Stave River Watershed- Restoring Salmon Rearing and Overwintering Habitat (Site 2-Phase 1)

Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition Unit 1 – 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack BC V2P 1N6 [email protected] 604-855-8274 www.fvwc.ca

March 28, 2017 STAVE RIVER WATERSHED- RESTORING SALMON REARING AND OVERWINTERING HABITAT (SITE 2-PHASE 1)

FWCP No. COA-F17-F-1371 Prepared for: Fish Wildlife Compensation Program

Prepared by: Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition (FVWC)

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

Nations and public stakeholders.

STAVE RIVER WATERSHED- RESTORING SALMON REARING AND OVERWINTERING HABITAT (SITE 2-PHASE 1) FINAL REPORT 2017

Prepared by Natashia Cox BA.,EP.,RB Tech & Rachel Drennan BSc., A.Ag. Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition

The Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition would like to thank all project funders, partners and the community. With their contributions, projects like these are much more successful, and benefit our recreational fisheries, wildlife and watersheds.

For additional information about this document or project details please contact the Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition or visit the website: www.fvwc.ca.

PROJECT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Off-channel habitats 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. To ensure the Lower Stave remains a highly productive system, monitoring and periodic restoration of in-stream and off-channel habitat quality and quantity is necessary.

The Stave River Watershed- Restoring Salmon Rearing and Overwintering Habitat 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 project resulted in the restoration of the following amount of habitats:

 606 linear meters (7,866 m2) newly created instream salmon habitat  2,768 m2 of riparian and aquatic planting using 16,294 individual native plants.

Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) contributed $71,231.10 from April 2016 to March 31, 2017, and with matching and partner in-kind contributions of $129,072.00 the total project value of this project $200,303.10

This report summarizes the results of work completed between April 2016 and March 31, 2017 under the financial contribution of Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program. Additional support for this project was received by the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnership Program, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Salmon Enhancement Program, 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.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... IV

LIST OF FIGURES ...... V

LIST OF MAPS ...... V

LIST OF TABLES ...... V

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 1

3.0 STUDY AREA ...... 2

4.0 METHODS, RESULTS & OUTCOMES ...... 3

5.0 DISCUSSION ...... 13

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 14

7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 14

8.0 REFERENCES ...... 15

9.0 LIST OF APPENDICES ...... 16

10.0 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ...... 17

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Fish Monitoring by Species Caught at Stave Site 3 across all monitoring stations (Jan. - Mar 2017)...... 11

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1. Location of Project Area. Yellow polygons represent project site areas- Google earth image). Inset Map illustrates the conceptual Phases for Restoration within Site 2...... 2

Map 2. Lower Stave Site 3 Replanting Areas: Green polygons represent planting areas completed in 2014. Yellow polygons represent planting areas in 2015 and Orange polygons represent planting area completed in 2016. Inset Map A: all planting was completed in 2014. Inset Map B: planting has been completed from 2014 to 2016...... 7

Map 3. Stave Site 2 Planting areas shown as green polygons. Blue shaded line shows tidal channel newly ...... 8

Map 4. Monitoring Locations Stave Site 3 ...... 10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. List of Native Vegetation Planted 2016 at Lower Stave River Restoration Sites .... 6

Table 2. Monitoring Locations Stave Site 3 ...... 10

Table 3. Average Water Quality Conditions at each Stave Site 3 Monitoring Station and Across Project Site ...... 11

Table 4. Fish Monitoring Results at Stave Site 2 across all stations ...... 11

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 v 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Stave River is a large tributary to the Fraser River and historically, once had uninterrupted flows starting approximately 64 kilometers north of Steveston, (DFO 1965), and was important for the production of Fraser River chum salmon populations (Bailey, Fedorenko and Cook, 2005). In 1930’s two hydro-electrical dams were constructed to support a growing energy demand and population: Ruskin Dam, which is 2.4 km from the Fraser River Stave Falls Dam, which is 5.6 km from the Fraser River. Each of these dams were 130 ft high. In addition a diversion was also built directing flows from Alouette River to Stave River (DFO 1965). Before the construction of these dams, which permanently alienated over 90% of the historic habitats available to Coho salmon in this watershed, the Stave River canyon was passable to salmon during high flows before becoming impassable at Stave River Falls (Bailey et al 2005).

The demand for energy during particular times of day caused hydrological fluctuations, resulting in alterations to the lower river reaches, desiccation or washouts of incubating salmon redds/eggs and disruptions to the connectivity and natural gravel recruitment below the Ruskin dam, and the salmon population began to decline. In an effort to rebuild the populations, a hatchery augmentation combined with harvest reduction program was initiated in the 1980’s with a particular focus to rebuild the chum population (Bailey et al 2005). Watershed management plans and controlled flow agreements have since been created to ensure biological, hydrological, social and economic (energy) values are balanced in this watershed.

This report describes the physical restoration and enhancement activities that were completed to improve the lower Stave River to support anadromous and resident salmon habitat. This section of the River consists of numerous channels and gravel bars and thousands of chum salmon, and hundreds of Coho, pink and Chinook salmon use this lower habitat. It is also confined by industry such as logging, residential development, and the highway. It has seen impacts not only from the construction of the dam and these anthropogenic influences, but also from the significant invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and lack of complex habitat.

