Gold Creek Bull Trout Population
Overview
Gold Creek is one of several tributaries of Keechelus Reservoir Lake, the uppermost storage reservoir in the Yakima Basin. Keechelus was a natural lake prior to the construction of Keechelus Dam on its outlet in 1917. The dam is the upstream terminus of the Yakima River, which continues 214 river miles downstream to the Columbia River. At full pool, the reservoir holds 158,000 acre-feet of water with a surface area of 2562 acres. The dam is a complete barrier to migration isolating the only population of bull trout residing in Keechelus Reservoir Lake, which spawns in Gold Creek. As is the case for the other adfluvial populations in the Yakima Basin the potential exists for individuals to be entrained through the unscreened outlet works of the dam and permanently displaced downstream. Individuals from this population are regularly entrained through the unscreened outlet works of the dam; see the threat related to entrainment below.
Gold Creek originates in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area and flows into Keechelus Reservoir Lake at its northern end. About 6.8 miles of Gold Creek is accessible to migratory fish up to a barrier waterfall. A bedrock cascade about a half-mile below this barrier may also impede upstream migration (Craig 1997). A little less than half of the stream’s length below the waterfall is in the wilderness. Once Gold Creek exits the wilderness land use is a mix of National Forest, State and private. In this reach the channel typically dewaters intermittently during August and September channel dewaters annually between July and October, with the timing and extent largely dependent on snowpack and summer rainfall. in a section beginning just above the outlet of Gold Creek Pond at RM 0.6. The length of stream which dewaters varies, but the affected reach begins just above the outlet of Golf Creek Pond near RM 0.6 and has been observed to extend for up to two miles <---update?? upstream (Craig 1997).
Population Information
Population Distribution and Life History
The Gold Creek population displays an adfluvial life history type. It is possible that a resident component exists as well although this has not been confirmed. The spawning area extends from the barrier waterfall downstream to the lake. A major avalanche occurred sometime during the early spring of 2008 completely covering about a quarter-mile section of Gold Creek with large wood and rock debris, earth, snow, and ice. The affected reach did not turn out to be a passage barrier. was in the wilderness 3.75 miles above Keechelus Lake. It was feared that passage would be blocked to spawning habitat above it. This has fortunately not proven true as redds were found in and above the avalanche zone the following fall and in the two years following that. Rearing juveniles are present throughout the length of the stream. Keechelus Lake Reservoir provides FMO habitat for subadult and adult fish (Figure X - MAP). Timing of migration into Gold Creek is dependent on continuous stream flows during the late summer period. Early studies on this population showed some adult fish begin to move into the stream in late July to mid-August; but in years when dewatering occurred, there was a subset of adults that migrated after the stream rewatered with fall rains (James 2002a). In recent years, dewatering is an annual event and it appears to be disconnecting earlier in the season. While there are still some individuals that migrate early, the majority of spawners migrate into the stream once fall rains reconnect the creek.
Natural Barriers limiting distribution
There is a partial fish passage barrier (bedrock cascade) around RM 6.5 (47.45074, -121.34149), and a full passage barrier at RM 6.8 (47.45409, -121.33688) (Figure X).
Population Genetics
Results of genetic analyses show the Gold Creek population is genetically distinct from all other populations in the Yakima Basin (Reiss 2003; Small et al. 2009). Initial genetic samples for the baseline were collected from juvenile bull trout during a snorkel surveys conducted in 2001 (Reiss 2003). Additional samples were collected in 2010 by the USFWS.Upstream connectivity was eliminated by the construction of Keechelus Dam in 1917. Genetic exchange with other Yakima populations of bull trout may occur downstream of the dam due to entrainment, but it is undocumented.
ANY GENETIC UPDATES?
Population Monitoring
The first official documentation of the presence of bull trout in Keechelus Lake comes from 1982 when WDFW captured five adults in gill nets (Mongillo 1982). As noted above, spawning surveys in Gold Creek were initiated two years later and consistent monitoring of the Gold Creek bull trout population began. Other than these spawning surveys, Gold Creek did not receive much attention until 1996 when CWU graduate student Scott Craig investigated habitat conditions affecting bull trout spawning areas in the creek (Craig 1997). To do so he used the redd count data collected during the annual spawning surveys.
