Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
1
Sekw’el’was
Seton Wildlife Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study
FINAL REPORT 2010
!
Project No:! !
10.W.SON.02
! ! !
Prepared for:!! ! ! ! ! ! !
Cayoose Creek Indian Band Box 484 Lillooet BC V0K 1V0
Compiled by: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Date:
Kim North Box 2171 Lillooet BC V0K 1V0 ! ! March 30, 2011
! ! !
Prepared with the financial support of the
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
2
Executive Summary The Seton River Corridor is located within the traditional territories of the Stʼatʼimc who have lived and worked in the region for thousands of years. The Seton River, which flows out of Seton Lake, is approximately 4.7 kms long and joins the Fraser River just south of the town of Lillooet. The valley is bordered by steep mountain slopes in itʼs upper reaches, opening up as it empties into the Fraser River. The Seton River, and the land within the corridor, have been directly impacted by the Bridge/Seton hydroelectric system, as well as transportation, forestry, urban development and recreational activities. These impacts are quite extensive; however, the area still has significant fish and wildlife values. The intent of this study was to gauge the potential and feasibility of undertaking conservation and restoration work within the Seton River Corridor, with the aim of creating a more diverse and healthy habitat for fish and wildlife, while taking into account all the human influences on the landscape. This project was conceived as a direct result of the restoration work being carried out on the Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Project. The ideas proposed were to create a functioning fish and wildlife corridor from Seton Lake to the Fraser River, while providing an opportunity for our community to engage in watershed educational training and activities. The objectives during 2010 were to collect historical and current research literature on the Seton River Watershed, to survey the existing impacts and habitats found within the lower corridor, to network with interested stakeholders, build community capacity in land management, and work towards developing a cohesive restoration plan for the entire corridor. Working in partnership with the Lillooet Naturalist Society and local contractors, and under the direction of the Restoration Advisory Committee, Cayoose Creek (Sekw’el’was) have now completed a preliminary survey of the Lower Seton River Spawning Channels and the upland corridor from the spawning channels to the Fraser River. In addition, compilation of existing research and studies has been completed, networks established between stakeholders with an interest in the entire Seton River Corridor, and training provided to increase community capacity in survey and stewardship activities. We were able to leverage funding from a variety of sources to complement the funds provided by Bridge Coastal Fish & Wildlife Program. This allowed the restoration crew to undertake a fairly rigorous vegetation and soil survey from the Fraser River to the Lower Spawning Channels under the guidance of Odin Scholz. A preliminary survey of fish, aquatic invertebrates, algae and temperature readings were completed at the Lower Spawning Channel, again by the restoration crew, under the direction of Jeff Sneep. Research was carried out during 2010 on the impacts and restoration potential for the Seton River by Steve Hall on behalf of the Lillooet Tribal Council. This project was successful in providing initial restoration recommendations and networking contacts that will assist stakeholders in developing a comprehensive plan for the Seton River Corridor.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
!
!
!
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The information provided in this report has been compiled from various contractor reports, and from research and field work carried out by the restoration crew and Project Manager. The following reports were excerpted and added to the body of the Sekwʼelʼwas Seton Wildlife Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study 2010 Final Report.
Jeff Sneep, Fish Biologist Seton River Corridor Habitat Restoration Assessment, Lower Spawning Channel Sampling 2010, Summary Report October 2010. Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist Seton Corridor Vegetation Survey and Restoration Recommendations 2010 March 2011. Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist Lower Spawning Channel In-Stream Report 2010 April 2011. Steven Hall, Crane Creek Enterprises - Lillooet Tribal Council Contractor Stʼatʼimc Nation Fisheries Projects - Watersheds & Infrastructure 2011 Summary Report March 2011 Jeff OʼKelly, Lillooet Naturalist Society member Bird Species Observed in the Lower Seton Corridor and Lower Spawning Channels December 2010
We would like to thank these contractors for their support.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
4
Table of Contents 1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proponent Information ............................................................................................ 07 1.2 Hydroelectric Impact .............................................................................................. 07 1.3 Statement of Need ................................................................................................. 09 2.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
3.
STUDY AREA
....................................................................................... 11
3.1 Site Location ........................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Habitat Description .................................................................................................. 13 4. METHODS
4.1 Partnership Development ....................................................................................... 14 4.2 Historical and Current Research ............................................................................. 15 4.2.1 Compiling Existing Information ............................................................................................... 15 4.2.2 Archeological Research ........................................................................................................... 15 4.2.3 Consultation and Field Observations ......................................................................... 16
4.3 Vegetation and Soil Surveys ................................................................................... 17 4.4 Lower Spawning Channel Surveys ......................................................................... 19 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5
In-Stream Mapping ................................................................................................................... Air and Water Temperature Monitoring ..................................................................................... Aquatic Invertebrate and Periphyton Accrual Sampling ............................................................ Fish Sampling .......................................................................................................................... Data Entry ................................................................................................................................
20 20 20 22 22
4.5 Wildlife Surveys ..................................................................................................... 23 4.6 Community Capacity Building ................................................................................. 25 4.7 Watershed Education Outreach .............................................................................. 25 5. RESULTS
5.1 Partnership Development ....................................................................................... 26 5.2 Historical and Current Research .............................................................................. 27 5.2.1 Compiling Existing Information ................................................................................................. 27 5.2.2 Archeological Research ............................................................................................................ 27 5.2.3 Consultation and Field Observations ........................................................................................ 28
5.3 Vegetation and Soil Surveys .................................................................................... 33 5.4 Lower Spawning Channel Surveys .......................................................................... 54 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5
In-Stream Mapping ................................................................................................................... 54 Air and Water Temperature Monitoring ..................................................................................... 58 Aquatic Invertebrate Sampling ................................................................................................. 59 Periphyton Accrual Sampling .................................................................................................. 61 Fish Sampling .......................................................................................................................... 62
5.5 Wildlife Surveys ....................................................................................................... 64 5.6 Community Capacity Building ................................................................................... 68 5.7 Watershed Education Outreach ............................................................................... 70 6. DISCUSSION
.......................................................................................................... 77
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
............................................................................................
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9. REFERENCES
90
......................................................................................... 93
...................................................................................................... 155
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
List of Maps
Map #
Page #
1
Seton Hydro Project Facilities
8
2
Sekwʼelʼwas Seton Corridor Project Area
12
3
Ecological Zones
13
4
Seton Corridor Survey Area
17
5
Bird Monitoring
24
6
Habitat Polygons - Fraser River to Multiplex
34
7
Habitat Polygons - Multiplex to Lower Spawning Channel
35
8
Habitat Polygons - Lower Spawning Channel
36
9
Deciduous Tree Riparian Polygons
37
10
Grass Herb Polygons
39
11
Young Pine/Conifer Polygons
41
12
Seton Corridor Roads
43
13
Low and Tall Shrub Riparian Polygons
45
14
Tall Shrub Upland and Big Sage herb Polygons
48
15
Barren Riparian and Gravel Bar Polygons
50
16
Mature Pine Woodland Polygons
52
17
Lower Spawning Channel Mapping
54
18
In Channel Fish and Invertebrate Monitoring Locations
63
19
Nest Survey
66
20
Trail and Nature Centre Design
75
21
Lower Seton Channel Project
86
5
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010 Table #
6 Page #
List of Tables
1
Stʼatʼimc Fisheries Projects
28
2
Summary of Surveyed Vegetation Polygon Areas
33
3
a. Deciduous Tree Riparian Polygon Areas b. DTR Polygons % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation
38
4
a. Grass Herb Polygon Areas b. GH Polygons % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation
40
5
a. Young Pine/Conifer Woodland Polygon Areas b. YPW & YCW % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation
42
6
a. Tall/Low Shrub Riparian Polygon Areas b. TSR and LSR % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation
46 47
7
a. Tall Shrub Upland & BigSage Herb Polygon Areas b. TSU and BSH % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation
49
8
a. Barren Riparian & Gravel Bar Polygon Areas b. BR and GB % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation
51
9
a. Mature Ponderosa Woodland Polygon Areas b. MPW % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation
53
10
Habitat Lengths for Lower Spawning Channel
55
11
In-stream Structure and Spawning Channel Survey Notes
56
12
12.1 Water Temperature Recorded
58
13
Numbers and Type of Aquatic Invertebrates Enumerated
59
14
General Indices which Reflect Overall Water Quality & Habitat Condition
60
15
Summary of Fish Captured
62
16
Bird Species Observed
64
17
Wildlife Observations
67
18
Outreach Activity Summary
70
19
Wildlife Species List
78
20
Recommendations for 2011
91
21
Summary of Restoration Recommendations from 2010 Seton Corridor Survey
92
List of Figures
12.2 Differences in Water Temperature
01 - 36 Pictures showing activities
Appendix I.
Data: Reference Manager Data - Seton Corridor Vegetation Data for Habitat Types
II.
Financial Summary
III.
Performance Measures
Breeding Bird Data and Bird Nest Data
IV. Confirmation of BCRP Recognition
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
7
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1!
Proponent Information
Cayoose Creek Indian Band - Sekʼwelʼwas - are the beneficiaries of large traditional sustenance gathering areas, that are and should be managed in a holistic relationship with the flora and fauna communities. We are located in the southern-interior of BC in close proximity to Lillooet within Stʼatʼimc territory. Our membership consists of approximately 200 registered members with 100 living on reserve. We have 720.1 hectares of reserve lands broken into three areas. It is the Mandate of Chief and Council to assist us in exercising our Title and our Right to manage our lands as in the past. We seek to work in an environmentally sensitive way on our traditional lands, using both cultural and scientific knowledge. We are currently working in partnership with the Lillooet Naturalist Society on a multi-year restoration project at the confluence of the Seton and Fraser Rivers.
1.2!
Hydroelectric Impact
In the late 1950s the Seton watershed was subject to major alterations from hydroelectric development. The Seton Corridor relates directly to the historical loss of habitat due to construction of the BC Hydro Bridge River hydroelectric facilities. The Seton hydroelectric development is just one component of the larger Bridge River system. The Bridge/Seton development resulted in creation of Carpenter Lake Reservoir behind Terzaghi Dam, which diverts water, through the mountain, from the Bridge River watershed into Seton Lake. The Seton portion of the project, in service since 1956, consists of Seton Dam just below the outlet of Seton Lake, where the majority of water is diverted into a 3.7km long concrete lined power canal. Water then flows through the powerhouse out into the Fraser River. Some of the footprint impacts indicated in the BCRP Strategic Plan 2000 include: • Diversion of colder, nutrient poor Bridge River water to Seton Lake has changed the temperature regime and nutrient productivity of Seton Lake/River. • Dredging to construct the approach channel to Seton Dam removed riparian habitat, upland forested hillsides and caused the loss of significant spawning habitat for pink salmon - spawning channels were built to compensate this loss. • Construction of the project facilities reshaped the channel and banks, removed aggregates, and removed riparian vegetation over an extensive distance below the dam and at the confluence of Cayoosh Creek. • Diversion of water from Bridge River and Cayoosh Creek has effects on wetted channel area, seasonal temperatures and stream productivity. • Olfactory cues for sockeye returning to Gates and Portage creeks have been changed based on proportion of Cayoosh water mixed in tailrace discharge. • Fish migration impeded by powerhouse penstock, spawning channels and Seton Dam. • Dam traps gravel bedload and high flows erode original spawning gravels below the dam, decreasing spawning habitat. • Dam traps woody debris normally recruited downstream. • Lower water levels reduce fish access to former off channel habitat • Construction of the dam and canal have caused wildlife barriers which restrict movement within the corridor - thereby reducing available habitat and fragmenting populations. • Loss of significant wetlands at the confluence of the Seton and Fraser Rivers. • Visual impacts and invasive weed dispersal along hydroelectric powerlines.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Map 1
8
Seton Hydro Project Facilities (map from BCRP, Strategic Plan - Volume 2)
The development that has taken place along the Seton River Corridor is extensive. Historical photograph (Fig 1) shows an aboriginal fish camp (Oleman family) at Skimka (todayʼs Seton Beach) “in the days when salmon were thick” (BC Archives). Today, no fish are dried here.
Fig 1 Oleman family fish camp and drying racks at Skimka
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
1.3!
9
Statement of Need
Arial photograph (Fig 2) of the corridor clearly displays the scale of the operations that took place in the valley during the 1950s, and that continue to impact the area for both fish, wildlife and people. During initial construction of the hydroelectric operations the flow of the Seton River was dramatically altered. " ! ! !
“The original habitats in Seton River were very different than those that occur today. An area of low marshy habitat existed near the Fraser confluence ... Photographs of Seton River circa 1910-14 indicate a more significant riparian zone and forested slopes than at present” (BCRP, Strategic Plan - Volume 2).
Other impacts which further fragment the corridor include forestry, rail and road transportation systems, independent power projects, hydroelectric powerlines, urban development, and recreational infrastructures. " The fragmentation that exists today impacts the free flow of both fish and wildlife as evidenced by the large amount of research carried out over the years. Even with these impacts there is potential to enhance and conserve the remaining habitat, and to increase habitat through restoration work for both spawning/rearing fish and other wildlife. Cayoose Creek Stʼatʼimc are committed to implementing the values associated with the Nxekmenlhkalha Iti tmicwa (Stʼatʼimc Preliminary Draft Land Use Plan, 2004). Our values also align with stated BCRP and agency priorities. The highest priorities noted in the Bridge/Seton River Watersheds - Summary of Agency Fish and Wildlife Priorities for the Seton River were: • Assessment of species composition and use of original Seton pink channels to provide insight into future works. • Restoration work/habitat complexing in the lower Seton Channel to include instream works and riparian planting. • Assessment of mainstem spawning and off-channel options. • Migration corridor conservation through buffers and habitat enhancement • Restoration of damaged sites in riparian habitats
The Lillooet Tribal Council has worked over the last several years on developing an inventory of species-at-risk within our territory. The Black Cottonwood/Common Snowberry - Red-osier Dogwood (Populus balsamifera ssp trichocarpa/Symphoricarpos albus - Cornus stolonifera) and Douglas Fir - Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Pseudotsuga menziesii - Inus ponderosa/Pseudoroegneria spicata) plant communities are provincially red-listed and noted as having limited distribution (BC Conservation Data Centre). Both plant communities are found within the study area in varying degrees of health. We feel it is important to conserve existing healthy stands of these plant communities and restore areas that have the potential to provide enhanced wildlife values. Species-at-risk that are known to use the study area, and would benefit from possible enhancement of these habitats, include the Lewis Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), Interior Western Screech-owl (Otus kennicottii macfarlanei), Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor), Townsendʼs Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and Spotted Bat (Euderma Maculatum). Amphibian and fish species to act as focal species for any instream work will be designated during discussions with stakeholders during 2011. We believe that by working together with the various agencies, local organizations and contractors, we will be able to define key fish and wildlife habitats, explore the obstacles and strengths within the landscape, and develop a cohesive plan which will support both flora, fauna and our communities. This Feasibility Study was the first step towards that larger goal.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Fig 2 Aerial photograph showing the narrow valley and some of the impacts.
10
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
11
2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Sekwʼelʼwas Seton Wildlife Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study was implemented as a result of the restoration work taking place at the Powerhouse Restoration site and the increasing awareness of loss of intact wildlife corridors and habitat, both in-stream and upland. The Goals of the feasibility study were to: ⇒ determine the health of the river, spawning channels and upland corridor; and ⇒ research the feasibility of creating a wildlife corridor between Seton Lake and the Fraser River. The Objectives during the 2010 feasibility study were to: ⇒ network with interested stakeholders to initiate a long-term restoration plan; ⇒ bring historical and current research on the watershed together for further analysis; ⇒ map and survey upland ecosystem habitats; ⇒ map and survey in-stream condition of the Lower Spawning Channels; ⇒ provide training and capacity building in land resource management; ⇒ provide watershed educational and volunteer stewardship opportunities; and ⇒ develop Phase 1 Restoration Plan for the lower section of the Seton River corridor; Cayoose Creek Stʼatʼimc have met the goals and objectives set out in Application 10.W.SON.02. The work carried out during 2010/11 provides a strong framework on which to develop a management strategy with various stakeholders that will increase the resilience of the Seton River corridor, decrease fragmentation and conserve critical habitats that benefit a wide range of wildlife species, including species-at-risk. The ultimate goal is to conserve and/or restore a functioning wildland network that maintains ecological processes and provides for the movement of native species between key ecosystem spaces, while still taking into account the human impacts and requirements.
Fig 3 Seton River looking west towards Seton Lake
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
3.
STUDY AREA
3.1
Site Location
12
The project site is located within the traditional territories of the Stʼatʼimc, situated on Cayoose Creek Reserve lands, just southwest of the town of Lillooet. The Seton River basin is located in the rainshadow of the southern coastal mountains about 235 kilometres northeast of Vancouver. The Seton watershed begins in the headwaters of Gates Creek, with flows through Anderson and Seton Lakes.The Seton River then flows east out of Seton Lake and runs approximately 4.7 kilometres where it drains into the Fraser River. The study area, and initiation of long-term restoration goals, include the entire stretch of the Seton River corridor from Seton Lake to the Fraser River. The 2010 survey area boundaries run along the length of Seton River, beginning at, and including, the Lower Spawning Channels and ending at the confluence with the Fraser River. The site is bordered by the Seton River to the north and Highway 99 to the south (Map 2)
Map 2 Sekwʼelʼwas Seton Corridor Project Area (Seton Lake to Fraser River) 2010 Survey Area outlined in yellow
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
3.2!
Habitat Description
The site (574 385E - 5613 765N 575 732E - 5614 786N) ranges in altitude from 200m to 210m above sea level. The town of Lillooet falls into the Ponderosa Pine (PP) biogeoclimatic zone. The PP zone occurs in the dry valley bottoms along major river valleys of the southern interior and is the driest forested zone in British Columbia with very hot summers and annual rainfall between 280-500mm. The Lillooet area falls into the Ponderosa Pine very dry hot sub zone (PPxh2) of the biogeoclimatic zone classification. Due to the influences of the Seton River, the spawning channels and the steep rock faces within the corridor there are a variety of micro-climates. For the purpose of the survey project, the site has been broken into four specific ecological zones as shown on Map 3: • Seton River • Lower Spawning Channels • Riparian • Upland
Map 3 Ecological Zones
13
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
4.
METHODS
4.1
Partnership Development
14
The Seton River Corridor project is a direct outcome of the partnerships formed during the work undertaken on the Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Project (funded by BCRP over the last five years). To ensure a long-term and comprehensive restoration plan for the Seton River Corridor our goal was to network with diverse agencies, organizations and individuals to gain insight into the historical and current uses of the area. To achieve this we identified some key stakeholders and initiated contact through telephone calls, emails and personal discussions. Representatives from various organizations were invited to walk the corridor to assist in promoting discussion of land management and conservation ideas. Representatives from the following organizations were contacted and provided with an initial idea of the scope of the feasibility project and requested to provide input. Government Agencies: Lillooet Tribal Council, Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of Environment, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and District of Lillooet Industry: Aspen Planners, CN Rail, Fortis, BC Hydro - Bridge Coastal Fish & Wildlife Program Local Professionals: Fish Biologists, Archeologist, Restoration Biologist Local Organizations: Upper Stʼatʼimc Language, Culture and Education Society, Lillooet Salmon Talks, Aboriginal Land Stewards/Spawning Channel Managers and Split Rock Native Plant Nursery. In addition, representatives from both Cayoose Creek Stʼatʼimc and Lillooet Naturalist Society attended workshops organized by the Lillooet Tribal Council to assist in identifying and prioritizing potential restoration projects within Stʼatʼimc Territory. Representatives from many of the groups above also attended. The workshops and meetings were organized with " ! !
“... the intention to create partnerships with and beyond Stʼatʼimc communities with the focus of bringing a diversity of groups towards a common set of long term fisheries restoration goals” (Lillooet Tribal Council, March 2011).
The meetings provided an excellent avenue for discussing the weaknesses and strengths within our watersheds. Common issues and opportunities were discussed at these workshops and networks solidified. A draft list of action items were developed. Many organizations supported undertaking further research and/or expressed interest in being part of discussions on land management issues in the coming 2011 year.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
4.2
Historical and Current Research
Over the past seventy years a vast amount of research has been undertaken within the Seton River watershed. Reports, published articles, university papers, data summaries and plans are all available, but were not easily sourced locally. Our aim during 2010 was to collect historical and current information on the Seton River Corridor together in one database; thereby allowing us to gain insight into the varied impacts and solutions that had already been identified, and could be used in conjunction with our own survey work and current knowledge.
4.2.1 Compiling Existing Information Existing information at the Cayoose Creek Indian Band was stored in boxes and in various offices. Crew technicians unpacked boxes, sifted through binders and papers, divided into fisheries and wildlife categories, and shelved. We travelled to the Fisheries and Oceans library in Kamloops to go through their computer database and pull out any reports related to the Seton River Corridor. The reports were searched on a computer database, pulled off the library shelves, scanned and emailed back to our office. Information was also gathered from the Ministry of Environment, the Archeological Branch and BCRP databases. Internet searches located a variety of interesting university papers and reports. Work began on reading, cataloguing and summarising the information to show title and date of the paper, who it was prepared by and for who, and an abstract of the main ideas and recommendations provided. Written reports are currently being scanned and filed onto office computers where they will be readily accessible. During meetings with local fish biologists it became apparent that similar work was being done by the Lillooet Tribal Council through a grant received from Fraser Salmon and Watersheds Program. We then coordinated our efforts with the technician hired to carry out that work. We shared most of the reports we had gathered with the technician who then reviewed the literature such that “an abstract, list of relevant key words, and a summary of recommendations or conclusions could be generated for each document” (Lillooet Tribal Council, 2011). The list of references we provided, and that came from other sources, were then catalogued using Reference Manager 12TM software, which provides the ability to search documents by keywords. The database will be made available to interested stakeholders. 4.2.2 Archeological Research Due to the sensitive nature of the area culturally, the Archeology Branch of BC was contacted for any reports they had on file. Through email and telephone conversations reports were found and a summary forwarded to our office. Also, through our networking relationships, we were able to have an archeologist working at Keatly Creek take a field walk through the corridor to provide a basic introduction to what cultural landmarks we were likely to find and protocols that need to be put in place.
15
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
16
4.2.3 Consultation and Field Observations Field walks throughout the Seton River Corridor were made with key professionals to highlight the strengths and inherent weaknesses within the system, to actively encourage restoration recommendations, and to generate an interest in restoring and/or conserving areas with the aim of creating a functioning wildlife corridor for both fish and wildlife. Field walks were undertaken with representatives from Fisheries and Oceans, BCRP, Ministry of Environment, Lillooet Naturalist Society, Salmon Talks, archeologists, and local fishery biologists. As well, we took a helicopter overflight with the fishery representative from Lillooet Tribal Council on 23 March 2011. “The overflights enabled first-hand overview assessment of existing habitat conditions in each of the selected streams, rivers, reservoirs and lakes for this project. Extensive photographs were taken to document conditions at the time of the surveys. The information and photographs collected supplement the data provided by the literature search and consultations for refining the list of potential restoration projects and their associated priority rankings” (Lillooet Tribal Council, 2011).
Fig 4 Information data entry by crew Fig 5 Helicopter overflight with Steve Hall Fig 6 Field walk with DFO Representative, Sean Bennett
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
4.3
17
Vegetation and Soil Surveys
During 2010 and early 2011 vegetation and soil surveys were carried out to assess the current conditions of the lower section of the Seton River corridor, including the Lower Spawning Channels, with the goal of obtaining restoration prescriptions that would benefit fish and wildlife of the area. Local contractor, Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist, was hired to assist in this work. The following information was submitted by Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist (extracted from Seton Corridor Vegetation Survey and Restoration Recommendations 2010) The objectives of the ground survey were to map out the ecosystems of the corridor by habitat type, ground truth polygons interpreted by air photos and gather quantitative and qualitative data on a the variety of ecosystems, assess ecosystem/habitat conditions and recommend restoration needs along the corridor, including planting, soil remediation, invasive weed removal, access management, thinning, habitat complexing and any other possible restoration actions, and to establish permanent monitoring plots (photo points). The survey site stretched from the North West end of the Lower Spawning Channels (UTM Zone 10 574 315, 5 613 709) to the Right Bank of the Seton River near the confluence with the Fraser River (575 725, 5 614 799). The Survey areas were bordered by private land and Highway 99 to the South and the Seton River to the North (Map 3). The survey area was located on Indian Reserve lands owned by the Cayoosh Creek Band.
Map 4 Seton Corridor Survey Area 2010
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
18
Over 20 hectares of the Seton Corridor on the South side of the Seton River was intensively surveyed during the summer of 2010. As a part of the Seton Corridor and Powerhouse Site restoration projects polygon mapping using air photo interpretation was conducted beyond the ground survey zone and included parts of both banks of the Seton River and the surrounding area. Orthophotography and aerial photographs were used to define habitat type polygons. Twothousand and six orthophotography was used to map habitat polygons. Ground- truthing was then carried out to validate and characterize polygons by gathering site, soil and vegetation data. Ground data collected included: • vegetative cover by species, layer, distribution and percent cover. • Slope, aspect, elevation, mesoslope position • Soils pit profile layer depths, coarse fragment content type, soil texture • Soil moisture, Nutrient and Site Series using (Loyd et al., 1990) • Site Disturbance using LMH No.25 (1998, BC MELP and MoF) • Riparian Zone disturbance • Wildlife sighting and sign observations • Photographs were taken for most Polygons Maps of the polygons to be surveyed were carried into the field and polygon adjustments were made on site and later modified on the Arc View software. Polygon data was collected using plots and visual inspection depending on the size of the polygon and the habitat type. Plot sizes varied based on the ecosystem structure. Forest stands were sampled using 5.65 m and 3.99m diameter plots. Grass and herb dominated polygons were sampled using transects and 1m² quadrates. Due to project time constraints many of the polygons were surveyed visually. Data was compiled to represent vegetation cover for each plot. One soil pit was dug for most polygons. Site for soil pit was chosen randomly by tossing a stone over the shoulder and digging in that spot. Field data was entered into Excel spreadsheets and polygon data was grouped if the polygon was sampled using multiple quadrates. Crew technicians hired under various grants carried out 60% of the survey work under the direction of Odin Scholz. They were trained in survey protocols and in the use of the following equipment: • GPS, measuring tape (30 to 50 m), compass, clinometer • field reference sheets (compiled from Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems, Riparian Restoration Survey Book, Site Identification and Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest District) • Maps, Plants of the Southern Interior, bird, and insect identification books • planting shovel, small tarp or sheet of plastic for soil pits, small water bottle for soil texture tests, soil screens 2mm and 1⁄4 inch • camera, ducks back notebook with blank paper, small ruler • hand lens for plant and grass ID, plastic bags for plant collections • 1mx1m plot frame for grass/herbaceous sampling, increment bore, diameter tape, plot cords and flagging tape.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
4.4
19
Lower Spawning Channel Survey
Two spawning channels (upper and lower) were constructed during the 1960s as compensation for loss of critical Pink Salmon (Oncorhyncus gorbusha) spawning habitat in the Seton River caused by the hydroelectric development. During the 2010 Feasibility Study, the Lower Spawning Channels were the focus of our work. “The spawning channels were originally operated only during years of Pink Salmon runs and dewatered the rest of the time. During 2003 the (lower) spawning channels were complexed to provide important Pink and Coho spawning habitat and to improve rearing habitat for Coho, Chinook, and resident fish species (Adolph, 2003). The channels were complexed by constructing pools and riffles, channel alignment, marsh creation and by adding in-stream features including boulders and logs to diversify the habitat for other species of fish and wildlife. In addition water was run through the spawning channels year round” (Odin Scholz, 2011). Both spawning channels were complexed to support rearing and spawning by resident and anadromous fish species. The spawning channels do not react to natural water cycles, but “receive a constant and continuous flow via siphons from the BC Hydro Power Canal” (Jeff Sneep, 2010). No survey or sampling had been carried out in the Lower Spawning Channels since this complexing work. One of the highest priorities identified at both BCRP agency meetings in the past and this yearʼs networking consultations was the importance of assessing species composition and use of original Seton pink channels, and obtaining some baseline data on the overall health of the channels. “The goal of this year's sampling activities was to document current use of the channel by fish and invertebrate species. Information on species diversity, relative abundance, and distribution can be a key indication of water quality and existing habitat conditions in the channel. Such information is crucial for assessing the health of the channel ecosystem, determining the potential need for habitat improvements, and directing future restoration-type activities” (Jeff Sneep, 2010).
Fig 7 Lower Spawning Channels
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
20
4.4.1 In-stream Mapping The length of the lower spawning channel was measured and mapped by Odin Scholz and crew technicians. Using a hip chain and waders, the entire channel was walked and the habitat type recorded. A tally was made of the number of logs, root wads and boulders that remain in the channel from the 2003 complexing work. The habitat types were divided into pools, riffles and runs. Information was then entered and mapped using ARC View.
Fig 8 In-stream mapping
The following information was provided by Jeff Sneep, Fish Biologist (extracted from his report: Seton River Corridor Habitat Restoration Assessment - Lower Spawning Channel Sampling 2010 - Summary Report). 4.4.2 " " " " "
Air and Water Temperature Monitoring Water temperatures were recorded every 15 minutes using data loggers (manufactured by Onset Computer Corporation) deployed at two locations within the Lower Spawning Channel; one was near the inlet siphon at the upstream end, the other was near the outlet of the channel at the downstream end. Air temperatures were recorded by a data logger mounted to the trunk of a large tree adjacent to the spawning channel.
4.4.3 ! " " " "
Aquatic Invertebrate and Periphyton Accrual Sampling Prior to the start of sampling, an overview survey of the Lower Spawning Channel was conducted to assess the available habitats and suitable sampling locations. The sampling locations were selected to incorporate the range of aquatic meso-habitat types available in the channel, which included: riffles, runs, and pools. A set of six samplers were deployed, two in each of the available habitat types.
" " " " " "
Benthic macro-invertebrates were sampled using standardized metal baskets filled with small cobble substrate gathered from the stream bank. The baskets were closed together with zip ties and placed on the substrate, completely submerged below the water's surface. The samplers location was marked by attaching a piece of flagging tape labelled with the samplers number to the nearest piece of established vegetation (e.g., a bush or tree). The location, habitat type, time and date of deployment, and a depth and
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
21
" " " " " " " " " "
velocity measurement were recorded for each sampler in a field notebook. The baskets remained in place for 3 to 4 weeks to allow sufficient time for colonization by aquatic invertebrates. At the end of this colonization period, each basket was carefully removed from the streambed and immediately placed into a bucket with water. Each sampler was opened by clipping the zip ties to spill the entire contents into the buckets. Each of the small cobbles contained within the baskets was gently scrubbed by hand (or soft brush) to remove any attached material, including invertebrates. All of this material was then filtered through a fine mesh sieve and then picked and processed on site. The invertebrates picked from each sample were sorted, identified (to the lowest taxonomic level possible in the field), and enumerated.
" " " " " " " " " " "
Samplers to monitor periphyton algae accrual were also deployed at suitable depths and velocities near the locations of the invertebrate baskets. These samplers were used to make general observations about the growth of algae in the channel during a ca. 6-week summer sampling period; however, the intention was not to collect taxonomic or more rigorous accrual data from this sampling during 2010. The samplers (called plates) consisted of a 30 x 30 x 0.5 cm Styrofoam sheet, fixed to a same-sized plywood backing with rubber bands, which is bolted to a 30 x 30 x 10 cm concrete block. The plates were fully submerged and placed on the substrate in the spawning channel. The same information was recorded for the plates as for the invertebrate sampling baskets. At the end of the sampling period, each plate was photographed and general observations about the colour and volume of algae accrual were noted for each sampler.
" "
The aquatic invertebrate and periphyton accrual sampling was conducted from 30 July to 25 August, and 30 July to ca. 15 September 2010, respectively.