2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals associated with this project were:

 Restore instream aquatic habitats to support salmon habitat with an expected result of 300 linear meters of instream habitat restored

 Prepare and replant riparian areas with a diversity of native vegetation species and use bioengineering techniques where appropriate, with an expected result of an estimated 500 m2 of riparian habitat enhanced.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 1

 Monitor for fish, water quality and vegetation summary report, with an expected result of monitoring data and a vegetation assessment summary report.

 Increase community opportunity to engage in volunteer activities and become more aware of indicators of watershed health, with an expected result of at least 30 volunteers participating in the activities.

3.0 STUDY AREA The project area is situated within the Fraser Valley Regional District, just west of the District of Mission on the north and south side of Lougheed Highway between Silvermere Reservoir and the left bank of Stave River, and is within the Sto:lo First Nation Traditional Territory. Two project sites within the lower Stave River were selected for enhancement and restoration activities: Site 2, owned by Seyem Kwantlen First Nation and is reserve land and Site 3, co-owned by Ducks Unlimited Canada and Seyem Kwantlen First Nation. Map 1.

Inset map

Site 2.1

Site 2.2 Site 2.3

Archaeology site: DhRo4

Map 1. Location of Project Area. Yellow polygons represent project site areas- Google earth image). Inset Map illustrates the conceptual Phases for Restoration within Site 2.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 2 4.0 METHODS, RESULTS & OUTCOMES

4.1 PROJECT DESIGN, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION, ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

The restoration project design was led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in partnership with FVWC, Kwantlen First Nation, Ducks Unlimited Canada and took into consideration hydrology and flows, archaeological reports and assessments, Species at Risk and Vegetation bio-inventory.

 Archaeology: For works on Silveremere Island, an Archaeological Impact Assessment was required by BC Heritage Act and during restoration an archaeological monitor was required. (Silvermere Island has a significant cultural site DgRo12 and high archaeological potential). Kwantlen First Nation and Cordillera Archaeology were contracted to ensure cultural and archaeological values were conserved as part of this project. Please see Attachment I for the Archaeological Summary Report

 Species at Risk: Along the east side of the island there is a known population of Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) and existing nesting site. Western Painted Turtle Biologists were contracted to ensure that mobilization and demobilization did not impact turtle nesting habitat. Please see Attachment II for the Western Painted Turtle Onsite Mitigation Summary.

 Vegetation Bio-Inventory Assessment: In order to understand and plan for replanting, and as part of an adaptive management approach, Raincoast Applied Ecology was contracted to complete an assessment of previous planting efforts at Stave Site 3. Please see Attachment III for the Vegetation Bio-Inventory Assessment.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 3 4.2 INSTREAM RESTORATION

The first goal of for this phase of the project was to improve and create a minimum of 300 linear meters of salmon habitat through channel excavation, which was completed during the 2016 in-stream fisheries works window.

At both Site 2 and 3 the challenges restricting the natural function of the habitat is the significant invasion of reed canary grass that has formed expansive monoculture limiting the ability for natural vegetation recruitment. Not only does this grass form dense mats that can cause sedimentation and in-filling of channels, form barriers for salmon migration and restrict natural native vegetation recruitment; it can also alter the chemical composition of the existing channels through its decomposition.

At Site 2, machines were brought onsite through the north causeway access (private property). An onsite Western Painted Turtle biologist was present during the mobilization and demobilization to ensure the movement of heavy equipment did not impact turtle nesting. The construction of the channels was led by DFO and involved the use of a 200- series excavator which dug new off-channel habitat first following the toe of the island slope, moving from south to north. The channel was dug following a 0-<1% gradient to allow for the channels to ebb and flow with the Fraser River tides. Material was side casted to helped form floodplain higher grounds that can be replanted with more riparian vegetation and aquatic benches with a 1:5 ratio were created to support aquatic vegetation. During the construction of the channels a Kwantlen First Nation monitor and an archaeologist were onsite to monitor for artifacts and ensure existing sensitive archaeological sites were identified and conserved. Please see Appendix I Project Photo- documentation and Appendix II for Channel As-Built Diagram.

The outcomes of this activity are: Target: 300 linear meters instream habitat created for Site 2-Phase 1. Actual: 606 linear meters, (7866 m2) instream habitat created Status: Complete

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 4 4.3 RIPARIAN RESTORATION

Riparian restoration is a process that sets the stage to allow natural ecological processes to take place and persist once the riparian habitat is re-established. Lack of vegetation along streams can allow pollutants into surface waters, and streambank erosion can be a problem because there is no root network to bind soil (Bannerman 1998). Water quality is also degraded by lack of shade, woody debris, and leaf litter, all of which are important to fish and the insects they feed on. Riparian areas are important transition areas that connect the water with the land, and support a wide variety of plants and animals. Trees and shrubs that overhang streams can moderate the temperature through shading, benefiting fish and aquatic invertebrates, as well as preventing excess algae growth (Bannerman 1998). The roots of plants growing along stream banks provide structure, collect sediment and hold soil together. The plants selected for these sites are native species that tolerate high Fraser freshet levels (inundation) for long periods of time, seasonal drying during the summer months, herbivory from beaver and small mammals, some salt influx, a heavy clay substrate, and can compete against invasive reed canary encroachment. The species selected also support estuary plant communities, riparian communities, facilitate leaf litter drop and are important for waterfowl use. Plants are placed according to their needs on high, medium or low bench areas.

