;3119 MT. VIEW AVE. N. #/2 (6") E.Xl5T.4~l7C___.._ ----~ -,>,:·:.tr_·-_-_--_--:_--~---_--,· <,"XC."X4"Tf:.t SID£ 5£1,JER~,~~ 4--pw(iW.LVE-1rn. f~_'j "l."'D_] PLUO VALVE ~2'0E.E.P VALVE 3307 MT. VIEW AVE. N. #17(4"} #/8(6"} G."·c.J. si:us LAKE" J;Jl'5FIIN(iTON ll1L.2~ll.'D-D .,.=r =- ------i----TENCE :==*6-+,~~--,~i~E.,_5E_WE~ _],.J/3 REBAR-- ·-1.,,··c.-r:~~oq:::.-=-----_ 't.•_::putei .v'ALVE:c.-· 4"'TEE. TO .;1)0.:Z _-2..._1.,··_:o):1:.E _ _:_ /---==A rE.XT5l"lt,(j, S_IOE SHJCR EX\ST. rs. -~71 lt4LVE 3103 a 3107 MT. VIEW AVE. N.-#9 (6."J._ LAKE WASHIN(iTON ~ rrncE~i ~ .. r~ ,ft WOOD BULl<l-1EA.O L.."""C.I. STUB r.:: c.o.: ~UlsfACE. '_;__;j ~:r.Pl:U4-VA\..VE T1 .. '"FID.tiO:I.rtC.t. " -lZ:..:DE.EP_:_:_- 1:rz:m.lPl!Htj =---EX\ST. r,.-C.I. S. SEWER FJ<!OM 320,;, VALVE 3205 8 3209 MT. VIEW AVE. N.#l3(6."l LAKE. NASHIN/iTON l 3401 -4_ \~, / :-l,;·:xA-R£.DUC(R t----7~~-PLUG VALVE. -,,_ DEEP <,/C.O. CAPPED u .. · OHi". ..,__ lt4LVE 3401 LAKE WASHINGTON BLV0.#19 (6'') LAKE _t,.fAS-fl_/J'{'i_ro]Y-~: ----_,:----7·RE.TAINtNG WALb l '91'~ I J~· PLU4 VA.L\/Fz'UUP. #:..-.~Ji." WYE c.r. "'-C.O_ ~h~-·--{.~4~· BE/"10 ' ··-- 4,· 5UND FLAN4E ~ .. -i -E~l~-~-~-~J==1i II II II II jl..-; l If ~ ~>-z VALVE 3111 MT. VIEW AVE. NJl/0(6"} LAKE /dASHIN(;TON BULKHD.D -4.::.G . .PLU_(t_VAL\IE.:"J' DEf.P ~onsr. 4· Cll~- -CX4~TIE .. -",\. 3) ft{: :ffl'c711. <.J ~" PLU&-._VA.\.Vt-t: ~ . .::;-.x.4:_e~:.WYE. HQ.TTU~ DRAIN W.NNECTION 3213 ~ "' " ~ 1- "EXIST_~TO~C. }-IENCE. ! I i F lt4LVE 3213 a 3217 MT. VIEW AVE. N.#14.{6.,,). #_/5(4Hl ~<:l""'=-===--c:::ic,:,._..~"<:IC>~""'~ .340~ f/;t.4" RtDIJCt.~ --- :l.:.fLU(i VALVE.. ![ DEEP- ) r/1 ..,__ 0 LAKE NA5HING;TON ~;:(.O~TO-SURfA.CE.. 2.(..' RJS.:E& VALVE 3405 LAKE WASHINGTON BLV0.#20(6") LA/l.£WA5RIN(;TON -~ .&ULKHEAD _______...Jc,,,,;:,~ --~)!,LSI. CO. !,,.!YE ~3· DEEP -!' RlSE.R :.~" o.r. PLUCj VALVE. -__i:,," COUPLlN.~ .'EXIST. &,·' C 1 .'51DE SE.\.JE.R ~r== z U4LV£ 3115 MT. VIEW AVE. N.#// (6''/ 3233 ~<'!. ------ XtAf[A1:J;:..:. _,='~ =---,-·_c:o. \ iiiA.s1;/we;"joN t "'· A5e.i:l:A.Li \· ~-DR\V£WAY '"&'.'U:rPt..~.)fE_ __ -:Ji"iii{tt)A~""4 ' ~ .. C.l. C 0. 10 SURFACE. 3'D£EP-2o· NORTl1 OF _OR1VE\i.lA'( OF E!.2~3 VALVE 3233 MT. VIEW AVE. N.#/6(6 11 ) LAJ<E v./ASHINGTON --- O:\S"I: Ql/(Rf_LOW -1N-MAH.IIOL£. ..,__ __ \\ l~A~Ms v.4LV£ KENNY DALE BEACH PARK#2/ (6'') -·--$~158 I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -&'..1..H -I (.°'/IZ S :us-.:.\ -f/>-3lt'1V~ I I I I I -, 1. /// 'I / I , I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ~a~u I \ : ' ! ' rH~.ro.z-~-:nrs---• w-Yl\71'"' ~-4 .-""'-··. I J. .. I I I ~ I I I I I :I l l l l l l l l l l l I -- \ I \ \ \ I : I I I I I I L[!] t I I l I . ---l E' PIS,;,,- / / l ! ' : ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' \ \ : : \ ,,-- ' ' ' ', :i \ ii) ' ', ,) I~ ' -' ~ ' " I ~ ____ J -----, ' ' / / ! / : ' I i i { i \ J l ' I I J I ' I ' i ' ' ' I I j ' I ' ' ] -~ ~ QJ· 31 ] <: . " r I I I I J, I I '[, I I I I i I r_\) I I \·1 , I 0 l ' w' z' :i ~ a: . ~' w! en ' ,; 00-+§.H:_~~ l .J ( P.l!!rE:__ <( ' Cl ' >-( z' z' ..,: .:x:: z Cl ... z ll! ( IL j)Q..--,/E:;___ 0 ::: 0 ~- ~ " f2...0.:u.i.:ZC 4 -" .., .., -s: b I 0 16Ls J -•• • • • M""'' 3(P;·,~· .!~"·~~~, .. :~······:,······· . :-., ;:· . ,,., ~y-t' .,,.,.,,...,., ~· ~ . ,. ··-·· ,v,i' .c·· 1·.· T··· Y ·O···· F····· » •""1 T·,o··.··. M · · ·: · -·. -. :-·:s __ .-· < ·n D 1,; ·'1 :--, ·-_-,t -··"!:·'·~: , .· . ' . . ' ' '' ,· '': : .. ·. .-,·: '. -.~"' . AJ:K).J.lt'l"" 1.-r,1.a.t.t "'~"" ~k'Jnh C!M1tsU"!!;,'C .1 J"\;fi"IV~'f·~~··· .. ··· ·~ 0£"¥4',~ ~,, .• ~ . •. -,J. .J .. "4, . ·.· . .•. . .3 . . ' ~--··-.-·-·---··-···-·--···~·. ..LL.·-··~ ia.Z...:--···--· . ~ .J(A.,r:;., ~~~~:;~~-~£.~~-:2:;~.::.: om ·Lot No-··········-······· ~··--····---··-··· Ad.~ ................. ,.,. ................ , ........ _ ..................... . or p.roper,ty, ~:. .................... -···· ........................... ___ .... ,. ..... _ ...................................................... ····--·-···--··· ··-·--·····-.. The Sewer is to be used for .................. ~ ........ Z~ ...................................... ~ and. ........................... agree to pay the rates now or hereafter in effect for su.ch service and COlllPlY with all the rules and regulations as set forth in Ordmane.e to be adopted regardm.g the use of sueh service and the care of plumbing :fixtures. Si~ ...................................................................................................... . cv-e· of na·pe. ~ AL ~ · ·. ·.. ~· ~ J~ \ ~ . . . ;E"',L .-....:+:-~---··· -~·-····. -~-. ··,. , ...... ~~~---·····--··········-······· S laid by . &4..1 . ' ' ' ' . ' \,7.1,..µ!?f, '' . ,ewer-, '··----------...... ·-•• ......,.... _____ .. __ _ ~~ .. 71_·' .. _ ---.~-·--.... _ -_._ •''• -_ '·_ .. · __ .... _. -c Date,!,: • .. -·--·--· . • ..•.•. ~ ~ ..__ A~ .. HI; /4$,---~ ~/,#+ ~ 7),~ "-,"·~-.. ,-.,.,_., .. ,--,, ~ ···,.. --·er----,--, ,· . --.--, .. ,--,--.--. --·--·-·-·- . -,-._., . a, ~. ~ ~ ·-~ ~ I i ' ' I C\ I ~ I ~ I~ 1-1 •o. __ _J I • , .1 l 1 l ·o fm :J:t s< m .__ p:! C') := '6 m = :;:: -m < ...... ~ m ....., .,, Ci .> z z ·z . G) ·~ " . . 1 i,~ '-1 1 { i ' l . .. \ t l ' ,_J CITY OF RENTON PLANNING / BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM Date: November 17, 2006 To: City Clerk's Office From: Holly Graber Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Milfoil Control in Lake Washington LUA (file) Number: LUA-06-086, ECF, SME Cross-References: AKA's: Lake Washington Milfoil Control Project Manager: Jennifer Henning Acceptance Date: " July 31, 2006 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: City of Renton Contact: City of Renton -Jerry Rerecich PIO Number: 334210-3580, 052305-9010, 07235-9007 ERC Approval Date: July 31, 2006 ERC Appeal Date: August 21, 2006 Administrative Approval: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to .Council: By Whom: Council Decision: · Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: APPLY AQUATIC HERBICIDE TO CONTROL MILFOIL IN LAKE WASHINGTON. Location: 616 W. Perimeter Road Comments: Shoreline Exemption Management Permit issued August 28, 2006 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on August 7, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$1.2J.80. ------ Jo')Y'lf-tlar!On Le'g;,f Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this 7"' day of August, 2006. /!.,JD C!'rrt2z-1 1 Q7 B D Cantelon Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Washington PO Number: ,'.< -~ 'l ,';.' ] ~) ' ., ~ --, r ":::;-1 ,~ ' '. '"· ~~_. " NOTICE OF ENVIROKMJ<;NTAL IJ f;'.rnRMIK AT!OK J<;NVIRONMJ<;NTAL RJ<;VIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHJKGTOK The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Determination of Non-Signlficance-Mitigated for the fol- lowing project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Milfoil Control in Lake Washington LUAOo-086, SME, ECF Location: 1) Renton Seaplane Base at Renton Municipal Airport, 616 \V. Perimeter Rd: 2) C',-ene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, 1201 Lake Washington Blvd. N'.; 3) Kennydale Beach Park, Lake Washington Blvd at :t,.,'_ 36th Street. Description: City of Renton Parks Department proposes to conduct milfoil control annually for ten ! 10! yearr1 in Lake \Vashington via the application of an aquatic herbicide. Milfoil is an aquatic weed that grows in warm weather and may eventually reach the surface of the water under ideal growing conditions. It can inteifere with swimmers and boaters ability t-0 use the water- ways due to a potential for entan- glement. Tt can alflo attach to boat propellers and may be transported to other bodies of water. Appeals of thH environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on August 21, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed b.v Cjty of Rent.on Muniripal Code Sec- tion 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Rent-On City Clerk's Office, t125) 4:-!0-6510. Published in the King County ,Journal August 7,2006.#861257 CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator August29,2006 Jerry Rerecich City of Renton -Community Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Milfoil Control in Lake Washington LUA06-086, SME, ECF Dear Mr. Rerecich: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended on August 21, 2006 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance · Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report & Decision dated July 31, 2006. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, ty fr, {pr 1i/l, ~ Jennifer Henning Project Manager cc: Karen Walter/ Parties of Record -------,o-5-5-So_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y __ -R-en-to_n_, W-as-h-in_gt_on-98_0_5_5 ------~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD or TIIE CURVE EXEMPTION FILE NUMBER: LUA06-086-SME APPLICANT: Jerry Rerecich OWNER: SITE: City of Renton Community Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 City of Renton Lake Washington at Coulon and Kennydale Beach Parks PROJECT NAME: Milfoil control PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Shoreline Exemption to treat approximately 3 acres of Lake Washington with Renovate 3, Tricolpyr TEA annually for 10 years. PROJECT LOCATION: Lake Washington between the Renton Municipal Airport and Kennydale Beach Park. Near the addresses of 616 West Perimeter Rd., 1201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. and 3600 Lake Washington Blvd. N. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE 1/4 of Section 31 Township 24 Range 5 in the City of Renton, King County. SW 1/4 of Section 5 Township 23 Range 5 in the City of Renton, King County. N 1/2 of Section 5 Township 23 Range 5 in the City of Renton, King County. SEC-TWN-R: NE3 l-24N-5E and 5-23N-5E TAX ACCOUNT NOS.: 0723059007, 334210358001, and 3344500775 WATER BODY/WETLAND: Lake Washington CORPS PUBLIC NOTICE NUMBER: NA An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby granted on the proposed project described on the attached form for the following reason(s): / Removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 1 7.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or the department of ecology jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.2 lC RCW. CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT f Policies of the Shoreline Management Act. The Master Program. Page lof2 -I , ;t- (\)ec ( ( lu U I Neil Watts, Director Development Service Division II 7 c . U,?7 c cl Date 2 O(' [ To appeal this determination, a written appeal--accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal code provides further information on the appeal process. attachments: Vicinity Map Page 2 of2 -~~-----~---~~~ Lake Washington Lake Wa$_J~i!n;Mr~~cMilfoil Control uY----!?.<1 Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning +(Am)'• Alex_Pietsch,_AdministrjtfL Q ] 2006 \~,-::.::,; li. Del Ros.mo [=::J Affected Areas f:'N---:fO 29 June 2006 RECEIVED 0 1000 2000 F 4 I & zp:::::::~ rn I : 12000 August 28, 2006 Ms. Karen Walters Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Fisheries Division 39015 -172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 CIT1 t-UA 00 -08'0 )F RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Milfoil Control for Lake Washington (LUA06-086, SME, ECF) Dear Ms. Walters, Thank you for your comments regarding the Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated issued for the proposed milfoil control program in Lake Washington. In your letter you raise several concerns regarding the DNS-M and the Environmental Checklist. Specifically, you request analysis of other methods to control milfoil, analysis of the impacts on upland areas, and impacts on adult salmonids, beach spawning sockeye, and invertebrates. Your letter also requests that the State Environmental Policy (SEPA) Checklist be modified to disclose the exact area of shoreline to be treated; the genus, species and stem density of the plants to be treated; the specific restrictions that will be observed, including fish timing windows; and, whether an archaeological study has been conducted in the area. The DNS-M evaluates the proposal that City of Renton is planning to use for milfoil control at two of its swimming beaches (Coulon and Kennydale Beach Park), a boat launch (Coulon), and the seaplane base. This approach could be used as often as annually, for a period of up to I 0 years. However, it is unlikely that the use would occur this often. This in-water treatment will only be used during those years when conditions warrant; that is, when the water temperature results in growth of the milfoil, such that it potentially interferes with and/or endangers swimmers, boaters, and float plane use. The selected chemical has been approved for in-water application by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The chemical would only be applied by a licensed applicator, under restrictions of the Department of Ecology (DOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Environmental Protection Agency. Since this is not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), no analysis of alternatives was conducted. A I 0- year time frame was proposed, as this is the timeframe that Department of Ecology's approval would be valid. The DNS-M does not evaluate impacts on upland areas because the application would be in-water, utilizing a spray boom. No upland vegetation would be affected. Impacts to fish were considered in the Washington Department of Ecology's Final Supplemental EIS which was consulted by the City's responsible official, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), during its review of this proposal. The beneficial impacts to the salmon ofremoving the milfoil -------l-0-55_S_o_u_th-C-ir-ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_c-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-i-ngt_o_n-98-0-55 _______ ~ AHEAD 01' THt. cT.:RvE were considered to outweigh the short-tenn impacts from use of the chemical. The ERC also discussed the importance of relying on the fish windows established by Washington Department offish and Wildlife, and any other restrictions that might be imposed through the licensing/regulation through Department of Ecology. The ERC acknowledged that if there comes a time when the use of the chemical is not allowed for this situation, then other methodologies to control the milfoil will be considered. Your letter also contains comments regarding the SEPA checklist. The exact amount of shoreline was not estimated, rather the approximate area in the lake, which is 3 acres. The milfoil to be treated is Eurasian milfoil. There is no replanting mitigation that will be required. The fish windows may change from year-to-year, therefore, they were not disclosed; rather, the fish windows imposed by WDFW will prevail. Finally, since there is no disturbance of the upland area, and because the areas to be treated are entirely underwater, no cultural resources assessment or survey was required. Thank you for providing these thoughtful comments. Please feel free to contact Leslie Betlach, Renton Parks Director, at (425) 430-6619 if you have additional questions regarding the proposal. Sincerely, art:~~~~ Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Director Leslie Betlach, Parks Director Jerry Rerecich, Recreation Manager Jennifer Henning Project Manager MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 -172'd Avenue SE• Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 August 21, 2006 City of Renton, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Milfoil Control in Lake Washington LUA06-086, SME, ECF, Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance (MONS) Dear Ms. Henning: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (MITFD) has reviewed the above referenced environmental checklist and the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the referenced project above. This project proposes to treat about 3 acres of Lake Washington along the Renton Seaplane base at the Renton Municipal Airport; Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park; and Kennydale Beach Park using Tricolpyr TEA, annually for IO years to treat milfoil. The attached comments are in the interest of protecting and/or restoring the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's fisheries resources. In general, since the City intends spray these areas annually for the next IO years, then the City should develop a milfoil management plan for the areas covered by this proposal and use non-chemical means such as mechanical/manual methods and/or nutrient controls that would be less harmful to salmon and their habitats. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and would appreciate a written response to these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 876-3116. Sincerely, 0~J/f\ ~---- Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Susan Powell, ACOE Regulatory Branch Kelly McLain, WDOE Water Quality Program Stewart Reinbold, WDFW, Region 4 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to the Milfoil Control Proposal by the City of Renton LUA06-086 Specific Comments to the DNS-M August 21, 2006 Page 2 The DNS-M fails to discuss other methods that may have less potential adverse impacts to listed chinook salmon and their habitat, such as manual/mechanical removal of the aquatic plants proposed to be treated. The DNS-M should describe and document an integrated vegetation management approach, as discussed in Washington Department of Ecology's (WDOE's) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Freshwater Aquatic Plant Management (2001 ), by including a decision matrix that evaluates and select vegetation control measures from a list of manual/mechanical/biological and chemical methods in order to ensure that strategy chosen for the next IO years is the one that will result in the least amount of impact to salmonids. The environmental checklist lacks documentation of rationale for the proposed use of herbicide treatment in this area over manual/mechanical methods of control. Without the analysis, the proposal may result in significant adverse impacts that could otherwise be avoided. The DNS-M lacks an analysis about the potential for any upland areas that are newly planted with native vegetation that may be adversely affected and result in additional impacts to salmonid habitat. The DNS-M also lacks an analysis of the potential for application of the proposed herbicides to affect adult salmonids that will be holding or otherwise in the project area during application. For example, according to the application, the die back of treated Eurasian Milfoil could result in dissolved oxygen (DO) sags that are induced from plant die-offs in the project area, which may adversely adult salmonids. There may also be cumulative impacts that occur due to, including but not limited to the following: high water temperatures; low dissolved oxygen levels; degraded habitat from native plant die-offs; herbicide runoff from land uses; and slower chemical degradation times due to any localized anaerobic aquatic conditions. There is no analysis in the DNS-M about potential impacts to invertebrates, which provide food for salmon, from adverse impacts due to herbicide treatments. Freshwater macroinvertebrates, such as mussels and crayfish also represent shellfish resource interests of the Tribe. The DNS also fails to consider potential impacts to beach spawning sockeye that may be in or near the site. Specific Comments on the Environmental Checklist The response to question A.12 should include exactly how much shoreline will be treated with the proposed chemicals. 84a. The checklist fails to note any information, data, etc. detailing the genus, species and stem density of the proposed plants to be treated. The checklist also fails to note if there are any newly planted sites as required to do so as mitigation under a Section 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers that may be adversely affected by this application. 85d. The checklist should be modified to state the specific restrictions that will be observed per Table 2 in the general NPDES Permit W A-994000, including restricted use subject to fish timing windows referenced in Table 2. B 13a and b. The applicant responded that these questions do not apply to this proposal; however, there is no indication that either the applicant or Ecology has conducted a survey to determine if historical or cultural sites exist in the application area. Native people lived along Lake Washington and there may be archeological and cultural properties on or near the site. These questions do apply to the proposal. CIT, OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Worlcs Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator "'"'y 0 o~,~ *" t¢; ·~ + j:l-,P. Kathy Keolker, Mayor ?i>N'fo,";.i--------------------------- August 2, 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) on July 31, 2006: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Milfoil Control in Lake Washington LUA06-086, SME, ECF 1) Renton Seaplane Base at Renton Municipal Airport, 616 W. Perimeter Rd; 2) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, 1201 Lake Washington Blvd. N.; 3) Kennydale Beach Park, Lake Washington Blvd at N. 36th Street. City of Renton Parks Department proposes to conduct milfoil control annually for ten (10) years in Lake Washington via the application of an aquatic herbicide. Milfoil is an aquatic weed that grows in warm weather and may eventually reach the surface of the water under ideal growing conditions. It can interfere with swimmers and boaters ability to use the wateiways due to a potential for entanglement. It can also attach to boat propellers and may be transported to other bodies of water. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on August 21, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~~u~ Jennifer Henning Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer. Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation _E_nc_lo_s_ur_e ___ l_O_SS_S_o_u_th-Gr-ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_e_n_to-n,-W-as-h1-.n-gt-on-9-80-5-5-------~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHFAO OF THE CCRVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-086, ECF, SME APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: City of Renton -Parks Department Milfoil Control in Lake Washington DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Parks Department proposes to conduct milfoil control annually for ten (10) years in Lake Washington via the application of an aquatic herbicide. Milfoil is an aquatic weed that grows in warm weather and may eventually reach the surface of the water under ideal growing conditions. It can interfere with swimmers and boaters ability to use the waterways due to a potential for entanglement. It can also attach to boat propellers and may be transported to other bodies of water. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1) Renton Seaplane base at the Renton Municipal Airport, 616 W Perimeter Road; 2) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, 1201 Lake Washington Blvd. N: 3) Kennydale Beach Park, Lake Washington Blvd at N 36 1 " Street. LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on August 21, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services August 7, 2006 July 31, 2006 7/?1/a0CT~ ~ £c,._ Date Larry Rude, Interim Fire Chief Fire Department 11 11\A..)\-~ _· ""----__ e J ( ( 0(( _ Date Alex Pietsch, A ministrator EDNSP Date STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DA TE: July 31, 2006 Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Mil/oil Control in Lake Washington LUA06-086, ECF, SME Jennifer Henning Project Description: City of Renton Parks Department proposes to conduct mi/foil control annually for ten (10) years in Lake Washington via the application of an aquatic herbicide. Mi/foil is an aquatic weed that grows in warm weather and may eventually reach the surface of the water under ideal growing conditions. It can interfere with swimmers and boaters ability to use the watenways due to a potential for entanglement. It can also attach to boat propellers and may be transported to other bodies of water. Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gsf.' ERCREPT Treatment would cover an area totaling about 3 acres and would occur in 3 locations: 1) near the seaplane base at the Renton Municipal Airport; 2) at the swimming beach and boat launch at Gene Coulon Park; and, 3) at Kennyda/e Beach Park. Treatment would be accomplished by spraying the three areas with a spray boom that would be lowered beneath the surface of the water to a depth of six feet (6). The proposed product is Renovate 3, Triclopyr TEA, EPA #62719-6791. Typically after the application the mi/foil will wither and die, thus reopening the watenway. After application there is a 12-hour window in which beaches are closed to the public (if the application takes place during swim season). Spraying typically occurs during the summer, but the window for spraying is determined by the Washington Department of Ecology. The proposal requires $EPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Exemption, pnor to approval by Department of Ecology. 1) Renton Seaplane Base at Renton Municipal Airport, 616 W. Perimeter Rd 2) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, 1201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 3) Kennydale Beach Park, Lake Washington Blvd @ N. 36"' Street NIA Site Area: NIA Cizv of Renton PIE/PW Department Milfoil Control in Lake Washington REPORT AND DECISION OF JULY 31, 2006 B. RECOMMENDATION vironmental Review Committee Sta.ff Report L{JA-06-086, SME, £CF Puge :! of 4 Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MIT/GA TION MEASURES X DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MIT/GA TED. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14-day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant (or contractor) shall follow label instructions for the application of the Triclopyr TEA. as recommended in the FEIS for Permitted Use of Triclopyr TEA (May, 2004) 2. The applicant shall comply with the restrictions imposed by Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for application of the aquatic herbicide. 3. The applicant shall contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to ascertain if any endangered bird or animal species may be affected by the application of the chemical to the water body in question. Efforts should be made to avoid effects on migratory and nesting birds by coordinating with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4. The applicant shall close the affected swimming beaches for 12-hours after application of the milfoil eradication chemical or as recommended by Washington State Department of Health guidelines. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Water Impacts: Each of the areas intended for milfoil eradication are within Lake Washington, which is a shoreline of Statewide Significance. Lake Washington is used for recreational and commercial boating, swimming, and seaplane traffic. Milfoil is an invasive aquatic weed that grows in warm weather and may eventually reach the surface of the water under ideal growing conditions. Eurasian water milfoil interferes with the navigation, recreation and aesthetics of the lake. It may pose safety problems for swimmers and boaters, and can attach to a boat's propeller and be transported to other water bodies that are otherwise clear of milfoil. The proposal to apply an aquatic herbicide to eradicate the milfoil would be conducted once each year for ten years. A spray boom would be lowered beneath the surface of the water to a depth of six (6) feet. The product that would be applied is Renovate 3, Triclopyr TEA, EPA #62719-6790. Typically this application will cause the milfoil to wither and die, thus reopening the waterway. In May, 2004, Washington Department of Ecology issued a Final Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for Permitted Use of Triclopyr TEA. Triclopyr is an aquatic herbicide that is used to selectively control nuisance aquatic plants such as milfoil. According to the Final EIS (FEIS) the chemical dissipated rapidly and has a half-life in water from less and one ERCREPT City of Renton PIB/PW Department Mi/foil Control in Lake Washington Rl!PORT AND DECISION OF JULY 3/, 2006 1vironmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-086, SME, ECF Pa;.:e 3 o(4 day to approximately seven and one-half days. The FEIS notes that only about 20 percent of a water body is treated at any one time, based on areas designated for priority control. This is because the chemical causes plants to die, and the dead weeds decompose, decreasing the dissolved oxygen in an area, and reducing the oxygen available for fish to survive. The suggested mitigation is to follow label instructions for the product at the recommended concentrations. Staff recommends that the applicant (or contractor) be required to follow label instructions for the application of the Triclopyr TEA as recommended in the FEIS for Permitted Use of Triclopyr TEA (March 2004 ). Mitigation Measures: The applicant (or contractor) shall follow label instructions for the application of the Triclopyr TEA, as recommended in the FEIS for Permitted Use of Triclopyr TEA (May, 2004) Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. 2. Plants & Animals Impacts: The applicant submitted copies of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (Volume 1, July 2005), and the Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin (Annual Report, 2003 and 2004 ). According to the reports, juvenile Chinook salmon (oncorhynchus tshawytscha) habitat use occurs in the nearshore areas of Lake Washington. Juveniles migrate into the south end of Lake Washington either as fry or fingerlings between February and June. Juvenile fish rear and migrate north along the Lake Washington shoreline in shallow habitat. Chinook smolts typically enter saltwater between May and July. Adults return to the watershed between June and September. In addition, the Environmental Checklist submitted by the applicant indicates that Coho, Steel head and Sockeye salmon are present in the areas that would be treated for milfoil. Puget Sound Chinook are listed as "threatened" under Endangered Species Act (ESA), while Steelhead and Coho are proposed for listing under ESA. Invasive aquatic plants such as milfoil can increase habitat for predators of juvenile Chinook salmon, such as bass and perch. Eradication of the milfoil is considered to benefit the salmon protected under the Endangered Species Act. Eradication of milfoil would be anticipated to benefit the juvenile Chinook in the nearshore habitat, as predator habitat would be reduced. The proposed method of milfoil control is through the application of triclopyr. According to the FEIS for Permitted Use of Triclopyr (WDOE, May 2004 ), most fish species are tolerant of triclopyr TEA. In addition, triclopyr TEA is considered to be extremely safe for use in the presence of threatened and endangered salmon id game-fish. Suggested mitigation is to use the chemical as directed on label instructions. Staff has recommended this as a mitigation measure under Section 1 "Water", above. The FEIS also concludes that triclopyr and its products used as aquatic herbicides do not pose a significant acute or chronic risk to wild birds, provided that the product is applied according to label instructions. The FEIS recommends that applications of triclopyr should not be allowed if large populations of birds use shorelines in the water body to be treated for nesting until after nesting is complete. Another mitigation measure would be to time applications to avoid migratory waterfowl and other bird species that use certain water bodies during migration. Staff will recommend that the applicant contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to ascertain if any endangered bird or animal species may be affected by the application of the chemical to the water body in question. In addition, it is recommended that efforts be made to avoid effects on migratory and nesting birds by coordinating with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The U. S Environmental Protection Agency has approved the chemicals that would be applied (EPA# #62719-6791) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife determine the appropriate fish windows in which the eradication chemicals could be applied. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the restrictions imposed by the other agencies including Department of Ecology and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the restrictions imposed by Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for application of the aquatic herbicide. 2. The applicant shall contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to ascertain if any endangered bird or animal species may be affected by the application of the chemical to the water body in question. Efforts should be made to avoid effects on migratory and nesting birds by coordinating with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. ERCREPT City of Renton PIB/PW Department Mi/foil Control in Lake Washington REPORT AND DECISION OF JULY 31, 2006 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Parks and Recreation 1vironmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-086, SME, ECF I'uge 4 ,~f'4 Impacts: Gene Coulon Memorial Park public swimming beach and Kennydale Beach Park public swimming beach are open to swimmers throughout the summer season. The FEIS notes that the only health concern from application of triclopyr is minor eye irritation and exposure to children immediately after applications. The risk of eye irritation and overexposure for children decreases rapidly because of dilution. The Washington State Department of Health has recommended a 12-hour restriction for re-entry into triclopyr treated water to assure that the eye irritation potential and any other adverse effects will not occur. The applicant has stated that use of the water by swimmers would be restricted for 12 hours following application of the aquatic herbicide. This could impact use of the swimming beach for one day each at Coulon Beach Park and Kennydale Beach Park, if the spaying occurs during the summer season. The eradication of milfoil is considered beneficial for swimmers, as the risk of entanglement in the milfoil would be reduced. It is anticipated that the Parks Department will post signs at the swimming beach notifying users of the spraying and the date(s) of the beach closure. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall close the affected swimming beaches for 12-hours after application of the milfoil eradication chemical or as recommended by Washington State Department of Health guidelines. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ...1S____ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Combined Comment/Appeal Process: Comments on the proposal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., August 21, 2006. Written comments should be directed to Jennifer Henning, Project Manager, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., August 21, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ERCREPT ~- Lake Washington Lake W~~J~i-~Milfoil Control o 1000 2000 ~---~~ Economic Deve_lopment, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ~~-m • ~ '• Ab P,elsch,.Admrn,st,JUL Q 7 2006 1 ; 12000 l'fi~ )< G. Del Rosano ~ Affected Areas ~N°fO 29 June 2006 RECEIVED NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: Augusl 2, 200E LUA06·0B6. SME. ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City of Renton Parks proposes lo apply an aqvat1c herb1c1de to cortrol m1lfoJ Trealment wou,d occur at 1 ) Tl)e seap,ane base at Renton Mun,c,pal Airport. 2 j Gene Cou·,on Park boat launc~ and sw1mm1ng teach and 3 ) Kennydale Beach Park. M,1!011 ,S an aquat,c weed that grows m warl'T' weather and ma·1 esentJally reach lhe surface of tt"e wate, under ,Cea I growing cond,uons It can interfere wit~-sW,mmers and beaters abl'll\l lo use the wale'Ways dJe to a potenl1al for entanglement II oar also a\lach to boat propellers and T1ay be lranspcrted to other bcd,es cf water Treatment wculd occur or.ca annually 'or a period ol ten years. Treatment would co,er an area totaling about 3 acres Treatment ,muld be a~compl,shed ty spraying :he three areas with a spray boon> (hat would be lowered benealh the surface ol (he water to a depth of six feet 16"). Th<:! proposed product 1s Reno,•a1e 3 Triclopyr TEA, EPA #62719,6i91 Typically after the appl,cm,on the mi!fml will wither and ~1e, thus reopening lhe "'aterway After ap.p'icatkm there ,s a 12. hour window i1 which beaches are closed to the public (If the appl1cat1on takes place during swim seaso~1 Spraying t1p1cally occurs during the summer. but the window !or spray,ng 1s determine,,: 'Jy the Washington Departrr,enl cf Ecology and Washington Department of F;sh and Wildl1/e PROJECT LOCATION: Seaplane base at Renter, Mumc1pal Airport Gene Coulon Par< (sw,m%ng beach and boat laJnch), & Kennydale Beach Park swimming area DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M), As lhe Lead Agency. \he C1\y of Renter has detecm,ned that s1gn,fr::.anl environmental ,mpac\s are i;nl,kely to result from the propo5e~ pro1ec: and therefore .and Environmental Impact Statement 1.i:IS) ,snot required Comr1ent periods for the pro1ect and \he DNS-M are 1nleg,ated into a single comment period A 14-oay appea! ,s runrisg c::,ncurrentl'I ,,,,th the Notice of Ap::,licat1on. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 7. 2006 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 31. 20)6 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Jel'f',' Rereclch, City of Fl;enlon Park• Dapartm•nl; T•I; (425) 430-8615; Eml: Jrereclch@cLn,nton.wa.us Permi\s!Re~iew Requnted· Envlrnnmenial (SEPA) Review, Wnhlnglon State AquJtic Pl~n &. Alon Man1g,m,nt General Permii Other Permits which may be required: Shoreline Exemption Requested Stud/He Location whef9 application may be '9Ylewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Un: Lake Wash·ngto~/CeoarlSammam,sh Watershad (WRIA 8i Chinook Salmon Conservat,on Plan (Volume 1. July 2005). and :he Nearshore Hab,ta: Use by Ju,·eni!e Ch1ncoK Salmon 1n Lent1c Systems of the Lake Wash;ngton Bas,n (Annual Re pert. 20J3 and 2J04), FE',S Jar Perm,1ted Use of .,.riclopyr {WDOE May iC.04} Plannlng/Bul\dlng/Publ!c Worka Department, Oevelopmeni Servlen OIYl1lon, Sixth Floor Renton City Hill, 1055 Sou!h Grady Way, Renton, WA 9BD5S NIA The subJecl s1les are designated E'Tiolo1ment Area-lMust',al 1Seapla~e Base) Res1dent1a: Low Dens1t/ (Cou,on Par</ /J, Resideat,al Sirgle "a'fltly IKennydale Beac~ Park) on lhe City ar Renton Comprehensave Land Use Map and IM-P. R-1 IP}. & R-8 on thae C1tys Zon,ng Map EnHonmental Documents !hat Evaluale \he Proposed Pro1ect Environmental [SEPAi Checklist, FEIS 'or Permitted Use of Triclopr IWDOE, May 2004) De,·elopment Regulations Used For Project Mitigation TM ~rojoct w1ll l:;e subJ&:l to 111e City's SEPA ordinance, Shoraline Regulations and ot~er appl,caDle codes end regulations as appropriate Mitigation Measures: The folla""mg .M1t19at;on Measures have been imoosad on the proposed project These M1Ugat1on Meinures address pro:ec\ ,mpacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above The appt,cart \Or contractoc) shall follow label instructions for the appl1catbn of 1he Triclopyr TEA, as re,,:ommenoed 1n the FEIS for Permitted Use of Triclopyr TEA {May. 2004) T1e appl,~ant shall comply w,th the restrictions imposed ty Department of Ecology and Washington Department of F:sh and \'\11ldl1fe for apolicat1on of tne aquat,c herbicide The applicant shall contact Wash1ngtor, Oepa1ment of Fish and W1ldl1fe n order to ascertain ,f an1· endangered bird or ani'r1al species may be attecte:I by the appl,cat1on of the cher11cal to the waler tody 1n question Efforts shou1d be TJade to a,c,d eflects on m:gratCr/ ard nestmg birds by coordinat1n~ with Wash:ngton State Department of Fish a~d W1ldl1fe The applicant shall close the affected sw1mm1ng beaches for 12-hours after ap~l1cat,on of the milfo,I eradication chemical or as recommended by Wash1ngtor State Department of Health gu,del,nes Comments on the above application must be •ubmltled In writing to Jennifer Henning, Project Manager, Development SarvicH Dlvlalon, 1055 .south Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, .by 5:00 PM On Augu11 21, 2006. If 1·ou ha·,e quest,ons about tn,s proposal. or wish to be made a party o! reccro and receive a:ld,bor,al not1!1cat,cn by mail contacl the Pro1ect Man~ger Anyone who submits wri1ten comment, wl'I automat1call)" become a party of record and w,11 be not1r1ed of any dec,s,on on this project Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated The City or Renton Env.ronmental Review ComlT'1ttee (ERC) has determinoo that the pro~sed act,on does not have a s,gniflcant adverse l'Tipact on the e~v1ro~ment APPEAL5 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION MUST BE FILED IN WRITING ON OR BEFOA;E 5:00 PM AUGUST 21, 2006. APPEALS MUST BE FILED IN WRITING TOGETHER WITH THE REQUIRED $75 00 APPLICATION FEE WITH HEARING EXAMINER. CITY OF RENTON. 1055 SOLJTH GRADY WAY. REr,;TON. WA 98055 APPEALS TO THE EXAMINER ARE GOVERNED BY CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4-8· 11 D 8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPEAL PROCESS MAY BE OBTAINED FRCM THE RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (425) 430-651 0 CONTACT PERSON: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, Tel: (425) 430-7286; Eml: jhennlng@ci.renton.wa.us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE lDENTIFlCATION I you would like to be made a ~arty ol record to receive further information on this proposed project. complete his form and return to. City af Renton Development Planning, 1055 So. Grad)' Way, Renton, WA 98055 ~ame/Fi'.e No M1llo11 Control in Lake Wash1ngton/LUA06-086, SME, ECF IAME ~AILING ADDRESS "ELEPHONE NO CERTIFICATION I, 'Alf: me,p , hereby certify that , 1 copies of the above document were posted by me in _:f_ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on ,,,'"y'~~N\\111 11 .::-'a\.. " It, 1,, ~ i-.,.-. "'"'\:.H1t1, <¥ f/ DATE: "if· 2 ·Ob SIGNED: =~-"--:;,/ ',h· ,¢,.,,~ ~ / -.,.~, ,,.,,,,, ~~.~ -::0 .. .,._, ·r,1. ~"{.: : ;:;'() -~i ATTEST Subscnbed and sworn before me, a Notary Publtc, m and for the State of Washmgton res1dmg m::: ~ -• -~ ~ ~{fl~ .,0 : -~ --'~ Uf!JLlv ff~: 7offi;Vifs1:1rnct;~~,\~~~F WASl'I' ,,, 1111111,"'''' _pP=·'u~~+.,.,,~·~-· on the dayof Q4,wJ CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2nd day of August, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination, NOA, Environmental Checklist, PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies Surrounding Property Owners ../f r (Signature of Sender)·-----,,, - STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING '-= -= ss See Attached See Attached -,..--.., ~ 'J . ~ Project Name: Milfoil Control in Lake Washington Project Number: LUA06-086, SME, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Reoresentina Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor• AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold • c/o Department of Ecology 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Duwamish Tribal Office• 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program • Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box 48343 Olvmnia, WA 98504-8343 ' i i Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 City of Newcastle Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Director of Community Development 13020 SE 72"' Place Newcastle, WA 98059 °'""''"' J Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP. Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 . Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liason Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing I -, __ J BELL DONALD R & NANCY L 3616 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE ATTN: PROP TAX PO BOX 96189 FORT WORTH TX 76161 FIFE BRIAN+STEPHANIE DEJONG 3613 LKWASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 KING COUNTY 500 KC ADMIN BLDG 500 4TH AV SEATTLE WA 98104 KREICK CONRAD R+JOY A 3619 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 NASAROW ANDREAS 3602 LK WASH BL N RENTON WA 98056 POTOSHNIK MIKE JR 3403 BURNETT AV N RENTON WA 98056 ROCHELLE SARAH J 3626 LK WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 BRENNAN GERALD F 3405 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 CORRELL KEVIN L +SUSANA 3502 BURNETI AV N RENTON WA 98056 GERRING DALE+LINDA L 905 N 36TH ST RENTON WA 98056 KRAMER MELISSA 3415 BURNETI AV N RENTON WA 98056 LAW DENIS W+PATRICIA 3625 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 PEHA ROBERT D+DONNA V 3611 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 RICHARDS DARIUS F 3605 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 SHURE CHARLES H lll+GAYLE A 903 N 36TH ST RENTON WA 98056 BROWN JOHN MICHAEL 3703 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 DELOOF SUSAN PO BOX 1456 CEDAR CREST NM 87008 HENSLEY BYRON L & JO ANN 904 N 36TH ST RENTON WA 98056 KRAMER MELISSA 3407 BURNETT AV N RENTON WA 98056 LUCK VIRGINIA E 285 SAND DUNE AV NW OCEAN SHORES WA 98569 POOL MATT C+SHANNON D 3601 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98046 RILEY TIMOTHY J+VIRGINIA L 3607 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 ~y o"@~,¢; + -:m + ~~~ "?l}N,rO NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: August 2, 2006 LUA06-086, SME, ECF Milfoil Control in Lake Washington PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City of Renton Parks proposes to apply an aquatic herbicide to control milfoil. Treatment would occur at: 1.) Tl).e··seaplane base at Renton Municipal Airport; 2.) Gene Coulon Park boat launch and swimming beach; and 3.) Kennydale Beach Park. Milfoil is an aquatic weed that grows in warm weather and may eventually reach the surface of the water under ideal growing conditions. It can interfere with swimmers and boaters ability to use the water-.vays due to a potential for entanglement. It can also attach to boat propellers and may be transported to other bodies of water. Treatment would occur once annually for a period of ten years. Treatment would cover an area totaling about 3 acres Treatment would be accomplished by spraying the three areas with a spray boom that would be lowered beneath the surface of the water to a depth of six feet (6'). The proposed product is Renovate 3, Triclopyr TEA, EPA #62719-6791. Typically after the application the milfoil will wither and die, thus reopening the waterway. After application there is a 12- hour window in which beaches are closed to the public (if the application takes place during swim season). Spraying typically occurs during the summer, bunhe window for spraying is determined by the Washington Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. PROJECT LOCATION: Seaplane base at Renton Municipal Airport; Gene Coulon Park (swimming beach and boat launch), & Kennydale Beach Park swimming area. DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project, and therefore and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Comment periods for the project and the ONS-M are integrated into a single comment period. A 14-day appeal is running concurrently with the Notice of Application. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 7, 2006 July 31, 2006 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Jorry Rereclch, City of Renton Parks Department; Tel: (425) 430-6615; Eml: jrerecich@ci.renton.wa.us Pennits/Revlew Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Washington State Aquatic Plan & Algae Management General Permit Shoreline Exemption Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (Volume 1, July 2005), and the Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin (Annual Report, 2003 and 2004), FEIS for Permitted Use of Triclopyr (WDOE, May 2004) Plannlng/Buildlng!Publlc Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 NIA The subject sites are designated Employment Area-Industrial (Seaplane Base). Residential Low Density (Coulon Park), & Residential Single Family (Kennydale Beach Park) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and IM-P, R-1 (P), & R-8 on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project Environmental (SEPA) Checklist, FEIS for Permitted Use of Triclopyr (WDOE, May 2004) Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, Shoreline Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures have been imposed on the proposed project. These Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • The applicant (or contractor) shall fallow label instructions for the application of the Triclopyr TEA. as recommended in the FElS for Permitted Use of Triclopyr TEA (May, 2004) • The applicant shall comply with the restrictions imposed by Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for application of the aquatic herbicide. • The applicant shall contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to ascertain if any endangered bird or animal species may be affected by the application of the chemical to the water body in question. Efforts should be made to avoid effects on migratory and nesting birds by coordinating with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The applicant shall close the affected swimming beaches ·for 12-hours after application of the milfoil eradication chemical _or as recommended by Washington State Department of Health guidelines. Comments on the above apli:ation must be submitted In writing to Jennifer Henning, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 21, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this proje,ct. Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has determined that the proposed action does not have a significant adverse impact on the envir~[lment APPEALS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION MUST BE FILED IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE 5:00 PM AUGUST 21, 2006. APPEALS MUST BE FILED IN WRITING TOGETHER WITH THE REQUIRED $75.00 APPLICATION FEE WITH: HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WA 98055. APPEALS TO THE EXAMINER ARE GOVERNED BY CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4-8- 110.B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPEAL PROCESS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (425) 430-6510. CONTACT PERSON: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, Tel: (425) 430-7286; Eml: jhennlng@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File Na.: Milfoil Control in Lake Washington/LUA06-086, SME, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Date: To: From: July 31, 2006 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Jerry Rerecich, Parks Department Jennifer Henning, Development Services dlV\ Subject: Milfoil Control in Lake Washington LUA06-086, SME, ECF The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. Also, on July 31, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) completed their review of the subject project and issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERG Report and Decision, Section C for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on August 21, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. Please contact me, at 430-7286, if you have any questions. Acceptaru::e Memo 06-086 Printed: 07-13-2006 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA06-086 Receipt Number: R0603526 Total Payment: 07/13/2006 06:01 PM 1,000.00 Payee: INTER OFFICE TRANSFER Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 1,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment IOT R ZULAF 1,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.l Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 INTERFUND TRANSFER Transfer Number: ------- General Description: [,nrrccrn~ Date: //!0/0&l W)r{)(b-Gt'CO /<eA/lf,v.J ~ RefrlovcJ...,(tcrn+.m-W--)41:o µ}~ Department To Be Charged (Transfer Out-From) P/6i/pi,J Ai{pt: Description Account Number WO/Function Amount f /,., .,,A ; ,., 1 -f-~rn,,; ! . --,f-;-· -. ,,c1,v,.1Yn. DI 1. l'1-II.. ;;;o.,.11.r: 'ti cJdl~/Y,5/{ n /OC(},00 D I ~ /1 /I Department Authorization: /ck,. (' /'.,!!£/ . V // l// Department To Be Credited (Transfer In -To) f' / 8 / rkJ OW: ~C,0/ ~ J Description Account Number WO/Function Amount h --UT..tf .I DAi ~ -~I im. '3<f5. 71(. co. a:Kl::f //JOO, iJO Distribution: White: Finance Department : : Yellow: Department to be Oiarged Pink: Department to be Credited City of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON LAND USE PERMIT JUL O 7 2006 MASTER APPLICATIQNRECEIVED PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: City of Renton PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Lake Washinton Milfoil Control ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: Renton ZIP: 98055 1. Kennydale Beach Park Lk. Wa. Blvd. @North 361h St 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-430-6600 2. Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park APPLICANT (if other than owner) 1201 Lake Washington Blvd. North 98055 3. Renton Municipal Airport NAME: 616 West Perimeter Road 98055 COMPANY (if applicable): KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 1. Kennydale Beach Park 334210358001 ADDRESS: 2. Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 334450077501 CITY: ZIP: 3. Renton Municipal Airport 072305900705 TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING LAND USE(S): 1. Kennydale Beach Park, Vacant(Park, Public CONT ACT PERSON Swimming beach) NAME: Jerry Rerecich 2. Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, Park, Public Swimming Beach COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton Recreation Director 3. Renton Municipal Airport, Air Terminal (float plane area) ADDRESS: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): No change EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CITY: ZIP: Kennydale-RSF, Coulon-RLD, Airport-EA-I TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION 425-430-6615 jrerecich@ci.renton.wa.us (if applicable): NA Q: web/ pw/ devserv / forms/p 1 ann in g/mastcrapp. doc 07/07/06 P, JECT INFORMA TION (cont red) EXISTING ZONING: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA 1. Kennydale Beach Park R-8 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 2. Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park R-1 (P) BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL 3. Renton Municipal Airport IM(P) BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NA applicable): NA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE SITE AREA (in square feet): NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NA Total treat men! areas is approximately 3 acres, or PROJECT VALUE: NA 130, 680 square feet. There will be four treatment areas, all about the same size. the swimming area at IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF Kennydale, the swimming area and the boat launch at ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE Gene Coulon, and the sea plane area at the Airport. SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): D AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NA D AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: D FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. NA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET D HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ACRE (if applicable): NA D SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 130,680 sq. ft. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NA D WETLANDS sq. ft. NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA The land along the rim of Lake Washington is considered to be a Seismic Hazard area, but the project site (in the lake) is not. There is also a fiood hazard area on the shoreline NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA adjacent to the project site at the airport, but the entire project site is in the water. As a result, the entire project site is within the shoreline. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) KENNYDALE SITE: SITUATE IN THE NEY. OF SECTION 11. TOWNSHIP _l!._ RANGE §_,_IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. COULON SITE: SITUATE IN THE SW Y. OF SECTION §_TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE_5_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AIRPORT SITE: SITUATE IN THE NORTH Y, OF SECTION§_ TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE_5_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Q: we b/pw / devserv/forms/p I rum ing/mastcrapp. doc 2 07/07/06 tOJECT INFORMATION (contin ) TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Environmental Review 3. 2. Shoreline Exemption 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) ,)€-f'r--j f\. t r,e <2_ ;' c_h , declare that I am (please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or ....t..c.::_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q: weh/ pw / devserv / fonns/pl ann ing/ma.~terapp. doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ,j t', t fe k( t( C I(:. / \ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their f~e and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary (Print)_,~J .. o~'~)c~·~-,LJ~_,;LLLZ~-~<; __ ~c-· Lt~ILzL· - My appointment expires: 3 07/07106 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIOI WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS . . . . . . . LAND USE PERl'IIJT SUBMITTAl . WAt\/EI) MODIFIED . . . . ·. ·. REQUIREME;N'fS: > < ...•. · .... ·•····.. . .BY: >. BY: . . . •. < COMME.NTS: . . ' ·_· Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 . . ·.·· . ;"_. ·:= . ·.· .. ··•·· ........ •. .··.· .. ·.·.... .. . . ••.• ......•..... · .... ·.··. ··. ·· ... · .· ·-·::·.·.· ·: ::·, '.: ·.'::'' .. :· ·:·.· ·--:... ·:_' ·. _:_ .·,' : Plat Certificate or Title Report 4 Plaf:NSffi·E:{R-e.servatib-0::4: ,_:::· -· -· =·.=.:,:: _ .. : :-=<· -__ -_·= ·_··< -=-= .. : ._ .. :.<:·.:=-::<=· · · .. ·_-· · :.:: ·. ··=:: ::;:·; = =· · -'::::-, ·- , .. =·--.. " ·-:· ·. :-··-·· -...... -.. -.'.-.. ==·.:.:_: "" :_.: -'·:-·:·:'·--' '_':: .. ·-.'·:· .,: .. :;-::-,. , .. -,::-.::·":::-·:·: .·: !:<-_· . :· _:,··-: ."' ., .. :-.. ::·-.... : .. :=--: Pre-Application Meeting Summary 4 n1\1 Rehabilitation Plan 4 ······ ....... ii .···· . '. :·: : . .._._:_.":.: '' '·.· .Sfre~iiirigoetait:. ·· i.i ··.· . · .......... } ··•< •.•·. < i ··.>.• < <> I > < i •••··• ·.··· ·.·.·.···· ... ·.· ·• t••······· .. · .. ······· ............ ··. i< •. Site Plan 2AND• ~/--ow ,qe,vi· I fy'('.iY;, ~ itpp0~hn-,.__, S!i~llrll P(Lake Study; Sta11clar4f > < I < . / . ·• ··. ·· ? ~ / ··• > i~ ~vri'U Wt#tf j 1{;,.tz~trt /1,l'l I ., Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental• u I V , , siream or Lak!l Mjiigation Pl.i11 f ·•·•· ·. ··· •• · · ·. · · • . · ·•· • · • ·• ·· .·• ·· · · < ·. ·· .•... ) i · · · ·····.,;; · · ..... ·. · ·• . • < • ·• •. · ··• , \ ... ·. ·. •· · · ·· . · ... ····. · ·. •• • .• ·i · · · .. ·· ··· • · •• ·· · • i Street Profiles 2 t··" .. ·=·-'-:·=·--t)-'--.. M---, ___ .. .... -...... .:_:::=·-':·-·==_-:.,-.. = -·-··-_ .. -. :c.-:c::.:c::-:-:: .. :,, __ ... :,, .-'.·:·. ,-:· __ .... :.-.. : · .. __ ,. ____ -=-=.:-. _·=-:' •. --·-·:-'-'=. : .. -.(1:p<:>grap _Y-· -clP?: .. -.. :=<·= .. -:,. _= .. =·=:---->-=-·,_.-·-__ -., -··TN.-~-.=.: ._:.-.:1":.:=:<·· .. =-:.:-··· ... , ... ·.=-' =._,.: --= ----·, .. :_ ... .-< .. , ..... _ _ _ .... -.=-:= Traffic Study 2 ~ Tri:ie c:uiung/l-.11hd c1~~rir1g plery / < < Y • • ···•· ~·• ·· • ••• • i/ I ·. ·.··· /. > · .. .· • ·•·· •· · • • .. . ...... < •.· •.•. • < • ..•• • ... •·.··· .· / > .· ·· · Urban Center Design Overlay District Report 4 Ollliti.e$ l?lao: Genedi.lize<.l t / > . ..· .. ·. > · · > i .. ···• ... · ·• ··.. . .. • · •· ·. > • .. •• ·· · ... ·.· . ... · ·. > . · ·• .· · .. ·.·• ·• · ·.·• ·· • · · · ·· ·· • y . · Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 3TY1 Wetliin4& Mitig;;,tion Pllcin; f'(,:,Jihiiil~iy;( ·.····.·· ·.·.··•· •..• ·.·••··••··•·••·• ............ ,)'i!'J •.•.. · ··.. < < · .····. ·.· .. ·.·.·.•··••· < • ..•..•........ · · < ...... . Wetlands Assessment 4 o'f1 Wireless: .. . • . • • •. < ••• I•> < ·. • •• • .i • •• < • .. . .........•..• •• • •< ::=-· ... : ::-: ... ·.:·,:·:::-c·c. -::> 1.:., .... ,:,:·=: -_ _ --.:=_·--:,:-·.,=--:·-.·==·:: t:,_':-,:, .. _ ·.= __ : _::..;: .. :-:-,:':,.:.· .·,_:-.. =_·,·, _ .. -, .. :( .-·. . Applicant Agreement Statement zAND3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND, ' Photo simulations 2 AND, .. This requirement may be waived by: , •• I t1"l.e.~(V\11h"1 W, j IL:.;/ u/,ffyd( 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: (....81'-C,, LN p-., ~ JD 'f" 2. Public Works Plan Review Section Jr, .£ , ( ''·, 1-00 (, 3. Building Section DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DATE: ---'"'-'-""""-'--=-~~T~-------- 4. Development Planning Section CITY OF RENTON JUL O 7 2006 RECEIVED Q;\WEB\PW.OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waivers.xls 2 05/22/2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS .· LAND USE PERMltSUBMITt'At REQIJIREM12Nts .. : .. · .................. Calculations 1 Coloredfy1apsfor Display I .•. Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 Density Worki;heei 4 . Drainage Control Plan 2 Draina.ge R¢pott 2 Grading Plan, Detailed 2 Landscape Plan, Detailed 4 lle~al Dei;tnpuqn .; Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Neighbl)rh()l)i:I DetaJI Map • •• WAIVED MODIFIED .. BY: BYf This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: v~kw-a$~,.~f11,i i,ui(J,i I C4~-hl( 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section ' ~ . "':·,.:., . ' . ' .. ' • __ ,..~ N ... ~' O:\WEB\PW\OEV?:>ER\!.,forms\Planning\waivers.xls DATE: ___ {J_.(_t-lt/(f---0_(, __ _ 05i22120G6 • Lake Washington Milfoil Control Narrative The purpose of this project is to eradicate milfoil from selected portions of Lake Washington that includes the bathing beaches at Kennydale Beach, Coulon Beach, the boat harbor at Coulon Park and the seaplane area adjacent to the north end of Renton Airport. Milfoil is an aquatic weed that grows in warm weather and may eventually reach the surface of the water under ideal growing conditions. Often time's milfoil grows so prolifically that it prevents waterways access due to entanglement. Milfoil is also easily attached to boater's propellers and may be inadvertedly transported to other bodies of water that are otherwise clear of milfoil. The size of the area to be treated is approximately three acres. No improvements to the area will be done other than to treat the milfoil. Treatment of milfoil will be accomplished by spraying the aforementioned areas with a spray boom that will be lowered beneath the surface of the water to a depth of six feet. The product being used is Renovate 3, Triclopyr TEA, EPA #62719-6790. Typically after the application the milfoil will wither and die, thus reopening the waterway. After application there will be a twelve-hour window prior to allowing the beaches to open to the public if application takes place during swim season. The estimated cost of this project is approximately $10,000.00. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL O 7 2006 RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL O 7 2006 RECEIVED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc07/07/06 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake Washington Milfoil Control 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Wa 89055 Jerry Rerecich, Recreation Director 425-430-6615 4. Date checklist prepared: June 30, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Annually to begin in 2006 for ten (10) years during the window as allowed by State of Washington 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NIA. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The Washington State Department of Ecology has completed a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Aquatic Pesticide Permits. It can be viewed at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/seis/risk_assess.html 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton Environmental Review, City of Renton Shoreline Exemption, Washington State Aquatic Plan and Algae Management and General Permit, 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The proposal includes the application of an aquatic herbicide to control milfoil overgrowth in three locations in Lake Washington. Locations include the sea plane area at the Renton Municipal Airport, the swimming beach and boat launch areas at Gene Coulon Park, and the swimming beach area at Kennydale Beach Park. Combined, this represents a three acre application, roughly divided into equal size areas between the four locations. Application will occur a maximum of one time per year. The duration of this project is ten C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 2 years. The pesticide is FDA approved and will be administered in accordance with best management practices and all Department of Ecology Conditions. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Legal Descriptions and Map attached to Master Application. 1. Kennydale Beach Park-Lake Washington Blvd and North 36t11 Street. NE Y. OF SECTION 31 TOWNSHIP~ RANGE §_,_IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 2. Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park -1201 Lake Washington Blvd. North. SW Y. OF SECTION i. TOWNSHIP ...ll_, RANGE_5_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 3. Renton Municipal Airport-616 West Perimeter Road 98055 NORTH Y, OF SECTION 2 TOWNSHIP ...ll_, RANGE_5_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ NA-Project entirely within the waters of Lake Washington. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) NA c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. NA-lake bottom. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NA e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. NA f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NA C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 3 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NA h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NA 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. NA b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NA 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The application will be done in Lake Washington, at the Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park swimming area, the Kennydale Beach Park swimming area and, the end of the runway for the Renton Municipal Air Port. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, see attached 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. C:\Documents and Settings\jrerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 4 NA 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 DO-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, the entire project is within the water. However, the land adjacent to the site at the Renton Municipal Airport is considered a flood plain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NA 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NA c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. NA 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: NA 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 5 __ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs __ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _L water plants: water lily, eel grass,~other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No vegetation will be removed, but the purpose of the project is to prevent milfoil overgrowth, so milfoil growth will be affected. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Puget Sound Chinook -threatened Steelhead and Coho-proposed under ESA d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: NA 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds:<fiawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, otheD~-------- Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other _________ _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _Chinook, Coho, Steelhead and Sockeye b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Puget Sound Chinook -threatened Steelhead and Coho-proposed under ESA c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Per DOE guidelines, the treatment is limited to 2.5 ppm a.e. for the treatment area per annual growing season to provide the strongest protection of beneficial native plants that provide habitat for juvenile salmon and other aquatic life in the wetlands, estuaries, and marshes into which the treated water may flow. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 6 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. NA b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NA c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: NA 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The chemical produce used in this project is approved by the FDA to treat and prevent milfoil overgrowth. Proper application procedure, according to best management practices and DOE conditions/guidelines should not pose any toxic risk. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NA 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Product will be applied according to best management practices and DOE conditions and guidelines. This includes applying the product under the water to prevent aerial drift, limiting the application of the product to the recommended level during the annual growing season, and closing recreation areas for at least 12 hours after application. C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 7 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NA 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. NA 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NA 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Kennydale Beach Park is currently a public recreation site adjacent to a residential neighborhood and rail right-of-way. Coulon Park is currently a public recreation site adjacent to residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The Renton Municipal Airport is in industrial use as an airfield, and is surrounded by primarily industrial and commercial uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. NA c. Describe any structures on the site. The site is completely in the waters of Lake Washington, but there are structures and docks extending over the water for boat launch, swimming area, and walkways. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NA e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Kennydale Beach Park-R-8 Residential-eight units per net acre. Gene Coulon Park-RC- Resource Conservation. Renton Municipal Airport-IM-Industrial Medium. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Kennydale Beach Park-RSF (Residential Single Family), Gene Coulon Park-RLD (Residential Low Density), Renton Municipal Airport-EA-I (Employment Area-Industrial). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 8 This area is designated as a Significant Water of the State. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. None of the project site has been classified as environmentally sensitive. However, adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport site, the land is within the 100 year flood plain, and all the adjacent land along the Lake Washington Shoreline is in a Seismic Hazard zone. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NA k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: This project ensures that the adjacent land use can be used as intended. Overgrowth of milfoil could potential impair the use of the adjacent park and recreation and airport facilities for their intended purposes. 9. HOUSING NA a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NA b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NA 10. AESTHETICS NA a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 9 NA b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NA 11. LIGHT AND GLARE NA a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NA c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NA 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Shoreline uses such as swimming, boating, fishing. Parks and recreation uses including play structures, trails, athletic fields and courts, and picnic areas. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Boat launch and swimming uses would be restricted for 12 hours after the application of the product. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Application would occur during "off hours" to minimize the disruption of recreational uses. C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 10 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NA b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: NA 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. NA b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? NA c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? NA d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? NA e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NA f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. NA C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Mitfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 11 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NA 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NA b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NA 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. NA-The site is entirely within the waters of Lake Washington and is not served by utilities. However, there is a sewer line that runs through a portion of the application area in the Kennydale Beach Park site. It should not be affected. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: C:\Documents and Settings~rerecich\Local Settings\Temp\Milfoil Enviromental check sheet.doc 12 •••• -.::,. . ,' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL O 7 2006 RECEI VED §Public U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin Annual Report, 2003 and 2004 March 2006 By Roger A. Tab or, Howard A. Gearns, Charles M Mc Coy III and Sergio Camacho U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washingto n Fish & Wildlife Office Lacey, Washington Seattle • Utilities ~ ••'-1° Funded by Seattle Public Utilities (City of Seattle) and the City of Mercer Island NEARSHORE HABITAT USE BY JUVENILE CIDNOOK SALMON IN LENTIC SYSTEMS, 2003 AND 2004 REPORT by Roger A. Tabor, Howard A. Gearns, Charles M. McCoy IIl 1, and Sergio Camacho 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Division 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite I 02 Lacey, Washington 98503 March2006 1Present address: Mason County, Planning Department, PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 2Present address: University of Washington, College of Forestry Resources, PO Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100 SUMMARY In 2003 and 2004, we continued our assessment of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) habitat use in the nearshore areas of Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. Additional work was conducted in Lake Quinault to study habitat features that are rare in the Lake Washington basin and serve as a more natural "reference system" to Lake Washington. Juvenile Chinook salmon are found in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish between January and July, primarily in the littoral zone. Little is known of their habitat use in lakes, as ocean-type Chinook salmon rarely occur in lakes throughout their natural distribution. Research efforts in 2003 and 2004 focused on juvenile Chinook salmon distribution, residence time and movements, shoreline structure use (woody debris, overhanging vegetation, and emergent vegetation), depth distribution, use ofnonnatal tributaries, feeding at the mouths of tributaries, abundance at restoration sites, and behavior of migrating smolts. Data on Chinook salmon habitat use were collected primarily through snorkel surveys. We repeatedly surveyed nine index sites in 2003 in south Lake Washington to examine the temporal and spatial distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon. We surveyed four sites on the east shoreline, four on the west shoreline, and one on Mercer Island. Similar to 2002 results, the two sites closest to the Cedar River had substantially higher densities of Chinook salmon from the beginning of February to the end of May than the other seven sites. Overall, the abundance of Chinook salmon displayed a strong, negative relationship with the shoreline distance from the mouth of the Cedar River to each site. Juvenile Chinook salmon were present on Mercer Island on each survey date. To better understand the residence time and movement patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon, we conducted a marking study at Gene Coulon Park. Approximately 100 Chinook salmon (mean, 45 mm fork length) were collected from each of two sites and each group was marked with a different color of dye and were later released where they were captured. At 1, 7, 15 and 21 days after release, we snorkeled the entire shoreline of Gene Coulon Park at night to look for marked fish. Results indicated many Chinook salmon remain in a small area. We never found any Chinook salmon that had moved more than 150 m. The median distance moved within the study area remained the same from day I to day 21 but the number of marked fish observed declined substantially. Therefore, it is possible that some fish moved outside of our survey area. We continued to monitor restoration sites, both pre-and post-project, to help determine iflake-shoreline habitat can be improved for juvenile Chinook salmon rearing. A restoration project at Seward Park was completed in December 200 I. The restoration site as well as other Seward Park shoreline sites were surveyed in 2002-2004 and compared to 2001 data. Numbers of juvenile Chinook salmon were generally low for each year. Overall, we found no evidence of increased Chinook salmon use of the Seward Park restoration site. We also continued to collect baseline information at Beer Sheva Park and Martha Washington Park. In addition, we also began collecting baseline data at Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina and the old Shuffieton Power Plant Outflow site. The boat ramp area at Beer Sheva Park had high densities of Chinook salmon, and there appear to be ii sufficient numbers of juvenile Chinook salmon at Beer Sheva Park to rear at the mouth of Mapes Creek if it were restored. Overall, restoration sites close to the mouth of the Cedar River likely have a higher chance of success than further north sites because juvenile Chinook salmon are substantially more abundant near the mouth of the Cedar River than at more northerly sites. Both day and night surveys were conducted to better quantify the water depth of the area where juvenile Chinook salmon are located. Daytime surveys consisted of surface observations of juvenile Chinook salmon feeding at the surface. Surveys were conducted once every two weeks from February to June. Nighttime surveys were conducted once a month from March to May and consisted of a series of perpendicular snorkel/scuba diving transects between 0-and 3-m depth. During the day from February 19 to April l 4, Chinook salmon were only observed in water between 0-and 0.5-m deep. From late April to June, surface feeding activity by Chinook salmon was observed in progressively deeper water and by June most activity was observed in an area where the water was between 2-and 3-m deep. Results of nighttime surveys clearly showed that juvenile Chinook salmon progressively shift to deeper waters as they grow. In 2002, we surveyed 17 tributaries and found juvenile Chinook salmon are often present at the tributary mouths. We surveyed six tributaries in 2003 and 2004 to determine if Chinook salmon forage on prey items that come into the lake via the tributary and how storm events affect the diet and abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon. Under baseflow conditions, differences in the diet between the lake shore and the tributary mouth were not pronounced; however, Chinook salmon at tributary mouths do appear to utilize prey from the tributary to some extent. Chironomid pupae and adults were the most important prey at both the tributary mouths and lakeshore sites. However, benthic and terrestrial insects were more prevalent in the diet at tributary mouths than at lakeshore sites. The diet breadth was usually higher at the tributary mouths than along the lakeshore. Tributary mouths appeared to be especially valuable habitat for Chinook salmon during high streamflow conditions. Tue diet breadth was much broader at high stream flow than during base stream flow conditions. A large percentage of the diet during high streamflow conditions consisted ofbenthic prey such as chironomid larvae and oligochaetes. These prey items were a minor component of the diet at tributary mouths during base streamflow conditions and at lakeshore sites. At May Creek, we were also able to demonstrate that the abundance of Chinook salmon can increase during a high flow event. Of the 17 tributaries examined in 2002, Johns Creek was by far the most used by Chinook salmon. We continued surveys of Johns Creek in 2003 and 2004, to determine the spatial and temporal distribution of Chinook salmon within the tributary. We surveyed the lower 260 m of the creek once every two to three weeks. Results from Johns Creek indicated that Chinook salmon extensively use this nonnatal tributary from year to year. They use slow-water habitats and moved into deeper habitats as they increased in size. Density of Chinook salmon in the convergence pool was considerably lower than in pools and glides upstream. The convergence pool is larger and deeper than the other habitats and has very low water velocities. Also, other fish species, including predators, were often present in the convergence pool and rare or absent in the other habitats. iii An overhanging vegetation/small woody debris (OHV/SWD) experiment was conducted in Gene Coulon Park in 2003. We compared the abundance of Chinook salmon at two shoreline sections with OHV and S WD to two sections with only SWD and to two sections where no structure was added. The site was surveyed during two time periods; March 24 through April 9 and May 2 through 16. During daytime in the early time period, we found a significantly higher abundance of Chinook salmon at the OHV/SWD sites than the other two shoreline types. Large numbers of Chinook salmon were located directly under the OHV. At night, no significant difference was detected. Also, there was no significant difference during the late time period (May 2 through 16), either day or night. Results indicated that overhead cover is an important habitat element early in the season; however, an additional experiment is needed to determine if OHV alone is used as intensively as OHV is in combination with SWD. Because large woody debris (L WD) and emergent vegetation are rare in Lake Washington, we examined their use by juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault. Nearshore snorkel transects were surveyed in 2004 during a 2-week period in April and a 2-week period in June. The nearshore area was divided into one of five habitat types: open beach, bedrock, emergent vegetation, L WD, or tributary mouth. During the April daytime surveys, tributary mouths generally had higher numbers of Chinook salmon than the other habitat types and bedrock sites often had a lower number. Beach, emergent vegetation, and LWD sites were not significantly different from each other. Within L WD sites, juvenile Chinook salmon were often resting directly under a large piece of L WD. There was no difference in their nighttime abundance between habitat types. In June, few Chinook salmon were observed during the day except at tributary mouths. Apparently, Chinook salmon were further offshore during the day. At night, they were abundant in the nearshore area but there was no difference in their abundance between habitat types. Earlier Lake Washington work in June 2001 indicated that Chinook salmon can be observed moving along the lake shoreline. In 2003 and 2004, we undertook a more in- depth sampling approach to determine when they can be observed. Additionally, we wanted to collect information on their behavior in relation to piers. In 2003 and 2004, weekly observations (May-July) were conducted at one site, a public pier near McClellan Street. Observations at other piers were only conducted when large numbers of Chinook salmon had been seen at McClellan Pier. The timing of the migration appeared to coincide with the June moon apogee, which has been also suggested to be related to the passage of Chinook salmon smolts at the Ballard Locks. When migrating Chinook salmon approach a pier they appear to move to slightly deeper water and either pass directly under the structure or swim around the pier. The presence of Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) appeared to cause juvenile Chinook salmon to be further offshore in deeper water. The top of the milfoil appeared to act as the bottom of the water column to Chinook salmon. At some piers with extensive milfoil growth, Chinook salmon were located on the outside edge of the pier and the pier had little effect on their behavior. A summary table is presented below which lists various habitat variables and displays conclusions about each variable for three time periods (Table I). The table was iv developed from results of this report as well as two earlier reports (fabor and Piaskowski 2002, Tabor et al. 2004b ). TABLE 1.--Summary table of juvenile Chinook salmon habitat use during three time periods in Lake Washington. Summary designations are based on 2001 (fabor and Piaskowski 2001), 2002 results (Tabor et al. 2004b) and 2003-2004 results presented in this repon. (++ indicates a strong preference+ indicates a slight to moderate preference;= indicates no selection (positive or negative); -indicates a slight to moderate negative selection; --indicates a strong negative selection; ?? indicates that no data is available; and (?) indicates that only preliminary data is available. Sand/gr. indicates sand and gravel. February -March Aeril -mid-Ma;r mid-Ma)'. -June Habitat variable Da)'. Night Dar Night Da)'. Night Water column depth (m) 0.2-1.3 0.1-0.5 ?? 0.2-0.9 (?)0.5· 7+ (?)0.2· 7+ Location in water column entire bottom middle/top bottom middle/top (?) bottom Behavior schooled, solitary, schooled, solitary, schooled, ?? feeding resting feeding resting feeding Distance from shore (m) 1-12 1-12 1-12 1-12 variable variable Substrate sand/gr. sand/gr. ?? sand/gr. ?? ?? Slope <20% <20% <20%, <20% ?? ?? Bulkheads ?? ?? ?? Rip rap ?? ?? ?? Small woody debris + + ?? ?? Large woody debris + ?? ?? Overhanging vegetation ++ + (?) = (?) = Overhead structures + (?)-(?)-(?) -- Emergent vegetation + + (?)= (?) = Aquatic marcophytes (?) + (?)-(?) -(?)-(?) -(?) - Tributaries (law gradient. small ++ ++ + + + + streams, and close to natal stream) Tributary mouth ++ ++ ++ ++ + + V Table of Contents Page SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................. viii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. I STUDY SITE ..................................................................................................................... I CHAPTER 1. INDEX SITES .......................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2. RESIDENCE TIME AND MOVEMENTS ......................................... 15 CHAPTER 3. RESTORATION SITES ....................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 4. DEPTH SELECTION ........................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 5. FEEDING AT TRIBUTARY MOUTHS ............................................ 38 CHAPTER 6. USE OF NONNATALTRIBUTARIES .............................................. 54 CHAPTER 7. WOODY DEBRIS AND OVERHANGING VEGETATION EXPERIMENT ............................................................................................................... 67 CHAPTER 8. LAKE QUINAULT SURVEYS ........................................................... 72 CHAPTER 9. SURFACE OBSERVATIONS OF MIGRATING JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON IN LAKE WASHINGTON ..................................................... 8 I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. 88 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 89 VI List of Tables Table Page TABLE 1.--Summary table of juvenile Chinook salmon habitat use during three time periods in Lake Washington ...................................................................................... v TABLE 2. -Distance from the mouth of the Cedar River and habitat characteristics of index sites surveyed in southern Lake Washington, February to July, 2003 ............. 7 TABLE 3. -Streamflow conditions (cfs) at six tributaries used to determine the abundance and diet of Chinook salmon at the tributary mouths in south Lake Washington and south Lake Sammamish ................................................................ 41 TABLE 4. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon at the mouth ofKennydale Creek, 2003 .............................................................................................................. 45 TABLE 5. -Diet overlap indices (C) and diet breadth indices (B) of the mouth of Kennydale Creek and a lakeshore reference site, Lake Washington, 2003. . .......... 46 TABLE 6. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon along the shoreline of Lake Washington and at three tributary mouths of Lake Washington, April 2003 .......... 47 TABLE 7. -Diet overlap indices (C) of tributary mouths in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish .............................................................................................................. 48 TABLE 8. -Diet breadth indices (B) of tributary mouths and lakeshore reference site in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish ................................................................. 48 TABLE 9. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon at three locations (one shoreline site and two sites at the mouths of tributaries) in south Lake Sammamish, April 16 to 21, 2003 ................................................................................................. 49 TABLE 10. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon at the mouth of May Creek, 2004 under two stream flow conditions .................................................................... 50 TABLE 11. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon at the mouth of Taylor Creek, March 2004 under two streamflow conditions ......................................................... 51 TABLE 12. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon in Johns Creek, 2003 ......... 63 TABLE 13. -Diet overlap index (C) and diet breadth index (B) of juvenile Chinook salmon from Johns Creek and Lake Washington, 2003 .......................................... 64 TABLE 14. -Dates surveyed and general habitat conditions of south Lake Washington piers used to observe migrating juvenile Chinook salmon in June 2004 ................. 81 Vil List of Figures FIGURE 1.--Map of the Lake Washington basin showing the major streams and lakes. Cedar Falls is a natural barrier to anadromous salmonids ........................................ 3 FIGURE 2.-Location of index sites in south Lake Washington used to study the temporal and spatial distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon .................................................. 6 FIGURE 3.-Relationship (logarithmic function) between the mean juvenile Chinook salmon density and the shoreline distance to the mouth of the Cedar River in south Lake Washington, 2003 .............................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 4.-Juvenile Chinook salmon density (number/m 2) at four east shoreline sites and four west shoreline sites in south Lake Washington, 2003 ....................................... I 0 FIGURE 5.-Juvenile Chinook salmon density (number/m 2) along two depth contours; 0.4 m (solid line) and 0.7 m (dashed line) at two sites in south Lake Washington, 2003 ................................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 6.-Juvenile Chinook salmon density (number/m2) at three Mercer Island sites and two east shoreline sites, Lake Washington, February to June, 2004 ................. 12 FIGURE 7-Juvenile Chinook salmon density (number/m 2) at two shoreline sites in south Lake Washington, February to June, 2002 to2004 ................................................... 13 FIGURE 8.-Map of south Lake Washington displaying the shoreline of Gene Coulon Park surveyed (balded line) to determine movements of juvenile Chinook salmon, March to April 2003 ................................................................................................. 16 FIGURE 9. -Number of marked Chinook salmon observed I, 7, 15, and 21 days after release (March 24), Gene Coulon Park, south Lake Washington, 2003 ................... 17 FIGURE IO-Map of south Lake Washington displaying the overall shoreline area (dashed lines) where marked Chinook salmon were found for each release group ............... 18 FIGURE 11. -Median distance (m, ± range) moved from release site of two groups of marked Chinook salmon, Gene Coulon Park, south Lake Washington, 2003 .......... 19 FIGURE I 2. -Frequency of the distance moved (20-m increments) from the release site by marked Chinook salmon for each survey date, Gene Coulon Park, south Lake Washington, 2003 ..................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 13. -Number of marked Chinook salmon in Gene Coulon Park (south Lake Washington) that moved away from and towards the mouth of the Cedar River, March-April 2003 ..................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 14.-Location of snorkel transects in Seward Park, Lake Washington, March to July, 2002. Sites 3a and 3b are the completed restoration site, a substrate modification project finished in December 2001 ...................................................... 23 FIGURE 15.-Map of south Lake Washington displaying restoration monitoring sites (Martha Washington Park, Beer Sheva Park, Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, and Shuffieton Power Plant Outflow), and the experimental overhanging vegetation (OIN) and small woody debris (SWD) site ............................................................. 25 FIGURE 16. -Number of juvenile Chinook salmon (number/JOO m) observed at night along three shoreline areas of Seward Park, south Lake Washington, 2003 ............ 26 FIGURE 17. -Monthly abundance (mean number per 100 m of shoreline) of juvenile Chinook salmon observed during night snorkel surveys of six shoreline sites in Seward Park, south Lake Washington, 2001-2003 ................................................... 27 viii FIGURE 18. -Mean abundance (number observed per 100 m of shoreline) of juvenile Chinook salmon at the restoration site (open bars, site 3) and other sites (shaded bars, sites 1,2,4,5,6 combined) in Seward Park, south Lake Washington, April-June 2001-2003 ................................................................................................................ 28 FIGURE 19. -Number of juvenile Chinook salmon (number/JOO m) observed at night at four sites (shoreline transects) of Seward Park, south Lake Washington, 2004 ....... 29 FIGURE 20. -Abundance (number observed per I 00 m of shoreline) of juvenile Chinook salmon observed along the Beer Sheva Park boat ramp transect, south Lake Washington, 2002 and 2003 ..................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 21. -Juvenile Chinook salmon abundance (number/I 00 m of shoreline) at two adjacent shoreline transects (undeveloped and marina shoreline) at the Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, March-May 2003, south Lake Washington .............. 31 FIGURE 22. -Juvenile Chinook salmon abundance (number/I 00 m of shoreline) at two adjacent shoreline transects (undeveloped and marina shoreline) at the Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, February to June 2004, south Lake Washington ..... 31 FIGURE 23. -Juvenile Chinook salmon abundance (number/I 00 m shoreline) at the Shuflleton Power Plant Outflow (steel wall) and an adjacent sandy beach area, south Lake Washington (2003) ........................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 24. -Percent of surface activity observed within six depth categories (m) at Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington, 2004 ............................................................ 35 FIGURE 25. -Selectivity values (Chesson's a) of surface activity within six depth categories (m), Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington, 2004 .................................... 35 FIGURE 26. -Nighttime water column depth (mean± 2SE) of juvenile Chinook salmon in Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington, 2004 ........................................................ 36 FIGURE 27.-Location of two south Lake Sammamish tributaries studied to examine the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon at tributary mouths, March to June, 2003 ............ 39 FIGURE 28.-Location of four south Lake Washington tributaries (Taylor Creek, May Creek, Kennydale Creek, and Kennydale Beach tributary) studied to examine the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon at tributary mouths ............................................... 40 FIGURE 29.-Photos of sites used to collect juvenile Chinook salmon to examine the diet at tributary mouths and lakeshore sites. The upper photo is of the mouth of Kennydale Creek and the lower photo is of the beach seine being deployed at the lakeshore reference site for Kennydale Creek .......................................................... 42 FIGURE 30. -Total number of Chinook salmon caught with a beach seine at the mouth of three tributaries of south Lake Washington, 2004 ................................................... 44 FIGURE 31.-Photos of glide habitat (upper photo) and the convergence pool (lower photo) of Johns Creek, Gene Coulon Park ............................................................... 55 FIGURE 32. -Outlet of Culvert Creek, Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington, April 2003 ........................................................................................................................... 57 FIGURE 33. -Number of juvenile Chinook salmon observed in the lower 260 m of Johns Creek in 2003 and 2004 ............................................................................................ 58 FIGURE 34. -Mean fork length (mm,± 2 SE) of juvenile Chinook salmon in the lower 260 m of Johns Creek, 2003 .................................................................................... 58 FIGURE 35. -Mean water column depth (m) where juvenile Chinook salmon were located in the index reach of Johns Creek, 2003 and 2004 ...................................... 59 FIGURE 36. -Density (number /m2) of juvenile Chinook salmon in three habitat types in the lower 260 m of Johns Creek, 2003 and 2004 ..................................................... 60 ix FIGURE 37. -Water column depth (m) where juvenile Chinook salmon were located and maximum depth of two scour pools in the index reach of Johns Creek, February- May, 2004 ................................................................................................................. 61 FIGURE 38. -Mean water column depth (m) in scour pools and glides (environment) and the mean water column depth where juvenile Chinook salmon were located in those habitats, lower Johns Creek, February-May, 2004 ................................................... 61 FIGURE 39. -Number of juvenile Chinook salmon in Johns Creek per stream length in the convergence pool and the stream reach immediately upstream of the convergence pool ...................................................................................................... 62 FIGURE 40. -Abundance (number perm) of juvenile Chinook salmon in Culvert Creek (inside culvert) and at two nearby shoreline transects in Lake Washington, 2004 ... 64 FIGURE 41.-Placement of Scotch broom used to experimentally test the use of overhanging vegetation by juvenile Chinook salmon .............................................. 68 FIGURE 42. -Mean number (±range) of juvenile Chinook salmon observed in three habitat types during an early and late time period, Gene Coulon Park , south Lake Washington (2003) ................................................................................................... 69 FIGURE 43.-Photo ofa group of juvenile Chinook salmon within a overhanging vegetation/small woody debris (OHV/SWD) structure, March 27, 2003. Within this structure, Chinook salmon were more closely associated with the OHV ................. 70 FIGURE 44. -Location ofnearshore transects used to study habitat use of juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault, 2004 .................................................................. 73 FIGURE 45. -Photos oflarge woody debris habitat (upper photo) and emergent vegetation habitat (lower photo) of Lake Quinault.. ................................................. 74 FIGURE 46. -April daytime nearshore abundance to I m depth (mean± 2SE; top panel) and shoreline density (mean± 2SE; lower panel) of juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault, 2004 ................................................................................................. 77 FIGURE 4 7. -June nighttime nearshore abundance to I m depth (mean± 2SE; top panel) and shoreline density (mean± 2SE; lower panel).ofjuvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault, 2004 ................................................................................................. 78 FIGURE 48.-Location of south Lake Washington piers used to conduct visual observations of migrating Chinook salmon .............................................................. 82 FIGURE 49.-Conducting visual observations of migrating Chinook salmon at the McClellan Street pier, Lake Washington .................................................................. 84 FIGURE 50. -Percent of Chinook salmon schools occurring in half hour intervals between 0730 h and 1100 h, McClellan Pier, Lake Washington ............................. 84 FIGURE 51. -Number of Chinook salmon schools observed on June 16, 2004 between 0600 hand 1200 hat McClellan Pier, Lake Washington ......................................... 85 FIGURE 52.-Photo ofa group of juvenile Chinook salmon moving along the shore at McClellan Pier, Lake Washington, June 2003 ......................................................... 