Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

that are a fair distance from the release site. Probably 1,000 to 2,000 fish would need to be marked to effectively estimate movement patterns. Enlarging the survey area would help determine if some fish are moving long distances. Besides increasing the number marked and enlarging the survey area, additional work needs to be done on the marking technique. We did observe a few marked Chinook salmon that appeared to have some type of injury in the caudal peduncle due to the marking process. Further testing of the location of the mark, type of mark, and marking instrument needs to be conducted. 21
CHAPTER 3. RESTORATION SITES Introduction and Methods We continued to monitor restoration sites in 2003 and 2004. A total of five locations were surveyed: Seward Park (Figure 14), Martha Washington Park, Beer Sheva Park, Rainier Beach Lake Park and Marina, and the old Shuffleton Power Plant Outflow (Figure 15). Except for one site in Seward Park, surveys were conducted to collect preproject baseline information. The only restoration project that has been undertaken thus far was a substrate replacement project in Seward Park. Seward Park. In December 2001, the City of Seattle and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) deposited 2,000 tons of gravel along a 300-m shoreline section in the northeast part of the park. This shoreline section was divided into two equal sections. The north section (site 3b) received fine substrate and the south section (site 3a) received coarse substrate. The general size composition of the substrate was 0.5 to 5.0 cm for the north section and 2.5 to 15 cm for the south section. The new substrate extended out approximately 5 m from shore. Pre-project snorkel surveys were conducted in 2001 and post-project surveys were initially conducted in 2002. Results from 2002 indicated that few Chinook salmon were present in Seward Park sites and no increase in the use of the restored site was observed. Surveys were conducted in 2003 and 2004 to continue monitoring of the restoration site and determine if the use of the restoration site may have been somewhat reduced in 2002 because of cool water temperatures, which may have limited Chinook salmon movements to northerly locations such as Seward Park. Also, Chinook salmon may have avoided the restoration site because of low prey abundance associated with the new, clean substrates. Similarly to 2001 and 2002, snorkel surveys in 2003 were conducted at the restoration site as well as five additional sites in Seward Park (Figure 14). The additional sites served as controls and enabled us to make between-year comparisons of the restoration site. Also, the other five sites are potential restorations sites and the survey data could serve as baseline information. The restoration site and the five control sites were the same sites used in 2000 by Paron and Nelson (2001) to assess the potential for bank rehabilitation projects in Seward Park. In 2003, we continued nighttime snorkeling surveys of the six sites in Seward Park. A total of nine night snorkeling surveys were completed on an approximate biweekly schedule from 19 February through 30 June. Survey protocols in 2003 were the same as restoration project monitoring survey methods used in 2001 and 2002 (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002; Tabor et al. 2004b). Surveys were conducted at a depth contour of 0.4 m water depth. In addition to the six sites surveyed in 2000 to 2003, two supplemental sites (S-1 and S2) were also surveyed in 2003. We expected the abundance of Chinook salmon at site S-1 would be the highest of any site in Seward Park from February to May because the site had high quality habitat (gradual sloping beach with sand substrate) and was the 22
Page 1 and 2: U.S. Fish and IU.S. Wildlife FishSe
Page 3 and 4: SUMMARY In 2003 and 2004, we contin
Page 5 and 6: An overhanging vegetation/small woo
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Page SUMMARY ....
Page 9 and 10: List of Figures Figure Page FIGURE
Page 11 and 12: FIGURE 37.—Water column depth (m)
Page 13 and 14: The major tributary to Lake Washing
Page 15 and 16: Fry emerge from their redds from Ja
Page 17 and 18: FIGURE 2.—Location of index sites
Page 19 and 20: most dates (Figure 4). Unlike 2002,
Page 21 and 22: Chinook/m 2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Wes
Page 23 and 24: 0.3 Mercer Island Chinook/m 2 0.2 0
Page 25 and 26: particularly valuable. Shoreline im
Page 27 and 28: FIGURE 8.—Map of south Lake Washi
Page 29 and 30: FIGURE 10—Map of south Lake Washi
Page 31: # of marked Chinook 40 30 20 10 0 A
Page 35 and 36: Beer Sheva Park.—At Beer Sheva Pa
Page 37 and 38: Results Seward Park, 2003.—In 200
Page 39 and 40: 4 3.5 Chinook/100 m 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0
Page 41 and 42: Martha Washington Park, 2003.—In
Page 43 and 44: 120 Chinook/100 m 100 80 60 40 20 s
Page 45 and 46: snorkeling and scuba diving were co
Page 47 and 48: Water column depth (m) . 0.80 0.60
Page 49 and 50: CHAPTER 5. FEEDING AT TRIBUTARY MOU
Page 51 and 52: FIGURE 28.—Location of four south
Page 53 and 54: FIGURE 29.—Photos of sites used t
Page 55 and 56: sampling. At night, Chinook salmon
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 5.—Diet overlap indices (C)
Page 59 and 60: TABLE 7.—Diet overlap indices (C)
Page 61 and 62: TABLE 10.—Diet composition of juv
Page 63 and 64: The lack of a large difference betw
Page 65 and 66: CHAPTER 6. USE OF NONNATAL TRIBUTAR
Page 67 and 68: shallow to snorkel were surveyed th
Page 69 and 70: Number of Chinook ff 700 600 500 40
Page 71 and 72: column depth used by Chinook salmon
Page 73 and 74: Chinook / m . 5 4 3 2 1 2003 - upst
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 13.—Diet overlap index (C)
Page 77 and 78: (P. Castle, WDFW, unpublished data)
Page 79 and 80: FIGURE 41.—Placement of Scotch br
Page 81 and 82: FIGURE 43.—Photo of a group of ju
Page 83 and 84:
CHAPTER 8. LAKE QUINAULT SURVEYS In
Page 85 and 86:
FIGURE 45.—Photos of large woody
Page 87 and 88:
Similar to April surveys, the nears
Page 89 and 90:
Chinook / 100m . 500 400 300 200 10
Page 91 and 92:
Tabor and Wurtsbaugh (1991) conclud
Page 93 and 94:
FIGURE 48.—Location of south Lake
Page 95 and 96:
FIGURE 49.—Conducting visual obse
Page 97 and 98:
FIGURE 52.—Photo of a group of ju
Page 99 and 100:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank He
Page 101 and 102:
workshop, Shoreline, Washington, No
Page 103 and 104:
Paron, D.G., and E. Nelson. 2001. S
Page 105 and 106:
Werner, E.E., and D.J. Hall. 1988.
show all

Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?