WHITE SALMON RIVER WATERSHED

Transcription

1 ADDENDUM TO WIND / WHITE SALMON WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 29 SALMONID HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS ANALYSIS (Originally Issued July 1999) WHITE SALMON RIVER WATERSHED Washington Conservation Commission Donald Haring April, 2003

2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR DUPLEX PRINTING 2

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completion of this report would not have been possible without the support and cooperation of the White Salmon River Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and other contributors. Many of the contributors are members of the White Salmon River Technical Advisory Committee, which was already established and actively working towards salmonid habitat restoration and recovery in the White Salmon River watershed prior to initiation of this effort. Their expertise and familiarity with the sub-watersheds within the White Salmon River watershed, and their interest and willingness to share their knowledge, allowed us to complete this report in a very abbreviated timeframe. The TAC participants and other contributors included: Brady Allen Brian Bair Charly Boyd Bengt Coffin Pat Connolly Carl Dugger Brook Geffen Dave Howard Ian Jezorak Liz Kinne Brooke LeBlanc Gail Miller Greg Morris Rozalind Plumb Betsy Scott Frank Shrier Steve Stampfli Gary Wade Jim White U.S. Geological Survey U.S Forest Service Skamania County U.S Forest Service U.S. Geological Survey Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Underwood Conservation District Washington Department of Ecology U.S. Geological Survey Mid-Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PacifiCorp Yakama Nation Underwood Conservation District U.S. Forest Service PacifiCorp Underwood Conservation District Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Underwood Conservation District In addition, comments on the review draft were received from the following individuals/organizations: Bill Anderson Frank Backus Jack Bloxom Stephen Kelly Chris Lipton Sherry Penney Rich Potter Jerry Smith, et al. Landowner on Buck Creek SDS Lumber Company Mt. Adams Orchards/Underwood Fruit Landowner on Spring Creek Longview Fibre Underwood Conservation District Board of Supervisors Campbell Group Husum/BZ Corner Community Council I extend particular appreciation to several individuals and groups. Special thanks to Underwood Conservation District for facilitating and hosting the TAC meeting on January 23, for providing access to many of the watershed reference materials, and for acting as liaison with the TAC members and other interested individuals. 3

4 I thank those TAC participants who contributed a great amount of time and effort in reviewing report drafts and providing comments that improved the content, accuracy, and readability of the report. Their contributions were critical to the thoroughness, accuracy, and completion of the report, and are greatly appreciated. In addition, special thanks to Ron McFarlane (Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC)) for preparation of the GIS maps included in this report. I also express thanks to Carol Smith for providing the text included in the Role of Healthy Habitat chapter, Devin Smith (NWIFC) for coordinating the development of the Habitat Condition Rating Criteria, Kurt Fresh (WDFW) for developing much of the language in the Introduction chapter and for providing technical assistance to all of the Regional Technical Coordinators, and to Ed Manary for coordinating the Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis process and providing the extensive resources and support necessary to complete these reports. Completion of this report was truly a collaborative effort. Unfortunately, the extent and variety of contributions cannot be adequately captured in the authorship reference for this report. 4

5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT The following list provides a guide to acronyms and abbreviations used in this report: cfs CW CWA dbh EF ESA FERC GLO HCP LB LWD m MF mi mi 2 NF NPPC NWIFC RB RM SASSI SF SPTH SSHIAP TAC TAG UCD USFS WADNR WDF WDFW WDW WF WRIA WWTIT yd 3 yr cubic feet per second (a measure of water flow) Channel width Clean Water Act diameter breast height (measurement of tree diameter) East Fork Endangered Species Act Federal Energy Regulatory Commission General Land Office Habitat Conservation Plan Left Bank (looking downstream) Large Woody Debris meter Middle Fork mile square miles North Fork Northwest Power Planning Council Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Right Bank (looking downstream) River Mile Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory South Fork Site Potential Tree Height Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory Assessment Project White Salmon River Technical Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Group Underwood Conservation District U.S. Forest Service Washington State Department of Natural Resources Washington Department of Fisheries (predecessor to WDFW) Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Wildlife (predecessor to WDFW) West Fork Water Resource Inventory Area Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes cubic yards year 5

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... 3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT... 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS... 6 LIST OF TABLES... 8 LIST OF FIGURES... 9 LIST OF MAPS...10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE RELATIVE ROLE OF HABITAT IN HEALTHY POPULATIONS OF NATURAL SPAWNING SALMON INTRODUCTION Discussion of Habitat Limiting Factor Elements WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Location and Watershed Characteristics Climate/Hydrology Geology Land Use (excerpts from Stampfli 1994, except as noted) DISTRIBUTION AND CONDITION OF SALMON, STEELHEAD, AND BULL TROUT/DOLLY VARDEN STOCKS General Salmonid Distribution Spring Chinook Fall Chinook Chum Pink Coho Summer Steelhead and Winter Steelhead Char (Bull Trout/DollyVarden) Resident Trout HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS BY SUB-WATERSHED General Habitat Elements Included in this Analysis of Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors by the Washington State Conservation Commission: Watershed Discussions White Salmon River Lower White Salmon River Upper White Salmon River Spring Creek Little Buck Creek

7 Mill Creek Buck Creek Spring Creek Rattlesnake Creek, Indian Creek, Mill Creek Cave Creek, Bear Creek Trout Lake Creek Gilmer Creek Gotchen Creek ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS Salmonid Habitat Concerns...73 Habitat Condition Rating Habitat Restoration Potential HABITAT NEEDING PROTECTION DATA GAPS BIBLIOGRAPHY/LITERATURE CITED APPENDICES APPENDIX A WHITE SALMON RIVER WATERSHED SALMONID DISTRIBUTION APPENDIX B SALMONID HABITAT CONDITION RATING STANDARDS FOR IDENTIFYING LIMITING FACTORS

8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: White Salmon River Watershed Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull trout/dolly Varden Stock Designations and Associated Endangered Species Act Status Table 2: White Salmon River watershed overall ownership by subbasin (from Stampfli 1994) 32 Table 3: Potential production estimates for anadromous salmonids in the White Salmon River upstream of Condit Dam (Dam to RM 16.2)(from Bair et al. 2002) Table 4: Comparison of historical (September 1882) and current fish habitat conditions for streams in the Cave-Bear watershed (from USFS 1997) Table 5: Stream survey data comparison to the Hood-Wind RNC (from USFS 1996) Table 6: Specific stream reaches with identified habitat concerns (from USFS 1996)...69 Table 7: Percent early and late seral conditions in riparian reserves in Trout Lake Creek subwatersheds (from USFS 1996) Table 8: Assessment of Habitat Limiting Factors for Salmonid-Bearing Watersheds within White Salmon River Watershed Table 9: Salmonid support data for White Salmon River watershed salmonid species distribution maps

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of the White Salmon River (east WRIA 29) in Washington State Figure 2: Location of the White Salmon River watershed in Washington State Figure 3: Length of LWD sampled by Yakama Nation in lower Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama nation) Figure 4: Diameter of LWD sampled by Yakama Nation in lower Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama Nation) Figure 5: Length of LWD sampled by Yakama Nation in middle Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama Nation) Figure 6: Diameter of LWD sampled by Yakama Nation in middle Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama Nation) Figure 7: Pebble counts sampled by Yakama Nation in lower Rattlesnake Creek Figure 8: Pebble counts sampled by Yakama Nation in Middle Rattlesnake Creek

10 LIST OF MAPS (included in separate Maps file with this report) Map 1: White Salmon River Watershed - Combined Anadromous Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout/Dolly Varden, and Resident Trout Distribution Map 2: White Salmon River Watershed Spring Chinook Salmon Distribution Map 3: White Salmon River Watershed Fall Chinook Salmon Distribution Map 4: White Salmon River Watershed Coho Salmon Distribution Map 5: White Salmon River Watershed Summer Steelhead Distribution Map 6: White Salmon River Watershed Winter Steelhead Distribution Map 7: White Salmon River Watershed - Bull Tout/Dolly Varden Distribution Map 8: White Salmon River Watershed Resident Trout Distribution 10

11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 10 of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2496 (Salmon Recovery Act of 1998), directs the Washington State Conservation Commission, in consultation with local government and treaty tribes to invite private, federal, state, tribal, and local government personnel with appropriate expertise to convene as a Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The purpose of the TAG is to identify limiting factors for salmonids. [Note: The existing White Salmon Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was utilized as the TAG for this report.] Limiting factors are defined as conditions that limit the ability of habitat to fully sustain populations of salmon, including all species of the family Salmonidae. It is important to note that the charge to the Conservation Commission in ESHB 2496 does not constitute a full limiting factors analysis. A full habitat limiting factors analysis would require extensive additional scientific studies for each of the subwatersheds. Analysis of hatchery, hydro, and harvest impacts would also be inherent components of a comprehensive limiting factors analysis; these elements are not addressed in this report, but will be considered in other forums. This report is an addendum to the WRIA 29 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis report released by the Washington Conservation Commission in 1999 (Cowan 1999). Due to the presence of Condit Dam at river mile (RM) 3.3, anadromous salmonid production potential in the White Salmon River watershed was considered to be limited to the extent that a salmonid habitat limiting factors analysis would be of little benefit. However, with the determination by PacifiCorp that continued operation of Condit Dam would be uneconomical given the constraints imposed by relicensing, and the resulting potential to restore anadromous salmonid access upstream of Condit Dam, there is renewed interest in analyzing salmonid habitat conditions and production potential in the White Salmon River watershed. The textual components of this report should be considered as complementary to the 1999 report. However, the salmonid species distribution maps included with this report are based on improved information, and the distribution maps in this report supercede the White Salmon River watershed fish distribution identified in the 1999 report. Revised fish distribution maps have also been prepared for the Wind River and other anadromous salmonid producing streams in WRIA 29; contact the WDFW SSHIAP coordinators for further information. The White Salmon River originates in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in south central Washington along the south slope of Mt. Adams in Skamania and Klickitat counties (NPPC 2000 Draft). It flows south for 45 miles before entering the Columbia River (Bonneville reservoir) in Underwood, Washington at River Mile (RM) 167 (see location of watershed in Figure 1). The White Salmon River watershed drains approximately 386 mi 2 (250,459 acres); the length of the White Salmon River mainstem is approximately 45 miles. Principal tributaries include Trout Lake, Buck, Mill, and Rattlesnake creeks. Elevations in the watershed range from the confluence with the Columbia River (80 feet) to the headwaters on the slopes of Mt. Adams. The White Salmon River currently supports anadromous salmonid production downstream of Condit Dam, and resident trout throughout the watershed. The status of identified salmon, steelhead, and bull trout/dolly Varden stocks in the White Salmon River watershed is shown in Table 1; more detailed information on the stocks can be found in the Distribution and Condition of Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout/Dolly Varden chapter. Known and presumed distribution of anadromous salmonids, bull trout/dolly Varden, and resident trout are shown on the individual species maps included in the separate Maps file directory with this report, and supporting data in Appendix A. Resident trout distribution extent information was taken directly from the federal watershed analyses for the upper watershed. 11

12 Figure 1: Location of the White Salmon River (east WRIA 29) in Washington State Table 1: White Salmon River Watershed Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull trout/dolly Varden Stock Designations and Associated Endangered Species Act Status Stock Salmonid Stock Inventory Status Not Recognized ESA Listing Status White Salmon Spring Chinook White Salmon Tule Fall Chinook Depressed Threatened White Salmon Bright Fall Chinook Healthy White Salmon Summer Steelhead Depressed Threatened White Salmon Winter Steelhead Depressed Threatened White Salmon Bull Trout/Dolly Varden Unknown Threatened Coastal Cutthroat Unknown Candidate White Salmon Coho Not Recognized Candidate White Salmon Chum Not Recognized Not Recognized White Salmon Pink Not Recognized 12

13 Climatic patterns in the White Salmon watershed are controlled by marine-influenced air masses from the Pacific Ocean and continental air masses from eastern Washington (NPPC 2000 Draft). Winters are usually wet and mild, while summers are warm and dry. Approximately 75% of the precipitation is delivered in the form of rainfall or snow between October and March. Average precipitation along the eastern portion of the watershed equals 40 inches per year, increasing to as much as 95 inches per year in the western and northern portions of the watershed. Streamflows in the tributaries in the watershed range from summer low flows to peak flows in the winter (NPPC 2000 Draft). Some tributaries only flow during high flow events and are dry the remainder of the year. Peak flows in the mainstem White Salmon River are generated by snowmelt runoff and occur in the spring, increasing from an average daily flow of 644 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the fall to flows of 1,538 cfs during the spring. The flow pattern on the White Salmon River mainstem is relatively constant due to its glacial origin, large water recharge potential, and storage capacity. Recharge water is released mostly in the middle portion of the mainstem canyon between Trout Lake Valley and Husum. The largest stream flows typically occur in response to rain-on-snow events, when heavy rains combine with high air temperatures and high winds to cause widespread snowmelt. Low flows are maintained on the mainstem by late season snowmelt and areas of water retention or recharge. Data included in this report include formal habitat inventories or studies specifically directed at evaluating fish habitat, other watershed data not specifically associated with fish habitat evaluation, personal experience and observations of the watershed experts who participated in the TAC, and comments submitted by watershed residents and land managers. The analysis of habitat conditions in the White Salmon River watershed and associated action recommendations are based on these data. Although many of the habitat data/observations in this report may not meet the highest scientific standard of peer reviewed literature, they should nevertheless be considered as valid, as they are based on the collective experience of the watershed experts who are actively working in these drainages. Although there are a number of past studies and reports on these watersheds, there are a number of salmonid habitat data gaps remaining, which will require additional specific watershed research or evaluation. Although some of the historic actions that led to the dramatic decline in salmonid presence in the White Salmon River watershed have ceased or been reduced, and significant restoration efforts have been implemented to address some of these elements, there are numerous habitat-related problems remaining through the watershed that continue to limit salmonid productivity potential. The occurrence and severity of habitat limiting factors varies among watersheds within the White Salmon River watershed and among reaches within individual subwatersheds. Combined, these limiting factors significantly reduce the salmonid productivity potential of these rivers and streams. Initial significant impacts date back to early European settlement (mid to late-1800s). Subsequent land use modifications (including hydropower development, agriculture, and logging) have adversely impacted the quantity and quality of salmonid habitat, and accessibility to habitat in these rivers and streams. Current habitat conditions have even been compromised by past well-intended actions to improve habitat, such as removal of large woody debris (LWD) and beaver dams to ensure fish passage, activities that are now known to have been very detrimental to habitat quality and diversity. Perhaps the largest single impact to anadromous salmonids in the White Salmon River watershed was the construction of Condit Dam at RM 3.3 in 1913, which blocked upstream anadromous access to all species, and specifically precluded access to 70% of the historical summer steelhead 13

14 habitat in the watershed (WDF and WDW 1993). In addition, presence of the dam interrupted natural sediment and LWD transport to the limited remaining anadromous habitat downstream of the dam. Due to the presence of the dam, and lack of upstream and downstream fish passage, the White Salmon watershed has received only limited consideration for protection or restoration of salmonid habitat. The determination by FERC that fish passage is a required element of dam relicensing has renewed active interest in restoring anadromous salmonid habitat conditions upstream of the dam, and also appears to have renewed attention and interest in habitat restoration in the resident salmonid portions of the upper watershed. Another key fish passage concern in the watershed (e.g., Buck Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Trout Lake Creek, Cave Creek, upper White Salmon River) is the lack of screening on irrigation diversions to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids into the diversions, where they are likely to perish. The salmonid mortality associated with irrigation diversions has not been assessed, but is believed to be significant. Other key salmonid habitat concerns include the flooding and inundation of the low-gradient, historically highly productive lower mile of the White Salmon River (resulting from the construction of Bonneville Dam); lack of instream habitat diversity and impaired riparian function through much of the watershed; high water temperatures in many of the tributaries; and altered floodplain function and lack of surface flow in some of the tributaries. Instream habitat diversity is impaired throughout most of the watershed, except in the upper extents of some of the smaller tributaries. The lack of diversity appears to be primarily associated with a lack of functional LWD, particularly in tributaries to the White Salmon River. Although there is certainly evidence of loss of LWD from the mainstem White Salmon River, there is substantial habitat diversity in the mainstem associated with boulders and bedrock pools; the level of historical LWD presence and the associated influence on habitat conditions, particularly in the canyon reach of the White Salmon River, is uncertain (Morris). The loss of LWD in the mainstem probably dates to the early 1900s when most instream logjams were actively removed to facilitate splash damming and log drives from the upper mainstem through the watershed to the mouth of the White Salmon. The lack of LWD in many of the tributaries (e.g., Rattlesnake Creek) appears to be associated primarily with past logging practices, agricultural/grazing land management, and active removal by landowners. At the same time and up through the early 1980s, timber harvests typically removed trees to the edge of the river and tributaries, eliminating the potential for recruitment of new LWD. In addition, due to the high energy of the mainstem White Salmon River, it will take large key piece LWD to form new logjams, and there is little if any wood of this size remaining in riparian areas. LWD that does recruit to the mainstem reach between BZ Corner and Husum is typically actively removed by recreational rafters. Riparian regeneration is naturally occurring on commercial forest and USFS lands, and some active riparian restoration efforts have occurred (e.g., Rattlesnake Creek) in recent years, but it will be some time before there is significant natural recruitment of functional key piece LWD within much of the watershed. However, riparian restoration is critical to restoring future salmonid productivity potential. The loss/removal of LWD resulted in additional associated consequences, particularly in tributaries, such as Rattlesnake Creek. The lack of LWD resulted in a loss of substrate roughness, increased flow energy resulting in washout of limited streambed gravels, increased bank erosion, and channel incision. This in turn reduced floodplain connectivity, and may have reduced summer baseflows. The mainstem White Salmon River is blessed with excellent flows and water temperatures yearround. The majority of flow is from glacial melt runoff and/or from springs and seeps from the porous basalts that are present through much of the watershed. Coupled with the location of much of the White Salmon River in a deeply incised canyon, water temperatures in the mainstem remain cold throughout the year. However, salmonid productivity potential is likely impaired in several of 14

