Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat...

Reconnaissance (1:20,000)Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory

of the

Blue River, Whitewater Creek (east side), Peddie Creek,Foam Creek, and Shannon Creek Watersheds

(Clearwater District, Vavenby Unit)

Prepared for:

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd.P.O. Box 130Vavenby, BC

V0E 3A0

Prepared by:

1326 McGill RoadKamloops, BC

V2C 6N6

Approved by:

HARRY GOLDBERG, R.P.BIO.

MAY, 2000

ARC Environmental Ltd. FRBC Project No.: TOM-98-110FRBC Activity No.: 10513b

Page i

PROJECT REFERENCE INFORMATION

FRBC Project Number TOM-98-110FRBC Activity Number 10513bFDIS Project Number 03-LNTH-500000001-1999FRBC Region Thompson Okanagan RegionMELP Region Southern Interior RegionFW Management Unit 3-40, 3-41, 3-44DFO Sub-District 29J ClearwaterForest Region Kamloops Forest RegionForest District Clearwater Forest DistrictForest Licensee Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd.First Nations Claim Area North Thompson Indian Band

WATERSHED INFORMATION

Watershed Group LNTH Group

Watershed Names Phases IV-VI Completed in 1999/2000Blue RiverWhitewater Creek (east side)Peddie CreekFoam CreekShannon Creek

Watershed Codes 129-696400 Blue River129-730500 Whitewater Creek129-679300 Peddie Creek129-642600 Foam Creek129-581100 Shannon Creek

UTM at Mouth 11. 5775088. 343910 Blue River11. 5783762. 346790 Whitewater Creek11. 5770211. 341116 Peddie Creek11. 5758430. 338645 Foam Creek11. 5739520. 340136 Shannon Creek

Watershed Area Blue River 118.1 km2

Whitewater Creek 37.6 km2

Peddie Creek 46.0 km2

Foam Creek 38.1 km2

Shannon Creek 64.9 km2


Page ii

Total of all Stream Lengths 627.5 km

Stream Order undetermined Blue River2nd Order Whitewater Creek2nd Order Peddie Creek4th Order Foam Creek4th Order Shannon Creek

NTS Maps 82M/11, 82M/14, 83D/3, 83D/4

TRIM Maps 82M.074, 82M.084, 82M.094;83D.003, 83D.004, 83D.013, 83D.014, 83D.015

BEC Zones Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF)Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH)

Air PhotosBlue River 30BCC97078 79 - 81

30BCC97077 37 - 4230BCC97077 122 - 12830BCC97077 189 - 193

Whitewater 30BCC97078 135 - 137Peddie 30BCC97077 30 - 33

" 129 - 131Foam 30BCC97080 175 - 180

30BCC97082 22 - 27Shannon 30BCC97075 211 - 217


Page iii

SAMPLING DESIGN SUMMARY

Phase I – III(Proposed -1998/1999)

Phase IV – VI(Proposed –1999/2000)

Phase IV – VICompleted –1999/2000)

Remaining

Total Number ofStream Reaches1

6342 - 477 161

Total Number ofLake Reaches

46 37 37 9

Random StreamReach Sampling Sites

66 51 493 15

Biased Stream ReachSample Sites

24 16 18 8

Lake Reach SampleSites

0 0 0 0

Total Stream ReachSample Sites

90 67 67 23

Field Sampling Dates n/a 1999/2000 1999/09/16-1999/09/24

to bedetermined

1 Phase I-III (1998/1999) was completed on Blue River, Whitewater Creek (east and west side),Cook Creek, Cedar Creek, Peddie Creek, Berry Creek, Foam Creek, and Shannon Creekwatersheds; Phase IV-VI (1999/2000) was completed on Blue River, Whitewater Creek (eastside), Peddie Creek, Foam Creek, and Shannon Creek watersheds only.

2 The FDIS database contains 638 reaches; four reaches have been added to the database since thePhase I-III report:

One reach was missed during Phase I-III, and was subsequently added in Phase IV-VI: ILP Map 82M.074 ILP 79 Reach 1

Three reaches in the 1999/2000 project area were subdivided into reach sections on maps and inReach Table based on Contract Monitor’s review and on field observations:ILP Map 82M.094 ILP 56 Reach 2 subdivided into Reaches 2.1 and 2.2ILP Map 82M.074 ILP 13 Reach 1 subdivided into Reaches 1.1 and 1.2ILP Map 83D.004 ILP 2 Reach 1 subdivided into Reaches 1.1 and 1.2

As a result, the total number of stream reaches in the study area (completed + remaining) equals638.

3 Two random sample sites in the 1999/2000 study area were inaccessible and they were replacedby similar biased sites.


Page iv

CONTRACTOR INFORMATION

Project Manager: Name: Zsolt Sary, M.Sc., R.P.Bio., ARC Environmental Ltd.Address: 1326 McGill Road, Kamloops, BC, V2C 6N6Phone: (250) 851-0023

Field crew: Names: Z. Sary, L. Paquin, J. Lutton, K. Eustache, D. Eustache, C.Donald

Data Entry by: Name: C. Donald

Report prepared by: Name: Z. Sary

Report reviewed andedited by: Names: W.O. Rublee, R.P. Bio., H. Goldberg, R.P. Bio.

GIS services: Company: Integrated Wood Services Ltd.Tech: W. KuzioAddress: 402 – 1450 Pearson Pl., Kamloops, BC, V1S 1J9Phone: (250) 828-7977

Aging sampleAnalysis by: Name: Hamaguchi Fish Aging Services

Address: 241 Chancellor Dr., Kamloops, BC, V2E 2M1Phone: (250) 374-6754


Page v

DISCLAIMER

This product has been accepted as being in accordance with approved standards within the

limits of Ministry quality assurance procedures. Users are cautioned that interpreted

information on this product developed for the purposes of the Forest Practices Code Act

and Regulations, for example stream classifications, is subject to review by a statutory

decision-maker for the purposes of determining whether or not to approve an operational

plan.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this inventory was provided by Forest Renewal British Columbia through

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. In addition, acknowledgements are extended to Integrated

Woods Services Ltd. (IWS) for GIS support, and Hamaguchi Fish Aging Services for the

aging of scale samples.


Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PROJECT REFERENCE INFORMATION................................ ................................ .......................... i

WATERSHED INFORMATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... i

SAMPLING DESIGN SUMMARY................................ ................................ ................................ ...... iii

CONTRACTOR INFORMATION................................ ................................ ................................ ........iv

DISCLAIMER................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... v

LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ xi

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (AVAILABLE AT MoELP OFFICE)................................ ..................... xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE/OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................11.2 LOCATION...............................................................................................................................3

1.2.1 Access ................................................................................................................................5

2.0 RESOURCE INFORMATION................................ ................................ ................................ ....6

3.0 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 14

3.1 PHASE I: EXISTING DATA REVIEW ...................................................................................143.2 PHASE II: MAP AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ANALYSIS .................................................163.3 PHASE III: SAMPLING DESIGN AND PROJECT PLAN ......................................................173.4 PHASE IV: FIELD DATA COLLECTION ..............................................................................18

3.4.1 Fish Sampling ..................................................................................................................193.4.2 Habitat Description..........................................................................................................213.4.3 Water Quality...................................................................................................................223.4.4 Wildlife Observations .......................................................................................................223.4.5 Photographic Documentation...........................................................................................22

3.5 PHASE V: DATA COMPILATION.........................................................................................223.6 PHASE VI: REPORT PREPARATION AND MAPPING ........................................................22

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .25

4.1 LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................254.2 HABITAT AND FISH DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................................284.3 FISH AGE, SIZE AND LIFE HISTORY ............................................................................................384.4 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND FISHERIES OBSERVATIONS..............................................................47


Page vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

4.4.1 Fish and Fish Habitat.......................................................................................................474.4.2 Habitat Protection Concerns ............................................................................................48

4.4.2.1 Fisheries Sensitive Zones..........................................................................................................484.4.2.2 Fish Above 20% Gradients........................................................................................................484.4.2.3 Restoration and Rehabilitation Opportunities.............................................................................48

4.5 FISH BEARING STATUS .............................................................................................................484.5.1 Fish Bearing Reaches.......................................................................................................494.5.2 Non-Fish Bearing Reaches ...............................................................................................504.5.3 Follow-Up Sampling Requirements ..................................................................................51

REFERENCES................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......56


Page viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Field sampling equipment list......................................................................... 20

Table 2. Summary of sampling sites completed in the 1999/2000 fieldseason for the Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 -24, 1999................................................................................................. 26

Table 3. Habitat data summary of sampling sites completed in the1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24,1999....................................................................................................... 29

Table 4. Summary of historic and new barriers to fish migration found inthe Vavenby Unit study area................................................................... 35

Table 5. Fish sampling summary for the 1999/2000 Vavenby Unit studyarea, September 16 - 24, 1999.. .............................................................. 39

Table 6. Summary of length-at-age data from coho salmon and rainbowtrout sampled in the 1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area,September 16 - 24, 1999. ....................................................................... 42

Table 7. Summary of data from surveyed fish bearing reaches in the1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24,1999....................................................................................................... 50

Table 8. Summary of data from surveyed non-fish bearing reaches in the1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24,1999....................................................................................................... 52


Page ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Overview Map - Vavenby Unit FFHIP 1999/2000 study area........................... 4

Figure 2. Blue River: Mean, maximum and minimum daily discharges forthe period of record 1926 to 1996 (exclusive) (Station No.08LB038)................................................................................................. 9

Figure 3. Vavenby Unit study area – Shannon Creek watershed: Upstreamview of typical coho habitat with ‘large channel’morphology (1% gradient, fine-silt substrate), and abundantcover (overhanging and instream vegetation). Site 51, ILPMap 82M.074, ILP 13, Reach 1, September 22, 1999............................. 32

Figure 4. Vavenby Unit study area – Peddie Creek Watershed: Upstreamview of typical rainbow trout habitat with riffle-poolmorphology, 6% gradient, cobble-boulder substrate, andmoderate amount of cover (boulders, overhangingvegetation, and deep pools). Site 28, ILP Map 83D.004,ILP 5, Reach 1, September 24, 1999. ..................................................... 32

Figure 5. Vavenby Unit study area – Blue River watershed: Coho salmon(Onchorhynchus kisutch) captured. Site 8, ILP Map83D.014, ILP 98, Reach 1, September 21, 1999. .................................... 34

Figure 6. Vavenby Unit study area – Shannon Creek watershed: Three ageclasses of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) captured.Site 54, ILP Map 82M.074, ILP 27, Reach 1, September21, 1999................................................................................................. 34

Figure 7. Vavenby Unit study area – Foam Creek watershed: Upstreamview of fish barrier (the first in a series of cascades) at 53mupstream from the start of the reach. Site 36, Reach 2 ofFoam Creek, ILP Map 82M.094, ILP 56, September 21,1999....................................................................................................... 37

Figure 8. Vavenby Unit study area – Shannon Creek watershed:Downstream view of a 1m high corduroy log bridge whichis blocking the stream; in this reach, fish were found onlyupstream of this feature. Site 58, ILP Map 82M.074, ILP48, Reach 1, September 17, 1999. .......................................................... 37

Figure 9. Length-frequency histogram of sampled coho salmon(Onchorhynchus kisutch) from the Vavenby Unit studyarea, September 16 - 24, 1999. n = 58.................................................... 43


Page x

LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure 10. Length-at-age of coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch)captured in the Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 -24, 1999 (mean length in brackets)......................................................... 44

Figure 11. Length-frequency histogram of sampled rainbow trout(Onchorhynchus mykiss) from the Vavenby Unit study area,September 16 - 24, 1999.n = 59.............................................................. 45

Figure 12. Length at age of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss)captured in the Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 -24, 1999 (mean length in brackets)......................................................... 46


Page xi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I. Field Data Information System (FDIS) Printouts

Appendix II. Vavenby Unit Project and Interpretive Maps

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (AVAILABLE AT MoELP OFFICE)

Attachment I. Project Plan (including original interim maps)

Attachment II. Photographs and Field Notes

Attachment III. Fish Aging Structures

Attachment IV. Negatives, Photo Summary Report, Photo CD ROM

Attachment V. Digital Data

ARC Environmental Ltd. FRBC Project No.: T0M-98-110FRBC Activity No.: 10513b

Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE/OBJECTIVES

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd., in partnership with the North Thompson Indian Band,

retained ARC Environmental Ltd. to conduct a Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish

Habitat Inventory Program (FFHIP). This inventory was conducted in order to describe

watershed-wide fish distribution and habitat characteristics for all basins within the

Vavenby Unit project area. Funding was provided by Forest Renewal British Columbia

(FRBC). The project also included sampling protocols to satisfy stream classification

requirements to describe fish presence in specific stream reaches potentially affected by

planned forest harvesting activities for input to Silviculture Prescription and Road Layout

and Design under the Forest Practices Code (FPC 1998).

ARC Environmental Ltd. completed Phases I through III of the FFHIP in 1998/1999 on

all watersheds within the Vavenby Unit project area which included the Blue River,

Whitewater Creek (east and west sides), Cook Creek, Cedar Creek, Peddie Creek, Berry

Creek, Foam Creek, and Shannon Creek watersheds. A total of 90 sites were selected in

Phase III (66 random and 24 biased) to be sampled in the project area: 25 sites in the Blue

River watershed (20 random and 5 biased), 15 sites in the Foam Creek watershed (12

random and 3 biased), 6 sites in the Peddie Creek watershed (4 random and 2 biased), 19

sites in the Foam Creek watershed (14 random and 5 biased), 8 sites in the Whitewater

Creek watershed (both east and west sides) (6 random and 2 biased), 1 site in the Cook

Creek watershed (biased), 5 sites in the Cedar Creek watershed (2 random and 3 biased),

and 11 sites in the Berry Creek watershed (8 random and 3 biased).