86 X INTRODUCTION Juvenile ocean-type Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) primarily occur in large rivers and coastal streams (Meehan and Bjomn 1991) and are not known to commonly inhabit lake environments. Consequently, little research has been conducted on their habitat use in lakes (Graynoth 1999). In western Washington,juvenile Chinook salmon inhabit three major lakes, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish and Lake Quinault. These lakes are used as either a migratory corridor from their natal stream to the marine environment (mostly in June) or as an extended rearing location before outmigrating (January-July) to the marine environment. Prior to 1998, little research had been conducted on juvenile Chinook salmon in the lentic environments of the Lake Washington system. Initial work in 1998 to 2000 focused on macrohabitat use and indicated that juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Washington are primarily restricted to the littoral zone until mid-May when they are large enough to move offshore (Fresh 2000). Subsequent research in 2001 focused on mesohabitat and microhabitat use (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). Results indicated juvenile Chinook salmon were concentrated in very shallow water, approximately 0.4-m depth, and prefer low gradient shorelines with small particle substrates such as sand and gravel. Armored banks, which make up 71 % of the Lake Washington shoreline (Toft 2001), reduce the quality and quantity of the nearshore habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. In 2002, research efforts focused on juvenile Chinook salmon distribution, shoreline structure use, use of non-natal tributaries, and abundance at restoration sites (Tabor et al. 2004b). In 2003 and 2004, we continued to examine the habitat use of juvenile Chinook salmon in the nearshore areas of Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. Additionally, we began an investigation of habitat use in Quinault Lake, a relatively pristine environment. This report outlines research efforts which focused on juvenile Chinook salmon distribution, use of small woody debris (S WD) and overhanging vegetation (OHV), use of non-natal tributaries, and abundance at restoration sites. STUDY SITE We examined habitat use of juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and Lake Quinault. Lake Washington is a large monomictic lake with a total surface area of9,495 hectares and a mean depth of33 m. The lake typically thermally stratifies from June through October. Surface water temperatures range from 4-6EC in winter to over 20EC in summer. During winter (December to February) the lake level is kept low at an elevation of6.l m. Starting in late February the lake level is slowly raised from 6.1 m in January to 6.6 m by May I, and 6. 7 m by June I. The Ballard Locks, located at the downstream end of the Ship Canal, control the lake level. Over 78% of the lake shoreline is comprised of residential land use. Shorelines are commonly armored with riprap or bulkheads with adjacent landscaped yards. Man-made overwater structures (i.e., docks, piers, houses) are common along the shoreline. Natural shoreline structures, such as SWD and large woody debris (LWD) and emergent vegetation, are rare. The major tributary to Lake Washington is the Cedar River, which enters the lake at its southern end (Figure 1 ). The river originates at an approximate 1,220-m elevation, and over its 80-km course falls 1,180 m. The lower 55 km are accessible to anadromous salmonids. Prior to 2003, only the lower 35 km were accessible to anadromous salmonids. Landsburg Dam, a water diversion structure, prevented Chinook salmon from migrating further upstream. A fish ladder was completed in 2003, which allows access past Landsburg Dam to an additional 20 km of the Cedar River. The escapement goal for adult Cedar River Chinook salmon is 1,250; however, this goal has not been met in recent years. Historically, the Duwamish River watershed, which included the Cedar River, provided both riverine and estuarine habitat for indigenous Chinook salmon. Beginning in 1912, drainage patterns of the Cedar River and Lake Washington were extensively altered (Weitkamp and Ruggerone 2000). Most importantly, the Cedar River was diverted into Lake Washington from the Duwamish River watershed, and the outlet of the lake was rerouted through the Lake Washington Ship Canal (Figure 1). These activities changed fish migration routes and environmental conditions encountered by migrants. The existence of a Chinook salmon population in the Lake Washington drainage prior to 1912 is not well documented. Lake Sammamish is within the Lake Washington basin and is located just east of Lake Washington. Lake Sammamish has a surface area of 1,980 hectares and a mean depth of 17.7 m. Most of the shoreline is comprised of residential land use. Issaquah Creek is the major tributary to the lake and enters the lake at the south end (Figure !). A Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife salmon hatchery (Issaquah State Hatchery), which propagates Chinook salmon, is located at river kilometer 4.8. The largest run of wild Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington basin occurs in the Cedar River. Large numbers of adult fish also spawn in Bear Creek, a tributary to the Sammamish River, which connects lakes Washington and Sammamish (Figure I). Small numbers of Chinook salmon spawn in several tributaries to Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. Most hatchery production occurs at Issaquah State Hatchery. Chinook salmon also spawn below the hatchery in Issaquah Creek and other adults are allowed to migrate upstream of the hatchery if the hatchery production goal of returning adults is met. Additional hatchery production occurs at the University of Washington (UW) Hatchery in Portage Bay. Production goals are 2 million for Issaquah State Hatchery and I 80,000 for UW Hatchery. Adult Chinook salmon enter the Lake Washington system from Puget Sound through the Chittenden Locks in July through September. Peak upstream migration past the locks usually occurs in August. Adult Chinook salmon begin entering the spawning streams in September and continue until November. Spawning occurs from October to December with peak spawning activity usually in November. 2 D N o 3 e 18 ---24 ~lometers •rm~ - FIGURE 1.--Map of th e Lake Washington bas in showing the major streams a nd lakes. Cedar Falls is a natura l barrier to anad romou s sal rn o nid s. A fi sh ladder facilit y at Landsburg Dam is operated to all ow passage for a ll salmonids except sockeye salm on. LWSC = Lake Washing ton Ship Canal. The location of the basin wi thin Washing to n State is shown . 3 Fry emerge from their redds from January to March. Juvenile Chinook salmon appear to have two rearing strategies: rear in the river and then emigrate in May or June as pre-smolts, or emigrate as fry in January, February, or March and rear in the south end of Lake Washington or Lake Sammamish for three to five months. Juvenile Chinook salmon are released from the Issaquah State Hatchery in May or early June and large numbers enter Lake Sammamish a few hours after release (B. Footen, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, personal communication). Juveniles migrate past the Chittenden Locks from May to August with peak migration occurring in June. Juveniles migrate to the ocean in their first year, and thus Lake Washington Chinook salmon are considered "ocean-type" fish. Besides Chinook salmon, anadromous salmonids in the Lake Washington basin includes sockeye salmon (0. nerka), coho salmon (0. kisutch), and steelhead (0. mykiss) Sockeye salmon are by far the most abundant anadromous salmonid in the basin . Adult returns in excess of 350,000 fish have occurred in some years. In comparison to other similar-sized basins in the Pacific Northwest, the Lake Washington basin is inhabited by a relatively large number of fish species. Besides anadromous salmonids, there are 22 extant native species of fishes in the Lake Washington basin. An additional 27-28 species have been introduced, 20 of which are extant. In addition to the lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, we also examined the habitat use of Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault, a natural 1,510 ha lake located in north Grays Harbor County, Washington and part of the Quinault Indian Reservation. The lake is approximately 6.3 km miles long and its outlet is at river kilometer 53.7 on the Quinault River. The mean depth is 40.5 m and the maximum depth of the lake is approximately 73 m deep. Similar to Lake Washington, Lake Quinault has steep-sloping sides and an extensive, flat profundal zone. Some recreational and residential development has occurred on the shores of Lake Quinault but the level of development is minimal in comparison to Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. Very little of the shoreline of Lake Quinault is armored and few docks are present. Besides the Quinault River and its tributaries, Chinook salmon have also been observed spawning in Canoe Creek, Zeigler Creek, Gatton Creek, Falls Creek, and Willaby Creek. Preliminary information suggests that Chinook salmon fry enter Lake Quinault later in the year than in Lake Washington, probably due to the colder water temperatures of the Quinault River and other natal tributaries and thus the incubation time is longer. The average escapement for the past ten years of adult Chinook salmon above Lake Quinault is approximately 1,500 fish . Juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault may also come from the Quinault Indian Nation hatchery located on Lake Quinault. Approximately 300,000 to 400,000 fish are released annually. Because they are released in late summer, they would not be present when we conducted our surveys in April and June. Besides Chinook salmon, Lake Quinault is also an important nursery area for coho salmon and s ockeye salmon. Unlike Lake Washington, few introduced fish species are present in Lake Quinault. The only introduced species we observed was common carp (Cyprinus carpio). 4 CHAPTER 1. INDEX SITES Introduction In 2003, we continued our surveys of index sites in south Lake Washington to detennine the temporal and spatial distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon. Index sites were initially surveyed in 2002. Results indicated that, from January to June, juvenile Chinook salmon were concentrated in the two sites closest to the mouth of the Cedar River. Because of cooler water temperatures in 2002, movement to more northerly sites may have been delayed. We repeated surveys of most of the index sites in 2003 to examine the level of variability between years and to determine if cooler temperatures in 2002 reduced movements to more northerly locations. Index site surveys were continued in 2004 on a limited basis to provide additional information for the City of Mercer Island. The city is planning to remove some aging sewer pipes along the shore of northwest Mercer Island; however, little is known about the abundance of Chinook salmon at this location. Methods 2003 surveys.--Twelve index sites were surveyed in 2002; however, in 2003 we reduced the number of sites to nine so a two-person crew could easily get all the sites surveyed in one night. Of the nine sites, four were on the west shoreline, four were on the east shoreline and one was on Mercer Island (Figure 2). Sites typically had sand and small gravel substrate and a gradual slope; nearshore habitat that juvenile Chinook salmon typically prefer. Many of the sites were public swimming beaches. Habitat conditions of each index site were measured in 2002 (Table 2). Index sites were surveyed once every two weeks from February 4 to July 7. At each site, we surveyed a 50-to 125-m transect depending on the amount of high quality habitat available (sandy beach with gradual slope). Two transects were surveyed at each site, 0.4-and 0.7-m depth contour. Surveys were all done at night. Snorkelers swam parallel to shore with an underwater flashlight, identifying and counting fish. Transects widths were standardized to 2 .5 m (0.4-m depth) and 2 m (0.7-m depth). Snorkelers visually estimated the transect width and calibrated their estimation at the beginning of each survey night by viewing a pre-measured staff underwater. Fish densities (Chinook salmon/m2 ) were calculated by dividing the number of Chinook salmon observed by the area surveyed for each site and transect. A regression was developed between Chinook salmon density and distance of each site from the mouth of the Cedar River. 5 ti'JI' D ~, ,J ······ ·ii .... r litl . ;·~ a{~ : }' .. ~ FIGURE 2.-Location of index sites in south Lake Washington used to study the temporal and spatial distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon. In 2003 (January to July), we surveyed four sites each on the west and east shorelin·es and East Mercer site on Mercer Island. In 2004 (February to June), the north Mercer and northwest Mercer sites were surveyed as well as the East Mercer, Kennydalc Beach, and Gene Coulon Beach sites. The Cedar River, the major spawning tributary for Chinook salmon in south Lake Washington, is also shown. 6 TABLE 2. -Distance from the mouth of the Cedar River and habitat characteristics of index sites surveyed in southern Lake Washington, February to July, 2003. The distance from Cedar River is an approximate length of the shoreline from the mouth of the Cedar River to each site. The number of piers is the number of overwater structures or piers along the transect; each pier was perpendicular to shore and was approximately 2~3 m wide. Distance from Transect Substrate Distance to Bulkhead Shoreline Cedar River length I m depth length Number Site (km) (m) Sand West Gravel Cobble (m) (m) ofeiers 113• Street 0.5 121 60 38 2 12.5 63 5 Pritchard Beach 5.7 78 98 2 0 23.3 0 0 Seward Park Beach 12 53 94 6 0 22.9 16.5 0 Mt. Baker 17 122 38 41 21 11.3 0 East Gene Coulon Beach 1.3 60 100 0 0 18 0 0 Kennydale Beach 4 73 64 36 0 15 60 Newcastle Beach 9.4 66 75 16 9 19.6 0 0 Chism 13each 15 50 88 JO 2 13.3 19.3 0 Mercer Island East Mercer 7.6 73 56 27 17 14.4 23 2 2004 surveys.--In 2004, we surveyed two new sites on the northwest part of Mercer Island (North Mercer site and Northwest Mercer site) as well as three original index sites (East Mercer, Kennydale Beach, Gene Coulon Beach; Figure 2). Surveys of the original sites enabled us to make comparisons between the two new Mercer Island sites and other areas of south Lake Washington. Both of the northwest Mercer Island sites had a steeper slope than the original index sites. The North Mercer site was along the shoreline of two residential homes. The transect was 92 m long (70-m bulkhead length) and the substrate was mostly sand and gravel. The Northwest Mercer site was located from Calkins Landing to Slater Park (two public beaches) and included four private residential homes that were between the two beaches. The transect was 140 m long (118-m bulkhead length) and the substrate was mostly sand and gravel. All five sites were surveyed once every 2 weeks from February to June. Sampling at each site was done through nighttime snorkeling and survey protocols were the same as in 2002 and 2003. Results 2003 surveys.--In general, results of index sites in 2003 were similar to 2002 (Tabor et al. 2004b). The mean abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon from February 4 to May 27 was negatively related to the shoreline distance from the mouth of the Cedar River (Figure 3). The data was best fit with a logarithmic function (abundance (y) = -0.137ln (distance(x)) + 0.36). During this time period, the two sites closest to the Cedar River (I 13th Street and Gene Coulon) had substantially higher densities than the other sites on 7 most dates (Figure 4). Unlike 2002, large numbers of juvenile Chinook salmon were observed in February. Large numbers were observed as early as February 4 and were present at all sites except Mt. Baker and Chism, the two furthest north sites. A high streamflow event in the Cedar River from January 31 to February 6, coupled with a high adult return in 2002 had apparently resulted in large numbers of fry moving downstream in early February, which were also observed at the fry trap (Seiler et al. 2005a). In June, there was no relationship between Chinook salmon abundance and distance to the mouth of the Cedar River (Figure 3; log regression, r2 = 0.0012). Generally, Chinook salmon abundance in June was higher on the west shoreline sites (Figure 3; mean, east= 0.14 fish/m 2, west= 0.33 fish/m 2) but they were not statistically different (Mann-Whitney Utest = 2.0, P = 0.83). From February to April, densities of Chinook salmon were usually considerably higher in the 0.4-m transect than the 0.7-m transect. For example, at the two southern sites (Gene Coulon and I 13th St.) the density in the 0.4-m transect was 3.2 to 77 times higher than in the 0.7-m transect (Figure 5). In May and June, Chinook salmon were commonly found along both the 0.4-and 0.7-m depth contours. 2004 surveys.--Few Chinook salmon were observed at the sewer replacement sites on Mercer Island (north and northwest sites) until May 24 (Figure 6). Substantially more Chinook salmon were observed at the east Mercer Island site than at either of the sewer replacement sites. Between February 7 and May I 0, juvenile Chinook salmon were observed at the east Mercer Island site (mean density, 0.045 fish/m2) on each survey night; whereas they were only present on 2 of 8 nights at the northwest site (mean density, 0.0042 fish/m 2) and on I of 5 nights at the north site (mean density, 0.0008 fish/m2). On June I 0, several Chinook salmon were observed at each Mercer Island site and the density at each site was substantially higher than at the two east shoreline sites (Figure 6). Many of these fish may have been Issaquah hatchery fish, which had been released in late May. Abundance of Chinook salmon at Gene Coulon and Kennydale in 2004 was generally lower than either 2002 or 2003 (Figure 7). Peak abundance in Gene Coulon was 1.14 fish/m2 in 2002 and 0.80 fish/m 2 in 2003; whereas it was only 0.27 fish/m 2 in 2004. In contrast, 2004 abundance of Chinook salmon at the east Mercer Island site was generally the same as or higher than 2002 or 2003. 8 Feb.-II/lay 'E 0.6 y = -0.137Ln(x) + 0.36 • r2 = 0.81 -"' 0.4 0 0 C :E 0.2 u 0 X 0 5 10 15 20 Distance to Cedar River 0.08 June y = 0.0005Ln(x) + 0.026 'E 0.03 r2 = 0.0012 -X "' 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 C :E u 0.02 • • • 0 0 • 0 5 10 15 20 Distance to Cedar River FIGURE 3.---Relationship (logarithmic function) between the mean juvenile Chinook salmon density and the shoreline distance to the mouth of the Cedar River in south Lake Washington, 2003. The February- May density represents the mean of nine surveys dates from February 4 to May 27. The June density represents the mean of June 9 and June 23. Sites include four west shoreline sites (open circles), four east shoreline sites (solid diamonds) and one site on Mercer Island (cross mark). The distance to the Cedar River for the Mercer Island site includes the distance from Coleman Point to South Point (see Figure 2). 9 1 West shoreline N 0.8 E :;z 0.6 --+--113th St. 0 .. -o-. -Pritchard 0 C E 0.4 -...--&sward u ,o. 0.2 -->< --Mt. Baker 'O. 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jut 1 East shoreline 0.8 N -+-Gene Coulon E :;z 0.6 -•. o-.. Kenny dale 8 -....--NeY.castle C 0.4 6 0 •• .. -·><·-Oiism 0.2 t) -•• o .. 'o-··"°··-o .. , 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jui FIGURE 4.-Juvenile Chinook salmon density (number/m 2) at four east shoreline sites and four west shoreline sites in south Lake Washington, 2003. Data represents the mean of nighttime snorkel transects along two depth contour,; 0.4 and 0. 7 m. 10 1.6 Gene Coulon beach N 1.2 E ~ 0 0 0.8 C 6 0.4 ,O····O•••••O"" 0.0 O_·:_:·o-···-0. ·o 'o .• Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1.6 113th St N 1.2 E ~ 0 0 0.8 C :E (.) 0.4 0. . . . . . o· .-. o-. -. -o· . 0.0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun FIGURE 5.-Juvenile Chinook salmon density (number/m 2) along two depth contours; 0.4 m (solid line) and 0.7 m (dashed line) at two sites in south Lake Washington, 2003 11 0.3 IVlercer Island .. E 0.2 :iz --+-East 0 0 C ·-~ 6 0.1 -;--Northv.est 0 -Feb Mar Apr May Ju 0.3 East shoreline .. E 0.2 :iz 1==~001 0 0 C 6 0.1 .o. O·O ·o. ·o. 0 Feb Mar Apr May Ju FIGURE 6.-Juvenile Chinook salmon density (number/m 2) at three Mercer Island sites and two east shoreline sites, Lake Washington, February to June, 2004. Data represents the mean of two nighttime snorkel transects (0.4-and 0.7-m depth contours). 12 1.2 1.0 N I 0.8 0 0.6 0 C :E 0.4 0 0.2 0.0 Gene Coulon beach Feb Mar _.o, X ' . -+--2002 ···X"· 2003 --o---2004 b-x .. ~--~--~~~ ...... x-+------------- Apr May Jun Jul 0.20 East Mercer Is. N 0.15 I 0 0 C 6 0.10 0.05 ~ I I I \ / I / I lq X. • IX I X I \ ,/\.. A.··' I • ,, .._'!It -:.x· "\ I \ : ,, a-:..,. ~--\ -+--2002 · • ·X· • • 2003 --o---2004 ~l-x ... ~/ ~~x···x 0.00 +---+-----~--~--~--~-~ Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul FIGURE 7-Juvenile Chinook salmon density (number/m 2) at two shoreline sites in south Lake Washington, February to June, 2002 to 2004. Data represents the mean of two nighttime snorkel transects (0.4-and 0.7-m depth contours). Discussion Similar to results of 2002, juvenile Chinook salmon were concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington from February to May. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted a beach seining project in Lake Washington in 1998 and 1999 and observed the same trend that we observed (Fresh 2000). Shortly after emergence, juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Coleridge, New Zealand were found 240 m away from the mouth of their natal streams. After a couple of months they were found about 740 m away from the natal stream but absent at 7 km away (Graynoth 1999). Therefore, it appears that the lake shore area near the natal stream is an important nursery area for juvenile Chinook salmon. In Lake Washington, the major part of this nursery area appears to be roughly from Pritchard Beach on the west shoreline and the mouth of May Creek on the east shore and the south part of Mercer Island. The distance from the mouth of the Cedar River to the edge of the nursery area is around 6 km. North of this area, the number of Chinook salmon would be expected to be relatively low until mid-May or June. Because Chinook salmon are closely associated with nearshore habitats from February to May, restoring and protecting shallow water areas in the south end would be 13 particularly valuable. Shoreline improvements in more northern locations would be beneficial, but the overall effect to the Chinook salmon population would be small in comparison to restoration efforts in the south end. In Lake Quinault, juvenile Chinook salmon in April were relatively small but appeared to have dispersed around the entire lake. Lake Quinault is much smaller than Lake Washington and there are natal systems on the east and south shorelines and every shoreline area is probably within 7 km of a natal stream. However, even at our sites that were the furthest from a natal stream, juvenile Chinook salmon were relatively abundant. Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault may disperse around the lake faster than in Lake Washington because of habitat conditions. Most of the shoreline of Lake Quinault appeared to have good quality habitat (small substrates and gentle slope) for juvenile Chinook salmon. In Lake Washington, much of the shoreline is armored with riprap or bulkheads, which may be a partial barrier to juvenile Chinook salmon if they are moving along the shore. Juvenile Chinook salmon may also disperse faster in Lake Quinault than in Lake Washington if prey availability is lower. In Lake Washington, prey abundance appears to be high (Koehler 2002) and thus Chinook salmon may be less inclined to move. Our results of surveys of index sites appear to be in general agreement with the Cedar lliver WDFW fry trap results with one notable exception (Seiler et al. 2004; Seiler et al. 2005a; Seiler et al. 2005b). In early February 2003, a large pulse of Chinook salmon was observed in the lake and at the fry trap. Similar to fry trap results, we observed fewer juvenile Chinook salmon in 2002 than 2003 and they moved into the lake later in 2002. However, a large pulse of Chinook salmon was observed in late February 2002 at the fry trap but we did not detect it in the lake. Instead, we did not observe large numbers of Chinook salmon at the southernmost index sites until late April. Similarly, we did not observe a pulse of Chinook salmon in early February in 2004. In 2002 and 2004, juvenile Chinook salmon fry may have remained near the mouth of the river or perhaps they dispersed rapidly around the south end of the lake. Little is known about the movement patterns of Chinook salmon fry as they enter the lake. 14 CHAPTER 2. RESIDENCE TIME AND MOVEMENTS Introduction and Methods Little is known about the residence time and movement patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon in south Lake Washington. In 2003, we undertook a study to test the feasibility of conducting a mark-recapture study and collecting initial data on Chinook salmon movements. Preliminary testing of the marking technique was conducted on juvenile coho salmon at the USFWS Quilcene National Fish Hatchery in February 2004. We tested different methods of marking including syringes and needless injectors (Microjet and Panjet). Also the dye was placed in different locations of the fishes' body including the caudal fin, dorsal fin, and other locations. Overall, syringes appeared to provide the best mark. They took longer to apply than injectors but the mark was more visible. Placing the mark in the caudal peduncle area appeared to be the best location. Collection of Chinook salmon in south Lake Washington was done with a beach seine on March 25 at two Gene Coulon Park sites: the swim beach and the north experimental site (Figure 8). We marked approximately 100 fish at each site. The caudal peduncle of each Chinook salmon was marked with a photonic dye that was injected with a syringe. The swim beach fish were dyed yellow and the north Gene Coulon fish were dyed red. After release, locations of marked fish were determined through nighttime snorkeling. To maximize the number of fish observed over a large distance, we conducted nighttime snorkeling transects along one depth contour at 0.4 m. Except for a few inaccessible locations, we snorkeled the entire Gene Coulon Park, a shoreline length of approximately I, 700 m. The shoreline was divided in 100-m transects that were established in 200 I as part of our random transect survey to determine substrate use by Chinook salmon (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). Residence-time snorkel surveys were conducted 1, 7, 15, and 21 days after marking. The location where each marked fish was found was flagged and the shoreline distance to the release site was determined. The number of unmarked Chinook salmon was also counted within each 100-m transect. Results A total of210 juvenile Chinook salmon were marked and released on March 24. One hundred and eight were marked yellow (mean, 46.0 mm FL; range, 40-60 mm FL) and 102 were marked red (mean, 43.9 mm FL; range, 38-57 mm FL). A total of 113 marked Chinook salmon observations (65 yellow and 48 red) were made for the four snorkel surveys. Twenty-nine percent of the all marked fish released were observed one day after release. For both groups, the number of marked Chinook salmon we observed progressively declined from the first survey (I day after release) to the fourth survey (day 21 after release) (Figure 9). For the four survey dates, 60 of the 113 (53%) total marked fish observations were made on March 25, one day after release. 15 • ;. 0;' F FIGURE 8.---Map of south Lake Washington displaying the shoreline of Gene Coulon Park surveyed (bolded line) to determine movements of juvenile Chinook salmon, March to April 2003. The release site (open circles) of each group of dye-marked fish is also shown. 16 "' 0 0 C :c () "O .. ;,c ~ " E -0 .. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 March 25 April 1 April 9 Survey dates DYellow •Red April 15 FIGURE 9. -Number of marked Chinook salmon observed 1, 7, 15, and 21 days after release (March 24), Gene Coulon Park, south Lake Washington, 2003. One hundred and eight yellow-marked fish were released at south part of the park and 102 red-marked fish were released at the north part of park. Marked Chinook salmon that were observed after release did not move appreciably from the release site. All marked Chinook salmon we observed had moved less than 150 m from the release site (Figures IO, 11, and 12). Movement from the release site occurred both towards (south to southeast) and away (north to northeast) from the mouth of the Cedar River. However, slightly more fish appeared to move away from the Cedar River than towards the river (Figure 13). On all dates, the distance moved by fish that moved towards the Cedar River appeared to be similar to those that moved away from the river (Figure 13) except on day I, when red-marked fish that moved away from the river had moved substantially further than those that had moved towards the river. Unmarked Chinook salmon were observed along the entire shoreline surveyed. The total number of Chinook salmon we observed ranged from 3,424 on March 25 to 1,779 on April 9. Similar to earlier sampling in 2001, their abundance appeared to be related strongly to shoreline armoring (rip rap or bulkhead). In the seven transects that were mostly armored, the number of juvenile Chinook salmon was three times lower than in transects that had little or no annoring (Mann-Whitney Utest = 9.0; P = 0.005). Additionally, large numbers of Chinook salmon were present on the boat ramps, as was observed in previous years. 17 ! 'I ... , e FIGURE IO-Map of south Lake Washington displaying the overall shoreline area (dashed lines) where marked Chinook salmon were found for each release group. The perpendicular lines to shore indicate the boundaries of the shoreline area where marked Chinook salmon were found. The bolded line is the shoreline area of Gene Coulon Park surveyed. The release site ( open circles) of each group of dye-marked fish is also shown. Marked Juvenile Chinook salmon were released on March 24, 2003, and snorkel surveys were conducted 1, 7, 15, and 21 days after release. 18 160 g o Yellow "C 120 II Red CII > 0 E 80 CII u C: 40 ,fl Cl) iS 0 March 25 April 1 April 9 April 15 Survey dates FIGURE I !.-Median distance (m , ± range) moved from r elease s ite of two groups of marked Chinook salmon, Gene Coul on Park, south Lake Washington , 2003 . Fis h were released on March 24. On e hund red and eight yellow-marked fis h were released at th e south part of the park and I 02 red-marked fis h were re leased at the north part of park. 60 c 40 (I) ~ (I) Q. 20 0 March 25 Ap ril 1 April 9 Survey dates April 15 o0-20 m 1121-40 m •41-60 m 1!161-80 m •> 80 m FIGURE 12. -Frequency of the d istance moved (20-m increments) from the release site by marked Chinook salmon for each survey date, Gen e Coulon Park, south Lake Wash ington, 2003. F is h were re leased on March 24. Data were combined from two release gro ups. 19 .;,t. 0 0 .E .c (.) 'C Q) .;,t. ~ Ill E .... 0 :it:: 40 30 20 10 0 March 25 April 1 • Away from river 11B Towards river April 9 April 15 Survey dates FIGURE 13. -Number of marked Chinook salmon in Gene Coulon Park (south Lake Washington) that moved away from and towards the mouth of the Cedar River, March-April 2003. Fish were released on March 24. Data were combined from two release groups. Discussion Results of the residence time investigation indicated many Chinook salmon remain in a small, localized area; however, it is possible other Chinook salmon moved outside our study area. Some of the marked Chinook salmon had moved over 80 m after 1 day and therefore, may have left the study area by the next survey, which was 6 days later. Because the median distance moved remained the same from day l to day 21 and the number of recaptures was greatly reduced, it would seem reasonable that some of the marked Chinook salmon remained close to the release site and another substantial portion of the marked fish moved a relatively long distance by moving outside the survey area. Results of index site surveys in February 2003 also indicate that some Chinook salmon are capable of moving a long distance in a relatively short period oftime. For example, we observed Chinook salmon on Mercer Island as early as February 3 in 2004 and they were first captured in the Cedar River fry trap on January 18 and large numbers of fry were not observed at the trap until January 29 (Seiler at al. 2005b). Therefore, Chinook salmon fry appear capable of moving approximately 8.5 km (Cedar River trap to Mercer Island) in two weeks or less. In general, the movement patterns of Chinook salmon in Lake Washington may be similar to patterns observed in other salmonids and other fishes. Fausch and Young ( 1995) reviewed several studies of fish movements in streams and concluded that often a large percentage of the fish population is resident but a substantial percentage move a considerable distance. The authors suggested that often these long distance movements are not known unless some type of radio telemetry project is undertaken. In Lake Washington, detecting long distance movements of juvenile Chinook salmon in February through April would be difficult because the fish are too small for radio tags. Use of marked fish and snorkel surveys appeared to be an effective method to determine residence time, but to accurately determine the overall movement and residence time of juvenile Chinook salmon, a larger, more involved study is needed. Marking more fish would increase the probability of observing marked fish at locations 20 that are a fair distance from the release site. Probably 1,000 to 2,000 fish would need to be marked to effectively estimate movement patterns. Enlarging the survey area would help determine if some fish are moving long distances. Besides increasing the number marked and enlarging the survey area, additional work needs to be done on the marking technique. We did observe a few marked Chinook salmon that appeared to have some type of injury in the caudal peduncle due to the marking process. Further testing of the location of the mark, type of mark, and marking instrument needs to be conducted. 