HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Habitat Conditions & Water Quality for Selected Watersheds11
Technical Report TR 01 -1
�•
I•
Habitat Conditions and Water Quality for Selected
• Watersheds of Hood Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan De
Fuca
I•
I'* January 2001
i•
•
Point No Point Treaty Council
Port Gamble S'Klallam • Lower Elwha S'Klallam • Jamestown S'Klallam • Skokomish
16
I•
G
I•
1•
1•
I•
1•
Is
[l
10
10
PNPTC Technical Report TR 01 -1
HABITAT CONDITIONS AND WATER QUALITY FOR SELECTED WATERSHEDS
OF HOOD CANAL AND THE EASTERN STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA
Carol Bernthal
Byron Rot
January 2001
Point No Point Treaty Council
7999 N.E. Salish Lane
Kingston, WA 98346
I0
Preamble and Acknowledgements
The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) awarded Point No Point Treaty Council (PNP) a
Centennial Clean Water Fund grant in 1992 (Grant No. G9200322). The objectives in the grant
were ambitious: augment water quality information, collect stream and riparian habitat data,
monitor biophysical parameters to determine trends in habitat conditions, and provide information
to watershed management committees. Field data were collected from 1992 to 1994.
Paul Faulds devised the methods, supervised the field crew, drew the maps in the appendices, and
entered the data into Excel spreadsheets. He left PNP in 1995. At that time his supervisor, Carol
Bernthal, took on the task of writing the report. She converted the data to an Access database,
wrote the entire Introduction, most of the Methods, and part of the Results and Discussion. This
occurred from 1995 to 1999, as time permitted.
Carol left PNP in February 1999 (for NOAA), and Byron Rot was assigned the task (now April
1999) of finishing the report. By now DOE was rightfully concerned and exerting considerable
pressure to finish it up. Byron wrote queries for the Access database, analyzed data, completed
the Results and Discussion sections, and edited the document. The draft was distributed for an
internal review. Byron left PNP for Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe in July 1999. Compilation of
review comments and the final edit fell to Chris Weller's shoulders. Chris has the patience of a
saint and great editing skills. Thank you Chris.
When a document travels a journey of this magnitude, there are unsung heroes. Thanks to the
following: Our field crew, Mike Jones (still at PNP), Lori DeLorm (now at Jamestown S' Klallam
Tribe), and John and Brett DeCoteau. Other heroes include Tom Ostrom for providing invaluable
Access advice, coarse analysis of the macroinvertebrate data, creation of macroinvertable tables
and figures, and comments. Mike McHenry (Lower Elwha Klallam) for organizing and
indentifying the macroinvertebrate samples. Ted Labbe (Port Gamble S'Klallams) for editing
and comments.
The true value of the data contained in this report will only be realized if other resource
managers, biologists, elected officials, and the public, actively use it. Given the imperiled state of
salmon in the region, we believe this report provides a scientific basis for the tough land use
decisions that inevitably lie ahead.
We thank DOE for their continued patience during the long development period for this report.
Byron Rot
Carol Bernthal
January 2001
19
10
10
•I
Table of Contents
Preamble and Acknowledgements ...................................................................... ...............................
i
Listof Figures ..................................................................................................... ...............................
m
List of Tables
"'
Listof Appendices .............................................................................................. ...............................
iv
Introduction........................................................................................................ ...............................
1
A. Background .............................................................................................. ...............................
1
B. Study Objectives ...................................................................................... ...............................
2
C. Selection of Streams ................................................................................. ...............................
2
Study Area - Watershed Descriptions .................................................................. ...............................
3
Methods........ ............................... ....................................................................... ...............................
13
A. Habitat Surveys ....................................................................................... ...............................
13
B. Temperature ............................................................................................. ...............................
19
C. Spawning Gravel Composition ................................................................ ...............................
20
D. Macroinvertebrates ................................................................. ............................... ..........
21
•
Results................................................................................................................ ...............................
22
A. Dungeness River Watershed Planning Area ............................................ ...............................
22
B. Discovery Bay Watershed Planning Area ................................................ ...............................
28
C. Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Planning Area ............................................. ...............................
30
D. Lower Hood Canal Watershed Planning Area ......................................... ...............................
35
Discussion........................................................................................................... ...............................
41
A. Habitat Function and Watershed Dynamics ............................................ ...............................
41
B. Dungeness River Watershed Planning Area ............................................ ...............................
42
C. Discovery Bay Watershed Planning Area ................................................ ...............................
44
D. Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Planning Area ............................................. ...............................
45
E. Lower Hood Canal Watershed Planning Area ......................................... ...............................
48
LiteratureCited ................................................................................................... ...............................
51
Appendices......................................................................................................... ...............................
55
01
ii 01
11
List of Figures
1. Macroinvertebrate dominance and diversity - Siebert and McDonald Creeks ............................. 25
2. Macroinvertebrate dominance and diversity - Tahuya and Dewatto Rivers .. ............................... 37
List of Tables
1. Status of salmon and steelhead stocks in monitored streams ....................... ...............................
12
2. Summary of monitored watersheds .............................................................. ...............................
13
3. Description of LWD channel zones ............................................................. ...............................
15
4. Minimum dimensions to qualify as a key piece ........................................... ...............................
16
5. Substrate classification system .................................................................... ...............................
16
6. Habitat quality rating matrix ........................................................................ ...............................
18
7. Stream temperature sampling summary ....................................................... ...............................
19
8. Optimal temperature ranges for several salmon life history stages ............. ...............................
20
9. Summary information by segment for Dungeness River watershed planning area ....................
22
10. Habitat data summary for Siebert and McDonald creeks ............................ ...............................
24
11. Summary of water temperature survey information for Siebert and McDonald creeks .............
26
12. Habitat quality ratings for Siebert and McDonald creeks ............................ ...............................
27
13. Summary information by segment for Discovery Bay watershed planning area.... ....................
28
14. Habitat data summary for Salmon Creek ..................................................... ...............................
29
15. Salmon Creek habitat quality ratings ........................................................... ...............................
30
16. Summary information by segment for Quilcene /Dabob watershed planning area .....................
31
17. Habitat data summary for Howe Cr. , Ripley Cr., Little Quilcene R. and Big Quilcene R........
32
18. Habitat quality ratings for Howe Cr. , Ripley Cr., Little Quilcene R. and Big Quilcene R.......
33
19. Summary information by segment for Lower Hood Canal watershed planning area .................
35
20. Habitat data summary for Tahuya and Dewatto River ................................. ...............................
37
21. Summary of temperature survey information for Tahuya and Dewatto River ...........................
39
r 22. Habitat quality ratings for Tahuya and Dewatto River ................................ ...............................
39
List of Appendices
A. Maps of Study Streams ................................................................................. ............................... 55
B. Large Woody Debris Condition ( Perventage of Volume) by Species Class ............................... 64
C. Large Woody Debris Location (Percentage of Volume by Zone) ................ ............................... 65
D. Details of Mcneil Sediment Sample Results ................................................ ............................... 66
E. Substrate at Bed Surface Based on Visual Examination ............................... ............................... 72
G. Thermograph Results for Siebert, McDonald, Tahuya and Dewatto Watersheds ....................... 73
H. Macroinvertebrate Site Information ............................................................. ............................... 77
I. List of Benthis Macoinvertebate Taxa Collected from the Tahuya River, Dewatto River,
Siebert Creek and McDonald Creek .............................................................. ............................... 78
J. Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Metires from the Dewatto (D- Segments)
and Tahuya (T) Rivers (Hood Canal), and Mc Donald (M) and Siebert (S) Creeks (Strait of
Juan de Fuca) ............................. 79
iii
10
U
10
E]
10
10
10
INTRODUCTION
This report provides a summary of current habitat conditions for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus
spp.) populations and relates those conditions to land management activities and non -point
pollution sources for nine streams in seven watersheds in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de
Fuca Region. The report may be considered in three parts First, there is an overview of
watershed characteristics including land use for each of the ten streams. Second, this study's
habitat monitoring methods and results are described followed by discussion. The monitoring is
of habitat parameters considered critical for spawning, rearing and migration of salmon and
steelhead. These parameters include quantity and quality of instream habitat, riparian
characteristics, quantity and quality of large woody debris, stream temperature, and spawning
gravel quality. The third part of this report is a set of general recommendations for restoration of
degraded habitat and future monitoring needs.
A. Background
The Clean Water Act, administered nationally by the Environmental Protection Agency and
locally implemented by the Washington State Department of Ecology, specifies that all beneficial
uses should be protected and restored to an usable condition. Beneficial uses are defined as
desirable uses for given classes of water such as water supplies for domestic, industrial, or
agricultural purposes; fish, shellfish, and wildlife habitat; recreation; and navigation. Fish use is
further defined to include "salmonid migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting [and] other fish
migration , rearing spawning, and harvesting" (WAC 170 -201 A- 030(1)(b).
Nonpoint pollution, or pollution issuing from a variety of land uses rather than a single source,
has been identified as a significant threat to water quality and beneficial uses within the Puget
Sound (PSWQA 1994). In 1988, the Department of Ecology initiated a local watershed planning
process to correct and prevent impairment of beneficial uses from non -point pollution sources,
with guidelines for this process specified in WAC 400 -12. Watersheds within the twelve counties
bordering the Puget Sound were prioritized for the development of watershed management plans
based on threats to beneficial uses. Local watershed management committees composed of local
representative interest groups were assembled to evaluate watershed conditions, nonpoint
pollution threats, and develop specific action recommendations tailored to the unique conditions
of local watersheds.
Information on water quality conditions was provided by county water quality monitoring
programs to assist watershed management committees in their deliberations. County monitoring
programs typically focus on water chemistry parameters such as dissolved oxygen, turbidity, fecal
coliform, etc. to characterize surface and groundwater for public health concerns. Salmonid
productivity is clearly linked to physical and biological conditions within stream reaches, and to
watershed level processes that can be affected by land use activities. Habitat condition data
collected by the Point No Point Treaty Council through this Centennial Clean Water Fund grant is
intended to expand upon existing water quality data available to watershed management
committees and county governments implementing their monitoring programs.
In addition to providing baseline habitat data to watershed management committees, this data will
be useful to tribal and state fishery resource managers as they develop habitat protection and
restoration strategies for declining salmon stocks. Of the 32 defined salmon and steelhead stocks
in the study watersheds, 21 stocks or 66% are experiencing significant short-term or long -term
declines in population size, and an additional two stocks have gone extinct in the last ten years
(WDF et a11993 McHenry et al. 1996). Two species within the project area (Hood Canal summer
chum, Puget Sound chinook) are listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service
under the Endangered Species Act. Bull trout has also been listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Washington State fisheries resource management agencies and Western
Washington Tribes have determined several stocks of coho and steelhead within the study area
to be depressed and the coho of Discovery Bay to be in critical condition (WDF et al. 1993).
Declines in native salmon populations have been attributed to a number of factors including
habitat loss, over - fishing, negative interactions with hatchery stocks, changes in marine
productivity, and predation by animals (Nehlson et al. 1992). While we acknowledge the role of
other factors in declining salmon populations, this report focuses on the relationship between
habitat quality and salmon productivity in the freshwater ecosystem.
B. Study Objectives
The monitoring objectives for the selected watersheds are:
1. Augment water quality monitoring data collected by other governmental entities.
2. Collect information on the current condition of instream and riparian habitat.
3. Monitor key physical and biological components as a baseline for future comparisons to
determine trends in habitat conditions and relationships to land management activities.
4. Provide information to watershed management committees on the condition of freshwater
habitat to assist in developing watershed management plans and to determine the
effectiveness of recommendations in completed plans.
C. Selection of Streams
Habitat staff for the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) selected the nine streams for
monitoring based on a number of factors. All streams were located within the boundaries of
ongoing or recently completed planning areas for non -point pollution watershed management
plans initiated by the Department of Ecology and administered by county governments. Each
watershed selected supports one or more salmonid stocks identified as at -risk by fisheries
resource agencies and habitat conditions were suspected or were known to be degraded by a
variety of land use activities. A draft list of streams and monitoring parameters were reviewed
by local, state, and federal agencies and led to the final selection of streams and scope of
monitoring for this project. The streams are identified and described in the following section.
01
•1
01
7
*I
61
01
01
r]
1!
10
I•
F
li
STUDY -AREA WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS
The nine streams selected for monitoring are located on the northeastern comer of the Olympic
Peninsula in Jefferson and Clallam Counties, and on the east side of the Hood Canal in Kitsap and
Mason Counties. An overview of watershed characteristics (geology, geomorphology,
hydrology, water quality), land use patterns, salmon and steelhead distribution and stock status
drawn from available studies and reports is provided for each study stream. Appendix A contains
maps of the study streams.
A. Dungeness River Watershed Planning Area
1. Siebert Creek (WRIA 18.0173)
Siebert Creek is located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca region between the towns of Port Angeles
and Sequim. Siebert Creek flows northerly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and drains an area of
19.5 square miles, with 12.4 miles of mainstem, and 15.95 miles of tributaries (Williams et al.
1975). The stream splits at RM 8.1 into two primary branches known as the East Fork and West.
12.0 miles or 42% of the total stream length in the watershed are accessible to anadromous fish
(McHenry 1996).
Watershed topography and geology in the Dungeness River planning area are characterized by
three distinct areas: mountains, foothills, and a coastal plain adjoining the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
The headwaters of Siebert Creek are in the Olympic National Park at 3,800 feet elevation. Within
this area, stream channels are steep and deeply incised through the basalt flows of the Crescent
formation and marine sedimentary rocks (Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe (JS'KT) 1994). The stream
channel gradient moderates in the foothills as Siebert Creek flows through the Olympic National
Forest and private industrial forestland. Geology in this area is dominated by glacial deposits
(sands, silts, and clays) associated with Cordilleran ice advances which shaped the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, Hood Canal, and Puget Sound (Tabor and Cady 1978). The majority of salmonid habitat
is in the mid to lower watershed where the stream channel is deeply incised into the coastal plain
and channel gradients are more suitable for anadromous salmon. Siebert Creek emerges through
steep coastal bluffs made up of unconsolidated sediments into a small estuary at Green Point.
Land use in the lower watershed is dominated by rural development, small scale tree farms, and
commercial forest lands.
Siebert Creek is located in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, with precipitation ranging
from 18 inches at Sequim to 65 inches in the headwaters in the Olympic National Park (JS'KT
1994). The western slopes of the Olympic Mountains intercept precipitation from winter storms
which come predominantly from the west and southwest, causing a distinct declining
precipitation gradient from the south and west side to the north and east side of the Olympic
Peninsula. Peak flows in Siebert Creek are dominated by winter rains and spring snowmelts
(McHenry et al, 1996), with dry summers creating low stream flow conditions typically from July
through September. A continuous record stream flow gage, operated by the United States
Geological Service (USGS) from 1953 -1969, was located on Siebert Creek at Highway 101
(PSCRBT 1991a). Mean annual flow averaged 17 cfs with extreme low flows between 2 and 3
cfs (USGS 1993) and a peak flow of 1,620 cfs recorded in November 1955 (JS'KT 1994).
Siebert Creek is classified as a Class AA waterbody for its entire length. Water quality
monitoring conducted by Clallam County in the lower reaches of Siebert Creek indicated low
levels of bacteria but elevated turbidity readings during storm events related to sediment inputs
from a poorly built logging road in the upper East Fork.
Siebert Creek has supported coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) fall chum salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta), winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii) (Williams et al. 1975, Table 1). Winter steelhead and cutthroat utilize the
steeper gradients from RM 4.2 to the mouth. Coho are found up to RM 8.2, their distribution
overlapping with chum which historically utilized lower gradient sections (Williams et al. 1975).
Coho and chum are both rated as depressed based on variable but generally declining spawning
escapements (WDFW and Treaty Tribes 1994). A WDF coho spawner survey index area dating
back to 1984 and located in the lower portion of the system was abandoned in 1993 because of
low numbers of returning adults (McHenry et al. 1996). Siebert Creek historically supported a
small run of fall chum (Williams et al. 1975), but McHenry (1992) determined that chum were
probably extirpated from the watershed within the last ten years.
2. McDonald Creek (also known locally as McDonnell Creek), WRIA 18.0160
McDonald Creek is located east of Siebert Creek and west of the Dungeness River. The
watershed has a drainage area of 23.0 square miles, with 13.6 miles of mainstem and 17.9 miles
of tributaries (Williams et al. 1975). A total of 9.3 miles or 30% of the stream miles are
accessible to anadromous fish (McHenry 1996). McDonald Creek is one of the larger
independent streams within the Dungeness River Area Watershed.
The geology and geomorphology of McDonald Creek is similar to that described for Siebert
Creek. The steep headwaters of McDonald Creek drain the northeastern flank of Blue Mountain
in the Olympic National Park, into a moderate gradient stream segment that flows through state
and private commercial forestlands. The stream then enters a confined steep wooded ravine until
emerging through coastal bluffs into a small estuary. Land use adjacent to the stream corridor
and within the watershed is predominantly commercial timber, private woodlots, and rural
residential and housing developments (PSCRBT 1993). Conversion from forestland to rural
development in the lower watershed is a recent trend and is more prevalent than in neighboring
Siebert Creek.
Continuous flow measurements are not available for McDonald Creek but precipitation and
stream flow conditions are similar to those described for Siebert Creek. USGS has collected a
number of miscellaneous flow measurements; results ranged from less than 1 cfs in late summer
and early fall to 20 and 25 cfs in mid and late spring (JS'KT 1994). The Agnew Irrigation District
removes water at RM 3.1 and to mitigate for the loss of instream flow, water from the Dungeness
River is added to McDonald Creek at RM 5.0 (Williams et al. 1975).
McDonald Creek is a Class AA waterbody. Monitoring completed by Clallam County Water
Quality Division from 1989 to 1992 at two locations on McDonald Creek reported compliance
with state water quality standards except for parameters as follows. Wilson (1989) reported
exceedance of water quality standards for fecal coliform at the Agnew irrigation siphon although
subsequent monitoring in 1992 showed bacterial levels were dropping to meet water quality
standards. Seasonal high temperatures during low flow conditions, and high turbidity during
storm events were also noted at the mouth of McDonald Creek. The Dungeness River watershed
characterization (DWMC 1993) reported unfavorable conditions for fish related to channel
widening and destabilization of the ravine wall from high sediment loads generated by
channelization in the lower watershed associated with residential development.
Coho, late chum, and winter steelhead utilize McDonald Creek up to RM 5.2 where migration is
blocked by an impassable falls (Williams et al. 1975). Coho are rated as depressed (Table 1)
01
*I
*I
C
#1
01
i•
10
Ii
li
10
1•
IA
1•
10
based on a short -term severe decline in escapement (WDFW and Treaty Tribes 1994). Although
late chum have been noted as occurring in McDonald Creek, surveys for late chum are not
routinely conducted. WDFW conducts spawning ground surveys for coho in McDonald Creek;
this surveys historically have also observed fall chum, but there are no recorded observations of
fall chum since 1985 (McHenry 1996). WDFW and Treaty Tribes (1994) rated the fall chum
status as unknown, but this salmon run has most likely been extirpated from the basin (McHenry
1996). Winter steelhead is rated as depressed due to a short -term decline in escapement (Table
1).
B. Discovery Bay Watershed Planning Area
1. Salmon Creek, WRIA 17.0245
Salmon Creek is located in Jefferson County at the head of Discovery Bay, a large bay at the
eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Salmon Creek enters Discovery Bay immediately to the
east of Snow Creek, sharing a substantial and ecologically significant estuary. Historically, Snow
Creek was a tributary to Salmon Creek, but earlier this century the lower 0.6 miles of Snow Creek
was channelized and moved to the eastern side of the valley (PSCRBT, 1992). The watershed
drainage area is 18.8 square miles. Salmon Creek has 8.7 miles of mainstem and 21.8 miles of
tributary streams (Williams et al. 1975). A total of 5.7 miles of mainstem and 6.5 miles of
tributary, or 40% of the total stream length of the watershed, is accessible to anadromous fish
(McHenry 1996).
The headwaters of Salmon Creek originate on the northern slopes of Mt. Zion at an elevation of
3,400 feet within the Olympic National Forest. Stream gradients in the upper watershed are
moderately steep and the valley confined down to RM 4.5. Geology in the upper watershed is
dominated by basalt flows and recessional outwash deposited during and shortly after the last
retreat of the Fraser Glaciation. Where the stream cuts through glacial outwash, glacial lacustrine
deposits, or mudstone and siltstone, are particularly vulnerable to mass wasting and surface
erosion (Ricketts et al. 1996). Land use in this section is predominantly public forest land
(Olympic National Forest and Washington State Department of Natural Resources), 84% of
which is forest 50 years or older (PSCRBT, 1992). Olympic National Forestlands are designated
as Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves and Adaptive Management Areas through the
Northwest Forest PIan. Road density, mostly associated with forest lands, is 5.0 miles of road per
square mile of watershed (Ricketts et al. 1996), well above the recommended threshold of 2.5
miles /square mile (Cederholm et al. 1981, Reid 1981).
Gradients drop dramatically in the middle to lower watershed, and at RM 1.0 Salmon Creek
emerges into a wide flat valley. Land use in the lower mile is dominated by small scale
agricultural operations while the middle watershed is characterized by private timberlands,
divided among several small land owners and one commercial forest land (Pope Resources).
Geology is characterized by permeable sands, gravels, and clays that were deposited by meltwater
in front of the advancing ice sheet, and more easily eroded sediments deposited from flooding and
typical stream depositional processes over the last several thousand years. Material eroded from
steeper gradient sections are transported and deposited in low gradient sections, forming an
alluvial fan and alluvial valley in the lower watershed.
Hydrology in the Salmon Creek watershed is primarily controlled by rainfall as 93% of the basin
area is in the lowland (<800 ft) and rain - dominated precipitation zone (between 800 and 1600
feet (Ricketts et al. 1996), as defined by standard hydrologic assessments conducted for
watershed analysis (WFPB 1997). Estimated average annual precipitation in the Salmon Creek
watershed is 36 inches (JS'KT 1994). The Washington Department of Wildlife monitored
streamflow on Salmon Creek from 1977 to 1982 at RM 1.0. For the period of record, the average
annual flow was 8.4 cfs with a low flow of 0.3 cfs (September 198 1) and a peak flow of 1,048 cfs
(February 1978) (PSCRBT 1992). Hydrologic modeling to predict peak flows for different storm
events showed a 100 year peak flow of 1,243 and a 10 year peak flow of 454 (PSCRBT 1992).
The estimated 10 year peak flow is 24% higher than those expected under natural conditions of
mature forest and no roads (PSCRBT 1992).
Salmon Creek is a Class AA waterbody. Water quality monitoring conducted by Jefferson
County in 1989 found fecal coliform counts exceeding water quality standards for Class AA
waters in the lower watersheds at the mouth of Salmon Creek, near Uncas Road, and at the
junction where a tributary (Houck Creek) enters Salmon Creek (Rubida 1989). In 1994
monitoring conducted by the Jefferson County Conservation District at four sites in the Salmon
Creek watershed identified several sites on Salmon Creek and Houck Creek where stream
temperatures exceeded water quality standards, including a recorded maximum temperature of
18.5 degrees Celsius in July (Gately 1995). Other water quality issues include sediment loading
at twice the estimated background levels, a lack of riparian cover in the lower reaches, actively
eroding stream banks, and runoff associated with poor road maintenance on the mainstem in the
upper reaches (PSCRBT 1992).
Summer chum, coho, winter steelhead, and cutthroat trout are known to utilize Salmon Creek.
