Seton River Corridor Conservation and Restoration Project – Phase 3

FINAL REPORT 2014-15

Project No: FWCP 14.W.SON.01 PSF CSP14S025 2014AFSAR2402

Prepared for: Sekw’el’was and T’it’qet Communities

Prepared by: Splitrock Environmental Kim North and Odin Scholz Box 798 Lillooet BC V0K 1V0

Date: 02 November 2015

Prepared with the financial support of Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Seton River Corridor is located within the traditional territories of the St’at’imc who have lived and worked in the region for thousands of years. The Seton River, which flows out of Seton Lake, is approximately 4.7 km long and joins the Fraser River just south of the town of Lillooet. The valley is bordered by steep mountain slopes in its upper reaches, opening up as it empties into the Fraser River. The Seton River, and the land within the corridor, have been directly impacted by the Bridge/Seton hydroelectric system, as well as transportation, forestry, urban development and recreational activities. These impacts are quite extensive; however, the area still has significant fish and wildlife values.

The intent of this project is to identify conservation, restoration and sustainable management areas within the Seton River Corridor, and develop wildlife corridors between high value habitats. The goal is to create a more diverse and healthy habitat for fish and wildlife, while taking into account all the human influences on the landscape.

This project was conceived as a direct result of the restoration work being carried tou on the Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Project. The ideas proposed were to create a functioning fish and wildlife corridor from Seton Lake to the Fraser River, while providing an opportunity for our community to learn the skills in ecological management of the land and to engage in watershed stewardship training and outreach activities.

Cayoose Creek Indian Band have been carrying out survey and habitat mapping of the Seton River Corridor since 2010. We have carried out the following work over the last three years with limited funds and through a lot of networking and by working in partnership with various organizations and individuals:

• 2010/11 Sekw’el’was Seton Wildlife Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study funded by Bridge Coastal Fish & Wildlife Program (BCRP) (partnership development, compilation of historical and current research, vegetation and soil surveys in lower corridor, Lower Spawning Channel in-stream mapping, temperature monitoring, aquatic invertebrate and periphyton accrual sampling; fish sampling, wildlife surveys, community capacity building and watershed education outreach.

• 2011/12 - Sekw’el’was Seton River Corridor Habitat Enhancement & Restoration - Phase One funded by Fraser Salmon and Watershed Program (FSWP) (removal of invasive plant species and increase stream-side vegetation around Lower Spawning Channel and in

2 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

one test plot on the Seton River, continue stakeholder planning process, community capacity building and watershed education outreach).

• 2012/13 - Sekw’el’was Seton River Corridor Conservation and Restoration Project funded by FWCP, PSF, SGS, IAFBC (habitat and vegetation surveys in middle/upper Seton River Corridor, invasive species management, re-vegetation, fish stock and spawning gravel assessments, wildlife surveys, community capacity building and continuation of planning process).

• 2013/14 - Seton River Corridor Conservation and Restoration Project - Phase 3 funded by FWCP, PSF, SGS, AFSAR (habitat and vegetation surveys in the upper Seton River corridor, wetland survey, invasive species management, re-vegetation, fish stock and spawning gravel cleaning research, wildlife surveys, community capacity building and continuation of planning process).

During 2014/15 the following work was completed:

1. Fish stock assessment of the two spawning channels (spawning use assessment, daytime electrofishing, temperature logging) 2. Gravel cleaning planning, research and contractural agreements in place 3. Interior Western Screech-owl nesting habitat quality survey and installation of nest boxes 4. Reptile monitoring, den searches and installation of hibernacula 5. Large mammal monitoring 6. Restoration works - invasive weed removal and revegetation with native plants in three identified areas: Lower Spawning Channel, Upper Spawning Channel and along eroding banks on the Seton River. 7. Community capacity building and training 8. Long-term ecological planning with partners and stakeholders- ongoing networking.

3 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This Project was funded by the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program on behalf of its program partners BC Hydro, the Province of B.C., Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and the public, who work together to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife impacted by the construction of BC Hydro dams.

The Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) Community Salmon Program funded a portion of the ecological restoration work, without whose support this project would not have been as successful. The PSF exists to support “salmon communities” in their efforts, to promote awareness of this keystone species and to guide the sustainable future of wild Pacific salmon and their habitat.

The federal government Aboriginal Fund for Species-at-Risk (AFSAR) program provided funds towards Interior western screech-owl and Great Basin gopher snake survey and enhancement works.

Sekw’el’was and St’at’imc Government Services provided funds towards the spawning channel enhancement and monitoring work.

Lillooet Naturalist Society provided funds and support at events for outreach work.

The information provided in this report has been compiled by Kim North on behalf of Sekw’el’was and T’it’q’et. Information has been included from various contractor reports, and from research and fieldwork carried out by Daniel Espinoza, Odin Scholz, Robin Strong, Kim North, and environmental crew technicians.

The following reports were excerpted and added to the body of the Seton River Corridor Conservation and Restoration Project (Phase 3) - Final Report.

Splitrock Environmental – Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist Lower Spawning Channel Gravel Cleaning for 2014 – Pretreatment Site Overview (May 2014)

Instream Fisheries Research Inc – Daniel Espinoza, Project Biologist Seton River Corridor – Habitat and Fish Monitoring Work 2014 (April 2015)

Splitrock Environmental - Kim North, Project Manager Re-vegetation Works 2014-15 (April 2015)

Splitrock Environmental – Robin Strong, AFSRA Project Manager Western Screech-owl and Great Basin Gopher Snake Habitat Restoration in the Seton River Corridor AFSAR 2014-2015 Final Report.

Splitrock Environmental - Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist Wildlife Camera Observations in the Seton Corridor 2014-15 (November 2015)

Splitrock Environmental - Odin Scholz, Restoration Biologist Reptile Monitoring in Seton River Corridor 2014-15 (November 2015)

We would like to thank these contractors for their support throughout the season, both for mentoring local environmental crew technicians and providing their expertise to this project.

4 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 5 List of Maps ...... 6 List of Tables ...... 6 List of Figures ...... 7 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 11 1.1 Proponent Information ...... 11 1.2 Hydroelectric Impact ...... 11 1.3 Statement of Need ...... 13 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 15 3. STUDY AREA ...... 16 3.1 Site Location ...... 16 3.2 Habitat Description ...... 17 4. METHODS ...... 18 4.1 Partnership Development ...... 18 4.2 Spawning/Rearing Channel Surveys ...... 19 4.3 Wildlife Surveys ...... 22 4.4 Restoration Works ...... 40 4.5 Community Capacity Building ...... 52 4.6 Watershed Education Outreach ...... 53 5. RESULTS ...... 54 5.1 Partnership Development ...... 54 5.2 Spawning Channel Survey ...... 56 5.3 Wildlife Survey Results ...... 99 5.4 Restoration Work ...... 158 5.5 Community Capacity Building ...... 189 5.6 Watershed Education Outreach ...... 190 6. DISCUSSION ...... 192 7. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 195 8. REFERENCES ...... 200

5 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

List of Maps Map 1 Seton Hydro Project Facilities (map source: BCRP, Strategic Plan Vol 2) ...... 12 Map 2 Sekw'el'was Seton Corridor Project Area (Seton Lake to Fraser River) ...... 16 Map 3 Western screech-Owl call monitoring stations ...... 24 Map 4 Estimated nesting habitat rating in the Seton Corridor (West) ...... 28 Map 5 Estimated habitat rating in the Seton Corridor (East) ...... 29 Map 6 Location of juvenile growth sampling sites, Seton River, 2014 Upper Corridor ...... 63 Map 7 Location of juvenile growth sampling sites, Middle Corridor, 2014 ...... 63 Map 8 Location of juvenile growth sampling sites, Lower Corridor, 2014 ...... 64 Map 9 Lower Spawning Channel Proposed Gravel Treatment sites 2014 ...... 82 Map 10 Western Screech-owl Call Monitoring Stations March 2015 ...... 101 Map 11 Actual Ratings for Western Screech-owl Nesting Habitat – Lower Corridor 2014 ...... 106 Map 12 Actual Ratings for Western Screech-owl Nesting Habitat – Middle Corridor 2014 ...... 107 Map 13 Actual Ratings for Western Screech-owl Nesting Habitat – Upper Corridor 2014 ...... 108 Map 14 Reptile cover boards Seton Corridor 2014 ...... 110 Map 15 Powerhouse Site Reptile Monitoring 2014...... 117 Map 16 Seton Corridor Potential Reptile Den Sites ...... 123 Map 17 Seton Corridor wildlife camera locations 2014 ...... 130 Map18 Seton Corridor Large Mammal Monitoring and Trail Systems 2014……………………………………………...133 Map 19 Revegetation in lower corridor 2014-15 ...... 170 Map 20 Revegetation in upper corridor 2014-15 ...... 171 Map 21 Riprap revegetation sites March 2015 ...... 173 Map 22 Areas planted in 2014 in the Lower Seton Corridor ...... 179 Map 23 Revegetation at USpCh 2014 ...... 186 Map 24 Seton Corridor Project Survey Areas 2010-2013…………………………………………………………………..193 Map 35 Seton Corridor Draft Habitat Use/ Assessment 2014……………………………………………………………..195

List of Tables Table 1 Species at risk in the Seton Corridor ...... 22 Table 2 Seton Corridor Screech-Owl monitoring locations ...... 24 Table 3 Survey Teams and Stations March 2015 ...... 25 Table 4 Habitat Rating Worksheet ...... 31 Table 5 Guide to Habitat Rating Worksheet ...... 31 Table 6 Summary list of exotic and invasive plants in Seton River Corridor ...... 40 Table 7 Partnership Activities 2014-15 ...... 55 Table 8 Optimum Temperature Ranges of Specific Life History Stages of Salmonids and Other Coldwater Species for Guideline Application (Source: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/temptech/temperature.html) ... 59 Table 9 Seton River Coho visual count data - 2014 ...... 61 Table 10 Total number of fish caught during 2014 juvenile growth sampling surveys...... 62 Table 11 Mean length of Rainbow trout sampled during juvenile growth sampling surveys at Seton River and spawning channels, 2014 ...... 67 Table 12 Results of simple t-test comparing length of main-stem Seton river fish with spawning channel fish 2014 .. 67 Table 13 Summary table for recaptured Rainbow trout in Seton River 2014 ...... 68 Table 14 Western Screech-owl Survey Results March 2015 ...... 100 Table 15 Estimated and Actual Area of Screech-owl Nesting Habitat Seton Corridor 2014-15 ...... 102 Table 16 Number of Trees with Cavities 2014 ...... 102 Table 17 Screech-owl Nest Box Locations ...... 105 Table 18 Reptile Site Visits and Observations 2009 – 2014 ...... 114 Table 19 Lillooet Maximum Number of Days over 32oC – threshold for reptiles ...... 115 Table 20 Summary of Reptile Observations at the Powerhouse Site 2014 ...... 118 Table 21 Potential Reptile Den Sites in Seton River Corridor ...... 124 Table 22 Snakes Found Through Den Searches 2014 ...... 124 Table 23 List of Snake Sheds found in the Seton Corridor during Den Searches 2014 ...... 125 Table 24 Gopher snake Detections as a Result of Report-a-Snake Program 2014 ...... 127 Table 25 Seton Corridor wildlife camera locations 2014 ...... 130 Table 26 Summary of wildlife camera results for Seton Corridor 2014 ...... 132 Table 27 Wildlife camera 01 results 2014 ...... 134 Table 28 Wildlife camera 02 results 2014 ...... 136 6 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 29 Wildlife camera 03 results 2014 ...... 138 Table 30 Wildlife Camera 04 Results 2014 ...... 139 Table 31 Wildlife Camera 05 Results 2014 ...... 140 Table 32 Wildlife camera 06 results 2014 ...... 141 Table 33 Wildlife camera 07 results 2014 ...... 143 Table 34 Wildlife camera 08 results ...... 144 Table 35 Wildlife Camera 09 Results 2014 ...... 146 Table 36 Timing between human and bear movement at site 2014 ...... 147 Table 37 Seton Corridor 2014 Wildlife Observations ...... 153 Table 38 Vegetation composition pre-restoration road work LSpCh 2014 ...... 161 Table 39 Vegetation compostion pre-restoration work USpCh 2014 ...... 163 Table 40 2014-15 Planting Areas Seton River Corridor ...... 172 Table 41 Soil mixes used in pocket planting ...... 174 Table 42 Pocket planting details; number of cuttings planted and number of pockets per soil type ...... 174 Table 43 Waypoints describing locations of soil types laid out within each riprap site ...... 175 Table 44 Eroding Bank Revegetation - Wattle Fences Site 2 2014 ...... 177 Table 45 Species planted on slope ...... 178 Table 46 Revegetation details for Lower Seton Corridor 2014 ...... 180 Table 47 Native plants used to revegetated 'Reptile Road' site ...... 185 Table 48 Revegetation details for Upper Spawning Channel 2014 - 2015 ...... 187 Table 49 Outreach Activities 2014-15 ...... 190 Table 50 Recommendations for work 2015-16 ...... 197

List of Figures Figure 1 Oleman family fish camp and drying racks at Skimka ...... 12 Figure 2 Aerial photograph showing the narrow valley and some of the impacts 29 Mar 2011 ...... 14 Figure 3 Seton River looking upriver from the lower corridor ...... 17 Figure 4 Beaver impacts at LSpCh 10 Jan 2014 ...... 21 Figure 5 Interior Western screech-owl (Photo source: Ian Routley) ...... 23 Figure 6 Seton River Corridor 2015 owl detection form ...... 26 Figure 7 Surveying screech-owl nesting habitat at High rated site 26 Jan 2015 ...... 30 Figure 8 Western Yellow-bellied racer …………………………………………………………………………………….… 32 Figure 9 Students painting reptile cover boards 24 Feb 2015 ...... 33 Figure 10 Citizen scientist volunteer checking reptile baords 12 Sept 2014 ...... 33 Figure 11 Reptile cover board survey form ...... 34 Figure 12 Feature Survey Form ...... 36 Figure 13 Feature Visit Form ...... 37 Figure 14 Reptile den habitat feature search on north side of Seton River 08 May 2014 ...... 37 Figure 15 Report-a-Snake Poster 22 August 2014 ...... 38 Figure 16 Checking wildlife cameras ...... 39 Figure 17 Backhoe 10 April 2014…………………………………………………………………………………………….…41 Figure 18 Crews hand pulling weeds in prepared ground USpCh 19 June 2014 ...... 42 Figure 19 Knapweed being removed after weed sweep at the LSpCh 30 July 2014 ...... 42 Figure 20 Diagram of snake hibernacula (Toronto Zoo) ...... 44 Figure 21 Rock piles laid along edge of deactivated road 12 Sept 2014 ...... 45 Figure 22 Building hibernacula at LSpCh 26 Sept 2014 ...... 45 Figure 23 Rough and loose complexing underway at USpCh 11 April 2014 ...... 46 Figure 24 Building hibernacula and south facing slope at USpCh 07 October 2014 ...... 46 Figure 25 Cuttings prepared for planting 15 Mar 2015 ...... 47 Figure 26 Delivering soil to pocket planting site 18 Mar 2015 ...... 48 Figure 27 Diagram of watter fencing (Polster, 2011) ...... 49 Figure 28 Wattle fences installed at different elevations 16 Mar 2015 ...... 49 Figure 29 Planting bar used for planting cuttings 29 Mar 2014 ...... 50 Figure 30 Crew demonstrating planting 29 May 2014………………………………………………………………….…… 51 Figure 31 Plants laid out in readiness for planting 07 Oct 2014 ...... 51 Figure 32 Learning to recognize denning habitat 12 Sep 2014 ...... 52 Figure 33 Preschoolers participating in planting activities 29 Mar 2014 ...... 53 Figure 34 Students releasing coho salmon into the spawning channel during stewardship event 30 May 2014 ...... 56 Figure 35 Temperature data from 2014 instream data loggers (Lower Spawning Channel) ...... 57 7 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 36 Data loggers including air temperature 2014 (Lower Spawning Channel) ...... 58 Figure 37 2014 Difference in temperature from downstream and upstream data loggers. Downstream temperature subtract upstream temperature (Lower Spawning Channel)...... 60 Figure 38 2014 Daily average difference in temperature between the downstream and upstream data loggers (Lower Spawning Channel)...... 60 Figure 39 Length frequency histograms of juvenile rainbow trout sampled in Seton River 2014 ...... 69 Figure 40 Length frequency histograms of juvenile rainbow trout sampled in spawning channels 2014 ...... 69 Figure 41. Length frequency for Seton River Rainbow trout in April 2014 Red = 1, Green = 2 and Blue = 3 year old fish ...... 70 Figure 42. Length-at-age for Seton River Rainbow trout sampled in April 2014. Mean lengths-at-age connected by blue line...... 70 Figure 43. Length frequency for Seton River Rainbow trout in July 2014, Red = 0, Green = 1 and Blue = 2 year old fish ...... 71 Figure 44. Length-at-age for Seton River Rainbow trout sampled in July 2014. Mean lengths-at-age connected by blue line...... 71 Figure 45. Length frequency for Seton River Rainbow trout in October 2014, Red = 0, Green = 1 and Blue = 2 year old fish...... 72 Figure 46. Length-at-age for Seton River Rainbow trout sampled in October 2014. Mean lengths-at-age connected by blue line...... 72 Figure 47. Weight, length relationship for Seton River Rainbow trout sampled in 2014 ...... 73 Figure 48. Length boxplot of Seton River age 0 Rainbow trout from July - October 2014 ...... 74 Figure 49. Weight boxplot of Seton River age 0 Rainbow trout from July -October 2014 ...... 74 Figure 50. Length boxplot of Seton River age 1 Rainbow trout from July - October 201 ...... 75 Figure 51. Weight boxplot of Seton River age 1 Rainbow trout from July - October 2014...... 75 Figure 52. Length boxplot of Seton River age 2 Rainbow trout from July -October 2014...... 76 Figure 53. Weight boxplot of Seton River age 2 Rainbow trout from July -October 2014...... 76 Figure 54 Length frequency histograms of juvenile Coho sampled in Seton River 2014 ...... 79 Figure 55 Length frequency histograms of juvenile Coho sampled in Seton River spawning channels 2014 ...... 79 Figure 56 Length frequency for Seton junvenile Coho in April 2014, Red = 0 and blue = 1 year old fish ...... 80 Figure 57 Length frequency for age 0 Seton juvenile Coho in October 2014 ...... 80 Figure 58 Weight, length relationship for Seton juvenile Coho salmon 2014 ...... 81 Figure 59 Length boxplot of Seton River age 0 Coho from April - October 2014 ...... 81 Figure 60 North side of Berm 1 looking west; Sites 1, 2; road on right-hand side is accessible by vehicle May 2014 ...... 84 Figure 61 North side of Berm 1 – close up of a treatment site 1; May 2014 ...... 84 Figure 62 North side of Berm 1 looking east towards Sites 1, 2 ...... 85 Figure 63 South side of Berm 1 looking east; Sites 3, 4; note beaver lodge May 2014 ...... 85 Figure 64 North side of Berm 9 looking east; Sites 6, 7; closest vehicle access is from where photo was taken...... 86 Figure 65 Berm 9 in center North and South arms; Sites 6, 10; left and right respectively looking east May 2014 ... 86 Figure 66 North side of Berm 9; site 7; looking west – close up of gravels and instream conditions May 2014 ...... 87 Figure 67 Riffle at the east end of Berm 9; Site 10; looking south May 2014 ...... 87 Figure 68 South side of Berm 18; looking towards Site 12 west – closest truck access 25m to east May 2014 ...... 88 Figure 69 Berm 18 in centre of picture; Sites 11; 14 May 2014 ...... 88 Figure 70 North side of Berm 18; looking towards site 11; May 2014 ...... 89 Figure 71 South side of Berm 18; looking towards site 14; May 2014 ...... 89 Figure 72 Beaver lodge at Lower Spawning Channel – Berm 2 14 March 2014 ...... 90 Figure 73 Beaver dam between Berms 1 and 2 looking south showing ponding effects in foreground and water flowing over Berm 2 10 January 2014 Before Baffle Placed ...... 91 Figure 74 Beaver dam between Berms 1 and 2 looking north showing ponding effects and water flowing over Berm 2 14 March 2014 After 2nd baffle placed ...... 91 Figure 75 Water flowing over Berm 2 causing the man-made structure to erode. A smaller second dam can be seen in background 10 January 2014 ...... 92 Figure 76 Water overflowing Berm 1 and 2 – Beaver lodge on edge of Berm 2 14 March 2014 ...... 92 Figure 77 cottonwood saplings cut by beaver 14 Mar 2014 ...... 93 Figure 78 Water seeping up onto bank just below main access road 14 Mar 2014 ...... 93 Figure 79 Initial baffle construction between Berms 1 and 2 30 October 2013 ...... 94 Figure 80 Second baffle being installed in same place between Berms 1 and 2 10 January 2015 ...... 95 Figure 81 Second dam removal in middle of Lower Spawning Channel 14 March 2014 ...... 96 Figure 82 Small beaver dam at top end of Lower Spawning Channel 30 March 2015 ...... 96 Figure 83 Removal of beaver dams continued throughout the season 30 March 2015 ...... 97 Figure 84 Beaver dam USPCh 17 Dec 2014………………………………………………………………………………… 97 8 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 85 Protecting trees with wire cages 17 December 2014 ...... 98 Figure 86 Protecting trees in uSpCh 17 Dec 2014…………………………………………………………………………...98 Figure 87 A high quality wildlife tree with decay and cavities 15 Oct 2014 ...... 103 Figure 88 A local naturalist member helping school students build a nest box 24 Feb 2015...... 104 Figure 89 Installing nest boxes at Seton Flat 26 Mar 2015 ...... 105 Figure 90 Lower Corridor Riparian 01 Nov 2012 ...... 106 Figure 91 Middle Corridor Riparian 01 Nov 2012 ...... 107 Figure 92 Upper Corridor 01 Nov 2012 ...... 108 Figure 93 Wildlife tree sign installed on ponderosa pine 24 Feb 2015 ...... 109 Figure 94 Lillooet mean and max daily temperatures 2014 ...... 115 Figure 95 Reptile observations by month - Powerhouse site 2014 ...... 116 Figure 96 2 of 3 Adult Yellow-bellied Racers under cover board 2-6 Dryland Bench 24 May 2014 ...... 119 Figure 97 Juvenile Yellow-bellied Racer under cover board 4-3 Dryland Bench 01 June 2014 ...... 119 Figure 98 Western terrestrial garter snake under cover board 4-3 Dryland Bench 8 June 2014 ...... 120 Figure 99 Great Basin gopher snake under cover board 3-6 Riparian row 07 Sept 2014 ...... 120 Figure 100 Rock Pile at Powerhouse Site where reptile skins are routinely observed 12 September 2014...... 121 Figure 101 Reptile skin at Powerhouse site on rock pile shown above 12 September 2014 ...... 121 Figure 102 Western terrestrial garters snake found at Nursery office 01 September 2014 ...... 122 Figure 103 Snake shed on sagebrush found during hibernacula identification site visit 18 July 2014 ...... 125 Figure 104 Report-a-Snake poster ...... 126 Figure 105 Great Basin gopher snake on Red Rock Trail 07 May 2014 ...... 127 Figure 106 Great Basin gopher snake on Columbia Street driveway 12 Aug 2014 ...... 128 Figure 107 Great Basin gopher snake on Lions Trail west side Fraser River 04 Oct 2014 ...... 128 Figure 108 Reptile outreach event – stewardship fall days 09 Oct 2014 ...... 129 Figure 109 a) Sampling days per wildlife camera - Seton Corridor 2014 (left) and b) sampling days with positive capture per wildlife camera – Seton Corridor 2014 (right) ...... 133 Figure 110 Camera 01 - Young riparian forest stand. Arrow indicates direct of image capture ...... 134 Figure 111 Camera 01 -Doe and yearling 06 April 2014. Pair observed on numerous occasions March/April...... 135 Figure 112 Camera 01 - Doe and two young fawns on film several times during July 2014 ...... 135 Figure 113 Camera 02 - forested and riparian area in Middle Corridor ...... 136 Figure 114 Camera 03 at the Lower Spawning Channel ...... 138 Figure 115 Camera 04 in riparian stand along Seton River right bank ...... 139 Figure 116 Camera 05 located in forested stand at Powerhouse site ...... 140 Figure 117 Camera 06 beside Cayoosh Creek near viaduct ...... 141 Figure 118 Camera 06 - Cougar trailing a mule deer that was caught on film 11 minutes earlier heading in the same direction. 28 Mar 2014...... 142 Figure 119 Camera 07 North side of canal where it passes underground. Wildlife trail in background marked with dotted line. Texas Creek bridge in background to the right ...... 143 Figure 120 Camera 08 in middle corridor near canal 30 Jan 2015 ...... 144 Figure 121 Camera 08 - late migrant, adult bear moving west along wildlife trail 02 Nov 2014 ...... 145 Figure 122 Camera 09 lower corridor 28 Jan 2016 ...... 146 Figure 123 Camera 09 Cougar 19 Nov 2014 ...... 148 Figure 124 Camera 09 Big horn sheep 16 Dec 2014 ...... 148 Figure 125 Number of mule deer observed by wildlife camera 2014 ...... 149 Figure 126 Number of coyotes observed by wildlife camera 2014 ...... 149 Figure 127 Number of Black Bears Observed from Wildlife Cameras 2014 ...... 150 Figure 128 Number of people observed from wildlife cameras 2014……………………………………………………..150 Figure 129 Black bear tracks through nursery 05 Aug 2014 ...... 151 Figure 130 Mule deer crossing bridge 24 June 2014 ...... 152 Figure 131 Coyote den 18 Aug 2014 ...... 157 Figure 132 Black bear in Seton River ...... 157 Figure 133 Short tailed weasel at nursery 09 Dec 2014 ...... 157 Figure 134 Weed blitz in riparian management area and old orchard 15 May 2014 ...... 158 Figure 135 Straw laid between and on agroforestry rows 26 June 2014 ...... 159 Figure 136 Thickly mulched agroforestry bed 26 June 2014 ...... 159 Figure 137 Truck/trailer load of weeds 10 Sep 2014 ...... 160 Figure 138 Pre machine work on roadbed slated for deactivation 13 July 2014 ...... 162 Figure 139 During machine work on roadbed slated for deactivation 13 July 2014 ...... 162 Figure 140 Upland bench polygon not treated looking towards treated polygon area 12 June 2014 ...... 163 Figure 141 Prepared ground (less weeds) and unprepared ground around the lone saskatoon shrub 17 June 2016164 Figure 142 Students and volunteers pulling weeds 09 Oct 2014 ...... 164 9 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 143 Site contoured and rocks/boulders placed along roads and in site 27 Sept 2014 ...... 165 Figure 144 Hibernacula on sandy/silty south-facing bank 27 Sept 2014 ...... 166 Figure 145 Dump truck loads of boulders and logs being delivered 10 Apr 2014 ...... 166 Figure 146 Standing snag installed USpCh 07 Oct 2014 ...... 167 Figure 147 Rocks being dumped into hibernacula 07 Oct 2014 ...... 168 Figure 148 Hibernacula being built at USpCh 07 Oct 2014 ...... 168 Figure 149 A finished pocket 17 Mar 2015 ...... 174 Figure 150 Using the soil slide 16 Mar 2015 ...... 176 Figure 151 Pink marked pocket showing rocks built up around soil and moss mulch 19 Mar 2014 ...... 176 Figure 152 Wattle fencing Site 2 at different elevations 30 Mar 2015 ...... 177 Figure 153 Planting out demo garden beside LSpCh 29 May 2014 ...... 181 Figure 154 Holes prepared along the rocky banks of the LSpCh 30 May 2014 ...... 182 Figure 155 Students planting into prepared holes 30 May 2014 ...... 182 Figure 156 Plants, mulch and tools ready for planting along channel berms 22 Oct 2014 ...... 183 Figure 157 Volunteers planting live stakes along Lower Spawning Channel ...... 183 Figure 158 Volunteers and crew planting live stakes 24 Mar 2015 ...... 184 Figure 159 Live stakes along a berm at LSpCh 24 Mar 2015 ...... 184 Figure 160 Planting by homeschoolers 08 Oct 2014 ...... 188 Figure 161 Planting by students at USpCh 09 Oct 2014 ...... 188 Figure 162 Crew technician ID plants in the field during vegetation surveys 08 May 2014 ...... 189 Figure 163 JCP students learning propagation techniques 03 Dec 2014 ...... 189 Figure 164 Student at Walking with Smolts event 29 May 2014 ...... 191 Figure 165 Tour of restoration sites and nursery 26 Feb 2014 ...... 191

10 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Proponent Information Splitrock Environmental is carrying out this work on behalf of the Sek’wel’was and T’it’q’et communities who are the beneficiaries of large traditional sustenance gathering areas that are, and should be, managed in a holistic relationship with the flora and fauna communities. We are located in the southern-interior of BC in close proximity to Lillooet within St’at’imc territory.

Splitrock Environmental has undertaken restoration work within the corridor and along the Fraser River in collaboration with the Lillooet Naturalist Society and Sekw’el’was over the past several years. The T’it’qet community have now partnered on the Seton River Corridor project as their traditional lands are also located within the corridor.

1.2 Hydroelectric Impact In the late 1950s the Seton watershed was subject to major alterations from hydroelectric development. The Seton Corridor relates directly to the historical loss of habitat due to construction of the BC Hydro Bridge River hydroelectric facilities. The Seton hydroelectric development is just one component of the larger Bridge River system.

The Bridge/Seton development resulted in creation of Carpenter Lake Reservoir behind Terzaghi Dam, which diverts water, through the mountain, from the Bridge River watershed into Seton Lake. The Seton portion of the project, in service since 1956, consists of Seton Dam just below the outlet of Seton Lake, where the majority of water is diverted into a 3.7km long concrete lined power canal. Water then flows through the powerhouse out into the Fraser River (Map 1).

Some of the footprint impacts indicated in the BCRP Strategic Plan 2000 include: • Diversion of colder, nutrient poor Bridge River water to Seton Lake has changed the temperature regime and nutrient productivity of Seton Lake/River. • Dredging to construct the approach channel to Seton Dam removed riparian habitat, upland forested hillsides and caused the loss of significant spawning habitat for pink salmon - spawning channels were built to compensate this loss. • Construction of the project facilities reshaped the channel and banks, removed aggregates, and removed riparian vegetation over an extensive distance below the dam and at the confluence of Cayoosh Creek. • Diversion of water from Bridge River and Cayoosh Creek has effects on wetted channel area, seasonal temperatures and stream productivity. • Olfactory cues for sockeye returning to Gates and Portage creekse hav been changed based on proportion of Cayoosh water mixed in tailrace discharge. • Fish migration impeded by powerhouse penstock, spawning channels and Seton Dam. • Dam traps gravel bedload and high flows erode original spawning gravels below the dam, decreasing spawning habitat. • Dam traps woody debris normally recruited downstream. • Lower water levels reduce fish access to former off channel habitat • Construction of the dam and canal have caused wildlife barriers which restrict movement within the corridor - thereby reducing available habitat and fragmenting populations. • Loss of significant wetlands at the confluence of the Seton and Fraser Rivers. • Visual impacts and invasive weed dispersal along hydroelectric powerlines. 11 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

The development that has taken place along the Seton River Corridor is extensive. Historical photograph (Figure 1) shows an aboriginal fish camp (Oleman family) at Skimka (today’s Seton Beach) “in the days when salmon were thick” (BC Archives). Today, no fish are dried here.

Map 1 Seton Hydro Project Facilities (map source: BCRP, Strategic Plan Vol 2)

Figure 1 Oleman family fish camp and drying racks at Skimka

12 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

1.3 Statement of Need Arial photograph (Figure 2) of the corridor clearly displays the scale of the operations that took place in the valley during the 1950s, and that continue to impact the area for both fish, wildlife and people. During initial construction of the hydroelectric operations the flow of the Seton River was dramatically altered.

“The original habitats in Seton River were very different than those that occur today. An area of low marshy habitat existed near the Fraser confluence ... Photographs of Seton River circa 1910-14 indicate a more significant riparian zone and forested slopes than at present” (BCRP, Strategic Plan - Volume 2).

Other impacts that further fragment the corridor include forestry, rail and road transportation systems, independent power projects, hydroelectric transmission lines, urban development, and recreational infrastructures.

