Document klickitatcounty_gov_doc_11cd06db78

WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment Grant Number G0900072 Prepared by Domoni Glass Watershed Professionals Network Prepared for Klickitat County and Department of Ecology Shorelines and Environmental Assistance Program July 31, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment Grant Number G0900072 Prepared by Domoni Glass Watershed Professionals Network Prepared for Klickitat County and Department of Ecology Shorelines and Environmental Assistance Program July 31, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment i Watershed Professionals Network Table of Contents 1 1.0 1 2.0 1 2.1 Current Condition 1 2.1.1 Physical 3 2.2 Prior Data Collection Efforts and 4 3.0 6 3.1 Study Area 6 3.2 Sampling Process Design (Experimental 7 3.3 Sampling Procedures 7 3.3.1 Habitat 7 3.3.2 Fish 12 3.3.3 Spawning 12 3.4 Data 12 3.5 sediment Source Modeling 13 3.5.1 Data Sources 13 3.5.2 Soil Creep and Stream Bank 14 3.5.3 Agricultural Lands 14 3.5.4 Cultivated 14 3.5.5 16 3.5.6 Road Surface Erosion 18 3.5.7 Data and Study Limitations 18 4.0 19 4.1 19 4.1.1 24 4.1.2 Spawning Area and Substrate 27 4.1.3 Riparian 32 4.1.4 Instream Woody 32 4.2 Fish 38 4.2.1 Snorkel Surveys 38 4.2.2 Spawning 40 4.3 41 4.4 Hydromodifications 42 4.5 Reconnaissance of Old Lady 43 4.6 Sediment Source 45 4.6.1 Soil Creep and Stream bank Erosion 45 4.6.2 Agricultural Lands 45 4.6.3 Cultivated 45 4.6.4 47 4.6.5 Road Surface Erosion 48 5.0 49 5.1 Spawning 49 5.2 Habitat Supporting Egg Incubation 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment ii Watershed Professionals Network 5.3 Rearing 52 5.4 Hydromodifications 54 5.5 Fish Distribution 55 5.6 Sediment Source 55 5.7 Limiting 57 6.0 57 Appendix A - Maps Appendix B - Photo Review of Study Reaches ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment iii Watershed Professionals Network List of Figures Figure 1. Study 2 Figure 2. Exceedance flows for Rock Creek and Alder Creek (USGS gage stations: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/current; Ecology gage: 5 Figure 3. Daily maximum water temperature at four stations in Rock Creek based on 1999 to 2004 data (Aspect 2005). (RC-09 is located near the mouth of Rock Creek, RC-8 is located just of the confluence with Squaw Creek, RC-7 is located in Squaw Creek near the confluence with the mainstem Rock Creek, and RC-6 is located upstream in the basin near the confluence with Badger Gulch.) 6 Figure 4. Major streams in WRIA 31. 8 Figure 5. Fish distribution within WRIA 31 from the WDFW SaSI Report (WDFW 2002, 9 Figure 6. Percent of the sampled length of each basin that was 23 Figure 7. Percent of sampled channel units that were riffles, pools, and glides for each 24 Figure 8. The frequency of occurrence of pools at various depths, by basin. 25 Figure 9. Average substrate composition for riffle and non-riffle channel units for each basin in the study 30 Figure 10. Frequency of occurrence of spawning areas with indicated percent fines in the substrate. 33 Figure 11. Frequency of occurrence of embeddedness within riffles by basin. 34 Figure 12. One of a set of four waterfalls located in Reach 3 of Wood 41 Figure 13. Photo of the series of weirs in Wood 43 Figure 14. Bridge footing in Wood Gulch, Reach 2, near segment 11. Note the scoured pool adjacent to the 44 Figure 15. Photo of Old Lady Canyon culvert under Highway 14 (left) and photo of Old Lady Canyon culvert under the railroad (right). Piles of debris running down the center of the culvert on the right are piles of bird 44 Figure 16. 1992 Landsat land cover and land use (from Aspect 46 Figure 17. Land within 1,000 feet of streams used in WEPP analysis of cultivated land. 47 Figure 18. Stream flow, water temperature, and air temperature for water year 2008 (from Washington Department of Ecology website: 50 List of Tables Table 1. Data collected in the field at the segment scale (100 meters) (left 2 columns) ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment iv Watershed Professionals Network and at the individual channel unit scale (right 2 columns). 10 Table 2. Summary of methods used to estimate sediment 13 Table 3. WEPP estimates of erosion from various cultivated land uses (average 15 Table 4. WEPP erosion estimates used in analysis (average tons/acre/year). 16 Table 5. Land use within 1,000 feet of streams in the Rock, Wood, Pine, and Glade 17 Table 6. Road conditions used for SEMODL2 18 Table 7. Sample reaches, total reach length, sampled reach length and percent of reach sampled. 19 Table 8. Average stream gradient of sampled basins. 21 Table 9. Number and type of channel units sampled and portion of stream length that was 22 Table 10. Pool Volume in each 26 Table 11. Total estimated volume of pools (m3) by basin and 27 Table 12. Spawning area in each 28 Table 13. Total estimated spawning area (m2) by basin and 29 Table 14. Substrate composition of spawning areas by basin, stream, and reach. 31 Table 15. Average canopy cover, inner riparian zone width, and typical vegetation for each reach sampled. 35 Table 16. Average abundance of large woody debris in the stream segments (segments had an average length of 110 meters). 37 Table 17. Number of fish observed in each basin by 39 Table 18. Number of Mykiss observed in each basin by size class. 39 Table 19. Location and number of steelhead redds observed in lower Rock 40 Table 20. Estimated average annual sediment input from soil creep. 45 Table 21. Estimated average annual sediment input to streams from cultivated land..... 47 Table 22. Estimated percent of stream length with livestock 48 Table 23. Length of road hydrologically connected to streams and estimated average annual sediment input (tons/yr). 49 Table 24. Estimated average annual sediment input to streams 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment v Watershed Professionals Network We wish to thank the Nature Conservancy and the landowners in the study area that cooperated with the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 1 Watershed Professionals Network ABSTRACT 1.0 INTRODUCTION The WRIA 31 Watershed Assessment (Aspect and WPN 2004) and the WRIA 31 Watershed Management Plan (WRIA 31 Planning Unit 2009) identified a need for quantitative information on fish habitat across the WRIA. Habitat data were collected in fall and early winter of 2008 and spring of 2009 in five of the subbasins across the WRIA. The project is focused on spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead mykiss). Streams were also snorkeled to identify the distribution of various fish species present in the study area and to provide an index of density throughout the subbasins. Estimates of sediment delivery to streams were also estimated through a modeling effort. This information will be used to help identify actions that can be taken to improve fish habitat and water quality. This report summarizes the results of those efforts The project was funded by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) through Grant No. G0900072. 2.0 BACKGROUND WRIA 31 is located in eastern Klickitat County, southeastern Yakima County, and western Benton County, Washington. The streams in the WRIA drain to the Columbia River. Major streams include Rock Creek, Chapman Creek, Wood Gulch, Pine Creek, Glade Creek, and Alder Creek (Figure Several minor streams also drain to the Columbia. The streams in the WRIA are seasonally intermittent for at least portions of their length. 2.1 CURRENT CONDITION The WRIA 31 Limiting Factors Analysis (Lautz 2000) identified several factors potentially limiting fish production in Rock Creek. These included water access, widening of the channel from livestock grazing and flooding, and water quality affected by degraded riparian areas. Technically, some of these factors are not limiting factors but processes affecting habitat quality. There is very little publicly available information regarding fish habitat in the WRIA. The Limiting Factors Analysis recognized that conclusions were largely speculative and recommended that “More detailed information should be collected to more precisely define these factors, and to identify specific areas where restoration activities will best address them.” The WRIA 31 Watershed Assessment (Aspect and WPN 2004) and the WRIA 31 Watershed Management Plan (WRIA 31 Planning Unit 2009) also recognized the shortcomings of the data and recommended that additional data be collected to support the more accurate identification of limiting factors and to support the identification of actions which have the greatest probability of improving habitat. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 2 Watershed Professionals Network Figure 1. Study area ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 3 Watershed Professionals Network The Rock Creek steelhead population is part of the Middle Columbia Steelhead Distinct Population Segment, which is listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Prior to this study, steelhead use of other subbasins within the WRIA was unknown; however, use of some of the other subbasins by steelhead was suspected. In August 2005, NOAA Fisheries designated portions of Rock Creek, Chapman Creek, Wood Gulch, Pine Creek, Alder Creek, and Glade Creek as critical habitat (NOAA 2005). 2.1.1 Physical Setting WRIA 31 drains south from the Horse Heaven Hills into the Columbia River. Elevations range from nearly 4,800 feet in the northern part of the Rock Creek subbasin to 266 feet at the Columbia River, and generally decrease from west to east and from north to south. The entire WRIA is underlain by the Miocene Columbia River Basalt, including the Grande Ronde, Wanapum, and Saddle Mountain Basalt members (WDNR 2000). The Wanapum Basalt is the dominant geologic formation in Rock Creek, with the younger Saddle Mountain Basalt dominating the Wood Gulch and Pine Creek subbasins. The volcanic bedrock forms the steep canyon walls of many of the larger streams as they have cut down into the basalt, and provides gravel- and cobble-sized particles to these streams as well as forming bedrock chutes and falls in a few locations. Quaternary flood deposits and loess overlie the basalt in the Eastern part of the WRIA, and cover most of the Glade Creek subbasin. The flood deposits were left behind during Pleistocene outburst floods from glacial Lake Missoula and include gravel along the Columbia River grading to sand and silt deposits as far as 17 miles inland from the river in the Glade Creek subbasin. Quaternary loess deposits, wind-blown silt and fine sand, cover the northern part of Glade Creek. The fine-grained flood deposits and loess are easily eroded by running water; the major channels in the Glade Creek subbasin have eroded down to the basalt bedrock. Chapman Creek is also dominated by the Quaternary flood deposits. Loess overlays most of the subbasin. Shrub land and grassland dominate WRIA 31 (Aspect and WPN 2004). Rock Creek is the only subbasin in the WRIA with a substantial amount of timber land which is located in the headwaters of the subbasin (Aspect and WPN 2004). Less than 10 percent of the land in Rock Creek basin is cultivated. Larger portions of the subbasin lands are cultivated in the smaller eastern basins (Glade and Alder Creek basins) (IRZ 2004). There is little urban/residential development in WRIA 31, except near Kennewick at the eastern end of the WRIA (Aspect and WPN 2004). Two recent forest/range fires have affected the study area. The Cleveland fire burned 18,500 acres in the headwaters of Rock Creek in 1998 and the Wood Gulch fire burned 11,640 acres in that basin in 2007 (www.wsp.wa.gov/fire/docs/mobilization/mobe_history_for_2008.pdf). Precipitation decreases from west to east across the WRIA and also decreases from north to south (Aspect and WPN 2004). Specifically, mean annual precipitation ranges from ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 4 Watershed Professionals Network around 24 inches along the western border of the Rock Creek subbasin to less than 8 inches near Kennewick on the east end of the WRIA. The majority of precipitation occurs between October and April, with some precipitation occurring as snow, particularly at higher elevations in the Horse Heaven Hills (Aspect and WPN 2004). Stream flow data are available for Rock Creek and Alder Creek. Stream flows at both these locations peak in winter and early spring and are generally low throughout the summer, fall, and into early winter (Figure 2) (USGS stream gages, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/current; Ecology stream gage website Many of the streams in the WRIA go dry during summer, although isolated pools may persist (Aspect and WPN 2004). Summer flow in eastern streams is augmented by irrigation return flows. Stream temperatures in Rock Creek regularly exceed state water quality standards (Figure 3) (Aspect 2005; Ecology stream gage website One segment of Rock Creek is currently listed as a category 5 on the 303(d) list (Ecology 2008). A study of trends in riparian condition through time found that floodplain vegetation has been increasing since 1938 (Aspect Consulting 2005). 2.2 PRIOR DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS AND ASSESSMENTS Previous studies related to the project are limited. The Limiting Factors Analysis (Lautz 2000), the WRIA 31 Watershed Analysis (Aspect and WPN 2004), and the WRIA 30 Watershed Management Plan (WRIA 31 Planning Unit 2009) all identified a need to collect additional information regarding aquatic habitat to fill the numerous data gaps. Data collected in the WRIA prior to this study has included the following: ‘ Stream temperature monitoring by the Conservation District (Aspect 2005; some of the data unpublished, contact Central Klickitat Conservation District) ‘ A review of the historic GLO notes from the late 1800s for portions of the basins (Aspect and WPN 2004), ‘ Study of temperature, nitrates, and fecal coliform abundance in the WRIA (Aspect 2005) ‘ An evaluation of water temperature conditions completed by Ecology (Ehinger 1996) ‘ An evaluation of trends in riparian vegetation from 1938 to early this century (Aspect 2005) ‘ A study of nitrate concentrations in Glade Creek basin (Aspect 2005) ‘ Stream gaging in Rock and Alder Creeks for a short period, discontinued by the USGS in 1968 (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=14036600&agency_cd=USGS) ‘ Recent stream gaging in Rock Creek by Ecology ‘ Periodic (unpublished) spawning surveys conducted by the Yakama Nation Fisheries ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 5 Watershed Professionals Network 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Average Stream Flow (cfs) Alder Creek USGS Gage 14034350 1962-1982 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Average Stream Flow (cfs) Rock Cr USGS Gage 14036600 1962-1968 Rock Creek Washington Dept Ecology Gage 2007/8 Figure 2. Exceedance flows for Rock Creek and Alder Creek (USGS gage stations: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/current; Ecology gage: ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 6 Watershed Professionals Network Figure 3. Daily maximum water temperature at four stations in Rock Creek based on 1999 to 2004 data (Aspect 2005). (RC-09 is located near the mouth of Rock Creek, RC-8 is located just of the confluence with Squaw Creek, RC-7 is located in Squaw Creek near the confluence with the mainstem Rock Creek, and RC-6 is located upstream in the basin near the confluence with Badger Gulch.) 