Monitor and Protect Wigwam River Bull Trout for Koocanusa Reservoir

Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Annual Report 2004 - 2005 May 2006 DOE/BP-00005672-12

This Document should be cited as follows:

Cope, R., "Monitor and Protect Wigwam River Bull Trout for Koocanusa Reservoir; Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program", 2004-2005 Annual Report, Project No. 200000400, 101 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP- 00005672-12)

Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208

This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA.

Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program: 2005 Data Report

Prepared by: R.S. Cope Westslope Fisheries Ltd., 517 13th Ave. South, Cranbrook, B.C., V1C 2W5

Prepared for: B. C. Ministry of Environment Fisheries Branch, 205 Industrial Road G, Cranbrook, B.C., V1C 6H3

Funded by: Monitor and Protect Bull Trout for Koocanusa Reservoir BPA Project Number 2000-004-00, Bonneville Power Administration, Fish and Wildlife Program P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208

Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Executive Summary

The Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and fish habitat-monitoring program (2003 – 2005) is a co-operative initiative of the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Bonneville Power Administration. This project was commissioned in planning for fish habitat protection and forest development within the White River watershed and was intended to expand upon similar studies within the Wigwam River (1997, 2000-2002) and Skookumchuck Creek (2002-2004). The broad intent is to develop a better understanding of juvenile bull trout recruitment and the ongoing hydrologic and morphologic processes, especially as they relate to spawning and juvenile rearing habitat quality. The 2005 project year represents the final year of a three-year bull trout-monitoring program and this report provides a summary of results.

Bull trout represented 98.9% of the catch. Fry dominated the catch because site selection was biased towards electrofishing sample sites which favored high bull trout fry capture success. In 2005, the mean density of fry and juvenile bull trout combined was estimated to be 11.0 fish/100m2 (95% confidence interval 10.3 – 11.6 fish/100m2). The mean density of fry and juvenile bull trout has significantly declined over the three years of study. The decline was primarily due to the significant decline observed at Site 1 (Middlefork White River).

The significant decrease in fry and juvenile densities was consistent with escapement trends. The number of bull trout redds enumerated within the Middlefork River and Blackfoot Creek index sites declined from 261 in 2002 to 184 in 2004. This decline appears short lived however, as the number of redds enumerated in 2005 increased to 243.

The range of morphological stream types for the Middlefork White River encompasses the stable and resilient spectrum (C3(1) and C4). The index sites can be generalized as a slightly entrenched, meandering, riffle-pool, gravel-cobble dominated channel with a well-developed floodplain. High LWD frequency, high pool frequency and high channel sinuosity provide high habitat complexity with high quality bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout spawning and rearing habitat, for all life stages. In large part, the exceptional habitat diversity and stream stability can be attributed to the extensive, intact floodplain, dominated by old-growth forest and relic channels.

Blackfoot Creek, in contrast, was considered severely degraded and unstable. The headwaters of this tributary were burned by wildfire and some historic streambank salvage logging has occurred. Large inputs of coarse sediment were evident. It was hypothesized that the Blackfoot

March 2005 • i Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Creek index site was at an early stage of recovery; however, given the instability of the stream channel, extreme erosion potential of the over-steepened and eroding stream banks and potential for future flood events, there remains a high probability of further degradation and adverse fish habitat impacts. Despite the degraded nature of this index site, it still maintains bull trout spawning habitat and high densities of rearing juveniles. This was attributed to the very coarse “bony” substrate of large cobbles and small boulders that provides abundant, high quality interstitial cover habitat preferred by juvenile bull trout and the narrow alluvial floodplain that is bounded by steep mountain slopes has contributed to a predominance of sub-surface flow that reaches the mainstem as groundwater.

Ongoing impact monitoring is recommended to ensure the protection of the Middlefork White River bull trout spawning and rearing area from possible downstream impacts to fish habitat as a result of the 2003 Middlefork wildfire and subsequent salvage logging. At a minimum, continued annual redd enumeration and substrate monitoring using McNeil core sample analyses are recommended.

Acknowledgements

The Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat-monitoring program is a trans-boundary initiative implemented by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment (MOE), in cooperation with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Funding was provided by BPA under the umbrella project "Monitor and Protect Bull Trout for Koocanusa Reservoir", BPA project Number 2000-004-00. The contribution and on-going monitoring results provided by Herb Tepper and Kevin Heidt (MOE) are acknowledged and greatly appreciated.

Suggested citation for this report:

Cope, R.S. 2006. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program: 2005 Data Report. Prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 34 pp + 7 app.

March 2005 • ii Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... II TABLE OF CONTENTS...... III LIST OF TABLES ...... IV LIST OF FIGURES...... V 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1

1.1 Objectives...... 3

1.2 Study Area...... 3 2 METHODS ...... 5

2.1 Juvenile Enumeration ...... 5

2.2 Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 6 3 RESULTS ...... 8

3.1 Juvenile Fish Sampling ...... 8 3.1.1 Species Composition and Distribution ...... 8 3.1.2 Bull Trout ...... 10

3.2 Physical Habitat Monitoring ...... 13 3.2.1 Water Temperature and Discharge...... 13 3.2.2 Substrate Pebble Counts...... 16 3.2.3 Channel Surveys...... 17 3.2.4 Fish Habitat Survey ...... 24 4 DISCUSSION...... 27 5 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 30 6 REFERENCES...... 31

Appendix A 1:50,000 TRIM Map

Appendix B Fish Capture Data

Appendix C FHAP Level 1 Form 4 Data

Appendix D FHAP Channel Survey Data

Appendix E Stream Channel Classification (Level II) Form

Appendix F Reference Reach Data Summary Form

Appendix G Velocity Calculations

March 2005 • iii Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

List of Tables

Table 1. Schedule of program field components for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program, 2003-2005...... 8 Table 2. Total effort and catch for the two Middlefork White River and one Blackfoot Creek (Site 3) bull trout index sites, 2005. Note that the catch denoted by brackets includes the non-salmonid catch...... 8 Table 3. Total effort and catch for the 2003 to 2005 sample programs. Note that the non- salmonid catch has been included in the totals denoted by brackets...... 9 Table 4. Catch composition for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek (Site 3) juvenile bull trout monitoring program, 2005...... 9 Table 5. Catch composition for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout monitoring program, 2003 - 2005...... 10 Table 6. Summary of fork length and weight data collected from bull trout fry and juveniles captured within the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, August 2005...... 11 Table 7. Mean density estimates (+/- 95% confidence interval) for fry and juvenile bull trout combined, at three permanent sample sites, within the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, 2003 and 2004...... 13 Table 8. Summary of water temperature, mean velocity, and discharge measurements for the index sites during the 2003 and 2004 sample periods...... 13 Table 9. Discharge estimates for the range of potential bankfull discharges based on the historical maximum instantaneous discharge for the White and Palliser Rivers and the bankfull discharge estimate derived from the cross-sectional data (see Appendix F and G)...... 15 Table 10. Summary of substrate pebble counts for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek index sites, 2003-2005...... 17 Table 11. Diagnostics of salmonid habitat condition at the reach level for Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, 2005 (from Johnston and Slaney 1996). Note that the individual cell format represents value/ratingA, B...... 25 Table 12. Inter-annual comparison of select habitat condition diagnostics from the Level 1 FHAP Habitat Survey Data Form 4 (Johnston and Slaney 1996) for permanent index sites...... 26 Table 13. Comparison of bull trout fry and juvenile density estimates for the three most important upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning tributaries...... 27

March 2005 • iv Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

List of Figures

Figure 1. Overview map of the White River and Blackfoot Creek...... 2 Figure 2. Mean, minimum, and maximum monthly discharge for the White River near Canal Flats, 1940-1948 (WSC Stn No. 08NF003)...... 4 Figure 3. Length frequency distribution and estimated age cohorts for Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout, August 2005...... 11 Figure 4. Length-weight regression for bull trout fry and juveniles captured within the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, August 2005...... 12 Figure 5. Monthly rainfall for 2003 - 2005 and historical mean monthly rainfall (1971- 2000) measured at the Cranbrook airport, Meteorological Service of Canada Climate Station ID 1152102...... 14 Figure 6. Flood-frequency analysis using maximum instantaneous discharge for the White and Palliser Rivers...... 15 Figure 7. Upstream view of the representative riffle cross-section, Site 1, Middlefork White River, 2005...... 19 Figure 8. Upstream view of the representative pool cross-section, Site 1, Middlefork White River, 2005...... 19 Figure 9 . Upstream view of the representative riffle cross-section, Site 2, Middlefork White River, 2005. Note the 2003 wildfire boundary and salvage logging in the background...... 21 Figure 10. Cross-channel view of the representative pool cross-section, Site 2, Middlefork White River, 2005...... 21 Figure 11. Downstream view of the representative riffle cross-section, Site 3, Blackfoot Creek, 2005...... 23 Figure 12. Upstream view of the representative pool cross-section, Site 3, Blackfoot Creek, 2005...... 23 Figure 13. Summary of annual bull trout redd surveys conducted in the White, Wigwam and Skookumchcuck watersheds. Note that in 2002 an index site on Blackfoot Creek was added to the annual redd surveys for the White River...... 28

March 2005 • v Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

1 Introduction This report summarizes the final year of a three year juvenile bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and fish habitat-monitoring program for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek. The Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat-monitoring program is a trans-boundary initiative implemented by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment (MOE), in cooperation with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

The White River is a regionally significant sport fish stream located in southeastern British Columbia (Figure 1) that supports healthy populations of both bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). Bio-telemetry investigations have identified the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek as important bull trout-spawning tributaries within the White River watershed (Westover and Heidt 2004). Subsequently, the bull trout spawning population of the entire White River watershed was estimated to be in excess of 899 fish (Cope and Morris 2004).

Bull trout populations have declined in many areas of their range within the Pacific Northwest including British Columbia. Bull trout were blue listed as vulnerable in British Columbia by the B.C. Conservation Data Center (Cannings 1993), and although there are many healthy populations of bull trout in the East Kootenay, they remain a species of special concern. Bull trout in the United States portion of the Columbia River were listed as threatened in 1998 under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The upper Kootenay River watershed (above Libby Dam) is within the Kootenai sub-basin of the Mountain Columbia Province, one of the eleven Eco-provinces that make up the Columbia River Basin, and has become a primary focus of research for bull trout in both Canada and the United States.

MOE applied for and received funding from BPA to assess and monitor the status of wild, native stocks of bull trout in tributaries to Lake Koocanusa (Libby Reservoir) and the upper Kootenay River. The Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat-monitoring program is one of many that were undertaken to "Monitor and Protect Bull Trout for Koocanusa Reservoir" (BPA Project Number 2000-04-00). These include comparative juvenile bull trout and fish habitat studies in the Wigwam River (Cope 2003b) and Skookumchuck Creek (Cope and Morris 2005a), adult enumeration projects on the Wigwam River (Baxter and Westover 2000), Skookumchuck Creek (Baxter and Baxter

March 2005 • 1 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Figure 1. Overview map of the White River and Blackfoot Creek.

March 2005 • 2 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

2002), the White River (Cope and Morris 2004), and Gold Creek, a tributary to Lake Koocanusa (Cope and Morris 2005b) as well as an upper Kootenay River basin-wide radio telemetry project (Westover and Heidt 2004).

1.1 Objectives At each permanent index site (n=3), over three consecutive years, juvenile fish densities, stream habitat conditions and detailed geomorphic surveys were documented. The objective of this project was to develop a better understanding of inter-annual variation in juvenile bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout recruitment and the ongoing hydrologic and morphologic processes in the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, especially as they relate to spawning and rearing habitat quality. Data was collected in a compatible manner for companion studies of sympatric fish populations within the Wigwam River and Skookumchuck Creek watersheds. The data for these watersheds will contribute to the development of a long-term monitoring and stock assessment program for the upper Kootenay River bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout populations, that should ensure potential impacts from increased development and angling pressure are minimized.

1.2 Study Area The White River originates in the Height of the Rockies Wilderness Area (HOTR), located along the western edge of the continental divide between the Park and Front Ranges of the southern Rocky Mountains in southeastern British Columbia. The upper basin of the White River is divided into three large forks. The North Fork White River and the Middlefork White River flow south approximately 40 km until they join the East Fork of the White River (Figure 1). At this junction, the White River flows west for approximately 10 km. At Whiteswan Provincial Park the river turns north for its final 34 km until it empties into the upper Kootenay River, approximately 30 km north of the village of Canal Flats (Figure 1). The headwaters of the White River drainage originate from glacier fed alpine lakes at an elevation of approximately 2,440 m and declines to 910 m.

Provincial management objectives for the White River are protection of bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout spawning areas and angler use of wild fish. Bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout are the primary management species and are highly sought after by local, regional and international anglers. A local commercial guiding industry caters to recreational fishermen targeting these fish.

March 2005 • 3 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

The White River is characterized by long, narrow, forested valleys running through the rugged Rocky Mountains. Elevated layers of limestone dominate the geology. Three biogeoclimatic zones dominate the valleys; Montane Spruce at lower elevations, Engelmann Spruce and Sub alpine fir at middle elevations, and alpine tundra at higher elevations (above approximately 2300 m).

In 1936, a forest fire burned much of the HOTR. In 2003, a wildfire again burned much of the HOTR and the upper Middlefork White River. Subsequent to the 2003 wildfire, salvage logging has been completed downstream of the HOTR boundary. Prior to the 2003 salvage operation, approximately 29 km2 or 9.35% of the total watershed (310 km2) has been harvested (Hundal 2001). Historic logging within the Middlefork White River drainage concentrated on the floodplain and low elevation stands, and as a result, 6% of the fish bearing stream banks had been logged or burned prior to the 2003 salvage operation (Hundal 2001).

The White River has a total watershed area of 987 km2. The flow regime is comparable to most interior streams with high annual run-off reaching it’s peak in June or July and expected low flows in late fall and winter (Figure 2).

100

90 Mean Minimum 80 Maximum 70 /s) 3 60

50

40

Discharge (m 30

20

10

0 JFMAMJJASOND Month

Figure 2. Mean, minimum, and maximum monthly discharge for the White River near Canal Flats, 1940-1948 (WSC Stn No. 08NF003).

March 2005 • 4 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

2 Methods In July 2003, two permanent sampling sites were established in the Middlefork White River, and one permanent sampling site was established in Blackfoot Creek (Cope 2004). The UTM coordinates for the upstream and downstream limits of the longitudinal survey, the pool and riffle cross-sectional survey habitat units and the electrofishing sample sites were overlain on the digital NAD 83 Forest Cover TRIM Sheet and plotted (Appendix A, 1:40,000 TRIM map).

Sampling sites were a minimum of 20 channel widths in length or a distance equal to two stream meander wavelengths. At each site the following reference points were permanently established, geo-referenced (UTM) and marked with a combination of metal tree tag, tree blaze, fluorescent tree paint, and flagging tape:

• Upstream and downstream elevation benchmarks (elevation benchmarks were represented by a lag bolt imbedded in the base of a large, stable, riparian tree).

• Upstream and downstream limits of the longitudinal survey.

• Riffle and pool cross-sectional benchmarks (lag bolt imbedded in the base of a riparian tree) and bank “pins” representing the start and finish reference points.

• Electrofishing habitat units.

The following methods outline the specific assessments completed at each of the three permanently established sites.