15 the major tributaries (e.g., Rattlesnake Creek, Trout Lake Creek) by water temperatures that exceed the state water quality standard of 18 o C, and which may exceed 20 o C for extended periods of time in the summer. However, there are many springs and ground water refugia areas in many of the tributaries which provide micro-habitat for fish in and throughout summer (Morris). High water temperatures may be exacerbated by irrigation diversions (surface water and pump) that reduce instream flows downstream of the diversions; the effects of irrigation diversions on instream flow and associated water temperatures have not been assessed. Salmonid productivity upstream of Condit Dam has also likely been impaired by loss of marinederived nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorous) from salmon carcasses that have been documented to provide an important nutrient source to oligotrophic waters and riparian areas. Restoration of anadromous access upstream of Condit Dam will restore this important habitat element over time. Prioritized habitat action recommendations are provided for each stream in which salmonid presence has been identified, following the discussion of identified salmonid habitat concerns. Those action recommendations at the top of the list are considered to provide greater restoration benefit potential than those towards the bottom of the list, or those on the top of the list may need to be done first to better ensure the effectiveness of those further down the list. The TAC did not prioritize or rank between watersheds on the basis of salmonid productivity potential resulting from habitat restoration. There is general support for the tenets of 1) protect the best remaining habitat, 2) restore those habitat areas that are still functioning, and 3) restore severely impaired nonfunctioning habitat where feasible. However, strict adherence to these tenets may preclude consideration of high benefit restoration projects in certain watersheds. Habitat restoration projects should be reviewed on their own merits, and the projects prioritized/ranked on the basis of their anticipated benefit to protecting/restoring salmonid production. Habitat protection/ restoration project proposal ranking should consider whether the project addresses the cause of an identified habitat limiting factor, where the project type ranks in the prioritized action recommendations list for that stream, how the project complements other protection/restoration actions, and how the project complements identified habitats needing protection. Project ranking should also consider projects where willing landowners and partnerships can increase the effectiveness/efficiency of the restoration project. Habitat conditions vary between different reaches of a stream; restoration proposals should consider the potential benefits of the proposal in relation to habitat conditions likely to be encountered elsewhere in the watershed. Protection/restoration of salmonid resources cannot be accomplished by watershed habitat restoration projects alone. It is unlikely that we will be able to resolve the salmon predicament using the same land management approaches that got us into it. We will need to look at the watershed with a clear new vision. Salmonid recovery will require a combination of efforts, including: land use regulations alone will not be effective; habitat restoration and resource protection will also require landowner commitment, participation, and stewardship revision, implementation, and enforcement of land use ordinances that provide protection for natural ecological processes in the instream, and riparian corridors protection of instream and riparian habitat that is currently functioning, particularly key habitat areas, and restoration of natural instream and riparian ecological processes where they have been impaired. 15

16 This report provides information that can and should be used in the development of salmonid habitat protection and restoration strategies. It should be considered a living document, with additional habitat assessment data and habitat restoration successes incorporated as information becomes available. 16

17 THE RELATIVE ROLE OF HABITAT IN HEALTHY POPULATIONS OF NATURAL SPAWNING SALMON During the last 10,000 years, Washington State salmon populations have evolved in their specific habitats (Miller, 1965). Water chemistry, flow, and the physical stream components unique to each stream have helped shape the characteristics of each salmon population, which has resulted in a wide variety of distinct salmon stocks for each salmon species throughout the State. Within a given species, stocks are units that do not extensively interbreed because returning adults rely on a stream s unique chemical characteristics to guide them to their natal grounds to spawn. This maintains the separation of stocks during reproduction, thus maintaining the distinctiveness of each stock. Throughout the salmon s life cycle, the dependence between the stream and a stock continues. Adults spawn in areas near their own origin because survival favors those that do. The timing of juveniles leaving the river and entering the estuary is tied to high natural river flows. It is thought that the faster speed during out-migration reduces predation on the young salmon and perhaps is coincident to favorable feeding conditions in the estuary (Wetherall, 1971). These are a few examples that illustrate how a salmon stock and its environment are intertwined throughout the entire life cycle. Salmon habitat includes the physical, chemical and biological components of the environment that supports salmon. Within freshwater and estuarine environments, these components include water quality, water quantity or flows, channel physical features, riparian zones, sediment regime, upland conditions, and ecosystem interactions as they pertain to habitat. However, these components closely intertwine. Low stream flows can alter water quality by increasing temperatures and decreasing oxygen levels. The riparian zone interacts with the stream environment, providing nutrients and a food web base, large woody debris for habitat and flow control (stream features), filtering water prior to stream entry (water quality), sediment control and bank stability, and shade to aid in temperature control. Salmon habitat includes clean, cool, well-oxygenated water flowing at a normal (natural) rate for all stages of freshwater life. In addition, salmon survival depends upon specific habitat needs for the different life history stages, which include egg incubation, juvenile rearing, migration of juveniles to saltwater, estuary rearing, ocean rearing, adult migration to spawning areas, and spawning. These specific needs can vary by species and even by stock. When adult salmon return to spawn, they not only need adequate flows and water quality, but also unimpeded passage to their natal grounds. They need deep pools for resting with vegetative cover and instream structures such as rootwads for shelter from predators. Successful spawning depends on sufficient gravel of the right size for that particular population, in addition to the constant need of adequate flows and water quality, all in unison at the necessary location. Delayed upstream migration can be critical. After entering freshwater, most salmon have a limited time to migrate and spawn, in some cases, as little as two to three weeks. Delays can result in pre-spawning mortality or spawning in a sub-optimum location. After spawning, the eggs need stable gravel that is not choked with sediment. River channel stability is vital at this life history stage for all species of salmonids. Floods have their greatest impact to salmon populations during incubation, and flood impacts are worsened by human activities that alter stream hydrology. In a natural river system, the upland areas are forested, and 17

18 the trees and their roots store precipitation, which slows the rate of storm water into the stream, lessening the impact of a potential flood. The natural, healthy river is sinuous and contains numerous large pieces of wood contributed by an intact, mature riparian zone. Both reduce the energy of water moving downstream. Natural systems have floodplains that are connected directly to the river at many points, allowing wetlands to store flood water and later discharge this storage back to the river during lower flows. This not only decreases flood impacts, but also recharges fish habitat later when flows are low. In a healthy river, erosion or sediment input is great enough to provide new gravel for spawning and incubation, but does not overwhelm the system, raising the riverbed and increasing channel instability. Lastly, a natural river system allows floodwaters to freely flow over unaltered banks rather than constraining the energy within the channel, scouring out salmon eggs. A stable egg incubation environment is essential for all salmon, and is a complex function of nearly all habitat components. Once the young fry leave their gravel nests, certain species such as chum, pink and some chinook salmon quickly migrate downstream to the estuary. Other species, such as coho, steelhead, bulltrout, and chinook, will search for suitable rearing habitat within the side sloughs, sidechannels, spring-fed seep areas, as well as the outer edges of the stream. These quiet-water side margin and off-channel slough areas are vital for early juvenile habitat. The presence of woody debris and overhead cover aid in food and nutrient inputs as well as provide protection from predators. For most of these species, juveniles use this type of habitat in the spring. Most sockeye salmon populations quickly migrate from their gravel nests to larger lake environments where they have unique habitat requirements. These include water quality sufficient to produce the necessary complex food web to support one to three years of salmon growth in that lake habitat prior to outmigration to the estuary. As growth continues, the juveniles (parr) move away from the quiet shallow areas to deeper, faster areas of the stream. These include coho, steelhead, bull trout/dolly Varden, and certain chinook. For some of these species, this movement is coincident with the summer low flows. Low flows constrain salmon production for stocks that rear within the stream. In non-glacial streams, summer flows are maintained by precipitation, connectivity to wetland discharges, and groundwater inputs. Reductions in these inputs will reduce the amount and quality of habitat; hence the number of salmon from these species. In the fall, juvenile salmon that remain in freshwater begin to move out of the mainstems, and again, off-channel habitat becomes important. During the winter, coho, steelhead, bull trout/dolly Varden, and remaining chinook need habitat to sustain their growth and protect them from predators and winter flows. Wetlands, off-channel habitat, undercut banks, rootwads, and pools with overhead cover are important habitat components during this time. Except for bull trout/dolly Varden and resident steelhead, juvenile parr convert to smolts as they migrate downstream towards the estuary. Again, flows are critical, and food and shelter are necessary. The natural flow regime in each river is unique, and has shaped the population s characteristics through adaptation over the last 10,000 years. Because of the close interrelationship between a salmon stock and its stream, survival of the stock depends on natural flow patterns, particularly during migration times. The estuary provides an ideal area for rapid growth, and some salmon species are heavily dependent on estuaries, particularly chinook, chum, and to a lesser extent, pink salmon. Estuaries contain new food sources to support the rapid growth of salmonid smolts, so adequate natural habitat must exist to support the detritus-based food web, such as eelgrass beds, mudflats, and salt marshes. Also, the processes that contribute nutrients and woody debris to these environments 18

19 must be maintained to provide cover from predators and to sustain the food web. Common disruptions to these habitats include dikes, bulkheads, dredging and filling activities, pollution, and alteration of downstream components such as lack of woody debris and sediment transport. All salmonid species need adequate flow, similar water quality, spawning riffles and pools, a functional riparian zone, and upland conditions that favor stability, but some of these specific needs vary by species, such as preferred spawning areas and gravel. Although some overlap occurs, different salmon species within a river are often staggered in their use of a particular type of habitat. Some are staggered in time, and others are separated by distance. Chum and pink salmon use the streams the least amount of time. Washington State adult pink salmon typically begin to enter the rivers in August and spawn in September and October, although Dungeness summer pinks enter and spawn a month earlier (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). During these times, low flows and associated high temperatures and low dissolved oxygen can be problems. Other disrupted habitat components, such as a shallow and less frequent pools due to elevated sediment inputs and lack of canopy from an altered riparian zone or widened river channel, can worsen these flow and water quality problems because there are fewer refuges for the adults to hold prior to spawning. The pink salmon fry emerge from their gravel nests in February to April, and migrate downstream to the estuary within a month. After a limited rearing time in the estuary, pink salmon migrate to the ocean for a little over a year, until the next spawning cycle. Most pink salmon stocks in Washington are only in the rivers in odd years. The exception is the Snohomish Basin, which supports two pink salmon stocks. One stock spawns in odd years, and the other stock spawns in even years. In Washington, adult chum salmon (3-5 years old) have three major run types. Summer chum enter the rivers in August and September, and spawn in September and October. Fall chum adults enter the rivers in late October through November, and spawn in November and December. Winter chum enter from December through January and spawn from January through February. Chum salmon fry emerge from the nests in March and April, and quickly outmigrate to the estuary for rearing. In the estuary, juvenile chum follow prey availability. In Hood Canal, juveniles that arrive in the estuary in February and March migrate rapidly offshore. This migration rate decreases in May and June as levels of zooplankton increase. Later as the food supply dwindles, chum move offshore and switch diets (Simenstad and Salo, 1982). Both chum and pink salmon have similar habitat needs such as unimpeded access to spawning habitat, a stable incubation environment, favorable downstream migration conditions (adequate flows in the spring), and because they rely heavily on the estuary for growth, good estuary habitat is essential. Chinook salmon have three major run types in Washington State. Spring chinook are in their natal rivers throughout the calendar year. Adults begin river entry as early as February in the Chehalis Basin, but in Puget Sound, entry doesn t begin until April or May. Spring chinook spawn from July through September and typically spawn in the headwater areas where higher gradient habitat exists. Incubation continues throughout the autumn and winter and generally requires more time for the eggs to develop into fry because of the colder water temperatures in the headwater areas. Fry begin to leave the gravel nests in February through early March. After a short rearing period in the shallow side margins and sloughs, all Puget Sound and coastal spring chinook stocks have a component of the juvenile population that begin to leave the rivers to the estuary over the next several months, lasting until August. Within the Puget Sound stocks, it is not uncommon for other juveniles to remain in the river for another year before leaving as yearlings, so that a wide variety of outmigration strategies are used by these stocks. The juveniles 19

20 of spring chinook stocks in the Columbia Basin exhibit more distinct juvenile life history characteristics. Generally, these stocks remain in the river for a full year. However, some stocks migrate downstream from their natal tributaries in the fall and early winter into larger rivers, including the mainstem Columbia River, where they are believed to over-winter prior to outmigration the next spring as yearling smolts. Summer chinook begin river entry as early as June in the Columbia, but not until August in Puget Sound. They generally spawn in September or October. Fall chinook stocks range in spawn timing from late September through December. All Washington State summer and fall chinook stocks have juveniles that incubate in the gravel until January through early March, and downstream migration to the estuaries occurs over a broad time period (January through August). A few of these stocks have a component of juveniles that remains in freshwater for a full year after emerging from the gravel nests. While some emerging chinook salmon fry outmigrate quickly, most inhabit the shallow side margins and side channels for up to two months. Then, some gradually move into the faster areas to rear, and others outmigrate to the estuary. Most summer and fall chinook outmigrate within their first year of life, but a few stocks (Snohomish summer chinook, Snohomish fall chinook, upper Columbia summer chinook) have juveniles that remain in the river for an additional year, similar to many spring chinook (Marshall et al, 1995). However, those in the upper Columbia, have scale patterns that suggest that they rear in a reservoir-like environment (mainstem Columbia River upstream from a dam) rather than in their natal streams and it is unknown whether this is a result of dam influence or whether it is a natural pattern. The onset of coho salmon spawning is tied to the first significant fall freshet (Chuck Baranski, WDFW, personal communication). Adults typically enter freshwater from September to early December, but have been observed as early as late July and as late as mid-january (WDF et al, 1993). They often mill near the river mouths or in lower river pools until freshets occur. Spawning usually occurs between November and early February, but is sometimes as early as mid-october and can extend into March. Spawning often occurs in tributaries and sedimentation in these tributaries can be a problem, with fine sediments suffocating eggs and excess coarse sediment decreasing channel stability. As chinook salmon fry exit the shallow low-velocity rearing areas, coho fry enter the same areas for the same purpose. As they grow, juveniles move into faster water and disperse into tributaries and areas that adults cannot access (Neave 1949). Pool habitat is important not only for returning adults, but for all stages of juvenile development. Preferred pool habitat includes deep pools with riparian cover and woody debris. All coho juveniles remain in the river for a full year after leaving the gravel nests, but during their first summer after hatching, low flows can lead to problems such as physical reduction of available habitat, increased stranding, decreased dissolved oxygen, increased water temperature, and increased predation. Juvenile coho are highly territorial and can occupy the same area for a long period of time (Hoar, 1958). Coho abundance can be limited by the number of available suitable territories (Larkin, 1977). Streams with more structure (logs, bushes, etc.) support more coho (Scrivener and Andersen, 1982), not only because they provide more territories, but they also provide more food and cover. There is a positive correlation between their primary diet of insect material in their stomachs and the extent to which the stream was overgrown with vegetation (Chapman, 1965). In addition, the leaf litter in the fall contributes to aquatic insect production (Meehan et al., 1977). In the autumn as the temperatures decrease, juvenile coho move into deeper pools, and hide under logs, tree roots, and undercut banks (Hartman, 1965). The fall freshets redistribute them 20

21 (Scarlett and Cederholm, 1984), and over-wintering generally occurs in available side channels, spring-fed ponds, and other off-channel sites to avoid winter floods (Peterson, 1980). The lack of side channels and small tributaries may limit coho survival (Cederholm and Scarlett, 1981). As coho juveniles grow into yearlings, they become more predatory on other salmonids. Coho begin to leave the river a full year after emerging from their gravel nests with the peak outmigration occurring in early May. Coho use estuaries primarily for interim food while they adjust physiologically to saltwater. Sockeye salmon have a wide variety of life history patterns, including landlocked populations of kokanee that never enter saltwater. Of the populations that migrate to sea, adult freshwater entry varies from spring for the Quinault stock, summer for Ozette and Columbia River stocks, and summer and fall for Puget Sound stocks. Spawning ranges from September through February, depending on the stock. After fry emerge from the gravel, most migrate to a lake for rearing, although a few types of fry migrate to the sea. Lake rearing ranges from one to three years with most juveniles rearing two years. In the spring after lake rearing is completed, juveniles enter the ocean where more growth occurs prior to adult return for spawning. Sockeye spawning habitat varies widely. Some populations spawn in rivers (Cedar River) while other populations spawn along the beaches of their natal lake (Ozette), typically in areas of upwelling groundwater. Sockeye also spawn in side channels and spring-fed ponds. The spawning beaches along lakes provide a unique habitat that is often altered by human activities, such as pier and dock construction, dredging, sedimentation, and weed control. Steelhead have one of the most complex life history patterns of any Pacific salmonid species (Shapovalov and Taft, 1954). In Washington, there are two major run types, winter and summer steelhead. Winter steelhead begin river entry in a mature reproductive state in December and generally spawn from February through May. Summer steelhead enter the river from about May through October with spawning from about February through April. They enter the river in an immature state and require several months to mature (Burgner et al, 1992). Summer steelhead usually spawn farther upstream than winter stocks (Withler, 1966) and dominate inland areas such as the Columbia Basin. Coastal streams support more winter steelhead populations. Juvenile steelhead can either migrate to sea (anadromy) or remain in freshwater as rainbow trout. In Washington, those that are anadromous usually spend one to three years in freshwater, with the greatest proportion spending two years (Busby et al, 1996). Because of this and their year-round presence in steelhead-bearing streams, steelhead greatly depend on the quality and quantity of freshwater habitat. Bull trout/dolly Varden stocks are also very dependent on the freshwater environment, where they reproduce only in clean, cold, relatively pristine streams. Within a given stock, some adults remain in freshwater their entire lives, while others migrate to the estuary where they rear during the spring and summer. They then return upstream to spawn in late summer. Those that remain in freshwater either stay near their spawning areas as residents, or migrate upstream throughout the winter, spring, and early summer, residing in pools. They return to spawning areas in late summer. In some stocks juveniles migrate downstream in spring, overwinter in the lower river, then enter the estuary and Puget Sound the following late winter to early spring (WDFW, 1998). Because these life history types have different habitat characteristics and requirements, bull trout/dolly Varden are generally recognized as a sensitive species by natural resource agencies. 21

22 Reductions in their abundance or distribution are inferred to represent strong evidence of habitat degradation. In addition to the above-described relationships between various salmon species and their habitats, there are also interactions between the species that have evolved over the last 10,000 years such that the survival of one species might be enhanced or impacted by the presence of another. Pink and chum salmon fry are frequently food items of coho smolts, Dolly Varden char, and steelhead (Hunter, 1959). Chum fry have decreased feeding and growth rates when pink salmon juveniles are abundant (Ivankov and Andreyev, 1971), probably the result of occupying the same habitat at the same time and competing for food items. These are just a few examples. Most streams in Washington are home to several salmonid species, which together, rely upon freshwater and estuary habitat the entire calendar year. As the habitat and salmon review indicated, there are complex interactions between different habitat components, between salmon and their habitat, and between different species of salmon. For just as habitat dictates salmon types and production, salmon production contributes to habitat and to other species. 22

23 INTRODUCTION The quantity and quality of aquatic habitat present in any stream, river, lake or estuary is a reflection of the existing physical habitat characteristics (e.g. depth, structure, gradient, etc) as well as the water quality (e.g. temperature and suspended sediment load). There are a number of processes that create and maintain these features of aquatic habitat. In general, the key processes regulating the condition of aquatic habitats are the delivery and routing of water (and its associated constituents such as nutrients), sediment, and large woody debris (LWD). These processes operate over the terrestrial and aquatic landscape. For example, climatic conditions operating over very large scales can drive many habitat forming processes while the position of a fish in the stream channel can depend upon delivery of wood from the riparian forest adjacent to the stream. In addition, ecological processes operate at various spatial and temporal scales and have components that are lateral (e.g., floodplain), longitudinal (e.g., landslides in upstream areas) and vertical (e.g., riparian forest). The effect of each process on habitat characteristics is a function of variations in local geomorphology, climatic gradients, spatial and temporal scales of natural disturbance, and terrestrial and aquatic vegetation. For example, wood is a more critical component of stream habitat than in lakes, where it is primarily an element of littoral habitats. In stream systems, the routing of water is primarily via the stream channel and subsurface routes whereas in lakes, water is routed by circulation patterns resulting from inflow, outflow and climatic conditions. Human activities degrade and eliminate aquatic habitats by altering the key natural processes described above. This can occur by disrupting the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical connections of system components as well as altering spatial and temporal variability of the components. In addition, humans have further altered habitats by creating new processes such as the actions of exotic species. The following sections identify and describe the major alterations of aquatic habitat that have occurred and why they have occurred. These alterations are discussed as limiting factors. Discussion of Habitat Limiting Factor Elements Fish Passage Barriers Salmon are limited to certain spawning and rearing locations by natural features of the landscape. These features include channel gradient and the presence of physical features of the landscape (e.g. logjams). Flow can affect the ability of some landscape features to function as barriers. For example, some waterfalls may be impassable at low flows, but then become passable at higher flows. In some cases, flows themselves can present a barrier, such as when extreme low flows occur in some channels; at higher flows fish are not blocked. Flow conditions may also allow accessibility to some anadromous salmonid species, while precluding access to others. Throughout Washington, barriers have been constructed that have restricted or prevented juvenile and adult fish from gaining access to formerly accessible habitat. The most obvious of these barriers are dams and diversions with no passage facilities that prevent adult salmon from accessing historically used spawning grounds. Culverts are often full or partial fish passage barriers; delayed fish passage during certain flow conditions can be equally as detrimental as a total fish passage barrier. In addition, in recent years it has become increasingly clear that we have also constructed barriers that prevent juveniles from accessing rearing habitat. For example, dikes and levees have blocked off historically accessible side-channel rearing areas, and poorly 23