3.0 METHODS 3.1 STUDY AREA The study area is located in Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 31, which covers portions of Klickitat County, Yakima County, and Benton Counties, Washington (Figure The study area does not include the Columbia River. The City of Kennewick lies on the eastern edge of the WRIA. Specific study areas included the streams in the Rock Creek, Wood Gulch, Chapman Creek, Pine Creek, and Glade Creek subbasins. Within the subbasins, the study included all suspected anadromous waters in Rock Creek, Chapman Creek, Wood Gulch, Pine Creek, and Glade Creek. The WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory (2002; http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/) identifies steelhead in Rock Creek and two of its tributaries, (Quartz and Squaw Creeks) (Figure No fish are indicated in that report in the other Subbasins. The Limiting Factors Analysis indicates that fish are also found in the lower 0.3 mi of Chapman Creek and near the mouth of Wood Gulch. The Draft Recovery Plan (NMFS 2008) depicts the potential distribution of mykiss (steelhead and rainbow trout) far into many of the subbasins. The study area included the full extent of the potential distribution of steelhead identified in the Draft Recovery Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 7 Watershed Professionals Network 3.2 SAMPLING PROCESS DESIGN (EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN) The various subbasins were stratified into stream reaches. Reach boundaries were defined at major tributaries in each subbasin using the DNR stream GIS coverage. The resulting reaches were evaluated using aerial photos and topographic maps to determine where major changes in gradient or stream size occurred. Additional reach boundaries were defined at these locations. Within each of the reaches, stream segments were defined every 100 meters. Data were collected at a minimum of 3 stream segments in each reach. A target of at least 10% of the total habitat was set, recognizing that the target may not be met in some areas if sufficient landowner participation could not be attained. Microsoft Excel’s RANDBETWEEN function was used to select random numbers within the range of segment numbers present in each reach. In cases where a randomly selected segment was found to be inaccessible due to terrain or permission to sample was not granted by the landowner, another sample reach was selected randomly. 3.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURES 3.3.1 Habitat Characteristics In each stream segment, the number, area, and wetted and residual depth of pools, the area of spawning habitat, the quality of spawning gravel, the abundance of instream wood, riparian condition, bank condition, cover, and any hydromodifications were documented. Passage barriers were also identified. Between the randomly selected segments, crews documented any passage barriers encountered. Measurement procedures were selected from the list of recommended procedures provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Johnson et al. 2001). The majority of the field sampling procedures used in this study followed the U.S. Forest Service Region 6 Stream Inventory Handbook (USFS 2006), with some modifications. Modifications included: ‘ No temperature measurements were taken; the program relied on existing data for temperature ‘ The USFS procedures collect measurements in 10 randomly selected “slow” reaches and 10 randomly selected “fast” reaches. Most other commonly used procedures, including the TFW procedures (Pleuss and Shuett-Hames 1998), collect data within a selected stream segment. The methods were modified to sample specified segments rather than individual slow and fast segments. However, all individual channel units (e.g. riffle, pool, glide) were measured and documented within each randomly selected stream segment. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 8 Watershed Professionals Network Figure 4. Major streams in WRIA 31. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 9 Watershed Professionals Network Figure 5. Fish distribution within WRIA 31 from the WDFW SaSI Report (WDFW 2002, http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/) ‘ The Forest Service manual codes for the field forms were modified – the Forest Service manual uses some difficult to remember coding; more memorable codes were used for this project. ‘ Walnut was added as a tree species potentially occurring in the project area (walnut is common in riparian areas of portions of Rock Creek and Chapman Creek). At each randomly selected segment, individual channel units were identified (a channel unit was defined as a pool, riffle, glide, braid, or dry segment; side channels were documented separately from main channel units). Data collected for each stream segment and each channel unit included the GPS location for the top and bottom of the segment, bankfull width, maximum bankfull depth, three separate estimates of average bankfull depth (calculated as the average depth across a transect), width of the inner riparian zone (defined as extending from the stream to a point where vegetation changes to a more upslope character), dominant and subdominant plant species within the inner riparian zone, average overstory height, average understory height, canopy closure, stream gradient, and dominant and subdominant plant species in the outer riparian zone (defined as the area between the inner riparian zone and a point 75 feet from the bankfull location), and the presence or absence of unstable banks, hydromodifications, barriers, and factors affecting riparian condition (such as cattle or roads) (Table Photos of each transect were taken to document sites. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 10 Watershed Professionals Network Table 1. Data collected in the field at the segment scale (100 meters) (left 2 columns) and at the individual channel unit scale (right 2 columns). Segment Information Channel Unit Information Measurement Unit of Measure Measurement Unit of Measure GPS location at start of segment UTM NAD27 Channel Unit Sequential numbering GPS location at end of segment UTM NAD27 Channel Unit Type Alphanumeric Codes Date mm/dd/yy Length feet Surveyor’s initials Width feet Bankfull width To nearest 0.1 foot Maximum depth Feet to nearest 0.1 foot Maximum bankfull depth To nearest 0.1 foot Average depth Feet to nearest 0.1 foot; averaged across transects Average bankfull depth Measurements taken across three transects, measured to the nearest 0.1 foot and averaged for each transect Pool tail crest height Feet to nearest 0.1 foot Width of inner riparian zone Feet – The inner zone extends from bankfull perpendicular to the creek to a point where the vegetation changes to a more upslope character. Aspect taken upstream degrees Vegetation class in the inner riparian zone Alphanumeric codes for none, grass, small and large shrubs, saplings and poles, and small, medium, and large trees Small (6-12 inch dia) instream wood Number of pieces Dominant plant species in the inner riparian zone Alphanumeric codes Medium (12 to 20 inch dia) instream wood Number of pieces Sub-dominant plant species in the inner riparian zone Alphanumeric codes Large (>20 inch dia.) instream wood Number of pieces Average understory height in the inner zone Feet, ocular estimate Wood jams Number of jams Canopy Closure Ocular estimate of the percent of the stream segment with overhanging Root wads Number of root wads ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 11 Watershed Professionals Network Segment Information Channel Unit Information Measurement Unit of Measure Measurement Unit of Measure vegetation Vegetation class in the outer riparian zone, which extends from the outer edge of the inner zone to a point 75 feet from the stream. Alphanumeric codes – the same used for the inner zone Substrate composition % bedrock (>4096 mm) % boulder (256 to 4096 mm) % cobble (64 to 256 mm) % gravel (16 to 64 mm) % pebble (2 to 16 mm) % sand (0.06 to 2 mm) % silt and clay (<0.60 mm) Dominant plant species in the outer riparian zone Alphanumeric codes Embeddedness Numeric codes corresponding to 5-25%, 25-50%, 50- 75%, and >75% of substrate covered with fines Sub-dominant plant species in the outer riparian zone Alphanumeric codes % spawning gravel of unit suitable for spawning) percent Average understory height in the outer zone Feet, ocular estimate Length of unstable banks Feet on right and left sides of channel Factors affecting riparian vegetation Notes on observations GPS locations of unstable banks UTM NAD27 Presence or absence of unstable banks Y/N Notes Presence or absence of hydromodifications (man-made features which affect streamflow, bankfull width, floodplone width, or habitat quality) Y/N Presence or absence of barriers Y/N Stream gradient Percent Comments Text ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 12 Watershed Professionals Network Hydromodifications were noted within the sample segments and at any other location where they were encountered. Documentation of hydromodifications included the GPS location, type, length of affected stream (ft), percent of width of the channel affected, wetted width of stream bankfull width of stream, floodprone width of stream, and notes. Barriers were also documented within the sample segments and any other location where they were encountered. Documentation of barriers included GPS location, length of culvert, drop, falls, or chute, height of culvert, drop or chute above stream bottom, water depth, plunge pool length, width, and depth, bankfull width and depth, and notes and photos. Details regarding field data collection procedures and can be found in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) developed for this study (Glass 2008) and the Forest Service Stream Inventory Handbook (USFS 2006). 3.3.2 Fish Presence/Absence Fish presence was determined in each of the sample segments where habitat data were collected. The segments were snorkeled in one pass and the numbers of fish observed was recorded by species and size class. Size classes were defined as <100mm, 100-200 mm, 200-300 mm, and 300-400 mm. No fish were observed during the snorkel surveys that were greater than 400 mm (15.7 inches) in length. were visually estimated by the snorkeler. In addition to the sample segments, a few other locations of interest were also snorkeled (a few large pools lying outside of the sample segments and a major wetland in Glade Creek). 3.3.3 Spawning Surveys Spawning surveys were conducted in Rock Creek on May 12-13, 2009. Surveys were conducted by walking along either bank or in the stream as bank conditions and stream velocity allowed. Using polarized glasses, visual surveys were conducted to determine the presence of steelhead or redds. All mainstem habitats were surveyed. Side channel habitats with sufficient flow were also surveyed. Walk through surveys were conducted in Reaches 1 and 2, with no data other than detection data recorded. From the beginning of Reach 4, through the end of the survey, all habitat types were recorded and numbered sequentially. Reach segments, in which physical surveys were conducted in the fall of 2008, were recorded when they could be identified. UTM coordinates were collected at all detection locations. UTM coordinates were recorded in NAD27 CONUS. 3.4 DATA ANALYSIS Data were reviewed for inconsistencies, extremes, outliers, and obvious errors using Microsoft Excel. SYSTAT and Microsoft Excel were used for to support the data analysis. Averages of measurements taken in the sampled segments were used to represent habitat quality throughout each reach. The total area of spawning habitat and the total volume of rearing habitat was calculated for each segment. Area and volume per unit measure was expanded across the entire reach to estimate total area of spawning habitat and total volume of rearing habitat for the entire reach. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 13 Watershed Professionals Network The sampled stream segments were assumed to be representative of the entire stream reach. The information collected was used to support the estimation of the quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat throughout the basin. Data analysis relative to stream temperature relied on stream temperature data collected by the Central Klickitat Conservation District and reported by Aspect (2005) and temperature data gathered by the Washington Department of Ecology at the flow gage 3.5 SEDIMENT SOURCE MODELING Sediment input was estimated based on observations made during a 1-day site reconnaissance, viewing orthophotographs to help identify land uses and sediment sources, and GIS modeling of sediment inputs (Table Table 2. Summary of methods used to estimate sediment inputs. Sediment Source Method Soil creep/stream bank erosion A combined estimate was based on SEDMODL2 calculations Agricultural land The WEPP model was used to estimate erosion and delivery rates from representative field/buffer/slope combinations. These sediment input rates were extrapolated to croplands within 1,000 feet of streams. Erosion from grazing of streamside vegetation was evaluated based on percent of stream length observed to be damaged by grazing during the stream inventory, extrapolated to rest of stream areas utilized for grazing. Road surface erosion Observations of road were made during a 1-day site visit. Erosion/delivery estimates were based on SEDMODL2 calculations on all roads in GIS database 3.5.1 Data Sources The following GIS coverages and data were used in the analysis: • Topography – USGS 10 meter Digital Elevation Model • Streams – Washington State Department of Natural Resources Watercourse (WC) Hydrography (WDNR Jan. 2009) • Roads – State Transportation coverage (WDNR Jan. 2009) • Geology – WDNR 1:100,000 scale geology (WDNR 2000) • Soils – NRCS soils, combined WA DNR coverage for Klickitat county and SSURGO for Benton and Yakima counties. Acquired from Aspect Consulting • Land Use – US National Land Cover Data (NLCD) from1992 Landsat data. Acquired WRIA31 subset of data from Aspect Consulting (USGS 1992) • Data from the crop analysis completed in 2004 (IRZ 2004) and a crop database provided by the Washington Department of Agriculture (2009) which provides information on crops and irrigation in the project area ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 14 Watershed Professionals Network • Existing traffic count data for portions of gravel-surfaced roads in Klickitat County obtained from the County (personal communication, Seth Scarola, Project Engineer, Klickitat County Pubic Works, June 1, 2009) In addition, observations on the types of land uses/sediment sources in the subbasins and average road conditions across the subbasins were made during a site visit on May 14, 2009. The objective of the reconnaissance-level site visit was to observe existing conditions and sediment-producing activities in the subbasins. Observations of croplands, road drainage connectivity, unpaved road conditions, potential sediment delivery pathways, and presence/absence of defined channels at road crossings were made. Approximately 200 miles of road within the four subbasins were driven. Based on field observations, type N and U (non-fish bearing) streams in areas underlain by loess and fine-grained flood deposits (Ql and Qfs geologic units) and were not included as streams in the analysis of sediment delivery in the Glade Creek subbasin. During the field checking, there were swales, but very few actual channels were found in locations that were mapped as type N or U on Ql and Qfs geologic units. It is possible that mapped streams in parts of other subbasins, particularly lower Rock Creek, are not actually streams on the ground, but we did not have adequate field data to verify stream presence/absence in other subbasins. Since sediment delivery estimates were based on mapped streams, a higher number of mapped streams will result in an overestimate of sediment delivery to streams. 