At Site 3, a 100 series excavator was used during the summer to rough up additional sections along the newly created salmon channels (from 2014-2015) to aid in the replanting efforts. Roughing up the riparian substrate allows for puddling (form of erosion control), reduces compaction, and creates micro-topography enabling cottonwood seeds and other pioneering species to germinate onsite and allow for natural succession of the riparian area. In the fall of 2016 and winter of 2017 FVWC and volunteers began replanting Site 2 and Site 3. Transporting the stock from drop off to planting locations was a challenge as the planting, for best results, needs to be completed during the fall and winter when the conditions are wet, which requires volunteers carrying the stock and/or using modified wheelbarrows and carts to move the plants. The stock was densely planted to support intra-species-communities and discourage space for invasive encroachment, and aquatic plugs were staked into the substrate to help hold it down while the roots establish, as freeze-thaw cycles, high tides and freshet can cause the plugs to pop out of the ground. The plants selected incorporated biodiversity needs such as provision of nectar and pollen sources for native pollinators, who are currently in decline. In addition, First Nation culturally important values were also considered for plant selection, and species included Wapato (Sagittaria latifolia), Sweet Gale (Myrica gale) and Nootka Rose (Rosa Nootkatensis) among others. Bioengineering using native locally harvested willow and cottonwood species were also used at the project sites to help quickly establish a riparian area that will not only benefit salmon but also waterfowl and even support future habitat needs for species like the Western Screech Owl (Megascops kennicottii kennicottii). Some stock was also guarded against herbivory from small mammals and beavers. Table 1 lists the vegetation planted. Maps 2 & 3 shows the general replanted areas from Sept. 2016 to Mar. 2017

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 5 Table 1. List of Native Vegetation Planted 2016 at Lower Stave River Restoration Sites Common Name Latin Name Size # Site 2 Aquatic species Spreading Rush Juncus patens 1 gal 20 72pl 720 Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus 1 gal 20 Common rush Juncus effuses 1 gal 10 72pl 1,296 Tall Mana Grass Glyceria elata 1 gal 10 72pl 1,296 Slough Sedge Carex obnupta 72pl 1,000 Mertin’s Sedge Carex mertensii 72pl 720 Wapato Sagittaria latifolia Bulb 288 Riparian species Nootka Rose Rosa nootkatensis 1 gal 80 Hardhack Spiraea douglasii 1 gal 180 Sweet Gale Myrica gale 1 gal 160 Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrate 1 gal 50 Red Osier Dogwood Cornus serica 1 gal 130 Hookers willow Salix hookeriana 1 gal 50 Willow Salix sp. Whip 1,800 Black Cottonwood Populous trichocarpa Whip 1,800 TOTAL Site 2 9,630 Site 3 Aquatic species Mertin’s Sedge Carex mertensii 1 gal 15 72pl 216 Slough Sedge Carex obnupta 1 gal 15 72pl 504 Common rush Juncus effuses 1 gal 15 72pl 936 Tall Mana Grass Glyceria elata 1 gal 15 Spreading Rush Juncus patens 72pl 360 Dense Sedge Carex densa 72pl 936 Sawbeaked Sedge Carex stipata 72pl 792 Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus 72pl 360 Wapato Sagittaria latifolia Bulb 576 Riparian species Hardhack Spiraea douglasii 1 gal 250 Sweet Gale Myrica gale 1 gal 130 Willow Salix sp. Whip 1,600 Black Cottonwood Populous trichocarpa Whip 1,600 TOTAL Site 3 6,664 TOTAL ALL SITES 16,294

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 6

Inset map A Inset map B

The outcomes of this activity are: Target: 500 m2 of riparian area planted for 2016 Sites 2-Phase 1 and Site 3. Actual: 2,5768 m2 (693m2 at Site 2 & 2,075 m2 at Stave Site 3 with 16,294 individual plants) Status: Complete

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 7

Inset map

Map 3. Stave Site 2 Planting areas shown as green polygons. Blue shaded line shows tidal channel newly created in summer of 2016.

4.4 MONITORING

Monitoring was completed at Site 3 by FVWC to assess water quality conditions and fish usage to help inform designs and communications for Site 2-Phase 1 planning, restoration and future enhancement and actions needed for Site 3. 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.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 8

 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 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.