However, it was decided through consultation that the 1999/2000 Phase IV-VI

components would concentrate only on the Blue River, Whitewater Creek (east side only),

Peddie Creek, Foam Creek, and Shannon Creek watersheds, where all 67 sites (51 random


Page 2

and 16 biased) originally selected in Phase III for these watersheds would be completed.

The original 51 random sites and 16 biased sites were finalized through discussions with

the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (D. Tesch, Contract Monitor), and

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. (Kevin Bonnett, Planning Forester, and Scott Lindeburgh,

Vavenby FRBC Coordinator for Weyerhaeuser Canada).

Cedar Creek, Cook Creek and Berry Creek watersheds, as well as the west side of the

Whitewater Creek watershed, were not part of the 1999/2000 study area.

Within the 1999/2000 Phase IV-VI Vavenby Unit study area, a total of 67 sites were

completed. These included 49 random sites and 18 biased sites. Two random sites, out of

51 originally proposed for the 1999/2000 study area, were not accessible and were

replaced with two similar biased sites. The total number of biased sites completed in the

1999/2000 field season was, therefore, 18 instead of the 16 originally proposed.

The 1999/2000 study area addressed only a portion of the Vavenby Unit project area,

where sampling in the Blue River, Whitewater Creek (east side only), Peddie Creek, Foam

Creek, and Shannon Creek watersheds has been completed. The completion of the

remaining 23 sites [in the Cedar Creek, Cook Creek, Berry Creek, and Whitewater Creek

(west side) watersheds] in subsequent years, will ultimately meet the following objectives

of the Reconnaissance Inventory for the entire project area:

i) Provide the essential fish and fish habitat information required for resource

planning and/or decision making that might affect fisheries resources,

ii) Describe watershed-wide fish distributions and habitat characteristics, and

iii) Provide information to meet British Columbia Forest Practices Code (FPC) stream

classification requirements at sites sampled within the study area. This involves the

establishment of stream classifications recommended by contractors, which are

then vetted by appropriate agency staff. The Forest District Manager ultimately

approves stream classifications.


Page 3

1.2 LOCATION

The Vavenby Unit study area [Blue River, Whitewater Creek (east and west sides), Cook

Creek, Cedar Creek, Peddie Creek, Berry Creek, Foam Creek, and Shannon Creek

watersheds] encompasses an area of approximately 305 km2 and is within the Ministry of

Environment, Lands, and Parks (MoELP), Southern Interior Region (Region 3), the

Clearwater Forest District of the Kamloops Forest Region and the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans Clearwater Sub-district (Area 29J).

All the watersheds in the Vavenby Unit study area are second to fifth order tributaries of

the North Thompson River and flow east or west into the North Thompson River (Figure

1) which in turn drains into the Thompson River and then the Fraser River. Blue River has

a mainstem length (not including lakes) of approximately 27.9 km; Whitewater Creek has

a length of 6.4 km; Cook Creek 8.2 km; Cedar Creek 6.7 km; Peddie Creek 9.4 km; Berry

Creek 14.3 km; Foam Creek 8.2 km; and Shannon Creek 12.6 km [National Topographic

System (NTS) Maps: 82M/11, 82M/14, 83D/3, 83D/4; Terrain Resources Information

Management maps (TRIM) 82M.074, 82M.084, 82M.093, 82M.094, 83D.003, 83D.004,

83D.013, 83D.014, 83D.015, 83D.024].

The British Columbia Ministry of Forests (MoF) Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification

Maps (83D/SW Murtle Lake, 82M/NW Avola) reveal that the Vavenby Unit study area

lies within two biogeoclimatic zones: Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF), and the

Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH). The two biogeoclimatic zones are further divided into

four subzones: Wet cold Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir variant (ESSFwc2), Mica very

wet cool Interior Cedar-Hemlock variant (ICHvk1), Wells Gray


Page 5

wet cool Interior Cedar-Hemlock variant (ICHwk1), and Thompson moist warm Interior

Cedar-Hemlock variant (ICHmw3) (MoF 1989).

The headwater reaches of the watersheds [elevation (EL) range 1400-2170 m] originate in

the ESSFwc2 zone, flow through the ICHvk1 zone (EL range 800-1380 m) and the

ICHwk1 zone (EL range 700-1380 m). The lower reaches of the watersheds, at their

confluence with the North Thompson River (EL < 700m), are in the ICHmw3 zone.

1.2.1 Access

The Vavenby Unit study area is accessed from Kamloops, BC, by travelling 180 km north

on Highway 5 (Yellowhead Highway), to the village of Avola. Access into the watersheds

is provided by various Forest Service Roads (FSR), such as the Shannon FSR, Foam FSR,

North Foam FSR, Berry FSR, Peddie Mtn. FSR, Murtle Lake Road, North Blue FSR, and

Mud Lake FSR, all of which are located directly east or west off Highway 5 between

Avola and the northern limits of the town of Blue River. A helicopter was required to

access 20 sites within the study area.

Site access was determined by a review of TRIM Maps (1:20,000) provided by

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd., the British Columbia Recreational Atlas (PTC Phototype

Composing Ltd. 1997), and the Clearwater Forest District Recreation Map (MoF 1994).


Page 6

2.0 RESOURCE INFORMATION

The watersheds in the Vavenby Unit study area [Blue River (including McCrae Creek,

excluding the White and North Blue Rivers), Whitewater Creek, Cedar Creek, Cook

Creek, Peddie Creek (including Goose Creek), Berry Creek, Foam Creek, and Shannon

Creek] are subject to a variety of resource uses. The principal resource activity in the

watersheds is timber harvesting by Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd.

i) First Nations Issues and Interests in the Area

The North Thompson Indian Band have resource related concerns within their traditional

territory, which includes the Vavenby Unit study area (Union of BC Indian Chiefs 1993,

T. Donald, Band Councilor, North Thompson Indian Band, pers. comm. 1999). Currently,

the Band does not have a reserve or settlements within the study area. The valley bottom

of the North Thompson and the Blue Rivers are considered to have a high probability of

containing archaeological sites (MoELP 1996).

ii) Development and Land Use

Generally, forest harvesting is prevalent in the study area. For example as of 1992, 15%

(41.2 km2) of the Blue River’s basin area had been logged, 25% (2.8 km2) of both Cedar

and Cook Creek basins had been logged, while 44% (2.8 km2) of Goose Creek (in the

Peddie Creek study area) has been logged (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. and

Hamilton 1992, Harding et al. 1994).

Other land uses such as cattle grazing and agriculture are limited in the area. None of the

watersheds in the study area are part of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) (MoELP

1996). As of 1992, there were no cultivated or pasture lands within the Blue River, Cook

Creek, Cedar Creek and Goose Creek watersheds (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.


Page 7

and Hamilton 1992). Only a very small amount of land within the study area is private

land, principally in the North Thompson River valley near the town of Blue River (MoELP

1996).

Transportation and utility corridors are an important land use feature in the North

Thompson valley, affecting the lower reaches of all the watersheds in the study area.

Some of the important corridors include the Yellowhead Highway (No. 5), CN Railway,

BC Hydro lines, and pipelines. The largest corridor project in the last two decades was

the twin tracking of the CN Railway along the North Thompson River (Harding et al.

1994).

Most of the study area is categorized as having low metallic/industrial mineral potential,

except Shannon Creek watershed which has moderate potential, and the east side of

Whitewater Creek watershed which has a high potential (MoELP 1996). There appears to

be no mining activities currently in the study area.

iii) Other Developments, Concerns or Points of Interest

There is limited recreational opportunity, such as hunting, camping and fishing

documented in the study area. There are no Forest Recreation Sites located in any of the

watersheds (MoF 1994). There are a number of Special Resource (Recreation and

Tourism) Management Zones adjacent to the study area, such as Smoke, Bone, and

Clemina, where current uses include heli-skiing, hiking, hunting and mountaineering

(MoELP 1996). These activities may also be practiced within the study area to a limited

degree.

Part of the Blue River watershed is in Special Feature Protection Resource Management

Zones: the Blue River Black Spruce Swamps (rare forest; 180 ha), and the Blue River

Pine (80 ha) are protected under the ‘Natural Environment’ category for their rare, scarce,


Page 8

or unique features. Cook Creek has also been identified as a potential Resource

Management Zone to be reviewed in the future (MoELP 1996).

iv) Impacts and Uses by Wildlife

The valley bottom of the North Thompson River around the town of Blue River is critical

moose winter range (MoELP 1996).

Some of the higher elevation areas in the study area (EL >1700m) are part of the North

Thompson Caribou Special Resource Management (Habitat/Wildlife) Area, for their early

and late winter caribou habitat values. The area is considered significant because of the

caribou’s dependence on certain old-growth forest attributes, specifically lichen-bearing

trees. In the vicinity of Shannon Creek, a caribou migratory corridor exists which is part of

a larger migratory area between Wells Gray and Kootenay caribou populations. The

overall goal of the management zones is to ensure that logging does not impact the

structural and functional integrity of these habitats (MoELP 1996).

v) Water use

The Vavenby Unit watersheds support five water licenses. Blue River has two registered

water licenses (enterprise, approximately 17,000 litres/day; and domestic, 1700 l/d), Cedar

Creek has two (domestic, 3500 l/d, irrigation 13,500 l/d), and Cook Creek has one

(conservation, 1000 l/d) (MoELP 1999d). White River, a tributary of the Blue River, is a

community watershed (MoELP 1999a) but it is outside the project area.

Very little hydrological data exists for the watershed in the Vavenby Unit study area. Blue

River has data available from 1926 to 1996. The Blue River hydrograph data (Figure 2)

suggests that low flows are typical in August and September (Environment Canada 1999).

On average, mean daily discharge increases from approximately 4.9

ARC Environmental Ltd.

FRBC Project No.: TOM-98-110FRBC Activity No.: 10513b

Page 9

Figure 2. Blue River: Mean, maximum and minimum daily discharges for the period of record 1926 to 1996 (exclusive) (Station No.08LB038)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

01-Jan

15-Jan

29-Jan

12-Feb

26-Feb

12-Mar

26-Mar

09-Apr

23-Apr

07-May

21-May

04-Jun

18-Jun

02-Jul

16-Jul

30-Jul

13-Aug

27-Aug

10-Sep

24-Sep

08-Oct

22-Oct

05-Nov

19-Nov

03-Dec

17-Dec

31-Dec

1926 to 1996 (exclusive)

Dis

char

ge (m

³/s)

MaximumAverageMinimum


Page 10

m3/s in mid-April, to peak flows of 34.5 m3/s in June. By late July, discharge decreases

significantly to 15.3 m3/s and low flows of 4.1 m3/s are re-established by late September.

In Cedar Creek, the mean monthly flow in September was calculated to be 0.07 m3/s, as

compare to the annual average flow of 0.4 m3/s. In Cook Creek, the mean monthly flow

in September was calculated to be 0.09m3/s, as compare to the annual average flow of 0.4

m3/s. In Goose Creek, the mean monthly flow in September was calculated to be 0.01m3/s,

as compare to the annual average flow of 0.3 m3/s (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.

and Hamilton 1992). Many small watersheds, such as Cook, Cedar, and Goose Creeks,

exhibit low flow problems, although there are no water licenses on them (Harding et al.

1994).

Annual rainfall in the region ranges from an average of 600 mm per year in the southern

end of the study area to 800 mm per year at the town of Blue River. Annual snowfall is

between 280 to 400 cm (Harding et al. 1994).

vi) Existing Information on the Presence of Fish

Tributaries of the North Thompson River in the Vavenby Unit study area have limited

fisheries information. The existing information concentrates on the lower reaches of the

watersheds near the North Thompson River. Tributary stream habitat is characterized by

flows over alluvial fans adjacent to the North Thompson River, changing quickly to higher

gradient reaches which often restrict fish access into the upper reaches (Westcott and

Standen 1993). Therefore, most of the streams in the area have resident fisheries values

only in the bottom end, but little or no resident fish values upstream, since they are

generally steep and very incised (Harding et al. 1994).

The North Thompson River, although not in itself part of this study, is known to support a

relatively diverse fish assemblage at the downstream ends of the study streams (i.e.

between Avola and Blue River). The species known to occur in this section of the river are


Page 11

chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), sockeye salmon

(O. nerka), as well as rainbow trout (O. mykiss), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),

mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), and prickly

sculpin (C. asper) (Scott et al. 1982; Dunford and Lister 1989, Westcott and Standen

1993). In addition, other species are also known to inhabit the North Thompson River,

downstream of the study area: pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), redside shiners

(Richardsonius balteatus), pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), longnose dace

(Rhinichthys cataractae), leopard dace (R. falcatus), lake chub (Couesius plumbeus),

peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus), largescale sucker (Catostomus machrocheilus),

longnose sucker (C. catostomus), bridgelip sucker (C. columbianus), and western brook

lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni) (Scott et al. 1982, Stewart et al. 1983, Harding et al.

1994).