3.5.2 Soil Creep and Stream Bank Erosion Soil creep and stream bank erosion are natural processes that occur along all streams and provide a background level of sediment input to streams. Soil creep is the slow downward motion of the soil column due to gravity and provides sediment to stream banks where it enters the stream. In some locations in larger, alluvial sections of streams, the flow has enough energy to erode the stream banks, providing sediment from this mechanism. In general, soil creep is considered the input mechanism in smaller headwater channels, while stream bank erosion is often the input mechanism in larger channels. Based on observations by the stream inventory crew, stream bank erosion does not appear to be widespread in WRIA31. For this reason, the estimate of soil creep from the SEDMODL2 application was used to estimate sediment input from both these sources. A soil depth of 60 inches was used based on depths reported for soils in the watershed by the NRCS (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). The lowest creep rates in SEDMODL2 (0.03/0.07 mm/yr for slopes greater and less than 30 percent, respectively) were used due to the low rainfall in the area. 3.5.3 Agricultural Lands An assessment of erosion and delivery from agricultural lands was made using the WEPP model (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=10621) and existing GIS coverages showing land use. 3.5.4 Cultivated Land ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 15 Watershed Professionals Network Cover crops between grape vines reduce surface erosion The primary plowed/planted agricultural lands are within the Glade Creek subbasin and include rotations of winter wheat and fallow land, row crops, and wine grapes. Primary row crops include corn, peas, beans, and potatoes (personal communications, June 5, 1009, Troy Grimes, ConAgra farm and dairy operations manager; and WA Dept. of Agriculture database 2006). Land in the northern portion of the subbasin is not irrigated. Center pivot irrigation is used on row crops in the southern portion of the basin, generally from March through October. Some row crops have multiple rotations within the year, and a cover crop is generally planted to provide erosion control over winter. There are also limited plowed/planted lands within the other study subbasins. Since there is no detailed GIS information on specific crops, and rotations change through time, the WEPP model was used to calculate erosion and delivery to streams from several representative scenarios (Table For all runs, the Richland WA climate and the Shano silt loam soil was used. Slopes of 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50% with 1,000 foot were modeled. Management files included the standard WEPP-provided winter wheat mulch tilled, winter wheat conventional tilled, winter wheat no till, fallow tilled, to represent the range of dryland farming methods in the northern part of the basin. Several WEPP runs were made to determine the range of predicted erosion from irrigated land, including: corn spring chisel plow (with and without irrigation), corn no till winter wheat cover crop (no irrigation), and three different no till, irrigation, with winter wheat cover crop scenarios (sweet corn, peas, and potatoes). Table 3. WEPP estimates of erosion from various cultivated land uses (average tons/acre/year). Hill Slope Gradient Winter wheat, continuous no till Winter wheat, conventional till Winter wheat, mulch till Winter wheat, continuous no till, stationary depletion irrigation (Mar-0ct) Winter wheat, conventional till, stationary depletion irrigation (Mar-Oct) Corn, spring chisel plow (no irrigation) Corn, no till, winter wheat cover crop (no irrigation) Corn, spring chisel plow, stationary depletion irrigation (Mar-Oct) Sweet corn, no till, winter wheat cover crop, stationary depletion irrigation (Mar-Oct) Peas, no till, winter wheat cover crop, stationary depletion irrigation (Mar-Oct) Potatoes, no till, winter wheat cover crop, stationary depletion irrigation (Mar-Oct) 2 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 10 0 0.3 0.2 0 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 20 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.1 4.9 0.7 0.3 4 1 0.7 0.9 30 0.2 2.1 1.5 0.4 10.1 1.3 0.6 7.6 1.6 1.1 1.1 40 0.3 3.1 2.3 0.9 15 1.9 0.8 10.9 2.2 1.5 2 50 0.4 4.4 2.9 1.1 19.7 2.5 1.3 14.4 3.2 1.9 3 The WEPP results were compiled into three average rates that were used for the three cultivated land use categories available in the GIS coverage: Cultivated irrigated; ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 16 Watershed Professionals Network Cultivated small grains; and Cultivated fallow (Table Table 4. WEPP erosion estimates used in analysis (average tons/acre/year). Hill Slope Gradient Cultivated irrigated (average winter wheat and row crop, no till, irrigated) Cultivated small grains (winter wheat, mulch till) Cultivated fallow (Winter wheat continuous, no till) 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.1 0.0 0.0 10 0.2 0.2 0.0 20 0.7 0.8 0.1 30 1.1 1.5 0.2 40 1.7 2.3 0.3 50 2.3 2.9 0.4 These average erosion rates (tons/acre/yr) were applied to acres of land within 1,000 feet of streams mapped as Cultivated – Fallow, Cultivated - Irrigated Land, and Cultivated - Small Grains management scenarios in the GIS database derived from Landsat imagery (USGS 1992). It is assumed that the majority of sediment eroded from land farther than 1,000 feet from a stream channel will be re-deposited before it enters a stream channel. The acreages used in this analysis are shown in italics in Table 5. 3.5.5 Grazing Livestock grazing occurs within the Rock Creek, Wood Gulch, and Pine Creek subbasins. Observations during the site reconnaissance suggested that in most locations, grazing was not intense enough to contribute substantial amounts of sediment to streams. However, in a few locations, grazing was observed to be concentrated near streams and trampling of banks was observed to be a localized sediment source. An assessment of the degree of livestock damage to riparian areas was included as part of the WRIA 31 stream study. Inventory crews noted if livestock damage was evident at each study site, but no quantitative measurements were made. These notes were compiled and a relative ranking was given to each site (no livestock damage, minor livestock damage, some livestock damage, and heavy livestock damage). These data were extrapolated to un-inventoried stream reaches that are used for grazing and do not have riparian fencing. The WEPP model was used to estimate erosion from grazing by modeling the cow paths as a narrow skid trail with 10% ground cover, silty loam soils, and 5 % slope. A modified climate was generated using the included CLIGEN PRISM routine based on the Richland WA climate, with a location of 120.333° W and 45.8667°N to represent the areas within Wood Gulch that were noted to have the heaviest cattle use along streams. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 17 Watershed Professionals Network Table 5. Land use within 1,000 feet of streams in the Rock, Wood, Pine, and Glade subbasins. Subbasin Reported Land Use/1 Acres BARREN - Various 17 CULTIVATED - Fallow 1,658 CULTIVATED - Irrigated Land 581 CULTIVATED - Small Grains 2,563 DEVELOPED - Various 136 FORESTED UPLANDS - Various 25,800 GRASSLANDS / HERBACEOUS 7,808 SHRUBLAND 30,360 WETLAND - Various 111 Rock Creek Unknown 79 Rock Creek Total 69,111 BARREN - Various 1 CULTIVATED - Fallow 205 CULTIVATED - Irrigated Land 3 CULTIVATED - Small Grains 468 DEVELOPED - Various 61 FORESTED UPLANDS - Various 817 GRASSLANDS / HERBACEOUS 4,001 SHRUBLAND 8,875 WETLAND - Various 20 Wood Gulch Unknown 1 Wood Gulch Total 14,451 BARREN - Various 0 CULTIVATED - Fallow 213 CULTIVATED - Small Grains 140 DEVELOPED - Various 107 FORESTED UPLANDS - Various 3,277 GRASSLANDS / HERBACEOUS 2,827 SHRUBLAND 9,541 WETLAND - Various 36 Pine Creek Unknown 15 Pine Creek Total 16,157 BARREN - Various 1 CULTIVATED - Fallow 46,253 CULTIVATED - Irrigated Land 8,844 CULTIVATED - Small Grains 17,953 DEVELOPED - Various 334 FORESTED UPLANDS - Various 46 GRASSLANDS / HERBACEOUS 5,118 SHRUBLAND 27,422 WETLAND - Various 1 Glade Creek Unknown 50 Glade Creek Total 106,023 Note: italicized rows were used in cultivated land analysis 1/ Land use data is based on a 1972 dataset and is likely out of date. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 18 Watershed Professionals Network Runoff from unsurfaced roads can deliver sediment to streams 3.5.6 Road Surface Erosion SEDMODL2 was used to estimate road surface erosion from roads in the subbasins. SEDMODL2 is an empirical road surface erosion model that estimates surface erosion and delivery to streams based on road conditions such as road width, gradient, surfacing, traffic, ditch width, cutslope height, and cover. Information on the model calculations can be found in the technical documentation (http://www.ncasi.org/support/downloads/Detail.aspx?id=5). Current road conditions on representative roads in the subbasins were observed during a site visit on May 14, 2009. Road data collected during the site visit included: length of road that drains to a stream at each crossing, tread width, ditch width, tread gradient, tread configuration, tread surfacing, cutslope height, and cover density. These data were compiled by road class and used to provide input data to SEDMODL2 based on mapped road class. Traffic count data were available for some of the gravel- surfaced roads and obtained from Klickitat County (personal communication, Seth Scarola, Project Engineer, Klickitat County Pubic Works, June 1, 2009). If traffic count data were available for specific roads, the data were used to determine traffic level based on SEDMODL2 traffic classes. SEDMODL2 was run for all roads included on the DNR road coverage in the four subbasins. Table 6 summarizes conditions that were used as model input. Table 6. Road conditions used for SEMODL2 calculations. DNR Road Class Tread width (ft) Ditch Width (ft) Surfacing Traffic Cutslope Cover Density Road Configuration 1 – Highway 2 – Secondary 3 – All Season 30 10 Asphalt Moderate 70% Insloped 4 - Unpaved 12 3 Gravel Light* 70% Insloped 5 (trail), Railroad Not modeled (not roads) * Actual traffic count data were used if available for gravel surfaced roads. 3.5.7 Data and Study Limitations Constraints on the erosion assessment include: a) limited spatial information on crops grown and irrigation methods within the study area; and b) limitation of the amount of time that could be spent in the field to collect validation data. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 19 Watershed Professionals Network 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 HABITAT The study area included the public and private lands of Rock Creek, Chapman Creek, Pine Creek, Wood Gulch, Old Lady Canyon, and Glade Creek. Data were collected in all reaches between October 29, 2008 and December 12, 2008 with the exception of Glade Creek. Data collection in Glade Creek occurred between May 28 and May 30, 2009. All of the reaches except Glade Creek were sampled during low flow periods. Glade Creek was sampled in May during the spring freshets; therefore, the Glade Creek data do not represent the low flow condition. Tribal trust lands were excluded from the data collection effort since they are not included within the WRIA 31 planning area. Base maps for the project areas depicting the sample locations are provided in Appendix A, Maps 1 through 8. Photos of the sample reaches are provided in Appendix B. A total of 19,703 meters (57,432 feet) of stream were sampled which represented 15.7 percent of the total habitat in the identified reaches throughout the study area (Table Average gradient in the sampled reaches ranged from 0 to 5.29 percent (Table Reach 3 in Wood Gulch had the steepest gradient. Other steep reaches included Reach 2 in Pine Creek and the upper reaches of Rock and Squaw Creeks. Overall, 20.1 percent of the length of the sampled stream segments was dry (Table 9; Figure Within the Rock Creek subbasin, the dry sections were concentrated in Reaches 6, 7, and 8; continuous flow was observed in the canyon reaches upstream of Reach 8. Dry reaches were scattered throughout the other subbasins. Pools comprised 32% (Chapman Creek) to 54% (Pine Creek) of the channel units sampled (Figure 7) and riffles covered between 15% (Glade Creek) and 57% (Chapman Creek) of the total channel units sampled (Figure Table 7. Sample reaches, total reach length, sampled reach length and percent of reach sampled. Basin Stream Reach Total sample length (ft) Total Sample Length Reach Length (ft) Reach Length Percent Sampled Chapman Creek CHAPMAN CREEK 1 1,109 338 1,312 400 84.5% Chapman Creek CHAPMAN CREEK 2 3,174 967 12,139 3,700 26.1% Chapman Creek CHAPMAN CREEK 3 2,069 631 6,234 1,900 33.2% Chapman Creek Total 5,906 1,800 19,685 6,000 30.0% Pine Creek PINE CREEK 1 2,417 737 21,325 6,500 11.3% Pine Creek PINE CREEK 2 1,275 389 12,139 3,700 10.5% Pine Creek PINE CREEK 3 1,847 563 10,171 3,100 18.2% Pine Creek PINE CREEK 4 1,375 419 14,436 4,400 9.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 20 Watershed Professionals Network Basin Stream Reach Total sample length (ft) Total Sample Length Reach Length (ft) Reach Length Percent Sampled Pine Creek Total 6,562 2,000 58,071 17,700 11.3% Rock Creek LUNA GULCH 1 1,014 309 4,265 1,300 23.8% Rock Creek LUNA GULCH 2 1,134 346 6,234 1,900 18.2% Rock Creek LUNA GULCH 3 332 101 6,562 2,000 5.1% Rock Creek QUARTZ CREEK 1 1,019 311 6,890 2,100 14.8% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 1 1,842 561 4,921 1,500 37.4% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 2 1,119 341 6,890 2,100 16.2% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 4 1,471 448 13,123 4,000 11.2% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 5 1,384 422 9,843 3,000 14.1% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 6 1,259 384 3,281 1,000 38.4% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 7 1,201 366 3,937 1,200 30.5% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 8 1,118 341 3,609 1,100 31.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 9 1,125 343 6,890 2,100 16.3% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 10 1,011 308 5,906 1,800 17.1% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 11 1,969 600 14,108 4,300 14.