|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ===Overview===
| |
| Rattlesnake Creek is a right-bank tributary of the Naches River, which originates in the William O. Douglas Wilderness Area and is approximately 20 miles in length from its origin to its confluence with the Naches River at RM 28. The north fork is much shorter and appears impassable for fish a short distance upstream of the confluence of the two forks. Several small tributaries enter the south fork along its course, including Little Wildcat, Shell, Dog and Hindoo creeks. Little Rattlesnake Creek enters well below the forks about a mile above the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek.
| |
|
| |
|
| === Population Distribution and Life History ===
| |
| Rattlesnake Creek supports a single local population of bull trout, which displays a fluvial life history type; a resident component may exist as well but this has not been confirmed. The primary spawning area for this population is located in the south fork above the wilderness boundary at RM 14 and extends about seven miles upstream; it includes Little Wildcat and Shell creeks '''''(Figure 5) Keep track of figures / appendix information while transferring to online version.''''' Juvenile bull trout are assumed to rear in Rattlesnake Creek all the way down to the mouth; adult FMO habitat is primarily the Naches River below the Rattlesnake confluence but some adults also utilize FMO habitat upstream ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Mizell_Anderson_2010.pdf Mizell and Anderson 2010]). An unknown but assumed small number of adult bull trout evidently migrate up the Tieton River and the mainstem Yakima River as well (see Population Monitoring below). Adult bull trout migrate into Rattlesnake Creek in late June and July and are in close proximity to their spawning grounds by mid-August.
| |
|
| |
| === Status and Trends ===
| |
|
| |
| ==== Status ====
| |
| The USFWS ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/USFWS_1998.pdf 1998]) did not consider the Rattlesnake Creek population singularly but considered the Naches River “subpopulation” (i.e., all three Naches River fluvial populations) to be depressed with an unknown trend. WDFW similarly lumped the Naches River fluvial populations and rated the status of this stock as critical ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/WDFW_2004.pdf WDFW 2004]).
| |
|
| |
| Results of genetic analyses show this population is genetically distinct from all other Yakima Basin populations but did cluster with the other Naches River fluvial populations, indicating some degree of gene flow either currently or historically ('''''Reiss 2003 (reference not in Zotero)'''''; [https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Small_et_al_2009.doc Small et al. 2009]). Juvenile samples for the genetic baseline were collected in spawning and rearing areas above the wilderness boundary on Rattlesnake Creek, and adults were collected in a box trap post-spawning during the radio telemetry studies ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Mizell_Anderson_2010.pdf Mizell and Anderson 2010]). No samples were collected in the smaller tributaries.
| |
|
| |
| ==== Trends ====
| |
| The Rattlesnake Creek population spawns primarily during the month of September. Complete redd surveys have been conducted for this population since 1996 in an index area beginning about 2.8 river miles above the wilderness boundary and extending upstream 7.1 miles; also surveyed are 0.1 mile of Shell Creek and 0.5 mile of Little Wildcat Creek. This index area is believed to cover the entirety of the spawning habitat currently utilized. Annual redd counts have been highly variable with counts ranging from 13 to 69 ('''''Figure 4'''''). ''In 2021 redd surveys were limited due to the Schneider Springs wildfire, which burned a significant portion of the Rattlesnake Creek drainage.''
| |
|
| |
| ''Link/iframe to WDFW SalmonScape??''
| |
|
| |
| ''This majority of this narrative fits more appropriately with "population monitoring" except for the numbers for annual redd counts. Lacking a narrative / statement about the long term trend.''
| |
|
| |
| === Population Monitoring ===
| |
| The USFWS first documented the presence of bull trout (although they called them Dolly Varden) during habitat and fish barrier surveys conducted during 1935-1936 ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/McIntosh_1990.pdf McIntosh 1990]). A survey by the Washington Department of Game Fisheries Research Team in 1975 also documented bull trout (Dolly Varden) ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/WDG_1975.pdf Washington Dept of Game 1975]). The population was not investigated again until WDFW captured several juvenile bull trout in Rattlesnake Creek during electroshocking surveys ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/WDFW_1991b.pdf Anderson 1991]). Exploratory spawning surveys were first conducted in 1994 with complete surveys initiated in 1996. In 2001 juvenile bull trout were captured in the creek during snorkel surveys conducted in association with the collection of genetic samples ('''''Reiss 2003 (reference not in Zotero)''''').
| |
|
| |
| Mizell and Anderson ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Mizell_Anderson_2010.pdf 2010]) investigated the migratory behavior of bull trout in the Naches River and its tributaries. They reported on migration timing and overwintering habitat. In October after spawning, adults migrate back to the Naches River to over-winter. Although not observed during this radio telemetry study, a few Rattlesnake Creek adults appear to make their way up the Tieton River. Small et al. ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Small_et_al_2009.doc 2009]) reported that six of 34 adult bull trout captured in the stilling basin directly below Tieton dam, most during a fish salvage operation in December 2005, genetically assigned to the Rattlesnake Creek population. Evidence that Naches River fluvial bull trout may use FMO habitat in the mainstem Yakima River comes from a single bull trout that was sampled at Roza Dam in 2005, which also genetically assigned to the American River population '''''(see Appendix C'''''). ''Note - How to upload / present Appendix info in wiki?''
