’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Overview of Salmonids The lakeishomothermal fromaboutDecember (Daniel Schindler,UW,personal communication). temperatures rangefrom8 Beauchamp 1990).Meanepilimentic(0-70feet) tween AprilthroughOctober(Anderson1954; The lakestratifiesonceeachyear,typicallybe- Washington. Lyon CreekandMayCreek,alsodrainintoLake ,JuanitaKelsey Numerous othersmalltributaries,including utes approximately27percentoftheinflow. northeast cornerofLakeWashingtonandcontrib- inflow. TheSammamishRiverflowsintothe utes about53percentofthelake’smeanannual southeast cornerofLakeWashingtonandcontrib- drinking water.TheCedarRiverflowsintothe which isthecityofSeattle’smajorsource The maininflowtothesystemisCedarRiver Canal, an8.6milelongartificialwaterway. through SeattleviatheLakeWashingtonShip mean widthof1.5milesanddrainstoPugetSound lowest atitsnorthandsouthends.Thelakehasa feet, meandepthis108andthelakeshal- Recreation. Maximumdepthofthelakeis214 managed bytheSeattleDepartmentofParksand shoreline, approximately11milesarepublicland line withinthecitylimits.Ofthese20.1milesof the westsideoflakewith20.1milesshore- 30 milesofshoreline.ThecitySeattleborders the southernpartoflakethathasanadditional tion of22feet).MercerIslandisalargeislandin long withover50milesofshoreline(ataneleva- surface areaof22,138acres.Itisabout20miles State westoftheCascadeMountains,witha Lake Washingtonisthelargestlakein Fresh inthe maximum ofabout23 The followingwrite-upreliesheavilyonthe Lake Washington August at15feethasranged from19.8 During thelastdecade, meantemperaturein bytheGreaterLakeWashingtonTechnicalCommittee(2001). Draft

Reconnaissance Assessment–HabitatFactorsthatContributetotheDecline o C (Beauchamp1990). SEATTLE’S AQUATIC o C to16-18 ENVIRONMENTS o o C witha C to22.4 o C Lake WashingtonSubareaChapter 16 communication). 6.7 the January-Februaryperiodhasrangedfrom last decade,themeantemperatureat15feetduring ranging from6to8 through Aprilwithmeantemperaturestypically 5.4 km lowered thelake’slevelbyabout10feet,exposed to increasetheamountofinflow.Theseactions Cedar RiverwasredirectedintoLakeWashington the BallardLocksinSeattle.Atsametime, River, wasblocked,andtheoutletchangedto 1916 whenthenaturaloutletoflake,Black physical andlimnologicalchangesthatbeganin Lake Washingtonhasexperiencedaseriesofmajor Physical Changes Historical Modifications north endand theBoeingCompanyin south industrial developments(e.g., KenmoreAiratthe 2000), withtheexceptionof afewcommercialand shoreline isnowurban,residential (Weitkamp increased significantly.The majorityofthe demand forresidentialwaterfront propertyhas population inthewatershedhasgrown, ment waslocatedonthelakeshore,butas altered. Historically,morecommercialdevelop- The shorelineofthelakehasbeenextensively during floodevents. Historically, lakelevelvariedbyupto6.5feet allowed tofluctuatemorethanabout2feet. release ofwaterattheBallardLocksandisnot (Chrzastowski 1983).Lakelevelisregulatedbythe and eliminatedmuchofthelake’swetlands creased theshorelinelengthbyabout12.8percent, reduced thelake’ssurfacearea7.0percent,de- o C to8.1 2 ofpreviouslyshallowwaterhabitat, o C (DanielSchindler,UW,personal o C (Beauchamp1987).Forthe byKurt et al. Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington end). Seattle and twelve other cities now border Much of the large woody debris that was likely the lake. Seattle’s and other lakefront parks once associated with the lake’s shore (Christensen provide the only substantial exception to this et al. 1996) has been eliminated. The only “natu- highly developed shoreline condition. Park ral” shoreline remaining in Lake Washington is on shorelines are relatively undeveloped, although the northeast shore just south of the city of riparian vegetation is often absent. City parks Kenmore at St. Edwards Park, which represents bordering Lake Washington include less then 5 percent of the lake’s shoreline. A recent together with Lake Washington Boulevard, as well survey of the lake’s shoreline under the city of as , Madison, Magnuson and Matthews Seattle’s jurisdiction indicated that “natural vegeta- Beach Parks. City park ownership accounts for tion” was present along only 22 percent of the over 50% of the city’s shoreline. northern shoreline and 11 percent of the southern shoreline (Weitkamp et al. 2000). As the watershed has developed, dredging, fill-ing, bulkheading, and the construction of piers, docks, Limnological Changes and floats have occurred in shoreline areas. Bulk- heads and other forms of shoreline armoring and The limnological characteristics of Lake Washing- retention are present along most of the Lake ton have undergone dramatic changes during the Washington shoreline within the city limits. Of last 50 years. Many of these changes have resulted the 20.1 miles of shoreline within the Seattle city directly from fluctuations in phosphorus loadings. limits only 14.4% or 2.9 miles was classified Lake Washington received direct discharges of unretained (i.e., not hardened) in 1999 (Weitkamp secondary treated sewage effluent from 1941 to et al. 2000). In many cases, installation of bulk- 1963. This dramatically increased phosphorus heads has created a vertical or steep-sloped face concentrations in the lake, which led to eutrophi- next to relatively deep water (4-6 ft). cation (Edmondson 1991). As a result, blue-green algae became the dominant phytoplankton taxa With the exception of several small marinas, most and dramatically decreased water clarity in the of the docks along Lake Washington are single- lake. Blue-green algae also helped to suppress the family residential docks. The littoral area adjacent production of some species of zooplankton such as to the city has more than 750 residential docks Daphnia sp. (there are about 2,700 docks around the entire lake) that extend out 30-100 ft from the shoreline Except for combined sewer overflows, sewage and cover an estimated 4% of the lake surface area effluent was completely diverted from the lake by within 100 feet of the shoreline (Weitkamp et al. 1968 and the lake subsequently reverted to a 2000). Boats moored at these docks shade addi- mesotrophic state (Cooke et al. 1993). The major tional water surface area. sources of phosphorus inputs are now from tributary streams (King County 1993). As a result of the diversion of sewage, several major changes in the zooplankton community occurred. Most notably, beginning in 1976, Daphnia became the dominant pelagic zooplankton taxa. Other changes in the limno- logical characteristics of the lake have occurred that are not related to fluctuations in phosphorus loadings. Alkalin- ity levels in the lake increased from an annual mean of 28.6 mg of calcium carbonate/L in 1963 to over 40 mg calcium Partially restored Lake Washington shoreline. Note low gradient bank, fine gravel, carbonate/L by 1990 (A. Litt, and shallow water habitat.