Figs 9 to 11
Placing algae board; sampling basket; processing aquatic invertebrates
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
22
4.4.4 " " " " " " " " "
Fish Sampling During the site survey conducted prior to the start of the aquatic invertebrate and periphyton sampling, suitable locations for fish sampling were also identified. Fish were sampled using Gee minnow traps, which can capture fish less than 200 mm long. The locations for fish sampling were selected to target the widest array of species possible within the sampling parameters of this method. Sampling with these traps selects for habitat preference, behaviour, and even species to some extent, so it does not provide a reliable indication of fish abundance in the channel. Instead, data from the fish sampling were used to document use of the channel by the fish species and age classes that were sampled.
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
The Gee minnow trap is a standardized piece of fish sampling equipment. The trap separates into two halves to enable the addition of bait and the removal of captured fish. Each trap was baited (i.e., using salmon roe or cat food) and fully submerged underwater. The traps were set in moderate to slow-moving flow near some form of instream cover (e.g., large woody debris, overhanging vegetation, instream boulder, etc.), where available, and oriented lengthwise in the current. As with the invertebrate samplers, the locations of each fish trap were marked by attaching a piece of flagging tape labelled with a unique number to the nearest piece of established vegetation. The location, habitat type, and time and date of deployment were recorded for each sampler in a field notebook. Each trap was deployed for ca. 24 hours for each set. At each check of the traps, captured fish were removed, anaesthetized, identified to species, and measured (to the nearest millimetre). Then, following a short recovery period, all fish were released back to the spawning channel. The traps were then moved to the next suitable site for subsequent deployment. Initial deployment of the fish traps commenced on 17 August, 2010. Fish sampling continued until 25 August at which time all traps were removed from the channel.
Fig 12 Placing Gee minnow trap
4.4.5 " " "
Data compilation Following completion of the sampling, all collected data were entered into MS Excel spreadsheets by the restoration crew. The data were compiled to highlight the diversity of invertebrates and fish sampled.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
23
4.5 Wildlife Surveys As this feasibility study was exploring the possibilities of restoration and/or conservation work that would benefit species-at-risk it was deemed necessary to identify focal species to guide habitat management decisions. A list of focal species were chosen based on specific criteria: that they were provincially listed as species-at-risk (red or blue-listed), that they had been observed using the area occasionally, that habitat was available to be protected and/or restored to benefit their status, and that they could be monitored fairly easily by trained technicians and/or volunteers into the future. It is believed that by focusing habitat management decisions on a few select species, many other species will also benefit. This list of possible focal species will be refined during the 2011/12 stakeholder discussions and meetings. Due to funding restrictions only preliminary wildlife research and surveying was undertaken. The following wildlife research took place during 2010/11. • Local naturalists compiled a list of the birds that have historically and currently been observed within the Seton River corridor and at the Lower Spawning Channels. • One bird encounter trail and one point count station were set up within the corridor to monitor for breeding bird activity. The encounter transect and point count station (shown as 03 on Map 05 below) are also being used as a reference to compare observations made at the Powerhouse Restoration site. The process for variable radius point counts involves arriving at the point count station, waiting one minute to allow disturbances to subside, and then recording activity seen or heard over a five minute period. The different types of activity, using the British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas codes, observed provide a window into the likelihood of breeding taking place. Eight surveys were undertaken between 08 June and 05 July 2010 by Jeff OʼKelly. • Between 26 November and 10 December 2010, a systematic nest structure survey was carried out by crew technicians. The method used for the nest survey involved walking the Seton Corridor using a grid pattern. With leaves off the deciduous trees it was easier to observe for nests. All nest observations were recorded on a data sheet, while UTM coordinates and pictures were taken. Data was entered by the crew during training sessions on how to use excel spreadsheets and GIS software. Nest identification did not take place. • Two wildlife motion detector cameras were installed on trees during October 2010. Two locations within the corridor were chosen based on evidence of wildlife trails and likelihood of animals tripping the cameras. Locations were restricted to sites that would reduce the risk of vandalism or theft of cameras. • Crew technicians recorded observational wildlife sightings on log sheets while working in the area. These sightings were random and only recorded intermittently. Surveys of Western Screech-owl, Bats and Pelegrin Falcon were also carried out within the Seton Watershed during 2010. These reports also inform decision making in regards to conservation and restoration works.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
24
Seton Corridor Transect and Point Count Station
Map 05 Bird Monitoring Map
Fig 13 Bird nest survey in January 2011
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
25
4.6 Community Capacity Building Community capacity building in fisheries, land management and restoration fields has been identified as an important component of this project. Based on agency priorities lack of skilled workers impacts on the ability to carry out restoration and survey work. Training in survey protocols and techniques was provided to crew technicians and volunteers during the above activities. Through leverage of funding crew were deployed to work on both the Powerhouse Restoration and Seton Corridor projects, thereby providing opportunities to learn a variety of skills, including plant identification, weed management, vegetation, soil, wildlife and fish survey techniques, data entry and outreach skills. Before each activity, contractors provided an overview of the work to be undertaken, including the rationale for doing the work. Hands-on training opportunities were offered in equipment use and survey protocols.
4.7 Watershed Education Outreach Watershed educational and stewardship outreach events have been a strong component of the Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Project. During 2010, we were able to extend this outreach to incorporate educational activities at the Lower Spawning Channel, followed by a discovery walk along the Seton River, and then out to the restoration site. Local schools and various community members were invited to the Lower Spawning Channels and/or for a walk through the Seton Corridor. Various activities and events were planned and implemented by the restoration crew and volunteers.
Fig 12 Hands-on training at Lower Spawning Channels with Jeff Sneep
Fig 12 Students participating in Walking with the Smolts Celebration through the Seton River corridor
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
26
5. RESULTS 5.1 Partnership Development Partnerships and support is critical to the long-term future of the Seton River Corridor. During 2010/2011 we were able to connect with a variety of individuals within the various organizations and groups that were identified as having an interest in the area. Kim North and Odin Scholz met with representatives from the following organisations and walked the Seton River Corridor study area to promote discussion on land management and conservation ideas and support for future restoration work: Steve Hall" " " " Jeff Sneep" " " " Sean Bennett and Patricia House" Francis Iredale" " " Lloyd Narcisse" " " Suzanne Villeneuve" " " Bill Spencer, Eleanor Wright" " Bonnie Adolph"" " " Bob Gibney " " " " Andrew McDonald & staff " " Tiffany Pither and partners" "
Lillooet Tribal Council/local fisheries contractor Fisheries Biologist Fisheries and Oceans Ministry of Environment IR#1 landowner and USLCES representative SFU Archeologist Lillooet Salmon Talks Spawning Channel complexing manager Fortis Bridge Coastal Fish & Wildlife Restoration Program Fraser Salmon & Watersheds Program
Representatives from the following organizations were contacted and provided with an initial idea of the scope of the feasibility project and requested to provide input. These people either provided support for the Year 1 Restoration Plan and/or agreed to be involved in discussion in the coming 2011 year. Mickey Macri" " " Mayor and Council" " Marilyn Napoleon" " Aline Lachapelle, A.Ag"
" " " "
Squamish Lillooet Regional District District of Lillooet Upper Stʼatʼimc Language, Culture & Education Society Aspen Planers Ltd
Other organizations that have been identified but no personal contact made to-date: Wayde Thompkins" Allan Mitchell" " Land Steward"" Local representative"
" " " "
" " " "
CN Rail Department of Transport Tʼitʼqʼet Administration BC Hydro
Stakeholder meetings for the Seton River Corridor will be initiated during 2011 to start planning for the long-term restoration and/or conservation of the Seton River Watershed.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
5.2
27
Historical and Current Research
5.2.1 ! " " " " "
Compiling Existing Information Existing information has been collected from a variety of sources as noted above. Print records were filed by crew technicians under fisheries and vegetation categories. Scanned and internet sources have been filed on office computer, and a database begun that includes title, author, who prepared for, date, and a short abstract on content. The resources we collected were also forwarded to Lillooet Tribal Council for use in the Reference ManagerTM Database, along with information they had collected.
"
"
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! " " "
A summary list of references generated during the literature search by both Cayoose and Lillooet Tribal Council on the Seton Watershed is provided in Appendix I. Other resources specific to Cayoosh Creek Indian Band are available as needed during stakeholder discussions.
" " "
We will have access to the Reference ManagerTM Database during the 2011 year. The database will assist in providing background information to identify key areas and actions on which a long-term restoration/conservation plan can be developed.
“The software was selected to create a catalogue that facilitates multi-user access. Within the databases, each reference includes a link to the abstract and a summary of recommendations or conclusions included in the document. The references are sorted alphabetically by author, but are also searchable according to a set of relevant keywords” (Lillooet Tribal Council, Steven Hall, 2011)
5.2.2 !Archeological Research " Beth Weathers, Archaeologist, Project Officer with the Provincial Archaeology Branch " provided information on four known archaeological sites that fall within the Seton River " Corridor, including a map and summary of archaeological finds. This report contains site " locations and is therefore confidential. It is not attached to this report, but is available " upon request. Some comments provided by Beth Weathers: "
"
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
“A number of archaeological sites are located on the peninsula between the Seton and Fraser rivers near or inside the areas where you plan restoration .... Human remains have been identified in several locations.”
! ! ! ! ! !
“Please note that the whole area has very high potential for unrecorded protected archaeological sites (meaning there is a good chance of finding protected cultural remains, including burials, anywhere on the peninsula). Tree roots often contain cultural materials and trees tend to grow in association with burials” (Beth Weathers, 2010).
!
Ian Cameron, Archaeologist, Ursus Heritage, was contacted by the Archaeology Branch to tour the area and provide feedback on the existing archaeological protocols in place for the Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Project and discuss the Seton Corridor work. Ian Cameron updated our existing protocol and provided contact information. In the event that ground disturbances during restoration work uncover possible artifacts and/or human remains this protocol will be followed.
" " " " "
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
28
" " " " " " "
Due to the cultural importance of the area, it was deemed necessary to provide training to crew technicians in identifying potential archaeological sites and/or artifacts. Suzanne Villeneuve from Simon Fraser University Archaeology Department (who was working locally) was contacted to provide an introduction to archaeology and host a field trip to Keatly Creek. Through this connection, crew technicians were given the opportunity to become involved in archaeology survey and sampling, and to eventually complete a certificate program in archaeology.
5.2.3 ! " " " " " " "
Consultation and Field Observations Consultations and field walks were made with key professionals and individuals as noted above. Discussions with various Cayoose Creek band members were held to identify future plans for the corridor to ensure restoration works are in alignment with those goals. In addition, representatives from both Cayoose Creek Stʼatʼimc and Lillooet Naturalist Society attended the Lillooet Tribal Council workshops during 2010 and provided a voice at the table. Through these discussions a draft Stʼatʼimc Fisheries Project list was generated. The Seton River portion is summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1 - Stʼatʼimc Fisheries Projects - draft list created by workshops held by " Lillooet Tribal Council (Seton River portion)
St'at'imc Fisheries Projects
Watershed: Seton River PROJECT 1 2 3 4 5 6
Side channels enhancement - four sites. Inventory of upper and lower spawning channels. Upland restoration work and riparian planting on upper spawning channel. Upland restoration work and riparian planting on lower spawning channel. Enhancement of Coho and Chinook populations utilizing a local hatchery. Assessment of spawning utilization and suitable enhancement projects.
7
Assessment of fish passage and establish options to improve access to Seton Dam fish ladder. Bull trout spawning and population studies. Winter habitat utilization study. Habitat enhancement through the addition of LWD. Define areas of ground water sources in river and enhancement opportunities. Sockeye smolt outmigration study. Stream and riparian debris clean-up. Gravel placement to enhance spawning utilization. Assess smolt entrainment mortality at Seton dam. Assess spawning use & juvenile output of spawning channels. Assessment of gravel condition in spawning channels. Monitor water temperature. Beaver dams – research options and/or reduce population & impacts General clean-up - removal of old vehicles/garage
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
29
Additional projects defined by Cayoose Creek 2010 - during field walks and consultations C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
" " "
Integrate Cayoose Creek’s current and possible future plans Initiate stakeholder workshops/meetings Establish an erosion monitoring program Plant large diameter cuttings along eroded banks - test plots Shade spawning channel to mitigate diel temperature fluctuations Develop a Weed Management Plan Implement a Bear Aware program to reduce garbage attractants Begin baseline wildlife studies: focal species-at-risk Assess gravels at confluence of Seton and Fraser Rivers Prepare Cayoosh Creek inventory and mitigation strategy Research impact of Seton Canal on wildlife migration Establish a native plant food “garden” (with a focus on soopallaie) in old orchard site Research potential mitigation works along Cayoosh Creek below waterfall
Helicopter overflights provided an overview of the corridor and keyed in on important areas that would benefit from restoration and/or conservation measures. This was also another opportunity to discuss issues and possible solutions.
Fig 14 Seton Dam and Canal, Upper Seton River - Items 7, 10, 14, 15, C11
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Fig 15 Upper Spawning Channels - Items 2, 3, 6, 16.17,18,19
Fig 16 Confluence of Cayoosh Creek with Seton River - Items C10
30
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Fig 17 Seton River bars and barren riparian areas - Items 1, 6, 10, 20, C3, C4
Fig 18 Lower Spawning Channels - Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, C5
31
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Fig 19 Lower Seton River - Items 1, 6, 10, 20, C3, C4, C6, C7, C12
Fig 20 Confluence of Seton and Fraser Rivers - Items 1, C6, C9
32
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
33
5.3 Vegetation and Soil Surveys The following information was submitted by Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist (extracted from his report: Seton Corridor Vegetation Survey and Restoration Recommendations 2010) In total 23 hectares were covered within the Seton Corridor survey area (Map 04). Eighty-four polygons were delineated with fifteen codes applied to define the habitat (Table 2). Table 2 Summary of Surveyed Vegetation Polygon Areas Number of Polys Code 19 DTR 14 4 7
GH YPW
1
LSR RD TSR TSU BSH GB MPW BR YCW BU NUR SPC
84
15
3 5 8 7 2 1 8 2 1 1
Polygon Areas Square m 46853
Hectares 4.6853
% of Total Area 20.36
Grass/Herb
31436
3.1436
13.66
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland Low Shrub Herb Riparian
29596
2.9596
13.23
28030
2.803
12.18
Road
17280
1.728
7.51
Tall Shrub Riparian
13879
1.3879
6.03
Tall Shrub Upland
12882
1.2882
5.60
Big Sage Herb
8087
0.8087
3.51
Gravel bar
7958
0.7958
3.46
Mature Ponderosa Woodland
5658
0.5658
2.46
Barren Riparian
2229
0.2229
0.97
Young Conifer Woodland
1712
0.1712
0.74
346
0.0346
0.15
1680
0.168
0.73
22473
2.2473
9.77
230099
23.0099
100
Habitat Type Deciduous Tree Riparian
Barren Upland (Cobble Piles) Nursery Spawning Channel Total
Deciduous tree riparian had the largest number of polygons and greatest amount of the area covered at 20.36% of the total survey area. Grass/Herb, Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Low Shrub Riparian all represented approximately 13% of the total survey area. The Spawning Channel is the actual wetted channel area and represents almost 10% of the total survey area. The Road polygons were separated due to the unique aspects of their use. The roads were not surveyed as polygons except to measure the areas. The nursery area was also not surveyed as it is an actively used space. The Barren upland site is actually a site where several large piles of cobbles and gravels have been stored as part of the past operation of the spawning channel. The artificial nature of these piles excluded them from being surveyed. Due to the detail and scale required to view all of the polygons and their identification numbers the areas are depicted on the three following Maps 06, 07 and 08. Each polygon has received a SC (Seton Corridor) code from 1 to 72. Polygons total 84 in Table 02 as some of the polygons are split by roads but are one polygon type.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Map 06 Habitat Polygons - Fraser River to Multiplex - North-east
34
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Map 07 Habitat Polygons - Multiplex to Lower Spawning Channels - Central areas
35
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
36
Fig 08 Habitat Polygons - Lower Spawning Channels - South West
Each of the Polygon types are presented in more detail below. They are ordered based on total area of representation, beginning with the largest habitat types. For presentation and discussion YPW and YCW were grouped and it was determined that for future reference there could be one category of young conifer woodland. The riparian shrub polygons were grouped for discussion as were the upland drier shrub polygons. The sparsely vegetated polygons of the Gravel Bar and Barren Riparian were also grouped. Each section has associated vegetation tables as well as an associated map that isolates the polygons under discussion.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
37
Deciduous Tree Riparian (DTR)
Nineteen polygons covering an area of 4.68 hectares or 30%of the survey area were identified as Deciduous tree riparian (DTR). These areas are characterized by mature cottonwood trees (Populus balsamifera) with secondary dominant tree alder (Alnus crispus) making up over 50% cover of the polygons. These polygons tend to be linear spanning the lower slopes of historic river banks. These lower slopes and toes have moister soils and cool aspects. Understory shrub layers were dominated by younger cottonwoods and alder as well as prairie rose (Rosa woodsii), with occasionally occurrences of red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Saskatoon (Amelancier alnifolia) and snowberry (Symphorocarpus albus). Scouring rush (Equisetum hymale) and Common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) were the dominant herbaceous species in several of the wetter polygons.
Map 9 Deciduous Tree Riparian Polygons
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
38
Table 03a DTR Polygon Areas Poly ID
Survey ID
CODE
Habitat Type
Sq Meters
Hectares
SC09
TSQ 08
DTR
SC13
TSQ 07
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
413
0.041
Deciduous Tree Riparian
1062
SC14
TSQ 12
0.106
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
4451
SC18
0.445
SB 04
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
5434
0.543
SC19
SB 05
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
5755
0.576
SC21
SB 08
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
934
0.093
SC48
SB 34
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
1101
0.110
SC48
SB 34
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
7620
0.762
SC49
SB 35
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
404
0.040
SC49
SB 35
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
2020
0.202
SC50
SB 36
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
3121
0.312
SC51
SB 37
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
4019
0.402
SC55
SB 40
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
4313
0.431
SC60
SB 46
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
491
0.049
SC63
SB 49
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
1756
0.176
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
2174
0.217
SC65 SC69
SB 47
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
526
0.053
SC70
SB 48
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
1093
0.109
The DTR polygons follow two prominent contours, historic river banks, of the land. The Southernmost contour follows highway 99 in the East marked by Polys SC14 and 18. The contour wraps behind the residences and continues to the road at Poly SC65, then follows behind the gas station and along the highway marked by Poly SC48, where the contour joins a steeper formation at the West end of the survey site. The dominant tree growth in the DTR polygons are growing on the lower slopes, toes and in depressions at the base of North West facing slopes. SC 14 and 18 form a connection with SC 19 and the lower right bank of the Seton River. The Seton River right bank polygons SC21, 19, 51, 55 are at least partially inundated during high water events. SC 18, 19, 21, 48, 51 and 55 all had some surface water flowing or seeping along the base of the adjacent hill slopes during the driest months of a relatively wet year. SC 19, 51 and 55 are all possible candidates for off channel salmonid habitat development (Steve Hall personal communication). There were relatively few exotic species in the DTR polygons. The most common being exotic grasses, including bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristata) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Table 03b
DTR % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation
200
150
100
50 Exotic Native
0 SC13
SC14
SC21
SC18
SC19
SC48
SC49
SC51
SC55
SC65
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
39
Grass Herb (GH)
The second most common habitat type of the 2010 Seton Corridor survey was the Grass herb (GH) classification with 12 distinct polygons covering 3.14 hectares. Within the GH polygons 78 species of vegetation were recorded including, 54 native, 18 exotic and 2 unknown species. The grass herb polygons varied a great deal in species composition and degree of disturbance.
Map 10 Grass Herb Polygons
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
40
Table 04a GH Polygon Areas Poly ID
Survey ID
Habitat Code
Habitat Type
SC02
TSQ 02
GH
Grass/Herb
Square Metres
1841 Disturbed
Notes
Hectares 0.1841
SC06
TSQ06
GH
Grass/Herb
2018
0.2018
SC10
TSQ 10
GH
Grass/Herb
1881
0.1881
SC10
TSQ 10
GH
Grass/Herb
2650
0.265
SC12
TSQ 06
GH
Grass/Herb
212
0.0212
SC15
SB 01
GH
Grass/Herb
2480
0.248
SC16
SB 02
GH
Grass/Herb
3619
0.3619
SC26
SB 13
GH
Grass/Herb
1009
0.1009
SC31
SB 18
GH
Grass/Herb
3967
0.3967
SC32
SB 19
GH
Grass/Herb
2024 Weedy Disturbed
0.2024
SC35
SB 22
GH
Grass/Herb
4344
0.4344
SC42
SB 29
GH
Grass/Herb
2973
0.2973
SC46
SB 32
GH
Grass/Herb
485
0.0485
SC46
SB 32
GH
Grass/Herb
1933
0.1933
12 GH
Grass/Herb
31436
3.1436
Polygon SC02 was one of the more disturbed; being a weedy site with 60% of the substrate bare rock and mineral soil. There were few native species in poly SC02 with it being dominated by moss, knapweed and exotic mustards. The Polygon was part of a pasture and was being browsed by horses on a regular basis. Polygons SC06,10, 32 and 46 were highly disturbed polygons dominated by exotic invasive species. The most frequently observed exotic species were alfalfa (Medicago sativa), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), bulbous bluegrass, diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and yellow salsify (Linaria genistifolia). Polygon SC32 had undergone recent drilling and native species comprised just 10% cover versus 50% exotics. There was also exposed mineral soil where side cast had been spread from the test drilling. Polygons SC06 was a heavily disturbed site with an old house foundation. The polygon also has the access road to an operating well running through it, as well as BC Hydro poles and power lines overhead and metal pipes stored on the ground. The site is also very near the highway. Polygons SC10 and 46 were both characterized by alfalfa and cheat grass as dominant vegetation cover. Both of these areas were disturbed; SC10 likely through past agriculture and livestock grazing and SC46 from construction of the spawning channels. The polygons with more ecological integrity were SC15,16, 26, 31, 35 and 42. These polygons were predominantly native species though often the predominant cover was the cryptogrammic crust mosses and lichens that are indicators of disturbance (Delesalle et al, 2009). The most widespread native grass was Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda) a small bunchgrass. Medium and larger bunchgrasses were very low, with bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudogrogenia spicata) peaking at only 5% cover in SC 26 (.10ha) and SC 31(.40ha ) to just over 2% in SC15 and less than one percent in SC32 and 35. Table 04b GH Polygons % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation 200 150 100 50
Native Exotic
0 SC15
SC16
SC26
SC31
SC32
SC35
SC42
SC46
SC06
SC10
SC02
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
41
Young Pine/Conifer Woodland (YPW & YCW)
During the ground survey four polygons were identified as Young pine woodland (YPW) habitat, comprising just over three hectares of the survey area. In addition two polygons were identified as young conifer woodland (YCW) distinguished by the occurrence of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) as the predominant tree species.
Map 11 Young Pine/Conifer Polygons
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
42
Table 05a YPW & YCW Polygon Areas Square Meters
Poly ID
Survey ID
Habitat Code
Habitat Type
Hectares
SC37
SB 24
YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
2744
0.27
SC40
SB 26
YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
6173
0.62
SC11
TSQ 11
YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
9317
0.93
SC33
SB 20
YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
11362
1.14
SC45
SB 31
YCW
Young Conifer Woodland
553
0.0553
SC39
SB 25 A
YCW
Young Conifer Woodland
1159
0.1159
2 YCW
Young Conifer Woodland
1712
0.1712
4 YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
29596
2.96
6
Combined
31308
3.1308
After reviewing the data it is appropriate to pool the YPW and YCW and call it young conifer woodland as the presence of Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine are very similar. When pooled together the young pine/conifer woodland habitat type makes up almost 14% of the survey area, slightly more than the Grass Herb classification. In each of these polygons B1 and A2 layer conifer trees make up at least 10% cover. Bluebunch wheatgrass and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda) was the dominant understory herb with a significant amount of moss cover including Wallace’s selaginella (Selaginella wallacei). Shrub layers were sparse with big sage (Artemisia tridentate), Saskatoon berry (Amelancier alnifolia), common snowberry (Symphorocarpus alba) and prairie rose (Rosa woodsii) appearing as minor components of each polygon. Saskatoon berry cover was fairly significant in SC11 where thinning and brushing had taken place, followed by coppicing by cut shrubs. The woodland polygons have received a significant amount of disturbance in the form of fuel management treatments. This treatment has resulted in a reduction in tree cover, along with coarse woody debris, standing snags and altered shrub form as mentioned above and pruning of lower tree branches. Fuel management treatments have also left the occasional brush pile that was not burned as well as numerous circular burn patches where piles were burned. Table 05b YPW & YCW % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation 150
113
75
38
Exotic Native
0 SC33
SC37
SC40
SC11
SC39
SC45
YPW
YPW
YPW
YPW
YCW
YCW
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
43
Roads (RD)
Roads, although not formerly surveyed on the ground, made up 1.7ha of the survey area or 7.5%. All of the roads passing though the survey area were gravel trails built on the existing native soil. The roads through the Seton Corridor survey area have been labelled 1-5.
Map 12 Seton Corridor Roads
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
44
The roads central within the survey area (Rds 2, 3 and 4) see the most regular vehicle traffic as they are primary and secondary access to residences. While surveying, vehicles were regularly observed using these roads. Road 4 is the main access to the spawning channel and Split Rock Native Plant Nursery. Road 5 follows around the spawning channel and is used occasionally for site maintenance. The section of road near the north end of Road 1 is an access area for BC hydro as well as a well head building. Road 1 was used regularly until it was gated at the north end last year. This has dramatically reduced vehicle traffic to the area, along with garbage dumping. It may be beneficial to the site if a second gate were placed where Road 1 meets Road 2 to further limit vehicle access to emergency and maintenance only. It appears at this time that Road 1 is primarily used for recreation, where commuters walk and ride bikes from the residences towards town. Observations of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black bear (Ursus americanus) and coyote (Canis latrans) scat indicate the roads are also used by animals. Although no actual vegetation survey was made of the roads it was notable that the edges of all of the roads extending 1-2m out from the road traveling surface were hot spots for exotic and invasive plant occurrences.
Fig 21 Garbage brought in by road has now been removed and road gated
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
45
Tall and Low Shrub Riparian (TSR & LSR)
The Tall Shrub Riparian (TSR) habitat type was attributed to four polygons equalling 2.8 hectares of the site. These polygons were dominated by shrubs over two meters in height. Most of the Low Shurb Riparian (LSR) habitat type (2.57ha) is the constructed lands surrounding the spawning channel. This is an artificially constructed and sustained ecosystem depending on water diverted from the hydro canal to water the spawning channels. Continuous watering for the last ten years has allowed riparian vegetation to colonize the site.
Map 13 Low and Tall Shrub Riparian Polygons
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
46
Table 6a TSR and LSR Polygon Areas Poly ID
Survey ID
Habitat Codes
Habitat Type
Sq Meters
SC01
TSQ01
TSR
Tall Shrub Riparian
1740
SC05
TSQ05
TSR
Tall Shrub Riparian
1876
SC20
SB 07
TSR
Tall Shrub Riparian
761
SC25 SC28 SC54 SC61 SC71
SB 12 SB 15 SB 39 SB47 SB 41
TSR LSR LSR LSR LSR
Tall Shrub Riparian Low Shrub Herb Riparian Low Shrub Herb Riparian Low Shrub Herb Riparian Low Shrub Herb Riparian
8981 244 1017 25654 1115
4 TSR 4 LSR 8
Tall Shrub Riparian Low Shrub Herb Riparian Combined
13358 69418 41388
By far the predominant shrub is prairie rose (Rosa woodsii) with regular occurrences of redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Saskatoon berry (Amelancier alnifolia), Common snowberry (Symphorocarpus alba), coyote willow (Salix exigua) and black hawthorn (Cratageus douglasii). The herb layer has high densities of Canada goldenrod (Solidago Canadensis) and Scouring rush (Equisetum hymale) and the invasive quack grass (Elytrigia repens). Polygons SC28, 54 and 71 are small polygons totally .25 ha. These LSR polygons have relatively low vegetation cover with over 80% of the substrate either rock or exposed mineral soil. Low shrub cover was mainly black cottonwood, rose, snowberry, willow and alder. Polygons SC28 and 71 both had signs of beaver activity. SC54 cottonwoods were all coppiced likely due to abrasion during high water events and possibly beaver activity. SC 71 and 54 had fair amounts of large woody debris deposited and piled by the river. SC 54 is a possible candidate for live staking with cottonwoods. SC28 has a steep 65% slope with some down slope erosion which may also be a site for live staking and planting. The tall shrub riparian (TSR) polygons had higher vegetation cover than the LSR and had varying substrates depending on the site. Polygons SC01 and 05 were on fairly steep slopes and had a high degree of rock and mineral soil. These two polygons also fall in an area where horses are kept and the vegetation is browsed throughout this zone. There was also slightly higher exotic vegetation cover in polygons SC01 and 05, probably related to nearby exotic species in browsed landscape. Polygon SC20 was fairly unique in that it had 35% standing water. Polygon SC20 vegetation included Pacific willow (Salix lasiocarpa), coyote willow, cottonwood and alder. The herb layer was dominated by scouring rush (85% cover). A well used trail running along the river side of polygon SC20 may be a human fishing trial, but is more likely an animal trail.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
47
Polygon SC25 is large at .9ha and seems fairly stable. This polygon was flooded during the extreme high water event in 1950 but otherwise seems to have not experienced regular flooding and is stabilizing as a riparian forest. Polygon SC25 predominant vegetation is cottonwoods with common occurrences of Saskatoon berry and young Douglas-fir. The ground has a significant cover of leafy lichens and moss totalling over 70%. This polygon also has some of the highest LWD cover in the survey area at 11%. This polygon is moving toward a stable Deciduous Tree Riparian habitat which will have very high wildlife values.
Table 06b TSR and LSR % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation 150
113
75
38
exotic native
0 SC28
SC54
SC71
SC20
SC01
SC05
SC25
LSR
LSR
LSR
TSR
TSR
TSR
TSR
Fig 22 Scouring rush in Poly SC20
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
48
Tall Shrub Upland and Big Sage Herb (TSU & BSH)
The two tall shrub dominated habitat types have been grouped together. Big Sage (Artemesia tridentata) dominates the big sage herb (BSH) ecosystems, and Choke cherry (Prunus virginianna), Saskatoon (Amelancier alnifolia), Black hawthorn (Cratageus douglasii), Douglas-fir and mountain maple (Acer douglasii) dominate the Tall Shrub Upland (TSU) sites. There is also a significant low shrub layer in the TSU polygons with frequent occurrences of snowberry and prairie rose. The BSH polygons occur on the drier hill crests and tops, on sandy to coarse disturbed soils. Upland
Map 14 Tall Shrub Upland and Big Sage Herb Polygons
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010 Table 07a TSU and BSH Polygon Areas
49
Poly ID SC34
Survey ID SB 21
Habitat Code TSU
Habitat type Tall Shrub Upland
SC36
SB 23
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
858
SC38
SB 25
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
846
SC41
SB 28
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
728
SC43
SB 29B
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
965
SC44
SB 30
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
1975
SC47
SB 33
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
584
SC47
SB 33
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
1120
SC67
SB 28
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
3614
SC03
TSQ 03
BSH
Big Sage Herb
521
SC30
SB 17
BSH
Big Sage Herb
1099
SC56
SB 44
BSH
Big Sage Herb
275
SC56
SB 41
BSH
Big Sage Herb
639
SC57
SB 43
BSH
Big Sage Herb
885
SC58
SB 44
BSH
Big Sage Herb
847
SC58
SB 44
BSH
Big Sage Herb
2637
SC68
SB 46
BSH
Big Sage Herb
10 TSU
SQUARE_MET 2192
1705
Tall Shrub Upland
8 BSH
12882
Big Sage Herb
18
8608
Combined
21490
There is a relatively high exotic species cover with particularly high densities of cheat grass (Bromus tectorum). The BSH polygons SC56, 57, 58 and 68 border the roads on the North side of the spawning channels. These areas are dominated by big sage with a high percent cover of exotic weeds. The data for these polygons does not appear in the graph or table. Most of the TSU polygons are occupying lower slopes or depressions and are dominated by the fruit producing shrubs Saskatoon berry, choke cherry, snowberry, rose and Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium). Polygons SC47, 43 and 44 showed significant sign of bear trials and what appeared to be bedding sites. SC41 is an edge polygon with roads on either side and dumped garbage and junk. Polygon SC34 is another roadside polygon with some household garbage, as well as patches of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and toadflax (Linaria genistifolia). There are also several Soopalalie (Sheperdia Canadensis) shrubs in polygon SC34. Polygon SC 36 was fairly unique in its composition and structure with a tall thick stand of choke cherry along with red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), and Oregon grape understory. SC 44 was a fairly disturbed polygon with garbage to be cleaned up and could benefit from weeding alfalfa and toadflax and planting trees and shrubs. This site would benefit from an archaeologist/ cultural heritage assessment to assess mounding. Table 07b TSU and BSH % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation 200 150 100 Exotic Native
50 0 SC30
BSH
SC03
BSH
SC34
SC36
SC38
TSU
TSU
TSU
SC67
TSU
SC41
TSU
SC42
TSU
SC44
TSU
SC47
TSU
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
50
Barren Riparian and Gravel Bar (BR & GB)
Two gravel bars were surveyed and covering .8ha of the survey area. Eight polygons were identified as barren riparian (BR) habitats. The GB polygons are disturbed, likely annually, by high water flows. This repeated disturbance and substrate mixing and moving by the river makes it difficult for plants to become established.