There is only one blue-listed fish species in the Clearwater Forest District, bull trout, and it

is found within the study area: in the Blue River and some of its tributaries, and in the

lower 2 km of Cook Creek (Chan 1974, MoELP 1974b, Scott et al. 1982, Westcott and

Standen 1993, Hamilton 1995). Some authors’ references to Dolly Varden in the study

area are assumed to refer to bull trout (see MacPhail and Baxter 1996). Blue listed

species are any indigenous species considered to be vulnerable in British Columbia

because of characteristics that make them particularly sensitive to human activities or

natural events. Blue-listed species are at risk, but are not extirpated, endangered or

threatened (CDC 1999).

Within the study area, chinook salmon have been noted throughout Reach 1 of Blue River

(Scott et al. 1982). Approximately 17 km of stream is available to salmon in the Blue

River (Harding et al. 1994), up to an 8 m high waterfall in Reach 2 of Blue River (Berry

and Kahl 1983, Westcott and Standen 1993). Coho salmon have also been noted in the

lower 10 km of Blue River, as well as in 1.1 km of Cook Creek, 1.6 km of Cedar Creek,

2.1 km of Goose Creek, and also in Peddie Creek, and in the first reach of Shannon Creek

(BCIT 1974d, Chan 1974, Harding et al. 1994, MoELP 1974d, MoELP 1974e, MoELP


Page 12

1995, Scott et al. 1982, Lister and Dunford 1989, Westcott and Standen 1993). Between

1981 and 1990, Cook Creek supported an average run of 66 coho a year, Cedar Creek

supported 34 coho a year, Goose Creek 10 coho a year, while Blue River supported

average runs of 235 coho and 33 chinook a year (Harding et al. 1994). A 1.5 m high

waterfall in Reach 1 of Cedar Creek appeared to be a barrier to upstream fish migration

(Westcott and Standen 1993).

Rainbow trout have been noted in the Blue River, in the first reach of Cook Creek, in

Peddie and Goose Creeks, at the mouth of Foam Creek, and in the first reach of Shannon

Creek (BCIT 1974b, BCIT 1974c, BCIT 1974d, Chan 1974, MoELP 1974b, MoELP

1974c, MoELP 1974d, MoELP 1974e, Scott et al. 1982, Hamilton 1995). Bull trout are

the predominant salmonid in tributaries above Cook Creek, while there is a gradual

replacement by rainbow trout downstream of Cook Creek (Westcott and Standen 1993).

Mountain whitefish were noted in the Blue River near its confluence with the North

Thompson River, in the lower 2 km of Cook Creek, in the lower 300 m of Cedar Creek,

and in Peddie and Goose Creeks (Chan 1974, MoELP 1974a, MoELP 1974b, MoELP

1974d, Scott et al. 1982). Slimy sculpin have been noted in the Blue River, and in the first

reaches of Cook Creek and Cedar Creek (Scott et al. 1982, Westcott and Standen 1993,

Hamilton 1995). Prickly sculpin have also been noted in the Blue River and Shannon

Creek (MoELP 1974e, Scott et al. 1982).

Cook Creek has had compensatory habitat (a pond, a channel, and a side channel)

constructed within it by CN Rail in 1985 to compensate for encroachment caused during

construction of twin tracking. The rearing and overwintering capability of the

compensatory habitat for juvenile coho appeared to equal or exceed the capability of the

sites affected during construction (Lister and Dunford 1989). The spillway under the CN

tracks at Peddie Creek appears to have been a fish barrier in the past (Chan 1974),

although rainbow trout are noted upstream of this point (ARC 1997).


Page 13

Whitewater Creek does not appear to have the basic requirements to support fish, except

perhaps the first 40 m upstream from its mouth (Chan 1974); fish have not been noted in

this watershed (MoELP 1974f). There is no information regarding fish presence in the

Berry Creek watershed.

There are at least 46 lakes in the Vavenby Unit watersheds, but only a few of them have

been surveyed, and very few are known to be fish bearing. In the Blue River watershed,

Twin Lakes #1 and #2 were stocked on a yearly basis with rainbow trout (Chan 1974;

although not in MoELP’s Release Data Base) and Twin Lake #1 also supports chinook

salmon and redside shiners (Chan 1974, Standen 1993, MoELP 1994h). Also in the Blue

River watershed, McCormick Lake and Mystery Lake have rainbow trout (MoELP 1993b,

MoELP 1994g, Westcott 1993b). Furthermore, Eleanor Lake, also in the Blue River

watershed, was stocked from 1935 to 1992 with 2000 to 20,000 rainbow trout fry

annually (314,500 fry in total released), and Blue Lake was stocked once in 1936 with

25,721 rainbow trout fry (Westcott 1993a, MoELP 1993a, MoELP 1994a, MoELP

1999c). In the Foam Creek watershed, Foam Lake and Lakes #1467 and #1468 appear to

have no fish present (MoELP 1994b, MoELP 1994e, MoELP 1994f). In the Shannon

Creek watershed, Shannon Lake, Lake #1442 (Sonya Lake) and Lake #1443 (Heidi Lake)

appear to have no fish present (Westcott 1993c, MoELP 1994c, MoELP 1994d, MoELP

1994h). There is no previous information available about the remaining approximately 34

lakes in the study area (MoELP 1999b).


Page 14

3.0 METHODS

The Vavenby Unit Operational Inventory project involved six phases;

Phase I: Existing Data Review,

Phase II: Map and Aerial Photograph Analysis,

Phase III: Sampling Design and Project Plan,

Phase IV: Field Data Collection,

Phase V: Data Compilation, and

Phase VI: Report Preparation and Mapping.

Phases I through III were completed in 1998/1999 on all of the watersheds in the Vavenby

Unit study area [Blue River, Whitewater Creek (east and west sides), Cook Creek, Cedar

Creek, Peddie Creek, Berry Creek, Foam Creek, Shannon Creek. However, in

1999/2000, phases IV through VI were conducted only in the Blue River, Whitewater

Creek (east side), Peddie Creek, Foam Creek, and Shannon Creek watersheds.

3.1 PHASE I: EXISTING DATA REVIEW

The objective of the Existing Data Review phase was to refine the project objectives

through a review of the existing information, both physical and biological.

The review of the existing information identified and systematically recorded the physical

characteristics of the watershed including, but not limited to; watershed boundaries, reach

delineation, and barriers to fish migration. The existing information on the watershed was

sought from various sources. Data was obtained from the MoELP Kamloops Regional

Office, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in Kamloops, Ministry of Forests

(MoF), Clearwater Forest District Office and the MoF Kamloops Forest Region Office.


Page 15

In addition, the availability of the following information was determined and reviewed;

i) Gazetteer of Canada,

ii) 1:50,000 National Topographic Series (NTS) maps,

iii) 1:20,000 Terrain Resource Information Management (TRIM) maps,

iv) Aerial photographs,

v) 1:100,000 Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification maps with Identification and

Interpretation Guide,

vi) Water licensee(s),

vii) Forest Recreation maps,

viii) Timber licensee(s),

ix) Forest tenure type,

x) Forest Cover and Development Plan, and private lands maps.

The above information was tabulated and, where appropriate, indicated on 1:20,000

TRIM maps. Interim Locational Points (ILPs) were added to all waterbodies including

lakes and streams. Lakes and streams were required to have an area of at least 0.5 ha or

length of 100 m in order to be assigned ILPs. Where possible, existing watershed codes

were included in the ILP Table to assist the MoELP Inventory Branch – Victoria in

locating reference streams. The ILP Table and corresponding ILP maps were forwarded

to MoELP in Victoria via the Contract Monitor to determine watershed coding for

uncoded waterbodies. Each 1:20,000 TRIM map feature was referenced with a Numeric

Identifier (NID) unique to the project. The NID number provides a unique identifier to

link locational data recorded on the Interim Map to attribute data recorded in the database

(Attachment I).

The focus of the review was on: the occurrence of rare, threatened, endangered or

regionally significant fish; historic trends in abundance and distribution of salmon and

sport fish; historic trends in water quality and quantity; trends in recreational use, and

special public concerns [Resources Inventory Committee (RIC) 1998a]. The following


Page 16

sources, in addition to the above section, were reviewed to identify fish distribution and

abundance in the watershed:

i) Interviews with DFO, MoELP, and MoF agency personnel, First Nations, and the

public,

ii) Stream Information Summary System (SISS) and Salmon Escapement Data

System (SEDS), reviewed using the Fish Habitat Inventory & Information

Program,

iii) Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS),

iv) DFO and MoELP paper files,

v) BC Forest Practices Code (BC FPC) stream classifications, and

vi) MoELP world wide web queries of lake surveys and release records databases.

Once reviews of the available information were complete, existing fish information within

the study area was transcribed onto the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. If reports were found that

were not referenced in the FISS database, FISS updates were completed using Stream

and/or Lake Forms along with annotated 1:50,000 NTS maps. All FISS maps, forms and

reports were sent to the Contract Monitor at MoELP in Kamloops, to be forwarded to

MoELP in Victoria.

3.2 PHASE II: MAP AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ANALYSIS

The objective of Phase II was to systematically classify the watershed characteristics and

determine reach sampling sites.

When the basins in the project area were classified, and their boundaries transcribed onto

the Interim Maps, the Basin Classification Table was completed (RIC 1998a). Reach

breaks were delineated on the basis of changes in order, pattern, confinement, gradient,

and riparian vegetation and were determined by the analysis of airphotos and TRIM data.

Airphotos, dated 1997, were provided by Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. NID numbers were


Page 17

assigned to reach breaks and barriers prior to the entry of the reach properties into the

Reach Table (RIC 1998a). Ultimately, reach breaks were confirmed in the field for those

sites visited.

After delineating reaches and determining channel pattern, stream gradient, stream order

and stream basin type, reach data was entered into the Field Data Information System

(FDIS) database (version 6.5), for a total of 634 reaches. Subsequent to the completion

of Phase I-III, another reach was found and added to the reach table, for a final total of

635 reaches.

3.3 PHASE III: SAMPLING DESIGN AND PROJECT PLAN

The objective of Phase III was to finalize the field plan which would allow for the

collection of field data in Phase IV. A project plan was developed, and included site

finalization, the budget, and sampling logistics. The plan proposed to describe the

watershed-wide fish species presence and distribution, and fish habitat characteristics.

The Random Sampling portion of FDIS determined that a total of 79 random sites were to

be sampled within the entire Vavenby Unit project area (ca. 12.5% of the reaches).

These sites were selected by FDIS based on the following criteria; basin type, stream

order, gradient and channel pattern. Sites were then located and marked onto inking film

over the 1:20,000 scale Interim Maps. These maps, with inking film, were presented to

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. (Kevin Bonnett, Planning Forester, and Scott Lindeburgh,

Vavenby FRBC Coordinator for Weyerhaeuser Canada) and MoELP (D. Tesch, Contract

Monitor) for review.

After consultation, the location of sampling sites was finalized on the basis of: 1) the

ability to obtain an even distribution of sites throughout the watershed and entire project

study area; and 2) the location of logging activities in the watershed in subsequent years.

As a result of the consultation, 13 random sites were removed from the Sampling Plan by


Page 18

the Contract Monitor in order to reduce site clustering and to eliminate sampling in

reaches where there was adequate existing information. The 13 removed random sites

were replaced with a total of 24 biased sites: i) 11 biased sites with matching pattern,

gradient, order, setting and confinement which could directly replace the removed random

sites; ii) 2 biased sites chosen by the Contract Monitor to allow for a better interpretation

of fish distribution in the watersheds; and iii) 11 biased sites chosen by the proponent.

Thus, the total number of sites selected in Phase III was 90.

For the 1999/2000 season, it was proposed that only a selection of these sites be

completed. The finalized plan, for 1999/2000, proposed that 51 random and 16 biased

sites be completed within the Blue River, Whitewater Creek (east side), Peddie Creek,

Foam Creek, and Shannon Creek watersheds.

3.4 PHASE IV: FIELD DATA COLLECTION

The Field Data Collection phase for the selected stream sampling sites involved fish

sampling, habitat description, water quality, wildlife observations, and photographic

documentation. In addition to sampling the identified stream reaches for inventory

purposes, the sampling also included protocols to satisfy fish stream classification (BC

FPC 1998).

Field data was collected from September 16 to 24, 1999 (MoELP Sampling Permit No.

99-30-0372; DFO Sampling Permit: License 99.158). In total 67 sites (49 random and 18

biased) within 67 reaches were completed in the Vavenby Unit study area. Two of the

original 51 random sites selected in Phase III were not completed in 1999/2000 due to

access problems. The inaccessible random sites were replaced by similar biased sites

within the same watersheds.

MoELP Site Cards, Fish Collection Forms, and Individual Fish Data forms were

completed, where appropriate, at each sample site (Attachment II). Fish aging structures


Page 19

were also taken from a selection of fish captured (Attachment III). Photo Survey Form 1

(Equipment Details) was completed for the project and is included in Attachment IV.

Methodologies followed those provided in Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish

Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (RIC 1998a), Reconnaissance (1:20,000)

Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Data Forms and User Notes (RIC 1998b), Fish

Collection Methods and Standards (RIC 1997), Fish-stream Identification Guidebook (BC

FPC 1998), and A Guide to Photodocumentation for Aquatic Inventory (RIC 1996).

In addition to the field equipment required for a Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish

Habitat Inventory (RIC 1998a), Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. requested that each field crew

be equipped with a Polaski, a shovel, a 15 litre backpack fire suppression unit and a 15

litre oil spill kit. A list of field sampling equipment used in this project is provided in Table

1.