| |
|
| |
| Attempting to determine the complete distribution of bull trout in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed, WDFW also conducted electroshocking surveys on the North Fork Rattlesnake Creek and Little Rattlesnake Creek in 1990 and 1994, finding no bull trout ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/WDFW_1990.pdf WDFW 1990]). In addition the Forest Service completed night snorkel surveys on this tributary in 2002 using the bull trout presence/absence protocols developed by Peterson et al. ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Peterson_et_al_2002.pdf 2002]). No bull trout were found during these surveys ''(USFS 2002 - no link or attachment in Zotero)''. Technicians with YN Coho Program documented subadult bull trout in the lower portion of Little Rattlesnake Creek in 2006 and 2011 (T. Newsome, YN, pers comm.). Due to the absence of bull trout found in the previous surveys, it is assumed this fish belonged to the Rattlesnake Creek population.
| |
|
| |
| ''Figure 5 shows Rattlesnake Creek Watershed (insert old maps or link to new GIS portal with zoom to population??)''
| |
|
| |
| === Habitat ===
| |
|
| |
| ==== Overview ====
| |
| Rattlesnake Creek is a high gradient stream with elevations ranging from 1,960 feet at its mouth to over 3,500 feet at the upstream extent of the spawning area. Approximately 56% of the watershed, including the entire portion where bull trout spawn, is in the wilderness. Habitat conditions in the spawning area are excellent considering all rating parameters—channel condition (pool frequency and depth, LWD presence); substrate condition (suitable spawning gravels, sedimentation); riparian condition; water quality (temperature, chemicals/minerals); and water quantity ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Haring-2001.pdf Haring 2001]). ''The Schneider Springs wildfire in 2021 burned 107,337 acres primarily in the William O. Douglas Wilderness. It burned the majority of the Rattlesnake Creek drainage, which had impacts on upland and riparian vegetation, sedimentation, and...adjust previous statement accordingly (re-evaluate wording of Haring 2001)'' Bull trout juveniles rear above and below the wilderness boundary. Below the boundary the creek flows primarily through National Forest land with the exception of some private holdings in the lower mile of the stream corridor. There are a small number of private residences (less than 10) located on Forest Service land 5-6 miles upstream of the mouth and several on the private land nearer the mouth. The upstream residences are not believed to significantly affect habitat quality in the creek. Haring ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Haring-2001.pdf 2001]) described habitat condition in the non-wilderness section of Rattlesnake Creek as good above the Little Rattlesnake Creek confluence (RM 1.0). Below this point, the channel has been constrained by a bridge and by diversion structures, limiting the area available for sediment deposition in the floodplain and resulting in chronic aggradation at the confluence with the Naches River. There have been concerns in the past that in dry years adult bull trout migration into the creek may be impeded. The span of the bridge was lengthened in 2008, which should, over time, reduce aggradation; the most significant diversion was removed in 2009.
| |
|
| |
| ==== Monitoring ====
| |
| The Forest Service has conducted habitat surveys on Rattlesnake Creek and its tributaries using a Hankin and Reeves protocol ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Hankin_Reeves_1988.pdf Hankin and Reeves 1988]). On the mainstem Rattlesnake Creek, 7.2 miles were surveyed in 1996, Little Rattlesnake Creek survey was completed in 2002, and all tributaries were surveyed in 1994, including Little Wildcat and Shell creeks ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/USFS_2003d.pdf USFS 2003c]). During these surveys, data were collected on pool/riffle frequency, riparian and channel condition, substrate, LWD, and temperature. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in a reach of Rattlesnake Creek below the wilderness boundary in 1997 and 2002 ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Matthews_2006.pdf Matthews 2006]). In 2009, the Forest Service completed a road condition survey on major roads within the Rattlesnake drainage ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/USFS_2009.xlsx USFS 2009]).
| |
|
| |
| Temperature monitoring via thermographs deployed during the summer low flow period has been sporadic, but some degree of monitoring occurred in 11 out of 17 years between 1991 and 2007 ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/USFS_2011a.xlsx USFS 2011a]). Monitoring sites were located in Rattlesnake, NF Rattlesnake and Little Rattlesnake creeks. Collection of temperature data since 2007 is a monitoring gap. ''In 2023-2024 Mid-Columbia Fisheries Bull Trout Task Force will install water temperature loggers throughout the bull trout spawning indexes in Rattlesnake Creek and its tributaries, including Hindoo Creek (to help determine spawning potential).''
| |
|
| |
| === Threats ===
| |
| ''Below is the narrative for "threats" from the 2012 BTAP. I believe it does capture the most important info from the threats table - but can brainstorm best way to link to threats table or threat "categories" via WikiMedia.''