Map 15 Barren Riparian and Gravel Bar Polygons
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
51
Table 08a BR and GB Polygon Areas Poly ID
Survey ID
Habitat Code
Habitat Type
SC13
TSQ 07
BR
Barren Riparian
264 Eroding Slope
SC22
SB 09
BR
Barren Riparian
116 Eroding Slope
SC23
SB 10
BR
Barren Riparian
373 Eroding Slope
SC24
SB 11
BR
Barren Riparian
121 Eroding Slope
SC27
SB 14
BR
Barren Riparian
456 Eroding Slope Plant live stakes
SC29
SB 16
BR
Barren Riparian
334 Riprap Bank Lg diameter boulders
SC52
SB 37B
BR
Barren Riparian
218
SC53
SB 38
BR
Barren Riparian
347
SC07
TSQ 13
GB
Gravel bar
4112
SC17
SB 03
GB
Gravel bar
3846
2 GB
Gravel bar
7958
8 BR
Barren Riparian
2229
10
Sq Meters
Combined
Notes
10187
The Barren Riparian polygons are all steep right bank polygons along the Seton River that are partially inundated during high water flows. The inundation of the lower sections of the slopes causes the slow erosion of the upper slope. Most of these polygons have very little vegetation cover due to the constant movement of the substrate, and are slowly eroding into the Seton River. The BR polygons are grouped into three sections SC 22,23,24,13 being the furthest north, SC 29 and 27 in the middle and SC 52 and 53 to the West. The first sequence of BR polygons gets progressively steeper from SC22 down stream to SC13. Rip rap rock has been placed throughout this stretch of polygons in the past to help slow down bank erosion. Much of the rip rap is no longer apparent. Polygon SC22 has rip rap rock but SC23 does not. SC27 and 29 are located just downstream from where the spawning channel flows into the Seton River. SC29 is a rip rap feature constructed to armour the right bank of the river where the lower spawning channel enters the Seton River. SC29 has huge boulders meters in diameter and there is no sign of any erosion. SC27 is another eroding polygon that needs monitoring to assess the rate of erosion. While surveying SC27 rocks were heard falling into the river. Large mats of moss and vegetation from the top edge of the slope have slid down the bank a sure indication of active erosion. Polygons SC52 and 53 make up the third eroding bank scenario on the right bank of the Seton River. SC53 is more stable with rip rap boulders. SC52 has rip rap near the water and eroding soil higher up the slope. The high exotic species count in SC13 comes from including the flat weedy ground above the slope within the polygon. Table 08b BR % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation 50.0 Exotic Native
37.5
25.0
12.5
0 SC22
SC23
SC24
SC27
SC29
SC52
SC53
SC13
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
52
Mature Ponderosa Pine Woodland (MPW)
Polygon SC04 and SC05 is included in the mature Ponderosa Pine woodland that covers most of the fenced property to the North and east of Highway 99.
Map 16 Mature Pine Woodland Polygons
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Table 9a MPW Polygon Areas Poly ID
Survey ID
Habitat Code
Habitat type
SC04
TSQ04
MPW
Mature Ponderosa Woodland
53
Sq Meters 5658
This property is grazed by horses. The site has also been significantly disturbed as at one time the area was going to be turned into a campground. Water well lines, roads and campsites were built into the land causing significant soil disturbance. Site mounding in the area is likely due to historical placer mining. Native plant cover was 82% with 80% of this cover moss. Actual vascular plant cover was just over 20% with most of that being invasive species. Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) made up 10% of the ground cover, yard knotweed (Polygonum avicularum), flixweed (Descuriana sophia) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). If moss were not recognized as organic matter the substrate would be mostly mineral soil and rock. Table 9b MPW % Cover Native -v- Exotic Vegetation 150.0 112.5 75.0 37.5 Exotic Native
0 SC04
Fig 22 Bench showing grazing pressures
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
54
5.4 Lower Spawning Channel Surveys The following results were extracted from the following 2010 contractor reports: 5.4.1 Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist In-Stream Report 2010 5.4.2 to 5.4.5 Jeff Sneep, Fisheries Biologist, Seton River Corridor Habitat Restoration Assessment - Lower Spawning Channel Sampling 2010 - Summary Report 5.4.1
Instream Mapping The overall length of the spawning channel was measured at 3184m. The greatest amount of habitat were Runs making up nearly 60% of the overall spawning channel length. Pool habitat was the second most common habitat at 33%, followed by 8% riffle habitat (Map 17, Table 10).
The spawning channel was divided into 24 sections beginning at the channel mouth and moving west.
Map 17 Lower Spawning Channel In-stream Mapping
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010 Table 10 Habitat Lengths for Lower Spawning Channel November 2-4 2011 Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL 3183.8m
Pool (m) 30.88 4.97 20.16 13.31 0 64.68 37.43 13.02 0 45.96 69.23 146.08 122.77 0 60.68 81.72 44.67 61.71 19.67 32.15 14.82 156.13 0 0 1040.04 33%
Riffle (m) 67.12 22.39 0 0 0 1.75 11.37 4.07 4.92 4.3 0 0 8.79 10.53 7.18 0 0 0 0 7.59 9.73 60.16 13.86 15.55 249.31 8%
Fig 23 Logs and boulders in pool area
Run (m) 25.86 98.71 95.66 134.37 128.59 83.88 57.31 94.89 123.95 74.69 73.76 7.68 43.8 166.33 74.95 58.63 55.06 52.98 56 40.89 39.26 22.09 103.83 178.68 1891.85 59%
Weir (m) 2.6
2.6 0.00
55
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
56
In stream features were counted and recorded by channel section (Table 11). Over the entire spawning channel 508 logs, 198 root wads and 1027 boulders were recorded. Table 11 Instream Structure and Spawning Channel Survey Notes Section Logs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Total
14 26 39 18 0 31 20 28 0 29 39 13 22 1 36 23 11 25 25 12 36 41 17 2 508
Root wad 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 18 1 26 14 4 9 0 23 13 0 9 7 5 8 19 14 0 198
Boulde rs Substrate 7 19 10 17 0 67 16 68 0 153 183 42 31 0 72 63 0 51 29 68 44 71 10 0 1021
Notes
lots of grey brown fine sediments lots of fines and algae over everything predominantly sand and gravel gravel looks way cleaner less algae
2 Burdock patches right bank
Green algae on rock
3 big Red fish obs. Kingfisher Flow fromSection 12 due to beaver dam has beaver dam mid way
Overhanging Vegetation 1% large patch of fines and sediment 2 large Red salmon, 1 Dipper
build up of fines on bed .5 section 100% sand along RB 1 fish fines inbetween gravels, 30% Vegetation Cover 1 fish gravels have fair bit grey algae RB sediment deposits Fines soft bottom
It is notable that apart from the faster moving riffles, the gravels and rocks of the spawning channels were covered in algae. Beaver were also active in the channels with four beaver dams observed. It is notable that three of the beaver dams were blocking off channel sections and the fourth was causing the ‘marsh’ area to flood over the northern section of berm 10. Fines were observed among gravels although they were not measured in any quantitative way. The substrate of the western most end of the spawning channel (Section 22), above the first weir, had a significant amount of fines collecting on the channel bed. Section 4 was notably cleaner of fines and algae, likely due to a narrower bank width and faster flows. Slower deeper pools were characterized by fines on the substrate and dense patches of aquatic vegetation. The first suitable spawning gravels are found above the monitoring weir in the southern part of Section 1.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
57
There was very little overhanging vegetation growing along the channel berms. One patch of overhanging prairie rose (Rosa woodsii) was where one of the large salmon was sighted. Some of the planted fir trees had been cut or girdled by the resident beaver.
During the survey, 02 to 04 November 2010, seven large red salmon were observed in the channels. Two American dippers (Cinclus mexicanus), one belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) and five mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were also sighted. The berms of the spawning channel were hot spots for invasive weeds especially knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and Burdock (Arctium sp.).
Fig 24 Section 5 showing logs and boulders; Wildlife trees in background; No overhanging vegetation
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
5.4.2
58
Air and Water Temperature Water temperatures from the two monitoring stations (upstream and downstream ends) within the Lower Spawning Channel during the sampling period are presented in Table 12.1. Differences in the temperature profile between the two stations are illustrated in Table 12.2.
Table 12.1 Water temperatures recorded at two stations (upstream and downstream ends) within the Seton River Lower Spawning Channel, 30 July to 27 August 2010.
Table 12.2 The differences in water temperatures between the upstream and downstream stations in the Lower Spawning Channel, 30 July to 27 August 2010.
Water temperatures ranged from a low of 12.2 to a high of 18.4 degrees Celcius during the sampling period. These temperatures are within the range of suitable temperatures for the maintenance of aquatic life, and are 'normal' for side channel-type habitats in rivers of the Lillooet area during summer.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
59
Differences were noted between the two temperature monitoring stations within the spawning channel. Diel variations in temperature were more significant at the downstream end of the channel relative to the upstream end. At the downstream end of the channel, temperatures were typically 1.5 to 2.5 degrees warmer during afternoon periods, and 1.0 to 1.5 degrees cooler at night, relative to the upstream (inlet) end. These differences indicate that water temperatures in the channel are fairly sensitive to changes in atmospheric conditions, given its length.
During the study period, air temperatures varied between 10.7 and 38.3 degrees Celcius for the nightly low and daytime high, respectively.
5.4.3 Aquatic Invertebrates In all, 800 invertebrates were enumerated from the six deployed invertebrate samplers, representing 17 different taxa (Map 18 Table 13). Overall, the dominant taxon were mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera), and the baskets deployed in riffle habitats contributed the largest number of invertebrates.
Table 13 Number and type of invertebrates enumerated from six basket samplers deployed in the Lower Spawning Channel from 30 July to 25 August, 2010.
Taxon
Invertebrate ID
Amphipoda
Scud
Chironomidae
Blood worm
Chironomidae
Midge
Coleoptera
Beetle
Cranefly
Cranefly
Ephemeroptera
Mayfly Type 1
Ephemeroptera
Habitat Type Run 3
Pool 73
Riffle
76
4 25
58
4 80
3
163 3
5 41
Totals
5 2
119
162
Mayfly Type 2
27
2
29
Ephemeroptera
Mayfly Type 3
2
2
4
Gastropoda
Snail Type 1
12
18
30
Gastropoda
Snail Type 2
11
13
24
Hirudinea
Leech
3
1
Hydracarina
Water mite
Odonata
Dragonfly
Oligochaete
1 2
1
Worm
43
10
Plecoptera
Stonefly
18
1
Simuliidae
Blackfly
29
Trichoptera
Caddisfly
21 213
Totals
4 1
2 3 53
23
42
90
119
13
43
77
227
360
800
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
60
"
The abundance and taxonomic diversity data also were analyzed using a set of formulas and criteria provided in The Streamkeepers Handbook--Module 4 as a very general way of extrapolating any potential issues with water quality or habitat conditions in the channel (DFO 2000; Table 14).
Table 14
General indices which may reflect overall water quality and habitat conditions in the channel, derived from the aquatic invertebrate data.
Habitat Type Run
Criterion Value
# Bugs Sampled
Rating
213
Pool Value
Rating
227
Riffle Value
Rating
360
All Value
Rating
800
Dominant Oligochaete Amphipoda Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera Taxon Pollution Marginal Good 22 Acceptable 20 Acceptable 12 26 Tolerance Index EPT Index 3-4 Marginal 5 Marginal 5-6 Acceptable 5-7 Acceptable EPT to Total Marginal Poor Marginal .38 .20 .53 Acceptable .39 Ratio Total # of Taxa 12 15 8 17 Dominant Good Good Good Good .20 .32 .34 .24 Taxon Ratio Overall Rating 2.75/4 Acceptable 2.50/4 Acceptable 3.00/4 Acceptable 3.25/4 Acceptable
Overall, the analysis of the aquatic invertebrate data does not suggest a likelihood of significant water quality issues in the channel. The overall index for pollution tolerant organisms was good, the EPT index was acceptable; the EPT to Total Ratio was marginal; the Dominant Taxon Ratio was good, for an Overall Rating of 3.25 out of 4 (or acceptable). The ratings for the individual habitat types have also been provided in the table for comparison purposes, but should not be taken as a reflection of conditions in the channel as a whole on their own. The overview survey of the channel prior to the start of sampling revealed a skewed distribution of habitat types by area: the vast majority of the channel is comprised of shallow runs. The contribution of pool and riffle habitats is much less. The obvious reason for this is that the channel was originally designed for pink salmon spawning, so the intention was to maximize spawning platform area. However, now that the channel has been complexed and is continuously wetted for use by other species and life stages, the skewed distribution of habitat types may not provide the optimal conditions for maximizing the potential abundance and diversity of aquatic invertebrates. Riffles are typically very productive habitat areas for aquatic invertebrates. Depending on the priorities for intended use of the channel (e.g., spawning, rearing, feeding, etc.), the production of aquatic invertebrates for biodiversity and as food resources for fish could potentially be increased by adding and enlarging the riffle areas.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
61
5.4.4 Periphyton Accrual Results from the periphyton accrual sampling were documented by photographing the plates at the end of the 6-week deployment (Figs 25 - 30). Plate 3 (in Run habitat) appeared to have the highest overall growth. Also, the plates deployed in the lower half of the channel may have had higher accrual than the plates in the upstream portion (although this was difficult to truly compare since a bear had disturbed or damaged a couple of the plates by the end of the sampling period).
The growth of algae between sampling locations is typically quite variable. The high level of variability reflects the fact that spatial and temporal patterns of periphyton growth are influenced by a complex set of microhabitat variables, which include: water chemistry parameters, ambient light intensity, depth, and flow velocity. Additional replicates would be required in order to determine any possible trends in the data.
Fig 25 Periphyton Accrual Plate #1 - Riffle Lower Section
Fig 27 Periphyton Accrual Plate #3 - Run " Lower-Middle Section
Fig 26 Periphyton Accrual Plate #2 - Pool Lower Section
Fig 28 Periphyton Accrual Plate #4 - Pool Upper Middle Section
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Fig 30 Periphyton Accrual Plate #6 - Run Upper Section
Fig 29 Periphyton Accrual Plate #5 - riffle Upper Section
5.4.5
Fish Sampling In all, 101 fish were sampled from the Lower Spawning Channel using minnow traps (Table 15). The seven species represented in the catch included: chinook and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and Oncorhynchus kisutch), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), bridgelip sucker (Catostomus columbianus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), and coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus). One additional species, mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), was observed in the channel but not captured. Table 15 Summary of fish captured in the Seton River Lower Spawning Channel, 17 to 25 August 2010.
Speciesa Chinook salmon Coho salmon Rainbow trout Bridgelip sucker Longnose dace Redside shiner Coastrange sculpin Total
62
a
Habitat Type Run 5 10 8 40 17 5 85
Pool
3 2 1 6
Riffle 1 2 5 1 1 10
Mountain whitefish also were observed, but not captured.
All 5 11 10 48 18 8 1 101
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
63
The numbers of fish captured in each habitat type is likely as much a reflection of sampling effort and the limitations of the method than actual fish distribution. More effort was applied to runs (total = 1058.6 hours) than the other types (pool = 189.8 hours; riffle = 200.1 hours) because of the predominance of run habitats in the channel. Also, the traps may not have captured or held fish as effectively in pool habitats with little to no flow (i.e., observer efficiency was much higher than capture efficiency in pool habitats).
Interestingly, the species assemblage reflected in the catch data includes species that are typically stream resident and species that are more typically lake resident within the Seton River watershed. Some of the species that are not typically observed in the Seton River itself, may have colonized the channel, possibly following entrainment out of Seton Lake, because it provides habitat attributes that meet their requirements. Clearly the channel includes a unique combination of habitat features that are not available in the river or its natural sidechannels. However, before any more definitive conclusions can be drawn (e.g., complete species assemblage, relative abundance, and distribution of fish in the channel), a much more rigorous sampling design would need to be implemented.
Map 18 In-channel Fish and Invertebrate Monitoring Locations
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
64
5.5 Wildlife Surveys Historical data for the Seton Corridor was compiled during 2010 by local naturalists to provide a baseline from which to work from. Of note, the red-listed Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) was observed at the Lower Spawning Channels in late summer a few years ago by Ian Routley, local Breeding Bird Atlas coordinator. It was seen using the large Black Cottonwood stand on the north side of the spawning channels. It has been acknowledged that suitable breeding habitat is available, but is fragmented and in places impacted by invasive weeds and roadways. Table 16 Bird Species Observed in the Seton Corridor, including Lower Spawning Channels Great Blue Heron blue-listed
Northern Pygmy Owl
Tree Swallow
Wilson’s Warbler
Canada Goose
Common Nighthawk
Violet-green Swallow
Western Tanager
American Wigeon
Black Swift
Northern Rough-winged Swallow
Spotted Towhee
Mallard
Vaux’s Swift
Bank Swallow
Chipping Sparrow
Blue-winged Teal
Calliope Hummingbird
Cliff Swallow
Vesper Sparrow
Green-winged Teal
Rufous Hummingbird
Barn Swallow
Song Sparrow
Ring-necked Duck
Belted Kingfisher
Black-capped Chickadee
Lincoln’s Sparrow
Lesser Scaup
Lewis’s Woodpecker red-listed
Red-breasted Nuthatch
White-crowned Sparrow
Harlequin Duck
Downy Woodpecker
American Dipper
Dark-eyed Junco
Bufflehead
Hairy Woodpecker
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Black-headed Grosbeak
Barrow’s Goldeneye
Northern Flicker
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Lazuli Bunting
Common Merganser
Pileated Woodpecker
Townsend’s Solitaire
Red-winged Blackbird
Osprey
Western Wood-Pewee
Veery
Western Meadowlark
Bald Eagle
Western Kingbird
American Robin
Brewer’s Blackbird
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Northern Shrike
Gray Catbird
Brown-headed Cowbird
Cooper’s Hawk
Cassin’s Vireo
European Starling
Bullock’s Oriole
Ruffed Grouse
Warbling Vireo
Cedar Waxwing
Pine Grosbeak
Killdeer
Red-eyed Vireo
Orange-crowned Warbler
House Finch
Spotted Sandpiper
Steller’s Jay
Nashville Warbler
Pine Siskin
Mew Gull
American Crow
Yellow Warbler
American Goldfinch
Glaucous-winged Gull
Common Raven
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Evening Grosbeak
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
65
Breeding Bird Survey point count station was established in the Seton Corridor as a control site for the Powerhouse point count stations, with the idea of combining data to research current bird use in the Seton Corridor area as well. The site chosen provided a number of different habitats, including the Seton River (Cayoosh Creek), a riverside gravel bar and a fairly healthy riparian area. The site was also chosen because of the road and invasive weed impacts, which were similar to the Powerhouse site pre-restoration work. Bird point count station and encounter transect were surveyed over eight days. A total of twenty-one species were documented during the breeding season. Results of the survey indicate that the majority of the bird counts were heard within the Deciduous Tree Riparian (DTR) at twenty-nine individual birds, followed by Young Ponderosa Woodland (YPW) at twenty-one individual birds and Tall Shrub Riparian at eighteen individual birds. The least productive habitat was Grass/Herb with only three birds reported. The most prolific bird was the Spotted Towhee, (who used the greatest number of habitats), followed by the Veery and Warbling Vireo (who were found predominantly in the DTR areas). The historical list, along with this first survey within the corridor, will provide a baseline from which to monitor for any changes that may occur during and following restoration and/or conservation efforts. Data collected during point counts are shown in Appendix 00.
Fig 31 Habitat Point Count Station monitoring map
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
66
Bird Nest Surveys carried out over the winter yielded a higher number of bird nests than we had expected. A total of fifty-one nests were observed between the Fraser River and the Lower Spawning Channels. The majority (twenty-nine) were found within the Lower Spawning Channels. Preliminary identification of the nests found a total of ten crow and/or squirrel nests. Pictures of nests were taken and could be used to identify some of the structures. UTM locations were taken and it would be interesting to monitor in the spring for breeding bird activity at the same nest sites.
Map 19 Nest Survey Map
Fig 32 Small nest with egg remaining - at Lower Spawning channel in wild rose bush
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
67
Wildlife Motion Detector Cameras were installed on two trees in an area where wildlife presence seemed evident. However, the cameras were only functional for four weeks in October 2010. During that time, two recordings of a black bear and one recording of a hiker were made. This could indicate one bear using the area twice, or separate bears on different occasions. No other recordings were made due to lack of time and cold weather affecting battery function. These cameras will be installed again in the spring of 2011. Observational Wildlife Sightings were made by crew technicians while working in the area The results are not a full listing of wildlife sighted as crew were generally focused on work at the nursery and/or survey work in the corridor. Of note, however, is the number of times Great Blue Heron were sighted around the nursery area - roosting in the dead snag at the beginning of the Lower Spawning Channels, by the water at the mouth of the channel outlet into the Seton River, and once atop Ponderosa Pines to the east of the nursery. The Belted Kingfisher was also observed on numerous occasions but no recordings made. A number of woodpeckers were also observed using the snags installed in the native plant demonstration garden. A chickadee nested in one of the punky snags at the entrance to the nursery, and was seen protecting its nest site on two occasions from a larger bird (unidentified). On 11 January 2011, while visiting the nursery, four crows were observed dive-bombing a large Ponderosa Pine. On closer inspection a bobcat was seen crouched against the trunk on a branch mid-way up the tree. Tracks in the snow indicated that the bobcat had used the area between the nursery and the Ponderosa Pine clump it was found in. Table 17 Wildlife Observations - Seton Corridor June 2010 to March 2011 Date 6-Jun 11-Jun 16-Jun 28-Jun 15-Jul 28-Jul 9-Aug 12-Aug 13-Aug 13-Aug 15-Aug 17-Aug 4-Sep 5-Sep 5-Sep 1-Oct 12-Oct 26-Oct 2-Nov 8-Jan 11-Jan
Sighting Chickadee Great Blue Heron Mule Deer Garter Snake Canada Geese Great Blue Heron Great Blue Heron Racers Great Blue Heron Golden Eagle Great Blue Heron Great Blue Heron Black Bear Great Blue Heron Coyote Black Bear Great Blue Heron Western Red-backed Salamander Great Blue Heron Bobcat
Location/Notes Nursery - nesting in snag at front entrance Nursery - flying overhead Behind Nursery Nursery Nursery Nursery Nursery Nursery Nursery Seton Corridor Nursery 3 at Spawning Channels Behind Nursery 2 at Spawning Channels Nursery Seton Corridor - Night Camera Recording Nursery Seton Corridor - near 4-plex Two at Nursery 4 Crows dive-bombing Bobcat in Ponderosa east of Nursery
Coyote Tracks Nursery - tracks in snow Wildlife using complexed structures
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
68
5.6 Community Capacity Building Community capacity building in land management and restoration fields had been discussed as an important component of all restoration projects during 2010. The Advisory felt that training should be provided to community members to ensure trained workers are available in all communities into the future. Through the successful leveraging of funds we were able to hire six full-time crew technicians and six summer students who worked at the Powerhouse site and assisted in land and in-stream surveys within the corridor. The following on-the-job training opportunities were offered within the corridor during 2010: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Introduction to what restoration work involves Plant identification - both native and exotic species Weed management techniques and surveying Plant collection and propagation techniques Vegetation surveying and soil sampling Fish sampling Aquatic invertebrate survey Algae sampling Archeology Survey and Sampling Data entry and GIS Mapping Intro to in-stream restoration and community forestry Outreach skills Most crew members completed the Aboriginal Crew Technician Certificate Program with Vancouver Island University April 2011 and wish to return to work.
Fig 33 - 34 Instruction in in-stream survey methods and data collection
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Figs 35 - 36 Instruction in Vegetation and Soil Surveys
69
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
70
5.7 Watershed Outreach
During the last four years, the Lillooet Naturalist Society and Cayoosh Creek St’at’imc have worked together to implement a watershed outreach program. During 2010, this program was extended to include the Seton River Corridor. The Lower Spawning Channels, the walk through the corridor to the Fraser River, and out onto the Powerhouse Restoration site has created an excellent venue for engaging our community in a variety of activities that show the connections between various habitats and wildlife. Throughout all outreach activities discussion took place around the corridor, its potential for building on the inherent strengths and increasing wildlife habitat. The following outreach activities took place during 2010, promoting both our restoration work and the new survey work taking place in the corridor. Table 18 Outreach Activity Summary 2010 (Seton Corridor extension programs) Event
Date
Partic ipants
Volun teers
Crew
Feedback
Seedy Saturday - Naturescape/Ethnobotany booth
Feb
150
Wild Salmon Cafe - assisted with event in collaboration with Salmon Talks
Mar 20
60
12
1
Earth Day Events - Art Day River Ceremony
Ap 09 Apr 22
14
11 2
1 2
Lillooet Spring Flower Count
Apr 25
12
3
2
Presentations to District of Lillooet, Chamber of Commerce, Cayoose Creek Chief & Council and SLRD
April
15
1
2
Wild Plant Nursery Open House, Ethnobotany, Naturescaping, Worm Composting, Wildlife
May 22
29
6
6
May Day Parade - Salmon Costume & Watershed Trailer
May 21 May 24
10 11
7
400
Large Salmon Float Award
Cayoosh Elementary Wetland Weeding Day
June 03
12
2
3
Survey
Grassland Ecology and Grass Identification Workshop - in partnership with NPSBC
June 04-05
20
3
5
NPSBC Newsletter Verbal Comments
Wild Plants Nursery Visit with George M Murray Elementary - Watershed Activities & Planting
June 16
41
4
11
Lillooet Garden Tour
June 19
25
Uwlimicux Youth Society Restoration Mentoring
July 08, 15, 21
5
2
Watershed Activities & Wild Plant Booth at local Farmers Market - promotion of Watershed Art Project - and updates on work being carried out
July to October X4
180
3
Verbal comments, donations & 95 art pieces for show
Apricot Festival - Watershed/Naturescaping Booth Salmon Race
July 23 July 24
55 60
3 5
Award
Cohen Commission - Citizen Science Presentation
Aug 17
45
1
In-kind & cash support of Project
Survey 1
1
1
4
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Event
Date
71
Partic ipants
Volun teers
Crew
Feedback
32
8
Video and audio recordings
4
Invite to tour their work
22
1
Participation
Salmon in the Canyon Festival
Aug 21
250
Nursery & Seton Corridor Tour with Fountain Forestry crew
Aug 26
8
Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup
Sept 26
Education Nature & Stewardship Planting Days with GMM Elementary
Sept 20 - 23
146
6
8
Thank you notes & student artwork
Education Nature & Stewardship Planting Days with Cayoosh Elementary
Oct 07/12
78
5
8
Survey and Artwork
Salmon Ceremony - Alexandra Morton Visit
Oct 19 - 20
30
5
2
Information Booth at Christmas Craft Fair Watershed Art Show Sneak Preview
Nov 20
500
4
4
Verbal comments & donations
Watershed Art Show & Sale - 95 art works donated
Jan 22
120
70
3
Participation, sales & verbal comments
Preschool Watershed Games at Titqet and Xaxlip
Mar 01/02
44
2
2
Survey
Seniors Centre Presentation on Restoration work, and plants/wildlife of area and historical changes
Mar 03
18
2
Survey
Amphibians Presentation & Frog Pond Building with Homeschoolers and school kids
March 25/26
27
1
Survey
Walking with the Smolts - Pre-planning Mar 10 - 31
April 18
Wildlife Monitoring over season
300
3
26
4
Forthcoming
May -Oct
3
6
Approx 78 vol hours
Tool, trailer & nursery help, garbage pickup volunteers over season
April 2010 to Mar 2011
6
Advisory Members - monthly meetings
Apr to Nov2010
9
Professional assistance - DFO, MOE, Local biologists
Various
6
Approx 120 vol hours
3
Approx 120 vol hours Wildlife Surveys, Advice, Canyon Fest
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Figs 38 - 39
Watershed education program at the Lower Spawning Channel
72
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Figs 40 - 42
Outreach activities within the Seton Corridor Salmon awareness in the fall on Seton River; Ethnobotany display collection in upper Seton; and salmon gathering at the junction of the rivers
73
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
74
Fig 43 - 44 Artwork featuring the spawning channels and Seton River donated by local artists to the Watershed Art Show & Sale
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
75
During 2009, Cayoose Creek St’at’imc and Lillooet Naturalist Society hosted workshops and brainstorming sessions around the idea of developing a trails system within the corridor, with a nature centre to service our community. The following designs were created by a contracted architect, based on input from community members during four visioning sessions. These plans will be discussed at the upcoming 2011 stakeholder meetings as just another component of the complex issues and interests facing the corridor.