In 1998, the USFS surveyed 725 meters for habitat and fish use (USFS 1998b). The short segments included one downstream of the pond outlet, one in the wilderness along the trail, and one upstream of the trail crossing. They found adult and juvenile trout, including bull trout, in all 3 segments,
CWU researcher Paul James studied the population status and life history characteristics of the Gold Creek population (James 2002a). To determine outmigration timing he attempted to trap post-spawn bull trout in the channel adjacent to Gold Creek Pond in 1999 without success. They did manage to trap three adults (and one juvenile) in 2000. That same year his crew conducted four daytime snorkel surveys to determine migration timing, observing 16 adults in the creek by the end of July. The stream became intermittently dewatered in late August, and he documented a few adults unable to migrate upstream of the Gold Creek Pond. Also in 2000, William Meyer conducted nine nighttime snorkel surveys in Gold Creek between 19 July and 9 November. He observed both adults and juvenile bull trout and reported juvenile densities lower than those observed in the upper Kachess River by 25-50% (Meyer 2002).
In 2001, snorkel surveys were conducted in Gold Creek by Yuki Reiss to capture juvenile bull trout and obtain genetic samples. Twenty samples were obtained, less than the number generally desired (30) to establish a genetic baseline Reiss (2003). The USFWS and WDFW returned to the creek in 2010 to collect additional genetic samples to supplement this baseline (See genetics baseline).
WDFW day and night snorkeled and electroshocked Gold Creek in 2003 as part of a project to develop a bull trout presence/absence sampling protocol (Hoffman et al. 2005). Larsen et al. (2003) examined these data in more detail with Peterson et al. (2005) providing final analysis.
In 2010, the USBR conducted an entrainment study directly below Keechelus dam. A screw trap was deployed in the river channel to capture fish entrained through the outlet works of the dam and passed to the river below. The sampling was done over a range of flow releases from mid-May through August. A total of 526 fish were captured during the course of the study, representing at least 11 species but no bull trout were collected (USBR 2010).
Add:
WDFW fish rescue
La Salle rearing & release
Entrainment / trap and haul
USFWS snorkel surveys?
Redd Surveys
The historic spawning period for the Gold Creek population began in early September and extended through mid-October. However, since 2009, the majority of redds have been observed in October or November. Complete bull trout redd surveys have been conducted since 1984 and cover the entire spawning area from the FS Road 4832 bridge up to the barrier waterfall. Redd counts have been highly variable (Figure X - REDD GRAPH). This probably reflects, at least in part, the migration difficulties that spawners frequently encounter as a result of the near now annual dewatering of the channel.
Other Distribution Data (eDNA, etc.)
Population Status and Trend
The USFWS (USFWS 1998) considers the Keechelus subpopulation (i.e., Gold Creek) to be depressed, decreasing, and at risk of stochastic extirpation. WDFW rates the status of the Keechelus Lake stock as critical (WDFW 2004). There has never been a clear trend in population abundance but redd counts over the past 6 years (2020-2025) have remained below the 30-year average of 15 redds.
Habitat
Habitat Overview
FMO habitat for the Gold Creek bull trout population is in Keechelus Lake. There is no shoreline development and water sports activities on the lake are believed to influence habitat quality. While the active pool of reservoir is significantly depleted over the course of the irrigation season (up to 94%), a conservation pool of over 156,000 acre-feet remains which cannot be accessed.
Elevations on Gold Creek range from 2,530 feet at its mouth to around 3,500 feet at the barrier waterfall. Approximately 3.2 miles of the stream is in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness; the remainder flows mostly through National Forest lands with some State (former Plum Creek Timber Company, and prior to that, North Pacific Railroad Company) and private ownership in the lower 1.5 miles. Gold mining occurred in the upper part of the watershed in the late 1800s and early 1900s (prior to wilderness designation). It is unknown what impact these operations may have had on Gold Creek. From 1968 thru the mid-1980s extensive commercial logging of old growth occurred adjacent to the creek in the lower mile. Some of the logged lands were subsequently sold by Plum Creek and subdivided; a large number of seasonal-use private cabins are now present on the east side of Gold Creek between RM 1.5 and 1.8. There are also plans for new development in the Gold Creek Valley, with a total of 60 circular lots just southwest of the current cabin community. There has been grading, road, and utility work in preparation for the community. The lower mile of the creek sustained a major impact in the late-1970s when gravel was mined from the floodplain for the construction of Interstate 90. The major current land use activity in the watershed is recreation. No campgrounds are present in the watershed, and dispersed campsites are not an issue.