24 designed culverts in streams have impacted the ability of juvenile salmonids to move upstream into rearing areas. Functions of Floodplains Floodplains are portions of a watershed that are periodically flooded by the lateral overflow of rivers and streams. In general, most floodplain areas are located in lowland areas of river basins and are associated with higher order streams. Floodplains are typically structurally complex, and are characterized by a great deal of lateral, aquatic connectivity by way of distributaries, sloughs, backwaters, side-channels, oxbows, and lakes. Often, floodplain channels can be highly braided (multiple parallel channels). Properly functioning floodplains provide critical habitat. Aquatic habitats in floodplain areas can be very important for chinook and coho salmon juveniles that often over-winter and seek refuge from high flows in the sloughs and backwaters of floodplains. Floodplains also help dissipate water energy during floods by allowing water to escape the channel and inundate the terrestrial landscape, lessening the impact of floods on incubating salmon eggs. Floodplains also provide coarse beds of alluvial sediments through which subsurface flow passes. This acts as a filter of nutrients and other chemicals to maintain high water quality. Floodplains also provide an area for sediment deposition and storage, particularly for fine sediment, outside of the river channel, reducing the effects of sediment deposition and instability in the river channel. Impairment of Floodplains by Human Activities Large portions of the floodplains of many Washington rivers, especially those in the western part of the state, have been converted to urban and agricultural land uses. Many of the urban areas of the state are located in lowland floodplains, while land used for agricultural purposes is often located in floodplains because of the flat topography and rich soils deposited by the flooding rivers. There are two major types of human impacts to floodplain functions. First, channels are disconnected from their floodplain. This occurs both laterally as a result of the construction of dikes and levees, which often occur simultaneously with the construction of roads, and longitudinally as a result of the construction of road crossings. This has: 1) eliminated offchannel habitats such as sloughs and side channels; 2) increased flow velocity during flood events due to the constriction of the channel; 3) reduced subsurface flows and groundwater contribution to the stream; and 4) simplified channels since LWD is lost and channels are often straightened when levees are constructed. Channels can also become disconnected from their floodplains as a result of down-cutting and incision of the channel from losses of LWD, decreased sediment supplies, and increased high flow events. The second major type of impact is loss of natural riparian and upland vegetation. The natural riparian and terrestrial vegetation in floodplain areas was historically coniferous forest. Conversion of these forested areas to impervious surfaces, deciduous forests, meadows, grasslands, and farmed fields has occurred as floodplains have been converted to urban and agricultural uses. Riparian forests are typically reduced or eliminated as levees and dikes are constructed. Loss of vegetation on the floodplain reduces shading of water in floodplain channels, eliminates LWD contribution, reduces filtering of sediments, nutrients and toxics, and results in increased water energy during flood flows. 24

25 Elimination of off-channel habitats results in the loss of important habitats for juvenile salmonids. Side channels, sloughs and backwaters that are isolated from flooding impacts historically functioned as prime spawning habitat for chum, pink, and coho, and rearing and over-wintering habitat for chinook and coho juveniles. The loss of LWD from channels reduces the amount of rearing habitat available for chinook juveniles. Disconnection of the stream channels from their floodplain due to levee and dike construction increases water velocities, which in turn increases scour of the streambed. Salmon that spawn in these areas may have reduced egg to fry survival due to the scour. Removal of mature native vegetation from riparian zones can increase stream temperatures in channels, which can stress both adult and juvenile salmon. Sufficiently high temperatures can increase mortality. Streambed Sediment The sediments present in an ecologically healthy stream channel are naturally dynamic and are a function of a number of processes that input, store, and transport the materials. Processes naturally vary spatially and temporally and depend upon a number of features of the landscape such as stream order, gradient, stream size, basin size, geomorphic context, and hydrological regime. In forested mountain basins, sediment enters stream channels from natural mass wasting events (e.g. landslides and debris flows), channel bank erosion (particularly in glacial deposits), surface erosion, and soil creep. Natural input of sediment to stream channels in these types of basins occurs periodically during extreme climatic events such as floods (increasing erosion) and mass wasting. In lowland, or higher order streams, lateral erosion is the major natural sediment source. Inputs of sediment in these basins tend to be steadier in geologic time. Once sediment enters a stream channel it can be stored or transported depending upon particle size, stream gradient, hydrological conditions, availability of storage sites, and channel type or morphology. Finer sediments tend to be transported through the system as wash load or suspended load, and have relatively little effect on channel morphology. Coarser sediments (>2 mm diameter) tend to travel as bedload, and can have larger effects on channel morphology as they move downstream, depositing through the channel network. Some parts of the channel network are more effective at storing sediment, while other parts of the network are more effective at transporting material. There are also strong temporal components to sediment storage and transport, such as seasonal floods, which tend to transport more material. One channel segment may function as a storage site during one time of year and a transport reach at other times. In general, the coarsest sediments are found in upper watersheds while the finest materials are found in the lower reaches of a watershed. Storage sites include various types of channel bars and floodplain areas, and are often associated with LWD. Effects of Human Actions on Sediment Processes Changes in the supply, transport, and storage of sediments can occur as the direct result of human activities. Human actions can result in increases or decreases in the supply of sediments to a stream. Increases in sediment deposition in the channel result from increased erosion due to land use practices or isolation of the channel from the floodplain (due to presence of dikes or roads), which eliminate important off-channel storage areas for sediment and increase the sediment load beyond the transport capacity of the stream. In addition, actions that destabilize the landscape in high slope areas such as logging or road construction increase the frequency and severity of mass wasting events. Finally, increases in the frequency and magnitude of flood flows, and/or loss of floodplain vegetation, increase erosion. Increased erosion fills pools and aggrades the channel, resulting in reduced habitat complexity and reduced rearing capacity for some salmonids. 25

26 Increased total sediment supply to a channel increases the proportion of fine sediments in the bed, which can reduce the survival of incubating eggs in the gravel and change benthic invertebrate production. Decreases in sediment supply occur in some streams, primarily as a result of disconnecting the channel from the floodplain. Dams typically block the supply of sediment from upper watershed areas while levees typically isolate the stream from natural upland sources of sediment. In addition, gravels are removed from streambeds to increase flow capacity (dredging) or for mineral extraction purposes. Reduction in sediment supply can alter the streambed composition, which can coarsen the substrate and reduce the amount of gravel substrate suitable for spawning. In addition to affecting sediment supply, human activities can also affect the storage and movement of sediment in a stream. An understanding of how sediment moves through a system is important for determining where sediment will have the greatest effect on salmonid habitat and for determining which areas will have the greatest likelihood of altering habitats. In general, transport of sediment changes as a result of gradient, hydrology changes (water removal, increased peak flows, or altered timing and magnitude of peak flows), and isolation of the channel from its floodplain. Larger and more frequent flood flows move larger and greater amounts of material more frequently. This can increase bed scour and bank erosion, alter channel morphology, and ultimately degrade the quality of spawning and rearing habitat. Unstable channels become very dynamic and unpredictable compared to the relatively stable channels characteristic of undeveloped areas. Additional reductions in the levels of instream LWD can greatly alter sediment storage and processing patterns, resulting in increased levels of fines in gravels and reduced organic material storage and nutrient cycling. Riparian Zone Functions Stream riparian zones include the area of living and dead vegetative material adjacent to a stream. They extend from the edge of the ordinary high water mark of the wetted channel, upland to a point where the zone ceases to have an influence on the stream channel. Riparian forest characteristics in ecologically healthy watersheds are strongly influenced by climate, channel geomorphology, and where the channel is located in the drainage network. Large-scale natural disturbances (fires, severe windstorms, and debris flows) can dramatically alter riparian characteristics. These natural events are typically infrequent, with recovery to healthy riparian conditions for extended periods of time following the disturbance event. The width of the riparian zone and the extent of the riparian zone s influence on the stream are strongly related to stream size and drainage basin morphology. In a basin un-impacted by humans, the riparian zone would exist as a mosaic of tree stands of different acreage, ages (e.g. sizes), and species. Riparian zone functions include providing hydraulic diversity, adding structural complexity, buffering the energy of runoff events and erosive forces, moderating temperatures, protecting water quality, and providing a source of food and nutrients. They are especially important as the LWD source for streams. LWD directly influences several habitat attributes important to anadromous species. In particular, LWD helps form and maintain the pool structure in streams, and provides a mechanism for sediment and organics sorting and storage upstream and adjacent to LWD formations. Pools provide a refuge from predators and high-flow events for juvenile salmon, especially coho that rear for extended periods in streams. 26

27 Effects of Human Activities on Riparian Zones Riparian zones are impacted by all types of land use practices. Riparian functions are impaired by direct removal of riparian vegetation; by roads and dikes located adjacent to the stream channel; by road crossings, agricultural/livestock crossings, and timber yarding corridors that cross the stream channel; by unrestricted livestock grazing in the riparian zone; and by development encroachment into the riparian corridor. Further, riparian vegetation species composition can be dramatically altered when native trees are replaced by exotic species (e.g., shrubs, reed canarygrass), and where native coniferous riparian areas are converted to deciduous tree species. Deciduous trees are typically of smaller diameter than conifers and decompose faster than conifers, so they do not persist as long in streams and are vulnerable to being washed out by lower magnitude floods. Once impacted, riparian functions can take many decades to recover as forest cover regrows, and coniferous species colonize. It may take as long as years to restore functional LWD contribution to the channel. Changes to riparian zones affect many attributes of stream ecosystems. For example, stream temperatures can increase due to the loss of shade, while streambanks become more prone to erosion due to elimination of the trees and their associated roots. Perhaps the most important impact of riparian alteration is a decline in the frequency, volume, and quantity of LWD due to reduced recruitment from forested areas. Loss of LWD results in a significant reduction in the complexity of stream channels including a decline of pool habitat, which reduces the number of rearing salmonids. Loss of LWD affects the amount of both over-wintering and low flow rearing habitat, as well as providing a variety of other ecological functions in the channel. Water Quantity The hydrologic regime of a drainage basin refers to how water is collected, moved and stored. The frequency and magnitude of floods are especially important since floods are the primary source of disturbance in streams and thus play a key role in how channels are structured and function. In ecologically healthy systems, the physical and biotic changes caused by natural disturbances are not usually sustained, and recovery is rapid to pre-disturbance levels. If the magnitude of change is sufficiently large, however, permanent impacts can occur. Alterations in basin hydrology are caused by changes in soils, decreases in the amount of forest cover, increases in impervious surfaces, elimination of riparian and headwater wetlands, and changes in landscape context. Hydrologic impacts to stream channels occur even at low levels of development (<2% impervious area) and generally increase in severity as more of the landscape is converted to from natural forest cover to more developed land uses. Salmonid production is profoundly affected by water withdrawals for irrigation, industrial, and domestic use, including water transfers between basins. Removal of water, either directly from the stream channel or from wells that are in hydraulic continuity with stream flows, reduces the amount of instream flow and useable wetted area remaining for support of adult salmonid spawning and juvenile rearing. Reduction of instream flows also typically results in increased water temperature, often to levels that impair salmonid productivity. The relationship between the useable wetted area of a stream and stream flow varies between species and life stages. For example, juvenile coho prefer quiet water in pools for rearing, whereas juvenile steelhead prefer areas of faster water (Hiss and Lichatowich 1990). Streamflow limitations are typically greatest during the dry summer and early fall months when stream flows are lowest. In other instances stream flows may actually increase due to direct or indirect (irrigation ground water return flows) water transfers from other basins. In some instances peak flood flows may be transferred to 27

28 basins that would otherwise not be affected by flood flows. These situations may increase the stream flow and useable wetted area for fish use, but the increased hydrology may cause channel bedload movement, bank erosion, loss of LWD, and other adverse habitat impacts that would not be experienced under the natural hydrology regime to which the channel is adapted. Water Quality Water quality affects productivity and survival of salmonids. There are several water quality parameters that affect salmonids, including water temperature, ph, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, nutrients, and toxic chemicals. Elevated water temperatures are typically associated with loss of mature riparian vegetation along the stream corridor, reduced instream flows during late summer resulting from water withdrawals, or from increased solar exposure to water impounded behind dams. Salmonids generally require a neutral ph; fish may be adversely affected by surface water with ph of 5.6 or less, and can also be adversely affected by high ph values (Spence et al. 1996). Dissolved oxygen levels are directly associated with water temperature, with saturation being higher in colder water. Turbidity refers to the presence of suspended sediment in the water column that may affect survival of eggs or fish. Stormwater runoff (particularly from roads), surface erosion, and increased streambank erosion are the main contributors of turbidity. Natural stream nutrient regimes have been altered. Natural nutrient cycling has been affected by low numbers of salmon carcasses due to reduced numbers of spawners returning to streams; by removal or alteration of riparian vegetation that reduces the entry of litter fall and invertebrates; by the lack of LWD in streams that slows the loss of nutrient sources from the stream; and by stormwater flows that flush available nutrients from the streams. In addition, hatchery salmon carcasses are often not returned to rivers and streams after the salmon are artificially spawned, reducing the cycling of marine-derived nutrients. Increased levels of nutrients result from stormwater runoff with high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, and from failing septics and sewage treatment plant outfalls. High nutrient levels can lower dissolved oxygen levels in a waterbody. Public health districts regularly monitor for presence of fecal coliform bacteria. Elevated fecal coliform counts that do not meet Washington State water quality standards may result in closure of marine shellfish beds to harvest, but fecal coliform bacteria are not known to affect salmonid health or survival. However, elevated fecal coliform counts may be an indicator of other salmonid habitat problems (e.g., elevated nutrient levels, low dissolved oxygen, unrestricted cattle access to streams) in the watershed. There is far less water quality monitoring for presence of toxic chemicals. Sources of toxics of concern include toxic spills (e.g., oil, paint, pesticides.), runoff from roads/parking lots, exposure of the stream or marine water to treated wood, leaching of pesticides, and leaching of heavy metals. 28

29 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Location and Watershed Characteristics The White Salmon River originates in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in south central Washington along the south slope of Mt. Adams in Skamania and Klickitat counties (NPPC 2000 Draft). It flows south for 45 miles before entering the Columbia River (Bonneville reservoir) in Underwood, Washington at River Mile (RM) 167 (see location of watershed in Figure 2). The White Salmon River watershed drains approximately 386 mi 2 (250,459 acres); the length of the White Salmon River mainstem is approximately 45 miles. Principal tributaries include Trout Lake, Buck, Mill, and Rattlesnake creeks. Elevations in the watershed range from the confluence with the Columbia River (80 feet) to the headwaters on the slopes of Mt. Adams. Figure 2: Location of the White Salmon River watershed in Washington State 2 Topography varies within the watershed from rugged mountains to rolling hills to river valleys (NPPC 2000 Draft). Consolidated sediments are overlain with basaltic lava flows; subsequent erosion, mud flows and glaciation have resulted in precipitous cliffs, deeply incised canyons, and 29

30 relatively flat valley floors. The mainstem White Salmon River drops 7,420 feet in 45 miles, for an average gradient of 3.2%. Climate/Hydrology Climatic patterns in the White Salmon watershed are controlled by marine-influenced air masses from the Pacific Ocean and continental air masses from eastern Washington (NPPC 2000 Draft). Winters are usually wet and mild, while summers are warm and dry. Approximately 75% of the precipitation is delivered in the form of rainfall or snow between October and March. Average precipitation along the eastern portion of the watershed equals 40 inches per year, increasing to as much as 95 inches per year in the western and northern portions of the watershed. Streamflows in the tributaries in the watershed range from summer low flows to peak flows in the winter (NPPC 2000 Draft). Some tributaries only flow during high flow events and are dry the remainder of the year. Peak flows in the mainstem White Salmon River are generated by snowmelt runoff and occur in the spring, increasing from an average daily flow of 644 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the fall to flows of 1,538 cfs during the spring. The flow pattern on the White Salmon River mainstem is relatively constant due to its glacial origin, large water recharge potential, and storage capacity. Recharged water is released mostly in the middle portion of the mainstem canyon between Trout Lake Valley and Husum. The largest stream flows typically occur in response to rain-on-snow events, when heavy rains combine with high air temperatures and high winds to cause widespread snowmelt. Low flows are maintained on the mainstem by late season snowmelt and areas of water retention or recharge. Geology The geology of the White Salmon River watershed is dominated by past volcanic activity (NPPC 2000 Draft). Subbasin soils are the result of volcanism and glaciation. Soils in the valley are deep and coarse with moderate fertility. In the hilly areas the deep and will-drained soils are derived from weathered volcanic ash and lava underlain with olivine basalt. In the lower portion the basin, the soils are generally shallow and less porous. Land Use (excerpts from Stampfli 1994, except as noted) Historians and anthropologists tell us that human occupation of the area surrounding the White Salmon river basin in south central Washington began at least 9,000 years ago (O Neill 1991). The physical and biological characteristics responsible for attracting these early inhabitants are the same factors that support the area s growing human population today the innate fertility and productivity of the region s water and lands. The earliest recorded inhabitants of the White Salmon region were those encountered by the Lewis and Clark expedition in The expeditioneers named these people who generally inhabited the north bank of the Columbia from the Dalles downstream to the White Salmon mouth the Chilluckittequaw, with an estimated population of 1,400. A second group of people, the Klickitats, also inhabited the White Salmon region during this time, and were also encountered by Lewis and Clark. Fishing was the primary economic pursuit of all aboriginal tribes within the Columbia Gorge region. Fish were generally caught using spears and nets in rapids or falls sections of river. Additionally, various mammals, including deer and elk were hunted in the uplands. Uplands also 30