Map 20 Trail Map linking Fraser River to the Lower Spawning Channels and potential nature centre sites
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Fig 45 - 46
76
Initial design plans for outdoor pavilion at the Lower Spawning Channels
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
77
6. DISCUSSION Sekw’el’was Seton Wildlife Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study was undertaken with the support of the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (formerly Bridge Coastal Fish & Wildlife Restoration Program). Cayoose Creek Sekwʼelʼwas initiated this project as a direct result of the work taking place at the Powerhouse Restoration Project. Working in partnership with the Lillooet Naturalist Society on that restoration project led to increased awareness of the impacts on fish and wildlife in our territories, the strengths that remain on the land, and the actions that are possible to protect and restore our lands. The Seton River Corridor is located within Stʼatʼimc traditional territories and archaeological evidence supports the fact that we have been here for thousands of years, and have used and managed the land to sustain our culture. The area covered by this feasibility study was within the Seton River Watershed, and covered the area from the dam at Seton Lake to the banks of the Fraser River. The intent of the study was to gauge the potential and feasibility of proceeding with conservation and restoration management plans within the Seton River Corridor, with the aim of creating a more diverse and functioning habitat for fish and wildlife. It is important to note that there have historically been many impacts within the corridor, and that there are a significant number of stakeholders who are associated with the corridor, both historically and currently. For any conservation/restoration project of this scope to be successful it is important to engage all stakeholders to ensure they are involved right from the beginning in any undertakings brought forward. An evaluation of the literature collected, discussion of the issues and priorities identified, will need to be made so that a consistent and progressive management plan can be developed. It would seem a waste of time for one group to start work in one area of the corridor and then find that someone else had plans to do something entirely different in that same area. For this project to be successful the complex issues will need a set of comprehensive and fair solutions taking into the account the needs of the communities and organizations involved. During this Feasibility Study, initial contact was made with many of these stakeholders and some of the issues have been identified. Based on research, workshops, meetings, field walks, telephone and email contacts there are a number of people from various organizations willing to work together towards a more sustainable wildlife corridor for the area. Representatives from Cayoose Creek Sekwʼelʼwas, Tʼitʼqet Administration, Lillooet Tribal Council, Lillooet Naturalist Society, local fisheries contractors, Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of Environment, District of Lillooet, Squamish Lillooet Regional District, Upper Stʼatʼimc Culture, Language and Education Society, Salmon Talks, BC Hydro, Fortis, Aspen Planers, Department of Transport, CN Rail, local landowners, recreational users, tourists, and restoration/nursery crews will all need to be involved in some way to ensure a comprehensive plan can be developed that will be successful. During 2011, a stakeholder survey will be initiated to identify the key interests and/or commitments of each organization within the corridor. Meetings will then be scheduled to establish the goals of the conservation/restoration project, develop a priority list, identify information gaps, rank area for its biological value and begin developing a linkage plan that will ensure any wildlife corridor created has the greatest success of achieving its stated goal. Some of the items that have already been considered, and will need to be to be further explored, include the size of existing habitats, habitat quality, instream and side channel conditions, restorable habitat areas that have no other interests, possible linkages between
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
78
habitats, gravel recruitment, and selection of focal species that collectively could serve as an umbrella for other native species and ecological processes. During 2010, a list of potential wildlife focal species was made to assist in refining the conservation/restoration goals with the corridor. A focal species approach is being used to set biological objectives and link the priority species noted below with specific conservation recommendations. Conservation and/or restoration recommendations have been made by a variety of professional wildlife and fisheries biologists in the past, and again during 2010, for a number of different species. The identification of focal species will provide us with a basis to develop a strategic and adaptive set of conservation actions which will be required to create a more functioning habitat for these species, with the ultimate goal of sustaining their populations, and other secondary species in the process. This method also ensures a monitoring program can be established to assess the effectiveness of restoration/conservation methods. Based on the criteria noted under Methods, the following species were added to a focal species list to be refined during 2011/12 by stakeholder groups. Table 19 Wildlife Species List Species
Scientific Name
Provincial Status
Lewis’s Woodpecker
Melanerpes lewis
red-listed
“Interior” Western Screech-owl
Otus kennicottii macfarlanei
red-listed
Northern Pygmy Owl Great Blue Heron
Glaucidium gnoma swarthi Ardea herodias
Yellow-bellied Racer
Coluber constrictor
blue-listed blue-listed
blue-listed
Observed in area
Habitat Management
Wildlife tree retention Black cottonwood; Ponderosa pine Maintain shrub density >50% Planting of “snags” in open habitats Prescribed burning Wildlife tree retention Yes Black cottonwood; Ponderosa pine Do not burn understorey vegetation Do not construct trails within 50m of a known nest site Consider nest-box Wildlife tree retention Yes Black cottonwood; Ponderosa pine Black cottonwood; Ponderosa pine Yes Minimize disturbance around foraging sites Maintain perch trees adjacent to foraging areas Link denning and foraging habitat, Yes travel corridors and egg-laying sites Create structural elements such as rock Unconfirmed outcrops, friable soils, coarse woody debris, concentrations of boulders Maintain riparian areas Yes
Great Basin Gopher Snake Pituophis catenifer deserticola
blue-listed
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat
blue-listed
Yes
Remove invasive plants Increase riparian zones Maintain wildlife trees
blue-listed
Yes
Remove invasive plants Ensure suitable open habitat maintained Maintain wildlife trees
Yes
Decrease fragmentation; maintain travel routes
Corynorhinus townsendii
Spotted Bat
Euderma maculatum
Mule Deer
Odocoileus hemionus
Amphibians - Identify
Conduct Baseline Survey
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Species
Fish Species
Scientific Name
Provincial Status
Steelhead, Rainbow Trout, Pink, Chinook and Coho salmon
Observed in area
79
Habitat Management Comprehensive evaluation of existing information by stakeholders, followed by sampling to identify key species.
In addition, two provincially red-listed plant communities fall within the corridor: Black Cottonwood/Common Snowberry - Red-osier Dogwood (Populus balsamifera ssp trichocarpa/ Symphoricarpos albus - Cornus stolonifera) and Douglas Fir - Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Pseudotsuga menziesii - Inus ponderosa/Pseudoroegneria spicata). By protecting and enhancing these riparian and grassland plant communities we hope to meet the needs of the focal species identified to-date. During 2010, survey work was focused on the lower section of the Seton River Watershed, beginning from the Fraser River and extending west to the Lower Spawning Channels. The spawning channel was also mapped and surveyed, both instream and upland. The lower Seton River Corridor was chosen as a survey area with the idea of linking the Powerhouse Restoration site on the Fraser River with the Lower Spawning Channels. As this section of the corridor is within Cayoose Creek Sekwʼelʼwas band lands, it was seen as a good starting point to access the condition of the corridor and explore the possibilities of linking two larger habitat areas together. The area surveyed holds ecological values, contains red-listed plant communities and red/bluelisted wildlife species; however, the lower corridor is affected by similar impacts that are seen throughout the entire watershed. Hydro-electric systems contribute to impacts on the river and within the surrounding landscape. Dams, canals, powerlines, roads, urban development, recreational areas, grazing, agriculture, water wells, fire suppression, fuel gathering, and spawning channel construction have all contributed to fragmentation of the corridor, the spread of invasive plant species and provided access for garbage dumping. For the discussion on survey work, we will focus on riparian areas, upland areas, and the Lower Spawning Channels. Riparian: The riparian areas have the following polygon designations: Deciduous Tree Riparian (DTR), Tall and Low Shrub Riparian (TSR & LSR), Barren Riparian (BR) and Gravel Bar (GB). The most intact and highest ecological valued habitat type within the corridor was the Deciduous Tree Riparian (DTR), covering 30% of the survey area. " ! ! ! ! ! !
“DTR Polygon SC65 (Map 09) though small and isolated had some of the highest value ecological structure including species diversity, trees size, wildlife trees, coarse woody debris and depth of forest floor ... As the polygon looked during the 2010 survey it could stand as a model for what some of the other polygons could look like. Large diameter live trees and snags with diverse sized coarse woody debris and mixed understory layers of herbs and shrubs and a variety of tree sizes and species all made for healthy diverse habitat” (Odin Scholz, 2011).
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
80
This polygon is small and isolated by roads, residences and a gas station; a clear example of the fragmentation that has occurred within the corridor. It is also important to note that human activities, if not coordinated, impact healthy stands. " ! ! !
“SC65 had been recently treated for fuel management and some of the larger diameter snags/wildlife trees were flagged and it is unclear if these trees were to be felled or not. If they were to be felled the ecological function and habitat values of this small polygon would be significantly reduced” (Odin Scholz, 2011)."
The majority of the other DTR Polygons (Map 09) form narrow, linear bands of vegetation, following the contours of the current river and the unique contours of the historical river bank. The Black Cottonwood stands provide important habitat for many bird species, and is ideal habitat for the red-listed Lewisʼs Woodpecker and “Interior” Western Screech-owl (both known to frequent the area). The trees and shrubs also stabilize the riverbank preventing erosion, while providing shade and cover. These edge stands, however, are highly vulnerable to disturbance, including wind blowdown, invasive weed dispersal and human encroachment. It will be important to buffer and protect these stands by increasing their size through restoration activities. Extending the Tall and Low Shrub Riparian zones (TSR and LSR) (Map 13) and connecting these habitat types to the larger deciduous tree polygons will go a long way in ensuring the overall health of the riparian tree stands. " ! ! ! ! ! !
“The spawning channel peninsulas are in the early stages of developing riparian vegetation cover. These polygons could support more DTR structure if this is deemed desirable from the perspective of the aquatic habitat, and could be managed toward a cottonwood-fir dominated stand providing greater connectivity between the DTR polygons that surround the spawning channels ... There are also some patches of young cottonwoods around the North West edge of the spawning channels which could be encouraged and more planted to expand this structure” (Odin Scholz, 2011).
It has also been noted that the minimal riparian cover at the Lower Spawning Channels (Map 13) “contributes to the wider diel water temperature fluctuations along much of its length” (Jeff Sneep, 2010). By increasing native vegetation, in particular overhanging trees and large shrubs, the water could be shaded to buffer this effect. This riparian vegetation could also contribute to insect development, provide increased resting places for fish, and increase wildlife and bird habitats. However, the increase in large tree cover around the spawning channels will have to be planned appropriately to still allow access to the channels and to ensure any increase in organic matter into the channels does not negatively impact on water quality. Another consideration when planting trees is the resident beavers. Evidence of beaver activity, through trails, lodges, dams and cut stumps is especially noticeable in Polygons SC51, 55 (Map 09) and SC28, 17 (Map 13). "
“Some of the cottonwood trees in polygons SC48 and 49 (Map 09) have been fenced
! ! !
in the past to control beaver damage. Some of these fences are in disrepair and more fencing could be used to protect some key trees from beaver damage. Beaver were active in the spawning channels during the fall and winter of 2010” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
81
Fig 47 Beaver trails at the Lower Spawning Channels
A management plan that takes into account the riparian vegetation and the importance of the beaver to the ecology of the river system will need to be developed through consultations with stakeholders. Tall Shrub Riparian (TSR) Polygons SC20 and SC25 are fairly healthy riparian zones, with minimal exotic species cover, mostly quack grass (Elytrigia repens). SC25, the largest of the TSR areas, is “stabilizing and slowly developing into a riparian forest” (Odin Scholz, 210). It would be important to resurvey these areas in 2011 to monitor any changes that have taken place post spring freshet. TSR Polygons SC01 and 05 are closest the the Fraser River and occur on fairly steep rocky slopes. They are very narrow riparian zones, with increased invasive plant species, backing up onto an area that has grazing pressures. Expanding these riparian zones could be accomplished only with landowner permission. Another area that would benefit from expansion of the riparian zones are the Gravel Bars (GB) and Barren Riparian (BR) polygons (Map 15). “The more vegetation that is growing in the riparian zone, the more stable and complex the habitat is for wildlife and fish. The gravel bars and barren riparian zones were the most sparsely vegetated polygons in the survey area. Although the gravel bars are highly dynamic polygons being affected by high water flows it may be possible to carry out some live staking of cottonwoods to promote more site stability and increase vegetation cover. The size of the river and volume of high flow waters could make this a risky undertaking, but it may be possible to live stake in the wake of naturally established cottonwoods and build upon the established vegetation ... It would be interesting to carry out some experimental trials on one or both of SC 07 and SC17 to see if this could work. The steep slopes of the BR polygons are high priority sites for restoration. The right and left banks of the Seton River are riddled with stretches and patches of rip rap armouring. The rip rap on the right bank has failed in several places and the banks are now eroding. The rate of erosion is unclear and a monitoring system should be set up to assess how
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
82
much of a concern this is. Where soil conditions allow, live staking and native vegetation planting should be employed to attempt to use soft methods of slope stabilization. Bioengineering techniques could be employed to attempt to establish vegetation. In the rip rapped polygons, where large diameter boulders have been used to prevent erosion, there is a lack of riparian vegetation cover. The size of the boulders and the total cover of the riverbank with rock make it difficult for any vegetation but mosses to become established. It may be beneficial to attempt spot planting among chosen pockets between the rocks and use soil to fill in the gaps and plant trees into this. As the BR sites erode some of the vegetation from the adjacent polygons above the slopes is falling onto the slope in chunks. The small mats of vegetation could be salvaged and re-integrated into bank stabilization and re-vegetation efforts” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
Discussion with Patricia House, DFO, and conversations with Wayne Redan (Cayoose Band Maintenance) have been initiated to find a solution to the erosion of the banks. A monitoring protocol will be established during 2011 at SC27 and live staking into the toe of the slope will be carried out. The importance of enhancing the riparian zone with additional plantings and attempting to “knit” back the fragmented islands of vegetation could provide a more resilient ecosystem. However, other issues need to be addressed also. Three areas - Polygons SC 19, 51, 55 (Map 09) are all possible candidates for off channel salmonid habitat development (Steven Hall, personal conversations, 2010). These plans need to be carefully considered by taking into account the impact this may have on the existing healthy riparian tree stands. Parts of the riparian zones (DTR SC18) have hydro distribution lines running over them. The vegetation had been brushed in places under the wires, resulting in further fragmentation. Discussions with BC Hydro could provide an alternative plan. SC18 is also the site of an abandoned domestic apple orchard. This orchard is overgrown, but still producing apples. The trees do not seem to be used by people, but are frequently visited by bears. As the area is close to the multiplex residence, it may be worth discussing with band members the gleaning of the fruit before the bears are attracted to the area. If this is not an option, then discussion around their removal may be needed. DTR SC14 and SC18"which back onto the residences is also an area where dumping has occurred historically and continues today. There is evidence of metal, glass and plastic bags found in these polygons. This garbage also attracts bears to the area. Alternative garbage collection and an educational program put in place to mitigate the effects would be worthwhile. Invasive plant species were evident but not significant in the DTR, TSR and LSR riparian areas. The main weedy species were the grasses, with cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa) most prominent in the DTR polygons, and quack grass (Elytrigia repens) in the TSR/LSR riparian areas. ! ! ! !
“Because of the infrequent occurrence of exotic species in these polygons, if these areas are treated there is a high likelihood of successful removal and control. Where possible native plants should be planted or seeded, to replace any removed exotic species” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
83
In the Barren Riparian (BR) polygons invasive plant species are more prevalent but could still easily be managed based on the existing Weed Management Plan being used at the Powerhouse restoration site. The strengths inherent in the riparian zones tend to lead to the conclusion that protecting the existing stands will be important to the overall land management plans. By enhancing the existing stands, and building out from these areas of strength, it would appear to benefit the ecosystem as a whole, and create more diversified habitat for species-at-risk. Throughout the riparian zones there are well used animal trails and evidence, through tracks and scat, of wildlife use. During the survey period bear, deer and coyote were observed by surveyors. During the bird point count survey the highest number of birds were encountered in the riparian zones. There are also many traditional food sources to be found in the riparian zone, with some of the DTR polygons ʻused as harvesting sites for the edible cottonwood mushrooms (Tricholoma populinum) ... Mushroom gatherers were observed in the fall. Restoration work may include managing the stands for mushroom harvesting” (Odin Scholz, 2010). Before any restoration work begins it would be important to set up a reference ecosystem. "
“West of the survey site up the Seton River there are cottonwood dominated forest
! ! !
patches of greater size than any surveyed in the Eastern portion of the corridor. These patches could be surveyed as reference ecosystems to document what the range of ecological structure and composition the riparian polygons could be” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
Upland: The upland areas have the following polygon designations: Grass Herb (GH), Young Pine and Conifer Woodland (YPW, YCW), Roads (Rd), Tall Shrub Upland (TSU), Big Sage Herb (BSH) and Mature Ponderosa Pine (MPW). The upland areas of the corridor are drier and the degree of disturbance higher than in the riparian zones. The area with the greatest impacts is the Mature Pine Woodland (MPW) polygon SC04 (MAP 16). This the is upland area closest to the Fraser River and just north of Highway 99. The pressures associated with grazing by horses, old roads and campsite developments, has created an area with low vegetation cover. " ! ! ! ! ! ! !
“Restoration in this area would require excluding the area, either entirely or rotationally, from grazing pressure. The lack of native plants in the area means planting and seeding would be necessary to re-establish native plant vegetation cover. The grazing pressure has also selected for dense occurrences of invasive species with a lot of diffuse knapweed on site. It would be beneficial to assess the site for the presence of knapweed biocontrols and introduce more if they are not found on the site. Working with the landowner is essential to any success in this area” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
This section of the survey area provides a direct link to the work taking place at the Powerhouse Restoration site, and is key to any successful wildlife corridor between the Lower Spawning Channels and the Fraser River. Highway 99 also creates a major barrier to wildlife movement between the two areas. The other habitat area with significant impacts is the Grass Herb (GH) polygons. Eighteen exotic weed species have been documented in these areas. Polygon SC02 (Map 10) is again found in the upland area north of Highway 99, and has experienced the greatest impacts. Other
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
84
areas have seen disturbance from well-drilling, hydro power poles and overhead powerlines, an old homestead site, and roadways. "
“Delesalle et al suggest healthy reference middle grassland ecosystems should have
! ! ! !
at least 50% bunchgrass cover.! The loss of bunchgrass cover and the degree of disturbance in the drier site polygons is attributable to the proximity to residences and the fact that the site has been occupied for thousands of years with more intensive agricultural and livestock use over the past 100-150 years” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
Fuel management has been conducted throughout much of the upland areas, and it is important to note that an integrated approach to fuel management and restoration principles could be achieved with greater communication between work crews. It would be advantageous to survey areas for native vegetation cover before fuel management work proceeded to monitor changes over time and take adaptive measures to mitigate any negative outcomes. " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
“The resulting burn spots where branches and debris were burned have varying degrees of colonization and recovery with some native plants moving in, some exotic species and some with no plants at all. In some instances the burn spots require treatment to encourage plants to recolonize the ground as the burned surface creates a hardpan type barrier to water and plants. Planting or sowing native plant seeds into burn patches may be necessary. Habitat enhancement could be further integrated with fuel management practices by leaving more coarse woody debris on the ground, leaving the occasional snag as well as leaving some debris piles unburned to create more habitat structure. These polygons are very clean of understory structure due to close proximity to residences and the local use of wood for fuel and building for thousands of years. Debris piles provide important habitat for small mammals and reptiles” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
S7istken (pit house) sites were observed in four of the grassland areas (SC31, 35, 16 and 10). Further exploration of the site should be undertaken and mapped to ensure these sites are honoured and not impacted by restoration works. Any restoration work in the future will be carried out under the guidance of an archaeologist, and with the assistance of locally trained crew members. In polygon SC31 hydro power poles are located within the edge of a S7istken site. These power poles have been designated for removal and “it would be beneficial if the degree of disturbance and ecological integrity of the existing area was considered when choosing a new location for the poles” (Odin Scolz, 2010). Five of the twelve GH polygons were predominantly covered by native species. These areas would be good places to begin removal of invasive species and replant with native bunchgrasses. The Tall Shrub Upland (TSU) and Big Sage Herb (BSH) polygons have relatively high exotic species cover with particularly high densities of cheat grass and alfalfa. Many of these sites border roads and/or residential areas. "
“Roads are known vectors for introduction and spread of exotic and invasive plants.
! ! ! ! ! !
It was noted that the road edges were hot spots for invasive species. Monitoring road edges and at least preventing invasive plants from flowering should be a management priority. The parking area near the spawning channel was a site of toadflax and knapweed growth. A gate is being place at the north entrance to the spawning channel (Rd 5), to further reduce vehicle access to the channel. This may help prevent further establishment and spread of invasive plants” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
85
In the TSU and BSH polygons, improvements could be made by planting and/or seeding with native bunch grasses and dryland herbs. Exotic weedy species should be removed while seeding and/or planting progresses. " The pine/conifer woodlands make up 14% of the surveyed area, the second largest area by habitat type. These areas have a significantly lower rate of invasive species present, with cheat grass again being the most prominent invasive species. These areas would benefit from removal of invasive species, in particular field bindweed in Polygon SC45. Priority invasive plant species include diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), Dalmation toadflax (Linaria genistifolia), Russian thistle (Salsola kali) and Quack grass (Elytrigia repens). Due to the low prevalence of these species within the woodlands, it is recommended that these species be mechanically removed as soon as possible. Cayoose Creek Sekwʼelʼwas has placed a priority on stocking the site with Soopalalie bushes and other traditional food plants to encourage cultural and healthy lifestyles within the community membership. Many of these plants are currently growing on the site, and therefore this goal would work well with any restoration plans. ! ! ! ! !
“Soopalalie bushes were fairly rare throughout the survey area and any that occur could be encouraged through thinning around them and managing them for berry production. More Soopalalie plants could be planted at the site, perhaps as part of the re-vegetation of burn patches” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
Vegetation structure varied throughout the site with different plants having unique forms and creating unique habitat types. Polygon SC36 had fairly unique shrub structure with a dense stand of cherry which may be water birch. The polygon should be revisited to clarify identification of several plants. This polygon should be maintained intact to preserve this type of stand structure on the site (Odin Scholz, 2010). Invasive weed removal and replanting with native bunchgrasses, dryland herbs, shrubs and trees should be the main focus of any restoration work on the upland bench. However, another recurring observation in the upland polygons is the concentration of household garbage that is being strewn around by local dogs and bears, especially within polygon SC37, just behind the multiplex units. "
“Over 30 individual household black garbage bags had been ripped apart in polygon SC73
! ! ! ! ! !
and the contents ravaged by animals. Although local dogs may have been responsible for some of this, there was an associated concentration of bear scat and some coyote scat among the garbage. Plastic bags were observed in bear scat in the area. It is obvious that bears are using the garbage from the nearby multiplex residence as a food resource. This is not a desirable situation. There is a childrenʼs playground located in polygon 37, just meters east of the garbage bag scene” (Odin Scholz, 2010).
As noted above a bear aware educational program should be implemented and an alternative method of garbage disposal initiated. This is important for the safety of the residents and to discourage negative outcomes for the bears.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
86
Lower Spawning Channel: The Lower Spawning Channels were constructed during the 1960s as compensation for loss of critical Pink spawning habitat in the Seton River. The channels were filled with water only during the Pink runs; at other times the channels were dry. In 2003, the spawning channels were complexed to increase rearing and spawning by resident and other anadromous fish species, and water was continuously diverted from the hydro canal. No survey or sampling had been carried out since the complexing was completed. During 2010, preliminary instream surveys were undertaken in the Lower Spawning Channels to assess the ecological function and values of the channels at this time. The overall length of the spawning channels were measured and instream features recorded. Runs make up 60% of the overall channel length.
“The channel is currently dominated by shallow run-type habitats because of its original ! ! ! ! !
design as a pink salmon spawning channel. Depending on the priorities for use of the channel, consideration could be given to enlarging and/or increasing the number of riffle habitats since they can be significant contributors to aquatic bug production, and are preferred habitats for certain species and lifestages of fish (e.g. mountain whitefish, rainbow trout/steelhead parr” (Jeff Sneep, 2010).
The survey work and mapping that took place in 2010 (Map 17) could be compared to the literature and maps produced after the complexing work of 2003 (Map 21). This may provide some insight into how the channels have developed and changed over time.
Map 21 Lower Seton Channel Project 2003
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
87
A preliminary aquatic insect and periphyton accrual sampling was carried out during 2010 and showed no significant water quality issues in the channel. It was observed that runs and pools within the spawning channel had a higher proportion of algae on the rocks and gravels. It may be necessary to “identify algae species growing in the spawning channels and assess whether there are any ecological implications” (Odin Scholz, 2010). Fines were also more predominant in these habitat types. Assessing the state of the gravels within the channels for suitability of spawning should be carried out. If further research indicates that gravel recruitment would benefit fish species, consultations should take place on whether addition of gravels would need to be considered an on-going maintenance procedure. Fish sampling was fairly generalized during 2010. A total of eight species were identified using the spawning channels. Currently the spawning channels are supporting species that are usually found both in streams or in lakes, but it is not conclusive as to what species are spawning and does not indicate relative abundance or distribution of the fish in the channel. ! ! ! ! ! !
“To better address gaps in information about use of the channel by resident fish species and juvenile lifestages, consider implementing a more rigorous sampling design to document fish distribution, relative abundance, growth, and a more complete species assemblage. This recommendation could be particularly important if future restoration works are implemented in the channel, such that associated changes to fish use or aquatic bug production, etc. could be monitored” (Jeff Sneep, 2010).
The resident beaver continues to modify the spawning channels. Research and consultations may provide protocols that could be put in place to guide when and how to intervene. It should be noted that the “use of beaver ponds by juvenile coho salmon and other fishes has been well established (Pollock, et al, 2004). Past analysis suggested that beaver dams might be detrimental to fish because their dams could hinder fish passage. This is why many fish managers remove dams on a regular basis. However, “beaver ponds usually have slow current velocities and large edge-to-surface area ratios, and therefore contain extensive cover and a highly productive environment for both vegetation and aquatic invertebrates; these conditions provide fish with foraging opportunities not found in unimpounded stream habitat” (Pollock, et al, 2004). Invasive weed species also impact fish and other wildlife using the spawning channels. Removal of invasive plants and replanting with native trees, shrubs and herbs could mitigate stream temperature fluctuations, increase aquatic production, create additional rearing habitat for fish, and connect the riparian habitats to the broader landscape. It is important to note that any conservation and/or restoration work within the Seton River Corridor, including the Lower Spawning Channels, will need the input and agreement of a wide range of stakeholders to be successful.
The BC Hydro Water Use Plan and the Stʼatʼimc Nation/BC Hydro settlement have created the environment for continued conservation and restoration work within our territory. " ! ! ! !
“The need for individuals trained in fisheries related knowledge is vital to implementing the Water Use Plan monitoring projects, some of which have been awarded to Stʼatʼimc First Nations. Therefore it will be a priority to provide training and mentoring to meet the immediate obligations of the Water Use Plan and also essential for these projects” (Steve Hall, 2011).
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
88
During 2010, this Feasibility Study provided on-the-job training and work experience in vegetation, soil and fisheries survey techniques to fourteen local people. On completion of this work experience, the Aboriginal Environmental Crew Technician certificate program was offered in Lillooet to those with an interest in land management and restoration employment opportunities. We have assisted in providing an understanding of land management practices and encouraged local community members to gain certification in this field so that they can continue to work on our lands in a scientific and culturally sensitive way. To increase watershed awareness, numerous outreach events took place within the Seton River Corridor. By utilizing the Lower Spawning Channels, the corridor, and the Fraser River we were able to provide activities that increased knowledge about the interconnectedness of the various habitats, and their importance to fish and wildlife. Our goal through outreach work is to generate an understanding and appreciation for the natural world which could assist in developing a stewardship ethic within our communities. This Feasibility Study generated a comprehensive list of possible restoration opportunities. Any work undertaken to increase functioning habitat for species-at-risk, and other fish and wildlife, will require a long-term commitment from the various stakeholders. By working together a more comprehensive, rationale, sequential and effective management plan will ensure the success of any project meeting its stated goals, benefiting the Seton River Corridor as a whole.
Figs 48 - 49 Watershed Outreach map indicating various educational stations and kid “smolts” Protection of our watersheds is important to future generations.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Fig 50 The big picture - healthy functioning watersheds
Watershed interactive map
89
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
90
7. RECOMMENDATIONS Cayoose Creek Sekw’el’was successfully implemented this Feasibility Study during 2010 and have been provided with numerous recommendations based on literature and networking research, contractor reports and our own survey results. Within St’at’imc Territory we are responsible for ensuring the health of our rivers and land. A long-term commitment and strong partnerships are necessary to assist us in developing a comprehensive plan for the Seton River Watershed. Many studies and reports have been produced over the years, but now it is time to implement some of the recommendations that have been provided. Comprehensive lists of salmon and wildlife conservation and restoration opportunities were generated during 2010 by the Lillooet Tribal Council, with input from various aboriginal peoples, professionals, organizations and community members. The following recommendations are our next steps towards achieving a sustainable and healthy watershed for fish and wildlife, and for our children and our children’s children. Table 20 Recommendations for 2011 1
Analyze literature database and 2010 research and survey results
2
Develop and distribute stakeholder survey
3
Organize stakeholder meetings
4
Document management priorities (focal species, habitat areas, linkages)
5
Develop management plan and timeline, and research resource needs
6
Lower Spawning Channel: Assess gravel condition
7
Lower Spawning Channel: Assess spawning use by adult steelhead, pink, coho, and chinnook
8
Lower Spawning Channel: Stock assessment of resident fish use and juvenile fish production
9
Lower Spawning Channel: Establish half hectare test plot to monitor success of invasive weed removal and replant of native trees and shrubs
10
Lower Spawning Channel: Research management strategies for beaver control
11
Seton River: Establish a slope monitoring program
12
Seton River: Plant large diameter cottonwood and willow cuttings at SC29 to act as a test plot to guide future stream side erosion control
13
Upland: Remove invasive weed species and replant with native bunchgrasses, herbs, shrubs and trees, on half hectare test plot
14
Provide hands-on learning opportunities and work experience in land management and restoration fields
15
Hold two field walks and outreach events to increase awareness of the Seton River and the objectives of the conservation/restoration project
16
Develop signage
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
91
Based on the vegetation and soil surveys undertaken by crew technicians, under the guidance of Odin Scholz, a number of recommendations specific to each polygon has been developed and is shown below. These recommendations will be priotized and implemented over the coming years. Table 21 Summary of Restoration Recommendations from 2010 SETON CORRIDOR Survey Polygon ID Observation Treatment SC 45 Field bindweed site Use natural herbicide and repeat apply to top kill plant before it spreads. Do not hand dig as breaking roots will encourage spreading. YCW Polys
Burn patches from fuel management, weedy or lacking regeneration
Weed sites, manual scarification where necessary and seeding and planting with Native plant species. Always leave some brush piles as habitat piles if not already part of fuel management. Do not pile brush piles next to large desirable trees as subsequent burns could kill trees.
SC37
Garbage bags ravaged by animals
Bear awareness be implemented for local residences and support for the development of bear proof garbage containers or a policy that averts bears being attracted to and getting into the residential garbage.
SC54
Lots of exposed/bare ground. Piles of Large woody debris (LWD)
Live stake with med to large diameter cottonwoods. Monitor LWD piles during high river flows to assess whether there would be a benefit to securing logs to prolong retention
SC71
Piles of Large woody debris (LWD)
Monitor LWD piles during high river flows to assess whether there would be a benefit to securing logs to prolong retention
SC28
Slope erosion
Planting or live staking site (5 shrubs 5 trees).
SC25
Stabilizing riparian forest
Monitor during peak flows to assess degree of flooding. Has potential high habitat value as moves towards DTR habitat type. May be a candidate for off channel habitat which could threatened DTR habitat development.
SC41
Dumped garbage, disturbed center area
Clean up garbage and plant trees and tall shrubs in disturbed areas
SC34
Burn patches from fuel management. Soopalalie being overgrown, alfalfa and toadflax patches and household garbage.
Treat burn patches; scarify seed and plant (Soopalalie), thin around soopalalie and manage for berries. Dig out alfalfa and toadflax. Clean up garbage.
SC36
Unknown grass and herb
Revisit polygon in late spring summer to identify unknown herb and grass species. Suggest polygon is exempt from any cutting to preserve unique structure.
SC44
Mounding, garbage, alfalfa and toadflax
Cleanup garbage, weed alfalfa and toadflax and plant native trees and shrubs. Assess mounding for cultural heritage values.
SC 22, 23, 24, 13
Slope eroding
Set up monitoring to assess rate of erosion, trial live stakes to attempt bank stabilization.
SC29
Huge rip rap boulders
SC 27
Eroding slope
Try infilling soil between boulders and live stake or plant between boulders. Set up monitoring to assess rate of erosion, trial live stakes and planting to attempt bank stabilization. Wattle fencing with cottonwoods willow and red osier dogwood could be tried to slow down erosion.
SC53
Rip rap
SC52
Upper slope eroding
Try infilling soil between boulders and live stake or plant between boulders. Live staking above rip rap and conifer planting on upper slope.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
treed polys
Regional pine beetle infestation
92
Selectively protect larger Ponderosa Pine trees with hormone bags.
all Develop weed management Polygon strategy s
Treat invasive species using integrated pest management that includes replacing removed weeds with appropriate native vegetation.
SC01,02 Heavy browse, lots of exotic , 04 species
Key restoration work in these polygons would involve fencing off the areas to restrict access by horses. Discuss possibilities with resident land manager to determine if any action is possible. Fencing followed by planting of native vegetation. Another consideration is the possibility of the band resurrecting the campground use plan for the site.
All Wildlife baseline studies Polygon s All Monitoring restoration Polygon changes s
Implement baseline wildlife studies based on stakeholder decisions as to focal species Establish photo point stations to monitor change over time
As resources allow a full inventory of the Seton River Watershed should be made, including the areas surrounding the upper section of the Seton River, Upper Spawning Channels, Cayoose Creek and the south side of Highway 99 to the Seton Canal.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
8.
