MESSS 2015 Final Report_no pics_in

M a i n l a n d E n h a n c e m e n t S a l m o n i d S p e c i e s S o c i e t y ( M . E . S . S . S . )G e n e r a l D e l i v e r y ; S i m o o m S o u n d ( B C ) , V 0 P 1 S 0

M.E.S.S.S. 2015 Habitat Assessments;A biotic and abiotic survey of Gilford Island’s Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour creeks

Report Prepared By:Marie-Josée Gagnon (B.Sc)

Stream Technician: Seth Jones (Cpt.)[email protected]

2015May-June

Table of Contents

1. Project Rationale………………………………………………………………………….42. Survey Sites………………………………………………………………………………..4

- Figure 1 . M.E.S.S.S. 2015 stream habitat assessments survey locations…- Figure 2 . Fisheries Report Topographical Map (1988)…

3. Escapement History – 1953-2014………………………………………………………...5- Table 1 . Salmonid escapement records from 1953-2004…

4. Methodology………………………………………………………………………………74.1 Abiotic Survey……………………………………………………………………….. 8

- Cross-Sectional Survey……………………………………………………………….......8- Longitudinal Survey……………………………………………………………………... 8- Water Quality Survey……………………………………………………………………. 104.2 Biotic Survey………………………………………………………………………….10

- Invertebrate Sampling…………………………………………………………………….10- Salmonid Survey.……………………………………..............….………………………11

Maple Cove Habitat Assessment

1. Stream Location…………………………………………………………………………... 13- Figure 3a/b Google earth and topographical maps of Maple Cove creek…

2. Watershed Historical Information………………….………………………….….…….. 133. Results............................................................................................………………………... 14

3.1 General Information…………………………………………………………………. 14- Table 3 . Abiotic survey mean and total values… - Reach #1/Reach #2/Reach #33.2 Barriers to Access……………………………………………………………………..173.3 Spawning Habitat……………………………………………………………………..19- Table 4 . Survey locations and coordinates of spawning habitat3.4 Water Quality and Invertebrate Survey……………………………………………. 19- Table 5 . Water quality measurements mean values in reach #1-3…- Table 6 . Stream health and water quality assessment: invertebrate survey…- Table 7 . Site assessment rating from invertebrate indicator species…3.5 Salmonid Survey………………………………………………………………………21- Table 8 . Total number of fry observed through visual surveys/dip net/ fry traps…

4. Recommendations………………………………………………………………………… 22

Shoal Harbour Habitat Assessment

1. Stream Location…………………………………………………………………………... 23- Figure 16 . Google earth and topographical maps of Maple Cove creek …

2. Watershed Historical Information……………………………………………….……… 233. Results.…………………………………………………………………..………………… 24

3.1 General Information - Table 9 . Abiotic survey mean and total values… - Reach #1/Reach #2/Reach #3//Reach #4/Reach #53.2 Barriers to Access……………………………………………………………………. 273.3 Spawning Habitat…………………………………………………………………….. 28- Table 10 . Survey locations and coordinates of spawning habitat…3.4 Water Quality and Invertebrate Survey……………………………………………. 29

M.E.S.S.S. 2015 Habitat Assessments

2May-June, 2015

- Table 11 . Water quality measurements mean values in reach #1-5…- Table 12 . Stream health and water quality assessment: invertebrate survey…- Table 13 . Site assessment rating from invertebrate indicator species…3.5 Salmonid Survey………………………………………………………………………30- Table 14 . Total number of fry observed through visual surveys/dip net/ fry traps

4. Recommendations………………………………………………………………………… 31

5. Data Comparison: 1994/2009/2015……………………………………………………….325.1 Maple Cove – 2009 vs. 2015 5.2 Shoal Creek – 1994/95 vs. 2009 vs. 2015 - Table 15 . Comparison of data from abiotic survey conducted in 1994/95, 2009, 2015…- Table 16 . Comparison of stream health assessments from invertebrates samples…

6. Habitat Quality Rating – Longitudinal Survey (Streamkeepers)…………………………33- Table 17 . Pacific Streamkeepers Federation habitat assessment scoring system…- Table 18 . Habitat quality rating of stream reaches based on longitudinal survey characteristics…

Appendix I – Maple Cove Abiotic/Biotic Data 2015…………………………………………36- Table 19-23 . Cross-sectional, longitudinal, water quality, salmonid survey data.

Appendix II – Shoal Harbour Abiotic/Biotic Data 2015…………………………………….41- Table 24-28 . Cross-sectional, longitudinal, water quality, salmonid survey data.

3

Project Rationale

Under the direction of the Mainland Enhancement Salmonid Species Society (M.E.S.S.S.), complete habitat assessments of Maple Cove creek and Shoal Harbour creek were conducted during May of 2015. This report documents the findings of these stream surveys that included the collection of abiotic stream characteristic, biotic data, water quality measurements as well as a documentation of spawning habitat and barriers to fish access. Abiotic parameters were collected by conducting cross-sectional surveys and longitudinal surveys. The biotic survey consisted of invertebrate sampling and an assessment of salmonid diversity/abundance.

Stream habitat assessments that collect water quality measurements as well as abiotic and data provide basic information about streams and help to isolate watershed problems. This data can be used to detect changes in the system when streams are monitored on a long term and periotic basis. The data gathered in these surveys provides important baseline information for use in future surveys and a basis of comparison to previous surveys. Don Wilson (Silverking Ventures) conducted complete assessments of watersheds in the Broughton Archipelago for M.E.S.S.S. in 1994-1995 while the M.E.S.S.S. spring/summer salmonid species and habitat quality assessments led by Megan Adams surveyed selected reaches of 33 watersheds in 2009. Both projects assessed Shoal Harbour, however Maple Cove was not surveyed by Silverking Ventures. The 2009 crew only surveyed reach #1 of Maple Cove (0-400m) and, the first 1000m of Shoal creek. Historical information was also provided in the DFO fisheries report (Fish Habitat Inventory & Information Program 1986-1988) and reviewed prior to conducting these habitat assessments.

2. Survey Locations

Figure 1. M.E.S.S.S. 2015 stream habitat assessments survey locations: Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour creek, which are located on Gilford Island in the Broughton Archipelago.

Figure 2. Fisheries Report Topographical Map (1988), outlining salmon bearing watersheds including Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour surveyed during the 2015 habitat assessments.

3. Escapement History – 1953-2014

The escapement summary for Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour from 1954 to 2014 is as follows:

YearMaple Cove Shoal

Pink Chum Coho Pink Chum Coho2014 56 0 0 687 37 32013 0 0 0 75 307 102012 47 morts 0 0 214 54 82011 4 1 1 mort 29 198 22010 20 1 0 11 1 112009 0 0 1 164 116 162008 N/A N/A N/A 1 30 02007 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 02006 N/A N/A N/A present 199 292005 N/A N/A N/A present 184 02004 N/A N/A N/A 81 present 572003 N/A N/A N/A 0 43 202002 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 02001 present 0 0 6 11 60

5

2000 100 0 0 25 50 1001999 0 0 0 0 19 01998 0 0 0 0 0 01997 0 0 0 0 0 11996 300 0 0 100 46 21995 N/I N/I N/I 0 32 301994 N/I N/I N/I N/A 32 301993 0 N/A N/A N/A 55 N/A1992 N/I N/I N/I 3 150 61991 N/I N/I N/I N/A 50 N/A1990 N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I1989 N/I N/I N/I N/A 50 N/A1988 N/I N/I N/I N/A 2500 N/A1987 N/I N/I N/I 0 1100 01986 N/I N/I N/I 75 259 701985 N/I N/I N/I N/A 1900 N/A1984 0 0 0 N/A 5000 1001983 0 0 0 6 250 501982 0 0 0 6 250 501981 N/I N/I N/I 0 300 1001980 0 0 0 0 350 2001979 N/I N/I N/I N/A 1000 2001978 N/I N/I N/I 0 350 251977 N/I N/I N/I 0 200 751976 N/I N/I N/I 25 900 2001975 N/I N/I N/I 25 400 251974 N/I N/I N/I 40 1000 751973 N/I N/I N/I 50 4000 1001972 0 0 0 200 3000 2001971 0 0 0 0 750 01970 0 0 0 N/A 25 251969 0 0 0 0 200 251968 N/I N/I N/I 0 200 751967 N/I N/I N/I 0 1500 751966 0 0 0 75 200 251965 0 0 0 0 400 01964 N/I N/I N/I 400 3400 2001963 0 200 0 0 1500 01962 0 400 0 0 3500 01961 0 0 0 0 3500 4001960 N/I N/I N/I 400 3500 4001959 N/I N/I N/I N/A 3500 7501958 N/I N/I N/I 25 7500 2001957 N/I N/I N/I N/A 1500 7501956 N/I N/I N/I 0 3500 15001955 0 25 200 N/A 3500 35001954 0 200 400 N/A 15000 35001953 0 200 200 N/A 7500 1500

Table 1. Salmonid escapement records for Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour creek from 1953-2014 (observed counts); N/I: not inspected; N/A: no data; 2011*: Five inspections: 0 live salmon observed, 1 coho mort; 2012*: single inspection, no live salmon observed: morts reported; 2013*: single inspection, no signs of salmon.


6May-June, 2015

The escapement data for Maple Cove is limited and the creek was not inspected on a regular basis prior to 2009. The highest pink escapement was 300, recorded in 1996. The highest chum and coho escapement observed was 400, recorded in 1962 and 1954 respectively. According to the 1988 fisheries report, coho salmon were observed in the lower 0.8 km of Maple Cove in 1984. The stream was inspected twice in 1984 but no pinks or chums were observed. The distribution summary states that no fish were observed in this system from 1963-1988.

The maximum escapement in Shoal creek was recorded in 1954 with numbers for coho and chum reaching 15,000 and 3500 respectively. The most recent peak spawning year in Shoal creek was 1984 when 4000-5000 chums were recorded. The highest pink escapement was recorded last year (2014) with a total of 687 observed in 9 visits in reach #1 of the system. It should be noted that the Scott Cove hatchery released approximately 25,000 fry into Shoal creek yearly from 1984 until the early 90s. Coho were also captured from this system to help establish the Scott Cove creek brood stock. In 1998, a total of 14,477 coho fry were out-planted from the Scott Cove hatchery into Bridie Lake. The Scott Cove hatchery closed in 2007.

4. Methodology

For comparative purposes and consistency of results, the methodology for these habitat assessments was based on previous habitat surveys conducted by Don Wilson (Silverking Ventures 1994/1995) and the MESSS 2009 spring/summer habitat assessments. An adapted version of The Pacific Streamkeepers Federation habitat survey modules was also integrated into our overall methodology. (http://www.pskf.ca/index.html)

Full assessments of the Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour watersheds included the collection of abiotic and biotic stream characteristics. Barriers to salmonid access as well suitable spawning habitats were also documented with pictures, GPS coordinates, site measurements and physical descriptions. Abiotic data was collected by conducting cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal surveys as well as measurements of water quality at regular increments along each reach. Biotic data was collected by taking invertebrate samples to calculate stream health indices and by estimating both the presence and relative abundance of salmonid species. For practicality purposes, we opted to set fry traps at strategic locations within each reach and to conduct visual salmonid surveys. We also made a valiant effort to capture fry using a dip net when visual identification was not possible.

When completing a full habitat assessment, one watershed is considered an experimental unit. The first step is to divide the watershed into sampling units, commonly known as reaches. A stream reach is a relatively homogeneous section of a stream having a sequence of repeating structural characteristics (or processes) and fish habitat types. The key physical factors used to determine reaches in the field are channel pattern, channel confinement, gradient, and streambed and bank materials. Stream reaches generally show uniformity in those characteristics and in discharge.