2.1 Juvenile Enumeration Estimates of juvenile fish density (number of fish/100 m2) were determined using closed, maximum-likelihood removal estimates (Riley and Fausch 1992). For each site, three habitat units (riffle, pool and glide) were individually sampled for fish densities over 100 lineal meters and/or 500 m2. This methodology allows for habitat unit comparisons as well as reach comparisons through pooling of habitat units to obtain a mean. A Smith-Root Mark 12POW backpack electroshocker was used for successive depletions within each closed sample unit. Although bull trout are the main focus of this project, densities of all fish captured were reported.

Catch results from individual habitat units were summed, by pass, at each representative reach location. These results were then used to estimate the number of fry (0+ age class) and juveniles (1+ and 2+ age classes) within the composite enclosure area. Population

March 2005 • 5 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

estimates were calculated using the “Microfish” software package (Van Deventer and Platts 1990). Population estimates and their 95% confidence interval were then reported as a standard numerical density (number fish/100 m2) for each site.

During electrofishing surveys, stream discharge was estimated at each location using a Price 1210AA velocity meter and wading rod calibrated bi-annually by the National Calibration Service of the National Water research Institute. All methods meet national and provincial standards and have demonstrated precision levels of less than +/- 5% (Prince and Morris 2003).

2.2 Fish Habitat Assessment A standard suite of habitat parameters were collected using the Resource Inventory Committee (RIC) approved Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures (FHAP), Level 1, Form 4 - Habitat Survey Data Form (Johnston and Slaney 1996). The level 1 FHAP is a purposive field survey of current habitat conditions for the target species in select reaches. This form has been developed for interpretation of habitat sensitivity and capability for fish production and includes prominent physical features such as pool and riffle ratios, residual pool depths, channel stability, flood indicators, cover components, abundance of large woody debris (LWD) and riparian vegetation.

Applying methods described in Rosgen (1996), the following measurement of channel profile, pattern and dimension were also completed:

• A longitudinal profile (minimum of 20 channel widths in length or a distance equal to two stream meander wavelengths) of the stream bed following the thalweg of the stream channel including measurement of water surface (slope) and bankfull elevations.

• Stream cross-sections on both a riffle and pool segment (stream bed, water surface, thalweg and bankfull elevations).

• Channel pattern (width flood prone area, sinuosity, belt width, meander length and radius of curvature).

• Modified Wolman pebble count (reach and active channel at a riffle).

At 10 m intervals, following the thalweg of the stream channel, the elevation of the streambed and the water surface was surveyed over the length of the study area. All stream and habitat unit gradients were calculated from differences in water surface

March 2005 • 6 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

elevation. Cross sectional profiles were surveyed at 1 m intervals and extended 5 m beyond the bankfull width. The elevation of the bankfull channel was also noted at each cross section location and periodically throughout the longitudinal survey. Geomorphic surveys were completed using an auto level (Topcon AT-G7 Auto Level) and standard differential hydrometric survey techniques (Anon. 1998). A differential loop was used to accurately determine benchmark elevations, express error terms and ensure quality control.

Channel bed material characterization employed the modified Wolman method outlined in Rosgen (1996). Briefly, this procedure uses a stratified, systematic sampling method based on the frequency of riffle/pools and step/pools occurring within a channel reach that is approximately 20-30 bankfull channel widths in length (or two meander wavelengths). The modified method adjusts the material sampling locations so that various bed features are sampled on a proportional basis along a given stream reach. In total, 10 transects are established and 10 substrate particles are selected at systematic intervals across the bankfull channel width, for a total sample size of 100. To avoid potential bias, the actual particle was selected on the first blind touch, rather than visually selected. The intermediate axis of the particle was measured such that the particle size selected would be retained or pass a standard sieve of fixed opening. The composite particle distribution was used to represent the reach. A second modified Wolman pebble count was completed within the active channel (i.e. within the wetted width), at the representative riffle cross-section, to calculate D84. The D84 estimate was then used as a roughness coefficient in velocity calculations (Appendix G).

March 2005 • 7 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

3 Results

The sampling schedule for the 2003-05 fish and fish habitat-monitoring program is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Schedule of program field components for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program, 2003-2005.

Program 2003 2004 2005 Component

Establishment July 25 July 16 N/a Sample Sites and Site Reviews

Juvenile Fish August 8-10 August 16-18 August 14-16 Density Sampling

Level 1 FHAP September 18 – September 27 – August 17 – Form 4 October 1 October 14 September 18 Measurements and Channel Surveys

3.1 Juvenile Fish Sampling

3.1.1 Species Composition and Distribution In total, 172 bull trout and two slimy sculpins were captured within 9 habitat units sampled across three index sites (Appendix B). Table 2 summarizes the 2005 sample effort and total catch for each index site. Note that sites one and two are located in the Middlefork of the White River and site 3 represents Blackfoot Creek.

Table 2. Total effort and catch for the two Middlefork White River and one Blackfoot Creek (Site 3) bull trout index sites, 2005. Note that the catch denoted by brackets includes the non-salmonid catch.

Site Electrofishing Sample Total Catch Effort (seconds) Area (m2) (No. Fish) 1 7,843 415 81(82) 2 6,276 752 20(21) 3 7,352 458 71 Total 21,471 1,625 172(174)

March 2005 • 8 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

There was very small decrease in the total catch across the three years of study (Table 3). This was consistent with a corresponding decrease in electrofishing effort (seconds) across the three years of study. The 2005 increase in sample area reflects the addition of open site electrofishing within the site 2 side-channel that was necessary to confirm juvenile bull trout rearing.

Table 3. Total effort and catch for the 2003 to 2005 sample programs. Note that the non- salmonid catch has been included in the totals denoted by brackets.

Year Electrofishing Sample Total Catch Effort (seconds) Area (m2) (No. Fish) 2003 24,654 1,325 181 (182) 2004 22,871 1,445 178 (179) 2005 21,471 1,625 172(174)

In 2005, all captures were bull trout with the exception of two slimy sculpin captured in Site 1 and 2. Table 4 provides a summary of catch by species, and maturity class, for each index site.

Table 4. Catch composition for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek (Site 3) juvenile bull trout monitoring program, 2005.

Site BT Fry BT Juv. BT Adult WCT Fry. WCT Adult MW CCG Total adult 1 71 10 1 82 2 16 4 1 21 3 58 9 4 71 Totals 145 23 4 2 174

Bull trout were the dominant salmonid species encountered, representing 98.9% of the total catch. Bull trout fry were the target species and life stage and as such, their predominance in the catch composition reflects bias associated with site selection for this capture target. A total of 145 bull trout (BT) fry representing 83.3% of the catch, and 23 bull trout juveniles representing 13.2% of the catch, were captured during the sample period of August 14 to 16, 2005. Additional salmonid catch was composed of 4 adult bull trout (2.3%) holding in the pool habitat unit of Blackfoot Creek (Table 4). Non-salmonid catch was represented by two slimy sculpin (CCG) (1.1%).

March 2005 • 9 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Inter-annual comparison (Table 5) illustrates the consistency in bull trout fry and juvenile captures.

Table 5. Catch composition for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout monitoring program, 2003 - 2005.

Year BT Fry BT Juv. BT Adult WCT WCT MW CCG Total Fry. Adult Adult 2003 154 27 0 0 0 0 1 182 2004 146 25 2 1 2 2 1 179 2005 145 23 4 2 174

3.1.2 Bull Trout Bull trout fry (n=145) and juveniles (n=23) were captured in all sample sites. In total, 172 bull trout were sampled for life history information. With the exception of four adult bull trout in Blackfoot Creek, all captured bull trout were fry or juveniles. The adult bull trout captures consisted of two pre-spawning males and two females (FL 500 - 640 mm). These fish were netted from the exclusion area and released prior to the initiation of electrofishing operations. Adult bull trout are a non- targeted age class of this study and thus are not included in further analysis.

Fry and juvenile bull trout ranged in fork length from 38 mm to 166 mm and the modal class, in 10 mm intervals, was 50-59 mm (Figure 3). This size class represents the young- of-the-year cohort (fry, 0+). The relative proportions of age classes comprising the total bull trout catch were 86.3% fry (0+), 13.1% age group 1+ juveniles and 0.6% age group 2+ juveniles.

Mean fork lengths of each age class estimate were 51.0 mm (0+), 99.6 mm (1+) and 166 mm (2+). The corresponding mean weights for bull trout age classes were 1.3 g, 9.8 g and 45.5 g, respectively (Table 6). Fry captures were slightly smaller, on average, in 2003 (47.3 mm F.L., 1.16 g) than the 2004 and 2005 results. This was most likely due to the earlier date of sampling in 2003 (Table 1).

The growth rate of juvenile bull trout in the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek study area was described by the equation:

Log10Weight = -5.1335 + 3.060037 Log10Length (Figure 4).

March 2005 • 10 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

80 0+ 1+ 2+ 70 60 50 40

Frequency 30 20 10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Fork Length (mm)

Figure 3. Length frequency distribution and estimated age cohorts for Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout, August 2005.

Table 6. Summary of fork length and weight data collected from bull trout fry and juveniles captured within the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, August 2005.

Age-Group 0+ 1+ 2+ Mean Fork Length (mm) 51.0 99.6 166 95% Confidence Interval 0.9 5.6 Range 38-64 74-130 N 145 22 1

Mean Weight (g) 1.3 9.8 45.5 95% Confidence Interval 0.1 1.7 Range 0.6-2.6 4.2-21.3 N 144 22 1

March 2005 • 11 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

2

Log10Weight=-5.1335+3.060037Log10Length r2=0.98 1.5 n=167

1

0.5 Log Weight (g)

0 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3

-0.5 Log Fork Length (mm)

Figure 4. Length-weight regression for bull trout fry and juveniles captured within the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, August 2005.

The overall mean density of fry and juvenile bull trout combined was 11.0 fish/100 m2 (95% confidence interval 10.3 – 11.6 fish/100 m2). The overall mean density of fry was estimated to be 9.5 fish/100 m2 (95% confidence interval 8.9 – 10.2 fish/100 m2), and the overall mean density of juvenile bull trout was estimated to be 1.4 fish/100 m2 (95% confidence interval 1.3 – 1.5 fish/100 m2). The overall density of bull trout fry and juveniles has declined significantly since the initial 2003 sample year (Table 7). Table 7 illustrates the overall decrease was due to the significant decrease observed at site 1. It is of interest to note that site 1 is located 3.5 km downstream from the 2003 wildfire that burned much of the upper Middlefork White River (10,708 ha, BCMOF 2003).

The increased densities at site 2 are not consistent with the decrease observed in site 1. This was due to changes in sample strategy and sample methods for this persistently low- density site. Additional side-channel habitat was “high-graded” in 2005 using open-site sample methods. This was done in an effort to better understand juvenile distribution and habitat use patterns but appears to have introduced positive sample bias. Site 3 (Blackfoot Creek) is located in a sub-basin not impacted by the Middlefork Wildfire.

March 2005 • 12 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Table 7. Mean density estimates (+/- 95% confidence interval) for fry and juvenile bull trout combined, at three permanent sample sites, within the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, 2003 and 2004.

Density (+/- 95% C.I.) fish/100 m2 Site 2003 2004 2005 Middlefork White 36.3 (26.9 – 46.5) 30.2 (26.4 – 34.3) 21.0 (18.9 – 23.0 ) River – Site 1 Middlefork White 1.5 (1.5 – 1.7) 0.4 (n/a) a 2.7 (2.5 – 2.8) River – Site 2 Blackfoot Creek – 14.7 (13.3 – 16.6) 11.6 (11.1 – 12.7) 15.3 (14.0 – 16.6) Site 3 Mean 16.6 (14.2 – 19.0) 13.1 (12.0 – 14.3) 11.0 (10.3 – 11.6) a – Note that in 2004 the small sample size (n=1) precluded analyses.

3.2 Physical Habitat Monitoring

3.2.1 Water Temperature and Discharge Discharge estimates within the index sites, during habitat sampling, ranged from 8.87 to 0.95 m3/s (Table 8). These sample flows were intermediate between the previous two years.

Table 8. Summary of water temperature, mean velocity, and discharge measurements for the index sites during the 2003 and 2004 sample periods.

Water Mean Discharge Site Date Temp. Velocity (m3/s)

(oC) (m/s) Middlefork White River 10 August, 2003 8.7 0.86 8.52 Site 1 17 August, 2004 7.8 1.03 9.70 15 August, 2005 8.1 0.88 8.87

Middlefork White River 9 August, 2003 6.2 0.62 7.14 Site 2a 16 August, 2004 8.2 0.72 9.00 14 August 2005 7.7 0.69 8.49

Blackfoot Creek 8 August, 2003 11.2 0.41 0.71 Site 3 18 August, 2004 9.8 0.42 0.91 16 August, 2005 7.1 0.53 0.95

a 2003 discharge values are under estimated due to the inclusion of the discharge of a major side channel in 2004, discovered after discharge measurement in 2003.

March 2005 • 13 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Figure 5 clearly illustrates the moderately high sample flows in 2005 were due to groundwater saturation from the extremely wet June, maintained by above average flows in August through October.

200 2003 180 2004 160 2005 140 Average (1971-2000)

120

100

80 Rainfall (mm)

60

40

20

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 5. Monthly rainfall for 2003 - 2005 and historical mean monthly rainfall (1971-2000) measured at the Cranbrook airport, Meteorological Service of Canada Climate Station ID 1152102.

Bankfull discharge was estimated from flood frequency analysis using maximum instantaneous discharge recorded at the White River Water Survey of Canada (WSC) Hydrometric Station (08NF003) near Canal Flats (Figure 6). Due to the limited number of observations (n=7), and the dated nature of the source data (1941-47), this analysis was supplemented with a hydrologic analysis of the Palliser River (08NF006). The Palliser River is immediately north of the White River, also flows in a westerly direction into the Kootenay River, has a drainage area of 653 km2, and was gauged from 1973 to 1994 (n=22).

The bankfull discharge estimates for the study area above the WSC gauges were transferred using the following equation:

Site Discharge = WSC Gauge Discharge * (Area Above Site/Area Above Gauge)^0.75

Table 9 illustrates the bounds of the expected bankfull discharge (i.e. between 1 and 2 year flood frequency) for the permanent index sites.

March 2005 • 14 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

1000.0 White River Palliser River Y=-0.653x + 118.2 Y=-0.752x + 143.5 2 r2=0.988 r =0.69 n=7 n=22 /s) 3

100.0 Discharge (m

White R. Palliser R. Linear (White R.) Linear (Palliser R.)

10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Frequency (%)

Figure 6. Flood-frequency analysis using maximum instantaneous discharge for the White and Palliser Rivers.

Table 9. Discharge estimates for the range of potential bankfull discharges based on the historical maximum instantaneous discharge for the White and Palliser Rivers and the bankfull discharge estimate derived from the cross-sectional data (see Appendix F and G).

Discharge Estimate (m3/s) Flood Gauge Site Site 1(202 km2) Site 2(192 km2) Site 3a(85 km2) Freq. White Palliser White Palliser X-Sect. White Palliser X-Sect. White Palliser X-Sect. 1:2 85.6 105.9 26.1 43.9 25.1 42.3 13.6 22.9 1:1.5 74.7 93.3 22.7 38.7 33.8 21.9 37.3 33.9 11.9 20.2 9.6 1:1 52.9 68.3 16.1 28.3 15.5 27.3 8.4 14.8 a – Note that there was no historical discharge record for Blackfoot Creek and the area based extrapolation using the White and Palliser Rivers data was applied.