17 Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington summer (Fresh,WDFW,personalobservation). nearshore areasatnightduringlatespringand high as9.4havebeenobservedrecentlyin personal communication).Finally,pHspikesas stages ofChinook. Lake Washingtonisusedprincipally bytwolife Chinook Utilizationof LakeWashington mortalities duetodissolved oxygendepletion. high macrophytedensitiescancauselocalizedfish local waterquality.Frodge istics (Patmont zone habitats,suchaschangingsubstratecharacter- has alteredthephysicalcharacteristicsoflittoral probably promotedmilfoilexpansion.Theplant al. occurrence ofseasonallylowwaterlevels(Cooke aquatic macrophytesinlakescanbelimitedbythe feet (Aiken 1981). Milfoiliscapableofgrowingtodepths30 vegetation presentinlittoralareas(Patmont lake andreplacedmuchofthenativeaquatic nized alargepercentageofthelittoralzone Washington inthe1970’s.Thisplanthascolo- exotic aquaticplant,wasintroducedintoLake Eurasian watermilfoil( et al. juvenile salmonidsforfood(Fayram1996;Kahler while othersarepotentialcompetitorswith prey onjuvenilesalmon(e.g.,smallmouthbass) Fresh 1998).Someofthesespeciesareknownto been identifiedinLakeWashington(Warnerand tem. Twenty-threenon-nativefishspecieshave native) haveaffectedtheLakeWashingtonecosys- and limnology,exoticplantsanimals(i.e.,non- In additiontochangesinthelake’slittoralzone Exotic PlantsandAnimals from about19 August watertemperatureatadepthof15feet there hasbeenasignificantincreaseinmean communication). Forexample,from1932to2000, of globalwarming(D.Schindler,UW,personal have beensteadilyincreasing,probablyasaresult In addition,surfacewatertemperaturesinthelake personal communication). output ofthelandtostreams(S.Abella,UW, part, byurbanizationthathasalteredthechemical ity inLakeWashingtonhasbeencaused,atleast hypothesized thatthelong-termchangeinalkalin- UW, personalcommunication).Ithasbeen 1993),thestable(i.e.,regulated)lakelevelshave 2000). et al. o C to21 et al. 1979).Sincedistributionof 1981),andadverselyaffected o Myriophyllum spicatum C (DanielSchindler,UW, et al. (1995)foundthat et al. ), an et 18 Chinook frythat enterLakeWashington fromat that enterthelake.Thefirst groupconsistsof groups ofnaturallyproduced juvenileChinook WDFW, personalcommunication), therearetwo the northernpartoflake) (DaveSeiler, Lake Creek(intheSammamish Riversystemnear at themouthsofCedarRiverandBear/Cottage Based upondatacollectedinmigranttrapslocated and estuarinehabitatsinalarge,naturallake. that theymustspendsometimebetweenstream Washington Chinooksalmonarehighlyunusualin occurs entirelyinriverineenvironments,Lake freshwater phaseoflifeforoceantypeChinook emergence. Whileinalmostallriverbasins,the spend morethanoneyearinfreshwaterfollowing (Healey 1991).Incontrast,“streamtype”Chinook ing gravelsandbeforeenteringestuarinehabitats months infreshwaterafteremergingfromspawn- type” fishbecausetheytypicallyspendlessthan6 Washington Watershedareclassifiedas“ocean tshawytscha 1999). Chinooksalmon( natural lakesisrelativelyrare(CityofSeattle ocean typejuvenileChinooksalmonthrough through lakesislittlestudied.Themigrationof Juveniles. on juvenileChinook. ton systemwewillfocusthehabitatneedsanalysis the shortdurationofadultsinLakeWashing- 1999); datafrom1999isnotyetavailable.Given Washington in1998was2.9days(Fresh average timespentbyadultChinookinLake Fresh, WDFW,personalcommunication).The the yearswhenwatertemperatureswerecooler(K. as adultChinookenteredthelakeearlierduring years mayreflectdifferencesinwatertemperature, unpublished data).Differencesintimingbetween late JulythroughtheendofOctober(Fresh, Adult Chinooksalmonenterthelakefromatleast of studiesin1998areavailable(Fresh passage throughthelake.Atpresent,onlyresults movements, timing,andhabitatuseduringtheir transmitters inordertoprovideinformationon Washington havebeentaggedwithultrasonic ington. Since1998,someChinookenteringLake Chinook spawninginlittoralareasofLakeWash- there areonlyunconfirmedreportsofadult shoreline areasinothersystems(Healey1991), Adults. ❏ ❏ Juvenile outmigrationandrearing Adult upstreammigration,and WhileadultChinookspawnalong Themigrationofjuvenilesalmon ) thatspawnintheGreaterLake Oncorhynchus et al. et al. 1999). Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington least mid-January through mid-March. These fish in any given year. Changes in water temperature spend little or no time rearing in riverine habitats help regulate the rate of smoltification, the process before entering Lake Washington, where they rear whereby juvenile salmon convert from freshwater- for a number of months before migrating to Puget adapted to seawater-adapted animals (Folmar and Sound. In 1999 and 2000, 85% and 75% respec- Dickhoff 1980). In addition, the littoral zone of tively, of Chinook progeny emigrated the lake eventually warms to the point where to the lake as fry. (D. Seiler 2001). water temperatures can be stressful and then While rearing in the lake, the most important area eventually lethal to the fish. used by Chinook fry appears to be the littoral zone (Kurt Fresh, WDFW, personal communication). Habitat Requirements Chinook juveniles are rarely found in limnetic habitats until after early May. Portions of the Juvenile Chinook use Lake Washington for littoral zone that are most heavily utilized by outmigration and rearing. In order for Chinook to successfully carry out these activities the habitat Chinook include areas around creek mouths and must supply sufficient food and refuge from areas that are not heavily developed. Recent predation. Physical barriers should not block studies of microhabitat use of littoral areas (Roger access to the migration corridor and water quality Tabor, USFWS, personal communication) found should be of sufficiently high quality that juvenile that Chinook fry prefer areas that have small fish are not directly or indirectly harmed in passing substrates (sand and small gravel). These studies through the Lake. We looked at each of these also show that from late January to early May, habitat functions to assess what is known about when juvenile Chinook salmon are found exclu- their condition in the Lake and their effect on sively in the littoral zone, there is relatively little salmon. Eurasion Milfoil present. In the lake, juvenile Chinook feed on chironomids (a type of insect) Predation Avoidance until early spring when they shift to a diet domi- nated by Daphnia (M. Koehler, UW, personal Predation was identified as a “probable” habitat communication). A number of predators con- factor of decline for Lake Washington in the sume juvenile Chinook including bass, sculpins, WRIA 8 Draft Reconnaissance report (Greater and cutthroat trout (Warner and Fresh 1998; Lake Washington Technical Committee 2001). Weitkamp et al. 2000). Because predation is a natural process that influ- ences the abundance of anadromous salmon The second group of juvenile Chinook that enter populations wherever they are found, salmonids Lake Washington are smolts. Smolts enter the lake have evolved characteristics that minimize preda- from mid-May through at least late July and are of tion mortality. Thus, for predation to be a factor a much larger size then fry at the time they enter of decline, predation mortality must increase over the lake. These fish rear for a number of months historic conditions due to some change or changes in riverine habitats before entering the lake where in the ecosystem (Fresh 1997). Fresh (Greater they spend much less time then fry rearing; smolts Lake Washington Technical Committee 2001) lists use the lake primarily as a migratory corridor to four changes that have occurred in Lake Washing- exit the watershed. Smolts were caught in screw ton that have the potential to increase predation traps and tagged at the mouth of the Cedar River, mortality. Bear Creek, and Creek. These fish migrated at rates of between 0.5 and 1.5 miles per First, littoral zone habitats have been extensively day and arrived at the Locks in 20 to 40 days modified over the last 100 years due to the change (DeVries, 2000) in lake level (in 1916); construction of piers, docks, and bulkheads; removal of large, woody debris Based upon observations at the , (LWD); and the expansion of milfoil (Fresh and juvenile Chinook migrate from Lake Washington Lucchetti 2000). While it is highly probable that to from late May through summer. the types of changes occurring in the littoral zone During this period, Chinook juveniles can be of Lake Washington have altered the composition, found using much of the littoral zone of the lake as diversity, and abundance of fish communities in well as limnetic habitats. Increasing water tem- the lake (Bryan and Scarnecchia 1992; Beauchamp perature probably plays a key role in determining et al. 1994; Weaver et al. 1997), it is difficult to when juvenile Chinook depart Lake Washington predict the net effect of these changes on fish 19 Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington 1992, Weaver (Bryan andScarnecchia zone fishabundance directly affectlittoral aquatic macrophytescan patterning ofattached amount andspatial nids. Forexample,the rates onjuvenilesalmo- populations andpredation juvenile fish(Beauchamp in morehabitatfor macrophytes mayresult increased densityof line developmentandan zone fish.Whileshore- the abundanceoflittoral phytes usuallyincreases A lowdensityofmacro- place toambushtheirprey(Kahler spawning habitatoritallowspredatorsabetter allows thepopulationtoexpandduebetter provided bypiers,docksandbulkheadseither Bass predationcouldincreaseifthe“new”habitat smallmouth bass(BryanandScarnecchia1992). may alsoenhancehabitatforpredatorssuchas Third, asdiscussed earlierinthissection onLake salmonids. predation mortalityofanadromous juvenile consume moreprey,thiscould alsoincrease they werehistorically.Because largerpredators northern pikeminnowsare morenumerousthen Brocksmith (1999)foundevidencethatlarger 11-38 percentbetween1972and1997.Further, northern pikeminnowpopulationhadincreased al. individuals) arehighlypiscivorous(Beauchamp species becausecutthroattrout(especiallylarge increased predationmortalityofsomesalmonid cutthroat populationcouldhaveresultedinan 2000). Alargeenoughincreaseinthesizeof more