At regular increments within each reach, the longitudinal and cross-sectional abiotic characteristics of the stream were sampled. The first reach of Maple Cove and Shoal creek was surveyed at 50m and 100m increments respectively. The remaining reaches of both systems

7

http://www.pskf.ca/index.html

were surveyed at irregular increments as deemed appropriate to take stock of the habitat characteristics of a survey section. A hip chain was used to measure survey increments as well as exact locations of stream features upstream from the stream segment start point. Abiotic and biotic data of both watersheds were compiled in a master Excel database. Detailed tables of incremental data can be found in Appendix I/II at the end of this report.

4.1 Abiotic Stream Sampling

Cross-Sectional Survey

Cross-sectional parameters surveyed included, bankfull width, wetted width, mean depth, turbidity, average flow velocity, discharge (m3/sec), and the change (δ) in height between the bankfull and wetted width which allows for an estimation of the total capacity of the system at high water levels.

The bankfull channel is the active stream channel, formed during annual floods and its boundaries are marked by permanent reminders left by receding flood waters. Both bankfull and wetted width were measured using a transect tape. The wetted depth was measured with a meter stick at 1m intervals across the stream. The initial and final measurements were taken 0.1m away from each endpoint. The bankfull channel width and depth reflect the total discharge or volume of water during annual flood events. A change in the bankfull channel dimensions may be a warning sign of changing runoff patterns in the watershed.

Turbidity: was measured in a deep pool with a standard household tape measure (black numbers on yellow) by lowering the tape into the water until we could no longer see the number “one” at the end of the tape. When the water was clear to the bottom of the pool, turbidity was recorded as “greater than ... depth.”

Water velocity was measured in a riffle area where the cross-section profile was completed. To measure water velocity, a section of 10 m was measured. An orange was dropped into the water and the time taken for the orange to float 10 m downstream was recorded. Three replicate trials of this procedure were completed by dropping the orange from the same start point along 3 cross-sections of the creek. Stream discharge was calculated by multiplying average water velocity (m/s) by wetted channel cross-sectional (mean depth multiplied by wetted width, multiplied by a correction factor of 0.8.

Longitudinal Survey

A longitudinal survey is meant to collect information about habitat quality over the entire length of a stream reach. There are nine important habitat characteristics that can be used to rate the habitat quality at the stream and capacity for biological productivity. The characteristics are considered primary, secondary, or tertiary, based on their significance to habitat quality. Composition of streambed material, embeddedness of substrate, and instream cover (large woody debris: LWD, rooted undercut banks: RCB) are most important in defining habitat quality and types of plant and animal life in the stream. Characteristics of secondary


8May-June, 2015

importance include the % pool habitat, off-channel habitat, and bank stability. Tertiary characteristics include stream bank vegetation, % overhead canopy, and size of riparian zone.

Primary Characteristics:

1) Streambed Material Composition : Different kinds of streambed material influence plant and animal life in a stream. Substrate sizes range from “fines” like silt, sand, and clay, to large boulders and bedrock (Table 2). Although variety in substrate size is desirable, a streambed comprised primarily of fine sediment is less stable than one comprised primarily of boulder, cobble, and gravel. Large substrates provide better quality fish and aquatic invertebrate habitat.

Substrate Size (cm diameter)Fines/Sand < 0.2 (ladybug size or smaller)Gravel 0.2-5 (ladybug – tennis ball)Cobble 5-25 (tennis ball – basketball)Boulder > 25 (bigger than basketball)Bedrock Solid slab or rock

Table 2. Size categories of streambed material.

2) Embeddedness %: is an estimate of the % of rock surface buried in fines. A stain line often indicates the level of burial. Embedded riffle substrates provide less desirable habitat for invertebrates, and reduce habitat quality, stream productivity, and fish spawning habitat.

3) Instream Cover : a) large woody debris (LWD) and b) rooted cut banks: a) LWD: is defined as an aggregation of logs and rootwads having a mid-point

diameter of at least 0.1 m a length of 1 m, and protruding into the bankfull channel. Instream wood is intricately linked to stream health and as such. In fact, channel assessment and enhancement efforts often associate habitat quality to the quantity and volume of LWD. By moderating peak flows and reducing bed instability, LWD regulate channel morphology, which helps to control flooding and damage to banks. By providing instream cover, this wood provides cover and nutrients. By increasing structural diversity, it helps create favourable stream habitats for fishes and other aquatic organisms. LWD also generates pool habitats which generate flow refuges acting to protect stream fauna from predators.

b) Rooted cut banks (RCB): occur when moving water digs out, and washes away the stream bank. Water level are held in place by the roots of plants growing on the surface. RCB offer fish excellent hiding places from predator when water levels are sufficiently high.

Secondary Characteristics

1) % Pool Habitat : refers to the proportion of pool habitat at your reference site. Pools provide a refuge in flood conditions and may be the only habitat available during drought conditions.

9

2) Side Channels : ponds, wetlands, and secondary overflow channels next to the main channel provide off-channel habitat. Off-channel habitat provides seasonal breeding and rearing areas and protection from flood flows for many animal species

3) Bank Stability : is assessed by examining banks for signs of sloughing soil, raw appearence and counting the number of places where active erosion is present and measuring the length of stream bank affected by each impact.

Tertiary Characteristics:

1) Stream Bank Vegetation : contributes to a healthy stream habitat. It binds the soil with root networks, moderates temperature fluctuations, absorbs pollutants from runoff, and provides a source of food and large woody debris.

2) % Overhead Canopy : Tree and shrub branches overhanging the stream form an overhead canopy. This canopy provides food, shade, and cover for animals in the stream below.

3) The riparian zone is assessed by estimating the average width of the riparian zone, in terms of the number of bankfull channel widths. It is defined as the vegetated area between the stream bank and the upland slope at the edge of the flood plain. Stream bank vegetation needs to be wide enough to provide a buffer from land use impacts near the stream.

As per the Pacific Streamkeepers Federation methodology, the results for these 9 stream characteristics were assigned scores that reflect their significance to habitat quality and the biological productivity of a stream section. These scores were then used to rate the overall habitat quality of each reach (1:poor, 2:marginal 3:acceptable; 4:good). Results of the survey ratings for each reach of Maple Cove and Shoal creek are found in section 6. (Table 17/18).

Water Quality Survey

Water quality parameters including pH, water temperature, specific conductivity and dissolved oxygen (ppm/%) were measured using the HANNA HI 9829 multiparameter portable meter. The multiparameter was calibrated after each use and measurements were taken in ripples of moderate flow, on average every 200-300 meters.

4.2 Biotic Stream Sampling

Invertebrate Sampling

1) Field Procedure

The Pacific Streamkeepers methodology was followed throughout the data collection process in order to ensure that this study can be repeated and compared to others following the same protocols. A D-frame net with an opening size of 30 x 30 cm and a mesh size of 353um was utilized for invertebrate sampling. The net was place firmly on the substrate with the operator


10May-June, 2015

standing 12-14 inches upstream of the opening. All subsample sites consisted of shallow riffles (water depth ~10-20 cm), with water velocity of ~0.5-1.0 m/s, and gravel/cobble substrate.

A quadrat of 30cm x 30cm was delineated using the D-net. With water flowing into the net, the surface sediments and rocks were overturned and brushed to detach and collect invertebrates. All stones of 5 cm or larger were held under water in front of the collecting net and rubbed gently by hand to dislodge invertebrates. Cleaned stones and debris were then placed downstream of the sampling area. The streambed was then gently agitated to a depth of 2-5cm to loosen any remaining invertebrates. The D-net was then overturned over a bucket half-filled with water. The net was dipped in the water to collect the invertebrate and sediment content. A visual inspection of the net was then conducted and any remaining invertebrates were collected using tweezers. Invertebrates were handpicked and placed into a 1L water-filled jar with 100ml of 70% ethanol. The water in the bucket was decanted gradually to facilitate visual isolation of specimens. Three sub-samples were taken at each site and combined in the same ethanol-filled jar. The combined sample was brought back home to be quantified and identified using a dissecting microscope.

2) Data Analysis

The data gathered in this biosurvey was used to calculate the following parameters as per Streamkeepers methodology: total density/abundance of organisms (number per m2), predominant taxonomic group, pollution tolerance index, EPT index, EPT to total ratio index, predominant taxon ratio index. These parameters were subsequently used to obtain an overall site assessment rating.

Three categories are used to classify invertebrates: pollution tolerant, semi-tolerant and pollution intolerant. An abundance of pollution intolerant species can indicate a healthy system, but a diverse assortment of all three is the best indicator as it also represents a system that can support a wide variety of species, in abundance. EPT is a term used for three specific pollution intolerant species that provide the best indications of a healthy system. These include Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (or EPT and commonly known as mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies larvae). They are grouped together because they all require clean water to survive, making them the best indicators of a healthy system.

Salmonid Survey

The water levels in Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour were too low to accommodate a snorkel survey. And so presence and relative abundance of salmonids was estimated through visual surveys and by setting fry traps in a maximum number of suitable pools along habitat units. We did not try to determine absolute number of fry and smolts. During every visit, a constant effort was invested to visually detect fry and inspect shallow side pools, which fry prefer as holding habitat.

Salmonid presence was sampled within each reach using Gee Minnow traps (Streamkeepers Federation: module 11). Salmon roe was suspended in a perforated film canister inside the trap. Traps were set in pools with minimal flow and positioned parallel to the flow. In order to avoid

11

catching lamprey, traps were fully submerged but did not rest on the bottom. Traps were generally collected on the second day of the creek assessment. Trout and salmon fork lengths were measured and the fry were photographed prior to release. It should be noted that fry trapping only yielded presence/absence of salmonid species as smaller fry may have been able to escape. It is also possible that smaller fry were predated upon by larger cutthroats while in the traps. The 2009 crew noted that traps excluded fry and did not always trap every fish in the habitat unit. They also found that some smaller fish may have been scared off before entering a trap by the larger predators (cutthroat) already inside. They concluded that swim surveys allowed for a better viewing of fish within the system but restricted the ability to acquire fry measurements.


12May-June, 2015

Maple Cove Creek 2015 Habitat Assessment

1. Stream Location

Watershed Code: 90-6300-300 / 905557500828Lat./Long. Mouth: 50o 41’ 0” N; 126o 27’ 20”

The lake headwaters of Maple Cove creek flow southwest into Maple Cove, which is located in Port Elizabeth on the south side of Gilford Island. Port Elizabeth opens into Knight Inlet, accessed from Retreat Passage when travelling from Echo Bay. Maple Cove can also be accessed from Shoal Harbour by driving along the South M/L, which turns into the Maple Cove M/L. The estuary is approximately 8km away and the creek can be accessed from a trail just above the mouth of the creek, on the road, marked with blue tape. The creek can also be accessed from Scott Cove by driving along the Connector M/L located at the 4km mark.

Figure 3a. Google earth view of Maple Cove creek outlining the survey effort, logging road and stream location of reach #1 (0-400m), reach #2 (400-1360m) and reach #3 (1360-upper bridge); b) Topographical map of Maple Cove creek highlighting the stream area and delineation of reaches #1-3.