21 CHAPTER 3. RESTORATION SITES Introduction and Methods We continued to monitor restoration sites in 2003 and 2004. A total of five locations were surveyed: Seward Park (Figure 14), Martha Washington Park, Beer Sheva Park, Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, and the old Shuflleton Power Plant Outflow (Figure 15). Except for one site in Seward Park, surveys were conducted to collect pre- project baseline information. The only restoration project that has been undertaken thu,s far was a substrate replacement project in Seward Park. Seward Park. In December 2001, the City of Seattle and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) deposited 2,000 tons of gravel along a 300-m shoreline section in the northeast part of the park. This shoreline section was divided into two equal sections. The north section (site 3b) received fine substrate and the south section (site 3a) received coarse substrate. The general size composition of the substrate was 0.5 to 5.0 cm for the north section and 2.5 to 15 cm for the south section. The new substrate extended out approximately 5 m from shore. Pre-project snorkel surveys were conducted in 200 I and post-project surveys were initially conducted in 2002. Results from 2002 indicated that few Chinook salmon were present in Seward Park sites and no increase in the use of the restored site was observed. Surveys were conducted in 2003 and 2004 to continue monitoring of the restoration site and determine if the use of the restoration site may have been somewhat reduced in 2002 because of cool water temperatures, which may have limited Chinook salmon movements to northerly locations such as Seward Park. Also, Chinook salmon may have avoided the restoration site because of low prey abundance associated with the new, clean substrates. Similarly to 200 I and 2002, snorkel surveys in 2003 were conducted at the restoration site as well as five additional sites in Seward Park (Figure 14). The additional sites served as controls and enabled us to make between-year comparisons of the restoration site. Also, the other five sites are potential restorations sites and the survey data could serve as baseline information. The restoration site and the five control sites were the same sites used in 2000 by Paron and Nelson (2001) to assess the potential for bank rehabilitation projects in Seward Park. In 2003, we continued nighttime snorkeling surveys of the six sites in Seward Park. A total of nine night snorkeling surveys were completed on an approximate biweekly schedule from 19 February through 30 June. Survey protocols in 2003 were the same as restoration project monitoring survey methods used in 200 I and 2002 (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002; Tabor et al. 2004b). Surveys were conducted at a depth contour of0.4 m water depth. In addition to the six sites surveyed in 2000 to 2003, two supplemental sites (S-1 and S2) were also surveyed in 2003. We expected the abundance of Chinook salmon at site S-1 would be the highest of any site in Seward Park from February to May because the site had high quality habitat (gradual sloping beach with sand substrate) and was the 22 closest to the Cedar River of any site in Seward Park. Thus, this site should indicate the maximum number of Chinook salmon that would be possible at any restoration site in Seward Park. Site S-1 was surveyed five times from April 7 to June I 0. The other transect (S-2) was located in the southeast corner of the park and was identified by park managers as a potential site for a substrate replacement project. Site S-2 was surveyed seven times from March 26 to June 30. Snorkeling procedures of the supplemental transects were the same as the other transects. Surveys of Seward Park sites were also conducted in 2004; however, only four sites were surveyed (sites I, 3, 5, and S-1) and they were only surveyed once a month from February to June. --~ --~ -'"'·kll·-,-· .. ..-1 .... "",.._,., ll;'I I) lU !fi ..,.L J& I FIGURE 14.-Location of snorkel transects in Seward Park, Lake Washington, March to July, 2002. Sites 3a and 3b are the completed restoration site, a substrate modification project finished in December 2001. Sites I through 6 are the original sites used in 2000 to 2003. Sites S-1 and S-2 are supplemental sites surveyed in 2003. In 2004, only sites I, 3a, 3b, S, and S-1 were surveyed. 23 Beer Sheva Park.-At Beer Sheva Park, the City of Seattle has proposed to daylight the mouth and lower I 00 m of Mapes Creek, which currently is in a culvert and enters the lake a few meters below the lake surface. We continued our monitoring of Beer Sheva Park in 2003 to provide an estimate of the temporal abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon in the vicinity of Mapes Creek. Only the boat ramp area was surveyed in 2003. Results from 2001 and 2002 indicated that most of the Chinook salmon were present on the boat ramps and few were present in other park locations where fine soft sediments (silt/mud) predominate. The boat ramp site was 65 m long, which included four boat ramps totaling 42 m and a 23-m shoreline section at the south end of the boat ramps. The average distance from the shore to one-meter depth was 6.9 m. Eight night snorkeling surveys were conducted from February to June. Beer Sheva Park was not surveyed in 2004. Martha Washington Park.-Martha Washington Park was surveyed in 2002 and 2003 to provide the City of Seattle with baseline information on Chinook salmon abundance. We surveyed one 80-m long shoreline transect from March to May. Substrate was composed predominately of boulders and cobble with some gravel. Riprap was present along the entire shoreline except for two small coves that were each about 6 m long. Within the small coves, small gravel was the predominant substrate type. All surveys were conducted at night. Snorkelers swam close to the shore along the 0.4-m depth contour. Because of the steep slope, we were able to survey from 0.0-to approximately 0.9-m depth. In October 2003, the Seattle Parks and Recreation undertook a restoration project at Martha Washington Park; 61 m of shoreline in the south part of the park was restored by removing riprap and adding gravel and L WD. No post-project monitoring of this site was conducted in 2004. Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina.-The Seattle Parks and Recreation owned a small, old marina at the south end of Rainier Beach. The marina was removed in 2004 and modifications to the shoreline to improve habitat conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon began in summer 2005. We began snorkel surveys of the marina in 2003 to provide the city with baseline information on Chinook salmon abundance. Baseline surveys were also conducted in 2004. The Rainer Beach site was separated into two transects: a 100-m transect within the marina and an adjacent undeveloped shoreline transect (150 m long) south of the marina. The shoreline of the marina transect consisted mostly ofriprap and bulkhead. The substrate of the undeveloped shoreline transect was mostly small gravel; however, the southernmost 20 m was riprap (because no Chinook salmon were observed in the riprap and it did not represent an undeveloped shoreline, it was not included in the final calculations of abundance). The shoreline was vegetated with various trees and shrubs; however, there was little vegetation that provided overhead cover. A depth contour of0.4 m was used for both transects. In 2003, night snorkeling surveys were conducted on four dates from March to May. In 2004, surveys were conducted once a month from February to June. Shuffieton Power Plant Outflow.-The City of Renton has proposed to build a trail between Gene Coulon Park and the Cedar River Trail Park. Part of the project includes restoring a shoreline section that is currently a steel wall that is part of the old Shuffieton Power Plant outflow channel. Because the power plant has been demolished, the outflow channel is no longer needed. Proposed restoration work includes removing the steel wall 24 and replacing it with a more natural shoreline that could improve fish habitat conditions. Snorkel surveys of the proposed restoration site were conducted in 2003 to provide the City of Renton with baseline information on Chinook salmon abundance. This restoration site area was divided into two transects: one transect along a steel wall for approximately 200 m and another transect along an adjacent sandy beach cove (approximately 70 m long). The cove is located south of the west end of the steel wall. Night snorkeling was conducted proximal to the wall. The sandy beach transect depth contour was 0.4 m. The site was only snorkeled on 2 nights in 2003: April 8 and May 6. -=-== FIGURE 15.-Map of south Lake Washington displaying restoration monitoring sites (Martha Washington Park, Beer Sheva Park, Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, and Shuffieton Power Plant Outflow), and the experimental overhanging vegetation (OHV) and small woody debris (SWD) site (Chapter 7). 25 4 E 3 0 0 :i? 2 0 0 C :c u 1 0 March April May June m2001 •2002 02003 FIGURE 17. -Monthly abundance (mean number per 100 m of shoreline) of juvenile Chinook salmon observed during night snorkel surveys of six shoreline sites in Seward Park, south Lake Washington, 2001- 2003. ND = no data At site 3b (small substrate), there appeared to be a slight increase in Chinook salmon abundance in 2003 from the pre-project abundance; however, at site 3a (large substrate) the abundance appeared to be reduced (Figure 18). The ratio of Chinook salmon at site 3 to the other sites combined was 0.46:1 in 2001; therefore the expected mean abundance of Chinook salmon at site 3 in 2003 would be I .5 Chinook salmon/I 00 m of shoreline (mean abundance of the other sites 1,2,4,5,6 was 3.4 Chinook salmon/100 m of shoreline). The observed abundance in 2003 was 0.8 in site 3a (large substrate) and 2.1 Chinook salmon/JOO m of shoreline in site 3b (small substrate). No increase in abundance at either site 3a ( expected 0.4; observed 0.2 Chinook/I OOm of shoreline) or site 3b (expected 0.4; observed 0.3 Chinook/I00m of shoreline) was observed in 2002. During the first three surveys of supplemental site S-1 in 2003 (April 7 through May 6), a total of76 Chinook salmon were observed and their abundance was higher on each date than any other site in Seward Park. On two of these three surveys, more Chinook salmon were observed at site S-1 than the other sites combined. Only six Chinook salmon were observed at site S-1 during the last two surveys in 2003 (May 22 and June I 0) and their abundance was similar to other sites in Seward Park. The high abundance of Chinook salmon at site S-1 is likely due to better habitat conditions, specifically the sand substrate and gradual slope and the site is closer to the Cedar River than other Seward Park sites. The abundance at S-1 was also substantially higher than the Seward Park beach index site (Figure 2)(mean abundance April 7-May 12, 2003, site S-1, 19.5 fish/100 rn, index site, 7.1 fish/100 rn), which has similar habitat conditions but is approximately 3. 7 km further away from the Cedar River than site S-1. A total of 23 Chinook salmon were observed at site S-2 during seven surveys in 2003 (March 26 to June 30). In general, abundance of Chinook salmon was similar to that of site I which was close by and had similar habitat conditions. 27 3.: J E 3 0 2.5 0 .... ~ 2 0 0 C 1.5 ~ (.) 1 0.5 0 _JL_ Other Site 3 sites 2001 Other Site 3a Site 3b s ites 2002 Other Site 3a Site 3b sites 2003 FI GURE 18 . -Mean abundance (number observed per JOO m of shorel ine) of juvenile Chinook salmon at the resto ration site (open bars, s it e 3) and other sites (shaded bars, si tes 1,2,4,5,6 combined) in Seward Park , south Lake Washington, April-June 200 1-2003. Site 3 is located on the northeast side of Sewa rd Park. Site 3a is the southern section o f s ite 3 th at rece ived large gravel and cobble while site 3b is the northern section that received small gravel. Seward Park , 2004. -From February to April, no Chinook salm on were observed at any of the five s ite s (I ,3a, 3b, 5, S-1) surveyed in Seward Park in 2004. In contrast, large numbers of Chinook salmon were observed at most of these sites in May and June (Fig ure 19). More Chinook salmon were observed at site 1 than the other three s ites combined. On both May I I and Jun e 4, 37 Chinook salmon were ob served. Prior to 2004, the hi ghest number of C hinook salmon observed in May or June at site I was 9 fish and at all sites the hi ghest number was 13 fi sh . At th e restoration site (sites 3a and 3b), no Chinook sa lmon were observed throughout the study period. Beer Sheva Park. 2003.-Eight night snorkeling surveys were con ducted at Beer Sheva Park (boat ramp transect only) from February 19 to June 30. C hinook salmon were observed on each s urvey date (Figure 20). Similar to 2002, the highest abundance occurred in May. The mean abu nd a nce (March-June) of Chinook salmon was substantially higher in 2003 (51 fish/100 m) than 2002 (33 fish/100 m) but differences were not significant (Wilcoxon s ign rank te st; Z = 1.2; P = 0.25). 28 40 35 E 30 0 25 D5 0 -•3 -.ll:: 20 0 m1 0 ·= 15 ~S-1 .c u 10 5 0 i::' '<;f" ..-..-'<;f" cc .c. ..-(1) 2 () ·;:: >-C ..-C. .... cc ::J .0 ..-cc <t: (1) ~ ~ -, LL FIGURE 19. -Number of juvenile Chinook salmon (number/JOO m) observed at night at four sites (shoreline transects) of Seward Park, south Lake Washington, 2004. Site 3 is the restoration site and includes two transects; site 3a (large substrate) and 3b (small s ub strate). 140 120 • .. ···•···2002 . ' E 0 100 -o-2003 0 -:i2 80 0 60 0 C : .r:. u 40 : 20 ....• , . .. . •• 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Date F IGURE 20. -Abundance (number observed per 100 m of shorel ine) of juvenile Chino ok salm o n observed along the Beer Sheva Park boat ramp transect, south Lake W ashington, 2002 and 2003. 29 Martha Washington Park. 2003. -In 2003, a total of 40 juvenile Chinook salmon were observed along the 80-m-long transect during four night snorkeling surveys. In contrast, only two Chinook salmon were observed during three surveys of the same transect in 2002. This transect was surveyed from March to early May in both years. Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, 2003. -Four night snorkeling surveys were conducted at the Rainier Beach site from March to May 2003. On all survey dates, the abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon at the undeveloped transect exceeded that of the developed marina transect (Figure 2 l ). On average, their abundance was four times higher on the undeveloped transect than on the marina transect. The mean number observed was 85 Chinook salmon (65 fish/I 00 m shoreline) on the undeveloped transect and 20 Chinook salmon (20 fish/I 00 m shoreline) on the marina transect. Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, 2004. -Five night snorkeling surveys were conducted at the Rainier Beach site from February to June 2004. Substantially fewer Chinook salmon were observed at the Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina site in 2004 (Figure 22). In 2003, a total of 420 Chinook salmon were observed; whereas in 2004, only 57 were observed. In 2003, the number of early migrants from the Cedar River was 195,000 (Seiler et al 2005a), whereas in 2004 it was 67,000 (Seiler et al 2005b). In both years, the highest number of Chinook salmon at the Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina site was observed in March; in 2003, I 46 Chinook salmon were observed along the undeveloped shoreline and in 2004, 32 were observed. Similar to 2003, most Chinook salmon in 2004 were along the undeveloped shoreline transect. Shuffleton Power Plant Outflow, 2003. -Two night snorkeling surveys were conducted at the Shuffleton Power Plant Outflow in 2003. On both surveys, the abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon was substantially higher at the sandy beach transect than along the steel wall (Figure 23). Because of the gradual slope of the sandy beach area, we only surveyed a part of the nearshore habitat while we were able to survey the entire nearshore area of the steel wall because of its 90° slope and depth. Therefore, the difference in abundance between the two transects is probably greater than shown in Figure 23. 30 120 100 E 80 0 0 ~ 32 60 0 0 C 40 :E u 20 0 March 20 April 17 April 24 Survey dates D Undeveloped •Marina May5 FIGURE 21. -Juvenile Chinook salmon abundance (number/JOO m of shoreline) at two adjacent shoreline transects (undeveloped and marina shoreline) at the Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, March- May 2003, south Lake Washington. 30 E 25 0 20 0 ~ 32 15 0 0 ·= 10 .c u 5 0 Feb 11 March 9 April 1 Survey dates D Undeveloped •Marina May 19 June 4 FIGURE 22. -Juvenile Chinook salmon abundance (number/JOO m of shoreline) at two adjacent shoreline transects ( undeveloped and marina shoreline) at the Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, February to June 2004, south Lake Washington. ND -No data 31 E 120 100 0 80 0 32 60 0 0 ·= 40 ~ () 20 0+--~--- 8-April 6-May Survey dates o sandy beach msteel wall FIGURE 23. -Juvenile Chinook salmon abundance (number/JOO m shoreline) at the Shuffleton Power Plant Outflow (steel wall) and an adjacent sandy beach area, south Lake Washington (2003). Discussion We surveyed a variety of potential restoration sites in 2003. Because juvenile Chinook salmon are concentrated in the south end of the lake, restoration projects in that area would most likely be more beneficial than those in other areas of the lake. The Shuffieton Power Plant Outflow is much closer to the mouth of the Cedar River than the other sites and thus would probably be a better site for a restoration project. The habitat at this site is highly degraded; there is little shallow water habitat or riparian vegetation due to the steel wall. Both Beer Sheva Park and Rainier Beach Lake Park are relatively close to the mouth of the Cedar River and good numbers of Chinook salmon appear to be present and thus these sites would be good restoration sites. Chinook salmon were abundant at the Beer Sheva Park boat ramps in 2002 and 2003 and therefore, there should be several juvenile Chinook sahnon in the area to use the mouth of Mapes Creek if it is daylighted. The undeveloped section of Rainier Beach Lake Park appeared to have good quality habitat due to its small gravel substrate and gentle slope. This site could be improved, however, with some additional shoreline vegetation (e.g., willows Salix spp.) to provide overhead cover as well as small woody debris for structural complexity. Certainly, the marina shoreline could be improved with the removal of the armoring and replacing it with small substrates and some riparian vegetation on a gentle sloping bank. Seward Park has been surveyed for the past five years (2000 by USA COE and 2001-2004 by USFWS) and during that period the nearshore abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon has been relatively low at all six sites. Even at the best location in Seward Park (supplemental site S-1 in the southwest comer of other park), the abundance of Chinook salmon in 2003 was 1.4 to 6 times lower than the undeveloped restoration transect at the Rainier Beach Lake Park. Restoration projects in Seward Park will have a positive effect on Chinook sahnon habitat but the effect will most likely be small. 32 CHAPTER 4. DEPTH SELECTION Introdnction Detailed information on the water depth of the lake where juvenile Chinook salmon are located has not been available. Preliminary work conducted in 2001 consisted of one nighttime scuba survey and a few visual daytime observations in May and June (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). [n 2004, we examined the water column depths used by juvenile Chinook salmon during day and night. At night, we could survey Chinook salmon by snorkeling/scuba diving because the surveyor can get close enough to the fish to accurately measure the fishes' depth. During the day, juvenile Chinook salmon are difficult to survey because they avoid snorkelers/scuba divers, especially after March. Other techniques that could be used during the day, such as vertical gill nets, pop-up nets, or hydroacoustics are either very harmful to the fish, are labor intensive, or are ineffective during some part of the sampling period (February to June). One technique that appeared to be consistent throughout the sampling period (February to June) and was unobtrusive to Chinook salmon was visual surface observations. When the water is calm in the early morning, Chinook salmon can be observed feeding at the surface. Chinook salmon appear to feed extensively on surface prey such as chironomid pupae and adults (Koehler 2000). Also, Chinook salmon are concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington and are the most abundant fish species present in many areas. Therefore, we felt it was a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of surface feeding would be Chinook salmon. Also, we assumed that the number of feeding events at the surface was related to Chinook salmon abundance. The water column depth (surface to bottom) where Chinook salmon were located was estimated by determining the location of feeding fish. Methods Visual surface observations were conducted in south Lake Washington at the swim beach in Gene Coulon Park (Figure 2). Observations were only conducted at dawn. The evening before observations were conducted buoy lines were laid out to delineate depth contours (0.5-, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-m depth). The lines were laid out parallel to shore and each line was 20 m long. The next morning, if the water was calm, visual observations were conducted. The observer counted the number of times a Chinook salmon surfaced between the depth contours. Observations were made from shore for 15 minutes. Surveys were conducted approximately once every 2 weeks; however, some surveys had to be moved to the next week because of weather conditions. We used results of index snorkel surveys at the swim beach to determine the abundance of Chinook salmon in relation to other fish species. Because the depth categories had different areas, we used Chesson's selectivity index to make comparisons (Chesson 1978). At night, Chinook salmon are inactive, appear to be resting near the bottom, and can be easily approached. Therefore, we used snorkeling/scuba diving transects to measure their depth distribution at night. A series of transects were conducted at night that were each perpendicular to shore. The depth from O to I m was surveyed by a snorkeler and the depth from I to 3 m was surveyed by a scuba diver. Each time a Chinook salmon was located, a weighted flag was placed at that location. After the 33 snorkeling and scuba diving were completed, each weighted flag was retrieved and the water column depth was measured. Nighttime surveys were conducted once a month from March to May in the north part of Gene Coulon Park. At this location the distance from shore to 3-m depth was approximately 14 m. Water depths where Chinook salmon were located were compared between months with an AN OVA and Fisher's LSD test. Beach seining was also conducted shortly after each survey to collect information on the sizes of Chinook salmon. Results From February 19 to April 14, all surface activity at dawn was observed in the shallowest section (0 and 0.5 m deep; Figure 24). Feeding activity was observed in deeper and deeper sections from April 27 to June 2. By the last date, June 2, feeding activity was observed primarily between 2 and 3 m, and some between 3 and 4 m, but little between 4 and 5 m. Results ofChesson's selectivity index (a) indicated the same trend (Figure 25). We assumed that that the vast majority of surface feeding was Chinook salmon. From February 24 to April 13, approximately 70% of the salmonids observed at Gene Coulon swim beach during night snorkeling (index site surveys) were Chinook salmon. The rest were almost all sockeye salmon fry, which were considerably smaller than Chinook salmon. Sockeye salmon appeared to feed somewhat at the surface but their feeding activity was barely noticeable and was not counted. From April 26 to June 7, 65% of the salmonids were sockeye salmon and 35% were Chinook salmon. Therefore some of the feeding activity may have been due to sockeye salmon, which were considerably smaller and closer to shore than Chinook salmon. Based on the size of the fish we observed feeding at the surface, we felt most of the feeding activity was from Chinook salmon. In some cases, fish were observed jumping completely out of the water and all of these fish appeared to be Chinook salmon. Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) were also common throughout the study period but it is doubtful if they were feeding at the surface to any significant degree. Nighttime water column depths were measured for a total of 117 juvenile Chinook salmon (March 10, n = 31; April 7, n = 40; May 12, n = 46). Snorkel surveys indicated the same general pattern as dawn visual observations. In February, the mean nighttime depth was only 0.2 m (range, 0.12 to 0.48 rn). In April and May, Chinook salmon progressively used deeper waters; however, none were ever observed between I and 3 m deep. Water column depths were significantly different between each monthly sample (Figure 26; ANOVA and Fisher's LSD; P < 0.001). 34 100 80 -60 C: "' ~ "' 40 a. 20 0 Feb Mar : , ;, Apr 4 • I\ I \ , I \ ,J \ /, \ I ', I May \ 0 . \ Depth category (m) -+--0--0.5 ....... 0.5-1 --o--1-2 ~2-3 ---Q---3-4 -....--4-5 Jun FIGURE 24. -Percent of surface activity observed within six depth categories (m) at Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington, 2004. Observations were made from shore at dawn. :§; 1 0.8 f 0.6 ~ ai VJ 0.4 0.2 . ··--·---.. -----.............................. .. Feb Mar Apr May Depth category (m) -+--0--0.5 Jun --.... · 0.5-1 --o--1~ ~2-3 ... 9 ... 3-4 -....--4-5 FIGURE 25. -Selectivity values (Chesson's a) of surface activity within six depth categories (m), Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington, 2004. Observations were made from shore at dawn. The dashed line indicates the level of selectivity if all depth categories were used at random. 35 0.80 -E -.c: 0.60 .... a. Cl) "tJ C E 0.40 ::, 0 u ... Cl) 0.20 j 0.00 -- mean length (mm) tv'arch 10 l>pril7 42.7 50.0 C tv'ay 12 91.8 FIGURE 26. -Nighttime water column depth (mean± 2SE) of juvenile Chinook salmon in Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington, 2004. Bars with different letters are significantly different (ANOVA and Fisher's LSD; P < 0.001). The mean length of Chinook salmon on each date is also given. Data were collected along perpendicular snorkeling/scuba diving transects between 0-and 3-m deep. Discussion Observations of both day and night depth distribution clearly showed that juvenile Chinook salmon progressively shift to deeper waters as they grow. Juvenile Chinook salmon in riverine environments have also been shown to inhabit deeper waters as they increase in size (Lister and Genoe 1970; Allen 2000; R. Peters, USFWS, unpublished data). The same general pattern has been shown in several other fish species including salmonids as well as non-salmonids. Mcivor and Odum (1988) and Ruiz et al. (1993) demonstrated that predation risk for juvenile fish decreases in shallow water. Power (1987) suggested small juvenile fish inhabit very shallow water because they are especially vulnerable to piscivorous fishes and less vulnerable to wading birds because juvenile fish are very small. As juvenile fish grow they shift to deeper waters because they are less vulnerable to fish and more vulnerable to wading birds. In Lake Washington, small juvenile Chinook salmon may be in shallow water to avoid cutthroat trout ( 0. clarki') and prickly sculpin which are important predators in the littoral zone (Nowak et al. 2004; Tabor et al. 2004a). When they increase in size they may become more attractive to wading birds such as great blue herons (Ardea herodias) but less vulnerable to piscivorous fishes. The last survey (June 2) indicated some juvenile Chinook salmon had moved into water that was 4-5 m deep but no feeding activity was observed in deeper waters. Recent results of ultrasonic tracking at Gene Coulon swim beach (May 24 to June 5, 2004) indicated some Chinook salmon may be in water> 7 m deep (M. Celedonia, USFWS, unpublished data). However, only fish greater than 100 mm FL were tagged. Fresh (2000) also found that Chinook salmon are further offshore in the upper pelagic area after mid-May. Thus our results may reflect the water column depth for the portion of the population that still inhabits the nearshore area and could be a gross underestimate for the 36 entire population. Chinook salmon that are further offshore may be difficult to observe because they may be spread out over a large area. Also, their surface activity may be reduced because the abundance of surface prey may be lower at offshore areas and Chinook salmon often switch to feeding on Daphnia (Koehler 2002) as the season progresses. After mid-May, the use of visual observations to determine the location of Chinook salmon may be problematic. 37 CHAPTER 5. FEEDING AT TRIBUTARY MOUTHS Introduction Little is known about the importance of nonnatal tributaries for juvenile Chinook salmon. The lower sections of many small tributaries to Lake Washington are in culverts and enter the lake several meters below the lake surface and thus, are oflittle value to juvenile Chinook salmon which inhabit shallow nearshore areas of the lake. Restoring these streams to their natural location may provide additional habitat. In 2002, we surveyed 17 tributaries of Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish (Tabor et al. 2004b). Results indicated that Chinook salmon can often be quite abundant at the mouths of tributaries. Additionally, K. Fresh (NOAA Fisheries, unpublished data) found that the abundance of Chinook salmon may be much higher at the mouth of tributaries following a storm event. In 2003 and 2004, we surveyed six tributaries to determine if Chinook salmon forage on prey items that come into the lake via the tributary and determine how storm events affect the diet and abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon. Methods The six tributary mouths that we examined included: Tibbetts Creek and Laughing Jacobs Creek in Lake Sammamish (Figure 27) and Taylor Creek, Kennydale Creek, Kennydale Beach tributary, and May Creek in Lake Washington (Figure 28). Our goal was to sample each tributary mouth once during base flow and once during a high flow event. Each time a tributary mouth was sampled, streamflow (Table 3) was measured according to TFW stream ambient monitoring protocol (Pleus 1999). Stomach samples of Chinook salmon were collected primarily during late March or April. Each time a tributary mouth was sampled, we also collected stomach samples of Chinook salmon from a lake reference site to compare their diets. All six tributaries were sampled in 2003 during base streamflow conditions. Because there were few storm events in 2003, we were only able to survey one of the tributaries, Kennydale Creek, during high streamflow conditions. At Kennydale Creek, we also surveyed once a mouth (base flow conditions) in 2003 from February to June to determine if there is any type of temporal effect. In 2004, we sampled May Creek and Taylor Creek during a high flow event as well as during base flow conditions. An additional sample was also taken in 2004 at Kennydale Creek during base flow conditions. 38 FIGURE 27.-Location of two south Lake Sammamish tributaries studied to examine the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon at tributary mouths, March to June, 2003. Issaquah Creek, a major spawning tributary and hatchery release site for Chinook salmon, is also shown. 39 FIGURE 28.-Location of four south Lake Washington tributaries (faylor Creek, May Creek, Kennydale Creek, and Kennydale Beach tributary) studied to examine the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon at tributary mouths. Also shown are two nonnatal tributaries (Johns Creek and Culvert Creek) that were also studied to determine their use by juvenile Chinook salmon (Chapter 6). The Cedar River, a major spawning tributary for Chinook salmon, is also shown. 40 TABLE 3. -Streamflow conditions (cfs) at six tributaries used to determine the abundance and diet of Chinook salmon at the tributary mouths in south Lake Washington and south Lake Sammamish. Streamflow was measured shortly after fish were sampled. Fish were sampled once during base flow conditions and again under high flow conditions if possible. Lake Streamflow (els) Tributary Year Base flow High flow Lake Washington Kennydale Cr. 2003 0.51 4.80 2004 0.47 ND Kennydale Beach trib. 2003 0.01 ND May Cr. 2003 30.43 ND 2004 12.86 39.20 Taylor Cr. 2003 2.12 ND 2004 0.94 4.58 Lake Sammamish Laughing Jacobs Cr. 2003 8.27 ND Tibbetts Cr. 2003 19.24 ND Chinook salmon were collected primarily with beach seines (Figure 29). At the small tributaries, Kennydale Beach tributary and Kennydale Creek (Figure 29), one beach seine set was conducted, whereas at the other larger tributaries, 3 to 4 sets were usually done to cover the entire delta area. In 2003, we used two seines depending on the size of the fish. When Chinook salmon were less than 60 mm FL, we used a small seine that was 5.7 m long and 1.2 m deep with a 2-mm stretch mesh and had no bag in the middle. The larger net, used when Chinook salmon were> 60 mm FL, was 9.1 m long and 1.6 m deep and a 1.5-m deep by 1.8-m long bag in the middle. The entire net had 6-mm stretch mesh. In 2004, only one seine was used because it was effective in sampling various sizes of Chinook salmon. The net was 9.1 m long and 1.8 m deep with a 1.8-m deep by 1.8-m long bag in the middle. The mesh size in the wings was 6-mm stretch mesh while the bag was 2-mm stretch mesh. In the event that few Chinook salmon could be collected at a particular site, we collected additional Chinook salmon for diet analysis with small dip nets while snorkeling at night. Captured fish were identified and counted and IO Chinook salmon were randomly-selected for diet analysis. The IO Chinook salmon were anaesthetized with MS-222, the fork length was measured, and their stomach contents were removed through gastric lavage. Stomach contents were put in plastic bags, placed on ice, and later froze. In the laboratory, stomach samples were thawed, examined under a dissecting scope, and divided into major prey taxa. Aquatic insects and crustaceans were identified to family, while other prey items were identified to major taxonomic groups. Prey groups were counted and then the wet weight was measured. Each group was blotted by placing the sample on tissue paper for approximately IO seconds and weighed to the nearest 0.0001 g. 41 FIGURE 29.