A total of ten monitoring locations were established across Site 3. Monitoring locations were identified in partnership with DFO salmon enhancement program biologists, Map 4, Table 2. The average water quality conditions at each monitoring station is shown in Table 3. 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 4, Figure 1. 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.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 9 Silvermere Resevoir

Stave River

Fraser River

Map 4. Monitoring Locations Stave Site 3

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

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.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 10 Table 3. Average Water Quality Conditions at each Stave Site 3 Monitoring Station and Across Project Site Station # Average Average Average Average DO Average Average Average Conductivity Salinity DO % mg/LA TempB Turbidity pH (µS/cm) ppm 1 83.8 10.77 4.85 21 82 7.07 40 2 89.6 11.61 4.50 21 78 7.20 39 3 91.5 11.84 4.50 21 80 7.15 41 4 83.7 10.98 3.93 21 61 7.17 33 5 81.5 10.61 4.10 21 69 7.05 34 6 84.2 10.91 4.27 21 70 7.10 36 7 85.0 11.02 4.30 21 71 6.89 37 8 95.7 12.36 4.60 21 69 7.74 35 9 78.6 9.78 5.87 21 172 6.94 86 10 90.8 11.65 4.53 21 73 7.57 36 Cumulative Average 86.4 11.15 4.55 21 82.5 7.19 41.7 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.

Table 4. Fish Monitoring Results at Stave Site 2 across all stations Station # Total # Fish Caught PMB CO RSC TSB 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 3 3 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 5 4 1 0 3 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 7 4 1 0 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 1 0 1 0 10 5 1 3 1 0 Cumulative Average Figure 1. Fish Monitoring by Species Caught at Stave 22 5 5 11 1 Site 3 across all monitoring stations (Jan. - Mar 2017). across stations *CO= Coho salmon, CM = Chum Salmon, PMB =Pumpkinseed, RSC= Redside Shiner, TSB = Threespine Stickleback *Adult Chum and Coho were observed spawning but were outside the minnow trapping and monitoring.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 11 4.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH

FVWC encouraged community involvement, garnered volunteers from UFV, students, and locals community members to participate in replanting and project activities. Information from this project has been shared during FVWC meetings, on social media, websites (all non-sensitive info), on JoyTV and the final reports will be shared with Kwantlen First Nation to assist in the lands planning and environmental biodiversity values at this location.

 AbbyNews – a local newspaper (online and hardcopy), highlighting the project funding from RFCPP to support the Stave River project. o http://www.abbynews.com/community/407123126.html

 JoyTV – a local broadcasting television station. The Stave project was featured on the February 12, 2017 airing on Fraser Focus (11:11 minutes to 22:30 minutes) o http://www.joytv.ca/video/fraser-focus-hemlock-resort-virtual-protest- episode-96-first-air-date-february-12-2017/

 Led tours of the project site with community members, FVWC volunteers and students. o http://us5.campaign- archive2.com/?u=a166b1ed0e6da86c447472764&id=a19b567c64

 Hosted 2 community planting events totalling 80 volunteers participating in hands- on activities.

4.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT OBJECTIVE RESULTS

Objective Target Outcome Actual Result Status Instream restoration to support 606 linear meters tidal influenced off-channel 300 linear instream, Complete habitats in the Lower Stave meters instream 2 River, for Site 2-Phase 1. (7,866 m ) Riparian and Aquatic replanting along newly restored sections of 500 m2 2,768 m2 Complete off-channel habitat at Site 2 and Site 3. Engaging volunteers about project goals and hands-on Min 30 volunteers 80 volunteers Complete opportunities. Complete Assessments and Summary Reports Summary Reports: Complete Monitoring to support adaptive Veg Bio-Inventory management and project WPT planning. Archaeology

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 12 5.0 DISCUSSION

Having a dynamic history with many anthropogenic factors that have influenced the salmon populations and the hydrology, the Stave River is a large tributary to the Fraser River which historically and currently is important for the production of Fraser River chum salmon populations (Bailey, Fedorenko and Cook, 2005); and the Lower Stave River is a critical habitat for all Pacific salmon. The focus of this project was to restore low-floodplain tidally influenced channels to support rearing and overwintering habitat, physically remove reed canary grass, which will slow the hypoxia feedback loop created by its’ decomposition and create natural riparian and aquatic refuges that can tolerate inundation, be robust to stand against invasive encroachment and provide the biological attributes required for salmon growth, and functional off-channel habitats. Removal of invasive species is an important step in the restoration process, as it can physically block fish from migrating and reduce the amount of available oxygen in the water. The removal of the reed canary grass from the channel will allow for greater surface water and air mixing, which can help increase the dissolved oxygen levels in the channel, and help address the threat of acute hypoxia and prevention of fish movement (Lapointe et al 2013). Restoration should improve the ecological connectivity and functionality of the area by increasing food availability, improving movement of nutrients and water, and creating variations in the habitat that will offer long-term integrity for salmon habitat (Lapointe et al 2013).

The plants selected for this site are native species that tolerate high Fraser freshet levels (inundation) for long periods of time, seasonal drying during the summer months, herbivory from beaver and small mammals, and can compete against invasive reed canary encroachment. The species selected also support riparian communities, facilitate leaf litter drop and are important for wildlife use. Not only did the riparian vegetation need to be hardy native species, it was important in selecting a diversity of species, which is particularly critical in building micro-scale resilience in light of pests like the willow borer. Plants were placed according to their needs on high, medium or low bench areas. Wire fencing and herbivory guards were placed around some of the plantings to prevent damage from beavers and small rodents. Planting densities are selected in order to outcompete invasive plants such as reed canary grass. By planting trees and shrubs densely

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 13 on a project site it encourages quick shading and limits the ability of shade intolerant species such as reed canary grass to flourish. Shade is an important factor that will discourage the reed canary re-encroachment on the slough system, but will take years before the native plants are mature enough to provide this service. Although it will take an estimated two to five years for stock to mature before changes are observed, the riparian vegetation will have lasting benefits on the Slough. This includes providing shade to the channel, regulating water temperature on a micro-habitat level, increasing bank stability, particularly where deep rooted species were planted, increasing organic and detritus material into the system which creates suitable habitat for riparian and aquatic invertebrates and making the area less susceptible to invasive plant re-establishment. Insects falling from riparian vegetation into streams represent an important food source for drift-feeding fishes in headwater streams (Allan et al. 2003).

