HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-341
G (IIvf\
lJ}{~-k "lMJJ.fl nr.t-
Michelle M8'e~n-rte11
Z1&!
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ted Hunter [tph@soundlawcenter.com]
Friday.. January 30,200912:44 PM
Michelle McConnell
. RE: Comments on Draft Shoreline Master Program
PEl COMMENTS ON DRAFT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. doc; LittleQuilcine-Leland
Watershed Study.pdf
Greetings Michelle:'
Attached are two documents submitted on behalf of Pacific Ecological Institute as comments on
the Draft Shoreline Master Program for Jefferson County.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Ted Hunterl Attorney
Sound Law Center
t06-628-0700
206-829-2401 (fax)
4500 Ninth Ave. NE1 Suite 300
Seattlel WA 98105
On Wedl January 281 2009 5:10 pml Michelle McConnell wrote:
> HI Tedl
>
> Got your voice message today. Yesl submitting comments via fax
> (360/379-4451) or email (to'me at this address) will suffice as long
> as they're sent by 5pm on this Friday 1/30.
>
> We don't anticipate revising the maps before a recommendation goes
> forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Althoughl it's possible
> that could happen if/when the Planning Commission releases any
> proposed revisions for additional public comment prior to making their
> recommendation to BoCC.
>
> Thanks for your interest 1
> Michelle
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Michelle McConnell1 Associate Planner - LRP Lead Shoreline Master
> Program (SMP) Update Project Manager
> Direct: 360.379.4484
> Web:
> http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelinePlanning.htm
>
> NEW OF~ICE HOURS: 9 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed on Friday
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> NOTE: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the
> Jefferson County e-mail system and are subject to Public Disclosure
> under Chapter
> 42.56 RCW.
>
1
PEl COMMENTS ON DRAFT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
January 2009
The comments below are submitted on behalf of Pacific Ecological Institute, a non-profit
organization that has a long history of working to protect and restore the Little
QuilceneILeland Watershed within WRIA 17 in Jefferson County. See,
www . PEr sea t t 1 e . org for more information about the organization. Please note the
following:
The characterization maps in Appendix A of the Draft Shoreline Master Program do not
include any reference to Lake Leland or any of the tributaries to the Little Quilcene River.
The lake and tributaries are a critical part of the Little QuilceneILeland Watershed and
Jefferson County Shorelines and should be included in any shoreline plan. We believe this
was an oversight that likely occurred when the files were created for the maps. We urge you
to correct this during public review so there can be no misunderstanding about what shoreline
designations are proposed for the excluded area.
We recognize that if a map does not indicate a shoreline designation that the default
designation will be Conservancy. PEl believes that this designation is not appropriate for
Lake Leland, Leland Creek and the Little Quilcene River. It is important to fish habitat, water
quality and future generations to recognize the need to protect shorelines in the Little
QuilceneILeland Watershed areas. Studies by PEl and the Wild Fish Conservancy clearly
identify this watershed as a priority for habitat protection. The Little Quilcene and Leland
Creek presently support coho, steelhead and chum. Restoration of the area would allow
salmonids to migrate the entire watershed into Lake Leland, as was done in the past. The
Little Quilcene River, its tributaries and Lake Leland all appear to qualify as an Aquatic
shoreline area. The plan does recognize Snow Creek and Crocker Lake as important for fish
habitat and, in fact, designates key parts of that watershed as a Priority Aquatic Area. The
Little Quilcene River, its tributaries and Lake Leland are at least as important to fish habitat
and water quality as is the Snow Creek/Crocker Lake watershed. Again, it appears there may
have been an oversight in the designation for the Little QuilceneILeland Watershed, as the
scientific studies of that watershed clearly support its importance to fish and water quality.
PEl recommends that the maps show an Aquatic Shoreline designation for the entire Little
QuilceneILake Leland watershed.
The recently completed Wild Fish Conservancy scientific study supporting a designation of
Aquatic Shoreline is attached and incorporated into these comments by reference. PEl believes
the shoreline designations should be made based on science; the studies clearly support the
designation of the entire watershed as an Aquatic Shoreline. It is important to note that this
designation does not preclude development, but does ensure that any proposed development
consider impacts on fish habitat and water quality as part of the development review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Shoreline Master Program;
Submitted by Pacific Ecological Institute
206-628-0460, www.PElseattle.org
4500 Ninth Avenue NE, Suite 300
Seattle, W A 98105
Little Quilcene-Leland Watershed
Rapid Habitat Assessment and Prioritized Restoration Framework
Technical Report
prepared by Wild Fish Conservancy
15629 Main Street NE
Duvall, W A 98019
www.wildfishconservancy.org
for
Pacific Ecological Institute
4500 Ninth Avenue NE, Suite 300
Seattle, W A 98105
www.peiseattle.org
September, 2008
Table of Contents
Executive Summary... ........ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ....... ..... ..... ....... ........ ........ ............. .... ............07
Part I: Little Quilcene - Leland Watershed Rapid Habitat Assessment
Introd uction ......................................................................................................................... .09
Background
Watershed Setting ..... ....................... ........... ..... ..... ..... ..... ........ ............ ........ ..................... ......10
Study Background...... ........................... ...... ..... ........ ....... ........ ..... ......................................... .13
Methods
Reach Delineation.......... .... .... ...... .... ...... ..... ............ ........... .......... ..... .......... ...... ......... .......... ..14
In-stream / Riparian Habitat Evaluation ...............................................................................15
Spawning Surveys.................. ........... ..... ..... ....................... ............... .......... ............... .......... ..18
Fish Passage Barrier Assessment........... ..... .......... ............. ..... ..... ........ .................. .............. .20
Water Type Assessment and Fish Distribution ......................................................................22
Results and Discussion
Reach Delineation................................................................................................................. .24
In-stream / Riparian Habitat Evaluation ........ ........... .................... ..... ............................... ....27
Spawning Surveys ..................................................................................................................2 8
Fish Passage Barrier Assessment................ ..... ..... ..... ............... ........... ............... ..... .............34
Water Type Assessment ................ .................... ..... ..... ............... ...... .......... ..... ..................... ...3 5
Fish Distribution....................................................................................................................3 7
Part II: Recommended Actions for Watershed Restoration and Recovery
Watershed-wide recommendations for habitat protection and restoration
in the Little Quilcene River and Leland Creek sub-basins (bulleted list) .....................42
Targeted, reach-specific restoration opportunities...... ..... .......... ..... ..... ..... ...... .....................44
Little Quilcene River
LQ-l: Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group estuary restoration.......................44
LQ-2: Reach 3, sub-reach 3A bank stabilization and L WD supplementation..........45
LQ-3: Wildwood Diversion Canal fish passage screening .......................................46
LQ-4: Wildwood Diversion Canal water rights investigation, mitigation for
re-construction of cobble diversion dam, and habitat improvement..............46
LQ-5: Sub-reach 3B bank stabilization at site of cobble "push-up" dam.................47
2
LQ-6: Public information campaign for channel substrate manipulation.................48
LQ-7: Barrier culvert repair and re-connection of anadromous habitat
on tributary WRIA 17.0082 - "Wildwood Creek" ........................................49
Leland Creek and Lake Leland
General .................................................................................................................... ..49
L-l: Barrier culvert replacement and re-connection of fish-bearing habitat
on tributary WRIA 17.0078 ..............................................................................50
L-2: Restoration recommendations for the headwater reach of
tributary WRIA 17.0080 ....................... ................ ............ ........ ........ ........ ........51
a. Riparian restoration for north and south fork ofWRIA 17.0080............52
b. Enforcement and public information campaign for hydraulics
ordinances banning OHV use in perennial streams .................................52
c. Barrier culvert repair and re-connection of fish-bearing habitat
on the 17.0080 H-d tributary channel......................................................53
d. Livestock fencing setbacks and complete channel restoration of
WRIA 17.0080 tributary channel at the Leland Creek confluence..........53
L-3: Leland Creek / Lower Leland Valley invasive vegetation removal,
riparian habitat restoration, wetland rehabilitation, and protection for
spring -fed tributary streams..............................................................................5 5
L-4: Channel restoration and re-connection of fish-bearing habitat on
17.0017 Q-d - the eastern headwater tributary to the
Upper Leland Valley Wetland Complex...........................................................55
L-5: Channel restoration and re-connection offish-bearing habitat on
17.0017 Q-e / f - the western headwater tributary to the
Upper Leland Valley Wetland Complex...........................................................58
L-6: Lake Leland and its tributaries
a. Replacement of damaged culvert crossing of Leland Valley Road
West along Leland Creek below the Lake Lelandoutlet..........................58
b. Removal of a defunct fish weir at the Lake Leland outlet.......................58
c. Discussion of non-native rainbow trout stocking in Lake Leland ...........59
3
d. riparian restoration for short lakeside tributaries 17.00170,P.................59
e. Riparian and channel habitat restoration for the initial reaches of
fish-bearing tributary 17.0017N at the Lake Leland confluence .............59
f. Barrier culvert replacement, defunct man-made dam removal, and
re-connection of fish-bearing habitat throughout the lengthy
17.00 17N Lake Leland tributary ...............................................................60
L-7: Barrier repair for the Highway 101 culvert crossing of Leland Creek .............61
Ripley Creek
R-I: Removal of partial-barrier downed tree trunk at the mouth of
Ripley Creek to facilitate entry by anadromous salmon ids ..............................63
R-2: Riparian restoration and channel L WD supplementation in sub-reach 1A ......63
R-3: Removal ofinvasive vegetation, channel rehabilitation, and riparian
habitat restoration in sub-reach 1B ...................................................................63
R-4: Public information campaign regarding functions of beaver in maintaining
aquatic habitat processes throughout the Little Quilcene watershed ................64
R-5: Barrier culvert repair and re-connection offish-bearing habitat
throughout headwater reaches of Ripley Creek ................................................64
Howe Creek
General ...................................................................................................................... 65
H-1: Removal of invasive vegetation, channel rehabilitation, and riparian
habitat restoration in Reach 4 ........... ..... ............ ........ ........... .......... ..... .............65
H-2: Public information campaign regarding functions of beaver in maintaining
aquatic habitat processes throughout the Little Quilcene watershed ................67
Cemetery Drain
General .................................................................................................................................. 6 7
4
Part In: Little Quilcene - Leland Watershed Habitat Reconnaissance Notes
Little Quilcene River
Reach 1, sub-reach 1 A..... ...... .................. ....................................................... ......... ......... .....69
Reach 1, sub-reach 1 B ........... .......... ........ ..... ..... .......................... ....... ............ .............. .........70
Reach 2................................................................................................................................... 72
Reach 3, sub-reach 3A ........... ..... ....................... ..... .................:... ...................... ..... .......... ..... 73
Reach 3, sub-reach 3B ... ........ ................. .......... .............. ............ ........ ............ ......... ......... .....74
Reach 4................................................................................................................................... 76
Reach 5................................................................................................................................... 76
Reach 6................................................................................................................................... 77
Leland Creek
Reach 1............,....................................................................................................................... 79
Reach 2................................................................................................................................... 81
Reach 3................................................................................................................................... 82
Reach 4................................................................................................................................... 83
Reach 5.................................................................................................................................. .85
Ripley Creek
Reach 1, sub-reach 1 A ........................................................................................................... 87
Reach 1, sub-reach 1 B........ ....................... ........................................................... ................ .89
Reach 2................................................................................................................................... 90
Reach 3................................................................................................................................... 91
Howe Creek
Reach 1................................................................................................................................... 92
Reach 2.................................................................................................................................. .93
Reach 3.................................................................................................................................. .93
Reach 4........................................................................................................... ....................... .94
Appendix 1: Maps 1-7'. .................. ............ .................. ........................................................96
Appendix 2: List of Barrier Culverts identified by Wild Fish Conservancy in the
Little Quilcene River - Leland Creek Watershed .....................................103
Appendix 3: Contact List for Little Quilcene / Leland Valley landowners
potentially receptive to watershed restoration activities ...........................1 06
Appendix 4: Prioritized Restoration Matrix ....................................................................110
Appendix 5: Glossary of Acronyms...................................................................................114
Appendix 6: Literature Cited ..... ....................... ................................................................118
5
List ofFie:ures
1. Peak counts of coho and chum salmon in the Little Quilcene River, Leland
and Ripley Creeks (Washington Dept. ofFish and Wildlife data, 1944-2006) ................29
2. Density (fish/mile) of coho and chum salmon in the Little Quilcene River, Leland
and Ripley Creeks (Washington Dept. ofFish and Wildlife data, 1944-2006)................31
3. Density of live + dead coho salmon (# per mile) relative to mainstem stream gauge
flow data in the Little Quilcene River and tributary index reaches for 2007-2008. .........33
List of Tables
1. Status ofWDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI)-listed Little Quilcene stocks ..........19
2. WDNR Water Type Conversion Chart .............................................................................22
3. Summary data for Little Quilcene - Leland sub-basin reach breaks from the
Little Quilcene - Leland Watershed Habitat Reconnaissance Survey (Part III) .............25
4. Peak count calendar dates and fish densities (live + dead observed per mile) for coho
and chum in the Little Quilcene River and tributary spawning survey index reaches .....32
6
Part I: Little Quilcene - Leland Watershed Rapid Habitat Assessment
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the findings of an aquatic habitat condition assessment of the
Little Quilcene River and its tributaries on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State.
Field surveys and reporting were completed by Wild Fish Conservancy Northwest for
Pacific Ecological Institute, with overall project goals intended to rapidly assess the
current habitat conditions within the Little Quilcene watershed, and to generate an
inaugural framework for future restoration and recovery of the entire watershed and its
component systems and processes. Project elements were multi-faceted and interrelated;
intended to provide the ecological background and basis for future on-the-ground
restoration work. To this end, Wild Fish Conservancy staff and field personnel
reviewed and synthesized background literature and past research relevant to aquatic
habitat conditions in the Little Quilcene River, Ripley Creek, Howe Creek, and Leland
Creek sub-basins, and collected and analyzed data documenting the current condition of
in-stream and riparian habitats, and spawning by anadromous and resident salmonids. An
examination of the loss of habitat connectivity throughout the watershed included a
review of known water diversions and anthropogenic barriers to fish migration, and field
assessments and cataloguing of previously unidentified fish passage barriers caused by
infrastructure and urban and rural development. Wild Fish Conservancy also conducted
an extensive water type survey of headwater tributary streams with the goal of identifying
previously unclassified fish-bearing habitat, and correcting errors in the mapping of
streams and fish habitat by state regulatory agencies. The distribution and composition of
juvenile and resident freshwater fish species (with an emphasis on salmonids) was
ascertained in headwater basins during these water typing efforts, contributing to a better
understanding of fish use throughout the watershed.
Habitat conditions were found to be poor-to-fair throughout the surveyed reaches
of the mainstem Little Quilcene and major tributaries, with lower and mid-valley reaches
of the Little Quilcene River and Leland Creek particularly degraded in their ability to
sustain and support aquatic ecosystem functionality. However, findings ofthis study also
revealed great potential to reverse the trend of the past century of aquatic and riparian
habitat degradation, and to provide for better habitat conditions for anadromous and
resident fish, and other aquatic organisms inhabiting the stream channel and riparian
corridor network in the Little Quilcene sub-basin.
Several related activities will contribute to future recovery of the watershed.
Riparian corridor preservation and re-forestation provides for stream shading and
mitigation of summer temperature maxima, streamside cover for fish and other aquatic
and riparian-dependent wildlife, infiltration, storage, and slow-release of precipitation
that sustains the historic hydrological regime, reduction of fme sediment delivery into the
stream system from damaged headwater tributary channels, deforested valley slopes, and
unstable roads, and the future recruitment of persistent large woody debris into stream
channels. Removal of bank armament structures that currently confine waterways will
restore the natural erosion processes that create a meandering stream within the channel
7
migration zones, and playa vital role in the maintenance of in-stream and riparian habitat
diversity. Supplementation of in-stream large woody debris structures imparts another
factor in the creation and maintenance of channel habitat diversity via pool and side
channel formation, substrate scour and re-distribution, and long-term stream bank and
gravel bar stability. Large woody debris is also a vital component of stream nutrient
input, locking of fine sediments, and the retention of spawning gravels for fish.
Restoration of watershed connectivity by replacement or repair of anthropogenic
structures that currently hinder the natural migration of fish throughout the stream
network will result in increased production potential for anadromous and resident species,
including stocks that are currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(hood canal summer chum salmon, Puget Sound chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead
trout, and native bull trout). Connectivity also encompasses that part ofthe watershed
that we cannot observed directly, but is imperative for proper functioning of the local
hydrology. Groundwater moves throughout the hyporheic network, feeding surface
springs that provide perennial flow to stream-adjacent and headwater wetlands.
Protection of these wetland reaches from damaging timber harvest and residential
development practices (wetland draining and clearing, groundwater pumping for wells,
and surface water diversion for agriculture) is critical to maintaining the surface and sub-
surface flow regime throughout the downstream watershed, particularly in the late-
summer to early-fall drought period, when sustaining surface flows for resident fish
populations are naturally limited in the Little Quilcene sub-basin.
A number of specific habitat restoration options are discussed in Part II of the
report, but it is also hoped that this document will be used as a template to explore further
opportunities for restoration throughout the greater Little Quilcene - Leland Creek
community watershed, using the detailed recommendations as examples. Some
landowners contacted during the course of this study were either unaware or indifferent
to the presence of salmon ids and other native fish and aquatic organisms in tributary
streams transiting their properties. In a very few cases, outright hostility was encountered
due to a general lack of understanding about the role of regulatory agencies in stream and
riparian corridor protection (Le. the fear of "the hammer"). Project partners (WFC, PEl)
wish to highlight throughout this process that, although change is oftentimes slow to
materialize, an emphasis on workable solutions and consensus-building is generally more
productive in creating and upholding an environment where stakeholders are all working
toward a similar goal- a healthy, life-sustaining watershed for people, wildlife, and fish.
8
Photo 1 - Little Quilcene River flowing through a rural landscape in east Jefferson County.
Introduction
Through the initial phase oftheir "Citizen Watershed Assessment Program", Pacific
Ecological Institute (PEl) seeks to organize local stakeholders to provide input and
generate workable solutions for watershed management issues in the Little Quilcene
River basin. To understand the watershed-specific problems and potential solutions, and
to implement aquatic habitat restoration at a watershed scale, PEl also solicits the
expertise of local and regional aquatic resource and fish habitat restoration consultants.
Throughout 2006 and 2007, PEl consulted planning experts, members of the Quilcene-
area community, and the available scientific literature and public policy papers to
develop a targeted scope of work for habitat and water quality assessment within the
Little Quilcene River - Leland Creek sub-basin. The scope of work focused on reach
break assessment, stream channel mapping, water typing, fish composition and
distribution assessment, and fish habitat assessment, to accomplish the following goals:
. Develop site-specific protection and restoration priorities within a watershed
context;
· Develop a hierarchical strategy for protection and restoration of landscape
processes that form and sustain diverse conditions and habitats within the
watershed, focusing on protecting high quality, intact fish habitat, reconnecting
isolated high quality fish habitat, and restoring landscape processes;
· Create a framework to support and expedite priority restoration actions within the
watershed; and
9
. Proactively identify and recommend means to defuse existing watershed or land-
use ''time bombs" that could potentially alter or disrupt aquatic habitat functions
in the future.
In early 2007, PEl partnered with Wild Fish Conservancy Northwest (WFC) to provide
scientific consultation for a Rapid Habitat Assessment designed to quickly and accurately
evaluate the current habitat conditions within the Little Quilcene River sub-basin, to help
identify potential threats and opportunities in the watershed, and to generate a priority
framework for future on-the-ground restoration. Through science, education, and
advocacy, Wild Fish Conservancy promotes technically and socially responsible habitat,
fisheries, and hatchery management to better sustain the region's wild-fish heritage.
Beginning in Spring 2007, PEl solicited comment from WFC staff to fine-tune the scope
of work agreement, which serves as the basis for the ongoing PEI-WFC partnership.
Background
Watershed setting - The Little Quilcene River discharges to Quilcene Bay on Hood
Canal just east of the town ofQuilcene, in east Jefferson County, Washington. The
approximately 30-square mile watershed is bounded by the Salmon-Snow Creek
watershed to the north, several small, independent watersheds to the east (Donovan,
Thorndyke, and Tarboo Creeks), and the Big Quilcene and Dosewallips watersheds to the
south and west, respectively. There are 12.2 miles of main stem channel, and a combined
total tributary length of 81.2 miles. The only significant lakes within the boundaries of
the Little Quilcene sub-basin are Lake Leland (108 acre surface area) in the Leland Creek
tributary valley, and Lords Lake, a municipal water storage reservoir on a dammed
headwater tributary of Howe Creek. Additionally, several large forested wetlands /
beaver pond complexes contribute surface water storage and year-round flow to the upper
Little Quilcene and its tributaries. A formerly extensive cedar forest wetland in the
Leland Creek valley (to the north of Lake Leland) was historically logged, ditched, and
drained during the conversion of the valley bottomland to agriculture, and was further
truncated and channelized by the construction of the adjacent US Highway 101.
Geologically, the upstream one-third of the watershed lies within the basalt-rich, erosion-
resistant Crescent formation, which tends to contribute to the formation of steeply
dissected stream valleys, often confined within narrow bedrock canyons. Anadromous
fish habitat within this upper watershed reach is limited by natural barrier falls/cascades
on both the mainstem and major tributaries. This headwater district includes lands with
extensive past and ongoing timber harvest activities managed by the US Forest Service as
well as private forest resource managers (primarily Pope Resources / Olympic Resources
Management - mapped ORM properties can be viewed at http://www.orminc.com).
10
Photo 2 - Re-forestation of a clearcut headwater slope in the Little QuiIcene River
sub-basin. Forest lands in the upper watershed are managed for high timber yield.
From approximately river mile 6.6 downstream to the mouth (including such larger
tributaries as Leland, Ripley, and Howe Creeks), the geologic character ofthe sub-basin
becomes dominated by unconsolidated glacial sediments inter-bedded with siltstone and
sandstone, and river-deposited gravel alluvium (Grimstad and Carson 1981). The overall
gradient moderates, though stream channels are still somewhat confmed by foothills and
steep valley walls. This middle portion of the watershed contains extensive low-gradient
anadromous fish habitat, with dominant land uses in state and private forestland, small-
scale agriculture, and rural residential housing. The lower 1.8 river miles traverse a
broad floodplain delta, and the Little Quilcene River enters an extensive tidal estuary at
the head ofQuilcene Bay (the western arm ofDabob Bay on Hood Canal), approximately
one mile north from the Big Quilcene River mouth. Extensive dikes and bank armoring
that were historically constructed to protect private residences and roadway infrastructure
truncate the lower river channel and floodplain in and around the town of Quilcene.
11
Photo 3 - Wild Fish Conservancy field crews reconnoiter a sub-reach (IA) along the
lower Little Quilcene River that has been subject to over-development - note bank
armoring and landscaped lawn (wi non-native vegetation) extending to river's edge.
Lying within the rainshadow ofthe Olympic Mountains, stream flows and groundwater
recharge rates are naturally limited in the Little Quilcene and surrounding tributary
basins. Average annual precipitation in the upper watershed is less than 50 inches, with
approximately 70% falling during the wet winter months (November-April). Thus, water
levels are at their lowest during the much drier late summer and early fall seasons; also
the time when migrating adult salmon return to the mainstem Little Quilcene River and
its tributaries to spawn. Because they tend to rear in off-channel habitats and headwater
habitats respectively, juvenile coho salmon and resident trout are particularly sensitive to
water quality and availability late in the season, and surface water appropriations for
a iculture and other uses can reduce available in-stream flow durin this critical time.
Photos 4 &5 - Juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch -left) and coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki clarki right) observed in headwater tributary streams of the Little Quilcene watershed in April of 2008.
12
Mean annual flow in the Little Quilcene River is approximately 54 cubic feet per second,
though this can vary from less than 10 cfs during the summer low-flow period to well
over 400 cfs during mid-winter flood events. The City of Port Townsend diverts up to
9.56 cubic feet per second from the main stem, while maintaining a 6 cfs mimimumin-
stream flow at their RM 7.1 diversion, which is used to fill the Lords Lake Reservoir
(with a storage capacity of about 500 million gallons), before being diverted out of the
watershed to supply urban and industrial needs (USFS and WDNR 1994). Although in
place since 1957, this municipal water right is junior to a total of 5 cfs of historic water
rights held by private landowners in and around the town of Quilcene (originally
organized under the Quilcene Irrigation District - Ed Young WDOE, pers. comm.).
Washington Department of Ecology currently maintains an administrative closure to
further surface water appropriations from the Little Quilcene sub-basin (WDOE 1998).
Study background - Unlike the other principal Hood Canal rivers with headwater reaches
located within the protective jurisdictions of congressionally-designated wilderness areas
and the Olympic National Park, water quality and availability in the Little Quilcene sub-
basin are especially vulnerable to headwater land-use practices and modifications
including (but not limited to): clearcut logging of headwater-adjacent slopes; fish passage
barriers and potential sedimentation associated with road construction and maintenance;
and municipal and residential water appropriations. Lower mainstem and tributary
valleys are prone to oversimplification of in-stream habitat that are the result of past
levee-building and bank armament, removal of large woody debris from stream channels
(cedar salvage from western Washington streams was a common practice historically),
extensive ditching and loss of riparian vegetation and hydrologic continuity throughout
the tributary channel network (Leland Creek in particular), diversion of main stem and
tributary surface flows for agricultural use, compromised water quality from stream-
adjacent livestock pasturage and agriculture practices, riparian overstory removal for
past and continuing rural residential development, and fish passage barriers associated
with highways and local surface streets as well as water impoundment structures.
Despite this litany of potential factors contributing to the decline of aquatic and riparian
habitats in the Little Quilcene, the watershed has not been a priority for focused past or
ongoing restoration activities relative to adjacent watersheds though all are confronted
with similar and equally critical water resource issues. With the exception of the Little
Quilcene, the major west-side Hood Canal rivers (Big Quilcene, Dosewallips, Hamma
Hamma, and Skokomish) have all had comprehensive watershed analyses compiled by
state and federal salmon-recovery coordinating entities as provided under the umbrella of
the 1998 Washington State Watershed Planning Act (Chapter 90.82 RCW). Limited
monitoring and assessment of available water resources and aquatic habitat conditions
and biological processes in the Little Quilcene watershed have been conducted by various
representative agencies and entities of Water Resources Inventory Area 17 (WRIA 17) -
a regional watershed planning unit, composed of federal, state, county, and municipal
governments, vested Native American Tribes, watershed enhancement organizations, and
private citizen groups. The 2003 WRIA 17 (Quilcene/Snow Creek) Watershed
Management Plan recognized a need to protect and restore in-stream and stream-adjacent
(Le. riparian) habitats for the benefit of native fish and other aquatic organisms, as well as
13
riparian-dependent wildlife species. Of the ten sub-basins situated within WRIA 17, the
Little Quilcene River was specifically identified as an "Area ofConcern~' due to historic
aquatic and riparian habitat degradation, and ongoing issues related to water quality,
availability, and hydraulic continuity. The Little Quilcene sub-basin is currently listed as
a Tier 2 priority watershed for habitat protection and restoration in the Hood Canal
Coordinating Council's Salmon Recovery Strategy (citation).
The WRIA 17 "Habitat Factors Limiting Analysis" (Correa 2002) considered a variety of
interrelated habitat condition and stream process elements potentially limiting salmonid
production in the Little Quilcene sub-basin, including fish access (e.g. artificial passage
barriers), floodplain modifications, current and historic channel and riparian conditions,
sediment loading, water quality (limited in scope to temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
suspended solids), watershed basin hydrology (annual flow regimes, location and extent
of impervious surfaces, and hydrologic maturity of basin-wide vegetative cover), and
biological processes (with a particular emphasis on nutrient input - or lack thereof - from
anadromous fish carcasses). At the time of its publication, there was a conspicuous lack
of existing data for most of these factors relative to adjacent watersheds~ and the report
relies heavily on expert opinion provided by members of the Technical Advisory Group
(TAG) who had local, working knowledge of the Little Quilcene sub-basin. These data
gaps have been addressed in-part by more recent work conducted by the Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG), Point No Point Treaty Council Tribes (PNPTC),
Pacific Ecological Institute (focusing on water quality concerns in Lake Leland) and the
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. Details of their data collection protocols
are briefly summarized in the Methods section of this report, along with a discussion of
relevant conclusions that can be drawn from the available data as it couples with findings
ofthe 2007 Wild Fish Conservancy habitat reconnaissance.
Methods
This section provides an overview of methods for the various facets of the Little Quilcene
Rapid Habitat Assessment including: reach delineation; in-stream and riparian habitat
reconnaissance surveys; anadromous salmon and steelhead spawning surveys; fish
passage barrier assessment; water quality data collection and synthesis; and water typing
and juvenile resident fish distribution surveys. Also discussed are the existing data from
previous studies that were reviewed and incorporated into this watershed assessment.
Reach Delineation - Stream reaches are a useful construct to partition a watershed in
order to further characterize habitat conditions, and to document and analyze habitat
utilization by anadromous and resident fish species. Natural channel habitat morphology
is governed by three intrinsic factors: stream size, gradient, and valley confinement
(Beechie and Sibley~ 1990). A direct relationship exists between stream size and basin
area, regardless of the hydrologic regime (total available precipitation and groundwater
movement) ofa given watershed. Basin area expands downstream in a given watershed,
as the stream integrates (or captures) an increasing number of adjacent tributary basins.
Thus, stream reaches are delineated by significant changes in basin area, with reach
14
demarcations often located at the confluence of major tributaries contributing >20% of
the receiving stream flow (pleuss et. al. 1999).