The Palliser River data appears to provide a reasonable bankfull discharge estimate when compared to the bankfull discharge estimate derived from the cross-sectional data. In addition, a hydrometric station was installed for one season (1999) just downstream of Site one (Nanrich 2000 in Hundal 2001). The maximum instantaneous discharge recorded for that year was 36 m3/s. The drainage area at this site was approximately 228 km2. Blackfoot Creek appears to be over-estimated by the Palliser River data and this is due to it’s location

March 2005 • 15 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

at the southern limit of the study area (Figure 1). The unit discharge estimate (m3/s/km2) increases for each successive watershed in a northward direction (i.e. White

Spot temperatures during electrofishing were indicative of glacial headwaters and/or cold perennial springs preferred by bull trout (<12 oC; Table 8). Peak daily water temperatures (spot temperatures taken at approximately 16:00 hrs) were approximately 6 to 9 oC in the Middlefork sites and 7 to 11 oC in the Blackfoot Creek site.

3.2.2 Substrate Pebble Counts

Mean size of sediment particles less than six percent categories (i.e. D16, D35, D50, D65, D84,

D95) are provided for the 2003 to 2005 pebble counts. Both the active channel in a riffle and the reach composite within the bankfull channel are presented for the three index sites (Table 10). The index sites differed substantially; Site two was gravel dominated, Site one gravel and cobble fractions were co-dominant and Site three was cobble dominated with a high boulder fraction (Appendix D).

Inter-annual variation was directly related to substrate diversity (Blackfoot > Site 1 > Site 2) and was predominantly attributed to sample variation. These results suggest the modified Wolman method may be appropriate for channel classification, however given that this method has a low sensitivity for detecting change McNeil core sample analyses are a more appropriate method for evaluation of inter-annual trends (Tepper 2003).

Coincidently, the gravel dominated Site two had the lowest substrate diversity and extremely low densities of bull trout fry or juveniles, even though spawning activity within Site two was comparable to Site one. The cobble and gravel dominated Site one provided significantly higher fry densities and the cobble-boulder dominated Blackfoot Creek (Site three) had significantly higher juvenile bull trout densities.

March 2005 • 16 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Table 10. Summary of substrate pebble counts for the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek index sites, 2003-2005. Middlefork Site 1 Middlefork Site 2 Blackfoot Site 3 Reach Active Reach Active Reach Active D16(mm) 2003 13.3 24.9 0.6 2.7 23.9 24.5 2004 8.0 22.0 4.3 3.3 13.3 20.6 2005 18.4 32.0 2.3 2.7 19.4 20.6

D35(mm) 2003 41.4 48.9 6.5 7.8 46.8 53.7 2004 49.1 49.1 12.5 7.6 45.0 60.1 2005 38.1 55.4 10.7 8.5 53.7 60.1

D50(mm) 2003 60.9 62.9 13.2 13.5 75.7 86.7 2004 67.2 67.7 18.1 12.0 68.5 79.4 2005 55.4 75.9 16.2 14.2 83.7 79.4

D65 2003 79 94 24 21 108 125 2004 86 90 25 18 113 114 2005 79 100 26 20 122 114

D84 2003 119 138 37 33 154 169 2004 123 131 38 30 188 188 2005 123 134 43 32 197 188

D95 2003 173 191 44 48 257 230 2004 169 175 54 46 304 312 2005 181 176 58 48 318 312

3.2.3 Channel Surveys

Channel longitudinal and cross sectional profiles were completed for each of the sample stations and were presented in Appendix D. Detailed quantitative summaries are presented in the Stream Classification Form (Appendix E), the Reference Reach Data Summary Form (Appendix F) and the Velocity Calculation Form (Appendix G). The following summarizes the general channel features noted with associated representative photographs. Inter- annual comparisons of select channel survey features are provided in the following section (3.2.4 Fish Habitat Surveys).

March 2005 • 17 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Middlefork White River Site 1

In 2003 (D50 = 60.9 mm) and 2005 (D50 = 55.4 mm) this site was classified as a C4(1)

Rosgen stream type and in 2004 (D50 = 67.2 mm) this classification changed to C3(1) (Figures 7 and 8). This was not due to any change in conditions but due to the gravel and cobble composition of bed materials that results in a D50 particle size that varies around the gravel-cobble cut-off of 64 mm. The (1) designation refers to the presence of bedrock outcrops.

In 2003, the channel within the riffle flood prone area was assessed as not being hydraulically connected, and was not included in the calculation of bankfull channel width or cross-sectional area. This resulted in inconsistencies with regards to cross-sectional area and predicted bankfull discharge between sites one and two. Furthermore, it was realized that a side-channel existed at the pool cross-section location and that this was not included in the 2003 survey. This resulted in additional inconsistencies in cross-sectional area within site one. Based on these findings, it was determined that the channel in the flood prone area was hydraulically connected at flows approaching bankfull elevation but that a logjam at the inlet moderated velocities and scour potential. As a result, the cross- sectional area and bankfull width increased from 18.9 m2 and 26.1 m to 26.2 m2 and 43.0 m, respectively. Since the 2004 longitudinal survey, a new pool was formed at the 260 m location by the cross-channel accumulation of large woody debris at this site. This resulted in some localized scour between 253 m and 320 m. The channel slope (0.4%) and the flood-prone width (190 m) remain unchanged.

This site was representative of the upper Middlefork White River “preferred” bull trout spawning and rearing habitat. Site one was noted for its habitat and substrate heterogeneity, high LWD frequency, high channel sinuosity and high pool frequency. This site was also noted for spawning substrate, groundwater infiltration and stability. In large part, the exceptional stream stability can be attributed to the extensive, relatively intact floodplain dominated by old-growth forest and relic channels. Notwithstanding the identified stability, the cumulative impacts of historic clearcuts to the streambank at this location, and the impacts from the 2003 wildfire and subsequent salvage logging immediately upstream, are a concern for this important bull trout spawning and rearing area.

March 2005 • 18 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Figure 7. Upstream view of the representative riffle cross-section, Site 1, Middlefork White River, 2005.

Figure 8. Upstream view of the representative pool cross-section, Site 1, Middlefork White River, 2005.

March 2005 • 19 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Middlefork White River Site 2

Site two was classified as a C4 Rosgen stream type (Figures 9 and 10). Although this site was representative of the upper Middlefork White River bull trout spawning habitat, and the gravel substrate provided excellent spawning habitat, the homogeneous nature of the substrates (absence of cobble and boulder fractions), result in poor fry and juvenile rearing habitat. However, this site was noted for its high LWD frequency, high pool frequency and high channel sinuosity. These features provide exceptionally high quality bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout sub-adult and adult rearing and holding habitat. The channel slope was 0.2%.

In 2003, the cross-sectional area for the representative riffle within this site was over- estimated and the channel width was under-estimated. This was due to the cross-sectional transect intersecting the side-channel at a deep pool location. Pool habitat typically has a narrower channel width and a higher cross-sectional area. In 2004, the side-channel cross- section was off-set 30 m upstream to a typical riffle and surveyed as an independent unit. The sum of the main-channel riffle and side-channel riffle were then used to more accurately represent the cross-sectional area. This resulted in a decrease in cross- sectional area from 26 m2 to 25.5 m2 and an increase in bankfull channel width from 31.6 m to 34.5 m. These results were replicated in 2005, although there was a very minor amount of scour to the gravel bar on river right at the riffle cross-section (main-channel site).

Since the 2004 longitudinal survey, there has been some LWD movement in the 240 m to 300 m location that has added to the cross-channel logjam at this location. This resulted in the addition of two pool habitat units. In addition, there has been some bank erosion at river left 400 m due to the large cross-channel logjam at this location. These changes in LWD distribution and bank erosion have resulted in some localized scour and deposition that was observed in the longitudinal survey between 230 m – 400 m.

Site two had an extensive flood-prone width of 297 m that occupied the entire valley bottom. The flood prone area was extremely wet, with numerous side-channels, sloughs and bogs and was predominately over-mature (i.e. old-growth) spruce forest with a tremendous amount of deadfall. In large part, the exceptional stream stability can be attributed to the extensive, intact floodplain dominated by old-growth forest and relic channels. The cumulative impacts resulting from the 2003 wildfire and subsequent salvage logging immediately upstream of this site are a concern for this important spawning area.

March 2005 • 20 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Figure 9 . Upstream view of the representative riffle cross-section, Site 2, Middlefork White River, 2005. Note the 2003 wildfire boundary and salvage logging in the background.

Figure 10. Cross-channel view of the representative pool cross-section, Site 2, Middlefork White River, 2005.

March 2005 • 21 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Blackfoot Creek Site 3

The headwaters of this tributary were burned by wildfire and some historic salvage logging has occurred. The index site was located at the downstream limit of the wildfire and the west streambank was salvage logged to the streambank. A large input of coarse sediment from excessive bank erosion and high gradient tributaries was observed. Avalanches have periodically deposited coarse sediment across the valley bottom, temporarily damming the entire channel. The channel slope was 1.5% and bankfull width was 15.3 m, within a flood- prone width of 147 m.

As a result of infilling, the higher width to depth ratio results in chute cutoffs across large point bars that begin down cutting into a steeper entrenched gully. Subsequently, this results in excessive bank erosion as the channel attempts to decrease stream slope and build a new floodplain by increasing sinuosity and belt width. An increase in sinuosity and belt width can only be accomplished by lateral extension. This process of lateral extension results in predictable, excessive, bank erosion.

It was hypothesized that the Blackfoot Creek index site was at this early stage of recovery, where the channel dimension, pattern and profile were undergoing a successional evolution from an F3 stream type to a C3 stream type (Figure 11 and 12). Infilled and abandoned meanders were clearly visible, as were the chute cutoffs and over-steepened and eroding stream banks. Currently, the over-widened bed of the F3 stream type is now the elevation of the new floodplain for the C3 stream type, which gradually incises, reducing the width to depth ratio and increasing the entrenchment ratio. Since 2003, the observed width to depth ratio has decreased from 37.1 to 32.7 and the observed entrenchment ratio has increased from 9.4 to 10.3.

Despite the degraded stream channel of the Blackfoot Creek index site, it still maintains bull trout spawning habitat and high densities of rearing juveniles. This was attributed to two dominant features preferred by spawning and rearing bull trout. First, the high densities of juvenile bull trout are due to the very coarse “bony” substrate of large cobbles and small boulders. Bull trout juveniles are benthic orientated and the streambed of Blackfoot Creek provides abundant, high quality interstitial cover habitat preferred by juvenile bull trout. Secondly, the narrow alluvial floodplain that is bounded by steep mountain slopes has contributed to a predominance of sub-surface flow that reaches the mainstem as groundwater.

March 2005 • 22 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Figure 11. Downstream view of the representative riffle cross-section, Site 3, Blackfoot Creek, 2005.

Figure 12. Upstream view of the representative pool cross-section, Site 3, Blackfoot Creek, 2005.

March 2005 • 23 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

3.2.4 Fish Habitat Survey The Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) is a purposive field survey of current habitat conditions for the target species in select reaches. In this study, the Level 1 FHAP Form 4 was completed for the representative sample sites (two meander wavelengths) within the selected reaches. The output of the WRP data reporting tool are presented in Appendix C and have been archived for long-term trend monitoring. Generic diagnostic data have been summarized as descriptors of present habitat condition (Table 11). For consistency in comparisons across years the main-channel bankfull width for Site two was used (i.e. the side-channel discovered and added to bankfull width in 2004 was not included in 2004 calculations).

Cover components utilized by juvenile and adult bull trout and cutthroat trout were interstices, LWD, boulder, depth and overhead vegetation. The predominant cover utilized by fry and juvenile bull trout was substrate (interstices).

Note that regional criteria for habitat conditions do not exist and current WRP diagnostic criteria to evaluate habitat condition are exclusive of bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout data. Notwithstanding these limitations, juvenile fish densities and diagnostic data indicate high quality habitat ratings for Sites one and two, and a high quality but somewhat degraded (poor) habitat rating for Blackfoot Creek (Site three). Site one contained high value spawning and juvenile rearing habitat with abundant LWD and holding pools for adults. Site two contained abundant spawning substrate and high quality adult holding habitat with abundant LWD, but poor juvenile rearing capability. Blackfoot Creek contained abundant spawning substrate and excellent interstitial habitat for rearing juveniles. Scour potential was high however, and adult holding habitat was limited.

Comparisons of key annual habitat diagnostics data (2003-2005) for the index sites are provided for trend monitoring and to illustrate inter-annual variation (Table 12). In 2004, the observed changes in habitat diagnostics were primarily due to increased site familiarity and experience that was gained in the first year of study. In 2005, changes to channel pattern and profile were associated with minor changes to LWD accumulation and distribution. These changes were most likely the result of the above average precipitation in June 2005 (Figure 5). In 2005, a laser rangefinder was used to estimate bankfull channel width of habitat units, as opposed to calibrated visual estimates in 2003 and 2004.

March 2005 • 24 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Table 11. Diagnostics of salmonid habitat condition at the reach level for Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek, 2005 (from Johnston and Slaney 1996). Note that the individual cell format represents value/ratingA, B. Habitat Parameter Pool Pool LWD % % % Substrate Off- Holding Spawning Spawning Redd % Frequency Pieces Wood Boulder Over- Rearing Channel Pools (> 1 Gravel Gravel Scour (by (mean per Cover Cover in head Habitat Habitat m deep, Quantity Quality Potential area) spacing) Bankfull in Riffles Cover (interstitial (< 3% good Channel Pools rating) gradient) cover) Width Site 1 21.3 5.3 19.5 17 2.5 2.9 Clear Abundant Frequent Frequent Suitable Stable Middlefork White River P P G F P P G G G G G G Site 2 53.3 4.0 19.2 37 0 0 Interstices Abundant Abundant Frequent Sand Stable Middlefork Filled sub-dom. White River F F G G P P P G G G F G Site 3 22.0 3.9 11.3 26 2.5 3.6 Clear Limited Few Frequent Suitable Scour Blackfoot Creek. F F G G P P G P P G G P A Note: regional standards are not available and diagnostic ratings (G – good, F – fair, P – poor) are generalized ratings from Johnston and Slaney (1996) for streams with a bankfull channel width of less than 15 m. B Note: two representative meander lengths were surveyed, not the entire reach.

March 2005 • 25 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Table 12. Inter-annual comparison of select habitat condition diagnostics from the Level 1 FHAP Habitat Survey Data Form 4 (Johnston and Slaney 1996) for permanent index sites.