93
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was completed with the financial support of Fish and Wildlife Compensation program (formerly Bridge Coastal Fish and Wildlife Program). The Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, Fraser Salmon & Watersheds Program, YMCA EcoInternship Program, Provincial Governments Job Creation Program and the Federal Government Summer Student Program also provided funds to support this project. We would like to thank our partners: Lillooet Naturalist Society - in particular Kim North, Odin Scholz, Jacquie Rasmussen, Jeff OʼKelly, Scott Bodaly and Bob Deadman; Sean Bennett and Patricia House, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for their support of the project and in-kind contributions and advice during field walks and through email discussions; Francis Iredale and Jared Hobbs, Ministry of Environment for sharing their expertise with us on species-at-risk; Lloyd Narcisse, USCLES, Pat St-Dennis, Councillor District of Lillooet, Margaret Lampman Past-Councillor, and Gillian Smith, Wildcrafter, for providing their time and advice while sitting on the Restoration Advisory Committee; SLRD for their financial support, and to the Bridge RiverLillooet News, Stʼatʼimc Runner and Radio Lillooet broadcasters for their coverage of the project Thank you to the local contractors who provided their expertise and time to the project, and who donated supplies and time to assist: Odin Scholz, Jeff Sneep and Steven Hall. Their reports provided the bulk of this report. Jeff OʼKelly for all the bird work, Doug Burles for advice on bats, and Cheryl for her assistance in regard to the research database. Thanks to the crew technicians – Avaleen Adolph, Jessica Allen, Leif Douglass, Genisis Point, Travis Rankin, Karen Edwards, Colin Larochelle, John Narcisse, Fred James, Galen Polock, Neil Lingor, Tyler Cressey, Bradley James, and Bailee Phillips. They were responsible for a large part of the survey and data entry work, while also working on our restoration project.
9.
REFERENCES
Adolph, Bonnie. Lower Seton Spawning Channel Complexing Project 2003. Lillooet: 2003 B.C. Ministry of Environment lands and Parks, BC Ministry of Forests. Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems. Land Management Handbook N0. 25, 1998 Beier, Paul, Majka, Jenness. Conceptual Steps for Designing Wildlife Corridors. Arizona: Northern Arizona University. Bridge River Water Use Plan Consultative Committee. Bridge River Water Use Plan, September 2003. Vancouver: Compass Resource Management and BC Hydro, 2003. Bridge-Coastal Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program, Strategic Plan, Volume 2. Seton River Watershed. Vancouver. Delesalle, B.P., B.J.Coupe, B.M. Wikeem, S.J. Wikeem. Grasslands Monitoring Manual for British Columbia: A Tool for Ranchers. Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia, 2009 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Streamkeepers Handbook--Module 4: Stream Invertebrate Survey. Rev. March 2000. 28pp. Loyd, D. and, K. Angove, G. Hope and C. Thompson, A Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. Land Management Handbook Number 23 BC Ministry of Forests, 1990
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
94
Ministry of Environment. The Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (IWMS). Wildlife Conservation Planning Branch, Victoria, 2004 Nature Conservancy. Conservation by Design - A Strategic Framework for Mission Success. USA, 2006 North, Kim and Scholz, Odin. Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Project, Final Report, Phase Three. Lillooet, BC. 2010. Parchoma, Gale. Guide to Weeds in British Columbia. British Columbia Department of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, 2002. Parish, Roberta and Coupe, Ray and Lloyd, Dennis. Plants of Southern Interior of British Columbia and the Inland Northwest. Vancouver: Lone Pine Publishing, 1996. Pollock, Michael, Pess, beechie, Montgomery. The Importance of Beaver Ponds to Coho Salmon production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington, USA. Seattle: North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2004 Ralph, David. Field Guide to Noxious and Other Selected Invasive Plants of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C: 2007 Sibley, David. The Sibley Guide to Birds. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 2000. Stankey, George, Clark and Bormann. Adaptive Management of Natural Resources: Theory, Concepts, and Management Institutions. USDA, Corvallis, Oregon, 2005. Summit Environmental Consultants Ltd. Survey of Gravel Recruitment Needs: Middle Shuswap River, Bridge River, Seton River and Cayoosh Creek. Kamloops: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Waugh, Alfred, Architect. Lillooet Nature Centre Pre-Design Study. Lillooet, 2010 Westland Resource Group. A Historical Geography of the Stʼatʼimc - Stʼatʼimc Socioeconomic Impact Assessment - An Assessment of the Socioeconomic Impacts of Hydroelectric Development on the Stʼatʼimc. Victoria: Westland. 2003 Wind, Elke. Amphibian and Reptile Surveys on the Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Site. Lillooet, B.C: 2008 Wright, Kenneth. Powerhouse Restoration Breeding Bird Summary - 2010. Lillooet, B.C, 2010 Wright, Jim and Pryce, Paul. Seven Steps to Managing Your Weeds – A Manual for Integrated Weed Management in British Columbia. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, 2002. Young, Vicky, Mylymok, Hobbs, Iredale. Western Screech Owl Conservation and Management for the Bridge River Restoration Area - 2010 Final Report. Victoria, 2010.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
APPENDIX Ia
95
Seton and Anderson Watershed Database
1 (1943). Seton Lake Reservoir : IPSFC Records. Ref ID: 56 Keywords: Seton/Seton Lake Reprint: In File Notes: Box D - LTC. Report consists of tables with raw data on water temperature, secchi disc readings, etc. 2 Andrew, F. J. &. G. H. G. (1958). Progress Report No.4 : Sockeye and Pink Salmon Investigations at the Seton Creek Hydroelectric Installation. Ref ID: 57 Keywords: Bridge River/pink salmon/salmon/Seton/Seton Dam/Seton Lake/Seton-Anderson watershed/ sockeye/spawning area/spills/spawning/Cayoosh Creek/Seton creek/Dam/diversion Reprint: In File Abstract: Investigations conducted in 1956 and 1957 indicated that the potential production of sockeye and pink salmon in the Seton-Anderson watershed has been reduced by the construction of the Seton Creek hydroelectric installation. The loss of part of the pink salmon spawning area in Seton and Cayoosh Creeks has reduced the salmon-producing potential of the Seton Creek watershed. Any sporadic spills over the Seton Dam might have a further adverse effect on spawning and egg incubation in the remaining spawning areas below the dam. Current investigations suggest that the potential of Seton Lake for rearing sockeye salmon has been reduced as a result of the diversion of Bridge River water to Seton Lake. Notes: Box A - LTC. Conclusions: The loss of part of the pink salmon spawning area in Seton and Cayoosh creek has reduced the salmon-producing potential of the Seton Creek Watershed. Any sporadic spills over the Seton Dam might have a further adverse effect on spawing and egg incubation in the remaining spawning areas below the dam. Current investigations suggest that the potential of Seton Lake for rearing sockeye salmon has been reduced as a result of the diversion of Bridge River water to Seton Lake. 3 Aqualibrium Environmental Consulting (2001). Fish Mercury Database Summary - 2001 British Columbia. Ref ID: 169 Keywords: bull trout/fish/kokanee/mercury/trout/contamination Reprint: In File Abstract: This report contains a compilation of mercury (Hg) concentration data in fish muscle between 1970 and 2001, from freshwater fish in lakes and reservoirs in British Columbia. Data were gathered from published reports and data summaries, BC Hydro unpublished data, consultant reports, and from data provided by various federal and provincial government agencies and universities. Data are reported alphabetically by the common name of each species, followed by waterbody (lake or reservoir) and year. Length and weight data (if available) accompany mercury concentration data for individual fish in parts per million (ppm) wet weight. In some cases, only mean values were available and reported for length, weight and Hg for particular species, waterbodies or years. Key species for which data were widely available included bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), lake trout (S. namaycush), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Limited data were available for Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), brook trout (S. fontinalis), cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki), kokanee (Oncorhynchus kisutch), lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), walleye (Stizostedeon vitreum), northern pike (Esox lucius) and northern pikeminnow (Ptychochelius oregonensis). We believe that this report contains the vast majority of available Hg data for BC freshwater fish. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: Although most studies conducted to date provided "ballpark" estimates of mercury contamination in fish, in nearly all cases these estimates are far enough below the guideline concentration for commercial sale (i.e., 0.5 ppm), that there is very little cause for concern. Nevertheless, it is recognized that environmental contamination by Mercury continues to be a persistent issue in some areas in British Columbia. We recommend that all future monitoring programs should use the standard protocols and procedures described here to ensure that comparisons of mercury in fish are made among species and reservoirs, and over time, that are unbiased by differences in fish size. Non-destructive techniques should be used wherever possible. 4 BC Hydro (1982). Effect of the Diversion of Cayoosh Creek on the Recreational Reaches at the East End of Seton Lake in 1981 SE 8218. Ref ID: 72
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
96
Keywords: Cayoosh Creek/recreational/salmon/Seton/Seton Lake/diversion Reprint: In File Abstract: Due to the experiments of diverting water from Cayoosh Creek into Seton Lake (an experiment to test reducing the delay of salmon migrating up Seton River), the Seton Lake bathing areas were complained of to be colder (by the village of Lillooet). This report describes the 1981 lake temperature study. the results found no appreciable changes to the water temperatures in the swimming areas off of the Seton beaches. Notes: Box A - LTC. Conclusion: No appreciable changes to the water temperatures off the Seton beaches as a result of the diversion of Cayoosh Creek into Seton Lake. However, the water temperatures off the north beach were slightly more affected by the Cayoosh diversion. 5 BC Hydro (1985). Dam Safety Investigations : Seton Dam Discharge Facilities Tests. Ref ID: 93 Keywords: Dam/discharge tests/Seton/Seton Dam/powerhouse/fish/spawning/spawning channel Reprint: In File Abstract: Tests were made to assess whether the discharge facilities could be operated safely under design flood conditions. Notes: Box A - LTC. Recommendations on page 6-1 of report; many including: - A survey be undertaken to resolve apparent elevation datum discrepancies and consideration be given to installation of a water level recorder in Seton dam forebay set at the construction datum with a telemetering hookup to the Bridge powerhouse control center. -The spillway radial gate be fully opened and closed annually at a time when downstream conditions permit. It was not operated at full opening during the May 28 1985 test due to concerns with regard to fish impacts at the downstream fish spawning channel. 6 BC Hydro (1990). Feasibility Study on Bypass Facilities For Downstream Migrating Smolts. Ref ID: 97 Keywords: Dam/salmon/Seton/Seton Dam/smolts Reprint: In File Abstract: Study was to conduct a feasibility study of ways to direct salmon smolts away from the power canal and into Seton Creek downstream of Seton Dam. The scope of the study was later expanded to include preliminary design and cost estimates at a feasibility level and economic analysis. Notes: Box E - LTC. Recommendations: It is recommended that an effective system of directing the smolts towards a designated area, using behavioral devices, be developed in the field during the downstream migration as soon as possible. 7 BC Hydro (1992). Resource Smart : Seton Additional Energy Overview Study. Ref ID: 90 Keywords: Seton Reprint: In File Abstract: It is the objective of the Resource Smart program to maximize energy available from the existing electric system. Notes: Box A - LTC. Recommendations: Based on the favorable results of the overview level of economic analyses, it is recommended that the study continue into the next phase of investigations - a combined feasibility and preliminary design study that will lead to the preparation of a Capital Authorization Request. (Study guidelines on page 8-1 of report). 8 BC Hydro (1992). Seton Generator and Turbine Data. Ref ID: 110 Keywords: generator turbine/Seton Reprint: In File Notes: Box A - LTC. 9 BC Hydro (2004). Seton Dam - Deficiency Investigations Power Canal - Potential Rockfall/Slide Assessment. Ref ID: 81 Keywords: canal/Dam/power canal/Seton/Seton Dam Reprint: In File Abstract: In the summer of 2000, particular concern regarding rock slope hazards was raised by the Cayoosh Indian Band. The scope of this study included an assessment of the potential or worst case rockfall/slide into the canal, and its impact on the canal. Notes: Box B - LTC. 10 BC Hydro (2005). Seton Canal : 2004 Inspection and Repairs. Ref ID: 78 Keywords: canal/Seton/Seton canal Reprint: In File
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
97
11 BC Hydro - Environmental REsources Division (1993). Bridge River Operation Study-Estimation of the Environmental Costs of Spilling at Terzaghi and Seton Dams ER-93-04. Ref ID: 4 Keywords: Bridge River/Dam/environmental costs/fish/fish habitat/Seton/Seton Dam/spilling/Terzaghi Reprint: In File Abstract: The purpose of this analysis is to provide estimates of the environmental costs of spilling water from Seton and Terzaghi Dams for the Bridge/Seton Reservoir Management Study. These estimates have incorporated consideration for the following parameters; 1) presence/abundance of environmental resources that are potentially impacted by spill releases in the Bridge and Seton watersheds. 2) impacts of spill releases on the availability or utilization of those resources. 3) magnitude of spill releases from Seton and Terzaghi Dams 4) duration of spill releases from Seton and Terzaghi Dams Notes: Box A- LTC Recommendations: This analysis has suggested there are significant environmental costs of spilling on fish and fish habitat in the Bridge River and Seton River systems. Intangible environmental costs were not estimated in the study. Estimations were necessary as the required research to determine the impacts of spilling on fish production has not yet been completed. Better data recommended to quantify impacts of spilling on fish. 12 BC Hydro - Hydroelectric Engineering Division (1987). Bridge River and Seton River - Probable Maximum Precipitation. Ref ID: 52 Keywords: Bridge River/Dam/hydrographs/La Joie/Seton/Seton Dam/Seton River/Terzaghi Reprint: In File Abstract: The purpose of this report is to estimate the PMP and the meteorological conditions which will produce PMF hydrographs for the La Joie, Terzaghi and Seton dams. The study results will then be used in succeeding studies to estimate the PMFs which can be used to review the existing spillway conditions. Notes: Box A - LTC. Recommendations: Four, including: - The current short term network of climate stations in the Bridge and Seton River basins should be maintained to record any severe rainstorms that may occur. 13 BCRP (2000). Seton River Watershed. Ref ID: 170 Keywords: fish/Seton/Seton River/habitat/spawning/Dam/diversion/Seton Dam/Seton Lake/Bridge River/ Cayoosh Creek/sockeye/tailrace/entrainment/salmon/powerhouse/mortality/wildlife Reprint: In File Abstract: The following are suspected factors that limit current levels of fish populations within the Seton River watershed. These also reflect the key issues raised at BCRP regional workshops. 1. Loss of habitat: Former spawning, rearing and overwintering areas are permanently lost or seasonally reduced due to dam footprint, reservoir flooding, flow diversions or operating flows; or from non-hydro sources. 2. Reduced downstream habitat capability: Habitats below Seton Dam are altered by the unnatural hydrograph, and by lack of sediment and wood recruitment. 3. Reduced biological productivity: Seton Lake and River have lower temperatures, reduced water clarity and an altered nutrient regime due to the high flushing rate and large proportion of Bridge River and Cayoosh Creek diversion flows. 4. Diversions: The Cayoosh Creek diversion has had effects on wetted channel area, seasonal temperatures and stream productivity in both Seton River and Cayoosh Creek channels. Olfactory cues for sockeye returning to Gates and Portage creeks have been changed based on the proportion of Cayoosh water mixed in the tailrace discharge. 5. Entrainment: At least 10% of juvenile salmon that migrate downstream through the seton powerhouse each year are killed. Mortalities to resident are unknown but likely small. 6. Selective Fish Access: Although there is a fishway in Seton Dam, large chinook salmon cannot pass through the automated fish counter. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Several recommendations including fish and wildlife habitat restoration; see report for details. 14 Bell, L. M. (1985). A Fish Passage Problem at the Seton Hydroelectric Project in Southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Water Resources Journal 10, 32-39. Ref ID: 102 Keywords: Cayoosh Creek/fish/passage problem/Seton/Seton Lake/sockeye/tailrace Reprint: In File
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
98
Abstract: A synopsis of the fish delay problem at the Seton tailrace. Notes: Box A - LTC. Recommendation: The partial diversion of Cayoosh Creek into Seton Lake, to reduce the amount of Cayoosh water in the Seton-Cayoosh mix to a level acceptable by both the Gates and Portage Creek sockeye, is now considered by the DFO and the IPSFC as an acceptable solution to the tailrace delay problem. 15 Bengeyfield, W. (1992). Downstream Fish Passage at Seton GS: Action Plan and Information Review (Draft). Ref ID: 88 Keywords: entrainment/fish/mortality/Seton Reprint: In File Abstract: This study assembled the available information on juvenile salmonid passage at Seton G.S. for the purpose of mitigating the turbine mortality issue. Notes: Box B - LTC. Conclusion: If BC Hydro decides to undertake mitigative measures at Seton, it would seem appropriate to advance such intentions to the Canadian representatives of the US-Canada Fishing Treaty in order that they could negotiate an agreement to increase future Canadian allocation in order to offset the incremental US catch that will result from such a mitigation. 16 Chamberlain, M. W. &. D. S. O. B. C. C. F. (2000). Lillooet TSA - Bull Trout Distribution Survey Seton/ Anderson Watershed. Ref ID: 76 Keywords: bull trout/fisheries/Gates Creek/habitat/migration/recreational/Seton/Anderson watershed/ spawning channel/tributaries/TSA Reprint: In File Abstract: MoELP, through funding provided by the Conservation Resources Inventory Iniative, contracted the BCCF to determine the distribution of bull trout within tributaries to the Seton/Anderson watershed. Potential impacts to bull trout populations within the watershed include water diversion structures, forest harvesting, road building, hydroelectric facilities and man-made migration barriers. Historic mining activity and pressure fro the recreational fishery may also affect the population. Notes: Box B - LTC (2 copies). Recommendations: 1. The water diversions on Spider Creek need to be addressed quickly. An investigation into any diversion structures and license compliance may alleviate any other fisheries impacts. 2. The implementation of a comprehensive radio-telemetry study within the Seton/Anderson drainage should be considered; e.g. to minimize impacts, critical habitat must be identified accurately. 3. Data on the timing of bull trout migrations in relation to the Gates Creek Spawning channel fence placement needs to be collected. 4. The relative contribution of identified spawning locations to the total bull trout population in the Seton/ Anderson watershed likely varies greatly. 5. Enumeration of spawning bull trout within Spider, Whitecap, Lost Valley, and Gates Creeks should be repeated in fall of 2000. 6. Historical confirmation of Dolly Varden. 7. To provide fisheries managers with a complete picture of the distribution of bull trout within the Lillooet TSA. 17 Cooke, S. J., Pon, L. B., & Hinch, S. G. (2006). Passage Efficiency and Migration Behaviour of Salmonid Fishes at the Seton Dam Fishway. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61, 905-912. Ref ID: 116 Keywords: migration/Seton/Seton Dam/Dam/sockeye/salmon/fish/Seton Lake/entrainment Reprint: In File Abstract: We addressed five specific objectives in this study; 1) quantify the attraction efficiency of the fishway for adult migrating sockeye salmon; 2) quantify the passage efficiency and areas of difficulty for migratory salmonids; 3) evaluate if fishway passage has consequences on adult sockeye salmon that affect their ability to reach terminal spawning locations but are not detectable until after they have left the fishway; 4) assess the potential role of the fish resistivity counters on fish passage, particularly as it related to large fish; 5) assess the potential impacts of Cayoosh flow dilution and the Carpenter Lake inflow from power generation on adult sockeye salmon behaviour and thermal experience in Seton Lake Notes: DFO library; Crane Creek Fish File Based on our findings, we developed several recommendations; 1) Increase visitation to the fishway during key migratory periods in order to ensure that it is functioning and free of debris; 2) Reconsider the use of the resistivity counters at the fishway exit pool; 3) Daily SDF fish counts should be annotated with details on blockage and debris accumulation;
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
99
4) Improve trash racks upstream of counter and/or fishway exit to reduce blockage; 5) Consider modifying the wall that separates the radial gate spillway from the main spillway to minimize entrainment of fish in radial gate spillway; 6) Address the issue of fishway entrance attraction through further study and possibly operation/structural changes such as testing attraction under higher and lower spill rates, than occurred during our study, and modifying the arrangement of the baffle blocks to alter downstream flows; 7) Conduct detailed thermal modeling on the plume dynamics of the Cayoose inflow and the Carpenter Lake inflow to assess their potential influence on fish migration. 18 Cooper, A. C. I. P. S. F. C. (1976). Tailrace Delay and Loss of Adult Sockeye Salmon at the Seton Creek Hydroelectric Plant. Ref ID: 58 Keywords: fish/Fraser River/Gates Creek/powerhouse/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/sockeye/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: Studies conducted over a 7 year period show that adult sockeye of the Portage and Gates Creek are subject to serious delay and injury in the tailrace of the Seton Creek hydroelectric plant despite provision of the established operating requirements for fish passage. It was estimated that up to 65% of the sockeye failed to reach their spawning grounds. Notes: Box B - LTC (4 copies). Recommendations: - Alterations to the tailrace channel and the banks of the Fraser River upstream from the powerhouse to increase the flow of Seton Creek water into the tailrace are recommended. - Interim measures are also recommended for implementation until construction of the alterations is completed. 19 Cooper, A. C. I. P. S. F. C. (1976). Observations at the Seton Creek Hydroelectric Plant during the Passage of Gates Creek Sockeye in 1976. Ref ID: 111 Keywords: Gates Creek/Seton/Seton creek/sockeye Reprint: In File Notes: Box B - LTC. Recommendations; Although it appears these detrimental effects would be eliminated or reduced by implementation of the proposed Plan E temporary measures should be taken to minimize the loss of sockeye production pending completion of the proposed flow diversion. 20 Crossin, G. T., Hinch, S. G., Farrell, A. P., Whelly, M. P., & Healey, M. C. (2004). Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Migratory Energetics: Response to Migratory Difficulty and Comparisons With Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) pp. 1986-1995. Ref ID: 122 Keywords: pink salmon/salmon/sockeye/migration/Fraser River/Seton/spawning area Reprint: Not in File Abstract: Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) are generally considered weak upriver migrants relative to sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), though this assertion is largely anecdotal. To assess energy-use patterns during migration, we collected pink salmon from two major Fraser River stocks (Weaver and Seton in British Columbia, Canada) in 1999 at three times and locations: (1) at the start of freshwater migration, (2) at the end of migration before spawning, and (3) immediately after spawning. We calculated the energy content of somatic and reproductive tissues, recorded several body measurements, and conducted both intraspecific (between pink stocks) and interspecific analyses with comigrating Fraser River sockeye salmon collected during the same season. We found that between pink salmon stocks, there were no significant energetic or morphological differences either at river entry or upon arrival at spawning areas regardless of the level of migratory difficulty encountered. When compared with sockeye salmon, however, we found that pink salmon began upriver migration with significantly smaller somatic energy reserves but made up for this deficiency by minimizing absolute transport and activity costs, presumably by seeking out migratory paths of least resistance. This energetic efficiency comes at a cost to reproductive output: relative to sockeye salmon, pink salmon diverted less absolute energy to egg production, producing smaller ovaries and fewer eggs. We speculate that fundamental differences in behaviour shape the migratory energetic tactics employed by pink salmon. 21 Ferguson, J. W., Absolon, R. F., Carlson, T. G., & Sandford, B. F. (2006). Evidence of Delayed Mortality on Juvenile Pacific Salmon Passing through Turbines at Columbia River Dams. Ref ID: 172 Keywords: Dam/fish/mortality/salmon/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: We evaluated the survival of juvenile salmon through turbines in Columbia River dams and found no differences between two operations but strong evidence of delayed mortality from turbine
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
100
passage. After tagging with a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag and a radio tag, yearling Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha were released at McNary Dam on the Columbia River through a turbine operating both within 1% of peak efficiency (a discharge rate of 317 m3/s) and outside the 1% range at the maximum blade angle (464 m3/s). Estimated relative survival to a detection array 15 km downstream was 0.871 at 317 m3/s and 0.856 at 464 m3/s and 0.858 and 0.814, respectively, to an array 46 km downstream. The highest point estimates of survival occurred under the lower discharge, suggesting that operating turbines within 1% of peak efficiency is a useful guideline for fish protection at McNary Dam. In a concurrent evaluation using balloon tags, estimated mean direct survival ranged from 0.930 to 0.946. Radio tag estimates were significantly lower than balloon tag estimates under both operations. Based on these differences, we estimated that delayed mortality comprised from 46% to 70% of total estimated mortality. We reviewed the literature and concluded that delayed mortality was caused by sublethal impacts to fish sensory systems, which increased vulnerability to predation in the tailrace. We recommend that future research to improve turbine designs and operations for fish passage focus on this major component of mortality. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: These findings and approaches challenge the conventional assumption that impacts to populations derive almost exclusively from direct mortality. Understanding sublethal effects from turbine passage will lead to improved turbine operation and design and will benefit efforts to conserve and recover the many populations of fish that must pass power generating facilities to complete their life cycle. 22 Fretwell, M. &. S. H. I. P. S. F. C. (1983). Migration of Adult Sockeye Salmon at Seton Creek Hydroelectric Plant in 1982. Ref ID: 65 Keywords: Cayoosh Creek/migration/powerhouse/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/Seton Lake/sockeye/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: Studies were conducted to confirm past observations on the effectiveness of diverting part of the flow of Cayoosh Creek into seton Lake in overcoming the delay and loss of migrating adult Gates and Portage Creek sockeye in the tailrace of the Seton powerhouse. Reducing the proportion of Cayoosh Creek water in Seton Creek to migrating sockeye as demonstrated by two field techniques. Fieldlaboratory studies of the preference of sockeye for Seton Lake water over dilutions of Seton water with Cayoosh water confirmed previous results. Notes: Box C - LTC.No recommendations. 23 Fretwell, M. &. S. H. I. P. S. F. C. (1983). Migration of Juvenile Sockeye Salmon at Seton Creek Hydroelectric Installation in 1982. Ref ID: 113 Keywords: fish/migration/powerhouse/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/smolts/sockeye Reprint: In File Abstract: Present studies were conducted for the purpose of: 1. informing BC Hydro of the seasonal and diel timing of the run so that fish protection measures could be implemented; 2. confirming previous observations on the proportion of smolts passing through the powerhouse, and 3. obtaining further observations on the types and possible sources of injuries to fish passing through the powerhouse. Notes: Box C - LTC. No recommendations. 24 Fretwell, M. I. P. S. F. C. (1978). Migration of the Sockeye Smolts at the Seton Creek Hydro Installation in 1978. Ref ID: 62 Keywords: entrainment/migration/mortality/powerhouse/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/Seton Lake/smolts/ sockeye Reprint: In File Abstract: A study was conducted from April 27 - June 2, 1978 to observe the downstream migration of juvenile sockeye salmon (Oncorynchus nerka) from Seton Lake under various Seton Creek spill discharges and operating conditions of the Seton Creek hydroelectric plant. Notes: Box E - LTC. Recommendations: - The most effective method available at present for reducing the mortality rate of sockeye smolts leaving Seton Lake consists of powerhouse shutdowns of at least 4 hr during the daily peak migration period in combination with increased spill discharge from 200 cfs to at least 400 cfs. 25 Fretwell, M. I. P. S. F. C. (1979). Migration of the Adult Sockeye Salmon at Seton Creek Hydroelectric Plant in 1978. Ref ID: 69 Keywords: fish/Fraser River/migration/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/sockeye/tailrace Reprint: In File
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
101
Abstract: This study was conducted from July 26 - Nov 15 during the 1978 Gates and Portage Creek sockeye migrations. The two main objectives of the study as stated in the terms of reference were: 1) to determine the factors, particularly flows in Seton Creek, that would clear the tailrace of adult salmon; 2) to test the attraction of fish to varying combinations of Seton Creek and Fraser River waters. Notes: Box B - LTC (4 copies). (See subsequent years of study). 26 Fretwell, M. I. P. S. F. C. (1980). Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Studies at Seton Creek Hydroelectric Installation in 1979. Ref ID: 63 Keywords: migration/mortality/powerhouse/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/smolts/sockeye/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: The migration of salmon smolts at Seton Creek was studied to confirm results obtained in 1978 and to pursue objectives arising out of that work. The seasonal timing of the migration was observed to be from April 4 to at least May 21 with a peak at the Seton Creek sampling site on May 11 & 12. The diel period of the migration was from 2000-0400 hr PST with a peak from 2200- 2400 hr. Irregular powerhouse operation altered the pattern of diel and seasonal migration. Powerhouse shutdowns early in the diel migration period delayed the migration. The continuing existence of smolt mortality in the powerhouse turbine was confirmed. On two occasions injured smolts were observed in the powerhouse tailrace following daylight start-up of the plant after a shutdown during migration the previous evening. Notes: Box B - LTC. (See subsequent years of study) 27 Fretwell, M. I. P. S. F. C. (1980). Migration of Adult Sockeye Salmon at Seton Creek Hydroelectric Plant in 1979. Ref ID: 112 Keywords: migration/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/sockeye Reprint: In File Notes: Box B - LTC (2 copies). (ongoing study, see other years.) Observations from this multi-year study are leading to the conclusion that sockeye are not attracted to Seton Creek when there is a higher percentage of Cayoosh Water. 28 Fretwell, M. I. P. S. F. C. (1981). Migration of Adult Sockeye Salmon at Seton Creek Hydroelectric Plant in 1981. Ref ID: 66 Keywords: Cayoosh Creek/fish/migration/pink salmon/powerhouse/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/Seton Lake/sockeye/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: Studies were conducted to confirm the effectiveness of diverting part of the flow of Cayoosh Creek into Seton Lake in overcoming the delay and loss of migrating adult Seton-Anderson sockeye in the tailrace of the Seton powerhouse. Three primary techniques were utilized to quantify the response of migrating fish to various mixtures of Seton and Cayoosh Creek water. Additional observations were made on the migration of pink salmon at the hydroelectric plant. Notes: Box C - LTC (2 copies). (Ongoing study-see subsequent years). 29 Fretwell, M. I. P. S. F. C. (1989). Homing Behavior of Adult Sockeye Salmon in Response to a Hydroelectric Diversion of Homestream Waters at Seton Creek. Ref ID: 91 Keywords: Cayoosh Creek/Dam/homing/migration/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/Seton Dam/Seton Lake/ sockeye/tailrace/diversion/erosion/spawning/trout Reprint: In File Abstract: The problem of delay and injury of salmon in the Seton tailrace was examined by two methods: 1. Testing salmon for a preference when they were presented with a choice between their homestream water in an experimental situation, and 2. Observing the behavior of radio-tagged adult salmon during their natural migration. Notes: Box B- LTC (4 copies). Recommendations Since it has been demonstrated that the problem of delay and injury can be avoided by diversion of Cayoosh Creek flow to Seton Lake, consideration should now be given to building a permanent diversion structure in order to overcome three shortcomings of the present system: 1. Building and removing temporary dams each year causes downstream siltation; 2. In high discharge years, the temporary dam cannot be completed prior to the start of the sockeye migration period, and 3. When high flows prevent completion of the temporary dam, the spill flow at Seton Dam must be increased to achieve the necessary reduction in Cayoosh concentration, causing potential erosion of valuable spawning beds and threatening the productivity of trout and other resident species.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
102
30 Geen, G. H. &. F. J. A. I. P. S. F. C. (1961). Limnological Changes in Seton Lake Resulting From Hydroelectric Diversions. Ref ID: 107 Keywords: Bridge River/Cayoosh Creek/diversion/fisheries/Fraser River/limnological/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/Seton Lake/sockeye Reprint: In File Abstract: Limnological changes occurring in Seton Lake and Seton Creek as a result of hydroelectric diversions from Bridge River and Cayoosh Creek into Seton Lake were investigated to provide information that would be of value in assessing effects of other proposed diversions in the Fraser River system. The changes included reduced temperatures and dissolved mineral content and increased turbidity and flushing rate. Plankton production appeared to be greatly reduced, primarily because of a pronounced increase in turbidity. Notes: Box C - LTC (3 copies). Recommendations: Because of the possibility of large annual variations in limnological conditions and because of the lacl of an adequate understanding of factors contolling lacustrine production of sockeye salmon, further study will be required before final conclusions can be drawn as to the future effects of the diversion of foreign flow to Seton Lake. 31 Global Fisheries Consultants & MarvinSchaffer & Associates (1992). History, Biology, and Fishery Economics Related to Downstream Fish Passage at Seton Dam and Generating Station. Ref ID: 89 Keywords: Dam/economics/fish/fisheries/Seton/Seton Dam/mortality Reprint: In File Abstract: This study was initiated in 1991 to summarize available fish resource information for the Seton system relevant to downstream fish passage and assess fish passage options and benefits. The proposed study methodology was to have included a benefit/cost analysis of the most recent technologies available. Notes: Box C - LTC. Recommendations and Conclusions pp. 72-74, including: - A more rigorous estimate of direct and latent mortality should be made at the Seton facility in order to provide the base case for the benefit cost ratio of new works. - There appears to be little opportunity to resolve the turbine mortality issue solely on the basis of improved turbine design. 32 Groves, K. H. R. P. F.-P. L. &. J. D. C. B. H. (1995). Seton Project: Overview Study of Downstream Fish Passage H1600. Ref ID: 70 Keywords: fish/mortality/pink salmon/salmon/Seton/sockeye/Seton Dam/Dam/migration/Seton-Anderson watershed Reprint: In File Abstract: This study represents the first component of a phased investigation. The objective of this phase of the study was to compile the relevant site information pertaining to juvenile fish passage and to identify solutions that appear promising for testing/implementation at Seton. This study has focussed on reducing juvenile mortalities incurred by sockeye and pink salmon in particular. The current evaluation was conducted at an overview level. Notes: Box C - LTC. Recommendations (including): -Field testing should be conducted to determine the minimum discharge past Seton Dam that is required to sustain uninterrupted sockeye and pink juvenile migration. - A field sapling program should be initiated to determine the realtive population abundance and distribution of resident fish in the Seton-Anderson watershed. see Section 9.0 in the report. 33 Groves, K. L. (1994). Seton River Downramping study. Ref ID: 114 Keywords: Dam/downramping/Seton/Seton Dam/Seton River/spills Reprint: In File Abstract: The present study used numerical modelling of river flows to determine the appropriate downramping schedules at Seton Dam that satisfy biological downramping criteria. Notes: Box C - LTC. Several recommendations, including: - Field observations should be used to confirm the adequacy of the downramping schedules. - Additional field survey data should be collected opportunistically. When possible, planned spills should be shaped to allow for the measurement of field data over a range of Seton River discharges. 34 Gyton, R. P. F. (2001). An Assessment of Seton Reservoir Debris in Conjunction with the Water Use Planning Process. Ref ID: 77 Keywords: Seton/erosion
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
103