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

 Continue instream restoration and enhancement efforts at Stave Site 2, connecting and creating tidally influenced off-channel habitat to support in-migrating and out- migrating salmon species, including creating aquatic benches and replanting both the aquatic and riparian areas.

 Continue riparian planting at Stave Site 3, building on the planting that has already been completed to support riparian tree and shrub coverage over the entire length of channel.

 Monitor for water quality and fish usage at Stave Site 3 and begin monitoring at Stave Site 2.

 Monitor the vegetation to assess growing conditions, impacts from herbivory and other pests such as the poplar and willow borer (Cryptohynchus lapathi) which has been observed in nearby areas and can impact vegetation survivorship.

7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project is a collaborative effort to restore fish habitat and improve the overall watershed health in the Lower Stave River Watershed. Special thanks go to:

 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Dave Nanson, Al Jonsson, Jonathan Bulcock, Maurice Coulter-Boisvert, Bob Schaefer, Michelle Bouchard, Lindsay Gardner, Suzanne Thorpe  Fish Wildlife Compensation Program  Seyem Kwantlen First Nation – Chief and Council  Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 14  District of Mission- Mike Younie, Jennifer Meier  Fraser Valley Regional District – Lance Lilley, David Urban  Ducks Unlimited Canada- Dan Buffet  Stave Valley Salmonid Enhancement Society- Jim & Terry Taylor, Barb Strachan  University of the Fraser Valley (volunteers)- Jonathan Hughes  Cordillera Archaeology – Brendan Gray  Western Painted Turtle Conservation Project- Aimee Mitchell, Andrea Gielens, Deanna MacTavish  Raincoast Applied Ecology – Nick Page, Claudia Schaefer  Community volunteers and neighbouring landowners  Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition – Directors and staff.

Financial and in-kind Contributions were made from:  Fish Wildlife Compensation Program  Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnership Program  Department of Fisheries and Oceans  Stave Valley Salmonid Enhancement Society  Fraser Valley Regional District  University of the Fraser Valley  Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition

8.0 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.

Bailed, 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.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 15 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

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.

9.0 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I ………………...Representative Project Photos Appendix II ………………..As-Built Diagram

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 16 10.0 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment I……………….Archaeological Summary Report Attachment II………………Western Painted Turtle Monitoring and Mitigation Memo Attachment III……………..Raincoast Applied Ecology Vegetation Assessment

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 17 Appendix I: Representative Project Photos: Instream Restoration Site 2

B A.Looking south-west across the southern most entry of tidal channel during beginning of instream works. Note the lower elevation aquatic vegetation (sedges and rushes) that are left in-tact and used as a natural elevation reference point for setting up instream benches. B. Machine digging the channel, note the extensive higher elevation reed canary grass to the north (right hand-side) that was to be excavated. Both photos taken during low tide.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 18 Appendix I: Representative Project Photos: Instream Restoration Site 2

A B C

D A. Excavator using a “knuckle-bucket” approach to open channels without impacting archaeological values. B. Archaeologists and field technicians monitor newly excavated soils to ensure cultural values are conserved. C. Excavator digs the channel trench before cutting back the aquatic benches. D. Excavator cuts the aquatic benches.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 19 Appendix I: Representative Project Photos: Instream Restoration Site 2

B C

A.Panoramic view showing newly constructed channel before replanting during a medium tide. B. South view of channel showing a medium-high tide filling the channel with water. C. Coordinating volunteers to participate during low tides, note the water in the channel is much lower exposing the aquatic vegetation.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 20 Appendix I: Representative Project Photos: Riparian and Aquatic Replanting Site 2

A B

C D E A.Rachel Drennan- FVWC explains what aquatic plants are being used and how to plant riparian species to students. B. Student and volunteers start planting. C. An example of some of the rushes layed out and used for replanting. D. FVWC field crew members in the centre of the channel at low tide installing and securing aquatic plugs. E. Field-Crew member shows volunteers a northwestern salamander also using these channels.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 21 Appendix I: Representative Project Photos: Riparian and Aquatic Replanting Site 2

A A. Live willow and cottonwood stakes installed on the higher raised side-cast material (west side) to assist in the shading of the tidal channel. Stakes are protected from herbivory using wire and plastic guards.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 22 Appendix I: Representative Project Photos: Restoration and Enhancement Site 3

A. An excavator roughs up the site in preparetion for additional planting and to support increased water retention from the soil.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 23 Appendix I: Representative Project Photos: Monitoring

A B

C D E

A. FVWC monitores water quality at a monitoring station at Stave Site 3. B. Minnow trapping yeilded a coho (15cm). C. FVWC field crew monitors dissolved oxygen at the outlet channel. D. A Northwestern salamander caught in the minnow trap. E. Recording monitoring data and measuring temperature.

STAVE RIVER | FINAL REPORT 2017 24

Brendan Gray Cordillera Archaeology 122-350 E 2nd Ave. Vancouver, B.C. Ph.: 778.319.1466 E: [email protected]

Natashia Cox Project Manager Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition www.fvwc.ca [email protected] 604-855-8274 March 30th, 2017

Re: Archaeological Impact Assessment of Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition’s Salmon Habitat Restoration, Stave River Delta (Site 2)

Dear Natashia Cox,

This letter reports archaeological monitoring conducted for the Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition’s Salmon Habitat Restoration “Site 2” in the Stave River Delta. The purpose of this letter is to summarize the results of the archaeological monitoring in the summer and fall of 2016. An in-depth report will be provided in the coming months which will cover all aspects of the archaeological work including study area background information, detailed description of proposed development, analysis of results, evaluation of research, etc.).

All work to date was conducted under permits issued by the BC Archaeology Branch (Permit 2014-0204), Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre (Permit 2014-066) and Kwantlen First Nation (Permit 2015-038).

This letter focused on the results of monitoring for Site 2 (within Kwantlen I.R. #3) that occurred in summer/fall 2016. Previous archaeological impact assessment work for the Site 2 development was described in detail in an interim report submitted in March 2016.

Proposed Development The Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition (FVWC), in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has plans to enlarge existing wetlands channel corridors at three sites in the Stave River floodplain (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The purpose of enhancing these channels is to provide additional water flow in the channels in order to enhance Coho salmon habitat. The project includes:  in-stream works to enlarge (deepen) existing sloughs/channels using a machine with a 1.0 m wide bucket;  new channels/ponds to create additional water flow and habitat within project areas;  temporary roads for the machines to access the channels; and,  the placement of spoil (i.e. removed sediment from the sloughs) on hummocks beside the sloughs.

Figure 1. Study area situated within NTS map sheet 92 G/01.

Monitoring of Salmon Habitat Restoration, Stave River Delta, Site 2

Figure 2. Site #2 within Kwantlen I.R. #3. Archaeological sites also shown.

Cordillera Archaeology 4 Monitoring of Salmon Habitat Restoration, Stave River Delta, Site 2

Results Work reported on here includes monitoring and post-impact assessment of all channel areas excavated by machine in summer/fall 2016. Monitoring was undertaken by a Cordillera Archaeology archaeologist and a trained Kwantlen archaeological technician. The Kwantlen archaeological technician was onsite for all of the ground-altering work.

All slough enhancement was observed to be situated in grey/brown fluvial clay.

Two artifacts were found (and subsequently collected) at the southeast end of the project during monitoring: a bifacial knife (Figure 5) and a weathered stone drill (Figure 6). These artifacts were located near the southeast end of DhRo-4. The boundary of DhRo-4 has been updated to include these artifacts.

Additionally, fire-cracked rock was observed at the northwest end of the project which is situated within DhRo-4. The FCR was excavated from the bottom of an existing slough. The FCR was likely originally located in the banks around the slough, and subsequently slumped into the slough where they were excavated.

The location of collected artifacts, as well as areas where the slough enhancement was undertaken in 2016, is shown in Figure 7.

After all ground-altering work was completed, a one-day field visit was undertaken to inspect all spoil piles and exposed sediments in the sloughs (at low tide) for further archaeological material. No further archaeological material was identified during the post- impact assessment.

Figure 3. Looking south towards the southeast edge of the project.

Cordillera Archaeology 5 Monitoring of Salmon Habitat Restoration, Stave River Delta, Site 2

Figure 4. Slough enhancement near DhRo-4 at the northwest boundary of the project.

Figure 5. Chipped slate (?) bifacial knife found during monitoring.

Cordillera Archaeology 6 Monitoring of Salmon Habitat Restoration, Stave River Delta, Site 2

Figure 6. Weathered and water-rolled drill found during monitoring.

Cordillera Archaeology 7 Monitoring of Salmon Habitat Restoration, Stave River Delta, Site 2

Figure 7. Slough enhancement at the south end of Kwantlen I.R. #3, surface find locations also shown.

Cordillera Archaeology 8 Monitoring of Salmon Habitat Restoration, Stave River Delta, Site 2

Impact Assessment A small number of artifacts (n=2) were identified at the southeast end of the project during machine scraping of this area. These artifacts have extended the boundary of DhRo-4. This machine scraping has impacted the site. However, given the low density of artifacts, small area of the actual disturbed area relative to the site size overall and lack of cultural strata/features uncovered during monitoring, the work is judged to have had low impact on archaeological site DhRo-4.

Recommendations The recommendations below should be followed in order to minimize impact to archaeological sites:  All impact management strategies and all ground altering activities should be should be undertaken in consultation with Kwantlen First Nation.  When further ground-altering work is planned for Site 2, these plans should be shared with Kwantlen First Nation and an approved archaeological consultant to determine whether archaeological assessment and/or monitoring may be required.  Project developers, engineers, workers, etc. should be made aware that future alterations to landforms will have the possibility of impacting archaeological material.  If any archaeological features/sites are discovered at any stage of the project, Kwantlen First Nation and the BC Archaeology Branch should be notified, and all work in the immediate area should cease. The extent, significance and potential impact to any sites should be determined and mitigated prior to resumption of the development.

Cordillera Archaeology 9 Monitoring of Salmon Habitat Restoration, Stave River Delta, Site 2

Ongoing Work Ongoing work for this project includes the following:  Integration of these results in the BC Heritage Conservation Act Report (2014- 0204);  Completion of BC Archaeology Branch site form update for the changes to DhRo-4 as a result of this project;  Analysis and cataloguing of stone tools collected during fieldwork; and,  Assessment and monitoring (as necessary) for further work at Site 2 in 2017 and 2018.

If you have any questions about the content of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me,

Sincerely,

Brendan Gray

Cordillera Archaeology 10 MEMO: ENVIRONMENTNAL MONITORING IN THE STAVE RIVER WETLAND (STAVE SITE 2) BY THE COASTAL PAINTED TURTLE PROJECT IN 2016

JANUARY 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

MEMO: 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 from machinery brought into site for the duration of the first day of works on August 9, 2016. In addition, a member also attended other days of work to coincide with partner restoration activities (installation of turtle basking logs) in Silvermere Lake (Figure 1). The partner restoration activities included donation of 25 logs by the Kwantlen First Nation, log transport was provided through Lafarge contractors and log placement in Silvermere conducted in-kind by the Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition during the exodus of machinery for the Stave Site 2 restoration works.

Figure 1. Stave Site 2 (orange circle), path of machinery (yellow line) environmental monitoring area (green polygon) and turtle basking habitat enhancement area of Silvermere Lake (red circle) in August 2016.

During the first day of works, CPTP member, Aimee Mitchell, met with Natashia Cox and Rachel Drennan of the Fraser Valley Watersheds Coalition along with a representative from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and a Mission Contractors operator in the morning as the machinery was brought into the site (Figure 1 – yellow path). Aimee and FVWC members walked the path along with the machinery. During this time (0730 to 1100), Aimee 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.

CPTP member, Andrea Gielens, then surveyed and monitored equipment path and surrounding habitat in the afternoon from 1100 to 1500. Surveys for emerged turtles or evidence of emerged turtles involved visual surveys of the suitable/available habitat for characteristic nest emergence holes as well as any possible emerged and free roaming hatchlings or adult turtles. Suitable habitat included areas of gravel or exposed substrate, as well as any areas where equipment was moved. During surveys no emerge holes or emerged or adult turtles were observed. Given the relatively mild weather on August 9, it is unlikely that animals would be moving greatly. No animals were observed basking on areas visible from the monitored area.

During turtle basking log staging at the site on August 29th, two turtles were observed basking on existing woody debris but none were detected on land by CPTP member, Deanna MacTavish (Figure 2). Installation of logs that took place on October 12th did not note any turtle or other species at risk activity, however, this timing was beyond the typical active period for turtles where they would be seeking or already established burmation (overwinter) locations in Silvermere Lake (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Two basking turtles in Silvermere Lake on August 29th, 2016 (red circle in Figure 1) – top middle of photo. Photo by Deanna MacTavish.

Figure 3. Turtle basking logs installed in Silvermere Lake on October 12th, 2016. Photos by Deanna MacTavish.

Raincoast Applied Ecology Tel: 604-742-9890 #102 – 1661 West 2nd Avenue Email: [email protected] Vancouver, B.C. Website: www.raincoastappliedecology.ca V6J 1H3

MEMORANDUM

Date: December 6, 2016

To: Natashia Cox, Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition By email

From: Claudia Schaefer, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.

Re: Comparison of Plant Species Richness between Existing and Planted Restoration Communities at Lower Stave River

BACKGROUND Fish habitat enhancement by the Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition (FVWC), in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), has been ongoing at the junction of the Stave and Fraser rivers, south of Lougheed Highway between 287th and Hayward streets, Mission, BC.

The site is a wetland marsh dominated by the non-native reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Existing water channels have been enlarged and new channels were created to improve coho salmon habitat, in particular. As part of the enhancement of the site, areas of reed canarygrass were removed using heavy machinery and native species were planted.

The FVWC wished the following questions to be addressed by this study:

1. Are the restoration and enhancement sites creating more diversity and becoming more complex? 2. Can this be seen within a year of restoration and enhancement activities? 3. Is there a change from more invasive species to more native species? 4. Is wildlife using the newly planted areas?

The Stave River study site falls within the Coastal Western Hemlock Dry Maritime subzone (CWHdm). The area lies adjacent to the Stave River. It is a flat, low bench that is usually flooded in winter and/or during the freshet of the Fraser River.

Raincoast Applied Ecology: Stave River Restoration Assessment Page 1 of 5 METHODS The site was visited on September 14 and 22, 2016 by Claudia Schaefer of Raincoast Applied Ecology (RAE). Thirty-six plots of 2 m x 2 m were randomly situated in non-restored sites and planted sites (18 plots in each type). Plant species, native status, strata (tree, shrub, or herbaceous) and cover values were recorded.