2. Watershed Historical Information

A fish habitat inventory and information program was completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO/MOEP) in 1986-88. The report provides important historical information of Maple Cove and states that logging stopped in 1965. Logging in the vicinity of the watershed resumed again for a few years starting in 2000. According to the report, there is an abundance of logging debris throughout the system. It is documented that the creek is clear from the mouth to 0.8km upstream. It also states the creek should be cleaned and has been

13

ruined by past logging, noting that there is coho in this 0.8km stretch and good potential for coho and pink. However the report concludes that it would not be cost effective to conduct stream clean-ups and repairs.

3. Results

3.1 General Information

Maple Cove is a shallow, medium sized creek with relatively good flow levels and a stable channel. We surveyed this creek from the estuary to the upper bridge located 1900m upstream. This distance measurement was obtained using a hipchain. However according to mapping information, the actual distance to the upper bridge is 1780m. The upper bridge can be accessed from a severely overgrown side road around the 6km mark. We surveyed this system by walking upstream from the estuary to 1360m and downstream from the bridge to 1360m. We also set fry traps along in swampy tributaries accessed from this same side logging road. There is a logging road that parallels the creek to the left (Maple Cove M/L), and a bridge that once crossed the stream at 460m. It was de-activated in 2009 and very few signs of it remain. The ease of access to this logging road is best from the estuary, 460m and 600m.

The first 2 reaches of the stream have a low gradient and a high percentage of cobble/gravel substrate that provides excellent spawning and rearing habitat. The percentage of gravel/cobble substrate in reach #1-3 was estimated at 65%, 50% and 20% respectively. There are some high gradient sections in reach #2/3 and two steep waterfalls sections that are dominated by boulder and bedrock substrate at 870m and 1780m. Compared to other watersheds, this system has a high number of LWD. The LWD abundance is highest in the first reach with 72 units counted within 400m. This woody debris provides excellent refuge for rearing juveniles and migrating adults (Figure 4a/c).

This watershed has been subjected to heavy logging activity and there are excessive blow-downs throughout the creek. Overall, the riparian area has recovered well from logging however the left bank buffer zone of the first reach (0-400m) is mediocre (Figure 4b). While several LWD clusters along the creek create holding pools and good shelter habitat for fish, there are a few significant logjams that are an impediment to fish passage. The most significant are located at the 465m, 515m, 600m and 1360-1500m marks. The logging damage suffered in reach #3 is extremely severe and has left the streambed permanently damaged.

Longitudinal Survey Reach #1 2 3

Mean Banfull Width (m) 9.94 8.62 6.45Mean Wetted Width (m) 8.55 6.08 4.03Mean Depth (m) 0.24 0.15 0.23Mean Flow Rate (m/s) 0.67 0.38 0.41Mean Discharge (m3/s) 1.11 0.25 0.40Turbidity 20 33 15

Cross-Sectional Survey 1 2 3


14May-June, 2015

Total # LWD 72 52 22Total # RCB 8 10 2% F_S / G_P / C / B_B 20 / 41 / 24 / 15 33 / 22 / 28 / 18 30 / 5 / 15 / 50% Embeddedness 25 40 85% Pool Habitat 14 35 20% Overhead Canopy 36 54 60% Eroded Banks 13 30 73Total # Side Channels 2 8 5

Table 3. Mean and total values obtained from abiotic surveys conducted at periodic increments along reach #1-3 of Maple Cove creek from May 1st-21, 2015. (Detailed data found in Appendix I: Table 19/20).

Reach #1 (0-400m)

A longitudinal and cross-sectional survey was conducted every 50m in this reach. The majority of pink spawning activity occurs in this reach. The first 100m have a higher percentage of boulder/bedrock substrate compared to the rest of the reach (33%; Table 18). This area is also dominated by ripples and has relatively fast flow at peak water levels (Figure 4a). We surveyed the first 200m following a week of heavy rains, which is reflected in our mean depth and discharge measurements (Table 18). Water levels subsequently dropped quickly following a period of dry weather. The proportion of gravel/cobble in this reach is 65%. There is a 50m long sandy stretch upstream from the 315m LWD logfall zone (Figure 4d). Some erosion is evident along the banks however the stream course is relatively stable due to the low gradient in the area. The streambed is also confined from flooding by high banks throughout the reach.

There is an abundance of LWD in this reach. There are several collections of large logs that have fallen across the creek, making instream walking quite challenging. The trail in this reach has several log obstructions and is overgrown by salmon berry bushes. The most significant collection of LWD is located from 270-315m (Figure 4c/8a/b). There are 2 distinct collections of LWD in this reach consisting of approximately 15 and 20 logs. These logs mostly hover above the creek, benefiting fish by creating shade and protection from predators. Some LWD is lying flat on the streambed and are generating deep holding pools for fish. The pool habitat is minimal in this stretch and so despite creating a slight challenge to fish passage, instream logs such as the one located at the 200m-mark are beneficial to fish. Ripples are predominant in this reach and the proportion pool habitat is less than 14%.

Reach #2 (400-1360m)

There is a high percentage of gravel/cobble substrate in this reach and an abundance of good quality spawning habitat. However the creek is very shallow and undercut banks are minimally abundant, making the risk predatory exposure for migrating fish and rearing juveniles high. There are a total of several side channels in this reach. We counted a total of 8 side and flood channels, which are prone to drying up in the summer. There are steep falls from 870m-915m. This section has a higher proportion of boulder/bedrock substrate and is followed by a flat stretch with nice gravel/cobble (915-1035m). There is higher collection of deep dark pools and evidence of bank erosion in this reach (Table 3, Figure 5c/d). Mudded steep banks have slid down into the creek in some sections starting at 1000m.

15

There is a significant logjam just above the decommissioned bridge at 465m. While coho are able to navigate through this blockage, pinks are not very likely to invest the energy to migrate past this point (see barriers to access 3.2 section for further details). The most severe logjam in this reach is situated at 600m. It has diverted the creek into 2 branches, leaving the right branch is completely blocked. This channel is prone to drying up in the summer, trapping fry milling around shallow pools. It should be noted that there is a road sign marked 800m on the logjam island and that this corresponds to the 800m logjam documented in the 1988 fisheries report (Figure 5b). 600m, was the distance we measured using a hipchain. Coho fry were not observed beyond the 600-meter mark. However several small fry were observed between 600-800m. Because we were not able to catch them, we cannot confirm if they were coho or cutthroat.

Reach #3 (1360-Upper Bridge)

The final reach of this creek begins at 1360m where extensive logging damage has created a ‘trash zone’140m in length. The end boundary for this reach is the upper bridge at 1900m. The damaged area between 1360-1500m resulted from unregulated logging activity that occurred before 1965. The damage is severe and the channel has been diverted into a series of small narrow branches that are filled with mud, silt and small woody debris (SWD). The banks have completely collapsed into the creek creating a series of muddy islands overgrown with dense bushes (Figure 6c). While coho may be able to navigate their way through in flooding conditions the diverted branches dry up quickly, blocking fish passage under normal-low flow conditions.

In undisturbed streams, fines do not accumulate significantly in riffles. And so large amounts of fines on riffle substrates may indicate erosion problems in the watershed. The percentage of bank erosion in this reach is 73% and the sedimentation related to the logging damage is extreme. Given the extent of the damage, it would not be cost-effective to clean up this damage. This is unfortunate because there is good spawning gravel/cobble habitat upstream from this ‘trash’ zone. There is a deactivated bridge at 1680m with grassy steep banks on each side (Figure 6a). The channel from 1625 to 1750m is shallow and narrow with good gravel/cobble substrate (Figure 6b). There are steep fall from 1780-Upper Bridge (Figure 6d/e). A total of 16 cutthroat smolts were observed along this reach including a nice group of 7 at the 1360m found playing in a shallow pool (Figure 15b). We set 2 fry traps in deep pools just below the upper bridge. A total of 9 cutthroat smolts were captured in these traps.

3.2 Barriers to Access

There are several LWD clusters in reaches #1/2 that are not blocking fish passage but that likely increase the energy investment of fish when water levels are low. Some of these LWD clusters are creating structure by generating holding pools, shade and shelter habitat. Examples of such LWD clusters are found at 100m, 170m and 270m.

Some of the LWD aggregations described below have significant SWD accumulations that are creating siltation in associated pools. It would be beneficial to remove SWD build ups as well as large debris pieces that impede flow but that are not critical to stream stability. This would


16May-June, 2015

to increase flow and decrease sedimentation at these sites.

Location: 270m (50o 41' 208"; 126o 27' 420); 315m (50o 41' 218"; 126o 27' 411"); Description: This is a large log aggregation that is not blocking access to fish and generating a beneficial holding pool and good cover habitat (Figure 7a-c).Recommended Action: None.

Location: 390m (50o 41' 213"; 126o 27' 413")Description: Aggregation of 25 logs approximately 8m long, most overhanging above the stream (Figure 8a/b). This is old logging debris that is increasing slope stability and creating structural diversity by providing cover and nutrients for fish and invertebrates. However the banks show signs of erosion and SWD deposition, which is contributing to siltation of the pool (Figure 8c/d).Recommended Action: Water flow and fish passage is permitted. Removal would not only be extremely complex, but could also have hydrological consequences. Cleaning SWD would help prevent further sedimentation.

Location: 465-80m (50o 41' 246"; 126o 27' 257")Description: Location of bridge decommissioned in 2009. Logjam has diverted the creek into 2 branches. Overall cross-sectional length: 12.3m. Main branch cross-sectional width is 8m, longitudinal length is 4.5m (Figure 9a). Right side bank blockage has a longitudinal length of 3.7m, and cross-sectional width of 4.3m (Figure 9c). Coho are able to get through at moderate-high flow. Blockage is restricting water flow and has generated a very large deep pool above the logjam (Figure 9a/b). Significant SWD build-up under the logjam is restricting water flow and diminishing discharge downstream. Recommended Action: Clean up SWD debris to prevent further sedimentation. Cutting a pathway through the right branch log blockage is a possible option considering that branch is not providing substantial structure. This watershed is shallow and prone to drying up. This action could help regulate water flow.

Location: 525m (50o 41' 273"; 126o 27' 310")Description: This blockage has a cross-sectional width of 10.8m and longitudinal length of 3.8m (Figure 10a). The lowest log is overhanging by a few inches above the streambed and a very small passage was visible upon a second inspection at low water (Figure 10c). An accumulation of SWD is clogging up water flow and creating siltation in the pool below (Figure 10b). Recommended Action: removal of SWD and large debris pieces that impede flow but that are not critical to stream stability could increase flow and decrease sedimentation at this site.

Location: 600m (50o 41' 229"; 126o 27' 228")Description: The main branch blockage has a cross-sectional width of 24.8m and longitudinal length of 13.5m. This is a significant logjam that consists of a mudded island created upon a streambed collapse, which has diverted the channel into 2 branches. There is significant SWD, sedimentation and eroded banks at the site (Figure 11a/b). The damage has also caused the upstream channel to rise about a meter (Figure 11c). The right branch is narrow and completely blocked. We captured a coho fry with a dip net in a shallow pool of the right channel (Figure 11d). This side channel dries up in the summer, trapping fry. No coho fry were captured

17

beyond this logjam. This barrier may be passable in flooding and high water conditions but passage is questionable for juveniles and early-run coho in September/October.Recommended Action: There is great gravel beyond this logjam and so attempting a clean up would benefit pinks and early-run coho that may use the gravel habitat upstream for spawning. However the logjams downstream from this point would also need to be worked on for this to be worthwhile. Because of the mudded nature and size of this logjam, the fisheries report advises against a clean-up. However SWD and perhaps some of the larger debris pieces should be removed to prevent further sedimentation.