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 12 1,075 328 7,218 2,200 14.9% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 13 1,580 482 12,467 3,800 12.7% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 1 1,043 318 6,890 2,100 15.1% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 2 1,084 330 7,218 2,200 15.0% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 3 1,158 353 6,562 2,000 17.6% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 4 377 115 10,499 3,200 3.6% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 5 984 300 3,937 1,200 25.0% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 6 991 302 3,937 1,200 25.2% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 7 4,063 1,238 31,824 9,700 12.8% Rock Creek Total 38,386 11,700 264,764 80,700 14.5% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 1 1,147 350 3,281 1,000 35.0% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 2 3,343 1,019 27,559 8,400 12.1% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 3 2,401 732 22,638 6,900 10.6% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 4 1,517 462 11,811 3,600 12.8% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 5 2,460 750 20,341 6,200 12.1% Wood Gulch Total 9,843 3,000 85,630 26,100 11.5% Glade Creek GLADE CREEK 1 684 208 1,987 606 34.4% Glade Creek GLADE CREEK 2 1,160 353 5,034 1534 23.0% Glade Creek GLADE CREEK 3 2,102 641 9,159 2792 23.0% Glade Creek Total 3,945 1,203 16,180 4,926 24.4% TOTAL 64,642 19,703 444,330 135,426 Percent sampled across all reaches 15.7% ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 21 Watershed Professionals Network Table 8. Average stream gradient of sampled basins. Basin Stream Reach # Average Gradient 1 1.83 2 1.94 Chapman Creek Chapman Creek 3 1.79 1 1.43 2 2.75 3 1.00 Pine Creek Pine Creek 4 1.13 1 1.00 2 1.00 Luna Gulch 3 1.00 Quartz Creek 1 3.00 1 0.75 2 1.50 4 0.75 5 0.33 6 1.33 7 0.33 8 0.67 9 1.00 10 1.00 11 2.00 12 3.33 Rock Creek 13 3.50 1 1.00 2 0.00 3 0.67 4 1.00 5 1.00 6 1.00 Rock Creek Squaw Creek 7 3.00 1 1.00 2 1.22 3 5.29 4 1.08 Wood Gulch Wood Gulch 5 1.00 1 1.00 2 1.38 Glade Glade 3 0.71 ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 22 Watershed Professionals Network Table 9. Number and type of channel units sampled and portion of stream length that was dry. Basin Stream Reach Number of Channel Units Measured Number of Riffles Sampled Number of Pools Sampled Number of Glides Sampled Percent of Length That was Dry Chapman Creek CHAPMAN CREEK 1 13 7 6 0 35.5% Chapman Creek CHAPMAN CREEK 2 38 20 9 9 4.3% Chapman Creek CHAPMAN CREEK 3 37 18 13 5 19.3% Chapman Creek total 88 45 28 14 14.5% Pine Creek PINE CREEK 1 34 12 16 0 63.4% Pine Creek PINE CREEK 2 27 8 14 1 41.5% Pine Creek PINE CREEK 3 26 6 11 2 10.7% Pine Creek PINE CREEK 4 24 11 10 2 0.9% Pine Creek Total 111 37 51 5 41.6% Rock Creek LUNA GULCH 1 7 1 1 2 67.7% Rock Creek LUNA GULCH 2 15 6 7 2 0.0% Rock Creek LUNA GULCH 3 8 2 5 1 0.0% Rock Creek QUARTZ CREEK 1 14 7 7 0 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 1 16 6 8 2 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 2 3 1 1 1 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 4 16 5 6 5 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 5 8 4 2 2 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 6 14 6 6 1 46.3% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 7 9 2 4 2 29.3% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 8 10 3 4 1 36.1% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 9 13 5 6 2 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 10 11 5 2 4 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 11 40 17 16 7 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 12 22 10 12 0 0.0% Rock Creek ROCK CREEK 13 33 16 16 1 0.0% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 1 17 7 8 1 2.7% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 2 5 0 1 1 70.4% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 3 13 4 6 1 26.8% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 4 4 2 2 0 0.0% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 5 3 0 0 0 100.0% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 6 3 0 0 0 100.0% Rock Creek SQUAW CREEK 7 66 29 34 1 16.3% Rock Creek Total 549 220 233 56 13.9% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 1 7 1 2 0 58.4% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 2 40 17 20 1 0.0% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 3 65 30 33 2 0.0% ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 23 Watershed Professionals Network Basin Stream Reach Number of Channel Units Measured Number of Riffles Sampled Number of Pools Sampled Number of Glides Sampled Percent of Length That was Dry Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 4 15 5 8 2 0.0% Wood Gulch WOOD GULCH 5 16 0 5 4 68.7% Wood Gulch Total 143 53 68 9 24.0% Glade Creek GLADE CREEK 1 10 1 5 4 0.0% Glade Creek GLADE CREEK 2 10 4 5 2 0.0% Glade Creek GLADE CREEK 3 15 0 6 6 7.6% Glade Creek Total 35 5 16 12 4.1% Totals for sampled areas 727 278 317 77 20.1% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Chapman Creek Pine Creek Rock Creek Wood Gulch Glade Creek Basin Percent of Sampled Length That Was Dry Figure 6. Percent of the sampled length of each basin that was dry. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 24 Watershed Professionals Network 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Chapman Creek Pine Creek Rock Creek Wood Gulch Glade Creek Basin Percent of Each Channel Unit Type % Riffles % Pools % Glides Figure 7. Percent of sampled channel units that were riffles, pools, and glides for each basin. 4.1.1 Pools Average pool depth ranged from 0.061 to 0.853 meters (0.2 to 2.8 feet) and maximum pool depth ranged from 0.122 to 2.13 meters (0.4 to 7.0 feet). The distribution of average and maximum pool depths were similar for all the basins except Glade Creek which had much deeper pools on average (Figure With the exception of Glade Creek, pools were generally less than 0.6 meters (2 feet) deep. Pool volume was estimated for each pool sampled in the study area and the average pool volume per 100 meters was estimated for each stream segment. The average and standard deviation of pool volume was estimated for each reach (Zar 1974). Pool volume per 100 meters ranged from 0.13 to 77.89 m3 per 100m and averaged 6.6 m3 per 100m (Table 10; Appendix A, Maps 9 through 16). Expanding the mean density of pool volume/m3 over the total length of each reach, the total estimated volume of pools in the study area is estimated at 5,408 m3 (7,073 square yards), 78 percent of which is located in the Rock Creek basin (Tables 10 and 11). ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 25 Watershed Professionals Network Chapman Creek 0 2 4 6 8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 Pool Depth Number of Pools Average Pool Depth Maximum Pool Depth Glade Creek 0 1 2 3 4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 Pool Depth Number of Pools Average Pool Depth Maximum Pool Depth Pine Creek 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 Pool Depth Number of Pools Average Pool Depth Maximum Pool Depth Rock Creek 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 Pool Depth Number of Pools Average Pool Depth Maximum Pool Depth Wood Gulch 0 5 10 15 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 Pool Depth Number of Pools Average Pool Depth Maximum Pool Depth Figure 8. The frequency of occurrence of pools at various depths, by basin. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 26 Watershed Professionals Network Table 10. Pool Volume in each reach. Basin Stream Reach Average Pool Volume (m3)/ 100m Standard Deviation Pool Volume (m3)/ 100m Total Estimated Pool Volume (m3) in Reach Standard Deviation of Total Estimated Pool Volume (m3) in Reach 1 2.37 27.02 9.5 108.1 2 0.13 6.91 4.8 255.7 Chapman Creek Chapman Creek 3 0.16 7.58 3.1 144.1 1 0.75 41.08 48.6 2670.5 2 0.77 22.14 28.5 819.1 3 0.87 46.09 27.0 1428.9 Pine Creek Pine Creek 4 1.77 21.24 78.0 934.7 1 0.20 2.55 2.7 33.2 2 2.87 12.59 54.5 239.2 Luna Gulch 3 2.70 N/A* 54.0 N/A* Quartz Creek 1 3.61 46.33 75.9 973.0 1 29.62 110.51 444.3 1657.7 2 77.89 392.09 1635.6 8233.9 4 8.44 136.06 337.5 5442.3 5 7.10 42.65 213.1 1279.4 6 1.40 28.71 14.0 287.1 7 8.73 102.11 104.7 1225.4 8 3.62 41.64 39.8 458.0 9 3.93 40.97 82.5 860.3 10 1.13 22.04 20.3 396.8 11 1.19 41.62 51.1 1789.7 12 1.26 9.87 27.8 217.1 Rock Creek 13 0.29 6.10 10.9 232.0 1 2.34 14.79 49.1 310.7 2 2.41 17.72 52.9 389.8 3 3.30 36.66 66.0 733.1 4 26.73 N/A* 855.2 N/A* 5 DRY DRY 0.0 0.0 6 DRY DRY 0.0 0.0 Rock Creek Squaw Creek 7 0.38 28.84 37.2 2797.8 1 0.37 5.69 3.7 56.9 2 1.06 27.28 89.3 2291.8 3 0.45 14.53 30.8 1002.4 4 8.16 113.04 293.7 4069.3 Wood Gulch Wood Gulch 5 0.13 5.73 8.1 355.1 1 24.99 87.07 151.3 527.3 2 10.55 79.54 161.8 1220.4 Glade Creek Glade Creek 3 8.63 117.21 240.8 3272.2 * Not enough samples to calculate a standard deviation ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 27 Watershed Professionals Network Table 11. Total estimated volume of pools (m3) by basin and stream. BASIN / STREAM TOTAL Chapman Creek 17 Glade Creek 554 Pine Creek 182 Luna Gulch 111 Quartz Creek 76 Rock Creek Mainstem 2,982 Rock Creek Squaw Creek 1,060 Rock Creek Total 4,229 Wood Gulch 426 Grand Total 5,408 4.1.2 Spawning Area and Substrate Condition The area of spawning habitat was estimated for each channel unit containing spawning habitat (including riffles, glides, and the tails out of many pools), and the average spawning area per 100 meters was estimated for each segment. The mean and standard deviation of spawning area was calculated for the portions of each reach that were included in the study by averaging the values for each segment and completing the calculations for standard deviation (Zar 1974). Spawning area per 100 meters ranged from 0.0 to 314.5 m2 per 100m and averaged 77.7 m2 per 100m (Table 12; Appendix A, Maps 17 through 24). Expanding the average spawning area per m2 over the total length of each reach, including portions not directly sampled, the total estimated area of spawning habitat in the study area is estimated at 5,408 m2, 78 percent of which is located in the Rock Creek basin (Tables 12 and 13). The substrate composition was documented for each channel unit in each sample segment (Table 14). Two methods were used to document substrate condition. The modified Wentworth procedure visually estimates the percent of the substrate that falls into a range of categories. This measure is focused on the composition of the materials within the substrate. In addition, a visual estimate of embeddedness was documented. This measure focuses on the amount of fine sediment overlying the substrate. In general, substrate materials tended to be coarser in riffles than in other channel unit types (pools, glides, marshes) (Figure Chapman Creek and Glade Creek basins tended to have a much higher percentage of fines than were observed in Rock Creek, Wood Gulch, and Pine Creek. As will be discussed later, this is related to the underlying geology of the basins. Glade and Chapman Creek have much less spawning material (gravel/cobble) than is found in the other basins. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 28 Watershed Professionals Network Table 12. Spawning area in each reach. Basin Stream Reach Ave Spawning area (m2) /100 m Standard Deviation Spawning Area (m2) /100 m Total Estimated Spawning Area (m2) in Reach Standard Deviation Total Estimated Spawning Area 1 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chapman Creek Chapman Creek 3 0.3 0.79 1697.40 15.01 1 26.1 35.55 677.16 2310.61 2 18.3 8.94 2004.83 330.63 3 64.7 32.98 4966.35 1022.47 Pine Creek Pine Creek 4 112.9 71.45 51.93 3143.76 1 4.0 3.65 871.43 47.43 2 45.9 39.80 203.63 756.19 Luna Gulch 3 10.2 N/A* 3158.10 N/A* Quartz Creek 1 150.4 94.48 3814.16 1984.14 1 254.3 103.43 6603.49 1551.40 2 314.5 488.99 10526.51 10268.86 4 263.2 105.08 5137.75 4203.37 5 171.3 9.33 1484.28 279.83 6 148.4 146.94 1659.06 1469.36 7 138.3 161.76 958.30 1941.16 8 87.1 99.53 2029.11 1094.88 9 96.6 87.23 2650.00 1831.74 10 147.2 30.24 4742.63 544.35 11 110.3 36.39 1081.28 1564.68 12 49.1 42.57 724.42 936.60 Rock Creek 13 19.1 10.75 5422.16 408.51 1 258.2 122.70 876.30 2576.65 2 39.8 68.99 1830.75 1517.80 3 91.5 94.68 865.41 1893.63 4 27.0 N/A* 0.00 N/A* 5 DRY DRY 0.00 0.00 6 DRY DRY 4913.30 0.00 Rock Creek Squaw Creek 7 50.7 53.36 1174.03 5176.40 1 117.4 145.07 8751.62 1450.73 2 104.2 55.30 766.24 4645.12 3 11.1 7.49 559.52 516.50 4 15.5 20.77 285.02 747.73 Wood Gulch Wood Gulch 5 4.6 11.87 1697.40 2310.61 1 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Glade Creek Glade Creek 3 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 * Not enough samples to calculate a standard deviation ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 29 Watershed Professionals Network Table 13. Total estimated spawning area (m2) by basin and stream. BASIN / STREAM TOTAL Chapman Creek 6 Glade Creek 0 Pine Creek 9,346 Luna Gulch 1,127 Quartz Creek 3,158 Rock Creek Mainstem 41,411 Rock Creek Squaw Creek 13,908 Rock Creek Total 59,604 Wood Gulch 11,536 Grand Total 80,492 ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 30 Watershed Professionals Network Chapman Creek 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Bedrock % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Pebble % Sand % Silt/Clay Substrate Size Average Percent Composition Non-Riffles Riffles Pine Creek 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 % Bedrock % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Pebble % Sand % Silt/Clay Substrate Size Average Percent Composition Non-Riffles Riffles Rock Creek 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 % Bedrock % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Pebble % Sand % Silt/Clay Substrate Size Average Percent Composition Non-Riffles Riffles Wood Gulch 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 % Bedrock % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Pebble % Sand % Silt/Clay Substrate Size Average Percent Composition Non-Riffles Riffles Glade Creek 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Bedrock % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Pebble % Sand % Silt/Clay Substrate Size Average Percent Composition Non-Riffles Riffles Figure 9. Average substrate composition for riffle and non-riffle channel units for each basin in the study area. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 31 Watershed Professionals Network Table 14. Substrate composition of spawning areas by basin, stream, and reach. Basin Stream Reach % Bedrock % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Pebble % Sand % Silt & Clay 1 0.0 3.3 19.2 15.0 4.2 9.2 49.2 2 0.0 1.3 15.3 17.3 10.3 14.0 42.0 Chapman Creek Chapman Creek 3 0.0 0.9 23.2 15.3 6.5 11.2 42.9 Chapman Creek Total 0.0 1.4 19.0 16.2 7.9 12.2 43.4 1 8.8 22.9 27.1 14.6 8.8 7.9 10.0 2 23.8 29.4 18.1 11.9 2.5 3.8 10.6 3 0.0 13.3 35.8 26.7 10.8 6.7 6.7 Pine Creek Pine Creek 4 0.0 16.8 31.8 25.5 10.5 7.3 8.2 Pine Creek Total 8.0 20.9 28.0 19.2 8.2 6.6 9.1 1 0.0 30.0 35.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 2 0.0 18.3 37.5 22.5 5.8 2.5 13.3 Luna Gulch 3 2.5 20.0 37.5 15.0 7.5 0.0 17.5 Luna Gulch Total 0.6 20.0 37.2 20.0 6.1 2.2 13.9 Quartz Creek 1 0.7 24.3 30.0 24.3 10.7 5.0 5.0 1 0.0 10.0 40.0 36.7 5.0 0.0 8.3 2 15.0 30.0 35.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4 15.0 12.0 24.0 24.0 11.0 6.0 8.0 5 5.0 15.0 33.3 28.3 5.0 3.3 10.0 6 0.0 21.0 42.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 7 5.0 15.0 35.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 8 0.0 15.0 38.3 35.0 0.0 1.7 10.0 9 0.0 12.0 39.0 35.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 10 0.0 19.0 33.0 24.0 7.0 2.0 15.0 11 0.0 25.0 36.5 21.5 5.0 2.1 10.0 12 3.0 32.5 28.5 19.0 5.5 4.5 7.0 Mainstem Rock Creek 13 6.0 23.0 28.7 19.7 8.0 2.7 12.0 Mainstem Total 3.2 21.6 33.3 23.6 5.3 2.6 10.3 1 0.0 11.4 42.1 31.4 3.6 4.3 7.1 2 3 0.0 26.3 33.8 25.0 2.5 6.3 6.3 4 0.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 2.5 7.5 15.0 Squaw Creek 7 13.9 19.8 25.7 20.4 8.1 3.5 8.5 Rock Creek Squaw Creek Total 9.4 19.5 29.6 22.5 6.5 4.1 8.4 Rock Creek Total 4.8 21.0 32.3 23.1 6.0 3.2 9.7 1 0.