Assessment of Comox Lake Carrying Capacity and Coho‐Cutthroat Interactions in the Cruickshank and Upper Puntledge River Systems 13.Pun.05

Assessment of Comox Lake carrying capacity and coho‐cutthroat interactions in the Cruickshank and Upper Puntledge River systems 13.Pun.05

Prepared for:

Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program

On behalf of;

Courtenay and District Fish and Game Protective Association PO Box 3177 Courtenay, BC V9N 5N4

Prepared by:

E. Guimond 1, R. Ferguson 2, K. Hyatt 2, G. Graf 3, M. Lough 4 and M. Sheng 5

Prepared with financial support of: Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program on behalf of its program partners BC Hydro, the Province of B.C. and Fisheries and Oceans Canada

1 E. Guimond & Associates, 473 Leighton Ave., Courtenay, BC V9N 2Z5 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, 3190 Hammond Bay Rd, Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7 3 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Suite 200 – 401 Burrard St., Vancouver, BC V6C 3S4 4 MJ Lough Environmental Consultants Ltd., 608 Bruce Ave., Nanaimo, BC V9R 3Y7 5 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 3225 Stephenson Point Road, Nanaimo, BC V9T 1K3

December 2014 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ...... ii List of Figures ...... iii List of Tables...... iv List of Appendices ...... v 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 2 3 STUDY AREA ...... 3 4 METHODS AND APPROACH ...... 4 5 PROJECT ACTIVITIES/STUDIES ...... 6 5.1 LAKE SURVEYS ...... 6 5.1.1 Background ...... 6 5.1.2 Methods ...... 7 5.1.3 Results ...... 8 5.1.4 Discussion ...... 15 5.2 USE OF THE LITTORAL ZONE BY INTRODUCED ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS AND RESIDENT TROUT ...... 18 5.2.1 Background ...... 18 5.2.2 Methods ...... 20 5.2.3 Results ...... 23 5.2.4 Discussion ...... 36 5.3 IMPRINTING OF COHO FRY IN THE UPPER WATERSHED AND HOMING OF THE RETURNING ADULTS ...... 38 5.3.1 Background ...... 38 5.3.2 Methods ...... 39 5.3.3 Results ...... 39 5.3.4 Discussion ...... 42 5.4 FLOW MONITORING ...... 44 5.4.1 Background ...... 44 5.4.2 Methods ...... 44 5.4.3 Results ...... 45 5.5 JUVENILE REARING STUDIES AND REDD COUNTS AT TRIBUTARY STREAMS TO COMOX LAKE ...... 47 6 SUMMARY ...... 48 7 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 51 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 52 9 REFERENCES ...... 53

ii Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location map of the Comox Lake watershed and major features...... 4 Figure 2. Zooplankton biomasses (2013) as µg L-1 dry weight. The net was hauled from 0- 50 m during the day using a score net with 100 µm mesh. Samples were metered for net efficiency. Biomasses were estimated from lengths using dry weight length-weight regressions and biomasses...... 13 Figure 3. Comox Lake 2013 rate of water flow through the sluice gates (cubic meters per second)...... 15 Figure 4. Location of 2013 and 2014 Gee trap surveys, snorkel surveys, live tap box, and limnological sampling conducted in the Comox Lake watershed and coho fry releases in Comox Lake...... 21 Figure 5. Live trap net sampling in Comox Lake on the north side of the Cruickshank River alluvial fan, June – October 2014...... 22 Figure 6. Length-frequency distribution of coho juveniles (0+ and 1+) captured in Gee traps in Comox Lake in September 2013...... 24 Figure 7 a-c. Summary of all species caught during three trap net surveys in Comox Lake between June and October 2014...... 26 Figure 8 a & b. Mean weights and lengths of coho juveniles captured from the net trap on north side of the Cruickshank River alluvial fan in 2014...... 27 Figure 9a-c. Frequency histogram of coho fry weights caught in a live box trap off the North side of the Cruickshank alluvial fan June – October 2014...... 28 Figure 10. Mean condition coefficients of coho juveniles captured in Comox Lake in 2014 from net trap on north side of the Cruickshank River alluvial fan...... 29 Figure 11. Comparison of mean condition coefficients between marked and unmarked coho juveniles captured in Comox Lake, in 2014 from net trap on the north side of the Cruickshank River alluvial fan...... 30 Figure 12. Length and weight of coho juveniles measured in October 2013 at Site #2 in the lower Cruickshank R, and October 2014 along Comox lakeshore (near the mouth of Cruickshank R)...... 30 Figure 13. Discharge in the Cruickshank River in May 2005 to May 2013 ...... 32 Figure 14. Daily movement of unmarked and adipose clipped coho juveniles through the evaluation facility at the Puntledge diversion dam in 2014. Fish captures in late June-July were low due to the shutdown of the Puntledge Generating Facility...... 32 Figure 15. Length-frequency distributions for coho smolts (1+ and 2+) captured at the Puntledge evaluation facility over three periods in 2014...... 33 Figure 16. Total and hatchery only (adipose clipped) coho population estimates coupled with fry releases for brood years 2008-2012, from assessments at the Puntledge dam evaluation facility from 2010-2014...... 35

iii Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Figure 17. Comox Lake elevation (metres above sea level) in 2013 (red line) compared to mean, minimum, and maximum elevations for the period 2005 to 2012...... 41 Figure 18. Movement of coho salmon adults through the diversion dam fishway as recorded by underwater video surveillance, October 23 – November 28, 2013...... 42 Figure 19. Water levels and river discharge during 2013 late summer-fall juvenile fry surveys in the Upper Puntledge and Cruickshank river systems...... 46

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comox Lake assessment activities, timing and project participants...... 5 Table 2. Samples collected during 2013. An x symbol indicates that a sample was collected, processed and included in this report. GCL fertilization schedule is available. ... 8 Table 3. Year 2013 Comox Lake water temperatures and Secchi depths. The oxygen data in red are likely low due to an error in meter calibration. The Rigosha data in red are also likely too low due to an unknown problem in the field ...... 9 Table 4. Between lake comparisons of temperature and Secchi depth: Year 2013 Comox Lake, Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake and Henderson Lake water temperatures and Secchi depths sampled averaged from samples collected between May and October 2013...... 10 Table 5. Year 2013 Comox Lake water chemistry (nutrients): Samples were taken at a single mid-lake station. Epilimnetic total phosphorus data were unavailable...... 10 Table 6. Between lake comparisons of average nutrients and chlorophyll a: Year 2013 Comox Lake, Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake and Henderson Lake nutrient chemistry averaged from samples collected between May and October 2013...... 11 Table 7. Year 2013 Comox Lake alkalinity and calcium concentrations: Alkalinity and calcium chemistry data analyzed at VIU...... 11 Table 8. Between lake comparisons of average calcium concentrations and alkalinity: Year 2013 Comox Lake, Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake and Henderson Lake nutrient chemistry averaged from samples collected between May and October 2013...... 12 Table 9. Between lake comparisons of average (May-October) zooplankton biomasses (µg L-1 dry weight): In all cases the net was hauled from 0-50 m during the day using a SCOR net with 100 µm mesh. Samples were metered for net efficiency. Biomasses were estimated from lengths using dry weight length-weight regressions and biomasses...... 13 Table 10. Mean limnetic fish densities, lengths and weights. Weights have been corrected for shrinking due to the ethanol used as a preservative. SB = stickleback. Lake area = 2032 ha. Lake volume = 892,000,000 m3 ...... 14 Table 11. Location and sampling dates of live trap net surveys in Comox Lake in 2014. . 22

iv Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 12. Locations of and catch data from Gee trapping conducted in Comox Lake in September 2013. Highest coho captures are in Bold...... 24 Table 13. Locations and observations from snorkel surveys conducted in Comox Lake in October 2013...... 25 Table 14. Locations of and catch data from Gee trapping conducted in Comox Lake on June 25-26, 2014. Highest coho captures are in Bold...... 25 Table 15. Summary of Puntledge River Hatchery coho fry releases into Comox Lake and the upper watershed in 2013 and 2014...... 31 Table 16. Length (mm), weight (grams) and Fulton’s condition factor (K) for sub-samples of coho 1+ smolts captured at the Eicher Assessment facility from April - July 2014...... 34 Table 17. Summary of coho fry releases, and population estimates at the Puntledge Diversion dam evaluation facility from 2010 to 2014...... 34 Table 18. Stream discharge transects and water level recorder stations in the upper watershed, monitored in 2013...... 45

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1. Capture data, and condition coefficients (KC’s), from live trap surveys along the Comox Lake shoreline June - October, 2014...... 55 APPENDIX 2. Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake, 2013 ...... 57

v Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

1 INTRODUCTION

Over the past five years, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has made significant changes to its Salmon Enhancement Program (SEP) coho production strategy in the Puntledge watershed. The hatchery has discontinued the production of coho smolts and now only releases fed fry into the upper watershed. In addition, broodstock collection procedures at the hatchery have been revised to ensure that a greater number of coho are allowed to continue their migration upstream throughout the entire migration period, rather than holding adults at the hatchery until broodstock collection has reached target levels. These changes focus on replicating the historic behaviour and life-cycle of fall coho. This strategy will enhance coho productivity in the watershed, and is necessary to improve adult escapement. The overall goal of this strategy is to establish a sustainable coho population that will migrate and home back to Comox Lake. This is expected to increase survival for both hatchery broodstock and wild spawners. DFO recognizes that access to, and utilization of habitat in the upper Comox Lake watershed is critical to the sustainability of coho production in the watershed. DFO estimates that there is under-utilized high quality spawning habitat and rearing habitat for chinook and coho adults and fry above Comox Lake. As DFO begins to implement their long term strategy of increasing coho utilization in the upper watershed, it is important that hatchery smolt production from the upper watershed is assessed and adult returns to the lower Puntledge River and Comox Lake are enumerated to determine if the fry outplant loading rates are appropriate and that the risks to other native fish species are minimized. Unfortunately, there is limited information on the carrying capacity (productivity) of Comox Lake for hatchery fry releases, wild coho production, trout, char, and kokanee. Although there have been long term introductions (i.e. since 1980), the extent of interaction regarding competition and predation between coho and resident cutthroat in Comox Lake is not well understood. Provincial agency biologists have been concerned with coho fry introductions into Comox Lake and tributaries, and the potential detrimental effects on the cutthroat population. These concerns resulted in the designation of Comox Creek, a tributary of the Cruikshank River, and the lower the section of the Upper Puntledge River, from Willemar to Comox lakes, as cutthroat trout sanctuaries, and consequently, these areas do not receive any coho fry outplants. Caw (1977), identified an abundance of juvenile cutthroat trout throughout accessible sections of the Cruikshank and Upper Puntledge in 1976. This was prior to the annual coho fry transfers from Puntledge Hatchery into the upper watershed. An awareness of the population dynamics of cutthroat trout at various life stages in the Comox watershed is vital to the understanding of the mechanisms regulating cutthroat production. Predation

1 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

within the watershed by juvenile coho may have an impact on the cutthroat population, but the reverse may also be true, if coho fry are also preyed upon by larger salmonids including cutthroat. A new ecosystem-based approach, consistent with implementation of DFO’s 2005 Wild Salmon Policy requires long-term assessment of the coho re-stocking program to include addressing interaction with trout and char, and optimizing smolt survival and adult returns to the upper watershed.

2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

A key knowledge gap identified in the Puntledge Watershed Salmonid Action Plan is the need for a better understanding of the dynamics of resident fish populations in Comox Lake, and limiting factors to fish in a number of geographic locations including Comox Lake and its tributaries. Fulfilling the fundamental objectives of the Strategic Plan, that of ensuring a productive and diverse aquatic ecosystem, and maintaining or improving opportunities for sustainable use, will necessitate the implementation of a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program in the upper watershed (Comox Lake and tributaries). The proposed study in Comox Lake will address this data gap through a collaborative approach that will 1) improve our understanding of fish production limitations (i.e. nutrient limitations) in Comox Lake and tributaries; 2) provide agency direction to optimize fish management strategies in the watershed which includes Comox Lake and upper watershed tributaries to benefit both resident and anadromous stocks, 3) result in the development of a detailed inventory of potential restoration projects directed at resident salmonids in the upper watershed; and 4) establish a partnership between the Province, DFO Salmon Enhancement and Science Branches, and the Courtenay and District Fish and Game Protective Association (CFGA) that will likely lead to other similar cooperative studies in other Vancouver Island watersheds. The “Assessment of Comox Lake carrying capacity and coho/cutthroat interactions in the Cruickshank and Upper Puntledge River systems” has 2 key objectives:

1. Conduct a coho fry assessment in the tributaries and Comox Lake and compare the results to existing habitat capacity models for juvenile fish. The results of this survey will be used to determine if there are interaction problems between coho fry and cutthroat and provide recommendations for the selection of the most appropriate coho release sites and loading densities in the upper watershed.

2. Complete a limnological and food-web study of Comox Lake, to compile baseline data on water quality and chemistry, phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance, and species composition. These data are an important component and first step in the

2 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

development of a carrying capacity estimate for Comox Lake. When analysed in conjunction with fish population studies in the lake, the degree of available food and the ability of the lake to support introduced salmonids and the native population can be determined.

3 STUDY AREA

The Comox Lake watershed encircles an area of approximately 600 km2 on the NE side of Vancouver Island, BC, approximately 6 km west of the City of Courtenay. Comox Lake has two large tributaries, the upper Puntledge River and the Cruikshank River. The Cruikshank has several tributaries within its watershed of 213 km2, including Comox, Rees, and Eric creeks. The Upper Puntledge River drains an area of 92 km2. Forbush and Willemar lakes are located in the lower mainstem of the Upper Puntledge River. Downstream of Comox Lake, the lower Puntledge River flows in a north-easterly direction for 14.3 km where it joins with the Tsolum River before discharging into the Strait of Georgia. The focus of this study is Comox Lake, the Upper Puntledge and Cruikshank rivers, and Cruikshank tributaries Comox, Rees and Eric creeks. A map of the Comox Lake watershed is provided in Figure 1. Comox Lake reservoir lies at 135 m above sea level and has a surface area of 2118 ha, an average depth of 61 m and a maximum depth of 109 m (BC Hydro 2003). The upper watershed extends into the Comox Glacier and Forbidden Plateau which provides a continuous flow of freshwater from snow melt during the spring/summer months. The lake has extensive shoal areas along the northwest shore and south end, and around the mouths of the Cruikshank and upper Puntledge Rivers. These shallows have large accumulations of woody debris, which provide important refugia for juvenile salmonids and other fish. Comox Lake has indigenous populations of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and rainbow trout (O. mykiss), Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma), kokanee or land-locked sockeye (O. nerka), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and coast range sculpin (Cottus aleuticus). Cutthroat trout in particular form the basis of an important recreational fishery. The Cruikshank River has moderate to high gradient reaches with approximately 30 km of habitat that is accessible to salmon and trout. The lower to middle sections of the Cruikshank contain large areas of spawning gravel. The major tributaries of the Cruikshank support cutthroat trout spawning. All have small lakes at their headwaters, however these lakes are not accessible to anadromous fish due to impassable barriers. The upper Puntledge is of lower gradient than the Cruikshank in its lower reaches, and the section below Willemar Lake also support a high number of cutthroat trout spawners.

3 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Tributaries to the upper Puntledge River have only short sections accessible to migrating salmonids due to fish passage barriers. Forbush and Willemar lakes are located in the lower mainstem of the Upper Puntledge River. These small lakes are 47 and 82 hectares in area, respectively, and are important rearing areas for trout, and juvenile coho.

Figure 1. Location map of the Comox Lake watershed and major features.

4 METHODS AND APPROACH

This study provided a unique opportunity for the development of a partnership between the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO), DFO Salmon Enhancement (SEP) and Science Branches, and the Courtenay and District Fish and Game Protective Association. The study was comprised of 7 project activities,

4 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

each designed and conducted by various fisheries agency staff, consultants and volunteers (Table 1). Periodically, throughout the project, members of the Project Team met to review activity objectives, identify volunteer opportunities, project scheduling, workplans, and preliminary results. The methods and results of the individual studies are presented in the following sections (Table 1), and/or as stand-alone reports which have been inserted into this document. A final Summary section provides an overview of the key findings from these studies, and an integrated review of the data.

Table 1. Comox Lake assessment activities, timing and project participants.

Report Project Activity Timing Participants Section Hydro-acoustic-and-trawl (ATS) based assessments of June, August 2013 DFO 5.1 Comox Lake limnetic fish (3 events) January 2014

Limnological sampling (5-6 sampling events) May – Sept 2013 DFO 5.1

Sept / Oct 2013 Comox Lake shoal survey FLNRO, DFO, CFGA** 5.2 July – Oct 2014* Coho adult migration at Comox Dam – DIDSON camera Nov – Dec 2013 DFO, CFGA, Consultant 5.3 monitoring

Flow monitoring in Comox Lake tributaries December - March DFO, CFGA, Consultant 5.4

Snorkel survey, redd counts in Cruickshank and Upper April / May 2013 FLNRO, Consultant 5.5 Puntledge Rivers Juvenile rearing study - Electro-fishing tributary streams of Aug - October 2013 FLNRO, Consultant 5.5 Comox Lake

* Additional sampling was conducted in 2014 due to a deficiency of data and sampling problems encountered in 2013. ** Volunteers from the Courtenay & District Fish and Game Protective Association (CFGA) assisted in data collection.

5 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

5 PROJECT ACTIVITIES/STUDIES

5.1 LAKE SURVEYS

Project Lead: K. Hyatt, R. Ferguson, & G. Graf - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

5.1.1 Background

Comox Lake and its tributaries are categorized as nutrient limited, and as a result, have low biological productivity. If releases of juvenile salmon into Comox Lake are to continue, then it is vital that the food supply in the lake is sufficient to support sustainable production of coho and all other available fish species. If food is limiting, then introductions of excessively large numbers of fry have the potential to over crop forage (e.g. zooplankton, benthic invertebrates) to the extent that juveniles and subsequent adult returns will be affected. Excessive over grazing could have negative effects that could last for several years (e.g. Kyle et al. 1988). In 2009, FLNRO assessed the pelagic fish populations in Comox Lake by conducting a hydro-acoustic-and-trawl survey (ATS) (Johner and Sebastian 2009). However, while the hydro-acoustic portion was successful, the trawl survey failed due to mechanical problems and it was not possible to field truth the identity of the acoustic targets. ATS work was therefore repeated in 2013. Information from this work, combined with the water chemistry and zooplankton data are relevant to developing a carrying capacity estimate for all pelagic fish species in Comox Lake. In 2012, DFO initiated a limnological study of Comox Lake, with financial support from CFGA, to compile baseline data on water quality and chemistry, phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance, and species composition. This work was repeated in 2013 with FWCP funding. These data are an important component and first step in the development of a carrying capacity estimate for Comox Lake. Analysis of these data taken in conjunction with population studies in the lake were used for an initial determination of the degree of available food and the ability of the lake to support introduced salmonids and the native fish population. The lake assessment study is an opportunity to evaluate various management practices in the upper watershed. Aspects of the Lake Survey include: 1) Hydro-acoustic and Trawl Surveys: Measurement and identification of the pelagic fish populations in Comox Lake through ATS work followed methodologies established under the Lake Enrichment Program (Hyatt et al. 1984) and were completed in 2013/14. A total of three surveys were planned to occur in June, when lake productivity is ramping up; August, when biological pressures on the food

6 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

resources of the lake are at a maximum, and in the winter, when the total population is stable and year-end biomass achieved by limnetic fish may be determined. 2) Limnological sampling: Limnological sampling included the collection and processing of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and water quality samples. Analysis of data through comparison with other well-studied lakes in the area permitted determination of an initial carrying capacity estimate for all pelagic fish species in Comox Lake. Sampling design followed procedures developed by the Lake Enrichment Program (Hyatt et al. 1984). Results from water quality analysis were used to identify the potential for nutrients such as N:P:K or Ca as likely key limiting factors governing Comox Lake (and tributary stream) productivities.

5.1.2 Methods

Limnology

Limnological samples were collected monthly in Comox Lake from May to October 2013 and included 3 main elements: depth profile sampling (temperature, oxygen, and pH); turbidity (secchi depth); water chemistry (phosphorus, nitrate/nitrite, silica, calcium, magnesium, chlorophyll); and phytoplankton/zooplankton sampling. Sample collection was conducted at the deepest location (middle) in the lake (see Figure 4 in Section 5.2). Water samples were analyzed by the DFO Cultus Lake lab (nitrate/nitrite, chlorophyll, phosphorous), the Vancouver Island University Applied Chemistry Lab (micronutrients), Zotec Services, a private lab in Nanaimo B.C. (zooplankton analysis), and Elaine Carney, a phytoplankton analyst in Ontario. Depth profile sampling was conducted by lowering a calibrated multi-parameter water quality meter (Hanna HI9828 multimeter) to measure temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH readings at surface and every 2 m to a maximum depth of 26 m. Turbidity was measured with a secchi disc. Water samples for water chemistry and phytoplankton analysis were collected with a Van Dorn depth sampler. Water samples were collected at 1, 3 and 5 m depth and pooled for a representative epilimnetic water sample, while a hypolimnetic sample was collected at 25 m depth. Zooplankton samples were collected by vertical haul at 50 m depth using a 100µm SCOR plankton net fitted with a Rigosha flowmeter. A summary of sampling dates and parameters measured is detailed in Table 2.

7 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 2. Samples collected during 2013. An x symbol indicates that a sample was collected, processed and included in this report. GCL fertilization schedule is available.

Secchi Oxygen

Rigosha Zooplankton Temperature VIU chemistry Date surveyed Date chemistry DFO Biosampling fish Biosampling Records Acoustic Comox Lake

07-May-13 x x x x x x x

06-Jun-13 x x x x x X nd

16-Jul-13 x x x x x x

20-Aug-13 x x x x x x x

27-Sep-13 x x x x x x x

3-Oct-13 X x

7-Oct-13 x x

28-Jan-14 X x

Hydro-acoustic and Trawl Surveys

Three hydro-acoustic surveys were conducted in Comox Lake following a previous survey design conducted in Comox Lake by Johner and Sebastian (2009), and standard methods described in MacLellan and Hume (2010). The surveys were conducted on June 6 and October 3, 2013, and January 28, 2014. During each survey, 11 transects were completed between civil sunset and civil sunrise, except in January when lake levels were too low to conduct two transects located in shallow (<10 m) water depths.

5.1.3 Results

Temperatures and Secchi depths: Comox Lake showed stratification patterns that are normal for coastal British Columbia sockeye lakes (Table 3). The epilimnion warmed and became deeper as the season progressed. Between-lake comparisons (Table 4) suggested that 2013 Comox Lake seasonal average Secchi depths and temperatures were similar to the 2013 seasonal averages found in other coastal sockeye lakes (Great Central, Sproat and Henderson lakes) that have been the subjects of long-term monitoring.

8 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 3. Year 2013 Comox Lake water temperatures and Secchi depths. The oxygen data in red are likely low due to an error in meter calibration. The Rigosha data in red are also likely too low due to an unknown problem in the field

Sample Date 07-May-13 06-Jun-13 16-Jul-13 20-Aug-13 27-Sep-13

Secchi (feet) 38.1 36.0 48.0 37.0

Secchi (m) 10.0 11.6 11.0 14.6 11.3

Temperature Depth (m) 0 11.2 14.1 19.1 19.4 15.8 2 11.1 13.8 18.9 19.4 15.8 4 10.6 13.7 18.8 19.4 15.8 6 9.0 13.2 18.7 19.4 15.8 8 8.7 10.9 18.4 18.6 15.8 10 8.4 10.5 14.0 17.6 15.8 12 7.9 10.0 12.0 15.9 15.4 14 7.7 9.6 11.4 12.5 14.9 16 7.6 9.7 10.9 11.1 13.7 18 7.4 8.7 10.4 10.5 12.2 20 7.2 8.5 9.7 9.8 11.3 22 7.2 8.1 9.4 9.5 10.8 24 7.0 7.9 9.1 9.1 10.2 26 7.0 7.7 8.9 8.5 9.7

Oxygen

Depth (m) 0 11.4 10.1 10.4 5.8 7.5 2 11.4 10.1 11.0 6.3 7.4 4 11.6 10.3 10.7 6.6 7.5 6 12.0 10.5 10.6 6.7 7.6 8 11.8 11.1 10.8 7.1 7.5 10 11.9 11.1 12.4 7.4 7.6 12 11.9 11.2 11.9 7.8 7.8 14 12.0 11.2 13.2 8.7 7.7 16 11.8 11.3 12.9 8.8 8.0 18 11.8 11.3 13.2 8.6 8.4 20 11.8 11.0 13.0 8.7 8.8 22 11.8 11.2 13.0 8.6 8.8 24 11.7 11.1 12.9 8.4 8.8 26 11.7 11.2 12.9 8.4 8.7

Rigosha 360 395 110 111 297

9 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 4. Between lake comparisons of temperature and Secchi depth: Year 2013 Comox Lake, Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake and Henderson Lake water temperatures and Secchi depths sampled averaged from samples collected between May and October 2013.

Number Average Average sample Secchi Temperature Year dates depth (m) (0-22 m)

Great Central Lake 2013 6 10.9 12.3

Sproat Lake 2013 5 13.6 12.4

Henderson Lake 2013 6 7.9 14.1 Comox Lake 2013 5 11.7 12.7

Nutrient water chemistry: Overall, Year 2013 Comox Lake nutrient concentrations (phosphorus, nitrogen) and chlorophyll a concentrations (Table 5) were similar to the 2013 seasonal averages found in Great Central, Sproat and Henderson lakes (Table 6). Comox Lake epilimnetic nitrate concentrations declined as nutrients were assimilated by bacterial and phytoplankton populations. Chlorophyll concentrations remained relatively low throughout the spring-fall season. Hypolimnetic nutrient concentrations remained high as senescing phytoplankton sedimented out of the epilimnion and gradually passed through the hypolimnion (Table 5). All of these patterns are common for coastal sockeye lakes. Between-lake comparisons (Table 6) suggested that 2013 Comox Lake nutrient concentrations were about average for coastal sockeye lakes.

Table 5. Year 2013 Comox Lake water chemistry (nutrients): Samples were taken at a single mid-lake station. Epilimnetic total phosphorus data were unavailable.

Nitrate Chlorophyll Depth Nitrate Date Depth (m) (µg L-1) TP (µg L-1) (µg L-1) (m) (µg L-1) TP (µg L-1)

07-May-13 1, 3, 5 30.5 nd 0.30 25 35.5 nd 06-Jun-13 1, 3, 6 24.2 nd 0.36 25 34.1 2.4 16-Jul-13 1, 3, 7 6.8 nd 0.39 25 34.1 nd 20-Aug-13 1, 3, 8 1.3 nd 0.27 25 18.9 nd 27-Sep-13 1, 3, 9 6.8 nd 0.36 25 23.7 2.3

Average 13.9 nd 0.3 29.3 2.4

10 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 6. Between lake comparisons of average nutrients and chlorophyll a: Year 2013 Comox Lake, Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake and Henderson Lake nutrient chemistry averaged from samples collected between May and October 2013.

Epilimnion 1,2,3 m Hypolimnion 25 m

Number sample Nitrate Chlorophyll Nitrate Year dates (µg L-1) TP (µg L-1) (µg L-1) (µg L-1) TP (µg L-1)

Great Central Lake 2013 6 2.7 3.8 0.5 29.7 2.2

Sproat 2013 6 0.4 2.5 0.3 9.8 2.6

Henderson 2013 5 13.5 1.6 0.9 33.6 2.1

Comox 2013 5 13.9 nd 0.3 29.3 2.4

Alkalinity water chemistry: Low alkalinity and low concentrations of calcium have been shown to inhibit chitin formation in Daphnia. Lower limits for limiting Ca range from 1-3 mg L-1. During 2013, the Comox Lake data showed that Ca concentrations were well above this limit, suggesting that lake chemistry was unlikely to influence the growth of zooplankton species that provide optimal food sources for small limnetic fishes (Table 7) such as kokanee or three- spine stickleback. Between-lake comparisons (Table 8) showed that Comox Lake alkalinity and calcium concentrations were within the 2013 range observed for Great Central, Sproat and Henderson lakes.

Table 7. Year 2013 Comox Lake alkalinity and calcium concentrations: Alkalinity and calcium chemistry data analyzed at VIU.

Total alkalinity ppm Na Mg Ca Lake Date CaCO3 ppm ppm ppm

Comox 07-May-13 19.4 1.0 0.9 5.7 Comox 06-Jun-13 18.9 0.7 0.9 5.5 Comox 20-Aug-13 17.6 0.6 0.8 5.3 Comox 27-Sep-13 17.5 0.6 0.8 4.8

11 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 8. Between lake comparisons of average calcium concentrations and alkalinity: Year 2013 Comox Lake, Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake and Henderson Lake nutrient chemistry averaged from samples collected between May and October 2013.

Epilimnion 1,2,3 m

Total Number alkalinity sample ppm Na Mg Ca Year dates CaCO3 ppm ppm ppm

Great Central Lake 2013 6 15.3 0.6 0.7 4.9

Sproat 2013 6 26.7 1.0 0.6 8.7

Henderson 2013 6 12.3 6.3 1.1 4.1

Comox 4 18.4 0.7 0.9 5.3 2013

Zooplankton biomass and species composition: Year 2013 Comox Lake zooplankton biomasses and general species composition were typical for coastal sockeye lakes (Figure 2). There was however, a potential problem with the Rigosha meter counts. On two dates (16 July and 20 August - Table 3) the flow meter readings were much lower than they were on the two preceding dates (7 May and 6 June) and the date following (27 September). Assuming that these readings were correct, the average zooplankton biomass for 2013 was 16.9 µg L-1 dry weight. Assuming that the Rigosha readings were in error and were too low, recalculation using the average Rigosha reading measured on the three data noted above, the average zooplankton biomass for 2013 becomes 10.1 µg L-1 dry weight. In either case, between-lake comparisons for 2013 zooplankton biomasses (Table 9) showed that Comox Lake zooplankton biomasses were in general agreement with the 2013 biomasses found in Great Central, Sproat and Henderson lakes. This suggests that there was no critical shortage of suitable forage for small pelagic fish.

12 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Figure 2. Zooplankton biomasses (2013) as µg L-1 dry weight. The net was hauled from 0-50 m during the day using a SCOR net with 100 µm mesh. Samples were metered for net efficiency. Biomasses were estimated from lengths using dry weight length-weight regressions and biomasses.

30 Daphnia 25 Comoxl Lake 2013

Biomass dry weight Bosmina

dw 20

1 Calanoid - 15 Cyclopoid ug L ug 10 Nauplii

Zooplankton biomass Zooplankton 5

0 01-Apr 31-May 30-Jul 28-Sep 27-Nov

Table 9. Between lake comparisons of average (May-October) zooplankton biomasses (µg L-1 dry weight): In all cases the net was hauled from 0-50 m during the day using a SCOR net with 100 µm mesh. Samples were metered for net efficiency. Biomasses were estimated from lengths using dry weight length-weight regressions and biomasses.

adults & copepodids & adults

Year

dates sampling Number total Rotifer total Nauplii copepodids & adults Cyclopoid Calanoid nevadensis Epischura Bosmina Daphnia Diaphanosoma Polyphemus Holopedium Total Great Central Lake 2013 7 0.1 0.3 1.6 1.4 0.1 4.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 2.2 11.1

Sproat Lake 2013 7 0.3 0.8 4.4 0.1 0.1 4.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 15.1

Henderson Lake 2013 6 0.3 0.5 0.9 3.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8

Comox Lake 2013 5 0.0 0.4 8.8 2.1 0.0 3.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.9

13 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Limnetic fish densities, lengths and weights: Year 2013 Comox Lake fish densities were almost an order of magnitude lower than densities in other coastal sockeye lakes (Table 10). Lengths and weights were in the 2013 range recorded for Great Central (GC), Sproat and Henderson lakes.

