DOCSLIB.ORG

Predator Fish Monitoring at Installed Large Wood Structures – Sammamish River Habitat Enhancement Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predator Fish Monitoring at Installed Large Wood Structures – Sammamish River Habitat Enhancement Projects Predator Fish Monitoring at Installed Large Wood Structures – Sammamish River Habitat Enhancement Projects Redmond, Washington RMDX 0000-0047 Prepared for: City of Redmond Public Works Department Redmond, Washington 98073 Prepared by: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 415 118th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98005 October 2007 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Area.......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Methods................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Results.....................................................................................................................5 4.0 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 8 5.0 References............................................................................................................... 9 List of Tables Table 1. Date, time, and water temperature during snorkeling and angling surveys.......... 5 Table 2. Species captured and date of capture during angling surveys. ............................. 5 Table 3. Stomach contents of captured predatory fish........................................................ 6 Table 4. Date and number of each species observed during snorkel surveys within all reaches.................................................................................................................. 6 Table 5. Number and percent of fish species associated with installed wood structures within Reaches 2-4............................................................................................... 7 Figures Figure 1. Predator Study ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Predator Study ..................................................................................................... 4 List of Appendices Appendix A: Literature Review Appendix B: Photographs P:\r\RMDX00000047\0600INFO\EP\Report\07-1026_Predator Study Report.doc Predator Fish Monitoring October 2007 Sammamish River Habitat Enhancement Projects Page i Abbreviations and Acronyms cm centimeters DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc. HEP Habitat Enhancement Project RWMP River Walk Master Plan WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area P:\r\RMDX00000047\0600INFO\EP\Report\07-1026_Predator Study Report.doc Predator Fish Monitoring October 2007 Sammamish River Habitat Enhancement Projects Page ii Executive Summary This report summarizes efforts to determine predation of juvenile salmon around installed large wood structures on a rehabilitated reach of the Sammamish River in Redmond, Washington. David Evans and Associates, Inc. biologists angled and snorkeled during May 2007 in the study area to accomplish the goals of this project. The goals of this project include: Conduct a brief review of existing information relating to predator fish/juvenile salmon interactions. Determine predation of juvenile salmon by fish within the study area. Determine presence of juvenile salmon fish predators around installed wood structures. Predators observed in the study area included northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), and sculpin sp. (Cottus sp.). Cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and sculpin sp. were all less than 200 millimeters long and likely did not prey on juvenile salmon. We did not find a large percentage of predators or juvenile salmon associating with installed large wood structures. Northern pikeminnow and smallmouth bass were greater than 9.5 inches (24 centimeters) and were capable of eating juvenile salmon. However, we did not find any juvenile salmon in the stomach contents of 26 northern pike minnow and 2 smallmouth bass. Although northern pike minnow were abundant, their stomach contents were generally empty. All of the captured northern pikeminnow were gravid and were on a spawning migration. Considering the results of this study and the fact that most of the juvenile salmon migrate past the study area before June (i.e. before water temperatures are high enough for increased predation), and that most of the juvenile salmon are greater than 3 inches (7.5 centimeters—a large enough size to avoid predation), it is likely predation in the study area during May is low and not influenced by installed wood structures. P:\r\RMDX00000047\0600INFO\EP\Report\07-1026_Predator Study Report.doc Predator Fish Monitoring October 2007 Sammamish River Habitat Enhancement Projects Page iii 1.0 Introduction This report summarizes efforts to determine predation of juvenile salmon around installed large wood structures on a rehabilitated reach of the Sammamish River (Figure 1). The City of Redmond has implemented several Habitat Enhancement Projects (HEPs) as phases of the River Walk Master Plan (RWMP), resulting in rehabilitation of habitat in several reaches of the Sammamish River and adjacent uplands (Appendix A). During the permit approval process for the most recent HEP phase, questions arose regarding the benefits of installed large wood structures on a relatively warm, slow moving river system such as the Sammamish River. Agency staff was concerned about the possibility that large wood structures may provide shelter for piscivorous fish which may prey on juvenile salmon migrating downstream. In response, the City of Redmond authorized David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) to investigate predator use and predation of juvenile salmon in and around installed large wood structures. The goals of this project include the following: Conduct a brief review of existing information relating to predator fish/juvenile salmon interactions (Appendix B). Determine predation of juvenile salmon by predators within the study area. Determine presence of juvenile salmon predators around installed wood structures. We accomplished these goals by: Angling near installed wood structures; Snorkeling reaches with installed wood structures. 