-Photos of sites used to collect juvenile Chinook salmon to exam in e the diet at tributary mouths and lakeshore si te s. The upper photo is of the mouth ofKennydale Creek and the l ower photo is of the beach seine being deployed at the lakeshore refere nce site for Kennydale Creek. At th e mouth of Kennydale Creek, a small delta was present, which was u sed to sei ne juvenile Chinook salmon. 42 To describe the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon, we followed the procedures of Cortes (1997) and Liao et al. (200 I). For each prey group in each sample, we detennined the percent weight (%W), percent number (%N), and percent occurrence (%0). A percent index of relative importance (%IRI) was then developed for each prey group: !RI = %0; (%w; + %N;) and, %!RI = 100 · IRI; n 2JRI; i =I To help compare the diet between samples, we also calculated Schoener's diet overlap index (Schoener 1971 ): where Cxy is the index value, Pxi is the proportion of food type i used by Chinook salmon at site x and py; is the proportion of food type i used by Chinook salmon at site y. Researchers commonly use an overlap index level of0.6 or less to indicate a significant difference in diet (Zaret and Rand 1971; Johnson 1981). Comparisons were made between tributary mouths and lakeshore reference sites, as well as between high and base streamflow conditions at each tributary mouth. A diet breadth index (B; Levins 1968) was also calculated to detennine if Chinook salmon utilize a wider variety of prey types at the tributary mouths in comparison to the lake shore: I B=~ L.iP; where p; is the proportion of the diet represented by food type i. Diet breadth index values range from 1 (no diet breadth: only one prey type in the diet) to infinity. Values less than 2 indicate little diet breadth. Results Catch . -In 2003, beach seine catch rates of juvenile Chinook salmon at tributary mouths and lakeshore sites were extremely variable between sites and between day and night. During the day, we were able to catch Chinook salmon at some tributary mouths but not at lakeshore reference sites. At some lakeshore sites, we could visually observe Chinook salmon but they could easily avoid the beach seine. At tributary mouths, they could be collected more easily, likely because the water was turbid or they retreated to the tributary mouth where they could be easily encircled with the seine. Because of the difficulty of collecting Chinook salmon at most lakeshore sites during the day, we collected Chinook salmon in 2004 at one site in Gene Coulon Park where they were known to be abundant. Nighttime s ampling was conducted at a few tributary mouths . Although n ight sampling was logistically more difficult, it appeared to be less variable than daytime 43 • sampling. At night, Chinook salmon were collected at each sampling location; however not enough sampling was conducted to make any meaningful comparison between tributary mouth and lakeshore sites. During high flow conditions, the number of Chinook salmon caught at the mouth of May Creek in 2004 was substantially higher than during base flow conditions. Additionally, nine cutthroat trout (range, 147-190 mm FL) were caught during the high flow event while none were caught during the base flow condition. In contrast to May Creek, more Chinook salmon were caught under base flow conditions than during high flow conditions at the mouth of Taylor Creek (Figure 30). Different types of seine nets were used at Kennydale Creek in 2003 and thus catch rates could not be compared between streamflow conditions. Diet.-In 2003, monthly samples (February to June) were collected at Kennydale Creek and a lakeshore reference site in Gene Coulon Park. Chironomid pupae and adults were the most important prey item for each sample date at both sites (Table 4). Other than chironomid pupae and adults, little else was present in the lakeshore diet for February to May, making up at least 89% of the diet by weight. The same was observed in the April and May diet at the mouth ofKennydale Creek. The March diet sample included a large seed pod that probably offered little nutritional value. If the seed pod is excluded from the analysis, chironomid pupae and adults made of87% of the diet by weight. The March sample at the mouth of Kennydale Creek was taken during a high flow event yet there was no significant difference in the diet between the lakeshore sample on the same date and between the base flow sample taken in April (Table 5). In February, a large number of springtails (Collembola; 43% of the diet by number and 19% by weight) were present in diet at the tributary mouth but were absent in the lakeshore diet. Springtails are primarily inhabitants of soil and moist vegetation but some species inhabit the neuston oflentic systems (Christiansen 1996). Streams may act as a dispersal mechanism. Because springtails were absent from the lakeshore diet, it indicates Chinook salmon may have been feeding on prey items that originated from the creek watershed. Besides chironomid pupae and adults, the June tributary mouth sample included a large number of emerging mayflies (Caenidae; 38% by weight) and the lakeshore sample included large numbers of chironomid larvae. "' 50 l 0 g 40 is 30 ci .8 20 § 10 z 0 May Creek oHghflow a Base flow Taylor Creek FIGURE 30. -Total number of Chinook salmon caught with a beach seine at the mouth of three tributaries of south Lake Washington, 2004. Each bar represents the number caught on one sampling effort; at May Creek three sets were conducted during each flow condition, and four at Taylor Creek. 44 TABLE 4. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon at the mouth ofKennydale Creek, 2003. Samples from March 12 were collected under high streamflow conditions. The other dates were collected under base streamflow conditions. n = number of stomach samples analyzed; the range of Chinook salmon lengths is also given; %N = percent number; %0 = percent occurrence; o/oW = percent weight; %IR1 = percent index of relative importance. Samples on February 19 were combined together in the field and %0 and %IR! could not be calculated. February 19 March 12 ----April 3 May8 June 3 n = 8, ran2e = 38-43 mm FL n = 6, range• 41·52 mm FL n • 10, range= 45-54 mm FL n = 10, range• 57-76 mm FL n = 10, range• as-103 mm FL Prey group %N %0 %W ~IRI %N %0 %W %1RI %N %0 %W %1RI %N %0 %W %1RI %N %0 %W %1RI lnsecta Diptera Chironomid pupae and adults 53.4 77.3 87.2 83 71.3 84.B 98.3 100 97.4 99,6 73.7 100 97.6 87.4 46.4 90 52.3 50,6 Chironomid larvae 1.1 0.9 1.2 17 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 O.B 10 0.1 0,04 3.1 BO 1.5 2.1 Other aquatic diptera 0.5 0.5 3.5 50 2.8 2.0 0 0 0 0 0.5 20 0.2 0.1 1.4 50 1.2 0.1 Ephemeroptera 0.5 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 10 0.05 0.01 24.0 90 38.4 31.9 Collembola 43.4 18.6 0 0 0 0 O.B 10 0.1 0.03 0.1 10 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 Other aquatic insects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0.1 10 0.1 0.01 0.1 10 0.4 0.03 Homoptera (Aphididae) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 30 0.2 0.1 0.4 10 0,2 0.03 Other terrestrial insects 1.1 1.4 1.2 11 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 1.5 60 0.9 0.7 1.1 50 0.9 0.B Crustacea Cladooera -Daphnia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 10 0.0 0,01 Other crustaceans 0 0 2.3 17 0.2 0.3 0 0 0 0 1.0 50 0.4 0.4 4.4 90 0.2 2.4 Hydrachnida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.8 100 0.4 11.3 18.1 90 0.1 9.4 Oligochaeta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 4,7 87 25.5 12.9 1.1 20 2.5 0.4 0.2 10 0.1 0.01 0.9 10 4.9 2., 45 TABLE 5. -Diet overlap indices (C) and diet breadth indices (B) of the mouth ofKennydale Creek and a lakeshore reference site, Lake Washington, 2003. Streamflow data were collected close to the mouth of the creek. ND = no data. Diet overlap index less than 0.6 indicates a significant difference. Diet breadth index values can range from I (no diet breadth) to infinity. Values less than 2 indicate little diet breadth. Streamfiow Diet overlae index (Cl Diet breadth index (8) Date (cfs) trib. mouth and lake shore tributary mouth lake shore February 19 0.55 0.78 1.58 1.02 March 12 4.80 0.74 1.97 1.25 April 3 0.51 0.94 1.05 1.14 May8 0.20 0.98 1.05 1.05 June 3 ND 0.70 2.37 3.17 Three other tributary mouths in Lake Washington were sampled in 2003, which included Kennydale Beach tributary, May Creek, and Taylor Creek; however, we were only able to survey each site under base streamflow conditions. Chironomid pupae and adults were the most important prey item for each tributary mouth as well as the lakeshore reference sites (Table 6). Chironomid larvae and terrestrial insects were more important in the diet at each tributary mouth than at the lakeshore reference sites. However, there was no significant difference in the diet between the tributary mouths and lakeshore sites (Table 7). The diet breadth index was higher at the tributary mouths than the lakeshore (Table 8). In Lake Sammamish, the mouths of Tibbetts Creek and Laughing Jacobs Creek were sampled in April 2003. Chinook salmon were also collected at one lakeshore reference site, Lake Sammamish State Park boat ramps. Similar to Lake Washington, the diet of Chinook salmon in all Lake Sammamish sites was dominated by chironomid pupae and adults. In contrast to Lake Washington, Daphnia made up a substantial portion of the diet of Chinook salmon in Lake Sammamish sites (Table 9). In Lake Washington, Daphnia usually does not become an important prey item until June (Koehler 2002). The diet at the mouth of Tibbetts Creek was somewhat different than the lake shore (overlap index= 0.68 and a higher diet breadth index). The diet at the creek mouth included several chironomid larvae, mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera), oligochaetes, and terrestrial insects. The diet at the mouth of Laughing Jacobs Creek was similar to the lakeshore (Tables 7 and 8). Several water mites (Hydrachnida) were often found in stomach samples, especially in samples collected in May and June. At the mouth ofKennydale Creek (May and June), they represented about 20% of the prey by number and %!RI was approximately I 0%. Ingested water mites were quite small and were generally much smaller than any other prey item. They were probably larval water mites, which are parasites of aquatic insects, especially larval dipterans such as chironomids (Smith et al. 2001). Therefore, they probably were not a true prey item of Chinook salmon. 46 TABLE 6. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon along the shoreline of Lake Washington and at three tributary mouths of Lake Washington, April 2003. n = number of stomach samples analyzed; the range of Chinook salmon lengths is also given; %N = percent number; %0 = percent occurrence; %W = percent weight; o/olRI = percent index of relative importance. Lake shoreline Kennydale Beach trib. May Cr. Taylor Cr. n • 20, ran2e • 45-84 mm FL n = 6, ran~e = 5g.. 73 mm FL n • 11, ran~e • 56-74 mm FL n = 10, ran2e = 44-62 mm FL Prey group %N %0 %W %IR1 %N %0 %W %IR1 %N %0 %W %IR1 %N %0 %W %IR1 lnsecta Diptera Chironomid pupae and adults 93.4 95 92.9 97.3 92.7 100 74.7 92.2 73.3 90.9 65.1 75.8 76.8 80 82.0 88.8 Chironomid larvae 2.7 55 0.7 1.0 5.7 50.0 14.7 5.6 8.5 90.9 17.1 14.0 10.5 60 2.6 5.5 Other aquatic diptera 0.1 5 0.05 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.8 27.3 1.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 54.5 4.0 2.5 1.1 10 1.1 0.1 Collembola 0.4 15 0.1 0.0 0.5 33.3 0.3 0.1 2.7 36.4 1.3 0.9 2.1 10 0.2 0.2 Other aquatic insects 0.1 5 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 2.4 36.4 1.6 0.9 0 0 0 0 Homoptera (Aphididae) 0 0 0 0 0.5 33.3 1.0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other terrestrial insects 1.1 15 0.6 0.1 0.3 33.3 8.9 1.7 2.1 36.4 2.0 0.9 4.2 30 6.5 2.2 Crustacea Cladocera -Daph nia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other crustaceans 0.2 10 0.7 0.05 0.2 16.7 0.4 0.05 0.3 9.1 0.5 0.04 0 0 0 0 Hydrachnlda 1.0 25 0.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.8 18.2 0.01 0.1 1.1 10 1.4 0.2 Oligochaeta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 9.1 0.2 0.02 0 0 0 0 Other 1.0 40 4.6 1.2 0 0 0 0 5.1 63.6 6.6 4.5 4.2 40 6.3 2.9 47 TABLE 7. -Diet overlap indices (C) of tributary mouths in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. Comparisons were made between two different streamflow conditions and between a lakeshore reference site and the two flow conditions. Samples were collected in either March or April in 2003 and 2004. Diet overlap index numbers in bold indicate a significant difference in diet (C < 0.6). ND= no data. Diet overlap index (C) Lake Base flow High flow Base flow Tributary Year and lake shore and lake shore and high flow Lake Washington Kennydale Cr. 2003 0.80 0.74 0.71 2004 0.70 ND ND Kennydale Beach trib. 2003 0.76 ND ND May Cr. 2003 0.66 ND ND 2004 0.82 0.69 0.67 Taylor Cr. 2003 0.90 ND ND 2004 0.74 0.34 0.45 Lake Sammamish Laughing Jacobs Cr. 2003 0.87 ND ND Tibbetts Cr. 2003 0.68 ND ND TABLE 8. -Diet breadth indices (B) of tributary mouths and lakeshore reference site in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. Samples were collected in either March or April. ND -no data. Diet breadth index values can range from I (no diet breadth) to infinity. Values less than 2 indicate little diet breadth. Diet breadth index (B) Lake Base flow Hi9h flow Tributary Year tributary mouth lake shore tributary mouth lake shore Lake Washington Kennydale Cr. 2003 1.05 1.14 1.97 1.50 2004 2.49 1.42 ND ND Kennydale Beach !rib. 2003 1.70 1.12 ND ND May Cr. 2003 2.17 1.12 ND ND 2004 1.55 1.35 2.45 1.47 Taylor Cr. 2003 1.47 1.26 ND ND 2004 1.74 1.35 4.09 1.47 Lake Sammamish Laughing Jacobs Cr. 2003 1.65 2.01 ND ND Tibbetts Cr. 2003 2.88 2.01 ND ND 48 TABLE 9. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon at three locations (one shoreline site and two sites at the mouths of tributaries) in south Lake Sammamish, April 16 to 21, 2003. n = the number of stomach samples analyzed; the range of Chinook salmon lengths is also given; %N = percent number; %0 = percent occurrence (%); % W = percent weight; %!RI = percent index of relative importance. Lake shoreline Laughing Jacobs Cr. Tibbetts Cr. n -10, ran2e = 60-85 mm FL n = 10, range = 52-80 mm FL n = 11, range -53-74 mm Fl Prel 2roue %N %0 %W %1RI %N %0 %W %1RI %N %0 %W lnsecta Diptera Chironomid pupae and adults 69.7 90 67.1 B1.3 65,8 100 76.5 81.6 48.9 100 56.3 Chironomid larvae 4.1 50 0.9 1.6 4.8 100 3.1 4.5 19.1 63.6 2.7 Other aquatic diptera 0 0 0 0 0.1 10 0.02 0.01 2.1 18.2 0.2 Ephemeroptera 0.1 10 0.2 0.02 0 0 0 0 8.5 45.5 8.0 Collembola 0.4 20 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other aquatic insects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,2 18.2 5.4 Homoptera (Aphididae) 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other terrestrial insects 0 o 0 o 0.2 20 0.1 0.03 4.3 36.4 10.8 Crustacea Cladocera -Daphnia 16.6 40 19.3 9.5 27.2 50 8.2 10.1 1. 1 9.1 0.04 Other crustaceans 5.5 40 0.7 1.6 0.4 20 0.6 0.1 0 0 0 Hydrachnlda 2.5 50 0.1 0.9 1.1 30 0.2 0.2 3.2 18.2 0.1 Oligochaeta 0.3 10 0.01 0.02 0 0 0 o 0 0 o other 0.8 60 11.7 4.9 0.4 50 11.3 3.4 9.6 54.5 16.6 In 2004, two tributaries, May Creek and Taylor Creek, were surveyed under high streamflow conditions as well as base streamflow conditions. During high streamflow conditions at May Creek, the percent of the diet of chironomids pupae and adults decreased from base flow conditions, while the percent of chironomid larvae, oligochaetes, and mayflies increased (Table I 0). The diet at May Creek during high flow conditions also included some prey items that are usually only found in flowing waters. These prey items included the immature stages of rhyacophilid caddisflies, black flies (Simuliidae), and heptagenid mayflies. Diet breadth was approximately 60% higher than at the lakeshore and base flow condition (Table 8); however, the diet overlap index was not significantly different (lakeshore, 0.69; base flow, 0.67). Cutthroat trout (n = 9) at the mouth of May Creek during the high flow event were foraging primarily on terrestrial prey items, which included terrestrial isopods or sow bugs (36% by weight), oligochaetes (28%) and insects (4%). Several larval longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) were consumed by Chinook salmon at the mouth of May Creek on April I (baseflow conditions), which represented 8% of the diet by weight. Much of the consumption oflarval smelt was observed in one individual (64 mm FL), which had consumed 29 smelt. Adult longfin smelt have been documented to spawn in May Creek (Moulton 1974; Martz et al. 1996). 49 %1RI 70.6 9.3 0.3 5.0 0 1.0 o 3.7 0.1 0 0.4 0 9.6 TABLE IO. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon at the mouth of May Creek, 2004 under two streamflow conditions. Base streamflow samples were collected on March 31 and April I and the high strcamflow samples were collected on March 26. n = the number of stomach samples analyzed; the range of Chinook salmon lengths is also given; %N = percent number; %0 = percent occurrence; o/oW = percent weight; %IR1 = percent index of relative importance. Base flow High flow n = 10, range = 40-64 mm FL n = 10, range= 51-62 mm FL Prer ~roue %N %0 %W %1RI %N %0 %W %1RI lnsecta Diptera Chironomid pupae and adults 62.7 100 79.7 85.6 56.7 100 61.2 70.1 Chironomid larvae 3.7 40 1.6 1.3 17.9 70 16.0 14.1 Other aquatic diptera 0 0 0 0 2.2 30 1.8 0.7 Ephemeroptera 1.5 20 1.0 0.3 5.2 50 4.6 2.9 Collembola 4.5 30 0.8 1.0 2.2 20 0.5 0.3 Other aquatic insects 0.7 10 4.6 0.3 3.0 30 4.3 1.3 Homoptera (Aphididae) 0 0 0 0 0.7 10 0.8 0.1 Other terrestrial insects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crustacea Cladocera -Daphnia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other crustaceans 0.7 10 0.3 0.1 0.7 10 0.2 0.1 Hydrachnida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oligochaeta 0 0 0 0 8.2 90 6.1 7.7 Other 26.1 50 11.9 11.4 3.0 60 4.4 2.7 The diet at the mouth of Taylor Creek during high streamflow conditions was significantly different than the lakeshore on the same date as well as Taylor Creek during base flow conditions (Table I I). Chironomid larvae were the most important prey item and represented approximately half of the prey items consumed. Other prey items included chironomid pupae and adults, oligochaetes, springtails, and mayflies. The diet breath index was 4.09, which was higher than any other creek mouth or lake sample. Supplemental surveys of Kennydale Creek and Taylor Creek were conducted on April 20, 2004. Chinook salmon were also collected at a lakeshore reference site, north Gene Coulon Park. At the mouth of Taylor Creek, little else was present in the diet except chironomid pupae and adults (97% by weight). Chironomid pupae and adults were also the dominant prey item at the mouth ofKennydale Creek (58% by weight) and the lakeshore reference site (83% by weight). However unlike Taylor Creek, aphids made up a substantial part of the diet (Kennydale Creek, 25% by weight; lakeshore, 7% by weight). 50 The lack of a large difference between the diet of lakeshore and tributary mouth fish may be because chironomid pupae and adults are an important dietary item regardless of location. Even in an upstream location of Johns Creek, chironomid pupae and adults were the most important prey item (Chapter 6). The high composition of chironomids in the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon has been observed in both lentic (Johnson 1983; Koehler 2002) and riverine systems (Becker 1973; Merz and Vanicek 1996; Martin and Saiki 2001; Petrusso and Hayes 2001; Sommer et al. 2001). To determine the origin of ingested chironomids from Lake Washington Chinook salmon, we may need to identify them to genus or species to determine if they are largely lake dwelling or stream dwelling prey. Samples of stream drift would also add information on the types and sizes of potential prey entering the lake from the stream. In general, juvenile Chinook salmon appear to be opportunistic feeders. They consume a wide variety of prey items and probably can quickly switch to a locally abundant prey source. Chironomids are extremely abundant in the nearshore areas of Lake Washington (Koehler 2002) and it's not surprising they are important in the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon. As other prey items become abundant, Chinook salmon continue to feed on chironomids but also prey on these other prey items. For example, Chinook salmon did not feed heavily on mayflies of the family Caenidae until June when the mayflies were emerging. In Lake Ontario, Johnson (1983) found that subyearling Chinook salmon fed predominantly on fish eggs when emerald shiners (Notropis atherinoides) were spawning; however, in another year, Chinook salmon were collected prior to spawning of emerald shiners and they preyed predominantly on chironomids. Because juvenile Chinook salmon are opportunistic feeders, they can forage at the mouths of tributaries and take advantage of a wide variety of prey types from both the lake and tributary. In 2002, we found strong differences in the diet between Kennydale Creek mouth and lakeshore (Tabor et al. 2004b). The diet overlap index was 0.17 and diet breadth was much higher at the tributary mouth (B = 9.0) than the lakeshore (B = 1.2). In contrast, differences between tributary mouth and lakeshore samples were generally small in 2003 and 2004 except during high flow events. The sample collected at Kennydale Creek in 2002 did not appear to be during a high flow event. Also, weather records do not indicate any measurable precipitation during the 2 days before the sample was taken. In 2002, Chinook salmon at the mouth ofKennydale Creek were collected at night with small dip nets on the interior part of the delta, close to the tributary mouth. Samples in 2003 and 2004 were collected primarily during the day with a beach seine, which sampled the entire delta area. Therefore, Chinook salmon that are closer to the tributary may be feeding to a larger extent on prey from the tributary and fish on the outer part of the delta may be feeding primarily on prey that originated in the lake. Additionally, Chinook salmon collected at night near the mouth may include some fish that were foraging in the stream ( convergence pool) during the day and then moved downstream to rest in quiet waters of the delta. In the Cedar River, small Chinook salmon appear to move to low velocity sites at night and rest near the bottom (R. Peters, USFWS, unpublished data). 52 Tributary mouths appear to be especially valuable habitat for Chinook salmon during high streamflow conditions. Chinook salmon appear to respond both functionally (change in diet) and numerically (change in abundance) to increased streamflow. At all three tributary mouths, the diet breadth was higher at high streamflow than at base stream flow conditions. A large percentage of the diet during high streamflow conditions consisted ofbenthic prey such as chironomid larvae and oligochaetes. These prey items may become more available due to streambed scour and prey are displaced downstream. At May Creek, we found the abundance of Chinook salmon can increase during a high flow event. An increase in prey availability as well as flow may attract Chinook salmon and other salmonids such as cutthroat trout. At Taylor Creek, we were unable to demonstrate an increase in Chinook salmon abundance due to an increase in streamflow. Taylor Creek is much smaller than May Creek and thus the amount of prey and attraction flow is most likely less. Also, May Creek may have been easier to sample with a small beach seine than Taylor Creek because the delta of May Creek is confined between two riprap banks and fish may be easily encircled with a beach seine. 53 CHAPTER 6. USE OF NONNATAL TRIBUTARIES Introduction and Methods The lower reaches of several nonnatal tributaries were s urveyed in 2002. Juvenile Chinook salmon commonly used the tributary delta area s within the lak e but the y were on ly found in the lotic environments of a few tributaries (Tabor et al. 2004b). Nonnatal tributaries that had a high abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon were small-to medium- sized streams, which had a low gradient and were close to the mouth of the natal system . In 2003 and 2004, we surveyed Johns Creek and C ulvert Creek to coll ect additional information on the use of nonnatal tributaries. Johns Creek was surveyed to determine if the tributary is used extensively from year to year and to collect some in fo rmati on on C hinook salmon habitat use th at could be used to design restoration projects of other nonnatal tributaries. For example, the City of Seattle has propo sed to daylight the mouth and lower 100 m of Mapes Creek (currently in a culvert and enters the lake a few meters below th e lake surface), yet littl e information is available on what type of habitat conditions would be best for Chinook salmon. In 2004, we also surveyed Culvert Creek because it is also a small, low-gradient creek that is close to the mouth of the Cedar River; however, the creek is located entirely within a culvert. The creek is located approximately 0.65 km north of Johns Creek. Johns Creek. -Johns Creek is located in Gene Coulon Park in the southeast comer of Lake Washington, 1.5 km from the mouth of the Cedar River. Typical winter streamflow is about 0.8 cfs (Tabor et al. 2004b). Juvenile Chinook sa lm on use the lower 460 m of the stream (Tabor et al. 2004b). Upstream of this, there are two equal-sized streams that appear to be completely in culverts. In 2003 and 2004 , we repeatedly surveyed the same 260-m long reach that was surveyed in 2002 (Tabor et al. 2004b). The downstream end of the study reach was the lake. There was no deve loped delta unlike other tributaries to Lake Washington. The upstream end was a large culvert near the entrance to Gene Coulon Park. The study reach was delineated into habitat units, which were eithe r classified as a convergence pool, scour pool, glide, or riffle. The convergence pool was the lower 61 to 136 m of the index reach that the water level was directly influenced by the lake leve l (Figure 31 ). As th e lake rose from February to June, the convergence p oo l grew progressively larger. Scour pools were other pools up stream of the convergence pool that had a maximum depth > 0.35 m . Glides or shallow pools were other s low water habitats t hat had a maximum depth < 0.35 m (Figure 31 ). The maximum pool depth of 0.35 m was adapted from Timber-Fish-Wildlife (TFW) stream am bient monitoring methodology (Pleus et al. 1999). For a stream the size of Johns Creek (5 -to -I 0-m bankfull stream width), the authors recommended pools have a residual pool depth of 0.25 m (residual pool depth = m ax. poo l depth -outlet pool depth). Because the outlet depth of pools was approximately 0.1 m deep, we used a maxi mum pool depth as > 0.35 m. Riffles were 54 areas that had noticeable surface turbulence with increased water velocities. Length and width was measured for each habitat unit. The maximum depth and average depth was also determined for each habitat unit. FIGURE 31.-Photos of glide habitat (upper photo) and the convergence pool (lower photo) of Johns Creek, Gene Co ulon Park. In the background of the convergence pool photo is Lake Washington. Fish surveys of Johns Creek were conducted during the day primarily by a snorkeler who slowly moved upstream and counted fish. In small-and medium-sized streams, juvenile Chinook salmon appear to be easily observed and counted during the daytime. At night, the snorkcler's light is usually close to the fish and often causes fish to scatter, thus making it dimcult to count the fish. Pools and most glides were surveyed by snorkelers. In 2003, shallow habitat units (riffies and some glides) that were too 55 shallow to snorkel were surveyed through surface observations by walking slowly along the stream bank. Because fish are often difficult to observe in riffles when using surface observations, we used electrofishing equipment to sample this habitat in 2004. The number of Chinook salmon and other fish were recorded for each habitat unit. At the location of individual or groups of Chinook salmon, we also measured the water column depth (surface to bottom). In 2003, surveys of Johns Creek were done once every 2 weeks from March to June while in 2004, surveys were conducted once every 3 weeks from February to May. Stomach samples of Chinook salmon from Johns Creek were also collected in 2003 to compare their diet to Chinook salmon collected from the lakeshore. Chinook salmon in Johns Creek were collected with a small beach seine. Lakeshore fish were collected at a site in the north end of Gene Coulon Park, approximately I km from the mouth of Johns Creek. Stomach samples were taken once a month from the end of February to the end of May. Fish processing, laboratory analysis, and data analyses for stomach samples were done the same as tributary mouth sampling (see Chapter 5). Culvert Creek. -In addition to Johns Creek, we also surveyed a small unnamed creek or seep in Gene Coulon Park (Figure 27). It begins on the east side of the railroad tracks about 100 m from Lake Washington. Except for a section under the railroad tracks, the upper 35 m are daylighted. Sixty-five meters from the lake, the creek runs through a small drain and drops 2.1 m into a culvert. The lower 65 m was available to juvenile Chinook salmon and was located entirely in a culvert (Figure 32), thus we referred to this creek as Culvert Creek. The outlet of the creek is along a riprap bank (Figure 32). The creek has a small sandy delta. The delta has a steep gradient similar to the riprap bank. In the summer and fall, the creek is usually dry. During the winter and spring, base stream flows appear to be approximately 0.04 cfs. Snorkel surveys were conducted along four transects at this location: 1) creek (entirely inside culvert), 2) delta (4 m long by 3 m wide), 3) an adjacent 18-m-long riprap shoreline and, 4) a 14-m-long gravel beach 40 m north of the creek's mouth. The length of the creek that we were able to snorkel varied with lake level. In February, the lake level was low and the lower end of the culvert was perched above the lake level and the creek was one long riffle. We assumed no Chinook salmon could use the creek during this time period. As the lake rose, water was backed up in the culvert and we were able to snorkel inside the cu lvert . Transects were surveyed four times, approximately once every three weeks from March to May. 56 FIGURE 32. -Outlet of Culvert Creek, Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington, April 2003. Results Johns Creek. -In both 2003 and 2004, large numbers of juvenile Chinook salmon were present in the index reach of Johns Creek in February and March (Figure 33). Peak abundance was 632 Chinook salmon on March 5, 2003. Numbers gradually decreased from late March through May and few Chinook salmon were present by the beginning of June. In February, the mean length of juvenile Chinook salmon in Johns Creek was approximately 40 mm FL and by the end of May they averaged 74 mm FL (Figure 34). As they grew they used progressively deeper areas of the creek, from 0 .28 m in February to approximately 0.5 min May (Figure 35). 57 700 "" 600 § 500 1=~:1 :c _ ... 0 400 •• '5 .. 1l 300 5 ~- z 200 •• 100 ..... 0 Feb Nar f¥)r Nay Jun FIGURE 33. -Number of juvenile Chinook salmon observed in the lower 260 m of Johns Creek in 2003 and 2004. Data are based primarily on snorkel counts. Habitats that were too shallow to snorkel were surveyed with surface observations or electrofishing surveys 80 70 e 60 g .c 50 °' 40 ! i: 30 ~ 20 10 0 Feb Nar Nay Jun FIGURE 34. -Mean fork length (mm,± 2 SE) of juvenile Chinook salmon in thelower260 m of Johns Creek, 2003. Fish were collected with beach seines. 58 0.6 -o-2003 I~••••••. ···•··· 2004 : -0.5 .5. .c Q. 0.4 "' C .Ji 0.3 •.... -.•. 0.2 Feb Mir />pr M3y Jun FIGURE 35. -Mean water column depth (m) where juvenile Chinook salmon were located in the index reach of Johns Creek, 2003 and 2004. Figure only includes dates when at least l O Chinook salmon were observed. A total of only six Chinook salmon were collected in riffles ( only sampled in 2004). They were collected in February and early March and were located in small pocket water behind boulders. Juvenile Chinook salmon density was highest in glides in February and early March. In both 2003 and 2004, the density in the beginning of March was about twice as high in glides than scour pools. The density in glides declined dramatically in late March and after the beginning of April, few Chinook salmon were present in glides and those that were present were almost always under overhanging vegetation. In April and May, the density in scour pools was 3 to 65 times higher than in glides. Juvenile Chinook salmon were present in scour pools throughout the study period (Figure 36). In February, they were located in shallow areas of the pool such as the edges and tailouts. After February, they were found in deeper water and by the end of March they were usually in the deepest part of the pool (Figures 37 and 38). Similarly to scour pools, Chinook salmon were present in the convergence pool throughout the study period, albeit at a much lower density (Figure 39). Chinook salmon in the convergence pool were usually close to the edge and associated with shoreline vegetation. One notable exception was in February, 2004 when most Chinook salmon in the convergence pool were located under the footpath bridge. Large numbers of juvenile Chinook salmon were also observed under the bridge in 2002. The March and April abundance of Chinook salmon in the convergence pool was higher in 2004 than 2003, even though the abundance in all habitats combined was higher in 2003. To compare the use of the convergence pool to the rest of the index reach, we calculated the number per stream length because the convergence pool is wide and Chinook salmon do not appear to use the large area in the middle of the stream channel. The number of Chinook salmon per stream length was 3 to 26 times lower in the convergence pool than the rest of the stream in 2003; however, in 2004 it was only 2 to 7 times lower (Figure 36). The water 59 column depth used by Chinook salmon in the convergence pool was similar to the average depth available. The deep areas(> 0.9 m deep) of the convergence pool did not appear to be used extensively by Chinook salmon. Instead these areas were often inhabited by large trout or largemouth bass (Micropterns salmoides), which may have influenced the distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon. 2.5 2 1: -1.5 -"' 0 0 .!: 1 .c t) 0.5 0 1.4 1.2 1: 1 --"' 0 0.8 0 C 0.6 6 0.4 0.2 0 2003 -....