Kinbasket Reservoir Tributary Fish Passage Improvement ... · Plate 17 Debris jam at the confluence of Blackmore Creek, 25 September 2002. Plate 18 Debris jam at the confluence of

KINBASKET RESERVOIR TRIBUTARYFISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT

2002-2003 – PHASE I

PREPARED BYDuncan Hendricks, R.P.Bio.

Nancy Elliott, R.P.Bio.Jay Hammond, R.P.Bio.

Francine Audy and Nick Sargent, P. Geo.

March 2003

COLUMBIA BASINFISH & WILDLIFECOMPENSATION

PROGRAM

www.cbfishwildlife.org

REPORT ON

Submitted to:

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program 1200 Powerhouse Road

Revelstoke, BC V0E 2S0

DISTRIBUTION: 4 Copies - CBFWCP 2 Copies - Golder Associates Ltd. March 31, 2003 022-9010

KINBASKET RESERVOIR TRIBUTARY

FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT 2002-2003 PHASE I

FINAL

March 2003 - i - 022-9010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. We would like to thank Karen Bray (Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program) for her input on the project. The following Golder Associates Ltd. personnel participated in the project management, field program, and report preparation:

• Duncan Hendricks, R.P.Bio. Project Manager

• Nancy Elliott, R.P.Bio. Project Biologist

• Jay Hammond, R.P.Bio. Senior Review

• Francine Audy Biologist

• Nick Sargent, P.Geo. Senior Review

March 2003 - ii - 022-9010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (CBFWCP) funded a project to assess adfluvial fish passage on select tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir. The project was intended to provide an assessment of adfluvial bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) passage through large woody debris (LWD) jams at the mouths of three selected tributaries. The debris jams were to be assessed by collecting physical and biological baseline data within the streams. The project also included the development of a plan for possible remedial work and an evaluation protocol. The project was intended to span three field seasons; this report presents the results form the first season of sampling.

Field investigations were conducted from 25 to 29 September 2002. Physical, hydrological, and biological baseline data were collected as part of the project. Single pass electrofishing was employed at eight sites; three-pass electrofishing was employed at one site in Blackmore Creek. Minnow traps were employed at all sites. Habitat data were collected at all nine sites, and debris jams at the three streams were visually assessed and photographed.

Bull trout was the only species captured in all three of the streams. In total, 90 bull trout were captured and an additional 36 bull trout were observed in the three streams. Juvenile and young-of-the-year bull trout were captured in all of the streams. In addition, large, adfluvial bull trout were captured or observed in Blackmore and Grouse creeks. Bull trout redds were observed in Grouse and Windfall creeks, and basic habitat characteristics were recorded at the redd sites.

The presence of large bull trout or large bull trout redds, as well as a physical examination, indicated that the debris jams on Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks were not complete barriers to upstream adfluvial bull trout passage at the time of the study. It is not believed that the debris jams observed in 2002 would represent a barrier to upstream movement of any other fall spawning adfluvial species in Kinbasket Reservoir. It was not possible to assess the debris jams for their potential to be barriers for rainbow trout. The absence of species other than bull trout in the streams may be a result of habitat conditions in the streams rather than exclusion because of debris jams, although additional sampling would be required to substantiate this conclusion. Remedial works, including facilitating fish passage through log jams and improving access by modifying in-channel habitat, was not recommended for any of the streams examined as part of this study.

March 2003 - iii - 022-9010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................... I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... II 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Area...............................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives................................................................................................3

2.0 METHODS .................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Fish Sampling..........................................................................................4 2.2 Habitat Assessment.................................................................................5 2.3 Data Management ...................................................................................6

3.0 RESULTS.................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Fish Survey..............................................................................................6

3.1.1 Distribution and Abundance.........................................................6 3.1.2 Life History...................................................................................8 3.1.3 Redd Survey ................................................................................8

3.2 Habitat Assessment...............................................................................10 3.3 Barrier Assessment ...............................................................................12

4.0 DISCUSSION............................................................................................ 13 4.1 Bull Trout Life History ............................................................................13 4.2 Habitat Assessment...............................................................................14 4.3 Fish Passage Assessment ....................................................................14

4.3.1 Bull Trout ...................................................................................15 4.3.2 Other Species ............................................................................15

4.4 Project Plan ...........................................................................................16 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 17

5.1 Conclusions ...........................................................................................17 5.2 Recommendations.................................................................................17

6.0 CLOSURE................................................................................................. 18 7.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................... 19 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Summary of electrofishing effort, bull trout captured, and catch per unit effort

(CPUE) in Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks as part of the Kinbasket Reservoir fish passage study, September 2002.

Table 3-2 Summary of habitat conditions in Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks, as part of the Kinbasket Reservoir fish passage study, September 2002.

March 2003 - iv - 022-9010

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Overview Map: Location of Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks Figure 3-1 Length-frequency histograms for bull trout (n = 56) captured and observed in

Blackmore Creek, Grouse Creek, and Windfall Creek LIST OF PLATES Plate 1 Juvenile bull trout captured in Blackmore Creek, 192 mm (Site 1), 28 September

2002. Plate 2 Mature bull trout captured in Grouse Creek, 630 mm (Site 1), 27 September 2002. Plate 3 Redd located in Grouse Creek (Site 1), 27 September 2002. Plate 4 Redd located in Grouse Creek (Site 2), 27 September 2002. Plate 5 Redd located in Windfall Creek (Site 2), 28 September 2002. Plate 6 Redd located in Windfall Creek (Site 3), 28 September 2002. Plate 7 Step-pool habitat in Blackmore Creek (Site 1), 26 September 2002. Plate 8 Step-pool habitat in Blackmore Creek (Site 2), 26 September 2002. Plate 9 Blackmore Creek upstream of the culvert crossing on the West Canoe Forest Service

Road (Site 1), 25 September 2002. Plate 10 Representative habitat at confluence of Grouse Creek upstream of debris jam (Site

1), 25 September 2002. Plate 11 Cascade-pool habitat in Grouse Creek (Site 2), 27 September 2002. Plate 12 Cascade-pool habitat in Grouse Creek (Site 3), 27 September 2002. Plate 13 Cascade-pool habitat in Windfall Creek (Site 1), 28 September 2002. Plate 14 Cascade-pool habitat in Windfall Creek (Site 2), 28 September 2002. Plate 15 Cascade-pool habitat in Windfall Creek (Site 3), 28 September 2002. Plate 16 Culvert barrier on Blackmore Creek at the West Canoe Forest Service Road crossing,

bull trout observed in plunge pool (Site 2), 26 September 2002. Plate 17 Debris jam at the confluence of Blackmore Creek, 25 September 2002. Plate 18 Debris jam at the confluence of Blackmore Creek, 25 September 2002. Plate 19 Debris jam at the confluence of Grouse Creek, 25 September 2002. Plate 20 Debris jam at the confluence of Grouse Creek, 25 September 2002. Plate 21 Debris jam at the confluence of Windfall Creek, 25 September 2002. Plate 22 Debris jam at the confluence of Windfall Creek, 25 September 2002. Plate 23 Fall and large woody debris obstruction in Grouse Creek (Site 2), 27 September

2002. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I FDIS Site and Fish Cards for Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks Appendix II Reservoir elevation, discharge, and redd habitat data

March 2003 - 1 - 022-9010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (CBFWCP) funded a project to assess adfluvial fish passage on select tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir. This work was conducted as part of their mandate to sustain and enhance fish and wildlife populations and habitat affected by the construction of BC Hydro dams in the Columbia River Basin. The project was intended to provide an assessment of adfluvial bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) passage through large woody debris (LWD) jams at the mouths of three selected tributaries. The debris jams were to be assessed by collecting physical and biological baseline data within the streams. The project also included the development of a plan for possible remedial work and an evaluation protocol.

As a blue-listed species and the top predator in the reservoir, bull trout are of particular interest to the CBFWCP and the regulatory agencies; their conservation is a priority. It has been hypothesized that the accumulation of LWD within the drawdown zone of some tributaries of Kinbasket Reservoir may make bull trout migration to spawning habitats difficult or impossible. Tributary surveys conducted in 2001 (Oliver 2001a) identified a number of LWD jams potentially blocking or restricting access for bull trout, particularly in streams entering the Canoe Reach of Kinbasket Reservoir. The report recommended that sampling be conducted, and the debris jams assessed for passage improvements or complete removal.

Three streams were classified as high priorities for debris jam assessment: Windfall Creek, Grouse Creek, and Blackmore Creek (referred to as unnamed stream opposite Bulldog Creek in the Request for Proposal).

1.1 Study Area

Kinbasket Reservoir is located in the Rocky Mountain Trench south of the town of Valemount, BC (Figure 1-1). The reservoir was created by the construction of the Mica Dam and the impoundment of the upper Columbia River. Kinbasket Reservoir is the second largest reservoir entirely in BC. At full pool, the reservoir has a surface area of approximately 43 200 ha. The combined length of the reservoir, including both the Columbia Reach (south) and Canoe Reach (north), is 216 km. The reservoir has a mean depth of 57 m and the annual drawdown extends approximately 47 m below the full-pool elevation (Oliver 2001b).

The assessment of debris jams was conducted in the lower reaches of Windfall Creek (WSC 300-830100), Grouse Creek (WSC 300-830200), and Blackmore Creek (WSC 300-831400). Windfall Creek is the largest of the three streams, with a length of approximately 15.8 km and a watershed area of 52 km2. Grouse Creek is approximately 10.2 km long with a watershed area of 22 km2. Blackmore Creek is the smallest of the three streams; it has a length of 4.7 km and a watershed area of 11 km2. All of the tributaries are located on the west side of Canoe Reach.

RiverRiverRiverRiverRiverRiverRiverRiverRiver

Colum

biaC

olumbia

Colum

biaC

olumbia

Colum

biaC

olumbia

Colum

biaC

olumbia

Colum

bia

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir (Columbia Reach)

(Columbia Reach)

(Columbia Reach)

(Columbia Reach)

(Columbia Reach)

(Columbia Reach)

(Columbia Reach)

(Columbia Reach)

(Columbia Reach)

RevelstokeRevelstokeRevelstokeRevelstokeRevelstokeRevelstokeRevelstokeRevelstokeRevelstoke(

Columbia River

Columbia River

Columbia River

Columbia River

Columbia River

Columbia River

Columbia River

Columbia River

Columbia River

(Canoe Reach)

(Canoe Reach)

(Canoe Reach)

(Canoe Reach)

(Canoe Reach)

(Canoe Reach)

(Canoe Reach)

(Canoe Reach)

(Canoe Reach)

Mica DamMica DamMica DamMica DamMica DamMica DamMica DamMica DamMica Dam

Windfall CreekWindfall CreekWindfall CreekWindfall CreekWindfall CreekWindfall CreekWindfall CreekWindfall CreekWindfall Creek

Grouse CreekGrouse CreekGrouse CreekGrouse CreekGrouse CreekGrouse CreekGrouse CreekGrouse CreekGrouse Creek

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Reservoir

Blackmore CreekBlackmore CreekBlackmore CreekBlackmore CreekBlackmore CreekBlackmore CreekBlackmore CreekBlackmore CreekBlackmore Creek

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

Kinbasket

ValemountValemountValemountValemountValemountValemountValemountValemountValemount

(

(

KamloopsKamloopsKamloopsKamloopsKamloopsKamloopsKamloopsKamloopsKamloops

Figure 1.1

KINBASKET RESERVOIRFISH PASSAGE PROJECT

Overview Map: Location of Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks

Golder Associates Ltd.

Study AreaStudy AreaStudy AreaStudy AreaStudy AreaStudy AreaStudy AreaStudy AreaStudy Area

Approximate Scale 1: 170 000

400 20

Kilometers

March 2003 - 3 - 022-9010

Six native sportfish species have been identified within Kinbasket Reservoir: bull trout, burbot (Lota lota), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri), kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), which are not native to BC, have also been reported within the reservoir. In addition, seven non-sportfish species have been reported within the reservoir, including longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus), redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), and torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus). Of these species, bull trout, kokanee, rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and the sucker species are known to exhibit adfluvial life history forms. The utilization of Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks as spawning habitat for adfluvial forms of these species is not well documented at this time; however, bull trout were reported or suspected in all three streams (Fielden 1992; Oliver 2001b).

1.2 Objectives

Objectives for the initial phase of the Kinbasket Reservoir Tributary Fish Passage Improvement project included the following:

• Assess adfluvial fish passage from Kinbasket Reservoir into three tributaries of Canoe Reach: Windfall Creek, Grouse Creek, and Blackmore Creek.

• Collect physical and biological baseline data to document pre-treatment conditions and provide a reference against which to measure success of passage improvements.

• Prepare a technical report outlining the findings and recommendations of the Phase I investigations, including descriptions of habitat measurements and biological sampling results, and a project plan for facilitating passage through identified barriers and evaluating passage improvements.

The CBFWCP recognized the importance of conducting thorough assessments of pre-treatment conditions and evaluating and monitoring the success of habitat improvement works post-construction. As a result, this project was designed to be conducted in three phases across three field seasons. This report presents the results from the first field season.

2.0 METHODS

Field investigations to assess potential debris barriers to bull trout spawning migrations were conducted from 25 to 29 September 2002. Physical and biological baseline data were collected in the vicinity of the debris jams in the three identified tributaries. Physical, hydrological, and biological data were collected at each site.

March 2003 - 4 - 022-9010

The lower reaches of Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks were accessed by 4WD truck using the Canoe West Forest Service Road (FSR) that crosses within 1 km of their confluence with the reservoir.

2.1 Fish Sampling

Initially, presence or absence of bull trout above and below the reservoir–related barriers was to be determined in order to identify adult “stacking” below the debris barriers, adult and juvenile presence upstream of the barriers, and the possibility of isolated resident populations within the tributary streams. However, at the time of sampling, Kinbasket Reservoir was at or near full pool preventing the field crew from sampling below the barrier with a backpack electrofisher.

The instream sampling methods employed were in general accordance with the most recent versions of guidelines and standards, including the Reconnaissance (1:20 000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (RIC 2001) and the Fish Collection Methods and Standards (RIC 1999).

The critical study component of Phase I was to identify the passage of fish, specifically bull trout, through reservoir-created LWD jams. Consequently, determining adfluvial fish presence and their life history upstream of these structures was imperative in order to determine the extent to which the debris jams acted as fish passage barriers. This was also necessary in order to determine whether further study, remediation, and assessment were required. As a result, the field crew focused their efforts on fish sampling, specifically for bull trout, and covered a broad range of habitats using a variety of sampling techniques.

Single-pass electrofishing upstream of the reservoir-created debris jams was conducted on all three tributaries. Smith-Root Type 12B backpack electrofishing units were used to sample a broad range of habitats in the mainstem streams. Baited minnow traps, set overnight or longer, were set both upstream and downstream of LWD jams on all three tributary streams.

In Blackmore Creek, two sites (Sites 1 and 2) were located within the lower reach of the stream, downstream of the Canoe FSR crossing. A total of 240 m of stream was sampled below the road crossing. In addition, 150 m of stream were sampled upstream of the road crossing because the field crew determined that the culvert at the road crossing was a potential barrier to upstream fish passage. The section of Blackmore Creek upstream of the culvert was sampled to assess whether the upper reaches of Blackmore Creek were fish bearing. Fish sampling was conducted at three sites within Grouse Creek using backpack electrofishing and minnow traps. All of the sites were located downstream of Canoe West FSR crossing; the culvert at the road crossing was open-bottomed and did not pose a barrier to fish movement. A total of 300 m of stream was sampled in Grouse Creek. Fish sampling was conducted at three sites within Windfall Creek using backpack electrofishing and minnow traps. All of the sites were located downstream of Canoe West FSR crossing. The road crossing at Windfall Creek was a bridge and was not a barrier to fish movement. A total of 400 m of stream was sampled in Windfall Creek.

March 2003 - 5 - 022-9010

In addition, closed three-pass electrofishing was conducted on Blackmore Creek to estimate bull trout density. In this method, a section of stream was enclosed with stop nets so that fish could not enter or leave the sampling section. Electrofishing was conducted in three passes and fish captured during each pass were removed from the stream section; the field crew attempted to keep the effort expended on each pass as consistent as possible. The numbers of fish captured and observed on each pass were recorded. Stream velocities and channel depth prevented a similar method being used on Grouse and Windfall creeks because the crews were not equipped with large, heavy-duty block nets suitable for this application.

All fish captured were identified to species. A representative photograph was taken of fish captured. The fork length (mm), weight (g), and life history stage of all fish captured was recorded, along with sampling methodology and effort, on standard reconnaissance inventory Fish Collection Forms (RIC 1999). Pelvic fin ray samples were collected from nine bull trout captured in order to age the fish. Ageing structures were prepared and analyzed at Golder’s Edmonton office. The fin rays were sectioned and mounted on glass slides for viewing under a microscope. Ageing was conducted by an experienced fisheries technician and independently verified by a fisheries biologist.

2.2 Habitat Assessment

A reconnaissance level habitat assessment was conducted at each site, with a focus on availability of critical spawning and rearing habitats within each of the tributary streams. Site-specific instream, bank, and riparian habitat were assessed utilizing methods similar to those outlined in the Reconnaissance (1:20 000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (RIC 2001). All physical stream data were recorded on standard reconnaissance inventory Site Cards. Where possible, all sites were georeferenced and the length of stream sampled recorded. Channel characteristics such as channel width, wetted width, residual pool depth, gradient, depth-at-channel bankfull, and stage were recorded at a minimum of six transects distributed throughout the site length. In-stream cover was visually assessed along the surveyed length of the site. Additional cover, such as crown closure, instream vegetation, bank characteristics (including riparian vegetation), and LWD was assessed and recorded at each site. Water quality parameters were collected, including temperature, pH, conductivity, and turbidity. Morphological features, such as dominant and subdominant bed material (substrate), within the surveyed length of the site, were recorded. Additional morphological features were visually assessed while in the field, including pattern, presence of islands, presence of bars, coupling, and confinement.

As part of the assessment, critical habitat quality for bull trout (i.e., spawning and rearing) was described. Baseline data collected focused on key parameters such as suitable spawning substrate, water depth, cover, surface velocity, and possible sources of groundwater input. Sample sites and stream features, including potential, natural, and reservoir-created barriers (i.e., debris jams), were recorded, photographed, and geo-referenced using a Garmin GPS. All physical data collected for natural barriers (e.g., height and length) and the debris jams were recorded.

March 2003 - 6 - 022-9010

Stream velocity and depth were measured with a Marsh-McBirney 2000 Flowmate upstream of the potential log-jam barriers. In addition, where potential redds were identified, stream velocities and depths were measured at three locations across each redd, ensuring the redd was not disturbed.

2.3 Data Management

Data collected in the field were entered into the most recent version of the Field Data Information System (FDIS), a fisheries data management database from the BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. All photos taken as part of the project were scanned and saved as digital files. The density estimate for Blackmore Creek was calculated using MicroFish software (Van Deventer and Platts 1986).

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Fish Survey

3.1.1 Distribution and Abundance

Bull trout was the only species captured in all three of the streams. In total, 56 bull trout were captured (n = 54) or observed (n = 2) in Blackmore Creek (Table 3-1; Appendix II). All of the fish were captured downstream of the Canoe FSR road crossing using backpack electrofishing. No fish were captured with minnow traps. Several large bull trout were observed within the stream but were not electrofished to minimize potential stress on these fish during the spawning period. The culvert at the road crossing is a barrier to upstream fish movement, and sampling upstream of the culvert (Site 3) did not result in the capture or observation of any bull trout or other species of fish. However, because the sampling was limited to one site upstream of the culvert, it could not be determined whether the upstream reaches of Blackmore Creek support a stream-resident population of bull trout or any other species.

March 2003 - 7 - 022-9010

Table 3-1 Summary of electrofishing effort, bull trout captured, and catch per unit effort (CPUE) in

Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks as part of the Kinbasket Reservoir fish passage study, September 2002.

Time Fork Length (mm) CPUE Stream Site Pass No. (s)

Length (m) n Min Max Mean (fish/min)

1 1158 84 23 84 218 143 1.19 2 870 84 15 48 223 125 1.03 3 936 84 10 45 152 111 0.64

1 Site Total 2964 252 48 0.97 2 1 371 140 6 51 162 90 0.97 3 1 804 150 0 NA NA NA 0.00

Blackmore Creek

Stream Total 4139 542 54 0.78 1 1 300 60 2 100 630 365 0.40 2 1 672 140 6 86 139 105 0.54 3 1 378 100 7 85 158 120 1.11

Grouse Creek

Stream Total 1350 300 15 0.67 1 1 804 150 7 52 170 98 0.52 2 1 510 100 4 31 126 78 0.47 3 1 564 150 7 47 142 85 0.75

Windfall Creek

Stream Total 1878 400 18 0.58

A total of 25 bull trout were captured (n = 16) or observed (n = 9) in Grouse Creek (Table 3-1; Appendix I). All of the bull trout were captured using backpack electrofishing except for one fish that was captured in a minnow trap. In addition to the juvenile fish captured within the stream, a mature, spent male bull trout (fork length 630 mm) was captured at Site 1, and several large adult bull trout (>500 mm) were observed within the stream at Sites 2 and 3.

In total, 45 bull trout were captured (n = 20) or observed (n = 25) in Windfall Creek (Table 3-1; Appendix I). All of the bull trout were captured using backpack electrofishing except for two bull trout that were captured in the minnow traps. Bull trout were captured throughout the sampled section, including upstream of all natural LWD ledges within the sampled section. Large, adult bull trout were not captured or observed in Windfall Creek.

Although Blackmore Creek was the steepest stream surveyed, the relative abundance of bull trout captured was higher within the lower reach of Blackmore Creek (0.97 fish/min) than within either Grouse Creek (0.67 fish/min) or Windfall Creek (0.58 fish/min) (Table 3-1). No fish were captured within Blackmore Creek above the road crossing.

Three-pass electrofishing was conducted only in Blackmore Creek (Site 1), and resulted in a density estimate of 10.86 fish/100 m2. An extrapolation of the estimated density for the entire 380 m of Blackmore Creek below the road crossing yields an estimate of 235 rearing bull trout. The depth and high velocity in Grouse and Windfall creeks made enclosing the entire width of these streams very difficult.

March 2003 - 8 - 022-9010

At the time of sampling, the reservoir was at full pool (Appendix II Figure 1). As a result, it was not possible to compare densities of fish downstream and upstream of the jam as was outlined in the proposal. In addition, it was not possible to evaluate whether large bull trout were stacking downstream of the debris jam because the jams were located at the reservoir-stream interface.

3.1.2 Life History

A variety of age classes of bull trout were captured within the three streams, including young-of-the-year (YOY), juvenile, and adult fish (Plates 1 and 2). Bull trout captured or observed in Blackmore Creek ranged in fork length from 45 to 600 mm (Table 3-1; Appendix II). The length-frequency curve for Blackmore Creek indicates the presence of YOY and juvenile bull trout as well as several large adult bull trout (Figure 3-1). In addition, a 223 mm, mature male bull trout was captured. Ageing structures were collected from six bull trout in Blackmore Creek, and the fish ranged from ages 1 to 5 (Appendix I). The small, mature bull trout collected in Blackmore Creek was age 5.

In Grouse Creek, bull trout captured or observed ranged in fork length from 85 to 680 mm. Ageing structures were collected from two bull trout, and the fish were age 2 and age 8 (Table 3-1; Appendix I). The length-frequency curve for Grouse Creek indicates the presence of YOY, juvenile, and adult bull trout (Figure 3-1). Bull trout captured or observed in Windfall Creek ranged in fork length from 31 to 170 mm (Table 3-1; Appendix I). Only one ageing structure was collected from a bull trout in Windfall Creek (fork length 113 mm); the captured fish was age 1. No large adult bull trout were captured or observed in Windfall Creek. The length-frequency curve indicates the presence of YOY and juvenile age classes of bull trout (Figure 3-1).

3.1.3 Redd Survey

No redds were observed within Blackmore Creek; however, high water velocities, and the resulting turbulence, made the visual observation of redds difficult. Two bull trout redds were located in Grouse Creek. The first redd was located in Site 1 and had a maximum length of 2.2 m, maximum width of 1.7 m, and was located at a maximum water depth of 0.5 m (Appendix II Table 1). Velocity was measured across the middle of the redd at three

March 2003 - 9 - 022-9010

Blackmore Creek

Fork Length (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

% F

requ

ency

0

10

20

30

40

50

Fork Length (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

% F

requ

ency

0

10

20

30

40

50

Fork Length (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

% F

requ

ency

0

10

20

30

40

50

n = 56

Windfall Creekn = 45

Grouse Creekn = 25

Figure 3-1 Length-frequency histograms for bull trout (n = 56) captured and observed in Blackmore Creek, Grouse Creek, and Windfall Creek.

March 2003 - 10 - 022-9010

points (right downstream edge, centre, and left downstream edge). Velocities were lower at the left (0.07 m/s) and centre (0.06 m/s) positions, but increased near the right edge closer to the thalweg of the stream (0.28 m/s). The average velocity within the redd was 0.13 m/s (Appendix II Table 1). The redd was located in a back eddy, parallel to a pool and downstream of a large wood debris ledge (Plate 3). The dominant substrate type within the redd was small cobble and gravel.

The second redd within Grouse Creek was observed in Site 2, approximately 10 m upstream of the first redd observed. Two large bull trout were observed within the vicinity of the second redd. The second redd had a maximum length of 1.7 m, maximum width of 1.2 m, and a maximum depth of 0.3 m (Appendix II Table 1). Velocity was lower in the centre (0.05 m/s) position and higher on both edges of the redd (right downstream = 0.25 m/s and left downstream = 0.26 m/s) (Appendix II Table 1). The average velocity within the redd was 0.17 m/s. The redd was located adjacent to a gravel and cobble bar with abundant cover provided by small woody debris and overhanging vegetation (Plate 4). The dominant substrate type was large gravel and cobble.

Two bull trout redds were located in Windfall Creek. The first redd was located in Site 2 and had a maximum length of 1.9 m, maximum width of 1.0 m, and maximum water depth over the redd of 0.4 m. Velocities were similar at the right downstream edge (0.56 m/s) and centre (0.43 m/s) closest to the thalweg of the stream. The velocity near the left downstream edge was 0.04 m/s (Appendix II Table 1). The average velocity within the redd was 0.34 m/s. The redd was located on the left downstream bank in a back eddy, parallel to a pool downstream of a large wood debris ledge (Plate 5). The dominant substrate type was small cobble and gravel.

The second redd within Windfall Creek was observed in Site 3. The redd had a maximum length of 1.8 m, maximum width of 1.0 m, and a maximum depth of 0.4 m (Appendix II Table 1). Velocity was measured across the middle of the redd at three points: right downstream edge (0.67 m/s), centre (0.13 m/s), and left downstream edge (0.31 m/s). The average velocity within the redd was 0.37 m/s. The redd was located adjacent to the left downstream bank (Plate 6). The dominant substrate type was large gravel and cobble.


Habitat was assessed at three sites over a total of 390 m of stream channel in Blackmore Creek, including 240 m of stream channel below the Canoe West road crossing, and an additional 150 m of stream channel above the road crossing (Table 3-2; Appendix I). In Grouse Creek, habitat was assessed over 340 m of stream channel at three sites, and in Windfall Creek habitat was assessed in 400 m of stream channel at three sites.

Habitat upstream and downstream of the road crossing in Blackmore Creek was generally similar. Blackmore Creek was the steepest of the three streams, with a mean gradient of 15% (Table 3-2; Appendix I). Blackmore Creek was categorized as step-pool morphology, with pools created by boulders and LWD ledges (Plates 7 to 9). Grouse Creek was less steep; mean gradient of the stream at the three sites ranged from 6.5 to 9% (Table 3-2; Appendix I). Grouse Creek was categorized as cascade-pool morphology within

March 2003 - 11 - 022-9010

all three sites (Plates 10 to 12). Windfall Creek was also categorized as cascade-pool morphology within all three sites, and it had the lowest slope of the three streams, with mean gradients ranging from 4 to 6.5% (Table 3-2; Appendix I; Plates 13 to 15).

Table 3-2 Summary of habitat conditions in Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks, as part of the Kinbasket Reservoir fish passage study, September 2002.

Sample Site

Sample Length

(m)

Average Channel Width

(m)

Average Wetted Width

(m)

Average Pool

Depth (m)

Average Gradient

(%) Substratea Morphologyb

Site 1 100 10.7 5.8 0.3 11 B-C SP

Site 2 140 7.5 5.6 0.4 15.7 B-C SP

Blackmore Creek

Site 3 150 6.1 4.7 0.4 14.8 B-C SP

Site 1 100 8.6 5.3 0.3 6.5 C-B CP

Site 2 140 7.5 5.9 0.3 8 B-C CP

Grouse Creek

Site 3 100 9.5 5.7 0.3 9 B-C CP

Site 1 150 10.4 8.7 0.3 4 C-B CP

Site 2 100 11.1 9.6 0.4 5.5 B-C CP

Windfall Creek

Site 3 150 12.2 9.3 0.4 6.5 B-C CP a Dominant – Subdominant; B = boulder; C = cobble. b SP = step-pool; CP = cascade-pool.

Blackmore Creek and Grouse Creek were similar in size. Mean channel widths in Blackmore Creek ranged from 6.1 to 10.7 m, and mean wetted widths ranged from 4.7 to 5.8 m. In Grouse Creek, mean channel widths ranged from 7.5 to 9.5 m, and mean wetted width ranged from 5.3 to 5.9 m (Table 3-2; Appendix I). Within Blackmore Creek, stream discharge was 0.51 m3/s; discharge was similar in Grouse Creek (0.54 m3/s) (Appendix II Table 2). Windfall Creek was the largest of the three streams, with mean channel widths ranging from 10.4 to 12.2 m, and mean wetted widths ranging from 8.7 to 9.6 m (Table 3-2; Appendix I). Discharge in Windfall Creek was 1.0 m3/s (Appendix II

The substrate within all three streams was primarily boulder and cobble, although gravel was intermittently observed along the margins. Instream cover was abundant within the sampled sections of all of the streams. Boulders provided the dominant cover for bull trout throughout the channels, although small and LWD provided some cover for juvenile and adult bull trout. Although the streams provided suitable habitat for over-wintering juvenile bull trout, deep pools were infrequent within the sampled section of all three streams.

Several LWD ledges that might prevent fish passage at low water levels were observed within all of the streams. However, at the time of the survey, fish were captured upstream and downstream of all natural

March 2003 - 12 - 022-9010

LWD ledges. A culvert on Blackmore Creek at the Canoe West FSR road crossing was a barrier to fish passage. The downstream end of the culvert is elevated approximately 1.5 m above the surface of the water (Plate 16). Although a large plunge pool is situated below the culvert, the height of the outfall and the length of the culvert preclude passage through the culvert. As a result of this culvert, only the lower 380 m of Blackmore Creek provided potential habitat for adfluvial bull trout from Kinbasket Reservoir. Habitat upstream of the culvert was less suitable for bull trout, with higher velocities and larger substrate.

At the time of sampling, water temperature was 6 °C in Grouse and Windfall creeks and 5 °C in Blackmore Creek. The pH was near neutral (6.9) in all of the streams. Conductivity was generally low in all of the streams, ranging from 30 to 60 µS (Appendix I).

3.3 Barrier Assessment

Reservoir-related debris jams were located at all three streams surveyed. At the time of sampling, Kinbasket Reservoir was at or near full pool, and as a result, the debris jams were located at the mouths of the streams; no stream habitat was present downstream of the debris jams. All of the debris jams were complex networks of intertwined woody debris, with the majority of the debris in excess of 30 cm in diameter. In all cases, the debris jams spanned the entire width of the stream and extended onto the surrounding banks. Large woody debris in the jams formed ledges with depositional areas of gravel and cobble accumulated upstream of the ledges. The debris formed low-velocity pool habitat downstream of these ledges, with predominantly gravel substrate. In addition, the logs within the jam created high velocity cascades in several areas within the debris jams.