Table 10. Mean limnetic fish densities, lengths and weights. Weights have been corrected for shrinking due to the ethanol used as a preservative. SB = stickleback. Lake area = 2032 ha. Lake volume = 892,000,000 m3

Total Limnetic Sockeye Sockeye Sockeye SB limnetic fish mean mean Lake 2013 Date density density fish density length weight per ha per ha density per ha (mm) (grams)

GCL 17-Jun-13 trawl only 34 0.4

GCL 12-Aug-13 19,156,000 3,800 3,800 0 42 nd

GCL 20-Nov-13 7,927,000 1,600 1,600 0 53 1.6

GCL 11-Feb-14 10,002,000 2,000 2,000 nd nd

Sproat 12-Jun-13 trawl only 30 0.3

Sproat 27-Aug-13 11,210,000 3,000 3,000 0 49 1.5

Sproat 19-Nov-13 3,687,000 1,000 1,000 0 70 3.3

Henderson 19-Jun-13 trawl only 33 0.4

Henderson 07-Aug-13 3,926,000 2,500 1,200 1,300 nd nd

Henderson 04-Mar-14 1,811,000 1,200 800 400 46 0.40 Comox 06-Jun-13 508,592 250 250 0 nd nd Comox 03-Oct-013 442,496 218 218 0 47 1.4 Comox 28-Jan-14 143,661 71 71 0 63 1.6

Water removal: Because Comox Lake is used for hydroelectric power generation, we investigated the possibility that water removal may have contributed to significant losses of zooplankton and therefore losses of forage for pelagic fish. Comox Lake volume is 892,000,000 m3. During the 2013 summer period, average daily water removal for hydroelectric power generation was about 20 m3 per second (Figure 3). This translates to 1,728,000 m3 per day or 0.2% of the total lake volume. Given that zooplankton production rates average 2-10% per day, it seems likely that summer flow rates had little effect on zooplankton biomasses.

14 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

120

Comox lake 2013 100 Flow out of sluice gates Lake volume 101,000,000 m3 80

60 per second 40

20 Average daily cubicmetersdaily dischargeAverage 0 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-24

Figure 3. Comox Lake 2013 rate of water flow through the sluice gates (cubic meters per second).

5.1.4 Discussion

All of the 2013 limnological data collected at Comox Lake suggests that it is very similar to nearby sockeye nursery lakes (Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake, and Henderson Lake) that have been the subject of long-term monitoring programs. Comox Lake stratifies normally, has normal nutrient concentrations, calcium concentrations and chlorophyll concentrations, normal zooplankton biomasses and normal juvenile sockeye (kokanee) growth rates. Yet, sockeye density in Comox Lake was an order of magnitude lower than the mean at Henderson Lake, the least productive of the 3 lakes mentioned above. All of these factors suggest that limnological conditions do not account for the very low kokanee densities observed in 2013. Spawning recruitment, habitat and incubation survival may be the primary causes for poor kokanee juvenile recruitment. There is limited information on spawning distribution. Spawning usually occurs late fall (i.e. mid-Oct to Dec). The adults are typically small (150 - 300 mm) and fecundity is low (~50 eggs/female). (Spawner size observed from captures of mature KO at the diversion dam Eicher screen evaluation facility in November 2011 ranged from 180 – 210 mm). The small spawner size would likely limit spawning success to areas that have stable and relatively small gravel substrate. This type of habitat would be extremely limited in the Comox Lake tributaries. Furthermore, the small shallow redds would be susceptible to fall through winter scour events.

15 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Comox Lake kokanee likely spawn at gravel “out-wash” areas at river deltas which can also be highly unstable if river sediment transport and lake levels fluctuate radically. This can be exacerbated by logging. Approximately 61% of the Comox Lake watershed is currently under active forestry management (Epps and Phippen 2011). Scouring or desiccation of redds during spawning and incubation likely cause “boom and bust” fluctuations in incubation survival due to variable year-to-year fall-winter flooding and lake level conditions. If lakeshore spawning occurs near the lake surface, redds may be vulnerable to desiccation and freezing under a declining lake (reservoir) level. In 2013 mortality may have been high due to decreasing reservoir elevations which are regulated by BC Hydro. The 2013/14 acoustic kokanee fry enumeration estimate by DFO was only one tenth of a Provincial population estimate a few years earlier (Johner and Sebastian 2009). Based on these observations, assessment of adult recruitment and incubation survival is recommended.

The Presence of Didymo in the Upper Watershed

Heavy “blooms” of Didymo (Didymosphenia geminata) have recently been observed in the Upper Puntledge River indicating that phosphorous is low (M. Lough, personal communication, March 2014). D. geminata is a diatom, which is a single-celled alga that can be found in almost every freshwater and marine aquatic habitat. Very low soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP below ∼2 ppb) is the proximate cause of bloom formation and has led to the theory that D. geminata blooms are the result of large-scale human intervention in climatic, atmospheric and edaphic processes that favour this ultra- oligotrophic species. In this new view, blooms of D. geminata are not simply due to the introduction of cells into new areas. Rather, bloom formation occurs when the SRP concentration is low, or is reduced to low levels by the process of oligotrophication. (Bothwell et al. 2014). On a global scale, increases in greenhouse gases and global warming can lead to an earlier growing season, accelerate terrestrial plant growth and an increased uptake of Carbon, Nitrogen, Calcium and Phosphorus. At a local scale, clear cutting can have a similar effect by quickening the rapid growth of the understory which also increases nutrient uptake. This can be exacerbated by applying urea fertilizer on forest lands to improve wood production. These factors and treatments have the net effect of increasing growth and thereby phosphorus uptake by terrestrial plants which may reduce (P) in the neighbouring rivers (i.e. < 2ppb). This likely has a negative effect on zooplankton and kokanee productivity in Comox Lake which is already oligotrophic; lakes like Comox, with a corresponding high annual flushing rate (i.e. one exchange per year) typically have low (P). More productive sockeye lakes typically have a complete exchange only every 3-5

16 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

years. Lake fertilization has been conducted at Great Central Lake to maintain a P value greater than 3 ppb during the summer. This has more than doubled sockeye productivity. Implementing a similar program at Comox Lake would not have the same effect due to the current low densities of kokanee which are unlikely to be limited by food. Furthermore implementation of a fertilization program would be highly scrutinized given that it is the drinking water supply for the Comox Valley Regional District.

17 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

5.2 USE OF THE LITTORAL ZONE BY INTRODUCED ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS AND RESIDENT TROUT

Project Lead: G. Graf & D. Miller - Fisheries Oceans Canada; T. Michalski, BC Ministry of Forests - Lands and Natural Resource Operations

5.2.1 Background

Comox Lake supports native populations of rainbow and cutthroat trout, kokanee, Dolly Varden Char, three-spine stickleback, and sculpin (Family Cottidae). As well, Chinook and coho salmon can migrate into the lake under certain water conditions and when the fishways are open or passable. Salmonid species in Comox Lake have been impacted by man-made fish barriers for the last century. The original dam constructed in 1912 was used to supply power and water to the local coal mining industry. Since the 1950’s, a reinforced concrete impoundment dam at the lake outlet and a concrete diversion dam 3.7 km downstream have been in use to serve a hydro-electric facility on the lower Puntledge River. A salmon spawning channel was constructed in the 1960’s as mitigation for the dam impacts on anadromous salmon species in the watershed. In its inception, the salmon enhancement facility (Upper Puntledge Hatchery) consisted of a spawning channel adjacent to the BC Hydro diversion dam. This was later enlarged to include rearing ponds. In 1979, a full scale salmon hatchery with incubation and rearing ponds was constructed several kilometers downstream near the BC Hydro generation building. The purpose of the facility was to restore stocks of Pacific salmon and to mitigate for the effects of the above noted hydro-electric infrastructure on the river. The upper Puntledge hatchery site was decommissioned in 2012 due to chronic water quality issues; high water temperatures and high total gas pressure made salmon culture at the upper site unfeasible. In fact, in 2009, the entire 2008 coho brood succumbed to high water temperatures; it was important that a different rearing strategy be employed. After decommissioning, all fish production was transferred to the lower site, however, summer water temperatures at the lower hatchery were often too high for salmon culture, therefore, it was deemed unfeasible for extended rearing or production of coho smolts. As an alternative, fed coho fry have been transported into tributary streams of Comox Lake, and into Forbush, Willemar, and Comox lakes, for natural rearing and out-migration. A total of ~800,000 fed coho fry were released in 2013. The impact between introduced coho and the indigenous trout and Dolly Varden populations is a concern. Typically, adfluvial cutthroat trout juveniles spend 1-3 years in

18 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

their natal streams before migrating to lake habitats to rear. In a few systems, such as Buttle/Upper Campbell Lakes, fry migrate to the lake immediately after emergence, and studies in the Comox Lake watershed (e.g. Russell et al. 1990; Griffith 1995; Michalski 2011) found few cutthroat juveniles in streams, suggesting a similar life-history pattern. Juvenile coho salmon also usually rear in small streams before migrating to the ocean and although this species is also found in lakes, its life history in this habitat is less well known. Sampling in the Comox Lake watershed by MJL Environmental Consultants (see section 5.5) found few coho juveniles in streams suggesting heavy predation and/or early migration to the lake, and many of the fish captured in streams were emaciated suggesting food supply limitations. Fry may also be forced out of lake tributaries by freshets. The littoral zone of the lake is likely the preferred habitat for coho as opposed to pelagic areas that kokanee prefer. According to Bryant (1988), coho will use lakes for rearing. It is believed that coho salmon in the Comox Lake watershed rear on the lake margins in the littoral zone before recruiting to limnetic habitats until they are large enough to smolt and leave for the ocean. As mentioned above, past studies conducted in various reaches of tributaries in the upper Comox Lake watershed found low numbers of coho relative to the number that were outplanted from the Puntledge River Hatchery. Biologists have expressed concern that large introductions of coho fry into tributary streams of Comox Lake may compete with, and displace juvenile Rainbow and Cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden char as well as wild coho populations. To address this, and to move forward in a precautionary manner, the Puntledge River Hatchery program has modified its introductions of coho fry into the upper watershed, to reduce potential interactions between coho fry and the indigenous populations of trout and char. Coho fry outplants will now be eliminated from most of the Cruickshank system, and will instead focus on Willemar, Forbush and Comox lakes, and the headpond of the Puntledge River, the 3.7 km stretch of river between the Comox impoundment dam and the diversion dam. The objectives of this reconnaissance study were to: a. Determine species composition in the littoral zone from spring to fall. b. Determine age class structure through life stage and length and weight measurements. c. Determine proportion of hatchery fish in the catch and timing when supplemented fish were present or absent. Results from this study were expected to provide information to better understand interactions between, and impacts to near shore habitat of juvenile salmon, trout and char. This information will be used by DFO to help inform future decisions

19 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

regarding coho salmon stocking in the upper watershed, and by BC Hydro which regulates lake level during critical late-summer rearing periods. This information was also expected to contribute to a better understanding of possible impacts by forestry operations to shoal habitats of Comox Lake.

5.2.2 Methods

2013 Gee trapping and shoal survey:

Gee trapping efforts took place along the west and east side of Comox Lake, within the shallow littoral zones, on September 17, 2013 for a 24 hour soak time. Gee traps consisted of ¼ inch galvanized mesh with cone shaped funnels on each end. Traps have two parts that hinge and connect together at the center. The traps were baited with salmon roe or pelleted fish feed held in nylon mesh sacks, and were suspended off the bottom or lying on the bottom. Approximately 32 baited traps were set and all traps were tethered to branches or stumps and marked with an orange ribbon to facilitate retrieval the next day. Approximate trap locations are provided in Figure 4 and GPS coordinates, site descriptions and catch data are provided in Table 12 in Section 5.2.3. The salmonid catch from each trap was lightly sedated with Alka-seltzer and fork length measurements were recorded to the nearest mm. Weights were not taken. After recovery, all fish were released back to place of origin, unharmed. Non-salmonids were counted and released. A snorkel survey was conducted on October 24, 2013, with a goal of identifying potential lake spawning areas, focusing on kokanee and gravel shoals fronting in-flow streams. The survey was conducted during low lake levels under excellent visibility conditions. Crew consisted of two snorkelers and one boat operator. A total of 6 areas were surveyed including the upper Puntledge River, lower 150 m of the Cruickshank River and adjacent shoals, Ginger Goodwin, Beech and Pearce creeks and Boston Bay.

2014 Gee trapping and trap net survey:

Gee trapping efforts took place along the west side of Comox Lake, within the shallow littoral zones, on June 24-25, 2014, for a 24 hour soak time. The traps were baited with salmon roe held in nylon mesh sacks, and were suspended off the bottom or lying on the bottom. Approximately 16 baited traps were set and all traps were tethered to branches

20 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Figure 4. Location of 2013 and 2014 Gee trap surveys, snorkel surveys, live tap box, and limnological sampling conducted in the Comox Lake watershed and coho fry releases in Comox Lake.

21 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

or stumps and marked with an orange ribbon to facilitate retrieval the next day. Trap locations were selected to maximize the chances of catching juvenile salmonids such as beneath overhanging boughs or alongside large woody structures, remnants of old log dump sites (Figure 4). Gee trapping focused on species’ presence or absence, their abundance, and whether they were externally marked with an adipose fin clip. Fish were counted and identified but lengths and weights were not taken. In addition to Gee trapping, a single live trap was also used, on a monthly basis beginning in June (Table 11). The live trap consisted of a knotless web ”live box” with dimensions 1.5 m long x 1.5 m wide x 1.8 m deep (5 ft x 5 ft x 6 ft). A central net lead to the shore and side leads, all about 15 meters in length (50 ft) directed fish moving in both directions along the shore into the trap (Figure 5). The trap and leads were suspended and held in shape using floats and lead lines along the top and bottom edges, respectively. Leads generally rested on the bottom. Ropes to the shore kept the leads and net in proper shape and position, and an anchor ensured the trap was held off the beach. An inverted net funnel on the shore side of the trap allowed fish to swim into the trap and contained them unharmed. It was not necessary to bait this trap.

Table 11. Location and sampling dates of live trap net surveys in Comox Lake in 2014.

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 (Incomplete) Sample 4

Net Set Net Pull Net Set Net Pull Net Set Net Pull Net Set Net Pull

Date 10-Jun-14 11-Jun-14 8-Jul-14 9-Jul-14 22-Aug-14 23-Aug-14 15-Oct-14 16-Oct-14 Time 13:00 11:00 11:00 9:30 10:22 10:00 12:00 12:00 Total Hrs 22 22.5 24.5 24 Temp C 16 18 21 15 Location UTM1 341061 5494620 Lat / Long 49 34 59.74 125 22 55.96 Species Codes Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch CO Coastrange Cottus aleuticus CAL Sculpin Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus CN Kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka KO tshawytscha Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki CCT Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss RB Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus TSB Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma DV Char

Figure 5. Live trap net sampling in Comox Lake on the north side of the Cruickshank River alluvial fan, June – October 2014.

22 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

The box trap was installed approximately 20 meters off shore on the north side of the Cruickshank alluvial fan (Figure 4). The trap was fished for approximately 24 hours and then emptied of all fish. Fish were dip-netted into buckets unharmed, and salmonids were anaesthetized with CO2 using Alka-seltzer tablets. All fish were examined and identified. Salmonids were weighed to the nearest 0.1 gram and fork length (tip of nose to fork in caudal fin) measured to the nearest mm, and transferred to recovery buckets before being returned to the lake. Non-salmonids were examined and counted, but not measured prior to release back to the lake. Data recorded included species, abundance, length and weight where applicable, and life stage such as smolt in the case of Pacific salmon. As well, any unusual physical characteristics were recorded. One negative aspect found was that coho parr would swim erratically as our boat approached and some would become impinged in the trap net, resulting in escape, injury or mortality. Therefore, for the last trapping effort in the fall, the original net trap “box” of ½ in. square mesh was augmented by a finer, ⅛ in. mesh size, net box installed within, in order to eliminate gilling and to enable capture of all small fish. This may have skewed our last trapping results by possibly capturing a greater portion of smaller fish, although the results follow the general trend from the previous trapping sessions. Due to technical difficulties with an alternate trap liner and crew availability, the August and September trap sessions were incomplete, however live box trapping resumed successfully in October.

5.2.3 Results

Results from the 2013 Gee trapping and snorkel surveys are provided in Table 12 and Table 13. Size distribution of coho captures is illustrated in Figure 6. These surveys were considered a reconnaissance level effort to determine presence/absence of all species, their abundance, identify suitable coho rearing habitat along the lake perimeter, and determine the types of sampling equipment that could be employed. Due to the abundance of submerged LWD, root wads and other debris in some of the shallow areas, beach or other seining methods were not practical. Catches were dominated by coho fry (total of 119) and only two trout (RB/ST) and two Dolly Varden char were captured in the traps. The limited data acquired in 2013, and the late timing of the survey prompted a repeat of the shoal sampling surveys in 2014.

23 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 12. Locations of and catch data from Gee trapping conducted in Comox Lake in September 2013. Highest coho captures are in Bold. Catch CO CO Cott. CN RB/ST CCT DV TSSB Trap # Latitude Longitude Trap Site Description AdC unmk sp. 1,2 49 33 32.4 -125 10 28.9 Tall snag, head of lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 18 Stumps in middle of shoal at head of 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3,4 49 33 25.0 -125 10 35.2 lake 5,6 49 33 16.8 -125 10 45.1 Stump in bay at top of lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7,8 49 33 18.9 -125 10 49.6 Immediately u/s of cabins 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 14 9 49 33 21.2 -125 10 50.6 Hanging from dock 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 Snag ~ 1/2 km d/s of cabins (steep 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 17 10 49 34 11.7 -125 11 05.0 rocky shore, with large boulders) 11 49 34 31.3 -125 11 11.0 On float at entrance to Mosquito Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 12, 13 49 34 31.3 -125 11 27.3 Short stumps in Mosquito Bay 2 7 1 0 0 0 2 5 14, 15 49 34 38.3 -125 11 38.6 At head of Mosquito Bay in creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16, 17 49 34 36.4 -125 11 30.5 Beside tallest snag in Mosquito Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 Old bridge structure, beside cabin 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 18 49 34 52.6 -125 11 17.1 near mouth of Cruikshank In lower Cruikshank beneath 6 49 1 0 0 1 0 11 19,20 49 34 53.7 -125 11 22.5 overhanging branches 21 49 34 54.1 -125 11 21.3 In mouth of Cruikshank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22-24 49 34 58.9 -125 11 33.1 In Bay on other side d/s of Cruikshank 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 15 25 49 34 57.7 -125 11 44.4 On snag in Bay, near 22-24 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 26,27 49 35 18.2 -125 12 07.6 Mouth of small dry creek near cabins 6 26 0 0 0 0 0 51 28 49 37 39.1 -125 04 23.2 Off mouth of Perseverance Crk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 In Bay opposite outlet (Cumberland 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 29 49 38 18.4 -125 04 26.0 waterfront) Other side of Bay (N side of 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 30 49 38 16.5 -125 04 21.1 Cumberland waterfront) 31 49 38 22.4 -125 05 35.8 On dolphin near BCH outlet 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 32 49 38 23.7 -125 05 38.9 On float near BCH outlet 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 15 TOTAL 18 101 2 2 0 2 24 272

25 n = 119 = 73.1 20

Frequency 10

0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Fork length (mm)

Figure 6. Length-frequency distribution of coho juveniles (0+ and 1+) captured in Gee traps in Comox Lake in September 2013.

24 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 13. Locations and observations from snorkel surveys conducted in Comox Lake in October 2013.

Location Observations Comments Could not access river proper due Upper Puntledge river No fish observed in shallows to low lake level Lower Cruickshank River (lowest 150 meters) No fish observed est. 80-100 Dolly Varden Char and Cruikshank outlet - gravel shoal Rainbow trout > 10 Cutthroat trout No sign of kokanee spawning Ginger Goodwin Creek 1 coho parr ~ 10 cutthroat trout Beech Creek 2 stickleback Pearce Creek 1 Rainbow trout (10-12") Boston Bay No fish observed Ephemeral creek

Catch results from the 2014 Gee trapping are presented in Table 14. Approximately 19% of the coho fry were adipose clipped. Only 1 coho smolt (brood year 2012) was captured, and the cutthroat and Dolly Varden were estimated to be one year old.

Table 14. Locations of and catch data from Gee trapping conducted in Comox Lake on June 25-26, 2014. Highest coho captures are in Bold.

Catch Trap CO CO CCT Cott. DV TSSB # Latitude Longitude Trap Site Description AdC unmk Trout sp. ~ 300 ft. N of cabins at top end, W of upper 1 49 33 40.5 125 11 0.6 Puntledge, marked with red and white float 0 2 0 0 0 0 ~ 500 ft. N of cabins: left of two vertical snags 2 49 33 40 125 11 0.9 surrounding two leaning trees 0 3 0 0 2 0 ~ 150 ft. N of cabin with crooked deck. Attached to 3 49 33 53.4 125 11 3.4 boughs Left side of two snags 11 46 0 0 0 0 4 49 34 14.4 125 11 3.5 Snag South of point, South of Mosquito Bay 0 2 0 0 0 3 5 49 34 23 125 11 1.9 Bough over water, South of Mosquito Bay 5 12 0 0 0 0 Mosquito Bay: at tall snag in outer group of stumps 6 49 34 40.5 125 11 4 and snags 0 0 0 0 0 2 South side of Cruikshank River mouth - off of 7 49 34 51.6 125 11 16.3 teetering log at old log dump 5 25 1 1 0 0 8 49 34 51.7 125 11 24.2 Lower Cruikshank - N side under overhanging willow 0 0 0 0 0 0 N side of Cruikshank River alluvial fan - off sandy 9 49 34 58.7 125 11 56.4 beach and large bluff, attached to large stump 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 49 35 20.1 125 12 8.5 N of Cruikshank - N side of Bay with cabin, near road 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 49 35 35.9 125 12 0.5 Fish drop location - chained near end of dock 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 49 36 0.4 125 11 46.3 1st shoal N of Cruikshank: rotten snag close to shore 0 0 0 0 0 12 13 49 36 24.3 125 11 37.1 N of shoal off old log dump (near leaning arbutus) 3 7 0 0 0 0 In Bay below overhanging cover, beside bluff with 14 49 36 51.9 125 11 28 smashed trailer debris 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 49 37 16.5 125 11 9.2 N side of sandbar, beside old log dump structure 2 10 1 0 0 0 Km 8.75 fish drop spot - attached to group of 3 16 49 38 6.7 125 08 15 stumps on shoal 1 5 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 27 115 2 1 2 20

25 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Bar graphs of all species caught in 2014 live box surveys are presented in Figure 7 a-c. In all live box trapping sessions, coho fry dominated the catch. Mean lengths and weights of coho juveniles are compared from each trapping session (Figure 8 a & b). Results indicate decreasing trend in size (length and weights) over the course of the study.

Figure 7 a-c. Summary of all species caught during three trap net surveys in Comox Lake between June and October 2014.

26 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Figure 8 a & b. Mean weights and lengths of coho juveniles captured from the net trap on north side of the Cruickshank River alluvial fan in 2014.

Frequency histograms of fish weights for each trapping session are provided in Figure 9a-c. In the June box trapping survey, most coho caught were in the 5 to 8 gram (85 - 95 mm; mean = 88.5 mm) range. By July, again, most fish were in the 5 to 9 gram (85 – 95 mm; mean = 83 mm) range, however there were a greater number of smaller fry (<85 mm) in the 3 – 4 gram range. This group of smaller fish may be the offspring of the 2013 brood, either wild or hatchery produced. By the October sampling, there were no coho caught over 5 grams mean weight, or 74 mm in mean length. As mentioned earlier, the large mesh size of the trap net may have contributed to the deficiency of small coho captured in the June and July surveys.

27 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

a) June 7, 2014

16 14

12 10 8

Frequency Frequency 6 4 2 0 3.0-3.9 4.0-4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9 9.0-9.9

Weight in grams 10.0-10.9

b) July 9, 2014 16 14 12

8 6 Frequency 4 2 0 10.9 10.0- 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0-4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9 9.0-9.9 Weight in grams

c) Oct. 15, 2014 16 14 12 10 8

Frequency 6 4 2 0 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0-4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9 9.0-9.9 10.0-10.9 Weight in grams Figure 9a-c. Frequency histogram of coho fry weights caught in a live box trap off the North side of the Cruickshank alluvial fan June – October 2014.

28 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Fulton’s condition coefficients (KCs) where KC = (W / L3) x 100,000, were also determined for coho for each box trapping session (Figure 10). Condition coefficients showed an increasing trend from spring to fall, although there is little difference between the July and October KCs. Condition coefficients were significantly greater in marked fish than unmarked fish in early June, and although KCs of both marked and unmarked increased over time, the difference become less as the growing season progressed.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

Mean Condition Coefficients KCsCondition Mean 0.2

0.0 June KC July KC Oct KC

Figure 10. Mean condition coefficients of coho juveniles captured in Comox Lake in 2014 from net trap on north side of the Cruickshank River alluvial fan.

Puntledge Hatchery staff adipose clipped 25 % of the coho fry transferred into the Comox watershed in 2013 and 2014. If the mark ratio for both trap methods (i.e. Gee and lakeshore trapping) are combined, the proportion of marked coho versus total coho catch was 5.08 % on June 7 (box trap), 19 % on June 25 (Gee traps), 22 % on July 9 (box trap), and 18.4 % on October 15, 2014 (box trap). Condition coefficients were compared between marked and unmarked coho. This is illustrated in Figure 11. The mean size of the marked (adipose clipped) hatchery fish captured in the lakeshore trap averaged 83.5 and 80 mm on June 7 and July 9, 2014, respectively. Although no scale samples were taken to confirm age, given the mean sizes, it is highly unlikely that these were fry of the year and were more likely yearlings (1+ smolts) migrating to the ocean. The mean size of the marked hatchery fish captured on Oct 15, 2014 was 76.2 mm and the size range (57 - 92 mm). This was very similar to the electroshocking results from lower Cruickshank River at Site #2 on Oct 12, 2013 (see Section 5.5) suggesting that fish in this size range and at this time of the year are more likely to be hatchery juveniles released earlier in May (Figure 12). In 2013, electroshocking results in Cruikshank River and tributaries (Section 5.5) also suggest that

29 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

the majority of hatchery fry released in May either perish or migrate to Comox Lake by October, or earlier, as suggested by previous electroshocking results (Griffith 1995).

Figure 11. Comparison of mean condition coefficients between marked and unmarked coho juveniles captured in Comox Lake, in 2014 from net trap on the north side of the Cruickshank River alluvial fan.

Lake vs Cruickshank R coho size

2014 Lake Trap 2013 Cruickshank #2 12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Weight (g) Weight 4.0

2.0

0.0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Fork Length (mm)

Figure 12. Length and weight of coho juveniles measured in October 2013 at Site #2 in the lower Cruickshank R, and October 2014 along Comox lakeshore (near the mouth of Cruickshank R).

30 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

2013 Hatchery Coho Outplants to Comox Lake

Approximately 795,000 brood year 2012 coho fry were released in the upper watershed in 2013 between 10 and 29 May (Table 15). In 2014, 724,000 brood year 2013 coho fry were released between 9 and 21 May. Based on the preliminary results from the cutthroat/coho juvenile rearing study (see Section 5.5) and coho adult survivals from coded wire tag returns, DFO SEP adjusted releases in 2014 by eliminating coho outplants in the tributaries of the Cruickshank River (Rees and Eric creeks). The rearing survey results seem to suggest that coho fry releases in the tributaries of the Cruickshank River perish, move out of the tributaries/streams volitionally or are displaced during freshet events. Discharge in the Cruickshank River in 2013 is illustrated in Figure 13 and compared to historical records from the previous 8 years. While 2013 releases in the Cruickshank coincided with a declining hydrograph, it is more often the case that releases occur before or during spring freshets which may increase the risk of displacement of fry into the lower river from high flows.

Table 15. Summary of Puntledge River Hatchery coho fry releases into Comox Lake and the upper watershed in 2013 and 2014.

Avg Ln Avg Marked Total Location Release Date (mm) Wt (g) (Ad clip) Unmarked Releases 2013 CO fry Releases Forbush Lk @ bridge above Willemar Lk 23-May-13 2.7 17,625 52,875 70,500 Willemar Lake @ campsite 30,750 92,250 123,000 Comox Lake @ Spud's cabin 23.25 CLMain May 10 -29 62 2.7 29,777 97,203 126,980 Comox Lake @ bottom of Boston Hill May 10-29 33,650 109,850 143,500 Comox Lake @ roadside, 16 CLMain May 10-29 23,558 76,902 100,460 Comox Lake @ roadside, 13 CLMain 13,015 42,545 55,560 Black Lake 1,625 3,875 5,500 Cruickshank R @ small campsite 17-May 2.4 12,500 31,250 43,750 Cruickshank R side channel 17-May 12,500 31,250 43,750 Rees Creek 17-May 15,000 3,500 50,000 Eric Creek 17-May 10,000 22,500 32,500

Total 2013 CO Releases 200,000 564,000 795,500 2014 CO fry Releases Comox Lake (@ 4 sites as in 2013 above) May 14-16 55 1.8 98,879 352,262 452,163 Cruickshank River May 9-13 2.2 48,900 121,038 169,938 Willemar and Forbush Lake May 9-21 2.3 49,093 52,875 101,968

Total 2014 CO Releases 196,872 526,175 724,069

31 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Cruickshank Q during May 2005 - 2012 100 2013

80 /s) 3 60

40 Discharge (m 20

0 1-May 3-May 5-May 7-May 9-May 11-May 13-May 15-May 17-May 19-May 21-May 23-May 25-May 27-May 29-May 31-May Figure 13. Discharge in the Cruickshank River in May 2005 to May 2013

Brood Year 2012 Coho Migration A total of 22,423 coho smolts were captured at the evaluation facility at the Puntledge diversion dam during the 2014 monitoring program between 7 February and 1 August 2014 (Guimond et al. 2014). This total was very similar to that in 2013 (17,294). The number of juvenile coho captured in 2014 that were adipose clipped was 3,417, or approximately 15.2%. Peak migration occurred on 20 May, with 1990 smolts collected at the facility (Figure 14). In common with other years’ migration patterns, this occurred in conjunction with high daily catches, spanning a ten day period between 15 May and 24 May.

2014 1+ Coho Migration

1800 1+ CO Unmkd 1+ CO AdClip 1600

1400

1200

1000

800

Fish captured 600 BC Hydro not generating 400

200

0 6-Jul 1-Apr 7-Apr 6-Jun 12-Jul 18-Jul 24-Jul 30-Jul 1-May 7-May 13-Apr 19-Apr 25-Apr 12-Jun 18-Jun 24-Jun 30-Jun 13-May 19-May 25-May 31-May

Figure 14. Daily movement of unmarked and adipose clipped coho juveniles through the evaluation facility at the Puntledge diversion dam in 2014. Fish captures in late June-July were low due to the shutdown of the Puntledge Generating Facility.

32 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Length-frequency distributions for migrating coho smolts captured at the evaluation facility in 2014 are illustrated in Figure 15. The data is grouped into three migration periods: an early period, from 1 April to 25 May; a Middle period from 26 May to 30 June; and a late period from 1 – 31 July. Corresponding statistics for mean length (mm), weight (grams), and Fulton’s condition factor (K), are summarized in Table 16 for 1+ coho smolts. As in previous years, a greater number of larger 1+ smolts and 2+ smolts were observed during the initial (April-May) period of migration.

50 Early: Apr 1 - May 25 n=242 40

50 Mid: May 26-Jun 30 n=125 40

50 Late: Jul 1-31 n=34 40

61-6566-7071-7576-8081-8586-9091-95 96-100 101-105106-110111-115116-120121-125126-130131-135136-140141-145146-150151-155156-160161-165166-170171-175176-180 Fork Length (mm)

Figure 15. Length-frequency distributions for coho smolts (1+ and 2+) captured at the Puntledge evaluation facility over three periods in 2014.

33 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Table 16. Length (mm), weight (grams) and Fulton’s condition factor (K) for sub-samples of coho 1+ smolts captured at the Eicher Assessment facility from April - July 2014.

