11 Spokane St., Ste. 101 (509) 888-0321 Wenatchee WA 98801 www.NCWFHC.org

TO: Interested Parties FROM: NCW Forest Health Collaborative Projects Workgroup DATE: January 27, 2016 RE: Mission Aquatics Assessment Report This Mission Aquatics Assessment Report is a compilation of existing aquatics data and information for Libby and Buttermilk Creek subwatersheds, which the North Central Washington Forest Health Collaborative is providing for the Methow Valley Ranger District to consider as it moves into planning on a potential Mission project. A public presentation and discussion of this report is scheduled for the February 16, 2016 Methow Restoration Council meeting. While the Collaborative encourages the Forest Service to consider many of the opportunities described in this report, we believe the Methow Restoration Council can further support addressing some of issues identified herein, before, during and long after a Forest Service project.

This compilation of existing data, while consistent with the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest’s Restoration Strategy, goes well beyond what the Forest Service traditionally considers with respect to aquatics and forest treatments. It is the intention of the Collaborative to provide pre-planning support to the Forest Service in the hopes that project planning can, ultimately, move towards achieving more holistic watershed restoration. Please contact Melody Kreimes, (509) 888-0321 or melody.kreimes@ucsrb.org with questions about the Collaborative, or Crystal Elliot-Perez, (509) 386-7768, celliot@tu.org with questions regarding this report. Thank you for your interest.

MISSION PROJECT AQUATICS ASSESSEMENT SUPPORT PROJECT

FINAL REPORT January 2016

Submitted to: Trout Unlimited and the Colville Confederated TribesSubmitted By: John Crandall, Confluence Aquatics

Contents Project Background ............................................................................................................................1

Methods ............................................................................................................................................1

Mission Project Area and Past Land Use .............................................................................................2

Aquatic Resource Summaries .............................................................................................................5

Fish Community Structure and Distribution .....................................................................................5

Aquatic Habitat Conditions ........................................................................................................... 14

Limiting Factors ............................................................................................................................... 22

Restoration Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 26

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................ 30

1

Project Background The purpose of the Mission Project Aquatics Assessment Support Project (ASP) is to provide information that will support the aquatics component of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (OWNF) Methow Valley Ranger District’s (MVRD’s) Mission Project. The Mission Project is the first project implemented by the MVRD under the OWNF Forest Restoration Strategy (Restoration Strategy). The Restoration Strategy has been developed to establish a framework for restoring forest and watershed health in the OWNF and its implementation requires a comprehensive landscape-level assessment of current watershed conditions.

The North Central Washington Forest Health Collaborative (NCWFHC) is dedicated to assisting the OWNF in advancing the Restoration Strategy, including implementation of the Mission Project. The NCWFHC supports exploring a suite of restoration actions focused on improving overall watershed health and moving current landscape conditions towards an identified range of functional variability in the Mission Project area. The NCWFHC Project Workgroup identified four key resource issues for the Mission Project that should be addressed (NCWFHC 2015):

1. Habitat for endangered fish; 2. Unsustainable vegetation composition; 3. Vulnerable wildlife habitat; 4. Unrealized opportunities for social and economic benefits.

In support of addressing aquatic considerations for the Mission Project, the primary objective of this report is to provide the MVRD with a summary of existing aquatic conditions within the Mission Project area (defined as the Libby Creek and Buttermilk Creek watersheds), including a review and summary of existing stream habitat and fish monitoring information that has been collected and developed within the project area over the past two decades. This includes information from several stream habitat inventory surveys and fish distribution/population monitoring. This report will also include information related to habitat limiting factors1; identify current data gaps; and outline a suite of potential restoration actions to address limiting factors, which could assist in improving aquatic habitat conditions within the Project Area.

Methods To develop the habitat conditions and fish status summary, the ASP included review and data summarization derived from several key sources of information including:

MVRD stream inventory reports for Buttermilk Creek (USFS 1993, USFS 1995b, USFS 1996, USFS 2011a) and Libby Creek (USFS 1999, USFS 2000, USFS 2010);

1 In order to provide a comprehensive overview of watershed conditions, select primary limiting factors that may

influence aquatic organism productivity and health within the project area were included in this evaluation.

2

U.S. Geological Survey fish population data and reports for Libby Creek (USGS 2008);

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) spawning survey data;

PTAGIS - the PIT tag database (http://www.ptagis.org/);

Water temperature data collected by the Methow Water Quality Monitoring Partnership.

Additional reports reviewed included:

MRD Watershed Analyses for Libby Creek, Twisp River and Middle Methow River (USFS 1995a, USFS 1995c, USFS 1997);

Methow Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004);

Salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout Habitat Limiting Factors (Andonegui 2000);

Lower Libby Creek Reach Assessment (Yakama Nation 2012);

Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead Recovery Plan (UCSRB 2007);

A biological strategy to protect and restore salmonid habitat in the Upper Columbia Region (UCSRB RTT 2014);

Production and Habitat of Salmonids in Mid-Columbia River Tributary Streams (Mullan et al. 1992);

Biological Assessment for the Little Bridge, Lookout Mountain Allotment Management Plan (AMP) Renewal (USFS 2011b)

Additionally, interviews with several local resource professionals (including the MVRD field monitoring lead and district fish biologist, Methow Beaver Project staff, WDFW field monitoring program managers, USGS field biologists, and local residents) were conducted in order to gain additional insight into current conditions, past observations and management planning. The information gained from these conversations are cited as personal communications within this document.

The ASP developed several Geographic Information System (GIS) based datasets to spatially identify fish distribution, extent of habitat surveys, and other habitat features within the project area. Much of this information was obtained from the entity that initially collected the data and no specific effort was made by Confluence Aquatics to verify the accuracy and precision of these data. Thus, all information contained within the GIS datasets, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) derived coordinates, should be viewed as approximate and non-verified.

Mission Project Area and Past Land Use The Mission Project area encompasses approximately 50,000 acres in the North Cascades of north-central Washington. The project area includes both the Libby Creek and Buttermilk Creek watersheds, which are approximately 25,500 and 23,500 acres in size, respectively (Figure 1). Based on tributary configuration, Libby Creek is considered a third order stream and Buttermilk is considered a fourth order stream.

3

Figure 1. Mission Project area watersheds.

4

Libby Creek The headwaters of Libby Creek originate in alpine cirques and several lakes within the Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness at elevations of 6,800’-8,400’. Libby Creek proper is formed by the confluence of its two primary forks, the North Fork and South Fork, at river mile (RM) 7.2, and these two tributaries contribute approximately 60% of stream flow to the mainstem (USFS 1998). From its headwaters, Libby Creek flows in an easterly direction for approximately 14 miles to its confluence with the Methow River at RM 26, just downstream from the town of Carlton, at an elevation of 1,360’. Primary tributaries to Libby Creek include Smith Canyon, Chicamun Canyon, Ben Canyon, Mission Creek, and Hornet Draw. These streams are generally perennial, but may flow intermittently in low water years and when water diversion volumes exceed instream flow. Several other intermittent creeks and draws also contribute to the instream flow, especially during spring runoff.

Land ownership in Libby Creek is largely public and primarily contained within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness. Private lands are concentrated along the lower three miles of Libby Creek and up Smith Canyon. Buttermilk Creek Similar to Libby Creek, Buttermilk Creek originates at the confluence of two major forks (Figure 1). Both the West and East Forks of Buttermilk Creek originate within alpine cirques in the Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness at elevations of 7,000’-8,600’. Both forks flow for approximately nine miles before joining at RM 2.6 and provide the majority of stream flow in the watershed. Downstream from this confluence, Buttermilk Creek flows through a steep canyon to join the Twisp River at RM 12. Perennial tributaries in the watershed include Black Pine Creek, which flows into the East Fork approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the forks confluence. Several other intermittent streams enter into the West and East Forks and mainstem. Similar to Libby Creek, the majority of land ownership in Buttermilk Creek is public land administered by the USFS. Private land is concentrated in the lowest mile along the alluvial fan of Buttermilk Creek near the confluence with the Twisp River.

Past Land Use The ASP has been developed under the assumption that past anthropogenic land uses in both Libby and Buttermilk Creek have impacted aquatic resources to a varying degree depending on location and level of impact. Wildfires, and other natural processes, have also been active in these watersheds and these have undoubtedly influenced the condition of aquatic resources. An extensive analysis of these impacts is beyond the scope of the ASP, and what follows is a brief description of the anthropogenic land uses that have likely been the primary sources of impacts to aquatic resources in the Mission project area. Over the past century, significant portions of the Libby Creek and Buttermilk Creek watersheds have been managed for livestock grazing and timber harvest (USFS 1995a, USFS 1995b). In Libby Creek, selected timber harvest occurred over >40% of the

5

watershed (Mullan et al. 1992). Agricultural development, primarily in the most downstream portions of both watersheds, has also occurred. The development of these land uses required the creation of extensive road networks and water delivery infrastructure. Combined, these land use activities have undoubtedly impacted aquatic habitat, both acutely and chronically, through various pathways stemming from alteration and degradation of riparian and instream habitat, diminishment of instream flows, and the creation of fish passage barriers (NPCC 2004). Both watersheds are also popular locations for a variety of recreational pursuits including hiking, hunting and fishing (USFS 1995a, USFS 1995b). While these activities have undoubtedly had much less impact on aquatic resources, they have had impacts such as the establishment of trails and dispersed camping areas in close proximity to stream channels.

Aquatic Resource Summaries

Fish Community Structure and Distribution

Libby Creek

Well documented fish surveys have been conducted in Libby Creek since the 1990’s (Mullan et al. 1992, USFS 1995a, USFS 1999, USGS 2008, USFS 2010). These surveys, in conjunction with more recent spawning surveys and Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag detection information, provide a baseline of fish distribution and abundance data that should be considered during development of the aquatics component of the Mission Project.

The MVRD Stream Inventory efforts in Libby Creek completed in1998 and 2010 provide the most geographically extensive efforts to examine fish presence in the watershed. Fish distribution in Libby Creek is concentrated along the entirety of the mainstem and North and South Forks (Figure 2). Although several miles of stream in both the North and South Forks have not been surveyed for fish presence, the presence of fish in Libby Lake (cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki) and South Libby Lake (cutthroat trout and resident rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss2) (Mullan et al. 1992, D. Hopkins, USFS, personal communication), combined with a lack of barriers to downstream movement, indicates that fish should be expected to occur continuously from Libby Lake and South Libby Lake all the way downstream to the confluence with the Methow River.

In the Libby Creek watershed, it should be assumed that fish will be present wherever perennial water and adequate fish passage conditions exist to link a particular stream reach to Libby Creek or the North and South Forks. However, at this time, the full extent of this combination of conditions has not been fully determined across a range of flows,

2 Rainbow trout and steelhead represent different life histories of the same species (Oncorhynchus mykiss). This

document will use “O.mykiss” as a generic term to cover both life histories and use “rainbow trout” and “steelhead” to refer to the specific life history.

6

Figure 2. Libby Creek fish distribution and monitoring summary.

7

(such as in drought years), thus the full extent of possible fish distribution within the watershed has not been established. O. mykiss have been documented in the lower reaches of Smith Canyon, Chicamun Creek, and Ben Canyon (USFS 1995a). No fish have been observed during brief surveys in Mission Creek and only brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) have been observed in Hornet Draw (G. Shull, MVRD, personal communication). It is also unclear how much use of smaller intermittent (and other unnamed perennial streams) streams is occurring during periods where surface flow in these systems is available for fish use. Overall, fish distribution in the smaller perennial and intermittent streams may expand and contract depending on the availability of flow and passage in a given season or year. Available data show that O. mykiss is the most abundant and widely distributed fish species in the Libby Creek mainstem, and is likely occur throughout the watershed wherever and whenever adequate streamflow and passage conditions permit. During the 1998 and 2010 Stream Inventory fish monitoring efforts in the mainstem, O.mykiss comprised 96% and 97% of the fish observed, respectively (Table 1). Other species observed included cutthroat trout (1% and 3%, respectively) and brook trout (0% and <1%, respectively). Rainbow/cutthroat hybrids were also observed in low numbers during these surveys, but identification of this cross can be difficult to confirm in the field. Genetic sampling verified the presence of mostly pure cutthroat and interior redband rainbow trout in the mainstem and North Fork and also verified the presence of hybrids between these species (Proebstel et al. 1998).

Table 1. Fish abundance in Libby Creek mainstem, and North and South Forks, USFS Methow

Ranger District (1998 and 2010) and USGS (2004-2005).

Entity

Reach

O.mykiss

Spring

Chinook (adult)

Cutthroat

trout

Bull

trout

Brook trout

USFS (1998) Mainstem 330 0 4 0 0

USFS (2010) Mainstem 299 0 8 0 1

USFS (2010) North Fork 6 0 164 0 1

USFS (2010) South Fork 11 0 8 0 0

USGS Libby - Reach 1 760 2 2 0 0

USGS Libby - Reach 3 137 0 1 0 0

USGS Libby - Reach 5 268 0 5 1 0

USGS SF Libby 43 0 33 0 0

USGS NF Libby 9 0 40 0 10

USGS monitoring during 2004-2005 supports the conclusion that O.mykiss dominates the mainstem Libby Creek fish community while cutthroat trout and brook trout are relatively scarce (Table 1). USGS sampled several mainstem sites including two intensive reference reaches (Reach 1 at RM 1.6 and Reach 5 at RM 6.2 - see Figure 2). Mainstem catch of O. mykiss by USGS was >95% of the total at these sites. Sampling by USGS also revealed two adult spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in

8

Reach 1 and the first ever documented Libby Creek occurrence of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Reach 5. A PIT tag antennae has been installed in Libby Creek just upstream of the Highway 153 bridge and has been operational since 2009 (Figure 2). During this period, it has collected 265 detections of which 243 (>90%) have been O.mykiss (Table 2). These data are further support for a high relative abundance of O. mykiss in Libby Creek. Other detections include three adult and four juvenile spring Chinook, five juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), two sub-adult bull trout, two cutthroat trout, one brook trout and three American beaver3. Table 2. PIT tag detection in Libby Creek, 2009-2015. Data from Ptagis.org.

Species Count

O. mykiss 243

Bull Trout 2

Chinook 7

Coho 5

Cutthroat Trout 2

Brook trout 1

Beaver 2

Based on the strong presence of O.mykiss in the mainstem, and from limited field monitoring in several tributaries (USFS 1998, Mullan et al. 1992), it is expected that O. mykiss is the primary species residing in the tributaries to Libby Creek, including Smith Canyon, Chicamun Creek, and Ben Canyon. While only brook trout have been observed in Hornet Draw to date, it is likely O. mykiss would also use this stream. To date, no fish have been observed in Mission Creek. If present, owing to its connection to the North Fork, fish species would likely include O. mykiss, cutthroat and brook trout. Mission Pond drains into the North Fork of Libby Creek approximately one mile upstream of the forks confluence (Figure 2). Non-native brook trout have been observed as abundant in this small pond (USFS 2010, J. Crandall, personal observation). It is likely that Mission Pond represents a source location for brook trout invasion to the Libby Creek watershed as fish disperse out of the pond and into the North Fork and the mainstem.

Fish monitoring in the North and South Forks has revealed a somewhat different fish community compared to the mainstem. Both USFS Stream Inventory and USGS monitoring show that cutthroat trout are more common in the Forks, especially in the North Fork, where they comprised 95% and 67% of the observations during USFS and USGS monitoring, respectively (Table 1). Brook trout, while relatively rare in the mainstem, have also been observed in higher densities in the North Fork. While some 3 The beaver were captured, tagged and released (outside of Libby Creek) as a component of the Methow Beaver

Project. One was released in Bernhardt Creek and the other in South Fork Benson Creek.

9

of these fish are likely of native origin, stocking of hatchery cutthroat trout in Libby and South Libby Lakes is likely contributing to the higher relative abundance of cutthroat in both forks. Libby Creek - ESA Species Detail One key consideration for the Mission Project is the distribution and use of Libby Creek by ESA-listed species including Upper Columbia Summer Steelhead, Upper Columbia spring Chinook, and bull trout. Redd survey data for steelhead are available for Libby Creek for the period 2004-2013. During this period, 215 steelhead redds have been observed in Libby Creek with counts ranging from a low of 0 in 2004 to a high of 46 in 2010 (Figure 3). The mean count for redds for the period of record is 21.5 redd/year. It should be noted that these counts represent an estimated count based on field observations coupled with an expansion factor that accounts for redds not counted during field surveys (C. Frady, WDFW, personal communication).

Figure 3. Steelhead redd counts for Libby Creek, 2004-2013. Data courtesy of WDFW.

Distribution of steelhead spawning in Libby Creek is concentrated in the mainstem downstream of Hornet Draw, with relatively fewer redds observed upstream of this point (Figure 2). The most upstream redd observed was located just downstream of the confluence of the North and South Forks. Thus, the distribution of steelhead in Libby Creek should be considered at a minimum from this point downstream to the mouth. No spawning has been observed in the tributaries to Libby Creek, but monitoring of these stream reaches has been minimal. Juvenile steelhead in Libby Creek would be mostly indistinguishable from resident O. mykiss, and it is likely that a number of juvenile steelhead have been observed through the various monitoring efforts in the mainstem of Libby Creek. Juveniles would be

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

# R

ed

ds

10

expected to rear in Libby Creek for up to three years prior to out migration. Juvenile steelhead use of tributaries, such Smith Canyon, is unknown, but likely occurs when suitable flow and passage conditions exist. USGS sampling in 2005 documented bull trout presence in Libby Creek for the first time with a single observation of a juvenile bull trout just upstream of Ben Canyon. This location represents the most upstream observation of bull trout in Libby Creek. No other bull trout have been observed during the extensive surveys by both USGS and USFS. Yet, this observation, coupled with the PIT detection of two juvenile bull trout at the PIT antennae near the mouth, is evidence that bull trout distribution in Libby Creek occurs over a significant portion of the mainstem. It is possible that bull trout could occupy more upstream portions of the watershed, including the North and South Forks downstream of the natural fish passage barriers in those streams. However, based on existing data, there does not appear to be a high degree of use of Libby Creek by bull trout. There is also no basis for evaluating if bull trout use of Libby Creek has declined or is reduced from the historic condition, or if spawning is occurring. Observations of spring Chinook in Libby Creek indicate that use is concentrated in the lower few miles downstream of Smith Canyon. While several adults have been observed, including adults near RM 3 (J. Donaldson, Libby Creek resident, personal communication), spawning has not been documented. If it does occur, spawning is likely not extensive (C. Frady, WDWF, personal communication). The majority of use by spring Chinook in Libby Creek is for juvenile rearing, which is also concentrated in the lower few miles of stream. Spring Chinook juveniles may originate in Libby Creek or move in from the mainstem Methow River to rear for up to year prior to outmigration. Currently, a large beaver dam complex at RM 0.7 may be acting as a barrier to upstream spring Chinook passage (C. Frady, WDWF, personal communication). Buttermilk Creek Similar to Libby Creek, extensive fish distribution survey work has been completed in Buttermilk Creek, including both the West and East Forks (Mullan 1992, USFS 1993, USFS 2011). There have also been on-going steelhead (2005-2015) and bull trout (2006-2015) redd surveys and PIT tag detection near the mouth during 2014-2015. It should be noted that over the near decade of redd surveys for both species, survey effort has varied in terms of methods and geographical coverage of the potential spawning areas, thus the counts may not fully represent the actual total amount of spawning in a given year. USFS Stream Inventory surveys in 1992, 1996, and 2011 documented fish distribution in Buttermilk to be the full 2.6 miles of the mainstem, the lower 4.9 miles of the West Fork, and the lower 7.2 miles of the East Fork (USFS 1993, USFS 1996, USFS 2011, Figure 4). However, it is likely that fish distribution extends beyond these locations in each of the forks. There is a waterfall barrier to upstream passage in the East Fork at RM 3.6. Cutthroat trout have been the only species observed upstream of this barrier.

11

Figure 4. Buttermilk Creek fish occurrence and monitoring summary.

12

Similar to Libby Creek, few fish surveys have been conducted in the smaller tributaries to Buttermilk Creek such as Yoko and Black Pine Creeks. It is expected that fish will occupy these streams as long as flow and passage conditions allow access. The USFS Stream Inventory effort of 2011 surveyed over a kilometer of stream of via snorkeling, including six reaches in the mainstem (RM 0-2.3), five in the West Fork (RM 0-3.3), and four in the East Fork (RM 0-2.3). The results of this survey indicate that O.mykiss (likely including both resident rainbow and steelhead) comprised >80% of the observations from the combined samples (Table 3). O.mykiss was most dominant in the mainstem where they represented >93% of the total. Other species observed in the mainstem included bull trout (<3%), cutthroat trout (3%) and a single observation of a brook trout (<1%). The fish community in the Buttermilk forks differs slightly from the mainstem, as other fish species increased in relative abundance. Bull trout in the West Fork (40% of the observations) and cutthroat trout in the East Fork (16% of the observations) showed the largest changes compared to the mainstem. This shift reduced O.mykiss relative abundance to 50% and 83% of the observations in the West and East Forks, respectively. Cutthroat trout has been the only species observed upstream of the waterfall barrier (RM 3.6) in the East Fork. No brook trout have been observed in either the West or East Forks.

Table 3. Fish relative abundance observed in Buttermilk Creek during Stream Inventory

surveys, 2011. Data Courtesy MVRD.

Reach

Length of combined surveys

(meters)

O.mykiss

Bull trout

Cutthroat trout

Brook trout

Mainstem 550 123 3 4 1

East Fork 400 98 4 16 0

West Fork 500 33 26 6 0

Total - All Sites 1450 254 33 26 1

A PIT tag antennae has been operational just upstream from the mouth of Buttermilk Creek during 2014-2015. Fish detections at this location provide more information about the fish community using the lower reach of the creek. To date, 159 detections have been collected at this site, including 122 in 2014 and 37 through early November in 2015 (Table 4).

Table 4. PIT detection in Buttermilk Creek, 2014-2015. Data courtesy of WDFW.

Steelhead adult

O.mykiss Bull trout

(fluvial)

Bull trout (juvenile)

Spring Chinook (adult)

Spring Chinook (juvenile)

Cutthroat trout

Other

2014 22 32 25 7 25 7 6 3

2015 7 18 9 0 0 1 2 0

13

These data, in conjunction with the date of detection, show adult steelhead and bull trout likely entering Buttermilk Creek for spawning. Adult spring Chinook are not known to spawn in Buttermilk Creek, and were likely just using the creek for short periods of time prior to migrating further upstream in the Twisp River (C. Frady, WDFW, personal communication). PIT detection also shows presence of both juvenile O.mykiss (either steelhead or resident rainbow) and spring Chinook who would be using the lower reaches of Buttermilk Creek for rearing. A steep falls near RM 1.2 may prevent juvenile access further upstream, but the degree to which this falls serves as a barrier is currently unknown. The PIT antennae data also included several detections of bridgelip suckers and mountain whitefish in Buttermilk Creek. Neither of these species had been observed in Buttermilk Creek prior to these detections and neither would be expected to make it past the steep chute at RM 1.2 due to their lack of adequate jumping ability.

Buttermilk Creek - ESA Species Detail Steelhead redd surveys, based on field census counts obtained during 2008-2015, indicate that steelhead spawning in Buttermilk Creek is minimal. The majority of steelhead spawning occurs in the mainstem downstream of the forks (Figure 4). However, in 2014, one redd was observed a few miles up the West Fork, which represented the first documented steelhead spawning in either fork. Juvenile rearing of steelhead would be expected anywhere near and downstream of this location, with rearing likely extending into the lower reaches of the East Fork.

Only a few steelhead spawn in Buttermilk Creek each year. Only 12 redds were observed during 2008-2015, yielding a mean count of 1.5 redds/year. No spawning was observed in either 2013 or 2015, and only one redd was observed in each of 2008, 2011, and 2012.

Bull trout spawning in Buttermilk Creek occurs in the West Fork from the confluence up to RM 4.9 and in the East Fork from the confluence up to the barrier falls at RM 3.6 (Figure 4). No bull trout spawning has been documented in the mainstem. The majority of spawning activity is located in the West Fork and it may extend upstream of the area surveyed each year. The most extensive redd survey data is available for the period of 2010-2013. During these four years of survey, a total of 30 bull trout redds were observed with 24 (80%) located in the West Fork. These redds were primarily comprised of migratory sized fish, but some spawning by resident fish was also observed. Juvenile rearing of bull trout would be expected throughout the spawning reaches and downstream to the mouth.

Spring Chinook have only been observed in Buttermilk Creek through PIT detection in 2014 and 2015. These data are evidence that juvenile rearing occurs in Buttermilk Creek and that adults will use the lower creek seasonally and likely for only a short period of time. Spring Chinook distribution in Buttermilk is unlikely upstream of the steep chute at RM 1.2 (C. Frady, WDFW, personal communication). Spawning in Buttermilk by spring Chinook is unlikely as very little spawning gravel is available in the lower mile of the stream channel that flows through the alluvial fan.

14

Aquatic Habitat Conditions Channel Type The condition of aquatic habitat within the Mission Project area is vitally important owing to both the direct and indirect influences it has on the ESA-listed fish species inhabiting Buttermilk and Libby Creeks. Regarding stream habitat, there is a wealth of information on this subject contained within the USFS Watershed Analyses and Stream Inventory survey documents for Libby Creek (USFS 1995a, USFS 1998, USFS 2010) and Buttermilk Creek (USFS 1992, USFS 1995b, USFS 1995c, USFS 2011). Stream Inventory surveys for both Libby and Buttermilk Creek has been extensive (Figures 5 and 6), and covers the full mainstem reach and a substantial portion of both forks.

This report provides a brief summary of available aquatic habitat information as it pertains to ESA-listed fish species in both Libby and Buttermilk Creek. For a more detailed and specific examination of habitat conditions over the past twenty years, stakeholders are encouraged to consult the above-referenced documents.

A key consideration for development of the Mission Project is to understand the underlying characteristics of the aquatic landscape present within the project area. In general, Libby and Buttermilk Creeks are similar to one another in that they originate from adjacent headwaters (i.e. similar geology and precipitation regimes), possess a mainstem channel fed by two primary forks, and have similar longitudinal profiles (stream length and elevation gain/loss). As a result, these creeks are geomorphologically similar in longitudinal, cross-sectional and plan form, which combined are primary drivers of stream habitat formation and maintenance (Rosgen 1997). It will be important for any potential aquatic habitat projects to include consideration of the inherent limitations and constraints, as well as opportunities, afforded by the underlying stream channel structure.

Stream Inventory data identified that the mainstem reaches of both Libby and Buttermilk Creeks as “B”-type channels which, by definition, exist on gentle to moderate sloping terrain (2-4% slope) within relatively narrow surrounding valley forms that naturally limit floodplain development (Rosgen 1997). “B”-type channels have moderate sinuosity (>1.2), entrenchment ratio (1.4-2.2), and width to depth ratio (>12). These underlying geomorphic conditions often promote the formation of scour pools, “pocket water”, and extensive riffle habitat. Additionally, streambank erosion and aggradation/degradation rates are generally low.

Stream Inventory data collected from all mainstem reaches of both creeks reveal that 75-82% of the stream length is riffle habitat with 16-24% comprised of pool habitat (USFS 2010, USFS 2011, Yakama Nation 2012). Side channel habitat was rare and accounted for only 1-3% of total stream length. Mainstem channel substrate was primarily a mixture of boulder and cobble which combined accounted for approximately 60-70% of the substrate sampled. The exception to this substrate distribution was observed in two reaches of Libby Creek (RM 0-1.4 and 4.5-5.9) where gravel was more common and accounted for 37% of the total.

15

Figure 5. Libby Creek aquatic habitat summary.

16

Figure 6. Buttermilk Creek aquatic habitat summary

17

The headwater reaches (i.e. the Forks) of both Libby and Buttermilk Creek are more typical of “A”-type channels which are steeper (4-10%) and more entrenched (<1.4) compared to B channels. “A”-type channels are characterized by riffle and plunge/step pool habitat and have high rates of sediment transport and, as a result, low salmonid spawning gravel retention. Stream Inventory data show a decline in overall riffle habitat (50-70%) in the Forks, with a corresponding increase in pool habitat (30-50%) when compared to the mainstem. Much of this shift can be attributed to the steeper gradient that favors pool formation. Exceptions to this shift were observed in the most downstream reaches of East and West Fork Buttermilk Creek where gradient was slightly less. Habitat Indicator Condition Recent Stream Inventory data can be used to examine the condition of a suite of habitat quality indicators for Libby and Buttermilk Creeks. Field derived indicator data can be compared to established benchmarks for functionality to determine the current functional status of the indicator (USFWS 1998). The ASP selected five habitat quality indicators for examination within the Mission Project area that are especially important as they pertain to ESA listed fish species and potential restoration actions that could be developed to improve habitat conditions for their benefit. These indicators are also aligned with the management objectives NWFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy established to maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. The selected indicators include water temperature, sediment, bank stability, large wood, and anthropogenic barriers (Table 5). Water Temperature The water temperature profiles from Libby and Buttermilk Creeks indicate that the upper portions of the watershed are functioning properly for this indicator, while the lower reaches are functioning at risk primarily during the warmer days of summer (Table 5, Figure 7). A key temperature threshold for habitat quality in lower portions of both creeks ranges between16-17.5°C (based on the 7-day average daily maximum temperature) which represents the Clean Water Act standard for salmonid (not including bull trout) summer, spawning, rearing and migration habitat (Table 6). Ideally, temperatures would be several degrees cooler than this limit and range within properly functioning criteria of 10-14°C. For the majority of time each year both creeks are functioning properly within this range. While both creeks should be viewed as potential sources of cold water to the Methow watershed, mainstem temperature regimes in both Libby and Buttermilk Creek can and do exceed Clean Water Act criterion for periods of time, especially in years of low stream flow and high summer air temperatures. This was especially apparent in 2015 when low snowpack coupled with warm air temperatures pushed mainstem water temperatures >18°C. Conversely, when stream flows are high and summer air temperatures lower, such as in 2010 and 2011, both creeks will function below Clean Water Act standards. Overall, data suggest that temperature profiles in Buttermilk Creek

18

Table 5. Habitat Condition Indicator Summary for Libby Creek and Buttermilk Creek. Summary and reassessment of USFS 2010 and USFS 2011.

Habitat Indicator

Definition of Proper Function

Libby Creek Buttermilk Creek Comments

Temperature

Anadromous Fish: 10◦C - 14◦C Bull Trout:

4o-12oC: Rearing 4o-9oC: Spawning 15oC: Migration

Functioning at risk in Iower watershed, Functioning properly in upper watershed including both forks

Functioning at risk in Iower watershed, Functioning properly in upper watershed including both forks

Overall, stream temperature regimes in both creeks will support multiple life stages of steelhead and bull trout in years with normal stream flows. However, the low flows and high temperatures in 2015 drove temperatures to several degrees above 2010-2014.

Fine Sediment

<12% surface fines

Functioning at risk

Functioning properly

All pebble counts in Libby exceeded 12% surface fines, but this may not represent a severe impairment of function.

Bank Stability

>90% stable banks

Functioning properly

Functioning properly

Very little bank erosion (<4%) observed in either creek.

Large Wood

20 pieces /mile: >35’ long x 12” dia. Good recruitment

potential

Functioning properly, but with areas of concern

Functioning at risk in mainstem, Functioning properly in West and East Forks

Several reaches of Libby Creek may have low wood levels due to past harvest activities. Past wood removal from Buttermilk mainstem (post-1972 flood) has resulted in low wood levels in the lower few miles.

Anthropogenic

barriers

Barriers should allow fish passage-all flows

Functioning at risk

Functioning at risk

The culvert at the mouth of Smith Canyon in Libby Creek and the 43 Road crossing over Black Pine Creek are barriers and may prevent juvenile passage, hence, rearing, at these locations. The Buttermilk diversion may create passage issues for adult bull trout in years of low flow.

19

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 7. Maximum and minimum water temperature profiles from a) Libby Creek mouth (RM 0.3), b) Buttermilk Creek mouth (RM

0.2), c) West Fork Buttermilk mouth (RM 0.1), d) Libby Creek at Ben Canyon (RM 6.4).

0

5

10

15

20 Minimum

Maximum

de

g C

0

5

10

15

20 Minimum

Maximum

de

g C

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Minimum Maximum

de

g C

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16 Minimum

Maximum

de

g C

20

are slightly cooler compared to Libby Creek which may simply be due to the more northerly orientation of Buttermilk Creek, but also could be a result of instream flow levels and groundwater/spring influences.

Table 6. Washington Department of Ecology surface water criteria for temperature (7-day average daily maximum temperature) based on aquatic life history.

Bull trout are especially sensitive to water temperature and have colder water temperature criteria from other salmonids. Water temperatures in spawning and rearing habitat should not exceed 12°C for the 7-day average maximum with properly functioning ranging from 4-12°C. Observations of spawning bull trout from throughout the Methow subbasin indicates that they commonly spawn in temperatures of 5-9°C (J. Crandall, unpublished data, personal observation). The fact that spawning bull trout have been observed in Buttermilk Creek for many years is strong evidence that a functional water temperature regime exists. Observations of bull trout in Libby Creek are rare and spawning has never been documented. Assuming passage through the lower and warmer portions of the mainstem are possible, the upper reaches of Libby Creek, including both forks, should provide thermal regimes necessary for bull trout spawning.

Fine Sediment It is well-documented that excessive accumulations of fine sediment (<6mm) in spawning gravel can be detrimental to the salmonid productivity via depletion of water flow and oxygen supply to incubating eggs and disrupt behavior of emerging alevins. Excessive accumulations of fine sediment can also lead to a loss of pool habitat that is also important to salmonid productivity. The standard for properly functioning condition of fine sediment in the Mission Project area is <12% surface fines. Overall, Buttermilk Creek is functioning properly below this threshold in all sites sampled in 2011 with a range for the five reaches of 5-11%. Conversely, Libby Creek is functioning at risk in all reaches with a range of 14-26%. These results represent a large difference between the two creeks, with Libby Creek retaining more fine sediment compared to Buttermilk Creek. This difference could be associated with past and present land use including roads, grazing and timber harvest, but a more detailed examination of sediment sources is necessary. It should be noted that for Libby Creek in 2010 fine sediment values were mostly less than the previous Stream Inventory survey in 1998. These results may be an indication that Libby Creek may still be transporting fine sediment derived from previous anthropogenic and natural sources. It is unclear how much of an impairment of function the high fine sediment

Category Highest 7-DADMax

Bull trout Spawning and Rearing 12°C (53.6°F)

Core Summer Salmonid Habitat 16°C (60.8°F)

Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, and Migration 17.5°C (63.5°F)

21

values represent and a more thorough investigation into sediment dynamics in Libby Creek is warranted. Bank Erosion Bank stability can be an indicator of habitat quality in montane watersheds like Libby and Buttermilk, in that unstable and eroding banks can be chronic sources of fine sediment to streams. While erosion is an inherently natural process in many streams and contributes to habitat diversity, high rates of erosion can be detrimental to salmonid productivity through various pathways. Overall, both Libby and Buttermilk Creek are functioning properly for bank erosion and well below the standard of >90% bank stability (i.e. <10 % eroding). Buttermilk Creek had <2% eroding banks at all sites, while Libby Creek had <4%.

Taken at face value, data indicate that bank erosion in the Mission Project area is not of major concern. However, Stream Inventory reports identified several features, including landslides and bank sloughing, which were obvious sources of bank erosion in the surveyed reaches. Sources of these eroding areas included roads, past timber harvest areas, as well as natural sources. Erosion from grazing was also observed in several locations in both Libby and Buttermilk Creek, but, overall, this represented a minor contribution to bank instability. Mission Project development should consider addressing all sources of bank instability to minimize delivery of fine sediment to the stream channels. Large Wood The presence of large wood in streams is an important driver of habitat complexity as the large wood is responsible for the development and maintenance of a number of habitat features/processes including pool formation, fish cover, water depth and velocity heterogeneity, stream shading, spawning gravel retention, and side/off-channel habitat development. The large wood also provides a substrate for algae and macroinvertebrate production.

Overall, although reaches of concern exist, both Libby and Buttermilk Creeks are functioning relatively well in regards to the presence of large wood. Target loading thresholds call for at least 20 pieces of large wood (35’ length, >12” diameter) per stream mile. The upper watersheds are mostly functioning properly, but the 2010 Libby Creek Stream Inventory identified a short reach in Libby Creek (RM 6-6.3) where it appears past logging adjacent to the stream channel had removed the source trees for instream large wood. Beyond this reach, the upper watersheds of both creeks contain adequate levels of large wood that are a significant contributor to pool formation and spawning gravel deposition.

Interestingly, over 20 years ago, the MVRD recognized the low wood levels in this reach and installed several small wood jams (around the Ben Canyon road crossing - USFS 100 road) to address it. Observations in 2010 indicate that these large wood structures have created pools and captured gravel suitable for salmonid spawning. High fish densities were also observed.

22

In the lower reaches of the watershed, including RM 0-1.4 and 2.9-3.4 in Libby Creek and RM 0-2.6 in Buttermilk Creek, large wood loads were identified as deficient (USFS 2010, USFS 2011, Yakama Nation 2012). This lack of wood may stem from riparian alteration, from residential or agriculture floodplain development, from anthropogenic stream clearing following the 1948 and 1972 floods, and from road construction activities.

Anthropogenic Barriers Anthropogenic barriers to fish passage, which in the Methow watershed are most commonly located at road crossings, pose a serious threat to fish productivity by reducing available habitat. When the disconnected habitat includes suitable spawning and rearing habitat, this threat is compounded as downstream reaches may not adequately support these life stages and the potential production may be lost or redirected to less optimal habitat.

Current conditions indicate that culvert barriers to fish passage exist in both Libby and Buttermilk Creeks, including the road crossings over Smith Canyon (1049 road) and Black Pine Creek (4300500 road). Based on this information both creeks are functioning at risk for this indicator. Several of the culverts within the Mission Project area previously identified as barriers, or partial barriers, to fish passage have already been renovated to facilitate fish passage (Figures 5 and 6). These locations include four locations in Libby Creek and one location in Buttermilk Creek (Table 7). To date, the effectiveness of the culvert restoration in facilitating fish passage have not been assessed.

Table 7. Culvert restoration projects in the Mission Project area.

Stream Location Year

Libby Creek Lower 43 Road crossing 2004

Libby Creek 100 Road crossing at Ben Canyon 2003

NF Libby Creek 43 Road crossing 2004

SF Libby Creek 43 Road crossing 2004

EF Buttermilk 500 Road crossing 2006

Natural barriers to fish passage exist in N.F.Libby Creek (RM 4.6), S.F. Libby Creek (RM 2.5), and E.F.Buttermilk Creek (RM 3.4). In Libby Creek, fish distribution above these locations has not been assessed in recent years and may be strongly influenced by fish stocking in Libby and South Libby Lakes.

Limiting Factors For the purposes of the ASP, limiting factors (also referred to as “ecological concerns”) are defined as habitat features, of both physical and biological origin, that may limit the abundance, productivity, distribution and genetic integrity of ESA-listed fish species within the Mission Project area. The limiting factors identified below were developed primarily through a review of several documents including: A Biological Strategy for the Upper Columbia (UC RTT 2014), Salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout Habitat Limiting

23

Factors report (Andonegui 2000), and the Libby and Buttermilk Creek Stream Inventory reports (USFS 2010, USFS 2011).

The identification of limiting factors is important as they influence fish productivity and abundance, and these limiting factors can be addressed through restoration projects to help achieve goals outlined in the Restoration Strategy. Specific restoration or habitat improvement projects should be developed to ameliorate the limiting factors to reduce or remove any negative impacts they may have on the ESA-listed species within the Mission Project area. Within the list below, no attempt was made to prioritize the limiting factors. Where relevant, data gaps associated with the limiting factor were identified.

Water Quantity The volume of water in both Libby and Buttermilk Creeks is vitally important to aquatic community production and integrity, but also limited. Low streamflow reduces habitat availability, impedes passage, and leads to increased water temperatures. This was especially apparent in 2015 when low streamflow coupled with high summer air temperatures resulted in the warmest water temperatures (exceeding Clean Water Act criteria) observed during the previous six years of monitoring (Figure 7). Water diversion is occurring in several locations in Libby Creek and in one primary location in Buttermilk Creek. The majority of this water is diverted for agricultural purposes with at least two (or more) active diversions in Libby Creek and one in Buttermilk. At the legal volumes, these diversions have the potential to significantly reduce instream flow (possibly exceeding 60% of total streamflow) in both creeks. The total volume of these primary diversions, as wells as other smaller diversions in Libby Creek, and their actual period of use, are not well documented and warrant further investigation. Diversion of water for stock water on the Libby and Newby grazing allotments occurs at several locations within each watershed (Figures 5 and 6). The majority of these diversions are located in small headwater creeks, draws and springs. While the volumes of each of these diversions is rather small (~0.1 c.f.s.), and the overall volume of water consumed is unknown, combined these diversions may be altering or impacting instream flow levels in both Libby and Buttermilk Creeks. An assessment of the current water usage and its impacts represents a data gap worthy of further investigation. A variety of options may exist for mitigating the effects of water diversions and land use activities (past and/or present) on stream flows. These include structural (efficiency upgrades and structure modifications that result in reduced diversion quantities), spatial (changes in points of diversion), temporal (changes in timing of diversions) and source (changes to off-channel water sources). Habitat restoration actions, such as riparian and in-channel restoration, beaver reintroduction, and upland reforestation, can also increase stream flows (especially during low-flow periods).

24

Sedimentation It is well documented that excessive accumulations of fine sediment (<6mm) in spawning gravel can be detrimental to the salmonid productivity via depletion of water flow and oxygen supply to incubating eggs and disrupt behavior of emerging alevins. Excessive accumulations of fine sediment can also lead to a loss of pool habitat that is important to salmonid productivity. Levels of fine sediment exceeding properly functioning criteria have been identified within all surveyed reaches of Libby Creek. While the sources responsible for this high degree of sediment have not been fully identified and quantified, it is assumed that impacts stemming from past timber harvest (especially on steep slopes and in riparian reserves), road construction and maintenance, and grazing are primary contributors. A more thorough analysis of sediment delivery sources in Libby Creek is warranted, with special consideration given to the reach between RM 4.6-6.4 where several larger erosion areas have been identified. All road crossings, including areas around culverts, should be examined to ensure they meet design criteria for the prevention/minimization of associated sediment input. Fine sediment does not appear to be much of a concern in Buttermilk Creek based on recent survey data, but several recent slope failures have been identified, especially in the lower few miles of the West and East Forks. The causes of these slope failures should be more thoroughly investigated to determine causative agents and identify any potential restoration actions. Specific areas of concern include downstream of the 550 road crossing over the West Fork and downstream of the 43 road crossing over Black Pine Creek. While not specifically identified as widespread, streambank erosion from grazing is occurring within the Mission Project area. Special attention should be given to assessing grazing impacts related to fine sediment in stream reaches not covered by Stream Inventory surveys. Key areas include Smith Canyon, Chicamun Creek, Ben Canyon, Hornet Draw and Mission Creek in the Libby Creek watershed and Black Pine, Yoyo, Shady Nook, No Shorts, Ashy, and Yucky Creeks in the Buttermilk watershed. Habitat Access Access to all suitable spawning, rearing and foraging habitat for ESA-listed species within the Mission project area should be an important consideration in the development of the aquatics component of the MVRD Mission Project. Fish should have adequate physical passage to all potential habitat in order to maximize population productivity. Restoration of fish passage is often a first step in watershed restoration and several fish barriers (culverts) have already been renovated to restore fish passage to many miles of stream in both Libby and Buttermilk creeks (Table 7, Figures 5 and 6). While it is assumed that these actions have been successful at providing suitable passage conditions, no extensive post-project monitoring has been conducted to assess overall effectiveness across a range of flows.

25

Currently, two road culverts, one at the 1049 road crossing over Smith Canyon in Libby Creek and the 4300500 road crossing over Black Pine Creek in the Buttermilk Creek watershed, are functioning as fish barriers. These two culverts should be restored to allow for fish passage across the range of flows expected in each creek. Seasonal dam construction and maintenance associated with the irrigation diversions in both Libby (RM 1.7) and Buttermilk Creek (RM 1.0) are likely to at least impede fish passage especially during periods of low discharge. The construction of these push-up dams should follow best management practices for water depth and velocity to allow for fish passage across all range of flows. They should also not be constructed in such a manner as to potentially attract downstream moving fish that may become trapped within the diversion infrastructure. All irrigation diversions, including smaller diversions in Smith Canyon and Elderberry Creek, should be assessed for compliance with best management practices. Channel Structure and Form For the most part, both Libby and Buttermilk Creek are functioning close to properly in regards to channel structure and form, likely more so on public lands in the upper portions of the watershed compared to the more downstream reaches where private ownership exists. In the lower three miles of Libby Creek and lowest mile of Buttermilk Creek, residential and agricultural development is impacting habitat condition through channelization and bank hardening (riprap) and removal of large wood and riparian vegetation. Where possible, restoration of these downstream reaches should be considered to increase channel complexity. An extensive template for restoration in lower Libby Creek is available in the reach assessment (Yakama Nation 2012). Additional assessment is needed to determine the location and extent of habitat features inhibiting channel function in lower Buttermilk Creek. Large wood was identified as lacking from RM 6.0-6.3 in Libby Creek. In this general area, previous installations of large wood seemed to have been effective at providing fish habitat including pools, cover and spawning gravel Exotic Species In areas of co-occurrence, brook trout pose a serious threat to bull trout through hybridization and competition. Brook trout have been observed in Libby Creek from the mouth upstream to the lower reaches of the North Fork. While only a few observations of bull trout have been made in Libby Creek, it is unknown if they use the creek as spawning habitat. If they do, then the presence of brook trout throughout the system represents a serious threat to bull trout. Re-establishment of robust bull trout population in Libby Creek may not be possible without a significant reduction, or removal, of the brook trout population. Mission Pond is an identified source of brook trout in the Libby Creek watershed. To date, only one brook trout has been observed in Buttermilk Creek. On-going fish monitoring is important for assessing presence of this species in Buttermilk Creek. Analyses of PIT tag detection should continue as a monitoring tool to track brook trout

26

use of both creeks. If an increase in brook trout presence is observed, immediate steps should be taken to eradicate them from the watershed. Riparian Condition Functional riparian habitat provides numerous benefits to aquatic habitats including shade, a source of large and small wood, cover, and allochthonous input of insects and leaf litter. The Stream Inventory is not well suited to provide an assessment of riparian condition along the stream channel, thus there is a large data gap in the documentation of riparian structure and condition within the Mission Project area. To the largest extent possible, an assessment of the distribution and condition of riparian habitat in the Mission Project area should be a future priority. Clearing of riparian vegetation in the lower three miles of Libby Creek has been identified, as well as some upstream reaches where the riparian zone was impacted by timber harvest activities. Although not specifically identified, clearing of riparian vegetation in the lowest mile of Buttermilk Creek is likely to have occurred. The extent to which past timber harvest activities, as well as past and current grazing activity, have impacted the condition of riparian habitat within the Mission project is not fully known. Stream Inventory information suggest limited impacts in the upper watershed (RM 6.0-6.7) from past logging adjacent to the creek. Roads that exist in close proximity to any stream in the Project Area should be assessed for their impacts to riparian vegetation condition and function. It is known that beaver were once much more abundant in the Methow watershed and that this species provides a wealth of ecosystem services including the establishment and maintenance of riparian habitat (K. Woodruff, USFS, personal communication). The re-establishment of beaver is on-going in both Libby and Buttermilk Creeks under the Methow Beaver Project, and this effort represents a major step to increase functional riparian habitat in the Mission Project area. Release locations for this project are presented in Figures 5 and 6. Several current beaver colonies are active in the watershed. One large dam near RM 0.7 In Libby Creek may be an impediment to upstream passage for adult spring Chinook (C. Frady, WDFW, personal communication). This blockage may occur only during periods of lower flows, as it is known (via spawning surveys) that steelhead are able to access upstream spawning areas.

Restoration Recommendations

The following section includes a summary of restoration recommendations developed by the ASP to address the limiting factors described above. The locations of specific recommendations are presented in Figure 8.

27

Water Quantity ● To the fullest extent possible, restore natural hydrological function (timing and

volume) to streams in the Mission Project area. A key consideration will be to naturalize discharge in both Libby and Buttermilk Creeks during periods of low flow from June-October. The largest diversions in terms of volume should be priorities, however all diversions should be considered. To this end, explore off-channel sources of irrigation water for the Larson diversion in Libby Creek and the Buttermilk Diversion, point of diversion changes, irrigation efficiencies, and buyouts. Employ innovative solutions and work with willing landowners on flow enhancement projects to ensure adequate flows for people and fish

● Evaluate extent of hydrologic disruption caused by stock watering. If necessary eliminate, reduce, or improve efficiency of these water diversions to minimize hydrologic disruption.

● Protect all perennial and intermittent streams, springs, and ponds from grazing impacts. Changes in allotment management, reducing numbers of cattle on the allotments, and fencing have all been effective in reducing the effects cattle have on riparian areas. Fencing has been previously employed within the project area. Evaluate past fencing efforts and determine if any adaptive management is needed to ensure continued effectiveness of these efforts.

Sedimentation

● Identify roads and culverts that are chronic sources of fine sediment to streams and take needed steps to ensure a cessation of fine sediment inputs.

● Identify existing anthropogenically-caused landslides in the lower reaches of West and East Fork Buttermilk Creek to determine if any rehabilitation work could minimize inputs of fine sediment.

● Evaluate if dispersed campgrounds and trails in the upper watershed are sources of fine sediment to the stream network. If necessary, restore streambank integrity, re-establish riparian vegetation, and protect the site. Install educational signage to assist with public outreach.

Habitat Access ● Replace fish barrier culverts in Smith Canyon in Libby Creek (1049 road

crossing) and Black Pine Creek (4300500 road crossing) in Buttermilk Creek, with run-of-the-river bridges, bottomless arch, or culvert to allow fish passage, debris, and bedload at all flow levels if the crossing and road segment cannot be decommissioned or moved.

● Assess fish passage capability of all other culverts within the project area (specifically Ben Canyon and Chicamun Creek), including those that have been recently modified for fish passage. Replace any culverts that do not meet Washington State criteria for fish passage.

● Assess the Larson Diversion in Libby Creek to determine degree of fish passage impairment. If necessary, modify this diversion to ensure fish passage at all flow levels.

28

Channel Structure and Form

Restore habitat complexity in lower three miles of Libby Creek and lower one mile of Buttermilk Creek. In Libby Creek, follow recommendations provided in the Lower Libby Creek Reach Assessment (Yakama Nation 2012).

Develop an instream and riparian complexity restoration plan for lower Buttermilk Creek.

Install large wood in low gradient reaches of Libby Creek to create pool habitat and retain spawning gravel. Potential reaches for consideration are RM 6.0-6.7.

Exotic Species

Eliminate, or significantly reduce, the brook trout population in Libby Creek. Evaluate the various pathways to achieve this goal. Eradication of brook trout from Mission Pond would be an obtainable first step.

Riparian Condition

● Based on an evaluation of riparian vegetation distribution and condition, re-establish riparian vegetation wherever appropriate. Focus should be on the development future sources of large wood to stream channels.

● Protect all perennial and intermittent streams, springs, and ponds from grazing impacts. Fencing has been previously employed within the project area. Evaluate past fencing efforts and determine if any adaptive management is needed to ensure effectiveness.

● Support continued implementation of the Methow Beaver Project within the project area.

● Evaluate if dispersed campgrounds and trails in the upper watershed are impairing riparian function. If necessary, re-establish riparian vegetation at these sites. Install educational signage to assist with public outreach.

29

Figure 8. Mission Project restoration opportunity locations.

30

Literature Cited Andonaegui, C. 2000. Salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout Habitat Limiting Factors. Water

Resource Inventory Area 48. Washington State Conservation Commission. Final report.

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman and J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in Mid-Columbia River tributaries. Monograph 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, WA. NCWFHC. 2015. NCWFHC Projects Workgroup. Goals for Mission Restoration Project. Draft Version 10-23-15. Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004. Methow Subbasin Plan.

438p.

Proebstel, et al. Identification of Salmonid Fishes from Tributary Streams and Lakes of the Mid-Columbia Basin, USFWS, 1998. Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. In Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, 1997 S.S.Y. Wang, E.J. Langendoen and F.D. Shields, Jr. (eds.) ISBN 0-937099-05-8. Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB). 2007. Upper Columbia Spring

Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan. UCSRB, Wenatchee, WA. Available at

http://www.ucsrb.com/plan.asp.

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. 2014. A Biological Strategy to Protect and

Restore Salmonid Habitat in the Upper Columbia Region. 88p. Appendix H of the Upper

Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan. Available at

http://www.ucsrb.com/plan.asp.

U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Buttermilk Creek Stream Survey Reports. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA. U.S. Forest Service. 1995a. Libby Creek Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA. U.S. Forest Service. 1995b. Mainstem and West Fork Buttermilk Creek Stream Survey Report. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA. U.S. Forest Service. 1995c. Twisp River Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

31

U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Buttermilk Creek Stream Survey Report. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA. U.S. Forest Service. 1999. Libby Creek Stream Survey Report. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA. U.S. Forest Service. 2000. Libby Creek Stream Survey Summary, 07 – 98 to 08 – 98. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA. U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Libby Creek Stream Survey Report. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA. U.S. Forest Service. 2011a. Buttermilk Creek Stream Survey Report. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA. U.S. Forest Service. 2011b. Biological Assessment for the Little Bridge, Lookout Mountain Allotment Management Plan (AMP) Renewal.

USFWS, 1998. Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale. Untied States Geographical Survey (USGS). 2008. Lower Methow Tributaries Intensive Effectiveness Monitoring Study Interim Report. 77p. Yakama Nation. 2012. Lower Libby Creek Reach Assessment. Yakama Nation

Fisheries Program. Toppenish, WA.54