3.4.1 Fish Sampling

Fish sampling focused on defining the overall distribution of all fish species in the

1999/2000 study area through absence/presence sampling using electrofishing, minnow

trapping, pole seining, and visual observation (RIC 1997). When fish sampling, minimum

sample lengths were the greater of 100 m or 10 times the bankfull width. This varied and

depended on whether fish were captured and/or to ensure that all habitat types were

sampled in all sections of the primary, secondary and off-channel stream zones.


Page 20

Table 1. Field sampling equipment list.

Habitat Sampling Equipment

• hip chain and spare thread,• measuring tape (50m),• clinometer,• compass,• meter stick,• camera, with 35 mm film,• field notebook with waterproof

paper,• MoELP Site Cards,

Fish CollectionForms, and IndividualFish Data sheets,

• alcohol thermometer,• pH meter, and• conductivity meter.

Fish Sampling Equipment

• electrofisher,• electrofishing gloves,• chest waders,• polarized sunglasses,• minnow traps and bait,• pole seine,

• DFO & MoELP Fish CollectionPermits,

• buckets,• fish anaesthetic,• measuring board,• weighing scale,• scale envelopes and slides,• scalpel and scissors, and• Fish Identification Guidebook.

Miscellaneous Equipment

• global positioning system (GPS) unit,• first aid kit, Worker’s Compensation

Board (WCB) approved,• tool kit,• twine and flagging tape,• radios,• survival kit,• location maps (1:50,000 and

1:20,000 scale),• spare batteries (AA, 9V, etc.),• shovel,• Polaski,• 15 litre Oil Spill Kit, and• 15 litre Backpack Fire Suppression

Unit.

In order to meet stream classification standards (BC FPC 1998), fish sampling was

conducted in all habitats, using two methods (electrofishing and minnow traps, or

electrofishing and pole-seining), within 100 linear meters, or 10 times bankfull width,

whichever was greater. If no fish were captured within the original site, a second site that

was equal in distance to the first was electrofished covering all habitat units. If no fish

were captured after sampling the second site, an additional 500 linear meters of stream

were sampled. Sampling beyond the initial site ended when any of the following criteria

were met; fish were captured, crews sampled to the end of the reach, 700 m of the reach

was sampled, or the crew leader confirmed that sampling effort was sufficient to ensure a

non-fish bearing status.


Page 21

Fish Collection Forms were completed at each site where fishing was attempted.

Individual Fish Data forms were completed where fish were sampled, and the following

data was collected:

i) all species were identified and enumerated, life stage determined, fork length (mm)

and wetted weight (g) measured, and

ii) non-destructive aging structures (scales) were taken from samples of Freshwater

Game Species of a representative range of lengths, and analyzed by Hamaguchi

Fish Aging Services of Kamloops, BC.

3.4.2 Habitat Description

Specific habitat characteristics were collected during field surveys from at least one site

per reach. Site length was the greater of 100 m or 10 times the bankfull width. Site

length varied depending on total reach length, and/or the variability of reach

characteristics. Site length was increased to adequately capture habitat sequences and to

meet the requirements for stream classification.

The information collected was consistent with the MoELP Site Cards and all fields on the

forms were completed with the exception of; 1) Req. No. (pertaining to water analysis)

and 2) Environmental Monitoring System number (EMS). Gradient was measured using a

Suunto clinometer. An average gradient was determined from at least three sightings,

where the distance was maximized (60 to 100 m) as much as possible. Channel and

wetted widths were measured with a measuring tape, measuring stick, or hip chain. A

minimum of six channel and wetted widths were taken from within a reach section, 100 m

in length or greater, where the distance between measurements was at least 20 m apart

within the reach (BC FPC 1998).


Page 22

3.4.3 Water Quality

Water quality information was recorded on the MoELP Site Cards and Fish Collection

Forms. Water temperature was measured with an alcohol thermometer, pH was measured

with an Oakton pHTestr 2, and conductivity was measured with an Oakton TDSTestr 3

recording meter. Both pH and conductivity meters were calibrated on a daily basis.

Turbidity was visually estimated.

3.4.4 Wildlife Observations

Wildlife observations were recorded on the MoELP Site Cards with specific reference to

rare, threatened, and endangered species as listed by the British Columbia Conservation

Data Center (CDC 1999).

3.4.5 Photographic Documentation

Photographs (35 mm) were taken of the stream reach sampling sites, fish species captured,

all major features (e.g. fish passage barriers and obstructions, such as cascades, falls,

beaver dams, slides, road crossings, and any other features affecting fish values), and any

obvious fish habitat limitations or restoration opportunities. A record of photographs was

documented on the MoELP Site Cards and Fish Collection Forms (Attachment II), and

followed standards provided in A Guide to Photodocumentation for Aquatic Inventory

(RIC 1996).

3.5 PHASE V: DATA COMPILATION

The objective of the Data Compilation phase was to organize the information collected

from field sampling. However, the data from Phases I-III, completed in 1998/1999, first

required updating from FDIS version 6.5 to FDIS version 7.2. The information from


Page 23

Reach Cards (1999/2000), Site Cards, Fish Collection Forms and Individual Fish sheets,

collected in the 1999/2000 field season, was then added into the updated FDIS database

(Attachment V). Photographs were labeled, referenced and arranged in a binder

(Attachment II), and placed in a Kodak Photo CD format with an index along with Photo

Survey Form 1 and indexed negatives (Attachment IV). In addition, FISS information

was updated using annotated 1:50,000 NTS maps and FISS Stream Forms. These were

submitted to MoELP in Victoria via the Contract Monitor.

3.6 PHASE VI: REPORT PREPARATION AND MAPPING

Three types of 1:20,000 TRIM based maps were prepared; the Overview Map (Figures 1),

the Project Map, and the Interpretive Map (Appendix II). For the 1999/2000 study area,

8 TRIM map sheets were digitized and used to create the appropriate maps according to

MoELP standards (RIC 1998c).

The Overview Map illustrates the entire project area for presentation in the final report.

The information on the Project Maps and the attached ARC/INFO database includes, but

is not limited to, field sampling data, sample site locations, reach breaks, ILP’s, site

features, and historical fisheries information.

The Interpretive Map includes stream classifications, fish distribution information and

historical fisheries information. Stream classifications were assigned to those reaches

where sampling occurred. Fish distribution information on the Interpretive Map is based

on interpretations and conclusions from the synthesis of data collected during Phase I and

Phase IV (review of existing data and field sampling), and includes only the 1999/2000

study area. The interpretation of fish presence/absence is generally based on the

following:


Page 24

i) known fish bearing reaches (solid red line) are assigned on the basis of historical

information or sampling results,

ii) suspected fish bearing reaches (dotted red line) are assigned on the basis that, the

reach is contiguous with a known fish bearing reach, that biological judgement

would suggest so, or if sampling was considered to be insufficient to classify the

reach as non-fish bearing,

iii) non-fish bearing reaches (solid blue line) are assigned on the basis of historical

information or sampling results, and

iv) suspected non-fish bearing reaches (dotted blue line) are assigned on the basis that,

the reach is contiguous with a non-fish bearing stream, or biological judgement

would suggest so.

When using biological judgement, factors such as, known fish distribution, fish behavior,

barriers, gradient, habitat quality, and the presence/absence of headwater lakes are

considered.


Page 25

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For the Vavenby Unit study area, the initial Sampling Design and Project Plan proposed

51 random sites and 16 biased sites to be completed in the 1999/2000 field season, for a

total of 67 sites. However, two inaccessible random sites were encountered, which were

relocated to nearby similar reaches and surveyed as biased sites. As a result, the total

number of sampling sites in the Vavenby Unit study area was 67 sites within 67 reaches,

surveyed between September 16 and 24, 1999, of which 49 sites were random and 18

were biased (Table 2). Twenty five of the 67 sites were located in the Blue River

watershed (20 random, 5 biased), two sites were in the Whitewater Creek watershed (0

random, 2 biased), six were in the Peddie Creek watershed (4 random, 2 biased), 15 in the

Foam Creek watershed (12 random, 3 biased), and 19 in the Shannon Creek watershed

(13 random, 6 biased).

Field investigations involved data collection to describe: habitat and fish distribution; fish

age, size and life-history; significant features and fisheries observations; and fish bearing

status.

4.1 Logistics

One proposed random site within the Whitewater Creek watershed was not surveyed (ILP

Map 83D.014, ILP 97, Reach 1) because this reach was not accessible to field crews.

This random site was replaced with a biased site in a reach with similar attributes in the

same watershed (Site 1; Table 2). One proposed random site within the Shannon Creek

watershed was also not surveyed (ILP Map 82M.074, ILP 26, Reach 3) because this reach

was also not accessible to field crews. This random site was replaced with a biased site in

a downstream reach within the same stream (Site 53; Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of sampling sites completed in the 1999/2000 field season for the Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999.

Site Watershed Name

Site NID Map Site NID ILP Map ILP Reach Access Sample

Type Comment

(n/a) (Whitewater) (n/a) (n/a) (83D.014) (97) (1) (n/a) (R) No access

1 Whitewater 83D.014 1 83D.014 74 1 H B Completed instead

2 Whitewater 83D.014 2 83D.014 89 2 V4 B3 Blue 83D.003 3 83D.014 1 3 H R4 Blue 83D.003 4 83D.014 1 4 FT R5 Blue 83D.014 5 83D.014 2 3 V2 R6 Blue 83D.014 6 83D.014 5 1 V2 B7 Blue 83D.014 7 83D.014 17 1 FT R8 Blue 83D.004 8 83D.014 98 1 V4 R9 Blue 83D.004 9 83D.004 38 1 H R10 Blue 83D.004 10 83D.004 39 3 V2 R11 Blue 83D.003 11 83D.004 43 2 V4 R12 Blue 83D.004 12 83D.004 45 1 H R13 Blue 83D.003 13 83D.003 73 1 V2 R14 Blue 83D.003 14 83D.003 74 1 V2 R15 Blue 83D.003 15 83D.003 1 2 FT R16 Blue 83D.013 16 83D.003 1 5 V4 R17 Blue 83D.003 17 83D.003 6 1 V2 B18 Blue 83D.003 18 83D.003 12 4 FT R19 Blue 83D.013 19 83D.003 24 5 H B20 Blue 83D.003 20 83D.003 31 1 H R21 Blue 83D.003 21 83D.003 39 1 V2 R22 Blue 83D.003 22 83D.003 42 1 H R23 Blue 83D.003 23 83D.003 46 1 H B24 Blue 83D.003 24 83D.003 61 1 V4 R25 Blue 83D.003 25 83D.003 62 1 H R26 Blue 83D.003 26 83D.003 64 2 H B27 Blue 83D.003 27 83D.003 66 1 H R28 Peddie 83D.004 28 83D.004 5 1 V2 R29 Peddie 83D.004 29 83D.004 5 3 V4 R30 Peddie 83D.004 30 83D.004 15 1 V2 R31 Peddie 83D.004 31 83D.004 17 1 V2 R32 Peddie 83D.004 32 83D.004 24 7 V2 B33 Peddie 83D.004 33 83D.004 37 1 FT B34 Foam 82M.094 34 82M.094 55 2 V2 B35 Foam 82M.094 35 82M.094 56 1 V2 R36 Foam 82M.094 36 82M.094 56 2 V2 R37 Foam 82M.094 37 82M.094 56 5 FT R38 Foam 82M.094 38 82M.094 56 11 FT R39 Foam 82M.094 39 82M.094 61 2 V4 R40 Foam 82M.094 40 82M.094 65 1 FT R41 Foam 82M.094 41 82M.094 73 1 V4 R42 Foam 82M.094 42 82M.094 82 1 V4 B

ARC Environmental Ltd. FRBC Project No. TOM-98-110FRBC Activity No.10513b

Page 26

Table 2. Summary of sampling sites completed in the 1999/2000 field season for the Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999.

Site Watershed Name

Site NID Map Site NID ILP Map ILP Reach Access Sample

Type Comment

43 Foam 82M.094 43 82M.094 86 1 V2 R44 Foam 82M.094 44 82M.094 86 3 H R45 Foam 82M.094 45 82M.094 95 1 H B46 Foam 82M.094 46 82M.094 99 1 V2 R47 Foam 82M.094 47 82M.094 99 4 H R48 Foam 82M.094 48 82M.094 113 1 H R49 Shannon 82M.074 49 82M.074 3 1 V2 R50 Shannon 82M.074 50 82M.074 9 1 V4 B51 Shannon 82M.074 51 82M.074 13 1.1 H B52 Shannon 82M.074 52 82M.074 20 1 H B

(n/a) (Shannon) (n/a) (n/a) (82M.074) (26) (3) (n/a) (R) No access

53 Shannon 82M.074 53 82M.074 26 1 V4 B Completed instead

54 Shannon 82M.074 54 82M.074 27 1 V4 B55 Shannon 82M.074 55 82M.074 31 2 H B56 Shannon 82M.074 56 82M.074 35 1 FT R57 Shannon 82M.074 57 82M.074 43 1 V2 R58 Shannon 82M.074 58 82M.074 48 1 V2 R59 Shannon 82M.074 59 82M.074 51 2 V4 R60 Shannon 82M.084 60 82M.074 51 3 FT R61 Shannon 82M.074 61 82M.074 57 1 H R62 Shannon 82M.084 62 82M.084 1 1 V4 R63 Shannon 82M.084 63 82M.084 7 1 FT R64 Shannon 82M.074 64 82M.084 8 3 H R65 Shannon 82M.074 65 82M.074 66 1 V2 R66 Shannon 82M.074 66 82M.074 71 1 FT R67 Shannon 82M.074 67 82M.074 74 1 FT R

Codes: ( ) = Site not accessible H = Helicopter site B = Bias siteV2/V4 = Driving sites R = Random Site

FT = Walk-in Site

ARC Environmental Ltd. FRBC Project No. TOM-98-110FRBC Activity No.10513b

Page 27


Page 28

4.2 Habitat and Fish Distribution

Selected habitat sampling parameters, including channel morphology, available cover, and

substrate composition, are summarized in Table 3. Fourteen of the sample sites had no

visible channel (NVC): 7 in the Blue River watershed, 3 in the Foam Creek watershed, and

4 in the Shannon Creek watershed. One site was dry (Site 17). Photographs of two sites

with typical fish habitat sampled in the Vavenby Unit study area in 1999/2000 field season

are provided in Figures 3 and 4.

