lower columbia river water use plan lower columbia river...

Report Date: June 30, 2010

Lower Columbia River Water Use Plan Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life

History Assessment Reference: CLBMON-43 Year 1 Report (2009) Study Period: February – November 2009 Rachel Keeler MSc., R.P.Bio.

Louise Porto MSc., R.P.Bio. Crystal Lawrence BSc.

AMEC Earth & Environmental Suite 203 601 Front St. Nelson, BC V1L 4B6

Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) – Final Report

2009 Report

Prepared for BC Hydro – Kootenay Generation Area Castlegar, BC by AMEC Earth & Environmental Burnaby, BC June 2010 VE51872

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER SCULPIN AND DACE LIFE HISTORY ASSESSMENT (CLBMON-43)

2009 FINAL REPORT

Prepared for

BC Hydro

by

AMEC Earth & Environmental

Suite 203, 601 Front St.

Nelson, BC

V1L 4B6

June 2010

File: VE51872

AMEC File: VE51872 -i-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Columbia River Water Use Plan Consultative Committee identified that limited information was available to assess the potential impacts of seasonal operations of Hugh L. Keenleyside (HLK) Dam on endangered sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River (LCR). Due to the challenges with studying rare and endangered species, Year 1 of this program was focused within the Similkameen watershed (an unregulated system) because it contained high numbers of Columbia sculpin, a SARA-listed Species of Special Concern and target species for this program, compared to the LCR. Information collected in Year 1 included seasonal and diel movement and habitat use patterns, spawn and hatch timing, and limited larval habitat use. Species studied in Year 1 included Columbia, torrent and prickly sculpin. Limited observations were collected on longnose dace and Umatilla dace were not present within this watershed. Methods used were successful in assessing sculpins life history. However, low numbers of dace precluded conclusions on our techniques applicability for this species. Subsequent studies in the LCR will provide additional information on target species, which will be compared to observations from the unregulated system studied in Year 1.

AMEC File: VE51872 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageEXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................I

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................................11.2 BC Hydro’s Study Objectives and Key Management Questions......................................................51.3 Year 1 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................6

2.0 METHODS........................................................................................................................................6

2.1 Index Site Selection..........................................................................................................................62.1.1 Similkameen River Watershed....................................................................................................72.1.2 Columbia River Watershed .........................................................................................................82.2 Sampling Timing.............................................................................................................................102.3 Index Site Habitat Sampling ...........................................................................................................122.3.1 Discharge ..................................................................................................................................122.3.2 Water Temperature ...................................................................................................................132.4 Capture Methods & Sampling Techniques.....................................................................................132.5 Fish Sampling.................................................................................................................................152.6 Fish Processing ..............................................................................................................................162.7 Individual Marking...........................................................................................................................162.7.1 Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) ......................................................................................162.7.2 Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) ................................................................................................172.8 Monitoring Movement and Micro-Habitat Use................................................................................182.8.1 Tracking Efficiency ....................................................................................................................192.8.2 Detection Success.....................................................................................................................192.9 Nest Assessments..........................................................................................................................202.10 Young-of-the-Year (YOY) Sampling...............................................................................................202.11 Diel Sampling .................................................................................................................................202.12 Analyses .........................................................................................................................................212.12.1 Habitat & Water Conditions .......................................................................................................212.12.2 Abundance and Recapture Rates .............................................................................................212.12.3 Life History.................................................................................................................................212.12.4 Movements & Microhabitat Use ................................................................................................21

3.0 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................22

3.1 Site Habitats ...................................................................................................................................223.1.1 Similkameen River Watershed..................................................................................................223.1.2 Columbia River Watershed .......................................................................................................303.2 Environmental Conditions...............................................................................................................333.2.1 Discharge ..................................................................................................................................333.2.2 Water Temperature ...................................................................................................................353.3 Fish Sampling.................................................................................................................................373.3.1 Similkameen Watershed ...........................................................................................................373.3.2 Columbia River Watershed .......................................................................................................453.4 Tagging Data ..................................................................................................................................533.4.1 Tagging Mortality.......................................................................................................................563.5 Detection Data................................................................................................................................563.5.1 Tracking Efficiency ....................................................................................................................563.5.2 Detection Success.....................................................................................................................573.6 Movement .......................................................................................................................................583.6.1 Seasonal Movements................................................................................................................583.6.2 Spawning Movements ...............................................................................................................683.6.3 Diel Movements.........................................................................................................................70

BC Hydro (CLBMON-43) Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment 2009 Report

-iv- June 2010

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Columbia Watershed Reconnaissance Sampling Appendix B: Site Habitat Descriptions Appendix C: Water Temperature Data Appendix D: Fish Capture Data Appendix E: Fish Detection Data Appendix F: Habitat Graphs Appendix G: Nest Site Data

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Seasonal sampling and task objectives for 2009......................................................................11 Table 2: Rationale for sampling techniques used to sample sculpins and dace ....................................13 Table 3: Size and tag/body weight ratio of fishes tagged with 8.5 and 11.5 mm tags ............................17 Table 4: Number and percent composition of target species captured during winter and

summer electrofishing surveys in index sites in the Similkameen watershed, February and July 2009.............................................................................................................39

Table 5: Number and relative abundance (CPUE) of target species captured at index sites in the Similkameen River watershed, February 2009 ...............................................................39

Table 6: Number and relative abundance (CPUE) of target species captured at index sites in the Similkameen River watershed, July 2009 .......................................................................41

Table 7: Number and percent composition of recaptured target species at index sites in the Similkameen River watershed, July 2009 .................................................................................41

Table 8: Length and weight comparisons for recaptured fishes in index sites located in the Similkameen watershed, February and July 2009 ....................................................................46

Table 9: Number and percent composition of target species captured during electrofishing surveys conducted at index sites in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009.................46

Table 10: Number and relative abundance (CPUE) of target species captured at index sites in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009 ......................................................................47

Table 11: Number of marked and tagged target species captured at index sites located in the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009.....................................................54

Table 12: Number of marked and tagged target species captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009 ..........................................................................55

Table 13: Number and percent of PIT-tagged fish detected during the tracking efficiency experiment in Otter Creek, July 8, 2009....................................................................................57

Table 14: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of Columbia sculpin observed in the Similkameen River watershed index sites, 2009.............................................58

Table 15: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of Columbia sculpin observed in the Similkameen River watershed index sites by season, 2009 ...........................59

3.7 Microhabitat Use.............................................................................................................................753.7.1 Adults.........................................................................................................................................753.7.2 Nest Sites ..................................................................................................................................823.7.3 YOY...........................................................................................................................................973.7.4 Juvenile .....................................................................................................................................993.7.5 Diel Habitat Use ........................................................................................................................99

4.0 DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................104

4.1 Contribution to Management Objectives ......................................................................................1044.2 Assessment of Methods ...............................................................................................................1094.3 Recommendations for Further Study ...........................................................................................110

5.0 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................113

AMEC File: VE51872 v

Table 16: Percent of observed Columbia sculpin displacements characterized as short, medium and long in Otter Creek by season, 2009....................................................................59

Table 17: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of torrent sculpin observed in the Similkameen River watershed index sites, 2009.............................................64

Table 18: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of Columbia sculpin observed in the Similkameen River watershed index sites by season, 2009 ...........................64

Table 19: Number, median, minimum and maximum displacements of Columbia sculpin between day and night locations in the Similkameen River watershed index sites, 2009...........................................................................................................................................71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Overview map of the Lower Columbia-River depicting HLK Dam and major

tributaries.....................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Index sites in the Similkameen River watershed, 2009 ..............................................................8 Figure 3: Reconnaissance sites sampled in the Lower Columbia River watershed, October

2009.............................................................................................................................................9 Figure 4: Index sites in the Lower Columbia River watershed, 2009 .......................................................10 Figure 5: An 11.5 mm PIT tag being implanted into a Columbia sculpin captured in the

Similkameen watershed, July 2009...........................................................................................17 Figure 6: A green VIE mark inserted into a 30 mm Columbia sculpin captured in the

Similkameen watershed, July 2009...........................................................................................18 Figure 7: PIT tag antenna and operator, Otter Creek, July 2009 .............................................................19 Figure 8: Index site located on the right bank of the Similkameen River. Photo taken from

the downstream end looking upstream on May 5, 2009. The mouth of Allison Creek is visible in the upper right ..............................................................................................23

Figure 9: Index site located on the right bank of the Similkameen River. Photo taken from the downstream end looking upstream on July 4, 2009. The mouth of Allison Creek is visible in the upper right. .............................................................................................23

Figure 10: Index site located on the right bank of the Similkameen River. Photo taken from the downstream end looking upstream on October 29, 2009. The mouth of Allison Creek is visible in the upper right. .............................................................................................24

Figure 11: Index site located on the left bank of the Similkameen River. Photo taken from the mouth of Allison Creek looking upstream on May 5, 2009........................................................25

Figure 12: Index site located on the left bank of the Similkameen River. Photo taken from the mouth of Allison Creek looking upstream on July 4, 2009. .......................................................25

Figure 13: Index site located in Allison Creek. Photo taken from the confluence with the Similkameen River looking upstream on May 27, 2009............................................................26

Figure 14: Index site located in Allison Creek. Photo taken from the confluence with the Similkameen River looking upstream on July 4, 2009. .............................................................27