Location: 1360-1500m (50o 41' 502"; 126o 27' 810" - 50o 41' 545"; 126o 27' 764")Description: Simply said, this is a major trash zone. There are 4 main channel diversions with several dry sections and side channels (Figure 12 d/e). The stream banks have literally collapsed into the stream creating muddy, silted channels that are severely overgrown by brush and filled with SWD debris (Figure 12a-c). The banks along this stretch are severely eroded. Walking through this section is a bushwalking effort. Coho have an amazing ability to navigate through ditches and un-hospitable channels. Consequently, we cannot rule out the possibility that they may navigate their way through under flooding conditions. A high number of cutthroats were observed and caught upstream and downstream from this blockageRecommended Action: None: The extent of the damage along this stretch is severe and permanent. Due to the narrow channel diversions, overgrown mudded island and extent of SWD build-up, it would not be cost-effective to conduct a clean-up effort.

Location: 1770m (50o 41' 606"; 126o 26' 573")Description: This is a singular but very large log barrier that is lying flat on the streambed channel and that has diverted the channel into 2 branches. A tiny trickle of water is flowing through. This logjam is located just below steep falls.Recommended Action: Chain-sawing this log would increase water flow downstream. However given the downstream barriers and size of this log, this action is likely not feasible.

3.3 Spawning Habitat

Pink spawning activity in this system is mostly confined to the first reach and to a lesser degree, the first 200m of the second reach. No adult coho have observed in this system since 1955. One coho mort was observed in 2011 in reach #1. We saw quite a few coho fry during our assessments and so the escapement records clearly do not reflect the actual population number. Coho spawning activity likely occurs in reach #1/2. Because we did not capture coho fry beyond 600m, we could not confirm if coho are able to spawn beyond the 600m-barrier.

Survey Section (m)

Spawning Habitat (m)

CoordinatesN W

0-50 50-60 50o 41' 144" 126o 27' 589"50-100 80 50o 41' 163" 126o 27' 544"100-150 145-155 50o 41' 161" 126o 27' 495"150-200 180, 210 50o 41' 182" 126o 27' 483"200-255 256 (RB) 50o 41' 202" 126o 27' 428"


18May-June, 2015

255-300 265 (LB) 50o 41' 213" 126o 27' 413"300- 400 320, 385 50o 41' 218" 126o 27' 411"600-655 635-650 (center) 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"655-770 676, 735-745 50o 41' 374" 126o 27' 203"770-870 820 50o 41' 398" 126o 27' 068"870-1100 988, 1055-1100 50o 41' 447" 126o 27' 939"1100-1200 1135 50o 41' 435" 126o 27' 898"1780-1360 1570-1700 50o 41' 599" 126o 26' 643"1900-1780 1770 50o 41' 610" 126o 26' 572"

Table 4. Survey locations and coordinates of optimal spawning habitat along reaches 1-3 of Maple Cove creek (LB: left bank, RB: right bank).

3.4 Water Quality and Invertebrate Survey

The water temperature was relatively cool during our assessment averaging between 7.49-11.1°C. Lower water temperatures dissolve more oxygen which is reflected in our dissolved oxygen values (Table 5).. The pH was quite acidic, with mean values remaining below 5.29 throughout the survey period. Stream pH level depends on the geology of the surrounding area, and usually falls between 6.5 and 8.0. Streams that drain soils with high mineral content usually are alkaline, whereas streams that drain coniferous forests usually are acidic. There is a high abundance of red cedar in the riparian zone which is likely contributing to stream acidity.

Water Quality Survey Reach #1 2 3

Air Temp. (°C) 9 12.88 13.25Water Temp. (°C) 7.49 10.06 11.1pH 5.17 5.29 5.14Dissolved Oxygen (%/ppm) 101.5 / 12.20 93.85 / 10.59 87.0 / 9.51Specific Conductivity mΩcm 0.0561 0.0639 0.0667

Table 5. Mean values obtained from water measurements taken along reach #1-3 in Maple Cove creek using the Hanna HI multiparameter.

Invertebrates die or flourish in response to changing water quality conditions. The larvae of many insect groups including mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies require good water quality. Species from these groups require clear, clean, well-oxygenated water, as do salmon and trout. The predominant taxa in Maple Cove were mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies (in order of abundance), indicating good water quality. Reach #1 had a higher abundance/density of invertebrates and a higher pollution tolerance index than remaining reaches (Table 6). Detailed identification data of invertebrate abundance and diversity appears in Appendix I (Table 22).

Samples collected from several locations within a stream provide baseline data that can help identify habitat concerns and choose appropriate restoration projects. Surveying the same stations over several years can help recognize changes in water quality. A comparison of results from invertebrate surveys conducted in 2009 appears in sections 5.1 and 5.2.

Invertebrate Survey/Habitat Quality Assessment MC-210m MC-635m

Date 03/05/15 07/05/15

19

Abundance and Density 400.00 292.59

Predominant Taxon Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph

Pollution Tolerance Index(>22 good, 22-17 acceptable, 16-11 marginal, <11 poor)

24 14

EPT Index (>8 good, 5-8 acceptable, 2-5 marginal, 0-1 poor) 11 14EPT to Total Ratio(0.75-1.0 good, 0.5-0.75 acceptable, 0.25-0.5 marginal, <0.25 poor)

0.74 0.73

Diversity Assessment (Total # of taxa) 19 18Predominant Taxon Ratio(<0.4 good, 0.4-0.6 acceptable, 0.6-0.8 marginal, >0.8 poor)

0.44 0.41

Site Assessment Rating(4 good, 3 acceptable, 2 marginal, 1 poor)

3.50 3.00

Table 6. Stream health and water quality assessment obtained following the identification of stream invertebrate indicator species from samples taken at 210m and 635m in Maple Cove creek.

A score of 1 (poor) to 4 (good) was assigned to each water quality and diversity index or ratio. The average gives a general rating of stream health at the site. Sometimes individual indices or ratios may suggest contradictory stream conditions. The general site rating helps even out such results. For example, both species presence and water quality measurements may show good water quality conditions, while species diversity may be low because of physical problems. Reach # 1 had a higher site assessment rating than reach #2 (Table 7).

Index / Ratio MC-210 MC-635

Pollution Tolerance Index 4 2EPT Index 4 4EPT to Total Ratio 3 3Predominant Taxon Ratio 3 3Total 14 12Average (/4) 3.50 3.00

Table 7. General site assessment rating of stream health; (4.00: good, 3.00: acceptable; 2.00: marginal, 1.00: poor)

3.5 Salmonid Survey

Salmonids are categorized as fry when they are < 70mm and pre-smolt when >70mm. The fork length of all salmonids captured were measured while those of salmonids observed through visual surveys were estimated. Coho fry were observed in the first 600m of the stream. We observed 8 coho fry during our assessments. We could not confirm the ID of small fry observed during visual surveys. And so these are categorized as either cutthroat or coho (CH/CT). A total of 44 small fry that could be either coho or cutthroat were observed during a 3-day period from 600-800m.

An abundance of cutthroat pre-smolt were captured and observed all the way to the upper bridge. The confirmed number of cutthroat viewed through visual surveys, fry traps and dip nets was 65. However this does not include small fry observed visually whose identification we could not confirm. Detailed data including length and location of fry viewed appears in Appendix I.

Reach #

# Survey Days

Survey Method Species

Total Viewed


20May-June, 2015

1 3 Visual CH 21 3 Visual CT 221 3 Visual CH/CT 251 1 Fry Trap CH 21 1 Fry Trap CT 12 5 Visual CH 42 5 Visual CT 22 5 Visual CH/CT 442 1 Fry Trap DV 12 2 Fry Trap CT 53 2 Visual/Dip net CT 73 1 Fry Trap CT 94 1 Fry Trap CT 1

Table 8. Total number of fry observed through visual surveys and captured with fry traps in reaches 1-3 of Maple Cove creek from May 1st-20, 2015. (CH: coho; CT: cutthroat; DV: Dolly Varden).

4. Recommendations

The Maple Cove trail from 0-600m is in need of substantial brushing and chainsaw work. There are several fallen trees between 200-450m and salmon berries have overtaken the trail in the first reach. Because this creek is shallow, instream walking is feasible throughout the season. However there is an abundance of log barriers that makes the walk challenging and treacherous in some sections.

There is an abundance of spawning and rearing gravel/cobble substrate in this system. As such, we do not recommend the addition of any gravel. There are several logjams with SWD build-up that could benefit from woody debris removal to prevent further siltation, regulate water flow. Logjams located at 465m, 515m and 600m require the most attention.

This creek has been monitored by M.E.S.S.S. in the past 5 years. However surveying was limited to 1-2 visits in some years and confined to the first reach (0-400m). It is recommended that this system be surveyed on a more consistent basis and beyond the 400m-mark especially during even years when pink returns are the highest. The added effort would also increase probability of spotting coho. It would be interesting to have an observation session at the upper bridge later in the season (late October-November) to survey late run coho and trout jumping at the falls. The goal would be determine if coho are able to navigate through the ‘trash’ zone.

21

Shoal Harbour Creek Habitat Assessment 2015

1. Stream Location

Watershed Code: 90-6300-340/905557500276Lat./Long. Mouth: 50o 43’ 53” N; 126o 28’ 53” W

Figure 16. Google earth view of Shoal Harbour creek outlining the logging road, survey effort and stream locations of reach #1 (0-600m), reach #2 (600-1200m), reach #3 (left tributary: 1000-1400,) reach #4 (1200-1600), Reach #5 (upper tributaries).

2. Watershed Historical Information

Shoal Harbour is the site of some of the first logging on Gilford Island. Billy Proctor’s ‘Full Moon Tide’ reports that starting around 1886, the Powell River Company built a fore and aft road up to the lake. Logging activity has been nonstop since that first road was put in, right up to the present day. There was extensive logging near Bridie Lake and along the fore and aft road from 1918-1928. The watershed was subsequently logged with truck logging in the 1980s. However the valley has recovered well. Ironside was also logging in the vicinity of the watershed and had a floating camp in the estuary that closed down in 2010.

Strong winds combined with a poor riparian buffer zone in reach #1 triggered a severe logfall in October 2011. Significant debris and a series of large logs fell into the creek at 600m during


22May-June, 2015

the height of the spawning season. The logjam zone was cleaned up by M.E.S.S.S. in 2012, following consultation with the forestry company responsible for cutblocks as well as First Nations. Beneficial LWD was left in place and has generated structure and deep holding pools.

The 1988 DFO fish habitat inventory report states that beaver dams below the lake and on the feeder streams were a problem for fish passage and only possible in extreme flood conditions. However they also report that beaver dams provide an excellent coho rearing habitat. While beaver dams are still present in reach #5, they do not currently create an impediment to fish passage. According to the report, coho, pink and chum have been recorded from the estuary to the lake. It is stated that coho spawning habitat was adversely affected by logging operations and would require a cleanup. M.E.S.S.S. crews invested significant time and effort during the 80s-90s to remove logjams and repair habitat.

3. Results

3.1 General Information

Shoal Creek drains northwest into Shoal Harbour on Gilford Island. The system is fed from Bridie Lake and a swamp at its head, as well as runoff from the surrounding watershed. There are several unnamed tributaries that flow into the stream. Shoal creek enters the harbour on the right and an active logging road parallels the creek on the left-hand side, crossing above the surveyed area approximately 100m up from the beach. The trail begins along the right-hand side of the creek above the bridge, crossing at some points but providing easy access and visibility over the entire distance. The accessible length is 3.5km and the watershed area is 20km2.