Throughout the study area, field estimates of water turbidity were described as clear (90%

of the sites), low (8%), or moderate (2%), suggesting low sediment inputs from erosion at

the time of sampling. At all the sites where water was observed, the stage of flow was

described as low (48% of the sites), moderate (50%), or high (2%). The moderate and

high stages noted in these streams were likely the result of the record snowpack in Region

3, combined with an unusually wet spring and early summer that resulted in a higher than

normal discharge. Fish were likely provided greater opportunity in the fall of 1999 to

utilize available habitat than in typically lower water years.

The pH ranged from 7.0 to 9.2 with a mean pH (± SD) of 8.2 ± 0.4. Water temperatures

ranged from 5.0°C to 17.0°C during the period of study, with a mean (± SD) of 9.4 ±

2.5°C. Water conductivity ranged from 0 to 130 µS at the sites sampled, with a mean (±

SD) of 20 ± 21 µS. Forty sites had conductivity less than 30 µS, and salt was added to

the water during electrofishing at these sites to increase conductivity to over 30 µS.

In reaches where water flow allowed for fish sampling, sampling procedures were judged

to be sufficient to determine fish presence or absence. Within the Vavenby Unit study

area, a total of 118 fish were captured at 16 sites; 58 coho salmon, 59 rainbow trout, and

1 longnose dace. Coho salmon were captured in the Blue River watershed (Sites 6, 8, and

9), in the Whitewater Creek watershed (Site 1), in the Peddie Creek

Table 3. Habitat data summary of sampling sites completed in the 1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999.

Site No.

NID Map No.

NID No.

ILP Map No.

ILP No.

Reach No.

Site Length

(m)

Average Channel

Width (m)

Average Gradient

(%)

Average Pool

Depth (m)

Total Cover

SWD Cover

LWD Cove

r

Boulder

Cover

Cutbank Cover

Deep Pool Cove

Overhang.Vegetation Cover

Instream Vegetation Cover

Dominant

Sub-domina

nt1

83D.014

183D.01

471 1 100 2.70 1 0.35 LC M T D N S S S N F NA

283D.01

42

83D.014

89 2 580 4.18 27 0.35 SP b-w A N T D T S N N C B

383D.00

33

83D.014

1 3 100 8.28 4 0.62 CP c-w A S T N S D T N G C

483D.00

34

83D.014

1 4 100 4.43 2 0.00 LC A T T S S N T D F B

583D.01

45

83D.014

2 3 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

683D.01

46

83D.014

5 1 120 11.01 6 0.78 CP c-w A T S T T D S N G C

783D.01

47

83D.014

17 1 100 NVC 78 - - - - - - - - - - - -

883D.00

48

83D.014

98 1 350 0.89 1 0.18 RP g M N T N N N S D F G

983D.00

49

83D.004

38 1 140 5.59 1 0.00 LC A S T N T N S D F NA

1083D.00

410

83D.004

39 3 100 2.00 10 0.21 CP b M T D S T S T N B G

1183D.00

311

83D.004

43 2 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1283D.00

412

83D.004

45 1 100 6.53 8 0.31 CP b A T S D T S T N B C

1383D.00

313

83D.003

73 1 100 0.88 2 0.29 RP T T T N D S S N F G

1483D.00

314

83D.003

74 1 100 1.44 10 0.30 RP c-w M D S S T S N N C G

1583D.00

315

83D.003

1 2 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1683D.01

316

83D.003

1 5 117 1.24 7 0.15 RP A T S N S T D T F G

1783D.00

317

83D.003

6 1 100 0.82 49 Dry CP b - - - - - - - - B C

1883D.00

318

83D.003

12 4 100 0.96 5 0.19 RP T S S T T T T D F B

1983D.01

319

83D.003

24 5 100 1.68 14 0.24 CP b T N N D N S N N B C

2083D.00

320

83D.003

31 1 200 1.41 1 0.00 LC A D S N T N S T F NA

2183D.00

321

83D.003

39 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2283D.00

322

83D.003

42 1 350 1.08 24 0.22 SP w A S S T D T T N G C

2383D.00

323

83D.003

46 1 100 1.00 7 0.20 RP T D S T N T T T F B

2483D.00

324

83D.003

61 1 186 2.30 31 0.19 SP b-w A T S D T T S N C B

2583D.00

325

83D.003

62 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2683D.00

326

83D.003

64 2 700 1.48 13 0.12 RP c-w A T T T S T D C G

2783D.00

327

83D.003

66 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2883D.00

428

83D.004

5 1 100 5.00 6 0.31 RP c M T T D N S S N B C

2983D.00

429

83D.004

5 3 700 4.13 5 0.22 RP c-w M T T D T S T T C G

Site InformationChannel

Morphology

Bed Material Instream CoverChannel & Morphology

ARC Environmental Ltd. FRBC Project No.TOM-98-110FRBC Activity No.10513b

Page 29


Site No.

NID Map No.

NID No.

ILP Map No.

ILP No.

Reach No.

Site Length

(m)

Average Channel

Width (m)

Average Gradient

(%)

Average Pool

Depth (m)

Total Cover

SWD Cover

LWD Cove

r

Boulder

Cover

Cutbank Cover

Deep Pool Cove



Dominant

Sub-domina

nt


Morphology


3083D.00

430

83D.004

15 1 100 1.34 3 0.23 (Int.) RP g T T T N T S D N G F

3183D.00

431

83D.004

17 1 100 2.60 1 0.11 RP T S D N N T T N F G

3283D.00

432

83D.004

24 7 100 2.94 6 0.27 RP c-w M T S D T S S N B C

3383D.00

433

83D.004

37 1 310 1.31 1 0.41 RP c-w A T T T S S S D F C

3482M.09

434

82M.094

55 2 150 1.19 20 0.11 CP c-w M S T N D N S N G C

3582M.09

435

82M.094

56 1 190 16.44 24 0.26 CP b A T S D T S T T B C

3682M.09

436

82M.094

56 2.1 100 8.89 21 0.56 CP b A N S D T S T N B C

3782M.09

437

82M.094

56 5 580 5.39 2 0.00 LC M S T S D N T T F B

3882M.09

438

82M.094

56 11 500 3.66 3 0.00 LC M T S T D N T S F B

3982M.09

439

82M.094

61 2 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4082M.09

440

82M.094

65 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4182M.09

441

82M.094

73 1 700 2.70 7 0.17 CP b A T T S S T D N B C

4282M.09

442

82M.094

82 1 181 0.38 7 0.03 RP A N T N D N N N F C

4382M.09

443

82M.094

86 1 700 2.10 23 0.24 SP b A T S D S T T T C B

4482M.09

444

82M.094

86 3 700 0.68 8 0.23 RP M N T T D T N T F C

4582M.09

445

82M.094

95 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4682M.09

446

82M.094

99 1 580 3.47 3 0.21 CP b-w A S S D T T N N B G

4782M.09

447

82M.094

99 4 100 1.41 8 0.33 RP c M N N D T S N T B C

4882M.09

448

82M.094

113 1 700 1.47 4 0.25 CP A T S S D N T N F B

4982M.07

449

82M.074

3 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5082M.07

450

82M.074

9 1 100 2.56 39 0.18 CP b M S D S N T S N B C

5182M.07

451

82M.074

13 1.1 100 4.73 2 0.00 LC A S N N T N S D F NA

5282M.07

452

82M.074

20 1 100 0.69 2 0.24 (Int.) RP T N N D T S N T F B

5382M.07

453

82M.074

26 1 140 2.77 11 0.10 CP c-w A T S N D T S N G C

5482M.07

454

82M.074

27 1 100 3.77 15 0.32 SP b A N T D T S N N B C

5582M.07

455

82M.074

31 2 100 0.56 3 0.14 RP T T T S T D N T F C

5682M.07

456

82M.074

35 1 100 0.66 12 0.08 RP c T T S D T N T T B C

5782M.07

457

82M.074

43 1 100 0.87 3 0.23 RP c M N T S T D S T C G

5882M.07

458

82M.074

48 1 100 0.82 2 0.21 RP M T T N N S D S F G


Page 30


Site No.

NID Map No.

NID No.

ILP Map No.

ILP No.

Reach No.

Site Length

(m)

Average Channel

Width (m)

Average Gradient

(%)

Average Pool

Depth (m)

Total Cover

SWD Cover

LWD Cove

r

Boulder

Cover

Cutbank Cover

Deep Pool Cove



Dominant

Sub-domina

nt


Morphology


5982M.07

459

82M.074

51 2 200 6.44 23 0.57 SP b-w A N T S T D T N C B

6082M.08

460

82M.074

51 3 700 4.33 3 0.25 RP c-w A T T D S S T T C B

6182M.07

461

82M.074

57 1 445 1.11 10 0.24 CP c-w M T T S D T T T F C

6282M.08

462

82M.084

1 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6382M.08

463

82M.084

7 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6482M.07

464

82M.084

8 3 700 2.56 2 0.78 RP c-w A T T D T S T T C F

6582M.07

465

82M.074

66 1 100 NVC - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6682M.07

466

82M.074

71 1 300 1.73 19 0.38 CP b T T T D S N T N B C

6782M.07

467

82M.074

74 1 700 1.55 5 0.39 RP g M N N D S T N T G C

Codes: Channel Width & Morphology Cover Bed Material

RP = Riffle Pool N = None F = Fines (<2 mm)SP = Step Pool T = Trace G = Gravels (2-64 mm)CP = Cascade Pool M = Moderate C = Cobbles (64-256 mm)LC = Large Channel (low gradient channel with fine sediment substrate) A = Abundant B = Boulders (>256 mm)

R = Rock (>4000 mm & bedrock)cw = cobble substrate with functioning large woody debris D = Dominant bw = boulder substrate with functioning large woody debris S = Subdominant gw = gravel substrate with functioning large woody debris

c = cobble substrate with no functioning large woody debrisb = boulder substrate with no functioning large woody debris Int. = Intermittent - no continuous flow in channelg = gravel substrate with no functioning large woody debris Dry = no water in channelr = bedrock substrate NVC = No Visible Channel


Page 31


Page 32

Figure 3. Vavenby Unit study area – Shannon Creek watershed: Upstream view of typicalcoho habitat with ‘large channel’ morphology (1% gradient, fine-silt substrate), andabundant cover (overhanging and instream vegetation). Site 51, ILP Map 82M.074,ILP 13, Reach 1, September 22, 1999.

Figure 4. Vavenby Unit study area – Peddie Creek Watershed: Upstream view of typicalrainbow trout habitat with riffle-pool morphology, 6% gradient, cobble-bouldersubstrate, and moderate amount of cover (boulders, overhanging vegetation, anddeep pools). Site 28, ILP Map 83D.004, ILP 5, Reach 1, September 24, 1999.


Page 33

watershed (Site 28), and in the Shannon Creek watershed (Sites 51 and 53). Rainbow

trout were caught in the Blue River watershed (Sites 3, 4, 12, and 16), in the Peddie

Creek watershed (Sites 28 and 33), in the Foam Creek watershed (Sites 35 and 36), and in

the Shannon Creek watershed (Sites 53, 54 and 58). The longnose dace was caught in the

Blue River watershed (Site 6).

Of the 57 coho salmon (CO) (Figure 5) captured, 48 were caught with minnow traps, 5

coho were caught with electrofishing, and 4 with seine nets. At Site 53, where coho were

captured with minnow traps, the mean Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) of the traps was

16.68 CO/trap/day. At Sites 6, 8, 9, 28, and 51, where coho were captured with

electrofishing, the CPUE ranged from 0.29 to 13.33 CO/100m² (or 0.39 to 10.00 CO/100

seconds). At each of these sites, electrofishing was terminated as soon as a coho was

captured, due to conservation concerns. At Site 1, where coho were captured with seine

net, the CPUE was 0.44 CO/minute.

Of the 59 rainbow trout (RB) (Figure 6) captured, 58 were caught by electrofishing. At

sites where rainbow trout were captured with electrofishing, the CPUE ranged from 0.28

to 4.80 RB/100m² (or 0.35 to 3.86 RB/100 seconds). One rainbow trout was captured in

a minnow trap at Site 53, with a CPUE of 1.04 RB/trap/day.

Features of concern to fish populations, fish habitat, or the inventory were identified

during sampling. Features may be barriers to fish migration (e.g. a falls where fish cannot

move upstream at any time), they may be obstructions to fish migration (e.g. a beaver dam

which may impede but not block upstream fish passage), or other types of features which

may impact fish habitat values but not fish migration (e.g. effluent outfalls). Features may

be natural (e.g. cascades, beaver dams) or man-made (e.g. culverts). Historic and new

barriers to fish migration in the study area listed in Table 4.

