Stave River Watershed- Restoring Salmon Habitat

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

April 17, 2018

Photo by RDrennan

Prepared for the Fish Wildlife Compensation Program. COA F18-F-2396 Prepared with financial support of the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program on behalf of its program partners BCH Hydro, the Province of BC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and Public Stakeholders.

Prepared by Natashia Cox, Project Manager Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Project Acknowledgement

Thanks to our funders: BCH Fish Wildlife Compensation Program, Environment Canada’s National Wetlands Conservation Fund, DFO’s Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnership Program, and Pacific Salmon Foundation

Many thanks to our staff team and contractors – Rachel Drennan, Winter Moon, Liz Penner, Alanna Strangway. Many thanks to our contractors - Aimee Mitchell, Andrea Gielens, Deanna McTavish with Coastal Western Painted Turtle Project, Cordillera Archaeology-Brendan Gray, Pearson Ecological- Mike Pearson, Roxanne Snook and Petra Wykpis, Raincoast Applied Ecological- Claudia Schaefer and Nick Page, Terra Fauna-Myles Lamont, Fraser Valley Conservancy- Joanne Neilson and Sofi Hindmarch,

ADS Bobcat, and Mission Contracting.

Many thanks to our partners DFO Resource Restoration Unit – Dave Nanson, Al Jonsson and Jonathan Bulcock, Stave Valley Salmonid Enhancement Society – Jim and Terry Taylor, Barb Strachan, Ducks Unlimited Canada – Dan Buffet, Seyem Qwantlen First Nation, District of Mission and Fraser Valley Regional District.

Many thanks to our FVWC directors and community volunteers! Together, we are working towards “healthy watersheds and healthy communities.”

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 2

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Table of Contents Project Acknowledgement ...... 2 1. Executive Summary ...... 4 2. Introduction and Rationale ...... 5 3. Objectives and Goals ...... 5 4. Project Location ...... 7 5. Results ...... 9 5.1 Instream aquatic channel construction ...... 9 5.2 Replanting & Community Engagement ...... 10 5.3 Monitoring ...... 12 6. Next Steps ...... 12 7. References...... 13 8. List of Attachments ...... 14

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 3

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

1. Executive Summary

This project is a collaborative effort to enhance, restore and promote shared conservation values in the Stave River watershed. It is a continuation of projects that have occurred in the Lower Stave River region to improve the overall salmon habitat in the area.

This years project aligned with FWCP Action Plans: Stave Salmonid Action Plan, Habitat-based Actions to ensure a productive and diverse aquatic ecosystem and maximize the viability of anadromous salmon (coho, chum and chinook). In addition, this project aligned with FWCP Action Plan: Stave Riparian Wetlands Action Plan, Habitat-based Actions to ensure productive and diverse wetland and riparian ecosystems and reduce threats to Category 1 (natural riparian or wetland habitat largely intact ecosystems with natural disturbances sufficient to maintain subclimax communities and processes characteristic of wetlands and riparian ecosystems).

This project resulted in the restoration of the following amount of habitats:

• 12,500 m2 newly created off-channel aquatic habitat • 4,375 m2 of riparian and aquatic planting using 13,035 individual native plants.

FWCP contributed $78,894.20 from July 2017 to March 31, 2018, and with matching and partner in- kind contributions the total project value of this project $248,200.

This report summarizes the results of work completed between July 2017 and March 31, 2018 under the financial contribution of the Fish Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP). Additional support for this project was received by the National Wetlands Conservation Fund, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Salmon Enhancement Program, Pacific Salmon Foundation, Stave Valley Salmonid Enhancement Society, Coastal Painted Turtle Project, University of the Fraser Valley, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Kwantlen First Nation, District of Mission, the local community members, the Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition, and the Fraser Valley Regional District.

Thanks to the momentum of on-the-ground restoration activities, the strength in partnerships and sponsorships, and overall importance of this project, further restoration efforts and long-term management plans are being developed to continue building upon the success and ensure long-term ecological integrity is maintained.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 4

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

2. Introduction and Rationale

Tidally influenced freshwater estuaries and off-channel habitats are critical areas benefiting salmon, waterfowl, migratory birds and many mammals, and serves as an important ecosystem for flood protection and human serves. They are vital in maintaining the ecological integrity of river systems in British Columbia. Natural off-channel habitats include beaver ponds, wetlands, alcoves, floodplains, side channels and tributaries. The Lower Stave River has been regarded as one of the most productive salmon habitats in the province and supports the second largest chum salmon population in the Fraser River watershed. The presence of the Ruskin dam restricts the range of habitat that the anadromous salmon can use, and currently only the lower 3 km section of the Stave River provide habitat for these spawning salmon.

This project focused on the right bank of the Fraser River, within the Stave River Watershed area, Mission BC. Challenges within this watershed have occurred historically and some are still present today. Extensive wetland loss, rapid development and growth, significant changes to the river hydrology from the construction of the Ruskin Dam, and the potential impacts from nearby industrial and agricultural land uses, and invasive species encroachment into natural habitats. While not all challenges are addressed as part of this project, key habitat-related restoration opportunities at specific locations were pursued.

Improved habitat form and function as a result of this projects efforts improved habitat connectivity to support listed SARA species including the Western Painted Turtle, and those species included within the Bird Conservation Strategy – Region 5 (5PY) that require shrub/early successional stages and seral species habitat niches for migration and winter refuge. This may include common nighthawk, MacGillivrays Warbler, Orange Crowned Warbler, Spotted Towhee and/or Willow Flycatcher. In addition, provide habitat values for the non-migratory Lower Fraser Valley Sandhill Cranes, which was de-listed, but has not been assessed since 1979, and this coastal population could be listed as threatened by Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) due to it being a Lower Fraser Valley sub-population. In addition, monitoring efforts within this watershed help to complete data knowledge gaps and plan for habitat adaptation and management for long-term success.

3. Objectives and Goals The overarching objective of this project was to enhance sections along the right bank of the Fraser River within the Stave River Watershed to support functional ecological processes, provide suitable habitat conditions for wildlife and fish and build momentum and partnerships for long-term stewardship and conservation of these areas.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 5

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Specifically, the goals of this project were:

1. Restoration of Habitat: Construct and restore off-channel historical tidal channels and create additional channels in the tidal estuary that have been impacted by invasive species encroachment and hydraulic flow regimes alterations. Goal: minimum 300 linear meters. 2. Enhancement of Habitat. Complexing and aquatic habitat and replant aquatic and riparian scrub- shrub wetland habitats within tidal estuaries. Goal: Achieving at least 450m2 (0.045 hectares).

3. Improve Science and Knowledge: Complete water quality, fish surveying and bird surveying and vegetation assessment monitoring to inform effectiveness/usage/data gaps. Goal: Conduct monitoring and share results.

4. Community Engagement: Promote increased stewardship through community and volunteer engagement. This includes hanging project signage to raise awareness for the activities. Goal: Minimum 30 volunteers assisting in the work.

5. Improve Opportunities for Sustainable Use: In partnership with Kwantlen First Nation – impart knowledge about the importance of this site as a salmon and wildlife refuge. Goal: Share the final reports, monitoring reports and archaeological reports.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 6

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

4. Project Location The project sites, Site 2 and Site 3, are situated within the municipal District of Mission, and within the traditionally Kwantlen First Nation territory. Site 2 is located on the left bank of the Stave River, and is an extensive island owned by Kwantlen First Nation (IR2). Site 3 is located south of Lougheed Highway and is a large wetland and low floodplain area adjacent to the Fraser River. It is owned by Ducks Unlimited Canada and Kwantlen First Nation -IR land. Map 1. Channel excavation and replanting was limited to Site 2. Monitoring efforts were completed at both Site 2 and 3. Salish Sucker reconnassaince encompassed the entire watershed, Map 2.

SITE 2 SILVERMERE LAKE RESERVOIR

FRASER RIVER

SITE 3

Map 1. Overview of Site 1 and Site 2

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 7

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Reconnaissance for Salish Sucker general area

Site 2 Restoration and Monitoring

Site 3

Map 2. Overview of Restoration and monitoring to Salish Sucker Reconnaissance area

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 8

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

5. Results 5.1 Instream aquatic channel construction

Prior to restoration, stakeholders, First Nations and the project team designed final restoration plans, flagged out the excavation channels and sensitive area setbacks. Restoration works, completed in consultation and partnership with DFO Resource Restoration Unit, began on September 5, 2017 and ended September 25, 2017. Works occurred in the dry in historic channels that had become infilled from invasive grasses and years of sedimentation. These channels were dug using an excavator. The bucket of the machine created large scalloped aquatic benches, and excavated material was side casted onto the top of the bank, to help elevate the height for the riparian area and planting efforts. During mobilization, excavation and demobilization, archaeologists, First Nation monitors and western painted turtle recovery team member biologists were contracted to ensure these values were conserved during the works.

The Goal: Min.300 linear meters. The results: 12,500 m2 (1.25 hectares) (1069 linear meters) of new off-channel aquatic habitat was completed. Attachment A: Photo-documentation and Attachment B: Construction As-Built.

Figure 1.Excavator creating shallow aquatic benches to support native sedges and aquatic emergent vegetation.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 9

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

5.2 Replanting & Community Engagement

FVWC staff and volunteers completed replanting of the aquatic benches and the upland riparian areas. The substrate of these new channels was high clay and silty-sand composition, and this whole lower Stave River reach undergoes significant hydrological fluctuation, (daily tides, tail-water releases from the Ruskin Dam, and seasonal droughts), methods that could support a more stable growing medium, retain moisture and assist in soil building formations was incorporated. This involved creating site- specific burlap tubes, which were then filled with inoculated growing soils. The burlap was filled with soil, and then holes were cut into the sack to plant and secure the aquatic plugs. These bags were partially buried into the aquatic bench and fastened with stakes to keep them in place. The orientation of the bags on the aquatic bench were angled and spaced, to allow for flowing water to move past them and to catch leaf litter that would help provide nutrients into the water and build an organic soil layer. In addition to the burlap method, live plugging into the substrate and was also done, and the success of these methods will be compared in the future.

Species selection included aquatic vegetation that are fast growing and dominant such as the slough sedge (Carex obnupta) and other aquatics that also hold First Nation value. Upland species included water-tolerant and drought-tolerant species such as Woods rose (rosa woodsii), Table 1.

On the top of the channel banks, potted stock was dug in by hand, and a variety of native willows and black cottonwood whips, harvested locally, were live staked. These shrub-scrub species will help to increase bank stability through their root development, shade the channel, and provide important leaf litter into the system and offer habitat and food for wildlife. The presence of beaver and small mammal herbivory is high in the area, so preferential beaver fodder was guarded with wire cages and tree spirals.

The Goal: Min.450 m2. The Result: A total of 13,035 native plants were planted, Table 1, encompassing 4,375 m2 (0.44 hectares) with 50 volunteers!

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 10

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Table 1. List of species planted Common Name Scientific Name Size Quantity Riparian Planting Redosier Dogwood Cornus sericea 1 gal 100 2 gal 100 Sweet gale Myrica gale 1 gal 50 Pacific willow Salix lusindra 1 gal 50 Hardhack Spiraea douglasii Plug 100 1 gal 150 2 gal 150 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 2 gal 110 Nootka rose Rosa nootkatensis 2 gal 100 Woods rose Rosa woodsia 2 gal 100 Red elderberry Sambucus racemose 1 gal 33 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 1 gal 80 Red Alder Alnus rubra Plug 100 Willows Salix spp. Whip 4,500 Aquatic Bench Planting Common rush Juncus efficus Plug 720 1 gal 20 Hard stem Bulrush Scirpus acutus Plug 216 1 gal 20 Dense sedge Carex densa Plug 1440 Slough sedge Carex obnupta Plug 1296 Mertins Sedge Carex mertensii Plug 1296 Tall Mangrass Glyceria elata Plug 1008 Soft stemmed Bulrush Scirpus viridis Plug 576 Spreading rush Juncus patens Plug 720 Total 13,035

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 11

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Figure 2. Staff prepping the burlap planting mediums. Figure 3. South-view of aquatic bench with burlap sacks and plugs. 5.3 Monitoring

Our monitoring efforts as part of this project help to set a baseline, and track the spatial and temporal changes as a result of efforts from the restoration project, natural process and to gain information about known data gaps.