Gradient is also an intuitive indicator of changes in the types and proportions of
available habitats. Low-gradient sections of a stream differ markedly in fish species
and/or life-history composition and habitat utilization relative to higher-gradient channel
segments. Stream courses within a region of high topographic diversity support a wider
range of available habitat types, from very high-gradient headwater reaches that may not
support fish in abundance (or at all), to low-gradient, lower-velocity, meandering valley
bottom reaches that are suitable for spawning and channel rearing by anadromous
salmonid species as well as resident trout and a variety of other aquatic organisms.
Channel confinement is controlled by the local geology and geomorphologic
history ofa stream valley, as well as hydrologic flow regimes. All of these factors
contribute to the ability of a stream to erode and incise into the surrounding landscape.
Confinement tends to be high in upstream segments of a river basin, particularly in
mountainous landscapes, and especially on the east side of the Olympic Peninsula where
headwater streams often encounter the Crescent Basalt formation, resulting in steep-
sided, erosion-resistant bedrock canyons in upstream segments. Lower elevation valleys
are generally broader, with reduced opportunity for channel incision. As a result, valley
bottoms are relatively unconfmed, and streams tend to spread out and deposit their ample
sediment load across the valley floodplain. These reach-governing factors (stream size,
gradient, and confinement) are interrelated, and changes in any or all ofthese variables
are generally easy to identify using a combination of topographic/aerial mapping and on-
the-ground observation.
To that end, WFC staff obtained a digital GIS file containing the Salmon and Steelhead
Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP) segments from SSHIAP staff (Steve
Todd, PNPTC) and used this model to identify preliminary reach breaks for the entire
Little Quilcene watershed. Developed from remote interpretation of aerial photography,
the SSHIAP segments represent a good first approximation or watershed reach breaks.
The SSHIAP segment breaks were then modified based on the results ofthe WFC field
reconnaissance to better match geo-morphological boundaries ofthe Little Quilcene
main stem and major tributaries, and to facilitate future location of the pertinent habitat
features, conditions, and restoration opportunities as outlined in Parts II and III.
In-stream / Riparian Habitat Evaluation - Over the course of nine-days in October 2007,
WFC field crews conducted a rapid habitat reconnaissance of the Little Quilcene River,
Leland Creek, Ripley Creek, and Howe Creek. Surveys were designed to refine the
initial SSHIAP reach breaks, collect qualitative habitat observations (visual estimates),
identify potential restoration opportunities, and note locations requiring later visits for
barrier and water type assessment. Over broad stream reaches representing all or portions
of the SSHIAP stream segments, the following data were reported:
1. Approximate reach-average bankfull width, gradient, and wetted width at the
time of the survey. Though not measured directly (due to time constraints),
WFC field personnel have extensive experience estimating these variables.
15
2. Dominant/sub-dominant habitat type by category (riffle, riffle/pool,
pool/riffle, deep glide, pond/wetland, or dry/subsurface channel).
3. Primary and secondary pool-forming factors including: single-piece large.
woody debris, L WD jam, rootwad, roots of standing live trees/stumps, scour-
resistant bank, boulder, channel bedform, artificial bank, or beaver dam.
4. Residual pool depths for a sub-sample of pools (measured).
5. Estimated percent pool surface cover (provided by jams, overhanging
vegetation, undercut stream banks etc.).
6. Relative substrate composition by size class: silt/mud (< 2 mm), sand (2-6
mm), small-to-Iarge gravels (6-64 mm), cobble (64-256 mm), boulder (256-
4096 mm), and bedrock (>4096 mm or solid piece).
7. Categorical abundance and size of single-piece large woody debris (sparse,
moderate, or abundant) in the small (4-8 in.), medium (8-20 in.) and large
(>20 inch diameter) size classes.
8. Count and size ofLWD jams (small jam: 3-9 pieces, medium: 10-29 pieces,
large 30-69 pieces, or extra-large 70+ pieces).
9. Location and approximate length of side/split channels, tributaries, beaver
ponds, natural fish-migration barriers, and sites of significant bank erosion
and/or channel sedimentation.
10. Artificial/anthropogenic bank and in-stream channel modifications, stream
crossings, fish passage barriers (Le. culverts), and local water diversions.
11. Dominant riparian forest type (hardwood, mixed, or conifer), reach-average
canopy cover (estimated), and representative overstory and understory species.
12. Approximate riparian stand age: young (<40 yrs), immature (40-80 yrs),
mature (80-150 yrs), and old (150+).
13. Riparian forest disturbance and/or significant stream-adjacent incursions of
non-native/invasive plant species.
.14. Areas ofanadromous and resident salmonid spawning potential (either direct
survey observation of salmon spawning, or spawning gravel aggregates).
15. Observations of other aquatic and terrestrial fauna.
16
No single survey methodology can completely characterize habitat conditions and stream
use by all aquatic species. However, most literature on the subject details a strong
aff'mity for specific habitat attributes depending on species and life-history stage, and
these habitats are generally grouped within geographic segments (Le. reaches) of a
watershed. Patterns of this type in the Little Quilcene sub-basin are too numerous to
catalog, but would include (for example), the use of lower-gradient mainstem habitat for
spawning and juvenile rearing by chum salmon versus the greater frequency of utilization
of slower side-channels and off-channel beaver-pond habitat for rearing by juvenile coho,
and adult coho spawning in somewhat higher-gradient tributaries and upstream reaches.
The highest stream reaches (usually located above natural cascades or waterfalls that
create barriers to anadromy) are often occupied by resident trout, and this general pattern
is commonly noted where these species are found co-habiting a river basin in the region.
Existing stream channel and riparian habitat data for the Little Quilcene River and
tributaries was obtained, summarized, and compared with the results of the WFC field
reconnaissance to broadly depict current aquatic and riparian habitat conditions in
relation to use by resident and anadromous fish species throughout the sub-basin.
Available habitat data for the Little Quilcene watershed are provided by a Point No Point
Treaty Council (pNPTC) Timber-Fish-&- Wildlife (TFW) ambient monitoring survey
(Bernthol and Rot 2001, with Little Quilcene data originally collected in 1993/1994).
Additionally, in 2004, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG)
implemented a planned region-wide monitoring program. As a first step in this process,
HCSEG field personnel inventoried baseline in-stream habitat conditions in the mainstem
Little Quilcene River and tributaries following a modification of the standard TFW
habitat unit survey protocol.
The Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) ambient monitoring and Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group (Werner et. al. 2003) habitat assessments utilized somewhat
similar survey methods. In the PNPTC ambient monitoring surveys (Bernthol and Rot,
2001), large woody debris (LWD) and in-stream habitat units (pools and riffles) were
identified and measured along continuous stream sections, with bankfull channel widths
measured at 100 meter intervals following the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife (TFW)
"method for the habitat unit survey" (Pleuss et al. 1999). This protocol was developed by
WDFW to standardize statewide in-stream and riparian habitat assessment and
monitoring, but it is very labor-and-resource intensive. HCSEG conducted an extensive,
continuous survey for L WD jams, as well as intensive surveys for L WD, pool, and
channel characteristics at 500-meter channel intervals. During the extensive survey,
"stream teams" walked mainstem and tributary channels establishing survey benchmarks,
and identifying and enumerating logjams (many ofthe HCSEG 100-meter plastic
benchmark tags are still visible in the Little Quilcene and tributaries). For each 500
meter segment of this extensive survey, one randomly-selected 100-meter sub-reach was
intensively surveyed for L WD (bothjams and single pieces), pools, and channel riparian
characteristics. Both the PNPTC and HCSEG surveys used comparable pool criteria, and
collected similar types of information about the number and characteristics of log jams
and large woody debris. Direct quantitative comparisons of the two habitat surveys are
exceedingly problematic, however, because of divergence in the location of reach breaks,
17
and differences in the continuity of the collected data (note, for example, that PNPTC did
not include Leland Creek in the survey effort).The results from both surveys are
summarized to provide a qualitative comparisons with Wild Fish Conservancy fmdings
during the habitat reconnaissance survey (see Results and Discussion pp. 24-40, and the
Habitat Reconnaissance Survey Notes detailed in Part III of this report).
Spawning Surveys - Long-term patterns of salmon spawner abundance are used by
WDFW and Tribal co-managers to gauge stock health and to forecast (sometimes quite
inaccurately) future run returns. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife classifies
stock health status in their Salmonid Stock Inventory (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasiD on
the basis of past returns (also known as escapement, usually generated from spawning
ground survey data) and other factors such as genetic analyses (native vs. mixed, with
mixed indicating that hatchery brood stock originating from outside the resident
population has interbred with the native stock), and the degree of hatchery influence on
production (a completely wild run vs. a "composite" run that is supplemented with
hatchery-raised fish). For example, summer chum in the greater Big Quilcene / Little
Quilcene basin (Dabob Bay tributaries) have since 1992 been supplemented by WDFW
hatchery propagation and release under the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation
Initiative (Ames et. al. 2000); the production is considered "composite" in that it is made
up of both wild stock and hatchery fish. Genetic analysis has concluded that summer
chum in the tributaries to Dabob Bay are not differentiated, so the origin is considered
"native". The WDFW hatchery complex on the Big Quilcene River also contributes both
coho and late fall chum to uilcene Ba .
Photo 6 - Late fall chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) spawning en-masse in the
gravel tail-out ofa pool in the Little Quilcene River in December of 2007.
Run timing for late fall coho salmon in the Little Quilcene River is bi-modal - that is,
coho appear both in early fall (October) and late fall (the "Christmas fish" that peak in
mid-to-Iate December), with a distinct lag between runs. Coho runs in the other major
18
Hood Canal tributary streams historically peaked during the late fall (Amato, 1996).
Manipulation of run timing at the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish Hatchery
on the Big Quilcene River is well documented (USFWS staff - pers. comm.), resulting in
the return of coho salmon to the hatchery as early as the first week of October. WFC
staff speculate that the early-run coho in the Little Quilcene River originally strayed from
the Big Quilcene hatchery returns, and have since established a self-sustaining run, with
the late run re resentin the ori inal re-hatche wild stock.
Photo 7 - Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kislItch) spawning in a narrow side channel
of the Little Quilcene River in December of 2007.
Table 1 summarizes the current status of salmon, steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout
stocks that spawn within the Little Quilcene sub-basin.
Table 1: Status ofWDFW Salmonid Stock Invento
SaSI Stock Ori in
Quilcene summer chum Native
Quilcene late fall chum Mixed
QuilcenelDabob coho Mixed
QuilcenelDabob winter steelhead Unresolved
West Hood Canal coastal cutthroat trout Native
SaSI -listed Little
Production
Composite
Composite
Composite
Unresolved
Wild
uilcene stocks
Status
Depressed
Healthy
Depressed
Unknown
Unknown
A "stock" is defmed by WDFW as "a group offish that return to spawn in a given area at
the same time". Note that, although the Little Quilcene river and tributaries do not
currently have any stock listed as critical ("declined to the point where the stocks are in
danger of significant loss of genetic diversity"), both summer chum and fall coho salmon
are currently considered to be depressed (defmed as a stock "whose production is below
expected levels based on available habitat and natural variation in survival, but above
where permanent damage [to the stock] is likely"). The SaSI report stresses that a
"healthy" listing does not necessarily indicate that there should be no concern regarding
19
production levels. A healthy stock may in fact be quite robust, but could also be limited
in production to the point where there is no harvestable surplus. It is also important to
keep in mind that the most recent status determinations were generated in 2002, and
production levels of some stocks may have changed considerably since that time.
To evaluate the relative abundance of adult salmon among separate reaches in the Little
Quilcene watershed, WFC obtained and summarized recent salmon spawning survey
records, and also conducted seasonal spawning surveys in major tributaries to
complement ongoing WDFW main stem index surveys. The WDFW spawning survey
database was also queried for all available information pertaining to the Little Quilcene
River and its tributaries. Peak species/stock live and dead counts were summarized by
reach length for the available period of record, 1944-2007. Based on this data summary,
consultation with WDFW staff, and detailed knowledge of the potential for anadromous
fish-use in the watershed, several tributary reaches were selected for spawning surveys.
From 1 November 2007 to 14 January 2008 WFC field crews conducted 44 reach-length
spawning surveys for coho and late fall chum salmon, specifically targeting Leland Creek
(WRIA 17.0017), a Leland tributary (17.0080), "Wildwood Creek" (WRIA 17.0082), and
Ripley Creek (17.0089), as well as a mid-valley segment of the Little Quilcene River
(WRIA 17.0076) that is not currently included in surveys by WDFW. On three separate
dates in spring 2008 (late April and early May), spawning surveys were also conducted
for steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout on the tributary reaches. WFC and WDFW
survey results for the 2007-2008 spawning season are summarized in relation to the
historical records to provide context on key salmon spawning strongholds within the
Little Quilcene watershed.
A final note about stream nomenclature: all streams lacking a common name are
referenced throughout this report by an alphanumeric code generated from the nearest
identifiable trunk stream, and the order in which they are encountered upstream from the
mouth of the primary channel (regardless of left-bank or right-bank). If the stream has a
unique numerical identifier as provided in the Catalog of Washington Streams and
Salmon Utilization (Williams et. a1.1975) this is also given for clarification. Thus (for
example), the Little Quilcene River (for example) the Little Quilcene River is #17.0076,
indicating WRIA 17 stream # 0076. The first upstream tributary of the Little Quilcene is
referred to as 17.0076A., the next, 17.0076B etc. This naming convention was developed
from past Wild Fish Conservancy water typing efforts (see pp. 24-27, below), and has
been consistently implemented for new water type project locations around the state.
Also note for future reference throughout this report that stream banks are characterized
as left or right from the point of view of an observer facing downstream.
Fish Passage Barrier Assessment - Transportation infrastructure represents a
considerable threat to the connectivity of the fish-bearing stream network in a given
watershed. Intended to carry the stream channel beneath roadways and railways, the
construction of culverts, in particular, all too often results in the loss of upstream habitat
by preventing or hindering fish migration along the stream channel. Culverts physically
block channels if they are perched above the level of the streambed, are broken or
damaged, or undermined by scour post-construction scour. Culverts that are too small, or
20
pitched too steeply, create velocity barriers by constricting the channel and/or increasing
the gradient so that fish cannot physically move upstream against the force exerted by the
flow of water through the culvert. Under-sized culverts (and poorly engineered bridge
abutments) are also susceptible to debris jams, causing the upstream channel to
backwater and severely erode adjacent stream banks. Further barriers are created when a
culvert either lacks internal streambed material, or the retained material is so deep and
unconsolidated that it causes otherwise perennial flow to disappear subsurface through
the culvert durin late-summer low water riods.
Photo 8 - Barrier culvert outlet at a private road crossing of a fish-bearing stream.
To identify the artificial barriers to fish migration in the Little Quilcene River sub-basin,
Wild Fish Conservancy GIS personnel acquired a current list of known fish passage
impediments from the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife's Salmonscape
website (http://wdfw.wa.gov/maoping/salmonscape).This data set and map portal
includes a comprehensive inventory of public (state and county) road crossings of known
and potentially fish-bearing streams generated from previous culvert inventory and
assessment work by WDFW, WSDOT, and Jefferson County Public Works Department.
Agency transportation and stream map layers were then queried and cross-referenced,
resulting in a complete list of public and private road crossings. Where landowner
permission was obtained, WFC field surveys of the previously un-inventoried private
road culverts were conducted from February - March 2008 using the WDFW fish passage
barrier assessment method (WDFW 2000). The method employs a cursory "level A" and
(where necessary) a more detailed "B-Ievel" examination to gauge the ability of various
salmonid life-stages to migrate upstream through the culvert. This assessment is based
on direct and indirect (such as local channel scour) measurements of flow velocity,
culvert diameter relative to stream bankfull width, culvert and stream grade, culvert
materials and construction, and the presence and type of natural streambed substrate
retained throughout the culvert. All newly-identified fish passage barriers will be
submitted to WDFW Salmonid Screening, Habitat Assessment, and Restoration division
21
staff (SSHEAR) for inclusion on their WRIA 17 watershed prioritization list.
Prioritization for repair is based on a number of inter-related factors stemming from the
culvert assessment, but specifically takes into account the potential "gain" in fish habitat
upstream from the offending barrier structure - Le. the greater the length of recoverable
upstream habitat, the higher the ranking for a particular barrier on the priority list. Repair
and replacement of artificial fish passage barriers are ongoing by state and county
agencies and local watershed restoration groups, as funding becomes available.
Water Type Assessment and Fish Distribution - In 1975, the state of Washington
developed a process to identify and classify streams, lakes, and wetlands into several
categories or "types" depending on their physical, biological, and human-use
characteristics. This process, called water typing, was originally intended to regulate
forest practices that potentially impact Washington's surface waters, but the water type
inventory has now become the fundamental tool for protecting and conserving aquatic
habitats, not only on industrial forest lands, but also in the rural and urbanizing areas.
Cities and counties in Washington are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.060). The GMA was amended in 1995 to
require all municipalities to include "best available science" when enacting policies that
regulate land-use activity and development, in order to protect the functions and values of
critical areas (including stream corridors and wetlands, RCW 36.70A.I72). The law also
requires jurisdictions to periodically review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their
critical areas ordinances to ensure that they meet GMA requirements (for more detailed
information specific to Jefferson County, the complete text for Title 18.22 JCC is
available at http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/CriticaIAreas.htm ).
The amount of protection that streams and wetlands receive is entirely governed by the
WDNR water type classification system (as set forth in WAC 222-16-031). Briefly,
bodies of water that are classified as Type 1 are considered "state significant shorelines"
(as defined in RCW 90.58), and include major rivers, lakes, and seashores. Type 1,2 and
3 streams are considered fish-bearing, and receive greater protection (in the form of
stream corridor riparian .buffers) than Type 4 and 5 (non fish-bearing) streams.
T bl 2 WDNR W T C h rt
a e : ater !fDe onvers on c a
permanent (new) Interim (old)
Water Typing designation Water Typing designation
IType "8" - shoreline IIType 1 Water I
IType "F" - fish-bearing IIType 2 and 3 Water I
Type "Np" - non fish-bearing, IType 4 Water I
perennial
Type "Ns" - non fish-bearing, /TYpe 5 Water I
seasonal
Source: Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices: Water Typing. Olympia, W A.
http://www.dnr.wagovlBusinessPennitsffopics/ForestPracticesApplicationsJPages/fp _ watertyping.aspx
This system was recently revised by WDNR (2006 - Table 2), but Wild Fish
Conservancy still advocates the use of the interim classification system (Types 1-5) for
the specificity that is implied by conferring a Type 2 classification. Type 2 waters are
defined as having (among several other characteristics) "highly significant fish
22
populations", and provide greater protection for periodically inundated wetlands that are
so critical for hydrologic stability in a watershed, as well as habitat for numerous aquatic
and riparian-dependent wildlife species. Combining Type 2 and 3 streams into a single
"F" (for fish-bearing) category actually results in a loss of critical information regarding
the degree of biological use of the stream or other water body.
Today, state and local regulatory agencies rely on water typing to protect the state's
surface waters from adverse impacts associated with the broad range of human land-use
activities. Unfortunately, most ofthose agencies are falling short of the mark for a
surprisingly simple reason: they are relying on inaccurate, out-dated maps, and hundreds
of miles of productive aquatic habitats are being damaged by inappropriate land-use
practices because they have been misidentified. Map errors and inaccuracies in the fish-
bearing stream network traversing forested, agricultural, and developed lands in
Washington State have been well-documented by Wild Fish Conservancy and others,
typically resulting in the under-protection of approximately 50% of the length of fish-
bearing streams, with some streams entirely absent from water type maps.
Photo 9 - Headwater tributary stream typical of those targeted by WFC for water type
investigations in the Little Quilcene watershed. A noticeable gradient change is the
demarcation between fish-bearing (Type 3) and non fish-bearing, perennial (Np / Type 4)
habitat - clearly visible where the stadia rod crosses the stream channel.
To provide a solid foundation for in-stream and riparian habitat protection in the Little
Quilcene watershed, Wild Fish Conservancy conducted a water typing assessment of
priority stream reaches during March-April 2008. Based on a review ofWDNR water
type maps and our field knowledge of the watershed from the habitat reconnaissance,
spawning surveys, and fish passage inventory, WFC staff identified a subset of priority
headwater tributary streams with potentially incorrect water type classifications. Field
surveys to document stream channel geometry and fish presence/absence were used to
23
correct type classifications and map errors. Juvenile and resident fish-use data is a
natural ancillary product of water typing, providing additional information on species
composition and distribution in typed reaches. Wild Fish Conservancy will submit all
water-type changes and map corrections to Washington Department of Natural Resources
Forest Practices Application and Review System (FPARS), with recommendations for
updating their database to reflect findings in the Little Quilcene River sub-basin.
Field methodology for the standard water type survey is briefly described as follows:
where landowner permission was obtained, two-person teams walked priority headwater
streams measuring gradient, stream widths, taking habitat photographs, and documenting
fish presence/absence by eye, hand-netting or with electro-fishing gear. Surveys started
at the downstream confluence with previously doc\lmented fish-bearing ("F" or Type 3)
waters, and proceeded upstream to the end of the newly-identified fish-bearing habitat.
The upstream extent offish-bearing water was established in the field by a multi-factor
assessment of physical habitat features (stream gradient, presence of natural fish passage
barriers, bankfull width, and wetted perennial flow) and/or the absence of fish. Non fish-
bearing (Type 4 and 5) streams that did not appear on current WDNR water type maps
were also noted when located during the course of water type surveys for fish-bearing
(Type 3) habitat. In those few cases where field crews were unable to obtain landowner
permission, water type surveys relied on points of public access such as county road
crossings, and the unsurveyed channel segments were mapped to the best extent possible
using topographic maps and remote imagery such as LiDAR and aerial photographs.
Results and Discussion
Reach Delineation - Findings of the habitat reconnaissance survey resulted in the
development of six contiguous reach segments for the Little Quilcene River, extending
from the upper limit of tidal influence near the river mouth estuary on Quilcene Bay
upstream to the confluence of the Howe Creek tributary (17.0090) at river mile (RM) 5.2.
Little Quilcene reaches 1 and 3 were further partitioned into two separate sub-reaches
denoted lA, IB, 3A, and 3B. Leland Creek (17.0017) was divided into five reaches from
the confluence with the Little Quilcene River upstream to the vicinity of a perennial left-
bank tributary (17.0079) at approximate RM 2.1. Although unsurveyed during this
habitat reconnaissance, Leland Creek Reach 6 would extend upstream from the terminus
of Reach 5 to the outlet of Lake Leland (Map 5, Appendix 1). A total of three reach
breaks were identified for the surveyed portion of lower Ripley Creek (from the mouth
upstream to approximately RM 1.5) based primarily on valley confmement, with Reach 1
further divided into two sub-reaches (lA, IB) to differentiate extensive beaver-dam
influenced habitat from the higher-gradient, much more confined downstream channel:
The Howe Creek habitat reconnaissance resulted in four distinct reach breaks along the
-1.1 miles of surveyed channel upstream from the Little Quilcene River confluence.
Reach breaks are described in full in the Habitat Reconnaissance Survey Notes (Part III),
and appear on Maps 2-6, Appendix 1, and these mainstem and tributary reach breaks
roughly correspond to the segment breaks of the PNPTC- TFW ambient habitat
monitoring project (Table 3; with the exception of Leland Creek - not monitored).
24
Table 3 - Summary data for Little Quilcene - Leland sub-basin reach breaks from the
Little Quilcene - Leland Watershed Habitat Reconnaissance Survey (part III).
WFC Avg. valley river mile
habitat Reach Reach bankfull confinement! location of corresponding
survey location by length average width natural artificial TFW habitat
reach river mile (ft) 1 eradient (ft) barrier structures survey see:ment
TFW segment 2
(note: TWF
unconfined- dikes/levees & segment 1 is
Reach 1, 0.25 - 0.8 3820 1% 30 to-moderate2 / bank annoring located entirely
sub-reach lA downstream
no barrier within the tidal
estuary at the
river mouth)
dikes/levees &
bank annoring
Center Rd. bridge
at RM 0.8
Reach 1, 0.8 - 1.2 2340 1-2% 25 unconfined / abandoned bridge TFW segment 2
sub-reach lB no barrier at RM 0.83
culvert return of
the "Wildwood
Diversion Canal"
at RM 1.2
Reach 2 1.2 - 1.7 2360 1-3% 25 moderate / bank annoring TFW segment 2
no barrier
bank annoring
US Hwy 101
Reach 3, 1.7 - 2.75 5520 2-3% 25 unconfined / bridge at RM 1.8 TFW segment 3
sub-reach 3A no barrier
inlet of "Wildwood
Diversion Canal"
at RM -2.6
cobble "push-up"
dam at RM -3.0
Reach 3, 2.75 - 3.2 2450 3% 24 unconfined / TFW segment 4
sub-reach 3B no barrier railroad flatbed
driveway bridge at
RM -3.1
Reach 4 3.2 - 3.5 1470 4-5% N/A confined / engineered logjam TFW segment 4
no barrier at RM -3.2
Reach 5 3.5 - 4.35 4480 3-4% 24 moderate / none noted TFW segment 4
no barrier
railroad flatbed
moderate / bridge at RM 4.5
Reach 6 4.35 - 5.2 4620 2-4% 24 no barrier TFW segment 5
cobble "push-up"
dam at RM -4.6
Little QuiIcene River
WFC
habitat
river mile
location of
corresponding
TFW habitat
25
survey (ft) gradient width natural artificial survey segment
reach (ft) barrier structures
wooden footbridge
Reach 1 0.0 - 0.37 1950 3-4% 22 moderate I at RM 0.37 N/A
no barrier
bank armorinlr
log stringer bridge
moderate I at RM 0.43,
Reach 2 0.37 - 0.84 2490 2-3% 25 no barrier N/A
Rice Lake Road
brid!!e at RM 0.7
Reach 3 0.84 - 1.33 2560 2-3% 20-20 moderate I Hwy 101 culvert at N/A
no barrier RM 1.05
wooden footbridge
Reach 4 1.33 . 1.67 1810 1% 12-15 moderate I at RM 1.35 wI N/A
no barrier associated bank
armorin!!
wooden footbridge
and log stringer
driveway bridge at
RM 1.6
Reach 5 1.67 - 2.3 3430 1-3% 12-15 confined I N/A
no barrier wooden footbridge
at RM 1.7
log stringer bridge
at RM 1.78
RiDlev ree
WFC Avg. valley river mile
habitat Reach Reach bankfull confinement! location of corresponding
survey location by length average width natural artificial TFW habitat
reach river mile (ft) l!rad ient (ft) barrier structures survev Sel!ment
culvert beneath
5% 20 confined-to- Lords Lake Loop
moderate Road at RM 0.12
Reach 1 (max of (down to
sub-reach lA 0.0-0.73 3830 12% in a min of partial barrier railroad flatbed TFW segment 1
the 14 in the cascade for bridge at RM .28
cascade confined initial-300 ft.
section) canyon) wooden footbridge
at RM 0.67
N/A
(see
Reach 1 0.73-0.91 970 1-2% habitat unconfined I
sub-reach 18 no barrier none TFW segment 1
recon
notes in
Part iln
Reach 2 0.91 - 1.05 750 3-4% 8 moderate I no TFW segment 2
barrier none
confined-to-
1.05 - 1.5 moderate
Reach 3 continuing 2320+ 3-4% 8 none TFW segment 2
partial barrier
cascade series
C k
WFC
Howe Creek
location by I Reach I Reach I A V2. I valley
river mile
correspondin2
26
habitat river mile length average bankfull confinementJ location of TFW habitat
survey (ft) gradient width natural artificial survey segment
reach (ft) barrier structures
Reach 1 0.0 - 0.27 1440 8%,4% 25 moderate / TFW segment 1
no banier none
confined /
Reach 2 0.27 - 0.31 200 4% 24 -75ft. falls at none TFW segment 1
RM 0.31
modemte / culvert beneath
Reach 3 0.27 - 0.47 860 2-3% 16 no banier Lords Lake Loop TFW segment 2
Road at RM 0.45
culvert beneath
Reach 4 0.27 - 1.07 3130+ 1-2% 14 unconfined Lords Lake Loop TFW segment 3
Road at RM 1.9
I Reach length only refers to linear stream channel surveyed, though survey may have tenninated prior to attaining the upstream end
of the reach - this occurred during habitat surveys on both Ripley Creek and Howe Creek - see Part III (reaches R3 and H4) for details
'the Little Quilcene River through Reach 1 has very little natural confmement, but is artificially constricted by levees and road berms.
In-stream / Riparian Habitat Evaluation - A detailed, reach-level discussion of aquatic
and riparian habitat conditions for the Little Quilcene River and its major tributaries is
provided in the Habitat Reconnaissance Survey Notes (part III).
Like many of the tributaries to Puget Sound, a century and a half of logging, agricultural,
practices, and settlement have taken their toll on the Little Quilcene watershed. Prior to
the removal of the majority of instream and stream-adjacent large wood, photos from the
turn-of-the century Olympic Peninsula streams document channels completely choked by
log jams that extended for hundreds of meters. These were the conditions under which
native salmonids and other riparian dependent species evolved, and are dramatically
different from current conditions.
Documented Large Woody Debris (L WD) loads for the Little Quilcene and its tributaries
are well below the threshold values for in-stream L WD and as set in the Hood Canal
Summer Chum Conservation Initiative (Ames et. al. 2000). A lack ofLWD has resulted
in the formation of long reaches of plane-bed channel morphology, typical ofa simplified
and impacted stream system. Restoring in-stream L WD to impacted reaches will greatly
benefit the habitat functions in those reaches. The reestablishment of native riparian
vegetation throughout the basin will restore the habitat forming process of in-stream
L WD recruitment.
27
Photo 10 - Riparian corridors on upstream reaches of the Little Quilcene River are
generally intact (note large cedar tree on the verge off ailing into stream, contributing
L WD), but these reaches are outside the primary productive salmon spawning
grounds (photo shows that substrates are mostly bedrock and angular cobble).