Five barriers to upstream fish migration were identified in the Vavenby Unit study area

during the 1999/2000 field season. A series of cascades in Site 36 (Reach 2 of Foam


Page 34

Figure 5. Vavenby Unit study area – Blue River watershed: Coho salmon(Onchorhynchus kisutch) captured. Site 8, ILP Map 83D.014, ILP 98, Reach1, September 21, 1999.

Figure 6. Vavenby Unit study area – Shannon Creek watershed: Three age classes ofrainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) captured. Site 54, ILP Map82M.074, ILP 27, Reach 1, September 21, 1999.

Table 4. Summary of historic and new barriers to fish migration found in the Vavenby Unit project area.

Site No.Water shed

ILP Map No.

ILP No.

Reach No.

NID No.

NID Map No.

Barrier Type

Height of Barrier (m)

Verified in Field

Description and comments

n/a Blue 83D.014 1 2 3031 83D.003 F 8 No Barrier to anadromous fish on BlueRiver, Reach 2 (Berry and Kahl 1982,Weston and Standen 1993); stockedlake u/s (MoELP 1999f).

n/a Cedar 83D.014 1 1 3019 83D.014 F 1.5 No (Weston and Standen 1993).

n/a Peddie 83D.004 24 5 3011 83D.004 C not specified No Cement spillway under CN tracks(Chan 1974).

n/a White water

83D.014 84 1 3037 83D.014 C not specified No Gradient barrier (BCIT 1974e, Chan1974)

2 White water

83D.014 89 2 4049 83D.014 C 12 yes Cascade barrrier 230 m downstream ofroad (~1.3 km upstream of bottom ofReach 2). Likely other barriersdownstream of this point within thisreach.

24 Blue 83D.003 61 1 4015 83D.003 C 5 yes Cascade barrier 37 m downstream ofMyrtle Lk. Road. Other cascadesdownstream of this point are likely alsobarriers within this reach.

32 Peddie 83D.004 24 7 4029 83D.004 C 2.2 yes Cascade barrier 15 m downstream ofroad (bottom of reach 7). Likely othercascades and falls downstream of thispoint in reach below.

59 Shannon 82M.074 51 2 4045 82M.074 C 2 yes Cascade barrrier 350 m downstream ofroad (~500 m upstream of bottom ofReach 2). Likely other barriersdownstream of this point within thisreach.

36 Foam 82M.094 56 2.1 4016 82M.094 C 2 Yes Cascade #1 (in a series of cascades),fish barrier @ 53m u/s of reach start.

Codes: C = cascade, chuteF = falls


FRBC Project No. T0M-98-110FRBC Activity No. 10513b

Page35


Page 36

Creek), starting at 53 m upstream of the start of the reach (Figure 7) was a barrier to fish

migration: fish were captured immediately downstream of it but not upstream. Cascades

in Sites 2, 24, 32, 59 were also identified as fish barriers, although there are likely other

barriers downstream of these cascades which would block upstream fish movement.

Seven other large, impassable cascades were also found, all in non-fish bearing reaches,

indicating that a rugged and steep topography is typical of the study area, which may be

the primary limiting factor of fish distribution in the watersheds. Two beaver dams were

found to be obstructions to fish migration, in Sites 1 and 16. Three large log jams were

noted in non-fish bearing reaches.

Twenty four sites in the study area were noted to have various features associated with

road crossings. Seven of these crossings were within fish bearing reaches, but only one

was thought to be an obstruction to fish: an old log corduroy bridge at Site 58 appeared to

block the stream and obstruct both up- and downstream fish migration (rainbow trout

were found only upstream of this feature) (Figure 8). Culverts at Sites 28, 30, and 35

were not thought to be fish obstructions at the time of survey. Bridge crossings at Site 6,

53, and 54 were also not obstructions. The other noted features (19 culverts and two

bridges) did not affect fish passage, since they were located in non-fish bearing reaches.

The 1999 sampling results suggest that fish distribution in the Vavenby Unit study area is

generally limited to the Blue River mainstem, and to accessible first and second reaches of

contiguous tributaries of the Blue and North Thompson Rivers. The available habitat

supports coho salmon and rainbow trout, as well as longnose dace.

The primary limiting factor of fish distribution and the cause for the absence of fish in

some of the sampled reaches appears to be barriers to fish migration at some point below

the sampling sites, due to the steep topography and incised nature of creeks in the North

Thompson River valley within the study area.


Page 37

Figure 7. Vavenby Unit study area – Foam Creek watershed: Upstream view of fish barrier(the first in a series of cascades) at 53m upstream from the start of the reach. Site36, Reach 2 of Foam Creek, ILP Map 82M.094, ILP 56, September 21, 1999.

Figure 8. Vavenby Unit study area – Shannon Creek watershed: Downstream view of a 1mhigh corduroy log bridge blocking the stream; rainbow trout were found upstream ofthis feature. Site 58, ILP Map 82M.074, ILP 48, Reach 1, September 17, 1999.


Page 38

4.3 Fish Age, Size and Life History

Table 5 provides a summary of the fish sampling results for the Vavenby Unit study area,

including sampling methods, species captured, fork length, and wet weight, as well as

information on the aging structures and age estimates of selected individual fish. Of the

fish captured, scale samples were taken from a representative sample of 7 coho and 24

rainbow trout. The scales were sent to Hamaguchi Fish Aging Services for analysis

(Attachment III).

It was determined that of the seven aged coho, 4 were 0+ and 3 were 1+. Of the 24 aged

rainbow trout, 4 were 0+, 11 were 1+, and 9 were 2+. None of the aged fish were older

than 2+. Table 6 provides a summary of the length-at-age data from coho salmon and

rainbow trout sampled in the Vavenby Unit study area in 1999. A length-frequency

histogram and a length-at-age graph of coho is shown in Figure 9 and 10 respectively. A

length-frequency histogram and a length-at-age graph of sampled rainbow trout is

provided in Figure 11 and 12 respectively.

The majority of adult coho salmon migrate into the Vavenby Unit study area from

September through December, and most spawn from late October to January. Coho fry

emergence occurs in the spring before and after peak river discharge. Coho fry appear to

have at least two rearing strategies in the study area: fry may migrate into the North

Thompson River to rear, or they may rear and overwinter in their natal stream (Harding et

al. 1994). Depending on stream temperature and growth rate, coho fry spend one or two

years in freshwater before reaching smolting size; up to 10% of coho in the North

Thompson River tributaries spend two years in fresh water (Hutton et al. 1983). There

are a considerable number of potential two-year-old smolts in the North Thompson from

mid-summer to early fall (Whelen and Lister 1985).

Table 5. Fish sampling summary for the 1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999.

Site No. ILP Map No. ILP No.

Reach No. Species Capture

MethodFork Length

(mm)Weight

(g) Age

1 83D.014 71 1 CO SN 53 2.41 83D.014 71 1 CO SN 59 3.21 83D.014 71 1 CO SN 49 2.11 83D.014 71 1 CO SN 43 1.33 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 100 13.83 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 47 1.4 SC 1 0+3 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 79 6.8 SC 2 1+3 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 124 21.3 SC 3 2+3 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 105 14.93 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 118 8.93 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 77 7.53 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 103 10.83 83D.014 1 3 RB EF 95 10.94 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 105 12.54 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 101 16.4 SC 1 1+4 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 60 2.44 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 101 15.04 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 102 14.24 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 85 8.44 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 54 2.14 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 107 13.34 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 157 49.3 SC 2 2+4 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 55 2.2 SC 3 0+4 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 121 29.84 83D.014 1 4 RB EF 103 14.56 83D.014 5 1 CO EF 86 8.3 SC 1 1+6 83D.014 5 1 LNC EF 117 14.78 83D.014 98 1 CO EF 55 2.29 83D.004 38 1 CO EF 60 4.3 SC 1 1+12 83D.004 45 1 RB EF 69 4.8 SC 1 0+16 83D.003 1 5 RB EF 94 SC 1 2+28 83D.004 5 1 CO EF 62 4.7 SC 2 0+28 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 118 24.228 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 81 10.428 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 129 32.528 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 94 13.528 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 72 5.628 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 74 7.528 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 73 6.528 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 89 13.228 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 129 33.3 SC 1 2+28 83D.004 5 1 RB EF 93 12.633 83D.004 37 1 RB EF 121 21.5 SC 1 2+35 82M.094 56 1 RB EF 95 7.5

Aging structure

ARC Environmental Ltd. FRBC Project No. T0M-98-110FRBC Activity No. 10513b

Page 39




MethodFork Length

(mm)Weight

(g) AgeAging

structure

35 82M.094 56 1 RB EF 140 35.035 82M.094 56 1 RB EF 100 13.235 82M.094 56 1 RB EF 140 39.4 SC 5 1+35 82M.094 56 1 RB EF 155 47.3 SC 3 2+35 82M.094 56 1 RB EF 60 4.2 SC 4 1+35 82M.094 56 1 RB EF 90 9.5 SC 1 1+35 82M.094 56 1 RB EF 80 10.0 SC 2 1+36 82M.094 56 2.1 RB EF 175 61.036 82M.094 56 2.1 RB EF 160 57.0 SC 2 2+36 82M.094 56 2.1 RB EF 130 47.3 SC 1 2+51 82M.074 13 1.1 CO EF 61 4.4 SC 1 0+51 82M.074 13 1.1 CO EF 44 1.2 SC 2 0+53 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 90 11.5 SC 1 1+53 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 80 10.053 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 75 5.353 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 65 2.453 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 50 2.353 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 100 15.053 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 50 2.153 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 5.253 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 55 5.5 SC 3 0+53 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 80 7.253 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 5.753 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 80 6.953 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 50 1.953 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 75 2.953 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 60 4.153 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 47 1.253 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 60 2.353 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 80 9.653 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 55 2.453 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 85 9.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 5.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 85 13.053 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 55 2.353 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 7.253 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 84 9.953 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 50 6.153 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 63 5.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 5.653 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 6.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 80 4.753 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 85 8.153 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 90 7.5


Page 40




MethodFork Length

(mm)Weight

(g) AgeAging

structure

53 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 75 5.253 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 50 1.853 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 65 7.253 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 90 7.053 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 75 4.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 5.853 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 7.153 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 75 5.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 4.853 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 5.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 4.453 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 70 4.253 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 60 2.253 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 80 11.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 62 6.553 82M.074 26 1 CO MT 65 2.653 82M.074 26 1 RB MT 110 17.8 SC 2 1+54 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 123 19.754 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 133 24.3 SC 1 2+54 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 104 10.5 SC 2 1+54 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 144 29.354 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 64 5.354 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 106 14.454 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 97 10.954 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 69 4.254 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 107 12.854 82M.074 27 1 RB EF 85 7.2 SC 3 1+58 82M.074 48 1 RB EF 61 4.2 SC 1 0+58 82M.074 48 1 RB EF 89 12.7 SC 3 1+58 82M.074 48 1 RB EF 73 10.2 SC 2 1+

Codes: RB = EF = electrofishing SC = scale

CO = SN = seine net

LNC = MT = minnow trap

Rainbow trout

Coho salmon

Longnose dace


Page 41

Table 6. Summary of length-at-age data from coho salmon and rainbow trout sampled in the 1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999.

Site No. ILP Map No. ILP No. Reach No. Species Age Number of fish

Mean length (mm)

6 83D.014 5 1 CO 1+ 1 86.0 - - -

9 83D.004 38 1 CO 1+ 1 60.0 - - -

28 83D.004 5 1 CO 0+ 1 62.0 - - -

51 82M.074 13 1 CO 0+ 2 52.5 44.0 - 61.0

53 82M.074 26 1 CO 0+ 1 55.0 - - -

53 82M.074 26 1 CO 1+ 1 90.0 - - -

3 83D.014 1 3 RB 0+ 1 47.0 - - -

3 83D.014 1 3 RB 1+ 1 79.0 - - -

3 83D.014 1 3 RB 2+ 1 124.0 - - -

4 83D.014 1 4 RB 0+ 1 55.0 - - -

4 83D.014 1 4 RB 1+ 1 101.0 - - -

4 83D.014 1 4 RB 2+ 1 157.0 - - -

12 83D.004 45 1 RB 0+ 1 69.0 - - -

16 83D.003 1 5 RB 2+ 1 94.0 - - -

28 83D.004 5 1 RB 2+ 1 129.0 - - -

33 83D.004 37 1 RB 2+ 1 121.0 - - -

35 82M.094 56 1 RB 1+ 4 92.5 60.0 - 140.0

35 82M.094 56 1 RB 2+ 1 155.0 - - -

36 82M.094 56 2.1 RB 2+ 2 145.0 130.0 - 160.0

53 82M.074 26 1 RB 1+ 1 110.0 - - -

54 82M.074 27 1 RB 1+ 2 94.5 85.0 - 104.0

54 82M.074 27 1 RB 2+ 1 133.0 - - -

58 82M.074 48 1 RB 0+ 1 61.0 - - -

58 82M.074 48 1 RB 1+ 2 81.0 73.0 - 89.0

Codes: RB = rainbow trout

CO = coho salmon

Range of Lengths (mm)

ARC Environmental Ltd.FRBC Project No. T0M-98-110

FRBC Activity No. 10513b Page 42


FRBC Project No.: T0M-98-110FRBC Activity No.: 10513b

Page 43

Figure 9. Length-frequency histogram of coho salmon ( Onchorhynchus kisutch ) from the Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999. n = 58.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

26-50 51-75 76-100

Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y



Page 44

Figure 10. Length-at-age of coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch ) captured in Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999 (mean length in brackets).