The fragmentation that exists today impacts the free flow of both fish and wildlife as evidenced by the large amount of research carried out over the years. Even with these impacts there is potential to enhance and conserve the remaining habitat, and to increase habitat through restoration work, and to work with operators in the corridor to modify operations where possible to mitigate past and ongoing impacts.

Sekw’el’was and T’it’qet are committed to implementing the values associated with the Nxekmenlhkalha Iti tmicwa (St’at’imc Preliminary Draft Land Use Plan, 2004). These values also align with stated BCRP and agency priorities. The highest priorities noted in the Bridge/Seton River Watersheds - Summary of Agency Fish and Wildlife Priorities for the Seton River were:

• Assessment of species composition and use of original Seton pink channels to provide insight into future works. • Restoration work/habitat complexing in the lower Seton Channel to include instream works and riparian planting. • Assessment of mainstem spawning and off-channel options. • Migration corridor conservation through buffers and habitat enhancement • Restoration of damaged sites in riparian habitats

The Lillooet Tribal Council has worked over the last several years on developing an inventory of species-at-risk within our territory. The Black Cottonwood/Common Snowberry - Red-osier Dogwood (Populus balsamifera ssp trichocarpa/Symphoricarpos albus - Cornus stolonifera) and Douglas Fir - Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Pseudotsuga menziesii - Inus ponderosa/Pseudoroegneria spicata) plant communities are provincially red-listed and noted as having limited distribution (BC Conservation Data Centre). Both plant communities are found within the study area in varying degrees of health. We feel it is important to conserve existing healthy stands of these plant communities and restore areas that have the potential to provide enhanced wildlife values. Species-at-risk known to use the study area, and would benefit from possible enhancement of these habitats, include the Lewis woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), Interior Western screech-owl (Otus kennicottii macfarlanei), Yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor), Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola), Townsend’s Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum).

13 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

We believe that by working together with the various agencies, local organizations and contractors, we will be able to define key fish and wildlife habitats, explore the obstacles and strengths within the landscape, and develop a cohesive Plan that will support both flora, fauna and our communities. Work during 2014-15 builds on the mapping and data gathering needed to develop this Plan.

Figure 2 Aerial photograph showing the narrow valley and some of the impacts 29 Mar 2011

14 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Sekw’el’was Seton Wildlife Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study, and the ongoing vegetation, spawning gravel, fish and wildlife surveys carried out between 2010-15 were implemented as a result of the restoration work taking place at the Powerhouse Restoration site and the increasing awareness of loss of intact wildlife corridors and habitat, both in-stream and upland. The questions were: 1) By enhancing and creating wildlife habitat at the Powerhouse site, were we creating a wildlife sink? 2) Can we provide corridors that wildlife can use to traverse the area between Seton Lake and the Fraser River in a safe way for both wildlife and people? 3) Can we increase both spawning and rearing habitat in the corridor, including the rivers and the three existing spawning channels?

The Goals of Sekw’el’was Seton River Corridor Conservation and Restoration Project are to:

⇒ determine the health of the river, spawning channels and upland corridor; and ⇒ gather data that will provide information to the partners and stakeholders on possible: • Category 1: Conservation areas • Category 2: Restoration areas • Category 3: Sustainable Management areas • Category 4: Wildlife Corridors that provides movement across the landscape.

The Objectives during the 2014-15 study were to:

⇒ continue networking with interested stakeholders and engage partners in development of a long-term ecological plan for the corridor; ⇒ continue air and water temperature monitoring at Lower Spawning Channel; ⇒ prepare plan for cleaning of spawning gravels at Lower Spawning Channel and implement; ⇒ complete fish stock assessment at the Lower and Upper Spawning Channels; ⇒ continue screech-owl monitoring and installation of nest boxes; ⇒ continue reptile monitoring, implement den search survey and build hibernacula; ⇒ undertake large mammal survey using wildlife cameras; ⇒ remove invasive weeds and replant with native plant species in three designated areas; ⇒ provide training and capacity building in ecological survey methods and restoration techniques; ⇒ provide watershed educational and volunteer stewardship opportunities. Splitrock Environmental have met the goals and objectives set out in our grant applications FWCP 14.W.SON.01, PSF CSP 14S025 and 2014AFSAR2402.

T he work carried out during 2014-15 assisted in gathering more wildlife data and increased restoration works; however, the habitat and vegetation mapping planned was not possible due to decrease in funding levels. This information will be necessary for developing a management plan that will provide strategies to increase the resilience of the Seton River corridor, decrease fragmentation and conserve critical habitats that benefit a wide range of wildlife species, including species-at-risk. The ultimate goal is to conserve and/or restore a functioning habitat network that maintains ecological processes and provides for the movement of native species between key ecosystem spaces, while still taking into account the human impacts and requirements.

15 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

3. STUDY AREA 3.1 Site Location The project site is located within the traditional territories of the St’at’imc, just southwest of the town of Lillooet. The Seton River basin is located in the rainshadow of the southern coastal mountains about 235 kilometres northeast of Vancouver. The Seton watershed begins in the headwaters of Gates Creek, which flows into Anderson Lake, through Seton Portage, spilling into Seton Lake. The Seton River flows east out of Seton Lake and runs approximately 4.7 kilometres where it drains into the Fraser River. Much of the flow coming from Seton Lake is diverted via the Seton Canal to the Seton Powerhouse on the Fraser River.

The area includes 3 spawning channels - Upper Seton River Spawning Channel (USC) and Lower Seton River Spawning Channel (LSC) and a smaller spawning channel on Cayoose Creek on the edge of the FortisBC hydroelectric complex.

The boundaries created for the corridor plan includes the entire stretch of the Seton River corridor from Seton Lake to the Fraser River, and incorporates the Seton and Cayoose Rivers, three spawning channels, the Seton Canal, Powerhouse site, the upland habitats and cliffs on both sides of the rivers (Map 2 - blue boundary). This map also shows the Powerhouse and Mariposa Flat sites (red boundary), and the Lower Seton Corridor (yellow boundary).

Map 2 Sekw'el'was Seton Corridor Project Area (Seton Lake to Fraser River)

16 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

3.2 Habitat Description The site (574 385E - 5613 765N 575 732E - 5614 786N) ranges in altitude from 200m to 210m above sea level. The town of Lillooet falls into the Ponderosa Pine (PP) biogeoclimatic zone. The PP zone occurs in the dry valley bottoms along major river valleys of the southern interior and is the driest forested zone in British Columbia with very hot summers and annual rainfall between 280-500mm. The Lillooet area falls into the Ponderosa Pine very dry hot sub zone (PPxh2) of the biogeoclimatic zone classification.

Due to the influences of the Seton River, the spawning channels, and the steep rock faces within the corridor, there are a variety of micro-climates (Figure 3).

The Seton Corridor area of interest extends from Seton Lake in the West to the confluence with the Fraser River to the East. The narrow stretch of land has multiple stakeholders and land uses including a railway, major highway, a fenced power canal and a major Hydro power-line. An independent power production facility exists on Cayoose Creek and a diversion canal from one of the two dams in the corridor directs water to the BC Hydro power generation facility on Powerhouse Road. The Corridor also has a major industrial site in the Aspen Planers plywood mill. There are residential developments and a gas station to the East on the Sekw’el’wàs Indian band lands. And the corridor has two campgrounds one on the North West end and one near the South East, as well as two recreation sites, one at Seton Lake and the Naxwit picnic area just below Seton Dam. A native plant nursery is now established at the Lower Spawning Channel also. Even with the high concentration of human land use in the area the corridor plays a significant role in the ecology of the region.

Figure 3 Seton River looking upriver from the lower corridor

17 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4. METHODS 4.1 Partnership Development The Seton River Corridor project is a direct outcome of the partnerships formed during the work undertaken on the Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Project. Sekw’el’was, T’it’q’et and P’egp’ig’lha Council are the partners of the Seton River Corridor project and their recommendations will be presented to the stakeholders for discussion.

4.1.1 Partnership Meetings During 2014 the partners to this project meet on a three occasions, took two field trips and ongoing communications occurred through email and telephone throughout the project timeframe.

4.1.1 Stakeholder Meetings To ensure a long-term and comprehensive restoration plan for the Seton River Corridor our goal was to network with diverse agencies, organizations and individuals to gain insight into the historical and current uses of the area. To achieve this we identified key stakeholders and followed up with meetings, field trips and networking through email and telephone conversations. The following meetings have taken place over previous years:

• 15 August 2011 - Initial meeting and field trip • 25 October 2011 - Presentations on fish and wildlife using corridor, and introduction to habitat types, discussions • 27 April 2012 - Presentations on archaeological surveys, birds of the corridor, WUP projects coming online, wildlife issues in corridor and update on survey work, discussion. • 07 April 2014 – Presentations on Seton River Corridor work carried out to-date and presentation of land use maps with resulting discussions (reported in 2013-14 Final FWCP Report).

Representatives from the following groups have been involved in the stakeholder meetings.

Government Agencies: Lillooet Tribal Council, St’at’imc Government Services, Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of Environment, Department of Transport, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and District of Lillooet.

Industry: Aspen Planners, CN Rail, Fortis, BC Hydro - FWCP, Transmission and Parks, Lightfoot Gas, Splitrock Native Plant Nursery

Local Professionals: Fish Biologists, Archeologist, Restoration Biologist, St’at’imc Eco- Resources

Local Organizations: Upper St’at’imc Language, Culture and Education Society, Lillooet Salmon Talks, Aboriginal Land Stewards/Spawning Channel Managers, Lillooet Naturalist Society

During 2014 – 15, no further stakeholder meetings were held, but communications continued.

18 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.2 Spawning/Rearing Channel Surveys

The objective of the spawning/rearing channel surveys are to monitor temperature and habitat conditions, as well as gather information on fish use within the spawning/rearing channels in relation to the main-stem. This work will assist in the development of management plans to ensure the system remains viable for fish and wildlife into the future.

Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was technicians assisted InStream Fisheries Research in gathering data on spawner numbers and juvenile growth rates in the Seton River and the two spawning channels. By combining our efforts the data collected will inform both the FWCP/PSF works and the BRGMON-9 Water Use Plan project. The collected data is being reported by Instream and shared between the FWCP, PSF and WUP projects.

4.2.1 Air and Water Temperature Recording Water temperatures were recorded every 15 minutes using data loggers (manufactured by Onset Computer Corporation) deployed at two locations within the Lower Spawning Channel; one was near the inlet siphon at the upstream end, the other was near the outlet of the channel at the downstream end. Air temperatures were recorded by a data logger mounted to the trunk of a large tree adjacent to the spawning channel. At this time no data loggers have been deployed at the Upper Spawning Channel or the Cayoosh Creek Spawning Channel.

4.2.2 Adult Spawner Visual Counts Visual stream bank counts were undertaken for spawning Steelhead, Rainbow, Chinook and Coho salmon weekly throughout the whole extent of the Seton River. The Spawning Channels were also surveyed in attempts to identify their use by adult Salmonids. Methods replicated those utilized in BRGMON3 surveys (McCubbing et. al. 2013) and data collected is an index of abundance rather than total counts. Briefly, two observers walked in a downstream direction on the riverbank looking for visible signs of fish. Fish were classified by species and location and recorded in field notebooks. Viewing conditions, cloud cover and lateral water visibility were also recorded. Surveys dates: Steelhead 22 April to 18 June 2014 Chinook 04 September to 30 September 2014 Coho 28 October to 25 November 2014

4.2.3 Juvenile Growth Sampling Fish growth and distribution was assessed through monthly open site electrofishing surveys using a Smith-Root LR-24 backpack electrofisher. Fish were capturede by on -pass electrofishing at various sites within the river. Crews consisted of two or three members, with one person (crew leader) equipped with the backpack electrofisher and one or two dip netters to collect and sample fish. Fish collected from the surveys were placed in buckets of fresh water and held for sampling at the end of each site. Once the pass was completed, the fish were scanned for PIT tags and sampled.

In order to reduce handling stress, fish that were marked and/or sampled were anaesthetized with a diluted solution of clove oil, dissolved 1:10 in ethanol. Once a month (or every sampling

19 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014 session), a minimum of 30 fish per species were sampled for fork length (mm), weight (g) and scales. Length and scale data were analyzed from a stratified sample to a maximum of 5 fish per 5 mm group (Ward and Slaney 1988). Scales from each fish were collected from the area above the lateral line and immediately below the dorsal fin. Scale samples were placed in coin envelopes marked with appropriate data for cross-reference. After a period of air-drying, scales were processed in two ways. They were either pressed on to plastic and the imprints analyzed using a microfiche reader following the methods of Mackay et al. (1990) or they were directly placed on glass slides and read under a microscope. Age was determinated by the methods outlined in Ward and Slaney (1988), in which two persons independently determined age without knowledge of the size, time and location of capture of the sampled fish. Samples were discarded when a consensus between both persons could not be reached. The age data was then used to create an age-length relationship that in turn was used to create a length-eag key and assign ages to the entire sample of fish. The age-length key was constructed by methods described in Isermann and Knight (2005) and the FSA package in R (Ogle, 2013).

In addition to the biological data collected, all Rainbow trout, Bull trout and whitefish above 75 mm in length were tagged with a 12 mm PIT tag. These tags were inserted into the body cavity using a 12 gauge needle. If the fish were less than 150 mm in length the PIT tag was inserted into the ventral stomach cavity. If the fish were larger than 150 mm, the PIT tag was inserted into the dorsal sinus of the fish. The recapture of these fish would allow for the observation of growth and movement of each individual fish and help verify size/age classes of the other fish collected in each successive sampling survey.

The majority of sites selected were in the mainstem of the Seton River. With the help of Splitrock Enviromental (provided technicians) the two spawning channels (lower and upper) were also sampled as we thought it important to compare species presence and growth rate of fish between the two habitat types. Data from the two spawning channels was combined to compare against the main-stem fish. Electrofishing within the spawning channels would also provide the opportunity to PIT tag juvenile fish and assess any movement out of the spawning channels, through the installed PIT antenna at the outflow of the lower spawning channel (mains power provide by Splitrock environmental).

In total 14 sites were sampled on the Seton River main stem. These sites were selected according to their appearance to hold fish, as the main purpose of these surveys was to sample as many fish as possible. The spawning channels were sampled throughout their entire lengths

4.2.4 Spawning Gravel Assessments During 2012, gravel permeability sampling was completed at both the Upper and Lower Spawning Channels. The results of that work indicated that some substrates were “almost completely devoid of intragravel permeability” and that there were “substantial areas within the channels that are not productive for egg incubation” (Judy Hillaby, 2013).

Research into methodologies for cleaning gravels in a system that is not dewatered on a regular basis was the extent of the work carried out in 2013. Communications between representatives from Fisheries and Oceans and professional contractors were initiated. Through this research a technique for cleaning gravels was discovered and funding avenues explored, with the goal of undertaking the work in 2014. However, the actual gravel cleaning work did not proceed in 2014 due to reduction in funding and schedule conflicts with contractor. With support from PSF

20 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014 we were able to network with Streamside Environmental contractor and Fred Lockwood, DFO and have the equipment shipped to our facility in preparation for 2015 gravel cleaning dates. During 2014 the potential gravel cleaning sites were identified in the field, GPS’d, mapped and marked out using flagging in preparation for cleaning.

4.2.5 Beaver Control Beavers have been observed using the spawning channels over the last several years. The recomplexing works in 2003 and the resulting year-round watering of the spawning channels creates the ideal situation for beavers to breed: gently flowing water and restored vegetation are ideal for beaver (Sean Bennett, DFO, Pers. Com. 2014).

Control methods were necessary as some of the berms were being impacted by beaver digging into the banks and by higher water flow going over the berms creating erosion issues. Also, beavers were cutting down existing vegetation and revegetation cuttings, slowing down the restoration efforts. Control methods included:

• the installation of baffles into beaver dams to lower water levels and decrease the sound of running water while still allowing the beaver to build dams • removal of smaller dams by hand-pulling apart structures • removal of one large dam by backhoe • protection of riparian vegetation through caging of trees/shurbs • protection of riparian vegetation through painting lower portions of the stems with a linseed oil and sand mixture • removal of beavers through trapping.

Figure 4 Beaver impacts at LSpCh 10 Jan 2014

21 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.3 Wildlife Surveys

The Seton River Corridor is a highly impacted area, but there are many habitat values still evident in the corridor that may have the possibility of being conserved and/or restored for the benefit of fish and wildlife. There are rare and endangered wildlife species that are known to occur in the Lillooet area, and some of these are found in the Seton River Corridor (Table 1).

Wildlife surveys were conducted to gather information on the presence, abundance and movement of wildlife throughout the corridor. Crew technicians and naturalist members as part of a concerted Citizen Science project assisted in carrying out surveys again during 2014-15. Survey work was limited to Western screech-owl call-playback surveys, reptile cover board monitoring and continuation of wildlife camera monitoring. Casual wildlife observations were also recorded by crew while they were working within the corridor.

Table 1 Species at risk in the Seton Corridor

Species COSEWIC Status St’at’imc and Lillooet Tribal Council SARA study – Author Ken Wright Alkaline Wing-nerved Moss (Pterygoneurum kozlovii) Threatened American Badger (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) Endangered Barn Owl (Tyto alba) Special Concern Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Endangered Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Endangered Columbian Carpet Moss (Bryoerythrophyllum columbianum) Special Concern Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) Threatened Dun Skipper (Euphyes vestris) Threatened Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) Special Concern Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer) Threatened Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) Threatened Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Special Concern Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Special Concern Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) Special Concern Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Special Concern Mountain Holly Fern (Polystichum scopulinum) Threatened Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Threatened Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) Threatened Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Special Concern Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) Special Concern Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) Special Concern Rusty Cord-moss (Entosthodon rubiginosus) Endangered Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Special Concern Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) Special Concern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) Endangered Sockeye Salmon (Oncoryhynchus nerka) Endangered (1) Stoloniferous Pussytoes (Antennaria flagellaris) Endangered Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei) Special Concern Western Screech-Owl (Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei) Endangered Western Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor mormon) Special Concern White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) Endangered Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Special Concern Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens auricollis) Endangered (1) The local spawners are not presently listed, but are experiencing significant decline 22 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.3.1 Screech-owl Call Playback Survey The Interior Western screech-owl (Otus kennicottii macfarlanei) (Figure 5) is the primary species to be targeted within the riparian zone in regards to the restoration work being undertaken.

Habitat loss is the primary threat to the Interior Western Screech-owl, which is a red-listed species. It occupies riparian woodlands at low elevations and approximately half that habitat has been lost in the last 50 years and most of the remaining habitat is degraded to some extent (Cannings, et al. 1999).

The owl has been detected using the Seton River Corridor over the last several years. The first detection was recorded by Jared Hobbs at the Fraser River Powerhouse restoration site. This detection lead to the establishment of a Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA) in 2010 for the screech-owl on crown land along a thin stretch of riparian habitat at the Fraser River. Figure 5 Interior Western screech-owl In 2006 a nesting pair were documented near Cayoose Creek (Photo source: Ian Routley) by Jared Hobbs and local naturalist Ian Routley. Splitrock and Lillooet Naturalist Society have carried out call playback surveys annually since then. In 2013 the pair moved nest sites to a ponderosa pine tree near Seton Lake in an area called Seton Flat. Call playback surveys done in March 2014 confirmed that the pair was occupying the nest tree again. During one night within a tight timeframe a second owl was heard calling in the middle Seton Corridor at a site that was identified as high value habitat for the screech-owl. This was exciting for the surveyors, but Jared Hobbs advised that we could not necessarily infer this due to the timing of the calls (Jared Hobbs email and pers convers 2014).

In the past 11 monitoring stations were established; however in March 2015 it was decided to drop 3 of the old monitoring stations to decrease effort through duplication – the 3 dropped stations were in close proximity to other stations.

During the 2014-15 field season (March 2015) we again carried out call playback surveys to monitor the persistence of the pair at the Seton Flat site and to confirm if there was indeed a second pair using the corridor. Eight monitoring stations were surveyed (Table 2 shaded green, Map 3) and encompassed the entire corridor from the Fraser River to the Seton Lake area.

23 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 2 Seton Corridor Screech-Owl monitoring locations

Screech-owl Monitoring Station Map UTM Establ Habitat Type Locations Code Code (Easting/Northing) ished

Powerhouse 02 P02 9 2008 Shrubby habitat above riparian zone

Control Roshard Acres CRA 0 2010 Riparian habitat just past agriculture land Texas Creek Road

Control Mariposa Flat CMF 8 2010 Ponderosa pine grassland habitat

Control Lower Seton Corridor CSC 6 575242 5614398 2010 Weedy area with Seton River to the north and cottonwood stand to the south

Lower Spawning Channel LSC 5 574684 5613911 2013 Centre berm beside channel – dropped

Mid-Seton corridor Riparian MCR 4 573983 5613657 2013 Centre of mature mixed cottonwood/Douglas fir

Mid-Corridor Upland MCU 7 573738 5613606 2013 250m west of and above open sagebrush Naxwit

Upper Spawning Channel USC 3 572558 5613658 2013 Top end of channel – dropped

Cayoosh Waterfall Riparian CWR 1a 572215 5612939 2013 Mature stand of riparian habitat adjacent to upland conifers

Cayoosh Waterfall Upland CWU 1b 572132 5612590 2013 Bench well above riparian zone – dropped

Seton Bluff/Flat SBL 2 571664 5613039 2013 Centre of mature conifer habitat polygon

Map 3 Western screech-Owl call monitoring stations 24 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Four teams of surveyors undertook the surveys, each team doing two surveys per night. The stations were divided as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Survey Teams and Stations March 2015

Team Station #1 Station #2

1 Seton Bluff/Flat Control Lower Seton Corridor

2 Cayoose Waterfall Riparian Control Mariposa Flat

3 Mid Corridor Upland (Naxwit) Powerhouse 02

4 Mid Corridor Riparian (Trap) Control Texas Creek Road

Each team surveyed Station #1 first, then Station #2. Start time was half an hour after sunset, rounded to the nearest five minutes. Using this method, four stations were surveyed simultaneously, allowing for detection of multiple owls at the same time.

Call playback surveys followed provincially standardized methodologies for call playback surveys outlined in Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) (Hausleitner, 2006). Surveys were conducted in March 2015 on clear, calm nights. Upon arrival at the site, the surveyor waited until the survey start time previously arranged with all surveyors. The survey followed the following format:

• Listen passively for 15 minutes • Broadcast for one minute • Listen for four minutes • Broadcast for one minute • Listen for four minutes • Broadcast for one minute • Listen for four minutes • Move to second survey site and repeat protocol.

Passive listening for 15 minutes is a requirement of the Lillooet Naturalist Society to minimize disturbance to owls. If a Western Screech-owl was detected, call playback was ceased.

Data forms were completed on site (Figure 6) and then entered into an excel spreadsheet. For each owl detection, the species code, call time, call duration, distance and direction were recorded. Other additional information included date, survey station, sunset time, temperature, cloud cover, wind and precipitation. Materials included the data forms, clipboards, pencils, GPS and map, wildlife caller loaded with Western Screech-owl calls, watch and headlamp.

25 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

SETON RIVER CORRIDOR 2015 - Owl Detection Form

RECORD #: ______Day _____ Month _____ Year______Temp: ______Wind (circle): Clear <50% >50% 100% Survey (Route) Name ______Observer(s) ______Precipitation (circle): None Light Rain Mod Rain Heavy Rain Sunset At: ______Start Time: ______Stop Time: ______

Station Location Spontaneous Species Call Response Call Call Visual/ Direction Distance Projected # Age Comments / Owl Movement Code Call Y/N Code Time Time Duration Type Acoustic of Call to Owl UTM Owls Class Sex Nest

Data Definitions: Call Time: time of first detected response (military time). Call Playback Protocol Response Time: time (minutes) elapsed between station start time (first call) and first detected response from owl. • Arrive at site Call Duration: Duration (minutes) of owl vocalization. • Wait 15 minutes for spontaneous call. If no calls: Call Type: Identify the vocalizations of the responding owl (Rack Call, Co-weep, Cooing, 4-note, Series call, Barking Call, Copulation Call) • Play media for 1 minute Visual/Acoustic: Identify if the owl was actually seen or just heard. • Wait 4 minutes Direction of Call: Provide the bearing (in degrees) of the direction of the responding owl, relative to the survey station. • Play media for 1 minute Distance to Owl: Provide the estimated distance (in metres) from the station to the calling owl. • Wait 4 minutes Projected UTM: Provide the NAD 83 UTM (Z/E/N) for the projected coordinate of the owls estimated location (based on distance and bearing) Play media for 1 minute Age Class / Sex: Identify the owl (based on call type) as adult or juvenile and identify sex (when certain) as male or female. • Comments: Ambient noise level (mill, cars, water, wind) • Wait 4 minutes Owl Movements: record comments on the owls movements, relative to the station, for the duration of the owls response activity. • Leave site Note: Discontinue call playback when owl is heard

Figure 6 Seton River Corridor 2015 owl detection form

26 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.3.2 Screech-owl Nesting Habitat Survey With funding provided by AFSAR a screech-owl nesting habitat survey was undertaken with the goal of determining the quality and quantity of nesting habitat available in the Seton River Corridor for the western screech-owl, macfarlanei subspecies. The goals were to estimate the number of wildlife trees per hectare, to identify areas of high-quality nesting habitat, and to install nest boxes in appropriate locations.

The Seton River Corridor was stratified into polygons of high, moderate, and low nesting habitat, using ecosystem mapping polygons developed by Splitrock in 2014. In order to ground truth the ratings and provide data about the habitats, ecosystem data that had been collected the previous year was reviewed and wildlife tree data was collected in the field.

In 2010, a study of Western Screech-owl habitat in the Lillooet region was undertaken for the Bridge Coastal Restoration Program (Young, Mylymok, Hobbs & Iredale, 2010). One site within the Seton River corridor was assessed for habitat value and determined to be superior habitat due to its size, proximity to water, presence of suitable cavity nest sites, dense understory, and adjacent forest for foraging. Indicators of high-quality habitat utilized by Young et al. were used in this study.

The Seton River Corridor has been divided into habitat polygons based on survey data gathered in 2013 and 2014. We used these polygons as the basis for our survey. Line transects and 200m2 circular plots were conducted within these polygons to measure the quality and quantity of the nesting habitat. A literature review was carried out to identify indicators of good and poor nesting habitat. These indicators were used to determine the habitat rating of the polygons. Indicators included both wildlife tree characteristics and broader ecosystem characteristics.

The following characteristics were set as indicators of good habitat.

• High cover of deciduous trees, including mature black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa) (Young et al., 2010). • Moderate to dense understory shrub layer (Western Screech Owl, 2008). • Presence of wildlife trees with cavities (Young et al., 2010). Suitable wildlife trees have a DBH >30 cm (Western Screech Owl, 2008). Cavities are 3.5 - 6.0 m from the ground (Kaufman, 2002). • Presence of wildlife trees with decay that is suitable for cavity excavators (primarily pileated woodpecker). Wood classes 2 - 6 were determined to be suitable according to Aubry & Raley (2002). • Presence of adjacent foraging habitat, including forests, edges of open habitats, riparian areas, and coniferous forest with suitable perches (Western Screech Owl, 2008).

Indicators of poor habitat quality include:

• Few to no wildlife trees with suitable cavities - this is the main limiting factor to Western Screech Owl (Western Screech Owl, 2008). • Small patch size (fragmentation) (Young et al., 2010). • Habitats that are close to busy roads (within 100m) (Jared Hobbs, pers. comm.)

27 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Using the ecosystem polygon map, areas of dense forest with puffy, bright green trees were estimated to be high habitat. Areas of open forest, areas with high human use, or areas where wildlife/danger trees are likely to be removed (such as the campground) were designated as moderate or low habitat. Personal knowledge of the polygons was considered when estimating the rating. Non-forested areas were not rated. Map 4 and 5 show the estimated habitat ratings for polygons in the Seton River corridor.

Map 4 Estimated nesting habitat rating in the Seton Corridor (West)

28 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 5 Estimated habitat rating in the Seton Corridor (East)

Ground Truthing the Rating Estimations Line transects and circular plots were used to ground-truth the estimated ratings of the habitat polygons. One transect or circular plot was situated in representative areas of each polygon. In each transect or plot, data was collected on the indicators of good and poor habitat, using a Tree Attributes for Wildlife form in “Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems” (BC Ministry of Environment, 1998).

The transect length was determined by the size of the polygon, either 100 or 200 m. All wildlife trees within 5 meters on either side of the transect were counted and measured. This resulted in a transect width of 10 m, for a total transect area of 0.1 or 0.2 hectares. Circular plots were 7.99m radius, giving a plot area of 0.2 hectares. All wildlife trees within the circular plots were counted and measured. Wildlife trees were defined as any standing trees with >30cm diameter at breast height (DBH).

Data collected for each wildlife tree included species, diameter, remaining bark, height, height to live crown, crown class, amount of live crown, decay class, lichen loading, and wildlife use. Using binoculars, we counted the cavities on each wildlife tree, and classified the cavities as naturally occurring (i.e. a cavity formed by a broken branch stub) or excavated by a primary excavator, and as deep or shallow. We collected stand data including tree density, stand height, and shrub cover. 29 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 7 Surveying screech-owl nesting habitat at High rated site 26 Jan 2015

It was not possible to visit every polygon on the map. Data collection focused on polygons rated High or Moderate (Figure 7), and polygons that were obviously poor nesting habitat, such as non-vegetated river banks or very open forests with no shrub cover, were not surveyed. For several polygons, crews walked through and made notes on the habitat quality without completing a plot.

A weighted rating guide was created to determine the actual habitat rating using the data gathered in the field. The Habitat Rating Worksheet (Table 4) was filled out for every plot or transect, using the guide (Table 5) to score each indicator. The most heavily weighted indicators are wildlife trees with cavities and distance to busy roads. Wildlife trees with cavities are the primary limiting factors for Western Screech-owl nesting; without cavities the owls cannot nest. Habitats near busy roads are poor habitats, as road mortality is a significant threat to the species (Western Screech Owl, 2008). Habitats that did not have cavities or were closer than 50 m to a busy road were rated as Low by the rating guide.

30 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 4 Habitat Rating Worksheet

Indicator A. Weighting B. Point Total Value Factor Score (A x B)

Shrub cover 2

Wildlife Trees with Cavities 5

Wildlife Trees with wood class (decay 2 class) 2-6

Distance to adjacent foraging habitat 1

Distance to busy roads 5

Total

Rating Results: High = 40-45, Moderate = 36-39, Low = 30-35.

Table 5 Guide to Habitat Rating Worksheet

Indicator Weighting High - Moderate - Low Factor 3 Points 2 Points - 1 point

Shrub cover 2 40 - 100% 15 - 39% 0 - 14%

Wildlife Trees with Cavities 5 >1 per plot - None

Wildlife Trees with wood class (decay 2 >2 per plot 1-2 per plot none class) 2-6

Distance to adjacent foraging habitat 1 <50 m 50 - 100 m >100 m

Distance to busy roads (rate as 5 >100 m 51 - 100 m <50 m moderate if some of polygon is adjacent to a road, but not all)

Emergency Protection In February 2015, habitat features for the Western screech-owl were being cut down for firewood on the Seton Flat site. Firewood cutting at this site can create disturbance to nesting owls due to noise disturbance and risk to nest trees. A field walk and meeting was called between T’it’q’et Lands and Resource Management and Splitrock Environmental teams on 23 February 2015 to view the trees being cut down and to develop a short-term strategy, with long-term strategy to be discussed in the future. As a result of that meeting wildlife tree signs were installed the following week and future meetings planned.

31 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.3.3 Reptile Cover Board Survey During 2014 reptile monitoring across the entire Seton River corridor was completed using cover board survey methods as noted in previous years.

The goal of the cover board reptile monitoring is to identify the reptile species using the area, their distribution across the landscape, and to monitor the effects of restoration being undertaken in regards to abundance and new species using the restored sites.

Through the survey work taken place between 2009-2015 we have been able to confirm the presence of five species of reptiles in the Seton Figure 8 Western yellow-bellied racer River Corridor:

• Western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans ) • Western yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor mormon ) – Provincial blue-listed (vulnerable) (Figure 8). • Rubber boa (Charina bottae) – Federal special concern • Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola ) - Federal threatened; Provincial blue-listed (vulnerable). • Northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea principis ).

Each of these species has been observed either through cover board observations, during reptile den searches or incidental reports in the Seton Corridor. In addition range maps indicate that Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), is a possible resident of the area as is the rare Sharp-tailed snake (Contia tenuis) (Listed federally endangered and provincial red) (Jared Hobbs personal communication 2013).