The upper portion of Gold Creek from the barrier waterfall down to about two miles below the wilderness boundary contains reaches with excellent habitat conditions for bull trout. Excellent habitat is primarily located between the barrier waterfall and the 2008 avalanche zone. Unfortunately, substantial dewatering has been observed in this reach during the drought years of 2023-2025. Downstream of the avalanche zone to about the wilderness boundary has a relatively straight channel that lacks complexity and has few suitable spawning gravels, but maintains perennial flow. Below this point, several of the cabins mentioned above are located close to the stream’s banks; mature riparian vegetation has been removed and the banks have become unstable. As a result property owners have made efforts to stabilize them to the detriment of instream habitat quality. Heavy equipment has operated in the channel, fine sediment has been mobilized, LWD has been removed, and the channel has been redirected in places. Adjacent to and downstream of the cabin development the stream channel becomes progressively wider and more braided. Riffle habitat containing coarse substrate materials (cobbles and boulders) is predominant, and LWD is less prevalent; what is present is often isolated on cobble bars. The active base-flow channel is primarily located a significant distance from any riparian influence and intermittent dewatering frequently occurs in the reach.
The most serious effects of past land use practices on Gold Creek are in the lower mile of the creek. As a result of past old-growth harvest, almost no key pieces of LWD (i.e., large and immobile) are present to stabilize the channel and stream banks (Haring 2001). The creek has essentially “mined” those banks, increasing bed load and creating a channel that is extensively braided with widths frequently exceeding 200 feet (Meyer 2002). The channel dewatering prevents migrating adult bull trout from reaching spawning habitat upstream and can strand adult and juveniles present in the reach. Wissmar and Craig (1997) documented stranding mortality in Gold Creek in 1993 and 1994, estimating that 63% and 24%, respectively, of adult post-spawn bull trout died in these years. The loss of continuous surface flow is practically an annual event, which typically occurs in parts of August and September (Thomas 2001b; Meyer 2002). A dry streambed is usually first encountered just above RM 0.6 where the outlet of Gold Creek Pond enters the creek. The affected reach extends upstream a variable distance, which has been observed to be as much as two miles (Craig 1997). <-- IS 2 MILES STILL THE MAXIMUM? It characteristically has very short sections of flowing water and isolated pools indicating the stream is flowing not far below the surface of its bed. The causal mechanisms for this phenomenon have not been formally investigated but it is suspected that, in addition to channel condition, excavation of the 22-acre gravel pit (Gold Creek Pond) as well as other anthropomorphic hydrologic disturbances have occurred on the lower east side of the Gold Creek valley and are contributing factors. <-- any new information, reports to cite?
Often overlooked because of the problems upstream are potential passage problems on the reservoir bed. By late summer Keechelus Lake is depleted, and Gold Creek flows for a considerable distance (0.50-0.75 mile) <-- I think its often longer? across the exposed reservoir bed. The channel becomes extensively braided, and the main channel is poorly defined. As of 2017, WDFW fish passage biologists have monitored the alluvial fan of Gold Creek throughout the summer, opening passage or blocking of small braided channels to increase success of passage through one main channel (Rogala 2024). As soon as Keechelus Reservoir is drawn down, passage at Gold Creek could be affected. WDFW tracks and fixes issues as they arise.
Habitat Monitoring
Field Habitat Surveys
The Forest Service constructed a spawning channel between Gold Creek Pond and Gold Creek in 1972 and 1992 (Deichl et al. 2011). Goetz (1997) attempted to determine diel behavior of juvenile bull trout and its influence on sampling techniques. Gold Creek was one of the sites in the study in which the author determined that surveys of abundance, distribution, and habitat use of bull trout should include both day and night surveys. monitored the relationship between habitat and bull trout juvenile rearing. Mongillo and Faulconer (1980) discussed benthic macroinvertebrate densities and suggested fertilization of Keechelus Reservoir for improved fishing opportunities. USBR examined Keechelus Lake limnology from 1998-2001 to estimate the anadromous fish runs that could be sustained above Keechelus Dam if passage were restored (Ackerman et al. 2002). The data suggested that only sockeye salmon could be re-established.