As impediments to fish passage, the debris jams varied in severity. In several places within the debris jam in Blackmore Creek, water was flowing over ledges formed by the LWD and substrate, creating shallow, steep riffles and small falls (Plates 17 and 18). Although the debris jam on Blackmore Creek may pose a barrier to upstream movement of small fish, it did not appear to be a complete barrier to upstream fish passage for large adfluvial fish. Water velocities did not appear to be high enough to prevent upstream movement of large, adfluvial bull trout.

At the time of the survey, the debris jams in Grouse and Windfall creeks did not appear to be barriers to upstream fish passage. A large portion of the debris at both streams was accumulated in the bay at the mouth of the stream, and water was flowing through the debris jams allowing unrestricted fish passage into the streams. There were no major constrictions within the debris jams in the streams, and water velocities did not appear to be high enough to prevent upstream movement of large, adfluvial bull trout (Plates 19 to 22).

March 2003 - 13 - 022-9010

4.0 DISCUSSION

4.1 Bull Trout Life History

Bull trout exhibit several life-history forms, including fluvial, adfluvial, anadromous, and stream resident. In adfluvial populations of bull trout, such as the population/s within Kinbasket Reservoir, large fish reside in lacustrine habitat for the majority of their life. At maturity (typically at least 5 years), adult fish characteristically undertake migrations to spawning areas located in smaller tributary streams (James and Sexauer 1997). After emergence, the juveniles generally reside within the tributary stream for three years, although this time can vary, before out-migrating to lake habitat; out-migration at earlier ages has been observed in some populations (McPhail and Murray 1979). Bull trout less than 200 mm fork length are uncommon in lacustrine habitat (McPhail and Baxter 1996). In contrast to adfluvial bull trout, resident bull trout reside within stream habitat throughout their life, and undertake only small migrations for spawning and over-wintering. Stream-resident bull trout typically do not attain large size, and often mature at less than 300 mm fork length (Reiman and McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout may also mature at an earlier age than adfluvial bull trout. Spawning and rearing requirements are similar to adfluvial bull trout; bull trout spawn in late summer or early autumn (Fraley and Shepard 1989, Hagen and Baxter 1992) and spawning locations for the life history forms may overlap (James and Sexauer 1997).

Large bull trout, exceeding 500 mm, were captured or observed in both Blackmore and Grouse creeks. Based on their size, these fish were likely adfluvial bull trout from Kinbasket Reservoir; it is unlikely that stream resident bull trout would attain this size. Stelfox (1997) and Mushens et al. (2001) reported that minimum fork length of spawning adfluvial bull trout in the Smith-Dorrien Creek system in Alberta was approximately 500 mm. Although no large bull trout were captured or observed in Windfall Creek, two large redds, presumably from adfluvial bull trout, were observed. The evidence of adfluvial bull trout use in the streams indicates that the YOY and juvenile bull trout captured within the stream are likely rearing bull trout from the adfluvial population in Kinbasket Reservoir. However, in addition to the large fish observed in Blackmore Creek, a 223 mm mature (age 5) male bull trout was captured in Blackmore Creek. This fish was probably a stream resident fish because of its size (McPhail and Baxter 1996). As a result, it appears that the lower reach of Blackmore Creek supports both an adfluvial population of bull trout and a stream resident population. Furthermore, the length-frequency distribution for Blackmore Creek indicates overlapping ages. This could be in part due to the presence of both adfluvial and resident bull trout within the stream. Although both forms of fish are rearing under identical conditions, it may be possible that growth rates within adfluvial and resident forms differ.

No small, mature bull trout were captured within either Grouse or Windfall creeks. In addition, the length-frequency distributions for Grouse and Windfall creeks were less complex than Blackmore Creek, with more distinct age classes. There was no evidence of stream resident bull trout within Grouse or Windfall creeks.

March 2003 - 14 - 022-9010

Sympatric adfluvial and stream-resident populations of bull trout have been reported in other watersheds (Sterling 1978; McPhail and Murray 1979). Research with char indicates that sympatric life-history forms belong to the same gene pool (Nordeng 1983; Jones et al. 1997).

The population structure in Blackmore Creek may indicate some evidence of the debris jam being a barrier at times in the past. Above barriers bull trout will often become resident, with individuals that mature at smaller sizes. This may indicate that the jam has been a barrier in the past, and that a resident population was established, which is now sympatric with the adfluvial population.


All three streams surveyed as part of this study were high gradient, but provided suitable habitat for bull trout rearing, spawning, and over-wintering of small or juvenile fish. Because of the high gradient, habitat in the streams was generally unsuitable for rainbow trout or mountain whitefish. The streams were also generally cold as a result of the mountainous terrain and the presence of glaciers in the headwaters of the streams. High gradient and cascade barriers within the selected streams may naturally limit fish distribution to the lowermost 1 to 2 km (Oliver 2001). In Blackmore Creek, a culvert at the Canoe West FSR crossing limits the accessibility from the reservoir to the lower 380 m.

4.3 Fish Passage Assessment

Little research exists regarding reservoir-created debris jams and their effect on upstream fish movements, particularly methods for assessment. Assessing the debris jams by measuring basic parameters, such as length and width, is difficult because of the size and dynamics of the debris jams. Physical measures of the debris jam are unlikely to provide a definitive answer to the question of whether the jams are true barriers. Professional judgment of an experienced fisheries biologist can provide an assessment of the potential of the jam to act as a barrier, but the complex nature of the jam, with its numerous channels obscured by extensive LWD, makes it very difficult to provide a quantitative assessment.

Biological measures offer the most reliable method of assessing passage past a debris jam. An enumeration of spawners and redds is the most direct measure of the success of adfluvial bull trout ascending the debris jam. This could be accomplished through a number of spawner surveys conducted in the streams throughout the spawning season.

Debris jams created by the fluctuating water levels in Kinbasket Reservoir are dynamic. The extent of the jams may change annually because of the possibility of break-up during freshet. Photographic documentation may be the best method to catalogue the variable condition of the debris jams and may help to determine whether the debris jams are really barriers.

March 2003 - 15 - 022-9010

4.3.1 Bull Trout

The presence of large bull trout in Blackmore and Grouse creeks indicates that these streams are likely utilized by adfluvial bull trout from Kinbasket Reservoir. The presence of large redds in both Grouse Creek and Windfall Creek is a further indication that large adfluvial bull trout utilize these streams for spawning. These results indicate that the debris jams in the three streams probably did not represent a complete barrier to upstream passage in 2002. Determination of whether the debris jams form partial barriers to adfluvial bull trout, possibly limiting the number of spawning fish accessing the streams, would require a more detailed study than presently conducted. Bull trout spawning coincides with full-pool conditions in the reservoir, when the debris jams have the least potential to create a barrier to upstream movement of fish. In fact, much of the debris in Grouse and Windfall creeks was accumulated in the bays at the lake-stream interface, and as a result, did not impede fish movement.

All of the streams sampled had numerous, naturally formed LWD ledges within the stream channel, which represented substantial vertical obstructions to upstream fish movement. However, at the time of the survey, large bull trout were captured or observed upstream of these natural LWD ledges in both Blackmore Creek and Grouse Creek, including a small fall with a height of approximately 1.5 m (Plate 23) in Site 2 in Grouse Creek. These obstructions were considered by the field crew to be potentially more difficult to ascend than the obstruction created by the debris jam at the mouth of the stream. In Windfall Creek, two large redds were observed above ledges, indicating that large adfluvial bull trout were successful in ascending the stream to these locations. This evidence suggests that adfluvial bull trout can ascend obstructions of similar or greater height as the debris jams at the mouths of the stream.

Although the results indicate that none of the debris jams were complete barriers to upstream movement of adfluvial bull trout, it is difficult to determine if the jams are partial, size-selective barriers.

4.3.2 Other Species

Although bull trout was the only species captured during the study, there is the potential that several other sportfish species present within the reservoir may exhibit an adfluvial life history pattern, including rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and kokanee. However, habitat within the stream was generally unsuitable for rainbow trout and mountain whitefish spawning because of the steep nature of the streams. Longnose and large-scale suckers within Kinbasket Reservoir may also utilize stream habitat for spawning.

Kokanee spawn in the fall and were not encountered during this study. Stream spawning kokanee do not reside within the stream, but rather out-migrate soon after emergence. As a result, there would be no opportunity to capture juvenile fish during the fall sampling that was conducted during this project.

Rainbow trout are spring spawners and would ascend spawning streams when the reservoir is near its lowest elevation, likely in May or June. As a result, the debris jams may present a more difficult obstacle for spring spawning fish. However, spring freshet may alter the debris jams considerably, making passage easier. High flows present during rainbow trout migration also likely make the debris jams more passable.

March 2003 - 16 - 022-9010

Adfluvial rainbow trout generally rear in stream habitat for at least a year prior to migrating to lake habitat (Scott and Crossman 1973). Consequently, if rainbow trout utilized the streams for spawning, it is likely that juvenile rainbow trout would have been captured during fall sampling. It was not possible to assess the debris jams for their potential to be barriers to adfluvial rainbow trout movement in the spring.

Although the potential exists that the streams could be utilized by kokanee or rainbow trout for spawning, Golder does not believe that the streams provide suitable habitat for either species. Furthermore, Golder does not believe that the debris jams observed would represent barriers for upstream movement of either of these species.

4.4 Project Plan

One of the objectives of this project was develop a project plan for facilitating fish passage through identified barriers and evaluating any proposed passage improvements. No remedial work is recommended for the three streams surveyed as part of this project because the debris jams were not identified as barriers. It is difficult to gauge the long-term viability of any debris removal or instream alterations because the annual variations in the debris jams and the effects of high stream discharge during spring freshet have not been evaluated at this time.

If additional debris jams on other streams are investigated in the future, Golder provides the following suggested pre-treatment assessment protocol to provide suitable baseline data for comparison with post-treatment conditions. This protocol is based on experience gained from the results of the present study. In order to account for inherent variability in any biological system, it is stressed that it would be preferable to collect data over at least two seasons prior to treatment.

Spawning Survey: Bull trout spawner and redd surveys in streams during the spawning season. Conduct approximately three stream walks during September–October.

Juvenile Population Estimate: Three-pass electrofishing in enclosed sites along stream margins to provide abundance data for juvenile bull trout (the capture of mature, stream resident bull trout would provide an idea of the ratio of stream-resident adults to adfluvial adults). Conduct at one site in stream at least once during the spawning season.

Habitat Assessment: Standard RISC habitat survey with addition of discharge measurements. Conduct once during electrofishing session.

Photo-documentation: Detailed description and photo-documentation of the debris jams to document pre-treatment conditions. Conduct once during electrofishing session.

The proposed assessment protocol should provide sufficient baseline data for comparison without being excessively time consuming and expensive because it focuses on the importance of spawner enumeration. The timing would encompass the potential for identifying both early and late spawning fish. The three-pass

March 2003 - 17 - 022-9010

electrofishing technique provides a density estimate that can be compared with post-treatment conditions and may provide information on the presence of stream-resident bull trout within the stream. Because this method is time consuming, it is recommended that it be limited to one site per stream. Habitat data collected during the electrofishing session should provide an assessment of the suitability for bull trout spawning and rearing in cases where bull trout may not be present during the initial pre-treatment assessment.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Presence of large bull trout or large bull trout redds, as well as a physical examination, indicated that the debris jams on Blackmore, Grouse, and Windfall creeks were not complete barriers to upstream adfluvial bull trout passage at the time of the study. Furthermore, it is not believed that the debris jams observed in 2002 would represent a barrier to upstream movement of any other fall spawning adfluvial species in Kinbasket Reservoir. The determination of whether the debris jams are partial barriers to adfluvial bull trout movement was beyond the scope of the current project and would require a more detailed study. It was not possible to assess the debris jams for their potential as barriers for rainbow trout, which would spawn in the spring. The absence of species other than bull trout in the streams may be a result of habitat conditions in the streams rather than exclusion because of debris jams, although additional sampling would be required to substantiate this conclusion.

The results indicate that the debris jams are not barriers to upstream passage for adfluvial bull trout. Consequently, Golder does not recommend remedial work (Phase II), including facilitating fish passage through log jams and improving access by modifying in-channel habitat, for any of the streams examined as part of this study.

5.2 Recommendations

The data collected during this study could provide baseline information for a comparison of pre-treatment and post-treatment conditions. However, the sampling conducted in 2002 cannot account for the potential annual variability in the nature of the debris jams, and the limited time frame of the study cannot provide an accurate assessment of the number of spawning bull trout in the streams. More detailed studies over two or more years would provide better baseline data to determine the efficacy of any treatment. Comprehensive spawner and redd surveys conducted throughout the spawning season and density estimates would provide good baseline data for comparison. As a result, further studies may include the following:

• Examine the debris jams in spring during low reservoir elevations to determine whether they are potential barriers to rainbow trout and to determine seasonal changes to the debris jams with high stream discharge during spring freshet.

March 2003 - 18 - 022-9010

• Re-examine the debris jams in fall 2003 and compare with the fall 2002 to determine the extent of accumulation and change over the year.

• Conduct three bull trout spawning surveys to assess the level of utilization of the streams by adfluvial bull trout.

These studies would provide further information regarding the nature of reservoir-created debris jams and would aid in determining future actions.

6.0 CLOSURE

We trust that this report meets the needs of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program.

If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. Reviewed by:

Duncan Hendricks, R.P.Bio. Nick Sargent, P.Geo. Fisheries Biologist/Office Manager Associate/Senior Hydrogeologist

Nancy Elliott, R.P.Bio. Fisheries Biologist

DH/NE/JH/rp

K:\ACTIVE\9000\022-9010 KINIBASKET FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT\022-9010 DRAFT REPORT.DOC

March 2003 - 19 - 022-9010

7.0 REFERENCES

Burgner, R.L. 1991. Life History of Sockeye Salmon. In Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Ed. C. Groot and L. Margolis. UBC Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. pp. 1-118.

Fielden, R.J., T.L. Slaney, and A.W. Wood. 1992. Survey of tributaries of Kinbasket Reservoir. Prepared for the Mica Compensation Program by Aquatic Resources Ltd.

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63: 133-143.

Hagen, J., and J. S. Baxter. 1992. Bull trout population of the North Thompson River basin, British Columbia: initial assessment of a biological wilderness. Report to British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries Branch. Kamloops, BC. pp. 37.

James, P.A., and H.M. Sexauer. 1997. Spawning behaviour, spawning habitat, and alternative mating strategies in an adfluvial population of bull trout. In W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. pp. 325–329. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), Trout Unlimited, Calgary, AB.

Jones, M.W., R.G. Danzmann and D. Clay. 1997. Genetic relationships among populations of wild resident, and wild and hatchery anadromous brook charr. Journal of Fish Biology. 51:29-40.

McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Fisheries Management Report No. 104.

McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life history and ecology of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Report to BC Hydro and Ministry of Environment, Fisheries Branch, Nelson, BC. pp. 113.

Mushens, C.J., J.R. Post, J.D. Stelfox and A.J. Paul. 2001. Dynamics of an adfluvial bull trout population following the implementation of catch-and-release-only regulations. In M.K. Brewin, A. J. Paul, and M. Monita. Bull Trout II Conference Proceedings. pp. 77-78. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, AB.

Nordeng, H. 1983. Solution to the “char” problem based on Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) in Norway. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 40: 1372-1387.

March 2003 - 20 - 022-9010

Oliver, G.G. 2001a. 2001 fish access assessment of selected tributaries to Kinbasket Reservoir. Prepared

for BC Hydro, Kootenay Generation Office. Prepared by G.G. Oliver and Associates Environmental Science.

Oliver, G.G. 2001b. Kinbasket Reservoir bull trout radio telemetry study: 2000 tributary use summary. Prepared for Columbia-Kootenay Fisheries Renewal Partnership, Cranbrook, BC. pp. 26 + app.

Resource Inventory Committee. 2001. Reconnaissance (1:20 000) fish and fish habitat inventory: standards and procedures. Prepared by BC Ministry of Fisheries, Fisheries Inventory Section for the Resource Inventory Committee. pp. 98 + app.

Resource Inventory Committee. 1999. Fish collection methods and standards. Prepared by BC Ministry of Fisheries, Fisheries Inventory Section for the Resource Inventory Committee.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa 1973. pp. 966.

Stelfox, J.D. 1997. Seasonal movements, growth, survival and population status of the adfluvial bull trout population in the lower Kananaskis Lake, Alberta. In W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. pp. 309-316. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), Trout Unlimited, Calgary, AB.

Sterling, G.L. 1978. Population dynamics, age and growth of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the tri-creek watershed, 1971-1977. Alberta Recreation, Parks and Wildlife, Fish and Game Division, Calgary, AB. Rep. No. 2. pp. 86.

Van Deventer, J.S. and W.S. Platts. 1986. Micro Fish Interactive Program 3.0.

PLATES SECTION

Plate 2 Mature bull trout captured in Grouse Creek, 630 mm (Site 1), 27 September 2002.

Plate 1 Juvenile bull trout captured in Blackmore Creek, 192 mm (Site 1), 28 September 2002.

Plate 3 Redd located in Grouse Creek (Site 1), 27 September 2002. Plate 4 Redd located in Grouse Creek (Site 2), 27 September 2002.

Plate 6 Redd located in Windfall Creek (Site 3), 28 September 2002. Plate 5 Redd located in Windfall Creek (Site 2), 28 September 2002.

Plate 7 Step-pool habitat in Blackmore Creek (Site 1), 26 September 2002.

Plate 8 Step-pool habitat in Blackmore Creek (Site 2), 26 September 2002.

Plate 10 Representative habitat at confluence of Grouse Creek upstream of debris jam (Site 1), 25 September 2002.

Plate 9 Blackmore Creek upstream of the culvert crossing on the West Canoe Forest Service Road (Site 1), 25 September 2002.

Plate 11 Cascade-pool habitat in Grouse Creek (Site 2), 27 September 2002.

Plate 12 Cascade-pool habitat in Grouse Creek (Site 3), 27 September 2002.

Plate 14 Cascade-pool habitat in Windfall Creek (Site 2), 28 September 2002.



Plate 16 Culvert barrier on Blackmore Creek at the West Canoe Forest Service Road crossing, bull trout observed in plunge pool (Site 2), 26 September 2002.

Plate 18 Debris jam at the confluence of Blackmore Creek, 25 Septebmer 2002.

Plate 17 Debris jam at the confluence of Blackmore Creek, 25 September 2002.

Plate 19 Debris jam at the confluence of Grouse Creek, 25 September 2002.

Plate 20 Debris jam at the confluence of Grouse Creek, 25 September 2002.

Plate 22 Debris jam at the confluence of Windfall Creek, 25 September 2002.

Plate 21 Debris jam at the confluence of Windfall Creek, 25 September 2002.

Plate 23 Fall and large woody debris obstruction in Grouse Creek (Site 2), 27 September 2002.

APPENDIX I

FDIS SITE CARDS AND

FISH CARDS

Site

1

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Site #: 1

Date: 2002/09/28

Site Lg: 150

Time: 09:56 Agency: C104 Crew: NE/FA Fish Crd?:

Access: V2Method: GIS

Local Name:

ILP #:ILP Map#: NID #: 20NID Map #: 083D.047300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000Watershed Code:

Gazetted Name: WINDFALL CREEK

Incomplete:

T 9.50T 8.30

MS 0.40

Total: A

S S D T N T N 1

LWD: A

LB SHP: S V

RIP: M

Dominant: C Subdom: BD95: 96.0 D (cm): 33.00 Morph: CP

B1

Pattern: IRIslands: N

Coupling: DCConfinement: OC

Wb Depth: .7

Channel Width (m): Wetted Width (m):

Pool Depth (m):

COVER

SWD LWD B U DP OV IV CROWN CLOSURE

Texture:RB SHP:Texture:

STG: MFRIP: C

STG: MF

6.40 10.704.10 9.800.30 0.20

11.30 12.2011.50 8.600.60 0.30

12.309.800.20

3.0 5.0

Bed Material:

DISTURBANCE INDICATORS

B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: E

width width width width width width width

Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL

NINSTREAM VEG: A M V

Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D

L M HStage:Intermittent:

O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.5 .4No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:

W A T E REMS: Req #:

Temp: 6pH: 4.7

Cond.: 70

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y

N SIDE DIAG MID SPAN BR

Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width

Project Name: Fish passage in various tributaries of the Kinbasket Res.

P R O J E C T

Project Code: 6222Stream Name (gaz.): WINDFALL CREEKProject Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000

C H A N N E LGadient %

Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg10.408.680.33

Avg4.00

0.53Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.381364.5810295

GIS UTM (Z.E.N):Field UTM (Z.E.N):

Section Comments

C O M M E N T S

Bed material: gravel also subdominant.MORPHOLOGY

Access: V2 and foot.SITE CARD

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:4 1 STD D From mid-site.R:F:4 2 STD U From end of site.R:F:4 3 STD D From end of site.R:

Site

1

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Section Comments

C O M M E N T S

No velocity was taken.WATER

Site

2

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Site #: 2

Date: 2002/09/28

Site Lg: 100


Access: V2Method: GE

Local Name:



Incomplete:

T 8.20T 8.00

MS 0.30

Total: A

S S D T T T T 1

LWD: A

LB SHP: S V

RIP: C

Dominant: B Subdom: CD95: 100.0 D (cm): 45.00 Morph: CP

B1


Coupling: PCConfinement: FC

Wb Depth: .7


Pool Depth (m):

COVER



STG: MFRIP: C

STG: MF

11.40 12.308.30 9.100.20 0.20

9.90 12.308.60 11.000.80 0.20

12.8012.300.80

6.0 5.0

Bed Material:


B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: E


Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL


Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D


O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.5 .5No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:


Temp: 6pH: 4.8

Cond.: 60

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y


Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width


P R O J E C T



Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg11.159.550.42

Avg5.50

0.57Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.381125.5810288


Section Comments

C O M M E N T S

Bed material: gravel was also subdominant.MORPHOLOGY

Access: V2 and foot. UTM at upstream end of site (WP024): 11.380984.5810187.SITE CARD

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:4 4 STD U From bottom of site. High velocity water and bedrock on RDB.R:F:4 5 STD BD Redd 2.1R:F:4 6 STD X Pool at top of site.R:

Site

2

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Section Comments

C O M M E N T S

Velocity data is available. Redd 2.1 description is also available.WATER

Site

3

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Site #: 3

Date: 2002/09/28

Site Lg: 150



Local Name:



Incomplete:

T 11.20T 9.30

MS 0.50

Total: A

S S D T T T N 1

LWD: F

LB SHP: S V

RIP: C


B1

Pattern: SIIslands: O


Wb Depth: .6


Pool Depth (m):

COVER



STG: MFRIP: C

STG: MF

10.30 12.307.20 11.100.50 0.30

12.50 14.2012.70 9.800.20 0.30

12.805.800.30

6.0 7.0

Bed Material:


B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: E


Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL


Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D


O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.4 .5No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:


Temp: 6pH: 4.8

Cond.: 60

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y


Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width


P R O J E C T



Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg12.229.320.35

Avg6.50

0.50Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.380971.5810344


C O M M E N T S

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:4 10 STD U at redd 3.1R:F:4 11 STD U representative habitat near top of site (about 510 m from mouth).R:F:4 12 STD U From top of site.R:F:4 13 STD D From top of site.R:F:4 7 STD U From bottom of site.R:F:4 8 STD D From bottom of site.R:F:4 9 STD D at redd 3.1 WP026: 11.380921.5810241R:

Site

3

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Section Comments

Redd 3.1 description is available.WATER

Access: V2 and foot. Upstream end of site (WP027): 11.380876.5810314.SITE CARD

FDIS Fish Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


W A T E R B O D Y

Gazetted Name: WINDFALL CREEK Local:

Waterbody ID: ILP #:ILP Map #:Project ID: 6222

Reach #: 1

Fish Permit #: 052-02 Date: 2002/09/25 To: 2002/09/28 Crew: NE/FA

WS Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000

Lake/Stream: S-

Resample:Agency: C104

Lake From Date:

Project Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-

Lgth (Min/Max)SpeciesSite# MTD/NO H/P Stage Age Total # FishAct Comment

F I S H S U M M A R Y

EF 1 1 BT NS 7 52 170 R 1Observed. Length values were estimated.VO 1 1 BT NS 5 100 200 R 1

EF 1 1 BT NS 4 31 126 R 2Observed. Length values were estimated. Young-of-the-year and juvenile.

VO 1 1 BT NS 13 40 50 R 2

NID #Site# UTM:Zone/East/North/MthdNID Map MTD/NO Temp Cond Turbid Comment

S I T E / M E T H O D

3 1 11 380067 5809748083D.047 GPU VO 1 Visually observed bull trout during EF in Site 3 2 1 11 380067 5809748083D.047 GPU VO 1 0 Visually observed bull trout during EF in Site 2 1 20 11 999999 9999999083D.047 GPU VO 1 99 99 Visually observed bull trout during EF in Site 1C 5 1 11 380067 5809748083D.047 GPU MT 6 5 Located at the bridge about 1.4 km upstream of the

mouth of Windfall Creek.C

5 1 11 380067 5809748083D.047 GPU MT 5 5 Located at the bridge about 1.4 km upstream of the mouth of Windfall Creek.

C

5 1 11 380067 5809748083D.047 GPU MT 4 5 Located at the bridge about 1.4 km upstream of the mouth of Windfall Creek.

C

4 1 11 381429 5810276083D.047 GPU MT 3 5 Located near the mouth of Windfall Creek.C 4 1 11 381429 5810276083D.047 GPU MT 2 5 Located near the mouth of Windfall Creek.C 4 1 11 381429 5810276083D.047 GPU MT 1 5 Located near the mouth of Windfall Creek.C 3 25 11 380974 5810344083D.047 GPU EF 1 6.4 60 C 2 22 11 381125 5810288083D.047 GPU EF 1 6.4 60 C 1 20 11 381364 5810295083D.047 GPU EF 1 6.3 70 C

EnclSite# MTD/NO H/P Length Width Voltage Frequency PulseSec Make Model

C . E L E C T R O F I S H E R S P E C I F I C A T I O N S

EF 1 1 O 150.0 2.0 600 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 1 801

EF 1 1 O 100.0 1.0 500 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 2 508

EF 1 1 O 150.0 2.5 700 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 3 564

H/P Time InDate InSite# MTD/NO Date Out Time Out Comment

A . G E A R S E T T I N G S

2002/09/281EF 1 10:04 2002/09/28 11:31 12002/09/281VO 1 10:04 2002/09/28 11:31 12002/09/281EF 1 12:11 2002/09/28 13:40 22002/09/281VO 1 12:11 2002/09/28 13:40 22002/09/281EF 1 13:57 2002/09/28 15:14 32002/09/281VO 1 13:57 2002/09/28 15:14 32002/09/251MT 1 12:30 2002/09/28 16:05 42002/09/251MT 2 12:28 2002/09/28 16:03 42002/09/251MT 3 12:29 2002/09/28 16:00 42002/09/251MT 4 13:15 2002/09/28 16:53 52002/09/251MT 5 13:15 2002/09/28 16:50 52002/09/251MT 6 13:15 2002/09/28 16:50 5

LengthNet TypeSite # MTD/NO. H/P Depth Mesh Set Habitat

B . N E T / T R A P S P E C I F I C A T I O N S

MT 1 1 0.4 BT NA 4MT 2 1 0.4 BT NA 4MT 3 1 0.6 BT NA 4MT 4 1 0.6 BT NA 5MT 5 1 0.4 BT NA 5MT 6 1 0.4 BT NA 5

FDIS Fish Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000




EF 1 1 BT NS 7 47 142 R 3Observed. Length values were estimated.VO 1 1 BT NS 7 50 130 R 3

MT 1 1 NFC 0 4MT 2 1 BT NS 1 137 137 R 4MT 3 1 NFC 0 4MT 4 1 NFC 0 5MT 5 1 BT NS 1 128 128 R 5MT 6 1 NFC 0 5

SpeciesSite# MTD/NO H/P Roll #Length Weight Sex MatStr/Smpl#/Age

Vch#Str/Smpl#

Frame# CommentAge Genetic I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A

EF 1 1 BT 170 44.0 U U This BT had lots of scares. 1EF 1 1 BT 82 2.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 76 6.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 113 14.0 U U FR 10 1 1EF 1 1 BT 107 12.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 84 4.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 52 .0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 110 8.0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 31 .0 U U Young-of-the-year. 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U Observed. Length over 50

mm. 2

EF 1 1 BT 126 20.0 U U BT caught in a redd. 2EF 1 1 BT 46 .0 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 40 U U Observed. Length over 40

mm. 2

VO 1 1 BT 130 U U Observed. Length over 130 mm.

3

EF 1 1 BT 106 12.0 U U 3VO 1 1 BT 100 U U Observed. Length over 100

mm. 3

EF 1 1 BT 142 24.0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 68 4.0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 47 .0 U U 3VO 1 1 BT 50 U U Observed. Length over 50

mm. 3


3


3

EF 1 1 BT 50 .0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 115 12.0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 66 2.0 U U 3VO 1 1 BT 50 U U Observed. Length over 50

mm. 3


3

MT 2 1 BT 137 U U 4MT 5 1 BT 128 U U 5VO 1 1 BT 100 U U Observed. Length over 100

mm. 1


1


1


1


1

VO 1 1 BT 50 U U Observed YOY and juveniles 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2

FDIS Fish Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830100-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000



Vch#Str/Smpl#


VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 50 U U 2

Section Comments

C O M M E N T S

Not a barrier for adult bull trout,l natural ledge / fall (large woody debris).WATERBODY

Site

1

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Site #: 1

Date: 2002/09/27

Site Lg: 100


Access: V2Method: HC

Local Name:


Gazetted Name: GROUSE CREEK

Incomplete:

T 10.80T 6.50

MS 0.40

Total: A

T S D N S T N 1

LWD: F

LB SHP: S S

RIP: M

Dominant: C Subdom: BD95: 50.0 D (cm): 30.00 Morph: CP

B1

Pattern: IRIslands: O

Coupling: DCConfinement: FC

Wb Depth: .7


Pool Depth (m):

COVER



STG: MFRIP: M

STG: MF

9.40 11.708.40 5.200.40 0.40

7.00 7.504.20 3.300.30 0.20

5.404.000.30

6.0 7.0

Bed Material:


B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: E


Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL


Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D


O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.8 .6No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:


Temp: 6pH: 6.3

Cond.: 50

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y


Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width


P R O J E C T

Project Code: 6222Stream Name (gaz.): GROUSE CREEKProject Watershed Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg8.635.270.33

Avg6.50

0.70Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.379173.5814581


H A B I T A T Q U A L I T Y

CommentsNamepoor habitat for adult bull trout as few deep pools were found.OverWinter Habitatexcellent habitat. Lots of cover: pools, boulder, and large woody debris.Rearing Habitatexcellent habitat. Pools, good water velocities, and redds observed.Spawning Habitat

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:3 13 STD X Redd 1.1 way point 016: 11.379156.5814566.R:F:3 15 STD X Redd 1.1 way point 016: 11.379156.5814566.R:F:3 16 STD X Redd 1.2 Way point 015:11.379134.5814519.R:

Site

1

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Section Comments

C O M M E N T S

Velocity data available.WATER

Cover provided by large woody debris and deep pools near redd.CHANNEL

Redd 1.1: 1.7 m width, 2.2 m length, max depth 0.5 m. Substrate: gravel and cobble. Redd is located in back eddy zone near the pool. Bottom of redd is cobble and gravel, sides are gravel and cobble.

CHANNEL

Site

2

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Site #: 2

Date: 2002/09/27

Site Lg: 140



Local Name:



Incomplete:

T 6.60T 5.60

MS 0.40

Total: A

S S D N T T N 1

LWD: A

LB SHP: V V

RIP: M


B1

Pattern: SIIslands: N

Coupling: PCConfinement: CO

Wb Depth: .5


Pool Depth (m):

COVER



STG: MFRIP: M

STG: MF

9.30 7.807.20 6.700.20 0.40

8.30 6.305.80 5.200.30 0.20

6.804.600.40

7.0 9.0

Bed Material:


B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: C


Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL


Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D


O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.8 .7No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:


Temp: 6pH: 5.8

Cond.: 40

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y


Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width


P R O J E C T



Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg7.525.850.32

Avg8.00

0.67Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.379123.5814496


F E A T U R E S

Comments: length is 0.1 m. pool downstream of fall is 0.8 m deep. A bull trout was located in that pool.

Lg1

Hgt1.5

TypeF

MethodMS

MethodMS

NID18

NID Map083D.047 R: 3 F: 19

Photo MethodAirPhotoL: #: ..

UTM (Z/E/N)


CommentsNamePoor habitat for adult bull trout as few deep pools are available.OverWinter Habitat

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir Comments

Site

2

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Group ObservationsW I L D L I F E

MAM squirel.

Section Comments

C O M M E N T S

Redd description available.CHANNEL

Possible spawning redd located at the downstream utm. Two adults bull trout were observed.CHANNEL

Bed material: gravel was also subdominant. There are several log jams downstream creating ledges but not barriers.MORPHOLOGY

Access was v2 and foot.SITE CARD

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:3 17 STD U From bottom of site.R:F:3 18 STD X Redd 2.1 (potential second redd).R:F:3 19 STD U Fall and large woody debris.R:F:3 20 STD X Looking at fall.R:F:3 21 STD D From mid-site.R:

Site

3

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Site #: 3

Date: 2002/09/27

Site Lg: 100



Local Name:



Incomplete:

T 5.20T 4.50

MS 0.40

Total: A

S S D N T T N 1

LWD: A

LB SHP: S S

RIP: C


B1



Wb Depth: .6


Pool Depth (m):

COVER



STG: MFRIP: C

STG: MF

9.30 8.205.20 7.300.30 0.30

15.40 8.708.50 5.300.20 0.20

10.403.200.30 0.40

12.0 6.0

Bed Material:


B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: E


Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL


Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D


O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.8 .9No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:


Temp: 6pH: 6.1

Cond.: 30

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y


Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width


P R O J E C T



Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg9.535.670.30

Avg9.00

0.77Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.379033.5814330


Section Comments

C O M M E N T S


Bed material: gravel was also subdominant.MORPHOLOGY

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:3 22 STD U From bottom of site.R:F:3 23 STD D Site where velocity was taken. A large bull trout was observed.R:

FDIS Fish Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


W A T E R B O D Y

Gazetted Name: GROUSE CREEK Local:


Reach #: 1


WS Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000

Lake/Stream: S-


Lake From Date:

Project Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-



Fish activities were rearing and spawning.EF 1 1 BT NS 2 100 630 R 1Both fish were observed, but they were too big for the net.

VO 1 1 BT A 2 500 500 S 1

Fish activities were rearing and spawning.EF 1 1 BT NS 6 86 139 R 2



3 1 11 379203 5814602083D.047 GPU VO 1 Visually observed BT in Site 3 2 1 11 379203 5814602083D.047 GPU VO 1 Visually observed BT in Site 2 1 1 11 379203 5814602083D.047 GPU VO 1 Visually observed BT in Site 1 5 4 11 379203 5814602083D.047 GPU MT 4 5.5 MT located upstream of large woody debris. 4 3 11 378904 5814241083D.047 GPU MT 3 MT located at bridge, about 500 m upstream of

mouth. 4 3 11 378904 5814241083D.047 GPU MT 2 MT located at bridge, about 500 m upstream of

mouth. 4 3 11 378904 5814241083D.047 GPU MT 1 MT located at bridge, about 500 m upstream of

mouth. 3 19 11 379033 5814330083D.047 GPU EF 1 5.9 30 C 2 17 11 379123 5814496083D.047 GPU EF 1 5.6 40 C 1 14 11 379173 5814581083D.047 GPU EF 1 5.5 50 the upsteam UTM is WP15: 11.379134.5814519.

The site was 60 m long.C

5 4 11 379203 5814602083D.047 GPU MT 6 MT located within large woody debris area. 5 4 11 379203 5814602083D.047 GPU MT 5 MT located upstream of large woody debris.



EF 1 1 C 60.0 4.5 600 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 1 301

EF 1 1 O 140.0 3.5 600 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 2 672

EF 1 1 O 100.0 3.5 600 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 3 379



2002/09/271EF 1 10:39 2002/09/27 11:19 12002/09/271VO 1 10:39 2002/09/27 11:19 12002/09/271EF 1 12:30 2002/09/27 14:09 22002/09/271VO 1 12:30 2002/09/27 14:09 22002/09/271EF 1 14:36 2002/09/27 15:59 32002/09/271VO 1 14:36 2002/09/27 15:59 32002/09/251MT 1 13:48 2002/09/27 16:28 42002/09/251MT 2 13:47 2002/09/27 16:27 42002/09/251MT 3 13:48 2002/09/27 16:26 42002/09/251MT 4 14:25 2002/09/27 16:42 52002/09/251MT 5 14:26 2002/09/27 16:40 52002/09/251MT 6 14:34 2002/09/27 16:38 5



MT 1 1 0.5 BT NA 4MT 2 1 0.6 BT NA 4MT 3 1 0.3 BT NA 4MT 4 1 0.2 BT NA 5MT 5 1 0.3 BT NA 5MT 6 1 0.3 BT NA 5

FDIS Fish Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-830200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000




All six fish were observed. Fish activities were rearing and spawning.

VO 1 1 BT NS 6 40 600 R 2

EF 1 1 BT NS 7 85 137 R 3BT was observed and too big for the net.VO 1 1 BT NS 1 600 600 S 3

MT 1 1 NFC 0 4MT 2 1 NFC 0 4MT 3 1 NFC 0 4MT 4 1 BT NS 1 142 142 R 5MT 5 1 NFC 0 5MT 6 1 NFC 0 5


Vch#Str/Smpl#


EF 1 1 BT 630 686.0 U U FR Bull trout was found in pool where a redd was seen.

14 8 8 3 1

VO 1 1 BT 500 U U Large BT observed. Length over 500 mm.

1

VO 1 1 BT 500 U U Large BT observed. Length over 500 mm.

1

EF 1 1 BT 100 12.0 U U 1VO 1 1 BT 600 U M Bull trout observed in 0.6 m

deep pool. BT length over 600 mm.

2

VO 1 1 BT 500 U M Bull trout observed in 0.6 m deep pool. BT length over 500 mm.

2

VO 1 1 BT 500 U U Bull trout observed downstream of fall. BT lLength over 500 mm.

2

VO 1 1 BT 130 U U Bull trout observed upstream of fall. BT length over 130 mm.

2

EF 1 1 BT 92 8.0 U U Bull trout observed upstream of fall.

2

VO 1 1 BT 40 U U Bull trout observed. BT length over 40 mm.

2

EF 1 1 BT 87 8.0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 139 28.0 U U FR 9 2 2VO 1 1 BT 600 U U Bull trout observed

downstream of culvert. BT length over 600 mm. Pool downstream of culvert was 0.6 m deep.

2

EF 1 1 BT 137 28.0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 86 6.0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 90 8.0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 123 22.0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 85 10.0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 85 6.0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 124 22.0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 137 28.0 U U 3VO 1 1 BT 600 U U Large BT observed. Length

over 600 mm. 3

EF 1 1 BT 158 48.0 U U 3EF 1 1 BT 128 24.0 U U 3MT 4 1 BT 142 U U 5

Site

1

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Site #: 1

Date: 2002/09/26

Site Lg: 100


Access: V2Method: HC

Local Name:


Gazetted Name: BLACKMORE CREEK

Incomplete:

T 7.00T 3.70

MS 0.40

Total: A

S S D T N T N 1

LWD: A

LB SHP: S V

RIP: M

Dominant: B Subdom: CD95: 50.0 D (cm): 30.00 Morph: SP

B1

Pattern: IRIslands: O

Coupling: COConfinement: CO

Wb Depth: .6


Pool Depth (m):

COVER



STG: MFRIP: M

STG: MF

7.90 13.204.90 9.200.30 0.40

15.30 8.305.00 5.500.30 0.30

12.306.500.30

8.0 14.0

Bed Material:


B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: E


Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL


Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D


O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.7 .7No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:


Temp: 5pH: 6.9

Cond.: 60

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y


Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width


P R O J E C T

Project Code: 6222Stream Name (gaz.): BLACKMORE CREEKProject Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg10.675.800.33

Avg11.00

0.67Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.365032.5833830


Group ObservationsW I L D L I F E


CommentsNamePoor as little deep pools.OverWinter HabitatExcellent. Lots of cover (Boulder, small and large woody debry).Rearing Habitat

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:3 2 STD D Show section upstream of ledges.R:F:3 3 STD U Show section upstream of shocking area.R:

Site

1

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


BIR Bald eagle BIR American Dipper

Section Comments

C O M M E N T S


Site

2

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Site #: 2

Date: 2002/09/26

Site Lg: 140


Access: FTMethod: O

Local Name:



Incomplete:

T 7.30T 6.50

MS 0.30

Total: A

S S D T N T N 1

LWD: F

LB SHP: S V

RIP: D


B1

Pattern: SIIslands: O

Coupling: PCConfinement: CO

Wb Depth: .5


Pool Depth (m):

COVER



STG: MFRIP: D

STG: MF

6.20 8.204.50 4.800.30 0.30

8.90 7.804.90 6.200.60 0.35

7.50 6.307.30 4.800.30

12.018.0

17.0

Bed Material:


B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: E


Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL


Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D


O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.5 .6No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:


Temp: 5pH: 6.9

Cond.: 60

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y


Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width


P R O J E C T



Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg7.465.570.36

Avg15.67

0.53Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.364874.5833727


F E A T U R E S

Comments: The CV diameter is between 1.5 and 2.0 m. The drop is 1.5 m while the distance of the drop is 0.5 m.

Lg1

Hgt1.5

TypeCV

MethodMS

MethodHC

NID13

NID Map083D.066 GPUR: 3 F: 10

Photo MethodAirPhotoL: #: ..

UTM (Z/E/N)


CommentsNamePoor. Only two deeper pools were observed.OverWinter HabitatModerate. Substrate is mainly cobble and boulder. Occasional gravel was also found.Spawning HabitatExcellent. Lots of cover (boulder, small and large woody debris).Rearing Habitat

Site

2

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Section Comments

C O M M E N T S

Access: V2 and FTSITE CARD

P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:3 10 STD U Culvert view from downstream. A large bull trout was observed in downstream pool. Substrate:

boulder and cobble. Pool depth of over 1 m.R:

F:3 11 STD U Culvert view from downstream. A large bull trout was observed in downstream pool. Substrate: boulder and cobble. Pool depth of over 1 m.

R:

F:3 12 STD U Culvert view from downstream. A large bull trout was observed in downstream pool. Substrate: boulder and cobble. Pool depth of over 1 m.

R:

F:3 4 STD D Looking at 12% gradient step pool.R:F:3 5 STD U Taken at bottom of site.R:F:3 6 STD U Taken from middle of site. Location where a large bull trout was observed.R:F:3 7 STD D Taken from middle of site.R:F:3 8 STD X Step-pool where a large bull trout was captured. Substrate: cobble and large gravel. Gradient of

17%. Pool depth of 0.5 m.R:

F:3 9 STD D Step-poolR:

Site

3

FDIS Site Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


Site #: 3

Date: 2002/09/29

Site Lg: 150



Local Name:



Incomplete:

T 6.60T 6.10

MS 0.20

Total: A

S S D T T T N 1

LWD: A

LB SHP: V V

RIP: C


B1

Pattern: SIIslands: N

Coupling: COConfinement: CO

Wb Depth: 1.2


Pool Depth (m):

COVER



STG: MFRIP: C

STG: MF

5.80 6.303.50 5.800.40 0.20

6.80 6.304.30 4.800.40 0.80

4.803.700.35 0.45

13.015.0

16.015.0

Bed Material:


B2 B3 D1 D3

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4

Mtd width

DIST: E


Reach #: 1.0

Method I:Method II:

AL AL


Mtd

Dw:

W A T E R S H E D


O1

F G C B R F G B RC

D2

S5

.7 .9No Vis.Ch.:

Tribs.:

FSZ:

1-20%

A A

Bars:


Temp: 5pH: 3.6

Cond.: 60

Method: MS

Method: OMethod: O

Method: S4

Method: GETurb.:

Method: MS

T M L C

M O R P H O L O G Y


Ref. Name:

Loc: P/S/O:

width width


P R O J E C T



Amount:Type:

Flood Signs:

Avg6.104.700.40

Avg14.75

0.93Avg:

.. GPUMethod:11.364775.5833621


P H O T O S

Photo Foc Lg Dir CommentsF:4 14 STD U From bottom of siteR:F:4 15 STD D From bottom of site, see culvert of the road.R:F:4 16 STD D From mid-site.R:F:4 17 STD U From end of site.R:

FDIS Fish Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000


W A T E R B O D Y

Gazetted Name: BLACKMORE CREEK Local:


Reach #: 1


WS Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000

Lake/Stream: S-


Lake From Date:

Project Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-



EF 1 1 BT NS 23 84 218 R 1Also spawning as fish activity.EF 1 2 BT NS 15 48 223 R 1

EF 1 3 BT NS 10 45 152 R 1MT 1 1 NFC 0 1MT 2 1 NFC 0 1MT 3 1 NFC 0 1MT 4 1 NFC 0 1EF 1 1 BT NS 6 51 162 R 2

Bull trout were too big for our net. They were observed only. They were over 500 and 600 mm.

VO 1 1 BT A 2 500 600 S 2

EF 1 1 NFC 0 3



2 1 11 364775 5833621083D.066 GPU VO 1 Visually observed during EF Site 2 3 5 11 364775 5833621083D.066 GPU EF 1 4.9 60 Site upstream of the culvert.C 2 11 11 364874 5833727083D.066 GPU EF 1 5.1 60 Site downstream of the culvert.C 1 10 11 365032 5833830083D.066 GPU EF 1 5.1 60 84 m using removal / depletion EF.C 1 9 11 364974 5833772083D.066 GPU MT 4 5.9 Located in a pool downstream of second ledge. 1 8 11 365000 5833784083D.066 GPU MT 3 5.9 Located in a pool downstream of first ledge. 1 7 11 365043 5833819083D.066 GPU MT 2 5.9 Located upstream of log jam. 1 6 11 365041 5833837083D.066 GPU MT 1 5.9 Located downstream of log jam.



EF 1 1 C 84.0 3.5 700 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 1 1158

EF 1 2 C 84.0 3.5 700 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 1 872

EF 1 3 C 84.0 3.5 700 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 1 933

EF 1 1 O 140.0 2.0 700 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 2 371

EF 1 1 O 150.0 1.5 600 70 4 SMITH ROOT

12-B 3 803



2002/09/261EF 1 10:30 2002/09/26 11:30 12002/09/262EF 1 12:18 2002/09/26 13:09 12002/09/263EF 1 13:28 2002/09/26 14:12 12002/09/251MT 1 16:16 2002/09/26 18:11 12002/09/251MT 2 16:18 2002/09/26 17:58 12002/09/251MT 3 16:20 2002/09/26 18:01 12002/09/251MT 4 16:27 2002/09/26 18:03 12002/09/261EF 1 15:44 2002/09/26 17:17 22002/09/261VO 1 12:18 2002/09/26 13:09 22002/09/291EF 1 09:05 2002/09/29 10:07 3



MT 1 1 0.6 BT NA 1MT 2 1 0.3 BT NA 1MT 3 1 0.3 BT NA 1MT 4 1 0.4 BT NA 1

FDIS Fish Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000



Vch#Str/Smpl#


EF 1 1 BT 145 34.0 U U FR 1 2 1EF 1 1 BT 192 78.0 U U FR BT, 192 mm1 2 4 3 1EF 1 1 BT 149 36.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 154 42.0 U U FR 3 3 1EF 1 1 BT 151 42.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 218 98.0 U U FR 4 4 1EF 1 1 BT 124 28.0 U U Cut on left side. 1EF 1 1 BT 165 46.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 153 40.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 162 50.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 124 23.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 147 44.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 171 58.0 U U FR 5 3 1EF 1 1 BT 84 4.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 147 42.0 U U FR 6 3 1EF 1 1 BT 151 44.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 138 40.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 132 34.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 131 30.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 132 24.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 108 20.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 114 18.0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 95 12.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 223 132.0 M SP FR Milt7 5 1EF 1 2 BT 139 34.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 113 18.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 127 24.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 143 32.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 121 20.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 51 4.0 U U one year old 1EF 1 2 BT 146 38.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 157 48.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 140 32.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 112 18.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 90 10.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 137 32.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 122 22.0 U U 1EF 1 2 BT 48 4.0 U U one year old 1EF 1 3 BT 139 30.0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 152 44.0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 129 26.0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 146 36.0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 141 36.0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 144 34.0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 113 18.0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 45 .0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 45 .0 U U 1EF 1 3 BT 54 .0 U U 1EF 1 1 BT 52 .0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 162 50.0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 125 20.0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 58 .0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 94 10.0 U U 2EF 1 1 BT 51 .0 U U 2VO 1 1 BT 600 U U Bull trout over 600 mm.

Caught at UTM 11.364822.5833681. Photo of habitat are Roll3 Frame 6 to 8

2

FDIS Fish Card

1.0Watershed Code: 300-831400-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000



Vch#Str/Smpl#


VO 1 1 BT 500 U U Bull trout over 500 mm. Caught at UTM 11.364793.5833626. Photo of habitat are Roll3 Frame 11and 12.

2

APPENDIX II

RESERVOIR ELEVATION, DISCHARGE, AND

REDD HABITAT DATA

Date01

-Jan

01-F

eb

01-M

ar

01-A

pr

01-M

ay

01-Ju

n

01-Ju

l

01-A

ug

01-S

ep

01-O

ct

01-N

ov

01-D

ec

01-Ja

n

Res

ervo

ir E

leva

tion

(m)

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

Res

ervo

ir E

leva

tion

(m)

700

710

720

730

740

750

7602002 Field Session

Approximate bull trout spawning period

Appendix II Figure 1 Elevation (ASL) of Kinbasket Reservoir for 2002 (data from

BC Hydro).

Appendix II Table 1 Velocity, depth, and substrate data collected for redds observed in Grouse and Windfall as part of the Kinbasket fish passage study, September 2002

Stream Redd Length

(m)

Maximum Width

(m)

Maximum Depth

(m) Station Depth

(m) Velocity

(m/s) SubstrateLDB 0.28 0.07 MID 0.23 0.06

Grouse Creek

1.1

2.2

1.7

0.50 RDB 0.23 0.28

Gr, Co

LDB 0.27 0.26 MID 0.25 0.05

Grouse Creek

2.1

1.7

1.2

0.30 RDB 0.21 0.25

Gr, Co

LDB 0.30 0.04 MID 0.36 0.43

Windfall Creek

2.1

1.9

1.0

0.40 RDB 0.40 0.56

Gr, Co

LDB 0.40 0.31 MID 0.40 0.13

Windfall Creek

3.1

1.8

1.0

0.42 RDB 0.42 0.67

Gr, Co

Note: LDB = left downstream bank; MID = middle of redd; RDB = right downstream bank; Gr = gravel; Co = Cobble.

Appendix II Table 2 Stream discharge data for Blackmore, Grouse and Windfall

creeks as part of the Kinbasket Reservoir fish passage study, September 2002.

Stream Distance Depth

(m) Velocity

(m/s) Discharge

(m3/s) 0.6 0 0 0.000 0.9 0.19 0 0.000 1.4 0.44 0.57 0.125 1.9 0.31 0.55 0.085 2.4 0.28 0.18 0.025 2.9 0.27 0.42 0.057 3.4 0.15 1.08 0.081 3.9 0.24 0.55 0.066 4.4 0.21 0.42 0.044 4.9 0.09 0.66 0.027 5.3 0 0 0.000

Blackmore Creek

Total 0.510 1.3 0 0 0.000 1.8 0.07 0 0.000 2.3 0.23 0.11 0.013 2.8 0.38 0.39 0.074 3.3 0.39 0.72 0.140 3.8 0.4 0.72 0.144 4.3 0.31 0.43 0.067 4.8 0.25 0.52 0.065 5.3 0.25 0.31 0.039 5.8 0.06 0 0.000 6.1 0 0 0.000

Grouse Creek

Total 0.542 0.6 0 0 0.000 1.1 0.38 0.53 0.101 1.6 0.4 0.88 0.176 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.150 2.6 0.58 0.79 0.229 3.1 0.51 0.73 0.186 3.6 0.44 0.33 0.073 4.1 0.27 0.64 0.086 4.6 0.17 0.38 0.032 5.1 0 0 0.000

Windfall Creek

Total 1.033

Documents

Kinbasket Reservoir Tributary Fish Passage Improvement ... · Plate 17 Debris jam at the confluence of Blackmore Creek, 25 September 2002. Plate 18 Debris jam at the confluence of