numerousnowthanhistorically(Nowak evidence thatcutthroattroutareconsiderably predators arelarger.Thereissomeanecdotal it isnotclearwhetherpopulationsofnative predators arelarger(therewerenonehistorically), it isclearthatpopulationsizesofnon-native population ofoneormorepredatorspecies.While increase iftherewasasignificantinthe Second, predationmortalityofsalmonidscould nation ofboththatpredatorsarerespondingto. whether itisthestructure,shade,oracombi- the caseofoverwaterstructures,itisunclear 1992).Brocksmith(1999)concludedthatthe et al. 1997). et al. lack ofoverhangingriparianvegetation. Developed anddegradedLakeWashingtonshoreline.Noterip-rap,bulkhead,relative 1984),thesechanges et al. 2000).In et 20 such asthespecific salmonprey,year,availability mous salmonidsdependson anumberoffactors impact ofanyonethese predators onanadro- Beauchamp 1987;Fayram1996; Fresh1997).The are knowntopreyonjuvenile salmon(e.g., and coho,yellowperch. Allofthesespecies hatchery releases),hatchery-producedChinook an exoticherebecauseitcanonlybesustainedby bass, largemouthrainbowtrout(considered duced intoLakeWashingtonincludesmallmouth fish (Fresh1997).Non-nativepiscivoresintro- levels istheintroductionofnon-native,piscivorous mortality ofanadromoussalmonidsoverhistoric A fourthfactorthatcouldincreasepredation predator andprey. salmon becauseofanincreasedoverlapbetween for alongerperiodandthuscapableofeatingmore historically, bassmaybepresentinlittoralzones If thelittoralzoneiswarmingsoonerthanitdid temperatures exceed10 not typicallyenterlittoralzonesuntilwater largemouth bass)andjuvenilesalmonids.Bassdo littoral zonepredators(e.g.,smallmouthand littoral zonecouldincreaseoverlapbetweenthe Such anincreaseinwatertemperaturesthe temperatures arewarmingearlierthanhistorically. species. Further,thereisalsoevidencethat in turnwouldincreaseconsumptionofprey to increasethemetabolicrateofpredators,which increase inwatertemperaturewouldbeexpected Schindler, UW,personalcommunication).An been notedintheShipCanal/LakeUnion(Daniel similar increaseinwatertemperatureshasalso increased sincemonitoringbeganinthe1930s.A Washington, watertemperaturesinthelakehave o C (PflugandPauley1984). Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington of other species of prey, environmental conditions, habitat available for juvenile Chinook and other and so on. salmon could be reduced, making the young fish more vulnerable to predators. Most of the changes discussed above will increase predation mortality on anadromous salmonids. While the physical changes to littoral zone habitats However, the situation may be more complicated resulting from shoreline development are clear, if some predators also eat the young of other more information is still needed on: juvenile predators and actually act to reduce the numbers of utilization of shoreline areas, predator responses to those predators, effectively helping to “reduce” shoreline modifications, the effects of milfoil on predation. predator-prey interatctions, and responses of prey communities to shoreline changes. Research is Small fish such as Chinook fry may escape preda- currently underway to address some of these tion by seeking out shallow habitat (Greater Lake information needs. For example, research on the Washington Technical Committee 2001). Juvenile effects of over-water structures on smallmouth bass Chinook in Lake Washington have been observed distribution is part of ongoing research by WDFW. to prefer shallow habitat with small particle substrate (Roger Tabor, USFWS, personal commu- Food nication). As discussed above, the Lake Washing- ton shoreline has been dramatically altered over While it is clear that physical and limnological the last 100 years. The physical changes that have changes as well as the introduction of exotic species occurred include lowering of the lake, loss of have altered the food web in the Lake, there is riparian vegetation, loss of LWD, modification of insufficient information to determine whether the substrate composition in front of bulkheads, food availability is a factor of decline for Chinook. shading of shallow water areas by overwater In the lake, juvenile Chinook feed on chironomids structures, the addition of new types of habitats until early spring when they shift to a diet domi- (piers and pilings), and a reduction in the amount nated by Daphnia (M. Koehler, UW, personal of shallow water habitat that is available to juvenile communication). Bank hardening, bulkheads, and salmon (Warner and Fresh 1998; Kahler et al. overwater structures in shoreline areas could affect 2000). production of key invertebrate species such as chironomids. This could occur as a result of Juvenile Chinook salmon have been observed substrate changes, loss of insect production from a (Roger Talbor, personal communication) avoiding loss of riparian vegetation or shading of littoral avian predators by using overhanging riparian habitats by overwater structures. vegetation along the shoreline as refuge. The loss of riparian vegetation from most of the City’s Competition from introduced species could also shorelines may have increased the effectiveness of reduce food availability to juvenile Chinook. bird predation. However, except for some anec- Coevolution among species within specific habitats dotal observations, no studies have been done on leads to the development of niches and behaviors the nature and extent of this potential problem. that can reduce adverse interactions and allow species to share the resources. However, juvenile The addition of bank hardening, bulkheads and Chinook are exposed to both natural and exotic overwater structures in shoreline areas of Lake competitors in Lake Washington in a habitat type Washington has the potential to increase predation (lake) in which they did not coevolve (Weitkamp et on juvenile salmon. Artificial structures may al. 2000). Aggressive competitors may force provide better reproductive habitat for some juvenile Chinook into less desirable habitats, predators leading to an increase in predator including areas where food is more scarce or where numbers. Presumably, as more overwater struc- the fish are more susceptible to predators. tures are built, the smallmouth bass population would increase. For example, R. Malcolm Water Quality ( Indian Tribe, personal communica- tion) found more smallmouth bass nests associated Following the removal of sewage effluent in the with artificial structures in . 1960’s, water quality has been generally considered Man-made structures in shoreline areas may also good (Edmundson 1991). A number of water provide sites that predators can use to more easily quality issues remain including an increase in ambush and consume young salmon (Kahler et al. surface and littoral zone water temperatures, 2000). Finally, the amount of shallow water refuge increasing nutrients, high levels of alkalinity, pH 21 Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington occurs alongthe majorityof and bankarmoring,which ington systemisbulkheading sloughing intheLakeWash- straint tobankerosionand the lake.Themajorcon- streams andriversentering and sedimentoutflowsfrom erosion (includingsloughing), to LakeWashingtonarebank important sedimentsources shore ofthelake.Themost sediment depositionalongthe tion oflakesediments;and3) ment production;2)mobiliza- physical processes:1)sedi- dependent uponthreemajor shores ofLakeWashingtonis littoral habitatalongthe The formationofshallow growth (Figure4). required forjuvenileChinooksalmonsurvivaland and maintainingtheshallowlittoralhabitat habitat formingprocessresponsibleforcreating localized habitatformingprocesses,andthese tion, withlandscape(watershed)processesdriving to behierarchicalwithrespecthabitatforma- cesses. Theseprocessescanbegenerallydescribed among anumberofphysicalandbiologicalpro- areas isdependentuponcomplexinteractions The formationandmaintenanceofshallowlittoral migrate throughLakeWashingtontoPugetSound. Chinook salmonwhichimprovetheirabilityto provide importantbehavioralcuestojuvenile personal communication).Littoralareasmayalso substrates (sandandgravel)(RogerTabor,USFWS, Chinook fryprefershallowareaswithsmall food production.Recentstudiesindicatethat Chinook juvenilesforbothpredatoravoidanceand High qualitylittoralhabitatisimportantto and TrophicInteractions Landscape andHabitatFormingProcesses through LakeWashington. There arenobarriersthatpreventmigration Habitat Access increased importance. mouths, waterqualityinthetributarystreamsisof Because juvenileChinookcongregateatstream spikes, andincreasedlevelsofcontaminants. chinook salmon inLakeWashington. tracted withkeyscientiststoconduct researchonthehabitatpreferencesofjuvenile ington shorelinelookingforjuvenile chinooksalmon.TheCityofSeattlehascon- Scientist RogerTaboroftheU.S. FishandWildlifeServicesurveystheLakeWash- 22 may provideimportantrefugehabitatstojuvenile tions foundwithinthelittoralareasoflake Aquatic vegetationpatchesandwoodaccumula- development isenhancedwithintheseareas. ment deposition and subsequentlittoralzone action andwind-drivennearshorecurrents.Sedi- lakeshore whicharewellprotectedfromwave mulations canproducelocalizedareasalongthe phytes andemergentvegetation,woodaccu- outcroppings, aquaticvegetationincludingmacro- turbulence. Thepresenceofgeologic rents anddepositedwithinareashavinglow sediments arethenmobilizedbynearshorecur- particles inthewatercolumn.Thesesuspended currents andwaveactionsuspendssediment energy andresultingbedshearcreatedbysurface surface currentsandwaveaction.Theturbulent sediments isprimarilyafunctionofwind-driven shallow littoralareas.Theredistributionoflake responsible fortheformationandmaintenanceof the lakeisprobablymostimportantfactor The redistributionofsedimentsalreadypresentin erosion rateswithintributarywatersheds. land developmentandsubsequentlyincreased rivers andlakes,whichhasresultedfromextensive by increasedsedimentproductionfrominflowing from theshorelinemaybepartiallycompensated uses. Thereductioninsedimentinputstothelake sively developedforresidentialandcommercial The LakeWashingtonshore-linehasbeenexten- the shorelineareastoprotectlakesideproperty. Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington

Chinook salmon from some predators including serves as a food base for benthic invertebrates such northern pikeminnow and largemouth bass. There as midge larvae (chironomidae), aquatic vegetation is some concern that wood accumulation may and wood may also provide a complex-textured attract and provide enhanced habitat for predators. surface upon which juvenile Chinook salmon can The role of woody debris in the predator-prey efficiently forage. The major constraint to the dynamics in the shallow littoral environment is growth and maintenance of aquatic vegetation in still under debate. It is possible that in a highly the lake is the scarcity of shallow nearshore areas altered and disturbed ecosystem like Lake Wash- that are protected from wave action and wind- ington, minimizing predation by exotic species driven currents. The scarcity of these areas can may be as beneficial or more beneficial to the largely be attributed to extensive bulkheading and survival of juvenile Chinook salmon than restora- bank armoring around the lake. tion of some of the natural habitat forming pro- Juvenile Chinook salmon have been observed cesses (e.g. recruitment and routing of woody congregating at the mouths of streams, especially debris). The City of Seattle is funding further small streams situated along the lake (Kurt Fresh research on the effect of woody debris on preda- and Roger Tabor, personal communication). These tion in 2001. The lack of natural riparian vegeta- fish may be attracted by flow, by benthic inverte- tion communities (especially those possessing late- brate drift (food), by the fine particle substrate successional hardwood stands) is an important (often sand) that the stream mouth delta fans are constraint to the availability of wood in Lake usually composed of, by the relatively shallow Washington. water of the delta fan, or by some combination of Aquatic vegetation and wood may also play an two or more of these. The major constraints to the important role in the production of benthic food routing of invertebrate drift, organic debris, and for juvenile Chinook salmon in the littoral zone of fine particle substrate by these streams to the lake the lake. Besides providing organic matter which are the extensive modifications to the stream