Occasional plantings of hatchery chinook occurred in the mid- 1970's, but low stream flows in fall
appear to limit any natural production. Coho and winter steelhead utilize available habitat in the
mainstem up to RM 3.0 where gradients become too steep; tributaries with sufficient stream flow
are also utilized. Chum spawning occurs up to RM 1.5, with the highest concentration of
spawning occurring in the lower two- thirds of a mile of Salmon Creek (Ricketts et al. 1996). In
1992, a summer chum supplementation program was initiated to increase returns to support a
recolonization project on Chimacum Creek. Resident cutthroat is present in steeper gradient
reaches to approximately 1,600 feet in elevation (Ricketts et al. 1996).
Table 1 summarizes stock status for Salmon Creek. Summer chum and coho are both rated as
critical based on a short -term severe decline in escapement. Winter steelhead is rated as depressed
based on a short -term severe decline in wild populations. Cutthroat trout status is unknown.
C. Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Planning Area
Little Quilcene River, WRIA 17.0076; Howe Creek, WRIA 17.0090, and Ripley
Creek WRIA 17.0089.
The Little Quilcene River and two of its largest tributaries (Howe and Ripley Creek) are
discussed collectively because of similarities in watershed characteristics and a common outlet in
Quilcene Bay. The Little Quilcene River drains into Quilcene Bay north of the Big Quilcene
River in eastern Jefferson County. Howe Creek has a drainage area of 5.5 square miles, and
flows southerly for 3.4 miles before joining the Little Quilcene River at RM 5.2. Ripley
Creekhas 3.5 miles of mainstem and joins the Little Quilcene River at RM 4.35. The Little
Quilcene River has a drainage area of approximately 30 square miles, with 12 miles of mainstem
and 29 miles of tributaries.
The Little Quilcene River headwaters begin above 4400 feet elevation on the north slopes of Mt.
Townsend. Stream channel gradient is steep and confined until RM 6.6 where it begins to
moderate, meandering the last three miles in a low gradient, unconfined valley near the town of
01
•1
A
W
•1
401
6 ��
is
G
10
is
is
1*
El
1•
1*
Quilcene. The upper watershed is located within the Olympic National Forest and historically
was managed primarily for timber, with high harvest rates noted by Williams et al. (1975). The
mid and lower watershed also contains private and state timberlands. A dam diverts water at RM
7.1 for the City of Port Townsend and Port Townsend Paper Mill (JS' KT 1994). The City of Port
Townsend holds a water right of 9.6 cfs that is directed to the Lords Lake reservoir. Pasture land
and rural development and the eastern edge of the small city of Quilcene are dominant landuse in
the lower watershed.
Howe and Ripley Creek are characterized by headwaters originating at elevations less than 1500
feet and watersheds draining the low foothills surrounding Quilcene Bay. The upper portions of
these watersheds are generally confined but with gradients less than 6 %. Land use is primarily
private non - commercial forestland and rural development. Stream gradients drop to less than 2 %
in unconfined valleys dominated by agricultural and rural development in the lower reaches of
these streams. In contrast to the Little Quilcene River, these smaller streams are located within
sand and gravel deposits left by the retreating continental glaciers and tend to be more erosive.
All streams in the Little Quilcene River watershed terminate in the northwestern corner of
Quilcene Bay estuary. Quilcene Bay provides important rearing habitat for outmigrating
salmonid smolts and holding areas for returning adults to wait until stream flows are adequate to
migrate upstream.
Stream hydrology in this watershed is differentiated into two distinct source types, snowmelt in
higher elevation headwater areas (Little Quilcene River) and wetland/groundwater discharge in
low elevation streams (Howe and Ripley Creek). In each case, stream flows are significantly
affected, but to a lesser degree than in the Dungeness River watershed, by the rain shadow effect
of the Olympic Mountains, and in the case of Little Quilcene River, water withdrawals during
critical summer low flow periods. Average annual precipitation is 49 inches, the majority of
which falls during the winter months (JS'KT 1994). All streams within the planning area
experience natural low flow conditions in summer. Over a seven year period of record, average
stream flow at RM 1.8 on the Little Quilcene River was 53.9 cfs, with minimum flows ranging
from 5 to 13 cfs (Lichatowich 1993).
All streams in this region are classified as Class AA waterbodies. Water quality concerns within
the Little Quilcene River watershed include historic high bacterial contamination in upper
Quilcene Bay (Welch and Banks 1987). Quilcene and Dabob Bay is listed as an impaired water
body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act because water quality standards have been
exceeded for fecal coliform (DOE 1994).
Coho and resident cutthroat trout utilize mainstem areas in Howe and Ripley Creeks throughout
their entire length. Rearing is limited by summer low flow as upper segments tend to go dry
although several wetlands in Howe Creek contain good rearing habitat. Coho utilize the Little
Quilcene River up to RM 6.6 where a steep cascade limits upstream anadromous migration
(Williams et al. 1975). Summer chum primarily spawn below RM 1.8 while late chum are found
from RM 0.5 to RM 3.0. Native runs of winter steelhead occur in the watershed and there have
been failed attempts to plant hatchery Chinook.
The status of salmon stocks in this watershed are summarized in Table 1. Coho are depressed in
all streams due to short -term severe declines in adult escapement. In the Little Quilcene River,
the status of summer chum is critical, winter steelhead is unknown, and late chum is healthy.
2. Big Quilcene River, WRIA 17.012
The Big Quilcene River is located in eastern Jefferson County north of the Dosewallips River and
south of the Little Quilcene River. With a drainage area of 68 square miles, the Big Quilcene
River is the largest stream system within the Quilcene -Dabob Watershedshed Planning Area. The
Big Quilcene River has a mainstem length of 18.9 miles and 81.9 miles of tributaries (Williams et
al. 1975). Primary tributaries include Tunnel, Townsend, and Penny Creek.
The watershed is made up of three primary geomorphic areas: highly confined, extremely steep
gradient (upper watershed), confined moderate gradient (mid watershed), and unconfined low
gradient (lower watershed). Headwaters of mainstem and tributary streams originate between
5,000 and 6,000 feet in the Buckhom Wilderness Area (Olympic National Forest) and Olympic
National Park, flowing steeply in an easterly direction. Most of the upper watershed is
designated as Late Successional Reserve under the Federal Forest Plan. Townsend Creek joins
the mainstem at RM 11.0. The high percentage of extremely steep gradient stream miles is due to
high- energy downcutting of streams into the resistant basalt flows of the Crescent Formation.
The upper watershed ends at RM 9.4 where Tunnel Creek enters the Big Quilcene River.
Below Tunnel Creek, the Big Quilcene River flows southeast through a steep gorge, with a sharp
bend to the north at RM 6.1. During glacial times, it is believed that the Big Quilcene River
continued south, exiting at the current location of Spencer Creek, but with upthrust of the
surrounding mountains and resistant rock, the river was trapped in it's present location. Land
ownership in the mid- watershed is primarily federal and state forest.
Geology in the lower watershed is characterized by Cordilleran glacial drift overlying bedrock,
with visible examples of bedded glacial lake and outwash deposits where the river is downcutting
through this unit. At RM 4.8, stream gradient begins to moderate and the valley floor widens.
Below RM 1.0, the mainstem meanders across an alluvial fan built by sediment deposition from
steep upstream reaches. Penny Creek with 4.3 miles of low gradient habitat, enters the mainstem
at RM 2.8, flowing southerly along an uplift zone (Grimstad and Carson 1981). The Quilcene
National Fish Hatchery (QNFH) is located at the confluence of the mainstem and Penny Creek
(RM 2.8). Channel migration and bank cutting is common between RM 3.5 and RM 1.0. The
lower two miles of the Big Quilcene River is subject to frequent flooding caused by stream
channel aggradation, constriction of the historic floodplain, and straightening and channelization
along the mainstem. The lower one mile of river was diked around the 1880's for agricultural
development. Scattered rural developments, private and state forestlands, and the town of
Quilcene (RM 1.0) dominate land use in the lower watershed.
Precipitation varies from 75 inches per year in the headwaters to 50 inches per year in the town of
Quilcene, with an overall average of 63 inches per year (JS'KT 1994). No long term gauging of
flows is available, but data from a period in the early 1970's showed a 12 -month mean flow of
215 cfs downstream of Penny Creek (JS'KT 1994). Estimated summer low flow is 20 cfs or less
near the mouth of the river (Willams et al. 1975).
Instream flows are reduced by several water diversions. The City of Port Townsend has a water
right of 30 cfs for domestic and municipal water, diverting surface water from the Big Quilcene
River at a diversion dam at RM 9.4. This is a consumptive use and diverted out of the basin.
Water is also diverted by the QNFH from Penny Creek (25 cfs water right) for hatchery
operations, with augmentation from the Big Quilcene River (15 cfs, plus 25 cfs with minimum
flow criteria) when demand exceeds the available water right from Penny Creek (Mayte et al.
•I
01
#1
•I
*I
it
MI
91
91
is
C-]
is
I•
10
1•
10
1994). During low flow periods, the channel can be dewatered for about 800 yds on the Big
Quilcene between the hatchery intake and outlet.
The Big Quilcene River is classified as a Class AA water. Identified water quality concerns
include seasonally elevated turbidity, elevated bacteria in Quilcene Bay, diminished instream
flows, and impaired habitat conditions. The Big Quilcene River was placed on the 303(d)
impaired water body list in 1996 due to the impaired stream flows and degraded habitat
conditions. The Olympic National Forest and Washington State Department of Natural
Resources completed a watershed analysis in 1994. The lower Quilcene River has been the focus
of habitat restoration activities since 1995.
The Big Quilcene River supports runs of coho, summer chum, fall chum, winter steelhead, sea -
run and resident cutthroat trout. Coho, fall chum, and summer chum utilize the mainstem river up
to RM 2.8 where a fish weir at QNFH prevents upstream migration from June to January.
Historically coho occurred up to a falls at RM 4.8 and presumably much of the 4.3 miles of Penny
Creek. Salmon access to Penny Creek is blocked by the QNFH. Coho and chum are prevented
from migrating above the QNFH weir, due to concerns about potential contamination of hatchery
water supplies by introduced fish pathogens. The weir also blocks much of the migrating sea -run
cutthroat. The QNFH release hatchery coho fry above the weir to rear. Winter steelhead due to
their later migration timing, utilize the mainstem and tributaries above the QNFH weir up to RM
7.4 where a 20 foot falls blocks upstream passage (Mayte et al. 1994). Residential cutthroat trout
occur in all accessible reaches in the upper watershed.
Status of salmon stocks in the Big Quilcene River is summarized in Table 1. Coho is rated as
depressed, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout are unknown, summer chum is critical. Fall chum,
a stock made up of hatchery releases and wild runs, is rated as healthy.
D. Lower Hood Canal Watershed Planning Area
Dewatto River, WRIA 15.0420
The Dewatto River is located on the southeast shore of Hood Canal north of Belfair in Mason
County. The Dewatto River drains 18.4 square mules, flowing in a southeasterly direction into
Hood Canal. The mainstem is 8.7 miles in length, with 21.5 miles of tributary habitat. Important
tributaries for salmonid production include White Creek, entering the Dewatto River at RM 0.4,
Shoe Creek at RM 2.3, and several unnamed tributaries in the upper watershed (Williams et al.
1975).
In contrast to watersheds described in previous sections, almost the entire length of the Dewatto
River and a considerable amount of tributaries are accessible to salmonids because of the low
gradient of the stream network. The headwater of the Dewatto River originates between 300 and
400 feet in elevation. The channel gradient of the mainstem throughout its entire length is
generally less than 3 %. The river is unconfined in a relatively wide valley with numerous
wetlands and beaver ponds surrounded by rolling hills. Most tributaries are short in length,
initiating from wetlands, lakes, or areas of groundwater discharge. Tributary headwaters begin on
a flat plain flowing into steep, confined ravines to join the main river valley. The watershed is
predominantly rural in nature, with small tree farms, commercial forestlands, several small -scale
agricultural farms and scattered rural development. While the area still retains a rural character,
there has been an increasing pattern of development in the Lower Hood Canal.
I• 9
Watershed topography is the result of periods of glaciation in which the Puget Lobe of the
continental ice sheet covered the entire Hood Canal. The predominantly gentle slopes of the
watershed are remnants of a Pleistocene glacial drift plain formed by deposits of till, recessional
outwash and advance outwash sediments (PSCRBT 1991b). The mainstem Dewatto River
follows a broad glacial outwash channel, with the headwaters originating in naturally erosive till
and outwash sand and gravel units. The stream channel erodes and transports this material to
lower gradient downstream sections, providing substrate for spawning as well as creating a delta
and estuary at the mouth of the river from finer grained sediments. Tributaries originate on a
flat glacial till plain composed of compacted gravels overlaying more erosive sand layers.
Streams flowing across this material actively downcut to form steep ravines. The large number of
wetlands, lakes, and ponds are caused by an impermeable hardpan layer underlying glacial sands
and gravels in topographical depressions. Beavers have also been historically important in
creating ponds and wetlands critical for salmonid rearing.
Due to the low elevation of the watershed, stream hydrography in the Dewatto River is controlled
almost exclusively by rainfall with half of the annual precipitation falling during the November to
January time period (PSCRBT 1991b). Wetlands, ponds, and lakes play an important role in
controlling peak flows in winter as well as augmenting stream flow during summer months with
limited rainfall. Based on records for a stream gage located at RM 1.8 and operated from 1947 to
1975, the mean annual flow was 70.6 cfs, with 9.0 cfs as the lowest recorded flow and a peak
flow of 2160 cfs (Williams et al. 1975).
The Dewatto River and all tributaries are classified as Class AA waters. Limited water quality
data is available for the Dewatto River. The Lower Hood Canal Watershed Characterization
Report did note that sediment and bacteria pollutants entering the stream were related to animals
accessing the river on several farms in the mid section of the watershed (PSCRBT 199 lb).
The Dewatto River supports runs of coho, late chum, and chinook, winter steelhead, and cutthroat
trout. Coho are reported to utilize the entire mainstem length and accessible tributary habitat in
Shoe, White, Windship and unnamed tributaries with gradients less than 12 %. Williams et al.
(1975) reported two distinctly timed runs of fall chum, but WDFW and Treaty Tribes (1994) only
reports one run. A small naturally producing run of summer and fall Chinook occurs in the
mainstem. Hatchery plants of chinook have also occurred over the years but production is limited
by available productive habitat (WDFW and Treaty Tribes 1994). Winter steelhead and cutthroat
trout utilize the upper reaches of the watershed. Summer chum had utilized the lower two miles
of the mainstem but became extinct in the 1980s.
The Dewatto River is reported to have some of the most productive habitat in western
Washington (PSCRBT 1991b) yet a review of stock status reveals a mixed situation for salmon
productivity. Two stocks are rated as healthy (chinook and fall chum), two are depressed (coho
and winter steelhead), and one is extinct (summer chum) (WDFW and Treaty Tribes 1994).
Chinook found in individual watersheds are grouped together as one stock for all of Hood Canal,
but WDFW and Treaty Tribes (1994) notes that a healthy rating is based on substantial
escapement returns only in the Skokomish River; the Dewatto River chinook stock is noted as
having low escapement levels.
2. Tahuya River, WRIA 15.0 446
The Tahuya River watershed is located on the southeastern shore of the Hood Canal, south of the
Dewatto River and southwest of the town of Belfair. The largest watershed in the Lower Hood
Canal watershed planning area with 21.1 miles of mainstem and 43.8 miles of tributaries, the
•i
wl
•I
01
*I
J
rl
10 •1
Tahuya River is an important watershed for salmonid production. Major tributaries to the Tahuya
River include Tin Mine at RM 20.4, Gold Creek at RM 19.5, and the Little Tahuya at RM 7.4.
r
The watershed area spans two counties; the headwaters are located in Kitsap County with the
majority of the watershed drainage in Mason County.
Tin Mine Creek and the mainstem originate at the base of Green Mountain. Stream gradients
remains steep until entering Tahuya Lake at RM 19.9; below the lake stream gradient is less than
e
5% with many stream reaches having channel gradients of less than 1 %. Gold Creek joins the
Tahuya River at RM 19.5. The Tahuya State Forest, managed by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, makes up a substantial portion of the upper watershed.
Numerous short tributaries enter the mainstem along its entire length, most originating in
wetlands, lakes and ponds occupying topographic depressions on the glacial till plain, and then
flowing down confined ravines. Several of these lakes (Panther, Tahuya, Erdman, Howell,
Collins, Bennettsen, Blaksmith) historically and currently provide important potential rearing
habitats, but introduction of non - native fish species such as large mouth bass and bluegill and
screening of several lake outlets has reduced the suitability of these habitats.
The mainstem occupies a wide, open valley and the channel meanders extensively within this
area from RM 14 to the mouth. Large beaver ponds and wetlands are common, especially in the
lower four miles of the mainstem and from RM 12.0 to RM 21.0. Wetlands and ponds created by
beaver dams represent a dynamic and changing component of the stream system, and provide
excellent rearing habitat especially for coho. A large enclosed bay and estuary provide important
transitional areas for outmigrating smolts, and holding areas for returning adults as they wait for
suitable streamflows to migrate upstream. Small -scale timberlands, rural development and hobby
farms are dominant land uses in the lower watershed.
r
USGS flow data is available for two locations (upper and lower watershed) on the Tahuya River
from 1945 to 1956. At the upper location near the outlet of Panther Lake, mean annual flow was
22.3 cfs, with a low flow recording of 0.1 cfs and a peak flow of 504 cfs. At the lower location
(approximately RM 2.8), the mean annual flow was 69.4 cfs, with a low flow of 0 cfs and a peak
•
flow of 1,210 cfs.
Limited water quality monitoring has been completed for the Tahuya River but available data
indicates generally good water quality with the exception of localized areas of high fecal coliform
related to improper farming practices. Attempts to control channel meandering and floodplain
enroachment by rural development have also degraded available habitat (M. Ereth, personal
communication).
Salmonids utilizing the Tahuya River include coho, fall and summer chum, chinook, winter
steelhead, and cutthrout trout. Coho are found throughout the entire mainstem to steeper gradient
sections on Gold Creek and lower gradient sections of tributaries with adequate stream flows. The
upper extent of coho spawning shows variability by year related to streamflow, escapement
levels, and the presence of impassable beaver dams (Taboret al. 1993). Summer chum are now
extinct but were found in the lower 2.8 miles. Fall chum are still relatively abundant in the river
and extend further upstream with increasing stream flows in November and December. Winter
steelhead and cutthroat trout are found in the upper mainstem and all accessible tributaries.
Chinook utilize the lower four miles and are limited by stream flow conditions and accessibility
during migration (Williams et al. 1975).
Two stocks are rated as healthy (chinook and fall chum), two are depressed (coho and winter
steelhead), and one is extinct (summer chum), (Table 1, WDFW and Treaty Tribes 1994).
�
ll
Summer chum returns have declined precipitously from a peak of 10,714 adults in 1972 to no
recorded returns since 1991 (Cook -Tabor 1995). Chinook found in individual watersheds are
grouped together as one stock for all of Hood Canal, but WDFW and Treaty Tribes (1994) notes
that a healthy rating is based on substantial escapement returns only in the Skokomish River; the
Tahuya River chinook stock is noted as having low escapement levels.
Table 1. Status of salmon and steelhead stocks in monitored streams (WDFW and Treaty Tribes
1994).
C]
01
01
61
A
al
91
•I
*1
01
12 91
Coho
Chum
Chinook
Steelhead
Summer
Fall
Summer
Winter
Siebert
Depressed
nm
Unknown/
Extirpated?
nm
nm
Depressed
McDonald
Depressed
nm
Unknown/
Extirpated?
nm
nm
Depressed
Salmon
Critical
Critical
nm
nm
nm
Depressed
Howe
Depressed
nm
nm
nm
nm
Unknown
Ripley
Depressed
nm
nm
nm
nm
Unknown
Little Quilcene
Depressed
Critical
Healthy
nm
tttn
Unknown
Big Quilcene
De ressed
Critical
Health
nm
nm
Unknown
Dewatto
Depressed
Extinct
Healthy
Healthy /de ressed
nm
De ressed
Tahu a
De ressed
Extinct
Healthy
Health
nrr►
Depressed
C]
01
01
61
A
al
91
•I
*1
01
12 91
i*
1•
C,
is
141
Is
1•
10
METHODS
Nine streams within four watershed management planning areas located in the Hood Canal and Strait
of Juan de Fuca region were monitored from 1992 through 1995. Maps of the study streams are
shown in Appendix A. Table 2 identifies the stream, watershed management area, location and types
of data collected.
Table 2. Summary of monitored watersheds.
Stream
Watershed
Management Area
Location
(River Mile)
Types of Data Collected
Siebert
Dungeness
0.0-12.0
Habitat, temperature, spawning gravel,
macroinvertebrates
McDonald
Dungeness
0.0-10.0
Habitat, temperature, spawning
gravel,macroinvertebrates
Salmon
Discovery
0.7- 3.5
Habitat, spawning gravel
Howe
Quilcene/Dabob
0.0- 2.8
Habitat
Ripley
Quilcene/Dabob
0.0- 1.5
Habitat
Little Quilcene
Quilcene/Dabob
0.0- 5.2
Habitat
Big Quilcene
Quilcene/Dabob
0.0- 2.8
Habitat
Tahuya
Lower Hood Canal
4.1- 7.4
Habitat, temperature, spawning gravel,
macroinvertebrates
Dewatto
Lower Hood Canal
3.0 -7.7
Habitat, temperature, spawning gravel,
macroinvertebrates
Total Miles Surveyed
45.1
We used four kinds of sampling to characterize habitat conditions in the monitored watersheds: 1)
habitat surveys, 2) stream temperature monitoring, 3) sampling spawning gravel composition, and 4)
macroinvertebrate surveys. Following are descriptions of the methods and applications of each
sampling approach.
A. Habitat Surveys
Habitat surveys were completed in all watersheds at low flow conditions (generally June through
September) utilizing monitoring protocols developed by the Timber/Fish/Wildlife (TFW) Ambient
Monitoring Program. Maps of the location of the individual streams covered by this project are found
in Appendix A. Habitat unit surveys typically started at the stream mouth and proceeded upstream
until an impassable barrier to salmonids was found, the stream bankfull width and depth became
extremely small, or the stream dried up for 50 meters or more. In some streams (Tahuya, Dewatto,
Little Quilcene Rivers) a subset of the total stream length utilized by salmon was surveyed. Survey
effort in these watersheds was designed to gather information on segments lacking habitat data.
The TFW Ambient Monitoring methodology consists of a series of modules organized around
specific parameters or concerns. The TFW ambient monitoring methodology has undergone a
process of refinement since it's inception in 1989 to increase accuracy and replicability of data
collection methods. For more thorough descriptions of the TFW Ambient monitoring methods,
please refer to the TFW Ambient Monitoring Program Manual for each year (Schuett -Hames et al,
1992, 1993, . and 1994). In some cases PNPTC collected additional information to better meet project
objectives and provide a higher level of detail. The individual TFW monitoring modules, additions
to the standard TFW ambient monitoring protocols, and methods for calculating results are described
below.
10 13
1. Stream Segment Identification
The streams were divided into segments following criteria of the TFW Ambient Monitoring
manual (Schuett -Hamel et al, 1992) based on stream gradient, channel confinement and the
location of tributary junctions. The segments were initially determined using topographic maps
and aerial photographs, then verified in the field. An average segment gradient class (<I%, 1-
2 %, 2 -4, 4 -6, 6 -17, >17 %) and confinement class (unconfined, moderately confined, and tightly
confined) were reported for each segment.