31 provided copious quantities of plant foods that were collected and stored during the spring and fall. However, historical information provided by the Husum/BZ Corner Community Council (Jerry Smith) indicates that until extensive logging opened up the White Salmon watershed, there were very few if any deer. Seeing a deer historically was comparable to now seeing a cougar, and was a novel sight. There were historically no elk present in the White Salmon River watershed until the last 25 years or so. Historically, the main sources of wildlife were brown and black bear. In fact, a hunting lodge (Hunter Hill) started by Mr. Jones in the late 1800s between Husum and BZ Corners, which was successful for many years, focused only on bear as they were all that was available and were very abundant. Little is known about the actual settlement patterns within the White Salmon valley before the 1850s. Archaeological evidence indicates that at least 12 Klickitat villages occupied the valley at this time (Ray 1936). These occupations included summer gathering sites on the flanks of Mt. Adams, and permanent settlements adjacent to fishing sites at the Columbia confluence, Husum Falls, and falls at BZ Corner and Trout lake (Lane and Lane 1981). The village site known as Nakipanic (adjacent to Husum Falls) has been carbon dated to at least 900 years ago (Turck 1993). After Lewis and Clark passed by the mouth of the White Salmon in 1805, no subsequent exploration of the area by non-indian people occurred until 1853, when the McClellan expedition passed through the Trout Lake valley during a railroad survey (USFS 1991). The Trout Lake valley was first settled in 1880; raising livestock was the principal activity of early settlers. Irrigated farming was introduced to the Trout Lake valley in Timber harvest became a significant economic pursuit in the White Salmon once the first access roads were established in Near the turn of the century, splash dams became a common means of transporting logs downs the White Salmon River. Since 1882, it is estimated that at least 90% of the forest within the White Salmon basin has been harvested at least once. As land clearing progressed after the turn of the century, a shift in land-use from pasture/hay to orchards occurred. Between 1890 and 1900, many small open tracts were planted to cherries, pears, and apples (Bureau of Reclamation 1974). Commercial orchard production started in about Today, a relatively narrow range of human economic activities are being practiced within the White Salmon watershed. Forestland management is overwhelmingly the predominant land use. Secondary land uses include agriculture, recreation, and residential and commercial development. The White Salmon basin is overlapped with a mosaic of many different land planning and management jurisdictions. These include the State of Washington, Klickitat County, Skamania County, U.S. Forest Service, Columbia River Gorge Commission, and others. The segment of the White Salmon River upstream of Northwestern Lake to BZ Corner (RM ) is included within the federal Wild and Scenic River system. The river downstream of Condit Dam (RM 3.3- mouth) is within the boundaries of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The human population of the White Salmon watershed is rural in character, and totals approximately 3,000. Most residents of the valley live in the vicinity of the unincorporated towns of Trout Lake, BZ Corner, and Husum. Other significant population centers within the watershed include the rural western outskirts of White Salmon, and the east side of Underwood Mountain in and around Underwood Heights. Domestic animal populations within the basin include approximately 1,140 range cattle, 500 pasture cattle, 2,050 dairy cattle, 800 sheep, 300 horses, and 60 llamas. 31

32 Land ownership classes in the White salmon watershed are presented in Stampfli (1994)(Table 2). Land ownership classes were designated as Large timber company (LTC), small private owner (<160acres, SPO), large private owner (>160 acres, LPO), Washington DNR (DNR), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Roughly one-half of the total acreage in the watershed is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The bulk of the USFS acreage lies within the boundaries of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest - Mt. Adams Ranger District, which covers much of the upper watershed. Large timber company ownership is interspersed throughout the watershed, except for the Buck Creek subbasin, where no large timber ownership is recorded. WADNR ownership represents the third largest ownership class in the watershed. DNR land is dispersed relatively evenly among the subbasins, although a concentrated ownership exists in and surrounding the Buck Creek subbasin. Large and small private ownership, combined, account for only 15% of the total watershed. The most significant large private ownerships occur in the Rattlesnake Creek, Gilmer Creek, and lower White Salmon subbasins. The largest total small private ownership holdings are contained in the lower White Salmon and upper White Salmon subbasins. Table 2: White Salmon River watershed overall ownership by subbasin (from Stampfli 1994) Subbasin Ownership Class (acres) LTC SPO LPO DNR USFS Total Buck Creek Gilmer Creek Lower White Salmon Rattlesnake Creek Trout Lake Creek Upper White Salmon Total Ninety-five percent (95%) of the White Salmon watershed was classified as forestland, amounting to 236,963 of the total 250,459 acres. However, in addition to managed forestlands, this category includes oak thickets, grazed savannas, open south facing slopes, USFS wilderness areas, rock outcrops, lava flows, and woody deciduous river bottoms. Forestland accounts for 88% of the land base of the lower White Salmon subbasin, well below the watershed-wide average of 95%. Alternatively, forestland density is highest within the Buck Creek, upper White Salmon, and Trout Lake Creek subbasins (98%, 95%, and 97% respectively). Pasture and hayland rank a distant second to forestland in watershed land use dominance. Approximately 9,000 acres are utilized for this purpose, accounting for only 4% of the watershed area. The third largest land use in the watershed is orchard fruit production, accounting for 1,585 acres, or 0.6% of the total watershed area. 32

33 DISTRIBUTION AND CONDITION OF SALMON, STEELHEAD, AND BULL TROUT/DOLLY VARDEN STOCKS General Anadromous salmonid distribution in the White Salmon River watershed has been limited to downstream of Condit Dam (RM 3.3) since Nehlsen et al. (1991, as cited in USFS 1998) indicate that the remaining native anadromous stocks in the lower river below the dam are at a high risk of extinction or are functionally extinct. Restoration of fish passage upstream of Condit Dam will allow anadromous salmonid access to historical distribution areas upstream of the dam. There is a lack of historical run size estimates for anadromous salmonid stocks in the White Salmon River prior to the construction of Condit Dam in However, there are well documented anecdotal reports of significant Indian fisheries upstream of the dam at Husum Falls and at BZ Corners (Lane and Lane 1981). There have been several attempts to estimate potential anadromous salmonid production, including the historical accessible area upstream of Condit Dam. Table 3 presents independent estimates of anadromous salmonid production potential. Table 3: Potential production estimates for anadromous salmonids in the White Salmon River upstream of Condit Dam (Dam to RM 16.2)(from Bair et al. 2002) Species Chapman 1981 WDF et al DCC 1990 Steelhead Spring Chinook 625 Not estimated Not estimated Fall Chinook Coho 5,489 1,600-2,300 1,136-1,880 Salmonid Distribution Known, presumed, and potential/historic salmonid distributions in the White Salmon River watershed are shown on the species distribution maps in the separate Maps file included with this report. Potential/historic salmon and steelhead distributions for the White Salmon River and tributarie s upstream of Condit Dam may be significantly different than those shown on the maps included with the original WRIA 29 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis Report (Cowan 1999). The differences are the result of additional distribution information and identification of waterfalls that would be natural fish passage barriers. Anadromous salmonid distribution information was obtained through Technical Advisory Committee input at a meeting on January 23, 2003, review of WDFW SSHIAP fish distribution mapping done in October/November 2002, followup responses to outstanding anadromous salmonid distribution questions, and from fish distribution maps in the Panakanic Watershed Analysis. Resident trout distribution was obtained directly from the federal and Panakanic watershed analyses. Spring Chinook There are conflicting accounts regarding the historical presence of spring chinook in the White Salmon River watershed (Lane and Lane 1981). A key anecdotal recollection is by the Bureau of Fisheries personnel that operated the trap upstream of the mouth of the White Salmon River. Their rationale for identifying lack of spring chinook presence appears to be based on historical trapping efforts at the mouth of the river not encountering spring chinook; however, there is no indication that the trap was ever in 33

34 place during the normal spring migration of spring chinook or summer steelhead, when flows were high. LeMier and Smith (1955) indicate potential for spring chinook utilization in the White Salmon River. No spring chinook stock is recognized in SASSI (WDF and WDW 1993) for the White Salmon River. Spring chinook salmon in the White Salmon River are managed for hatchery production (NPPS 2000 Draft). It is likely that any historic native run of spring chinook in the White Salmon River was extirpated after construction of Condit Dam. Currently, hatchery spring chinook are acclimated and released from a USFWS facility at RM 1. WDFW believes the majority of naturally spawning fish are hatchery strays, and that this population is not self-sustaining. Potential/Historic spring chinook distribution is designated in the salmonid distribution maps (included in the Maps directory) and in Appendix A. Fall Chinook There are two stocks of fall chinook recognized in the White Salmon River - tule fall chinook and bright fall chinook (WDF and WDW 1993). Current fall chinook distribution is limited to downstream of Condit Dam; historical fall chinook distribution likely extended upstream to Husum Falls and to the lower set of falls on Rattlesnake Creek (Lane and Lane 1981; Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Known and potential/historic fall chinook distribution is designated in the salmonid distribution maps (included in the separate Maps directory) and in Appendix A. The fall tule chinook stock is designated on the basis of spawning time and geographic distribution, as well as differences in bio logical characteristics from other stocks (WDF and WDW 1993). Tule fall chinook spawn from September to October, earlier than the bright fall chinook stock. Stock status of the White Salmon River natural tule stock is rated as Depressed, and shows signs of both short and long-term negative escapement trends. The fall bright chinook stock is designated on the basis of spawning time, geographic distribution, as well as biological characteristics and genetic composition (WDF and WDW 1993). The bright fall chinook spawn from October to November, later than the fall tule chinook stock. The relatively recent discovery of the White Salmon River bright fall chinook coincides with the introduced mid-columbia bright fall chinook production from several nearby hatcheries; therefore, White Salmon bright fall chinook are likely hatchery strays. However, Hymer (1991, as cited in WDF and WDW 1993) reports that 41% of the late spawning fall chinook in the White River in 1989 were either mid-columbia bright hatchery strays, or were naturally produced fish. Stock status of the White Salmon River natural bright stock is rated as Healthy, though the database is limited. Chum Anecdotal reports indicate that historical abundance of chum salmon in the White Salmon watershed was low (Lane and Lane 1981). No chum stock is recognized in the White Salmon River (WDF and WDW 1993), and chum distribution is not depicted in the salmonid distribution maps, but chum distribution is included in Appendix A. Historic chum salmon presence may have extended upstream to Husum Falls and to the lower set of falls on Rattlesnake Creek (Lane and Lane 1981; Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Pink Small numbers of pink salmon are reported to use the lower White Salmon River (USFS 1998, FERC 1996). No pink stock is recognized in the White Salmon River (WDF and WDW 1993), and pink distribution is not depicted in the salmonid distribution maps, but pink distribution is included in Appendix A. 34

35 Coho Anecdotal reports indicate that historical abundance of coho salmon in the White Salmon watershed was low (Lane and Lane 1981). The current coho salmon population downstream of Condit Dam is believed to be low and predominantly hatchery strays from the Willard and Little White Salmon River hatcheries (NPPC 1994, as cited in USFS 1998). Coho utilization is thought to have historically been limited primarily to the lower river (downstream of Husum Falls, and likely downstream of the dam), due to the lack of traditional coho rearing habitat further upriver (Shrier). Typical coho rearing habitat is limited upstream of Condit Dam (Shrier). Known and potential/historic coho distribution is designated in the salmonid distribution maps (included in the separate Maps directory) and in Appendix A. Summer Steelhead and Winter Steelhead Wild summer steelhead and winter steelhead in the White Salmon River were originally native (WDF and WDW 1993). Distribution is currently limited to downstream of Condit Dam, which eliminated access to approximately 70% of the historical spawning and rearing habitat. It is uncertain whether a stock of summer or winter steelhead exists that has not hybridized with hatchery steelhead (planted or strays). Adult summer steelhead return generally from May through November, with spawning generally from early March through May. Adult winter steelhead return generally from December through April, with spawning generally from early March to late May or early June. Stock status for the White Salmon River natural summer steelhead and winter steelhead stocks is rated as Depressed. Known and potential/historic distributions for White River summer steelhead and winter steelhead stocks are designated in the salmonid distribution maps (included in the separate Maps directory) and in Appendix A. Summer and winter steelhead are annually stocked (30-40,000 fish) in the White Salmon River downstream of Condit Dam (USFS 1998). Skamania stock summer and winter steelhead are released to mitigate for the losses of anadromous salmonid production caused by Condit Dam, and to provide local recreational and tribal fishing opportunities (NPPC 2000 Draft). All hatchery steelhead are adipose fin clipped and the river has been managed under catch-and-release sport fishing regulations for wild steelhead since Char (Bull Trout/DollyVarden) Bull trout/dolly Varden in the White Salmon River have been identified as a distinct stock based on their geographic distribution (WDFW 1998). Reported sightings of bull trout/dolly Varden in the White Salmon are rare. Currently there are no known populations of bull trout in the White Salmon River watershed, nor were any known historically (USFS 1998). Two sightings of bull trout have been reported upstream of Condit Dam in Northwestern Lake by WDFW biologists (WDFW 1998). One fish (273 mm long) was captured in a gill net in the spring of 1986 in Northwestern Lake, and the other (305 mm long) was checked on the opening day creel census in April Sightings have been reported by sport anglers downstream of Condit Dam (WDFW 1998). Bull trout/dolly Varden seen downstream of Condit Dam are not believed to reproduce in the White Salmon River. Electroshocking in the lower river has not turned up any juvenile bull trout/dolly Varden. WDFW biologists believe the adult bull trout/dolly Varden caught in the White Salmon River are dipins from Hood River in Oregon. If any bull trout populations do exist upstream of Condit Dam, they are 35

36 native and maintained by wild production (NPPC 2000 Draft). Stock status is Unknown; there is insufficient information to make an assessment. In 1993, bull trout presence/absence surveys were conducted in the watershed as a cooperative project between the USFS and WDFW (USFS 1998). Electrofishing and day snorkeling sampling sites included the White Salmon River upstream of the Cascade Creek confluence, Cascade Creek, Ninefoot Creek, and Morrison Creek. Two tributaries to Northwestern Lake (Spring Creek and Buck Creek) were also electrofished. No bull trout were found in any stream during this sampling effort. The sections sampled on USFS land are considered to be the areas with the highest probability of finding bull trout within the upper White Salmon River. Surveys occurred during spawning time (August 31-October 20), and stream temperatures were between o C in streams on USFS ownership, and 8-10 o C on the Northwestern Lake tributaries. There are no records indicating that bull trout ever inhabited the analysis area, although bull trout habitat is present in the mainstem White Salmon River, Green Canyon Creek, Ninefoot Creek, Cascade Creek, Cait Creek, Buck Creek, Morrison Creek, and Wicky Creek. Gradient/waterfall barriers are present at the mouths of many of these streams. If bull trout were present in the upper White Salmon River and migrated downstream of Big Brother Falls, they would be unable to ascend upstream of the falls. Resident Trout Rainbow trout and cutthroat trout are believed to be native species in the upper White Salmon River; brook trout are an introduced species (USFS 1998). Stocking of rainbow trout began in the White Salmon river at least as early as 1934, and in Cascade Creek in Records show that cutthroat trout inhabited the upper White Salmon River in the 1930s (USFS 1998). Population surveys in recent years have not found cutthroat trout in any stream in the upper White Salmon River watershed, although surveys have not been comprehensive. Displacement of cutthroat by rainbow and brook trout may have occurred in the past and may still be occurring. Cutthroat are still found in Rattlesnake and Indian creeks (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Cutthroat trout in Indian Creek exhibit physical characteristics similar to coastal cutthroat strains (O. clarki clarki) and may be a remnant, residualized population that had established itself prior to the construction of Condit Dam. An electrophoretic study of rainbow trout in the White Salmon River watershed was conducted during the summer of 1990 by WDFW and Pacific Power and Light (Phelps 1990, as cited in USFS 1998). Rainbow trout were collected from five locations in the watershed, including the White Salmon River between Husum and Northwestern Lake, Buck Creek (tributary to Northwestern Lake), Rattlesnake Creek, the White Salmon river upstream of Cascade Creek, and Trout Lake Creek. All five samples showed wild rainbow trout populations to be genetically distinct from each other and from hatchery rainbow trout strains. The study concluded that hatchery supplementation of rainbow trout in the watershed has not caused a loss of distinct wild populations. Known distributions for White River resident trout are designated in the salmonid distribution maps (included in the separate Maps directory) and in Appendix A. Northwestern Lake is stocked annually with 10-40,000 fingerling rainbow trout (USFS 1998). 36

37 HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS BY SUB-WATERSHED General Habitat conditions of the rivers and creeks in the White Salmon River watershed range from pristine to heavily impacted. The range of conditions reflects the variety of land uses found in the watershed, including wilderness, hydropower development, commercial forestry, agriculture, commercial and residential development, and urbanization. Principal impacts have been caused by construction of Condit Dam at RM 3.3 in 1913, riparian forest removal, splash damming and removal of LWD from the mainstem and tributaries, draining and channelization of tributaries and adjacent floodplain, fish passage barriers, and lack of screening to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids into surface water diversions and pumps. Anthropogenic impacts in the White Salmon River watershed are not new, with many of the habitat impacts dating back over 100 years. There are historical accounts of extensive splash damming and removal of all LWD from channels dating back to (Lane and Lane 1981). Condit dam was constructed in 1913, precluding all upstream anadromous access. Irrigation diversions date back to the late 1800s, and most diversions/withdrawals have been in place since the early 1900s. Extensive logging was initiated in the late 1800s, and most all of the watershed has been logged at least once. Until recent years, timber harvest typically extended to the edge of the stream/river. Extensive grazing has occurred since the late 1800s in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed and in the Trout Lake Valley. Large historical marsh areas in the upper Rattlesnake Creek watershed were actively drained in the early 1900s to improve grazing conditions. The watershed is recovering from some past land use actions; many other impacts of past land use actions remain in the watershed. Habitat management alone cannot restore salmon populations, but it is a necessary component of recovery. Salmonid recovery efforts will require that current habitat conditions in the watershed (and the policies and practices influencing them) be modified in order to reestablish the natural conditions and processes that shaped salmon evolution. Habitat Elements Included in this Analysis of Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors by the Washington State Conservation Commission: The habitat elements considered in this salmonid habitat limiting factors report include: Loss of Access to Spawning and Rearing Habitat This habitat element includes human-placed structures that restrict access to spawning habitat for adult salmonids or rearing habitat for juveniles, including culverts, dams, water diversions, etc. Additional factors considered are low stream flow or temperature conditions that function as barriers during certain times of the year. Although several of the culverts in the watershed have been qualitatively evaluated for fish passage status, there has been no comprehensive assessment of culverts and associated fish passage status in the watershed. Many of the surface water diversions are known to not be screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids, but no comprehensive assessment of diversions and associated screening status is known to have been conducted. 37