Mean Mean No. Pool Total LWD % % Bankfull Max. Mean Pools % Freq. Func.Pieces/ Wood Boulder Mean ChannelBankfull Water Within Pool (pool LWD Bankfull Cover Cover % Gradient Width Depth Depth Sample Habitat Spacing Tally Channelin in Overhead

Site Year (%) (m) (m) (m) Reach (area) /Wb) Width PoolsRiffles Cover D84 1 2003 0.402 22.3 1.38 0.79 5 15.9 7.1 355 11.8 13 1.3 0 119 2004 0.409 21.2 1.46 1.01 5 15.9 7.5 548 16.6 11 2 0 123 2005 0.417 24.0 1.40 0.94 6 21.3 5.3 543 19.5 17 2.5 2.9 123

2 2003 0.208 24.1 1.62 0.99 5 50.1 4.1 433 18.5 31 0 0 37 2004 0.197 24.8 1.60 0.98 4 61.7 5.3 452 19.6 24 0 0 38 2005 0.211 25.3 1.55 0.97 5 53.3 4.0 441 19.2 37 0 0 43

3 2003 1.518 14.3 0.88 0.47 6 21.6 5.0 96 6.8 26 9.2 0.6 154 2004 1.504 19.8 0.89 0.56 6 28.3 3.6 126 10.7 28 3.3 2.5 188 2005 1.513 21.3 1.03 0.54 5 22.0 3.9 126 11.3 26 2.5 3.6 188

March 2003 • 26 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

4 Discussion The 2005 project year represents the final year of a three-year bull trout-monitoring program focused on collecting baseline information within the White River watershed. Relative to co-existing species, bull trout densities are typically low, and most broad faunal surveys indicate less than 5% of the total catch is made up of bull trout (McPhail and Baxter 1996, Reiman and McIntyre 1995). Bull trout represented 98.9% of the catch in the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek index sites. This was consistent with comparative juvenile bull trout studies in the Wigwam River (Cope 2003b) and Skookumchuck Creek (Cope and Morris 2005a). Bull trout fry dominated the catch as site selection was biased towards this capture target.

In 2005, the mean density of fry and juvenile bull trout combined was 11.0 fish/100m2. The overall density of bull trout fry and juveniles has declined significantly over the three-years of study (Table 13). While the general trend in abundance across index sites was consistent, the overall decrease in abundance was due to the significant decrease observed at site 1 (Table 7).

Table 13. Comparison of bull trout fry and juvenile density estimates for the three most important upper Kootenay River bull trout spawning tributaries.

Watershed Year Mean Density Reference (+/- 95% Confidence Interval)

White R. 2005 11.0 (10.3 – 11.6) 2004 13.1 (12.0 – 14.3) Cope and Morris 2005c 2003 16.6 (14.2 – 19.0) Cope 2004b Skookumchuck Cr. 2004 7.1 (6.1 – 8.4) Cope and Morris 2005a 2003 9.1 (8.2 – 10.2) Cope 2004a 2002 6.6 (5.9 – 7.3) Cope 2003a Wigwam R. 2002 12.7 (11.5 – 14.0) Cope 2003b 2001 20.7 (18.1 – 24.0) Cope et. al. 2002 2000 17.2 (14.7 – 21.6) Cope and Morris 2001 1997 14.9 (12.4 – 18.1) Cope 1998

The significant decrease in fry and juvenile densities was consistent with escapement trends (i.e. redd surveys within the index sites; Figure 13). The number of bull trout redds

March 2005 • 27 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

enumerated within the Middlefork River and Blackfoot Creek index sites declined annually from 261 (2002) to 239 (2003) and finally 184 (2004).

It is of interest to note that the largest decrease in escapement and recruitment was observed in the Middlefork index sites located immediately downstream (see Figure 9) from the 2003 wildfire that burned much of the upper Middlefork White River (10,708 ha, BCMOF 2003). During the 2003-firefighting operations, there were anecdotal reports of a fish kill that included adult bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout. The timing of the Middlefork wildfire coincided with the pre-spawning period when bull trout are present on the spawning grounds and holding in pools and LWD cover. Trends in escapement were consistent with a significant, short-term loss to the spawning population of Middlefork White River bull trout (approximately 20-30%). This decline appears short lived however, as the number of redds enumerated in 2005 increased to 243. Based on this index of escapement, fry and juvenile densities are expected to improve to 2004 levels in 2006.

2000 Wigwam Skookumchuck White (middle fork) 1500

1000 Number of Redds Number 500

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Figure 13. Summary of annual bull trout redd surveys conducted in the White, Wigwam and Skookumchcuck watersheds. Note that in 2002 an index site on Blackfoot Creek was added to the annual redd surveys for the White River.

March 2005 • 28 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Fry and Juvenile bull trout densities observed in the White River index sites were comparable to the upper Wigwam River bull trout spawning reaches (Table 13), and densities of this magnitude are some of the highest reported within the species distribution range (Cope 1998). Within the Flathead River system, areas with combined fry and juvenile densities greater than 1.5 fish per 100 m2 were cited as critical rearing areas (Goetz 1989). Furthermore, the Site one (Middlefork) densities in 2003 were among the highest single site densities reported in the 10 years of sampling for this program. Based on these comparisons, the upper Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek should be considered critical spawning and rearing habitat for the upper Kootenay River population of bull trout.

The range of morphological stream types for the Middlefork White River encompasses the stable and resilient spectrum (C3(1) and C4). The index sites can be generalized as a slightly entrenched, meandering, riffle-pool, gravel-cobble dominated channel with a well developed floodplain. High LWD frequency, high pool frequency and high channel sinuosity provide exceptionally high habitat complexity with high quality bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout spawning and rearing habitat, for all life stages. In large part, the exceptional habitat diversity and stream stability can be attributed to the extensive, intact floodplain, dominated by old-growth forest and relic channels. The results of the habitat assessment concur with the stable stream channel type, and the channel disturbance features noted were infrequent and minor in nature. However, continued monitoring vigilance is recommended due to the concern for possible impacts to fish habitat as a result of the 2003 Middlefork wildfire and subsequent salvage logging immediately upstream of this important bull trout spawning and rearing area.

Blackfoot Creek, in contrast, was considered severely degraded and unstable. The headwaters of this tributary were burned by wildfire and some historic salvage logging has occurred. The index site was located at the downstream limit of the wildfire, the west streambank was salvage logged to the streambank and large inputs of coarse sediment were evident. It was hypothesized that the Blackfoot Creek index site was at an early stage of recovery; however, given the instability of the stream channel, extreme erosion potential of the over-steepened and eroding stream banks and potential for future flood events, there remains a high probability of further degradation and adverse fish habitat impacts.

Despite the degraded nature of the Blackfoot Creek index site, it still maintains bull trout spawning habitat and high densities of rearing juveniles. This was attributed to two dominant features preferred by spawning and rearing bull trout. First, the high densities of juvenile bull trout are due to the very coarse “bony” substrate of large cobbles and small

March 2005 • 29 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

boulders. Bull trout juveniles are benthic orientated and the stream bed of Blackfoot Creek provides abundant, high quality interstitial cover habitat preferred by juvenile bull trout. Secondly, the narrow alluvial floodplain that is bounded by steep mountain slopes has contributed to a predominance of sub-surface flow that reaches the mainstem as groundwater. The provision of suitably sized bed materials in a low gradient, low water velocity location with associated groundwater have been identified as repeating patterns of preferred bull trout spawning habitat.

Maximum summer water temperatures of 14 – 18oC appear to limit bull trout distribution (Baxter and McPhail 1996), and the high water quality of the Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek were reflected in the low maximum summer water temperatures (< 12 oC) and ubiquitous juvenile bull trout distribution.

Trends in fry and juvenile distribution appeared to be related to proximity to spawning areas, bed material size, and water depth. The association of bull trout fry with shallow (5 – 20 cm), low velocity (<0.3 m/s), cobble dominated stream margin habitat has been previously documented within the Wigwam River (Cope 2003b) and Skookumchuck Creek (Cope and Morris 2005c). Cobbles and gravels that provide prime spawning and juvenile rearing habitat dominate the upper Middlefork and Blackfoot Creek. The exception was Site two, where the gravel and sand dominated substrate were clearly not suitable for fry and juvenile rearing. Given that a large number of redds are annually enumerated within this site, a downstream displacement of fry to more suitable benthic cover (cobbles) would explain the very high densities observed at Site one. Cover components utilized by fry and juvenile bull trout were predominantly substrate interstices and, in the case of juveniles, LWD.

5 Recommendations Ongoing impact monitoring is recommended to ensure the protection of the Middlefork White River bull trout spawning and rearing area from possible downstream impacts to fish habitat as a result of the 2003 Middlefork wildfire and subsequent salvage logging. At a minimum, continued annual redd enumeration and substrate monitoring using McNeil core sample analyses are recommended.

March 2005 • 30 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

6 References Anon. 1998. Manual of standard operating procedures for hydrometric surveys in British Columbia. Resource Inventory Branch, BC Environment, Victoria, BC. 168 p + app.

Baxter, J.S. and J.T.A. Baxter. 2002. Summary of the Skookumchuck Creek bull trout enumeration project (2000-2002). Report prepared for Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Report prepared by Baxter Environmental, Nelson, B.C.

Baxter, J.S. and W.T. Westover. 2000. An overview of the Wigwam River bull trout program (1995-1999): Habitat Conservation Trust Fund final report. Fisheries Project Report KO 58, vi+23p.

Baxter, J.S. and J.D. McPhail. 1996. Bull trout spawning and rearing habitat requirements: summary of the literature. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Fort St. John, British Columbia. 108 p.

British Columbia Ministry of Forest and Range, Protection Branch (BCMOF). 2003. Webpage Report. 2003 Fires, 5 Hectares and Over. www.for.gov.bc.ca/Protect/reports/Largefires 2003.htm

Cannings, S.G. 1993. Rare freshwater fish of British Columbia. Conservation Data Centre, Report #1. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection. Victoria, B.C.

Cope, R.S. 2004. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2003 data report. Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 29 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2003a. Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2002 data report (Activity No. 2000-004-00). Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 28 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. 2003b. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2002 data report (Activity No. 2000-004-00). Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 35 pp + 5 app.

Cope, R.S. 1998. Wigwam River fish - forestry study: preliminary surveys (1997). Report Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Nelson, B.C. Prepared by Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd. 52 p. + 4 app.

Cope, R.S. and K. Morris. 2005a. Skookumchuck Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2004 data report. Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 40 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S. and K. Morris. 2005b. Summary of the Gold Creek bull trout enumeration project (2004). Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 16 pp

March 2005 • 31 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Cope, R.S, and K. Morris. 2005c. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2004 data report. Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 32 pp + 7 app.

Cope, R.S., and K. Morris. 2004. Summary of the White River bull trout enumeration project (2003). Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 19 pp

Cope, R.S. and K.J. Morris. 2001. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2000 data report. Report Prepared for B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 33 pp. + 4 app.

Cope, R.S., K. Morris and J.E. Bisset. 2002. Wigwam River juvenile bull trout and fish habitat monitoring program: 2001 data report (Activity No. 2000-004-01). Report Prepared for the Ministry of Land, Water, and Air Protection, Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. 28pp. + 5 app.

Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS). 2002. Webpage- Fisheries Data Warehouse, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource management.

Goetz, F.A. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, a literature review. U.S.D.A., Willamette National Forest, Eugene Oregon. 53 p.

Hundal, L.S. 2001. Restoration plan Middle Fork White River. Report Prepared for Slocan Forest Products Ltd., Radium, B.C. Prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental Limited, Calgary, Alberta. 37 pp. +4 app.

Johnston, N.T. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Fish habitat assessment procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8. Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection and Ministry of Forests. Vancouver, British Columbia. 67 p. + app.

McPhail, J.D. and J. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. B.C. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. 58 p.

Prince, A., and K. Morris. 2003. Upper Wigwam River water quality and quantity monitoring program 2002 data report (Activity No. 01-RIP-FRBC-502). Report prepared for Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C. Prepared by Westslope Fisheries, Cranbrook, B.C. 61 pp. + 3 app.

Reiman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat patches of varied size. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 124: 285-297.

Riley, S.C. and K.D. Fausch. 1992. Under estimation of trout population size by maximum- likelihood removal estimates in small streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgmt. 12: 768-776.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 343 p. + app.

March 2005 • 32 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Tepper, H. 2003. Wigwam River McNeil Substrate Sampling Program: 1998 – 2002 Summary Report. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Lands and Air Protection. 14 p. + 2 app.

Van Deventer, J.S. and W.S. Platts. 1990. Microcomputer software system for generating population statistics from electrofishing data, users guide for Microfish 3.0. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-254. Ogden UT.

Westover, W.T. and K.D. Heidt. 2004. Upper Kootenay River bull trout radio telemetry project (2000-2003). British Columbia Ministry of Water, land and Air Protection, Environmental Stewardship Division, Fish and Wildlife, Kootenay Region, Cranbrook, B.C. 35 p.

March 2005 • 33 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Appendix A

1:50,000 TRIM Map

March 2005 615,000 620,000 625,000 630,000

o e t t k e

I k

k e e r C s a a l K

E

T

C

R

I

r

I

H Longitudinal Profile

e k e e Site No. 2 r C

o V

e o W EF3 k

k a E

Riffle

p

0 EF2 0

0 0 i R 0 0

, ,

5 O' 5 NEIL

7 EF1 7 N PEAK 5 5 , , 5 5

k e Pool e r C 349-666200 -00000

n i l t s C t e r a e s m e t

k a o

K K E

l

k Longitudinal Profile

C Site No. 1 r

k

K e o

k e t s e r a

C e t EF1 s r Riffle

C EF3

N

Pool C s EF2 t r a

O s e t k k o e u K r k k C e e k e A k k o o R a n

e

o W

H

r k T I

T

A E C k e e H r C DOR

MAN m o R

n k o k i A

k

l

E

W

H

h 0 u MT 0

0 k 0

0 o 0

I , FORS , o YTH

0 l 0

7 K 7 K a p

5 e 5 T

, R , C r 5 5

E

E

V

R

C

I o I

l C r e e k i C n k

V e r k e W r

C e e

R

E H e

e

I k

r R o a m

Y

T

E

C

r R e m u k o o e i k A k I

V

E

R

T

o R

0 o 0 w c k

0 0 o

0 E 0 , o C , a 5 n 5

6 y 6 o 5 k 5 , T n ,

5 5 k e

e e C e

e r

r

r

v I e

C e C

k a C

H FL r C r ETT r BC Ministry of Environme ne t e k PEAK n G e a

i

e k t k W t k k e e e i T C r

e o o

N w

r

o K

o

C

C

r

C n U T

L

I N Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek

i E

p

p

i

N Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat

R o c k

C Monitoring Program (2005)

r

G

r r

a C Surveyed by:

k v

e e

n e

i

r p

p C i

N

v e C a r r Westslope Fisheries Ltd. e G R

e

k 517 13th Street South Cranbrook, B.C. V1C 2W5 Tel: (250) 426-8381 Fax: (250) 426-8105