2. Reference Point Survey
Permanent reference points were established in the field by placing metal identifier tags on trees
every 100 meters within each segment. Bankfull width, depth and canopy closure measurements
were collected at each reference point to characterize the reach and results reported as averages for
the entire segment. Data regarding habitat units, large woody debris (LWD), and streambank
stability as described below were keyed to the reference points.
3 Habitat Unit Survey
Hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics in a stream create a pattern of distinctive features referred
to as habitat units. Pools, deep and low velocity areas in the summer, are created by a convergence
of flow and velocity during floods. In riffles, flow and velocity are distributed evenly and relatively
shallowly across the channel bed surface. Pool tailouts are transitional areas between the
downstream end of a pool and the head of a riffle, and cascades describe higher gradient drops of
swiftly moving water.
Stream discharge was measured at the downstream end of each segment to describe hydraulic
conditions at the time of survey and provide reference for future resurveying. Pools, tailouts,
riffles, and cascades meeting the minimum size criteria described in the TFW ambient
monitoring manual were identified, measured for square meter area, and assigned to the
downstream reference point. Lengths were noted for obscured or dry habitat units and
walkable wetlands. For surveys conducted in 1993 and 1994 PNPTC identified pools by type
to facilitate data sharing with a separate coho salmon assessment project. Pools were typed as
scour, plunge, trench, backwater, dammed, or alcove based on the stream classification of
Bisson et al. (1982), modified by Nickelson et al. (1992).
Results were reported both for pool and overall habitat unit characteristics. Pool results
include surface area by pool type, residual pool depth, pool frequency and the dominant factor
responsible for forming pools (pool formation data was not collected in 1992) for each
segment. Pool frequency is an indicator of the spacing between pools, taking into account the
natural variability based on the bankfull width within a reach. Pool frequency is calculated
using the following formula:
Pool Frequency = (L/BW)/P
L= Length of surveyed reach (m)
BW= Average bankfull width for segment (m)
P= Number of pools meeting minimum size and residual pool depth
requirements
Results reported for overall habitat unit characteristics included by segment, a calculation of
the proportion of pool /riffle /cascade and the percentage of each channel type (primary,
secondary, and tertiary). Habitat units were defined as primary ( >50% of wetted channel),
secondary ( <50% of wetted channel) or tertiary (separated by an island).
V
C
W
61
W
rl
C
01
rl
01
14 01
is
10
U
I*
10
10
li
4. Large Woody Debris (LWD) Survey
Survey information was collected to characterize the abundance, type, and function of LWD and log
jams in the monitored streams. The more intensive (Level 2) of the two LWD survey techniques was
completed (Schuett -Names et al. 1994). All logs and rootwads meeting the minimum size criteria
(pieces greater than 2 feet in length with a diameter greater than 4.5 inches) were recorded relative to
the appropriate channel location zone (Table 3) and the downstream reference point. Diameter at
mid- point, length per zone, wood type, stability, and association with pool forming functions were
noted for each piece of large woody debris. Angle orientation to the bankfull channel (0, 90, 180
degrees), and decay class (rotten, moderate, and solid) of individual LWD pieces were also noted for
surveys conducted in 1993 -1994. Jam length, height, width, and lowest channel location zone of
influence for log jams meeting minimum size criteria were measured and recorded relative to the
downstream reference point (Schuett -Haines et al. 1994).
Table 3. Description of large woody debris channel zones (Schuett - Hames et al. 1994).
Zone
Description
Zone 1
Wetted low flow channel, defined as the area under water at the time of
survey done during the low flow period.
Zone 2
Area within the influence of bankfull flow, defined as the being within the
perimeter of the bankfull channel and below the elevation of the water at
bankfull flow (excluding area defined as Zone 1). Zone 2 includes areas such
as gravel bars that are exposed at low flow.
Zone 3
Area within the perimeter of the bankfull channel but above the water line at
bankfull flow, including logs extending over the channel but suspended above
the elevation of the water at bankfull flow.
Zone 4
Area outside of the bankfull channel perimeter, including the upper banks and
riparian areas not directly influenced by bankfull flows.
Large woody debris (LWD) data results reported for each segment included volume,
frequency, species composition and decay class percentages, key piece frequency for
individual pieces, and frequency of log jams. Large woody debris volume was determined by
assuming pieces meeting the minimum length ( >2 meters) and diameter ( >10 centimeters)
form a uniform cylinder. All pieces meeting these criteria within zones 1 through 4 were
included. Rootwads were not included. Since logjams were assessed by area only (pieces
were not counted), LWD volume in logjams was not included. Volume was calculated using
the formula:
Volume = n(d/2)2 * 1
d = diameter at mid point of log
1= length of log
The total volume per segment was calculated as volume per 100 in channel length. Large
woody debris frequency, excluding log jams and rootwads, was calculated by taking the
number of LWD pieces in a stream segment, dividing by the length of the segment, and
multiplying by the average bankfull channel width. Key pieces are large diameter wood that
is stable in the stream reach and capable of retaining other pieces of wood (Table 4).
10 15
Table 4. Minimum dimensions to qualify as a key piece (WFPB 1997).
Bankfull Width (m)
Diameter (m)
Length (m)
Volume (m3)
0 -5
0.4
8
1.0
6 -10
0.55
10
2.5
11 -15
0.65
18
6.0
16 -20
0.7
24
9.0
Summary data for logjams was reported separately from individual pieces of wood. The volume
wood and the number of pieces in logjams was not collected (the field estimates included both air
and volume), limiting the analysis to a frequency calculation. Logjam frequency was determined
by dividing the number of logjams in a stream segment by the segment's length and multiplying
•i
•1
it
by the average bankfuli width for that segment. .
5. Substrate
Substrate composition was visually estimated for each habitat type using a modified classification
system based on Ralph (1990) and King County Surface Water Management Division (1991, Table
5). The dominant and subdominant substrate by particle size and the percent area covered within .
each habitat unit were identified. Results were reported as dominant substrate for each segment by
taking the highest percentage substrate category greater than 50 %; if no single category was greater
than 50 %, the two highest size categories were identified.
Table 5. Substrate classification system.
Particle Size Category
Particle Size Range (mm)
Silt/Mud
< 0.01
Sand
0.2-5
Gravel
5-64
Cobble
64 -254
Boulder
> 254
Bedrock
Solid piece
6. Streambank Stability
•1
01
The location, length and width of streambank erosion and mass wasting areas were recorded relative • I
to the downstream reference point and adjacent individual habitat unit(s).
7. Land Use
Predominant land use was noted for the left bank and right bank (facing downstream) of each habitat
unit. Land use categories were adopted from the 1989 TFW Ambient Monitoring Manual.
Categories included agriculture, livestock/pasture, timber lands, residential, right of way, mining,
riparian management zone, wetland, and other. Results were reported as the dominant landuse for
each segment by determining the highest percent land use category within each segment; more than
one landuse was included if the largest percent category was less than 50 percent.
8. Riparian Characterization
Streamside vegetation within 30 meters of the bank was evaluated on left and right bank (facing 10
downstream) at each habitat unit by species (conifer, deciduous, mixed) and seral stage (grass -forb,
shrub - seedling, pole - sapling, young, mature, old growth) using the classification developed by Hall
16 *1
is
et al. (1992). Results were reported as the dominant vegetation species and class for each segment
by determining the highest percent species and seral stage category within each segment; the two
highest categories were included if the largest single category was less than 54 percent.
9. Interpretation of Habitat Data
To help interpret the myriad of habitat parameter collected, data was evaluated using indices of
resource condition developed for the Washington State Watershed Analysis Methodology (WFPB
1997). Watershed analysis is a method to evaluate the cumulative effects of forestry management
on habitat conditions for salmonids and other public resources.
The watershed analysis method defines a suite of habitat parameters and provides a numerical
value index for each of these parameters to create ratings of good, fair, and poor conditions
(Table 6). While watershed analysis was developed specifically for forestry, the resource
condition indices are appropriate and applicable in other land use situations. For the purposes of
evaluating the habitat data collected through this project, the resource condition indices were used
to generate ratings for each parameter by segment and watershed. A discussion of these ratings
and implications for salmon productivity by primary life history stage (migration, spawning, and
winter /summer rearing) is given for individual watersheds within each watershed planning area.
1*
1•
Is
10
1•
10
10 17
Table 6: Habitat quality rating matrix (WFPB 1997, Bjornn and Reiser 1991 -for temperature)
Habitat
Channel
Life Phase
Habitat Quality
Parameter
Type
Influenced
Poor
Fair
Good
<2% grad;
Summer/Winter
<40%
40 thru 55%
>55%
<15mwide
rearing habitat
Percent Pool
2 -5oh grad.; < 15m
Summer/Winter
<30%
30 thru 40%
>40%
wide
rearing habitat
>5% grad.; < 15 m
Summer/Winter
<20%
20 thru 30%
>30%
wide
rearing habitat
< 2% grad.; <15m
Summer/Winter
>4 channel
2 - 4 channel widths
<2 channel
wide
rearing habitat
widths per pool
er ool
widths per pool
Pool Frequency
2 -5% grad; <15m
Summer /Winter
>4 channel
2 - 4 channel widths
<2 channel
wide
rearing habitat
widths per pool
per pool
widths per pool
>5% grad; <15m
Summer/Winter
>4 channel
2 - 4 channel widths
<2 channel
wide
rearing habitat
widths per pool
per pool
widths per pool
LWD Key Piece
Bank Full Width <
Summer/Winter
<0.15
0.15 thru 0.30
>0.30
Frequency
lOm
rearing habitat
Bank Full Width =
Summer /Winter
<0.20
0.20 thru 0.50
0.50
10 -20m
rearing habitat
In- channel
All
Summer/Winter
Deciduous,
Deciduous, solid
Conifer, solid
LWD
rearing habitat
rotten
Uunknown, solid
Conifer,
persistence
Unknown,
Conifer, rotten
moderate
(species, decay
rotten
class)
Unknown,
moderate
Deciduous,
moderate
LWD
All
Summer /Winter
Conifer, young
Conifer, pole
Mixed, mature
Recruitment
rearing habitat
Deciduous,
sapling
Conifer, mature
Potential
young
Deciduous, mature
(species and age
Mixed, young
Mixed, pole sapling
class)
Deciduous,
pole-sapling
Percent Canopy
Riparian segment
Summer
<90%
>91%
Closure
<320 feet*
Rearing
320 -680 feet
Summer
<80%
>81%
Rearing
680 -1160 feet
Summer
<70%
>71%
Rearing
1160 -1640 feet
Summer
<60%
>61%
Rearing
Available
All types
Spawning and
Absent or
41-69%
Frequent
spawning
Incubation
infrequent
spawnable areas
habitat
( <40% gravel)
( >70% ravel)
Gravel Quality
All types
Spawning and
Sand is
Sand is sub-
Sand is never
Incubation
dominant
dominant substrate
dominant or
substrate in
in some units
sub - dominant
some units
Gravel Quality
All types
Spawning and
> 17%
12-17%
<12%
Incubation
( <0.85min)
(< 0.85mm)
( <0.85mm)
-k Elevation above sea level.
V
J
*I
01
W
•1
91
•1
r�]
01
18 01
B. Temperature
1. Monitoring
Stream and air temperature was monitored at a total of 19 sites within McDonald, Siebert, Tahuya,
and Dewatto River from mid July to late August, 1993 to 1995. Table 7 describes the stream,
temperature reach identification code, monitoring dates, site location, type of data collected (air or
water), and if a thermal reach characterization (see description in following paragraph) was
• completed.
10
1*
10
Table 7. Stream temperature sampling summary.
Stream
Temperature
reach code
Monitoring
dates
Location
Data type
Thermal reach
characterization
McDonald
Mla
7/30/93 - 8/29/93
RM 0.1
Water
Yes
McDonald
Mlb
8/2/93- 8/30/93
RM 2.0
Water, Air
Yes
McDonald
M2a
7/30/93 - 8/29/93
RM 4.3
Water, Air
Yes
McDonald
M3a
8/4/93 - 9/1/93
RM 6.5
Water, Air
Yes
McDonald
M5a
8/2/93 - 8/31/93
RM 8.3
Water, Air
Yes
McDonald
M7a
8/2/93 - 8/30/93
RM 9.8
Water, Air
Yes
Siebert
S1
8/3/93 - 8/31/93
RM 0.1
Water
Yes
Siebert
S2
8/4/93 - 8/31/93
RM 1.5
Water, Air
Yes
Siebert
S3'
8/3/93 - 8/31/93
RM 3.1
Water, Air
Yes
Siebert
S4
8/3/93 - 8/31/93
RM 9.4
Water, Air
Yes
Dewatto
Dl
8/2/94 - 9/1/94
RM 1.5
Water,Air
Yes
Dewatto
D2
8/5/94 - 8/24/94
RM 2.7
Water, Air
Yes
Dewatto
D3
7/31/95 - 8/27/95
RM 0.6
Water
No
Dewatto
D4
7/31/95 - 8/27/95
RM 1.9
Water
No
Little Tahuya
TI
7/18/94- 8/2/94
RM 0.1
Water, Air
Yes
Tahuya
T2
7/18/94 - 8/2/94
RM 5.3
Water, Air
Yes
Tahuya
T3
7/18/94- 8/2/94
RM 7.4
Water, Air
Yes
Tahuya
T4
7/31/95 - 8/27/95
RM 1.0
Water
No
Tahuya
T-5
7/31/95- 8/27/95
1 RM 2.3
Water
No
Two types of continuous monitoring thermographs were used; a Unidata logger with external probes
to record air and water temperature and a small, submersible Hobo data logger with internal sensors
for water temperature only. Data loggers and external probes were calibrated by placing them in an
ice water bath to along with a reliable reference thermometer for ten minutes. Any instrument
reading +/- 0.5 degrees Celsius from the reference thermometer was discarded. A post season
calibration was also conducted to ensure instrument accuracy. All instruments were found to be
within the defined range of accuracy throughout the season.
Potential monitoring sites were first evaluated in the office to identify representative reaches for
segments of interest and to establish a representative thermal reach. A thermal reach is a reach that
has similar stream and riparian conditions for a sufficient distance to allow the stream temperature to
reach equilibrium with those conditions (Schuett -Hames et al, 1994). Potential sites were then
evaluated in the field for appropriate sampling sites and for ease of instrument installation and
security.
Data loggers recording water temperature were placed in deep pools shaded from direct sunlight to
minimize misrepresentative readings. Hobo loggers were placed in a submersible waterproof case
and then secured to logs or rootwads at one half of the pool depth near the center of the thalweg. Air
temperatures were monitored at the same location with a separate unit. Air and water temperature
10 19
*i
were averaged every 30 minutes and recorded continuously for the duration the unit was in the
stream.
•
Unidata data loggers were installed in a waterproof box and secured to trees outside of the channel
disturbance zone. An external probe running from each concealed recording unit was attached to a
tree to record air temperature in the riparian zone. The water temperature probe was submerged in a
pool by attaching it to a stake driven into the channel or weighted down with rocks within the pool.
Air and water temperature were averaged hourly for the duration of time the unit was in use. All
sites were periodically inspected to ensure security and instrument operation. •
For sites monitored in 1993 and 1994, a thermal reach was characterized for 600 meters upstream
from the location of the thermograph. Using a spherical densiometer, canopy closure was measured
every 50 meters to determine the average canopy closure for the thermal reach using TFW ambient
monitoring protocols. Dominant land use and riparian condition (seral stage, type) were also noted
for the thermal reach.
2. Interpretation of Temperature Data
In order to interpret the temperature data, the following ranges were used to develop a
temperature rating. Temperatures were discussed in terms of State AA water quality rating (16.3
°C) and the maximum preferred temperature for rearing salmonids (14 °C, Table 8). The
assumption was made that temperature would have the most long -term impacts on rearing •
juveniles.
Table 8. Optimal temperature ( °C) ranges for several salmon life history stages (Bjomn and
Reiser 1991).
C. Spawning Gravel Composition
•I
•I
Spawning gravel was evaluated using the riffle crest survey, TFW ambient monitoring method
(Schuett -Haines et al, 1.994) at selected sites in Salmon, McDonald, Siebert, Tahuya, and Dewatto
during low flow conditions in 1993 and 1994. Spawning gravel samples were taken within segments
with gradients less than 2% containing usable spawning habitat.
Samples were collected using a McNeil Gravel Sampler at the right bank, center, and left bank of the
riffle crest. Where possible a minimum of three samples per riffle crest were taken. The McNeil
sampler was inserted into the gravel to a depth of 23 cm, and substrate manually removed. Substrate
and water within the sampler were transferred to a labeled bucket and transported to a sediment
processing station.
Gravel samples were processed using the volumetric method by washing gravel through a series of
graduated sieves to determine particle size distribution based on the volume of material in various
size classes. The sieve sizes provide a geometric progression of gravel size categories used to
characterize the overall particle -size distribution of the sample. The volume of sediment per sieve is
determined through the displacement of water in a flask. Results were reported as percents within •
the gravel size categories.
20 •1
Upstream migration
Spawning
Incubation
Rearing
Winter steelhead
n/a
3.9 -9.4
n/a
10 -13
Chum
8.3 -15.6
7.2 -12.8
4.4 -13.3
12-14
Coho
7.2 -15.6
4.4 -9.4
4.4 -13.3
12 -14
Fall chinook
10.6 -19.4
5.6 -13.9
5.0 -14.4 1
12 -14
C. Spawning Gravel Composition
•I
•I
Spawning gravel was evaluated using the riffle crest survey, TFW ambient monitoring method
(Schuett -Haines et al, 1.994) at selected sites in Salmon, McDonald, Siebert, Tahuya, and Dewatto
during low flow conditions in 1993 and 1994. Spawning gravel samples were taken within segments
with gradients less than 2% containing usable spawning habitat.
Samples were collected using a McNeil Gravel Sampler at the right bank, center, and left bank of the
riffle crest. Where possible a minimum of three samples per riffle crest were taken. The McNeil
sampler was inserted into the gravel to a depth of 23 cm, and substrate manually removed. Substrate
and water within the sampler were transferred to a labeled bucket and transported to a sediment
processing station.
Gravel samples were processed using the volumetric method by washing gravel through a series of
graduated sieves to determine particle size distribution based on the volume of material in various
size classes. The sieve sizes provide a geometric progression of gravel size categories used to
characterize the overall particle -size distribution of the sample. The volume of sediment per sieve is
determined through the displacement of water in a flask. Results were reported as percents within •
the gravel size categories.
20 •1
I*
10
is
1*
Ir
I•
I•
1•
10
D. Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted in the vicinity of spawning gravel samples using the
Rapid Bioassesment Protocol 1 (RBPI) developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Samples were collected in McDonald, Siebert, Tahuya, and Dewatto in 1993 and 1994 during low
flow conditions (Appendix G). Three samples were taken at the riffle crest downstream from
spawning gravel. A Surber sampler (frame measuring 1 ft2 with an attached collecting net) was
placed on the stream bottom. Sediment to a depth of one finger was disturbed for one minute within
the sample frame to dislodge and capture stream macroinvertebrates. Information on sample site
characteristics (water velocity, substrate, and riparian zone vegetation) was recorded. Samples were
transported to the lab for cleaning, sorted to taxonomic order and family, and relative abundance by
order and family was noted. See Appendices H through J for descriptions of sampling sites, listing
of macroinvertebrate taxa and description of macroinvertebrate community metrics. Percent
dominance of the most common three taxa and community richness within streams are described in
the following Results section.
140 21
RESULTS
The narrative description and interpretation of the results are organized by watershed planning
areas and by salmonid life stage to allow comparisons between watersheds, and to increase the
understanding of how habitat conditions affect each salmonid life stage. Habitat survey data
collected from 1992 through 1994 are summarized in two separate tables for each watershed
planning area with additional data provided in Appendices B through F. Information presented
includes segment characteristics, habitat units, large woody debris, riparian zone and substrate
characteristics. These parameters have been selected to provide an overall assessment of habitat
quantity and quality. Results of macro invertebrate and temperature assessments are also shown
for those streams where sampling was done.
A. Dungeness River Watershed Planning Area
1. Segment Descriptions
Siebert Creek was surveyed from RM 0.0 to RM 8.0 on the mainstem and for 0.3 miles on the
West Fork Siebert Creek (Table 2). Segments 1 and 2 were surveyed in 1992, Segment 3 in
1994. Reference points were established for Segment 4 but due to the difficulty of the terrain,
habitat data were not collected in this area, although temperature site S4a was located within this
reach. Segments 1, 2, and 3 were low gradient (less than 4 %), moderately confined areas (Table
9). Segment 4 had a higher gradient than 3, with similar average bankfull widths and depths.
The mainstem of McDonald Creek was surveyed from RM 0.0 to RM 8.9. Segments I and 2
were surveyed in 1992, and Segments 3 through 6 in 1993. Reference points were established for
Segment 7, but habitat data were not collected; temperature site M7 was located within this reach.
Segments 1 -3 were lower gradient areas moderately confined within a ravine (Table 9). Channel
gradient in Segments 4 and 5 increased, with the stream channel becoming increasingly confined
within the constricting ravine. Channel gradient and confinement moderates in Segment 6, but
the smaller bankfull width and depth were a reflection of the diminishing drainage area in the
upper reaches of McDonald Creek.
Table 9. Summary information by segment for Siebert and McDonald creeks.
Stream
Segment
Location
by River
Mile'
Number
of
Reference
Points
Segment
Length
(m)3
Segment
Gradient Class
Segment
Confinement
Class
Segment
Average
Bankfull
Depth (m)
Segment
Average
Bankfull
Width _(m)
Siebert
1
0.0-3.4
65
6309
1-2%
Moderate
0.4
7.8
2
3.4-6.4
51
4972
24%
Confined
0.4
7.9
3
6.4- 8.1
31
3185
1 -2%
Moderate
03
8.0
4
8.1 - 0.3
7
600
4 -8%
Moderate
0.2
6.8
McDonald
1
0.0-4.1
71
6536
1 -2%
Moderate
0.3
8.2
2
4.1-4.9
18
1726
24%
Moderate
0.5
9.6
3
4.9-6.7
36
3670
24%
Moderate
0.4
8.7
4
6.7-8.0
21
2076
4 -8%
Confined
0.3
8.3
5
8.0-8.5
10
1023
4 -8%
Confined
0.3
8.0
6
8.5-8.9
9
835
24%
Moderate
0.2
6.6
•1
•1
•1
' Segment locations were based on the Washington State Stream Catalog (Williams et al. 1975) rather thanactual
river mile measurements. .
Z Reference points are numbered sequentially beginning with "0 ". This column indicates the total number of
reference points.
3 Segment lengths are actual measurements made in the channel.
' West Fork Siebert Creek.
22 *1
2. Habitat Descriptions
a. Siebert Creek
i. Habitat conditions by segment
Pool habitat was low ranging from 41% in segment I to 29% in segments 2 and 3 (Table 10).
Segments 1 and 2 contained most of deeper pools, with about half of the pools having a residual
depth between 0.5m and 1.Om (Table 10). Segment 3 was mostly shallow pools with residual
depths less than 0.5m. Large woody debris formed few pools in segment 3 but most were formed
by flow or boulders (Table 10).
The channel was generally a single thread channel with a minor percentage of secondary or side
channel habitat (Table 10). Large diameter "key" pieces were observed at low levels in all
segments'. Logjams were more abundant in Siebert Creek than in the other eight streams. For
segment 3, most LWD was above summer low flow conditions (Zone 2), but still within the
bankfull width (Appendix Q. In segment 1 in- channel wood was generally solid and equally
split between conifer and deciduous origin. Segment 2 contained mostly solid conifer LWD.