38 Floodplain Conditions Floodplains are relatively flat areas adjacent to larger streams and rivers that are periodically inundated during high flows. In a natural state, they allow for the lateral movement of the main channel and provide storage for floodwaters, sediment, and large woody debris. Floodplains generally contain numerous sloughs, side channels, and other features that provide important spawning habitat, rearing habitat, and refugia during high flows. This habitat element includes direct loss of aquatic habitat from human activities in floodplains (such as filling or draining) and disconnection of main channels from floodplains with dikes. Disconnection can also result from channel incision caused by changes in hydrology or sediment inputs. Channel Conditions This habitat element addresses instream habitat characteristics such as bank stability, pools, and large woody debris that are not adequately captured by other designated habitat elements. Changes in these characteristics are often symptoms of other habitat effects elsewhere in the watershed, which should also be identified in the appropriate habitat element discussion (sediment condition, riparian condition, etc.). Streambed Substrate Conditions Changes in the input of fine and coarse sediment to stream channels can have a broad range of effects on salmonid habitat. Increases in coarse sediment can create channel instability, increased bank erosion, and reduce the frequency and volume of pools. Decreases in coarse sediment transport (e.g., downstream of a dam) can limit the availability of spawning gravel and result in channel incision. Increases in fine sediment can fill in pools, decrease the survival rate of eggs deposited in the gravel, and lower the production of benthic invertebrates. This habitat element addresses these and other sediment-related habitat effects caused by human activities throughout a watershed. These human activities include or result in increases in sediment input from landslides, roads, agricultural practices, construction activities, and bank erosion; decreases in gravel availability caused by dams and floodplain constrictions; and changes in sediment transport brought about by altered hydrology and reduction of large woody debris. Riparian Conditions Riparian areas include the land areas adjacent to streams and rivers that interact with the aquatic environment. This habitat element addresses factors that limit the ability of native riparian vegetation to provide shade, nutrients, bank stability, and a source for large woody debris. Adverse effects to riparian condition result from timber harvest, clearing for agriculture or development, construction of roads, dikes, or other structures, livestock grazing, and direct access of livestock to creek channels. Water Quality Water quality factors addressed by this habitat element include temperature, dissolved oxygen, and toxics that directly affect salmonid production. Turbidity is also included, although the sources of sediment problems may also be discussed in the substrate condition habitat element. In some cases, fecal coliform bacteria problems are identified because they may serve as indicators of other effects in a watershed, such as direct livestock access to streams. 38

39 Water Quantity Changes in flow conditions can have a variety of effects on salmonid habitat. Decreased low flows can reduce the availability of summer rearing habitat and contribute to temperature and access problems, while increased peak flows can scour or bury spawning nests. Other alterations to seasonal hydrology can strand fish or limit the availability of habitat at various life stages. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, or increased exposure to rain-on-snow events, increase the frequency and magnitude of peak flow events, affecting the stability of the creek and associated habitat. All types of hydrologic changes can alter channel and floodplain complexity. This habitat element considers changes in flow conditions brought about by water withdrawals, the presence of roads and impervious surfaces, the operation of dams and diversions, alteration of floodplains and wetlands, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, and a variety of land use practices. There are numerous irrigation surface water diversions and pump intakes in the White Salmon River watershed. Few of the surface water diversions are screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids into the irrigation network. There appears to be little, if any, assessment of impacts of the irrigation diversions/withdrawals on surface water flows and salmonid habitat, particularly in late summer. In addition, the majority of irrigation in the watershed is flood irrigation (Stampfli), one of few areas in the state that has not converted to more efficient and less environmentally impacting irrigation practices. There appear to be available opportunities to improve water use efficiency and instream flows, reduce surface erosion, and to prevent entrainment of salmonids by implementing changes to the irrigation delivery network throughout the watershed. Lake Habitat Lakes can provide important spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids. This habitat element considers effects typical to lake environments, such as the construction of docks and piers, increases in aquatic vegetation, and the application of herbicides to control plant growth. Biological Processes This habitat element considers impacts to fish brought about by the introduction of exotic plants and animals, and also from the loss of ocean-derived nutrients caused by a reduction in the amount of available salmon carcasses. The intent is to restore ocean-derived nutrients to freshwater streams through the restoration of healthy viable natural spawning populations of anadromous salmonids. Freshwater streams may be currently deficient in marine derived nutrients due to low spawning returns or habitat problems that limit fish utilization or productivity. There are few specific locations where there is information sufficient to characterize the extent to which lack of marine derived nutrients may be a limiting factor for salmonid production. Watershed Discussions Watershed discussions are presented for those streams in the White Salmon River watershed that support salmonids, including anadromous salmonids, bull trout/dolly Varden, and resident trout. Where information is available, the habitat description is contrasted to historical conditions considered to have supported greater natural salmonid production. A list of prioritized/ranked salmonid habitat action recommendations is included at the end of each watershed section; these action recommendations reflect collaborative input from the TAC as to which habitat 39

40 protection/restoration actions are likely to benefit salmonid production to the greatest extent within the watershed. The action recommendations are based on collective scientific opinion of salmonid production benefit and do not necessarily consider feasibility, landowner interest, or cost, and do not include any prioritization between watersheds. These additional elements should be considered in the development and implementation of the salmonid restoration strategy for the White Salmon River watershed. White Salmon River General The White Salmon River enters the Columbia River at RM 167, near Underwood, Washington (NPPC 2000 Draft). The White Salmon watershed drains 386 mi 2. Approximately 225,000 acres within the watershed are located upstream of Condit Dam and Northwestern Lake (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Approximately 18% of the White Salmon River watershed is located upstream of Trout Lake. For the purposes of this report, the White Salmon River mainstem will be included in two sections, the lower White Salmon River (downstream of Big Brother Falls, RM 16.8) and the upper White Salmon River. Lower White Salmon River As noted above, for the purposes of this report, the lower White Salmon River includes the mainstem downstream of Big Brother Falls (RM 16.8). The Lower White Salmon River is commonly referenced into several broad river reaches: the lower river downstream of Condit Dam (RM 3.3) Condit Dam upstream to Husum Falls (RM 7.6) Husum Falls upstream to BZ Falls (RM 12.3, just upstream of BZ Corner) BZ Falls to Big Brother Falls (RM 16.8) The portion of the lower White Salmon River from Northwestern Lake upstream to the mouth of Gilmer Creek is designated Recreational per the Wild and Scenic River Act (USFS 1998). A significant white-water rafting industry has developed throughout this reach of the White Salmon River. The White Salmon Fish Hatchery is located on the right bank of the river at ~RM 1.4 (Hennelly et al. 1994). Fish Access Anadromous salmonid upstream access has been blocked since 1913 by Condit Dam, located at RM 3.3 (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). The dam impounds Northwestern Lake, which has 2,050 acre/feet of storage. After completion of the dam, there were two attempts to build a fish ladder to provide passage over the dam, but both washed out during high flows. The initial ladder was constructed of wood and was washed out by high flows. The ladder was rebuilt with concrete, but the aggregate used in the concrete was dirty, resulting in rotten concrete, which washed out in 1919 (Twidwell in Lane and Lane 1981). However, there are anecdotal reports the initial wooden fish ladder was successful in passing summer steelhead upstream of the dam (Twidwell and Quaempts 1973, in Lane and Lane 1981). No further attempts were made to ladder Condit Dam after the washout in Even if upstream fish passage had been continued 40

41 and was successful, ultimate failure was inevitable, as there was no provision for safely passing juvenile fish downstream over the dam or through the turbines (Donaldson 1982 in Lane and Lane 1981). In lieu of fish passage, in 1919, the Northwestern Electric Company (owners of Condit Dam) signed an agreement with the state fish commissioner that forever released them from the responsibility of maintaining fish passage at Condit Dam (Lane and Lane 1981). A $5,000 sum was paid to the state to reimburse the citizens for the loss of this fishery resource. However, no federal or tribal interests were made party to this agreement (agreement between WDF and Northwest Electric Co in Lane and Lane 1981). The money was used to build a hatchery located at Chinook, Washington (LeMier and Smith 1955). In 1989, PacifiCorp Electric Operations applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a new license to continue operation of the Condit hydroelectric project. In 1996, the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project was completed and a preferred alternative identified. The preferred alternative included a fish ladder for upstream fish passage and a fixed screen system to safely pass juvenile migrants downstream. PacifiCorp then notified FERC that a new license issued in compliance with the EIS would render the project uneconomic to operate (Beck 1998, as cited in USFS 1998). Although there remains a high degree of interest in retaining Condit Dam and providing fish passage, PacifiCorp and other cooperators have been working to develop a least-cost plan for dam removal. The approach proposed by PacifiCorp includes blasting a tunnel through the base of the dam, emptying the reservoir, and allowing river erosion to remove 1.57 million cubic yards (of the 2 million cubic yards total) of sediment deposited upstream of the dam. The dam would subsequently be removed using blasting techniques after the reservoir has been emptied. This would be done just prior to peak fall/winter flows to maximize stream energy for sediment transport and dispersal (Shrier). FERC had not approved a final management option at the time of this report. There are several areas of probable historic and current barriers to upstream migration on the lower White Salmon River (USFS 1998). These include Husum Falls (a 6-12 foot falls at RM 7.6), a 15-foot falls at RM 12.4, a series of four falls (6,8,12, and 21 feet) between RM 16.0 and 16.3, and three 8-foot falls between RM 20.5 and [NOTE: These river mile locations are from USFS (1998) and may differ from river mile references elsewhere in this report.] Prior to construction of Condit Dam, there are reports of chinook, coho, and possibly chum presence upstream as far as Husum Falls (RM 7.6), and steelhead presence to the waterfall just upstream of BZ Corner at RM 12.7 (BZ Falls). There is uncertainty as to whether steelhead could pass this foot high waterfall, and another waterfall at RM 16.8 (Big Brother Falls). There are historical anecdotal reports of steelhead being caught upstream of Trout Lake, but it is unknown whether these were anadromous steelhead or resident rainbow trout. The only tributaries with historical anadromous salmon presence (all upstream of Condit Dam) are Spring Creek, Little Buck Creek, Mill Creek, and Buck Creek (all tributary to Northwestern Lake), Rattlesnake Creek and its tributaries (Mill and Indian creeks), and Spring Creek (tributary to White Salmon River ~1 mile downstream of Husum). Based on bottom contour profiles in Northwestern Lake, it appears that Buck Creek would remain accessible to salmonids after the removal of Condit Dam, and Mill Creek would likely remain accessible at least in the lower end (Shrier). Spring and Little Buck creeks are in the steeper gradient portion of the reservoir, and would likely no longer be accessible after dam removal. 41

42 Floodplain Modifications The White Salmon River is naturally highly confined and constrained throughout much of its length. From its confluence upstream to the base of Trout Lake Valley, the river flows through deeply incised canyons, with several reaches flowing through bedrock box canyons. As a result, natural floodplain function found on most larger river systems is extremely limited on the White Salmon River mainstem. There are two areas on the lower White Salmon River where natural floodplain conditions have been highly altered. The backwatering of the Columbia River upstream of Bonneville Dam has inundated the historical lower reaches of the White Salmon River. The Bonneville Pool inundates what was natural low-gradient gravel bedded channel for ~0.75 miles upstream of the railroad tracks. In addition, there are anecdotal reports the White Salmon River historically flowed parallel to the Columbia River for ~1.0 mile downstream of the railroad bridge (Connolly). However, pre-bonneville Dam photos indicate this was not the case, and show the White Salmon River entering the Columbia River at a right angle just downstream of the railroad (Dugger). Due to the low gradient, the historical mouth of the White Salmon River likely accumulated spawning gravels and was likely highly productive. The other major floodplain alteration on the White Salmon River mainstem was the construction of Condit Dam at RM 3.3, completed in The dam resulted in pooling of ~1.6 miles (RM ) of mainstem, elimination of natural coarse sediment transport downstream of the dam, and alteration of the natural flow regime and sediment transport downstream of the dam (particularly in the ~1.0 mile bypass reach downstream of the dam). Channel Conditions Channel gradient in the lower White Salmon River is generally <2% (Hennelly et al. 1994). However, large peak flows coupled with the highly confined channel result in high instream energy. LWD is generally absent throughout the entire lower White Salmon River mainstem. Historical LWD presence is uncertain, but is thought to have been relatively low in comparison to other rivers due to naturally high river energy in the highly confined channel, which would tend to move most LWD through the channel. However, there are anecdotal reports of significant LWD accumulations in the vicinity of the dam prior to its construction. There are historical recollections from the period of a logjam in the river, probably 500 feet upstream of the location of Condit Dam and extending for ~0.5 mile, with an estimated 20 million board feet in the jam (Quaempts 1973, as cited in Lane and Lane 1981). There were numerous other logjams throughout the river prior to dam construction that were removed by blasting with dynamite or by pulling out the key logs to enable the unobstructed floating of logs from the Trout Lake area to the mouth. Removal of logs occurred every spring during high water. Interestingly, there are no apparent logjams in the vicinity of the dam site in photographs taken just prior to dam construction (Shrier). Large key-piece LWD would be the only individual pieces likely to be able to stabilize in the channel (Bair). These key pieces could then form the foundation for collection of smaller LWD pieces and formation of logjams. Unfortunately, the potential supply of large key-piece LWD in the watershed is severely impaired by past and ongoing land uses. Much of the limited recruitment of LWD that currently occurs is actively cut up or removed by river rafters (Bair). 42

43 Pool condition in the lower White Salmon River is good. From the upper end of the backwatered upstream of the mouth (RM 1.1) to Condit Dam (RM 3.3), the river is ~50% riffles and ~50% pools/glides (Hennelly et al. 1994), although the channel in this reach lacks diversity, with few boulders or LWD pieces. Upstream of Northwestern Lake, there are excellent deep water pools, providing good adult holding and juvenile rearing habitat (Bair, Connolly, Morris). LWD likely would not play a significant role in the canyon areas throughout the White Salmon River (Morris). Within the canyon area (from BZ corners to just upstream of Husum) there are currently only 3 to 5 pieces of LWD that are inside of the bankfull area, and they appear to have a very minor role in habitat or pool creation. However, within this canyon reach are ~25 very large deep pools of which ~20 have significant amounts of very clean spawning gravels (high percentage from 2 cm to 13 cm) in the tailout. There are also many pools, runs, and glides from the downstream end of the canyon to Northwestern Lake, also with substantial presence of spawning gravels. Substrate Condition Hennelly et al. (1994) characterize substrate condition upstream of Northwestern Lake as a combination of bedrock and boulder/cobble riffles, with little mention of spawning gravel deposits. However, this is contradicted by collective experience of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) participants. Brain Bair has snorkeled the river upstream of Northwestern Lake, and indicates there are gravel deposits on the channel margins and at the lower end of each pool. Greg Morris worked throughout the White Salmon basin in 2002, and also indicates that spawning gravels are plentiful in many locations. The TAC generally supported observations indicating presence of sufficient gravel deposits throughout the lower White Salmon River, particularly from Husum downstream to Northwestern Lake, to provide adequate spawning potential to seed the available rearing habitat. Although there are fine sediment concerns noted in some of the tributaries, there are no concerns regarding fine sediment effects on substrate in the mainstem White Salmon River. However, there is at least one specific bank erosion concern in the reach between Northwestern Lake and Husum Falls, where water is diverted from Buck Creek and piped across the White Salmon River, for Husum area irrigation needs (Hennelly et al. 1994). Irrigation return flows are routed through a ditch and over the bank into the White Salmon River, resulting in a 1,500 foot long gully that is incised 15 feet deep. In addition, the tributary entering at ~RM has also cut a sizeable gully on its descent to the river, and would benefit from stabilization efforts (Hennelly et al. 1994). Past instream gravel bar scalping occurred on a regular basis in the SE quarter of section 30, T6N,R11E, just upstream of the upper end of the canyon (Dugger). Removal of gravels at this location undoubtedly impaired gravel transport downstream into the canyon, but it is unknown to what extent current gravel presence in the canyon would have been increased in the absence of gravel mining. Increased presence of LWD in the canyon would also likely increase gravel retention through the canyon. The instream gravel mining has ceased, but there are no improvements noted in gravel presence downstream. The construction of Condit Dam eliminated natural sediment transport downstream of the dam, and has resulted in significant sediment accumulation at the upper end of Northwestern Lake. It is estimated that the amount of accumulated sediment in the reservoir is about 2 million yd 3, of which ~75% is estimated to be fines (FERC 1996). Gravel presence is poor from the dam downstream at least to the old bridge below the bypass outfall (Dugger; USBOR 1974, as cited in Lane and Lane 1981), although much of the bypass reach is a confined high energy reach where gravels and fines would likely not have naturally accumulated (Shrier). The proposed downstream release of accumulated sediment in Northwestern Lake is expected to result in a 43

44 short-term siltation of currently utilized gravel substrates in the lower river. However, the longterm benefits for anadromous production outweigh this short-term impact. Returning adult salmonids will be trapped upstream of the mouth of the river, removed to an artificial production site, and the progeny released back into the watershed upstream of the dam site. A new equilibrium in sediment transport is likely to be reached in six months to two years after breaching of the dam, depending on frequency and magnitude of peak flows. Riparian Condition In most areas where agricultural/orchard lands are located adjacent to the White Salmon River, natural tree vegetation has been removed to the edge of the canyon. However, evaluation of riparian condition on the lower White Salmon River mainstem is somewhat different than for many other rivers. Location of the river within steep walled canyons and/or box canyons for much of its length has naturally limited riparian disturbance. Riparian vegetation growth within the canyons is generally good, although several locations are comprised primarily of regenerating conifer stands, and are lacking mature conifers. There are opportunities for riparian enhancement, however, riparian function would generally rate as good. The combination of the river location within steep canyon sidewalls, combined with the very high contribution of groundwater to the lower White Salmon River, limit the importance of riparian shading to reduce water temperature. There are no water temperature concerns identified in the lower White Salmon River. Downstream of Condit Dam, surface shading is indicated as minimal, even though riparian vegetation covers 90% of the area (Hennelly et al. 1994). Water Quantity Streamflow in the White Salmon River is fed primarily by glacier runoff and numerous major springs in the headwaters (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Presence of contributing spring flows has been identified throughout the length of the river. The largest input of spring flows in the lower White Salmon River is in the reach extending for ~2 miles below Weingarten Bridge (RM 17.15), where there are 67 springs and 20 tributaries (Hennelly et al. 1994). A porous basalt layer, about 40 feet below the top of the canyon pours water out of both banks. Observations at this location in summer 1993 indicated a 700 cfs flow contribution from springs at these locations, comprising >50% of average low flow. There are numerous water withdrawals in the upper White Salmon River and in Trout Lake Creek, as well as from the lower White Salmon River (Hennelly et al. 1994). In addition to the large water withdrawal associated with Condit Dam, stream surveys in summer 1993 identified 2 irrigation pumps in the river and 3 pumps withdrawing spring water in the reach from Husum to Big Eddy; 2 river pumps and a left bank spring box in the reach from Big Eddy to BZ Corner; and a diversion of White Salmon River water to Gilmer Creek at RM 12.6, all in the lower White Salmon River. The amount of withdrawal or diversion at each of these sites was not determined. The only reach of the lower White Salmon River where water withdrawals are identified as a concern is the bypass reach located downstream of Condit Dam. The powerhouse is located ~1.0 mile downstream of Condit Dam. In summer 1993, ~90% (1,260 cfs) of the flow was diverted from the dam to the powerhouse, leaving only ~10% (80 cfs) as instream flow in the bypass reach (Hennelly et al. 1994). PacifiCorp holds a vested water right of 1,200 cfs for power generation (PacifiCorp 1991, as cited in Stampfli 1994). No instream flow requirements for the bypass reach downstream of the dam were required until the initial license in 1965, which required a minimum instream flow of 15 cfs downstream of the dam at all times (FPC 40 AR 44

45 1968, as cited in Lane and Lane 1981). This provision is retained under the current license, which has expired and is currently up for renewal before FERC. Prior to the instream flow requirement, flows in the bypass reach were insufficient to allow fish passage or survival. Cobb (1927, as cited in Lane and Lane 1981) indicates that no salmon could swim upstream of the power plant. Wilke (in Benson to Rasmussen 1971, as cited in Lane and Lane 1981) conjectured that the lack of flow in the bypass reach resulted in the destruction of the spring chinook run, indicating that the lack of flow prevented fish from being able to return to the few larger pools, and subjected large and small fish to all sorts of predation from local people, animals, and birds. In addition to impairing flows in the bypass reach, the dam also eliminates natural sediment and LWD transport, adversely affecting salmonid habitat quality downstream of the dam (Hennelly et al. 1994). Water Quality Water temperature in the White Salmon River is relatively insensitive to shade; current shade conditions are well below target levels, but water temperature remains well within water temperature standards (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Water temperature appears to be heavily influenced by spring and groundwater contribution, and by the location of the river within a confined steep walled canyon for much of its length. Water temperature measurements in summer 1993 were 11 o C downstream of Weingarten Bridge (RM 17.2), cooling to 9 o C immediately downstream of the large input of spring water (Hennelly et al. 1994). Hennelly et al. (1994) identified numerous private garbage dump locations down the banks of the lower White Salmon River. These dumps have been cleaned up through several volunteer garbage rodeo cleanup efforts; illegal dumps are no longer considered to be a problem in the lower White Salmon River. The White Salmon River has high conductivity, similar to the Deschutes River in Oregon, which is typically indicative of high fish productivity (Bair). Water quality studies in documented significant levels of certain water quality parameters in the White Salmon River watershed (including tributaries), including water temperature, fecal coliform, and potentially nutrients (Stampfli 1994). Despite observations of degraded water quality, the lower White Salmon mainstem retains relatively constant good to excellent water quality. This appears to be tied to a seemingly enormous pollution assimilation capacity of the basin, which appears to be related to uniquely suited watershed hydrology. The aspects of the unique geohydrology include glacially-fed summer flows, high rates of groundwater recharge occurring in the upper basin, enormous groundwater storage capacity of the upper basin, subsurface attenuation of turbidity, sediment, and other pollutants, and enormous quantities of purified groundwater discharge through seeps and springs in the middle canyon section. Lakes Northwestern Lake is the impounded body of water upstream of Condit Dam. The lake provides 2,050 acre/feet of storage. A resident trout fishery has developed in Northwestern Lake. If Condit Dam is removed, the lake would also disappear. Action Recommendations The following ranked salmonid habitat restoration actions are recommended for the lower White Salmon River: Restore anadromous salmonid passage (upstream and downstream) of Condit Dam 45

46 Restore natural sediment transport, both from the upper White Salmon River and to the lower White Salmon River downstream of Condit Dam Assess opportunities to enhance LWD presence on channel margins throughout the lower White Salmon River, recognizing other river uses Prevent further bank erosion and restore bank integrity at the Husum irrigation return flow channel to the lower White Salmon River Upper White Salmon River General For the purposes of this report, the upper White Salmon River watershed extends from Big Brother Falls (RM 16.8) upstream to the headwaters. This is different from the area identified in the USFS Upper White Salmon Watershed Analysis, which addresses only that portion of the upper watershed within the USFS boundary. Fish Access Salmonid presence upstream of Big Brother Falls (RM 16.8) is limited to resident trout only. Salmonids are present in the upper White Salmon River and several of it s tributaries including Cascade, Green Canyon, Ninefoot, Stagman, and Trout Lake Creek (Scott). Rainbow trout inhabit the upper White Salmon River to RM 42.5, where the stream becomes a barrier due to steep gradient and low flow (USFS 1998). Brook trout are present in the lower valley area of the upper White Salmon, but none have been found in any of the tributaries aside from Trout Lake Creek. Recent sampling of a LB Unnamed tributary (located in Sec 5 and 6, T5N, R11E, and continuing upstream into T6N, R11E) identified presence of both brook trout and rainbow trout (Morris, Dugger). The landowner also indicates he has seen brook trout spawning in this tributary in the fall as well. Records show that rainbow trout inhabited Wicky and Morrison Creeks in the 1940s-1950s, but none have been found in electrofishing surveys in recent years (Scott). A waterfall barrier exists at the mouth of Wicky Creek, which eliminates upstream migration of trout from the White Salmon River. Trout Lake has been extensively stocked with both legal and fingerling sized brook and rainbow trout, which are free to move into the White Salmon River (USFS 1998). The lake was stocked almost annually from 1960 to Rainbow trout were the predominant species stocked and were last planted in Trout Lake in The White Salmon River also was planted with rainbow trout in the 1970s. The upper White Salmon River is no longer stocked, nor is Trout Lake. Few, if any, of the irrigation diversions in the Trout Lake Valley (upper White Salmon River and Trout Lake Creek) are screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids. This likely results in significant salmonid mortality. Prior to construction of Condit Dam in 1913, anadromous steelhead were historically able to migrate upstream to BZ Falls, with some likely able to pass upstream as far as Big Brother Falls. There are anecdotal reports of steelhead presence farther upstream to above Trout Lake (Donaldson 1974, as cited in Lane and Lane 1981), but the foot height of the falls strongly suggests that adult steelhead would not have been able to pass the falls, unless conditions immediately downstream of the falls were significantly different than exist currently. It is possible that high flows could increase the downstream pool water level sufficiently to allow successful salmonid passage (Morris). 46

47 The only known culvert fish passage barrier in the upper White Salmon watershed is at the 23- Road crossing of Ninefoot Creek (Scott). In 1990, a parasitic copepod was found in high numbers on the rainbow trout sampled below the culvert and in the White Salmon River adjacent to the mouth of Ninefoot Creek (USFS 1998). The parasite was not present on fish upstream of the culvert. As a result, providing fish passage at the culvert was not recommended in the past in order to prevent parasite infestation of rainbow upstream of the culvert. It is recommended that the culvert be made passable to fish if there is an absence of the parasite or if anadromous fish inhabit the upper White Salmon River in the future. Floodplain Modifications/Channel Conditions/Substrate Condition/Riparian Condition Little is known of habitat conditions for much of the upper White Salmon River. From where the river enters Trout Lake Valley upstream to Cascade Creek is mostly inaccessible to human intrusion (Scott). As a result, habitat conditions are predicted to be generally comparable to natural conditions. Water Quantity Glacial melt sustains relatively high summer and spring flows in Cascade Creek, Wicky Creek, Morrison Creek, and the mainstem White Salmon River (USFS 1998). Conversely, Gotchen and Hole-in-the-Ground creeks are completely dry throughout much of the year and have no surface water discharge to the upper White Salmon River. Irrigation water diversions and delivery for Trout Lake Creek and that portion of the upper White Salmon watershed that flows through Trout Lake Valley are closely linked. Irrigation diversions in this area date back to the early 1900s; Stevens (1910 in Lane and Lane 1981) identified the location of the headgates for each of eight irrigation ditches which were diverting water from the upper White Salmon River in the summer of 1909, and of two others diverting water from Trout Lake Creek. There are currently seven major water diversions in the Trout Lake Valley, few if any of which are screened to prevent juvenile salmonid entrainment into the diversions (Dugger). Most all of the irrigation in the Trout Lake Valley is flood irrigation. The irrigation diversions do not pose a problem to surface water availability in the spring and early summer; it is undetermined to what extent the diversions impair instream flow in late summer. The extensive irrigation water delivery channel network constitutes nearly half of the potential channel habitat potential in the Trout Lake Valley (Dugger). For several years, irrigation ditch operators were encouraged to maintain flow in the ditches year-round, because of concerns of fish mortality if the unscreened irrigation delivery cannels were shut down. However, this has been determined to not be effective in protecting fish, as many of the fish in the ditches would either perish in the ditches during mid-winter icing events, or be diverted into the fields where they would perish. The only identified means to protect salmonids from entrainment and mortality in the irrigation diversions is to screen the diversions. Glacier Spring, a large year-round spring just downstream of the USFS boundary, has been developed as the municipal water supply for the town of Trout Lake. When sampled in summer 1993, ~1,100 cfs was being pumped to the municipal water supply (Hennelly et al. 1994) rather than contributing to summer flows in the upper White Salmon River. 47

48 Water Quality No water quality concerns are identified for the upper White Salmon River. Water temperatures are always cold, due to the glacier fed nature of the watershed. Over 15 years of monitoring in the upper White Salmon River approximately 1 mile downstream of the USFS boundary, annual peak water temperatures average 11.6 o C and occur primarily in August, but also occur in July and September (USFS 1998). The state water quality standard for maximum water temperature has not been exceeded during the entire period of monitoring. Action Recommendations The following ranked salmonid habitat restoration actions are recommended for the upper White Salmon River: Screen irrigation surface water diversions Replace existing culvert at Road 23 crossing of Ninefoot Creek, provided parasitic copepods are no longer present downstream of the culvert, or if bull trout are found to inhabit this watershed Stormproof, and decommission where possible, forest roads to reduce sedimentation and increased runoff Eliminate unrestricted access to the river in the agricultural/grazing areas along the upper White Salmon River through Trout Lake Valley Restore riparian function, where impaired Spring Creek General There are several Spring creeks in the White Salmon River watershed. This Spring Creek is a right bank tributary to Northwestern Lake. The primary land use in the Spring Creek watershed is timber production. Fish passage into Spring Creek from Northwestern Lake is currently possible; it is likely that a natural gradient barrier at the mouth would preclude fish access if Condit Dam is removed (Shrier). Spring Creek likely has minimal anadromous salmonid potential (Bair). In-channel habitat diversity is minimal; there is a lack of LWD. Riparian vegetation is primarily young alders and conifers. Riparian function could be enhanced by thinning existing young riparian vegetation and underplanting with conifers. No additional habitat information is available for Spring Creek. Action Recommendations The following ranked habitat restoration actions are recommended for Spring Creek: Thin young riparian vegetation, underplant with conifers Assess salmonid habitat conditions; address identified problems 48

49 Little Buck Creek General Little Buck Creek is a right bank tributary to Northwestern Lake. Little Buck Creek has a relatively low gradient for ~1 mile. Fish passage into Little Buck Creek from Northwestern Lake is currently possible; it is unlikely that fish passage would be possible into Little Buck Creek if Condit Dam is removed (Shrier). There are no known human-caused barriers in Little Buck Creek (Dugger). No additional habitat information is available for Little Buck Creek. Action Recommendations The following ranked salmonid habitat restoration actions are recommended for Little Buck Creek: Assess salmonid habitat conditions; address identified problems Mill Creek General There are at least two Mill creeks in the White Salmon River watershed. This Mill Creek is a right bank tributary to Northwestern Lake. Fish passage into Mill Creek from Northwestern Lake is currently possible; it is likely that Mill Creek would remain accessible to salmonids even if Condit Dam is removed (Shrier). The outfall of the culvert at the County road crossing of Mill Creek is perched and the culvert is also a velocity barrier at peak flows (Dugger). No additional habitat information is available for Mill Creek. Action Recommendations The following ranked habitat restoration actions are recommended for Mill Creek: Determine fish access status once Condit Dam is removed Correct culvert fish passage barrier at County road crossing of Mill Creek Assess salmonid habitat conditions; address identified problems Buck Creek General Buck Creek is the largest tributary to Northwestern Lake, entering the right bank near the upstream end of the lake. The Buck Creek watershed drains 14 mi 2 (Hennelly et al. 1994)(5,981 acres (City of White Salmon Draft 2003)), and likely provides the greatest salmonid (resident and anadromous) potential of the tributaries to Northwestern Lake. Elevation within the Buck Creek watershed ranges from its entry to Northwestern Lake (244 feet) to 4,000 feet on Monte Carlo (City of White Salmon Draft 2003). Annual precipitation is ~60 inches throughout the watershed. Buck Creek is in the transition zone between the more moderate coastal maritime climate zone and the more extreme inland continental climate zone. The gradient of most slopes in the watershed ranges from percent. Slope gradients can be as little as 10% on the flatter upper slopes of Monte Cristo. 49

50 There is residential development adjacent to the lower 0.2 mile of Buck Creek, and limited right bank pastureland in the lower 1.75 miles (Hennelly et al. 1994). The primary land use in the Buck Creek watershed is timber production. WADNR owns 7,993 acres (88%) of the total of 9,068 acres in the watershed (Stampfli 1994). Fish Access Fish passage into Buck Creek from Northwestern Lake is currently possible, and Buck Creek would remain accessible after removal of Condit Dam (Shrier). The lowermost natural barrier that would block anadromous access is a set of waterfalls between RM 3.65 and 3.69, ranging from 5 to 16 feet in height (Hennelly et al. 1994). The lower waterfall ranges from 2-5 feet in height; the upper waterfall ranges from feet in height (Morris). The upper waterfall is most likely a fish barrier for the majority of time. The old municipal water supply dam and diversion are located just upstream of another waterfall at ~RM 5.6 (Morris), upstream of what would be the uppermost extent of anadromous access (Hennelly et al. 1994). The City of White Salmon is no longer actively using this municipal water source, but it remains as an emergency water supply, and may provide an option to eliminate the irrigation diversion downstream. There is an irrigation diversion dam located at RM 1.9 that supplies irrigation water for pastureland located on the right bank; the diversion line eventually crosses the White Salmon River, providing irrigation water to 75 additional users on 300 acres on the east side of the river. The water diversion at the irrigation dam is not screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids into the diversion, and rainbow trout have been observed in the diversion channel (Morris). The dam was indicated as failing and washing downstream in the 1993 stream survey (Hennelly et al. 1994). Other potential problems that were noted as being fish passage barriers in 1993 included presence of an old unused large concrete dam in the channel at RM 0.35, and a collapsed footbridge in the channel at RM However, the irrigation diversion dam is stable and not being washed downstream as noted in the 1993 report (Bill Anderson, landowner). The collapsed footbridge at RM 1.86 has been removed and replaced with a new bridge, and the concrete structure in the creek at RM 0.35 is an old fallen bridge footing, which may not block fish passage at most flows. A preliminary report (~April 2000), reviewed by the DNR Klickitat District Engineer, identified the following culverts as fish passage barriers in the Buck Creek watershed (City of White Salmon Draft 2003): B-1000 road at unnamed tributary to Buck Creek (near B-1300 junction) B-1000 at NF Buck Creek, B-1000 at MF Buck Creek, B-1400 at NF Buck Creek, N-1000 at SF Buck Creek, and N-1900 at unnamed tributary to SF Buck Creek It was anticipated that culvert corrections would be completed over a period of 1-5 years. Rainbow trout are present in SF Buck (upper extent undetermined) and in NF Buck at least to the uppermost road crossing of NF Buck (Morris). However, fish passage is impaired as noted above. Floodplain Modifications The lower 0.5 miles of Buck Creek has what appear to be push-up cobble dikes (Bair). However, no in-channel equipment operation is known to have occurred in lower Buck Creek; the channel 50

51 has been highly unstable in the lower creek sediment deposition area, and deep channel cuts are the result of channel avulsions and natural channel cutting (Bill Anderson, landowner) The channel avulsions and incision currently preclude development of off-channel habitats in the lower reaches of the creek. Natural streambank conditions are impaired at the irrigation diversion dam at RM 1.9, although the dam and armoring do not inhibit overbank flows onto the floodplain (floodplain function opinion provided by Bill Anderson, landowner). The concrete dam spans the channel and both banks have been armored and hardened to protect the structure. Removal of the irrigation dam and associated bank armoring could contribute to restoration of streambank, sediment transport, and riparian functions. Channel Conditions Stream surveys in summer 1993 identified a lack of LWD in the lower 0.2 mile of Buck Creek, increased diversity from RM , several logjams of cedar logs to 4 feet from RM , and increasing abundance of LWD jams higher in the watershed (Hennelly et al. 1994). No information was located on pool abundance or quality. Identified areas with bank instability include eroding bridge fill at RM 0.2, (Hennelly et al. 1994). Presence of trash was noted as a concern in the reach from RM Substrate Condition Substrate in Buck Creek is cobble dominated in many sections, with good spawning gravel presence in places (Morris). There is good availability of spawning gravels in lower Buck Creek, where 50 rainbow trout redds have been observed (Bair). No quantitative analysis has been done, but there are no indications of excessive fines in the available spawning gravels (Morris). Accumulated substrate materials have been periodically dredged from upstream of the municipal water supply dam at RM 3.7, with upland disposal (Dugger). Substrate materials dredged at the irrigation diversion dam at RM 1.9 have been passed downstream of the dam. Although this results in sediment pulses, there are no identified substrate transport concerns identified through lower Buck Creek. Surface erosion from Buck Creek Road was noted as a concern from RM (Hennelly et al. 1994). There are ~13.5 miles of forest road within 0.25 mile of streams. During a survey of understory vegetation in August 1998, observed soil erosion in the watershed was limited to skid trails, landings, and a few roads; there appeared to be little or no indication of severe erosion in the Buck Creek watershed (Rick Pudney, NRCS Yakima, as included in City of White Salmon Draft 2003). However, the DNR Transportation Systems Assessment identifies sedimentation to streams as a major issue within the Buck Creek watershed (City of White Salmon draft 2003). Over the years, a combination of timber sales and ongoing maintenance has rocked most roads within 100 feet of stream crossings or entire road systems. This was done to reduce the sedimentation into all streams, not just streams that directly support fish, and to reduce maintenance costs. An estimated 78% of the 30.4 road miles in the watershed have been rocked. Hunters use many of the roads, usually during wet weather, causing sedimentation and rutting. 51

52 Riparian Condition Riparian vegetation throughout the watershed is regenerating conifer forest, the result of past forest practices that harvested timber to the edge of the stream. Stream surveys in summer 1993 identified the creek as well-shaded from RM , sparse riparian vegetation on the right bank from RM , limited shading from RM , and abundant shading upstream, including the forks (Hennelly et al. 1994). Riparian function in regenerating forest areas could be enhanced by thinning riparian vegetation to increase light penetration. Livestock access to the creek is precluded by fencing through the right-bank pasture area downstream of RM 1.9, with fence setbacks of 100 ft to ¼ mile (Bill Anderson, landowner). Water Quantity Buck Creek has been a long-term municipal water supply for the City of White Salmon. Water was diverted from Buck Creek at the dam at RM 3.7. The City is no longer actively using the diversion, although it remains as an emergency water supply. The reasons for abandoning this site as an active municipal water supply were associated with turbidity and fecal coliform contamination (likely from elk herds upstream)(stampfli). The dam is upstream of a series of waterfalls that would be natural fish passage barriers, so the main concerns associated with the dam would be effects to summer base flows and altered sediment transport. Surface flows are limited during summer low flows (Sept/Oct 2002 base flow was 9.9 cfs at ~RM 2.3 (Morris)). Although the municipal withdrawal has been curtailed, summer flows may be further impaired by the irrigation diversion at RM 1.9, but the extent of impact has not been assessed. Seeps were noted along the bank downstream of the irrigation diversion, possibly associated with leaks in the irrigation delivery pipeline (Hennelly et al. 1994). Although habitatforming processes would be restored if the irrigation diversion were removed and relocated to the municipal supply dam upstream, available summer habitat would still be limited downstream by available surface flows. In addition, the irrigation water return flow is routed to the White Salmon River in Section 35, falling 280 feet in 1,000 feet, creating a gully 20 feet wide and 15 feet deep. It was also noted that irrigation water is being diverted even when not used for irrigation. Water is diverted, at reduced levels outside the normal irrigation season for limited irrigation and livestock watering (Bill Anderson, landowner). Stream surveys in summer 1993 also identified 2 screened water pumps in the lower 0.2 mile of Buck Creek (Hennelly et al. 1994) that supply water to summer cabins (Bill Anderson, landowner). No information is available on the extent of impact of these pumps, or whether these pumps are associated with a valid water right or claim. Water Quality As noted above the City of White Salmon abandoned active use of the municipal diversion on Buck Creek due to concerns of turbidity and presence of fecal coliform bacteria. Although turbidity levels may be of concern for municipal water quality, turbidity levels are generally low and not considered to be a concern for downstream fish production (Bair). Fecal coliform bacteria presence is thought to be associated with elk herds upstream of the diversion. Water temperatures are within acceptable ranges; sampling in summer 1993 found water temperatures to be 8 o -11 o C in the forks, increasing to 13 o C between RM (Hennelly et al. 1994). 52

53 Action Recommendations The following ranked salmonid habitat restoration actions are recommended for Buck Creek: Assess opportunities to develop/restore off-channel habitat in the sediment deposition reach of lower Buck Creek Assess interest and opportunities that would allow removal of the irrigation diversion dam at RM 1.9; including consideration of opportunities to move the point of diversion upstream to the old City of White Salmon diversion. If the existing diversion dam at RM 1.9 is retained, provide upstream fish passage and screen the water diversion to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids Thin riparian vegetation in reaches with dense regenerating canopy cover, to increase light penetration and to increase growth of remaining vegetation Develop and implement a short-term LWD strategy to restore LWD presence and habitat diversity in depleted reaches until riparian function is restored Identify and correct any remaining surface erosion concerns to the creeks in the watershed; identify opportunities for road abandonment Promote cooperative riparian protection downstream of the DNR ownership boundary, including elimination of unrestricted livestock access and fencing Remove trash and litter in lower creek; remove old fallen bridge footing in creek at RM 0.35 Prevent further bank erosion and restore bank integrity at the irrigation return flow channel to the lower White Salmon River Spring Creek General There are several Spring creeks in the White Salmon River watershed. This Spring Creek is a right bank tributary entering the White Salmon River at ~RM 6.6, near Husum. Fish Access Fish are able to access upstream to a private dam (earth fill dam with concrete overflow)located at ~RM 0.8 (Dugger). The dam precludes access to a ~2.5 acre lake and approximately 0.33 mile of creek upstream of the lake, including numerous beaver dams (estimate of lake size and creek length upstream of the lake provided by Steve Kelly, landowner). The extent and quality of habitat upstream of the dam should be assessed to determine if it is warranted to provide fish access upstream of the dam. The culvert at the county road crossing at ~RM 0.75 has not been evaluated, but is thought to not be a fish passage barrier. The culvert at the upper end of the dam pond was replaced by the county approximately 10 years ago, and provides fish access for another 0.33 mile to a gradient break just downstream of a mini-hydro dam. In addition, the right bank tributary at RM 0.6 has fish presence upstream to the culverts at the road crossing. 53

54 Floodplain Modifications/Channel Conditions The primary floodplain modification is the private dam at ~RM 0.8. The gravel-bedded channel downstream of the dam is well-defined. The impoundment upstream of the dam is ~2.5 acres, with an additional ~0.33 mile of defined fine-sediment bedded channel upstream of the impoundment. The channel upstream of the lake has excellent LWD, most of which are trees at least 50 years old (Stephen Kelly, landowner). It is unknown to what extent the dam has influenced channel morphology changes. LWD presence is rated as good on the right bank tributary at RM 0.6 (Dugger). Substrate Condition Substrate is gravelly downstream of the county road (~RM 0.6). The channel upstream of the impoundment is well-defined with a fine sediment substrate (Stephen Kelley, landowner). No information was available on substrate condition downstream of the dam to the county road. It is unknown to what extent the dam has affected sediment transport and substrate condition downstream of the dam. Riparian Condition Riparian vegetation in this watershed is generally year old second growth (Dugger). Riparian function is naturally recovering over time. Water Quantity There is good flow volume year-round; summer flow volume is estimated to be ~7 cfs (Dugger). The dam has provided a source of electricity and irrigation for orchard and hay crops (Steve Kelly, landowner). The current status of consumptive water diversions is unknown. Water Quality No water quality concerns are identified. Action Recommendations The following ranked habitat restoration actions are recommended for Spring Creek: Assess extent and quality of fish habitat upstream of the dam at ~RM 0.8 to determine if restoration of fish passage is warranted Assess fish passage status of culvert on right bank tributary at RM 0.6 Assess effects of dam on sediment transport and downstream substrate condition Rattlesnake Creek, Indian Creek, Mill Creek General Rattlesnake Creek is a left bank tributary entering the White Salmon River at ~RM 7.7. Indian Creek is a left bank tributary entering Rattlesnake Creek at ~RM 0.5. Mill Creek is a left bank tributary entering Rattlesnake Creek at ~RM Current abundance of resident trout in the 54

55 Rattlesnake Creek watershed is low due to low seasonal streamflow, lack of LWD, lack of pools and gravels, and high summer water temperature. Rattlesnake Creek flows into the White Salmon River at the town of Husum. The Rattlesnake Creek watershed forms the vast majority of the Panakanic Watershed Analysis Unit (WAU), which includes 37,960 acres (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Land ownership within the Rattlesnake Creek watershed includes ~57% large forest products companies (Stampfli 1994, as cited in Western Watershed Analysts 1996), ~21% WADNR State Trust Lands, with the remaining ~21% privately owned, mostly in small parcels. The Rattlesnake Creek watershed is ~95% forested, 4% pastured, and 1% a variety of commercial and non-commercial. Elevation in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed ranges from 345 feet at the mouth to 3,042 feet at the headwaters. Logging in the Rattlesnake watershed began in the late 1800s; the first rough lumber saw mill in the watershed was built at the Mill Creek confluence with Rattlesnake Creek in 1860 (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). The watershed was heavily logged by the 1920s-1930s. By the late 1950s, nearly all forested acres in the watershed had been harvested at least once. There have been no large fires since Fish Access There has been no anadromous access to Rattlesnake Creek since the construction of Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in 1913 (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Resident trout are present in Rattlesnake Creek upstream to the falls at ~RM 10.9, in Indian Creek to ~RM 2.4, and in Mill Creek to ~RM 2.5. A right bank tributary to Mill Creek at RM 2.25 also has resident trout presence to RM 0.2. Indian and Mill creeks are known fish bearing tributaries to Rattlesnake Creek. In addition, a RB Unnamed tributary (T4N R11E section 10).on Margraf s property has rainbow trout presence (Morris). There are two waterfall areas located on Rattlesnake Creek. The lower set of falls (~RM 1.5) is the only significant vertical barrier on Rattlesnake Creek between the mouth and the upper big falls. The lower falls contain three individual drops, with the middle one being the greatest at feet, all with good jumping pools (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). The middle falls has been altered; the historical natural drop would have been closer to 12 feet. Upper Rattlesnake Falls (RM 10.6), with vertical drops of 75 feet or more, are a total barrier to upstream salmonid migration. Channel gradient downstream of the upper falls ranges from 1-2.0% (Connolly 2003). High channel gradients (>20%) in the lower 1.2 miles of Mill Creek substantially restrict access by fish from Rattlesnake Creek (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Culverts in upper Mill Creek were inspected and found to not be significant barriers to upstream passage. Generally, culverts in Mill Creek had short or no outlet drop and were 0-2% in gradient. Three small, partial barriers were identified on Indian Creek; the county road crossing culvert, an irrigation dam, and a log/debris jam upstream of the gas pipeline (RM 2.3) (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). All obstructions were thought to be passable by resident trout under certain flow conditions. The diameter of the county culvert on lower Indian Creek is smaller than the channel width, producing a backwater and excessive velocities for fish passage at high flows. The culvert has previously blown out, was repaired on an emergency basis, but needs further work (TAC). It is on the County s work list, but has yet to be corrected. There are two culverts on WADNR 55

56 ownership that are problems; however, WADNR is planning to abandon the road, which will result in the removal of both culverts. Floodplain Modifications A pair of 80-foot falls (RM 10.6 and 10.9) separate the upper watershed Plateau from lower Rattlesnake Creek. Through the Plateau portion of the watershed (upstream of the falls at ~RM 10.9), the creek channels are incised and are experiencing significant erosion (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). The Plateau area was historically a large marsh. The marsh areas were actively drained to increase suitability for livestock grazing. As a result of these actions, there are a number of gullies adjacent to the creek that are incised up to 8 feet (TAC). This incision and erosion are associated with past logging, outdated road maintenance, grazing, and agriculture (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Much of Rattlesnake Creek appears to be incised, likely the result of lack of LWD or other instream structure to reduce stream energy (TAC). As a result, Rattlesnake Creek has likely become increasingly disassociated from its floodplain, increasing the effects of increased stream energy during peak flows. This disassociation has likely also adversely affected sediment recruitment and transport, as well as lowering the water table adjacent to the creek, affecting riparian growth potential. Rainier Timber Company, LLC (managed by the Campbell Group) owns over 8,000 acres upstream of RM 11.0 in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed (Rich Potter, Campbell Group). Most roads on the ownership are gated with no public access. A road assessment has been completed on all lands within the watershed unit and an action plan developed to address identified road problems. Approximately 70% of the specified corrective actions have been completed and work on remaining actions continues. 9.7 miles of Rattlesnake Creek within Rainier Timber Company ownership have been fenced on both sides of the creek. Also, many check dams have been established, conifers have been planted adjacent to the stream, and hardwoods have been planted along the banks of the incised channel, all done in voluntary cooperation between Rainier Timber Company, Underwood Conservation District, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All grazing on Rainier Timber Company ownership within this watershed is managed through Coordinated Resource Management Plans coordinated by NRCS. Channel Conditions Past land uses reduced instream LWD in Rattlesnake and Mill creeks below target levels; near and long-term LWD recruitment potential is also low (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Habitat assessments in summer 2001 identified low frequencies of LWD in all reaches of Rattlesnake, Mill, and Indian creeks that were surveyed, and few quality pools (Connolly 2003). The number of pools was similar between sampled reaches, ranging from pools per 100m (Connolly 2003). LWD presence ranged from pieces per 100m for conifer LWD, and pieces per 100m for hardwood LWD, with more hardwood than conifers and 0.5 key LWD pieces in all surveyed reaches of Rattlesnake Creek. Large conifers (>12-inches dbh) are lacking within 66 feet of most stream segments (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). The lack of LWD is associated with past logging practices and agricultural/grazing land management. The removal of LWD and standing trees from the stream and adjacent riparian areas caused reduction of pool area and degradation of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. Limited instream diversity is present in the lower couple miles of Rattlesnake Creek, provided by large instream boulders and presence of some LWD (Stampfli). However, LWD levels are only at about half of the desired level. 56

57 The lower portion of Mill Creek is high gradient, although it is considered to be passable for salmonids, except in late summer when flows are intermittent through the steep gradient reach. Suitable spawning and rearing habitat in Mill Creek is generally upstream of the county road crossing at RM 0.5, at which point the gradient flattens out. There are nice deep pools present where the creek crosses the flats, and presence of more large riparian conifers (Allen). However, there is abundant silt present in the channel, primarily from road erosion. USGS surveys in the lower km of Indian Creek identified presence of some LWD, a lack of pools, and presence of some large riparian conifers (Allen). Surveys by the Yakama Nation identified 1.83 pieces of wood (conifer and hardwood) per 100m in lower Rattlesnake Creek (no aggregates of wood observed)(figure 3 and Figure 4), 3.2 pieces of wood (conifer and hardwood) per 100m in the middle portion of Rattlesnake Creek (1 aggregate of 7 pieces observed), and 15.3 pieces of wood (conifer and hardwood) per 100 m (9 aggregates composed from a total of 41 Figure 3: Length of LWD sampled by Yakama Nation in lower Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama Nation) Rattlesnake Creek (Lower) LWD Length Number of pieces < >32 Length in meters Figure 4: Diameter of LWD sampled by Yakama Nation in lower Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama Nation) Rattlesnake Creek (Lower) LWD Diameter 10 Number of Pieces >1.6 Size Classes (meters) 57

58 pieces of wood were observed) in the middle portion of Rattlesnake Creek (Figure 5 and Figure 6)(Morris). Pool surveys found ~1.6 effective pools per 100 m (no pools were evidently caused from wood (LWD)) in lower Rattlesnake Creek, ~1.2 effective pools per 100 m (no pools were evidently caused from wood (LWD)) in the middle portion of Rattlesnake Creek, and ~2.2 effective pools per 100 m (17% of pools were evidently caused from wood (LWD)). Figure 5: Length of LWD sampled by Yakama Nation in middle Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama Nation) Rattlesnake Creek (Middle) LWD Length Numbers of Pieces < >32 Size Class (meters) Figure 6: Diameter of LWD sampled by Yakama Nation in middle Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama Nation) Rattlesnake Creek (Middle) LWD Diameter Number of Pieces >1.6 Size Class (meters) Streambank stability assessments conducted by the Yakama Nation identified banks as 76% stable, 22% vulnerable, and 2% unstable in lower Rattlesnake Creek, and 84% stable, 10% vulnerable, and 6% unstable in middle Rattlesnake Creek (Morris). Substrate Condition The dominant substrate particle size that currently exists in much of lower Rattlesnake Creek is in the cobble to boulder size range (>8.9 cm), which is on the high end or above the typical chinook or coho spawning substrate size of cm (Bell 1991, as cited in Western Watershed Analysts 1996). This may reflect a substantial change in substrate from historical conditions, 58

59 when fall chinook were reported to be plentiful in lower Rattlesnake Creek. Pebble counts sampled by the Yakama Nation in the lower and middle portions of Rattlesnake Creek are presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Figure 7: Pebble count samples by Yakama Nation in lower Rattlesnake Creek (courtesy of Yakama Nation Rattlesnake Creek (Lower) Pebble Count Particle Size- Class Percent Cumulative Percent Fines 0 < >256 br 0 Bed Surface Material - Particle Size-Classes - (mm) Figure 8: Pebble counts sampled by Yakama Nation in middle Rattlesnake Creek Rattlesnake Creek (Middle) Pebble Count Particle Size- Class Percent Cumulative Percent Fines 0 < >256 br 0 Bed Surface Material - Particle Size-Classes - (mm) Although there is evidence of ancient landslides, the watershed is generally stable, with only one active landslide (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). There is no identified positive correlation between erosion and sediment delivery sites to adjacent slopes. The Rattlesnake Creek mainstem upstream to the upper falls has an armored, coarse-textured bed, likely the result of high stream energy and a lack of instream LWD (Western Watershed Analysts 59

60 1996). Channel ditching and downcutting on the Plateau (upstream of the upper falls) have resulted in reduced watershed water storage capacity, and a lower water table in meadows. The lowered water table combined with irrigation withdrawals reduce summer flows, causing the streams to dry up earlier in the summer. Attempts are being made to restore floodplain and riparian function on Rainier Timber Company ownership on the Plateau (please refer to Floodplain Function section above). Fine sediment presence is generally low, despite significant upstream sources, except in Mill Creek, where fine sediment is associated with runoff from a county road (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). The problem on Mill Creek is primarily associated with a ~300-foot reach where the natural channel was diverted through a ditch adjacent to the road to eliminate two stream crossings by the county road; there is notable erosion of the banks and ditch through the diverted reach, and sediment delivery from the adjacent road. An undersized county road culvert forces the creek to flow down the road during peak flows, resulting in extensive surface erosion (Allen). Fines are likely being flushed through Rattlesnake Creek, due to channel simplification and lack of LWD (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). However, upstream fine sediment sources should be addressed, as channel sensitivity to fine sediment will likely increase as LWD presence is restored. Historically, erosion and sediment delivery was quite high throughout the watershed in the s, and earlier; the erosion and sediment delivery was due to poor logging and road locations prior to 1961 (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Sediment delivery on logging roads constructed after 1991 was only associated with roads on type 4 and 5 streams. Road erosion and fine sediment delivery is rated as moderately high in some Rattlesnake Creek subwatersheds, although lower than historical levels. 86% of all delivered road sediment was from native surfaced roads. Streambank erosion from grazing is also a substantial source of erosion in some areas. Another problem identified in Western Watershed Analysts (1996) was presence of many undersized road crossing culverts on moderate to steep slopes that had overtopped, plugged, or generally failed, contributing coarse and fine sediment downstream. Hennelly et al. (1994) identified several areas with notable sediment delivery or bank erosion, including: bank erosion at the powerline crossing (RM ), bank instability from dispersed camping and unrestricted livestock access (RM ), streambank erosion/instability 50-74% (RM ), lots of bank erosion and deep gullying of R1300 road (RM ), severe bank trampling from unrestricted livestock access (RM ), active bank erosion from livestock access and roads (RM ), and 3 springs in the headwaters (RM ) that had been ponded, for livestock watering, with significant channel incision and gullying downstream of the ponded areas. Within the mainstem of Rattlesnake Creek, only occasional, localized pockets of suitable spawning gravel are found on the channel margins or behind large obstructions, limiting the number of potential spawning redds that can be constructed (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). The lack of gravels may also limit trout rearing productivity. During visual assessments in June and July, trout fry observed in the survey segments were found, for the most part, in proximity to the pockets of spawning gravels. Gravel substrate is also present in the lower couple hundred yards of Rattlesnake Creek upstream of the mouth. Gravels are present and available in the natural bank materials (Connolly); restoration of gravel presence would require reestablishment of LWD in the channel to retain available gravels, and reestablishing the connection between the creek and its banks. 60

61 USGS surveys in the lower km of Indian Creek indicated that a fine silt layer was evident on the bottom of the pools; there are no assessments of extent or impacts of fine sediment in Indian Creek (Allen). One known source of fine sediment is from a housing development in the vicinity of the Cherry Lane Fire Hall, several miles from the mouth (Hennelly et al. 1994, Stampfli). In addition, old logging spur roads are evident in many locations running across and parallel to Indian Creek, which may have been a primary cause of heavy siltation in the system (Morris). Surveys by the Yakama Nation identified 10% of the substrate <.8 cm, 46% between.8 and 12.8 cm, and 44% >12.8 cm, with 14% of the substrate embedded in lower Rattlesnake Creek; 4% of the substrate <.8 cm, 71% between.8 and 12.8 cm, and 25% >12.8 cm in the middle portion of Rattlesnake Creek; and 14% of the substrate <.8 cm, 60% between.8 and 12.8 cm, and 26% >12.8 cm in the middle portion of Indian Creek (Morris). Riparian Condition Waters in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed are identified as temperature sensitive (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Due to this sensitivity, shade target levels for the watershed are >90%; most of Indian Creek has >90% shade, Rattlesnake and Mill creeks do not. Removal of shade should be avoided on Rattlesnake and Indian creeks, and should be limited or avoided on Mill Creek. Riparian restoration is necessary to alleviate the dearth of LWD and to address temperature sensitivity of the streams in the watershed. One of the recommendations in Western Watershed Analysts (1996) is to restore conifer presence in riparian areas currently dominated by deciduous trees; conversion may result in loss of desired shade. Shade surveys by the Yakama Nation identified an average of 84.3% shade throughout lower Rattlesnake Creek, an average of 77.9% shade throughout the middle portion of Rattlesnake Creek, and an average of 96.7% shade in the middle portion of Indian Creek (Morris). The removal of LWD and standing trees from the stream and adjacent riparian area caused reduction of pool area and degradation of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Prior to 1961, riparian trees were removed adjacent to nearly all segments of Rattlesnake, Mill, and Indian creeks, contributing to exceedance of water quality standards for stream temperature. Riparian condition is fair in the lower couple miles of Rattlesnake Creek, and upstream of the Margraf Ranch, where there are some conifers with alder lined stream margins (Stampfli). Significant progress has been made towards excluding livestock access to the creek in the upper watershed, and replanting riparian vegetation to stabilize banks and restore riparian function (Stampfli). However, plantings are young, providing little current riparian function. UCD also fenced and replanted riparian vegetation downstream of the Plateau, in the reach from RM (Hennelly et al. 1994). Overall, riparian condition along Rattlesnake Creek would rate as poor. USGS surveys in the lower km of Indian Creek identified presence of some large riparian conifers (Allen). Riparian vegetation along the creek is predominated by alders, with some conifer presence. There is residential development encroachment into the riparian zone at several locations in the lower portion of the creek. In addition, the county road is located within 100 feet of the creek for ~3 miles, impairing riparian function. Water Quantity Annual precipitation in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed ranges from 50 inches at Husum to inches in the headwaters at the eastern end of the watershed (Western Watershed Analysts 61

62 1996). Due to the relatively low elevation of the watershed, precipitation in the winter is largely delivered as rain in the lower elevations and as rain or snow in the higher elevations (Connolly 2003). Rain-on-snow events in autumn and winter are the chief causes of flood flows (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Flow measurements in 1971 ranged from 274 cfs in March to 0.66 cfs in August (Hennelly et al. 1994). Summer baseflow measurements in June 2001 measured flow at 0.35 cfs in lower Mill Creek, 0.39 cfs in Rattlesnake Creek in the upper canyon downstream of the falls, 2.75 cfs in Rattlesnake Creek just upstream of Indian Creek, and 3.22 cfs in lower Rattlesnake Creek (Connolly 2003). Flows in Indian Creek were measured at 0.32 cfs in middle Indian Creek, and 0.72 cfs in lower Indian Creek. The lowest flows on Rattlesnake Creek, recorded on July 26, 2001, were 0.08 cfs in middle Rattlesnake, 0.28 just upstream of the Indian Creek confluence, and 0.6 cfs at lower Rattlesnake. Flows were too low to measure in middle Indian Creek in July. Sept/Oct 2002 flows were measured at 1.4 cfs near RM 6.3 (Morris). Streamflow and sediment load characteristics are far different for Rattlesnake Creek than for the White Salmon River (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Rattlesnake Creek has never been gaged, with the exception of 39 streamflow measurements taken from at the county bridge near the Markgraf ranch. Rattlesnake Creek is primarily fed by winter storm runoff, limited snowmelt, and groundwater. Hydrologic, sediment, and thermal impacts in Rattlesnake Creek have relatively minor impacts on receiving waters in the White Salmon River (Stampfli 1994, as cited in Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Timber harvest has not significantly increased peak stream flows over pre-harvest conditions, especially in downstream fish-bearing channels (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Flows in Rattlesnake Creek are intermittent during summer months, particularly on the Plateau, and the creek probably naturally dried up (Dugger). Summer low flows appear to be declining in Rattlesnake Creek (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). No cause has been identified, but the declining flows may be related to lower-than-average precipitation over the last decade. There is one large water right on middle Rattlesnake Creek (TAC). No information was located on the effects of this water right on downstream surface flows. The TAC recommends that this water right be acquired, if possible. There are a couple of water rights within the Indian Creek watershed; it is unknown whether either of these water rights is still used (Stampfli). Water Quality Water temperatures can reach near lethal levels for trout (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). Water temperature data collected by the Yakama Nation in 1991 found temperatures exceeding the 18 o C State Water Quality Standard for 38 days between July 23 and August 30. A maximum temperature of 25 o C, and a 7-day average maximum temperature of 23.2 o C were reported for this period (Matthews 1992, as cited in Stampfli 1994). Water temperature sampling in summer 1993 identified temperatures ranging from 21 o C to 25 o C upstream of the waterfall at RM 10.9 to RM 15.2; high water temperatures in this reach were exacerbated by lack of riparian vegetation and active bank erosion from unrestricted livestock access to the channel (Hennelly et al. 1994). The Class A maximum water quality temperature standard of 18 o C was reached or exceeded during four consecutive warm-season months (June-September) during 1993 in lower Rattlesnake Creek; the highest temperature recorded in lower Rattlesnake Creek during the study was 21 o C (Stampfli 1994). Water temperature modeling (McGregor 1994, as cited in Western Watershed Analysts 1996) indicates that even with 100% shade, Rattlesnake Creek could reach 21 o C during summer (Western Watershed Analysts 1996). 62

63 Water temperature sampling in June-September 2001 recorded many daily water temperatures that exceeded 16 o C at all the mainstem Rattlesnake Creek sites and in Indian Creek (Connolly 2003). Only Mill Creek did not exceed this temperature. The warmest month was July, which had water temperatures exceeding 16 o C nearly every day at all mainstem sites. The highest temperature was 23.2 o C, recorded in Rattlesnake Creek just upstream of the confluence of Indian Creek. This site also recorded temperatures exceeding 20 o C for more than half of July and August. Water temperatures exceeding 20 o C were observed at all locations except in the upper canyon just downstream of the falls, at a site in middle Rattlesnake (TOML), and in lower Mill Creek. The mainstem Rattlesnake location with the lowest maximum temperatures was in the upper canyon downstream of the falls. Although high water temperatures on the Plateau may influence the ability to support salmonids locally in remnant pools during summer months, the high water temperatures may have limited influence on water temperatures in lower Rattlesnake Creek, as the water is likely to repeatedly go subterranean prior to reemergence in the lower watershed. Hennelly et al. (1994) recorded water temperatures ranging from 15 o C in the reach from RM , increasing to 21 o C in the reach from RM , and dropping to 17 o C in the reach from RM Maximum water temperatures measured by Jim Matthews in Mill and Indian creeks in 1995 were 17.4 o C and 17.2 o C, respectively. USGS temperature measurements in August- September 2001 in Indian Creek identified a peak water temperature of 21 o C, and 18 and 22 days over the 18 o C water temperature standard, respectively (Allen). Matthews (1992, as cited in Stampfli 1994) proposes that elevated temperatures in Rattlesnake Creek are mainly consequent to high levels of past forest disturbance, coupled with tenuous natural conditions that include high summer air temperatures and low flow rates. Also, animal grazing adversely affects riparian function and contributes to elevated water temperatures. Water quality sampling in identified fecal coliform presence exceeding the state water quality standard in Rattlesnake Creek (Stampfli 1994). The main causes of elevated fecal coliform presence within Rattlesnake Creek are thought to be widespread forestland grazing and concentrated animal-keeping operations. Action Recommendations The following ranked salmonid habitat restoration actions are recommended for Rattlesnake, Indian, and Mill creeks: Correct road/creek alignment and undersized culvert problems in Mill Creek Restore historic hydrology in upper Rattlesnake Creek watershed Protect riparian function and integrity in the rapidly developing lower portion of Indian Creek Correct culvert problems on Indian Creek Develop and implement a short-term LWD strategy to restore LWD presence and habitat diversity in depleted reaches until riparian function is restored Restore riparian function, where impaired Develop and implement a road management plan to reduce/eliminate surface erosion (particularly in Mill Creek watershed); identify opportunities for road abandonment (Rainier Timber Company has developed and is implementing a road management plan on its ownership in the Rattlesnake drainage) 63

64 Implement surface erosion control on new development (e.g., housing development near Cherry Lane Fire Hall on Indian Creek) Assess potential of acquiring the water rights on middle Rattlesnake Assess opportunities to restore/enhance gravel presence until natural habitat forming processes are restored Cave Creek, Bear Creek General Cave Creek enters the White Salmon River just downstream of the Trout Lake Creek confluence; Bear Creek presently flows through the field adjacent to the Trout Lake store and joins Cave Creek just before the SR 141 bridge (USFS 1997). The Cave/Bear Creek watershed is tributary to the upper White Salmon River; however, there is no surface water connection between Cave Creek and the White Salmon River for at least several months of the year (USFS 1997). Cave Creek supports resident salmonids year-round; Bear Creek is dry most of the time and is not known to support resident salmonids. The watershed totals 33,437 acres, of which 22,298 acres are located on federal land with the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (USFS 1997). Fish Access Cave Creek and its tributary, Beaver Creek, are the only fish-bearing streams in the watershed, containing eastern brook and rainbow trout (USFS 1997). There is no surface water connection between lower Cave Creek and the White Salmon River for much of the year, precluding potential for stock interactions between these drainages. No fish stocking has occurred in the watershed since No migration barriers are known to exist on Cave Creek on Forest Service ownership; the private land portion of the watershed contains several fish passage barriers from stream diversions and human-made dams (USFS 1997). A small concrete dam on Beaver Creek adjacent to a cabin is most likely a barrier to fish passage when the dam boards are in place during low flow. The two culverts on Beaver Creek are not considered to be barriers. There are several irrigation diversions that originate off Cave and Bear creeks (Dugger); the extent and routing of all diversions has not been fully assessed (Dugger, Scott). The screening status of the irrigation diversions has not been assessed, but most are thought to be unscreened. Floodplain Modifications Because of the degree of water management that has occurred in Trout Lake Valley since the late 1800s, it may be nearly impossible to determine the original locations of streams in the valley (USFS 1997). There is debate as to the location of Bear Creek at the time of the 1933 flood; one account indicates that Bear Creek may have flowed directly into Trout Lake, as opposed to flowing through town as it currently does. Channel Conditions There have been significant changes in the character of streams in the watershed over time (USFS 1997). GLO land survey notes (Newton Clark, GLO surveyor, 1882) identify very different 64

65 conditions than currently exist (Table 4). Of particular interest are the distinct differences in stream flow and dominant substrate. Land use actions most likely contributed to these changes over time, but specifically how and when are undetermined. Table 4: Comparison of historical (September 1882) and current fish habitat conditions for streams in the Cave-Bear watershed (from USFS 1997) LWD is lacking in Cave and Bear creeks (USFS 1997). Width to depth ratios are good and pools are good in Beaver and Cave creeks (including the beaver ponds) in comparison to USFS Columbia River Policy Guide standards. Beaver play an important role in maintaining pool habitat in Cave and Beaver creeks. The lower 600 feet of Beaver Creek and much of the portion of Cave Creek on private land have been channelized (USFS 1997). A large beaver pond on Cave Creek upstream of road 8620, and several beaver dams and ponds on Beaver Creek upstream of the Road 8620 and Road crossings provide important pool habitat for resident salmonids. The beaver pond in Cave Creek provides the majority of adult salmonid holding and feeding habitat. It is assumed that fish move upstream into the beaver dam and pool habitats as stream flow subsides in summer. Beaver Creek contains excellent spawning and rearing habitat, and fish from Cave Creek are most likely reproducing and rearing in this stream. Spawning and rearing are also most likely occurring in Cave Creek upstream of the beaver pond. Beaver Creek appears to be critical to maintaining fish populations in Cave Creek downstream of the beaver pond. Substrate Condition No quantitative substrate assessment information is available. However, general substrate composition has changed in comparison to historical conditions in Cave Creek (Table 4). Unrestricted livestock access to the channel in the lower watershed (Dugger), and high forest road densities in the upper watershed (4.3 mi/mi 2 )(Scott) are identified as concerns likely to contribute elevated fine sediment loads to Cave/Bear creeks. Spawning habitat is lacking in Cave Creek due to a lack of gravel and high silt loads (USFS 1997). Silt accumulations up to one foot in depth were found in lower Cave Creek in There is significant potential for surface erosion from roads in the watershed. Road densities are higher than in any other watershed on the Mt. Adams and Wind River Ranger Districts, ranging from mi/mi 2 across the four watersheds, and averaging 3.8 mi/mi 2 (USFS 1997) 65

66 Riparian Condition The upper portion of the watershed is generally young second growth that was harvested to the edge of the creeks (Scott). Riparian vegetation is absent or sparse through the lower agricultural/grazing portion of the watershed, and restoration potential is impaired by unrestricted livestock access. Early-successional forest comprises 15% of the riparian reserves in the watershed, within the range of natural conditions (5-30%)(USFS 1997). Late-successional forest comprises 34% of the riparian reserves in the watershed, also within the range of natural conditions (23-92%). Riparian function in the forested portion of the watershed will naturally regenerate over time, but restoration of riparian function in the agricultural/grazing areas will require proactive restoration measures (Scott). Water Quantity Streamflows in this watershed have never been gauged (USFS 1997). Much of the total precipitation falling in the watershed exits as subsurface flow (USFS 1997). Most streams are completely dry throughout much of the year (including lower Cave and Bear creeks), and for much of the year there is not surface water discharge from this watershed to the White Salmon River. The creek goes subterranean into porous basalts and is thought to enter the upper White Salmon River downstream as springs or seeps; the specific entry location(s) has not been determined. Low flow appears to be the limiting factor for fish production in the watershed. There are several irrigation diversions that originate off Cave and Bear creeks (Dugger); the extent and routing of all diversions has not been fully assessed (Dugger, Scott). The screening status of the irrigation diversions has not been assessed, but most are thought to be unscreened. There is uncertainty whether the intermittent nature of the creeks is natural, or to what extent it is exacerbated by the water diversions. Water Quality Water quality is important for maintaining good fish habitat in those stream reaches that support resident salmonids (USFS 1997). The primary water quality threats to salmonids would be water temperature increases (and resultant decreases in dissolved oxygen), and increases in sediment. Loss of riparian shade from timber harvest, grazing, or road construction, and sediment introduction from these same sources are the most likely pathway for affecting salmonids through changes in water quality. Continued sediment input from areas of excessive streambank cutting, from existing road systems, and from recreation areas and other developed sited is also of concern. Much of Cave Creek flows through agricultural/grazing land. Fecal coliform and high nutrient levels, most likely from unrestricted livestock access (Dugger), are identified water quality concerns. However, regular monitoring for fecal coliform at the spring that feeds Peterson Prairie Campground has shown no fecal coliform concerns; isolated tests in lower Cave-Bear watershed have also not indicated any fecal coliform contamination concerns (USFS 1997). Water temperatures in upper Cave Creek (just above the beaver ponds in the Special Wildlife Area) during the summers of ranged from o C (USFS 1997). However, elevated water temperatures have been noted. The highest water temperature measured in Cave Creek by USFS is 17 o C (Scott). The extent to which these water quality concerns affect resident 66

67 salmonid productivity in Cave Creek has not been assessed; there is no indication that these water quality concerns persist once the creek goes subterranean. There have been no data collected in the watershed to assess turbidity levels (USFS 1997). Action Recommendations The following ranked salmonid habitat restoration actions are recommended for Cave/Bear Creek: Protect integrity of beaver ponds on both Cave and Beaver creeks Inventory water diversions and assess potential impacts to surface flows Screen surface water irrigation diversions Eliminate unrestricted livestock access to channels on agricultural/grazing lands Restore riparian function where impaired Trout Lake Creek General Trout Lake Creek is a right bank tributary entering the upper White Salmon River at RM Trout Lake Creek drains an area of 120 mi 2 (Hennelly et al. 1994). Stream surveys in summer 1993 identified Trout Lake Creek as contributing 40% of the flow of the upper White Salmon watershed (Hennelly et al. 1994). Resident trout populations currently inhabiting the Trout Lake Creek watershed include rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and cutthroat trout (USFS 1996). Rainbow trout and possibly cutthroat trout are thought to be native species in the watershed, and brook trout are an introduced species. No bull trout have ever been found in the watershed. Salmonid bearing streams in the watershed include Trout Lake, Skull, Little Goose, Smoky, Cultus, Meadow, Mosquito, and Steamboat Lake creeks (USFS 1996). Trout Lake has been extensively stocked with both legal and fingerling sized brook and rainbow trout, which are free to move into the White Salmon River. The lake was stocked almost annually from 1960 to Rainbow trout were the predominant species stocked and were last planted in Trout Lake in The White Salmon River also was planted with rainbow trout in the 1970s. The upper White Salmon River is no longer stocked, nor is Trout Lake. Cutthroat trout appeared to be more prevalent in the watershed prior to the mid-1980s. Population surveys in recent years have not found cutthroat in any stream in the drainage, although surveys have not been comprehensive. Displacement of cutthroat by rainbow and brook trout may be occurring. Fish Access There are no known human-caused fish passage barriers in Trout Lake Creek (Scott) although a few tributary streams have culvert barriers. None of the irrigation diversions in the Trout Lake Valley (upper White Salmon River and Trout Lake Creek) are screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids. This likely results in significant salmonid mortality. There are 16 fish-bearing lakes in the watershed (USFS 1996). All of the lakes have been stocked with trout since the 1920s-1930s. Several of the lakes have no surface water connection 67

68 with fish-bearing streams lower in the watershed. Three lakes (Mosquito, Little Mosquito, and Steamboat) have outlet streams which feed into Trout Lake Creek and are presently stocked with eastern brook trout (Scott). Brook trout from these lakes can outmigrate to the White Salmon River. Floodplain Modifications There are several floodplain modifications upstream of the USFS boundary (Scott). Floodplain function was impaired for a significant distance by a series of dikes constructed adjacent to the channel; the purpose or benefit of the dikes is unclear, although they were likely associated with flood protection for the road and campground. The USFS has removed most of the dikes; there is only one 500-foot long dike remaining. In addition, there are USFS road crossings just upstream of Trout Lake (RM 5.8) and at the old campground (RM 8.8) at which the road fills constrict natural floodplain function. The bridge to the old campground (RM 8.8) has been removed, but the road fill and armored embankments remain, constricting natural floodplain function. Channel Conditions/Substrate Condition Hennelly et al. (1994) noted severe bank erosion upstream of Trout Lake to the USFS boundary, resulting in significant sedimentation downstream in Trout Lake. They suggested stabilization and revegetation of streambanks through this reach. Specific data on historical stream channel conditions in the basin do not exist (USFS 1996). Due to this data gap, USFS habitat analyses were compared to the Range of Natural Conditions (RNC) determined for the Hood-Wind Subbasin (USDA 1993, as cited in USFS 1996). Seven of the 10 major fish-bearing streams in the watershed were surveyed for fish habitat conditions (Table 5). Specific stream reaches of concern are listed in Table 6. Presence of large pools was rated as fair or poor for all streams in the USFS habitat survey (USFS 1996). This is likely related, at least in part, to the corresponding poor-fair rating for LWD presence in all surveyed streams. Stream width to depth ratios exceeded the target maximum for Trout Lake, Smoky, and Meadow creeks, with no data available for Little Goose and Cultus creeks. Bank erosion and channel stability were not noted as a concern for any of the streams. No substrate condition information was located for streams in this watershed. Riparian Condition Riparian condition through the agricultural/grazing areas upstream of Trout Lake and downstream of the town of Trout Lake is poor, with sparse riparian vegetation and unrestricted livestock access to the channel (Coffin, Scott). Riparian condition is fair through the town of Trout Lake, and is likely reflective of natural conditions through the broad meadows and wetlands of Trout Lake. Upstream of agricultural area upstream of the lake, riparian vegetation is mostly conifer forest with numerous meadows. Although there has been significant past timber removal, with harvests to the edge of the creeks, riparian forests are regenerating and there is no longer any timber harvest in riparian areas. 68

69 Table 5: Stream survey data comparison to the Hood-Wind RNC (from USFS 1996) Table 6: Specific stream reaches with identified habitat concerns (from USFS 1996) 69