Monitoring activities and their results include:  Surveying fish and water quality, completed by FVWC staff – Attachment C.  Bird presence, completed by FVWC staff and contract biologist – Attachment D.  Sandhill crane, completed by contract biologist -– Attachment D.  Western Painted Turtle, completed by contract biologist – Attachment E.  Salish Sucker reconnaissance, completed by contract biologist -– Attachment F.

6. Next Steps

 Continue planting aquatic and riparian habitats  Continue monitoring for water quality, fish usage, bird presence  Compare planting method results to help improve techniques  Continue to guard planted stock to reduce herbivory impacts.  Consider adding nesting boxes to the project sites.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 12

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

7. References Allan, JD., Wipfli, M.S., Caouette, J.P., Prussian, A., and Rodgers, J. 2003. Influence of Streamside vegetation inputs of terrestrial invertebrates to salmonid food webs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences: 60, 309-320.

Bailey, D.D., Fedorenko, A.Y., Cook, R.J. 2005. An Integrated Approach to Rebuilding Stave River Chum Using Harvest Reduction, Hatchery Augmentation, Flow Control and Habitat Improvement. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 2593.

Bannerman S. 1998. Riparian Areas: Providing Landscape Habitat Diversity PART 5 of 7. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/en/en17.pdf

British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Water Quality Guidelines for Dissolved Oxygen Overview Report Environmental Protection Division. Web. March 7, 2017. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/waterquality/wqgs- wqos/approved-wqgs/dissolvedoxygen-or.pdf

British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Water Quality Guidelines for Temperature Overview Report Environmental Protection Division. Web. March 7, 2017. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/waterquality/wqgs- wqos/approved-wqgs/temperature-or.pdf

Clewall. A.F. and Aronson. J. 2013. Ecological Restoration Principles, Values, and Structure of an Emerging Profession. 2nd ed. Island Press.

COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Western Screech-Owl kennicottii subspecies Megascops kennicottii kennicottii and the Western Screech-Owl macfarlanei subspecies Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 30 pp. (www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm).

DFO. 1965. Development Surveys of Chum Salmon Streams in the Lower Fraser River. Fisheries and Oceans.

Garbutt, R., and Harris, J.W.E. 1994. Poplar and Willow borer. Forest Pest leaflet. ISBN 0-662-22832- 4. Catalogues No. Fo 29-6/7-1994E

http://web.forestry.ubc.ca/fetch21/Z-PDF-pest-info-folder/Cryptorynchus-Lapathi- PoplarWillowBorer.pdf

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 13

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Hancock, M. and Marshall, D. 1985. Catalogue of Salmon Streams and Spawning Escapements of Statistical Area 29 Mission-Harrison. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Salmonid Enhancement Program. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 518.

Lapointe N., Cooke S J., Imhof JG., Boisclair D., Casselman JM., Curry R.A., Langer O.E., McLaughlin R.L., Minns C.K., Post J.R., Power M., Rasmussen J.B., Reynolds J.D., Richardson J.S., and Tonn W.M. 2013. Principles for ensuring healthy and productive freshwater ecosystems that support sustainable fisheries. Enviro. Rev. Vol. 22.

Roni P., Beechie T.J., Bilby R.E., Leonetti F.E., Pollock M.M., and Pess GR. 2002. A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Vol. 22:1.

8. List of Attachments  Attachment A: Photo-Documentation  Attachment B: Off-Channel Habitat As-Built Diagram  Attachment C: Fish and water quality Monitoring Results  Attachment D: Bird Presence Monitoring Results  Attachment E: Sandhill Crane Summary Memo  Attachment F: Salish Sucker Reconnaissance Summary Report

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 14

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

ATTACHMENT A: PHOTO-DOCUMENTATION

Northview of excavator digging the off-channel habitat.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 15

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

ATTACHMENT A: PHOTO-DOCUMENTATION

Top. FVWC staff layout flats of aquatic plants. Bottom Left. Kwantlen First Nation and FVWC staff use an articulated volvo to haul plants and guards to the site for planting. Bottom Right. Volunteers cheer for the project during a lunch break!

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 16

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

ATTACHMENT A: PHOTO-DOCUMENTATION

Drone photograph taken by FVWC R.Drennan south-view showing the newly created riparian upland area being replanted

with native vegetation and the assistance from Kwantlen First Nation technicians and community volunteers.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 17

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Drone photograph taken by FVWC R.Drennan south-view showing the complexity of the off-channel habitats constructed.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 18

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Drone photograph taken by FVWC R.Drennan North-view showing the complexity of the off-channel habitats

constructed.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 19

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

ATTACHMENT B: AS-BUILTS REPLANTING AREAS

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary 2018 Page | 20

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

March 31, 2018 Fish and Water Quality Monitoring Memo

Prepared for the Fish Wildlife Compensation Program. COA F18-F-2396 Field monitoring completed by Winter Moon, Liz Penner and Alanna Strangway Report Prepared by Natashia Cox & Rachel Drennan, Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

1. Introduction and Monitoring Parameters

Monitoring was completed by FVWC Field Operations Manager and Field Crew to assess water quality conditions and juvenile fish usage to help inform designs and communications, future restoration and enhancement and actions needed. The variables included in the monitoring plan were:

 Dissolved Oxygen – dissolved oxygen (DO)-(mg/L and %) is measured using a YSI hand meter. Rationale: DO is a key habitat parameter for fish and amphibian species, and indicates aquatic system health. Dissolved oxygen levels will in part determine whether fish trapping will occur based on the British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

 Temperature – Water temperature (degrees Celsius) is recorded at each sampling site during water quality measurements. Rationale: Water temperature is a critical factor for many aquatic animal species during varying life stages. It can influence fish survival and amphibian breeding cycles. Mature vegetation moderates water temperature, and we expect that temperature fluctuations would be mitigated once vegetation matures. Temperature levels will in part determine whether fish trapping will occur.

 Turbidity – Turbidity is measured using with a Triton turbidity wedge at each sampling point. In cases where turbidity is lower than the range of the instrument turbidity will be recorded as ‘none visible’ or ‘some visible’. Rationale: The suspended /dissolved substances in a water column can impact the ability of aquatic species and salmon to survive and reproduce at certain thresholds and can have varying effects including suspended fallout covering spawning grounds/redds, reduce predation/increase predation among others. It can also impact the macrophytic habitat. It will be measured in NTU’s and will help to determine background trends.

 Specific Conductivity - is a measure of how effectively water conducts electricity, which varies with its ion concentration. It rises with salinity, water hardness, nutrient loading and other forms of pollution. It is valuable as an indicator of productivity and of pollution; however, the cause of high readings cannot be determined without additional testing. Specific conductivity is able detect high levels of a very wide range of substances.

 Total dissolved solids – is a measure of the total concentration in mg/l of dissolved substances. It is closely related to specific conductivity and, like it, indicates productivity and/or pollution.

 pH – is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in water. It is a negative log scale, with a neutral value of 7. Each unit decrease in pH (e.g. from 7 to 6) indicates a tenfold increase in

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary-WQ/Fish Monitoring 2018 Page | 2

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

hydrogen ion concentration. Rationale: pH is an important water chemistry parameter. Changes in pH can indicate contaminated water, or changes to the waterway. Levels outside the range of 6.5- 9 are unsuitable for most aquatic life. Levels close to neutral are most productive.

 Fish Use - Fish are trapped using standard G-traps (2 per site) in accordance to DFO and MOE permits and standards. Baited traps will were set for approximately 22 hours at ten standard locations. Fish were identified to species and counted. These results will provide an indication of overall habitat diversity and use.

2. Monitoring Results 2.1 Stave Site 2 A total of seven monitoring locations were established across Site 2.Monitoring locations were identified in partnership with DFO salmon enhancement program biologists, and monitoring began in the fall of 2017. Map 1, Table 1. The average water quality conditions at each monitoring station is shown in Table 2. Of note, the water quality conditions met the minimum requirements set out by the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection for temperature and Dissolved oxygen. The fish surveying results are shown in Table 3, Figure 1.

Stave River

Silvermere Resevoir

Map 1. Monitoring Locations Stave Site 2

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary-WQ/Fish Monitoring 2018 Page | 3

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Table 1. Monitoring Locations Stave Site 2 Site Station Type GPS UTMS Easting Northing Stave Site 2 2-1 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542592.00 m E 5446970.00 m N 2-2 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542609.00 m E 5447218.00 m N 2-3 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542586.00 m E 5447481.00 m N 2-4 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542577.00 m E 5447747.00 m N 2-5 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542530.00 m E 5447314.00 m N 2-6 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542527.00 m E 5447442.00 m N 2-7 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542382.00 m E 5447248.00 m N

Table 2. Average Water Quality Conditions at each Stave Site 2 Monitoring Station and Across Project Site (2017-March 31, 2018) Station # Average Average Average Average DO Average Average Average Conductivity Salinity DO % mg/LA TempB Turbidity pH (µS/cm) ppm 2-1 90.35 10.85 7.45 21 50.5 7.38 22.5 2-2 96.9 11.05 8.50 21 37 7.00 19 2-3 78.3 9.42 7.25 21 45.5 6.82 22 2-4 62.2 7.22 7.75 21 44 6.66 27 2-5 86.85 10.23 8.15 21 33 6.60 16.5 2-6 84.10 10.00 7.80 21 32 6.43 16.5 2-7 99.35 11.87 7.80 21 25 6.50 12.5 Cumulative Average 85.43 10.09 7.81 21 38.1 6.77 19.4 across stations

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary-WQ/Fish Monitoring 2018 Page | 4

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Table 3. Fish species Stave Site 2 (Nov. 17, 2017 – March 20, 2018) Station # Total # Fish PMB CO RSC TSB NSC Caught

2-1 7 1 2 1 0 3 2-2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2-3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2-4 2 0 1 0 1 0 2-5 5 1 0 0 2 2 2-6 2 0 0 0 2 0 2-7 5 0 0 0 1 4 Cumulative Average across 24 3 3 1 8 9 stations *CO= Coho salmon, CM = Chum Salmon, PMB =Pumpkinseed (non-native), RSC= Redside Shiner, TSB = Threespine Stickleback, NSC = Northern Pikeminoow. *Adult Chum and Coho were observed spawning but were outside the minnow trapping and monitoring.

Fish Monitoring Stave Site 2

12% PMB CO RSC TSB NSC

Figure 1. Fish Monitoring by Species Caught at Stave Site 2 38% 13% across all monitoring stations (Jan. - Mar 2017). 13% of fish caught were coho salmon.

33%

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary-WQ/Fish Monitoring 2018 Page | 5

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

2.2 Stave Site 3 A total of ten monitoring locations were established across Site 3. Monitoring locations were identified in partnership with DFO salmon enhancement program biologists, and monitoring began in 2016 Map 4, Table 4. The average water quality conditions at each monitoring station is shown in Table 5. Of note, the water quality conditions met the minimum requirements set out by the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection for temperature and Dissolved oxygen. The fish surveying results are shown in Table 6, Figure 2. Of note, almost all of the coho caught during the spring monitoring were about 15cm long, which leads us to believe that they are at least one year old using the habitat as rearing and overwintering, and that the fry had not hatched out yet, and thus not caught in the minnow traps.

Silvermere Resevoir

Stave River

Fraser River

Map 2. Monitoring Locations Stave Site 3

Table 4. Monitoring Locations Stave Site 3 Site Station Type GPS UTMS Easting Northing Stave Site 3 3-1 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542637.00 m E 5446457.00 m N 3-2 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542371.37 m E 5446597.81 m N 3-3 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542337.00 m E 5446617.00 m N 3-4 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542553.00 m E 5446453.00 m N 3-5 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542645.00 m E 5446283.00 m N 3-6 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542835.00 m E 5446109.00 m N 3-7 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 542893.00 m E 5446010.00 m N 3-8 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 543055.00 m E 5445845.00 m N 3-9 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 543030.00 m E 5446048.00 m N 3-10 Water Quality & Fish 10 U 543022.00 m E 5445936.00 m N

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary-WQ/Fish Monitoring 2018 Page | 6

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

In addition to setting minnow traps, field observations were made during the spawning season to understand if returning Chum and Coho salmon were using the newly created (2015) spawning grounds at the top (eastern end) of the habitat.

