Building a Better Fish Trap

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

BUILDING A BETTER FISH TRAP CORY CUTHBERTSON, WDFW History of L.Washington sockeye and water projects Broodstock collection at the old trap and weir at Cavanaugh Ponds Fall 2008 installation and operation of the new floating resistance board weir in Renton, WA What we learned in the first year and how we can improve next year Ballard Locks Interim Sockeye Hatchery • Established 1991 • 17 million fry capacity • Operated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Long Term Project Goals Increase returns of Cedar R sockeye and provide fishing opportunity for public and tribes Avoid or reduce effects on naturally spawning populations Challenges Broodstock collection ESA listed Chinook Temporary structure in a volatile river Weir at Cavanaugh Pond 11/6/2006 Why a New Weir in Renton? About a 1/3 of the sockeye spawn below Cavanaugh Pond, limiting broodstock collection. The new weir is a resistance board weir, which will be able to withstand higher flows. Doesn’t require equipment for installation/removal. Weir Panel Nomenclature Results: A better fish trap? ~Same # of eggs from ½ the # of adults into the L. Washington basin Installed in 2 days, removed in 4 hours without any heavy equipment Next year we should… Better trap door to target Chinook passage New Hatchery Thanks! Paul Faulds and Gary Sprague, SPU Brodie Antipa, WDFW Seattle Public Utilities Cramer Fish Sciences Questions ? What’s the Hurry? The Lake Washington fish flop of 2008 Age Composition Of Females 100 80 60 Hatch 40 NOR 20 0 % Of Sampled Fish % Of Sampled 3-yr 4-yr 5-yr Age At Maturati on Age Composition In Hatchery & Wild Females Is Comparable Sockeye introductions and propagation in Lake Washington From Cultus Lake 1917 1935 1944 23,655 to North Cr. 19,700 fry 96,000 to Cedar R. 1950 5,629 to Issaquah Cr. Fraser R.? 76,000 to Issaquah 1954 53,984 to Issaquah Cr 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1937 1942 656,000 to Cedar R. 227,139 to Cedar R. 1,257,000 to Issaquah Cr. 254,298 to Issaquah 567,000 Bear Cr. Cr. 1943 1938 54,530 to Cedar R. 100,000 to Issaquah Cr. 41,761 to Issaquah Cr. 1944 32,012 to Cedar R. Sockeye 200000 400000 600000 800000 Sockeye Return to Lake Washington, LakeWashington, to Return Sockeye 0 1972 (WDFW and MIT data) 1975 1978 1981 1984 Year 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Ballard/Fremont Neighborhood Greenways
Ballard-Interbay Regional Transportation System Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board SDOT Policy & Planning Department of Transportation May 6, 2020 Presentation overview •Project background and purpose •Project scope, outcomes, schedule •Engagement/equity •Overview of comments •Questions for SBAB Department of Transportation 3 www.seattle.gov/transportation/birt Department of Transportation 2019 Washington State legislative language ESHB 1160 – Section 311(18)(b) “Funding in this subsection is provided solely The plan must examine replacement of the Ballard for the city of Seattle to develop a plan and Bridge and the Magnolia Bridge, which was damaged in report for the Ballard-Interbay Regional the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. The city must provide a Transportation System project to improve report on the plan that includes recommendations to the mobility for people and freight. The plan Seattle city council, King county council, and the must be developed in coordination and transportation committees of the legislature by partnership with entities including but not November 1, 2020. The report must include limited to the city of Seattle, King county, the recommendations on how to maintain the current and Port of Seattle, Sound Transit, the future capacities of the Magnolia and Ballard bridges, an Washington state military department for the overview and analysis of all plans between 2010 and Seattle armory, and the Washington State 2020 that examine how to replace the Magnolia bridge, Department of Transportation. and recommendations on a timeline
[Show full text]
8 Chittenden Locks 47
Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Hiram M. Chittenden Locks The following write-up relies heavily on the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks/Salmon Bay Subarea Chapter by Fred Goetz in the Draft Reconnaissance Assessment – Habitat Factors that Contribute to the Decline of Salmonids by the Greater Lake Washington Technical Committee (2001). Overview The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (Locks) were Operation of the navigational locks involves constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raising or lowering the water level within either (the Corps) in 1916 and commissioned in 1917. the large or small lock chamber so that vessels may The Locks were built as a navigation project to pass between the two waterbodies. The filling and allow boats to travel from the marine waters of emptying of the large lock chamber is achieved by Puget Sound to the protected freshwaters of Lake use of a system of two large conduits that can Union and Lake Washington. The Locks are either fill the entire lock or half of the lock. This comprised of two navigational lock chambers: a is achieved by using a miter gate that divides the large lock that accommodates both large and small large lock chamber into two sections. Water is vessels and a small lock used by smaller vessels. In taken into the conduits via two culvert intakes addition to the lock chambers, the Locks include a located immediately upstream of the structure. dam, 6 spillway bays, and a fish ladder. Water is conveyed through each conduit and is The Locks form a dam at the outlet of the Lake discharged into the lock chamber through outlet Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal system culverts on each side of the chamber.
[Show full text]
Press Release Locks TAST Final 8-26-20
New device may keep seals away from the Ballard Locks, giving migrating salmon a better chance at survival For Immediate Release: 8/26/20 - Seattle, WA SUMMARY A group of partners working to improve salmon stocks have deployed a newly developed device on the west side of the Ballard Locks that uses underwater sound to keep harbor seals away from this salmon migration bottleneck. If effective, the device may help salmon populations in jeopardy by reducing predation without harming marine mammals. STORY The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Oceans Initiative, with support from Long Live the Kings, University of St Andrews, Genuswave, Puget Sound Partnership, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and other partner organizations have deployed a Targeted Acoustic Startle Technology (TAST) on the west side of the Ballard (Hiram M. Chittenden) Locks. The TAST is intended to keep harbor seals away from the fish ladder allowing salmon to reach the Lake Washington Ship Canal from Puget Sound. Seals and sea lions are known to linger at this migration bottleneck and consume large numbers of salmon returning to the spawning grounds. If successful, the device may help recover dwindling salmon runs, without harming marine mammals. "We are always looking for new innovations to help the environment,” said USACE spokesperson Dallas Edwards. “We are excited to see the results of this study." Every salmon and steelhead originating from the Sammamish or Cedar river must pass through the Ballard Locks twice during its life, once as a young smolt and again as an adult. With limited routes to get through the locks, salmon are funneled through a small area.
[Show full text]
Resolution Salish Sea Tidal Hydrodynamic Model September 2020
PNNL-30448 Validation of the High- Resolution Salish Sea Tidal Hydrodynamic Model September 2020 Z Yang T Wang R Branch Z Xiao Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Choose an item. DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312 ph: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) email: [email protected] <https://www.ntis.gov/about> Online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov Choose an item.
[Show full text]
Indigenous People and the Transformation of Seattle's
05-C3737 1/19/06 11:43 AM Page 89 City of the Changers: Indigenous People and the Transformation of Seattle’s Watersheds COLL THRUSH The author is a member of the history department at the University of British Columbia. Between the 1880s and the 1930s indigenous people continued to eke out traditional livings along the waterways and shorelines of Seattle’s urbanizing and industrializing landscape. During those same years, however, the city’s civic leaders and urban plan- ners oversaw massive transformations of that landscape, including the creation of a ship canal linking Puget Sound with Lake Washington and the straightening of the Duwamish River. These transformations typified the modernizing ethos that sought to improve nature to ameliorate or even end social conflict. The struggle of the Duwamish and other local indigenous people to survive urban change, as well as the efforts by residents of nearby Indian reservations to maintain connections to places within the city, illustrate the complex, ironic legacies of Seattle’s environmental his- tory. They also show the ways in which urban and Native history are linked through both material and discursive practices. Seattle was a bad place to build a city. Steep sand slopes crumbled atop slippery clay; a river wound through its wide, marshy estuary and bled out onto expansive tidal flats; kettle lakes and cranberried peat bogs recalled the retreat of the great ice sheets; unpredictable creeks plunged into deep ravines—all among seven (or, depending on whom you ask, nine or fifteen) hills sandwiched between the vast, deep waters of Puget Sound and of Lake Wash- ington.
[Show full text]
Spawning Escapement Update for the Lake Washington Watershed Seattle Public Utilities
Spawning Escapement Update for the Lake Washington Watershed Seattle Public Utilities King County City of Bellevue Muckleshoot Indian Tribe WDFW 2017 Cedar Chinook Spawning Escapement: 2,048 Fish 2500 Cedar Chinook Spawning Escapement 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Estimating Chinook Spawning Escapement: Boat Surveys and Complete Redd Census Carcass Survey Data 2017 Cedar Chinook Hatchery 24% Natural 76% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Natural-Origin Spawners Hatchery-Origin Spawners Age-5 Age-2 Cedar Chinook Age 1% 5% 2017 Age-3 Age-4 39% 55% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Age-2 Age-3 Age-4 Age-5 Big Bear Creek Issaquah Hatchery Cedar River 2,500 Sammamish Chinook Spawning Escapement 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Foot Surveys Sammamish Chinook 2017 Natural 14% Hatchery 86% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Natural-Origin Spawners Hatchery-Origin Spawners 18,000 Lake Washington Chinook 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Sammamish Chinook Cedar Chinook Hatchery Return Cedar River Coho 800 Coho Count above Landsburg 700 600 Passage 500 above 400 Landsburg 300 200 100 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 140,000 Cedar Coho Production 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 45,000 40,000 35,000 Locks Count 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1,000 800 Freshwater Sport Catch 600 400 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
[Show full text]
Fishes-Of-The-Salish-Sea-Pp18.Pdf
NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 18 Fishes of the Salish Sea: a compilation and distributional analysis Theodore W. Pietsch James W. Orr September 2015 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Professional Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce Papers NMFS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D. Sullivan Scientifi c Editor Administrator Richard Langton National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Service Maine Field Station Eileen Sobeck 17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 1 Assistant Administrator Orono, Maine 04473 for Fisheries Associate Editor Kathryn Dennis National Marine Fisheries Service Offi ce of Science and Technology Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 178 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 Managing Editor Shelley Arenas National Marine Fisheries Service Scientifi c Publications Offi ce 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115 Editorial Committee Ann C. Matarese National Marine Fisheries Service James W. Orr National Marine Fisheries Service - The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS (ISSN 1931-4590) series is published by the Scientifi c Publications Offi ce, National Marine Fisheries Service, The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series carries peer-reviewed, lengthy original NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, fl ora and fauna studies, and data- Seattle, WA 98115. intensive reports on investigations in fi shery science, engineering, and economics. The Secretary of Commerce has Copies of the NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series are available free in limited determined that the publication of numbers to government agencies, both federal and state. They are also available in this series is necessary in the transac- exchange for other scientifi c and technical publications in the marine sciences.
[Show full text]
BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL MISSING LINK PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement
BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL MISSING LINK PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement May 2017 BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL MISSING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FACT SHEET Project Name Burke-Gilman Trail Missing Link Project Proposed Action The Burke-Gilman Trail (BGT) is a regional trail that runs east from Golden Gardens Park in Seattle and connects to the Sammamish River Trail in Bothell, except for a missing segment through the Ballard neighborhood. Currently, the regional trail ends at 30th Ave NW by the Hiram M. Chittenden (Ballard) Locks on the west, and begins again at the intersection of 11th Ave NW and NW 45th St on the east. The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) proposes to connect these two segments of the BGT with a marked, dedicated route that would serve all users of the multi-use trail. The proposed project to complete the regional facility is referred to as the Missing Link. Project Proponent and SEPA Lead Agency Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) SEPA Responsible Official Scott Kubly, Director City of Seattle, Department of Transportation Contact Information c/o Mark Mazzola, Environmental Manager Seattle Department of Transportation PO Box 34996 Seattle, WA 98124‐4996 [email protected] Date of Issue of the Final Environmental Impact Statement May 25, 2017 Document Availability and Cost The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is available online at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BGT_Ballard.htm. Printed copies of the FEIS are available for review at no charge at the following locations:
[Show full text]
Hiram H. Chittenden (Ballard) Locks Fish Passage Improvement Needs
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Salmon Tour Hiram H. Chittenden (Ballard) Locks Fish Passage Improvements The Hiram H. Chittenden (Ballard) Locks, operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), are critical to the region’s economy, transportation, flood control, infrastructure and environment. The Locks operate primarily as a navigation facility connecting Puget Sound with Lakes Union and Washington and are a popular tourist attraction. Every salmon in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish (WRIA 8) watershed must pass through the Ballard Locks at least twice in its life, both as a juvenile migrating out to the sea and as an adult returning to spawn. Ensuring safe passage through the Locks is of paramount importance to salmon recovery efforts in this watershed. WRIA 8 has partnered with the Corps to support operational and structural changes at the Locks to make it safer for fish passage. Many of the operational changes to improve fish survival that have been implemented since the 1990s at the Locks are at risk due to the poor condition of the aging Lock facilities and its low priority for funding. The Corps is required to reduce the impact to ESA listed salmon passing through the Lock and is not meeting many of the minimizing measures called for in the 2008 NOAA Biological Opinion for operation of the Locks. What fish passage improvements are most needed? o Replace machinery that operates the large lock gates and allows gates to open and close slowly which has been found to greatly reduce the mortality of juvenile salmon passing through the Locks ($5.2 million).
[Show full text]
WRIA 8 Salmon Habitat Project List: Lake Union/Ship Canal
WRIA 8 Salmon Habitat Project List: Thursday, July 13, 2017 Lake Union/Ship Canal APPLICABLE STRATEGIES LEGEND: Protect and restore Protect and Protect and Protect and restore marine water and restore restore cold water forest cover and sediment quality, floodplain sources and reduce headwater areas connectivity thermal barriers to especially near migration commercial and industrial areas Protect and Improve juvenile Provide adequate Improve water restore functional and adult survival stream flow quality riparian at the Ballard Locks vegetation Integrate salmon Restore sediment Protect and Reduce predation recovery priorities into processes necessary restore channel on juvenile local and regional for key life stages complexity migrants and lake- planning, regulations, rearing fry and permitting (SMP, CAO, NPDES, etc.) Restore shallow Remove (or Restore natural Continue existing and water rearing reduce impacts of) marine shoreline conduct new research, and refuge overwater monitoring, and adaptive habitat structures management on key issues Reconnect and Remove fish Reconnect Increase awareness enhance creek passage barriers backshore areas and and support for mouths pocket estuaries salmon recovery Page 1 of 8 Opportunities, Constraints, and Description Applicable Strategies Ballard Bridge Shoreline Restoration other Considerations Potential habitat restoration/public access area under the Ballard Bridge along the north side of Project the canal. The potential exists to connect the SC-1 project with private green space just to the west of Number site, and the Seattle Central Community College Four-Year Marine Technology Center's landscaped shoreline Project Location Work Plan? to the east. Incorporate treatment of rainwater No run-off from the Ballard Bridge and riparian Seattle vegetation. Estimated Project Costs Acquisition Restoration Total Opportunities, Constraints, and Description Applicable Strategies Ballard Bridge Water Quality Improvements other Considerations Improve water quality by treating runoff with vegetated bioswales.
[Show full text]
Approval Document
KELLER FARM MITIGATION BANK SNOHOMISH COUNTY APPROVAL FOR USE UNDER SCC 30.62A.550 BACKGROUND Snohomish County Code (SCC) allows the Director of the Department of Planning and Development Services (PDS) to approve the establishment and use of a wetland, fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer mitigation bank to provide mitigation required by chapter 30.62A SCC. This approval may allow for deviations from the requirements of Parts 100 through 400 of chapter 30.62A SCC with respect to the treatment of wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or buffers. There currently are three mitigation banks in Snohomish County. The first is the Narbeck Wetland Sanctuary, a bank established by Paine Field Airport in 1997 and the first bank in Washington state. The second is the 220-acre Snohomish Habitat Bank established in 2006 and the first private mitigation bank in Washington state. The third is the Skykomish Mitigation Bank located on the Skykomish River near the City of Monroe. The County received a request to approve the Keller Farm Mitigation Bank for use under SCC 30.62A.550. The Keller Farm Mitigation Bank is in the City of Redmond on 75.2 acres of land located along Bear Creek. The land is owned by the City of Redmond. The bank sponsor is Habitat Bank LLC. The bank is expected to provide 51.1 acres of re-established wetland area, 7.9 acres of rehabilitated wetland area, 4.3 acres of rehabilitated stream channel and associated wetlands, and 11.9 acres of enhanced riparian upland forested area.
[Show full text]
Hiram M. Chittenden Locks
June 2017 Economic Impacts of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Prepared for Lake Washington Ship Canal Users Group Prepared by Economic Impacts of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Prepared for Lake Washington Ship Canal Users Group June 2017 Prepared by www.mcdowellgroup.net Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 Study Purpose and Methodology ................................................................................................ 4 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Report Sponsors........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Profile of the Ballard Locks .......................................................................................................... 6 Ballard Locks Facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Historical Development of the Locks ................................................................................................................... 7 Locks-Dependent
[Show full text]