Shoal Creek has a relatively wide, stable channel width a low gradient and moderate flow. The lower segment of the creek has a slightly higher gradient consisting primarily of boulder/bedrock substrate. The system offers a good mix of pools and riffles and excellent spawning and rearing areas in the first 2 reaches (0-1200m). Above 700m, the surrounding area begins to level further, with areas above 1600m being primarily marshlands. The system is relatively short with easy access to a swamp and Bridie Lake at the 2300m.

There are many small logjams throughout the streams as well as several old beaver dams in the third reach (1650-2300m). The water flow is regulated by Bridie Lake, beaver dams in reach #5 as well as several unnamed small lakes in the upper reaches. There are some signs of flooding in the stream, and the 1988 DFO report does report flash flooding in the past. There are no severe erosion problems or critical logjam obstructions. The riparian area is open and allows easy travel with some woody debris but very little undergrowth.

Longitudinal Survey Reach #1 2 3 4

Mean Banfull Width (m) 12.3 9.3 4.2 6.1

Mean Wetted Width (m) 6.2 6.0 2.9 3.4

Mean Depth (m) 0.19 0.20 0.08 0.10

Mean Flow Rate (m/s) 0.31 0.25 0.11 0.09

23

Mean Discharge (m3/s) 0.25 0.21 0.16 0.006

Turbidity (cm) 13 22 10 14

Cross-Sectional Survey 1 2 3 4

Total # LWD 29 33 7 59

Total # RCB 12 10 1 14

% F_S / G_P / C / B_B 8 / 13 / 39 / 40 20 / 28 / 44 / 2 10 / 10 / 70 / 10 80 / 13 / 2 / 4

% Embeddedness 25 20 45 75

% Pool Habitat 16 30 5 20

% Overhead Canopy 70 47 75 78

% Eroded Banks 12 33 45 74

Total # Side Channels 5 0 1 1

Table 9. Mean and total values obtained from abiotic surveys conducted at periodic increments along reaches 1-4 of Shoal creek from May 19th-24, 2015. (Detailed data found in Appendix II: Table 23/24).

Reach #1 (0-600m)

The first reach of this system is 600m long, ranging from the estuary to the 2011 windfall section. This reach has a moderate incline and a higher proportion of boulder/bedrock substrate than the rest of the creek (Table 9; Figure 17a/b). The habitat units consist of stepped pools and long riffles. The reach has excellent spawning areas with a good quality and proportion of gravel/cobble substrate (52%) (Figure 17d). However these are often found on raised banks and prone to drying up when precipitation is lacking. The water flow can be high in this section when rainfall is sufficient. Instream cover is fairly limited and predation exposure can be high when water levels are low. The total # of LWD in this reach was 29 which is significantly lower than what was counted in the first reach of Maple Cove. There is good crown cover throughout the reach with an overhead canopy estimated at 70%. There are also several side channels that occasionally trap fry in drying pools (Table 9). The right bank is steep, sandy, exposed and eroded in some sections (Figure 17c).

Reach #2 (600-1200m)

The second reach is 600m long and begins just past the 2011 windfall. Overall, this reach has great instream cover for both migrating adults and rearing salmonids when water levels are sufficiently high. However because the channel is shallow, the exposure to predators can be high when the channel is dry. Still, this reach has better cover than the lower reach due to the high #of rooted cut banks (RCB) which are continuous from 780-1100m (Figure 18c). The stream course is relatively stable due to the anchored nature of LWD and low gradient throughout the reach. The stream in this reach is also confined by high gravel banks and bordered by flat grassy banks

There is a high proportion of gravel/cobble substrate in this reach (72%) (Figure 18a/b). The spawning habitat although good, is inferior to the substrate in the first reach. Accordingly, very few pinks chose to spawn in this reach. The majority of pinks spawn in the first reach. Coho are more likely to utilize this reach for spawning when they migrate back downstream from the lake. The main channel splits into 2 branches at the 1000m mark. The left tributary is reach #3


24May-June, 2015

and the right branch continues to Bridie Lake. The dominance of gravel/cobble substrate persists to 1200m. There are 2 other tributaries that flow into this reach. The flow in these tributaries is intermittent and substrate mostly organic debris.

Reach #3 (1000m Tributary)

This reach is the tributary channel that branches to the left at 1000m. The tributary is long and flat and predominantly composed of cobble substrate (70%). According to mapping information, its accessible length is approximately 1900m. The tributary has been used for rearing and spawning in the past but no adult salmon have been observed in this reach during recent fall escapement surveys. The banks are severely eroded in the first 60m. However there is a nice stretch of RCB from 1051-1060m. There is a very tall cedar-like bridge logjam that is blocking flow and fish passage at low water. The channel upstream from this point is shallow, narrow and prone to drying up. We surveyed this reach on May 22nd and the channel had several dry zones starting at 1150m. It veers to the right at 1180m and crosses the logging road twice at 1400m near the connector M/L, and further along Northeast at 2560m.

Reach #4 (1200-1600m)

The section between 1200-1600m is heavily silted, dominated by fines/sand (80%) and littered with SWD and organic debris (Figure 19a-c). This section can notably be turbulent during winter flood. The stream is shallow but has some deep pools. The banks in this reach are undercut and wood debris has been deposited in the stream through erosion (Figure 19c). It might be beneficial to add gravel in this section just downstream from the bridge. This is elaborated upon in the recommendation section

Reach #5 (1600m-Bridie Lake 2300m/Upper Tributaries)

The section upstream from the road bridge (1600m) is a swampy channel with low gradient and flat banks. There is excellent rearing habitat up to Bridie Lake (2300m) and, in the upper tributaries (Figure 20c-d). This reach has the best cover of any of the reaches in the dark water and deep pools of the swamp. There are several beaver dams in this section that help to regulate water flow. We set fry traps in the upper swamp tributaries and were excited to find a healthy population of sticklebacks (Figure 20b, 29b/c).

3.2 Barriers to Access

There are no major log barriers in this system. There is evidence of habitat repair along the 4th reach with some instream logs having been split with a chainsaw. The fisheries report documents that beaver dams in reach #5 are barriers to fish. They note that fish passage is only possible upon flooding. However the beaver dams remaining in this stretch are currently not a barrier to coho migration.

Location: 200m (50o 41' 452"; 126o 27' 206)

25

Description: Log uprooted and fallen into the creek: some right bank erosion and significant SWD build-up under the logjam is restricting flow. The logjam has created a beneficial holding pool upstream.Recommended Action: Clean up SWD debris to prevent further sedimentation.Location: 600m (50o 43' 492"; 126o 28' 580")Description: 2011 windfall zone. Several overhanging logs spanning 50 meters (Figure 22c). The right bank is very steep and eroded. As mentioned in the historical notes, the area was cleaned up in 2012. The aggregation of LWD creates refuge, shade, and holding pools for fish (Figure 22d). The majority of pinks observed during the first half of the season in 2014 were holding beneath these logs. This section is passable by fish since pinks were observed upstream from the windfall at the height of the drought last season (2014).Recommended Action: None.

Location: 720m (50o 43' 492"; 126o 28' 580")Description: Log blockage with significant SWD accumulation that is generating siltation in the associated pool. This pool is creating shelter for fish in a high exposure area. Recommended Action: Remove SWD and associated siltation.

Location: 880m (50o 43' 452"; 126o 28' 545)Description: large log sitting flat on the stream bottom with no space on the underside. Recommended Action: The log is not promoting bed stability and structural diversity. A narrow passage should be created using chainsaw to facilitate fish access at low water. Location: 1270m (50o 43' 374"; 126o 28' 379”)Description: log down, presents a challenge at low water levels. Accumulation of SWD.Recommended Action: clean SWD build up to regulate water flow and facilitate fish passage. Location: 1445m (50o 43' 273"; 126o 28' 223”)Description: This logjam consists of a high wall-like log collection. The bottom log is lying flat against the streambed and creating a flood channel. Water flow is severely restricted and diverted towards the left bank. SWD accumulation is generating sedimentation. There is a small pool formed by this debris. This logjam is passable but the side channel dries up in the summer.Recommended Action: Removal of this debris would stop the water flow into the flood channel, preventing fry from being trapped in side pools. Removing the blockage would mean a slight reduction cover but there is already a sufficient amount of cover throughout this reach.

Location: Left tributary-1095m (reach #3) (50o 43' 410"; 126o 28' 403”)Description: Very tall and wide cedar barrier that forms a bridge crossing across the stream. The log is fallen to the bottom and is currently a barrier to access at low water. Recommended Action: Could benefit from SWD clean-up. However fish seldom utilize or spawn in this branch and so investing restoration efforts in this branch may not be worthwhile.

3.3 Spawning Habitat


26May-June, 2015

Salmon migration in this stream is closely related to water levels. Low water can prevent migration through several areas of the stream. Several gravel patches are raised near the banks and very prone to drying up. Low water levels during the early part of the migration cycle is the greatest concern. The fish tend to move very quickly through this system following heavy rainfall. Most coho move directly into Bridie Lake and upper tributary streams. As such, observed numbers during escapement surveys significantly under-estimate actual coho returns.

There is spawning activity throughout the accessible portion of the stream. Most of the spawning is in the first and second reaches. The spawning habitat in reach #4 is very poor (Figure 27d). There is severe silting in this reach and gravel patches are not optimal, being quite small and in high exposure areas. When exiting the lake to spawn, coho are likely to travel downstream to the second reach where cobble/gravel substrate is predominant. Don Wilson notes in his report that the tributaries of Shoal creek may also have significant spawning activity.

Survey Section (m) Spawning Habitat (m) Coordinates

N W0-100 45 (LB), 70-85 (LB) 50o 43' 815" 126o 28' 857"100-200 130-135, 145-150 (RB) 50o 43' 790" 126o 28' 799"300-400 310-315, 330 (RB) 50o 43' 717" 126o 28' 714"400-500 400, 415 (LWD), 430-50 50o 43' 662" 126o 28' 658"500-600 500, 555-585 (before windfall) 50o 43' 629" 126o 28' 631"Windfall Zone 600 (windfall pool), 620 (under LWD) 50o 43' 584" 126o 28' 608"Post Windfall 625-40, 669 50o 43' 545" 126o 28' 591"700-800 730-770 50o 43' 492" 126o 28' 580"800-1000 850-880, 910-920, 1000 50o 43' 402" 126o 28' 471"1100-1200 1185 50o 43' 374" 126o 28' 379"1200-1300 1253, 1270, 1280-90, 1292-1300 50o 43' 360" 126o 28' 334"1300-1400 1305 50o 43' 331” 126o 28' 278”1400-1600 silted stretch (muddy sandy substrate) 50o 43' 273” 126o 28' 223”

Table 10. Survey locations and coordinates of optimal spawning habitat along reach 1-4 of Shoal creek. (RB: right bank; LB: left bank).

3.4 Water Quality and Invertebrate Survey

Mean values of measurements taken during the same survey period indicate that reach #4 had a higher water temperature, lower dissolved oxygen and slightly more acidic pH than reach #1/2 (Table 11). The dissolved oxygen was moderate. Healthy streams are saturated with oxygen (90 to 110% saturation) during most of the year. Warm water holds less oxygen than cold water and shallow water heats up more quickly than deep water. Furthermore, slow flowing water has little surface turbulence, so little oxygen mixes into the water. The pH was relatively basic compared to other Broughton watersheds. Most aquatic organisms are sensitive to small pH changes and prefer a pH of 6.0 to 8.5.