Reptile cover boards and incidental observations have been used to monitor and record reptile species presence in the Seton River Corridor since 2009. Cover board surveys were originally designed by herpetologist E. Wind in 2008 for monitoring reptile presence at the Powerhouse site. Cover board monitoring has since been expanded each year to assess reptile species present at various locations through the Seton Corridor as it is a method that can be undertaken by environmental technicians and volunteers alike.

The number and location of cover boards has increased and shifted over the years to expand survey areas and to match available resources. Cover board survey grids were set up by Splitrock crews and monitoring was carried out through the seasons with a combination of Splitrock crews and volunteer citizen scientists.

The cover boards measure approximately 50cm X 80cm and are constructed of exterior grade plywood painted black on one side. School students assisted in making more cover boards for 2014 deployment (Figure 9). Boards have been distributed in one to four rowed grids spaced approximately 20 m apart at each of the survey site locations. During 2014 some cover boards in specific grids were decreased and spread further up the corridor, targeting at least six boards in each of the new locations. GPS positions were recorded for each board and GIS mapped in 32 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Arc Map 10 software. Each of the boards was labeled with a unique code for identification and reference. Cover boards were monitored starting in April and continued through to November. The goal was to monitor the boards weekly or bi-weekly as resources allowed.

..Figure 9 Students painting reptile cover Figure 10 Citizen scientist volunteer boards 24 Feb 2015 checking reptile baords 12 Sept 2014

Monitoring cover boards involved walking transects, approaching the board quietly from behind and lifting each board up towards the surveyor when it was encountered. Each cover board is equipped with a string to allow tilting of the board to inspect for species presence (Figure 10). Visual observations were made and records entered onto the reptile data sheet for the specific location. Data forms (Figure 11) included date, recorder, weather information including cloud cover, air temperature, wind, precipitation. Cover board ID was entered onto the sheet and a zero was entered onto the form if there were no species present upon inspection. If there was a positive sighting the observer would identify the species based on their knowledge, take a photograph to confirm species identification, record the number of individuals, estimate individual life stage and length, and enter any other notes deemed relevant, including other species present and estimated numbers. Boards were then slowly lowered back to the ground. No physical contact was made with the reptiles. Collected data was entered into an excel document at the end of the season for analysis.

33 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 11 Reptile cover board survey form

34 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.3.4 Reptile Den Search

Reptile den searches were carried out during 2014 to identify important denning sites used by snakes, with a particular emphasis on the blue-listed Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola). The Great Basin gopher snake is at risk in BC because its hibernacula are often found on rocky slopes that are susceptible to extraction of rock for road building and landscaping. Other sources of mortality are cars and trains, as they like to bask on asphalt and between train tracks (www.bcreptiles.ca).

The aim of the den search was to help identify important habitats used by gopher snakes in the Seton River corridor, including priority sites for habitat restoration and sites for potential WHAs. While surveying for the gopher snake it was considered likely that other reptile species would be encountered, thereby providing additional information to assist in management strategies.

Through consultations with Purnima Govindarajulu (RPBI) with the Ministry of Environment and Lita Gomez, Resources Manager for St’at’imc Government Services, it was decided that presence/not detected surveys via den searches would be the most effective way of detecting gopher snakes ein th corridor. Gopher snakes are a notoriously difficult species to find, and repeated surveys are often necessary to ascertain presence in a particular location (Ovaska, Sopuck, & Sarell, 2004). They are secretive creatures that move long distances over large home ranges, and spend time underground in rodent holes or talus slopes, becoming invisible to observers. Gopher snakes will spend some time basking in front of their den site before entering it for winter hibernation. If a surveyor spots a gopher snake during the autumn in a location with den site attributes, it is likely that the snake is basking outside of its den.

Initial research work included researching historic surveys and reports done in the Lillooet area. The Conservation Data Centre database was reviewed and contacts made with the following people to look into sightings and known hibernacula of gopher snakes in the corridor:

• Dr. Karl Larsen, Thompson Rivers University • John Surgenor, Wildlife Biologist, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations • Orvill Dyer, Ecosystem Biologist, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations • Ian Routley, Lillooet Naturalist Society

A reconnaissance of the Seton River Corridor was completed during summer 2014, under the guidance of Lita Gomez, to identify potential hibernacula sites. The attributes that were needed to establish possible denning habitat sites included the following features:

• east, south or west facing slopes with good exposure to winter sun • areas with rocky outcroppings, cliffs, or talus slopes • areas within a 1km radius of the Seton River

Once potential denning sites were established and mapped, crew technicians conducted den searches during autumn 2014. Den searches were conducted when nighttime low temperatures dropped below 9°C, as per Sewchuk (1996). Daytime conditions needed to be warm (between 15 - 30°C), clear, and wind-free, when snakes are most visible to observers (Bertram, Larsen & Surgenor, 2001). 35 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

On each survey day, two field technicians surveyed a section of the corridor that had been identified as potential denning habitat in the site reconnaissance. Upon arrival at the site, surveyors recorded survey location, date, survey start time, temperature, wind speed, cloud cover, and precipitation. A GPS track was started to record movements throughout the day.

The surveyors visited any feature that looked like a potential den site, including rocky outcroppings (Figure 14), the base of cliffs, and large boulders partially buried in talus slopes. Each feature was searched for snakes, photographed, and recorded in a GPS. Data collected included time of visit, mass, aspect, slope position, slope percent, and fracturing on a Feature Survey Form (Figure 12). Features were revisited as time allowed.

Snake sightings and sheds were recorded on Feature Visit Form (Figure 13) or on an i-pad using DoForms developed for the project. Data collected included the species, number, life stage, behavior, and current weather conditions. Materials used during the search included clinometer, datasheets, clipboard, pencils, compass, thermometer, GPS, extra batteries, camera, watch, radio, first aid kit and bear spray.

Feature Survey Form

Survey Area ______Observers ______Track ID ______GPS ID ______Date ______Start Time ______End Time ______Temperature ______Wind ______Cloud Cover ______Precipitation ______Description of the day ______

Feature Easting Northing Time Mass Aspect Aspect Slope Slope Slope Fract. Ttl Photo Cam Comments ID (º) (points) Pos. (points) % score # ID

Mass Aspect Slope Position Slope Fracturing 1 - car 0 - N/NE/NW 0 - not exposed 0 - not vertical 0 - no fracture 2 - bus 0.5 - W/E 0.5 - mid or upper 0.5 - vertical 1 - friable rock, shallow fractures 3 - small house or greater 1 - S/SE/SW 2 to 4 - anything in between 5 - deep fissures, touches base, separate volcanic Feature ID events or stress fractures/seams, or large rock ex: F2 flake.

Figure 12 Feature Survey Form

36 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Feature Visits, Snake Sightings, and Snake Sign Form

Survey Area ______Date ______Observers ______

Time Wind Label Species Easting Photo # Sighting Air temp Northing Sign Type Behaviour Comments Camera ID Sign Count Cloud Cover Precipitation Species Count Life Stage (A or J)

Label Sign Type Species Life Stage Behavior F# - for a feature SH - shed PICA - gopher snake A - adult basking INC# - for an incidental AN - animal COCO - racer B - juvenile traveling sighting O - other CHBO - rubber boa other (write your own THSP - garter spp comments)

Figure 13 Feature Visit Form

Figure 14 Reptile den habitat feature search on north side of Seton River 08 May 2014

37 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.3.5 Report-a-Snake Program

To augment the den and cover board surveys, a Report-a-Snake program was initiated during 2014. A request was made to the public to report any snake sightings in the Seton River Corridor, in particular the gopher snake. Report-a-Snake posters were developed (Figure 15) with instructions on snake identification and how to report sightings to Splitrock Environmental. The posters were posted at key locations within the community. Requests were also posted online and through email correspondence to targeted people. All data, photographs and information gathered from the public was entered into excel spreadsheets for analysis, mapping and reporting.

Have you seen a Great Basin Gopher Snake?

round pupils long, tapering tail with no rattle

slim body, glossy skin, dark square blotches narrow head

Please report your sightings to: Splitrock Environmental (250) 256-0002 [email protected]

Great Basin Gopher Snake is an endangered species in Lillooet. Splitrock Environmental is undertaking a reptile survey to determine the abundance of this species in the Seton River Corridor. Finding these snakes is hard, since they are rare and secretive. We would like to hear about any sightings in the Lillooet area to help us with our don’t report garter snakes! search. Thank you for your help!

Figure 15 Report-a-Snake Poster 22 August 2014 38 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.3.6 Large Mammals - Wildlife Cameras Wildlife cameras have been installed to monitor wildlife over the length of the corridor with the goal of identifying species using the corridor and what areas are of most value, including identification of existing wildlife trails.

One wildlife motion detector camera was installed on a tree during the summer of 2012, six installed during 2013 and another two during 2014. Locations within the corridor were chosen based on evidence of strong habitat structure, identified wildlife trails and likelihood of animals tripping the cameras. Locations were restricted to sites that would reduce the risk of vandalism or theft.

Bushnell trophy cam HD 8 megapixel cameras were used for capturing images. Image capture was programmed to take 10 second videos when the motion sensor was triggered. Cameras operate both in daylight and at night via led lights. 32 gigabyte memory cards were used inside each camera for data storage. Cameras were locked with a padlock to secure the batteries and data card and then locked to trees using metal cable. Batteries Figure 16 Checking wildlife cameras were changed approximately every three months and data card was downloaded that day and returned to the camera with fresh batteries.

Image captures were downloaded to a computer and the images systematically viewed by a crew technician (Figure 16), analyzed and observation described. A data observation form was designed for positive image captures which included: Date, File, Time, Location, Species, Name, Number of individuals, life stage, Sex, Observation, Direction of travel, Activity. Several of the observations ‘Activity, life stage’ categories used codes as described in Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems in the Field Wildlife Habitat Assessment. Observations were summarized into Microsoft excel tables, and reported information focusd on species, location, direction of movement and observed activities. People that were captured in images were recorded as ‘human’ and treated as a species using the site.

4.3.7 Wildlife General Observations Visual wildlife observations continue to be gathered by environmental technicians while they are working within the corridor, during vegetation ground surveys, when checking cameras and while invasive weed removal and revegetation work was in progress, or while working at the native plant nursery. The general public reported sightings to the crew on various occasions and dead wildlife have been droppedf of at our office for identification and freezing.

Field observations were recorded by crews on their daily timesheets and office worker entered the data into an excel spreadsheet. Pictures taken by crews in the field are downloaded and labeled.

39 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.4 Restoration Works

4.4.1 Invasive Weed Management Invasive weed removal is a large part of the restoration work needed in the corridor. Many invasive weed species are present (Table 6) in both highly impacted areas and in areas of functioning habitat. In 2014, the focus of the invasive weed management plan was designated for the Lower Spawning Channel (LSpCh), Upper Spawning Channel (USpCh) and the Lower Seton River Corridor (LSCor) where new plantings were established during 2013 and 2014.

Table 6 Summary list of exotic and invasive plants in Seton River Corridor

Common name Scientific Name Form Status agrostis sp. agrostis sp. perennial grass Exotic alfalfa medicago sativa perennial forb Exotic bulbous bluegrass poa bulbosa perennial grass Exotic bull thistle cirsium vulgare biennial forb Exotic burdock arctium sp. biennial forb Regional noxious Canada bluegrass poa compressa perennial grass Exotic/Native catnip Nepeta cataria perennial forb Exotic cheatgrass bromus tectorum annual grass exotic clover trifolium sp. perennial forb exotic crested wheatgrass agropyron cristatum perennial grass Exotic curly dock Rumex crispus perennial forb Exotic dalmatian toad-flax linaria genistifolia perennial forb Prov. Noxious dandelion taraxacum officinale perennial forb Exotic diffuse knapweed centaurea diffusa biennial forb Prov. Noxious European bittersweet Solanum dulcamara var dulcamara vine Exotic kentucky bluegrass poa pratensis perennial grass Exotic lance-leaved plantain plantago lanceolata perennial forb Exotic mullein verbascum thapsus biennial forb Exotic mustard sisymbrium sp. annual forb Exotic night flowering catchfly Silene noctiflora annual forb Exotic orchard grass dactylis golomerata perennial grass Exotic Poa sp. poa sp. perennial grass Exotic prickley Lettuce Lactuca serriola annual forb Exotic quack grass elytrigia repens perennial grass Exotic red clover trifolium sp. perennial forb Exotic salsify tragopogon dubius perennial forb Exotic smooth brome bromus inermis perennial grass Exotic white sweet clover melilotus alba annual forb Exotic yellow sweet clover melilotus officinalis annual forb Exotic parasitic Dodder Cuscuta sp. parasitic forb Prov. noxious

40 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Lower Seton Corridor The area of focus for weed removal in the lower corridor was the 2013 restoration sites (riparian management and orchard area), with alfalfa being the main targeted species. Mustard (sisymbrium sp.), various other annuals and orchard grasses were also hand-pulled by technicians throughout the season to ensure the re-vegetated areas were free of weeds that may have suppressed the growth of the native species. Weed trimming also occurred to keep seed heads down.

Lower Spawning Channel Removal of invasive species continued at the LSpCh, with a focus on similar species as was removed and/or controlled in 2012 and 2013. Great burdock (Arctium lappa), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), sweet clover (melilotus alba and melilotus officinalis) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) were targeted again because rate of growth and size can out-compete native species and/or their sharp burrs impact on fish and wildlife. These weeds were removed by hand-pulling to remove root systems during crew weed sweeps across the site or controlled from seeding by a regular mowing schedule.

Upper Spawning Channel A backhoe was employed to prepare the USpCh for restortation and revegetation. During site complexing, the backhoe pulled alfalfa out by the roots and other species were dug out and mixed with the soils (Figure 17). Hand-pulling of weeds in the areas to be revegetated took place throughout the season on several occasions prior to planting (Figure 18).

Figure 17 Backhoe removing weeds and preparing ground 10 Apr 2014

41 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 18 Crews hand pulling weeds in prepared ground USpCh 19 June 2014

During invasive weed removal, all seed bearing plant materials and other identified species were bagged/tarped and transported from the sites to the local landfill (Figure 19). Some of the plant materials were left on piled on site to act as habitat features and some were used to mulch any native species found. All other plant materials were transported to compost piles located beside the BC Hydro Transmission yards and used with other materials for preparing soil compost mixes to be used at the nursery.

Figure 19 Knapweed being removed after weed sweep at the LSpCh 30 July 2014

42 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.4.2 Site Complexing and Installation of Habitat Features Two of the areas slated for revegetation efforts during 2014-15 required the soils to be decompacted and recontoured using a backhoe. During 2014, a new technique for decompacting and preparing soils for planting was employed by Splitrock, based on recommendations made by Dave Polster during a site visit in 2013.

“Rough and loose surface treatments (Polster 2009) provide an effective way to control erosion and create conditions that promote the revegetation of a site. By creating topographic heterogeneity (Larkin et al. 2008) the rough and loose surface configurations provide increased diversity of habitats and therefore improves ecological resilience (Holling 1973)”. (Dave Polster 2013)

The method is modeled on the natural ecological process of a tree falling over, bringing up deep soil horizons and loosening the soil substrates, thereby making it easier to plant and for seed to fall into the complexed areas and find just the right microsite.

Rough and loose techniques were used on an old roadbed at the LSpCh and on a compact invasive weed infested site at the USpCh (Figure 17). The rough and loose surfaces are achieved by using an excavator to open holes across a site and placing the soil removed in between the holes in a methodically way:

“The excavator, using a digging bucket (not clean-up), takes a large bucket full of soil and places it to the left of the hole that was just opened, half a bucket width from the hole so it is half in and half out of the hole. A second hole is then excavated half a bucket width to the right of the first hole. Material from this hole is then placed between the first and second holes. A third hole is now opened half a bucket width to the right of the second hole, with the excavated soil placed between the second and third holes. Care should be taken when excavating the holes to shatter the material between the holes as the hole is dug. The process of making holes and dumping soil is continued until the reasonable operating swing of the excavator is reached. The excavator then backs up the width of a hole and repeats this process, being sure to line up the holes in the new row with the space between the holes (mounds) on the previous row.” (David Polster 2013).

Large logs were delivered to the site for use as habitat features, include standing snags and cwd on the ground. The logs provide both places to shelter for wildlife and create more microsites to protect young plants by providing shade and protection from the wind. Boulders from the sites and those delivered were used to create habitat features, including rock piles for snake sunning and two snake hibernacula.

Two snake hibernacula were built according to instructions from the Toronto Zoo (Toronto Zoo, n.d.) (Figure 20) based on recommendations from Jared Hobbs (2014). To build the dens, the following steps were taken: • a site was selected with good sun exposure and well-drained soils • a large hole was dug using an excavator. The hole was approximately 5m diameter and 2 m deep • the hole was filled with large boulders, placed so that cracks and open chambers would allow room for snakes to access the bottom of the den • the dens were partially capped with smaller rubble and soil to provide insulation • sand was placed around the edge of the new den for monitoring purposes • native plants were planted around the den and on the insulating cap to provide cover 43 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 20 Diagram of snake hibernacula (Toronto Zoo)

Prior to restoration works, a site inventory was completed at two locations - Reptile Road at the LSpCh and restoration area at the UpSpCh site. At each site one 10X10m square plot at representative locations in each of the restoration areas were laid out. In each plot, data was collected on a Site Visit Form, and included a site description, biogeoclimatice site series, vegetation list, soil texture, moisture and nutrients, successional status, structural stage and topographic features. Data was collect according to Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems (BC Ministry of Environment, 1998). A GPS unit was used to draw boundaries of each site for mapping purposes.

Lower Spawning Channel An old roadbed that had previous evidence of reptile mortality by vehicles during 2012 and 2013 was deactivated at the LSpCh. As there was already an assess road to the site, this second road was not required. A strip about 0.5m wide was not decompacted on the road. This strip acts as a control site and also serves as a pedestrian path, wildlife trail, and snake basking area.

The excavator attempted to use the rough and loose technique; however the ground was very rocky making the technique difficult. Holes were dug and soils placed as indicated above. Larger rocks were removed and placed in piles as habitat features for reptiles to bask and take cover under (Figure 21). The lack of soils in the mix generated smaller mounds that were then contoured by crew technicians using rakes. 44 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

A hibernacula was also built on a south facing slope by the edge of the old road. The excavator followed the method noted above (Figure 22).

Gopher snakes most often use rodent holes as cover, as they offer both termal and physical covers (Bertram, 2004 & Bertram et.a., 2001). Rodent holes are difficult to construct in the sandy soils, so the installation of class 8 or 9 wildlife trees (large decaying logs) and rock outcroppings may provide cover to a lesser extent (Bertram, 2004).

Figure 21 Rock piles laid along edge of deactivated road 12 Sept 2014

Figure 22 Building hibernacula at LSpCh 26 Sept 2014 45 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Upper Spawning Channel The USpCh site was a compacted and weed infested area located between the Seton River and the upper end of the spawning channel. The goal of the restoration work was to restore the riparian habitat along the Seton River and around the berms of the channel, and to create a ponderosa pine bunchgrass ecosystem on the upland portions of the site.

During April 2014, the rough and loose technique was employed successfully using a larger excavator (Figure 23). The ground was conducive to the method and any rocks or boulders dug up were strategically placed on the site or left for use in the hibernacula to be built later in the season.

Figure 23 Rough and loose complexing underway at USpCh 11 April 2014

In October 2014, a hibernacula was constructed, again using the technique noted above from the Toronto Zoo. As the site was flat bench with no south facing slope, the excavator used the soils dug from the hole to create a berm around the hole facing south (Figure 24). The hole was then filled with rocks and capped as per the methodology noted above.

Figure 24 Building hibernacula and south facing slope at USpCh 07 October 2014 46 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.4.4 Revegetation – Seton River The banks of the Seton River have been degraded over the past century and changes to the flooding regime have minimized the extent of mature cottonwood stands, reducing nesting habitat for the screech-owl and other species dependent on riparian forests. In many locations, stream banks have been heavily armored with riprap where no bioengineering work took place during installation. Much of these riprapped areas have not recruited vegetation as the structures have created dry, soilless conditions. Other stream banks are overly steep due to increased erosion. These steep, gravelly banks are constantly raveling, making it difficult for native plants to get established. The goals of the restoration work along the banks of the Seton River during 2014-15 were to increase riparian nesting and foraging habitat for the Western screech-owl for future use and to test best methodology for revegetating riprap and eroding banks in our hot, dry climate.

Along the Seton River, two types of areas were targeted for restoration and two distinct methods used: • riprap areas on the south bank of Seton River were little vegetation is colonizing was treated using pocket planting bioengineering techniques, and • eroding banks on the south bank of Seton River were treated using a combination of wattle fences, live staking, planting and seeding.

The bioengineering techniques used are based on methods described by David Polster (2011). Materials used for undertaking this work included hand saws, pruners, buckets, soil slide, wheelbarrow, axe, hatchet, planting bars, shovels, mallets, watering cans, flagging tape, sharpies, camera, field book, soil, worm castings, bark compost, organic fertilizer bags and water retention pouches.

Black cottonwood hardwood cuttings were collected in March 2015 from under hydro transmission lines where a site management strategy is in place. Cuttings were cut to 2m long lengths and all branches were trimmed off. The bottoms of the cuttings were shaved to create a point to make it easier to install (Figure 25) . Cuttings were then transported to the nursery where they were soaked in water for two days prior to planting. During planting cuttings not being used were stored in water and/or in the shade.

Figure 25 Cuttings prepared for planting 15 Mar 2015

47 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Pocket Planting The riprap pocket planting locations were chosen by crew who searched for pockets of space between boulders that had some natural soil in the bottom. The sides of the pockets were reinforced using dry stacking masonry techniques. It was difficult to access the riprap so soil was delivered to the pockets using a soil slide. This was built from a 1’ rigid plastic pipe that was cut in half lengthwise. The soil slide was positioned downslope to a bucket or directly into a pocket where possible. The soil was then shoveled into the slide, where it slid down to a pocket that needed filling (Figure 26). The pockets were filled with different soil mixes so that a monitoring program could be initiated to determine best mix for future works.

Cuttings were then planted into the pocket as deeply as possible with varying depths attained based on pocket conditions. The tops of the cuttings were cut to within 6” of the soil surface to minimize water transpiration. Cuttings were watered and marked with colored flagging tape to indicate the soil mix they were planted into.

Figure 26 Delivering soil to pocket planting site 18 Mar 2015

48 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Eroding Slopes Invasive weeds were removed before bioengineering work began. Wattle fences were then built across the eroding slope. Large live stakes were pounded into the ground as supports, and long thin cuttings were laid lengthwise behind the supports. Soil was back-filled into the fence, to create a terrace (Figure 27). Terraces were built to be at least 2m long and approximately 0.5 m tall. Terraces were built at a variety of elevations along the slope (Figure 28).

Figure 27 Diagram of watter fencing (Polster, 2011)

Figure 28 Wattle fences installed at different elevations 16 Mar 2015

Live cottonwood stakes were then pounded into the backfilled terrace and seedlings planted. Live stakes, shrubs and forbs were planted on lower, moister terraces, while tree seedlings were planted on higher, drier terraces. The planted areas were watered thoroughly using watering cans at time of planting and one week after planting. Due to the hot dry summers of Lillooet it is recommended to set up a drip irrigation line to water the planted areas for the first two years.

Photo points were taken within one week of planting, before leaf-out of the cuttings. Photo points were taken following the method described in Photopoint Monitoring Handbook (Hall, 2002). The photo points will allow repeat monitoring as a way to assess the success of the planting over the long-term and provide useful information on best practices.

49 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.4.4 Revegetation – Lower Spawning Channel Various locations were planted during 2014-15 at the Lower Spawning Channel. Sites included the planting of a demonstration garden at the entrance to the spawning channels to create a space for people to learn more about the plants of our region, riparian planting of potted plants and cuttings to increase shade cover along the edges of channel berms, upland planting on berms where it is difficult for trees/shrubs to get established, and on an old roadbed slated for deactivation.

Where cuttings were planted, live stakes approximately six feet tall were harvested from under transmission lines in the upper corridor and soaked for a few days. The stakes were then cut into differing lengths based on the techniques employed on the ground. Using specially designed metal poles (Figure 29), holes were drilled by hand into the rocky edges of the river and channel, cuttings placed, and holes closed back up with pole, boots and by hand.

Figure 29 Planting bar used for planting cuttings 29 Mar 2014

When potted stock were planted, holes twice the size of the potted plants were dug and the plant buried with a slight depression to catch water. When planting into rocky soils, rocks were removed from the hole and additional soils added. The holes were then watered and slowly drained. MykePro (beneficial mycorrhizal fungi) was added to the planting holes to assist with the uptake of nutrients and water to the plants. Plants were then placed in the hole and covered with soil, packing around the plant as more soil was added. A slight depression was left and the soil covered by bark mulch.

Volunteers were broken up into smaller groups and crew technicians demonstrated the planting process to their group of volunteers (Figure 30) and assisted them throughout the process. After volunteers had left the site, technicians checked the plants and fixed any planting issues. The plants were then watered in one more time on the day of planting, and again as needed throughout the season.

50 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 30 Crews demonstration planting techniques 29 May 2014

4.4.5 Revegetation – Upper Spawning Channel At the USpCh trees and shrubs were planted along the slopes of the berms and the areas just above the channels to increase riparian cover where none existed. The upland areas were planted with dryland trees, shrubs and forbs. The ground was prepared using the rough-and- loose technique to address the compact condition of the site and to create microsites for planting. Plants were transported to the site (Figure 31) and planting methods employed for potted stock were the same as the methods noted above.

Figure 31 Plants laid out in readiness for planting 07 Oct 2014 51 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.5 Community Capacity Building Community capacity building in fisheries, land management and restoration fields has been identified as an important component of the Seton River Corridor project. Based on agency priorities lack of skilled workers impacts on the ability to carry out restoration and survey work.

Training in survey protocols and techniques were again provided to crew technicians and volunteers during the above activities, including summer students who have an interest in the field. Through leverage of funding crews were deployed to work on a range of activities, thereby providing opportunities to learn a variety of skills, including plant identification, weed management, revegetation techniques, as well as vegetation, soil, wildlife and fish survey techniques (Figure 32), data entry and outreach skills.

Before each activity, contractors, project manager and/or restoration specialist provided an overview of the work to be undertaken, including the rationale for doing the work. Hands-on training opportunities were offered in equipment use and survey protocols.

Many of the crew who have worked on these projects for the last six years remain committed to the project and continue to grow in their skill set. These crew technicians now act as mentors to the summer students and new crew, and are now taking on more of the data entry and analysis. However, as these are young workers it is important to always include new youth in the process so that when current employees move onto other education and/or jobs, there is a bank of people who have some knowledge and interest in the work.

Figure 32 Learning to recognize denning habitat 12 Sep 2014 52 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

4.6 Watershed Education Outreach Watershed educational and stewardship outreach events have been a strong component of the restoration work we have undertaken over the years, and continued during 2014-15.

Various activities and events were planned and implemented by the restoration crew and volunteers, including Walking with the Smolts Community Celebration, stewardship fall planting events, and job creation partnership training/mentoring opportunities. Field walks and tours of the sites continued.

Environmental crew technicians, nursery staff, summer students, local aboriginal elders and leaders, naturalists and other community members have been involved in the stewardship and environmental education programs that have been hosted out of the Splitrock offices. People of all ages participate from preschoolers (Figure 33) to elders.

The Lillooet Naturalist Society continues to play a major role in partnering on the education and stewardship efforts, through funding, promotion and volunteering at events. Their support allows this important environmental education to continue.

Figure 33 Preschoolers participating in planting activities 29 Mar 2014

53 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5. RESULTS 5.1 Partnership Development

5.1.1 Stakeholder Meetings To ensure the development of a long-term and comprehensive land management plan for the Seton River Corridor, one of our highest priorities was to connect with diverse agencies, organizations and individuals to gain insight into the historical and current uses of the area. To achieve this we identified key stakeholders and initiated contact through telephone calls, emails and personal discussions. Between 2011 and 2014 we have hosted four stakeholder meetings and have had over thirty-five participants attend from twenty-eight different organizations. The meetings have included field walks, powerpoint presentations and brainstorming sessions, all of which have provided important information to the project and increased networking opportunities. Participant lists and information on these meetings have been presented in final reports from previous years, including meeting minutes and powerpoint presentation summaries.

The focus of the meetings has been on this statement generated by participants:

“Working together to develop a unifying vision to support fish and wildlife values in the Seton River Corridor, while acknowledging cultural and operational values”.

The fourth stakeholder meeting was held on 07 April 2014. Thirty-six participants joined the discussion and presented on the operational activities taking place in the corridor as well as wildlife observations and research projects that have been completed and /or are upcoming. Report on those discussions is presented in the 2013-14 final report.

No further stakeholder meetings were held in 2014-15 project year as we were unable to complete the habitat mapping of the north side of the Seton River nor around the Seton Lake area due to financial constraints and the fact that a memorandum of understanding needed to be developed between Sekw’el’was and T’it’q’et.

5.1.2 Partner Meetings The focus of 2014-15 project year was to strengthen the partnership between the two aboriginal communities who have traditional territories and areas of interest in the corridor. Sekw’el’was has been engaged in this project since its inception with the creation of the partnership with Lillooet Naturalist Society. T’it’q’et have been represented at all four stakeholder meetings, but it was deemed important to ensure both communities came together and had greater joint input into the discussions so that any concerns and/or interests were fully detailed before taking recommendations to the larger stakeholder groups.

To ensure a working partnership between the two communities were solidified, Splitrock initiated presentations within the T’it’q’et community, offered field walks and developed powerpoint presentations on the history of the project and the possible plans moving forward.

54 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Two powerpoint presentations were presented in 2012 at T’it’q’et office to begin the partnership development process. On 30 March 2012, Chief Michelle Edwards and Splitrock representatives attended T’it’q’et Chief and Council meeting and provided a powerpoint presentation on the history and possible future of the land management planning around fish and wildlife values in the corridor. On 21 September 2012, based on direction from T’it’qet, we were invited to present the information to P’egp’ig’lha Council who were tasked with working with Sekw’el’was in developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Since that time discussions, email correspondence and attendance at the Stakeholder meetings have been ongoing.

In March 2014, before the initiation of the 2014-15 survey year, Splitrock contacted both T’it’q’et Chief and Council and P’egp’ig’lha Council regarding protocols for moving forward and their participation at the April 2014 Stakeholder Meeting. Partnership activities that took place during 2014-15 are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Partnership Activities 2014-15

Date Event Details 07 April 2014 Stakeholder Meeting Both communities presented on their respective interests and operations in the corridor and provided input during the meeting

May – August 2014 Partner Networking Ongoing discussions regarding MOU and working protocols. Stakeholder powerpoint presentation and minutes and referral letter submitted

16 September 2014 Partner Meeting and Powerpoint presentation on history of project, current Field Trip and possible future works presented at Sekw’el’was Chief and Council, with P’egp’ig’lha Council in attendance. Upcoming reptile den surveys, restoration works and screech-owl nest sites discussed. Field walk followed visiting many of the sites slated for survey and/or restoration

October – November 2014 Partner Networking Next year Grant Application communications and supports

23 February 2015 Partner Field Trip Emergency Meeting with T’it’q’et Lands and Resource Department regarding wood cutting in screech-owl nesting habitat on Seton Flat

16 March 2015 Partner Meeting and Powerpoint presentation at Splitrock offices and Field Trip field walk to go over past and future projects (Appendix 00)

55 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.2 Spawning Channel Survey

The Seton River spawning channels provide important in-stream and terrestrial habitats. Prior to 2013 the spawning channels were only watered every second year for approximately six months during the pink spawning and outmigration season. Instream features were limited to runs and the berms were mowed regularly so few trees and shrubs grew. In 2003 St’at’imc and DFO recomplexed the system with funding from BCRP and other inkind contributions, with the goal of increasing coho spawning habitat and other wildlife values. In 2010 Cayoose and Splitrock Environmental began to monitor the success of the recomplexing and developed survey and maintenance protocols. In March 2014 a Spawning Channel Committee was established and first official meeting was held on 07 May 2014 at Sekw’el’was office and through conference call. A field trip with local members followed. Representatives on the committee are from St’at’imc Government Services (Sue Senger), Sekw’el’was (Bonnie Adolph and Fred James), DFO (Sean Bennett), BC Hydro (Dorian Turner), and Splitrock Environmental (Kim North, Odin Scholz) and local fish biologist Jeff Sneep. It is recommended to also include a representative from Instream Fisheries Research on the committee.