Sediment samples were collected in Gold Creek in 1990. Fine sediment levels averaged 4.7-13.2% across the three reaches that were sampled (Mayo 1998). The Forest Service completed a stream survey of seven 100 meter sections of Gold Creek in 1998, using Timber, Fish and Wildlife protocol (USFS 1998b). Channel type, LWD, flow, temperature, bankfull width, and pool/riffle ratios were measured during this survey. The summary of results focused on "segment 1" where authors suggested had the most problematic habitat. Segment 1 was the reach starting at the Frontage Bridge and going upstream to the Gold Creek Pond outlet channel. They noted a lack of canopy cover, minimal large woody debris, and a wide, unstable channel with active bank erosion. They also noted that the temperature data exceeded water quality standards set by Department of Ecology (16°C) (USFS 1998b). In 2004, a Federal Roads Analysis was completed for the Gold Creek watershed (USFS 2004). The authors suggested that Gold Creek has a high risk of road-related sediment problems and that the width of the Frontage Road bridge is insufficient.
Craig (1997) monitored habitat conditions that affect bull trout spawning in several Yakima Basin spawning tributaries including Gold Creek, noting that dewatering often prevents upstream and downstream migration of adult bull trout. His first observation of subsurface conditions was on August 24th, 1996. Thomas (Thomas 2001b) summarized dates, years, flows, and reservoir elevations when Gold Creek was not passable to upstream migrating adult bull trout. Similar data for Coal, Cold, and Meadow creeks, and Keechelus Lake tributaries was summarized. Monitoring of the dewatering section has increased in recent years. ADD DETAILS OF ANNUAL DEWATERING CHECKS: WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE HOW
ADD OTHER SUMMARIES OF NEW WORK:
NEW HABITAT SURVEY
POOL SURVEY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Threats from 2012 BTAP -
One of the highest severity threats to this population is the frequent channel dewatering within the spawning reach that results in direct mortality and limits access to spawning habitat upstream. Other high severity threats include low population abundance and the passage barrier at Keechelus Dam. Other threats include illegal angling in Keechelus Lake, development in the lower reaches of Gold Creek, entrainment at Keechelus Dam, lack of marine derived nutrients, and documented introgression with brook trout.
While forest management and recreation issues are present, they are not thought to be significant. Interstate-90 crosses Gold Creek at its mouth (when the reservoir is at full pool) significantly impacting floodplain function; however effects on bull trout are unknown. Agriculture, altered flows, grazing, limited habitat, and mining are not present in this population area.
Stream Temperature Data
USFS (1998b) reports summer temperatures in 3 segments of Gold Creek. Willey (2007) collected temperature data in Gold Creek from 2005-2007. The USFS deployed temperature loggers during the summer low flow period at three sites in 2007 and two other sites in 2010 (USFS 2011b). Kittitas Conservation Trust, working with Natural Systems Designs, installed surface water monitoring stations that included temperature in 2013 and 2014, but most of those were dry during peak summer temperatures. USFWS has been monitoring temperature at their PIT antenna sites since XXXX. Finally, Bull Trout Task Force started monitoring temperature in the wilderness near the Gold Creek Trail crossing in 2024. There have been many short term monitoring sites in Gold Creek, but data compilation and long term analysis has not occurred.
ADD GRAPHS?
Restoration Actions
I-90 UNDERPASS COMPLETED WHEN? HOW LONG IS IT? Hard to find this info.
ADD DETAILS OF PLANNED RESTORATION
Threats
Connectivity
Fish Passage Barriers
Threat Severity: Significant
A little over two miles (FACT CHECK PLEASE) of lower Gold Creek dewaters annually. The dewatering typically begins upstream of the confluence with the Gold Creek Pond outlet channel, with flows going fully subsurface between mid-July and mid-August. This is believed to occur due to past land use activities including mining and logging (Meyer 2002). These activities increased channel width, reduced LWD recruitment, and resulted in massive amounts of alluvial material settling in the valley bottom. The issue is exacerbated by the adjacent Gold Creek Pond, which increases the rate of dewatering due to hyporheic flow to a slightly lower elevation. The river generally remains disconnected from its upstream reaches until fall rains reconnect it, typically sometime in October. See Habitat Overview section above.