E

I H S T W T E A E

0 V 0

0 R 0 I 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 0 V 0

, ,

K E

0 0 R i

6 Meters 6 L T

R AI k L

5 5 , ,

i y 5 5

t I

l n

Ë TRIM II Data - UTM Zone II Nad 83

x E A R S T C C

r t

A e r F ish and Fish Habitat Assessment Summary e e W k k H k T k I e a

Y e E e u e r C

t k

k

l

Watershed Code or Locational Point e B a 349-5242

k e Y

r

a

u

C k

C k e Fish Species Information R

r

r e e

a r e

C E Species Present k r BT KO MW (RB) I () Species Suspected V E

R k

y Site No: 1 C

r Longitudinal Survey Boundary T s !( r a T

M o e e

h

o e

I

KO*

u K k

H e Major Spawning n MW* W

d r MW* }

e !( EF1 Fish Electrofishing Site

C

r !( Riffle Habitat Cross-Section Survey

C FSZ Fisheries Sensitive Zone

B

r

k e Stream Survey Site

l

e

r e

C

a 1 k e Biophysical Stream Reach Boundary 2 &

c k r o o 0 p 0

0 k o 0

0 o 0 o , P , 5 5

5 f 5

5 5

, Obstructions ,

V t

5 N N 5 Q U I o

A

e k S o N C e (Measurements Included Where Known)

r X C Log Jam (Persistent) t k

r A a

e N BD = Beaver Dam

C = Cascade/Chute O

e

CV = Culvert

S F

k F = Falls

D T

A N G = Gradient Barrier R

LS = Landslide

A RS = Rockslide

C

G E R A N

N U = Unknown

C

r D

C = Cascade, Chute r (Length:100m) e C100

e

DCHAN = Destabilized Channel

e

e

R

k k

A L B U L Fish Species Abbreviation List and Instream Operating Windows R I V E R

N

Instream Operating Windows G Code Species Name Spawning Season

E BB Burbot February August

BT Bull Trout September August

EB Eastern Brook Trout September August k

e KO Kokanee Sept - Oct August

e

Mountain Whitefish November r MW August

T

C OS Non-Game Species 0 0

h

0 RB Rainbow Trout April - May August 0 0 M 0

, T ,

u 0 FOLK Westslope Cutthroat May - June 0 WCT August 5 5

5 t 5 , ,

n

5 e 5

l

n

d

I B

River/Stream - Definite SMITH

e PEAK River/Stream - Indefinite

r

l

River/Stream - Left Bank

a

River/Stream - Right Bank

A K Lake - Definite

c

V

C Lake - Indefinite

k

A r Reservoir - Definite

Q

e

Swamp / Marsh

N

f

U e

Gravel Road

k

Pool o Paved Road N D T R A I S

EF1 Riffle Embankment/Fill MT

o N

EF2 HARRISON N Trail

EF3 N Rail Line O

t

S Longitudinal Profile

Site No. 3

T 349-666200-40200

R

A

N 0 0

0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 D

4 4 5 5 , , 5 5

R Mapping by:

C PURCELL Date: February 2006 A RESOURCES INC. Scale: 1 : 40 000 1100 11th Street S. - Cranbrook, B.C. - V1C 1V8 Drawing: WhiteRiver_2005.mxd

r N Tel: (250) 417-0662 - Fax: (250) 417-0688 Project No: 0316 [email protected] N G E G Projection: UTM Zone II - Nad 83 Datum

e Updated: Feb. 2006 - [email protected]

615,000 620,000 625,000 630,000 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Appendix B

Fish Capture Data

March 2005 FDIS Fish Card

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Watershed Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 1.0

W A T E R B O D Y

Gazetted Name: WHITE RIVER Local: White R. Axel Rd Km 61 Project Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-0 WS Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 Waterbody ID: ILP Map #: ILP #: Reach #: 1 - Project ID: 13406 Lake/Stream: S Lake From Date:

Fish Permit #: CB05-15443 Date: 2005/08/15 To: 2005/08/15 Agency: C214 Crew: SC/KM/GS Resample: S I T E / M E T H O D Site# NID Map NID # UTM:Zone/East/North/Mthd MTD/NO Temp Cond Turbid Comment 3 11 627917 5572600 GP3 EF 1 8.1 353 L Glide Margin 2 11 627932 5572617 GP3 EF 1 6.3 316 L Pool Margin 1 11 627909 5572754 GP3 EF 1 5.5 313 L Riffle margin A . G E A R S E T T I N G S Site# MTD/NO H/P Date In Time In Date Out Time Out Comment 1 EF 1 1 2005/08/15 09:50 2005/08/15 10:15 Photo 13-15 1 EF 1 2 2005/08/15 10:18 2005/08/15 10:35 1 EF 1 3 2005/08/15 10:41 2005/08/15 10:54 2 EF 1 1 2005/08/15 11:29 2005/08/15 11:49 Photo 16-18 2 EF 1 2 2005/08/15 11:52 2005/08/15 12:08 2 EF 1 3 2005/08/15 12:12 2005/08/15 12:29 3 EF 1 1 2005/08/15 14:09 2005/08/15 14:39 Photo 19-21 3 EF 1 2 2005/08/15 14:42 2005/08/15 15:06 3 EF 1 3 2005/08/15 15:08 2005/08/15 15:27 C . E L E C T R O F I S H E R S P E C I F I C A T I O N S Site# MTD/NO H/P Encl Sec Length Width Voltage Frequency Pulse Make Model 1 EF 1 1 C 973 30.0 4.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 1 EF 1 2 C 715 30.0 4.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 1 EF 1 3 C 695 30.0 4.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 1 C 950 29.6 4.3 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 2 C 943 29.6 4.3 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 3 C 916 29.6 4.3 200 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 1 C 981 17.5 9.6 200 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 2 C 843 17.5 9.6 200 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 3 C 827 17.5 9.6 200 60 6 SR 12A F I S H S U M M A R Y Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Stage Age Total # Lgth (Min/Max) FishAct Comment 1 EF 1 1 CCG A 1 84 84 R 1 EF 1 1 BT F 0 33 42 63 R 1 EF 1 2 BT F 0 15 46 63 R 1 EF 1 3 BT F 0 2 54 55 R 2 EF 1 1 BT F 0 2 45 51 R 2 EF 1 2 BT F 0 1 49 49 R 2 EF 1 3 NFC 0 3 EF 1 1 BT F 0 6 48 58 R 3 EF 1 1 BT J 1 7 90 109 R 3 EF 1 2 BT F 0 7 53 61 R 3 EF 1 2 BT J 1 1 112 112 R 3 EF 1 2 BT J 2 1 125 125 R 3 EF 1 3 BT F 0 5 46 58 R 3 EF 1 3 BT J 1 1 97 97 R I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Length Weight Sex Mat Age Vch# Genetic Roll # Frame# Comment Str/Smpl#/Age Str/Smpl# 1 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 63 2.4 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 58 1.8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 48 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 60 2.3 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 52 1.6 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 59 2.2 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 56 1.6 U U FDIS Fish Card

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Watershed Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 1.0

I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Length Weight Sex Mat Age Vch# Genetic Roll # Frame# Comment Str/Smpl#/Age Str/Smpl# 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.3 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 62 2.3 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 53 1.5 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.2 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 42 .8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 44 .9 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.3 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 44 .8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 46 .9 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 47 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 1 CCG 84 8.3 U U KEYED OUT TO SLIMY SCULPIN 1 EF 1 1 BT 52 1.3 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 56 1.6 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.4 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 54 1.4 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 54 1.5 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.2 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 52 1.3 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 57 1.8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 58 1.8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 53 1.2 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 50 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 56 1.7 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 53 1.4 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 62 2.1 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 61 2.1 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 57 1.7 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 46 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 49 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 47 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 52 1.3 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 52 1.4 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 48 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 51 1.2 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 63 2.4 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 51 1.2 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 59 2.0 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 50 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 59 1.9 U U 1 EF 1 3 BT 54 1.6 U U 1 EF 1 3 BT 55 1.6 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.2 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 45 .9 U U 2 EF 1 2 BT 49 1.4 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 90 7.3 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 57 1.6 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 109 9.8 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 106 8.4 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 104 9.4 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 52 1.3 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 50 1.2 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 90 8.9 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 109 10.2 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 53 1.4 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 58 1.9 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 101 10.6 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 48 .9 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 125 19.6 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 112 13.6 U U FDIS Fish Card

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Watershed Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 1.0

I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Length Weight Sex Mat Age Vch# Genetic Roll # Frame# Comment Str/Smpl#/Age Str/Smpl# 3 EF 1 2 BT 56 1.7 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 61 2.2 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 57 1.8 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 53 1.5 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 59 2.0 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 55 1.7 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 58 2.1 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 97 9.1 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 52 1.4 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 58 2.0 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 46 .9 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 56 1.6 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 51 1.2 U U FDIS Fish Card

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Watershed Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 2.0

W A T E R B O D Y

Gazetted Name: WHITE RIVER Local: White R. Middlefork Rd km 64 Project Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-0 WS Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 Waterbody ID: ILP Map #: ILP #: Reach #: 2 - Project ID: 13406 Lake/Stream: S Lake From Date:

Fish Permit #: CB05-15445 Date: 2005/08/14 To: 2005/08/14 Agency: C214 Crew: SC/KM/GS Resample: S I T E / M E T H O D Site# NID Map NID # UTM:Zone/East/North/Mthd MTD/NO Temp Cond Turbid Comment 3 11 627316 5575773 GP3 EF 1 7.7 373 L Side-channel@2 locations 2 11 627218 5575623 GP3 EF 1 3 307 L Pool margin + secondary riffle margin 1 11 627183 5575519 GP3 EF 1 6.1 326 L riffle/glide margin A . G E A R S E T T I N G S Site# MTD/NO H/P Date In Time In Date Out Time Out Comment 1 EF 1 1 2005/08/14 11:30 2005/08/14 11:50 Photos 4-6 1 EF 1 2 2005/08/14 11:54 2005/08/14 12:10 2 EF 1 1 2005/08/14 10:00 2005/08/14 10:30 Photos 1-3 2 EF 1 2 2005/08/14 10:35 2005/08/14 10:51 2 EF 1 3 2005/08/14 10:52 2005/08/14 11:02 3 EF 1 1 2005/08/14 13:59 2005/08/14 14:20 Photos 7-12 3 EF 1 2 2005/08/14 14:30 2005/08/14 14:43 3 EF 1 3 2005/08/14 14:46 2005/08/14 14:59 C . E L E C T R O F I S H E R S P E C I F I C A T I O N S Site# MTD/NO H/P Encl Sec Length Width Voltage Frequency Pulse Make Model 1 EF 1 1 C 878 17.4 13.8 200 60 6 SR 12A 1 EF 1 2 C 760 17.4 13.8 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 1 C 1045 35.0 5.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 2 C 853 35.0 5.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 3 C 725 35.0 5.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 1 O 748 44.9 7.5 100 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 2 O 610 44.9 7.5 100 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 3 O 657 44.9 7.5 100 60 6 SR 12A F I S H S U M M A R Y Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Stage Age Total # Lgth (Min/Max) FishAct Comment 1 EF 1 1 BT F 0 3 56 58 R 1 EF 1 2 NFC 0 2 EF 1 1 BT F 0 3 54 64 R 2 EF 1 1 BT J 1 2 93 99 R 2 EF 1 2 BT F 0 1 48 48 R 2 EF 1 2 BT J 1 1 101 101 R 2 EF 1 3 NFC 0 3 EF 1 1 CCG A 1 73 73 R 3 EF 1 1 BT J 1 1 98 98 R 3 EF 1 1 BT F 0 6 43 59 R 3 EF 1 2 BT F 0 3 48 59 R 3 EF 1 3 NFC 0 I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Length Weight Sex Mat Age Vch# Genetic Roll # Frame# Comment Str/Smpl#/Age Str/Smpl# 1 EF 1 1 BT 58 2.1 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 56 1.7 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 56 1.5 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 99 9.5 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 93 7.7 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 64 2.6 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 54 1.6 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 63 2.6 U U 2 EF 1 2 BT 48 1.0 U U 2 EF 1 2 BT 101 10.4 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 59 2.3 U U 3 EF 1 1 CCG 73 4.5 U U FDIS Fish Card

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Watershed Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 2.0

I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Length Weight Sex Mat Age Vch# Genetic Roll # Frame# Comment Str/Smpl#/Age Str/Smpl# 3 EF 1 1 BT 98 10.0 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 52 1.4 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 43 .9 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 57 2.1 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 53 1.7 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.3 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 54 1.8 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 48 1.0 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 59 1.9 U U C O M M E N T S Section Comments WATERBODY Used open site in side-channel and covered more area and woody debris to capture fish. FDIS Fish Card

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Watershed Code: 349-666200-40200-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 1.0

W A T E R B O D Y

Gazetted Name: BLACKFOOT CREEK Local: Blackfoot Creek 48 km Project Code: 349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-0 WS Code: 349-666200-40200-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 Waterbody ID: ILP Map #: ILP #: Reach #: 1 - Project ID: 13406 Lake/Stream: S Lake From Date:

Fish Permit #: CBO5-15443 Date: 2005/08/16 To: 2005/08/16 Agency:C214 Crew: SC/KM/GS Resample: S I T E / M E T H O D Site# NID Map NID # UTM:Zone/East/North/Mthd MTD/NO Temp Cond Turbid Comment 3 11 618391 5546509 GP3 EF 1 7.1 237 L Glide 2 11 618331 5546589 GP3 EF 1 6.8 232 L Riffle 1 11 618329 5546725 GP3 EF 1 5.9 234 L Pool A . G E A R S E T T I N G S Site# MTD/NO H/P Date In Time In Date Out Time Out Comment 1 EF 1 1 2005/08/16 09:45 2005/08/16 10:05 Photo 22, 23, 26 1 EF 1 2 2005/08/16 10:06 2005/08/16 10:21 1 EF 1 3 2005/08/16 10:24 2005/08/16 10:41 2 EF 1 1 2005/08/16 11:17 2005/08/16 11:32 Photo 27-29 2 EF 1 2 2005/08/16 11:37 2005/08/16 11:51 2 EF 1 3 2005/08/16 11:52 2005/08/16 12:05 3 EF 1 1 2005/08/16 13:11 2005/08/16 13:29 Photo 30-32 3 EF 1 2 2005/08/16 13:32 2005/08/16 13:48 3 EF 1 3 2005/08/16 13:52 2005/08/16 14:04 C . E L E C T R O F I S H E R S P E C I F I C A T I O N S Site# MTD/NO H/P Encl Sec Length Width Voltage Frequency Pulse Make Model 1 EF 1 1 PE 867 25.0 7.5 200 60 6 SR 12A 1 EF 1 2 PE 858 25.0 7.5 200 60 6 SR 12A 1 EF 1 3 PE 785 25.0 7.5 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 1 C 857 12.0 10.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 2 C 799 12.0 10.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 2 EF 1 3 C 723 12.0 10.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 1 C 919 15.0 10.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 2 C 828 15.0 10.0 200 60 6 SR 12A 3 EF 1 3 C 716 15.0 10.0 200 60 6 SR 12A F I S H S U M M A R Y Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Stage Age Total # Lgth (Min/Max) FishAct Comment 1 EF 1 1 BT J 2 2 130 166 R 1 EF 1 1 BT J 1 1 88 88 R 1 EF 1 1 BT F 0 19 38 53 R 1 EF 1 1 BT A 4 500 640 S pre-spawners staging 1 EF 1 2 BT F 0 8 40 51 R 1 EF 1 3 BT F 0 2 48 50 R 2 EF 1 1 BT F 0 5 43 49 R 2 EF 1 1 BT J 1 3 74 91 R 2 EF 1 2 BT J 1 1 86 86 R 2 EF 1 2 BT F 0 1 47 47 R 2 EF 1 3 BT F 0 2 42 43 R 3 EF 1 1 BT F 0 14 44 54 R 3 EF 1 2 BT F 0 3 45 49 R 3 EF 1 2 BT J 1 2 95 103 R 3 EF 1 3 BT F 0 4 47 58 R I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Length Weight Sex Mat Age Vch# Genetic Roll # Frame# Comment Str/Smpl#/Age Str/Smpl# 1 EF 1 1 BT 500 F MT Staging Photo25 1 EF 1 1 BT 520 F MT Staging 1 EF 1 1 BT 580 M MT Staging 1 EF 1 1 BT 640 M MT Staging Photo 24 1 EF 1 1 BT 166 45.5 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 130 21.3 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 46 1.0 U U FDIS Fish Card