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 2 1.2 21.5 32.1 22.9 7.9 6.2 8.2 3 4.1 26.7 25.0 15.0 9.8 9.0 10.3 4 0.0 12.5 35.0 26.3 11.3 6.3 8.8 Wood Gulch Wood Gulch 5 Wood Gulch Total 2.7 23.8 28.1 18.8 9.3 7.8 9.3 1 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 2 0.0 12.5 8.8 11.3 12.5 31.3 23.8 Glade Creek Glade Creek 3 Glade Creek Total 0.0 10.0 9.0 11.0 16.0 33.0 21.0 The percent fines in spawning areas is an important factor in assessing the quality of ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 32 Watershed Professionals Network spawning habitats. Spawning areas are predominately located in riffles where flows reduce the quantity of fine sediments and also provide oxygen within the substrate (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Fine substrate materials that accumulate in gravel can cause of rearing eggs and alevins. The modified Wentworth method employed in this study identified the smaller substrate sizes as silt and clay 0.59 mm) and sand (0.60 to 1.00 mm). Figure 10 and Appendix A, maps 25 through 32 depict the average percent composition of both the finer material (silt and clay) and the sum of the composition of sand and silt/clay. Rock Creek had the lowest composition of fine materials in the substrate; the percent composition of fine materials was less than 20 percent in all but a couple of cases and was less than 15 percent in the majority of the locations. The higher values were collected in backwater areas of side channels. Pine Creek and Wood Gulch also tended to have low levels of fine materials in riffles, though a larger number of riffles had higher levels of fine sediments. Chapman Creek tended to have a very fine substrate and Glade Creek has an abundance of sand. Embeddedness (Figure 11) was similar in Rock Creek, Pine Creek, and Wood Gulch. Embeddedness tended to be much higher in Glade Creek and Chapman Creek. As will be discussed later, these differences are likely related to variations in the local geology. 4.1.3 Riparian Characteristics The documented characteristics of riparian zones included a measure of the depth of the “inner” riparian zone, defined as the point where the vegetation changes to a more upslope character, dominant and subdominant species, and an ocular estimate of canopy closure. The study was conducted after leaf fall, so the estimates of canopy closure are highly subjective. Estimates of canopy closure ranged from 0 to 46.7 percent, averaging 20.8 percent (Table 15; Appendix A, Maps 33 through 40). The width of the inner riparian zone ranged from 0 to 15.7 meters, with an average of 4.7 meters. The most common species in the riparian zones included alder, willow, walnut, and white oak. Walnut is not a native species. 4.1.4 Instream Woody Debris The abundance of large woody debris in the sample area was generally low (Table 16). The average total number of pieces in the sample reaches ranged from 0 to 4.8 pieces per stream segment (segments averaged 110 meters). The majority of these pieces were small (6 to 12 inch diameter) to medium (12 to 20 inch diameter) in size. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 33 Watershed Professionals Network Chapman Creek 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 95 Percent Fines Number Silt and Clay <.059 mm Sand (.06 to 1 mm) and Silt/Clay Combined Glade Creek 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 95 Percent Fines Number "Silt and Clay <.059 mm" Sand (.06 to 1 mm) and Silt/Clay Combined Rock Creek 0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 95 Percent Fines Number Silt and Clay <.59 mm Sand (.06 to 1 mm) and Silt/Clay Combined Pine Creek 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 95 Percent Fines Number Silt and Clay <.059 mm Sand (.06 to 1 mm) and Silt/Clay Combined Wood Gulch 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 95 Percent Fines Number Silt and Clay ,.059 mm Sand (.06 to 1 mm) and Silt/Clay Combined Figure 10. Frequency of occurrence of spawning areas with indicated percent fines in the substrate. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 34 Watershed Professionals Network Chapman Creek 0 10 20 30 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% % Embeddedness Number Glade Creek 0 2 4 6 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% % Embeddedness Number Rock Creek 0 20 40 60 80 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% % Embeddedness Number Pine Creek 0 5 10 15 20 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% % Embeddedness Number Wood Gulch 0 10 20 30 40 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% % Embeddedness Number Figure 11. Frequency of occurrence of embeddedness within riffles by basin. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 35 Watershed Professionals Network Table 15. Average canopy cover, inner riparian zone width, and typical vegetation for each reach sampled. Basin Stream Reach Canopy Cover Average Width of Inner Riparian Zone Typical Vegetation Class in Inner Riparian Zone Most Common Dominant Species in Inner Riparian Zone Most Common Sub-dominant Species in Inner Riparian Zone 1 45.0 10.7 Grasslands and Forbs Cottonwood and Alder Cottonwood and Alder 2 37.2 5.8 Small Trees Alder Willow, Walnut, None Chapman Creek Chapman Creek 3 39.2 4.6 Grasslands and Forbs Alder None, Elderberry 1 11.4 3.3 Shrub and seedlings, samplings and poles, small trees Alder and Willow Willow 2 21.3 5.7 Shrub and seedlings, samplings and poles Alder Willow 3 16.0 4.0 Shrub and seedlings, small tree Alder and Willow Willow and Alder Pine Creek Pine Creek 4 26.3 5.3 Small tree Alder Willow 1 6.0 5.6 Grasslands and Forbs, small tree White oak, Alder White oak, Ponderosa Pine, and none 2 41.7 4.6 Small tree Alder White oak Luna Gulch 3 60.0 4.6 Small tree Alder Willow Quartz Creek 1 46.7 3.0 Small tree Alder White oak 1 18.3 6.5 Saplings and poles Alder Walnut 2 28.3 6.4 Saplings and poles Alder None 4 17.5 5.7 Small tree Alder Walnut 5 13.3 7.1 Small tree Alder White oak, Walnut, Big leaf maple 6 13.3 6.1 Saplings and poles Alder None 7 10.7 3.0 Small tree Alder None 8 3.3 2.5 Grasslands and forbs to saplings and poles Cottonwood, Willow Willow, Alder Rock Creek Rock Creek 9 11.7 4.6 Saplings and poles Alder None ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 36 Watershed Professionals Network Basin Stream Reach Canopy Cover Average Width of Inner Riparian Zone Typical Vegetation Class in Inner Riparian Zone Most Common Dominant Species in Inner Riparian Zone Most Common Sub-dominant Species in Inner Riparian Zone 10 18.3 3.0 Small tree Alder None 11 19.0 3.4 Shrubs to small tree Willow and Alder None, Alder 12 56.7 3.6 Small tree Alder None 13 16.3 5.0 Small tree White oak Willow, Walnut, White oak, Quaking Aspen 1 26.7 3.6 Small tree Alder None, Walnut 2 5.0 1.5 Small tree Alder Willow 3 10.0 3.0 Small tree Alder None, Big leaf maple, Alder 4 15.0 3.0 Small tree Alder White oak 5 0.0 0.0 Grasslands and Forbs Willow, Juniper, None None 6 0.0 0.0 Grasslands and Forbs Juniper, Willow Alder, Willow, None Squaw Creek 7 12.0 2.9 Shrubs to Small Trees Alder, Willow None, Willow 1 0.0 0.0 Grasses to small trees Alder, Willow, None None 2 17.2 3.0 Shrubs to small trees Alder Willow, None, Alder 3 31.4 4.1 Small tree Alder, White oak None, Alder 4 18.3 4.9 Small tree Alder Walnut Wood Gulch Wood Gulch 5 17.9 4.4 Shrubs and seedlings Willow None, Ponderosa Pine 1 13.3 15.7 Grasslands and Forbs Grasslands and Forbs None 2 8.8 6.5 Grasslands and Forbs Grasslands and Forbs None Glade Creek Glade Creek 3 37.1 11.8 Grasslands and Forbs Grasslands and Forbs None ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 37 Watershed Professionals Network Table 16. Average abundance of large woody debris in the stream segments (segments had an average length of 110 meters). Number of large woody debris pieces averaged over the stream segments in each reach Basin Stream Reach Small Med- ium Large Jams Root wads Total 1 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 2.3 2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Chapman Creek Chapman Creek 3 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.3 1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 Pine Creek Pine Creek 4 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.4 2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Luna Gulch 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Quartz Creek 1 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 1 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.1 2 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5 3.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 6 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 7 2.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 9 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 10 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 11 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 12 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 Rock Creek 13 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 1 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rock Creek Squaw Creek 7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Wood Gulch Wood Gulch 5 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glade Creek Glade Creek 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 38 Watershed Professionals Network 4.2 FISH SURVEYS 4.2.1 Snorkel Surveys Snorkel surveys were conducted in 799 stream segments within 33 larger reaches in the Rock Creek, Chapman Creek, Wood Gulch, and Pine Creek basins. No fish were found in 53 percent of the stream segments (Appendix A, Maps 41 through 48). The following species were encountered: kisutch Coho Salmon mykiss Steelhead, rainbow, redband trout cataractae Longnose dace Osculus Speckled dace sp. Unknown dace Richardsonius balteatus Redside Shiners According to the principal at the Bickleton School and a local resident, the students at the school often place coho into the stream; hence, the coho that were found were likely planted by the students. Chapman Creek contained only speckled dace (Table 17). The other basins had a greater diversity of species. The highest concentration of steelhead/rainbows was found in Rock Creek. Eighty-nine (89) percent of the O. Mykiss observed were less than 100mm in length (Table 18). These fish could be either anadromous or resident fish. The remaining fish were larger than smolts and smaller than kelts or adults; hence, the larger fish were likely all resident fish. The O. Mykiss observed in Pine Creek were all resident fish. Passage is blocked at Highway 14. We also found a natural barrier in Reach 2, which would limit the upstream extent of anadromous fish once the barrier at the highway is replaced. No other impassible barriers were found in Rock Creek, Pine Creek, Glade Creek, or Wood Gulch within the sampled segments. Additional barriers may exist outside of the sampled areas. O. Mykiss was found in Wood Gulch up to the confluence with Big Horn Canyon. We did not sample Big Horn Canyon, but did continue up Wood Gulch beyond the confluence for several more miles. The highest concentrations of O. mykiss in Rock Creek were found of Luna Gulch in reaches 4 through 7. The total number of fish observed in these reaches constituted 90 percent of the O. mykiss observed in the mainstem of Rock Creek and 71 percent of the O. mykiss observed throughout the subbasin. Two of these reaches, reaches 6 and 7, were intermittently dry, trapping the fish within the reach. These two reaches contained 60 percent of the O. mykiss observed in the mainstem of Rock Creek and 47 percent of the O. mykiss observed throughout the subbasin. Only 8.2 percent of the O. mykiss in the subbasin were found upstream of the Bickleton Bridge, suggesting that movement into the headwaters to rear during the warm summer months is not a common life history strategy. The majority of the O. Mykiss observed in Squaw Creek were located of the confluence with Harrison Creek. Squaw Creek supported 16% of the total fish observed in the Rock Creek basin. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 39 Watershed Professionals Network Table 17. Number of fish observed in each basin by species. Basin Coho Steehead/ Rainbow Trout Longnose Dace Speckled Dace Unknown Dace Redside Shiners Unknown Grand Total Chapman Creek 1194 1 1195 Pine Creek 69 2510 4609 7188 Rock Creek 2 4016 30 3607 455 583 1 8694 Wood Gulch 35 [PHONE REDACTED] 2 3122 Glade Creek 51 51 Grand Total 37 4519 141 7311 7655 583 4 20250 Table 18. Number of Mykiss observed in each basin by size class. Size Class (mm) Basin Stream Reach <100 100-200 200-300 300-400 Grand Total 1 17 20 3 40 2 2 3 1 6 Pine Creek 4 21 2 23 Pine Creek Total 40 25 4 69 2 160 15 5 180 Luna Gulch 3 21 21 4 528 48 14 590 5 364 32 396 6 605 40 1 646 7 1155 33 2 1190 8 10 10 9 102 15 117 10 58 3 61 11 129 5 134 12 3 3 Rock Creek 13 2 2 1 37 1 38 2 80 5 3 88 3 382 55 5 442 4 62 20 1 83 Rock Creek Squaw Creek 7 12 3 15 Rock Creek Total 3710 275 31 4016 2 233 17 2 252 3 20 35 3 58 Wood Gulch 4 48 40 35 1 124 Wood Gulch Total 301 92 40 1 434 Glade Creek Glade Creek Total Grand Total 4051 392 75 1 4519 ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 40 Watershed Professionals Network 4.2.2 Spawning Surveys Spawning surveys were conducted in from the mouth of Rock Creek to the Bickleton Bridge on May 12 and 13, 2009. This portion of Rock Creek contained the greatest number of juvenile O. Mykiss observed during the snorkel surveys. Surveys were not conducted upstream of the Bickleton Bridge due to restrictions on access. Surveys were also not conducted in Reach 3 since those lands are tribal lands and are not included in the WRIA 31 management area. The stream flow was at approximately 31 to 32 cfs at the time of survey, which was low enough to support reasonably good visibility. The weather at the time of survey was sunny which also facilitated detection of steelhead and redds. Visibility of the habitat was limited. The majority of the stream had to be surveyed from the bank due to flow conditions. Bank visibility was limited by access; one bank or the other was inaccessible due to the presence of steep slopes through Reach 7. Visibility from the bank was occasionally limited by vegetation. Surveys were also limited by water depth. Observations of steelhead were only made where the stream was less than approximately 2 feet deep. Overall visibility of the habitat is estimated at 60-70%. Approximately 30-40% of the habitat was not adequately surveyed. A total of 20 redds were positively identified (Table 19; Appendix A, Map 49). Six additional observations identified possible redds which could not be confirmed. Seven spawning steelhead were observed. Field crews were not able to determine if any of these fish were fin clipped. Crews noted an abundance of high quality spawning gravel that did not contain any redds. Table 19. Location and number of steelhead redds observed in lower Rock Creek. UTM NAD27 # Adult Steelhead # Confirmed Steelhead Redds # Questionable Redds 698530/5072596 1 4 697962/5073659 2 697515/5073985 2 2 697285/5074062 1 696386/5074489 2 695981/507489 3 695720/5074783 2 1 695431/5074884 1 695015/5074899 2 2 693624/5075271 1 693558/5075525 2 692983/5075936 4 692474/5076544 1 TOTAL 7 20 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 41 Watershed Professionals Network 4.3 BARRIERS Field crews looked for potential barriers within the survey area and at all other locations that they passed as they moved from one sample area to another. The following is a discussion regarding identified barriers; Pine Creek Mouth: A group of 3 culverts are placed on the left bank orientation) of Pine Creek about 200 feet from the main channel. A 4th culvert is about 150 feet from the main channel on the right bank. These culverts pass under highway 14 and rail tracks near the mouth of Pine Creek. The culverts are not clogged; however, a large pile of alder (possibly a beaver dam) 100 ft upstream of the culverts seems to prevent water from flowing to the culverts. The old streambed is overgrown, suggesting that flow has been diverted for a long time. The height from the streambed to the culvert lip is 3.2 feet. This is likely a barrier to fish passage due to the lack of flow through the culvert. At extremely high flow/flood conditions, water may overflow the beaver dam and pass through the culvert, allowing fish to pass. The culverts open directly into the Columbia River with no jump height. The right bank culvert has no stream bed upstream of culvert, indicating very infrequent flow through the culvert. A culvert which passes stream flow could potentially exist below the water level which was present at the time of the survey (12/7/08) and below the water level of the pond at the mouth of Pine Creek. A natural waterfall which blocks fish passage has previously been identified on Pine Creek. The falls is located roughly ½ to ¾ miles upstream of the lower East Road Bridge, which blocks upstream passage of fish (Jim Wright, personal communication, June 2004). The field crews did not find this waterfall during the study. It is possible the location was reported incorrectly. Field crews did document a waterfall in Reach 2 which was not passable at the time that data were collected due to a lack of flow, but would be easily passable at higher flows. Wood Gulch: There is a series of waterfalls in Reach 3 of Wood Gulch (Figure 12). Each of the falls was determined to be passable, but passage would be difficult in places. Figure 12. One of a set of four waterfalls located in Reach 3 of Wood Gulch. Old Lady Canyon: A reconnaissance survey was completed in lower Old Lady Canyon. Two “waterfalls” (vertical drops, no water) are present in the first reach of the basin. One is 17 feet high and the second is 16 feet high. There is a 21 foot interval between the two drops where a ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 42 Watershed Professionals Network small depression 0.5 foot deep is present. Both would be upstream barriers to fish movement if flow was present in the canyon (see section 4.6 below). 