To address the objective as to whether the restoration and enhancement sites are becoming more diverse, plant species richness was first calculated, by determining the average number of species present within plots; this could then be compared between restored sites and non-restored sites. To measure ‘diversity’ per se, species richness is assessed as well as the ‘evenness’ of species cover.

The complexity of the communities between sites was assessed based on the diversity of structure present, e.g. the occurrence of different strata such as trees, shrubs, or herbaceous plants within plots.

Site photographs were taken and representative images can be found in Appendix 1.

RESULTS

The following table summarizes the comparative results of the study:

Table 1. Plant species numbers and richness values for restored and non-restored sites.

Restored Sites Non-restored Sites # of Plant Species per plot 19 10 # of Native Plant Species combined (all plots) 17 8 Species Richness (Average) per plot 5.0 2.1 Average cover of reed canarygrass (RCG) 59 88 % of plots with

The following results address the objectives (questions) of the study:

1. Are the restoration and enhancement sites creating more diversity and becoming more complex? o Restored sites are higher in species richness than non-restored sites, by a factor of 2.4. o The diversity was low in in general in both restored and non-restored sites. Plots were most often dominated by one species, the non-native reed canarygrass. There were, however, 5 plots (28%) in restored sites that showed more evenness, 3 of which were occupied by mostly native species, and 2 which were evenly divided between native species and reed canarygrass. o The complexity is greater in restored sites, given that shrubs or tree species are highly frequent in restored areas (occurring in 94% of plots), while non-restored sites are mostly a one-stratum monoculture (or heavily dominated) by a non-native grass species.

Raincoast Applied Ecology: Stave River Restoration Assessment Page 2 of 5

2. Can this be seen within a year of restoration and enhancement activities? o The increase in species richness can be seen within one year of enhancement activities. o The complexity (number of strata or diversity of layers) has increased within one year of enhancement activities. o However, the occurrence and cover of reed canarygrass was found to be high in both restored and non-restored sites.

3. Is there a change from more invasive species to more native species? o There are significantly more native species in restored sites than non-restored sites, by a factor of 2.1. o The two non-native species occurring within plots at the study site were reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus); the latter was found infrequently and at low cover. o Reed canarygrass was found at significantly higher cover (88% vs. 59%) in non-restored sites than in restored sites. Only one plot of 18 (5.6%) in non-restored sites had a cover value of reed canarygrass of less than or equal to 30%, while 5 plots of 18 (27.8%) in restored areas had cover values

4. Is wildlife using the newly planted areas? o No wildlife observations were made during field work, however September was not an appropriate time of year to assess differences in wildlife use.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made to increase the success of continuing restorative measures:

1) Conduct a similar study in years 2 and 3.  It is currently unclear whether reed canarygrass cover will increase in restored sites in the coming years due to its aggressive nature, or decrease due to shading of shrub and tree species. 2) Plan to restore future areas adjacent to existing restored sites.  Restoring neighbouring sites increases the size of a restored area, thereby decreasing the edge effect and invasion opportunity from non-restored sites dominated by reed canarygrass. 3) Plant more densely.  This should aid in shading out bare ground that reed canarygrass may otherwise invade. 4) Review the planting species list with a professional botanist.  Some nursery taxa on the current plant acquisition list may have questionable native status. 5) If question 4 (‘Is wildlife using the newly planted areas?’) is important to answer with observational field data, conduct a wildlife inventory in the bird breeding season.  It may be sufficient, however, given the existing scientific literature on wetland structure, to assume that creating sites with more complex structure (by adding trees and shrubs) will benefit wildlife and increase the site’s use by a variety of species, particularly birds.

Raincoast Applied Ecology: Stave River Restoration Assessment Page 3 of 5 SUMMARY

 The restoration and enhancement efforts on site are promising.  Species richness has increased significantly.  Native species presence is higher on restored sites and therefore for the wetland in general.  Species diversity is somewhat higher post-enhancement.  Community complexity is increased in restored sites and the wetland in general.

Raincoast Applied Ecology would be pleased to provide any follow-up advice or clarifications about the results of the assessment. Please contact me at (604) 742-9890 or by email at [email protected], if you have any questions or require more information.

Sincerely,

Claudia Schaefer, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.

Raincoast Applied Ecology: Stave River Restoration Assessment Page 4 of 5 Appendix 1. Site photographs of the Stave River study on enhancement activities.

a b

c d

e f

Photographs from the study area: a) typical existing (non-restored) vegetation of the study area with reed canarygrass heavily dominant; b) area of restoration (trees/shrubs planted) along a widened channel; c) a plot with high species diversity in a restored site; d) a plot in a restored site with reed canarygrass invading; e) an example of a restored area that could be more densely planted to discourage establishment of reed canarygrass; and f) a typical plot in a non-restored site.

Raincoast Applied Ecology: Stave River Restoration Assessment Page 5 of 5 !(

!(!(

!( !(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!(!( !(!( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(!( !(!(

!( !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !( !(

!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !(

!(!( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!(!(

!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( Legend !( !( !(!( !( !( Planted Area - Plots !( Reference Area - Plots

2016 Stave River Vegetation Monitoring Plots

0 37.5 75 150 Meters

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(

!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(!(!(

!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !(!(!( !(!(