(55.5)

(78.7)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-1 0 1 2

Age (years)

Fork

leng

th (m

m)

0+ 1+


FRBC Project No.: TOM-98-110FRBC Activity No. 10513b

Page 45

Figure 11. Length-frequency histogram of sampled rainbow trout ( Onchorhynchus mykiss) from the Vavenby Unit study area, September 16-24, 1999. n = 59.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

26-50 51-75 76-100 101-125 126-150 151-175

Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y



Page 46

Figure 12. Length-at-age of rainbow trout ( Onchorhynchus mykiss ) captured in the Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999 (mean length in brackets).

(58.0)

(91.9)

(133.7)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

-1 0 1 2 3

Age (years)

Fork

leng

th (m

m)

0+ 1+ 2+


Page 47

Rainbow trout in the North Thompson may exhibit one of three life history strategies;

adfluvial (spawning and rearing for one to three years in streams before moving into lakes

to rear or mature), fluvial (spawning and rearing in smaller tributaries and rearing as adults

in mainstems or large tributaries), or resident (living their entire lives within smaller,

usually headwater, tributaries) (Ford et al. 1995).

The length-at-age data suggests the absence of mature rainbow trout older than 2+ years

in any sample site stream in the study area. It appears that rainbow trout in most of the

study area are fluvial, and adult fish older than 2 years migrate to the North Thompson

River to rear. Rainbow trout above the 8m high waterfall in Reach 2 of Blue River appear

to be adfluvial, and migrate to the Blue Lakes to rear. It is also possible that adults in the

system may have been unavailable for capture either due to habitat partitioning (adults live

in separate areas from juveniles) or due to sampling gear bias.

Rainbow trout are spring spawners, and depending on stream flow and water

temperatures, will spawn from mid-April to mid-June. Fry emergence usually occurs

between mid-June to mid-August. As fry emerge from the spawning gravels, they will

move into slow moving waters along the margins and/or pools. As the fish grow, they

may inhabit riffle areas where they remain for the summer or move into rearing areas in

associated lakes. By late summer and early fall the young of the year and juveniles may

take up residence in suitable overwintering habitat (Ford et al. 1995) within the North

Thompson River or in the Blue Lakes.

4.4 Significant Features and Fisheries Observations

4.4.1 Fish and Fish Habitat

Within the Vavenby Unit study area, no staging areas or large spawning grounds were

identified within the sites sampled in 1999/2000.


Page 48

4.4.2 Habitat Protection Concerns

4.4.2.1 Fisheries Sensitive Zones

No Fisheries Sensitive Zones were identified within the Vavenby Unit study area during

the field survey in 1999.

4.4.2.2 Fish Above 20% Gradients

During field sampling, fish populations were detected in two reaches with gradients of

20% or more: Sites 35 and 36 (Reaches 1 and 2 of Foam Creek). It may be possible that

high water in the North Thompson River during spring freshet allows fish to pass

upstream through Reach 1 (Site 35), despite the high gradient, up to the cascade barriers

at approximately 53 m upstream of the bottom of Reach 2. Fish passage is not possible

beyond this point.

4.4.2.3 Restoration and Rehabilitation Opportunities

The road crossing at Site 58 (Shannon Creek FSR) is an old log corduroy bridge which

currently is an obstruction to both up- and downstream fish migration (Figure 14). This

stream has moderate fisheries values upstream of the crossing. The replacement of the

bridge with an appropriate structure (e.g. a culvert) would improve fish passage within

this reach.

4.5 Fish Bearing Status

Within the Vavenby Unit study areas, surveyed reaches were described as having a fish

bearing, suspected or non-fish bearing status. This information, combined with


Page 49

measurements of channel width and gradient, provided the opportunity to propose a

riparian stream class for each reach where a sample site was completed (FPC 1995).

Of the 67 reaches surveyed in the Vavenby Unit study area, 18 were designated fish

bearing (6-S2, 7-S3, and 5-S4), 35 were designated non-fish bearing (6-S5 and 29-S6) and

14 had no visible channel (NVC). Results are in general agreement with the Kamloops

Forest Region stream classification map.

4.5.1 Fish Bearing Reaches

In total, 18 surveyed reaches within the Vavenby Unit study area were classified as fish

bearing: 7 in the Blue River watershed (Sites 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 16), 1 in the

Whitewater Creek watershed (Site 1), 4 in the Peddie Creek watershed (Sites 28, 30, 31,

and 33), 2 in the Foam Creek watershed (Sites 35 and 36), and 4 in the Shannon Creek

watershed (Sites 51, 53, 54, and 58; Table 7). Fish bearing reaches provided suitable

habitat for either coho fry rearing with gradients ranging from 1% to 10%, adequate cover

primarily comprised of instream and overhanging vegetation, or they provided suitable

habitat for rainbow trout rearing, with gradients ranging from 1% to 20% (except Sites 35

and 36), adequate cover primarily comprised of cutbank and woody debris, and substrates

of mainly cobbles and gravels (particle size generally between 2 and 256 mm).

Fish were captured in 16 of the 18 fish bearing surveyed reaches. Two reaches (Site 30 -

intermittent and not fished; and Site 31 – low flow and no fish captured) were still

classified as fish bearing because they contained some areas possibly used by trout for

spring spawning and they was contiguous with downstream fish bearing reaches, therefore

seasonal use of these reaches by fish is possible.

Table 7. Summary of data from surveyed fish bearing reaches in the 1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999.

Site No.

ILP Map No.

ILP No.

Reach No.

Survey Date

Fish Species Found

Average Channel Width

(m)

Average Gradient

(%)

Water Temp. (°C)

Proposed Stream Class

Follow Up

Sampling (y or n)

Comments

1 83D.014

71 1 1999/09/23

CO 2.70 1 12.0 S3 n Good rearing habitat for both coho and juvenile rainbowtrout3 83D.01

41 3 1999/09/2

3RB 8.28 4 10.0 S2 n Excellent rainbow trout habitat - plenty of invertebrates,

pools and good cover.

4 83D.014

1 4 1999/09/21

RB 4.43 2 14.0 S3 n Moderate fish habitat - very few deep pools, 'LC'morphology.6 83D.01

45 1 1999/09/2

4CO, LNC 11.01 6 10.0 S2 n Excellent rearing habitat - good pools and variety of

habitats8 83D.014

98 1 1999/09/20

CO 0.89 1 7.0 S4 n Good coho habitat in lower part of reach.

9 83D.004

38 1 1999/09/23

CO 5.59 2 11.0 S2 n Excellent coho habitat.

12 83D.004

45 1 1999/09/23

RB 6.53 8 10.0 S2 n Moderate trout habitat - good flow but disturbed.

16 83D.003

1 5 1999/09/20

RB 1.24 7 14.0 S4 n Moderate fish habitat - mostly shallow and difficultupstream passage for fish.

28 83D.004

5 1 1999/09/24

CO, RB 5.00 6 8.0 S3 n Good trout rearing habitat -deep pools and bouldercover and good flows

30 83D.004

15 1 1999/09/24

(RB) 1.34 3 8.0 S4 n Some rearing potential but flows is very low.

31 83D.004

17 1 1999/09/24

(RB) 2.60 1 9 S3 n No fish caught. Fish use in higher flows is possible.

33 83D.004

37 1 1999/09/24

RB 1.31 1 8.0 S4 n Moderate fish habitat - deep channel but slow flow.

35 82M.094

56 1 1999/09/17

RB 16.44 24 10.0 S2 n Excellent fish habitat - plenty of deep pools, variety ofhabitats.

36 82M.094

56 2.1 1999/09/21

RB 8.89 21 10.0 S2 n Excellent fish habitat.

51 82M.074

13 1.1 1999/09/22

CO 4.73 2 10.0 S3 n Excellent for Coho, moderate for RB - slow water, nopools.53 82M.07

426 1 1999/09/2

2CO, RB 2.77 11 12.0 S3 n Good habitat - ample cover for the last 60m.

54 82M.074

27 1 1999/09/21

RB 3.77 15 10.0 S3 n Moderate fish habitat - good flow and pools, but highgradient.58 82M.07

448 1 1999/09/1

7RB 0.82 2 11.0 S4 n Some good rearing habitat - ample overhanging

vegetation as cover.

Codes: CO = coho salmon Fish Bearing Channel widthRB = rainbow trout S2 >5 to 20 m

LNC = longnose dace S3 1.5 < 5 m

( ) = fish use suspected S4 <1.5 m

Stream Class

ARC Environmental Ltd.FRBC Project No. TOM-98-110

FRBC Activity No.10513bPage 50


Page 51

4.5.2 Non-Fish Bearing Reaches

Thirty five surveyed reaches in the Vavenby Unit study area were classified as non-fish

bearing: 11 in the Blue River watershed (Sites 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, and

26), 1 in the Whitewater Creek watershed (Site 2), 2 in the Peddie Creek watershed (Sites

29 and 32), 10 in the Foam Creek watershed (Sites 34, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, and

48), and 11 in the Shannon Creek watershed (Sites 50, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66,

and 67; Table 8). Fourteen surveyed reaches had no visible channel: 7 in the Blue River

watershed (Sites 5, 7, 11, 15, 21, 25, and 27), 3 in the Foam Creek watershed (Sites 39,

40, and 45), and 4 in the Shannon Creek watershed (Sites 49, 62, 63, and 65).

Of the 35 non-fish bearing reaches, 32 were sampled and fish absence was confirmed.

Three other non-fish bearing reaches were not fished (because they were

dry/intermittent), but they were still designated non-fish bearing because of confirmed fish

absence downstream, and/or known or suspected gradient barriers within them or

downstream of them.

4.5.3 Follow-Up Sampling Requirements

Within the Vavenby Unit project area, only 67 of the proposed 90 sites were sampled in

the 1999/2000 field season. In the 1999/2000 season, stream reaches in the Blue River,

Whitewater Creek (east side), Peddie Creek, and Shannon Creek watersheds were

adequately sampled to describe fish distribution in those areas. However, in the Foam

Creek watershed, MoELP staff has requested that follow-up sampling be carried out in the

Foam Creek headwater lakes, using the secondary lake sampling technique, in subsequent

years (D. Tesch, Contract Monitor, pers. comm.).

Table 8. Summary of data from surveyed non-fish bearing reaches in the 1999/2000 Vavenby Unit study area, September 16 - 24, 1999.

Site No.

ILP Map No.

ILP No.

Reach No.

Distance (m)

Time (s)

Cond. (uS)

Temp. (C)

Type Effort (hour:min) Comments

2 83D.014 89 2 4.18 27 580 733 20 6 SN 0:02 S5 Stopped EF-ing at 580m due to highgradient (>35%). Used 2nd method. Manybarriers in reach.

10 83D.004 39 3 2.00 10 700 378 20 7 SN 0:19 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Pooraccess for fish and high gradientdownstream.

13 83D.003 73 1 0.88 2 450 210 0 17 SN 0:02 S6 EF-ed entire reach and 150m extra. Used2nd method.

14 83D.003 74 1 1.44 10 700 346 0 11 SN 0:08 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Poor fishaccess downstream.

17 83D.003 6 1 0.82 49 - - - - - - S6 Dry channel, cannot be fished. Steep, noaccess for fish.

18 83D.003 12 4 0.96 5 700 481 0 9 SN 0:02 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Low flows,high elevation.

19 83D.003 24 5 1.68 14 380 410 10 7 SN 0:07 S6 EF-ed all available wetted channel. Used2nd method. High elevation, no access forfish to reach.

20 83D.003 31 1 1.41 1 20 12 20 10 SN 0:45 S6 EF-ed all available wetted channel. Used2nd method. No access for anadromous fishto this reach.

22 83D.003 42 1 1.08 24 280 538 10 7 - - S6 Stopped EF-ing at 280m due to highgradient (55%). No fish access frommainstem due to dewatered section. Toonarrow for 2nd method.

23 83D.003 46 1 1.00 7 700 312 10 9 SN 0:10 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Poor fishaccess and steep gradient downstream.

24 83D.003 61 1 2.30 31 186 514 10 8 SN 0:20 S6 Stopped EF-ing at 186m due to highgradient (>40%). Used 2nd method. Manydisturbances.

26 83D.003 64 2 1.48 17 700 232 10 8 - - S6 EF-ed 700m. Too shallow for 2nd method.


Electrofishing Specifications Other MethodsAverage Channel

Width (m)

Average Gradient

(%)

ARC Environmental Ltd. FRBC Project No. TOM-98-110FRBC Activity No. 10513b

Page 52


Site No.

ILP Map No.

ILP No.

Reach No.

Distance (m)

Time (s)

Cond. (uS)

Temp. (C)




Width (m)

Average Gradient

(%)

29 83D.004 5 3 4.13 5 700 742 10 6 SN 0:02 S5 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Pooraccess and steep gradient downstream.

32 83D.004 24 7 2.94 6 700 314 10 8 SN 0:14 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Pooraccess and steep gradient downstream.

34 82M.094 55 2 1.19 20 75 52 20 10 MT 18:30 S6 EF-ed all available wetted channel. Used2nd method. Dry most of the year.