-Scour pools I • • •D• • • Gficfes -• • . -Comergence pool [], 0-... .... -.:.:::::..z& Feb M:lr Ppr M:ly Jun 2004 o· -....-Scoor pools • --D· • • Glides -.•. -Comergence pool 0 ----. -..... -. ----. -· :._. ~. Feb Jun FIGURE 36. -Density (number /m 2) of juvenile Chinook salmon in three habitat types in the lower 260 m of Johns Creek, 2003 and 2004. Density in riffles is not shown because few fish were observed. Note different scales between years. 60 0.8 0.6 .o-----. ·O· ••••.• o, •.• --Pool A -max. depth ---a---Pool A-Olioook -Pool B -max. depth 02 d ---t.--. Pool B -Olioook 0+----~----,----~---~ Feb lllbr FIGURE 37. -Water column depth ( m) where juvenile Chinook salmon were located and maximum depth of two scour pools in the index reach of Johns Creek, February-May, 2004. max. depth= maximum depth. 0.6 0.5 g 0.4 i .., 0.3 C m 0.2 :;; 0.1 ... ... ... 0-t----,----,----~----, Feb lllbr FIGURE 38. -Mean water column depth (m) in scour pools and glides (environment) and the mean water column depth where juvenile Chinook salmon were located in those habitats, lower Johns Creek, February- May, 2004. Figure only includes dates when at least IO Chinook salmon were observed. 61 5 4 E :;; 3 g C' 2 o' 6 1 X-. Feb Illar ---o-2003 -upstream readl · · · o---2004 -upstream readl -:<-2003 -comergence pool · · ·:<· · -2004-con.ergence pool 0 •. ---0. Jun FIGURE 39. -Number ofjuveniJe Chinook salmon in Johns Creek per stream length in the convergence pool and the stream reach immediately upstream of the convergence pool. The length of the convergence pool and upstream reach varied depending on lake level. The entire stream reach was 260 m. The upstream reach included riffles, glides, and scour pools. Other salmonids in Johns Creek consisted primarily of sockeye salmon fry. Other fish observed in Johns Creek included trout, prickly sculpin, coastrange sculpin (C. aleuticus), threespine stickleback, juvenile brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), juvenile suckers (Catostomus sp.), juvenile sunfish (Lepomis sp.), juvenile peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), and largemouth bass. Salmonids and sculpins were found throughout the index reach and throughout the study period; whereas, the other fish species were observed primarily in the convergence pool in May and June. In general, the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon in Johns Creek was similar to the diet from Lake Washington. Chironomid pupae and adults had the highest %IRI on each sampling date in both Johns Creek and the lakeshore (Table 12). However, on two of the four dates (March 20 and April 22), the diet in Johns Creek was substantially different than the lake shore at north Gene Coulon Park (Table 12). In Johns Creek, chironomid pupae and adult made up less than 30% of the diet by weight on both dates, whereas they made up over 80% of the diet from the lake shore during that time period. On March 20, oligochaetes were the most important prey item by weight and on April 22 other terrestrial invertebrates ( centipedes, isopods, and gastropods) made up over half of the diet by weight. The diet breadth index was also much higher for Johns Creek fish than the lakeshore fish on these two dates (Table 13). 62 TABLE 12. -Diet composition of juvenile Chinook salmon in Johns Creek, 2003. n = number of stomach samples analyzed; the range of Chinook salmon lengths is also given; %N = percent number; %0 = percent occurrence; %W = percent weight; %!RI= percent index of relative importance. Samples on February 21 were combined together in the field and %0 and %IR! could not be calculated. February 21 March 20 April 22 May30 n = 10, ran§!e s: 37-45 mm FL n = 11, range• 47a54 mm FL n = 10, range= 4s.54 mm FL n = 10, range ;:I 72a81 mm FL Prev group %N %0 %W %1Rl %N %0 %W %1RI %N %0 %W %1RI %N %0 %W %!RI lnsecta Diptera Chironomid pupae and adults 63.9 . 47.0 36.8 90.9 18.6 39.3 67.3 80 26.8 57.8 58.5 100 75.8 71.7 Chironomid larvae 11.5 . 4.0 8.8 45.5 3.6 4.4 3.6 10 0.3 0.3 30.8 100 6.2 19.7 Other aquatic dip1era 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collemba 11.5 5.0 16.7 72.7 1.5 10.3 1.8 10 0.1 0.2 0.5 20 0.5 0.1 Other aquatic insects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 10 5.9 0.4 Homop1era (Aphididae) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 60 1.1 0.9 Other 1errestrial insects 6.6 4.0 0.9 9.7 0.3 0.1 3.6 20 5.0 1.3 5.8 90 6.7 6.0 Crustacea Cladocera -Daphnia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other crustaceans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 10 0.0 0.03 Acarina 0 0 1.8 9.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.3 10 0.0 0.01 Oligochaeta 0 0 24.6 45.5 46.7 25.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other terrestrial invertebrates 0 0 0.9 9.1 7.9 0.6 12.7 60 55.9 31.6 0 10 4 0.2 .ilihtt 6.6 40.0 9.6 81.8 21.3 19.8 10.9 50 11.9 8.7 1.0 40 3.7 1.0 63 TABLE 13. -Diet overlap index (C) and diet breadth index (B) of juvenile Chinook salmon from Johns Creek and Lake Washington, 2003. Lake Washington Chinook salmon were collected in the north part of Gene Coulon Park, approximately I km from Johns Creek. Diet overlap index numbers in bold indicate a significant difference in diet (C < 0.6). Diet breadth index values can range from I (no diet breadth) to infinity. Values less than 2 indicate little diet breadth. Diet overlap index (C) Diet breadth index (B) Date Johns Cr. and lake shore Johns Cr. lake shore February 21 0.70 1.98 1.02 March 20 0.21 3.39 1.25 April 22 0.29 5.03 1.05 Mal30 0.62 1.71 3.17 Culvert Creek. -A total of only five Chinook salmon were observed in Culvert Creek (inside the culvert); however, the amount of available habitat was relatively small. The few Chinook salmon observed inside the culvert were located close to the downstream end of the culvert (mouth of the creek), presumably because light levels at the mouth were higher and more conducive for foraging. Few other fish were observed inside the culvert. Out of four surveys, only one sockeye salmon fry, one small trout, and three sculpin were observed. No Chinook salmon were ever observed on the creek delta. Instead other fish, such as largemouth bass, prickly sculpin, pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and small trout, were usually present. Few Chinook salmon were observed along the riprap transect. On three of the four surveys, large adult bass (either largemouth bass or smallmouth bass M. dolomieu) were present. Other fish observed included trout, pumpkinseed, and large prickly sculpin. The highest abundance of Chinook salmon (#Im) was observed along the gravel beach transect (Figure 40). Except for some small sculpin, few other fish were observed along this transect. 1.6 1.4 --• --Gra.el shoreline E 1.2 --Oeek (inside cul.ert) -1 .:t: • -• ll· .. Riprap shoreline 0 0 0.8 C: E 0.6 l) ' ' 0.4 0.2 . #./1--••.••.•• .. 0 ........ t,· .... M3.rch P,:>ril Mly FIGURE 40. -Abundance (number perm) of juvenile Chinook salmon in Culvert Creek (inside culvert) and at two nearby shoreline transects in Lake Washington, 2004. 64 Discussion Johns Creek.-Results from Johns Creek indicated that Chinook salmon extensively use this nonnatal tributary from year to year. Several nonnatal tributaries of Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish were surveyed in 2002 and the number of Chinook salmon found in Johns Creek was higher than all the other tributaries combined. Johns Creek appears to be an ideal nonnatal tributary because it has a low gradient, is a small-to medium-sized stream, and is close to the natal system, the Cedar River. Preliminary results from Lake Quinault in 2004 indicate there are also several nonnatal streams that are used by juvenile Chinook salmon. We plan to conduct additional surveys of these streams in 2005 to identify important factors that influence their use of these streams. In the lower part of the Fraser River, British Columbia, juvenile Chinook salmon used nonnatal tributaries that had low gradients and had no fish barriers such as waterfalls, culverts, bridge footings, or flood control gates (Murray and Rosenau 1989). The use of the lower reaches of nonnatal tributaries by juvenile Chinook salmon has also been documented in the upper Fraser River system in British Columbia (Scrivener et al. 1994), the Taku River system in Alaska (Murphy et al. 1989) and the Umpqua River system in Oregon (Scarnecchia and Roper 2000). Based on the habitat use patterns of Johns Creek, a suitable stream for juvenile Chinook salmon should have a wide variety of habitat features, which would take into account the change in habitat use of Chinook salmon as they grow. Shallow, slow water habitats(< 0.35-m depth) or glides were used extensively in February and early March. We also observed small Chinook salmon in pocket water ofriffles, thus using cobbles and small boulders in riffles might provide additional rearing habitat. After late March, Chinook salmon were usually in deeper pools but we did not observe them in pools greater than 0.9 m depth. Throughout the study period, juvenile Chinook salmon appeared to often use overhead cover. The density of Chinook salmon in the convergence pool was considerably lower than in the upstream reach. Low density in the convergence pool may be due to a combination of suboptimal habitat conditions and presence of other fish species. Much of the convergence pool had riprap banks and there was little woody debris and little riparian vegetation to provide overhanging cover. Potential predators of Chinook salmon, such as largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, large trout, and prickly sculpin, were commonly observed in the convergence pool, thus Chinook salmon may avoid this area. Besides predators, the convergence pool also had large numbers of potential competitors Guvenile peamouth,juvenile sunfish, threespine stickleback, and prickly sculpin), which could reduce the food available for Chinook salmon. In the upstream reach, few other fish species were present and the habitat conditions appeared to be better than the convergence pool. Culvert Creek.-Although few Chinook salmon were present at Culvert Creek, it does provide evidence that small creeks or seeps could be potential Chinook salmon rearing habitat. The number observed at Culvert Creek in 2004 was higher than the number observed in 2002 in much larger tributaries such as May Creek (Tabor et al. 2004b). Use of these small tributaries has not been well documented; however, in the Nooksack River system, Chinook salmon fry were frequently caught in several spring seeps and small tributaries but not along the river edge 65 (P. Castle, WDFW, unpublished data). Use of these small tributaries in Lake Washington is probably most beneficial for newly emerged fry. These tributaries would provide shallow water habitat and large predatory fish would most likely be absent. As they grow and move into deeper habitats their use of these small tributaries would be greatly reduced. The number of juvenile Chinook salmon in Culvert Creek may actually be high considering the poor condition of the habitat. The creek could be significantly improved if it was daylighted and riparian vegetation was planted. Additionally, the creek delta was adjacent to riprap and the abundance of predatory fishes (bass and large sculpin) appeared to be much higher than at other tributary deltas. Any stream restoration project would probably also need to include removing the riprap. If the creek was restored, perhaps it could support as many as 50 juvenile Chinook salmon (based on densities observed in Johns Creek). 66 CHAPTER 7. WOODY DEBRIS AND OVERHANGING VEGETATION EXPERIMENT Introduction In 200 I and 2002, habitat manipulation experiments were conducted in Gene Coulon Park to test the use of small woody debris (SWD) by juvenile Chinook salmon. In all experimental tests , no preference for SWD was found (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002, Tabor et al. 2004b). However during snorkel surveys, juvenile Chinook salmon were found to extensively use natural small woody debris when associated with overhanging vegetation (OHV) in south Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish . Since no preference was shown for SWD by itself during experimental tests, then OHV may be an important element of preferred habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. Jn 2003, we conducted the final phase of our habitat manipulation experiments by examining the use ofOHY in combination with SWD. Methods We used the same site in Gene Coulon Park that we used in 200 l and 2002 (Figure 14 ). The shoreline was divided into six 15-m shoreline sections: two with SWD, two with OHY/SWD and two with no structure of any kind. The structures within the SWD only sections and OHV/SWD sections were 8 m long and located in the middle of the 15-m shoreline section. In the sections with OHV, we placed four fence posts in the water at a 0.3 m depth and then a rope was tied between them, approximately 0.4 meter above the water. Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) cuttings (1.5 to 2 m long) were then laid down such that the base of each cutting was close to the ed ge of the shore and the top part of the cutting rested on th e rope (Figure 41). The cuttings were anchored with sand bags on shore and cable ties along the rope. The small woody debris consisted of tree branches placed in two rows parallel to shore. Each row was approximately I to 2 m wide. The rows were approximately 1.5 m apart, which allowed room for a snorkeler to swim between the rows. Small woody debris was placed along 0.4 and 0. 7 m depth contours and was tied to ge ther and anchored with sand bags. Snorkel surveys were conducted within each shoreline section. Surveys were done during both day and night. Surveys were done along the 0.4 m depth contour. At the beginning of each snorkel survey, the temperature (0 C) and light intens ity (lumens/ft2) was measured. Light intensity measurements were taken at the water surface with an International Light Inc., model IL1400A radiometer/photometer. During the day, Chinook salmon were active and often moved away from snorkelers. To get a more accurate count and insure that snorkelers did not push fish into an adjoining section, two snorkelers s lowly swam toward each other from the outer edges of each shoreline section. After s urveying each section, snorkelers compared notes on fish observed and adjusted fish counts to reduce the likelihood that fish were double counted. At night, shoreline sections could be surveyed by one s no rkeler. Fish were inactive and usually did not react to the snorkel er. Occasionally, a Chinook sa lmon was startled but usuall y only swam away a short distance in any direction. Therefore, it was possible for a fish to have moved into an adjoining section, but we considered thi s number to be in s ignificant in comparison to the total number of fi sh observed. Within each shoreline section with structure, we also estimated the number of Chinook salmon 67 FIGURE 41.-Placement of Scotch broom used to experimentally test the use of overhanging vegetation by juvenile Chinook salmon. Small woody debris was also placed next to the Scotch broom on the lake side. that were closely associated with OHV or SWD or were located on the periphery of the structure (3.5-m shoreline length on each side of the structure). We conducted the experiment during two time periods, an early period (March 24 to April 9) and a late period (May 2 to 16). To compare between treatments, we used a one-way analysis of variance test (ANOV A). Results A total often daytime surveys were conducted during the early time period between March 24 and April 9. On each survey date, both the OHV/SWD sections had a substantially higher number of Chinook salmon than any other section. The daytime abundance of Chinook salmon was significantly different between shoreline types (Figure 42; AN OVA, F = 87.7, df = 2,3, P = 0.002). Results from a post hoc Fisher's LSD test showed a significantly higher abundance in the OHV/SWD sections than either the SWD sections or open sections. No difference was detected between SWD and open sections. Large numbers of Chinook salmon were often observed directly under OIN (Figure 43). On average, 86.7% of the Chinook salmon within the OHV/SWD sections were most closely associated with the OHV part of the structure, while 6.3% were associated with the SWD and 6.8% were in the open on the periphery of the structure. Three nighttime surveys were conducted during the early time period. There was no significant difference in nighttime Chinook salmon abundance between shoreline types 68 (ANOVA, F = 5.6, df = 2,3, P = 0.098). However, 46% of all the Chinook salmon were present in the open sections and 65% of those within sections with structure (OHV/SWD and SWD) were located in the open, away from the structure. During the late time period (May 2-16), seven daytime and four nighttime snorkel surveys were conducted. There was no significant difference in Chinook salmon abundance between shoreline types during either the daytime (Figure 42; ANOVA, F = 0 .02, df= 2,3, P = 0.98) or nighttime (ANOVA, F = 6.0, df = 2,3, P = 0.089). Unlike the early time period, few Chinook salmon used OHV during the daytime of the late time period. On average, only 7.2% of the Chinook salmon within the OHV/SWD sections were mos t closely associated with the OHV while 30.2% were associated with the SWD and 62.6% were in the open on the periphery of the structure. During the early time period , only 17% more Chinook salmon were observed at night than during the day; however, twice as many were observed at night as during the day during the late time period. This suggests that either snorkelers were less able to observe the Chinook salmon during the day of the late time period or many of the Chinook salmon were further offshore during the day of the late time period and not close to snorkelers. 160 March 24 -April 9 ~ 0 120 0 C ..c. 80 0 o Day, n = 10 -0 40 a Night, n = 3 :;t 0 ~() ~() 0<:::- ~,0 0 0~ o'<' 100 May 2 -16 ~ 80 0 0 C 60 ..c. 0 40 ~·~ o Day, n = 7 -0 20 a Night, n = 4 :;t 0 ~() ~() 0<:::- ~,0 0 0~ o'<' FIGURE 42. -Mean number (±range) of juvenile Chinook salmon observed in three habitat types during an early and lat e time period, Gene Coulon Park, south Lake Was hington (2003). Bars represent the mean of two replicates. n = the number of snorkel surveys used to calculate the mean number observed for each replicate. OHV = overhanging vegetation; SWD = small woody debris. 69 FIGURE 43.-Photo of a group of juvenile Chinook salmon within a overhanging vegetation/small woody debris (OHV/SWD) structure, March 27, 2003. Within this structure, Chinook salmon were more closely associated with the OHV. Discussion A variety of different surveys from Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and Lake Quinault have indicated that overhead cover (alone or in combination with small woody debris) is an important habitat feature for small Chinook salmon. In March 2001, small Chinook salmon were often found under south Lake Washington docks during the day (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). No SWD was present under these docks. Surveys of natural OHV /SWD sites in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish found large numbers of small Chinook salmon were often present (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002; Tabor et al. 2004b). In Lake Quinault, we also found Chinook salmon directly under L WD and OHV. In 2004, we undertook a field experiment to test its importance, and results clearly showed that large numbers of Chinook salmon use sites with overhead cover. Use of overhead cover by juvenile Chinook salmon has also been observed in Cedar River (R. Peters, USFWS, unpublished data). Brusven et al. (1986) used an artificial stream channel to test the importance of overhead cover and found it was an important habitat component for juvenile Chinook salmon. Meehan et al. ( 1987) covered sections of a side- channel of the South Fork Salmon River and found the number of juvenile Chinook salmon was substantially higher in the covered sections than open sections. The use of overhead cover has also been documented for other juvenile salmonids. Juvenile Atlantic salmon preferred overhead cover when light levels were greater than 300 ft-c (Gibson and Keenleyside 1966). Fausch (1993) found juvenile steelhead selected habitat 70 structures that provided overhead cover; however, juvenile coho salmon did not select overhead cover. The use of overhead cover has also observed in adult salmonids such as brown trout, rainbow trout, and brook trout (Gibson and Keenleyside 1966; Butler and Hawthorne 1968). The main function of overhead cover for juvenile Chinook salmon was most likely predator avoidance. It would seem unlikely that Chinook salmon selected the overhanging vegetation because of food availability. In our experiments, we used freshly-cut scotch broom and it's doubtful if there was any increase in prey abundance. Besides, there probably would not be enough food production for the large number of Chinook salmon in such a small area. Chinook salmon associated with the overhead cover were inactive and did not appear to be actively foraging. In contrast, fish in open areas were often observed foraging. The overhead cover probably provides a visual refuge from avian predators as well as fish predators. Helfrnan (1981) proposed that fish utilize overhead cover because they are better able to see approaching predators and it is hard for predators to see into the shade. Similar to 2002 results, no significant difference was detected between experimental SWD sites and open sites. Overall, there was fives times as many fish in the SWD sites as the open sites; however, there was large variability between survey dates. For example, on seven occasions, there were no fish in a SWD section but on four occasions were more than 30 fish. Small woody debris does not appear to provide resting habitat like OHV/SWD but still may be important as a refuge from predators. Chinook salmon may retreat to the SWD if a predator approaches and only use the SWD for a short period of time until the predator has moved away. The addition of SWD adds structural complexity and may reduce the foraging ability of predators (Glass 1971). In May,juvenile Chinook salmon were rarely found associated with OHV or SWD. Previous work in Lake Washington also indicated Chinook salmon do not appear to extensively use cover as they increase in size (Tabor et al. 2004b). In the Cedar River, juvenile Chinook salmon were located further from cover as they became larger (R. Peters, USFWS, unpublished data). Allen (2000) also found that juvenile Chinook salmon in the Yakima River were further away from instream cover as they grew larger. As Chinook salmon grow they inhabit deeper waters and may not need to use cover. Deeper water may act a visual barrier from some predators such as avian predators. Gibson and Power (1975) found that juvenile Atlantic salmon used overhead cover in shallow water but if they were in deeper water it was not used. Additionally, juvenile Chinook salmon may not need to use cover because they will have much faster burst swimming speed as they increase in size (Webb 1976) and thus can quickly move away from some types of predators. Alternatively, juvenile Chinook salmon may be further away from cover in May but complex structures such as OHV and SWD may still be important as a refuge from predators. As Chinook salmon increase in size and have faster burst swimming speed, they can move further from cover and still be able to retreat to cover if a predator approaches. For example, in 2001 we observed a large school of juvenile Chinook salmon feeding offshore in the open but later they quickly moved to OHV/SWD that was close to shore when they were pursued by two mergansers (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). 71 CHAPTER 8. LAKE QUINAULT SURVEYS Introduction Some habitat features such as L WD and emergent vegetation are difficult to study along the highly developed shorelines of Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish because they are rare. Outside of the Lake Washington basin, the only other major run of ocean-type Chinook salmon that spawn above a large lake in the State of Washington occurs in the Quinault River above Lake Quinault. In 2003, we conducted a preliminary investigation of Lake Quinault to determine if the lake could be used to study the habitat features that are rare in the Lake Washington basin. A few day and night snorkel surveys were conducted in April and July. Large numbers of Chinook salmon were found along the lake shoreline and the lake had large areas with L WD and emergent vegetation. Additionally, the shoreline is relatively undeveloped and the only introduced fish species is common carp, which do not appear to be abundant. Therefore, the lake appeared to be an excellent site to study juvenile Chinook salmon habitat use in a pristine lentic environment and examine some habitat features not found in the Lake Washington basin. Methods Chinook salmon habitat use was studied during two periods in 2004; one in late April and another in late June. The nearshore area was divided in one of five habitat types (Figure 44): open beach (gentle slope) with small substrate (sand and gravel), bedrock and large substrate (steep slope), emergent vegetation (Figure 45), LWD (Figure 45), or tributary mouths. Except for deltas of some small tributaries, we only used nearshore areas where the shoreline habitat was the same for at least 50 m. The maximum transect length was 120 m. Only one area of the lake had bedrock and three transects were established at this location (Figure 44). These transects were surveyed on each study period during both day and night. Seven tributary mouths were chosen, three (Gatton Creek, Falls Creek, and Willaby Creek) are spawning streams for Chinook salmon, the other four tributaries are considered nonnatal streams. For the other three habitat types, we used a stratified random sampling design to select transects to survey. Sampling consisted of both day and night snorkel surveys. We tried to survey the same transects on each study period during both day and night; however, we were not able to survey a few transects due to time constraints or weather issues. On low to moderate sloping shorelines, two depth contours (0.4-and 0.7-m depth) were surveyed, while on steep sloping shorelines only one depth contour (0.4-m depth) was surveyed. Chinook salmon (separated into those greater than and less than 60 mm FL) and other fish were counted along each transect. A habitat survey was also done at each transect. Information collected included: substrate type, length, slope, and amount of structure (woody debris or emergent vegetation). 72 FIGURE 44. -Location of nearshore transects used to study habitat use of juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault, 2004. 73 FIGURE 45. -Photos o f la rge woody d e bri s h abita t {up p e r pho to ) a nd em e rge nt vegetat io n habitat (lowe r photo) of Lake Quinault . We compa red d a y and ni g ht C hinook sa lm o n counts w ith a s ign ran k tes t. The abundanc e of fi s h at eac h s ite was calculate d two s eparate ways ; I ) nears h o re abunda n c e (number o f fi s h per J 00 m of sh o re lin e), a nd 2) sh o relin e d e n s ity (n umber o f fish p er m 2). The n earshor e a b undance is th e estima t e d number of fi sh t o I -m d e pth a nd is based o n fi s h c o unts a lo ng o n e o r tw o tran se c ts (depend in g o n t h e bo tto m s lope) and th e n ex p a nd e d b a sed o n the dis ta n ce fr o m th e s ho reli n e to l -m d e pth . The sh o re line de ns it y is th e numbe r of fi sh a lo ng the 0.4 -m t ra nsect. We used a tran se c t w id th of 2.5 m for the 0.4 conto ur d e pth a nd 2 m for the 0.7- 74 m depth contour, which are the same widths us ed for index sites in Lake Washington (Chapter 1). Abundance of fish in different habitat types for April and June were compared with an one- way ANOV A and Fisher's LSD test. Separate tests were performed for the nearshore abundance (#/100 m of shoreline) and shoreline density (#/m2). Results In April 2004, large numbers of juvenile Chinook salmon were observed during both day and night. Comparison of sites that were surveyed day and night (n = 12) indicated there was no difference in the number of Chinook salmon (sign rank test, P = 0.39). Of all day and night transects in April (n = 47), there was only one day transect where no Chinook salmon were observed. In June, few Chinook salmon were observed during the day except at tributary mouths. Overall, significantly more Chinook salmon were observed at night than during the day in June (sign rank test, P = 0.002). No Chinook salmon were observed along 11 of the 25 (44%) day transects. In contrast, Chinook salmon were observed along every night transect (n = 26). Both daytime nearshore abundance (number/100 m of shoreline) and daytime shoreline density (#/m2) of juvenile Chinook salmon in April was significantly different between habitat types (Figure 46; ANOVA, df = 3,7; #/100 m, F= 4.2, P = 0.008; #/m2, F= 6 .6, P = 0.001). Results of a post-hoc Fisher's LSD test indicated that tributary mouths general1y had higher numbers of Chinook salmon than the other habitat types and bedrock sites often had a lower number (Figure 46). Beach, emergent vegetation, and L WD sites were not significantly different from each other. The abundance of Chinook salmon in emergent vegetation sites was highly variable, which appeared to be due to differences in the type of emergent habitats. Sites with soft, silty sediments and a gentle slope tended to have a lower abundance than sites with a sand/gravel substrate and a moderate slope. If emergent sites are removed from the ANOV A model, the nearshore abundance at L WD sites becomes significantly higher than at beach sites as well as bedrock sites. Within L WD sites, juvenile Chinook salmon were often resting directly under a large piece of L WD. Only 12 transects were snorkeled at night in April. No significant differences were detected between habitat types for either number/I 00 m of shoreline (ANOV A, F = 3 .1, df = 3, 7, P = 0 .099) or shoreline density (ANOVA, F= 2.1, df= 3,7, P = 0.19). However, the average number/I 00 m of shoreline at bedrock sites was considerably lower than the other habitat types. Ninety percent of Chinook salmon observed during the day in June were at tributary mouths. The number of Chinook salmon/m was 1.14 at the tributary mouths; whereas it was only 0.02 at the other sites. Chinook sa lmon were observed at all tributary mouth sites (n = 6) but only observed at 5 of 19 (28%) other sites. Because no Chinook salmon were observed at most sites except at the tributary mouths, no statistical test was preformed. At tributary mouth sites, most Chinook salmon were located directly in the current, close to where the stream enters the lake. The nighttime nearshore abundance(#/ 100 m of shoreline) of Chinook salmon in June was not significantly different between habitat types (ANOVA, F= 7.4, df= 4,21, P = 0.001). 75 Similar to April surveys, the nearshore abundance in emergent sites was also highly variable between sites. If emergent sites are removed from the ANOVA model, abundance at beach sites and tributary mouths becomes significantly higher than at bedrock sites. The June nighttime shoreline density (#/m2 ) was significantly different between habitat types (ANOV A, F = 3.1, df = 3, 7, P = 0.099). Results of a post-hoc Fisher's LSD test indicated that tributary mouths generally had higher shoreline densities than the other habitat types and bedrock sites had lower shoreline densities than beach sites (Figure 47). Chinook salmon observed in June were a wide range of sizes. There appeared to be two distinct groups, a group of large individuals that were approximately 70-90 mm FL and a group of smaller individuals (45-60 mm FL). We made separate counts for each group. We divided them into two size categories (less than and greater than 60 mm FL). During the day, Chinook salmon were mostly observed at tributary mouths and 68% were large Chinook salmon. The large Chinook salmon were located in the current of the tributary and slightly offshore, while the small Chinook salmon were located close to shore on the periphery of the delta. The few Chinook salmon observed at the other habitat types during the day were all small. At night, 69% of the Chinook salmon were small and there was no large difference in the ratio of small to large Chinook salmon between the habitat types. At many sites, we also observed large numbers of juvenile coho salmon. Small juvenile coho salmon and coho salmon presmolts were observed in April, while in June only juvenile coho salmon were observed. Most juvenile coho salmon appeared to be smaller than Chinook salmon and were more closely associated with L WD, especially during the day. During the day in April, the number of juvenile coho salmon per shoreline length was 0.63 fish/m for L WD sites, whereas it was 0.23 fish/m for beach, bedrock, and emergent sites, combined. No coho salmon were observed at the seven tributary mouth sites. At night in April, the highest abundance of coho salmon was observed in beach sites, 0.91 fish/m. Coho salmon presmolts were observed primarily at night at beach and tributary mouth sites. Sixty-six percent of all coho salmon observed during the day in June were in L WD sites. The abundance of coho salmon at LWD sites was 1.0 fish/m; however, at the other sites combined it was only 0.14 fish/m. At night in June, good numbers of juvenile coho salmon were observed in each habitat type. The highest abundances were observed in L WD (0.88 fish/m) and tributary mouth sites (0.80 fish/m). Besides juvenile Chinook salmon and coho salmon, other fish commonly observed included speckled dace (Rhinichthys cataractae ), threespine stickleback, prickly sculpin, trout, and suckers. Speckled dace were especially abundant at night. During the day, they appeared to usually be closely associated with some type of cover such as woody debris or emergent vegetation; while at night, they were in the open areas of each habitat type. Large numbers of threespine stickleback were observed in emergent vegetation sites as well as beach and tributary mouth sites. A few small sculpin (< 75 mm TL) were observed during the day; while at night, large numbers of small and large(> 75 mm TL) sculpin were observed in all habitat types. Trout were observed primarily at night. The only place we observed large trout(> 150 mm) during the day was at tributary mouths. Adult suckers were observed primarily at tributary mouths ( day and night) and juvenile suckers were observed at night primarily at beach and emergent sites. 