Spawning Surveys - Over the period 1944-2006, WDFW and cooperating agencies and
entities conducted 1604 separate spawning ground surveys in the Little Quilcene
watershed, targeting predominantly coho and fall chum salmon in the river mainstem,
with fewer and more infrequent surveys for other salmon species. The frequency of
spawning surveys (N survey Fig. 1) averaged only 2 per year prior to1974 (presumably
conducted at or near the peak of the run), increasing to 21.6 and 15.1 surveys per year
from 1974 to present for coho and chum salmon, respectively. Figure 1 summarizes
available peak count data for coho and chum in the Little Quilcene - Leland sub-basin.
28
Figure 1 - Peak counts of coho and chum salmon in the Little Quilcene River, Leland
and Ripley Creeks (Washington Dept. ofFish and Wildlife data, 1944-2006).
Coho peak counts 1944-2006
800
700
." 600
~ 500
cu
1: 400
o
o 300
z 200
100
o
1944 1953 1962 1971 1980 1989 1998
Chum peak counts 1944-2006
2000
1800
1600
." 1400 "
~ 1200 ,i
cu
1: 1000
o
o 800
Z 600
400
200
o
1944 1953 1962 1971 1980 1989 1998
/t I I
y \ ,! \./ ;! 10
5
o
40
35
30
II)
25 ~
20 ~
! \ II)
15 0
Z
10
5
o
40
35
,
1\ 30
I \
i ; 25 !
\ i 20 ~
I; I II)
i! I 15 ~
- LQ peak count
Leland peak count
- Ripley peak count
- Misc peak count
- - N survey LQ
LO peak count
Leland peak count
N survey LO
The under-representation of tributary reaches in the overall survey effort immediately
becomes apparent (Fig. 1). Ofthe completed WDFW coho spawning surveys, only 43 of
774 (5.6%) were conducted in tributaries, with only eight years during the span of
available data with 2=2 spawning surveys in tributary streams. Observed peak counts are
29
often directly attributable to survey effort (i.e. the greater the number of surveys in a
given spawning season, the more likely that a particular survey date will correspond to
the peak of the run, and hence the higher the recorded fish observation). As depicted in
Figure 2, standardizing spawn survey data by the number of fish per length of surveyed
reach provides a means of comparing fish densities between mainstem and tributary
reaches for a given survey year (esp. those few years when spawner surveys occurred in
tributaries as well as the mainstem). These extrapolated fish densities represent the best
estimation of run size given the highly variable nature of the available data. The relative
trend in estimated population size over time is apparent for the surveyed streams (Fig. 2).
30
Figure 2 - Density (fish/mile) of coho and chum salmon in the Little Quilcene River, Leland
and Ripley Creeks (Washington Dept. ofFish and Wildlife data, 1944-2006).
3500
3000
~ 2500
~ 2000
.c
III
Ii: 1500
Coho peak fish/mile 1944-2006
i!
. !
J
II
I
o
z 1000
500
o
1944 1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000
Chum peak fish/mile 1944-2006
2000
1800
1600
~ 1400
E 1200
.....
.c 1000
III
Ii: 800 "
~ 600 Ii
400
200
o
1944 1951 1958 1965 1972 1979 1986 19932000
1 \
"
"
i;
40
35
/1 30
I : III
1\ 25 t'
I \ 20 ~
I i III
\J
15 0
z
10
5
o
LQ peak f/m
Leland peak f/m
-- Ripley peak f/m
- Mise peak f/m
- - N survey LQ
LQ peak f/m
Leland peak f/m
N survey LQ
In spite of gloomy forecasts, the 2007-2008 spawning season proved quite productive for
coho and fall chum salmon in the Little Quilcene watershed. Peak live + dead coho
densities of243.3 fish per mile were observed in the WDFW lower mainstem index reach
(from the river mouth upstream to the Leland Creek confluence), whereas much lower
densities (live+dead) of 0.0 - 47.7 fish/mile were observed in middle mainstem and
tributary reaches surveyed by Wild Fish Conservancy (Table 4). Chum counts
[h./
'\ J
40
35
\: 30
III
25 t'
20 ~
III
15 0
z
10
5
o
31
documented by WDFW in lower reaches of the Little Quilcene were 59.4 (live + dead)
fish observed per mile, while WFC observations in the reach upstream from the Highway
101 bridge crossing were a comparable 53.8. Note that chum salmon were not observed
in Ripley Creek, Wildwood tributary (17.0082), or Leland tributary (17.0080).
Table 4: Peak count calendar dates and fish densities (live + dead observed per mile) for
coho and chum in the Little uilcene River and tribut s awnin surve index reaches.
Coho Chum
Stream
(survey #L+D #D #(N) Peak live 1 Peak dead #L+D # (N) Peak live 1 Peak dead
reach Imile Imile surve s count date count date Imile surve s count date count date
lower river
(reaches 1-2) WDFW 1.8 243.3 7.2 6 9-Nov-07 24-0ct-07 59.4 5 12-Dec-07 16-Nov-07
middle river
(reach 3) WFC 1.3 6.9 0.82 6 11-Dec-07 11-Dec-07 53.8 6 11-Dec-07 11-Dec-07
Leland Creek
(RM 0 - 0.86) WFC 0.86 11.6 2.3 9 11-Dec-07 26-Dec-07 18.6 9 26-Dec-07 n/a
17.0080 trib
(RM 0 - 0.88) WFC 0.88 47.7 6.8 5 12-Dec-07 12-Dec-07 0.0 5 nla n/a
lower Ripley
(reach 1A) WFC 0.7 47.1 20.0 6 11-Dec-07 26-Dec-07 0.0 6 n/a n/a
upper Ripley
(reaches 2-3) WFC 0.27 25.9 11.1 5 13-Dec-07 13-Dec-07 0.0 5 n/a n/a
Wildwood Cr.
17.0082 trib
RM 0 - 0.08 WFC 0.08 0.0 0.0 5 n/a n/a 0.0 5 n/a n/a
'Though the listed dates may represents the peak run, WFC spawning surveys in the Little Quilcene mainstem surveys were discontinued
after Dec. 11, 2007 at the request of project sponsors (PEl).
2 Peak dead counts in the mainstem Little Quilcene were reduced by washing of carcasses out of the index reach during flood events.
Along with knowledge of spawning salmon abundance and general population trend for
individual stocks (Table 1), the freshwater distribution of spawners can also inform the
process of prioritizing reaches for targeted habitat restoration, particularly for widely
distributed species such as coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout. Though limited
tributary spawning surveys have been conducted in the Little Quilcene watershed, when
available, the ratio of tributary- to-main stem spawner abundances reveals the significance
of different areas for salmonid migration, spawning, and rearing. For example, the peak
coho abundance (live+dead coho/mile of survey) in Little Quilcene tributaries was highly
variable, ranging from 0.0-309.3% (median 20.7%) for the eight years with ~2 surveys in
one or more tributaries over the period 1974-2001. This variability supports the theory
that tributary coho abundance corresponds to water availability, with individual fish
adapting their spawning strategies depending on the volume and frequency of seasonal
freshets. In wet years, adult coho salmon appear to distribute widely throughout the
watershed, spawning preferentially in smaller tributary channels with greater favorable
cover, whereas in dry years, coho are more confined to the mainstem, and can less-
readily access tributaries. In contrast to the main stem WDFW index reach, relatively
high coho carcass counts were observed in tributary reaches including Leland Creek,
Ripley Creek, and a previously unsurveyed left-bank tributary to Leland (17.0080),
indicating that abundant fall rains and high stream flows during the 2007-2008 spawning
season allowed many coho to transit the Little Quilcene mainstem reaches, and to
penetrate further upstream into tributary spawning grounds. Note in Figure 3 that coho
32
abundance in tributary reaches corresponds to dramatic surges in stream flow associated
with the significant rain events of early December, 2007, and early January 2008.
Figure 3: Density of live + dead coho salmon (# per mile) relative to mainstem stream
gauge flow data in the Little Quilcene River and tributary index reaches for 2007-2008.
Little Quilcene Iive+dead Coho counts vs. discharge
600 1000
500 SI - Avg. dally cfs
..... .....
Ii " G
" " " 100 =
....... E " Little Qullcene
c: 400 ....... lower
. ~
u . Little Qullcene
" ......
:is . 0 mid
::I . . . .c . lower Leland
~ 300 10 0
m U
G . "l::I
f' .
. m Leland trlb
III 200
.c "l::I . lower Ripley
~ +
. 1 &
is In upper Ripley
100
0 0.1
10/10/07 10/30/07 11/19/07 12/9/07 12/29/07 1/18/08
Located approximately one-half mile downstream from the outlet of Lake Leland, the
17.0080 Leland Creek tributary (Map 5, Appendix 1) likely represents the upstream
extent of the majority of anadromous spawning activity in the Leland watershed.
Impromptu spot-checks of severallakeshore tributaries (including the upper mainstem of
Leland Creek) during the peak of the coho run did not reveal the presence of adult coho
upstream from this tributary, and landowners interviewed reported that they were
unaware of salmon spawning in lake tributaries during recent memory. Fall chum salmon
concentrated their spawning in the lower and middle Little Quilcene River and lower
reaches of Leland Creek. Chum salmon, as a rule, are much less mobile than other
salmonid species, unable to negotiate steeper and confmed reaches of upstream tributaries
that coho and steelhead traverse with relative ease. A partial natural barrier cascade at
the mouth of Ripley Creek restricts chum from entering the tributary, and the tendency
toward collective spawning as a chum life history trait generally requires larger areas of
spawnable gravels that are usually located in lower-gradient stream reaches. Historically,
late fall chum probably occupied spawning grounds in middle-to-upper reaches of Leland
Creek when chum abundance was much higher, forcing vanguard spawners further .
upstream, but currently diminished populations don't require as much spawning habitat,
and don't appear to migrate upstream as they once did. Degraded habitat in the middle
watershed likely reduced spawning opportunities for chum in the vicinity of Lake Leland
and downstream reaches. ESA-listed summer chum do not spawn in upstream tributaries
as these are inaccessible during the low-flow late-summer /early fall spawning period.
Summer chum were not targeted for spawning surveys by WFC.
33
Despite an apparent abundance of gravel spawning habitat, repeated surveys during the
peak of fall chum and coho spawning failed to reveal any evidence of anadromy in the
"Wildwood" right-bank tributary to the Little Quilcene (WRIA 17.0082 located several
hundred feet upstream from the Highway 101 bridge crossing - Map 2, Appendix 1).
The cause for this lack of habitat utilization is speculative - perhaps the runs were
extirpated and salmon have not yet re-colonized the tributary. The existence of barrier
culverts located along private road crossings upstream have significantly reduced the
length of available habitat (see Part II, LQ-7), but the lower -400 ft. channel reach seems
eminently suitable for spawning by anadromous salmonids and resident trout, and state
records indicate that it supported salmon spawning in the past.
As with many other Puget Sound and Hood Canal streams reporting, spawning steelhead
abundance in the Little Quilcene River and tributaries was very low during the 2008
winter-spring season. As part of the expanded Hood Canal Steelhead Supplementation
Project, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and cooperating entities conduct
regular spawning ground surveys for steelhead in the Little Quilcene River from the
tidewater mouth upstream to the Howe Creek confluence (RM 5.2). A total of only 13
steehead redds were identified from January through April, with no direct observations of
live fish (Joy Lee, Long-Live-The-Kings, pers. comm.). Wild Fish Conservancy had
limited opportunity to conduct steelhead spawner surveys in Little Quilcene tributary
streams, stymied by high flows and lack of visibility to a single survey of Leland Creek
(5/12/08), and three surveys of Ripley Creek and the 17.0080 Leland Creek tributary on
April 18, 30, and May 12. Steelhead spawning activity (live fish or recently-constructed
redds) was not in evidence during these surveys, although these data are too circumspect
to conclude that steelhead were not spawning in tributary streams during the 2008 season.
Further investigation of steelhead use of upstream tributaries in the Little Quilcene is
warranted, but given the extremely low returns reported for the mainstem, it is unlikely
that the few steelhead that may have spawned in tributary reaches would have been
detected with this limited survey effort.
Fish Passage Barrier Assessment - GIS output from a cross-query of available WDFW,
Jefferson County, and WSDOT culvert inventory databases resulted in the identification
of more than one-hundred previously-surveyed culvert crossings of state and county
roads in the Little Quilcene and Leland Creek sub-basins. Field teams briefly visited
each of these culverts to verify the accuracy ofthe initial survey, and to determine a sub-
set of culverts requiring an updated barrier assessment. Of the initial list of (110) culvert-
crossings on public roads gleaned from the available databases, we verified the correct
classification of 99 separate culverts, and re-surveyed the remaining 11 that, for a variety
of reasons, appeared to be incorrect upon examination (the associated stream was
misclassified as non fish-bearing habitat, a new culvert had been installed subsequent to
the initial survey, or the original barrier status assessment was simply incorrect).
Limited private property access hindered the ability of field crews to assess barrier status
on stream crossings of private roads and driveways throughout the watershed. However,
where permission to access private property was obtained (primarily land owned and
managed by Pope Resources, Bonneville Power Administration~ Washington Department
34
of Natural Resources, and a short list of private individual landowners) surveyors made
initial assessments of and additional 74 previously unsurveyed culvert crossings. The
majority ofthese were located on non fish-bearing (Np and Ns) streams or (in a few
cases) along decommissioned roads where the culvert had been removed, and did not
require additional scrutiny.
Barrier assessment was conducted on 9 private-road culvert crossings of fish-bearing
streams, as well as a large tributary to Howe Creek (Cedar Creek, WRIA 17.0093) that
was overlooked during the state assessment of culverts along the upper Lords Lake Loop
Road. This last was assessed by WFC personnel, and found not to present a fish-passage
barrier, thus, it does not appear with the list of barrier culverts detailed in Appendix 2 and
appearing on Maps 2-7. This culvert data will be submitted to the WDFW Salmonid
Screening, Habitat Enhancement, and Restoration (SSHEAR) section for fish passage
priority index scoring. Although federally-listed and other at-risk salmon stocks tend to
focus prioritizing for the repair of artificial fish passage barriers with the assumption that
salmon-healthy stream habitats benefit all other aquatic and riparian-dependent
organisms in the watershed, it should be remembered that other resident fish species and
juvenile life stages differ substantially in their ability to negotiate partial barriers that may
not present a hazard to migrating salmonids. It has been demonstrated that the upstream
limit native sculpin distribution in some western Washington streams, for example,
corresponds to in-stream barriers that in many cases were deemed passable to trout and
salmon (LeMoine 2007). And if the potential habitat gain from a barrier culvert fix along
a headwater tributary is small relative to downstream anadromous reaches, it is an
unlikely priority candidate for repair, though these short, upper basin reaches habitat may
be critical habitat for widely distributed, small resident trout populations.
Water Type Assessment - Locations for water type upgrades, stream corrections, and
newly-mapped headwater wetlands are depicted on Maps 2-6, Appendix 1. Wild Fish
Conservancy water-typing efforts in the Little Quilcene watershed during March-April
2008 resulted in the re-discovery of approximately 25,000 linear feet (or ~4.7 miles) of
fish-bearing ("F" or Type 3) habitat on streams that were erroneously classified as non
fish-bearing waters. This distance does not include thousands of feet of newly
documented fish-bearing habitat in man-made waterways (Cemetery Drain and the
Wildwood Diversion Canal). Although these canals fall outside the criteria for
classification as "F" (or Type 3) habitat (WDNR specifies that water typing only apply to
"natural waterways" as described in WAC 222-16-031), they clearly represent significant
spawning and rearing habitat for adult and juvenile salmonids in the Dabob Bay
watershed, and in most respects, are functionally similar to natural Type 3 water courses.
Numerous Type 4 and Type 5 streams (perennial and seasonal non fish-bearing,
respectively) were also located and mapped by WFC survey teams, as well as several
sizeable but previously unidentified headwater wetlands, including the beaver pond
source for the mainstem of Howe Creek. WFC verified that, with a few minor exceptions
(Le. short stream lengths, usually less than 400 ft.) Washington Department of Natural
Resources water type maps were reasonably accurate on many of the headwater
tributaries of the Little Quilcene River, Cedar Creek, Howe Creek, and Leland Creek.
35
Early knowledge that many of these smaller headwater tributaries appeared to be typed
accurately enabled personnel to adaptively manage their field time, and to concentrate
effort on those areas that would most likely result in significant fish habitat upgrades.
Specific stream reaches re-discovered and newly-typed as fish-bearing (Type 3) habitat
include -7500 linear ft. of previously un-mapped and unclassified habitat on a headwater
reach of Ripley Creek (upstream from Reach 3), -1950 ft. of Type 3 upgrade on several
small tributaries to Ripley Creek that were previously classified as non fish-bearing,
-2790 ft. of additional channel (incorrectly mapped) along headwater tributaries to the
Upper Leland Valley wetland complex (tributary 17.00 I 7Q-e/f) that have been ditched
and diverted through agricultural fields, -1850 ft. of tributary channel below and above a
barrier culvert on the north fork ofthe 17.0080 Leland Creek tributary (a massive debris
flow from past logging activity has buried the area around the tributary H-d confluence,
causing flow to become sub-surface and severely limiting fish access to potential
upstream habitat - Map 5), -3300 ft. of tributary channels to the wetland below Lake
Leland that did not previously appear on WDNR water type maps, -1280 ft. of channel
crossing the Snow Creek Road to an extensive beaver pond wetland at the headwaters of
the lengthy fish-bearing stream that is the largest western tributary to the Lake Leland
shoreline (tributary 17.0017N, entering the lake near the end ofMunn Road), and -4100
ft. of"F" (Type 3) habitat on a right-bank tributary to the mainstem Little Quilcene River
(17.0088 or tributary K) that is loc~ted in the vicinity of ongoing residential development.
Although previously identified as a Type 3 stream, a gradient barrier was discovered on a
small Leland Creek tributary (Leland tributary E) resulting in the downgrading of the
stream to non fish-bearing (Type 4) habitat above the barrier. In the course of
investigating this channel, it was noted that slash and erosion debris deposited in the
channel subsequent to past logging activity has caused the stream to go subsurface for
several hundred feet along the fish-bearing portion above the Highway 101 culvert.
Riparian leave trees have experienced heavy windthrow, choking the channel along the
steep canyon upstream, contributing to the degraded conditions. Anadromous barriers
were also mapped on the 17.0078 and 17.0079 Leland Creek tributaries (C and D).
In Western Washington, Forest Practices Regulations require that a 50 ft. no-harvest
riparian buffer be retained along any perennial (Np or Type 4) non fish-bearing streams
within the boundaries of a timber harvest unit, for a variable upstream distance depending
on how far the Type 4 stream extends above a confluence with Type 3 classified waters.
Regulations for intermittent (Ns or Type 5) streams dictate mitigation to prevent sediment
delivery to stream channels if timber harvest activities expose more than 10% of the soil
surface. Many of these headwater tributaries are located on ONF or private forest land
(ORM), and surrounding slopes are subject to intensive past and current timber harvest
activities, yet they are important contributors to water-quality in downstream fish-bearing
streams. A survey of the headwater channel of Howe Creek resulted in several hundred
linear feet of stream upgrade to Type 3 habitat, as well as identifying a large beaver pond
at the headwaters. This area and the headwaters of Ripley Creek, the Little Quilcene, and
Leland Creek have all seen extensive very recent clearcut logging that in some cases
(particularly with Type 4 and Type 5 headwater tributaries) failed to leave mandatory
riparian buffers, or to mitigate for potential soil erosion. In those cases where adequate
36
riparian buffers were left along streams, significant instances of tree blow-down have
occurred due to high wind storms ofthe past few seasons, often burying headwater
tributaries in extensive swaths of downed trees. Lack of an adequate riparian buffer was
noted along the last several hundred feet of Type 3 habitat on the logged areas of the
Leland Creek headwaters (above Lake Leland), as well as logging debris deposited in the
channel on the (larger) east fork tributary of upper Leland Creek (tributary U). Some
surrounding wetlands also did not appear to have been protected with an adequate buffer.
Spring-fed wetlands provide storage and slow-release of precipitation falling on
headwater tributaries, ensuring clean water and adequate flows to lower stream reaches.
Fish distribution - Surveyors brought-to-hand via netting or electro-fishing several
resident cutthroat trout from headwater tributary streams including upper Ripley Creek at
the Snow Creek Road culvert crossing (CC #98, Map 7, Appendix 1), and Cedar Creek
(17.0093, a sizeable Howe Creek tributary) at a previously unsurveyed (non-barrier)
culvert crossing of Lords Lake Loop Road. Tissue samples obtained from these trout are
kept in cold storage for possible future genetic analysis. Howe Creek and Ripley Creek
share a contiguous, low-gradient headwater wetland located on the drainage divide
adjacent to the Lords Lake Loop Road. WFC biologists speculate that resident cutthroat
in both sub-basins are not genetically isolated, and that gene flow occurs with migration
and inter-breeding across the watershed divide via connected wetlands during periods of
high water. Restoring habitat connectivity throughout these watersheds is vital to the
maintenance of genetic diversity among conspecific populations that would otherwise
become isolated from eachother due to anthropogenic impacts. Examples include the
loss of migration corridors due to barrier road culverts, levees, and railroad and highway
berms etc., or the draining of and disconnecting of wetland habitats for agriculture land
"reclamation", removal of beaver and the consequent degradation of once-extensive
former wetland areas, and timber harvest practices in headwater basins that result in the
loss of perennial springs that feed the downstream tributary network.
37
Photo 11- The few remaining trees in the upper left of the photo supposedly
"buffer" a spring-fed seasonal tributary to the headwaters of Ripley Creek.
Juvenile coho salmon were discovered in the plunge pool below the outlet of the barrier
culvert crossing of Leland Valley Road West on the 17.0078 tributary to Leland Creek
(tributary C, Map 6, Appendix 1). Resident cutthroat trout were netted both below and
above this perched culvert (CC #86 - Appendix 2, and Part II: section L-l). Cutthroat
trout were observed well into the upper reaches of the northern of two primary headwater
forks of the WRIA 17.0080 Leland Creek tributary (PC #61, Map 5). Juvenile coho were
also observed in this latter stream, indicating that adult coho accessed headwater habitat
well above the upstream extent of the spawning survey index reach during the fall spawn.
Finally, three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) were discovered downstream
from the outlet of two barrier culverts (PC #47 and #48, Map 4 and Appendix 2) on a
headwater tributary of the Upper Leland Valley wetland complex (tributary 17.0017 Q-j)
that has been ditched through livestock pasture, and mostly cleared of native riparian
vegetation. Stickleback are well known to withstand conditions (Le. high temperatures
and degraded water quality), often surviving in conditions where salmonids cannot.
However, the landowners (Appendix 3, #10) have indicated interest in assisting with
salmon recovery efforts in the past (Andrews Creek, a tributary of the Salmon / Snow
watershed to the north, also transits the property), and they may be convinced to
participate in a restoration of this significant stretch of headwater habitat (see Part II,
section L-5) that ultimately discharges to Lake Leland.
Surface water rights are exercised by landowners in and around the town of Quilcene via
a diversion canal that exits the mainstem Little Quilcene River in sub-reach 3A (Map 2).
The "Wildwood Diversion Canal" (so-named in this document because a segment of the
canal continues for several thousand feet in a ditch adjacent to Wildwood Road on the
outskirts of Quilcene) is potentially a significant source of increased mortality for coho
38
salmon entering from the river at the diversion canal entrance. Adult coho spawned at
the diversion entrance during the 2007-2008 spawning season (with at least 1 redd
located a short distance downstream within the canal proper), and several hundred
juvenile coho were observed in the initial downstream reach below the diversion dam.
For all intents and purposes, the Wildwood Canal is currently providing the low-gradient,
off-channel rearing habitat that is essential for juvenile coho, but generally limited in the
Little Quilcene mainstem. Juvenile salmon enter the canal to escape high seasonal flow
velocities in the adjacent river. The fish are likely subject to elevated water temperatures,
and higher rates of predation due to a complete lack of holding cover, but it is unlikely
that juvenile smolts will navigate upstream in the canal to return to the main stem when
they begin their out-migration toward the river mouth. The only available option is a
slow downstream transit along the open canal that is receiving sediment input from
ongoing residential construction along Big Leaf Lane. Fish in the canal are forced into a
lengthy section of aluminum pipe suspended over a ravine, and through several perched
culverts in a ditch along Wildwood Road, then several thousarid feet of livestock pasture
and road-side ditches, fmally discharging to a livestock watering pond adjacent the canal
culvert crossing of Highway 101. Depending on water management actions at a river-
return / control structure (comprised of sandbags and concrete riprap) just below the
diversion canal entrance, the water level in the ditch downstream to the culvert is often
not sufficient to cause overflow from the pond down to the culvert inlet that is located
just south of the Cemetery Road / Highway 101 intersection (the mouth of the canal
marks the upper end of sub-reach IB). Under these conditions, any fish transiting the
length of the canal to the culvert at the Little Quilcene River are trapped in the livestock
pond with no exit but to return "upstream" toward better holding water, and wait for
higher flows to again escape back to the river. Further details regarding opportunities to
mitigate the potential impacts of the "Wildwood Diversion Canal" on native fish
populations are provided in Part II, LQ-3 and LQ-4.
WFC water type surveys also documented juvenile coho rearing in an agricultural ditch
referred to locally as "Cemetery Drain" (see Part II, pg. 26 and Map 2, Appendix 1).
This previously un-mapped ditch flows along a narrow riparian corridor of medium-sized
alder trees upstream from a separate tidewater confluence at the head of Quilcene Bay
(between the mouths of the Little Quilcene and Big Quilcene Rivers). Cemetery Drain
crosses Center Road and Highway 101 via large-diameter culverts, and continues through
downtown Quilcene as an open ditch while crossing local roads through several smaller
culverts. Invasive Himalayan blackberries obscure the channel below the highway
crossing, and the channel flows for long distances in an open ditch through agriculture
fields and pastureland surrounding a (now greatly-reduced) former valley-bottom wetland
complex. The channel originates at several small but perennial spring-fed seeps to the
west and northwest of Cemetery Road. Compromised water quality due to elevated
temperatures, agricultural run-off, and greater risk of predation from lack of cover
indicate that Cemetery Drain is also a likely sink for Quilcene Bay coho populations.
39
Photo 12 - Salmon habitat in downtown Quilcene; upstream view of Cemetery Drain.
40
Part II:
Recommended Actions for Watershed Restoration and Recovery
How do we getfrom here...
Photo 13 - Highly degraded habitat: a former Type 3 fish-bearing tributary stream that was
converted to an agricultural drainage ditch flowing through pastureland (Cemetery Drain).
...back to there!
Photo 14 - A relatively intact segment of the Little Quilcene River: note the diverse
pool/riffle habitat with in-stream large woody debris and native riparian vegetation.
41
Watershed-wide recommendations for habitat protection and restoration
in the Little Quilcene River and Leland Creek sub-basins:
· Update Jefferson County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas maps
(FWHCA, Le. "critical areas"), and encourage landowner compliance with and
agency enforcement of minimum state riparian buffer standards for all stream
reaches, ponds, and wetlands in the Little Quilcene watershed. Although standard
wetland delineation was outside the scope of this project, all wetlands that were
"re-discovered" during WFC water typing efforts in headwater reaches of the
Little Quilcene, Ripley Creek, Howe Creek and Leland Creek sub-basins are
depicted on Maps 2-6 (Appendix 1). The wetlands should be officially surveyed
and delineated to provide protection in full under current WDNR forest practice
regulations. Jefferson County Critical Areas maps should reflect these previously
un-documented wetlands so that they are adequately protected from damaging
forestry and agricultural practices and continuing development. .
. In cooperation with Jefferson Land Trust, acquire lands or promote conservation
easements as parcels become available within the functional forested reaches and
in critical wetland areas to protect current habitat status from further degradation.
In particular, several parcels along the mainstem Little Quilcene and major
tributaries with high fish production value still have residual stands of mature
conifer forest in the riparian corridor. These would be suitable candidates for tax-
incentive conservation agreements with landowners, or possible land-trade
through the WDNR Trust Land Transfer program. Note: streamside acreage has
recently become available by a seller along Leland Creek near the end of Reach 5.
. Work with agricultural and residential landowners and local non-profits and
volunteers to remove non-native vegetation within the riparian corridors (refer to
Part III: Habitat Reconnaissance Survey Notes for detailed locations of streamside
incursions of invasive species incursions in the Little Quilcene watershed), and
supplant with native species for bank-stabilization and future wood recruitment.
Introduce landowners to the various Jefferson County Conservation District
(JCCD) riparian improvement and cost-share incentive programs such as CREP
and WHIP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement and Wildlife Habitat Incentives).
. Explore options to install engineered log-jams and introduce large wood pieces
and rootwads in place of the current levees and bank armoring (supplemented
L WD should appear natural - not cabled to stream banks). Suggested removal or
replacement of artificial bank armoring should consider the effects on adjacent
and downstream landowners, as well as the channel habitat form and function,
and future riparian conditions (refer to Table 3, Part I for reach locations of bank
armoring on the Little Quilcene and scattered locations on lower Leland Creek).
. Initiate and enforce best management practices in the agricultural areas, focusing
on protecting stream banks and water quality from livestock impacts, improving
riparian and pasture conditions by fencing off riparian areas, planting vegetation
42
barriers, and initiating pasture-rest and seasonal-preference grazing strategies.
Landowners with existing fences abutting the stream channel should be
encouraged to establish new fence lines with a wider setback, and to install nose-
pumps, solar pumps, or other non-stream-access livestock watering alternatives.
. Investigate recent timber cutting within the river riparian corridor (Little Quilcene
sub-reach 3B and Reach 6 in Part III), and enforce existing regulations protecting
state-mandated stream buffers. Headwater stream surveys along Howe Creek and
Leland Creek beyond the head of Lake Leland also identified,areas of significant
blow down of riparian buffers in recent timber harvest units. Deposition of
unnaturally large amounts of coarse woody debris in headwater channels can
result in later channel degradation, and isolating migration barriers for resident
fish populations. Monitoring and enforcement of current harvest activities should
be initiated to ensure compliance with riparian buffer standards for Type 4 (Np)
perennial tributaries and forested wetlands on timberlands owned and managed by
local private timber resource companies and the Forest Service. Headwater
tributaries and wetlands of Ripley Creek, Leland Creek, and the 17.0080 Leland
tributary have been particularly hard-hit by recent clearcut logging, with skid
roads damaging some spring sources, and very little mitigation / re-forestation
evident for logging near Type 5 channels as required by state law (WAC 222-30).
. Given predicted changes in climate and competing residential and municipal
water uses, the protection of groundwater and in-stream flows is essential to
sustaining watershed processes in the Little Quilcene - Leland Creek sub-basin.
Washington State Department of Ecology has yet to adopt minimum stream flow
recommendations consistent with the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources
Management Plan (JST, 1994) and the WRIA 17 Watershed Management Plan
(Cascadia, 2005). Well-drilling for expanding rural residential development
continues to be exempt from state regulation throughout the watershed, and wells
often tap near-surface groundwater that is vital to the maintenance of late summer
and early fall in-stream flows via subsurface water movement, particularly in the
rainshadow watersheds of the eastern Olympic Peninsula. WFC recommend the
initiation of an advocacy program targeting state water resources regulatory
agencies (WDOE) to adopt and enforce minimum in-stream flow requirements.
The City of Port Townsend and the Port Townsend Paper Corporation (owners of
the Port Townsend paper mill) could be approached with a request to modify their
current water diversion practices to increase or restore available surface flow
during the summer/fall seasonal drought. This recommendation should also
include a continuing program of community-education about water conservation
practices, relating residential/commercial water usage not only to future water
availability for people, but also the effects on salmon and native aquatic species.
. Initiate research to ascertain the current distribution and population status/trends
of native freshwater mussels throughout the Little Quilcene sub-basin. Though
potentially missed during the rapid habitat reconnaissance survey, WFC field
crews did not locate freshwater mussels in any of the surveyed stream reaches,
43
and this may be an indication of their scarcity and/or possible decline. Leland
Creek is known to have harbored past populations of mussels, and mussels are a
key indicator organism for water quality and watershed health. The current listing
of several resident mussel species on the Washington State Department ofFish
and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species list certainly lends "teeth" to habitat
protection for mussel beds mapped in watershed tributaries and trunk stream.
. The 2007 NOAA Fisheries listing ofPuget Sound Steelhead as "threatened"
under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) should result in funding and
resources quickly becoming available for research and habitat restoration.
Although stocks of steelhead in Hood Canal tributary streams are considered
severely depressed, so little information exists on population trend for winter
steelhead in the Little Quilcene sub-basin that the stock status is currently listed
by SaSI as "unknown" (WDFW 2002).
As part of their expanded Hood Canal Steelhead Project, Long Live the
Kings (LL TK) have initiated a hatchery supplementation and spawner monitoring
program throughout the Hood Canal basin, including spawning surveys in the
mainstem Little Quilcene River. However, tributaries of the Little Quilcene and
Leland Creek that may support winter steelhead production are not currently
monitored, presenting a significant data gap, and an opportunity to partner with
LL TK to expand spawning surveys for winter steelhead throughout the sub-basin.
. A community-wide education program targeting rural residential land-owners,
farmers, school children, and local civic leaders about the importance of
maintaining intact riparian corridors, water-quality protection, the benefits of
beavers in headwater habitat, and the "bragging rights" of having wild salmon
spawning and rearing within city limits and surrounding rural streams would
likely ease the transition to a more stream-friendly community in Quilcene.
Included in this recommendation could be the creation of a local committee with
representatives from state regulatory agencies, and technical experts from the
Jefferson County Conservation District (JCCD) and local watershed enhancement
groups to address agricultural and development practices and complaints, and
offer solutions as an alternative to heavy-handed regulation enforcement.
Targeted, reach-specific restoration opportunities:
Little Ouilcene River - see LQ-l through LQ-7 on Maps 2 and 3 (Appendix 1).
1. Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG) have acquired properties
along the lower river (sub-reach la) adjacent to mouth, and are implementing
restoration efforts including the removal/breaching of dikes that truncate the
floodplain habitat of the lower main channel and limit salmon spawning
opportunities upstream from the tidewater estuary. This would be an excellent
opportunity for Pacific Ecological Institute to partner with a lead local watershed
restoration organization to assist with the re-establishment of a meandering river
44
channel entering Quilcene Bay, and to enhance habitat for ESA-listed Hood Canal
summer chum in the and lower river reach.
Photo 15 - Ongoing (August 2008) restoration of lower Little Quilcene River by HCSEG
incIudeslevee removal, construction ofa meandering channel, supplementation with
large woody debris, and eventual planting with native riparian vegetation.
2. A formerly lengthy stretch of boulder riprap was removed from the left bank ofthe river
channel ~800 feet upstream from the Hi hway 101 brid e crossin each 3, sub-reach 3A).
~\'i"
~,
Photo 16 - Erosion of Little Quilcene River left channel bank (Reach 3, sub-reach 3a)
at the site of a former bank stabilization project (note boulder riprap in background).
45
2. (cont' d) Investigate the impacts of ongoing erosion at this site, consider
installation of an engineered logjam(s) and/or planting bank-stabilizing conifers.
3. The landowner / ditch manager (Appendix 3, #1) on the right-bank of the river at
the Wildwood Diversion Canal entrance (in sub-reach 3A) expressed interest in
the proposed idea of installing a fish-screen barrier to prevent the passage of
juvenile salmonids downstream from the river into the. diversion canal. Although
this is not a natural waterway (it was constructed for irrigation purposes near the
turn of the 20th century), the physical characteristics now qualify the canal as a
Type 3 (fish-bearing) channel, and numerous juvenile coho were observed in the
upstream reaches b WFC field crews.
Photo 17 - Early autumn low-flow upstream view at the "Wildwood Diversion Canal"
entrance showing de-watering that occurs in the mainstem Little Quilcene River (right).
This project would offer the potential to partner with landowners/farmers to
mitigate for the surface water diversion from the river, and would represent a
relatively small investment for a potentially large return in juvenile coho survival
in the Little Quilcene River. In addition, a feasibility study could be initiated to
explore the potential positive and negative impacts of naturalizing the entire
length (or portions) ofthe existing diversion canal and/or reconnecting it to the
main stem as a side channel during times of the year when it would be most
beneficial to spawning salmon (the side channel already exists as a water-return
route just downstream from the entrance - water level in the canal is currently
managed by a sandbag control and concrete riprap control structure).
4. Seasonal high flows routinely flatten the cobble push-up dam at the entrance to
the Wildwood Diversion Canal (see #3, above). Repeated channel manipulations
during re-construction, and subsequent re-distribution of the excavated substrates
46
by winter floods, have severely homogenized the channel habitat at this location,
resultin in an extended lane-bed channel form.
Photo 18 - View of the cobble diversion dam (remains are visible on left-bank) after
seasonal high flows have flattened the dam and re-distributed channel substrates. Several
logs are visible at the right-bank entrance to the "Wildwood Diversion Canal" downstream.
Investigate water rights claims by local landowners/canal water users and
compare with state (WDOE) and Jefferson County records to verify current water
rights status of canal water users. Although water rights-users are entitled to
maintain their diversion, an opportunity exists to collaborate with permitting
agencies (WDFW, WDOE) and interested parties responsible for ditch
maintenance (Appendix 3, #2) to moderate their approach to this annual stream
manipulation, particularly ifheavy equipment is used within the ordinary high
water mark of the channel. Re-construction should be timed to ensure that salmon
and steelhead eggs and alevin have hatched and emerged from interstitial gravels
in spawning sites throughout the channel near the canal entrance, and installation
of pool-forming engineered log jams may be appropriate for the entire sub-reach
upstream from the Wildwood Diversion Canal inlet to diversify spawning and
rearing habitats within the plane-bed riffle.
5. A man-made cobble push-up dam near the lower extent of sub-reach 3B diverts
flow away from a homesite atop an eroding bank (Jefferson County parcel
#702111036 physical address: #285 Lords Lake Loop Rd.). The dam results in
the complete de-watering of spawning gravels in two of three downstream
channel braids during low flow periods, and increases flow rates and the potential
for erosion along the right bank. Split and side channel reaches are few-and-far
between in the Little Quilcene River, butthese often provide the most productive
spawning and rearing habitats. Explore alternatives to restore in-stream flow
connectivity, and to assist the landowner with erosion concerns. Options include
47
an investigation of the feasibility of engineering log jams, and planting bank-
stabilizing conifer trees for long-term protection of the eroding left bank.
Photos 19-20 - Downstream view of another cobble diversion dam (left) near the upper extent of sub-reach 3b.
"Push-up" dam diverts flow from an eroding left-bank bluff (right), but de-waters the downstream split channel.
6. Another man-made cobble push-up dam located in Reach 6 did not appear to be a
water diversion; its function was unclear at the time of the habitat reconnaissance.
Such channel manipulations, though common along many state waterways, can be
very detrimental to fish migration and habitat structure, and are direct violations
ofWDFW hydraulics ordinances (unless the appropriate permits are obtained by
landowners). A program of informational signage placed at key public access
points throughout the watershed, and a letter-writing campaign targeting
streamside landowners may help to reduce the incidence of substrate manipulation
by otherwise uninformed recreational users and residents.
Photo 21 - Upstream view of a third cobble "push-up" dam; Little Quilcene, Reach 6.
48
7. WFC personnel determined that fall chum and coho salmon did not utilize the
17.0082 tributary to the mainstem Little Quilcene River during the 2007-2008
spawning season (tributary D, with a right-bank confluence located in Reach 3,
sub-reach 3a). This stream (sometimes referred to as "Wildwood Creek") extends
for -400 ft. above the river to a culvert crossing of Big Leaf Lane that is a
com lete barrier to u stream fish assa e and contributes to downstream erosion.
Photos 22-23 - A view of "Wildwood Creek" -350 ft. upstream from the Little QuilceneRiver confluence (left),
and -50 ft. below a barrier culvert crossing of Big Leaf Lane (right). The "Wildwood Diversion Canal" crosses the
Wildwood Creek ravine via a suspended aluminum pipe, and the culvert barrier disconnects several-thousand feet of
potential mainstem and tributary anadromous habitat upstream from Big Leaf Lane.
WFC water type survey crews did not have access to private property to
determine the full extent of habitat potential above this barrier culvert (pC #74,
Appendix 2), but a review of the WDNR water type maps indicates a minimum
habitat gain of ~ 1950 ft. upstream to a major channel fork at the 17.0083 tributary
confluence, with the likelihood of an additional ~4400 ft. of potential anadromous
habitat on the Wildwood Creek main stem (17.0082), and the 17.0083 (D-a) and
17.0084 (D-b) tributaries combined above two additional barrier culvert crossings
oflocal roads (pC #'s 71, 72, 73 Appendix 2). All of these culverts are located
along a private road system that extends into an area of ongoing residential
development (to the north and west of Wildwood Road), so they were not
identified for the Jefferson County Culvert Inventory and Prioritization (Till et. al.
2000), and WFC personnel were unable to obtain permission to conduct barrier
assessments. However, cursory examinations concluded that all three culverts are
fish-passage barriers, and replacement with at-grade culverts of appropriate size
to handle winter seasonal high flows would re-connect anadromous and
headwater resident fish habitat throughout the 17.0082 tributary network,
representing the largest potential gain in fish-bearing habitat from a culvert
replacement project identified by WFC during the course of the Little Quilcene
Rapid Habitat Assessment.
Leland Creek and Lake Leland - see L-l through L-7 on Maps 4,5, & 6 (Appendix 1)'
General -Water quality issues in Leland Creek become particularly problematic for
native fish and other aquatic organisms during the late summer and early fall dry
49
season (or in years of lower-than-average precipitation) when numerous seasonal
tributaries have ceased to flow. Clean, clear, cool water from the few perennial
Leland Creek tributaries provides thermal refugia for trout and salmon :fry escaping
elevated temperatures in Leland Creek proper, and serves to mitigate mainstem
temperatures downstream. Much research in recent years has focused on water
quality and temperature issues in Lake Leland, but protection and restoration of these
year-round Leland Creek tributaries should also become a priority in any future
management plan for aquatic and riparian habitats, and as such, they are the focus of
the majority ofWFC's recommendations for the greater Leland watershed.
1. Replacement ofa perched culvert located at mile-post 3.12 ofthe West Leland
Valley Road would offer an exceptional opportunity to partner with Jefferson
County on a capital improvement project. The stream (17.0078 - tributary C,
Map 6) is used by both anadromous coho and resident cutthroat trout, with coho
salmon currently spawning in the short reach downstream from the culvert outlet,
and cutthroat observed both below and well above the culvert. Nearly 950 ft. of
potential salmon spawning and rearing habitat continues above the culvert to a
natural gradient barrier, with an additional 2450 ft. of Type 3 habitat upstream
from this anadromous barrier, for a total gain of approximately 3400 linear feet of
fish-bearing habitat. The headwaters are fed by a series of perennially spring-fed,
low-gradient streams and associated wetlands that are located within a remarkably
intact setting of mature timber and natural riparian vegetation on state land.
A road bridge or at-grade culvert crossing, coupled with the permanent
protection of the forested headwater reach (via conservation easements on
adjoining private land and acquisition of the state property through the WDNR
Trust Land Transfer program before it comes due for harvest), would secure and
restore this potentially very productive tributary, and protect water quality near
the source for downstream rearing juvenile coho and resident trout in both the
tributary and Leland Creek. The culvert (CC #86, Appendix 2) is currently
ranked 22nd on the barrier prioritization list for Jefferson County (Till et al. 2000).
Landowners at the mouth of this stream (Appendix 3, #3) have indicated a
keen interest in riparian restoration and conservation of stream reaches through
their property, both along their Leland Creek frontage (though not a part of the
mainstem spawning survey index reach, adult coho were observed spawning in
numbers here during WFC spot-surveys) and along the tributary from the Leland
confluence upstream beyond the culvert crossing of Leland Valley Road West.
50
Photo 24 - Barrier culvert crossing of Leland Valley Road West on the 17.0078 tributary.
Photos 25-26 - Cutthroat trout (left) and juvenile coho salmon (right) were netted in the culvert plunge pool.
2. During the course of intensive WFC investigations of tributary reaches, the
17.0080 Leland Creek tributary was discovered to be very productive spawning
and rearing habitat for coho salmon. Although the spawning-survey reach of this
H tributary (Map 5) flows in large part through a naturally forested valley with a
riparian corridor of mature conifers and deciduous trees (WDNR ownership),
water quality could become compromised by land-use practices along head:water
reaches. Uplands surrounding these headwater tributaries are managed primarily
for timber harvest, with recent, extensive clearcut logging and blowdown of
riparian buffers during high wind events. The construction of channel-crossing
skid-roads has damaged several spring-fed feeders to these tributaries, causing a
Type 4 (Np) stream to flow subsurface in at least one instance noted during water
typing efforts. The channels are further degraded by off-highway vehicle (OHV)
51
use along the Bonneville Power Administration's powerline swath. OHV tracks
were noted in many sensitive wetland areas. Both the north and south headwater
forks - WRIA 17.0080 continues as the north fork, and the H-a tributary enters
from the south - merge in the center of an extensive wetland / former pasture land
located along the cleared BPA powerline right-of-way. This wetland is heavily
overgrown with reed canary grass, and the southern tributary has been extensively
ditched through this former pasture. Both tributary forks are lacking in riparian
overstory and undstory cover to mitigate downstream summer temperatures.
a. Streamside planting of high-growing conifer species is not an option along a
short segment of this reach, as BP A will continue to maintain an essentially
de-foliated swath directly beneath the powerlines.
Photo 27 - Downstream view along the degraded south fork headwater tributary ofWRIA
17.0080 (tributary H-a). Note extensive incursion of non native grass beginning to green-up.
WRIA 17.0080 continues downstream in a forested valley that begins at the distant tree-line.
This segment would benefit from the removal of invasive vegetation, and the
planting oflow-growing native riparian shrubs to provide much-needed shade
and pool cover. Conifers and deciduous trees should be planted along both
channel forks above and below the relatively narrow powerline corridor to
create future riparian forest habitat.
b. Hydraulics ordinances banning motorized vehicles from stream channels
should be enforced, and educational signage installed reminding local OHV
enthusiasts of the pertinent regulations. Adjacent land management agencies
(WDNR, BP A, ORM) should be encouraged to maintain and replace current
ditches and culverts to minimize downstream sedimentation from small,
seasonal tributaries that are outsized for current infrastructure during high
flow periods, and are actively eroding un-maintained road surfaces,
52
contributing sediment to the main 17.0080 channel during heavy rainfall or
rain-on-snow events. Turbid water from suspended sediments was observed
several times during spawning surveys in the downstream index reach.
Photos 28-29 - Ns (Type 5) seasonal tributary channel eroding an old road-bed in a headwater area
that receives heavy use by OHVs (left), and in-stream sedimentation visible at a (non-barrier) culvert
outlet just below the confluence of the 17.0080 Leland tributary and its south fork (17.0080 H-a).
c. Replacement of a barrier culvert (pC #62~ Appendix 2) and re-construction of
the channel through a debris flow that currently blocks up-channel fish
migration at the tributary mouth, would result in a gain of -1850 ft. of fish-
bearing habitat along the H-d tributary to the north fork 17.0080mainstem
(Map 5). Cutthroat trout were observed at the tributary confluence, and
juvenile coho were netted in the main stem just downstream.
d. The fmal-670 ft. of the 17.0080 Leland tributary below the double-culvert
crossing of Highway 101 (CC #'s 100/101, Appendix 2) flows through a
ditched channel in a residential yard before dispersing into former wetland
just above the Leland Creek confluence. Adult coho salmon were in large part
able to traverse this short, undefined channel segment to access spawning
grounds in the index reach above the highway, but the potential exists for
stranding in adjacent livestock pasture during high water periods. Stranding
can be directly fatal, and also increases predation risk. Run-off from the
livestock pasture likely compromises water quality in Leland Creek
downstream. Fencing set-backs for livestock, and riparian restoration and re-
construction of a meandering channel through the pasture segment along this
stream would benefit out-migrating juvenile coho as well as returning adults.
The landowner (Appendix 3, #5) appeared somewhat receptive, and may
become more enthusiastic if/when informed that the tributary through their
property is a source of significant coho production in the Leland watershed.
53
Photos 30-31 - Inadequate livestock fencing setbacks (left) on the 17.0080 tributary near the confluence
with Leland Creek; a common occurrence on streams flowing through pasture land throughout Leland
Valley. An adult male coho stranded in a flooded field (right), and then killed by otters before it had an
opportunity to contribute to the genetic pool of the next generation of wild salmon.
3. Long stretches of Leland Creek below the outlet of Lake Leland, and ditched fish-
bearing (Type 3) channels along the Upper Leland Valley wetland complex
(Maps 4 and 5) lack adequate riparian tree cover and are heavily influenced by
invasive reed canary grass (see reach descriptions in the Habitat Reconnaissance
Survey Notes: Part III). As a result, summer temperatures in Leland Creek
regularl exceed state water quality standards, and likely limit main stem fish use.
Photo 32 - Fence-line separates reed canary grass-dominated wetland just below the outlet of
Lake Leland from fish-bearing (Type 3) tributary 17.0017 f that vanishes in pastureland before
reaching a confluence with Leland Creek (in the background against the forested ridge).
54
3. (cont'd) A project partnering with JCCD and multiple local landowners and
community volunteers to remove invasive reed canary grass and conduct tree
plantings would improve long-term habitat conditions in upper Leland Creek, and
benefit water quality in downstream reaches. Riparian restoration accomplishes
the twin goals of improving shade conditions for stream temperature mitigation,
and future channel recruitment of large woody debris.
Approach landowners with property along Leland Valley Road West
about the feasibility of re-establishing the hydraulic connections with adjacent
wetlands along the historic/abandoned railroad grade in Leland Valley, by
reconstructing former channels (where necessary - see photo, above) and re-
opening the many wetland-to-wetland and wetland-creek connectors. The
railroad berm currently functions as a levee, truncating the channel migration
zone and fracturing wetland and side-channel connectivity. These off-channel
habitats have repeatedly been demonstrated to be of particular importance to the
over-winter survival of juvenile coho and steelhead prior to smolting and river
out-migration. Spring-fed Type 4 and 5 (Np and Ns) tributaries draining upslope
land to the west of the roadway contribute cool, clean water to wetlands on the
valley floor, and should be protected with native riparian vegetation buffers where
they transit rural residential property and pasture. Removal of sections ofthe
railroad grade could facilitate the movement of juvenile and resident fish into this
off-channel habitat during periods of compromised water quality in the main stem.
4. Nearly 1400 feet offish-bearing habitat along the eastern headwater tributary to
the Upper Leland Valley wetland complex (17.00l7Q-d) is almost completely
disconnected by ditching of the downstream channel within the floodplain. The
channel was altered from its former course southwesterly toward the wetland
confluence, and now flows in a very shallow ditch through livestock pasture to the
northwest, before turning to the south at a confluence with the 17.0017Q-e/f
tributaries at a submerged culvert crossing of Highway 101.
55
Photo 33 - Channel diversion that disconnects fish-bearing (Type 3) habitat from tributary
17.0017Q-d emerging from a side canyon upstream from the Upper Leland Valley wetland.
4. (cont'd) The ditched channel below Leland Valley Road East is almost
completely overgrown with non-native grasses, with very little native riparian
cover, and continues upstream to a recently-installed barrier culvert crossing of
Leland Valley Road East (CC #44.5, Appendix 2). Should salmon and steelhead
eventually be encouraged to return to Upper Leland Valley wetland tributaries,
this stream could provide excellent spawning habitat in the short canyon reach
located just above the roadway (on property parcel #802134004). Re-connecting
the lower segment of this tributary, fencing livestock away from the stream, and
restoring the riparian buffer would help to improve water quality in Lake Leland.
5. The Boulton Farm spans the upper reaches of both Andrews Creek (WRIA
17.0221) and the headwater tributaries to the Upper Leland Valley wetland
complex (17.0017Q-e/f, Map 4). Native fish access to the fish-bearing (Type 3)
tributaries traversing the property would benefit from the replacement of two
barrier culverts located along a ditched portion of the western headwater tributary
(PC #47, 48, Appendix 2). The landowner (Appendix 3, #10) may also be
amenable to a complete restoration of the two channels that could eventually be
utilized for spawning if native salmon and steelhead are encouraged to return to
Lake Leland and upstream tributaries. Three-spine stickleback were discovered
just below the outlet of the lower culvert. Stickleback are a native fish capable of
withstanding degraded water quality and high stream temperatures, often
surviving in stream conditions where trout and salmon would be jeopardized.
Amphibians use the channels and adjacent wetlands for reproduction. Both
streams are spring-fed Type 4 tributaries exiting areas of extensive upslope
logging (observed riparian buffers adhered to state forest practice minimums), but
are now confined within ditches through livestock pasture on the valley floor.
56
Photos 34-35 - Three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus acllleatus -left) and frog egg masses (right) located at the
ditched outlet of barrier culverts along the 17.0017 Q-f tributary to the Upper Leland Valley wetland complex.
5. (cont'd) Livestock are currently fenced from direct access to these channels,
but pasture run-off was evident at the time of the stream survey. Very little
riparian cover remains (a scattering of willow trees), and the streamside
vegetation is predominantly composed of invasive Himalayan blackberry,
reed canary grass, and non-native pasture grasses. A complete habitat
restoration would include riparian plantings, and the re-construction and
naturalization of meandering channels along portions that are currently
ditched. At minimum, replacement of invasive vegetation with native trees
and shrubs and encouraging wider fencing setbacks would reduce summer
maximum water temperatures and pasture run-off toward the ditched wetlands
that discharge directly into Lake Leland downstream.
57
Photo 36 - Wetland habitat in Upper Leland Valley now relegated to a ditch along
Highway 101. Fish-bearing (Type 3) habitat continues for several thousand feet further
upstream along eastern (17.0017Q-d) and western (17.0017Q-e/f) headwater tributaries.
All run-off into this ditch eventually enters Lake Leland approx. 2 miles downstream.
6. Lake Leland and its tributaries -
a. The Leland Creek culvert crossing of the Leland Valley Road West just below
the outlet to Lake Leland is not a fish passage barrier, but is backwatered
during high water periods, overflowing the roadway and creating hazardous
driving conditions for local residents. Replacement of this culvert (CC #76,
Appendix 2) with a bridge or new culvert of sufficient size to handle the
highest seasonal flows would ensure adequate fish passage downstream into
Leland Creek during all water levels, and reduce the potential for stranding of
adult salmon should they return to the Leland Lake tributaries to spawn.
b. Although no longer functional, removal of the fish weir at the Lake Leland
outlet could be the first step to initiating a complete resurrection of the ditched
Leland Creek channel downstream through wetlands (see Leland #3, above).
58
Photo 37 - Defunct fish weir and reed canary grass invading
the channel at the Leland Creek outlet from Lake Leland.
c. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife routinely supplants native trout
populations in Lake Leland with hatchery rainbow trout to provide sport-
fishing opportunities for local anglers. Should salmon and steelhead be
encouraged to return to Lake Leland and upstream tributaries, they would be
subject to possible high rates of predation by planted rainbows, and hatchery
fish could potentially dilute wild steelhead genetic stock through inter-
breeding. This issue would need to be addressed in any plan to promote
steelhead and salmon to return to the upper Leland Creek watershed.
d. Short reaches of spawning habitat exists in several Lake Leland tributaries.
Segments ofthe 17.00170 and 17.0017P tributaries (Map 5) below gradient
barriers at Snow Creek Road have adequate spawning gravel for resident trout
(and potentially anadromous salmon), and may serve as thermal refugia when
summer temperatures and water quality in the lake become untenable. These
tributaries currently lack vegetative cover where they transit lakeshore
residential properties. Educate landowners about the value of shade trees and
native shrubs not only to resident fish, but also to lake water quality.
e. Tributary 17.0017N enters Lake Leland near the end ofMunn Road (Map 5).
This tributary has several thousand feet of newly-mapped fish-bearing habitat
above the lake confluence. Although the Munn Road culvert is not a fish
passage barrier, the stream both above and below the culvert is heavily
overgrown with invasive vegetation (esp. Himilayan blackberry and English
59
ivy), and the channel is armored and rip-rapped through several residential
properties downstream toward the lake (incl. parcel #802261012). Native
riparian cover has largely been removed along this reach, replaced by
residential landscaping and non-native commercial plants along the banks. A
wooden dock is located directly adjacent to the stream mouth where reed
canary grass partially obscures the lake confluence. The landowners at the
confluence (Appendix 3, #8) may be open to native riparian restoration, and
should be included in community meetings discussing water quality concerns
and the otential return of salmon to Lake Leland and watershed tributaries.
,
Photo 38 -confluence of the 17.0017N tributary on private property on the southwest
shore of Lake Leland. Fish-bearing habitat extends upstream beyond Snow Creek Road.
f. A small man-made dam and impoundment along a headwater reach of the
17.0017 N tributary (see Leland #6e above and Map 5) is a complete fish-
passage barrier, causing the Type 3 stream to flow subsurface for a distance.
This structure is located on private property (ORM) several hundred feet
below the Snow Creek Road culvert crossing. A restoration project to re-
connect newly-classified fish-bearing habitat with a headwater beaver pond to
the north of Snow Creek Road could include removal of the small dam, and
the replacement of two barrier culverts (PC #2 and CC #95, Appendix 2).
60
Photo 39 - Barrier culvert crossing of a decommissioned logging road along newly-
mapped Type 3 habitat on a headwater reach of the 17.0017N tributary to Lake Leland.
Photo 40 - Extensive beaver pond wetland located just upstream from a culvert crossing
of Snow Creek Road (CC 95) at the headwaters of the 17.0017 N Lake Leland tributary.
7. The Highway 101 culvert crossing of Leland Creek (SC #99, Appendix 2) is
considered a "B-level" barrier - Le. a barrier under low flow conditions only.
This culvert does not currently appear among the 84 listed barriers scheduled for
eventual repair in the Jefferson County Culvert Inventory and Prioritization (Till
et. al. 2000). Although negotiating this culvert is likely problematic for resident
61
trout and juvenile salmon migrating through the watershed during low flow
periods, the culvert is not a significant barrier for spawning adult salmon because
early-season flows are too low for summer chum to enter Leland Creek
downstream. Stream flows high enough to permit entry at the mouth also elevate
the water level in the culvert enou h to facilitate the assa e of adult salmon.
Photo 41 - Upstream view through the outlet of the Highway 101 culvert on Leland Creek
(Reach 3). The culvert (SC 99) creates a partial fish-passage barrier during low-flow periods.
62
Ripley Creek- see R-l through R-5 on Map 7 (Appendix 1)
1. A 16-inch diameter log spanning the channel at the Ripley Creek confluence with
the Little Quilcene River is currently embedded in the substrate, creating an
impediment to fish migration into the mouth of the stream. This would be a quick
fix to im rove fish assa e into and out ofthe tribu durin low water eriods.
Photo 42 - High water view of channel-spanning log at the mouth of Ripley Creek;
the log is a partial barrier to fish migration during late summer / early fall low flows.
2. The owner of a railroad flatbed bridge connecting adjacent pasture along the
channel in sub-reach la (Appendix 3, #6) has expressed interest in supplementing
native vegetation along the riparian corridor through his property for the benefit
of spawning salmon. This sub-reach was a stronghold for coho salmon during the
2007-2008 spawning season. However, much of the reach lacks large woody
debris to create pools and habitat complexity for rearing juvenile fish. The
riparian buffer is largely composed of mature alder trees and dense vine maple,
with little regeneration of conifer trees in the understory. The surface channel for
a distance of several hundred meters from the above the bridge downstream to the
river confluence becomes completely dry during late summer and early fall. A
restoration project that included the introduction of pool-forming woody debris
into the channel, along with planting of streamside conifer trees for future shade
and wood recruitment would improve both spawning and rearing habitat for coho
salmon and resident cutthroat trout. Residual pools formed by the placement of
rootwads and small engineered log jams may hold water over the dry season to
increase juvenile rearing habitat.