Table 5. Average Water Quality Conditions at each Stave Site 3 Monitoring Station and Across Project Site (2016-March 31, 2018) Station # Average Average Average Average DO Average Average Average Conductivity Salinity DO % mg/LA TempB Turbidity pH (µS/cm) ppm

3-1 89.60 11.13 6.1 21 86 7.07 43 3-2 95.13 11.93 5.7 21 84 7.15 43 3-3 96.00 12.04 5.7 21 87 7.15 43 3-4 88.30 11.29 4.9 21 60 7.12 35 3-5 83.20 10.62 4.9 21 85 6.99 41 3-6 86.13 10.95 5.1 21 84 6.98 42 3-7 86.60 11.04 5.0 21 83 6.98 42 3-8 96.65 12.27 5.3 21 77 7.24 39 3-9 80.23 9.89 6.3 21 157 6.98 78 3-10 89.63 11.37 5.1 21 84 7.27 44 Cumulative Average 89.10 11.30 5.4 21 88.1 7.10 44.7 across stations

A Red highlighted indicates DO levels below 5.0mg/L B Orange highlighted indicates Temperature levels above 15° Celsius 1 British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Water Quality Guidelines for Dissolved Oxygen Overview Report Environmental Protection Division. 2 British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Water Quality Guidelines for Temperature Overview Report Environmental Protection Division.

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary-WQ/Fish Monitoring 2018 Page | 7

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

Table 6. Fish Monitoring Results at Stave Site 2 across all stations (January 16 2017 – March 20 2018) Station # Total # Fish PMB CO RSC TSB NSC Caught

3-1 16 2 0 1 4 8 3-2 1 0 1 0 0 0 3-3 19 10 1 5 1 2 3-4 2 1 0 1 0 0 3-5 6 3 0 3 0 0 3-6 3 1 1 1 0 0 3-7 4 1 0 3 0 0 3-8 7 0 7 0 0 0 3-9 4 3 0 1 0 0 3-10 8 1 7 0 0 0 Cumulative Average 70 22 17 16 5 10 across stations *CO= Coho salmon, CM = Chum Salmon, PMB =Pumpkinseed (non-native), RSC= Redside Shiner, TSB = Threespine Stickleback, NSC = Northern Pikeminoow. *Adult Chum and Coho were observed spawning but were outside the minnow trapping and monitoring.

Fish Monitoring Stave Site 3

14% PMB CO RSC TSB NSC

Figure 3. Fish Monitoring by Species Caught at Stave Site 3 across all 32% 7% monitoring stations (Jan. - Mar 2017). 24% of fish caught were juvenile coho salmon.

23%

24%

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary-WQ/Fish Monitoring 2018 Page | 8

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

In addition to the fish monitoring, an amphibian egg-mass survey and incidental amphibian observation were completed and recorded throughout the entire site. At Site 3, a total of 23 amphibians were observed, of which:

 11 Northwestern Salamanders (Ambystoma gracile)  3 Long-toed salamaders (Ambystoma macrodactylum)  2 Western toads (Anaxyrus boreas)  7 American Bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus)

3. References

Clewall. A.F. and Aronson. J. 2013. Ecological Restoration Principles, Values, and Structure of an Emerging Profession. 2nd ed. Island Press.

4. List of Attachments  Attachment A: Raw WQ and Fish Monitoring Data

FVWC |Stave River Tidal Estuary-WQ/Fish Monitoring 2018 Page | 9

STAVE SITE 2 MONITORING INFORMATION Weather: overcast Monitored by: Winter Moon Liz Penner Alanna Srangeway Start Time : 10:45 AM Date Site‐Station UTM's Easting UTM's Northing Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm) traps set Nov 16/2017‐ set traps Site 2‐1 542592 5446982 8.4 96.6 11.36 21 7.27 38 19 2 Nov 17/2017‐ pulled traps Site 2‐2 542609 5447231 8.5 96.9 11.05 21 7.00 37 19 2 November 17 2017 Site 2‐3 542588 5447497 8.2 86.1 10.14 21 6.81 44 21 2 November 17 2017 Site 2‐4 542580 5447758 9.3 66.3 7.64 21 6.71 42 32 2 November 17 2017 Site 2‐5 542532 5447328 9.6 94.5 10.77 21 6.61 39 19 2 November 17 2017 Site 2‐6 542531 5447453 9.1 85.0 9.77 21 6.41 26 13 2 November 17 2017 Site 2‐7 542382 5447263 9.6 95.0 10.82 21 6.37 33 17 1

Weather: overcast Monitored by: Winter Moon Liz Penner Angela Smith Start Time : 10:40 AM Date Site‐Station UTM's Easting UTM's Northing Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm) traps set March 19/2018‐ traps set Site 2‐1 542592 5446982 6.5 84.1 10.34 21 7.48 63 26 1 March 20/2018‐ pulled traps Site 2‐2 542609 5447231 6.2 76.9 9.52 21 7.13 47 27 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐3 542588 5447497 6.3 70.5 8.69 21 6.83 47 23 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐4 542580 5447758 6.2 58.0 6.80 21 6.60 46 22 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐5 542532 5447328 6.7 79.2 9.68 21 6.59 27 14 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐6 542531 5447453 6.5 83.2 10.23 21 6.45 38 20 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐7 542382 5447263 6.0 103.7 12.91 21 6.64 17 8 1 STAVE SITE 2 ANALYSIS BY STATION Date Station Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm)

Jan. 17 2017 Site 2‐1 8.4 96.6 11.36 21 7.27 38 19 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐1 6.5 84.1 10.34 21 7.48 63 26 Site 2‐1 average 7.45 90.35 10.85 21 7.38 50.5 22.5

Jan. 17 2017 Site 2‐2 8.5 96.9 11.05 21 7.00 37 19 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐2 Site 2‐2 average 8.50 96.9 11.05 21 7.00 37 19.0

Jan. 17 2017 Site 2‐3 8.2 86.1 10.14 21 6.81 44 21 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐3 6.3 70.5 8.69 21 6.83 47 23 Site 2‐3 average 7.25 78.3 9.42 21 6.82 45.5 22.0

Jan. 17 2017 Site 2‐4 9.3 66.3 7.64 21 6.71 42 32 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐4 6.2 58.0 6.80 21 6.60 46 22 Site 2‐4 average 7.75 62.2 7.22 21 6.66 44 27

Jan. 17 2017 Site 2‐5 9.6 94.5 10.77 21 6.61 39 19 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐5 6.7 79.2 9.68 21 6.59 27 14 Site 2‐5 average 8.15 86.85 10.23 21 6.6 33 16.5

Jan. 17 2017 Site 2‐6 9.1 85.0 9.77 21 6.41 26 13 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐6 6.5 83.2 10.23 21 6.45 38 20 Site 2‐6 average 7.80 84.1 10.00 21 6.43 32 16.5

Jan. 17 2017 Site 2‐7 9.6 95.0 10.82 21 6.37 33 17 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐7 6.0 103.7 12.91 21 6.64 17 8 Site 2‐7 average 7.8 99.35 11.865 21 6.505 25 12.5 Date Site‐Station sal (ppm) traps set CO CM CCT RB TSB SSU NDC BMC RSC NSC PMB BNH CSU CAS CRAYFISH Others? NWS RLF PCF WT BF GF Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐1 19 2 2 1 3 1 Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐2 19 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐3 21 2 1 Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐4 32 2 1 1 Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐5 19 2 2 2 1 Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐6 13 2 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐7 17 1 4 March 20 2018 Site 2‐1 26 1 March 20 2018 Site 2‐2 27 2 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐3 23 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐4 22 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐5 14 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐6 20 2 March 20 2018 Site 2‐7 8 1 1 Averages: l sample size (n) 20.00 Total species: 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Date Station CO CM CCT RB TSB SSU NDC BMC RSC NSC PMB Total

Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐1 2 1317 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐1 0 0 Total 200000001317

Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐2 0 0 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐2 22 Total 0000200000 2

Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐3 11 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐3 0 0 Total 000000000011

Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐4 1 12 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐4 0 0 Site 2‐4 0 Total 100010000002

Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐5 0 2 215 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐5 0 0 Total 000020000215

Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐6 02 2 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐6 0 0 Total 000020000002

Nov 17 2017 Site 2‐7 0 44 Mar 20 2018 Site 2‐7 01 Total 000010000404 STAVE SITE 3 MONITORING INFORMATION Weather: Overcast Monitored by: RD,NC,WM,EP,AS Start Time : Date Site‐Station UTM's Easting UTM's Northing Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm) traps set Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐1 542638 5446473 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐2 542376 5446620 2.80 12.57 92.8 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐3 542338 5446549 2.50 12.68 93.11 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐4 542558 5446479 1.30 10.31 73.4 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐5 542649 5446311 1.90 9.22 66.6 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐6 542838 5446153 2.2 9.79 71.5 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐7 542898 5446034 2.6 9.97 73.4 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐8 543062 5445876 3.2 12.37 92.2 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐9 543030 5446075 5.4 8.93 71.1 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐10 543022 5445965 3.4 11.07 83.8 1

Weather: Overcast, Foggy Monitored by: Winter Moon Liz Penner Alanna Strangeway Start Time : 8:10 AM Date Site‐Station UTM's Easting UTM's Northing Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm) traps set Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐1 542638 5446473 2.0 80.2 11.12 21 0 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐2 542376 5446620 3.5 83.8 11.14 21 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐3 542338 5446549 3.6 87.8 11.62 21 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐4 542558 5446479 4.1 87.7 11.58 21 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐5 542649 5446311 4.1 88.2 11.52 21 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐6 542838 5446153 4.4 89.5 11.6 21 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐7 542898 5446034 4.2 88.7 11.56 21 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐8 543062 5445876 4.3 96.1 12.5 21 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐9 543030 5446075 6.0 81.1 10.06 21 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐10 543022 5445965 4.6 92.3 11.91 21 2

Weather: Monitored by: Winter Moon Liz Penner Alanna Strangeway Start Time : Date Site‐Station UTM's Easting UTM's Northing Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm) traps set March 16 2017 Site 3‐1 542638 5446473 7.7 87.3 10.42 21 7.07 82 40 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐2 542376 5446620 7.2 92.3 11.12 21 7.2 78 39 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐3 542338 5446549 7.4 93.5 11.23 21 7.15 80 41 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐4 542558 5446479 6.4 89.9 11.06 21 7.17 61 33 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐5 542649 5446311 6.3 89.7 11.08 21 7.05 69 34 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐6 542838 5446153 6.2 91.5 11.33 21 7.1 70 36 1 March 16 2017 Site 3‐7 542898 5446034 6.1 92.9 11.53 21 6.89 71 37 1 March 16 2017 Site 3‐8 543062 5445876 6.3 98.8 12.21 21 7.74 69 35 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐9 543030 5446075 6.2 83.6 10.34 21 6.94 172 86 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐10 543022 5445965 5.6 96.3 11.97 21 7.57 73 36 2

Weather: overcast/slight rain Monitored by: Winter Moon Liz Penner Alanna Strangeway Start Time : 7:40 AM Date Site‐Station UTM's Easting UTM's Northing Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm) traps set Nov 16/2017‐ traps in Site 3‐1 542638 5446473 8.4 77.6 9.11 21 6.95 87 49 2 Nov 17/2017‐pulled traps Site 3‐2 542376 5446620 8.3 76.9 9.02 21 7.19 91 42 2 November 17 2017 Site 3‐3 542338 5446549 7.6 79.7 9.52 21 7.15 77 39 2 November 17 2017 Site 3‐4 542558 5446479 8.9 73.8 8.52 21 7.05 89 50 2 November 17 2017 Site 3‐5 542649 5446311 8.7 69.6 8.1 21 7.03 92 43 2 November 17 2017 Site 3‐6 542838 5446153 9.4 84.6 9.68 21 7.00 93 46 2 November 17 2017 Site 3‐7 542898 5446034 9.0 73.8 8.51 21 6.94 88 47 2 November 17 2017 Site 3‐8 543062 5445876 9.4 82.3 9.42 21 7.42 102 61 2 November 17 2017 Site 3‐9 543030 5446075 9.8 65.5 7.42 21 6.95 104 57 2 November 17 2017 Site 3‐10 543022 5445965 9.2 73.1 8.40 21 7.09 109 51 2