Water Quality Survey Reach1 2 3 4

Air Temp. (°C) 14.3 15.0 N/A 14.2Water Temp. (°C) 12.3 13.4 N/A 15.7

27

pH 6.7 6.4 N/A 6.0Dissolved Oxygen (%/ppm) 88.7 / 9.53 72.1 / 7.5 N/A 67.5 / 6.6Specific Conductivity (mΩcm) 0.0275 0.0342 N/A 0.033

Table 11. Water quality measurements mean values obtained in reach #1-3 of Maple Cove creek using the Hanna multiparameter.

While reach #1 had the lowest abundance and density of invertebrates, it had the highest diversity assessment and pollution tolerance index. Streams with good habitat and water quality have high diversity (many taxa). Low diversity (very few taxa) in a stream may suggest water quality or habitat problems. Mayflies nymphs followed by stoneflies were the predominant taxa in reach #1 (Table 25) (Figure 28b). Five mayfly taxa were identified, of which Acentrella nadineae was the most abundant. This species is differentiated by its pronounced abdominal gills and has 2 tails unlike most other mayflies, which have 3 tails (Figure 28a).

Reach #2 had the highest abundance and density of invertebrates. Mayflies nymphs were dominant followed by caddisfly larvae. We took an invertebrate sample under the road bridge at 1600m, just downstream of the swampy stretch to Bridie lake (reach #5) (Figure 20d). This site was dominated at 64% by net-spinning caddisfly larva of the Hydropsychidae family. Instead of living in cases like other caddisflies (Figure 28d), they construct silk net dwellings known as "retreats", which are fixed to the sides of rocks and crevices (Figure 28c). This site which was bordered by swampy and silted habitat had the lowest EPT index, lowest diversity assessment and accordingly, lowest overall site assessment rating (Table 12/13). Detailed identification data of invertebrate abundance and diversity appears in Appendix II: (Table 26).

Invertebrate Survey/Habitat Quality Assessment SH-75m SH-1000m SH-1600m

Date 17/05/15 24/05/15 19/05/15

Abundance and Density 385.19 533.33 440.74

Predominant Taxon Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph Caddisfly Larvae


21 18 18

EPT Index (>8 good, 5-8 acceptable, 2-5 marginal, 0-1 poor) 11 11 4

EPT to Total Ratio(0.75-1.0 good, 0.5-0.75 acceptable, 0.25-0.5 marginal, <0.25 poor)

0.82 0.85 0.79

Diversity Assessment (Total # of taxa) 20 17 14Predominant Taxon Ratio(<0.4 good, 0.4-0.6 acceptable, 0.6-0.8 marginal, >0.8 poor)

0.46 0.46 0.64


3.50 3.50 2.75

Table 12. Stream health and water quality assessment obtained following the identification of stream invertebrate indicator species from samples taken at 75m, 1000m and 1600m in Shoal creek.

Index / Ratio SH-75 SH-1000 SH-1600

Pollution Tolerance Index 3 3 3EPT Index 4 4 2EPT to Total Ratio 4 4 4Predominant Taxon Ratio 3 3 2Total 14 12 11


28May-June, 2015

Average (/4) 3.50 3.50 2.75Table 13. General site assessment rating of stream health. (4.00: good, 3.00: acceptable; 2.00: marginal, 1.00: poor).

3.5 Salmonid Survey

The fry in this system disperse throughout the accessible areas, moving from the spawning beds into the adjacent rearing zones and filling the available habitat uniformly. There are side channels and flood channels in reaches #1-3 that can trap fry in the drying pools. There was higher concentration of fry at end of the first reach likely due to the superior spawning habitat and tendency for any fry migration to be downstream. The highest concentration of coho was viewed between 580-700m with 45 fry observed over 2 days in shallow gravel patches. The visibility was optimal and we were able to confirm identification of coho by distinguishing their double parr mark feature. The fourth reach had the lowest fry concentration due to the silting in this reach, which limits spawning habitat.

We set Gee fry traps in the swampy tributaries that were accessible from the logging roads. The tributaries are located approximately 200m upstream of Bridie Lake. We caught a high number of sticklebacks in these swamps at the height of their breeding season. Two females were notably gravid (Figure 29b/c). We also set 1 trap under the road bridge at 1600m just before the swampy channel to Bridie Lake and 2 more a few meters downstream (Figure 29a). We caught 18 coho, 7 cutthroat and 1 stickleback. And so while reach #4 offers poor spawning habitat, it has excellent rearing habitat.

Reach #

# Survey Days

Survey Method Species Total

1 1 Visual CH 331 1 Fry Trap CH 51 1 Fry Trap CT 32 2 Visual CH 492 3 Visual CT 54 1 Fry Trap CH 184 3 Visual CH 274 1 Fry Trap CT 84 2 Fry Trap SB 15 1 Fry Trap CT 15 1 Fry Trap SB, CT 45

Table 14. Total number of fry observed through visual surveys and captured with fry traps in reaches 1-4 of Shoal creek from May 19th-24, 2015. (CH: coho; CT: cutthroat; SB: stickleback).

4. Recommendations

Shoal creek is presently in good condition. There are still numerous logjams throughout the stream but none block the migration of fish. Some larger logs that have fallen instream and lying flat on the streambed could be chainsawed to facilitate fish passage provided they are not adding structural benefits (Figure 30a). The 1445m logjam in reach #4 is the most significant in this stream. SWD build-up should be cleaned to improve water flow and ease of fish migration.

29

It might be beneficial to add gravel in reach #4 just downstream from the 1600m bridge. This would cut down the travelling distance of coho migrating down from Bridie Lake to spawn. There is little spawning habitat in this reach and silting throughout, which obscures most of the spawning gravel (Figure 30b). Consequently, coho must likely travel down to lower reaches to spawn. Adding gravel would decrease their travelling energy expenditure and lower their exposure to predators.

Lastly, we highly recommend that the first reach of this system not be surveyed during high wind conditions. A poor riparian buffer zone on the right bank of reach #1 increases the risk of trees falling along the trail and into the stream when winds are strong. Trees in the riparian zone are dry and already quite shaky. The 2011 windfall at the 600m-mark was a direct consequence of a poor riparian buffer zone and high winds. Many small trees have fallen across the stream and trail in the past year. However these have not created new barriers to fish (Figure 30c).

5. Data Comparison: 1994/2009/2015

5.1 Maple Cove: 2009 vs. 2015

As previously mentioned, the Don Wilson Silverking Venture watershed assessment (1994/95) surveyed Shoal creek but not Maple Cove while the 2009 spring/summer habitat quality assessments surveyed the first reach of both systems.

Cross-sectional measurements of reach #1 for Maple Cove were comparable (Table 15). The flow rate and discharge was higher in 2015. We surveyed this reach from May 1-3rd following a week of steady rainfall. The 2009 crew surveyed the system on May 10th. As reflected in measurements taken in reach #2/3, the sun came out and water levels/velocity decreased quickly during the rest of the survey period. The amount of LWD was higher in 2015, which is to be expected as woody debris is deposited into the system over time. pH values were comparable in 2009 and 2015, but the water temperature and specific conductivity was higher in 2015.

The site assessment ratings based on invertebrate samples collected were the same in 2009 and 2015 (3.50). The abundance/density of invertebrates and pollution tolerance index was higher in 2015 while the diversity assessments were higher in 2009. The dominant taxa were mayfly nymphs in both years (Table 16).

5.2 Shoal Creek – 1994/95, 2009, 2015

Results from 1994/95, 2009 and 2015 for reach #1 and 2 were generally comparable. As expected, the abundance of LWD was higher in 2015. Don Wilson recorded a higher proportion of gravel/pebble substrate in reach #2. (Table 15) However we definitely found that cobble was dominant over gravel, as did the 2009 crew. To put it in perspective, cobble is the size of a tennis ball to a basketball while gravel is the size of a ladybug to a tennis ball.


30May-June, 2015

The site assessment ratings based on invertebrate samples collected were was the same in 2009 and 2015 (Table 16). The abundance/density of invertebrates, EPT index and diversity assessment was higher in 2015 than 2009. In both years, the dominant taxa were mayfly nymphs.

* * *

As far as differences and comparisons between Maple Cove and Shoal creek are concerned, Maple Cove had a greater abundance of LWD. The pH was significantly more acidic in Maple cove and the water temperature of shoal creek was higher and dissolved oxygen lower than Maple Cove. Reasons for these differences are elaborated upon in the respective water quality sections of each stream.

Abiotic/Biotic DataMC-2009

Reach #1 (0-400m)

MC-2015 Reach #1

(0-400m)

SH-1994 Reach #1

(0-685m)

SH-2009 Reach #1

(0-600m)

SH-2015 Reach #1

(0-600m)

SH-1994 Reach #2

(685-1300m)

SH-2009 Reach #2

(600-1000m)

SH-2015 Reach #2

(600-1200m)Banfull Width (m) 8.3 9.94 10.0 10.2 11.3 10.0 8.4 9.3Wetted Width (m) 7.4 8.55 5.0 8.7 6.2 5.0 5.0 6.0Average Depth (m) 0.2 0.24 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20Flow Rate (m/s) 0.29 0.67 0.3 0.35 0.31 0.15 0.28 0.25Discharge (m3/s) 0.31 1.11 0.3 0.38 0.25 0.30 0.16 0.21LWD 41 72 N/A 20 29 N/A 19 33Fines/Sand % 15 20 10 1 8 20 15 20Gravel/Pebble % 58 41 20 18 13 60 10 28Cobble % 15 24 30 41 39 20 66 44Boulder/Bedrock % 13 15 40 41 40 0 9 2Water Temp. (°C) 6.8 7.49 N/A 8.5 12.3 N/A 9.0 13.0pH 5.5 5.12 N/A N/A 6.7 N/A 6.5 6.4Specific Conductivity 0.017 0.056 N/A 0.0247 0.0275 N/A 0.023 0.0342

Table 15. Comparison of longitudinal and cross-sectional data from surveys conducted in 1994/95, 2009 and 2015.

Water Quality Assessment MC-2009(Reach #1)

MC-2015(Reach #1)

SH-2009(Reach #1)

SH-2015(Reach #1)

Date 10/05/09 03/05/15 07/05/15 17/05/15

Abundance and Density 322.22 400.00 314.81 385.19Predominant Taxon Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph


17 24 24 21

EPT Index (>8 good, 5-8 acceptable, 2-5 marginal, 0-1 poor) 12 11 6 11

EPT to Total Ratio(0.75-1.0 good, 0.5-0.75 acceptable, 0.25-0.5 marginal, <0.25 poor)

0.51 0.74 0.65 0.82

Diversity Assessment (Total # of taxa) 22 19 14 20Predominant Taxon Ratio(<0.4 good, 0.4-0.6 acceptable, 0.6-0.8 marginal, >0.8 poor)

0.24 0.44 0.26 0.46


3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50

Table 16. Comparison of stream health and water quality assessment obtained from stream invertebrate samples taken from reach #1 of Shoal Harbour and Maple Cove creeks in May of 2009 and 2015.

31

6. Habitat Quality Rating – Longitudinal Survey

The Pacific Streamkeepers Federation habitat assessment methodology (module 2) makes it possible to rate the stream quality by assigning a score to habitat characteristics values obtained during the longitudinal survey. The scores for the nine characteristics described in the method section are weighted to reflect their significance to the biological productivity of the stream. Primary characteristics (1-3), related to streambed composition and instream cover (LWD/RCB), are ranked between 0 and 20 points. Secondary characteristics (4-6), related to channel structure and stability, are ranked between 0 and 15 points. Tertiary characteristics (7-9), related to streamside vegetation, are ranked between 0 and 10 points (Table 31).