3. The riparian corridor along the "beaver pond reach" of lower Ripley Creek is
completely dominated by invasive plant species, with the stream reduced to
multiple narrow channels threading through dense swaths of reed canary grass.
63
Restoration of this reach (sub-reach IB, Part III) by removing the non-native
vegetation and planting of both conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs would
contribute to the long-term enhancement of aquatic and riparian habitats, and
improve short-term assa e of coho salmon into u stream s awnin ounds.
Photo 43 - Downstream view of reed canary grass-dominated wetland habitat created by
beaver activity near a local powerline crossing in sub-reach 1 B of lower Ripley Creek.
4. Beaver pond wetlands are very productive habitats for coho salmon and other
wetland dependent species. The importance of beavers for in-stream and riparian
health and function should be stressed to local landowners, so that beaver are
retained in the Ripley sub-basin, and encouraged to propagate throughout the
Little Quilcene watershed.
5. A potential partial-barrier culvert crossing of Snow Creek Road may impede the
seasonal migration of cutthroat trout in the Ripley Creek watershed. Though not a
complete fish-passage barrier, channel scour in the vicinity of the culvert outlet
(CC #98, Appendix 2) indicates that a "B-h~vel" analysis is necessary to
determine whether the culvert creates a velocity barrier during high flow periods.
Cutthroat trout were located in Ripley Creek just upstream from this culvert
crossing, along the headwater segment of an -7500 ft. reach of Ripley Creek that
was newly-identified and mapped as fish-bearing (Type 3) habitat during WFC
water typing efforts. Field personnel also identified another potential barrier
culvert on private land (pC #1, Appendix 2) along the Ripley Creek headwater
reach, though the potential habitat gain above this culvert is minimal.
64
Howe Creek see H-l and H-2 on Map 7 (Appendix 1)
General - Riparian and in-stream conditions in the Howe Creek tributary basin are
somewhat more intact than other Little Quilcene tributaries surveyed for this report
(Ripley Creek, Leland Creek), likely due to its isolation in the upper part of the
watershed, steep gradient lower reaches, and a general lack of residential development.
Timber harvest is ongoing on private forest land throughout the headwater basin. This
may be contributing to increased flash flows and possible sedimentation of the mainstem
Little Quilcene River downstream. Salmon and steelhead are prevented from accessing
the Howe Creek tributary network above Reach 2 by a high waterfall barrier, but resident
trout were observed throu outthe u er watershed.
Photo 44 - Anadromous barrier falls located at the upper
extent of Howe Creek, Reach 2 during the habitat survey.
1. Reach. 4 of Howe Creek consists of an extensive series of beaver pond wetlands
that are completely dominated by reed canary grass (even more so than Ripley
Creek, sub-reach IB - see photo 40, pg. 23). Resident trout in upper Howe Creek
and its upstream tributaries may be hindered from migrating throughout the
available habitat above the anadromous barrier of Reach 2 by the channel
conditions of Reach 4. Restoration of this reach by removing the non-native
vegetation and planting of both conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs would
65
contribute to the long-term enhancement of aquatic habitat in Howe Creek and
throughout the Little Quilcene watershed downstream. Such a restoration would
improve habitat conditions and facilitate mi ation for resident trout.
Photo 45 - Seventy millimeter cutthroat trout brought-to-hand via electro-fishing in the
Cedar Creek (WRIA 17.0093) headwater tributary to Howe Creek (WRIA 17.0090).
66
2.
Photo 46 - Blowdown of conifer trees in the riparian buffer surrounding a beaver pond
wetland (visible in background) in the recently clearcut headwater basin of Howe Creek.
Cemetery Drain
General - Opportunities exist to enhance salmon spawning and rearing habitat within the
city limits of the town of Quilcene. "Cemetery Drain" is an agricultural ditch emanating
from several spring-fed sources to the west of Cemetery Road (Map 3, Appendix 2) and
continuing downstream to a separate tidewater confluence in Quilcene Bay, directly east
of Quilcene. WFC surveyors documented juvenile coho salmon just upstream from the
culvert crossing of Center Road, and JCCD staff (AI Latham pers. comm.) indicate that
juvenile coho have been observed as far upstream as the several culvert crossings of
Columbia Avenue. Although there are no concrete data regarding survival of coho in this
waterway (Type 3 habitat based on physical and biological characteristics), it is likely
that compromised water quality, elevated stream temperatures, and increased risk of
predation all contribute to low probability of survival-to-outmigration for juvenile coho.
Landowner~ contacted along this drainage ditch were completely unaware that it
was used by spawning salmon. A significant restoration project could entail complete
naturalization of the ditch upstream to the outlet of valley-bottom wetlands in the vicinity
of Cemetery Road. Fencing of livestock away from the upstream channel, removal of
non-native vegetation and replacement of bank armoring with riatural materials both
upstream and downstream from the Highway 101 and Center Road culvert crossings,
replacement of several partial-barrier culvert crossings of local roads, and re-creation of a
67
Photos 47-48 - Salmon habitat?! Cemetery Drain traversing the outskirts ofQuilcene (left), and a single
individual from a large school of juvenile coho discovered in Cemetery Drain in downtown Quilcene (right).
68
Part III: Little Quilcene - Leland Watershed
Habitat Reconnaissance Survey Notes
Note: Lengths and distances reported in this summary are not intended to be precise.
Project dictates precluded the time and effort necessary to take linear measurements in
the field with a hip chain, and points of interest were approximated on maps of fairly
large scale. Distance measurements were later developed in the lab from these maps.
When noted, river miles (RM) are accepted values given in the "Catalog of Washington
Streams and Salmon Utilization" (Williams et. al. 1975), and do not necessarily
correspond to actual channel distance measurements reported by this and other sources,
which take into account current stream course and channel meander.
. Little OuiIcene River
Habitat reconnaissance surveys were conducted along the Little Quilcene River (stream
catalog ID 17.0076) on October 8-10, 2007. Surveys extended from just above the mouth
at Quilcene Bay upstream to the Howe Creek confluence (RM 5.2). Though habitat
conditions are significantly degraded along several of the surveyed reaches, the physical
characteristics of the stream channel, and substantial migratory and resident fish use both
qualify the Little Quilcene River as a Type 2 (fish-bearing) water ofthe state from the
tidewater mouth upstream to a natural cascade marking the upper extent of anadromous
fish habitat Oust below the city of Port Townsend's diversion dam at RM 7.1). Fish-
bearing (Type 3) habitat continues on the mainstem and headwater tributaries upstream
into the Olympic National Forest. See reaches LQl- LQ6 on Maps 2 and 3, Appendix 1.
Little Quilcene River:
Reach 1. sub-reach lA
Overview - Sub-reach lA extends from a Jefferson County easement / property access
road just above the river mouth tidal estuary at RM 0.25 (see Part II, LQ-l) upstream to
the Center Road bridge crossing in the town ofQuilcene (RM 0.8). Apart from a short
stretch of open, unconfined delta at the tidewatet mouth, this sub-reach passes through
primarily agricultural and rural residential lands, and is confmed by man-made levees
along nearly its entire -3820 ft. length. Although there are short sections of unaltered
stream channel along the right bank in this sub-reach, most of the channel is constricted
by low dikes, with banks heavily armored by rock and boulder riprap, and landscaped
residential yards extending to the river's edge.
Channel Conditions - In-stream habitat in sub-reach lA is dominated by riffles (-75% of
available habitat) alternating with mostly shallow pools having long tail-outs (-25%).
There are abundant, clean gravel deposits with evidence of heavy spawning activity by
anadromous chum salmon at the time of the habitat reconnaissance survey. Bankfull
widths averaged -30 ft., and channel gradient was -1 % throughout the reach length.
Overall substrate is composed of 40% large gravels, 30% small gravel, and 30% sand.
Artificially-armored stream banks are the primary pool-forming factor, with the roots of
69
standing live trees as a secondary factor. Pools in this sub-reach range from I-to-3.6 ft.
maximum depth, but generally lack cover (averages less than 15% of pool surface area).
In several places, large wood pieces have been integrated with bank armoring, but large
woody debris (L WD) is otherwise sparse throughout, contributing to a paucity of holding
cover for fish, relatively small, shallow pools, and a general lack of habitat diversity.
Existing woody debris is mostly composed of small and medium-sized single pieces (in
the 4-8 in. and 8-20 in. diameter size classes, respectively), many of which are integral
with bank armoring structures. Large woody debris greater than 20 inches in diameter is
rare, represented by only five pieces that are currently cabled to the bank for armoring.
No log jams were observed, and there is very little natural meander or split / side channel
habitat in this sub-reach, with the majority of the channel laterally confined by low dikes.
No natural barriers to fish migration were observed within this sub-reach, nor were there
any mainstem culverts or other artificial barriers (with the exception of confining levees).
No tributaries enter the Little Quilcene River within sub-reach lA. A short left-bank side
channel is located -660 ft. above the BPA powerline crossing (located at RM 0.4).
Riparian Conditions - Riparian habitat is composed primarily of mixed deciduous forest,
dominated by sapling and young red alder (Alnus rubra) in the 6-15 in. diameter class,
with lesser amounts of willow (Salix sp.), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and
planted non-native tree species associated with residential landscaping. The riparian
corridor has been altered along many stream segments by encroaching residential
development, and overall canopy cover is estimated at less than 50% along the reach.
Right-bank riparian conditions are generally more disturbed, with non-native species
such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), tansy ragwort (Seneciajacobaea),
climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea),
and English ivy (Hedera helix) invading the understory throughout.
Aquatic Biota - Adult coho and fall chum salmon were spawning at the time ofthe
habitat reconnaissance. An active beaver lodge was noted on the right bank at the BP A
powerline crossing (RM 0.4). No freshwater mussels were observed during the survey.
Little Quilcene River:
Reach 1. sub-reach IB
Overview - Sub-reach 1 B extends from the Center Road bridge in the town of Quilcene
(RM 0.8) upstream to the "Wildwood Diversion Canal" confluence (RM 1.2), where the
river becomes confined for a short distance against the highway embankment just
downstream and opposite the intersection of Highway 101 with Cemetery Road. Over
the -2,340 ft. length of this sub-reach, the river meanders through a broad alluvial valley,
but becomes increasingly confined by adjacent valley slopes continuing upstream.
Channel gradient and dominant fish habitat types essentially match those of sub-reach
lA, but the main channel is less restricted by dikes and bank armoring in sub-reach IB,
with more braiding around islands, larger diameter substrates, and generally deeper pools.
70
Channel Conditions - Sub-reach IB is dominated by riffles (~75%) and pools with long
tail-outs (~25%). Channel gradient is 1-2%, and there is abundant salmon spawning
habitat with variable substrates composed of large and small gravels, sand, and cobble.
Average pool depths are greater than sub-reach lA, with many pools exceeding 3.0 ft. in
maximum depth. The deepest pool had a residual depth of 4.7 ft., formed around a
rootwad that was cabled to the bank. Dominant and sub dominant pool-forming factors
are live tree roots and small log jams respectively, however pool cover is again limited.
Bankfull width measures ~25 ft., with an average wetted width of 15-20 ft. at the time of
the habitat reconnaissance survey.
Large woody debris (L WD) is sparse throughout this sub-reach, limiting fish cover, pool
formation, and overall habitat diversity. Most LWD is comprised of small (4-8 inch) or
medium (8-20 in. diameter) logs. Only six pieces >20 inches were found in sub-reaches
lA and IB combined, with three of these logs forming part ofa bank armoring project.
Two small log jams (3-9 total pieces) were observed, both contributing to pool-formation.
Two side channels and one split channel are located in this sub-reach. The 390-foot long
split channel begins ~400 ft. upstream from an abandoned bridge (located ~150 ft. above
the Center Road bridge crossing) in Quilcene. A side channel located ~ 1140 ft. above the
abandoned bridge parallels an adjacent right-bank river terrace for 650 ft. downstream.
This side channel is fed by groundwater seepage, and was connected to the main channel
by surface flow at the downstream confluence only. A second side channel measuring
~330 ft. in length enters the river from the left bank at a distance of ~ 1390 ft. upstream
from the abandoned bridge.
Left-bank tributary A, located ~250 ft. above the abandoned bridge, was dry at the time of
the habitat survey. This tributary was correctly classified as non fish-bearing habitat on
the WDNR stream type map. The upstream extent of sub-reach IB is marked by a
culvert at the mouth of the "Wildwood Diversion Canal" (note: this name is not official,
but is provided here-in to facilitate ease of the discussion). The culvert is located on the
right bank ofthe river ~200 ft. above the point where the channel first encounters the
highway prism. The 1.5 ft. diameter pre-cast concrete culvert appears to be a partial fish-
passage barrier; it has a gradient of greater than 1 %, with boulder rip-rap armoring the
channel at the outlet. The diversion canal enters the culvert inlet from the perched outlet
of a plastic pipe that drains a livestock watering pond just beyond the ditch-line along the
west edge of Highway 101.
Riparian Conditions - The riparian vegetation in sub-reach IB is composed of a mixed
deciduous and conifer forest dominated by young red alder trees, big-leaf maple, willow,
vine maple (Acer circinatum), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and a lesser
component of western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Overall canopy cover averages ~50%,
with short segments ofless than 30% where residential development and public roads and
private driveways encroach upon the riparian corridor. Although the riparian buffer is
occasionally up to 100 ft. wide along this sub-reach, streamside forests are dominated by
young and/or sparsely distributed trees, with extensive incursions of non-native/invasive
Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, clematis, and morning glory (Convolvulus sp.)
71
throughout the understory, particularly in previously disturbed areas. Livestock have
direct access to the river channel at two locations along this sub-reach located -400 ft.
downstream from the mouth of the Wildwood Diversion Canal culvert, and at a private
driveway bridge -200 ft. upstream from the canal culvert confluence.
Aquatic Biota - Adult coho and fall chum salmon were spawning in sub-reach IB at the
time of the habitat survey. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
Little Quilcene River:
Reach 2
Overview - Reach 2 extends for -2360 ft. upstream from the Wildwood Diversion Canal
confluence (RM 1.2) to the mouth of Leland Creek (17.0077, RM 1.7, river tributary C).
This is a transitional reach of intermediate valley confinement, with the channel often
meandering against and actively eroding steep bluffs of unconsolidated glacial sediments
that provide spawning gravel material for anadromous and resident fish.
Channel Conditions - Similar to Reach 1 downstream, channel habitat in Reach 2 is
dominated by riffles (75%-80%) and pools (20%-25%). Stream gradient averages 1-2%,
within a 25-foot bankfull width. Substrates are primarily large gravel and cobble, with a
noticeable increase in available spawning gravels mid-reach, near the mapped confluence
ofleft-bank tributary B. Residual pool depth measurements averaged 3-4 ft., with very
low surface cover (-10%). Small jams and single logs are the dominant pool forming
factors, with a few pools forming as a result of scour around bedrock outcrops. Gradient
increases to -3% through an -150- foot long section of bedrock -confined channel, lacking
in pools and spawning gravels, that is located -250 ft. below the mouth of Leland Creek.
Large woody debris is sparse throughout this reach, with most single pieces in the small
(4-8 in. diameter) and medium (8-20 in.) size classes. Three small jams were observed in
this reach: at -200 ft. and -600 ft. above the diversion canal confluence (RM 1.2); and
the third located at -450 ft. downstream from Leland Creek. Wooden bank armament
was constructed on the left bank at the large jam located -600 ft. above the canal culvert.
No natural barriers were observed in this reach. No side channels and only one split
channel were noted, the 100-foot long split channel occurring -90 ft. above a prominent
left-bank bluff composed of glacial till that is located several hundred feet below the
mapped confluence of non fish-bearing left-bank tributary B (RM 1.5 - approximately
midway between the Wildwood Diversion Canal culvert and the mouth of Leland Creek).
This tributary was not located during the habitat reconnaissance survey.
Riparian Conditions - Riparian vegetation in this reach is dominated by young alder and
big-leaf maple, together with small conifer stands composed of west em red cedar,
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and grand fIr (Abies grandis) along the left bank.
Understory shrubs are primarily thickets of Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) and
vine maple. A 650-foot stream segment located -100 ft. downstream from reach end at
Leland Creek is bordered by a healthy, relatively broad riparian forest with a larger
72
proportion of mature conifer trees. Canopy cover is ~30% at the downstream end of
Reach 2 (in the vicinity of the diversion canal culvert) gradually increasing to as much as
70% upstream. Non-native/invasive English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, and clematis are
present in riparian areas throughout this reach, but at fewer locations and lower densities
relative to Reach 1 downstream, reflecting the less-disturbed riparian corridor of Reach 2.
Aquatic Biota - Adult coho salmon were spawning in Reach 2 at the time of the habitat
reconnaissance survey. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
Little Quilcene River:
Reach 3. sub-reach 3A
Overview - With a total length of ~ 7970 ft., Reach 3 extends from the Leland Creek
confluence (RM 1.7, ~250 ft. below the Highway 101 bridge crossing) upstream to the
mouth of a bedrock canyon located ~460 ft. above a private driveway crossing via an old
railroad flatbed bridge - bridge is located in sub-reach 3B at RM ~3.1, near a point where
the Little Quilcene River makes its closest approach to the Lords Lake Loop Road and
just downstream from right-bank tributary G.
Sub-reach 3A is ~5520 ft. in length from the mouth of Leland Creek upstream to the
confluence of right-bank tributary F (17.0085, RM 2.75). Land-use along sub-reach 3A
is primarily rural residential, with adjacent landscaped yards extending to river's edge.
Channel Conditions - Channel habitat in sub-reach 3A is characterized as alternating
riffles (60-70%) and pools (30-40%), with most pools ranging from 1.5-4.0 ft. in depth.
Pools are usually formed by log jams or single pieces oflarge woody debris, and average
pool cover is ~30%, with >50% of available cover provided by jams, and less than 10%
of cover from single L WD pieces, undercut banks and channel scour. The remaining
30%-40% of pool cover is provided by over-hanging streamside vegetation. Bankfull
widths range from ~25 ft. in downstream areas of this sub-reach, to a 36-foot maximum
width in the channel segment directly adjacent to the Wildwood Diversion Canal inlet
(RM ~2.6). Wetted widths averaged ~21 ft. during the field reconnaissance, and the
gradient is 2-3%. There are a greater variety of substrate sizes relative to downstream
reaches 1 and 2, with substrates dominated by small (~25%) and large gravels (~25%),
complemented by lesser amounts of boulder (15%), cobble (15%), and sand (20%).
Large woody debris abundance is higher in this reach compared to downstream reaches.
Thirteen log jams were observed: nine small, three medium, and one large jam with the
latter composed mostly of 15-20 in. diameter conifer logs that are inducing left-bank
erosion near the confluence of right-bank tributary D (17.0082, RM 1.95). In-stream
woody debris in this reach is dominated by pieces in the 8-20 inch size class (medium),
with only eight pieces greater than 20 inches. Most of these larger pieces are currently
cabled to stream bank armoring, thus limiting their role in creating and maintaining
habitat diversity via dynamic movement and log jam formation within the stream system.
73
There are no natural barriers in sub-reach 3A. Bridge abutments and riprap at the
Highway 101 crossing (RM 1.8) constrict the stream channel and increase flow velocity.
A man-made cobble push-up dam diverts -10% of surface flow from the main channel
into a right-bank irrigation ditch (heretofore referred to as the Wildwood Diversion Canal
- see Part II, LQ-3 and 4). The inlet to this canal is located -1000 ft. downstream from
the tributary F confluence (17.0085, RM 2.75). Due in part to past and on-going channel
manipulation to maintain the diversion dam, the riverbed at this location is composed
entirely of plane-bed riffle; much wider and shallower relative to upstream and
downstream segments. Stream banks are armored at two locations within the sub-reach:
boulder riprap incorporating 3 logs armors the right bank -650 ft. above the Highway
10 1 bridge; and two large boulders -150 ft. further upstream are all that remain of a bank
armoring project that previously extended for 75 ft. (Part II, LQ-2). The left bank is
actively eroding at this location, resulting in the recruitment of new gravel sediment.
Two split channels are located along this sub-reach, at -570 ft. and -2400 ft. upstream
from the Highway 101 bridge respectively. Tributary D (17.0082, "Wildwood Creek" at
RM 195) with a mapped right-bank confluence -770 ft. above Highway 101 was not
located during the habitat reconnaissance survey (Part II: LQ-7). Right-bank tributary E
was -3 ft. wide with a 2% gradient at a confluence -1940 ft. above Hwy 101. Tributary
F (17.0085, RM 2.75) was previously classified as fish-bearing habitat for the initial
-300 ft. upstream from the mouth, and appeared from river-level to increase gradient at
the upper extent of fish-bearing habitat as indicated on the WDNR stream type field map.
Riparian Conditions - The lower one-third of sub-reach 3A is dominated by a mixed
riparian forest of big-leaf maple, black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and red alder,
with sapling and young cedar and grand fir regenerating beneath the deciduous canopy.
Riparian composition in the middle third ofthe sub-reach shifts to young-to-mature
Douglas-fir and western red cedar intermixed with smaller stands of big-leaf maple and
red alder, and a dense understory of vine maple and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis).
Abandoned pasture land was noted on the right bank -250 ft. above the mapped
confluence of tributary D. Deciduous species reassert their canopy dominance over the
upper third of this sub-reach, with short sections of the left bank cleared and landscaped
for rural residences. Overall canopy cover averages approximately 60-70% throughout.
Non-native/invasive European holly (Ilex aquifolium) and clematis were observed on the
left bank at the downstream end of the sub-reach, and there are several dense patches of
English ivy on the forest floor of streamside alder stands, particularly noted in the -150-
foot channel segment continuing above the Highway 101 bridge.
Aquatic Biota - Adult coho salmon were spawning in sub-reach 3A at the time ofthe
habitat reconnaissance, though at lower densities than in Reaches 1 and 2 downstream.
No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
Little Quilcene River:
Reach 3. sub-reach 3B
74
Overview - Sub-reach 3B measures ~2450 ft. in length, extending from the confluence of
right-bank tributary F (17.0085, RM 2.75) upstream to the mouth ofa bedrock canyon
located ~460 ft. above a private driveway crossing via an old railroad bridge (at RM 3.1,
just downstream from the mapped confluence of tributary H). A significantly higher
preponderance of side channels and two extended split channels, declining pool habitat,
and an increase in substrate size distinguish sub-reach 3B from adjacent sub-reach 3A.
Land use is mostly low density rural residential with landscaped yards that are generally
screened from the river by a narrow riparian buffer. Livestock fencing was noted on the
left bank at the start of this sub-reach, though the pastures were empty during the survey.
An American (pine) marten was observed crossing a log near the tributary F confluence
(see Zielinski 2001 for a discussion of habitat requirements for the persistence of marten).
Channel Conditions - The stream channel is dominated by long riffles (~90%),
alternating with small pools (~10%), with most of the few available pools formed by in-
stream large woody debris. Significantly fewer L WD pieces were observed in this reach
relative to downstream reaches, with small L WD jams occupying or contributing to the
formation of overflow side channels, and very few forming main channel pools. L WD in
this reach is dominated by small (4-8 in. diameter) and medium (8-20 in.) pieces, with
only two logs greater than 20 inches. Substrates are primarily cobble and sand in
downstream portions of the reach, replaced by large gravels upstream. Stream gradient is
~3% throughout, with a bankfull width of ~24ft., and wetted widths averaging ~18 ft. at
the time of the habitat reconnaissance survey.
No natural barriers were observed in sub-reach 3B. A man-made cobble push-up dam
located ~200 ft. below the private driveway railroad bridge (RM 3.1) diverts stream flow
toward the right-bank, and away from a private residence atop an eroding left-bank bluff
(see Part II, LQ-5).
Two split channels were observed in this sub-reach: an ~400-foot long split that begins
~ 150 ft. downstream from the mapped location of tributary G that is partly de-watered by
the cobble diversion mentioned above, and an ~320-foot long channel split located near
the upper end of the reach, ~430 ft. upstream from the mapped location of tributary H.
Right-bank tributaries G and H, with mapped confluences at ~ 14 70 ft. and ~ 2190 ft.
upstream from tributary F (RM 2.75) respectively, were not located during the survey.
Riparian Conditions - The left-bank riparian corridor along sub-reach 3B is dominated
by young western red cedar, with a lesser component of Douglas-fir and big-leaf maple.
Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), salmonberry, and sapling alders comprise the occasionally
dense understory. Right-bank riparian buffers are primarily small-diameter alder, flanked
by stands of young cedar at distances greater than 50 ft. from the stream bank. The left-
bank riparian corridor has been cleared in several locations for residential properties.
Canopy cover averages ~50% throughout, and the riparian corridor is ~30-50 feet wide
along both banks. Logging of Douglas-fir was observed ~330 ft. upstream from the
confluence of tributary F. No significant occurrence of invasive plant species was noted.
75
Aquatic Biota - Adult coho salmon were spawning in sub-reach 3B at the time of the
stream reconnaissance. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
Little Quilcene River:
Reach 4
Overview - Reach 4 begins at the mouth of a bedrock canyon located -460 ft. upstream
from a private driveway crossing via an old railroad bridge (bridge is located at RM -3.1
in sub-reach 3B), and continues to the head of the canyon -330 ft. above the confluence
of tributary I, for a total reach length of -1470 ft. This reach is characterized throughout
by steep-sided canyon walls and the stream bed formed primarily of bedrock.
Channel Conditions - Channel habitat in Reach 4 is dominated by riffles (80-90%), with
80% bedrock and 20% boulder substrates. Spawning gravel is very limited. Bankfull
width was not systematically measured, but is generally narrower than adjacent reaches
due to confining canyon walls. Channel gradient is 4-5% throughout, and large woody
debris is sparse, providing little in-stream structure. Most L WD falls in the medium size
class (9 pieces, 8-20 in. diameter), with fewer small (5 pieces, 4-8 inches) and large logs
(only 2 logs greater than 20 inches). One medium and three small jams were documented
within the reach at the time of the habitat survey, including a small engineered logjam
that is cabled into place -65 ft. upstream from start of the reach.
No natural barriers and no side channels were observed within this confined, higher-
gradient reach. Right-bank fish-bearing tributary I, identified on WDNR stream maps at
approximate RM 3.4, was not located during the habitat reconnaissance survey.
Riparian Conditions - Y oung-to-mature cedar and Douglas-fir forest dominates the
riparian corridor along this reach, complemented to a lesser degree by big-leaf maple.
Canopy cover averages -85% within the canyon segment, but is reduced to less than 60%
nearing the upstream end ofthe reach. No non-native/invasive plants were observed.
Aquatic Biota - No fish or freshwater mussels were observed in Reach 4 during the
habitat reconnaissance survey. A large, recently-active beaver dam was noted along the
right bank adjacent to the mapped confluence oftributary I (RM -3.4).
Little Quilcene River:
Reach 5
Overview - Reach 5 extends for -4480 ft. upstream from the bedrock canyon of Reach 4
to the confluence of Ripley Creek (17.0089, RM 4.35, river tributary L). The river valley
fluctuates between moderately-confined and confined throughout the length of this reach.
Channel Conditions - In-stream habitat is dominated by riffles (75%) and pools with
long tail-outs (25%), with pools increasing to -40% of available channel habitat in the
vicinity of Ripley Creek. Pools range from 1.2-to-3.8 ft. deep, and are generally formed
around single pieces ofLWD or small jams. As with other downstream reaches, pool
76
cover remains quite low (~1 0%). Substrate composition is highly variable along this
reach, shifting from a coarse mix of gravel/cobble/boulder in the lower reach, to finer
gravels and sands mid-reach. Bedrock predominates through a small canyon segment
just below the Ripley Creek confluence, and substrates are bedrock/gravel/boulder/cobble
in nearly-equal proportions upstream from this short, bedrock-controlled canyon. Large
woody debris abundance is low, with most pieces (51 %) consisting of small logs (4-8
inches), and fewer medium (36%, 8-20 in. diameter) and large logs present (only 12% of
L WD pieces were >20 in.). Fourteen small, two medium, and two large log jams were
noted. Gradient in this reach is ~3-4% within an ~24 ft. bankfull width, and an average
wetted width of ~20 ft. at the time ofthe habitat reconnaissance survey.
No natural barriers were observed in Reach 5. With the exception of an old logging road
that approaches the left bank ~580 ft. above the mouth of tributary K (road does not
intrude on the channel) there are no apparent bank or in-stream channel modifications
within the reach. A 2.5-inch diameter pipe with attached hose enters the river ~ 170 ft.
upstream from the logging road, but due to lack of private property access, surveyors
were unable to determine the purpose ofthis pipe (possible small water diversion, or
surface run-off and drainage).
An ~330-foot long side channel is located ~560 ft. below the mouth of Ripley Creek.
Two tributaries are depicted entering from the right bank in the Reach 5. Surveyors were
unable to locate the mapped confluence of tributary J (17.0087) at RM 3.85. Tributary K
(17.0088, RM 3.9) was 2.5 ft. wide with very little surface flow at the time of the habitat
reconnaissance survey, entering the Little Quilcene River ~990 ft. above reach start.
Riparian Conditions - The riparian corridor in downstream segments of Reach 5 is
dominated by young deciduous trees (small diameter big-leaf maple and red alder),
shifting to mature conifer forest upstream (cedar, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock),
with a lesser component of cottonwood and alder along the short bedrock canyon
segment below the mouth of Ripley Creek. Canopy cover ranges from ~60% for the
downstream deciduous riparian stands, to over 80% within the small canyon. Invasive
burdock and tansy ragwort were observed on the left bank ~660 ft. above reach start.