1+ Coho 20141 Length (mm) Weight (g) K

Period n Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max

Early (Apr 1-May 25) 241 96 9.82 70 130 8.86 2.84 2.6 21.0 0.97 0.09 0.64 1.47

Mid (May 26-Jun 30) 124 92 7.91 72 116 7.82 2.18 4.0 17.2 0.98 0.09 0.67 1.26

Late (Jul 1-31) 34 91 7.13 78 109 7.94 2.21 4.2 14.5 1.02 0.09 0.89 1.30 1 combined unmarked (wild and hatchery) coho, and adipose clipped (hatchery only) coho

Contribution/survival of coho smolts from hatchery fry outplants in the Comox Lake watershed has been assessed over the past 4 years at the Puntledge diversion dam evaluation facility. Between 2009 and 2014 (brood year 2008 – 2013), total hatchery coho fry releases ranged from 417,000 to 1,800,000 (Table 17). Assessment of population size for juvenile coho (total and adipose clipped populations) moving downstream past the assessment facility was based on the stratified mark/recapture design of Carlson et al. (1998) and described in Guimond et al. (2014). Based on the population estimate for the portion of fry that were adipose clipped, 2013 (brood year 2011) had the highest fry-to- smolt survival (6.7%) over the 4 year series, from a release of 800,000 fry in 2011. Conversely, hatchery fry-to-smolt survival for the two previous years, both with releases of 1.8 million fry, was lower (3.2 - 3.9%). Unfortunately, a population estimate from a hatchery release of 400,000 fry could not be calculated for 2010 since this group was not adipose clipped. Consequently they could not be differentiated from wild production. Overall, the data suggests density dependent limitations on coho smolt production in the Comox Lake and tributaries (i.e. greater numbers of fry releases does not result in a greater abundance of smolts; Figure 16).

Table 17. Summary of coho fry releases, and population estimates at the Puntledge Diversion dam evaluation facility from 2010 to 2014.

Ad clip % Hatchery Total CO # CO fry CO Est. expanded (Ad clip Mean Mean Smolt % Fry to releases smolt hatchery smolt only) fry-to- Smolt Smolt Brood Sampling # CO fry Pop'n Smolt Ad Pop'n prod based on smolt Size Size Year Year released1 Estimate2 Survival3 Clipped Estimate ad clip pop est Survival (grm) (mm)

2008 2010 417,000 84,513 20.3 - n/a 10.07 100

2009 2011 1,800,000 98,295 5.5 200,000 7,789 70,101 3.9 8.38 95

2010 2012 1,800,000 41,513 2.3 200,000 6,388 57,492 3.2 9.46 99

2011 2013 800,000 66,954 8.3 200,000 13,491 53,964 6.7 8.93 96

2012 2014 800,000 83,268 10.4 200,000 12,425 49,700 6.2 8.46 94

2013 2015 800,000 To be assessed in 2015 1 Numbers are approximate; 2 Includes hatchery and wild coho recruitment; 3 Assuming all smolts counted at the evaluation facility are hatchery fish.

34 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

2,000 100

1,800 Thousands 1,600 80 Thousands

1,400

1,200 60

1,000

800 40 # # Smolts Produced # Fry Released # Fry Released 600

400 20

200

0 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Brood Year

# CO fry released Total CO Smolt Pop'n Estimate Ad clip CO smolt Pop'n Estimate

Figure 16. Total and hatchery only (adipose clipped) coho population estimates coupled with fry releases for brood years 2008-2012, from assessments at the Puntledge dam evaluation facility from 2010-2014.

Coho mortality can be strongly related to size of release, which is possibly a function of size selection by fish predators. Coho mortality rates likely decrease gradually from a maximum at time of introduction when the fry are smallest and most exposed. Larger release weights exceeding 5 grams can led to maximized fry to smolt survival of up to 20% (Bams et al. 1991). Fry released at initial weights of 1 g or less (the typical hatchery produced 'unfed' fry commonly used for outplanting) often survive at a far lower rate. At Comox Lake, hatchery fry are released at 2 grams, in numbers of over 100,000 fry at 3 of the 4 release sites in the lake (Table 15; Figure 4). These fry were likely vulnerable to predators and would have needed to migrate several kilometers to find suitable habitat and cover. The fry-to-smolt survival ranged between 6.2 and 6.7% in 2013 and 2014 (Table 17). It is interesting that despite these large outplantings in May 2014, very few coho fry were captured from minnow trapping conducted near these locations one month later (Table 14), possibly providing some evidence of poor success of coho outplants due to predation.

Lake Studies in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest indicate that coho fry primarily reside in the littoral zone of lakes (Bonner et al. 2005; Bryant et al. 1996). It is anticipated that dispersing the fry at lower densities along a greater length of the Comox Lake shoreline will reduce the period of time fry need to find suitable cover, and consequently,

35 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

their exposure to predators. Beginning in 2015 (brood year 2014), most coho fry releases into Cruickshank River and the tributaries will be discontinued and the majority of hatchery fry will be distributed by boat and helicopter along the shoreline of Comox Lake. Rather than releasing large groups of fry at a few locations, as has been done in the past, the fry will be outplanted at a density of 1800 - 2500 fry/hectare along the lakeshore in areas that are 3 meters deep or less. Bulk point releases will only continue in Willemar/Forbush Lakes and the lower Puntledge River headpond.

With this new change in coho fry outplanting in the Comox Lake watershed, it is recommended that coho smolt survival and migration timing is monitored at the Puntledge diversion dam Eicher screen evaluation facility to determine if survivals improve compared to past outplanting methods conducted between 2010 and 2014.

5.2.4 Discussion

It was unexpected to catch no coho in the lower Cruickshank River in 2014 under overhanging vegetation (willow boughs). Having the only cover in the immediate area, it was felt that the site would be dominated by coho fry, as in our findings during reconnaissance Gee trapping in 2013. Live box trapping along the lakeshore near the mouth of Cruickshank River showed a reduction in coho size and abundance over time. The explanation for the measured decline in coho juvenile length between June and October (i.e. 88.5 mm in June, 83 mm in July and 74 mm in October) may be confounded by the change to a smaller net size in the lake trap in October as discussed earlier. We also speculate that it is likely a result of residual yearlings (i.e. >80 mm) migrating out of the lake in June - July. Although peak coho migration from sampling at the Puntledge diversion dam (Eicher screen evaluation facility) occurred in late May (Figure 13), 1+ coho smolts continued to be captured well into July, averaging 91 mm (Figure 14: Table 16). This would leave a composite of hatchery fry that were originally released directly in the lake in May 14 - 16 at mean size of 2 grams (i.e. 58 - 60 mm) and a combination of wild, and hatchery fry outplants from the Cruikshank River that likely moved into the lake between May and October, remaining in Comox Lake. It is also possible that the larger coho juveniles in the littoral zone migrate to deeper water once reaching a size threshold, which would affect the overall mean length of captures. In future, off-shore movement of juveniles can be investigated by setting Gee traps in deeper waters, while scale sampling would verify age of hatchery (adipose clipped and unmarked) and wild (unmarked) juveniles.

36 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Twenty-five percent of the hatchery coho outplants were marked with an adipose clip. A mark rate of 5.08 % was captured in the lakeshore trap on June 7. This was shortly after the hatchery releases coho fry into the upper watershed in May suggesting that few coho fry had migrated from the tributaries to the lake at this point. Hatchery coho fry were found in low abundance in the Comox Lake tributaries during the 2013 electro-fishing survey carried out by MJL Environmental Consultants (see section 5.5). It is suspected that, by October, many of the hatchery fry had migrated out due to limited habitat/food, or were flushed out during spring freshets. It appears that wild and hatchery produced coho reside and rear in the lake for at least one year before they smolt and leave Comox Lake. The 2000 ha lake provides a large area for hatchery juvenile rearing and should reduce the risk of interaction and competition between wild and hatchery produced coho and resident cutthroat. Very few other salmonids were captured during the lakeshore survey. Two disadvantages of the natural lake rearing strategy is the greater period of exposure to predators during migration, and risk of penstock entrainment at the Hydro-electric facility. Based on past monitoring at the Puntledge diversion dam penstock intakes, mortalities and scale loss is expected to be low for coho smolts (Guimond et al. 2014). Coho adults in excess of hatchery needs are transported to Comox Lake by Puntledge hatchery personnel. It is presumed that Coho adults spawn naturally in the tributaries, although their spawning locations and spawning numbers have yet to be determined. Returning mature Coho can also make their own way into Comox Lake under certain water conditions. However the window of opportunity for upstream migration is limited due to an imposed closure of the Diversion dam fishway until late October to maintain separation of the summer and fall Chinook spawners and the onset of high river discharge in early November which limits or impedes coho access above Stotan and Nibs Falls. Therefore, based on these limitations and a few years of partial video counts at the impoundment dam, the number of naturally spawning coho in Comox Lake tributaries is not believed to be significant (ie. less than 350).

37 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

5.3 IMPRINTING OF COHO FRY IN THE UPPER WATERSHED AND HOMING OF THE RETURNING ADULTS

Project Lead: E. Guimond - E. Guimond & Associates; M. Sheng - Fisheries Oceans Canada

5.3.1 Background

Studies by Argue and Armstrong, 1977, suggested that coho spawners tend to return to where fry rearing initially occurred, as opposed to where juvenile rearing or smolting may have taken place. This suggests that coho fry transferred into the upper watershed streams likely imprint and return to Comox Lake and the upper tributaries, as adults. If this is the case, brood year releases of over 1 million fry should have produced several thousand returning adults back to Comox Lake. This has never been properly assessed. From 2005 to 2009, operation of a video camera in the Comox Dam fishway for summer Chinook enumeration (July to October) continued later in the year to also assess coho migration. However, counts of coho adults never exceeded 350. Based on brood year fry releases in the upper watershed between 2002 and 2005, and calculated CWT fry to adult survival estimates, 2,000-4,000 adults should have returned and migrated into Comox Lake. This may have been due to closure of the diversion dam until early November or later to prevent fall Chinook from spawning with summer Chinook in Reach B. More importantly, many of the coho migrants were being intercepted at the Lower Hatchery fence for broodstock. Many were held in the hatchery for up to 3 weeks after capture, or until broodstock egg takes were completed at the end of the migration period. In the last 2 years (i.e. 2010 and 2011) the hatchery coho broodstock collection procedures were modified to ensure that at least 60% of the returns at the lower hatchery were allowed to continue their migration to the upper watershed with no more than a week delay after capture. Furthermore, the diversion dam fishway will now be opened by late Oct and a concerted effort will be made to transport 500-1000 adult coho from the Lower Hatchery to above the dam in the Sept to mid-Oct period. Coho migration during the remaining months (ie, Nov-Dec) will be assessed by Puntledge Hatchery staff using video surveillance equipment in the diversion dam fishway. This should allow DFO to better assess and support coho migration to the lake. DFO will also investigate the feasibility of thermal marking all coho fry releases in the upper watershed in 2014 so that homing of hatchery returns and production from wild returns can be better assessed in the future.

38 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

The long-term goal is to create a self-sufficient return of coho to the upper watershed without the need for coho fry outplants. DFO’s 4-step strategy to approaching this goal involves first seeding the upper watershed with coho fry to initiate imprinting and homing by the returning adults; second, ensuring successful downstream migration of smolts (smolts entrained in the penstock intakes are diverted back to the river without injury/mortality); third, ensuring that returning adults have access back to Comox Lake, and fourth, identifying and restoring habitat to increase productivity.

5.3.2 Methods

In order to gain an understanding of the migration volume and timing of coho adults entering Comox Lake, a short-range DIDSON (Dual-frequency IDentification SONar) acoustic camera (Sound Metrics Corp., Bellevue, WA) was deployed in Comox Lake, at the upstream end of the fishway located in the Comox impoundment dam. The technology was already in place, as it had been used from May through September 2013 to track the migration of summer chinook. For each hour that the DIDSON was operational during the study period, one hour of video was recorded by the DIDSON software at 5 frames per second (fps) and each hour was saved automatically as a separate file (~900 Mb each). Two 3 terabyte hard drives were used to store and archive the one hour video clips using a laptop running DIDSON V5.25.40 software connected to the DIDSON sonar camera. The laptop was stored in a secure weather-proof cabinet on the dam, and was regularly monitored and maintained in order to capture video clips 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, between 31 October 2013 and 3 January 2014. In addition to monitoring the surveillance equipment at the impoundment dam, Puntledge Hatchery monitored migration at the diversion dam fishway with an underwater colour video camera (SplashCam Deep Blue) and digital video recorder (Duplex 1600/800 manufactured by Silent Witness®).

5.3.3 Results

Between October and January, a total of 1430 hours of DIDSON sonar video was recorded. The recording of video failed a few times during the video capture period, due to a temperamental connection between the external hard drive unit and the laptop. The missing recordings amounted to less than 100 hrs total. Previous efforts to apply software settings or export formats so that reviewing video was more efficient were unsuccessful (Guimond 2014). Essentially, every second of video captured needed to be reviewed in order to detect and record migrating salmon.

39 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Three volunteers from the CFGA were trained in the use of the DIDSON V5.25.40 software in order that they could collectively review the 1-hr time-lapse video clips (1430 one hour files in total). The files were divided among the 3 volunteers, and each volunteer was provided with data sheets, an external hard drive with the stored files, software and if necessary, a lap top. Coho migration data was recorded on data sheets which included entries for date, time, file number, species (trout were also noted by one volunteer), migration direction and comments relating to observer efficiency. One of the three volunteers dropped out early in the process of reviewing, due to the challenges of required time commitments and possibly frustration with familiarizing with the DIDSON software used to review the files. In total, the volunteers recorded 928 individual "migration" entries. Of these, 49 were recorded as 'upstream adult coho migrations' by a volunteer who reviewed 208 hrs of video from November. The other volunteer, who reviewed the remaining 1222 hrs worth of video, recorded 544 observations of adult coho salmon migrating upstream through the dam. The remainder of the entries (335) were either identified as “downstream” migration, or trout. An experienced technician who had been reviewing summer Chinook migration data (and was also responsible for the equipment setup and maintenance for this project) conducted a quality control check on the recorded observations for the time period beginning 18 Dec @ 0000hrs to 19 Dec @ 2400 hrs. In this time period of 48 hrs, 23 individual “upstream” adult coho migration observations were recorded by one of the volunteers. The quality control check resulted in 16 of the 23 observations, or 70%, being disqualified as errors, as follows: 8 were reclassified from adult salmon to trout, due to their size and observed feeding behaviour, and another 8 were determined to be adult salmon that were moving in and out of the view, circling, and hanging around the DIDSON camera for long periods, and not new fish exiting the fishway. Only 7 of the 23 recorded observations, or 30%, could be considered adult coho salmon migrating upstream into the lake. This high level of observation error is likely the result of various issues with regard to the performance of the DIDSON camera at this location, as described earlier during the summer Chinook homing behaviour study (Guimond 2014), as well as reviewer experience. Some of these issues include:  The presence of a small spawning area just upstream of the fishway exit was utilized by both summer Chinook and coho in 2013. The proximity of this site to the DIDSON camera likely contributed to the repeated detections of coho in the video files.

40 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

 In some cases, fish exit the fishway very quickly, briefly passing through the sonar beam, and are often missed when reviewing files at 20x speed.  Some images of fish exiting the fishway are so faint or obscured that they are also missed completely.  The lake level was lower than average during the coho migration period (Figure 17). The lower reservoir and therefore lower discharge through the fishway may have altered migration behaviour through the fishway as well as at the fishway exit where the camera is located.  There are several large trout who reside in the fishway opening and upper chambers. Their presence and feeding behaviours have been observed by the DIDSON camera through the entire coho salmon migration period. This behaviour and the size of the trout have recently been confirmed with colour video footage obtained from a separate camera placed within the fishway in the summer months of 2014. This made it challenging for some volunteer reviewers to differentiate large trout from salmon. Confirming or verifying salmon migration (from trout) often necessitates a review of up to several minutes of video frames which greatly increases overall time.

136

135

134

133

132

Comox Lake Elevation (m) Elevation Lake Comox 131 Coho migration

130 1-Jul 1-Apr 5-Jun 8-Nov 9-Aug 14-Jul 27-Jul 4-Sep 4-Dec 14-Apr 27-Apr 18-Jun 13-Oct 26-Oct 21-Nov 22-Aug 17-Sep 30-Sep 10-May 23-May 17-Dec 30-Dec

Avg 2005-2012 Min 2005-2012 Max 2005-2012 2013

Figure 17. Comox Lake elevation (metres above sea level) in 2013 (red line) compared to mean, minimum, and maximum elevations for the period 2005 to 2012.

Every hour of video requires approximately 4 to 12 minutes of observer time to review, depending on the level of fish activity, and observer experience. If this high level of observation error is applied to the entire set of observations, a rough estimate of the number of coho salmon migrating into the lake could be made. The total number of coho

41 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

observed passing through the diversion dam fishway into the headpond can act as a control. A total of 79 coho adults were counted on the video camera between the last week of October and December 8 (Figure 18). This number may be an underestimate however due to issues discovered later with sensitivity settings for motion detection on the digital recorder. Some fish may have passed undetected by motion triggered events, however reviewing time lapse footage would have verified whether this was a factor. Applying the 70% disqualification factor described above to the total number of “upstream” observations recorded by the volunteers (593) would place the estimate closer to, but still greater than, the number of coho that would have been present in the headpond to migrate into the lake, or approximately 178 coho. In addition, Puntledge Hatchery transported an additional 500 adults to the Comox Lake in late November.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Number of Coho of Number 10 5 0 2-Nov 4-Nov 6-Nov 8-Nov 23-Oct 25-Oct 27-Oct 29-Oct 31-Oct 10-Nov 12-Nov 14-Nov 16-Nov 18-Nov 20-Nov 22-Nov 24-Nov 26-Nov 28-Nov

Figure 18. Movement of coho salmon adults through the diversion dam fishway as recorded by underwater video surveillance, October 23 – November 28, 2013.

5.3.4 Discussion

Use of a DIDSON sonar camera to monitor migration at the Comox impoundment dam at the current location has some advantages to the video system used in past years for summer Chinook migration monitoring in that it can provide data under any light and visibility conditions (i.e. no need for additional lighting), and it resolves issues with maintenance and deployment restrictions during full reservoir conditions. However, it has proven to be even more onerous to review files compared with traditional video time-lapse recordings, and makes it more challenging to engage volunteers in reviewing data. The video camera/digital video recorder installation used in previous years allowed motion detection events to be recorded (along with time lapse recording). Reviewing only the motion triggered events significantly reduced the time required to review video files of

42 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Chinook migration, but required appropriate conditions for optimum performance. Finding a balance between the most affordable and practical equipment and operating location needs to be further investigated if monitoring adult migration into Comox Lake as part of the coho imprinting assessment becomes a long term objective.

43 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

5.4 FLOW MONITORING

Project Lead: E. Guimond - E. Guimond & Associates; M. Sheng - Fisheries Oceans Canada

5.4.1 Background

Monitoring discharge in Cruickshank River tributaries was proposed to correlate habitat quality versus discharge (existing data for Cruikshank is available on the Water Survey of Canada website). This information may be used to determine appropriate long- term loading densities for coho fry following an analysis of the 2013 juvenile rearing results.

5.4.2 Methods

Three stream discharge transects and water level monitoring stations were established in the upper watershed on July 26, 2013 (Table 18). Discharge transects were located at sites with laminar flow and in proximity to areas suitable for installing a WL recorder. One station was located in Comox Creek, ~100m upstream of bridge over Comox Creek on Cruickshank Mainline, a second was in Rees Creek ~350 m upstream of bridge crossing, and a third site was in the Upper Puntledge River at the outlet of Willemar Lake. Each station was equipped with a water level/temperature recorder/transducer (Levelogger Model 3001; Solinst Canada Ltd., ON) suspended on a stainless steel cable in a perforated steel standpipe embedded in the stream bed. In addition, a barometer (Barologger Model 3001; Solinst Canada Ltd., ON) was located at the CFGA clubhouse on Comox Lake to monitor local atmospheric pressure which was used to correct total pressure data from the three submerged water level recorders. Stream discharge was measured at each transect during 4 visits between July 26 and September 16, 2013 using a Swoffer current meter (model 3000) with a 1.4 m top setting wading rod. Depth and velocity measurements were taken at a minimum of 20 wetted stations along each transect and wetted widths were measured at all transects. Corresponding mean daily discharge data for the Cruickshank River from WSC Gauge 08HB074 located near the mouth was also recorded. The WL recorders in Comox and Rees creeks were removed on September 28 over concerns that they may be displaced or lost during high flow events due to their less protected locations. The logger in the upper Puntledge River was removed on October 23, 2013.

44 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

5.4.3 Results

Water level data (stage) was downloaded from the recorders and used to construct a stage/discharge curve for each site that could be correlated with habitat quality during low flow conditions. The discharge measurements were completed during a narrow range of “low” flows which could be collected by wading the streams. Therefore the stage- discharge relation should not be applied outside of the range of discharge measurements upon which it is based. Unfortunately, correlating information on habitat during juvenile surveys was collected after the loggers were removed at two of the sites (Cruickshank tributaries). Water levels at the three monitoring sites (measured in metres of water over the recorders) are illustrated in Figure 19 along with the corresponding discharge in the Cruickshank River.

Table 18. Stream discharge transects and water level recorder stations in the upper watershed, monitored in 2013.

Sub-basin UTM UTM Sampling Stage Wetted Discharge Site area (km2) Easting Northing Date Time (m) Width (m) (m3/s) Comox Creek 50.3 338029 5493657 26-Jul-13 10:20 0.789 11 1.459 6-Aug-13 10:00 0.771 10.5 1.297 28-Aug-13 9:30 0.833 11.4 2.013 16-Sep-13 10:45 0.778 10.35 1.401 Rees Creek 61.05 336,616 5,496,916 26-Jul-13 12:30 0.831 16.8 3.386 6-Aug-13 11:00 0.785 16.8 2.719 28-Aug-13 10:15 0.821 16.7 3.219 16-Sep-13 12:00 0.741 15.95 1.962 Upper Puntledge 87.2 342,277 5,487,479 26-Jul-13 2:10 0.785 18.6 2.264 River 6-Aug-13 12:45 0.725 18.9 1.872 28-Aug-13 11:30 0.719 19 1.832 16-Sep-13 1:35 0.695 18.75 1.495 Cruickshank River: 215 339,961 5,494,134 26-Jul-13 n/a n/a n/a 10.193 WSC Gauge 08HB074 6-Aug-13 n/a n/a n/a 7.672 28-Aug-13 n/a n/a n/a 9.326 16-Sep-13 n/a n/a n/a 4.461 *

45 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

2.5 100

2.0 80

Juvenile survey Juvenile survey Juvenile survey 70 Aug 5-9 Aug 22-28 Oct 7-19 /s)

1.5 60 3

1.0 40 Discharge (m Discharge

30 Water level over logger (m) logger over level Water

0.5 20

0.0 0

26-Jul 31-Jul 5-Aug 4-Sep 9-Sep 4-Oct 9-Oct 10-Aug 15-Aug 20-Aug 25-Aug 30-Aug 14-Sep 19-Sep 24-Sep 29-Sep 14-Oct 19-Oct 24-Oct

Comox Creek WL (m) Rees Creek WL (m) Upper Puntledge WL (m) Cruickshank River (m3/s)

Figure 19. Water levels and river discharge during 2013 late summer-fall juvenile fry surveys in the Upper Puntledge and Cruickshank river systems.

46 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

5.5 JUVENILE REARING STUDIES AND REDD COUNTS AT TRIBUTARY STREAMS TO COMOX LAKE

Project Lead: MJ Lough Environmental Consultants; T. Michalski, BC Ministry of Forests - Lands and Natural Resource Operations

See Appendix 2 for full report.

47 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

6 SUMMARY

Hydro-acoustic and limnological study

 The 2013 limnological data suggest that Comox Lake is very similar to nearby coastal sockeye nursery lakes (Great Central Lake, Sproat Lake, and Henderson Lake).

 Water quality data (temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles and Secchi depth) and water chemistry data (nutrients, calcium and chlorophyll a) were “normal” in 2013 and typical of coastal lakes.

 The 2013 zooplankton biomasses were normal (i.e. no shortage of suitable forage for pelagic fish), and pelagic fish (small kokanee and sticklebacks) in trawl catches showed normal growth rates.

 Comox Lake kokanee densities were almost an order of magnitude lower than the 2013 densities of juvenile sockeye found in Great Central, Sproat and Henderson Lakes.

 The data suggests that limnological conditions did not account for the very low densities observed in 2013.

 Spawning recruitment, habitat and incubation survival may be the primary causes for low kokanee densities observed in the lake in 2013. Kokanee typically spawn in the fall (mid-Oct – Dec) at a size of 150 – 300 mm, and fecundity is low. Redds are small and shallow due to the small size of spawners, and are susceptible to scour/deposition in streams and deltas. Redds from lakeshore spawning are vulnerable to dessication and freezing, particularly under a declining reservoir elevation as occurred in 2013.

 Heavy blooms of Didymosphenia geminata (Didymo) observed in the Upper Puntledge River may be associated with changes in climate, and more locally with logging activity in the watershed, both of which can result in an increase in nutrient uptake by plants and a consequential reduction of phosphorus (P) in the aquatic environment. Phosphorus is often the critical nutrient that limits productivity of BC coastal lakes. Thus, reduced P levels in rivers and lakes of the Comox watershed may have a negative effect on zooplankton and hence kokanee productivity in Comox Lake which is already oligotrophic.

Juvenile rearing and cutthroat trout redd survey

 Of the 60 sites sampled (electro-fishing and snorkel surveys) during the juvenile rearing study, coho fry were the most abundant juvenile encountered in the Upper

48 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Puntledge, lower Cruickshank, Rees and lower Eric creek surveys, while trout and Dolly Varden juveniles dominated juvenile populations in the headwaters, including Comox and upper Eric creeks and the upper Cruickshank River.

 Trout/char fry densities in each stream were also well below the predicted maximum based on a productivity-based model (Total alkalinity). This was consistent with findings in previous surveys (Russell 1990, Griffiths 1995).

 Similarly, average coho fry densities in each stream were generally well below the predicted maximum, even at sites where fry were stocked at levels above capacity.

 Overall, the cutthroat trout fry production as derived from the 2013 redd counts in the index and neighbouring sites in Comox and Rees creeks and the Upper Puntledge River was adequate to fully stock the useable fry rearing habitat in the index sites.

 The low densities of juveniles in the watersheds are likely due to the lack of high quality habitat required to achieve the theoretical maximum capacity. Contributing factors include the generally high current velocities in the study streams and low abundance of cover; for coho, a shortage of functional large woody debris, cutbank and overhead vegetation cover, and for trout, the generally small partical size of the wetted substrate.

 Low fry abundance may also be due to poor incubation survival, poor emergent fry to l-summer survival, and possible migration downstream to Comox Lake.

 The highest coho survival to late-summer fry in 2013 was observed in the lower Cruickshank River, likely due to the fact that the stocking density per unit of useable habitat was the lowest of all the stocking sites in 2013, and therefore was less “overstocked” than other streams.

 Hatchery stocking did not take into account the existing wild fry population, resulting in stocking numbers that greatly exceeded the capability of habitat unoccupied by wild fry. Introductions of large numbers of hatchery fry into existing wild population likely result in direct competition for useable habitat and a reduced survival for the wild coho fry population.

 In the Cruickshank River, stocking in excess of the saturation level of the useable habitat resulted in a loss of the surplus fry or forced them to migrate downstream into Comox Lake.

49 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Littoral Zone Surveys

 Mainly coho juveniles were captured in the lake shore trap box and minnow traps in June and July, with small numbers of trout and Dolly Varden char in the October live trap catch.

 The highest catches of coho were located in proximity to the confluence of the Cruickshank River for the most part.

 Catches of coho in the live trap box showed a trend of decreasing size from June to October, suggesting that coho tend to move into deep water away from the shoals and shorelines as they grow larger. The mean size of the hatchery fish captured in the lakeshore trap averaged 83.5 and 80 mm on June 7 and July 9, 2014, respectively. Although no scale samples were taken to confirm age, given the mean sizes, it is highly unlikely that these were fry of the year and were more likely yearlings (1+ smolts) migrating to the ocean..

 Smaller coho in October trap catch suggest that fry of the year are present in the lake (displacement from rivers and tributaries).

Adult Coho Migration Survey

 Despite the advantages of using a DIDSON sonar camera to monitor migration at the Comox impoundment dam (it can operate under any light and visibility conditions and resolves issues with maintenance and deployment restrictions during full reservoir conditions), it has many drawbacks: more onerous to review files compared with traditional video time-lapse recordings, more challenging to engage volunteers in reviewing data, quality assurance of data by inexperienced volunteers is low due to difficulties in seeing or interpreting images.

 Based on the number of coho adults observed passing through the diversion dam fishway and the number estimated from DIDSON files (corrected for quality assurance), we estimate that between 79 and 178 adults may have accessed the lake.

 This number represents only about 2-5% of the total 2013 BY escapement that naturally migrated into the lake.

50 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Coho fry releases will be eliminated from the Cruickshank River and tributaries and will be concentrated along the shoreline of Comox Lake and Willemar Lake with a larger number of smaller fry releases more evenly distributed along the shoreline, rather than a small number of large fry releases in a few locations.

2. With this new change in coho fry outplanting in the Comox lake watershed, it is imperative that coho smolt survival and migration timing is monitored at the Eicher screen evaluation facility at the Puntledge diversion dam to compare to past outplanting methods and data collected in 2010-2014.

3. Continue shoreline Gee trapping, ensuring timing includes at least 1 survey before coho fry are transferred to the Comox Lake perimeter. Collect weight and length data as well as scale samples of coho and trout captures. In addition, conduct deep water Gee trapping (at ~30m depth) to determine if larger coho move into deep water off of the shoals.

4. Repeat live net box trapping with a small mesh net on the north side of the Cruikshank alluvial fan, beginning in the spring (April) before outplants and continuing into the fall with length, weight and scale sampling as above.

5. Conduct a creel survey and stomach content analysis of large predators in the lake, such as Dolly Varden and Cutthroat to determine the CPU and diet.

6. Improve adult migration surveillance at the Comox impoundment dam using video camera equipment that can be easily accessed and maintained throughout the migration period.

7. Puntledge Hatchery should continue to trap and truck coho adults to Comox Lake over the entire migration period.

8. Conduct a Kokanee and CT spawning and incubation study to identify potential spawning areas, and determine whether recruitment may be a limiting factor (poor egg- to-fry survival).

51 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was made possible and greatly enhanced by the financial support, cooperation and commitment of numerous individuals, agencies and organizations. The Courtenay and District Fish and Game Protective Association (CFGA) wishes to acknowledge the financial contribution from the BC Hydro Fish and Wildlife Compensation program – Coastal Region, on behalf of its program partners BC Hydro, the Province of B.C. and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We are also grateful to the many dedicated members of our Comox Lake Assessment “Project Team” for their significant contributions of their time, expertise and support during all phases of the project including planning, implementation and reporting; from Fisheries and Oceans Canada - M. Sheng and G. Graf (Ecosystem Management Branch), K. Hyatt and R. Ferguson (Science Branch), and D. Miller and staff at Puntledge River Hatchery; T. Michalski from the BC Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and R. Ptolemy from the Ministry of Environment. Thanks also Don McQueen (McQueen Aquatic Analysis) for the limnological and acoustic data analysis, and to MJ Lough and Associates, consultant and Project Team member for completing the juvenile surveys under challenging conditions. We would also like to acknowledge the many volunteers with the CFGA that were able to assist with the project. Finally, we wish to extend our appreciation to TimberWest, and their contactor in Comox Lake, Fall River Logging Ltd., for access to the upper watershed.

52 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

9 REFERENCES

Argue, A.W., and R.W. Armstrong. 1977. Coho smolt coded-wire tagging and enumerations (1971 to 1973 broods) on three small tributaries in the Squamish river system. Fish. Mar. Ser. Data Rep. PAC/D – 77-11:79 p. Barns R.A. and D.G. Crabtree. 1991. Coho salmon smolt and adult production from Grant Lake (Cowichan River, Vancouver Island, B.C.) following two years of colonization with hatchery-reared and salvaged fry. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1842-1991 Bonar S.A, B.D. Bolding, M. Divens and W. Meyer. 2005. Effects of introduced fishes on wild juvenile coho salmon in three shallow Pacific Northwest lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134:3, 641-652 Bothwell, M.L., B.W Taylor, and C. Kilroy. 2014. The Didymo story: the role of low dissolved phosphorus in the formation of Didymosphenia geminata blooms. Diatom research, DOI: 10.1080/0269249x.2014.889041. B.C. Hydro 2003. Consultative committee report: Puntledge River water use plan. Prepared by the Puntledge River water use plan consultative committee. Bryant, M. D. 1988. Gravel pit ponds as habitat enhancement for juvenile coho salmon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-212. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 10 p. Bryant M.D., , B.J. Frenette, K.T. Coghill 1996. Use of the littoral zone by introduced anadromous salmonids and resident trout, Margaret Lake, Southeast Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin vol.3 #2 1996 Carlson, S.R., L.G. Coggins Jr. and C.O. Swanton. 1998. A simple stratified design for mark-recapture estimation of salmon smolt abundance. Alaska Fish. Res. Bull. 5(2):88-102. Caw, G. B. 1977. An inventory of the Cruikshank River and tributaries. Stream Inventory Section, BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC Epps, D. and B. Phippen. 2011. Water quality assessment and objectives for Comox Lake: technical report. Environmental Protection Division Environmental Sustainability Division Ministry of Environment. Griffith, R.P. 1995. Puntledge River – biophysical assessment of streams tributary to Comox Lake. Unpbl. Rep. to BC Hydro by R.P. Griffith & Assoc., Sidney, BC. 106p. Guimond, E., J.A. Taylor, and M. Sheng. 2014. Evaluation of natural and hatchery summer Chinook and coho production in the upper Puntledge watershed 2013 - 2014. Project #13.Pun.03. Prepared for Comox Valley Project Watershed Society and BC Hydro FWCP.