*While this rating system gives a general idea of habitat quality, I find its overall objectivity and reliability somewhat debatable*. Please visit: http://www.pskf.ca/program/program.html for Pacific Streamkeepers modules and complete methodology.


32May-June, 2015

http://www.pskf.ca/program/program.html

Table 17. Pacific Streamkeepers Federation habitat assessment scoring system. (Instream cover score obtained with this equation: (Instream cover = #LWD + #RCB ÷ (length of reference site ÷ bank).

33

Characteristics MC #1 MC #2 MC #3 SH #1 SH #2 SH #3 SH #41. Streambed Material:(% boulder & cobble)

39% 46% 65% 79% 46% 80% 6%12(A) 14(A) 16.5(G) 18(G) 14.5(A) 18(G) 3(P)

2. % Embeddedness 25%13(A)

40%12(A)

85%3(A)

25%13(M)

20%14(M)

45%11(A)

75%5(P)

3. Instream Cover 1.910(A)

0.221(P)

0.291(P)

0.844(P)

0.673(P)

0.070(P)

0.623(P)

4. % Pool Habitat 14%1(P)

35%5(M)

20%2(P)

16%2(P)

30%2(P)

5%1(0)

20%2(P)

5. Off-channel habitat 22(P)

88(A)

88(A)

55(M)

00(P)

11(P)

11(P)

6. Bank stability(% eroded banks)

13%14(G)

30%11(G)

73%3(P)

12%15(G)

33%11(A)

45%9(A)

74%3(P)

7. Bank vegetation % 100%10(G)

100%10(G)

85%7(A)

100%10(G)

100%10(G)

80%6.5(A)

100%10(G)

8. Overhead canopy % 36%9(G)

54%10(G)

60%10(G)

70%10(G)

47%10(G)

75%10(G)

78%10(G)

9. Riparian zone:(# bankfull channels wide)

>210(G)

>210(G)

>210(G)

>210(G)

>210(G)

>210(G)

1-25(A)

TOTAL SCORE 83(A) 81(A) 60.5(A) 88(A) 74.5(A) 67.5(A) 42(M)

Table 18. Habitat quality rating of Maple Cove and Shoal creek reaches based on scoring system of Pacific Streamkeepers methodology. (First row=results; second in bold=score; G (good); A (acceptable); M (marginal); P (poor).


34May-June, 2015

Appendix I – Maple Cove Abiotic/Biotic Data 2015

3.1 Cross-Sectional Survey

Table 19. Raw Data and mean values obtained from cross-sectional surveys conducted at periodic increments along reach 1-3 of Maple Cove creek from May 1st-20, 2015

Section Surveyed (m)

Survey Location

(m)Date Reach

#Bankfull

Width (m)Wetted

Width (m)Average

Depth (m)Mean Flow Rate (m/s)

Discharge (m_/s) Turbidity

0-50 50 01/05/15 1 13.7 12.3 0.27 0.68 1.67 3350-100 100 01/05/15 1 9.2 7.5 0.29 1.13 1.96 6100-150 150 01/05/15 1 9.2 6.8 0.20 0.72 0.80 12

150-200 200 01/05/15 1 7.6 7.4 0.44 0.77 2.02 6

200-255 255 02/05/15 1 9.6 7.8 0.10 0.7 0.44 >10

255-300 300 02/05/15 1 8.6 7.2 0.17 0.3 0.30 35

300- 400 375 02/05/15 1 11.7 10.9 0.17 0.41 0.59 30

400-580 515 03/05/15 2 11.8 10.8 0.08 0.66 0.43 30

600-655 635 07/05/15 2 10.8 7.3 0.11 0.16 0.10 55

655-770 745 20/05/15 2 6.1 4.5 0.13 0.28 0.14 >13770-870 870 20/05/15 2 6.2 3.7 0.23 0.28 0.19 14870-1100 1100 20/05/15 2 7.2 4.5 0.10 0.53 0.19 N/A1100-1200 1200 20/05/15 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N/A1200-1360 1360 20/05/15 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N/A1360-1780 1500 21/05/15 3 4.8 3.15 0.14 0.25 0.09 >141780-1900 1780 21/05/15 3 8.1 4.9 0.32 0.57 0.71 15Mean Reach #1 0-400 May 1-3 1 9.94 8.55 0.24 0.67 1.11 20Mean Reach #2 400-1360 May 3-20 2 8.62 6.08 0.15 0.38 0.25 33Mean Reach #3 1360-1900 May 21 3 6.45 4.03 0.23 0.41 0.40 15

35

3.1 Longitudinal Survey

Survey Location (m)

Instream Cover # Overhead canopy

(%)

Pool Habitat (%)

Eroded Bank

length (m)

Substrate % Embeded-ness (%)

Turbidity (cm)

Side Channels

LWD RCB Fines/Sand

Gravel/Pebble Cobble Boulder/

Bedrock50 7 0 10 6 18 10 40 20 30 25 33 1100 6 0 65 1 0 5 40 20 35 25 6 0

150 9 3 35 3 9 10 45 30 15 30 12 0

200 17 2 50 40 5 25 40 30 5 40 6 0

255 13 2 50 15 2 15 60 20 5 30 10 0300 5 0 30 5 8 30 35 30 5 15 35 0375 15 1 10 25 10 45 30 15 10 10 30 1

515 9 0 20 20 40 45 20 30 5 20 30 1635 7 0 40 35 45 40 50 5 5 20 55 1

870 7 2 40 5 75 20 20 30 30 60 10 1

1100 7 3 70 55 23 15 10 30 45 60 14 3

1200 13 3 75 25 80 40 20 20 20 n/a n/a 1

1360 4 2 70 65 25 35 10 50 5 n/a n/a 0

1500 15 2 55 35 380 55 5 10 30 90 5 41780 7 0 65 5 15 5 5 20 70 80 75 1

Mean/Total #1 72 8 36 14 52 20 41 24 15 25 19 2Mean/Total #2 52 10 54 35 288 33 22 28 18 40 33 8Mean/Total #3 22 2 60 20 395 30 5 15 50 85 55 5

Table 20. Raw Data, mean values and total values obtained from longitudinal surveys conducted at regular survey intervals along reach 1-3 of Maple Cove creek from May 1st-20, 2015


36May-June, 2015

3.4 Water Quality Survey

Table 21. Raw Data and mean values obtained from water quality measurements taken with the Hanna 9829 multiparameter along reach 1-3 of Maple Cove creek from May 1st-20, 2015.

Pollution Tolerance Common NamesMC-210 MC-635

# Counted # of Taxa #

Counted # of Taxa

Category 1 -Pollution Intolerant

Caddisfly Larva (EPT) 3 2 10 4Mayfly Nymph (EPT) 47 5 32 6Stonefly Nymph (EPT) 30 4 16 4

Subtotal 80 11 58 14

Category 2 -Semi Tolerant

Aquatic Beetle 1 1 0 0Cranefly Larva 1 1 0 0Dragonfly Larva 1 1 1 1Fishfly Larva 1 1 0 0

Subtotal 4 4 1 1

Survey Location (m) Date

Air Temp (0C)

Water Temp (0C) pH mvpH

Dissolved Oxygen Specific Conductivity

mΩcm(%) ppm

50 01/05/15 8.5 7.40 5.10 106.2 97.8 11.75 0.0500100 01/05/15 8.5 7.60 5.10 101.7 97.3 11.64 0.0530

200 03/05/15 10.5 7.88 5.31 91.7 108.3 12.88 0.0625

300 02/05/15 8.5 7.09 5.16 98.8 102.5 12.51 0.0590

515 03/05/15 10.5 8.46 5.18 98.9 98.2 11.48 0.0595

635 07/05/15 13.5 9.29 5.19 101.6 96.1 11.08 0.0625

745 20/05/15 14.0 11.10 5.62 74.8 92.8 10.15 0.0667

1100 20/05/15 13.5 11.37 5.18 99.00 88.3 9.64 0.0667

1500 21/05/15 13.5 11.11 5.2 97.8 82.3 9.00 0.0667

1780 21/05/15 13.0 11.09 5.07 104.5 91.7 10.01 0.0667Mean Reach #1 9.00 7.49 5.17 99.60 101.5 12.20 0.0561Mean Reach #2 12.88 10.06 5.29 93.58 93.85 10.59 0.0639Mean Reach #3 13.25 11.10 5.14 101.15 87.0 9.51 0.0667

37

Category 3 - Aquatic Worm 6 1 9 1Pollution Tolerant Blackfly Larva 14 1 3 1

Midge Larvae (chriromonid) 4 2 8 1Subtotal 24 4 20 3Total 108 19 79 18

Table 21. Abundance and diversity of stream invertebrates samples taken at triplicate subsites from 2 survey locations along Maple Cove creek.

3.5 Salmonid Survey

Location (m) Reach # Date Count Method of Capture Species Fork Length

(mm)Coordinates

N W200 1 01/05/15 1 Visual CH 35 50o 41' 186" 126o 27' 472"200 1 03/05/15 4 Visual CT 30-40 50o 41' 188" 126o 27' 475"210 1 03/05/15 1 Dip net CH 32 50o 41' 188" 126o 27' 475"250 1 02/05/15 1 Dip net CT 38 50o 41' 202" 126o 27' 428"250 1 02/05/15 9 Visual CH/CT 30-45 50o 41' 202" 126o 27' 428"250-279 1 03/05/15 6 Visual CH/CT 35-45 50o 41' 202" 126o 27' 428"270 1 02/05/15 16 Visual CT 30-45 50o 41' 213" 126o 27' 413"270 1 02/05/15 1 Dip net CT 36 50o 41' 213" 126o 27' 413"280-295 1 03/05/15 3 Visual CH/CT 35-42 50o 41' 213" 126o 27' 413"345 1 02/05/15 1 Visual CH/CT 40 50o 41' 218" 126o 27' 411"390 1 02/05/15 2 Visual CH/CT 35-40 50o 41' 224" 126o 27' 381"400 1 03/05/15 5 Visual CH/CT 35 50o 41' 224" 126o 27' 381"510 2 03/05/15 1 Visual CT 65 50o 41' 273" 126o 27' 310"520-600 2 03/05/15 7 Visual CH/CT 35-60 50o 41' 273" 126o 27' 310"600 2 07/05/15 1 Dip net CH 38 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"600 2 07/05/15 3 Visual CH* 30-45 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"610-634 2 07/05/15 8 Visual CH/CT n/a 50o 41' 374" 126o 27' 203"635-650 2 07/05/15 6 Visual CH/CT n/a 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"610-655 2 15//05/15 12 Visual CH/CT 30-50 50o 41' 374" 126o 27' 203"600-655 2 20/05/15 11 Visual CH/CT 40-55 50o 41' 320" 126o 27' 240"655-770 2 20/05/15 7 Visual CH/CT n/a 50o 41' 375" 126o 27' 131"870-1100 2 20/05/15 2 Visual CT n/a 50o 41' 447" 126o 27' 939"1360 3 21/05/15 6 Dip Net CT 120-205 50o 41' 480" 126o 26' 828"


38May-June, 2015

1900-1780 3 21/05/15 1 Visual CT 85 50o 41' 610" 126o 26' 572"50 1 01/05/15 0 Fry Trap n/a n/a 50o 41' 144" 126o 27' 589"200 1 02/05/15 2 Fry Trap CH 68, 34 50o 41' 185" 126o 27' 206"250 1 07/05/15 1 Fry Trap CT 115 50o 41' 188" 126o 27' 475"615 2 17/05/15 1 Fry Trap DV 69 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"640 2 17/05/15 4 Fry Trap CT 97, 140, 125, 115 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"620 2 21/05/15 1 Fry Trap CT 125 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"645 2 21/05/15 0 Fry Trap N/A n/a 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"Upper Bridge-1845 3 15/05/15 2 Fry Trap CT 68, 117 50o 41' 639" 126o 26' 472"Upper Bridge-1865 3 15/05/15 7 Fry Trap CT 62, 65, 76, 90 50o 41' 629" 126o 26' 505"

115, 120, 148Swamp Tributary 4 15/05/15 1 Fry Trap CT 115 50o 41' 770" 126o 26' 965"

Table 23. Fry count observed May 1st-21, 2015, through visual surveys and fry captured in dip nets and traps as well as associated species ID, fork length measurements and coordinate data of survey sites along reach 1-3 of Maple Cove creek. (CH: coho; CT: cutthroat; DV: dolly varden).