Aquatic Biota - A few adult coho salmon were spawning in this reach at the time of the
habitat reconnaissance survey. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
Little Quilcene River:
Reach 6
Overview - Reach 6 encompasses the ~4620 ft. of river channel from the Ripley Creek
confluence (17.0089, RM 4.35, tributary L) upstream to the mouth of Howe Creek
(17.0090, RM 5.2, tributary 0). The Little Quilcene River at the start of this reach flows
east-southeast through a relatively open valley, becoming moderately-confmed along
upstream segments in the vicinity of the Howe Creek yonfluence.
77
Channel Conditions - Riffles predominate (-80%), and pools comprise the remaining
-20% of available habitat in Reach 6. The riffle proportion increases to greater than 95%
in the upper-1400 feet ofthe reach. Logjams are the dominant pool-forming factor,
with pools averaging -2.0 ft. in residual depth. Though L WD abundance is sparse, there
is a greater proportion oflarge (>20 in. diameter) logs in this reach relative to most
downstream reaches. One large, two medium, and six small log jams were observed in
Reach 6, and a notable large jam (-650 above Ripley Creek) creates a series of scour
pools and gravel deposits that receive extensive use by spawning anadromous salmon
relative to the remainder of the reach. Three adult coho and three recently-constructed
redds were observed in the immediate vicinity during the habitat reconnaissance survey.
Steep, eroding banks located in the vicinity of tributary Nand Howe Creek contribute
fine sediments to the channel, and are potential sources for spawning gravel recruitment.
The predominantly alluvial channel segments along Reach 6 are interrupted by higher
gradient bedrocklboulder cascades comprising less than 5% of in-stream habitat located
at distances of -670 ft., 1260 ft., and 3,010 ft. upstream from the mo.uth of Ripley Creek.
Average bankfull width is -24 ft. throughout, and gradient ranges from 2-4%.
A 2-ft high channel-spanning step that is formed over the largest debris jam may impede
fish movement at low flows, but there are no other natural barriers to fish migration in
this reach. A man-made push-up cobble diversion dam has been constructed -260 ft.
above tributary M, creating an artificial 16-foot long pool upstream (see Part II, LQ-6).
At the time of the survey, a natural jam composed of river-deposited debris was present
just above the man-made dam pool, creating an additional pool similar in size and depth.
A steel bridge that crosses the channel-1350 ft. upstream from Ripley Creek accesses a
recent/ongoing right-bank residential development.
Two tributaries and a single short split channel segment were documented in Reach 6.
With a bankfull width of 4 ft. and a gradient of 1-2%, tributary M does not appear on
WDNR stream type maps. The tributary is a short, spring-fed stream entering from the
right bank -1800 ft. above Ripley Creek, and trout were observed at the mouth of this
previously unclassified channel at the time of the habitat survey. Unmapped tributary N
enters the river by falling over a steep, right bank bluff -1300 ft. downstream from the
confluence of Howe Creek at reach end (17.0090, RM 5.2, river tributary 0), and an
-120-foot long split channel is located near tributary N, -1600 ft. below Howe Creek.
Riparian Conditions - The left-bank riparian corridor is dominated by young-to-mature
conifer trees (western red cedar, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock), intermingled with
small deciduous stands of mature black cottonwood and young red alder for the initial
-750 ft. above Ripley Creek in Reach 6. The right bank riparian corridor above Ripley
Creek was recently logged, and now dominated by young deciduous trees and evergreen
shrubs with a significantly reduced canopy cover. Riparian vegetation is composed of
50-60% young, small-diameter deciduous trees and 40-50% young conifers in the
segment extending from -750 ft. to -1750 ft. above the mouth of Ripley Creek. Conifer
stands comprise the right-bank riparian buffer, and deciduous forest dominates the left
bank from the short canyon segment upstream from tributary M to reach end at the mouth
78
of Howe Creek. Riparian forest was recently cleared for rural residential development
~ 15 90 ft. downstream from Howe Creek (near tributary N), though the riparian corridor
in the vicinity of the Howe Creek confluence still harbors large diameter "old growth"
hemlock and cedar trees along both stream banks. Canopy cover averages ~40% from
the mouth of Ripley Creek upstream beyond the steel bridge, increasing to 60-65% in the
vicinity of Howe Creek. No non-native/invasive species were observed along this reach.
Aquatic Biota - Though not abundant, a few adult coho salmon were spawning in this
reach at the time of the habitat reconnaissance survey, and several small, unidentified
trout were observed in the initial ~50 ft. of tributary M. Beaver activity was observed
~360 ft. below the large steel bridge. No freshwater mussels were observed in Reach 6.
. Leland Creek
Habitat reconnaissance surveys were conducted along Leland Creek (stream catalog ID
17.0077) on October 22 & 25, 2007. Surveyed reaches extend from the Little Quilcene
River (at RM 1.7) upstream beyond the confluence of tributary D (17.0079, RM 2.1)
located adjacent to Highway 101 in Leland Valley. Though habitat conditions are
severely degraded along several of the reaches, the physical characteristics of the stream
channel, and substantial anadromous and resident and fish use both qualify Leland Creek
as a Type 2 water ofthe state from the mouth to the outlet of Lake Leland at RM 4.1, and
Type 3 habitat continuing upstream through Lake Leland well into the headwater reach.
See Reaches Ll- L5 on Maps 4,5, and 6 in Appendix 1.
Leland Creek:
Reach 1
Overview - Reach 1 extends for ~ 1,950 ft. from the Little Quilcene River confluence
(~250 ft. downstream from the Highway 101 river bridge) upstream to an adjacent right-
bank field located ~300 ft. below a seldom-used log stringer driveway bridge (~RM 0.4).
The Reach 1 / Reach 2 break is marked by a refurbished wooden footbridge on residential
property near the regularly-mown field. The channel is moderately confined throughout.
Channel Conditions - The majority of in-stream habitat in Reach 1 consists of riffles
(60%-80%), with the remainder in pools (20%-40%). Pool habitat becomes dominant
over a short (~400 ft.) segment near the mid-point of the survey reach, and pools range
from 25-40 ft. in length and 8-15 ft. wide. Maximum residual pool depth was 4.2 ft.,
with the majority of pools averaging ~2.0-3.0 ft. deep. Pool cover steadily increased
from 10-15% of pool surface area in the lower half of the reach, up to 30-40% cover
further upstream. Live tree roots and erosion-resistant banks are the dominant and
subdominant pool forming factors, respectively. Gradient is 3-4%, and bankfull widths
were 18-to-25 ft., with an average wetted width of ~12 ft. at the time ofthe survey.
Channel substrates are dominated by large gravels (~60%) with a lesser component of
larger cobble (~40%). Bedrock formations outcrop at only one location in this reach,
~650 ft. upstream from the mouth. Due to a higher proportion of cobble substrate,
79
spawning gravels are concentrated in somewhat isolated patches in Reach 1 relative to
upstream reaches in Leland Creek, and where present, spawning gravels appeared to be
embedded within dense deposits of fines and sands at the time of the habitat survey.
Consequently, suitable spawning sites appear to be less regular and of lower quality,
though chum and coho salmon were observed spawning in most areas of available gravel.
Large woody debris (L WD) was sparse throughout Reach 1, with only ~4 pieces per 330
linear ft. of channel. In-stream L WD generally consisted of small diameter logs, with
~50% of pieces in the 4-8 in. size class, and ~50% of medium size (8-20 in. diameter).
Only two pieces exceeded 20 inches, and most L WD occurred as single logs with only
two small (3-9 pcs) and three medium jams (10-29 pcs) documented along the reach.
No side channels, tributaries, or natural barriers were observed in this reach. The right
bank has been armored for ~40 ft. along the edge of a residential property ~ 1000 ft.
above the mouth. Several discarded tires, sections of metal fence, and miscellaneous
trash were also found in the channel, with the greatest debris concentrations in the upper
half of the reach. A 2-inch diameter PVC pipe from an unknown source enters the stream
at a distance of ~ 1470 ft. above the Leland Creek confluence with the Little Quilcene.
Riparian Conditions - Riparian forest species composition, age, and size classes are
highly variable along this lower stream reach, which has been repeatedly disturbed by
past logging and development. Left-bank riparian cover is dominated by regenerating
second-growth forest, while the right-bank consists of I-to-5-acre rural residential
property parcels in various stages of development. Canopy removal and conversion to
non-native vegetation along the right bank is associated with these properties. Although
much past logging has taken place along both banks in this reach, there is notably less
riparian disturbance from residential development on the left bank due to steeper slopes.
In general, the riparian corridor has a mixed conifer and deciduous composition, with
sparse-to-moderate tree densities. Overstory species include big-leaf maple, red alder,
Douglas-fir, western red cedar and western hemlock, with conifer stands patchily
distributed throughout on the right bank. The left-bank riparian corridor is characterized
by young-to-mature Douglas-firs with sapling cedar, hemlock, and big-leaf maple in the
dense understory. The generally narrow (<100-foot wide) riparian buffers are dominated
by deciduous tree species, with an understory shrub layer of salmonberry, vine maple,
and sword fern that contribute to a generally higher pool cover along this reach. Canopy
cover averages 60-80% throughout, with the exception of a mid-reach segment of ~400
ft. where cover is reduced to ~30% due to recent riparian logging that has impacted both
stream banks, resulting in a preponderance of immature vegetation types. Non-native /
invasive reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, and English ivy have aggressively
colonized disturbed areas of the riparian corridor, competing with regenerating native
trees and shrubs for limited space on valley walls. Young big-leaf maple and red alder
trees predominate upstream of this logged section, with the notable exception ofa small
stand of mature (12-20 in. diameter) cedars. A regularly-mown field encroaches on the
riparian zone at the site of a recently-refurbished footbridge marking the end of Reach 1.
80
The distribution of invasive species in riparian zones of lower Leland Creek is patchy,
with the heaviest concentrations in areas of past disturbance. English ivy and Himalayan
blackberry dominate the understory along both banks for the initial-330 ft. of channel.
Dense blackberry, ivy, and reed canary grass are also associated with riparian logging
near the middle ofthe reach. Beyond this point, the riparian corridor has experienced
past logging but is generally less disturbed, with sparser incursions of blackberry and
reed canary grass. The shade-tolerant Herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) was noted
intermittently along this reach, with the most extensive patch located -330 ft. below the
footbridge that marks the end of Reach l/start of Reach 2. Japanese knotweed (Fallopia
japonica, syn. Polygonum cuspidatum) was documented on the right bank -70 ft. below
this footbridge, representing the only observation ofknotweed directly adjacent to stream
channels in the Little Quilcene watershed during the rapid habitat reconnaissance.
Aquatic Biota - Adult coho salmon were observed spawning at an average rate of -1-2
fish per 330 linear feet of stream channel at the time of the habitat reconnaissance survey.
No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed in Reach 1.
Leland Creek:
Reach 2
Overview - Reach 2 is -2490 ft. in length, becoming progressively more confmed by
adjacent valley slopes as it continues upstream from the small wooden footbridge located
at a mown field at the start of the reach (the footbridge is -300 ft. below a permanent,
though apparently seldom-used log stringer bridge at RM 0.43). The upper end of Reach
2 is located at a concrete bridge crossing of the Rice Lake Road at RM 0.7 (or 0.84 true).
Channel Conditions - Pools ranging from 25-50 ft. in length and 8-10 ft. wide comprise
50-70% of the habitat in this reach, with riffles representing the remaining 30-50%.
Residual pool depths range from 1.8-3.2 ft., with the majority averaging 2.5-3.0 ft. deep.
Long, shallow gravel tail-outs are common throughout, providing greater potential for
spawning relative to Reach 1. Channel substrates consist of 30-50% large gravel and 30-
40% cobble, with lesser proportions of small gravel, sand, and bedrock. Estimated pool
cover was -40% in lower portions of the reach, decreasing to -15% further upstream.
Small debris jams and single wood pieces are the primary pool-forming factors, with
erosion-resistant banks and roots from standing live trees as secondary factors in the
formation of pools and short split-channel segments. Gradient was -2-3% throughout,
with an average bankfull width of -25 ft., and wetted widths ranging from 14-22 ft. at the
time of the habitat reconnaissance survey.
No tributaries and only one side channel were observed in this reach. In-stream large
woody debris accumulations form an -150-foot long split channel located -900 ft. above
the start of the reach, but LWD is otherwise sparse, dominated by medium (8-20 in.) logs
with relatively fewer 4-8 in. pieces, and only five logs greater than 20 inches in diameter.
Only one medium and four small jams were observed along the entire length of Reach 2.
No natural barriers were observed in this reach. A seldom-used log stringer bridge is
located -300 ft. above the wooden footbridge that marks the Reach 1 / Reach 2 break,
81
and Rice Lake Road crosses the channel via a concrete bridge with associated upstream
and downstream bank armoring (boulder riprap). Neither bridge impedes fish passage,
but both constrict the channel and potentially restrict the downstream movement of logs.
Two 6-inch diameter corrugated plastic pipes collect roadway run-off from ditches and
deliver it to the downstream channel on either side of the Rice Lake Road bridge.
Riparian Conditions - Riparian species composition is ~60% conifer (cedar, Douglas-fir,
and hemlock) and ~40% deciduous (big-leaf maple and alder) in the lower portion ofthis
reach (below the split channel segment at ~900 ft. upstream from reach start). Estimated
canopy cover averages 70% in the lower third of the reach, decreasing to less than 50%
cover upstream. Relative to adjacent reaches, the Reach 2 riparian corridor has a higher
density of larger diameter trees and a lower prevalence of invasive species in the forest
understory. A notably healthy residual stand of25-to-30 inch cedar dominates the right-
bank riparian buffer at a distance of ~440 ft. upstream from the log stringer bridge. The
riparian corridor from the split channel segment upstream to the Rice Lake Road bridge
has experienced past logging, and the resulting canopy composition is ~80% young
deciduous (big-leaf maple and red alder) and 20% conifer (a scattering of Douglas-firs
greater than 20 inches in diameter, and smaller cedar and hemlock). Understory
vegetation is primarily vine maple, salmonberry, salal (Gaultheria shallon), and sword
fern (Polystichum munitum), with extensive incursions of reed canary grass, Himalayan
blackberry, and English ivy occurring locally along both banks, particularly ~700 ft.
upstream from the start of the reach at the log stringer bridge.
Aquatic Biota - Adult coho salmon were spawning at a lower density than Reach 1 at the
time of the habitat reconnaissance survey. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were
observed in Reach 2 during the survey, though there have been previous documented
reports of freshwater mussels along this reach (Ted Labbe,WDFW staff - pers. comm.).
Leland Creek:
Reach 3
Overview - Reach 3 is approximately 2560 ft. in length from the Rice Lake Road bridge
crossing (RM 0.7 or 0.84 true) upstream to a significant broadening of the stream valley
at a point ~ 180 ft. above the Hwy 101 culvert crossing (located at RM 1.05 or 1.3 true).
Reach 3 is moderately confined throughout, with ample gravel spawning habitat.
Channel Conditions - In-stream habitat is composed of ~70% riffles and ~30% pools
with long, shallow tail-outs for the initial two-thirds of the reach above the Rice Lake
Road bridge crossing. The floodplain widens briefly ~ 1000 ft. upstream from the bridge,
and pool depth and length increase as a result, with pools comprising ~70% of available
habitat along this short, broader reach segment, separated by short (~1 O-foot) riffles.
Pools typically measure 50 ft. in length and 15 ft. wide, with residual depths of 1.5-3.0 ft,
and are primarily formed by log jams and live tree roots in the lower third of the reach,
with log jams and large boulders as the dominant pool-forming factors further upstream.
Pool cover is relatively low, ranging from ~15-20%. Bankfull widths were 20-25 ft.,
with wetted widths of 15-18 ft. at the time of the habitat reconnaissance survey. Stream
82
gradient averages ~2-3% along the reach below the Highway 101 culvert crossing,
decreasing to ~1-2% toward the upstream end ofthe reach, just above the highway.
Large woody debris is sparse throughout, dominated by small (4-8 in. diameter) pieces,
with fewer 8-20 inch logs. Six small and four medium-sized jams were observed.
Substrates are composed of small gravel (70%), fines (20%), and larger gravels (10%) for
the initial ~ 1300 ft. upstream from the Rice Lake Road crossing, and bedrock and cobble
dominate from the middle of the reach upstream beyond the Highway 101 culvert.
No natural barriers to fish passage were observed in this reach. The Highway 101 culvert
(SC #99, Appendix 2) is a partial fish-passage barrier during seasonal periods oflow flow
(estimated at only 33% passable - see Part II, L-7). This 6.0 ft. by 8.5 ft. cast-in-place
concrete box culvert is completely lacking retained stream sediments, and water depth
inside the culvert was only 0.55 ft. at the time of the habitat survey, and estimated at only
~0.2-0.3 ft. during an earlier reconnaissance in September. A partly-buried 4-inch plastic
pipe enters the pool below the culvert. WFC field crews were unable to access private
property to ascertain the origin or function of this pipe (possible small water diversion).
Surveyors noted a single ~ 130 ft. long split channel formed by a log jam and located
~91 0 ft. above the Rice Lake Road crossing. Left-bank tributary A was completely dry at
the time of the habitat survey, with an average gradient of ~40-45% for the initial ~80 ft.
above the Leland confluence, moderating to ~20% upslope. This tributary was correctly
classified as non fish-bearing (Ns or Type 5) habitat on the WDNR stream type maps,
entering Leland Creek ~ 740 ft. above the Rice Lake Road bridge.
Riparian Condition - Riparian forest composition along this reach is ~60% deciduous
species (red alder and big-leaf maple) and ~40% conifer (Douglas-fir and cedar).
Scattered throughout the predominantly young, small diameter riparian forests are
individual trees and very limited stands of mature alder, cedar, and Douglas-fir.
Salmonberry, vine maple, and sword fern comprise the understory, and the riparian forest
provides an overall canopy cover of ~ 70%. Non-native / invasive Himalayan blackberry
was present at the downstream end of Reach 3, associated with stream bank armoring and
riprap at the Rice Lake Road bridge crossing.
Aquatic Biota - Five adult coho salmon and one carcass were noted in this reach during
the habitat reconnaissance survey, with four ofthe coho actively spawning on newly-
constructed redds. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed in Reach 3.
Leland Creek:
Reach 4
Overview - Reach 4 is approximately 1810 ft. in length from a point where the valley
becomes noticeably less constricted (~180 ft. above the Highway 101 culvert, located at
RM 1.05 or 1.3 true) to a confluence with left-bank tributary B ~1990 ft. upstream.
Riparian enhancement has been initiated along the ~ 1100 ft. segment above a private
wooden footbridge that is located ~150 feet above the start of the reach.
83
Channel Conditions - The stream channel appears to have been historically ditched along
several segments in the lower half of Reach 4, while the upper portions ofthe reach
meander in long glides through former small pastures now reverting to wetland habitat.
Dense incursions of reed canary grass occur along the channel margins throughout, and
past channel ditching and invasive grasses appear to have influenced channel geometry,
creating and maintaining deep, slow-moving glides that differ significantly in appearance
and function from the predominantly riffle / pool sequence of downstream Reaches 1-3.
Approximately 80-90% of the channel length in Reach 4 is composed of deep, slow-
moving glides (1.5 - 2.0 ft. deep at the time of the habitat survey) separated by short
(-10-15 ft. long) riffles. Substrate is composed of -70% small gravel and -30% silt in
the 150-foot segment downstream from a wooden footbridge that is located -330 ft.
above the Highway 101 culvert. Substrate composition shifts to -65% silt and -35%
small gravel for another 330 ft. beyond the footbridge to the beginning of a small wetland
(former pasture) that borders the channel. Substrate through the wetland channel is -50%
silt and -50% small gravels, continuing upstream to a logjam at the end of the reach.
Bankfull and wetted widths averaged 12-15 ft., with a gradient of -1 %, and spawning
gravel is very sparse due to the prevalence of extensive fine sediments throughout.
Large woody debris is also sparse in this reach, composed of small (4-8 in. diameter) and
medium (8-20 inch) logs. Only three small and one medium-sized jam were documented.
Dense stands of Pacific ninebark along the channel hindered a complete inventory of logs
and coarse woody debris through the initial half of this reach.
No natural barriers to fish migration were observed in this reach. A wooden footbridge
crosses the channel-330 ft. above Highway 101, and a 7-foot long section of rip rap lines
both banks beneath the bridge. The bridge support stringers had recently been replaced,
with cut rounds from the original supports deposited in the channel below the bridge.
There were no side channels documented in Reach 4. Tributary B enters from the left
bank -1990 ft. above the Highway 101 culvert, marking the upstream end of the reach.
This previously unclassified tributary was dry at the time of the habitat survey, with a
bankfull width of2.5 ft., and a gradient of 15-20% above the Leland Creek confluence.
Riparian Conditions - The dominant riparian vegetation along the length of Reach 4 is
invasive reed canary grass, with dense stands of Pacific ninebark providing 70%-90%
canopy cover through the initial -1000 ft. of channel upstream from the survey start.
Left-bank forest stands upslope from the streamside ninebark are -70% young conifer
(western red cedar and Douglas-fir) and 30% deciduous (red alder and big-leaf maple).
Invasive reed canary grass dominates the low, wet ground through the upper half ofthe
reach, with young big-leaf maple, alder, cedar, and Douglas-fir on the wetland margins.
Canopy cover is limited (15%-40%) in this segment, and remnant Himalayan blackberry,
thistle, climbing nightshade, and holly trees (Ilex aquifolium) compete with native plants.
Stream-adjacent former pasture in this lower reach segment has been recently planted in
cedar, Douglas-fir, and pine, with a complement of alder saplings, red-osier dogwood,
84
and other native shrubs. Riparian restoration efforts along the right bank vary from 15 to
40 feet wide from the wooden bridge upstream to the wetland/old pasture, and continue
on the left bank for an additional ~ 700 ft. upstream. Preparation for future restoration
was evident along the right bank (mowing and removal of streamside reed canary grass).
Aquatic Biota - Despite a general lack of spawning habitat, one live adult coho and three
recently-constructed redds were observed in this reach at the time of the habitat survey.
No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were noted in Reach 4, and evidence of muskrat
was apparent on the right bank at the upstream end of the riparian restoration segment.
Leland Creek
Reach 5
Overview - Reach 5 extends for ~3430 ft. upstream from the tributary B confluence
(located at the upper end of a small wetland/former pasture ~ 1990 ft. above the Hwy 101
culvert crossing) to the downstream end of an extensive beaver pond wetland complex
that begins ~1070 ft. above the left-bank confluence of tributary D (17.0079, RM 2.1).
The channel is naturally confined in this reach, and potentially influenced in the upper
third by the Highway 101 road embankment at the top of the valley wall. WFC surveyors
terminated the habitat reconnaissance several hundred feet above the mouth of tributary E
due to the homogeneity of in-stream and riparian habitats upstream through the remainder
ofthe distance to the outlet of Lake Leland. Habitat along Reach 6 (unsruveyed, but
largely visible from Highway 101) is characterized by long, low-gradient ditch-like
segments almost entirely dominated by invasive reed canary grass (part II, L-3).
Channel Conditions - Channel habitat in the lower two-thirds of Reach 5 is comprised of
pools with long glide-like tailouts (~60-80%), interspersed with short riffles (20-40%).
Pools ranged in length from 30-80 ft., and are 8-10 ft. wide, with residual pool depths of
1.8-3.2 ft. Single LWD pieces and bank-supporting perennial vegetation (e.g. limbs and
root structures of vine maple) were the primary and secondary pool-forming factors.
Leland Creek assumes the form of a low-gradient, meandering channel choked with
wetland vegetation for a short distance approximately mid-reach (~850 ft. downstream
from the tributary C confluence), and this wetland is identified on WDNR FP ARS maps.
Beginning --420 ft. upstream from the mouth of tributary C (17.0078, RM 1.85), the
upper third of Reach 5 is dominated by a single segment with the form and function of a
glide, though it is technically a dam pool formed by natural debris accumulating at a
point where the channel abruptly changes direction along the scour-resistant left bank
(the Highway 101 road prism). Pool cover is almost non-existent in this segment due to a
lack of large woody debris. Bankfull widths range from 12-15 ft, and wetted widths were
8-12 ft. at the time of the habitat survey, with shorter incised channel segments measuring
approx. 5 ft. wide with correspondingly greater depths. Channel gradients were 2-3%,
decreasing to ~ 1 % in the long, straight, glide-like pool adjacent to the highway berm.
Substrates are 70-80% small gravels and 20-30% silt, with the longer glide-like pool
substrates composed of90% muck (decayed organic matter), with 10% scattered cobble.
85
L WD is sparse throughout the reach: three small and four medium pieces were observed,
along with two logs greater than 20 inches in diameter. five small and two medium jams
were located in the lower two-thirds of the reach. Debris damming the upper pool/glide
was composed entirely of coarse organic material not meeting the minimum requirements
for classification as a log jam.
No natural barriers were observed in Reach 5. Two separate but adjacent private bridges
(a log stringer driveway bridge and a deteriorated footbridge) are located ~1260 ft. below
tributary C. A wooden footbridge (under re-construction at the time of the survey) and
another log stringer driveway bridge cross the channel ~830 ft. and ~370 ft. below the
confluence of tributary C, respectively. With the exception of rip rap armoring the right
bank for ~50 ft. at the upper driveway crossing, the bridges in this reach do not adversely
constrict the channel. Large boulders in the channel ~200 ft. below the upper driveway
bridge are likely remnants from earlier attempts to stabilize the stream bank at this site.
A 4-inch plastic pipe enters the channel from the left bank ~ 190 ft. below the footbridge.
No split or side channels were observed in this reach. Tributary C (17.0078, RM 1.85) is
identified as fish-bearing (Type 3) habitat by WDNR. The 5 ft. wide tributary had a
gradient of ~ 4% and an average wetted width of3.0 ft. at the time of the habitat survey,
continuing upstream from the Leland Creek confluence for several hundred feet to a
perched, barrier culvert crossing of Leland Valley Road West (CC #86, Appendix 2).
Gravel substrates appear eminently suitable for spawning, and the landowner reported
coho salmon in tributary C during previous seasons. Tributary D (17.0079, RM 2.1)
enters from the left bank where Leland Creek first meanders adjacent to Highway 101.
Riparian Conditions - The initial -400 ft. of channel upstream from the tributary B
confluence are characterized by gentle meanders through dense stands of vine maple,
with an overstory of60% deciduous (young to mature big-leaf maple and sapling alder)
and 40% conifer species (young Douglas-fir and cedar). The riparian corridor becomes
more open, with swaths of reed canary grass invading former small pastures and rural
residential clearings throughout the remainder of the reach upstream to the mouth of
tributary D. Red alder replaces big-leaf maple as the dominant deciduous species along
valley slopes, and canopy cover is 60% along the lower two-thirds of the reach, with
streamside incursions of reed canary grass occur at variable densities throughout.
Himalayan blackberry was observed along the left bank -650 ft. above tributary B, and
climbing nightshade was noted near several of the bridge crossings.
The glide segment comprising the upper third of the reach had a dense deciduous canopy
of young alder and big-leaf maple trees (70%) with ~30% young conifer (Douglas-fir,
western red cedar and western hemlock). The understory is composed of vine maple,
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and sword fern, and canopy cover is greater than 80%.
The channel exits the forest canopy as it approaches tributary E, and reed canary grass
once again becomes predominant as beaver dams appear near the start of Reach 6.
86
Aquatic Biota - Four adult coho were spawning in Reach 5 at the time of the habitat
reconnaissance survey, and numerous recently-constructed redds were noted, particularly
in the vicinity of tributary D. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
. Riplev Creek
Habitat reconnaissance surveys were conducted on Ripley Creek (stream catalog ill
17.0089) on October 15 & 29, 2007. Surveyed reaches extend from the Little Quilcene
River confluence (at RM 4.35) upstream for -7840 ft. Physical characteristics of the
stream channel and substantial anadromous and resident fish use qualify Ripley Creek as
a Type 3 water of the state from the mouth upstream through the headwaters reach that is
located adjacent to the Lords Lake Loop Road near the intersection with Snow Creek
Road. Time constraints and lack of access to private property forced termination ofthe
Ripley Creek habitat reconnaissance in the middle of Reach 3. The remainder of the
mapped channel was extrapolated from remote imaging (LiDAR and aerial photographs).
See Reaches 1-3 on Map 6, Appendix 1.
Ripley Creek
Reach 1. sub-reach lA
Overview - Reach 1 encompasses two distinct sub-reaches for a total length of -4800 ft.
upstream from the Little Quilcene River confluence to the upper end of a beaver pond
wetland complex (sub-reach IB) located -120 ft. beyond a local powerline crossing.
Sub-reach lA extends for -3830 ft. from the Little Quilcene River upstream to the
confluence of an unnamed, non fish-bearing left-bank tributary draining a large beaver
pond that is located to the east, near a private, gated gravel road. The channel is highly
confmed along most of this sub-reach, passing though a less confmed segment where it
encounters pasture -1000 ft. upstream from the Lords Lake Loop Road culvert crossing.
The valley also widens briefly approaching the outlet channel of the large beaver pond.
Channel Conditions - Ripley Creek had no surface flow for the initial -990 ft. of channel
upstream from the Little Quilcene River at the time of the habitat reconnaissance survey,
and a landowner reported that this is the typical flow regime for summer and early fall.
Consequently, aquatic habitat in this lowest sub-reach segment could not be fully
characterized. A series of bedrock chutes and step pools extend for -300 ft. upstream
from the 'mouth, and the remainder of the dry channel appeared to consist predominantly
of shallow riffles and infrequent pools (later verified during salmon spawning surveys).
Channel habitat along the wetted portion of the sub-reach (beginning -330 ft. upstream
from the Lords Lake Loop Road culvert crossing) is dominated by riffles (80-90%), with
the number and size of pools (10-20%) gradually increasing upstream. Pools range from
10-30 ft. in length and 5-20 ft. wide, with residual depths of 0.8-2.5 ft. Where the few
logjams are present, pool cover can be high (-90%), but otherwise remains low at -10%.
Confmement within a small, narrow canyon limits both the extent and depth of gravel
87
spawning habitat in the channel below the culvert crossing, where substrates are
dominated by bedrock, boulder, cobble, and large and small gravels (-30% combined).
Large woody debris is sparse and widely scattered, composed of small (4-8 in. diameter)
and medium (8-20 inch) logs. Fewer than ten pieces ofL WD greater than 20 inches in
diameter were documented, and few jams were observed. L WD abundance gradually
increased in upstream portions of sub-reach lA. Gradient ranges from 2-8%, with the
steepest segments located just above the mouth, moderating a short distance below the
Lords Lake Loop Road. Bankfull widths range from 14 ft. to 24 ft., with the narrowest
segment found in the confined channel just upstream from the Little Quilcene confluence.
Two natural impediments to fish migration were observed in lower Ripley Creek below
the Lords Lake Loop Road: a recently-fallen channel-spanning log embedded in the
substrate just above the mouth (see Part II, R-l); and a series of natural bedrock chutes
extending for the initial-300 ft. segment above the mouth. Both likely impede upstream
fish migration during low flow periods. With the exception of the Lords Lake Loop Road
culvert and two small bridges, no bank or in-stream channel modifications were observed
in sub-reach lA. The 8 ft. diameter corrugated steel culvert (CC #14, Appendix 2) has
stream-bed material throughout, and does not present a barrier to fish passage. A railroad
flatbed bridge spans the channel to connect adjoining livestock pastures -830 ft. above
the roadway culvert (Part II, R2), and a private wooden footbridge crosses the channel
-300 ft. below the confluence of the large beaver pond outlet channel (tributary D) at the
start of sub-reach 3B, though neither bridge results in a significant channel constriction.
No side channels were documented in sub-reach lA during the survey, and an -35-foot
long split channel was noted -600 ft. upstream from the Lords Lake Loop Road culvert.
Surveyors did not locate two non-fish bearing tributaries (A and C) and the single fish-
bearing tributary (B) with mapped confluences entering from the right bank within this
sub-reach. The WDNR map indicates that tributaries A and B have a mutual right-bank
confluence. Left-bank tributary D (the beaver pond outlet channel) was dry at the time of
the habitat reconnaissance survey, though subsurface flow to Ripley Creek is likely.
Riparian Conditions - Riparian forest composition from the railroad bridge crossing
downstream to the mouth of Ripley Creek is 50-60% conifer and 40-50% deciduous
species, with deciduous prevalence increasing progressively upstream. The understory is
dominated by vine maple, salmonberry and sword fern. Young (8-20 in. diameter) and
mature (>20 inch dbh) stands of cedar, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock comprise the
left-bank riparian corridor, while right-bank stands are generally younger, composed
primarily of sapling (4-8 in. dbh) and young conifer trees. Big-Ieafmaple, red alder, and
vine maple of various age classes occupy near-stream riparian buffers throughout.
Canopy cover ranges from -50% up to 85% in sub-reach lA. No significant occurrence
of non-native / invasive species was observed during the habitat reconnaissance survey.
Young alder trees dominate the riparian corridor (50-60%), with a lesser component of
young western hemlock and Douglas-fir, and a dense salmonberry understory in the
moderately confined segment located -1000 ft. above the Lords Lake Loop Road.
Livestock are fenced from the channel within an -30-50 ft. wide riparian buffer as it
88
continues upstream adjacent to pasture land above the railroad flatbed bridge crossing.
Canopy cover is highly variable throughout this segment, ranging from 30-90%. Non-
native climbing nightshade was noted at the railroad flatbed bridge crossing, and reed
canary grass encroaches for ~ 1000 ft. along the channel through adjacent horse pasture.
Aquatic Biota - Juvenile salmonids were visible in a medium-sized pool with good cover
(beneath a logjam) ~100 ft. upstream from the railroad flatbed bridge crossing, with
juvenile fish (<10 total) also noted in another pool ~420 ft. below the wooden footbridge.
No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed in this reach.
Ripley Creek:
Reach 1. sub-reach IB
Overview - Sub-reach IB extends for ~970 ft. upstream from the left-bank confluence of
an unnamed, non fish-bearing tributary that drains a large beaver pond located to the east
of the stream valley, near a private gravel road. The channel passes through a confmed
(~40 ft. wide) valley bottom for the initial ~ 200 ft. of this sub-reach, then broadens into
an unconfined floodplain / beaver pond wetland complex for the remaining distance
through to the upper end of Reach 1, ~ 120 ft. upstream from a local powerline crossing.
Channel Conditions - Beaver dams control the character ofthe aquatic and riparian
habitat in this sub-reach. At least two recently-active beaver dams and associated ponds
were noted, the first measuring 3-4 ft. in height and located ~250 ft. upstream from the
start of the sub-reach, and the second> 4 ft. tall and located ~ 100 ft. further upstream.
The two associated impoundments measure ~30 ft. wide, and produce brown tannic water
at their outlets that tends to stain Ripley Creek downstream. A series of 10-15 additional
small beaver dams upstream from the two largest dams form a network of deep channels
and wetland ponds occupying a relatively unconfined valley (part II, R3 and R4).
Substrates throughout this beaver pond sub-reach were mostly silts and fme sediments
typical of slower, low-gradient depositional wetland habitats. Observation of large
woody debris abundance was limited by water depth and clarity, and extensive swaths of
obscuring reed canary grass. However, the majority of single L WD pieces were medium
(8-20 in. diameter) logs, and a single small logjam was noted among the beaver dams.
Small, low beaver dams of this type are rarely barriers to adult or juvenile fish migration,
but may impede fish movement for short durations, particularly during low flow periods.
Because the channel consists of multiple threads distributed throughout the floodplain,
accurate bankfull width could not be measured during the habitat reconnaissance survey.
Wetted widths averaged ~30 ft. throughout this reach, with gradient ranging from 1-2%.
An abandoned powerline access road once crossed the channel ~120 ft. downstream from
the end of the reach, but is becoming overgrown where it approaches both stream banks.
No significant bank or channel modifications were apparent in this sub-reach.
No split / side channels were noted, and there are no mapped tributaries in sub-reach IB.
89
Riparian Conditions - Invasive reed canary grass dominates all riparian vegetation in this
sub-reach, encroaching extensively upon the stream channel and ponded wetland areas.
Young alder trees occur along the fringes of the riparian corridor, with evidence of recent
logging and land clearing upslope. Most visible forest stands are regenerating second or
third growth largely composed of deciduous species. Canopy cover is ~ 70% along more
confmed portions ofthe reach, but only ~30% in the beaver pond / wetland segment.
Aquatic Biota - No salmonids were observed in this sub-reach, though visibility was
limited by tannic flow. Beaver activity was apparent from numerous freshly-cut limbs
and recent evidence of dam repair. No freshwater mussels were observed.
Ripley Creek:
Reach 2
Reach 2 continues for ~750 ft. upstream from the upper extent of the beaver-pond
dominated, unconfined valley of sub-reach IB (~120 ft. above a local powerline crossing)
to the beginning of the highly-confined Reach 3. Reach 2 is distinguished from Reach 3
by relatively moderate confinement throughout.
Channel Conditions ~ This reach is characterized by a classic small stream riffle-and-
pool sequence, with riffles comprising ~65-75% of available habitat. Pools typically
measured 12-20 ft. in length, and from 5-8 ft. wide, with residual depths of 0.9-1.6 ft.
Pool cover is low - from 15-25%, and large woody debris is sparse. Eight small debris
jams obstruct the relatively narrow channel at various locations along the reach length.
Channel substrates are dominated by small and large gravels (30-40%, each size class),
with the remaining cobble component increasing upstream. Spawning gravels are patchy
and limited throughout the reach, appearing more suitable for small-bodied resident trout.
Gradient is 3-4% within a bankfull width of8-10 ft. Wetted widths averaged 3-5 ft. at
the time of the habitat reconnaissance survey.
No natural barriers to fish migration were observed in Reach 2. No split / side channels
were noted, and no bank or channel modifications were apparent. A non fish-bearing
tributary (E), with a mapped confluence on the left bank ~310 ft. upstream from the start
of the reach (~430 ft. upstream from the powerline crossing), was not located.
Riparian Conditions - The riparian corridor in this reach is composed of ~70-80%
deciduous tree species and 20-30% conifer. Mature red alder (>20 inches dbh) dominates
the riparian forest in the lower third of the reach, while a mixed stand of big-leaf maple,
Douglas-fir, cedar, hemlock, and young alder occur along the upstream riparian corridor.
Native salmonberry, vine maple, Devil's club (Oplopanax horridus), sword fern, and
youth-on-age (Tolmiea menziesii) complement eachother in the often dense understory.
Canopy cover remains low at ~ 15-25%. Reed canary grass is present in abundance
adjacent to the beaver pond wetland of sub-reach IB, but becomes sparser upstream.
Aquatic Biota - Juvenile salmonids (10-15) were visible in several shallow pools along
the lower reach segment. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
90
Ripley Creek:
Reach 3
Overview - Reach 3 extends for -2320+ ft. upstream from the point where the stream
channel begins to become confined by adjacent valley walls at the upper end of Reach 2
(located -870 ft. above the local powerline crossing). This reach is highly confmed by
intermittently steep valley walls, and is relatively inaccessible. Due to time constraints,
surveyors terminated the habitat reconnaissance prior to locating the upper extent of this
lengthy reach along a channel that does not appear on current WDNR stream type maps,
but is known to continue upstream to the headwaters in the vicinity ofthe intersection of
the Lords Lake Loop Road and the Snow Creek Road.
Channel Conditions - Dominant aquatic habitat in the surveyed portion of Reach 3 is
composed of short bedrock chutes and longer riffles, interspersed with shallow pools
defined by bedrock erosion. Spawning gravels are very limited in this reach due to
extensive bedrock substrates, but limited channel-obstructing large woody debris also
contributes to pool formation and isolated gravel pockets within riffles. Pools range from
5-25 ft. long and 5-18 ft. wide, with residual depths of 0.6-2.0 ft. Pool cover varies
considerably (5-40%) with the highest cover exhibited by pools associated with small log
jams. Gradient is -3-4%, with bankfull widths ranging from 4-12 ft., and average wetted
widths between 5 ft. and. 1 0 ft. at the time of the habitat reconnaissance survey.
Individual large woody debris pieces consisted almost exclusively of small and medium-
sized logs, occurring in nearly equal proportions throughout the reach. L WD greater than
20 inches in diameter documented along this reach was often incorporated into log jams
(17 small, 4 medium, and one large jam), and most jams appeared stable and persistent.
No stream bank or channel modifications were observed along the length of Reach 3. A
channel-spanning bedrock step -3.3 ft. in height with a 2-foot deep plunge pool occurs
-20 ft. upstream from the tributary F confluence. A bedrock chute, located -1300 ft.
upstream from the first step, has an initial elevation drop of3.2 ft. drop, and an additional
3.0 ft. drop over a distance of 5.0 ft. while passing beneath a large-diameter spanner log.
Both of these natural features are potential fish-passage impediments during low flows.
Right-bank tributary F was previously misclassified as non fish-bearing (Ns or Type 5)
habitat, entering the channel -910 ft. above the confluence of tributary E (or approx.
1340 ft. above the local powerline crossing). The tributary F gradient is 5-6% within a
bankfull width of 3 ft., and a wetted width averaging 1.5 ft. at the time of the survey.
Riparian Conditions - Riparian vegetation is dominated by second-growth mixed
deciduous and conifer forest consisting of alder, big-leaf maple, western red cedar,
Douglas-fir, and western hemlock. Scattered among the predominantly sapling-to-young
trees are a few mature cedars and Douglas-firs. The understory is composed of dense
salmonberry, vine maple, red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), Devil's club, sword
fern, youth-on-age, and maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum) on steep, stream-adjacent
91
bedrock bluffs. Canopy cover is relatively high, averaging ~60-70%, and though present,
invasive reed canary grass is sparse in this reach compared to downstream reaches.
Aquatic Biota - No fish, beaver activity, or freshwater mussels were observed in Reach 3
during the habitat reconnaissance survey.
. Howe Creek
Habitat reconnaissance surveys were conducted on Howe Creek (stream catalog ID
17.0090) on October 16,2007. Surveyed reaches extend from the Little Quilcene River
confluence (RM 5.2) upstream beyond the first of two culvert crossing of the Lords Lake
Loop Road. Due to the inaccessible nature of the confmed lower stream valley, aquatic
and riparian habitats are in better condition relative to other Little Quilcene tributaries.
However, lower-gradient middle reaches are highly modified, including lengthy segments
dominated by non-native vegetation, and headwater reaches have experienced intensive
timber harvest activities. Physical characteristics of the stream channel and resident and
anadromous fish use qualify Howe Creek as a Type 3 water ofthe state from the mouth
upstream to a beaver pond source that was identified by Wild Fish Conservancy
personnel during water typing of headwater mainstem and tributaries (Part II, H-2).
See Reaches 1-5 on Map 6, Appendix 1.
Howe Creek:
Reach 1
Overview - Reach 1 extends for ~ 1,440 ft. from the Howe Creek confluence with the
Little Quilcene River upstream to the mouth of a deeply-incised bedrock canyon. The
stream channel throughout Reach 1 is moderately confined by steep valley walls.
Channel Conditions - Channel habitat in the lower half ofthis reach is predominantly
logjam- and boulder-formed step pools interspersed with shallow riffles. The upper
channel is dominated by riffles separated by short cascades and small scour pools.
Residual pool depths average ~ 1 ft., with the deepest measuring only 1.3 ft. Pool cover is
~90% and is provided by abundant large woody debris. Small and medium-sized L WD
jams are the dominant pool-forming factors. Cobble and sand comprise the substrate near
the mouth, alternating with small sections of exposed bedrock. Boulder and cobble are
prevalent in upstream portions of the reach, with limited deposits of large and small
gravel. Bankfull width measured ~25 ft., with a gradient of ~8% in the lower reach,
moderating to 4% at a distance of ~ 720 ft. upstream from the mouth.
Large woody debris is abundant with most pieces in the 8-20 in. diameter range.
Numerous conifer logs greater than 20 inches in diameter function as key pieces in log
jams along the reach, and a large jam extending for ~90 ft. upstream from the mouth is
composed of numerous overlapping small jams that appear as a single, continuous jam.
This jam may create a temporary fish passage barrier for adult salmon during some flows.
92
No bank or channel modifications were observed. There is a small channel braid -940 ft.
upstream from the mouth, and no side channels were noted in this reach. Two fish-
bearing right-bank tributaries and one non fish-bearing left-bank trib!ltary that appear on
the WDNR water type maps were not located during the habitat reconnaissance survey.
Riparian Conditions - Riparian vegetation is dominated by young-to-mature big-leaf
maple and red alders (60%), with a conifer component of young cedar, hemlock, and
Douglas-fIr (40%). Canopy cover is 60% throughout. No invasive species were noted.
Aquatic Biota - Resident trout were observed in most pools along the length of Reach 1.
No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
Howe Creek:
Reach 2
Overview - Reach 2 begins at the mouth of a bedrock canyon located -1,440 ft. upstream
from the Little Quilcene River confluence, and extends for -200 ft. upstream through the
20-25 ft. wide canyon to the base of a 75-ft. high waterfall that marks the upper extent of
anadromous fish passage in Howe Creek at RM 0.3 (see Part II, H-l).
Channel Conditions - Riffle habitat dominates this canyon reach, interspersed with a few
small scour and step pools. The largest pool measured -12 ft. wide by 15 ft. long, with a
residual depth of 1 ft. Bedrock and boulder substrates prevail throughout. The bankfull
width averages -24 ft., and channel gradient is --4% upstream to the falls at reach end.
Large woody debris is abundant, and most of the wood in this reach appears old and
stable, with the majority of pieces measuring 8-20 inches in diameter. A single large
channel-spanning jam was observed -130 ft. above the canyon entrance.
No bank or channel modifications were observed along this reach
No side channels or tributaries enter Howe Creek in Reach 2.
Riparian Conditions - Riparian vegetation is dominated by young-to-mature conifer
forest (cedar, hemlock, and Douglas-fir, 60%) with lesser amounts of young- to-mature
big-leaf maple and red alder (40%). Canopy cover is 60% with additional shade provided
by the steep canyon walls. No non-native/invasive species were observed in this reach.
Aquatic Biota - Resident trout were noted throughout Reach 2, though at lower densities
than in Reach 1 downstream. No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
Howe Creek:
Reach 3
Overview - Reach 3 extends for a distance of -860 ft. from the barrier falls upstream to a
culvert crossing of the Lords Lake Loop Road (RM 0.45). An old parking area with a
93
gated access road is perched on the right bank canyon edge near the falls, and a long-
abandoned trail with overgrown wooden steps follows a ridge from the parking area to a
viewpoint overlooking the falls. The channel above the falls passes through a moderately
confined valley bottom, with steep slopes along the right bank. The road prism for the
Lords Lake Loop Road forms the left-bank berm along upstream segments of this reach.
Channel Conditions - Channel habitats are dominated by riffles (-80%) and L WD-
formed pools (-20%) averaging 1-1.5 ft. deep. The deepest pool, measuring 2.5 ft., is
located at the culvert outlet below the Lords Lake Loop Road crossing, indicating that the
culvert is undersized. Substrate composition is -40% small gravel, 20% large gravel,
20% cobble, 10% bedrock, and 10% sand. Gradient is -2-3%, with a bankfull width in
the 15-17-foot range, and an average wetted width of -10 ft. at the time of the survey.
Large woody debris is sparse in this reach, with the majority of L WD pieces measuring
8-20 inches in diameter, with a total of six jams - three small and three medium-sized. A
few very large diameter L WD key pieces (> 48 in.) span the channel at several locations.
No natural barriers to fish migration were observed. With the exception ofthe culvert
crossing of Lords Lake Loop Road, no artificial bank or channel modifications were
noted in Reach 3. The large diameter corrugated steel culvert (CC #20, Appendix 2 and
Map 6) has no retained substrate and appears to have a gradient of greater than 1 %,
creating a partial fish-passage barrier.
No side channels or tributaries were observed in this reach.
Riparian Conditions - A diverse forest of young- to-mature cedar, Douglas-fir, and
western hemlock dominate riparian slopes upstream from the barrier waterfall.
Intermixed within the conifer stands are remnant old-growth cedar trees (>40 in. dbh),
and small stands of young alder and big-leaf maple. Canopy cover is -80% throughout.
No non-native/invasive species were observed.
Aquatic Biota - No beaver activity or freshwater mussels were observed.
Howe Creek:
Reach 4
Overview - Reach 4 extends from the lower Lords Lake Loop Road culvert crossing (at
RM 0.45) upstream for -3,130+ ft. Due to time constraints, surveyors terminated the
habitat reconnaissance midway through an extensive series of beaver dam wetlands, and
did not observe the upper part of this reach extending upstream to a second culvert
crossing of the Lords Lake Loop Road (CC #35, Appendix 2). The Reach 4 channel
meanders through an unconfined valley bottom and floodplain with the appearance of a
former lake/beaver pond that is now heavily overgrown with invasive reed canary grass.
Channel Conditions - The first ofa series of beaver dams is located -1220 ft. above the
lower Lords Lake Loop Road culvert crossing. Channel habitat downstream from the
94
beaver dam segment is composed of riffles (70%) and pools (30%) with depths ranging
from 1.3-2.0 ft. Impounded pools connected by numerous multi-thread channels that
meander through the extensive reed canary grass-dominated wetland characterize the
habitat through the beaver dam section. Channel substrate below the beaver dam reach is
70% small gravels and 30% sand, while substrates within the beaver pond wetland are
dominated by silt and intermittent, small gravel deposits. Gradient is 1-2%, with a
bankfull width of -14 ft., and an average wetted width of -10ft. at the time of the survey.
Large woody debris is sparse in this reach, with in-stream wood significantly less
abundant than in downstream reaches of Howe Creek. A few remnant old growth logs
(greater than 48 inches in diameter) lie partly-overgrown amid the extensive swaths of
reed canary grass, and these logs often span wetland secondary channels, providing fish
cover, and serving as nurse logs for regenerating tree seedlings. However, most L WD
observed in this reach falls into the 8-20 inch diameter class. Three small and two
medium-sized jams were located in Reach 4.
No artificial bank or channel modifications were observed in this reach. Five beaver
dams were noted prior to survey termination, the largest measuring 3.5 ft. in height.
Though it is unlikely that they are significant barriers to fish movement, these beaver
dams may impede local migration during periods of low flow. Additional beaver dams
exist upstream toward the end of the reach at the upper Lords Lake Loop Road crossing.
Two -50-ft. long split channels were noted at -140 ft. and -1,030 ft. upstream from the
start ofthe reach. Right-bank tributary E (17.0091, RM 0.6) enters Howe Creek -980 ft.
above the lower Lords Lake Loop Road crossing. With a bankfull width of -3 ft. and a
gradient of 1-2%, this tributary is one ofthe two Lords Lake Reservoir outlet channels.
A 3.5-foot wide tributary with a gradient of -1 % (tributary G) enters Howe Creek from
the left bank -2300 ft. above the lower Lords Lake Loop Road culvert at RM 0.45.
Riparian Conditions - Streamside vegetation along this reach is dominated by invasive
reed canary grass with sparsely distributed stands of old growth sitka spruce (20-40 in.
dbh) and mature (20 in. diameter) cedar, hemlock, and big-leaf maple. Canopy cover
averages -30% throughout. The understory is composed primarily of salmonberry and
Pacific ninebark, giving way to reed canary grass in upstream portions ofthe reach.
Aquatic Biota - Several small resident trout were observed in Reach 4 during the habitat
reconnaissance survey. Five beaver dams were noted; two were active and three others
appeared to be inactive at the time of the survey. No freshwater mussels were observed.
95
I::
o
'+::l
e--
o ~
..::Ill ti.-
... e ~
= ..0
~ ,0..0
-'c ::s
~ 0 ell
~'c ~
~p..~
= '"0 ....
=ou
:c]o
= 0 ~
... 5 0
S5:I:
ell 0'"0
~ C) a
"0 e
~ '"0 ..:.f
~a~
'C ....
=tfu
'C 0 >.
... ~ 0
-..= -
"0 1:: '_~
=oJXi
= Z ~
.... ~
= >. 0
~ C) e
Sau
~~'"O
~ 0 I::
ell ell ~
rIll::-
= 0 0
....u~
.s '"0
......= I::
,.Q.~ Cd
= ~ ~
..='"O~
"0:::::>-
'a~~
e >. 0
"O..ofi
~ '"0 C)
..=0::::
~ 1:) ~
~~'-'
....- 0
~8'E
"O~::3
='"05
,!02
~ ell ell
~ 9.S
I ..= ~
~ ~ 5
= '"0 ....
~ I:: 0
~ Cd ~
.... 0
=s-
QI._ 0
~~-S
i:!"=d
.... 00 0
~I::"=
...N bl)
t--.~ ::s
. I 0
~ ....
eIl5-S
=-5 ell
= ::s 0
~ eIl.t::
fI!!!=i'-"eIl
j.
.e:s
"0
=
<
D
Ii
~~
(II'"
> ::::J
0.0
"01:
(II'"
,.c"O
t fa
......0
;;r:;
o
~....:
(II....
.!::!~
-0:::
3~
(II
.,
...
:::i
I
....
li'
:E
\0
0\
N
=
~
uJ
2~.
s:
o
CD
.".~
~ j
! ~ ~
1 ~ ~
i ~ ifi
1 1 & 5
<.) u :8 &
~ ~ lit
D,DiOiOU
N
('I)
1 1
111
~ ~ I
I j j ~
'OJ ~ ~ ~
~IDc:.D;'D';'
.... f f f
10
ci
o
102
Appendix 2: List of Barrier Culverts identified by Wild Fish Conservancy on fish-
bearing ("F" or Type 3) streams
during the Little Quilcene - Leland Creek Watershed Rapid Habitat Assessment
estimate %
Culvert R!!!!! Stream tributarv passable MaD
ID' Survev Date name name to latitude 10Dldtude to fish #
unnamed Little
driveway Ripley Quilcene -
PC 1 unsurveyed2 off Lords Creek River 47.903132 122.928088 nla 7
Lake (17.0089) (17.0076)
LOOD Rd
private
3/12/08 logging Lake
PC2 17.0017N Leland 47.894171 - 33% 5
(wfe) spur- 122.900160
ORM (17.0017)
ownership
private
field- Lake
PC 47 4/10/08 access 17.0017Q- Leland 47.9144562 - 0% 4
(wfe) road on f (17.0017) 122.888568
Boulton
Farm
private
field- Lake
PC 48 4/10/08 access 17.0017Q- Leland 47.9132465 - 33% 4
(wfe) road on f (17.0017) 122.887721
Boulton
Farm
4/21/08 unnamed Leland
PC61 logging 17.0080 Creek 47.879792 - 67% 5
(wfe) road (17.0017) 122.856826
4/22108 unnamed 170080 H-
PC 62 logging 17.0080 47.880285 - 0% 5
(wfe) road d 122.850142
4/22/08 unnamed Leland
PC 67 logging 17.0080 Creek 47.8884681 - 33% 5
(wfe) road (17.0017) 122.854338
4/21/08 BPA 17.0080
PC 69 powerline 17.0080 47.8817499 - 33% 5
(wfe) road H-c 122.858628
17.0083 Little
PC 71 unsurveyed Wildwood Wildwood Quilcene 47.83897 -122.9 nla 2
Rd River
Cr trib D-a (17.0076)
17.0082 Little
PC 72 unsurveyed Wildwood "Wildwood Quilcene 47.84107 -122.902 nla 2
Rd River
Creek" (17.0076)
17.0084 Little
PC 73 unsurveyed Wildwood Wildwood Quilcene 47.84261 -122.903 nla 2
Rd River
Cr trib D-b (17.0076)
103
17.0082 Little
unsurveyed Big Leaf "Wildwood Quilcene 47.83891 -122.892 n/a 2
PC 74 Lane River
Creek" (17.0076)
Little non-fish
Wildwood "Wildwood Quilcene - (state) 2
CC6 8/28/97 Diversion River 47.8383064 122.892944
Rd
Canal" (17.0076) 33% (wfc)
Lords Howe Little
8/28/97 Quilcene - 67% 7
Lake Creek 47.8784103
CC20 (state) River 122.923271
Loop Rd (17.0090) (17.0076)
8/28/97 Little 100%
(state) Lords Ripley Quilcene - (state) 7
CC37 Lake Creek River 47.9024391 122.928749
3/12/08 Loop Rd (17.0089) (17.0076) 33% (wfc)
(wfc)
Leland 17.0017Q- Lake 4
CC 1/18/08 Valley Rd Leland 47.91173 -122.883 33%
44.5 (wfc) East d (17.0017)
9/4/97 100%
(state) Leland Lake - (state) 5
CC62 Valley Rd 17.0017R Leland 47.899532 122.872109
1/18/08 West (17.0017) 33% (wfc)
(wfc)
9/4/97 non-fish
(state) Leland Leland - (state) 5
CC74 17.0017/ Creek 47.8862228 122.877205
1/24/98 Cut-off Rd (17.0017) 33% (wfc)
(wfc)
Leland Leland Little
9/4/97 Quilcene - 100% 5
Valley Rd Creek 47.8855705
CC76 (state) River 122.883141
West (17.0017) (17.0076)
Leland Leland - 6
CC86 9/4/97 Valley Rd 17.0078 Creek 47.863670 122.887604 0%
(state) West (17.0017)
Lords 17.0092 Howe
(Lords - 67% 7
CC90 8/28/97 Lake Creek 47.8926468 122.931664
(state) Lake
Loop Rd outlet) (17.0090)
10/22/98 non-fish
(state) Snow Lake - (state) 5
CC95 17.0017N Leland 47.9006577 122.906677
1/24/08 Creek Rd (17.0017) 67% (wfc)
(wfc)
10/22/98 Little unknown -
(state) Snow Ripley Quilcene 47.9057732 - recommend 7
CC98 Creek Rd Creek River 122.922394 "B" - level
3/12/08 (17.0089) (17.0076) analysiS
(wfc)
Leland Little
7/30/03 US Hwy Quilcene - 33% 6
SC99 Creek 47.8519249 122.887833
(state) 101 River
(17.0017) (17.0076)
104
SC 7/29/03 US Hwy Leland
17.0080 Creek 47.8817177 - 67% 5
100 (state) 101 (17.0017) 122.876724
SC 7/29/03 US Hwy Leland
17.0080 Creek 47.8817177 - 67% 5
101 (state) 101 (17.0017) 122.876724
SC 7/29/03 US Hwy Leland
17.0017/ Creek 47.8877428 - 67% 5
105 (state) 101 (17.0017) 122.875442
SC 7/30/03 US Hwy unnamed Leland
Creek 47.8624008 - 67% 6
107 (state) 101 wetland (17.0017) 122.881198
SC 7/30/03 US Hwy Leland
17.0079 Creek 47.8624008 - 67% 6
108 (state) 101 (17.0017) 122.881198
1 Culvert ownership is reflected in the ID: frivate .Qulvert, .Qounty .Qulvert, ,S.tate .Qulvert.
. Further information can be accessed through the Washington Dept. ofFish and Wildlife SSHEAR
database.
2 WFC field personnel did not have access to private property to conduct a barrier assessment survey of
culvert PC 1;
cursory examination concluded that the PC 1 culvert was a partial barrier
105
ApDendix 3: Contact List for Little QuiIcene / Leland Valley landowners potentially
receptive to watershed restoration activities
Each of the following residents were contacted directly by WFC staff during fieldwork activities for
the Rapid Habitat Assessment, and indicated some degree of willingness to participate in future
restoration activities on their properties. Details of their degree of interest and the specific
restoration activity addressed are provided below (see also Part II: Restoration Recommendations,
and Appendix 4: Prioritized Restoration Matrix )
1. Robert Alexander
Phone: (360)774-1194
mail address: PO Box 163 Quilcene, WA 98376
physical address: 384/554 Big Leaf Lane, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 702111032,702113007
Bob is a property owner adjacent to the Wildwood Diversion Canal inlet channel
on the Little Quilcene River. At the behest of downstream property owners who
exercise this water-right, he manages flow in the canal by opening or closing a
river-return side channel (via rip-rap and sand bags) just below the right-bank
diversion entrance at the north end of Big Leaf Lane (a private road). He reacted
very favorably to the idea of screening the inlet to prevent juvenile salmon from
entering the diversion canal, but expressed concern that, once-installed, routine
maintenance would be discontinued leaving the work of clearing the screen in his
hands (see LQ #3a of Part II: Restoration Recommendations, and Map 2,
Appendix I for the diversion canal location).
2. Peter Brackney
Phone: (360) 765-3181
mail address: PO Box 579 Quilcene, W A 98376
physical address: 121 Wildwood Road, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 932700024
WFC staff have not spoken with this Quilcene resident. His name was referenced
by Robert Alexander (#1, above) for annual maintenance ofthe cobble push-up
dam that diverts Little Quilcene River flow into the Wildwood Diversion Canal
(see Part II: LQ #3b and Map 2 for the location of the canal inlet and diversion).
3. John and Heidi Burbank
Phone: (360) 774-2690
mail address: PO Box 475 Port Hadlock, W A 98376
physical address: 3080/3081 Leland Valley Road West, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 702021015,702021020
John and Heidi own property that includes the confluence of the 17.0082 tributary
to Leland Creek. This tributary has a barrier culvert (CC #86, Appendix 2) as
described in Part II: L-l. They are excellent stewards of the stream corridor
through their property, keen to learn of opportunities to enact conservation
easements and initiate restoration for the benefit of fish and riparian wildlife.
4. Richard Burge
Phone: (360) 765-3815
mail address: 1261 Leland Valley Road East, Quilcene, 98376
physical address: 1261 Leland Valley Road East, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 802244009
106
Dick Burge managed the Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory for 15 years as a
WDFW employee. As founding member and current Conservation Vice-
President for the Wild Steelhead Coalition (www.wildsteelheadcoalition.org) he is
a staunch advocate for anadromous fish habitat throughout Western Washington.
His residence is located at the upper Leland Creek (non barrier) culvert crossing
of Leland Valley Road East, just across Highway 101 from Lake Leland. Dick
has attempted to organize the Leland community to support the return of
anadromous fish, but met with resistance from some landowners. He expressed
interest in assisting with future grassroots opportunities to restore anadromous
fish and their habitats to Leland Lake and its tributaries.
5. Ron Frantz
Phone: (360) 765-3971
mail address: 290333 US Highway 101, Quilcene, WA 98376
physical address: 290333 US Highway 101, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 802362007,802362012
The Frantz family owns and operates a custom maple wood mill on their rural
residential property and pasture, adjacent to Highway 101 at the mouth of the
17.0080 Leland tributary (Map 5). Leland tributary 17.0017I, entering the
wetland below Lake Leland (with a recommended upgrade to fish-bearing Type 3
habitat as a result ofWFC water typing efforts) is also located in livestock pasture
on their property. Ron granted WFC personnel permission to conduct spawning
surveys on the 17.0080 tributary, and may be encouraged to participate in a
restoration of the lower tributary reaches (see Leland Creek #3d, Part 11).
6. Charles and Donna Greenert
Phone: (360) 765-4020
mail address: PO Box 337, Quilcene, W A 98376
physical address: 302 Ripley Creek Road, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 802353004
The Greenerts own property and livestock (horse) pasture spanning Ripley Creek
upstream from the Lords Lake Loop culvert crossing (in Reach 1, sub-reach lA).
During the course of WFC salmon spawning surveys, this reach was determined
to be a significant stronghold for wild coho. The Greenerts have been pro-active
in fencing livestock away from the riparian corridor, and maintaining natural
vegetation throughout the reach. They are excited about having in salmon in
"their" stream reach, and in project ideas that would enhance the already-excellent
spawning habitat here, including planting of streamside conifer trees.
7. Charlotte Reeves
Phone: (360) 765-3920
mail address: PO Box 399, Quilcene, W A 98376
physical address: 293513 US Highway 101, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 702114019,
Charlotte owns residential property located on the left-bank of Leland Creek at
the Little Quilcene River confluence. Both fall chum and coho salmon were
observed spawning in numbers adjacent to her landscaped yard, which extends to
107
the river's edge. If approached in a manner sensitive to her needs and wishes,
she may be open to the planting of riparian trees and shrubs to provide pool cover.
8. Robert and Penn Rosen
Phone: (360) 765-0505
mail address: 301 Munn Road, Quilcene, WA 98376
physical address: 301 Munn Road, Lake Leland, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 802261012
Bob and Penn live at the mouth of a Lake Leland tributary at the eastern end of
Munn Road. Landscaping with non-native vegetation and bank armoring is
prevalent along the channel through their property, as well as neighboring
residences. They were somewhat receptive to the possibility of salmon returning
to Lake Leland, and this stream (17.0017N, Map 4) is the largest fish-bearing
(Type 3) tributary along the west shore of the lake, with excellent spawning,
rearing, and summer refuge potential for anadromous and resident fish upstream
(refer to Part II: L-6e for details on streams entering Lake Leland).
9. Bonnie Selvar
Phone: (360) 765-3877
mail address: PO Box 207, Quilcene, W A 98376
physical address: 292986 US Highway 101, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 702111017
Bonnie is a property owner on the left bank of the Little Quilcene river directly
opposite the entrance to the Wildwood Diversion Canal (Reach 3, sub-reach 3A).
She is keenly interested in providing safe habitat for salmon that spawn along her
river frontage. As with many river-side rural residences along the Little Quilcene,
landscaping on her property extends to the river's edge. She may be amenable to
potential restoration activities that would protect her property from flooding while
simultaneously diversifying the adjacent spawning habitat (Part II: LQ-3b).
10. Pat Yarr
Phone: (360) 7654353 / (360) 301-1381 mobile
mail address:
physical address: 780 Boulton Road, Quilcene
Jefferson County parcel #'s: 802141002,802141005,802144003
Pat is the operations manager for Boulton Farms, located at the intersection of
Boulton Road and Highway 101. He is a relation to the owner, John Boulton of
3590 East Quilcene Road, Quilcene. Two western headwater tributaries of the
upper Leland Valley wetland complex transit the property (17.0017Q-e and Q-f,
Map 4, Appendix 1). Pat has previously assisted WDFW with in-stream nest-box
propagation of salmon eggs/fry in upper Andrews Creek for the Snow Creek Wild
Coho Recovery Program, and may be amenable to barrier culvert replacement
(PC #47 and PC #48, Appendix 2), riparian protection and channel restoration
activities along these ditched, fish-bearing (Type 3) channels flowing through
Boulton Farm property that discharge to the head of Lake Leland.
108
-; ~
:: Q,j
5~
~ ~
~~
'if
= .~
0....
~o
!!:! =
~.g
^ (1:1
@~u
rIl"'U
USU
::r:u::r:
S
'+=1
~
'"
US] '"
o ..
= _ G)
o'if~
~.~ 0
~+:l"O
<!..;.~ fa
~o_
=
o
'+=1
~
'"
St;;
uO",
o ~
I::-^E=
o 0 :S
~.~ 0
~+:l"O
<!..;.~ fa
~o_
S ~
.~ ii:
i: :E
G) ....
~t;;~ ~
8gl!2!
c::-Glca
O^~i:
~.g 0 G)
~tl"O~
't.... fa 0
-.o_u
..c::
'"
-;~rfl ^ ii:
:: = Q,j ~ (1:1 ..0 ..0 ..0 :i "0
= ~ ~ ~^ ~'5 S .~ !3 8 .~ !3 ~ 8 .~ !3 0 !3
.a = = G) e'+=I = ~ (1:1'- = ~ ii: (1:1'+=1 = ~ ;z ~
O=O~O (I:I==O~== 0(1:1== ~
~~oo!3~<"Oeo~"Oeo~~"Oeo~~
~~3g~~~g~~~eg~~~~
"......~~Urll.....~Urllrll<~UrllrllU
.s
....
~
~
=
o
....
....
f:
o
....
~
"C
Q,j
.~
....
....
...
o
'C
~
~
~
....
"C
=
Q,j
Q..
Q..
<:
-
~
=
o
::
~
~
~ 8 '"
G) ..c::^ t;;
1:: O'C
= (1:1 G)
'Oe'td
> G) e
t;; oS bll
0==
0-- oa
~tlfa
.ts g ~
I:: .=
(1:1 0 ..
~ lS. <S
o bll tl
:E'E fa
6 fa So
~~B
~ ..';::
~<S~
rfl
=
o
::
CJ
<:
o
~
00
u
::r:
G)
oS
.5
gr
'+=1 G)
fa .~
Q..8
fa '+=1
'1: (1:1
(ij 8
Q.....
ii2~
Q,j
=
....
-
Q,j
a
~
I
00
o
Obll
~ .s 0'1
t;; Q.. 8
~rIlN
...
Q,j
~
-=
CJ
~
Q,j
~
o
....:l
G)
..
~
~
~
.~
1
o
Qj
!3 ~
ta ~
-5 0
~ fa
~'ra
~.g.
~
.t;j
=
o
.t;j
o
~
1
..c
G)
~
.!:!l
1ii
G)
~
-
o
-
~o
~~
=8
rIlN
-
:=
N
I
o
....:l
o
..c::
o
o
~
'2
~
......
"0
G)
~
G)
..
o
.5
~t;;
'S; .~
e ~
~ '"
=
o
.~
bll
:~
-g
~
~ 8
=....
G) ~
~ ~
0._
00"0
~
~g
rIlN
M
I
o
....:l
..c::
'"
=
Q.."O
G) G)
-q::
..c .-
..c-
8 Q..
..... .5
o '"
G) ~ E;
o..c:: a
~ .~ ~
G) '" '"
1:: G) ~
'a oS 0
e~"O
]~~
8 Q..~
<=..c::
I:: ..c::
o '"
.~ ii:
i: :E
G) .-
~t;;~ ~
8glig
= - G) (1:1
o'if~i:
~.~ 0 G)
~ tl "0 ;g
't.- fa 0
-.o_u
~
~
"0
j
t;;
o
o
....:l
o
......
......
8 ~
.~ ii:
i: :E
G) .-
~t;;~ ~
o 0 ^ O.
u.9~fa
8'if~i:
~'.so~
Ifi ","0 I::
G)'- fa 0
-.o_u
..c:: ..c:: ~ G)
'" '" ~ 2P
~ i.i: Fa ~
..0 ..0 ..0 ~~
.~!3~ 8.~!3 8.~!3 s^~
!3~ii: ~'~!3~ ~'~!3~ ~'~ii:;
e 0 ~'C "0 e O'C "0 e 0 'C "0 1ii
U~~~ e gu~~ e gu~~ e g ~~
rIlrll<~ rIl<~ rIl<~~p..
~
~
G)
..
~
.~
Q..
e
o
o
Qj
~ ~
-5 0
~ fa
0'1:
1ii O:l
G) Q..
~'C
oS 1 i~~.9
r= ..c:: c;:gs-g
a o. 0 '" ..c .=
"0 G) "0 S G) "0 'f!! e
= 8.8.... '" G) 0 Q..
01ii1~=~<i'<bll
.~ ~ j ~ .~ ~ .[.~ ~
.~ -a Q....... S oS bll ~ G)
"Ofa.90g=.9~~
~ 0 ~~ ..''::''0 ~ 0
~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~]
8 ~ Q.. E=.5 ::::: .= gJ ...
o bll e :s e'~ 6lJ G) .~
G)'C 0 0:':::: a = '" '"
~ .!:l 0 "0 ~ as ~ ~ ~
~
~gj
=0
rIlN
'<t
I
o
....:l
o
-
~o
eC';l
~g
rIlN
It"l
I
o
....:l
G)
~
~ ~
..c G)
r;l gj
~ ~
5~
~E
.5 8
.s'~
G)'3
o Q..
.s .~
~ e
~
~
o
"0
j
aJ
~
~
.t;j
S
'~..c::
e 0
o~
:s 0
I
00
o
o
NO'I
-0
t;;o
~N
-
:=
\0
I
o
....:l
o
...
~gj
'" 0
~ e
;~
~ fa
bll.....
= 0
;g G)
,g]
..c_
~ N
=a fa.-
'+=1 oS .g
5G)..c::
o8~
~eq::
G)
fa
....:l
'H
....:l
bll
~
~
1::
~
=
o
G)
~
Q..
~
o
-
~o
~~
=8
rIlN
t--
o
....:l
.-
.-
.-
:g 5 5 = 5 51 5
~ 0
'+:1 .~ '+:1 .~ '+:1 '+:1
~ ~ <IS- <IS..Cl
~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~.~
~a CI) CI)~
~B la"a la~ la~
:g~
o ~ 8B '" 88~ ul~ o ~ '" 0 8....
U CI) U '" U ~ U
= la o ~ ="g~ = ~ a
5~~ =- =_ CI) =.,.J'~ 5E-<
~ 0 oti'~ oti'~ oti'~ o Q ~o oti'~
...U ~'5 0 ~'5 0 ~'5 0 ~'5 0 ~'5 0 ~ '5
~.;l ~ "t:l ~ "t:l ~ "t:l ~ "t:l ~@ ~ CI) la
lS","t:l CI)'~ a .~ a .~ a CI)'~ a tS.~ 0
CI).... CI).... a ~~ z
......~ ......0_ ......0_ ~o_ ~o_ ......0_ ......ou
..Cl at= ..Cl "'" CI) ...c: ...c: at ...c: ...c:
fIJ .- 0 ~ ] ~ '" '" .... '" '" ~
p:: ~ ~ p:: p:: ~ p:: p::
'" ~~~] '" ~~ '" '" ~tf '" '" "t:l
~5 a:;:; CI)'a .~ 5 g-~ .~ 5 5 .~ 5 g- .;l .~ 5 5 .~5 5 o ~ .t~
.... 0 "'...... B ~]E-<
5 ~ ~''''''''l 5~ ~~p:: ~ 5 ~ ~.~ 5 ~ ~........ i 5 ~ ~.... 5~ ~'+:I
=Q~~ ~ =Q~~ =Q~ =Q~ ~-o
~ O'C "t:l til '" ~ O'C .... ~ O'C "t:l ~ O'C "t:l til ~ O'C ~~'5 5 ~ ~
o~~g~eg] o~Sgg~ e CI) 5 ~.~@ ~
o~ ~ g 8~~g~e 8~~~ o ~ 0 ~~ o"a
Urn ~~a..U Urn<~~~ Urn ~ rn ~~a.. Urn ~ ~Q Z Urn
..... '5i..Cl "t:l:N ~ CI)
0 'G)' ~ 0
l) ..I<l:N ti=l'" a.... .s
.s CI).... ~:N bllti=l ~~ ~ .5 e~
0 e~ ]"a CI) '" e~
on U..Cl t).- ~ ;i ~ '"
0'1 1~ S'~ 8j ~ ~ ~ ~=E
.s:N - 0 'x a CI)
!-.;l..l<l ~!:l. CI) -... !:l. = ... =
CI).... - '" ]- .3 "t:l .5 i8
~~ .3 CI).s '" ti=l CI) .... ..... '5i ~
"'..Cl ... ~ g "t:l13 o 0 ~ ~ ti=l ~ ~.~
~..Cl .s :g ,J::J '" ~ Cl)4:: 0 .5 ~,J::J
80 Q ..2
!:l.'" '" S CI) .~ 's "t:l .~ ~~.s '" ..gCl)
...c:ti=l 5~..g 8~ '! .... ....].
~oij -..I<l o~e
'" '" '.g "'.s :a~Q) ",- ~ 'g ~.s .g CI)
ti=l ::s :a.s e 8..s 8
bllO ~ ~ ::se....:l
.....~la ..... i la ....... Cl)U
= e 0' 8's Q)CI):N e e ~ ~ Cl)ij_
;Q 0 o ~ 0 o 0 ~.~ ~
8~ CI) 1'+:1 ... CI) ~ ~.... ~ CI) '.g ~ ~
.... Q ~ ~ ::s 'S..Cl ~ ~~
S a '5 ~ ~<IS"a o~~ ~ ~S Q !:l.
rn..Cl ..Cl > !:l...Cl rn.~ .s 'C fj
1 .~ CI) 5 ~ j
..g'j ~ = 1 .5 ~ "t:l
Q) ~ 1~ '" 0
....:l ..Cl ~ 0 5'j bll~ ~
o CI) ;::l'~ .~'"
til "t:l ..s ~ fj .~]
CI) a a.s CI)
~ = =.~ ~ ..g ~ a O'C = "g! .i
~ 0 o <IS = 0 tilE-< ! '-'..Cl
.~ '+:1 ='+:1 Q ... '+:1 e"t:l "t:l'" 00=
'5 S~j CI) a ~ oti=l
8.~ :N a ~.s bllo
-aal .s = =!:l. ~ 5 .... "t:l ~E
e .~ CI)..... ... ~.~. e~ ~ij ]- Cl)lj jfij
Q~ ...o.s ..Cl_ .i.s
~ ~ a CI) a "a '8 1,~ a. ..... CI) '5 ~5
.~ g O....:l
.~ ~ 8 11 CI) CI) CI)"t:l >-
'a =a !:l.Q !:l.e"t:l g .1:: ~ ~ ~ ~ '+:1 !:l.
~::> iiZe iiZea o.s iiZ= ~....:l 8 ::g .5 <IS go
Z'"
0 I 0 N 0 N 0
- 00 - - - - -
~o 0 I; 0 0 0 0
~i 0 ~ ~ ~ N
N_ I
0'1 0'1 0'1 ~ ~ 0'1
=as 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
rnN ~N rnN N N N Z Z N
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ::> ::>
...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
- N t"l "'" on \0 r-- - N
I I I I I I I I I
....:l ....:l ....:l ....:l ....:l ....:l ....:l ~ ~
C'l
-
-
S I:: I::
0 0
.+:: 'ij .+::
~ '"
~ b b ~
'" ~ '" '" ~
I::-a 1::- s-a
o 0 ~ 8e", ug~
u 0 ~ o ... ~
=__ 4) ] 1::_ 0 1::- 0 ]
otf~ ~tf~ otf~
~ '.E 0 -a ~ '.E 0 ~'.E 0 -a
~ ~ 0 lS"'~ ~ ~ 0
,~ fii 0 .0'- fii .~ fii 0
~o_ ...:l ....0_ ~o_ ...:l
-Si
rz
-d' ~ '" '"
,~s s .~ s 0 ,~ I::
'C I::
6 i:I-. ",'- si:I-. o ,2 o ,g
I:: 0 1ii ~ ~ p.. ~~ S (0:1
~ o'c ~ <~
Sol:: p.. -Si 6 ..c: I::
o-a~ 6 i:I-. .~ 6
o-a i:I-. ._ 0
Uoo i:I-. Uoo i:I-. i:I-.i:I-. i:I-.i:I-.
0 ~ .0 ~
~ ...
$3 '" ... ~ 0 '"
S ~ .g S~ -g
'" I::
~E o 0 ~ eE o 0
~.g ~.g
...,r, 0...... $3,r, 0......
~ '.E ~ "',-
~ 0 eiS ~ 0
... I:: ~= 0.. 0 lj
^ 0 ..c: ^ 0 ,r,
s 0 ...... 0 '" S04 ...... I::
.- 1ii ~ o S q:: ,- ... 0 0
~ .- ,r, (0:1'-
..c:.g~ '" 0.. ~ "'.g ~ '" 0..
-1i.i"a ~ ~ ~... ..c:"'g. ~ ~
g e ~ ~~ o ;::l o~s fi 0
0..0 o ... 0 !lg
c...g 0 ~ ~ g .5 tl 0.. .g 0
ofii- 1::= os-
~'i ~ o .s 0 o 0 ~'ra ~ o .s 0
'" 5 '" >~ '" I:: '"
a 0.. .ta' ] "3 .~ o 0.. 'ta ,- ~
,5 'C -fi Cl::fii_ u ... ,5 'C -fi Cl::fii]
I::
o 0
.g'+::
ih~
;::l ~
o >
..s~", ..c: = I:: ]
1::'- bIl
o 1ii I:: ~ 0
0 '+::
,- I:: '+:: 0 5 e 0
e ~ fii ~ ~
00- ~ ~
t;l::c.. 0 0
0...... ... ~ } ~ ~
...o~ ~
a -a 'E '5 a
'5 > 0 0 'fa 0
o 0 ~ > ]
c..S~ a "3 0..
i:2ea ...:l u i:2 ...:l
0 I N N
- 00 - -
0 0 0 0
~ 0 ~ N
No I
0'\ 0'\
0 =- 0 0
0 "'0 0 0
N i:I-.N N N
- - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
M '<t on - N
I I I I I
Cl:: Cl:: Cl:: ::r::: ::r:::
ADDendix 5: Glossary of acronyms for the Little QuiIcene - Leland Watershed
Rapid Habitat Assessment and Prioritizated Restoration Framework
CFS - cubic feet per second
Measure offlow rate given by the volume of water moving past a given point in a second oftime
CREP - Conservation Reserved Enhancement Program
A voluntary land retirement incentive program that helps agricultural producers to protect their
environmentally sensitive lands. CREP is administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency, but
usually directed by county government. In Jefferson County, W A, CREP is managed through the
Land and Water Conservation Department.
CC / SC / PC - County Culvert, State Culvert, frivate Culvert
See table of barrier culverts identified by WFC survey crews for details (Appendix 2).
DBH - diameter at breast height
The foresters' measurement for tree trunk and log diameter standardized at 4.5 ft. above the base
of the tree on the uphill side.
ELJ - engineered log jam
Collections of woody debris that re-direct stream flow and provide bank stability. EUs are
patterned after stable, naturally-occurring logjams likely to be found in a given watershed.
ESA - Endangered Species Act of 1973 (United States)
ESU - Evolutionarily Significant Unit
A population of organisms (Le. species) that is considered distinct from similar populations for the
purposes of conservation. The ESU is considered under the Endangered Species Act to be
"substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations", and to ''represent an
important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species".
GIS - Geographic Information System
A system of electronic/computer hardware and software used for storage, retrieval, mapping and
analysis of geographic data including the operating personnel and collected spatial data (see GPS).
GPS - Global Positioning System
A satellite-based navigation system that allows users to determine their exact geographic position
via a hand-held data-reception unit.
GMA - Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW)
Adopted by the Washington State Legislature in 1991 (with subsequent amendments), the GMA is
a response to the finding by the state that uncoordinated and unplanned growth and development
posed a threat to the environment, sustainability, and quality of life in Washington. The GMA
(unique among the states) requires state and local governments to manage growth by identifYing
and protecting critical areas and natural resource lands, designating urban growth areas, preparing
comprehensive plans and implementing them through capital investments and regulations.
HCCC - Hood Canal Coordinating Council
A watershed-based council of governments established in 1985 in response to community
concerns about water quality problems and natural resource issues in the Hood Canal watershed.
114
The council consists of Jefferson, Kitsap and Mason Counties, Port Gamble S'Klallam and
Skokomish Native American tribes, and various state and federal regulatory agencies
(htto://hccc.wa.gov).
HCSEG - Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
One of 14 regional fisheries enhancement groups (RFEG) in the state of Washington, designated
by the state in 1991 to include watershed citizens in local salmon enhancement efforts
(www.hcseg.org).
JCCD - Jefferson County Conservation District
JLT - Jefferson Land Trust
A private, non-profit, grass-roots organization helping to preserved open space, working lands,
and conserve habitat in Jefferson Count, Washington (www.saveland.org).
JST - Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
LiDAR - Light Detection and Ranging
An optical remote sensing technology the measures the properties of scattered light to collect
topographic data.
L WD - Large Woody Debris
A log with a minimum mid-point diameter of 10 cm, and a minimum length of2 meters that
protrudes into the bankfull width of the channel.
NWIFC - Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
An organization of Point No Point Treaty member tribes that provides services and support for
tribal fisheries and natural resource management (www.nwifc.wa.gov).
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of NOAA
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS - National Resource Conservation Service, a division of USDA
OHV - off-highway vehicle
ONF - Olympic National Forest
ONP - Olympic National Park
ORM - Olympic Resources Management
The timber and forestry investment subsidiary of Pope Resources LLP (www.orm.com).
PEl - Pacific Ecological Institute
A non-profit corporation with a mission to provide innovative solutions that enhance the efficient
use of resources, and thereby foster a sustainable future (www.peiseattle.com).
PGST - Port Gamble S , Klallam Tribe
115
PNPTC - Point No Point Treaty Council
RM - river mile
RCW - Revised Code of Washington
SCSCI - Summer Chum Conservation Initiative
A WDFW implementation plan to recover summer chum salmon in the Hood Canal
and Strait of Juan de Fuca region (ht4'://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/chumlchum.htm) .
SSHEAR - Salmonid Screening, Habitat Assessment, and Restoration
A division ofWDFW that provides guidance and oversight for locating, assessing, and prioritizing
fish passage problems (culverts, dams, and fishways).
SSHIAP - Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Analysis Program
A spatial information database that is co-managed by WDFW and NWIFC that characterizes
salmonid stocks and habitat conditions in the state of Washington
(htt.p:/ /wdfw .wa.!!OV /hab/sshiap).
TAG - Technical Advisory Group
A group of technical "experts from federal, state, local, and tribal governments who convene with
the purpose of identifYing the habitat limiting factors within a given WRIA.
TFW - Timber, Fish and Wildlife
A 1987 non-binding agreement between timber industry stakeholders (tribes, loggers,
environmentalists, government agencies, research staff etc.) to avoid lengthy litigation regarding
timber harvest practices. Signatory parties agreed in principal to the use of best available science
to protect watershed health and ecosystem functionality, while allowing timber harvest to proceed.
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture
USDOI - United States Department of the Interior
USFS - United States Forest Service, a division of the USDA
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a division of US DOl
WDFW - Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife
WDNR - Washington State Department of Natural Resources
WDOE - Washington State Department of Ecology
WFC - Wild Fish Conservancy Northwest
A non-profit organization dedicated to the recovery and conservation of the region's wild fish and
aquatic ecosystems (www.wildfishconservancy.org).
WSDOT - Washington State Department of Transportation
116
WRIA - Water Resources Inventory Area
Watershed planning at the state and local level is referenced and organized around the 62 major
watershed basin units recognized by Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE).
WAC - Washington Administrative Code
Codified collection of Washington State regulations and statutes issued by the executive branch.
WHIP - Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
A voluntary cost-share program for private landowners who want to develop and improve wildlife
and aquatic habitat. Funding and technical assistance for WHIP are provided by USDA NRCS.
117
ADDendix 6: References Cited
Ames, J., G. Graves, and C. Weller. 2000. Summer Chum Conservation Initiative
(SCCI): An implementation Plan to Recover Summer Chum in the Hood Canal
and Strait of Juan de Fuca region. Washington Dept. ofFish and Wildlife and
Point No Point Treaty Tribes. Olympia, W A.
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 W A.
Beechie, TJ. and T.R. Sibley. 1990. Evaluation of the TFW stream classification system:
stratification of physical habitat area and distribution. Washington Department of
Natural Resources. Forest Reg. and Assist. Division. Olympia, W A.
Bernthol, C. and B. Rot. 2001. Habitat conditions and water quality for selected
watersheds of Hood Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. Point No Point
Treaty Council Technical Report TR-Ol-1. Kingston, W A.
Cascadia Consulting Group. 2004. Watershed Management Plan for the Quilcene/Snow
Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA 17). WDOE publication 03-06-029.
Correa, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resources
Inventory Area 17: Quilcene-Snow Basin. Final Report. Washington State
Conservation Commission. Olympia, W A.
Grimstad and Carson. 1981. Geology and ground-water resources of eastern Jefferson
County, Washington. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia WA.
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe (JST), 1994. The Dungeness-Quilcene water resources
management plan. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Sequim W A. WDOE publication
94-WRMP-17-18.
LeMoine, M. 2007. Barriers to upstream migration of prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) and
coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus). Master's Thesis. Western Washington
University. Bellingham, W A.
Pleus, A.E., D. Schuett-Hammes, and L. Bullchild. 1999. TWF Monitoring Program
method manual for the habitat unit survey. Prepared for the Wash. Dept. Nat. Res.
under the Timber, Fish and Wildlife Agreement. TFW-AM9-99-003, DNR #105.
Schwartzman, P. 1998. Study of residential well connectivity between Quilcene and Big
Quilcene R. Jefferson County Dept. Pub. Works, Port Townsend, W A.
118
Till, L., C. Soncarty, and M. Barber. 2000. Jefferson County Barrier Culvert Inventory
and Prioritization fmal report. Wash. Dept. ofFish and Wildlife Habitat Program,
Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement, and Restoration (SSHEAR) Section.
Olympia, WA.
USFS (United States Forest Service) and WDNR (Washington Department of Natural
Resources). 1994. Big Quilcene watershed analysis - an ecological report at the
watershed level. USDA Forest Service, Olympic National Forest, Olympia W A.
Werner, N., L. Boad, D. Hannafious, and E. Palmer. 2003. Comprehensive Monitoring
Program Description. Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG).
Belfair, WA.
WDOE (Wash. Dept. of Ecology). 1998. Needs assessment for the Eastern Olympic
Water Quality Management Area. Wash. Dept. Ecol., Olympia WA.
WDFW (Wash. Dept. ofFish and Wildlife). 2000. Fish Passage Barrier and Surface
Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual. Wash. Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program, Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement, and
Restoration (SSHEAR) Section. Olympia, W A.
Williams, RW., RM. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams
and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Wash. Dept. Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia W A.
Zielinski, W.J., K.M. Slauson, C. R Carroll, C.J. Kent, and D.G. Kudrna. 2001. Status of
American Martens in Coastal Forests of the Pacific States. Journal of
Mammalogy, Vol 82, No.2. pp. 478-490.
119