53 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

Guimond, E. 2014. Assessment of the homing behaviour of 3 year old Puntledge summer Chinook adult returns from lake and river imprinted juveniles. FWCP Project # 13.Pun.04. Prepared for: Comox Valley Project Watershed Society, Courtenay B.C. and BC Hydro FWCP, Burnaby, B.C. Hyatt, K. D., D. Rutherford, T. Gjernes, P. Rankin, and T. Cone. 1984. Lake enrichment program: juvenile sockeye unit survey guidelines. Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1796: 84 p. Johner, D. and D. Sebastian. 2011. Comox Lake hydroacoustic and trawl survey July 2009. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch. Stock Management Report No. 33 Kyle, G. B., J. P. Koenings, and B. M. Barrett. 1988. Density-dependent, trophic level responses to an introduced run of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at Frazer Lake, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 856-867. MacLellan, S.G., and Hume, J.M.B. 2010. An evaluation of methods used by the freshwater ecosystems section for pelagic fish surveys of sockeye rearing lakes in British Columbia. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2886: v + 68 p. Michalski, T. 2011. Comox Lake Fish and Fisheries Assessment Project Summary. Fisheries Management and Enhancement Plan. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, Nanaimo, B.C. 66 p. Russell, J. R. L., L. Carswell, and B. Munro. 1990. Comox Lake cutthroat assessment - 1989 reconnaissance report. Recreational Fisheries Program, BC Ministry of Environment. File: 0140-1

Personal Communications

Mike Lough, MJ Lough Environmental Consultants Ltd. March 10, 2014

54 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

APPENDIX 1. Capture data, and condition coefficients (KC’s), from live trap surveys along the Comox Lake shoreline June - October, 2014.

7-Jun-14 9-Jul-14 15-Oct-14 Length Weight Length Weight Length Weight Species (mm) (g) K.C. Species (mm) (g) K.C. Species (mm) (g) K.C. CO 92 7.2 0.92 CO* 77 4.6 1.01 CO* 77 4.6 1.01 CO 90 6.6 0.91 CO* 95 8.3 0.97 CO* 86 6.6 1.04 CO 88 0 CO* 85 5.6 0.91 CO* 75 4.7 1.11 CO 94 7.1 0.85 CO* 96 8.8 0.99 CO* 70 3.5 1.02 CO 80 4.5 0.88 CO* 77 4.6 1.01 CO* 73 3.8 0.98 CO 76 4.4 1 CO* 65 2 0.73 CO* mort CO 89 6.2 0.88 CO* 81 5.4 1.02 CO* 78 5 1.05 CO 98 8.8 0.93 CO* 71 4.3 1.2 CO 92 7.1 0.91 CO 108 10.5 0.83 CO* 67 8.3 2.76 CO 82 6.3 1.14 CO 82 5.1 0.92 CO* 88 7.1 1.04 CO 76 4.1 0.93 CO 63 3.2 1.28 CO* 92 7.2 0.92 CO 74 4.4 1.09 CO 83 5.2 0.91 CO* 70 4 1.17 CO 75 4.3 1.02 CO 94 7.8 0.94 CO* 82 5.4 0.98 CO 81 5.9 1.11 CO 92 7 0.9 CO* 74 4.6 1.14 CO 75 4.7 1.11 CO 90 6.3 0.86 CO* 82 5.2 0.94 CO 71 4.3 1.2 CO 80 4.7 0.92 CO mort CO 80 5.2 1.02 CO 83 6.1 1.07 CO 73 3.4 0.87 CO 77 4.9 1.07 CO 84 5.4 0.91 CO 92 8.1 1.04 CO 74 4.6 1.14 CO 103 0 CO 62 0 CO 75 4.5 1.07 CO 92 7.4 0.95 CO 88 6.9 1.01 CO 73 4 1.03 CO 89 6.1 0.87 CO 68 3.5 1.11 CO 64 2.7 1.03 CO 84 6 1.01 CO 94 8 0.96 CO 70 3.6 1.05 CO 82 6.2 1.12 CO 95 8.7 1.01 CO 72 4.1 1.1 CO 90 7.3 1 CO 85 5.7 0.93 CO 75 3.8 0.9 CO 83 5.7 1 CO 78 5 1.05 CO 77 4.7 1.03 CO 91 7.3 0.97 CO 84 6.2 1.05 CO 72 3.6 0.96 CO 85 5 0.81 CO 89 7 0.99 CO 82 6.2 1.12 CO 93 7.4 0.92 CO 85 6.4 1.04 CO 75 3.9 0.92 CO 90 6.6 0.91 CO 80 5 0.98 CO 62 2.4 1.01 CO 95 8 0.93 CO 90 7.2 0.99 CO 72 3.9 1.04 CO 84 5.2 0.88 CO 98 8.9 0.95 CO 73 4.1 1.05 CO 69 3.6 1.1 CO 72 4.7 1.26 CO 65 3.3 1.2 CO 80 4.5 0.88 CO 94 7.7 0.93 CO 73 4.3 1.11 CO 95 7.7 0.9 CO 84 5.1 0.86 CO 75 4.6 1.09 CO 90 7.1 0.97 CO 95 8.4 0.98 CO 67 3.2 1.06 CO* 76 4.5 1.03 CO 70 3.8 1.11 CO 74 3 0.74 CO 84 6 1.01 CO 99 9.5 0.98 CO 57 1.9 1.03 CO 93 7.6 0.94 CO 68 8.7 2.77 CO 68 3.8 1.21 CO 86 5.8 0.91 CO 80 5.1 1 CT 215 95.2 CO 98 9.9 1.05 CO 95 8.6 1 CT 57 2 CO 100 7.9 0.79 CO 86 7.3 1.15 CT 239 138.2 1.01 CO 94 7.8 0.94 CO 91 7.8 1.04 CT 53 1.6 1.07 CO 90 7 0.96 CO 102 10.7 1.01 CT 70 3 0.87 CO 80 5 0.98 CO 88 6.7 0.98 CT 58 1.6 0.82

55 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

APPENDIX 1 - Cont’d

7-Jun-14 9-Jul-14 15-Oct-14 Length Weight Length Weight Length Weight Species (mm) (g) K.C. Species (mm) (g) K.C. Species (mm) (g) K.C.

CO 102 9.3 0.88 CO 62 2.5 1.05 DV 132 20.8 0.9 CO 90 6.8 0.93 CO 94 7.9 0.95 DV 93 7 0.87 CO 83 5.1 0.89 CO 90 6.6 0.91 DV 86 5.7 0.9 CO 102 9.6 0.9 CO 80 5.3 1.04 DV 109 8.7 0.67 CO 85 6.1 0.99 CO 69 3.6 1.1 DV 100 8.8 0.88 CO 90 7.1 0.97 CO 89 6.1 0.87 DV 78 4 0.84 CO 90 6.7 0.92 CO 81 5.3 1 DV 85 5.5 0.9 CO 87 6.7 1.02 CO 68 8.5 2.7 DV 110 11.7 0.88 CO 95 8.1 0.94 CO 84 5.8 0.98 DV 82 5 0.91 CO 87 5.8 0.88 CO 84 6 1.01 DV 111 11.6 0.85 CO* 91 7 0.93 CO 86 6.5 1.02 DV 150 29.3 0.87 CO 93 8.1 1.01 CO 90 6.8 0.93 DV 80 3.5 0.68 CO* mort CO 82 5.2 0.94 RB 108 11.5 0.91 CO mort CO 82 5.3 0.96 TSB 7 CO mort CO 92 7.7 0.99 CAL 27 CT 380 CO 81 5 0.94 CT 125 16.5 0.84 CO 71 3.8 1.06 KO 101 8.2 0.8 CO 88 6.2 0.91 TSB 1 CO 85 6.1 0.99 CAL 1 CO 84 6.1 1.03 CO 82 5.6 1.02 CO 88 6.2 0.91 CO 89 7 0.99 CO 63 3 1.2 CO 93 7.4 0.92 CT 230.5 CT 150 CT 103 9.7 0.89 CT 82 7.1 1.29 KO 100 8 0.8

*adipose clipped hatchery coho.

56 Comox Lake Productivity Study 13.PUN.05

APPENDIX 2. Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake, 2013

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake, 2013

Prepared for

Courtenay Fish and Game Protective Association Courtenay, BC

MJ Lough Environmental Consultants Nanaimo, BC

MJ Lough SE Hay PD Law SE Rutherford

June 2014

______

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Summary

Field studies were conducted in the Comox Lake watershed during 2013 to investigate juvenile trout and salmon populations. The objectives were to assess juvenile coho and trout production in the upper watershed, assess whether or not the wild cutthroat trout spawning in 2013 was adequate to fully stock the available fry rearing habitat in the streams, and assess the survival of hatchery coho fry that were stocked in June 2013.

A total of 60 sites were sampled during the study. Twenty-three sites were sampled using electrofishing and 37 sites were sampled using other methods; primarily snorkel surveys. Four age groups (0+ to 3+) of cutthroat and rainbow trout were found in the Upper Puntledge River and the Cruickshank watershed. Coho fry numerically dominated the juvenile populations in the Upper Puntledge, lower Cruickshank River, Rees Creek and lower Eric Creek but trout and Dolly Varden juveniles generally dominated in the headwaters of the watershed including Comox Creek, upper Eric Creek and the upper Cruickshank River.

The sampled juvenile density at each closed electrofishing site was compared to the theoretical maximum density as predicted using a productivity based model (Total Alkalinity Model) and the usability of the fish habitat based on hydraulic suitability. Sampling results found that average coho fry densities in each stream were generally well below the predicted maximum, ranging from 0% (Comox Creek) to 78% (Rees Creek) of the theoretical maximum capability. Average coho densities at electrofishing sites in the Upper Puntledge River were 28% of the predicted maximum capability, although snorkel counts at 5 premium quality sites noted large numbers of coho fry in deep pool and glide habitat that could not be electrofished.

Sampling results also found that average trout/char fry densities in each stream were well below the predicted maximum, ranging from 8% (Upper Puntledge River) to 51% (Comox Creek) of the theoretical maximum capability. This is consistent with findings from Russell (1990) who reported densities of 16% to 33% of maximum capability, and from Griffith (1995) who reported densities of 6% to 55% of maximum capability from all streams except Comox Creek where densities were reported to be 205%.

It was concluded that the reason for the low juvenile densities in the watershed were due primarily to a lack of high quality habitat that is required to achieve the theoretical maximum capability. Contributing factors for this low habitat quality include the generally high current velocities in the study streams and the generally low abundance of cover in the usable fish habitat. For coho, the shortage of cover was primarily due to limited functional large woody cover, cutbank and overhead vegetation. For trout, the shortage of cover was primarily due to the generally small particle size of the wetted substrate.

Calibrated snorkel surveys were used to count juveniles at 35 representative sites throughout the study area, and ultimately to derive a late-summer standing stock of juveniles in the study streams. The late-summer standing stock of coho fry in the Cruickshank watershed was 41,600 and in the Upper Puntledge River it was 47,500 fry. By far the largest standing stock of trout/char parr was found in Reaches 2, 3 and 4 of the Cruickshank River; downstream of Eric Creek but upstream of Rees Creek.

We examined index sites in Comox Creek, Rees Creek and the Upper Puntledge River to determine if the estimated cutthroat trout fry production as derived from the 2013 redd counts

______mjl page i Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______was adequate to fully stock the usable fry rearing habitat. If standard egg to fry survivals were achieved, the spawning escapements in Comox and Rees creeks were more than adequate to fully stock the usable fry habitat in the index sites. The spawning escapement in the Upper Puntledge River however, was not adequate to fully stock the fry habitat in the index site although it appears that extremely heavy trout spawning just outside of the index site likely saturated the available fry habitat in the index site.

The predicted trout fry production from the redd counts in Comox and Rees creeks was adequate to fully stock the available fry habitat, yet late summer juvenile sampling in 2013 found that the average trout fry numbers in the index sites were 31% and 25%, respectively, of the theoretical maximum densities. Contributing factors to this low fry abundance may include a generally low quality fry rearing habitat and possibly related to this, a downstream fry migration to Comox Lake soon after emergence. Factors such as rearing space, water temperature, aquatic production and foraging opportunities may be more favorable in Comox Lake and could provide a selective advantage for early migrants to the lake.

Historical DFO data indicates that the highest survival rate of hatchery coho stocking has generally been from fry stocked in the Cruickshank River. This is potentially misleading since the rate of survival has no bearing on the number of hatchery fry actually produced from the stream. We used sampling data to assess the actual coho fry production from the study streams and found that the highest survival to late-summer fry in 2013 was indeed the lower Cruickshank River not because the habitat was in some way superior, but instead because the stocking density per unit of usable habitat in 2013 was the lowest of all the stocking sites in 2013 and was therefore ‘less overstocked’ than other streams. Results also indicate that the survival rate would have been higher if the stocking numbers were reduced to the saturation level of the usable coho fry habitat.

Analysis of clipped coho fry recoveries in the 2013 samples found that wild coho fry accounted for 19% (Eric Creek) to 78% (Rees Creek) of the coho fry population after the streams were stocked. The stocking plan and resulting coho densities in 2013 apparently did not account for the existing wild fry population that in some streams already occupied most of the available coho fry habitat. Stocking numbers greatly exceeded the capability of the unoccupied habitat, and thus exceeded the numbers appropriate to augment the existing wild population. The introduction of large numbers of hatchery fry into the existing wild population more likely resulted in direct competition for usable habitat and a reduced survival for the wild coho fry population.

Juvenile sampling in 2013 found that 19,400 hatchery coho or 11% of the 170,000 released in the Cruickshank still remained in the watershed by late summer. Since fry recruitment was apparently not a limiting factor, this indicates that in 2013 the available rearing habitat in the Cruickshank watershed was only capable of supporting 19,400 hatchery fry. The hatchery stocking level in 2013 was therefore 880% higher than the saturation level of the Cruickshank watershed. Stocking in excess of the saturation level of 19,400 fry resulted in a loss of the surplus fry or forced them to migrate downstream into Comox Lake. This analysis of fluvial production did not address the unknown contribution from the surplus fry that may have migrated downstream into Comox Lake.

Snorkel observations indicate that there is considerable fluvial foraging throughout the Cruickshank River by adult trout, at least during the late summer and fall months. These fish appear to be highly vulnerable to angling and demonstrate the importance of the present angling closure on the Cruickshank River.

______mjl page ii Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Contents

Summary ...... i

Abbreviations and Conventions ...... v

1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………1

2.0 Study Area………………………………………………………………………………………..2

3.0 Methods ...... 3

3.1 Juvenile Sampling ...... 3

3.1.1 Electrofishing ...... 4 3.1.2 Snorkel Surveys ...... 4 3.1.3 Other ...... 5

3.2 Age and Growth ...... 5 3.3 Habitat ...... 5

4.0 Findings ...... 6

4.1 Sample Sites...... 6

4.11 Upper Puntledge River ...... 7 4.12 Cruickshank River ...... 10 4.13 Comox Creek ...... 11 4.14 Rees Creek ...... 13 4.15 Eric Creek ...... 14

4.2 Age and Growth ...... 15

4.2.1 Age and Growth - Upper Puntledge River ...... 15 4.2.2 Age and Growth – Cruickshank Watershed ...... 17

4.3 Sampled Juvenile Densities ...... 22

4.4 Sampled Density vs. Theoretical Maximum Capability ...... 23

4.4.1 Coho ...... 31 4.4.2 Trout...... 31

4.5 Standing Stock Estimates Derived from Snorkel Surveys ...... 32

4.6 Trout Fry Recruitment from Redd Counts ...... 38

4.7 Trout Density in Coho Streams vs. a Non-Coho Stream ...... 40

______mjl page iii Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

4.8 Coho Fry Stocking ...... 41

4.8.1 Historical Survival Rates ...... 41 4.8.2 2013 Coho Stocking ...... 43

4.9 Hatchery vs. Wild Coho Fry in Study Streams ...... 46

4.10 Adult Trout Observations ...... 48

5.0 References ...... 49

6.0 Personal Communications ...... 50

Appendix 1 Photos ...... A-1 Appendix 2 Fish Sample Data from Closed EF Sites ...... A-9 Appendix 3 Summary of adjusted fish density (FPU) by species and age...... A-44 Appendix 4 Summary of Juvenile Counts at Snorkel Survey Sites...... A-45 Appendix 5 Historical Habitat Data ...... A-46 Appendix 6 Scale Analysis ...... A-51 Appendix 7 Cruickshank River (Km 1.2) Discharge Plots ...... A-52 Appendix 8 Water Temperature Plots ...... A-53 Appendix 9 Total Alkalinity Data ...... A-54 Appendix 10 Snorkel Sighting Efficiency Calibration ...... A-55 Appendix 11 Fry Recruitment Biostandards and Calculations ...... A-56

______mjl page iv Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Abbreviations and Conventions

The following abbreviations are used in this document:

Co: Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

Tr: Trout (in this case Cutthroat or Rainbow Trout)

Ct: Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki)

Rb: Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Dv: Dolly Varden Char (Salvelinus malma)

T/C: Trout and char species combined

0+: Juvenile salmonid in its first year of growth; also called fry

1+: Juvenile salmonid between 1and 2 years old; also called parr

2+: Juvenile salmonid between 2 and 3 years old; also called parr

EF: Electrofishing

SN: Snorkel

FPU: Fish per Unit (a unit is 100 m2)

T.Alk.: Total alkalinity

UPunt: Upper Puntledge River

Didymo: Didymosphenia geminata

Cottid: Sculpin; Family Cottidae

CWT: Coded wire tag

DFO: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Fish and Wildlife: BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Fish and Wildlife Branch

______mjl page v Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

1.0 Introduction

The Comox Lake watershed encompasses an area of approximately 600 km2 on the NE side of Vancouver Island, BC, approximately 6 km west of the City of Courtenay. Comox Lake has two large tributaries, the Upper Puntledge River and the Cruickshank River. The Cruickshank has several tributaries within its watershed of 213 km2, including Comox, Rees, and Eric creeks.

BC Fish and Wildlife Branch has undertaken several studies over the years to determine the state of the cutthroat population in the watershed. Despite lack of quantitative sampling, Caw (1977a, 1977b), identified the presence of juvenile cutthroat trout throughout accessible sections of the Cruickshank and Upper Puntledge rivers in 1976, prior to the annual coho fry transfers from Puntledge Hatchery into the upper watershed. Russell (1990) carried out fish sampling (electrofishing) and flow metering during 1989, including full-stream transects in the Cruickshank River, Upper Puntledge River and Comox Creek and described the quantity of usable fish habitat in the Upper Puntledge River and Cruickshank watershed. Russell reported generally low densities of cutthroat trout fry in the study area that were all less than 33% of the predicted maximum capability of the habitat. Griffith (1995) conducted a biophysical assessment of streams tributary to Comox Lake in 1994. His sampling also found that trout fry densities were generally well below the maximum capability of the habitat at all streams except Comox Creek which was found to have densities above the saturation level of the habitat.

Griffith (1995) also reported inconsistent coho densities throughout the study streams. The Upper Puntledge River and Eric Creek both had densities above the predicted maximum capability of the habitat but were both stocked with hatchery coho fry. The lower Cruickshank River and Rees Creek, which were also stocked with hatchery coho fry, had coho fry densities that were well below the predicted capability of the streams. No coho fry were found in Comox Creek, which was not stocked with coho.

In 2011, Lough and Michalski, conducted 2 studies which included an assessment of cutthroat redds and cutthroat rearing densities. During the spring, cutthroat trout redds were counted in three index sites: the Upper Puntledge River, Comox Creek, and Rees Creek. Data from the index sites was used to estimate the total number of cutthroat redds in the Upper Puntledge River (691), Comox Creek (225) and Rees Creek (78), or a total of 994 redds in the 3 study streams (Lough et. al., 2011). In 2011, closed-site electrofishing samples found few cutthroat fry or parr, although water conditions were high that year and it was not clear if the adverse sampling conditions contributed to the low juvenile abundance (Michalski, pers. comm.).

Puntledge hatchery has been transplanting coho fry into Comox Lake and tributaries annually since 1980, with releases ranging from 45,000 to 2.9 million fry and has also transported coho adults to the lake intermittently since 1986. Coho fry loading at the release sites followed guidelines developed by Lister (1968) and Marshall and Britton (1990), who found that smolt yield was more a function of stream length than area. Russell (1990) expressed concerns that this approach did not consider any index of productivity or habitat usability by coho and was inappropriate since it overestimated the optimum stocking densities in the high gradient streams of the Cruickshank watershed. An alternative model for predicting maximum fry densities was developed by Ptolemy (1993). The model uses inputs of total alkalinity and average mean weight by species and age or size class to predict the maximum fish density per unit (100 m2) that the habitat is capable of supporting. When combined with flow metering data to quantify the amount of usable habitat, maximum juvenile densities of the site or stream can be

______mjl page 1 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______estimated. Estimating the maximum capability or carrying capacity of a stream using these two methods can be very different.

Through the cooperation of the Courtenay and District Fish and Game Protective Association, DFO and the BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, field studies were conducted 2013 in the Comox Lake watershed to evaluate the two capacity models in several tributaries that have been stocked with varying densities of coho fry. The results of this analyses and comparison will be used to consider future release strategies in the upper watershed.

The objectives of this study were to assess juvenile coho and trout production in the upper watershed, assess whether or not the wild cutthroat trout spawning in 2013 was adequate to fully stock the available fry rearing habitat in the streams, and assess the survival of hatchery coho fry that were stocked in June 2013.

2.0 Study Area

The focus of this study is the Upper Puntledge and Cruickshank rivers, and Comox, Rees and Eric creeks (Figure 1). Since the primary species of interest were anadromous salmon from the ocean and adfluvial trout from Comox Lake, the study was confined to the waters downstream of anadromous barriers (see Appendix 5).

Figure 1. Surveyed tributaries in the Comox Lake watershed included Comox Creek, Rees Creek, Eric Creek, Cruickshank River and the Upper Puntledge River downstream of Willemar Lake (map modified from Guimond, pers. comm.).

______mjl page 2 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

3.0 Methods A late summer electro-fishing survey was conducted in the Upper Puntledge River and the Cruickshank watershed using methods similar to those described by Griffith (1995). Study sites were established in streams that were stocked at varying densities with Puntledge Hatchery coho fry early in June. The sites were sampled during the late summer low summer flows when crowding and competition for rearing space is most likely.

3.1 Juvenile Sampling Juvenile fish data was collected primarily at electrofishing sites and snorkel survey sites. At one site where these methods were not suitable, a pole seine was used to capture juveniles and at another site streamside visual observation was used to enumerate fish. Cutthroat trout and rainbow trout fry were pooled and collectively identified as ‘trout fry’ or Trout 0+ due to the challenges of accurately identifying the fry species at this size, but trout parr aged 1+ or older were identified according to species. All coho fry that were captured by electrofishing were closely examined for missing adipose fins that would indicate hatchery marking of stocked fish. Sample Site Selection The focus was primarily to sample reaches of the Cruickshank and Upper Puntledge rivers that were stocked with hatchery coho during the summer of 2013. Sample sites were selected so as to re-sample many of the same areas that were sampled by Griffith in 1994. Not all of Griffith’s sites were re-sampled and those which were upstream of barriers to anadromous migration were excluded. The original study design target was to sample 17 sites throughout the study area using closed-site electrofishing. A snorkel survey site was also planned at the Upper Puntledge River to collect information on the large deep pools of Reach 1. Logistical Issues. Field sampling was scheduled for August, with the Upper Puntledge River to be sampled first since juvenile size was expected to be larger there than in the Cruickshank due to its warmer water temperature. The field crew immediately encountered challenges with the closed electrofishing sites due to an unexpected heavy abundance of Didymosphenia geminate (Didymo), a benthic diatom that covered much of the streambed with a nuisance fibrous mat. The Didymo clouded the sample sites and clogged enclosure nets when disturbed, which generally interfered with the effectiveness and time requirements of the sampling. Accordingly, a field decision was made to shift the sampling emphasis to snorkel surveys, which also had the benefit of being capable of sampling deep pool habitat.

When the August sampling was continued into the Cruickshank watershed, field crews unexpectedly found that due to the unusually cold nature of the system, trout fry had not yet emerged from the gravel. Since this was a juvenile survey, closed-site electrofishing re- scheduled for late September. Heavy rains and flood stage flows in late September resulted in a further delay until flows dropped and sampling could be continued starting on October 7, 2013.

The field crew encountered low fish abundance at most electrofishing sites in the Cruickshank watershed and were generally limited to edge sites along the stream margins. It was not possible to sample larger fish such as trout parr using electrofishing in the deeper, faster flows that predominate throughout the watershed, so a field decision was made to heavily augment the electrofishing samples with snorkel surveys.

______mjl page 3 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

3.1.1 Electrofishing Two types of electrofishing were used to collect fish samples; closed-site electrofishing that involved a net enclosure with multiple-pass removal of fish, and open-site electrofishing that involved the use of an electrofisher working in tandem with a downstream pole seine net that was used for fish capture. Closed Electrofishing Sites Closed electrofishing sites were used to collect information on length, weight and density of juvenile fish species by age group. The sampling protocol is described by De Leeuw (1981) which involved enclosing a stream section of approximately 100 m2 with small mesh stop nets that were adequate to prevent small fish from escaping and the nets were sealed to the stream bed using larger rocks placed along the leadline. A Smith Root Model 12-B backpack electrofisher was used for multiple-pass removal (usually 2 to 3 passes) and capture of the stunned fish. Population estimates were derived as described in Seber and LeCren (1967) or by using maximum likelihood estimates.

Fish density at each of the closed electrofishing sites was derived by dividing the estimated fish population (according to species and age group) by the weighted usable area (WUA) of the sample site, using a data entry and calculation spreadsheet tool developed by BC Ministry of Environment (Bech et al., 1994).

Fish captured at each sample site were anaesthetized using Alka-Seltzer tablets then identified and measured for fork length to the nearest millimeter. Weights were taken for all trout, coho and Dolly Varden, to the nearest 0.1 g using an Ohaus Model SP-401 portable electronic balance. Scale samples and photographs were collected from a representative sample of species and size groups. Open Electrofishing Sites Open electrofishing sites were used where net enclosures were not practical, such as fast boulder riffles that are difficult to hold the nets in. With some consideration for stealth prior to sampling, a Smith Root 12-B backpack electrofisher was used to sweep through a non-enclosed site quickly but effectively so as to spook or stun the fish into a deftly handled pole seine immediately downstream. Captured fish were immediately placed in a collection bucket and the process was repeated through the site. Multiple-pass removals may give some insight into the effectiveness of sampling. The method is particularly useful as a fast and mobile method of sampling that adds to the density information collected at the closed electrofishing sites. All fish collected at open sites were identified and sampled for length, weight and scales using the same protocol as for closed sites.

3.1.2 Snorkel Surveys Snorkel surveys were used to collect fish counts and observations at sites where closed-site electrofishing was not possible due to the depth or velocity of the stream and the problems with containing such sites with a net enclosure. This method also had the advantage of being highly mobile and effective for sampling numerous sites in the time it would take to sample one closed electrofishing site. The disadvantage of the method was that the fish are sampled visually hence biological sampling was not possible because the fish were not collected.

Sampling protocol used a 2-person snorkel crew composed of veteran swimmers, each with more than 40 years of snorkel survey experience. Prior to the sampling, small, fish-sized replicas of varying sizes were held underwater to calibrate the size estimations of each

______mjl page 4 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______swimmer. The crew then swam slowly through a measured sample site and enumerated the fish, taking care to include the full channel width of the site. Flow metering transects were measured to describe current depth and velocity at some sites but at most sites, the depth and velocity data was visually estimated and recorded. Species and estimated fork length were recorded in an underwater notebook. Sample sites ranged in length from 4 m to 250 m.

The snorkel counts were calibrated by snorkeling and counting juveniles in closed electrofishing sites prior to electrofishing then comparing the counts with the electrofishing population estimates. Time was allowed for the site to settle after it was enclosed with nets, and again after the snorkel count. The calibration coefficient was derived by comparing the number of fish counted by snorkel with the population estimate, which was used to approximate the actual population of the site. Calibration data was limited for large juveniles such as 2+ and 3+ trout parr because these fish tend to inhabit sites with faster current velocities that are difficult to enclose and electrofish. Professional judgment based on extensive snorkel survey experience was therefore used to adjust the calibration coefficient for larger fish.

Metering transects were used to collect habitat suitability index data which described the usability of the site in some of the snorkel sites. At most sites however, this data was only visually estimated and recorded. The calibrated count was divided by the length of the site (m) to express the fish count data as ‘estimated fish per meter of streamlength’.

3.1.3 Other On August 8 the field crew encountered approximately 150 hatchery coho fry that were stranded in an off-channel pool at Rees Creek. A pole seine was used to capture, enumerate and salvage the fry for release into the mainstem of Rees Creek.

On October 18 the field crew also observed coho fry swimming in an off-channel beaver pond wetland complex at Rees Creek. Since electrofishing, snorkel surveys and minnow trapping were considered to be ineffective for enumeration, a visual count was made along a sample section of the shoreline where the fry tended to remain.

3.2 Age and Growth Age groups were identified for each species by identifying the modal peaks of length frequency distribution plots from the fish sampled at electrofishing sites. Scale samples that were collected from a sub-sample of representative size groups were used to verify age.

3.3 Habitat Habitat data collected at each of the closed electrofishing sites included a classification and description of the mesohabitat type, current velocities and a description of the dominant and sub-dominant bed materials along the representative metering transect.

Habitat characteristics including the physical dimensions of the site, mesohabitat type and cover were described for each of the 23 electrofishing sample sites in this study. In addition, a transect was run across the sample site at a representative hydraulic location where water depth, current velocity and a description of the dominant and sub-dominant substrate type were collected at intervals along the transect. This data was used to determine the amount of suitable rearing habitat in the sample site so that fish density data could be prorated according to the amount of suitable habitat, as established in BC Hydro Water Use Planning habitat suitability index curves developed in February 2001 (Ptolemy, pers. comm.).

______mjl page 5 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Russell (1990) metered a total of 7 stream transects in the Upper Puntledge River (4), Comox Creek (2) and the Cruickshank River (2), and used air photo analysis to measure stream widths at other reaches of our study streams. Russell’s data was combined with an additional 6 stream transects metered during 2013 in the Cruickshank River (3), Upper Puntledge River (1), and Eric Creek (2), to calculate weighted usable width (WUW) and ultimately the weighted usable area (WUA) by reach in our study streams (Appendix 3). The prorated or usable portion of the sample site was calculated by multiplying the WUW by the total area of the enclosed sample site to derive the WUA. In the absence of metered transect data for a specific reach, surrogate data was applied using the best fit from measurements at a reach with similar gradient and channel width.

Descriptions of characteristics of individual stream reaches including length, gradient and mesohabitat were available in Griffith (1995), who collected physical stream survey data at sample sites in each reach of the Cruickshank and Upper Puntledge River (Appendix 3).

Water temperature was collected at each electrofishing site and at most snorkel survey sites. Specific conductance data was collected opportunistically at each of the study streams, and was used to approximate the total alkalinity (T. Alk.) of the streams during the late summer (Appendix 5).