In recent years (drought), dewatering has been observed in upper Gold Creek as well. The timing and extent is not well documented, but weekly surveys were conducted in 2025 in an attempt to understand the conditions. A survey report from late August 2025 notes "0.15 miles were dewatered completely, and 0.23 miles appeared to be close to dewatering" (Acosta 2025). This survey was after a mid-August rainstorm that actually restored flow to about 0.8 miles of the downstream dewatering area (Babik 2025). SCOTT - ANYTHING TO SUMMARIZE FROM YOUR SURVEYS?
In addition to Gold Creek dewatering and causing adult and juvenile passage issues, the construction of Keechelus Dam in 1917 blocked upstream fish passage into the reservoir and Gold Creek. The only passage from below the dam is through USFWS' trap and haul program, and only Gold Creek origin fish that were entrained through the dam are transported back over.
Entrainment
Threat Severity: Significant
A 2010 study by USBR trapped fish below Keechelus Dam to understand entrainment, but no bull trout were captured (USBR 2010). However, the USFWS began fishing below the dam in the fall in 2019?? --- USFWS PLEASE COMPLETE THE REST OF THIS SECTION
Dewatering due to flow management
Threat Severity:
DISCUSS
Land-use Issues
Forestry
Threat Severity: Insignificant (historical effects still significant).
The Kachess Reservoir watershed experienced substantial timber harvest between the 1940s and 1980s (Deichl et al. 2011, Meyer 2002). Logging went along the river corridor all the way to the banks of the creek. Roads were built to haul materials and logs out of the site. The effects of clear cut logging and associated roads include reduced recruitment and storage of large woody debris, bank instability, excessive cobble deposition in the valley bottom, increased stream temperature, and to some extent, dewatering.
Agriculture and Grazing
Threat Severity: Insignificant
There is no agriculture or grazing in the Gold Creek watershed.
Recreation
Threat Severity: Unknown, likely insignificant
Gold Creek pond is popular recreation destination in both summer and winter. There is a large paved parking lot (in the historic Gold Creek floodplain) and paved walking path all the way around Gold Creek Pond. Few people realize that Gold Creek is adjacent to the pond because it is separated by a thick band of riparian vegetation. This limits recreation impacts to lower Gold Creek. The USFS maintains Gold Creek Trail, which begins at the end of USFS Road 146. The trail follows the creek for about 3.5 miles before crossing and going upslope toward Alaska Lake. The trail only has a few places where creek access is very easy. The road, USFS 146, is gated at the bottom near the Gold Creek Pond parking lot to reduce traffic and theft in the Gold Creek community. Walking to the trailhead from the pond adds an extra ~2 miles round-trip and thus limits use of the trail.
For many years, the main threat related to recreation was vehicles driving on the Keechelus Reservoir bed and crossing back and forth through Gold Creek. This threat seems to have been remediated by the installation of a locked gate, preventing vehicle access to the area when the water surface elevation is low enough for it to be an issue. The gate was installed in 2023.
Roads and Development
Threat Severity:
DISCUSS
Mining
Threat Severity: Insignificant (historical effects still significant).
While there are no current mining operations in the Gold Creek watershed, three major mining companies operated in the watershed in the early 1900s (Deichl et al. 2011). Gold, silver, and copper were the most common target minerals. Mine associated development included hundreds of feet of shafts and tunnels, construction of Chilean mills and stamp mills, and an unknown quantity of outbuildings (Deichl et al. 2011). There was one mining claim that remained active in the Gold Creek headwaters until it was abandoned or forfeited in 1992(https://thediggings.com/mines/ormc5682).
One of the most impactful mining operations was the mining of gravel from the Gold Creek floodplain to support the construction of I-90 in the 1970s. Pit site PS-S-256, now known as Gold Creek Pond, and other nearby quarries and pits were excavated to provide a haul of 55,255 cubic yards, a haul of nearly 100,000 cubic yards of stockpiled strippings, crushed surfacing top course estimated at 51,800 tons, and ballast totaling ~87,200 tons (Deichl et al. 2011). Even though congress passed NEPA in 1969, there was no mention of NEPA in the design plans for I-90 projects in the 1970s. The plans did include some environmental elements like the construction of a "pervious dam" from the pond to a spawning channel. They also proposed revegetation of the Gold Creek area (Deichl et al. 2011). This gravel pit is now the primary cause of dewatering of the adjacent Gold Creek, as hyporheic flow draws water from the creek down to the lower-elevation pond.