Between 2010 and 2015, water temperature monitoring, aquatic invertebrate studies, adult spawner counts, juvenile growth studies, invasive weed removal, re-vegetation activities, beaver control and spawner gravel surveys have been ongoing. The information gathered is providing important data that guides restoration efforts, and the new committee will provide valuable advice on ongoing maintenance and appropriate survey works into the future.

During 2014 the following works were completed:

• Water temperature monitoring • Adult spawner surveys • Juvenile growth surveys • Gravel cleaning and monitoring stations established • Beaver control • Weed removal • Revegetation • Stewardship events (Figure 34)

Figure 34 Students releasing coho salmon into the spawning channel during stewardship event 30 May 2014

56 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.2.1 Water Temperature Monitoring Hobo Tidbit data loggers were installed in the Lower Spawning channel in 2012. Three data loggers are located at the Lower Spawning channel - two are in-stream and one records air temperature. The data logger at the upper end of the spawning channel is located approximately 25 m from the inflow pipes. The lower end data logger is located approximately 100m from the spawning channels confluence with the Seton River. Both in-stream loggers area set approximately .5m depth. Data loggers are programed to record temperature every half hour.

Water temperatures from the two monitoring stations at the Lower Spawning Channel (upstream and downstream ends) were again recorded in 2014, building on the data collected since 2010.

The data collected in 2014 is depicted in Figure 35 and 36. The blue line indicates the upstream temperature and the red the downstream. It is apparent from the graph that downstream temperatures are higher than the upstream in general from April through October. The temperature variation between the upper end of the spawning channel and the downstream end varies by as much as 4 °C in late July and August. The average daily temperature differences between the upstream and downstream sites is close to 1 degree between May and August (Figures 37 and 38).

Figure 35 Temperature data from 2014 instream data loggers (Lower Spawning Channel)

57 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 36 Data loggers including air temperature 2014 (Lower Spawning Channel)

The highest temperatures recorded at the downstream monitoring site were during July and August. Temperatures rose above 21°C on thirteen separate days during 2014:

• 16, 17, 18, 19 July 2014 • 6, 7, 8, 9 10 August 2014 • 17, 21, 22, 28 August 2014

The reverse effect was observed in the winter months where water temperatures were cooled by as much as 2 °C between the upstream and downstream monitoring locations.

The warmer temperatures in the summer can be a stress to fish species. A summary of temperatures suitable for specific fish species is referenced according to the Ministry of Environment’s “Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Temperature” (Table 8).

2014 summer high temperatures at the Lower Spawning Channel are well above the recommend optimum levels as specified by the Ministry. Continuing to promote vegetation cover and shade across the Lower Spawning channel is the best mitigation measure for stabilizing the lower spawning channel temperatures.

No data loggers have been deployed at the Seton River Upper or the Cayoose Creek Spawning Channels. It is recommended that these be installed as resources allow. 58 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 8 Optimum Temperature Ranges of Specific Life History Stages of Salmonids and Other Coldwater Species for Guideline Application (Source: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/temptech/temperature.html)

Species Incubation Rearing Migration Spawning Salmon Chinook 5.0-14.0 10.0-15.5 3.3-19.0 5.6-13.9 Chum 4.0-13.0 12.0-14.0 8.3-15.6 7.2-12.8 Coho 4.0-13.0 9.0-16.0 7.2-15.6 4.4-12.8 Pink 4.0-13.0 9.3-15.5 7.2-15.6 7.2-12.8 Sockeye 4.0-13.0 10.0-15.0 7.2-15.6 10.6-12.8 Trout Brown 1.0-10.0 6.0-17.6 — 7.2-12.8 Cutthroat 9.0-12.0 7.0-16.0 — 9.0-12.0 Rainbow 10.0-12.0 16.0-18.0 — 10.0-15.5 Char Arctic Char 1.5-5.0 5.0-16.0 — 4.0 Brook Trout 1.5-9.0 12.0-18.0 — 7.1-12.8 Bull Trout 2.0-6.0 6.0-14.0 — 5.0-9.0 Dolly Varden — 8.0-16.0 — — Lake Trout 5.0 6.0-17.0 — 10.0 Grayling Arctic Grayling 7.0-11.0 10.0-12.0 — 4.0-9.0 Whitefish Lake Whitefish 4.0-6.0 12.0-16.0 — greater than 8.0 Mountain less than 6.0 9.0-12.0 — less han 6.0 Whitefish Other Species Burbot 4.0-7.0 15.6-18.3 — 0.6-1.7 White Sturgeon 14.0-17.0 — — 14.0

59 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 37 2014 Difference in temperature from downstream and upstream data loggers. Downstream temperature subtract upstream temperature (Lower Spawning Channel).

Figure 38 2014 Daily average difference in temperature between the downstream and upstream data loggers (Lower Spawning Channel).

60 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.2.2 Adult Spawner Visual Counts Attempts were made in 2014 to enumerate all species of adult salmonids spawning in the Seton River. Radio-telemetry, along with visual counts, and PIT tags were the methods used to collect the adult data. These methods worked with varying success. 15 Steelhead adults were tagged at the Seton-Fraser confluence but only 3 fish remained in the Seton River. No Steelhead were observed during the stream walks. Chinook adult enumeration proved to be a challenge; although extensive angling effort was applied, there were none captured. Only 2 Chinook were observed holding in the Seton River during stream walks. Low numbers of fish were also observed for adult Coho. Only one adult captured and PIT tagged, and 21 observed during the stream walks. Of the 21 observed, 15 were observed in the spawning channels, the other 6 were observed holding near Seton Dam. However, we cannot be sure if they spawned in the Seton River or moved up past the dam. Other adult salmonids (e.g. Bulltrout and Mountain whitefish) were observed in the system, but are believed to use the river as a feeding ground or migratory corridor rather than for spawning.

Steelhead: Stream walks for adult Steelhead on the Seton River were conducted on a weekly basis, from 22 April to 18 June 2014. During this period no Steelhead adults were observed. Total count: 0

Rainbow Trout: Stream walks for spawning Rainbow trout occurred concurrently with the Steelhead stream walks, from 22 April to 18 June 2014. During this period 5 adult Rainbow trout were observed in the upper spawning channel on 21 May. The following week 1 lone Rainbow trout was observed in the upper spawning channel. Total count: 6

Chinook: Stream walks for spawning chinook occurred between 4 September and 30 September 2014. No chinook were recorded using the spawning channels or Seton River. Total count: 0

Sockeye: Splitrock crews observed 2 live sockeye on 23 September 2014 and 2 dead sockeye on 21 November 2014 at the lower spawning channel; and 3 live sockeye on both 18 August and 9 September 2014 (total 6) at the upper spawning channel. Total count: 10

Coho: Stream walks for Coho were conducted from 28 October to 25 November 2014. During this time a total of 21 Coho were observed. Most of these fish were observed in the spawning channels (6 in upper spawning channel and 9 in lower spawning channel). The remaining 6 fish were observed near Seton Dam during the first survey. Along with the live fish observed in the lower spawning channel during the last survey, seven dead Coho were observed (Table 9). Splitrock crews also recorded 3 coho on 21 November 2014 at the lower spawning channel. Total count: 24

Table 9 Seton River Coho visual count data - 2014

Date Observers % Cloud Air Water Untagged Tagged Untagged Tagged Untagged Tagged MORTS Total Cover Temp Visibility (m) Seton Dam to Seton Dam to Upper Spawning Upper Spawning Lower Spawning Lower Spawning IPT IPT Channel Channel Channel Channel 28-Oct-14 CJ/RJ 90 N/A 1 m 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 04-Nov-14 SP/RJ 95 5 <.5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 19-Nov-14 CJ/RJ/SP 100 N/A .5 m 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 5 25-Nov-14 ES/CJ/SP 100 N/A N/A 0 0 2 0 3 0 7 5

61 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.2.3 Juvenile Growth Sampling Through monthly juvenile surveys in 2014, valuable baseline data was collected on the Seton River and spawning channel juvenile growth rates for resident life-stages. 13 species of fish were observed (Table 10), including 7 species of salmonids [Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Bulltrout (Salvelinus confluentus), Coho (O. kisutch), Chinook (O. tshawytscha), Pink (O. gorbuscha), sockeye (O. nerka) and white fish (Prosopium williamsoni)] and six species of non-salmonids [bridgelip sucker (Catostomus columbianus), prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), coastrange sculpin (C. aleuticus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), red-sided shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) and northern pike minnow(Ptychocheilus oregonensis)]. Of these species, only Rainbow trout and Coho were caught in sufficient numbers to show the presence of discrete age classes. Four distinct age classes of Rainbow trout were observed (0+, 1, 2, and 3+). Two age classes of Coho were identified, age one (1) fish in the spring and young of the year (0) throughout the rest of the year. Smaller fish, most likely young of the year, had a higher and more consistent capture rate than large fish and thus provided a larger sample size for analysis.

Juvenile fish growth surveys commence on 15 April 15 2014 and continued on a monthly basis through to 26 October 2015. In total 7 surveys were completed. The main-stem Seton River sites were sampled in all months from April to October, except for May and the spawning channels were sampled from April to July and then again in October (Maps 6, 7, 8).

Table 10 Total number of fish caught during 2014 juvenile growth sampling surveys.

Species Seton River Spawning Channels Bridgelip Sucker 2 28 Bull Trout 2 2 Coast-range sculpin 88 50 Prickly Sculpin 34 8 Chinook 15 7 Coho 466 208 Sculpin 2 NA Longnose Dace 335 65 Northern Pike Minnow 1 NA Pink 14 22 Rainbow Trout 1096 272 Red sided Shinner 7 52 Sockeye 6 NA White fish 14 NA Grand Total 2082 714

62 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 6 Location of juvenile growth sampling sites, Seton River, 2014 Upper Corridor

Map 7 Location of juvenile growth sampling sites, Middle Corridor, 2014

63 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 8 Location of juvenile growth sampling sites, Lower Corridor, 2014

5.2.3.1 Rainbow Trout

A total of 1096 rainbow trout were sampled in the Seton River main-stem throughout the sampling series and their length ranged from 21 to 184 mm (Table 11). Length distributions show multiple modes in the histograms indicating multiple age classes are present throughout the year (Figure 39). In April two distinct modes are visible, one ranging from 75 to 120mm and the other representing fish larger than 125 mm. In July three distinct modes are apparent, one in the range from 25-65 mm, another in the 90 to 135 mm and a few fish greater than 135 mm. The length patterns observed in August are consistent with the patterns observed in July (i.e. three modes), although the mode of the largest group of fish is not as clearly defined. The September survey data is sparse for larger fish and thus is hard to identify any modes from the larger size classes. However, the larger fish sampled appear to be split evenly into three size classes (100-120 mm, 120-140mm and >145 mm). There is a clear mode for young eof th year that ranges from 40 to 90mm. In October four distinct modes were clearly visible, with smaller size class between 45 and 110 mm, another possibly between 110 to125 mm, one from 130 to 150 mm and the last made up of fish greater than 155mm.

In the spawning channels 295 rainbow trout were sampled. Their lengths ranged from 32 to 228 mm (Table 12). Like in the main-stem river, the spawning channel histograms from the monthly sampling surveys indicate a similar distribution of size classes (Figure 40). The histogram from the spawning channels in April shows three possible size classes. A size class ranging from 75 mm to 120 mm, another from 125 to 165 mm and a size class of fish with fork lengths greater than 170 mm. In May the three distinct modes are not as clearly visible, but the data shows a similar spread or range. A distinct peak is observed at 115 mm another at around 140 mm and few larger fish greater than 165 mm. In June two modes are visible, one ranging from 110 to 140 mm and the other from 145 mm to 185 mm. In July a smaller size class is visible (25 mm to 55 mm), along with the larger three size classes that range from 100 to 130 mm, 135 to 160 mm and 165mm to greater than 200 mm. In 64 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

October when the spawning channels were once again sampled, few fish were captured. This resulted in weak representation of the size classes however the data indicate modes between 60 to 80 mm, 110 to 130mm, 135 to 160 mm and 165 to 195 mm. This is consistent with the July and October size distributions.

Rainbow Trout in the spawning channel were consistently larger than those sampled from the main- stem (t-test; p-value<0.05). This pattern was consistent for all the months where both areas were sampled (Table 13).

Scale/Age Analysis:

For the purpose of scale analysis all of the scales from the spawning channel fish and those of the mains-stem river were pooled to increase sample sizes. Analysis from the scale data agree with the different modes observed in the length frequency histograms of each month.

In April, scale analysis showed three distinct age classes present. These ages represent fish that are one, two and three years old (Figure 41). All the Rainbow trout that have survived a winter were classified as age 1 +. In April these fish have not shown any scale growth to classify them as “+” fish but for graphical purposes they were classified as such. This was done for age 2 + and 3 + as well.

The length, age histogram for April shows an overlap of sizes between the age one and ageo tw fish between 95 and 110 mm and age two and age three fish between 135 and 155 mm (Figure 42). The mean size at age for age one fish was 93 mm with a range from 75 to 109 mm, age two fish had a mean length of 123 mm (97 - 162 mm) and age three fish had an average length of 183 mm (135 – 228) (Figure 42).

In May and June no scales were sampled.

In July, when scales were once again sampled, the analysis showed three distinct age classes (0, 1 and 2) with a distinct new age class for young of the year Rainbow trout that had recently emerged from the gravel (Figure 43). Some of the fish were quite small and had not yet formed scales or developed annuli, scales were not collected from fish smaller than 45mm. It was assumed that these fish were age zero or young of the year. The age zero fish had a mean fork length of 38mm that ranged from 27 to 63 mm. The mean size for age one fish in July was 114mm (93 – 136 mm), while age two fish had a mean fork length of 144 mm (116 – 193 mm) (Figure 44). There were no age three fish sampled in July.

In August only 3 fish were sampled for scales and thus an age key could not be created. These fish were all age one fish with fork lengths of 113, 125 and 125 mm. The histograms from July and August show very similar distributions and thus suggest the same age classes are present. These age classes would be age zero, age one and age two fish.

During the September sampling series, only six juvenile Rainbow were sampled for scales. These fish were all age zero fish with a mean fork length of 64mm (21 – 78 mm). Very few fish larger than 100 mm were sampled in September and therefore it is hard to estimate age classes of those fish. The dominant age class sampled in September were the age zero fish.

In October, three distinct age classes were identified (Figure 45). These were the same age classes observed in previous months. They were age zero, age one and age two fish. Age zero fish had a mean length of 71 mm and with a minimum of 55 mm and a maximum of 103 m. Age one fish had a 65 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014 mean fork length of 133 mm (112 – 174 mm) and age two fish had a mean length of 171 mm (150 – 267 mm) (Figure 46). An overlap between age one and age two fish still exists between 145mm to 175 mm.

Growth Analysis: Although scales were not collected in all months, one can follow the common modes to assess growth rates through time. Below, age data collected along with the length frequency histograms are used to assess growth rates of the different age classes in the Seton River main-stem. For young of the year fish both data are used. For age one and two fish, because sample sizes were not ideal only data from the April, July and October sampling series is used. During those surveys enough samples were collected to create a length key and apply an age to non sampled fish. Length, weight analysis showed a strong relationship between length and weight for Rainbow trout of all sizes within the Seton River (R2=0.969) (Figure 47).

Rainbow trout Age 0+

As was expected, young of the year Rainbow were not observed until the July sampling survey. This was the case for sites in the main-stem river and spawning channels. During this survey the fish in the main-stem had a mean fork length of 37.6 mm with a range from 27 to 63 mm. Average weight was 0.8 g with a range from 0.10 to 3.9 g. In August these fish had grown to a mean length of 48.6 mm (31 to 67 mm) and a mean weight of 1.5 g. Growth continued into September with a mean fork length of 57 mm (21 – 82 mm) and a mean weight of 2.3 g. From September to October the largest growth was observed. Mean fork length increased by 13 mm to 70 mm (46 – 103 mm) and a mean weight of 4.4 g (Figure 48 and 49). In total young of the year grew an average of 32.4 mm (0.36 mm/day) from July to October.

Rainbow trout Age 1+

Age one fish were represented in all months of the year where samples were collected. In April, the mean fork length of these fish (as reported previously) was 93 mm (75-109 mm) and had a mean weight of 9.5 g. By July these fish had grown by 21 mm to 114 mm and a mean weight of 18.6 g. From July to October growth remained constant and the fish had grown to a mean fork length of 133 mm and a mean weight of 24.3 g (Figures 50 and 51). Age one fish grew and average of 40 mm (0.25 mm/day and 0.10g /day) in six months, from April to October.

Rainbow trout Age 2+

Age two fish like age one fish, were represented in all months where samples were collected. In April, age two fish had a mean fork length of 123 mm and a mean weight of 22.3 g. By July these fish had grown to a mean length of 145 mm and a mean weight of 38.8 g. From July to October age two fish mean length had increased by 26 mm to 171 mm. Mean weight had also increased from 38.8 g to 45.0 g, an increase of 6.3 g (Figures 52 and 53). Age two fish grew an average of 48 mm (0.3 mm/day) from April to October.

Rainbow trout Age 3+

Age three fish were only observed during the first sampling session. As they were only observed once throughout the year a growth pattern could not be assessed. This may be due to limitations of the sampling gear. Larger faster fish are more difficult to capture through open site electrofishing.

66 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

PIT Recaptures

Throughout the sampling year various Rainbow trout that had been PIT tagged were recaptured. In total 22 PIT tagged Rainbow trout were recaptured, sixteen of these fish could be retraced to original tag date (Table 10). The other fish that were not identified may have been tagged by TEC Inc. and although we have their data set we could not find the original tag date. The amount of time passed between catches varied from 30 – 126 days. Mean length and weight of the recaptured fish was 111 mm (90 – 143 mm) and 17.2 g (7.5 – 38.6 g). Based on the size and age we assume they are age one fish. On average these fish grew 0.24 mm/day and 0.11 g/day, this corresponds with the growth rates observed for the age one fish (0.25 mm/day and 0.10 g/day).

The PIT data also showed that there is some movement of juvenile fish throughout the river. Nine of the 16 fish tagged remained in the same location they were tagged. Three of them were originally tagged at site GS-3 and were recaptured at site GS-5 downstream about 1.3 km. Two of the fish were recaptured twice. They were originally sampled at GS-3 (23 July) then GS-5 (22 August) and the last time they were caught they were sampled at GS-3 again on 22 October. The other fish was originally sampled at GS-5 then recaptured upstream at GS-3. The last fish was first sampled in the lower spawning channel on 16 June, 35 days later it was sampled at GS-8, meaning it migrated out of the spawning channel then moved upstream about 200m.

Table 11 Mean length of Rainbow trout sampled during juvenile growth sampling surveys at Seton River and spawning channels, 2014

Sites Month N Mean sd Min Median Max USC April 62 131.9 31 95 120.5 228 LSC April 43 126.7 34.1 76 124 225 Seton River April 20 96.6 17.1 75 90 134 USC May 28 127.1 27.1 90 124 212 LSC May 21 126.9 26.3 88 123 180 USC June 16 140.9 16 119 141.5 170 LSC June 21 135.1 19.5 105 136 170 Seton River June 11 112.5 21.7 75 114 144 USC July 23 77.4 54.7 32 44 193 LSC July 33 102.7 38.5 35 117 170 Seton River July 204 50.4 30.4 27 38 166 Seton River August 263 54.9 22.4 31 50 152 Seton River September 489 58.4 13.5 21 56 172 USC October 23 77.4 54.7 32 44 193 LSC October 25 128.7 37.8 65 146 184 Seton River October 109 78 25.5 46 72 184

Table 12 Results of simple t-test comparing length of main-stem Seton river fish with spawning channel fish 2014

Species Month t-stat df p value Rainbow trout April 6.37 49.19 2.01E-08 Rainbow trout June 3.5 14.367 0.00342 Rainbow trout July 6.31 68.04 2.37E-08 Rainbow trout October 6.37 29.18 5.61E-07 Rainbow trout April 0.94 28.44 3.50E-01 Coho June -1.09 2.02 3.90E-01 Coho July 1.68 208.03 9.30E-02 Coho October -0.22 11.78 8.30E-01

67 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 13 Summary table for recaptured Rainbow trout in Seton River 2014

Date Site Recaptured Species Length (mm) Weight (g) Catch type PIT # Site marked Original Length Original Weight Date Marked Length diff. weight diff. # of days mm/day g/day Unknown usc rb 152 36.8 r 585068 not marked by ifr Unknown usc rb 117 18.4 r 584541 not marked by ifr Unknown lsc rb 176 58.5 R 585180 not marked by ifr 2014-05-15 usc rb 103 10.9 R 584754 usc 95 9.7 2014-04-15 8 1.2 30 0.27 0.04 2014-05-15 usc rb 127 22.1 R 586207 usc 122 19.3 2014-04-16 5 2.8 29 0.17 0.10 2014-07-22 gs8 rb 129 25.5 R 650713 lsc 110 13.8 2014-06-17 19 11.7 35 0.54 0.33 2014-07-23 gs3 rb 127 26 R 584804 gs3 90 7.5 2014-04-17 37 18.5 97 0.38 0.19 2014-07-24 usc rb 147 39.4 R 650691 usc 125 23.3 2014-06-19 22 16.1 35 0.63 0.46 2014-07-24 usc rb 141 36.6 R 584774 usc 105 11.4 2014-04-15 36 25.2 100 0.36 0.25 2014-07-24 lsc rb 124 27.9 R 586108 lsc 116 16.2 2014-04-16 8 11.7 99 0.08 0.12 2014-08-21 gs8 rb 139 31.5 R 586215 gs8 95 9.2 2014-04-17 44 22.3 126 0.35 0.18 2014-08-21 gs8 rb 145 36.5 R 650508 gs8 143 38.6 2014-07-22 2 -2.1 30 0.07 -0.07 2014-08-22 gs5 rb 130 25.3 R 650737 gs3 121 27.1 2014-07-23 9 -1.8 30 0.30 -0.06 2014-08-22 gs5 rb 115 18.6 R 650672 gs3 112 17.3 2014-07-23 3 1.3 30 0.10 0.04 2014-10-22 gs3 rb 116 18 R 650672 2014-08-22 gs5 rb 120 20.7 R 650566 gs3 119 19.9 2014-07-23 1 0.8 30 0.03 0.03 2014-08-22 gs5 rb 104 14.7 R 650582 gs3 100 13.3 2014-07-23 4 1.4 30 0.13 0.05 2014-08-22 gs5 rb 102 12.8 R 650532 gs3 99 12.5 2014-07-23 3 0.3 30 0.10 0.01 2014-10-22 gs3 rb 103 12 650532 2014-10-22 gs3 rb 115 16 R 650625 gs3 106 15.2 2014-07-23 9 0.8 91 0.10 0.01 2014-10-22 gs3 rb 117 19 R 650442 gs5 119 20.2 2014-08-22 -2 -1.2 61 -0.03 -0.02

68 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 39 Length frequency histograms of juvenile rainbow trout sampled in Seton River 2014

Figure 40 Length frequency histograms of juvenile rainbow trout sampled in spawning channels 2014

69 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 41. Length frequency for Seton River Rainbow trout in April 2014 Red = 1, Green = 2 and Blue = 3 year old fish

Figure 42. Length-at-age for Seton River Rainbow trout sampled in April 2014. Mean lengths-at-age connected by blue line.

70 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 43. Length frequency for Seton River Rainbow trout in July 2014, Red = 0, Green = 1 and Blue = 2 year old fish

Figure 44. Length-at-age for Seton River Rainbow trout sampled in July 2014. Mean lengths-at-age connected by blue line.

71 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 45. Length frequency for Seton River Rainbow trout in October 2014, Red = 0, Green = 1 and Blue = 2 year old fish.

Figure 46. Length-at-age for Seton River Rainbow trout sampled in October 2014. Mean lengths-at-age connected by blue line. 72 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 47. Weight, length relationship for Seton River Rainbow trout sampled in 2014

73 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 48. Length boxplot of Seton River age 0 Rainbow trout from July - October 2014

Figure 49. Weight boxplot of Seton River age 0 Rainbow trout from July -October 2014

74 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 50. Length boxplot of Seton River age 1 Rainbow trout from July - October 201

Figure 51. Weight boxplot of Seton River age 1 Rainbow trout from July - October 2014.

75 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 52. Length boxplot of Seton River age 2 Rainbow trout from July -October 2014.

Figure 53. Weight boxplot of Seton River age 2 Rainbow trout from July -October 2014.

76 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.2.3.2 Juvenile Coho

A total of 466 Coho were sampled in the Seton River main-stem throughout the sampling series and their length ranged from 32 to 124mm. Results from the length distributions show two modes in the histograms suggesting multiple age classes present during certain times of the year (Figure 54). In April two distinct modes are visible, one single peak in the 30 to 35 mm range (young of the year) and the other with a peak at 100 to 105 mm representing larger older fish. In May the main stem was not sampled and in June, very few Coho were sample and it was not possible to identify modes in the histogram. In July fish length distribution was unimodal with a peak at 60 to 65 m. This is what is expected as the larger, older fish have most likely migrated downstream to the ocean. Length distributions in August are consistent with July length distributions with only a single size class is apparent. This same trend was observed in the September and October with only one age class present in the 65 to 95 mm range.

In the spawning channels a total of 208 Coho were sampled throughout the sampling period. Results from the length frequency distributions mirror those of the main-stem river (Figure 55). In April two size classes are observed. A smaller class 30 to 40 mm range and another in the 90 to 125 mm range. In May the smaller size class was not observed and only the larger 100 to 125 mm fish were captured. In June the larger size class was not present and the length frequency histogram was unimodal. This was also the case in the following sampling periods in July and October. During both those surveys a unimodal distribution of fish lengths are observed with ranges of 45 to 85 mm and 60 to 10 mm respectively.

There was no difference in the mean fork lengths between the mainstem coho and those of the spawning channels (p-value > 0.05, & t-stat < 2). This was consistent in all the months where both areas were sampled (Table 12).

Scale/Age Analysis: Similar to the data of Rainbow trout, all of the scales from the spawning channel fish and those of the mains-stem river were pooled to make a stronger sample size. Analysis from the scale data agree with the different modes observed in the length frequency histograms of each month. Coho age classification was a little simpler than that of Rainbow trout. Coho life histories in the Seton River are different than of Rainbow trout in that they only spend their first year in fresh water then migrate to the ocean to rear for one and a half years. This means that age zero (young of the year) fish would be encountered throughout the year and age one fish encountered only in the early spring. This was the case with the sampling completed in 2014 in the Seton River. In April two age classes were identified. Age zero fish and age one fish (Figure 56). Mean length for age zero fish was 33 mm (32 - 35 mm). Age one fish had a mean fork length of 106 mm (83 – 124 mm) (Figure 57). In May there were no scales taken from Coho. There were very few Coho captured and the age structure would not have significantly changed from the previous month. The larger fish observed in the length frequency histogram are most likely Coho smolts getting ready to migrate to the ocean. Coho juveniles were not sampled for scales from June to September. The histograms show the same unimodal distribution suggesting that the fish sampled were most likely the age zero fish rearing in the system. The data collected in October affirms this assumption. All of the Coho that were sampled were age zero fish. Their mean length was 78 mm with a range from 61 to 99 mm (Figure 57).

77 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Growth Analysis: Although scales were not collected in all months, one can follow the common modes throughout the months to assess growth rates through time. Below, age data collected along with the length frequency histograms are used to assess growth rates of age zero fish in the Seton River. Length, weight analysis showed a strong relationship between length and weight for Rainbow trout of all sizes within the Seton River (R2=0.856) (Figure 58).

Age Zero fish were first encountered in April. They had a mean length of 33 mm with a range from 32 mm to 35 mm. By June they had grown by a length of 15 mm to a mean length of 48 mm (37 – 57 mm). From June to July the fish grew another 15 mm to a mean length of 63 mm (44 – 89 mm) and a mean weight of 3.4 g (0.1 – 10.2 g). In August growth had slowed and mean fork length of age zero fish was 68 mm (45 – 88 mm) and mean weight was 4.0 g (1.0 – 8.9 g). From August to September the growth continued to slow with only a growth of 3 mm to 71 mm (48 – 90) and a mean weight of 4.5 g (1.5 – 9.2 g). September to October saw an increase in growth by 7 mm to a mean length of 78 mm (61 – 99 mm) and weight of 5.7 g (2.5 – 11.5 g) (Figure 59).

78 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 54 Length frequency histograms of juvenile Coho sampled in Seton River 2014

Figure 55 Length frequency histograms of juvenile Coho sampled in Seton River spawning channels 2014 79 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 56 Length frequency for Seton junvenile Coho in April 2014, Red = 0 and blue = 1 year old fish

Figure 57 Length frequency for age 0 Seton juvenile Coho in October 2014

80 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 58 Weight, length relationship for Seton juvenile Coho salmon 2014

Figure 59 Length boxplot of Seton River age 0 Coho from April - October 2014

81 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.2.4 Spawning Gravel Assessment In 2013, the approximate area of gravels to be cleaned was identified and the focus was on areas where the gravel has been scarified and the channel complexed. These areas are known to be coho spawning areas, and there were no other options for improving the gravel in these areas without damaging the in-stream complexing necessary for rearing juveniles (Judy Hillaby, 2012). Cleaning was also slated to take place in areas where spawning gravel was deposited during recomplexing efforts and in pockets on each side of berms 1, 9 and 18. Approximately 840 square meters was slated for treatment, with cleaned patches being at least 60 square meters each.

In 2014, in preparation for gravel cleaning work window, fourteen sites (Map 9) were chosen as target areas for spawning gravel cleaning using the ‘Sand Wand” technology. These areas were based on joint DFO and Splitrock Environmental gravel permeability study conducted throughout the lower and upper spawning channels in 2012.

Map 9 Lower Spawning Channel Proposed Gravel Treatment sites 2014

82 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

The targeted sites were identified and distributed throughout the length of the Lower Spawning Channel, crossing sites that had a variety of treatment history (Tisdale G. 2004). The following sites were GPS, flagged and mapped:

Berm 1 • Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4: are runs that were complexed in 2003 with the addition of Large Woody Debris and large boulders and gravels. These berms and gravels have been impacted by beaver mining and damming activities over recent years. • Site 5: is the site of a deeper pool.

Berm 9 • Sites 6 and 7: are in run habitat were the area was left undisturbed during the 2003 complexing, with no instream habitat complexing • Sites 8, 9 and 10: located approximately mid channel length were complexed and gravels scarified in 2003.

Berm 18 • Sites 11 and 12: are in run habitat that had gravels cleaned and augmented and the channel complexed in 2003. • Sites 13 and 14: the gravel was scarified and channel complexed in 2003.

Photographs of the targeted gravel cleaning sites were made and sent to Streamside Environmental and DFO with a focus on details of access (Figures 60 – 71). The instream microsites will be identified within the general site locations when cleaning takes place and treatment will be focused on the most productive spawning gravels.

A contact is now in place with Streamside Environmental to work within the 2015 DFO instream window (07- 15 August 2015). Equipment has been transported to Splitrock in readiness for the gravel cleaning and one Streamside representative will be onsite throughout the process.

83 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Berm 1: has road access along the north side of the north side arm. The arms are approximately 8 meters wide and the berm itself is about 3 meters across. A road circles around the whole spawning channel but access up the berms is limited in most places to foot traffic, although an ATV would likely fit up most berms.

Figure 60 North side of Berm 1 looking west; Sites 1, 2; road on right-hand side is accessible by vehicle May 2014

Figure 61 North side of Berm 1 – close up of a treatment site 1; May 2014

84 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 62 North side of Berm 1 looking east towards Sites 1, 2

Figure 63 South side of Berm 1 looking east; Sites 3, 4; note beaver lodge May 2014

85 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Berm 9: has vehicle access from both ends, but limited access down the berms themselves.

Figure 64 North side of Berm 9 looking east; Sites 6, 7; closest vehicle access is from where photo was taken.

Figure 65 Berm 9 in center North and South arms; Sites 6, 10; left and right respectively looking east May 2014

86 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 66 North side of Berm 9; site 7; looking west – close up of gravels and instream conditions May 2014

Figure 67 Riffle at the east end of Berm 9; Site 10; looking south May 2014

87 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Berm 18: has easy vehicle access from both ends, but limited access down the berms themselves.