Weather: overcast Monitored by: Winter Moon Liz Penner Angela Smith Start Time : 7:45 Date Site‐Station UTM's Easting UTM's Northing Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm) traps set March 19/2018‐ traps in Site 3‐1 542638 5446473 8.6 101.3 11.84 21 7.07 89 45 2 March 20/2018‐pulled traps Site 3‐2 542376 5446620 9.1 111.6 12.87 21 7.09 90 46 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐3 542338 5446549 9.1 109.6 12.64 21 7.15 94 45 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐4 542558 5446479 7.7 102.2 12.2 21 7.06 58 36 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐5 542649 5446311 7.3 88.3 10.64 21 6.92 94 48 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐6 542838 5446153 7.4 92.0 11.08 21 6.85 97 48 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐7 542898 5446034 7.0 91.4 11.10 21 7.06 94 46 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐8 543062 5445876 7.3 99.5 11.98 21 6.74 84 42 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐9 543030 5446075 7.4 85.1 10.22 21 7.02 142 70 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐10 543022 5445965 6.7 86.1 10.52 21 6.97 94 51 2 STAVE SITE 3 ANALYSIS BY STATION Date Station Temp (°C) DO (%) DO (mg/L) Turb pH cond (µS/cm) sal (ppm)

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐1 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐1 2.0 80.20 11.12 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐1 7.7 87.30 10.42 21 7.07 82 40 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐1 8.6 101.30 11.84 21 7.07 89 45 average 6.1 89.60 11.13 21 7.07 86 43

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐2 2.8 92.80 12.57 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐2 3.5 83.80 11.14 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐2 7.2 92.30 11.12 21 7.20 78 39 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐2 9.1 111.60 12.87 21 7.09 90 46 average 5.7 95.13 11.93 21 7.15 84 43

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐3 2.5 93.11 12.68 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐3 3.6 87.80 11.62 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐3 7.4 93.50 11.23 21 7.15 80 41 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐3 9.1 109.60 12.64 21 7.15 94 45 average 5.7 96.00 12.04 21 7.15 87 43

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐4 1.3 73.40 10.31 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐4 4.1 87.70 11.58 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐4 6.4 89.90 11.06 21 7.17 61 33 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐4 7.7 102.20 12.20 21 7.06 58 36 average 4.9 88.30 11.29 21.00 7.12 60 35

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐5 1.9 66.60 9.22 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐5 4.1 88.20 11.52 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐5 6.3 89.70 11.08 21 7.05 69 34 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐5 7.3 88.30 10.64 21 6.92 94 48 average 4.9 83.20 10.62 21 6.99 82 41

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐6 2.2 71.50 9.79 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐6 4.4 89.50 11.60 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐6 6.2 91.50 11.33 21 7.10 70 36 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐6 7.4 92.00 11.08 21 6.85 97 48 average 5.1 86.13 10.95 21.00 6.98 84 42

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐7 2.6 73.40 9.97 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐7 4.2 88.70 11.56 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐7 6.1 92.90 11.53 21 6.89 71 37 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐7 7.0 91.40 11.10 21 7.06 94 46 average 5.0 86.60 11.04 21 6.98 83 42

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐8 3.2 92.20 12.37 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐8 4.3 96.10 12.50 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐8 6.3 98.80 12.21 21 7.74 69 35 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐8 7.3 99.50 11.98 21 6.74 84 42 average 5.3 96.65 12.27 21 7.24 77 39

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐9 5.4 71.10 8.93 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐9 6.0 81.10 10.06 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐9 6.2 83.60 10.34 21 6.94 172 86 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐9 7.4 85.10 10.22 21 7.02 142 70 average 6.3 80.23 9.89 21.00 6.98 157 78

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐10 3.4 83.80 11.07 21 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐10 4.6 92.30 11.91 21 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐10 5.6 96.30 11.97 21 7.57 73 36 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐10 6.7 86.10 10.52 21 6.97 94 51 average 5.1 89.63 11.37 21.00 7.27 84 44 Start Time : Fish Caught Amphibians Date Site‐Station traps set CO CM CCT RB TSB SSU NDC BMC RSC NSC PMB BNH CSU CAS CRAYFISH Others? NWT LT RLF PCF WT BF GF Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐1 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐2 1 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐3 1 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐4 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐5 1 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐6 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐7 1 3 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐8 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐9 1 1 1 Jan 16 2017 Site 3‐10 1 1 3 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐1 0 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐2 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐3 2 1 1 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐4 2 1 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐5 2 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐6 2 1 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐7 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐8 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐9 2 1 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐10 2 1 1 March 16 2017 Site 3‐1 2 1 March 16 2017 Site 3‐2 2 1 March 16 2017 Site 3‐3 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐4 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐5 2 1 March 16 2017 Site 3‐6 1 1 March 16 2017 Site 3‐7 1 March 16 2017 Site 3‐8 2 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐9 2 March 16 2017 Site 3‐10 2 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐1 2 1 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐2 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐3 2 4 2 10 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐4 2 4 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐5 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐6 2 1 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐7 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐8 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐9 2 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐10 2 2 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐1 2 4 1 8 1 March 20 2018 Site 3‐2 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐3 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐4 2 1 1 March 20 2018 Site 3‐5 2 2 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐6 2 1 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐7 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐8 2 7 1 March 20 2018 Site 3‐9 2 March 20 2018 Site 3‐10 2 2 2 Date Station CO CM CCT RB TSB SSU NDC BMC RSC NSC PMB BNH CSU CAS Total

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐1 0 0 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐1 0 0 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐1 11 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐1 11 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐1 4 181 14 total 0000400028200 16

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐2 1 1 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐2 0 0 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐2 0 0 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐2 0 0 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐2 0 0 total 100000000000001

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐3 1 1 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐3 11 2 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐3 0 0 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐3 4 2 10 16 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐3 0 total 10001000521000019

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐4 0 0 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐4 11 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐4 0 0 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐4 0 0 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐4 11 total 000000001010002

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐5 11 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐5 22 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐5 11 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐5 0 0 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐5 22 total 000000003030006

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐6 0 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐6 11 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐6 0 0 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐6 1 1 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐6 11 total 100000001010003

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐7 31 4 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐7 0 0 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐7 0 0 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐7 0 0 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐7 0 total 000000003010004

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐8 0 0 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐8 0 0 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐8 0 0 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐8 0 0 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐8 7 7 total 700000000000007

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐9 11 2 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐9 0 0 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐9 0 0 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐9 22 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐9 0 total 000000001030004

Jan. 16 2017 Site 3‐10 11 Feb 15 2017 Site 3‐10 1 1 Mar 16 2017 Site 3‐10 2 2 Nov 17 2017 Site 3‐10 2 2 Mar 20 2018 Site 3‐10 2 2 total 700000000010008 Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca

FVWC Birding summary for Stave River Wetlands Completed by Rachel Drennan and Sofi Hindmarch

Methods: Birding consisted of five-minute point counts with approx. 200 meters distance in between each point. Duration of each point count was 5 minutes; birds seen or heard before or after the point count were included separately. Point count stations were chosen along the access trail to reduce road noise interference and for ease of access to avoid flushing birds. Point counts were conducted on five occasions between Aug 2017 and Mar 2018. They were conducted within the window of one half hour before sunrise to three hours after sunrise. One survey was conducted at dusk to expand the range of birds observed. Observers had adequate ambient day light to observe birds in order to begin counts. Weather conditions in order to perform point counts were good visibility, little to no precipitation, and little to no wind.

Surveys completed: Four morning surveys One evening survey

*Things of note:  As we moved from the entrance access toward the highway, it became more difficult to detect birds by sound.  Train noise may have prevented some bird detection.  More diversity observed in first half of sites. Possibly due to more tree/shrub diversity.  Room for a barn owl box onsite.  Site could have wood duck boxes added (approx. 5)

FVWC | 2017/2018 FVWC Birding Summary Stave River Wetlands 1

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca Table #1: Complete species list of birds observed at Stave River wetlands (Sept. 2017-Mar. 2018):

Common name Latin name Common yellow throat Geothlypis trichas American robin Turdus migratorius Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos House wren Troglodytes aedon Red wing blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Purple finch Haemorhous purpureus Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Black capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus American gold finch Spinus tristis Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Great blue heron ad Ardea herodias Coopers hawk Accipiter cooperii American bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Seagull Laridae Rock dove Columba livia Stellar jay Cyanocitta stelleri Belted king fisher Megaceryle alcyon Western osprey Pandion haliaetus Wood peewee Contopus virens Annas humming bird Calypte anna Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Dark eyed junco Junco hyemalis Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Flycatcher Tyrannidae Common raven Corvus corax

FVWC | 2017/2018 FVWC Birding Summary Stave River Wetlands 2

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 - 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1N6 www.fvwc.ca Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Bat Chiroptera Northern pintail Anas acuta Mallard duck Anas platyrhynchos Canada goose Branta canadensis Pacific slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis Red tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Common snipe Gallinago gallinago Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Double crested cormorant d Phalacrocorax auritus Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Listed bird species –Species at risk: http://www.speciesatriskbc.ca/node/7767 a) COSEWIC special concern b) COSEWIC threatened c) COSEWIC Endangered d) BC Status: Blue e) BC Status: Red f) BC Status: Yellow

FVWC | 2017/2018 FVWC Birding Summary Stave River Wetlands 3

TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting, Inc | [email protected] | www.terrafauna.ca | +1 778.246.2837

______

Prepared For Natashia Cox, Project Manager Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition

Prepared By Myles Lamont, Principal TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting

December 18th 2017

TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting, Inc | [email protected] | www.terrafauna.ca | +1 778.246.2837

______

Lower Stave River- Sandhill Crane Survey

Background & Historical Overview

The Sandhill Crane (Antigone canadensis) is a large wading bird found throughout North America. Typically breeding in the Canadian boreal or tundra barren lands, a few populations are non-migratory, resident breeders; those being the Mississippi race (A. c. pulla), Florida race (A. c. pratensis) and Cuban race (A. c. nesiotes), with both the pulla and nesiotes populations classified as being endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (Endangered Species Act 1973).

A local, resident population of Sandhill Crane also exists in the Fraser Valley. This population has never been formally surveyed or assessed other than through localized and concentrated survey efforts, mostly around Burns Bog (Harding 2010; Gebauer 1999) and more recently in Delta for part of a provincial highway expansion project (Hemmera 2009). This population is unique in that it is composed of, seemingly both migratory and non-migratory residents (M. Lamont pers. obsv.) and represents the northernmost, wintering population of Sandhill Cranes anywhere within their range. Sadly, this unique population has been overlooked and underappreciated by provincial and federal authorities and has only been of interest to a handful of private researchers and local naturalist clubs for the last several decades. The first attempts at formal population assessments were undertaken by the Robinson family living in Pitt Meadows in the early 1970’s, with estimates of nine pairs occupying just the Pitt Polder region at the south end of Pitt Lake (Leach 1979). Today, the total number of pairs at this site is likely less than three and may be down to one breeding pair (M. Lamont, pers. obsv.). Sadly, this unique population of Sandhill Cranes in the Fraser Valley has continued to decline due to habitat loss, degradation, increased urban predators and the continued conversion of mixed agricultural fields into monoculture crops such as blueberry fields. An attempt at marking individual birds with colour coded leg bands and the use of leg mounted GPS-GSM transmitters is currently in progress by the author.

As part of a larger biodiversity and reclamation study on the Lower Stave River, a visual ground survey was undertaken in the Lower Stave watershed to detect the presence of overwintering or staging Sandhill Cranes. This site is part of a reclamation project being undertaken by the Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition (Figure 1) and other partners to improve the lower portion of the river to create new spawning and rearing habitat for both anadromous salmon and other resident fish species (pers. comm. N. Cox; see Figure 2).

TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting, Inc | [email protected] | www.terrafauna.ca | +1 778.246.2837

______

Figure 1: Overview of reclamation and survey areas

Ethnographic & Cultural History

Sandhill Cranes once dominated the landscape in the Lower Stave, and were reported by the Katzie First Nations as being plentiful in early spring ‘in the thousands’ (Suttles & Jenness 1955), with March being known as the “month of the crane”. Cranes were considered guardian spirits to the Katzie and were called haha’w meaning ‘superior in everything’. According to Katzie legend, the deity, Khaals found two sisters digging up Arrowhead root because they lacked other food items at the time. When the sisters mocked Khaals, he turned them into cranes which then had to spend the rest of their days wandering the meadows, to laugh and dance (Suttles & Jenness 1955). Clearly, the importance of this species to the Katzie was significant enough for them to name a month after their appearance and to incorporate it into their oral histories.

TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting, Inc | [email protected] | www.terrafauna.ca | +1 778.246.2837

______

Figure 2: Photograph of part of the reclamation project to provide additional spawning habitat for salmon

Methodology

Visual ground surveys were undertaken on November 16 and November 18 respectively. Ground surveys were composed of 4-hour observation periods, walking the length of the eastern portion of Stave River and through observation points on the west side of Stave River (see Figures 3). Given the physical size and stature of Sandhill Cranes, in addition to their loud, rattling, bugle territorial calls, detection of birds was believed to be high if present. Weather conditions on November 16 were good; clear skies and sunshine allowed for good visual range. Conditions on November 18 were fair, with some low cloud cover. To gain good vantage points for visual detection, foot surveys were undertaken on the crest of the reclamation streams that had been dug out several weeks prior (Figure 2). These were also walked to detect signs of foot prints in the sediment (Figure 4). Habitat that is typical for the species was targeted wherever feasible.

While undertaking the survey, a point count was undertaken at the river edge (49.18263N -122.41611W) to obtain some sense as to the avian biodiversity in the river during the midst of the Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) spawn. These results are summarized below.

Subsequent follow up surveys are planned over winter 2017/2018.

TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting, Inc | [email protected] | www.terrafauna.ca | +1 778.246.2837

______

Figure 3: Tracklog of ground survey undertaken on Nov 16 2017, with point count location highlighted with yellow arrow. 5

TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting, Inc | [email protected] | www.terrafauna.ca | +1 778.246.2837

______Results

Unfortunately, no presence of Sandhill Cranes was detected at this site during the two survey dates. Footprints of a large wading bird were detected at two points in the reclamation project, however upon closer inspection, these were determined to be made by Great Blue Heron due to the presence of a large hallux.

The results of the point count undertaken at the rivers edge are as below:

Species Species Count # Count Radius Point Count Location Common Goldeneye 62 200m 49.18263N -122.41611W Bald Eagle 29 200m “ Red-breasted Merganser 5 200m “ Great Blue Heron 2 200m “ Mallard 25 200m “ Hooded Merganser 1 200m “ Bufflehead 20 200m “ Northwestern Crow 3 200m “ Common Merganser 40 200m “ Harbour Seal 2 200m “ Winter Wren 1 200m “ Spotted Towhee 1 200m “ Ring-billed Gull 10 200m “ Unidentified Gull sp. 13 200m “

Discussion

While no Sandhill Cranes were detected during the two survey dates, the habitat surrounding the Lower Stave River provides for good foraging and potential nesting habitat. Sandhill Cranes are known to prefer tall mounds on which to nest to allow for good visibility of potential predators and site reclamation may be able to incorporate this into their activities.

One attribute of this site is that it is heavily dominated by Canary Grass (Phalaris canariensis) and Hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), both of which are fast growing and tall (upwards of 2m). Cranes tend to avoid areas that are heavily vegetated with tall shrubs and grasses as it not only makes foraging through this vegetation difficult, but allows for predators to potentially ambush them. This factor could, in part, be a

6 Figure 4: Photograph of a Great Blue Heron footprint left in sediment on reclamation site TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting, Inc | [email protected] | www.terrafauna.ca | +1 778.246.2837

______reason for a lack of site use by this species. Sandhill Cranes within the Fraser Valley have been known to readily occupy bogs for more than 100 years as described by Brooks (1917), in reference to birds occupying Cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) bogs in Sumas Prairie. Indeed, even today Sandhill Cranes are often observed in commercial cranberry fields in the Lower Fraser region (M. Lamont, unpub. data).

Interestingly, a review of all historic eBird records resulted in no observations within the Lower Stave river system, however birds are known to frequent Whonnock Lake just west of this site (M. Lamont unpub. data) and have been observed flying overhead near the mouth of the river and above near Hayward Lake (eBird).

Crescent Island, just south of this site may also yield good forage and potential nesting habitat.

Recommendations

Given that site reclamation is ongoing and may involve further excavator work, the following recommendations are being made to both improve the habitat in the area for both Sandhill Cranes and other wading birds, but also increase the potential for nesting/foraging habitat for a variety of species:

1) The creation of ponds or pools with island habitats that can maintain a moat of water at low tide and high enough to avoid inundation at freshet. 2) The removal or ‘scraping off’ of Hardhack and Canary Grass in low level areas that may be suitable for encouraging bog species such as Vacciniums, Oxycoccus, Rubus, Cornus, Ledum’s, etc. 3) The creation of tidally influenced terraced or benched mud flats that would provide substrate for various large invertebrates such as annelids and shellfish and other taxa such as amphibians. This would provide for excellent forage habitat for not only Sandhill Cranes but other migratory wading and shorebirds that use the Lower Fraser River as a staging ground during migration. 4) Prescribed burns in certain areas to control Hardhack and Canary Grass as was undertaken by First Nations in the past, and of particular interest, was used to promote the presence of species such as Vaccinium and Rubus, both bog species (Parminter 1995).

Further discussion on this topic would be of great interest and warmly welcomed.

TerraFauna Wildlife Consulting, Inc | [email protected] | www.terrafauna.ca | +1 778.246.2837

______

Literature Cited

BROOKS A. 1917. The Birds of the Chilliwack District, B.C. Auk XXXIV: 28-50.

GEBAUER M. 1999. Burns Bog greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida) study: late summer/early fall 1999 survey results and review of existing information. Delta Fraser Properties Partnership and the Environmental Assessment Office in support of the Burns Bog Ecosystem Review: Additional work on Public-owned lands conducted for the Environmental Assessment Office in association with the corporation of Delta, Delta, B.C. HARDING L. 2010. Are Sandhill Cranes of British Columbia’s Lower Fraser Valley endangered? British Columbia Birds 20: 2-8.

HEMMERA. 2009. South Fraser Perimeter Road: 2009 Sandhill Crane Monitoring. Prepared for the Ministry of Transportation. File 285-014.02

LEACH B. 1979. The Sandhill Crane in the Lower Fraser Valley. Institute of Environmental Studies, Douglas College, Information Booklet No. 31, 12pp.

PARMINTER J. 1995 Human influence on landscape pattern in the Pacific region: impacts of burning by First Nations and early European settlers. Presented at the Landscape Ecology Symposium, 76th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vancouver, BC, June 20 1995.

SUTTLES W AND D JENNESS. 1955. Katzie Ethnographic Notes / The Faith of a Coast Salish Indian. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Signed Dated

______18 December 2017__

MEMO: ENVIRONMENTNAL MONITORING IN THE STAVE RIVER WETLAND (STAVE SITE 2) BY THE COASTAL PAINTED TURTLE PROJECT IN 2017

DECEMBER 2017

View from south of Stave Site 2 (looking north)– August 2015. Photo by Aimee Mitchell.

Prepared by Aimee Mitchell, Andrea Gielens and Deanna MacTavish Of The Coastal Painted Turtle Project

For Natashia Cox, Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition, Chilliwack. BC

MEMORANDUM: Coastal Painted Turtle Project Environmental Monitoring at Stave River Site 2

Introduction: Members of the Coastal Painted Turtle Project (CPTP) visited and monitored restoration works of Stave Site 2 as well as the area of potential impact to Western Painted Turtles from machinery brought into site for the duration of the first day of works on September 5th, 2017 and for the day machinery exited on September 28th, 2017. In addition, two members visited the site on August 30th, 2017 prior to initial works to follow up on some nesting activity observed in June 2017 as well as historic nesting observations (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Stave Site 2 (red circle), path of machinery (blue line) in September 2017 and turtle basking habitat enhancement area of Silvermere Lake (brown circle) that was enhanced in August 2016.

Summer Nesting Activity Monitoring: During the turtle nesting season (May to July) this area was visited four times by CPTP member, Aimee Mitchell. Areas surveyed were based on past observations of signs of nesting (Fig. 2a). During one session on June 7th, 2017, while out with Fraser Valley Conservancy interns, one unmarked female turtle was captured on land near a minimum of four test pits (Nesting Site 1) (Fig. 3.). No nests were confirmed to have been laid at this time, however, due to the observation of test pits and a female turtle on land at this location it is highly likely that nests were/are present.

Female Western Painted Turtles are very site-fidelic to where they lay nests year after year, so it is also likely that this area, as well as other areas identified as have nesting activity in the past, are used annually. Once laid in the summer the eggs will take approximately three months to hatch (fall). Once hatched, some hatchlings will emerge in the fall and be on land temporarily making their way to the lake. However, a subset of nests or even just a portion of hatchlings in the same nest will remain underground all winter and not emerge until the spring. Due to the potential for there to be emerging hatchlings on land and/or remaining underground in the fall, monitoring of past and recent nesting sites took place prior to the movement of equipment in this area to mitigate any potential impact to hatchling Western Painted Turtles (Fig. 2b).

Figure 2a. Historical observations of Western Painted Turtle nesting activity at Silvermere Lake near Stave Site 2. Yellow line is the path of nesting monitoring activities in the summer of 2017.

Figure 2b. Western Painted Turtle nesting activity observations in 2017.

Figure 3. Female Western Painted Turtle on land at Nesting Site 1 on June 7th, 2017. One test pit highlighted with red circle in right of first photo. Photos by Aimee Mitchell. Fall hatchling and emergence monitoring: Prior to the first day of works on the Stave Site 2 Restoration project on August 30th 2017, CPTP members, Aimee Mitchell and Andrea Gielens, walked the path of nesting monitoring (Fig. 2a) looking for signs of emergence (emerge hole or shells from hatched eggs) and attempted to locate nests by gently digging in areas with observations of nesting activity in the summer (i.e., Nesting Site 1) from 1300 to 1700. No nests with hatchlings or intact eggs (as it is possible some eggs may not have quite hatched at this time) were confirmed during this monitoring session. However, a recently predated nest with hatched shells was detected at Nesting Site 2 (Table 1., Fig. 4).

Table 1. Summer and Fall observations at identified Western Painted Turtle Nesting Sites at Silvermere Lake in 2017. Nesting Site Summer observations Fall observations

1 Female on land and 4+ test pits No emerge holes, hatchlings or intact eggs still in the nest detected

None - this is an area locals Recently predated nest, 5+ sets of hatched shells, hatchlings either were 2 have reported nesting (turtles emerging and some predated or were getting ready to emerge and were dug up, on land digging) in the past also some hatchlings may have still emerged safely before predation event

3 None Emerge hole and 13 eggs worth of hatched shells = >/= to 13 hatchlings emerged

False nest - would have been dug in the summer but female never actually laid 4 None eggs in it. Likely a true nest nearby but not found.

Figure 4. Predated Western Painted Turtle nest at Nesting Site 2. Photo by Aimee Mitchell. During the first day of restoration works (September 5th, 2017), CPTP member, Deanna MacTavish, walked the path of the machinery, focusing on areas previously identified. During this time (0730 to 1230), Deanna scanned the ground for evidence of turtle adults, nests and hatchlings as well as observations of any other species at risk such as Oregon Forest Snails. Monitoring for basking turtles also took place, focused on previously enhanced basking habitat installed in 2016.

Monitoring on this day resulted in the observation of an emerge hole at Nesting Site 3 (Table 1., Fig. 5a.) which was subsequently dug up to estimate how many hatchlings may have emerged (Fig. 5b.). Based on the number of hatched shells an estimated minimum of 13 hatchlings had recently emerged from this nest.

Figure 5a. Emerge hole of Western Painted Turtle nest at Nesting Site 3. Photo by Deanna MacTavish.

Figure 5b. Excavated Western Painted Turtle nest at Nesting Site 3 with at least 13 hatched shells. Photo by Deanna MacTavish.

No animals were observed basking on areas visible from the monitored area. However, a local who owns a property with a view of the enhanced basking area reported many small turtles using the basking logs over the summer. With the exception of the observation of a Great Blue heron in the pond in the middle of the island, no other species at risk observations were made during any monitoring sessions.

Recommendations: Due to confirmed nesting activity and emerged hatchlings directly in the path of equipment utilized for restoration activities in the Stave River Site 2 it is highly recommended that CPTP members continue to be consulted prior to any works in this area and provided an opportunity to check for nests and/or hatchlings and possibly salvage nests that are known to be in harm’s way. In addition, a sweep would be made for adult or hatchling turtles on land. It is difficult to provide recommendations on the best timing of works in order to mitigate potential impacts because there are risks to either adult turtles, nests (eggs or hatchlings) underground and/or hatchlings emerging throughout the entire year. Therefore, works at any time of year should have mitigation monitoring incorporated into the work plan.

Final Report Fish Species at Risk Survey in the Stave Watershed: 2017

Prepared For: Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition.