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Watershed Code: 349-666200-40200-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 1.0

I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Length Weight Sex Mat Age Vch# Genetic Roll # Frame# Comment Str/Smpl#/Age Str/Smpl# 1 EF 1 1 BT 48 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 45 .8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 53 1.5 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 47 .9 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 47 .9 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 48 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 43 .7 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.2 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 88 6.8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 45 .8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 48 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 38 .6 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 45 .8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 46 .8 U U 1 EF 1 1 BT 51 1.2 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 44 .8 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 47 1.0 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 50 1.5 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 51 1.2 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 43 .6 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 47 .9 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 40 .7 U U 1 EF 1 2 BT 48 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 3 BT 50 1.1 U U 1 EF 1 3 BT 48 .9 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 91 7.8 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 91 7.5 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 74 4.2 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 47 .8 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.1 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 43 .7 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.0 U U 2 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.0 U U 2 EF 1 2 BT 47 .9 U U 2 EF 1 2 BT 86 6.3 U U 2 EF 1 3 BT 43 .8 U U 2 EF 1 3 BT 42 .6 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 46 .8 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 50 1.1 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 49 1.0 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 47 .8 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 45 .7 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 47 .9 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 52 1.2 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 46 .8 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 47 .9 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 45 .7 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 54 1.4 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 52 1.5 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 44 .6 U U 3 EF 1 1 BT 45 .7 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 95 9.4 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 49 1.0 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 103 8.7 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 48 .9 U U 3 EF 1 2 BT 45 .8 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 48 .8 U U FDIS Fish Card

Reach # ILP Map # ILP #

Watershed Code: 349-666200-40200-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 1.0

I N D I V I D U A L F I S H D A T A Site# MTD/NO H/P Species Length Weight Sex Mat Age Vch# Genetic Roll # Frame# Comment Str/Smpl#/Age Str/Smpl# 3 EF 1 3 BT 58 2.2 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 50 1.2 U U 3 EF 1 3 BT 47 U U Mort Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Appendix C

FHAP Level 1 Form 4 Data

March 2005 Level 1 - Habitat Summary Diagnosis Report

Form Number: Forest District:INVERMERE 1 Watershed Name:BLACKFOOT CREEK Watershed Code:349-666200-40200-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 Survey Date:8/17/2005 Weather:overcast with light rain Survey Crew:Scott Cope, Kerry Morris, Glenn Smith Discharge:0.95 (cubic meters per second)

Subsampling Fractions: Riffles 1 in 1 Pools 1 in 1 Glides 1 in 1 Cascades 1 in 1 Other 1 in 1

NTS Maps (1:50,000) : 082J03 BGGS Maps (1:20,000) : 082J004 082J014

Detail Sub Basin NameReach Section UTM Distance Habitat Unit Length Grad (%) Mean Depth Mean Width Pools Only No No No Zone Easting Northing (m) (m) Bankfull (m) Water (m)Bankfull (m) Wetted (m)Max Depth Crest (m) Residual Pool Type Cat (m) (m) Type 1 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 0 R 1 65 1.991 0.76 0.45 15.3 10.8 Comments :

2 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 44 P 3 3 0.1 0.92 0.6 13.4 9.2 0.85 0.4 0.45 S Comments :

3 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 65 P 1 9 0.067 1.39 0.75 13.4 8 0.7 0.45 0.25 S Comments :

4 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 74 R 1 41 1.783 0.88 0.43 12.8 8.1 Comments :

5 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 115 P 1 35 0.32 0.92 0.28 26.4 12.7 Comments :

page 1a of 8 Form Number: 1

Bed Material Type Total Functional LWD Cover Offchannel Habitat Disturbance Indicators Riparian Vegetation Barriers Dom. Sub- D90 Compa SG SG AmtLWD 10 - 20 - >50cmCover Type 1% Cover Type % Type Access Length (m) Type Structure Canopy Dom. (mm) ction Type Tally 20cm 50cm 2 1 2 3 Closure C G 250 M R L 7 0 0 0 B 10 SWD 5 SC P 50 BC SC C PS 1 N

C G 150 M R L 0 OV 5 C 5 EB DW M INIT 1 N

C G 200 M R L 36 30 5 2 LWD 40 B 10 BC DW SC M INIT 1 N

C G 250 M R L 12 3 4 1 LWD 2 B 5 EB DW SC M INIT 1 N

G C 125 M R H 9 0 0 0 OV 2 DW LR BC M INIT 1 N

page 1b of 8 Level 1 - Habitat Summary Diagnosis Report

6 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 150 R 1 168 1.64 0.87 0.4 22.1 9.1 Comments :

7 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 318 P 1 12 0.15 1.46 0.79 19.2 10.7 0.9 0.25 0.65 S Comments :

8 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 330 R 1 10 3.29 0.96 0.39 17.4 9 Comments :

9 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 340 P 1 15 0.02 1.75 0.92 23.1 8.7 1.1 0.4 0.7 S Comments :

10 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 355 G 1 7 0.186 1 0.44 24.7 12.1 Comments :

11 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 362 R 1 38 1.724 0.68 0.34 25.4 108 Comments :

12 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 400 P 1 17 0.241 1.13 0.69 34.6 11.9 0.8 0.35 0.45 S Comments :

13 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 417 R 1 33 2.396 0.74 0.39 31.7 13.7 Comments :

14 BLACKFOOT CREEK1 1 11 426 P 3 11 0.1 0.95 0.65 18.3 101 0.71 0.36 0.35 S Comments :

page 2a of 8 C G 250 M R L 20 12 2 0 C 10 LWD 10 DW SC WG M PS 1 N

C G 200 M R L 21 8 3 1 LWD 30 OV 10 DW MB M INIT 1 N

C G 250 M R L 16 SWD 5 SC P 60 DW SC WG C PS 1 N

C G 250 M R L 52 12 1 C 20 LWD 10 DW BC WG M INIT 1 N

C G 150 L R H 12 1 LWD 5 DW BC SC M PS 1 N

C G 250 L R L 13 9 2 LWD 5 OV 5 DW WG MB C MF 1 N

C G 150 L R H 18 15 2 LWD 50 OV 5 WG MB DW C MF 1 N

C G 200 M R L 13 3 LWD 10 OV 10 MB DW WG C MF 1 N

G C 150 L R H 10 6 2 2 LWD 20 OV 10 MB DW WG C MF 1 N

page 2b of 8 Level 1 - Habitat Summary Diagnosis Report

Form Number: Forest District:INVERMERE 2 Watershed Name:WHITE RIVER Watershed Code:349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 Survey Date:10/18/2005 Weather:Rain/Overcast Survey Crew:Scott Cope and Kerry Morris Discharge:8.86 (cubic meters per second)

Subsampling Fractions: Riffles 1 in 1 Pools 1 in 1 Glides 1 in 1 Cascades 1 in 1 Other 1 in 1

NTS Maps (1:50,000) : 082J06 BGGS Maps (1:20,000) : 082F024 082J025 082J034 082J035

Detail Sub Basin NameReach Section UTM Distance Habitat Unit Length Grad (%) Mean Depth Mean Width Pools Only No No No Zone Easting Northing (m) (m) Bankfull (m) Water (m)Bankfull (m) Wetted (m)Max Depth Crest (m) Residual Pool Type Cat (m) (m) Type 1 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 11 627901 5572778 40 R 1 135 0.601 0.9 0.53 25 24.7 Comments :

2 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 175 P 1 48 0.069 1.7 1.1 28 15 1.2 0.5 0.7 S Comments :

3 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 223 G 1 17 0.288 1.09 0.81 30 30 Comments :

4 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 240 R 1 30 0.717 1.26 0.74 30 30 Comments : Site changed; LWD x-channel jam @253m

page 3a of 8 Form Number: 2

Bed Material Type Total Functional LWD Cover Offchannel Habitat Disturbance Indicators Riparian Vegetation Barriers Dom. Sub- D90 Compa SG SG AmtLWD 10 - 20 - >50cmCover Type 1% Cover Type % Type Access Length (m) Type Structure Canopy Dom. (mm) ction Type Tally 20cm 50cm 2 1 2 3 Closure C G 170 M R H 101 45 16 LWD 15 C 5 SC P 200 PD C MF 1 N

G C 100 M R H 74 36 18 3 LWD 20 DP 25 SC G 100 PD DW C MF 1 N

G C 125 M R H 6 2 3 LWD 5 C 5 PD C MF 1 N

G C 150 M R H 45 20 18 1 LWD 25 C 5 PD C MF 1 N

page 3b of 8 Level 1 - Habitat Summary Diagnosis Report

5 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 270 P 1 30 0.077 1.5 1.08 30 30 1.3 0.4 0.9 S Comments :

6 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 300 R 1 35 0.534 1.2 0.82 35 26 Comments :

7 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 290 P 3 28 0.15 1.2 0.95 27 26 1.2 0.5 0.7 S Comments :

8 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 335 P 1 15 0.04 1.7 1.12 22 22 1.4 0.5 0.9 S Comments :

9 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 350 R 1 135 0.545 1.05 0.69 21 20 Comments :

10 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 394 P 3 16 0.1 1.3 0.9 21 20 1.1 0.45 0.65 S Comments :

11 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 485 P 1 35 0.117 1.7 1.12 18 15 1.4 0.65 0.75 S Comments :

12 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 520 R 1 70 0.56 1.08 0.74 17 17 Comments :

13 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 590 P 1 20 0.02 3.03 1.77 18.5 18.5 2.9 0.6 2.3 S Comments :

14 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 610 G 1 10 0.16 1.18 1 19 19 Comments :

page 4a of 8 G C 125 M R H 52 40 8 2 LWD 60 C 2 C MF 1 N

G C 150 M R H 20 8 2 LWD 5 C 5 PD C MF 1 N

G C 100 M R H 2 2 LWD 5 OV 50 PD C MF 1 N

G C 100 M R H 6 3 LWD 5 C 10 C MF 1 N

G C 125 M R H 72 36 30 LWD 10 C 5 SC G 400 PD LR C MF 1 N

G C 80 M R H 55 27 10 LWD 50 C 10 SC G 400 PD C MF 1 N

C G 350 M R L 18 11 5 LWD 15 B 15 PD C MF 1 N

C G 400 M R L 50 28 17 LWD 15 B 15 C MF 1 N

G C 100 L R H 22 9 4 DP 60 B 20 PD C MF 1 N

G C 150 M R H 13 9 2 LWD 2 C 5 C MF 1 N

page 4b of 8 Level 1 - Habitat Summary Diagnosis Report

15 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 620 R 1 188 0.544 1.01 0.63 24 22 Comments :

16 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 808 P 1 42 0.062 1.8 1.15 20 15 1.55 0.6 0.95 S Comments :

17 MIDDLEFORK 1 1 850 G 1 20 0.04 1.11 0.85 22 20 Comments :

page 5a of 8 C G 175 M R H 164 61 76 3 LWD 20 C 10 LR C MF 1 N

G C 100 M R H 8 4 C 10 SWD 2 C MF 1 N

G C 100 M R H 2 C 5 SWD 2 C MF 1 N

page 5b of 8 Level 1 - Habitat Summary Diagnosis Report

Form Number: Forest District:INVERMERE 3 Watershed Name:WHITE RIVER Watershed Code:349-666200-00000-00000-0000-0000-000-000-000-000-000-000 Survey Date:10/13/2005 Weather:cloudy with showers Survey Crew:Scott Cope and Kerry Morris Discharge:9.7 (cubic meters per second)

Subsampling Fractions: Riffles 1 in 1 Pools 1 in 1 Glides 1 in 1 Cascades 1 in 1 Other 1 in 1

NTS Maps (1:50,000) : 082J06 BGGS Maps (1:20,000) : 082J024 082J025 082J034 082J035

Detail Sub Basin NameReach Section UTM Distance Habitat Unit Length Grad (%) Mean Depth Mean Width Pools Only No No No Zone Easting Northing (m) (m) Bankfull (m) Water (m)Bankfull (m) Wetted (m)Max Depth Crest (m) Residual Pool Type Cat (m) (m) Type 1 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 11 627143 5575721 0 G 1 40 0.093 1 0.55 24.5 24.3 Comments :

2 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 3 P 3 7 0.09 1.6 1.1 24.5 24.3 1.2 0.3 0.9 S Comments :

3 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 40 R 1 60 0.31 1 0.5 26.5 26.3 Comments :

4 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 100 P 1 86 0.119 1.9 1.28 24 14 1.6 0.4 1.2 S Comments :

page 6a of 8 Form Number: 3

Bed Material Type Total Functional LWD Cover Offchannel Habitat Disturbance Indicators Riparian Vegetation Barriers Dom. Sub- D90 Compa SG SG AmtLWD 10 - 20 - >50cmCover Type 1% Cover Type % Type Access Length (m) Type Structure Canopy Dom. (mm) ction Type Tally 20cm 50cm 2 1 2 3 Closure G S 40 M R H 36 25 11 C 10 LWD 10 SC G 650 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R H 3 3 C 15 LWD 10 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R H 49 36 8 1 C 5 LWD 10 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R H 49 28 19 2 LWD 40 C 10 SC G 400 C MF 2 N

page 6b of 8 Level 1 - Habitat Summary Diagnosis Report

5 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 186 G 1 4 0.15 1.1 0.62 28 27 Comments : LWD has shifted/moved around in the following meander

6 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 190 R 1 50 0.384 1.2 0.87 33 12 Comments : Lots of SWD in logjams that was not here previously.