1.1 Study Area The Sammamish River is part of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 located in Central Puget Sound (Figure 1). The Sammamish River connects Lake Sammamish with Lake Washington. It is a low gradient river with dense aquatic vegetation (Elodea sp. and Myriophylum sp.) in the spring and summer months. In the summer, water temperatures regularly exceed 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius). The river is channelized, straightened, and lacks woody structures. Despite these habitat deficiencies, the Sammamish River and its major tributary, Bear Creek, support runs of wild anadromous salmonids, including Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), that are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. P:\r\RMDX00000047\0600INFO\EP\Report\07-1026_Predator Study Report.doc Predator Fish Monitoring October 2007 Sammamish River Habitat Enhancement Projects Page 1 Figure 1. Predator Study amma S m i s h R i v e r Project Location Puget Sound k e e r C r a Be L a k e L a W k e a s S h a i m Elliott Bay g n m t a o m n i s h I s s a q u a h C r e e k Legend Predator Study City of Redmond Watebody Snohomish County Streams ¯ City of Redmond RMDX00000047 0369121.5 Figure 1 Kilometers October 2007 P:\r\RMDX00000047\0600INFO\EP\Report\07-1026_Predator Study Report.doc Predator Fish Monitoring October 2007 Sammamish River Habitat Enhancement Projects Page 2 There is also a hatchery located upstream of the study area on Issaquah Creek. This hatchery produces coho (O. kisutch) and Chinook salmon. Approximately 500,000 Coho salmon averaging 5 to 6 inches (12.7 to 15.2 centimeters [cm]) long and 2,000,000 Chinook salmon averaging 3 inches (7.6 cm) long are released each year. 2.0 Methods DEA biologists angled and snorkeled during the month of May in the study area to accomplish the goals of this project. The study area included the Sammamish River near river mile 11 (17.7 kilometer), near the bridge crossings of NE 85th Street and NE 90th Street (Figure 2). We timed our snorkel events to coincide with the peak outmigration of juvenile Chinook salmon from Bear Creek. Bear Creek is approximately one kilometer upstream of the study area. Previous years of monitoring by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) showed the peak outmigration of juvenile Chinook salmon occurred in May (WDFW 2005; WDFW 2006; WDFW 2007). Primary releases of Chinook juveniles from a hatchery on Issaquah Creek (also upstream) occur slightly later than the Bear Creek timing. In 2007, most of the hatchery releases occurred in late May and early June (personal communication with Issaquah Salmon Hatchery manager). Angling included hook and line sampling in the evening and morning. Angling consisted of: Two anglers spin casting lures in areas with good bank access (Reach 2 and 3); Landing predators and euthanizing them for stomach content analysis; Analyzing stomach content which included cutting out and opening the digestive tract from the esophagus to the anus; Identifying stomach contents and storing in ethanol. We snorkeled four 328-foot (100 meter) reaches. Reach 1 is downstream of any rehabilitated reaches in the RWMP and did not include any installed wood structures. Reaches 2, 3, and 4 are between the bridge crossings
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report 1998 Sammamish River Sockeye Salmon Fry
    Annual Report 1998 Sammamish River Sockeye Salmon Fry Production Evaluation Dave Seiler Lori Kishimoto Laurie Peterson Greg Volkhardt Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Olympia, Washington 98504-1091 December 2001 Funded by: Lake Washington/Cedar River Forum Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................ ii List of Figures ............................................................... iii Acknowledgments ............................................................ iv Executive Summary............................................................v 1998 Sammamish River Sockeye Salmon Fry Production Evaluation .....................1 Introduction ............................................................1 Goals and Objectives.....................................................2 Methods ...............................................................2 Trapping Gear and Operation ........................................3 Trap Calibration...................................................3 Fry Estimation ....................................................4 Results...............................................................11 Catch ..........................................................11 Efficiency and Flow...............................................11 Effect of Release Location..........................................12 Migration Estimate: Average vs. Predicted Efficiency ....................13 Fry Production ...................................................13 Migration timing
    [Show full text]
  • Sammamish River Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load Study Design
    Quality Assurance Project Plan Sammamish River Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load Study Design October 2015 Publication No. 15-03-123 Publication Information Each study conducted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) must have an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan. The plan describes the objectives of the study and the procedures to be followed to achieve those objectives. After completing the study, Ecology will post the final report of the study to the Internet. This Quality Assurance Project Plan is available on Ecology’s website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1503123.html Data for this project will be available on Ecology’s Environmental Information Management (EIM) website at www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/index.htm. Search Study ID MROS0001. Ecology’s Activity Tracker Code for this study is 15-035. Federal Clean Water Act 1996 303(d) Listings Addressed in this Study. See “Study area” and “Impairments addressed by this TMDL” sections. Author and Contact Information Teizeen Mohamedali P.O. Box 47600 Environmental Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504-7710 Communications Consultant: phone 360-407-6834. Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov o Headquarters, Lacey 360-407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Lacey 360-407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Union Gap 509-575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 Cover photo: The Sammamish River, north of Redmond looking upstream (south) from the NE 116th St. Bridge. Photo taken by Ralph Svrjcek in July 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Annual Report
    Document ID #P113359 Report covers work performed under BPA contract #26763 Report was completed under BPA contract #34772 REPORT ON THE PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN EXPERIMENTAL NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission In Cooperation with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Department of Agriculture Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 199007700 Contract Number 00026763 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Report A – Sport Reward Fishery in the Columbia and Snake Rivers 10 Abstract 11 Introduction 12 Methods of Operation 13 Fishery Operation 13 Boundaries and Season 13 Registration Stations 14 Reward System 14 Angler Sampling 15 Returning Anglers 16 Non-Returning Anglers 16 Northern Pikeminnow Handling Procedures 17 Biological Sampling 17 PIT Tag Detection 17 Northern Pikeminnow Processing 18 Results and Discussion 18 Northern Pikeminnow Harvest 18 Harvest by Week 19 Harvest by Fishing Location 20 Harvest by Registration Station 21 Harvest by Species/Incidental Catch 22 Angler Effort 24 Effort by Week 25 Effort by Fishing Location 27 Effort by Registration Station 27 Catch Per Angler Day (CPUE) 28 CPUE by Week 29 CPUE by Fishing Location 30 CPUE by Registration Station 30 Angler Totals 31 Tag Recovery 34 Northern
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a System-Wide Predator Control Program: Northern Squawfish Management Program
    Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation Annual Report 1997 October 1998 DOE/BP-24514-8 This Document should be cited as follows: Young, Franklin, "Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program; Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation", 1997 Annual Report, Project No. 199007700, 100 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-24514-8) Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEMWIDE PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM: STEPWISE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND EVALUATION PLAN IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SECTION I: IMPLEMENTATION 1997 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Franklin R. Young Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority In Cooperation With Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation Prepared
    [Show full text]
  • Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L
    PERSPECTIVE Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L. Rypel | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA. E-mail: [email protected] Parsa Saffarinia | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Caryn C. Vaughn | University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Biology, Norman, OK Larry Nesper | University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Anthropology, Madison, WI Katherine O’Reilly | University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences, Notre Dame, IN Christine A. Parisek | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA | The Nature Conservancy, Science Communications, Boise, ID Peter B. Moyle | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA Nann A. Fangue | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Miranda Bell- Tilcock | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA David Ayers | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Solomon R. David | Nicholls State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Thibodaux, LA While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”— a pejorative ascribing low- to- zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today.
    [Show full text]
  • Burner, L. C, J. A. North, R. A. Farr, and T. A. Rien. 2000
    WHITE STURGEON MITIGATIONMITIGATION AND RESTORATIORESTORATIONN IN THE COLUMBIA ANDAND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAUPSTREAMM FROM BONNEVILLE DADAM.M. ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT APRIL 1998 - MARCH 1999 Edited by: David L. Ward Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife In Cooperation With: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission University of Idaho Prepared For: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 86-50 Contract Number DE-AI79-86BP63584 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by David L. Ward 3 REPORT A. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for enhancing production of white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams. by Lisa C. Burner, John A. North, Ruth A. Farr, and Thomas A. Rien 6 REPORT B. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams in enhancing production. Describe the life history and population dynamics of subadult and adult white sturgeon upstream of McNary Dam and downstream from Bonneville Dam. by John D. DeVore, Brad W. James, Dennis R. Gilliland, and Brad J. Cady 41 REPORT C. Describe reproduction and early life history characteristics of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. Define habitat requirements for spawning and rearing white sturgeons and quantify the extent of habitat available in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. by Kevin M. Kappenman, Darren G.
    [Show full text]
  • Stepwise Implementation of a Predation Index, Predator Control Fisheries, and Evaluation Plan in the Columbia River Basin
    DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM-WIDE PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM: STEPWISE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND EVALUATION PLAN IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN 2004 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission In Cooperation with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 199007700 Contract Number 00004477 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 REPORT A 9 Acknowledgments 10 Abstract . 11 Introduction 12 Methods Of Operation 13 Fishery Operation Boundaries And Season. 13 Registration Stations 13 Reward System . 14 Angler Sampling 15 Returning Anglers . 16 Non Returning Anglers . 16 Northern Pikeminnow Handling Procedures Biological Sampling 16 Pit Tag Detection 17 Northern Pikeminnow Processing. 17 Results And Discussion 18 Northern Pikeminnow Harvest . 18 Incidental Catch/Harvest By Species 21 Returning Anglers. 21 Non-Returning Angler Catch And Harvest Estimates. 22 Fork Length Data. 24 Angler Effort. 24 Catch Per Angler Day . 27 Angler Totals. 30 Tag Recovery. 32 Summary 35 Recommendations For The 2005 Season. 36 References 37 Appendices. 40 i REPORT B 42 Introduction 43 Catch And Payments 43 Tagged Fish Payments 43 Accounting 43 2003 Sport Reward Payments Summary 44 REPORT C 45 Summary 46 Introduction 49 Methods 49 Fishery Evaluation, Predation Estimates, Tag Loss, And Age Validation 49 Field And Laboratory Procedures 49 Data Analysis 51 Biological Evaluation 54 Field And Laboratory Procedures 54 Data Analysis 55 Results 57 Fishery Evaluation, Predation Estimates, Tag Loss, And Age Validation 57 Biological Evaluation 65 Discussion 82 Acknowledgments 95 References 96 Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 Onebothell Represents the Voice of Members of the Surrounding Area
    1 2 3 OneBothell represents the voice of members of the surrounding area. Since establishing ourselves at the start of the year we have had over 7500 hits from members of the community visiAng our website. It is clear to us that people from Bothell, Snohomish, Redmond, Woodinville, Kirkland, Kenmore and Seale ciAes all along the Burke-Gilman Trail believe Wayne land is very important. to them. At this Ame, over 99% of our registered visitors have voted to reject the rezone and future development on Wayne land, and we're working to represent their concerns. We have people talking today from Bothell, Mill Creek, Kirkland and Seale from our team. 4 5 6 This precious land, along the Burke-Gilman Trail, has been a recreaonal corridor since Joseph Blythe established it in 1931 for the local community. The Richards family bought it in 1950, and its been through three Generaons of ownership. In 1989 the council applied for a bond to purchase Wayne Golf Course for the City, to eXtend Blythe Park to create the Sammamish River Trail Greenway. They were quoted as wanAng to protect the open space before it was lost to developers. They tried again in 1990. In 1996 this land was recognized as important through the purchase of development rights on the front 9 when a Conservaon Easement was established for residents of Bothell and King County to enjoy the open space in perpetuity. The owners were quoted as saying they wanted to preserve this land so their kids could enjoy it. In 1997 The Open Space Taxaon was approved, reducing taxes by 90% for the Richards.
    [Show full text]
  • Acipenser Brevirostrum
    AR-405 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTNOSE STURGEON Acipenser brevirostrum Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration November 1, 2010 Acknowledgements i The biological review of shortnose sturgeon was conducted by a team of scientists from state and Federal natural resource agencies that manage and conduct research on shortnose sturgeon along their range of the United States east coast. This review was dependent on the expertise of this status review team and from information obtained from scientific literature and data provided by various other state and Federal agencies and individuals. In addition to the biologists who contributed to this report (noted below), the Shortnose Stugeon Status Review Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mary Colligan, Julie Crocker, Michael Dadswell, Kim Damon-Randall, Michael Erwin, Amanda Frick, Jeff Guyon, Robert Hoffman, Kristen Koyama, Christine Lipsky, Sarah Laporte, Sean McDermott, Steve Mierzykowski, Wesley Patrick, Pat Scida, Tim Sheehan, and Mary Tshikaya. The Status Review Team would also like to thank the peer reviewers, Dr. Mark Bain, Dr. Matthew Litvak, Dr. David Secor, and Dr. John Waldman for their helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, the SRT is indebted to Jessica Pruden who greatly assisted the team in finding the energy to finalize the review – her continued support and encouragement was invaluable. Due to some of the similarities between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon life history strategies, this document includes text that was taken directly from the 2007 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Report (ASSRT 2007), with consent from the authors, to expedite the writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins
    Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER MAINSTEM ................................ 2-1 2.1 Subbasin Description.................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.2 History ................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.3 Physical Setting.................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................................................................ 2-8 2.1.5 Habitat Classification......................................................................................... 2-20 2.1.6 Estuary and Lower Mainstem Zones ................................................................. 2-27 2.1.7 Major Land Uses................................................................................................ 2-29 2.1.8 Areas of Biological Significance ....................................................................... 2-29 2.2 Focal Species............................................................................................................. 2-31 2.2.1 Selection Process............................................................................................... 2-31 2.2.2 Ocean-type Salmonids
    [Show full text]
  • Willowmoor Cold-Water Supplementation Concepts
    WILLOWMOOR COLD-WATER SUPPLEMENTATION CONCEPTS June 2014 Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division King Street Center, KSC-NR-0600 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104 www.kingcounty.gov WILLOWMOOR COLD-WATER SUPPLEMENTATION CONCEPTS Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, Washington 98101 Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Area .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Contents of this Memo ............................................................................................................................. 1 Summary of Water Temperature Problems ................................................................................................. 4 Conceptual Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 8 Hypolimnetic Withdrawal of Cold Water from Lake Sammamish ............................................................ 8 Pump Deeper Groundwater to Transition Zone ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Fishing Regulations
    MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots
    [Show full text]