Reprint: In File Abstract: In December 2000, Dave Gyton was asked to conduct an assessment of debris in Seton Reservoir located some 4 km west of Lillooet, BC. The purpose of (this study)was to determine if woody debris was an issue with regard to the Water Use Planning (WUP) public consultative process for Seton. Notes: Box D - LTC. Several recommendations, including: - Property owners should have the primary responsibility of reducing the erosion of their shorelines. BC Hydro can demonstrate a leadership role in assisting with this process. - If transportation of debris from Carpenter to seton can be verified, improved debris control measures at the power tunnel intakes on Carpenter should be undertaken by Hydro. 35 Hay & Company Consultants Inc. (2000). Feasibility Study for Installation of Rock Weir on Cayoosh Creek. Ref ID: 83 Keywords: Cayoosh Creek/fish/fish habitat/habitat/Seton/Seton River Reprint: In File Abstract: BC Hydro requested an assessment of the feasibility of installing a rock weir (a.k.a. Newbury weir) in Cayoosh Creek, between the Walden North hydro generating station and the confluence with the Seton River. The rock weir(s) are intended to provide fish habitat through the creation of a riffle and pool sequence in the river. Notes: Box D - LTC. Recommendations: That a single weir be constructed immediately downstream (approximately 20 meters) of the aqueduct crossing, 36 Hay & Company Consultants Inc. (2001). Preliminary Design for the Newbury Rock weir on Cayoosh Creek. Ref ID: 100 Keywords: Cayoosh Creek Reprint: In File Abstract: This report describes the second part of a feasibility study on the possible installation of a rock weir on Cayoosh Creek. The study results herein involve preliminary design for the weir including design sketches showing weir layout and construction materials. The scope of the work was expanded to include detailed hydraulic analysis of the channel in the vicinity of the weir and aqueduct based on concerns raised by BCH with respect to the formation of a hydraulic jump near the aqueduct. Notes: Box F - LTC. 37 Hebden, B. W. (2002). Environmental Management Plan for the Seton Canal Aqueduct Erosion Protection Project and Newbury Weir Project. Ref ID: 79 Keywords: canal/Cayoosh Creek/environmental costs/erosion/fisheries/Seton/Seton canal Reprint: In File Abstract: BC Hydro is intending to complete erosion protection works of the Seton canal aqueduct that were initiated in 1999 and construct a Newbury weir in Cayoosh Creek, near Lillooet, BC. The environmental management plan, contained herein, contains an historic and present day engineering evaluation pertaining to the Seton canal aqueduct crossing with a recommendation on the need for repairs given historic flows in Cayoosh Creek. The environmental management plan also contains information with respect to the fisheries resource, describes environmental monitoring and mitigative techniques that will be undertaken during the work, and remedial work that will be completed at the end of the project. Notes: Box D - LTC. 38 Hebden, B. W. B. H. (2000). Seton Dam Fish Diversion Investigation and Testing Project (1999-2000). Ref ID: 84 Keywords: canal/Dam/diversion/fish/power canal/Seton/Seton Dam Reprint: In File Abstract: This project will install a floating louver array and evaluate its effectiveness at diverting fish away from the power canal entrance towards and through Seton Dam release structures. Notes: Box F - LTC. 39 Hinch, S. G., Standen, E. M., Healey, M. C., & Farrell, A. P. (2002). Swimming Patterns and Behaviour of Upriver-migrating Adult Pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Sockeye (O. nerka) Salmon as Assessed by EMG Telemetry in the Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrobiologia 483, 147-160. Ref ID: 117 Keywords: fish/sockeye/pink salmon/salmon/migration/Fraser River
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
104
Reprint: In File Abstract: Little is known about the behaviour patterns and swimming speed strategies of anadromous upriver migrating fish. We used electromyogram telemetry to estimate instantaneous swimming speeds for individual sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) during their spawning migrations through reaches which spanned a gradient in river hydraulic features in the Fraser River, British Columbia. Our main objectives were to describe patterns of individual-specific swim speeds and behaviours, identify swimming speed strategies and contrast these between sexes, species and reaches. Although mean swimming speeds did not differ between pink salmon (2.21 BL s.1) and sockeye salmon (1.60 BL s.1), sockeye salmon were over twice as variable (mean CV; 54.78) in swimming speeds as pink salmon (mean CV; 22.54). Using laboratory-derived criteria, we classified swimming speeds as sustained (<2.5 BL s.1), prolonged (2.5-3.2 BL s.1), or burst (>3.2 BL s.1). We found no differences between sexes or species in the proportion of total time swimming in these categories sustained (0.76), prolonged (0.18), burst (0.06); numbers are based on species and sexes combined. Reaches with relatively complex hydraulics and fast surface currents had migrants with relatively high levels of swimming speed variation (e.g., high swimming speed CV, reduced proportions of sustained speeds, elevated proportions of burst speeds, and high rates of bursts) and high frequency of river crossings. We speculate that complex current patterns generated by river constrictions created confusing migration cues, which impeded a salmon's ability to locate appropriate pathways. Notes: DFO library; Crane Creek Fish folder 40 International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (1938). 1938 - Seton-Anderson Survey. Ref ID: 55 Keywords: Anderson Lake/Seton Lake/Seton-Anderson watershed Reprint: In File Abstract: An overview of the Seton-Anderson watershed. Notes: Box E - LTC. 41 International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (1959). A Plan For an Artificial Spawning Channel for Pink Salmon at Seton Creek. Ref ID: 64 Keywords: escapements/fisheries/pink salmon/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/spawning area/spawning channel Reprint: In File Abstract: This brief report summarizes the findings of the Commission re:the status of the pink salmon run to Seton/Cayoosh Creeks (based on historical evidence and subsequent rebuilding of the run) and recommends a measure to alleviate the limitation on spawning area imposed by the hydroelectric project. Notes: Box D - LTC. Recommendations: 1. Restrictions on the pink salmon fishery to increase escapements. 2. Proposal for an artificial spawning ground adjacent to the most productive part of Seton Creek has been presented. 42 International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (1977). Migration of Adult Sockeye and Pink Salmon at the Seton Creek Hydroelectric Plant in 1977. Ref ID: 59 Keywords: Dam/entrainment/fish/Gates Creek/migration/pink salmon/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/sockeye/ spawning area/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: Adult sockeye salmon migrating to spawning areas in Gates and Portage Creeks and pink salmon destined for Portage Creek and the upper portion of Seton creek were counted as they passed through the fishway in Seton Creek dam. Observations were made throughout the migration period to estimate the behavior, condition and relative abundance of these fish along their migration route between the tailrace or the Seton Creek hydroelectric plant and their spawning areas. no special studies were conducted this year for testing effects of various plant operating conditions on fish migration. Notes: Box D - LTC (2 copies). Delay and injury of fish in the tailrace has been discussed with BC Hydro each year since 1972, when the magnitude of the problem first became apparent. Recommendations for a permanent solution were presented to BC Hydro in May 1976. Several recommendations presented to BC Hydro follow in the report. 43 International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (1977). Observations at the Seton Creek Hydroelectric Plant During Migration of Portage Creek Adult Sockeye in 1976. Ref ID: 60
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
105
Keywords: fish/fisheries/migration/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/sockeye/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: In accordance with arrangements made at a meeting of Fisheries and BC Hydro representatives on June 26, 1976, the Seton plant was operated under conditions (listed in this report) which were considered on the basis of studies in prior years to be most efficient for salmon migration. An index of abundance of fish in the tailrace was determined, as in previous studies, by estimating the number of fish that could be seen along the left bank of the tailrace channel. These observations were made three times daily by walking along the top bank, approximately 35 ft. above the water surface. Notes: Box D - LTC. No recommendations. 44 International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (1982). The Seton-Anderson System. Ref ID: 106 Reprint: In File Notes: Box D - LTC. Water quality data from 1958-1977. Cover is a map of Seton-Anderson system. 45 Johnson, R. L. C. B. L. (1990). Hydroacoustic Monitoring of Sockeye Salmon Smolt Outmigration at Seton Dam. Ref ID: 96 Keywords: canal/Dam/power canal/salmon/Seton/Seton Dam/Seton Lake/smolts/sockeye Reprint: In File Abstract: The primary objective of the study was to test the feasibility of the use of hydroacoustics to determine horizontal and vertical distribution of downstream migrating sockeye smolts. The approach channel in the vicinity of the BC Hydro boathouse/dock, and the forebay of the canal headgate/ fishwater sluice and ladder were monitored for this purpose using single beam and dual beam transducers. Notes: Box D - LTC. The following four recommendations are presented for future efforts to monitor the sockeye outmigration behavior from Seton Lake: 1. Population estimates (2-3) should be generated from Seton Lake in April to provide comparative information on numbers of sockeye expected to be moving through the canal. 2. A fixed-aspect hydroacoustic system should be in place no later than the first week of May with transducers deployed along the debris boom on gimbled mounts, aimed upstream. 3. Additional transducers should be deployed looking at the power canal and fishway. 4. The hydroacoustic instrumentation should be housed in a secured, heatable portable building on the left bank of the forebay near the dam. 46 Komori, V. D. (1997). Strategic Fisheries Overview for the Bridge/Seton Habitat Management Area. Ref ID: 17 Keywords: Bridge/Seton/fish/fisheries/habitat/HMA Reprint: In File Abstract: This strategic fisheries report provides an overview of the fisheries resources, biophysical features and land use issues that have affected or have the potential to affect fish production within the Bridge/Seton Habitat Management Area (HMA). Based on this background information, fisheries habitat management priorities and recommendations have been developed to guide future resource development and the management of fisheries resources. Notes: Box D - LTC. Recommendations: A large number of recommendations exist throughout the report based on identified industry-created problems within the HMA. 47 Lee, C. G. e. al. (2003). Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption in Adult Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and Coho (O. kisutch) Salmon Following critical Speed swimming. Journal of Experimental Biology 206, 3523-3260. Ref ID: 123 Keywords: Dam/fish/fish stock/Fraser River/Gates Creek/migration/salmon/sockeye Reprint: In File Abstract: The present study measured the excess post-exercise oxygen cost (EPOC) following tests at critical swimming speed (Ucrit) in three stocks of adult, wild, Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) and used EPOC to estimate the time required to return to their routine level of oxygen consumption (recovery time) and the total oxygen cost of swimming to Ucrit. Following exhaustion at Ucrit, recovery time was 42-78·min, depending upon the fish stock. The recovery times are several-fold shorter than previously reported for juvenile, hatchery-raised salmonids. EPOC varied fivefold among the fish stocks, being greatest for Gates Creek sockeye salmon (O. nerka), which was the salmon stock that had the longest in-river migration, experienced the warmest temperature and achieved the highest maximum oxygen consumption compared with the other salmon stocks that were studied. EPOC was related to Ucrit, which in turn was directly influenced by ambient test temperature. The non-aerobic cost of swimming to Ucrit was estimated to add an additional 21.4-50.5% to the oxygen
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
106
consumption measured at Ucrit. While these nonaerobic contributions to swimming did not affect the minimum cost of transport, they were up to three times higher than the value used previously for an energetic model of salmon migration in the Fraser River, BC, Canada. As such, the underestimate of non-aerobic swimming costs may require a reevaluation of the importance of how in-river barriers like rapids and bypass facilities at dams, and year-to-year changes in river flows and temperatures, affect energy use and hence migration success. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. 48 Levy, D. (2005). Mitigation Options for St'at'imc Fisheries Resources. Ref ID: 6 Keywords: Bridge River/Bridge/Seton/Bridge/Seton watersheds/Dam/fish/fisheries/fisheries mitigation/ habitat/mortality/Seton/Seton Dam/Seton River/sockeye/St'at'imc fisheries/Terzaghi Reprint: In File Abstract: This study was undertaken for St'at'mic Nation Hydro. The report summarizes existing information for developing a St'at'mic watershed restoration strategy and evaluates different options for fisheries mitigation in the Bridge/Seton watersheds. Notes: Box D - LTC (3 copies). Recommendations: 1. Dam removal 2. Terzaghi Dam fish ladder 3. Optimize fisheries flows in the Bridge river 4. Reduce sockeye mortality at Seton Dam 5. Habitat improvements 6. Fish hatchery/spawning channel 7. Lake fertilization 8. Stream fertilization 49 Levy, D. (2005). Review of Hydro Development Impacts on St'at'imc Wildlife Resources. Ref ID: 108 Keywords: habitat/hydro development/resources/wildlife Reprint: In File Abstract: BC Hydro developments have greatly altered wildlife habitats within St'at'imc territory. The destruction of habitats associated with Carpenter and Downton Reservoir formation in particular, has greatly reduced wildlife productivity in this part of the St'at'mic Territory. 50 Levy, D., Sneep, J., & Hall, S. (2008). Effectiveness of Seton Powerhouse Shutdowns for Reducing Entrainment Mortality of Sockeye Salmon Smolts during 2008. Ref ID: 109 Keywords: canal/entrainment/fish/fisheries/migration/mortality/power canal/powerhouse/salmon/Seton/ Seton River/smolts/sockeye/St'at'imc fisheries Reprint: In File Abstract: Northern St'at'imc Fisheries and BC Hydro have been working together since 2006 to devise practical ways for mitigating the mortality of sockeye salmon smolts at the Seton Generating Plant. This mortality is a consequence of smolt entrainment into the Power Canal and subsequent passage of the fish through the turbine. While many different mitigation approaches have been tested since the plant began operating in 1956, the best opportunity for minimizing smolt entrainment and subsequent mortality appears to be via operational modifications. During 2008, sampling was undertaken in daytime periods as well as nighttime periods to evaluate diel variations in smolt migration patterns. This information is important for refining diel shutdown strategies. As well, sampling was undertaken experimentally in the Power Canal to determine the feasibility of directly estimating smolt mortality rates. This report summarizes the results from the 2008 sampling activities. Notes: Box D - LTC (3 copies). Recommendations: 1. Continue sampling in the Seton River following the protocol developed in 2006 - 2008. 2. Extend daytime sampling until June 15. 3. Determine the desirability of daytime closures during periods when high numbers of daytime migrators are present (i.e. end of May); and 4. Terminate Power Canal sampling using the IPT. 51 Levy, D. F. S. a. W. P. (2009). Gates Creek Spawning Habitat Improvement Project: Technical Report. Ref ID: 167 Keywords: Anderson Lake/Dam/diversion/entrainment/fish/Gates Creek/habitat/migration/powerhouse/ salmon/Seton/Seton Dam/sockeye/spawning channel/spawning habitat/tailrace/tributaries Reprint: In File Abstract: This report provides additional technical information for FSWP Project 09 39. The main objectives of the project were:
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
107
¨ Construct rock riffles just downstream of a concrete weir that presently impedes upstream migrating salmon. ¨ Add spawning gravels to the Gates Creek spawning channel. ¨ Construct improved counting and diversion facilities As discussed in the main body of the final report, all of the 2009-2010 funding was required to complete the first 2 objectives. Work to complete objective 3 will be proposed for FSWP funding and scheduled for 2010-2011. Section 1 of this report contains a description of the spawning channel rejuvenation component. A brief description of the weir project is provided in Section 2. Lastly, a literature review of Gates Creek salmon ecology is provided in Section 3. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: 1. Gates Creek is a very important salmon producer in view of the steepsided topography around Seton and Anderson Lakes. There are only two major salmon producing tributaries in the watershed: Portage and Gates. 2. Gates Creek sockeye production has been compromised historically for various reasons described in the report. They include inadequately-sized spawning gravels in the spawning channel, smolt entrainment into the Seton Powerhouse, and migration problems associated with tailrace delay and fish passage at the Seton Dam fish ladder. These problems are being presently mitigated so future production can be increased. 3. In the future a minimum of 30% of the sockeye salmon return each year should be allowed to migrate upstream to spawn in the natural grounds in Gates Creek. One practical way this may be accomplished would be to open the river fence for one day every three throughout the run and closing the channel on that day to promote upstream migration. 4. There are reports from local residents that gwenish populations have decreased compared to historical levels when they provided an important winter food source. There is a need to collect better data on gwenish via targeted research on adults and juveniles. 5. Gates Creek coho were successfully enumerated at a counting fence in 1986. It is recommended that Gates coho be annually enumerated by fence count to monitor the status of the population. 6. Chinook salmon have been captured in Gates Creek both as adults at the spawning channel (e.g. 2008) and as juveniles during fish surveys. It is recommended that a feasibility study be carried out to evaluate the suitability of Gates Creek for Chinook reintroduction. 52 Lister, D. B. & Beniston, R. J. (1995). Bridge and Seton Rivers Habitat Inventory and Fish Stock Assessment, 1993. Ref ID: 53 Keywords: Bridge River/fish/fish stock/habitat/habitat inventory/Seton/Seton River Reprint: In File Abstract: This report presents results of a 1993 study to assess salmonid fish stocks and their habitat at Bridge and Seton Rivers. Specific study objectives were to : 1) identify and quantify habitat suitable for anadromous salmonid spawning and rearing, and 2) determine biological characteristics, distribution and standing stock of juvenile salmonids in each study reach. Notes: Box E - LTC (4 copies). Recommendations: - This study indicates that the sampling scheme, particularly the approach to stratification, should be based on known habitat selection characteristics of each fish species, and should be adapted to the type and size of stream involved. The results of this study provide a basis for development of more efficient sampling designs in future investigations at Bridge and Seton Rivers. 53 Mellian, E. e. al. (2005). Stream Habitat and Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Physiological Stress Responses to Streamside Clear-Cut Logging in British Columbia. Can. Journ. For. Res. 35, 541-556. Ref ID: 163 Keywords: fish/habitat/trout Reprint: In File Abstract: The impacts associated with streamside clear-cut logging (e.g., increased temperatures and sedimentation, loss of habitat complexity) are potentially stressful to stream-dwelling fish. We examined stream habitat and rainbow trout physiological stress responses to clear-cut logging in north-central British Columbia using 15 streams divided into three categories: old growth (reference), recently logged (clear-cut to both banks 1-9 years prior to the study), and second
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
108
growth (clear-cut 25-28 years prior to the study). We used plasma cortisol and chloride concentrations as indicators of acute stress, and interrenal nuclear diameters, impairment of the plasma cortisol response, and trout condition and length-at-age estimates as indicators of chronic stress. No statistically significant acute or chronic stress responses to streamside logging were found, despite increases in summertime stream temperatures (daily maxima and diurnal fluctuations) and a reduction in the average overall availability of pool habitat. Our observed stress responses were approximately an order of magnitude lower than what has previously been reported in the literature for a variety of different stressors, and trout interrenal nuclear diameters responses to the onset of winter were approximately five times greater than those to logging. The overall consistency of our results suggests that the impacts of streamside clear-cut logging are not acutely or chronically stressful to rainbow trout in our study area. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Conclusions: Environmental degradation resulting from clearcut logging in interior regions may therefore be less severe, and consequently less stressful to stream-dwelling fish, and we encourage future, similar studies that encompass different geographic regions and different fish species to enable comparisons to be made with our results. 54 Morris, A. R., Caverly, A., Chamberlain, M. W., & Braumandl, E. (2003). Seton and Anderson Lakes Kokanee and Char Assessment. Ref ID: 164 Keywords: fish/wildlife/bull trout/trout/kokanee/Seton/Anderson Lake/tributaries/Gates Creek/char/ spawning channel/spawning habitat/habitat Reprint: In File Abstract: In 2000, funds were provided by the Bridge Coastal Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program (BCRP) to the British Columbia Conservation Foundation (BCCF) to conduct an assessment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) populations within Seton and Anderson Lakes. This study represents the first field surveys and documented review of information about the status and life history of kokanee populations within the Seton and Anderson Lakes watershed. The study, proposed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air, adds to the limited information on bull trout abundance and spawning locations. Spawning bull trout where enumerated through stream walks in two tributaries to the Portage River: Spider Creek and Whitecap Creek, in an attempt to determine run timing and peak of spawning activity. Bull trout in Gates Creek were also enumerated through a snorkel survey. During September and October 2000, stream walks were conducted on the lower sections of Whitecap and Spider Creeks where a peak count of approximately six adult bull trout were visually observed. One snorkel survey was conducted to enumerate bull trout within the lower reach of Gates Creek on August 29, 2000 downstream of the counting weir where seven bull trout were observed. Notes: Box E - LTC; Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: This study represents the first field surveys and documented review of information about the status and life history of kokanee populations within the Seton and Anderson Lakes study area. The study adds limited information on bull trout abundance and spawning locations. The following recommendations could answer important questions concerning both of these species and shed light on several issues that deserve further attention: BULL TROUT · Conduct yearly monitoring of known bull trout populations to monitor abundance trend data and general stock status. · Spawner population estimates for Spider and Whitecap Creeks (and possibly Gates Creek) could be determined by conducting more intensive surveys and collecting data for the area-under-the-curve (AUC) method. · As recommended by Chamberlain and O'Brien (1999), marking and recapture at the Gates Creek spawning channel of spawning adults and/or juveniles from Gates Creek would help identify temporal impacts by life-history type.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
109
· Radio-tagging of bull trout during early spring to late summer at the mouth of Gates Creek or other locations and utilizing fixed and mobile tracking could provide useful run timing and spawning distribution data and insight into bull trout interaction with the spawning channel and counting fences KOKANEE · Continue and expand annual field reconnaissance in Seton and Anderson Lakes to determine kokanee spawn timing, possibly identify spawning habitat, and to collect biological samples to provide trend data and stock status. · Further evaluate historical trawl data and any subsequent DFO work on the two lakes after 2000. · Design and conduct a more intensive study on Seton and Anderson Lakes in an attempt to firmly establish kokanee life history, spawn timing, identify critical spawning habitat, enumerate spawning kokanee, estimate spanner populations, as well as, to identify key limiting factors to kokanee production. 55 Morris, A. R., Braumandl, E., Andrusak, H., & Caverly, A. (2003). 2002/2003 Seton and Anderson Lakes Kokanee Assessment - Feasibility Study and Study Design. Ref ID: 165 Keywords: Anderson Lake/fish/kokanee/Seton/spawning area/wildlife Reprint: In File Abstract: The feasibility and study design portions of this project attempted to expandupon the existing information for Seton and Anderson Lake kokanee and further develop methodologies to identify spawning sites, spawn timing and quantification of population sizes through: · limited field reconnaissance (helicopter overflight, boat surveys and lakeshore walks), and · consultation with a regional biologist who has specialized expertise in kokanee (Harvey Andrusak, Redfish Consulting Ltd.). Evidence of spawning activity in Seton and Anderson Lakes has been difficult to determine and so far, is only apparent when the spawned out fish eventually float to the lake surface due to distended swim bladders (some still alive) and are predated on by eagles or harvested by First Nations as they wash onto the beaches. Historical data review, interviews with First Nations and the limited field reconnaissance conducted to date has yet to reveal any actual kokanee spawning areas. However, valuable information has been gathered during the feasibility study with regard to suspected kokanee spawn timing, carcass recovery sites and predatory bird (i.e. eagle) congregations which may indicate general spawning areas and which will guide the more comprehensive field surveys detailed in the study design of this document and proposed to BCRP for 2003/2004. There study design for the proposed 5 year (beginning 2003/2004) Seton and Anderson Lakes Kokanee Assessment was developed to meet four strategic objectives: 1. Assess and document key kokanee spawning sites in Seton and Anderson Lakes. 2. Implement a systematic, standard procedure for enumerating kokanee with the intent of establishing key sites for index of abundance estimates. 3. Determine kokanee population estimates for both lakes. 4. Develop a kokanee conservation plan for both lakes. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: This feasibility study and study design detailed in this document represents Year 1 of a proposed 5 year project. Application for funding for Years 2-5 will be made to BCRP in subsequent years. It is recommended that this work continue for years 2-5 in an attempt to establish some baseline data that, over the long term, would provide insight into year class variability and relative abundance estimates. Further detail on methodology and budgets would be described in subsequent funding applications once sites are identified. 56 Nelson, S. S. E. E. I. (1996). Factual Report: Environmental Assessment Concerning Potential Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)s, Arsenic and Mercury Levels in Seton Lake. Ref ID: 101 Keywords: arsenic/environmental assessment/mercury/PCB/Seton/Seton Lake Reprint: In File Abstract: SEACOR Environmental Engineering Inc. was retained by the Seton Lake Band to conduct an environmental site assessment concerning the potential for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic and mercury contamination in Seton Lake, BC. Notes: Box E - LTC. Recommednations: From the results presented, it would appear that there is potential for one or more metal constituents to impact the Seton Lake area receiving environment either alone or in combination with other metals. Additional research would be required to determine the potential environmental effects and the possibility of human health impacts. 57 Northwest Hydraulics Consultants Ltd. (1977). River Engineering Aspects Seton Creek Fishery Studies.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
110
Ref ID: 87 Keywords: fish/fisheries/Seton/Seton creek/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: On March 3, 1977, BC Hydro authorized Northwest Hydraulic Consulting to provide "..consulting services on the river engineering aspects to develop a solution to the problem of diverting fish away from the tailrace of the Seton plant." Notes: Box E - LTC. Recommedations numerous, including ongoing field studies snd data collection in: -measuring water levels -investigate deposition rate (via excavation pit) and backwater settlement - planning and initiation of field tests to assess attraction flow requirements 58 Peel, L. (2003). Telus Environmental Impact Assessment. Ref ID: 105 Keywords: environmental assessment/fish/fish habitat/habitat Reprint: In File Abstract: The environmental risk potential associated with Phase II is significant due to the placement of communication in the water bodies. The risk to water quality and fish habitat must be minimized during all work operations. Notes: Box E - LTC. No recommendations. 59 Pon, L. B., Cooke, S. J., & Hinch, S. G. (2006). Passage Efficiency and Migration Behaviour of Salmonid Fishes at the Seton Dam Fishway: Final Report for the Bridge Coastal Restoration Program, Project 05.Se.01. Ref ID: 166 Keywords: Dam/fish/migration/Seton/Seton Dam/habitat/Bridge River/sockeye/salmon/Seton Lake/ entrainment Reprint: In File Abstract: Fishways have the potential to provide connectivity between habitats located upstream and downstream of barriers provided that fish are able to locate and successfully ascend the fishway. Unfortunately, many of the existing fishways built pre-1990 have not been formally assessed to determine if they actually can effectively pass fish. Our research efforts focused on evaluating the Seton Dam Fishway (SDF) in Lillooet, British Columbia. The SDF was constructed in 1956 as part of the Bridge River Hydroelectric Complex. The fishway is a vertical slot pool configuration enabling fish to swim through the vertical slots and rest in the pools between. To successfully pass through the SDF, fish must swim at least 106.7 m in length and ascend an elevation of 8.22 m (overall grade of 7.5%) by passing through 32 vertical slots (thus encountering an elevation change of ~ 0.23 m per pool). A series of upstream stop logs are used to control flow and a supplementary flow is used to enhance attraction to the entrance. An electronic resistivity counter is used to enumerate rates of upstream passage and to date, has served as the only source of information of fishway performance. Here, we describe the findings of a study conducted in 2005 to evaluate the SDF and associated infrastructure and operations on the migration biology of upstream migrating Pacific salmonids. We addressed five specific objectives in this study; 1) quantify the attraction efficiency of the fishway for adult migrating sockeye salmon; 2) quantify the passage efficiency and areas of difficulty for migratory salmonids; 3) evaluate if fishway passage has consequences on adult sockeye salmon that affect their ability to reach terminal spawning locations but are not detectable until after they have left the fishway; 4) assess the potential role of the fish resistivity counters on fish passage, particularly as it related to large fish; 5) assess the potential impacts of Cayoosh flow dilution and the Carpenter Lake inflow from power generation on adult sockeye salmon behaviour and thermal experience in Seton Lake. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: Recommendation 1. Increase visitation to the fishway during key migratory periods in order to ensure that it is functioning and free of debris. Recommendation 2. Reconsider the use of the resistivity counters at the fishway exit pool. Recommendation 3. Daily Seton Dam Fishway counts should be annotated with details on blockage and debris accumulation. Recommendation 4. Improve trash racks upstream of counter and/or fishway exit to reduce blockage. Recommendation 5. Consider modifying the wall that separates the radial gate spillway from the main spillway to minimize entrainment of fish in radial gate spillway. Recommendation 6. Address the issue of fishway entrance attraction through further study and possibly operation/structural changes such as testing attraction under higher and lower spill rates and modifying the arrangement of the baffle blocks to alter downstream flows. Recommendation 7. Conduct detailed thermal modeling on the plume dynamics of the Cayoose inflow and the Carpenter Lake inflow to assess their potential influence on fish migration.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
111
60 Pon, L. B. (2008). The Role Of Fish Physiology, Behavior, And Water Discharge On The Attraction And Passage Of Adult Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus Nerka) At The Seton River Dam Fishway, British Columbia. Ref ID: 171 Keywords: Dam/fish/Gates Creek/habitat/migration/salmon/Seton/Seton River/sockeye/spawning/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: In many rivers, dams have interrupted the connectivity of migration routes for fish. While fishways can provide access between downstream and upstream habitats, it is important that passage can occur with minimal delay, energy expenditure, and physiological stress. The research presented here is based on investigations into fishway attraction and passage for the Gates Creek sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka, Walbaum) stock at the Seton River dam in British Columbia. The first part of this thesis examined the effect of changes in water discharge from the dam on the relationship between the physiological condition of sockeye and their behaviour in approaching the fishway entrance. Fish were caught and non-lethally biopsied under three normal operating discharge conditions at Seton River dam, and subsets of sampled fish were implanted with radio transmitters and released downstream of the dam. Indices of physiological stress and exhaustive exercise (e.g. plasma cortisol, glucose, lactate, osmolality and hematocrit) did not differ among the water discharge levels that were examined. Fish delayed in the tailrace below the fishway entrance significantly longer under intermediate discharge (19.9 h @ 12.7 m3.s-1) than either the high discharge (9.3 h @ 15.8 m3.s-1), or the low discharge (7.0 h @11.0 m3.s-1;) conditions (P = 0.022, and P = 0.015, respectively). Delay time was similar under high and low discharge conditions (P = 0.617), and passage success was found to be independent of discharge (P = 0.356). The second part of this thesis investigated how prior physiological condition and subsequent swimming energetics and behaviours effected fishway passage success. Fish were captured and biopsied, before being implanted with electromyogram (EMG) transmitters and released near the downstream entrance of the fishway. Very few differences existed between successful and unsuccessful fish in body size, initial plasma physiology and energy state, and mean swim speed and energy use during passage. However, plasma Na+ concentration was significantly lower in unsuccessful fish (P = 0.022), which is suggestive of a depressed ionic state for unsuccessful fish. Generally, fish did not employ burst swimming during successful or failed attempts at passage, indicating that failure was probably not related to metabolic acidosis. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: Though no behavioural differences were detected among successful and unsuccessful fish, the observation of two relatively distinct swimming strategies (the 'conservative' swimming strategy, and the 'vigorous' swimming strategy) in chapter 3 is an interesting finding that may be worth future investigation. There was no indication that individual fish alternated between strategies, and a given strategy did not appear to correlate with sex, size, or physiological condition, suggesting that it is either an individual trait or related to some unknown factor. While neither strategy favoured successful fishway ascent at Seton River dam, the characteristics of the two strategies were similar to those described by Hinch and Bratty (2000), where successful passage at Hells Gate favoured the more energetically efficient swimmers. If migration obstacles are indeed selecting against less efficient swimmers, then we would expect to find fewer of these fish at later stages of the spawning migration. It is somewhat curious then, that we observed roughly equal numbers of the two strategies in our EMG tagged fish, as these fish had already completed the majority of their freshwater migration (88.5%), and had already passed through difficult river reaches such as Hells Gate. Nonetheless, this finding provides further evidence of inter-individual variability in swimming behaviour, which may have to be considered in future fishway designs. 61 Pon, L. B., Hinch, S. G., Cooke, S. J., Patterson, D. A., & Farrell, A. P. (2009). A Comparison of the Physiological Condition, and Fishway Passage Time and Success of Migrant Adult Sockeye Salmon at Seton River Dam, British Columbia, under Three Operational Discharge Rates. American Fisheries Society 29, 1195-1205. Ref ID: 120 Keywords: sockeye/salmon/Seton/Seton River/Dam/fish/Fraser River/migration Reprint: In File Abstract: We investigated the effect of changes in water discharge from the Seton River Dam, British Columbia, on the physiological condition, passage time, and passage success of adult migrant sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Sockeye salmon were intercepted and nonlethally biopsied for blood plasma and energy status. A subset of these fish were fitted with radio transmitters and tracked under three different operational attraction flow levels. Indices of physiological stress and exhaustive exercise (e.g., plasma cortisol, glucose, lactate, osmolality, and hematocrit) did not differ among the attraction flow discharge levels that were examined, nor did they differ appreciably from those of other
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
112