39

Appendix II – Shoal Harbour Abiotic/Biotic Data 2015

3.1 Cross-Sectional Survey

Section Surveyed (m)

Survey Location

(m)Date Reach

#Bankfull

Width (m)

Wetted Width

(m)

Average Depth

(m)Mean Flow Rate (m/s)

Discharge (m_/s) Turbidity

0-100 100 22/05/15 1 10.3 4.5 0.19 0.25 0.17 9100-200 170 22/05/15 1 12.1 4.5 0.17 0.26 0.16 8

200-300 300 22/05/15 1 14.3 5.8 0.28 0.26 0.16 22

300-400 400 22/05/15 1 6.7 5.2 0.13 0.44 0.24 N/A

400-500 500 22/05/15 1 12.2 8.6 0.13 n/a n/a 13

500-600 600 22/05/15 1 12.2 8.7 0.27 0.28 0.53 27

600-700 700 22/05/15 2 13.9 5.6 0.14 0.40 0.25 14

700-800 800 22/05/15 2 9.8 5.6 0.08 0.40 0.25 8

800-1000 1000 22/05/15 2 6.5 3.6 0.30 n/a n/a 17

1100-1000 1030 24/05/15 2 8.2 7.7 0.24 0.11 0.16 25

1200-1100 1135 24/05/15 2 8.2 7.7 0.24 0.11 0.16 25

1300-1200 1200 19/05/15 4 7.2 5.7 0.27 0.40 0.25 30

1390-1300 1300 19/05/15 4 5.8 3.2 0.04 0.40 0.25 30

1500-1390 1390 19/05/15 4 5.1 2.45 0.02 n/a n/a 30

1600-1500 1500 19/05/15 4 6.2 2.3 0.05 0.11 0.16 5

1000-Tributary 1000-1330 22/05/15 3 4.2 2.9 0.08 0.11 0.16 10

Mean Reach #1 0-600 May 22 1 11.3 6.2 0.19 0.31 0.25 13

Mean Reach #2 600-1200 May 22-24 2 9.3 6.0 0.20 0.25 0.21 22

Mean Reach #3 1000-1330 May 22 3 4.2 2.9 0.08 0.11 0.16 10Mean Reach #4 1200-1600 May 19 4 6.1 3.4 0.10 0.09 0.006 24


40May-June, 2015

Table 24. Raw Data and mean values obtained from cross-sectional surveys conducted at periodic increments along reach 1-4 of Shoal creek from May 19th-24, 2015.

3.1 Longitudinal Survey

Survey Location (m)

Instream Cover # Overhead

canopy (%)

Pool Habitat

(%)

Eroded bank

Length (m)

Substrate % Embeded-ness (%)

Turbidity (cm)

Side Channels

LWD RCB Fines/Sand

Gravel/Pebble Cobble Boulder/

Bedrock100 5 1 80 5 0 5 10 45 40 10 9 1170 4 4 70 10 0 5 10 40 45 25 8 1300 6 0 40 30 25 10 15 35 40 40 22 1400 7 5 75 0 10 0 10 40 50 40 n/a 1500 4 2 85 10 30 5 15 40 40 20 13 1600 3 0 70 40 5 25 20 35 25 20 27 0700 7 1 10 50 25 35 25 40 0 20 14 0800 5 1 50 45 35 25 20 55 0 20 8 0

1000 11 2 70 25 35 10 30 55 5 10 17 01030 5 3 60 15 50 10 35 50 5 20 25 01135 5 3 45 15 50 25 35 45 0 30 25 01200 12 5 65 10 90 65 25 5 5 75 30 11300 18 5 75 35 55 85 5 0 5 70 30 01390 13 5 85 10 90 90 5 0 5 80 30 01500 16 4 85 25 60 80 17 3 0 75 5 0

41

1000-Tributary 7 1 75 5 150 10 10 70 10 45 10 1Mean/Total #1 29 12 70 16 70 8 13 39 40 25 15.8 5Mean/Total #2 33 10 47 30 195 20 28 44 2 20 17.8 0Mean/Total #3 7 1 75 5 150 10 10 70 10 45 10 1Mean/Total #4 59 14 78 20 290 80 13 2 4 75 23.8 1

Table 25. Raw Data, mean values and total values obtained from longitudinal surveys conducted at regular survey intervals along reach 1-4 of Shoal creek from May 19th-24, 2015.

3.4 Water Quality Survey

Table 24. Raw Data and mean values obtained from water quality measurements taken with the Hanna 9829 multiparameter along reach 1-4 of Shoal creek from May 19th-24, 2015.

Pollution Tolerance Common Names

SH-75m SH-1000m SH-1600m# # of # # of Taxa # # of Taxa

Survey Location (m) Date Air Temp

(0C)Water Temp

(0C)pH mVoH

Dissolved Oxygen Specific Conductivity

mΩcm(%) ppm

100 22/05/15 14 11.90 6.8 8.2 94.6 10.26 0.024200 22/05/15 14.5 12.40 6.7 16.5 91.4 9.79 0.026600 22/05/15 14.5 12.73 6.6 20.4 80.2 8.53 0.03231000 22/05/15 15 12.84 6.63 n/a 76.0 7.84 0.03561135 24/05/15 15 13.67 6.25 38.9 70.2 7.35 0.03341200 19/05/15 14.5 15.46 5.94 59.3 73.1 7.28 0.03331300 19/05/15 14 15.46 6.05 52.1 56.6 5.43 0.03231500 19/05/15 14 16.06 5.89 59.8 72.9 7.20 0.0333Mean Reach #1 14.3 12.3 6.7 15.0 88.7 9.53 0.0275Mean Reach #2 15.0 13.4 6.4 84.3 72.1 7.50 0.0342Mean Reach #3 14.2 15.7 6.0 57.1 67.5 6.6 0.0330


42May-June, 2015

Counted Taxa Counted Counted

Category 1 -Pollution Intolerant

Caddisfly Larva (EPT) 4 2 44 5 76 1Mayfly Nymph (EPT) 48 5 66 4 12 2Stonefly Nymph (EPT) 33 4 13 2 6 1

Subtotal 85 11 123 11 94 4

Category 2 -Semi Tolerant

Aquatic Beetle 1 1 0 0 0 0Cranefly Larva 1 1 1 1 0 0Dragonfly Larva 0 0 1 1 1 1Water Flea (Cladoceran) 1 1 3 1 10 1

Subtotal 3 3 5 3 11 2Category 3 - Aquatic Worm 7 2 3 1 2 1Pollution Tolerant Blackfly Larva 4 1 12 1 4 1

Midge Larvae (chriromonid) 3 1 1 1 1 1True Bug Adult 1 1 0 0 1 1Water Mite 1 1 0 0 5 3

Subtotal 16 6 16 3 13 7Unidentified 0 0 0 0 1 1Total 104 20 144 16 119 14

Table 26. Abundance and diversity of stream invertebrates samples taken at triplicate subsites from 3 survey locations along Shoal Harbour creek.

3.5 Salmonid Survey

Location (m) Reach # Date Method of

Capture Count Species Fork Length (mm) Coordinates

N W0-100 1 22/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o 43' 777" 126o 28' 835"100-200 1 22/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o 43' 783" 126o 28' 765"290-300 1 22/05/15 Visual 7 CH 30-50 50o 43' 726" 126o 28' 714"300-400 1 22/05/15 Visual 1 CH 40 50o 43' 691" 126o 28' 662"400-500 1 22/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o 43' 662" 126o 28' 658"580-600 1 22/05/15 Visual 25 CH 35-60 50o 43' 584" 126o 28' 608"690 2 22/05/15 Visual 17 CH 20-35 50o 43' 525" 126o 28' 558"600-700 2 22/05/15 Visual 19 CH 45-55 50o 43' 525" 126o 28' 558"700 2 22/05/15 Visual 1 CT 95 50o 43' 525" 126o 28' 558"700-800 2 19/05/15 Visual 4 CH 30-55 50o 43' 493" 126o 28' 568"800-1000 2 19/05/15 Visual 2 CH 30-55 50o 43' 402" 126o 28' 471"

43

1000-Tributary 3 22/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o 43' 410" 126o 28' 403"1000-1100 2 24/05/15 Visual 4 CT 75 50o 43' 369" 126o 28' 479"1100-1200 2 24/05/15 Visual 7 CH 30-55 50o 43' 354" 126o 28' 353"1200-1300 4 19/05/15 Visual 2 CH 35 50o 43' 353" 126o 28' 359"1300-1500 4 19/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o 43' 283" 126o 28' 245"1500-1600 4 19/05/15 Visual 13 CH 30-55 50o 43' 246" 126o 28' 187"1500-1600 4 20/05/15 Visual 8 CH 30-55 50o 43' 246" 126o 28' 187"1500-1600 4 24/05/15 Visual 6 CH 30-55 50o 43' 246" 126o 28' 187"300 1 24/05/15 Fry Trap 3 CT 105, 125, 139 50o 43' 726" 126o 28' 714"600 1 21/05/15 Fry Trap 5 CH 45, 50, 55, 45, 44 50o 43' 584" 126o 28' 608"685 2 20/05/15 Fry Trap 0 N/A N/A 50o 43' 525" 126o 28' 558"725 2 20/05/15 Fry Trap 0 N/A N/A 50o 43' 492" 126o 28' 580"Swamp Tributary 5 17/05/15 Fry Trap 20 SB 55-75 50o 42' 744" 126o 27' 673"Swamp Tributary 5 17/05/15 Fry Trap 1 CT 118 50o 42' 744" 126o 27' 673"Swamp Tributary 5 17/05/15 Fry Trap 25 SB 45-77 50o 42' 744" 126o 27 '673"Under Bridge-1600 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 5 CH 58, 52, 65, 75, 115 50o 43' 201" 126o 28' 137"Under Bridge-1600 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 2 CT 113, 112 50o 43' 201" 126o 28' 137"Under Bridge-1585 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 7 CH 39, 65, 59, 60, 75, 52, 85 50o 43' 201" 126o 28' 137"Under Bridge-1585 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 1 SB 65 50o 43' 201" 126o 28' 137"Under Bridge-1575 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 6 CH 45. 49, 55, 92 44, 58 50o 43' 201" 126o 28' 137"Under Bridge-1575 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 2 CT 100, 80 50o 43' 201" 126o 28' 137"

Table 27. Fry count observed May 19th-24, 2015, through visual surveys and fry captured in dip nets and traps as well as associated species ID, fork length measurements and coordinate data of survey sites along reach 1-4 Shoal creek. (CH: coho; CT: cutthroat; SB: stickleback.


44May-June, 2015

Documents

MESSS 2015 Final Report_no pics_in