Other
Ecological Interactions
Brook Trout
Threat Severity: Unknown
Brook Trout have been documented in Gold Creek since the first fish surveys occurred in the late 1990s (Craig 1997, USFS 1998b). The forest service noted that brook trout were only observed in lower Gold Creek in or near beaver-altered habitat. Meyer (2002) described the fish community in Gold Creek and observed 97 individual brook trout, or 16% of the total community observed. A small number of brook trout are captured each year during fish rescue efforts (~4-5) and are opportunistically culled. It is likely that the annual dewatering is helping to limit the upstream expansion of brook trout in the watershed. Warming stream temperatures, increased beaver activity, and future restoration of quality fish habitat might result in increased brook trout abundance. There is no documentation of hybridization with bull trout to date. <--- is this true?
Other Invasive Species
Threat Severity: Insignificant
There are no reports of other invasive species in Gold Creek.
Diminished Prey Base
Threat Severity: Unknown, likely significant
A 2017 study looked at the food web dynamics in Keechelus Reservoir (Hansen et al. 2017). The authors suggest that prey base available to bull trout in Keechelus Reservoir may be limited by food-web dynamics within the reservoir. Research indicated that the reservoir relies heavily on pelagic production, likely due in part to reservoir drawdown that reduces littoral habitat and associated productivity. Kokanee, an important prey item for bull trout, appear to experience limited growth and feeding opportunities because zooplankton densities, particularly Daphnia, are relatively low and often concentrated in the warm epilimnion during summer stratification. As surface waters warm, kokanee avoid these upper layers and remain deeper in the water column, reducing their access to key zooplankton prey. Additionally, other piscivorous species such as burbot and northern pikeminnow occur in the reservoir and may compete with bull trout for prey fish or consume juvenile fish that could otherwise contribute to the prey base (Hansen et al. 2017). Together, these factors may constrain forage availability for bull trout that migrate from Gold Creek into Keechelus Reservoir to feed.
The macroinvertebrate and forage fish base in Gold Creek itself is understudied (ARE THERE ANY MACRO STUDIES TO CITE?). However, data from annual fish rescue operations in Gold Creek show a relatively high density of sculpin and juvenile cutthroat trout when compared to other systems like Kachess River or Deep Creek (Scott Kline, WDFW, unpublished data).
Disease
Threat Severity: Insignificant
There have not been any observations of disease in Gold Creek.
Water Quantity and Quality
Flow issues/dewatering
Threat Severity: Significant
Seasonal dewatering of Gold Creek is probably the most significant threat to this population. The situation has been described above in Habitat Overview and the threat relating to Fish Passage Barriers. It is thought that filling and returning Gold Creek Pond to a more natural wetland condition will mediate this threat in areas adjacent to the pond. However, in a changing climate with increased drought, decreased snowpack, and earlier peak runoff, dewatering will likely continue to be a threat to this population, both in the headwaters and downstream.
Current and modeled future temperature conditions
Threat Severity: Moderate
The NorWeST stream temperature model indicates that climate warming may increase summer stream temperatures throughout the Gold Creek watershed (Isaak et al. 2017). Under the 2040 climate scenario, headwater reaches are projected to remain relatively cool while mid- and lower-basin segments are expected to warm to approximately 14–16 °C during August. By the 2080 scenario, additional warming is projected across the watershed, with lower valley segments potentially exceeding 16 °C and headwater areas approaching 10–12 °C. However, recent temperature monitoring in Gold Creek shows a similar longitudinal pattern to 2040 projections, with mean August temperatures ranging from approximately 10–11 °C in upper reaches to roughly 13–16 °C in downstream valley segments between 2023 and 2025. Maximum weekly maximum temperatures in lower reaches have reached approximately 16–19 °C during summer. These observations indicate that portions of lower Gold Creek are already experiencing temperatures comparable to those projected under mid-century climate scenarios, suggesting that suitable cold-water habitat for bull trout may become increasingly restricted to upper reaches of the creek.