By Roxanne Snook, MSc. RPBio Mike Pearson, PhD, RPBio

Pearson Ecological 2840 Lougheed Highway Agassiz BC

December 13, 2017 Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017 Table of Contents List of Tables ...... 3 List of Figures ...... 4 Acknowledgments ...... 5 Introduction ...... 6 Methods...... 7 Species Presence/Not Detected ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Water Quality ...... 9 Results and Discussion ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Davis Lake...... 10 Habitat ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fish Presence ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Water Quality ...... 10 Devil’s Lake ...... 13 Habitat ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fish Presence ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Water Quality ...... 13 Stave Lake Wetlands and Cardinalis Creek ...... 17 Habitat ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Species Presence ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Water Quality ...... 17 Kearsley Creek ...... 22 Habitat ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fish presence ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Water Quality ...... 23 Stave River Habitat Restoration Sites ...... 24 Habitat ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fish Presence ...... 24 Water Quality ...... 28 Conclusions ...... 31 References ...... 32

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

List of Tables Table 1. Sampling locations and trap sets ...... 8 Table 2. Fish and amphibian species encountered in Davis Lake ...... 10 Table 3. Trap locations and Water quality in Davis Lake ...... 11 Table 4. Fish and invertebrates captured in Devil's Lake ...... 13 Table 5. Trap Locations and Water quality at Devil's Lake ...... 14 Table 6. Species capture and observed data from Stave Lake ...... 17 Table 7. Water quality in Stave Lake, ...... 18 Table 8. Species captured in Kearsley Creek, ...... 23 Table 9. Fish and amphibian capture data, from Stave River restoration sites ...... 26 Table 10. Water quality of Stave River restoration sites ...... 29

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

List of Figures Figure 1. Green dots indicate sampling locations and observations in the Stave River Watershed...... 8 Figure 2. Davis Lake location and trap sites...... 11 Figure 3. Habitat and species photographs from Davis Lake ...... 12 Figure 4. Devil’s Lake location and trap sites...... 15 Figure 5. Habitat and species photos from Devil's Lake ...... 16 Figure 6. Stave Lake trapping locations and Western Toad breeding site...... 20 Figure 7. Stave Lake wetland and Cardinalis Creek habitat...... 20 Figure 8. Species captured in Stave Lake; ...... 21 Figure 9. Kearsely Creek site map and habitat photograph...... 22 Figure 10. Lower Stave habitat restoration projects...... 24 Figure 11. Habitat photos of the Stave River restoration sites ...... 25 Figure 13. Species captured in Stave River restoration sites) ...... 27 Figure 14. Introduced species captured in the Stave restoration sites ...... 28

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Acknowledgments Thank you Petra Wykpis for field assistance and Natashia Cox for assistance in gaining access to key locations.

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Summary The Salish sucker is a genetically and morphologically distinct form of western longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) found in the Fraser Valley and northern Washington. It is listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act.

C. catostomus was reported in Davis Lake, a small waterbody just east of Stave Lake in 1963. The fish were caught during as the lake was chemically treated to exterminate ‘coarse’ fish in preparation for salmonid stocking. No specimens were retained. As all confirmed records of C. catostomus downriver of Hope are Salish suckers, the Davis Lake record raise the possibility of one or more populations in the Stave watershed.

Surveys for Salish sucker were conducted in the Stave Watershed during the summer of 2017. Sampling sites with potentially suitable habitat identified from satellite photographs and trapped according to DFO guidelines. Site included Davis Lake, Devil’s Lake , habitat enhancement sites on Stave River below XX Dam, wetlands on east side of lower Stave Lake, and lower Cardinalis Creek.

No Salish suckers were found.

A Western Toad (SARA Special Concern) breeding site was located in a wetland on the east side of lower Stave Lake and Western Pearlshell, a native bivalve of conservation interest was found in Cardinalis Creek.

Kearsley Creek a tributary of Stave Lake was sampled for Nooksack dace as part of BC MOE funded inventory work. None were found.

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Introduction The Salish sucker is a genetically and morphologically distinct form of western longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) found in the Fraser Valley and northern Washington. It is a member of the ‘Chehalis fauna’ a unique group of fishes that diverged from other populations of the same species while isolated during glaciation in an ice-free refuge in Washington. The Salish sucker is far smaller-bodied, than other longnose sucker populations and differs in a number of other ways. It is listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act.

No confirmed records of Salish sucker (museum specimen or convincing photograph) are known from downstream of the Hope area. However, there are a number of old unconfirmed records of ‘longnose sucker’ in the Fraser Valley, that may have been Salish sucker captures. One of these is in Davis Lake, in the Stave watershed.

This report summarizes the findings of surveys for Salish sucker conducted in selected areas of the Stave Watershed during the summer of 2017

Additional funding from other sources allowed us to sample for Nooksack dace in Kearsley Creek, a tributary to Stave Lake as part of a larger survey for the species funded by BC Ministry of Environment. Results are included in this report.

Methods Areas within the watershed that appeared from maps and Google Earth imagery as potentially suitable for Salish sucker were selected for sampling. These consisted of wetlands and low gradient tributaries and small low elevation lakes on tributaries to Stave Lake. Sampling site locations are shown in Figure 1. Sampling occurred between May 16 – July 20, 2017 (Table 1). Fish Collection Sampling methods for Salish sucker followed DFO approved guidelines (Pearson 2015a). Feddes funnel traps baited with dried cat food were set overnight. All fish captured were identified to species, counted and promptly released at the point of capture. Photographs of representative specimens were taken.

At each of the 169 trap locations, a habitat photograph was taken and water depth was measured with a folding meter stick (2 m length). Depths of 200 cm or greater were recorded as 200. In addition, water temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration were measured with a YSI Pro DO meter with an optic probe. Specific Conductivity and pH were measured with a PCTestr35 hand held meter.

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Figure 1. Green dots indicate sampling locations and observations in the Stave River Watershed.

Table 1. Sampling locations and trap sets

Sampling location Method Effort Dates sampled Davis Lake Feddes Traps 18 July 19 & 20 Devil’s Lake Feddes Traps 36 June 27, 28 & 29 Stave Lake Wetlands/Cardinalis Creek Feddes Traps 30 June 6, 7 & 8 Kearsley Creek Electroshocking Single pass of 250 m stream June 27 Stave River Feddes Traps 44 May 30, 31 & June 1 Stave Wetland and Restoration habitat Feddes Traps 41 May 15, 16 & 17 Total 169

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Water Quality Standards and Thresholds Water temperatures of 20˚C or greater are considered harmful or lethal to salmonids. Temperatures of up to 23˚C are considered suitable for Salish suckers (COSEWIC, 2012).

Federal guidelines list the minimum level of dissolved oxygen suitable for aquatic life as 5-9.5 mg/L, depending upon species and life history stage (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, 1987). For freshwater salmonids oxygen content criteria ranges from 6-7.75 mg/L for a high level of safety. Salish suckers are more tolerant of hypoxia than salmonids and levels exceeding 3.5 mg/L are considered acceptable.

Specific conductivity (electrical conductivity of water standardized to 25 o C) is a measure of the concentration of ions dissolved in water. High readings indicate that impurities are present in the water but provide no information on what they are.

The acidity of water is described using pH, the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. It is unitless with a value of 7 being neutral. Values greater than 7 are basic and values less than 7 are acidic. Federal water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life list a pH range of 6.5-9.0.

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Davis Lake Description A small, low elevation lake located within an unmarked and unmanaged Provincial Park. It is quite deep (>50 m) and oligotrophic (low productivity). It has been stocked with Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout and there are some records of Kokanee. Background Davis Lake was ‘chemically rehabilitated’ by the Province in 1963 (FISS 2017). This was a fairly common practice at the time, in which whole lakes were poisoned to remove the existing fish community prior to stocking with salmonids. There are two records of Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus), dating from 1962 and 1963 (perhaps obtained during the ‘chemical rehabilitation’). All known populations of C. catostomus downstream of the Hope area are Salish Sucker (COSEWIC, 2012). Any competent fish biologist in the 1960s with a Salish sucker in hand would have identified it as Longnose Sucker using available keys. It is possible that it was an identification error, that a population of Salish sucker was eliminated from Davis Lake by the ‘rehabilitation’, or that a population continues to exist there. Methods and Results Feddes raps were set at approximately 100 m intervals around the perimeter of the Lake (Figure 2; Table 2). Trap depths varied from 50 cm to greater than 200 cm (Table 3). Most of of the lake area is much deeper (to 50 m), and impractical to sample with Feddes traps. It is possible that Salish suckers were present in deeper water during the sampling period, although they would be expected to seek warmer, more productive surface waters during the growing season.

No Salish Suckers were captured and overall catch numbers and fish species diversity was low. A total of 5 fish and amphibian species were encountered, 3 of which were native. Two introduced species were documented; Largemouth Bass, and Bullfrog (Table 2).

Table 2. Fish and amphibian species encountered on July 20th, in Davis Lake

Common Name Scientific Name Total Status Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper 1 Native Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis 29 Native Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 3 Native Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 2 (Observed from boat) Introduced Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeiana Unknown (heard calls) Introduced Water Quality Surface water temperatures were stressfully high for salmonids (> 20 ˚C) but not Salish Suckers (<23 ˚C) at all locations on July 20 (Table 3). Measurements were made in the top 50 cm of water. The majority of the lake volume, below the thermocline is considerably cooler. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were within the range recommended (5-9.5 mg/L) for aquatic life at all sampling locations in July (Table 3). Specific conductivity was very low (21 µS) in Davis Lake, as expected for a waterbody within a provincial park and a forested watershed (Table 3). Levels of pH at all sampling locations were well within the recommended range (6.5-9.0) and close to neutrality when measured in July 2017 (Table 3).

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Table 3. Trap locations and Water quality in Davis Lake on July 20th, 2017

UTM E UTM N Depth/Area Temperature DO DO % Conductivity pH (mg/L) (uS) 554955 5461186 82 20.6 8.89 99.2 21 7.1 554887 5461213 200 20.9 8.81 98.8 22 7.2 554723 5461157 132 20.8 8.74 97.7 21 7.1 554743 5461008 200 20.9 8.79 98.4 21 7.1 554808 5460924 200 20.9 8.82 98.7 21 7 554912 5460795 155 20.8 8.79 98.1 21 7.1 555002 5460739 130 20.8 8.8 98.2 21 7.1 555090 5460617 135 20.7 8.91 99.3 21 7 555313 5460413 157 20.7 8.78 98 21 6.9 555387 5460333 50 20.1 8.51 93.9 21 7 555391 5460728 166 20.8 8.87 99.1 21 7.1 555414 5460787 200 20.9 8.86 99.3 21 6.9 555387 5460916 200 20.9 8.87 99.2 21 6.9 555300 5461061 127 20.8 8.88 99 21 6.9 555246 5461120 187 20.7 8.89 99.2 21 6.9 555203 5461175 132 20.8 8.84 99 21 6.9 555135 5461190 139 20.8 8.87 99.1 21 6.9 555073 5461212 157 20.8 8.83 98.5 21 6.9

Figure 2. Davis Lake location and trap sites.

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Figure 3. Habitat photo (top left) of Davis Lake and Threespine Stickleback (top right), Prickly Sculpin (bottom left) and Northern Pikeminnow (Bottom right)

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Devil’s Lake Description A small, low-elevation lake located west of and draining into Stave Lake (Figure 4). Its maximum depth is less than 6 m and it contains extensive macrophyte beds. The lake has been stocked with Rainbow Trout and Cutthroat Trout many times. Other fish species recorded as present are Northern Pikeminnow, Largescale Sucker, Prickly Sculpin, Redside Shiner and Threespine stickleback (FISS 2017) . Methods and Results Over-night trapping (36 sets) occurred at Devil’s Lake on June 27th and 28th (Table 1). Traps were set at approximately 100 m intervals in an effort to distribute them evenly throughout the Lake. Trap depths varied from 84 cm to greater than 200 cm (Table 5).

No Salish Suckers were captured. Overall fish diversity was low, with just four species encountered (Figure 5). All are native to British Columbia. Prickly Sculpin, which typically make up a small portion of trap catches, were, by far the most abundant species caught. Table 4. Fish and invertebrates captured in Devil's Lake, June 28th & 29th, 2017

Common Name Scientific Name Total Status Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper 211 Native Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis 28 Native Peamouth Chub Mylocheilus caurinus 1 Native Threespine Stickleback Gasteroseus aculeatus 42 Native Signal Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus 2 Native

Water Quality Water temperatures were at stressful levels for salmonids (circa 20 ˚C), but not Salish Suckers (<23 ˚C) at all locations (Table 5). Measurements were made in the top 50 cm of water. Although very shallow (< 5 m), Devil’s Lake water temperatures are likely within the tolerance range for salmonids. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were within the range recommended for aquatic life (5-9.5 mg/L) at all sampling locations on June 28 and 29th (Table 5). Specific conductivity was very low (17 µS) in Devil’s Lake, as expected given that it is within a forested watershed. Levels of pH at all sampling locations were well within the recommended range (6.5-9.0) and close to neutrality (Table 5: Water quality at Devil’s Lake).