Figure 68 South side of Berm 18; looking towards Site 12 west – closest truck access 25m to east May 2014

Figure 69 Berm 18 in centre of picture; Sites 11; 14 May 2014

88 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 70 North side of Berm 18; looking towards site 11; May 2014

Figure 71 South side of Berm 18; looking towards site 14; May 2014

89 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.2.5 Beaver Control Beavers have been observed using the spawning channels over the last several years. No scientific data has been collected on the number of beaver and the extent of the activity taking place at either of the spawning channels; however, general observations throughout the seasons show a marked increase in activity in the early spring and late fall. Removal of dams has been an ongoing task over the last several years based on past practices within the community. Generally beaver activity had not caused much concern until late 2013, when a large beaver lodge (Figure 72) and resulting beaver dams began to impact on the infrastructure of the spawning channels (Figures 73 - 76) and the revegetation works (Figures 77, 78).

More research needs to take place on the impact and/or benefits of the beavers utilizing the Seton River corridor – river and spawning channels – to make more informed decisions on their management. As noted by Sean Bennett, DFO, the beavers utilizing the spawning channels are digging into the sides of the berms during their lodge and dam building activities.

Figure 72 Beaver lodge at Lower Spawning Channel – Berm 2 14 March 2014

90 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 73 Beaver dam between Berms 1 and 2 looking south showing ponding effects in foreground and water flowing over Berm 2 10 January 2014 Before Baffle Placed

Figure 74 Beaver dam between Berms 1 and 2 looking north showing ponding effects and water flowing over Berm 2 14 March 2014 After 2nd baffle placed

91 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 75 Water flowing over Berm 2 causing the man-made structure to erode. A smaller second dam can be seen in background 10 January 2014

Figure 76 Water overflowing Berm 1 and 2 – Beaver lodge on edge of Berm 2 14 March 2014

92 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 77 cottonwood saplings cut by beaver 14 Mar 2014

Figure 78 Water seeping up onto bank just below main access road 14 Mar 2014

93 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Two attempts were made to install baffles into the dam structure between Berm 1 and 2 with the goal of decreasing water levels in the channels so they did not flow over berms, while still allowing beavers to use the system. This technique was used as an experiment to see if this would control the amount of vegetation being cut down by the beaver and decrease the level of the ponds so they did not impact on the man-made berms, and also decrease effort in controlling beaver impacts.

A baffle made by crew technicians was installed on 30 October 2013 into an existing beaver dam being built between Berm 1 and 2 (Figure 79). The dam was lowered, the baffle place in the middle of the structure. In early January 2014 it was observed that the beaver had plugged up the baffle and water continued to flow across the berm. On 10 January 2014 the beaver dam was partially removed again and a larger baffle system found onsite was placed in an attempt to mitigate the flooding of Berm 2 (Figure 80). This baffle lowered the water levels and seemed to be controlling flows and decreasing beaver cutting of vegetation.

Figure 79 Initial baffle construction between Berms 1 and 2 30 October 2013

94 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 80 Second baffle being installed in same place between Berms 1 and 2 10 January 2015

Email request for advice was initiated in early January 2014 to the DFO and MOE offices and also Jared Hobbs. Sean Bennett (DFO) recommendation was simple: “get a permit to remove them”. Jared Hobbs agreed with Sean’s suggestion and added these comments: “I know they are valued for their abilities to create habitat on the long-term but I have also witnessed, on many occasions, the depletion of mature cottonwood trees from riparian ecosystems and when the site is small any large cottonwood trees are more valuable left standing. I have seen a screech-owl nest grove totally destroyed by beavers …. I know the area that is being threatened (at spawning channel); there are not many trees there so it is a concern”.

On 14 March 2014, field observation of beaver activity was made with members of the Spawning Channel Committee, including Bonnie Adolph (Sekw’el’was/SER), Sue Senger (SGS) Kim North, Odin Scholz, and Chief Michelle Edwards. The field walk was initiated to observe the water flows around the dams and to discuss the baffle technique. The group felt that the spawning channel structure should not be undermined further and called for all beaver dams to be removed and trapping to begin. Tommy Hancock removed the dam with an excavator and live traps were placed in three locations throughout the lower channels, resulting in the trapping of three beaver.

The large dam and one smaller dam was removed on 14 March 2014 (Figure 81). During spawner walks crew technicians made notes of beaver activity and removed dams as required (Figures 82, 83). Again early spring and late fall are the times when most activity is observed.

95 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 81 Second dam removal in middle of Lower Spawning Channel 14 March 2014

Figure 82 Small beaver dam at top end of Lower Spawning Channel 30 March 2015

96 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 83 Removal of beaver dams continued throughout the season 30 March 2015

Less beaver impacts have been observed at the Upper Spawning Channel over the last several years. However, we received a call from the public in December 2014 that beaver were cutting down trees at the Naxwit Picnic Area (Figure 84). We contacted BC Hydro Parks resulting in a request for us to protect the trees.

Figure 84 Beaver damage Upper Spawning Channel 17 Dec 2014

Crew technicians tried two protection methods on 17 December 2014. One method involved installing wire around 15 trees – a proven method of protecting trees at the Lower Spawning Channel over the years (Figure 85). The second method was implemented to decrease the visual impact of wire around trees as the impacts were occurring around a public picnic site and parking area of Naxwit. The second method involved painting a linseed oil and sand mixture onto three trees (Figure 86). Ongoing monitoring has shown that to-date the linseed oil/sand mixture is working well. 97 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 85 Protecting trees with wire cages 17 December 2014

Figure 86 Protecting trees with sand/linseed oil mix 17 Dec 2014

98 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.3 Wildlife Survey Results

5.3.1 Screech-owl Call Playback Survey During the 2014-15 field year, surveys were conducted at locations in March 2015 (Map 10). Surveys were conducted over two nights by four teams who were designated two stations each per night. Each team surveyed their first location simultaneously and then moved to the second location and again began survey simultaneously. The goal of performing simultaneous surveys was to confirm the 2014 hypothesis that two owls or pairs were utilizing the corridor. Total survey time was eight hours.

• 8 locations were surveyed on 04 March 2015 • 8 locations were surveyed on 31 March 2015

The Interior Western screech-owl was detected 3 times. The Great horned-owl was also detected three times. Locations included the upper, middle and lower corridor confirming that the area has important habitat for owls (Table 14).

Two of the screech-owl detections occurred in different places at similar times, thereby confirming that two locations in the corridor are being used by screech-owls. The calls were heard almost simultaneously from the Cayoosh waterfall and the Mid- corridor Riparian sites on 31 March 2015. No calls were heard from the Seton Flat area (confirmed nest sites in 2013 and 2014). It appears the owls using the upper corridor over the last several years move nesting sites from the Cayoose waterfall riparian and Seton Flat areas. Of the three screech-owl detections, one was a spontaneous call and two were responses to call-playback. Response times were 5 and 11 minutes.

Great horned owl was detected 3 times, twice at the Seton Flat station and once at the Powerhouse station.

Ongoing discussions with Jared Hobbs, Ken Wright and Ian Routley have taken place throughout the survey work and during analysis. Call-playback surveys cannot definitely assess the presences of owls. An owl may not respond to call playback, even after repeated surveys. The two night surveys we conducted this year give us 90% confidence that we have detected all of the owls in the corridor (Jared Hobbs pers. Comm. 2014); however, there may be more residing in the area but not detected.

It is recommended to continue annual owl surveys to document site persistence, movement of nest sites and to detect number of nesting pairs. Surveys should be undertaken in September and/or March when spontaneous calling is most prevalent, thereby eliminating the possible use of call playback protocols.

99 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 14 Western Screech-owl Survey Results March 2015

Start OWL Date Location Time Detection Call Time

04 Mar 2015 Mid Corridor Riparian 18:30 WSOW 18:51

04 Mar 2015 Seton Bluff 18:30 GHOW 18:30

04 Mar 2015 Mid Corridor Upland 18:30

04 Mar 2015 Cayoosh Waterfall Riparian 18:30

04 Mar 2015 Texas Creek Road 19:15

04 Mar 2015 Powerhouse 02 19:15

04 Mar 2015 Mariposa Flats 19:15

04 Mar 2015 Lower Seton Corridor 19:25

31 Mar 2015 Mid Corridor Upland 20:05

31 Mar 2015 Cayoosh Waterfall Riparian 20:05 WSOW 19:58, 20:14

31 Mar 2015 Seton Bluff 20:05 GHOW 19:57

31 Mar 2015 Mid Corridor Riparian 20:05 WSOW 20:31

31 Mar 2015 Powerhouse 02 20:50 GHOW 21:11

31 Mar 2015 Mariposa Flats 20:50

31 Mar 2015 Lower Seton Corridor 20:50

31 Mar 2015 Texas Creek Road 20:50 Note: Yellow highlights include calls heard within close time range at 2 different locations

100 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 10 Western Screech-owl Call Monitoring Stations March 2015

The recovery strategy for the Western screech-owl indicates that conservation of screech-owl territories is an urgent recovery activity. One Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA) for the screech-owl has now protected the riparian area at the Powerhouse Restoration site along the Fraser River between the confluence of Seton River and the tailrace. This was a direct result of the work being funded. Further WHAs may be established if crown land is available, but much of the land in the Seton corridor is either controlled by BC Hydro or the St’at’imc communities of Sekw’el’was and T’it’q’et and as such are not eligible for WHA designation. The importance of working with the partners and stakeholders is therefore critical if screech-owl habitat is to be conserved and/or enhanced within the corridor.

Ongoing stewardship activities, public education and land planning are necessary.

101 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.3.2 Screech-owl Nesting Habitat Survey Discussions between Jared Hobbs, Ken Wright and Odin Scholz in October 2014 confirmed that based on the size of the Seton Corridor, the area could potentially support three screech-owl territories, if the habitat was healthy.

Habitat estimates were made using aerial photography maps and photographs taken over the years from a helicopter. Ground truthing of the habitat rating estimates occurred from 26 September 2014 to 26 February 2015. 105 polygons were identified as potential nesting habitat. Of these polygons 6 were measured using line transects, 17 were measured using circular plots, 20 were walked through and assessed as a whole (no plots done), and 62 were not visited because they were very similar and adjacent to measured polygons, or because they were obviously poor nesting habitat (ie non-vegetated benches). Polygons 84, 111, 112, 113, 131 and 135 were not assessed. The results of the ground truthing are shown below (Table 15).

Table 15 Estimated and Actual Area of Screech-owl Nesting Habitat Seton Corridor 2014-15

Rating Estimated Area (ha) Actual Area (ha) High 17.96 13.02 Moderate 28.66 6.55 Low 11.11 38.16 Total Area 57.73 57.73

The nesting habitat areas are spread out in fragments across the Seton Corridor. Polygons with High habitat rating range from 0.02 – 33l93 ha. See Maps 11, Figure 90; Map 12, Figure 91 and Map 13, Figure 92) for the actual habitat rating polygons.

Habitat fragmentation and lack of suitable sized trees are a threat to this species (Jared Hobss, Pers Comm 2014). There are pockets of fairly intact stands of nesting habitat as shown in our survey results, but these are broken up into small areas with little linkage between the sites. During 2014-15, similar to past years, only one pair has been confirmed nesting within the corridor. However, during March 2015 two locations were identified to be active with screech-owl using habitat at Waterfall Trail (Pick’s Fall) and the Mid-Corridor location.

Using the cavity counts taken in the plots and transects, the average number of trees with cavities per heactare were calculated. This was then multiplied with the total actual area of nesting habitat to calculate the total number of wildlife trees with cavities in the Seton River Corridor (Table 16).

Table 16 Number of Trees with Cavities 2014

Actual Habitat Rating # of Trees/ha with Cavities Total # of trees with Cavities in the Seton Corridor High (n=13) 10 130 Moderate (n=1) 10 66 Low (n=6) 1.7 65

Note: The number of trees with cavities in moderate habitat is not accurate, as there was only one plot that was completed in a polygon with an actual rating of moderate.

102 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Trees that had cavities were all black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa) (Figure 87). Decay classes (wood class) ranged from 1 – 5, with 24% in Class 2 (probable decay), 44% in Class 3 (limited decay), and 24% in Class 4 (soft wood present). Tree height ranged from 2 – 26.3m, with an average of 18.5m. Diameter at breast height varied from 36.0 to 59.5cm, with an average of 42.2cm. The estimated habitat rating was accurate for 51 of 107 polygons, or 48% accuracy. There may be higher numbers of cavities if the survey was done in the winter when leaves are off the trees. The line transects were done in the summertime so that the shrub cover and live crown could be measured and these leaves probably obscured wildlife tree cavities from view, resulting in an artificially low number of cavities for the transect data. Ponderosa pine trees have been used as nest trees by screech-owl on Seton Flat in the past.

Based on the habitat assessment and cavity survey, the results show that there is approximately 13.02 ha of high quality Western screech- owl nesting habitat and 6.55 ha of moderate nesting habitat in the Seton River Corridor. The variety of habitats is good for the owl with nest trees almost always adjacent to riparian habitats, edges of open habitats and adjacent to coniferous forests with perches. However, it was recommended to install next boxes to increase nesting cavities in the chance that natural cavities are threatened (as occurred on Seton Flat during February 2015 noted above). Currently, with the habitat available two nesting pairs could be supported, but with increased restoration activities it is possible the corridor could support three pairs as noted above.

Figure 87 A high quality wildlife tree with decay and cavities 15 Oct 2014

103 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

During 2014, we installed ten new nest boxes throughout the Seton Corridor in an effort to increase nesting options for Western screech-owls, and as a way to educate the public about the species. Nest boxes were built and assembled by Lillooet Naturalist Society members and local school children (Figure 88) using plans from the Audubon Magazine (Kaufmann, 2002). The nest box locations were chosen based on locations of current and past nest trees known in the corridor and/or in areas with good foraging and cover features (Table 17).

Western screech-owls will occupy the same nest cavity for several years, changing cavities if the original cavity is dirty or contains parasites or other pests. The new nest cavity chosen by the screech-owl when they move is usually located very close to the original cavity, in the same foraging area, and therefore Jared Hobbs (Pers. Com. October 2014) recommended installing nest boxes near known nest sites and/or habitat types. Nest boxes were installed in three areas: the Seton Flat (Figure 89), Waterfall Walk (Pick’s Fall) and the middle Seton Corridor sites. Two of these sites have supported nests ein th past decade and it is believed the middle Seton Corridor site has the potential to become a viable nest site in the future.

Figure 88 A local naturalist member helping school students build a nest box 24 Feb 2015.

104 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 17 Screech-owl Nest Box Locations

Nest Box # General Location Northing Easting 1 Seton Flat 571690 5613123 2 Seton Flat 571732 5613166 3 Seton Flat 571783 5613133 4 Seton Flat 571725 5613084 5 Middle Corridor 573937 5613685 6 Middle Corridor 573950 5613636 7 Middle Corridor 573926 5613616 8 Waterfall Walk (Pick’s Fall) 572046 5612849 9 Waterfall Walk (Pick’s Fall) 572246 5613000 10 Waterfall Walk (Pick’s Fall) 572445 5613240

Figure 89 Installing nest boxes at Seton Flat 26 Mar 2015

105 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 11 Actual Ratings for Western Screech-owl Nesting Habitat – Lower Corridor 2014

Figure 90 Lower Corridor Riparian 01 Nov 2012 106 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 12 Actual Ratings for Western Screech-owl Nesting Habitat – Middle Corridor 2014

Figure 91 Middle Corridor Riparian 01 Nov 2012

107 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 13 Actual Ratings for Western Screech-owl Nesting Habitat – Upper Corridor 2014

Figure 92 Upper Corridor 01 Nov 2012

108 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Emergency Protection A field trip and meeting was arranged with T’it’qe’t Lands and Resources Office and Splitrock representatives to view the damage to trees on Seton Flat that were ranked high for protection due to the presence of nesting pair of Western screech-owl on the site.

The participants walked the the Seton Flat site, looking at the Western screech-owl nest tree and observing the habitat features that are important to the screech-ow. In the week before the field trip, approximately ten large ponderosa pine trees had been cut for firewood. The stumps were shown to participants and the importance and scarcity of big trees were discussed.

Stephanie Barney, Lands and Resource Office for T’it’q’et requested that Splitrock install wildlife tree signs on the remaining large ponderosa pine and/or other trees on the site. Two crew technicians installed 21 wildlife tree signs on 25 February 2015. The trees targeted were large ponderosa pine and Interior Douglas-fir trees (Figure 93).

Figure 93 Wildlife tree sign installed on ponderosa pine 24 Feb 2015

109 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.3.3 Reptile Cover Board Survey

The number and location of cover boards were again increased and shifted during 2014 so that the survey area could be expanded without a major increase in effort necessary to monitor. There are now 124 reptile cover boards in the lower, middle and upper corridor at twelve different locations (Map 14 – yellow indicates sites added in 2014). The cover boards were predominately monitored by 3 citizen science volunteers – Bob Deadman, Phora Horton and Christine Gallazzio. Training, data entry, anlaysis, mapping and reporting was completed by Splitrock.

Map 14 Reptile cover boards Seton Corridor 2014

The location of each of the 12 monitoring sites, a habitat description and the number of boards at each of the monitoring sites in 2014 are summarized below:

110 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Powerhouse site (Grid 1, 2, 3, 4): Initially established: The Powerhouse restoration site has been monitored the longest in the Seton Corridor, with 24 wood boards installed in 2008 and 4 metal boards installed in 2009. Habitat: The boards were installed at the commencement of ecological restoration works at the site in what is now becoming a dryland shrub steppe ecosystem. Three rows of seven boards were initially located on the upland bench that was predominately bare ground and/or invasive species and the fourth row along the edge of the riparian area. The site is being managed toward a Ponderosa pine bunchgrass woodland forest ecosystem and has seen an increase in species composition and use over the last several years. Changes: No boards have been removed or changed over the years. 2014: 28 boards - 24 plywood cover boards and 4 metal boards (4 rows with 7 boards per row). 29 survey days

Mariposa Flat (Grid R1, R2, R3, R4): Initially established: Established in 2012 as a reference site to compare reptile presence with the Powerhouse site. The cover boards were located on the woodland flat bench and were distributed in four rows of six boards each. Habitat: The terrace was covered by a Ponderosa pine woodland; however, since 2012 many of the mature pine trees found on the flat have since succumbed to beetle kill and fallen over. Changes: No changes have been made to the number and placement of boards as they are part of the control for monitoring restoration of the Powerhouse site. 2014: 24 cover boards (4 rows of 6 boards per row). 19 survey days

Lower Seton Corridor Riparian (Grid A): Initially established: The Lower Seton Corridor Riparian site (Grid A) was established in 2012, with eighteen boards being distributed in three rows of six boards each. Habitat: The survey area was ecologically variable with the southern row distributed across a dry young open forest of Ponderosa pine bunchgrass and open herb grass ecosystem, the middle row spanned across young deciduous riparian forest with some standing water at times of the year and the north most row spanned across a riparian tall shrub ecosystem developing on a vegetated gravel bar. Changes: In 2014 the southern row of boards was removed efor us in new locations to the west of the Seton corridor. 2014: 12 cover boards (2 rows of 6 boards per row). Not surveyed 2014

Orchard (Grid B): Initially established: The orchard site was established in 2012, with eighteen boards being distributed in three rows of six boards each. Habitat: The site was a young coniferous forest that had undergone recent treatment for fuel management or fire risk reduction. The site is close to housing and bordered on to the south and east by housing and the highway and to the north-west by the Seton River. Changes: In 2014 one row of boards was removed for use at another location further West up the Seton Corridor 2014: 12 cover boards (2 rows of 6 boards per row). Not surveyed 2014

111 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Lower Spawning Channel - (Grid C: lower end; Grid D: upper end): Initially established: In 2012 two grids of eighteen cover boards each were distributed one at either end of the Lower Spawning Channel. Habitat: The spawning channel is an artificially constructed ecosystem with over 2km of spawning channel meandering along south of Seton River. The vegetation is being encouraged to succeed into a mixed forest stand dominated by Douglas-fir and black cottonwood trees. Currently the predominant vegetation is a mix of upland and riparian shrubs. Changes: In 2014 two rows from each of the two grids at the spawning channel were removed for use elsewhere in the Seton Corridor. The Lower Spawning Channel cover boards were surveyed once in 2014. 2014: Grid C – 6 cover boards (1 row of 6 cover boards along Berm 1) 2014: Grid D – 6 cover boards (1.5 rows of 6 cover boards at top end of the spawning channel) 1 survey day

Lower Spawning Channel Road Restoration (AFSAR): Initially established: In late 2014 one row of six boards were established as part of a restoration monitoring grid. Habitat: The Lower Spawning Channel Road Restoration site was an old access road to the Lower Spawning Channel that reptiles had been observed killed by vehicles. The road was removed as part of the restoration project aimed at increasing reptile habitat near the Lower Spawning Channel. The road was decompacted and the surface roughened. Boulders, cobbles and woody debris were added and the area was planted with native plants. A snake hibernaculum was also constructed in 2014 where the old roadbed was. Changes: Newly established. 2014: 6 cover boards (1 row of 6 boards) Not surveyed 2014

Mid Seton Corridor: Initially established: The Mid Seton Corridor site was established in 2013, with 12 boards being distributed in 2 rows of 6 boards each. Habitat: The site is a mature mixed riparian forest stand. The area has a thick understory and is a known deer bedding area. Changes: One row was removed in 2014. 2014: 6 cover boards (1 row of 6 boards). 4 survey days – a number of wasp nests at the site deterred monitoring

Upper Spawning Channel: Initially established: In 2013 six boards in one row were distributed diagonally across the site. Habitat: The site was a highly disturbed gravelly, weedy, flat rise of land located between the narrow riparian mixed forest stand along the Seton River and the upper reaches of the spawning channel. The area is bounded by the Seton River to the north and east through the Naxwit picnic site. Naxwit is the St’at’imc work for ‘snake’. A seldom-used access road passes through the sampling area. During the fall of 2014 the site underwent restoration treatments (removal of invasive plants, ‘rough-and-loose’ decompaction of soils, addition of cwd and revegetation). A snake hibernaculum was constructed to encourage overwintering at the site. The cover boards are all within approximately 15m of the water, either the spawning channel or Seton River. Changes: No changes were made to the number or location of cover boards. The boards are part of the ongoing restoration monitoring program. 2014: 6 cover boards (1 row of 6 boards). 18 survey days 112 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Upper Spawning Channel Control (AFSAR): Initially established: A control site of six boards in a single row was established in 2014 as a way to monitor snake occurrence in a similar un-restored site in the same region of the Seton Corridor. Habitat: The control boards are all within approximately 15m of the water’s edge of Cayoosh Creek and located on a flat early pioneer vegetation community, to mimic conditions at the restoration site. Changes: Initially established in the fall of 2014. 2014: 6 cover boards (1 row of 6 boards). Nor surveyed 2014

Initially established: In 2013 six cover boards in a single row were established running from Seton River upslope close to the canal viaduct crossing. Habitat: The site is on the south-west side of the aqueduct crossing of Cayoosh Creek. The boards run through a fairly disturbed grass herb, low shrub area with mixed terrain textures that vary from an old gravel road, to piled cobbles and gravels to intact conifer forest floor at the base of the talus slope. Changes: One board was lost to the water later in the season and returned to the site. 2014: 6 cover boards (1 row of 6 boards) 19 survey days

Upper Corridor Terrace – Seton Flat: Initially established: The Upper Corridor Terrace (Seton Flat) monitoring site was established in 2013 as two rows of six boards. Habitat: The site is the western most monitoring site in the Seton Corridor and is located in a mature forest with a mix of Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees with a grass-herb shrub understory. The site is primarily used as a recreation site although there is sign of firewood cutting and tree removal both past and present. The forest stand area is bordered to the west and south by Hwy 99 and to the south and east by the steep bluff down to Cayoosh Creek campground and Fortis power facility. The site also has the highest elevation of any of the reptile cover board monitoring locations. Changes: The grid was reduced to a single sampling row in 2014 consisting of 6 cover boards. 2014: 6 cover boards (1 row of 6 boards). 18 survey days

A total of 108 reptile surveys were conducted throughout the Seton River Corridor in 2014 and 28 reptiles were observed under the cover boards over that time, predominately at the Powerhouse Restoration site and Lower Spawning Channels (Table 18).

113 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 18 Reptile Site Visits and Observations 2009 – 2014

Year of 2014 2014 2013 2013 2012 2012 2011 2011 2010 2010 2009 2009 Site Initial survey Reptiles survey Reptiles survey Reptiles survey Reptiles survey Reptiles survey Reptiles Installation days observed days observed days observed days observed days observed days observed

Powerhouse 2008 29 24 16 3 33 22 31 7 23 9 >10 0

Mariposa Flat 2012 19 0 10 6 27 0

Lower Seton 2012 Corridor (A) 0 0 12 1 17 1

0 Orchard (B) 2012 0 12 0 17 0

Lower Sp Ch 2012 (CD) 1 4 12 35 17 61

Lower Spawning 2014 0 0 Channel Rd

Mid-Seton 2013 Corridor 4 0 4 0

Upper Sp Ch 2013 18 0 5 0

Upper Sp Ch 2014 Control 0 0

Pick’s Fall 2013 19 0

Seton Flat 2013 18 0

108 28 71 45 111 84 31 7 23 9

The peak months for observing reptiles have been during May and June (Figure 95). June has typically been the most productive month for observations during past surveys at the Powerhouse site (see past Powerhouse Foreshore Restoration Project Final Reports). July and August are typically low months for observations, the limitation is likely that the summer temperatures are just too hot as they creep into the mid 30oC range (Figure 94; Table 19). In the month of July and August 2014 there were a total of 31 days where the maximum daily temperature rose above 32oC – a thermal threshold for reptile activity (Jared Hobbs, Pers. Comm, 2014).

114 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 94 Lillooet mean and max daily temperatures 2014

Table 19 Lillooet Maximum Number of Days over 32oC – threshold for reptiles

Number of Mean days Max Daily Month Monthly Temp Rose Temp above 32°C January 0.7 0 February -3.0 0 March 3.9 0 April 10.6 0 May 16.3 0 June 19.8 0 July 24.5 18 August 23.7 14 September 17.7 0 October 12.6 0 November 1.6 0 December -1.0 0

115 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Western yellow-bellied racers (a blue-listed species) were the most frequent and common snakes observed under the Powerhouse cover boards, with 19 observations throughout the year, including young, juveniles and adults (Figures 96, 97). Wandering terrestrial garter snakes were second most frequent, with 6 snakes observed in the month of June alone (Figure 98). A single rare occurrence of the COSEWIC listed Great Basin gopher snake was made in September under Board 3-6 (Table 20; Figure 99). Most of the Powerhouse sightings were observed in the grid located closest to the structurally complex riparian zone. The stand of cottonwood trees to the north-east of the riparian edge cover board grid has a multilayered canopy with lots of driftwood debris covering the ground. The site provides lots of cover and habitat for reptile prey. When the riparian zone was surveyed for small mammals (ideal reptile food) in 2011 the area had a relatively high population of between 71 and 83 deer mice per hectare (Oaten J. 2011) or roughly one mouse per every 125-140 sq meters. Since restoration works began on eth dryland upper bench reptile observations have increased over time (Map 15).

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of individuals Observed 0 April May June July August Sept Oct Month

WEGA RACE GOSN

FigureFigure 951 Reptile Graph of Reptile observations at the Powerhouse in 2014, grouped monthly totals. observations by month - Powerhouse site 2014

116 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 15 Powerhouse Site Reptile Monitoring 2014.

Note: Larger circles indicate greater number of snakes observed. Note: The roads and impacted areas shown on this map no longer exist on the site due to restoration efforts.

117 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 20 Summary of Reptile Observations at the Powerhouse Site 2014

Air Cover Date Cloud Num Life Length Time Tem Wind Precip Board Species Photo? Comments (mm/d Cover ber Stage (m) p Number d/yy) Over a meter long. Picture attached to data 8:45 1 12 0 N .3-6 GOSN 1 A 1.00 Yes 9-7-14 sheet. See photo attached to data sheet. 11:00 3 11 5 N .4-1 RACE 1 A 1.00 Yes 4-27-14

16:00 2 26 0 N .1-5 RACE 1 0.35 No 5-11-14 3 racers, have picture of 1 - one left under 18:00 2 21 2 N .2-6 RACE 3 Yes 5-24-14 rock. See photo attached to data sheet. 2 racers, no picture. Left when board lifted. 18:00 2 21 2 N .3-3 RACE 2 No 5-24-14 Average length. 3 crickets. See picture 7:00 2 15 0 N .4-2 RACE 1 Yes 6-1-14 attached to data sheet. Small racer 10 in. long. Picture attached to 7:00 2 14 2 N .1-4 RACE 2 J 0.25 Yes 6-15-14 data sheet. Racer 14 in. long. See photo attached to 7:00 2 14 2 N .2-1 RACE 1 J 0.35 YES 6-15-14 data sheet. Racer small 10 in. See photo attached to 7:00 2 14 2 N .4-4 RACE 1 J 0.25 Yes 6-15-14 data sheet. Picture attached to data sheet. 7:30 1 15 0 N .1-5 RACE 1 Yes 6-22-14 Picture attached to data sheet. 7:30 1 15 0 N .4-1 RACE 1 Yes 6-22-14 No picture - camera not working. 7:00 1 14 0 N .4-4 RACE 2 6-25-14 Picture attached to data sheet. 7:30 1 15 0 N .4-3 RACE 1 A 1.00 Yes 7-27-14 Small, about 12 in. Picture attached to data 8:30 4 9 1 N M4 RACE 1 J 0.30 Yes 9-29-14 sheet. 10 medium black ants. See photo attached 9:30 4 14 0 N .1-6 RACE 1 J 0.15 Y 10-5-14 to data sheet. See photo attached to data sheet. 7:00 2 15 0 N .4-3 WEGA 1 A ? Yes 6-1-14 Western terrestrial garter snake. 40 in 7:30 1 16 0 N .4-3 WEGA 1 A 1.00 Yes 6-8-14 long. See photo attached to data sheet. Garter, 3 feet long. See photo attached to 7:00 2 14 2 N .4-3 WEGA 1 A 1.00 Yes 6-15-14 data sheet. Picture attached to data sheet. Unsure 7:30 1 15 0 N .4-2 WEGA 1 Yes 6-22-14 which type of garter.

118 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 96 2 of 3 Adult Yellow-bellied Racers under cover board 2-6 Dryland Bench 24 May 2014

Figure 97 Juvenile Yellow-bellied Racer under cover board 4-3 Dryland Bench 01 June 2014

119 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 98 Western terrestrial garter snake under cover board 4-3 Dryland Bench 8 June 2014

Figure 99 Great Basin gopher snake under cover board 3-6 Riparian row 07 Sept 2014

120 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

The only other site that had positive sightings of reptiles in 2014 was the Lower Spawning Channel where 4 western terrestrial garter snakes were observed under one cover board at the top end of the channel Grid D. This board is located close to the water under a shrub layer of wild rose.

Mariposa Flat was monitored on 19 days with no sightings in 2014. In 2013 the Yellow-bellied racer was observed at Mariposa Flat.

No observations were made at the other locations. Some locations were not surveyed due to lack of resources and the other sites surveyed are where boards have only recently been placed and therefore may take a year or two for reptiles to locate the cover objects and begin to use them.

Reptile skins were also recorded when observed during surveys and other work within the corridor. One key area where snakeskins were observed is around an old rock pile located on the upland bench at the Powerhouse site (Figure 100 - 101). During restoration activities this rock pile was left in place and large CWD was installed around the structure.

Figure 100 Rock Pile at Powerhouse Site where reptile skins are routinely observed 12 September 2014.

Figure 101 Reptile skin at Powerhouse site on rock pile shown above 12 September 2014

121 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Other general observations included several sightings of the Western terrestrial garter snake at the nursery, living around pots and cement blocks at the nursery, and one was observed in the Splitrock office on 01 September 2014 (Figure 102). A rubber boa was also observed at the nursery 07 May 2014.

Figure 102 Western terrestrial garters snake found at Nursery office 01 September 2014

The use of cover boards to monitor for reptile presence has been in use for six years at the east end of the Seton Corridor at the Powerhouse site. In that location no reptiles were observed during the first two years of observations. Since that time positive observations have been made of five of the reptile species known to inhabit the region, including the COSEWIC western gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola ) detected for the first time in 2014. In addition the western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans ), Western yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor mormon )(listed provincially blue or vulnerable) and the rubber boa (Charina bottae) (listed federally special concern) have all been observed eon th Powerhouse site.