Thermal conditions in the watershed also interact with seasonal flow conditions. When lower Gold Creek dewaters during mid-summer, reduced surface flow and isolated pools can warm rapidly, further increasing temperature stress for fish attempting to migrate or rear in downstream portions of the watershed. These combined effects of warming and seasonal dewatering may compound habitat limitations for the Gold Creek bull trout population during critical summer periods.
Other changes in hydrology
Fisheries Impacts
Angling Regulations/Fisheries Use/Poaching (Recreational)
Threat Severity: Unknown, likely insignificant
Angling is unlikely to be a significant threat to this population for a couple of reasons. 1) Gold Creek is closed to fishing year-round and there a very few documented instances of angling in the closed area. 2) Keechelus reservoir is the first to be drafted
Management/Monitoring (Research)
Threat Severity:
Other Threats
Low Population Resiliency
Climate Change
Other
Summary of Primary Limiting Factors and Threats
Recovery Strategy
Population-level Recovery Strategy
This population has been identified as a high priority “Action” population (see Prioritization of Actions). The highest priority action for this population is a hydrologic assessment and subsequent restoration project to connect dewatered sections in the stream, which strand fish and prevent access to spawning grounds. Other high priority actions include passage at Keechelus Dam and an evaluation of supplementation to address low abundance. Other actions to address threats include outreach, protection from future development and carcass analog placement if a pilot study conducted elsewhere in the basin is successful. There have been documented hybrids in the system, and introgression with brook trout should continue to be monitored, although no large-scale removal actions are recommended at this time.
Monitoring Needs/Key Questions
Actions
Future link/ iframe to PowerApp will go in this section.
Completed Bull Trout Recovery Actions
- WSDOT purchased 550 acres on west side of lower Gold Creek around 2008 (ownership has since been transferred to the Forest Service).
- The Cascade Land Conservancy has purchased a total of 221 acres on the east side of lower Gold Creek since 2008.
- Length expansion of the Interstate-90 bridge over lower Gold Creek, a WSDOT project benefitting the lower Gold Creek floodplain, is scheduled to be completed in 2012.
- Fishing regulations have been implemented to protect bull trout in Gold Creek (see Appendix F).
Recommended Actions
Relevant Multiple Population Actions
XXXXXXXX River Actions
Actions in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan that benefit this population
Population Scale
- Gold Creek #1: Conduct comprehensive hydrogeomorphic evaluation in lower Gold Creek to determine the causal mechanisms (and possible solutions) for annual dewatering. Implement solutions if determined to be feasible.
- Gold Creek #2: Gold Creek Floodplain Restoration would include the removal of legacy dikes and road fill from the gravel pit operation, relocation of an ADA-accessible trail away from Gold Creek, relocation of the footbridge out of the floodplain, restoration of hydraulic connectivity through the parking area, and installation of an engineered logjam in Gold Creek (USFS).
- Multiple Populations #4: Evaluate supplementation (see Appendix D).
- Multiple Populations #1: Provide outreach on bull trout conservation issues (landowners, recreationists, anglers, school groups, and others).
- Multiple Populations #5: Carcass analog placement if pilot studies demonstrate success.
- Gold Creek #4: Floodplain acquisition/easements in lower creek corridor.
- Gold Creek #5: Monitor, document, and fix (where possible) passage problems due to dewatering on the reservoir bed on an annual basis.
- Multiple Populations #9: Periodic entrainment studies at dams.
Population Monitoring
- Multiple Populations #2: Continue redd surveys within established index areas to monitor long-term trends in abundance.
Baseline Habitat Monitoring
- Multiple Populations #3: Continue temperature monitoring.
Implementation Monitoring of Completed and Recommended Actions
- If instream work is completed to address the dewatering issues, monitoring of flows post-treatment will be critical.
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation
- Gold Creek #3: Monitor all bank stabilization projects that include instream work.
- Multiple Populations #7: Continue to screen all collected genetic samples for evidence of genetic introgression with brook trout.
Actions Identified in YSRP that would benefit bull trout
(Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board 2009)
None
Update Notes
2012 BTAP text copied into Yakipedia and edited to match new format inXXXXXX by Aimee Taylor. ADD LINK TO 2012 BTAP pdf placemark
Additional edits proposed by Alex Conley, Aimee Taylor and XXXXXXX small group. Reviewed, and updated and approved by BTWG in XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Specific detail on out of cycle updates: