Data in these Salmon Watcher reports (e.g., Ostergaard 1999; Vanderhoof et al. 2000; Vanderhoof 2001) are used widely (see "Benefits of the Program" below), and the Salmon Watcher Program is regarded by many people as a very valuable program. However, several qualifications must be kept in mind when reviewing the data in this report and especially when using the data for any purpose other than describing fish distributions. The level of expertise of the volunteers varied widely: some volunteers had past experience identifying fish through professional or school training, recreational fishing, or personal interest. Other volunteers only had experience identifying salmon from the single Salmon Watcher Program training session.

Every year volunteers from previous years return and new volunteers enter the program who must learn to identify the different species of salmonids they might encounter in the Lake Washington Watershed. In 2000, 45 out of 106 volunteers in the Lake Washington Watershed were returnees (42.45 percent). Although the number of volunteers in the watershed did not increase substantially from 1999 to 2000, the proportion of returning volunteers increased by approximately 11 percent. This higher percentage of returning volunteers in 2000 may or may not increase the reliability of accurate species identifications.

Stream surveying could not possibly occur 24 hours a day; therefore, it is possible that observations of fish did not occur that might have extended the uppermost limits of known distributions. Also, adult salmon might migrate more during the night (Brannon and Salo 1982) when volunteers do not observe. Streams were surveyed at different frequencies, by different numbers of volunteers, for different durations, over different portions of the spawning season, and by observers with varying degrees of observation skills. Additionally, conditions were not always favorable for sighting fish: fish may have been difficult to see from banks or bridges; fish can hide around bends or under vegetation; volunteers cannot constantly be at a site to see every fish going by; and fish may pass unnoticed while the volunteer is observing. High flows, turbid water, and glare make fish observation difficult. Some species, such as coho, move upstream to their spawning locations very quickly immediately after it rains and may not have been seen lower in a system at all. Other species may be very difficult to distinguish from one another, such as sockeye and kokanee. Although training sessions are thorough, identification materials are provided, and technical experts are available for help with identification, some misidentifications will occur.

As stated in the Introduction, there are two primary goals of the Salmon Watcher Program: to expand local agencies’ knowledge of the distribution of spawning salmon in the region and to actively engage the public in doing something helpful for the streams in their watershed. The benefits of the program associated with these two goals are discussed below.

Individuals, citizen’s groups, non-profit organizations, and government agencies all use data from the Salmon Watcher Program for various reasons. An informal survey was conducted after distributing the 1998/1999 Salmon Watcher Program report to learn how different people use the data. Recipients, both private citizens and public agency personnel, were asked how they have used the data in the Salmon Watcher reports.

Some people representing government agencies reported using the Salmon Watcher Program’s data, often in conjunction with other data, for the following reasons:

• to identify which streams fish are using
• to figure out when the fish first appeared in a system
• to interpret to the general public the species present in streams and watersheds in various county parks
• for use in education programs (for example, Stream Connection) with school students to accurately portray life in the stream/system they are studying
• to inform park employees about species present in waters within the park they manage and maintain
• to check for fish presence at streams where CIP projects were constructed to determine, for example, after a fish barrier is removed, if fish are present in the newly accessible reach
• to help with biological assessments where CIP projects are proposed
• to protect salmon habitat on private properties by sharing information with landowners
• for salmon/fish habitat inventories, to create a map of existing and potential fish habitat
• to identify problem areas that may need special protection with new development and redevelopment (such as an increased level of detention or water quality)
• for public education¾ to let the public know why we need to protect streams ("actual" fish sightings have more of an impact than the "possibility" of fish)
• for information on the need for stream protection and enhancement
• for use in combination with other factors to assess the "health" of some streams
• to help find out where fish are not being observed
• to see if fish are being reported in large numbers in places not surveyed regularly by another agency
• to help define upstream distribution of fish
• for spawner information in the WRIA 8 Habitat Factors of Decline Report
• for an opportunity for volunteers, instead of government, to do public outreach on salmon issues