4.4 HYDROMODIFICATIONS Hydromodifications are man-made features which affect streamflow, bankfull, width, floodprone width, or habitat quality. They can include ditches, dikes, road fills, culverts, bridges, and other structures which affect the stream. They do not include land uses causing erosion. Field crews documented hydromodifications within the sample segments and at any location where such features were encountered while moving between sample segments. The following is a description of the hydromodifications encountered during the study. The list should not be considered to include all hydromodifications in the basins. CHAPMAN CREEK Culverts under Highway 14 and the railroad: the passage under the railroad tracks is an open box/bridge about 60 feet wide with zero gradient. This feature is not a barrier to fish passage. There are two box culverts under Highway 14, each of which is about 10 feet wide by an average of 7 feet high. Gradient within the culverts is 2.5 to 3 percent. The culvert passes stream flows without a drop in elevation. The culverts are not migration barriers. ROCK CREEK Private Bridge on the mainstem of Rock Creek, a little upstream of the confluence with Squaw Creek: The private bridge engages both bankfull and floodprone flows. Bankfull flows are confined on the left bank by bridge footing. Floodprone flows are confined by the footings on both banks. The channel is braided immediately upstream of the bridge. The channel on the right bank (facing flows against the road/bridge prism which is armored by large boulders. The channel is constricted by the road/bridge construction and remains confined for a long distance A beaver dam/pool is located immediately and under the bridge. The wetted flow is confined on the left bank by riprap. The right bank of the wetted and bankfull channel is not confined by the bridge. Bickleton Bridge: The bridge footings are nearly engaged by the wetted flow at low flow. Bankfull flows are confined on both banks by the footings, as are floodprone flows. The bridge is scheduled to be replaced with a wider bridge that spans the floodplain. Old Highway 8 Bridge across Rock Creek: The stream is scoured to a depth of about 5 feet along the right bank footing. The stream is confined beneath the bridge and is significantly wider upstream. There is a wetted secondary channel along the upstream abutment on the left bank. The bridge confines the channel at low flow, bankfull flow, and floodprone flow. WOOD GULCH Weirs in Reach 2: A series of 4 weirs have been place at UTM, NAD 27 715449/5077355 (Figure 13). This structure is located just of the gas pipeline. Each of the weirs spans the channel to bankfull and is about 25 feet wide, on average. The total distance from the top of the weir to the top of the 4th upstream weir is 75 feet. A 25 foot pool is present between the weirs. The pools have a maximum depth of 1.2 feet. Boulders have been ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 43 Watershed Professionals Network placed along each bank above floodplain. The stream gradient through this area is 2 degrees (~4.5 The area is rich with noxious/invasive weeds including Himalayan blackberry, fullers teasel, common mullein, Canada thistle, bull thistle, curly dock, and Queen Anne’s lace. Figure 13. Photo of the series of weirs in Wood Gulch. Remnants of a concrete bridge: Bridge footings were observed in Reach 2 near segment 11. The bridge was either not completed or has been partially demolished. There is no deck on the footings (Figure 14). The stream is scoured against the right bank footing. A pool with a maximum depth of 2.3 feet was observed there. The footing on the left bank is above flood prone width. 4.5 RECONNAISSANCE OF OLD LADY CANYON A brief reconnaissance of Old Lady Canyon was completed on 12/16/08, four days after a period of heavy rain. The basin has several emergent wetlands. Several inches of snow were present on the ground, so the ability to observe channel conditions was limited. The stream was not flowing. The culvert under Highway 14 near the mouth of the basin is well positioned to carry any flow. The culvert had no sediment deposits in it; only dry, clean concrete was present, suggesting a general lack of flow since installation (Figure 15). The culvert under the railroad, located just of Highway 14, had numerous piles of bird droppings and nest debris which have accumulated under each of the mud-swallow nests which are constructed on metal fittings attached to the top of the culvert (Figure 15). The presence of the abundance of droppings and nest debris suggests flow through the culvert has not occurred since summer. The culvert under the railroad did have some sediment deposits, suggesting occasional flows. Overall, flow in Old Lady Canyon does not appear to be common. It clearly did not flow during ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 44 Watershed Professionals Network the heavy rainstorms which occurred 4 days prior to conducting the reconnaissance of the basin. As was mentioned above, the canyon has 2 steep drops, 17 and 16 feet high, separated by a 21 foot span. If flow was present in the canyon, these waterfalls would serve as a block to upstream migration of fish. Figure 14. Bridge footing in Wood Gulch, Reach 2, near segment 11. Note the scoured pool adjacent to the structure. Figure 15. Photo of Old Lady Canyon culvert under Highway 14 (left) and photo of Old Lady Canyon culvert under the railroad (right). Piles of debris running down the center of the culvert on the right are piles of bird droppings. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 45 Watershed Professionals Network 4.6 SEDIMENT SOURCE MODELING A screening-level assessment of sediment sources and input rates to streams in the Rock Creek, Wood Gulch, Glade Creek, and Pine Creek subbasins was completed using existing data and GIS coverages to determine if anthropogenic sediment inputs appear to be great enough to cause concern for aquatic habitat and water quality in the subbasins. 4.6.1 Soil Creep and Stream bank Erosion Soil creep and stream bank erosion are two natural processes that provide sediment to streams. Since the processes overlap, an estimate of soil creep was used to represent sediment inputs from both sources. Based on observations by the stream inventory field crews, stream bank erosion is not widespread in any of the main channels inventoried, and few instances of anthropogenic bank erosion grazing, road fillslope erosion) were noted by the stream inventory crews. The SEDMODL2 calculated average annual soil creep estimates ranged from 580-5,950 tons/year (Table 20). Sediment inputs from soil creep or bank erosion include material from the entire depth of the soil column, a mix of fine- and coarse-grained sediment. Table 20. Estimated average annual sediment input from soil creep. Subbasin Estimated input (average tons/year) Rock Creek 5,950 Wood Gulch 840 Pine Creek 4,700 Glade Creek 580 4.6.2 Agricultural Lands Much of the land within the Glade Creek subbasin, and portions of the land within the other three subbasins is managed for agriculture, either cultivated land or livestock grazing (Figure 16). 4.6.3 Cultivated Land The northern part of the Glade Creek basin is used primarily for dryland wheat production, while center-pivot irrigated row crops dominate the southern part of the subbasin. Row crops are dominated by wheat, but include potato, sweet corn, grass seed, onions, alfalfa, peas, grapes, mint, field corn, carrots, beans, and sugar beets (WA Dept. of Agriculture 2009). In many locations, the row crops are planted with minimal tillage and a cover crop is planted for erosion control. Irrigation rates are monitored to minimize runoff (personal communication, Troy Grimes, June 5 2009). A hybrid poplar farm is located along lower Glade Creek. Erosion from cultivated land was estimated using the WEPP model and applied to land within 1,000 feet of a stream (Figure 17). Note that some areas mapped as streams in upper Glade Creek were not found to have stream channels during the field reconnaissance. These were not included in the analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 46 Watershed Professionals Network Figure 16. 1992 Landsat land cover and land use (from Aspect 2004) ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 47 Watershed Professionals Network Figure 17. Land within 1,000 feet of streams used in WEPP analysis of cultivated land. Estimated average annual sediment input from cultivated land ranged from 50 tons/year in Pine Creek to 6,400 tons/year in Glade Creek (Table 21). These numbers should be regarded as rough estimates because actual crops and irrigation rates vary through time in each of the fields, so general estimates were made using the WEPP model based on assumed average conditions. Sediment entering streams from cultivated land is transported by surface runoff and would be primarily fine-grained sediment. Table 21. Estimated average annual sediment input to streams from cultivated land. Subbasin Estimated sediment input (tons/yr) Rock Creek 1,000 Wood Gulch 110 Pine Creek 50 Glade Creek 6,400 4.6.4 Grazing Parts of the Rock Creek, Wood Gulch, and Pine Creek subbasins are managed for grazing. Cattle and horses are the primary livestock grazing in the basins. In some ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 48 Watershed Professionals Network locations, the livestock have free access to streams; in other areas landowners rotate the livestock or have fenced riparian areas. The extent of stream bank damage by grazing was estimated from data collected during the stream inventories, and a relative ranking was given to each site (no livestock damage, minor livestock damage, some livestock damage, and heavy livestock damage) and extrapolated to un-inventoried stream reaches. The percent of stream length estimated to be affected by livestock grazing ranged from 0% in Glade Creek to 8% in Rock Creek, Wood Gulch, and Pine Creek (Table 22). The degree of damage in affected reaches ranged from light to moderate, with two sample sites noting heavy damage from grazing. The photographs of all the stream reaches inventoried were reviewed to assess the extent of trampling and potential sediment sources from grazing. Effects noted included trampling of streamside vegetation and a few access pathways with areas of bare soil. The WEPP model was used to estimate erosion from the bare pathways, but due to the low precipitation in the area, no runoff, and therefore no surface erosion, was predicted by the model. It is likely that livestock use of the streams and banks is a local source of fine-grained sediment; however it does not appear to be a major source in the subbasins inventoried. Table 22. Estimated percent of stream length with livestock damage. Subbasin Estimated percent of total stream length with livestock damage Relative degree of disturbance Rock Creek total 8% (see below by tributary) Luna Gulch 0% None Quartz Creek 5% Moderate Squaw Creek 12% Light Mainstem 4% Light to moderate Wood Gulch 8% Moderate (heavy in one location) Pine Creek 8% Moderate (heavy in one location) Glade Creek 0% None 4.6.5 Road Surface Erosion Unpaved roads can be a source of fine-grained sediment. Traffic on gravel and unsurfaced roads disturbs and breaks down the road tread into small particles that can be easily transported by surface runoff. The road surface is also compacted by the traffic, which reduces the infiltration rates and results in more runoff than undisturbed ground. If the road drains to a stream, eroded sediment can enter the stream. Surface erosion from roads in the four subbasins was estimated using SEDMODL2, a GIS model that determines which portions of the road network have the potential to drain to streams and then estimates erosion and delivery from those segments of road. Based on the topography, roads, and streams in the GIS database, SEDMODL2 predicted between 16 and 154 miles of roads are hydrologically connected to streams drain to streams) in the four subbasins (Table 23). Based on average road characteristics, between 17 and 370 tons/yr of sediment were predicted to enter streams from these roads. Note that the sediment production rates are predicted to be higher in Rock Creek than the other subbasins. This is caused by the high traffic levels measured on many of the roads ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 49 Watershed Professionals Network in this area. Roads without traffic counts were assumed to have lighter traffic use, and therefore are assumed to produce less sediment. Table 23. Length of road hydrologically connected to streams and estimated average annual sediment input (tons/yr). Subbasin Length of road hydrologically connected (mi) Estimated average annual sediment input (tons/yr) Rock Creek 93 370 Wood Gulch 16 38 Pine Creek 21 17 Glade Creek 154 73 5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 SPAWNING HABITAT Substrate composition, water quantity, water quality, and cover are important elements of spawning habitat for salmonids. The number of spawners that a stream can support is a function of the area of suitable spawning habitat (substrate, water depth, and water velocity) and the availability of cover for holding adult spawners. The spawning area reported in this study was an estimate of the quantity of suitable spawning habitat defined by the presence of suitable substrate material. Suitable substrate material includes gravel and cobble in the range of 13 to 102 mm (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Based on substrate material alone, Rock Creek contained 75 percent of the available spawning habitat in the WRIA, Wood Gulch contained 14 percent of the spawning habitat, and Pine Creek contained 11.6 percent of the habitat. Spawning habitat in Glade Creek and Chapman Creek was negligible to non-existent. Substrate of suitable size to support spawning was rare in these streams. The lack of spawning habitat in these creeks is influenced by the underlying geology of the basins. In contrast to the streams containing spawning habitat, the geology in Chapman and Glade Creeks is dominated by fine-grained Quaternary deposits, including loess and large, valley-scale Quaternary landslide deposits. There is relatively little basalt exposed in the subbasins. As a result, the majority of sediment provided to the channel is fine-grained. Hence, accumulations of spawning size material do not form in these creeks. Anadromous salmonids generally require 15 to 35 cm of water depth (enough to cover the fish during spawning (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Anadromous species also prefer to spawn where water velocities range from 1 to 7 feet per second (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). At the time the surveys were completed, much of the suitable spawning substrate did not have sufficient water depth to support spawning. Surveys were completed during the low flow period and steelhead were not spawning. Steelhead spawn in the spring, at which time flows are generally much higher in Rock Creek (Figure 18). Therefore, water depth and velocity is expected to be suitable to support spawning in most, if not all, of the area ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 50 Watershed Professionals Network Figure 18. Stream flow, water temperature, and air temperature for water year 2008 (from Washington Department of Ecology website: ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 51 Watershed Professionals Network where suitable substrate is present in the Rock Creek basin. Stream flows are not monitored in Wood Gulch or Pine Creek; therefore, the availability of suitable water depth and velocity during the spawning period is unknown for those basins. Bjornn and Reiser (1991) provide data regarding average area of steelhead redds. They indicated that both Reiser and White (1981) and Hunter (1973) report an average area of redds at 4.4 m2. Based on this number, Rock Creek should be able to support up to 13,500 spawning pairs of steelhead, Wood Gulch may be able to support up to 2,600 spawning pairs, and Pine Creek would be able to support up to 2,100 spawning pairs (assuming access to habitat becomes available). 