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Table 5. Trap Locations and Water quality at Devil's Lake, June 28 & 29th, 2017

UTM E UTM N Depth/Area Temperature DO (mg/L) DO % Conductivity (uS) pH 546457 5456892 89 19.4 9.23 100.3 17 7 546479 5456971 128 19.9 9.41 103.3 17 7 546523 5457039 184 20.1 9.36 103.6 17 7 546501 5457116 200 20.3 9.4 104 17 7 546422 5457104 200 20.3 9.44 104.5 17 7.1 546433 5457051 84 20.3 9.53 105.5 17 7.1 546345 5457259 125 20.4 9.42 104.6 17 7.1 546339 5457160 115 20.4 9.56 106.2 17 7.2 546448 5457186 200 20.4 9.46 104.9 17 7.1 546549 5457174 145 20.4 9.44 104.7 17 7.1 546592 5457260 142 20.5 9.44 104.7 17 7 546496 5457281 200 20.5 9.51 105.7 17 7.1 546292 5457477 200 20.8 9.45 105.4 17 7.1 546308 5457367 125 21 9.55 107.2 17 7.1 5456412 5457385 200 20.7 9.48 105.6 17 7 546535 5457355 200 20.7 9.5 106 17 7.1 546619 5457435 200 20.8 9.46 105.8 17 7.2 546502 5457446 200 20.8 9.47 105.9 17 7.1 546313 5457587 200 20.8 9.51 106.1 17 7.1 546300 5457740 200 20.9 9.5 106.3 17 7.1 546315 5457892 200 20.9 9.47 106.2 17 7.1 546426 5457925 200 20.9 9.48 106.1 17 7.1 546473 5458073 200 21.1 9.52 106.9 17 7.1 546595 5458192 157 21.3 9.46 106.9 17 7.1 546766 5458263 200 21.4 9.36 105.8 17 7.1 546774 5458077 200 20.9 9.4 105.1 17 7.1 546667 5458080 200 21 9.44 105.8 17 7.1 546313 5457587 200 21.1 9.45 105.9 17 7.1 546470 5457716 200 21 9.45 106.2 17 7.1 546501 5457837 200 21 9.47 106.4 17 7.1 546612 5457888 200 20.9 9.55 106.8 17 7.1 546762 5457912 200 21 9.55 107 17 7.1 546719 5457811 200 20.9 9.5 106.3 17 7.1 546627 5457583 200 21.2 9.43 106.3 17 7.1 546682 5457702 200 21.1 9.52 107 17 7.1 546604 5457780 200 21 9.52 106.7 17 7.1

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Figure 4. Devil’s Lake location and trap sites.

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Figure 5. Habitat and species photos from Devil's Lake on June 28 and 29th, 2017: Devil’s Lake with large woody debris (top left); Devil’s Lake outlet (top right); Peamouth Chub (middle left); Stickleback (middle right); Northern Pikeminnow (bottom left); Prickly Sculpin (bottom right)

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Stave Lake Wetlands and Cardinalis Creek Description Two wetlands with slough-like channels running through them occur on the southern half of Stave Lake (Figure 6). Lower Cardinalis Creek is also low gradient and slough-like. All contain habitat that is physically suitable for Salish sucker. Traps were set at approximately 100 m intervals, with an effort to distribute them evenly throughout these habitats. Methods and Results Over-night trapping occurred in wetlands and lower Cardinalis Creek on June 6th and 7th. A total of 36 traps were set (Table 1) at depths varying from 50 cm to greater than 200 cm (Table 7).

No Salish Suckers were captured. A total of 7 fish species were encountered, six of which are native, with Brown Bullhead being the only introduced species captured (Table 6). Bullfrogs, an introduced amphibian species, and large numbers of Western Toad tadpoles, a federally listed species, were observed in the wetlands. Western Pearlshell, a mussel with declining distribution and declining number of individuals at sites throughout its range (NatureServe 2017) were found in Cardinalis Creek. Table 6. Species capture and observed data from Stave Lake, June 7 & 8th, 2017

Common Name Scientific Name Total Status Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus 51 Native Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper 3 Native Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus 3 Native Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis 54 Native Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas 4 Native Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus 48 Native Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 21 Introduced Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeiana 1 Introduced Western Toad (tadpoles) Anaxyrus boreas >1000* Native; BC Blue List; SARA Special Concern Western Pearlshell Margaritifera falcata ~100** Native *Estimated number in and around trap at breeding site **Estimated number in stream section Water Quality Water quality data were collected on June 7 & 8th. Water temperatures were within a tolerable range for salmonids (< 20 ˚C), bordering on stressful limits at some locations (Table 7). All recorded temperatures were well below the estimated tolerance limit for Salish sucker (23 ˚C). Fish in these areas also have ready access to the deeper, cooler waters of Stave Lake.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were within or slightly above the range recommended for aquatic life (5-9.5 mg/L) at all sampling locations in June 7 and 8th (Table 7). None of the recorded levels are considered harmful to either salmonids or Salish sucker.

Specific conductivity was low (< 50 µS) in Stave Lake (Table 7). This lake is used heavily as for recreation, and has a road, boat launch, and ranch lands around its perimeter, which likely contributing to the slight increase in dissolved ions present in the lake relative to Devil’s Lake and Davis Lake.

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Levels of pH at most sampling locations were within the recommended range (6.5-9.0) and close to neutrality when measured in June 2017 (Table 7: Water quality in Stave Lake). A number of sites within the boggy wetland areas were more acidic than recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Bogs are naturally acidic and the readings do not indicate water quality problems.

Table 7. Water quality in Stave Lake, June 7 & 8th, 2017

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

UTM E UTM N Depth/Area Temperature DO DO % Conductivity pH (mg/L) (uS) 549180 5458986 200 15.4 10.66 105.2 10 6.2 549255 5459072 200 15.6 10.61 106.1 10 549362 5459138 200 15.4 10.67 106.7 11 5.9 549431 5459193 200 15.7 10.64 107.1 10 6.2 549472 5459247 92 17.1 8.99 93.2 10 5.6 549498 5459270 55 17.7 9.14 96 14 5.2 549501 5459160 200 15.7 10.59 106.3 10 5.8 549564 5459233 141 15.6 10.69 107.3 11 6.1 549593 5459258 90 19.4 8.46 91.9 16 6 549609 5459280 175 19.9 7.28 80.7 19 6.2 549626 5459295 75 19.4 4.37 48.5 13 5.8 549693 * 5459300 50 19.7 2.39 25.6 24 5.5 552270 5456271 142 14.6 9.27 91.1 48 6.6 552246 5456445 200 14.8 8.96 88.3 48 6.9 552254 5456379 50 14.8 8.96 88.3 48 6.9 552248 5456496 200 14.8 8.9 87.7 49 6.8 552253 ** 5456448 75 14.8 8.9 87.7 49 6.8 552385 5456600 200 15 8.6 85.4 49 6.9 552424 5456575 15.6 8.64 86.7 48 6.9 552462 5456651 200 16.2 8.56 87 46 6.9 552382 5456729 200 16.8 8.84 91.2 46 6.8 552360 5456826 190 17 8.87 91.8 45 6.9 552308 5456873 200 17.1 8.83 91.3 45 6.7 552403 5457121 200 17.2 8.56 89.1 43 6.5 552212 5457985 172 18.9 8.38 90.2 29 6.7 551728 5458740 200 18.6 9.48 101.4 21 6.6 550118 5460722 70 18.2 8.65 91.9 24 4.6 550096 5460728 99 16.9 9.04 93.3 10 5.8 549564 5459233 141 15.6 10.69 107.3 11 6.1 550055 5460733 200 16.8 9.41 96.8 10 6 549995 5460771 139 16.7 9.78 99.9 9 6.1 549980 5460734 200 16.6 9.99 102.4 10 6.8 549882 5460729 200 16.4 10.14 103.7 9 6.5

*Western Toad tadpole observation i.e. breeding site **Western Pearlshell observation

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Figure 6. Stave Lake trapping locations (green dots), Western Toad breeding site (yellow dot). Red dot indicates sampling site in a stream tributary to Stave Lake described in a separate section of the report.

Figure 7. Stave Lake wetland habitat (left) and Cardinalis Creek (right).

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Figure 8. Species captured in Stave Lake; Northern Pikeminnow (top left); Bullfrog (top right); Redside Shiner (middle, top left); Prickly Sculpin (middle, top right); Brown Bullhead (middle, bottom left); Largescale Sucker (middle, bottom right); Western toad tadpoles on a Feddes trap (bottom left) set in a Stave Lake wetland (bottom right).

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Kearsley Creek Description This stream enters Stave Lake on the Eastern shore. The lower portion of this stream (east of the Burma Road crossing) dries during dry periods. Water level dropped drastically between June 8th and June 27th, when surface flow was lacking just upstream of Stave Lake. This is likely due to bed aggradation due to elevated bed-load, a legacy of upslope logging impacts.

The stream is of moderate gradient, consisting of riffles, pools and low cascades (Figure 9) and appears physically suitable for Nooksack dace (Rhinichthys cataractae sp. cataractae), a fish listed as endangered under the federal Species at Risk Act (COSEWIC, 2007).

Figure 9. Kearsely Creek site map (top) and upstream of the Burma Road bridge (bottom).

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Methods and Results Single pass backpack electroshocking (Smith Root Model 12b) was conducted in approximately 100 m of a Kearsley Creek proceeding upstream from the Burma Road Bridge on June 27th, 2017.

Five native fish species were found (Table 8), but R. cataractae was not among them. Table 8. Species captured during electrofishing in Kearsley Creek, June 27, 2017

Common Name Scientific Name Total Status Coastal Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii 3 Native Rainbow Trout/ Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 Native Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper 1 Native Western Brook Lamprey Lampetra richardsoni 1 Native Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus 11 Native

Water Quality Water temperature was 10.4 ˚C in mid-afternoon in late June, indicating that the stream remains cool and suitable for salmonids year round. Dissolved oxygen concentration was not recorded but was clearly high as the stream is oligotrophic and flowing over cascades and riffles. Specific conductivity was very low (10 µS) in this stream, as expected given that it is within a forested watershed.

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Stave River Habitat Restoration Sites Description Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition in partnership with Fisheries and Oceans Canada have constructed four phases of habitat restoration in the Stave River downstream of Ruskin Dam (Figure 10). At low water levels the channel is braided with riffles in the mainstem. The restoration sites consist of deeper, calmer blind channels along the margins of the main channel. This reach is tidal and strongly influenced by the Fraser River freshet, which typically elevates water levels by several meters over base flow conditions during May and June, as it did in 2017during our sampling (Figure 11).

Figure 10. Lower Stave habitat restoration projects (photo Natashia Cox, FVWC).

Figure 11. Habitat photos of the Stave River restoration sites: Site 1 (top left), Site 2 (top right), Site 3 (wetland; bottom left), Site 4 (bottom right), between May 16 and June 1st, 201

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Methods and Results Eighty-five traps were set over-night in Stave River in the four restoration sites (Figure 12). Eleven traps were set in Stave Site 4 on May 31st, thirty-three were set in Stave Site 1 on June 1st, twenty-four were set throughout the wetland (Stave Site 3) on May 16th, and seventeen were set in the restoration site north of the highway (Stave Site 2) on May 16th. Traps were set at depths ranging from 65 cm to greater than 200 cm (Table 10) at approximately 100 m intervals, to distribute them evenly throughout the restoration sites. Fish Presence Fish diversity was relatively high, with 10 species encountered, including one salmonid species (Coho Salmon, Table 9). No Salish suckers were caught. Seven species were native to the watershed, with Threespine Stickleback being the most common at every site (Figure 13). Three species captured are introduced (Carp, Pumpkinseed, and Brown bullhead, Figure 14). One native amphibian species was captured (Northwest Salamander), and at least one introduced species (Bullfrog and/or Green Frog, Figure 14).