| |
|
| |
| With a geometric mean of <50 redds annually '''''(see Appendix B)''''' low abundance is identified as a moderate threat but this population is not considered a candidate for supplementation due to a stable population trend. The next highest threat to this population (prey base) is unknown but believed to be of significant severity. Currently steelhead, spring chinook, and coho spawn in the lower reaches of Rattlesnake Creek but at much lower numbers than historically. Angling is another potential threat to this population. However, because of difficult recreational access, this is not likely a limiting factor. The potential for entrainment into irrigation diversions is present in the lower reaches, and the impact to migrating or rearing juvenile bull trout is unknown.
| |
|
| |
| Brook trout (an introduced species) are present in lower reaches of Rattlesnake Creek and in the Naches River, but no evidence of hybridization was found during genetic sampling. Dewatering, altered flows, development, forest management issues, roads, passage barriers (potential) and recreational impacts are all present in the FMO habitat and lower rearing reaches of Rattlesnake Creek but are not believed to be significantly impacting the population. There is a sheep grazing allotment in the Rattlesnake drainage but this has never been documented to damage riparian areas. Altered flows have been an issue in the past in lower Rattlesnake Creek but recent improvements appear to have adequately mitigated this threat. Threats that are not present for this population include: agriculture, limited extent of habitat, and mining.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ''Table 7 - rattlesnake creek threats with severity rating, abbreviated actions, and action priority (leave table or...?)''
| |
|
| |
| ''....Link/iframe to SQL/web relational database with query set to rattlesnake population > threats. Can use same database as actions - link via population.''
| |
|
| |
| === Actions ===
| |
|
| |
| ==== Strategy ====
| |
| This population has been identified as a “Protection” population with a priority for continued population monitoring but with limited restoration actions recommended. Spawning and rearing occurs in the wilderness where no threats are present and threats are limited in the reach outside of the wilderness where rearing also occurs. In the lower reaches of Rattlesnake Creek and in the Naches River, implementing restoration actions would benefit this population. Current conditions in these reaches, however, are not thought to be limiting '''''- update to include climate change / temperature as a threat? Potential for grazing impacts, wildfire impacts?'''''. Outreach is a priority in order to document angling pressures and educate anglers, recreationists, and landowners throughout the watershed. The Broad Scale Actions that apply to the Rattlesnake Creek population include: Restore Healthy Salmon Populations and Passage at Major Storage Dams (Bumping and Rimrock)-'''''This section links to the broad scale actions section of the plan... how to do in wiki?''''' Revitalizing salmon and steelhead runs in the Yakima Basin would significantly improve the prey base for all bull trout life stages. Providing passage at the two storage dams in the Naches subbasin would benefit the Naches River fluvial bull trout populations in general.
| |
|
| |
| ==== Completed Actions ====
| |
|
| |
| * The Boyd Brown diversion (associated with altered flows) near the Nile Road Bridge was removed in 2009.
| |
| * WDFW in 2001 manually modified multiple channels at the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek into a single channel to provide fish passage in 2001 drought year.
| |
| * One unscreened (non-compliant) pump diversion was screened in 2011 by the North Yakima Conservation District.
| |
| * The Nile Road Bridge over Rattlesnake Creek was replaced in 2008.
| |
| * Fishing regulations have been implemented to protect bull trout in Rattlesnake Creek (see Appendix F).
| |
| * ''Anything to add?''
| |
|
| |
| ==== Recommended Actions ====
| |
| For additional detail on the actions listed below, see ''Actions Detail (starting on p. 164) - adjust to link to or embed database with rattlesnake actions queried.''
| |
|
| |
| ===== Population Scale =====
| |
|
| |
| * Multiple Populations #1: Outreach on bull trout conservation issues (landowners, recreationists, anglers, school groups, and others).
| |
| * Multiple Populations #5: Carcass analog placement if pilot studies demonstrate success.
| |
| * Multiple Populations #6: Floodplain acquisition/easements along the mainstem Naches River to benefit FMO habitat quality.
| |
|
| |
| ===== Population Monitoring =====
| |
|
| |
| * Multiple Populations #2: Continue redd surveys within the established index areas to monitor long-term abundance trends.
| |
|
| |
| ===== Baseline Habitat Monitoring =====
| |
|
| |
| * Multiple Populations #3: Continue temperature monitoring.
| |
|
| |
| ===== Implementation Monitoring of Completed and Recommended Actions =====
| |
|
| |
| * Rattlesnake #1: Monitor effectiveness of fish screens on irrigation diversions.
| |
|
| |
| ===== Threats Research & Monitoring =====
| |
| None recommended
| |
|
| |
| ===== Actions Identified in YSRP that would benefit bull trout =====
| |
| ([https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Yakima_Basin_Fish_and_Wildlife_Recovery_Board_2009.pdf Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board 2009])
| |
|
| |
| * Naches River Action #5: Restore lower Naches River floodplain
| |
|
| |
| * Naches River Action #7: Protect habitats in Naches River mainstem above Tieton River confluence
| |
|
| |
| * Naches River Action #9: Provide passage at Bumping Lake Dam
| |
|
| |
| * Naches River Action #17: Increase instream flows in lower Rattlesnake Creek
| |
|
| |
| * Naches River Action #18: Improve sediment transport at Rattlesnake Creek/Naches River confluence
| |