Lake Washington Diagram

Urban Landscape Habitat Habitat Population Constraints Processes Processes Requirements Functions

Land Sediment Development Production Shoreline Shallow (Littoral) Habitat Formation/ Bulkheading Juvenile Nearshore Maintenance Predator and Armoring Survival Currents Avoidance Littoral Vegetation Reduced Lake Riparian Juvenile Wood Elevation Vegetation Food Growth and Accumulations Condition Overwater Nutrient Inputs Benthic Invertebrate Structures and Cycling Production Stream Zooplankton Modifications Stream Drift/ Organic Matter Production Outputs Predator Exotic Species Abundance Introductions Competitor Water Quality Abundance Non-point Contaminants Barriers Habitat Access

Figure 4. Diagram of Lake Washington ecosystem processes and chinook habitat. 23 Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington key areaoffocus. Among thesefactors,the protectionandrestorationoftheshallowlittoral habitatemergesasa factors forjuvenilechinooksurvivalandfitnessinLakeWashington. Based ontheanalysisabove,followingtablesummarizesourunderstandingofmostsignificant Water temperaturesinthelakearecoolduring Lake WashingtonTechnicalCommittee2001). nook salmonmigratingthroughtheLake(Greater survival, growth,andconditionofjuvenileChi- ton, andisthereforenotlikelyafactorlimitingthe barriers. WaterqualityisgoodinLakeWashing- Washington includewaterqualityandmigration growth ofjuvenileChinooksalmoninLake Other factorspotentiallyaffectingthesurvivaland from theseurbanareas. ment, andnon-pointcontaminantsoriginating surrounding watershedcausedbyurbandevelop- corridor (includingriparianvegetation)andthe outmigration rearing and Juvenile Population Function Requirements Access Habitat Quality Water Availability Food Avoidance Predator Habitat No barriers Need morestudy water quality with tributarystream Generally good,concern refuge/cover/food Spatial distributionof mud, smallgravel) Fine substrates(sand, slope) Shallow gradient(<1% depth) Shallow Water(<1m characteristic/condition Preliminary Focus Areas Habitat 24 avoidance ofthesestructures. salmon alongthelakebecauseofbehavioral may delaythemigrationofjuvenileChinook overwater structuresincludingdocksandpiers be unrestrictedwithinthelake.However, areas bymigratingChinookjuvenilesisassumedto Lake Washington.Consequently,accesstohabitat known barrierstojuvenileChinookmigrationin migrating throughthissystem.Thereareno minimal effectsonjuvenileChinooksalmon flows (CSOs)inLakeWashingtonprobablyhave salmon. Outflowsfromcombinedsewageout- spring outmigrationperiodofjuvenileChinook output Stream drift/organic Littoral vegetation Riparian vegetation output Stream sediment sloughing Bank erosionand Habitat forming process structures Overwater tributary outflows Diversions of vegetation Loss ofriparian of lakelevels Historic lowering modifications Stream bank armoring Bulkheading and Contraints Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington

Habitat Improvement Projects in Lake Washington Habitat improvement projects should focus on improving those habitat qualities that the science indicates will likely provide the greatest benefit for fish. Habitat restoration projects will be monitored whenever possible. Monitoring will track those critical variables that will help the City to assess effectiveness in meeting project objectives. The City will seek to design and monitor habitat restoration projects that create benefits for multiple species where this is practical and where doing so does not undermine the main objectives of the project. The following table notes projects which have already been completed and projects which might be considered and notes the benefits for fish which each project may create.