The western racer and western garter snake have been observed in other locations throughout the Seton Corridor but only the wandering terrestrial garter snake was observed in 2014 at the Lower spawning channel. It is somewhat surprising that in the 18-19 surveys conducted at 5 sites through the Seton Corridor that no reptiles were observed in 2014. Reptile populations are known to vary from year to year and the newly placed cover boards in 2014 may take a year or two before they are utilized by reptile species. Ongoing monitoring will increase the chances of identifying which reptile species are using different regions of the Seton Corridor. The observation of juvenile snake species in September and October at the Powerhouse site may indicate that the site is a nest site for adult racers. Any addition of large woody debris and other natural cover to restoration sites around the Seton Corridor will increase the habitat desirability for reptiles. An effort should be made to monitor all sites during the following years, particularly during the months of May and June when reptiles seem most active in the Seton Corridor Region.

122 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.3.4 Reptile Den Search

The reptile den searches were initiated with the goal of confirming presence of the blue-listed Great Basin gopher snake within the corridor and identifying hibernacula habitat for future management decisions. Hibernacula habitat features were identified at 16 locations (Map 16, Table 21) during July 2014, based on the methodology noted above. Habitat features that were necessary to identifying possible hibernacula sites included east, south or west facing slopes with good exposure to winter sun, areas with rocky outcroppings, cliffs or talus slopes, and areas within a 1km radius of the Seton River.

A total of 11 den searches were completed. The den searches did not result in detections of Great Basin gopher snake, but did result in one detection of the western yellow-bellied racer (Table 22) and several sightings of racer sheds (Table 23; Figure 103). Even though the den searches did not confirm gopher snakes in the corridor, it does not mean that they are not present. Another two seasons of den searches are recommended, targeting monitoring to early spring and fall when reptiles are leaving and retuning to hibernacula sights. It is important to confirm denning features so they can be protected in the future.

Map 16 Seton Corridor Potential Reptile Den Sites 123 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 21 Potential Reptile Den Sites in Seton River Corridor

Feature ID Easting Northing Mass Apect (°) Slope % Fracturing*

F1 575860 5614380 bus 102 0

DEN1 575663 5614094 bus n/a 5

DEN2 575474 5614226 house n/a 1

F2 572801 5613356 bus 335 100 5

F3 572758 5613295 house 320 55 3

F4 572235 5613284 bus 304 60 2

F5 572662 5613114 house 11 4 4

F6 575443 5614358 bus 4 0 4

F7 575460 5614358 bus 0 0 3

F8 574132 5614191 house 168 0 5

F9 573842 5614093 3 97 60 5

F10 573067 5613912 1 205 85 3

F11 573508 5614953 3 115 84 5

F12 573479 5614843 3 122 78 3

F13 573491 5614762 3 108 75 3

F14 573529 5614759 2 84 102 3 * 0: no fracture, 1: friable rock, shallow fractures, 2-4: anything in between, 5: deep fissures, separate volcanic events or large rock flake

Table 22 Snakes Found Through Den Searches 2014

Feature # Life Behave Date Label ID Easting Northing Time Snakes Species Stage

29 Sept Inc1 574912 5614438 1:40pm 1 COCO Juvenile Basking Temp: 13oC; Wind: 3 Gentle Breeze; Cloud: 3 Clouds Scattered; Precipitation: 0 None

As noted above, one Great Basin gopher snake was detected at the Powerhouse site, by citizen scientist Bob Deadman, on 07 September 2014 during weekly reptile cover board monitoring (Figure 99). This was the first observation within the corridor at that site since monitoring began.

124 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 23 List of Snake Sheds found in the Seton Corridor during Den Searches 2014

Date Label FeatureID Easting Northing Time # Sheds Species Life Stage

12 Sept Inc1 F1 575860 5614380 8:45am 6

05 Sept Inc2 575467 5614315 11:21am 1

22 Sept DEN1 DEN1 575663 5614094 10:00am 1

22 Sept F6 F6 575443 5614358 10:47am 2

22 Sept Inc3 575919 5614351 11:40am COCO

22 Sept Den3 575430 5614291 1:55pm 4 COCO

Inc5 574228 5614148 1:10pm 1 COCO Juvenile

Figure 103 Snake shed on sagebrush found during hibernacula identification site visit 18 July 2014

125 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.3.5 Report-a-Snake Program The report-a-snake program was initiated to educate the public on reptiles and to learn more about the presence of the Great Basin gopher snake. Posters were hung in key locations (Figure 104), and a workshop held to introduce the program.

Figure 104 Report-a-Snake poster

As a result of the posters and outreach event, the public reported 4 Great Basin gopher snakes (Table 24; Figures 105, 106, 107), as well as several western terrestrial garter snakes (not recorded), and one unconfirmed sighting (no picture available to confirm species). The 2014 sighting were at various locations outside the Seton River Corridor footprint. Historical research at the office identified two gopher snake detections in the Seton River corridor in previous years (Table 24).

126 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 24 Gopher snake Detections as a Result of Report-a-Snake Program 2014

Date Location Live/Dead Life Stage Comments

Seton Corridor - BC Hydro 2008 campground No info No info Tony Jacob

Seton Corridor - Ainsworth 2012 entrance. Dead Adult Odin Scholz – run over by vehicle

07-May-14 Lillooet - Red Rock Trail Alive Adult Phora Horton – on trail

Frank van de Ven - 1m long. Seen in early evening. Slithered into bushes nearby. Good imitation of rattler. On 12-Aug-14 Lillooet - 833 Columbia Street Alive Adult driveway.

Seton Corridor - Powerhouse Under reptile cover board at 07-Sep-14 restoration site Alive Adult Powerhouse Restoration site.

Lillooet area - West Pavilion 16-Sep-14 Road Alive Unknown 1m long.

Crystal - Slow moving, basking. On steep, silty rocky slope at river edge, 05-Oct-14 Lillooet - Lion's Trail Alive Adult west side.

Regularly Lillooet - Pine Ridge Road Alive No info Ian Routley

Figure 105 Great Basin gopher snake on Red Rock Trail 07 May 2014

127 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 106 Great Basin gopher snake on Columbia Street driveway 12 Aug 2014

Figure 107 Great Basin gopher snake on Lions Trail west side Fraser River 04 Oct 2014

As gopher snakes are difficult to observe (Jared Hobbs, Pers. Conv. 2014) the sightings by the public were rewarding.

Education around the gopher snake and other reptile species through this program, at the public workshop on 24 February 2015, and through school environmental outreach programs (Figure 108), has increased the public’s awareness of reptiles and the habitats they need to survive.

128 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 108 Reptile outreach event – stewardship fall days 09 Oct 2014

5.3.6 Large Mammals - Wildlife Cameras Wildlife cameras have been used in monitoring wildlife presence in the Seton Corridor over the past four years. During 2014, nine wildlife cameras were located in strategic locations throughout the Seton Corridor with the intention of observing what wildlife are present in the corridor and perhaps glimpse how they are moving and using the habitat that is available to them. The two most recent cameras 8 and 9 were installed in July 2014.

Camera locations (Map 17, Table 25) were chosen to capture observations throughout the Seton Corridor from west to east. Camera station locations were targeted for sites where wildlife trails were present as well as considering landscape fragmentation that may direct or concentrate wildlife movement to key crossing points in particular at the west and east ends of the hydro canal.

129 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 17 Seton Corridor wildlife camera locations 2014

Table 25 Seton Corridor wildlife camera locations 2014

Name Date Installed Easting Northing Location Description

Upper Corridor Cam 06 20 Oct 2013 572651 5613488 Seton Canal on Cayoosh Creek

Upper Corridor Cam 01 01 Jan 2012 572702 5613543 Seton Canal on Cayoosh Creek

Cam 08 2014

Middle Corridor Cam 02 09 May 2013 573916 5613654 Forested/riparian habitat

Cam 09 2014

Lower Spawning Channel Cam 03 01 May 2013 574585 5613942 Riparian habitat

Lower Corridor Cam 04 02 May 2013 575060 5614293 Upland bench/riparian habitat

Lower Corridor Cam 07 18 Nov 2013 575620 5613986 Seton Canal off Texas Creek Road

Lower Corridor Cam 05 01 June 2013 575954 5614585 Powerhouse forested habitat

130 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 01 has been in operation for over a year and primarily produces and records mule deer using the area in early spring. This camera may be moved to another location in the mid-upper corridor to further assess wildlife use of the area. Possible alternate locations would be to the north and west in the vicinity of the Upper Spawning Channel restoration area or another option would be move it to the east across the highway closer to Seton River Cayoosh Creek Confluence.

Camera 02 is monitoring the central corridor in one of the larger intact pockets of riparian habitat on the south shore of Seton River. Due to the thick forest at this site it is recommended that the camera be checked more frequently to ensure there are not any branch triggers that are amassing a lot of false captures. It is recommended to continue monitoring this location.

Camera 03 is located at the Lower Spawning Channel looking out over the water. The majority of Camera 03 records were of waterfowl. It is suggested that a request be made for a volunteer birder to view Camera 03 records and add species information. The camera could be moved back to sample a scope of the Lower Spawning channel that also includes the upland or terrestrial area. It is known that the Lower Spawning channel is a hotspot for wildlife of all types but most of these are not captured with the current camera location. A repositioning may also reduce the number of false triggers that are captured due to water movement in the wind.

Camera 04 is monitoring a south side riparian habitat on the Seton River in the lower corridor. The site resulted in positive captures 16 % of sampling days, most of these were mule deer but bear, coyote, bobcat are also observed. The site is a reasonable sampling location for the lower corridor. It may be that after another year of sampling the camera could be relocated to monitor wildlife use and presence on the north side of the Seton River riparian zone below Aspen planers mill site.

Camera 05 is situated in the riparian forested zone along the Fraser River. The site was a relative hotspot for bear during 2014 as well as other species moving along the riparian corridor. The site has also picked up ATV traffic in what is a designated WHA for the screech-owl. This location could serve to monitor the effectiveness of future mitigation measures at the Powerhouse site that attempt to dissuade further vehicle entry into the riparian zone and therefore the camera should stay in place

Camera 06 six is located at a crucial site for both wildlife movement and human presence. The camera was recognized by several people and may be in a high-risk site for vandalism. It is difficult to prevent this but actions should be taken to ensure the camera is protected in place.

Camera 07 is also located at a strategically significant location for detecting wildlife movement around the canal and the fencing. The camera is one of the most active recording sites with records on 44% of sampling days almost all of which are wildlife. The high activity at this site during 2014 could serve as a baseline for comparative future monitoring especially with regard to species numbers and timing of presence and therefore should remain in place.

Camera 08 was placed mid-way through the year. The movement corridor between the highway and the canal is important to monitor but the current location has had limited records with < 14% of days with a record. It may be worthwhile to scout out other possible mounting sites that may capture more of the possible passage routes within this narrow band of habitat on the north side of the canal. In particular it may be beneficial to capture the north side road in the cameras field of view.

131 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 09 is the sole monitoring site on the south side of the canal and is an optimum location for monitoring east west movement and has resulted in capturing the dominant mammal species using the corridor as well as unique captures of California Bighorn Sheep and cougar. Maintaining this location will mean that camera will need to be downloaded more frequently due to human triggers.

The sites in the Seton Corridor where there are gaps in our camera data are: • the north west section of the Upper Spawning Channel • north side of the Seton River in riparian zones. • south-east side of Marriage Rock above the CN railway where wildlife trails exist • Roshard Road where it crosses the canal penstocks where a number of wildlife trials have been observed.

It is recommended that in each of the camera frames a scale reference object is established with an existing rock or tree, or an object added to the frame, to allow for assessing the size of some of the animals that are captured on film.

Wildlife camera sampling took place for lsome or al of the year at the different locations. Gaps in data appear due to issues ranging from technical to tampering. The capture date range (Table 26) indicates the earliest and latest dates where images were recorded for each camera. The last download that has been analyzed was up to 31 December 2014. Observations of people were included in the data and the number of species captured. Camera 9 on the south side of the hydro canal was the most active with captures 86% of the days of operation (Figure 109). The high frequency of captures in camera 9 are due largely to the consistent recreational use of the trail by people walking, dog walking, running and cycling, a fact that may cause human-wildlife conflicts. Cameras 7 and 6 were next in percent of days with positive records (including observations of people) both of these cameras were stationed at locations that have been identified as canal fence bypass or crossing points.

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are by far the most frequent large mammal image captures in the Seton Corridor, with black bear (Ursus americanus) and coyote (Canus latrans) secondary and bobcat (Lynx rufus), cougar (Puma concolor), big horn sheep (Ovis canadensis) rarer. Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), raccoons (Procyon lotor) and a pack rat (Neotoma cinerea) were also rarely observed. Mule deer were most active at the east end crossing site at camera 07. The greatest number of bear captures was at camera 5 at the eastern most location in the Fraser River riparian ecosystem, also a part of the Powerhouse Restoration area. Camera 3 was pointed out over the Lower Spawning channels so its primary subjects were waterfowl.

Table 26 Summary of wildlife camera results for Seton Corridor 2014

Summary table of Wildlife Camera Sampling results for the Seton Corridor in 2014

% Sampling Days Wild Capture date Sample # Mule Bighorn Pack dog/ human/ human/ hairy Canada Waterfowl unknown days with Records Bear Coyote Cougar squirrel crow raccoon dog Human Osprey Swallows Camera range Days Species deer Sheep rat human truck atv woodpecker geese (Ducks) sp capture captures

6 Jan 01-Nov 25 329 43% 141 8 494 159 28 62 1 0 0 0 2 0 15 462 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Feb 25-Aug 07 163 25% 41 4 76 82 0000101001000 0 00000 8 July 30-Dec 31 154 14% 21 6 31 15 3300410001000 0 00000 2 Jan02- Oct 06 278 21% 59 8 113 47 8 36 0 0 0 0 12 1 2 31 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 July 22- Dec 31 162 86% 139 9 553 15 12 21 3 4 3 0 0 0 75 398 225 39 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 April 01- Sept 06 159 14% 23 9 87 02000001200000 0 50 108 2 10 0 4 Feb 15-Dec 31 319 16% 50 6 146 105 22 11 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 April 04-Dec 31 271 44% 118 5 543 581 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 April 5-Dec 31 270 19% 51 5 96 43 48 200000004603 0 00001 Total 2105 31% 643 60 2139 1047 132 142 4 4 13 1 16 3 101 949 417 39 3 1 50 108 1322 10 3 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 109 a) Sampling days per wildlife camera - Seton Corridor 2014 (left) and b) sampling days with positive capture per wildlife camera – Seton Corridor 2014 (right)

The data gathered from the cameras located in the corridor provide important information that will assist in developing a plan for creating functioning wildlife corridors. Road mortality has again been reported in the upper corridor during 2014, near the BC Hydro Naxwit Picnic Area. Chief Michelle Edwards reported two deer and Vivian Birch-Jones salvaged a white tailed weasel from the highway.

It is obvious the corridor provides important habitat that is used for travelling through and for residence. The corridor area is utilized for courtship, raising young, foraging, hunting, shelter, water and as a travel route.

Wildlife trails have also been mapped (Map 18) to inform management strategies.

Map 18 Seton corridor Large Mammal Monitoring and Trails System 2014 133 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 01 was placed in a young forest broadleaf riparian stand on the left bank (north shore) of Cayoose Creek between the second bridge and the aquaduct over Cayoose Creek in January 2012. The camera was trained in a south-east direction aimed at a wildlife trail that lead down to the Creek (Figure 110).

Again, this site was chosen as an observation point due to its close proximity to the aqueduct crossing of Cayoosh Creek where the BC Hydro Canal crosses over the Creek. The hydro canal is fenced on both sides for a linear distance of over 3km through the Seton Corridor, effectively creating a physical barrier to movement by many animals. The route the Cayoosh Creek takes under the aqueduct was seen as a possible crossing point for animals passing south-north through the corridor at the site and landscape level. Camera 1 location was situated at a site that captures the first obvious wildlife trail that could be clearly identified on the left bank of Cayoosh Creek east of the aqueduct.

Figure 110 Camera 01 - Young riparian forest stand. Arrow indicates direct of image capture

Table 27 Wildlife camera 01 results 2014

WILDLIFE CAMERA 1 Movement Direction Activity Species # Records # individuals # Days West (right) East (left) Stationary unclear travelling feeding urinating undetermined mule deer 76 102 49 47 22 2 6 63 11 1 8 squirrel 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 human 3 4 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Crow 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 81 108 54 48 24 3 6 65 11 1 8

134 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

During 2014 Camera 01 captured images between 02 February and 22 August (Table 27). Of the 163 days of operation, 79 records were captured on 41 distinct days. Four species were observed by Camera 01, including one human. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) was the predominant species observed at the Camera 01 site. Many of the winter spring records were of a doe and yearling moving through the area and feeding (Figure 111). It is likely these are the same pair of deer that were living in the area. A doe and two young spotted fawns appeared in July and were repeatedly captured on camera in July and August (Figure 112). Mule deer were observed moving through the area but also spending time feeding and living in the area around Camera 01 site.

Figure 111 Camera 01 -Doe and yearling 06 April 2014. Pair observed on numerous occasions March/April.

Figure 112 Camera 01 - Doe and two young fawns on film several times during July 2014

135 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 02 was placed in a structurally complex riparian forest in the mid Seton Corridor (Figure 113). The forest stand composition was mixed broadleaf and confier, with a concentration of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) around the camera placement site. Well-worn trails were observed in the area. The trails lead up and down the Seton River and it was hypothesized that there may be some movement across the river from these trails. It was observed during a survey conducted for BCHydro on the north side of Seton River that there were wildlife trails heading down to the river where Camera 02 is placed. This could be a key crossing point for movement across the river and hence a significant point from a landscape movement perspective.

Figure 113 Camera 02 - forested and riparian area in Middle Corridor

Table 28 Wildlife camera 02 results 2014 Summary table Wildlife Camera 02 Movement Direction Activity

Species # Records # individuals # Days West (right) East (left) Stationary unclear travelling feeding urinating Alert fleeing human 25 31 25 8 13 2 2 24 0 0 0 0 Crow 7 12 4 3 2 1 1 4 0 1 0 Black bear 887341070100 Coyote 34 36 15 16 15 3 0 30 2 2 4 2 Dog/human 5 15 5 2 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 dog 222020020000 Mule deer 32 47 24 16 14 1 1 24 3 0 0 2 raccoon 111010010000 TOTAL 114 152 83 48 54 8 3 94 9 3 5 4

136 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 02 was tampered with and subsequently stolen in October ending the recording period at 06 October 2014. Between February and October 2014, six wildlife species were observed. Humans and dogs were also observed using the area (Table 28).

In total 32 records of mule deer were captured at Camera 02 site, recording 47 individuals on 24 different days with 83% of the days occurring within the period between June-September. 8 black bear observations were recorded within a month and a half period on 7 days between 13 July and 27 August. 36 coyote were recorded on 34 records over 15 separate days. The coyotes were present in the area during January and February 2014, being captured on 9 different days; coyotes were not observed again until August and September when they were filmed on 6 separate days. On August 1st during the night a coyote is observed bounding from left to right across the field of view and a split second later a deer bounds into the frame from left to right. As the camera was triggered already it is likely there was either a deer or another coyote that set the camera off and then captured these other two individuals involved in a chase. A raccoon was captured at the end of August 2014 (a family of raccoons was recorded in the same area in 2013). Humans were captured in 25 records many of these were due to wildlife monitoring crews passing the cameras. Other people were captured at the site and in one case on 24 August a person was noted passing the camera and 12 minutes later a black bear was caught following behind in the same direction.

137 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 03 was set up in the Lower Spawning channel to monitor for wildlife utilizing a shallow water pond section of the channels known for waterfowl use (Figure 114).

Figure 114 Camera 03 at the Lower Spawning Channel

Table 29 Wildlife camera 03 results 2014

Summary table Wildlife Camera 03 Movement Direction Activity # Records # individuals # Days West (right) East (left) Stationary undetermined movementtravelling feeding undetermined swimming black bear 2 2 2 2 2 raccoon 1 2 1 1 1 Canada goose 15 30 4 1 2 9 2 2 8 5 crow 1 1 1 1 1 water fowl 62 108 17 osprey 2 2 2 2 2 swallows 1 10 1 1

The site had issues with false triggers due to water movement in the wind. Waterfowl were by far the most common wildlife captured. 15 records of Canada geese were recorded on 4 separate days, twice in April and once in each of August and September. Black bears were captured twice swimming in the spawning channel. A pair of raccoons were observed passing in front of the camera. Numerous waterfowl were observed; however, they were not identified down to species. Some of the waterfowl are close enough to the camera that they could be identified to species given a trained eye.

138 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 04 was located in the riparian forests of the Lower Seton Corridor in a young deciduous riparian forest stand. Black cottonwoods dominate the upper story vegetation and scouring rush in the understory herb layer. The area is an old gravel bar flood plain deposit on the right bank (south shore) of the Seton River. There is an off-channel wetland area with standing water located close to the Camera 04. The camera was aimed at a wildlife trail (Figure 115).

Figure 115 Camera 04 in riparian stand along Seton River right bank

Table 30 Wildlife Camera 04 Results 2014

Summary table Wild Cam 04 Movement Direction Activity # Records # individuals # Days West (right) East (left) Stationary unclear travelling feeding urinating undetermined black bear 22 22 17 11 10 1 21 1 mule deer 84 105 20 32 16 8 28 40 1 1 42 coyote 11 11 9 3 5 3 squirrel 5 5 5 1 human 6 13 6 1 5 6 bobcat 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total 129 157 58 48 37 9 32 68 1 1 43

Mule deer were the most frequent species observed at the Camera 04 site (Table 30). Primary movement of deer was from west to east with exactly double the number of observations moving eastward. 22 black bear observations were made on 22 separate days and 11 coyotes on 9 different days. One relatively rare observation of a bobcat was made at the end of February 2014. Several sequences of unclear movement were recorded and these were largely individual deer hanging around the area likely feeding. The majority of records were of animal moving through the area with a slightly higher proportion of movement from east to west. The stationary pictures of mule deer indicate the area provides reasonable habitat with food, shelter and water. 139 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 05 was located within the riparian stands along the right bank of the Fraser River at the Powerhouse restoration site in May 2013. Because of the high amount of human activity at the site the camera was positioned in a remote spot looking into the riparian stand (Figure 116). The camera perspective was aimed at a site that was inundated during high water in late spring and early summer.

Figure 116 Camera 05 located in forested stand at Powerhouse site

Table 31 Wildlife Camera 05 Results 2014

Summary table Wild Cam 05 Movement Direction Activity # Records # individuals # Days South(right) North(left) Stationary travelling feeding unclear fleeing grooming Resting black bear 45 48 13 19 11 15 31 1 12 1 2 5 mule deer 33 43 23 25 8 0 23 5 2 4 0 0 coyote 2 221 10200000 human 4 442 11000000 human/dogs 3 9 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Human/atv 3 2 2 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 unknown 1 111 00000000 Total 91 109 48 51 24 16 62 6 14 5 2 5

Camera 5 picked up the highest number of records of black bears of all of the cameras in the Seton Corridor, at 45 records with 48 bears observed on 13 separate days in August (Table 31). 5 records were of bears observed to be resting at the site, with the majority moving through the area. 43 mule deer were observed on 23 separate days between 05 April and 04 August. 5 records were of deer feeding on the site and 4 were animals fleeing through the site including coyote. There was a higher degree of movement from north to south through the area for both black bear and mule deer. Only 6 records were of people including 2 walking dogs. Of significance on two occasion’s people were observed riding ATV vehicles through the riparian zone running over vegetation.

140 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 06 was located close to camera 02 on the opposite bank (Right bank) of Cayoose Creek (Figure 117). This camera was installed in October 2013 when it was decided to monitor movement of wildlife along the Cayoosh Creek streambed.

It was reasoned that the canal fence lines and subsequently the outflow channel of Seton Lake pose a significant barrier to some wildlife moving through the corridor in both and east west and north south direction. The only gap in the fenceline in the western end is where the canal passes over Cayoose Creek. Camera 06 was positioned to capture wildlife movement up and down Cayoose Creek and therefore under the aquaduct and to and from the west and mid Seton Corridor.

Figure 117 Camera 06 beside Cayoosh Creek near viaduct

Table 32 Wildlife camera 06 results 2014

Summary table Wildlife Camera 6 Movement Direction Activity # Records # individuals # Days West (left) East (right) Stationary unclear travelling feeding urinating undeterminedfleeing Alert black bear 28 28 21 20 8 28 1 mule deer 114 159 58 61 43 7 3 99 1 6 3 5 coyote 44 62 31 26 12 5 35 5 2 1 bobcat 2 2 2 1 1 2 cougar 1 1 1 1 dog 10 15 8 4 3 3 10 human 234 462 48 51 55 123 5 human/dog 53 171 22 10 12 31 27 26 unknown 2 2 2 1 Total 488 902 193 175 134 169 8 201 7 6 29 2 6

141 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

The camera is mounted on a mature cottonwood tree growing above the rip rapped banks of Cayoosh Creek’s right bank. A fairly high number of people were captured using this site in 2014, including people fishing, rock hounding, dog walking, hiking, school programs and fisheries monitoring (Table 32). People were observed at the site from March through November with definite high use during the summer month period from June through September. These months are also the period when the BC Hydro campground is operational.

The site is also a relatively high traffic zone for wildlife, with five identified species observed crossing beneath the canal in an east-west direction. This was one of the two sites to capture a cougar on film as it had in 2013. Coyotes, mule deer, black bear and bobcat all move under the viaduct.

Black bear were recorded June through November and coyote were captured year round with higher frequency in the winter months. Mule deer were recorded March through November with the majority of records captured in spring and summer months, which are young rearing times. Both cougar and bobcat were observed in March 2015 (both were captured in late December 2013 at this site also). The cougar image (Figure 118) is likely of a cougar on the hunt as a mule deer passed in the same direction just 11 minutes prior.

The passageway under the viaduct is a well-used route connecting east west north and south of the Hydro canal barrier. In the case of the most frequent records of passage by black bear, mule deer and coyotes each animal’s general movement pattern is more heavily weighted from east to west, ie. Heading upstream.

Figure 118 Camera 06 - Cougar trailing a mule deer that was caught on film 11 minutes earlier heading in the same direction. 28 Mar 2014.

142 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 07 was set up in November of 2013 at the eastern end of the BC Hydro Canal fence line (Figure 119). The camera was located at a point where wildlife trails were observed to be crossing over the subterraneous portion of the canal.

Figure 119 Camera 07 North side of canal where it passes underground. Wildlife trail in background marked with dotted line. Texas Creek bridge in background to the right

Table 33 Wildlife camera 07 results 2014 Summary of Wildcam 07 Movement Direction Activity # Records # individuals # Days South (right) North (left) Stationary travelling feeding urinating alert fleeing grooming black bear 9 9 9 5 4 9 mule deer 489 581 106 198 200 82 387 70 2 47 14 2 coyote 5 7 3 3 2 1 dog 9 9 6 6 3 9 human 29 39 14 10 8 9 unknown 1 1 1 Total 542 646 139 219 218 93 406 70 2 47 14 2

Mule deer were by far the most frequently observed species at the Camera 07 site (Table 33). 487 records of mule deer were captured in all, tallying to 579 individuals over 105 different days between April and December. Deer were frequently observed from May through September then numbers tapered off through October and December. Many of the records would have been the same deer moving back and forth through the area as 70 records included deer browsing at the site. Movement was uncannily split at 198 records moving north and 197 moving south with 82 stationary. It is possible that the deer are residing in the area at certain times of the year and moving back and forth rather than moving through in one migrating direction. 143 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 08 was added to the Seton Corridor monitoring in July 2014. The site was chosen to monitor wildlife movement along an identified trail that parallels the canal on the north side. Camera 8 is also situated at one of the narrowest points in the Seton Corridor between the north side cliffs (Marriage Rock) and the South side mountain slopes.

Figure 120 Camera 08 in middle corridor near canal 30 Jan 2015

Table 34 Wildlife camera 08 results

Summary table Wild Cam 8 Movement Activity # Records # individuals # Days West (right) East (left) travelling black bear 3 3 3 1 2 3 mule deer 9 15 6 3 6 9 coyote 3 3 3 0 1 1 squirrel 4 4 4 3 1 0 Pack rat 1 1 1 1 0 1 human 1 1 1 1 0 1 Total 21 27 18 9 10 15

144 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 08 resulted in a relatively low percentage of records per sampling days at 14% (18 days, 21 records) (Table 34). The station picked up black bear, mule deer and coyote travelling along the trail. One of the black bear images was late in the year 02 November 2014 (Figure 121). This is the only bear record from all cameras in the corridor after the end of September. The bear is obviously travelling as it passes by Camera 06 at the viaduct 14 minutes later heading west out of the corridor.

Figure 121 Camera 08 - late migrant, adult bear moving west along wildlife trail 02 Nov 2014

Overall, there were twice as many records of large mammals moving east vs west at Camera 08 for all three mammal species. One human was captured walking along the edge of the canal north side access road that also parallels the canal at just south of the camera site.

Several other trails provide the same east west movement between the highway and the canal as is being monitored by camera 08. The trail that Camera 08 is monitoring is the middle path. There is also a worn path closer to the highway north of the camera position over an old barbed wire fence. It is also possible that animals are simply using the canal road to the south of the camera location for east west travel along the north side of the canal, as they do on the south side of the canal (Table 35).

It may be beneficial to try to relocate Camera 08 so that it picks up more of the possible travel routes along this section of the corridor or possibly add another camera to monitor more of the travel options that wildlife could be using.

145 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Camera 09 was installed at the narrowest gap on the south side of the hydro canal, between the south side cliffs and the hydro fence in July 2014 to again assess movement of wildlife in regard to the canal.

Figure 122 Camera 09 lower corridor 28 Jan 2016

Table 35 Wildlife Camera 09 Results 2014

Summary table Wild Cam 09 Movement Activity # Records # individuals # Days West (left) East (right) Stationary travelling undetermined alert black bear 12 12 9 4 6 2 10 0 1 mule deer 14 15 11 4 10 0 14 0 0 coyote 17 21 13 8 8 1 17 0 0 cougar 3 3 3 1 2 0 3 0 0 Bighorn Sheep 3 4 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 squirrel 4 3 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 dog 64 75 41 31 26 7 59 4 1 human 301 398 101 129 151 23 280 0 0 Human/dog 89 225 58 45 42 0 0 0 0 Human truck 39 39 21 21 20 0 39 0 0 Hairy Woodpecker 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 549 796 264 245 266 37 425 4 2

146 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

The camera ran for 162 days between July and December. This site was the most active with recordings on 86% of the sample days (Table 35). The frequent and high number of records were the result of the canal road being used almost daily by people for recreation purposes. 71% of the records were of people on the road biking, walking, jogging, dog and cat walking.

Wildlife also move along the road including bear, mule deer, coyote, cougar and big horn sheep. Black bear were recorded on nine separate days between 09 August and 29 September. Of note black bear observations were often occurring close to times that people had been at the sit. It is obvious that during August and September of 2014 the potential for black bear human interaction on the canal south side road could be considered considerable (Table 36).

Table 36 Timing between human and bear movement at site 2014

Date Time between bear and human records 17 August .5 hr 29 August 9 hrs 30 August 5 hrs 04 September 1.5 hrs 10 September 17 min 14 September 11 min 29 September 6 hrs

Other rarer records captured at the site were 3 cougar records, one in each of September, October and November. The cougar records were almost exactly one month apart, two records in September - October were of individuals moving east and in November the individual was travelling west (Fig 00). The other rare observation for the Seton Corridor was the capture of California bighorn sheep on 3 separate days, one in August and two in December. The August record was of one adult female heading west. The December records included a female adult with a young juvenile sheep (Fig 00), as well as capturing the tail end of a ram heading east on 02 December (the large curled horn was just visible in the shot).

Camera 09 was only in position and monitoring for half of the year and it would appear based on the variety of animals using the road along the canal that this is a key point of movement for large mammals in the Seton Corridor. This location though logistically a challenge to access is a good location for monitoring.

147 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 123 Camera 09 Cougar 19 Nov 2014

Figure 124 Camera 09 Big horn sheep 16 Dec 2014

148 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Wildlife Summary The most frequently recorded large mammal in the Seton Corridor in 2014 was the mule deer. The second most frequent record was of coyote followed closely by black bear.

Mule deer are in the Seton Corridor year round with more frequent presence detected in the spring and summer months and more sparse records during the winter. Most of the mule deer records came from the two sites chosen for their location as points that bypass the canal and its fencing connecting the north and south landscapes surrounding the Seton Corridor (Figure 125). Camera 06 site was a definite travel point across the canal and Camera 07 site was a travel and feeding/living area.