7 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 240 P 1 30 0.127 2.1 1.39 28 25 1.7 0.9 0.8 S Comments :

8 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 270 R 1 50 0.394 1.3 0.9 26 24 Comments :

9 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 320 P 1 90 0.091 2 1.38 26 14 1.75 0.6 1.15 S Comments :

10 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 410 R 1 13 0.438 1.5 0.75 28.5 16.5 Comments :

11 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 423 P 1 47 0.081 2.5 1.47 18.5 14 2.1 0.4 1.7 S Comments :

12 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 470 G 1 15 0.1 1 0.82 24 18 Comments :

13 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 485 R 1 15 0.547 1.3 0.86 21 14 Comments :

14 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 500 P 1 100 0.084 2.3 1.17 20 11 108 0.45 1.45 S Comments :

page 7a of 8 G S 40 M R H 0 C 10 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R H 17 13 4 LWD 10 C 10 C MF 2 N

S G 20 M R L 92 62 29 1 LWD 50 C 10 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R L 13 4 9 LWD 20 C 10 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R H 145 87 50 2 LWD 80 C 10 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R H 7 4 1 LWD 2 C MF 2 N

G S 20 M R H 6 5 1 C 10 LWD 3 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R H 6 6 LWD 2 C 2 C MF 2 N

G S 40 M R H 7 6 LWD 2 C 2 C MF 2 N

S G 20 M R H 29 16 4 LWD 10 C 10 C MF 2 N

page 7b of 8 Level 1 - Habitat Summary Diagnosis Report

15 MIDDLEFORK 2 2 600 G 1 10 0.1 1.4 0.85 27 15 Comments :

page 8a of 8 G S 40 M R H 4 4 LWD 10 C 10 C MF 2 N

page 8b of 8 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Appendix D

FHAP Channel Survey Data

March 2005 Middlefork White River - Site 1 Upper Kootenay River Site 1 - km 61 Middlefork FSR

10

9

8

7 Elevation (m)

6

5

4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Channel Distancebed (m) water srf Terrace BM BKF --- x-section Riffle Middlefork White River - Site 1

12.50

12.00

11.50

11.00

10.50 Elevation (m) 10.00

9.50

9.00

8.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Width from River Left to Right (m) Pool Middlefork White River - Site 1

10.00

9.50

9.00

8.50

8.00 Elevation (m)

7.50

7.00

6.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Width from River Left to Right (m) Side Channel Riffle Middlefork White River - Site 1

11.00

10.50

10.00

9.50 Elevation (m)

9.00

8.50

8.00 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Width from River Left to Right (m) Side Channel Pool Middlefork White River - Site 1

9.50

9.30

9.10

8.90

8.70 Elevation (m) 8.50

8.30

8.10

7.90 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Width from River Left to Right (m) Pebble Count, Middlefork White River - Site 1 100% 18%

90% 16%

80% 14% weighted percent of particles in range

70% 12%

60% 10% 50% 8% 40%

6% 30%

4% percent finer than 20%

10% 2%

0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm) weighted percent riffle pool run glide % of particles Middlefork White River - Site 1 30-Sep-04 KM/SC Differential Level Survey (of Benchmarks and Turning Points)

Station Back Site Ht. Of Inst.Fore Site Elevation BM1 1.158 11.158 ---- 10 TP1 0.31 10.448 1.02 10.138 TP2 1.688 10.436 1.7 8.748 TP3 1.352 9.573 2.215 8.221 TP4 1.543 9.307 1.809 7.764 TP5 1.028 8.44 1.895 7.412 TP6 1.53 8.13 1.84 6.6 BM4 ---- 0.659 7.471 Middlefork White River - Site 2 Upper Kootenay River Site 2 - km 64 Axle Road (Middlefork FSR) 10

9.5

9

8.5

8

7.5 Elevation (m)

7

6.5

6

5.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Channel Distancebed (m) water srf Terrace BM BKF --- x-section Main Channel Riffle Middlefork White River - Site 2

11.00

10.50

10.00

9.50 Elevation (m)

9.00

8.50

8.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Width from River Left to Right (m) Main Channel Pool Middlefork White River - Site 2

9.00

8.50

8.00

7.50

7.00 Elevation (m)

6.50

6.00

5.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Width from River Left to Right (m) Side Channel Riffle Middlefork White River - Site 2

9.80

9.60

9.40

9.20 Elevation (m)

9.00

8.80

8.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Width from River Left to Right (m) Side Channel Pool Middlefork White River - Site 2

9.00

8.80

8.60

8.40

8.20

8.00

Elevation (m) 7.80

7.60

7.40

7.20

7.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Width from River Left to Right (m) Pebble Count, Middlefork White River - Site 2 100% 18%

90% 16%

80% 14% weighted percent of particles in range

70% 12%

60% 10% 50% 8% 40%

6% 30%

4% percent finer than 20%

10% 2%

0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm) weighted percent riffle pool run glide % of particles Middlefork White River - Site 2 Oct 12/04 KM/SC Differential Level Survey (of Benchmarks and Turning Points)

Station Back Site Ht. Of Inst.Fore Site Elevation BM1 0.665 10.665 10.000 BM2 --- 10.665 1.011 9.654 TP1 0.942 10.411 1.196 9.469 TP2 1.265 10.206 1.470 8.941 TP3 1.458 9.939 1.725 8.481 BM3 --- 9.939 1.050 8.889 BM4 --- 9.939 1.468 8.471 BM5 8.550 side channel cross section BM6 9.741 side channel cross section Blackfoot Creek Upper Kootenay River km 48 Blackfoot FSR

11

10

9

8

7

6

Elevation (m) 5

4

3

2

1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Channel Distancebed (m) water srf Terrace BM BKF --- x-section Main Channel Riffle Blackfoot Creek

8.00

7.50

7.00

6.50

6.00 Elevation (m) 5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Width from River Left to Right (m) Pool Blackfoot Creek

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50 Elevation (m)

3.00

2.50

2.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width from River Left to Right (m) Pebble Count, Blackfoot Creek 100% 16%

90% 14%

80% weighted percent of particles in range 12% 70%

10% 60%

50% 8%

40% 6%

30% 4% percent finer than 20%

2% 10%

0% 0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm) weighted percent riffle pool run glide % of particles Blackfoot Creek (White River) - Site 1 Sept. 27/04 KM/SC

Differential level Survey - Benchmarks and Turning Points

Station Back Site Ht. Of Inst.Fore Site Elevation BM1 0.874 10.874 ---- 10.000 TP1 0.546 8.511 2.909 7.965 TP2 0.715 6.332 2.894 5.617 BM2 ---- 6.332 0.786 5.546 TP3 0.959 5.376 1.915 4.417 BM3 ---- 5.376 1.366 4.010 TP4 1.342 4.531 2.187 3.189 BM4 ---- 1.821 2.710 Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Appendix E

Stream Channel Classification (Level II) Form

March 2005 Stream Channel Classification (Level II) Form

Stream Name: Middlefork White River Watershed Name: Kootenay River

Drainage Area (u/s of site) 202.2 Km2

Location: Site 1 - KM 61.5 Axle FSR

Cross-Section Monuments (UTM - Zone.Easting.Northing) 11.627940E.5572700N (riffle) 11.627946E.5572643N (pool)

Crew/Company: SC/KM - Westslope Fisheries Ltd. Date: Sept. 02, 2005

Bankfull WIDTH (Wbkf) 43.00 m WIDTH of the stream channel at bankful stage elevation, in riffle section.

Bankfull DEPTH (dbkf) 0.61 m Mean DEPTH of the stream channel x-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle section

(dbkf = A/Wbkf).

2 Bankfull X-Sectional AREA (Abkf) 26.20 m AREA of the stream channel x-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in riffle section.

Width/Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf) 70.57 Bankfull WIDTH divided by bankfull mean DEPTH, in riffle section.

Maximum DEPTH (dmbkf) 0.90 m Maximum depth of the bankfull channel x-section, or distance between the bankfull stage and thalweg elevations, in a riffle section.

WIDTH of Flood-Prone Area (Wfpa) 190 m

Twice maximum DEPTH, or (2 x dmbkf) = the stage/elevation at which flood-prone area WIDTH is determined, in a riffle section

Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 4.42

The ratio of flood-prone area divided by bankfull channel WIDTH, in a riffle section (Wfpa/Wbkf)

Channel Materials (Particle Size Index) D50 55 mm The D50 particle size index represents the mean diameter of channel materials (n=100), as sampled from the channel surface, between the left and right bankfull stage elevations.

Water Surface SLOPE (S) 0.0042 m/m Channel SLOPE = "rise over run" for a reach approximately 20-30 bankfull channel widths in length, with the "top of riffle to riffle" water surface slope representing the gradient at bankfull stage.

Channel SINUOSITY (K) 1.53 Sinuosity is an index of channel pattern, determined from a ratio of stream length divided by valley length (SL/VL); or estimated from the ratio of valley slope divided by channel slope (VS/S).

Stream Type C4(1) Refer to Page 5-6, Figure 5-3 in Rosgen's 1996, "Applied River Morphology" book. Stream Channel Classification (Level II) Form

Stream Name: Middlefork White River Watershed Name: Kootenay River

Drainage Area (u/s of site) 192 Km2

Location: Site 2 - km 64.5 Middlefork FSR

Cross-Section Monuments (UTM - Zone.Easting.Northing) 11.627185E.5575689N (riffle) 11.627349E.5575454N (pool)

Crew/Company: SC/KM - Westslope Fisheries Ltd. Date: 30-Aug-05

Bankfull WIDTH (Wbkf) 34.50 m WIDTH of the stream channel at bankful stage elevation, in riffle section.

Bankfull DEPTH (dbkf) 0.74 m Mean DEPTH of the stream channel x-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle section

(dbkf = A/Wbkf).

2 Bankfull X-Sectional AREA (Abkf) 25.50 m AREA of the stream channel x-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in riffle section.

Width/Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf) 46.68 Bankfull WIDTH divided by bankfull mean DEPTH, in riffle section.

Maximum DEPTH (dmbkf) 1.10 m Maximum depth of the bankfull channel x-section, or distance between the bankfull stage and thalweg elevations, in a riffle section.

WIDTH of Flood-Prone Area (Wfpa) 297 m

Twice maximum DEPTH, or (2 x dmbkf) = the stage/elevation at which flood-prone area WIDTH is determined, in a riffle section

Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 8.61

The ratio of flood-prone area divided by bankfull channel WIDTH, in a riffle section (Wfpa/Wbkf)

Channel Materials (Particle Size Index) D50 16 mm The D50 particle size index represents the mean diameter of channel materials (n=100), as sampled from the channel surface, between the left and right bankfull stage elevations.

Water Surface SLOPE (S) 0.0021 m/m Channel SLOPE = "rise over run" for a reach approximately 20-30 bankfull channel widths in length, with the "top of riffle to riffle" water surface slope representing the gradient at bankfull stage.

Channel SINUOSITY (K) 1.37 Sinuosity is an index of channel pattern, determined from a ratio of stream length divided by valley length (SL/VL); or estimated from the ratio of valley slope divided by channel slope (VS/S).

Stream Type C4 Refer to Page 5-6, Figure 5-3 in Rosgen's 1996, "Applied River Morphology" book. Stream Channel Classification (Level II) Form

Stream Name: Blackfoot Creek Watershed Name: Kootenay River

Drainage Area (u/s of site) 84.8 Km2

Location: Site 3 - km 48 Blackfoot FSR

Cross-Section Monuments (UTM - Zone.Easting.Northing) 11.618364E.5546626N (riffle) 11.618329E.5546725N (pool)

Crew/Company: SC/KM - Westslope Fisheries Ltd. Date: Aug. 17, 2005

Bankfull WIDTH (Wbkf) 14.20 m WIDTH of the stream channel at bankful stage elevation, in riffle section.

Bankfull DEPTH (dbkf) 0.44 m Mean DEPTH of the stream channel x-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in a riffle section

(dbkf = A/Wbkf).

2 Bankfull X-Sectional AREA (Abkf) 6.20 m AREA of the stream channel x-section, at bankfull stage elevation, in riffle section.

Width/Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbkf) 32.52 Bankfull WIDTH divided by bankfull mean DEPTH, in riffle section.

Maximum DEPTH (dmbkf) 0.90 m Maximum depth of the bankfull channel x-section, or distance between the bankfull stage and thalweg elevations, in a riffle section.

WIDTH of Flood-Prone Area (Wfpa) 147 m

Twice maximum DEPTH, or (2 x dmbkf) = the stage/elevation at which flood-prone area WIDTH is determined, in a riffle section

Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 10.37

The ratio of flood-prone area divided by bankfull channel WIDTH, in a riffle section (Wfpa/Wbkf)

Channel Materials (Particle Size Index) D50 84 mm The D50 particle size index represents the mean diameter of channel materials (n=100), as sampled from the channel surface, between the left and right bankfull stage elevations.

Water Surface SLOPE (S) 0.0151 m/m Channel SLOPE = "rise over run" for a reach approximately 20-30 bankfull channel widths in length, with the "top of riffle to riffle" water surface slope representing the gradient at bankfull stage.

Channel SINUOSITY (K) 1.19 Sinuosity is an index of channel pattern, determined from a ratio of stream length divided by valley length (SL/VL); or estimated from the ratio of valley slope divided by channel slope (VS/S).

Stream Type C3 Refer to Page 5-6, Figure 5-3 in Rosgen's 1996, "Applied River Morphology" book. Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Appendix F

Reference Reach Data Summary Form

March 2005 Reference Reach Data Summary Form

Stream Name: Middlefork White River

Location: Site 1 - km 61.5 Axle FSR

Bankfull Pool Width (Wbkfp) 37.50 m Bankfull Riffle Width (Wbkf) 43.00 m

Bankfull Pool Depth (dbkfp) 0.71 m Bankfull Riffle Depth (dbkf) 0.61 m X-Section Data 2 2 Bankfull Pool XS Area (Abkfp) 26.50 m Bankfull Riffle XS Area (Abkf) 26.20 m

Max. Bankfull Pool Depth (dmbkfp) 1.70 m Max. Bankfull Riffle Depth (dmbkf) 0.90 m X-Section Data

Max. Bankfull Pool Depth (dmbkfp) 1.50 m 3.03 m 1.91 m Long. Profile Data (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Bankfull Pool Width/Bankfull Riffle Width: 0.87 (Wbkfp)/(Wbkf)

Ratio: Bankfull Pool Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth: 1.16 (dbkfp)/(dbkf)

Ratio: Bankfull Pool XS Area/Bankfull Riffle XS Area: 1.01 (Abkfp)/(Abkf) Channel DIMENSION Data from Riffle & Pool x-sectional surveys Ratio: Bankfull Max. Pool Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth: 2.46 4.97 3.13 (dmbkfp)/(dbkf) (Min.) (Max.) Mean

Ratio: Lowest Bank Height/Max. Bankfull Riffle Depth: 0.90 m 1.00 Bhlow/(dmbkf) (Lowest Bank Height - measured from thalwag to top of lowest bank, in a riffle section)

Streamflow: Estimated Mean Velocity (ubkf) @ Bankfull Stage (riffle section) 1.38 m/s

3 Streamflow: Estimated Discharge (Qbkf) @ Bankfull Stage (riffle section) 36 m /s

Meander Length (Lm) 134 m 302 m 235 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Radius of Curvature (Rc) 30 m 134 m 75 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Belt Width (WBLT) 84 m 151 m 120 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Meander Length/Bankfull Riffle Width 3.12 7.02 5.47 (Lm/Wbkf) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Radius of Curvature/Bankfull Riffle Width 0.70 3.12 1.74 (Rc/Wbkf) Channel PATTERN (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Meander Width Ratio (MWR): 1.95 3.51 2.79 (WBLT/Wbkf) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Valley Slope (VS) 0.0061 m/m Water Surface SLOPE (S) 0.0042 m/m

Riffle Surface Slope (Sr) 0.0040 m/m 0.0067 m/m 0.0052 m/m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Pool Surface Slope (Sp) 0.0002 m/m 0.0012 m/m 0.0006 m/m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Glide Surface Slope (Sg) 0.0004 m/m 0.0029 m/m 0.0016 m/m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Run Surface Slope (Srun) 0.0052 m/m 0.0080 m/m 0.0070 m/m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Bankfull Max. Riffle Depth (drmax) 0.90 1.17 m 1.02 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Bankfull Glide Depth (dg) 1.09 m 1.18 m 1.13 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Bankfull Run Depth (drun) 0.99 m 1.30 m 1.16 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Pool Length (Plength) 10.00 m 48.00 m 30.80 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Pool to Pool Spacing (Pspacing) 65.00 m 218.00 m 126.60 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Riffle Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 0.96 1.61 1.25 (Sr/S) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Channel PROFILE