Project Name Project Cost or estimate Habitat Requirement

Status of Project Project Description Predator Avoidance Food Availability

Arboretum Shoreside This project includes extensive Restoration of the Trail restoration of areas of the “Duck shallow littoral habitat Bay” shorelines at the north end of $1,000,000 the Arboretum. The project also includes trail restoration, bridge Potential replacement and other improvements.

Arboretum Shoreside Daylight storm drains and Riparian Trail Daylighting drainage system along Shoreside vegetation Trail. $100,000 (est) Stream drift/ organic output Potential

Arboretum Creek One of the “Salmon Friendly Riparian Daylighting and Garden” charette sites studied by vegetation Salmon-friendly Seattle Public Utilities and Demonstration consultants involved restoration of Stream drift/ Garden Arboretum Creek, including organic output daylighting that portion of the No estimate available creek now in a culvert below the SR-520 and Lake Washington Potential Boulevard intersection and creation of a salmon-friendly demonstration garden.

Denny Blaine Park The 200' long shoreline at this Restoration of the Shoreline Softening park consists of a failing seawall of shallow littoral habitat concrete slabs. A small beach cove $250,000 northerly end of the shoreline was created, and a new rock wall was Completed placed inland of the original wall. Native plants and shrubs were planted.

25 Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington Completed $65,000 Restoration Shoreline Potential $1,100,000 Shoreline Softening South McClellanSt. Boulevard S.near Lake Washington Completed $50,000 Revegetation Boulevard S. Lake Washington Potential $400,000 Restoration Shoreline Madrona Drive Boulevard near Lake Washington renourished aswell. shoreline in1999.Beachareaswere removed fromtheMagnusonPark the oldNavyairfielddayswere and concreteotherdebrisfrom An oldboatrampwasdemolished, conditions. to returntheshorelinenaturalistic emergent vegetationwillbeplanted gravels. Nativeriparianshrubsand graded andprotectedwithbeach problems. Theshorelinewillbe installed yearsagotostemerosion through removalofconcretedebris Washington Blvd.willbeenhanced and StanSayresPark,alongLake shoreline betweenMt.BakerPark Approxiamtely 5,000feetof This wascompletedin2001. establishment ofnativevegetation. several locations,alongwithre- invasive plantswasneededin Boulevard. However,controlof southerly portionofthe 1984 invariouslocationsalongthe was undertakenbetween1980and Extensive shorelinerestoration tion ofwoodydebris. vegetation plantingsandinstalla- will beprotectedthroughnative and blackberries.Theshoreline through removaloftheconcrete of shorelinewillbeenhanced blackberry bramble.Thisstretch littered withconcretedebrisand the MadronaDriveintersectionis boulevard fromEastPineStreetto The 1,000footshorelineofthe 26 shallow littoralhabitat Restoration ofthe shallow littoralhabitat Restoration ofthe shallow littoralhabitat Restoration ofthe shallow littoralhabitat Restoration ofthe vegetation vegetation vegetation Littoral Littoral Littoral Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington

Magnuson Park East The 1999 work described above Restoration of the Riparian Shoreline only addressed a portion of the shallow littoral habitat vegetation Restoration Magnuson Park shoreline problem. This project will remove Littoral $600,000 concrete and asphalt debris from vegetation underwater and shoreline areas at Potential the eastern part of Sand Point for 600 feet of shore. Portions of the shoreline will be regraded and stabilized with bioengineered and natural protection techniques. Shoreline plantings and beach nourishment work will also be undertaken.

Magnuson Park The shoreline along the northern Restoration of shallow Riparian plantings North Shoreline portion of Sand Point will be littoral areas Restoration restored through removal of existing concrete slabs and asphalt $500,000 walkways. These banks will then be stabilized using natural and Potential bioengineered bank stabilization techniques. The shoreline areas will be further enhanced through beach nourishment, removal of non-native vegetation, and planting of native riparian plants.

Mapes Creek Mapes Creek currently enters Lake Restoration of creek Daylighting Washington in a combined sewer delta rearing habitat outfall (CSO) culvert about 50 $1,200,000 feet offshore. This project will separate the creek from the CSO Potential system. A channel will be constructed through Beer Sheva Park to daylight the creek and naturally reconnect it to the shoreline of Lake Washington.

Matthews Beach The open lawns at the southerly Restoration of the Riparian Wetlands Creation portion of shallow littoral habitat vegetation were converted to wetlands in a $500,000 1998-1999 project jointly under- Littoral taken by Parks and the Seattle vegetation Completed District of the Army Corps of Engineers. A small stream was Stream drift/ diverted to a new pond, which organic output discharges to Thornton Creek near its mouth at Lake Washington. The pond provides salmon rearing habitat for coho. The areas along the creek channel, the Lake Washington shoreline and the pond were planted with native wetland trees and shrubs.