4.0 Findings

4.1 Sample Sites A total of 60 sites were sampled during this study (Table 1). Twenty-three sites were sampled by electrofishing, of which 17 were closed sites that were used for population estimates. The remaining 6 electrofishing sites were open sites that were used to establish fish presence or relative abundance. Thirty-seven sites were sampled using other methods; primarily snorkel surveys.

The electrofishing sites were most effective for sampling fry which are often found in the slower, shallow along the margins of the streams. The snorkel surveys were used sample habitat that could not be enclosed for population estimates, such as the mainstem of the Cruickshank or Upper Puntledge rivers and were more effective for collecting data on the larger trout parr that utilized such habitat.

Due to the large size of the study streams, closed electrofishing sites were limited to edge sites or side channels where net enclosures were possible. Side channel sites in particular were perhaps not representative of conditions in the main channel since they were generally shallower and slower velocity and hence higher quality juvenile habitat, especially fry habitat as compared to the deeper, faster mainstem. For this reason, considerable effort was made to cover the mainstem using snorkel surveys. The snorkel sites allowed more effective sampling throughout the entire width of the mainstem and also allowed greater mobility and coverage of all habitat types throughout the length of the streams.

Three of the snorkel survey sites were closed sites that were snorkeled and later electrofished for the purpose of calibration of sighting efficiency. One site was pole-seined to salvage and count juveniles at an off-channel stranding site. Another site was a visual observation of juvenile abundance in a wetland site that was very difficult to quantitatively sample using other

______mjl page 6 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______methods, since electrofishing, snorkel surveys or minnow trapping would not provide useful data in this regard.

Length and weight were recorded for a representative number of the cottids, after which they were only counted or noted in terms of relative abundance

4.11 Upper Puntledge River Three closed electrofishing sites and 5 snorkel sites were sampled for juvenile salmonid abundance in the Upper Puntledge River. Three (38%) of these were in glide and 2 (25%) were in pool-riffle mesohabitat (Figure 2).

A total of 75 juveniles were captured and bio-sampled at the 3 electrofishing sites in the Upper Puntledge River from Aug 5 to Aug 6, 2013. The field crew encountered sampling challenges on the Upper Puntledge due to the widespread and abundant presence of the prolific benthic diatom Didymo that covered much of the substrate. Work inside the net enclosure disturbed the Didymo which reduced visibility and capture efficiency and also immediately clogged the nets. Sample sites were therefore selected in riffle habitat where the Didymo was less abundant to improve captures but this data may not have been representative of all glide habitat. Sampling was therefore shifted to snorkel surveys for more representative coverage of the system. Snorkeling was also the most effective method for sampling coho fry in the large, deep pool sites of the Upper Puntledge River, especially pool habitat with abundant woody debris.

Snorkel observations in the Upper Puntledge River found that coho fry dominated the glide and deep pool habitat. Trout fry and parr abundance was highest in the faster riffle habitat; but still less than coho fry abundance. At Site 7 (Reach 1, deep pool), 98% of the total biomass were coho fry and only 2% were trout juveniles (Appendix 2). In Site 1 (Reach 2, riffle), 63% of the total biomass were coho fry and 37% were trout juveniles of all age combined.

______mjl page 7 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 1. Details of fish sample sites at Upper Puntledge River (UPunt), Cruickshank River, Comox Creek, Rees Creek and Eric Creek, 2013.

Site System Site # Site Description Site Chainage (km) Date UTM Mesohab Length Width Area Comments Upunt 1 UPEFR1 3.1 Aug-5-2013 342247 548819 Riffle 30.0 4.3 127.5 closed EF site Upunt 2 UPEFG2 1.5 Aug-6-2013 341966 5489709 Glide 9.2 5.8 53.4 closed EF site Upunt 3 UPEFR3 1.4 Aug-6-2013 342027 548974 Riffle 35.0 7.7 269.5 closed EF site Upunt 4 UPSNG1 1.94 Aug-7-2013 341978 5489711 Glide 77.0 20.0 1,540.0 open snorkel site Upunt 5 UPSNR2 1.84 Aug-7-2013 342074 5489757 Riffle 20.0 13.0 260.0 open snorkel site Upunt 6 UPSNG3 1.86 Aug-7-2013 342058 5489744 Glide 10.0 9.0 90.0 open snorkel site Upunt 7 UPSNP4 1.07 Aug-7-2013 342366 5490386 Pool 27.0 20.0 540.0 open snorkel site Upunt 8 UPSNP5 1.13 Aug-7-2013 342371 5490331 Pool 19.0 13.0 247.0 open snorkel site

Cruickshank 1 CKEFR1 6.0 Oct-11-2013 337479 5495353 Riffle 30.0 9.0 270.0 closed EF site Cruickshank 2 CKEFG2 1.6 Oct-12-2013 340288 5494036 Glide 34.0 5.6 190.4 closed EF site Cruickshank 3 CKEFR3 12.6 Oct-16-2013 333559 5502148 Riffle 14.0 4.1 57.4 closed EF site Cruickshank 4 CKEFG4 4.6 Oct-19-2013 337814 5494626 Glide 18.0 6.0 108.0 closed EF site Cruickshank 5 CKSNG1 5.36 Aug-09-2013 337593 5495176 Glide 95.0 25.2 2,394.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 6 CKSNP2 1.23 Aug-09-2013 340632 5494020 Pool 27.0 24.0 648.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 7 CKSNR3 1.24 Aug-09-2013 340614 5494002 Riffle 50.0 15.0 750.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 8 CKSNG4 0.98 Aug-09-2013 340840 5493998 Glide 250.0 16.0 4,000.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 9 CKSNG5 12.62 Aug-28-2013 335287 5501337 Glide 40.0 12.0 480.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 10 CKSNP6 8.59 Aug-28-2013 337032 5497947 Pool 6.0 13.0 78.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 11 CKSNG7 8.55 Aug-28-2013 337029 5497916 Glide 23.0 7.6 174.8 open snorkel site Cruickshank 12 CKSNG8 1.60 Oct-12-2013 340279 5494038 Glide 34.0 5.6 190.4 closed snorkel calibration swim Cruickshank 13 CKSNG9 10.92 Aug-22-2013 335906 5499887 Glide 17.0 13.0 221.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 14 CKSNR10 10.86 Aug-22-2013 335922 5499838 Riffle 22.0 20.3 446.6 open snorkel site Cruickshank 15 CKSNG11 4.46 Oct-18-2013 338046 5494644 Glide 120.0 12.0 1,440.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 16 CKSNG12 12.64 Oct-16-2013 335277 5501338 Glide 40.0 12.0 480.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 17 CKSNG13 4.60 Oct-19-2013 337811 5494626 Glide 18.0 6.0 108.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 18 CKSNG14 5.43 Aug-09-2013 337530 5495211 Glide 40.0 14.0 560.0 closed snorkel calibration swim Cruickshank 19 CKSNG15 5.55 Aug-09-2013 337514 5495252 Glide 70.0 20.0 1,400.0 open snorkel site Cruickshank 20 CKSNG16 12.62 Oct-16-2013 335286 5501333 Glide 40.0 12.0 480.0 closed snorkel calibration swim

Comox 1 CXEFG1 1.94 Oct-08-2013 337693 5492568 Glide 27.0 5.8 149.1 closed EF site Comox 2 CXEFG2 1.97 Oct-08-2013 337686 5492532 Glide 10.0 5.2 49.5 open EF site Comox 3 CXEFR3 2.58 Oct-08-2013 337766 5492094 Riffle 23.0 5.2 115.1 open EF site Comox 4 CXEFG4 4.58 Oct-09-2013 337483 5490309 Glide 14.5 5.5 79.8 closed EF site Comox 5 CXEFR5 4.90 Oct-09-2013 337436 5490311 Riffle 20.0 3.5 69.0 open EF site Comox 6 CXEFR6 5.15 Oct-10-2013 337368 5490082 Riffle 23.5 3.0 68.5 closed EF site Comox 7 CXSNG1 1.23 Aug-23-2013 337789 5493227 Glide 23.0 14.3 328.9 open snorkel site Comox 8 CXSNG2 1.16 Aug-23-2013 337810 5493294 Glide 38.0 8.3 315.4 open snorkel site Comox 9 CXSNP3 1.01 Aug-23-2013 337872 5493399 Pool 31.0 9.6 297.6 open snorkel site Comox 10 CXSNP4 3.66 Aug-23-2013 337644 5491080 Pool 13.0 14.0 182.0 open snorkel site Comox 11 CXSNR5 3.84 Oct-18-2013 337713 5490968 Riffle 58.0 12.0 696.0 open snorkel site Comox 12 CXSNR6 3.78 Oct-18-2013 337731 5491020 Riffle 53.0 8.0 424.0 open snorkel site

Rees 1 RCEFP1 3.61 Aug-08-2013 334202 5497039 Pool 30.0 11.2 336.0 closed EF site Rees 2 RCEFG2 1.30 Oct-07-2013 336253 5497324 Glide 16.0 13.3 212.8 closed EF site Rees 3 RCEFR3 1.31 Oct-07-2013 336262 5497345 Riffle 15.0 8.3 124.5 open EF site Rees 4 RCEFG4 1.27 Oct-17-2013 336222 5497303 Glide 13.0 3.2 41.6 closed EF site Rees 5 RCEFG9 3.62 Aug-08-2013 334231 5497046 Glide 10.0 1.0 10.0 open EF presence-absence site Rees 6 KWEFG1 3.43 Oct-17-2013 334428 5496849 Glide 11.0 8.2 90.2 open EF site - Kweishun Creek Rees 7 RCPSP5 3.53 Aug-08-2013 334181 5497045 Pool 4.0 3.0 12.0 pole seine - stranding site Rees 8 RCSNG6 3.52 Oct-18-2013 334166 5497042 Glide 11.0 7.0 77.0 open snorkel site Rees 9 RCSNP7 3.51 Oct-18-2013 334206 5497046 Pool 30.0 11.2 336.0 open snorkel site at Site 1 Rees 10 RCSNG8 1.12 Oct-18-2013 336418 5497332 Glide 70.0 11.0 770.0 open snorkel site Rees 11 RCVOP10 1.70 Oct-18-2013 335883 5497565 Pool 20.0 12.0 240.0 visual observation - wetlands

Eric 1 ECEFR1 4.3 Oct-13-2013 330479 5501604 Riffle 19.0 3.0 57.0 closed EF site Eric 2 ECEFR2 4.3 Oct-13-2013 330473 5501609 Riffle 34.0 2.0 68.0 open EF Eric 3 ECEFR3 0.8 Oct-14-2013 333559 5502148 Riffle 14.0 3.5 49.0 closed EF site Eric 4 ECEFG4 2.4 Oct-14-2013 332228 5501764 Glide 19.0 2.8 53.2 closed EF site Eric 5 ECSNP1 4.42 Oct-13-2013 330501 5501598 Pool 5.0 4.0 20.0 open snorkel site Eric 6 ECSNG2 4.43 Oct-13-2013 330486 5501601 Glide 20.0 7.0 140.0 open snorkel site Eric 7 ECSNP3 4.47 Oct-13-2013 330446 5501646 Pool 20.0 8.0 160.0 open snorkel site Eric 8 ECSNP4 4.42 Oct-13-2013 330505 5501598 Pool 5.0 5.0 25.0 open snorkel site Eric 9 ECSNR5 4.49 Oct-13-2013 330419 5501667 Riffle 5.0 4.0 20.0 open snorkel site

______mjl page 8 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Figure 2. Location and details of fish survey sites, Upper Puntledge River, Aug. 5-6, 2013.

______mjl page 9 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

4.12 Cruickshank River Four closed electrofishing sites and 13 snorkel sites were sampled for juvenile salmonid abundance in the Cruickshank River mainstem. In addition, 3 closed snorkel counts were done in the closed electrofishing sites for the purpose of snorkel sighting efficiency calibration. Four (20%) of all the sample sites were in riffle mesohabitat, 14 (70%) were in glide and 2 (10%) were in pool (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Location and details of fish survey sites, Cruickshank River, Oct. 11-19, 2013.

A total of 81 juveniles were captured and bio-sampled at the 4 closed electrofishing sites in the Cruickshank from October 11 - 19, 2013.

Sampling in Reach 1 (downstream of Rees Creek) found that usable rearing habitat was generally limited to a narrow edge along the margins due to the high current velocity in the riffle and glide habitat that dominate the reach. Snorkel surveys here found highly-clumped coho fry aggregations that were associated with LWD along the margins such as instream stumps or log jams, but a very low abundance along the long sweeping cobble bars, probably due to the lack of suitable cover. Sampling that over-represented the high densities in the LWD would be

______mjl page 10 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______misleading if the remainder of the areas were not included. We therefore attempted to avoid this by including entire mesohabitat units of this large stream where possible. We found that functioning LWD in this reach and overall coho fry abundance was generally low. For example, a snorkel survey of Site 8, a 250 m length of the mainstem found no juveniles of any species, despite a particularly close inspection of the margins along both sides of the river.

On August 9, snorkel survey Site 5 was done at the large glide where 43,750 coho were stocked in June. An estimated 1,100 coho remained in the long glide; most of which were in or near the single large rootwad along the edge of the stream. This proved to be by far the highest abundance of coho fry of all the Cruickshank snorkel surveys, but may not have been representative of the entire stream.

The side channel where 43,750 coho were released in June was sampled using closed-site electrofishing Site 4 on October 19. Despite the fact that the side channel was stocked beyond saturation levels, coho fry densities were found to be only moderate overall and were associated with LWD or cutbank cover.

4.13 Comox Creek Three closed electrofishing sites and 3 open electrofishing sites were sampled for juvenile salmonid abundance in Comox Creek. In addition, a total of 6 open snorkel sites were surveyed. Five (42%) of these were in riffle, 5 (42%) were in glide and 2 (16%) were in pool mesohabitat (Figure 4).

Site 4, a closed electrofishing site was a high-quality rearing site with excellent flow and cover characteristics but was not representative of the typical habitat in Comox Creek. It was selected to test the fish densities that were present in high-quality habitat, even though such habitat was limited in Comox Creek.

A total of 69 juveniles were captured and bio-sampled at the 6 electrofishing sites in Comox Creek (Appendix 2).

______mjl page 11 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Figure 4. Location and details of fish survey sites, Comox Creek, Aug. 23 - Oct. 18, 2013.

______mjl page 12 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

4.14 Rees Creek Three closed electrofishing sites, 3 open electrofishing sites and 3 snorkel sites were surveyed for juvenile salmonid abundance in Rees Creek. In addition, a pole-seine was used to sample an isolated off-channel pool with stranded hatchery coho fry, and visual observations were used to assess juvenile abundance in an off-channel wetland because other methods were not appropriate for such conditions. One (9%) of the sites was in riffle, 6 (54%) were in glide and 4 (36%) were in pool mesohabitat (Figure 5).

Field observations at Site 11, the off-channel wetland (Appendix 1, Photo 3) noted that most coho fry tended to move along the shoreline with its overhead vegetation cover. Visual counts of the fry were therefore quantified in terms of fry per meter of edge habitat. Air photo imagery, available on Google Earth was used to measure the length of the edge habitat at the wetland, which resulted an estimate of 1,800 m of edge habitat at the site.

Figure 5. Location and details of fish survey sites, Rees Creek, Aug. 8 - Oct. 18, 2013.

A total of 49 juveniles were captured and bio-sampled at the 6 electrofishing sites in Rees Creek and Kweishun Creek combined. A sampling anomaly was encountered at Site 1 which was a premium pool habitat that was enclosed and electrofished on August 8, 2013. Surprisingly, no salmonids were captured or even observed, despite the capture of moderate numbers of cottids.

______mjl page 13 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

When the same site was snorkeled on October 18, 2013 a count of 104 coho fry (some with adipose clips) were counted. A possible explanation for the inconsistent findings is that clipped coho fry that were salvaged from an off-channel stranding site were released into Rees Creek approximately 50 m upstream of the site after electrofishing the site on August 8 when no fish were found, but prior to sampling again on October 18 when coho were observed. Site 1 was located about 200 m downstream of the release site of 50,000 coho in June.

Site 5 was an open electrofishing site that was opportunistically sampled while searching for emerging trout fry in August. The site was essentially a ‘spot-sample’ only to establish presence or absence and was excluded from fish abundance calculations. Unbuttoned trout fry were captured at the site, indicating that fry emergence was not yet complete by August 8.

4.15 Eric Creek Three closed electrofishing sites, 2 open electrofishing sites and 4 snorkel sites were sampled for juvenile salmonid abundance in Eric Creek. Four (44%) of the sites were in riffle, 2 (22%) were in glide and 3 (33%) were in pool mesohabitat (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Location and details of fish survey sites, Eric Creek, Oct. 13-14, 2013.

______mjl page 14 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Site 3 is representative of Reach 1 and Site 4 is representative of the lower half of of Reach 2. Note that Site 4 is between the two 2013 hatchery coho release sites into Eric Creek and Site 3 was approximately 1.5 km downstream. The remaining sites are representative of upper R2 which goes up to the falls that are a barrier to anadromous fish.

A total of 64 juveniles were captured and sampled at the 5 electrofishing sites in Eric Creek.

4.2 Age and Growth Biological data from the Cruickshank River, Comox, Rees and Eric creeks were pooled to provide a more robust data set for age and growth analysis. This data was analyzed separately from the Upper Puntledge River because the fish habitat and growth conditions in the two watersheds are markedly different. The Cruickshank watershed is generally higher gradient with cold water temperatures during a relatively brief summer growth period due to the glacier- fed streams in the headwaters. The Upper Puntledge River is lower gradient stream with comparatively warmer water temperature and a longer growth period due to the lake-headed nature of the river.

A second reason for a separate analysis of the two watersheds is that the Upper Puntledge River was sampled in early August while most sampling in the Cruickshank watershed was done during early to mid-October to allow for the unusually late fry emergence. The juveniles sampled from the Upper Puntledge and Cruickshank watersheds were therefore sampled approximately 2 months apart and required separate analysis since the Upper Puntledge samples were collected earlier and were generally smaller fish.

Modal peaks in the frequency distributions of fork lengths by species and size groups were used to identify year classes in the sampled population. A subset of 30 scale samples taken from juveniles captured at various electrofishing sites were used to validate the age determinations. Of these, 14 were from cutthroat trout, 13 were from Dolly Varden and 3 were from rainbow trout (Appendix 6). Age determination from Dolly Varden scales can be unreliable; therefore Dolly Varden age was derived primarily from modal peaks in the length frequency distribution.

4.2.1 Age and Growth - Upper Puntledge River Coho fry, trout fry, cutthroat trout parr and rainbow trout parr were captured in the 3 electrofishing sites in the Upper Puntledge. Cottids were also abundant at all of the sites. Lengths and weights were recorded for a representative number of the cottids, after which they were only counted or noted in terms of relative abundance.

Due to the large size of the Upper Puntledge River, the 3 closed electrofishing sites were either edge sites along the margin of the stream or a netted-off side channel of the stream. Fish that were captured during the sampling in the Upper Puntledge were primarily coho fry and trout fry. All sampled coho were 0+ fry, but analysis from the ratio of marked hatchery fish found that the population was made up of both wild coho fry and stocked coho fry from the Puntledge Hatchery.

As is typical of such edge and margin sites, only 4 trout parr (cutthroat and rainbow trout) were captured. Three (75%) of the 4 were rainbow trout and the remaining one parr (25%) was a cutthroat trout. No Dolly Varden were sampled in the Upper Puntledge River. Length frequqncy distributions of each species are plotted in Figure 7 and length-weight data of the sampled juveniles are summarized in Table 2. Four age groups of trout were sampled at the sites.

______mjl page 15 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Length Frequency Distribution - Coho 5

1 Number of Fish (n=51)

0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Fork Length (mm)

Length Frequency Distribution - Trout Fry 5

1 Number Fish of (n=17)

0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Fork Length (mm)

Length Frequency Distribution - Ct and Rb Parr 3 Ct Parr (n=1) Rb Parr (n=3) 2

1 Number of Fish

0 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 Fork Length (mm)

Figure 7. Length frequency distribution of coho fry (top), trout fry (middle) and cutthroat and rainbow trout parr (bottom) sampled at electrofishing sites in the Upper Puntledge River, August 5-7, 2013.

______mjl page 16 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 2. Summary of sampled fork length and weight from trout and coho juveniles captured at 3 closed EF sites, Upper Puntledge River, Aug 5-6, 2013.

Co Fry Tr Fry Ct 1+ Rb 1+ Rb 2+ Rb 3+ FL (mm) Wt (g) FL (mm) Wt (g) FL (mm) Wt (g) FL (mm) Wt (g) FL (mm) Wt (g) FL (mm) Wt (g) Mean 58.9 2.7 47.7 1.2 96.0 9.3 120.0 20.0 143.0 35.8 172.0 83.0 SD 11.8 1.4 9.2 0.9 - - - - 16.3 11.2 ------Max 81.0 6.4 75.0 4.6 96.0 9.3 120.0 20.0 143.0 35.8 172.0 83.0 Min 39.0 0.5 36.0 0.5 96.0 9.3 120.0 20.0 143.0 35.8 172.0 83.0 n 51 51 20 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4.2.2 Age and Growth – Cruickshank Watershed Coho fry, trout fry, cutthroat trout parr, rainbow trout parr, Dolly Varden fry and parr were captured in the 19 closed and open electrofishing sites throughout the Cruickshank watershed. Cottids were also captured at most sites.

Relatively few trout/char parr were captured in electrofishing samples, despite the number of sample sites. This is not unusual in higher gradient streams such as those sampled in the Cruickshank watershed, since it is difficult to effectively electrofish the deeper, faster portion of the streams that parr typically utilize. Length frequency distributions for each of the sampled species are plotted in Figure 8. Length and weight data from the juveniles sampled at the 3 closed electrofishing sites in the Cruickshank watershed are summarized in Table 3.

The average weight of clipped (hatchery) coho fry sampled in the Cruickshank watershed during October 7-19, 2013 was 5.75 g (n=22, s=2.06).

______mjl page 17 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Length Frequency Distribution - Coho Length Frequency Distribution - Trout Fry 12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2 Number of Fish (n = 110) Number Fish of =(n 119)

0 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

Length Frequency Distribution - Ct 1+ Length Frequency Distribution Dolly Varden Fry and Parr 2.5 10 9 2 8 7 1.5 6 5 1 4 3 0.5 2 Number Fish of (n = 83) Number Fish of =(n 110) 1 0 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

Figure 8. Length frequency distribution of coho, trout and Dolly Varden juveniles sampled at electrofishing sites in the Cruickshank watershed, Aug. 8 - Oct. 19, 2013.

______mjl page 21 Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 3. Summary of sampled fork length and weights from trout, coho and Dolly Varden juveniles captured at 21 electrofishing sites throughout the Cruickshank River watershed, Oct 7- 19, 2013. Co Fry Tr Fry Ct 1+ Dv 0+ Dv 1+ Dv 2+ Dv 3+ FL Wt FL Wt FL Wt FL Wt FL Wt FL Wt FL Wt Mean 71.4 4.6 52.6 1.8 86.8 6.6 53.7 1.6 83.0 6.1 115.8 17.0 157.0 42.1 SD 10.0 1.9 8.3 0.9 9.9 2.6 5.7 0.6 5.9 1.5 9.4 3.9 - - - - Max 93.0 11.2 67.0 7.0 105.0 12.1 65.0 3.0 96.0 9.5 130.0 21.8 157.0 42.1 Min 52.0 1.4 30.0 0.5 74.0 3.9 40.0 0.5 72.0 3.9 102.0 12.1 157.0 42.1 n 119 119 98 95 12 12 50 23 9 1

Several differences were apparent between the species distribution and age of fish in the Upper Puntledge River and the Cruickshank watershed. One example was the large 2+ and 3+ trout parr that were sampled in Upper Puntledge but not in the Cruickshank. This is likely a sampling artifact, perhaps due to the larger parr using the faster water in the Cruickshank that we were unable to electrofish. Snorkel observations found an abundance of 2+ and 3+ trout parr in the reaches of the Cruickshank mainstem upstream of Rees Creek.

No Dolly Varden were sampled in the Upper Puntledge while four age groups of Dolly Varden (0+, 1+, 2+ and 3+) were sampled in the Cruickshank watershed, with the highest densities noted in headwaters of Comox, Rees and Eric Creeks. This supports previous studies showing that Dolly Varden production comes primarily from the colder, higher gradient headwaters of the Cruickshank watershed. In Rees Creek 78 Dolly Varden redds were counted in a 2001 survey, while there was no indication of Dolly Varden spawning in the Cruickshank mainstem downstream of Rees Creek (Lough et al., 2003).

Coho fry and trout fry were larger in size in the Cruickshank sample than the Upper Puntledge sample because the Upper Puntledge was sampled in early August, about 2 months earlier than the Cruickshank that was sampled in early October. If sampled at the same time, the coho fry would be expected to be a similar size. The trout fry however were expected to be larger in the Upper Puntledge due to an earlier emergence and rapid growth in the warmer system. Russell (1990) reviewed BC Hydro spot water temperature data for the Cruickshank River over 5 years and found that the temperatures ranged from 0 oC to 12.5 oC (mean 6.5 oC, n=22, s=3.7). The growth period, in water temperatures greater than 7 oC was approximately 150 days in the Cruickshank, which was calculated to result in an annual trout growth rate of 50 mm. The warmer Puntledge River was estimated to have a growth period of 165 days with a greater annual growth rate of 56 mm.

4.3 Sampled Juvenile Densities Juvenile salmonid densities were sampled at the mesohabitat level during the late summer of 2013 using closed-site electrofishing at 17 sites throughout the Cruickshank watershed and the Upper Puntledge River. Raw densities were adjusted using the hydraulic suitability data from flow metering at each site to reflect the density in the hydraulically suitable (usable) portion of the site Findings at the mesohabitat scale were then used to consider the broader implications at the reach and ultimately at the watershed scale. This assumed that our selection of mesohabitat types in the sample is representative of the habitat composition for each reach and each stream. ______mjl page 22

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Fish densities varied widely between sample sites but when stream averages were compared, the highest mean densities of coho fry were found in Rees Creek (54.7 FPU) and the Upper Puntledge River (44.8 FPU)(Table 4). The 2 streams are very different and they do not seem to be likely matches in terms of habitat quality for coho fry. The lower gradient and warmer water temperatures of the Upper Puntledge seem suitable for coho fry but the higher gradient, cold and less productive Rees Creek does not at first glance seemed to be high-quality coho stream. However, a narrow edge of usable habitat exists along the margins with abundant cutbank, overhead vegetation and woody debris to increase the quality of the usable habitat along the edges. Such was generally not the case in the remainder of the Cruickshank watershed.

Average trout fry densities were highest in Comox Creek (43.6 FPU) and Rees Creek (26.2 FPU) which are both known to be major spawning streams for the cutthroat trout population in Comox Lake. Griffith (1995) also found that trout fry densities were highest in these streams, although Comox Creek (91 FPU) and Rees Creek (66 FPU) had slightly higher densities in the Griffith study than the current 2013 samples.

4.4 Sampled Density vs. Theoretical Maximum Capability The sampled juvenile density at each closed electrofishing site was compared to the theoretical maximum density as predicted using the productivity based model (Total Alkalinity Model) developed by Ptolemy (1993), with upgraded modifications provided by Ptolemy (Pers. Comm.). The predicted maximum densities were calculated with inputs of total alkalinity and average mean weight by size class. Total alkalinity was estimated from water quality samples collected at each stream. The model is as follows, where, ALK = Mean Total Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3) from all sites combined; FPU = Fish Per Unit (Unit = 100 m2):

0.6 Trout/Char: FPUmax = 35 * (ALK) / Size (g) 0.6 Coho: FPUmax = 70 * (ALK) / Size (g)

Since the model derives the maximum capability in biomass using the input of total alkalinity data from each stream, the maximum capability varied with alkalinity levels between streams.

Trout and char fry of the same age/size group were combined so that the biomass of cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden fry were a single group referred to as trout/char fry (T/C 0+). Trout and char parr were similarly combined into trout/char 1+ and 2+ groups, but coho fry were handled as a separate and distinct analysis. Sampled fish densities of coho fry, combined trout/char fry and 1+ parr at each site were compared with fish densities at the theoretical maximum capability (Table 5). Similar comparisons were not included for the 2+ and 3+ trout parr due to the low number of captures in the electrofishing sites. Sampled fish densities per unit of usable habitat at the sample sites in each stream were compared to the maximum capability for the 5 study streams in Figures 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

In general, the sampled densities of coho fry and all trout juveniles were considerably lower than the predicted capability of the streams. It was concluded from the productivity modeling, hydraulic suitability and snorkel observations of fish behaviour that the quality of the fish habitat was generally low and not of the high-quality needed to achieve the theoretical maximum capability of the sites. Contributing factors for this reduced habitat quality include the generally high current velocities in the study streams and the generally low abundance of cover in the usable fish habitat. For coho, the general shortage of cover was primarily due to limited functional LWD, cutbank and overhead vegetation. For trout, the shortage of cover was primarily due to the generally small particle size of the substrate.

______mjl page 23

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 4. Summary of adjusted juvenile fish density (FPU) by species and age at closed electrofishing sites, 2013.

Adjusted Density (FPU) a Stream/Section Site Reach Co0+ Tr0+ Ct1+ Rb1+ Rb2+ Dv0+ Dv1+

Cruickshank River 1 1 0.7 12.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.5 2 1 43.2 4.8 0.7 1.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 3 4 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 4 1 36.4 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Mean 20.1 8.2 1.4 0.5 0.0 1.9 1.4

Comox Creek 1 1 0.0 22.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2 0.0 80.6 4.1 0.0 0.0 22.6 10.2 6 2 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean 0.0 43.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 7.5 3.4

Rees Creek 1 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1 13.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 4 1 79.6 95.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.8 0.0 Kweishun Creek 6 2 125.9 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 Mean 54.7 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0

Eric Creek 1 2 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 12.3 3 1 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 16.0 4 2 43.3 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 54.2 Mean 18.3 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 27.5

Upper Puntledge River 1 2 102.3 27.3 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 2 1 8.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 1 24.1 22.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean 44.8 18.9 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0

 FPU (fish per unit), where a unit = 100 m2

______mjl page 24

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 5. Summary of adjusted fish density (FPU) compared to theoretical maximum capability at closed electrofishing sites, 2013.

Adjusted Density (FPU) a Percent of Maximum Capability Stream/Section Site Reach Co 0+ T/C 0+ T/C 1+ T/C 2+ Co 0+ T/C 0+ T/C 1+ T/C 2+

Cruickshank River 1 1 0.7 17.8 8.4 0.0 1% 19% 31% 0.0 2 1 43.2 4.8 3.8 0.0 72% 4% 14% 0.0 3 4 0.0 12.6 5.6 0.0 0% 13% 0% 0.0 4 1 36.4 5.5 0.0 0.0 36% 6% 0% 0.0 Mean 20.1 10.2 4.4 0.0 27% 11% 11% 0.0

Comox Creek 1 1 0.0 22.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 24% 4% 0.0 4 2 0.0 98.7 10.3 0.0 0.0 102% 57% 0.0 6 2 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 28% 0.0 0.0 Mean 0.0 49.6 3.9 0.0 0.0 51% 20% 0.0

Rees Creek 1 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1 13.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 19% 3% 0.0 0.0 4 1 79.6 138.5 0.0 0.0 114% 111% 0.0 0.0 Kweishun Creek 6 2 125.9 28.8 0.0 0.0 180% 23% 0.0 0.0 Mean 54.7 42.9 0.0 0.0 78% 34% 0.0 0.0

Eric Creek 1 2 0.0 32.1 37.8 0.0 0.0 27% 135% 0.0 3 1 11.7 12.0 15.3 0.0 13% 10% 59% 0.0 4 2 43.3 42.1 36.1 0.0 57% 35% 94% 0.0 Mean 18.3 28.7 29.7 0.0 23% 24% 96% 0.0

Upper Puntledge River 1 2 102.3 27.3 2.3 1.1 63% 12% 11% 20% 2 1 8.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 5% 3% 0% 0.0 3 1 24.1 22.5 1.3 0.0 15% 10% 6% 0.0 Mean 44.8 18.9 1.2 0.4 28% 8% 6% 7%

 FPU (fish per unit), where a unit = 100 m2

______mjl page 25

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Adjusted T/C 0+ Density Closed EF Sites, Cruickshank River, 2013 120

100 Predicted Max Capability

Adjusted FPU Adjusted 40

0 1 2 3 4 Site #

Adjusted T/C 1+ Densitiy Closed EF Sites,Cruickshank River, 2013 25

20 Predicted Max Capability

10 Adjusted FPU Adjusted

0 1 2 3 4 Site #

Adjusted Co 0+ Density Closed EF Sites, Cruickshank River, 2013 100

80 Predicted Max Capability

40 Adjusted FPU Adjusted

0 1 2 3 4 Site #

Figure 9. Adjusted fish densities (FPU) of sampled trout and char fry (T/C 0+), parr (T/C 1+) and coho fry (Co 0+), compared to the predicted maximum density at closed electrofishing sites, Cruickshank River, 2013. ______mjl page 26

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Adjusted T/C 0+ Abundance, Closed EF Sites on Comox Creek, 2013

150

100 Predicted Max Capability

Adjusted FPU 50

0 1 4 6 Site #

Adjudted T/C 1+ Abundance, Closed EF Sites, Comox Creek, 2013 40

30 Predicted Max Capability

20 Adjusted FPU

0 1 4 6 Site #

Adjusted Co 0+ Abundance , Closed EF Sites, Comox Creek, 2013 120

100

Adjusted FPU 40

0 1 4 6 Site #

Figure 10. Adjusted fish densities (FPU) of sampled trout and char fry (T/C 0+), parr (T/C 1+) and coho fry (Co 0+), compared to the predicted maximum density at closed electrofishing sites, Comox Creek, 2013. No coho fry were captured at Comox Creek. ______mjl page 27

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Adjusted T/C 0+ Density Closed EF Sites, Rees Creek, 2013 200

150 Predicted Max Capability

100 Adjusted FPU

0 1 2 4 6 Site

Adjusted T/C 1+ Density Closed EF Sites, Rees Creek, 2013

Adjusted FPU 10

0 1 2 4 6 Site

Adjusted Co 0+ Density Closed EF Sites, Rees Creek 2013

150

120

60 Adjusted FPU

0 1 2 4 6 Site

Figure 11. Adjusted fish densities (FPU) of sampled trout and char fry (T/C 0+), parr (T/C 1+) and coho fry (Co 0+), compared to the predicted maximum density at closed electrofishing sites, Rees Creek, 2013. ______mjl page 28

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Adjusted T/C 0+ Density Closed EF Sites, Eric Creek, 2013 140

120 Predicted Max Capability 100

Adjusted FPU 80

0 1 3 4 Site

Adjusted T/C 1+ Density Closed EF Sites, Eric Creek, 2013 50

40 Predicted Max Capability 30 FPU 20

0 1 3 4 Site

Adjusted Co 0+ Density Closed EF Sites, Eric Creek, 2013 100 Predicted Max Capability

50 FPU

0 1 3 4 Site

Figure 12. Adjusted fish densities (FPU) of sampled trout and char fry (T/C 0+), parr (T/C 1+) and coho fry (Co 0+), compared to the predicted maximum density at closed electrofishing sites, Eric Creek, 2013.

______mjl page 29

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Adjusted T/C 0+ Density Closed EF Sites, Upper Puntledge River, 2013 250 Predicted Max Capability

200

150

Adjusted FPU 100

0 1 2 3 Site

Adjusted T/C 1+ Density Closed EF sites, Upper Puntledge River, 2013 25

Predicted Max Capability 15

10 Adjusted FPU Adjusted

0 1 2 3 Site

Adjusted Co 0+ Density Closed EF Sites, Upper Puntledge River, 2013 200 Predicted Max Capability

150

100 Adjusted FPU Adjusted

0 1 2 3 Site

Figure 13. Adjusted fish densities (FPU) compared to the predicted maximum density of trout and char combined (T/C by age group) and coho fry (Co 0+) at closed electrofishing sites, Upper Puntledge River, 2013.

______mjl page 30

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

4.4.1 Coho Sampling in 2013 found that the average density of coho fry did not exceed 28% of the theoretical maximum capability in any stream except Rees Creek. Rees Creek stood out from the other streams with an average coho fry density that was 78% of the predicted maximum capability. This was due mainly to sample sites which, unlike other streams in the Cruickshank watershed, had high quality habitat that included abundant LWD and overhead vegetation cover along the narrow band of usable habitat along the edge of the stream.

Griffith (1995) reported a higher range of sampled coho density when compared to theoretical capability. He reported that no coho were sampled in Comox Creek while Rees Creek and the Cruickshank River sites were all below 40% capability (with the exception of 1 outlier site in the lower Cruickshank that was 597% of maximum capability). Griffith also reported densities in Eric Creek that exceed the theoretical maximum capability by approximately 60% overall, compared to the 2013 sampling that found average densities that were 23% of the theoretical maximum. The reason for the differences between sample results in 1995 and 2013 were not clear, but the 2013 sample sites were selected to represent the generally low quality habitat with swift current velocities and, in Reach 2 with limited cover due primarily to the limited functional LWD, cutbank and vegetation cover.

Griffith (1995) also found that coho densities in the Upper Puntledge were 203% of the predicted capability while the 2013 sampling found densities that were 28% of the theoretical maximum. Griffith explained that with the exception of one extreme outlier site (749%), the coho densities were actually 60% of the theoretical maximum; closer to the levels sampled in 2013.

A heavy presence of Didymo was encountered during the juvenile sampling in the Upper Puntledge in 2013. The benthic diatom caused large-scale changes to the juvenile rearing habitat by smothering the substrate with a thick matt of growth that covered the substrate and reduced the effectiveness of electrofishing. Low densities of coho fry from electrofishing samples be partly related to the difficulties with sampling sites with a heavy Didymo presence since they contrasted with much higher counts from snorkel surveys in deeper, slower sites that could not be electrofished. Snorkel counts at 5 premium quality sites in the Upper Puntledge River found a high abundance of coho fry.

While the effects of Didymo upon juvenile rearing habitat were not addressed in this study, it is possible that a reduced habitat quality may be related to the lower density of juvenile coho fry in the electrofishing sites. Griffith (1995) makes no mention of Didymo in the Upper Puntledge during his sampling in 1994.

4.4.2 Trout Sampling in 2013 found that trout/char fry densities were generally well below the theoretical maximum, ranging from 8% (Upper Puntledge River) to 51% (Comox Creek) of the theoretical maximum capability. This is consistent with findings from Russell (1990) who reported densities of 16% to 33% of maximum capability, and from Griffith (1995) who reported densities of 6% to 55% maximum capability from all streams except Comox Creek, where densities were reported to be 205% of the maximum capability. Griffith did not provide an explanation for the high sampled densities of trout fry in Comox Creek.

______mjl page 31

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Sampling in 2013 found that there were some exceptions to the generally low trout densities, such as the T/C 0+ densities at Comox Creek Site 4 and Rees Creek Site 4. Site-specific field interpretations of these findings are as follows:

 Comox Site 4, with its unusually high habitat quality was not representative of Comox Creek. This premium site was selected to determine whether or not fish density at a high-quality site approached the theoretical maximum capability. The sample found that the fish densities were very near the predicted maximum density.  Rees Creek Site 4 was representative of the stream but due to the fast current velocity and the small substrate size in the channel, the fish were confined to a very narrow edge of usable habitat along the margin of the stream. The resulting population estimate is very sensitive when using such a small usable width, and in this case may have over- represented the fish population from the 3 trout fry captured at the site.

In 2013 no trout/char 1+ parr were sampled from Rees Creek and densities in the Upper Puntledge River, Cruickshank River and Comox Creek were also low, ranging from 6% to 20% of the theoretical maximum density. Eric Creek however, had densities that were 96% of the theoretical maximum, similar to those reported by Griffith (1995). In both studies, Dolly Varden parr accounted for most of the biomass in Eric Creek, where this species appeared to dominate the less abundant cutthroat trout and rainbow trout parr.

The 2+ and 3+ trout/char parr are larger than the fry and therefore able to occupy habitat in the faster water that is not easily sampled using closed-site electrofishing. No trout/char parr were captured at electrofishing sites in the Cruickshank watershed; therefore no information was available to comment on their overall densities. Snorkel surveys however, found high levels of trout parr production in Reaches 2, 3 and 4 of the Cruickshank River.

Other than the exceptions discussed above, overall juvenile densities throughout the study area were lower than the predicted capability of the sites. At several sites, juveniles were absent altogether. Snorkel observations of habitat use showed that the fish habitat was generally lower than the high-quality habitat that would be needed to achieve the theoretical maximum capability of the sites. Contributing factors for this appear to include first, the generally fast current velocities in these higher gradient streams that limits the amount of suitable rearing habitat and second, inadequate cover for juvenile rearing. For trout and char in many but not all reaches, the shortage of cover was often related to the limited size and abundance of large particles in the substrate to provide cover and pockets of reduced current velocity across the stream channel.

4.5 Standing Stock Estimates Derived from Snorkel Surveys Calibrated snorkel surveys were used to sample juvenile abundance at 35 representative sites throughout the study area (Table 6). The snorkel survey sites complimented the electrofishing data by providing a ‘big picture’ of fish populations and habitat use throughout the watershed and were especially useful for assessing fish distribution across the full channel width of the larger streams with faster, deeper water where closed site electrofishing was not possible. Snorkel survey sites were generally larger than the closed electrofishing sites which often provided a larger and more representative picture at the mesohabitat scale, particularly when counts were extended to represent the entire reach (Table 7).

______mjl page 32

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 6. Summary of juvenile fish abundance (fish per meter streamlength) at snorkel survey sites during 2013.

Calibrated Fish per Meter of Streamlength Stream/Meso Site Reach Co 0+ T/C 0+ T/C 1+ T/C 2+ T/C 3+

Cruickshank River G 5 1 11.58 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 P 6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R 7 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 8 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 9 4 0.40 0.69 0.32 0.31 0.28 P 10 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.42 G 11 2 0.00 0.43 0.19 0.05 0.05 G 12 1 2.53 0.29 0.08 0.00 0.00 G 13 3 0.00 0.29 1.01 1.10 0.15 R 14 3 0.00 0.11 0.39 0.63 0.11 G 15 1 2.33 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.00 G 16 4 0.00 0.13 0.29 0.13 0.00 G 17 1 1.33 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 18 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 19 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 20 4 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00

Comox Creek G 7 1 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 8 1 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 9 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 10 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R 11 2 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 R 12 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rees Creek G 8 1 3.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 9 1 5.20 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 10 1 3.93 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eric Creek P 5 2 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.25 0.00 G 6 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 P 7 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 8 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R 9 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Upper Puntledge River G 4 2 8.95 1.43 0.02 0.00 0.00 R 5 2 13.07 1.38 1.78 0.13 0.00 G 6 2 8.45 1.25 0.30 0.70 0.00 P 7 1 20.99 0.56 0.05 0.00 0.00 P 8 1 11.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

______mjl page 33

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 7. Summary of average fish abundance (fish/m streamlength) at study streams, derived primarily from calibrated snorkel surveys in 2013.

Observed Fish per Meter Stream 2013 * Stream/Section Co 0+ T/C 0+ T/C 1+ T/C 2+ T/C 3+

Cruickshank River Comox L. To Rees C. 1.98 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 Rees C. To Eric C. 0.04 0.26 0.33 0.45 0.15

Comox Creek mean all sites 0.05 0.01

Rees Creek mean all sites 4.70 0.04 0.00

Eric Creek mean Reach 1** 0.29 0.43 0.57 mean lower Reach 2** 0.63 0.74 0.63 mean upper Reach 2 0.03 0.02 0.02

Upper Puntledge River mean Reach 1 16.07 0.28 0.03 0.00 mean Reach 2 10.15 1.35 0.48 0.25

* calibrated **no snorkel sites; substituted EF fish/m data

______mjl page 34

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Since flow metering data was not collected at most of the snorkel sites, fish counts were not adjusted to account for the hydraulic suitability across the wetted width at each site. Instead of fish per unit area of usable habitat, fish abundance was expressed as fish per meter of streamlength (fish/m) as determined from the length of the sample site. Field observations support this approach since the fry and small parr were generally restricted to the slower current velocities and cover along the margins of the streams, with the stream width often having little influence on their abundance along the length of the sample sites. The linear fish abundance data (fish/m) was used to extend the sample data along the total length of the reach and ultimately to estimate the 2013 juvenile standing stock by species and age in each stream. For this, reaches of the study streams were pooled into larger areas according to similar overall fish habitat. The Cruickshank River was pooled according to general habitat characteristics as follows:

 Comox Lake to Rees Creek: long, sweeping glide sequences with lower gradient cobble/gravel bars, unstable occasionally confined channel, and generally small particle substrate composed of cobble and gravel that afforded limited cover for juveniles.  Rees Creek to Eric Creek: short riffle/glide sequences with steeper canyon bedrock and boulder substrate, frequently confined channel and generally large particle substrate composed of boulder and cobble that afforded good cover for parr-sized juveniles.

Juvenile coho and trout standing stock estimates for 2013 were calculated for each area by applying the average fish/m count from the pooled sample sites to the remainder of the section’s streamlength. The totals by stream are summarized in Table 8.

The largest 2013 coho fry standing stocks in the study area were in Upper Puntledge River (47,500), Rees Creek (23,000) and Cruickshank River (16,900)(Figure 14). Surveys in the Cruickshank River found that almost the entire standing stock of coho fry was downstream of Rees Creek. Comox Creek did not support a standing stock of coho fry.

The largest standing stock of trout/char fry was Reach 2 of the Upper Puntledge River (Figure 15). This reach is also the site of heavy trout spawning activity with 450 trout redds counted during our surveys in 2011. No Dolly Varden fry were observed in the Upper Puntledge River. The next largest standing stock of trout/char fry was found in Eric Creek, although most of these fry were Dolly Varden. By far the largest standing stock of trout/char parr was in Reach 2, 3 and 4 of the Cruickshank River; the section downstream of Eric Creek but upstream of Rees Creek. These reaches had generally higher gradients with large particle size (boulder cobble) and riffle/glide sequences that provided high-quality parr rearing habitat, primarily for 1+, 2+ and 3+ trout, and also for Dolly Varden parr. Eric Creek also had a large standing stock of parr which in this case was dominated by Dolly Varden.

______mjl page 35

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 8. Estimated 2013 juvenile standing stock derived from calibrated snorkel counts.

Standing Stock Stream/Section Co 0+ T/C 0+ T/C 1+ T/C 2+ T/C 3+

Cruickshank River Comox L. To Rees C. 16,590 604 173 12 0 Rees C. To Eric C. 267 1,884 1,828 2,946 1,325 Total 16,857 2,487 2,001 2,959 1,325

Comox Creek mean all sites 0 330 56 0 0 Total 0 330 56 0 0 Rees Creek mean all sites 23,044 190 0 0 0 Total 23,044 190 0 0 0

Eric Creek mean Reach 1 457 686 914 0 0 mean lower Reach 2** 1,263 1,474 1,263 0 0 mean upper Reach 2 0 1,253 537 110 110 Total 1,720 3,412 2,714 110 110 Upper Puntledge River mean Reach 1 24,109 417 40 0 0 mean Reach 2 23,355 3,108 1,109 575 0 Total 47,464 3,524 1,149 575 0 **no snorkel sites; substituted EF fish/m data

______mjl page 36

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Coho Fry Standing Stock 2013 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2013 Standing Standing 2013 Stock 0

Figure 14. Estimated late-summer standing stock of coho fry at study streams in 2013.

Trout/Char Standing Stock 2013 3,500 T/C 0+ T/C 1+ T/C 2+ T/C 3+ 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000

2013 Standing Standing 2013 Stock 500 0

Figure 15. Estimated 2013 late-summer standing stock of trout and char (combined) at study streams. ______mjl page 37

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

4.6 Trout Fry Recruitment from Redd Counts We examined Comox Creek, Rees Creek and the Upper Puntledge River to address the following questions:

i) was the cutthroat trout spawning escapement in 2013 adequate to fully stock the available fry rearing habitat in each stream? ii) how did the observed fry abundance from our 2013 juvenile sampling compare to the predicted fry abundance from our cutthroat redd counts earlier in 2013?

As part of a stewardship initiative in 2011 and 2013, the Courtenay Fish and Game Protective Association funded a series of snorkel surveys to investigate cutthroat trout spawning in the Upper Puntledge River, Comox Creek and Rees Creek (Lough et al. 2011, Lough 2014). Those studies counted the number of cutthroat trout redds in a roughly 2.5 km long index site that was established in each stream.

To answer the first question (above), we used cutthroat trout biostandards (Appendix 11) to calculate the total number of eggs in the gravel from the redd counts, their survival to fry and therefore the total fry production at the index sites in each of the 3 streams. Habitat data described by Russell (1990) (Appendix 5) was used to calculate the amount of usable fry habitat (WUA) at the 3 index sites. The number of fry needed to fill that habitat was estimated using the Total Alkalinity Model (Ptolemy 1993) to predict the maximum capability for each of the 3 index sites. The number of fry derived from the redd count was then compared to the maximum capability of the site as predicted using the model.

Findings indicate that the predicted fry production from the 2013 redd counts from the spring was more than adequate to fill the available fry habitat at the index sites in Comox (148% of predicted capability) and Rees (114% of predicted capability) creeks, but not in the Upper Puntledge River (40% predicted capability) (Figure 16). However, the calculations did not consider the fry production from an additional 450 trout redds immediately upstream of the Upper Puntledge index site noted in an earlier study (Lough et al., 2011) which most likely saturated the Upper Puntledge fry habitat.

To address the second question (above), biostandards were again used to estimate the total number of eggs and their survival to fry at the index sites in each of the 3 streams. We then compared this predicted 2013 fry abundance with our 2013 sampling (electrofishing) results from each of the 3 streams. The comparison assumed that the emerged fry from the enumerated redds remained in the index site until our late summer electrofishing sample period, and that the average survival rates as implied by the biostandards were suitable for the 2013 brood.

The results show that the late summer fry density in all 3 index sites was well below the predicted density based on the observed number of redds in the streams (Figure 17). Population estimates at the closed electrofishing sites found that average trout fry densities in the index sites were 21% (Upper Puntledge), 31% (Comox Creek) and 25% (Rees Creek) of the predicted capability at the sites (see Sect. 4.4). This suggests that the quality of the rearing habitat was lower than the premium quality that was needed to achieve the maximum predicted levels of density. In Comox and Rees creeks, with the exception of the few optimum sites where the predicted maximum fry densities were observed, the swift current velocities and limited cover related to small particle size of the substrate contribute to the generally low quality rearing habitat.

______mjl page 38

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

2013 Trout Fry Production vs. Target Fry Production 250

200

150

100

50 Trout Fry Trout Unitper 0 UPunt Comox Rees 2013 fry production (FPU) from 90.3 138.0 141.4 2013 redd count Target fry production (FPU) to fill 223 93.5 124.5 usable fry habitat

Figure 16. 2013 fry production derived from redd counts and the target fry production needed to fill the available usable fry habitat at index sites in the 3 streams in the study area.

Expected vs. Observed Trout Fry Recruitment

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5

of Streamlength of 1.0 Trout Fry Trout Meterper 0.5 - UPunt Comox Rees Expected fry/m from redd 3.77 3.02 2.26 counts 2013 Observed fry/m at EF sites 0.8 0.93 0.57 2013

Figure 17. Expected fry abundance derived from 2013 redd counts and observed fry abundance at closed electrofishing sites during late summer, 2013.

______mjl page 39

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

The predicted fry production from the redd counts in Comox and Rees creeks was adequate to fully stock the available fry habitat, yet our juvenile sampling later in 2013 found that the trout fry numbers were well below the theoretical maximum densities. Contributing factors for this lower than expected fry abundance could include:

 fry habitat quality that is generally lower than the premium quality that would be necessary to support the theoretical maximum densities  fry emigration from the spawning stream soon after emergence. Factors such as water temperature, aquatic production and foraging opportunities may be better in Comox Lake, possibly providing a selective advantage for early migrants into a more productive rearing habitat  low survival from spawning to late-summer fry; perhaps linked to poor spawning success, low survival to fry emergence, or low survival from early summer to late summer fry.

Fry emergence traps at the redd sites or downstream fry trapping could provide more information regarding fry emergence rates from the redds and downstream trapping could provide more information on their possible downstream migration to Comox Lake.

4.7 Trout Density in Coho Streams vs. a Non-Coho Stream This study was not designed to examine the interactions and competition for rearing space between coho and cutthroat trout juveniles. However, some observations relating to interactions between coho and trout are noted here.

An overview comparison between study streams showed that the highest mean densities of trout fry and cutthroat trout 1+ parr were found in Comox Creek; the only stream with no coho fry (Figure 18). Competition for rearing space and habitat partitioning has been described in numerous studies (Glova 1972, Glova and Mason 1977, Tripp and McCart 1983). We noted similar habitat partitioning by coho and trout populations during our 2013 snorkel surveys. If both species were present in a site, the coho fry were generally more abundant in the deeper, slower habitats such as pools and the trout were most abundant in the shallow, faster areas such as riffles and glide tailouts. The large hatchery fry appeared to have the greatest habitat overlap with cutthroat 1+ parr that also prefer the deeper, slower flows such as the pool habitat that coho prefer. An example of this habitat overlap was noted at Site 7 in the Upper Puntledge River which was a premium pool habitat that was suitable for both coho fry and cutthroat trout parr. Snorkel survey counts found a high abundance of coho fry that accounted for 98% of the total biomass of the site whereas the combined trout biomass at the site accounted for 2% (Appendix 1, Photo 2).

These anecdotal field observations were not adequate to make conclusions regarding competition between coho and cutthroat trout. However, they identify the need for more detailed studies to address the issue in the study area.

______mjl page 40

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Trout Density vs. Coho Density 60 50 40 30 20

Fish Density Fish (FPU) 10 0 Comox Rees Eric Cruick Upunt CO 0 54.7 18.3 20.1 44.8 Tr 0+ 43.6 26.2 10.1 8.2 18.9 CT 1+ 1.8 0 0 1.4 0.4

Figure 18. Trout fry and cutthroat trout parr densities were higher in Comox Creek where coho fry were absent, than in 4 other streams with coho fry populations.

4.8 Coho Fry Stocking

DFO has conducted a coho colonization program in Comox Lake and its tributary streams since 1981 and has transported coho spawners to the area for natural spawning since 1985. Stocking survivals were studied from 1981 to 2002 by marking a portion of the fry with CWT prior to release then recovering the adults at various collection points, including marine commercial and sport fisheries as well as freshwater hatchery and spawn recoveries. The data from marked fish returns were then expanded to account for unmarked fish.

In addition to stocking coho fry into the watershed, DFO has also transported adult coho spawners from the lower Puntledge River to the upper watershed to promote natural spawning in tributaries to Comox Lake (Table 9). Coho adults are also known to pass through the fishways and into Comox Lake on their spawning migration (Sheng, pers. comm.).

Table 9. Adult coho spawner releases in the Upper Puntledge watershed to promote natural coho spawning (Source: DFO file data). Year 1986 1990 1991 1992 1993 2011 Spawners 1,400 811 1,566 338 605 333

4.8.1 Historical Survival Rates Puntledge hatchery data (D. Miller, Pers. comm.) for the years 1981 to 2000 shows generally declining survival rates of stocked coho from all stocking sites since 1981, most likely related to the coast-wide trend of reduced marine survivals since that time (McCubbing and Ward, 2007). ______mjl page 41

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Comparison of survival rates from various stocked streams in the Comox Lake watershed shows that the highest survival rates were generally from coho fry stocked in the Cruickshank watershed (Figure x). A more recent assessment from the 2012 coho fry release also found that the coho stocked in the Cruickshank watershed had the highest survival rates (Table x).

% Survival of Stocked Coho Fry 1.60 Comox Lake 1.40 CRK 1.20 Willimar/Upunt 1.00 Rees 0.80 Eric 0.60 % Survival %

0.40

0.20

0.00 1981 1988 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Figure 19. Percent stocked fry to adult survival of hatchery coho fry stocked at various sites in the Comox Lake watershed, 1981 to 2000 (Data source: Miller, pers. comm.).

Assessing stocking success using survival rates can be misleading since the rate of survival has no bearing on the number of hatchery fry actually produced from the stream. Survival rates are heavily influenced by the stocking density per unit of usable habitat and when the usable habitat is saturated, additional stocking will result in the loss of the surplus fry from the stream and no increase in actual fry production will be realized. Determining the saturation level of a stream can be a considerable undertaking and since such information is rarely available, hatchery stocking is often based on formulae where densities are expressed in terms of fry per km (Table 10) of streamlength, with little or no knowledge of the amount of usable rearing habitat. Without such data, it is difficult to determine the stocking density at which the usable rearing habitat is saturated. To better evaluate fry survival and more importantly, fry production in the study streams, we compared ‘fry per unit of usable rearing habitat’.

______mjl page 42

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 10. 2012 Coho fry release summary including fry-to-adult survival, based on CWT returns (Source; DFO file data).

Waterbody Fry to Adult Fry Loading 2012 Adult Production (accessible) Survival (%) (2011 brood year)

Comox Lake 0.34 431,000 (266/ha) 1465 (1620 ha) Willemar Lake 0.82 123,000 (1500/ha) 1009 (82 ha ) Forbush Lake 0.82 70,500 (1500/ha) 578 (47 ha ) Cruickshank River 1.24 87,500 (5000/km) 1085 (17.5 km) Rees Creek 1.24 50,000 (5000/km) 620 (10 km) Eric Creek 1.24 32,500 (5000/km) 403 (6.5 km) Black Lake 0.82 5,500 (1500/ha) 45 (3.66 ha) Total 800,000 5205

4.8.2 2013 Coho Stocking

4.8.2.1 Fry Loading (Stocking Density) The amount of usable rearing habitat in each of the study streams was calculated using flow metering data from Russell (1990) and the flow metering data collected at sample sites in 2013 (Table 11). The 2013 stocking densities were calculated for each stream by dividing the amount of usable coho fry habitat by the number of fry released in 2013 (Table 12). Note that since only Reach 1 of the Cruickshank River was stocked, WUA from Reaches 2, 3 and 4 were not included in this analysis. Also, for ease of calculation it was assumed that all fry released into Willemar and Comox lakes less than 1 km from the Upper Puntledge migrated into the river for rearing. The presences of hatchery coho in the 2013 juvenile samples confirm that a substantial migration into the river did occur but the actual percentage was not determined.

A comparison of the 2013 stocking data for the 4 study streams shows that the stocking density per unit of usable habitat in 2013 was lowest for the Cruickshank River. It is therefore expected that the Cruickshank survival rates would be higher than the other streams because even though the stocking exceeded the predicted maximum capability of the usable habitat (Section 4.5), the surplus and therefore the loss, was still the lowest of the study streams. The lower rate of loss translated into a higher rate of survival which, if not interpreted carefully, could lead to the erroneous conclusion that more coho were somehow produced from the usable habitat in the system.

______mjl page 43

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 11. Estimated weighted usable area (WUA) for coho fry rearing as derived from flow metering transects in study area streams.

Stream/reach WUA (units) Cruickshank River d/s of Rees C. 669 Cruickshank River Rees C. to Eric C 262 Comox Creek 106 Rees Creek 196 Eric Creek 94 Sub-total Cruickshank watershed 1,327

Upper Puntledge River 280

Table 12. Estimated 2013 coho fry stocking density fish per unit of usable coho rearing habitat . Stream/reach Stocked Fry Stocking Density (FPU) Cruickshank River d/s of Rees C. 87,500 131 Rees Creek 50,000 255 Eric Creek 32,500 345 Upper Puntledge River 251,980 900 a a. Assumes all fry moved into Upper Puntledge River after stocking.

The survival rate to late summer fry of stocked coho fry in the 4 streams was assessed by dividing the mean densities from electrofishing sites in 2013 by the stocking density. Adjustments were incorporated into the calculation to account for the wild fry component that is variable among the streams (Section 4.8.2). Coho stocked in the Cruickshank had the highest survival rate to late summer but as the sampling indicates, not because the habitat is superior but because it was ‘less over-stocked’ than the other streams (Table 13). The actual production of the 2013 hatchery fry (to late summer standing stock) in the Cruickshank River was only 48% of the hatchery production from the Upper Puntledge River (Table 14).

Puntledge hatchery stocking records indicate that a total of 170,000 coho fry were stocked at sites in the Cruickshank watershed in June 2013. Data collected from 35 snorkel survey sites during the late summer of 2013 was used to determine the late summer standing stock of coho fry in the Cruickshank watershed, which was 41,600 fry (Section 4.6). The ratio of clipped hatchery fry was used to determine that the stocked coho contribution to the standing stock was 19,422 or 47% of the standing stock. This indicates that 11% of 170,000 hatchery fry survived until late summer in the Cruickshank watershed. Since fry recruitment was apparently not a limiting factor, this indicates that in 2013 the available rearing habitat in the Cruickshank watershed was only capable of supporting 19,400 hatchery fry. The hatchery stocking level in 2013 was therefore 880% higher than the saturation level for the Cruickshank watershed.

The 89% of the stocked fry that were displaced from the Cruickshank either died or were forced downstream into Comox Lake. It is not clear from this study if those that survive to rear in the lake have the same survival rate as the hatchery fry that were stocked directly into the lake. It is possible that there is no difference since the hatchery smolts from the Cruickshank River alone could explain the generally higher survival rates from the Cruickshank stocking. Detailed tagging studies of the fry forced into the lake would be needed to clarify this issue.

______mjl page 44

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Table 13. 2013 stocked coho fry survival to late summer (October) fry, derived from 2013 juvenile sampling at stocked streams and corrected for proportion of wild fry in each stream. Mean Sampled Late Summer Hatchery % Survival Stocking Sampled Coho of Density Density % Density Stocked Stream/reach (FPU) (FPU) Hatchery (FPU) Coho Fry Cruickshank River 131 27 77 21 16% d/s of Rees C Rees Creek 255 55 22 12 5% Eric Creek 345 18 81 15 4%

Upper Puntledge a 900 45 57 26 3% River a. Assumes that fry stocked within 1 km of Upper Puntledge River migrated into the river for juvenile rearing.

Table 14. 2013 hatchery fry production to late summer fry from individual study streams. Late Summer % Hatchery Coho Stream/reach Standing Stock Hatchery Fry Production Cruickshank River d/s of 16,857 77 12,979 Rees C Rees Creek 23,044 22 5,070 Eric Creek 1,720 81 1,393 Upper Puntledge River 47,464 57 27,054

4.8.2.2 Absence of Coho in Comox Creek By agreement between federal and provincial fish management agencies Comox Creek is not stocked with hatchery coho fry. Our sampling in 2013 found no coho fry at the 6 electrofishing sites or the 6 snorkel survey sites in Comox Creek, which is consistent with the findings of Griffith (1994). We found that the stocked coho generally dispersed upstream and downstream throughout waters near their release sites, for example in the Upper Puntledge River where a high abundance of hatchery fry were found even though it was not directly stocked. However, we found no indication that stocked coho had dispersed into Comox Creek. Even though stocked coho fry were sampled throughout the Cruickshank River, none were sampled in Comox Creek, suggesting that they avoided moving into Comox Creek. Hatchery coho fry were sampled in nearby Rees Creek which was stocked, and since Comox and Rees creeks are both cold streams with similar water quality, it seems inconsistent that the coho fry were only sampled in Rees Creek. One possible explanation for this is that the Cruickshank River may be slightly warmer than Rees and Comox creeks, which could result in a temperature selective response from the hatchery fry to select for the slightly warmer water in the Cruickshank River instead of the cold water of Comox or Rees creeks. Hatchery fry at the mouth of Comox Creek faced a choice of moving into colder water or remaining in the warmer Cruickshank, whereas the fry in Rees Creek did not face a choice and some apparently remained in Rees for the remainder of the growth period.

______mjl page 45

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

4.9 Hatchery vs. Wild Coho Fry in Study Streams A total of 170,000 coho fry were stocked in Comox Creek, Rees Creek and Reach 1 of the Cruickshank River in 2013, of which 29% to 31% were adipose clipped, depending on the release site (Table x). A total of 249,980 coho fry (24% clipped) were stocked in Comox and Willemar lakes, within 1 km of the Upper Puntledge River.

Table 15. Total fry released and percent that were adipose-clipped for stocked coho fry in the Cruickshank River or stocked coho fry near the Upper Puntledge River, 2013. Stocking Site Stocked Fry % Clipped Fry Cruickshank River d/s of Rees C. 87,500 29% Rees Creek 50,000 30% Eric Creek 32,500 31% Willemar Lake outlet near Upper Puntledge 123,000 25% River Comox Lake near Upper Puntledge River 126,980 23%

Coho fry that were captured at the 2013 electrofishing sites were closely examined for adipose clips during sampling. The percentage of the samples that were adipose-clipped ranged from a high of 25% in Eric Creek to a low of 7% in Rees Creek (Figure 20). The 7% clips in the Rees Creek sample indicates that 78% of coho fry population were wild fry that were apparently the product of naturally spawning coho adults. Natural coho spawning has been documented in Rees Creek during earlier fisheries studies on October 29, 2002, when adult coho were observed actively spawning at 3 coho redds in Reach 2 of Rees Creek (Lough et al. 2003). Sampling in 2013 also found that 43% of the fry population in the Upper Puntledge River were wild (Figure 21).

Similar but less pronounced findings were also observed at the remaining stocked streams, indicating that hatchery coho fry were stocked into streams that already supported significant or in the case of Rees Creek, robust wild coho populations. When stocking hatchery fry into habitat with a wild fry population, there is a fine line between ‘augmenting’ the existing wild production and introducing direct competition for the wild production. The fine line is crossed if the stocking creates densities that exceed the maximum capability of the usable habitat. Such was the case in 2013 throughout the Cruickshank watershed and likely the Upper Puntledge River.

In Rees Creek at least 78% of the usable coho fry habitat was occupied by wild fish prior to the stocking of 50,000 hatchery fry. Even in the unlikely event that all wild fry successfully defended their territory from the introduced competition, the energetic cost of doing so may have resulted in negative affects to the wild population including reduced growth rates or reduced overwintering survival.

______mjl page 46

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Adipose Clipped Coho Fry - 2013 30%

25%

20%

15% % Clipped Clipped % 10%

0% Upunt Cruickshank Eric Rees (n=51) (n=81) (n=8) (n=30) % Adipose Clipped Coho 14% 22% 25% 7%

Figure 20. Percentage of sampled coho fry with adipose clips in each of the study streams during 2013 sampling.

Percent Wild Coho Fry

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Percent Wild Coho Fry Coho Wild Percent 20%

10%

0% Upunt Cruickshank Rees Eric % Wild Coho in Samples 43% 23% 78% 19%

Figure 21. Percent wild coho fry in study streams as derived from captures of adipose-clipped hatchery fry at electrofishing sites, 2013.

______mjl page 47

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

4.10 Adult Trout Observations The focus of this study was juvenile salmonids, but some observations of adult trout are worth noting. Adult trout from Comox Lake tend to utilize the deeper, faster habitat in the streams and are therefore rarely captured in the electrofishing sites. Snorkel surveys however, were useful for collecting information on the distribution and habitat use, especially in the larger streams that could not be sampled with electrofishing. Fish observed during snorkel surveys that were greater than 30 cm were counted as adults. Snorkel surveys in the Cruickshank River during August and October observed adult cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden.

Two pairs of Dolly Varden were observed actively spawning in Reach 1 of the Rees Creek mainstem on October 7, 2013. This is several weeks earlier than the late-October and early- November spawning activity noted in earlier Dolly Varden spawning studies (Lough et al. 2003). A single adult male in spawning colours was also observed in Eric Creek on October 13, 2013.

Most of the adult trout were silver-bright with fork lengths between 30 to 40 cm foraging in pools or at the head of deeper glides throughout the Cruickshank and up into Reach 2 of Eric Creek. The silver-bright colour often made species identification difficult from a distance, although a mix of cutthroat and rainbow adults was confirmed by occasional close-up opportunities. Some of the deep pools had aggregations of rainbow and cutthroat adults that were in bright condition and appeared to be foraging. One pool had 14 cutthroat adults ranging from 30 to 65 cm in length and 3 rainbow adults ranging from 35 to 65 cm in length. The size of the larger cutthroat and rainbow trout suggested that piscivorous populations of both species are present in the lake population. These observations also suggest that there appears to be considerable fluvial foraging throughout the Cruickshank River by adult trout, at least during the late summer and fall months. These fish appear to be highly vulnerable to angling and demonstrate the importance of the present angling closure on the Cruickshank River.

Two spent Chinook jacks were also observed in Reach 1 of the Cruickshank River during the October 2013 snorkel surveys.

______mjl page 48

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

5.0 References

Bech, P., Ptolemy, R.A. and Knight, R. 1994. Depth/velocity transect data analysis spreadsheet. Modified February 2010. BC Environment, Fisheries Section, Victoria, BC.

Caw, G.B. 1977a. An inventory of the Cruickshank River and tributaries. Stream Inventory Section, British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC.

Caw, G.B. 1977b. An inventory of the Upper Puntledge River. Stream Inventory Section, British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. deLeeuw, A.D. 1981. A British Columbia stream habitat and fish population inventory system. Unpubl. MS, BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. 22 p.

Glova, G.J. 1972. Pattern and mechanisms of resource partitioning between stream populations of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and coastal cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki). Masters Thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

Glova, G. J., and J. C. Mason. 1977. Comparison of coastal cutthroat trout populations in allopatry and those sympatric with coho salmon and sculpins in several small coastal streams on Vancouver Island, B.C. Fish. Mar. Serv. MS Rep. 1434: 35 p.

Griffith, R.P. 1995. Puntledge River – biophysical assessment of streams tributary to Comox Lake. Unpbl. Rep. to BC Hydro by R.P. Griffith & Assoc., Sidney, BC. 106 p.

Lister, D.B MS 1968b. Use of inaccessible streams for coho salmon production. Fish. Mar. Ser. MS Rep. on file No. 32-5-45: 9 p.

Lough, M.J. 2014. Spawning Surveys of Comox Lake cutthroat trout in 2013. Data report to T. Michalski, Fisheries Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Nanaimo, BC. from MJ Lough Environmental Consultants, Nanaimo, BC.

Lough, M.J, Hay S.E, Rutherford S.E. 2011. Life history characteristics and spawning behaviour of Comox Lake cutthroat trout. Prepared for Courtenay Fish and Game Protective Association by MJ Lough Environmental Consultants, Nanaimo, BC.

Lough, M.J., Hay, S.E. Lowe, D., and Rimmer, D.W. 2003. Life history characteristics of Dolly Varden char in the Campbell River and Puntledge River watersheds. Prepared for BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Fish and Wildlife Science Allocation Section, Nanaimo, BC by MJ Lough Environmental Consultants, Nanaimo, BC.

Marshall, D.E. and Britton, E.W. 1990. Carrying capacity of coho salmon streams. Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2058. 32 p.

______mjl page 49

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

McCubbing, D.J, Ward, B.R., 2007. Adult steelhead srout and salmonid smolt migration at the Keogh River, B.C., during winter and spring 2007. Habitat Conservation Trust Fund Contract Number: CBIO4051

Ptolemy RA. 1993. Maximum salmonid densities in fluvial habitats in British Columbia. Pages 223-250 in Proceedings of the 1992 Coho Workshop, Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia and North Pacific International Chapter of the American Fisheries Society.

Russell, J. R. L., Carswell, L. and Munro, W. 1990. Comox Lake cutthroat assessment-1989 reconnaissance report. Recreational Fisheries Program, BC Ministry of Environment. File: 0140-1

Seber, G.A.F. and LeCren, E.D. 1967. Estimating population size from catches large relative to the population. J. Anim. Ecol.36: 631-643.

Slaney, P. and Roberts, J. 2005. Coastal Cutthroat Trout as Sentinels of Lower Mainland Watershed Health; Strategies for Coastal Cutthroat Trout Conservation, Restoration and Recovery. BC Conservation Foundation, Surrey, BC.

Tripp, D. and McCart, P. 1983. Effects of different coho stocking strategies on coho and cutthroat trout production in isolated headwater streams. CanadianTechnical Report, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 1212. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, BC. 176p.

6.0 Personal Communications

Guimond, E. Biological consultant. Courtenay, BC.

Michalski, T. Fish and Wildlife Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Nanaimo, BC.

Miller, D. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Hatchery Manager, Puntledge River Hatchery, Courtenay, BC.

Ptolemy, R.A. Instream Flows Specialist, BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC.

Sheng, M. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, A/Section Head, Salmon Enhancement Program, South Coast Area, Nanaimo, BC.

______mjl page 50

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 1 Photos

______mjl page A-1

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Photo 1. Site 4, Upper Puntledge River, Aug. 7, 2013. Snorkel counts at this glide found an estimated 9 coho fry per meter of streamlength; primarily associated with cover along the edge of the stream.

Photo 2. Site 7, Upper Puntledge River, Aug. 7, 2013. Snorkel counts at this premium pool habitat found 16 coho/m streamlength with coho fry accounting for 98% of the total biomass of the site and combined trout accounting for 2%. ______mjl page A-2

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Photo 3. Site 11, Rees Creek, Oct. 18, 2013. Coho fry were visually observed at this off-channel wetland / beaver pond habitat in Reach 1 of Rees Creek.

Photo 4. Site 7, Rees Creek, Aug. 8, 2013. An estimated 150 adipose-clipped and non-clipped coho fry were salvaged from this off-channel stranding site and released into Rees Creek mainstem.

______mjl page A-3

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Photo 5. Site 15, Cruickshank River, Oct. 18, 2013. Long cobble bar riffle/glide, typical of Reach 1. Juvenile distribution was limited almost entirely to highly clumped groups near the instream woody debris.

Photo 6. Site 14, Cruickshank River, Aug. 22, 2013. This boulder/cobble riffle in Reach 3 had the highest abundance of trout parr in the study. No coho fry were observed in the site. ______mjl page A-4

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Photo 7. Site 4, Comox Creek, October 9, 2013. Closed electrofishing site in premium side channel habitat had high juvenile densities but was not representative of Comox Creek, which had generally higher velocity and lower cover.

Photo 8. Site 6, Comox Creek, October 10, 2013. Closed electrofishing site in Reach 2 is typical of the generally higher gradient and higher velocity habitat of the mainstem. ______mjl page A-5

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Photo 9. Site 4, Rees Creek, October 17, 2013. A narrow edge of slower current velocity and cover along the margin of Rees Creek. Typically small substrate particle size.

Photo 10. Site 11 in Reach 2 of Cruickshank River, August 28, 2013. No coho fry found in this site which was dominated by trout.

______mjl page A-6

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Photo 11. Site 9 in Reach 4 of Cruickshank River, August 28, 2013. Site dominated by trout with low abundance of coho fry.

Photo 12. Site 3 in Reach 1 of Eric Creek, October 14, 2013. Dominated by trout and parr with coho fry typically restricted to narrow margins along the edge with cover and low velocities.

______mjl page A-7

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Photo 13. Upper Puntledge River, August 7, 2013. Example of Didymo abundance near Site 4.

Photo 14. Upper Puntledge River, August 6, 2013. Coho fry in habitat with Didymo growth near Site 2.

______mjl page A-8

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 2 Fish Sample Data from Closed EF Sites

______mjl page A-9

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Upper Puntledge UTM CODE: 10.342247.5488190 DATE: Aug-5-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed side channel (on r/b) SITE REFERENCE: 3.1 SITE NAME: UPunt 1 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: SC METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Riffle TRANSECT WIDTH: 5.2 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 18.78 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 5.2 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.4107 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 23

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 52 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 70 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 47 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.277 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 71 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.285 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 72 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 1.440 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 38 % Generic Insect suitability 31 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 3.62 Sum usable width Rb fry 2.69 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 0.4 0.00 0.000 LWE 0.2 0.0 0.10 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.7 0.05 0.190 g/s 0.3 0.1 0.19 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11 0.0 1.0 0.12 0.220 g/c 0.3 0.1 0.22 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.55 0.1 1.2 0.14 0.330 g/c 0.2 0.1 0.33 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.92 0.2 1.4 0.20 0.340 g/c 0.2 0.2 0.34 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.2 1.6 0.26 0.440 g/c 0.2 0.3 0.44 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.2 1.8 0.34 0.450 g/c 0.2 0.3 0.45 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.96 0.2 2.0 0.37 0.430 g/c 0.2 0.4 0.43 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.93 0.2 2.2 0.41 0.370 g/c 0.2 0.4 0.37 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.88 0.2 2.4 0.45 0.370 g/c 0.2 0.5 0.37 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.80 0.2 2.6 0.47 0.300 g/c 0.2 0.5 0.30 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.74 0.1 2.8 0.50 0.250 g/c 0.2 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.54 0.1 3.0 0.47 0.240 g/b 0.2 0.5 0.24 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.59 0.1 3.2 0.46 0.240 g/b 0.3 0.5 0.24 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.62 0.2 3.5 0.41 0.320 g/c 0.3 0.4 0.32 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.88 0.2 3.7 0.41 0.290 g/c 0.3 0.4 0.29 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.85 0.2 4.0 0.37 0.230 g/s 0.3 0.4 0.23 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.72 0.2 4.2 0.31 0.220 g/s 0.2 0.3 0.22 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.72 0.1 4.4 0.29 0.21 g/b 0.2 0.3 0.21 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.70 0.1 4.6 0.17 0.18 b/c 0.3 0.2 0.18 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.60 0.2 4.9 0.16 0.09 b/c 0.3 0.2 0.09 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.30 0.1 5.1 0.16 0.09 b/c 0.4 0.2 0.09 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.30 0.1 5.6 0 0 RWE 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-10

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Upper Puntledge Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 1 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 30 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 0.87 4 2 18.00 14.12 0.52 27.3 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 4.25 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) 27.70 1 1 2.00 1.57 0.70 2.3 Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 127.5 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) 53.20 1 0 1.00 0.78 0.70 1.1 shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Aug-5-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 2.86 22 7 50.00 39.22 0.38 102.3 protected. Sp. #5 Ct(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Ct(2+) Sp. #6 Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 54 1 1.5 120 1 20 172 1 53.2 65 1 3.3 38 1 0.5 143 1 35.8 59 1 2.3 39 1 0.5 75 1 4.8 36 1 0.5 60 1 2.9 50 1 1.2 47 1 1.2 44 1 1.0 40 1 0.6 63 1 2.9 74 1 4.8 45 1 1.1 63 1 3.2 57 1 2.1 62 1 2.8 75 1 4.6 69 1 4 72 1 4 59 1 2.5 65 1 3.6 53 1 1.8 49 1 1.4 50 1 1.5 55 1 2 72 1 4.1 80 1 6.1 61 1 3 72 1 4.1 60 1 2.9 57 1 2.1 45 1 0.9 61 1 2.4

denotes clipped adipose

______mjl page A-11

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Upper Puntledge UTM CODE: 10.341966.5489709 DATE: Aug-6-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed edge site SITE REFERENCE: 1.5 SITE NAME: UPunt 2 TRANSECT #: 2

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Glide TRANSECT WIDTH: 6.9 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 18.48 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 6.9 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.6072 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 23

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 26 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 62 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 48 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.373 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 71 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.236 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 66 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 2.577 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 46 % Generic Insect suitability 21 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 4.28 Sum usable width Rb fry 1.82 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 0.8 0.00 0.000 LWE 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.07 0.000 c/b 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.2 0.02 0.000 c/b 0.7 0.0 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.4 0.04 0.070 c/b 0.2 0.0 0.07 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 1.6 0.05 0.000 c/b 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.8 0.05 0.000 c/b 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 2.0 0.12 0.000 c/b 0.3 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 2.3 0.21 0.150 c/b 0.3 0.2 0.15 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.50 0.2 2.6 0.16 0.310 c/b 0.3 0.2 0.31 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.3 2.9 0.20 0.370 c/b 0.3 0.2 0.37 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.3 3.2 0.27 0.230 c/b 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.77 0.2 3.5 0.41 0.150 c/lg 0.3 0.4 0.15 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.44 0.1 3.8 0.50 0.220 c/lg 0.4 0.5 0.22 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.47 0.2 4.2 0.55 0.190 c/b 0.4 0.6 0.19 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.30 0.1 4.5 0.64 0.170 c/b 0.3 0.6 0.17 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.09 0.0 4.8 0.66 0.280 c/lg 0.3 0.7 0.28 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.11 0.0 5.1 0.67 0.280 c/lg 0.3 0.7 0.28 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.09 0.0 5.4 0.66 0.28 c/b 0.3 0.7 0.28 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.11 0.0 5.7 0.7 0.32 c/b 0.3 0.7 0.32 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.0 6 0.61 0.26 c/b 0.3 0.6 0.26 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.21 0.1 6.3 0.61 0.22 c/b 0.3 0.6 0.22 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.18 0.1 6.6 0.7 0.24 c/lg 0.4 0.7 0.24 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.0 7 0.66 0.26 c/lg 0.2 0.7 0.26 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-12

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Upper Puntledge Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 2 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 9.2 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 0.50 1 0 1.00 1.87 0.26 7.1 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 5.80 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.62 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 53.4 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.62 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Aug-6-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 2.01 1 1 2.00 3.75 0.46 8.1 protected. Sp. #5 CC #DIV/0! 18 3 21.60 40.48 #DIV/0! Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 CC Sp. #6 Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 39 1 0.5 44 1 0.8 54 1 69 1 3.3 78 1 57 1 53 1 81 1 94 1 49 1 75 1 91 1 87 1 57 1 64 1 39 1 44 1 58 1 56 1 54 1 36 1 59 1 61 1 57 1

denotes clipped adipose

______mjl page A-13

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Upper Puntledge UTM CODE: 10.342027.5489740 DATE: Aug-6-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200 SAMPLE TYPE: Side channel - left bank SITE REFERENCE: 1.4 SITE NAME: UPunt 3 TRANSECT #: 3

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Riffle TRANSECT WIDTH: 4.8 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 21.23 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: full side channel SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 4.8 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.4840 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 24

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 28 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 45 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 47 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.224 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 42 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.455 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 36 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 1.063 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 35 % Generic Insect suitability 40 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 2.12 Sum usable width Rb fry 1.33 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 0.95 0.00 0.000 LWE 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.10 0.09 0.000 c/lg 0.1 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.20 0.10 0.000 c/lg 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.40 0.10 0.040 c/lg 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 1.60 0.12 0.210 c/lg 0.2 0.1 0.21 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.53 0.1 1.80 0.23 0.380 c/lg 0.2 0.2 0.38 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.2 2.00 0.31 0.290 c/lg 0.2 0.3 0.29 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.96 0.2 2.20 0.32 0.620 lg/c 0.2 0.3 0.62 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.95 0.2 2.40 0.37 0.980 lg/c 0.2 0.4 0.98 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.20 0.0 2.60 0.35 0.930 lg/c 0.2 0.4 0.93 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.27 0.1 2.80 0.34 0.850 lg/c 0.2 0.3 0.85 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.37 0.1 3.00 0.35 0.640 lg/c 0.2 0.4 0.64 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.86 0.2 3.20 0.30 0.780 lg/c 0.2 0.3 0.78 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.47 0.1 3.40 0.34 0.540 lg/c 0.2 0.3 0.54 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.96 0.2 3.60 0.34 0.480 lg/c 0.2 0.3 0.48 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.96 0.2 3.80 0.30 0.340 lg/c 0.2 0.3 0.34 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.2 4.00 0.27 0.300 lg/c 0.2 0.3 0.30 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.2 4.20 0.25 0.200 lg/c 0.2 0.3 0.20 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.67 0.1 4.40 0.22 0.000 c/lg 0.2 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 4.60 0.17 0.000 c/lg 0.2 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 4.80 0.17 0.00 c/lg 0.2 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.00 0.15 0.00 c/lg 0.2 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.20 0.10 0.00 c/lg 0.4 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.70 0.00 0.00 RWE, c/lg 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-14

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Upper Puntledge Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 3 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 35 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.44 8 5 17.00 6.31 0.28 22.5 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 7.70 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.45 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 269.5 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.45 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Aug-6-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 2.62 15 5 22.50 8.35 0.35 24.1 protected. Sp. #5 CT 1+ 9.30 1 0 1.00 0.37 0.28 1.3 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 CC #DIV/0! 76 4 80.22 29.77 #DIV/0! B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 CT 1+ Sp. #6 CC Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 45 1 1.0 53 1 2.2 96 1 9.3 80 45 1 1.1 63 1 3.1 51 1 1.4 69 1 3.9 47 1 1.1 42 1 1.1 50 1 1.6 75 1 4.7 46 1 0.9 47 1 1.5 41 1 0.6 60 1 2.5 49 1 1.1 39 1 0.9 44 1 0.9 55 1 2.1 45 1 0.8 46 1 1.3 75 1 4.6 57 1 2.3 65 1 2.2 58 1 2.7 51 1 1.4 50 1 1.5 42 1 1.1 40 1 0.8 81 1 6.4 69 1 3.6 62 1 2.8 39 1 0.5 80 1 4.8

denotes clipped adipose

______mjl page A-15

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Cruickshank UTM CODE: 337479 5495353 DATE: Oct-11-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed side channel SITE REFERENCE: 6.0 SITE NAME: Cruickshank 1 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Riffle TRANSECT WIDTH: 9.6 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 81.84 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 9.6 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.1794 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 21

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 71 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 26 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 80 % Closed side channel MEAN DEPTH: 0.117 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 37 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.159 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 30 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 1.126 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 49 % Generic Insect suitability 15 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 2.54 Sum usable width Rb fry 6.78 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 2.2 0.00 0.000 LWE C/LG 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 2.5 0.03 0.000 C/LG 0.4 0.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 3.0 0.08 0.270 C/LG 0.6 0.1 0.27 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.38 0.2 3.7 0.20 0.230 C/LG 0.5 0.2 0.23 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.77 0.4 4.0 0.12 0.310 B/C 0.4 0.1 0.31 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.75 0.3 4.5 0.15 0.120 C/LG 0.5 0.2 0.12 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.40 0.2 5.0 0.17 0.000 C/LG (bb) 0.6 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.6 0.17 0.130 C/LG 0.5 0.2 0.13 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.43 0.2 6.0 0.13 0.260 C/LG 0.5 0.1 0.26 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.73 0.3 6.5 0.10 0.300 C/LG 0.5 0.1 0.30 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.59 0.3 7.0 0.11 0.070 B/C 0.5 0.1 0.07 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.17 0.1 7.5 0.12 0.350 C/LG 0.5 0.1 0.35 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.75 0.4 8.0 0.09 0.010 C/LG (bb) 0.6 0.1 0.01 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 8.6 0.14 0.010 C/LG (bb) 0.6 0.1 0.01 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.03 0.0 9.1 0.15 0.190 C/LG 0.5 0.2 0.19 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.63 0.3 9.5 0.11 0.150 C/LG 0.5 0.1 0.15 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.34 0.2 10.0 0.11 0.190 C/LG 0.5 0.1 0.19 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.42 0.2 10.5 0.1 0.270 LG/C 0.6 0.1 0.27 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.53 0.3 11.1 0.11 0.12 C/LG 0.5 0.1 0.12 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.27 0.1 11.5 0.09 0 B/C (bb) 0.4 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 11.8 0 0 B/C 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-16

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Cruickshank Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 1 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 30 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.88 13 9 24.00 8.89 0.71 12.6 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 9.00 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.26 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 270.0 Sp. #3 Dv(0+) 1.74 8 0 8.00 2.96 0.71 4.2 shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Oct-11-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 5.70 1 0 1.00 0.37 0.49 0.7 protected. Sp. #5 Ct(1+) 6.60 2 3 5.00 1.85 0.37 5.0 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(1+) 4.40 1 0 1.00 0.37 0.71 0.5 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Dv(0+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Ct(1+) Sp. #6 Dv(1+) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 50 1 1.6 64 1 2.2 78 1 5.7 99 1 9.9 55 1 1.8 60 1 1.9 85 1 6.1 79 1 4.4 55 1 1.2 45 1 0.7 76 1 3.9 54 1 1.4 52 1 1.6 96 1 8.4 49 1 1.2 52 1 1.3 84 1 4.7 48 1 1.0 59 1 2.3 65 1 2.8 61 1 2.2 55 1 2.1 59 1 1.7 53 1 1.5 62 1 2.0 67 1 2.6 48 1 1.0 62 1 2.0 48 1 1.2 62 1 3.2 61 1 2.7 44 1 1.0 61 1 2.9 63 1 3.2 54 1 1.5 45 1 1.0 58 1 2.5

______mjl page A-17

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Cruickshank UTM CODE: 340288 5494036 DATE: Oct-12-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed side channel site SITE REFERENCE: 1.6 SITE NAME: Cruickshank 2 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: SC METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Glide TRANSECT WIDTH: 7.9 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 19.52 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 7.9 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.2482 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 18

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 33 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 28 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 53 % Closed side channel site MEAN DEPTH: 0.405 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 71 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.078 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 32 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 3.198 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 75 % Generic Insect suitability 5 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 2.19 Sum usable width Rb fry 2.62 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 1.1 0.00 0.00 LWE, SG/S 0.2 0.0 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.5 0.04 0.02 SG/S 0.4 0.0 0.02 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 1.9 0.08 0.05 SG/S 0.4 0.1 0.05 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.0 2.2 0.03 0.01 SG/LG 0.4 0.0 0.01 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 2.7 0.03 0.01 SG/LG 0.4 0.0 0.01 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 3.0 0.08 0.01 SG/LG 0.4 0.1 0.01 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 3.5 0.23 0.03 SG/LG 0.5 0.2 0.03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.10 0.1 4.0 0.31 0.01 SG/LG 0.5 0.3 0.01 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.03 0.0 4.5 0.43 0.02 SG/LG 0.5 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.05 0.0 5.0 0.53 0.04 LG/C 0.5 0.5 0.04 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.07 0.0 5.5 0.68 0.07 LG/C 0.5 0.7 0.07 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.02 0.0 6.0 0.83 0.10 LG/C 0.5 0.8 0.10 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.5 0.85 0.12 LG/C 0.5 0.9 0.12 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.00 0.0 7.0 0.80 0.07 LG/C 0.5 0.8 0.07 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.00 0.0 7.5 0.73 0.09 LG/C 0.5 0.7 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.01 0.0 8.0 0.58 0.08 LG/SG 0.5 0.6 0.08 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.10 0.0 8.4 0.28 0.20 BR (clay) 0.5 0.3 0.20 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.67 0.3 9 0 0.00 RWE BR (clay) 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

______mjl page A-18

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Cruickshank Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 2 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 34 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.55 2 0 3.00 1.58 0.33 4.8 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 5.60 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) 5.40 1 0 1.00 0.53 0.28 1.9 Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 190.4 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.28 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Oct-12-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 5.72 50 0 62.00 32.56 0.75 43.2 protected. Sp. #5 Ct(1+) 7.30 1 0 1.00 0.53 0.71 0.7 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(0+) 0.80 1 0 1.00 0.53 0.33 1.6 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Ct(1+) Sp. #6 Dv(0+) Length c1+c2 weights(g) Length c1+c2 weights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 weights(g) Length c1+c2 weights(g) Length c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 52 1 1.4 84 1 5.4 91 1 7.9 93 1 7.3 48 1 0.8 52 1 1.7 77 1 4.8 60 1 2.8 57 1 2.5 64 1 3.8 66 1 3.7 56 1 2.4 72 1 4.9 91 1 9.5 87 1 8.8 82 1 5.7 85 1 6.7 91 1 8.4 83 1 6.3 85 1 6.1 73 1 5 88 1 7.1 72 1 5.6 60 1 3.1 81 1 5.9 90 1 7.4 80 1 6.2 78 1 7 90 1 7.9 88 1 6.9 68 1 3.8 66 1 3.3 71 1 4 66 1 3.6 75 1 6.3 81 1 5.9 93 1 11.2 80 1 5.7 89 1 9.2 87 1 8 83 1 7.9 87 1 7.3 73 1 5 66 1 3.9 73 1 5.1 87 1 6.8 71 1 4.6 58 1 2.3 52 1 1.9 89 1 8.1 80 1 5.3 85 1 6.9 86 1 6.5 78 1 5.1 52 1 1.7

denotes clipped adipose

______mjl page A-19

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Cruickshank UTM CODE: 335289 5501331 DATE: Oct-16-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed edge site SITE REFERENCE: 12.6 SITE NAME: Cruickshank 3 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Riffle TRANSECT WIDTH: 4.7 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 15.64 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 4.7 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.2334 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 11

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 69 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 62 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 75 % Closed edge site at derelict bridge crossing MEAN DEPTH: 0.300 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 97 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.165 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 69 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 1.412 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 76 % Generic Insect suitability 18 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 2.92 Sum usable width Rb fry 3.24 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 19.0 0.48 0.51 Outer edge B/C 0.3 0.2 0.39 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.3 19.5 0.46 0.26 B/C 0.5 0.5 0.26 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.67 0.3 20.0 0.44 0.19 C/B 0.5 0.4 0.19 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.52 0.3 20.5 0.28 0.16 SG/LG 0.5 0.3 0.16 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.53 0.3 21.0 0.27 0.17 LG/B 0.5 0.3 0.17 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.57 0.3 21.5 0.32 0.06 B/C 0.5 0.3 0.06 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.20 0.1 22.0 0.28 0.08 B/LG 0.5 0.3 0.08 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.27 0.1 22.5 0.27 0.26 B/LG 0.5 0.3 0.26 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.87 0.4 23.0 0.24 0.06 B/C 0.5 0.2 0.06 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.20 0.1 23.5 0.21 0.01 B/C 0.4 0.2 0.01 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.03 0.0 23.7 0.00 0.00 RWE B/C 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-20

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Cruickshank Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 3 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 14 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.90 4 0 4.00 6.97 0.69 10.1 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 4.10 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.62 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 57.4 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.62 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Oct-16-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.76 #DIV/0! protected. Sp. #5 Dv(0+) 1.40 1 0 1.00 1.74 0.97 1.8 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(1+) 20.20 2 0 2.00 3.48 0.69 5.1 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Dv(0+) Sp. #6 Dv(1+) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 60 1 2.7 51 1 1.4 121 1 19.6 56 1 2.5 117 1 20.8 49 1 1.1 52 1 1.3

______mjl page A-21

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Cruickshank UTM CODE: 337814 5494626 DATE: Oct-19-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed side channel site SITE REFERENCE: 4.6 SITE NAME: Cruickshank 4 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: SC METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: G TRANSECT WIDTH: 5.7 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 14.59 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 5.7 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.2973 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 14

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 17 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 31 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 54 % Closed side channel site. Hatchery stocking site. MEAN DEPTH: 0.391 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 84 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.133 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 31 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 2.227 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 76 % Generic Insect suitability 14 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 1.74 Sum usable width Rb fry 0.96 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 3.0 0.00 0.00 LWE F 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 3.2 0.07 0.00 F 0.3 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 3.5 0.13 0.00 F 0.4 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 4.0 0.26 0.00 S 0.5 0.3 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 4.5 0.37 0.00 S 0.5 0.4 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.0 0.50 0.01 S 0.5 0.5 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.02 0.0 5.5 0.48 0.11 SG/LG 0.5 0.5 0.11 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.26 0.1 6.0 0.52 0.43 SG/LG 0.5 0.5 0.43 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.59 0.3 6.5 0.55 0.41 LG/SG 0.5 0.6 0.41 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.48 0.2 7.0 0.53 0.15 S/SG 0.5 0.5 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.28 0.1 7.5 0.46 0.01 S/SG 0.5 0.5 0.01 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.02 0.0 8.0 0.45 0.01 F (see note) 0.4 0.5 0.01 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.02 0.0 8.3 0.26 0.00 F 0.4 0.3 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 8.7 0.25 0.00 RWE F 0.2 0.3 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-22

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Cruickshank Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 4 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 18 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.90 1 0 1.00 0.93 0.17 5.5 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 6.00 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.31 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 108.0 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.31 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Oct-19-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 3.39 30 0 30.00 27.78 0.76 36.4 protected. Sp. #5 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Sp. #6 Length c1+c2 we ights(g)Length c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Length c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 59 1 1.9 66 1 3.7 63 1 3.6 66 1 2.4 60 1 2.2 66 1 3.5 81 1 6 70 1 3.8 75 1 5.7 75 1 4.3 66 1 2.8 72 1 4.5 66 1 4 60 1 2.1 61 1 2.2 53 1 1.5 70 1 3.4 57 1 2.2 71 1 5 72 1 3.9 66 1 3 61 1 2.9 59 1 2.7 63 1 2.7 60 1 2.3 65 1 2.9 68 1 4.2 67 1 3.4 58 1 2.7 71 1 3.9 73 1 4.1

denotes clipped adipose

______mjl page A-23

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Comox UTM CODE: 337693 5492568 DATE: 08-Oct-13 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-1510 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed side channel site SITE REFERENCE: 1.9 SITE NAME: Comox 1 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: S/C METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: G TRANSECT WIDTH: 6.7 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 28.61 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 6.7 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.6694 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 14

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 29 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 73 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 18 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.234 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 49 % Closed side channel site MEAN VELOCITY: 0.427 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 67 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 1.569 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 9 % Generic Insect suitability 52 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 4.88 Sum usable width Rb fry 1.93 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 5.0 0.00 0.000 LWE C/LG 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.3 0.06 0.000 SG/LG 0.5 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.0 0.17 0.370 SG/LG 0.6 0.2 0.37 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.6 6.5 0.28 0.350 SG/C 0.5 0.3 0.35 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.5 7.0 0.32 0.420 SG/C 0.5 0.3 0.42 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.98 0.5 7.5 0.34 0.430 SG/LG 0.5 0.3 0.43 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.96 0.5 8.0 0.35 0.540 LG/SG 0.5 0.4 0.54 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.95 0.5 8.5 0.35 0.450 SG/C 0.5 0.4 0.45 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.95 0.5 9.0 0.35 0.560 C/SG 0.5 0.4 0.56 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.95 0.5 9.5 0.30 0.400 SG/C 0.5 0.3 0.40 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.00 0.5 10.0 0.25 0.440 SG/LG 0.5 0.3 0.44 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.00 0.5 10.5 0.18 0.380 SG/LG 0.6 0.2 0.38 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.6 11.1 0.11 0.280 SG/F 0.6 0.1 0.28 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.62 0.4 11.7 0.00 0.000 F 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-24

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Comox Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 1 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 27 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.88 7 2 9.80 6.57 0.29 22.8 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 5.80 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.73 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 149.1 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.73 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: 08-Oct-13 Sp. #4 Co(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.09 #DIV/0! protected. Sp. #5 Ct(1+) 4.80 0 1 1.00 0.67 0.49 1.4 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Ct(1+) Sp. #6 Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 50 1 1.3 81 1 4.8 56 1 2.0 55 1 1.8 65 1 2.7 60 1 2.8 49 1 1.1 51 1 1.4 54 1 1.7 61 1 2.1

______mjl page A-25

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Comox UTM CODE: 337483 5490309 DATE: 09-Oct-13 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-1510 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed side channel SITE REFERENCE: 4.6 SITE NAME: Comox 4 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Glide TRANSECT WIDTH: 5.4 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 24.80 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 5.4 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.2781 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 13

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 61 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 49 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 69 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.218 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 66 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.237 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 51 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 1.176 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 55 % Generic Insect suitability 23 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 2.65 Sum usable width Rb fry 3.29 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 0.80 0.17 0.000 LWE F/SG 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.0 1.10 0.18 0.060 F/SG 0.4 0.2 0.06 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.20 0.1 1.50 0.20 0.120 SG/LG 0.5 0.2 0.12 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.40 0.2 2.00 0.32 0.190 LG/SG 0.5 0.3 0.19 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.62 0.3 2.50 0.32 0.310 SG/LG 0.5 0.3 0.31 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.98 0.5 3.00 0.39 0.400 LG/C 0.6 0.4 0.40 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.91 0.5 3.70 0.27 0.530 C/B 0.5 0.3 0.53 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.00 0.5 4.00 0.25 0.110 C/B 0.4 0.3 0.11 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.36 0.1 4.50 0.17 0.000 C/B 0.5 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.00 0.16 0.050 C/B 0.5 0.2 0.05 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.16 0.1 5.50 0.09 0.060 C/LG 0.5 0.1 0.06 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.1 6.00 0.03 0.023 C/SG 0.4 0.0 0.02 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.20 0.00 0.000 RWE C/S 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-26

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Comox Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 4 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 14.5 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.63 14 9 39.20 49.15 0.61 80.6 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 5.50 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 79.8 Sp. #3 Dv(0+) 1.53 10 0 11.00 13.79 0.61 22.6 shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: 09-Oct-13 Sp. #4 Co(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.55 #DIV/0! protected. Sp. #5 Ct(1+) 6.20 2 0 2.00 2.51 0.61 4.1 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(1+) 14.73 1 3 4.00 5.02 0.49 10.2 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Dv(0+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Ct(1+) Sp. #6 Dv(1+) Length c1+c2 we ights(g)Length c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Length c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 54 1 2 61 1 2.2 75 1 4.6 117 1 16.4 54 1 1.7 55 1 1.5 89 1 7.8 102 1 12.6 51 1 1.2 60 1 1.8 90 1 9.5 54 1 1.7 49 1 1.0 54 1 1.6 50 1 1.2 53 1 1.8 52 1 1.1 46 1 1 55 1 1.2 61 1 2.2 47 1 1.3 55 1 1.8 51 1 2.1 55 1 1.8 1 48 1 1.3 123 1 20.4 63 1 2.3 51 1 1.7 60 1 1.9 57 1 2.1 67 1 3.4 47 1 1.6 54 1 1.3 40 1 1 50 1 1.1 44 1 0.8 44 1 0.9 42 1 0.7

______mjl page A-27

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Comox UTM CODE: 337368 5490082 DATE: 10-Oct-13 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-1510 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed edge site SITE REFERENCE: 5.2 SITE NAME: Comox 6 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: R TRANSECT WIDTH: 4.5 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 16.68 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 4.5 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.7183 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 13

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 59 % Closed edge site % USABLE BY RBT PARR 59 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 37 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.270 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 42 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.592 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 54 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 1.214 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 25 % Generic Insect suitability 52 % Sum usable width Kokanee 2.75 Sum usable width Insects 2.34 DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 2.64 Sum usable width Rb fry 2.02 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 6.50 0.00 0.000 LWE SG/B 0.2 0.0 0.05 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.80 0.09 0.100 SG/LG 0.3 0.1 0.10 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.17 0.0 7.00 0.12 0.080 SG/LG 0.3 0.1 0.08 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20 0.1 7.30 0.11 0.160 LG/SG 0.3 0.1 0.16 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.36 0.1 7.50 0.13 0.250 LG/C 0.3 0.1 0.25 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.70 0.2 7.80 0.18 0.330 LG/C 0.3 0.2 0.33 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.3 8.10 0.20 0.350 LG/C 0.4 0.2 0.35 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.4 8.50 0.26 0.160 C/LG 0.5 0.3 0.16 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.53 0.2 9.00 0.32 0.630 C/LG 0.5 0.3 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.91 0.5 9.50 0.35 0.390 B/C 0.5 0.4 0.39 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.95 0.5 10.00 0.32 0.500 B/C 0.6 0.3 0.50 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.98 0.5 10.60 0.45 1.090 B/C 0.5 0.5 1.09 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.07 0.0 11.00 0.61 1.130 Outer edge B/C 0.2 0.6 1.13 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-28

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Comox Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 6 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 23.5 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.58 6 5 11.00 16.06 0.59 27.4 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 3.00 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 68.5 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: 10-Oct-13 Sp. #4 Co(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.25 #DIV/0! protected. Sp. #5 Ct(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 #DIV/0! Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 CC #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Ct(1+) Sp. #6 CC Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 60 1 2.5 54 1 1.8 49 1 1.0 55 1 1.8 48 1 1.0 60 1 2.4 40 1 0.7 36 1 0.5 55 1 1.8 60 1 2.1 58 1 1.9

______mjl page A-29

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Rees UTM CODE: 10.334202.5497039 DATE: 08/Aug/2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-2680 SAMPLE TYPE: Full SITE REFERENCE: 3.6 SITE NAME: Rees 1 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Pool TRANSECT WIDTH: 10.5 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 11.16 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: F SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 10.5 m METERED DISCHARGE: 1.5931 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 12

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 22 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 64 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 20 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.940 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 92 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.161 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 70 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 9.875 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 82 % Generic Insect suitability 11 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 6.72 Sum usable width Rb fry 2.27 Transect Data **(visual estimate only)** cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 0.0 0.00 0.000 LWE f/g 0.5 0.1 0.03 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 1.0 0.20 0.050 s/g 1.0 0.2 0.05 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.16 0.2 2.0 0.50 0.100 g/sc 1.0 0.5 0.10 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.21 0.2 3.0 0.80 0.150 g/lc 1.0 0.8 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.00 0.0 4.0 1.00 0.150 c/lg 1.0 1.0 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.00 0.0 5.0 1.30 0.150 c/lg 1.0 1.3 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.00 0.0 6.0 1.50 0.170 c/lg 1.0 1.5 0.17 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.00 0.0 7.0 1.50 0.200 c/lg 1.0 1.5 0.20 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.00 0.0 8.0 1.30 0.250 c/lg 1.0 1.3 0.25 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.00 0.0 9.0 1.00 0.150 lg/c 1.0 1.0 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.00 0.0 10.0 1.00 0.050 lg/c 0.8 1.0 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.00 0.0 10.5 0.00 0.000 LWE g/f 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-30

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Rees Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 1 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 30 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.20 #DIV/0! to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 11.20 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.64 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 336.0 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.64 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: 08/Aug/2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.82 #DIV/0! protected. Sp. #5 Ct(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Ct(1+) Sp. #6 Dv Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g)

Lots of sculpin captured, no salmonids

______mjl page A-31

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Rees UTM CODE: 10.336253.5497324 DATE: 07/Oct/2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-2680 SAMPLE TYPE: Partial SITE REFERENCE: 1.3 SITE NAME: Rees 2 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: SC METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Glide TRANSECT WIDTH: 5.3 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 13.24 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: F SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 5.3 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.1688 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 12

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 39 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 37 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 57 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.400 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 90 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.080 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 42 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 2.121 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 80 % Generic Insect suitability 9 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 1.95 Sum usable width Rb fry 2.06 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 2.2 0.00 0.000 sg/lg LWE) 0.2 0.0 0.09 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 2.5 0.06 0.170 lg/sg 0.4 0.1 0.17 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.15 0.1 3.0 0.21 0.170 lg/sg 0.5 0.2 0.17 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.57 0.3 3.5 0.25 0.230 lg/sg 0.5 0.3 0.23 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.77 0.4 4.0 0.41 0.220 lg/sg 0.5 0.4 0.22 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.64 0.3 4.5 0.49 0.200 lg/sg 0.5 0.5 0.20 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.46 0.2 5.0 0.56 0.060 lg/sg 0.5 0.6 0.06 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.09 0.0 5.5 0.73 0.010 lg/sg 0.5 0.7 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.0 0.68 0.010 f/sg 0.5 0.7 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.5 0.42 0.000 f/sg 0.5 0.4 0.00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 7.0 0.34 0.000 f/sg 0.5 0.3 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 7.5 0.20 0.000 f (RWE) 0.3 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-32

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Rees Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 2 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 16 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 0.60 1 0 1.00 1.18 0.57 2.1 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 5.30 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.37 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 84.8 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.37 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: 07/Oct/2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 3.95 9 0 9.00 10.61 0.80 13.2 protected. Sp. #5 CT 1+ #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(0+) 1.70 0 1 1.00 1.18 0.57 2.1 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 CT 1+ Sp. #6 Dv(0+) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 44 1 0.6 70 1 4.7 54 1 1.7 71 1 4.7 75 1 5.6 68 1 4.3 72 1 4.8 65 1 3.2 60 1 2.7 61 1 3.0 59 1 2.7

______mjl page A-33

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

______mjl page A-34

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Rees Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 4 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 13 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.42 1 1 2.00 4.81 0.05 95.6 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 3.20 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.95 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 41.6 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.95 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: 17/Oct/2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 4.38 6 1 7.00 16.83 0.20 83.8 protected. Sp. #5 Ct(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.05 #DIV/0! Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(0+) 2.00 0 1 1.00 2.40 0.05 47.8 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Ct(0+) Sp. #6 Dv(0+) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 55 1 1.5 64 1 3.8 59 1 2.0 49 1 1.3 85 1 6.6 64 1 3.6 72 1 4.1 69 1 3.5 65 1 3.5 76 1 4.7

______mjl page A-35

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Rees UTM CODE: 10.334428.5496849 DATE: 17/Oct/2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-2680 SAMPLE TYPE: Partially closed edge site SITE REFERENCE: 3.4 SITE NAME: Rees 6 TRANSECT #: 1 (Kweishun Creek) MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Glide edge TRANSECT WIDTH: 3.1 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 7.94 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 3.1 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.4014 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 8

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 92 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 92 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 29 % MEAN DEPTH: 0.391 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 85 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.332 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 90 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 1.211 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 33 % Generic Insect suitability 44 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 2.84 Sum usable width Rb fry 1.16 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 5.50 0.57 0.510 Left edge of site 0.3 0.3 0.45 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.00 0.3 6.00 0.49 0.390 LG/C 0.5 0.5 0.39 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.68 0.3 6.50 0.48 0.440 LG/SG 0.5 0.5 0.44 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.71 0.4 7.00 0.42 0.330 SG/LG 0.5 0.4 0.33 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.86 0.4 7.50 0.38 0.300 S/SG 0.5 0.4 0.30 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.92 0.5 8.00 0.35 0.210 S/SG 0.5 0.4 0.21 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.67 0.3 8.50 0.25 0.090 C/S 0.3 0.3 0.09 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.30 0.1 8.60 0.19 0.070 C/S (RWE) 0.0 0.2 0.07 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-36

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Rees Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 6 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 11 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 0.81 2 0 2.00 5.87 0.92 6.4 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 3.10 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.92 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 34.1 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.92 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: 17/Oct/2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 3.53 12 2 14.40 42.23 0.33 129.5 protected. Sp. #5 Ct(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.92 #DIV/0! Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(0+) 0.65 4 3 8.00 23.46 0.92 25.6 B.C. Environment, August 1993

denotes clipped adipose

______mjl page A-37

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Eric Creek UTM CODE: 330479 5501604 DATE: Oct-13-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-2680 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed side channel SITE REFERENCE: 4.3 SITE NAME: Eric 1 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: SC METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Riffle TRANSECT WIDTH: 2.6 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 27.95 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 2.6 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.0220 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 11

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 64 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 12 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 85 % Closed side channel site MEAN DEPTH: 0.093 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 31 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.091 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 14 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 0.242 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 49 % Generic Insect suitability 7 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 0.32 Sum usable width Rb fry 1.66 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 1.7 0.00 0.000 LWE SG/B 0.2 0.0 0.04 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 2.0 0.17 0.070 LG/B 0.4 0.2 0.07 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.25 0.1 2.4 0.16 0.030 LG/C 0.3 0.2 0.03 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 2.6 0.08 0.100 C/LG 0.3 0.1 0.10 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14 0.0 2.9 0.10 0.380 C/B 0.3 0.1 0.38 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.59 0.1 3.1 0.08 0.000 C/B (bb) 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 3.3 0.08 0.000 C/LG (bb) 0.3 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 3.6 0.09 0.130 C/B 0.3 0.1 0.13 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.22 0.1 3.9 0.04 0.000 C/B (bb) 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 4.0 0.06 0.100 C/B (bb) 0.2 0.1 0.10 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.0 4.3 0.00 0.000 RWE B/C 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-38

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Eric Creek Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 1 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 19 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.34 5 0 6.00 10.53 0.85 12.3 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 3.00 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.12 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 57.0 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.12 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Oct-13-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 #DIV/0! protected. Sp. #5 DV(0+) 1.55 8 0 7.00 12.28 0.85 14.4 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 DV(1+) 7.50 6 0 6.00 10.53 0.85 12.3 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 DV(0+) Sp. #6 DV(1+) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 50 1 1.3 53 1 1.3 103 1 12.1 51 1 1.5 55 1 1.9 91 1 7.2 50 1 1.4 59 1 2.1 85 1 6.5 46 1 1.0 50 1 1.4 80 1 6.4 51 1 1.5 40 1 0.5 86 1 6.9 55 1 1.6 83 1 5.9 55 1 1.9 56 1 1.7

______mjl page A-39

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Eric Creek UTM CODE: 333559 5502148 DATE: Oct-14-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-2680 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed edge site SITE REFERENCE: 0.8 SITE NAME: Eric 3 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Riffle TRANSECT WIDTH: 2.9 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 13.48 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 2.9 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.2116 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 7

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 46 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 59 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 51 % Closed edge site MEAN DEPTH: 0.215 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 54 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.339 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 56 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 0.624 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 35 % Generic Insect suitability 37 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 1.70 Sum usable width Rb fry 1.32 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 4.8 0.00 0.00 LWE B/C 0.2 0.0 0.10 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.2 0.08 0.19 B/C 0.4 0.1 0.19 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26 0.1 5.5 0.15 0.00 B/C 0.4 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.0 0.23 0.11 C/LG 0.5 0.2 0.11 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.36 0.2 6.5 0.25 0.45 C/LG 0.5 0.3 0.45 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.00 0.5 7.0 0.30 0.40 C/B 0.6 0.3 0.40 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.00 0.6 7.7 0.32 0.58 Outer edge C/B 0.4 0.3 0.58 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.98 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-40

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Eric Creek Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 3 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 14 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.51 #DIV/0! to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 3.50 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 49.0 Sp. #3 Rb(2+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59 #DIV/0! shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Oct-14-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 4.15 1 1 2.00 4.08 0.35 11.7 protected. Sp. #5 Dv(0+) 1.20 2 1 3.00 6.12 0.51 12.0 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(1+) 7.20 3 1 4.00 8.16 0.51 16.0 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Rb(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Dv(0+) Sp. #6 Dv(1+) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 63 1 3.2 55 1 1.5 87 1 7.1 71 1 5.1 51 1 1.2 89 1 7.3 45 1 0.9 85 1 6.3 90 1 8.1

______mjl page A-41

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

DEPTH/VELOCITY TRANSECT DATA ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (CALCULATES W.U.A. & DISCHARGE) Modified Feb 2010*

STREAM: Eric Creek UTM CODE: 332228 5501764 DATE: Oct-14-2013 STREAM CODE: 920-553200-94200-50600-2680 SAMPLE TYPE: Closed edge site SITE REFERENCE: 2.4 SITE NAME: Eric 4 TRANSECT #: 1

MAIN/SIDE CHANNEL: M METERED/EST.: M MEAN/SURFACE: M HYDRAULIC TYPE: Glide TRANSECT WIDTH: 2.8 m WIDTH : DEPTH RATIO : 10.69 METER TYPE: Swoffer TRANSECT TYPE: P SENSOR DEPTH (from bottom): 40 % STREAM WIDTH: 2.8 m METERED DISCHARGE: 0.2717 m3s-1 NO. OF STATIONS: 7

ADJUSTED USABLE AREAS % USABLE BY RBT FRY 35 % % USABLE BY RBT PARR 73 % SITE WEIGHTED MEANS % USABLE BY CT FRY 31 % Closed edge site MEAN DEPTH: 0.262 m % USABLE BY CT PARR 62 % MEAN VELOCITY: 0.370 ms-1 % USABLE BY CHINOOK 67 % CROSS-SECT. AREA: 0.734 m2 % USABLE BY COHO 26 % Generic Insect suitability 45 %

DEPTH/ VELOCITY DATA FOR WEIGHTED USABLE AREA (WUA) CALCULATIONS Sum usable width Rb parr 2.05 Sum usable width Rb fry 0.98 Transect Data cell cell cell cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell usable cell cell cell usable station length depth velocity substrate width mean mean prob. width prob. width prob. width prob width prob. width prob. width prob. width area discharge prob width (m) (m) (m/s) depthvelocity RBT Fry RBT RBT CT CT CT CT CH CH CO CO Ins. Ins. Kokanee Kokanee (m) (m) (m/s) (m) Parr Parr fry fry parr parr (m) (m) (m) (sq. m) (cu. m/sec) Spawn Spawn 11.5 0.37 0.42 Left edge C/B 0.3 0.2 0.50 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.3 12.0 0.32 0.58 C/B 0.5 0.3 0.58 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.98 0.5 12.5 0.36 0.39 C/B 0.5 0.4 0.39 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.94 0.5 13.0 0.34 0.35 C/LG 0.5 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.96 0.5 13.5 0.25 0.24 C/B 0.5 0.3 0.24 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.80 0.4 13.9 0.17 0.01 C/B 0.4 0.2 0.01 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.03 0.0 14.3 0.00 0.00 RWE C/S 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0

______mjl page A-42

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

STREAM:Eric Creek Species Mean Estimated Fish/unit Prob. Adjusted SITE: 4 /age weight (g) Catch 1 Catch 2 population (100m2) of use Fish/unit This spreadsheet is designed LENGT H: 19 Sp. #1 Tr(0+) 1.25 0 2 3.00 5.64 0.31 18.1 to process electrofishing data. WIDTH: 2.80 Sp. #2 Rb(1+) #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.73 #DIV/0! Data can only be entered into non- AREA: 53.2 Sp. #3 Dv(2+) 21.80 1 0 1.00 1.88 0.31 6.0 shaded cells - all shaded cells are DATE: Oct-14-2013 Sp. #4 Co(0+) 4.88 4 2 6.00 11.28 0.26 43.3 protected. Sp. #5 Dv(0+) 1.77 3 0 3.00 5.64 0.31 18.1 Poul Bech, Reg. 2 Fisheries, Sp. #6 Dv(1+) 6.98 9 0 9.00 16.92 0.31 54.2 B.C. Environment, August 1993

Sp. #1 Tr(0+) Sp. #2 Rb(1+) Sp. #3 Dv(2+) Sp. #4 Co(0+) Sp. #5 Dv(0+) Sp. #6 Dv(1+) Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngth c1+c2 we ights(g)Le ngthc1+c2 we ights(g) 44 1 0.8 130 1 21.8 72 1 5.2 61 1 2.3 120 1 16.7 59 1 1.7 72 1 4.4 55 1 1.5 77 1 4.2 79 1 5.3 55 1 1.5 78 1 4.8 75 1 4.7 81 1 5.4 74 1 5.3 72 1 3.9 67 1 4.4 85 1 6.4 75 1 4.3 78 1 4.5 109 1 12.6

denotes clipped adipose

______mjl page A-43

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 3 Summary of adjusted fish density (FPU) by species and age at open and closed electrofishing sites.

Adjusted Density (FPU) a Stream/Section Site Type Reach Co0+ Tr0+ Ct1+ Rb1+ Rb2+ Dv0+ Dv1+

Cruickshank River 1 C 1 0.8 12.6 5.0 - - 4.2 0.5 2 C 1 43.2 4.8 0.7 1.9 - 1.6 0.0 3 C 4 - 10.1 - - - 1.8 0.0 4 C 1 36.4 5.5 - - - 0.0 5.1

Comox Creek 1 C 1 - 22.8 1.4 - - 0.0 0.0 2O/PS 1 - 5.8 - - 0.0 0.0 3 O/PS 1 - 5.6 1.2 - - 0.0 0.0 4 C 2 - 80.6 4.1 - - 22.6 10.2 5 O/PS 2 - 4.8 1.8 - - 0.0 0.0 6 C 2 - 27.4 - - 0.0 0.0

Rees Creek 1 C 2 0.0 0.0 - - - - - 2 C 1 13.2 2.8 - - - 0.8 - 3 PS 1 - - - - 4.3 - 4 C 1 79.6 95.6 - - - 78.5 - Kweishun Creek 6 C 2 125.9 6.4 - - - 9.7 -

Eric Creek 1 C 2 - 12.3 - - - 14.4 12.3 2 O/PS 2 - 12.8 - - - 51.2 44.8 3 C 1 11.7 - - - - 12.0 16.0 4 C 2 43.3 18.1 - - - 18.1 54.2

Upper Puntledge River 1 C 2 102.3 27.3 - 2.3 1.1 - - 2 C 1 8.1 7.1 - - - - - 3 C 1 24.1 22.5 1.3 - - - -

 FPU (fish per unit), where a unit = 100 m2  C=closed site electrofishing  O=open site electrofishing  PS=pole seine  Open electrofishing and pole seine sites used for relative abundance but not density calculations.

______mjl page A-44

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 4 Summary of Raw and Calibrated Juvenile Counts at Snorkel Survey Sites, 2013.

Observed Fish per Meter of Streamlength Calibrated Fish per Meter of Streamlength Stream/Meso Site Reach Co 0+ T/C 0+ T/C 1+ T/C 2+ T/C 3+ Co 0+ T/C 0+ T/C 1+ T/C 2+ T/C 3+

Cruickshank River G 5 1 5.79 0.01 0.02 0.01 11.58 0.03 0.03 0.01 P 6 1 R 7 1 G 8 1 G 9 4 0.20 0.28 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.40 0.69 0.32 0.31 0.28 P 10 2 0.50 0.33 0.63 0.42 G 11 2 0.17 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.43 0.19 0.05 0.05 G 12 1 1.26 0.12 0.06 2.53 0.29 0.08 G 13 3 0.12 0.71 0.88 0.12 0.29 1.01 1.10 0.15 R 14 3 0.05 0.27 0.50 0.09 0.11 0.39 0.63 0.11 G 15 1 1.17 0.08 0.05 2.33 0.19 0.07 G 16 4 0.05 0.20 0.10 0.13 0.29 0.13 G 17 1 0.67 0.06 1.33 0.14 G 18 1 G 19 1 G 20 4 0.10 0.25

Comox Creek G 7 1 0.17 0.43 G 8 1 0.05 0.13 P 9 1 P 10 2 R 11 2 0.07 0.10 R 12 2

Rees Creek G 8 1 2.55 3.82 P 9 1 3.47 0.03 5.20 0.08 G 10 1 2.01 0.01 3.93 0.05

Eric Creek P 5 2 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.25 G 6 2 0.05 0.06 P 7 2 P 8 2 R 9 2

Upper Puntledge River G 4 2 6.88 0.57 0.01 8.95 1.43 0.02 R 5 2 10.05 0.55 1.25 0.10 13.07 1.38 1.78 0.13 G 6 2 6.50 0.50 0.21 0.56 8.45 1.25 0.30 0.70 P 7 1 16.15 0.22 0.04 20.99 0.56 0.05 P 8 1 8.58 11.15

______mjl page A-45

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 5 Historical Habitat Data

______mjl page A-46

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Historical habitat data from Griffith, 1995.

______mjl page A-47

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

______mjl page A-48

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

______mjl page A-49

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Historical habitat data from Russell, 1990.

______mjl page A-50

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 6 Scale Analysis

Age of fish as determined using scale samples from juveniles captured at electrofishing sites in the study area. Fish # Sample # Date Site Species FL (mm) Wt (g) Age 15 2 08-Oct-13 CXEFR3 CT 74 4.2 1+ 23 4 09-Oct-13 CXEFG4 CT 75 4.6 1+ 27 5 06-Aug-13 UPEFR3 CT 75 4.6 1+ 12 3 11-Oct-13 CKEFR1 CT 76 3.9 1+ 19 1 08-Oct-13 CXEFG1 CT 81 4.8 1+ 14 5 11-Oct-13 CKEFR1 CT 84 4.7 1+ 7 2 12-Oct-13 CKEFG2 CT 84 5.4 1+ 11 2 11-Oct-13 CKEFR1 CT 85 6.1 1+ 24 5 09-Oct-13 CXEFG4 CT 89 7.8 1+ 6 1 12-Oct-13 CKEFG2 CT 93 7.3 1+ 13 4 11-Oct-13 CKEFR1 CT 96 8.4 1+ 26 4 06-Aug-13 UPEFR3 CT 96 9.1 1+ 10 1 11-Oct-13 CKEFR1 CT 99 9.9 1+ 18 7 09-Oct-13 CXEFR5 CT 105 12.1 1+ 1 1 13-Oct-13 ECEFR1 DV 80 6.4 0+ 2 2 13-Oct-13 ECEFR1 DV 86 6.9 0+ 4 4 13-Oct-13 ECEFR1 DV 90 7.2 1+ 22 3 09-Oct-13 CXEFG4 DV 90 9.5 1+ 21 2 09-Oct-13 CXEFG4 DV 102 12.6 1+ 3 3 13-Oct-13 ECEFR1 DV 103 12.1 1+ 16 1 14-Oct-13 ECEFG4 DV 109 12.6 1+ 20 1 09-Oct-13 CXEFG4 DV 117 16.4 1+ 9 2 16-Oct-13 CKEFR3 DV 117 20.8 1+ 8 1 16-Oct-13 CKEFR3 DV 121 19.6 1+ 25 6 09-Oct-13 CXEFG4 DV 123 20.4 1+ 17 2 14-Oct-13 ECEFG4 DV 130 21.8 NS a. 5 5 13-Oct-13 ECEFR2 DV 157 42.1 2+ 30 2 05-Aug-13 UPEFR1 RB 120 20.0 1+ 28 3 05-Aug-13 UPEFR1 RB 143 35.8 1+ 29 1 05-Aug-13 UPEFR1 RB 172 53.2 2+ a. No readable scales

______mjl page A-51

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 7 Cruickshank River (Km 1.2) Discharge Plots (Data source: BC Hydro)

Cruickshank R Jan 1, 2005-Jan 31, 2013 600

500

400

300

200 Discharge Discharge (cms) 100

Cruickshank River Jan 1-Dec 31, 2013 120

100

40 Discharge Discharge (cms) 20

Cruickshank River Aug 1 - Oct 31, 2013 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Discharge Discharge (cms) 20 10 0

______mjl page A-52

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 8 Water Temperature Plots

22 Comox Creek Rees Creek

Upper Puntledge River 20

16 C) o

14 Temperature( 12

6 Jul Jul - - Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Sep Sep Sep Sep Sep Sep Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug ------3 8 3 8 4 9 25 30 13 18 23 13 18 23 28 14 19 24 29

Water temperature at Upper Puntledge River, July 26- October 23, 2013 with Comox Creek and Rees Creek, July 26 – September 28, 2013 (Source: Guimond, pers. comm.).

______mjl page A-53

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 9 Total Alkalinity Data

Total alkalinity values estimated from opportunistic specific conductance measurements throughout the study area during August and October, 2013. The following conversion was used to estimate total alkalinity in each of the study streams:

Total Alkalinity (mg/l) = (Specific Conductance) x 0.4

Date Upper Puntledge Cruickshank Comox Rees Eric 13.08.06 13.08.06 18.4 13.08.08 15.6 8.5 13.08.08 13.2 10.8 13.08.06 18.4 13.08.22 12.2 13.08.28 13.1 13.10.07 9.4 13.10.09 17.7 13.10.10 18.4 13.10.11 12.9 13.10.13 16.0 13.10.16 16.4

Mean 18.4 14.1 16.4 10.0 16.0

______mjl page A-54

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 10 Snorkel Sighting Efficiency Calibration

Sighting Efficiency

Calibration Correction Counts Adjusted Factor

0.55 0.50 2.0 Co 0+ Cruickshank Streams 0.55 0.75 1.3 Co 0+ Upper Puntledge Trout/Char 0+ 0.83 0.40 1.3

Trout/Char 1+ 0.70 0.70 1.4

Trout/Char 2+ 0.80 0.80 1.3

Trout/Char 3+ 0.80 0.80 1.3

______mjl page A-55

Juvenile Rearing Studies at Tributary Streams to Comox Lake - 2013 ______

Appendix 11 Fry Recruitment Calculations from Redd Counts

Biostandards and fry recruitment calculations at index sites in Upper Puntledge River, comox Creek and Rees Creek, 2013.

Index Site UPunt Comox Rees Length of index site (km) 2.9 3.2 3.5 2013 redd count 138 122 100 Redds/female 1.2 1.2 1.2 Est. female spawners 115 102 83 Fecundity 950 950 950 Total eggs deposited 2013 109,250 96,583 79,167 Egg-fry suvival 10% 10% 10% Total fry 2013 10,925 9,658 7,917 Fry-Parr Survival 20% 20% 20% Total parr 2013 2,185 1,932 1,583 Expected fry/m from redd counts 2013 3.77 3.02 2.26 Expected parr/meter index site 2013* 0.8 0.6 0.5

Trout Fry Only UPunt Comox Rees WUA for fry in index sites (Units) 121 70 56 Expected fry production from 2013 redd count (FPU) 90.3 138.0 141.4 Required production to fill usable fry habitat (FPU) 223 93.5 124.5 Observed 2013 EF sites (FPU) 16.30 14.60 43.80 % Habitat Capability 7% 16% 35% % Seeding Requirement 40% 148% 114%

______mjl page A-56