Hat Creek Project

I rl BRITISHCOLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

I HAT CREEK PROJECT

I Beak Consultants Limited- Hat Creek Project - Detailed Environmental Studies - Fisheries and Benthos Study - >iarch 1978

I m

*I ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT STATEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: 57 m BeakConsultants Limited

Montreal Toronto # Calgary Vancouver .,/- Suite 60211550 Alberni Street 1 VancouverlBritish Columbia CanadalVGG 1A5 Telephone (604) 684-8361 Telex 04-506736 m

FILE: 55125 DATE: MARCH 1978

m HAT CREEK FISHERIES AND BENTHOS STUDY

A Report for: B.C. HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY Vancouver, 8.C.

Prepared by: BEAK CONSULTANTS LIMITED 1 Vancouver, B.C. m- "...... ~ ...... ; ~... .. heak

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3Palz 1.0 SUMMARY 1-'I

2.0 INTRODUCTION 2- I 3.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY 3- I 3.1 RegionalStudy I 3- I 3.2Offsite Survey 3-3 3.3 Hat Creek ValleyStudies 3-4

I (a) PhysicalHabitat 3-4 (b) BenthicInvertebrates 3-!J (c)Fisheries 3- 15 m 3.4Impact Assessment 3- 18 4.0 PROJECTSETTING 4- 1 4.1 RegionalEnvironment 4- I (a) PhysicalSetting 4- I "<,. " (i) DrainageBasins 4-4 (ii) Water Quality 4-15

(b) ' BiologicalSetting 4- 15 I (i) ResidentFishes 4- 15 (ii ) Anadromous Fish 4- 19 (iii) Salmonid Escapement & m Migratory Characteristics 4- 19 (iv)Fisheries Resource Utilization 4-39 (v) ExistingStresses on FishPopulations 4-!j7 4.2 Offsite Environment 4-64 4.3 HatCreek Environment 4-15 (a) Physical Environment 4-lj5

I (i) Habitat Profile 4-66 (ii) Water Quality 4-?2 (b) Biological Environment 4-?5 (i) FishPopulations 4-75 a sl -1- beak a dPatE (i i ) Age and Growth Characteristics 4-81 m (iii) Condition and Body Statistics 4-'106 (iv) Availability and Utilization of Food Organisms 4-'117

'L (c) Concluding Discussion 4-'149 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

II 5.1 Regional Impact 5.2 Offsite Impact 5.3 Hat Creek Impact

(i) Construction 5-8 (i i ) Operati on 546 (iii) Decommissioning 5-?3 6.0 MITIGATION & COMPENSATION 6- 'I 7.0 RE.COMMENDED MONITORING PROGRAM 7- 'I 8.0 LITERATURE CITED 8- 'I

I-

I m il

LIST OF FIGURES

3- 1 Outline of Study Areas 3-2 3-2 Sampling Stations - Fisheries and Benthos 3-5

4-1 Drainage Basins of Major Tributaries of the Thompson and Fraser Rivers. 4-5 4- 2 Ilildlife Management Units 4-7 4-3 Primary Lakes andStreams in Regional Study Area 4-10 4-4 Alkalinity Characteristics of Hajor Water Bodies 4-12 4- 5 Soil BufferingCapacity 4-13 4-5a Major Spawning and Rearing .Areas of Sockeye and Pink Salmon 4-25 1 4-6 Pink Salmon Escapement and Timing (Odd Years) 4-28 4- 7 Pink Salmon Fry Migration in the Thompson River (1974) in Regional Study Area I) 4-30 4-8 Sockeye Salmon Escapement and Timlng 4-34 ..- 4-9 ChinookSalmon Escapement and Timing 4-38 N 4- 10 CohoeSalmon Escapement and Timing 4-42 4-11 Lake Sport Fishing Effort byManagement Unit 4-46 4-12 Levelsof Stocking byManagement Unit 4-49 ‘4-13 GraphicalTechniques Usedby the Fish and i-lildlife Branch to EstimateFish Stocking Rates 4-51 4-14 Agriculture and Industry in the Regional Study Area 4-60 4- 15 LongitudinalProfile of Hat Creek 4-67 I 4- 16 Total Fish Density for Length and Surface Area of Stream Electroshocked 4-80 4-17 Length-FrequencyHistogram for Rainbow Trout 4-82 4-18 Length-FrequencyHistograms for Bridgelip Sucker 4-87 4- 19 Length-FrequencyHistograms for Longnose Dace 4-89 4- 20 Growth Curves for Rainbow Trout in HatCreek 4-100 4-21 Mean ConditionFactors for Rainbow Trout 4-?.08 beak a

4-22 Longitudinal Profile of Hat Creek - Rainbow Trout and Benthic sm Invertebrate Densities4-151

.L 5-1 EnvironmentalImpact Matrix-- Construction and Operation 5-2 5-2 EnvironmentalImpact Matrix, - Decomissioning 5-3

m " -iv- I . . ., ~~ ~ . .~~

beak

LIST OF TABLES .

4-1 Primary4-1 LakesStreams and in Regional Study4-8 Area 4-2 Resident Fish Found Within the RegionalStudy 4-Area 16 4-3 Sununary of Life HistoryParameters for Fish Collected in Bonaparte River and Hat Creek 4-18 4-4 Sunnnary of Life HistoryParameters for Salmonand Steelhead 4-20 4-5 Summary of Average Salmon Escapements (1957-1976) in StreamsLocated Upstream, Hithin andDownstrean of the Area 4-24 Regional Study Area 4-6 Average Pink Salmon Escapements (1957-1976) in Streams LocatedUpstream,'Within andDownstream of the Regional Study Area 4-26 4-7 AverageSockeye SalmonEscapement (1957-1976) in Streams LocatedUpstrean, Within and Downstream of the Regional Study Area 4-31 4-8 Average ChinookSalmon Escapements (1957-1976) in Streams Located Upstream, Within'and Downstream ofthe Regional Study Area 4-35 4-9 Average Coho Salmon Escapement (1957-1976) in Streams

' Located Upstream, Iiithin and Downstream of the Regional Study Area 4-40 4-10 Distributionof Steelhead Angler Effort (Angler Days) Expended on StreamsStudy in the 4-44Region 4-11 Summary of Lake SportFishing Effort Expended In Management Units of 4-45the Study Region 4-12 Capabilityof Lakes and Streams Within the LocalHat Creek to Sustain IncreasedSustainArea to Angling Pressure 4-48 4-13 Relationship of Stocking Rate toPublic Access and Quality of Available4-52 ofArea Spawning 4-14 Average Annual Comercial Catch and Catch/Escapement R?.tios of Salmon Originating from Regions of the Fraser River System (1957-1976) 4-54 4-15 Pink Salmon - Conercial Catch/Escapenent Data for Period of Record in the Thompson River 4-56 ._

-V- beak a 4-16 Existing and Proposed Salmon and Steelhead Enhancement Facilities 4-58 4- 17 Location and Volume of Major Water Intakes in the Regional Study Area 4-61 4-18 Location and Volume of Major Water Discharges in the Regional Study Area 4-63 4- 19 General Characteristicsof Profile Sections Within Hat Creek 4-69 4-20 Water Quality for Select Parameters Nithin Hat Creek 4-73 4-21 Hat Creek-SpeciesComposition and Relative Abundance of Fish Collected 4-76 4-22 MeanBack CalculatedTotal Lengths and Ranges for Rainbow Trout in HatCreek 4-93 4-23 MeanBack CalculatedTotal Lengthsand Ranges for Male Rainbow Trout in Hat Creek 4-95 4-24 MeanBack CalculatedTotal Lengthsand Ranges for Female Rainbow Trout in Hat Creek 4-96 4-25 Weighted MeanBack CalculatedTotal Lengths of Male, Female and all Rainbow Trout in Hat Creek 4-97 4-26 Mean Observed Total Lengths of Rainbow Trout in Hat Creek 4-99 4-27 Sections of Hat Creek Characterized by Various Stations 4- 102 4-28 Length-Frequency Distribution (%) for Rainbow Trout 4- 103 4-29 PopulationEstimates by Length Interval (m) for Rainbow Trout 4-105 4-30 Length-Height Relationshipsfor Rainbow Trout:Regression Lines, CorrelationCoefficients and Sample Sizes 4-1 11 4-31 Numbers and Length Ranges (mm) of Sexually Mature Rainbow Trout , 4-115 4-32 Bonaparte River - Summary of Benthic Invertebrate Data 4-119 4-33 Lower Hat Creek - Sumnary of BenthicInvertebrate Data 4-120 4- 34 Upper Hat Creek - Summary of BenthicInvertebrate Data 4-121 4-35 Goose/Fish Hook andFinney Lakes - Summary of Benthic Invertebrate Data 4-123 4-36 Summary of EenthicInvertebrate Data for the ThreeStudy Units 4- 125 4- 37 Summary of Dominant Invertebrate Genera 4- 127 4-38 Summary of Dominant Invertebrate Orders Inhabiting BonaparteRiver and Hat Creek Stations 4-128

-vi- beak .&

4-39 Sumary of Benthic Diverstty and Richness Statistics for the Three Study Units 4-131 4-40 lJumerical (N) and Frequency of Occurrence CFO) Values forthe Three Most Abundant Food Items in Stomachs of Rainbow Trout,- September 1976 4-133 4-41 Numerical and Frequency of Occurrence Values for the Three Most Abundant Food Items in Stomachs of Rainbow Trout - June 1977 4-134 4-42 Numerical and Frequency of Occurrence Values for the Three Most Abundant Food Items in Stomachs of Rainbow Trout - August 1977 4-137 4-43 Forage Ratios (S/B) for tlajorBenthic Food Items of Rainbow Trout - September 1976 4-143 4-44 Forage Ratios for Major Benthic Food Items of Rainbow Trout - June 1977 4-144 4-45 Forage Ratios for Elajor Benthic Food Items of Rainbow Trout - August 1977 4-146

5- 1 Estimated Numbers of Rainbow Trout in Hat Creek by Length Interval (m) Between km 21.0 and 28.0 During September 1976and June andAugust 1977 5-10 5-2 Application of the MontanaMethod forEvaluating Instream Flop: Requirements in Hat Creek 5-20

-vii- beak

APPENDICES

Appendix A - 82 Terms of Reference - June 1977 Appendix B - Life Histories of Resident andAnadromous Fish Occurring within Regional Study Areaand Supplementary Tables. Appendix C - Basic Physiognomy of Benthos and Fisheries Sampling Stations Appendix D - SupplementaryTables - Fisheries and HaterQuality Data Appendix E - First Order and DetailedIdentification of BenthicInvertebrates Appendix F - ComputerProgram Output for Stomach ContentAnalysis beak

The Hat Creek Valley is located on the Interior plateau of Britiih Columbia -within which the Fraser and Thompson Riversare the major drainagesystems. By consideringthe existing environnental setting on a regional,offsitt! and local basis,the environmentalimpacts associated with theconstruction, operation and decomnissioning of a thermal power generating plant in Hat Creek Valley have been assessed.Specific reference has been addressed to impact assessment within the localgeographical context: tiat Creek Valley.

The conclusionsof the study regarding the local environmental setting at the presenttime and in thefuture with no project development are unital-y. Hat Creek was found to be a system of stableaquatic comunities. Rainbow trout were the dominant fish species found. Mountain whitefish were present in the creek's lowerreaches, as were bridgelip sucker, longnose dace,leopard dace and redsideshiner. The rainbow trout in Hat Creeknumbered approximately 20,000 with one-third to one-halfoccurring in the lower reaches..

Approximately 25%of the rainbow trout were longerthan 150 nun.. Densmitiesin this size class were higher in the upper reaches of Hat Creek and rainbow trout longerthan 250 m or older than six years were uncomon throughout the system. The trout probably spawn throughout Hat Creek between mid-June and 1z:te July with fry emerging in lateJuly through September. It is possible thz,t the lower reaches are utilized as spawning ground by rainbow trout migratring upstream from the Bonaparte River. Further upstream movements are pr,obably limited by naturalbarriers. The rainbow trout in Hat Creek fedprimarily on aquatic insects and in general utili zed these foods in the sanepropc,rtion as theyoccurred in thenatural environment.

Vith the development of the Hat Creek Project,the fisheries and benthic resources of thevalley will be altered. An aquaticsystem partially inte- gratedwill become two distinct systems: UpperIHat Creek and Lower Hat Creek.

1-1 1 beak I

:Jithin UpperHat Creek the systemshould remain relatively unchanged. Habitat 1 and flows will be generally as they have been in the past except for the addition of reservoirhabitat. Rainbow trout willcontinue to be the dominant fish. .I Changes will bemore apparent in Lower Hat Creek. Generally rainbow trout shouldcontinue to dominate fish populationtherein and species distribution

L and populationwill remain approximatelythe same. Overallhabitat with regards to waterquality may be degraded insofar as suspended materialswill be discharged - from the project areas but the levels of thesematerials should be such that significantalterations in the system willnot occur. The quantity and pattern of flows in the lower HatCreek System will be altered by the development. 3 Presently,the exact nature of this alteration is not defined and hen:eany associated impacts aredesignated as ambivalent. Nevertheless, the probability .I of maintaining or possiblyenhancing the flow characteristics with respect to fishrequirements are recognized.

3 The major direct impact of the Hat Creek Project on the aquatic resources of Hat Creek Valley is the alienation ofseven km of stream habitat resulting in the totalloss of the fish populationstherein. Hithin this alienatedresch approximately 3,000 to 5,000 rainbow trout reside.Estimates of fish larger than 150 mm vary from 400 to 1,200 individuals. The lossrepresents a'reducti,m of approximately 17% of the aquatic habitat of Hat Creekand 15-16% ofthe systems rainbow trout. The loss of this resourcecannot be mitigated. Thus, procedures ofcompensation should be considered.

Inthe regional context, specific majorimpacts arenot identified in this report.Rather, potential interactions between theproject's actions and the region'sresources have been characterizedas ambivalent for the purposes of thisreport. Further environmental assessment in theregional context is providedwithin the air resource component of the detailed environmental studies. Notwithstanding thedesignation of regionalimpacts as ambivalent, the region has been characterized as an areacontaining major pacific sa:mon and rainbow trout resources.

1-2 beak

II 2.0 IMTRODUCTIOII a The Hat Creek Project involvesthe development of a 2,000 E,fil thermal power generatingplant in the Hat Creek Valley,British Columbia. Plantenergy will c be providedby'an open pit coal mine located in thevalley. Basic offsite services to the plant andmine complex will entail an accessroad, a pipeline - from the Thompson River and a canal to divert Hat Creek from the mine area.

The rationale for the preparation of this Fisheries and Benthos Study is to determinethe baseline aquatic resources of the region such thatthe impact of

II the proposed project can be assessed. The ultimateobjective of 'thestudy is to provide a description of the present environmental setting and future setting with and without project developnent. m

~ In July 1976, a detailed baseline study specific to the Hat Creek Valley and m the fisheries and benthic resourcestherein was undertaken byBeak Consultants Limited. Fieldactivities were completed in August, 1977. During initial

I stagesofthe local study, certain information gaps became apparentregarding regionalaquatic resources. A need to assessimpacts associated with the provisionof offsite services to theproject was also recognized. In June 1977, a review of availableinformation on the regionalwater and fishresources comenced.Special emphasis was placed on documenting salmon resources of the area and in recognition of this emphasis thedefined regional study area was broadened to encompass the AdamsLake System. In August 1977, a field reconnaissanceof the offsite development components was carriedout. Detailed terns of reference for the Fisheries and Eenthos Study arepresented in Appendix A.

The structure of the report reflects the natural sequence with which an environmentalimpact assessment iscarried out. First, the methodology used in the study components is introduced in thegeographical context of regional,offsite, and localareas. Following this, a description of theexisting environmentas

2- 1 *I beak :# comprehended through the study design is provided. Given that existing

" environmentalcharacteristics are thus defined, an assessment of theimpacts associated with the HatCreek Project on the fisheries and benthicresources is provided in the context of theconstruction, operation and decommissioning a phases of the development.

2-2 beak

3.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY

The rationale and methodologicalapproach to the studyare discussed herein. Fundamentally, the study area encompasses three interrelated geographic areas:Regional, Offsite and Local (Figure 3-1). Study methodology imple- ! mented in each area differs in recognition of the purpose to which the information is to be utilized.

The localized Hat Creek Valleystudy, commissioned in July 1976, entails detailed analysis of the fisheries and benthosresources therein utilizing the literature, field and laboratory methodsand statistical analytic. tech- ni ques.

The offsitearea portion of study encompassed a fieldreconnaissance. On a regional basis, the study methodology was distinct and of a broadercontext than that undertakenlocally. Published 'information composed the majwdata source with no field activities being undertaken. The basicobjectiw of the regional component was toassess the areas of sensitivity in the regional aquaticresources. Finally, as different methodological approaches cdn be applied to theprocess of impactevaluation, an introduction to thetechniques utilized for this study are included. j r

3.1 REGIONAL STUDY r Meteorologicalcharacteristics were a prime determinant in defining the regionalstudy area. The central British Columbia plateaunear CacheCreek is such that impacts of the development would not be expected beyond a mctximum distance of approximately 100 km. Regional resourcesof that geograpt,ical areaextending approximately 100 km north and south, 50 km west and IC10 km eastof HatCreek Valley have therefore been includedin studies leading to theenvironmental impact assessment of the proposed project. This gecgraphical

1. i 3-1 ! ! i ft 7””” figure 3.1 .., I , OUTLINE OF STUDY AREAS

legend

B.C. HYDRO AND POWERCUTHORITY HAT CREEK PROJECT FISHERIES AND BENTHOSSTUDY

BEAK CONSULTANTSLIMITED VANCOUVER. CANADA ,,t. 3,f-L beak

area, in addition to the Adams Riversystem which is located 50 km further east, e the study area.

In compiling the information for the regional review, efforts were milde to con- tact all pertinent governmental agencies,instltutions, and l’ndividuals who could provideinformation describing the nature, extent and value of fish resources in thestudy area. Published and unpublished information was reviewed, and personalinterviews conducted to provideas current information ilS possible on catch statistics, aspects of fish life histories, resource use and future a possibilities ofsport and commercial fish enhancemnt. The D.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Fisheries and tlarineService, and theInternational Pacific I Salmon Fisheries Commission were majorsources of informationpertaining to sport, comercial and subsistancefisheries. Steelhead catch statistics taken

I by the commercial fishery was provided by the E.C. Marine Resourcesflranch. . Discharge and waterquality information was obtained through the E.C. Pollution

1 .Branch.Control

Fieldstudies were not carried out during this component ofthe study. In I addition, a comprehensive assessment of regionalimpacts of theproject are notincluded herein, but ratherare presented in separate reports relating M towater intake on the Thompson River and regional airquality.

3.2 OFFSITE SURVEY A field reconnaissance of the proposed plant site and station reservcmir access road was conducted 22-23 September 1977 to ascertainpotential aquatic con- cerns in areasparallelled or crossed by the proposed road. During thefield survey,opportunity was takento review the locations of the plant site and station reservoir and make observations relative to fisheries interest at Harry Lake and a small unnamedpond located west of theplant site. Access to the proposed route was gained by a 4-wheel drivevehicle along existing ranch and forestryroads. Information ctaracterizing habitat conditions including water depth,stream width, bottom type and fishpotential were noted; however, no

3-3 beak

biological samp’ting was undertaken. Although a ground survey was not conducted along the proposed make-up water pipeline route, sites of majorstream crossings were surveyed.

3.3 HAT CREEK VALLEY STUDIES Of thethree geographical areas defined fop the Fisheries and Benthos Study, thelocal area defined primarily as the Hat Creek Valley was studied In greatest depth. The intensive nature of thestudy was a directreflection of the need for comprehensive information and analysis on the actual location of the development. Indeed,the ultimate purpose of thestudy is to provide a definitive assessment of thepresent fisheries and benthicresources of Hat Creek and therebyimpart the future of.the system with and without project development. Sampling stations were selected on thebasis of proposed development guidelines provided by B.C. Hydro. It was anticipatedthat these stations would serveas both background data sources as well as sights to evaluate future project effects.

(a)Physical Habitat Physicalhabitat surveys were conducted in September 1976, June 1977 and August 1977 in recognitionof potential seasonal variances in the system. Habitat surveysoccurred in parallel with the fish and benthos field programs. .

(i) September 1976 Habitat surveys were conducted at biological sampling stations (Figure 3-2) during 15 - 18 September 1976. Observations were made on substratecolnposition, bank’stability and vegetation,stream width, depth, velocity and pool-:-iffle ratio. In-depthsurveys were conducted at all HatCreek and BonaparteRiver stations(except 1 and 14A), whilegeneral observations were made at remaining sites. Because ofexcessive water velocities and depth,observations on habitat atStation 1 were of a generalrature. Station 14A (beaver pond) was zldded to the regular stations for fish sampling in late September.

3-4 a

A 15.2 m (50 ft) reach of stream was exani.ned at all HatCreek stations (except) 14A) and Station 4 on theBonaparte River, Six cross-stream transe-ts located 3.0 n (10 ft)apart were established in each 15.2 m (50 ft) reach, .md strean - widthrecorded. Stream depth was measured at 0.6 n (2 ft)interval; along each transect.llater velocity was measured with a currentmeter at a de~thof'Q0 . . percent' fram-the-surface at-0..6-cllntervals along the downstream-mort-transect. Su6strate size and percent substrate composition in each 15.2 m (50 ft) reach was estimated qualitatively based on the following criteria as modi.fied from Lagler (19G6): boulder (230.5 cm), pebble (7.6 - 30.5 cm), gravel (0.3 - 7.6 cn), sand-silt (<0.3 cn), and other(plants, sunken logs,debris). Gank stability was noted as stableor unstable and riparian.vegetation was noted.Pool- riffle ratio (percent) was estimatedqualitatively in each 15.2 m reach.

Because ofincreased current and waterdepth at Stations 2 and 3 in the Eona- parteRiver, only one cross-streamtransect was established. Depth and velocity neasurcments were taken at 0.6 m (2 ft) intervals 'at Station 3 and,because of stream width, at 1.5 m (5 ft) intervalsat Station 2. Physicalc:haracter- istics outlined abovewere noted along each transect and in arease>.tending approximately 7.6 n (25 ft) upstreamand downstrean . of thetransect. Station 1 in theBonaparte River exhibited deeper and considerablyfaster water than upstreamstations. Physical characteristics at this station were determined from shore.

Physicalhabitat was described in HatCreek tributaries at Stations 8 (Unnamed Creek), 11 (KedicineCreek), 12 (AnbustenCreek) and 13 (AndersonCreek). Observations wereof a more qualitative nature at thesethan at othercreek and riverstations. Approximate substratesize ranges, stream width, depthand pool-riffle ratio wererecorded at eachalong with infomation on bank stability and vegetation.Velocities at tyibutary stations and at Station; 1 (zona- parteRiver) and 14A (HatCreek) were expressed as sluggish, rapid or torrential based on estimatedsurface currents. . Lagler (1966) presented tle following criteria for classifyingstream according to velocity: beak

sluggish - those with. velocity less than 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s); rapid - those with velocity,greater than 0.15 mJs (1.6 ft/s) and a regular successl’onof pools and riffles; and torrential - thoseawithvelocity greater than 0.5 m/s, ,I steep . gradient, and few or no pools.

General observations on depth, substrate and aquaticvegetation were also made at lakestations 16 and17 (Goose/Fish Hook and Finney Lakes).\late.* temperatures were recorded during each samplingperiod. In September, they were recordedduring the habitatsurvey and/or during the fisheries survey on 28 -. 30 September 1976.

To facilitate presentation of September habitat data,stream width is given as a mean if measurements were mde at more than one transect. Depth and currentvelocity represent ranges measured at a station. Comments or1 substrate composition, bank stability and vegetation, and pool-riffle ratio reflect general characteristics for theentl’re 15.2 m (50. ft) reach of stream rather than a particular transect.

In additionto detailed observations made at indiyidualstations, mre general i nfomtion was obtained through he1 i copter surveys. Physl’cal habi te.t a1 ong Hat Creek and between Stations 1 and 4 on the BonaparteRiver was described during a helicopter flight on 23 September 1976. Observations were made on pool-riffleratio, stream substrate, bank stability and vegetation,tarriers (such as beaverdans) and fish occurrence. Ouring theflight, general dir- tinction was made between pebble(approximately 7.6 - 15.2 cm) and cobble (approximately 15.2 - 30.5 cm) to bettercharacterize stream substrate for evaluatingpotential spawning habitat.

(ii) June, 1977 Observations on habitat were made at biological sampling stations during 14 - 16 June 1977. Because physicalconditions were similarto those during

3-7 heak

September,1976, June ohservations were of a more qualitati.ve na.tuye. Informa- tion on substrate conposttion, bank stahi'ltty and vegetation, and pool-riffle ratio was determined vtsuallyas in September. Water tenperaturcs were recorded. Any changes in stream depth or width from September data were noted. Sanpling was not conducted at Stations 16 and 17 (Goose/Fish Hook and Finney Lakes) since no fish were collected there during the September 1976 survey, or at Station 12 (Ambusten Creek) as all water had been diverted for irrigation.

Cross-stream transects were not established during the June 19.77 survey since water levels, and consequently stream width and depth, were similar to those during September 1976. Hatervelocity at HatCreek and Bonapartc'River stations was determined at the surface by the float nethod(Rounsefell and Ever- hart, 1966) and ratesexpressed as m/s. Velocity was calculated from thefollowing formula:

V = L/T

where L = distance (m) float is carried; and T = time Csec) for float to cover distance L.

Velocities at flat Creek tributary stations were expressedas torrential, rapid or sluggish after Lagler's classification. I

A second helicopter flight was made on 13 June 1977. The path of fliclht was 1 identical to that followed during September 1976. The pri,mary objective was to gatherinformation on fish occurrenceand, if possible,location of' rainbow - trout spawning sites. General notes on physicalhabitat were alsorecorded.

- (iii) August, 1977 General observa.tions on habitat were made at biologicalsampling stations during m 3-5 August 1977. Informationrecorded and techniques usedwere identical to those of the June survey. Sampling was not conducted at Stations 16 and 17 rn

3-8 (Goose/Fish llookand Finney Lakes) since no fish were observed there during the September 1976 survey, or at Station 12 (Ambusten Creek) since water was still being diverted for irrigation purposes.

(b) Benthic Invertebrates Benthic invertebrates forman integral portionof the food of indigenous fish species. On this premise, invertebrates were studied to provl‘de a wasure of food availabilityas wellas an index of system dynamics. Hethodological approachesof the benthic invertebrate components of’the study are presented within a sequential framework of fieldphase, laboratory phase and analytical approach.

(i) Field Phase On 15 - 18 September 1976, seventeenstations were examined with 16 stations actually sampled on the Bonaparte and Hat Creek systems(Figure 3-2).. Station 9 was not sampled as Finney Creek was dry at the time of the field survey. During the 14 - 16 June. 1977 and 3 - 5 August 1977 samplingperiods, Stations 9 and 12 were also dry and hencenot sampled. Stations 16 and 17(Goose/Fish Hook and Finney Lakes, respectively) were not sampled for benthosbecause they did notcontain fish resources.

Six replicate samples were taken at each station. BEAK employs sixreplicates in the majority of thebiological monitoring studies and has found this number to provide an infornativedata base. At lakeStations 16 and 17,in 1.976 a Ponar dredge was employed to collect sediments. The Ponar dredge is most effective in soft fine substrates which were characteristic of Stations 16 and 17. The Ponardredge effectivelyraises for collection of 523cn 2 area of lakesubstrate, approxinately 15 to 25 cm in depth. All remainin!] stations in 1’376 and 1977 were sampled with a Surbersampler. This unit samplesa 929 2 an area of strean bottom to a maximum waterdepth of 30.5 cm.The ?.rea en- conpassed by this device is manually disturbed dislodginginvertebraies which are subsequentlycollected in a downstream net.

3-9 i beak 1 Subsequent to gently washed through a I U.S. Standard Nci; 30 retained by thisare sieve categorized as the of Contents N3. 30 sieve were washed into polyethylene jars and preserved with 10%formlin 1 containing rose bengal stain. This stain is absorbed by organicmat(2rials consequently making invertebrates more conspicuous, thereby accelerating I sorting and enumerationprocedures.

L (ii) Laboratory Phase - Sample Treatment

I In the laboratoryall macro-invertebrates were sorted from debris, enumerated and categorizedas to tolerance'to environmental pollutants (Biotic ::ndex: Beak, 1965). To obtain more detaileddata on invertebrate samples al: each I.) station, organisms were identified to genus, and species where possihle.

- Weber (1973) stated that analyses of benthic data for diversity and €quit- ability should be performed on samples which contain a minimum of 1OC organ-

1 isms. The number of replicate samplescollected at each station that were selected for detailed identification var-led in order to compute reliable eco- logicalstatistics. Replicates were selectedat random in'order to provide I a minimum of 100 organisms fordetailed identification at each station. Follow- ing the selection of a replicate the recorded number of individuals was checked: s if the number did not meet the required number, another replicate was selected at randomand combined with the first selection.This procedure was repeated 9 asnecessary. During theidentification phase of organisms to genus and/or species, thefollowing taxonomic references were employed:Altman (1336),

I Ricker(1944), Burks (1953), Pennak (1953), Ednondson (1959),Jewett ;and Stanley (1959), Johannsen(1969), Saether (1971,1973) Usinger (1971), Bryce and Hobart (1972) and Llason (1973). I

m (iii) Analytical Approach An analysis of cornunitystructure was undertaken on benthicinvertebrate data .= by employing a seriesof indices which consolidateseveral data units into a

3 - 10 a beak single comparative index. The data were subjectedto five analyses which were .. .. interpreted with regard to system condition, These analysesincluded the biotic index, dominance, diversity,equitabiltty, and richness.

(A) Bbtic Indes Benthicorganisms exhibitvarying degrees of sensitivity to changes inthe conditions of an aquaticenvironment. Beak. (1965) has categorized benthos intothree groups: thosetypical of clean water arecategorized as pollution sensitive organisms - Group 3; thosetypically found in moderatelypolluted watersare labelled as moderately tolerant or facultative - Group 2; and those, inhabitinghighly polluted waters being classed as pollution to1eran.t organisms - Group 1.

Group 3 organisms containaquatic larval stages of insects which are sensitive to adversechanges in water quality and are the fi.rst to experiencedeclining populations if conditionsdeteriorate. The prime representativesof Group 3 arethe mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddi::flies (Trichoptera). Theseorganisms requireclean water conditions which include high concentrations of dissolved oxygen, relatively swift currents, low tur- bi di ty and relatively low concentrations of toxicchemicals. Group 3 organisms respireprimarily by externalgill structures. The respiratorysurfaces of theseorgans are extremely sensitive to the abrasive action of fir,e sediments and thephysiological effects of chemical pollutants.

Group 2 consists of a number of organisms such as leeches(Htrudinea), midges (Diptera),water mites (Hydracarina), clams (Pelecypoda) and others. These organismscan tolerate amoderate amount of waterquality degradation. The degree to which tolerance to pollutants is expressedvaries according to in- divi dual 1eve1 s.

Group 1 organisms are tolerant of some toxicconditions and low concentrations of oxygenand will survive in areas where less tolerant organisms would be

3 - 11 beak

eliminated. lithin this group, for example, arethe annalids (Oljgochaeta), some leeches, and some chironomids (Diptera).

The bioticor tolerance index is not a rigidclassification scheme. Xndepen- dent research studies have revealed a hierarchy of invertebrate taxitbased on

sensitivity to environmentaldegradation. . Consequently, use of thesecategor- ies has found wlde application in the study of aquatic systems that nay poten- tially be impacted by industrialactivities.

(B) DcariMnce I&- Naturalbiological communities include groupsof organisms that arenot equally successful. This is a function of thebiotic and abioticrestricticns of an environment. A few naydominate a comuni ty with the spectrum then extending to groups of intermediate abundanceand finally to rare organisms. An index used to measure relative abundance in biological samples was proposed by Simpson (1949) and is: 2

i=l where c = Dominance index; s = number of groups; rti = importancevalue (e.g. % or numbers) for each biotic group; and 11 = total of importancevalues.

The function was used to compute ameasure of dominancefrom biotic index data (i.e. Groups 3,2 and 1). The expressionof C is related to percent c:omposi- tion. The advantage of employing this index is that it provides a single objectivevalue describing proportionate relationships of variouscategories ofinvertebrates being considered in theanalysis. The maximum value of c is 1.00 where a community is composed of one group of organisms.

3 - 12 beak

(C) Zverszty An index of diversjty was also calculated for each sampling station based on the detailedidentificatton of invertebrates. The method used was adopted from informationtheory in comnunicatlon engineering (Shannonand heaver, 1949) by Margalef (1958) andMacArthur (1955) and appliedto blological systems.

A simplified biological interpretation of i’nformationtheory would be that ecologicalsystems such asstreams act as a source of i’nfonnation and the output of informationcontaining characters are the biological organisms them- selves. A definitionof ecological diversity is:

“Diversity is thus equated with the mmt of uncertuiaty (information) which exists regarding the species of at individml selected at rrmdom from a population. The more species there are and the more near@ even their representation, the greaterthe uncertcrinty (infonnatbn) and hewe the greater the diversity” (Pielou, 1966).

The formulaused to compute thediversity index (d) is:

where ’I = Diversity Index;

Q B = number ofgenera; Ni = Number of individuals of the th genus; and JJ = total number of individuals in sample.

(D) EquituKZity I& An important characteristic of the diversity index is that it provides an Gbjective measure of community complexity by incorporating within this single measure severalvariables that affect conunity structure. The primary compo-

U nents of diversity are equitability, or the evenness with which tndividuals

3 - 13 rl are dtstributed among sampled genera, and ri.chness. or the numher of different .. generasampled, A measure of equitqbtlityused'in thts study (Pielou, 1966a) is:

where J- = Equi tabil i ty Index; d = diversityvalue obtained from sample data; and s = numberof different genera in sample.

In general,the more complex asystem, the greater its stability due to alter- nateroutes of energytransfer (MacArthur, 1955). However, there arc! 'limits to the magnitude of change that anysystem can withstand. Beyondsome maximum tolerancelevel, negative environmental forces will be evidenced in t,hebiotic community by adecrease in stability and adecrease in overallcornunity complexity.

(E) Richness Ides Richness or variety in its simplest form is the number ofgenera enco,mtered withoutconsidering the number of individualsactually examined. It .is an indicator of the relative wealth of specieso,r genera in a comunity[Peet, 1974): This function has been utilized in some studiesas a measure of diversity. However, it is not an entirelycorrect approach todiversity since it does not incorporate the variable of equitability as does the Shanrlon- Weaver function.

Any richness measure is inherently dependent on sample size;the larger the sample size the greater opportunity to sample greater number of species. This s&le size - species mher relationshipis asymptotic. At some point additionalsampling does not resultin an increasein the number of species.

3 - 14 An index of richness is, therefore, best expressed with the Inclusl'on of numericalabundance tn the sample (Hurlbert,1971; Shafi and Yarranton, 1973).

The index employed in this study was (Margalef,1958):

R= s-1 me N where R = RichnessIndex; s = number ofgenera in sample; and AT = total number of individuals in sample.

(c)Fisheries As with benthicinvertebrates, the methodological approaches to the fisheries component ofthe study are presented as field phase, laboratory phase and analytical approach.

(i) Field Phase Fisheries surveys are conducted at Hat Creek and Bonaparte River stations

(Figure 3-2) during 28 - 30 September1976, 14 - 16 June 1977, and 3 I- 5 Aug- ust 1977. Surveys orvisual observations for fishes were made at lake and stream stations during 15 - 18 September 1975 and at streamstations during 14 - 16 June 1977 and 3 - 5 August 1977.

An electroshocker, powered by a 2500 kilowattalternating current generator, was used to sample fish at Hat Creekand BonaparteRiver stations.. At.tempts were made to sample a large enough area at each station to characterizespecies composition and abundance.In Hat Creek,a 3.22 mm (118 in) square mesh net measuring 4.27 m (14 ft) long x 1.22 m (4 ft) deep was used to block the upstream end of thearea to be shocked.Shocking proceeded in an upriver

3 - 75 beak

direction to the net. .Length of stream (m) and time (min)shocked Were re- 2 corded. Surfacearea of stream (m ) shocked at aparticular station was calculated from measurements ofstream length and wldth. Because of sw-:ft, deep water, electroshocking in the Bonaparte River could be conducted usuilly no r more thanabout 2 m from shore. River conditionsalso prevented seine-sets to block fish movement. Shocking was also conducted at the mouth of Medicine I Creek,a tributary of Hat Creek. A barrierapproximately 2 m (6.5 ft:) high locatedabout 10 m (33 ft) upstream from the mouth of this tributary limited further fish movement.

II Number ofeach species (Carl et nZ., 1973),individual total lengths (mn), and wet weights (9) were recorded at each station. Sex (when distinguishable) was determined visually and thepresence of parasites and generalconditim of each specimen was noted. Stomachs and scales were removed from rainbow trwt and mountain whitefish (when thesespecies were present) at Stations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 14 for use in foodhabit, age andgrowth studies. Durin!? each survey,ten fish of each species (when present) in thefollowing leng-:h categories: 0 - 100 m, 101 - 200 m, and >200 mm were sampled per station. Stomachs were individually wrapped in gauze with an identifying number and pre5,erved in 10% formalin.Approximately 20 scales were taken from the left side clf thefish II midway between thedorsal fin and lateral line (Larkin et aZ., 1957) and stored dry in paperenvelopes. All fishnot retained for stomach and age analyses were measured and released alive. rl .Electroshocking was conducted in the same area of stream as habitatsurveys and benthic sampling, but extended upstream anddownstream from these locations in orderto sample a largerarea. Pool-riffle ratios were noted in the e:Itire L area shocked.

Visual observations were made for fish life at tributary stations (8, :.I, 12 and 13) during each survey and in Goose/Fish Hook Lake (Station 16) and in w littoralareas of Finney Lake (Station 17) in September. Observations were made for fish life at Station 12 inSeptember, 1976, but not in June or' August, a.

3 - 16 beak

as had diverted Fyke net was employed to sample water been .. for irrigation, A shore areas of Finney Lake. The net was set overntghtfor 18 hours cln 16 - 17 September, 1976. The body of the net was2.44 m (8 ft) long and constructed : of 6.44 m (1/4 In)square mesh nylon net. The wings and lead measured 3.66 x 1.22 m (12 x 4 ft) and 12.20 x 1.22 m (40 x 4 ft), respectively, and were constructed of 12.8 m (1/2 in) square mesh nylon net. The net was set perpen- dicular to the shoreline, with the lead toward shore, in waterapproximately 1.0 - 2.0 m (3.3 - 6.6 ft) deep.

(ii ) Laboratory Phase Stomach contents were identifiedaccordi.ng to proceduresdescribed for benthic studies (Section 3.3 (b) ii). Empty stomachs were noted. Number andvolume ofeach fooditem was determined for use in numerical and volumetric #nnalyses offood habits(Rounseiell and Everhart, 1966; Ricker,1971). Volumewas determined from waterdisplacement in a graduated cylinder and recorded to the nearest 0.01 ml, Food items with volumes less than 0.01 ml were recorded as 0.01 ml. After completing analysis, stomach contents were stored in indiv':dual containersfor future refermce should they be required.

Scales were examined with a Bauschand Lomb Tri-SimplexMicro-Projectclr at a magnificationof 45x. Scales were agedindependently by two individucls.If readingsdisagreed, the scales were read a second time. If readings were still in disagreement,scales were not used in age and growth analyses.

Scale measurements were recorded to the nearest mm after magnification on representative,nonregenerated scales for use inback-calculating growth rates. Measurements were made from the center of the focus to the outer margin of the scalealong the most anteriorscale radius. Individual annuli were distinguished as occurring between a series of closely spaced circuli followed by widely spaced circuli, and as exhibiting a correspondingcutting-over of circJli in lateralfields 0:' thescale.

3 - 17 * beak # (iii) Analytical Approach

I Stomach contentdata for rainbow trout were analyzed with a, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) Univac 1107 computer. Food habits of fish in the following

I . sizecategories were described by station during each survey: 0 - SOmm, 51 - 100 mm, 101 - 150 mm, 151 - 200 mm and 900 m. Numerical analysesof stomach content reflected the percent a particular food item comprised the' total number m of fooditems. Volumetric analyses were expressedsimilarly, except the basis was food volume ratherthan number. Frequency of occurrenceanalyses reflected r thepercent of stomachs containingparticulara food item.

c_.". .m . Fish. .. densities jduring each survey were determined from number of spe,:imens cap- 2 tured at a station and length of stream (m), area of stream (m ) and length of lime(min) electroshocked. They were expressedas number/m, number/lnand 2 1 number/min. Populationestimates for each survey were based on fish densities (number/m) at a particular station and length ofstream (m) that staT.:ion appear- II ed to represent.

I Regressionlines for body length-scaleradius and length-weightre1at:ionships were determinedusing a CSC STAPK program. Specificequations used t:o describe

al these and other relationships arepresented with thediscussion of aralysis results(Section 4.3 (b)).

..I

3.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Given the complexity of the task of synthesizing an areas environmental character with a project's development activities such that impacts can b: recognized and assessed,the need for a rational, methodologicalapproach to impact assessment is apparent. To meet this need, matrixtechniques were utilized

I in the assessment portions of thestudy.

Tke matrixtechnique selected (ELUC, 1976) entails the formation of two axes: I projectactivities and environmental characteristics. Within each element (E ij) of potential interaction an assessment of impact is made on a broad I

il 3 - 18 a beak classification scheme of negattve impact haJorlminor), heneficia.1 ,impa.ct (major/ minor),ambivalent tmpact or no impa,ct.Ambivalent impacts were stated where an absolute tmpact was not evident due to fnsufficfent data and/or the possibility of precautionary measures outlined in the project development fatling. .A sumnary pictoralpresentation is prepared from wh-ich a logicallystructured discussion may proceed.

Within the context of thematrix technique used,geographical specificity is also introduced. Foreach element in which a non-nullimpact is assessed,the general location of the specific impact identified is noted.

3 - 19 e

4.0 PROJECT SETTING

I In theprocess of environmental impactassessment, the initial task ':s to describethe present resources with which the development may interact..Suffi- I cient and necessaryinformation is provided with which'impacts may bt: assessed and proceduresfor mitigation and compensationrecomended. This section of I thereport is directed towards this initialtask in the geographical context of regional,offsite and local environment.

4.1 REGIONALEllVIRONliEllT .. u The orientation of thereaional environment description is towards plysical habitat and thefisheries resources therein. The perspective to be gained is generalrather than specific in that the &cb"extent of thestudy is large. Thus, thedetail of information found in a description ofa localregime. is notpresent. Rather, the pwpose is to designategeneral zones ofenvironmsntal sensitivity.

(a,) PhysicalSetting II .. Situatedlargely within theInterior Plateau of'British Columbia thestudy 2 2 region encompasses an area of approxinately 37.296 km (14,400 miles ) and r. includes nost of the Thompson kiverwatershed. INajor tributarystreams of the Thonpson River which drain much of thestudy regibn include the North Thompson, South Thompson, and rficola Rivers. Othersecondary, but important river systemsare the Donaparte, Salmonand Adams Rivers. The 8onaFarte River flowsdirectly into the Thompson Rivernear Ashcroft, Eritish Colmbia, and servesas the principal stream drainage in the Cache Creek areaincluding

I the Hat Creek system. The Salmon and Ada& Riversflow into Shuswap Lake, thelargest lake system in the study region.

4-1 .”” .””

ill beak .1 Located in the eastern most portion of the studyregion, Shuswa.pand Adam

I Lakes serve as the major basins recetvlng waters dralning the western slopes of the Monashee Mountains. Adams Lake, the second largest in the region,

m flows into the western arm of ShuswapLake. Kamloops Lake, Bonaparte Lake, Loon Lake, and tiicola Lake are other relatl‘velylarge lake system in the

’ studyreglon. I

Along thewestern border of thestudy region the FraserRiver cuts a deep, narrow canyon along the baseof the Coast Mountains. All waters of the . Thompson system enter the Fraser River at its confluence near Lytton, British Columbia. Other important tributaries of the FraserRiver which dra.in portions of the study region are the flahatlach, Stein and Bridge Rivers.

To the west of the Fraser River the high mountainsof the Coastal Range form the western borderof the studyregion. These mountains and those of‘ the Monashee and Columbia tlountains east of AdamLake govern, to a greatdegree, theprevailing climate and recentgeological characteristics. Nost influencial is the Coast Range, which liessouth west ofthe Fraser River, and reaches summit elevationsin excess of 1520 m (6,000 ft). Thismassive geological barrierforces prevailing warm, wet coastal air to riserapidly, cool, con- dense, and f211 as precipitation on the westernslopes. In the higher elevations, annual total precipitation in excess of 250 cm peryear is comson. Thisloss of moisture results in relatively dry air being carried eastward overthe interior of British Columbia.

Since much of the study region lies in the“leeward influence” or “ra.in shadow” of the Coast Range, most areastypically receive low amounts of total annual precipitation.Valleys below 914 m (3,000 ft) in elevationare particularly warm and dry while more uplandareas are generally cooler and receive greater amounts ofmoisture. In the deep valleysof the Thompson, South Thompson and Micola Rivers, lss than 25 an of precipitationgenerally falls per year. On the surface of the InteriorPlateau conditions remain comparatively dry (25- 50 cm per year) ; however, upwards to 100 cm may fall in higher elevations.

4-2 beak

Sumertemperatures in thestudy region vary considergbly, as does preclpitatjon, because of the great range in eleva,tions'encountered oyer the terrain.' Midday sumer temperatures may reach2l0C to 32OC In river valleys, and occ:asionally exceed 38OC.' During winter,temperatures are generally on theorder of -6OC to 2OC; however, occasional masses of coldpolar air spill into the Interfor Plateau from arctic regions in northern Canada.and Alaska causingtemperatures to fall as low as -29OC to -34OC; coldspells,however, generally last for only a few days.

Altitudinaldifferences (610 m - 2,743 m) which occur in the study region also influenceto a greatdegree the prevailing forest and rangecover. fiecause of their effect upon moisture availability, vegetative characteristics vange from primal rainforests in the extremesouthwest corner of thestudy region in the Coast Range to dry, semi-aridcold desert associations found in the f!icola, Thompson and South Thompson RiverValleys. Thesezonal differencesare best described on the basis of the biogeoclimatic zone in which they are found.

Eightmajor vegetation or biogeoclimatic zones, are represented within the study region. The PonderosaPine-Gunchgrass Zone, thedriest and warmest i:1 British Columbia. occupiesthe deep valleys of the Thompson, Nicola and portions of the Fraser and Ilorth Thompson Rivers between 275 and915 m in elevation.lfithin this zone the major vegetationtypes are drought tolerant shrubs such as sage- brush and variousspecies of bunchgrass. Low moistureavailability is reflected in sparsevegetative cover and tree growth is restricted to open savanna- likestands. Between 300 m to 1525 m above sealevel the Ponderosa Pine-Bunch- grass Zone gives way to an association of Dou'glas fir, and ponderosa pine, describedas the Interior Douglas-fir Biogeoclimatic Zone. This zone covers much of thestudy region and is characterized by a relatively warm, dry climate. Forestedareas tend to be open, with little understoryvegetation. Bunchgrass and other shrubs are found at lower elevations and are comoncover types in the open rangeland.

The most predominant vegetative zone which occursin the study region is the Englenan-Spruce-Subalpine Fir Biogeoclimatic Zone. This zone lies betheen

4-3 il rl beak

N ., 1,225 m in elevation to treeline a,nd is cha.racterized hy a nixed fo..estcover. Englenan spruce, and subalpine fir are the major cover types, however in the *I lower elevationslodgepole pine is comon in areaspreviously logged or burned out by forest fires. #I In the highestelevations of the Coast Range and Cascade Hountains,vegetation

' is reduced by heavy accumulat?ons of snow, ice and prevailing low temperatures. The zone, which generallyoccurs about 2,150 m is described as the Alpine Tundra Biogeoclimatic Zone. Vegetation is predominated by herbaceousplants such as heather,various species of sedges, and other sma-ll alpineflowering plants. Tree growth is restricted by thesevere climatic conditions, however, growths ofwhite-bark pine and sub-alpine fir occasionallytake hold in protected, moist areas.

In the mre northern and northwesternareas of the study region a zorte described as the Cariboo-Aspen-Lodgepole Pine-Douglas-firBiogeoclimatic Zone predominates, This zone, althoughsimilar to theInterior Douglas-fir Zone is characterized by colder more severeclimatic conditions. Forest cover varies from dense timberedstands to open park-likegrassland. Three otherbiogeoclimatic zones arerepresented in thestudy area, but allare restricted to small is31ated locations where moisture and soil conditions favour theirrespective forest associations. These includethe Coastal Liestern Hemlock Zone, which 'is repre-, sented in theNahatlatch River Valley and alongthe western slopes of the Cascade Mountains; the Mountain Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone, which can be found on the upper slopes of the Coast Range;and the Interior Western HemlockZone which occurs in the extreme northeastof the study.region. m (i) Drainage Basins - The majordrainages in thestudy area are the Fraser and Thompson Rivers. Sev- eral tributaries of the Thompson River includingthe Bonaparte River (withtlat ... Creek), Deadman Creek, TranquilleRiver, North Thompson,Campbell Creel:, Niccla River and llurray Creek andtwo tributaries of theFraser River, Stein f!iver and BridgeRiver, are designated on Figure 4-1. 1 a 4-4

beak

Drainage basins provide one means of sub-dividing the regional study area. In addition,the area of study can be sub-dividedin terms of management units (MU) asdefined by the B.C. Fish and ilildlife Branch.Designated management units within thestudy area are shown on Figure 4-2.

Hundreds oflakes and streams which support various populations of sport and commercial fishspecies are found within the studyregion. The greatest number are found in the Bridge Lake, Bonaparte Lakeand Green Lake areas. Lakes or ,streams which receive greater than 2,000 angler days of effort each ./ear, support amajor salmonid fishery(Steelhead, Pacific salmon) or arelakes greater than 6.4 kn long, have been classified for the purposes of thisstudy as y-imary lakes and streams.This primary group is listed in Table 4-1, and lakes shown in 3 Figure 4-3.

3 (ii) Nater quality Water qualityinformation for lakes and streams in thestudy. area is slmnarized in Appendix 0, Table D-12. Considering the pH and alkalinity(expres,sed as mg/x CaCO ) characteristics of theregions water resources, pH levels tencl to be in 3 the 7.0 to 8.0 range and alkalinity values range upwards to over 400 mg/il.

Inwatersheds, the degree to which incoming acids are neutralized depends on the physical and chemical nature of soils, bedrock, and overburden (Wight and Gjes- sing, 1976), and is described as bufferingcapacity. klithin local and regional areasvariations in bufferingcapacity occurs as changes in the mineral composi-

I tion of soil, soil depth,subsurface flushing rates and majorgeological char- acteristicsdiffer. The bufferingcapacity in naturalwaters is larg2ly dependent upon the salts ofcarbonic acid, particularly bicarbonates becau.;e of their universal abundance. In areaswhere'carbonate bearing materials are lacking, chemicalweathering 'and ion exchangeproceed to slowly neutralize incoming acid I (I-lright and Gjessing, 1976). hence theseareas become suscepta5leto ncidifica- tion by the addition of acid. Ig(fi ure 4=2 I WILDLIFE 1 MANAGEMENT UMlTS i I legend

i -RESOURCE REGION BOUNDARY WILDLIFEMANAGEMENT UNITBOUNDARY WILDLIFEMANAGEMENT UNITNUMBER

DATA SOURCE BritishColumbia Recreation01 Atlas

' B.C. HYDRO AND POWERAUTHORITY HAT CREEK PROJECT I FISHERIESAND BENTHOS STUDY

BEAK CONSULTANTS LlMlTED VANCOUVER. CANADG .I beak *I .

TABLE 4-1 PRIMARYLAKES & STREAMS IN REGIONAL STUDY AREA'

Primary Primary Management Uni tZ Lake or Stream t*janagement Unit2 -Lake or Stream

3-12 (7) Courtney Lake 3-19 (12) DuFfy Lake Hatheume Lake Fa:eLake Jackson Ja:ko Lake Lundbom La!: le Jeune Minnie tidonne1 Lake Pennask Ni f:ol a Lake- Pinnacle Pa:;kaLake Pa.: Lake 3-13 (7) Harmon Lake Stake Lake Kane (left) Lake Su:-rey Lake Kane (right) Lake Susex Lake Lily Lake Wa'lloper Lake Murray Lake NicolaRiver 3-20 (9) BliickLake Spius Creek Errlest Lake Fr-isken Lake 3-14 (1) Fishblue Lake G1' mpseLake John Frank Lake 3-15 (2) Kwoiek Lake Peter Hope Lake SteinRiver Plateau Lake RocheLake 3-16 (2) Seton Lake Trz.pp Lake Seton River 3-26 (1) Salmon River 3-17 (6) Crown Lake FraserRiver 3-27 (8) Bac,ger Lake KwotlenemoLake Heffley Lake Pavi 1 ion Lake KncuffLake Thompson River LittleHeffley L. Turquois Lake Loliis Creek Paul Lake 3-18 (6) Barnes Lake SpconeyLake BoseLake S. Thompson River ChatawavLake Coldwater 3-28Creek (2) ThuyaLakes Leighton Lake N. Thompson River TunkwaLake

4-8 beak 81

,. .. a ! TABLE 4-1 Cont'd. PRIMARY LAKES & STREAMS IN REGIONALSTUDY AREA mt

Primary Primry 1 Management Unit Lake or Stream Management Unit? -La,te or Stream

3-29 (8) Bare Lake 3-32 (3) Br.idgeLake 1 Deadman River McKay Lake Fatox Lake Ya' akom River Gordon Lake m Lake Red 3-38 (2) Barrier River Tranquille Lake Genier Lakes Tranquille River Kaml oops3-39 Lake (11).. Brclokfield Cr. Emer Lake 3-30 (8) Bonaparte Lak.e EpceeLake Bonaparte River Grizzley Lakes I Bridge Lake Lenli eux Creek Hammer Lake Lost Horse Lake Hi hium Lake Mann Creek Hoopatatkwa Lake Moose Lake LoonLake MooseheadLake YoungLake SockLake Surprise Lake 3-31 (1) Big Bar Lake 5-1 (2) Grezn Lake Horje Lake

Primary asdefined by one or more of the following: (a) 22,000angler days; (b) a steelheadsport fishery; (c) a spawning salmon population; (d) a lake>4 miles long. Numbers in parenthesesrepresent the number oflakes or streams presented in that given management unit. Locationof Fish & Wildlife Brarch Management Units presented in Figure 4-2. .

i PRIMARY LAKES AND STREAMS IN REGIONAL STUDY AREA legmd

e PRIMARYLAKE - PRIMARY STREAM Primary is defined as (a) 52000 angler days sport fbhing . or (b) steelhead sport fishery . or (c) rolmon spawniw , ar (dl > IO Km long

~ ~~ ~ B.C. HYDRO AND POWERAUTHORITY HAT CREEK PROJECT FISHERIESAND BENTHOS STUDY

I ! .. BEAK CONSULTANTS LIMITED i .- f- VANCOUVER, CANADA I I beak * .. To evaluate the ability of an a.rea to huffer incoming a.cids,measur;ments of rl) alkalinity are particularly useful since alkalinity is an indicator of the quantity of bicarbonates and carbonates available to enter tnto reaction with -. an acSd and bring about a neutralstate. In thissense, the alkalinity of a water is ameasure of its ability to neutralize acid (Sawyer and McCarthy, 1967) and therefore can be considered a practical indicator of buffering capacity.

In theregional study area measurements of totalalkalinity for water bodies have been compiled and summarized to present a generalized view of thebuffer- ing capacity of the study area and identify those areas which lackthe necessary waterquality to resist changes in their pH. (Appendix D, Table D-12). Three categories, or levels of sensitivityas suggested by Newconbe (1977) havebeen adopted toclassify water bodies. These aredefined as havingmeasured alkalinity values which fall into thefollowing categories:

I Category I - less than or equal to 50 mg/t Category I1 - greater than 50 mg/e but less than or equal to 100 mgje; and Category I11 - greater than 100 mg/e

The minimum valueestablished in Category I was arbitrarily chosen greater than thatconsidered critically low (20 mg/e, McKee and Ilolf, 1963) in orc'er to identify lake and streams which maybe vulnerable to acidification by acidrain. \late?containing a total alkalinity of LOO mg/L or more (Category 111) are generallyconsidered as the best for supporting diverse aquatic life (McKee and Noli, 1963). Lakes fallinginto Category I1 containsufficient alkalinity to buffer incoming acidsin all except unusually high concentrations.

Within theregional study area (Figure 4-4), availablealkalinity datil indicates I the region is characterized by lakes and streams which areconsidered either sensitiveto acidification (Category I) or have high bufferingcapacities (Category 111). dater bodieslocated within the imnediateenvirons 01' the proposed Hat Creek Thermal Plant and those originating in much of the Thompson Plateaureflect similar geological and soilconditions (Figure 4-5) ardcontain waters' of high alkalinity. TheThompson Plateaunear CacheCreek is character-

4.- 11 figure 4.4 ALKALINITY CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJORWATER. BODIES legend Alkallnlty Cateqary

”

DATA SOURCE:

NEWCOUSE.C.P.O?T. WATER WILlTY NEAR TM PROPOSED

MAT CREEN THERMAL GENERATING STATWN : POTENTIAL STREAMS 4ND LAKES AFFECTED BY ACiD PRECIATATIOI

B.C. HYDROAND POWER AUTHORITY HAT CREEK PROJECT FISHERIES AiuD BENTHOS STUDY

BEAK CONSULTANTS LIMITED VANCOUVER, CANADA figure 4-5

I SOIL BUFFERING CAPACITY

I legend

LOW ( Podsols 1

: 9, -& MODERATE (Brunisolt . Regosols) .- 9 -I- .". t .. HIGH (Chernozems, Luvisols) i .* 1 I Data not avoilable .- .... 11

...

~~ ~~~ B.C. HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY HAT CREEK PROJECT \ FISHERIES AND BENTHOSSTUDY

~~~~ ~~~

BEAK CONSULTANTS LIMITED VANCOUVER.CANADA L beak

and metamorphic sedtmentaryrock rich in limestonedeposits. north of Hat Creek Vailey and the Trachyte Hi1 1s east of primarily of limestonedepostts whlch contribute l3rge quantities of bicarbonatesto the watershed.This chemical nature is reflected in other stream system which drain similar deposits throughout the Thompson Plateau.

In the western and southeasternextremes of the studyregion, weather resis- tant plutonic rocks prevail which lackappreciable deposits of limestone. High rainfall and low dissolvedsolids reflect the low alkalfnittes ,revail- ing in most systems. TheSeymour River, Eagle River and Adarns River, for example, contain alkalinities which are significantly less than 50 m.3/e (12.1 to 22.5 mg/e; Appendix D, Table D-12).

On a regionalbasis the is characterized by waters containing alkalinities as one of .the most important sockeye sysproducing Columbi.a, the Adams Riversystem provides spawning areafor approximately 44% ofthe tot.31 sockeye "7 utilizing the Fraser River system(1,192,966). llaters of the Adam :system as wellas those of the major strearnsehetiorih and South Thompson Rive,rs are all considered suscep.:able to acidification by acidrain (Newcombe, 1977).

Othermajor aquatic systems which contain few dissolved solids andhave alkalinities which classify them assusceptable to acidificationinclude the Stein

II River, tiahatlatchRiver and SetonRiver. All drainweather resistan.: plutonic rocks of thecoast range, and occur in regions of high rainfall. Only the Seton riversupports salmonids of regionalimportance.

4 - 14 b) Biologicalb) Setting rl The study region supports a large variety of freshwater andanadromous fish species. Some 29 species of warmwaterand coldwater fishes have been identified 1 in its lake and streamhabitats, The region is primarily noted forits anadromous fish populations(those whichspawn in freshwater but spend one or more

I years of their life cycle in the sea) of pacific salmon and rainbow trout (steelhead). Four species of Pacific salmon (coho, pink, sockeye and chinook) ascendmajor stream systems of the studyregion to spawn. Because of their .I overlapping migratory patterns,spawning adult salmon may be found in the study region .in all excepta few.months of the'year. The major river systems of the I .Thompson, 'North Thompson, Nicola andAdam Rivers all support populations of anadromous salmonids which contribute significant numbers to the sport and

I commercial fisheries and provincialindian food fishery.

Both resident andanadromous rainbow trout arepresent in the region and are m taken as the principalsport fish. The Thompson River is noted for its . excellent steelhead fishery and attracts anglers from throughout Camda and .. the United States. There are no known rare or endangered fishspecies in the study region (McPhail, pers. corn.)

(i) Resident.Fishes il A total of 25 residentfreshwater fish species are found in the study region (Table 4-2). Many are small minnowsand coarsefish that lack commer,:ial U value but act as key forage species which convertenergy at l'ower aquatic trophiclevels to food utilized by sportfish, small mammals,and birds..Their

.I distributionsare generally ubiquitious, however, most areconfined to lower streamreaches, sloughs, and lakeshores, and alonglarge rivers whew waters remain relatively warm throughoutthe year. Most can tolerate or ever1 thrive inmoderately polluted waters. Minnowscommonly found includebridgelip sucker (Catostoms coZz~bianus),longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractue), leo~arddace .L (Rhinichthys faZcatus), lake chub (Couesius pZronbew), peamouth chub (E~ZocheiZuscaurinus), redsideshiner (Richadsmius Salteatus), largt:scale sucker

.. 3 4 - 15 4 beak

TABLE 4-2 RESIDENT FISH FOUND I.IITHIII THE REGIOllAL STUDY AREA

aleution sculpin Cottus aleuticus brassy minnow Eybognathus hankinsoni bridgelip sucker catoatoms collnnbianus 1 brook trout SaZveZinus fontimlis brown trout SaZmo trutta -burbot Lota lota carp Cyprinus mrpw -chiselmouth Acrocheilus aZutaceus largescale sucker CatQstQmus macr0chziZus -Dolly Varden SalveZinus maha go1 dfi sh Carassiusauratus -kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka lake chub Couesius plunbeus -lake trout SaZveZinus namayrms~t 1eopard dace Rhinichthys faZcatu3 -longnose dace Rhinichthyscataraetae nountain whitefish Prosopiwn wilZiomsoiti -northern mountain sucker Catostonus pZatyrhprChus northernsquawfish @chocheilzcs oregonmsis -peamouth chub MyZocheiZus dnu; prickly sculpin Cottus asper pygmy whitefish Prosopitan wuzteri ~ rainbow trout Satno gairdveri ... -redsi de shiner Ricllardsonius ba1tec:tus torrent sculpin Cottzcs rlwthezrs

~ ~~ ~~ From: BEAK fieldstudies, 1977; B.C. ItinistryRecreation and Censer- = vation, Fish and Wildlife Branch, 1977C; Carl.& aZ,,lE167; . S. FlcDonald personalcomunication.

4 - 16 beak

Eatostomus macrocheitus ) and chiselmouth ( Acrocheitus alutuceus). Larger -coarse fish such ascarp ( Qprinus ccrrpio), burbot @uta lotu ) and squawfish (Ptgchockeilus oregonensis ) are found in moderate numbers in the lxger stream ' .and lake systems.

.Brook trout( SaZveZinus fontinaZis),Dolly Varden ( .S'alVeZi7Zus mahO), rainbow trout (SaZmo gairdneri) Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), and lake trout (Salvelinus mmqcusk ) are resident salmonids which are found in the study region. .Brook trout, a nativeto north-eastern North America, was introducedt'o western Canada in the early 1900's. Transplants in British Columbia have become established in some streams and lakes of the region. A single brook trout was taken in the Bonaparte River during the Beak field studies.

'Dolly Varden are a char common to theregion and are found in close association with spawning salmon populations. In many areas of North America Dolly Varden are reputed to be notorius predatorsof young salmon particularly at the time of downstream migrations and of salmon eggs during the .;pawning period (Scott and Crossman, 1973). However, in this region little is known of their predationand feeding habits. Dolly Varden are occasionally taken by sport anglers but are not considered a regionally importantspor': fish.. the eastern extremes of the study area kokanee(land locked sockeye salmon)) - have become establishedin Adams Lake and are taken in large number:; by the sport fisheryJTwo forms of rainbow troutare present w$in the study region, -a resident form which remains throughout its life cycle within freshwater and another which decends to the Pacific Ocean where it spends of most its . adult life before returningto freshwater to spawn.

General life histories of resident fish, commonto both the local He.t Creek Valley and regional area, we provided in Appendix B. These life histories are based on literature and are intended to familiarize the reader with infor- riation describing their distribution, spawningand food habits, and age and growth characteristics. A summary presentationis given on Table 4-3.

P 4 - 17 .,,A.I*..:la ...rp..". .I,.. ...rp..".

,- . 1

I rl beak

(i i) Anadromous Fishes Major populations of 5 species of anadromous fish are found within the study area. These include sockeye salmon (Gncorhynchus nerku), pink st.lmon (.Orrorhynchus gorbuscha), coho salmon ( Gncorhynchus kisutch .), chirlook salmon (Gmorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelheadtrout (SuZmo guirdreri). Described asthe greatest salmon river in NorthAmerica (InternationalPacific .Salmon Fisheries Commission 1974a) theFraser River and its system ptroduces an estimated annual commercial catch of 7,094,000 salmon (Environment Canada, 'Fisheries and Marine Service,1974). Because of their major significance to thestudy region and the need for a thoroughunderstanding of their life cycles, brief reviews of the life history of each pacificsalnon found inthe studyregion are presented in Appendix B andsummarized in Table 4-4. Detailed .information describing distribution, escapement and migratory characteristics arepresented in the following sections.

(iii) Salmonid Escapementand MigratoryCharacteristics . Estimatedaverage annual spawning escapements ofsalmon during 1957 - 1976 are given forall streams in the Fraser River System in Table4-5. Escapement . estimates for streamsoccurrit?g within the regional study area and t!Iose locatedupstream or downstream of theregion have been grouped separcitely for .comparison. As .pink and sockeye salmon arethe major speciesin the Thompson system, major spawning 'locationsare shown in Figure4-5a.

(A) Pink Salmon -Although pink salmon spawn during odd yearsonly, they are by far the most abundant salmon foupd within the studyregion. During odd years pink. salmon account for nearly 85% of thetotal salmon escapement to theregion (Table 4-6). The largest spawning runsoccur in Thompson and Bridge Rivers where an estimated 264,901 and 9,611 respectively,migrate to spawn (Figure4-6). Secondary spawning streamsinclude the Bonaparte (788), Nicol;. River (1,034) and South Thompson (101). All escapement figures given are based on averages for the period 1957 to 1976 (InternationalPacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Annual Reports, 1957-76).

4 - 19 beak

TABLE 4-4

SUMMARY OF LIFEHISTORY PARAMETERS FOR SALMON AND STEELHEAD

Pink Salmon E /Embr o - freshwater rivers and streams, sub- (Oncorhynchus $%e-fall(Sept.-Oct.) through winter (kc.- gorbuscha) Feb.) Larvae/Alevin - freshwater rivers and streims; subgravel; spring (Feb.-May) Fr /Parr - freSh~J:later-eStUarine, fry outniyrate pr1 -May) to sea; life stage nissing or verybrief -Smolt - freshwater rivers and streams through estuarinewaters to marine habitat; April and May, immediately after emergence; migrate at 4.5"C Juvenile - inshore water near mouth of river for -weeks or months, migration to deeper open seawaters by September; remain at sea until maturity at age two Reproductive Adult - migrate from open sea to freshwater rivers and streams for spawning (Sept.- Oct., second year of life) .. Sockeye SalmonEgg/Embryo - freshwaterstreams, subgravel I, fa11 (0. nerka) and winter(asearly as July) incubation from 50 days to 5 months Larvae/Alevin - freshwater streams, subgravel ; spring (Feb.-Mar.-Ap.ri1) 3-5 weeks duratior Fry/Parr - migrate to lakes or occasionall), rivers without lakes', found along shoreline of lakes initially before movement to deeper water t,fter a few weeks; this stage commonly lasts one year until spring followinghatching Smolt - lakewater till temperature ranges from 4-7°C at surface, then downstream through streams

4 - 20 beak

TABLE 4-4 Cont'd.

SUMMARY OF LIFEHISTORY PARAMETERS FOR SALMON AND STEELHEAD

~ Sockeye Salmon migration at 3-4 kmlday; spring of second yearof Cont'd. life,leaves Fraser River by early flay Juvenile - inshoreareas during late sprinc - early summer, lateroffshore; statistics suggest fish leave vicinity of Fraser River by nid-late flay; fi.sh remain at sea for norc than two years until natura- tion occurs ReproductiveAdult - mature adults begin an in- shoremigration during summer of the fourth year; a pre-spawningmigration occurs in the river during July for early run andAugust or September for later rum; spawning occursin the fall in the tributaries or outlet streams of lakes

I SalmonChinook EgglEmbryo - freshwaterstreams subgravel, eggs (0. tshDJytscha) spawned July-Nov. (several runs); hatchingseveral months later in the spring mu Larvae/Alevin - freshwaterstreams, subgrav21; "3 "3 weeks (emergence Jan. -March) I Fr /Parr - freshwaterstreams and rivers; vjriable -"stage uration; usually migrationbegins soem after emergence, but freshwaterstage may hst one year or more -Smolt - freshwaterstreams and rivers to esxarine to marine water;emigration occurs in thespring I with the young appearing off the mouth of the FraserRiver in April Juvenile - juveniles appear to .remain inshore durin.g the first summer outsidethe river; 'ater go to open ocean;probably leave in fall and spend 2-3 years at sf:a untilmaturity

4 - 21 beak

TABLE 4-4 Cont’d. I SUMMARY OF LIFE HISTORYPARAMETERS FOR SALMON AND STEELHEAD

Chinook Salmon Reproductive Adult - mature fish return at age 4 Cont’d. or 5,. armear.. off the mouth of theFraser as early asJan., with maximum in Aug./Sept.; spawn.ng is generally in the fall

Coho Salmn Egg/Embryo - freshwater,subgravel in streems (0. kisutch) and some larger rivers (to a lesser extent:’; fall and winter(Sept. on). Larvae/Alevin - freshwaterrivers and streams, subgravel;winter and early spring (emergence between early March’and late July) FrylPayr - freshwaterrivers and streams fclr approximately one year

”Smolt - freshwaterrivers and streams throtlgh estuarine waters to marine habitat;migration to salt water begins in March or April; arrivc at mouth in May Juvenile - lower river, estuarine and inshcre areas through spring and summer; migration to open sea in fall; ocean water until 3 or 4 years old when maturation occurs (at age two for some mles) Reproductive Adult - migrate from open sea south along Alaskan and B.C. coast;enter main stream ofFraser between July andNovember

Steel head E /Embr o - freshwaterstream, subgravel; mid- (SaZmo gairdneri ) $e_rpnl to Hay spawning and 4-7 weeks to hatch Larvae/Alevin - freshwaterstream, subgravel ; late spring-summer; 3-7 days to absorb yolk sac; emergence from mid-June to mid-August

4 - 22 beak

TABLE 4-4 Cont'd.

SUPWARY OF LIFEHISTORY PARAMETERS FOR SALMON AND STEELHEAD

Steelhead Cont'd. FrylParr - from 1-4 years(fry generally 2 years) spent in freshwaterstreams or lakes -Smolt - freshwater streams, lakesthrough c!stuary to sea;migration generally during spring I Juvenile - the young are found in the less saline waters of the Strait ofGeorgia off the out,let of theFraser; they. remain at sea(and maymake extensivemigrations) for various periods, returning to spawn after 1-4 yearsat sea ReproductiveAdult - mature adultsreturn to spawn at agesranging .. from about 3 years tc 7 years with repeat spawning comn

I 4 - 23 I I 1

TABLE: 4-5 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE SALMON ESCAPEFIEItTS (1957-197G) IN STREAMS LOCATED UPSTRUA -IJITHIH AllD DOWEISTRENi OF THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA.

--Escapement __ SystemX of F.R. 1 Location -PK -so -CH -co -PK -so -CH StreamsUpstream of StudyRegion 140,481 1,050,543 8,28218,271 9 88 36 13 Streams of the Study Region 276,659 . 11,569 13,139 6,215 17 1 26 10

P Streams Downstream of I StudyRegion 1,224,035 130,854 18,84347,517 75 11 -37 77 h: P TOTALS 1,192,9661,641,175 50,253 62,014 10199 100 100

CODE' NAME: 1. PK = Pink; SO = Sockeye; CH = Chinook; CO = Coho F.R. = FraserRiver. 7"- ~~~~~ . figure .4*5a MAJORSPAWNING AND REARINGAREAS OF SOCKEYE & PINKSALMON legend

vk SOCKEYESPAWNING &v SOCKEYE REARING

SOCKEYESPAWNING AND REARING

SWWNING

mA-3.a en, ,DCCC "I" 4VVII"Ld

EnvironmentCMlodo. Fisheries and MarineService 1974 International poclfic SalmonFisheries Commission 1953 Andrcws, J. ,1977 personal communication

B.C. HYDRO ANDPOWER AUTHORITY HAT CREEK PROJECT FISHERIES AND BENTHOSSTUDY

n n BE4K CONSULTANTS LIMITED VANCOUVER, CANADA L L L

TABLE 11-6 AVERAGE PINK^ SALFION ESCAPEMENTS (1957-1976) IN STREAMS

LOCATED UFSTREAI4, IIITHIIJ AIID DO!.fl~STRENI OF TllE REGIOIIAI. STUDY AREA1’*

Average Escapement Percent of Percent F.R. Number Regional System Streams Up)stream of the Study Region’

SetonRiver 133,882 95.3 8.1 PortageRiver4 3,473 2.5 <1 QuesnelRiver5 3,126 2.2 -<1 Total Escapement 140,481 9 e I Streams of theStudy Region6 Iu 0) Thompson River 16.1264,901 95.7 BridgeRiver 9,611 3.5 <1 NicolaRiver (incl. Spius h ColdwaterCreeks 1,034 <1 <1 BonaparteRiver4 788 <1 <1 HiddleFraser River4 minor tributaries 224 <1 <1 South Thompson River minor tributaries I 101 <1 -

FraserRiver lower (mainstream) 771,243 63.0 47.0 Harrison River 228,973 18.7 14.0 Chilliwack & Vedder Rivers 187,406 15.3 11.4 ChehalisRiver 11,618 1 <1 8,611 TABLE 44 Cont'd. AVERAGE PIIII: SAL1K)II ESCAPBBIITS (1957-1976) Ill STREAJlS LOCATED UPSTRENI, IJITIIIII AIIO IX)IIIISTRCAII OF TllE REGIOIIAL STUDY AREA

Average Escapement Percent of Percent F.R. Number Regional Sys tern Streams Downstream of the Study Region Cont'd. Sweltzer Creek 5,600 <1 FraserRiver lower (minor tributaries) 5,540 <1 Jones Lreek 2,741

GRAND TOTAL 1,641,175

1 InternationalPacific Salmon FisheriesComission, 1957-74 and 1975-77, Escapement is a measure of the number of spawning fish and doesnot include migrants to other streams. Pink salmon occuronly in odd years, the cycleaverage is given (i.e.not annual average). Average for 1957-1972 Average for 1957-1971 5 Average for 1965, 1967and 1971 Average for 1957-1976. Escapement rzfer; tU entirestream; where a stream is onlypartly within I,.- wc boundaries of theregional base map area, escapement myapply to areas outside of the zone. t f figure 4-6 PINK SALMON I ESCAPEMENT AND TIMING (odd years) . t legend I ESCAPEMENT (odd yearsonly) -<1.000 I 1.000 - 1o.cQo I - I B 100,000 -500.000 i I I i i I L I I i i I i 4 I i I i I i

I i i I ?I ! I I i i 1 :I

I I HYDROAN0 POWER AUTHORITY B.C. ri HAT CREEKPROJECT ! ! t FISHERIES AND BENTHOSSTUDY

BEAK CONSULTANTS LIMITED i VANCOUVER, CANADA L c Pink salmon spawn during odd yearsin the Fraser River from September to October and downstream fry migrations take place from MarchMay todepending upon winter conditions (Northcote,1974). In the Thompson River, peak spawning occurs in October (International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, 1967-1976) and downstream fry migrations in April and May (Pyper, 1976).

1 Unlike chinook, sockeyeand coho salmon which remainin freshwater to rear, pink salmon migrate tothe sea soon after emergence. Fry migration nonitored at Spatsum in the Thompson River (19 km below Ashcroft) in 1974 illustrate - .the relative abundance and frequency of occurrence of pink fry in th? Thompson River (Figure 4-7) during the downstream migration (Pyper,1976). L In the Thompson River,pink salmon spawn from Spences Bridge to Kaml2ops

1 Lake with the highest density (78%) occurring upstream of the Bonapa-te River (Figure 4-6) (B.C. Research & Dolmage Campbell & Assoc., 1975). The follow- ,. ,. ing spawning densities forthe Thompson River betweenthe Fraser Riverand a .~ Kamloops lakes has been reported by B.C. Research and Dolmage Campbell & Associates Limited (1975): I

Latitudinal Distribution Estimated Escapement Nicola River (km 37) to km 56 18,543 (7 percent) km 56 to km 68 31,788 (12 percent) I km 68aonaparte to River (km 77) 7,947 (3 percent) BonaparteRiver toKamloops Lake 206,623 (78 percent)

-. Escapement Total 264,901 (100 percent)

- Salmon(8) Sockeye The major sockeye salmon producing stream in the regional area is the South m ThompsonRiver which supported an estimatedennual escapement of 10,C53 individuals. Minor rivers utilized by sockeye for spawning include the Barriere River (75), Clearwater River (250), and the North Thompson River I -. (164) (Table 4-7).

* 4 - 29 source: Pypcr, 1976 m I ,

TABLE 4-7 .

AVERAGE SOCKEYE SALMON ESCAPEIICIIT (1957-1976) IN STREAMS

LOCATED UPSTREAII, IlITllIEJ AND DOklflSTRENl OF THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA1”

Percent of Percent of F.R. Number .Regional System

”Stream Upstream of the Study Region’ Adam River(upper) 22 <1 AdamRiver (lower) . 431,372 36.2 Adam River(tributaries) 492 c1 Bowron River 11,220 1.1 <1 I Chilko River 272,533 26.0 22.8 Fennel Creek 357 <1 <1 Gates River 3,775 <1 c1 Horsefly River 74,338 7.1 6.2 P Little River4 57,716 5.5 4.8 I Little Horsefly River 37 <1 <1 W a IlitchellRiver 1,503 <1 <1 Nechako (incl. Endako, Nadina NithiRivers and Ormand Creek) 13.403 1.3 1.1 PortageRiver 4,236 <1 c1 RaftRiver G ,332 <1 <1 Seymour River 23,808 ?,3 2.0 Shuswap River(lower) 6.649 <1 il Shuswap River(upper) 1162 <1 <1 StuartRiver 142,924 13.6 32.0 Taseko River 5,975 <1 -1 Total Escapement - 1,057,655 08

Streams of theStudy Region“

BarriereRiver 75 South Thompson River 10,053 86.9 . South Thompson River(minor tributaries) ___-1,027 8.8 TotaiEscapewnt 11,569 ~. . I I I 1

TACLE 4-7Cont'd.

AVERAGE SOCKEYE SALt1ON ESCAPEIIEIfi (1957-1976) IIi STREAHS LOCATEDUPSTREAH, IJITIIIH AHD DOISIiSTREN4 OF THE REGIOIIAL STUDY AREA

Percent of Percent of F.R. Number Regional System " . - . Streams Downstream of theStudy Region

BirkenheadRiver 56,761 45.9 4.8 Cul tus Lake 18,501 15.0 1.5 FraserRiver (lower - minor tributaries) 941

P Total Escapement 123,743 10 I w rv GRAND TOTAL 1,192;967

1 Sockeyeescapements fromInternational Pacific Salmon Fisheries Comnission,Annual Reports, 1957- 1976 Escapermt is a measure of the number of spawning fish anddoes not include adults migrating to spawningareas in other streams Average for 1957 - 1972 Average for 1957-1976 Estimateonly a beak a The Thompson River also serves as amajor migratory pathway for sockeye salmon U enroute to spawning locationsin the LowerAdams River (Figure4-8). Considered one of the most important salmon runs in North America, the Lower Adms River accounted for approximately 50% of the totalFraser River Sockeye esc:apement (827,000) in 1976 (InternationalPacific Salmon Fisheries Conmission 1977).

In theFraser River,spawningoccurs between June and October (Northcote,1974). Afterremaining in freshwater for one to two years,juvenile sockeye salmon I outmigrateas smolts from March to July (Northcote,1974). In the Thompson River the main upstream spawning migrationtakes place from late July to late r October with smoltmigrations occurring from mid-April to mid-June at Spences Bridge (Fred AnOrews, pers. comm.).

._/"-. .- (C).. (ChinookSalmon \ b.. / The North Thompson River, Thompson River, South Thompson and ClearwattrRivers I.- are the major chinook spawning streams in the study area and receive,?stimated annualescapements of 1,090, 2,122, 3,975 and 1,629,(including &hood River),

I respectively (Table 4-8 and forutilized :;pawning include Barriere River Creek (18), Louis Creek (227) and

Upstream spawning migrationstake place between March and June in theFraser River(Northcote 1974). In the Thompson River spawning takes place from early September to mid-October and peaks in late September (Fisheries and Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service,1977a). At one to three years of age,juvenile chinookmigrate as smolt between May' and September' (L. Goodman & D. Aurel, pers. comm.).

a (0) Coho Salmon The Nicola River and Lemieux Creek arethe major cohosalmon spawning streams inthe regional study area. These streamsreceive estimated annualescapements

4 - 33 k L t m I I I

TNlLC 4-3 AVEMGE CHINOOK SALMOFJESCAPEIIENT (1957-1976) IN STREAfiS LOCATED UPSJRCAII, WITHIII ArlD DOIIllSTREAM OF TllE REGIONALSTUDY AREA1"

Percent of Percent of F.R. Number Regional Sys tern Streams Upstream of the Study Region3

Adams River 2,007 8.2 4.3 Bowran River 1,022 4.2 2.2 CaribooRiver Present - - ChilakoRiver 85

FraserRiver N. (minor tributaries)6 90" <1 <1 Goat & Milk River Ei W. Twin Creek6 50. <1 <1 Holmes River, Horsey & NevinCreek 400 1.6 <1 HorseflyRiver 198 <1 <1 McGregor River ( tributary)6 614 2.5 1.3 Morki 11 River 32 3 1.3 <1 PortageRiver 128

TABLE 4-8 Cont'd. AVERAGE CllII4OOK SALtlOll CSCAPCt1EI-IT (1957-1976) IN STRENlS LOCATEDUPSTRCNI, WITtlIll AIlD OOll/lSTRCNl OF TllE RCGIOllAL STUDY AREA

Percent of Percent of F.R. Number Regional System StreamsUpstream of the Study RegionCont'd.

Stellako River 231 <1 <1 StuartRiver 295 1.2 <1 Swift Creek4 75

BarriereRiver 67 <1

TABLE 4-8Cont'd. AVERAGE CHIIIOOY, SALtIOIIESCAPEIlEliT (1957-1376) Ill STREAllS

LOCATED UPSTREAH, IlITllIll AI10 DOCIIISTRENI OF TllE REGIOllAL STUDY AREA

Percent of Percent of F.R. Number mional System StreamsDownstream of the StudyRegion3

Birkenhead River 825 5.0 1.8 ChilliwackRiver 34 1 2.1 <1 Fraser River lower (minor tributaries) 268 ,1.6 <1 Mission & HarrisonRiver 50.9 9,706 20.8 Nahatlatchkiver 56

From Environment Canada, Fisheries & MarineService (1974) and Fisheries & MarineService, spawning filez,unpublished ms., Vancouver Escapement is ameasure of the number of spawning fish and does not include adults migrating to spawningareas in other streams Average for 1957-1 972 Esti!!!!ate n!?!y Average for 1957-1976 Averahe for 1955-1972 Escapement refers to entire stream;where a stream is only partly within the boundaries of the theregional base map area, escapement may applyto areas outside of the zone. bta encompass 1957-1976 Average for 1957-1964,1973-1976 only Average for 1960and 1964-1972 only Figure 4 =9

"HINOOK.I SALMON -5CAPEMENT AND TIMING . egend

SCAPEMENT - <1,000 - 1.000 -10.000 - 100.000 - 500.000 IMING (Fraser River)

rmolts,downstream adults ,upstreom \ migration / migration

In SOURCES. 'IIoIInunt CaRada, Fishrln ood Yah. %mu. 1974 ?hCOIS. T.P. 1974

I.C. HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY IAT CREEK PROJECT ISHERIES AND BENTHOS STUDY

BEAK CONSULTANTS L:MITED VANCOUVER, CANADA beak

of 1,558 and904 spawners,respectively. Other streams of lesser importance include Deadman Creek (3901, Barriere River (503), Pmn Creek (80), and Brookfield Creek (75) (Table 4-9, Figure 4-10).

In theFraser River, spawning commences between March and June with major smolt outmigrationsaccurring from March to June (Northcote;1974). In the Thompson .River,coho spawn from late September to early November (Fisheries and Environ- ment Canada, Fisheries andMarine Service,1977a).

(E) Steel head jteelhead are found in the Thompson River between Spences Bridge andKamloops Lake. Other streams which supportpopulations of steelheadinclude ;lahatlatch River, Anderson River, River and tributaries, Bonaparte River (lowerBonaparteRiver two Tranquille Creek :B.C. "inistry of Recreation and Branch, 1977~). In the Thompson River spawning occurs from March to June. and upstreammigration takesplace from September to April (Pers. comm. John Cartwright, Fish & Wildlife Branch, Oct.1977).

(iv) Fisheries Resource Utilization (A) SportFishery The study regioncontains a large number of lakes and streams which sulyport good to excellent sport fisheries.pteelhead and resident rainbow trout are theprincipal species sought by Gort fishermen. However, eastern brook trout, laketrout, Dolly Varden, kokanee,chinook salmon, mountain whitefish and burbot are also taken.

Best known forits quality steelhead fishing, the region attracts.fisht?rmen from across Canada and the United States to the Thompson River. TheThompson River is one of thefinest steelhead ."trophy" producingstreams in 6rit:ish Columbia. Steelheadreach an excess of 9 kg and average 810 mm in length.

4 - 39 8 I

TABLE 4-9 ,

AVERAGE COHO SALtlON ESCAPEMENT (1957-1976) IN STRENlS

LOCATED UPSTREAM, WITllIN AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA'.'

Percent of Percent OFF. R. Number Regional System -Streams Upstream of the Study Region' AdamRiver 485 4.7 <1 AnsteyRiver 98 <1 <1 Uessette Creek 831 8.1 1.3 EagleRiver4 1,867 18.1 3.0 Fennel Creek 24 1 2.3 <1 Finn Creek 249 2.4 <1 GatesCreek' 364 3.5 <1 Lion Creek 2,094 20.3 3.4 P Portage Creek 66 <1 <1 I Raft Creek 6 34 6.1 1.0 P 0 Reg Christie Creek 37 <1 <1 Salmon River4 1,299 12.6 2.1 SetonRiver & Cayoosh Creek4 17

Total Escapement 6,215 10 I IC a

TABLE 4-9 Cont'd. AVERAGE COHO SALMONESCAPEMENT (1957-1976) IN STREAMS LOCATED UPSTREN!, \IITHII.I AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA

Percent of Percent of F.R. .. NumberSystem Regional Streams Downstream of the Study Region3 Birkenhead River 2,747 6.0 4.4 Chilliwack River & Vedder River 21,047 46.2 33.9 Chilliwack - Vedder (tributary) 1,941 4.3 3.1 FraserRiver (lower - minor tributary) 6,395 14.0 10.3 HarrisonRiver 11,707 25.7 18.9 Lillooet River 545 1.2 1 Cillooet River (tributaries) 1,108 2.4 -1 .8 P Total Escapement 45,490 74 1 P GRAND TOTAL 62,014 d

From Environment Canada, Fisheries & Marine Service (1974) and Fisheries & Marine Service, spawning files, unpublished ms., Vancouver Escapement is a measure of the number of spawning fish and does not include adults migrating to spawning areas in otherstreams Average for 1957-1972 Average for 1957-1976.Escapement refers to entire stream; wherea stream is onlypartly within theboundaries of the regional base map area, escapement may apply toareas outside of the zone ' Average for 1957, 1958 and1961-1972 only Estimateonly figure 4-10 COHO SALMON ESCAPEMENT AND TIMING legend I

I ESCAPEMENT I -<1.000 i -1,000 -10.000 I 100.000 -500,000

I TIMING(Frarer River) i

I 8molts,downstream adults, UPStrOam i migration migration i \ \ I 1 I

Ma June July Dec

ii i 1

JATA SOURCES [nvlrmmnt Canada, Fish.rh and Y4rlnO Sorvlc*.lS74 I rortncon , 1.0.. 1~14 i

B.C. HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY HAT CREEK PROJECT 1! FISHERIES AND BENTHOSSTUDY 1 BEAK CONSULTANTS LIMITED VANCOUVER,CANADA j. Theirlarge size and strong,aggressive behavioural characteristics rrakethem

highlyvalued as a sport fish. The steelheadsport fishery primarilyis ~ exploited during thefall and winter runs from October to January. An estimated 732 steelhead were taken during the 1976/77season in the Thompson River at an averageangler success rate of 0.122 fish/angler/day (B.C. f4in.i'stry Rerreation 5. gonservation,Fish & Wildlife Branch. 1977d).

Steelheadfishing in the Thompson River accountedfor 84% of the average total number of anglerdays (14,330) expended for steelhead in the region (Table4-10). F!umerous otherstreams in the region support steelhead; however, .in terms of overallangler use theyreceive minor pressure.'Province-wide, i ;fishermen spent 206,944 angler days on streamsfishing steelhead, 6.9 % Iwas expended in the studyregion. /In the remainder of the regionalarea rainbow trout are the mostimpclrtant i !sportfish taken.' In'a survey conducted by Pears.e Bowden (1971)during

~1969-, 1970 in the Kamloops arearesults indicated rainbow trout accclunted for -84%of the totalsport fishing catch (653,000 fish). Char (botheast.ern brook trout and lake trout), kokanee, steelhead and otherspecies accountec for 57,000, 19,000, 2,000, and 24,000 fish,respectively. By cornparison,t.he total provincial sport fishingcatch was 8,642,000fish. TheKamloops areasport fish catchaccounted for 7.6% of thetotal provincial catch.

Pearse Bowden (1971) indicated that 79 X of the anglersinterviewed pre- ferred to fish lakes in the Kanloops area as opposed to streams. In .:he regionalarea,an estimated 726,378 days of angier effort were expended on 228 lakes(Table 4-11 and Figure 4-11) Loon Lake, .Tunkwa Lake, .Lac Le Jeune, Pennask Lake and RocheLake ar2the major lakesystems which attract sport

1:anglers. All receivedgreater than 25,000 angler days of pressure per year !(B.C. Rinistry of Recreation & Conservation, Fish & !:ildlifeBranch, 'i977a). !TheI importance of the numerous, accessablesmaller lakes in the region cannot /beunderrated. Nearly 60 percent of the total anglereffort is expended on ';lakes which receive 4,000 anglerdays of effort per year (Appendix 5, ;Table5-1). j

.. 4 - 43 beak

TABLE 4-10 I DISTRIBUTION OF STEELHEAD ANGLER EFFORT (ANGLER DAYS) EXPENDED ON STREAMSIN THE STUDYREGION's2

Percent of Water 3ody Angler Days) Regional Effort- Thompson River' 12,013 Salmon River 91 6 Bridge River 551 South Thompson River" 393 SetonRiver 165 NicolaRiver 117 North Thompson River BO SteinRiver 47 BarriereRiver 21 BonaparteRiver 'a Cold Creek 7 Deadman's Creek 6 Yalakom River 5 TranquilleRiver 1 tlacby Creel: <1 Total 14.330

From: B.C. MinistryRecreation C Conservation, Fish C Llildlife Branch, 1963-1976 Harvest Summary: Total Angler Effort on all streamsin Region 14,330 TotalAngler Effort on all streams in Province 206,944 Harvestdate exists for 1966-67 but does not include numbers of ansler days Anglerdays - number of anglers x number of days fished per angler ' During 1967-72 Thompson River and South Thompson Riverdata were included under theheadins "Thompson River"

4 - 44 beak

I TABLE 4-11 SUMMARY OF LAKE SPORT FISHING EFFORT EXPENDED IN MANAGEMENT UNITS OF THE STUDYREGION

Management Number of Percent of -Unit Lakes Fished Angler Days2 TotalEffort 3-12 20 123,828 15.9 3-1 3 9 33,000 4.5 3-14 1 10,000 1.4

3-1~ .. 5 5 4,800 0.6 3-1 6 3 6,000 0.8 3-17 12 38,500 5.3 3-1 8 21 74,150 10.1 3-1 9 22 125,500 17.1 3-20 18 .76,100 13.4 '3-27 12 51,500 7.0 3-28 13 18;500 2 3-29 19 33,150 1:2 3-30 36 55,000 7.5 3-31 5 10,750 1.5 3-33 1 1,000 0.1 3-38 5 9,500 1.3 3-39 26 60,100 3.2

TOTAL 228 731,370 93.7

- ' Source: B.C. MinistryRecreation & Conservation, Fish & Wildlife Branch, 1977a Angler days - number of anglers x number of days fishedper angle,-

4 - 45

p-1;

! m Within ths immediate vicinity of Hat Creek (40. km) 41 lakes and streams in - . portions of eight management units (numbers 13,16,17,18,29,30,31 and 32)pro- L viderecreational sport fishing and receive an estimatedtotal angler effort - of 116,600days (B.C. Ministry of Recreation & Conservation,Fish and Wildlife 'Branch,1968-76 and 1977a). Over 50% of the fishingpressure is expended 1 :onTunkwa, Kwutlenemo, Pavi'lion,Leighton andLoon Lakes. The most popular localarea management unitis number 17 (Hat Creek vicinity). Unit 17 contains I) thegreatest number of lakes.angled and alsoreceives the greatest fishing Ipressure (51,500 anglerdays). m I '1.n an attempt to determinethe capability of locallakes to supportincreased fishingpressure, opinions of local Fish & Wildlifeofficials were solicited. and their coments summarized on Table 4-12. Most lakes in the vicinity of Hat Creek wok consideredcapable of supporting an increase in fishingpressure; however,Green Lake, Kelly Lake, Kelly Creek and Tunkwa Lak? were thought to be at.naximumproduction. Any increasein fishing pressure would likely II resu1.t in depletion of presentfish stocks (S.J. Ik'Donald and J. Cartwright, Pers. corn.). TheThompson River was consideredvery close to its naximum yi.eld at the presenttime, however, othersport fish (resident rainbow trout ian.d whitefish) .populations were capableofwithstanding increased fishing 1 !pressure.

Fishstocking in the study region has been used as a management tool to sapple- ment naturalpopulations and,in early years, to introduceexotic fish species. First begun in 1909 with experimentalreleases oi rainbow trout, Atlantic

1 .salmon,lake trout and brook troutin Paul Lake, fishstocking hascontinued as one of the key management tools in maintaining the'quality of regional sportfisheries. A stockinghistory of lakesin the regional area is presented withrespect to Hanagement Units in Appendix B, Table 9-2. A summsry presentation of this data is given in Figure 4-12.

In the past,theprovince has released rainbow trout, brook trout, kokanee, steelhead,cutthroat trout, atlantic salmon and lake trout in its water's. , However, rainbow trout has been the most commonly stocked fish in thelast itenyears. PaulLake, Carpenter Lake, Kinnie Lake, ionLake, Peter Hope ! I !

.. 4-47 I heak

TABLE 4-12 i CAPABILITY OF LAKES AND STREATIS IIITHIH THE LOCAL HAT CREEK AREA TO SUSTAININCREPSEO AIKLIIIG PRESSURE

Capable of Water Bodx Supporting an Increase Principal5,port Fish Barnes Lake Yes rainbow trout Cornwall Lake Ye5 rainbow trout FiveMile Lake Yes brook trout Four Mile Lake Yes brook trwt GreenLake No rainbow troxt, kokanee Hat Creek Yes rainbow trout Kelly Creek .No rainbow ':rout Kelly Lake No rainbow ::rout KwutlenemoLake Yes, but 'near mximum rainbow 1:rout Leighton Lake Yes rainbow trout LoonLake Yes, but near maximum rainbow trout Quiltanton Lake Yes rain bow trout Pavilion Lake Yes, substantialincrease rainbow trobt, kokanee Seton Lake Yes, substantialincrease rainbow trout, salmon, DollyVarden, whitefish, kokane? Six Mile Lake Yes brook trost Thompson River Yes, but near maximum steel hmd TunkwaLake N 0 rainbow t:-out

From: S.J. MacDonald & J. Cartwright, Fish & Wildlife Branch, Kamloclps, 19i7 (personalcommunication)

4 - 48

I beak

I Lake, Roche Lake, Stump Lake, Heffley Lake, Jacko Lake, Knouff andLake Tunkwa Lake are all important sport fish lakes which have been stocked in excess of 20,000 fish per year over the last ten years.

Stocking formulas employedby the Fish and Wildlife Branch to determiile the numbers of fish stocked arebased on several factors which take into tonsidera- tion lake productivity, catch success, natural recruitmentand public access (hithet aZ..,1969). Two graphical aids used in estimating stocking r3tes are shown in Figure 4-13. Where natural recruitment is marginal or intermittent and catch success is less than 1 fish/hour/angler, fish stocking ratescan I be obtained from the linear function presented in Figure 4-13. The numbers of fish stockedare also evaluated in terms of lake productivity as measured 3 by total dissolved 'solids. More productive lakes (higher dissolved solids) are stocked at a greater rate than those which contain less total dissolved a solids. In areas where public access is available, stocking rates are related to access and the quality of available spawning area as shown in 4-13. Table

The size of fish stocked in the region varies depending upon hatchery availability and predictability of survival. In general, fall stockings of rainbow trout consist offry less than 50 mm in length, while in spring, releases consist of fingerlings which range from50 to 100 mm in length (S.J. McDonald, pers. comm.).

Sport fishery regulationsin the regional study area prohibit theuse of any fish product other than crustaceaor roe. Many rivers in the area are closed to sport fishing between May1 and June 30 and other regulations such as closures and gear restrictions vary with specific lakesand streams in the study area. Daily catch limits areas follows: aggregate rainbow trout, kamloops trout, steelhead, cutthroat trout,brown trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, brook trout and kokanee (2, >50cm) aggregate trout, charand grayling (8, >50 cm), kokanee (125,> 50 cm) apd burbot (10) (B.C. Ministry Recreation & Conservaticn, Fish & Wildlife Branch, 1977b). Trout are defined as: rainbow, kamloops, steelhead, cutthroat, brown,and char as Dolly Varden, lake trout& brook trout.

4 - 50 I TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS(ppm) Curveused to estimate RainbowTrout fry stocking rate from total dissolved :solids (from Smith et u/., 1969) r

a w -1 cl 2 a a w a X Y LL LL 0

PERCENTAGE OF STANDARD STOCKING Relationship between percentage of standard stocking and number of fishper angler hour (fromSmith et u/., 1969) figure 4013 GRAPHICALTECHNIQUES USED BY FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH TO ESTIMATE FISH STOCKING RATES TABLE 4-13 RELATIONSHIPOF STOCKINGRAT~TO PUBLIC ACCESS AND QUALITY OF AVAILABLESPAWNING AREA

Spawning Rate (%) Public Access . -Good Medium -Poor -Ni 1

Good 0-30 60 80 . 100 kdium 15 30 45 60 Poor 0-1 5 15 20 30

Source: Smith et aZ.. 1969.

* StockingRate: percent of theoreticalstocking rate as determined by graphical methods shown in Figure 4-13.

4 - 52 beak

,Ice fishing is a popular sportin the Kamloops area (Stewart, 1977). The I first lake in British Columbia designated asan ice fishing only area is Trapp 'Lake (brook trout). Trapp Lake is situated 24 km south of Kamloops and has attracted hundreds of ice fishermen. The introduction of brook trout into 'this system in 1975 has enhanced the winter sport fishery.

I Jocko, Stake, Walloperand Tunkwa Lakes support substantial rainbow trout .populations. Lac La Hache is also well known as a good winter fishery, primarily for kokanee. Red Lake, Heffley Lake, Paul Lake and Kanouff Lake are all popular , winter ice fishing areas(S. McDonald, Fish and Wildlife Branch, pers. comm.).

6. Commercial Fishery a The Fraser River system supportsa.major international pacific salmon fishery that is exploited by Canada and the United States (International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, 1977a). The estimated average annual commercial catch of Fraser River salmon (1957-72; Table4-14) was 7,094,000 (Environment Canada, .F,isheries and Marine Service, 1974). . -l j - *.< - The Fraser River accounts for approximately one-third of the total sa'lmon I) taken in the provjncialr: commercial fishery (Aro & Shepard, 1967). Terl percent of the provincial catch originates from the Thompson River system. The commercial -salmon fisheryin B.C. had a wholesale market value of %219,758,000in 1974 (B.C. Department of Finance, 1975).

'Historical catch and escapement information for pink salmonin the Thcmpson River are included in Table 4-15. m "

C. Subsistence Fishery The Indian food fishery (salmon and steelhead) is basedon a permit per house- 1 hold system and unless stocks ire threatened, the catch is not limited (Environ- ment Canada, Fisheries & Marine Service, 1974). The average annual indian food catch of salmon and steelhead in the Fraser River is186,018 (Environment Q\ .. ..

4 - 53 I m

TACCE 4-14

AVERAGE ANNUAL COMflERCIALCATCH AN0 CATCII/ESCAPEMENT MTIOS

OF SALMON ORIGINATING FROMVARlOUS REGIONS OFTHE FMSER RIVER SYSTEM (1957-1972)

~~ -Area Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Chum -Total (U) (3.1:l)___- (3.0:l)" (2.9:l)- Upper Fraser Basin

Grand Canyon Basin 20,725 McGreyor River Basin 2,930 North Fraser Area 8,183

Total 31 ,038 753.518

CentralFraser System ...... P

I Cariboo River Basin 357 - - - .- VI P Ques&lRiver Systenl 4,101 235,228 - - - MiddleFraser Area 17,044 888,212 1,024 210,656 - Total 21,502 1,123,440 210,G561 ,024 - 1,356,702

Thompson RiverBasin Clearwater River 0asin 6,039 775 740 - - North Thompson System 9,290 22,971 15,405 - - Thornpson/S.Thompson 68,534, 1,668,040 , 22,050 344,520 -

Total 83.863 1,691,794 . 38,195 344,520 - 2,158,372 Ir?p TABLE 4-14Cont'd. , 54u.. AVEMGE. ANNUALCOMMERCIAL CATCH AND CATCH/ESCAPEfKNTRATIOS OFSALMON ORIGINATING FROMVARIOUS REGIONS OF THE FMSER RIVER SYSTEM (1957-1972)

-Area Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Chum Total (4.0:l) (W) (3.0:.1) (E)(1.5:l) - -I Lower FraserArea 45 ,GG5 383,625 103,512 1,782,978 509,505 7,093,877

GRAND TOTAL 182,940 . 3,920,539 142.731 2,338.154 509,505 7,093.877

FromEnvironnlent Canada, Fisheries & MarineService, 1974

,. beak - a

TABLE 4-15 PINK SALMONCOMMERCIAL CATCH/ESCAPEMENT DATA FOR PERIOD OF RECORD IN THE THOMPSON RIVER

Escapement Catch -Year Thompson River Thompsm River & Tributaries’ & Tribgtaries 19572 269.1 06 780,407.4 1959 87,224 252,!350 I) 1961 69,411 201 ,292 1963 285,243 827,205 1965 233,100 675,990.0 1967 450,487 1,306,412.3 1969 247,896 718,t~a 1971 258,203 748,789 1973 283,385 821 ,Ell 6 1975 480,350 1,393,CIl5.0

From: InternationalPacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Annual Reports 1957-1976

IncludesNicola River, Bonaparte River and minor tributaries Records of pink salmonwere notkept by InternationalPacific Salmon Fisheries Commission until 1957

4 - 56 beak

Canada, Fisheries & Marine Service,1974). In 1976, 68,675 sockeye salmon .I were caught in the Thompson Riversystem, and the Fraser River between Hape and Churn Creek (36 km north of ‘Clinton) by indianfishermen (International e Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, 1976.).

D. Enhancement r The FraserRiver is includedin the Federal Government’s salmonid enhmcement programwhich is designed to increase commercial catches. Enhancement tech- .I niques such as hatcheries and rearingfacilities a’re beinginvestigated. Enhancement of salmon and steelheadis proposed in theregional study area I and escapement are expected to increase by 500,000 sockeye, 70,000 coho, 20,000 chinook and 4,000 steelhead(Table 4-16). The streams proposed for erlhancement

I aretributaries of the Thompson River (Deadman River and Nicola River:! and North Thompson (BarriereRiver). Presently, existing facilities are outside ofthe regional study area andcommenced operation as early as 1961 (Table I 4-16). . Effortsare underway by the In ternationalPacific Salmon Fisteries Commission tointroduce pink salmon intothe Fraser River which spawn in even m- numbered years and to increasethe present population whichspawns in odd years. I

(v) ExistingStresses on FishPopulations Almost every salmon population inthe Fraser River contains IHN diseass (infectioushematopoictic necrosis). It has also been found in sockeye stock 0. migrating throughthe Thompson River.Its effect on survival of @ural salmon % populations is not known; however, it can cause high mortality on hatchery fish.Parasites such as the prot oan hichophrya SP. and the copepod Satmineoh . . Pry areoccasionally found in salmon, 9but theireffect o 4urvival IS” known

I (I. Williams, pers. comm.). Prespawning mortality hasbeen observed irl various races of sockeye salmon in theFraser Riversystem (Williams and Steltw, 1971). Hoskins & Hulstein (1977) reported my:tobacterial gilldisease in the FraserRiver system.

4 - 57 I TAELE 4-16

'EXISTING All0 PROPOSED SALMOIJ AFID STEELIIEAO EFIIIANCEIIEIIT FACILITIES

Existing' Connients Stream .Species. .Description "_ __ Start _" Area - (sq,yd.- ) Gates River Sockeye spawningchannel 1960 13,489 LowerSeton River Pink spawningchannel 1967 20,886 NadinaRiver Sockeye spawningchannel 1973 21,639 Upper Pitt River Sockeye incubakionchannel 1963 711 UpperSeton River Pink spawningchannel 1961 6,019 WeaverCreek Sockeye spawningchannel 1965 20,846 ..

Proposed Species Description Number 0.F Fish Added

8arrie.re~River i sockeye 500,000 * '~OGadrnan River Coho rearing1 Caci ity 40,000 chinook 5,000 ! steelhead hatchery 2.000 NicolaRiver '' coho rearing facility 30,000 chinook 1 5,000 steelhead 2,000

From: Cooper,1977 & Fisheries & Environment Canada,.. Fisheries & MarineService, 1977

~ I ~ .~ .. __ ~- ~ ~~ beak

Lampreys (Entosphenus tridentatus) are'parasitic fishes which attachto freshwater and anadromous fishes, particularly salmon and steelhead(Hart, 1973). Theireffect on thecomercial Fraser River catch is not known (Hart,1973). Lamprey parasitismhas been observed in Adams River sockeyeand in 1967 over half of the spawning adultsbore detectable lamprey wounds resulting in an estimatedmortality of 2% (Williams & Gilhousen,1968). A smallsample of pink salmon at the mouth ofthe Fraser River indicatedapproximately 20% had been subject to lamprey attack.

A summary of human activities in thestudy region is presented in Figure 4-14. Currentwater resource utilization in termsof water intakes and effluent dischargesare presented in Tables 4-17 and 4-18,respectively. Mines in the regionalstudy area include Afton (construction near completion), Betnlehem, Lornex and Craigmont.All have waterintakes located on the Thompson River system. A pulp mill is located at Kamloops. Municipalities on the Tlompson River whichremove and dischargewater include Ashcroft,Cache Creek, Clinton and Kanl oops.

4 - 59 v T 1 figure 4.14 I AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY IN THE I .4 REGIONAL STUDY AREA I legend -., , n I A MINEWITH WATER INTAKE PULP AND PAPER MILL WITH 0 I WATER INTAKE AND DISCHARGE MUNICIPALITY OR TOWN WITH 0 WATER INTAKE AND DISCHARGE 1 MUNICIPALITY OR TOWN WITH 0 WATER INTAKE I A LIME OUARRY I m CEMENTPLANT AGRICULTURE 1 LL-4 1 I I I

DATA SOURCES Strollp, no11 8 Asso61atos R.id Co(lln* Ea Assoc1at.r 1 5 , C.O.R.C. rni9i.l Wmbie Wotn Rlmts Bmnrl I Brltish CoIumBIo PaUutlnm Control Bra8

B.C. HYDRC AND POWER AUTHORITY I HATCREEK PROJECT FISHERIES AND BENTHOS STUDY * f rL "fl, BEAK CONSULTANTS LIMITED f VANCOUVER,CLNADA. beak

TABLE 4-17 LOCATIO11 AND VOLUNE OF NAJOR NATER INTAKES IN THE REGIONALSTUDY AREA

3 -User Volume (m /day) -Location Mines

Afton constructionnear completion No LoonLake & One Loon L. Bethlehem Copper 5679.7 Bethsaida Creek 13.6 Peavine Creek 16652.1 JaneSpring entire flow Witches Brook 2446.6 North Lodge 2446.6 Mann Cr. 2446.6 Nicholson Creek 2446.6 Ford Creek: 2466.6 Michel Creek 2446.6 Orm Creek 210926.5 BonaparteRiver ," 299737.7 Scottie Creek 1. Lornex 1817.5 Thompson F:i ver 13649.3 Pukaist Creek 79560.0 Pukaist Creek 113..6 Shuhost Creek 1 113.6 Bethsaida Creek 22202.8 Woods Creek 5906.9 NicolaRiber 1 169604.7 Stumbles Creek' 6.4 Stumbles Creek Pulp & Paper .I Kaml oops Mi 1 1 189649.4 Thompson Fiver - Municipalities Ashcroft 4543.8 Thompson River 1817.5 Thompson River I Cache Creek 4893.2 Bonaparte River 3180.6 BonaparteRiver I 2446.6 Lopez Creek

4 - 61 -.I beak - m

I TABLE 4-17 COnt'd. LOCATION AND VOLUME OF MAJOR WATER INTAKES

IN THE REGIONALSTUDY AREA

User Locat. on - " C1 i nton 90.9 Clinton Creek 86.3 C1 inton Creek 10.9 C1 i nton Creek 11 101.4 Clinton Creek Kaml oops 90.9 South Thompson River 2271.9 South Thompson River 436654.9 South Thompson River 336040.7 South Thompson River 13631.2 South Thompson River 44405.6 South Thompson River 2271.9 South Thompson River 2271.9 South Thompson River 4543. a North Thompson River " 1135.9 North Thompjon River 1 850232.8 North Thompjon River 4543. a North Thom;on River m 2405302.6 North Th0mp:;on River 2271 8.73 North Thomp:;on River 17268839.3 Jamieson Crc?ek 61 67442.6 Jamieson Creek m 123348.9 Dairy Creek 123348.9 Da i ry Creek 2466977.0 Noble Creek 1 19735816.3 McQueen River 13631.2 Thompson River 111013.9 Thompson River Thompson River Thompson River 2.3 Scotney Brock 2446.6 Peterson CrEek Savona 4543.8 KamloopsLake Spences Bridge 1817.5 Bridge Spences MurrayCreek 4543. a Thompson River a Source: 8.C. in is try of Environment,\.later Rights Branch, 1977; ard Council of ForestIndustries of British Columbia, 1976.

4 - 62 s beak 1

TABLE 4-18 LOCATION AND VOLUME OF HAJORDISCHARGES IN THE REGIONALSTUDY AREA

I Afton constructionnear completion Lornex recirculating Craigmont recirculating Bethlehem Copper recirculating Municipalities - Thompson River System LI Ashcroft 636.1Thompson R.iver Cache Creek 681.6 CacheCreel: C1 inton 363.5 River Bonaparte LI Karnl oops 9087.5 Thompson R'ver Savona no discharge (septic tanks) _- SpencesBridge no discharge (septic tanks) ." - Pulp & Paper Kaml oops Mi 11 189649.4 Thompson River

Source: B.C. Ministry Environment, Pollution ControlBranch, 1977. Council ofForest Industries of British Columbia, 1976

4 - 63 I beak

4.2 OFFSITE ENVIRONMENT The all weather access road proposed byB.C. Hydro to serve the plalt site and station reservoir begins at the intersection of Highway1 and tie Ash- croft road and crosses the Trachyte Hillsto the plant site followingCornwall Creek, MacLaren Creek,and Upper Medicine Creek. On the west side of the Trachyte Hills the road passes the plant site and parallels Hat Creek Valley at an elevation of approximately914 m (3,000 Ft.) then drops abruptly to the valley floorand intersects the Hat Creek roadjust south of Highway 12.

Through its length the proposed routing will cross Cornwall Creekthree times, make a single crossingat MacLaren Creek above McLean Lake and parallel both streams and Upper Medicine Creek for variable distances.

The road also crosses num?rous other small intermittent tributaries which drain into these water courses. At the time of the survey none of these small intermittent tributaries contained measurable flow. Cornwall Creek, MacLaren Creek, and Upper Medicine Creekall contained flow but none were considered suitable for supporting fish populations.

Cornwall Creek, the largest of the two major streams crossedby the .access road, originates above McLean Lakeand follows a narrow, precipitous course 1 through a steep valley to Boston Flats. Stream widths range from 0.3 to 0.5 m and depths 2 to 8 cm. Prevailing bottom substrata are small rocks and boulders. m Prior to entering Boston Flats the streamis dammed to provide domestic water to local users. Any potential fish movement above Boston, Flats inttle small stream would be precluded by a perched irrigation flume located below the dam. After entering Boston Flats, Cornwall Creek broadens slightly(0.3 to 0.7 m) but remains shallow (2 to 10 cm deep) throughout most of its length. Unstable banks consisting of sandand gravel are characteristic and little cover occurs along the stream course to reduce high summer water temperatures. Overall, Cornwall Creek does not appearsuitable to maintain fishes, however, the stream maybe inhabited in its lower reaches by small numbers of #armwater a fish including bridgelip suckersand longnose dace.

4 - 64 beak

The onlyremaining stream which contained ,a flow at the time -of th2 field survey and is crossed by theaccess road is MacLaren Creek. One of the few streams which draininto McLean Lake, this small (1.0 m wide),shallow (4.0 cm deep) streamdid not appear to be suitable for maintaining even seasonal I fisheries. BothMacLaren Creek and Cornwall Creek undoubtedly freezesolid during winterthroughout much, if not all, of theirlength. Water survey records of.Canada (Water Resoures Branch, 1974) for Cornwall Creek near Ash- croft(station No. 08LF006) for the period 1921 - 1931 indicate flowceases from October to March.

Along theupper, intermittent reaches of Medicine Creek theaccess road paral- m lels but does not come within closeproximity to thechannel. None of the stream courses crossed by theaccess road in the vicinity of the plant site containedflow at the time of the field sorvey. The outlet of Harry Lake was dry and appreciableevaporation appeared to have reduced lakesize sub- stantially.

4.3 HAT CREEK ENVIRONMENT The emphasis withinthis section of the study is towards the fish and benthic invertebrate populations of Hat Creek and the physical environment 'in which theyreside. Notwithstanding a local Hat Creek orientation, downstream sections of the BonaparteRiver are also included insofar a5 identifiableinter- relationships between the two systems may exist. 1

(a) Physical Environment Stationlocations are shown in Figure 3-2 with biological.studies conducted at each noted. The followingobservations were made to describegeneral characteristics for each station:substrate, bank vegetation and stability, depth, width,pool-riffle ratio, current and watertemperature. Criteria used to determinethese parameters are described in Section3.3 (a). Actual field

4 - 65 beak

observations are presented.in Appendix C (Basic Physiognonmyof Berlthos and Fisheries Sampling Stations). These observations form one basis for the com- pilation of the habitat profile of Hat Creek.

(i) .Habitat Profile A variety of habitats was discernible within the Hat Creek system. Substrate, flow and character of the channel and associated terrestrial systerrs varied along the horizontal section of the creek. Hat Creek’s general physiognomy displayed 17 habitat complexes designated asA, 8, ...., and Q (Figure 4-15); a descriptive account of each is presented in Table 4-19. A helicopter survey on 23 September 1976 enabled the procurement of these data. Supplenentary information was obtained during the succeeding two surveys.

.. (A) Canyon t Th? downstream-most & km of Hat Creek consistedof nine habitat complexes. This section encompassed a fan area, varied flows from slow meandering to fast and a chute shich exhibited rapid flows withan abundance of large boulders.

In six of the nine complexes, riffles were mdst abundant.In or,e area, pools predominated and in two areas, pools and riffles were equally abundent. In tnis reach of Hat Creek there appeared to be suitable spawning gravel for rainbow trout in most complexes.

Sections F and t! were the only areas that exhibitedsome degree of erosion. The abundance of deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses servedto enhance bank stability at the majority of sites.

The only natural barrier to fish within the Canyon area was chutt? the (Section l), where steep gradients end rapid currentsmay have impeded movement to

4 - 66 LENGTH FROM CONFLUENCE WITHTHE BONAPARTE RIVER IN KILOMETEES

~-- TABLE 4-19

GENEFUIL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFILESECTIONS WITHIN HAT CREEK

PROFILE SECTION

Parameter A B C 0 E

KI lometers 0.0 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.8 1.8 - 4.5 4.5 - 4.7 4.7 - 5.8

Substrates Cobbles,pebbles Cobbles,pebbles Boulders,cobbles Silt, sand, sand, silt, pebbles pebbles pebbles

P Pool:Riffte (8)’ 30:70 20:80 20:80 go: 10 50: 50 I

0, Banks Stable Stable Rocky, stable Stable Stable m RlparlanVegetation Deciduoustrees Deci duous t rees , Deciduoustrees Grasses,shrubs Grasses,shrubs shrubs

Barrlers - Man made dams, Beaver dams beaver dams

N ote Statlon Note 5 Mostpools on un- Canyon-like. 2-5% currentslow Manydams, large dercutsand under coveredby fallen pools t Tees trees

! Incorporated in pool percentagesare areas of deepand shallow slow flows. TABLE 4-19 Cont'd.

GEE!ERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFILESECTIONS WITHIN HAT CREEK

PROFILE SECTION

Parameter F G H I J

Kilometers 5.8 - 6.2 6.2 - 6.3 6.3 - 6.5 6.5 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.7

Substrates Silt, pebbles, Boulders Sand, cobblesBoulders Sand, silt, cobb 1 es pebbles

P Poo1:RifFles (8)' 20:80 10:90 50:50 5:75 80 :20 I o, Banks Stable with some Stable Some e ros ion Rocky, stable Stable with some W erosionon corner highunstable banks dirt cliffs.

Riparian Shrubs,deciduous Dec i duous Grasses,shrubs Deciduoustrees Deciduoustrees, Vegetation t Tees, sedges trees,shrubs shrubs shrubs,grass

Barriers Many beaver dams Possiblysteep Beaver dams Possiblysteep Beaver dams gradient gradient

Nole Unstable mud bank current currentpools Large Meadow areas, atrefuse pile fast with dams fast poolsand dams

Incorporated in poolpercentages are areas of deep and shallow slow flows. TABLE 4-19 Cont'd. GENERAL CPPRACTERISTICS OF PROFILE SECTIONS WITHIN HATCREEK

PROFILE SECTION

Parameter K L M ti 0 P Q

Kilometer 10.7 - 13.0 - i5:O 15.0 - 22.4 - 25.5 25.5 - 31.0 31.0 - 40.0 >40.0

Subs traPes Cobbles,sand, Sand, cobbles Sand, cobbles, Cobbles, Silt, sand, Sllt, sand, Sand, silt, s i 1 t, boulders pebbles pebbles pebbles, some cobbles cobbles cobbles

Pool:Ri.ffle 30:70 10:90 5:95 5:95 10:90' 40:60 80 :20 (%)' Banks Unstabledirt Stable Unstabledirt -Unstable slid- Relatively Relatively Relatively I and rock banksing at banks stable stable stable v upperend 0 Rlparian Oeci duous Grasses, Deciduous Smalldecidu- Heavy deci du- Grass,smal I Coniferous Vegetation trees,grasses shrubs trees,grass, ous bushes ous bushes trees,trees de- c i duous shrubsand trees

B arriers BeaverBarriers dams - Beaver dams Beaver dam Beaver dams Beaver dams beaverponds-

Note Many dams, some slash. meadow 1 ike , Occasionally Much slash, Marshy, fish Largepools, pools, rif- currentslow some fast braiding over fishrising in rising,passes marshy, fish fies, much braided and current,fish gravel fens; pools; throughfarms, rising downfall marshyand rising in Station a stat ion IU, aigae,aiver- slash; pools , much 11,12, 13, sioncanals; Station 6 variety from 14, 14A Station 15 meadow to fast current;Station 7

I incorporatedin pool percentages are areas of deepand shallow slow flows. beak

areas above this point. Numerous beaver damsand man-made dams were also present which may prevent fish movement. Many of thelarger beaver dams createdlarge pools which retardedflows and createdextensive meanders in thesesections ofHat Creek.

(B) Meander From Km 8 to approximately Km 22.5, a primarily meandering profile existed in Hat Creek. Pools were abundant onlyin Section J, with riffleireas domin- antin the remainingfour sections. The sections encompassed by the first meander consisted of soil banks that were primarily unstable and lc~osely bound. Although deciduousvegetation was present,areas of steepgradient precludedthe growth of stabilizing flora. Beaver dams were also abundant in this area and could possiblylimit fish movement. There appeared to be good spawning gravelin this reach of Hat Creek. One fish, approximately 150 - 200 mm in length, was seen in a beaver pond approximately 4 km downstream of Station 7 duringthe June helicoptersurvey. Other fish withlengths estimated at 100 - 250 mm were observed about two to three km downstream of Station 7 during the June flight.

(C) Incised and Transitional The incised - transitionalsections of Hat Creek extended from approximately Km 22.5 to Km 29. Areas within this span were primarilyriffles w.th some smallpools. The incisedsections consisted principly of smalldeciduous bushes with thetransitional section supporting dense growth ofdeciduous bushes. An abundance of deadfall was alsopresent. There appeared to be good spawning gravelin this reach of stream. Beaver dams located just downstream of Station 10 could possiblylimit fish movement. Some turhidity was noted in upper reaches of thissection of Hat Creek and appeared due to discharges from Anderson Creek.

4 - 71 beak

(D) Meanderand Headwaters From Km 29 to approximately Km 55 (Section P) Hat Creek passes throughfarm- land. Often high concentrations of algae were evident below stockcorrals and pasture,suggesting some localizednutrient enrichment. Sand and silt was particularly abundant further upstream (Section Q) where approximately 80 % of the system consisted of pools. Bankswere stable withdeciduous vegetationgradually giving way to predominantlyconiferous trees. Large pools,resulting from extensive beaver darning, were noted in upper areas ofHat Creek. Many were observed to support fish during both the September and June helicopterflights. Good spawning gravelsoccurred intermittently in this reach of Hat Creek. Rainbow Trout spawning areas have beer1 described as consisting of gravel orsmall rubblein a riffle,often located upstream of a pool (Scott and Crossman,1973; Baxter andSimon, 1970).

From its confluence with the BonaparteRiver to its headwaters, Hat Creek exemplified both rapid and subtle changes incharacter. Riffle areas were dominant comprisingapproximately 68 % of thesystem, with pools 3:; %. Beaver damswere veryabundant.

Evidence of man’s intervention in the Hat Creek system was limited to darns in the Canyon area, flumes for irrigation and theeffects of nutrient addition into freshwafer systems inthe upper sections of Hat Creek.

;” Information on tWiapar-- dalsogathered during helicopter flights. Fish habitat appearedvery good from Station 1 upriver to the moutt of Hat Creek and consisted of riffles, runs and pools. Fish were observec intermittently and spawning gravelregularly in this reach of river. Below Station 1, thegradient of theriver increased and fish habitat appeared tc be of lower quality.

(ii) Water Quality Table 4-20summarizes select-chemicalparameters for five stations in Ha: Creek extending from Station 14 in UpperHat Creek to Station 5 in LowerHat

4 - 72 TABLE 4-20

WATER QUALITV FOR SELECTPARAMETERS UlTHiN HAT CREEK STATIOtl 14 10 6 5 Parameter'Sept. 76 May 77 Sept. 76 Nay 77 Sept. 76 ICY 17 Sept. 75 May 77 Sept. 76 Hay 17 "

To tal KJeldahl NitrogenKJeldahl Total 0.25 e 0.23 0.22 0.310.12 0.28 0.24 0. I2 0.40 To tal Orthophosphate Total Phosphorus 0.09 0.04 0.00 I 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.05 Total (asAlkalinlty CaCO,) -4 215 220 232 224 237 211 247 248 254 W 1'11 8.3 8.2 8.4 8.48.4 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.5 Conductfvlty' 480 500 470 510 480 480 470 -540 490 Suspended Sollds 20 2 6 4 I7 E 4 1 3 Dissolved Solids 34340 341347 354 3596 327345 333 Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 10.5 9.8 10.2 9.: 9.6 9.5 -. 10.3 10.2 (96)' (102) (95) (101) (80) (77) (97) (100) (101)

"" "

' Values In mgfl unlerolherwise staled unhonlcm P 25'C 1 % rl!,,n,in" I beak I * Creek. Two sampling periods, September 1976 and May 1977, are presented. A comprehensive analysis of the water quality characteristics of Hat Creek I is presented in a separate report - Hat Creek Project: iydrology Study.

I Nutrients in theform of organic nitrogen and orthophosphate phosphorus appeared to be relatively consistent between sampling periods as well as along the longitudinal axis of Hat Creek. The exception to this generality is Kjeldahl nitrogen which was 0.40 mg/l at Station 5 in May 1977 (Table 4-20). Organic nitrogen compounds include a variety of decomposition products ranging . from proteins to the methylamines. The presence of livestock may have in- fluenced an accumulative effect whereby concentrations of organic nitrogen during run off periods in spring were highest at the farthest downstream station. Throughout much of the creek valley, cattle and other livestock were permitted to graze. The creek periodically flows through fenced corrals in the Upper Hat Creek area. With the spring run off, elevated nutrient levels in the system may be expected. The relatively dense concentrations of peri-. phytic algae in the vicinity of Stations 5 and 6 may be a direct result of this periodic elevation in nitrogen. In certain areas of Lower Hat Creek, dense growths of algae were noted. The two most abundant algae were Rhizoclonium sp. (a green algae) and . Nostoc sp. (a blue-green algae). Rhizoclonium formed long, stringy, sometimes rope-like strands. Nostocwhich is another relatively cosmopolitan algae, is noted for forming shelving or bracket-like growths on the downstream side of stones. This phenomenon was observed in Lower Hat Creek. Diatoms were also recorded near Stations 5 and 6, however, Rhizoclonilrm and Nostoc were the most dominant genera.

In Upper Hat Creek (Station 15), Tribonema sp. (a golden algae) appeared in greatest abundance. Diatoms were also present. Golden algae are common in cool springs and pools. There appeared to be no direct relationship between chemical composition of the Upper Hat creek system and algal composition.

4 - 74 r. beak

1 EnvironmentBiological (b) The. approach topresenting the biological conditions of the Hat Creeksystem

I orientedis towards thefish populations therein. Benthic invertebrates are thereforediscussed insofar a; theirimportance to fish asfood organisms. In a'dditionhowever, benthic organisms, as a resultof their sessile nature, tendto form communities in response to ambient conditions, both in a spatial andtemporal sense. Thus, benthic community associations are discussed in terms Df systemdiversity, complexity @d overallstability.

(i)Fish Populations

(A) SpeciesComposition and Relative Abundance

A.list of fish species and their numbers co7lected in HatCreek and the Bon- aparteRiver stations during September 1976, June1977 and August 1977 surveys is.presented in Table 4-21

BonaparteRiver ri A total of 273' specimensrepresenting seven species were collectec in the 'I BonaparteRiver. Longnose dace were the dominant species (150 inc!ividuals) followed by bridgelipsucker (66), leoparddace (26) and rainbowtrout (19). Speciespresent in smaller numberswere redsideshiner (.6 ) mourtain white-

I fish ( 6 ), andbrook trout ( 1 ).

Totalcatch andspecies by month were 104 individuals and sevenspecies in September1976, 63 individuals and sixspecies in June1977, and 106 individuals and fourspecies in August 1977. The threemost abundant spwies during eachsurvey were longnose dace (571, bridgelip sucker (26) andleclpard dace (E) in September1976, longnose dace (23), leoparddace (17) and tlridgelip m -sucker(9) in June1977, and longnose dace (70), bridgelip sucker (31) and rainbowtrout (3) in August1977.

4 - 75 TAULE 4-21 .. llAT CRCEI: - SPCClCS COEiI'fl5ITtON All!) IlCLATIVE AilllNOAlKE STATlOil

CorqyarteRiver "" Lower Hat Creek Uppy&Cyi?ek Sjlecics Hon- tll 1234 567---__- IO 14 14A 15 Total SoZurrZi,;u:: jiintimtlth Septenber 0010 on0 0 0 0 0 1 Brook trout , June 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0 Auqust 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0

,%,7t!C, !l<,i,d,!,~,.i September 520019 29 19 38 62 30 62I 38 20 2 32 Hainbo:~(rout June 1130 13 20 30 : 33 31 13 40 197 August 1020 0 25 26 60 33 17 9 101 I'tvnq,iwn ,.);I 1 imn::otri Scptemher 0220 000 0 1 1 0 6 Mountain whi Lcfish June 0010 0. 0 3 1 0 1 0 6 Augur t IO00 300 0 0 0 0 4 1'~7l":~l~!~~~<:~...lirr.:L:,,,iU3 Se,rten,ber 712 2 5 I8 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 l;ridqel ill suci.~~ JWW 0O')O 000 0 0 0 0 9 August 021 9 1 400 0 0 0 0 35

liiclt,J,.d~;onilmhaltcatus September 0100 000 0 0 0 0 1 Redsideshiner June 0014 000 0 0 0 0 5 nugust 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0 lll,i8,~~.r,l.l>lJ::fi2Zm1un September 2312 000 0 0 0 0 0 Lcqmrd dace JWC 013 0 1 200 0 0 0 0 19 Augur t 0100 on0 0 0 0 0 1 Elti~fi4Lh~cmtnnrclna September 19 12 3 23 000 0 0 0 0 57 Longnose dace June 4919 600 0 0 0 n 29 August 4.40 23 3 0 0 ,o 0 0 0 0 70

TOTAL September 32 33 9 30 47 19 19 30 63 . 31 28 349 June 8 23 15 I7 3321 2n 30 32 14 40 265 August 62 6 34 4 15 25 26 60 33 I7 9 291

I beak

Because of difficultyin sampling swift deep areas of the Bonaparte, numbers of fishcollected may not be indicative of actual numbers present. For example, largefish which appeared to be rainbow trout were observedin the river during helicoptersurveys, but were not collected in the field. However, species composition is probablyrepresentative of thatactually ocw-ring in the Bonaparte.

Hat Creek Hat Creek exhibited fewer species and a different order of abundance compared tothe BonaparteRiver. A total of 632 specimens representingfive species was collected in Hat Creek. Rainbow trout were clearlythe dominart species. .(592individuals), particularly upstream of Station 5. Theywere f'ollowed by bridgelipsucker (22), mountain whitefish (10). longnosedace (E) and .leopard dace (2).

Rainbow trout were taken at each station during each survey. A total of 225 was capturedin September 1976, 189 in June 1977, and178 in August 1977. Mountain whitefish were captured at all Hat Creek stations,except 5 and 15, during the course of thestudy. They appeared to be distributed throughout most ofHat Creek althoughin much smaller numbers than rainbow trout.

Bridgelipsucker, longnose dace and leoparddace, which were dominant in the Bonaparte, were taken only at the downstreammost station(Station ti) in Hat Creek. Theirapparent restriction to lower reaches of thecreek ma)' be due to factors such asunsuitable habitat further upstream or barriers (beaver dams) which preventedmigration of thesespecies further upstream.

Hat Creek Tributaries Within the studyarea tributwies to Hat Creek appeared to provide little suitable fishhabitat. Electroshocking in the lower 10 m of Medicine Creek yielded four rainbow trout in September 1976, ten rainbow trout in June 1977,

4 77 I - .and two rainbow trout in August 1977. Upstream movement of fish bsyond this - point appeared restricted by a barrierabout 2 m high. A local rancher stated fish (presumablyrainbow trout) occurfurther upstieam in Medicine Creek. .Anderson and Ambusten Creeks exhibited no signs of fishlife. During the June 1977 and August 1977 surveys,all water hadbeen diverted fro3 Ambusten m Creek forirrigation. Finney and Unnamed Creeks exhibitedlittle or no flow duringeach survey and no sign of fishlife. Overall, potential fish habitat in the above tributaries appeared negligible compared to thatexisting in HatCreek.

I -Lakes I- No fish were collectedin Finney Lake.Nane were observed during '/isual examination of shore and deeperwaters in September 1976. A localrancher statedthat the lake was stocked in the past but frozesolid several years laterresulting in winterkill. B.C. Fish and Wildljfe Branch personnel at

' Kamloops st'ated Finney Lake, aswell as AleGceLake locatedabout 3.2 Km (2.0 miles) west, have suyortedfish in the past and would probablyagain in lthe future (S.J. McDonald, pers. comm.). 1111.

Visualexamination ofGoose/Fish Hook Lake in September 1976,,forsigns of .I fish life. suchas young in or near aquatic vegetation and rises.. or wakes, indicated no fish present.Alkzline deposits were noted along the' shoreline. Y Subsequentmeasuremmt revEa1ed a pH 079.9.

(8) DensityEstimates and TopographicalVariation Densityestimates for total numbersof fish at each stationwe pr.esenied

I in Append'ix D, Table D-1. Densities were determined forlength of stream 2 shocked (fish/m),surface area of stream shocked (fish/m ) and ierlgth of time shocked(fish/min.). Actual-length, surface area and time ;hocked during eachsurvey are shown in Appendix D, Table 0-2. Trends anong stai:ions for each- typo of estimateare generally similar within a sampling per.,od. Hwever, to avoidbizs resulting frcm variationin the amount of timenece!;sary to

/-. 4 - 78 .. beak

shock different stations (depending on their relativeease or difficulty) and the same station (increased familiarity with station), density estimates discussed below includeonly those for fish/m and fish/m 2 . These data are depictedgraphically in Figure 4-16.

Hat Creek 2 Densitiesfor both fish/m and fish/m were generallyhigher at Upper (Stations 7, 10, 14, 14A) than Lower (Stations 5, 6, 7) Hat Creek sites. During each sampling period,densities generally increased from Station 5 upstream to Stations 10 or 14, then declined or remained about the same further upstream throughStation 15. The low densities atStation 15 in September 1976, and August 1977, occurred duri-ng periods when water had been diverted for irrigation. Fishpresent were concentrated in remainingpools. Densities at Station 15 during June 1977, when flowsappeared normal, areprobably most representative of densities in this ,reach of stream.

There was no pattern of consistently high or low densitiesat any s.:ation during a given month. In September 1976, maximum densities for fisll/m (1.22) and fish/m(0.26) 2 occurred at Station 14 while minimum values were noted at Station 6 (0.26 fish/m, 0.04 fish/m 2 ). In June 1977, maximum densities for fish/m(0.75) and fish/m(0.25) 2 occurred at Stations 10 and 15, respectively; minimum densities during June occurred ai Station 5 (0.28 fishh, 0.04 fish/m*). In August 1977, maximum densities were observed atZtation 10 (1.32 fish/m, 0.38 fish/m 2 ); minimum values during this month for fish/m (0.13) and fish/m 2 (0.04) occurred at Stations 15 and 5, respectively.

Densityestimates for rainbow trout in Hat Creek arenearly identical to values fortotal fish density. An exceptionoccurred at Station 5 where trout com- prisedonly 62% of the catch in both September 1976and June 1977 ani 53% of the catchin August1977. At stationsfurther upstream, rainbow trout comprised 91 - 100% of thecatch each month.

4 - 79 .

-SEPTEMBEF:, 1976

”” JUNE, 1977 *.*...... ~ %...... f I.50 ...... AUGUST, 1977 ... E 1.25 \ X -E 1.00 E 0.75 5 2 W a 0.50

0.25

, 1 1 I t 4 6 I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 IO I4 14A 15 STATION -SEPTEMBEil, 1976 A5 0 ”- - JUNE, 1977 ...... AUGUST. 19 77 .... :...... 1.

I , I I I 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 IO 14 14A 15 STATION

I location: Hat Creekand Bdaparte River stations I- periods: Septembar 28-30, 1976; June 14-16, 1977; August 3-5, 1977 I.

.. figure 4.16 TOTAL FISH DENSITY FOR LENGTH ANDSURFACE AREA OF STREAMS ELECTROSHOCKED beak

Higherdensities of rainbow trout in Upper than Lower HatCreek may be related tothe variety and qualityof habitat; Stations 10, 14,14A and 15 appeared toprovide an abundance of.fish cover.Stations 10 and 14 consistedof inter- mittentpool and riffle areas, as didStation 15 during normal flowconditions (June1977). Station 14Awas a beaver pond. Stations 6 and 7 in Lower Hat Creekconsisted primarily of riffles and a few pools with limited fish cover. Station 5 exhibited primarily shallow riffles.

BonaparteRiver

Densitiesin the Bonaparte River generally varied betweenmonths ani stations with no clearpatterns evident. The leastvariation in density OCCJrred at Station 3 where valuesranged from 0.24 - 0.63 fish/m and 0.06 - 0.18 fish/m 2 2 duringthe three surveys. Maximum densitiesfor fish/m (0.98) and .Fish/m (0.32)occurred in.September 1976 atStation 4. Minimum densities ,For fish/m 2 (0.15) and fish/m(0.02) occurred in .August 1977 atStations 4 and 1, respec-

I- tively.

* Longnosedace, bridgelipsucker and leopard dacewere generallythe most dominantspecies. Rainbow trout nevercomprised more than 2Mof the catch atStations 2 and 3, and were notcollected at Station 4. At Station 1, rainbow c troutconstituted 15% ofthe catch in September 1976, 50% in June 1977 and 17% in August 1977.

(ii) Age & Growth Characteristics

(A) Length-Frequency Distribution Rainbow trout

Length-frequencyhistograms of rainbow trout. are presented by station and II samplingperiod in Figure 4-17. Dataare presented intabular form in Appen- dix D Tables D-3 to D-5. Individualtotal lengths during each samplingperiod

4 - 81 L I

n=19 30 IS

12 18 24 18 24

6 12 18 24

n=30

6 12 18 24

11-13

IS 6 I2 18 24 -

IS In 6 12 18

fiaure 4.17 LKNGTW - FREQUENCYHISTOGRAM FOR RAINBOWTROUT loca!ion: Hat Creek and 9onaparte Riverstations . periods: September 28-30, 1976; June 14-16; 1977; Augusl 3-5, 1977 (eoch length interval represenls 2 cm) beak

ranged from 31 mn atStation 15 to 253 mm. atStation 14A in September 1976, 35 mm atStation 2 to 255 mm at Station 10 in June 1977, and 32 m at Station 7 to 241 mn at Station 14 in August1977.

The presence of small sized rainbow troutat each Hat Creek statiorin Sept- ember 1976, suggests spawning occursthroughout the study area. Scale analysis showed most fishless than about 95 mm collected during this nlonth were young-of-the-year (1976 year-class).Increased lengths of this age group from September 1976 through June 1977 (lengths to approximately 105 m) and August 1977 (lengths to approximately 125 mm) represent growth of the 1976 yearclass over a 10 - 11 month period. Growth during this periodappears similar to that reported by Larkin et ai:,','(1957) for Rainbow Trout inBritish Columbia lakes. The histograms do not clearlyillustrate growth of older age groups of fishin Hat Creek, except possibly for the 1975 yearclass (age 1+ fish in 1976 a4 age 2+ fish in1977). The occurrence of fishless than 60 mm totallength at Stations 5, .5, 7 and 10 in August 1977, represents recruitment of the 1977 year-class to thefish- ery.Scale analyses showed these fish were young-of-the-year. The absence of young from Stations 14, 14A and 15 in August 1977, suggeststhat in 1977 spawning occurredlater or growth of young was lessrapid at these stations thanfurther 'downstream in Hat Creek. Collection of small-sized yotrng at Stations 14, 14A and 15 in September, 1976, suggests spawning occurs in this reach of Hat Creek.

At BonaparteRiver Stations 1, 2 and 3, youngfrom the 1077 yearcliss were firstcollected in June 1977, approximately on? month earlier than in Hat Creek. These individuals are represented in thehistograms by specimens less than 60 mm totallength. Their ppesence indicatesthat in 1977 rainbow trout spawned earlier or younggrew more quicklyin the river than in the creek.

4 - 53 beak

Examiniationof the histogramsreveals that, in general, larger fish were. .' betterrepresented and comprised a greaterproportion of the catc:?in Upper (Stations 10, 14, 14A and 15)than Lower (Stations 5, 6 and 7) Hat Creek. This was especiallynoticeable during the September 1976and June 1977 surveys The nearabsence of larger trout from BonaparteRiver collectionsprobably resulted from sampling difficulties described above. The absenceof fish largerthan 100 m atStation 15 in August 1977was probably related to the diversion of water from thisstation for irrigation. Therefore, length- frequencydistributions for this reach of stream areprobably bes? represented by thosefor September 1976 or June 1977 ratherthan Augus,: 1977.

General differencesin stream habitat may account forvariation it; lerigth- w 'frequencydistributions of rainbow trout. UpperHat Creek appear!; to .provide adequate riffleareas which serve as spawning grounds foradults (dnd nursery W areas for young. This sectionalso contains poolswith deeper, slower moving water which provide cover foradults. Lower' Hat Creek has a relatively greaterproportion of riffles and a lesserproportion of pools wh.ich.may account-forthe predominance of small rainbow trout and paucity of larger specimens.This area appears to bean importantnursery area for young, 1 many of which were capturednear the stream-edge inshallow water., Fhis ./' -section may also bean important spawning ground for adultsmigrating up- L stream from the Bonaparte as well asthose resident to Lower Hat Creeg

(I With respectpreviousto Hat Creek investigations, B.C. Research ilnd Dolmage Campbell (1975) reportedthat many pools and slowmoving flats in Hat Creek provide good fishhabitat. They also noted Hat Creek as exhibiting good z rainbow trout spawning potential.Potential spawning grounds (riffleareas) rere observedin Upper Hat Creek, but were more numerous inareas further I downstream. Studies by the B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, KamlooFls (Holman, 1974) on July 4 and 5, 1974, showed a good spawning area was locatedin the

I generalvicin.ity or just upstream of Station 7 of thisstudy. Twct pajrs of spawning rainbow trout were also observed in UpperHat Creek. In the

Y -.

4 - 84 a beak - m

1974 survey,a total of69 rainbow trout with lengths from 50 - 300 mm were taken in Medicine Creek and a second tributary approximately 4.8 E:m downstream. Provincialpersonnel concluded a good population of rainbow trout probablyexisted in Hat Creek.

Mountain Whitefish Total lengths of mountain whitefishcollected during thethree surveys ranged from 79 - 354 mm. Scaleanalyses revealed ages werefrom O+ to 5+ years. Totallength of specimens taken in September 1976 were 97 and 113 mm at Station 2, 103 and 109 mm atStation 3, 177mm at Station 14 and9;' mn at Station 14A.The large and small fishcaptured at Stations 14 and 14A were ages 1+ and 0+, respectively. Although scale samples were not taken from other specimens collectedin September 1976, theirlengths indicat.ed they were age O+ fish.

During the June 1977 survey,total lengths and ages of whitefishcollected were 133 mm (age 1+) atStation 3,314 mn (age 4+), 352 mm (age 51.) and354 mm (age 4+) atStation 7,.290 mm (age 4+) atStation 10, and116 nlm (scales not sampled but probably age 1+) at Station 14A. Lengths of mount,ain white- fishcaptured in Augustwere 198 mm (age 1+) atStation 1 and 78,89 and 98 m (all age 0+) at Station 5. The threelarge whitefish captwed at Station 7 in June 1977 were all taken from a slow run about 4 m Icing, 2 m wideand 1 m deep.

Data reflect the general growth of the 1976 yearclass (age O+ fish in Sept- .. ember 1976, age 1+ fishin June 1977 and August 1977) over an approximate 10 to 11 month period. The age O+ fishcaptured in August1977 (lengths

I 79of - 98 mm) representrecruitment of the 1977 yearclass to the fishery. The age-sizerelationship for mountain whitefishcollected in this study concurswith data presented by Northcote (in Scott and Crossman, 1973). (I Northcote also reportedsize overlaps among fish from olderyear classes similar to that observed for age 4+ and 5+ fish' in Hat Creek. RI

*I 4 - a5 1 beak

Brook Trout Totallength of the single brook trout taken at Station.3 in September 1976 was 114 mm. Comparisonof this to lengthranges presented by Sc0t.t and Cross-

I man (1973) indicate it wasan age 1+ fish.Verification was accomplished by scaleanalysis. Using a directproportion relationship, total length of this specimen at time of first annulusformation was73 mm, a b.alue simi- I lar to that for rainbow trout collectedin this study.

Bridgelip Sucker

I Length-frequencyhistograms forbridgelip sucker captured .in the E’onaparte Riverare shown inFigure 4-18. Data are presentedin tabular form in App-

It endix D Table 0-6. Total lengths of bridgelip sucker collected in the Bona- parte varied from 20 - 103 nun in September 1976, 121 - 184 mm in Lune 1977, and 14 - 74 mm in August 1977. U

- Most bridgelipsuckers captured in September 1976 were probably young-of- m the-year (1976 year-class), assuming growth inthe Bonaparte issimilar to that in Idaho where young attainlengths of 40 to 80 mm at the end of their

I first summer (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Specimens taken in June 1977 were all spawning adults and included one female (184 mm) and eight males (121 : - 180 nun). Most fish captured in August 1977, approximately 1.5 months after spawning adults had been collected, were probably youngfrom the1977,year class. Largerspecimens captured during August may have been age 1+ fish.

Totallengths of bridgelipsucker captured in Hat Creek were 28 - 171 mn in September’ 1976 and 57 - 63 mm in August 1977.. None were collectedin June 1977. Sixteen of the 18 individuals takenin September 1976 lad lengths of28 - 34 mm. The two remaining specimens were a male (171 mn) a;ld female (160 mm), and may have spawned the young collected at thisstation. Lengths of individualscaptured in August 1977 suggest they wereage 1+ fijh sinc” specimesn collected in September of the previousyear were 23 - 35 mn smaller.

4 - 86 1 . my

zwV I, 1 ..i50.) SEPTEMBER, 1976 -s a n =26 LL 25

0 40 80 120 160 200 TOTAL LENGTH (mm)

$50W K LL . 25

40 80 120 160 200 TOTAL LENGTH (mrn)

5 75 w2 loo1.

50 AUGUST, 1977 k! n=3 LL ' 25

40 80 I20 IkO 200 TOTALLENGTH (mm)

location:Bonaparte River (each lengthinterval represents IO rnrn) Period: Septankr 28-30, 1976; June 14-16, 1977; August 34, 1977

figure 4 0 18 LENGTH - FREQUENCY HISTOGRAMS FOR BRIDGELIPSUCKER beak

Longnose Dace Length-frequencyhistograms for longnosedace collected in the Bonaparte Riverare shown in Figure 4-19.Data arepresented in tabular form in Appen- . dix D Table D-7. Totallengths varied from 21 - 96 mm in Septembv 1976, 23 - 99 nun in June 1977, and 15 - 98nm in August1977. The 98 mm specimen taken in August1977 was a spentfemale.

Data indicatedat least several year classes of longnosedace were captured in the Bonaparteeach sampling period. Kuehn (inScott and Crossman, 1973) reportedtotal lengths of longnosedace in Minnesota waters increased from 48 mm at age 1 to 99 mm at age 5. Fishwith lengths less than 30 mm captured in August were probablyyoung,from the 1977 yearclass. Most spe:imens with lengthsless thanapproximately 50 mm, takenin' June, probably re~resented the 1976 yearclass.

Totallengths of longnosedace collectedat Station 5 (HatCreek) in June 1977 were 81 - 110 nun. Four of thesix specimens were ripeadult males, indicating longnosedace spawn inthis reach of thecreek. Approximately 75 longnosedace with lengths of about 30 - 40 mm were captured il aseine haulimmediately upstream from Station 5 in August1977. These w'zre probably young-of-the-year.

Leopard Dace Totallengths of1 leoparddace captured in the BonaparteRiver were 39 - 70 mm in September 1976 (8 specimens) and 30 - 69 mn in June (17 specimens). The single specimen takenin August1977 was64 mm. Based on studies by Gee and Northcote (in Scott andCrossman, 1973),smallest fish captured in September 1976 and June were probably age 2+ or 3+.

Lengths of two leopard dace collectedat Hat Creek Station 5 in hne 1977 were30 and 33 mm. Thesewere probably age 1+ fish.

4 - aa SEPTEMBER, 1976 .n =56

TOTALLENGTH (mml

w 3 50 JUNE , 1977 a LL n= 23 25

I I 20 40 TOTALLENGTH (mm)

AUGUST, 1977 n =70

20 4'0 . 0b Id0 TOTALLENGTH (mm)

location : BonaparteRiver (each length inlervolrepresents IC'mm) periods: September 28-30, 1976; June 14-16, 1977; August 3-5, 1'377 figure 4.19 LENGTH - FREQUENCYHISTOGRAMS m FOR LONGNOSE DACE beak

Redside Shiner I .. The singleredside shiner captured in the Bonaparte River in September had a totallength of 81 inn. Lengths of five specimenstaken in the Bonaparte in August ranged from 78 - 104 mm; all were ripeadult males. Based on length data presented by Scott and Crossman (1973) forBritish Columbia, ages of these fish were probably from 2+ to 4+.

(B) Back-Calculated Lengths Lengths of various ages of rainbow trout atscale annulusformation were determined by back-calculation and used to comparegrowth of differentyear classes in Hat Creek.

Rainbow trout collectedat Stations 5, 6, 7,10 and 14 forscale analyses were used incalculations since they represented a wide range in fishsizes. Linearregression was used to compare fish length-scaleradius relationships for September 1976, June 1977, and August1977 (Rounsefell and Everhart, 1966; Steel and Torrie, 1960).Regression lines for thethree monthswere:

September: total length (mm) = 4.803 + 5.855 scaleradius; June: totallength (m) = 0.382 + 6.297 scaleradius; and August total length (mm) - 16.738 + 5.560 scale radius.

Values for scaleradii were given in INII aftermagnification at 45x. Corre- lations between totallength and scaleradius were 0.921, 0.896 md 0.903, respectively, Sample sizesfor the three monthswere 77, 97 and 81 fish, respectively.

Analysis of variance was used to test whethera linearregression adequately describedthe relationship for each month (Steel and Torrie, 1960). The simpleregression modelwas found to describethe dependence of length on

4 - 90 scale radius sufficiently well forall data sets. Analyses of variance r indicatedthat the relationship between scale radius and total length did not deviate significantly from linearity'(September1976: F= z.29, II df = 1,74; June 1977: F = 0.85, df = 1,94; August 1977:F = 4.61, df = 1,78; all a.01).In each case accounted for at least 80% of the lensth

:I variability.

Analysis of variance was then used to test whether the three regression lines I were derived from samples estimating populations which had equal slopes. The regre sion coefficientswere found to be homogeneous (F = 1.5:; df = 1 2,249; 6<;:OS). ma The three population regressions were found to be identical (equali r- cepts as well as slopes) and thus coincide (F = 1.56, df = 2,249; as,. * Data sets were thus pooled and one best estimate of the relationst,ip between 1 length and .scale radius obtained was:

* ,.. totallength (m) = 5.571 + 5.979 scaleradius.

The correlation coefficient was0.908. Individual total lengths at each annulus were detbrmined from measurements along the anterior scale radius and calculatedby the formula:

where: ln = length of fish when annulus "n" was formed; C = correction factor for length of fish at scale formation (5.571 m) ; Sn = length of scale from focus to annulus "n"; 5 = length of scale from focus to margin; and 1 = length of fish at time of capture (Ricker, 1971).

4 - 91 beak

Mean back-calculatedtotal lengths and ranges of all rainbowtrout collected in HatCreek forscale analysesare shown in Table 4-22. Mean to1:al lengths at age 1 indicated good agreementbetween yearclasses. Values rangedfrom 61 mn forthe 1973 yearclass to 69 nun forthe 1975 yearclass. Considerable variation was noted among individuallengths within the 1973-1976 yearclasses ('from40 to 68 mn) as compared to the twoprevious year classes (variation of 15 and 25 mm). Mean lengthsat age 2 were similar among year c'lasses, rangingfrom 103 mn for the 1973 yearclass to 110 mm for the 197'1 yearclass. Variation among individuallengths within a yearclass was from 39 to 63 mm. Relativelylarge fluctuations. (from 58 to 62 mm) were againnoted among individuallengths within a yearclass. Mean lengths at age 4 ranged from 169 mm forthe 1973 yearclass to 179 m forthe 1971 yearclass. Variation among individuallengths within a yearclass was from 50 to 63 mm..,Mean lengthsat age 5 were 193 m for the 1972 yearclass and203 mm for the 1971 yearclass. Individual lengths varied 35 mm forthe 1972 year CliiSS and 44 m forthe 1971 yearclass. Mean lengthof age 5 fish,the o'ldest age groupcollected, was 225 mm. Individuallengths varied 49 mm.

In sumnary, weighted mean back-calculatedtotal lengths were 64 mrl at age 1, 108 m at age 2, 143 mm at age3, 172 m at age 4, 197 nun at a!ge 5 and 225 mm at age 6. The general similarity of mean lengthsat a given age for thevarious year classes suggests factors governing growth'of rainbow trout in HatCreek have remained relatively constant the past four or f.iveyears. Factorsaffecting variation in individual growth also appeared to have remained relativelyconstant. The widerange inindividual lengths of age 1 fish suggeststhat length differences observed in these and olderfish may be largely due to their being spawned over an extendedperiod of time as well as variationin individual growth rates during the first year of life.

4 - 92 ,

TABLE 4-22 MEAlJ BACK CALCULATED TOTAL LEllGTPlS AND RANGES FOR RAINGOU TROUT III HAT CREEK

Age Annulus (Year Class) 4 3 1 2 5 6

I x 63 (1976) r 40-98 n 92 I1 x 69 109 (1975) r 82-12645-106 46 29n 46 111 x 64 109 144 (1 974) r 43-1 11 .81-144 108-170 39 39n 39 27 P 1v Tc I 61 103 140 169 ( 1973) r 39-79 88-131 115-173 139-198 wu) n 20 20 20 15 V x 63 1 08 144193 172 (1 972) r 54-79 88-127 114-172 143-206177-212 n 14 14 9 14 14 VI x 65 110 141 179 203 225 (1971) r 59-74 83-130 106-164 148-198 177-221 195-244 n 5 5 5 5 5 4 Weighted mean calculated length (mn) 108 64 143197 172 225

Weighted mean increment (mn) 64 44 35 29 25 28 Comparison of the above age-lengthdata to values for British Columbia lakes ill (Larkin et a2,,1957)indicates that Hat Creek fish age 2 and older are relatively slow-growing. However, there is no indicationthat they may be stunted. Growth rates of rainbow trout in Hat Creek may well be typical of similar- sizedstreams in interiorBritish Columbia.

Back-calculatedlengths of male and female rainbow troutcollectec in Hat Creek were also determined andcompared for growth differences. Pean total lengths and rangesare.presented in Tables 4-23 (males) and4-24 (females). The correctionfactor 5.571 mn, whichwas used to back-calculatelengths

I of totalfish (Table 4-22), was used to determinelengths for each sex. Thisvalue was felt to best estimate the correcfionfactor for males and .. femalessince it was derived from fishrepresenting a wide length-range. B Wcighted'mean lengths ofmale rainbow trout were slightly greater than those for females of the same age. The oldestfemale was age 5 and the oldest male age 6.

Weighted mean back-calculated lengths and rangesfor various age gvoups of rainbow trout collected in Hat Creek arepresented by stationin Tilble 4- 25. The correctionfactor 5.571 was used to determine fish length at annulus formation. For purposes of comparison,weighted mean back-calculatedlengths of male, female and all rainbow trout (including juveniles) arealso shown in Table 4-25.

Mean lengths at age 1 were similar among stations,ranging from 60 mn at Station 6 to 68 ma atStation 14. Lengths at age 2 were alsosimilar and varied from 105 nun atStation 10 to 113 mm at Station 5. Lengths of age 3 and 4 fishvaried more among stations than for younger fish, and vere slightly greater in Lower than Upper Hat Creek. For age 3 fish, me,m lengths were from 149 - 162 ma at Stations 5 - 7 and132 and 147 m atStations 10

4 - 94 1. ..I! 1. I 6 I I I I t & i i i & 1. It

I 1)

TABLE 4-23

flEAH BACKCALCULATED TOTAL LENGTHS AND RA!.IGES FOR MALE RAINBOW TROUT IN HAT CREEK

Annulus 1 2 3 4 5 6

I x 72 (1 976) r 54-98 n 3 II x 71 114 (1 975) r 49-96 108-121 n 11 7

111 K 67 112 146 (1 974) r 43-1 11 91-138 127-165 P n 15 15 12 , Y) IV 62 104 138 169 u1 x (1 973) r 45-72 90-117 117-154 140-185 n 6 6 6 6 V x 66 111 148 174 195 (1972) r 55-79 92-127 114-172 143-202 186-212 n 6 6 6 6 6 VI x 63 108 141 178 205 225 (1971 ) r 59-74 83-130 106-164 148-198 177-221195-244 n 4 4 4 4 4 4 Weighted mean calculated 67 225111 200144 173 length (nm)

Weighted mean increment (mn) 67 44 33 29 27 25 a I L I c L I I

TABLE 4-24 tlEAN BACK CALCULATEDTOTAL LENGTHS AND RANGES FORFEMALE RAINOOW TROUT IN HAT CREEK

Age Annulus ('fear Class) ('fear 1 ' 2. 3 '4 5

I x 74 (1976) r 60-91 n 7 I1 x- 68 113 (1975) r 48-97 102-126 n. 14 14 111 x 65 110 141 (1974) r 45-100 82-144 108-163 n 13 13 11 e I IV TT 59 106 146 171 u) (1973) r 39-79 '91-131 125-173 139-198 OI n 11 11 11 \I x 59 107 195143 168 (1972) r 54-69 88-1 27 114-162 145-183191-203 n 6 6 6 6 4 Weighted mean calculated length (mm) 65 109 143 170 195

Weighted mean increment (mm) 65 44 34 27 25 I I I I L m

TABLE 4-25 u mlm WEIGHTED MEAN BACK CALCULATED .TOTAL LENGTHS OF MALE, FEMALE AND AI.L RAINBOW TROUT r Ill IIAT CREEK Annulus C ategory 1 2 3 4 .5 6 .5 4 3 2 1 Category - - Station 5 Ti 65 113 162 r (50-79) (102-124) - n 1 19 3 LOWER HAT Station 6 si 183 14960 108 CREEK r (39-82) (94-120)(127-170) - n 37 13 7 1 Station 7 x 15262 112 194. r (41 -91 ) (81-136) (135-165) (190-198) n 50 22 7 2 - Station 10 X 66 105 132 164 1 93 221 r (43-111) (82-138) (106-107) (139-202) (177-221) (195-244 UPPER n 54 35 22 14 7 3 HAT CREEK Station 14 x 68 110 200147 175 237 r (41-100) (82-144)(115-173) (145-206) (191-217) - n 56 34 7 29 17 1 Males x 14467 111 172 2 00 225 Females Ti 65 1 09 143 195 170 -

All Fish 197 172 14364 108 225 (inclydin uveni 1 X beak

and 14. Forage 4 fish, mean lengths were 183and 194 mm atStations 6 and 7, and 164 and 175 .m atStations 10 and 14.. Age 5 and 6 fish were collected onlyin UpperHat Creek. Mean lengthsfor both age groups were gr,eaterat Station 14 than 10, asthey were for younger fish.

The generallysmaller mean lengths of older-age fishin Upper tharl Lower HatCreek and atStation 10 compared toStation 14 appears inverselyrelated to fish densities.Densities were almost always higherin Upper than Lower Hat Creek, and Station 10 exhibited some of thehighest densities measured duringthe study. This suggests some factor such asfood, space or cover may slightlylimit the growth of rainbow trout in Upper Hat Creek,, particu- larlyat Station 10. Other factors,possibly the overall quality and quantity of fish habitat couldfavor the abundanceof older age fish .In Upper Hat Creekand limits it in LowerHat Creek. Angling pressure couldposs- ibly account forthe relatively low numbers of larger - sizedfish in Lower Hat Creek. However, no fishermen were observedduring the survey:;. Itis suspectedthat angling does not exertcontrol over populationstrlrcture in Lower. Hat Creek.

(C) Observed Lengths Mean observed totallengths ofrainbow trout collected'forscale analyses in Hat Creek arepresented by station and sampling periodin Table 4-26. Detaileddata including means, ranges and sample sizesare listed in Appendix D Tables D-8 to D-10.

Dataon observed totallengths show the same trends, such aslength variation among stations and among fish from the same year class, as did back-calculated lengths. They do, however, provideadditional information on fish growth within a year. Mean observed lengths among stationsare plotted by month . in Figure 4-20.Year classes havebeen plottedsuccessively to illustrate a general growth curve for rainbow troutin Hat Creek. This assumes growth

4 - 98 TABLE 4-26 MEANOBSERVED TOTAL LENGTHS OF RAINBOW TROUT IN HATCREEK

H at Creek Upper Hat Creek Hat Upper LowerCreek Hat Age (Year Class)' Month Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Station 10 Station 14 Mean - 2 o+ S2 2 (1977) J A 3h7) 1+ 67 (37) (1 976) 84147180 45 2+ S - 110(5) 112(17) (1 975) J 134(1 126( 7) A 133(1 149(3) 3+ 144(12) (1 974) J 157(15) A 18;(1) 177( 11) 4+ (1 973) 187162t5) 7) 198( 3) 5+ (1972)

~- 6+ 210(1) (1971) 232(4)

' Fish spawned ill 1977 dcnoteti as age O+. in 1876 as age 1+. etc. 2 1977 year class notyet in existencc in Septekiber 197G 3 n - sample size AGE OF FISH ANDMONTH OF CAPTURE

location: Hat Cmk paricds: Septembar 28-x), 1976; June 14-16, 1977; August 3-5, 1977 Age at annulusformation ( 1-6) corresponds to bock-calculatedlengths. Month of capture (J=June; A=Auguot; S=Septemkr)componds to observed lengths.

figure 4 20 GROWTH CURVES FOR RAINBOW TROUT IN HAT CREEK r beak

among fish from different yearclasses, but of the same age, is constant. Data on back-calculatedlengths indicate this is thecase.

Weighted mean back-calculatedlengths are also plotted inFigure 4-20. Scale analysesindicated annuli formed about May orearly June. Lengths at annulus formation were thereforeplotted against the month of June for each age group. Estimatedtime of spawning (about mid-June tolate July) and emergence of young (approximately August) are noted in Figure 4-20.

The two growth curvesfollow the same pattern. The small correctionfactor (5.571 mn), which istheoretical fish length at scaleformation, may account forback-calculated lengths being less thanobserved lengths. A cor-ection factor of 15 or 20 mm is probably more representative of actualfish length at scaleformation and would resultin nearly identical curves.

(0) PopulationEstimates Populationestimates for rainbow trout in Hat Creekwere determined 'from density (numberof fish/m of streamelectroshocked) atStations 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 14A and 15, and thelength of stream each station appeared to represent. Estimates were.made for each survey.Sections of streamcharacterized by each. station are listedin Table 4-27. Estimates were not made for .:heBona- parte River because of sampling difficulties described above.

In order to estimatepopulation size for various fish lengths, length frequency distributionsat each station sampled during each survey were detedned for classintervals 0 - 100, 101 - 150, 151 - 200, 201 - 250, and 250 nnn (Table 4-28). Because habitatat Stations 14 (free-flowingstream) and 14A (beaver pond) representedconditions found in one section of Upper Hat Creek,, data for thesesites werecombined and treatedas single rather than separate samples.

4 - 101 TABLE 4-27. SECTIONS OF HAT CREEK CHARACTERIZED BY VARIOUS STATIONS

m Stream Section’

a 5 0 - 8.0 6 8.0 - 22.4 .. 7 22.4 - 25.5 10 25.5 - 30.0 14, 14A 30.0 - 39.0 a 15 39.0 - 41.0

Kilometers from Hat Creek - BonaparteRiver confluence

4 - 102 TABLE 4-28

LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS (%) FOR RAINBOWTROUT

H at Creek Upper Hat Creek Hat Upper CreekLower Hat Month and LengthInterval (mn) Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Station 10 Stations 14 & 14A Station 15

September 1976 0-100 100.0 89.5 36.8 32.247.3 28.3 101-150 - 10.5 57.9 28.636.8 47.8 151 -200 - - 5.3 21.410.5 15.2 201 -250 - - - 5.3 76 17.8 '250 - - - - 1.1 -

June 1977 0-100 61.5 67.9 50.0 15.2 26.7 20.0

P 101-150 38.5 17.9 36.7 57.6 42.2 25.0 151 -200 - I 10.7 13.3 12.1 26.7 42.5 201 -250 4.4 12.5 0 >250 - - W August 1977 0-100 37.5 32.0 38.5 31.7 26.0 101-150 50.0 48.0 38.5 41.7 38.0 151 -200 16.0 12.5 21.6 15.3 30.0 201 -250 - 4.0 7 .-I 5.0 6.0 >250 - - - - - Populationestimates were made according tothe equation: 1. N.=Dx LXS

where: D = densityat a particularstation; L = length of ,stream thatstation typifies; and S = proportion of fishin a givenlength category at ti-at station.

Thisequation was derivedfor the present study and makes the follclwing assumptions: .. 1) densities and size class structures are 'constant within- that Flortion of streamtypified by a given station; . 2) stream habitatis comparable within that portion of streamtyrlified by 1. a given station; and p 3) all fish presentin the area samplefwere captured.

The above assumptionsare not entirelyvalid for allsize classes of fish. Cieldobservations indicated approximately 10-2M of fishless tharl 100 mm inlength were not captured, and thereforeresulted in under-estimiltes of populationsizes for this' length category. Population estimates ftir larger fish may.. also be low, although fieldobservations indicated very few fish largerthan 100 m escaped- capture.

Populationestimates in thosereaches ofHat Creek typified by Stations 5 and 6 may be lessaccurate. than for areas further upstream. Station 5, and inparticular Station 6 were locatedin reaches of Hat Creek which contained a variety of habitats.Therefore, densities at these stations may not be entirely,representative of theirrespective.reaches of stream.

Population.estimates by station and sizeclas; during each surveyare presentedin Table 4-29. Totalpopulation size for rainbow trout intiat Creek -during the threesurveys was estimated at 22,851 in September 1976:. 17,782

4 - 104 llat Crcck* llut Creck' Month and larcr Upjer Length Interval (m) 0 - 0.0 8.0 - 22.4 22.4 - 25.5 . 25.5 - 30.0 10.0 - 39.039.0 - 41.0 TOTAL

Scptczrbcr I976 0-100 319 1.708 2.903 258 -- 11,819 101-150 502 1,391 5.038 220 ' 1.552 ::1-200 46 401 1.602 111 2,220 201-250 001 112 1.144 ,250 116 - 116 i_ A - TOlAL 3,144 10.540' 799 22.051 June 1917 0-100 3.715 690 499 1 .I10 220 -7,346 101-150 979 512 1.093 2.165 205 6.358 151-200 509 105 390 1.310 404 3,023 201-250 I92 2x1mn." 225 I42 351- ,250 90 - 98 - ~ - TOTAL 5.472 5.130 1.139 17.782 August 1911 0-100 1.561 465 1,003 1.498 101-150 2.350 It5 2.417 2.109 151-200 703 1s 1.203 I .I20 101-250 196 94 291 345- ,250 - - TOTAL 800 4.096 . 5,760

I Klloneterr from Ilat Creck - Oonaparte River confluence beak

in June1977 and 18,945 in August 1977. About 35 - 45% ofthe total number during each surveyoccurred in Lower Hat Creek, an areawhich comprised about 60% ofthe length of Hat Creek.

Populationestimates for rainbow trout greater than 150 nun were 3.480 in September 1976,4.078 in June 1977, and 5,021 in August 1977. Onlyapprox- imately 1% of fish greater than 150 mm occurred in Lower Hat Creek in September 1976. Thisfigure increased to about 25% in both June 1977 and August 1977.

Overall,size classes were betterrepresented and populationestimates higher per unitlength of stream in Upper than Lower Hat Creek. However, a viable fishery appears to exist in bothareas of the creek .

(iii) Condition & Body Statistics

(A) ConditionFactor

The body condition of rainbow trout were computed usingthe function: 5 K .= 10 w -3 L where: factor;= Condition . .. w = weight in g; and L = length in mn. The conditionfactor provides a measure of the relative plumpness 01' fish. Comparison ofcondition factors for rainbow trout between stations and between samplingperiods provides one indication of therobustness or well-tleing of individualsin a temporal and spatial framework.

Means and ranges forcondition factors of rainbow trout at exhstation during each samplingperiod are shown in Appendix 0 Table 0-11. To minimize any fish-size effects, values were determined far lengthsize classes of less

4 - 106 beak

I than 100 mn and greaterthan 100 mm. Mean valuesfor both size groups of fish are shown inFigure 4-21.

# Mean conditionfactors of rainbow trout were usually less than 1.00. Examina- a tion ofspecimens attime of collection showed mostwere in good condition with few appearingemaciated.

I For fish lessthan 100 mm, mean conditionfactors ranged from0.29 atStation 15 in September 1976 to 1.23 atStation 15 in June1977; individualcondition .. factorsfor fish of this sizevaried from 0.13 atStation 15 in September 1976 to 1.81 atStation 15 in June1977. For fishgreater than 100 m, mean a conditionfactors ranged from0.70 atStation 6 in September 1976 to 1.09 atStation 3 in August1977; individualvalues for fish greaterthan 100 mm varied from0.66 atStation 6 in September 1976 and Station 14 in June 1977 I to 1.45 atStation 7.in June1977.

In Upper Hat Creek (Stations 10, 14, 14A and 15) mean condition factm for rainbowtrout less than 100 mm were generally highest in June 1977, intermediate in August1977, and lowest in September1976. In Lower Hat :reek (Stations 5, 6 and 7),values were highest in June 1977 or September 1976 and.lowest in August1977. The only month in which a'trend was apparent occurred in August 1977 when valuesgenerally increased from Station 5 up- streamto Station 15. Inthe Bonaparte River, mean conditionfactor:; for troutless than 100 mm were within the rangeof values reported for Iiat Creek.

The extremely low conditionfactors for rainbow troutless than 100 nm at Station 15 in September1976 may have been related to thediversion of water forirrigation. Fish were concentrated in remainingpools and may have suf- fered a limitedfood supply, especially since larger fish (greaterthan 100 mm) were alsopresent. In addition,the presence of larger fish may have causedsmall fish to spend lesstime searching for food and more timeavoiding possiblepredation, thus contributingto the low conditionfactor. September 1976 conditions were in contrastto those in June1977, when flowsappeared

4 - 107 1.5C LENGTHS 0 - IOOmm - SEPTEMBER, 1976 I) -"" JUNE, 1977

'I I K ...... AUGUST, 1977 0 I- o i? i? I.0C z 2 I- =2 0 " 0.50

I I I I I I IT I 2 3 4 5 6 7 IO 14 14A I5 STATION

I .50 LENGTHS >IO0 mm - SEPTEMBER , 1976 - - JUNE ,1977 K ...... AUGUS'I', 1977

eV i2 1.00 z -0 -c 0 2 0 * 0.50

I I I 8 I- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 IO 14 14A 15

STATION

location: Hot Creek and Bonoporte River stations . periods: September 28-30, 1976; June 14-16, 1977; August 3-5, 197.r for roinbow trout 0 -100 mm ond > IOOmm toto1 length. Absence of point from graph indicotes no specimens collected. U figure 4.21 MEAN CONDITION FACTORSFOR RAINBOW TROUT a * beak a

normal, and August 1977, when water hadbeen diverted but onlysmall fish were present. I

Mean conditionfactors for trout greater than 100 nun were similar rmong Hat Creek stations in June 1977and August 1977.Values were slightly higher at Stations 14, 14A and 15 than Stations 6, 7 and 10 in September 1976and suggests slightlybetter growth conditionsat upstream stations during this month. The highercondition factors at Stations 6, 7 and 10 in June 1977 and August 1977 than September 1976 may reflectthe increased weight of gonads during months nearest spawning (approximately June - July). This relation- -1 ship was not apparentat stations further upstream. Mean conditionfactors for troutgreater than 100 nun inthe BonaparteRiver were slightly higher thanthose in Hat Creek.

Mean conditionfactors for rainbow trout less than 100 mm varied more than forlarger fish. This may reflect an inherentvariation in the length-weight relationship of fishuntil they attain some largersize. It suggests that the growth or condition of smallerfish maybe more sensitive to variation in the diversity and quantity of available foodthan largerfish.

I (6) Length-Weight Relationship The length-weightrelationship of rainbow trout in Hat Creek was de-:ermined .. forfish less than and greater than 100 m total lengthcollected during each sampling period. All trout captured at Hat Creek stations wereused in the - analysis.Differentiation wasmade according tofish size to allow for the possibility of any inherentdifferences in length-weightrelationshlps between small and largefish. Differentiation wasmade among sampling periods to a determine if seasonal changes resulting from factors such asincreased weight of ovaries and testes near time ofspawning or increased fish weight during

I) maximum growth periodsoccurred.

.I -.

4 - 109 m beak

The length-weight relationshiphas been described by the formula:

log weight (9) = log a + b logelength (mn) where:Log a = Y-intercept;and b = regression coefficient (Ricker, 1971).

After logarithmic transformationof length-weight data, a linear regression was performed to evaluate this relationship forHat Creek fish. RE,gression lines, correlation coefficients and sample sizes for each size categoryof fish during each sampling period are presented in Table4-30.

Analysis of variance (Steel and Torrie,1960) showed the simple linear regression model described the dependenceof weight on length sufficiently well for four of the si.x data sets. The values for each were as follows (significant P values indicates that the relationship between weight and length deviates from linearity):

-Date FishLength (mm) -F DegreesFreedomof September 1976 5 100 18.826** : 1, 103 September 1976 > 100 0.250 1, 116 June 1977 I100 1.000 1, 64 June 1977 > 100 0.000 1, 119 August 1977 I 100 18.700* 1, 59 August 1977 > 100 0.500 1, -113

*'p 5 .Q.O1

4 - 110 m I

TABLE 4-30

LENGTH4IEIGHTRELRTIO1ISHIPS.FOR RAINBO1.I TROUT: 1 REGRESSION LINES, CORRELATIONCOEFFICIENTS AND SAMPLE SIZES

Monthand Correlation Sample FishLength (mn) RegressionLine Coefficient -Size

Septenlber 1976 -< 100 Log weight = -5.906 + 3.437 loglength 0.93 106 > 100 Log weight = -5.907 + 3.022 loglength 0.98 119

June 1977 e I -< 100 Log weight = -4.883 + 2.930 loglength 0;95 67

.d > 100 Log weight = -4.872 + 2.933 loglength 0.99 122 d d August 1977 -< 100 Log weight = -5.941 + 3.468 loglength 0.97 62 100 Log weight = 5.020 + 2.990 loglength 0.99 116

1 Lengthsmeasured on total length beak

Examination of the September1976 - 100 nun data revealed that the weight of fish less than approximately 50 m in length tended to vary greatlyand was not adequately described by a straight line. The linear regression, however, accounted forat least 86% of the weight variability in both cases.

Analysis of the three regression lines for fish less 100than mm showed significant differences in the slopes of the regression lines (F = 3.2; df = 2,229; pi 0.05). Consequently data sets were not pooled.

Analyses of variance was then used to test whether the regression lines for fish greater than 100 m were derived from samples estimating populations among which the slopes were equal. The regression coefficients were found .to be homogeneous ( F = 1.18, df = 2,351; p > 0.05). While the slopes of the regression lines were foundto be identical, the intercept of th? lines with the Y axis were found tobe unequal (the linear regressions havt different evaluations) and therefore do not coincide ( F = 13.20; df = 2,351; D -< 0.05). The data sets were not pooled.

The nearness of all slopes to3.0 indicates growth of rainbow trout in Hat Creek is generally synmetrical. Regression lines with slopes greate:" than 3.0 indicate-fish become heavier per unit length as they grow larger. Great- est increase in weight per unit length increase was exhibited by those fish which comprised regression lines with the greatest (steepest)slopes.

(C) Spawning Time and Sex Ratios

Rainbow Trout Examination of gonads indicated that in 1977 rainbow trout in Hat Creek spauned primarily between mid-June and lateJuly. Collection of sexually mature fish at all stations indicated spawning occurred the lengthof Hat Creek.

4 - 112 beak

During the June 1977 survey, ovariesand testes appeared to be developing. During, the August1977 survey, most sexually mature fish were spent. Water temperatures at most Hat Creek stations were about10-12°C in June aqd 11- 14OC in August 1977. These ranges correspond roughly to preferreds~awn- ing temperature of 10-15.5°C (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Examination of fish during the September 1976 survey showed sex of most was indist,inguish-' able and indicates spawning occurred considerably earlier.

During June 1977, ovaries of most femalesdid not appear fully developed and ova were consistently small (approximately1 m diameter). Three females with lengths of 198 - 211 mn which were captured at ..Station 14 appeared closest to spawning. Each contained about 300 - 400 eggs. Although the eggs were still connected by interstitial tissue, their size (about2 - 3 mm diameter) indicated these fish would soon spawn. Scottand Crossman (1973) reported mature ova are 3 - 5'mm diameter. About half the males collected during June 1977 exuded milt when slight pressure was applied to the abdomen. Testes of the rest did not appear fully developed.

Most sexually mature rainbow trout capturedin August 1977 were spent. Ovaries of many females were flaccid and contained granular particles< 1 mn diameter. Several females contained eggs about'3 - 4 mm diameter which had notibeen discharged during spawning. Testesof most males had diminished in size, although several specimens exuded milt when pressure was appliedto the abdomen.

Some large sized rainbow trout(> 150 mn) captured in August 1977 whic:h would have been expected to spawn appeared not to have spawned. Ovaries were small and thread-like, and contained no granular material usually present after spawning. Testes were similarly of small size.. It is"a1so possible'these fish spawned considerably earlier than most with enough time passing between spawning and actual collection that their gonads would not indicate this. The possibility of extended spawning in Hat Creek could account for length differences observed among young-of-the-year rainbow trout. heak

Numbers and length ranges of sexually mature male and female rainbow trout captured at Hat Creek stations during June 1977 and August 1977 are presented in Table 4-31. The smallest male was 110 mm and the smallest female 121 mn Youngest fish for both sexes were age 1+, although sexually mature fishof this age were uncommon. Sex ratios (ma1es:females) at each station appeared relatively even.

Mountain Whitefish Three sexually mature female mountain whitefish were captured at Station 7 in June 1977. Lengths and ages were 314 mm (age 4+), 352 mm (age 5+) and 354 mm (age 4+). One sexually mature male (290 mm, age 4+) was captured at Station 10 in June 1977. Examination of gonads indicated all would spawn during Fall. One male whitefish (133 mm, age 1+) captured at Station 3 in June 1977 did not appear sexually mature. In the Okanagan system, mountain whitefish spawn near mid-November (Carl et al.,1973).

Brook Trout The brook trout taken at Station 3 in September 1977 was immature. Its length was 114 mm and age l+.

Bridgelip Sucker Sexually mature bridgelip suckers were collected at Station 3 in June 1977, and included one female (184 mm) and eight males (121 - 180 mm). They were taken over a gravel substrate in swift water approximately 0.5 m deep. Milt wzs exuded from males and roe fromthe female when slight pressure wa:; applied to the abdomen. Carl et aZ., (1973) reported collecting ripe bridgelip sucker north of Prince George in June 1977.

4 - 114 i I I L I ~L t li t 8 I I a I I t m I m I

TABLE 4-31

NUMBERSAND LENGTH RANGES (m) OF SEXUALLY NATURE RAINBOW TROUT

,tation 5 Station 6 Station- 7 Station 10 Station 14

June Males n 0 4 4 6 3 r - 140-1 70 140-187 145-255 177-244 P I Femalesn 1 1 4 7 5 r 4 1 34 127 123-162 121-208 141 -21 1 4 01

August Males n 1 2 5 7 5 r 187 110-161115-231 119-192 167-241 Females n 5 0- 4 4 4 r 130-216 171-207 ' 134-183 181-210 beak

Longnose Dace Four sexually mature males withlengths of 81 - 110 mm were collectedat Station 5 in June 1977. Milt was .observed flowing from all specimen:,. One spentfemale (98 m) was taken at Station 3 in August1977. .Carl et a1 ., (1973)reported collecting ripe longnosedace in the NicolaRiver dminage area in June 1977.

Leopard Dace

No spawning male orfemale leopard dace were observedduring the study. Gee and Northcote (inScott and Crossman, 1973) reportedthis species probably spawns in earlyJuly.

Redside Shiner One sexually mature male (104 mm) was captured atStation 3 in June 1977. Four maturemales (78 - 99 mm) were also'collectedat Station 4 in June 1977. All exuded milt when handled.Scott and Crossman (1973)reported redside shiner mayspawn as early as May or as late as August.

(0) Ectoparasites Parasitic copepods were observed on rainbow trout in Hat,Creek during each samplingperiod. None were observed on BonaparteRiver fish, although this was probably due to the small sample size compared to that in Hat Creek rather thanthe absence of parasites from the river. Most parasitizedfish were larger specimens (usuallygreater than 180 m totallength) and col1ec:ted primarilyat Stations 10 and 14 in Upper Hat Creek. Onlytwo parasitized trout (201 mn atStation 6, 140 mm at Station 7) were captured in Lower Hat Creek. I Parasites were usually attached at the base of the pelvic or pectoral fins,, occasionally on the inner surfaceof the operculum, and on one fish $it the

I base of. the dorsal fin. Parasites were observed on both males and females and occasionally on smaller, sexually inunature fish. Numbers and length ranges of parasitized rainbow trout collected during each survey were four m in September 1976 (183 - 234 mm), 14 in June 1977 (140 - 255 mm), anti 12 in August 1977 (E4 - 241 mn). Two large trout (234 and 244 mm) which appeared I' thin may have been stressed by the infestation; condition factors 01' these two specimens were were0.99 and 0.69, respectively.

(iv) Availability & Utilization of Food Organisms 0 Invertebrates living in or on bottom sediments can be used as indicators of adverse changesin aquatic environments because they display varying de- a grees of sensitivity to degradation in waterquality (Hynes, 1958; Wilhm <- . & Dorris. 1966 and 1968; Cairns & Dickson, 1971). Natural benthic cornm- .I unities are relatively stable or exhibit pr'edictable oscillations in structure and composition. This phenomenon, coupled with their respective sensitivi-

I ties to water quality, enables the use of benthic fauna as a biological meas- , ure of environmental conditions.

1 Coupled with their inherent potential as ecological in'dicators, benthicinvertebrates are a major food item of fish (Lagler, 1966). These aquabic 3 insects are critical to the food chain of any freshwater system culminating in fish. The importance of invertebrates is embodied in their abi.lit:/ to

.I convert energy entrapped by primary producers to a form capable of be.ing uti 1 ized by fish.

.I Composition, relative abundanceand distribution of food organisms del.ermine, in part, population levels, growth ratesand overall condition of fish. I* Withseasonal changes, alterations infood being utilized may occur,coinciding with possible shiftsin food availability.

* 4 - 117 I beak

The following sub-sectionswill examine the structureof benthic invertebrate systems studies in relation to inherent community complexity and dynamics. Subsequent to these data, consideration willbe given to an analysis of the relationship of benthic invertebrates to fish populations with respect to food habits and utilizationof major food items.

(A) Benthic Invertebrate Communities

Perspective Results of the first order identifications (to taxonomic order)for tie September 1976, June 1977 and August 1977 sampling periods arepresen,:ed in Appendix E. Detailed identifications (to genus and/or species) for each sampling period follow the first order datain each respective sectiotl of Appendix E. Tables 4-32,4-33, 4-34 and 4-35 sumarize benthic invertebrate data for each sampling station during eachof the three sampling periods.

Dominance indices indicated that at the majority of stations examined,,one group of benthic invertebrate dominated inhabitable substrates regard'ess of sample period. Percentage data showed that during September 1976, 75% of the stations samples supported Group3 fauna in greatest abundance; in June 1977, 69% of the stations were dominatedby Group 3 and in August 1977, 92%.

Lake habitats (Stations 16 and 17; Table 4-35) were sampled with a Ponar dredge which is most effective in soft, fine sediments. Consequently, use of this sampling method selects for organisms that are common to substrates of this consistency, the Group2 forms (Diptera, Amphipods and Leeches). Following the September 1976 survey, lake stations were discontinued.

The preponderance of Group3 invertebrates at the majority of stations suggests that, in general, water qualitywas good in Hat Creek and the Bonaparte

4 - 118 I I I : 1 t 'I

TAME4-32 BMAPARTE RIVER - SUWRY OF BENTHICINVERTEDRATE OATA

Bonaparte Rlver - Statlonr 1 2 3 4 ParaueterSept. 76 June 11 Aug. 11 SePt. 16 June 71 Aug. 11 Sept. 16 June 11 Aug. 11 Sept. 16 June 77 Aus. I7

40.1 15.495.3 75.7 76.0 04.7 62.3 78.1 61.2 86.0 11.7 81.1 59.5 4.1 20.5 23.0 24 .O 15.3 36.1 21.3 30. 9 13.2 21.8 12.9 0.4 0.0 3.8 I .6 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 I .9 0.0 0.5 0.0

229 366 616 91 38 283 229 393 01 6 21 299 620 340 18 175 21 12 51 135 106 403 3 84 92 2 0 32 2 0 0 3 D 24 0 2 0 51 I 304 853 120 50 334 367 499 1303 27 385 112 0.52 0.91 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.74 0.53 0.67 0.55 0.80 0.65 0.10 3.19 1.92 3.99 3.11 I .83 2.91 3.60 2.83 3.25 1.56 2.89 3.00 102 101 120 65 27 102 I05 ID7 110 15 I04 104 11 IO 16 1 15 19 13 16 5 11 16 2.17 3.55 3.59 1 .82 3.03 3.87 2.51 3.19 I .40 3.45 3.23 0.56 0.72 0.79 0.65 0.14 0.87 0.16 0.01 0.67 0.11 0.15

' Calculated feze blotic lndex data ' Calculated from dctalled Identlflcatlondata It I

TnnLE 4-33 LOWER HAT CREEK - SUWRV OF BENTHIC IHVERTEORATE DATA

Lower Hat Creek - Statlons 5 6 7 8 ParameterSept. 76 June 77 Aug. 77 Sept. 76 June 77 Aug. 77 Sept._____ 76 June 77 hg. 77 Sept. 76 June 77 Aug. 17 X Group 3 66.9 66.728.9 65.4 26.6 74.1 90.1 91.567.3 80.6 81.5 95.3 % croup 2 31 .O 69.4 32.0 33.3 66.9 25.0 9.9 5.731.6 17.3 10.8 2.7 % croup I 2.1 1.7 2.6 0.0 6.5 0.9 0.0 2.8 1 .I 2.1 1.7 2.0 !lean Ilo.ln' P Group 3 426 098 891 299 573555 105i ,662 1363 297 541 627 1. Group 2 2158 197 436 149 1394 354 63 311 292 18 72 18 d Croup 1 13 51 35 0 133 14 0 11 36 8 51 13 N 0 To ta 1 3107 636 1362 ' 448 2082 1419 636 984 1691 323 664 658 0.55 0.57 0.53 0.56 0.52 0.61 0.82 0.55 0.68 0.85 0.68 0.91 3.42 2 .80 3.35 2.83 2.74 2.79 2.52 3.80 3.14 3.62 3.01 3.02 109 165 105 107 157 107 I 02 101 113 1 09 I04 107 Total No. Geyra fs) 10 11 17. 15 12 14 I7 25 20 20 13 14 Richness (I,) 3.62 3.13 3.44 3.00 2.18 2.81 3.42 4.055.20 4.02 2.58 2.78 tquitabllity (5)' 0.82 0.69 0.02 0.12 0.77 0.72 0.62 0.82 0.73 0.84 0.81 0.79

' Calculated from biotlc indexdata Calculated from detailedidentification data PL, Ir Y 1 t I 4 .m I I I I P i /,

TAOLE 4-34 UPPER llAT CREEK - SUbMRY OF OENTHIC INVERTEOPATE DATA

UpperMat Creek ~ Statlonr IO 11 12 -Paramter Sept. 76 June 77 Aug. 77 Sept. 76 June 77 Aug. 77 Sept. 76 June 77 Aug. 77 Z Group 3 73.6 79.5 02.9. 00.9 17.9 81 .o 37.9 X Group 2 18.7 17.7 25.2 13.6 17.570.0 15.2 - x croup 1 0.4 1.2 2.5 3.5 44.612.1 2.0 - tlean No./d Group 3 418 649 997 843 395 2851 92 - Group 2 92 222 2 30 138 1540 564 42 - Group 1 13 72 I1 2655 35 IOB Total 523 882 1232 1016 ,2200242 3407 - Dominance (c) 0.67 0.61 0.69 0.710.70 0.54 1.75 1.22 3.20 3.00 2.96 2.00 102 IO5 104 110 176 101

' Calculated from blotic indexdata ' Calculated from detailedldcnttfication data TMLE 4-34 Cont'd. UPPER HAT CREEK - SUHMARY OF BENTHIC INVERTEBMTE DRTA

Upper HatCreek - Stations 13 14 15 Parameter Sept. 16 June I7 Auq. 77 Sept. 16 June 77 Aug. 71 Sept. 16 June 71 Auq. 71

3 Group 3 89.9 54.3 93.8 80.8 69.9 61 .B 87.9 8.8 29.5 X Group 2 44.0 8.4 4.3 21.5 12.2 21.8 10.4 90.4 68.2 I Group I 1.7 1.7 1.9 . 1.0 8.6 4.4 1.1 0.8 2.3 P Ikan tto./n' I Group 3 24 1 1440 I4G3 318 790 1028 735 338 733 Graup 2 196 I35 67 47 243 421 86 3416 1694 N Group 32 N 1 1 27 30 27 97 M) I4 57 TO tal 444 1602392 1560 1130 1511 8352484 3046 Oondnance (c)' 0.82 0.49 0.88 0.79 0.680.54 0.54 0.83 0.55 oiverrlty (a)', 1.84 2.11 3.38 2.66 3.07 3.47 2 .80 2. I8 2.53

~~ ~~ Total NO. le) 135~~ 158~~ 109 101~~ 116 1% 108.. 133 186 Tutal 110. &era ( ) 12 I5 15 13 IO 19 I4 .9 12 Rlctulcss (r# 2.24 2.77 2.98 2.60 3.58 3.65 2.78 1.64 2.10 Equitability Id)' 0.51 0.69 0.86 0.72 0.74 0.82 0.74 0.69 0.11

~ ' Calculated from biotic indexdata ' Calculated from detailedidentiilcation data beak

m TABLE 4-35 GOOSEIFISH HOOK LAKE (STATION 16) AND FINNEY LAKE (STATION 17: - SUMMARY OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE DATA

Lakes - Stations 16 17 Farameter September.76September 76'

% Group 3 3.3 1.2 % Group 2 96.7 89.0 % Group 1 0.0 9.8 Mean No ./m2 Group 3 33 11 Group 2 1076 795 Group 1 0 86 Total 1109 892 Dominance (c) 0.94 0.80 Diversity (a) 0.61 2.44 Total No. (ti) 112 113 Total No. Ge;era (S) 4 11 Richness (.?) 0.64 2.12 Equi tabi 1 ity (J) 0.31 0.71

Calculated from biotic index data Calculated from detailedidentification data

4 - 123 beak -

River during the three sampling periods. Fluctuations in water quality during theJourse of the study were not of sufficient magnitude to significantly inhibit the development of benthic invertebrate systems dominated by Group 3 fauna.

The mayflies, caddisflies and stoneflies (Group 3) respire by externdl gill structures that exhibit low tolerance to chemical pollutants and fine suspended sediment that may cause abrasive damage. Consequently, the pt-eponder- ance of these invertebrate orders would tend to indicate that the waer systems studied did not exert severe negative conditions to a level of signi.'icantly altering the direction of community development.

Sampling stations in the Bonaparte and Hat Creek systems may be grouped into three units for ease of data interpretation, these include:

1) Bonaparte River - Stations 1, 2, 3 and 4; 2) Lower Hat Creek - Stations 5, 6, 7 and 8; and 3) Upper Hat Creek - Stations 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

Table 4-36 summarizes the overall mean figures for select parameters by study area unit and sample period.

In the Bonaparte River (Tables 4-32 and 4-36), Group 3 organisms were most abundant, consisting of 52.%, 83.1% and 75.7% of the population during Sept- ember 1976, June 1977 and August 1977, respectively. However, this !pattern was not duplicated in either Lower or Upper Hat Creek. I

During September 1971 and August 1977 (Tables 4-33, 4-34, 4-36), GrolJp 3 .e,auna, on the average, predominated in accordance with 78.1% and 76.'7%, (Lower Hat Creek) and 76.62 and 68.8% (Upper Hat Creek), respectivel,!. The June 1977 sampling period in Lower and Upper Hat Creek exhibited a preponderance of Group 2 fauna in mean percentages of 57.6 and 58.1, respecti,,ely.

4- 124 TMLL 4-36 stmny OF DCIITIIIC INVERTEORATC MTA

FOR TIlE THREE STUDY UNITS

Overall Fkan Bonaparte River LowerUpper llat Creek llat Creek -Parameter Sept. 76 June 77 Aug. 77 Sept. 76 June 77 Aug. 77 Sept. 16 June 77 Auq. 77 X Group 3 52.U 03.1 15.i 78.1 38.8 76.7 76.6 37.4 68.8 I Group 2 46.5 16.7 22.5 20.9 . 57.6 24.4 17.5 58.1 20.9 X Group 1 0.7 0.2 4.5 1 .o 5.9 11.9 .o 3.6 2.3 P Mean I NO. Orqanismshl’ Group 3 143 274 606 399 664 903 441 722 1414 N Group 2 126 55 1 DO 107 904 275 101 1123 595 In Group I 2 0.5 14 5 34 61 24 86 46 Total 329.5 271 000 511 1709 12G2 576 1931 2055 Dominance 0.61 0.72 0.67 0.G9 0.58 0. GB 0.61 0.67 0.67 Diversity 2.90 2.37 3.04 3.10 3.09 3.07 2.74 2.83 3.09 Riclmcss 2.99 2.50 ’ 3.25 3.27 3.52 3.26 2.88 2.87 2.90 Equitability 0.790.75 0.67 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.710.78 0.73 a beak - m .~. These data suggestsome temporal oscillation probably related to the life histories of the invertebrate species recorded. An alternative which may account for the slight decline of Group3 fauna during the June1977 sampling period is increased flow and higher sediment characteristics of the system.

Over a 10 year period, 1963 - 1973, the months of May and Jhe (freshet period)it.-A averaged approximately 1.9 and 2.7 d/s (Upper Hat Creek Water Survey Station 08LF061), values markedly higher than at any other time of year. During freshet marked increases in solids levels are not uncommon. On the this basis the slight average declinein Group 3 organisms in June 1977 (Table 4-36) may be resultant to a greater input of suspended sedimentin Hat Creek during freshet. Increased sediment would similarly serve as an abrasive agent on the sensitive gill structures of Group3 organisms.

Benthic invertebrates collected in various segments of the study area are common to lotic freshwater systems. Table 4-37 presents a summary of the dominant benthic genera collected during each sample periodin each study .. unit.

The dominant genera recorded during the study were encompassed primarily by the taxomomic order Ephemeroptera(mayflies). The Trichopterans (caddisflies), Plecopterans (stoneflies) and Dipterans (midges) also were recorded as exhibiting vatying degrees of dominance.

Table 4-38 summarizes the appearance of dominant ordersin the Hat Creek and the Bonaparte River. It is evident that the mayflies, of the genus&=tis and Ephmerella in particular (Appendix E), were the most abundant organisms. One or the other or both of these invertebrates appeared throughout the lotic systems under examination.

4 - 126 beak TABLE 4-37 SUMMARY OF DOMINANTINVERTEBRATE GENERA

September1976 Bonaparte River Lower Hat Creek Upper Hat[:reek-

Rhithrogena s . (E)' Buetis sp. (E) Rhithrogenu sp. (E) aaetis sp. (E P EphemreZZa sp. (E) CilZygmuh Sp.(E) HydmpsLJche sp.(T) Hydropsyche sp.(T) Baetis sp. (E) Cricotopus sp. (D) Diplectronn sp.(T) EphemereZZa sp. (E) Cluassenia sp. (P) Hydropsyche zp. (T) Micropsectru sp. (D) Claassenia SF. (P) Antocha sp. (D) Pericomz sp. (D) Turbellaria June 1977 Bonaparte River LowerHat Creek . UpperHat Creek-

Rhithropna sp.(E) Ironopsis SP. (E) rmnopsis sp. (E) Baetis SP. (E) Cinygmula sp.(E) Cinygmuto sp. (E) EphemereZir; sp.(E) Buetis sp.(E) aaetis sp. (E) arachycentms sp. (T) EphemereZla sp.(E) HastaperZa SF.. (P) Micropsectra sp. (D) CurdiocZaciiue sp. (D) CrthocZadiue sp. (D) SimuZim sp. (D) CardiocZadius sp. (D) Turbel 1 aria 01 igochaeta 01 igochaeta August1977 Bonaparte River Lower Hat Creek UpperHat Creek-

RhithroFena sp. (E) Baetis sp. (E) Baetis sp. (E) Baetis sp. (E) EphemereZZa sp. (E) EphemereZZa Sp. (E) EphemereZZa sp. (E) Hyhnopsyche sp. (T) PumZeptophZeb-la sp. (E) Caenis sp. (E) Czaassenia sp. (P) CZaassenia si:. (P) Hydropsgche sp.(T) Nemoura sp. (P) XastcpelTta SF. (PI i.?icropsectrz sp. (D) Antocha sp. (D) i?'emoura sp. (P) Cur&~ocZndius sp. (D)

1 E = Ephemeroptera T = Trichoptera P = Plecoptera

4 - 127 TABLE 4-38 SUIWARY OF DOMINANTINVERTEBRATE ORDERS INHABITING BONAPARTE RIVER AND HAT CREEK STATIONS

% of Stations where Dominant’

DominantOrders September1976 . June 1977 %st 1.977

.. Ephemeroptera 64.3 51.5 84.6 Trichoptera 7.7 14.2 0.0

Plecoptera 7.1 0.0 7.7 Diptera 7.1 30.8 7.7 01 i gochaeta 7.1 0.0 0.0

Computed from data in Appendix E

4 - 128 Comunity Structure The richness component of a cornunityis the relative wealth of the system in terms of the number of invertebrate genera sampled. Comunity weillth is directly related to the ability of the area to provide raw materinls,such as food and space for biological development..

Community richness in Lower Hat Creek (Table4-36) was the highest of the three study sections during each sampling period.high A richness fxtor indicates that within the areain quesion a given sample of the habi.:at yields a high number of genera per unit of organism abundance. A greater nilmber of genera can only be supportedby greater habitat complexity. Consequently, it may be inferred thatmicrohabitats within the Lower Hat Creekkection were l. in greater abundance, thereby providinga greater area for potential colonization and community development.

Lower Hat Creek exhibiteda greater proportion of riffle areas compa-ed to Upper Hat Creek and the Bonaparte River. This phenomenon would tend to facilitate formation of a more diverse abiotic system into which invertebrates would inmigrate and perpetuate. It should also be noted that the richness factor appeared to vary least temporallyin Lower Hat Creek compared to the Bonaparte River and Upper Hat Creek. This low amplitude oscillation would a suggest some form ofhigh stability of the biological community.

Cornunity equitability is the eveness with which individuals are apportioned in the sampled invertebrate genera. Data on equitability in Table 4-36 indicate that, in general, equitability was relatively comparable between study units and between sampling periods. All the communities were not excessively reliant on one particular genus of invertebrate for overall energy transfer. u In effect, the potential loss ofa portion of a communities generic comple- ment would not be overly traumatic (up to some threshold level) asan effic- ient redirection of energy flow to remaining organisms would be possible.

4 - 129 beak

I The attributes of richness and equitability'when synthesized as a sirlgle parameter yield a single quantitative estimateof system complexity and stab- I ility, thismeasure is diversity. m Table 4-36 shows the relative changes in diversity for each study un,it by sampling period. It is evident that Lower Hat Creek, as with richne!;s, exemplified minimal shifts in diversity through the three periods compilred m to the Bonaparte River and Upper Hat Creek. The absolute values of diversity in Lower Hat Creek were consistantly higher than at any of the other sites w at a given period. These data indicate that Lower Hat Creek was mort! stable with respect to being able to compensate for and dampen the effects of environ- n mental perturbations. However, beyond some threshold level the effects of negative environmental stimuli would be detected in the benthic community. m To broaden the'data base and minimize possible statistical error due to low r ,- sample sizes, computations were made using diversity and richness from Sept- I ember through August combined into one data base. Table 4-39 sumar'izes - select statistical parameters focussing on these two community indic,ies. Diversity and richness were the highest in Lower Hat Creek. The pro.jection .I to a 95% fiducial inference yields a theoretical range.of values tha:: would be obtained. Based on present data, the ranges are higher within Lower Hat Creek. Also, the coefficient of variation of the mean for diversity and I richness was the lowest in Lower Hat Creek. These data add to the conclusion that Lower Hat Creek was undoubtedly a more complex unit of biologicikl inter- ,'. action.

IU It is of interest that although Lower Hat Creek exhibited the most complex system, it did not support the most abundant populations of organism!; at any given time (Table 4-36). Therefore, absolute numbers of invertebrates a alone do not necessarily control overall community structure and dynmics. The arrangement of these numbers in available genera ultimately dictiites 'I- systemcomplexity, stability and direction.

4 - 130 a TABLE 4-39

SUMMARY OF BENTHIC DIVERSITY AND RICHNESS STATISTICS FORTHE THREE STUDY UNITS

BonaparteRiver LowerHat Creek Upper Hat Creek -'arameter (Stations 1,2,3,4) (Stations 5,6,7,8) (Stations 10,11,12,13,14,15~ liversity Mean (N) 2.77 (12) 3.09 (12) 2.89 (16) FiducialInference ~0.411 ~0.247 to. 265 Range (withfiducial inference) 2.359-3.181 2.843-3.337 2.625-3.155 Coefficientof Variation (of the mean) 23.3% 12.6% 17.2%

!ichness Mean (N) 2.91 (12) 3.35 (12) 2.91 (16) FiducialInference +0.476 ~0.514 +0.438 Range (withfiducial inference) 2.434-3.386 2.836-3.864 2.472-3.348 Coeffiqient of Variation (of the mean) 25.8% 24.1% 28.3% beak

Upper Hat Creek may not have exhibited a relatively stable community 3s a result of human activities in the area. Irrigation, flume constructitm and livestock enrichment may have hindered the development ofa system comparable to that of a relatively undisturbed Lower Hat Creek system.

(6) Utilization by Fish The availability of food,to a large degrec,influences the acceptability of a given area 2s a potential habitat frequented by fish. Regardless of their mobility, fish nay select certain food items while others may not play an important role as a useable food resource.' An analysis of food utilization in conjunction with food availability facilitates some degree of project- ion in the description of interactions between these two trophic sygtems.

Numerical, Volumetric and Frequency of Occurrence Numerical and frequency of occurrence values for the three most abuncliiit food items in stomachs of rainbow trout collected in Hat Creek and ttte 6ona- parte River during each survey are presented in Tables 4-40 to 4-42 Icon- puts program output for stomach analyses are presented in Appendix i:). In September, food habits of fish 0 - 100 mm in length appeared generally similar among stations (Table 4-40). Ephemeroptera nymphs were usua'lly the dominant food. Exceptions occurred far fish 51 - 100 m at Station I where Trichoptera larvae were the major food, and at Station 7 where Ostracods and Diptera adults were dominant and Ephemeraptera nymphs were absent from the diet. Other important foods for fish 0 -100 mm were Diptera larvae, pupae and emergents, Ephemeroptera emergents, Plecoptera nymphs and 'Nematoda.

Numerically important foods for fish greater than 100 m in Septembe!. 1976 were often insect life stages normally associated with the water column or surface. These included Diptera pupae and adults and Hemiptera and Zoleop- tera adults. Unlike smaller fish, no particular food item was regulvly dominant among stations or size classes. Other principle foods for fish

4 - 132 L a 1 I ! 1 $

P n-s. "0 I

d w w

I51". "-0 I

"4. .4 ,200 "-0 re "-0 SO TABLE 4-01

NUWRICAL (N) WO FREQUENCY OF OCCURUANCE (r0) VALUESFOR THE TllREE MIST AOUNOANT FWD ITEMS

IN STOIUCHS OF PNNOOW TROUi COLLECTEO AT IMT CREEK & EONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS. JUNE, 1917

tphenlcraptera (N)' 75.0 100.0 Cphcnrroptera (11) 87.5 100.0 n = 0, Dipte ra (L)Diptera 16.7 100.0 Trlchoptera (L) 6.2 31.1 Trichoptera[L) 8.3 ' 50.0 Diptera(L) 6.2 ' 31.3 n=Z,e=O n-3.e.0 51-100 Ephenrroptera(N) 85.0 100.0 n-0 Ephemeioptera (fl) 44.1 75.0 Plecoptera (N) 12.0 50.0 Diptera (L) 31.6 11.5 Unidcn. aninal 100.0 Trichoptcra(L) 8.6 31.5 n=Z.l*O n-8.e-0

101-150 n=O n=O Ephemeroptera (N) 44.6 60.0 Diptera (L) 21.1 100.0 Trichaptera(L) 8.5 80.0 Nematoda 8.5 60.0 n=5.e=0

151 - 200 n=O "SO n-0 ,200 n-0 n-0 n=O

1 A = adult E = emerqent tl = nywh P pupae L =- larvae

1 NotAppllcable It n I 8 .L Y

TADLE 4-41Cont'd.

IlUMERlCAL (N) NID FREQUCNCYOF OCCURMNCE (FF) VALUES TOR TllE THREE WSl AOUNMNT FWD ITEHS IN SIOIWIIS OF FNllOW TROW COLLECTED AT iIA1 CRtEY L BONAPARTE RlVER STATIMS, JUHE. 1977

Statlon 6 (Loner Hat Creek) Station 1 (Loner Hat Creek) Station IO (Upper Hat Creek) Taxa It (I) FO (I) Taxa N (0 FO (1) 1- n-0 n-0 n=O Ephemeroptera (N) 56.9 90.0 Ephemeroptera (N) 70.9 100.0 Olptera (1) 75.0 Trichoptera (1) 15.5 40.0 Diptera (1) 9.1 30.0 Epheneroptera (N) 9.1 Diptera (L) 13.0 50.0 Nematoda 7.3 30.0 Uniden.insect 9.1 n=lO.e-O n-10.e-0 n-4.e-0

101-150 olptera (1) 36.8 80.0 fphemeroptera (N) 33.3 42.9 Dlptera (1) 47.6 100.0 Trichoptera (1 34.2 100.0 Plecoptera (Io 15.8 57.1 Epheneroptera (N) 17.1 85.7 EphenteropteraIN) 15.0 60.0 Trlchopten (1) 14.1 57.1 Anne1 Ida 7.6 38.5 e n=5.e=0 n-5.e-0 n-7.e-0 I 151-200 Trichoplera (L) 54.8 66.7 Lphemeroptera(E) 34 '5 33.3 Diptera (L) 43.1 100.0 4 Epheneroptera (N) 12.9 33.3 Nematoda 20.7 33.3 Annelida ' . 25.0 33.3 w ul Plecoptera (N) 9.7 66.1 Trichoptera (L) 12.2 66.7 Trichoptera (L) 0.3 33.3 n*3.e=0 Diptera (L) 17.2 33.3 n-3.e-0 n*3.e=0

Trichoptera (L) 28.5 100.0 lrichoptera (L) 63.6 100.0 Annelida 49.4 40.0 Coleoptera (A) 20.6 lW.0 Ephemeroptera (N) 36.4 100.0 Nematoda 16.5 60.0 Ephenleroptera (It) 14.3 lw.o Uniden.animal .* 100.0 Diptera (1) 8.8 40.0 Plecoptera (11) , 14.3 100.0 n-1.e-0 n-5.e-0 Ilymenoptwa 14.3 100.0 n-l.e.0 TABLE 4-41 Cont'd.

NUMERICAL (N) AN0 FREQUEIICY OF OCCURMNCE (FO) VALUES FOR TIIE THREE YOST A0UNDhNT FWD ITEHS IN STOtNCHSOF FdINOOW TROUT COLLECTED AT HAT CREEK & BONAPARTE RIVER STATIOIIS. JUNE 1977

FlrhLength Statlon 14 (UpperHat Creek) Interval (mn) Taxa II (X) FO (I) " 0-50 Ephemeroptera (N) 100.0 100.0 Unlden. AnlnmlUnlden. It 100.0 n=l.e-0

5i-;O@ Diptera (1) 76.5 03.3 Ephenemptera (N) 11.8 100.0 Unlden. Insect 7.6 50.0 n.6.e.O

P 101-150 Olptera (I.) 100.074.8 I Epherneroptera (N) 9.7 100.0 Unlden. insect 6.4 75.0 d w n=4.e-0 m 151-200 Hymenoptera 43.9 66.7 Diptera (L) 14.1 100.0 Plecoptera (E) 6.1 66.7 n=3.e=0

"200 n=O I L L L i

TABLE 4-42 NuwucnL (N) ANU rncwucw or OCCUIININCE (FO) V~LUCSron TIIE mEc MOST MUNMNTrmo mtts IN STOMCIIS OF MINDOH TROW COLLECTEO AT IIAT CREEK L RONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS,AUGUST, 1971

Statlon (BonaparteRiver)Statlon (BonaparteRiver) Stathn (Lwer Hat Creek) Flrh Len th 1 3 5 Taxa N (X) r0 (X) Taxa H (X) FO (X) Taxa tl (2) (X) ""Interval t) - FO 0-50 n=O n-0 n=l.e=l 51-100 n-0 n- 0 Epheneroptera (HI' 50.0 1w.o Dlptera It) 10.0 1DO.O Plecoptera (N) 10.0 100.0 n=l.e-O

101-150 n-U Hemtcda 50.0 100.0 Diptera (1) 25.0 15.0 Epheneroptera (t4) 10.0 25.0 Hymenoptera 10.0 25.0 n=4.e=0 151-200 Trichoptera (1 87.7 100.0 llynenoptera 55.9 100.0 Hymenoptera 33.3 lw.o 4.6 100.0 Coleoptera (A) 27.2 100.0 Uniden.insect 23.8 100.0 Coleoptera (A) 4.2 50.0 6.6 1-0.0 (A1 Coleootera~ Oiptera (I) ". "~ 14.3 1w.o n.2.e.O n-2,e-0 Coleoptera lij 14.3 10.0 n-1.e-0

,2043 n- 0 n '0 n=O

A - a&I t E = emergent N * nywh P - pupae L - larvae Mot applicable TABLE 4-42Cont'd. NUMERICAL (N) AND FREQUENCY OF OCCURRANCE (FO) VALUESFOR THE THREE MST ABUNDANT FOOO ITEMS Ill STOIHCHS OF PAlNBIlb! TROUT COlllCTEO AT HAT CREEK b OMIWARTE RIVER STATIMIS, AUGUST, 1977

Station 6 (LowerHat Creek) Statlon 7 (Lower fiat Creek) Station10 (Upper Hat Creek) !axa N (X) FO (2) Taxa N (I) fO (I) Taxa N (Z) FO (2) Epheneroptera (N) 71.8 100.0 Epheneroptera (11) 69.2 100.0 Ephemeroptera (N) 66.7 100.0 Olptera(L) 2a2.1 66.7 Diptera(L) 3oi n 50.0 Diptera(L) 16.7 100.0 Unidcn.animal 66.7 Uniden. aninul 100.0 Trichoptera(L) 16.1 100.0 n=3.e-0 n * 2. c- 0 n=l.e=O

51-100 Ephelneroptera (11) 33.3 100.0 Epheneroptera (N) 44.4 87.5 Oiptera(L) 46.6 100.0 Diptera(L) 33.3 75.0 Trichoptcra (L) 36.7 100.0 Ephencroptera (11) 28.5 100.0 Trlchaptcra(L) 13.3 75.0 Diptera(L) 36.7 100.0 Coleoptera (1) 8.8 62.5 n-4.e.0 n.8.e-0 n-8.e=0

101-150 Trichoptera(L) 27.0 100.0 Trichoptcra (L) 42.9 100.0 47.1 100.0 Ephcnwoptera (N) 66.7 21.6 Epheneroptera (N) 42.5 100.0 15.0 66.7 Diptera(L) 21.6 16.7 Diptera(L) 9.7 50.0 11.8 16.7 n = 6, e- 0 n.6.e.O n=6.e=0 151-200 36.1 100.0 Ortracoda 59.2 25.0 Ephemeroptera (N) 44.7 100.0 19.4 75.0 Trlchoptera(L) 17.7 100.0 Diptera(L) 17.1 100.0 15.3 75.0 Unidcn.insect 7.2 75.0 Trichoptcra(L) 10.6 100.0 n=4.e=0 n=6.e-0

1200 56.5 100.0 Unlden. insect 63.0 100.0 Diptera (P) 28.6 100.0 26.1 100.0 Hymenoptera 13.9 100.0 Olptera(L) 28.6 66.7 13.0 100.0 Trichoptcra (1) 9.8 100.0 Ephernemptcra (N) 14.3 33.3 n=Z.e-O n-3.e-0 TABLE 4-42 Cont'd. NUHRICAL (N) MO FREOUENCY OF OCCURMNCE (FO) VALUES FOR THE THREE HOST AOUNMNT FWO IlEHF IN SlOHI\CIIS OF NIINDOW TROIil COLLECTEO AT HAT CREEK 6 BMIAPARTE RIVER STATIONS. AUGUST. 1917

Statlon 14 (Upper llat Creek) laxa I1 LZ) FO (I) n=O Diptera (L) 86.8 57.1 Ephcmneroptcra (N) 9.9 42.9 Trichoptera (1) 1.1 14.3 PlecooteraIN1 1.1 14.3 Cladkera 1.1 14.3 n-7.e.1

I Diptera (I) 10.4 100.0 Epheneroptera 11.4 40.0 4 (N1 W llylnenoptera 9.1 20.0 W n-5.e-0

Diptera(L) 54 .O n3.3 Unlden. insect 14.1 50.0 Ilylnenoptera 14.0 83.3 n-6.e-0

Diptera (1) 41 .I 100.0 Unldcn. insect 31.5 100.0 Hynlcnoptera 15.1 100.0 n-3.e-0 beak

Volumetric analysis af June 1977 data showed. Ephemeroptera nymphs, Plecoptera nymphs and Trichoptera larvae were usually dominant food items in the Bona- parte River and Lower Hat Creek. Diptera larvae were less important by volume than number in Upper Hat Creek. Instead, larger-sized organisms such as Ephemeroptera nymphs, Hymenoptera and, in particular, Annelida were primary food items at Stations 10 and 14.

Unidentified animal remains (primarily insects) were an important food in both the river and creek. Minerals were present in several stomachs as in September. No fish were observed in stomachs of specimens, and no s.:omachs were empty.

Food habits of rainbow trout in August 1977 (Table 4-42) were somewhdt similar to those in June 1977. Numerically,Ephemeroptera nymphs were a primary food for fish less than 100 m at Stations 5, 6 and 7.Trichoptet-a and Diptera larvae were also important foods at these stations. Diptera larvae, followed by Ephemeroptera nymphs, were principal foods for most size classes of fish at Stations 10 and 14. While food items such as Trichoptera larvae, Ephem- eroptera nymphs and Diptera larvae were important in the diet of fish greater than 100 mm downstream of Station 10, the presence of such foods as Hymenoptera and Coleoptera adults indicated increased utilization of drift organisms in August. Drift appeared less important in the diet of f:sh further upstream at Stations 10 and 14.

Food items which were.". important numerically were also important volunletri- cally in August 1977. As in June 1977, small-sized foods such as Diptera larvae comprised a lesser proportion of the diet by volume than by number. Minerals were again present in the stomachs of some trout and fish appeared absent from the diet. The stomachs of one specimen 93 m in length captured at Station 14 and a second 36 mm in length collected at Station 5 were empty.

Stomach contents of two mountain whitefish (103 and 109 mm total length) collected in the Bonaparte River at Station 3 in September 1976 included Trichoptera larvae (dominant food), Coleoptera and Chironomidae larvae, - 4 - 140 .r I greaterthan 100 mm were Hymenoptera, Nematoda, Trichoptera and Diptera larvae. Ephemeroptera nymphs appeared less importantin the diet of larger than smaller - fish. Although they were the dominant food for fish101 - 150 mm at Stations . 6 and 14, Ephemeroptera nymphs were nota major food forfish greater than 150 mi.

.I Volumetric analysis of September1976 data showed unidentified animal remains

9 (primarily insects) usually comprised a large percentage of total food volume. In addition, food items which were important numerically were usually also important by volume. The occurrence of minerals in stomachs of both small m and large fish may have resulted from accidental ingestion while feeding near the bottom or represent remains of Trichoptera cases. Nearly all rain- 9 bow trout with lengths of83 mm at Station 10 and 78 mm at Station 14. No fish were presentin stomachs of trout examined.

In June 1977, Ephemeroptera nymphs were the dominant food (numerically)for rainbow trout less than150 mm in the Bonaparte River and Lower Hat Creek (Stations 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7; Table 4-41). Other major. foods for fish of this size were Dipteraand Trichoptera larvae with Plecoptera nymphs and Nematoda m also occasionally important. For fish greater than150 mm captured at Stations 6 and 7, Trichoptera larvae were usually the dominant food.An exception occurred for fish 151 - 200 m at Station 7 where Emphemeroptera nymphs were the principle food. Other major foods for fish greater than 150 mm at Station m 6 and 7 were Plecoptera nymphs, Coleoptera adults, Diptera larvae and Hymen- optera.

Different food habits were observed further upstream at Stations10 and 14 (Upper Hat Creek) in June 1977. Diptera larvae, rather than Ephemeroptera I nymphs, were usually the primary food (numerically) allfor fish sizes, Ephemer- optera nymphs were generally the second most important food for fish less than 150 mm. Annelida, Hymeno$tera, Trichoptera larvae and Nematoda, in addition to Diptera larvae, were major foods for fish greater 150than mm.

4 - 141 baak

Nematoda and minerals. Stomach contents of a 177 mm whitefish captured at Station 14 in September1976 were Ephemeroptera nymphs (dominant food), Chironomidae and Trichoptera larvae, Nematoda, unidentified animal remains (primarily insects) and minerals.

Stomachs of two large whitefish (352 and 354 mm) taken at Station 7 iri June 1977 contained Trichoptera larvae (primary food), Plecoptera and Epherneroptera nymphs, unidentified animal remains (primarily insects) and minerals. Diptera larvae were the principle food for a large whitefish (290 m) collect,?d at. Station 10 in June 1977. At Station 3, Coleopt,era larvae were the major food in the stomach of a 133 mm specimen.

The dominant food for three mountain whitefish with lengths of 79 - 93 m captured at Stition 5 in August 1977 was Diptera larvae. Ephemeropte-a nymphs were also an important.food for these fish with Plecoptera nymphs, Trichoptera larvae and Diptera pupae present in smaller numbers.

Stomach contents of a brook trout (114 mm total length) collected at Station 3 in September were Plecoptera nymphs, Hemiptera adults, Trichoptera snd Coleoptera larvae, unidentified animal remains (primarily insects), ald detrius. No particular food item was dominant.

Forage Ratios The forage ratio (S/B) was used to determine the degree of proportion of utilization of the benthic food supply by rainbow trout (Rounsefell and Evvhart, 1966). The variables '5" and "B" represent the numerical percentage a particular organism comprises of the total number in the stomach (S) and benthos (B). Values greater than 1.0 indicate selection for or easy availability of a food item of fish. Values less than 1.0 indicate the opposite, selection against or difficulty in utilizing a food item. Values were calculated for major benthic food present in stomachs of rainbow trout (listed in Tables 4-40 to 4-42) and are presented in Tables 4-43 to 4-45. Vzlues could not be calculated

4 - 142 Station I 5t.ation 5 Station 6 . station 1 Statlo" IO F lrh LenglhFlrh (Bonoparts River) (Lower Hat Creek) (Lmr llat Creek) (Lower Ilat Creek) (Lower Hat Creek) (Lwer Hat Crcek) Interval (m) Taxa 5/11 Taxa 5/11 Tala 5/11 Taxa 5/11 Taxa s/0 Tala SI0

0-50 "-0 "4 0-0 Epheneroptera (N) 2.2 fphemroptera (N) 2.0 fphcmroptcra (N) 0.5 "-2 n- I lrichoptera (L) 10.1 0lpter* (L) 2.0 "-2

51-100 Trlchoptera (1) 3.1 Ephemeroptera (N) 1.8 tphemroptcra (N) 1.8 Trlchoptera (L) 0.3 Ephemropters (N) 1.0 Ephcmroptera (N) 1.0 Eplwnrraptera(N) 0.6 Newtoda D Nematoda 13.7 n-5 Dlptera (L) 1.5 Trlchoptcra (L) 2.7 "-5 "-10 "-9 Trlchoptera (L) 0.9 n-8 Plecoptera (N) 0.6 "-1 I

IUI-150 "4 "-1 Ephemroptera (N) 1.7 Nematoda 81.5 otptera (L) 1.7 Ephemroptcra (N) 0.9 Trlchoptera (L) 1.8 Epltemroptera (N) 0.4 Nematoda 41.7 Coleoptera (L) "-2 "-9 n-7 "-5

151-200 "-0 "-0 "-0

,200 "-0 "-0 "=O "-0 Trlchoptera (L) 1.8 Nematoda 11.5 "-2 "-2 c I I 1 # I I r

r Y r

1AOLE 4-44 FORAGE RAVlOS (SlO) FOR MOR BENTIIIC fM)D ITEMS OF WlltlOGU TROUT COLLECTED AT HA1 CREEK AND OONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS. JUNE. 1977

Statlon 1 (OonaparteRiver) Station (OonaparteRlver) Station 5 (Lomr HatCreek) 6 (Lover llat Creek) Fish Len th 3 Statlon Interval laxa 5 0 ILX? __$0 laxa Taxa - "___ L) " "- SF SB 0-50 Ephemeropte:a (ti) ' 0.9 Ephcmeroptcra (If) 1.3 n=O n-0 Diptera(L) 4.0 lrichoptera(L) 0.5 Trlchoptera(L) 1.8 Olptera(L) 0.3 n-2 n=3 51-100 Ephemeroptera (11) 1.0 n - Ephemeroptera (N) 1.9 Epheneroptera (N) 3.7 Plecoptera (N) 5.3 Diptera(L) 0.5 Trlchoptera (1) 1.9 n-2 Trichoptera (1) 3.1 Dlptera (1) 0.2 n.8 n = 10

P 101-150 n-0 n-0 Ephemeroptera (ti) 0.5 I Diptera(L) 4.2 Trichoptera (1) 1.0 .-A P Nematoda P n=5

151-200 n=0 n-0 n-0 Trlchoptera(L) 6.8 Ephemeroptera (N) 0.0 Plecoptera (N) 3.2 n= 3

;zoo n- 0 n-0 n-0 lrlchoptera(L) 3.5 Ephewroptera (:I) 0.9 Plecoptera ()I) 4.8 n= 1

' H = nymph L - larvae TAULE 4-44 Cont'd. FORAGE RATIOS (S/B) FOR NWOR BENTHIC FOOD ITEMS OF WIINOOU TROUT COLLECTED AT llAT CREEK AND BONAPARTE RlVEi STATIONS. JUNE. 1977

Fish Len th Station 7 (LowerHat Creek) Statlon 10 (Upper HatCreek) Statlon 14 (Upper llatCreek) -~Interval 7wm) _"Taxa ss Taxa so Taxa so 0-50 n-0 n=O Ephemeroptera (N) 1.5 n- 1 51-100 Ephemeroptera(N) 1.7 Diptera (L) 3.1 Diptera (L) 4.2 Diptera (L) 0.3 Ephemeroptera (N) 0.2 Ephemeroptera (N) 0.2 Ilewatoda 24.3 n -4 n-6 n = 10

101-150 Ephemeroptcra (N) 0.0 Diptera(L) 1.9 Diptera (L) 4.1 Plecoptcra (N) 2 .s Ephemeroptera (N) 0.3 Ephememptera (H) 0.1 Trichoptera(L) 0.1 Anne 1i da n=4 n=l n= I 151-200 llcmatoda 69.0 Diptera (L) I .6 Diptera (L) 1.9 Trichoptera (L) 0.6 Awe1 Ida - n=3 Diptera (1) 0.6 Trichnptera(L) I .2 "=I n= 3 ,200 Trichoptera (1) 3.1 Anne1 Ida - n=O Ephemroptera (ti) 0.9 Nematoda 82.5 I, = 1 Iliptcra(L) 0.3 n.5 TABLE 4-45

FORAGE RATIOS (SlO) FOR WOR BENTHICFOOD ITEIIS OF RAINBOW TROUTCOLLECTED AT HAT CREEK NIO BONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS.AUGUST. 1971

Station 6 (Loner Hat Creek) Flrh Len th Statlon 1 (OonaparteRlver) Statlon I (OonaparteRiver) Station 5 (Lower HatCreek) IntervaA) Taxa 6. Taxa SB Taw SB Taxa " s - SB 0-50 0'0 n=o n= 1 Epheneroptera (N)' 1.3 D iptera (L)' Diptera 1.1 n- I 51-100 n-0 n-0 Ephemeroptera (tl) 1.4 Epheneroptera (N) 0.6 Olptcra(L) 0.2 Diptera (1) 1.3 Plecoptera (H) 0.8 Trlchoptera (1) 1.1 n- 1 n- 4 101-150 n=O n-0 Nemtoda - Trlchoptera (L) 2.2 Oiptera(L) 0.8 Epheneroptera (N) 0.4 Eplmeroptera (ti) 0.3 Dlptera (1) 0.9 "-4 n-6 151-200 Trlchoptera(L) 2.9 Diptera(L) Coleoptera0.2 (L) 2.0 n-4 Ephenaroptera (N) 0.1 n=2 n- 1 ,200 n=O n=O n.0 Plecoptera (N) 3.0 n- 1

' N = nynph L = larvae i I. m I I I

TABLE 4-45 Cont'd'.

FORAGE RATIOS (VU) FOR WOR UENIillC FWD IlEllS OF RAItiOOW TROUTCDLLECTED AT liA1 CREEK AND 8MIALPARIE RIVER STATIDNS.AUGUST. 1971

Station 7 (LowerHat Creek) Station 14 (UpperHat Creek) Taxa su -Taxa SB Ephemcroptera (N) I .2 Ephemeroptera (N) 1.2 n=0 Diptera (1) I .8 Oiptera (L) 0.9 n=2 Trichoptera (L) 1.3 n=l

51-100 Epknleroptera (N) 0.8 Diptera (L) 2.6 Dlptera (L) 3.1 Diplera (1) 0.9 Ephemeroptera (N) 0.5 Ephcmeroptera (N) 0.2 Trichoptera (L) 2.1 Coleoptera (L) 6.0 Trichoptera (1) 0.2 n-8 n-8 Plecoptera (N) 0.1 n=7 P I 101-150 Trlchoptera (L) 2.5 Diptera (L) 2.6 Diptera (1) 2.5

4 Ephclneraptera (N) 0.7 Ephenrroptera (N) 0.3 Ephemeroptera (N) 0.2 P Diptera (t) 0.6 n-6 n=5 u n=6

151-200 Trlchoptera (L) 1 .o Ephemeroptera (N) 0.8 Diptera (L) 1.9 "-4 Diptera (L) 0.9 n=6 lrichoptera (1) 0.0 "-4

.zoo 0.6 Diptera (1) 1.6 Diptera (L) 1.5 CphcnlerDptcrd (N) 0.3 n- 3 n-3 m beak 1 m for pupae, emergents or adults sjnce they are not a part of the benthic community, nor were they calculated for benthic taxa which appeared to be of minc'r dietary - importance. In September 1976, forage ratios for Ephemeroptera nymphs varied from C.4 to I 2.2 indicating they were fed upon in approximately the same proportion they occurred in benthic samples (Table 4-43). These values may be expected con-

I sidering the abundance of Ephemeroptera in most benthic samples and stomachs of smaller fish. Forage ratios for Trichoptera larvae ranged from 0.3 to 10.2, il but most were slightly greater than 1.0. Except for the minimum and saximum values, rainbow trout appeared to utilize Trichoptera in about the same or in slightly greater proportion than they occurred in the benthic community. - Forage ratios for Diptera larvae (1.5 to 2.0) also indicate a slight selectivity by'fish. The forage ratio for Plecoptera nymphs (0.6), on the single I occasion they were among the three most abundant food items, suggests a slight - selection against or difficulty in utilizing this food by fish. Forag? ratios .. for Nematoda and Coleoptera larvae, the other major benthic food groups, were relatively high (in several cases infinity when none occurred in benthic samples). This indicated a high degree of selection for these foods by fish I or their occurrence in a particular habitat not sampled during benthic investigations. .I In June 1977,forage ratios for Ephemeroptera nymphs at Stations 1, 3, !5, 6 - and 7 ranged from 0.8 to 3.7 with most values approximating 1.0 (Table 4-44). At Stations 10 and 14, forage ratios for this food were usually much less than 1.0 indicating a greater selection against or difficulty in utilization than U at stations further downstream. The pattern of forage ratios for Diptera larvae was opposite that for Ephemeroptera nymphs. Values in the Bonaparte R,'ver m and Lower Hat Creek were usually less than 1.0 while those in Upper Hat Creek were usually greater than 1.0. Forage ratios for Trichoptera larvae varied .I from 0.5 to 6.8 but were usually greater than 1.0. Forage ratios for Plecoptera nymphs (2.5 - 5.3) similarly indicated a selection for or ,?ase

4 - 148 I in utilization. Values for Nematoda and Anneldia were extremely high (in four i cases infinity) and may have resulted from the same effects described for the Sept- ember 1976 sampling.

In August 1977, forage ratios for Ephemeroptera nymphs ranged from 0.1 to

9 1.4 in the Bonaparte River and Lower Hat Creek and from 0.2 to 1.2 ir Upper Hat Creek (Table 4-40). As in June 1977, values for this food were senerally lower at Stations 10 and 14 than at stations further downstream. The pat- 0. ern of forage ratios for Diptera larvae in August 1977 was similar to that in June 1977. Forage ratios for Diptera larvae in the Bonaparte River and I Lower Hat Creek were close to 1.0 and ranged from 0.6 to 1.8. Those at Stat- ions 10 and 14 in Upper Hat Creek were usually higher and varied from 0.2 m to 0.9 and were usually lower at Stations 10 and 14 than further downstream. Forage ratios for Plecoptera nymphs were 0.1 .and 0.8 and lower than in August. Forage ratios of 2.0 and 6.8 for Coleoptera larvae on the two occasions they I were a major food indicate selectivity by fish. The forage ratio for Nema- toda on the single occasion they were a major food was infinity.

.I)

m (c) Concluding Discussion A variety of habitats existed in Hat Creek from its headwaters to mou-:h, ranging from a series of beaver dams 'in both upper and lower reaches ':o fast flowing water in the canyon and chute. General distinctions in terms of fish m habitat can be made between Upper Hat Creek, which consists of both pool and riffle areas and slower flowing water and Lower Hat Creek where rifflt?s were more numerous and currents generally swifter. The division between Lower L and Upper Ha: was designated primarily by habitat characteristics. Kilometers 0 - 22.4 encompassed the Lower Hat Creek section with areas above km 22.4 m being considered as Upper HatCreek. Overall, HatCreek appeared to p-ovide good habitat for rainbow trout.

4 - 149 ~~~~ " -.

beak

Substrate ranged from silt-sandin pools to boulders in areas exhibiting . steeper gradient, although graveland small pebbles appeared to be most common. Stream depth rangedfrom about 25 m in shallow riffles to approximately 1.5 m in deeper pools. Stream width varied from about 1.5 - 9.0 m with distances usually greater in downstream than upstream reaches. Most banks appeared stable exceptin canyon areas which exhibited deeper cutsand steeper banks. Bank vegetation varied from grass to treei, nearly all of which were deciduous, with brush to.smal1-sized trees predominant. Banks were often barren in canyon areas due to steepness.

The influence of man appeared minimal exceptin Upper Hat Creek wheresigns

of livestock were noted along banks and part of the stream-flow had besn diver- ' ted for irrigation. Several man-made rock barriers were noted in Lower Hat Creek.

The Bonaparte River canbe characterized as swifter flowing and larger than Hat Creek. Width varied from approximately 9 to 30 m and depth from several cm to at least 1.8 m. Substrate appeared to consist primarilyof gravel and pebble, although silt-sand wasnoted in slower reaches with bouldersill downstream reaches where the river gradient increased.Bank stability appdred good except in canyon areas downstream near Station 1. Vegetation types varied from grass, brush or trees in upstream reaches to sparse grasses along barren cliff wallsin the vicinity of Station1. Overall, fish habitat appearedgood, with pool;, runs and riffles observed from Station1 upstream to Station 4. Figure 4-22.presents a longitudinal profile of Hat Creek with rainbow.:rout and benthic invertebrate densities.

The benthic communities ofHat Creek and the Bonaparte River were typif'ied by organisms characteristic ofc,lean water conditions. There appeared to be no environmental factor which significantly hindered the development of .complex invertebrate systems. The Upper Hat Creek reaches were somewhet lesj stable than the lower areas which may have been a reactionto agricultLra1

4 -. 150 T

ONGITUDINAL PROFILE jF HAT CREEK- 3AINBOW TROUT AND 3ENTHICINVERTEBRATE IENSITIES j egend iI i ish D = Density of Rainbow trout Of s:ream ! /m * September 1976 June 1977,I 1 August 1977-

i R = Range of total lengths for Rainbow September 1976, + "" trout (mm) - I June 1977 , August 1977 3enthor :Totals numbers/rn -September 1976 , - June I977 ,August 1977 i /- STATION 10 I ,, - -ish D = 0.64,0.73 , 1.32 1 T ! R = 49- 210 ,71- 255 42-219 , 3enthos : 523 ,882 , 1232 !

.. i STATION 14 - 'ish D = 1:19,0.62,0.64 j R s 44-224,50-244,73-241 I 3enthos 392- 1130 ,1517 i ! LI lli STATION 15. - 'ish D 0.40,0.57,0.13 LENGTH 1FROM CONFLUENCE WITH THE .EONAPART€ RIVER IN KILOMETRES R = 31-236,44-227,63-92 3enthos : 835,3846,2484 STATION 5 STATION 6 STATION 7 ! Fish D =,0.~9,0.l~,0.ll Fish D = 0.26,0.38,0.34 Fish 0 = 0.28,0.45,639 R = 50-81,64-134,36-187 R =40-127, 70-201 ,39-207 R = 35-156,66-187,32-216 Benthos; 636,3107,1363 Benthos : 448 ,2082,1419 Benthos: 636,984,1691 beak

activities near this section of stream. Stations are depicted in Figure 4- 22.

Dominant foods for rainbow trout were aquatic insects. Ephemeropterz nymphs and Diptera larvae were particularly important, especially to smaller-sized fish. The general importance of these two foods in the diet of trout cor- responded to their general y high relative abundance in the benthic comunity. Ephemeroptera nymphs were usually more important in the diet of trout in the Bonaparte River and Lower Hat Creek while Diptera larvae were more important in Upper Hat Creek. Forage ratios indicated fish utilized these foods in approximately the same proportion they occurred in the environment. Similar to food habits, forage ratios indicated some selection for or ease in utiliz.ing Ephemeroptera nymphs in Lower Hat Creek and Diptera larvae in Upper Hat Creek.

Foods which were important to larger-sized fish and relatively abundant in the benthic community included Trichoptera larvae and Plecoptera nymphs. - .: The prominence of Hymenoptera and Coleoptera adults in stomachs of la-ger trout in Lower Hat Creek in June and August reflects the importance of drift organisms in the diet.

The above data indicated that rainbow trout are successfully utilizing foods available to them. Field observations and calculation of condition factor:; and length-weight curves showed most trout were in good condition, 5ndicative of an 'adequate food supply.

Rainbow trout were the dominant fish species in Hat Creek. Mountain whitefish were also distributed throughout most of Hat Creek, but in much maller numbers than rainbow trout. Bridgelip sucker, longnose dace and leopwd dace, the three most abundant fish collected in the Bonaparte River, were ci.ptured only at the dowr:stream most station in Hat Creek.

Densities of rainbow trout were usually greater in Upper than Lower Hi,t Creek. a. .-. * ! beak

In addition, larger rainbow trout were better represented and compriseda greater proportion of the catch in Upper than Lower Hat Creek; Young-of-the- year rainbow trout were collected throughout Hat Creek. Reasons for density and size differences between areas of the creekbe may related to the variety and quality of habitat. Upper Hat Creek contained numerous riffle areas which serve as spawning grounds for adults and nursery areas for young, as well as many pools with deeper, slower moving water which provided cover for adults. Conversely, Lower Hat Creek containeda greater proportion of riffles [good spawning and r.iffle areas) but a lesser proportionof pools (reduced cclver for adults) compared to Upper Hat Creek.

'Total lengths of rainbow trout in Hat Creek rangedfrom about 30 to 25Cl mm and ages from O+ to 6+. Back-calculated lengths at various ages were ft4 mm at age 1, 108 mmat age 2, 143 mm at age 3, 173 mm at age 4, 197 mm at age 5, and 225 mm at age 6. Back-calculated lengths of males and females were nearly identical The oldest female was age5+ and the oldest male age6+. Comparison of the above age-length datato.the literature indicates Hat Creek fish are slow growing butby no means stunted. Hat Creek rainbow trout age- length relationships may well be typicalof similar sized streams in interior British Columbia.

The similarity of mean back-calculated lengthsat a given age among year classes indicated growth of rainbow troutin Hat Creek has remained relatively constant over the past several years. Considerable variation was observed among individual lengths within a year class and appears to be primarily due to an extended spawning season and/or variationin individual growth during the first year of life. Differences in lengths of older fish were observed among stations. Older aged fish were larger in Lower compared to Upper Hat Creek, a pattern inversely related to that of fish density. Growth appeared t3 be slowest at Station 10 in Upper Hat Creek, a sampling location which often exhibited peak densities. Factors such as available food, spaceor cov?r may limit the growth of rainbow troutin Upper Hat Creek. The overall quality and quantity of fish habitat maylimit fish densities, particularly densities

4 - 153 I

.. ~ ...... _ ...... ~.

I of larger specimens,Creek. Hat in Lower - m Rainbow trout appear to spawn throughout Hat Creek a; evidenced by the! toll-. ection of sexually mature adults and young-of-the-year at all station!:. Exam- ination of gonads indicated spawning occurred primarily between mid-June and L1 late July. .Water temperatures were approximately10-14°C during this time. Literature states young emerge from gravels approximately4 to 7 week:, following I spawning. At Hat Creek Stations 5, 6, 7 and 10, young were first captured in early-August. The absence of young from samples taken upstream of Station I 10 in August suggests spawning occurred later or growth of young was ;ess rapid than further downstream. In the Bonaparte River, young rainbow trout

I were first collected in June, indicating spawning occurred earlier or young grew more quickly than in the creek. Water temperatures were approxinlately 2-4OC higher in the river than creek in June and could have induced earlier n spawning in the Bonapzrte. r The predominance of young rainbow trout in Lower Hat Creek kuggested the importance of this reach as a spawning ground 5n-r-e.a: 'It is likely that I adult rainbow trout migrate upstream from the Bonaparte to spawn in Lcwer Hat Creek, even though potential spawning gravels were observedin the river. 1 However, because of naturalbarriers such as the chuti and numerous be.aver . dams, such spawning migrations probably extendno more than about 6 kir up Hat Creek. Beczuse of sizilar barriers presented by beaver dams further up- I stream, intra-stream movements of fish in'Hat Creek'may be limited. It is probable that the existance of potential spawning gravelsand. deeper cover Q ar.ezs interspersed with beaver dzms in most sections ofHat Creek has resulted in largely self-sustaining pspulations.of rainbow trout within short reaches I of Hat Creek.

I Other fish which probably spawn'in .the extreme 10w2r reaches of Hat Creek are bridgelip sucker, longnose dace and leopard dace. Sexually mature sucker in or m and longndse dace were collected the river creek in June. Examination ...... - . of gonads of adult mountain whitefish collectedat Station 7 in Hat Creek indicated these fish would spawn during Fall. Sexually mature redside shiner a

*.- 4 a - 154 beak

were collected in the Bonaparte River during June and may also spawn in the U extreme lower reaches of Hat Creek.

Population estimates for rainbow trout in' Hat Creek ranged from approximately 18,000 to 23,000. Approximately 35 - 45 % of the total number was estimated to occur in Lower Hat Creek, an area which comprised about 60% of the length of the entire Hat Creek system. Estimates for rainbow trout greater than 150 mm (about 6 inches in length) ranged from approximately 3,500 to 5,000. Even though size classes were better represented and population estimates higher in Upper compared to Lower Hat Creek, a viable fishery appears to exist in both areas of the system.

Population estimates were not made for rainbow trout in the Bonaparte iiiver -since swift, deep water prevented. effective sampling. However, specie:; collected during the three surveys (bridgelip sucker, longnose dace, leopard dace, rainbow trout, brook trout, mountain whitefish and redside shiner) are probably representative of those actually.found in the river system. il) - fributaries to Hat Creek appeared to provide negligible fish habitat compared to that in the creek. No fish were observed in Goose/Fish Hook or Finrley Lakes.

The Hat Creek system, in total, displayed a variety of habitats which .in turn supported a variable spectrum of faunal components in terms OF fish populations and benthic invertebrate communities. An analysis of these biological entities, with their inherent ecological relationships, enabled a critical evalu~tion of present system status. These data will facilitate projections to expected conditions given definable environmental perturbations.

4 1 - 155 beak

5.0 PROJECT IMPACT

The fundamentalpurpose of the study is to assess what inpactsthe prcposed developnent may exert upon the existing environmental characteristics of the area. blithin this report the fisheries and benthos resourcesare the focal point of attention.

The method of impact assessment using matrix techniques has been described in Section 3.4. The organizational framework within which the assessment is presented consists of a broadgeographical division based on regional, offsite and local (Hat Creek Valley)areas with further activity division based on construction,operation and decommissioningphases where appropriate. Dis- cussion is subsequently structured on interactions between project activities and environmental characteristics; the direction .of interaction being from project activitiesto environmental characteristics. ..

The environmentalimpact matrix forfisheries and benthosresources is presented Figures 5-1 (Operation and Construction) and 5-2 (Decommissioning). For I on purposesof impact analysis,the entire study region was sectioned int.1 a series of zones. Zone A includes the mine, plant and majorityof offsite facili’ties. I Zone E extends beyond Zone A to a distance of 15 km-east, 15 km west, :!5 lan north and 25 km south of the impact center situated in the middle of Zone A. Zone C extends beyondZone 6 to a distance of 30 km east and west, and 40 ka north and south. BeyondZone C, a 100 km demarkationencloses Zone D. Within Zone D is. the area where measurablephysical affects of the HatCreek project may be realized. Because many of the projecteffects are anticipated to be localized, Zones E, C and D have been divided into quadrants, each numbered W clockwise beginning with thenorthwest section [i.e. 81, B2, B3, 84, etc.). Thus, the broad geographicaldivisions of regional, offsite and local hecome specified asfollows: Regional - C, D Offsite - C3 Local - A, B I

I 5-1 figure 5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTMATRIX - " CONSTRUCTION I MINE I PLANT OFFSITE I AND OPERATION PLANT I legend

I MINE I PLANT I ' ' OFFSITE I

OPERATIUN

I._ DECOMMISSIONING

figure 5-2 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT MATRIX - DECOMMISSIONING Activities associated with development of the Hat Creel: Project which are . . .. expected to impactbenthic and fish'populations duringthe construction, I ,.operation and decommissioning phases of the project are listed in Figures 5-1 and 5-2. Impacts have been categorizedaccording to the developmental

m area(plant, mine, offsite) in which an activity will occur. The predicted degree of impact'(minor, major) and type of impact (negative, beneficial) are also listed. Those instances where impacts are not expected, but could I occur if precautionarymeasures descrl'bed by B.C. Hydro fail, or where in-

sufficient information-is-- . available to;make a definitive assessment are des- c ignatedas fl.avsurnt. L--b~~-~~*t-

.1 5.1 REGIOFIAL IMPACT

1 Those-projectactivities interacting with theregional aquatic resources can be specified as the construction and operation of an intake structure on the

1 Thompson River and theemission to the atmosphere associatedwith plant operation. Both interactionsare considered in detail within otherenvironmntal .reports for HatCreek Project, specifically the Intake Study and Air.Quality -.

Study.Insofar as an initialinventory of theregional aquatic resources has '~ been included in thisstudy, and shall se;ve as an informationbase for other I groups, .theinteractions between plant air emission and fish is designatedas ambivalent. I.

" 5 :2 OFFSITE IilPACTS The offsite activity component of the Hat Creek Project has been defined in a projectdescription to includenot only the access road, cooling water supply, transmissionsystem, airstrip and equipment offloading site but also the diver- sionof Hat Creek. Notxiinstanding this structuralaspect of projectorganiza- tion, activities associated with thediversion and storage of water which are designatedas offsite activities, do.not fall within thegeographically defined offsitearea. Therefore, these activities have not been assessedIlerein but rather ace placedas an integral component of the Hat Creek Impact.(Section j.3) which. corresponds to the area in which their impactsoccur.

5-4 beak 11

., Given this aerial division of offsi:te activities, no major impacts 'n the (-~ .. . m - offsite area are identifiable, Those minor negative and beneficial impacts identified are primarilyassociated with the following activtties:

I Construction 1) accessroads and pipellne stream crossings (C3); II 2) reseedingofcut surfaces and road paving(C3); and

.I Decommissioning 3)erosion and drainagecontrol (C3). n Construction of theplant access road and waterpipeline will require stream crossing of the Bonaparte River, Cornwall Creek, MacLaren Creek and a number .. of smallerintermittent streams which drain into thesesystems. Associated construction and deconissioningactivities including trenching, culvert

I implacement, backfilling and slopestabilization may result in stream altera- .. . tions which could have negative impacts to streambenthos and fish. aDi In all streamscrossed or paralleled by the proposed accessroad and pipeline, exceptthe Bonaparte River, none aresuspected to support significant fish II populations and hence impacts related to fishare considered negligible. Short- . term lossesin benthic standing crops will result at streamcrossings due to a material emplacement and potentialsiltation of downstream habitat. .

II Possibilityfor impact tofishes may occur in the lowerBonaparte River. The lower Bonaparteprovides spawning habitat for pink salmon, steelhead and some chinook salmon. Resident rainbow trout utilize this reachyear-roun3. .I

The water pipeline and accessroad are proposed to cross the Bonaparte River '?* approximately 0.40 km upstream from its confluence with the Thompson River. Observations of the InternationalPacific Salmon Fisheries Camnission in 1977 m .- indicatedapproximately 66% of thetotal numbers of pink salmon coun-:ed inthe river were utilizing spawning grounds located within theim,ediate v'lcinity and

-(. downstream of the proposed crossings (F. Andrews, pers. comn.). Totiil estimated

5-5 ~ . ~~ ~ ~-~~. kzz;; escapement in 1977 in the BonaparteRiver' was 611 fish. ,Mean averageescape- ment for the period of record 1957'- 1971 is 788 fish duri,ng oddnumbered years. - - Stream diversion and trenching activities associated with a buried pipeline and roadcrossing will require significant stream alterations which could result in

-seri.ous degradation o,f the existingquality of spawning bed materials.Should constructionoccur dtfing the egg incubation'and pre-emergent periods (Septem- .. ber.to March)., it can be- anticipated that significant lossescould result directly frm habitat alterations and indirectly by excessivesedimentation of .spawning bedslocated below the constructionsite. Potential losses to chinook and steelhead spawning would likely be minor considering the generally low ,numbers thought to utilize the lowerEonaparte River.

Temporary streamblockage may result during constructionof stream crossings due to siltation or velocitybarriers. However, if periodsof peal: migration are avoided(September - October)delays to species other than pink salmn would be short term and likely exert minor impact.

The preparation of the access road surfacewith regard to paving,seeding. and filling surfaces to prevent erosion will be of a minor beneficialinpact to invertebrate communities in area E 2. Paved and seededsurfaces will minimize the'flow of suspended particulate matter into freshwater areas, colsequently minimizing impingement on aquaticresources.

5.3 HAT CREEK INPACT

The Hat Creek system has been described as it presentlyexists in Section 4.3. The goalof the Hat Creek area impactassessment is to predict what thenature of thesystem might be, given thatthe project proceeds. This sect.ionthen considers the "with"project case.

!1oreover,.toprovide a basisfor comparison between the "with" cases, a description of what thenature of the future system might be without theproject is needed. To undertake this prediction,basic assumptions have been made. It is assumed that the 1976 and 1977 timeperiod during which the fisheries and benthos surveys were undertaken is a timeperiod which is generally representative of the system and that the physical and chemir:al characteristics of thewatershed, angler use and successrates in Hat C-eek will be similar in the future asthey havebeen for the past four or five years.

Without the Hat Creek Project,benthic cornunities and fish populations in Hat Creek in 1980, 2015 and2022 will be similarto those at present. 'These three datescorrespond tothe scheduledconstruction comnencement, operation-completion and decomissioning-completion of the plantif development occm. Rain- bow troutwill be the dominant fish in Hat Creek. Mountain whitefishwill also occurthroughout Hat Creek, but in much smaller numbers than rsinbow trout. Lower reaches of HatCreek will support fishes such asbridgelip sucker, longnose dace,leopard dace, and possiblyredside shiner.

Total numbers of rainbow troutin HatCreek will be approximately 23,000. About one-third to one-halfof these will occur in LowerHat Creek. About 4,000 trout will be longerthan 150 m (about 6 in.) totallength. Densities of thissize trout will generally be higher in Uppercompared to Lower Hat Creek, possibly because'of a greatervariety and quality of fish habitatthere. Rainbow trout which arelonger than 250 mm orolder than 6 years will be uncomon in Hat Creek.

Rainbow trout will spawn the length of Hat Creek, primarily betweenmid-June and lateJuly, Emergence of frywill occur from lateJuly through SeptEmber. Lower HatCreek will be utilized as a spawning ground by rainbow trout migrating upstream from the Bonaparte River.Further upstream movements will bl limited by barriers suchas beaver dams and the canyon.

Rainbow trout willfeed primarily on aquaticinsects, Ephemeroptera nymphs and Dipteralarvae will probably be dominant foodswith Trichoptem. larvae, Plecop- tera nymphs and Hymenopteramore important to largerfish. In general,trout

5. - 7 will utilize. these foods in about the same proportionas they occur in the

I environment. Few stomachs should be empty and fish should be in gcod condition.

.I Impacts on benthlc and fish populationsduring construction, operat.ion and decomnissioning phases will be of two generaltypes. The first willresult 1 from the directphysical alteration of exlsting waterbodies in Hat Creek valley. The second will be more indirect innature. It willresult from m the. addition ofsuspended and/or dissolved solids to Hat Creek.

The nature,degree and location ofimpacts benthos and fishes dLring m on construction,operation and decomissioning phases is discussed in detail herein.Associated mitigative and compensatory measures arediscussed in L Sect,ion 6.0

m (i) Construction (1980)

I- (A) PhysicalAlteration

I Activities which will result in the physicalalteration of existingwater bodies, and specificareas in which benthos and fisheswill be impacted are

I sumarized by developmental area below: - Offsite ..1) di'version of a portion of Hat Creek through an artificial channel or canal(Areas A, 82); (I 2) establishment of reservoirs on Hat Creek (Area A) ;

- :4i ne 3) clearing of Medicine Creek and its valley for use as a spoilsdisposal area (Area A); (.. 4) de-watering of Finney and Aleece Lakes (Area A); and

-3 Plant 5) constructionof ash lagoons in Medicine Creek Valley (Area A). I

5-8 -. Since each of the above impacts is specific to a certain water body 5r portion of a waterbody, they are discussed separately. It should be noted that the m - activities .associated with the diversion of Hat - Creek effectively preempt those impacts specific to actual mine construction.

The majorimpact on fish and benthos during the construction phase. will result

w from the diversion' of water from Hat Creek tc an artificial channel or canal. The diversion will extend from about km 23.0 immediately downstream of Anderson Creek to km 21.0 about 2 km downstream,of Station 7. This will result in the loss of approximately 7,000'm of aquatic habitat and the biota occurring therein. The potentialfor this reach of Hat Creek to produceabout the same numbers 3f benthos and fish in future years as .it does at present will also be lost.

Based on the 19.76 - 1977 fisheriesstudies in Hat Creek, estimated rumbers of rainbow trout occurring between km 21.0 and krn 23.0 ranged from about3,000

to 5,000. ' Estimates for fishlarger. than 150 mm variedfrom'approximately 400 to 1.200 individuals.Population estimates for this reach of Hat Creek in 1976 and 1977 arepresented by fish lengthinterval and samplingperiod in Table 5-1. .- Loss of7,000 m of Hat Creek represents an approximate 17% reduction of aquatic U habitat i.n Upper and Lower Hat Creek combined (km 0-41). In terms of total nmbers of rainbow trout in Upper and Lower Hat Creek, these losses would re- a present an approximate 15-16% reduction in populationsize. Expected reduction in numbers of troutgreater than 150 mrn length in Hat Creek is estimated at I 11-24Z. In sumary,diversion of HatCreek willresult in the loss of existing benthosand fish, future fisheries yield and the aesthetic enjoyment of a portion of a free-flovingstream in its naturalstate.

The actualdiversion of water from Hat Creek will occur in two step:.. After construction of a dam approximately 15 m high immediately downstreanl from the mouth of AndersonCreek, Mater will be diverted to theartificial channel. I Hater from a second reservoir dam about 9 m high, to be constructedfur'ther downstream on Hat Creek near FinneyCreek, will be pumped to the artificial channel.Eventually there will be no free-flowingstream or associatedfish

5-9 TABLE 5- 1

ESTIMTED NUMDERS OF WINDOW TROUT IN HAT CREEK DY LENGTHINTERVAL (mn) BETWEEN KILOMETERS 21.0 AND 2R.D DURING SEPTEMBER, 1976 AND JUNE ANDAUGUST, 1977

Length SamplingPeriod Interval (mm) September 1976 June 1977 August 1977

0-100 1,638 1,335 1,664 101-150 1,313 1,659 2,070 151-200 269 463 905 201-250 278 112 240 7-250 0 55 0 - __ -

3,332 3,752 4,917 3,752TOTAL 3,332 .) beak - I. habitat between the two dams or further downstream to the point where the artificial channel re-enters Hat Creek Fish and habitat.lossesresLlting from the creekdiversion were estimated above.

Populations of rainbow trout in the reservoir, near Finney Creek, coLld probably survive for some time if adequate flow wouldbe maintained for spawning and rearingareas. Uith depths of 9 m, the reservoir should providesuitable habitat and an adequatefood supply for a small number of trout. However, as there is no allowance for continuedflows, it is assumed thatfishes occurring in Hat Creek between the twodams will perish. These losses were included in previousestimates of fish production and habitatlosses due to the'cliversion.

,Establishmnt of a reservoir near AndersonCreek would probably have both negative and positive impacts on Hat Creek fish and benthos.Negative effects would i,ncludethe loss of a portion of free-flowingstream as it presentlyexists and .the fishhabitats and benthic communities therein. However, fishesclccurring in thecreek upstream from this reservoir shguld not be impacted."Water depths will extend to about 15 m and the foodsupply, expected to be primarilyDiptera

and zooplankton,should be adequate. ~ Because of its greater volume, thereser- voirshould support at least as many rainbow trout as presently OCCUI- in that portionof flat Creek whichwould be inundated.- Reservoir trout may r;lso be faster grwing and larger thanthose presently found in Hat Creek, and provide a .good fishery if thepublic has access. Spawning and nurseryareas should remain available further upstream in free-flowingportions ofHat Creek as well as. Anderson Creek.

An.additiona1negative impact, related to theestablishment of a reservoir near Anderson Creek, is the potential for a greatersuccess of mountain whitefish .-compared to rainbow trout in UpperHat Creek. At present, rainhow trout are thedoninant species in HatCreek with mountain whitefishoccurring in very -small numbers. blountain whitefish may benefit morefrom a reservoirhabitat than rainbow trout. Nelson (in Scott andCrossman, 1973)noted theadaptabil- .- -ity of whitefish to altered environmental conditions.1 If such changes did

r, - 11 a beak

occur, this could be considereddeleterious since rainbow trout areg,enerally -considered a more attractive sport fish by anglersthan are mountain whitefish.

With continued flow from Hat and Anderson Creeks, pH in this reservoir should not be excessively high. Goose/Fish Hook Lake, an alkaline pot-hole in the Hat Creek Valley, hadno inlet or outlet, a pH of 9.9and no signs of' fish life.' However, zooplankton(Cladocera) were abundant in shorelinevegetation. Zooplankton should alsooccur in the reservoir near AndersonCreek arid will -probably bean importantfood for trout.

Xithrespect to nine construction activities, the clearing of Medicirle Creek - -andthe surrounding valley for use as a spoils disposalarea will rezult in the loss of fishhabitat, benthic communities and fishin this water body. --Even though numbersof trout and habitatoccurring here are probably negligible compared to that in Hat Creek, their loss and theloss 0% thestream represents -an irreversible impact on the fishery. ..

Dewatering of Finney and Aleece Lakes will result in theloss'of existing -benthic communities and potential fish habitat. Although surveys in Finney Lake in September 1976 indicate no fishpresent, the lake appearedc?.pable of supporting fish. B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch personnel at Kamlclops stated both Finney and Aleece Lakes have supportedfish in thepast (S. J. McDonald, personalcomnunication).

Construction of ash lagoons in the plantarea will result in a major negative .impact on thebenthic invertebrate-comunities. Invertebratesystem inhabiting areas within the potential lagoon site will be eliminated. Fish are not known to occur at these sites.

It is assumed, given the existing development descriptions, that plans for -initialstorage of fuels, containmentof transformer cooling fluids c.nd sewage disposal during constructionwill be such that contaminants will not enter .Hat Creek either directly through run-off or indirectly through grourldwater. 4f - .2? ks:;; -

Impactsfrom thesesources have therefore been noted as ambivalent with the reservationthat if fuel andchemical contaminationsoccur, a severeimpact on aquatjcbiota is possible.::..,, --.

(B) Chemical Alteration Impacts may also result fron construction activities which causean increased sedimentload in Hat Creek or'the BonaparteRiver. Specificareas in which theseimpacts will occurare sumarized.;, by development area below:

14i ne 1) clearing,ditching and trenching (Area B2); 2) initial stripping and excavation in mine area (Area 82); 3) clearingspoil areas and formation of lagoons (Area A2); and

General 4) construction crew activities (Area B). c

Sediment lopsened during the above construction.. activities may be controlled giventhe >itching and settling pond networks ?lamed. However, a portion will undoubtedly enter HatCreek and possibly rmpactbenthos and fish. Some sediment will either enter the creek initially because of theproximity of activity to the creek or at a later date with precipitation and subsequent run-off. Because of thenature of activities during construction, it is assumed that added sedimeo?s,v;illconsist primarily of suspended solids (non- .filterableresidues) and thatlevels of dissolved solids, (filterable residues) in Hat Creel: will not increase significantly.

.In the above instances,direct impacts from increasedsediment loads during .theconstruction phase areexpected to be minor. In particular,concentrations of suspended solids in Hat.Creek are assumed to not exceed 50 mg/e given that run-offwaters from constructionarea v/ill be intercepted and subsequenily directed to settling lagoons. It is ~lsoassumed that no catastrophicevents

I .5 - 13 d ...... such as ditch overflow and dyke failures occur during construction.' If such catastrophes did occurthey could severely reduce benthiccomnunities and populations of Hat Creek rainbow trout downstream from the source of impact.. - Physical-chemicalsurveys (see Hat Creek Project - Hydrology Report) show levels ofsuspended solids in Lower Hat Creek in the,?-17 mg/r range. The assumed I maximum value is 50 mg/z. &ked. on theliterature, this level is notexpected to be hanful to rainbow trout or other fishes in Hat Creek. McKee and klolf

a (1963) reported no ' ~bservable effects on rainbow troutrwhen they wereexposed to concentrations of 30 mg/r Ifinert soils ("and diatomaceous earth). Several trout died at levels of 90 mg/r and over half the fish died in 2-12 I weeks when exposed to concentrations of 290 mg/9.. No difference was found between lethaleffects of kaolin and diatomaceous earth, even thougtparticle size of the foyer (0.13 - 5.0 microns) was smallerthan the latter (1 - 6 microns). McKee and !?olf (1963)reported that in fieldtests, trout. and invertebrates were as abundant, in a stream with suspended solids-. levels of 60 mg/r as they were in a clearcontrol stream. Tarzwell (1962) statecl'that suspended solids levels of 60 mg7z could effect trout spaimFng giour& but probablyare not harmful otherwise.In BlueG€er Creek, Montana, Peters (in Tarzwell, 1962)found that suyvival. ..ofrainbow trout eggs, intragravelwater velocity and dissolved oxygen levels were inverselyrelated to sedinent concentration. Egg mortality3tesat various mean mnthlysediment concentra- a - tions were %.'at13-203ng/e. 39% ~t 97-147 mgh, BO: at 142-276 mg/r: and 100% at 246-386 mg/r. Stream flows, during hatching ranged-from approximately 10 to 35 cfs.

Similarresults have been found in otherstudies. Investigations by the Euro- pean InlandFisheries Advisory Conission (in U.S. Department of theInterior, 1968) indicated good or moderate fisheries are found in watersnormally containing 25-80 mg/e suspended solids. There was evidencethat yield:; were higher in waters with less than 25 mg/P suspended solids. The Commission re-

e::.. ... ,.. . .~.... .

* 5 - 14 m ported that waters containing 80-400 mg/a suspended solids were unlikely to support good freshwaterfisheries. In the River Fax, England, where suspended solids levels were 100 mg/e, densities of trout were one-seventh and inverte-

brates one-third thoserecorded in clearcontrol streams (McKee and Wolf, ' 1963). In theRiver Par, England, where suspended solidsconcentrations were 6000 mg/e, densities of trout were one-seventh and invertebratesone-nineteenth what they were in control streams.

The above data indicate that at predicted levels there wiil be direct impact on benthos or fish in Hat Creek. However, impacts may occur during the first year of construction(1980) and in later years if there is notadequate stream flow to flush suspended solidsfrom'the HatCreek system. Accumula3on of sediments on the creek bottom couldreduce spawning and food-produc.'ng areas inriffles by fillingintragravel spaces. Heavy sedimentatipnrater; could result in thecovering and suffocation of trout eqgs incubating in ':he gravel. By reducingwater depth, heavy sedimentationcould possibly present physical or physiologicalblocks to fish(particularly rainbow trout).which may migrate upstream to spawn inportions of Lower Hat Creek. Rates of sedimen.: accumula- tion would probably be greater in naturalsinks such asbeaver pond:; anddeep- er, slower moving pools. Sediment build-up couldseverely limit food production and theutilization of these pool areas by rainbow trout, espe1:ially larger-sizedfish which appeared to prefer this typehabitat as indicated by . the 1976-77 Hat Creek fisheriesstudies.

There is also the potentialfor impact on fish if Hat Creek is flushedonly occasionally. This could result in theresuspension of sediments sild extremely high suspended solidsloads for short periods of time. Although high concentrations can be directly harmful to fish and invertebrates as de:;cribed earlier, other studies have shown that rainbow trout can survive underextreme stress situationsfor short periods. I!ard (in NcKee and !,lolf,1963) found youngsalmon could be held 3-4 weeks in circulating waters at silt loads of

5 - 15 beak

1,000 ng/e. Griffin (i.n HcKee and Wolf, 19631 found tha.t trout and 5;almon fingerlings were fed and, grew in water with a silt load of 300-750 mg/e for 3-4 weeks. He also found young salmonids could withstand silt loads of 2300- 6500 mg/e forshort intervals daily when thewater was stirred. It wouldbe to the benefit ofbenthos and fishes in Hat Creek if they were never exposed to leve.ls of the magnitude described above. This is particularlytrue for m rainbow trout from about mid-June to late September. During this time spawning occurs, yoirng undergo the first several months of growth,'andyear class s.trength is largelydetermined.

Discharge of Hat Creek waters with suspended solids levels of 50 mq/i. to the BonaparteRiver is not expected to impact fishes. Suspended solidslevels measured'atStation 3 inthe BonaparteRiver, located about 1 mile dclwnstream from the mouth of Hat Creek, ranged from 3 to 51 mg/r. in 1976-77.Because of therelatively low flow contributed by Hat Creek to theBonaparte, ircreases m in suspended solidslevels are expected to be correspondinglysmall \r,ith no

.- direct impactsexpected.

I) Impact ofconstruction crew activities on fishpopulations, particularly - rainbow trout, in Hat Creek is designatedas ambivalent. 'ihis is so as a result of the uncertaintyregarding the degree workers may use and harvestthe rescurce. Over-harvesting rainbow trout could modify populationsize, growthrae other lifehistory parameters. Should anglingpressure be intense,me positive use might be to direct it toward harvest of fish which will remain in pools in thatportion of Hat Creek to be diverted. Fishtrapped in pools will probably survivefor several weeks. Unlesscaught by fishermen,they will perish natural ly. I

(ii) Operation (1983 - 2015)

(A) PhysicalAlteration Impacts resulting from thedirect physical alteration of waterbodies are summarized below. Although most activities which alteredwater bodies occurred

5 - 16 beak

during the constructionphase, associated secondary and long-term effects could impact Hat Creek aquaticresources during the operation phase. Activities and specific areas in which impacts will occur are: 1) dischargeof reservoir and diversioncanal water to Hat Creek (Area 02); and 2) control of Hat Creek flow rates (Area B2).

Water discharged from the reservoir near AndersonCreek and from the diversion .canal could be unusually warm during sumr and early fall months; Suchan occurrence is resultant to the diversioncanal design (shallow depth')coupled I -with highambient temperatures.

V As presentlydesigned, the artificial channel willprovide no benefits to fish -and nay, in fact, impact them in a negative manner, Because of shallowdepths inthe channel (d50 &) water'temperatures could be greatlyinfluenced by .airtemperatures and result in extreme elevations during summer and early fall. Daytime-ambienttemperature tolerance limits for a rainbow trout, generally II- -acceptedas 23-24OC or 27OC for short periods of time (Scott andCrossman, 1973).

.Field investigations showed watertemperature in shallow reaches of lower Hat Creek at 1520 hr. on 3 August, 1977, was 24OC. Temperature elevations much beyond this levei could be critical to trout, especially eggs (mid-Jt'ne to August) and fry (August and September). If, asexpected, seasonal temperature -elevations result from channel discharge and mortalities to young-of-the-year arecorrespondingly high, the population size of rainbow trout in LowerHat Creekcould, in several years, be reduced to a fraction of present numbers.

In addition, the problem of elevated water temperature would be aggri;vated if reservoirrelezses were at or near the surface.Reservoir surface temperatures during summer would probably be higherthan in Hat Creek, and possiblygreater -than upper lethaltemperatures of rainbow trout. The combined negativeeffect of warm waterreleases from the reservoir and diversioncanal during surmer .and earlyfall months could be severe on fishin Lower Hat Creek, 111 addition

5 - 17 e...... if the reservoir outlet is at the surface, icing problems coulddevelop during winterand'reduce or prevent downstream flow. This, in turn, could result in greater freezing of .Lower Hat Creek,reduction Or loss of over-wintering areas and a major negativeimpact on fish. Clater Ydiseharged from a greater depth in the reservoirshould be cooler during sumer and free-flowing during winter. Temperatureproblems are not expectedfor fish occurringwithin the reservoir. During summr,greater depths can be utilized or they may migrateupstream to

portions of free-flowing Hat C.reek. , During.winter, deeper parts of the reservoir and reachesupstream in Hat Creek shoul3 be ice-free and provide over-wintering areasfor fish.

Notwithstandingpotential major impacts due to the temperatureof waters entering Lower Hat Creek from thediversion canal, ambivalent impacts associated withthe alteration of the flow regime of Hat Creek arealso noted.' Uater depth, velocity and stream width are critical factors which govern the capability of a stream to maintainor perpetuate its aquaticresources. Any alteration ofnat- ...... uralflow regimes either throughwater withdrawal, diversion or impoundment can significantly alter these flow characteristics and ultimatelycontrol a streams suitability to supportfish. Natural flow regimes in most streamsare such that

e wisewater use does not necessarily have to create a negativeimpact upon exist- ingfisheries. A water use plan which takes into accountthe instream flow requirementsof existing resources canboth protect the *natural environment and provide water for use byman.

At the present time the water supply schemfor the proposed Hat Creek development is notfinalized. Stream flow alterationsas a result of construction of - . '. the water diversion system and controlled flow capabilities of storage reservoirs proposed in the Upper Hat Creek area,require that a minimum flowregime be recomzended. This would provide adequatemaintenance flows forfish inhabiting Ha: Creek downstream of the proposeddevelopment. ..

Severalmethodologies can be appliedin determining instream flowneeds. Two basic approaches have been taken depending upon theextent and availability of ?IC:::.. .,...... , - ..~

1 5 - 18 beak I

stream characterization data: I 1) an empirical approach which recomends a minimum flow regime basecl

L upon a percentage of the average annual discharge(Tennant, 1977; Stalnecker,Fish and WldlifeService, Colorado,pers. comm.);ancl a 2) a quantitative approach which recommends a minimum flow regime based upon thehabitat requi renents of fish during migration, sparm- I ing, incubation,rearing (Neumanand Newcornbe, 1977; Stalnecker, f'ish , and Llildlife Service, Colorado, pers. corn.).

The latter of the two basic approachesprovides a more precise, site specific determination of instreamflow needs. TheNeuman andtkwcombe (1977: instream flow assessmenttechnique is presently being evaluated as a recornended methodology for assessinginstream requirements in British Columbia. However, detailed streancharacterization data obtained at high and low flows are required and numerous survey transects, chosen in a manner specific to the quantitative minimum flow assessmenttechnique chosen, are required in various stream reaches. Detailed'streaminformation of thisnature is not currentlyavailable. In lieu of thesedata requirements, recornended minimum flow requirements susqgested for HatCreek arenecessarily based uponan empiricalevaluation of histclricalstream flows.

Alth'ough no singleempirical formula can be considered best, an .approach gener- allydescribed as the "Montana Method" has been widely used in determining flows to protect aquatichabitat. The"Montana Method" was developed from field studies conducted between1964 and 1974, in streams in threewestern U.S. states containing both coldwater and warm water fisheries and has been correli.ted with similar flow datain 21 different states during the past 11 years (Tmnant, 1977).

The "MontanaMethod" suggeststhat 30% ofthe mean annual discharge is recommended as a baseflow to sustain good survivalconditions for most aciuatic life

5 - 19 TABLE 5-2

APPLICATION OF THE MONTANAMETHOD FOR EVALUATING

INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENTS IN HAT CREEK

Flow Regime (CFS)'

Hatitat MaintenanceLevel ' -October-March Freshet April-September

Flushing Flow 49.0 Ont imum 15 :60-100%) 15 (60-100%) Outstanding 10 40%) 15 (60%) Excel lent 7.5 30%) Good 5.0 Fair or Degrading 2.5 10% Poor or Minimum 2.5 '10%) 2.5 (10%) SevereDegradation 4.5

N 0 Recommended Hat Creek Minimum Flow

Base Flow Period October-F!arch 7.5 CFS Base Flow Period April-September 10.0 CFS Flushing Flows (for two week durationduring t.4ay-June) 50 CFS

' Based upon Upper Hat Creek Station annual discharge of 25 CFS % values relate to flow regimeexpressed as a percentage of meanannua 11 discharge beak

fons while 60% would provide excellent to outstanding habitat for most aquatic fonns during their primaryperiods of growth (Tennant, 1977).

To apply the "MontanaMethod" a range of flows (percentages of annual discharge) are recommended for two - six month flow regimes that mimic naturalhydrologic cycles and coincidewith relatively active and iniictive biologicalperiods. These flows areflexible and should be interprced and refined to account for above andbelow normal wateryears and ma"ntatn flows which approximate appropriate portions of mnthly quarterly or annual instrean flow supplies (Tennant, 1977).

The"Montana Method" has been applied to Hat Creek (Table 5-2). Front this sumarypresentation, a flow regime can be selected given a choiceas to thehabitat maintenance levelpreferred. The maintenanceof good to excellent habitat conditions in Lower Hat Creek requires, based on their prelimin- aryanalysis, the following regime and flow: during freshet, a flushing florr of 50 CFS for a duration of two weeks; during April to September a milimum flow of 10 CFS, and during the winter low flowperiod (October - tlarch) a minimum flow of 7.5 CFS. During periods of low flow, as thoseexperienced during the past year.(1977), controlled releases of storagewater fron Upper Hat Creek reservoirs would be requiredto meet the continued instrean flow . -requirements downstream ofthe Hat Creek development. ,Flushing flows at 200% (50 CFS) of annual mean dischargefor a durationof two weeks during the normal high flow period (May - June) are recommended to achieve slfficient depths and velocitiesnecessary within the stream channel to remove silt, sediment and other bed loadmaterial from spawning beds and naintain an active stream channel.

The conduit at the lower end of thediversion is an effective barrier #In Hat Creekand could negatively affect Hat Creek fishes. Passage of fish from -Lower to Upper Hat Creek will be impossiblebecause of the grade and ltngth ofthe conduit and expected velocity of transported water.Fisheries studies

-1976-77 suggested that populations of rainbow trout in Hat Creek were ' argely self-supportivewithin relatively.short reaches of stream. Numerous beaver

5 - 21 n beak rr -(- dams probablyprevent massive spawning migrations of rainbow trout frm Lower I to Upper Hat Creek. cHowever, it cannot be unequivocably stated that the survival of fish downstream from the point where theconduit enters - Hat :reek is I not dependent on their having access .to areas further upstream.[ Therefore, impacts related to this particular aspect. of creek diversion have been designated as ambivalent. II

Sm (E) Chemical Alteration Activities which will causeincreased sedimnt or dissolvedsolids lottds in Hat

II Creek or the EonaparteRiver, and specificareas in which this impact will occur are smarized below:

-11 Mi ne 1) drainage of the mine pit, coal stockpile and spoilsareas (Area 82); 2) de-watering of the mine pit wall (Area 82); 3)surface run-off from mine, pit androad-way areas (Area 62); and

Plant 4) plantemissions of sulfur dioxide (Area B).

Drainage and de-watering during the operation phaseof the project are expected toresult in increased dissolvedsolids levels in Hat Creek. Based on present information, it is assumed that watersdraining from the development areawill cause no more than a 50% increase over presentdissolved solids levels. Also, it is assumed that the proportional relattonshi~s of dissolvedchemicals found in Hat Creek will remain the same as at present.

.Concentrations of dissolvedsolids in Lower Hat Creek in 1976-77 rangec from 333-413 mg/9.. Increases.of 50% bring maximum predictedlevels to about 620 mg/e. Based on the literature these levelsare not expected to impactbenthi: II communities, rainbow. trout or other fishes in Hat Creek. McKee andI!olf (1963) stated that dissolvedsolids levels of up to 2,000 mg/e shouldnot interfere withfreshwater fish or otheraquatic life. They added thatlimiting cmcentra-

5 - 22 beak tions for some species of fish may be as high as 5,000-10,000 ng/k if acclimated . gradually.Shifts to more tolerantbenthic forms may result, dependi:lg on the chemical nature of drainwaters. However, sudden increases of dissolvedsolids in low-level waterscould be fatal. Because of the expectedgradual .incorpora- - tion oflagoon drainage to Hat Creek, designedsurge controls, and thepredicted upper level, no impacts are expected. However, should a large volume of water with a uniquechemical nature suddenly be discharged to Hat Creek, asevere - impactcould occur.

Surfacerun-off can be expected to result in increased suspended solidlevels in Hat Creek.Fine suspended materialwill enter Lower Hat'Creek but,, as during theconstruction phase,concentration levels are expected to be no greater than 50 mg/e. Eesultant impacts areexpected to be very minor or absent,unless acatastrophic failure occurs.

The effectof plant emissions, particularly sulfur dioxide, on theaqtlatic re- sourcesin the Hat Creek Valley is difficult to assess at the current time and will be dependent upon theresults and conclusions of other study grotips assessing the Hat Creek Project.Therefore, impact of this activity has becn designated asambivalent.

(iii) Decomissioning(After 2015) Activities which will impact the HatCreek fishery during the decommissioning phase, and specific areas in which impactswill occur are summarized below:

Mine, Plant 1) reclamation of the ash area and overall mine area (Areas A and 82); 2) erosion and drainagecontrols in the reclaimed plant and mine areas (Areas A and 82); and

Mi ne .3) filling ofthe mine pit (Areas A and 82).

5 - 23 I ~...... Reclamation and erosioncontrol are expected to have positive,beneficial impacts on Hat Creek benthos and fishes. Reclamation of land in thevicinity of the 1 p1,ant and.. nine and implementation of erosion and drainagecontrols on these lands shouldreduce the sediment load to Hat Creek,duringrun-off. Levels 3f dissolved and suspended solids should be less. than during construction or operationphases and limit the potential, for impactsassociated with chemical alteratisns as have

I been discussed in Sections (i)B and (ii)B.

1mpacts.onbenthic cmunities and fishes resulting from filling of-the nine pit areundefinable at this time.'Nature of theimpact, if any, will depend on chemical characteristics ofwaters within the pit. Haterstoo acidic or tooalkaline will be unproductivefor aquatic biota. Huet (inTarzwell, 1962) statedthat for fish life, it i's desirable to maintain a pH between 6.5 and 3.5. McKee ani Glolf (1963) reported that for best productivity, water pH should be between 6.5 and 8.2.

il Based on informationprovided by D.C. Hydro on the mine description,water in the mine pit is expected to be highlyalkaline and perhapssl'milar to that in.Goose/ Fish \look Lake. The absenceof large quantities of organic natter' in the lake basin, which woulddecompose and lower the pli, and thenaturally high pH of water in thevalley (median Hat Creek pH = 8.4) would tendsuggest a trend 3f high pH m in the mine pit. In addition,the absence of any significantflushing in the pit over a 26-yearperiod combined wit11 normal evaporation should concentratechemicals r (high dissolved solids levels) and maintain high pH levels.

m Given thepotential for the "lake" waters to exhibit high dissolved slllids and high pH levels after the 26-year filling periodpasses; the comencemmt of an

I activedischarge of such water to the Lower Hat Creek systemcould re:;ult in a negativeimpact upon the benthos and fish inhabitantstherein.

Slope of themine-pit walls and the extendedperiod of time (26 yea&) during which the pit is expected to be filled may result in low biologicalp"oductivity. The systemkrill generally be unstableat le2st until after filling has been con- pleted. Gradual filling overthe 26-year period (estimated mean increase in water qi:: depthbeing approximately 8 peryear) will limit colonization and tqeestablish- ..... m

* 5 - 24 ment of stable shoreline flora with their associated invertebrate conmlunfties and fish life. Host of the rootedshoreline flora within a given year period willprobably be lost from the system as a result of rising water levels and eventual removal from theeuphotic zone. This would ultimatelyresult in a constantly changing littoral environment.Shoreline comunities wouldbe expected to initiatesuccessional changes, with theinherent gradual increase in biomass production and overallsystem stability, subsequent to complete ,,

filling and stabilizationofwater levels. @@d P? ,.\?.,"Jr,!. W \'c C" C" +-py Another factor which may limit productivity in the\yjk$!$is the potential forthis water body toact as a nutrient sink. Incoming nutrients and decom posingorganic matter would probably be lost to the system and accumul,%tein deeperareas of the pit. Even though some of thismaterial will probailly m settle on the pit benches and undergo resuspension during and after pepiods of filling, the amount of materialpresent in theserelatively smallportions of the reservoir will probably be small compared to that lost to greater depths in open-water areas.Spring and fallturnovers resulting from thermal strati- ficationshould occur particularly after thes/isfilled. However, the amount of nutrientsreleased during turnover and available to organisms estab- lishing themselvesnear shore would probably be minimal. II a

5 - 25 beak

;I 6.0 MITIGATION & COtlPENSATlON

Mitigativeactions whlch couldlessen impacts discussed in the previous section

1 are recomnendedbelow. Those measures assessedas most important art: the control of watertemperature. the maintenance of downstream flows and clmtrol of potentialsedimentatton in Lower HatCreek. a Temperature elevations in thediversion canal should be controlledin order to c avoidreaching upper lethallimits of rainbow trout in Hat Creek. Tiis could be accomplished by inserting adeep, narrow channel within thediversion canal

II) such that the lowerrange of flows (45 CFS)would be containedther2in. Es- ta6lishing shadecover along the banksand withdrawal of coolerwater from near bottom depths in the reservoir near AndersonCreek should also assist in con- .I trolling downstream temperatures at below lethal levels for rainbow trout. ,"

I The maintenance of downstream flow in Lower Hat Creek is difficult ts discuss in.the specific context of mitigation in that the project description discusses 1 utilization of thewater resource for plant useas 'an -alternate course of action. Nevertheless,as noted in Section 5;3 (ii), arange of options regarding mini-

.I mum flow requirements are available and a preliminary pattern of flcw regulation is provided. The decisionregarding flow that follows from thisinfmnation is then di:ectly related to whether theaquatic resources of Lower H3t Creek I are degraded, maintained ur enhanced.

I In theevent that sedimentation in Hat breek does occur to adegree not pro- jected within this report, certain mitigative actions require considvation.

I To avoid biological problems associated with sedimentation,Ellis (in McKee and Uolf, 1973) recommended thestream bottom should not be covered by more t.han 6.3 mm of sediment. He also recommended that to avoidsediment3tion, m suspended solids with a mineralogichardness of 1 or more,and therefore of a dense nature,should be small enough to pass through a 1,000 mesh screen 1 m

* 6-1 kari1 r i.. ::. (%

culties be experienced the appropriatemitjgative action would be the reassess- '

I nentof the design criteria of thesettling ponds, parttcularly with respectto . suchparaneters as retentiontime, settling rates and pond capacities. In addi- il tion,sedimentation in Lower Hat Creek would become a factor in ass:essingthe controlledflow regime inkhat the re-suspension of sediment during periods of high.flow could result in elevatedsuspended solids over a short tclmn.

Threeadditional points regarding actions are noteworthy. Diversiclns of Hat Creek could result in the loss of most fish which presently occur within the diversionarea. A portion of this resourcecould be harvested by the general .. .- public and constructioncrews,? thus preventinq a comletc? loss of existing fish, 'life.. in this section of Hat Creek. 4ttempts may also be made to eu'aluate the

I development of the reservoir fishery and the possibility of making it available to the public. Some considerationshould be given to inposing specialangling ...... regulations (size and number 'limits) on Upperand Lower Hat Creek if use by -. construction crews is intense.This may be necessaryto sustain the'rainbow trout fishery at acceptable yield levels. II

Further evaluations should be made of expectedwater chemistry in the pit and II the likelihoodof its supportingproductive aquatic resource. In the event pit .watersappear supportive of aquaticbiota, grading of the upper shores should be considered in orderto decrease'slopes and maximize theeupNic, zone. By ii kc4 increasingavailability of'this habitat, there exists a, greaterpotential for higherproductivity, more rapid successional changes and ultimately narrowing the gap between an immature and a more homeostaticlake ecosystem.

The majorimpact of the project for whtch compensation actions should be assessed is the loss of the fisheries and benthos,resource in the 7,000 _.m sectton of Hat Creek alienated by the minr:. A range of compensation optionsnight be considered; examples beingthe establishment or enhancement of an existing fishery m ...... resource in thelocal area or theprovision of increasedaccess to existing .. ~ . but poorlyaccessible fisheries.

-t 6-2 beak

7.0 RECOMHEfiDED MONITORING PROGRAM m Three areas of futurestudy are recommended. Specific to monitoring, in order to determinedirection and magnitude of any potentialbiological dis-uption .I associated with the project, it is recommended that a monitoringpro~~ram be implemented concomitant with the construction phase. Tagging studie:; should .II be initiatedprior to spawning with recaptureduring June, Julv and early

Septembersupplemented by additional marking. Stations i. 3, 5, 6, .i4 and 15 I should be sampled in June and early September to document fish and invertebrate populations and conditions. Comparable informationshould be obtained from the proposed reservoirnear Anderson Creek. Efforts should also be directed to m document aquatic habitat conditions, particularlr with respectto porisible sedimentbuild-up below the mine site. The program should be conducted il. annually during the construction and start-up phases and decreased in frequency -. and scope thereafter if thesystem has achieved relative stability in the

I-- post-constructionperiod.

Two additionalfield programs of a more taskspecific nature are recctmmended. Em These programs should comence atfirst available opportunity in that. they reflect information. needs to more definitively assess major impactsc,escribed U asambivalent in the study.

1 Firstly, a regionalfield program should be designed such that a more definitive database is available on particularlysensitive areas. Specifically, water

.I quality and thefauna and flora of select lakes and streamsshould be monitored such thatbaseline conditions, on a regionalbasis, are known. This can only be achievedwith a well designed field program. Care should be taken thatthe .I frequency,spatial extent and scopeof the program arein accordance with the value of the information to be obtained.

3 Secondly,given the interest in assessing Hat Creek, as a potentialwater source im, for some of theplant system, quantitative,in-stream studies should be 'L

7.- 1 i. a beak' d ..- .conducted to determine in-stream flowneeds. This would allow for an objective \. m assessment of trade-offs involved with aiternate resource use,

The in-stream field studies recomended at this time would be designed and car- L ried out in accordance with Stalneker (Fish 'and Wildltfe Service, Colorado). Fielddata obtained wouldbe processed with existing' computermodels. The rl habitat model selected would analyze depthlvelocity changes wl'th changes in flow. Output is presented on a series of matrix tables whtch compartmentalize

1 the experimental reaches. Further modelling referencetn to biologicalrequire- ments of fish at all life stages including eggs, fry, juveniles and adults then follows.

7-2 beak

8.0 LITERATURE CITED

Altman, Luther Clare, 1936. Oligochaeta of Washington, University of Washington Publications in Biology, Seattle. Vol. 4, No. 1, 1pp. 1- 37. Aro, K.V. and M.P. Shepard, 1967. Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean- Part IV, Spawning Populations of North Pacific Salmon, Spawwing Populations in Canada. Fisheries Research Board Canada, StudyNo. 1230, Nanaimo. Balkwill, J.A. 1972. Limnological and Fisheries~Survey of Lakes ,in British Columbia 1941 - 71. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria. Fisheries Management Report No. 64. 53 pp. Baxter, G..T. and Simon J.R., 1970. Wyoming Fishes, Wyoming Game md Fish Department, Cheyenne,Wyoming. Bulletin No. 4. British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines. 1977. Mining Exploration & Development Review, British Columbia& Yukon Territory 1976-77. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Pollution ControlBranch. 1977. Unptb. MS British Columbia, Ministryof Environment, Water Rights Branch 1977. Water Licence, Kamloops. Unpub. MS British Columbia, Department of Finance.1975. Financial and Ecoromic Review. Thirty-Fifth Ed. Queens Printer, Victoria, 86 pp. British Columbia Ministry Recreation& Conservation, Fish & Wildlife Branch. 1968 -. 1976. Steelhead Harvest Analysis 1967 - 1976. Victoria, B.C. . 1976 a. Recommendations - Lake Developsent and Access. Kamloops Portion, Thompson-Okanagan Region. Kamloops, 27 pp. Unpub. MS. . 1976 b. Historical Stocking Record, Unpub. MS. Vancouver, B.C. . 1977 a. Letter Re Fish and Wildlife Branch Estimate of Angler Use, 1976. July 12. Kamloops. 17 pp. . 1977 b. Sport Fishing Regulations Synopsis 1Y////B for Non-Tidal Waters. Queens Printer, Victoria, 16 p3. . 1977 c. Pers. Comm. Sandy MacDonald, Kalnloops. . 1977 d. Thompson River Steelhead Survey.- Ted Antifeau. Kamloops 30 pp & figures, Unpub. MS. . 1977 e. Lake files, Unpub. MS, Vancouv,?r, .. B.C. Research and Dolmage Campbell and Associates Ltd. 1975. Preliminary Environmental Impact Study of the Proposed Hat Creek Development. A report for: B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, Vancouver, B.C. beak

Beak, T.W., 1965. A Biotic Index of Polluted Streams and Its Relationship to Fisheries. Proc. 2nd Intern. Water Poll. Res. Conf. Tokyo, 1964. p. 191-219. Branson, D.R., G.E. Blan, H.C. Alexander and W.B. Neely. 1975. Bioconcentration of 2. 2'. 4. 4' - TetrachlorobiDhenvl in Rainbow Trout as measured by an acceierated test. Trans'. Am&. Fish SOC., 104 (4): 785 - 792. Bryce, 0. and A. Hobart, 1972. The Biology and Identification of the Larvae of the Chironomidae (Diptera). Entomologists Gazette, Vol. 23: 175-217. Burks, B.D., 1953. The Mayflies of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin, Vol'. 26, Art. 1. Cairns, J. Jr. and K.L. Dickson, 1971. A Simple Method for the Biological Assessment of the Effects of Waste Discharges on Aquatic Bottom-dwell- ing Organisms. Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed. 43(5): 755-772. Campbell K.P., I.R. Savidge, W.P. Dey and J.B. McLaren. 1977. Impacts of Recent Power Plants on the Hudson River Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) Population. Presented at Conference on Assessing the Effect of Power Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations, 4 May 1977, Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Canada-British Columbia Fraser River Joint Advisory Board. 1976. Fraser River Upstream Storage Review Report. December. Victoria, 200 pp. Canada, Department of Environment Fisheries and Marine Service. 1975. Fisheries Resources and Food Web Components of the Fraser River Estuary and an Assessment of the Impacts of Proposed Expansion of the Vancouver International Airport and Other Developments on These Resources. Fish. Oper., Vancouver, B.C. Pacific Bio. Sta., Nanaimo, B.C., and Pacific Envir. Inst., West Vancouver, B.C. Paged by Section. Carl, G.C., W.A. Clemens and C.C. Lindsey, 1967. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. B.C. Provincial Museum, Dept. Recreation and Conservation, Handbook No. 5., Victoria, 193 pp. Carl, G.C. W.A. Clemens and C.C. Lindsey, 1973. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. B.C. Provincial Museum Handbook No. 5, Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C. 192 pp. Carlisle, E. 1975. Steelhead, Western Fish and Wildlife, 1975. B.C. Fishing Guide 10 (3): 24 - 28. Chapman, J.D., D.B. Turner, A.L. Farley and R.I. Ruggles, 1956. B.C. Atlas of Resources, B.C. Natural Resources Conference, Smith Lithograph Co., Vancouver, B.C. Cooper, A.C. 1977. Evaluation of the Production of Sockeye & Pink Salmon at spawning & Incubation Channels in the Fraser River System. Progress Report No. 36, New Westminster. 80 pp.

ir 0-2 beak r

r ” Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia.1976. A brief wbmitted to the Pollution Control Board for presentation at Public:the Inquiry on Pollution Control Practicesin the Forest Products Industry. ’ I 496 pp. Douglas, R.J.W. 1976. Geology and Economic Minerals of Canada. Part A and B. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Geological Survey I of Canada. Economic Geology Report No. 1. Ottawa. Cat. No. M43- 1/1976-1-7. Edmondson, W.T. (ed.), 1959. Freshwater Biology (Ward & Whipple). 2nd Ed., J. Wiley & Sons, New York. 1,258 pp. Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service. 1974. An assessment of The Effects of the System E Flood Control-Proposal on the Salmon I Resource of the Fraser River System. Prepared for the Ecology Sub- comnittee of the Fraser River Upstream Storage Steering Committee. January, 563 pp. . 1974 a. An Assessment of the Effects of the System E Flood Control Proposal on the Salmon Resource of the Fraser River System. Prepared for the Ecology Subcommittee of the Fraser River Upstream Storage Steering Committee. Appendices. January, 350 pp. . 1974 b. Catalogue of Fish and Stream Resources of &ea KA (Preliminary). Unpub. MS; Vancouver. Environment and Land Use Committee. 1976. Guidelines for Coal Developments. Victoria, British Columbia. 33 pp. Erman, D.C. and G.R. Leidy, 1975. Downstream Movement of Rainbow ‘Trout Fry in a Tributary of Sagehen Creek, Under Permanentand Intermittent Flow. Trans.- aAmeW Fish.&- Soc.wty. .-A~-~T-P+~SS, ~Inc-., L-+t” Ydme 1041 Wer(3): -#ye 467 - 473, Fisheries & Environment Canada, Fisheries & Marine Service. 1977. The Economic Rationale For Salmonid Enhancement. 46 pp. Unpub. MS . 1977 a. Spawning files, Unpub. MS, Vancouver, 1l.C. Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull 180. 740 pp. Holman, P.J. 1974. Preliminary Hat Creek Impact Statement Ungulate’ and Waterfowl Section plus Fisheries Survey. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Karrloops, B.C. I Hoskins, G.E., G.R. Bell & TPT Evelyn. 1976. The .Occurrence, Distribution & Significance of Infectious Diseaseof Neoplasms Observed in Fish in the Pacific Region Up to the End of 1974. Environment Canada, Fisheries & Marine Service, Technical Reports No. 609. Nanaimo, 37 PP.

a-3 beak

Hoskins, G.E. & L.P. Halstein. 1977.Annual Report ofthe Diagnostic Serviceof the Fisheries & MarineService, Pacific Region for 1975. Environment Canada, Fisheries & MarineService, Technical Report No. 707. Nanaimo, 35 pp. Howard Paish & AssociatesLtd., 1973. An Assessment ofthe Envirorlmental Impacton Fish, Wildlife and Outdoor Recreation of the Proposed ClearwaterRiver Reservoirs: HobsonLake Project,(Clearwater-Azure a ProjectGranite Canyon Project,Clearwater Project. (System E. Development) Preparedfor B.C. Dept. ofRecreation and Conservation,Vancouver, B.C. I Huet, M. 1962.Water QualityCriteria for.Fish Life. Tarzwell, C.M. (Compiler) 1962. Biological Problems in Water Pollution. U.!;. Oept. Health,Education and Welfare, Public Health Ser., Division 01' Water Supplyand Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Hurlbert, S.H., 1971. The Nonconceptof Species Diversity: A Critique and AlternativeParameters. Ecology, 52: 577 - 586. rl Hynes, H.B.N., 1956. The Use ofInvertebrates as Indicatorsof River Pollution. Symp. onWater Poll., Proc. Limn, SOC. London. 120. Integ-Ebasco. 1976.Hat Creek Project,Site Evaluation Study for British 111 . ColumbiaHydro and Power Authority. ,- InternationalPacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. 1953. Map of[listribu- tion of SockeyeSpawning Grounds inthe Fraser River Watershecl. Scale " 1 in - 15.78 miles, 36" x 48", 1 pp. . 1958 - 1977.Annual Report 1957 - 1977. New Westminster, B.C. II InternationalPacific Salmon Fisheries Commission.1977 a. News Lelease, No. 22, October 4, 1977, 1 p. New Westminster. Jewett, S.G. Jr. and G. Stanley, 1959. The Stoneflies(P1ecoptera)of thePacific Northwest. Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oregcsn. Johannsen, O.A., 1969. AquaticDiptera. Entomological Reprint Sp€,cialists. EastLansing, Mich. 48823. King,.G., A.F. Tautzand S.M. Steele 1977.Lake Survey and Stockirg Reportsfor the Thompson-Okanagan RegionVol., 1 - 7. Fisheries TechnicalCircular. Krajina, K.V. no date. Map ofBiogeoclimatic Zones of B.C. B.C. Cept. Lands, Forests andWater Resources, Pub. byEcological Reserves Committee.Scale 30 mi. to 1 inchof 1:l 900,800. Lagler, K.F.,1966. Freshwater Fishery Biology. Wm. C. Brown ComFany, Oubuque, Iowa. Langer, V.E. and N.D. Nassichuk. 1975,. SelectedBiological Studies of the Thompson River System. Tech. Rep. Series No. PAC/T-75-22. SouthernOperations Branch, Pacific Region,Environment Canada.

8-4 beak

Larkin, P.A. J.G. Terpenning, and R.R. Parker, 1957. Size as a Determinant of Growth Kate in Rainbow Trout (SuZmo gairdneri). Trans. /her. Fish Sec. 86: 34 - 96. Larkin, P.A. and A.D. Scott. 1965 Economic Aspects of Sport Fish'ng, In Canadian Fisheries ReportsNo. 4, Canada Dept. Fisheries, Cat. NO. F54-2414. 147 pp- McKee, J.E., and H.W. Wolf (eds.) 1963. Water Quality Criteria. The Resources Agency of California. State Water Quality Control Eloard. PUbl. NO. 3-A. MacArthur, R.H., 1955. Fluctuations of Animal Populations, and a Fleasure of Community Stability. Ecology, 36:533-536.

"argalef, R., 1958. Information Theory in Ecology. Gen. Syst. 3:::6-71. ' Mason, William T. Jr., 1973. An Introduction to the Identificatior of Chironomid Larvae. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory National Environmental Research Centre, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati', Ohio. ' 90 p. Meyer, P.A. 1974. Recreational Preservation Values Associated witt the Salmon on the Fraser River. Environment Canada, Fisheries anc Marine Service. Pacific Region. PACIN-74-1, 49 pp. Mundip J.H. 1969. Ecological Implications of the Diet of Juvenile Coho in Streams. Pages 135 - 152 in T.G. Northcote, ed. Symposiun, on Salmon and Trout in Streams. Tnstitute of Fisheries, The Unibersity of British Coluabia, Vancouver,B.C. Nebeker, A.U., F.A. Puglisi and D.L. Defoe. 1974. Effect of polychlor- inated biphenyl compounds on survival and reproduction of the fathead minnow and flagfish. Trans. her. Fish SOC., 103:562-568. Nels'on, F. The Thompson Plateau Regional Recreation Study,An Inventory of Recreational Problems and Potentials. B.C. Dept. Recreaticn and Travel, Parks Branch, Victoria, 57 pp. Unpub. MS. Newcombe, C.P. 1977. Water Quality Near the Proposed Hat Creek Thermal Generating Station: Potential Streams& Lakes Affected By Acid Pre- cipitation. B.C. Ministry Recreation & Conservation, Fish & Wildlife Branch- Fisheries Management Report. Draft, June1977. Northcote, T.G. lnd P.A. Larkin. 1956. Indices of Productivity in British Columbia Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 13(4): 515-540. Northcote, T.G. 1974. Biology of Lower Fraser River: A Review. Westwater Research Centre, Tech. Rep. No. B Vancouver, B.C. Oguss, E. and T.R. Andrew. . 1977. Incidental Catches of Steelhead Trout in the tmxercial Salmon Fisheries of the Fraser River andjIl;!n de Fuca Strait. B.C. Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Marine Resources Branch, Fisheries Management ReportNo. 7, 50 pp.

1 0-5 beak

Pearce Bowden Economic Consultants Ltd. 1971. The Value of Fresh-water Sport Fishing in British Columbia. A Report Prepared for tht2 British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. Study Report No. 5 on th? Economics of Wildlife and Recreation. 64 pp. Pearse, P.H. and M.E. Laub. 1969. The Value of the Kootenay Lake Sport Fishery. Study Report No. 3 on the Economics of Wildlife and Recreation. B.C. Dept. Recreation and Conservation, Victoria, B.C. 60 pp. Peet, R.K., 1974. The Measurement of Species Diversity. (In) Anrlual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol. 5 R.F. Johnston, P.U. Frank, C.D. Michener (eds.). Annual Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, California. P. 285. Pennak, R.W., 1973. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United Stater. Ronald Press Co., New York. 769 pp. Peters, J.C. 1962. The Effects of Stream Sedimentation On Trout Embryo Survival. Tarzwell, C.M. (Compiler) 1962. Biological Problems in Water Pollution. U.S. Oept. Health, Education and Welfare, Fublic Health Ser., Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Pielou, E.C., 1966. Shannon’s Formula as a Measure of Species Diversity: Its Use and Misuse. Am. Nat. 100:463-465. Pielou, E.C., 1966 a. The Measurement of Diversity of Different Types of Biological Collections; Jour. Theoretical Biol. 13:131-144. Pyper, 1976. Observations of Pink Salmon Fry at Lornex Mining Cor~oration

(I Water Intake on Thompson River, 1976. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Vancouver, B.C. 7 pp. and figures. Ricker, William E., 1944. Stoneflies of Southwestern British Columbia. I Indiana University Publications, Science Series 12. Ricker, W.E. 1950. Cycle Dominance Among the Fraser Sockeye. Ecology. Vol. 31, (1): 6-26. m Ricker, W.E., 1971. Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in fhsh Waters. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh. IBP Handbook No. 3. Rounsefell, G.A. nad Everhart, W.H., 1966. Fisheries Science - Its Meihods and Applications. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, New York. Saether, O.A., 1971. Notes on General Morphology and Terminology cf the I Chironomidae (Diptera ). Can. Ent. 130:1237-1260. Saether, O.A. 1973. Taxonomy and Ecology of Three New Species of (.lonodimesa Kieffer, with Keys to lleararctic and Palaearctic Species of the Genus (Diptera: Chirononidac). JFRCC 30:GG5-679 flo. 5.

m a- 6 m Sandwell Companyand Limited. 1977. CreekHat Projects, Water SLpply Study, Water IntakeDesign. Report for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, V4007/1. I Scott, W.B. and Crossman, E.J., 1973. FreshwaterFisheries of Carada. Fisheries ResearchBoard of Canada, Bulletin 184. Servizi, J.A. and R.A. Burkhalter, 1970.' Selected Measurements of Water I Quality and BottomDwelling Organisms of Fraserthe River System. 1963-1968. InternationalPacific Salmon FisheriesComissiorl. New Westminster, B.C. 1970. Shafi, M.I. and G.A. Yarranton, 1973. Diversity,Floristic Richncss and Species Evenness During aSecondary (post-fire) Succession.Ecology, 54~897-902. Shannon, and W. Weaver,1949. The MathematicTheory ofInformation. C.E. .. University Ill. Prsss, Urbana. 125 pp. Smith, S.B., T.G. Halsey, G.E. Stringer and R.A.H. Sparrow. 1969 The Development and Initial Testing of a Rainbow TroutStocking i'ormula inBritish Columbia Lakes. B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Fisheries Management Report. No. 60. 18 pp. Smith, 8.8. 1969. ReproductiveIsolation in Summer and Winter Rac.es of SteelheadTrout. Pages 21-38 in T.G. Northcote, ed.Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams. Tiistituteof Fisheries, The University ofBritish Columbia,Vancouver, B.C. Snedecor, G.W. & W.G. Cochran, 1971. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press. 593 pp. Steel, G.D. and Torrie, J.H., 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statis- tics. McGraw-Hill BookCo.,. Inc. New York, New'York. 481 p~'. Stewart, 0. 1977. FishingCountry ....through the ice. February: 58- 63. Stringer, G.E. 1971. BranchContributions to Interior Fisheries. B.C. Ministry,Recreation and Conservation,Fish and WildlifeBrarch. 16 pp. Unpub. MS. Tautz, A.F. and G.R. Peterson. 1973. Design and Resultsof Loon Lake Creek Surveys 1949-73. B.C. MinistryRecreation and Conservztion, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Unpub. MS 40pp. Tarzwell, C.M. (Compiler) 1962. BiologicalProblems' in Water Pollution. U.S. Oept. Health,Education and Welfare,Public Health Ser., Division of Water Supply and PollutionControl. Cincinnati, Ohio. Usinger, R.G. (ed.), 1971. AquaticInsects of California. University ofCalifornia Press. U.S. Dept. Interior. 1968. Water QualityCriteria. Report of theNational TechnicalAdvisory Committee to The Secretary of theInterior. Fed. Water PollutionControl Administration.

8- 7 beak

Verhoeven, L.A. and E.B. Davidoff. 1962. Marine Tagging of Fraser River Sockeye Salmon. Inter. Pac. Salmon Fish Comm., New Westminster, B.C., Canada. Bull; 13:129 pp. Vernor, E.H. 1958. An Examination of Factors Affecting the Abundance of Pink Salmon in the Fraser River. International Pacific Sslmon Fisheries Commission. Progress Report. New Westminster, 6.1:. 49 pp. Weber, C.I. (ed.), 1973. Biologic'al Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. Nat. Environ- mental Res. Centre, U.S. Environmental Prot. Agency, Cincinndti, Ohio. €PA-670-4-73-001, Wickett, W.P. 1962. Environmental Variability and Reproduction Potentials of Pink Salmon in British Columbia in Symposium on Pink Salmon, Institute of Fisheries, The Universify of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Wilhm, J.L. and T. Dorris, 1966. Species of Diversity of Benthic Macro- invertebrates and Stream Receiving Domestic and Oil Refinery Effluents. her. Midl., Nat. 76:427-449. Wilhm, J.L. and T. Dorris, 1968. Biological Parameters for Water Quality Criteria. Bioscience. 18(6):477-481. Wi 1 liams, I.V. & D.F. Amend. 1976. A Natural Epizootic of Infections hematopoietic necrosis i.n Fry of Sockeye Salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka ) at Chilko Lake, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Bc!. Can. 33(7): 1564-67. Wi 1 liams, I.V. and P. Gilhousen. 1968. Lamprey Parasitism on Fr?,ser River Sockeye and Pink Salmon during 1967. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Progress Report, 18. New Westminster, B.C. 49 pp. Williams, I.V. & 0. Stelter. 1977. Part I Investigation of the Prespawn- ing Mortality of Sockeye in Chilko River in 1971. Part I1 1r;vestiga- tions of the Use of Antibiotics to Control the Prespawning Mcrtality of the 1971 Chilko Population. Progress Report No. 35, International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. New Westminster. 16 pp. Worobec, A. 1977. Canadian Mines Handbook 1977-78. Northern Miner Press Ltd., Toronto. 412 pp.

a- 0 c

APPENDIX A B2 Terms of Reference - June 1977 beak II

APPENDIX A FISHERIES AND BENTHIC FAUNA

INVENTORY OF FISH POPULATIONS 1. Establish the species and relative number of fish in Hat Creek, especially, but not exclusively, in development area. 2. Record the basiclife history data, as well as ages, growth, food, etc., of major fish species. 3. Determine fish spawning and rearingareas and general habitat ,and minimum flow requirements. 4. Prepareannotated (physical, biological) Thalweg curves for nwinstream and tributaries of Hat Creek. 5. Establishthe species and relative abundance of benthicfauna, including baseline downriver stations and diversity indices. 6. Relaterelative abundance ofthe food to thefish present (see 1. above). 7. Provide input to Appendix C3, Section 2.

EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT

1. Evaluate the effect of variousdiversion, reservoir, pondage requirements on Hat Creek fishpopulations. 2. Comment on thevalue of thepit as a futurelake for fish. Suggest improvements that would enhance its value to fish'populations. 3. Comment on thepossible impact ofincreased fishing by the construction work force. 4. Estimate consequences of project impact Jn benthicfauna. 5. Advise on methods and possibilities to avoid,mitigate and compensate for adverse impacts of project developments on HatCreek fishe'y resources. 6. Establish a range of optionsfor compensation lyingoutside Ha.: Creek

A-1 a

- Valley,theirfeasibilities, productivities (species, populaticms and catch)and costs. 7. Evaluate impact relative to regionaland local fish values. .L

REGIONAL FISHERIES RESOURCES 1. Hydrology a) Inventorya) Prepare an inventoryof the majorwatersheds shownon the l/ 250,000 projectbase map. Drainagebasins should be depicted graphically and an inventoryof the primary streams, river$, and 1 akes 1 i sted.

b) Hydrogeomorphology i)Classify and summarize allwater bodies in terms of their pH regime (i.e.acid, neutral. alkaline), total dissolved solids, sulphates, hardness,temperature and bufferirg capacity. ii)Identify the major geological formations underlyingeach watershed,including geochemical data on them.

2. RegionalFisheries a) Inventorya) i) Provide an inventoryof the regional anadromous fisheries resourcesfor the areacovered by the1/250,000 base map. ii) Map the runs of anadromous. fishes on the1/250,000 arld 1/50,000 base map and indicate all known spawning arclas. iii) flap the juvenilemigrations of anadromous fish and show known rearing areas (1/250,000 and l/SO,OOO scale). a iv) Describe the timing of juvenile and adult migrations in i) .- and ii) above for peak and 90 percent of run.

A-2 v) DescribeProvincial management practices,including: seasons gearrestrictions, closures, stocking and enhancement. programs. vi) Provide an inventory of the non-anadromous fishes in the regioncovered by the 1/250,000 and 1/50,000 base map,, notingimportant lake and river sport fisheries. vii) Identify known rare, endangered orthreatened fish species and their distribution in the region. b) Harvest - Sport

i) . Provide a description of the regional (1/250,000) ant1 local (1/50,000)sports fishery. ii) Estimatethe current fishery yield of theresource irl i) above by evaluatingProvincial creel census data, stelelhead punch card results, stocking practices and otherpert.inent management information. c) Harvest - Commercial i) Summarize the commercial fishingstatistics for fish populations in the Thompson River, including commercial c:atch for the period of record.

ii)Sumarize the escapement estimates forthis fishery.

iii) Summarize thecatch-escapement ratio for the period clf record forthe species shown in i) and ii) above. d) Harvest - Other i) Estimatethe catch and significance of subsistencefishing by NativeIndians exclusive of commercial and sport 1 andings (i.e. for tribal and ceremonialpurposes, etc... ).

A-3 beak I

," m

e) Sumarize,'briefly, the existing stresses from naturalcauses, present industry and land-usepractices and competition - pre- dation by "pest" species which limitthe success of the anadromous fish (1/250,000 and 1/50,000).

3. Hat Creek ValleyFishery in Regional Perspective a) Summarize thecurrent status of the Hat Creek Valleyfishery I resource (1 /50,000).

I b) Summarize usage estimates from availabledata.

c) Comment'on the potentialcapability of the Hat Creek fishery.

A-4 beak

L r

APPENDIX B 1 Life Histories of Resident and Anadromous Fish Occurring Within the Regional Study Area Supplementary Tables beak -

I 81 .O LIFEHISTORIES OF RESIDENTFISH

(a) Rainbow Trout Rainbow trout (SaZmo gairdneri) are qative to ths eastern Pacific Ocean and freshwaterwest of the Rocky Mountains. They are probably also endemic to the Peace and Athabasca Rivers east of the Rocky Mountains. Theirnative range extendsnorth from northwest Mexico to the Kuskokwin River,Alaska, but have

I been introducedwidely throughout the world. In British Columbia, rainbow trout arepresent throughout the Fraser and most of the Columbia River systt?ms (Carl et aZ., 1973).

Distinguishing characteristics ofrainbow trout (andsteelhead) are the absence of ared dash under the jaw, lack of teeth at the base of thetongue, and whitish edges on dorsal,anal and pelvic fins (Scott and Crossman, 19?3). Steelheadare those individuals which enter freshwater to spawn but o.:herwise spend their adult life at sea. Rainbow troutare those individuals which spend theirentire life infreshwater. Dwarf forms of rainbow trout occur -n many headwaterstreams in British Columbiaand are often distinguished by parr marks (darkvertical markings on the sides of fish) which theyretain throughout life (Carl et aZ., 1973). Because this form was collectedin Hat Creek, its general life history and not that of steelhead is presented here.

Rainbow trout arethe most important sport fish in British Columbia (Carl et aZ., 1973). They typically occur in “lakes but arealso common in large and small streams which exhibit moderate flows,gravel bottoms, and both pools and riffles. Spawning occursprimarily from mid-April to late June in smallertributaries

Bl-1 beak I

”. of rivers or inlets oroutlet streams of lakes (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Carl et =~.,(1973) stated that in British Columbia most fishenter st,reams to Spawn after ice break-up in May or June. Age at spawning usuallyranges from 3-5 years with males generally maturing one year younger than females. Carl et aZ., (1973) stated that in small lakes and streams, some rainbow trout may first spawn at a length of only about 100 - 125 mn.

The spawning site is usually a bed of gravelor small rubble in a riffle, often located upstream of a pool (Scott andCrossman, 1973; Baxter andSimon, 1970). Lagler(1966) stated spawning may alsooccur at the tail of a poolwhere swift currents and cleangravel exist. The femaleprepares the nest or redd by turning on her side,fanning the caudal fin, and removing gravel from a pit longer and deeperthan her body. The female is joined by one orseveral males at time.of spawning, usually when watertemperatures are between 10.0 and 15.5OC. Eggs and milt arereleased simultaneously. Eggs fall in gravelspaces and are covered by graveldisplaced from.the upstream edge of the redd by thefemale. The female may prepare andspawn in severalredds, depositing from 800 to 1,000 eggs per redd.In interiorBritish Columbia, number of eggsper female has been givenas 1,366 - 2,670, but maybe as low as 200 (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

I Eggs hatch in about 4-7 weeks, depending on time of spawning and water temperature.Alevins become free-swimming about 3-7 days afterhatchina, and fry begin feeding about 1-2 weeks later. They usually emergefrom the redds from mid-June to mid-August when spawning occurs in April or May (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Some fry of lake-residentadults migrate up or downjtream to the lake either after emergence or by autumn,and others remain in th? natal stream 1 to 3 years. Fryof stream-resident spawners may remain in t?ibutaries during summer or begin downstream migrations shortly after emergence (Erman and Leidy, 1975).

m Maximum size of .rainbow troutvaries widely with area and habitat. Interior forms usually weigh no more than 2.7 - 3.6 kg although Scott and Cro!;snan (1973)

B1-2 beak

reported an individual taken in Jewel Lake, British Columbiaweighed 23.6 kg: Lifeexpectancy may be as low as 3 - 4 years in stream and lakepopulations, but a longevity of 6-7 years is probably more 'representative.

Back-calculated fork lengths for various ages of rainbow trout from i:7 British Columbia lakes were presented by Larkin et at.,(l957!. Ranges presented below show thesize variation which occurs within theprovince: age 1, 53-103 nun; age 2, 136-318 mn; age 3, 182-468 mm; age 4, 192-551 nun. Larkin et at.. stated that in many mountain lakes maturerainbow trout may grow no longer t,han 150 to 200 mm.

Rainbow trout food habitsvary with size and season.Smaller fishoften feed

I) on Cladocera and aquatic insect larvae while larger fish utilize larce insects, leeches,molluscs and fish (Carl et at., 1973).Scott andCrossman (1973)stated that with increasedfish size, dietprogresses from plankton to insects and a crustaceans, and then to fi.sh. They added that in certainlakes trout reach weights of 1.8or 2.3 kg on a diet comprised only of invertebrates.

Optimum watertemperatures for rainbow trout were reported to be 21.OoC or slightlyless (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Specimens occurring in cooler.waters exhibitedslower growth rates and a reduced maximum size.Lagler (1966) stated rainbow trout are best suitedto water temperatures ranging from about 3.3OC in winter'to 21.1°C in summer. He added thisspecies may sustain water temperatures up to about 27.OoC(81OF) but only for shortperiods of time. Black (in Scott andCrossman, 1973) found the upper lethal temperature for rainbow trout fingerlings was 24.OoC when acclimated at a temperature of ll.O°C.

(b) Mountain Nhitefish V Mountain whitefish (Prosopim villimnsai) occuronly in western Norti America. In British Columbia, they have been collected from theFraser, Okanagsn, Kootenay and otherriver systems(Carl et at., 1973; Scott and Crossman, 1973). Distinguishingcharacteristic of this species of salmonid arethe troJt-like

B1-3 beak

body, large scales, largeunspotted adipose fin, and narrow peduncle. Mountain whitefishare important both asa food and game fish in BritishColurbia. McHugh (in Scott and Crossman, 1973) stated that prior to its sale being banned in 1940, thisspecies was sold door to door as a food fish inthe province.

I Mountain whitefish are present in lakes and larger rivers, preferring larger tosmaller streams (Scott and Crossman, 1973). They have been recorded from turbid pools in astream as well as from eutrophiclakes. Nelson (inScott and Crossman, 1973)noted the adaptability of this speciesto changingenviron- mental conditions(hydro-electric development) in A1 bertawaters.

Spawning occursnear mid-November in the Okanagan system and eggs hatchabout thefollowing March (Carl et aZ., 19.73). Fishreach sexual maturity at age 3 or 4 and spawn overgravel or rubble without constructinga redd. Br3wn (in Carl 1973)reported that in Montana, whitefish spawned at depths of 127 1 et aZ., - 1,219 mm. Females averageabout 5,000 eggs per pound of body weight(Scott and Crossman, 1973). The larvaeor fry remain in shallowstream areas until reach- ing alength of about 30 to 40 mm, then move offshore. a Scott andCrossman (1973) reported the maximum age of mountain whitefish as 17 or 18 years. McPhailand Lindsey (inScott andCrossman, 1973) stlted the

I world recordwhitefish wa3 taken from Lardeau River, British Columbia, andhad a weight of 2.0 kgm and length of 572 mm. Following is a list of tot11 length ranges at ages1-9 modified from Nortcote (1957) Scott and Crossman ( 1973): age 1, m 66-135 mm; age 2, 107-224 mn; age 3, 163-297 mm; age4, 196-328 mn; a3e 5, 221-330 mm; age 6, 284-358 mm; age 7, 325-391 mm; age 8, 351-417 mm; ,lge 9, ,376-442 mm. Lengths arefor individua3s taken from British Columbia, Alberta, Utah and Californiawaters and illustrate the size variation over thi';species'

II range.

Mountain whitefishare primarily bottom feeders,their sub-terminal m~uthmaking I them well adapted forthis typebehaviour. Aquatic insectlarvae comprise an important part of the diet, a1 though whitefish have been observedfeeljing throughoutthe water column (Scott and Crossman, 1973). This species was

B1-4 beak

reported by Foerster and Simon (in Scott andCrossman, 1973) to eat ..eggs of its own and otherspecies.' Ricker (in Scott andCrossman, 1973) found thatin Cultus Lake, British Columbia, whitefish occasionallyfed on smallsockeye salmon. Because of similar food habits, it can compete with rainbow trout andsalmon (Carl et aZ., 1973).

(c) Brook Trout Brook trout (Salvetinus fmtinalis) are native to northeastern North America, but have been introducedthroughout the world because of their appealas sport fish. In British Columbia, brook trout occur in streams and lakesin the southerninterior. Distinguishing characteristics of this salmonid are the red spots with blue halos and darkgreen marbling on the back and dorsalfin. It is apopular game fish and is reared in hatcheriesfor stocking in both public and privatewaters (Scott andCrossman, 1973; Carl et aZ., 1973).

Brook trout occur in clear, cool, well-oxygenatedlakes and streams and seek watertemperatures below 2O.O0C (Scott andCrossman, ,1973). As temperatures increase to this point, individuals in.lakes move to deeperwater while those in streamsmigrate downriver to largerbodies of wateror lakes. Carl et d., (1973)reported that individuals stocked in slow-moving streams and shallow lakes in British Columbia exhibita sluggish behaviour.

Spawning takesplace during fall,usually over gravel in shallowheaddater streams. Brook trout also spawn over gravel in lakeshallows if a moderate current and spring upwelling exist.Sexually mture fish(usually agz 3 and older)migrate upstream, males generallyarriving before and ingreatzr numbers than females. The female clears the redd of silt and debris by fanningthe caudal fin.After deposition of eggs and milt, the femalecovers the eggs with gravel by similarfanning movements. Eggs remain in thegravel over winter and hatchthe following spring. Hatchingtime varies from 50 days to 10.'3°C to 100 days as 5.OoC. The upper lethaltemperature for eggs is 11.7'C. Larvae or fry remain inthe gravel until the yolksac is absorbed and become frv?e swimning at a length of about 38 m (Scott andCrossman, 1973).

B1-5 Brook trout seldom live longer than 5 years or, grow larger than 4.5 kgm (Scott andCrossman, 1973). A 6.6 kgm specimen was caught in Nipigon River,Ontario, in 1915. Following is a list of lengthranges of brook trout for various Canadian waters:age 0+, 35-45 nun; age1+, 90-155 mm; age 2+, 130-295 mm; age 3+, 180-390 mm; age 4+, 220-440 nan; age 5+, 260-490 nan; age 6+, 300-535 mn. Lengths areexpressed as approximations since raw datapresented by Scott and Crossman were forstandard, fork or totallength depending on studylocation. However, the wide range in sizes for all but O+ aged fish illustrates the varistion in this species' growth rates.

Brook trout feedprimarily on insects although largerindividuals con:;ume variousfish species (including youngbrook trout andbrook trout egg:;). amphibians, reptiles and small mammals (Carl et aZ., 1973; Scott and Crossman, 1973).Ricker (inScott andCrossman. 1973) found that in Ontario brook trout fed on over 80 genera of aquaticinsects with Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Chironomidae, and Simuliidaelarvae common.

(d) Bridgelip Sucker

Bridgelipsucker (Cutostomus coZwnbianus) are restricted to northwestern North America. InBritish Columbia, theyoccur in the Columbia and FraserRiver systems.Distinguishing characteristics of thisspecies of sucker (fmily Catostomidae) are theincompletely cleft lower lip and the absence of notches at thecorners of the mouth. Small bridgelipsucker maybe uti1ized as a forage fish by economicallyimportant salmonids. Otherwise, thisspecies hasno known direct or indirect value to man (Carl et aZ, 1973);Scott and Crossman, 1973).

Bridgelipsucker generally inhabit colder waters of small, swift rivers with gravel to rocky substrates. They also occur in rivers with a slow current and mud-sand substrate, but seldom inlakes (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Carl et d., (1973) concluded that in British Columbiaspawning occurs in,latespring, as evidenced by thecollection of ripe males and females north of Prince George in early June.Scott andCrossman (1973) statedthat in Idaho young attainlengths from

B1-6 . .. .

beak

40-50 mm at the end of their first sumner. They reported maximum lengths of bridgelipsucker range from250-361 mn.

Food habits of bridgelip sucker apparently consist of scraping algae off rocks. Carl et aZ. (1973) stated this typeof feeding behaviour is characteristic of fish with a flat mouthand sharp-edged lower jaw, long intestine, anc' black peritoneum, all of which areexhibited by bridgelipsucker. 'Scott and Crossman (1973)noted thatbenthic invertebrates would also be ingestedwhile feeding in this manner.

(e) Longnose Dace Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) occuracross north-central North America. They are widely distributed in British Columbiaand have been reported from the Thompson River drainage(Carl et aZ., 1973).Distinguishing characteristics of this species of minnow (familyCyprinidae ) are the longsnout a,ld fusion of thesnout and upper lip. Scott andCrossman (1973)'reported longn~~se dace area seldom used bait species in Canada. Baxter andSimon (1970) shted that inthe North Platte River, Nyoming, longnosedace are an important ba.it fish and also an important foragefish for trout. They may presumably be iln important foragefish for trout in British Columbia waters.

Longnose dace areusually found in running water,although they haveheen reported in shoreareas of large lakes (Carl et aZ., 1973). Their presence in astream generally characterizes it as clean and swift-flowing with agravel to bouldersubstrate (Scott and Crossman, 1973). They usually occur on the bottom in riffles ofboth small and largestreams. Their often reduced swim bladder reflects an adaptation to this typehabitat (Baxter and Simon, 1970).

Spawning usuallybegins from May to early July and can continue into late August (Scott andCrossman, 1973).In the NicolaRiver drainage, British Columbia, Carl et aZ., (1973) reported collectingripe males and females in early June at a watertemperature of 11.7'C.Males guard aterritory, usually in riffles over a gravelsubstrate, where females spawn. McPhailand Lindsey (in Scott and

B1-7 Crossman,1973) reportedthat in Ilanitobafemales deposited 200 to1,200 adhesive r eggs which hatched in 7 to10 days at a water temperatureof 15.6OC. The young absorbed the yolksac about 7 days after hatching thenrose to the surface. .. They,remainedpelagic for about 4 months, inhabitingquiet shore waters of streams,before moving tothe stream bottom. rL Scaleanalysis has shown longnosedace grow ratherslowly but are relatively * long-lived. Kuehn '(inScott andCrossman, 1973) reportedtotal lengths in Minnesota waters as 48 mn at age1, 61 nun at age 2. 74 mm at age 3, E16 nm at age4, and 99 nun at age 5. Maximum lengthreported by Scott and Crossman for .I Nanitobaand Lake Erie sDecimens is 124 nun. a (f) Leopard Dace Leoparddace (Rhinichthys fa2catus) occur in the Fraser River system and in the I ' Columbia Riverbasin east of the Cascades. In Canada, they havebeer reported only from British Columbia (Scott andCrossman, 1973). Distinguishirg charac- - teristics of this speciesof minnow arepelvic stays (fleshy tissue connecting innerrays of pelvic fin to body), distinctblack "leopard" blotches on the

I body, anda protactileupper lip (Carl et aZ., 1973).Leopard dace are of no apparent commercialimportance to man, but may serveas a forage fist for m largerpredators such astrout.

Leoparddace generallyoccur in running water, but havebeen reported in shallows I of severallarge lakes (Carl et aZ., 1973). They are often found in the same riversystem as longnose dace, although these species exhibit different current

I._ preferences. Leoparddace prefer slow-moving water,probably less than 0.5 m/s, whilelongnose dace prefer swifter currents (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

8- 8- Littleinformation is available on timeof spawning. Based on examination of gonads, Gee and I\!orthcote (inScott andCrossman, 1973) reportedleopard dace u probably spawn in earlyJuly. Carl et a2. (1973)stated breeding males develop red 1 ips in spring and some arecovered with smallwhite tubercles. a -

51-8 m beak - Based on length-frequencydistributions, Gee and Horthcote (in Scott and Crossman, - 1973) presentedthe following age-fork length relationships for leopard dace: age 0 in August. 9-18 m; age 1 in June, 18-36 mm; age 2 in June, 44-61 m; * age 3 inJune, 60-80 m; age 4+, 80-120 nun. They found females were heavier and slightlylonger thanmales. Carl et at., (1973) noted similarlythat on

1 theaverage, females were larger than males.

Leopard dace feedprimarily on insects(Scott andCrossman, 1973; Carl et at., 1973). Young-of-the-year utilize Diptera (Chironomidae) larvae.Yearlings feedlargely on Ephemeroptera and Diptera during June and July, but switch to terrestrialinsects by September. Principalfoods of age 2 and olderfish are aquatic (Ephemeroptera,Diptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) and terrestrial insects and earthworms.

(9) Redside Shiner Redside shiner (Aichardsonius batteatus) are restricted to North Americaand are found primarily west of the Rocky Mountains (Scott andCrossman, 1973). In British Columbia, they aregenerally distributed in lakes and streams of theFraser, Columbia, and Skeena systems (Carl et al., 1973).Distinguishing characteristics of this minnow are the very long anal fin base and posteriorlocation of the 'dorsalfin. The importance of redsideshiner as food forlarger sport fish in British Columbia was noted by Carl et el. (1973). However, theyadde(i that redsideshiner andyoung trout may compete for the same food and that shiners my feed on trout fry.

Redside shiner spawnfrom May to lateJuly or early August. Malesand females apparentlyreach sexual maturity during their third year of life. Many individuals,particularly males, may spawn several times during the simmerand up to 46 percentof these survive to spawn thefollowing sumner. Adu: ts migrate into spawning streams when streamtemperature exceeds 10.O°C and exhitlit some homing tendency. Eggs aredeposited in riffles overgravel or, for ttlose individuals spawning inlakes, over submergent vegetationnear shore. Hatching time varies from 15 days at a watertemperature of 12.0% to 3 days at 21.0%.

B1-9 m beak 1

In streams, young are carried downstream at night by currents,apparently about m 10 days afterhatching. They are still in avery immature stage when theyreach the lake. Both youngand adults exhibit schoolingbehaviour (Scott itnd I Crossman, 1973).

W Approximate age-fork lengthrelationships for redside shiner during rlid-sumer in Sixteen Mile Lake, British Columbia areas follows: age 0, 5-10 tm; age 1, m 25-55 m; age 2, 55-70 n; and age 4+, 110+ mm (Scott andCrossman, 1973). Maximum age was reportedas probably no greater than 7 years and maximum size about 180 mm. Females were observed to grow faster and live longer thanmales. 1

Primary foods of adultredside shiner in British Columbia areaquatic and 3 terrestrialinsects, and occasionally small fish such as trout, other minnows, and otherredside shiners (Carl et aZ., 1973; Scott and Crossman, 1373). Redside - shiner have also been noted to consume eggs of.tneir own species. Food of fry includesdiatoms, copepods and ostracods.Scott andCrossman statedthat although redsideshiner are often an importantforage fish for species such as rainbow .. and cut-throat trout, they. can be seriouscompetitors for food and space.

81.1 LIFEHISTORIES OF ANAOROblOUS FISH

(a) Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha. Adult pink salmon occur in the Pacific and A-ctic Oceans, the Bering and Okhotsk Seas, and the Sea of Japan. They have been successfullyintroduced in the upper Great Lakes. Spawning occurs in most coastal tributaries of western North America extending from the Sacramento River, California to the Bering Sea,Alaska. In northeastAsia, spawning occurs from Peter the Great Bay north to the Lena River (Scott andCrossman, 1973:.

Pink salmon arethe most abundant salmon in British Columbia (Hart, 11173),and the second most abundant (after sockeye) in theFraser River system(IIe?artment of the Environment, Fisheries and I4arine Service,1975). Theyspawn in most .

m .. 81-10 # beak

major rivers (exceptthose along southeast Vancouver Island) and many smaller coastalstreams. I However, about 75 percent of thestock spawns jn only 78 (or 8%) of these rivers (Carl et uZ., 1973; Hart, 1973; Scott andCrossman, 1973). 1

Adult pink salmon migrate from the sea to freshwater rivers from June to September,depending on location(Scott and Crossman, 1973). Males and larger fish generally enter the river first and usually do so on highwater (Hart, 1973). Spawning migrationsusually extend nomore thanabout 65 km upstream, not far from salt water, a1 though upriver movementsof about 480 km have been reported(Scott and Crossman, 1973).

Most adults exhibit homing behaviour,returning to thestream in which they were spawned.However, some have been captured in spawning streams 600 knl from their parentstream (Scott andCrossman, 1973; Hart, 1973).

Spawning occurs in rivers and tributary streams from mid-July to late- October.

I Spawning streamsare usually small with medium-sized gravel substrate, although main channels of theFraser and Yukon Riversserve as pink salmon spawning grounds (Scott andCrossman, 1973).In the Fraser Riversystem, pink,salmon I exhibit an early peak spawning run in mid-September and a late peak run in early October (Hoos and Packman, 1974).

Eggs hatch from late December to late February, depending on water tmperature

I (Scott andCrossman, 1973;Carl et aZ., 1973).Alevins remain in the gravel from late February to early Hay until the yolksac is 'absorbed,then become free-swimming at a length of about 33-38 nnn (Scott andCrossman, 1973).

Fry commence downstream migrations soon after leaving the redd, usually at water temperatures of 4-5OC (Wickett,1962). During 1974, peakdownstream migration in theFraser River occurred on 5 April with the median datefor duration of downstream movement on 10 April (Departmentof Environment, Fisheries andMarine Service,1975). Hoos and Packman (1974) reported young inthe Fraser River generally exhibit a random depth distributionduring downstream migrations,

81-11 beak

although most occurnearer the surface in day1,ight. The downstream migration of an individual,generally takes no more than 24 hours (Hoos andPackman, 1974).

Upon reachingestuarine waters, the young form largeschools and are active duringthe day (Scott andCrossman, 1973). They remain in inshore waters during their first summer, then move to deeper, open-sea waters in September. Many young from the FraserRiver spend their first sumner in less saline waters near theoutlet before moving further offshore(Hart, 1973). In some arels young probablydisperse along theshoreline several days after completing downstream migrations. e Afterspending approximately 18 months at sea, pink salmon returnas two-year- old s,pawning adults.Individuals three years of age havebeen reported but are uncommon (Scott andCrossman, 1973). Average weight of returning adlJ1 ts is about 2.2 kg and averagelength is from 432-483 mm (Hart, 1973; Scott andCrossman, - 1973). Spawning runs in a givenstream occur predictably in even or odd years. .- Generally, runs in northern'British Columbia occur on even years. Some'streams which I support runs each year may have a dominant run one year and a small run the next (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

The food of pink salmon varieswith'fish size. The young occasionallyutilize insect nymphs and larvaewhile in fresh water, although they spend only a short timethere (Scott andCrossman, 1973). From April to June, youngfrom theFraser River feed primarily on copepods but by July are large enough to utiiize I chaetognaths, amphipodaand euphausids(Hart,1973). They also feed on young fishes such as herring, eulachon, smooth-tongue,hake, pricklebacks and gobies during theirfirst sunnner (Hart,1973). Studies by the Department 01' Environ- ment, Fisheries and Marine Service (1975) showed that, in thesouth ?.rm ofthe Fraser, young pinksfeed on amphipodsand harpacticoid copepods.In estuarine areas young feed on plankton and estuarinebenthos. At sea,foods irlclude euphausids, amphipods, copepods, pteropods,squid and fishes. Adults do not normallyfeed afterentering spawning rivers(Scott and Crossman, 197'3).

61-12 beak

(4.2 Coho Salmon p. Oncorhynchus 'kisutch. Spawning populati.ons.of cohosalmon utilize North American coastalstreams from Monterey Bay, Ca1iforni.ato point Hope, Alaska. The majorityof the North American populationoccurs between Oregon and south-eastern Alaska. Asian populations spawn in coastalstreams from the Anadyr River, U.S.S.R., south to Kokkaido, Japan. Coho salmon usually do not range far out to sea; most appear to remain within 1900 km ofshore. Adults have occasionally been reportedas far southas Baja. California (Hart, 1973; Scott andCrossman, 1973). Sexual maturityusually is reached between the agesof 3 and 4 years (Hoosand Packman, 1974). Normally coho spend two summers (approximately 18 months) in the open ocean beforemigrating to freshwater for spawning. Occasionallymales, and more infrequentlyfemales, may reachsexual maturity the first fall after migrating to salt water(age 2 years). In Bri.tish Columbia, precociousindividuals occur mainly inthe southern spawning areas(Scott and Crossman, 1973). Mature coho salmon leavetheir feeding areas in the open ocean and migratesouth alongthe coasts of Alaska andCanada on their way to freshwater spawning areas. During this migrationthey grow rapidlywhile feeding mainly on fish ('lart, 1973). Coho salmon have avery strong tendency to return to theirnatal strealn. Scott andCrossman (1973)reported that 85% ofspawners return to theirnatal stream. Beforeleaving salt water, coho adultsusually congregate at the mouth of their natalriver system. Their movement into fresh water is oftentriggered by the increased river flowscaused by fall rains(Scott and Crossman, 1973). In the FraserRiver, migrating adults enter the main stem between July and.De:ember (Department of Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, 1975; Scott ,and Cross- man. 1973). Escapement ofmigrating spawners is dependent on fishing]pressure and the environmental conditionsinfluencing survival in ocean and frelihwater environments. Coho salmon generallyselect smaller streams for spawning (Hart, 1973; Hoos and Packman, 1974). For this reason theFraser River is only mderately u.:ilized by Coho. Spawning occurs between September and March with peak spawning priods occurring from October to Novemberand in December (Hoos andPackman, ::974).

I 81 -1 3 r. m beak 1.

Emergence occurs between early March and late July (.Scott and Crossman, 1973). I Migration to salt Water may begin immediately. but more often the jllveniles remain in fresh water through March or April of thefollwing year, m Just prior to migration to salt water, juvenile cohobecome more active and form small schools. At this timethey are about 10 on in length(Scott and ,

I Crossman, 1973).Migration itself is accomplished by the juveniles (smolts) moving into swiftcurrent and being swept downstream (Hart,1973). Often the peak migrationperiod coincides with spring and summer freshets (Hocs and Pack- I man, 1974). Coho smolts generally arrive at the mouth of their natalstream in late May I (Scott and Crossman, 1973). They are thought to remain in'the estuary,or lower river through the spring and summer before moving to open ocean feeding 1 areas (Hoosand Packman, 1974; Scott and Crossman, 1973). Not alljweniles migrateto open ocean.Occasionally individuals remain in freshwater (Scott - and Crossman, 1973).Others will take up residence in theStrait of Georgia '(Hart,1973). Both thosethat remain in fresh water and in the Stra,it of Georgia grow less than coho that migrate to the open ocean. Larval and juvenileherring and otherfishes were the important fooditems in terms of biomass, for juvenile coho inestuarine areas (Department of Environ- ment, Fisheries and Marine Service,1973).

(c) Sockeye Salmon - Oncorhynchuus nerkcr. 1 Sockeye salmon occur throughout the north Pacific Ocean ranging from the Sacramento River, California,.north to the Canadian Arctic and westward to the Sea of Okhotsk, near Japan. Sockeye abundance alongthe Asian coastis centered around the Kamchatka Peninsula(Hart, 1973). The primary arzas of abundance of this commerciallysought species range from the Columbia River to a Bristol Bay, Alaska,with the heaviest concentrations centered around the FraserRiver in British Columbia (Hart,1973). Adultsockeye salmon migrateeastward over the continentalshelf toward British Columbia during the sumner months (Hart, 1973). The time of itrrival at theestuary or river mouth is related to thedistance upriver whichmust

B1-14 he trayelled, Fenerally earlyarri.vals will mi,grate further upriver to spawn (Scott and Crosrjqan, 39731, Verhoevenand Dayidoff 11962) discovered from adult sockeye taggi,ng studies, that the principalmi~gration extends through the Strait of Juan ae Fuca past Salmon Banks,South Lopez, Rosario Strait, Lummi Island and on to PointRoberts. Sockeye stocks originating from British Columbia normally reside soclewhat more than one year in fresh water and 2 or mre years in salt water (Hart, 1973). The averagelifespan is composed of four summers in salt wa::erand two wintersin fresh water (Carl, 1973; Hart, 1973; Ricker, 1950). However, precocious males or”jacks” may return to their natalstreams after three years(Carl, 1973). Sockeye demonstrate a cyclic dominance inthe Fraser River,yielding dominant (everyfourth year) and subdominant years{(Ricker, 1950). The prespawning migrationin the Fraser River first occurs during earlyJuly, when fish move immediately into fresh water and quickly upstream. Later runs of sockeyeappear in early August, delay at the river mouth from D.34days, and proceeedslowly upstream (Hoosand Packman, 1974; Verhoeven and.Davidoff, 1962). Time of entryinto the Fraser River” ...varies between years, between cycleyears, between raceswithin a cycleyear, and between cycleyears within a particular race’! (Hoos andPackman, 1974, p. 108). Typically, ma’ture fish enterfresh water and arrive near their natal stream in early summer and remain until fall when spawning occurs(Carl ,et al, 1973; Scott and Crossmi!n, 1973).

The presenceof a lake is generally a requisite for successfulsockeye spawning and rearing. Most fish spawn intributaries to a lake, however, some fish mayspawn on thelake’s shoreline or in thelake’s outlet. 0c’:asionally theywill spawn in systemswithout lakes (Hart, 1973; Scott and Crossman, 1973); however, sockeye do not spawn inthe Fraser River mainstem. Afterenergence, the fry proceed to the lake where theyare found principally alongthe shoreline (Hart, 1973). Young sockeye in lakes consume moplankton and insectlarvae. Predators of young sockeye include rainbow trout, coho salmon,Dolly Varden, char,squawfish, and theprickly sculpin (Hart, 1973).

61-15 beab

Downstream migrationoccurs in the spring when the sockeye have obtained lengths ranging from 6,O to 9,5cm(Hart, 1973; 'Scott andCrossman, 1973). Downstream migrationoccurs both day and night in the turbid waters of the Fraser (Hoos andPackman, 1974). Sockeye salmon smolts remain in brackish and water during theearly summer. During this period foocl consists ofvarious insects, crustaceans, and larval andyoung fish such as the sand lance,eulachon, hake, herring, pricklebacks,starry flounder, big eye whiting and rockfishes(Hart, 1973).

(d) ChinookSalmon .. Oncorhynchus tshytsch. Adult chinook salmon occurin the Pacific Ocean, inthe Bering and Okhotsk Seas, the Sea of Japan, and rarely. in theArctic Ocean (Scott and Crossmal,1973). Chinook are anadromous in large rivers flowing intothese seas. You,igand spawning adults range from southern California's Ventura River through Oregon, Washington and British Columbia (Hart,1973). In British Columbia, chinook salmon ascend all majorstreams including migration up the Yukon Rivtrr to spawn in tributaries of Bennett and Teslin Lake's (Carl et aZ., 1973). Chinook adultsappear in certainBritish Columbia riversin August and September, and egg depositionoccurs during October and November (Carl et aZ. , 1973). They spawn either immediately above the tidal limit or migrate hundreds of' miles upriver(Hart, 1973). Generally, runs in mure northerlyrivers occur earlier. However, chinook appear off the mouth ofthe Fraser River asearly as January and their run reachesa maximum in August and September. Spawning time varies with timeof arrival at the river mouth, area, and length of rivermigration (as much as 960 km in the FraserRiver). Spawning occursin the FraserRiver system from July to November (Scott and Crossman, 1973).Several runs are recognizedin theFraser Riversystem (Hoos andPackman, 1973) each of which repres1:nts a run to aFraser tributary or group of tributaries. Chinook utilize about 260 British Columbia streams but 50% ofthe production comes from only 14 streams, one of which isthe Fraser River (Scott andCrossman, 1973).

C1-16

Q beak

Usually young chinook migrate to sea soon after hatching, however, t.hey may remain one or two years in fresh water. Young chinook salmon are fcund off the mouth of the FraserRiver from April on, Therethey are 4 to 5 centimeters longin April, 9 centimetersin June, and 13centimeters by July (Hart, 1973). Food at this stage was found to include herring, sand lance,eulachon, zooplankton, insects and crustaceans (Hart, 1973). Chinook migrate northwest along the coastbefore returning to spawning steams (Hart,1973). The najor growth takes pl.ace in thesea, the fish becoming mature in three to seven years(Carl et uZ., 1973).In Canada, most chinook spend 2 - 3years in the sea but spawning adults havebeen found asold as 9 years (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Fish make up the bulk (97%) of adult food in theocean. Herring and sand laceare the most frequentlyeaten fish (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

(f) Steelhead - Suhc guirdneri Steelhead is the anadromous form of rainbow trout. Rainbow trout originally occurredonly in North America,mainly west ofthe Rocky Mountains from extreme northern Baja California,to the Kickokwim River, Alaska (Scott andICrossman, 1973). It has been introducedthroughout North America as well as in many other parts of the world (Hart, 1973; Scott andCrossman, 1973).Stl?elhead occurin coastal streams and rivers from northernCalifornia to Alaska (Smith, 1969). Steelhead have been observed asfar out to sea as 150 w long.itude (Hart,1973). A typicalriver system inBritish Columbia could be expected I to contain both resident rainbow trout and steelhead(Scott and Crossman, 1973). While in salt water, steelhead adults feed mainly on fish and variour;crustaceans (Hart,1973). Ocean life may lasta-few months to severalyears (Hoc~sand Packman, 1974).Sexual maturity is usally reached between 4 and 6 years of .age(Carl et aZ., 1973). Inthe Fraser River; two distinct spawning runs ofsteelhead exist, a summer run entering the river between June and September

I and awinte run fzntering, between November and April (Hoos and Packmar, 1974). Both runs spawn in the spring. Tendencies toward summer and winter spawning runs appear to be inherited and are found in many river(Hart, 1973).Generally

~- B1-17 II beak a the summer run of steelhead will move farther up a river system to !;pawn thanwinter run steelhead. Summer run fishusually are not sexually mature when theyenter a river, while winter run fish are mature(Smith, 1969],. Rainbow trout (.includingsteelhead) mainly spawn in.smal1tributariE!s of rivers, and inletor outlet streams of lakes(Hart, 1973). Unlike Facific . salmon, steel head occasionally survive spawning. Hoos and- Packman11974) reported that approximately 10 percentsurvive spawning to spawn a second time. They alsoreported that less than 1,percent surviveto spawn a third time. Migrationof juveniles to sea generaliy occurs during spring freshets (Hoos and Packman, 1974).Before moving out to sea, young steelheadare thought be remain near the mouth of their natal river (Hoos andPackman, 1971). Young steelhead occur in the Strait of Georgia off the outlet of the Fraser River and in Saanich Inlet(Hart, 1973). In June these fish were feeding on insects,euphausids, copepods, amphipodsand othercrustaceans, andyoung fish such as sand lance, herring, eulachon,red devil, searcher and smooth tongue. In Canada and the United States the steelhead is considered a sport fish.Indians in British Columbia harveststeelhead commercially (Hoosand Packman, 1974). Hoos and Packman (1974) alsoreported that steelhead are taken incidcntally while gillnetting for salmon at the Fraser River mouth and upstreamnear Mission City. They alsoreported that Indians fishing the Fraser River and Howe Sound area(including the Squamish system)harvested between 3875 (1965) and 1510 (1969) steelhead.Steelhead are pursued by sportsmen in many coastal and tributary streams. The Indiancomercial catch of steelhead has been decliningsince 1960and sportcatches have been decliningsince 1966 (Hoos andPackman,, 1974).

51-18 beak

a TABLE B-1 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ANGLER DAYS LISTED BY NANAGEMENT UNIT

i SPENT ON LAKESIN THE STUDYREGION IN 1976

-Lake Angler Days -Lake I\ngl er Days c Manaqement Unit 3-12 Management Unit 3-14 Bo1 is 1 ,000 Fishblue 10,000 Brenda 2,628 Corbette 2,500 Total Angler Days 10,000 Courtney 10,000 .Number Lakes Fished 1 Doug1 as 2,000 Ellen 1 ..ooo Hatheume 5,000 Management Unit 3-15 Jackson 5,000 Loon 40,000 a Frances 1,000 Lundbom 10,500 Hannah 1,000 Marquart 200 Kwoiek 300 Kellin 1,000 Nahatl ach 1,500 Minnie 5,000 Stein 100 Penask 30,000 Pinnacle 3,000 Total Angler Days 4,800 Pothole 1,000 Number Lakes Fished 5 Rat 1,000 Reservoir 1,000 Rock. 1,000 Management Unit 3-1 6 Skunk . 1,000 Duffey . . 5,000 TotalAngler Days 123,828 Gates 500 Number Lakes Fished 20 Seton 500

Total Angler Days 6,000 Management Unit 3-13 kmber Lakes Fished 3 m Edna 1,500 Gillis 2,000 Management Unit 3-17 Gwen 2,500 Hamn 5,000 A1 kal i 1,000 bne (left) 4,000 Blue Earth 1,200 Kane (right) 4,000 F.otanie 1,000 I Lily 5,000 Crown 6,000 Murray 6,000 Kwotl enemo 10,000 Shea 3,000 Langley 1.000 Leighwood 2,090 Total Angler Days 33,000 McLean 150 Number LakesFished 9 Pasul ko 50 a .beak P

TABLE 6-1 Cont'd. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ANGLER DAYS LISTED BY MANAGEMENT UNIT SPENT ON LAKESIN THE STUDYREGION IN 1976

-Lake Angler Days -Lake Angler Days Management Unit 3-17 Cont'd. Management Unit 3-19 Pavillion 10,000 Chewhel s 1,500 Turnip 100 Dairy 2.000 Turquoise 6,000 Duffy 7,000 Face 1,000 TotalAngler Days 38,500 Frogmoore 2,000 Number Lakes Fished 12 Hull 1,000 Jacko 8,000 Lac le Jeune 30,000 Management Unit 3-1 8 Mab 1,000 McConnel 8,000 Abbott 1 ,000 Mi 1 dred 2,000 Antler 2,000 Ni Col a 10,000 Barnes 6,000 Norman 1,000 Big Divide 1,000 Paska 7,000 Bi 1 ly 1,000 Pat 5,000 Bose 5,000 R~Y 1,000 Chataway 3;500 Russ Moore 2,000 Dot 1,000 Stake 8,000 Earnes 600 Surrey 4,000 c Gordon 5,000 Sussex 4,000 Gump 500 Wall oper 8,000 Gyps urn 1,000 Wyse 1,000 Leighton 10,000 Mami t 1,000 Total Angler Days 120,500 O.K. 50 Number Lakes Fished 22 Pimainus 1,500 a Quiltanton 1,000 Roscoe 1,000 Management Unit 3-20 Tunkwa 30,000 Twentyfour Mi 1 e 1 ,000 B1 ack 3,000 Tynes 1,000 81 ackwell 2,000 Bleeker 50 Total Angler Days 74,150 Ernest 4,000 I Number Lakes Fished 21 Frisker 4,000 beak

a TABLE B-1 Cont'd. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF 'ANGLER DAYSLISTED BY WNAGEMENT UNIT SPENT ON LAKES IN THE STUDYREGION IN 1976

-Lake Angler Days -.Lake Angler Days - Manaoement Unit 3-20 Cont'd. Manaqement Unit 3-28 Gl i mpse 8,000 Beaugard 500 Hosl i 2,000 B1 ack 1 ,000 John Frank 4,000 Couture 1,000 McGl ashan 2,000 Disappointment 1,000 Peter Hope 5,000 Gorman 2,000 P1 ateau 6,000 Hoover 1,000 Pratt 2,000 Mu1 holl and 2.000 Roche 25,000 Noble 1,000 Shumway 50 Scott 500 Smith 1,000 Smith 2,000 Stump 2,000 Thuya 4,000 Todd 2,000 Whitewood 1,500 Trapp 4,000 Windy 1,000 Total Angler Days 76,100 Total Angler Days 18,500 Number Lakes Fished 18 Number Lakes Fished 13

Managment Unit 3-27 Management Unit 3-29 Andy 1,000 Bare 6,000 Badger 5,000 Deadman 150 Conunun i ty 1,500 El bow 500 Devick 1,000 Fatox 5,000 Heffley 5,000 Hiahkwah 1,000 Knouff 8,000 Horsepasture 500 Little Badger 1,000 Kaml oops 1,000 Little Heffley 4,000 Last Course 1,500 Paul 15,000 Moose 500 Pinanton 6,000 Mowich 500 Spooney 3,000 Pass 1,000 Sul1 ivan 1,000 Red 5,000 Saul 1,000 Total Angler Days 51,500 Shelly 1,000 Number Lakes Fished 12 Snchoosh 500 heab

TABLE B-1 Cont'd. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ANGLER DAYS LISTED BY MANAGEMENT UNIT 1 SPENT ON LAKESIN THE STUDY REGION IN 1976

I -Lake Angler Days -Lake Angler Days Management Unit 3-29 Cont'd. Management Unit 3-30 Corlt'd.- m Tranqui 11e 4,000 Pressy 500 Tsinisunko 1,000 Renee 1,000 m Vidette 1,000 Si am 1,000 Willow Grouse 2,000 Six Mile 500 Snake 1,000 Stinking 1,000 1 Total Angler Days 33,150 Number Lakes Fished 19 Sumi t 1,000 Twin 1,000 Wavey 1,000 - Management Unit 3-30 Willow 1,000 Young 2,000 .- Bel cache 500 Total .Angler Days 55,000 1 Bonaparte 2,000 Bridge 4,000 Number Lakes Fished 36 Caverhi 11 1,500 Crystal 2,000 - Dagger 1,000 Management Unit 3-31 Dewey 1,000 Oumbel 1,000 Beaverdam 4,000 Egan 1,000 Big Bar 4,000 Franki e 1,000 Meadow . 1,500 .Frogpond 1 ,500 Poison 250 Grant 1,500 Ridge 1 ,000 Harimer 5,000 Hi him 5,000 Total Angler Days 10,750 Hoopatatkwa 5,000 Number Lakes Fished 5 Keith 1,000 Lac des Roche 1,000 Machete 2,000 Management Unit 3-33 Martha 1,500 Mayson 1,000 1,000 Carpenter Norma 1,000 Osprey 1,500 Total Angler Days 1 ,000 Phinetta 500 Number Lakes Fi;hed 1 Pinerock 500 Pothole 1,000 beak

TABLE B-1 Cont'd. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ANGLER DAYSLISTED BY MANAGEMENT UNIT SPENT ON LAKES IN THE STUDY REGION IN 1976

-Lake Angler Days -Lake 9ngler Days Management Unit 3-38 Management Unit 3-39 Colt'd.-

Dunn 1,500 ' Hardcastle 1,500 Genier 5,000 Latremoui 1le 2,000 Hal 1amre 1,000 Lemi eux 450 McTaggart (N) 1,000 Lo1 0 500 McTaggart (SI 1,000 Long Island 2,000 Lost 3,000 TotalAngler Days 9,500 Lost Horse 3,000 Number Lakes Fished 5 Lynn . 1,000 .. Meadow 2,000 Moose 5,000 Management Unit 3-39 Moosehead 3,000 Rock Island 2,000 .. .. Crater Silver 150 900 Deer 150 Sock 5,000 Emar 5,000 Star 1,000 1 Epdee 5.000 Surprise 5,000 Fourteen Mi 1 e 450 Tint1 hohtan 3,000 Friendly 1,500 Tsotin 1,000 Goose 1,500 I Grizzley 5,000 AnglerTotal Days 60,100 Number Lakes Fished 26

From: B.C. Ministry of Recreation & Conservation. Fish & Wildlife Branch 1977a. beak

TABLE 8-2

FISH STOCKING RECORDS OF LAKES IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA1

First YearLast Year Average Last Years Lake Species*~ Stocked No. Stocked Ten Years’Stocked

Alkali Lks. BT1974 (RT) 1956 870 16 Andy RT 0 9 Badger RT 13,086 16 Barnes RT 10,495 5 Beaverdam RT, BT 9,830 21 BigBar RT 11,870 17 B 1 ack . RT, BT 1 ,780 6 Blackwell RT 1962 I969 0 5 Bleeker RT 1969 1975 2,964 6 BlueEarth UT ,1960 1975 2,000 13 Bob RT 1954 1969 0 4 Bose RT 1965 I975 3,030 10

Botan ie RT 1962 1962 0 2~

Boye r UT 1962 1964 0 2~ Brenda RT 1941 1975 2,628 22 Bridge RT 1929 1962 9 25 Brigade RT 1929 1936 0 2 Brown RT 1.968 1969 0 2 Bul 1 RT 1966 1968 0 3 Call ing RT1932 1932 0 1 Campbe I 1 RT 191 1 1957 0 5 Ca rpen ter KOK, RT 1950 1971 38.936 4 Caverhi 11 RT .(KOK) 1949 1952 0 7 Community RT 1924 I975 3,750 8 Corbette RT (BT) * 1952 1975 10,234 37 Cougar RT 1932 1932 0 1 Courtney RT 1948 1975 12,180 27 Crater RT 1946 1972 609 33 .Crescent RT 1939 I975 0 6 Crown RT I936 1974 3,598 36 Crystal RT I936 1975 8,535 26 Curry RT 1937 1937 0 1 DairyLks. RT (BT) 1940 1975 3,782 24 Dardenalles RT 1960 1960 0 1 Deadman RT 1941 I975 400 5 Desmond RT 1957 1958 0 2 Devi ck RT 1934 1954 0 18 beak

TABLE 6-2 Cont'd.

FISH STOCKING RECORDS OF LAKES IN THEREGIONAL STUDY AREA'

First Year Last YearAverage Last Years Lake No; Species'Stocked Stocked Ten Years3Stocked

Dewey RT 1951 0 2 Dominic RT I975 3,360 11 Dorothy RT 1961 0 1 00 t RT 1975 2,528 11 Douglas RT I937 0 1 Duffy RT 1975 9,615 20 Dunn RT 1964 0 5 Edith RT,ET 1965 0 2 Edna RT, BT 1974 2,848 8 Elbow RT 1975 3,888 12 Ellen RT 1949 0 1 Ema r RT 1963 0 2 Ernest RT 1975 0 2 Face RT 1961 '0 1 Fa rr RT 1962 0 1 Fatox RT 1961 0 2 Finney BT 1961 0 1 Fishblue RT (ST) 1972 1,452 12 FourteenMile RT 1969 0 3 Friendly RT 1970 0 7 Frisken RT 1975 3,072 9 FrogmooreLks RT 1927 0 1 Garcia RT (CT,BT) 1970 0 20 Gates RT (AT) 1974 4,022 10 GenierLks. RT 1975 8,068 32 Gillis RT 1975 5,136 14 G1 impse RT 1975 10,932 27 Goose RT (BT) 1975 0 26 Gordon RT 1975 0 25 Gorman RT 1975 2,688 7 Griffin RT (BT) I972 0 12 Grizzley Lks. RT 1968 0 4 Gwen RT 1969 0 5 Gypsum RT 1975 1,104 5 Ha 1 1 amore RT 1953 0 1 Hamr RT 1975 3,124 17 TABLEB-2 Cont'd. FISH STOCKINGRECORDS OF LAKES IN THE REGIONAL STUDYAREA'

First Year Last YearAverage Last No. Years Lake Species' Stocked Stocked Ten StockedYears'

Hannah RT 1940 1940 0 1 Hardcastle RT 1952 1967 0 6 Harmon RT 1945 1975 10,680 23 Hatheume RT 1928 1975 13,600 19 Heffley RT 1947 1975 44,660 25 Hense 1 1 RT 1949 1949 0 1 Hihiurn RT 1973 1975 7,430 3 Hoopatatkwa RT 1949 1949 0 1 Horseshoe RT 1968 1968 0 .l Hos 1 i RT 1971 1975 2,020 3 Hull RT 1939 1939 0 1 Jacko RT 1954 1975 26,374 25 Jacks RT 1964 1972 1,081 9 Jackson RT 1931 1975 4,407. 26 John Frank RT 1970 1975 2,172 4 Kamloops RT 1946 1956 0 9 Kane (Left) RT 1945 1975 8,010 13 Kane (Right) RT 1945 1975 0 13 Knife Lks. RT 1960 1960 0 1 Knouf f RT 1930 1975 22,916 44 Kul lagh RT 1937. 1937 0 1 Kwotlenem RT 1940 1954 3,956 a Lac Ou Bois RT 1951 1951 0 1 Lac Le Jeune RT 15j7 1941 24,178 2 Last Course RT 1962 1963 0 2 Lat remou i 1 1 e RT 1935 1954 0 10 Leighton RT 1939 1975 1a ,520 23 Le i ghwood BT 1962 1970 0 40 Lemi eux RT 1957 1957 516 1 Little Badger RT 1938 1941 0 2 Lodge Pole RT 1936 1957 0 5 Lo1 0 RT 1960 1975 2,160 7 Long Island RT 1956 1957 0 2 Loon RT (BT) 1931 1958 0 9 Lo5 t RT 1960 1969 0 5 Lundbom RT 1961 1975 5,532 12 Lynn RT 1955 1975 9.080 20 Ha b RT 1923 1923 0 1 beak

TABLE 8-2 Cont’d. FISH STOCKINGRECORDS OF LAKES IN THEREGIONAL STUDY AREA’

First Year Last YearAverage Last No. Years Lake Species’StockedStocked Ten StockedYears’

Mabel RT 1941 1952 0 10 Machete RT 1937 I955 0 5 Marquart RT (BT) 1962 1970 0 4 Marsh ’ RT . 1960 1963 0 4 McConnel 1 RT 1935 1975 10,303 37 McGiashan RT CBT) 1941 1975 5,340 9 McLeod BT, CT 1911 I965 0 2 Meadow BT ,1960 1960 0 1 Meadow RT 1930 1957 0 3 Me1 1 in RT 1963 1974 1,904 7 Mildred RT . 1936 1936 0 1 Minnie RT ’ . 1932 1975 20,632 20 Montana RT 1939 1952 0 3 Moose RT 1929 1968 0 6 Morgan . RT 1950 1952 0 3 Mowich RT 1952 1955 0 4 . Murray RT 1939 1975 0 18 Napier RT 1923 1923 0 1 Nesbi tt CT 1931 1931 0 1 Neveu RT 1928 1951 0 14 Nicola RT 1941 1957 0 8 Noble RT 1955 I975 1,643 20 Norma RT 1962 1962 0 l O.K. RT 1968 1975 1,718 6 Paska RT 1929 1929 0 1 Pass RT 1946 1975 5,687 18 Pasulko RT 1960 1974 396 3 Paul RT (AT, LT ,BT) 1909 1975 59,642 64 Pavi 11 ion RT 1930 1975 49,188 49 Pee I RT 1961 196 1 0 1 Pefferle RT 1929 1968 0 7 Pennask RT 1929 1952 0 16 Penn ie RT 1961 1971 528 6 Peter Hope RT 1932 1975 22,864 29 Phinetta RT 1972 1975 2,540 5 Pinantan RT 1908 1075 16,680 58 Pinnacle RT 1962 1975 0 7 P1 ateau RT 1940 1975 7,516 11 beak

TABLE 8-2 Cont'd. FISH STOCKINGRECORDS OF LAKES IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA'

First YearLast Year Average Last No. Years Lak e' Species' Stocked Stocked Ten Years' StockedYears' TenStocked StockedSpecies' Lake'

Poi son RT 1975 5,232 5 Pothole RT 1941 0 4 Powder RT 1975 0 1 Pratt RT 1975 500 5 Pressy RT 1944 0 4 Rat RT 1963 0 1 Red BT (RT) 1974 4,747 13 Rey RT 1956 0 3 Roche RT 1975 35,629 13 Rock RT I973 0' I5 Rose RT 1975 0 8 Ross RT 1969 1,692 13 Rouse RT I937 0 4 Sab is ton RT 1970 0 5 Saul RT 1969 0 5 Sche idam RT 1964 0 2 Scu i t to RT 1942 0 5 Seton KOK 1951 0 1 Sha rpe RT 1965 0 6 Shea RT 1975 3,640 20 Shumway BT 1970 0 3 Six Mile RT (BT) 1975 1 ,330 23 Skinhead RT 1966 0 3 Smi th5 BT, RT . 1969 0 5 Sock RT 1951 0 2 Sophi a RT 1969 0 2 Spectacle RT 1959 0 5 Stake RT 1975 10,903 31 Star RT 1975 11,268 7 Steer RT I 928 0 1 Stuart BT 1975 0 2 Stump RT (CT) 1975 82,078 38 Surrey RT 1963 0 2 Tintlhohtan RT I969 0 IO . Todd RT 1975 2,020 9 Tranqui 1 le RT (KOK) 1940 0 7 Twp BT I975 5,368 3 heak

TABLE 8-2 Cont’d. FISHSTOCKING RECORDS CF LAKES IN THEREGIONAL STUDY AREA1

First Year Last YearAverage Last Years ,Lake No. Stocked Stocked Ten Years’Stocked

Tsot in NOT IN RECORDS 1 ,782 Tunkwa RT 1939 1975 34,187 37 Turquois RT 1945 I975 3, a70 26 Tyne r RT 1960 1975. 2.528 12 Vidette RT (KOK) 1952 1975 6,344 7 Wal loper RT 1932 I975 10,862 24 Was 1 ey RT 1949 1949 0 1 White LT 1909 1909 0 1 Whi tewood RT 1962 1964 0 3 Willow Grouse RT 1950 1951 0 2 Windy RT 1967 1975 0 2 Young RT 1953 1967 0 4

Source: Fish and Wildlife Branch (1976b, 1977a)

Footnotes:

Lakes notstocked are not listed * Species: RT = rainbowtrout BT = brooktrout KOK = kokanee ST = steelhead CT = cutthroattrout AT - atlantic salmon LT = laketrout 0 = occassionalstockings only Stockingrate is in numbers offish (the size of fish is measured by number offish per Ib). Forthe purpose ofaveraging, fish were converted to the 50 fish/lb.size. That is thesize with which Fish and Wildli.’e Branch can most comfortablypredict the survival rate of stocked fish i.e. 50%. ‘ Loon Lake refersto Loon Lake in management unit 3-12 Smith Lake refers to Smi th Lake in management unit 3-20 APPENDIX C Basic Physiognomy of Benthos and Fisheries Sampling Statim

Y Station 1 - Bonaparte River

Substrate:10% boulder, 80% pebble. 10% gravel. Banks : Left facing downstream - cliff, unstable at.base. some deciduousbrush, right facing downstream - sand ,>nd pebble with intersperseddeciduous brush, stable. DepthL 0.3 - 1.3 m Width: 10.6 m Poo1:Riffle:10%:90% Current: Very fast, white water (torrential), surface current 1.9 m/s in June and 1.5 m/s in August. Temperature: 14.0°C at 1400 hr. on 18September 1976, and 15.0"C at 1500 hr. -on 30 September1976; 13.7OC at 0740 hr,, on 14 June 1977; 22.0"C at 1245 hr. on 3 August 1977.

Notes: Current too swift andwater too deep foractual depth, width and current measurementsalong a transect; biological sampling conducted within approximately 1 .!i I;I of shore. Water level in June about7.6 cm higherthan in September and in August about2.5 cm lowerthan -n September.

Y Station 2 - Bonaparte River

II Substrate: 5% pebble, 90% gravel, 5% sand-silt. Banks: Grass,stable. Some deciduous brush. Some under-cutting a on river bends. - 0.1 Depth: - 0.5 m

I c-1 a . . .. beak a

Y Width: 32.3 m Poo1:Riffle: 5%:95% u Current: ~0.3- 1.3 m/s in September; surface current 1 .B m/s in June and 1.5 m/s in August. Temperature: 14.5'C at 1530 hr. on 18September 1976 and 12.O"C at 9 0930 hr. on 30 September 1976; 13.7"C at 1030 hr, on 14June 1977; 18.5'C at 0745 hr. on 4 August 197:'.

U Notes : Logs hadbeen moved from mid-stream to shore areis by

3 the August survey and result.edin more riffles and fewer pool s.

Station 3 - Bonaparte Riv'er u Substrate: 5% pebble, 90% gravel, 5% sand-silt. Banks : Left facing downstream - sand to pebble, grass and shrdbs, u unstable; right facing downstream - grass, stablt with some under-cutting. Depth: 0.1 0.7 m w - Width: 26.0 m Poo1:Riffle: 5%: 95% a4 Current: 0.06 - 1.1 m/s in September; surface current 1,3 m/s in June and 1.5 m/s in'August. Temperature: 14.5"C at 1730 hr. on 17 September 1976 and 12.O"C at 1130 hr. on 30 September1976; 16.4OC at 1530 hr. on 14 June 1977; 18.0"C at 1040 hr. on 3 August 1927.

Station 4 - BonaparteRiver

Substrate: 10%pebble, 80% gravel, 10% sand-silt. Banks : Grass and bush, unstable on right bank facing dormstream. Depth: 0.3 - 1.2 m

c-2 a . .. beak

Y Width: 13.4 m Pool :Riff 1e : 10%:90%

1 Current: 0.1 - 1.1 m/s in September;surface current 1.5 m/s in June and 1.2 m/s in August. Temperature:ll.0"C at 1000 hr. on 16September 1976; 14.0°C at 1400 I hr. on 30September 1976; 15.4"C at 1315 hr. on 14June 1977;. 17.5'C at 0915 hr. on 3 August 1977. Y

Notes : Water level in June about5.1 cm higher than in

Y September and in August aboutthe same as in Sepmtember.

Station 5 - Hat Creek n

Substrate: 60% pebble, 30% gravel. 10% sand-silt. Banks: Left facing downstream - grass,undercut and unstable; right facing downstream - grass,unstable. Depth: 0.03 - 0.4 m Width: 4.6 m Poo1:Riffle:10%:90% * Current: 0.09 - 0.4 m/s in September;surface current C.8 m/s in June and 0.3 m/s in August.

Temperature: ~ 12.0"C at 1800 hr. on 29 September1976; 17.1"C at 1730 hr. on 14 June 1977; 24.0"C at 1520 hr. on 3 August 1977

Notes : Water level in Junesimilar tothat in Septemberand in August about10.2 cm lower than in September. Green algae rooted aquaticplants and some silting (particularly in June and August)observed during eachsurvey.

-Station 6 - Hat Creek

Substrate:5%boulder, 75% pebble, 20% gravel.

c-3 . .-...... beak

Banks : Grass and shrubs, stable. Depth: 0.03 - 0.3. m Wdith: 7.0 m Pool :Riffle: 10%:90% Current: <0.03 - 1.1 m/s- in September; surface current 0;9 m/4 in June and0.4 m/s in' August. , Temperature:ll.0"C at 1630 hr. on29 September1976; 10.1"C at 0750 hr. on 16 June 1977; 20.0"C at 0900 hr. on 3 August 1977.

Notes : About 50% of the bottom was covered by algae.

Station 7 - Hat Creek

Substrate: 75% pebble, 20% gravel, 5% sand-silt. Banks : Trees and grass, stable. Depth: 0.03 - 0.8 m. Width: 6.4 m Poo1:Riffle: 60%:40% Current: ~0.03- 0.3 m/s. in September;surface current 0.7 & in June and 0.4 m/s i.n August. Temperature: 12.O"C at 1730 hr. on 16 September1976; 12.0"C at 1230 hr. on 28 September 1976; 10.2"C at 0755 hr. on 15 June 1977;13.5"C at 1145 hr. on 5 August 1977.

Notes: Fisheries sampling includedareas upstream, within and downstream of this site with a poo1:riffle ratio of about 20%:80%. Water level in June similar to that in September and in August about 15.2 cm lower than in September.Algae similar to that at Station 6 observed in June.

c-4 beak

Station 8 - Unnamed Creek

Substrate:Varied from sand to smallpebble, some detritus. Banks : Leftfacing downstream - sand to pebble; right facing downstream - grass and brush; banks stable exceptfor some signs of livestock. Depth: 5.1 - 15.2 cm Width: 0.9 Width: m Poo1:Riffle: 0%:100%

(I Current: Sluggish. Tempera'ture:8.9"C at 0830 hr. on 17September 1976; 9.8"C at, 0845 hr. on 15 June 1977; 14.OoC at 1245 hr. on 5 Autlust 1977.

Station 9 - Finney Creek

Lower FinneyCreek was notobserved. It apparently flows undergrcund up-

(I streamof its confluence with Hat Creek.

Station10 Hat Creek m -

Substrate:10% boulder, 80% pebble, 5% gravel, 5% sand-silt. Banks: Grass, shrubs and trees, stable except for small area where bank in steep. Depth: 0.03 - 0.6 m Width: 4.6 m ..# Poo1:Riffle: 10%:90% Current:<0.03 - 0.9 m/s in September;surface current 1.0 m,$ in June and 0.4 m/s in August. u Temperature: ll.O"C at 1600 hr. on 28 September1976; 11.2"C at 1040 hr. on 16June 1977 I . Notes : Fisheries sampling includedareas upstream, wittiin and

Y downstream of this site with a poo1:riffle ratio of about 30%:70%.

Station 11 - Medicine Creek

Substrate: Sand to small pebble, some algae. Banks : Grass and brush, stable. Depth: 5.1Depth: - 7.6 cm Width: 1.5 m Poo1:Riffle: 0%:100% Current:Sluggish to rapid, but with no pools in areasaripled.

Temperature: . 8.1"C at 1000 hr. on 17September 1976; 13.5'C at 1000 hr. on 16June 1977; no data in August.

Notes : Barrier about 2 m high locatedabout 10 m upstream from HedicineCreek mouth.

Station 12 - Ambusten Creek

Substrate: Sand to largepebble, some detritus. Banks: Grass and brush, stable. Depth: 2.5 - 12.7 cm Width: 0.9 m Pool :Riffle: 0%:100% Current:Rapid, but with no pools in area sampled. Temperature: 7.7"C at 1700 hr. on 17September 1976.

Notes: Drops from its bed about 0.9' - 1.2 m to the conf'luence with Hat Creek.Nater had been divertedfor irrigation in June and August 1977; Ambusten Creek was dry and not saw1 ed.

C-6 beak

Station13 - Anderson Creek

Substrate: Sandlarge pebble.to Banks : Boulder,pebble, sandand gr 'ass; 1eft facing dorrnrjtream unstable and right stable. Depth: 10.2 - 15.2 cm Width: 1.5 - 3.0 m Poo1:Riffle: 5%:95% Current : Rapid Temperature: 11.3"C at'l200 hr. on 17September 1976;.13.ZoC at 1230 hr. on 16 June 1977; 11.5"C at 1530 hr. on 5 Auqust 1977.

' Notes: Relatively steep gradient from mouth 30.5 m upst:ream to sampling site.

Station14 - Hat Creek

Substrate:Boulder 5%, pebble35%, gravel 25%, sand-silt 3(1%, other (logs)5%. Banks : Brush and grass, some instability due to livestcsck activity. . Depth: 0.03 - 0.3 m Width: 4.3 m Pool :Riffle: 25%:75% Current: 0.09 - 0.2 m/s in September;surface current C.5 m/s in June and0.3 m/s in August. Temperature: 9.6"C at 1500 hr. on 17September 1976; 11.5'C at 1400 hr. on 15June 1977; 14.0"C at 1430 hr. on 5 AuSust 1977.

Notes: Fisheriessampling included areas upstream, wittin and downstream of this site with a poo1:riffle ratic of approximately 50%:50%.

c-7 V Station 14A - Hat Creek

Substrate: Gravel5%. sand-silt 95%. I Banks : Shrubs and grass,stable. Depth: 0.3 - 1.1 m Width: 6.1 m Pool :Riffle: 95%:5% Current: Not measured in September but appeared sluggish; surface current 0.3 m/s in June and 0.3 m/s in August. Temperature: 10.O°C at 1500 hr. on 29 September1976; 12.0"C at 1610 hr. on 15June 1977; 14.0"C at 1815 hr. on 4 AuSust 1977.

Notes: Beaver pond (abandoned) and appearedrepresentative of

." many observed in Upper Hat Creek. Bottom appear,ed mre m. silty in Junethan September.

Station15 - Hat Creek

Spbstrate: Gravel70%, sand-silt 25%, other (logs) 5%. Banks : Trees, brush and grass, stable. Depth: 0.3 - 0.5 m Width: 1..8 m Poo1:Riffle: 50%:50% Current: ~0.03- 0.1 m/s in September; surfacecurrent 0.5 m/s. in June; little or no flow in August, notmeaswed. Temperature: 10.2"C at 1545 hr. on 17September, 1976; 10.1"t: at 1115 hr. on 15 June 1977;ll.0"C at 1745 hr. on 4 Auqust 1977.

Notes: During September and Augujt sampling, most flow had been divertedfor irrigation. Appeared spring fed irl August. Algae was abundantin August.

C-8 beak

Station 16 - Goose/Fish Hook Lake

Substrateconsisted of black muck-like material. Shore-line vegetation was profuse to a depth ofabout 1.5 m. Maximum waterdepth appeared to be about 3.0 m. Surfacearea was approximatelyfive acres. Water temperature 15.OoC at 1100 hr. on 16September 1976.

Station17 - Finney Lake

Substrateconsisted of brown pead-likematerial. Shoreline vegetation was profuseto a depthof about 2.4 m. tlaximum waterdepth appeared to be about 5.5 m. Surfacearea was approximately 25 acres. Watertempera- ture 17.0"C at 1550 hr. on 16September 1976.

c-9 rr .beak r

APPENDIX D u Supplementary Tables - Fisheries and Water Quality Data 6 m

TABLED-1

DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR FISH COLLECTED AT HAT CREEK AND BONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS

DURING ' 28-30 SEPTEMBER 1976, '14-16 JUNE 1977 'AND 3-5 AUGUST 1977

No. of Fish Station Month -Collected Fish/m Fish/m2 Fishlmin. Bonaparte 1 September 33 0.72 0.24 0.73 River June 8 0.17 0.06 0.20 August 6 0.17 0.02 . .0.17

2 September 32 0.60 0.20 0.53 June 23 0.32 0.07 0.58 August 62 0.89 0.05 1.68

3 September 9 0.24 0.08 0.20 June 15 0.56 0.06 0.50 August 34 0.63 0.08 0.76

4 September 30 0.98 0.32 0.67 June 17 0.64 0.16 0.42 August 4 0.15 0.04 0.16

Lower Hat 5 September 47 0.63 0.08 1.18 Creek June 21 0.28 0.04 0.84 August 15 0.20 0.04 0.60

6 September 19 0.26 0.04 0.63 June 28 0.38 0.06 1.12 August 25 0.34 0.06 0.96

7 September 19 0.28 0.05 0.34 June 33 0.49 0.09 1.10 August 26 0.39 0.07 1.08 TABLE D-1 Cont'd. DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR FISH COLLECTED AT HAT CREEK AND BONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS DURING 28-30 SEPTEMBER 1976, 14-16 JUNE 1977 AND 3-5 AUGUST 1977

No. of Fish Station -Month Collected Fish/m Fish/mz Fish/min. UpperHat 10 September 38 0.84 0.24 1.03 Creek June 34 0.75 0.22 1.13 August 60 . 1.32 0.38 1.71 14 September 63 1.22 0.26 1.58 June 32 0.62 0.13 1.28 August 33 0.64 0.14 1.32

14A September 31. 1.16 0.17 1.03 June 14 0.52 0.08 1.40 August. 17 0.64 0.09 1.13 15 September 28 0.40 0.17 0.80 June 40 0.57 0.25 1.14 August 9 0.13 0.06 0.53 TABLE D-2 STREAMLENGTH, STREAM SURFACE AREA, ANDLENGTH OF TIME SHOCKEDAT HAT CREEK AND BONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS

DURING 28-30 SEPTEMBER 1976, 14-16 JUNE 1977.AHD.3-5 AUGUST 1977

Station Month Length (m) -Area (m') -Time (min) Bonaparte 1 September 45.73 139.41 45 River June 45.73 139.41 40 August 35.00 280.00 35 2 September 53.35 162.64 60 June 72.95 31 6.65 40 August 69.60 1,150.75 37 3 September 38.11 116.17 45 June 38.11 268.70 30 August 53.74 422.30 45 4 September 30.49 92.94 45 June 26.68 104.53 40 August 26.68 104.53 25 LowerHat 5 September 75.00 588.72 40 Creek June 75.00 588.72 25 August 75.00 366.68 25 6 September 72.99 445.24 30 June 72.99 445.24 25 August 72.99 445.24 26 7 September 67.28 379.16 56 June 67.28 379.16 30 August 67.28 379.16 24 TABLE D-2 Cont'd. STREAMLENGTH, STREAM SURFACE AREA, ANDLENGTH OF TIME SHOCKEDAT HAT CREEK AND BONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS DURING 28-30 SEPTEMBER '1976. 14-16 JUNE 1977 AND 3-5 -AUGUST 1977

-Station Month Length (m) -Area (m') -Time (min) 'Upper Hat 10 September 156.55 45.35 37 Creek June156.55 45.35 30 August 45.35 156.55. 35 14 September 51.83 243.44 40 June 51.83 . ' 243.44 25 August 51.83 243.44 25 14A September 26.73 181.30 30 June 26.73 181.30 10 August 26.73 181.30 15 15 September 70.76 160.53 35 June 70.76 160.53 35 August 70.76 160.53 17 TABLE D-3

LENGTH-FREOUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS (%) FOR RAINBOW TROUTCOLLECTED AT HAT CREEK

AN0 BONAPARTE'RIVER STATIONS, 28-30 SEPTEMBER 1976

Bonaparte Lower upper Hat Creek Hat Creek HatRiver Creek Hat LengthClass Interval (mn) 1 6 2 5 7 10 14 14A 15

0 - 20 - 21 - 40 5 5 - - 3 41 - 60 53 32 6 6 10 61 - 80 27 - 3 8 5 81 - 100 5 - 33 23 - 101 - 120 5 37 a 16 14 121 - 140 5 16 25 21 27 141 - 160 10 8 11 17 161 - 180 6 11 3 11 181 - 200 - 3 3 11 201 - 220 2 6 17 7 221 - 240 - 2 - 11 241 - 260 - - 3 -

Sample Size 19 5 19 2 29 38 62 30 28 TABLED-4 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS (x) FOR RAINBOW TROUT COLLECTED AT HAT CREEK AND BONAPARTE RIVERSTATIONS, 14-16 JUNE 1977

Bonaparte Lower Upper River Hat Creek HatCreek LengthClass Interval (mm) I 2 3 5 6 7 IO 14 14A 15

0 - 20 ------21 - 40 - 100 ------41 - 60 IO0 - 100 - - - - 3 23 12 61 - 80 - - - 31 25 26 6 13 - 2 81 - 100 - - - 31 43 24 9 8 0 5 101 - 120 - - - 31 7 IO 27 13 23 IO 121 - 140 - - - 7 10. 24 13 13 30 15 141 - 160 - - - - 4 IO 27 18 8 22 ' 161 - 180 - - - - 7 3 - I3 8 12 181 - 200 - - - - - 3 3 13 - 7. 201 - 220 - - - - 4 - 9 3 - IO 221 - 240 ------3 - - 2 241 - 260 ------3 3 - -

Sample Size 4 I 3 13 28 30 33 32 13 40 TABLE 0-5

LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR RAINBOW TROUT COLLECTED AT HAT CREEK

ANDBONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS, 3-5 AUGUST 1977

Bo naparte Lower Upper Lower Bonaparte Creek Hat CreekRiver Hat Hat Creek LengthCalss Interval (mm) 1 3 5 6 7 IO 14 14A 15

0 - 20 ------21 - 40 - - 12 4 0 - - .- - 41 - 60 - - - 8 - 2 - - - 61 - 80 - - - - 4 9 9 28 .78 81 - 100 - 12- 25 22 20 26 6 22 101 - 120 - - 38 32 19 15 12 - - 121 - 140 - - 13 16 19 18 24 18 - 141 - 160 - 50 - - 8 10 15 24 - 161 - 180 - - - 8 4 9 3 I8 - 181 - 200 100 50 12 8 4 IO 15 6 - 201 - 220 - - - 4 8 5 3 - - 221 - 240 ------3 - - 241 - 260 ------3 - -

Sample Size 2 2 8 25 26 60 33 17 9 TABLE D-6 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS(XI FOR BRIDGELIPSUCKER COLLECTED IN THE BONAPARTE RIVER DURING .28-30 SEPTEMBER 1976, 14-16 JUNE 1977 AND 3-5,AUGUST IS77

il Length C1 ass Interval (mm) September -June August 0 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30 15 31 - 40 8 41 - 50 38 51 - 60 19 61 - 70 4

I 71 - 80 12 81 - 90 91 - 100 il 101 - 110- 111 - 120 I 121 - 130 ' . -45 131 - 140 11

1 141 - ,150 22 151 - 160 - 161 - 170 - I 171 - 180 11 181 - 190 11

Sample Size 26 9 31 beak

TABLE D-7 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS (%) FOR LONGNOSE DACE COLLECTED IN THE BONAPARTE RIVER DURING 28-30 SEPTEMBER 1976,14-16 JUNE 1977 AND 3-5 AUGUST 1977

Length C1 ass Interval (m) September -June August 0 - 10 - - - 11 - 20 - - 16 21 - 30 26 13 50 31 - 40 4 19 40 41 - 50 26 26 7 51 - 60 14 4 10 61 - 70 5 9 9 71 - 80 4 4 3 a1 - 90 2 - - 91 - 100 1 4 4

Sampl e size 5670 23 m I m L m I 'i TABLE D-8

Observed tcIta1 lengths (mm) atvarious ages of rainbow trout collected at HatCreek andBonaparte River stations, 28-30.September I: 176 (T = mean, r = range, n = sample size)

Bonaparte Lower Upper River Hat Creek Hat Creek Age (Year Class) Statlon 1 Station 5 Station 6 . Station 7 Station 10 Station 14 - 66 59 O+ X 66 58 55: 81 02 (1976) r 55-75 51-66 50-71 52-59 57-98 74-93 n 4 10 9 3 10 6

- '1 14 110 111 113 - 100-127 102-119 87- 134 98- 124 0 2 5 4 6

134 161 118-153 - 6 1

156 169 144-169 161-183 2 3

206 195 203-210 164-224 2 3 - - .. 210- 0 1 TABLE D-9 a- Y Observed totallengths (mm) and ranges atvarious a2es of rainbowtrout collected e at HatCreek and Bonaparte River Stations, 14-16 June 1977 (X = mean, r = range, n = sample slze)

Bonaparte Lower Upper H at Creek Hat Creek Hat River Creek Hat Age (Yearclass) Stat ion 1 Station 3 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Station 10 Station 14

42 - - - 4 1-43 - - - 0 0 0

88 82 86 64-1 10 71-91 65-101 12 5 8

134 117 117 - 103-1 36 - 1 3 1

138 150 121-150 141-160 4 5

151 177 149-153 170- 184 3 4

201 202 195-208 198-21 1 3 3

229 244 201 -255 - 3 1 TABLE 0-10 OBSERVEDTOTAL LENGTHS (mn) ANDRANGES AT VARIOUS AGES OF RAINBOWTROUT COLLECTED AT HATCREEK AND BONAPARTE RIVER STATIONS, 3-5 AUGUST 1977 (x = MEAN, r = RANGE. n = SAMPLE SIZE)

Age RiverBonaparteCreek Hat Upper CreekLower Hat (Year Class)- Station 1 Station 3 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Station 10 Station 14 o+ X 36 42 34 42 - - - (1977) r - 39-45 32-37 - n 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 - 1+ X 104 105 104 90 79 95-1 19 80-115 78-131 73-126 (1976) r 91-127 n 4 10 13 10 8 - 2+ X 193 170 133 152 149 132 136 (1975) r - 159-182 - 125-171 134-160 126-140 132-141 n 1' 2 1 3 3 4 3 - 3+ X 187 187 ~177 156 180 (1974) r - 183-191 149-163162-192 167-188 n 2 1 2 2 4 - 4+ X - 207 214 198 197 (1973) r - - 213-216 198 189-210 rb 0 1 2 2 3

5+ ji - , 208 232 (1972) r - - -. - 222-241 .. 7 n 0 0 n ! L - 6+. X - - (1971) r - - - - n 0 0 0 0 beak

0-11 "TABLE

Means and ranges for condition factors of rainbow trout 0-100 m and 100 nun totallength collected at Hat Cre'sk and BonaparteRiver stations during 28-30 September' 14-16 June 19.77, and 3-5. August 1977 Sample size, 5 = Mean, r = Range) /" >0-100 nun- Tota1' Length '100 m Total Length Station -Month -n X -r -n -X -r Sept. 0.87-1.015 0.96 0 - - 1 June 0.59-0.834 0.70 0 - c Aug . .o - - 2 1.05 1.03-1.07 Sept. 0.74-0.832 0.78 0 - - 2 June 1 0.70 - 0 - - Aug. 0 - - 0 - - Sept . 0 - - 0 - - 3 June 3 1.01 0.75-1.26 0 - - Aug . 0 - - 2 1.09 1.04-1.13 Sept. 0 - - 4 June 0 - - Aug.. 0 - - Sept. 0.81 29 0.60-0.97 0 - - June 8 0.85 0.73-0.99 5 0.94 0.86-1.04 Aug. 3- 0.68 0.21-0.92 5 0.95 0.81-1.06

Sept. 0.91 17 0.70 ' 20.27-1.14 0.66-0.73 June 190.85-1.10 0.960.93 9 0.76-1.16 Aug. 17 0.77-1.008 0.87 0.82-1.07 0.97 Sept. 1.15 7 1.07-1.40 12 0.81 0.73-0.93 7 June 5 1.01 0.85-1.13 ' 15 1.02 0.86-1.45 Aug . 10 0.82 0.59-1.07 16 0.91 0.80-1.08 Sept. 18 0.830.80 200.63-0.90 0.72-0.95 10 June1.02 28 0.90-1.265 1.09 0.78-1.24 Aug0.27-1.65 . 0.89 19 41 0.74-1.09 0.90 Sept. 21 0.80 0.35-1.16 41. 0.97 0.68-1.22 14 June 8 0.9s 0.84-1.20 24 0.93 0.66-1.16 Aug. 7 0.92 0.85-9.95 26 0.89 0.74-1.05 beak

TABLE all I -Contd. c >0-100Length IMITotal > 100 m Total I.ength

Station Month - n X r n X ------r Sept. 50.78-1.03 0.88 25 0.85-1.190.96 14A June 4 0.83 0.33-1.08 9 0.85-1.030.93 Aug . m 6 0.97 0.86-1.070.81-1.07 11 0.95 Sept. 9 0.29 0.13-0.59 19 0.68-0.990.84 15 June 8 1.23 0.98-1.81 32 0.82-1.400.94 r Aug . 9 0,91-1.361.08 0 - - Total Filtrable Specific Waterbody Source AI tal inity Hardness Residue ConductlvitySulfates PH

Cateqory I - Alkalinlty Range 550 ngI1

Nahatlatch Rlver 2 17.0 7.2)' 29.0 27.0 5.0 43.1 Seton River 2 35.8 58.2 6.9 11.3 i.51 91.2 Stein River 2 30.2 1.6 45.0 i15.7 6.9 2.5 71.0 Clearwater River 2 35.2 3.1 50.2 ( 4.9 5.7 N. ThovsonRlver 2 36.4 9.1 1.6 N. Thompson Rlver at Kanloops 2 36.9 8.9 7.5 Thompson River at Savona 2 34.8 4.4 7.1 Thunlpson River at Walhachln 2 34 .O 3.7 6.0 Thompson Rlverat Spences Bridge 2 38.2 5.6 0.9 BrarrleRlver 2 48.0 5.1 Tranquille River at 21 mile 2 40.4 . 80.8 Seywur Rlver 1 12.1 40.3 EagleRiver 1 19.0 6.6 50.6 Adam River 1 22.5 0.7 55.0 Pennask Lake I Llttle Shuswap Lake 1 52.7 ( - ) South Thonpson River 1 55.512.7) Scotch Creek 1 37.1 (11.7) 61.0 {l9.0{ 'I Shuswap Lake 1 40.7 1 61.7 - Mara Lake 1 42.7 ;.I) Adam Lake I I Ounn Lake I L.1.I I I

TMLE 0-12 Cont'd: Water Quality Characteristics of lakes andStreams in the StudyRegion listed According to Alkalinity Criterla'

Filtrable Specific Total Filtrable Waterbody Source Alkalinitv ResidueHardness ConductivitvSulfates OH

Category I1 - Alkalinity Range ,50 - 5100 mg/l

Culturlake 1 49.0 - 06.0 165 7.5 Nicola River near Spencer Bridge 1 (26.2)92.6 85.9 (26.7) 12G.8 (35.1)15.6 5.8)204.4 ( 64.7)(0.4)8.2 Orich Lake Hnrth.. . . -.. -Rarriere -. . .- . - -I -rkm .. - 1 0ridge River i 90.0 22 9 103.6 21.2 201.1 75.7) 8.0 0.3) Yalakon River 2 06.5 120:Ol 92.7 15.6 197.0 69.2 0.0 0.2) Fraser River at lillooet 2 63.5 (13.4) 60.0 9.2 154.4 38.9 7.9 0.2 Fraser River at Lytton 64.4 9.7 153.4 40.2 8.0 0.3 Nicola River belowDouglas Lake 88.0 35.3 206.1 74.3 8.0 0.3 Nicola River at outlet of North Lake 90.9 19.7 222.4 26.0 0.1 0.3 Jamieson Creek 105.8 22.7 210 83.4 8.0 0.3 Criss Creek 2 93.0 (55.0 02.6 0.5 196.9 99.8) 7.9 0.3 ColdwaterRiver at Merritt .2 62.0 140.4 44.4 7.8 0.3 Nicola River belowColdwater 2 96.3 213 44.5 8.0 0.2 Nicola Lake at east end 2 07.22 0 94.1 212.3 6.6 7.9 Nicola Lake oppc-ite Nicola River 2 . 07.9 I 4:Oi 94.0 20.0 223.7 25.9 7.8 Nlcola Lake at deepest Point 2 00.1 2.5) 95.0 144.7 21.4 213.7 8.0 7.7 0.4 Nlcola Lake at outlet 2 00.1 0.7) 94.6 I 143.3 I 21.1 222.2 10.6 0.1 (0.1 - "-I^"-TADLE 0-12 Cont'd: Water Quality Characterlstlcs ofLakes and Streams in theStudy Reglon Listed According to Alkalinity Criterla'

Total Filtrable Speclflc Waterbody Source Alkalinity Residuellardness ConductivitySUI fates pH

~..Cateoorfl - Alkallnlty Range ,100 ngll

DonaparteRiver above Hat Creek 2 128.5 25 5 183 0 33 0 5.9 268.0 61.6 Oonaparte Rlver below Hat Creek 2 194.3 145:51 271:5 152171 30.6 15.2) 439.8 93.1 llat Creek 1 - 336.742.7) 521.0 85.4 Clinton Lake 1 " 340.5 135.7 539.4 84: 5 Clinton Creek 2 338.6 30.7) 398.2 (39.8 40.6 8.6 599.5 110.2 LoonLake at inlet 2 5.0 - 530.0 - LoonLake at White Moose 2 210.0212.0 1 1 I 334.0320.0 I I 5.0 - 532.0 Loon Creek 2 ( ( 1, 5.4 735 345.0 - 500.0 - Cache Creek 2 192.6 (64.3) 293.7 (70.21 39.6 9.9 421.4 131.9 Pavllion Lake Dea6mn River near mouth 2 134.6 (57.9) 54.1) 176.6 (59.1 281.4 118.3 Lkadnlan River above Criss Creek 2 149.1 (44.2) 40.5) 192.3 (48.21 308.6 95.7 Red Lake 1 I Pukaist Creeknear mouth 2 103.8 i47.4) WitchesBrook 2 172.3 (65.2) Tunhwa Lake 1 GuichonCreek near muth 2 188.1 (30.8 62.3 8.3 (0.3) GuichonCreek below Logan Lake 2 161.0 (33.1 50.01 8.1 (0.3) GuichonCreek above Logan Lake 2 101.0 ( - 9.9 GulchonCreek at Tunkwa Oiv. 2 110.8 (12.2 hffy Lake 2 430.5 Jacko Lake 2 8.5 PetersonCreek 2 31 7 Lac le June 1 130 - 135.3 11.9 7.7-8.1 Stunlp Lake 2 - - Tranquille River at mouth 2 102.4(25.6) 7.1 ( 3.3) 205.5 ( 56.4) 8.3 io.6) i 3

lADLE 0-12Cont'd: Water Quollty Characteristic$ of Lakes and Streams in the StudyReglon Listed According to Alkalinity Criteria'

Total Specific' Filtrable daterbody Source- Alkalinltv Hardness Residue ConductivitvSulfates DH lranqullle River at nouth Iranqullle River at 9 mile Paul Creek above Paul Lake PaulLake east end Paul Lake west end 352.0 Paul Creek at outlet PaulLake NlcolaRiver at Nicola Late 101 (22.0) NlcolsRiver above Coldwater Nlcola Rlver above Coldwater Green Lakenear kit. .Jack 873.0 (14.0) Green Lak opposite Nolan Creek 067.0 ( a.0) Ilatctl Lake - laylur Lake - Edeund Lake lxeter Lake IO8 Mile Lake 103 Mile Lake Chrls Lake Drewy Lake Itathaway Lake Deka Lake Longban Lake Sulphurous Lake Fawn Lake Stwrldan Lake Dulfalo Lake Horse Lake tlelenaLake Sucken Lake -TADLE 0-12 Cont'd: Water Quallty Characterlstlcs of Lakes andStreams in the Study Region listed According to Alkallnlty Crlterla'

T otal Filtrable Total Specific Naterbody Source Alkalinity Hardness Residue ConductivitySulfates PH

Soda Lake Lac Ia Hache Bridae Creek Orldge Creek at outlet Horse Lake 2 151.7 (16.4) 136.0 ( 179.06.9) (14.6) 50.0 ( - ) 313.6 ( 90.6) 8.0 (0.5).. Lac desRoches 1 153.0 Flsbtrap Creek 2 101.4 19.6 108.7 (20.6 140.0 23.2) 11.6 2.6 218.2 Dencrs Creek 2 143.5 6.11 165.8 ilO.l/ 196.1 I 9.01 18.8 1 - 305.8 j ~1 ' 8.07.9 0.3 Lemieux Creek 2 112.0 j 7.8 118.2 8.9 142.0 12.71.0 3.0 234.3 27.6 8.0 (0.2

' followlngcriteria autlined by Uewcolrb (1971) f I Standard devlatlon

Sources:

1. Newcambe.C.P. 1971.Water Quallty Nearthe Proposed Rat Creek Thermal GeneratlngStation: Potential Stream and lakesAffected by AcldPreclpltation. Fisherles Management Report No. . June 1911. 2. Departnrnt of Envirmment. Water Resource Service. Minlstry ofthe Environment. Data of SelectedStream for Perlod of Record 1 January 1965 to 15 August 1977. Natcrbody tltle refers to site description as given inCowuter printouts, beak

APPENDIX E First Order and Detailed Identification of Benthic Invertebrates beak

TABLE 1: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First OrderIdentification September 1976

m STATION: 1 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / 1 2 1 3* 4 5* 6 Samp 1e

I GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 16 24 12 1 15 a 12.7 Trichoptera a 3 13 1 2 4.5 * Plecoptera 3 3 6 4 1 2.8 Coleoptera -1 2 1 0.7 Odonata 1 0.2

GROUP 2 'ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomidae 32 16 14 51 27.2 OtherDiptera 2 2 3 3 3.5

GROUP 1' ORGAN I SMS

Oligochaeta 1 0.2

1 TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISHS 52 5250 22 65 52 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 5 695 6 6 6 5 6

Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, gravel, wood pieces,fine plant debris, a 1gae

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification

a TABLE 2: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - Fi,rst.OrderIdentification .I September 1976 .

I STATION: 2 - BonaparteRiver(Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av./ I I* 2* 3* 4* 5* 6* Sample

GROUP 3 ORGAN ISMS 1

Ephemeroptera ', 1 3 8 5 .6 13 6.0 Trichoptera 2 1 1 0.7 L Piecoptera 1 1 i 1 1 2 1.2 Coleoptera 1 0.2 Odonata 1 0.2

I GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

* .~ Diptera Chironomidae 1 2 1 1 0.8 OtherDiptera 1 4 3 2 1.7

, GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

1 01 igochaeta 1 0.2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 6 8 11 19 a 6 11 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 4 l55 2 4 4 - 5 r Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, gravel, wood pieces,plant matte:

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification u

- ,, beak

TABLE 3: BenthicMacroinvertebrates :First OrderIdentification September 1976

STATION: 3 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / 1 2 1 3* 4 5 6* Samp 1e

GROUP 3 ORGAN ISMS

Ephemeroptera 13 11 21 2 9 9 10.8 T ri choptera Tri 10 2 14 4 1 15 7.7 Plecoptera 1 6 1 2 I .7 Coleoptera 1 2 0.5

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera

Chi ronomi dae 2 3 3 1 4 6 ' 3.2 O ther Diptera Other 11 IO 14 2 4 11 8.7 Pelecypoda 1 0.2 Nematoda 1 0.2

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 2 0.3

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 38 28 58 9 I9 47 33 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 6 5 4 5 7 6

Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, wood pieces,bark, plant matter

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification TABLE 4: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First.Order Identification September 1976

STAT I ON : 4 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / I* 2* 3* 4* 5* 6* Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGAN1 SMS

Ephemeroptera 3 4 2 1 2 2.0 Odonata 1 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Othe r Diptera Other 1 I 0.3

TOTAL NO. OFORGANISMS 3 1 4 2 1 4 2.5 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 1 1 1 1 1 3 1

Laboratory Sample Residue:sand, gravel, wood debris,plant debris

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification TABLE 5: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification -. September 1976

STATION: 5 - HatCreek (Surber Sampler) m

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / 1* 2* 3 4 5 6 Sarnp 1e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 14 6 a 11 17 11.2 Trichoptera 4 26 a 2 14 9.2 Plecoptera 20 7 13 22W 21 16.6 Col eoD te ra 4 > 3 1.4 0 z 1 GROUP 2 ORGAN1 SMS + v) Diptera W Chi ronomi dae 2 b 4 9 8.4 OtherDiptera 3 2719 5 5 15 9.4 W -I m GROUP 1 ORGANISMS % r 01 igochaeta . 3 a 3 1.2 v) I TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 39 70 52 43 a3 57 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 4 7 4 5 7 5

Laboratory SampleResidue: sand, algae, plantmatter

Sample selected for detailedidentification beak

TABLE 6: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Orderidentification September 1976

STATION: 6 - Hat Creek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / 1 2* 3 4 5* 6 Samp 1 e .. GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Ephemeroptera . . a 16 9 11 16 12.2 Trichoptera 12 23 7 l3a 5 11.3 Plecoptera 2 5 2. l36 2 2 3.2 Coleoptera 1 1 0.3

I GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi dae 1 2 3 1 1.2 Othe r DipteraOther 9 9 26 2 15 11 12.0 Nematoda 2 0.3

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN156 SMS 32 20 4a 51 36 41 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 5 6 4 5 6 5 5

Laboratory Sample Residue:sand, plantdebris, wood pieces

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification

i beak

TABLE 7: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder identification September 1976

STAT I ON : 7 - HatCreek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER AV. / 1 2* 3 4 5 6* Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 9- 4 7 11 74 19 20.7 Trichoptera IO I7 40 27 5s 25.3 Plecoptera I 5 2 22 5.5 to 1 eop te ra 1 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomidae 1 2 5 3 6' 6 3.8 OtherDiptera 1 1 1 4 2 1.5 Hydracarina 1 0.2 Nematoda I 0.2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 11 19 36 56 134 88 57 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 3 6 6 4 6 5 5

Laboratory SampleResidue: algae, sand, gravel, wood pieces

* Sample selected for detailedidentification beak

TABLE 8: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Orderldentification L September 1976 m STATION: 8 - Hat Creek Tributary(Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER ' Av./ I* 2 3 4 5* 6* Sample

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 9 2 3 9 6 9 6.3 Trichoptera 7 2 6 19 18 13.2 Plecoptera 5 1 2713 12 12 7.2 Coleoptera 1 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGAN1 SMS

Diptera Chironomidae 1 1 0.3 OtherDiptera 1 1 2 0.7 Turbellaria 2 2 0.7

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 4 i 0.8

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 22 5 9 53 46 41 29 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 4 3 2 6 7 5 5

~~~~~~ ~~~~

Laboratory Sample Residue: fineplant debris, plant debris, sand, wood pieces

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification beak

TABLE 9: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - First Order Identification September 1976

I STATION: 10 - Hat Creek (SurberOSampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av.1 I* 2 3 4 5* 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS 22 24 24 16 ' 20.3 Trichoptera a 7 6 11.3 Plecoptera l32 2 a 5 9 3 4.8 Coleoptera .1 1 4 2 1.3

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

0 Diptera Chi ronorni Chi dae 2 2 6 6 13. 4.8 Other DipteraOther 2 1 4 3 3 3 2.7 r. Nematoda 1 0.2 Turbellaria 1 1 0.3 Hydracarina 1 0.2

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS Oligochaeta 1 1 5 1.2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS . 42 37 34 62 60 48 47 a TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 5 6 7 9 7 7

I Laboratory Sample Residue: sand; algae, gravel, plant debris, wood pieces

.* Sample selected for detailed identification TABLE 10: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First OrderIdentification September '1976

rn STATION: 11 - Medicine Creek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER I Av. 1 I* 2 3 4 5 6 Samp 1e

I GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 37 69 42 49 ' 47 31 45.8 Trichoptera 34 7 1 1 5 11 9.8 a Plecoptera 19 4 18 11 9 14.3 Coleoptera 19 6 3 1 * 6.0 m GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera 1. ronomi Chi dae 12 11 1 2 3 3 5.3 OtherDiptera 8 3 5. 3 3 5 4.5 Turbellaria 1 10 3 2.3 a Nematoda 1 1 0.3 m GROUP 1 ORGANISMS Oligochaeta 7 4 3 5 3.2

I TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 110 121 81 94 78 66 92 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 5 a 7 8 8 8 7

I Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, algae,gravel, fine plant debris

I * Sample Selectedfor detailed identification beak

TABLE 11: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Order Identification September 1976

STAT I ON : 12 - Ambusten Creek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / 1 2* 3 4* 5* 6* Sample

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemroptera 4 IO 2 6 7 6 5.8 Trichoptera 1 1 0.3 Plecoptera 1 4 2 6 2.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chironomidae 1 0.2 .OtherDiptera 1 3 0.7 Turbel laria 4 5 6 3 3.0

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 6 2 1 IO 26 14 9.8

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 16 4 24 42 23 22 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 5 236 3 4 4 3. 4

Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, gravel,fine wood pieces,plant debris, stones

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification TABLE 12: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Order Identification a September 1976

STATION: Anderson Creek (Surber Sampler) m 13 -

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / L 1 2 3* 4 5 6 Samp I e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS I Ephemeroptera 13 9 33 23 26 17.3 Trichoptera 3 1 4 1.3 Plecoptera 5 1 2 9 2 3-2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS I OtherDiptera 1 2 91 2 16.0 ,- Turbel laria 1 5 2 1 1.5 Hyd ratar ina 1 0.2 I,-

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS e Oligochaeta 1 1 2 0.7

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN ISMS 19 14 135 .3a 0 35 40 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 3 5 6 6 0 5 4

I Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, fineplant debris, wood pieces, ,;tones

L * Sample selectedfor detailed identification

a beak

TABLE 13: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification I September 1976

m STAT I ON : 14 - HatCreek (Surber Sampier)

SAMPLE NUMBER AV. 1 I I* 2 3* 4 5 6 Samp 1e

GROUP j ORGANISMS I

Ephemeroptera 39 6 36 26 26 . 24 25.2 Trichoptera 1 1 1 1 0.7 Plecoptera 1 1 2 2 I .o Coleoptera 1 4 0.8

I GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera 1 Chi ronomi dae 5 2 5 3 2 2.8 Other Diptera 1 1 2 0.7 Nematoda 2 0.3 Turbel laria 1 1 1 0.5

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

01 igochaeta 12 1 2 2.5

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN1 SHS 61 9 40 35 35 33 36 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 4 4 5 5 6 5 I - Laboratory Sample Residue:gravel, wood debris,algae, plant debris u * Sample selected for detailedidentification beak

TABLE 14: Benthic.Macroinvertebrates - First Order Identification September 1976

STAT I ON : 15 - Hat Creek (Surber Zpmpler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av./ 1 2 3* 4 5* 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 30 53 50 104 33 68 ' 56.3 Trichoptera 2 1 5.0 Plecoptera 6 4 8 7 4 4.8 eop te Co 1 eop ra 1 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi dae 1 I 2 0.7 Other Diptera Other 1 5 2 2 1 1.8 Turbellaria 5 11 5. 7 3 5.2 Nematoda 1 0.2

GROUP I ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 2 -2 1 2 1 1.3

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN ISMS 38 78 63 125 45 77 76 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 4 6 6 6 4 7 6

Laboratory Sample Residue: gravel, sand, fine plant debris, plant (debris, stones * Sample selected for detailed identification -.

TABLE 15: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification September 1976

STATION: 16 - Goose Lake(Ponar Dredge)

SAMPLE NUMBER AV. I 1 2* 3 4 5 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 1 0.2 Odonata 19 3.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Hemiptera 2 0.3 Diptera Chi ronomi dae 4 .6 3 4'9 34 10.0 O ther Diptera Other 9 5 2 14 7 6.2 Amph ipoda 14 101 36 13 241. 78 80.5

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANi SMS 27 112 41 31 272 119 100 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 3 3 3 3 4 3 3

Laboratory SampleResidue: gravel, fine plant debris, plant debris, mud bal Is

* Sample selected for detailed identification

Cladoceraand Copepoda abundant beak

TABLE 16: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Orderidentification September 1976

STATION: 17 Finney Lake(Ponar Dredge) a -

SAMPLE NUMBER Av./ l* 2* 3 4 5 6" Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS I Odonata 1 1 3 1 1 .o

e GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi dae 9 10 33 23 34 28 22.8 O ther Diptera Other 1 9 1 6 5 3.7 Pelecypoda 1 2 1 0.7 Gastropoda i 2 1 5 1.5 Coe.lenterata 2 0.3 C 1 adoce ra 36 sa 16 72 . 18 8 34.7 Copepoda 4 1 2 1 1.3 Hirudinea 1 4 3 2 5 2.5 Arnph i poda 4 5 6 2 6 3.8 Nematoda 1 1 0.3

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 1 10 6 14 16 7.8

TOTALNU. OF ORGANISMS 60 96 62 121 80 64 81 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 10 9 8 ' 10 7 6 a

Laboratory Sample Residue: fineplant debris

II * Sample selectedfor detailed identification TABLE 17: Benthic Macro-Invertebrates - Detailed Identifications, September I976

LIFE STATlON NO. TAXA STAGE" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CROUP 3 ORGANISMS

EPHEMEROPTEM F. Heptageniidae Rhithrogena sp. 12 12 7 10 3 1 7 7 Cinygmula sp. 1 2 Heptageniidae sp. Indet. 1 1 F. Bae t i dae Buetis sp. 13 19 17. 1 9 4 3 3 EphemereZZa sp. 1 2 5 5 1 7 23 10 \ Ephemerella sp. 2 2 Puraleptophlebia sp. 1 Amletus sp. 2 . 10

TRICHOPTEM F. Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. L 10 1 15 3 24 60 20 DipZectrona sp. L 1 21 F. Rhyacophilidae Agapetus sp. L 2 2 12 4 3 3 Rhyacophila sp. L 3 2 F.' Brachycentridae Bruchycentrus sp. L I 3 3 F. Limnephilidae Limnephilidae sp. Indet. Limnephilidaesp. L I Trlchoptera sp. indet. L 1 TABLE 17: BenthicMacro-invertebrates - Detailedidentifications, September 1976

STATION NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Cont'd

PLECOPTERA F. Per1idae Ctaassenia sp. N 3 1 24 7 2 2 F.Pteronarcidae Pleronarcelta sp. N '4 6 2 1 Pteronarcys sp. N 2 F. Chioroperlidae IIas taperta sp. N 1 2 2 F. Perlodidae Isoperla sp. N 6 Isogenus sp. N 1 3 1 F. Nemouridae Nemoura sp .. N 2 15 Plecoptera sp. indet. N 3

COLEOPTERA F. Elmidae Zai tzevia s p . L 2 1 2 4 2

ODONATA S.O. Zygoptera F. Agriopidae Agrionidae sp. indet. N I S.O. Anisoptera F. Gornphidae Ophiopmphr~s5. n TABLE 17: BenthicMacro-invertebrates - DetailedIdentifications, September 1976

STATION NO. LIFE TA XA STAGE?? TAXA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Dl PTERA F. Chironomidae S .F Ch 1 ronomi nae Micropsectm sp. L 2 1 23 S.F. Orthocladiinae Cricotopua sp. L 27 Cricotopus sp. P 3 Curdiodadius sp. L 13 1 1 8 Orthocludius sp. L 2 8 5 2 Thienemunnietla sp. L I Orthocladiinaesp. indet. 1. 1 Chironomldae sp. indet. L 1 F.Tipuiidae Hexatom sp. L 3 9 5 1 1 Antocha sp. L 3 12 32 I' Tipulidae sp. indet. c 1 F. Rhagi on i dae Atherix sp. L 1 1 15 2 8 1 1 F. Simulildae Simulium sp. L 1 1 2 Simulium sp. P I F. Psychodidae Pericoma sp. L 1 F. Empididae Empididae sp. indet. L 1 F. Zy!-:h!120_ Syrphidaesp. indet. L 1 TABLE 17: BenthicMacro-Invertebrates - DetailedIdentifications, September 1976

STATION NO. LIFE TA XA STAGE* TAXA I 2 3 11 5 6' 7 0

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS Cont'd

HY ORACARI NA F. Lebertiidae Lebertia sp. A 1

TURBELLARIA Turbellaria 5p. indet. A 2

GROUP I ORGANISMS

OLIGOCHAETA F. Naididae A 2 F. Lumbricidae A 5 Ollgochaeta sp. lndet. A 1 3

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 102 65 105 15 109 107 107 I09 TOTAL NO. OFTAXA 5 19 15 16 10 15 17 ,20

* N = nymph L = larvae P = pupae A = adult e f I a i

tes Det.ailed Identlflca ,ti IS, SepItember 1976 TABLE 1- (I: Renthic Macro-lnvertebra -

STATION NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE* IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

EPHEMEROPTERA F. Heptageniidae Rhithrogena sp. N I8 7 8 32 37 Cinygwmla sp. N 1 23 15 5 F. Baetidae Baetis sp. N 17 5 4 2 28 28' Ephemeretta sp. 1 N 6 25 5 13 2 Ephernerella sp. 2 N 1 3 '2 10 heletus sp. N 3 2 I

TRICIIOPTERA F.Hydropsychidae Ilydropsyche. sp. L 19 31 I 1 Diplectrona sp. L 2 F. Rhyacophilidae Agupetus sp. L 1 1 1 F.Brachycentridae Bisachycsntrus sp. c 2 3 Trichopterasp. indet. L 1

PLECOPTERA F. Perlidae Claassenia sp. N 5 16 3 F.Pteronarcfdae Pteronarcel la sp. N 2 i m m I

TAOCE__- 18: Bent.hie Macro-Invertebrates - Detailedidentlficatlons, September 1976

STATION NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE* 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Cont’d

PLECOPTERA Cont’d F. Chioroperlidae llastaperla sp. N 6 4 2 1 F. Perlodidae Isogenus s p . N F. Nemouridae Nemoura sp. N I 6 1 7

COLEOPTERA F. Elmidae Lara sp. L 1 Zaitzevia sp. C 2 Narpus sp. L 2 F. Elmidaesp. lndet. L 1 Coleoptera sp. indet. L

ODONATA S.O. Zygoptera F. Agrionidae Ischnura sp. N 2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

DIPTERA F.Chi ronomidae

T ~ I. I oooypvu I Ildt: ProcZadius sp. L 4 1 TABLEIS: BenthicMacro-invertebrates Detailed Identifications, September 1976 . STATION LIFE NO. TAXA STAGE* TAXA IO 11 12 13 14 15 . 16 17

GROUP 2 ORGANlSMS Cont'd

DIPTERA Cont'd S.F. Chi ronorninae Mioropsectra sp. L 3 7 2 2 fflirononncs sp. L 2 46 S.F. Orthocladilnae Cardiocl.adius sp. L 4 2 I 5 i Orthocladius sp. L 3 Orthocladiinae sp. indet. L 1 F. Tipulidae Hexatoma sp. L I Antocha sp. L~ 6 Tipula sp. L 3 F. Sirnul i idae Si.mulium s p . L I .2 2 F. Psychodidae Fericoma sp. L 91 F. Ceratopogonidae Leptoconops sp. L 3 F. Culicidae Chaoborus sp. L 5 15 : Diptera sp. indet. L I

HY DRACARI NA F. Cebert i i.dae Lebertia sp. A 1 1

~~ ~~~ TABLE 18: Benthic Macro-Invertebrates - Detailed Identifications, September 1976

STATION NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE* TAXA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS Cont'd

TURBELLAHI A Turbellaria sp. indet. A 1 14 5 I a

NEMATODA Nematoda sp. indet. A 2 1

AMPHI PODA F. Talitrldae Nyalelta aateca A 101 10

COELENTERATA Uvdru sp. 2 ti I RUD I NEA F. Glossiphoniidae Glossiphonlldae sp. indet. A 5 BlVALVlA F. Sphaeriidae Sphneriwn sp. A 1

GASTROPODA F. Planorbidae Planorbidae sp. indet. A :3 TAELEI8: BenthicMacro-lnver.tebrates - DetatledIdentifications, September 1976

LIFE STATION NO. TAXA STAGE* 10 11 12 I3 14 I5 16 17

GROUP I 'ORGANISMS

OLIGOCHAETA F. Naididae A 1 12 1 27 F. Lumbricidae A 52

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 102 1 IO 112 135 101 108 1 I2 1 I3 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 24 13 II 12 13 14 ,4 11

* N = nymph L = larva A = adult beak

JUNE 1977

a beak

TABLE 1: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - First Order Identification June 1977

STATION: 1 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler) I

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. 1 1 2 3 5* 4 6* Samp 1e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS I 16 33 54 39 54 Ephemeroptera 33 16 43 2 31.2 Tr i chopte ra 2 4 .I 1 1 1 1.7 I Plecoptera I 3 2 1 .o - GROUP 2 ORGANISMS .. Diptera Chironomidae 1 1 2 0.7 I- Diptera Other 2 1 I 1 0.8 Gastropoda 1 0.2 rl TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 21 3 40 4a 55 46 36 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 4 5 4 2 4 2 6 I Laboratory Sample Residue: fine plant debris, gravel and sand

.I * Sampleselected fordetailed identification beak I

TABLE 2: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First OrderIdentification June 1977

'I STATION: 2 - BonaparteRiver(SurberSampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av./ I* 2* 3* 4* 5* 6* Samp 1 e

~~ a GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Ephemeroptera 9 a 4 3.5

GROUP 2 ORGAN1 SMS m Diptera Chi ronomi dae 1 0.2 OtherDiptera 2 'I 1 0.7 Bivalvia 1 0.2 ia. i

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN ISMS 12 8 1 4 1 1 5 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Laboratory6ample Res.idue: gravel, rocks

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification beak

TABLE 3: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification June 1977

STATION: 3 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av./ 1 2 3* 4* 5 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS I

Ephemeroptera 33 ’ 12 IO 57 21 47 30.0 Trichoptera 13 2 2 14 3 3 6.2 Coleoptera 1 0.2 c

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera ronomi dae Chi ronomi 7 3’ 14 5 4.8 O ther Diptera Other 4 2 2 8 6 8 5.0

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 58 14 93 30 63 46 TOTAL NO: OF TAXA 5 19.4 3 4 3 4 4 - Laboratory Sample Residue:gravel, stones, wood pieces and plantdebris

*c Sample selectedfor detailed identification d beak

1 I TABLE 4: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification c June 1977

I STATION: 4 - BonaparteRiver(Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER * Av./ 1 2 3* 4 5* 6 Sample

m GROUP 3 ORGANISMS .. Ephemeroptera 5 5 19 3 5 31 11.3 Trichoptera I9 3 IO 43 3 13.0 r Plecoptera 1 1 2 3 1.2 Coleoptera 1 2 1 0.7 Odonata 1 1 1 2 0.8 1 -. .- GROUP 2 ORGANISMS 1 Diptera Chironomidae 4 10 4 5 3.8 O th er Diptera Other 1 I 9 1 5 2.8 .I Bivalvia 1 0.2 Hi rud inea 1 0.2 Nematoda 1 1 0.3 Hydracarina i 1 0.2

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS m 0 1 igochae ta 1 0.2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 8 31 46 15 58 50 35 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 4 6 8 4 8 7 6

I8 Laboratory SampleResidue: gravel, sand, rocks, some plantdebris, wood pieces 1 * Sample selectedfor detailed identification c beak

TABLE 5: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder identification June 1977

STATION: 5 - HatCreek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / 1* 2 3 4 5 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 54 11842 58 116 13 66.8 Trichoptera 10 17 . 11 6 3 2 8.2 Plecoptera 4 12 8 9 2 5.8 Coleoptera 2 3 1 5 2 2.2 Odonata 1 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi dae 87 276 280 205 108 162 186.3 OtherDiptera 6 9 24 11 21 10 13.5

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 2 7 2 8 7 2 4.7

TOTALNO. OF ORGANISMS 165 439 444 298 ' 186 194 2 aa TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 6 7 7 6 a 7

~~ ~___~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~

Laboratory Sample Residue:gravel, sand, organic debris

5 Sample selectedfor detailed identification TABLE 6: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - First Order Identification a June 1977 m STATION: 6 - Hat Creek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER AV. / 1 2 3* 4 5 6 Sample

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Ephemeroptera 24 22 18 55 24 35 29.7 Trichoptera 18 12 6 3 4 51 15.7 P 1 ecop te ra 2 10 3 ,5 5 10 5.8 Coleoptera 1 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomidae 113 128 86 178 129 90 121 .o Other Diptera Other 11 7 4 9 3 12 7.7 Turbellaria 1 0.2 Nematoda 1 0.2

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS 1 Oligochaeta 11 12 38 9 4 12.3

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 179 191 157 26 1 169 199 193 TOTAL TAXANO. OF 6 6 6 8 6 6 6

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ Laboratory Sample Residue: gravel, algal balls, fine plant debris * SamDie selected for detailed identification I beak a , r

TABLE 7: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder tdentification 1 June 1977

STATION: 7 - HatCreek (Surber Sampler) I

SAMPLE NUMBER Av./ -r 1 2 3 4* 5 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS I

Ephemeroptera 555 56 49 ' 33 22 36i7 Trichoptera 3 10 9 7 39 45 18.8 I I Plecoptera 1 7 b IO 6 5 5.8

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS .I

Diptera . ' ronom i daeChi ronomi 58 4 26 3 4 19.0 .. " DipteraOther 4 22 I3l9 5 9 8.8 Nematoda 2 0.3 Turbellaria 1 2 1 0.7

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 2 1 2 1 1.0

TOTALNO. OF ORGANISMS77 73 121 10181 88 91 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 4 7 7 6 7 6

Laboratory Sample Residue:sand, gravel, algae, plant'debris - * Sample selectedfor detailed identification e m beak

TABLE 8: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification June 1977

STATION: 8 - SmallTributary (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLENUMBER Av. / 4 I* 2 3 4 5 6' Samp 1 e

3 ORGANISMS c GROUP Ephemeroptera 36 78 31 42 19 29 39.2 Trichoptera 3 5 5 3 3 3.2 II Plecoptera 5 28 1 IO 1 1 7.7

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chironomidae 1 1 0.3 O ther Diptera Other 4 8 4 1 2 3.2 Turbellaria 2 5 2 4 5 3.0 Nematoda 1 0.2 a GROUP 1 ORGAN1 SMS

II Oligochaeta 3 10 1 2 3 9 .4.?

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANSISM 54 134 35 68 50 62 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 6 4 7 5 6

Laboratory Sample Residue: rocks, gravel,leaf debris, twigs

>k Sample selectedfor detailed identification

I beak

TABLE 9: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification June 1977

STATION: 10 - HatCreek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / 1 2 3 4* 5 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 55 36 63 25 31 45. a Trichoptera 7 656 9 5 2 4 5.5 Plecoptera 14 9 13 IO 1'1 8.0 Coleoptera 1 3 1 0.8

GROUP 2 ORGANSIHS

Diptera Chironomidae 18 222 42 5 15 17.3 OtherDiptera 3 2 5 3 4 2.8 Turbellaria 2 0.3 Nematoda 1 0.2

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 1 3 1 1 1 .o

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN I SMS 98 92 106 105 38 52 a2 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 a 6 7 6 5 6

Laboratory Sample Residue:leaves, gravel, fine plant debris, small wood pieces

* Sample' selectedfor.detailed identification

a beak

I TABLE IO: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - FirstOrder identification June 1977

STATION: 11 - MedicineCreek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER AV. / 1* 2 3 4 5 6 Sample

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS .. Ephemeroptera 5 12 14 2 20 11 10.7 Trichoptera 8 13 2 18 15 11.8 Plecoptera 8 17l5 8 3 8 12 9.3 Coleoptera 10 5 4. 1 3 6 4.8

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Ch i ronomidae 45 .' 77 163 40 87 236 108.0 O ther Diptera Other 4 13 4 1 12 7.8 Turbellaria 27 9 4 34l3 81 25.8 Nematoda 2 4 1 .o

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

01 i gochaeta 67 28 6 9 7 30 24.5

I TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS I76 176 216 62 190 403 204 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 9 a 8 a a 8 8

Laboratory Sample Residue:gravel, sand, organic debris, plant delris

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification beak

TABLE 11: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - First Order ldentificatior June 1977

STATION: 13 - AndersonCreek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av. / 1+ zit 3 4' 5 6 Sample

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS 1

Ephemeroptera 80 ' 56 164 147 . 166 125.8142 Trichoptera 1 1 2 2 2 5 2.2 Plecoptera 2' 3 3 19 5 5.3

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera .. Chi ronomi dae 1 i 3 4 7 2.7 Other DipteraOther 1 1' 3 2 1 3 1.8 Turbellaria 9 4 4 18 12 7.8 Amph i poda 1 0.2

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS Oligochaeta 1 1 2 3 4 4 2.5

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN1 SMS 95 63 181 159 214 178 148 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 6 7 6 7 7 7

Laboratory Sample Residue: gravel, leaves, twigs, sand * Sample selected for detailed identification

a .' L a beak

TABLE 12: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification June 1977

STATION: 14 '- HatCreek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLE NUMBER Av./ 1 2 3 4 5* 6 Samp 1e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Ephemeroptera 108 68 40 47 77 68 68.0 Trichoptera 1 3 5 8 2.8 Plecoptera 3 3 1'1 2 3 2.2 Coleoptera 1 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGAN1 SMS

Diptera Chironomidae 1110 14 36 22 . 11 17.3 OtherDiptera 2 2 1.8 Bivalvia 1 2 1 .o Turbellaria 1 3 2 2 .I 1.5 Nematoda 1 1 1 1 0.7 Hydracarina 1 0.2

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 2 Oligochaeta 27 12 8 2 3' 9.0

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS124 132 118 97 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 9 IO 7 5

Laboratory SampleResidue: sand & gravel,organic debris

'r Sample selected for detailedidentification "

beak

TABLE 13: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification I June 1977

m STATION: 15 - HatCreek (Surber Sampler)

SAMPLENUMBER Av. / 1 62* 53 4 Sample

I GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Ephemeroptera I. 2 3 1 1 1.3 . Trichoptera 65 3 6 4 5 4.8 Plecoptera 22 22 25.0IO 2348 25 .Coleoptera 1 0.2

I GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi dae a5 25 41 90 37 78 59.3 O ther Diptera Other 56 20 479 22718 372 195.3 Turbel laria 59 76 . 29 67 89 84 67.3

GROUP 1 ORGAN ISMS

I Oligochaeta 7 2 3. 6 3.0

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 252 133 567 231 530425 356 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 7 7 6 6 7 7

Laboratory SampleResidue: gravel, leaves, organic debris, plant pieces, some fine wood pieces

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification TABLE 14: Benthic Macro-Invertebrates - Detailed Identification, June 1977

LIFE TAXA STAGE* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a

-GROUP 3 ORGANISMS EPHEMEROPTERA F. Heptageni idae Rhithrogena sp. N 17 28 2 Ironopsis sp. N - - 4 CinygmuZa sp. N 5 F. Baetidae Baetis sp. N 1 33 30 Ephemerella sp. 1 N 3 4 7 Ephemerella sp. 2 N - 2 I Puruleptophlebia sp. N - - - Cnenis sp. N - TRI CHOPTERA F. Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. L 1 F. Brachvcentridae Brachycentrus sp. L 3 F. tlydropt i 1 i dae Hydroptilidae sp. indet. El - F. LimephlI1dae Limnephilidaeindet. sp. L - - - - 2 F. Glossosomatidae Agape tus s p . L - - - - 1 F. Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila sp. L ------TABLE 14 CONT'D:Benthic Macro-Invertebrates - Detailed.ldentification, June 1977

STATION NO. LIFE T AXA STAGE* TAXA I .2 3 'I 5 6 7 a

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Cont'd.

PLECOPTERA F. Perlidae Ctaassenia sp. N F.Chloroperlidae Hastaperla sp. N F. Pteronarcidae Pteronaroella sp. N F. Perlodidae roogenus s p. N

COLEOPTERA F. Elmidae Narpus sp. L

ODONATA S.O. Anisoptera F. Gomphidae Ophiogonphus sp. N - 2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

DIPTERA F. Ch i ronoml dae S.F.Tanypodinae * 1. F,~"C'UU"~ ,p. i S. F. Chi ronomi nae Micropsectra sp. L Chironomus sp. L Lr; m

(. TABLE 14 CONT'D: BenthicMacro-Invertebrates - DetalledIdentification, June 1977

STATION NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS Cont'd.

DIPTERA cont'd. F. Chi ronomi dae cant ' d. S.F. Orthocladiinae Cricotopus sp. L Orthocladius sp. L Cardioctndius sp. L Chironomidaesp. indet. P F. Tipulidae Ilexatoma sp. L Antocha sp. L Antocha sp. L F . Tanyde r i dae Protoplasa sp. L F.Rhaglonidae Atherix sp. L F. Simuliidae Simulium sp. L Simulium sp. P F.Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogonidae sp. lndet. L F. Empldidae EmpididaeIndet.sp. L F. Psychodidae Pericoma sp. L

HY DRACARI NA F. Sperchonidae Sperchon sp. A - - - 1 - - - - TABLE 14 CONT'D: BenthicMacro-Invertebrates - DetailedIdentification, June 1977

STATION NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE* i 2 3 6 4. 5 7 8

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS Cont'd.

TURBELLARIA 0. Neorhabdocoela sp. indet. A

GASTROPODA F. Bulimidae Bulimidae sp. indet. A

BlVALVlA F . Sphaer i idae Pisidiwn sp. A -

NE MAT0 DA Nematoda sp. indet. A -

GROUP i ORGANISMS

OL I GOCHAETA F., Naididae A F. Lumbricidae A

TOTALNO. OF ORGANISMS 101.. TCTA!. !!C. CF TAXA 'I

* N = nymph A = adult L = larvae El = earlyinstar P = pupae I

TABLE 14 CONT'D: BenthicMacro-Invertebrates - DetailedIdentification, June 1977

STAT I ON NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE* 10 11 13 14

GROUP 3 ORGAN ISMS

EPHEMEROPTERA F. Heptagenildae Rhithrogena sp. N 7 - - 5 - Ironopsis sp. N a 5 31 34 1 Cinygmu7.a sp. N 11 - 37 ' 7 1 F. Baetidae Baetis sp. Ephemerella sp. 1 Amletus sp.

TRiCHOPTERA F. Hydropsychidae Ilydropsyche sp. flydropsyche sp. F.Brachycentridae Brachycentrus sp. F. Llmnephilidae Llmnephilidae sp. indet. F. Glossosomatidae Agapetus sp. F. Rhyaccphi I idae RhyacophiZa sp.

PLECOPTERA r. ?&7;id'iC Claassenia sp. N 5 7 - - - F. Chloroperlidae flus taperta sp. N 5 1 3 I 22 TABLE 14 CONT'D: benthicMacro-Invertebrates - DetailedIdentification, June 1977

STAT1 ON NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE* IO 11 13 14 15

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Cont'd.

PLECOPTERA cont'd. F. Perlodidae Isogenus sp. N F. Nemouridae Nemoura sp. N

COLEOPTERA r. Elmidae Narpus sp. L 1 Zuitzevia sp. L -

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

DIPTERA F. Chi ronomldae S.F. Chironorninae Micropsectm sp. S.F. Orthocladilnae Cardiocladius sp. Cardiocladius sp. Orthocladius sp. F. Tipul idae Antocha sp. Tipulidae sp. indet. r rn . 2 ;wu; i i dae Sinnrlim sp. F. Ceratopogonidae Leptoconops sp. TABLE I4 CONT'D: BenthicMacro-Invertebrates - DetailedIdentification, June 1977

STATiON NO. LIFE TAXA STAGE* 10 11 13 14 IS

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS Cont'd.

DIPTERA cont'd. F. Psychodidae Pericom sp. L -

TURBELLARIA 0 . Neorhabdocoela 0. indet.sp. A 59

BlVALVlA F. Sphaeriidae Pisidiwn sp, A

NEMATODA Nematoda sp. Indet. A

GROUP I ORGANISMS

OLIGOCHAETA F. Naididae A - 49 - - F. Lumbricidae A 1 IO 2 2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 116 ' 133 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 18 9

* N = nymph L = larvae P = pup& A = adult '. .- AUGUST 1977 " beak

TABLE I: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Order Identification a August 1977

STATION: 1 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler) Samp 1 e Numbe r Av./ TAXA I 2.3 4 5 6* Sampl e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 20 35 19 42 20 58 32.3 Trichoptera 8 11 23 29 36 34 23.5 Plecoptera - 2 .. 1 a 7 3.0 Coleoptera 3 - 1 1 - 1 1.0

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi Chi dae 3 22 2 11 9 14 10.2 O ther DipteraOther 2 4 8 12 5 3 5.7 Nematoda I 1 - - - - 0.3

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 3 5 1 .2 4 3 3.0

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 40 80 54 98 82 120 79 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 7 6 7 '6 7 7 ..

Other Organisms in Samples: Coleopteraadults - 2

Laboratory Sample Residue: plantdebris, sand, wood pieces,fine plant debris, grave 1

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification \ beak

TABLE 2: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Order identification August 19 77

STAT I ON : 2 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler) Samp I e Number Av. / TAXA 1 2 3* 4* 5 6* Samp 1e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 5 41 7 55 9 I5 22.0 Tr i chopte ra 5 3 - 1 1 1 1.8 Plecoptera 1 3 1 6 - 2 2.2 Coleoptera .- - - 1 - - 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi Chi dae 1 4 - 8 1 1 2.5 OtherDiptera - 8 - 1 1 3 2.2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 12 59 .8 7222 12 31 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 4 5 2 6 4 5 4

Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, wood pieces,gravel, fine plant debris, .. stones * Samples selectedfor detailed identification

7 m beak

TABLE 3: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First OrderIdentification August 1977

STATION: 3 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler) .I Samp I e Number AV./ TAXA 1 2 3 4* 5 6 Samp 1 e

L GROUP 3 ORGANISHS

Ephemeroptera I02 37 54 39 61 50.8 m Trichoptera 8 46 45 9 12 23.8 Plecoptera 8 2 3' 2 2 2.8 Coleoptera 6 2 2 0 2 3.7 e GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

I Diptera Chi ronomi dae 35 5 9 40 32 .21.3 OtherDiptera 28 19 IO 11 22 16.0

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

01 igochaeta 5 2 5 1 - 2.2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN1 SMS 192 1 I3 128 1 IO 131 121 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 7 7 7 6 7

Laboratory Sample Residue: wood pieces,plant debris, gravel, stcrtes, sand, fine plant debris

3 * Sample selectedfor detailed identification TABLE 4: BenthicNacroinvertebiates. - First Order Identification August 1977

STAT I ON : 4 - BonaparteRiver (Surber Sampler) Samp 1 e Number Av./ TAXA 1 2* 3 4 5 6* Sample

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Epheme rop te ra 52 27 49 19 38.3 Trichoptera 9 43 3 - 10.3 Plecoptera 18 16 2 3 6.8 Coleoptera 1 - 5 - 1.8 Odonata - - 1 - 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chironomidae 3 5 - 2 3 1 2.3 OtherDiptera 5 2 12 8 6 3 6.0 Nematoda - 1 - - - - 0.2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN1 SMS 35 78 92 96 69 26 66 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 5 6 5 5 7 4 5

Other Organisms in Samples: Coleopteraadult - 1

Laboratory Sample Residue: wood pieces, sand, fineplant debris, algae, stones

* Samples selectedfor detailed identification beak

TABLE 5: BenthicMacro'invertebrates - First Order Identification August 1977

STATION: 5 - HatCreek (Surber Sampler) 1 Sample Number Av./ TAXA 2 1 3 4* 5 6 Sample

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Ephemeroptera 33 36 45 85 45.8 Trichoptera 2921 IO 8 2 5 11.0 Plecoptera 36 20 IO I2 4 16.5 Coleoptera IOl7 3 8 12 12 9 9.0 Odonata 1 - - - - - 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera C hi ronomidae Chi 24 . 19 18 40 36 33.7 O ther Diptera Other 11 5 654 17 3 - 6.7

I GROUP 1 ORGAN ISMS 01 igochaeta - - 6 1 10 2 3.2

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 113 106 147 105 156129 126 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 6 7. 7 7 6 7

Other Organisms in Samples: Coleopteraadults - 2

Laboratory Sample Residue: fineplant debris, wood pieces, sand, fine organic debris

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification beak

TABLE 6: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - First Order Identification August 1977

STATION: 6,-Hat Creek (Surber Sampler) Samp 1 e Number Av. / TAXA 1 2 3* . 4 5 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISM Ephemeroptera 92 79 55 61 46 ,114 74.5 Trichoptera 26 21 16 2 15' 16.2 Plecoptera 5 l78 7 8 3 4 5.8 Coleoptera 1 - 3 1 - - 0.8

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi daeronomi Chi 7 3 2 15 1 17 7.5 Other Diptera 38 14 13 35 16 36 25.3

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

01 igochaeta 1 2 1 2 - 2 1.3

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 170 123102 138 68 188 ' 131 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 6 7 7 5 6 6

Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, stones, fine organic debris, wood pieces, gravel * Sample selected for detailed identification I) beak

TABLE 7: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Orderldentificatior August 1977

STATION,: 7 - Hat Creek (SurberSampler) Samp 1 e Numbe r Av. / TAXA I* 2 3 4 5 6 Samp 1e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

1 Ephemeroptera 64 a9 96 97 I03 82 88.5 Trichoptera 26 51 426 27 26. a . Plecoptera 2710 16 17 9 3 9 10.7 Coleoptera 1 - - - - - 0.2 1

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera - Chi ronomi dae 5 19-27 23 33 22.0 O ther Diptera Other 4 257 1 4 ' 11 4.5 m _- - T urbe l lariaTurbel 1 - 1 0.3 ------Hydracarina - 1 0.2 GROUP 1 ORGAN1 SMS a Oligochaeta 1 .. a 3 - a 3.3

TOTAL NO: OF ORGANISMS 113 163 192 136 165 170 157 1 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 8 5 6 5 6 7 6

* Laboratory Sample Residue: wood pieces,fine plant debris, gravel, sand

5 Sample selected for detailedidentification

,- beak

TABLE 8: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First OrderIdentification August 1977 c STATION: 8 - Small Creek (Surber Sampler) Samp 1e Numbe r AV.1 TAXA 1 2* 3 4 5 6* Sample

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 42 23 52 14 11 12 25.7 Trichoptera 4 4 6 1 1 9 4.2 Plecoptera 32 25 30 42 17 22 28.0 Coleoptera - - - - - 1 0.2

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera C hi ronomi Chi dae 1 5 - - - - 1.0 II Diptera Other 3 - - - 1 - 0.7

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 2 1 - 3 1 - 1.2 m

TOTAL NO. OF ORGAN1 SMS, 84 63 100 43 ' 31 44 61 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 5 3 4 5 4 5

Other Organisms in Samples: Coleopteraadult - I

Laboratory Sample Residue: sand, wood pieces,fine plant debris, gravel, stones

* Samples selectedfor detailed identification beak

TABLE 9: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First Order Identification August 1977

STAT I ON : 10 - Hat Creek (Surber Sampler) Sample Number AV. / TAXA 1 2* 3 4 5 6 Samp 1e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 52 57 68 79 61.7 Trichoptera 8 18 8 15 14.3 Plecoptera 5 15 21 19 14.8 Coleoptera 1 2 2 3 1.5

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Oi pte ra Chi ronomi Chi dae 21 8 13 15 17.2 Othe r Diptera Other 1 3 2 7 3.3 Turb el laria Turbel - - 5 - 0.8

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

01 igochae ta 1 1 - 1 0.5

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 89 104 1 I3 139 114 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 7 7 7 7

~~ ~~ ~-~~~~ Laboratory Sample Residue: plantdebris, sand, wood pieces,rocks, stones

* SamDle selectedfor detailed identification beak

TABLE IO: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - First O.rder ldentificatic'n August 1977

STATION: 11 - Medicine Creek (Surber Sampler) Sample Number Av. / TAXA l* 2 3 4 5 6 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 174 94 230 182 140 197 169.5 Trichoptera - 2 - - 5 5 2.0 Plecoptera 44 66 38 59 81 234 87.0 Coleoptera - 7 IO 9 3 4 5.5

GROUP 2 ORGAN1 SMS

Diptera Chi ronomidae 38 40 5756 35 36 43.7 Other Diptera 2 2 1 2 3 8 3.0 Turbellaria 1 1 5 16 3 7 5.5

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

01 igochaeta 2-5 5 10 5 13 6.J

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 181 277296361 297 525 32 3 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 8 7 7 8 8 7

Other Organisms in Samples: Coleoptera adults - 4 Laboratory Sample Residue: plant debris, sand, gravel, wood pieccs, fine organic debris

* Sample selected for detailed identification beak

TABLE 11: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - First OrderIdentificaticm August 1977

STATION: 13 - AndersonCreek (Surber Sampler) Sample Number AV. / TAXA I* 2 3 46 5 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 56 117 115 36 94 40 76.3 Trichoptera 15 4 6 2 4 2 5.5 Piecoptera 30 72 116 21 48 36 53.1

-GROUP 2 ORGANISMS Diptera C hi ronomi Chi dae 1 - 7 a 3 Amphipoda 2 3 1 4 1 Turbellaria - 2 2 - -

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

Oligochaeta 5 5 - 4 3

I TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 109 203 247 75 I53 a0 145 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 6 6 6 6 4 6

Laboratory Sample Resi;due: wood,pieces,fine plant debris, sand

* Sample selectedfor detailed identification

Q beak

TABLE 12: BenthicMacroinvertebrates - FirstOrder Identification August 1977

STATiON: 14 - HatCreek (Surber Sampler) Sample Number Av./ TAXA I* 2 3 6 4 5 Samp 1 e

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

Ephemeroptera 58 90 83 56 52 57 66.0 Trichoptera 13 4 4 io 3 3 6.2 Plecoptera 29 16 23 13 20 33 22.3 Coleoptera 1 - 1 2 - - 0.7

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chi ronomi dae 24 49 32 25 29 36 32.5 OtherDiptera 13 17 1 6 - 2 6.5

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

01 igochaeta 11 13 3 3 a 6.3

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 138 187 157 115 IO7 I 39 141 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 6 6 7 ? 5 6 6

Laboratory Sample Residue: wood pieces,plant debris, sand,stones, gravel

* Sample selected for detailedidentification beak

TABLE 13: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - First Order Identificatiotl August I977

STATION: 15 - Hat Creek (Surber Sampler) Samp 1 e Number Av./ TAXA l* 2 3 4 5 6 Samp 1 e

-GROUP 3 ORGANISMS Ephemeroptera 25 37 22.2 Trichoptera - 3 1.0 Plecoptera 57 15 44.2 Coleoptera 1 - 0.5

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

Diptera Chironomidae 101 162 103 IO5 246 157 145.7 Other Diptera Other 2 6 - 7 22 a 7.5 Turbellaria - 3 2 a 6 3 3.7

GROUP. 1 ORGAN1 5MS Oligochaeta - 4 .6 22 - - 5.3

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 186 230 207 202 318 237 230 TOTAL NO. TAXA 5 7 6 a 6 6 6

Other Organisms in Samples: Hemiptera - F. Corixidae - 1 Laboratory Sample Residue: fine organic debris, wood pieces, stones, gravel

* Sample selected for detailed identification TABLE 14: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - Detailed Identification, August 1977

No. LIFE Statlon TAXA STAGE* TAXA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

EPHEMEROPTERA F. Heptageniidae Rhithrogena sp. N 2 25 - 26 - - - Irunups is s p . N - - - 1 - - I Cinygmuta sp. N - - - 1 6 - - F. Baetidae Baetis sp. N 43 33 7 15 27 40 41 Baetis sp. E 1 ------Ephem?rella sp. 1 N 9 13 7 28 1 3 IO Ephemrella sp. 2 N - - - - 11 ID 10 Pnraleptophlebia sp. N - I - - - - 1 Caenis sp. N. 3'5 25 12 - - - Amletus sp. N - - - - - 2 1

TRICHOPTERA F. Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. L 27 I 3 - - 18 20 Hydropsyche 'sp. P I ------F. Brachycentridae Bmchycentrus sp. L " 4 - 3 - .- - - F. Hydroptilidae Hydroptilidae sp. indet. El 1 - - - 2 - - F. Limnephilidae Limnephilidaesp. indet. L - - - - - 2 - Limephi 1 idae sp. indet. P - - - - - ! - & m I L I f 'I

TABLE 14 Cont'd: Benthic Macroinvertebrates - Detalled Identification, August 1977

LIFE Station No'. TAXA STAGE;: 1 2 3 4 5'6 7 - TRICHOPTERA Cont'd. F. Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila sp. L F. Glossosomatidae Agapetus sp. L F. Psychomyiidae Neureclipsis sp. L PLECOPTERA F. Perlidae Claassenia sp. N F. Chloroperlidae Has taperla sp. .N F. Pteronarcidae Pteronarcelta sp. N F. Perlodidae Isogeenus sp. N

COLEOPTERA F. Elmidae Narpus sp. L Zai tzevia sp. L

GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

nl PTF RA F. Chi ronorni dae S.F. Tanypodinae Procladius sp. L - Prvcladius sp. P - TABLE 14 Cont'd:Benthic Macroinvertebrates - DetailedIdentification, August 1977

Statlon No. LIFE TAXA STAGE* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DIPTERA Cont'd. S.F. Chironominae Micropsectra sp. L. 2 3 30 1 2 S.F. Orthociadiinae Cricotopus sp. L 9 2 Orthocladius sp. L 3 a Cardiocladius sp. L - - F. Tipuiidae Hexatom sp. L 1 I Antocha sp. . L - 6 An tocha sp. P - I Tipulidae sp. indet. L - F. Rhagl on i dae Atherix sp. L 2 3 F. Empidldae Empididae sp. indet. L - 1 - 2 Empididaesp. indet. P - 2 1 - F. Ceratopogonidae

' Leptoconops sp. L - - 1

TURBELLARIA 0. Neorhabdocoela sp. indet. A ------1

NEMATODA Nematoda sp.Indet. TABLE 14 Cont'd:Benthic Macroinvertebrates - DetailedIdentification, August 1977

Station No. LIFE . TAXA ST AGE * \ 2 3 4 5 6 7

GROUP 1 ORGANISMS

OL I GOCHAETA F. Naididae A F. Cumbricldae A

TOTALNUMBER OF ORGANISMS 120 102 110 104 105 102 113 TOTALNUMBER OF TAXA . I8 15 16 16 17 14 . 20

5: N = nymph E = emergent L = larvae P = pupae A = adult El = early instar TABLE 14 Cont'd: BenthicHacrolnvertebrates - DetailedIdentification, August 1977

Station No. LIFE. . TAXA STAGE* 8 IO 11 13 14 15

GROUP 3 ORGANISMS

EPHEMEROPTERA F. Heptageniidae .. Rhithrogena sp. N - IO .. 2 2 - Ironopsis sp. N - - - - 8 - Cinygmula sp. N - - - 13 1 - ~. F. Baetidae .. Baetis sp. N 18 30 54 4 26 - Ephemerelta sp. I N 4 13 I9 - 19 8 Ephemeretta sp. 2 N - - 3 - - - Ephemeretta sp. 3 N - - - 1 - - Paraleptophlebia sp. N. - - - 17 - - Amletus sp. N 13 4 I8 19 2 17 TRICIIOPTEZ\ F.tlydropsychidae Ilydropsyche sp. c - 16 - - - - F. Brachycentridae Brachycentrus 5p. L - - - 3 2 - F. Limnephllldae Limephilldae sp. indet. L - - - , I' 1 - Limephi 1 ldae sp. indet. P' - - - 8 - - F.Glossosomatidae Agapetus sp. L 8 1 - - I - F. Rhyacophilidae ..

~ Rhyonnphi.1.o c? ~ L 3 - - - F. Psychomyildae h'eurectipsis sp, L 2 1 .. 3 a - -.

TABLE I4 Cont’d:Benthic Macroinvertebrates - DetailedIdentification, August 1977

Station No. LIFE TAXA STAGE:: a IO II 13 14 15

PLECOPTERA F. Per1 idae CZaassenia sp. N 2 ? F. Chloroperlidae Hastaperla sp. N Hastaperla sp. E F. Perlodidae Isogenus Sp. N. F. Nemour i dae Nemoura sp. N

COLEOPTERA F.Elmidae Narpus sp. L Zaitzevia sp. L F. Chrysopetalldae Calerncelta sp. L

-GROUP 2 ORGANISMS

DIPTERA F. Chironomldae S.F.Tanypodinae Proctadius sp. L 2 - S .F. Chi ronomi nae 1 I. f,Gr.wn”s.9”fm L _I C””” L I. I

TABLE 14 Cont'd:Benthic Macroinvertebrates - DetailedIdentlflcation, August 1977

Station No. LIFE

TAXA STAGEn 8 ' 10 I1 13 14 15

DIPTERA Cont'd. S.F. Orthocladilnae Crico topus sp . L Orthocladius sp. L Cardiocladius 5p. L Orthocladiinae sp. i nde t. L F. Tipulidae Tipula sp. F. Rhagionldae Atherix sp. - 1 2 F. Empididae Empididae sp. indet F. Cera topogon idae Leptoconops sp. F. Simuliidae Simulium sp.

AMPH IPODA F. Gammaridae Crangonyx sp .

TURBELLARIA 0. Rhabdocoela sp. indet.

GROUP I ORGANISMS

OLIGOCHEATE F. Lumbrlcidae TABLE 111 Cont'd:Benthlc Macroinvertebrates - DetailedIdentification, August 1977

Station No. LIFE TAXA STAGE:! 8 IO II 13 14 15

TOTAL NUMBER OF ORGANISMS TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA

91 N = nymph E = emergent L - larvae P = pupae A = adult APPENDIX F ComputerProgram Output for Stomach Content Analysis

.I SITE: BONAPARTE RIVER STATION 1 UUTE:SEPTEhBER 309 1976 LENGTYCATEGORY: 51-100 MM SAHPLESIZE: 5 Nd. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FQEQUE:.ICY OCCURRENCE LUPErICAL VOLUMETi4IC ACTUAL ACTUAL ”””””“”“”””“”““”””-“”””””””””-..”””““”-FOOD ITEM (04) (6) (%I NUEHER VOLUME UNIOENTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 ****** 26.32 **<~** .10 E?HEMEROPTERA (N) 60.00 14. ti9 10.53 7 -04 T2ICHCPTEEA (L) 21.0531.91 60.00 1s .Od OIPTERA IC) 40.00 10.64 7.89 5 03 OIPTERA(P) 40.00 4.26 5-26 2 .02 HCMIPTERA (A) 40.00 8.51 7.99 4 03 &‘;EHPTODP 40.00 4.26 5.26 2 .02 L’IPTERA (E) 20.00 6.38 2.63 3 .01 HYNENOPTERA 20.00 2.63 2.13 1 .01 C3LECPTERP (L) 20.00 2.13 2.63 1 .01 IIJSECTA 20.00 12.77 5.26 6 .02 QLECOPTERA (!I) 20.00 2.13 2.63 1 .Ol ””-,”””””” TOTAL- 47 .30 beak

SITE: HAT CHEEK STATION 5 D4TE: SEPTEH6ER 29, 1976 LENGTi! CATEGORY: 51-100 MY SAHPLESIZE: 10 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FQEQUENCY OCCURRENCE IWFEFIICALVOLUMETRIC AC? UAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (s;) (%I (061 NUFIBER VOLUME ...... UdIUENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 ***e** 40.00 ***** .14 EP!iErEROPTEHA (Pi) 40.00 31.58 17.14 12 .06 DI?TERA (E) 20.00 13.16 5.71 5 .02 NEMATODA 20.00 13.16 5.7.1 5 .02 IqSECTA 20.00 10.53 5.71 4 .02 PLECOPTERA fN) 20.00 7. a9 8.57 3 e03 : OIPTERA (L) 10.00 2.63 2.66 1 .01 HYMENOPTERP 10.00 2.63 2.86 1 .Ol DIPTERA 10.00 15.79 S.71 6 .02 LEPIDOPTERA (3.) 10.00 2.63 5.71 1 .02 ””””””””_ TOTAL- 38 .35

(A)- ADULT (El- ESERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L) - LARVAE **e***- NOT APDLICABLE beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 6 DATE:SEPTEWBER 29~1976 LENGTH.CATEGORY: 0-50 Nhl SAHPLE SIZE: 1 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0 a FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEti (8) (SI NUFldER VOLUHE '3. """"""""""""~""""""""""""""""".""""""~ UI-IIDENTIFIEO4NIM4L 100.00 0. 50.00 **+** .01 OETHITUS 100.00 0. 50.00 ""-.""""""**c.** .01 TOTAL- 0 .02

1 (1)- 4DULT (E)- EMERGENT beak

SITE: HATCREEK STATION 6 04TE:SEPTEVSER 29, 1976 LCFJGTH CATEGORY: 51-100 MY SAMPLE SIZE: 9 W. OF Et4PTY STOMACHS: 0 I FREQUEIUCY OCCURRENCE NUHEk?ICALVOLUWETHIC AC?UAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEn (%I (SI (‘6) VOL!JMCNUklklER I ””””””””””””””””””---””””-””””“-.“”””””~ UNIUENTIFIEOANIMAL 100.00 Q*Q*QQ 56.52 ***.** .13 EPHEMEROPTERh (cv) 44.44 55.00 21.74 11 .05 I (I;EnATODA 22.22 10.00 8.70 2 .02 HYMENOPTERA 11.11 5.00 4.35 1 .01 INSECTA 11.11 25.00 4.35 5 .01 PLECOPTERP (Y) 11.11 5.00 4.35 1 .01 ””-,”””””“ TOTPL- 20 .23

I (A)- ADULT r (€1 - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH I (PI- PUPAE (L) - LARVAE ******- NOT APPLICABLE a beak

SITE: H4T CHEEK STATION 6 OAT€:SEPTE-IBER 29, 1976 LEtdGTH CATEGORY: 101-150 MY SAMPLE SIZE: 2 30. OF EMPTYSTONACHS: !I

FREOUEI..ICY OCCURRENCE INUMEI~ICGLVOLUMET2IC AC"UAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEK (%I (%) (%) NU*ruER VOLUME 3 """""~""""""""""""""""""~""""~"."~""""" UNIUENTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 *****e 50.00 *e

(at- ADULT (E) - EME9GENT I (N)- NYVPH (P)- PIJPAE (L)-LARV4E **a***- NOT APDLICPYLE beak

SITE: HAT CHEEK STATION 7 DATE: SEPTEMaER 281 1976 LENGTHCATEGORY: 0-50 HM SAMPLE SIZE: 2 N3. OF EMPTY STCJMACHS: 0

FE(E(3UEiilCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM 1%) 1%) 1%) NUMaER VOLUME:

...... EPHEWEROPTEHA (N) 100.00 ao.oo 40.00 4 .02 UVIOENTIFIECANIMAL lOO.00 ****e9 LO.00 ***** .02 i?I~TEFiA (P) so. 00 20.00 20.00 """"""""- 1 .01 TCITAL- 5 .os

(A)- ADULT (E)- EVEC?GENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE IL) - LARVAE ***e**- NGT APPLICABLE beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 7 UTE: SEPT~WER 28. 1976 LE.UtThCATEGORY: 51-100 MU ScWLE SIZE: 5 hg. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FDEOUE4dCY OCCUQRENCE NuMERIC~L VOLUMCTRICAClUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I ($1 (%) NUt'3ER VOLUME """"""""""""""-""""""""""""""".~"""""" """"""""""""""-""""""""""""""".~"""""" W~IOENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 400444 53.85 4**04 -07 GST~ACODA 40.00 2a.57 15.38 2 .02 TiICHOPTERA(L) 20.00 14.23 7.63 1 .01 I.USECTA 20.00 14.29 7.67 1 .01 VIPTERA (A) 70.00 7.69 28-57 2 .01 EPHEWEROPTEH4 (E) 20.00 14.29 7.69 """"""""_ 1 .01 TOTAL- 7 .13

(AI- ADULT (E 1 - EMERGENT (N1- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOT APDLICAt3LE .. beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 7 DqTi: SEPTEi.(SER 239 1976 LEFjCTHCATEGORY: 101-150 *1N SA?&€ SIZE: 9 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FSEOUENCY OCCURRENCE &CrMEHICAL VOLUYET~~ICACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I (8) (%I NU:IYER VOLUME ...... UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 77.78 ****** 39.68 *Q,EQ* .25 NEHATODP 44.44 28.57 6.35 6 .04 Ii.rSECTA 33.33 a 19-05, 4.76 4 .03 ?IINERPL. 33.33 *uuc** 15.87 I)*.*** .lG E?~+EHERO+TERA(N) 22.22 14.29 4.76 3 -03 t3iPTEHA (Ll 22.22 9.5% 3.17 2 .O? i dSMIPTER4 (4) 22.22 14.2Y 3.17 3 .02 $JETHITUS22.22 **UU*Q 17.46 *e+** .ll T3ICYOPTERA (Ll 11.11 4.7b 3.17 1 '. .oz riYHENOPTEPA 11.11 '3.52 1.59 "".""""""_2 .01 TOTAL- -63 21

(A) - ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (NI- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (Ll-LARVAE **e***- NOT A't'PLICPIiiLE * SITE: HATCREEK STATION 7 U4TE: SEPTEMBER 2.87 1976 LENGTHCATEGOQY: 151-200 MM .. SA4PLESIZE: 1 IUO. OF EMPTYSTOFACHS: 0

I FQEOUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERIC4LVOLUMETRIC AC'ruAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (8) (6) (8) NUMBER VOLUME I """"""""""~""""""""""""""""""~.""""""" UYIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 ****** 76.92 QQ'+*Q .IO T~IcHOPTEPA (L) 100.00 40.00 7.69 2 .01 HYMENOPTERA 40.00 2 1 I 100.00 7.69 ..o NEPlRTODP 100.00 20.00 7.69 "".""""""- 1 .Ol TOTAL- 5 .13 1,

(A)- ADULT (E)- EYERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOT APrLICPtlLE SITE: HATCREEK STATION 10 iJ4TE:SEPTEMGER 281 1976 LENGT'ICATEGORY: 0-50 MU SA\riPLE SIZE: 1 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FREOCIEFICY OCCURRENCE "IUMEQICALVOLUMETRIC AC"UAL ACTUAL """""""""""""""~"""-""""""""""-.""""""-FOOD ITEM (%I (8) (%) NUWEP VOLUME iPHEMEROPTkR4 (N) 100.00 100.00 100.00 "".."""""" 3 .03 TOTAL- 3 .03 beak

SITE: HAT CI~EEK STLITION IO OAT€: SEPTEMSF-R 28, 1976 * LENGTHCATEOOSY: 51-100 MY SAMPLE SIZE: 11 F;O. OF EM~TYSTOMPCHS: 1 I FREQUE'dcY OCCURRENCE NUMEHIC4L VOLUHETHIC ACTUALACTUAL FOOD IlEM (%) (%) (%) NUIldER VOLUME I """""""""~"~""""""~"""""""""""-.""""""" UAIDENTIFIEOANIMAL 72.73 ****a* 53.45 o*

9.09~~ 4.65 1.72 2 .01 9.09 4.65 1.72 .i! .Gl 9.09 2.33 1.72 1 .01 9.09 *****a 1.72 **I.** .a1 2.33 1.729.09 2.33 ""-."""""" 1 .G1 . TOTAL- 43 -58

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE **e***- NOT A?PLIC4BLE

1 beak

SITE:HAT CREEK STATION 10 UATE:SEPTEkaER 28, 1975 LEl\iGTHCATEGORY: 101-150 HM SaMPLE SIZE: 7 big. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREOUENCY OCCUR2ENCE NUhERIC4LVOLUMETUIC AClUAL ACTUAL """""""""""""""""""""""""""""..""""""-FOOD ITEi4 (8) (-6) 1%) VOLUME NUFltlER UidIOENTIFIEDAFiIMAL 57.14 ,A***** 26.0'4 *os.** .18 DIPTERA IL) 57.14 18-18 5.80' k 04 nINERAL 42.86 *O+OQQ 44.93 PO*** e31 tI5MIPTERA (A) 27.27 28.57 4.35 6 .03 NEMATODA 28.57 13.64 2.90 3 .02 TAICHOPTERA (L) 14.29 4.09 1.45 2 .c1 Ix!SECTA 14.29 13.64 2.93 d7 .O? PLECOPTER.4 (h!) 4.55 14.29 1.45 1 .01 OIPTEHA (P) 14.29 9.09 1.45 2 .Ol dET%ITL!S 14.29 *QY**)Q 7.25 *QQU* .05 COLEOPTERA (A) 14.29 4.55 . 1.45 """"""""- 1 .Ol TOTAL- 27 .b9

(A)- ADULT (E)- EMERGENT SITE: HAT CGEEK STATION In JATE: SEPTEMBER 289 1976 LENGTY CATEGORY: 151-200 YM SAMPLESIZE: 3 i*>. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 9 .

FI?EOIIE:.!CY OCCURRENCE NUI*Et?IC4L V0LUWET;IIC ACTUALACTUAL """"""""""""""'-"""""""""""~"~."""""""FOOD ITEH (54) ($1 (%) NUI43ER VOLUME UNIDEYTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 444900 72.00 0*i>44 .54 IJIP'TE2A (4I 66.67 47. G6 14.67 d .ll M INEP AL h6.67 MINEPAL *Y***Q 4.00 49ii04 e03 cPH<*iEROPTERA (N) 33.33 5-68 1.33 1 *01 HL~IPTERA(4) 1.3333.33 11.76 2 .01 C~ LE O PT ER ~. (L) 33.33 C~LEOPTER~.(L) 17.65 I .33 3 .01 I.eSECTA 33.33 5.m 4.00 1 .03 COLEOPTERA (4) 33.33 11.76. 1.33 2 .O1 "".. """""" TOTAL- .75 L7 beak ... SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 10 OUTE: SEPTEMHER 289 1976 LCNGTHCATEGORY: GREATER THAN 205 IYH I SA?lPLE SIZE: 2 :.io. OF EHPTY STOVACHS: 0

F!?EQUENCY OCCURRENCE IWM~ICAL VoLuHETqIc Ac'ruaL ACTUAL """""""""""""""""""""""""""""."""""""FOOD ITEM (%) (HI ' (%I NUiI8ER VOLUME UNIOENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 ****** 42 33 .)*OQX .a0 TRICrtOPTERA (L) 50.00 19.40 1.06 13 .02 ljiPTERn (L) 50.00 1.43 .53 1 .Ol ~5MIPTERA (A) 50.001.06 7.46 5 .02 ?tYHENO?TERB 50.00 1.49 .53 1 .01 IuE~ATODA 50.00 5.97 .53 4 .01 c INSECTA. 50.00 4.43 1.06 3 .oz ' 0IPTEF)P (A) 50.00 59.70 26.46 40 .50 ***e** 26.46 **o** -50 I~INE~AL 50.00 "".."""""" .I TOTPL- 67 1.89

L. m (a)- POULT (E)- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE m (LI- LARVAE *****e- NOT APPLICJ3LE beak

a SITE: HAT CREEK STATION10 04TE: SEPTEWYER 289 1976 LCtdGTH CATEGORY:GREATER THAN 200 iMb! SAWLiSIZE: 2 :.IO. OF EMPTYSTOYACHS: 0

FQEOUENCY UCCIJPREFICE INU~ERICALVOLUHETYIC AC~UAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I (HI (%I NU>lt?ER VOLUME z """"""""-"""""""""""""""""""""."""-""" UNIDENTIFIED100.00ANIMAL ****** .42.33 ***,** .80 TRICdDPTEEA (LI 50.00 19.40 1.06 13 .02 LIIPTEPA (L) 50.00 1.49 .53 1 .Ol m .IrlyIPTERA (4) 50.00 7.46 1.06 5 L 02 HYNENOPTERA 50.00 1-49 .53 1 .01 IuENATODA 50.00.53 5.97 4 -01 INSECT^ 50.00 4.43 1.06 3 .02 OIPTE24 (A) 50.00 59.70 26.46 40 .5a L.:IFiEP?4: 50.00 ****** '26.46 .. """"""""_ ****e .50 TOTAL- 67 1.89

(4)- ADULT (€1 - EMERGENT (NI- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE d IL)- LARVAE ***e**'- NOT iiPPLICASLE beak

SITE:HhT CREEK STATION 14 ' OaTE:SEPTEn8ER 299 1976

LENtiTH" ~ CnTEGOQY:. . ~~ 0-50 MM 51fiPl-t SIZE: 2 NO. OF EMPTYSTOYACHS: 0 a FPEQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUME*ICALVOLUMETRIC AClUAL ACTU4L FOOD ITEM (5) (%) (5) 'Nu~lrlER VOLU!4E c """""""""""""""""""""""""""""-.~"""""" UNIDENTIFIEOANIMAL 100.00 994944 44.44 **a 49 .@4 EPHEMERoPTEHS (N) 50.00 40.00 11.1.1 2 .01 a TttICHOPTERh (L) fO.DO 20.00 11.11 1 .Ol i)IPTEHA(L) 50.00 20.00 11.11 1 .01 OSTilaCCIDA 50.00 20.00 11.11 1 .01 .*lIFIERAL 50.00 a****+ 11.11 """"""""..***** .OL TOTAL- 5 .09

(4)- ADULT (El- EMERGENT . .(N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L) - L4RVAE ****e*- NOT APrLICA6LE . beak

SITE: HAT CHEEK STATION 14 unTE:SEPTEUSER 29, 1975 LEXGTrl C4TESORY: 51-100 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 8 N3. OF EYPTY STOMACHS: 1

FREOUENCY OCCURRENCE NUY ETRIC ACTUAL AtTUAL FOOD ITEM ($1 NUMdER VO1LUME

75.00 ****** 57.45 *Q

(A)- 4DULT (E) - EMERGENT (14) - NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LAKVAE **e***- NOT APPLICPSLE beak

SITE: HAT CiiEEK STATION 14 04TE: SEPTE+IaER 299 1976 LENGTH CATEGORY: 101-150 PIH SWPCE SIZE: 5 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: o

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE WMERICALVOLUnZT41C ACTUAL ACTUAL """""""""""""""""""""""""-""""""""""-FOOD ITEM (31' (a1 (%I VOLUMENUMBER Uo'4IOENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 ****e* 62-96 ***** .34 EPHEVEROPTERA (N) 60.00 67.24 11.11 39 .n6 CdLEOPTERA (L) 60.00 ,13.79 5.56 8 .03 DIPTERa (L1 40.00 3.45' 3.70 2. -02 HYHENOPTERA 40.00 6.90 7.k1 4 .04 d5HATODA 40.00 3.45 3.70 2 .02 TRICHOPTERA IL) 20.00 1.72 ' 1.85 1 .01 PLECOPTERP (N) 20.00 1.72 1.85 1 .Ol COLEOPTERA (A) 20.00 1.72 1.85 1 .Ol ""_."""""" , TOTAL- !j8 .54

(4)- ADULT (El- EMERGENT (N1- NYI.!PH (PI- PCIPAE (L1 - LARVAE *e****- NOT APPLICRBLE beak

,. . SITE:HAT CREEKSTATION 14 OdTE:sEPTE!~BER 29. 1976 LENGTHCATEGORY: 151-200 W S4MPLESIZE: 6 N9. OF EHPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FQEQUEMCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL """""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""-~-FOOD ITEM (n6) (%) (5) NUkYER VOLUME JNIDENTIFIEUANIMAL 100.00 4411444 71.04 *e449 1.30 UIPTERA (L) 100.00 19.49 5.46 23 .10 EPHEMEROPTERA (N) 83.33 8.47 2.73 10 .05 3fPTERA (PI 56.67 22s.88 2.73 27 05 CULEOPTERh (L) 6h.67 22.88 3.28 27 .Ob HYtlENOPTEPA 50.00 17.80 3.28 21 06 ~EMIPTERA(b) 33.33 1-69 1.09 2 .Ot FLECOPTEHA (N) 33.33 2.54 1.09 3 .O2 USTHOCODA 33.33 1-69 1.09 2 .02 TRICHOPTERA (Ll 16.67 65 .55 1 .01 i.rEHATOGA 16.67 .e5 .55 1 .01 OETKITUS 16.67 *4*;r4* .55 a411w4 .01 MINERAL 16.67 9*4*4* 5-46 44*,b4 .10 ARACHNO I OEA 16.67 .8S 1.09 -.""."""""" 1 .02 TOTAL- 118 1.83

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE 4*44**- NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE: H4T CREEK STATION 14 DATE: SEPTEWSER 29. 1976 LC.F!GTH CATEGORY: GREATER TH4N 200 hI4

FREOIJENCY OCCURRENCE NUMEHICAL VOLUMETRIC AC‘Tu4L ACTU4t FOOD ITEM (5) (‘6) (%) NUbldER VOLUME ”””””~”””””””””””””””””””””“““~““””~“” UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 e***** 78.31 ***** 1.30 HEMIF’TER4 (4) 100.00 14.58 6.63 7 .I1 CULEOPTERB IL) 100.00 6.25 1.81 3 .03 TeICHaPTERA(L) 50.00 2.08 .60 1 .Ol uIPTEHP (L) 50.00 4.17 1.20 2 .02 OIPTEHA (PI 50.00 47.92 1.25 25 .92 ilYt4ENOPTERP 50.00 4.17 1.20 -3 .02 NLCI~~TQOA 50.00 10.42 .60 5 .O1 INSECTA 50.00. 4.17 -60 2 .0’1 PLECOPTERA IN) 50.00 2.08 .60 1 .Ol HIrJEFiAL 50.00 **+*** 6. a2 e**** .10 C~LEOPTERA (A) 50.00 ’ 2.08 -60 1 .01 aT\IPLVIA 50.00 2.08 .60 1 .01 ”””“”““”_ TOTAL- 48 1.66

(A) - ADULT (E) - EYERGE’\IT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE IL)- L4RVAE **E***- NOT APPLICABLE I beak

JUNE 1977 e SITE: BONAPARTE RIVERSTATION 1 D4TE:JUNE 149 1477 LENGTH CATEGOHY: 0-50 MH SAMPLE SIZE: 2 bo. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0 1 F?EQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (81 (B) (3a) NUMibER VOLUME """""""""""""""""""""""""""""","""""" U NID EN TIFIEC PNIHALUNIDENTIFIEC 100.00 ****** 22.22 *(bo*.* .02 EPHEMEHOPTERA (N) 100.00 75.00 44.44 9 04 I DIPTERA (L) 100.00 16.67 22.22 2 .02 THICHOPTERd (L) 50.00 8.33 11.11 1 .ai ""","""""- TOTAL- 12 -09 L

(A)- ADULT m (E)- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ***QQ*-NOT APPLICABLE

a beak

SITE: BONPPARTE RIVERSTATION 1 DATE: JUNE 147 1977 .I LENGTH CATEGORY: 51-100 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 2 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUME~ICAL VOLUMETRICACTUAL ACTUAL """""""""~"""""""""-"""""""""""""""""FOOD ITEM (H) (%) (8) VOLUMENUMBER - Q**O** UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 15.38 **OD* .02 EPHEHEROPTEHA (N) 100.00 85.00 69.23 17 09 PLECOPTERA IN) 50.00 15.00 15.38 3. .02 1 """"""""_ TOTAL- 20 .13

(A) - ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (N) - NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE Q**Q**-.NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE: BONAPARTE RIVERSTATION 3 DAT E: JUNEDATE: 141 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 0-50 MW S4MPLE SIZE: 3 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: o

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICbLVOLUYETRIC LCTllAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM 1%) 1%) (%I NUMiIER VOLUME

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""."""""" ~~ ~ UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 c***9* 21.43 ***

(A)- ADULT (€1- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOT APF'LICABLE m

SITE:HAT CREEK STATION 5 S.4TE:JUNE 14, 1477 - L~NGTH CATEGORY: 51-100 MM .SAMPLE SIZE: 8 iNU. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0 P FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUHERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%) (%) (SI NUIIBER VOLUME r -.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".""""""- UVIDENTIFIEOANIMAL 100.00 *Q**** 21.54 &QOQ* 14 EPHEEEROPTERA (N) 75.00 44-09 46.15 41 -30 'I. THICHOPTERA IL) 37.50 8.60 9.23 8 06 OIPTERA (L) 37.6337.50 12.31 3s .OR IVEHATJDA 37.504.62 5.38 5 .03 EFnEHEROPTEH4(€1 12.50 3.23 4.62 3 -03 Q IVSECTA 12.50 1.08 1.54 ""..""""""1 .Ol TOTAL- 93 -65 I

(A) - ADULT (E)- EMERGENT IN)- NYMPH 1P)-PUPAE (L) - LARVAE 1 QQ**QQ-NOT APsLICABLE

a beak

SITE: HATCREEK STATION 5 DATE:JUNE 14, 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 101-150 MY SAMPLE SIZE: 5 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0 il FQEOUENCY OCCUG'RENCE NUMERICALVOLUrlETRIC ACTJAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I ((6) (0s) NUH3ER VOLUME """""""""""""""""""""""""""""-,"""""-" U """""""""""""""""""""""""""""-,"""""-"

UNIOENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 o***o* 28.50 ***BO 1.20 IJIPTERA (L) 10.0.00 27.69 3.56 36 15 TRICHOPTERA (L) 80.00 8.46 2.14 11 09 EPHEMEROPTERA (N) 60.00 44 62 61 -52 58 2.59 NEMATODA 60.00 8.46 71 11 03 PLECOPTERA (N) 40.00 3. ti5 .95 5 .04 il COLEOPTERA (L) 40.00 3.08 1.19 4 .os HYMErlOPTERA 20.00 .77 -24 1 .dl ANNELIDA 20.00.71 .77 1 .03 I AHACHNOIOEA 20.00 .77 -24 1 .Ol D IPTE RA (P) DIPTERA -24 1.54 20.00 . """"""""_ 2 .01 TOTAL- 130 4.21

(A)- ADULT (El - EMERGENT (N)- NYHPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE *O****- NOT APPLICABLE SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 6 DATE:JUNE 16, 1977 rl LENGTHCATEGORY: 51-100 MH SAMPLE SIZE: 10 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0 1 FSEQUENCY OCCURRENCE #UMERIC4L VOLUMETRIC ACTL,AL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I (8) (%I VOLUME NUMEER L ”“”“”””””””“””””””””””””“””””“,”””””“ ”“”“”””””””“””””””””””””“””””“,”””””“ UNIDENTIFIEO ANIMAL 100.00 ****** 33.33 ***** .19 EPHEMEROPTEHA (N) 90.00 56.90 33.33 ‘3 e18 UI?TERA (Ll - 50.00 13.79 11.11 8 06 TRICHOPTERA (Ll 40.00 15.52 12.96 9 .07 .NEMATODA 3.70 20.00 3.45 2 .02 PLECOPTERA LN) 10.00 3.45 2 U 1.85 .01 INSECTA 10.00 1.72 1.85 1 .01 OIPTERA (El1.85 10.00 5.17 3 .Ol ”””,””””“.. TOTAL- E,8 .54

(A) - ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L1.- LARVAE ***e**- NOT APPLICASLE SITE: HATCREEK STATION 6 DATE : JUNEDATE: 169 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 101-150 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 5 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICAL VOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL """"""~"""~""~"""""""""""""""""~.""""""FOOD ITEM (%I (%I (%) WMiiER VOLUME UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 **I)*** 35.09 ***1t* .20 TRIZHOPTERA (L) 100.00 34.21 24.56 I. 3 14 OIPTERA (L) 80.00 36.84 15.79 I. 4 09 EPHEMEROPTERA (N) 60 00 15.79 10.53 6 -06 PLECOPTERA (N) 20.00 2.63 5.26 1 -03 NEMATODA 20.00 1.75 .2.63 1 .01 DIPTERA (E) 20.001.75 5.26 2 .01 MINERAL 20.00 ****** 3.51 ***GI) .02 COLEOPTERb (A) 20.00 1.75 . 2.63 1 .01 """*"""""_ """*"""""_ TOTAL- l'8 .57

(A)- ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH rl (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOTAPPLICABLE

Y SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 6 DATE:JUNE 169 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 151-200 MY SAMPLE SIZE: 3 NJ. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTllAL. ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%’a) (8) (8) NUMtlER VOLUME I ”“”””~””””””””””””””””“”””””~”~..””””“” UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 100*00 ****** 36.00 ***** .la TdICHOPTERA (L) 66.67 5.4.84 36.00 17 .18 m PLECOPTERA IN) 9.6866.67 ’ 8.00, 3 04 EPHEMEROPTE2A (N) 33.33 12.90 6.00 4 .03 DIPTERA (L) 3.23 33.33 2.00 1 .01 NEMATODA 33.33 6.45 2.00 2 .Ol INSECTA 33.33 3.23 2.00 1 .01 HYMENOPTERA 33.33 ‘ 6.45 4.00 2 .02 ARACHNOIDEA 3.23 33.33 4.00 1 .02 m ”“”.”””””- TOTAL- :; 1 .50

(A)- ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ***e**- NOTAPPLICABLE a beak !

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 6 O ATE: JUNEOATE: 169 1977 LENGTH CATEGORY: GREATER THAN 200 MM S4MPLE SIZE: 1 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: o

FREQUENCY OCCURREMCENUMERICAL VOLUYETHIC PCTUAL ACTUAL FOOO ITEM (%) (5) (SI VOLUMENUMYER """""""""_ ,_"""""""""""""""""""""""""" UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 494403 43.48 49949 .10 TAICHOPTERC (L) 100.00 28.57 13.04 2 -03 EPHEMEROPTERA (N) 100.008.70 14.29 I .02 PLECOPTERA (N) 21.7414.29 100.00 1 .OS HYMENOPTERA 100.004.35 14.29 1 .01 COLEOPTERA (A) 100.00 28.57 8.70 """"""""-2 .02 TOTAL-. 7 -23

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (NJ- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)" L4RVAE *a****- NOT APPLICABLE

I I i !

1 beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 7 DATE: JUNE 159 1977 LENGTH CATEGORY: 51-100 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 10 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUHETHIC ACTUALACTUAL """-""""""""""""""""""""""""""..""""""FOOD IT€# (%I 0;) (%I NUM9EQ VOLUME UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 90.00 Q**V** 27.27 **Oil* .I2 EPHEWEROPTERA (N) . 90.00 70.91 34.09 :I 9 15 OIPTERA (L) 30.00 9.09 11.36 S -05 NEMATODA 30.00 7.27 6.82 4 03 TRICHOPTERA (L) 20.00 3.64 6.82 2 -03 PLECOPTERP (N) 20.00 3.64 4.55 2 .02 INSECTA 20.00 3.b4 4.55 2 .02 DIPTERA (P) 1.62 10.00 2.27 1 .01 MINERAL 10.00 ****a* 2.27 """."""""-***S.Q -01 TOTAL- fi 5 .44

(A)- ADULT (€1- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ***e**- NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE: HAT CREEK ST~TION i

DA TE: JUNEDATE: -~15r 1917- ~ LENGTHCATEGORY: 101-150 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 7 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACnS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTIJAL ACTUAL """_""""""""""""""""""""""""""..""""""FOOD ITEM (%I (8) (B) VOLUMENUMI3ER UNIDENTIFIEDANIYAL 100.00 ****** 49-41 ***i~* .47 TRICHOi'TERA (L) 57.14 14.04 7.37 0 -07 PLECOPTERb (N) ' 57.14' 15.79 8.42 9 .08 EPHEMEROPTERA (NI 8.42 33.33 42.86 ,19 .oa DIPTERA (L) 42.863.16 5.26 3 -03 HYHENDPTERA 42.86 10.53 4.21 6 .04 DIPTERA (PI 42.06 8.77 3.16 5 -03 EPHEWEROPTERA (E) 20.57 8.71 10.53 5 .IO ANNELIDA 14.29 1.75 2.11 1 .02 ARACHNOIDEA 14.29 1.75 1.05 1 .01 DETRITUS ****** a**.** 14.29 2.11 ""_."""""" .02 TOTAL- !j7 .95

(AI- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L) - LARVAE ******- NOT APPLICABLE I) beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 7 UATE:JUNE 159 1977 I LENGTHCATEGORY: 151-200 MM S&?iPLE SIZE: 3 N3. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0 m FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM ($1 (5) NUMaER VOLUME m (S) ...... tJNIOENTIFIE0ANIMAL 100.00 ****** 48.87 ***e* 1.08 TRICHOPTERA (L) 66.675 2.26 17.24 05 m EP~EMEROPTERA(N) 33.33 3.45 .45 1 .c1 SIPTERA (L) 33.33 17.24 1.36 . 5 ' ' .c3 33.33 20.69 6 NEMATODA 20.69 33.33 .45 .Ol E7HENEROPTEAA (E) 33.33 34.48 45.25 I 10 1.00 HYMENOPTERA 33.33 3.45 .45 1 .01 MINERAL 33.33 e***** .45 .Ol COLEOPTERA .45(A) 3.45 33.33 """""""".. 1 .01 TOTAL- 29 2.21

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH " (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ****e*- NOT APPLICABLE' beak, ..

SITE: HATCREEK STATION 7’ GATE:JUNE 15, 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: GREATER THAN 200 MM SAMPLESIZE: 1 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICAL VOLUMETRIC ACTL’ALACTUAL “”””””””_“””””””””””””””””“””“.~”““”””FOOD ITEM (%.) ($1 (5) NUMi,ER VOLUHE UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 *44*3* 15.11 *e*** 1.00 TRICHOPTERA (L) 63.64100.00 60.42 2’9 4.00 EPHEYEROPTERA .(N) 24.4736.36 100.00 ””“.”””””_ 1.62 16 TOTAL- 4.4 6.62

(A)- ADULT (E)- EHERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOT APPLICABLE beak

.'SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 10 IJATE: JUNE 169 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 51-100 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 4 k0. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY

OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ' ACTCIAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM 1%)(%I (%I NUM$,ER VOLUME m """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""."""""" DIPTERA (L) 100.00 37.5075.00 2;3 -09 UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 75.00 *****e 29.17 ***a,* 07 EPHEWEROPTERA IN) 9.09 75.00 12.50 4 03 Tk?ICHOPTERA (L) 50.00 4.55 8.33 2 .02 INSECTA 50.00 9.09 0.33 4 .02 WEMATODA 25.004.17 ' 2.27 1 .01 m ""","""""_ TOTAL- 4.4 24

(AI- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N) - NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (Ll- LARVAE ******- NOT APPLICABLE m a a

m beak

SLTE:HAT CREEK STATION 10 DAT E: JUNEDATE: 16, 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 101-150 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 7 r40. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY .. OCCUQRENCE NUMERICALVCLUHETRIC ACTIJAL ACTUAL """""""""""""""-"""""""""""""".""""""-FOOO ITEM (%I (9) (5) NUM13ER VOLUME UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 ****e* 25.95 QQ(r04 2.53 DIPTERA (LI 100.00 47.65 2.26 11 1 .22 THICHOPTEPA (Ll 85-71 7. Oh 1.13 :!2 .ll EPHEHEROPTER4 (N1 05-71 17-06 1.44 i! 9 14 OIPTERA(PI 57.14 4.71 .41 8 04 PLECOPTERA (N) 42.86 2.94 .51 5 -05 LNSECTA 26.57 5.29 9 .31 03 HYMENOPTERA 26.57 2.35 .31 4 -03 ANNELIOA 26.57 7-65 65.64 j.3 6.40 COLEOPTERA (L) 28.57 2.35 -41 4 0.4 MINERAL ' 26 57 60*990 1.23 ***vi* .12 COLEOPTERP (A) 28.57 2 l.1e .21 .02 DDONATA (hi) 14.29 .54 .10 1 .01 HEMIPTERA (A) 14.29 1.18 .IO 2 .01 ""_ .."_ """" TOTAL- 1i'O 9.75

(AI- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE fL)- LARVAE ***e**- NOT APrLICABLE beak

I SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 10 UATE: JUNE 16, 1977 0 LENGTHCATEGORY: 151-200 MM SAWLE SIZE: 3 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

I FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMEHIC4LVOLUMETRIC ACTLJAL ACTUAL """""-"""""-""""""""""""""""""".""~"""~FOOD ITEM (S) (%) (16) NUMi3ER VOLUME Ui4IDENTIFIEDANIHAL 100.00 ooff*ffo 17.95 ooooo 1.70 OIPTERA(L) 1.2743.06 100.00 3 1 .12 CF'HEMEROPTERA3.33 (N) 6.94 66.67 5 .32 - I-VYMENOPTEAA 66.67 2.73 .21 2 .02 T3ICHOPTERP IL) 33.33 8.33 32 6 .03 ?LECOPTERE (N) 4.17 33.33 2.22 3 .21 I NEMATODA 33.33 1 e39 .ll 1 .01 Ii'!SECTA 1.39 33.33 .I1 1 .01 AirNELIDA 33.33 73.92 25.00 18 7.00 OIPTERA IP) I 33.33 2.73 .ll 2 .01 MINER4L 1.39 33.33 '.21 1 .02 COLEOPTERA (4) 33.33 1.39 .ll 1 001 . iJIPTERA (4) 33.33 1.39 .ll 1 .Ol .. ""","""""- TOTAL- 12 9.47

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L) - LARVAE ***Q**- NOT APPLICABLE beak ..

SITE:HAT CREEK STATION 10 OhTE: JUNE 169 1977 LENGTHCATEGDRY: GREATER THAN 200 MM SAMPLESIZE: 5 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERIC AL VOLUMETR ICACTUAL ACTUAL """""""""""""""""""""""""""""".""""""FOOD ITEM (8) ('6) (%) NUMFIER VOLUME UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 QQ**** 8-65 a**#.* 1.97 EPHEHEROPTERA (N) 60.00 6.55 26 6 -06 PLECOPTERA (Nl 60.001.36 3.30 3 .31 NEMATODA 60.00 16-49. . .18 15 -04 COLEOPTERA (L) 60.00 3.30 a79 3 .I8 TRICHOPTERA (L) 40.00 2.20 .09 2 .02 DIPTERA (L) 40.00 8.79 26 8 05 INSECTA 40.00 3.30 13 3 .03 ANNELIOA 40.00 45.45 87.80 45 20.00 DIPTERA (P) 20.00 5.49 -04 5 .01 COLEOPTERA (A) 20.00 1.10 .44 1 .10 ""","""""_ ""","""""_ T@TPL- 51 22.78

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH ('P)- PUPAE (L)" LARVAE *QQ*Q*-NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE': HATCREEK STATION 14

DATE: JUNE 15,~ 1977 L LENGTHCATEGORY: 0-50 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 1 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: o

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCENUMERICAL VOLUMETRIC 4CTUAL' ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (81 (%I (S) NUMBER VOLUME I ...... UNILJENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 099U04 50.00 0&U9 b 001 EPHE?lEROPTERA (N) 100.00 100.00 50.00 2 .Ol """ ,"_ """" 4 TOTAL- ,-> .oz

(AI- ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (Nl- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (Ll- LARVAE ******- NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE: HATCREEK STATION 14 OATE:JUNE 15, 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 51-100 MM SAMPLESIZE: 6 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FQEOUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICbLVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL ”“””””””_””””””””””””””“””””””..””“”“”FOOD ITEM (SJ (B) (8) NUMEfER VOLUME EPHEMEHOPTERA (N) 100.00 16.8711.76 1.4 .lo UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL R3.33 4****0 20.7s *OO

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT

(L)- LARVAE ***Q**- NOT APDLICABLE 'SITE: HATCREEK STATION 14 O AT€: JUNEOAT€: 151 1977 LEr4GTHCATEGORY: 101-150 HM SAMPLESIZE: 4 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICPLVOLUMETRIC b,CTUAL ACTUAL L FOOD ITEM (8) ($1 (SI hlUMaER VOLUME """""""""""""-""""""""""""""",""""-""" """""""""""""-""""""""""""""",""""-""" UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 *Y***4 20.00 (I,**** .12 .TRICHOPTERA 3.23(L) 100.00 6.67 5 -04 EPHEMEROPTERA15 15.00(N) 9.68 100.00 -09 UIPTEHA (L) 1oo.uo . 74.84 36.67 116 .22 INSECTA 6.45 75.00 . 6.67 10 .01 li FLECOPTERA (N)3.33 3.23 25.00 5 .02 NEMATODA 25.001.67 .65 1 .01 HYMENOPTERA 25.00 65 1.67 1 .01

BHACklNOIDEA . , 25.00 -65 1.67 1 .01 * (P) UIPTERA 25.00 .65 1.67 1 .01 UETRITUS 25.00 **044* 5.00 ".."""""""o**o* -03 TOTAL- 15s -60

[A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE ('L) - LARVAE ****4b- NOT APPLICAdLE beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 14 DATE:JUNE lfr 1977 m LENGTH CATEGORY: 151-200 YM SAMPLE SIZE: 3 NU. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: o

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICAL VOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL

...... Ui

(AI- ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PJ-PUPAE (L)- LARVAE *++****-NOT APF'LICABLE f beak

AUGUST 1977 beak

c SITE: BONAPPRTE RIVER STATION I .L)4TE: AUGUST 39 1977 LENGTHCATEGO2Y: 151-200 MM S4MPLESIZE: 2 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FREOUENCY il. OCCURRENCE NUME*ICI\L.VOLUHETF(IC ACTUAL ACTUAL """""""""""""""""""""""~""""""-.."""""-FOOD ITEM (SI (61 ( 5.) NUM5I:R VOLUME I EPHEMEROPTERA (N) 100.00 4.60 2.96 12 .09 UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 *I)**** 5.26 *V**1) -16 T3ICHOPTERA (L) 100.00 67.74 79.26 22'3 2.41 I~INERAL 50.00 ****** 6.56 ****ib .20 I HYHEWPTERA 50.00 1.53 -1.32 4 04 COLEOPTERP (A) 50.00 4.21 3.2Y 1 :. .10 NEMATGDA 50.00 .77 .33 i1 .Ol I h!?ACHNOIDEA 50.00 .38 .33 I. .Ol DIPTERA(L) 50.00 -38 .33 1 .01 PLECOPTERP (N) 50.00 .38 .33 I. .01 ! """-.""""" I TOTAL- 261. 3.04

(At- ADULT (E)-' EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L) - LARVAE e*****- NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE:~ONAPARTE RIVER ST~TION 3 OATE: AUGUST 39 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 151-200 MM SYPLE SIZE: 2 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

F2EOUENCY OCCURUENCE NUMEI?ICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL """""""""""""""""""""""""""""".."""""-FOOD ITEM (8) (Val. (%I VUbtB€:R VOLUME HYYENOPTERA 100.00 55.85 29.41 7 6 .30 COLEOPTERA (A) 100.00 27.21 22.55 3 7 -23 UNIDENTIFIELJANIMAL 100.00 *****I1 17.bS ****(I .18 dIPTERA (Ll 1oo.co 7.84 6.62 0 .oa EPHEWEROPTERA (N) 50.00 5.~3 9.80 8 .10 NEhATOG4 50.00 .74 .99 .01 TdICHOPTEHA (L) 50.00 .74 .98 .o 1 1;dSECTS. 50.00 2.21 5.88 :3 .06 030HATA IN) 50.00 .-(4 2.94 .03 UNIDENTIFIEDPLANT 50.00 *****a 1.96 """."""""****ir .02 TOTAL- 1315 1.02

(A)- ADULT (El - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE fL)- LARVPE ******- NOT APPLICASLE SITE: HATCREEK STATION 5 OaTE: AUGUST 39 1977 LENGTH CATEGORY: 0-50 "4 1 S4MPLE SIZE: 1 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 1

c FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICPLVOLUMETRIC ncTU.2~ ACTUAL ""~"""~"""""""~""""""""""""""""-.."""""-.FOOD ITEM (%I (%I (8) UUMBIIR VOLUME """.""_ """ TOTAL- 0 0.

(AI- AOULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH I (0)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOT APPLICAdLE - a beak

I) SITE:HAT CREEK STATION 5 UATE: AUGUST 39 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 51-100 M'4 1 SAMPLE SIZE: 1 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FDEQUENCY OCCURRENCEnlUMERICAL VOLUMETFiIC ACTU,4L ACTUAL -""""~-"""""""""""-"""""""""~""""~"""""FOOD ITEM (%I (5, (5) NUMBER VOLUME EP!iEMEi?OPTEHA (N) 100.00 so.00 37-50 '3- -03 UN IOE NT IFIED 4NIMALUNIOENTIFIED 100.00 *4**i* 25.00 *e** # .02 UIPTERA (L) 100.00 40.00 25.00 ,$ .02 PLECOPTEr7A (h') 12.50 10.00100.00 I 1 .01 """.""_ """ TOTAL- 1'3 .08

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P) - PUPPE (L)- LARVAE QQ****-NOT APPLIC4BLE 1 beak

1 SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 5 UATE: AUGUST 39 1911 LCNGTtiCATEGORY: 101-150 MM I SAMPLE SIZE: 4 NO. OF EHPTYSTOMPCHS: 0

il FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICAL VOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL ””””””“”””””””””””””””“““”””””..”””“”-FOOD ITEM (8) (‘6) (8) NUMRER VOLUME NEMATODA 100.00 50.00 21.14 10 -05 UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 U***QQ 43.43 ****** .lo DIPTERA (Ll 15.00 25.00 13.04 !j -03 ‘a EPi-lEMEROPTEPC (N) 25.00 10.00 4.35 t- .01 HYMENOPTERA 25.00 13.00 8.70 2 .02 PLECOPTEHA (Nl 25.00 5.00 8.70 ”””.”””““- .l .02 TOTAL- 2 I! .23

(6.)- ADULT (El- EYERGENT IN) - NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOT ‘APPLICABLE beak

SITE: HATCREEK STATION 5 DATE: AUGUST 31 1977 LENGTH CATEGORY: 151.-200 MM SAMPLE SITE: 1 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURREWENUMEHICAL VOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I ('dl (81 NUMdE:R VOLUME """""""""""""-"""""""""""""""""."""""- .e HYMENOPTERA 100.00 33.33 15.79 I .06 CLILEOPTERS (El 100.00 14.29 5.26 Ii .02 UVIDENTIFIEDANIYAL 100.00 *e**** 21.05 ****+ .oe ARACHNDIOEA 100.00 4.76 15.79 1 06 IxS EC T4 .100.00 IxSECT4 23-61 15.79 5 06 ANNELIDb 1oa.00 4.76 15.79 I -06 HEMIPTERA (PI 100.00 . 4.76 2.63 1 .01 COLEOPTERA tL1 100.00 14.29 7.89 . :I 03 """*.""""" TOTAL- 21 .38

(AI- ADULT (El - EMERGENT (Nl-.. NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE *****e- NOT APPLICABLE SITE: HATCREEK STATION 6 DATE: 4UGUST 39 1977 LEIUCTH CATEGORY: 0-50 MM SAMPLESIZE: 3 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: o

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTU4L ACTUAL FOOD ITEM ('6) (5) (%) VOLUME NUMk4ITR ...... EPHEMEHOPTEHA (N) 100.00 71.88 53.85 2.3 .O? UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 66.67 e4QQQQ 15.38 ****., .02 DIPTERA (L) 66.6730.77 28.13 '? .04 ""","""""_ ""","""""_ TOTAL- 3? 13

(A)- ADULT (€1 - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE *****Q- NOT APPLICABLE SITE: HATCHEEK STATION 6 I)ATE: AUGUST 39 1977 LENGTii CAT-EGOHY: 51-100 MM S~M~LESIZE: 4 GO. OF EkIPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMEI~IC~LVOLUMETRIC ~CTUIILACTUAL """"""""""""""""""""""""""""~"-.."""""-FOOD ITEM (%J f%l (81 VOLUMENUHSER EPHEWEROPTERA IN) 100.00 33.33 21 -43 10 9 04 Ud.IDENTIFIEU ANIMAL 100.00 *e**** 25.00 *e**<> .07 DIPTERA (L) 33.3375.00 17.86 1 I) .05 THICHOPTEPA (L) 75.00 13.33 14.29 I+ .04 HYMEkOPTEPA 25.00 6.67 7.14 2 .02 NEMCTODA 25.00 3.33 3.57 :1 .01 'a 42ACHNOIOEA 25.00 6.67 3.57 I_ .01 XPlSECTA 25.00 3.33 7.14 '1 .02 """,.""""" TOTAL- 3 11 20

(A) - ADULT (€1 - EMERGENT. (Nl- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (LI - LARVAE I ******- NOT APPLICABLE beak

I SITE: hAT CREEK STATION 6 DATE:AUGUST 39 1977 LENGTH CATEGORY: 101-150 MM a SAMPLE SIZE: 6 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

I FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMEHIC4L VOLUYETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (oc) (%I (a) NUMtlER VOLUME ~““””””””””~””””””””””””””””””””~””””~ .. UNIUEMTIFIEDANIMPL 100.00 os**** 36.17 **YO* 17 TXICHOPTERA’ IL) 100.00 21.2827.03 10 .I 0 EPHEMEROPTERA6.S1 (hi) 21.62 66.67 8 .04

I HlMENO?TER4 33.33 13.51 6.38 5 . .03 INSECTA 33.33 8.11 8.51 3 .04 (4INERAL 16.67 ****** ~ 6.38 ***** .03 NEMATDOA 16.67 2.70 2.13 ‘1 .Ol m DIPTEHA(Ll 16.676.38 21.62 8 .03 PLECUPTE2A2.13 (N) 2.70 16.67 1 .Ol .COLEOPTERA (L)2.13 2.70 16.67 1 .01 - ”“””””””_ TOTAL- 37 .47

- (A)- ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (N) - NYMPH il (PI- PUPAE (Ll- LARVAE *****4- NOT APPLICASLE

S .. . . m

beak .. a

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 6 OATE: AUGUST 39 1977 LEEIGTH CATEGORY: 151-200 b” SA+lPLE SIZE: 4 NO& OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

F~EQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUYETfiIC ACTUI~L ACTU4L “””””“””“”””””””””””””””””””””.””””””FOOD ITEM ($1 (B) (si) NUMBER VOLUME UNIDtNTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 ****** 25.93 9999iF .28 1,gSECTA 100.00 36.73 24.01 36 .26 HYMENOPTERA 75.90 15.31 12.04 1 !j 13 COLEOPTERA (F) 75.00 19.39 12.96 1 9 .14 TdICl+OPTERL (L) 75.90 .12.24 10.19 1 ;! .ll DIPTERA (Ll 50.00 10.20 4.63 1 0 .os EPHE~~EROPTERA(N) 25.00 1.02 .93 :L .01 MINERAL 25.00 QU9999 2.7a 94941, -03 NEMATODA 25.00 1.02 .93 1 .01 PLECO?TERA (VI 25.00 3.06 4.63 ;3 .05 F‘LECOPTERC (El 25.00 1.02 .93 ””“.”””””- ,L .Ol TOTAL- 1.089.3

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (Nl- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LhQVAE ******- NOT APPLICPYLE ......

I SITE: HATCHEEK STATION 6 DATE: AUGUST 31 1377 . LEi4GT.l CATEGORY: GREATERTHAN 200 MM I S4MPLE SIZE: 1 Nil. OF EMPTY STOYACHS: 0 .. FREOUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC PCTUPL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I (%I (&I NUMBER VOLUME ...... I MINEljAL 100.00 ****** 42.55 **e** .20 HYMErlOPTEPA 1oo.ao10.64 26.09 6 .as NEMATODA [email protected] 4.35 2.13 1 .01 - U~~JIDENTIFIECAEIIMAL 100.00 *****i) 12.77 ****Q -06 PLECOPTERP (hi) 100.00 13.04 10.64 3 .os I!.ISECTA 100.00 56.52 21.28, """"""""-13 .IO I TOTAL- 23 .47

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)-' PUPAE (L)- LARVAE **e***- NOT APPLICABLE heak

SITE: 'HAT CREEK STATION 7 OATt: PUGUST 59 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 0-50 MM AMPLE SIZE: 2 ~9.OF Ewrr STOHPCHS: o

FREOUEMCY OCCURRENCE NURERICALVOLUMETRIC 4CTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM ($1 (a1 (%I NUMYER VOLUME ...... EPHEMEROPTERG (N) 100.00 69-23 50.00 c) .06 UNIDENTIFIEDP.NIYAL 100.00 *oo*u+ 41-67 o*o*o .os OIPTERA (L) 50.00 30.77 8.33 """"""""_ 4 .01 TOTAL- 13 .I2

(AI- ADULT (€1- EMERGENT (N) - NYMPH -\ (PI- .PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ****e*- NOT APPLICABLE m (I SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 7 OAT€: AUGUST 5, 1977 LEbGTHCATEGDRY: 51-100 MM I S.A.WLE SIZE: 8 MI. OF EMPTY STOMAC~~S: 0

II FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUALACTUAL """""""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""-----FOOD ITEM (sa) (%) (6) VOLUME NUMBER 1 UflIDENTIFIE3 AhlIMAL 100.00 e?***** 16.29 **4** .29 THICHOPTERD (LI 100.00 34.69 32.02 .57 91 E?HE+EROPTERA (N) 87-50 44.3s 34.52 110 .65 w DIPTERA (L) 75.00 . 15.32 . 11.24 3e- .20 PLECOPTERb (N) 37.50 1.21 2.25 I- .04 NLNJTODP 25.00 1.21 1.12 - .02 DIPTERA(PI 1.21 .S6 - .O1 I 12.50 . """-.""""" TOT~L- 24t, 1.78 r

(AI- ADULT (El - EMERGENT tN)- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE *****e- .NOT APPLIC4BLE 1 beak

5ITC:HAT CREEK STATION 7 OAT€: PUGUST 5, 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 101-150 HM SAMF'LE SIZE: 6 No. OF EMPTYSTOYACHS: 0

I FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUALACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I (%) ('51 NUFBER VOLUME ^""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""" I) EPHEMEHOPTERI (Nl 100.00 . 42.48 57.61 96 1.55 TdICHOPTERA (Ll 100.00 23.3342.92 97 .63 U'4IDENTIFIED ANILIAL 83.33 ***4Qe 9.63 *Q**Q -26 Ir UIPTERA (L) 50.00 9.73 4.44 22 .12 NEMATODA 33.33 1.33 .74 3 .02 DIPTERA (PI 33.33 1.33 .74 3 .02 HINERAL 16.67 ***UQ* 1.85 .*9*QQ .os tiYHENOPTERA 16.67 ' .44 .37 1 '.01 COLEOPTERP (A) 16.67 .44 .37 .1 .01 PLECOPTERA (N) 16.67.37 .44 1 .Ol IiVSECTA 16.67 .44 .37 1 .01 TRIC~OPTEPC (PI 16.67.37 .44 """"""""_ 1 01 TOTAL- 225 2.70 U

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYFPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE **Q***- NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE: HATCREEK STATION 7 DATE: AUGUST 5,1977 LENGTi CATEGORY: 151-200 YH SAMPLE SIZE: 4 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0 '

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERIC9LVOLUHETHIC ACTUAL ACTUAL "_""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~FOOD ITEM (%I (%) (%I NUMBER VOLUME EPHEMEROPTERA (N) 100.00 5.95 9.31 47 .27 U,qIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 Q&&QQ* 9.31 QOPO9 -27 TRICHOPTEF!~ (L) 100.00 17.72 32.41 140 .94 HYHENOPTERA 75.00 2.65 4.48 21 .I3 'INSECTA 75.00 7.22 10.00 57 -29 MINiRAL. 50.00 *&O*QQ 1.38 **Q** .04 NEMATODA 50.00 .25 .6J 2 .02 OIPTERA (L) 50.00 5.19 5.86 41 .17 . PLECOPTERA (.N) 50.00 -51 2.41 4 -07 DIPTEeA (P) 50.00 63 1.03 5 03 COLEOPTERA (A) 25.00 -25 -69 2 . .02 HEMIPTERA (A) 25.00 .13 .34 1 .01 COLEOPTERA (L) ?5.00 -25 1.03 2 -03 OETRITUS 25.00 *&OQ** .34 **OQ* .01 25.00 59.24 20.69 OSTRACODA """"""""-, 460 -60 TOTAL- 790 2.90

(AI- ADULT (€1- EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE *QQ**Q-NOT APPLICAaLE SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 7 DATE: AUGUST _.5. -1977 . LENGTH CATEGORY: GREATEPTHAN zoo ti^ SAM?LE SIZE: 2 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

1 FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL . FOOD ITEM (%I (%) (06) W*16E'? VOLUME """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""~,""~""" EPHEPEROPTERA (N) 100.00 2.31 .53 4 .02 HYNfNOPTERA 100.00 13.87 6.65 24 .21 COLEOPTEHC (AI 100.00 1.73 .95 3 .03 NEt+ATODA 100.00 2.. 3 1 .95 4 .03 UNIUEWTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 OQQ**Q 7.25 ***e* -23 THICHOPTERA (L) 100.00 9.83 6.01 17 -19 PLECOPTERA (N)3.47 100.00 4.11 6 .13 INSECTA 100.00 63.01 39.87 109 1.26 MIWEHAL 50.00 ' ****** 31.65 ****e 1.00 ,- UIPTERA (L) 50.00 .58 .32 1 .01 I.. HEMIPTEFlA (A) 50.00 .58 .32 1 .01

COLEOPTERA (i) 50.00 ' 1.16 .53 2 .02 PLECOPTERA (E) 50.00 .58 .32 1 .01 EPHEMEROPTERC (E) 50.00 ~56 .32 1 .01 """-.""""" TOTAL- 173 3.16

(A)- PDULT (El - EMERGENT (Nl- NYMPH 1 (PI- PUPAE IL) - LARVAE *yo***- NOT'APPLICAELE beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION10 04TE: AUGUST 5. 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 0-50 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 1 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

1 FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAI. ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (8) (X) (k) NUMREI? VOLUME """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""-,"~"""" EPHEMEROPTERA (N) 100.00 66.57 40.00 4 .02 ****99 UrdIDC&TIFlED ANIMAL ' 100.00 20.00 *o**ff .a1 DIPTERA(L) 100.00 16.67 20.00 1 .01 W TRICHOPTERA (LI 100.00 1b.67 20.00 """-."- 1 """_ .01 TOTAL- 6 -05

(AI- ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (NI- NYMPH (PI- PLIPAE (Ll- LARVAE ****e*- NOT APPLICABLE W a beak

SITE:hAT CHEEK STATION 10 UATE:AUGUST , 5, 1977 LENtiTHCATEGORY: 51-100 MM !YAWLESIZE: 8 PiO. OF.EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAI. ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%) (%I (5) NUMBEI? VOLUME """"""""""""""""""""""~"""""""","""""~ kiHEHEROPTEA&.35(N) 55 26.92 28.50100.00 U;'JIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 99YY09 17.69 I709911 .23 DIPTERA (L) 100.00 29.23 46.63 9n .38 62 .50 12.31 17 .16 17 COLEOPTERA.(L) 12.31 62.50 8.81 9IPTERA(P) 62.50.09 8.2916 6.92 THICHOPTERA (L) 37.50 2.07 3.08 4 .04 PLECOPTERP IN1 25.002,31 1.55 3 -03 USTRACOOA 1.54 25.00 4.15 8 .02 """_,""""" TOTAL- 193 1.30

(A) - ADULT (€1- EMERGENT (N)- NYYPH beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 10 DATE:4UGUST 59 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 101-150 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 6 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC .ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (%I (8) (%I NUMBER VOLUME ...... UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 ****** 14.2? DIPTERA(L1 100.00 47.06 12.32 72 -25 EPiiEMEROPTERA (N) 66.h7 15.03 8.87 23 .18 THICHOPTERA (L) 66.67 3.94 7.19 11 .08 ObTXhCODA 50.00 2.96 9.90 15 -06 COLEOPTERA (4) 33.33 1.48 1.96 3 .03 PLECOPTERA (N) 33.33 1 e96 1.40 3 -03

COLECPTERA (L) 33.33 1.31 .99 2 ' .02 MINERAL 16.67 *****e 49.26 ***** 1.00 HYMENOPTERA 16.67 -65 .49 1 .01 NENATOOA 16.67 2.61 .99 4 .02 INSECTE 16.67 -65 .49 1 .01 UIPTEHA(P) 16.67 2.46 11.76 """"""""_ 18 .05 TOTAL- 153 2.03.

(A) - ADULT (E) - EMERGENT (N)- NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE:HAT CREEK STATION 10 OA rE : AUGUST 5, 1977 LE~liTilCATEGORY: 151-200 YM 54MPLE SIZE: 4 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACFS: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICAL VOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOO ITEM (%) (%) ('6) NUMaER. VOLUME ...... E.PHE&ROPTERA (N)10.16 44.72100.00 55 .37 U~VIUENTIFIEDANIMAL 100.00 ****so 4.95 **e** .19 3IPTtRA (L) 100.003.02 17.07 21 .ll TRICHUPTERA LL) 10.57 100.00 3.30 .12 13 NEMATODA2.44 75.00 .R2 3 .03 PLECOPTERP (N) 75.0C 5.22 4.88 6 19 'NINERAL so. 00 ***U*ir 28.02 ***a* 1.02 OSTHACODA 50.00 a. 94 1.10 11 .04 HYMENOPTERA 25.00 2.44 .55 3 .02 1:VSECTA 25.00 .8l .27 1 .01 COLEOPTERA (L) 25.00 .81 .27 1 .01 DIP TEH A (P) DIPTEHA 7.32 25.00 1.10 9 .04 OET~~ITUS 25.00 **.*s** 41.21 """"""""_ ***** 1.50 TOTAL- 123 3.64

(A)- ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (Nl- NYMPH (PI- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE ******- NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE: HATCREEK STATION 10 . DATE: AUGUST 5, 1977 LENGTH CATEGORY: GREATER THAN 2013 MM SAMPLE SIZE: 3 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FREQUENCY I OCCUQRENcENUMERXCAL VOLUMETRIC ACTUL,L ACTUAL """"""""~""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""-FOOD ITEH (8) (56) (8) NUM8E:R VOLLJHE UNIDENTIFIEDCNIMAL 100.00 **c*** 17.86 ****U. .os DIPTEHA(P) 100.00 . 28.57 10.71 €' 03 OIPTERA (L) 66.6710.71 28.57 el -03 EPHEflEROPTERA (.N) 33.33 14.29 10.71 :I 03 .m .HYMENOPTERA 33.33 4.76 3.57 1 .Ol COLEOPTERA (A) 33.33 4.76 3.57 I .01 NEMATODA 33.33 4.76 3.57 I. .01 m THICHOPTEPA (L) 33.33 4.76 3.57 I. .01 INSECTA 33.337.14 9.52 i! .02 ," UNIDENTIFIEDPLANT ***9** 28.57 . ****(I .08 33.33 """..""""" u- TOTAL- 2 I. .28

I beak

rl SITE:hAT CREEK STATION 14 DATE: AUGUST 4, 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: GREATEP THAN 200 PM I SA.nlPLE SIZE: .3 NO, OF EMPTYSTOMACHS: 0

FSEQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICALVOLUMETRIC ACTUAI- ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (556) (%I (%I NUMSEI? VOLUME ””“”””””””“”””“”””””””””””--””-”““”””- HYMENOPTERA 17 100.0012.73 15.74 14 UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL 100.00 ****Q* 25.45 **us* .28 DIPTERA (L) 100.00 41.67 20.00 45 .22 INSECTA 100.00 31.48 20.00 34 .22 EPHEMEROPTERA (N) 66.67 1.85 1.82 2 .02 CL~LEWTEHA(L) 2.78 66.67 2.73 3 03 UETHITLJS 66.67 Q+Q4Q4 13.64 EQ44Q .15 COLEOPTERA (A) 33.33 1.85’ 1.82 2 .02 ARACHNOIDEA 33.33 .93 -91 1 .Ol OIPTEe4 (PI 3.70 33.33 .91 4 .Ol ””””””””- TOTAL- 109 1.10

(A)- ADULT (€1- EMERGENT 1N)-NYMPH (P)- PUPAE (L)- LARVAE **Q*Q9- NOT APPLICAJLE heak

SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 14 UATE: AUGLJST 49 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY: 101-150 VM SAMPLESIZE: 5 NO. OF EMPTYSTOMAC3S: 0

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICAL VOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTUAL FOOD ITEM (e) (6) (%) NUMdER VOLUME ...... UIPTEHA(L) 100.00 70.45 31.25 31 15 OI.JIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 80.00 900949 -35.42 *Quo* .17 LPHEMEROPTEHC (N) 40.006.25 11.36 5 .03 UIPTERA(PI 40.00 4.55 4.17 2 .02 4990QQ IMINERAL 20.00 10.42 49094 05 YYMENOPTEPA 20.30 9.09 13.33 4 a 04 ARACHNOIDEA 20.00 2.21 2.08 '1 .01 COLEOPTERA (L) 20.00 2.27 2.08 """_."""""1 .Ol TOTAL- 44 48

(A)- ADULT (E) - EMERGENT - SITE: HAT CREEK STATION 14 . DATE: AUGUST 4, 1977 LEFiGTHCATEGORY: 151-200 MM * 5AHPLE SIZE: 6 NO. OF EMPTY STOMACHS: 0

FQEQUENCY a OCCURRENCE NUMEHIC4L VOLUMETRIC ACTUAL ACTLJAL FOOD ITEM (%) (8) (%) NUMdER VOLUME ”””””””””””””“”””-”””””””“”””””””“”“- w HYMENOF‘TERA 83.33 14.00 4.80 21 -19 UNIDENTIFIEDANIMAL 83.33 QeQQQQ 7.58 *OQQO ’ .30 UIPTEHA (C) 81 53.33 13.64 54.00 .54 INSECTA ,50.00 14.67 4.80 22 . -19 .I CULEOPTERA (L) 50.00 5.33 26.52 8 1.0s EPP~EMEROPTERA (N)1.33 33.3-3 -51 2 .a2 PLECOPTEflA (VI 33.33 3.33 1.26 5 .05 II UIPTERA3.33 (PI 33.33 -76 5 03 41NED4L 16.67 QOQOOQ .7b e**** . .03 COLEOPTERA (aI 16.67 2.00 76 3 .03 4!?&CHNOIOEI 14.67 -67 .25 1 .Ul - T+?ICYOPTER4 (L) 16.67 -25 67 1 .01 PLECOPTEHA (E) .b7 16.67 -25 1 .01 .. OETR ITUS 16.67 O**O*Q 37.98 ”””_.”””””*QQQ* 1.50 TOTAL- 150 3.96

(A) - ADULT (El - EMERGENT (N1- NYMPH (P) -. PUPAE (L) - LARVAE Q*QQ*Q-NOT APPLICABLE beak

SITE: HAT CREEK STaTION 14 OATE: AUGUST 49 1977 LENGTHCATEGORY : 51-100 " SPHPLESIZE: 7 NU. OF EMPTY ST ONACHS: 1

FREQUENCY OCCURRENCE NUMERICAL VOLUMETRIC AcTUA,- ACTUAL FOOD ITEV (SI (b) (%) NUMBEI? VOLUME """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""-,"""""-

UNIOENTIFTEDANIMAL 85.71 **Q*** 22.41 ***QQ .13 DIPTERA (L1 57 If4 86-51 60.34 79 .35 CPHENEROPTERA IN) 42.86 9.55 12.07 9 .07 '78 ICHOPTERA (L1 14.29 1.10 1 .?2 1 .Ol PLECOPTERA (N) 14.29 1.10 1.72 1 .01 CLADOCERA 14.29 3.10 1.72 -"""..""""-1 .01 TOTAL- 91 :5a

(A) - ADULT (E)- EMERGENT (NI- NYMPH (?I- PUPAE (L) - LARVAE **+*'OQ- NOT APPLICABLE