Figure 125 Number of mule deer observed by wildlife camera 2014

Coyotes are present most of the year round in the corridor with fewer records during the spring breeding months of March through May. The most coyote records were from Camera 06, the crossing point under the viaduct between the north and south sides of the canal (Figure 126).

Figure 126 Number of coyotes observed by wildlife camera 2014

149 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Black bear are found in the corridor in June through September with August being the peak month for records and related to the salmon runs. 2014 was not a Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) year but there were still Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinnook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) over the year. The most black bear records came from the eastern most Camera 05 located in the riparian zone along the Fraser River (Figure 127). The other site with reasonable numbers of black bear records is again at the viaduct overpass on Cayoosh Creek where bears were monitored travelling west out of the corridor in over 70% of the records.

Figure 127 Number of Black Bears Observed from Wildlife Cameras 2014

Human recreational presence and use around the corridor was significant at two of the camera locations (Cameras 06 and 09) (Figure 128). Camera 06 picked up many people using the site in the summer months, in particular for fishing and hiking. The peak records at Camera 06 for black bear was in June when there were 9 records of bears, all sub-adult or juveniles, entering the corridor from the west (80% of the time). Camera 09 was the second most frequent recording site for human activity and this with the camera only sampling for less than half of the year. It is to be expected that a full year of sampling at Camera 09 would near double the number of people recorded passing by the site.

Because of the wildlife and human use at Camera 06 and 09 locations these sites are high human-bear conflict zones that may warrant the installation of educational alerts such as ‘Bear Aware’ signage at the trailheads.

Figure 128 Number of people observed from Wildlife Cameras 2014 150 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.3.6 Wildlife General Observations

Large mammals are observed on occasion throughout the Seton Corridor. Observations of mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are made in the spring and fall on the bluffs to the northwest and southwest ends of the Seton Corridor. California bighorn sheep are observed on the talus slopes and flats below the bluffs on the north shore of Seton River, on south shore of Cayoose Creek near Pick’s Falls and above the canal in the lower corridor. Black bear (Ursus americanus) are observed throughout the corridor in the spring through fall, with a spike in sightings around the spawning channels in late summer/early fall (Figure 130). Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are observed almost year round in the corridor and have been observed crossing the metal bridge at the Lower Spawning Channel (Figure 131) and swimming across the Seton River from the small island in the river. Predators also roam throughout the entire corridor and observations include incidential sightings of coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus) and cougar (Puma concolor). Raccoon (Procyon Lotor), river otter (Lontra canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethiucus), beaver (Castor canadensis), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) and flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) have all been observed and reported in the Seton Corridor. Amphibians were also surveyed and recorded (2013-15 Seton River Corridor final report). In addition the corridor is known to have many of the eleven species of bat found in the Lillooet area and have been reported by other FWCP projects. The corridor also is home to a variety of birds, including the screech-owl and two osprey nesting pairs and is a hotspot for aerial insectivories.

Environmental crew technicians record wildlife sightings on time sheets when they are in the field; however, this is not consistent throughout the year. Observations recorded in 2014 are shown on Table 37 and include records from 01 April to 18 December 2014

Figure 129 Black bear tracks through nursery 05 Aug 2014

151 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 130 Mule deer crossing bridge 24 June 2014

152 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 37 Seton Corridor 2014 Wildlife Observations

Date Location Species Sighting Number Observation 1-Apr-2014 Black capped chickadee Avaleen 1 Almost landed on Cory's shoulder. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Cory 1 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Talya 1 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Dippers Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Downy woodpecker Avaleen 1 Seen on a power pole. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Robins Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Spotted towhee Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 9-Apr-2014 Cayoose Creek Osprey Avaleen 1 Flying over Cayoose Creek. 9-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Talya 1 First of the year seen flying over channel. 10-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Garter snake Avaleen 1 11-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 14-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Frogs John/Tal 100+ Unknown how many lots of them croacking 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Deer Avaleen 1.5 and 2 fawn Under the power lines 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 In the nest 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Av/Tal 1 Upper channel near water fall 18-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Av/John 100+ 19-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey Avaleen 1 Over mouth of channel 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Odin 1 At nursery 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Turkey Vulture John 1 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Turkey Vulture Odin 1 25m above nursey 22-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Grouse Av/Tal 1 22-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Hunting 22-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Av/john 100+ 22-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Robin 1 23-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Deer Talya 3 23-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Frogs Avaleen 100+ 23-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Frogs Talya 100+ 23-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Flying above Bio Engineer spot 23-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Chuckers John 2 In the orchard 24-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Nursery Mouse Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Turkey Vulture John 1 Flying over Lloyds place 25-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Bald Eagle Av/John 1 Flying over lower channel 25-Apr-2014 Lumber yard Deer Avaleen 2 29-Apr-2014 Nursery Butterflies,Ants,Birds,Spiders Brock ? Unknown what species 30-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 Found just outside nursery fence 1-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Avaleen 20+ 2-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 At mouth of lower channel 2-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Lance 1 3-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Deer Kim 3 Over by Andrews place side of rd 3-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 Riparian side of green house 5-May-2014 Nursery Blue Heron Talya 1 Flying over nursery 6-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Avaleen 1 6-May-2014 Nursery Chuckers Karen 2 Walkin around by nursery 6-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Rubber Boa Fred 1 Daryn has picture 6-May-2014 Nursery Sparrow John 1 Flying around channel 7-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Garter snake Avaleen 1 In green house 7-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake Daryn 1 7-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 10-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Daryn 1 Fighting with hawk 10-May-2014 Nursery Hawk Daryn 1 Fighting with eagle 12-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 By outhouse 12-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Daryn 1 12-May-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Flying above log cabin 13-May-2014 Nursery Snake John 1 Unknown, about 30cm long 14-May-2014 Seton Corridor Osprey Avaleen 3 Seen along corridor and channel 14-May-2014 Seton River Osprey John 1 16-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Duck John 10 4 adults and 6 babies 16-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 Under a rock 24-May-2014 Picks falls harlequin duck Phora 3 1 female and 2 males 24-May-2014 Canal Duck Phora >1 ducks in canal near picks falls trail 26-May-2014 Seton Corridor Bird John 1 Small bird with white belly 26-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Duck Everett ? Few ducks with Babies 26-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Duck Talya 2 In Canal 26-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Marmot Talya 1 On Bailey Bridge 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Bald Eagle Everett 1 27-May-2014 Seton Corridor Beaver John 1 Baby 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Beaver Talya 1 Baby In L.S.C. by den 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Duck Talya 3 In L.S.C 28-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Avaleen 1 Flying over nursery in the AM 28-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Daryn 1 Flying above container 28-May-2014 Seton Corridor Bald Eagle John 1 On fish walk 28-May-2014 Seton Corridor Deer John 1 On fish walk 28-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Avaleen 1 Flying over nursery in the AM 29-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 lower channel 30-May-2014 Nursery Coyote Daryn 1 By Cayoose Creek Bridge 30-May-2014 Nursery Coyote Everett 1 Walked by Bins (came to listen to drums)

153 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Date Location Species Sighting Number Observation 1-Apr-2014 Black capped chickadee Avaleen 1 Almost landed on Cory's shoulder. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Cory 1 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Talya 1 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Dippers Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Downy woodpecker Avaleen 1 Seen on a power pole. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Robins Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Spotted towhee Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 9-Apr-2014 Cayoose Creek Osprey Avaleen 1 Flying over Cayoose Creek. 9-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Talya 1 First of the year seen flying over channel. 10-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Garter snake Avaleen 1 11-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 14-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Frogs John/Tal 100+ Unknown how many lots of them croacking 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Deer Avaleen 1.5 and 2 fawn Under the power lines 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 In the nest 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Av/Tal 1 Upper channel near water fall 18-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Av/John 100+ 19-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey Avaleen 1 Over mouth of channel 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Odin 1 At nursery 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Turkey Vulture John 1 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Turkey Vulture Odin 1 25m above nursey 22-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Grouse Av/Tal 1 22-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Hunting 22-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Av/john 100+ 22-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Robin 1 23-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Deer Talya 3 23-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Frogs Avaleen 100+ 23-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Frogs Talya 100+ 23-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Flying above Bio Engineer spot 23-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Chuckers John 2 In the orchard 24-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Nursery Mouse Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Turkey Vulture John 1 Flying over Lloyds place 25-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Bald Eagle Av/John 1 Flying over lower channel 25-Apr-2014 Lumber yard Deer Avaleen 2 29-Apr-2014 Nursery Butterflies,Ants,Birds,Spiders Brock ? Unknown what species 30-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 Found just outside nursery fence 1-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Avaleen 20+ 2-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 At mouth of lower channel 2-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Lance 1 3-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Deer Kim 3 Over by Andrews place side of rd 3-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 Riparian side of green house 5-May-2014 Nursery Blue Heron Talya 1 Flying over nursery 6-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Avaleen 1 6-May-2014 Nursery Chuckers Karen 2 Walkin around by nursery 6-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Rubber Boa Fred 1 Daryn has picture 6-May-2014 Nursery Sparrow John 1 Flying around channel 7-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Garter snake Avaleen 1 In green house 7-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake Daryn 1 7-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 10-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Daryn 1 Fighting with hawk 10-May-2014 Nursery Hawk Daryn 1 Fighting with eagle 12-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 By outhouse 12-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Daryn 1 12-May-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Flying above log cabin 13-May-2014 Nursery Snake John 1 Unknown, about 30cm long 14-May-2014 Seton Corridor Osprey Avaleen 3 Seen along corridor and channel 14-May-2014 Seton River Osprey John 1 16-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Duck John 10 4 adults and 6 babies 16-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 Under a rock 24-May-2014 Picks falls harlequin duck Phora 3 1 female and 2 males 24-May-2014 Canal Duck Phora >1 ducks in canal near picks falls trail 26-May-2014 Seton Corridor Bird John 1 Small bird with white belly 26-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Duck Everett ? Few ducks with Babies 26-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Duck Talya 2 In Canal 26-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Marmot Talya 1 On Bailey Bridge 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Bald Eagle Everett 1 27-May-2014 Seton Corridor Beaver John 1 Baby 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Beaver Talya 1 Baby In L.S.C. by den 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Duck Talya 3 In L.S.C 28-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Avaleen 1 Flying over nursery in the AM 28-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Daryn 1 Flying above container 28-May-2014 Seton Corridor Bald Eagle John 1 On fish walk 28-May-2014 Seton Corridor Deer John 1 On fish walk 28-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Avaleen 1 Flying over nursery in the AM 29-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 lower channel 30-May-2014 Nursery Coyote Daryn 1 By Cayoose Creek Bridge 30-May-2014 Nursery Coyote Everett 1 Walked by Bins (came to listen to drums)

154 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Date Location Species Sighting Number Observation 1-Apr-2014 Black capped chickadee Avaleen 1 Almost landed on Cory's shoulder. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Cory 1 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Talya 1 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Dippers Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Downy woodpecker Avaleen 1 Seen on a power pole. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Robins Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Spotted towhee Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 9-Apr-2014 Cayoose Creek Osprey Avaleen 1 Flying over Cayoose Creek. 9-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Talya 1 First of the year seen flying over channel. 10-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Garter snake Avaleen 1 11-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 14-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Frogs John/Tal 100+ Unknown how many lots of them croacking 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Deer Avaleen 1.5 and 2 fawn Under the power lines 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 In the nest 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Av/Tal 1 Upper channel near water fall 18-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Av/John 100+ 19-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey Avaleen 1 Over mouth of channel 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Odin 1 At nursery 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Turkey Vulture John 1 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Turkey Vulture Odin 1 25m above nursey 22-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Grouse Av/Tal 1 22-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Hunting 22-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Av/john 100+ 22-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Robin 1 23-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Deer Talya 3 23-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Frogs Avaleen 100+ 23-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Frogs Talya 100+ 23-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Flying above Bio Engineer spot 23-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Chuckers John 2 In the orchard 24-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Nursery Mouse Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Turkey Vulture John 1 Flying over Lloyds place 25-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Bald Eagle Av/John 1 Flying over lower channel 25-Apr-2014 Lumber yard Deer Avaleen 2 29-Apr-2014 Nursery Butterflies,Ants,Birds,Spiders Brock ? Unknown what species 30-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 Found just outside nursery fence 1-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Avaleen 20+ 2-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 At mouth of lower channel 2-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Lance 1 3-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Deer Kim 3 Over by Andrews place side of rd 3-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 Riparian side of green house 5-May-2014 Nursery Blue Heron Talya 1 Flying over nursery 6-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Avaleen 1 6-May-2014 Nursery Chuckers Karen 2 Walkin around by nursery 6-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Rubber Boa Fred 1 Daryn has picture 6-May-2014 Nursery Sparrow John 1 Flying around channel 7-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Garter snake Avaleen 1 In green house 7-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake Daryn 1 7-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 10-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Daryn 1 Fighting with hawk 10-May-2014 Nursery Hawk Daryn 1 Fighting with eagle 12-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 By outhouse 12-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Daryn 1 12-May-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Flying above log cabin 13-May-2014 Nursery Snake John 1 Unknown, about 30cm long 14-May-2014 Seton Corridor Osprey Avaleen 3 Seen along corridor and channel 14-May-2014 Seton River Osprey John 1 16-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Duck John 10 4 adults and 6 babies 16-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 Under a rock 24-May-2014 Picks falls harlequin duck Phora 3 1 female and 2 males 24-May-2014 Canal Duck Phora >1 ducks in canal near picks falls trail 26-May-2014 Seton Corridor Bird John 1 Small bird with white belly 26-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Duck Everett ? Few ducks with Babies 26-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Duck Talya 2 In Canal 26-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Marmot Talya 1 On Bailey Bridge 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Bald Eagle Everett 1 27-May-2014 Seton Corridor Beaver John 1 Baby 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Beaver Talya 1 Baby In L.S.C. by den 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Duck Talya 3 In L.S.C 28-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Avaleen 1 Flying over nursery in the AM 28-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Daryn 1 Flying above container 28-May-2014 Seton Corridor Bald Eagle John 1 On fish walk 28-May-2014 Seton Corridor Deer John 1 On fish walk 28-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Avaleen 1 Flying over nursery in the AM 29-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 lower channel 30-May-2014 Nursery Coyote Daryn 1 By Cayoose Creek Bridge 30-May-2014 Nursery Coyote Everett 1 Walked by Bins (came to listen to drums)

155 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Date Location Species Sighting Number Observation 1-Apr-2014 Black capped chickadee Avaleen 1 Almost landed on Cory's shoulder. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Cory 1 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Talya 1 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Dippers Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Downy woodpecker Avaleen 1 Seen on a power pole. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Robins Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 2-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Spotted towhee Avaleen Several seen at lower spawning channel. 9-Apr-2014 Cayoose Creek Osprey Avaleen 1 Flying over Cayoose Creek. 9-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Talya 1 First of the year seen flying over channel. 10-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Garter snake Avaleen 1 11-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 14-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Frogs John/Tal 100+ Unknown how many lots of them croacking 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Deer Avaleen 1.5 and 2 fawn Under the power lines 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 In the nest 17-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Av/Tal 1 Upper channel near water fall 18-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Av/John 100+ 19-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey Avaleen 1 Over mouth of channel 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Odin 1 At nursery 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Turkey Vulture John 1 21-Apr-2014 Nursery Turkey Vulture Odin 1 25m above nursey 22-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Grouse Av/Tal 1 22-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Hunting 22-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Av/john 100+ 22-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Robin 1 23-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Deer Talya 3 23-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Frogs Avaleen 100+ 23-Apr-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Frogs Talya 100+ 23-Apr-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Flying above Bio Engineer spot 23-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Yellow Belly Gopher Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Chuckers John 2 In the orchard 24-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Nursery Mouse Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 24-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Turkey Vulture John 1 Flying over Lloyds place 25-Apr-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Bald Eagle Av/John 1 Flying over lower channel 25-Apr-2014 Lumber yard Deer Avaleen 2 29-Apr-2014 Nursery Butterflies,Ants,Birds,Spiders Brock ? Unknown what species 30-Apr-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 Found just outside nursery fence 1-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Swallows Avaleen 20+ 2-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 At mouth of lower channel 2-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Lance 1 3-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Deer Kim 3 Over by Andrews place side of rd 3-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake Avaleen 1 Riparian side of green house 5-May-2014 Nursery Blue Heron Talya 1 Flying over nursery 6-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Blue Heron Avaleen 1 6-May-2014 Nursery Chuckers Karen 2 Walkin around by nursery 6-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Rubber Boa Fred 1 Daryn has picture 6-May-2014 Nursery Sparrow John 1 Flying around channel 7-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Garter snake Avaleen 1 In green house 7-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake Daryn 1 7-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 10-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Daryn 1 Fighting with hawk 10-May-2014 Nursery Hawk Daryn 1 Fighting with eagle 12-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 By outhouse 12-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Daryn 1 12-May-2014 Nursery Osprey John 1 Flying above log cabin 13-May-2014 Nursery Snake John 1 Unknown, about 30cm long 14-May-2014 Seton Corridor Osprey Avaleen 3 Seen along corridor and channel 14-May-2014 Seton River Osprey John 1 16-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Duck John 10 4 adults and 6 babies 16-May-2014 Nursery Garter snake John 1 Under a rock 24-May-2014 Picks falls harlequin duck Phora 3 1 female and 2 males 24-May-2014 Canal Duck Phora >1 ducks in canal near picks falls trail 26-May-2014 Seton Corridor Bird John 1 Small bird with white belly 26-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Duck Everett ? Few ducks with Babies 26-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Duck Talya 2 In Canal 26-May-2014 Upper Spawning Channel Marmot Talya 1 On Bailey Bridge 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Bald Eagle Everett 1 27-May-2014 Seton Corridor Beaver John 1 Baby 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Beaver Talya 1 Baby In L.S.C. by den 27-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Duck Talya 3 In L.S.C 28-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Avaleen 1 Flying over nursery in the AM 28-May-2014 Nursery Bald Eagle Daryn 1 Flying above container 28-May-2014 Seton Corridor Bald Eagle John 1 On fish walk 28-May-2014 Seton Corridor Deer John 1 On fish walk 28-May-2014 Nursery Osprey Avaleen 1 Flying over nursery in the AM 29-May-2014 Lower Spawning Channel Osprey Avaleen 1 lower channel 30-May-2014 Nursery Coyote Daryn 1 By Cayoose Creek Bridge 30-May-2014 Nursery Coyote Everett 1 Walked by Bins (came to listen to drums)

156 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 131 Coyote den 18 Aug 2014

Figure 132 Black bear in Seton River

Figure 133 Short tailed weasel at nursery 09 Dec 2014 157 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.4 Restoration Work

5.4.1 Invasive Weed Management Three areas were targeted for weed removal with the goal of decreasing the weed seedbank and increasing the success rate of revegetated areas by removing competition for light and water.

Lower Seton Corridor – Riparian Management and Orchard Area The riparian management and old orchard areas were targeted for restoration in 2013-14. Alfalfa was removed by the roots by a small excavator, and other weeds were turned into the ground. During the summer and early fall 2013 crews continued to hand weed within the restored areas (Figure 134), and trimming took place around the edges of the restored areas.

Figure 134 Weed blitz in riparian management area and old orchard 15 May 2014

During 2014-15, the restored areas were treated by two weed blitz sweeps to remove any small plants before they grew too large to pull and before they went to seed. A regular one-week cycle of trimming took place around the restored areas and in two other targeted areas where the predominant species is alfalfa, and future restoration efforts are planned. To keep weeds down in the agroforestry plots, weed free hay/straw was laid out around the plants and down the rows to suppress weeds, and to provide nutrients and shade to the soil and plants (Figure 135).

158 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 135 Straw laid between and on agroforestry rows 26 June 2014

Note the mustard, alfalfa and other weeds around the edges of the agroforestry plot – these were trimmed down weekly on a rotating basis (Figure 135) and the drip line turned on during the peak of the summer for a few hours weekly. The heavy mulching of the agroforestry plots was successful throughout the summer in both weed suppression and water retention (Figure 136).

Figure 136 Thickly mulched agroforestry bed 26 June 2014 159 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Lower Spawning Channel Around Berms: For the third year in a row, removal of invasive species continued at the LSpCh, with a focus on similar species as was removed and/or controlled in 2012 and 2013. Great burdock, diffuse knapweed, sweet clover and alfalfa were targeted again because rate of growth and size can out-compete native species and/or their sharp burrs impact on fish and wildlife, and people hiking in the area.

One weed blitz was held on 30 July 2014 and the second on 10 September 2014. The goal of the first session was to pull out the bi-annuals (burdock and knapweed) from around the edges of the spawning channel. Both the first year rosettes and the second year seed producing plants were removed. It is very difficult to remove these weeds from around the edges of the spawning channel as the ground is very compact and rocky. Crews worked hard to attempt to remove as much of the roots as possible using weed pullers, shovels and small hand-saws. It was noted that the amount of burdock has decreased significantly with oonly tw small areas where it is persistent (top end of last berm and beside second berm). Knapweed was also reduced, but more prevalent as during the prior year few rosettes were pulled. During September the crew encountered Russian thistle growing around the channels, where they had not been a big problem before. One truckload of knapweed was removed on 30 July 2014 (Figure 17) and a truck and trailer load of mostly Russian thistle and knapweed (Figure 137) was transported to the dump on 10 September 2014. The origin of these weeds was the LSpCh and the Powerhouse site. Throughout the summer one crew technician trimmed around the spawning channel, ensuring native species were kept and weeds with seed heads were removed.

Figure 137 Truck/trailer load of weeds 10 Sep 2014

160 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Reptile Road: Prior to restoration work an inventory of plants found on the site was completed using 10X10m square plots and photo point monitoring. The site had both native species and non-native species, with the most prevalent weeds cheatgrass and alfalfa (Table 38).

Table 38 Vegetation composition pre-restoration road work LSpCh 2014

Layer

Latin name Common name Designation B1 B2 C

Shrub Layer

Amelanchier alnifolia saskatoon native 2 3

Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush native 12

Rhus glabra smooth sumac native 0.1

Rosa woodsii prairie rose native 3

Symphoricarpos albus common snowberry native 2

Herb Layer

Achillea millefolium yarrow native 0.1

Agropyron cristatum crested wheatgrass invasive 0.1

Agropyron spicatum bluebunch wheatgrass native 1

Agrostis gigantean redtop invasive 0.1

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass invasive 35

Comandra umbellate pale comandra native 1

Erysimum spp. mustard species invasive 0.1

Medicago sativa alfalfa invasive 3

Opuntia fragilis brittle prickly-pear cactus native 0.1

Stipa occidentalis stiff needlegrass native 0.1

An excavator was used to prepare the road by digging up the compacted ground and the weeds growing along its edges. After deactivation and soil remediation using rough and loose technique, crews swept through the area pulling weeds that remained (Figures 138, 139). This job is fairly easy once the ground has been prepared. Pulled annuals were left on the site as it was early enough in the season that no risk of them seeding would occur. Alfalfa plants that had been missed by the machine were dug out using weed pullers and mattocks. Areas around the restoration site were trimmed twice over the season.

161 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 138 Pre machine work on roadbed slated for deactivation 13 July 2014

Figure 139 During machine work on roadbed slated for deactivation 13 July 2014 162 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Upper Spawning Channel The USpCh site was covered with 100% weed species, except for one saskatoon shrub, with both alfalfa and knapweed being the main invasive species.

Table 39 Vegetation compostion pre-restoration work USpCh 2014

Latin name Common name Designation B1 B2 C

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass invasive 0.1

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed provincial noxious 1

Chenopodium album lamb’s-quarters invasive 0.1

Erysimum spp. mustard species invasive 0.1

Medicago sativa alfalfa invasive 1

Mirabilis nyctaginea wild four o’clock invasive 1

Salsola kali Russian thistle invasive 0.1

Verbascum thapsus great mullein invasive 0.1

During 2014-15 half of the area was slated for restoration with the remaining site planned for the future (Figure 140). An excavator was again utilized to pull out alfalfa by the roots and turn up the ground, using the rough-and-loose technique, in preparation for planting. No planting took place on the prepared ground until a few rounds of weed blitzes were undertaken. This was done to increase efficiency in weeding of newly sprouted plants that always present themselves after soil disturbance. This made it easier for weed crews who did not have a lot of plant ID skills as they could just pull all plants they encountered without having to identify them first. It is consistently easier to pull weeds in prepared ground as there are less weeds and they are easier to remove because of the loose soils (Figure141). The majority of the weeds were kept on site to act as habitat piles and/or shade for future plantings.

Figure 140 Upland bench polygon not treated looking towards treated polygon area 12 June 2014 163 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 141 Prepared ground (less weeds) and unprepared ground around the lone saskatoon shrub 17 June 2016

The last set of weeds to emerge at the USpCh upland bench were left as part of an environmental education activity. During the Fall Stewardship Days in fall 2014, students had a chance to pull weeds for 15 minutes as part of a weed blitz ‘race’. The different classes were asked to pull all the weeds in their designated area and pile them up for identification and to see which class could remove the most weeds in the designated time. Weed removal is not usually a task people volunteer for, but the students had fun and at the same time learned about some of the weeds growing on the site (Figure 142).

Figure 142 Students and volunteers pulling weeds 09 Oct 2014

164 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.4.2 Site Complexing and Installation of Habitat Features Two restoration sites had site complexing done by an excavator, using the rough and loose technique. Two hibernaculars were also built, 5 large logs were transported to the restoration sites and installed, and smaller brush, bark, wood mulch and weeds were used to create habitat feature on upland, riparian and in-stream sites.

Lower Spawning Channel An old roadbed that had evidence of reptile mortality by vehicles during 2012 and 2013 was deactivated at the LSpCh using the rough-and-loose technique. The road ran down from Highway 99 to the LSpCh pump house. Due to the very rocky nature of the ground it was not possible to build large mounds and work systematically across the site as per the instructions noted above. The rocks recovered through the digging were piled along the edge of the old road (now a foot trail) and in other areas to act as habitat features and reptile sunning sites (Figure 144). One large log with extensive internal decay was placed across the prepared soils to act as a habitat feature and to protect new seedlings from the sun and wind.

Figure 143 Site contoured and rocks/boulders placed along roads and in site 27 Sept 2014

A hibernacula was also built on a south facing slope by the edge of the old road. The hibernacula was built using existing rocks on the site and one large load delivered for the purpose. The excavator followed the method provided by the Toronto Zoo to build the hibernacula noted above under methodology. Students from the local schools, aboriginal support teachers and UBC International Forestry students had a chance to see the hibernacula while it was being built as it was left open for a month for educational purposes. The hibernacula was built on a fairly sandy/silty bank which could provide excellent nesting sites for reptiles in the future (Figure 145).

165 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 144 Hibernacula on sandy/silty south-facing bank 27 Sept 2014

Upper Spawning Channel The USpCh site was a compacted and weed infested area located between the Seton River and the upper end of the spawning channel. The goal of the restoration work was to restore the riparian habitat along the Seton River and around the berms of the channel, and to create a ponderosa pine bunchgrass ecosystem on the upland portions of the site to benefit reptiles and the spotted bat.

During April 2014, crews went in and trimmed down alfalfa and knapweed dry stems from the previous years growth and a dump truck delivered boulders and logs to the site (Figure 144).

Figure 145 Dump truck loads of boulders and logs being delivered 10 Apr 2014 166 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

The excavator then employed the rough and loose technique successfully using a large excavator. The ground was conducive to the method and any rocks or boulders dug up were strategically placed on the site or left for use in the hibernacula to be built later in the season.

Prior to Revegetation the following habitat features were added: • 1 large log with extensive internal decay • 2 class 4 or 5 wildlife trees (one large dead tree with coarse limbs present and one with most of the branches and bark fallen off), • several pieces of coarse woody debries • 2 large rock piles, at least 1m3,

These features were installed across the site to create micro-habitats to benefit both wildlife and revegetation efforts. One of the logs was dug into the ground and stood up to create structure and create a perching or nesting tree for birds (Figure 146).

Figure 146 Standing snag installed USpCh 07 Oct 2014

In October 2014, a hibernacula was also constructed at the USpCh (Figure 147). The site was a very flat bench, with no south facing slope, so the excavator used the soils dug from the hole to create a berm around the hole facing south so it would gather heat from the sun. The hole was then filled with rocks (Figure 148) and capped as per the methodology noted above. 167 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 147 Rocks being dumped into hibernacula 07 Oct 2014

Figure 148 Hibernacula being built at USpCh 07 Oct 2014

168 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.4.3 Revegetation Works Revegetation works followed invasive weed removal, soil decompaction and installation of habitat features. During 2014-15 revegetation took place at lower and upper corridor areas. The sites were chosen with the goals of increasing important riparian habitat for the Western screech-owl, and enhancing and increasing ponderosa pine-bluebunch wheatgrass habitats for the benefit of reptile species-at-risk. By targeting these species-at-risk, other wildlife species will benefit in the long-term

In addition, two to three provincially red-listed plant communities fall within the corridor: Black Cottonwood/Common Snowberry - Red-osier Dogwood (Populus balsamifera ssp trichocarpa/Symphoricarpos albus - Cornus stolonifera); Black Cottonwood/Water Birch and Douglas Fir - Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Pseudotsuga menziesii - Inus ponderosa/Pseudoroegneria spicata). By protecting, enhancing and increasing these riparian and grassland plant communities we hope to meet the needs of the focal species identified.

A total of 6,973 sqm were revegetated and 8,141 plants were planted (Table 40) using plants propagated locally. The majority of the planting took place during environmental outreach events. Before outreach planting, crews ensured all materials needed for the revegetation works were on site and planting holes dug in ground that was too rocky for students.

T he revegetation areas included:

• four areas along the Seton River in the lower corridor where riprap and eroding banks were treated using bioengineering techniques (Map 21, 23) - riprap 1, 3, 4 (pocket planting) - riprap 2 eroding bank (wattle fences, live staking, planting of seedlings and broadcasting of native seed)

• three areas at the Lower Spawning Channel (Map 21, 24) - 11 polygons around the spawning channels (live cuttings and/or planting of seedlings) - 2 polygons on an old roadbed (grassland seedlings)

• two areas at the Upper Spawning Channel (Map 22, 25) - 1 long linear polygon along the Seton River (riparian seedlings) - 1 polygon around the edge of the spawning channel (live stakes and seedlings) - 1 polygon on the upland (grassland seedlings)

169 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 19 Revegetation in lower corridor 2014-15

170 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 20 Revegetation in upper corridor 2014-15

171 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 40 2014-15 Planting Areas Seton River Corridor

172 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.4.4 Revegetation – Seton River Riprap along the Seton River has been installed in various locations to mitigate erosion and hold back both CN railway and highway infrastructure. In some areas the riprap is heavily fortified with little riparian cover, and in other areas the riprap is crumbly.

The work carried along the Seton River on riprap areas, was treated with pocket planting of riparian cuttings into soils deposited between the spaces in the riprap. This project is also part of a research project undertaken to evaluate best methodology for revegetating riprap areas in other sections of the corridor. Lillooet is a hot dry climate and bioengineering has had varying levels of success, and by monitoring the different methodologies we may find the best practices in our biogeoclimatic zone.

Another part of the bank along the Seton River, has loose crumbling soils and the bank is eroding. These areas were treated with the construction of wattle fences, individual live staking, planting of potted plants and broadcasting of seed.

Riprap Pocket Planting Three heavily riprap sites along the Seton River were planted in March 2015. The goal was to increase riparian habitat along the river in areas that are currently bare rock. Two of the riprap sites are to the east and west of the outflow of the LSpCh. The third site is just west of a side channel mid-way up the LSpCh (Map 19).

Map 21 Riprap revegetation sites March 2015

173 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Five soil types were used in the pocket planting sites (Table 40). The base of the mix, gravelly soil, was sourced from the fluvial terrace directly above the riprap areas. Each soil type was assigned a colour of flagging tape, which was used to mark the planted pockets on site.

Table 41 Soil mixes used in pocket planting

Soil Mix # Description

Soil Mix 1 Gravelly soil

Soil Mix 2 Gravelly soil – 3 shovels; Worm castings – 1 shovel; Gaia Green 4-4-4 fertilizer – ¾ cup

Soil Mix 3 Gravelly soil – 3 shovels; Bark compost – 1 shovel

Soil Mix 4 Gravelly soil; Water retention pouch planted in pocket

Soil Mix 5 Gravelly soil – 20 shovels; Worm castings – 4 shovels; Gaia Green 4-4-4 fertilizer – 1 cup

Black cottonwood (Populus tremuloides spp trichocarpa) was the only species of cutting used. Cuttings were planted into different soils (Table 41).