Data from Longitundinal Profile Survey Ratio: Pool Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 0.05 0.28 0.15 (Sp/S) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Glide Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 0.10 0.69 0.39 (Sg/S) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Run Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 1.24 1.92 1.67 (Srun/S) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Bankfull Max. Rifffle Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.48 1.92 1.67 drmax/dbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Bankfull Glide Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.79 1.94 1.85 dg/dbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Bankfull Run Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.62 2.13 1.90 dg/dbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Pool Length/Bankfull Riffle Width 0.23 1.12 0.72 Plength/Wbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Pool to Pool Spacing/Bankfull Riffle Width 1.51 5.07 2.94 Pspacing/Wbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

% Sand & < 6 D16 18 mm

% Gravel 50 D35 38 mm

% Cobble 42 D50 55 mm

% Boulder 1 D84 134 123 mm (riffle) (cummulative)

Channel MATERIALS % Bedrock 1 D95 181 mm Reference Reach Data Summary Form

Stream Name: Middlefork White River

Location: Site 2 - km 64.5 Middlefork FSR

Bankfull Pool Width (Wbkfp) 33.20 m Bankfull Riffle Width (Wbkf) 34.50 m

Bankfull Pool Depth (dbkfp) 0.79 m Bankfull Riffle Depth (dbkf) 0.74 m

X-Section Data 2 2 Bankfull Pool XS Area (Abkfp) 26.30 m Bankfull Riffle XS Area (Abkf) 25.50 m

Max. Bankfull Pool Depth (dmbkfp) 2.50 m Max. Bankfull Riffle Depth (dmbkf) 0.90 m

X-Section Data

Max. Bankfull Pool Depth (dmbkfp) 1.93 m 2.50 m 2.17 m

Long. Profile Data (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Bankfull Pool Width/Bankfull Riffle Width: 0.96 (Wbkfp)/(Wbkf)

Ratio: Bankfull Pool Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth: 1.07 (dbkfp)/(dbkf)

(Abkfp)/(Abkf) Channel DIMENSION Ratio: Bankfull Pool XS Area/Bankfull Riffle XS Area: 1.03 Data from Riffle & Pool x-sectional surveys Ratio: Bankfull Max. Pool Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth: 2.61 3.38 2.94 (dmbkfp)/(dbkf)

(Min.) (Max.) Mean

Ratio: Lowest Bank Height/Max. Bankfull Riffle Depth: 1.10 m 1.22 Bh low/(dmbkf)

(Lowest Bank Height - measured from thalwag to top of lowest bank, in a riffle section)

Streamflow: Estimated Mean Velocity (ubkf) @ Bankfull Stage (riffle section) 1.38 m/s

3 Streamflow: Estimated Discharge (Qbkf) @ Bankfull Stage (riffle section) 35 m /s

Meander Length (Lm ) 96 300 200 m

Radius of Curvature (Rc) 50 150 96 m

Belt Width (WBLT) 55 117 90 m

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Meander Length/Bankfull Riffle Width 2.78 8.70 5.80 (Lm /W bkf)

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Channel PATTERN Ratio: Radius of Curvature/Bankfull Riffle Width 1.45 4.35 2.78 (Rc/W bkf)

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Meander Width Ratio (MWR): 1.59 3.39 2.61 (WBLT/W bkf)

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Valley Slope (VS) 0.0027 m/m Water Surface SLOPE (S) 0.0021 m/m

Riffle Surface Slope (Sr) 0.0032 m/m 0.0032 m/m 0.0032 m/m

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Pool Surface Slope (Sp) 0.0008 m/m 0.0012 m/m 0.0010 m/m

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Glide Surface Slope (Sg) 0.0009 m/m 0.0015 m/m 0.0011 m/m

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Run Surface Slope (Srun) 0.0031 m/m 0.0080 m/m 0.0048 m/m

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Bankfull Max. Riffle Depth (drmax) 0.90 0.90 0.90 m

Bankfull Glide Depth (dg) 0.93 1.14 1.03 m

Bankfull Run Depth (drun) 0.84 1.65 1.26 m

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Pool Length (Plength) 30.00 m 100.00 m 56.30 m

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Pool to Pool Spacing (Pspacing) 43.00 m 140.00 m 88.00 m

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Riffle Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 1.52 1.52 1.52 (Sr/S) Channel PROFILE (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Data from Longitundinal Profile Survey Ratio: Pool Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 0.38 0.56 0.46 (Sp/S)

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Glide Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 0.44 0.71 0.54 (Sg/S)

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Run Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 1.45 3.79 2.27 (Srun/S)

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Bankfull Max. Rifffle Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.22 1.22 1.22 drmax/d bkf

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Bankfull Glide Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.26 1.54 1.39 dg/d bkf

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Bankfull Run Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.13 2.23 1.70 dg/d bkf

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Pool Length/Bankfull Riffle Width 0.87 2.90 1.63 Plength/W bkf

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Ratio: Pool to Pool Spacing/Bankfull Riffle Width 1.25 4.06 2.55 Pspacing/W bkf

(Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

% Sand & < 15 D16 2 mm

% Gravel 83 D35 11 mm

% Cobble 1 D50 16 mm

% Boulder 0 D84 32 43 mm Channel MATERIALS

% Bedrock 0 D95 58 mm Reference Reach Data Summary Form

Stream Name: Blackfoot Creek

Location: Site 3 - km 48 Blackfoot FSR

Bankfull Pool Width (Wbkfp) 10.00 m Bankfull Riffle Width (Wbkf) 14.20 m

Bankfull Pool Depth (dbkfp) 0.80 m Bankfull Riffle Depth (dbkf) 0.44 m X-Section Data 2 2 Bankfull Pool XS Area (Abkfp) 8.00 m Bankfull Riffle XS Area (Abkf) 6.20 m

Max. Bankfull Pool Depth (dmbkfp) 1.40 m Max. Bankfull Riffle Depth (dmbkf) 0.90 m X-Section Data Max. Bankfull Pool Depth (dmbkfp) 0.87 m 1.75 m 1.25 m Long. Profile Data (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Bankfull Pool Width/Bankfull Riffle Width: 0.70 (Wbkfp)/(Wbkf)

Ratio: Bankfull Pool Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth: 1.83 (dbkfp)/(dbkf)

(Abkfp)/(Abkf)

Channel DIMENSION Ratio: Bankfull Pool XS Area/Bankfull Riffle XS Area: 1.29 Data from Riffle & Pool x-sectional surveys Ratio: Bankfull Max. Pool Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth: 1.98 4.01 2.86 (dmbkfp)/(dbkf) (Min.) (Max.) Mean Ratio: Lowest Bank Height/Max. Bankfull Riffle Depth: 0.90 m 1.00 Bhlow/(dmbkf) (Lowest Bank Height - measured from thalwag to top of lowest bank, in a riffle section) Streamflow: Estimated Mean Velocity (ubkf) @ Bankfull Stage (riffle section) 1.58 m/s

3 Streamflow: Estimated Discharge (Qbkf) @ Bankfull Stage (riffle section) 10 m /s

Meander Length (Lm) 110 270 200 m

Radius of Curvature (Rc) 25 105 65 m

Belt Width (WBLT) 30 115 90 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Meander Length/Bankfull Riffle Width 7.75 19.01 14.08 (Lm/Wbkf) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Channel PATTERN Ratio: Radius of Curvature/Bankfull Riffle Width 1.76 7.39 4.58 (Rc/Wbkf) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Meander Width Ratio (MWR): 2.11 8.10 6.34 (WBLT/Wbkf) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

Valley Slope (VS) 1.7586 m/m Water Surface SLOPE (S) 0.0151 m/m

Riffle Surface Slope (Sr) 0.0123 m/m 0.0240 m/m 0.0177 m/m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Pool Surface Slope (Sp) 0.0002 m/m 0.0032 m/m 0.0016 m/m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Glide Surface Slope (Sg) 0.0019 m/m 0.0020 m/m 0.0019 m/m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Run Surface Slope (Srun) 0.0329 m/m 0.0415 m/m 0.0360 m/m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Bankfull Max. Riffle Depth (drmax) 0.68 0.97 0.81 m

Bankfull Glide Depth (dg) 0.72 1.00 0.86 m

Bankfull Run Depth (drun) 0.75 1.07 0.95 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Pool Length (Plength) 9.00 25.00 16.30 m

Pool to Pool Spacing (Pspacing) 22.00 128.00 67.00 m (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Riffle Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 0.81 1.58 1.17 (Sr/S) Channel PROFILE (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Data from Longitundinal Profile Survey Ratio: Pool Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 0.01 0.21 0.10 (Sp/S) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Glide Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 0.12 0.13 0.13 (Sg/S) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Run Surface Slope/Water Surface Slope 2.17 2.74 2.38 (Srun/S) (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Bankfull Max. Rifffle Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.56 2.22 1.86 drmax/dbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Bankfull Glide Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.65 2.29 1.97 dg/dbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Bankfull Run Depth/Bankfull Riffle Depth 1.72 2.45 2.18 dg/dbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Pool Length/Bankfull Riffle Width 0.63 1.76 1.15 Plength/Wbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean) Ratio: Pool to Pool Spacing/Bankfull Riffle Width 1.55 9.01 4.72 Pspacing/Wbkf (Min.) (Max.) (Mean)

% Sand & < 3 D16 19 mm

% Gravel 36 D35 54 mm

% Cobble 51 D50 84 mm

% Boulder 10 D84 188 197 mm

Channel MATERIALS (riffle) (cummulative) % Bedrock 0 D95 318 mm Middlefork White River and Blackfoot Creek Juvenile Bull Trout and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program

Appendix G

Velocity Calculations

March 2005 Velocity Calculations Date 02-Sep-05 Gage Number 08NF003 Stream Middlefork Whire River -Site 1 (61.5 km)

Input Variables Output Variables

Bankfull Cross Bankfull Mean Depth DBKF 26.20 m2 0.61 m Sectional Area (ABKF) = (ABKF/WBKF) Wetted Perimeter (WP) Bankfull Width (WBKF) 43.0 m 44.2 m (~(2*DBKF)+WBKF)

D84 (Riffle) 134 mm D84 (mm/1000) 0.13 m Hydraulic Radius (R) Bankfull Slope (S) 0.00417 m/m 0.59 m (ABKF/WP) Gravitational 9.81 m/s2 R/D84 (use D84 in meters) 4.42 m/m Acceleration (g)

R/D84, u/u*, Mannings n m/s/ (using R/D84: see Reference Reach Field Book: p188, River Field Book:p233) 6.5 u/u* m/s Mannings n: (Reference Reach Field Book: p189, River Field Book:p236) 0.033 Velocity: from Manning's equation: u=R2/3S1/2/n 1.38 m/s

Resistance as a function of Relative Roughness (Leopold 1994) u/u*=2.83+5.7logR/D84 0.5 u*: u*=(gRS) 0.16 m/s Velocity: u=u*(2.83+5.7logR/D84) 1.01 m/s

Mannings n by Stream Type Stream Type Mannings n: (Reference Reach Field Book: p187, River Field Book:p237) 0.0346 m1/6 Velocity: from Manning's equation u=R2/3S1/2/n 1.32 m/s

Continuity Equation

QBKF (cfs) from stream gage calibration 38.7 cms Velocity (u=Q/A or from stream gage hydraulic geometry) 1.48 m/s

Limerinos Equation (1970) 1/6 Manning's "n" using: "n" = (R x 0.0926)/(1.16 + 2log(R/D84)) 0.0346 Velocity Calculations Date 30-Aug-05 Gage Number 08NF003 Stream Middlefork White River -Site 2 (64.5 km)

Input Variables Output Variables

Bankfull Cross Bankfull Mean Depth DBKF 25.50 m2 0.74 m Sectional Area (ABKF) = (ABKF/WBKF) Wetted Perimeter (WP) Bankfull Width (WBKF) 34.5 m 36.0 m (~(2*DBKF)+WBKF)

D84 (Riffle) 32 mm D84 (mm/1000) 0.03 m Hydraulic Radius (R) Bankfull Slope (S) 0.00211 m/m 0.71 m (ABKF/WP) Gravitational 9.81 m/s2 R/D84 (use D84 in meters) 22.15 m/m Acceleration (g)

R/D84, u/u*, Mannings n m/s/ (using R/D84: see Reference Reach Field Book: p188, River Field Book:p233) 10.4 u/u* m/s Mannings n: (Reference Reach Field Book: p189, River Field Book:p236) 0.027 Velocity: from Manning's equation: u=R2/3S1/2/n 1.38 m/s

Resistance as a function of Relative Roughness (Leopold 1994) u/u*=2.83+5.7logR/D84 0.5 u*: u*=(gRS) 0.12 m/s Velocity: u=u*(2.83+5.7logR/D84) 1.27 m/s

Mannings n by Stream Type Stream Type Mannings n: (Reference Reach Field Book: p187, River Field Book:p237) 0.0227 m1/6 Velocity: from Manning's equation u=R2/3S1/2/n 1.61 m/s

Continuity Equation

QBKF (cfs) from stream gage calibration 37.3 cms Velocity (u=Q/A or from stream gage hydraulic geometry) 1.46 m/s

Limerinos Equation (1970) 1/6 Manning's "n" using: "n" = (R x 0.0926)/(1.16 + 2log(R/D84)) 0.0227 Velocity Calculations Date 17-Aug-05 Gage Number Stream Blackfoot Creek - Site 3 (km 48)

Input Variables Output Variables

Bankfull Cross Bankfull Mean Depth DBKF 6.20 m2 0.44 m Sectional Area (ABKF) = (ABKF/WBKF) Wetted Perimeter (WP) Bankfull Width (WBKF) 14.2 m 15.1 m (~(2*DBKF)+WBKF)

D84 (Riffle) 188 mm D84 (mm/1000) 0.19 m Hydraulic Radius (R) Bankfull Slope (S) 0.01513 m/m 0.41 m (ABKF/WP) Gravitational 9.81 m/s2 R/D84 (use D84 in meters) 2.19 m/m Acceleration (g)

R/D84, u/u*, Mannings n m/s/ (using R/D84: see Reference Reach Field Book: p188, River Field Book:p233) 5.3 u/u* m/s Mannings n: (Reference Reach Field Book: p189, River Field Book:p236) 0.043 Velocity: from Manning's equation: u=R2/3S1/2/n 1.58 m/s

Resistance as a function of Relative Roughness (Leopold 1994) u/u*=2.83+5.7logR/D84 0.5 u*: u*=(gRS) 0.25 m/s Velocity: u=u*(2.83+5.7logR/D84) 1.18 m/s

Mannings n by Stream Type Stream Type Mannings n: (Reference Reach Field Book: p187, River Field Book:p237) 0.0434 m1/6 Velocity: from Manning's equation u=R2/3S1/2/n 1.57 m/s

Continuity Equation

QBKF (cfs) from stream gage calibration 11.9 cms Velocity (u=Q/A or from stream gage hydraulic geometry) 1.92 m/s

Limerinos Equation (1970) 1/6 Manning's "n" using: "n" = (R x 0.0926)/(1.16 + 2log(R/D84)) 0.0434