adult Fraser River sockeye salmon studied during upriver migrations in areas of natural, nonregulated flows. In fact, the fish appeared relatively unstressed after dam passage. Passage time was significantly longer (19.9 h) under intermediate discharge (12.7 m3/s) than under high (15.8 m3/s) or low (11.0 m3/s) discharges (9.3 and 7.0 h, respectively) but did not differ between high- and lowdischarge periods. No differences in passage success or fishway ascent time were observed among the three discharges. Though we suspect that unique flow conditions were responsible for the longer passage time during intermediate discharge, a detailed hydraulic analysis is needed to further interpret our results. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: Within the operational range of flows that were studied, discharge did not appear to affect the physiological condition of migrating sockeye salmon,although it may have influenced passage time. Although there are many variables that dam managers must consider in selecting adequate flows, it is important to minimize the impact of dam passage on migrant fish. Physiological assessments of passing fish may reveal the extent to which fish incur stress during dam passage, but they do not account for passage time. Where this is important, telemetry studies may be necessary, though we caution that studies should be conducted at a scale appropriate for identifying potential effects. Furthermore, as the hydraulic characteristics of each dam site are largely unique, discharge assessments should be conducted in a site specific manner. 62 Pon, L. B., Hinch, S. G., Cooke, S. J., Patterson, D. A., & Farrell, A. P. (2009). Physiological, Energetic and Behavioural Correlates of Successful Fishway Passage of Adult Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Seton River, British Columbia. Journal of Fish Biology 74, 1323-1336. Ref ID: 121 Keywords: sockeye/salmon/Seton/Seton River/fish/tailrace/Dam Reprint: In File Abstract: Electromyogram (EMG) radio telemetry was used in conjunction with physiological biopsy to relate prior physiological condition and subsequent swimming energetics and behaviours to passage success of 13 wild adult sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka at a vertical-slot fishway on the Seton River, British Columbia. At the time of capture, plasma lactate, glucose and cortisol levels indicated that fish were not exhibiting unusually high levels of physiological stress. Very few differences existed between successful and unsuccessful fish in body size, initial plasma physiology and energy state and mean swim speed and energy use during passage. Generally, fish did not employ burst swimming during successful or failed attempts at passage, indicating that failure was probably not related to metabolic acidosis. Plasma Naþ concentration was significantly lower in unsuccessful fish (P < 005), which is suggestive of a depressed ionic state or a possible stress component, although values in all fish were within an expected range for migrant adult O. nerka. Nevertheless, six of 13 fish failed to reascend the fishway and remained in the tailrace of the dam for more than a day on average before moving downstream and away from the dam. During this time, fish were observed actively seeking a means of passage, suggesting that there may have been other, undetermined causes of passage. 63 R.L.& L.Environemental Services Ltd. (1999). Seton Dam Fish Diversion Project 1999 Investigations and Testing. Ref ID: 94 Keywords: canal/Dam/diversion/fish/juvenile salmonids/power canal/Seton/Seton Dam/Seton River/smolts Reprint: In File Abstract: The purpose of this study was to field test and evaluate the effectiveness of a floating louvre array for diverting emigrating juvenile salmonids away from the power canal and into Seton River through Seton Dam bypass structures. Notes: Box E - LTC. (ongoing study- see subsequent reports). 64 R.L.& L.Environmental Services (2001). Seton Dam Fish Diversion 2000 Investigations and Testing Project. Ref ID: 80 Keywords: canal/Dam/diversion/fish/floating louvre/juvenile salmonids/power canal/salmon/Seton/Seton Dam/Seton River/smolts/sockeye/trap Reprint: In File Abstract: This report presents the results of the second year of studies examining fish diversion at Seton Dam. The purpose of the study, which was initiated in 1999, was to field test and evaluate, in a scientifically defensible manner, the effectiveness of a floating louvre array for diverting emigrating juvenile salmonids away from the power canal and into Seton River. The results of the study are intended to facilitate an assessment of the biological and economic benefits of using the floating louvre to improve survival rates of emigrating juvenile salmonids. The general study objectives, listed in order of priority, were as follows:
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
113
- to assess the effect of the floating louvre array on the rate of diversion of emigrating sockeye salmon smolts at Seton Dam; - to assess the effect of the floating louvre array on the rate of diversion of sockeye salmon fry and other salmonid species present during the study; - to provide additional information on louvre array performance under different operating and environmental conditions and on the biological characteristics of fish populations in relation to their passage through the Seton facilities. Notes: Box F - LTC (2 copies). Recommendations; For future investigations to estimate trap effeciencies in Seton River and the power canal, it is recommended: 1. That marked fish be released only in Seton River and the approach channel. 2. That in order to provide a clear understanding of the interrelationships among all physical variables and smolt diversion rate, experimental manipulation of flows will be required. 3. For consistency with previous investigations, it would be advisable to use the same trapping configurations. 65 R.L.& L.Environmental Services (2002). Seton Dam Fish Diversion Project 2001 Investigations and Testing. Ref ID: 73 Keywords: canal/Dam/diversion/fish/floating louvre/juvenile salmonids/power canal/powerhouse/salmon/ Seton/Seton Dam/Seton River/smolts/sockeye/trap Reprint: In File Abstract: The purpose of this study was to field test and evaluate, in a scientifically defensible manner, the effectiveness of a floating louvre array for diverting emigrating juvenile salmonids away from the power canal and into the Seton River through Seton Dam bypass structures. The study had three objectives; - Primary Objective: Assess the effect of the floating louvre array on the diversion rate of emigrating sockeye salmon smolts. - Secondary Objective: Assess the effect of the floating louvre array on the diversion rate of all other emigrating fish species presented during the study. - Tertiary Objective: Provide information on louvre array performance ender different operating and environmental conditions and information on the biological characteristics of fish populations in relation to their passage to the Seton facility. Notes: Box F - LTC (2 copies). Recommendations: - In future investigations, it is recommended that marked fish be released in the Seton River and power canal (as was done in the 2000 study), to estimate trap effeciencies in the river and power canal. - The accumulation of additional data to assess the effects of power canal discharge on trap efficiency are also important. 66 R.L.& L.Environmental Services & Golder Associates Ltd. (2002). Seton Dam Fish Diversion Project 1999 - 2001 Executive Summary Report. Ref ID: 82 Keywords: canal/Dam/diversion/entrainment/fish/power canal/Seton/Seton Dam/smolts/trap Reprint: In File Abstract: This summary report provides an integrated analysis of all three years of data collected during 1999, 2000. and 2001. Flows and operations were different among years because of changes in water availability. This integrated analysis was essential to provide an overview of the effectiveness of the louver array and the influence on fish diversion rates of variations in operations of the Seton facility. Notes: Box E - LTC. Recommendations include: 1) Experimental manipulation of flows required to assess interrelationships among variables that may influence diversion of rate of smolts 2) Future studies should incorporate additional behavioral diversion device 3) If future investigations are to rely on behavioral diversion methods, a single vertical strobe light array should be placed on the face of the dam between the power canal and the fishwater gate release. 4) Production of turbulent flows using small capacity pumps adjacent to the louvre array. 5) Absolute trap efficiency estimates 6) Pratical method for resident species entrainment or diversion e.g. radiotelemetry. 67 Rood, K. M. & Hamilton, R. E. (1995). Hydrology and Water Use for Salmon Streams in the Seton/ Bridge Habitat Management Area, British Columbia 2298. Ref ID: 54 Keywords: Bridge River/erosion/Fraser River/habitat/HMA/hydrology/salmon/Seton/tributaries Reprint: In File
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
114
Abstract: The Fraser River Action Plan (FRAP) is developing plans for environmentally sustainable salmon production in streams of the Fraser River watershed. This report focuses on the Seton/Bridge Habitat Management Area (HMA). The HMA contains tributaries of the Fraser River near Lillooet that lie in the Seton and Bridge River watersheds. Hydrology and water use in six salmon streams are discussed. Notes: Box F - LTC. Recommendations: The report recommends improving stream flow measurements, monitoring and controlling water use, and developing water management plans for the most sensitive streams. A formal system should be developed for reporting incidents of erosion. Also recommended are more detailed reviews of forest harvesting history in affected watersheds, further studies of the effects of forest regrowth on hydrologic regimes, and reorganization of five-year harvesting plans by watershed. This will allow more accurate prediction of the impact of harvesting on hydrology. 68 Roscoe, D. W. & Hinsch, S. G. (2008). Fishway Passage, Water Diversion and Warming Temperatures: Factors :Limiting Successful Spawning Migration of Seton-Anderson Watershed Sockeye Salmon. Ref ID: 115 Keywords: mortality/powerhouse/tailrace/Fraser River/fish/Seton/Seton Dam/Dam/migration/diversion/ Seton-Anderson watershed/sockeye/salmon/Seton River/trap/spawning Reprint: In File Abstract: Study goals and objectives: 1) Quantify mortality for different sections of the migratory route between the powerhouse tailrace on the Fraser River and spawning grounds. 2) Evaluate fish passage at the Seton Dam Fishway by quantifying attraction efficiency, passage efficiency, rates of passage and delay. 3) Experimentally assess the impact of the fishway and other sections of the migratory route on migration behavior and fate. 4) Overview a need for management experiments and future research. Notes: DFO library; Crane Creek Fish file. The population sizes of Gates and Portage Creek sockeye have been rapidly declining over the past 12 years and both populations are being considered for listing as threatened or endangered by the IUCN (Salmonid Specialist draft report for the IUCN - Pete Rand, Wild Salmon Center, Portland, Oregon, pers. comm.). Numerous factors are likely responsible for the decline and our results suggest that mortality of sockeye is exceptionally high during their migration through the Seton system (52% loss of sockeye between the Fraser River and spawning grounds). Our findings can be used to recommend some immediate management actions, and propose management experiments and research needs. 1) Temporary blockage or obstruction in the fishway could have serious consequences for populations of migrating adult sockeye. We found that some tagged sockeye fell back downstream when the upstream exit of the fishway was blocked during sampling and many of these fish never returned. Therefore, we recommend that the fishway is monitored and maintained frequently (daily) during the migration season so that blockages are cleared immediately. Furthermore, any new modifications to the fishway, such as fish enumeration devices, should be carefully evaluated in terms of their effects on passage (see also Pon et al., 2006). 2) More research is needed to quantify delay, and ramifications of delay, when sockeye initially encounter the powerhouse tailrace on the Fraser River. This should involve a re-assessment of the 'dilution level' issue in terms of tailrace attraction, and examine the role of the tailrace as a thermal refuge. Evidence suggested that the powerhouse tailrace may have caused delay and attracted fish but sample sizes were low. We cannot suggest management actions aimed at reducing tailrace attraction based on results of the present study. 3) When possible, managers should strive to minimize relatively high discharge levels in the Seton River during adult sockeye migrations. High discharge periods (~60m3/s) created the poorest passage success into the fishway (40%) and longest delays (average 44 hrs). At lower discharge levels (11-35 m3/s in 2005 and 2007) there was no simple relationship between discharge, and mean attraction or delay. Management experiments which involve manipulating spill discharge in the Seton River are needed to better define the relationship between discharge level and passage success. 4) Based on the combined results from our 2005 and 2007 studies, we conclude that failure to ascend the dam was primarily associated with locating the fishway entrance and not with passage of the fishway itself. Hydraulic conditions near the dam face vary widely with changes in discharge and this will affect orientation cues for salmon. As was recently suggested by Pon (2008), management experiments which alter hydraulic conditions in the tailrace of Seton dam at a given discharge level (via different locales of water release from the various sluices), and assess delay and fishway
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
115
attraction are needed. Studies should also examine whether there is a threshold level of delay that causes salmon to fallback or seek alternate routes, reducing the probability of successful migration. 5) Our estimate of passage failure at the fishway should be considered an underestimate. Future studies should sample fish that are 'fishway-naïve' by catching sockeye in the lower Seton River. We attempted this with tangle and dip nets in 2007 but fish numbers were too low for these techniques to be effective and all indications are that these sockeye runs will not be large in the near future. We recommend using a fish weir with trap boxes in the lower Seton River, to be installed and operated during sockeye spawning migrations, during years when fish need to be captured for telemetry or biosampling assessment of fishway performance and migration mortality. 69 Roscoe, D. W., Hinch, S. G., Cooke, S. J., & Patterson, D. A. (2009). Behaviour and Thermal Experience of Adult Sockeye Salmon Migrating Through Stratified Lakes Near Spawning Grounds: the Roles of Reproductive and Energetic States. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. Ref ID: 155 Keywords: fish/habitat/salmon/sockeye/spawning/status Reprint: In File Abstract: Little is known about physiological factors underlying thermal behaviour in Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). We implanted acoustic transmitters and temperature loggers into migrating adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and nonlethally assessed their reproductive hormone levels and energetic states immediately prior to their passing through natal lakes en route to spawning grounds. We tested the hypothesis that energetic and reproductive status influence thermoregulatory and other in-lake behaviours. More reproductively advanced females with lower levels of energy transited through cooler temperatures compared to less mature females with high levels of energy, possibly to reduce metabolic energy expenditure and delay final maturation. Transit temperatures of males were not related to physiological variables. Salmon travelled on average 13.6 kmÆday)1 through two lakes, and often circled or held for more than 1 day before moving upstream, but these behaviours were generally not related to physiological variables. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: Our results suggest that thermoregulatory behaviour of migrating adult sockeye salmon is influenced by levels of energy and reproductive development. These findings further demonstrate the importance of thermal habitats in lakes and have implications for how forecasted warming temperatures associated with climate change (Ferrari et al. 2007) will affect sockeye salmon. That is, salmon exposed to higher than normal river temperatures may use thermal habitat in lakes to avoid energetic exhaustion or optimise reproductive development. One consequence of using archival temperature loggers is that data are typically only recovered from successful migrants and not from fish that die before reaching spawning grounds. Interestingly, there was no single thermal behaviour pattern that was consistent with survival to spawning grounds, as successful migrants displayed a range of temperature preferences. However, we are unable to assess the effect of variable temperature exposure on fate and whether migrants that die before reaching spawning grounds may behave differently. Understanding the consequences of in-lake behaviour and thermoregulation are important future research priorities, as thermal refugia in lakes may be crucial to survival during warm temperature years (Mathes et al. 2009). 70 Roscoe, D. W., Hinch, S. G., Cooke, S. J., & Patterson, D. A. (2010). Fishway Passage and Postpassage Mortality of Up-river Migrating Sockeye Salmon in the Seton River, British Columbia. Ref ID: 118 Keywords: Anderson Lake/Dam/fish/Fraser River/Gates Creek/migration/mortality/salmon/SetonAnderson watershed/Seton/Seton River/sockeye/spawning/spawning area/status/tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: Adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) were studied to assess the consequences of a dam and vertical-slot fishway on mortality during their spawning migration in the Seton-Anderson watershed, British Columbia, Canada. Since previous research suggests fishway passage may be difficult, our main hypothesis was that the dam and fishway have post-passage consequences that affect subsequent behaviour and survival. Eighty-seven sockeye were caught at the top of the fishway, implanted with an acoustic telemetry transmitter, non-lethally biopsied to obtain a small blood sample and released either upstream or downstream of the dam. Indices of physiological stress (i.e. plasma cortisol, glucose, lactate and ions) indicated that fish were not stressed or exhausted after capture from the fishway, and were not unduly stressed by transportation to release sites or net-pen holding. Of 59 fish released downstream of the dam, 14% did not reach the dam tailrace. Overall passage efficiency at the fishway was 80%. Mortality in two lakes upstream of the dam was greater in fish released downstream of the dam (27%) compared to fish released upstream of the dam (7%; p¼0.04) suggesting that dam passage has consequences that reduce subsequent survival. Cumulative mortality of fish released downstream of the dam (n¼55) resulted in only 49% survival to
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
116
spawning areas, compared to 93% of fish released upstream of the dam (n¼28). Survival was significantly lower for females (40%) than for males (71%; p¼0.03), a finding that has implications for conservation because spawning success of sockeye salmon populations is governed primarily by females. Notes: DFO; Crane Creek Fish files Our results indicate that passage through the Seton River,dam tailrace and fishway had a significant impact on successful spawning migration of sockeye salmon, as approximately half of migrating adults released downstream of the dam failed to reach spawning areas. Migration failure occurred not only at the dam and fishway, but also in the lower Seton or Fraser River prior to reaching the dam, and in Seton and Anderson lakes. Similar patterns of passage failure at several different locales along the migration route resulting in high cumulative mortality have been observed by others studying Pacific salmon (Naught et al., 2005; Keefer et al., 2008) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar; Gowans et al., 2003; Lundqvist et al., 2008). These studies suggest a need to assess cumulative impacts in systems with several passage facilities or locales of difficult passage. In some years in the Fraser River, high levels (e.g. 20-90%) of migrating adult sockeye salmon can perish en route to spawning grounds (Macdonald, 2000; Macdonald et al., 2000; Cooke et al., 2004; Quinn, 2005), often as a result of high river temperatures or discharge. The high levels of migration failure observed in our study (50% of fish released downstream of dam) are alarming because river temperatures and discharge were not unusually high that year (Patterson et al., 2007) and because migration failure occurred over a very short spatial scale. This study demonstrates the importance of monitoring fish after they pass dams and fishways to incorporate potential post-passage consequences in evaluations of fishway performance. In addition, consequences of dam passage such as physiological stress, energy use or physical injury are likely to be associated with fitness costs (Castro- Santos et al., 2009) although no previous studies have assessed effects of passage on reproductive success. We did not assess spawning success of fish in our study but because passage through the lower river, tailrace and fishway was associated with relatively high levels of post-passagemortality, it is possible there could also be consequences for reproductive success. For instance, Gates Creek sockeye suffer high levels of pre-spawn mortality (i.e. dieing on spawning grounds without reproducing) relative to many other Fraser River populations (Gilhousen, 1990) but it is not known whether hydroelectric facilities may be a contributing factor. We recommend that future studies of migrating fish which involve transport or net-pen confinement should assess their methodologies, and utilize as part of their interpretations, the physiological status of their fish. 71 Rowland, D. E. B. H. (1981). Monitoring Fish Passage at Seton Powerhouse and Dam Summer and Fall, 1980. Ref ID: 71 Keywords: Cayoosh Creek/Dam/diversion/fish/powerhouse/salmon/Seton/Seton creek/Seton Lake/ tailrace Reprint: In File Abstract: In order to confirm the results of this study from 1979, a program to monitor salmon passage under various seton and Cayoosh discharges was developed in July 1980. There were three monitoring tasks in the field: 1. ensure that the volume of Cayoosh Creek entering Seton Creek directly was 25% or less of the combined discharge of the two streams. 2. index the abundance of salmon in the tailrace and enumerate salmon species at the dam fishway. 3. measure the effect of Cayoosh Creek water on Seton Lake, especially on beach temperatures. Notes: Box F - LTC (3 copies). Recommendations: 1. The minimum discharge to Seton and Cayoosh Creek discharge necessary to ensure minimum tailrace delay be further investigated. 2. The Cayoosh diversion dam be built so that a greater proportion of the flow is controlled by the gated culvert. 3. Electronic repair work be undertaken on the Pulsar fish counter to correct the fault which produces erroneous counts when both banks of tunnel are in use. 4. The passage time of Seton fish through the Lillooet area be quantified annually. 72 Standen, E. M., Hinch, S. G., & Rand, P. S. (2004). Influence of River Speed on Path Selection by Migrating Adult Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Ref ID: 119 Keywords: sockeye/salmon/fish/migration/Seton/Seton River Reprint: In File Abstract: We applied stereovideographic techniques to investigate path selection, ground speed, and swimming speed in adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) ascending the Seton River, British
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
117
Columbia. We tracked threedimensional trajectories of salmon through 10 reaches and characterized the current profile at each site. At sites with relatively slow currents, the encountered river current speeds along the fish's trajectory were significantly lower than the mean current speed of the site. However, at higher current speed sites, fish experienced current speeds at or above the average current speed of the site and increased their ground speed through these sites. Observed in situ swimming speeds were 1.4-76.0 times greater than swimming speeds expected based on tailbeat frequency - swimming speed predictive relationships established in flume studies. We conclude that (I) at sites with relatively slow or moderate current speeds, fish minimize exposure to high-speed currents to minimize energy expenditure, (ii) at sites with high-speed currents, fish may change their migration strategy, minimizing time spent searching for low current speed pathways and increasing their ground speed to expedite passage, and (iii) laboratory-derived predictive equations may only be appropriate for predicting in situ swimming costs at sites with moderate and linearly flowing currents. Notes: DFO library; Crane Creek Fish file. Our results underscore the need to conduct research into two areas. First, we feel that it is important to develop alternative means to characterize the complex, small-scale turbulent features through which these fish commonly swim. New methods may allow us to better characterize the flow complexity and allow us to place the observed swimming path choice in better context to flow features common in natural channels. There has been some important advancement in recent years in three-dimensional flow visualization and measurement. Particle imaging velocimetry methods involving suspended neutrally buoyant glass beads and sheets of laser light have enabled investigators to visualize flow structure around swimming fish in laboratory situations (e.g., Nauen and Lauder 2001). An application of this method to a more natural stream channel could help in understanding how fish may be taking advantage of hydraulic conditions during their migration. Others have applied acoustic Doppler current profilers to map three-dimensional current patterns in rivers (Nikora and Goring 1998, 2000) that could be used to better link environmental conditions to animal behaviour in situ. Second, we need to work toward developing better methods of estimating true transport costs through complex river flow features. This may be achieved by conducting a comprehensive study of muscle recruitment involving electromyograms to more accurately estimate power requirements of different gaits adopted by adult migrating salmon through complex hydraulic conditions encountered in situ. This approach has been used with success at a coarse spatial scale (Hinch and Rand 1998; Standen et al. 2002), but we are not aware of any studies done at the fine time and space scales examined in the present study. 73 Thevarge, C. (2004). Gates Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Feasibility and Fencing Final Report. Ref ID: 168 Keywords: Gates Creek/fish/fish habitat/habitat/hydrology/bull trout/trout/wildlife/fisheries/Seton/Seton River Reprint: In File Abstract: The Gates Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Feasibility and Fencing was a project in the Bridge-Coastal Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program. The purpose of the project was to address the human development impacts on the fisheries resource of the Gates Creek Watershed. The first objective of the project was to install one kilometer of fencing with watering points for bison at the Gates Creek Bison Ranch near D'Arcy, B.C. The second objective of the project included assessing in-stream obstructions, evaluation of off-channel juvenile fish rearing habitat sites and making prescriptions for the future. The third objective was to do juvenile fish trapping in the Gates Creek Watershed. The project is located in Southwestern BC in the Seton River Watershed. Fencing was installed at the Gates Creek Bison Ranch. A topological survey was completed on Gates Creek to assess an in-stream boulder obstruction. Juvenile fish trapping was completed in the Gates Creek Watershed using Gee-Traps. To inform the public about the project signs were made and the project was included in a newsletter. The fence installed allows access for the bison to the creek at certain watering points and the rest of the creek is now protected. The topographical survey indicated that there is a three-meter difference in height from the bottom of the in stream obstruction to the top. Juvenile fish were in all creeks sampled with a total of five different species, which included bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and sculpins (Cottus sp.). Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations: From the project the following recommendations are suggested. • A public awareness program would help to educate people on fish/wildlife habitat and stream morphology and hydrology. • Continue to fence off the riparian zone from livestock. • Undertake stream bank stabilization.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
118
• Plant native riparian vegetation along areas with little streamside cover (e.g. between the Gates Creek Bison Ranch fence and Gates Creek). • Continue to liaise with landowners to develop and protect off-channel rearing habitat. • Continue to monitor, assess and protect the fish populations. • Commence additional work on the habitat and life history of bull trout and Dolly Varden as well as the interactions between the two. 74 Tisdale, A. E. T. E. C. (2000). 1999 Seton River Upper Spawning Channel Salmonid Enumeration. Ref ID: 67 Keywords: datalogger/Seton/Seton River/spawning channel Reprint: In File Abstract: Tisdale Environmental Consulting (TEC) was retained by BC Hydro and Power Authority to initiate and maintain flows in the upper spawning channel of the Seton River. Siphons were primed (from the Seton aqueduct) and flows initiated (approximately 40 cfs) on September 16, 1999. First Nation personnel were trained in species identification, enumeration techniques, spawning channel maintenance, basic computer data entry and project management. This report is an interim summary of events for 1999. The upper spawning channel was operational beyond the reporting scope of this report. Notes: Box G - LTC (2 copies). Recommendations: - A second datalogger should be installed at the outlet end of the spawning channel to compare water temperatures with those at the head of the channel. - The upper spawning channel is scheduled to have complexing work undertaken during the 2000 field season. Recommendations on complexing will be reserved for DFO, MoELP and First Nation biologists and engineers, 75 Tisdale, A. E. T. E. C. (2002). Seton River Fish Salvage, Water Quality and Flow Monitoring 2001. Ref ID: 86 Keywords: fish/fisheries/Fraser River/habitat/Seton/Seton River Reprint: In File Abstract: Tisdale Environmental Consulting Inc. (TEC), Crane Creek Enterprises, and Stl'atl'imx Nation Fisheries technicians were retained by BC Hydro and Power Authority to conduct fish salvages and monitor flow manipulations and water quality in the Seton River during 2001. Notes: Box G - LTC. Recommendations: Results from the ramping procedures can only be applied in the future to similar flow reductions, during similar times of the year when the various species of fish found within the Seton River are at approximately the same life stage and utilizing similar depth, velocity related habitat. Areas known to have a high incidence of isolation or stranding, regardless of ramping rates, i.e. the confluence of the Seton and Fraser Rivers, shoudl be assessed by providing adequate fish salvage crews with electrofishing equipment utilized at reduced settings to "chase" fish from these areas prior to dewatering. 76 Triton Environmental Consultants (1996). Seton River Instream Flow Study. Ref ID: 75 Keywords: fish/fish habitat/fisheries/habitat/instream flow/resources/salmon/Seton/Seton River/spawning flows/spawning habitat/spawning Reprint: In File Abstract: BC Hydro commissioned this study to quantify the instream flow requirements of the fisheries resources of the Seton River. This study uses physical habitat simulation to assess the relationship between instream flow and fish habitat production in the Seton River. The research hypothesis examined here was the increased flow will increase abundance, and the null hypothesis was that increased flow will not increase abundance. Notes: Box G - LTC (3 copies). Recommendations: 1. Identify river-spawning habitat suitability for adult salmon and recalculate the optimum spawning flows using the habitat model. 2. Survey spawning sites, identify sites affected by dewatering, and measure egg-to-fry survival. Monitor icing in the gravel at redd sites and assess impacts to egg survival. 3. Identify the feasibility of increasing spawning habitat through gravel platforms in the mainstem Seton. 77 Ward, B. R. (2006). The Case for Wild Steelhead Recovery Without Artificial Fish Culture Intervention. Ref ID: 173 Keywords: fish/recreational/trout/fisheries/smolts/habitat Reprint: In File Abstract: Recreational fishing for steelhead trout in British Columbia is world-renowned and in several rivers, cultured fish represent a significant contribution to the catch. The steelhead program of the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C., under the direction and policy of B.C.'s Ministry of Environment,
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
119
and in cooperation with several Federal Fisheries hatcheries, generates hatchery smolts for release. The resultant angling opportunities are of high value to the Provincial economy. The use of hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and catch and release of wild steelhead provides angling benefits, but may also impose risks to wild stocks. The overall purpose of the Provincial stream classification policy is to manage the risks in order to maintain healthy, self-sustaining wild steelhead stocks. Most rivers with steelhead present in B.C. are classified as wild. Notes: Crane Creek Fish file. Recommendations include : The Province should provide further stock and habitat protection and improvements where possible to further improve natural recovery during this time, and consider mitigation for lost recreational opportunities by perhaps increasing the release of hatchery smolts elsewhere. Key to the recovery and habitat protection is the prevention of any further man-induced catastrophe and negative impact. 78 Wood, N. A., Taylor, H., Meidal, P., Webster, J. L., & Epp, K. (1984). Seton Dam and Cayoosh Creek Diversion Dam 1984. Ref ID: 92 Keywords: Cayoosh Creek/Dam/diversion/Seton/Seton Dam/fish/power canal/canal Reprint: In File Abstract: An intermediate civil inspection was undertaken at Seton Dam and Cayoosh Creek on 10 September 1984 by T.N. Donaldson. Notes: Box G - LTC. Recommendations: - Fill low spot in the dike, 150 ft. upstream of the dam, to the elevtion of the adjacent dike crest. - Remove trees from the area betwenn the fish ladder and the power canal - Clean out the 0.61m drain , realign the drain sections, caulk joints.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
120
APPENDIX IB - HABITAT POLYGONS and AREAS Square meters
Poly Id
Survey Code
Habitat Code
Habitat Type
Hectares
SC01
TSQ01
TSR
Tall Shrub Riparian
1740
0.17
SC02
TSQ 02
GH
Grass/Herb
1841
0.18
SC03
TSQ 03
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
521
0.05
SC04
TSQ04
MPW
Mature Ponderosa Woodland
5658
0.57
SC05
TSQ05
TSR
Tall Shrub Riparian
1876
0.19
SC06
TSQ 06
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
166
0.02
SC06
TSQ06
GH
Grass/Herb
2018
0.20
SC07
TSQ 13
GB
Gravel bar
4112
0.41
SC09
TSQ 08
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
413
0.04
SC10
TSQ 10
GH
Grass/Herb
1881
0.19
SC10
TSQ 10
GH
Grass/Herb
2650
0.27
SC11
TSQ 11
YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
9317
0.93
SC12
TSQ 06
GH
Grass/Herb
212
0.02
SC13
TSQ 07
BR
Barren Riparian
264
0.03
SC13
TSQ 07
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
1062
0.11
SC14
TSQ 12
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
4451
0.45
SC15
SB 01
GH
Grass/Herb
2480
0.25
SC16
SB 02
GH
Grass/Herb
3619
0.36
SC17
SB 03
GB
Gravel bar
3846
0.38
SC18
SB 04
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
5434
0.54
SC19
SB 05
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
5755
0.58
SC20
SB 07
TSR
Tall Shrub Riparian
761
0.08
SC21
SB 08
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
934
0.09
SC22
SB 09
BR
Barren Riparian
116
0.01
SC23
SB 10
BR
Barren Riparian
373
0.04
SC24
SB 11
BR
Barren Riparian
121
0.01
SC25
SB 12
TSR
Tall Shrub Riparian
8981
0.90
SC26
SB 13
GH
Grass/Herb
1009
0.10
SC27
SB 14
BR
Barren Riparian
456
0.05
SC28
SB 15
LSR
Low Shrub Herb Riparian
244
0.02
SC29
SB 16
BR
Barren Riparian
334
0.03
SC30
SB 17
BSH
Big Sage Herb
1099
0.11
SC31
SB 18
GH
Grass/Herb
3967
0.40
SC32
SB 19
GH
Grass/Herb
2024
0.20
SC33
SB 20
YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
11362
1.14
SC34
SB 21
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
2192
0.22
SC35
SB 22
GH
Grass/Herb
4344
0.43
SC36
SB 23
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
858
0.09
SC37
SB 24
YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
2744
0.27
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
SC38
SB 25
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
SC39
SB 25 A
YCW
SC40
SB 26
SC41
121
846
0.08
Young Conifer Woodland
1159
0.12
YPW
Young Ponderosa Pine Woodland
6173
0.62
SB 28
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
728
0.07
SC42
SB 29
GH
Grass/Herb
2973
0.30
SC43
SB 29B
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
965
0.10
SC44
SB 30
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
1975
0.20
SC45
SB 31
YCW
Young Conifer Woodland
553
0.06
SC46
SB 32
GH
Grass/Herb
485
0.05
SC46
SB 32
GH
Grass/Herb
1933
0.19
SC47
SB 33
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
584
0.06
SC47
SB 33
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
1120
0.11
SC48
SB 34
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
1101
0.11
SC48
SB 34
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
7620
0.76
SC49
SB 35
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
404
0.04
SC49
SB 35
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
2020
0.20
SC50
SB 36
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
3121
0.31
SC51
SB 37
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
4019
0.40
SC52
SB 37B
BR
Barren Riparian
218
0.02
SC53
SB 38
BR
Barren Riparian
347
0.03
SC54
SB 39
LSR
Low Shrub Herb Riparian
1017
0.10
SC55
SB 40
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
4313
0.43
SC56
SB 41
BSH
Big Sage Herb
639
0.06
SC56
SB 44
BSH
Big Sage Herb
275
0.03
SC57
SB 43
BSH
Big Sage Herb
885
0.09
SC58
SB 44
BSH
Big Sage Herb
847
0.08
SC58
SB 44
BSH
Big Sage Herb
2637
0.26
SC59
SB 45
BU
Barren Upland
346
0.03
SC60
SB 46
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
491
0.05
SC61
SB 47
LSR
Low Shrub Herb Riparian
10726
1.07
SC61
SB 47
LSR
Low Shrub Herb Riparian
11385
1.14
SC61
SB47
LSR
Low Shrub Herb Riparian
925
0.09
SC61
SB47
LSR
Low Shrub Herb Riparian
2618
0.26
SC62
SB 48
NUR
Nursery
1680
0.17
SC63
SB 49
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
1756
0.18
SC64
SB 50
RD
Road
7154
0.72
SC65
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
2174
0.22
SC66
SPC
Spawning Channel
22473
2.25
SC67
SB 28
TSU
Tall Shrub Upland
3614
0.36
SC68
SB 46
BSH
Big Sage Herb
1705
0.17
SC69
SB 47
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
526
0.05
SC70
SB 48
DTR
Deciduous Tree Riparian
1093
0.11
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
SC71
SB 41
122
LSR
Low Shrub Herb Riparian
1115
0.11
SC72
RD
Road
2363
0.24
SC72
RD
Road
7763
0.78
230099
23.01
TOTAL
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
APPENDIX IC
BIRD POINT COUNT DATA
Breeding Bird Survey: Seton River Corridor Date 10-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 12-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun
Species AMCR GRCA NOFL SPSA SPTO VEER WAVI YEWA YRWA AMCR AMRO BHCO CHSP HAWO NAWA SPTO SPTO SPTO SPTO VEER WAVI WAVI WAVI AMCR AMRO BCCH BHCO CHSP HAWO NAWA NOFL SOSP SPSA SPTO VEER WAVI WAVI WAVI YEWA YRWA AMCR BCCH CEWA CHSP PISI SPSA SPTO
Count 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2
2010
Habitat Type MPW TSU R BSH DRS TSU DRS DTR TSR
MPW DTR BSH DTR MPW MPW TSR DTR MPW TSR MPW
MPW DTR DTR MPW DTR Riverside DTR DTR TSU DTR Riverside
DTR MPW MPW Riverside GH
123
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Breeding Bird Survey: Seton River Corridor 25-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 28-Jun 2-Jul 2-Jul 2-Jul 2-Jul 2-Jul 2-Jul 2-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 3-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul 5-Jul
SPTO SPTO VEER WAVI AMCR BLSW CHSP SOSP SPTO SPTO SPTO VEER VEER WAVI AMCR BCCH GRCA REVI SOSP SPSA SPTO AMCR AMRO BCCH CHSP GRCA REVI SOSP SPSA SPTO SPTO VEER AMCR APTO GRCA NOFL REVI SOSP SPSA SPTO VEER YRWA
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
GH MPW DTR DTR TSU
DTR DTR MPW TSU DTR TSU DTR TSU TSU TSU MPW DTR R MPW MPW BSH TSU DTR DTR R BSH BSH DTR TSU TSU DTR R R BSH DTR MPW
2010
124
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
125
APPENDIX ID
Date 2010 Nest Veg ID specie s
Fall Nest Survey Data - Nov to Dec 2010 Tree Tree Nest Nest UTMs UTM Pictur DBH Heigh Heigh size Easti North e (cm) t (M) t (M) (cm) ng ing numb 5614 ers ….
Nov26
1 cotton wood 23.00 16.50 16.00 15.00
Nov26
2 P . PINE 52.50 15.00
4.75 35.00
Nov26
3 B. HAWTHONE 15.00
5.00
3.25
Nov26
4 cotton wood 24.00
4.75
576126.00 5614291.00 67/69
Nov26
5 cotton wood 9.50
3.00
576162.00 5614220.00 70/71
Nov26
6 ROSE BUSH1.00
0.60
576138.00 5614347.00 72/73
Nov26
7 cotton wood 38.80
7.00
575955.00 5614570.00 74/75
Nov26
8 B. HAWTHONE
2.00
575951.00 5614569.00 76/77
Dec03
9 WILLOW 10.00 40.00
655 /657 bullocks orile round ball 658/660 Crow 666/ Squirrel - two nests
5.00 12.00 576063.00 5614427.00
Dec03
10 P . PINE 39.00 115.00 3.00
Dec03
11 B. HAWTHONE 6.00
Preliminary identification by crew technicians
Saw Owl in thicket
1.00 576063.00 5614427.00
Squirrel
2.00
576063.00 5614427.00
Squirrel
Dec03
12 P . PINE 57.00 t.130 b 80.00 -5
1.00 576063.00 5614427.00
Dec03
13 P . PINE 62.00 t140b-580.00
1.00 576063.00 5614427.00
Dec03
14 cotton wood 49.00 t_50b8 12.00
576063.00 5614427.00
Plastic bag in tree
Dec03
15 chokecherry
1.50
1.00 4_4
576098.00 5614245.00
With clematis
Dec03
16 B. HAWTHONE
5.00
2.00
Dec03
17 B. HAWTHONE
3.00
2.50 8x8
Dec03
18 juniper
9.00
5.00
2.00
Dec03
19 juniper 11.00
5.00
2.50 11x11 575903.00 5614586.00
Dec03
20 cotton wood 5.00 14.00
6.00 7x7
Dec03
21 P . PINE 25.50 10.00
5.00 15x15 575442.00 5614670.00 572
Dec07
22 Alder
5.00
3.00
1.40 15-10 575073.00 5614347.00 64/66 Robin
Dec07
23 P . PINE 15.00
9.00
6.00 1.5.1
Dec07
24 d.fir
12.50
9.50
5.50 1.51.5 575065.00 5614299.00 61/62 Crow
Dec07
25 Alder
12.00 11.00
5.00 1x2.5 575069.00 5614264.00 59/60 Crow
Dec07
26 Alder
15.00 11.00
5.00 2.5.2
575074.00 5614277.00
Dec07
27 cotton wood 14.00 10.75
6.25
575173.00 5614359.00 55/56 Crow nest broken
Dec07
28 d.fir
16.00 10.50
5.00 34x35 575207.00 5614383.00 53/54 Squirrel
Dec07
29 d.fir
19.00
3.50 1x1
Dec07
30 d.fir
23.00 10.00
Dec07
31 cotton wood 39.00 14.00 12.00 12x12 575269.00 5614343.00 47/48
5.00
7.50
1.00 575930.00 5614530.00 575927.00 5614538.00
1.00 575906.00 5614586.00
Squirrel Nest 17 and 18 same tree Nest 17and 18 same tree Squirrel
575433.00 5614687.00 571 Beside creek next to bridge
575066.00 5614303.00 63 Crow
575349.00 5614473.00 51/52
4.00 1.51.5 575412.00 5614489.00 49/50
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Dec07
32 red osier 10.00 dog wood 1.50 4ft
Dec07
33 douglas maple 8.00
6.00
2.50 20x20 575351.00 5614375.00 43/44
Dec07
34 saskatoon 10.00
9.00
7.00 5x5
75384.00 5614403.00
Dec07
35 saskatoon 10.00
9.00
6.50 6x6
575351.00 5614375.00 42/42
Dec07
36 hawthore11.00
5.00
3.50 60x60 575414.00 5614455.00 40/41
Dec07
37 P . PINE 48.00 18.50
Dec07
38 cotton wood 38.00 19.00 13.00 50x60 575176.00 5614150.00 36/37 15 meters at 120 utms
Dec07
39 P . PINE 25.00 10.50
4.00 12x12 575070.00 5614108.00 34/35
Dec07
40 P . PINE 36.00 10.25
6.25 60x65 575063.00 5614095.00 32/33
Dec10
41 red willow5.50
5.00
2.00 28x28 574891.00 5613957.00 462 469
Dec10
42 red willow1.00
3.50
1.00 25x25 574893.00 5613931.00 471/474
Dec10
43 rose bush
2.00
1.25 30x30 574841.00 5613919.00 613/614 Plastic in the nest
Dec10
44 chokecherry 12.00
8.00
4.50 55x55 574826.00 5613910.00 744/748
Dec10
45 cotton wood 34.00 23.00
3.00 25x30 574634.00 5613842.00 769/771
Dec10
46 red willow2.50
3.00 40x40 574621.00 5613849.00 772/773
Dec10
47 Alder
Dec10
48 red willow4.00
4.00
2.50 25x25 574580.00 5613805.00 777/779 Made with moss
Dec10
49 B. HAWTHONE 4.00
2.50
1.50 25*30 574547.00 5613804.00 780/783 Robin
Dec10
50 ROSE BUSH0.75
1.00
1.25 30*30 574439.00 5613771.00 784.00Robin Robin
Dec10
51 Rosebush 0.75
2.00
1.00 25*25 574423.00 5613755.00 785/786 Robin
Dec10
52 red willow8.60
4.50
3.00 20*20 574467.00 5613769.00 787-789 small birds nest
Dec10
53 Alder
11.30 13.00
8.00 50*50 574416.00 5613818.00 791-794 Crow
Dec10
54 Alder
12.50 14.00
6.00 50*50 574426.00 5613818.00 797-801 Crow
Dec10
55 Alder
14.00 15.00
9.00 30*30 574422.00 5613826.00 802-805
Dec09
56 P . PINE 54.00
6.00
4.00 35*30 574998.00 5614113.00 683-685 Crow
Dec09
57 P . PINE 38.00 11.00
7.50 35*35 574008.00 5614123.00 686-691 Crow
Dec09
58 D-Fir
34.70 16.00
5.00 13*13 574507.00 5614106.00 694-700 Crow
Dec09
59 P . PINE 28.60 10.50
5.00 80*50 574973.00 5614027.00 701-708 Crow
Dec09
60 Red Willow2.00
5.00
1.50 5.5*6
574954.00 5614974.00 709-714 Robin
Dec09
61 red willow2.00
4.50
1.00 3*3
5744974.00 5614949.00 715-719 Small birds nest
5.00
126
70x70 575306.00 5614351.00 45/46 small nest made with plastic, roots, leaves
8.00 95x95 575151.00 5614183.00 38/39 Egg shells below it
14.30 18.00 14.00 50x50 574595.00 5613823.00 774/776
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
127
Appendix II Financial Summary 10.W.SON.01 Project #__________________ Financial Statement Form
BUDGET BCRP
ACTUAL
Other
BCRP
Other
INCOME Total Income by Source Grand Total Income
20,000.00
29,950.00
49,950.00
(BCRP + other)
EXPENSES Project Personnel Wages Consultant Fees
13,000.00
5,000.00
13,000.00
5,000.00
4,000.00
17,100
4,000.00
19,300.00
1,000.00 1,000.00
5,000.00 0
1,000.00 1091.08
5,000.00 0
300.00
0
308.92
0
100 0 600.00
0 2,850.00 0
0 0 600.00
0 2,850.00 0
20,000.00
29,950.00
20,000.00
32,150.00
(List others as required)
CONTRACTORS
Materials & Equipment Equipment Rental Materials Purchased Travel Expenses Permits (List others as required)
Administration Office Supplies Photocopies & printing Postage (List others as required)
Advertising/Promo Computer and Office Rental Payroll Processing
Total Expenses Grand Total Expenses (BCRP + other)
BALANCE (Grand Total Income – Grand Total Expenses)
The budget balance should equal $0
The actual balance might not equal $0*
0
* Any unspent BCRP financial contribution to be returned to: BC Hydro, BCRP 6911 Southpoint Drive (E14) Burnaby, B.C. V3N 4X8 ATTENTION: JANICE DOANE
0
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
128
Appendix III Performance Measures 10.W.SON.01 Project #____________________ Performance Measures Using the performance measures applicable to your project, please indicate the amount of habitat actually restored/enhanced for each of the specified areas (e.g. riparian, tributary, mainstream). Performance Measures – Target Outcomes
Impact Mitigation Fish passage technologies Drawdown zone revegetation/stabilization Wildlife migration improvement Prevention of drowning of nests, nestlings
Area of habitat made available to target species Area turned into productive habitat Area of habitat made available to target species Survey Area of wetland habitat created outside expected flood level (1:10 year)
Habitat Conservation Functional habitat conserved/replaced through acquisition and Survey mgmt Functional habitat conserved by other measures (e.g. riprapping) Designated rare/special Rare/special habitat Survey habitat protected Maintain or Restore Habitat forming process Area of stream habitat Artificial gravel recruitment improved by gravel plmt. Artificial wood debris Area of stream habitat recruitment improved by LWD plcmt Area increase in Small-scale complexing in functional habitat through Survey existing habitats complexing Prescribed burns or other Functional area of habitat upland habitat improved enhancement for wildlife Habitat Development New Habitat created Functional area created Habitat conserved – general
Wetland
Upland
Lowland Coniferous
Lowland Deciduous
Riverine
Reservoir Shoreline Complexes
Primary Target Species
Riparian
Primary Habitat Benefit Targeted of Project (m2)
In-stream Habitat – Tributary
Project Type
Estuarine In-Stream Habitat – Mainstream
Habitat (m2)
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Appendix IV Confirmation of BCRP Recognition
Example of Nature Nook Articles submitted to the BRLN
Example of Poster for Community Outreach Activities
Example of an Outreach Schedule given to teachers/volunteers
Logo Placement on Outreach Trailer
OTHER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Radio Lillooet Announcements Lillooet Naturalist Society website www.lillooetnaturalistsociety.org Public Acknowledgements at Outreach Events
Slide show, Powerpoint Presentation and/or discussions at District of Lillooet Council Meeting Squamish Lillooet Regional District Board Meeting Chamber of Commerce Meeting Cayoose Creek Chief & Council Meeting
129
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
AUGUST 11, 2010
130
Lillooet News
Page 9
Nature’s Nook
Brought to you monthly by the Powerhouse Restoration Advisory and crew
5HVWRUDWLRQ8SGDWH
3ODQWRIWKH0RQWK
:H DUH EXV\ FROOHFWLQJ VHHGV DQG WHQGLQJ WKH VPDOO SODQWVDWWKH6SOLW5RFN:LOG3ODQW1XUVHU\$VZHOO DVFRQWLQXLQJWRSXOOLQYDVLYHZHHGVSHFLHVWKHFUHZ KDYHEHJXQVXUYH\LQJWKH6HWRQFRUULGRUWRVHHZKDW NLQGRISODQWVDQGZLOGOLIHDUHXVLQJWKHDUHD
6$*(%586+0$5,326$ /,/< Calochortus macrocarpus
:LOGOLIH1HZV
7KH 2VSUH\ FKLFNV DUH QRZ Á\LQJ ,W ZDV JUHDW ZDWFKLQJ WKHP OHDUQ KRZ WR Á\ XQGHU WKH FRQVWDQW FDUH RI WKHLU SDUHQWV %HDUV DUH DJDLQ XVLQJ WKH UHVWRUDWLRQ VLWH VR EH FDUHIXO ZKLOH ZDONLQJ LQ WKH DUHD
2XWUHDFK1HZV
7KHLPSRUWDQFHRIKHDOWK\ZDWHUVKHGVWRRXUVDOPRQ UXQV DQG WR DOO ZLOGOLIH KDV EHHQ SUHVHQWHG GXULQJ QXPHURXVRXWUHDFKHYHQWVLQ-XO\DWWKH.LQJÀVKHU )U\5HOHDVHLQ(QGHUE\DWWKH$SULFRW)HVWLYDODQG ORFDO)DUPHU·V0DUNHW 7KH6SOLW5RFN1XUVHU\KDVDOVREHHQVKRZFDVLQJKRZ ZLOGSODQWVSHFLHVFDQEHXVHGLQRXUJDUGHQVWRVDYH ERWKWLPHPRQH\DQGZDWHUZKLOHSURYLGLQJFULWLFDO KDELWDWWRORFDOZLOGOLIH 7KH XSFRPLQJ 6DOPRQ LQ WKH &DQ\RQ )HVWLYDO ZLOO EH D IXQ HYHQW ZLWK JDPHV IRU WKH NLGV KDQGVRQ LQIRUPDWLRQDO DFWLYLWLHV RQ VXVWDLQDEOH ZDWHUVKHG OLYLQJ DQG ERRWKV VKRZFDVLQJ WKH ZRUN RI ELRORJLVW GRLQJ UHVHDUFK LQ WKH DUHD EDWV RZOV ÀVKHUV ZKLWHEDUNSLQHDQGRWKHUVSHFLHVDWULVN $VZHOOWKHUHZLOOEHDIHDVWIHDWXULQJORFDOO\SURGXFHG IRRGDQGJUHDWPXVLF
Visit www.lillooetnaturalistsociety.org to learn more about our local ecology and wildlife and WRÀQGRXWDERXWXSFRPLQJHYHQWV
:KHUHFDQ\RXÀQGLW" :KHUHFDQ\RXÀQGLW")RXQGDWORZHOHYDWLRQVLQ GU\JUDVVODQGVDQGRSHQSRQGHURVDSLQHIRUHVWV $VWKHQDPHLPSOLHVZKHUHWKHUHLVVDJHEUXVK LQRXUDUHD\RXPD\ÀQGWKHVHEHDXWLIXOSODQWV ,QWHUHVWLQJIDFWV 7KH ÀUVW ZRUG LQ LWV VFLHQWLÀF QDPH PHDQV ¶EHDXWLIXO SODQW· DQG ¶0DULSRVD· LV 6SDQLVK IRU EXWWHUÁ\ ERWK DSSURSULDWH QDPHV IRU WKLV ZLOGÁRZHU7KH6DJHEUXVK0DULSRVD/LO\LVRQH RI VSHFLHV RI OLOLHV WKDW FDQ EH IRXQG IURP %& WR *XDWHPDOD 7KH OLO\ FDQ UHPDLQ GRUPDQW IRU XS WR IRXU \HDUV ZKHQ FRQGLWLRQV DUH QRW IDYRXUDEOHIRULWVJURZWK
:KDWGRHVLWORRNOLNH" 0RVW RI WKH \HDU \RX ZRQ·W HYHQ QRWLFH WKH PDULSRVDOLO\5LJKWQRZ\RXZLOOVHHWKHSDSHU\ VFDOHGHJJVKDSHGEXOEDWRSDWKLQORQJVWHP$ VLQJOHOLJKWEOXHJUHHQOHDIDSSHDUVEHIRUHWKH VWHP ULVHV FP WR SURGXFH RQH WR WKUHH EHDXWLIXO FXSOLNH ÁRZHUV $ ODUJH QXPEHU RI ÁRZHUV ZHUH EORRPLQJ LQ RXU DUHD WKLV -XO\ 7KH ÁRZHUV KDYH D FXSOLNH DSSHDUDQFH ZLWK WKUHHSHWDOOHG ODYHQGHU ÁRZHUV DQG WKUHH ORQJQDUURZVHSDOVEHWZHHQHDFKSHWDO7KHUH LV D GLVWLQFWLYH SXUSOH EDQG DSSHDULQJ DERYH WKH\HOORZEDVH :K\LVLWLPSRUWDQW" $VZHOODVEHLQJRQHRIWKHPRVWEHDXWLIXOVSULQJ ÁRZHUVWRHQMR\LQRXUDUHDWKHQHFWDULVXVHG E\EXWWHUÁLHVDQGGHHUJUD]HRQWKHJUDVVOLNH OHDYHV (WKQRERWDQ\ 7KH WDSHUHG EXOEV VLPLODU WR FDUURWV ZHUH HDWHQHLWKHUIUHVKVWHDPHGRUURDVWHGWKH\ DUHYHU\VZHHW7KHPDVKHGEXOEVZHUHDSSOLHG WRWKHVNLQIRUVRRWKLQJSRLVRQLY\UDVKHV +RZDUHWKH\GRLQJ 'XHWRRYHUJUD]LQJDQGKDELWDWORVVWKH0DULSRVD /LO\KDVEHFRPHOHVVFRPPRQ3OHDVHGRQ·WSLFN WKHÁRZHUV
6RXUFH 7UHHV6KUXEV )ORZHUVWR.QRZLQ :DVKLQJWRQ %&&3/\RQV %LOO0HULOHHV
$QLPDORIWKH0RQWK 6$/021 VWV"~TZD]"
2QFRUK\QFKXVWDKDZ\WVFKD
3DFLÀF6DOPRQ/LIHF\FOH
+RZGRVDOPRQVXUYLYH" 0DQ\ GRQ·W 7R EH D VXUYLYRU \RXQJ VDOPRQ DOHYLQV IU\ DQG VPROW ORRN IRU VDIH SODFHV OLNH VLGH VWUHDPV RYHUKDQJLQJ EDQNV XQGHU ORJVEHKLQGODUJHERXOGHUVDQGLQWKHVKDGHRI ULSDULDQSODQWV7KH\KLGHIURPELUGVVQDNHV DQG RWKHU ZLOGOLIH 'XULQJ WKHLU PLJUDWLRQV VRPHRWKHUWKLQJVWKH\KDYHWRFRQWHQGZLWK DUHÀVKHUPDQÀVKIDUPVORVVRIKDELWDWDQG ZDUPLQJZDWHU ,QWHUHVWLQJIDFWV 2YHU RWKHU VSHFLHV RI DQLPDOV SODQWV UHO\ RQ VDOPRQ VZLPPLQJ LQ RXU RFHDQV DQG VSDZQLQJLQRXUULYHUV&RPHWRWKH6DOPRQLQ WKH&DQ\RQ)HVWLYDOWRÀQGRXWPRUH
+RZPDQ\VSHFLHVRI6DOPRQXVHWKH)UDVHU 5LYHU:DWHUVKHG" )LYH VDOPRQ VSHFLHV XVH WKH ULYHU &KLQRRN &RKR&KXP3LQNDQG6RFNH\H :KLFKLVWKHODUJHVW3DFLÀFVDOPRQ" 7KH&KLQRRN7KHZRUOGUHFRUGLVNJ :KLFKLVWKHPRVWQXPHURXV" 7KH 3LQN 6DOPRQ 7KH\ DUH DOVR NQRZQ DV KXPSLHVGXHWRWKHLUH[WUHPHO\KXPSHGEDFN 7KH\DUHDOVRWKHVPDOOHVWRIWKHVDOPRQ Which salmon species caused concern in BC ODVWIDOO" 6RFNH\H 6DOPRQ 2QO\ RI WKH KLVWRULFDO QXPEHUVIHZHUWKDQRQHPLOOLRQUHWXUQHG $IWHU WZR GHFDGHV RI GDQJHURXVO\ UDSLG GHFOLQHV LQ 3DFLÀF VDOPRQ UHWXUQLQJ WR WKH )UDVHUWKH)HGHUDO*RYHUQPHQWODXQFKHGWKH &RKHQ,QTXLU\WROHDUQZK\7KH&RKHQ,QTXLU\ ZLOOEHLQ/LOORRHWRQ$XJXVW SPDW5(& &HQWUH WRKHDUIURPRXUFRPPXQLW\
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Lillooet News
Page 10
Lillooet News
131
sports
AUGUST 11, 2010
To book your spot in
02/&),%3, call the News office at 250-256-4219
Lillooet Contracting Ltd. • General Contracting • 4x4 Backhoe, Dump Truck • Excavator, Mini Excavator • Plumbing (New Sewer Pipe Camera) • Septic Systems (ROWP Certified) • Gould & Grundfos Pumps • Water Well Camera • Qualified Pump Installer under Water Act • New Homes Warranted by St. Paul Guarantee
109 Main Street Lillooet, BC
Doug Grossler
[email protected]
Ph: 256-7669 Fax: 256-4989
Rick's Property Services
•Lawn Mowing & Trimming •Chainsaw Work & Brush Clearing •Snow, Garbage & Rubbish Removal •Odd Jobs and General Labour
250-256-8222 PO Box 1433 • Lillooet BC V0K 1V0
[email protected]
Sturgeon Derby.
91 contestants braved the heat on the Fraser River during the Winner’s Edge 8th Annual Sturgeon Derby held Saturday, July 31. Out of the 50 fish caught, Aron McDonald (pictured on left) landed the big winner with a fish measuring in at just over 8 feet. Most honest award went to Wade Tomkins for his fish that measured under two feet.
Salmon in the Canyon Festival
SIMMONS, BLACK & EMSLAND INSURANCE SERVICES
Pro-Rate Autoplan Fleets Garage Risk Management Business 3K $XWR
Bonds Liability Home Contents Life Accident/Sickness
)D[ RU )D[ (Auto)
+LOOVLGH'U.DPORRSV%& 9($ Toll Free BC
Email:
[email protected] Mike Black has been visiting and serving the Lillooet community since 1977.
QUALITY IS OUR BEST POLICY
Hosted by: Cayoose Creek
Saturday 21 August 5:00 pm to 9:30 pm Cayoosh Creek Campground
Reg#13659
IRECT LECTRIC Residential & Commercial Mark Watson
256-4157
COME CELEBRATE THE GREATEST SALMON RIVER ON EARTH RIGHT IN YOUR BACKYARD
Dr. David Soffer Inc.
FAMILY EVENT
256-4616
Games and Art, Wildlife and Watershed Information Great Music and FEAST (bring your own plate & cutlery)
& Associates
General Family Dentistry • Crown & Bridge • Root Canal Orthondontics • Botox Treatments • Complete & Partial Dentures •Tooth Whitening • Preventive Care & Gum Disease
LILLOOET DENTAL CLINIC email:
[email protected]
119 - 8th Ave.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
132
Education Nature Days Satʼatqwa7 The River Restoration Crew Lillooet Naturalist Society & Cayoose Creek Stʼatʼimc School: George M. Murray Elementary Mon Tue Wed Thu
9:30 am to 1:30 am
(Mon/Wed flexible timeframe)
20th September Ms Davies Gr 4 (19), 21st September Mr Lewis (finish 1:30) Gr 6 (15), 22nd September Ms Wadlegger/Waterhouse-Hayward Gr 1 (6), 23rd September Mr Hangle (finish 1:30) Gr 7 (24),
Gr 5 (3) Gr 5 (8) Gr 2 (20), Gr 3 (17) Gr 6 (2)
22 23 43 26
Time
Activity
Notes
9:30 am
Introduction and Safety Meeting! Stay together, Whistle Signal, First Aid, Water/Creek, Bears, Plants
9:45 am
Lower Spawning Channels - Teaching Train Activity + (Discovery Boxes on Trailer)
Streamkeepers - Healthy Water Flow, Aquatic Insects, Structures
10:30 am
Tour of Nursery
Native Plants -v- Weeds
10:45 am
Start walk to Fraser River with various activities along the way ! SNACKS while walking Stop of Interest: Pit House depressions
Stʼatʼimc Culture
Activity: Habitat Hide-and-Seek
Wildlife Habitat and Camouflage
Stop of Interest: Prickly Pear Cactus
Plant Adaptation
Activity: Habitat Impacts - River, Upland
Human Impacts on Environment
Stop of Interest: Mouth of the Cayoosh Creek and Fraser River (During Lunch if necessary)
Salmon Journey
NOON
LUNCH BY THE FRASER RIVER - Safety: As above, Fraser River
12:30 pm
Walk along/through the riparian zone to the dryland bench, with info along the way Stop of Interest: Ponderosa Pine Forest
Mountain Pine Beetle
Stop of Interest: Cottonwoods
Screech-owls (nest box)
Stop of Interest: Restoration Work at Meeting Area
Snags, Rock Piles, CWD, Plants (Snakes, Bats, Birds, Small Mammals)
1:00 pm
PLANTING ACTIVITY
Stewardship
1:30 pm
FINISH UP
- Monday/Wednesday classes may have more time
NOTE: For the younger grades it may be more feasible to do the activities at the Lower Spawning Channel/Nursery, catch the bus to the restoration site, and do activities there. This would allow for more time at each of those sites. Teachers may choose this option.
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
Discovery Stations - Lower Spawning Channel Between: 9:30 am to 11:30 am Discovery Stations are set up for classes to visit, explore and ask questions. Includes information and activities on healthy rivers, watersheds, salmon lifecycle, aquatic insects, beavers, birds, plants, and restoration works.
Walk of the Smolts - Seton Corridor to the Fraser River Between: 11:00 am to 12:30 pm A creative walk through the Seton River Corridor. You will be the “fry” travelling down the “river” (trail). You will encounter many obstacles on your journey, as well as environments that help smolts survive. Includes music, dance, art and theatre. Be prepared to meet herons, kingfishers, beavers, eagles, bears, bugs, dams, pollution, shady places and restorationists working hard!
Picnic and Ceremony - Fraser River Between: Noon to 2:00 pm Participants will enjoy their picnic lunch by the Fraser River. Join a bone game, see net-making, wind-dried salmon, and hear a story. Send off a gift to the smolts and wish them well on their journey, then sing and dance the Salmon Circle on the river bank. Just before we leave for the buses we will all join together in the shape of a smolt on the beach - when a helicopter will fly over for a photograph!
Times above are approximate as groups cycle through the stations and activities at their own set pace. But we all need to be at the Fraser River by 12:30 pm! Group 1 Arrives 9:30 am and leaves down Seton Corridor by 11:00 am Group 2 Arrives 10:00 am and leaves down Seton Corridor by 11:30 am
133
Seton Wildlife Corridor REPORT 2010
134