5.2 HABITAT SUPPORTING EGG INCUBATION The primary habitat characteristics affecting survival of eggs to emergence as fry are substrate condition and dissolved oxygen concentrations (Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Silver et al. 1963; Coble 1961). Temperature also influences survival, in that the time from egg deposition to emergence as fry is affected by stream temperature (Alderdice and Velsen 1978). Minimum and maximum temperatures can also affect survival (Bell 1986). The amount of fines in the substrate where redds are located and the amount of fine materials that settle on redds during incubation can affect the rate of water interchange between the stream and the redd (Wickett 1954; Reiser and White 1988), although some studies have found no effect (Fudge et al. 2008). If the rate of interchange is low, the amount of oxygen reaching the eggs may not be sufficient to support the development of the embryos (Coble 1961; Silver et al. 1963). The relationship between the amount of fine sediment in redds and subsequent survival of eggs has been the subject of many studies. Most of the studies have been conducted in the laboratory, which often inadequately duplicate the structure and composition of natural redds (Chapman 1988). Additionally, the methods and sizes of material evaluated have not been consistent, making it difficult to compare results (Chapman 1988; Kondolf 2000). Reiser and White (1988) completed of the better studies which evaluated survival of steelhead eggs in relation to sediment concentrations in spawning gravels constructed in artificial spawning channels. They found that sediment less than 0.84 mm in diameter was the most detrimental to incubating eggs. This size class of concern was also reported by McNeil and Ahnell (1964), Cloern (1976), Tagart (1976), although none of these other studies evaluated any size other than 0.84 mm. Reiser and White (1988) found differential survival in eggs at early stages of development and eggs which were partially developed. Survival of early stage eggs dropped rapidly as fine sediments (<0.84 mm) increased, dropping to 30 percent survival inn gravels containing 10 percent fines. The more developed eggs had good survival in gravels containing up to 20 percent fine sediments. The Authors noted that redd-building activity cleans and flushes fine sediments from the gravels and the initial development of sensitive eggs generally occurs in relatively clean gravel. Sediment may increase over time in the redds, but the later developmental stages appear to be more tolerant of sediment deposition. Therefore, the ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 52 Watershed Professionals Network mortality reported at various sediment concentrations for the more developed eggs are the more applicable study results. The amount of fine sediment in spawning areas documented in this study was less than 20% for all but a few of the spawning areas in Rock Creek. The two sites which had higher fine sediment concentrations were both backwater areas in side channels. The majority of the spawning areas in Pine Creek and Wood Gulch also contained less than 20 percent fines; six of the spawning areas in each of those basins exceeded 20 percent fines. The substrate in riffles in Chapman and Glade Creeks contained an abundance of fines and generally was not suitable to support the development of eggs. Hence, viable spawning habitat is rare to non-existent in those basins. As was explained earlier, the underlying geology in these basins is a major factor influencing the quality of the substrate. Actual fine sediment levels within redds would be expected to be Oxygen concentrations in the water column were not documented in this study. Aspect (2005) collected dissolved oxygen data throughout the Rock Creek basin in 2004. All their measurements exceeded 10 mg/l. Davis (1975) indicated that freshwater salmonid populations function without impairment at dissolved oxygen levels between 7.75 mg/l and saturation. Therefore, dissolved oxygen levels in Rock Creek are not likely impairing productivity. Dissolved oxygen levels in the other basins are unknown. In general, oxygen concentrations in flowing streams with rough substrates tend to approach saturation (Coble 1961). Hence, it is reasonable to assume that oxygen levels will be high enough to support embryo development in Pine Creek, and Wood Gulch. The substrate in Chapman Creek and Glade Creek is not rough; therefore, assumptions regarding oxygen concentration are not advised. There are upper and lower temperature limits for successful incubation of salmonid eggs. Bell (1986) reported a recommended range of temperatures to support incubation of salmonids. The range he reported was between 4.4oC and 14.4oC. During the incubation period in Rock Creek, water temperatures at the Ecology gage ranged between 5 oC and 22 oC in 2008. The upper bound of this range exceeds the range recommended by Bell (1986). The authors were unable to find information on lethal water temperatures for incubating eggs. The upper lethal bound on temperature is likely similar to that for fry (likely between 23.9 oC and 29.4 oC – see discussion on rearing habitat below). Overall, the quality of incubating habitat in Rock Creek, Pine Creek, and Wood Gulch appears to be excellent. However, the fish typically spawn later in the season at which time flows are higher. Some unknown proportion may spawn in areas that subsequently become dry as the flows recede. It is unknown what affect this may have on overall survival and productivity. The quality of habitat in Chapman and Glade Creeks is not suitable to support spawning or the development of eggs. The situation in Chapman and Glade Creeks is driven primarily by the underlying geology. 5.3 REARING HABITAT The factors in the freshwater environment that regulate the number of juvenile salmonids that a stream will support (the carrying capacity) include the amount of suitable habitat in ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 53 Watershed Professionals Network terms of volume, stream temperature and other water quality parameters, the quality of cover, the amount of food available, and the amount of predation. Rock Creek contained 78 percent of the total pool volume estimated in WRIA 31. The majority of the Rock Creek pool volume was in the mainstem of the river and in Squaw Creek. Wood Gulch contained 7.8 percent of the total documented pool volume and Pine Creek contained 3.4 percent of the total volume estimated in the WRIA. Glade Creek contained 10 percent of the pool volume in the WRIA, but that habitat will likely not be used due to the paucity of suitable spawning habitat. Note that Glade Creek was sampled in spring during relatively high flows. Actually pool volume in Glade Creek would be substantially lower during the low flow periods. Chapman Creek contained very little pool habitat and also does not have suitable spawning habitat; hence, Chapman Creek does not provide suitable habitat for salmonids. Summer space requirements of juvenile salmonids during their first year in streams varies with the size of fish and probably ranges from 0.25 to 10 m2 of stream per fish (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Actual numbers are highly variable depending upon food availability, habitat quality, etc. Based on these numbers, and excluding other factors affecting survival, Rock Creek should have the capacity to produce between 38,300 and 95,700 age-0 steelhead. Other habitat factors such as temperature and flow likely reduce this potential, as is discussed below. Total stream flow affects the volume of habitat available. The estimates of habitat volume provided in this report reflect the flows that were present in late fall and early winter of 2008. During that time, Ecology’s gage in Rock Creek registered no flow (Figure 18). A large percentage of the stream in all the basins were dry at the time of sampling (Figure Flow is assumed to run subsurface through some of these sections. Hence, the depth of the subsurface flow during the low flow season can affect the volume of rearing habitat. No data is available that can be used to address the inter- annual variability in subsurface flow. Stream velocity is another important factor in defining rearing habitat. Newly emerged fry require velocities of less than 10 cm/s (Chapman and Bjornn 1969). As the fish mature, they can hold in higher velocities, but will tend to move to lower velocity habitats when flows exceed 15 to 20 cm/s (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Sufficient data is not available to address the effects of flow on rearing habitat. Flow in summer in all the basins within the study area is very low (except for Glade Creek, which was sampled in spring during high flows). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that stream flow velocities are within a tolerable range. Cover is an important aspect of salmonid rearing habitat. It provides places to hide from predation. Cover can take the form of large woody debris, overhanging brush, undercut banks, boulders, turbulent waters, and aquatic vegetation. The quantity of large woody debris is low relative to streams in the Cascade Mountains. The low abundance of instream wood is related to the quantity and type of vegetation in the riparian areas. Many of the riparian areas documented in this study had sparse riparian vegetation. In ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 54 Watershed Professionals Network some cases, the sparse condition is natural, but in other cases it is affected by current or historical land use. Aspect Consulting (2005) found that vegetation in the valley bottom of Rock Creek has increased by more than 50 percent since 1938. This would suggest that the recruitment of instream wood has or will be increasing. Many of the tree species in the riparian zone are long-lived, so increases in wood recruitment as a result of increases in the abundance of riparian trees may be delayed. The data collected in this study cannot provide a direct quantification of the amount of cover available in streams. Undercut banks, cover by rocks, overhanging brush, turbulent waters, and aquatic vegetation were not quantified. Hence, the amount of cover available to rearing fish remains unknown. Temperature is a critical element of rearing habitat. High water temperatures can cause mortality in juvenile salmonids. Bell (1986) reported the upper lethal temperature for steelhead as 23.9 oC (73.4 oF). Lee and Rinne (1980) reported an upper lethal temperature of 29.4 oC (84.9 oF) for O. mykiss and Charlon et al. (1970) reported an upper lethal temperature of 25.0 oC (77 oF) for O. mykiss. Water temperature data collected at Ecology’s gaging station in Rock Creek approached the lethal temperature reported by Bell (1986). Aspect (2005) reported the average daily maximum temperature for several sample locations in Rock Creek for the period from 1995 to 2008 (Figure The temperatures depicted in Figure 3 increase from upstream to RC-6 lies at the break between Reaches 9 and 10 in this study, RC-7 lies in Reach 1 of Squaw Creek, RC-8 lies in Reach 4, and RC-9 lies in Reach 1, near the mouth of Rock Creek. Three out of four of the stations had average daily maximum temperatures that exceeded the lethal temperature reported by Bell and the temperature at two of the stations exceeded the lethal temperature reported by Charlon et al. (1970) indicating that stream temperature may be affecting survival of juveniles in Rock Creek. Temperatures exceeding the threshold for mortality effectively reduce the carrying capacity of the basin. Therefore, the potential production numbers estimated above are over-estimates of actual carrying capacity of the rearing habitat. The portion of the habitat affected by excessively high temperatures has not been calculated and likely varies from year to year. Temperature data for the other sampled basins has not been reported. Other factors affecting survival, such as food availability and predation, have not been assessed and remain unknown. 5.4 HYDROMODIFICATIONS Within the sampled areas, some hydromodifications were reported. The effects of these features are variable. The culvert at the mouth of Pine Creek is a barrier to upstream migration and effectively prevents access to habitat in that creek. A deep scour pool has developed along the abandoned bridge footing found in Wood Gulch. In this portion of the stream, much of the channel is dry and habitat is concentrated in deep pools where subsurface flow is exposed. Therefore, the presence of this bridge footing may actually improve fish habitat. The set of weirs also found in Wood Gulch may impede movement ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 55 Watershed Professionals Network of fish up the creek. With the exception of the barrier at the mouth of Pine Creek, the area affected by hydromodifications in the sampled areas was small and is not significantly affecting the quantity or quality of habitat. Other unidentified hydromodifications are likely present in the basins. The effects of these structures are unknown. 