76 500 E 400 g ~ -300 "' 8 C 200 6 100 0 2 1.5 N E -"' 1 ~ 6 0.5 0 C C b FIGURE 46. -April daytime nearshore abundance to I m depth (mean± 2SE; top panel) and shoreline density (mean± 2SE; lower panel) of juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinault, 2004. Bars with different letters are significantly different (ANOV A and Fisher's LSD; P < 0.05). Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of replicates. 77 500 ~ 400 ,... ; 300 0 0 C 6 N E -..,. g 200 100 0 1.5 1 C 0.5 6 0 C FIGURE 47. -June nighttime nearshore abundance to I m depth (mean± 2SE; top panel) and shoreline density (mean± 2SE; lower panel) of juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Quinaul~ 2004. Bars with different letters are significantly different (ANOVA and Fisher's LSD; P < 0.05). The ANO VA test was not significant for the nearshore abundance (top panel). Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of replicates. Discussion Except for tributary mouths, few significant differences were observed in the use of different habitat types in Lake Quinault. Lack of pronounced differences may have been due to small sample sizes and high variability in Chinook salmon abundance between sites. There is little bedrock shoreline in Lake Quinault and only three bedrock sites were established. The abundance of Chinook salmon at bedrock sites was substantially lower than other habitat types, yet we detected few significant differences between bedrock sites and other habitat types. 78 High variability in the April surveys may have been due to differences in the distance to natal streams. For example, sites in the northeast comer of the lake near the mouth ofQuinault River appeared to have a higher abundance of Chinook salmon than other sites. Adjusting the counts of Chinook salmon based on distance to natal streams would be difficult because there are several natal streams spread around the east and south shoreline of the lake. In June, Chinook salmon were probably well distributed around the lake and distance to the natal stream probably had little influence on their abundance. The abundance of Chinook salmon at emergent vegetation sites was highly variable. Much of the variability appeared to be due to the substrate type and bottom slope. Sites with sand and gravel substrates (hard substrates) tended to have a higher abundance (1.5 times higher in April and 21 times higher in June) than emergent sites with silt and mud (soft substrates). Areas with soft substrates also had a more gradual slope than areas with hard substrates. In 200 I and 2002, we made some preliminary observations on the use of soft substrates (silt and mud) by juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Washington (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002; Tabor et al. 2004b), which suggested that they tend to avoid this substrate type. Results from surveys at Beer Sheva Park provided further evidence that Chinook salmon do not extensively use soft substrates. The reasons why soft substrates are avoided is unclear. We hypothesized that Chinook salmon may avoid soft substrates in Lake Washington because these areas may have a higher density of predators such as largemouth bass and brown bullhead. However, in Lake Quinault these predators do not occur. Soft substrates also appear to have a higher density of macrophytes than other substrate types and Chinook salmon may prefer a more open environment. Other possible explanations include competition with threespine stickleback, which were predominantly found in emergent vegetation sites with soft substrate. Other potential competitors, including speckled dace and juvenile coho salmon, were also common in these sites. Also, the soft substrate sites appear to often have higher turbidity than other sites which could reduce foraging success of juvenile Chinook salmon. In comparing fish abundance, we assumed that Chinook salmon could be observed equally between the different habitat types. However, it is certainly possible that there was some degree of bias. The distance at which a fish will react to a potential predator (reactive distance) may be much longer in open areas than in complex habitats such as L WD and emergent vegetation sites (Grant and Noakes 1987). Alternatively, fish can be difficult to observe in complex habitats because they can easily hide from the observer. Additionally, emergent vegetation sites with soft substrates appeared to have higher turbidity from wave action and/or common carp activity, which may also have reduced our ability to observe juvenile Chinook salmon. Some additional sampling techniques such as beach seining could be employed to confirm the results but other techniques may also have some bias between habitats types. Although we did not document a strong preference for L WD or emergent vegetation in Lake Quinault, these habitats may still be more beneficial than open beach habitat if survival rates are higher in structurally complex habitats. The addition of L WD or emergent vegetation adds structural complexity and reduces the foraging ability of predators (Glass 1971 ). Research in warm-water systems has been found that structural complexity is important for survival of many species of juvenile freshwater fishes (Savino and Stein 1982; Werner and Hall 1988). 79 Tabor and Wurtsbaugh ( 1991) concluded that nearshore structural complexity improved the survival of juvenile rainbow trout in reservoirs because trout strongly selected this habitat feature and improved survival was demonstrated in a pond experiment. The benefit of L WD in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish has been debated because it may provide valuable salmonid habitat but it may also be used extensively by smallmouth bass and other introduced predatory fish. Fresh et al. (200 I) found that smallmouth bass occurred primarily in areas with cobble and were usually near some type of structure such as a dock. Smallmouth bass generally prefer areas with a steep sloping bottom (Hubert and Lackey 1980). Therefore, LWD could be placed in areas with fine substrates and a gentle slope, which is what juvenile Chinook salmon prefer. However, LWD sites with a gentle slope could also be used by largemouth bass. At a natural OHV/SWD site (gentle slope with sand substrate) in Lake Washington we observed juvenile Chinook salmon for a few weeks until an adult largemouth bass was observed. Another possible management scenario would be to only have LWD placed in the south end of the lake. From February to mid-May, juvenile Chinook salmon are located primarily in the south end of the lake. Smallmouth bass and largemouth bass do not appear to become very active until May when water temperatures are greater than 10°C and by then many of the juvenile Chinook salmon have moved into deeper waters. Also, by only having the L WD in the south end, the total population of bass in Lake Washington may not increase substantially. Experiments in Lake Washington in 200 I (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002), 2002 (Tabor et al. 2004b), and 2003 (Chapter 7) indicated SWD is not preferred habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. Similarly, L WD was not strongly preferred over open beach areas in Lake Quinault. It is difficult to make comparisons between the SWD and L WD because they were not directly compared in the same study. However within L WD sites, juvenile Chinook salmon were commonly located directly under pieces of LWD that had a large diameter. Therefore in Lake Quinault, L WD may be more beneficial than SWD because it provides more overhead cover. Small woody debris provides some structural complexity but provides little overhead cover. Ideally, a study of different diameter woody debris would be valuable to determine the best size of woody debris to use in restoration projects. A simpler approach would be to measure the diameter of the piece of woody debris that Chinook salmon were associated with and compare to the sizes of woody debris available. 80 CHAPTER 9. SURFACE OBSERVATIONS OF MIGRATING JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON IN LAKE WASHINGTON Introduction and Methods On June 19, 2001, several schools of Chinook salmon were observed migrating along the Seattle shoreline of Lake Washington (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). Observations were made from a pier at Stan Sayres Park. These schools were observed swimming north in approximately 2.1-to 2.5-m deep water and as they approached the pier they moved to deeper water (3.1-m deep water) and swam around the pier. Occasionally, we looked for migrating Chinook salmon at this pier and other piers during the months of May and June in 2002 but no Chinook salmon were seen. In 2003 and 2004, we undertook a more systematic sampling approach to determine when they can be observed migrating along the shore. Additionally, we wanted to collect additional information on their behavior in relation to piers. In 2003, weekly observations (May-July) were conducted at one site, a public pier near McClellan Street. This site was selected because no other piers were nearby to alter the fishes' behavior and the offshore end of the pier was relatively deep (9.5 m) compared to other piers. The pier is perpendicular to the shoreline and is 42 m long, 2.4 m wide, and 0.45 m above the water surface. There were few aquatic macrophytes at this site. Additional observations were also taken on June 26, 2003 at Mt. Baker Park and Stan Sayres Park when juvenile Chinook salmon appeared to be abundant. In 2004, the McClellan Street pier was again monitored weekly in May through July. In addition, several other piers (Table 14; Figure 48) were surveyed within a few days of the moon apogee when we expected juvenile Chinook salmon would be abundant (De Vries et al. 2004). TABLE 14. -Dates surveyed and general habitat conditions of south Lake Washington piers used to observe migrating juvenile Chinook salmon in June 2004. Percent slope was measured from the toe of the shoreline annoring to the offshore end of the pier. Milfoil density is a description of the density of Eurasian milfoil; A= abundant; R = rare or absent. Shoreline Length Distance from Width Maximum Milfoil Site Dates surve~d West shore (m) shore {m) (m) deeth (ml Sloe!:(%) densi!r Beer Sheva boat ramp June 17 12 12 1.9 1.9 15.7 A Island Drive June 17 20 20 1.5 3.5 15.7 R Seward Parle June 18 26 19 2.4 4.2 22.1 A Stan Sayres Park June 17 32 32 2.5 2.6 7.7 A Mt. Baker Park June 16,17,18 74 50 1.8 7.5 15.0 A Jefferson Street June 15,17 59 42 2.4 7.5 18.0 A Madison Park June 17,18 25 25 3.7 3.0 10.4 R Edgewater Apartments June 17 9 9 9.0 2. I I 1. 7 A East Shoreline Chism Park June 18 39 34 2.4 3.5 8.2 R Mercer Island Groveland Park -A June 18 65 32 1.8 7.3 22.8 A Groveland Park -B June 18 28 19 2.8 3.0 12.9 A 81 FIGURE 48.-Location of south Lake Washington piers used to conduct visual observations of migrating Chinook salmon. The McClellan Street pier was surveyed weekly from May to July, 2003 and 2004. The other piers were only surveyed during the peak migration period in June. 82 Observations were conducted primarily in the morning when the water was calm and fish could be easily observed. On windy days, no observations could be conducted. Observations were made by standing on the pier and observing schools of Chinook salmon as they swam near the pier (Figure 49). The time each school was observed and th e direction they are swimming was noted. The size of each school of Chi nook salmon was categorized as either small(< 50 fish), medium (50-10 0 fish), large ( 100-200 fish) or very large (> 200 fish). How Chinook salmon responded to the pier was determined by estimating th e depth of each school as the approached the pier and the depth they were at as they past under or around the pier. Results Su rface observat ions at the McClellan Pier were conducted once a week fro m May 21 to July 3 in 2003 and May 19 to July 9 in 2004. During the first five surveys in 2003 (May 21 to June 18), few juvenile sa lmonids were observed and no obvious movements were seen. Similarly in 2004, few Ch inook salm on were observed until June 16. On June 26, 2003 and June 16, 2004, large numbers of sal mon ids were observed moving along the shoreli ne. Based on fish size and date, we assumed they were juvenile C hinook salmon. Snorkel surveys conducted in 2004 also indicated th ey were Chinook salmon . To better understand fish movements, we conducted additional surface surveys during the period when Chinook salmon were abundant. The timing of the migration appeared to coincid e with the moon apogee, which has been also suggested to be related to th e passage of Ch in ook sa lmon smelts at the Ballard Locks (De Vries et al. 2004). When Chinook salmon were abundant at McClellan Pier, we took extended observations to coll ect additional information on migrating Chin ook salmon. In 2003, extended observations were conducted twice (June 26 and July 1) and in 2004 they were co nducted three times (June 16 to 18). On all five dates, observations were conducted from at least 0730 h to 1100 h (F igure 50). Peak number of schools was observed between 0800 hand 0830 h and the lowest abund ance was at the end of th e s urvey between 1030 hand 110 0 h. H o wever, resu lts of an ANOV A test indicated there was no significant difference in abundance for any ha lf hour period between 0730 hand 11 00 h. Additional observations were conducted if weather conditions and personnel schedu les permitted. On one date, June 16, 2004, we were able to make observati ons from 0600 h to 1200 h (Figu re 5 1). On thi s date, few schools of Chinook salmon were observed before 0730 h and after l I 00 h. Observations on other dates showed th e same general trend; little activity before 0700 h and a reduction in activity after 1100 h or 1200 h. 83 FIGURE 49 .-Conducting visual observations of migrating Chinook sal mon at the McClellan Street pier, Lake Washington. 25 20 .... C 15 Q) (.) ... Q) 10 a. 5 0 l:) ~' Time FIGURE 50. -Percent of Chinook salmon school s occurring in half hour intervals between 0730 hand 1100 h, McClellan Pier, Lake Washington. Bars represent the mean percent of five dates, June 26, 2003, July 1, 2003 and June 16 to 18, 2003 . 84 16 1/) 14 0 0 12 .s::. u 10 1/) -0 8 ... Cl) 6 .c E ::J 4 z 2 0 ~ 5:) t;§::, .<::!i<::i .t::J<:::> .<:::><:::, .<::!i<:::, 'o~ ...... ~ ~-~-<:::,• I\· ,.._")..· " " Time FIGURE 51. -Number of Chinook salmon schools observed on June 16, 2004 between 0600 h and 1200 hat McClellan Pier, Lake Washington. At McClellan Pier, Chinook salmon were observed moving along the shore in both a northerly and southerly direction. In 2003, we observed 64% of the schools moving in a northerly direction; whereas, in 2004 we observed 85% moving north . Combined (2003 and 2004), 47% of the schools were small (0 to 50 fish), 36% were medium-sized (50 tolOO fi sh), 16% were large (I 00-200 fish) and 1 % were very large schools (> 200 fish). A s Chinook salmon approached McClellan Pi er they were typically in water that was 1.5 to 2 m deep (Figure 52) and 12 to15 m from the shore . When they got to within 3 to 4 m of the pier, they swam to deeper water and us ually swam under the pier where the water depth was about 2.1 to 4 .5 m deep . On a few rare occasions, fish did not go under the pier but headed into deeper waters and appear to turn around and head in the opposite direction. After most fish s wam under the pier, they usually swam back towards shore and returned to the same depth as they were before encountering the pier. On some occas ion s, Chinook salmon continued to move to deeper water after they past under the pier. We could not tell if they eventually returned to the shoreline. 85 FIGURE 52.-Photo ofa group of juvenile Chinook salmon moving along the shore at McClellan Pier, Lake Washington, June 2003. Water depth at this location was about 1.7 to 2 m deep. Besides McClellan Pier, we surveyed 11 other piers. They were all surveyed close to the moon apogee, the time period (2003 and 2004) when Chinook salmon were abundant at McClellan Pier. The location of juvenile Chinook salmon appeared to be related to the presence of Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Ifmilfoil was present, Chinook salmon were in deeper water and further from shore; however, the depth of Chinook salmon above the milfoil appear to be similar as the total water column depth if the milfoil was absent (i.e., McClellan Pier). Therefore the top of the milfoil appeared to act as the bottom of the water column to Chinook salmon. Mil foil was absent or rare at four locations, McClellan Pier, Beer Sheva Park, Island Drive, and Madison Park, and the mean water column depth of Chinook salmon before encountering the pier was 2.1 m. In contrast, the mean water column depth of Chinook salmon at piers with milfoil was 4.0 m. At Edgewater Apartments and Stan Sayres Park, the top of the milfoil was close to the water surface along the entire length of the dock and few Chinook salmon were observed. At Groveland Park, Jefferson Street, and Seward Park, milfoil was close to the water surface along the length of the dock except at the offshore end of the pier and therefore Chinook salmon were only seen at the end of the dock and they did not appear to change their behavior in response to the pier. Movement of Chinook salmon to deeper water as they approached the pier was observed at Mt Baker and Madison Park piers. At the Island Drive pier, Chinook salmon were observed moving closer to shore as they approached the dock. This 86 was probably caused by other nearby docks, which may have caused Chinook salmon to be further from shore. Discussion When migrating Chinook salmon approach a pier they appear to move to slightly deeper water and either pass directly under the structure or swim around the pier. Most likely they move to deeper water as a way of reducing their predation risk. Both smallmouth bass (Fresh et al. 2001) and largemouth bass (Colle et al. 1989) can be found directly under piers. As Chinook salmon approach the pier, they probably have a difficult time seeing under the structure and bass may be better able to see approaching prey fish (Helfinan 1981 ). In deeper water, Chinook salmon will probably have more space to avoid a bass predator. Also, Chinook salmon may move to a greater water column depth and will be further away from the pier and thus there may be more ambient light to help detect the presence of a predator. Our results appear to support work by De Vries et al. (2004), who found that Chinook salmon smolt emigration past the Ballard Locks was related to the moon apogee. However, in 2003 we only detected movements on or shortly after the June 25 apogee. In contrast, De Vries et al. (2004) observed most Chinook salmon emigrated shortly after the May 28 apogee and little movement was observed after June 25. Taken together, these results suggest that there was a large movement of Chinook salmon following the May apogee and then a much smaller migration following the June apogee. Why we did not observe any Chinook salmon activity on or shortly after the May apogee in unclear. Water temperatures were cooler in May and Chinook salmon may have behaved differently and selected deeper water and were further offshore. Although visual observations of migrating Chinook salmon can provide useful information, it does have several limitations. Observations can only be conducted when the water surface is calm; this usually means surveys can only be conducted in the morning hours. Only a small area near the shore can be effectively surveyed. Fish in deeper waters are hard to observe. There also may be large differences between observers. The observer may also have some influence on the behavior of Chinook salmon. To get a more complete picture of the behavior of migrating Chinook salmon other techniques are needed. Tracking fish with acoustic tags and obtaining accurate positions appears to be the most promising technique. Efforts in 2005 will focus on this technique. 87 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank Heather Tschaekofske, Dan Lantz, Hilary Collis, Mark Celedonia, and Sharon Vecht of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Chris Sergeant of University of Washington for all their assistance with snorkeling observations and beach seining collections. Kitty Nelson, NOAA Fisheries and Joe Starstead, City of Seattle made many of the observations of migrating Chinook salmon. Keith Kurko, Julie Hall, Andrea Buchanan, Maggie Glowacki, Melinda Jones, Gail Arnold Coburn, City of Seattle; Stewart Reinbold, Washington Department offish and Wildlife (WDFW); and Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue made additional observations of migrating salmon during the pear emigration period. We also thank Scott Sanders and Steve Dilley, USFWS, for making the maps and formatting this document. Dave Zajac, Roger Peters, and personnel at the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery, USFWS assisted with the residence time study. Dave Seiler, WDFW provided information on emigration of Chinook salmon in the Cedar River. We thank John Slaney, Leslie Betlach and Gene Coulon Park personnel of the City of Renton for their assistance. Kevin Stoops, City of Seattle, assisted with our sampling efforts of Seward Park. We also thank the personnel of the Barbee Mill Company for their assistance with the May Creek sampling. Larry Gilbertson and Ed Johnstone, Quinault Indian Tribe assisted with our sampling efforts in Lake Quinault. Bob Wunderlich, USFWS; Keith Kurko and Julie Hall, City of Seattle; and Larry Gilbertson, Quinault Indian Tribe provided valuable suggestions for the study design and reviewed an earlier draft of this report. Funding for this study was provided by the City of Seattle and City of Mercer Island, and administered by Julie Hall and Keith Kurko, City of Seattle and Glenn Boettcher, City of Mercer Island. 88 REFERENCES Allen, M.A. 2000. Seasonal microhabitat use by juvenile spring Chinook salmon in the Yakima River basin, Washington. Rivers 7:314-332. Becker, C.D. 1973. Food and growth parameters of juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in central Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin 71 :387-400. Brusven, M.A., W.R. Meehan, and J.F. Ward. 1986. Summer use of simulated undercut banks by juvenile Chinook salmon in an artificial Idaho channel. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:32-37. Butler, R.L. and V.M. Hawthorne. 1968. The reactions of dominant trout to changes in overhead artificial cover. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 97:37-41. Chesson, J. 1978. Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecology 59: 211-215. Christiansen, K.A. 1996. Aquatic Collembola. Pages 113-125 in R.W. Merritt and K.W. Cummins, editors. An introduction to aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Colle, D. E., R. L. Cailteux, and J. V. Shireman. 1989. Distribution of Florida largemouth bass in a lake after elimination of all submerged aquatic vegetation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:213-218. Cortes, E. 1997. A critical review of methods of studying fish feeding based on analysis of stomach contents: application to elasmobranch fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:726-738. De Vries, P., F. Goetz, K. Fresh, and D. Seiler. 2004. Evidence of a lunar gravitation cue on timing of estuarine entry by Pacific salmon smolts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:1379-1395. Fausch, K.D. 1993. Experimental analysis ofmicrohabitat selection by juvenile steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and coho salmon (0. kisutch) in a British Columbia stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 1198-1207. Fausch, K.D. and M.K. Young. 1995. Evolutionarily significant units and movement of resident stream fishes: a cautionary tale. Pages 360-370 in J.L. Nielsen, editor. Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland. Fresh, K.L. 2000. Use of Lake Washington by juvenile Chinook salmon, 1999 and 2000. Proceedings of the Chinook salmon in the greater Lake Washington Watershed 89 workshop, Shoreline, Washington, November 8-9, 2000, King County, Seattle, Washington. Fresh, K. L., D. Rothaus, K. W. Mueller, and C. Waldbillig. 2001. Habitat utilization by predators, with emphasis on smallmouth bass, in the littoral zone of Lake Washington. Draft report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. Gibson, R.J. and M.H.A. Keenleyside. 1966. Responses to light of young Atlantic salmon (Sa/mo salar) and brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 23: 1007-1021. Gibson, R.J. and G. Power. 1975. Selection by brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis) and juvenile Atlantic salmon (Sa/mo salar) of shade related to water depth. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:1652-1656. Glass, N.R. 1971. Computer analysis of predator energetics in the largemouth bass. Pages 325- 363 in B.C. Patten, editor. Systems analysis and simulation in ecology, volume I. Academic Press, New York. Grant, J. W .A. and D.L. Noakes. 1987. Escape behaviour and use of cover by young-of-the-year brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:1390-1396. Graynoth, E. 1999. Recruitment and distribution of juvenile salmonids in Lake Coleridge, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33:205-219. Helfman, G.S. 1981. The advantage to fishes of hovering in shade. Copeia 1981:392-400. Hubert, W.A. and R.T. Lackey. 1980. Habitat of adult smallmouth bass in a Tennessee River reservoir. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:364-370. Johnson, J.H. 1981. Comparative food selection by coexisting coho salmon, Chinook salmon and rainbow trout in a tributary of Lake Ontario. New York Fish and Game Journal 28: 150-161. Johnson, J.H. 1983. Food ofrecently stocked subyearling Chinook salmon in Lake Ontario. New York Fish and Game Journal 30:115-116. Koehler, M.E. 2002. Diet and prey resources of juvenile Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) rearing in the littoral zone of an urban lake. Master's thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Levins, R. 1968. Evolution in changing environments: some theoretical explorations. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 90 Liao, H., C.L. Pierce, and J.G. Larscheid. 2001. Empirical assessment of indices of prey importance in the diets of predacious fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:583-591. Lister, D.B. and H.S. Genoe. 1970. Stream utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (0. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum River, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27:1215-1224. Martin, B.A., and M.K. Saiki. 2001. Gut contents of juvenile Chinook salmon from the upper Sacramento River, California, during spring 1998. California Fish and Game 87:38-43. Martz, M., J. Dillon, and P. Chigbu. 1996. 1996 longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) spawning survey in the Cedar River and four Lake Washington tributaries. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Mcivor, C.C., W.E. Odum. 1988. Food, predation risk, and microhabitat selection in a marsh fish assemblage. Ecology 69: 1341-135 l. Meehan, W.R., M.A. Brusven, and J.F. Ward. 1987. Effects of artificial shading on distribution and abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Great Basin Naturalist 47:22-31. Meehan, W.R. and T. C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid distributions and life histories. Pages 47-82 in W. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Merz, J.E., and C.D. Vanicek. 1996. Comparative feeding habits of juvenile Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Sacramento squawfish in the lower American River, California. California Fish and Game 82:149-159. Moulton, L.L. 1974. Abundance, growth, and spawning of the longfin smelt in Lake Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103:46-52. Murphy, M.L., J. Heifetz, J.F. Thedinga, S.W. Johnson, and K.V. Koski. 1989. Habitat utilization by juvenile Pacific salmon ( Oncorhynchus) in the glacial Taku River, southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1677-1685. Murray, C.B. and M.L. Rosenau. 1989. Rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon in nonnatal tributaries of the lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:284-289. Nowak, G.M., R.A.Tabor, E.J. Warner, K.L. Fresh, and T.P. Quinn. 2004. Ontogenetic shifts in habitat and diet of cutthroat trout in Lake Washington, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:624-635. 91 Paron, D.G., and E. Nelson. 2001. Seward Park rehabilitation study, juvenile salmonid use of shoreline habitats in Seward Park, King County, Washington. Fiscal year 2000, planning assistance to the states report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Petrusso, P.A., and D.B. Hayes. 2001. Invertebrate drift and feeding habits of juvenile Chinook salmon in the upper Sacramento River, California. California Fish and Game 87: 1-18. Pleus, A.E. 1999. TFW monitoring program method manual for wadable stream discharge measurement. Report TFW-AM9-99-009, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington. Pleus, A.E, D. Schuett-Hames, and L. Bullchild. 1999. TFW monitoring program method manual for the habitat unit survey. Report TFW-AM9-99-003, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington. Power, M.E. 1987. Predator avoidance by grazing fishes in temperate and tropical streams: importance of stream depth and prey size. Pages 333-351 in W.C. Kerfoot and A. Sih, editors. Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire. Ruiz, G., A. Hines, and M. Posey. 1993. Shallow water as a refuge habitat for fish and crustaceans in non-vegetated estuaries: an example from Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 99:1-16. Savino, J.F., and R.A. Stein. 1982. Predator-prey interaction between largemouth bass and bluegills as influenced by simulated, submerged vegetation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111 :255-266. Scamecchia, D.L. and B.B. Roper. 2000. Large-scale, differential summer habitat use of three anadromous salmon ids in a large river basin in Oregon, USA. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7:197-209. Schoener, T. W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2:369-404. Scrivener, J.C., T.G. Brown, and B.C. Anderson. 1994. Juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) utilization of Hawk's Creek, a small and nonnatal tributary of the upper Fraser River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51 :1139- 1146. Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Fleischer. 2004. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon production in 2002 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 92 '• • Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Fleischer. 2005a. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon production in 2003 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Fleischer. 2005b. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon production in 2004 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Smith, I.M., B.P. Smith, and D.R. Cook. 2001. Water mites (Hydrachnida) and other arachnids. Pages 551-659 in J.H. Thorp and A.P. Covich, editors. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Sommer, T.P., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrel, W. Batham. And W.J. Kimmerer. 2001. Floodplain rearing of juvenile chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:325-333. Tabor, R.A., M.T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R.M. Piaskowski, D.L. Low, B. Footen, and L. Park. 2004a. Predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington basin. Miscellaneous report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. Tabor, R.A. and R.M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. Tabor, R.A., J.A. Schuerer, H.A. Geams, and E.P. Bixler. 2004b. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. Tabor, R.A. and W.A. Wurtsbaugh. 1991. Predation risk and the importance of cover for juvenile rainbow trout in lentic systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:728-738. Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Report SAFS-UW- 0 I 06, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Webb, P.W. 1976. The effect of size on the fast-start performance of rainbow trout, Sa/mo gairdneri, and a consideration of piscivorous predator-prey interactions. Journal of Experimental Biology 65:157-177. Weitkamp, D. and G. Ruggerone. 2000. Factors affecting Chinook populations. Report to the City of Seattle, Seattle, Washington. 93 .. • Werner, E.E., and DJ. Hall. 1988. The foraging rate-predation risk tradeoff and ontogenetic habitat shifts in the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 69: 1352-1366. Zaret, T.M. and A.S. Rand. 1971. Competition in tropical stream fishes: support for the competitive exclusion principle. Ecology 52:336-342. 94 .. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Division 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503-1263 360/753-9440