27 Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington Potential $75,000 Enhancement Nearshore Substrate South Alaska Potential $75,000 Beach Nourishment South AdamsStreet Completed $400,000+ Wetlands Restoration Pritchard Beach Completed $150,000 Enhancement Park Substrate Northwest Seward Potential $300,000 Enhancement Park Substrate Northeast Seward Completed $80,000 Enhancement Park Substrate Northeast Seward Pritchard Beach of LakeWashingtontocreatethe Pritchard BeachParkontheshores undertaken thereandinto and extensivewetlandsrestoration City Parkweredemolishedin1998 Park’s storageareaattheAtlantic The oldCityLightnurseryand riprap. spall andbankarmoring over theexistingquarry enhanced byaddinggravel shoreline substratewas of northwestpark Approximately 1000feet enhancement project. Seward Parksubstrate continuation ofthenortheast the parkshoreline.Thisisa added tothesoutheastportionof Gravel-sized substrateswillbe riprap. quarry spallandbankarmoring of beachgravelsovertheexisting December 2001throughplacement substrate wasenhancedin of northeastparkshoreline Approximately 1000feet armoring riprap. quarry spallandbank gravels overtheexisting through additionofbeach substrate willbeenhanced of northeastparkshoreline Approximately 1000feet cover. currently providepredatorfish shallow waterstonesillsthat substrate. Thissubstratewillcover through additionalofsand Boulevard Southwillbeenhanced along LakeWashington The AdamsBeachpeninsula Wetlands. 28 substrates Restoration offine for predatoryfish habitat Removal ofrefuge substrates Restoration offine for predatoryfish habitat Removal ofrefuge shallow littoralhabitat Restoration ofthe substrates Restoration offine substrates Restoration offine substrates Restoration offine organic output Stream drift/ vegetation vegetation Riparian Littoral Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington

Martha Washington This restoration project will Restoration of shallow Riparian Park Shoreline remove a riprap bulkhead, littoral habitat vegetation Restoration softening the upper bank along the Lake Washington shoreline. $400,000 The beach will be resloped and planted with native vegetation. Potential

Addressing Uncertainties The Lake Washington system is unique in the degree to which it has been altered. It will be important to develop better understanding of the links between habitat improvements and increased salmon survival and fitness. An important opportunity exists for measuring changes in survival of juvenile Chinook migrating through Lake Washington and the Ship Canal. Smolts are captured in a screw trap at the mouth of the Cedar River and PIT tagged. Monitoring devices will be placed at the locks to obtain a measure of percent survival. There is no current technology capable of uniquely marking and identifying individual Chinook fry. Key research and assessment issues include: 1. The role of overwater structures (docks and piers) in influencing prey availability and predation on juveniles. 2. The role of woody debris and other structural complexity in predation on juveniles. 3. The role of creek mouths as potential preferred habitat along the lake shoreline and associated water quality impacts on juveniles. 4. Whether prey availability, especially for early migrant Chinook fry from January through March, is a factor of decline in the lake and whether competitors are having a significant impact. 5. Methods for altering the balance between juvenile Chinook and their predators (fish and avian) to favor Chinook.

29 Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington Bartoo, N.W.1972.Theverticalandhorizontal Anderson, G.C.1954.Alimnologicalstudyofthe Aiken, S.A.,Newroth,P.R.,andWile,I.1979. Literature Cited Brocksmith, R.1999.Abundance,feedingecology Beauchamp, D.A.,S.A.Vecht,andG.L.Thomas. Beauchamp, D.A.,E.R.Byron,andW. Beauchamp, D.A.1990.Seasonalanddielfood Beauchamp, D.A.1987.Ecologicalrelationships Beak ConsultantsIncorporated,1997.Port Bryan, M.D.,andD.L.Scarnecchia. 1992.Species ( distributions ofnorthernsquawfish Washington, Seattle. tions. PhdDissertation.Universityof seasonal variationofphytoplanktonpopula- 59:201-215. Myriophyllum spicatum The biologyofCanadianweeds.34. ( ( flavescens pikeminnow ( and behaviorofanativepiscivorenorthern Washington. NorthwestScience66:149-159. foraging ofwildcutthroattroutinLake 1992. Temporal,spatial,andsize-related 394. can JournalofFisheriesManagement14:385- effects ofshorelinestructures.NorthAmeri- littoral-zone fishesinLakeTahoeandthe Wurtsbaugh. 1994.Summerhabitatuseby American FisheriesSociety119:475-482. in LakeWashington.Transactionsofthe habits ofrainbowtroutstockedasjuveniles ton, Seattle.237pp. ton. Ph.D.thesis,UniversityofWashing- of hatcheryrainbowtroutinLakeWashing- 1997. Remediation Technologies,Inc.23May Memorandum (Draft).Preparedfor Quendall ProjectMitigationAnalysis Seattle. 60pp. M. S.Thesis,UniversityofWashington, Environmental BiologyofFishes35:329-341. developed shorelinesofaglacial Iowalake. larvae andjuvenilesinhabiting naturaland richness, composition,and abundance offish of Washington,Seattle. Lake Washington.M.S.Thesis,University Ptychocheilus oregonensis Mylocheilus caurinus Oncorhynchus nerka ), andadultsockeyesalmon Ptychocheilus oregonensis ), yellowperch( ) inLakeWashington. . L.Can.J.PlantSci. ), peamouth Perca ) in 30 Fayram, 1996.Impactsoflargemouth bass Eggers, D.M.,N.W.Bartoo,N.A.Rickard,R.E. Edmondson, W.T.1991.TheUsesofEcology. DeVries, P.2000.PITTaggingofJuvenileSalmon Cooke, G.D.,E.B.Welch,S.A.Peterson,andP. City ofSeattle,U.S.FishandWildlifeService, Chrzastowski, M.1983.Historicalchangesto Christensen, D.L.,B.R.Herwig,D.E.Schindler, Burgner, R.1991.Thelifehistoryofthesockeye Buckley, R.1965.IncidencesofBeachSpawning Seattle. ton. M.S.Thesis.University ofWashington, tions ofjuvenilesalmonids in LakeWashing- ( ( Canada 35:1553-1571. Journal oftheFisheriesResearchBoard community productionandforagebase. ecosystem: Theperspectivefromthefish A. H.Devol.1978.TheLakeWashington Nelson, R.C.Wissmar,R.L.Burgner,and of WashingtonPress.Seattle. Lake WashingtonandBeyond.University of Engineers,Nov.2000. 2000 PilotStudyResults.U.S.ArmyCorps Smolts intheLakeWashingtonBasin:Year Publishers, BocaRaton,Florida. agement oflakesandreservoirs.Lewis R. Networth.1993.Restorationandman- gered SpeciesCityofSeattle. Incidental TakeofThreatenedandEndan- the ProposedIssuanceofaPermittoAllow ment/Environmental ImpactStatementfor Review DraftoftheEnvironmentalAssess- Response toPublicCommentsonthe National MarineFisheriesService.1999. gations WRI81-1182.9p. Geological SurveyWaterResourcesInvesti- Washington. Dept.oftheInterior,U.S. Washington ShipCanal,KingCounty, Lake Washingtonandrouteofthe Ecological Applications6:1143-1149. woody debrisinnorthtemperatelakes. lakeshore residentialdevelopmentoncoarse and S.R.Carpenter.1996.Impactsof salmon ( of FisheriesAnnualReport1964.28p. Lake Sammamish.WashingtonDepartment Sockeye SalmoninLakeWashingtonand sity ofBritishColumbiaPress,Vancouver, C. GrootandL.Margolis(editors).Univer- Micropterus dolomieui Micropterus salmoides Oncorhynchus nerka ) andsmallmouthbass ) predationonpopula- ). Pages3-117in B.C. Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington

Folmar, L.C., and W.W. Dickhoff. 1980. The Healey, M.C. 1991. The life history of Chinook parr-smolt transformation (smoltification) salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages and seawater adaptation in salmonids. A 311-393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis (edi- review of selected literature. Aquaculture tors). University of British Columbia Press, 21:1-37. Vancouver, B.C. Foote, C.J., Wood, C.C., and R.E. Withler. 1989. Hendry, A.P. 1995. Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus Biochemical genetic comparison of sockeye nerka) in Lake Washington: an investigation salmon and kokanee, the anadromous and of ancestral origins, population differentia- non-anadromous forms of Oncorhynchus tion and local adaptation. M.S. Thesis, nerka. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and , Seattle. Aquatic Sciences 46:149-159. Hendry, A.P., and T.P. Quinn. 1997. Variation in Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington fish: A adult life history and morphology among historical perspective. Lake and Reservoir Lake Washington sockeye salmon Management 9:148-151. (Oncorhynchus nerka) populations in relation Fresh, K.L. 1997. The role of competition and to habitat features and ancestral affinities. predation in the decline of Pacific salmon Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic and steelhead. Pages 245-275 in D.J. Stouder, Sciences 54:75-84. P. A. Bission, and R.J. Naiman editors. Kahler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems. Status A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, and Future Options. Chapman and Hall, Piers and other Artificial Structures and New York. Shorezone Development on ESA-listed Fresh. K.L., E. Warner, R. Tabor, and D. Houck. Salmonids in Lakes. Final report prepared 1999. Migratory behavior of adult Chinook for the City of Bellevue. salmon in the Lake Washington Watershed King County. 1993. Cedar River Current and as determined with ultrasonic telemetry. Future Conditions Report. King County Draft Report, Washington Department of Department of Public Works, Surface Water Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Management Division, Seattle. Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and Martz, M., F. Goetz, J. Dillon, and T. Shaw. 1996. restoring the habitats of anadromous salmo- Study Element II: early lake life history of nids in the Lake Washington Watershed, an sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525-544 in E.E. Lake Washington, year 1: 1994. Final Knudsen, C.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, Report, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser (editors). Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific Nowak, G.M. 2000. Movement patterns and salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton. feeding ecology of cutthroat trout Frodge, J.D., D.A. Marino, G.B. Pauley, and G.L. (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in Lake Wash- Thomas. 1995. Mortality of largemouth bass ington. M.S. Thesis, University of Washing- (Micropterus salmoides) and steelhead trout ton, Seattle. (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in densely vegetated Patmont, C. R., Davis, J. I., and Schwartz, R. G. littoral areas tested using in situ bioassay. 1981. Aquatic plants in selected waters of Lake and Reservoir Management 11:343-358. King County. Distribution and community Greater Lake Washington Technical Committee. 224 p. 2001. Draft Reconnaissance Assessment – Patmont, C. R., Davis, J. I., and Schwartz, R. G. Habitat Factors that Contribute to the 1981. Aquatic plants in selected waters of Decline of Salmonids. 202 pp. Hall, J.D., P. King County. Distribution and community A. Bisson, and R.E. Gresswell (eds). 1997. composition of macrophytes. Municipality Sea-run cutthroat trout: biology, manage- of Metropolitan Seattle, Water Quality ment, and future conservation. Oregon Division. 89 pp. Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR.

31 Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Lake Washington Woodey, J.1972.Distribution, feeding,and Wood, C.C.1995.Lifehistoryvariationand Weitkamp, D.E.,G.T.Ruggerone,L.Sacha,J. Weaver, M.J.,J.J.Magnuson,andM.K.Clayton. Warner, E.J.,andT.P.Quinn.1995.Horizontal Warner, E.J.,andK.L.Fresh.1998.Technical Tabor, R.2002U.S.FishWildlifeService. Seiler, D.2001.EvaluationofDownstream Pflug, D.E.,andPauley,G.B.1984.Biologyof of Washington,Seattle. Washington. PhdDissertation, University growth ofjuvenilesockeye salmoninLake Bethesda, MD. American FisheriesSocietySymposium17: unique unitsinpopulationconservation. tion andtheaquaticecosystem:defining Pages 195-216inJ.L.Nielsen,editor.Evolu- population structureinsockeyesalmon. and CedarRiverAssociates.224p. Inc., NaturalResourcesConsultants,Inc. Report. ReportPreparedbyParametrix, Affecting ChinookPopulations,Background Howell, andB.Bachen.2000.Factors 54:2277-2289. Journal ofFisheriesandAquaticSciences structurally complexmacrophytes.Canadian 1997. Distributionoflittoralzonefishesin Zoology 73:146-153. Lake Washington.CanadianJournalof rainbow trout( and verticalmovementsoftelemetered and Wildlife.March25,1998.141pp. Tribe andWashingtonDepartmentofFish salmon recoveryplan.MuckleshootIndian review draft:LakeWashingtonChinook cation Olympia, Washington.PersonalCommuni- wtd/fish/seiler-d-ol.pdf On thewebat: County, DepartmentofNaturalResources. & RecentResearchsponsoredbyKing Proceedings andPapersofSelectedOngoing Greater LakeWashingtonWatershed, Bear Creek.In,ChinookSalmoninthe Washington Tributaries,CedarRiverand Migrant ChinookProductioninTwoLake Science 58(2):118-125. Lake Sammamish,Washington.Northwest smallmouth bass( Oncorhynchus myki http://dnr. metrokc.gov/ Micropterus dolomieui ss) in ) in 32