37 82M.094 56 5 5.39 2 580 321 10 12 SN 0:22 S5 EF-ed entire reach. Used 2nd method. 38 82M.094 56 11 3.66 3 500 365 10 10 SN 0:10 S5 EF-ed entire reach. Used 2nd method. 41 82M.094 73 1 2.70 7 700 986 10 10 SN 2:55 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Poor

access and steep gradient downstream.42 82M.094 82 1 0.38 7 - - - - - - S6 Too shallow to fish. 43 82M.094 86 1 2.10 23 700 475 10 9 SN 0:15 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Poor

access and steep gradient downstream.44 82M.094 86 3 0.68 8 700 727 10 9 SN 0:02 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. High

elevation and probably no access fromdownstream.

46 82M.094 99 1 3.47 3 540 1795 10 11 SN 0:05 S5 EF-ed entire reach and part of Reach 2 aswell. Used 2nd method.

47 82M.094 99 4 1.41 8 700 293 10 11 SN 0:11 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Probablyno access from downstream.

48 82M.094 113 1 1.47 4 700 871 10 6 SN 0:15 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. 50 82M.074 9 1 2.56 39 420 290 40 7 SN 0:01 S6 stopped EF-ing at 420m due to high

gradient (48%). Used 2nd method. Manycascades throughout reach.

52 82M.074 20 1 0.69 2 226 190 10 16 SN 0:05 S6 EF-ed all available wetted channel. Used2nd method.

55 82M.074 31 2 0.56 3 700 193 10 12 SN 0:13 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Highelevation, low flow.

56 82M.074 35 1 0.66 12 - - - - - - S6 Too shallow to fish.


Page 53


Site No.

ILP Map No.

ILP No.

Reach No.

Distance (m)

Time (s)

Cond. (uS)

Temp. (C)




Width (m)

Average Gradient

(%)

57 82M.074 43 1 0.87 3 374 363 40 8 SN 0:22 S6 EF-ed entire reach. Used 2nd method.Probably no access from downstream.

59 82M.074 51 2 6.44 23 550 398 10 9 SN 0:03 S5 Stopped EF-ing at 550m due to highgradient (30%). Used 2nd method. Manybarriers throughout reach.

60 82M.074 51 3 4.33 3 700 433 10 9 SN 0:03 S5 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. No accessfor fish to this reach.

61 82M.074 57 1 1.11 10 410 934 10 10 SN 0:02 S6 EF-ed entire reach. Used 2nd method.Probably no fish present in downstream(Heidi) Lake.

64 82M.084 8 3 2.56 2 700 899 0 10 SN 0:02 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Probablyno access from downstream.

66 82M.074 71 1 1.73 19 250 206 10 6 - - S6 Stopped EF-ing at 250m due to highgradient (36%). Used 2nd method. Manybarriers throughout reach. Too shallow for2nd method.

67 82M.074 74 1 1.55 5 700 645 0 5 SN 0:03 S6 EF-ed 700m. Used 2nd method. Used 2ndmethod. Probably no access fromdownstream.

Codes: SN = pole seine Non Fish Bearing Channel width

EF = electrofishing Stream Class S5 >3 m

MT = minnow trap S6 <3 m


Page 54


Page 55

In addition, no sampling was carried out in the Whitewater Creek (west side), Cook

Creek, Cedar Creek and Berry Creek watershed to describe fish distribution. Therefore,

the completion in subsequent years of the remaining 23 stream sampling sites (15 random

and 8 biased) selected in Phase III, will describe the habitat characteristics and fish

distribution within the remaining portion of the project area.


Page 56

REFERENCES

ARC Environmental Ltd. 1997. The Kamloops Forest Region stream classificationproject. Prepared for Forest Renewal British Columbia. 34pp. + appendices I toIII.

BCIT. 1974a. Fisheries Management Field Report Sheet – Cedar Creek. Unpublishedreport prepared by the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Burnaby, BC. 1p.

BCIT. 1974b. Fisheries Management Field Report Sheet – Cook Creek. Unpublishedreport prepared by the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Burnaby, BC. 1p.

BCIT. 1974c. Fisheries Management Field Report Sheet – Foam Creek. Unpublishedreport prepared by the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Burnaby, BC.2pp.

BCIT. 1974d. Fisheries Management Field Report Sheet – Shannon Creek. Unpublishedreport prepared by the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Burnaby, BC.2pp.

BCIT. 1974e. Fisheries Management Field Report Sheet – Whitewater Creek.Unpublished report prepared by the British Columbia Institute of Technology,Burnaby, BC. 2pp.

Berry, F.C. and A.L. Kahl. 1982. Catalogue of selected Fraser and Thompson Rivertributaries important to chinook and coho salmon and a preliminary assessment oftheir enhancement potential. Unpublished report submitted to Dept. Fisheries andOceans, New Westminster, BC. 243 pp. (from FISS data files).

CDC. 1999. Biological & Conservation Data System. (http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/rib/wis/cdc) Web site of BC Conservation Data Centre, BC Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks., Victoria, BC. 1p.

Chan, B. 1974. North Thompson River Watershed fisheries inventory 1974. BCDepartment of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Kamloops,BC. 54pp.

Donald, T. 1999. Personal communication regarding North Thompson Indian Bandtraditional territories. Band Councilor, North Thompson Indian Band, Barriere,BC.

Dunford, W.E. and D.B. Lister. 1989. CN twin track project: Juvenile salmonid utilizationof a rock spur site in the North Thompson River at CN Clearwater Mile 7. Report


Page 57

prepared by D.B. Lister and Associates Ltd., Clearbrook, BC for CN Rail,Edmonton, Alberta. 53pp.

Environment Canada. 1999. Hydrometric and Environmental Data: Blue River near BlueRiver, gauging Station No. 08LB038.

Ford, B.S., P.S. Higgins, A.F. Lewis, K.L. Cooper, T.A. Watson, C.M. Gee, G.L. Ennis,and R.L. Sweeting. 1995. Literature reviews of the life history, habitatrequirements and mitigation/compensation strategies for thirteen sport fish speciesin the Peace, Liard and Columbia River drainages of British Columbia. CanadianManuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2321.

FPC. 1995. Forest Practices Code: Riparian management area guidebook. Province ofBritish Columbia. 68pp.

FPC. 1998. Forest Practices Code: Fish-stream identification guidebook. Province ofBritish Columbia. 39pp.

Hamilton, J.D. 1995. Collection results for the North Thompson River bull trout survey.Memo from RL&L Environmental Services, Castlegar, BC to BC Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks, Southern Interior Region, Fish and WildlifeBranch, Kamloops BC. 11pp.

Harding T., L. Jaremovic and G. Kosakoski. 1994. Strategic Review of FisheriesResources North Thompson Habitat Management Area. Published by the FraserRiver Action Plan, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 555 West Hastings Street,Vancouver, BC. 118pp.

Hutton, R., C. Manson, M. Lauder and P. Fee. 1983. 1982 Coho studies, NorthThompson River system. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, New Westminster,BC. 145pp.

Lister, D.B. and W.E. Dunford. 1989. CN twin track project: post-constructionmonitoring of compensatory fish habitat at Cook Creek (1987-88). Reportprepared by D.B. Lister and Associates Ltd., Clearbrook, BC for CN Rail,Edmonton, Alberta. 53pp.

McPhail, J.D. and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of Bull trout life history and habitat use inrelation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Report No. 104 Ministryof Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries branch, Victoria, BC. 31pp.

MoELP. 1974a. General information: Cedar Creek. Unpublished report submitted to BCMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Kamloops Region.4pp.


Page 58

MoELP. 1974b. General information: Cook Creek. Unpublished report submitted to BCMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Kamloops Region.4pp.

MoELP. 1974c. General information: Foam Creek. Unpublished report submitted to BCMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Kamloops Region.2pp.

MoELP. 1974d. General information: Peddie Creek. Unpublished report submitted to BCMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Kamloops Region.3pp.

MoELP. 1974e. General information: Shannon Creek. Unpublished report submitted toBC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, KamloopsRegion. 1 p.

MoELP. 1974f. General information: Whitewater Creek. Unpublished report submitted toBC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, KamloopsRegion. 3pp.

MoELP. 1993a. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Blue Lake. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + map.

MoELP. 1993b. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Mystery Lake. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheet and map.

MoELP. 1994a. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Eleanor Lake. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheets.

MoELP. 1994b. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Foam Lake. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheet and map.

MoELP. 1994c. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Lake #1442. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheets and map.

MoELP. 1994d. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Lake #1443. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheets and map.

MoELP. 1994e. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Lake #1467. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheet and map.


Page 59

MoELP. 1994f. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Lake #1468. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheets.

MoELP. 1994g. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: McCormick Lake.Unpublished report submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,Fisheries Branch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheet

MoELP. 1994h. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Shannon Lake. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheets and map.

MoELP. 1994i. Thompson/Nicola Lake Management Sheet: Twin Lake #1. Unpublishedreport submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, FisheriesBranch, Kamloops Region. 1 p + data sheets.

MoELP. 1995. Untitled data sheet: Shannon Creek. Unpublished data submitted to BCMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Kamloops Region.2pp.

MoELP. 1996. Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan. BC Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands, and Parks, Kamloops.

MoELP. 1999a. Community Watersheds (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/cws/query/cws.htm). Web site of BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria,BC. 1 p.

MoELP. 1999b. Lake survey query - fish (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fsh/IS/products/lake_surveys/queries/lakefish.htm). Web site of the BC Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 1p.

MoELP. 1999c. Trout, char, and kokanee stocked in BC (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fsh/ids/dman/releases.html). Web site of the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands andParks, Victoria. BC. 1p.

MoELP. 1999d. Water Licenses Query Page (http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca:8100/wtrwhse/plsql/water_licences.input). Web site of the BC Ministry of Environment, Landsand Parks, Victoria, BC. 1 p.

MoF. 1989. Avola and Murtle Lake Biogeoclimatic Unit 1:100,000 Maps (82M/NW,83D/SW) of the Kamloops Forest Region. Ministry of Forests, Research Branch.Victoria, BC.

MoF. 1994. Clearwater Forest District: Recreation Map (1:210 000 scale). BC Ministryof Forests.


Page 60

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. and R. Hamilton. 1992. Hydrology and water usefor salmon stream in the Thompson River watershed, BC. Prepared for the FraserRiver Environmentally Sustainable Development Task Force, Department ofFisheries and Oceans. 47pp. and appendix.

P.T.C. Phototype Composing Ltd. 1997. British Columbia Recreational Atlas. Vancouver,BC.

Resource Inventory Committee. 1996. A Guide to Photodocumentation for AquaticInventory. Prepared by Osprey Environmental Services for BC Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks – Fisheries Branch.

Resource Inventory Committee. 1997. Fish Collection Methods and Standards. version4.0. Prepared by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks – Fish Inventory Unit.67 pp. With Errata March 1999.

Resource Inventory Committee. 1998a. Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish HabitatInventory: Standards and Procedures. version 1.1. Prepared by BC Ministry ofFisheries – Fisheries Inventory Section for the Resource Inventory Committee.With Errata March 1999.

Resource Inventory Committee. 1998b. Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish HabitatInventory: Data Forms and User Notes. version 1.1. Prepared by BC Ministry ofFisheries – Fisheries Inventory Section for the Resource Inventory Committee.With Errata March 1999.

Resource Inventory Committee. 1998c. Standards for Fish and Fish Habitat Maps. .Prepared by BC Ministry of Fisheries – Fisheries Inventory Section for theResource Inventory Committee. With Errata April 1999.

SISS. 1995. Stream Information Summery System map/form information. Department ofFisheries and Oceans and the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Ref.SISSMO1

Scott, K.J., M.A. Whelen, L.B. MacDonald, J.D. Morgan, and W.R. Olmsted. 1982. 1981biophysical studies of selected chinook and coho salmon-producing tributaries ofthe North Thompson River drainage: Part 1 - Juvenile salmonid investigations.Report prepared by E.V.S. Consultants, North Vancouver, BC, for theDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, BC.

Standen, J. 1993. Reconnaissance survey of Twin Lake (#1). BC Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks, Recreational Fisheries Branch, Kamloops, BC. 10pp.

Stewart, G.O., R.B. Lauzier and P.R. Murray. 1983. Juvenile salmonid studies in theNorth Thompson region of BC, 1982. Envirocon Ltd., Vancouver, BC. 140pp.


Page 61

Union of BC Indian Chiefs. 1993. Sovereign indigenous Nations territorial boundaries(1:2,000,000 colour map). Design and Cartography. Multi Mapping Ltd.

Westcott, B. 1993a. Reconnaissance survey of Eleanor Lake. BC Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks, Recreational Fisheries Branch, Kamloops, BC.11pp.

Westcott, B. 1993b. Reconnaissance survey of McCormick Lake. BC Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks, Recreational Fisheries Branch, Kamloops, BC.8pp.

Westcott, B. 1993c. Reconnaissance survey of Shannon Lake. BC Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks, Recreational Fisheries Branch, Kamloops, BC.12pp.

Westcott, B. and J. Standen. 1993. Distribution, abundance and growth of bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) within N. Thompson R. tributaries above the ClearwaterRiver. BC Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Kamloops, BC.70pp.

Whelen, M.A. and D.B. Lister. 1985. CN twin tracking project environmental designprogram: Juvenile salmonid rearing studies, North Thompson River, 1984. Reportsubmitted by D.B. Lister and Associates, Clearbrook, BC to CN Rail, Edmonton,Alberta. 78pp.

Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat...

Documents

Transcript of Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat...