i

Routine Effectiveness Monitoring

Interim Report: 2017

Trestle Channel Habitat Enhancement

Project

Prepared for the Pacific Salmon Foundation

and

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition

February 2018

Pearson Ecological Consulting for Conservation

ii

Cover Photo: Side Channel Trestle Channel in Hopedale Slough, November, 017

201

4

iii

Executive Summary

In fall 2017, fish and amphibian presence and relative abundance, macroinvertebrate community

structure, water quality, and photo points were monitored at the Project site, Trestle Channel and

at two reference sites, Peach Creek and Or Creek. Like Trestle Channel, Peach Creek is a constructed

side channel of the Vedder River. Or Creek is a constructed side channel of the Coquitlam River.

Three salmon spawner surveys were also conducted at each site in October and November.

The project has resulted in a major increase in rearing capacity for juvenile Coho Salmon, which

were extraordinarily abundant in the Project site relative to the reference sites. Both number

captured (604) and average number per trap (35.5), were much higher than in Peach Creek (152,

8.9) or Or Creek (294, 16.3).

Coho juveniles were, on average, of similar size as those of Peach Creek, but were in slightly poorer

condition (lower weight at a given length), likely as a result of higher densities and competition for

food. They also larger than Coho from Or Creek, likely due to higher productivity in the Vedder

system than in the upper Coquitlam watershed, as indicated by higher invertebrate density and

specific conductivity of the water.

Higher numbers of predatory fish (likely to consume salmonid fry or smolts) were found at Trestle

Channel than at Peach Creek. Northern Pikeminnow were the most abundant of these. Or Creek had

similar numbers of predatory fish, but most were resident Cutthroat or Rainbow Trout. A variety of

other native species were caught. The only introduced fish encountered at any of the sites was a

single Pumpkinseed at Or Creek.

Spawning capacity is increased over pre-project conditions by virtue of unimpeded access and the

presence of Chum Spawners in fall 2017. The total number of Chum spawners and number per 100

m of channel observed during the surveys was much lower in the Project Site (3.3) than Peach

Creek (17.9) or Or Creek (28.2), probably due to the lower proportion of suitable spawning riffle

habitat in Trestle Channel. It is unclear how much spawning actually occurred.

Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity levels all indicate that water quality was

excellent for salmonids at the Project Site and both Reference Sites in in November. The only

exception was marginal dissolved oxygen levels in a blind arm of the Trestle Channel Project Site.

Macroinvertebrate density was high and similar in Project Site and Peach Creek samples, but much

lower in Or Creek. All three sites scored an ‘adequate’ water quality rating using the Streamkeepers

assessment protocol.

Overall the project is considered successful and no remedial work is recommended at this time.

Table of Contents

iv

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... vi

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................ vii

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Watershed Context .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Trestle Channel Project Site ........................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Reference Sites .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.3.1 Peach Creek .............................................................................................................................................. 7

1.3.1 Or Creek ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

2. Field Visits Conducted in Monitoring Period ...................................................................................... 9

3. Monitoring Questions and Indicators ................................................................................................... 9

4. Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................12

4.1 Fish Presence/Not Detected and Relative Abundance .................................................................................. 12 4.1 Salmon Spawner Surveys............................................................................................................................................ 12 4.2 Invertebrate Sampling ................................................................................................................................................. 16 4.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.4 Photographic Documentation ................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Summary of Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 19 5. Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................19

5.1 Fish Community Structure ......................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Spawner Surveys ............................................................................................................................................................ 21 5.2 Macroinvertebrate Sampling .................................................................................................................................... 24 5.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 25

5.3.1 Water Temperature ............................................................................................................................ 25

5.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................................................. 25

5.3.1 Specific Conductivity .......................................................................................................................... 25

5.3.2 pH ............................................................................................................................................................... 25

5.4 Photographic Documentation ................................................................................................................................... 27 6. Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................................27

7. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................27

8. References and Contact Information ...................................................................................................29

Appendix 1: Photographs of Species Captured, 2017.............................................................................30

Appendix 2: Photographs from standard viewpoints ............................................................................33

Appendix 3: Detailed Data: Water Quality & Species Captured, 2017 ............................................46

v

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION WITHIN THE CHILLIWACK/VEDDER RIVER WATERSHED. .................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION (RED DOT) AND CONFIGURATIONS OF SURROUNDING WATERWAYS SINCE THE 1870S. ................. 3 FIGURE 3. PROJECT SITE TRESTLE CHANNEL ENHANCEMENT SITE, YARROW BC ................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 4. PROJECT AND REFERENCE SITES): OR CREEK REGIONAL REFERENCE, AND PEACH CREEK WATERSHED REFERENCE ..... 6 FIGURE 5: WATERSHED REFERENCE SITE, PEACH CREEK, CHILLIWACK. ................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 6: REGIONAL REFERENCE SITE, OR CREEK, COQUITLAM BC ........................................................................................................ 8 FIGURE 7. LOCATIONS OF THE LOGGER, INVERTEBRATE SAMPLING, WATER QUALITY AND TRAPS, AND REACHES AT THE

PROJECT, TRESTLE CHANNEL.. .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 8. REACHES USED FOR SPAWNING SURVEYS IN PEACH CREEK, AND LOGGER PLACEMENT, INVERTEBRATE, TRAP, AND

WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS. ........................................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 9. REACHES USED FOR SPAWNING SURVEYS IN THE OR CREEK HABITAT COMPLEX ARE LABELLED AND ALTERNATE GRAY

AND YELLOW. TRAP AND WATER QUALITY, ....................................................................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 10. LOCATIONS OF PHOTO-MONITORING POINTS AT TRESTLE CHANNEL, PEACH CREEK AND OR CREEK. ........................ 18 FIGURE A1-1. PHOTOS OF SPECIES CAPTURED DURING NOVEMBER, 2017 TRAPPING: PRICKLY SCULPIN, LARGESCALE SUCKER,

REDSIDE SHINER, AND COHO SALMON IN PEACH CREEK AND TRESTLE CHANNEL ..................................................................... 31 FIGURE A1-2. PHOTOS OF SPECIES CAPTURED DURING OCTOBER, 2017 TRAPPING IN OR CREEK: SIGNAL CRAYFISH, NORTHERN

PIKEMINNOW, PRICKLY SCULPIN, RAINBOW TROUT, STICKLEBACK, COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT ....................................... 32 FIGURE A2-1. TRESTLE CHANNEL PHOTO MONITORING POINTS TRP1 (TOP) AND TRP2 FACING UPSTREAM AND

DOWNSTREAM IN FEBRUARY 2018 .................................................................................................................................................... 34 FIGURE A2-2. TRESTLE CHANNEL PHOTO MONITORING POINTS TRP3 AND TRP4 FACING UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM IN

FEBRUARY 2018. .................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE A2-3. TRESTLE CHANNEL PHOTO-MONITORING POINTS TRP5 AND TRP6 IN NOVEMBER 2017. .................................. 36 FIGURE A2-4. TRESTLE CHANNEL PHOTO-MONITORING POINTS TRP7 AND TRP8 AND TRP11 IN NOVEMBER 2017. ........... 37 FIGURE A2-5. TRESTLE CHANNEL PHOTO-MONITORING POINTS TRP9 (TOP) AND TRP8 (BOTTOM) IN NOVEMBER 2017 ..... 38 FIGURE A2-6. PEACH CREEK PHOTO MONITORING POINTS PCP1 , PCP2 AND PCP3 IN FEBRUARY 2018 .................................. 39 FIGURE A2-7. PEACH CREEK PHOTO MONITORING POINTS PCP4, PCP5. PCP6 AND PCP7 IN FEBRUARY 2018 ........................ 40 FIGURE A2-8. PEACH CREEK PHOTO MONITORING POINTS PCP8, AND PCP9 IN FEBRUARY 2018 ................................................ 41 FIGURE A2-9. OR CREEK PHOTO MONITORING POINTS ORP1, ORP2 AND ORP4 IN FEBRUARY 2018 ........................................ 42 FIGURE A2-10. OR CREEK PHOTO MONITORING POINTS ORP3, ORP5 AND IN FEBRUARY 2018 ................................................. 43 FIGURE A2-11. OR CREEK PHOTO MONITORING POINTS ORP6, ORP7 AND, ORP8 AND ORP12 IN FEBRUARY 2018 ............ 44 FIGURE A2-12. OR CREEK PHOTO MONITORING POINTS ORP9, ORP10 AND ORP11 IN FEBRUARY 2018 ............................... 45 FIGURE A3-1. THE PROJECT, TRESTLE CHANNEL INVERTEBRATE SURVEY INTERPRETATION SHEET. .............................................. 52 FIGURE A3-2. THE WATERSHED REFERENCE SITE, PEACH CREEK, INVERTEBRATE SURVEY INTERPRETATION SHEET. ............... 54 FIGURE A3-3. INVERTEBRATE SURVEY INTERPRETATION SHEET FOR OR CREEK HABITAT COMPLEX, 2017. ................................ 56

vi

List of Tables

TABLE 1: YEAR 1 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING FIELDWORK TIMING AND PARTICIPANTS .................................................................... 9 TABLE 2: QUESTIONS, INDICATORS AND SAMPLING METHODS ASSOCIATED WITH MONITORING OBJECTIVES. ............................... 10 TABLE 3. LOCATION AND INSTALLATION DATES OF WATER TEMPERATURE LOGGERS. .......................................................................... 16 TABLE 4. LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PHOTO MONITORING POINTS ............................................................................................. 17 TABLE 5. EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING FIELD METHODS PROJECT AND REFERENCE SITES SUMMARY .............................................. 19 TABLE 6. FISH AND AMPHIBIANS CAPTURED IN YEAR 1 AT TRESTLE CHANNEL AND REFERENCE SITES .......................................... 20 TABLE 7. CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT FROM YEAR 1 PEACH CREEK, OR CREEK AND TRESTLE CHANNEL ............................................. 20 TABLE 8: MEAN LENGTH, WEIGHT AND CONDITION FACTOR OF COHO SALMON FROM TRESTLE CHANNEL AND THE REFERENCE

SITES AND RESULTS OF WELCH’S T-TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES IN MEAN VALUES. ...................................................................... 21 TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF 2017 CHUM SPAWNER SURVEY DATA FROM TRESTLE CHANNEL, PEACH CREEK, AND OR CREEK. ........ 22 TABLE 10. REDDS IN PEACH CREEK AND OR CREEK, FALL 2017.. .......................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 11. MEAN LENGTHS OF FEMALE AND MALE SPAWNING CHUM AT EACH SITE .......................................................................... 23 TABLE 12. THE PROPORTION OF EGGS SPAWNED IN FEMALE CHUM EXAMINED AT EACH SITE ......................................................... 24 TABLE 13. INVERTEBRATE SAMPLING RESULTS FROM EACH SITE. ........................................................................................................... 24 TABLE 14. WATER QUALITY FOR EACH SITE, FALL 2017 ......................................................................................................................... 26 TABLE 15.EVALUATION OF PROJECT SITE BASED ON MONITORING PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND MONITORING QUESTIONS. .......... 28 TABLE A3-1. DETAILED WATER QUALITY DATA F FROM OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 2017 ............................................................... 47 TABLE A3-2. DETAILED SPECIES CAPTURE DATA FOR THE PROJECT AND REFERENCE SITES ............................................................ 48 TABLE A3-3. SPECIES OF FISH AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES CAPTURED IN.................................................................................................... 50

vii

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Mike Pearson PhD, RPBio and Roxanne Snook MSc, RPbio of Pearson

Ecological. We owe great thanks to those who assisted us in the field. They are: Nicholas

Commodore and Andrew Commodore of Soowahlie First Nation, Ian Stephan, April Davies, and

Wayne Froese of The WaterWealth Project, Natasha Wilbrink of the Fraser Valley Conservancy,

Alyssa Togado of BCIT, Jorden Rosenfeld of BCMOE, Nemo de Jong and Stephanie Christiansen of

Chilliwack, Theo Cardinal of Kwikwetlem First Nation, Mike Leon and Roma Leon of Katzie First

Nation. We especially thank Petra Wykpis for helping lead the field work, ZoAnn Morton for

delivering the excellent Streamkeepers Training, and Diane Ramage of Pacific Salmon Foundation

for so many ideas and so much support. The Sto:lo Resource Centre provided us with a beautiful

venue for our workshop and Thin Red Line allowed us take over their laboratory for two days of

invertebrate sorting and identification for Peach Creek and Trestle Channel work. The Hyde Creek

Fish Hatchery in Coquitlam let us use their facility for the invertebrate work on the Or Creek

reference site.

We are grateful for the opportunity to work with all of you!

Photo Credits:

Pearson Ecological Inc.

Project Biologist:

Mike Pearson, PhD, RPBio

2840 Lougheed Highway

Agassiz BC

V0M 1A1

604 785-7246

mike@pearsonecological.com

1

1. Introduction

In 2017 Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) initiated a pilot project to develop standard methods for

routine effectiveness monitoring (REM) of their projects. Five recently completed, PSF funded

project sites in the Fraser Valley were selected for inclusion. One of these is the Trestle Channel

Project, the most recent phase of restoration of the Browne Creek Wetlands in south Chilliwack.

The project was led by the Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition (FVWC) with design and

construction supervision provided by the local Resource Restoration Unit of Fisheries and Oceans

Canada. Work was completed in March 2016. It received support, including funding and in-kind

contributions from a broad range of local institutions and organizations (FVWC 2015).

REM is envisioned as a collaboration between the group(s) that led project construction, the local

First Nation and professional biologists. The intent is to collect high quality data for evaluation of

project success, to increase awareness of habitat issues, and help build technical capacity within

First Nations and the broader community. In this case members of Soowahlie First Nation, The

WaterWealth Project and the broader Chilliwack community are working with the biologists and

technicians of Pearson Ecological to collect the data.

This interim report presents results from the first season of monitoring (fall 2017) of the Trestle

Channel project and reference sites. It includes data from macroinvertebrate and water quality

sampling, salmon spawner surveys, and fish trapping. Additional data will be collected in spring

and summer of 2018 on habitat quality, riparian health, amphibian breeding and other project

characteristics to complete year one of monitoring in accordance with a monitoring plan (Pearson

Ecological, 2018).

1.1 Watershed Context

The Trestle Channel Project site is located on the Vedder River floodplain, at Yarrow approximately

11 km upstream from the Fraser River, within the traditional territory of the Soowahlie First

Nation. Approximately 6 km upstream of the site, at the Vedder Bridge, the Vedder River becomes

the Chilliwack River. It originates in North Cascades National Park (Washington) and drains a

watershed of over 1200 km2. Most of it is forested, including significant areas of valley-bottom old-

growth conifer forest upstream of Chilliwack Lake and extending into the United States (Figure 1:

Project Location in the Watershed). Timber harvesting and recreational activities are significant

land uses in the Chilliwack River Urban development and agriculture are the predominant land uses

along the Vedder River. The Vedder is flanked on both banks by dikes, parkland and walking trails

and is heavily used for recreation

The River’s name changes at the Vedder Bridge because it did not originally flow westward from

that point, as it does now. Prior to 1875 it flowed north for 8.5 km, splitting into the multiple

braiding channels of an extensive delta, before emptying into the Fraser River. In the early 1870s

settlers blocked off the entrance to delta’s sloughs in an attempt to reduce flooding in Chilliwack.

The river deposited debris and eroded soil from the banks against the logs, eventually diverting the

entire flow through the previously small Vedder Creek, which emptied into Sumas Lake at the

2

Figure 1. Project Location (red dot) within the Chilliwack/Vedder River Watershed. Yellow boundary shows extent of maps in

Figure 2

Chilliwack River Chilliwack

Lake

Fraser River

City of

Chilliwack

3

Before 1870

After 1925

1875 - 1920

Figure 2. Project Location (red dot) and Configurations of Surrounding Waterways since the 1870s. Photograph is of Sumas

Lake at Sumas Mountain

4

current location of Trestle Channel. Sumas Lake itself was drained in the 1920s with construction of

the Vedder Canal and the Sumas Drainage Canal (Figure 2: Project Location and Configuration of

Surrounding Waterbodies). Around that time the Vedder River floodplain was also diked for flood

control (Rafter 2001; Woods 2001) and Hopedale Slough and Trestle Channel were active side

channels of the Vedder River. A secondary dike at the bank of the Vedder River was constructed in

the 1960’s, restricting flows and fish access into these floodplain channels.

1.2 Trestle Channel Project Site

The Project Site, Trestle Channel, (UTM 10U 569795 E 5437758 N) is located in mature second

growth deciduous forest on the floodplain of the south bank of the Vedder River (Figure 3: Project

Site). It is bounded to the north by the Vedder Rotary Trail and the Vedder River, a railway track to

the east, and Vedder South Dyke Trail to the south. It is approximately 800 m in length.

Construction of the secondary dike at the bank of the Vedder River in the 1960s disconnected

Trestle Channel from the Vedder River and deprived it of flow. Its pools and spawning gravels were

infilled with sediment and organic debris. Although quantitative baseline data on fish use and

habitat conditions prior to project construction were not collected in Trestle Channel, it can be

assumed that its use by salmonids for the previous 50 years has been extremely limited or absent.

The Project works consisted of enlarging and complexing an existing narrow channel and

connecting it to the Vedder River as a constructed fish habitat channel. The riparian understory was

cleared of extensive Himalayan blackberry growth. It was planted with native trees and shrubs to

improve the adjacent fish habitat. The fish habitat channel is complexed with large woody debris

(LWD) and follows a meandering path through a riparian area, most of which was planted with

native understory shrub species as part of the project.

5

Figure 3. Project Site Trestle Channel Enhancement Site, Yarrow BC

Project objectives for habitat enhancement in the Trestle Channel were not clearly stated, but were

inferred from the application as:

1. Increase spawning capacity for Chum Salmon. 2. Increase spawning capacity for Coho Salmon 3. Increase rearing capacity for juvenile Coho Salmon. 4. Increase productive capacity for resident Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout 5. Provide breeding habitat for native amphibians, particularly Red-legged Frog.

1.3 Reference Sites

Two reference Sites were monitored Peach Creek, and Or Creek (Figure 4: Project and Reference

Sites). Like the Project, both Reference Sites are small cold-water creeks fed by mountainous

watersheds that are used by Chum Salmon, Coho Salmon, Rainbow Trout, Coastal Cutthroat Trout

and other native species.

6

Figure 4. Project (yellow circle) and reference sites (red): Or Creek regional reference, and

Peach Creek watershed reference

7

1.3.1 Peach Creek

Peach Creek (UTM 10U 571869 E 5439027 N), a tributary of Vedder River is a reference site, for

Trestle Channel (Figure 5: Peach Creek). It is located in the floodplain of the Vedder River and

consists of a mix of riffle-pool channel form and off channel ponds. It was restored by DFO in the

1990’s and is considered one of the most productive groundwater-fed side channels in the Vedder

system.

According to local signage, prior to enhancement, the channel lacked pool habitat deeper than 10

cm under most flow conditions and natural development of deeper pools was prevented by the

substrate which is predominantly gravel. The City of Chilliwack in partnership with Fisheries and

Oceans Canada, PSF, and FVRD extended salmon spawning habitat along Peach Creek. In August

2017, the City of Chilliwack and DFO deepened and extended this channel further upstream of the

sampled sections to further increase available habitat.

No suitable, natural, un-impacted floodplain channels exist in the Vedder/Chilliwack system to use

in this capacity due to the history of habitat alterations described above. It is a watershed scale

reference site; close enough to be affected by the same local influences (fish community, flood

events etc.) but far enough away not to be affected by the restoration work at Trestle Channel.

Peach Creek enters the Vedder River less than 2 km away. It contains upstream ponds and

downstream riffle habitats. Mean and maximum flows are greater, but minimum flows are less

than in Trestle Channel. The western (downstream) half of it runs dry during drought conditions,

including those of summer/fall 2017.

Figure 5: Watershed Reference Site, Peach Creek, Chilliwack.

8

1.3.1 Or Creek

The Or Creek off channel complex (UTM 10U 516790 E 5465009 N) is the second reference site

(Figure 6: Or Creek). It enters the Coquitlam River a short distance downstream of the Coquitlam

Water Supply Reservoir. In 1993 Fisheries and Oceans Canada completed a major off channel

habitat creation project within the portion of the watershed managed for drinking water supply. It

is closed to the public, forested and subject to very little human disturbance. It is similar to Trestle

Channel in that it is a side channel with a regulated flow intake (culvert) from a moderate sized

river that originates in a largely forested, mountainous watershed. It also has similar water quality,

types of habitat present and salmonid species present. It functions as a regional reference site,

representative of regional conditions with minimal ongoing human influence.

Figure 6: Regional Reference Site, Or Creek, Coquitlam BC

N

9

2. Field Visits Conducted in Monitoring Period

Year 1 monitoring fieldwork is summarized in Table 1: Year 1 Effectiveness Monitoring.

Table 1: Year 1 effectiveness monitoring fieldwork timing and participants

Date (2017) Field Work Personnel

September 17 - 18 Invertebrates, Peach and Trestle Installation of temperature Trestle Channel

Mike Pearson, Roxanne Snook, Bonnie Cunningham, Nemo de Jong, Ian Stephan, Natasha Wilbrink

September 25 Invertebrate Sampling, Or Creek; Installation of temperature loggers

Mike Pearson, Roxanne Snook, Petra Wykpis, Roma Leon, Theo Cardinal, Alyssa Togado, Jordan Rosenfeld

October 11 Spawner Survey, Or Creek Petra Wykpis, Mike Pearson

October 17 Spawner Survey, Peach and Trestle Roxanne Snook, Bonnie Cunningham, Nemo de Jong, Ian Stephan, Natasha Wilbrink

October 26 Spawner Survey, Or Creek Petra Wykpis, Theo Cardinal

October 30-31 Fish trapping, Water quality, Or Creek

Mike Pearson, Petra Wykpis, Roxanne Snook

November 2 Spawner Survey, Peach & Trestle Channel Roxanne Snook, Matt Townsend, Bonnie Cunningham, Nemo de Jong, Ian Stephan, April Davies, and Wayne Froese

November 6 Spawner Survey, Or Creek Petra Wykpis, Theo Cardinal

November 14 Spawner Survey, Peach and Trestle Roxanne Snook, Nemo de Jong, Andrew Commodore, Nicholas Commodore

November 23-25

Fish sampling, Water quality , Photo-point monitoring Peach and Trestle

Mike Pearson, Petra Wykpis, Roxanne Snook, Ian Stephen, Stephanie Christiansen, Andrew Commodore, Nicholas Commodore

February 8 and 13 Photo point monitoring (Peach, Or, and Trestle)

Mike Pearson

3. Monitoring Questions and Indicators

In the Monitoring Plan (Pearson Ecological 2018) Indicators of success of the Trestle Channel

project’s objective were identified, questions regarding the indicator’s status were posed, and

sampling methods capable of answering each question were listed (Table 2: Questions, Indicators

and Sampling Methods). These indicators and questions will be the basis of the project evaluation

and all field measurements are linked directly to them.

Only some of the listed indicators are measured in fall and are reported on here. The remainder will

be the focus of field work in spring and summer 2018 and will be reported on in winter 2018/2019.

10

Table 2: Questions, Indicators and Sampling Methods Associated with Monitoring Objectives.

Objective

Indicator Question Sampling Method

Effort Frequency Replicates

1. Increase spawning capacity for Chum/Coho Salmon

Spawner density Is density of salmon spawners per 100 m spawning habitat higher or lower at Trestle Channel than

in the reference sites? Spawner Survey

3 surveys Oct-Dec

Census

Access Are spawners present in all sections of the project and reference sites?

Spawner Survey

3 surveys Oct-Dec

Census

Do beaver dams or other obstructions appear to be blocking access to spawning habitat in project or reference sites?

Survey for obstructions

3 surveys Oct-Dec

Census

Substrate size Is the size distribution of the gravel within similar to reference sites and within range of published

values? Pebble Counts

annual Aug-April

100 particles

Substrate embeddedness Is the proportion of substrate <2mm in size higher or lower than at reference sites?

Digital image analysis

Annual Aug-Apr

4 transects per site

4 photos/transect

What is the average level of embeddedness of particles? Estimated Percent

embedded* Annual Aug-

April 10 particles

Cover for Spawners Are the number of instream cover objects, length of undercut banks, and area of pool depth > 40 cm

per 100 m of channel higher or lower than in the reference sites? Longitudinal

channel survey Annual

Aug-April 2 Reach of 12

channel widths

2. Increase rearing capacity for juvenile Coho Salmon.

3. Increase productive capacity for resident trout.

Catch per unit effort Is the average number of coho/cutthroat/rainbow trout per trap/seine higher or lower than in the

reference sites?

Feddes traps Gee traps

Pole seine* Beach seine*

Apr & Nov Apr & Nov Apr only Apr only

>18/site >18/site >3/site >3/site

Average Length/Weight Is the average length/weight of Coho higher or lower than in Fish board and

balance Apr & Nov >30 preferred

Average condition factor Is the condition factor (weight/ length3x10000) of coho/cutthroat/rainbow trout higher or lower

than in the reference sites? Fish board and

balance Apr & Nov >30 preferred

CPUE of Predatory fish Is the average number of predatory fish >15 cm per trap higher or lower than in reference sites? Fish board Apr & Nov NA

Proportion of catch that is salmonid/native/introduced

Is the proportion of total fish caught that are salmonid/native/introduced higher or lower than in reference sites?

Feddes traps Gee traps

Pole seine* Beach seine*

Apr & Nov Apr & Nov Apr only Apr only

>18/site >18/site >3/site >3/site

Invertebrate food availability Is the biomass of available invertebrates available to fish higher or lower than in the reference sites? Surber sampler,

Hess sampler, and/or D-net

Sept 3 per site

Periphyton

Is periphyton coverage higher or lower than in the reference sites? EPA 50 Dot Method Aug-Sept 12

(3 per x-transect) Is periphyton thickness higher or lower than in the reference sites?

Scrape Test Aug-Sept 10 Rocks

4. Provide breeding habitat for native amphibians, particularly Red-

Egg mass density

Is the density of red-legged frog/other amphibian egg masses higher or lower than in the references sites?

Egg mass surveys 1 survey

March-April NA

Is the average number of adult/tadpoles Red-legged frog, Northwestern salamander/introduced amphibian species per trap higher or lower than in the reference sites?

Feddes traps Gee traps

Apr & Nov Apr & Nov

>6/reach >6/reach

11

legged Frog.

Pole seine* Beach seine*

Apr only Apr only

>3/reach >3 reach

All

Canopy Cover Is average percent canopy coverage at midline of channel higher or lower than in the reference sites?

Digital analysis of canopy photographs

Jun-Sep 20 per site

Spherical densiometer

Jun-Sep 20 per site

Visual Estimates* Jun-Sep 6 per site

What proportion of riparian area is under canopy of tree and shrub layers? Point transects Jun-Oct 5+ transects

20+ points per Plant Survivorship in

Restored Plots What is ratio of live plants in restored plots to number of each species planted? Census June-Oct All planted areas

Plant Growth in Restored Plots

What is average growth (cm/year) of riparian plants in restored plots? Surveyors rod Photographs

Jun-Oct >10 / species

Plant Species Composition in Established Riparian Areas

What is the proportion of each species present in monitoring plots? Census Jun-Oct

All planted areas

Plant Size in Established Riparian Areas

What is average diameter at breast height of trees within each of 5 monitoring plots? What is average height of shrubs within each of 5 monitoring plots?

Diameter Tape Surveyors Rod

Jun-Oct All Trees 30 shrubs

Water Quality

Is the temperature/dissolved oxygen/pH within tolerance limits of salmonids at all times? Various Meters Temp. Loggers

Apr/Sept/Nov Hourly

Each trap/site Min. 1 per site

What is water quality/site health rating using macroinvertebrate indices from the Streamkeepers Manual and from CABIN analysis?

Surber sampler, Hess sampler, and/or D-net

Sept 3 per Site

CABIN = 3 min travelling kick

In Stream Habitat Complexity Is the density of cover objects/length of undercut bank/area of pool depth >40 cm per 100 m of

channel higher or lower than in the reference sites? Longitudinal survey

Pond transects Annual

Aug-Apr

3 sections of 100 m channel 3 transects

Site Photographs How has site changed over monitoring period as seen from standard viewpoints? Photographs Spring/Summe

r/Fall >5 viewpoints

Stability of banks and habitat structures

Are banks and habitat structures stable and functional? Visual Inspection

Photographs Jun-Oct All

Is scour or sediment deposition altering channel or pond profiles? Pond Transects Channel cross

sections

Annual Aug-Apr

4 per site

12

4. Methods

Methods are briefly described in the sections below and are summarized in Table 5: Effectiveness

Monitoring Methods. More detailed descriptions, rationale for inclusion and relationship to project

objectives are provided in the Monitoring plan (Pearson Ecological 2018).

4.1 Fish Presence/Not Detected and Relative Abundance

Fall fish sampling was undertaken October 30-31 and November 23-25, 2017 (Table 3: Fish

sampling session summary). Sampling permits were acquired from DFO (Permit XR 119 2017 and

Permit XR 71 2017) and Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (Permit SU17-

263555) for this work.

Gee traps and Feddes traps were set in pairs at all sites. Locations of traps are shown in Figures 7, 8,

and 9: Locations of fish and water quality sampling. Gee traps are double-ended funnel traps

measuring 16½” x 9” and Feddes traps are similarly shaped but larger: 32” x 16”. Gee traps were

used to provide comparable data to baseline surveys and Feddes traps were used because they are

able to capture larger fish, providing a more complete inventory of the fish community. All traps

were set overnight and baited with dried cat food and commercially processed salmon roe.

Table 3: Fish and water quality sampling session summary 2017

Fish and amphibians captured were identified to species and counted. Fork lengths (L; mm) and

body weight (W; g) of salmonids were measured and all individuals were released at their point of

capture. Catch per unit effort (mean number of fish per trap) in Project and Reference was

calculated for each species as an index of abundance. Condition factor (W/L3x 100,000) was

calculated for Coho Salmon juveniles (Murphy & Willis 1996). Unpaired two-sample Welch’s t-tests

with unequal variance were used to determine if there were significant differences (p< 0.05) in

Coho length, mass or condition factor between sites.

4.2 Salmon Spawner Surveys

Salmon spawner surveys were conducted on three days at each location between October 11 and November 14 (Table 1). The channels were walked in an upstream direction. Spawners were identified to species and numbers alive and dead recorded for each reach. Dead fish were measured (post orbital to hypural plate), and opened up to allow verification of gender and estimate the percentage of eggs remaining in females (Crawford et al. 2007) Reach locations are shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9.

Session Date Gear (# of Traps) Location

Fall

October 30-31 Feddes Traps (18) Gee Traps (18)

Or Creek

November 23-25

Feddes Traps (17) Gee Traps (17)

Peach Creek

Feddes Traps (17) Gee Traps (17)

Trestle Channel (Hopedale Slough)

13

Figure 7. Locations of the Logger, Invertebrate sampling, Water Quality and Traps, and labelled reaches at the Project, Trestle

Channel. Reaches are alternating gray and yellow.

14

Figure 8. Reaches Used for Spawning Surveys in Peach Creek, and Logger Placement, Invertebrate, Trap, and Water Quality

Sampling Locations. Alternating white and yellow lines indicate reach locations.

15

Figure 9. Reaches Used for Spawning Surveys in the Or Creek Habitat Complex are labelled and alternate gray and yellow. Trap

and Water Quality, Invertebrate Sampling, and Logger Location are indicated by dots.

16

4.3 Invertebrate Sampling

Macroinvertebrates were collected using a Surber sampler (30 cm x 30 cm frame; 500 µm mesh)

from riffle habitat at the Project and both Reference Sites in September of 2017. At each site, three

replicate samples were transferred to plastic bins and transported to a laboratory space where they

were sorted and identified

Identification followed the Streamkeeper Manual (Taccogna & Munro 1995), supplemented by

Voshell (2002). Reference samples of most taxa from each site were preserved in ethanol, as was

the entire sample of invertebrates from each replicate Surber sample.

Sites were assessed as Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Poor using the Streamkeeper protocol, which

consists of a combination of indices:

the prevalence of pollution tolerant and intolerant taxa,

the number of sensitive taxa,

the proportion of sample comprised of sensitive taxa, and

the proportion of the sample comprised by the most abundant taxon.

4.4 Water Quality

Water temperature (o C), dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L), pH, and specific conductivity (µS)

were measured at each trap site using meters (Table 5). The oxygen meter was calibrated daily in

air with 100% humidity (plastic sleeve with wetted sponge) and the conductivity meter and pH

meters were calibrated monthly in a standard solution.

On November 24, seven participants with Streamkeeper training guided by a technician

independently measured temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and pH with the meters and

using a variety other method as described in the monitoring plan (Pearson Ecological 2018). These

data will be pooled with similar data from other sites in this program for analyses and assessment

that will be presented elsewhere.

A logger (Hobo V2, Onset Corp.) was installed in the main channel of the Project and each of the

Reference sites habitats to record water temperature hourly (Table 3: Location and Duration).

Table 3. Location and installation dates of water temperature loggers.

Waypoint/Description UTM (10U) Start Date

Trestle Channel (Figure 7) 569738 5437848 17-09-2017

Peach Creek (Figure 8) 573108 5438970 08-02-2018

Or Creek (Figure 9) 516672 5465421 25-09-2017

17

4.5 Photographic Documentation

Photographs from standard locations (Table 4: Locations and descriptions; Figure 10: Locations of

photo-monitoring points) were taken using an Apple IPad Mini (Model ME800C/A). Photographs

for each location appear in Appendix 2: Photographs from standard viewpoints.

Table 4. Locations and descriptions of photo monitoring points

Site Name Easting Northing Description

Trestle Channel TRP1 569397 5437772 At Vedder River

TRP2 569484 5437722 Standing on stump

TRP3 569573 5437746 Access road

TRP4 569685 5437785 Wilson Road culvert

TRP5 569751 5437849 From Beaver Box

TRP6 569775 5437789 Upstream/downstream of spanning log

TRP7 569722 5437761 End of south arm

TRP8 569774 5437771 From Point

TRP9 570000 5437823 Middle arm confluence

TRP10 569980 5437889 Corner of side channel

TRP11 570082 5437829 Trail crossing near RR

Peach Creek PC1 572490 5439001 From Lickman Road

PC2 572763 5438977 Pond 4 from dyke

PC3 572791 5439017 Pond 4

PC4 572808 5439022 Pond 3 taken from west end

PC5 572848 5438979 Pond 3 from dike

PC6 573034 5439007 Pond 2 from east end

PC7 573052 5438983 Peach footbridge between ponds

PC8 573052 5438998 Pond 1 from west end

PC9 573283 5438913 Peach footbridge end of Webster Rd

Or Creek ORP1 516536 5465499 Upper pond

ORP2 516673 5465430 Culvert outlet

ORP3 516704 5465357 From point

ORP4 516702 5465216 Culvert crossing

ORP5 516691 5465124 From spanning log

ORP6 516768 5465091 Downstream from maple on mound

ORP7 516732 5465060 Twin spanning logs

ORP8 516736 5465030 From point

ORP9 516769 5465009 Big pond from twin cedars

ORP10 516786 5465022 Small pond across from twin cedars

ORP11 516847 5464981 Big pond south outlet

ORP12 516820 5464877 Outlet from upstream side

18

Figure 10: Locations of Photo-monitoring Points at Trestle Channel, Peach Creek and Or

Creek. Coordinates and descriptions are provided in Table 6.

19

4.6 Summary of Methods

Table 5. Effectiveness monitoring field methods Project and Reference Sites summary

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Fish Community Structure

Fish and amphibian catch data from the Project and References are summarized in Table 6: Total

number of fish and amphibians. Detailed trap data and photographs of species captured in 2017 are

provided in Appendices 1 (Fish and Amphibians) and 3 (Detailed Data).

All sites had a high proportion of salmonids in the catch. Over six hundred (604) Coho Salmon

juveniles were captured in the November 2017 fall trapping session in the Trestle channel (Table

6). Four Rainbow trout were also found. In addition to salmonids, five other species were captured

in the enhancement channel; Threespine Stickleback (118), Redside Shiners (5), Prickly Sculpin

(14), Largescale Suckers (6) and Northern Pikeminnow (68). No non-native fish species were

captured in Trestle Channel.

Fewer, but still significant numbers of, Coho were captured in the fall in Peach Creek (152) and Or

Creek (294), respectively (Table 6). No Rainbow Trout were captured in Peach Creek, while 23 (and

one unidentified trout) were captured in Or Creek. Coastal Cutthroat Trout (5) were captured in Or

Creek, and none were caught in Peach Creek. A single Longnose Dace was captured in Or Creek.

Catch per unit effort (CPUE) in the average number of fish caught per trap. For Coho, it was more

than twice as high in the Project (17.73), than in Or Creek (8.17) or Peach Creek (4.47). Cutthroat

and Rainbow Trout CPUEs were higher in Or Creek (Table 7: Catch per unit effort). CPUE across all

species was highest in the Project site.

Component Methodology Comments

Invertebrate sampling Surber sampler

Streamkeepers module 4

Fish Presence/Not Detected, Abundance, Passage

Feddes traps Gee traps

See Table 2 for numbers set in Project and Reference Sites in each session.

Salmon Spawner Survey (Streamkeepers method)

Numbers present by species Length and percent spawned (females)

Water Quality

Dissolved oxygen Temperature Conductivity pH

YSI Pro DO Meter with Optic Probe YSI Pro DO Meter with Optic Probe Pro V2 Temp. loggers, Onset Technologies (4) Oakton PC Tester 35 Oakton PC Tester 35

Photographic Documentation (Project Site)

standard viewpoints Apple IPad Mini (Model ME800C/A)

20

The proportion of predatory species (likely to prey on salmonid fry or smolts) in the catch was

higher in Trestle Channel than in Peach Creek, due to the presence of 68 Northern Pikeminnow. Or

Creek scored highly for predator presence primarily due to the presence of more trout.

Table 6. Fish and amphibians captured in Year 1 at Trestle Channel and Reference Sites:

Peach Creek and Or Creek

24-Nov-17 25-Nov-17 31-Oct-17

Common Name Scientific Name Trestle Channel Peach Creek Or Creek

Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch 604 152 294

Rainbow Trout/Steelhead^ Oncorhynchus mykiss 4

23

Coastal Cutthroat Trout^ Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii

5

Trout^ Oncorhynchus mykiss or clarkii clarkii

1

Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus 5 Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 118 71 64

Prickly Sculpin^ Cottus asper 14 1 6

Northern Pikeminnow^ Ptychocheilus oregonensis 68 1 2

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae

1

Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus 6 Pumpkinseed*^ Lepomis gibbosus

1

Signal Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus

2 Total 819 227 397

Percent Salmonids 74.2 67.0 81.4

Percent Native 100 100 99.75

Percent Introduced* 0 0 0.25

Percent Predatory ^ 10.5 0.88 9.3

Table 7. Catch per unit effort (CPUE; average number per trap) from Year 1 Peach Creek, Or

Creek and Trestle Channel

Date 24-Nov 25-Nov 31-Oct

Site Trestle

Channel Peach Creek

Or Creek

n 34 34 36

Coho Salmon 17.77 4.47 8.17

Rainbow Trout/Steelhead

0.12 0.64

Coastal Cutthroat Trout 0.14

Trout 0.03

Redside Shiner 0.15

Threespine Stickleback 3.47 2.09 1.78

Prickly Sculpin 0.41 0.03 0.17

Northern Pikeminnow 2.00 0.03 0.06

Largescale Sucker 0.18

Longnose Dace 0.03

Pumpkinseed* 0.03

Signal Crayfish 0.06 *Introduced fish species

21

There was no significant difference in average length or weight of Coho Salmon from Trestle

Channel and Peach Creek (Table 8). Or Creek Coho were significantly smaller than those from

Trestle Channel and Peach Creek (Table 8). This is likely due to higher productivity in the Vedder

system, probably due to higher nutrient levels as suggested by higher specific conductivity of the

water (see Section 5.3.1).

Condition factor was significantly higher in Peach Creek than in either Or Creek or Trestle Channel.

This means that at any given length, Peach Creek Coho tended to weigh more; they were in better

condition. Condition is influenced by both site productivity and fish density. Peach Creek likely has

higher productivity that Or due to higher nutrient levels. CPUE data suggests that fish density was

much lower in Peach Creek than in Trestle Channel, which would result in less competition for food.

Table 8: Mean Length, Weight and Condition Factor of Coho Salmon from Trestle Channel and the Reference Sites (Top Panel) and Results of Welch’s t-tests for Differences in Mean

Values (Lower Panel). Bolded Values Indicate Statistically Significant Differences.

Variable Site n Mean SEM

Length Trestle Channel (TC) 36 80.33 1.82

Peach Creek (PC) 108 76.38 1.27

Or Creek (Or) 53 60.75 1.25

Mass Trestle Channel 36 6.03 0.43

Peach Creek 108 5.84 0.24

Or Creek 53 3.34 0.73

Condition Trestle Channel 36 1.11 0.03

Factor Peach Creek 108 1.28 0.03

Or Creek 53 1.30 0.18

Trestle vs Or

Trestle vs Peach

Peach vs Or

Condition Factor (W/L3*100,000)

Difference in means 0.000696 0.171356 0.170659

t 0.0188 3.9879 4.0086

df 82 127 154

p 0.9851 <0.0001 <0.0001

Length Difference in means 19.58 3.95 15.62

t 8.8248 1.7658 8.6091

df 66 73 142

p <0.0001 0.0816 <0.0001

Weight Difference in means 3.391 0.186 2.509

t 7.2769 0.3718 3.205

df 44 58 158

p <0.0001 0.7117 <0.0001

5.1 Spawner Surveys

Chum spawners were much less numerous in the Trestle Channel Project Site than in either

reference Site (Table 7). The number of Chum salmon spawning per 100 m was greatest in Or Creek

(21.67), followed by Peach Creek Reference (16.89), and the fewest in the Project (2.54, Table 9).

22

Table 9. Summary of 2017 Chum Spawner Survey Data from Trestle Channel, Peach

Creek, and Or Creek.

Trestle Channel 17-Oct 02-Nov 14-Nov Combined Reach (Length; Type**) Total Live

Total /100 m Total Live

Total /100 m Total Live

Total /100 m Total*

Total /100 m

TC1 (190 m; S)

1

0.53

1 0.53 TC2 (120 m; S)

0.00

0.00

TC3 (93 m; S)

0.00 1 1 1.08 1 1.08 TC4 (92 m; N) 2 2 2.17 3 3 3.26 6 3 6.52 6 6.52 TC5 (81 m; N)

0.00

0.00 1

1.23 1 1.23

TC6 (203 m; N) 1 1 0.49 1 1 0.49 7 7 3.45 7 3.45 TC7 (168 m: N) 1 1 0.60 1

0.60 10 10 5.95 11 6.55

TC8 (114 m; N)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00 Total (1061 m) 4 4 0.38 6 4 0.57 25 21 2.36 27 2.54 Peach Creek

PC9 (117 m: S) 0

1

0.85 6 2 5.13 7 5.98 PC10 (70 m; S) 0

4 1 5.71 7

10.00 9 12.86

PC11 (210 m; S) 0

9

4.29 13 2 6.19 18 8.57 PC12 (190 m; S) 0

13 10 6.84 17 3 8.95 17 8.95

PC13 (198 m; S) 0

14 7 7.07 34 12 17.17 40 20.20 PC14 (97 m; S) 0

24 21 24.74 12 5 12.37 9 9.28

PC15 (89 m; S) 0

4 2 4.49 16 12 17.98 14 15.73 Total (971 m) 0

69 41 7.11 155 78 15.96 164 16.89

Or Creek

11-Oct 26-Oct 06-Nov Combined

OR1 (168 m; S)

11 9 6.54 48 6 28.57 50 29.76 OR2 (80 m; S) 2 2 2.50 27 19 33.75 87 27 108.75 94 117.50 OR3 (169 m; S)

26 25 15.38 71 15 42.01 72 42.60

OR4 (128 m; S)

14 12 10.94 18 6 14.06 19 14.84 OR5 (27 m; S)

2 1 7.41 3

11.11 4 14.81

OR6 (42 m; S)

4 1 9.52 17 6 40.48 18 42.86 OR7 (185 m; S)

3 3 1.62 12 11 6.49 12 6.49

OR8 (76 m; S)

3

3.95 2

2.63 5 6.58 OR9 (49 m; S)

0

1

2.04 1 2.04

OR10 (99 m, S) 1 1 1.01 8 7 8.08 11 6 11.11 11 11.11 OR11 (34 m; N) OR12 (45 m; N) OR13 (16 m; N) OR14 (38 m; N) OR15 (38 m; S) 1 1 2.63 1 1 2.63 1 2.63 OR16 (176 m; S) 1 0.57 3 1.70 3 1.70 OR17 (19 m; S) 3 2 15.79 10 4 52.63 10 52.63 Total (1389 m) 3 3 0.22 104 80 7.49 284 82 20.45 301 21.67

*Combined Total is the sum of dead spawners from the first two surveys plus both dead and live from the

third survey. This was done to avoid an overestimate by counting the same fish multiple times.

** S= spawning habitat present in reach N=no spawning habitat present in reach

Redds were more abundant in the reference sites Table 10). However, Trestle Channel is deeper

with poor visibility, and the number of redds recorded there may be an underestimate.

23

Few dead fish were found in Trestle Channel and Peach Creek. The abundance and density of redds

was similar between the reference site (Table 10: Redds). No Redds were observed in the Project

due to lack of visibility (deep channel with dark water).

Table 10. Redds in each Reach in Peach Creek and Or Creek, Fall 2017. No Redds were observed in Trestle Channel.

Reach November 2 November 14

Peach Creek # Redds #/100 m # Redds #/100 m

PC9 (117 m) 1 0.85

PC10 (70 m) 1 1.43

PC11 (210 m) 1 0.48 11 5.24

PC12 (190 m) 4 2.11

PC13 (198 m) 4 2.02 11 5.56

PC14 (97 m) 7 7.22 16 16.49

PC15 (89 m) 1 1.12 10 11.24

Total (971 m) 13 1.34 54 5.56

Or Creek October 26 November 6

OR1 (168 m) 3 1.79

OR2 (80 m) 5 6.25 15 18.75

OR3 (169 m) 1 0.59 6 3.55

OR4 (128 m)

2 1.56

OR10 (99 m)

3 3.03

OR17 (19 m)

1 5.26

Total (663 m) 6 0.90 30 4.52

Chum spawners from Peach Creek were significantly larger than those of Or Creek (Table 11), this

was true for both males (P = 0.0054) and females (P = 0.0178). Too few dead spawners were

available in Trestle Channel to allow a statistical comparison.

The majority of female Chum examined in Or Creek (90 %) and Peach Creek (80 %) had spawned

all of their eggs (Table 12). The one female examined in Trestle channel had died before spawning.

Table 11. Mean Lengths of Female and Male Spawning Chum at each site

Site Female Male Mean SEM N Mean SEM N

Trestle Channel 57 n/a 1 Peach Creek 62.0 1.18 11 63.8 0.73 30 Or Creek 58.3 0.80 21 60.0 1.06 21

24

Table 12. The Proportion of Eggs Spawned in Female Chum Examined at each Site

Percent Spawned Number of Females Trestle Peach Or

N 1 10 20 0 1 2 1 25 50 75 1 100 8 18

5.2 Macroinvertebrate Sampling

The Trestle Channel Project Site and both Reference Sites were evaluated as ‘Acceptable’, using the

Streamkeepers assessment system. The numeric score for Trestle Channel was slightly lower than

for the reference sites (Table 13: Invertebrate Sampling Results) because it had fewer EPT taxa and

they comprised a smaller proportion of the sample.

Macroinvertebrate Density was nearly identical in the Trestle and Peach Creek samples, but was

much lower in the Or Creek samples. Differences in density do not necessarily imply differences in

food abundance for fish, as size of prey and availability to fish are important factors that density

does not capture. Detailed results and calculations are provided in Appendix 3.

Table 13. Invertebrate Sampling Results from each Site, Assessed using StreamKeepers Assessment Method.

Trestle Peach Or Abundance 199 593 187 Density (/m2) 2211 2196 692 Total Taxa 12 22 18 EPT Taxa 5 8 9 Tolerance Index 17 24 15 EPT:Abundance Ratio 0.43 0.73 0.66 Dominant Taxon Ratio 0.33 0.58 0.40 Site Assessment Rating (1-4) 3.00 3.25 3.25

Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

25

5.3 Water Quality

Dissolved oxygen, temperature, specific conductivity and pH were well within acceptable ranges for

salmonids in the fall throughout the Project Site and both Reference Sites.

5.3.1 Water Temperature

Water temperatures above 18 ˚C are considered stressful for salmonids and those above 20 ˚C are

considered harmful or fatal. As expected, water temperatures at the Project and reference sites

were well within guidelines for salmonids during these fall sampling sessions (Table 14: Summary

of water temperature data).

5.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen

Federal guidelines indicate the minimum level of dissolved oxygen suitable for aquatic life as

9.5 - 5 mg/L, depending upon species and life history stage (Canadian Council of Resource and

Environment Ministers, 1987). For freshwater salmonids, minimum oxygen content criteria range

from 7.75 mg/L -6.00 mg/L for a high level of safety.

All but one reach in Trestle Channel were within the range recommended for aquatic life in

November (Table 14: Summary of dissolved oxygen). Dissolved oxygen was marginal in Reach 5, a

backwater pool with no through-flow (Figure 7). This suggests that is may become quite hypoxic in

summer. All of the reference sites had dissolved oxygen concentrations within the range for

freshwater salmonids.

5.3.1 Specific Conductivity

Specific conductivity (electrical conductivity of water standardized to 25 o C) is a measure of the

concentration of ions dissolved in water. High readings indicate that impurities are present in the

water but provide no information on what they are. Pristine mountain streams typically have levels

under 75 µS, while typical Fraser Valley streams in agricultural/urban landscapes have levels

ranging from 200-400 µS (Pearson pers. obs.).

Specific conductivity readings were below the normal range for urban or agricultural streams

within the Fraser Valley the Project Site and both reference Sites (Table 14: Summary of specific

conductivity). Or Creek had very low values (<20 µS) typical of a pristine mountain stream, or

rainwater. Conductivity in Trestle Channel and Peach Creek were elevated relative to Or Creek, no

doubt because of higher levels of agricultural, residential and road development in the watershed.

Some of elevation is likely due to nutrients from these sources.

5.3.2 pH

Acidity of water is described using pH, the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. It

is unitless with a value of 7 being neutral. Values greater than 7 are basic and values less than 7 are

acidic. Federal water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life list a pH range of 6.5-9.0.

Levels at all water quality stations were well within the recommended range in all sampling periods

(Table 14: Summary of pH Readings). Values in Or Creek were slightly more acidic.

26

Table 14. Water Quality for Each Site, Fall 2017

Date Reach Temp. (˚C) DO mg/L Cond (µS) pH

N Max Mean SEM N Min Mean SEM N Max Mean SEM N Mean SEM

Nov-24 Trestle Channel (All) 15 9.4 9.09 0.08 15 3.85 6.34 0.27 15 120 112 0.84 14 6.99 0.05

TC4 4 9.15 0.03 4 6.38 0.03 4 112 0.41 3 6.97 0.03

TC5 2 8.45 0.25 2 4.91 1.06 2 107 4.00 2 7.00 0.00

TC6 3 9.13 0.07 3 6.66 0.07 3 112 0.00 3 7.17 0.17

TC7 3 9.30 0.00 3 7.09 0.16 3 111 0.00 3 7.00 0.00

TC8 2 9.10 0.20 2 5.64 1.55 2 116 4.50 2 6.85 0.15

TC9 1 9.40

1 7.28 1 112 1 6.80

Nov-25 Peach Creek Ponds (All) 9 13.1 10.27 0.51 9 6.11 8.21 0.37 9 104 91 1.99 9 6.98 0.07

P1 2 10.80 2.30 2 7.39 1.28 2 97 7.50 2 6.75 0.25

P2 1 11.60

1 8.21 1 97 1 7.20

P3 3 9.00 0.00 3 9.37 0.02 3 89 0.00 3 7.07 0.03

P4 3 10.73 0.07 3 7.61 0.17 3 86 0.33 3 6.97 0.07

Oct-31 Or Creek (All) 18 10.5 9.66 0.11 18 7.71 10.06 0.18 18 18 12.1 0.49 18 6.37 0.03

OR2 1 10.50 1 11.10 1 9 1 6.40

OR3 4 10.15 0.14 4 10.64 0.16 4 10.5 0.50 4 6.38 0.03

OR4 1 9.70 1 10.40 1 11 1 6.20

OR5 2 9.55 0.05 2 10.12 0.19 2 11 0.00 2 6.40 0.00

OR7 5 9.32 0.13 5 9.99 0.17 5 12.4 0.24 5 6.46 0.07

OR11 1 9.20 1 8.96 1 14 1 6.40

OR12 1 9.40 1 9.72 1 15 1 6.10

OR14 2 9.40 0.00 2 10.21 0.18 2 12 0.00 2 6.40 0.00

OR16 1 10.00 1 7.71 1 18 1 6.20

27

5.4 Photographic Documentation

Photographs of fish and amphibian species captured during the fall 2017 monitoring sessions are

provided in Appendix 1: Photographs: Habitat and species captured. Photographs of reaches in each

site are also in Appendix 1. Photographs from 7 standard photo-monitoring points taken Nov. 25,

2017 appear in Appendix 2: Photographs from standard viewpoints.

6. Evaluation

An evaluation of each indicator measured in fall 2017 is presented in Table 15: Evaluation of

Project Site. They relate to three of the project objectives:

Increase spawning capacity for Chum/Coho Salmon

Increase rearing capacity for juvenile Coho Salmon.

Increase productive capacity for resident trout.

Spawning capacity is increased over pre-project conditions by virtue of unimpeded access and the

presence of Chum Spawners in fall 2017. Numbers were much lower, however, than in the

reference sites and it is unclear how much spawning actually occurred.

The project has resulted in a major increase in rearing capacity for juvenile Coho Salmon, which

were extraordinarily abundant in the Project site relative to the reference sites. Marginal dissolved

oxygen levels are likely reducing productivity in one area of the site – a blind channel. Coho were on

average as large as at Peach Creek, but were in slightly poorer condition (lower weight at a given

length), likely as a result of higher densities and competition for food. They were also larger than

Coho from Or Creek, likely due to higher productivity in the Vedder system than in the upper

Coquitlam watershed, as indicated by higher invertebrate density and specific conductivity of the

water.

Resident trout were present in the Project Site, in low numbers indicating that some increase in

productive capacity has occurred. None were caught at Peach Creek, but they were relatively

abundant at Or Creek.

Overall the project is considered successful and no remedial work is recommended at this time.

7. Recommendations

1. Increase the number of spawner surveys from 3 to 5 to extend the survey period 4 weeks to

capture the Coho Salmon run in addition to the Chum run.

28

Table 15.Evaluation of Project Site Based on Monitoring Project Objectives and Monitoring Questions.

Good Adequate Poor

Objective

Indicator Question Sampling Method

Evaluation

Increase spawning capacity for Chum/Coho Salmon

Spawner density Is density of salmon spawners per 100 m spawning habitat higher or lower at Trestle Channel than

in the reference sites? Spawner Survey

Chum numbers much lower than either Reference Site

Access Are spawners present in all sections of the project and reference sites?

Spawner Survey

Spawners present in most upstream reaches

Do beaver dams or other obstructions appear to be blocking access to spawning habitat in project or reference sites?

Survey for obstructions

No barriers observed

Increase rearing capacity for juvenile Coho Salmon.

Increase productive capacity for resident trout.

Catch per unit effort Is the average number of coho/cutthroat/rainbow trout per trap/seine higher or lower than in the

reference sites? Feddes traps

Gee traps

Coho CPUE much higher in Project Site than either Reference Site

Rainbow Trout present and more abundant in catch than at Peach but

much less than at Or.

Average Length/Weight Is the average length/weight of Coho higher or lower than in Fish board and

balance

Average Coho length/weight same as Peach Creek but higher than Or

Creek

Average condition factor Is the condition factor of Coho higher or lower than in the reference sites? Fish board and

balance Condition factor lower than Peach

Creek and similar to Or Creek

CPUE of Predatory fish Is the average number of predatory fish per trap higher or lower than in reference sites?

Feddes traps Gee traps

Low at all sites Higher than Peach

Similar to Or

Proportion of catch that is salmonid/native/introduced

Is the proportion of total fish caught that are salmonid/native/introduced higher or lower than in reference sites?

74.2 % salmonids, slightly higher than Peach and slightly lower than Or

100% Native fish species 0 % Introduced fish species

Invertebrate food availability Is the biomass of available invertebrates available to fish higher or lower than in the reference sites? Surber sampler,

Same as Peach Creek

Much higher than Or Creek

Water Quality

Is the temperature/dissolved oxygen/pH within tolerance limits of salmonids at all times? Various Meters

Slight hypoxia in blind channel

within Trestle site in fall.

What is site health rating using macroinvertebrate indices from the Streamkeepers Manual? Surber sampler,

All Sites ‘Adequate’ Project site scored slightly lower

than reference Sites Site Photographs How has site changed over monitoring period as seen from standard viewpoints? iPad Mini NA First Sampling Session

29

8. References and Contact Information

Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. 1987. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines

FVWC. 2015. Application for Funding to Pacific Salmon Foundation Community Salmon Program for

Browne Creek Wetlands: restoring off-channel salmon habitats. Pacific Salmon Foundation,

Vancouver, BC.

Pearson Ecological. 2016. Fish survey of the Browne Creek Wetlands. Final Report prepared for the

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition, Chilliwack BC.

Pearson Ecological. 2018. Effectiveness monitoring plan for Trestle Channel, Chilliwack BC.

Prepared for Pacific Salmon Foundation and the Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition. Pacific

Salmon Foundation, Vancouver, BC.

Crawford, B., T. R. Mosey, and D. H. Johnson. 2007. Carcass counts. Page in D. . Johnson, B. Shrier, J. O’Neal, J. A. Kuntzen, X. Augerot, T. A. O’Neill, and T. N. Pearsons, editors. Salmonid field protocols handbook. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MA.

Murphy, B. R., and D. W. Willis. 1996. Fisheries techniques, second edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Rafter, T. 2001. Contested spaces: the Chilliwack River diverstion. Pages 106–107A Sto:lo Coast Salish historical atlas. Sto:lo Nation. Chilliwack, Vancouver.

Taccogna, G., and K. Munro. 1995. The streamkeepers handbook: a practical guide to stream and wetland care. Salmonid Enhancement Program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, BC.

Voshell, J. R. 2002. A guide to common freshwater invertebrates of North America. McDonald and Woodward Publishing, Blackburg, Virginia.

Woods, J. R. 2001. Sumas lake transformations. Page in K. T. Carlson, editor. A Sto:lo-Coast Salish historical atlas. Douglas and McIntyre and the Sto:lo Nation, Vancouver and Chilliwack.

7.1 Contact Information

Pearson Ecological Inc.

Project Biologist:

Mike Pearson, PhD, RPBio, QEP

2840 Lougheed Highway

Agassiz BC

V0M 1A1

604 785-7246

mike@pearsonecological.com

30

Appendix 1: Photographs of Species Captured, 2017

31

Figure 10. Photos of species captured during November, 2017 trapping: Prickly Sculpin (top

Left), Largescale Sucker (top Right), Redside Shiner (bottom Left), and Coho Salmon (bottom

Right) in Peach Creek and Trestle Channel

32

Figure 11. Photos of species captured during October, 2017 trapping in Or Creek: Signal

Crayfish (top left), Northern Pikeminnow (top right), Prickly Sculpin (middle left), Rainbow

trout (middle right), Stickleback (bottom left), Coastal Cutthroat Trout (bottom right)

33

Appendix 2: Photographs from standard viewpoints

Locations are shown on Figure 10

34

Figure 12. Trestle Channel Photo Monitoring Points TRP1 (Top) and TRP2 (Bottom) Facing Upstream (Left) and Downstream

(Right) in February 2018

35

Figure 13. Trestle Channel Photo Monitoring Points TRP3 (Top) and TRP4 (Bottom) Facing Upstream (Left) and Downstream

(Right) in February 2018.

36

Figure 14. Trestle Channel Photo-monitoring Points TRP5 (Top) and TRP6 (Bottom) in November 2017.

37

Figure 15. Trestle Channel Photo-monitoring Points TRP7 (Top Left) and TRP8 (Top Right)

and TRP11 (Bottom) in November 2017.

38

Figure 16. Trestle Channel Photo-monitoring Points TRP9 (Top) and TRP8 (Bottom) in November 2017

39

Figure 17. Peach Creek Photo monitoring Points PCP1 (Tiop), PCP2 (Middle) and PCP3

(Bottom) in February 2018

40

Figure 18. Peach Creek Photo monitoring Points PCP4 (Top Left), PCP5 (Top Right). PCP6

(Middle) and PCP7 (Bottom) in February 2018

41

Figure 19. Peach Creek Photo monitoring Points PCP8 (Top), and PCP9 (Bottom) in February 2018

42

Figure 20. Or Creek Photo monitoring Points ORP1 (Top), ORP2 (Middle) and ORP4 (Bottom)

in February 2018

43

Figure 21. Or Creek Photo monitoring Points ORP3 (Top), ORP5 Upstream (Middle) and ORP5 Downstream (Bottom) in February

2018

44

Figure 22. Or Creek Photo monitoring Points ORP6 (Top), ORP7 (Middle) and, ORP8 (Bottom

Left) and ORP12 (Bottom Right) in February 2018

45

Figure 23. Or Creek Photo monitoring Points ORP9 (Top), ORP10 (Middle) and ORP11 (Bottom) in February 2

46

Appendix 3: Detailed Data: Water Quality & Species Captured, 2017

47

Table 16. Detailed water quality data for the Project and Reference sites from October and

November, 2017

48

Table 17. Detailed species capture data for the Project and Reference Sites from October and November, 2017

49

50

Table 18. Species of fish and amphibian species captured in October and November of 2017

Species Code English Name Scientific Name Status

CCT Coastal Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii Native Salmonid: BC Blue List

RB Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Native Salmonid

CO Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Native Salmonid

TR Trout Oncorhyncus clarki or mykiss Native Fish

TSB Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Native Fish

NSC Northern Pikeminnow Ptychochilus oregonensis Native Fish

CAS Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper Native Fish

RSC Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus Native Fish

CSU Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Native Fish

LNC Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Native Fish

PMB Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Introduced Fish

CRAY Signal Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus Native Fish

51

52

Figure 24. The Project, Trestle Channel invertebrate Survey Interpretation Sheet, collected in

September at 10U 569738 E 5437848 N. The site was assessed as Acceptable, with an

average score of 3 out of 4. The top image illustrates individuals captured, while the bottom

image illustrates the interpretation of the site.

53

54

Figure 25. The Watershed Reference Site, Peach Creek, Invertebrate Survey Interpretation

Sheet, conducted in September at 10U 572450 E 5439026 N. The site was assessed as

Acceptable, with an average score of 3.25 out of 4. The top image illustrates individuals

captured, while the bottom image illustrates the interpretation of the site.

55

56

Figure 26. Invertebrate survey Interpretation Sheet for Or Creek Habitat Complex, 2017. The

Site rated overall as Acceptable, with an average score of 3.25 out of 4. The top image

illustrates individuals captured, while the bottom image illustrates the interpretation of the

site.