Salmon Watcher volunteers also reported using data from the program for a variety of reasons. One watcher said she used the data to encourage the continued support of city council members for water conservation, and another said she used it for background for court testimony on the daylighting of a creek. One volunteer has shared the report with people in her environmental classes at UW at Bothell, as well as sharing it with elementary school students. The same volunteer has laminated one of the fish distribution maps and posted it in the school next to a salmon display. She found that visiting adults pay more attention when they can see maps with real data from streams in their areas and the kids are especially excited when they can see that there have been salmon spotted near their homes. One citizen said the report is a great reaffirmation of the work that they are volunteering for.

In addition to identifying the distribution of spawning salmon in the Lake Washington Watershed, the volunteers, by virtue of their frequent presence along streams, often end up accomplishing more than their charge. For example, volunteers sometimes help identify problem stream blockages, potential restoration sites, and potential illegal dumping or poor land use practices. They become the eyes and ears of the streams and may report illegal fishing, fish kills, and other discouraged activities taking place in or near streams. Volunteers are encouraged to report this information immediately so the appropriate parties can respond as quickly as possible.

During the 2000 season, volunteers reported a strange green color in a North Lake Washington creek (it was checked out immediately and determined to be from dye testing, a fully legal process of investigation); a blockage on a Cedar River tributary; hand-built "dams" in Cedar River Basin streams; and logs blocking some culverts. Additionally, one volunteer chased away two boys firing a pellet gun into the stream at fish, and the same volunteer reported more than one incidence of illegal fishing practices in the Cedar River. A volunteer in Cottage Lake Creek talked to two people about not riding their horses in the stream. A Salmon Watcher on Taylor Creek in the Cedar River Basin discovered a miss-placed Remote Site Incubator, which was brought to the attention of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); the WDFW is taking measure to correct this type of miss-placement of resources. And a volunteer in the Hylebos Creek program prevented a family from "fishing" for chinook with baseball bats and golf clubs.

The Lake Washington Watershed study area has been broken into eight basins for the purpose of analysis and discussion. Salmonids were observed in all basins surveyed in 2000 except the West Lake Sammamish Basin (in which only Vasa Creek was watched).

Sockeye were observed in the greatest numbers in the Cedar River Basin and that basin, consequently, had the most fish observed in the Lake Washington Watershed. Sockeye were observed in the second highest numbers in Bear Creek Basin, and that basin had the second most fish observed. Chinook were observed in the highest numbers in the Bear Creek Basin. Coho were observed in the highest numbers in Issaquah Creek Basin. Kokanee were seen in the highest numbers in North Lake Washington tributaries. No adult spawners were observed in 25 streams surveyed, including Denny Creek, Coal Creek, Valley Creek, Walsh Lake Diversion, and some tributaries to larger streams such as Cottage Lake Creek, Rock Creek, Taylor Creek, and the Sammamish River.

It is difficult to compare the Salmon Watcher data from year to year because many variables in the observer methods exist between years:

• number of surveys in a stream
• survey locations along a stream
• the number of surveys at a site
• streams surveyed in a basin
• time of day spent observing
• survey frequency
• level of experience of observers
• type of survey (some surveys in 1996 were walking surveys)
• time spent at a given location
• and beginning and ending dates of surveys

Because most or all of these parameters are different for every stream surveyed from 1996 through 2000, comparisons of raw data likely would not yield valid information about changes in populations. Therefore, the best use for the data is in determining presence of fish and mapping fish distribution. In the following discussion, distributions of salmonid species based solely upon volunteer Salmon Watcher data are discussed. When known fish distributions from Salmon Watcher data have been expanded based upon 2000 data, it is mentioned here. Figures 14 to 17 at the end of this section depict these fish distributions.

No sites in Big Bear Creek Basin were placed further upstream than sites watched in previous years. Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Big Bear Creek as far as RM 9.25. Sockeye and chinook were observed at the upstream-most site on Big Bear Creek. Sockeye and chinook had been seen to this point in previous years’ surveys. Kokanee were observed in Big Bear Creek up to RM 6.0.

Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Cottage Lake Creek as far as RM 2.2. Kokanee were observed in Cottage Lake Creek up to RM 1.6. Sites were also observed on Daniel’s Creek and Tributary 0127, both of which are upstream of Cottage Lake Creek. Sockeye and chinook were observed at the upstream-most site on Cottage Lake Creek, but not in Daniel’s Creek or Tributary 0127. Sockeye and chinook had been seen to this point in previous years’ surveys.

Coho were observed in Cottage Lake Creek, Mackey Creek, and in an unnamed tributary to Big Bear Creek, and they had been observed at these sites in previous years. Coho were not observed in Big Bear Creek in 2000.

Only one site in the Cedar River Basin was watched further upstream than in previous years—site 403 at RM 0.4 on an unnamed tributary to the Cedar River. This unnamed tributary had not been observed by Salmon Watchers in previous years. Coho and sockeye were both observed at this new site.

Sockeye were seen at every site in the Cedar River that was observed in 2000. The upstream-most site watched in 2000 was Cavanaugh Pond at RM 6.4. Sockeye have been observed in Cavanaugh Pond every year of the Salmon Watcher Program. Chinook were observed in the Cedar River by volunteers as far upstream as the Jones Rd. bridge at RM 5.3, which is not as far as they had to traverse to get to Rock Creek.

Chinook were observed in Rock Creek for the first time during the Salmon Watcher Program; they were observed at site 154, RM 0.4. Coho and sockeye were both also observed in Rock Creek; they were observed as far as the upstream-most survey site at RM 1.6.

Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Taylor Creek as far upstream as RM 1.8. Coho were observed at RM 1.2 in Taylor Creek; in previous years they have been seen as far upstream as RM 2.4. Sockeye have also been observed as far upstream as RM 2.4 in previous years. In 2000 they were seen at the upstream most site at RM 1.8.

Only one site in the East Lake Washington Basin was watched further upstream than in previous years—-site 409 on Kelsey Creek. Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Kelsey Creek as far upstream as RM 6.3. Chinook and sockeye were observed in Kelsey Creek up to RM 3. Coho were observed in Kelsey Creek up to RM 2.4.

May Creek was viewed at four sites, as far upstream as RM 1.3. Sockeye were observed at the upstream most site in May Creek, as well as the other three sites in the stream. Chinook and coho were both observed in May Creek as far upstream as site 432, RM 0.5.

Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed West Trib Kelsey Creek as far as RM 1, but no salmonids were reported at either site in this stream. Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Valley Creek as far as RM 0.8, but no salmonids were reported at any of the three sites watched in this stream. Coal Creek was only observed at site 46, RM 0.8, and no fish were observed. No adult spawners were observed in Cochran Springs Creek, Boren Creek, Yarrow Creek, or Forbes Creek.

Only four sites were observed in 2000 in the Issaquah Creek Basin and no sites were placed further upstream than sites watched in previous years. Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Issaquah Creek as far upstream as RM 5.8, where chinook, coho, and sockeye were all observed. Tibbetts Creek and East Fork Issaquah Creek were both observed in one location (RM 0.2 and RM 3.2, respectively) and sockeye were seen in both.

Two sites in the North Lake Washington Tributaries were on streams that has not been observed previously—-site 427 at the mouth of Lyon Creek and site 430 on Little Brook Creek. Sockeye were observed in Lyon Creek. No salmonids were observed in Little Brook Creek.

Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Thornton Creek further upstream in 2000 than in previous years—they watched as far as RM 5, north of Twin Ponds Park (site 416). The only fish seen at this site were trout and unidentified species, which is not surprising because the culvert at Lake City Way is considered to be an impassable fish barrier (Reed pers. comm.). The next most upstream site watched on Thornton Creek was at RM 1.3, where sockeye were observed for the first time in the Salmon Watcher Program. Coho were seen as far upstream as RM 1.2, and chinook were reported at RM 0.2. Maple Leaf Creek, a tributary to Thornton Creek, was observed up to RM 0.7. The only fish seen in Maple Leaf Creek in 2000 were unidentified species at RM 0.2.

Three sites were observed in McAleer Creek in 2000. The upstream-most site was RM 1.6. Coho, sockeye, and chinook were all seen as far as RM 1.1.

Kokanee were viewed in Juanita Creek and Totem Lake Tributary for the first time during the Salmon Watcher Program. In Juanita Creek they were observed at site 196, RM 1.4. In Totem Lake Tributary they were seen at site 424, RM 0.1. Sockeye were also observed further upstream in Juanita Creek than in previous years of the Salmon Watcher Program: they were seen as far as RM 1.4.

Only one site in the Sammamish River Tributaries was watched further upstream than in previous years—site 413 on Cutthroat Creek. Cutthroat Creek had not been observed by Salmon Watchers in previous years. Coho were observed in Cutthroat Creek, thereby extending the known coho distribution as observed by Salmon Watchers.

Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed North Creek as far upstream as RM 7.9, where no fish were observed. Sockeye were found at RM 6.6, the second-most upstream site watched; this sighting extends the distribution of sockeye, as observed by Salmon Watchers, by approximately 3.6 river miles. Chinook were observed by volunteers in North Creek up to RM 1.8. Kokanee were observed in North Creek up to RM 2.1.

Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Little Bear Creek as far upstream as RM 4.5, where coho were observed further upstream than in previous years of the Salmon Watcher Program. Previously they had only been observed up to RM 1.9; this new sighting extends the coho distribution in Little Bear Creek based upon Salmon Watchers by 2.6 river miles. Sockeye were also seen at the upstream-most site in Little Bear Creek, as well as the other four sites watched in that stream. Kokanee were observed at RM 1.9.

Salmon Watcher volunteers viewed Swamp Creek as far upstream as RM 10.9. The only location out of five sites along Swamp Creek that fish were observed was at RM 0.3. Kokanee were seen in Swamp Creek for the first time during the Salmon Watcher program; they were observed at site 34, at RM 0.3. Sockeye and coho were also observed at this location.

Only one site in the West Lake Sammamish Basin was watched further upstream than in previous years—site 423 on tributary 0143 to Lake Sammamish. Tributary 0143 had not been observed by Salmon Watchers in previous years. Sockeye and unidentified species were both observed at this new site.

The only other site observed in the West Lake Sammamish Basin in 2000 was at RM 0.5 in Vasa Creek. No adult spawners were observed in Vasa Creek.

No sites in the East Lake Sammamish Basin were placed further upstream than sites watched in previous years, and in fact, only one site was watched in this basin—on Laughing Jacobs Creek. Laughing Jacobs Creek was watched at its mouth and kokanee were observed at this site.

Salmon Watcher Program volunteers recorded observations of all salmonid fish located during surveys, including chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, kokanee (resident form of sockeye), steelhead trout, and general trout (which may have been cutthroat or rainbow or steelhead). Most trout were not identified to species because, with the exception of sea-run coastal cutthroat and steelhead, they are not anadromous species, and because differentiating between them in the field is extremely difficult. The ratios of all fish observed, including unidentified fish, is depicted in Figure 13.

Of the 52 streams surveyed in 2000, sockeye were found in 21 streams. Coho were found in 24 streams, chinook in 13 streams, kokanee were observed in 8 streams, and trout were reported in 12 streams.

Sockeye was by far the most abundant species counted by volunteers (Figure 13). Coho was the second most commonly observed species. The third most commonly observed species was chinook, followed in order of decreasing counts by kokanee and trout.

If a volunteer was unable to positively identify a fish species, the fish was tallied as "unidentified" (reporting a fish as unidentified was preferable to falsely identifying a species). Out of the 20,157 total adult fish observed in 2000, 367 were unidentified (1.82%). Unidentified adult salmonids were counted in 28 streams. Volunteers made note of unidentified fry and/or juveniles in 30 streams, though it is probable they were present at more sites and not noted.

Chinook were observed in 6 basins in the 2000 surveys (Figure 14). A total of 181 live fish and 32 carcasses were found in 11 streams throughout the Lake Washington Watershed (in order of most to least fish seen): Cottage Lake Creek, Sammamish River, Big Bear Creek, Issaquah Creek, McAleer Creek, Cedar River, May Creek, Thornton Creek, Rock Creek, North Creek, and Kelsey Creek.

Sockeye were by far the most numerous fish counted by volunteers. Sockeye were observed in 6 basins (Figure 15). A total of 13,665 live fish and 5325 carcasses were found in 21streams (in order of most to least fish seen): Cedar River, Big Bear Creek, Rock Creek, North Creek, Cottage Lake Creek, Little Bear Creek, East Fork Issaquah Creek, Taylor Creek, Sammamish River, Issaquah Creek, May Creek, McAleer Creek, an unnamed tributary to the Cedar River, Juanita Creek, Kelsey Creek, Lyon Creek, Thornton Creek, trib 0143 to Lake Sammamish, Swamp Creek, West Trib Kelsey Creek, and Tibbetts Creek.

Coho were observed in 6 basins (Figure 16). A total of 425 live fish and 39 carcasses were found in 17 streams (in order of most to least fish seen): Issaquah Creek, Big Bear Creek, Mackey Creek, Rock Creek, Sammamish River, Little Bear Creek, McAleer Creek, trib to Big Bear Creek, Cottage Lake Creek, Thornton Creek, Swamp Creek, Cutthroat Creek, May Creek, Kelsey Creek, Richards Creek, Taylor Creek, and an unnamed tributary to the Cedar River.

Kokanee, although not anadromous, are of interest to regional fisheries managers because their numbers appear to be significantly depressed from historic levels. Kokanee were observed in 4 basins (Figure 17). A total of 87 live fish and 0 carcasses were found in 8 streams (in order of most to least fish seen): Laughing Jacobs Creek, Juanita Creek, Totem Lake Tributary 0235, Cottage Lake Creek, Big Bear Creek, North Creek, Little Bear Creek, and Swamp Creek. When reviewing kokanee observations, it should be remembered that differentiating between large kokanee and small sockeye is sometimes difficult.

Salmon Watcher volunteers were taught to differentiate between cutthroat, rainbow, and steelhead trout, but when processing data, any counts of these fish are lumped into "trout." Trout were reported in 9 streams in 4 basins. Trout may have been cutthroat or rainbow trout, or possibly steelhead (though some volunteers differentiated between steelhead and other trout, and these observations are likely accurate based upon location and time of year). Typically, trout were not identified to species because, with the exception of sea-run coastal cutthroat and steelhead, they are not anadromous species, and because differentiating between them in the field is very difficult.

Two chum were reported in Mercer Slough; this unusual sighting was not verified in person by a fish biologist, but the volunteer was able to describe the appearance and behavior of the fish to a biologist, who concluded the fish were chum. Fish of unidentified species were observed throughout the watershed in both years. Cottage Lake Creek and the Cedar River, and consequently Big Bear Creek Basin and the Cedar River Basin, had the most unidentified species reported.

Some past recommendations have been implemented as part of the program (e.g., earlier training sessions and contact persons for help with fish identification). Other ongoing recommendations remain listed below along with new recommendations for future spawning seasons:

• Target areas with special research needs and try to recruit volunteers for those areas.
• Establish new sites every year above places where fish have already been identified to expand the knowledge of distribution.
• Suggest that volunteers begin survey efforts earlier in successive years if they previously started at a time when fish were already found to be present.
• Similarly, ask volunteers to continue surveying as long as fish are present (except for trout, which may be present year-round).