5.5 FISH DISTRIBUTION Salmonids were present in Rock Creek, Pine Creek, and Wood Gulch. The primary species found in Pine Creek was dace. The O. Mykiss found in Pine Creek are presumably resident fish since anadromous access to the creek has likely been blocked at the mouth for many years. The basin supported very few salmonids. All of the salmonids were found in the lower sections of the river, of the falls (see Section 4.3), which were not passable at the time of the surveys but are believed to be passable if sufficient flow was available. Salmonids in Wood Gulch were concentrated in the upper portions of Reach 3 and in Reach 4. Crews suspected that many of these fish were resident fish and the size distribution of the fish would suggest that a large portion of the fish are resident. The area where fish were found in Wood Gulch is an area where stream flow is more constant. The lower portion of the basin, which supported only dace, has intermittent flow and very little shade over the stream. Only O. mykiss were observed in the upper portions of Rock Creek. Roughly half of the fish in the lower mainstem and lower portions of Squaw Creek were dace and the rest were O. mykiss. In terms of total abundance, the majority of the O. mykiss in the subbasin (71 percent of the total observed in the Rock Creek subbasin) were concentrated of the Bickleton Bridge and 47 percent of the total number of O. mykiss observed in the Rock Creek subbasin were stranded in pools isolated by dry sections. No O. mykiss were found in the lower two reaches of Rock Creek. The area where the greatest number of O. mykiss were observed corresponds to the area where the greatest volume of spawning habitat was available. No O. mykiss were observed in Glade Creek or Chapman Creek. Neither of these creeks contain salmonid spawning habitat; hence, the absence of salmonids is logical. 5.6 SEDIMENT SOURCE MODELING A screening-level estimate of sediment delivery to streams in the Rock Creek, Wood Gulch, Pine Creek, and Glade Creek subbasins of WRIA 31 to help determine if sediment inputs were large enough to be a concern for aquatic habitat or water quality. Based on natural processes and land uses within the subbasins, estimates of sediment inputs were made for soil creep/bank erosion, cultivated land, and road surface erosion (Table 24). The extent of grazing along streams was also considered, but modeling of sediment input suggested inputs were low, so this source was not quantified although it is likely a local source of sediment in a few locations. Note that the quantification of sediment sources ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 56 Watershed Professionals Network was based on a one-day site visit and modeling using existing GIS data. The sediment input numbers generated by the models should be regarded as estimates of the relative magnitude of sediment inputs to the different subbasins. The potential effects of sediment inputs from anthropogenic sources are related to the total anthropogenic effects relative to the natural background inputs. In the Rock, Wood, and Pine subbasins, sediment inputs from cultivated lands and roads were low in comparison to estimated background (soil creep/streambank erosion) inputs. The Washington DNR Watershed Analysis Methodology (WDNR 1993) indicates that situations where anthropogenic inputs are less than 100 percent of the background inputs are of low concern. The anthropogenic inputs estimated for Rock Creek, Wood Gulch, and Pine Creek are extremely low relative to the background inputs. Sediment inputs arising from anthropogenic sources are not likely having a significant effect on fish habitat or water quality. In the Glade Creek subbasin, sediment input from cultivated land was estimated to be several times greater than background inputs. Keeping in mind that all the sediment inputs are estimates, it is more likely that sediment from anthropogenic sources could noticeably affect water quality or fish habitat in the Glade Creek subbasin. Table 24. Estimated average annual sediment input to streams (tons/yr). Subbasin Soil creep/bank erosion (background) Cultivated land Road surface erosion Rock Creek 5,950 1,000 370 Wood Gulch 840 110 38 Pine Creek 4,700 50 17 Glade Creek 580 6,400 73 The Rock Creek subbasin is the western-most watershed in the WRIA. Most of this area is underlain by the Wanapum Basalt, and receives approximately 20 inches of precipitation/year. Land uses include small amounts of timber harvest in the northern part of the basin, residential and small farm/woodlot use in the central part of the basin, and grazing and cultivated land in the southern part of the basin. Sediment inputs were estimated to be 5,950 tons/yr from soil creep/bank erosion, 1,000 tons/yr from cultivated land, and 370 tons/yr from road surface erosion. Approximately 8% of the stream length was estimated to have light to moderate livestock use. The Wood Gulch and Pine Creek subbasins are long, narrow, north-south trending watersheds east of Rock Creek. They are primarily underlain by the Saddle Mountain Basalt, with some small scattered areas of finer-grained Quaternary deposits and loess. Average annual precipitation is 12-16 inches/year. The majority of the land is grassland and used for grazing or farming. Estimated sediment inputs in Wood Gulch were 840 tons/yr from soil creep/bank erosion, 110 ton/yr from cultivated lands, and 38 ton/yr from road surface erosion. In Pine Creek, sediment inputs were estimated to be 4,700 tons/yr from soil creep/bank erosion, 560 tons/yr from cultivated land, and 17 tons/yr from road surface erosion. Approximately 8% of the stream length in each of the subbasins was estimated to have moderate livestock use; one segment of relatively high livestock ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 57 Watershed Professionals Network damage was noted in each stream. The Glade Creek subbasin is the largest subbasin studied, and its relatively gently sloping ground is blanketed by fine-grained Quaternary flood deposits and loess. Average annual precipitation is 8-10 inches/year. Land in the northern part of the basin is used primarily for dryland wheat production, with irrigated row crops dominant in the southern part of the watershed. The average annual sediment input from soil creep/bank erosion was estimated to be 580 ton/yr, with an estimated 6,400 tons/yr from cultivated lands and 73tons/yr from road surface erosion. The relatively high input from cultivated land is a result of the large amount of irrigated land and WEPP estimates of higher erosion rates from irrigated areas. As noted, these numbers should be regarded as relative estimates since land mangers report that they monitor irrigation rates carefully to minimize runoff, and it was not possible to model this type of detailed management with the information available for this study. 5.7 LIMITING FACTORS The habitat limiting factors in Rock Creek appear to be related to the quantity and quality of rearing habitat. Low stream flows, which are believed to be a natural condition (Aspect and WPN 2004), greatly limit the total volume of rearing habitat present in the basin. Warm stream temperatures also are likely affecting survival of young steelhead in the basin. Other factors, such as predation, harvest, or food availability, could also be the primary factor limiting the population. These factors were not addressed in this study. The limiting factor in Pine Creek is the lack of access to available habitats. If this were remedied, the limiting habitat factors in this basin would likely be flow (over 40% of the stream was dry during the surveys) and likely temperature (no temperature data is available for this basin). Similar situations are likely limiting steelhead production in Wood Gulch as well. The primary factor affecting productivity could also be a factor that was not assessed in this study such as harvest, food, and/or predation. The limiting factor in Glade and Chapman Creeks is the lack of spawning habitat, which is driven by the local geology. 6.0 REFERENCES Alderdice, D.F. and F.P.J. Velsen. 1978. Relation between temperature and incubation time for eggs of chinook salmon J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 35:69-75, Aspect Consulting, LLC and WPN 2004. Level 1 Watershed Assessment WRIA 31 (Rock- Glade Watershed). November 12, 2004. Aspect Consulting, Seattle, WA. Aspect Consulting, LLC 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan, WRIA 31 Supplemental Water Quality Project. September 27, 2004. Aspect Consulting, Seattle, WA. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 58 Watershed Professionals Network Aspect Consulting, LLC 2005. Rock Creek Water Quality Report. Prepared for WRIA 31 Planning Unit. Project No. 030009-003-01. Aspect Consulting, Seattle, WA. Bell. 1986. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Office of the Chief Engineers, Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program. Portland, OR. Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. In: Meehan (ed). Influences of Forest and rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. AFS. Bethesda MD. Chapman, D.W. and T.C. Bjornn. 1969. Distribution of salmonids in streams, with special reference to food and feeding. Pages 153-176 in Northcote, R.G. Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, B.C. Charlon, B. Barbier, and L. Bonnet. 1970. Thermal resistance of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson, to abrupt temperature variation. Annuals of Hydrobioloty 1: 73-89. Cloern, J.E. 1976. The survival of coho salmon kisutch) eggs in two Wisconsin tributaries of Lake Michigan. American Midland Naturalist 96: 451-461. Coble, D.W. 1961. Influence of water exchange and dissolved oxygen in redds on survival of steelhead trout embryos. Tans. Am. Fish. Doc. 90:469-474. Cooper, A.C. 1965. The effect of transported stream sediments on the survival of sockeye and pink salmon eggs and alevins. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission Bulletin no. 18. Davis, J.C. 1975. Minimal dissolved oxygen requirements of aquatic life with emphasis on Canadian species: a review. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 32:2295-2332. Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2008. 2008 Washington State Water Quality Assessment. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html. Ehinger, W. 1996. Evaluation of High Temperature in Rock Creek (Klickitat County), Ecology Report No. 96-308. February 1996. Glass, D.R. 2008. Quality Assurance Project Plan for WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment. Prepared for Klickitat County and the Washington Department of Ecology. Hunter, J.W. 1973. A discussion of game fish in the State of Washington as related to water requirements. Report by the Washington State Department of Fame, Fishery Management Division, to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Wa. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 59 Watershed Professionals Network IRZ. 2004. Letter report from Alan Jackson to Tim regarding the land use classification and crop rotation study completed for WRIA 31. IRZ. Hermiston, OR. Johnson, D.H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. Silver, W. Plotnikoff, B. Mason, K. Jones, p. Roger, T. O’Neil, and C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 212 pp. Lautz, K. 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 31. Washington State Conservation Commission. January 30, 2000. Lee, R.M. and J.N. Rinne. 1980. Critical thermal maxima of five trout species in the southwestern United States. Tans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109:632-635. McNeil, W.J. and W.H. Ahnell. 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning relative to size of spawning bed materials. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report – Fisheries 469. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Draft Recovery Plan for the Rock Creek Population of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. NMFS. Portland OR. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery- Planning/Recovery-Domains/Interior-Columbia/Mid-Columbia/Index.cfm. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Endangered and threatened species; designation of critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of west coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Federal Register. Vol 70, No. 170, pp. 52630-52858. Nickelson, T.E., Solazzi, M.F., Johnson, S.L., and Rodgers, J.D. 1992. An approach to determining stream carrying capacity and limiting habitat for coho salmon kisutch). p. 251-260 In Proceedings of the coho workshop. Edited by L. Berg and P.W. Delaney. Nanaimo, B.C., May 26-28, 1992. Platts, W.S., R.J. Torquemada, M.S. McHenry, and C.K. Graham. 1989. Changes in salmon spawning and raring habitat from increased delivery of ifne sediment to the Sourth Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 118: 274-283. Pleus, A. and D.A. Schuett-Hames. 1998. TFW Monitoring Program Method Manual for the Reference Point Survey. TFW-AM9-98-002. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington Reiser, D.W. and R.G. White. 1981. Effects of flow fluctuation and redd dewatering on salmonid embryo development and fry quality. Idaho Water and Energy Resources Research Institute, Research Technical Completion Report, Contract DE-AC79- 79BP10848, Moscow, ID. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 60 Watershed Professionals Network Reiser, D.W., and R.G. White. 1988. Effects of two sediment-size classes on steelhead trout and chinook salmon egg incubation and juvenile quality. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 8:432-437. Silver, S.J., C.E. Warren, and P. Doudoroff. 1963. Dissolved oxygen requirements of developing steelhead trout and chinook salmon embryos at different water velocities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 92:327-343. Straher, A.N. 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. Pages 39-76 In: V.T. Chow (ed). Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill. New York. Tagart, J. V. 1976. The survival from egg deposition to emergence of coho salmon in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. Master’s thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Tappel, P.D., and T.C. Bjornn. 1983. A new method of relating size of spawning gravel to salmonid embryo survival. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 3:123-135. USFS. 2006. Stream Inventory Handbook, Level I & II. Version 2.6. USFS Pacific Northwest Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/fhr/sida/handbook/Stream-Inv- 2006.pdf. Zar, J.H. 1974, Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc. NJ. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2000. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Yakima, Klickitat and Benton County Areas Washington. Available on-line at http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/branch/ssb/products/ssurgo/data/wa.html U.S. Forest Service. 2006. Stream Inventory Handbook, level I & II. Pacific Northwest Region, Region 6. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/fhr/sida/handbook/Stream-Inv- 2006.pdf US Geological Survey (USGS) 1992. National Land Cover Database (NLCD). Available on-line at http://landcover.usgs.gov WDNR. 2000. Washington State 1:100,000 Geologic GIS data set, available online at aspx WDNR. 1993. Standard methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis. Washington Forest Practices Board Manual under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 2.0.WDNR. Olympia, WA. ---PAGE BREAK--- WRIA 31 Instream Habitat Assessment 61 Watershed Professionals Network Wickett, W.P. 1954. The oxygen supply to salmon eggs in spawning beds. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 15:933-953. WRIA 31 Planning Unit. 2009. Watershed Management Plan. Rock-Glade Watershed (WRIA 31). _Plan_20080919.pdf