About 1/2 of LWD in segment 3 was rotten conifer (Appendix A). Data on riparian conditions was
not collected in 1992 for Segments I and 2. The riparian zone in segment 3 was predominantly a
young mixed deciduous and coniferous with a dense canopy (92% canopy closure)
Spawning gravels, as represented by the surface area in low gradient riffles, were scarce in
segment 3, with a higher abundance in segment 1 and 2. Segment I contained a high percentage
of fines (22.7 %) in interstitial spaces of available spawning gravels.
' The LWD frequency and volume figure must be considered as a minimum level of wood for each segment.
Each figure does not include wood found in LWD jams, since the individual pieces in LWD jams were not
counted. Most of the results and discussion will focus on log jam and key piece frequency.
23
Table 10. Habitat data summary for Siebert and McDonald creeks
Segment
Habitat units
Lar a Wood
y Debris
Pool/
Habitat
Percentage of
Pool
Dominant
LWD
LWD
Key
Log
Landuse
Riffle/
Located
pools with a
Frequency
Pool
Vol.
Freq.
Piece
Jam
Gravel Size
Cascade
within
residual depth
(channel
Forming
(m3 /100m.
(Pieces
Freq.
Freq.
Not collected
Ratio
Primary,
( <0.49m, 0.5
width/
Factors
Zone 1 -4)
per
(per
(per
( %)
Secondary,
to 0.99m,
pool)
Timberland
N/A
channel
channel
channel
Mature
and Side
>1.0 m)
width)
width)
width)
N/A
Boulder/
Channels
3
Young
bedrock
McDonald
N/A
Not collected
Residential
23.3
Gravel
63
1
Siebert
41/16/43
91/712
40/52/8
3.6
N/A
4.2
0.18
0.04
0.07
1
2
Mature
91
2
29/4/66
98/1/1
39/55/6
5.3
N/A
7.1
0.10
0.07
0.04
29/40/31
93/5/2
90/10/0
2.7
Boulders
6.9
0.46
0.05
0.08
3
Young
Bedform
92
Mixed/conifer
Timberland
McDonald
28/45/27
92/5/2
60/37/3
3.5
N/A
5.1
0.49
0.03
0.05
t
98
Mixed
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
76
6
1
1 Young
2
36/27/37
93/4/3
47/47/6
2.5
N/A
5.4
0.45
0.03
0.09
33/23/44
93/6/1
59/39/2
3.3
Boulders
5.4
0.51
0.04
0.07
3
tree roots
33/12/54
95/4/1
72126/2
2.3
Bedrock
3.0
0.27
0.02
0.11
4
Boulders
36/26/38
95/5/0
70/26/4
2.1
Boulders
5.1
0.42
0.04
0.11
5
1
1
1
Bedrock
25/24/51
93/4/3
80/18/2
3.0
Boulders
4.8
0.33
0.03
0.08
6
1 1
LWD
Segment
Riparian
Zone Characteristics
Substrate Characteristics
Avg
Dominant
Dominant
%Fines
Dominant
%Total
Canopy
vegetation and
Landuse
<0.85 mm, #
substrate
Substrate in
Closure
seral stage
samples
Gravel Size
( %)
Category
Siebert
N/A
Not collected
Woodlot
22.7
Gravel
58
1
Mature
n= 24
N/A
Not collected
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
67
2
Mature
92
Mixed
Timberland
N/A
Boulder/
7
3
Young
bedrock
McDonald
N/A
Not collected
Residential
23.3
Gravel
63
1
n =18
N/A
Not collected
Residential
N/A
Gravel
55
2
Mature
91
Not collected
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
52
3
Mature
90
Mixed
Timberland
N/A
Bedrock
9
4
Young
92
Mixed/conifer
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
49
5
Young
98
Mixed
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
76
6
1
1 Young
ii. Macroin vertebrate Population Condition
Macroinvertebrate samples were collected October 4 -7, 1994. Fifty seven pecent of all taxa was
of the orders Ephemeroptera /Plecoptera/Tricoptera (EPT); that is, mayflies /stoneflies /caddisflies.
These three taxa were dominant at all sites. The percent dominance and richness of the EPT are
shown by sampling site in Figure 1.
•I
*I
01
01
J
•1
•I
*I
91
24 *1
I•
10
10
I*
19
I*
1!
10
100
90
80
70
m
60
U
G.'
50
O
b
a�
40
v
a 30
20
10
0
M0.1 M1.7 M2.1 M2.3 M3.9 M4.2 S0.1 S0.8 S0.9 S1.0 S1.5 S2.5 S2.6 S3.5 S3.9
Figure 1. Siebert and McDonald macroinvertebrate community richness (EPT is Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera) and percent dominance of the three most common taxa. The letter is
the Stream Name (e.g., S is Siebert) and the number is the River Mile of the sampling site.
0 25
iii. Temperature Conditions by Segment
The temperature probes were installed in Siebert Creek August 3rd and 4`h, most likely missing a
period of high summer temperatures (see McDonald Creek, site 2a, Appendix F). Only Siebert
Creek site 2a, , exceeded AA standards, and this was for just a few hours over two days (Table
11). The preferred rearing temperatures were exceeded for portions of 10 -12 days at three of the
four sites in Siebert Creek.
Table 11. Summary of water temperature survey information for Siebert and McDonald creeks.
Water temperature was sampled continuously during the sampling period. Thermographs for
each sampling site are located in Appendix G.
Stream
Sampling
Number
River
Lower
Canopy
Dominant
Exceed max
Exceed AA
sampling
dates
of days
Mile
elevation
closure ( %)
vegetation
preferred
water quality
site
sampled
(approx.)
(ft)
for 600m
type and
rearing
(16.30C)
above
seral stage
temperature
standards, and
sampling site
(14T), and
number of days
number of days
Siebert
8/3/93-
29
0.1
20
92
Mixed
Yes -10 days
No
Sla
8/31/93
Mature
Siebert
8/4/93-
28
1.6
170
87
Mixed
Yes -12 days
Yes-2 days
S2a
8/31/93
Mature
Siebert
8/3/93-
29
3.1
210
92
Mixed
Yes -10 days
No
S3a
8/31/93
Mature
Siebert
8/3/93-
29
9.4
670
93
Mixed
No
No
S4a
8/31/93
Mature
McDonald
7/30/93-
31
0.1
40
95
Deciduous
Yes -10 days
No
Mla
8/29/93
Mature
McDonald
8/2/93-
29
2.0
160
85
?
Yes -24 days
Yes -14 days
M1b
8/30/93
Young
McDonald
7/30/93-
31
4.3
360
81
?
Yes -9 days
Yes -2 days
M2a
8/29/93
Mature
McDonald
8/4/93-
29
6.5
560
82
Mixed
Yes -1 l days
Yes -2 days
M3a
9/1/93
Young
McDonald
8/2/93 -
30
8.3
920
91
Mixed
Yes -2 days
No
M5a
8/
1
Young
McDonald
8/2/93-
29
1
9.8
il
1320
97
Mixed
Yes -29 days
Yes -4 days
M7az
8/30/96
I
Mature I
' Exceedance occurred at beginning of monitoring period and may reflect instrument calibration with water
temperature.
2 This sampling site was located in a step -pool; it is possible it became dewatered. The data are shown here but are not
included in the analyses.
iv. Habitat quality ratings
Habitat ratings of Siebert Creek for segments 1 through 3 characterize conditions as ranging from
poor to fair (Table 12). The exceptions were for in- channel LWD persistence in segments 1 and 2
and canopy closure in segment 3 where the rating was good. Generally, all segments appear
heavily impacted. Potentially, segments 1 -3 should have the most productive habitat given the
low channel gradient and moderate confinement.
•I
*I
•1
•1
•1
01
•1
•1
!1
•1
26 *1
i*
10
10
El
U,
Table 12. Habitat quality ratings for Siebert and McDonald creeks.
Segment Characteristics
Pool_ ualit
LWD Quality
Riparia n
Uality
Substrate Qualit
Stream/
Segment
Avg
Bankfull
Width
(m)
Segment
Gradient
Class
Percent
Pool
Rating
Pool
Frequency
Rating
Key
Pieces/
channel
width
Rating
In- channel
LWD
persistence
LWD
Recruitment
Potential
from
Riparian
Zone
Canopy
Closure
Rating
Gravel
Quality
Rating
Available
Spawning
Habitat
Siebert
1
7.8
1 -2%
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
N/A
N/A
Poor
Fair
2
7.9
2 -4 %
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fair
3
8.0
1 -2%
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair -good
Poor
Good
N/A
Poor
McDonald
1
8.3
1 -2%
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair -poor
N/A
N/A
Poor
Fair
2
9.0
1 -2%
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fair
3
8.4
24%
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good -Fair
N/A
Good
N/A
Fair
4
8.3
4 -8%
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
N/A
Poor
5
8.0
4 -8%
Good
Fair -Good
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
N/A
Fair
6
6.6
24%
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
N/A
Good
b. McDonald Creek
i. Habitat Conditions by Segment
10 27
Habitat conditions within segments 1 -3 are relatively similar with low pool surface areas (28 %,
36 %, and 33 %), and small average residual pool depths < 0.5m (Table 10). Segment i had a
lower channel gradient (1 -2 %) and contained a higher percentage of riffle habitat in contrast with
segments 2 and 3 (with a channel gradient of 2 -4 %). Throughout segment 1 -6, the channel was
composed of a single thread (primary) channel (Table 10). Logjam frequency was highest in
segments 4 and 5. Riparian information was not collected on segment 1. Segments 2 and 3 data
indicate a mature riparian forest (Table 10) with good canopy closure on segment 3 (Table 12).
The landuse within Segments I and 2 was predominantly residential, while segment 3 was
commercial timberland. Substrate data in segment 1 to 3 indicated relatively abundant spawning
gravel. Segment I had a high percentage of fines (23.3 %, Table 10).
The lower percent of surface area in pool habitat; decreasing riffle area, and increasing cascade
habitat observed in segments 4 and 5 (Table 10) is related to the higher gradient and increased
channel confinement (Table 9). Pool characteristics (residual pool depth, pool frequency, pool
type) were similar to other segments although side channel habitat types in segments 4 and 5 were
absent (Table 10). LWD volume was lower than downstream in segments, indicating the lower
retention of wood with increasing stream power created by the higher channel gradient. For
segments 4 and 5, 63% and 78% respectively of LWD pieces were not interacting with the
channel, and 42% and 33% of LWD pieces were unstable. Rotten conifer LWD was commonly
found (Appendix A.) A higher percentage of pools were formed by bedrock and boulders in this
segment in comparison to downstream segments with lower channel gradients (Table 10). The
riparian forest is a mixture of coniferous and deciduous tree species in a dense young stand, with
the surrounding land use in commercial timber land production. Bedrock dominates the substrate
type in Segment 4; Segment 5 appears to contain more gravel (49 %).
Segment 6 habitat conditions include 25% pool habitat predominantly formed by boulders and
LWD. 66% of LWD was rotten conifer, with 33% of LWD volume interactive with the low flow
channel (Zone 1 and 2, Appendix B). The riparian corridor was dominated by a fairly dense and
young mixed deciduous /conifer stand.
10 27
ii. Macroinvertebrate population condition
In segment 1, RM 2.1 -3.9 is degraded with low levels of EPT taxa and all taxa in general. This
portion of segment 1 is bordered by both residential development and agricultural areas. The
substrate of the sample site was cobble dominated and the percentage of fines high (Appendix Q.
There is an extensive residential development between RM 2.5 -3.0 that intrudes at times into the
riparian corridor (1997 aerial photo analysis). Below RM 2.0, the channel drops into a forested
ravine, physically separated from the agriculture fields and lower density residences.
iii. Temperature conditions by segment
State water AA quality standards on McDonald Creek were exceeded at three of five sites (Table
11, see footnote no.2); however only site Mlb, at RM 2.0 (just downstream of a large residential
area, see above), substantially exceeded these standards (Table 11). All sites exceeded the
preferred temperatures for rearing salmon for varying periods of time (Table 11, Appendix F).
Site M5a (segment 5) was confined in a ravine with relatively steep (4 -8 %) gradients, above
extensive residential /agricultural development, and at a relatively higher elevation than the other
sites.
B. Discovery Bay Watershed Planning Area
1. Segment description
Salmon Creek was surveyed from RM 0.7 to RM 3.5. Segment 2 was surveyed in 1992,
Segments 3, 4, and 5 in 1993. Reference points were established for Segment 4 but due to the
difficulty of the terrain, habitat data was not collected in this area. Segment 2 is mostly
unconfined with gradients less than 2 %, but with some portions moderately confined and
having gradients of 24%. Segments 3 and 4 are confined with gradients 24% and 4 -6%
respectively (Table 13). Segment 5 is moderately confined to confined with gradients between
1 -2% and 2 -4 %.
Table 13. Summary information by segment for Discovery Bay watershed planning area.
Stream
Segment
Number of
Segment
Segment
Segment
Segment
Segment
Location
Reference
Length
Gradient
Confinement
Average
Average
by River
Points
(m)
Class
Class
Bankfull
Bankfull
Mile
Depth (m)
Width (m)
Sahnon 2
0.2-1.3
22
2221
1 -2%
Unconfined
0.3
5.2
3
1.3 - 1.5
4
369
24%
Confined
0.4
7.8
4
1.5-2.0
9
800
4 -6%
Confined
0.4
6.3
5
2.0-3.8
25
2417
1-2%,2-4
Moderate and
0.3
4.3
Confined
2. Habitat Descriptions
a. Salmon Creek
i. Habitat Conditions by Segment
Segment 2 had relatively infrequent pools (4.6 channel widths /pool) and 39% of surface area in
pools (Table 14). Sixty four percent of pools had a residual depth <0.5m, with the rest less than
1 m in depth. The channel was a single thread, with relatively low levels of LWD (0.32
pieces /channel width, or CW) and LWD jams (0.04 /CW). Large woody debris was 86% conifer,
•1
*I
01
•1
•1
•I
01
•1
01
01
28 01
0
I•
0
I•
�0
�0
10
10
10
with 82% moderately decayed (Appendix B). The substrate was 75% gravel with 16.1% fines
(Table 14).
Segment 3 had higher LWD (1.02 pieces /CW), key piece (0.19 pieces /CW), and log jam
(0.15 /CW) frequencies (Table 14). Pools were relatively frequent (1.8 CW /pool) but small in
area and shallow, with only 36% surface area in pools and 88% pools with a residual depth
<0.5m. Boulders and LWD formed most pools. Most LWD was rotten conifer (88 %), but 79%
of LWD was stable and not mobile (Appendix B). Fifty eight percent of the channel was
cascades, which accounted for just 47% of substrate as gravel sized particles (Table 14). The
riparian zone was mixed conifer and deciduous, and mature in size.
Like segment 2, segment 5 has few pools with 4.6 CW /pool and 36% pools (Table 14). Most
pools were shallow with a residual depth < 0.5m. Large woody debris formed most pools. Large
woody debris was also relatively infrequent, generally rotten conifer /unknown (68 %), but stable
(20% unstable) (Appendix B). Fifty percent of LWD (volume) was located on the floodplain,
outside of bankfull width (Appendix Q. The riparian zone was mature- deciduous. Eighty five
percent of the substrate was gravel (Table 14).
Table 14. Habitat data summary for Salmon Creek
Segment
Ri arian Zone Characteristics
Habitat units
Large Woody Debris
Average
Pool/Riffle/
Habitat
Percentage of
Pool
Dominant
LWD
LWD
Key Piece
Log Jam
Fines <0.85
Cascade
Located
pools with a
Frequency
pool
Vol.
Freq.
Freq. (per
Freq.
Ratio ( %)
within
residual depth
(channel
forming
(in"no0
(Pieces
channel
(per
Timberland
16.1
Primary.
(<0.49m, 0.5 to
width/
factors
m., Zone
per
width)
channel
3
Secondary,
0.99m, >1.0 m)
pool)
N/A
1 -4)
channel
width)
Mature Timber
and Side
4
96
width)
DM*
N/A
DM*
DM*
Channels ( %)
91
Deciduous
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
85
Salmon 2
39/42/19
96/4/0
64/34/2
DM
7.5
0.32
0.03
0.04
3
36/6158
90/2/1
88/8/4
Rocks,
44.6
1.02
0.19
0.15
LN
boulders
4
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
5
36/47/17
97/2/1
86/11/1
Logs
8.8
0.44
0.10
0.00
Segment
Ri arian Zone Characteristics
Substrate Characteristics
Average
Dominant vegetation
Dominant
Percent
Dominant
Percent of
Canopy
and seral stage
Landuse
Fines <0.85
substrate
Total Substrate
Closure ( %)
mm and
in Gravel Size
sample size
Category
Salmon
N/A
N/A
Timberland
16.1
Gravel
75
2
n =14
3
94
Mixed
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
47
Mature Timber
4
96
DM
DM*
N/A
DM*
DM*
5
91
Deciduous
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
85
Mature Timber
* Data missing. See text.
lie 29
ii. Habitat quality ratings
The Salmon Creek habitat quality ratings are described in Table 15.
Table 15. Habitat quality ratings for Salmon Creek.
Segment Characteristics
Pool Quality
LWD Quality
Ri arian Quality
Substrate Quality
Stream/
Avg
Segment
Percent
Pool
Key
tn- channel
LWD
Canopy
Gravel
Available
Segment
Bankfull
Gradient
Pool
Frequency
Pieces/
LWD
Recruitment
Closure
Quality
Spawning
Width
Class
Rating
Rating
channel
persistence
Potential
Rating
Rating
Habitat
(m)
width
from
Rating
Riparian
Zone
Salmon
5.2
1 -2%
Poor -fair
Poor
Poor
Good
N/A
N/A
Fair
Good
2
3
7.8
24%
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
N/A
Fair
4
6.3
4 -6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
4.3
1 -2 %.,
Fair-
Poor
Poor
Fair -poor
Fair
Good
N/A
Good
2-4 %,
poor
C. Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Planning Area
1. Segment Descriptions
The Little Quilcene River was surveyed in 1992 from its mouth to RM 5.2, where Howe Ck
enters the Little Quilcene. Channel gradients are mild throughout the surveyed section,
gradually rising from <1% in segments 1 and 2, to 24% in segment 5 (Table 16). Segment 1
is tidally influenced; the channel width in segment I is wide relative to upstream segments due
to beaver ponds. The valley is unconfined in segments 1 -3 and moderately confined in
segments 4 and 5.
Howe Creek, a tributary to the Little Quilcene River, was surveyed in 1993 from its
confluence with the Little Quilcene to RM 3.0 (Table 16). In segments 1, Howe Creek rises
sharply in a confined ravine from the Little Quilcene, and then the gradient moderates and the
valley widens from segment 2 through 6. Segments 3 and 5 are wetlands. Segment 7 is higher
gradient and confined.
J
*I
01
01
91
Ripley Creek, also a tributary to the Little Quilcene was surveyed in 1993 from its confluence •
to RM 1.6 (Table 16). Habitat data was only collected for segment 1 where the channel was
low gradient and the valley unconfined.
The Big Quilcene River was surveyed in 1992 from its mouth to RM 3.4, above the Quilcene
National Fish Hatchery (QNFH, at RM 2.8). Segment 1 is tidally influenced and entirely
constricted by earthen dikes and riprap that extend upstream through half of segment 2. Both
segments have gradients <1.0% with an unconfined valley. In segments 3 -5, the channel
gradient ranges between 1 -2 %, with moderate confinement. The QNFH is located in segment
4, which bounds an approximately 800 m portion of the Big Quilcene between the intake
(upstream) and the electric fish weir (downstream). Since the channel was mostly de- watered
in this segment from QNFH water usage, the habitat data was not collected.
30 401
0
�0
�0
I*
10
10
Table 16. Summary information by segment for the Quilcene /Dabob watershed planning area.
Stream
Segment
Location
by River
Mile
Number of
Reference
Points
Segment
Length
(m)
Segment
Gradient
Class
Segment
Confinement
Class
Segment
Average
Bankfull
Depth (m)
Segment
Average
Bankfull
Width (m)
Howe 1
0-0.4
9
883
6 -17 %n
Confined
0.3
7.1
2
0.4 -0.6
3
298
1 1 -2%
Unconfined
0.2
9.3
3
0.6 -1.0
Wetland
N/A
<1%
Unconfined
N/A
N/A
4
1.0 -1.6
10
989
2 -4%
Unconfined
0.3
3.4
5
1.6 -1.7
Wetland
N/A
1-2%
Confined
N/A
N/A
6
1.7 -2.0
5
408
1-2%
Unconfined
0.3
3.8
7
2.0 -2.8
16
1394
4 -6%
Confined
0.4
3.8
Ripley 1
0 -0.7
12
1129
1 -2%
Unconfined
0.3
5.2
2
0.7 -1.5
14
1300
4 -6%
Moderate
0.3
4.4
Little
Quilcene I
0 -0.2
3
283
<1%
Unconfined
0.4
13.1
2
0.2 -1.7
22
2091
<1%
Unconfined
0.4
9.7
3
1.7 -2.7
14
1391
1-2%
Unconfined
0.5
8.1
4
2.7 -4.4
25
2509
1 -2%
Moderate
0.4
7.7
5
4.4 -5.2
15
1480
2 -4%
Moderate
0.4
7.6
Big Quilcene
1
0 -0.2
4
400
<1%
Unconfined
0.5
15.0
2
0.2 -1.3
14
1369
<1%
Unconfined
0.5
15.8
3
1.3 -2.8
28
2768
1-2%
Moderate
0.6
13.8
4
2.8 -3.2
QNFH*
800
1 -2%
Moderate
N/A
N/A
5
1 3.2 -3.3
2
200
1-2%
Moderate
0.5
11.5
* Quilcene National Fish Hatchery
2. Habitat Descriptions
a. Little Quilcene River
i. Habitat Conditions by Segment
Segment l contained several large beaver ponds, accounting for the high percent pools (68%,
Table 17). Diking confines the habitat to a single thread channel. Very low Ievels of LWD were
present, 0.4 pieces /CW, with no logjams or LWD large enough to qualify as key pieces. The
dominant substrate was equally sand and gravel (54% and 46 %, Appendix F), reflecting the tidal
influence.
Segments 2 -5 were relatively similar, all with very low levels of LWD (Table 17). Large woody
debris in all segments were mostly of deciduous origin, however moderately decayed conifer was
present in segments 4 and 5 (40 and 52% respectively, Appendix B). Pools were infrequent and
widely spaced (pool frequency 3.9 -5.4 CW /pool). Residual pool depths were <1.0 to for
segments 1 and 5, with a few pools >1.0 m in segments 2 -4. The riparian forest was young in
segment 2 and mature in 3 -5, with residential as the dominant riparian landuse in segments 2 -3,
and forested in 4 and 5. Gravel was abundant.
14D 31
Table 17. Habitat data summary for Howe Cr., Ripley Cr., Little Quilcene R. and Big Quilcene R.
Segment
Habitat units
Large Woody Debris
Substrate Characteristics
Percent
Percent
Percentage of
Pool
Dominant
LWD
LWD
Key Piece
Log Jam
vegetation and seral
Pool
Habitat Units
pools with a
Freq.
Pool
Vol.
Freq.
Freq. (per
Freq.
Riffle
within
residual depth
(channel
Forming
(m3 /100
(Pieces
channel
(per
95
Cascade
primary,
( <0.49m, 0.5 to
widths/
Factors
m., Zone
per
width)
channel
Secondary,
0.99m, >1.0 m)
pool)
Mixed
1 -4)
channel
Sand
width)
and Tertiary
width)
31
N/A
N/A
N/A
Channel
N/A
4
42
Conifer
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
Howe 1
28/34/38
86/4/10
71/26/3
2.9
Logs, LWD
19.5
1.65
0.11
0.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
'jams
40
Deciduous
Timberland
N/A
2
45/55/0
81/9/10
78/22/0
1.7
Logs, debris
18.1
2.37
0.22
0.03
88
Conifer
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
'jams
Young
3
Wetland
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
4
51/49/0
97/3/0
69/31/0
3.1
Logs, debris
8.5
0.61
0.04
0.04
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
Little
jams
DM*
Wetland
N/A
Sand
5
Wetland
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
6
40/60/0
97/3/0
85/15/0
4.1
Logs, bank
9.6
0.34
0.05
0.01
scour
7
27/29/45
91/10/1
95/5/0
5.5
Lo s, rocks
33
0.21
0.03
0.04
Ripley
50/38/12
98/2/0
90/8/2
3.6
Logs, debris
10.6
0.75
0.05
0.11
1
jams
2
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
Little
68/29/3
10010/0
50/50/0
5.4
DM*
0.4
0.14
0.00
0.00
Quilcene
(inc.
1
51%
beaver
pond)
2
37112/51
97/3/0
46/44/0
4.1
DM*
2.7
0.25
0.02
0.02
3
28/12/51
86/8/6
36/59/5
3.9
DM*
4.1
0.22
0.04
0.04
4
23/19/57
95/4/1
37/53/10
4.8
DM*
4.0
0.23
0.03
0.03
5
25/9/66
97/3/0
63/37/0
4.5
DM*
2.7
0.15
0.03
0.06
Big Quilcene
0 /100 /0
100/0/0
0/0/0
0.0
DM*
0.0
0.04
0.00
0.00
1
2
23/74/3
9218/0
50/39/11
4.8
DM*
1.3
0.21
0.00
0.00
3
35/16/49
89/3/8
26/54/20
4.0
DM*
2.2
0.22
0.01
0.05
4
Fish
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
hatcher
5
53/2/45
93/7/0
40/60/0
3.5
DM*
4.4 ,
0.58
0.00
0.17
Segment
Riparian
Zone Characteristics
Substrate Characteristics
Average
Dominant
Dominant
Percent Fines
Dominant
Substrate in
Canopy
vegetation and seral
Landuse
<0.85 mm and
substrate
Gravel Size
Closure ( %,)
stage
sample size
Category
Howe 1
95
N/A
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
47
Mature
2
80
Mixed
Timberland
N/A
Sand
37
Young
3
31
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
42
Conifer
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
62
Young
5
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
40
Deciduous
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
93
Mature
7
88
Conifer
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
95
Young
Ripley
87
Mixed
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
47
1
Mature
2
92
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
Little
N/A
DM*
Wetland
N/A
Sand
46
Quilcene 1
Shrub- Seedling
J
*I
*1
61
*1
it
*I
•1
*I
7
32 01
I•
�0
�0
�0
I*
U
10
is
10
2
N/A
DM*
Residential
N/A
Gravel
73
Segment
Gradient
Class
Percent
Pool
Rating
Young
Key
Pieces/
channel
width
Rating
In- channel
LWD
persistence
LwD
Recruitment
Potential
from
Riparian
Zone
Canopy
Closure
Rating
3
N/A
DM*
Residential
N/A
Gravel
79
Poor
Fair
Mature
Good
N/A
Fair
2
4
N/A
DM*
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
85
Good
N/A
Mature
3
N/A
<1%
N/A
5
N/A
DM*
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
92
4
3.4
Mature
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair-good
Big Quilcene
N/A
DM*
Agriculture
N/A
Gravel
100
1
N/A
Grass /Forb-
Wetland
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
Pole/Sapling
1 -2%
Fair
Poor
Poor
2
N/A
DM*
Residential
N/A
Gravel
89
4 -6%
Fair
Mature
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
3
N/A
DM8
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
80
Poor
Fair-poor
Pole/Sapling Pole/Sapling
Agriculture
N/A
Fair
Little
Quit t
4
DM
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
5
DM
DM8
Timberland
N/A
Gravel
58
Poor
Poor
Young
N/A
N/A
N/A
Good
* Data missing.
ii. Habitat quality ratings
Ratings for habitat quality of Little Quilcene and the other three streams in the Quilcene/Dabob
watershed planning area are shown in Table 18.
Table 18. Habitat quality ratings for Howe Cr., Ripley Cr., L. Quilcene R. and B. Quilcene R.
Segment Characteristics
Pool ualit
LWD Quality
Riparian Quality
Substrate Quality
Stream/
Segment
Avg
Bankfull
Width
(m)
Segment
Gradient
Class
Percent
Pool
Rating
Pool
Frequency
Rating
Key
Pieces/
channel
width
Rating
In- channel
LWD
persistence
LwD
Recruitment
Potential
from
Riparian
Zone
Canopy
Closure
Rating
Gravel
Quality
Rating
Available
Spawning
Habitat
Howe 1
7.1
1 6 -17%
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
N/A
Good
N/A
Fair
2
9.3
1 -2%
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair-good
Poor
Good
N/A
Poor
3
N/A
<1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
3.4
24%
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair-good
Poor
Poor
N/A
Fair
5
N/A
1 -2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
3.8
1 -2%
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
N/A
Good
7
3.8
4 -6%
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
N/A
Good
Ripley 1
5.2
1 -2%
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair-poor
Good
Poor
N/A
Fair
Little
Quit t
13.1
<1%
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fair
2
9.7
<1%
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair-good
N/A
N/A
N/A
Good
3
8.1
1 -2%
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
N/A
N/A
N/A
Good
4
7.7
1 -2 %n
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair -good
N/A
N/A
N/A
Good
5
7.6
2 -4%
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair-goo
N/A
N/A
N/A
Good
Big Quit.
1
15.0
<1%
Poor
Poor
Poor
No LWD
N/A
N/A
N/A
Good
2
15.8
<1%
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
N/A
N/A
N/A
Good
3
13.8
1 -2%
Fair
Poor -fair
Poor
Good
N/A
N/A
N/A
Good
4
N/A
1 -2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
11.5
1 1 -2%
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fair
is 33
b. Howe Creek
i. Habitat Conditions by Segment
Segment 1 was steep and the valley confined (Table 16). Relatively abundant LWD pieces and
logjams were the dominant pool - forming factor (Table 17). Side channels caused by logjams
were common (10 %). Eighty one percent of LWD volume was rotten conifer (Appendix B).
Pools were moderately frequent given the channel gradient (2.9 CW /pool), but covered just 28%
of channel surface area (Table 17). The dominant riparian landuse was forests, which were
composed of mature timber.
Segments 2, 4, and 6 (segments 3 and 5 were wetlands) had 40 to 51% of surface area as pools, at
a frequency of 1.7 to 4.1 CW /pool (Table 17). The higher frequency of pools in segment 2
resulted from more abundant key pieces (0.22 pieces /CW) and LWD (2.37 pieces /CW). About
half of LWD volume was contained between the bankfull channel. Pool residual depth was <0.5
m. Large woody debris was generally rotten for all segments (Appendix B). The riparian forests
were young - mixed and conifer for segments 2 and 4, and mature - deciduous for segment 6 (Table
17). The channel substrate was primarily sand in segment 2 (62 %), and gravel in segment 4
(62 %) and 6 (95 %) (Appendix F).
In segment 7, the gradient increased to 4 -6% and the valley confined the channel (Table 16).
Pools were infrequent, formed by logs and boulders, shallow (95% < 0.5 m), and covered just
27% of the channel surface area (Table 17). Large woody debris was scarce, rotten (70 %), and
somewhat unstable (37 %) (Appendix B). The riparian zone was fully forested, but composed of
young conifer. The channel substrate was 95% gravel sized (Appendix F).
ii. Habitat Quality Ratings
The Howe Creek habitat quality ratings are shown in Table 18.
c. Ripley Creek
i. Habitat Conditions by Segment
•i
91
Pools in Ripley Creek were relatively large (50% of surface area in pools), infrequent (3.6
channel widths /pool), and shallow (90% of pools <0.5m) (Table 17). Large woody debris pieces
and jams formed the majority of pools; boulders, bank and bedrock projections, and standing
trees formed the remainder. The riparian zone was fully forested and the overstory composed of
a mixture of mature deciduous and conifer species. Most LWD was either located on the
floodplain or suspended above bankfull (Appendix C). Seventy percent of all LWD (including
those on the floodplain and above bankfull) was stable. Rotten LWD accounted for 65% of LWD
volume, with much of the remaining LWD as deciduous origin (Appendix B). The channel .
substrate was 47% gravel and 25% sand (Appendix F).
ii. Habitat Quality Ratings
The Ripley Creek habitat quality ratings are shown in Table 18.
01
34 *1
d. Big Quilcene River
i. Habitat Conditions by Segment
In 1992, the Big Quilcene was 100% riffles from the mouth to RM 0.8 (more recently a pool has
developed at about RM 0.2). This includes all of segment 1 and a portion of segment 2. Segment
1 is tidally influenced, mostly bordered (outside the dikes) by marsh or agriculture, contains few
pieces of LWD, and has 100% gravel substrate.
Segments 2 and 3 are braided with relatively unstable side channels. Pools were infrequent (4.0
and 4.8 CW /pool) and covered just 23 and 35% of channel surface area (Table 17). Segment 2
has few pieces of LWD (0.21 pieces /CW) and no logjams. Segment 3 contains some logjams, but
few large, "key piece" sized LWD. The riparian forest is mostly deciduous (field observation)
and mature for segment 2, with land use in the lower portion of the segment residential, and
forested in the upper portion of the segment. Segment 3 is pole -sized conifer on the right bank,
and mostly non- forested agriculture on the left bank. Large woody debris is solid - deciduous in
segment 2 and solid- conifer and deciduous in segment 3. Gravel is abundant.
Segment 5 is also braided, with higher levels of LWD (0.58 pieces /CW) and logjams (0.17 /CW)
than in downstream segments. Large woody debris is small diameter, with none of keypiece size.
Pools were abundant (53 %), however no pools were greater than 1.0 in in depth (Table 17).
ii. Habitat Rating Quality
• The Big Quilcene habitat ratings are shown in Table 18.
10
1•
D. Lower Hood Canal Watershed Planning Area
1. Segment Descriptions
The Tahuya River habitat was surveyed in 1994 from RM 4.1 to RM T. The segment is low
gradient ( <1.0 %) and the valley unconfined (Table 19). The Dewatto River habitat was
surveyed in 1994 from RM 3.5 to 7.0. All segments (2 -10) had gradients <1.0 % and an
unconfined valley. Segments 4, 7, and 9 were wetlands and not surveyed.
Table 19. Summary information by segment for the lower Hood Canal watershed planning
unit.
Stream/
Segment
Segment
Location by
River Mile
Number of
Reference
Points
Segment
Length
(m)
Segment
Gradient
Class
Segment
Confinement
Class
Segment
Average
Bankfull
Depth (m)
Segment
Average
Bankfull
Width (m)
Tahu a 9
4.1 -7.4
67
6788
<1%
Unconfined
0.4
13.0
Dewatto 2
3.0 -3.2
3
339
<1%
Unconfined
0.3
11.4
3
3.2 -3.5
5
434
<1%
Unconfined
0.5
13.7
4
3.5 -4.4
wetland
N/A
<1%
Unconfined
N/A
NIA
5
4.4 -5.6
20
2075
<1%
Unconfined
0.5
7.8
6
5.6 -6.0
8
770
<1%
Unconfined
0.5
6.4
7
6.0 -6.8
wetland
N/A
<1%
Unconfined
N/A
N/A
8
6.8 -7.3
12
1157
<1%
Unconfined
0.4
8.7
9
73 -7.5
wetland
N/A
<1%
Unconfined
N/A
N/A
10
7.5 -7.7
4
346
<1%
Unconfined
0.5
7.8
I• 35
2. Habitat Descriptions
a. Tahuya River
i. Habitat Conditions by Segment
The Tahuya River has relatively frequent pools (2.5 CW /pool), a high percentage of pool
habitat (72 %), and deep pools (38% of pools with a residual depth >1.0 m) (Table 20).
Logjams and individual logs were the most common pool- forming factor, however beaver
dams, bank projections, and self - formed pools were also important. The frequency of large
diameter LWD (key pieces) was low (0.04 pieces /CW). Ninety one percent of LWD was
found within bankfull (zone 1 and 2), and most of the LWD was moderately decayed conifer
(39 %) and deciduous (38 %) (Appendices C and B). Twenty three percent of LWD was
unstable. The riparian zone was young and dominated by deciduous species (Table 20). The
39% average canopy closure is mostly attributable to the small deciduous riparian forest and
somewhat to the 13.0 m wide channel. Percent fines was a moderate 10.5% and the spawning
gravel abundant (79 %, Appendix F) where riffles occurred.
•I
W
*I
01
*I
V
91
01
36 *1
J
J
n
u
9
�0
16
10
I*
[l
Table 20. Habitat data summary for Tahuya and Dewatto River.
Segment
Habitat units
Large Woody Debris
Substrate characteristics
Percent
Percent
Percentage of
Pool
Dominant
LWD
LWD
Key Piece
Log Jain
vegetation and
Pool
Habitat Units
pools with a
Freq.
Pool
Vol.
Freq.
Freq. (per
Freq.
Riffle
within
residual depth
(channel
Forming
(m3 /100
(Pieces
channel
(per
39
Cascade
Primary,
( <0.49m, 0.5 to
widths/
Factors
m., Zone
per
width)
channel
n =13
Secondary,
0.99m, > 1.0 m)
pool)
Mixed
1 -4)
channel
Cobble
width)
2
and Tertiary
n =12
width)
78
Mixed
Timber Lands
N/A
Channel
31
Young
Tahuya
72/25/3
92/8/0
17/46/38
2.5
Debris jams,
8.7
0.50
0.04
0.04
9
Wowtot
N/A
Sand
43
Logs, roots
Young
Dewatto
35/55/10
96/4/0
57/29/14
3.7
Roots of
5.6
0.77
0.00
0.03
2
Young
standing tree
7
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
38/55/7
100 /0 /0
17/67/14
5.3
Debris jams,
8.4
1.27
0.03
0.00
3
Young`
roots
9
DM*
DM*
DM*
Wetland
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
4
Young
Gravel
82/17/1
92/3/5
33/48/19
2.9
Roots
7.4
0.45
0.08
0.02
5
80/20/0
98/0/2
27/61/12
3.6
Logs, beaver
1.2
0.25
0.00
0.01
6
dams
Wetland
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
7
81/18/1
98/2/0
35/45/20
2.5
Debris
15.8
1.06
0.12
0.12
8
jam,logs
Wetland
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
9
77/23/0
90/1/9
i
57/36/7
2.3
Debris jams,
26.3
0.50
0.20
0.14
10
1
logs
Segment
Riparian
zone characteristics
Substrate characteristics
Average
Dominant
Dominant
Percent Fines
Dominant
Percent of Total
Canopy
vegetation and
Landuse
<0.85 mm and
substrate
Substrate in
Closure
seral stage
sample size
Gravel Size
( %)
Category
Tahuya
39
Deciduous
Woodlot
10.5
Gravel
79
9
Young
n =13
Dewatto
70
Mixed
Woodlot
20.5
Cobble
15
2
Young
n =12
3
78
Mixed
Timber Lands
N/A
Cobble
31
Young
4
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
5
88
Deciduous
Wowtot
N/A
Sand
43
Young
40
Deciduous
Woodlot
N/A
Gravel
59
6
Young
7
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
8
94
Deciduous
Timber Lands
N/A
Sand
39
Young`
9
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
DM*
10
75
Deciduous
Timber Lands
N/A
Sand
38
Young
Gravel
* Data missing.
ii. Macroinvertebrate Population Condition
Sixty eight percent of taxa were EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera). Fifty nine
percent of all taxa were represented by the three most common taxa. The percent dominance
and richness of the macroinvertebrate community are shown by sampling site in Fibure 3. The
three sampling sites on the Tahuya River at RM 4.1 represented three different sites over a
short (100 -200 m) distance.
1* 37
inn
,in
•I
A
•
01
1 91
Figure 3. Tahuya and Dewatto River macroin vertebrate community richness (EPT is
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) and percent dominance of the three most common
taxa. On the x -axis, the letter is the stream Name and the number is the River Mile of the
sampling site.
*I
`1
38 01
I0
0
U]
�6
is
10
1!
10
iii. Temperature Conditions by Segment
The Tahuya River had consistently high temperatures, relative to the other three streams
(Table 21). Sites 2a, 3a, and 4a exceeded State standards for about half the days sampled. All
sites exceeded the preferred temperature range, and four of the five sites exceeded it on all
days sampled (Appendix G).
Table 21: Summary of temperature survey information for Tahuya and Dewatto River. Water
temperature was sampled continuously during the sampling period. Thermographs for each
sampling site are located in Appendix F.
Stream/
Sampling
Number
River
Lower
Canopy
Dominant
Exceed max
Exceed AA
sampling
dates
of days
Mile
elevation
closure ( %)
vegetation
preferred rearing
water quality
site
Pool
sampled
(approx.)
(ft)
for 600m
type and
temperature
(16.3 0C)
Width
Class
Rating
Rating
above
seral stage
(14 °C, and
standards, and
Rating
Habitat
(m)
sampling site
number of days
number of days
Dewatto
8/2/94-
31
1.5
60
59
Mixed
Yes -27 days
Yes -1 day
Dla
911/94
Riparian
Mature
Dewatto
8/5/94-
20
2.5
100
72
Mixed
Yes -20 days
Yes -4 days
D2a
8124/94
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair-good
M_ ature
Poor
Good
Dewatto
7/31/95-
29
0.6
20
N/A
N/A
Yes -29 days
Yes -4 days
D3a
8/27/95
Poor
2
Dewatto
7/31/95-
29
1.9
80
N/A
N/A
Yes -27 days
Yes -4 days
D4a
8/27/95
Good
Poor
Poor
N/A
Poor
5
7.8
Little Tahuya
7/1/94-
33
0.1
?
78
Young
Yes -10 days
No
Tla
8/2194
<1%
Good
Fair
Poor
Conifer
Poor
Poor
Tahuya
7/1/94-
33
4.3
120
37
Young
Yes -33 days
Yes -15 days
T2a
8/2/94
N/A
Poor
10
7.8
Deciduous
Good
Fair
Tabuya
7/18/94-
16
5.8
?
50
Young
Yes -16 days
Yes -16 days
T3a
8/2/94
Mixed -
Deciduous
Tahuya
7/31/95-
28
1
20
N/A
N/A
Yes -28 days
Yes -14 days
T4a
8/27/95
Tahuya
7/31/95-
28
2.3
20
N/A
N/A
Yes -28 days
Yes -5 days
T5a
8/27/95
iv. Habitat quality rating
Ratings for habitat quality of Tahuya River and the Dewatto River are shown in Table 22.
Table 22. Habitat quality ratings fo the Tahuya and Dewatto rivers.
Segment Characteristics
Pool Quality
LWD Quality
Riparian Quality
Substrate Quality
Stream/
Avg
Segment
Percent
Pool
Key
In- channel
LWD
Canopy
Gravel
Available
Segment
Bankfull
Gradient
Pool
Frequency
Pieces/
LWD
Recruitment
Closure
Quality
Spawning
Width
Class
Rating
Rating
channel
persistence
Potential
Rating
Rating
Habitat
(m)
width
from
Rating
Riparian
Zone
Tahuya 9
13.0
<1%
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair-good
Poor
Poor
Good
Good
Dewatto
11.4
<1%
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
2
3
13.7
<1%
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
N/A
Poor
5
7.8
<1%
Good
Fair
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
N/A
Fair
6
8.7
<1%
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
N/A
Fair
8
6.4
<1 %,
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
N/A
Poor
10
7.8
<1%
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
N/A
Poor
10 39
01
b. Dewatto River
i. Habitat conditions by segment
Segment 2 and 3 had abundant riffles low percent pools (35 and 38 %) in primarily a single
thread channel (Table 20). Residual pool depths in segment 2 were shallow for a river of this
size (57% < 0.5m), LWD loading low, with no large "key piece" LWD present. In segment 3,
pools were less frequent that segment 2 (5.3 CW /pool), but with a greater residual depth (67%
of pools 0.5 -1.0 in in depth). Individual LWD pieces were present at moderate levels in
segment 3 (1.27 pieces /CW), however many pieces were unstable (53 %), and no logjams were
present. Large woody debris and live trees formed the few pools found in either segment.
Large woody debris was mostly moderately decayed conifer (Appendix B). The riparian zone
for both segments was young with mixed conifer and deciduous species composition (Table
20). Cobble was the dominant substrate size, and percent fines were high at 20.5% on
segment 2.
Segment 5 and 6 had a high percentage of surface area in pools (82 and 80 %, Table 20). Sixty -
seven and 73% of pools were greater than 0.5 in in depth. The lower 400m of segment 5 was a
transitional zone of continuous trench pool from the segment 4 wetland. Pools were formed
by live trees in segment 5, and LWD and beaver dams in segment 6. Segment 6 contained a
long side channel ( >68m), heavily utilized by juvenile salmonids, flowing out of the wetland
in segment 7. Large woody debris and key pieces were more frequent in segment 5 than
segments 2, 3, and 6. Large woody debris was at very low levels in segment 6. Most LWD
was moderately decayed conifer in segment 5 and rotten- unknown or deciduous in segment 6
(Appendix B). Canopy closure was 40% for segment 6(Table 20) reflecting a young,
deciduous dominated riparian zone interspersed with wetlands. Beaver ponds were common
in segment 6. Segment 5 had a sand/gravel substrate, and segment 6 a gravel/sand substrate.
Like segments 5 and 6, most of the channel surface area in segments 8 and 10 was also pools (81
and 77 %, Table 20). Pools were frequent for both segments, and mostly formed by LWD.
Segment 10 had relatively extensive side channels, but fewer deep pools ( >1.0 m) than all other
segments on the Dewatto. Segments 8 and 10 contained moderately abundant levels of LWD,
logjams and key pieces. Most LWD pieces were stable (79 and 73 %), however most were also
rotten conifer (60 and 56 %, Appedix B). The canopy was closed for segment 8 (94% closure),
and more open in segment 10 (75% closure). Riparian forests were young and deciduous
dominated. Sand/gravel was the most common substrate.
ii. Macroinvertebrate population condition
Seventy three percent of taxa were of the EPT (Ephemeropta, Plecoptera and Trichoptera). Forty
nine percent of all taxa were represented by the three most common taxa. The percent dominance
and richness of the macroinvertebrate community are shown by sampling site in Fibure 3. Note
that both sample sites were downstream of the habitat assessment segments.
iii. Temperature Conditions by Segment
The Dewatto River exceeded State AA standards 0 6.3 "C) for portions of only a handful of days
(Table 21). However, site D2a exceeded the preferred rearing temperature range of 14 °C during
the entire sampling period (both night and day). The other sites exceeded the preferred range
during most daylight hours (Appendix G).
40 01
DISCUSSION
A. Habitat Function and Watershed Dynamics
The ability of salmon populations to survive and reproduce is dependent upon survival at each of
the major life history stages (spawning, incubation, rearing, migration in freshwater, and
migration and rearing in the marine environment) and the conditions encountered in each of these
phases. Habitat conditions vary in time (seasonally, annually) and space (relative position within
the watershed) in a dynamic system. Under natural conditions disturbances such as floods, fire,
wind storms and landslides provide episodic inputs of wood, water, and sediment; processes
critical for maintaining watershed health (Naiman et al, 1992). Salmonids have co- evolved in
these conditions, developing life history "strategies" or patterns of utilization, which seek to
maximize habitat productivity and minimize the risk of extinction (McHenry et al. 1996b).
Strategies unique to each salmon species have also evolved to minimize competition between
species.
A variety of habitat features are required for survival at each freshwater stage with some
variability based on the particular habitat preference of different species. Sufficient instream flow,
adequate holding pools to allow resting and avoidance of predators for upstream passage, and
clear passage between areas of concentrated use are required for successful migration between
saltwater and freshwater. Spawning success is related to the quantity and quality of riffle habitat
with suitable sized substrate, stream temperature, and sufficient stream flow. Summer rearing is
largely dependent on the availability and quality of pool habitat, maintenance of stream
temperature within a preferred range, and the distribution of a variety of habitat types. Features
affecting winter rearing include distribution of large woody debris providing cover; refuge from
extreme stream flows provided by certain habitat types such as off - channel areas; and distribution
and quality of pool habitat, especially those providing sufficient depth to escape high stream
velocities.
Habitat features and processes are hydrologically linked within a watershed in a complex set of
interactions. For example, coho production (and to a lesser extent, that of other species) is related
to the amount of available pool habitat, with preference for different pool types varying by age
class (Bisson and Sedell 1984). Pool quality has been linked to the volume, longevity, and
position of large woody debris within a stream channel (Bilby and Ward 1989; Ralph et al. 1993;
Grette 1985). Large woody debris volume is in turn dependent on recruitment of wood from the
adjacent riparian forest, with the stability and longevity of wood recruited to the channel
determined by the species composition of the riparian forest. Grette (1985) found that coniferous
large woody debris persists in a stream channel for up to 200 years in comparison with deciduous
species that decay much more rapidly. The position of wood within the channel is linked to
large -scale processes such as stream hydrology and channel morphology.
Land management activities tend to reduce habitat complexity and simplify channels by directly
altering or obliterating habitat (diking, culverts, channelization, construction of impervious
surfaces) or on broader scale, altering watershed processes (recruitment of large woody debris,
sediment production and transport rates, hydrology, nutrient cycling). Disturbances caused by
land management activities occur at a rate and magnitude that can overwhelm the natural
resiliency of the system. This in turn reduces the genetic fitness and reproductive success of
•
aquatic organisms by eliminating or reducing certain life history strategies or causing shifts in
fish communities (Bisson et al. 1992). For example, one of the most common and persistent
impacts to Pacific Northwest streams has been the large scale removal of LWD from stream
channels for navigation improvement, to aid water based log transport, and to promote fish
41
L ,
passage (Sedell and Luchessa 1982). Long -term studies have shown a concurrent reduction in
pool frequency and volume and an associated decline in fish abundance and species diversity
.
( Bisson et al. 1987, Bisson and Sedell 1984, Hartman and Scrivener, 1990).
The degradation and loss of habitat functions and of watershed dynamics negatively impacts
salmonids. Following is a discussion of the current habitat conditions and how they affect the
salmonid freshwater life history stages within the watersheds of this study's planning areas.
i
B. Dungeness Watershed Planning Area
1. Siebert Creek
a. Migration Conditions
A culvert at Highway 101 may hinder or prevent upstream movement of adults during low flow
periods and downstream movement of juvenile salmonids although the degree of impairment is
unknown. The crossing is a box culvert with a fish way and baffles within the culvert;
maintenance is key to ensuring favorable conditions for fish passage. The highway was recently
expanded to four lanes, the two new east -bound lanes now have a bridge (built 1999), but the
culvert remains in the westbound lanes with no immediate plans for removal. This stream
crossing also demonstrates processes typically seen with constrictions of the channels and
alteration of stream hydrology. During high winter flows the culvert is unable to pass the
increased streamflow, causing water to dam up or backwater upstream of the culvert, sediment
bedload to be deposited in gravel bars, and aggradation of the main channel. These processes
destabilize the reach by causing horizontal instability in the channel and reducing habitat
suitability. Downstream of Highway 101; the Old Olympic Highway had a culvert crossing
consisting of two parallel culverts with outlet of one of the culverts dropping 15 to 17 feet onto
riprap; fish passing through this culvert were subjected to increased mortality (R. Johnson,
personal communication). The culvert was replaced with a bridge in 1998.
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions
Spawning habitat is affected by the relative scarcity of spawning gravels and the diminished
quality of areas currently available. Siebert Creek is reported to have experienced a number of
road failures in the upper watershed; this factor compounded with bank cutting explains the high
levels of fine sediment which are transported and deposited in downstream, lower gradient
reaches. The degradation of spawning and incubation habitat is probably partially responsible for
the reduction in chum and coho populations in Siebert Creek since chum and coho use low
gradient riffles and tailouts for spawning activity.
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
Low wood volume and logjam frequency in segments 1 -2, along with high percentages of
cascades result in low abundance and diminished quality of pool habitat. As a result, the quantity
of summer rearing habitat and the quality winter rearing conditions for juvenile coho are low, and
may favor cutthroat and steelhead (Table 10). McHenry (1992) reported low overall densities of
juvenile fish (0.22 fish per m'), with 82% of the fish observed being riffle- dependent species such
as steelhead and cutthroat trout in lower Siebert Creek. Macroinvertebrate communities were
diverse, however overall community richness was lower than surveys for the upper Elwha River
and Hoh River (McHenry 1991, Munn et al. 1996).
42
i•
A
E
1*
19
Water temperatures were generally within State AA standards (16.3 0C). Water temperatures for
segments 1 -3 exceeded the preferred temperature range for salmonids for several hours of about
1/3 of the days sampled. Data on riparian composition was not collected for segments 1 -2, so its
impact on stream temperatures is not known. The lack of wood and resulting shallow residual
pool depth could in part account for these temperatures. A pool with relatively shallow depth that
is exposed to the sun would maintain a higher average temperature that a deeper pool at the same
site.
In segment 3, future LWD recruitment potential is poor. Modeling of LWD levels following
timber harvest has shown that recruitment of wood from a second growth forest is usually not
significant until 50 to 60 years (Grette 1985), causing a net loss of habitat diversity in this time
period. The absence of large diameter "key" pieces or the potential to recruit this wood from the
riparian zone causes increased mobility and instability of existing wood, resulting in pieces
located outside of the active channel or oriented parallel with the channel margin (Ralph et al.
1993). Habitat complexity, especially the development of channel margin habitat, floodplains
and other habitat types important for juvenile fish, is reduced when large woody debris has
limited contact with the active channel. McHenry (1992) attributed the lack of wood in Siebert
Creek to past management practices that included cedar salvage, riparian logging, and stream
cleanout.
Recent trends in land use conversions in lower Siebert Creek and increasing water demands may
continue to reduce the most potentially productive portions of the stream and favor shifts toward
steelhead and cutthroat populations.
2. McDonald Creek
a. Migration Conditions
Migration habitat in Segments 4 and 5 does not appear to be limited except by the absence of
cover.
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions
Spawning conditions in Segments 1 -3 are rated as fair due to their relative abundance of gravel
with high levels of fine sediment. Spawning habitats in Segments 4 and 5 appear to be limited by
the availability of suitable substrate, with bedrock and boulders comprising the dominant
substrate. Spawning habitat in Segment 6 also appears to be more favorable although the ability
of fish to utilize this area may be 'limited by conditions in downstream reaches and flow
characteristics.
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
Summer rearing conditions are limited by a lack of pool habitat in Segments 1 through 3,
relatively high summer water temperatures, and the lack of large woody debris and structural
diversity. Conditions appear to be worse in Segment 1 where all parameters were rated as poor.
Macro invertebrate community diversity was low between RM 2.1 and 3.9, much lower than
upstream and downstream sites and on other rivers (McHenry 1991, Munn et al. 1996). At RM
2.0, stream temperatures may be consistently high enough to cause movement out of the reach
and into other areas, thereby decreasing rearing area (Table 11). In Idaho, salmon and trout
stayed in their rearing reach even if temperatures reached 24 °C as long as daily minimums were
8 -12 °C. When temperature reached the same maximum, but with 15461C daily minimums, they
0 43
*I
migrated to colder reaches (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). In addition, substantial areas of streambank
mass wasting are occurring in Segment 1 below Highway 101 where runoff from homes atop the .
ravine has been routed onto unstable ravine walls. Attempts to direct the stream away from these
areas by using riprap have further disrupted the channel and reduced rearing habitat. Due to the
lack of side channel habitats and large woody debris, winter rearing conditions are not favorable
in these segments, with the exception of Segment 2, which was rated as fair.
The higher average channel gradient of Segments 4 and 5 diminishes the rearing potential for r
species such as coho and chum salmon, but represent a higher likelihood of supporting steelhead
and cutthroat trout. Steelhead and cutthroat trout are less dependent on pool habitat for summer
and winter rearing, instead seeking shelter from winter flows in rock crevice or beneath large
substrate material (McMahon and Hartman 1989) and habitats with abundant cover (Grette 1985).
Steelhead and cutthroat trout are most often associated with smaller pools for summer rearing.
Rearing conditions for Segments 4 and 5 is rated as good based on availability of pool habitat, but
fair based on the pool frequency rating. Due to the low levels of large woody debris and the
steeper channel gradient, bedrock and boulders primarily form pools. The large woody debris
present tends to be in moderate or rotten condition, with a fairly high percentage (27 %)
constituting deciduous species (Tablel0, Appendix B). The low recruitment potential from the
riparian zone indicates a situation that will only worsen as the existing wood continues to decay
for Segment 5. The role of LWD in sediment storage and stream energy dissipation in smaller
streams has been well documented (Bilby 1984, Bisson et al. 1987, Grant et al. 1990). Poor wood
stability, and lack of key pieces in these reaches may be a causal factor for the absence and /or
shallowness of pools in downstream segments due to increased sediment transport. Habitat
conditions in Segment 6 are similar to those described for Segment 3. Wood volume over the
long term will decline as the riparian forest will not provide adequate wood.
C. Discovery Bay Watershed Planning Area
1. Salmon Creek
a. Migration Conditions
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife operated a weir just above the starting point of the
habitat survey, at RM 0.25. Originally, upstream migrating adults and smolts migrating
downstream were diverted, counted and then passed through. The facility is not currently used
for fish counting; however, it is used to collect brood stock for a summer churn supplementation
program. Fish passage is not limited by the weir or its operation. Few holding pools ( >0.5m in
depth) in segments 2 3, or 5 were found for migrating adults, which may lead to increased
mortality from predation. Minimal forest cover on segment 2 below Uncas Road, is due to
agricultural fields covering a large portion of the riparian zone_
01
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions 01
Spawning and incubating conditions are considered fair in segment 2 with relatively abundant
gravel and fine sediment. Studies have shown that elevated levels of fine sediment in spawning
gravels causes increased mortality of eggs within a redd (salmon nest) by reducing or eliminating
oxygen exchange, allowing accumulation of toxic metabolic by- products, or entombment of
emerging fry (Chapman 1988, Everest et al. 1987, Iwamoto et al. 1978). Segment 2 is the
primary spawning segment for summer chum. Segment 3 is confined with a higher gradient and
abundant cascades. Spawning opportunities are limited with relatively low percentage of gravel
44 01
U
and abundant bedrock outcrops. Cutthroat and steelhead most likely favor this segment.
Segment 5 has abundant gravel, and is utilized by coho, steelhead and cutthroat.
0
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
Historically, disturbances were relatively infrequent in Salmon Creek watershed, although
frequent enough to minimize the development of old growth forests. Natural wildfires occurred
in 1308 AD, 1508, and 1701, each time creating in the following decade a "pulse" of LWD and
sediment input into the channel (Ricketts et al. 1996). Most likely the channel was already rich in
large diameter LWD, maintaining good salmon habitat during these periods following a wildfire
disturbance. Human induced and natural fire disturbances increased between 1890 and 1940 to
14 events with a large, and most likely logging related, fire occurring in 1924. More importantly,
much of the watershed was railroad logged in the 1920's, with logging resuming in the 1980's
and 1990's. As a result of human management, the frequency of disturbances rapidly increased
over the past century. As of 1996; Salmon Creek watershed had the following forest age class
distribution (31% < 20 years, 46% 21 -80 years, 18% 81 -170 years, and 5% > 170 years, Ricketts
et al. 1996). From an ecological perspective (Spies and Franklin 1991), 77% of the watershed
was composed of young forests.
Rearing habitat conditions in Salmon Creek reflect the basin management of agriculture and
recent forest harvest. The habitat is in poor to fair condition with shallow and infrequent pools in
segments 2 and 5. The poor to fair rating for LWD recruitment potential from the riparian zone
of segment 2 and 5 (Table 14) indicates that habitat will continue to degrade in future decades.
The exception is the relatively short segment 3 (370 m) with its mixed mature conifer- deciduous
riparian forest. The portion of the channel comprising segment 2 is mostly agricultural with no
f riparian forest, or a narrow riparian zone dominated by deciduous species (Bernthal et al. 1999).
Segment 5 has mature deciduous species, which over the short-term can provide LWD, but tend
to decay rapidly and are generally less stable (Bilby 1984, Grette 1985). Without stream
restoration and creation of stable (conifer) LWD jams, the habitat for the next 50 to 100 years is
likely to continue to degrade until a mixed species or conifer dominated riparian forest reaches a
• large average diameter ( Grette 1985). This assumes a riparian forest would be planted in the near
future along the unforested portions of segment 2. The majority of LWD in segment 5 is already
rotten, its persistence considered fair to poor. Both segment 2 and 5 have a high potential for
habitat recovery, given the low channel gradient and a channel that is moderately confined to
unconfined.
D. Quilcene Bay Watershed Planning Area
1. Little Quilcene River
a. Migration Conditions
* No physical barriers are found within the lower 5.2 miles. At one time the water diversion dam at
RM 6.6 was a fish passage barrier, but it recently was retrofitted to pass salmon (l. Jablonski,
personal communication). The city of Port Townsend draws water from their diversion at RM
6.6, however stream water is not withdrawn during summer low flow periods (Bob Wheeler, Port
Townsend Department of Public Works).
10 45
13
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions
With the exception of the tidally influenced segment 1, the substrate of segments 2 to 5 are
mostly gravel and contain adequate spawning habitat (Table 17). Historical landuse information
for the Little Quilcene River is sparse. Most low - elevation, mature to old growth forests in Hood
Canal were logged between 1880 and 1940 (Amato 1996). In the early 1900's, the Otto Beck
Logging Co. harvested cedar stands between the Big and Little Quilcene (what is now the town of
Quilcene) and within the riparian zones of each river. By the 1930's, most of the Little Quilcene
had been harvested (Amato 1996). A 1932 survey of the watershed noted many logjams (likely
composed of logging slash) and six areas of beaver activity (WDF 1932). Starting in 1951 (and
for the next 20 years) the Stream Improvement Division of Washington Department of Fisheries
removed LWD, beaver dams, and other structures perceived to pose migration barriers (Amato
1996). Williams (1975) noted the channel was stable, except where channelization occurred
below RM 0.9. The channel continues to be unstable today below RM 0.9, especially near the
river mouth (R. Johnson, personal communication). Segments 2 -5 are composed mostly of
gravel, with some sand. Large woody debris removal has profoundly and negatively impacted
fish habitat and channel stability throughout Hood Canal (Amato 1996, Bernthal et al. 1999).
Given the low LWD levels (see below) scour chain studies are now needed to determine if bed
instability is a mortality factor.
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
The Little Quilcene is degraded to a greater extent than other watersheds we surveyed. Pools
were infrequent and occupied a lower percentage of the channel than in other watersheds (Tables
10, 14, 17, 20). Williams et al. (1975) described the channel below RM 6.6 as containing few
pools. Habitat quality ratings are generally fair to poor (Table 18). As described above, the lower
watershed has a long history of riparian forest harvest. LWD recruitment from the riparian forest
was not assessed, but from other surveys (Bernthal et al. 1999), the riparian zone below RM 3.0 is
dominated by young deciduous or deciduous /conifer forest, which has a poor to fair recruitment
potential. Segments 1 to 3 have agriculture or residential landuse within the riparian zone (Table
17). It appears the channel and riparian forest is not recovering from historical logging and more
recent land conversion. Given its low gradient and unconfined valley morphology, channel
restoration in terms of LWD jam placement should provide short -term improvement, with long
term recovery possible through riparian reforestation (where possible) or conversion to conifer
dominated forests.
2. Howe Creek
a. Migration Conditions
Segment 1 is relatively steep, and a barrier to chum (Table 16). This segment is not a barrier to
coho, steelhead, or cutthroat. No other barriers were found in segments 2 -7.
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions
Spawning grounds suitable for coho were scarce and concentrated to segment 6. Good spawning
potential for cutthroat was found in segments 1 and 7. Over the short term, bed stability may be
an issue given the rotten condition of LWD for all three segments. Segments 2 and 4 had high
levels of sand relative to gravel.
46 •1
i•
10
11
*
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
Segment 3 and 5 are wetlands and would provide winter rearing opportunities, especially for coho
(Table 16). Overall, Howe Creek had greater abundance of LWD than other watersheds we
surveyed. However, key pieces were abundant, which reflects the absence of deep pools >I m
(Table 17). LWD recruitment potential for all of the segments is fair to poor. In segments 6 and
7 the stream is dry during summer low flow limiting rearing to downstream segments.
Temperature may be an issue in segments 2 and 4. Segment 4 had low canopy closure, and both
segments were just downstream of wetlands that potentially contributed to the higher
temperatures. In Big Beef Creek watershed, for example, temperature impacts from water
warmed in Lake Symington (to >20 °C), extended down the Creek for about 'h to 1 mile below the
lake (PNPTC 1997 temperature monitoring data).
3. Ripley Creek
a. Migration Conditions
No barriers were found through the survey reaches.
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions
Spawning conditions were rated as fair with gravel reaches interspersed between bedrock
outcrops and cascades. Most LWD was stable, but rotten. The relative impact of bed scour or
. fines ( <0.85mm) is unknown.
I*
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
Similar to Howe Creek, LWD abundance was markedly greater than in the Little Quilcene. It
appears that the WDF Stream Improvement Division did not clear LWD from these two streams
as was done on Little Quilcene River. The pattern of low key piece abundance and the lack of
deep pools >lm also followed that of Howe Creek. While Ripley Creek has poor to fair habitat
conditions in terms of pool and LWD key piece abundance, the likelihood of LWD recruitment in
the near term is good with a fully forested mixed/mature riparian zone.
4. Big Quilcene River
a. Migration Conditions
Adult passage is limited in two areas. First is the physical barrier at RM 2.8, second is the fish
access problem during summer low flow in the lower river. The latter problem is due to a
combination of channel aggradation, past channel manipulation and diking, water withdrawal,
0 and low levels of LWD. The City of Port Townsend withdraws water at RM 9.4. The Quilcene
National Fish Hatchery has an electric weir at RM 2.8 which blocks all fish passage between
September and January. In addition, the hatchery withdraws river water at about RM 3.4 and
returns it to the channel at RM 2.8. The portion of the channel between the water intake and
outlet can be de- watered during summer low flow. This was the case during this survey; segment
40 4 was not assessed for this reason.
1* 47
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions
Until the mid 1950's, the Big Quilcene watershed was recovering from several rounds of riparian
forest harvest. Below RM 2.8, the riparian zone was intact, the channel a single thread, and pools
and LWD abundant (R. Johnson personal communication and 1957 aerial photos analysis). Since
the early 1970's, below RM 2.8, the channel has aggraded, widened and become unstable. Forest
Service roads failed and introduced a large amount of gravel into the system. A large portion of
the riparian forest on the north side of the channel (below RM 2.8) was harvested or lost to the
migrating channel. Large woody debris was removed by the Stream Improvement Division and
by local landowners (Amato 1996). A dike was built and the channel straightened (in the early
1970's) downstream of the Hwy 101 bridge that caused nearly immediate instability (R. Johnson,
personal communication). The dikes below RM 0.8 have been in place for many decades.
However, LWD volume is low and LWD large enough to be key piece size are rare (Table 17).
All these factors have added to the channel instability downstream of the hatchery. In the
Dungeness, bed scour occurred below redd depth when redds were located near dikes indicating
some level of impact on salmon egg survival (M. Reed, personal communication). Similar
negative effects may be occurring in the Big Quilcene River. Scour chain studies to assess bed
instability are being planned. The Big Quilcene Flood Management Plan (Jeffco 1998) calls for
channel restoration and dike removal to return the channel and floodplain to a functional and
;
relatively stable state.
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
Similar to the Little Quilcene, the Big Quilcene has few pools and low levels of LWD (Table 17).
Channel manipulations have frequently occurred, many times to the detriment of habitat. In
'
1957, the WDF Stream Improvement Division diked and isolated several side channels below the
hatchery (Amato 1996). In 1970, a small tributary was blocked from channelization activities
(WDF 1970). Additional diking and channelization just below the Hwy 101 bridge are described
above. Below RM 0.8, the bed has been dredged many times over the years, most recently in
1993. In 1995, a portion of the northern dike was removed, thereby allowing floodwaters and
sediment to be distributed across the floodplain. With restoration and dike removal, the potential
for channel recovery still exists. About half of the riparian forest below RM 5.0 is mature and
mixed conifer /deciduous or conifer dominated (Bernthal et al. 1999).
E. Lower Hood Canal Watershed Planning Area
1. Tahuya River
a. Migration Conditions
No barriers are found between the surveyed segment and the river mouth. See below for a
discussion of low flow conditions.
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions
i
Percent fines (<0.85mm) were rated as good at 10.5% and spawning gravel was abundant. Rapid
growth of retirement homes is occurring along the Tahuya River, and especially its tributaries. A
unique feature of Kitsap peninsula watersheds is the large number of mainstem and tributary
wetlands. The underlying geology of the Tahuya River downstream of Lake Tahuya is gravel. In
the adjacent Seabeck aquifer, the majority of single family wells withdraw water from the same
perched aquifer that recharges nearby wetlands and streamflow (PUD 1996). To protect instream
flows, the Department of Ecology has closed the Tahuya to further surface water withdrawals
48
U]
between June 15 and October 15. In the Tahuya, a number of small tributaries go dry during
summer low flow (Bernthal et al. 1999). A rapid increase in development within the basin is
almost certain to occur. If current regulations are not changed regarding single family well
exemption and development around wetlands and in the floodplain, there may be profound
impacts to fish habitat, instream flow, and channel stability in the future.
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
In general, most habitat conditions are good or fair to good. Deep pools and percent pools are
rated as good. Large woody debris volumes are certainly lower than historical conditions and key
piece density is poor (Table 22). Most pools are formed by LWD; habitat conditions and bed
stability would benefit with increased volumes of LWD. The WDF Stream Improvement
Division in 1955, 1958, and 1962 -1970 (Amato 1996) removed logjams throughout the Tahuya
River. Other permitted (and nonpermitted) removals of LWD have also occurred (HPA database
1989 - 1995). Recruitment potential from the riparian forest and water temperature is poor. The
channel is aggraded and widened in several areas throughout the survey reach, reducing the shade
provided by streamside trees. In addition the riparian forest is young (trees are not at their mature
height) and composed of a mixture of conifer and deciduous trees (Table 20). Large woody
debris recruitment potential was rated poor, with LWD volumes decreasing over the next 50 years
until the forest matures (Table 22). The Tahuya consistently exceeded the preferred rearing
salmonid temperature range (Tables 8 and 21). The high temperatures may be the result of
upstream land use that, for example, may involve riparian forest clearing and should be further
investigated. Salmon seek cold water refugia when exposed to consistently high temperatures or
when daily minimum temperatures exceed 15 °C, reducing stream productivity and rearing area
* (Bjomn and Reiser 1991). While the habitat is currently in fair to good condition, habitat
conditions will degrade until the riparian forest matures and reaches a functional size. As
described above, the habitat will degrade even further unless steps are taken to ensure
development does not significantly alter watershed processes.
2. Dewatto River
a. Migration Conditions
No barriers are found between the surveyed segment and the river mouth.
b. Spawning and Incubation Conditions
The same concerns regarding instream flow, described above for the Tahuya, also exist for the
Dewatto. The basin is less developed than the Tahuya, but is also vulnerable to impacts from
concentrated development. Segment 2 had 20.5% fines in a cobble /gravel substrate, creating poor
conditions for incubating salmon. The sediment source is not known, however storage of sand in
wetlands at segments 4, 7,and 9 is a possibility, as is logging in the basin. Sand and cobble are
M the dominant substrate, and with the exception of segment 6, gravel is subdominant. Availability
of spawning gravel is fair. Spawning conditions with the cobble /gravel substrate in segments 2
and 3 favor steelhead.
c. Summer and Winter Rearing Conditions
i Both summer and winter rearing conditions are good for coho given the extensive wetlands and
beaver ponds (winter) in segments 4, 7, and 9, and good in- channel pool habitat (summer). Deep
pools are not as common as in the Tahuya, but are greater than in other similar sized watersheds
0 49
J
(McDonald, Siebert, and Little Quilcene). The temperature site at RM 2.5 was consistently above
the preferred rearing temperature, which may encourage movement of juvenile salmonids out of
the reach to colder water areas. Riparian forest was young and composed of deciduous and
mixed/conifer species. Large woody debris recruitment potential is poor. Large woody debris
volumes will decrease over the next few decades until the surrounding forest matures enough to
contribute LWD of sufficient size to function effectively in the channel. This basin is considered
in recovery from past management, and the long -term future could be relatively bright. However,
if future development, in this basin and in other areas of Kitsap peninsula, degrades watershed 40
processes over the next few decades, then a reversal of the recovery could occur and the quality
of the habitat may diminish.
!1
01
7
L
50
0
A
1*
1•
10
19
LITERATURE CITED
Amato, C. 1996. Historical changes affecting freshwater habitat of coho salmon in the Hood
Canal Basin, pre -1850 to the present. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA. 81 p.
Bernthal, C., T. Labbe, and B. Rot. 1999. Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer
Chum habitat recovery plan. Point No Point Treaty Tribes and Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
Bilby, R.E. 1984. Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability. Journal of
Forestry. 82:609 -613.
Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward. 1989. Change is characteristics and function of woody debris with
increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of American Fisheries
Society. 118 :368 -378.
Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielsen, R.A. Palmason, and L.E. Grove. 1982. A system of naming habitat
types in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low
streamflow. Pages 62 -73 in N.B. Armatrout (ed). Acquisition and utilization of aquatic
habitat inventory information: proceedings of a symposium. Western Division American
Fisheries Society.
Bisson, P.A. and J.R. Sedell. 1984. Salmonid populations in streams in clearcut vs. old- growth
forests of western Washington. Pages 121 -129 in W.R. Meehan, T.R. Merrell, and T.A.
Hanley (eds.), Proceedings, fish and wildlife relationships in old- growth forests symposium.
American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, Asheville, NC.
Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Doloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy,
K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific
Northwest: past, present, and future. Pages 143 -190 in Salo, E.O. and T.W. Cundy (eds)
Streamside management: forest and fisheries interactions. University of Washington,
Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution no. 57. Seattle, WA.
Bisson, P.A., T.P. Quinn, G.H.Reeves, and S.V. Gregory. 1992. Best management practices,
cumulative effects, and long -term trends in fish abundance in Pacific Northwest river systems.
Pages 189 -232 in R.J. Naiman (ed.) Watershed Management: balancing sustainability and
environmental change. Springer- Veriag, New York.
Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-
138 in W.R. Meehan (ed.) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes
and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD.
Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, and E.O. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment
on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. Pages 38 -74
in Proceedings of the conference on salmon spawning gravel: a renewable resource in the
Pacific Northwest? Water Research Center Report 39. Washington State University,
Pullman, WA.
Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of
large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 117:1 -21.
Cook - Tabor, C.K. 1995. Summer chum salmon in Hood Canal. Western Washington Fishery
Resource Office, USFWS. Olympia, WA.
DWMC 1993. Dungeness River area watershed management plan. Dungeness watershed
management committee and Clallam County Department of Counnunity Development. Port
Angeles, WA.
Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Schrivener, K.V. Koski, J.R. Sedell, C.J. Cederholm. 1987.
Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. Pages 98 -142 in Salo, E.O. and T.W.
Cundy (eds) Streamside management: forest and fisheries interactions. University of
Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution no. 57. Seattle, WA.
10 51
01
Gately, G. 1995. Discovery Bay watershed water quality assessment. Jefferson County
Conservation District and Discovery Bay Watershed Management Committee. Port Hadlock,
WA.
Grette, G.B. 1985. The role of large organic debris in juvenile salmonid habitat in small streams.
Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Hartman, G.F. and J.C. Scrivener. 1990. Impact of forestry practices on a coastal stream
ecosystem, Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 223.
Iwamoto, R.N., E.O. Salo, M.A. Madej, and R.L. McComas. 1978. Sediment and water quality:
a review of the literature including a suggested approach for water quality criteria. U.S. EPA
910/9 -78 -048.
Jefferson County. 1998. Lower Big Quilcene River comprehensive flood hazard management
plan. Prepared by GeoEngineers, Cascade Environmental Services, Urban Regional Research,
Local Interagency Team agencies and tribes, and Jefferson County Department of Public
Works. Port Townsend, WA.
JS' KT 1994. Dungeness - Quilcene water resources management plan. Jamestown S' Klallam
Tribe, Sequim, WA.
King County Surface Water Management Division. 1991.
Lichatowich, J.A. 1993. The status of anadromous fish stocks in the streams of eastern Jefferson
County. Dungeness - Quilcene Pilot Project. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Sequim, WA. 95p.
.
Mayte, R. and others. 1994. Big Quilcene Watershed Analysis. US Forest Service and
Washington Department of Natural Resources.
McHenry, M.L. 1991. Effects of debris torrents on macroinvertebrate populations in tributary
basins of the Hoh River, Washington. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Technical
Report, Olympia, WA.
McHenry, M.L. 1992. Evaluation of the fishery habitat for Siebert Creek and potential impacts
from the proposed Green Pointe project. Prepared for Northwest Territories Inc. Michael
McHenry Fisheries Consulting Services, Port Angeles, WA.
McHenry, M.L., J. Lichatowich and R. Kowalski- Hagaman. 1996a. Status of Pacific salmon and
their habitats on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Department of Fisheries, Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. 240 p.
•
McHenry, M.L. 1996b. Freshwater habitat conditions affecting Strait of Juan de Fuca
populations of coho salmon (Oncor-hynchas kisutch). Report to the Pacific Fisheries
Management Council. Department of Fisheries, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles,
WA. 46 p.
McMahon, T.E. and Hartman. 1989. Influence of cover complexity and current velocity on
winter habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 46:1551 -1557.
Munn, M.D., M.L. McHenry, and V. Sampson. 1996 Benthic macroinvertebrate communities in
the Elwha River basin, 1994 -1995. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report, Water
Resources Division. No. 96 -588. Tacoma, WA.
Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.E. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, M.D.
Oconnor, P.L. Olson, and E.A. Steel. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy
watersheds in the Pacific Northwest Ecoregion. Pages 127 -188 in R.J. Naiman (ed.),
Watershed Management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer -
Verlag, New York.
Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1992. Pacific salmon at the crossroads:
Stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4 -20.
Nickelson, T.E., J.D. Rodgers, S.L. Johnson and M.F. Solazzi. 1992. Seasonal changes in
habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon streams. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 39:783 -789.
52 01
I•
Peterson, N.P., A. Henedry, and T.P. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on
salmonid habitat: some suggested parameters and target conditions. Timber, Fish, and
Wildlife, TFW -F3 -92 -001. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA.
PSCRBT. 1991a. Dungeness River area watershed. Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin
Team, Lacey, WA. 132 p. plus appendices.
PSCRBT. 1991b. Lower Hood Canal watershed. Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team,
Lacey, WA. 91 p. plus appendices.
PSCRBT. 1992. Discovery Bay watershed. Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team, Lacey,
WA. 181 p. plus appendices.
PSWQA 1994. 1994 Puget Sound water quality management plan. Puget Sound water quality
authority, Olympia, WA. 272 p.
Ralph, S.C. 1990. Stream ambient monitoring manual. Timber, Fish, and Wildlife, TFW -16E-
90 -004. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ralph, S.C., G.C. Poole, L.L. Conquest, and R.J. Naiman. 1993. Stream channel conditions and
in- stream habitat in logged and unlogged basins of western Washington. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
Reid, L.M. 1981. Sediment production from gravel- surfaced roads, Clearwater Basin,
Washington. Master Thesis, Department of Geology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ricketts, S. and others. 1996. Snow Creek and Salmon Creek watershed analysis. USDA Forest
Service, Olympic National Forest, Quilcene Ranger District, Quilcene, WA. 136 p.
Rubida, P. 1989. Jefferson County ambient water quality report. Jefferson County Planning and
Building Department. Port Townsend, WA.
Schuett- Hames, D., A. Pleus, L. Bullchild, S. Hall. 1994. Ambient Monitoring Program Manual.
Timber, Fish, and Wildlife, TFW- AM9 -94 -001. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
•
Olympia, WA.
Sedell, J.R. and K.J. Luchessa. 1982. Using the historical record as an aid to salmonid habitat
enhancement. Pages 210 -223 in N.B. Armatrout (ed), Acquisition and utilization of aquatic
habitat inventory information. American Fisheries Society Western Division, Bethesda, MD.
Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1991. The structure, of natural young, mature, and old- growth
Douglas -fir forests in Oregon and Washington. Pages 91 -110 in L.F. Ruggiero and others (ed)
Wildlife and vegetation of unmanged Douglas -fir forests. USDA Pacific Northwest Research
Station, PNW -GTR -285.
Tabor, R.A., E.E. Knudsen, S. Hager, and M. Ereth. 1993. 1992 initial supplementation
investigations for naturally spawning Hood Canal coho salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Point No Point Treaty Council- Skokomish Fisheries Office.
w
Tabor, R.W. and W.M. Cady. 1978. Geologic map of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington: U.S.
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I -994, 2 sheets, scale 1:125,000.
WDF. 1932. Unpublished stream surveys, Washington Department of Fisheries. Washington
State Archives, Olympia, WA.
WDF. 1970. Washington Department of Fisheries annual report. Olympia, WA.
WDF et al. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Washington
Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, Western Washington Treaty
Indian Tribes. Olympia, WA. 212 p.
WDFW and Western Washington Treaty Tribes. 1994 1992 Washington State salmon and
steelhead stock inventory, Appendix One. Puget Sound stocks, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan
de Fuca volume. Olympia, WA.
•
Welch, J.L. and B. Banks. 1987. Quilcene /Dabob Bay water quality project. Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department. Port Townsend, WA. 50 p.
WFPB 1997. Standard methodology for conducting watershed analysis, version 4.0. Washington
Forest Practices Board. Olympia, WA.
0
53
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon
utilization. Puget Sound, Volume 1. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.
Wilson, S.J. 1989. Eastern Clallam County water quality project. Clallam Conservation District,
Port Angeles, WA.
A
*I
•I
it
54 01
1•
Appendix A. Maps of Study Streams
I•
I•
is
I*
10
10 55
Point No Paint Treaty Council
Ambient Monitoring Project
Appendix Figure 1
If
O
Lazy J
0
PQ
t c�
Old Olympic Highway
Popp
Heuhslein Rd.
'A-
3
R Corner
101
3
Se9'uirri
t
es
i
_ .- ._..........
_..... .. Irvin Jacobs Rd.
Rebel Lane
AOP*
o
'
s
K
ail Run ,, _
..
Appendix Figure 1
Siebert Cr. Main Roads % Watercourse
Unimproved Roads
Qwrr W.t{G
— jel y J -lr- -A - (Cyr& uc }
01
•I
•1
rl
!I
*I
01
01
01
•I
01
If
O
0
PQ
fcq 3
Siebert Cr. Main Roads % Watercourse
Unimproved Roads
Qwrr W.t{G
— jel y J -lr- -A - (Cyr& uc }
01
•I
•1
rl
!I
*I
01
01
01
•I
01
0
•
0
r
0
0
•
Point No Point Treaty Council
Ambient Monitoring Project
R Corner
Port
Angeles
I� t
Goa Rd.
Appendix Figure 2
Of
Cameron Road
b
� E
a
0
A
Old Olympic Highway
v
cc
y �
0
.a
*ft- U
Road
Ao
�et1n
es
Lost Mountain
J-1
0
v°
McDonald Cr. Main Roads Watercourse
Unimproved Roads
b
c�
0
0
U
I01
•v
m
P4
U
R
q
m
m
C)
. 9'A
4
tai
a'
o
Appendix Figure 2
Of
Cameron Road
b
� E
a
0
A
Old Olympic Highway
v
cc
y �
0
.a
*ft- U
Road
Ao
�et1n
es
Lost Mountain
J-1
0
v°
McDonald Cr. Main Roads Watercourse
Unimproved Roads
b
c�
0
0
U
I01
Appendix Figure 3
Point No Point Treaty Council
Ambient Monitoring Project
O eel
a1fi`o�
5 3
dc�s'
2850
Snow Creek Road
west U"—
Road la
Salmon Creek
u1 Y` 3
z
East Uncas
Road
Pope Resources Road
'94%.
fop �o
ad
l0I
G
Hood Canal
Bridge
1a1
CIO
Salmon Cr. Main Roads Watercourse
Unimproved Roads
• l 04 V" t+.J
0
•
•
•
0
•
0
0
�I
0
0
I•
10
0
is
I•
1•
CM
10
I•
1`
Part No Point Treaty Council.
Ambient Monitoring Project
0 101
Lords Lake Loop Road
fees
-3
�r
L" ' Z
lei ,
. L
let s
Little Quilcene River 5y
q�
coo
0
3
n �
K
�s L .
f E. Quilcene Rd.
feg
Quilcene
..............
101 Quag
Appendix Figure 4
Little Quilcene R. Main Roads Watercourse /\
Howe Creek
Ripley Cr ek Unimproved Roads
Point No Point Treaty Council
Ambient Monitoring Project
A.
2620 Rainbow
Campground
101
Main Roads Watercourse
Appendix Figure 5 Big Qullcene R. uni�roved Roads
s
.
•
0
.
.1
0
.
0
Quilcene,
e�
Crate
k43
k s
USFW
Fish Hatchery
t
i
cal
ca�
A q'
Mt. Walker
a
0
A.
2620 Rainbow
Campground
101
Main Roads Watercourse
Appendix Figure 5 Big Qullcene R. uni�roved Roads
s
.
•
0
.
.1
0
.
0
1•
I•
10
1•
Is
10
[M
10
1•
10
Point No Point 'treaty Council
Ambient Monitoring Project
Holly
IQV
^cr J o` / "
m4 3
.anv!
�O
/I
leq
Dewatto Bay
li ?
Tahuya R.
if
, -"
g�
Appendix Figure 6
Dewatto R. Main Roads %%—i Watercourse
Unimproved Roads ,, ,.•.
V L/ 11a r" w
Point No Point Treaty Council
Ambient Monitoring Project
Elfendahl Pass Road
Dewatto
Bay Road Howell
Lake
Appendix Figure 7
f
S�
V
Maggie
Lake � .<
Jiggs
Lake
<c, o 'ce
Tahuya River Main Roads Watercourse
Unimproved Roads
.. r- r.. �
- S-1 a ki - --q- Nee, 4dM4)
0
•
•
s
•
•I
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
Appendix Figure 8
•
0
Paint No Point Treaty Council
Ambient Monitoring Project
sq,-
`1
W
v1
feq
@tip 300
,A .onF.' -:= :iii;:- ''flni:fii +•`iiiS:: %.
�9py
F
V
yr•:
V
} }:yam: • : :) :: _ -
" - - - •i: :F :vSf -i +: )rye: ��;!y�v:
{
.............
Tahuya R. Main Roads Watercourse
Unimproved Roads,,•.
Appendix B. Large Woody Debris Condition (Percentage of Volume) by Species Class:
64
•I
•1
i
7
7
*I
01
11
01
01
Conifer
Deciduous
Unknown
Stream
Seg.
Rotten
Moderate
Solid
Rotten
Moderate
Solid
rotten
total vol.
Big Quilcene
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
Big Quilcene
2
0.27
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.65
0.00
17.7
Big Quilcene
3
0.10
0.08
0.49
0.02
0.05
0.26
0.00
57.1
Big Quilcene
5
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.80
0.07
0.05
0.00
8.8
Dewatto
2
0.09
0.55
0.00
0.07
0.14
0.00
0.15
18.8
Dewatto
3
0.12
0.63
0.01
0.13
0.11
0.00
0.01
36.3
Dewatto
5
0.16
0.74
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.02
175.4
Dewatto
6
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.26
0.24
0.00
0.38
9
Dewatto
8
0.60
0.28
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.06
182.4
Dewatto
10
0.56
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.02
91.1
Howe
1
0.81
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.09
0.00
172
Howe
2
0.39
0.03
0.26
0.08
0.04
0.19
0.01
53.3
Howe
4
0.27
0.11
0.34
0.11
0.02
0.08
0.06
84.1
Howe
6
0.05
0.13
0.00
0.17
0.04
0.00
0.61
39.1
Howe
7
0.05
0.06
0.00
0.09
0.23
0.05
0.52
45.6
Little Quilcene
1
0.00
0.27
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.4
Little Quilcene
2
0.07
0.26
0.11
0.01
0.07
0.48
0.00
47.9
Little Quilcene
3
0.00
0.07
0.24
0.00
0.25
0.43
0.00
68.3
Little Quilcene
4
0.09
0.40
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.42
0.00
86.5
Little Quilcene
5
0.04
0.52
0.00
0:00
0.33
0.11
0.00
39
McDonald
1
0.20
0.09
0.15
0.11
0.08
0.25
0.12
322.5
McDonald
2
0.05
0.00
0.65
0.03
0.00
0.18
0.10
93.8
McDonald
3
0.22
0.03
0.24
0.06
0.02
0.31
0.13
197.4
McDonald
4
0.56
0.20
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.10
61.7
McDonald
5
0.36
0.21
0.01
0.02
0.23
0.02
0.15
52.4
McDonald
6
0.66
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.22
38.2
Ripley
1
0.40
0.05
0.01
0.18
0.17
0.12
0.07
120.2
Salmon
2
0.04
0.82
0.00
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.00
166.3
Salmon
3
0.88
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
164.5
Salmon
5
0.39
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.19
0.05
0.29
212.7
Salmon
1
0.09
0.00
0.45
0.04
0.01
0.34
0.06
265.7
Salmon
2
0.14
0.00
0.74
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.00
353.8
Salmon
3
0.45
0.42
0.00
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.00
221.3
Tahuya
9
0.11
0.39
0.00
0.04
0.38
0.00
0.08
566.8
total %
0.27
0.21
0.16
0.05
011
0.12
0.08
4074.1
64
•I
•1
i
7
7
*I
01
11
01
01
�•
• Appendix C. Large Woody Debris Location (Percentage of Volume by Zone).
I0
1•
1•
I•
1•
1•
U.
U
Stream
Segment
Total Vol
m_3
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Howe Creek
1
172.00
0.22
0.25
0.31
0.21
Howe Creek
2
53.90
0.37
0.17
0.22
0.22
Howe Creek
4
84.10
0.34
0.16
0.20
0.31
Howe Creek
6
39.10
0.72
0.09
0.02
1 0.14
Howe Creek
7
45.60
0.23
0.30
0.13
0.32
McDonald Creek
3
28.20
0.03
0.30
0.35
0.31
McDonald Creek
4
61.70
0.08
0.27
0.30
0.33
McDonald Creek
5
52.40
0.06
0.16
0.41
0.37
McDonald Creek
6
40.00
0.06
0.27
0.34
0.33
Ripley Creek
1
120.20
0.17
0.16
0.24
0.43
Salmon Creek
3
164.50
0.09
0.08
0.22
j 0.60
Salmon Creek
5
213.30
0.32
0.18
0.14
1 0.37
Dewatto River
2
18.90
0.29
0.49
0.20
0.03
Dewatto River
3
36.30
0.41
0.31
0.28
0.00
Dewatto River
5
175.40
0.64
0.27
0.09
0.00
Dewatto River
6
9.00
0.64
0.30
0.03
0.00
Dewatto River
8
182.40
0.48
0.34
0.19
0.00
Dewatto River
10
91.10
0.59
0.12
0.16
0.12
Siebert Creek
3
221.30
0.07
0.66
0.17
0.09
Tahuya River
91
589.80
0.32
0.59
0.05
1 0.04
• 65
to
Qn
Qn
_N
ai
"a
N
cn
.-r
a)
z
U
O
c�3
v
Q
Q
s~
N
O I� N o a0 00 O (`� 00 N O toot � toot o� o O o row toot oW N N N
N r r 07 N r N N V N N r r N N N N r N r N N N
M to O Cn O O r` w N O O h 7 m CO CD M m O H O N to f`
M Lf N CND In CM7 N d0' dam' M N N rl M pl M N r, N Mt N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N r N r r r r— r r — r r
e e e \o \ \o e e e \0 \ \o e e \o a \0 \0 \ e \o e \ \0
aO O 1 N ' (D QO N toot N N N o N O 00 f� OD o-I o ! toot toot CD
r r N N r r N V N N N r r N r r r r N r r r r
i # # k k 4 M • • x • t k 4 M # • 4 X k t k k .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r (p O M M r N r N M O N r r N r r r r r r r r r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\0 \0 \0 \ \o \o \o \o \o \ \o \o \0 \ \ \0 \ \0 a \o \o
0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO O M tot O � O CO to CC) r� h r` tot r- It N O au (D (D M It M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cot CD N O O r r O r c} r r tot N to M CD r (n r tot c2 tot r
r r r r r r N N r r r r r r r r r r N r r r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn c2 ao r to r` M t2 to ao T v M n M m 0 r` r- m
r r r N r N N N r r r r �- r N N N N N N N r r r
a c o_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N CO M M O M O N N M N N N N M N O N N N C9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 CO 0
M O CD O O O O O O O O N O �t O O O O N O N O
r r r r r r r N r
F- m m H m m !- m m !- m m E- m H F- m m H m m H m m
r N M 7 ti7 O t` M O O T M O T CD O O N M 't
r N N N N N
M M M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M M 0 M M M M M
O O CA O CA m lot O O O m 0 lot tT lT O O CA CA O M 0 0 0
a a a a a a a a -a a a a a a a a a as a s -o a s
ro -Ft _7Z -ca m ro m ro 5 ro� 78 75 ca 6 'FO ro ro
F 76 m m
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
•i
ol
•
A
A
• I
• I
•1
0'
01
I•
•
•
I•
I•
I•
10
I•
I •
10
10
m 0 (D ap LO n m r m 1" N N r O (O � It
N r r r V r N N N N N N N N r r N
N m r- M O� W M W M A W ;; M M M M
O) (O N (O (O f� N CD co M c0 [F (o O (fl LA M O)
M 0 h 0 M m M M m C7 N m m C7 m co m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N A N e M e e a M e 4 e 4 e O O N n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co r N O N N (O -- O O v (O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V' aD N U') (O In r 00 7 r 0 r N 'IT (O O �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N aD M M m N C2 LO O A O2 O O O c7 (n
r r «) r r r r N r r r r r r r r
e \ \o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r N O 0 0'o N N N N C7 N N N O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(4 (O O (O O (� m O 07 N N O) V (O N N N
� r N N d' r () r N �- N +- t (7 N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O N O 0 0 O O O O O Q) CO
N r r r
F-- M m m F- M M F- m m F M M F- CD CD M
U m J U J U m J U J U Er J U CC -1
r N M t to (o r O m r r �2 T u (2 T T2
r
Q1 O) O d) O) Q) O) O Q7 O) O) O) d) O) O) O Q)
r r r r r rt: -r_ t r r
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n .fl n n
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
> o
.2 LO OD
o °_
0 0 0 0 m v W ap d' O d' m r m ;t W W N
V *-- r ,- r N N r �- N N N� N r r r N N r r
� o
U
Y J W M W cn W n v_ W to m _W W m W't � m W N
m CD O r N W N 7 W f� n W O w� O b0 m 0
'O O f� r m d_ C'M O CD N CO W m� m m m CD W CO W Cl CD Cl!
C J m m m m m "t m m CO CO Cl) Cl) Cl) M Cl) N M Cl) C7 Cl) C9 M m
O
co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N r Cn W m W W O M 0 m r N CD r r n N W M N
r r r r N r r r
O
V
W o 0 0 0 0 0 0
N CO C O r r r O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O r r r r r N O O r r O r r O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O <t V
W MIt M m M r M W d' m V N N N n m N r
N
Co
\ \ \° \° \ \ \ \ \ \° \° \° \ \° \° \° \° \ \° \° \° \°
O o 0 0 CO 0 Cl) 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 C 0 Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
O � M N O O� r N N. m It N A V' M O to a 7 N
M r r
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C) r r O r O O r O r r r M r r r O r r m r r N r
W
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Mr- Co r mIt WM M (D m CD CO m h N n W r-
p r r r
Eo b O O o b o o O o o c o o O O O b b O O O b O o
00 W V It h m O r� CO (p (p V O W It W h M W W CD h m O
> N r r
N
(D \° \ \ \ \ \° \° \° \° \° \
M W ° d0 V m O) t co °W 't O m w t°n fl, W w O C I- t°- O M M W°
O M N N r r N N N r r r N r N r r r N r r r CV
a m
E
n
Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Cpn V d0' C 7 N M C^7 'It C^7 0 M Cl) m °O ^ W m N N N W N N N
m r r r r r
E
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E N (O (O M M M CO m N N N cr) co . M CO r N N M W CN'7 N N N
O r r r r
a
o 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c°n iD °0 0 0 0 C. 0
CIS LO r r r
m
°o mrmi- mm�mmmmE -mF- mom¢¢¢¢¢¢ ¢a
J CC U J U U J J U Ir U CC U Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Z f N m,t Lo m r- W m r r N Mq- m (D r- W m r r
CT
N W W M N M LO Cn M CO Cn M to N N N N N N N N N N N N
Cn
ro V It <t V d" d' � 7 V Cn M M CO W m m N M W 0 W
O m m m O m m m O m m m m m m m m m m m O m m m m
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
E v =� N % M r
E
c m ro m m co ro ro m m ro ro ro ro ro m m ro ro ro m ro ro ro ro
ro 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ in in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
•I
•
•
7
•I
00 • I
•I
01
J
• I
J
I•
•
G
•
•
L
I•
I!
1•
I •
10
0 \ \ \ \ \ \ o \ o \ \o
o C 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0
�0�rD rT 2�rTrT
N N
O O co r- h r-t N N 11, M N m M
(h O N O N f- of N
M M C7 M M C7 M M N M M N M
e e \o a \0 \0 e \ \ \ \0 \ \ e
M It N M CD M- It It M N N CD N
e \ \o \ \ \o e \ \o \ \o \o \ e
r M N N N .o- O N N N +-- N
r CD W C0O * N o't O C0O N M d 7 M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
M 00 V M f� O CO O M CO M M
.- U1 N r r LO r r .0- 0 0 r r 0
N *- CO M CD O O) O N N M M
0 0 0 0 0 0 C C o r o 0 0 CO V' t- N It f� O c0 O CO N CO CO
0 0 o 0 0 co N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0
N N N N N O r r
0 0 \o \0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD O) 7 0 M O> O M O I-- N U) aD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T M a0 M O N t� O M O N h M
N M N co N N V V � Cl) N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O N t� (O O O CD O (O O O O O
m M O M m [o 0o m M M M m O
r r U7 U) CO * N (D CO d' N CO U7 N
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
ro m m �o m m ro F m ro m w m m
O\
o,00,000„o,o
N m N N m r 0 r m m N ^ N
r` r` coo d' r` � (D h N N O
M C'! r- N r m c'! "t m 00 O t`
M N M M M N Cl) Cl) N CV m N M
N N O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M N '7 O O M V O N O
M N d' O n N r O It M CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� N M N (O (O M N CO
\o \° \ \° \o
r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \o
r CO O n M N r r r r c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO N Q3 O O N M Ln
N N N N N N M M N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M M LO O ct N N CO co M O O- to
M M MM d' N N N V M CO N
C2 0 0 r ,- .- 0 0 r O O (2 N m
N r r
m M U M m U M m m m U OmC
N M I in m N m m° r N T
M M M M m m m M M M M M
m m M m M M M m m m m M
ro ro ro ro ro ro m ro ro ro ro ro ro
W
•
•I
•1
O • I
•I
•I
G
O
y
u
N
m
— v
y
w
d CO ai
U M
C m
>
m
o m
r
a� o
ai p
co o
�' m > " w
.
W
4 ° z
cn a
•I
i•
is
I*
I*
10
is
19
U
G
U
Appendix E. Pool Forming Factors.
Stream
Seg
Total
Number
of Pools
Artificial
Bank
Protection
Beaver
Dam
Bedform
Bedrock
Outcrop
Debris
Jam
Logs
Other
Rock or
Boulders
Roots of
Standing
Tree
Scour
Assoc w/
Resistant
Bank
Dewatto River
2
7
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
3
0
Dewatto River
3 1
6
0
0
1
0
0
1 1
0
2
2
0
Dewatto River
5
93
0
3
0
0
7
14
5
0
62
2
Dewatto River
6
33
0
10
3
0
3
10
0
0
3
4
Dewatto River
8
49
0
0
2
0
26
13
0
0
7
1
Dewatto River
10
19
1
1
0
0
8
6
2
0
1
0
Howe Creek
1
39
0
1
0
0
10
11
8
6
2
1
Howe Creek
2
18
0
2
0
0
4
6
3
0
1
2
Howe Creek
4
55
0
4
0
0
8
24
4
1
6
8
Howe Creek
6
26
0
0
1
0
3
10
1
0
4
7
Howe Creek
7
65
0
0
1
0
5
25
2
6
16
10
McDonald Creek
3
29
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
15
7
0
McDonald Creek
4
101
0
0
11
55
0
7
2
25
1
0
McDonald Creek
5
1 55
0
0
2
13
2
11
2
21
4
0
McDonald Creek
6
1 41
0
0
4
1
0
12
1
19
4
0
Ripley Creek
1
1 58
0
0
0
5
14
16
0
6
6
11
Salmon Creek
3
1 26
0
0
0
0
6
3
0
13
3
1
Salmon Creek
5
121
0
1
1
0
16
64
9
4
9
17
Siebert Creek
3
150
0
0
47
0
14
8
1
74
4
2
Tahu a River
9
177
1
11
13
0
34
30
15
1
48
24
Total
1168
16 71
Appendix F. Substrate at Bed Surface Based on Visual Examination.
Stream
Seg
Silt/Mud
Sand
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
Total Area (m2)
%
Big Quilcene River
1
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
3,465
2
0%
11%
89 %
0%
0%
0%
9,678
3
0%
20 %°
80%
0%
0%
0%
19,363
5
0%
420
58%
0%
0%
0%
706
Big Quilcene River Total
0%
16%
84%
0%
0%
0%
33,212
Dewatto River
2
0%
0%
15%
85%
0%
0%
1,821
3
0%
0%
31%
64%
0%
5%
3,404
5
2%
48%
43%
4%
0%
3%
7,763
6
1%
40%
59%
0%
0%
0%
2,389
8
00/0
61%
39%
0%
00/0
0%
3,427
10
8%
88%
2%
2%
0%
0%
920
Dewatto River Total
1 %°
38%
38 %°
21%
00/.
2%
19,722
Howe Creek
1
5%
27%
47%
9%
13%
1%
4,835
2
1%
62%
37%
0%
0%
0%
814
4
4%
34%
62%
0%
0%
0%
2,739
5
1%
6% _
93%
0%
0%
0%
886
7
0%
4%
95%
0%
0 %.
0%
2,092
Howe Creek Total
3%
25%
62%
4%
5%
0%
11,366
Little Quilcene River
1
0%
54%
46%
0%
0%
0%
1,483
2
6%
20%
73%
1%
00/0
0%
10,776
3
5%
17%
79%
0%
0%
0%
6,157
4
0%
14%
85%
0%
0 %°
0%
9,671
5
01/0
8%
92%
0%
00/6
0%
5,183
Little Quilcene River Total
3%
17%
79%
00/0
00/0
0%
33,269
McDonald Creek
1
0%
36%
63 %°
1%
0%
0%
11,281
2
00%
45%
55%
0%
0%
0%
4,883
3
0%
33%
52%
4%
9%
2%
9,604
4
0%
3%
9%
2%
7%
79%
5,880
5
0%
15%
49%
9%
1 %
26%
2,948
6
0%
6 %°
76%
11%
4%
3%
2,113
McDonald Creek Total
0%
28%
50%
3%
4%
15%
36,710
Ripley Creek
1
0%
25%
47%
15%
0%
13%
811
Ripley Creek Total
0%
25%
47%
15%
0%
13%
811
Salmon Creek
2
0%
24%
75%
0%
1%
1%
5,997
3
0%
7%
47%
14%
0%
32%
767
5
4%
7%
85%
3%
00/6
1%
4,812
Salmon Creek Total
2%
16%
77%
2%
0%
3%
11,577
Siebert Creek
1
0%
42%
58%
0%
0%
0%
21,124
2
00/6
31%
67%
2%
0%
0%
12,988
3
0%
16%
7%
29%
24%
24%
8,813
Siebert Creek Total
0%
33%
50%
7%
5%
5%
42,924
Tahuya River
9
0%
14%
79%
6%
0%
0%
40,350
Tahuya River Total
0%
14%
79%
6%
0%
0%
40,350
•i
•1
*I
A
01
•I
91
*I
•1
01
72 01
I•
Appendix G. Thermograph Results for Siebert, McDonald, Tahuya, and Dewatto Watersheds.
Siebert Creek Air and Water Temperature
1992 -1993
I*
I*
0 73
28
Site 1 (water), RM 0.1
Siebert Creek
26
Site 3 (air)
t Site 2, RM 1.5
24
Canopy Closure:
t
22
.g
X16
�' i,
` 1i� .E,•5 F ;
.F ,:
t ?} qt
`�lr [•'�
EE � jt�# tF l S S {{ 1 t1: t.
,_�
_ tipLE•
?: i
r it i 'f ^r
u514
w
��rt�- y1� 1� �•1_; _,
E
?-12
10--
�= fE 1` : "• `: ii t is
i E
6
4
t I
8/3/93 817/93
8/10/93 8/14/93 8/17/93 8/21/93 8/24/93 8/28/93
8/4/93 8/8/93 8/11/93 8/15/93 8/18193 8/22/93 8/25/93 8/29/93
26 T
Siebert Creek
Siebert Creek
26
t
Site 3, RM 2.6
Site 4, RM 9.4
24
-j
t
1 i
CO 22
.Fn 20
�:'r
i
18
•I
�
: l
4 ' `
t y 1 S
` ` '�
41
^f L, * tr. _.1�Y;
.�F L _ Q 'k E l a � E.r• _ �n J.
12--
Lj
910
9z
6
4
8/3/93 817/93
8/11/93 8/15/93 8/19/93 8/23193 8/26/93 8/30/93
8/3/93 817/93 8/10/93 8/13/93 8/17/93 8/20/93 8/24/93 8/27/93 8/31/9:
I*
I*
0 73
McDonald Creek Air and Water Temperature
1993
28 oe._ w41_ "— " I
26
24
-22
20
818
X16
14
g12
X10
8
6
4
co CO Co M M m M M m Co M M ei
o rn rn r rn coo � 00 m rn i
CO CO Q CO rn n rn rn rn rn Cc" m rn crn o CO o m m rn
• y l
C') m Cr) CO C') C> CO CO CO C7 C9 C7 M C7 M
rn rn rn M M Q M rn rn a� rn rn rn rn rn rn
T 9 9
N� co m rn M� � rn O a� co co 0
00 OD 00 0 w 00 OD 00
28
S i to M2a, RM 43
Site Mlb, RM 2.6
26
t
°t
Canopy Closure: 85%
,3
26--
Canopy Closure: 81%
Cn
a 20
18
f 5
• y l
C') m Cr) CO C') C> CO CO CO C7 C9 C7 M C7 M
rn rn rn M M Q M rn rn a� rn rn rn rn rn rn
T 9 9
N� co m rn M� � rn O a� co co 0
00 OD 00 0 w 00 OD 00
28
S i to M2a, RM 43
26
t
Site MSa, RM 8.3
S i to M3a, RM 7.0
26--
Canopy Closure: 81%
Cn
a 20
18
f 5
a)
Canopy Closurt: 82%
24
16
14-
€;€
1 1 _ _ r�
12
F
10
X22
' '
4;
8
•
�i �€ �•
t
6r
6
4,
CO
w W w
LO O
r \ r r N
N
N N N
W
N C�
ob
14 -
12 1'
E, a
i
10
'3.
1 9
1 . 3,
.Vj 'g
+`. ft
•i •1
{3•
€ 1
9
�6°
€' i ICE �'
3 _ € `�°
S
t i
tl
S Ott I e• e•�
t
`
j
6
4
I
0
C7 CO CO
co CO m M Cl CO co
CO
Co
Co
M M
rn rn
CO M
rn rn
M M
rn rn
M M CO C9 m
rn rn rn rn rn
M CO M M M co
rn rn rn
rn
a;
rn rn rn
7��
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
a s L it r
m
m
rn
r a
rn rn rn
o r
c\
w w M
oD ,- ,-- •-- •- N
�CCJ
N
N
N
0C° aD
CO a0
_�
00 a0
C CO
h
ap dCl aCl � CD
OC°
00
dp
a0
28
26
t
Site MSa, RM 8.3
(n 24
22
Canopy Closure: 91%
Cn
a 20
18
f 5
a)
16
14-
€;€
1 1 _ _ r�
12
10
' '
4;
8
•
�i �€ �•
t
6r
6
4,
CO
w W w
LO O
r \ r r N
N
N N N
W
N C�
ob
S i to M7a, RM 9.8
Canopy Closure: 97%
:1
t
7, :717:
e.
C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 M C'7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C'1 C'7 C7
8i C7 u7 C 5 00 O
/4
•I
•1
7
A
•I
•1
• I
•1
01
*I
•1
I•
I•
�0
�0
I0
10
10
10
10
10
Tahuya River Air and Water Temperature
1994 -1995
28
Site 7'la, RM 0.1, little T ?huya River
26
N
1994 ��
^
24--
f
E
3 AvoCanoq Cl'r,ure` 78�7b
22--
20
3
A
k t b
i
U 18
10--
8
6
4
v v
rn rn
v
rn
v v cr v v v v v
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
v�
rn rn
v v
rn rn
a m
F
a
N
a M 4 a(0 izz M
N N N N N N N N
a a
28 Site T3a, ",7.4 '
24 i 19 ?,4
22 ' ; F ' g anqPY G1oske: $0%
20
U 18 '
-F' -- ---- - - - -6- - aJ-- I- •-- sd- s�. -T� -� - -'t
~ 12
' • ck � 'e ; � 4' t I
10
8
6
4�
rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn T rng! T rn rn rn
m rn o a m 4 LO m n M M o
izz N N N N N N aD
T
28
26 Site T4a, RM 1.0
24 1995
22 Avg Canopy Closure: N/A
20
18
16
14 - -- -
12
10
8
6
4
M M M M kn kn kn 0 LO U) kn LO M kn kn In kn kn kn In to M kn M M LO kn kn 0 M
rn M M M M M M M M M M M M M rn rn rn rn M rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn Q rn
c\ v <\o m o cv v co rn m kn r N v co m- r co kn r rn a i� 4 co M
12 a0 c0 co W a0 a0 a0 (\ co CO
' Site T2a, RM.' .3 R
1994
t AVAcgnw,"i 60"rL: 47%
• � e i •' 4F � '� . 1 t
�r
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
o rn o co v kn co n o rn a
N N N N N N N N N M Cam.
n r� n n � t� r� n n r� r� n rz
A 75
Dewatto River Air and Water Temperature
1994-1995
32--
Site Dla, RM 1.5,1994
30--
Avj Canopy Closure: 59%
28
26-1
24
22
20
16
14
-
... ...
12--
P V,
r
10--
8
6
4
g
CQ
!R (D
— t2 —
:7 N N N N N Q2
00 OD
�6 —
w W tD w W M
32-- Site D3a, RM 0.6,1995
30-- Avg Canopy Closure: N/A
28--
cn 26 --
2 24
Fn
20
X18
16 A A
14
912--
FT 10 --
8 +
4 1
61
OLOLOLOLOOOMOOOLOOOO
Q M M M, M rn M g 1rn g w M M
co 1-5 id
w w M M w co co
Site D2a, RM 2.5,1994
Avg Canopy Closure: 72%
k
L
k
U
It d 'IT It d Nt It It I;t �* It 'T I�t I�t 14, �*
S j -�z g, 1R? R -
LO CY) 0 — a 4
a0 a0 a0 c0 00 OD OD
Oil
Site D4a, RM 1.9,1995
AvgCanopy Closure: N/A
M M M LO In M M LO LO 0 LO W 0 0
�
M w 00
Go
r, CC) M M w M 00 ic��O
•I
•I
•I
•I
•
•1
A
•I
01
I•
�0
�0
�0
19
10
10
(0
Appendix H. Macroinvertebrate Site Information.
Sample
number
Seg
Ref
Pt
River
mile
Substrate
Vegetation
Velocity
Date
Comments
McDonald 1
1
2
0.1
60 %cobble
no leaves, fine
detritus
cascade
10/6/94
2
2
3
4.2
50 %cobble
alder Ivs, cedar
slow
10/6/94
substrate compact
3
1
25
1.7
70 %cobble
alder Ivs, twigs
?
10/7/94
4
1
33
2.1
50% cobble
alder, misc
deciduous
slow
10/7/94
5
1
35
2.3
90% gravel
small detritus
fast
10/6/93
narrow spot,
gravel /cobble clean
6
1
68
3.9
40% cobble
alder, conifer
needles
10/7/94
cobble clean
Siebert 1
1
0
0.1
60 %cobble
fine detritus, Ivs,
fast
10/4/93
2
1
12
0.9
no data
?
10/4/94
3
1
13
0.8
90% gravel
fine detritus,
sediment
fast
10/5/94
below cattle access,
wide RC, packed hard
4
1
14
1
60 %cobble
fine detritus,
smallsed
slow
10/5/94
50 m above cattle
access
5
1
24
1.5
70 %gravel
alder Ivs, twigs,
sed
slow
10/5/94
mass wasting on LB;
75 meter upstream 101
bridge
6
1
44
2.5
90% gravee
alder Ivs, some sed
fast
10/5/94
mass wasting 25 m
upstream
7
1
52
2.6
50% gravel
fine detritus, lots
sed
10/4/93
8
2
2
3.5
70% cobble
conifer needles
?
9/30/94
9
2
9
3.9
50% gravel
?
9/30/94
Tahuya 1
9
5
4.1
no data
fine detritus
?
9/30/94
2
9
5
4.1
50 %cobble
algae, sm maple
Ivs
?
10/3/94
3
9
6
4.1
no data
fine detritus, algae
?
10/3/94
4
9
40
6.5
80 %gravel
fine detritus, twigs,
alder Ivs
?
9/28/94
5
9
66
7.2'70
%cobble
Alder Ivs, alga,
conifer
?
9/29/94
Dewatto 1
5
8
5
90 %gravel
lots sed, Ivs, twigs
slow
10/6/94
2
5
10
5.1
1 no data
algae, twigs, conf
peddles
slow
10/7194
77
•I
Appendix I. List of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Collected from the Tahuya River, Dewatto River,
Siebert Creek, And McDonald Creek. •
Phylum
Class
Order
Taxon
Taxonomic Level
Common Nam_ e
Arthropoda
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Ephemerella
Genus (family Ephemerellidae)
May flies
Cinygmula
Genus (family Heptageniidae)
May flies
Ameletus
Genus (family Ameletidae)
May flies
Paraleptophiebia
Genus (family Leptophlebiidae)
May flies
Epeorus
Genus (family Heptageniidae)
May flies
Rithrogina
Genus (family Ironodes)
May flies
Plecoptera
Perlidae
Family
Stone flies
Chloroperlidae
Family
Stone flies
Malenka
Genus (family Nemouridae)
Stone flies
Perlodidae
Family
Stone flies
Trichoptera
Limnephilidae
Family
Caddis flies
Polycentropus
Genus (family Polycentropodidae)
Caddis flies
Rhyacophilidae
Family
Caddis flies
Brachycentridae
Family
Caddis flies
Glossosomatidae
Family
Caddis flies
Hydropsychidae
Family
Caddis flies
Diptera
Tipulidae
Family
Crane flies
Chironomidae
Family
Midges
Empididae
Family
True flies
Tabanidae
Family
Horse /deer flies
Simuliidae
Family
Black flies
Psychodidae
Family
True flies
Pelecorhynchidae
Family
True flies
Coleoptera
Narpus
Genus (family Elmidae)
Beetle
Hydracarina
Hydracarina
Class
Water mites
Annelida
Oligochaeta
Oligochaeta
Class
Aquatic worms
MURUsca
1 Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda
Class lClams
Mullusca
I Gastropods
I Gastropods
IClass I
Snails
*I
01
J
7
*I
*I
A
01
78 01
Appendix J. Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Metrics From Dewatto (D- segments)
and Tahuya (T) Rivers (Hood Canal), and McDonald (M) and Siebert (S) Creeks (Strait Of Juan De
is Fuca).
F:
10
L
r- ,
19
10
Segment
Ephemeroptera
Richness
Plecoptera
Richness
Trichoptera
Richness
EPT Taxa
Richness
All Taxa
Richness
%Dominance (3 Taxa)
D -1
4
3
1
8
10
52
D -2
4
4
2
10
15
45
T -1
1
1
1
3
6
61
T-21
3
3
3
9
12
64
T -3
3
1
3
7
8
71
T -4
4
3
3
10
16
42
T -5
3
3
2
8
12
59
M -1
4
2
3
9
12
53
M-21
4
4
3
11
18
37
M -3
4
2
4
10
14
49
M -4
3
1
3
7
11
75
M -5
3
0
2
5
7
87
M -6
0
0
0
0
2
100
S-11
4
2
2
8
14
64
S -2
3
1
3
7
11
62
S -3
3
1
4
8
13
52
S -4
5
2
4
11
17
49
S -5
4
1
2
7
10
58
S-61
5
3
2
10
16
55
S -7
3
2
2
7
10
67
S -8
4
1
2
7
9
64
S -9
5
3
4
12
16
44
Maxi
5
4
4
12
18
100
Min
0
0
0
0
2
37
Mean
3.5
2.0
2.5
7.9
11.8
59.6
St. Dev.
1.2
1.2
1.1
2.7
3.9
14.7
10 79