Table 42 Pocket planting details; number of cuttings planted and number of pockets per soil type

Cuttings Planted for each soil type (1 - 5) # of Pockets for each soil type (1 - 5)

1 2 3 4 5 Total Planted 1 2 3 4 5

Site 1 31 49 43 89 0 212 7 3 8 10 0

Site 3 27 40 18 0 0 85 10 6 7 0 0

Site 4 56 18 56 0 41 171 7 3 4 0 5

Figure 149 A finished pocket 17 Mar 2015 174 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

The sites were spread out across a heavily riprapped site, marked with flagging and GPSd (Table 42). Site 1 just east of the LSpCh outflow had 4 types of soil used, Site 3, just west of the LSpCh outflow used three soil types, and Site 4 midway along the LSpCh used four soil types.

Table 43 Waypoints describing locations of soil types laid out within each riprap site

Waypoint Easting Northing Description Name

Site 1: Four soil types used (4, 1, 2, 3) in order from East to West

YellPink 574918 5614136 Boundary between soil types 4 and 1

YellRed 574909 5614134 Boundary between soil types 1 and 2

RedBlue 574902 5614129 Boundary between soil types 2 and 3

Site 3: Three soil types used (1, 3, 2) in order from East to West

BdySoil2 574851 5614110 Boundary between soil types 2 and 3

BdySoil3 574865 5614111 Boundary between soil types 3 and 1

Site 4: Four soil types used (1, 2, 3, 5) in order from East to West

Rebar 574531 5613893 A rebar stake that indicates boundary between soil types 2 and 3

Bdy2 574535 5613905 Boundary between soil types 1 and 3

Most of the pockets were made in places where some natural soil was present between the boulders. A few pockets were created in places with no natural soil as a trial.

Filling the pockets with soil was the most difficult and time-consuming part of this work. The soil slide was a very useful tool that improved safety by minimizing time carrying heavy buckets over steep, unstable ground (Figure 150). Five workers formed the most efficient team for pocket planting, with two people building pockets and planting stakes, and three people mixing and delivering soil.

Soil was shaped into a bowl form to funnel water into the pocket, and rocks and moss were put on top of the soil to retain moisture. The pockets were watered immediately after planting, and one week later. Each of the pockets were labeled with colour flagging (Figure 151).

175 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 150 Using the soil slide 16 Mar 2015

Figure 151 Pink marked pocket showing rocks built up around soil and moss mulch 19 Mar 2014

Photo point stations were set up for the pocket planting sites and will be monitored over the years to assess what soils and techniques created the most successful conditions for revegetation: • Site 1 PP1 • Site 2 PP1 • Site 3 PP1 • Site 4 PP1 • Site 4 PP2

176 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Eroding Bank Planting – Site 2 Six wattle fences were built on the eroding gravel bank, Site 2 (Map 19). 180-2m long black cottonwood cuttings were used to build the fences. The fences were built at a variety of elevations along the bank (Figure 152), focusing on the lower half of the bank where most of the ground moisture is retained. Fences were between 2 and 10 meters long (Table 43).

Table 44 Eroding Bank Revegetation - Wattle Fences Site 2 2014

Fence # Easting Northing Length (m)

1 574998 5614177 2

2 574996 5614174 10

3 574990 5614168 3

4 574982 5614163 2

5 574977 5614158 4

6 574971 5614154 2

Figure 152 Wattle fencing Site 2 at different elevations 30 Mar 2015

177 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Single live stakes, native plant seedlings, and tree seeds were planted throughout the site, on the terraces formed by the wattle fences and throughout the rest of the site (Table 00). Small terraces and bowl-shaped depressions were formed around the native plant seedlings to funnel water towards the roots. Seedlings, live stakes, seeds, and terraces were watered thoroughly immediately after planting and one week later.

Table 45 Species planted on slope

Planted Planted on throughout Species Terrace site Total

Live Stakes

Black cottonwood - cuttings 0 45 45

Tree Seeds

Seed Mix - equal blend of Douglas maple, paper birch, and Mountain Alder 1 cup 1 cup 2 cups

Native Plant Seedlings

Bluebunch Wheatgrass 14 14 28

Ponderosa pine 5 5 10

Douglas-fir 5 5 10

Saskatoon 3 2 5

Chokecherry 2 3 5

Soopolallie 1 1 2

Total Seedlings 30 30 60

178 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.4.5 Revegetation – Lower Spawning Channel Restoration and revegetation works were initiated at the LSpCh into 11 polygons (Map 24, Table 47). Polygons 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 80 were planted to mitigate the fluctuation in the diel water temperature at the spawning channels. The waters in the channels are shallow in large sections of the system and, therefore, at risk of overheating during our hot dry summers. As noted above the temperature of the water in the channels went over 20oC on a number of occasions. The spawning channel is a man-made system built using boulders along the sides of the berms that makes planting difficult, and the installation of geotechnical cloth in places also impacts on riparian plants up-taking moisture.

Map 22 Areas planted in 2014 in the Lower Seton Corridor

179 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 46 Revegetation details for Lower Seton Corridor 2014

2014%RESTORATION%PLANTING%1%Lower%Spawning%Channel%2014 Smolt&students Smolt&students Crew JCP&students UBC&students Fall&students JCP&students JCP&students 29/30&May& 13&June&&&&& 22&Aug&&&&& 28&Sept&&&& 22&Oct&&&&& 01&Nov&&&&& 15<18&Mar& COMMON%NAME SCIENTIFIC%NAME 2014 30&May&&&&&2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 TOTAL TREES%1%EVERGREEN Interior&Douglas

Lower Spawning Channel Native shrub plugs and live stakes were planted at the LSpCh in the spring and fall of 2014 and the early spring of 2015.

On 29 and 30 May 2014, students planted 215 plants at the newly prepared demonstration gardens at the entrance to the spawning channels (Figure 153), and 167 riparian plants along the edges of the spawning channel (Figure 154), during the Walking with the Smolts Community Celebration. The area was the site of an old roadbed to the entrance to the spawning channel and native plant nursery. The area was contoured and prepared using cwd, boulders, cobbles and a trail running through the site so the public can enjoy and learn more about the plants of our region in the future.

On 13 June, 22 August and 22 October 2014 (Figure 155), 731 plants were used to vegetate bare banks along the lower spawning channel at polygons 53, 54, 55, 56, and 80. On 01 November 2014, 502 plants were used to revegetate polygons 57, 58, and 59.

Figure 153 Planting out demo garden beside LSpCh 29 May 2014

181 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 154 Holes prepared along the rocky banks of the LSpCh 30 May 2014

Figure 155 Students planting into prepared holes 30 May 2014 182 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 156 Plants, mulch and tools ready for planting along channel berms 22 Oct 2014

Figure 157 Volunteers planting live stakes along Lower Spawning Channel

183 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 158 Volunteers and crew planting live stakes 24 Mar 2015

Figure 159 Live stakes along a berm at LSpCh 24 Mar 2015 184 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Reptile Road Within polygons 42 and 52 (marked ‘road closure’ on Map 24) one ponderosa pine, 10 shrubs and many grass and forb species were planted (Table . Planting occurred on 27 September 2014 and approximately 1,854 plants were planted out by students from the UBC International Forestry program and volunteers from the Lillooet Naturalist Society. A total area of 0.36 hectares were planted.

Table 47 Native plants used to revegetated 'Reptile Road' site

Latin Name Common Name Number of Plants

Trees

Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine 1

Shrubs

Juniperus communis common juniper 2

Penstemon fruticosus shrubby penstemon 8

Herbs

Heterotheca villosa golden aster 50

Microsteris gracilis pink twink 6

Erigeron speciosus var. speciosus showy daisy 18

Solidago spathulata spikelike goldenrod 106

Symphyotrichum ericoides var pansum tufted white prairie aster 33

Antennaria lanata wooly pussytoes 20

Achillea millefolium yarrow 10

Grasses

Pseudoroegneria spicata bluebunch wheatgrass 497

Koeleria macrantha junegrass 308

Stipa comata needle-and-thread grass 192

Sporobolus cryptandrus sand dropseed 152

Stipa occidentalis stiff needlegrass 444

Aristida longiseta red three-awn 7

Total 1854

185 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.4.6 Revegetation – Upper Spawning Channel

At the Upper Spawning Channel, polygon 37 runs along the edge of the Seton River and was revegetated using riparian trees and riparian/dryland shrubs. Polygon 36 and 79 was revegetated using riparian species close to the spawning channel water, and dryland species on the upland (Map 25). A total of 4,552 plants were stocked into the site and a total area of 6,973 sqm was planted (Table 48, Figures 160, 161).

Map 23 Revegetation at USpCh 2014

186 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Table 48 Revegetation details for Upper Spawning Channel 2014 - 2015

2014%RESTORATION%PLANTING%1%Upper%Spawning%Channel%2014 Crew Smolt*students Fall*students Crew TOTAL COMMON%NAME SCIENTIFIC%NAME 02#April#2014 18/20/23#June 08/09/10#Oct 28#Oct#2014 TREES%1%EVERGREEN Interior#Douglas

PLANT%BREAKDOWN%BY%PROJECT%1%Upper%Spawning%Channel FWCP 716 PSF 512 187 Canon 389 AFSRA 2935 4552 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 160 Planting by homeschoolers 08 Oct 2014

Figure 161 Planting by students at USpCh 09 Oct 2014

188 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.5 Community Capacity Building

Community capacity building continued throughout 2014-15 and provided opportunities to Splitrock crew technicians, summer students, local school children from post secondary, secondary, elementary students and other community members who joined the outreach events and took part in citizen science activities. Three volunteers learned about the reptiles of the area and took on the monitoring of cover boards throughout the corridor.

Training was provided in vegetation, fish and wildlife surveys. The new reptile den searches provided crew technicians the opportunity to work with a wildlife biologist where techniques for habitat searches and reptile ID were provided (Figure 162). Plant ID again is a large part of the training to new and existing crew technicians (Figure 163).

We provided training and mentorship to eight Job Creation Partnership adult students who learned how to undertake bioengineering work using cottonwood cuttings along the banks of the channel and Seton River. They were also trained in the correct method for planting out container plants and propagation techniques at the native plant nursery

Figure 162 Crew technician ID plants in the field during vegetation surveys 08 May 2014

Figure 163 JCP students learning propagation techniques 03 Dec 2014

189 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

5.6 Watershed Education Outreach

Ever since the Powerhouse Restoration and the Seton River Corridor projects were initiated, environmental education and stewardship outreach has been an important component of the work carried out. The partners to this project believe environmental education is important to build an understanding of the interaction between habitat and wildlife, cultural knowledge and scientific theory, people and the land. By building an understanding and appreciation of our environment the goal is to create a stewardship ethic within the community.

During 2014-15, we hosted a variety of activities (Table 49). We hosted the Seton River Corridor stakeholder meetings where over 30 people came together to learn more about the habitat and wildlife values in the corridor with the aim of developing a management plan. The Walking with the Smolts Community Celebration was again hosted in May 2014 and Fall Stewardship Days during October 2014. Newspaper articles, radio public service announcements and website/facebook blogs were used to promote and report on the events. We also hosted an Open House at the native plant nursery and provided a community powerpoint presentation on wildlife and their homes (Figure 165).

Table 49 Outreach Activities 2014-15

Date Event/Activity Participants 07 April 2014 Seton River Corridor Stakeholder Meeting 30

29/30 May 2014 Walking with the Smolts Community Celebration 390 (Figure 164) 12 June 2014 Meeting with DFO: re water flows and gravel cleaning at 4 spawning channel 27 September 2014 Field Tour and Stewardship day with UBC international 26 Forestry students 8, 9, 10 October 2014 Fall Stewardship Days – USpCh environmental education and 186 planting 22 October 2014 Fall Stewardship Day – LSpCh 150

20 January 2015 Grade 3-4 St’at’imc class monthly ethnobotanical and 50 17 February 2015 environmental education program - LSpCh 24 March 2015 23 February 2015 Field walk with T’it’qet members and LNS 5

24 February 2015 Stewardship Day with Grade 3-4 students from Cayoosh 30 Elementary building owl nest boxes and reptile cover boards and ppt presentation on animal homes

26 February 2015 Community tour through restoration sites and nursery 17 (Figure 165) Powerpoint presentations and field walks with Cayoose and 7 T’it’q’et representatives with the goal of developing a MOU

190 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Figure 164 Student at Walking with Smolts event 29 May 2014

Figure 165 Tour of restoration sites and nursery 26 Feb 2014 191 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

6. DISCUSSION

Sekw’el’was Seton Wildlife Corridor Conservation and Restoration Project was undertaken with the support of the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Aboriginal Species at Risk Fund, Pacific Salmon Foundation, St’at’imc Government Services, the Canada Summer Jobs program. Cayoose Creek Sekw’el’was initiated this project as a direct result of the work taking place at the Powerhouse Restoration Project. Working in partnership with the Lillooet Naturalist Society on that restoration project led to increased awareness of the impacts on fish and wildlife in our territories, the strengths that remain on the land, and the actions that are possible to protect and restore our lands.

The Seton River Corridor is located within St’at’imc traditional territories and archaeological evidence supports the fact that we have been here for thousands of years, and have used and managed the land to sustain our culture. The study area is within the Seton River Watershed, and covers the area from the dam at Seton Lake to the banks of the Fraser River (Map 2).

The goal of the project is to create a management plan for the corridor based on the ecological and wildlife values. During 2014-15 work continued on completing habitat and wildlife surveys so that recommendations can be made to designate the lands as:

Category 1 Conservation Areas Category 2 Restoration Areas Category 3 Sustainable Management Areas Wildlife Corridors connecting high value areas

The Seton River corridor surveyed areas (Map 24) are heavily fragmented by roads and other man-made features; however, even with the high degree of fragmentation these areas hold ecological values and they contain red-listed plant communities, and provide habitat for red/blue-listed wildlife species, in particular the Interior Western Screech-owl, gopher snakes and racers. No habitat and ground truthing surveys were carried out 2014-15 due to lack of resources. With funds from AFSAR we were able to complete den habitat searches.

Hydro -electric facilities, including the associated infrastructure, roads, transmission lines, are the biggest contributor to fragmentation and detrimental impacts in the corridor. Other impacts include transportation infrastructure (rail and road), business operations (veneer mill, gas station, Splitrock Nursery), urban development, recreational campgrounds, livestock grazing, agriculture, domestic water wells, fuel management for fire suppression, wood fuel gathering, garbage dumping and some recreational activities. The spread of invasive plant species also contributes to the loss of biodiversity in the corridor, with alfalfa, knapweed and white clover being the most aggressive plants that colonize whole sections of the corridor to the detriment of native plant species.

192 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 24 Seton Corridor Project Survey Areas 2010-2013

The orange polygons show the Powerhouse site on the banks of the Fraser River that has seen extensive restoration work between 2008 and 2012. Mariposa Flats is a bench above the Fraser River that is fairly intact (aside from one access road and invasive weeds along that road) and has been used as a control site for the work being carried out at the Powerhouse site.

The purple polygons show the lower corridor from the Fraser River to the east end of the Lower Spawning Channels. This area incorporates an upland of open Ponderosa pine-Interior Douglas-fir grassland habitat and riparian areas around the waterways. The spawning channel is an ongoing site of management and restoration, both in-stream and upland.

The green polygons from the east end of the Lower Spawning Channel to the east end of the Upper Spawning Channel are classified as the middle corridor. This is a very narrow steep valley with the land sandwiched between the cliffs bordering the Seton River and Highway 99. It is the narrowest section of the corridor and impacts are high due to transmission lines, invasive weeds and riprap on sections of the river; however, there are also ecological values due to the influences of the Seton River and the presence of riparian vegetation and a small island in the middle of the river. The Naxwit Picnic Area is a popular place for visitors.

The larger green polygon on the banks of the Cayoosh Creek was surveyed during 2012 but is actually located in the upper corridor. This area has impacts from a small hydro electric

193 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014 operation, but again has some strong ecological values that could be enhanced over time with adaptive management practices.

The yellow polygon is the transmission line which runs through both the upper and middle corridor. It is necessary to regularly maintain the area under transmission lines; however, with some creative management, impacts on vegetation and wildlife could be minimized and also provide value-added benefits to the community.

2013 survey work is indicated by the maroon shading and as noted above includes the area along the Seton hydro canal and along Cayoose Creek. The area spans the upper, middle and lower corridor. Areas to-date that have not been surveyed are the Seton Lake area, Seton Flats and the north side of Seton River.

Based on the survey work completed to-date, as well as consultation with the partners (Sekw’el’was and T’it’qet), base maps have been produced highlighting the different habitat types and uses within the corridor. These maps were presented at the last stakeholder meeting and at meetings between Sekw’el’was and T’it’qet and are presented in the 2013-14 FWCP Final Report.

The draft Seton Corridor Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Management Polygons Map (Map 25) was presented at the stakeholder meeting, but again due to time constraints was deferred until the next Seton River Corridor stakeholder meetings and/or after future surveys are completed. In the interim discussions with the partners will continue.

Partners and stakeholders will use this map as a starting basis for considering how to work together towards increasing ecosystem functioning and, thereby, increasing fish and wildlife values. There are still missing gaps on the map, in particular the areas around Seton Lake, Seton Flat and the entire north side of Seton River. It will be important to continue habitat and wildlife assessments to gather sufficient data on which to develop an ecological land management plan for the watershed.

Oncee th land base has been designated into these categories it will be easier to establish Category 4 areas for the establishment of wildlife corridors that will provide safer movement across the landscape.

194 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Map 25 Seton Corridor DRAFT habitat/use assessment 2014

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Seton River Corridor is an intensively used area and multiple stakeholders have ownership, interests and/or operations within the corridor as discussed throughout this report and reports from 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The Seton River Corridor is also an important valley providing fish and wildlife habitat in varying stages of ecological integrity, and is an important location for wildlife movement across the broader landscape. In the past little research had been undertaken in the Lillooet region as a whole; however, over the last few years increased survey work has begun in part due to the FWCP opportunities and the BC Hydro/St’at’imc Agreement and approval of the Bridge-Seton Water Use Plan. All this activity provides the opportunity of working together to create a unified vision for the protection and enhancement of our watersheds.

The work we have carried out over the last four years helps us move towards the goal of categorizing the land base and designating protections. The focus is on conservation of existing high value lands, restoration of areas that would contribute to ecosystem health, and lands where existing operations could be adapted to increase habitat features. However, there are

195 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014 gaps in the data that need to be filled before any final designation can be applied and management plans developed.

Designation of lands will include the following:

Category 1 - Conservation A conservation designation will be given to polygons where the ecology is assessed as relatively intact and the land use values are considered low. These areas serve as important habitat zones for wildlife being mostly in the important riparian zones along water bodies. Conservation polygons should have predominantly native vegetation with low amounts of Invasive species. The ecological function of these polygons are rated high and could be deemed relatively high priorities to protect from disturbance or development. A conservation designation would not preclude the polygons from restoration treatment that may benefit the ecology of the site in future.

Category 2 - Restoration A second category of management designation will be given to polygons that are observed to benefit from some form of ecological restoration. These sites need active management help to improve ecological function. Restoration polygons often showed lower ecological diversity structure and function often due to past or ongoing disturbance including the presence of invasive plant species. Restoration polygons were identified primarily along the highly disturbed road sides where there is a high concentration of invasive species and recent disturbance and riparian areas that currently have minimal vegetation structure and cover and where riprap areas decrease the changes of natural recruitment. Only areas with no future development plans will be targeted.

Ecological restoration could take the form of preventing ongoing disturbances such as vehicle access, invasive species removal, native plant re-vegetation and seeding, installation and addition of habitat structural features such as logs and boulders, soil remediation including amendments and mulches, and removal of both garbage and old fencing.

Category 3 - Sustainable Management A third category of management designation will be given to polygons whose land use priority was for socio-economic values including recreation and industrial use, with ecological values being at least secondary.

Because of the limited land base in the constricted Seton Corridor any piece of available land that could be enhanced or managed for ecological values would be a valuable addition to the ecology of the corridor. It would be encouraged that land managers of sustainable management polygons adopt management strategies that where possible promote ecological diversity, structure and function. Examples of such management would include: • Maintain pockets and stands of native vegetation. • Prevent and remove invasive weed species. • Reduce fragmentation by limiting use of fencing. • Protect dead standing trees as important wildlife habitat. • Promote the use of native plant species.

196 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

• Maintain healthy riparian vegetation cover along waterways.

Category 4 - Wildlife Travel Corridors Wildlife trail systems have also begun to be mapped. Once habitat areas have been designated it will be important to see how existing and possible new wildlife trails connect to the larger polygons and how the travel routes can be enhanced and/or increased to ensure safe passage.

The 2014-15 Seton River Corridor project was successfully completed and much work was possible through leveraging of funds. As St’at’imc we are responsible for ensuring the health of our rivers and land and take our responsibilities seriously, utilizing both cultural and scientific methodology, and working with other partners and stakeholder to ensure that people, wildlife and the ecosystems remain strong.

The following recommendations are planned to be initiated in 2015-16 based on successful funding from FWCP, PSF and SGS (Table 49). The planned work builds on the work that has already been accomplished.

Table 50 Recommendations for work 2015-16

Tasks Description

Project Mobilization Gathering of equipment, preparing do-­‐forms, hiring crew, scheduling work

Habitat Mapping and V Habitat mapping using aerial photography, then ground-­‐ egetation Surveys truth established habitat polygons, vegetation surveys, data entry and mapping to complete last of th e data gaps • north side of Seton River • Seton Lake area • Seton Bluff

Spawning Channel • Weekly spawning observation walks at both channels (April – December; Feb -­‐ March); • Temperature logging (April – March) Assessments • Meet with Fisheries Committee established in 2014 to set three-­‐year goals and tasks

197 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Lower Spawning Channel G • Contract with Streamside Environmental • Deliver equipment to site ravel Cleaning (support from • DFO -­‐ F.Lockwood Conduct gravel cleaning using SandWand Technology www.streamsideenvironmental.com as per recommendations from Fred Lockwood who has carried out this work in the Salmon Arm area. • Setup monitoring program and monitor results

Reptile Survey • Conduct bi-­‐weekly monitoring of reptile cover boards to identify location and species diversity (include crew and 2014 citizen science volunteers) • Search for reptile hibernacula to identify critical denning sites (SGS help) • Undertake road and site surveys to locate travel corridors and identify obstacles to movement. Partner with DOT to record road kill.

Amphibian Surveys • Monitor existing identified wetlands and search for other wetlands in the area (include crew, T’it’q’et & citizen science volunteers) Based on recommendations • Visual surveys and possible funnel trapping made by Elke Wind, Amphi • Undertake road and site surveys to locate travel corridors and identify bian Specialist, 2014 obstacles to movement (in conjunction with reptile monitoring above) • Install cover boards to monitor salamander populations • Install remote call recorders to detect/monitor frogs & toads • Conduct mapping to predict movement pathways through, and in and out of the corridor. • Identify sites where possible wetlands could be built • Develop management plan

Large Mammal Surveys • Continue data collection using wildlife cameras •Initiate more comprehensive hair and scat surveys and provide to St’at’imc Government Serv ices • Continue general wildlife observations.

198 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Tasks Description

Restoration Works • Collect cuttings – ROD, Willow, Ctwd (approximately 1,500) - • Invasive weed removal along Seton River ­‐ Seton River Spring • Bioengineering work along Seton River – 693sqm -­‐ to include both riprap 2015 & 2016 areas and eroded bank following recommendations from Dave Polster.

Restoration Works • Invasive weed removal • Decompaction of old roadbed and gravel slope -­‐ 754 sqm - • Installation of CWD, boulders and cobbles and built hibernacula ­‐ Lower Spawning • Plant cuttings in riparian zones -­‐ 1164 sqm Channels • Plant native plant species into grassland area -­‐ 2004 sqm April 2015/October 2015

Sustainable Use of Restoration works will again incorporate planting of high-­‐ Corridor value ethnobotanical plants to increase sustainable use of resources (increase berry and food production for both wildlife and community; increase seeding of native bunch-­‐grasses for use in other restoration works).

Capacity building Continue on-­‐the-­‐ job training and mentoring throughout the season. We now have two crew technicians w ho can work independently with summer students to carry out vegetation and wildlife surv eys. Training in sound data collection and entry will be a priority this coming year.

Community Outreach Community salmon events, stewardship education programs with local schools, Ethno botany workshops, Fall planting volunteer days and Grade 4 Streamkeepers program.

Seton River Corridor Meeting organized and held April 2015; Networking ongoing Conservation and Res Continue developing the Conservation/Restoration Plan with stakeholders – toration Plan this is a long-­‐ term commitment and all stakeholders will need to be fully engaged before signing off. T he Plan will use the data that has been collected over the last three/four years, as well as stakeholder input, to designate Category 1, 2 and 3 areas, and connecting wildlife corrid ors. Overview maps are currently available and presented in 2013-­‐14 report.

199 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

8. REFERENCES

Adolph, Bonnie. Lower Seton Spawning Channel Complexing Project 2003. Lillooet: 2003

Aubry, K.B., & RALEY, c.m. (2002). Selection of Nest and Roost Trees by Pileated Woodpeckers in Coastal Forests of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management, 66(2), 392-406. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3803172.

B.C Ministry of Environment. (n.d.). Ecoprovinces, Ecoregions, and Ecosections of BC (Map). Retrieved from http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/res/EcosectionMap.pdf.

B.C. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, BC Ministry of Forests. Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems. Land Management Handbook N0. 25, 1998

B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2012). Develop with Care 2012: Fact Sheet #12 Western screech-owl. Retrieved from Ministry of Environment website: http://www.env/gov/bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/devwithcare2012/.

Beier, Paul, Majka, Jenness. Conceptual Steps for Designing Wildlife Corridors. Arizona: Northern Arizona University.

Bertram, N., Larsen, K.W., & Surgenor, J. (2001). Identification of critical habitats and conservation issues for the Western Rattlesnake and Great Basin Gopher Snake within the Thompson-Nicola region of British Columbia. Final Report for the BC Ministry of Water, land and Air protection and the Habitat Conservation Trust fund British Columbia. http://www.bcreptiles.ca/doc/bertram%20et%20al%202001.pdf

Bridge River Water Use Plan Consultative Committee. Bridge River Water Use Plan, September 2003. Vancouver: Compass Resource Management and BC Hydro, 2003.

Bridge-Coastal Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program, Strategic Plan, Volume 2. Seton River Watershed. Vancouver.

COSEWIC. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (Interior Fraser Population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. VIII + 34 pp. 2002.

Delesalle, B.P., B.J.Coupe, B.M. Wikeem, S.J. Wikeem. Grasslands Monitoring Manual for British Columbia: A Tool for Ranchers. Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia, 2009.

Isermann, D.A. and C.T Knight, 2005. A computer program for age-length keys incorporating age assignment to indidivual fish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 1153-1160. 1,2,3.

Hall, F. (2002). Photopoint monitoring handbook: Part A-Field Procedures. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-526. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Portland, OR.

Hall, L., Mull, J., & Cavitt, J. (2009). Relationship between cheatgrass coverage and the relative abundance of snakes on Antelope Island, Utah. Western North American Naturalist, 69(1), 88-95.

Hausleitner, D. (2006). Inventory Mehtods for Owl Surveys. Standars for Conponents of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 42. Prepared for Ecosystems Branch of the Ministry of Environment for the Resources Information Standards Committee. Victoria, B.C.

Hillaby, Judy. Spawning Channel Gravel Sampling 2012. Williams Lake, 2013. Kaufman, K. (January 2002). A little night magic. Retrieved from 200 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/backyard/backyard0201.html

Loyd, D. and, K. Angove, G. Hope and C. Thompson, A Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. Land Management Handbook Number 23 BC Ministry of Forests, 1990.

Mackay, W.C., G.R. Ash and H.J. Norrise. 1990. Fish ageing methods for Alberta. R.L. & L. Environmental Services Ltd. In association with alberta fish and Wildlife Division and University of Alberta, Edmonton. 133p.

McCubbing, D.J.F., C. Melville, LJ Wilson and D. Ramos-Espinoza. 2013 BRGMON-3 Lower Bridge River: Adult Salmon and Steelhead enumeration 2013, Prepared for St’at’imc Eco Resources Ltd and BC Hydro (WUP Report), 57p.

Ministry of Environment. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. BC Conservation Data Centre website.

Ministry of Environment. The Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (IWMS). Wildlife Conservation Planning Branch, Victoria, 2004

North, Kim. Sekw’el’was Seton Wildlife Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study Final Report 2010. Lillooet, 2011.

North, Kim. Sekw’el’was Seton River Corridor - Habitat Enhancement & Restoration - Fraser Salmon & Watershed Program - 2011/12 Final Report. Lillooet, 2012.

North, Kim and Odin Scholz. Sekw’el’was Seton River Corridor - Conservation and Restoration Project - Final Report 2012-13. Lillooet 2013.

North, Kim and Odin Scholz. Sekw’el’was Seton River Corridor - Conservation and Restoration Project - Final Report 2013-14. Lillooet 2015.

Ovaska, K., & Sopuck, L. (2004). Indicators and methods for monitoring the effectiveness of Gopher Snake Wildlife Habitat Areas. Final report prepared for BC Ministry of Land, Water and Air Protection. Victoria, B.C. Retrieved from http://ww.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/site_files/values/Wildlife_Gopher_Snake_WHA_Analysis.pdf

Parchoma, Gale. Guide to Weeds in British Columbia. British Columbia Department of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, 2002.

Parish, Roberta and Coupe, Ray and Lloyd, Dennis. Plants of Southern Interior of British Columbia and the Inland Northwest. Vancouver: Lone Pine Publishing, 1996.

Polster, David. Natural Processes: The Application of Natural Systems for the Reclamation of Drastically Distrubed Sites. Duncan, 2009.

Ralph, David. Field Guide to Noxious and Other Selected Invasive Plants of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C: 2007.

Resources Inventory Committee. (1998). Standard for terrestrial ecosystem mapping in British Columbia. Vancouver: Resources Inventory Committee. Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/risc/pubs/ teecolo/tem/tem_man.pdf

Sneep, Jeff. Seton River Corridor Habitat Restoration Assessment - 2010 and 2011 Lower Spawning Channel Sampling Summary Report. Lillooet, 2012.

201 Splitrock Environmental Sekw’el’was Seton Corridor Report 2014

Southern Interior Reptile and Amphibian Recovery Team. 2008. Recovery strategy for the Gopher Snake, deserticola subspecies (Pituophis catenifer deserticola) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 20 pp.

St’at’imc Land and Resource Authority. Nxekmenlhkalha Iti tmicwa - St’at’imc Preliminary Draft Land Use Plan. Lillooet, 2004

Summit Environmental Consultants Ltd. Survey of Gravel Recruitment Needs: Middle Shuswap River, Bridge River, Seton River and Cayoosh Creek. Kamloops: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Sweeten, Ted. Gravel Sampling Methods used in the Assessment of Spawning channels at the Big Qualicum and Little Qualicum Facilities on Vancouver Island, British Columbia”. Vancouver Island, 2005.

Tisdale, Gene. Seton River Spawning Channels Juvenile Salmonid Growth Assessment May - November 2013. Kamloops, 2014.

Toronto Zoo. (n.d.) Snake Hibernacula. Retrieved October 17, 2014 from http://www.torontozoo.com/adoptapond/snakehibernacula.asp

Western Screech-Owl, macfarlanei subspecies Recovery Team (2008). Recovery Strategy for the Western Screech-Owl, macfarlanei subspecies (Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei) in British Columbia. Retrieved November 3, 2013 from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/recoveryplans/recovery_doc_table.html

Westland Resource Group. A Historical Geography of the St’at’imc - St’at’imc Socioeconomic Impact Assessment - An Assessment of eth Socioeconomic Impacts of Hydroelectric Development on the St’at’imc. Victoria: Westland. 2003

Wildlife Tree Committee of British Columbia. (2001). Wildlife/Danger Tree Assessors Course Workbook: Forest Harvesting and Silviculture Module. Excerpts included in course workbook for University of Victoria course ER312B.

Young, V., Mylymok, J., Hobbs, J., & Iredale, F. (2011). Western Screech Owl Conservation and Management for the Bridge River Restoration Area. 2010 Final Report prepared for Bridge Coastal Restoration Program and Lillooet Tribal Council.

202