Figure 12. Trap locations in the Stave River: Stave Site 1 (yellow dots), Stave Site 2 (red dots), Stave wetland: Stave Site 3 (green dots), and Stave Site 4 (pink dots)

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Table 9. Fish and amphibians captured at Stave River restoration sites on May 16th, 17th, 31st & June 1st, 2017

Common Scientific Name Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Total Status Name May 31 May 16 May 17 June 1 Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch 0 0 2 2 4 Native Largescale Catostomus 12 2 4 18 Native Sucker macrocheilus Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper 5 4 0 0 9 Native Redside Shiner Richardsonius 2 3 0 5 10 Native balteatus Northern Ptychocheilus 14 31 18 1 64 Native Pikeminnow oregonensis Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus 27 11 1 40 79 Native Carp Cyprinus carpio 0 0 1 0 1 Introduced Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 32 2 109 1 144 Introduced Threespine Gasterosteus 554 1364 784 85 2787 Native Stickleback aculeatus Brown Ameiurus nebulosus 0 0 11 0 11 Introduced bullhead Green/Bullfrog Lithobates clamitans/ 0 0 8 0 8 Introduced Tadpole L. catesbeiana Bullfrog Lithobates 0 0 1 0 1 Introduced catesbeiana Northwest Ambystoma gracile 1 0 1 0 2 Native Salamander

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Figure 13. Species captured in Stave River restoration sites: Prickly Sculpin (top-left), Peamouth Chub (top-right), Largescale Sucker (middle-left), Redside Shiner (middle-right), Northern Pikeminnow (bottom-eft), and Threespine Stickleback (bottom-right)

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Figure 14. Introduced species captured in the Stave restoration sites: European Carp (top left), Pumpkinseed (top right), Green Frog or Bullfrog tadpole (bottom left), Brown Bullhead (bottom right)

Water Quality Water temperatures were well within the range for salmonids (< 20 ˚C) at all locations (Table 10). Dissolved oxygen concentrations were well above the minimum recommended for aquatic life at all sampling locations and close to saturation, except at localized areas in Stave sites 1 and 3 (< 5 mg/L, Table 10). Dissolved oxygen was not recorded on May 31st due to equipment malfunction. The proximity to the Ruskin Dam at this site likely ensures sufficient dissolved oxygen year round. Specific conductivity was very low (< 21 µS) in Stave River sites 1 and 4, as expected given that the watershed is largely forested. However, sites 2 and 3 reach higher conductivity levels (52 and 74 µS, respectively), likely due to their proximity to the mill, which is adjacent to site 2, and the highway, which bisects sites 2 and 3. Levels of pH at most sampling locations were slightly acidic but close to neutral (Table 10). A few sites were slightly below the recommended range for protection of aquatic life (6.5-9.0).

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Table 10. Water quality of Stave River restoration sites on May 16, 17, 31st & June 1st, 2017

Restoration UTM E UTM N Depth Temperature DO DO % Conductivity pH Site /Area (˚C) (mg/L) (uS) Stave Site 1 543526 5448697 160 12.1 . . 13 6.7 Stave Site 1 543475 5448825 200 14.3 . . 11 6.4 Stave Site 1 543284 5448833 174 12.8 . . 11 6.6 Stave Site 1 543307 5448676 147 13.3 . . 11 6.1 Stave Site 1 543226 5448734 147 12 . . 10 6.7 Stave Site 1 543206 5448625 200 14.2 . . 10 6.3 Stave Site 1 543150 5448420 200 12.9 . . 11 6.1 Stave Site 1 543213 5448487 200 12.8 . . 11 . Stave Site 1 543262 5448564 200 12.5 . . 10 6.2 Stave Site 1 543369 5448707 137 12.8 . . 11 6.4 Stave Site 1 543349 5448619 173 15.9 . . 10 6.3 Stave Site 1 543102 5448318 200 13.3 10.86 103.8 12 6.2 Stave Site 1 543186 5448325 200 13.3 10.76 102.8 11 6.2 Stave Site 1 543298 5448325 150 13.5 10.62 101.6 12 6.1 Stave Site 1 543301 5448504 188 13.1 10.3 97.8 11 6.1 Stave Site 1 543380 5448514 200 13.2 10.15 96.8 11 6 Stave Site 1 543455 5448568 179 12.9 11.06 104.8 11 6 Stave Site 1 543458 5448457 195 13.1 10.25 97.6 11 6 Stave Site 1 543424 5448403 153 13.3 10.52 100.4 11 6.1 Stave Site 1 543394 5448354 200 13.4 10.56 101.2 11 6 Stave Site 1 543459 5448301 200 13.5 10.22 101.1 12 6.1 Stave Site 1 543585 5448458 200 12.9 10.82 102.1 13 5.9 Stave Site 1 543531 5448296 200 13 11.01 10.93 12 6.1 Stave Site 1 543598 5448278 200 13.2 10.44 99.1 14 6.1 Stave Site 1 543520 5448214 158 13.7 6.79 65.6 20 6.1 Stave Site 1 543588 5448186 . 13.8 4.44 41.8 20 . Stave Site 1 543551 5448247 200 12.8 10.9 102.9 15 5.9 Stave Site 1 543482 5448201 65 15.1 4.54 44.4 18 6.2 Stave Site 1 543358 5448224 67 14.7 5.82 57.3 17 6.1 Stave Site 1 543305 5448233 70 14.7 5.1 49.8 16 6 Stave Site 1 543226 5448219 73 14.8 5.84 57.8 15 6 Stave Site 1 543104 5448198 65 14.4 4.54 44.7 18 6.1 Stave Site 1 543024 5448199 75 . . . . . Stave Site 2 542266 5446968 139 11.2 9.87 90.3 18 6.6 Stave Site 2 542277 5446855 185 11.6 10.89 100.1 24 6.7 Stave Site 2 542446 5446797 182 11.7 10.97 100.6 27 6.7 Stave Site 2 542500 5446866 200 12.1 10.88 101.1 30 6.7 Stave Site 2 542563 5446823 132 11.8 10.8 99.7 35 6.8

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Restoration UTM E UTM N Depth Temperature DO DO % Conductivity pH Site /Area (˚C) (mg/L) (uS) Stave Site 2 542634 5446776 . 13.9 10.59 102.3 47 7.2 Stave Site 2 542638 5446698 120 12.7 85 84.7 37 6.8 Stave Site 2 542627 5446637 . 12.1 9.05 83.7 52 6.6 Stave Site 2 542353 5447256 185 10.8 11.82 106.4 12 6.3 Stave Site 2 542438 5447265 193 10.5 11.26 100.1 11 6.1 Stave Site 2 542534 5447330 180 11.8 10.64 98 10 5.9 Stave Site 2 542570 5447236 180 11.5 10.83 99.3 11 . Stave Site 2 542585 5447285 167 12.5 10.77 100.7 18 6.2 Stave Site 2 542610 5447183 178 12.1 11.11 103.1 18 6.4 Stave Site 2 542577 5447082 178 11.7 11.12 102.4 17 6.4 Stave Site 2 542587 5446985 167 11.2 11.2 101.8 19 6.5 Stave Site 2 542623 5446884 185 12.4 11.18 104.5 29 6.7 Stave Site 3 543033 5446122 132 13.8 6.51 63 74 6.9 Stave Site 3 542915 5446063 110 12.7 4.83 44.9 68 6.7 Stave Site 3 542896 5446008 160 10.4 6.43 57.6 73 6.6 Stave Site 3 542997 5446083 92 12.9 6.82 64.6 66 6.6 Stave Site 3 542952 5446150 98 13.8 8.1 78.4 69 6.9 Stave Site 3 542902 5446228 144 13.3 8.62 82.2 62 7 Stave Site 3 542838 5446218 138 13.2 10.1 96.2 64 7.1 Stave Site 3 542846 5446102 138 10.8 8.52 76.9 70 6.7 Stave Site 3 542766 5446169 129 11.1 8.04 73 70 6.6 Stave Site 3 542691 5446245 134 11.5 8.62 79.4 72 6.9 Stave Site 3 542782 5446236 139 12.5 10.18 95.4 59 7.2 Stave Site 3 542697 5446295 121 12.7 10.39 98 59 7 Stave Site 3 542728 5446368 114 12.3 10.72 101 56 7.4 Stave Site 3 542647 5446422 135 11.3 11.02 100.6 41 6.9 Stave Site 3 542557 5446443 112 11.4 9.73 89.2 37 6.7 Stave Site 3 542635 5446338 150 11.9 10.6 98.1 71 7 Stave Site 3 542547 5446491 150 10.1 12.21 108.3 12 7 Stave Site 3 542431 5446561 142 10.3 11.87 106.1 15 6.9 Stave Site 3 543024 5445828 65 9.3 4.8 41.5 66 6.2 Stave Site 3 542979 5445900 100 9.8 5.96 52.4 62 6.4 Stave Site 3 542926 5445955 65 10.1 6.49 57.9 73 6.5 Stave Site 3 542342 5446610 116 10.7 10.97 98.6 23 6.6 Stave Site 3 542220 5446674 168 10.2 11.3 100.5 18 6.6 Stave Site 3 542138 5446714 200 9.9 11.47 101.3 16 6.6 Stave Site 4 542373 5448425 200 11.3 . . 11 6.7 Stave Site 4 542285 5448421 190 11.3 . . 11 6.4 Stave Site 4 542289 5448385 158 11.3 . . 11 6.2 Stave Site 4 542615 5448545 175 11.2 . . 11 6.7

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

Restoration UTM E UTM N Depth Temperature DO DO % Conductivity pH Site /Area (˚C) (mg/L) (uS) Stave Site 4 542741 5448582 200 11 . . 11 6.3 Stave Site 4 542677 5448609 11.4 . . 12 6.7 Stave Site 4 542736 5448666 200 11 . . 11 6.4 Stave Site 4 542759 5448736 150 11 . . 11 6.7 Stave Site 4 542788 5448776 200 11 . . 11 6.4 Stave Site 4 542777 5448832 114 . . 16 . Stave Site 4 542866 5448698 89 11.2 . . 10 6.6

Conclusions Areas containing potentially suitable habitat for Salish suckers within the Stave watershed were identified from satellite photographs and sampled using standard methods. These areas consisted of marginal wetlands, off channel habitat restoration sites in the lower Stave River, and two low elevation lakes known. No Salish Suckers were captured at any sites in the Stave watershed sampled during this study. It is possible that Salish Suckers are present but were undetected. In the case of Davis Lake, it is possible that a population of Salish sucker was exterminated during the 1962 ‘chemical rehabilitation’ of the lake in preparation for salmonid stocking. Kearsley Creek, a tributary was sampled for Nooksack dace, another SARA endangered fish species, using separate funding. None were found.

Recommendations 1. Trap and visually survey riffles in the inlet and outlet streams of Davis and Devils Lake during the peak of Salish sucker spawning season (May). 2. Sample additional tributary rivers and stream for Nooksack dace, an endangered form of Longnose dace, Rhinichthys cataractae. Recent inventory work has shown presence of Nooksack dace in tributaries to Chilliwack Lake (Taylor unpub. data) and populations of R. cataractae that may be Nooksack dace in tributaries to Harrison Lake and the Chehalis River (FISS 2017).

Species at Risk Inventory Sampling in the Stave Watershed Final Report, 2017

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

COSEWIC. (2007). COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Nooksack dace Rhinichthys cataractae ssp. in Canada. Ottawa: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. COSEWIC. (2012). COSEWIC Assessment and update status report of the Salish sucker, Catostomus sp. cf. catostomus, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada. Ottawa. 29 pp. FISS 2017. Fisheries Information Summary System. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/fiss/#. Accessed August 29, 2017.

McPhail, J.D. 1987. Status of the Salish Sucker, Catostomus sp., in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 101:231-236.

NatureServe 2017. NatureServe Explorer, An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Margaritifera%20falcata Accessed September 1, 2017.

Pearson, M.P. 2008. An assessment of potential critical habitat for Nooksack dace (Rhinichthys cataractae ssp.) and Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2007/058., Ottawa. Downloadable from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS. [Accessed August 15, 2017].

Pearson, M. P. (2015a). Guidelines for the Capture , Handling , Scientific Study , and Salvage of the Salish Sucker ( Catostomus sp .). Pearson , M.P. 2015b. Recovery potential assessment for the Salish sucker in Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Res. Doc. 2015/077 Taylor Eric. 2017. Professor, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia. Email to M. Pearson January 16, 2017.