Figure 15: Index site located in Tulameen River. Photo taken from the upstream extent looking downstream on February 28, 2009...............................................................................28

Figure 16: Index site located in the Tulameen River. Photo taken from the confluence with the Similkameen River looking upstream on July 5, 2009. Exposed cobble bar is visible in right corner. ................................................................................................................28

Figure 17: Index site located in Otter Creek. Photo taken from the upper extent of the high capture zone looking downstream on May 25, 2009. ...............................................................29

Figure 18: Index site located in Otter Creek. Photo taken from the upper extent of the high capture zone looking downstream on July 3, 2009...................................................................29

Figure 19: Index site located along the right bank of the Kootenay River at its confluence with the Columbia River. Photo taken from the upper extent of the site on the Kootenay River looking downstream on October 19, 2009.......................................................................30

Figure 20: Index site located along the left bank of the Kootenay River. Photo taken from the lower extent of site looking upstream on October 20, 2009......................................................31


-vi- June 2010

Figure 21: Index site located in Pass Creek. Photo taken from the lower extent of the site looking upstream on October 21, 2009. ....................................................................................32

Figure 22: Index site located in Beaver Creek at its confluence with the Columbia River. Photo taken from the mouth of Beaver Creek looking upstream on October 22, 2009...........................................................................................................................................32

Figure 23: Index site located in Beaver Creek. Photo taken from the lower extent of the site looking upstream on October 23, 2009. ....................................................................................33

Figure 24: Discharge records for the Similkameen River, near Hedley (WSC Station No. 08NL038). The 1997-2007 average, minimum and maximum and 2008 and 2009 discharges are presented for comparison.................................................................................34

Figure 25: Discharge records for the Tulameen River (WSC Station No. 08NL024). The 1997-2007 average, minimum and maximum and 2008 and 2009 discharges are presented for comparison..........................................................................................................34

Figure 26: Average, maximum and minimum daily water temperatures in the Similkameen River upstream of Allison Creek between March and November 2009 ....................................35

Figure 27: Average, maximum and minimum daily water temperatures in the Similkameen River downstream of Allison Creek recorded between March and November .........................36

Figure 28: Average, maximum and minimum daily water temperatures in the Tulameen River recorded between March and November 2009.........................................................................36

Figure 29: Average, maximum and minimum daily water temperatures in Otter Creek recorded between March and November 2009.........................................................................37

Figure 30: Length-frequency distribution for Columbia sculpin captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009 ............................................................................................................................42

Figure 31: Length-frequency distribution for torrent sculpin captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009 ............................................................................................................................43

Figure 32: Length-frequency distribution for longnose dace captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009 ............................................................................................................................43

Figure 33: Length-weight relationship for Columbia sculpin captured at index sites located in the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009.....................................................44

Figure 34: Length-weight relationship for torrent sculpin captured at index sites located in the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009...........................................................44

Figure 35: Length-weight relationship for longnose dace captured at index sites located in the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009.....................................................44

Figure 36: Length-frequency distribution for prickly sculpin captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Columbia River watershed, October 2009................48

Figure 37: Length-frequency distribution for Columbia sculpin captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Columbia River watershed, October 2009................49

Figure 38: Length-frequency distribution for shorthead sculpin captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Columbia River watershed, October 2009................49

Figure 39: Length-frequency distribution for torrent sculpin captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Columbia River watershed, October 2009................49

Figure 40: Length-frequency distribution for longnose dace captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Columbia River watershed, October 2009................50

Figure 41: Length-frequency distribution for Umatilla dace captured during electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Columbia River watershed, October 2009................50

Figure 42: Length-weight relationship for prickly sculpin captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009 ................................................................................51

Figure 43: Length-weight relationship for Columbia sculpin captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009 ..........................................................................51

Figure 44: Length-weight relationship for shorthead sculpin captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009 ..........................................................................51

AMEC File: VE51872 vii

Figure 45: Length-weight relationship for torrent sculpin captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009 ................................................................................52

Figure 46: Length-weight relationship for longnose dace captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009 ..........................................................................52

Figure 47: Length-weight relationship for Umatilla dace captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009 ................................................................................52

Figure 48: Recaptured Columbia sculpin from Otter Creek with no visible PIT tag surgery scar, June 2009. Individual tagged in February, 2009 ..............................................................56

Figure 49: Schematic diagram illustrating the detections of five PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Otter Creek index site which are examples of short movements, 2009..........................61

Figure 50: Schematic diagram of a Columbia sculpin (ID# 0CDFD) that conducted long movements in Otter Creek, 2009 ..............................................................................................61

Figure 51: Schematic diagram of a Columbia sculpin (ID# 4097C) that conducted long movements in Otter Creek, 2009 ..............................................................................................62

Figure 52: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and detection locations of PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Tulameen River index site, 2009 ........................................................62

Figure 53: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and detection locations of PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites, 2009 ....................63

Figure 54: Schematic diagram illustrating the detection locations of PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in upper section of the Allison Creek index sites, 2009 (inset of Figure 53).................63

Figure 55: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and detection locations of PIT-tagged torrent sculpin in the Tulameen River, 2009 .............................................................................65

Figure 56: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and detection locations of PIT-tagged torrent sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites, 2009 .........................65

Figure 57: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and detection locations of PIT-tagged prickly sculpin in the Otter Creek index sites, 2009 ..................................................................66

Figure 58: Schematic diagram illustrating the release location and subsequent detection location of one PIT-tagged longnose dace in the Tulameen River index site, 2009.................67

Figure 59: Schematic diagram illustrating the detection locations of four male PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin with nests in the Otter Creek index sites, 2009 ............................................69

Figure 60: Schematic diagram illustrating the detection locations of two male PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin with nests in the Allison Creek index sites, 2009..........................................69

Figure 61: Schematic diagram illustrating the detection locations of one male PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin with nests in the Tulameen River, 2009 .......................................................70

Figure 62: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the lower third of the Otter Creek index sites on May 25, 2009.....................................................................................................................................72

Figure 63: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the lower third of the Otter Creek index sites on July 3, 2009...........................................................................................................................................72

Figure 64: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia and prickly sculpins in the lower third of the Otter Creek index sites on October 27, 2009 .........................................................................................................73

Figure 65: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia and torrent sculpins in the Allison Creek index sites on July 4, 2009...........................................................................................................................................73

Figure 66: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Allison Creek index sites on October 26, 2009.......................74

Figure 67: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Allison Creek index site on October 26, 2009 ........................74

Figure 68: Frequency of water depths measured in the Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009.............................................................................................................................76

Figure 69: Frequency of water depth use by Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009 ......................................................................................................76

Figure 70: Frequency of average water velocity measured in the Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009 ......................................................................................................77


-viii- June 2010

Figure 71: Frequency of average water velocity use by Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009\............................................................................................77

Figure 72: Frequency of substrate use by Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009 ......................................................................................................78

Figure 73: Frequency of substrate type measured in the Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009.............................................................................................................................78

Figure 74: Frequency of substrate embeddedness use by Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009 .......................................................................79

Figure 75: Frequency of substrate embeddedness in the Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009.............................................................................................................................79

Figure 76: Frequency of water depth use by torrent sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites by season, 2009................................................................................80

Figure 77: Frequency of water velocity use by torrent sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites by season, 2009................................................................................81

Figure 78: Frequency of substrate use by torrent sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites by season, 2009................................................................................81

Figure 79: Frequency of substrate embeddedness use by torrent sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites by season, 2009 ...............................................................82

Figure 80: The first Columbia sculpin nest discovered in Otter Creek, May 25, 2009 ...............................83 Figure 81: Columbia sculpin nest with eggs at the eyed stage near hatching and some signs

of eggs hatching in Otter Creek, June 11, 2009........................................................................84 Figure 82: Larval Columbia sculpin that hatched in sample bags from eggs collected in Otter

Creek, June 11, 2009 ................................................................................................................84 Figure 83: Average daily water temperature and water depth and the estimated Columbia

sculpin spawning period in Otter Creek, 2009 ..........................................................................85 Figure 84: Frequency of available water depths and depths used for nests in spring 2009 in

Otter Creek................................................................................................................................86 Figure 85: Frequency of available average velocity and average velocity used for nests in

spring 2009 in Otter Creek ........................................................................................................86 Figure 86: Frequency of available substrate and substrate used for nests in spring 2009 in

Otter Creek................................................................................................................................87 Figure 87: Frequency of substrate embeddedness and the substrate embeddedness at nests

in spring 2009 in Otter Creek ....................................................................................................87 Figure 88: Columbia sculpin nest in Allison Creek with eggs at the eyed stage and starting to

hatch, June 12, 2009.................................................................................................................88 Figure 89: Columbia sculpin nest in Allison Creek with three female egg masses, June 12,

2009...........................................................................................................................................88 Figure 90: Sculpin egg mass found in the Tulameen River, June 12, 2009...............................................89 Figure 91: Spent female Columbia sculpin in the Tulameen River with a swollen urogenital

pore, June 12, 2009 ..................................................................................................................89 Figure 92: Columbia sculpin nest in Tulameen River, July 5, 2009 ...........................................................90 Figure 93: Unknown sculpin nest in Tulameen River, July 5, 2009 ...........................................................91 Figure 94: Unknown sculpin nest with three female egg masses in Tulameen River, July 5,

2009...........................................................................................................................................91 Figure 95: Unknown sculpin nest with eggs at the beginning of eyed stage in Tulameen

River, July 10, 2009...................................................................................................................91 Figure 96: Unknown sculpin nest starting to hatch in Tulameen River, July 5, 2009.................................92 Figure 97: Average daily water temperature and discharge and the estimated Columbia

sculpin spawning period, Tulameen River 2009 .......................................................................92 Figure 98: Tulameen River index site looking upstream at the right bank where all the sculpin

nests were located, July 5, 2009...............................................................................................93 Figure 99: Frequency of available water depths and depths used for nests in the Tulameen

River, July 2009.........................................................................................................................93

AMEC File: VE51872 ix

Figure 100:Frequency of available average velocity and average velocity used for nests in the Tulameen River, July 2009........................................................................................................94

Figure 101:Frequency of available substrate and substrate used for nests in the Tulameen River, July 2009.........................................................................................................................94

Figure 102:Frequency of substrate embeddedness and the substrate embeddedness at nests in the Tulameen River, July 2009..............................................................................................95

Figure 103:Unknown prickly sculpin nest in Otter Creek, May 26, 2009.....................................................96 Figure 104:Average daily water temperature and water depth and the estimated prickly

sculpin spawning period in Otter Creek ....................................................................................96 Figure 105:Ripe female longnose dace (eggs are visible between pelvic and anal fins);

Tulameen River July 7, 2009.....................................................................................................97 Figure 106:Larval prickly sculpin collected in a night larval drift net in Otter Creek, June 11,

2009...........................................................................................................................................98 Figure 107:Mid-column larval drift net set over boulder/cobble habitat in Otter Creek, July

2009...........................................................................................................................................98 Figure 108:Larval Columbia sculpin collected in Otter Creek, July 3, 2009................................................98 Figure 109:Pool habitat where a larval Columbia sculpin was collected near flooded grass in

Otter Creek, July 3, 2009 ..........................................................................................................99 Figure 110:Frequency of night-time water depth use by Columbia sculpin by season in Otter

and Allison creeks, 2009 .........................................................................................................100 Figure 111:Frequency of day-time water depth use by Columbia sculpin by season in Otter

and Allison creeks, 2009 .........................................................................................................100 Figure 112:Frequency of night-time average water velocity use by Columbia sculpin by

season in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009................................................................................101 Figure 113:Frequency of day-time average water velocity use by Columbia sculpin by season

in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009 ............................................................................................101 Figure 114:Frequency of night-time substrate use by Columbia sculpin by season in Otter

and Allison creeks, 2009 .........................................................................................................102 Figure 115:Frequency of day-time substrate use by Columbia sculpin by season in Otter and

Allison creeks, 2009 ................................................................................................................102 Figure 116:Frequency of night-time substrate embeddedness use by Columbia sculpin by

season in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009................................................................................103 Figure 117:Frequency of day-time substrate embeddedness use by Columbia sculpin by

season in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009................................................................................103


-x- June 2010

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This report was prepared exclusively for BC Hydro by AMEC Earth & Environmental Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of AMEC. The quality of information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AMEC services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended to be used by BC Hydro only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with AMEC. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.

AMEC File: VE51872 xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following people are gratefully acknowledged for assistance and information contributions during this study: BC Hydro David DeRosa, Castlegar Guy Martel, Burnaby Gary Birch, Burnaby University of British Columbia Don McPhail, Vancouver Ministry of Environment Kristen Murphy, Nelson Sue Pollard, Victoria Jordan Rosenfeld, Vancouver Canadian Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission Jim Clarricoates, Cranbrook Mark Thomas, Cranbrook Kyle Shottanana, Cranbrook Virgil Benallie, Cranbrook Jon Bissett, Cranbrook The following employees of AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd. contributed to the collection of data and preparation of this report: Rachel Keeler, MSc., R.P.Bio. Aquatic Biologist, Author Louise Porto, MSc., R.P.Bio. Senior Aquatic Habitat Biologist, Reviewer Crystal Lawrence Aquatic Biologist Eoin O’Neill GIS Technician Carol Lavis Administration/Formatting The following subcontractor also contributed to this program: Clint Tarala Field Technician – Subcontractor

AMEC File: VE51872 -1-

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Operations of the Hugh L. Keenleyside (HLK) Dam (Figure 1) affect the trophic productivity, quality and quantity of aquatic habitat, and the ecological health of the lower Columbia River (Cushman 1985; Aquametrix 1994; Power et al. 1996, AMEC 2010). As such, the Columbia River Water Use Plan (WUP) was initiated to address flow management issues with respect to impacts on competing water users in the lower Columbia River, including fish, wildlife, domestic water supplies, recreationists, heritage uses, and electrical power needs. During the Columbia River WUP process, the Columbia River WUP Consultative Committee (CC) identified that biological data on threatened and endangered shallow water fish species, such as sculpins and dace, were lacking in the lower Columbia River. Specifically, limited information is available to assess potential impacts of seasonal operations of HLK Dam on endangered sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River.

To address this data gap, the Columbia River WUP Consultative Committee recommended that “a study to determine the relative abundance, distribution, life histories, and habitat use of sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River between HLK Dam and the US border” be undertaken. Species of interest include four species of sculpin and two species of dace: prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), shorthead sculpin (C. confusus), Columbia sculpin (C. hubbsi), torrent sculpin (C. rhotheus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) and Umatilla dace (R. umatilla). Shorthead and Columbia sculpin are listed by the Canadian Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and are listed as Threatened and a Species of Special Concern under the Species-At-Risk-Act (SARA), respectively. The Umatilla dace is listed under SARA as a Species of Special Concern.

Limited information exists on the ecology and behaviour of sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River (McPhail 2007, AMEC 2010). Previous studies targeting sculpins and dace mainly focused on methods to inventory and determine abundance and density of these species (R.L.&L. 1995, Golder 2002, AMEC 2003). Fish stranding and ramping studies conducted in the lower Columbia River by BC Hydro also provided information on distribution and relative abundance of these species. A few studies have collected seasonal and/or diel habitat use information on sculpins and dace (R.L.&L. 1995, AMEC 2003).

Fish identification to the species level has been problematic and many have been misidentified in previous studies (AMEC 2010). Also, in order to rapidly identify fish species and to focus on specific project objectives, many studies did not always identify fishes to the species level, which limits the species specific information available (AMEC 2010).

ReferenceFreshwater Atlas scale 1:20,000.

June 12, 2009

VE51872

UTM Zone 11

DATE:

JOB No:

PROJECTION:

ANALYST: Figure 1EOPDF FILE:columbia_overview_11x17.pdf

GIS FILE:columbia_overview_11x17.mxd

NAD83DATUM:

Overview map of the lower Columbia and Kootenay Rivers

PROJECT: Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43)

QA/QC:LP

CLIENT:

BC Hydro

Y:\GI

S\Ad

min\T

empla

tes\20

08\Te

mplat

e_lan

dsca

pe_1

1x17

.mxd

LegendBirchbank Water Survey Canada StationDamCity / TownRiverLake

4 0 4 82Kilometres

Canada

United States

Pend d'Oreille River

Koote

nay R

iver

Rock Island

Waterloo Eddy

Ft. Shepherd Eddy

Arrow Lakes Generating Station

WanetaDam

Hugh L. Keenelyside Dam

Blueberry Creek

China Creek

Bear

Cree

k

Norns Creek

Columbia River

Murphy Creek

Beave

r Cree

k

Champion Creek

Casino Creek

Trail

Castlegar

870000

870000

880000

880000

890000

890000

900000

900000

910000

910000

920000

920000

5440

000

5440

000

5450

000

5450

000

5460

000

5460

000

5470

000

5470

000

5480

000

5480

000

1:200,000Scale:

CPR Island

Kootenay Eddy

Robson Bridge

Tin Cup Rapids

Zuckerbergs Island

Brilliant Dam


-4- June 2010


1.2 BC Hydro’s Study Objectives and Key Management Questions

To fill existing data gaps, BC Hydro is implementing a five year study to monitor the life history and habitat use of the four sculpin and two dace species identified above in the lower Columbia River. The main objective of the study is to collect information on the life history and habitat use of these six species in the lower Columbia River that may be affected by water level fluctuations resulting from daily and seasonal operation of HLK Dam. While all six species require study, the focus of the study is on Umatilla dace, shorthead sculpin, and Columbia sculpin, the three federally listed sculpin and dace species in the lower Columbia River. Specific study objectives for this project are to:

• Determine spawning habitats of Umatilla dace and the timing of their spawning period;

• Determine the abundance of Columbia sculpin in the lower Columbia River and determine the habitats used by this species;

• Determine the importance of flooded areas at the confluence of tributaries and the main river as nursery areas for young-of-the-year (YOY) sculpins and dace, particularly their importance to shorthead sculpin; and

• Provide a qualitative assessment of the risks that operation of HLK Dam may pose for federally list species of sculpins and dace.

Data collected to meet these objectives should address the following key management questions outlined in the Terms of Reference for this project (BC Hydro 2008):

1. How do water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal) in the lower Columbia River affect the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace, especially the listed species?

2. What seasonal and diel habitat shifts do sculpins and dace (especially the listed species) make in response to water level fluctuations?

3. Does the operation of HLK Dam alter these natural movements? Specifically, does the risk of stranding increase?

4. Which operations, and at what season, pose the highest risk of stranding or interference with the normal life cycles of sculpins and dace?

As knowledge of the basic life history and habitat use requirements for most of these species is lacking, the monitoring program has been designed around the following specific questions:

A. Are there specific spawning areas utilized by the Columbia sculpin and the Umatilla dace and, if so, what are the temporal and biophysical characteristics of these areas?

B. Are there specific nursery areas used by Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics?

C. Are there seasonal and diel shifts in habitat use by these species and, if so, how do these shifts relate to daily or seasonal water level fluctuations?

D. Are there over-wintering habitats used by these species and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics?


-6- June 2010

E. Do diel and seasonal water level fluctuations affect spawning behaviour, embryo survival, or adult nest guarding behaviour of Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace?

1.3 Year 1 Project Objectives Study objectives vary by year to ensure that BC Hydro’s management objectives are met by the end of the project. It is not possible to consider all the objectives each year due to the limited information available for all species as well as the large breadth and scope of the objectives, while staying within the set budget of the program. In Year 1 (2009), our focus was to collect life history information for target species in an unregulated, ‘natural’ system where higher abundances of these fishes have been observed. At BC Hydro’s request, we sampled the Similkameen River, where high densities of Columbia sculpin, torrent sculpin and longnose dace have been observed (AMEC 2010). Studies in the Similkameen watershed provide reference conditions for the life history of sculpins and dace in an unregulated system. The Similkameen watershed findings from Year 1 can be compared to results in the Columbia watershed in future years to help us assess how HLK operations affect life history in the LCR. Our project objectives for 2009 and, in brackets, the management and specific questions addressed, were:

• Determine the transfer and application of the PIT tag-tracking system to dace species.

• Record the movement and habitat use of the target species in the Similkameen watershed over each season and determine how natural water level fluctuations in the Similkameen watershed affect seasonal and diel habitat shifts [Provides information for management questions 1- 4, and specific questions C and D].

• Determine spawning locations and spawning timing for all target species in the Similkameen watershed, and the biophysical characteristics of this habitat (i.e., water temperature, depth, substrate type, etc.) [Provides information for management question 4 and specific questions A and E].

• Determine biophysical characteristics of over-wintering habitat used by these species in the Similkameen watershed [Provides information for specific question D].

• Determine the biophysical characteristics of nursery areas for young-of-the-year (YOY) sculpins and dace in the Similkameen watershed [Provides information for specific question B]. And,

• Provide a qualitative assessment of the risks that operation of HLK Dam may pose for federally listed species of sculpins and dace by considering when life-stages of each species are most vulnerable in the Similkameen watershed [Provides information for management questions 3 and 4].

2.0 METHODS 2.1 Index Site Selection

Index sites were areas that could be monitored seasonally to provide information about individual sculpins and dace movement and microhabitat use. The site selection process was critical to addressing the management questions because many of the target species are rare and difficult to find. We needed to maximise the capture of target species to gain a better understanding of their basic ecology. The success of the mark-recapture method used (discussed further below) is dependent on tagging enough individuals to get an


adequate representation of the population. The criteria used to select appropriate study index sites included:

• High abundance of at least one of the target species (Shorthead sculpin, Columbia sculpin or Umatilla dace);

• Must encompass habitat for all life-stages;

• Accessible in every season;

• Accessed through public property;

• Has wadeable habitat in every season;

• Cost-effective (i.e. travel time between sites is minimized); and,

• Only on Canadian side of border.

Site dimensions were determined during the first electrofishing survey; they were a compromise between trying to capture as many target species as possible and ensuring that the selected areas could be tracked in less than a day. Index sites ranged from 50 to 300 m in length, depending on the site location, width, and complexity of the habitats observed.

2.1.1 Similkameen River Watershed

Initial site sampling was based on information collected from our literature review, which included locations of target species (AMEC 2010) as well as our criteria listed in Section 2.1. Site reconnaissance was conducted from February 24 to 26, 2009 within the Similkameen River watershed. However, site selection was limited by ice cover, so sampling was restricted to ice-free sections of river. Five study index sites were selected in the Similkameen watershed and included (Figure 2):

• Tulameen River adjacent to the community of Coalmont;

• Similkameen River northeast of Princeton on the left bank1;

• Similkameen River northeast of Princeton on the right bank;

• Allison Creek; and,

• Otter Creek.

1 Banks are referenced as viewed facing downstream.


-8- June 2010

Figure 2: Index sites in the Similkameen River watershed, 2009

2.1.2 Columbia River Watershed

Sites in the Lower Columbia River (LCR) watershed below HLK Dam were selected during a reconnaissance level survey conducted from October 16 to 18, 2009. Site reconnaissance was based on our literature review (AMEC 2010), which assessed previous LCR studies on sculpins and dace (e.g., R. L. & L. 1995, Golder 2002, AMEC 2003) as well as data queries from BC Hydro’s LCR stranding database (query conducted by Golder in January 2009).

In total, 21 sites on the LCR and its tributaries were surveyed and most sites were electrofished to initially assess fish abundance and species composition (Figure 3). Details for each reconnaissance site sampled are provided in Appendix A. Of these 21 sites surveyed on the LCR, five were chosen as index sites for further study based on our reconnaissance assessment and


selection criteria (see Section 2.1; Figure 4). Three of these index sites were selected because they had high abundances of shorthead sculpin, a target endangered species, not observed in Year 1. These index sites included the confluence areas of Pass and Beaver creeks as well as a site approximately 500 m upstream of the Beaver Creek mouth. Two other index sites were selected on the lower Kootenay River, one at its confluence on the right bank and another on the left bank near the Kootenay Campground between the Brilliant Bridge and the oxbow (Figure 4). The lower Kootenay River index sites represented areas that were dam impacted (i.e., Brilliant Dam), had reasonable numbers of Umatilla dace and contained a good representation of the other sculpin and dace species targeted for this program. Areas directly below HLK dam were not selected at this time, since our reconnaissance sampling indicated that the target species were not in high abundance.

Figure 3: Reconnaissance sites sampled in the Lower Columbia River watershed,

October 2009


-10- June 2010

Figure 4: Index sites in the Lower Columbia River watershed, 2009

2.2 Sampling Timing In Year 1, sampling was conducted in winter, spring, summer and fall in the Similkameen watershed and in fall in the Columbia watershed. The timing and objectives of each sampling session are outlined in Table 1. Sculpins and dace have different life histories; therefore, site assessments differed by species in some sampling sessions.

In the Similkameen watershed, sampling commenced in late February 2009 to locate and mark/tag as many target species as possible, so that pre-spawning sculpins and dace could be monitored and tracked during the spring (Table 1). Tracking of tagged pre-spawning adults occurred three times between May and June 2009. Regular tracking (~every third week; Section 2.8) during this period enabled us to focus on searching for sculpin nest sites and measure


microhabitat characteristics of spawning areas. In July 2009, tracking focused on searching for dace spawning nest sites, since this species spawns later than sculpins (AMEC 2010). We also searched for young-of-the-year (YOY) sculpins rearing locations and continued site sampling to increase the number of marked/tagged fishes in July (Table 1). Our fall sample period occurred in October 2009 and included tracking movements and detecting overwintering habitats as well as looking for YOY sculpins and dace rearing habitats in our Similkameen index sites (Table 1). Diel tracking occurred in all seasons.

In the LCR, reconnaissance site sampling and selection of index sites occurred in October 2009.

Table 1: Seasonal sampling and task objectives for 2009

Season Watershed Dates Main Tasks Task Objective Locate areas with high densities of the target species based on previous information; conduct electrofishing sampling.

Winter 2009

Similkameen River

February 24 – March 3

Site Selection, Marking, Tagging

Capture fish; mark target species with VIE1 and PIT2 tags.

Site Tracking Use PIT tag antenna to determine location of tagged individuals

Sculpin Nest Searches

Look for sculpin spawning habitat areas and determine spawning timing and habitat characteristics.

Spring 2009

Similkameen River

May 5-7 May 25-27 June 8-12

Diel Sampling Determine differences in day and night habitat use.

Site Tracking Use PIT tag antenna to determine location of tagged individuals.

Dace Nest Searches

Look for dace spawning habitat areas.

Sculpin YOY Searches

Specifically look for rearing locations.

Site Sampling Capture fish; mark target species with VIE and PIT tags after finished all other sampling

Summer 2009

Similkameen River

July 3-10


Site Tracking Use PIT tag antenna to determine location of tagged individuals.

Sculpins and Dace YOY Searches

Specifically look for rearing locations.

Over-winter habitat

Determine location of over-winter habitat; Determine if fall locations are consistent with winter locations.

Fall 2009 Similkameen River

October 25-29



-12- June 2010

Season Watershed Dates Main Tasks Task Objective Locate areas with high densities of the target species based on previous information; conduct electrofishing sampling.

Lower Columbia

October 16-23 Site Selection, Marking, Tagging

Use multiple sampling techniques to capture fish; mark target species with VIE and PIT tags.

Note: 1VIE=Visible Implant Elastomer, 2PIT=passive integrated transponder

2.3 Index Site Habitat Sampling Sampling was conducted at all index sites during each seasonal sampling period to assess general habitat characteristics. Transects were systematically delineated within each index site approximately every 10 to 15 m. Wetted width was measured along each transect. Also, three points (i.e. river right, middle, river left) were delineated along each transect and measured for:

• Habitat type (i.e. run, riffle, pool);

• Depth;

• Substrate composition2 estimated in an approximately 1 m diameter circle;

• Average water velocities, measured at the bottom and at 30% of depth, with a Swoffer (Model 2100) velocity meter; and,

• Percent embeddedness with 0% indicating that substrate was totally unembedded and free of siltation.

Habitat data were recorded directly into a handheld Trimble GeoXM unit that simultaneously collected UTM information for each measure.

Photographs were also taken during each season to represent general conditions at each index site.

2.3.1 Discharge

For the Similkameen River, discharge information was obtained from the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) station near Princeton, BC (station 08NL038) and from the WSC station on the Tulameen River (station 08NL024) (WSC 2009A, 2009B). Daily mean, minimum and maximum discharges were calculated for a 10-year period of record (1997-2007). Real time discharge records for 2008 and 2009 were compared to the 1997-2007 period, where applicable. However, discharge data for 2008 and 2009 are considered preliminary because they have not yet been calibrated by the WSC (WSC 2009B).

Discharge in Otter and Allison creeks was not monitored by WSC. Therefore a depth gauge was added to these sites to provide a rough estimate of water level changes. A depth gauge measurement was taken at these sites during every sampling session.

2 Substrate categories included: bedrock; boulder (>256 mm); cobble (64-256 mm); gravel (4-64 mm); sand (0.6-4 mm); fines (<0.6 mm); and, other (e.g. woody debris; comments were added for the type of other substrate).


For the LCR, discharge information was obtained from the WSC station near Birchbank (08NE0558; WSC 2009A, 2009B), but was not included in this report as further study will continue into 2010. This information will be included in our Year 2 report.

2.3.2 Water Temperature

A Hobo water temperature logger was installed at each index site in the Similkameen watershed to record hourly water temperatures. However, a temperature logger was not installed in Allison Creek, because two loggers were installed in the Similkameen River upstream and downstream of Allison Creek. Water temperature was recorded at index sites on the Similkameen watershed from March 2-3 to October 22-29, 2009 (end of Similkameen watershed study). Temperature loggers were downloaded during each sample session and used to calculate daily mean, minimum and maximum water temperatures for each index site.

In the LCR, Hobo Tidbits were deployed on October 24, 2009 and are presently collecting data.

2.4 Capture Methods & Sampling Techniques A review of the advantages and limitations of various capture methods and sampling techniques that have been used to study sculpins and dace in the LCR (e.g., R. L. & L. 1995, Golder 2002, AMEC 2003) is presented in Table 2. We initially planned to use multiple sampling techniques including single-pass backpack electrofishing, substrate flips, minnow traps, beach seines, and dip-netting to ensure that our sampling program was not biased towards species and size/age classes. However, substrate size and complexity did not allow beach seining. Also, water depth was inappropriate to conduct substrate flips to capture fishes for tagging, but this method was used to search for nests (Table 2). Minnow traps were found to be ineffective when used at index sites, since this method was time consuming and did not capture high numbers of fishes required for our mark/recapture technique (Section 2.8). Snorkel techniques were also not employed during our Year 1 program, since capturing fishes with this method would not be practical and it would be very difficult to identify observed fishes to species (Table 2); this will be trialed in Year 2 in conjunction with dip netting. Therefore, single pass backpack electrofishing was the main capture method in Year 1.

Table 2: Rationale for sampling techniques used to sample sculpins and dace

Capture Technique Advantages Disadvantages

Use in this program

Captures all species Biased against capture of YOY and small juveniles (Golder 2002)

Used to conduct quick surveys during site selection

Captures multiple age classes Only effective in wadeable habitats

Used as principal strategy of fish capture during daytime site sampling (except in spring)

Captured moderate numbers of both species in Lower Columbia (AMEC 2003)

Does not provide accurate estimates of numbers of fish/ unit area

Electrofishing - Single-pass

Can provide relatively large sample size


-14- June 2010


Use in this program

CPUE can be used to compare densities between sites

Quick way to sample large area Densities can be used to compare site density

Sculpin do not follow normal depletion curve (Gray 2003)

Not used because target species sampling unlikely to meet depletion estimate assumptions

Captures all species Sculpin depletion can take >10 passes (Gray 2003)

Captures multiple age classes Time consuming and labour intensive

Provides large sample size Stop nets with small mesh size necessary to contain all life stages would be difficult to maintain on Lower Columbia sites

Biased against capture of YOY and small juveniles (Golder 2002)

Repeatedly shocking in same area over short period may be harmful to individuals trapped under substrate

Electrofishing - Triple-pass depletion estimates

Effective only in wadeable habitats

Boat electrofishing

Samples deeper areas than backpack electrofishing

Cottids do not have swim bladders and dace are negatively buoyant so they will not float towards surface

Not used because it will not capture target species in deeper water

AMEC (2003) found this most effective sculpin sampling technique

Not as useful for dace species (AMEC 2003)

Used as principal strategy for nest searches

Useful in finding nest sites in spring

Limited to shallow areas

Can provide relatively large sculpin sample size (AMEC 2003)

Limited site coverage

Substrate flips

Can be used to compare sculpin density and nest density among sites

Labour intensive and time consuming

Minnow traps Samples deeper areas effectively

Biased against capture of YOY and small juveniles (Golder 2002)

Tried to supplement electrofishing sampling to increase sampling to deeper areas but not



Use in this program

effective

Captured large dace in LCR sites (Golder 2001)

Not useful for sculpin (Golder 2002)

Requires multiple visits to the site

Does not provide good coverage of total site

Effective for YOY dace in LCR (Golder 2001


Not useful in sites Beach seine

Low effort required Cannot be used in areas with large substrates or woody debris

Can observe fish in deeper and faster areas where wading is difficult

Sculpins and dace normally use cover so very few can be observed during surveys (AMEC 2003)

Not used in Year 1 because we need to be able to identify to species; difficult to do with sculpin if not dip netted while snorkeling

Snorkeling

Difficult to identify sculpin and dace species while snorkeling (AMEC 2003)

Effective for YOY Umatilla dace (McPhail 2007)


Used to sample YOY in marginal habitat

Aquarium dip-netting

Low effort required Ineffective for older ages classes

Effective for YOY fish Lethal sampling Lethal sampling techniques will not be used on listed species in this program

Sampling does not disturb site Does not provide spawning or rearing habitat location information

Sampling time is minimal Samples can be very difficult to identify

Larval drift sampling

Sorting and identifying samples can be difficult and labour intensive

2.5 Fish Sampling A crew of three (one operator and two netters) conducted electrofishing surveys with a Smith-Root backpack electrofisher at index sites. Dip nets were normally used to capture sculpins and dace but a lip seine was also used in fast flowing areas. Aquarium nets were used in areas with


-16- June 2010

lower flow to maximize capture of shocked fishes. As mentioned above, single pass electrofishing was the main technique employed during fish capture surveys. However, a second pass was used if fish capture was low to maximize the number of tagged specimens. The following variables were recorded during electrofishing surveys: electrofishing start/end time; and, electrofishing seconds (EF seconds). Relative abundance was calculated as a catch per unit effort based on EF seconds. The length and width of the area electrofished was also recorded during index site habitat sampling (Section 2.3).

2.6 Fish Processing All target species captured were anaesthetized in clove oil (0.04 mL/L water), identified to species, measured for total length to the nearest mm and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. Fishes were inspected for any external abnormalities, spawning colouration, sex and maturity and these observations were recorded. All fishes were checked for PIT tags and VIE marks.

Fishes were identified to species using previous identification techniques learned from Dr. Don McPhail (Curator Emeritus, University of British Columbia Fish Museum, Vancouver, BC) and identification keys developed for the current program (AMEC 2010). Photos of each species were taken as required and their identification was discussed further with Dr. McPhail.

The sex of mature sculpins was based on the shape of their urogenital papilla; this is a clear indication of sex at all times of the year (McPhail 2007). The urogenital papilla can be observed with forceps and magnifying glass, but a hand lens is not always required (personal observation). Males have a ‘v’ shaped flap of tissue while females have a round urogenital papilla, without any over-hanging tissue. Sculpins were sexed using this technique. However, during extreme hot and/or cold weather, fishes could not be sexed due to concern of exposure duration. We could not confirm the maturity of sculpins externally (i.e., without the use of forceps and magnifying lens) but the available literature suggests that sculpins mature between 40 and 60 mm, depending on sex and species (AMEC 2010). We recorded any signs of maturity, like eggs or milt while sampling.

The sex of mature dace was based on pelvic fin length. In males, the pelvic fin reaches the origin of the anal fin, whereas in females, the pelvic fin ends before the anal fin origin (McPhail 2007). Literature suggests that dace mature between 40 and 60 mm (AMEC 2010). As with sculpins, we noted if there were any signs of maturity, like eggs or milt, while sampling.

Processed target species were held instream for approximately 24 hours in live boxes (modified Rubbermaid™ tubs with cut-out mesh windows for water flow). After this time, fishes were inspected to determine survival, tag retention and their swimming/holding behaviour. Fish that were alive and observed to be holding with ‘normal’ orientation were released into the capture site.

Non-target species were placed in separate buckets, identified to species, counted, left to recover and released back into the capture site as soon as possible (less than one hour).

2.7 Individual Marking

2.7.1 Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT)

Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags were implanted into adult dace and sculpin (>40 mm in length) by making a small incision (3 to 4 mm in length) on the ventral surface, anterior to the urogenital papilla. A PIT tag was manually inserted into the peritoneal cavity (Keeler 2006;


modified from Gray 2003; Figure 5). Sutures and glues were not used because the incisions were small and these techniques were not useful in other sculpin tagging (Keeler 2006).

Two sizes of PIT tags were used: 8.5 mm tags for fishes between 45 and 60 mm; and, 11.5 mm tags for fishes >60 mm total length (Table 3). Tag size and total length requirements varied slightly during the Similkameen program to estimate ranges of survival and tag retention for application and refinement for use in the LCR (Table 3).

In the Similkameen watershed, approximately 91% of tagged fishes had tags <5% of their body weight and 65% had tags <2% (Table 3). In the LCR, the majority of tagged fishes (78%) had tags <5% of body weight ratio and one quarter had tags <2% (Table 3).

Figure 5: An 11.5 mm PIT tag being implanted into a Columbia sculpin captured

in the Similkameen watershed, July 2009

Table 3: Size and tag/body weight ratio of fishes tagged with 8.5 and 11.5 mm tags

Similkameen Watershed Columbia Watershed Length range for 8.5 mm tags 45-69 mm 41-60 mm Length range for 11.5 mm tags 57-125 mm 60-116 mm Range in tag/body weight ratio 0.3-8.4% 0.4-16.8% % with tag/body weight ratio <5% 91% 78% % with tag/body weight ratio <2% 65% 25%

2.7.2 Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE)

All target species were marked with visible implant elastomer (VIE), which could be implanted into all size classes. VIE is a colourful, florescent plastic polymer that is inserted into the epidermis layer as a liquid, which then hardens into a permanent mark (Figure 6). VIE marks varied by colour depending on the sampling session, so that recapture information could be recorded. Colours used in both the Similkameen and LCR watersheds included yellow, orange and green, for winter, summer and fall, respectively. The majority of fishes were marked with VIE on the forehead region, but marks were also placed on the left side of the body, chin or pectoral fin depending on fish size and condition. For example, some smaller dace (<40 mm in total length)


-18- June 2010

had small surface area on their foreheads and it was easier to mark them on the left side of the body.

Figure 6: A green VIE mark inserted into a 30 mm Columbia sculpin captured in

the Similkameen watershed, July 2009

2.8 Monitoring Movement and Micro-Habitat Use PIT technology was used to study microhabitat use and seasonal and daily movements of adult sculpins and dace (>45 mm) during the current program. This technique was developed for individually identifying fishes and has been used successfully to tag and track a variety of small-bodied fishes (e.g., Prentice et al. 1990, Peterson et al. 1994, Ombredane et al. 1998, Skalski et al. 1998, Baras et al. 1999, 2000, Das Mahapatra et al. 2001, Gray 2003, Cucherousset et al. 2005, Keeler 2006, Keeler et al. 2007, Keeler and Cunjak 2007).

Detections of tagged fishes were made by remotely tracking the presence of their implanted PIT tags with a portable PIT antenna (Figure 7). The portable antenna is made by Destron Fearing Corp. (MN, USA) and available from Biomark, Inc. (ID, USA). The maximum distance that the antenna can detect a tag’s signal is 15-20 cm for 8.5 mm tags and 35-45 cm for 11.5 mm tags. The antenna is able to pick up signals through water, air, biological tissue, rock and ice (Roussel et al. 2000, Gray 2003, Cucherousset et al 2005, Keeler 2006, Keeler et al. 2007, Keeler and Cunjak 2007).

Tracking sessions consisted of a PIT tag antenna operator (herein referred to as the operator) and a second field crew member, whom recorded the position of each fish detected as well as microhabitat use. During each tracking session, the operator traversed slowly back and forth across the stream while moving the antenna just above the stream bottom to detect tagged fishes similar to the way that a metal detector is used to detect metal objects. Once a tagged fish was detected, the PIT tag antenna ‘beeped’ and displayed and electronically recorded the PIT tag number. The following measurements were recorded directly into the Trimble GeoXM for each detected fish: UTM, PIT tag number, water depth (m), mean column velocity (m/s), substrate, and % embeddedness (0-100%). Depth and velocity was measured using a Swoffer (Model 2100). Substrate categories included: bedrock; boulder (>256 mm); cobble (64-256 mm); gravel (4-64 mm); sand (0.6-4 mm); fines (<0.6 mm); and, other (e.g. woody debris; comments were added for the type of other substrate).

PIT tags do not have batteries or any other factors that limit their lifespan. They can persist in the environment and be detected with the PIT antenna, even after a tagged fish has died. To prevent


this from resulting in bias of low movement or changes in microhabitat use, sites were searched for ‘dead’ tags each season by moving rocks near the fish that had not moved for an extended period. If the fish moved during this search, then it was considered alive. If no movement was observed at this time, we attempted to find the PIT tag in the substrate. Records of when a fish was considered ‘dead’ were removed from further analyses.

Figure 7: PIT tag antenna and operator, Otter Creek, July 2009

2.8.1 Tracking Efficiency

Tracking efficiency was estimated to determine the percent of fishes that would be detected in a given tracking survey under ideal conditions (i.e. low flow, able to detect all areas of the stream, etc.). To determine an estimate of tracking efficiency, 102 PIT-tagged sculpins and dace were released into the bottom third of the Otter Creek index site on July 8, 2009 following 24-hours recovery from tagging. Tagged fishes were given approximately 4 to 6 hours to disperse throughout the index site and then tracking was conducted following the procedures outlined above. Tracking efficiency was calculated as the number of fishes detected divided by the number of fishes released (i.e., n=102). If all fishes were detected than detection efficiency would be 100%. We compared the tracking efficiency for the two tag sizes and the species tagged in Otter Creek.

2.8.2 Detection Success

Detection success was determined for each species, season and index site in the Similkameen River watershed. As described above, detections of tagged fishes were made by remotely tracking the presence of their implanted PIT tags with a portable PIT antenna during seasonal tracking sessions at all index sites. These seasonal detections formed the basis for all movement and microhabitat assessments so our overall detection success was important for the interpretation of all other results. Detection success was calculated as the number of tagged fishes detected in more than one tracking survey divided by the total number of fishes tagged.


-20- June 2010

2.9 Nest Assessments Like many other freshwater cottid and cyprinid species, the target species are male nest guarding fishes (Scott and Crossman 1998, McPhail 2007). For both sculpin and dace species, males establish territories containing appropriate substrates normally consisting of cobble or boulders for sculpins and ‘clean’ gravel for dace (Scott and Crossman 1998, McPhail 2007). Female sculpins are attracted to the nest and deposit their adhesive eggs in a mass to the rocks under surface. Dace females deposit their adhesive eggs into interstitial spaces within the males cleaned gravel nest. Males of both species normally guard nests during egg incubation and possibly for a short period after the young hatch (Van Vliet 1964, Scott and Crossman 1998, Keeler and Cunjak 2007, McPhail 2007).

Nest searches were conducted in the Similkameen index sites four times between early-May and mid-July. The sculpin spawning substrate has to be flipped over because eggs are adhered to the rock’s under surfaces. Therefore nest sites were located in two ways: random searches of the underside of rocks and tracking tagged individuals to potential nest sites. Movements of tagged individuals were monitored during the spawning period and areas around detected individuals were checked for eggs. Great care was taken to minimize nest site disturbance during all tracking events. Nest rocks were replaced within a few minutes and this activity did not appear to result in egg drying, mortality or nest abandonment.

All sculpin nests found were quickly assessed (estimates of egg maturity and number of eggs) and photographed. Microhabitat characteristics measured at nest sites included substrate type, water depth, velocity and embeddedness.

Differentiation of nests by species was determined by recording timing, proximity to a tagged male (and known species), egg colour, size and development. For example, prickly sculpin eggs are much smaller than Columbia sculpin eggs (McPhail 2007). A small number of eggs masses were collected to measure egg diameter, development stage, the number of mated females (determined by egg colour and development), and the total number of eggs.

Dace nest searches were similar to those conducted for sculpin; however, dace nests were not observed in 2009.

2.10 Young-of-the-Year (YOY) Sampling Based on existing spawning timing information, YOY sculpins and dace were expected to be observed during the July and October sampling periods, respectively (AMEC 2010). YOY sampling included: i) electrofishing deeper areas of the index sites during the capture/tagging sessions; and, ii) observing shallow and margin habitats during tracking events. Dip nets and aquarium nets were used to capture any observed YOY.

Larval drift nets were used sparingly during the program to minimize harm to YOY of the SARA-listed species (i.e., Columbia sculpin). A few short (~2 hour) larval drift net sets were used in Otter Creek on June 8 and 11, 2009, prior to the hatch time of Columbia sculpin, to capture prickly sculpin larva. Three drift net sets were conducted during the day on June 8 and 11, while one night set was carried out between 1:30 and 3:00 am on June 11. One drift net was set, mid-water column, in run habitat over boulder/cobble substrate a few meters downstream from where a prickly sculpin nest had been previously found on May 26, 2009.

2.11 Diel Sampling All electrofishing surveys and the majority of tracking events occurred during daylight hours. However, both day and night tracking was conducted seasonally at index sites within Otter and


Allison creeks. Index sites on the Similkameen and Tulameen rivers were not surveyed at night due to safety issues (e.g., fast water velocity and slippery substrate). Also, these sites had fewer tagged fishes because of lower target species densities so they would have provided limited day and night comparison information. Night-time tracking methods were similar to day-time. Lights were not used while searching for tagged fishes; once a fish was detected a flashlight was turned on to measure and record microhabitat information. Microhabitat and location information was recorded for each detected fish as described above. However in deeper areas, substrate composition and embeddedness could not be determined because lights were not powerful enough to take visual observations.

2.12 Analyses Data analyses were limited mostly to tabular and graphical summaries to obtain information trends, which will be used in subsequent years to determine appropriate analyses as outlined in our original proposal for this program. Regression analysis was also used for length-weight data, which is typical for life history studies. Additional information is provided below.

2.12.1 Habitat & Water Conditions

Various habitat characteristics (e.g., water depth, velocity, etc.) were summarized and a qualitative habitat description was provided for each index site. Water conditions at index sites were also summarized and graphed, where possible. Ten-year average, maximum and minimum daily discharge values (1997 to 2007) were compared to 2008 and 2009 flows for the Similkameen and Tulameen rivers (see Section 2.3.2). Daily mean, minimum, and maximum water temperatures were compared among sites.

2.12.2 Abundance and Recapture Rates

Electrofishing catch data were compiled and analyzed (two electrofishing surveys in the Similkameen watershed and one in the LCR). The abundance of fishes captured was compared by species, survey site and watershed through catch per unit effort (CPUE). CPUE was calculated as the number of fishes collected divided by the total amount of electrofishing seconds.

The electrofishing recapture rate in the Similkameen watershed was determined by comparing the number of fishes tagged and marked in the winter with the number recaptured in the same index site in the summer. The recapture rates were calculated for each site and also for each species within the watershed.

2.12.3 Life History

Length and weight data were summarized for the all captured fishes. The mean, minimum, and maximum lengths and weights were determined for all species by sampling event. Length frequency distributions and length-weight regression relationships were graphed for species with large enough sample sizes (n>10). Length frequency modes were used to estimate year classes. Difference in length and weight measurements were calculated for fishes captured in the winter and summer electrofishing surveys as an estimate of growth.

2.12.4 Movements & Microhabitat Use

Detections of PIT-tagged fishes over time provided the basis of all movement and microhabitat data. The distances moved by PIT-tagged adult sculpins and dace were determined by


-22- June 2010

calculating the difference between detection locations over time. The Pythagorean Theorem (a2+b2=c2) was used to calculate the displacement as the shortest distance (i.e., as the crow flies) between easting and northing UTMs for one detection location and the next. Movement categories (i.e., short, medium and long) were determined for Columbia sculpin in Otter Creek by looking for modes in the distribution of the lengths of displacements in each season. These categories were determined to help assess general trends and compare movement of Columbia sculpin in Otter Creek among seasons. Movements were described as displacement distance (or displacement) instead of movement distance to distinguish between movements that subsequent tracking events recorded. Movements between tracking events may have also occurred but we could not record these.

Microhabitat use by PIT-tagged fishes was compared to the available habitat in the index sites to determine habitat use of sculpins and dace. Data were examined for seasonal and diel trends. The habitat at nest sites was also compared to available habitat at the index site.

3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Site Habitats

Detailed descriptions of seasonal habitats available at each index site are provided in Appendix B. A summary of index sites and their overall habitat conditions is further described below.

3.1.1 Similkameen River Watershed

Two index sites were located on the mainstem of the Similkameen River near Princeton, BC (Figure 2; Section 2.1.1). One site was located on the right bank (RB), while the other site was on the left bank (LB; Figure 2). The other sites in the Similkameen River watershed were located in the Tulameen River, and Allison and Otter creeks. Further details are provided for each site below.

3.1.1.1 Similkameen River Right Bank (RB)

The Similkameen River RB index site was located just east of Princeton, BC (Figures 8 to 10). The length and width of this site averaged approximately 120 m by 5.6 m, similar to the LB index site (Appendix B). The average habitat type was classified as riffle in the spring and summer but was a run during the fall. Boulder substrate was the most common and embeddedness averaged 28% at this site (Appendix B). Other substrates at this site included cobble, gravel, sand and silt. The substrate was often covered with slick algae, which limited accessibility during tracking in high flow conditions. Overall, this site had average velocities that ranged from 0 to 1.2 m/s (average of 0.3 m/s) and bottom velocities that ranged from 0 to 0.8 m/s (average of 0.1 m/s; Appendix B). The overall average water depth at this site was 0.4 m (Appendix B). Recorded water depths were <0.8 m in all seasons (Appendix B); deeper, faster sections were available but could not be safely sampled. The early spring survey was conducted at this site but high flows during freshet prevented access to this site during the mid and late spring sampling sessions.


Figure 8: Index site located on the right bank of the Similkameen River. Photo

taken from the downstream end looking upstream on May 5, 2009. The mouth of Allison Creek is visible in the upper right


taken from the downstream end looking upstream on July 4, 2009. The mouth of Allison Creek is visible in the upper right.


-24- June 2010


taken from the downstream end looking upstream on October 29, 2009. The mouth of Allison Creek is visible in the upper right.

3.1.1.2 Similkameen River Left Bank (LB)

The Similkameen River LB index site was located northeast of Princeton, BC (Figure 11 and 12). The downstream boundary of this site is approximately 25 m downstream of the Allison Creek mouth. The length and width averaged 125 and 6 m over all seasons, except during lower flows in the fall, which allowed a greater width of the left bank to be accessed (Appendix B). The average habitat type was classified as riffle in the spring and summer and run in the fall. The site was characterized by a mixture of boulder and cobble substrates with smaller amounts of gravel, sand, and silt (Appendix B). On average, the substrate was 26% embedded, which was the second least embedded of all Similkameen watershed index sites (Appendix B). Average velocities ranged from 0 to 1.2 m/s (average of 0.4 m/s) and bottom velocities ranged from 0 to 0.6 m/s (average of 0.2 m/s; Appendix B). Average water depths ranged from 0.5 m in the early spring to 0.3 m in the summer and fall. The early spring survey was conducted at this site but high flows during freshet prevented access to this site during the mid and late spring sampling sessions.


Figure 11: Index site located on the left bank of the Similkameen River. Photo

taken from the mouth of Allison Creek looking upstream on May 5, 2009.

Figure 12: Index site located on the left bank of the Similkameen River. Photo

taken from the mouth of Allison Creek looking upstream on July 4, 2009.


-26- June 2010

3.1.1.3 Allison Creek

Allison Creek was accessed as described for the Similkameen LB site. The tracking area extended from the confluence with the Similkameen River to about 10 m upstream of the bridge over the creek (Figures 13 and 14). The site length averaged 50 m but during late spring an additional 25 m upstream was also tracked to investigate the possibility of upstream movement. Allison Creek had an average width of 7.3 m but this varied by seasons and was widest in early spring (Appendix B). The predominant habitat type was riffle. Boulder and cobble each comprised a third of the substrate and the remaining third was a fairly even mixture of gravel, sand, and silt (Appendix B). The average embeddedness of substrate was almost 50%, which is higher than that observed for all the Similkameen watershed sites (Appendix B). Average velocities ranged from 0 to 1.7 m/s (average of 0.5 m/s) and bottom velocities ranged from 0 to 0.9 (average of 0.3 m/s; Appendix B). Water depths ranged from a low of 0.3 m in fall to a high of 0.6 m in mid-spring.

Figure 13: Index site located in Allison Creek. Photo taken from the confluence

with the Similkameen River looking upstream on May 27, 2009.


Figure 14: Index site located in Allison Creek. Photo taken from the confluence

with the Similkameen River looking upstream on July 4, 2009.

3.1.1.4 Tulameen River

The Tulameen River index site was located adjacent to the village of Coalmont, BC (Figures 15 and 16). As a result of the changing flow conditions, the width of the river tracked ranged from an average of 14.6 to 38.4 m and the length ranged from 100 to 250 m throughout the study period (Appendix B). Ice cover prevented access to some areas during winter (Figures 15). Early spring surveys were conducted but high flows during freshet prevented access during the mid and late spring sampling sessions. Summer and fall tracking consisted of almost the entire river width, except the fastest sections of the thalweg. During low flows in fall, a cobble bar was exposed opposite the right bank of the site (Figures 16). This index site consisted of predominantly riffle habitat. Cobble substrate was most common followed by boulder, gravel, sand and silt. The substrate at this site was the least embedded of any of the Similkameen watershed index sites, with an average embeddedness of 24.6%. Average velocities ranged from 0 to 1.2 m/s (average of 0.5 m/s) and bottom velocities ranged from 0 to 0.9 m/s (average of 0.3 m/s; Appendix B). The average water depth of the tracked area was 0.2 m with the highest maximum depths being recorded during summer tracking.


-28- June 2010

Figure 15: Index site located in Tulameen River. Photo taken from the upstream

extent looking downstream on February 28, 2009.

Figure 16: Index site located in the Tulameen River. Photo taken from the

confluence with the Similkameen River looking upstream on July 5, 2009. Exposed cobble bar is visible in right corner.

3.1.1.5 Otter Creek

The Otter Creek index site was located adjacent to the Coalmont Road north of the village of Otter Lake, BC (Figure 17 and 18). Flow rates were too high to allow tracking in the early spring but the site was accessible for all remaining tracking sessions across its entire width. The average width and length of this index site was 10.1 m and 300 m (Appendix B). Additional tracking was done for approximately 50 m upstream of the site during the fall and 100 m downstream of the site in the late spring. Cobble was the most common substrate, followed by sand, boulder, gravel, silt and other materials with an average embeddedness of 48.5%


(Appendix B). Other substrate items included instream vegetation, algae and large woody debris. The majority of boulders, cobbles, and large gravels were covered by algae throughout the site. In the fall, the algae was thick enough to reduce velocities and prevent velocity measurements in most areas because the algae would block the propeller, so velocities were estimated based on similar areas without algae. The substrate composition varied along the length of the site with depositional areas containing mostly sand and silt, high flow riffle areas with embedded boulders, and other sections consisting of mainly cobble. A high-capture zone was located near the downstream end of the site and the dominant substrates in this area were cobbles and boulders (Figure 17 and 18). During spring runoff, an inflowing ephemeral tributary was present in the middle of this section on the right. It was a dried river bed by summer tracking in July (Figure 17 and 18). Average velocities ranged from 0 to 0.8 m/s (average of 0.3 m/s) and bottom velocities ranged from 0 to 0.2 m/s (average of 0.1 m/s). The average water depth at this site was 0.4 m with maximum depths occurring in the late spring (Appendix B). This was the only site in the Similkameen watershed which consisted of mainly run habitat.

Figure 17: Index site located in Otter Creek. Photo taken from the upper extent of

the high capture zone looking downstream on May 25, 2009.

Figure 18: Index site located in Otter Creek. Photo taken from the upper extent of

the high capture zone looking downstream on July 3, 2009.


-30- June 2010


As discussed in our methods, five index sites were located within the Columbia River watershed (Figure 4). Two index sites were located in the Kootenay River; one on the right bank at its confluence with the Columbia River and the other about 3 km upstream on the left bank. There were also two sites located in Beaver Creek; one at its confluence with the Columbia River and the other about 500 m upstream. The remaining index site was located in Pass Creek. Further details are provided for each index site below.

3.1.2.1 Mouth of Kootenay River

The Kootenay Mouth index site was located along the right bank (north side), of the Kootenay River at its confluence with the Columbia River (Figure 19). This area is also known as Kootenay Eddy and was dominated by pool habitat. The index site was located mainly along the right bank of the Kootenay River with a small section (~10 m) around the corner on the Columbia River. The width and length of the index site averaged 3.4 m and 60 m (Appendix B). Boulder substrate was the most common, followed by cobble, fines, gravel, sand, and other substrate which consisted of submerged vegetation (Appendix B). On average, the substrate was 58.4% embedded the highest of any site in the Columbia River watershed. Velocities were quite low with maximum average and bottom velocities 0.1 m/s (average of 0 m/s; Appendix B). Depths ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 m with an average depth of 0.4 m (Appendix B).

Figure 19: Index site located along the right bank of the Kootenay River at its

confluence with the Columbia River. Photo taken from the upper extent of the site on the Kootenay River looking downstream on October 19, 2009.

3.1.2.2 Kootenay River

The Kootenay River index site was located on the left bank of the Kootenay River adjacent the “Kootenay River Kampground” (Figure 20). Run habitat dominated this index site (Appendix B). The average width and length of this index site was 3.4 m and 100 m (Appendix B). Boulder substrate was most common with lesser amounts of cobble, gravel, and sand; the substrate had


an average embeddedness of 24.2% (Appendix B). Average velocities ranged from 0 to 0.3 m/s (average of 0.1 m/s) and bottom velocities ranged from 0 to 0.1 m/s (average of 0 m/s; Appendix B). Depths at the site ranged from 0.2 to 0.7 m and the average depth was 0.4 m.

Figure 20: Index site located along the left bank of the Kootenay River. Photo

taken from the lower extent of site looking upstream on October 20, 2009.

3.1.2.3 Pass Creek

The Pass Creek index site, also known as Norns Creek, was located adjacent to Pass Creek Park (Figure 21). This site had an average length of 60 m and width of 8 m. This site was classified as riffle habitat (Appendix B). Cobble substrate was most common at this site followed by gravel and then small amounts of boulder and sand (~ 4% each). This site also had the lowest embeddedness of all the Columbia watershed index sites with an average of only 0.7% (Appendix B). Velocities ranged from 0.1 to 1.1 m/s (average of 0.6 m/s) and bottom velocities ranged from 0 to 0.7 m/s (average of 0.3 m/s; Appendix B). Water depths ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 m with the average depth being 0.3 m.


-32- June 2010

Figure 21: Index site located in Pass Creek. Photo taken from the lower extent of

the site looking upstream on October 21, 2009.

3.1.2.4 Mouth of Beaver Creek

The Beaver Creek Mouth index site was located in Beaver Creek and started at its confluence with the Columbia River (Figure 22). The length and width of this site averaged 180 m by 8.5 m (Appendix B). The habitat type at the site was a mixture of riffle and run habitat (Appendix B). The substrate consisted of a mixture of fairly equal amounts of cobble, gravel, and sand and lesser amounts of boulder and fines (Appendix B). This site had an average embeddedness of 54.6%, the highest of all sites in the Columbia watershed (Appendix B). The average velocity ranged from 0 to 0.6 m/s (average of 0.3 m/s) and bottom velocities ranged from 0 to 0.5 (average of 0.2 m/s; Appendix B). Depths ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 m and the average depth at the site was 0.2 m.

Figure 22: Index site located in Beaver Creek at its confluence with the Columbia

River. Photo taken from the mouth of Beaver Creek looking upstream on October 22, 2009.


3.1.2.5 Beaver Creek

The Beaver Creek index site was located in Beaver Creek, approximately 500 m upstream from its confluence with the Columbia River, adjacent to the Beaver Creek Kiwanis Park picnic area (Figure 23). The length and width of this site averaged 75 m by 8.2 m (Appendix B). The predominant habitat type at this site was a run with small sections of riffle. Boulder was the most common (54%) substrate, followed by cobbles, gravel, and sand and substrate embeddedness averaged 29.4 % (Appendix B). The average velocity ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 m/s (average of 0.3 m/s) and the bottom velocity ranged from 0 to 0.4 m/s (average of 0.1 m/s; Appendix B). The water depth ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 m with the average depth being 0.3 m (Appendix B).

Figure 23: Index site located in Beaver Creek. Photo taken from the lower extent of

the site looking upstream on October 23, 2009.

3.2 Environmental Conditions Discharge and water temperature observations are summarized below for index sites located on the Similkameen River watershed. Water temperatures collected during the study are provided in Appendix C. Environmental conditions are not summarized for index sites in the Columbia River watershed, since this information is still currently being recorded.

3.2.1 Discharge

Seasonal trends in discharge were similar for both the Similkameen and Tulameen rivers, but the Similkameen River discharge was approximately double that of the Tulameen River during peak spring flows and storm events (notice different Y axes, Figure 24 and 25). On average, peak flows occur between mid-May and mid-June, while low flows are observed between mid-August and mid-October. In 2008, discharge was near or below the 10-year average for most of the year, with the exception of mid-May to early-June when flows were closer to the 10-year maximum. In 2009, discharge was between the 10-year average and 10-year minimum.


-34- June 2010

Figure 24: Discharge records for the Similkameen River, near Hedley (WSC Station

No. 08NL038). The 1997-2007 average, minimum and maximum and 2008 and 2009 discharges are presented for comparison.

Figure 25: Discharge records for the Tulameen River (WSC Station No. 08NL024). The 1997-2007 average, minimum and maximum and 2008 and 2009 discharges are presented for comparison.


3.2.2 Water Temperature

Water temperatures for the Similkameen River were collected approximately 25 m upstream (Figure 26) and downstream (Figure 27) of the confluence of Allison Creek. Water temperatures upstream of the Allison Creek confluence were higher than downstream, with maximum summer temperatures reaching 25ºC (Figure 26), while downstream maximum temperatures only reached 22ºC (Figure 27). Minimum water temperatures were close to freezing (0.05ºC) in March in the Similkameen River (Appendix C, Figures 26 and 27).

The Tulameen River demonstrated similar seasonal variability in water temperatures as the Similkameen River (Figure 28). For example, in both rivers, average water temperatures were below 5ºC until June and maximum water temperatures reached approximately 25ºC in late July (Figure 28 and 26). Water temperatures were around 0ºC until mid-March in the Tulameen River (Appendix C, Figure 28).

Otter Creek showed the least variability in water temperature likely due to the moderating effect of lakes, which are located upstream of this index site (Figure 29). Average spring temperatures were much warmer in Otter Creek compared to the other index sites, and reached 5ºC by April. Water temperatures peaked in mid-June (maximum of 16.7ºC), much earlier than the other sites, and reached lows of 0.4ºC during the winter period (Appendix C, Figure 29).

Figure 26: Average, maximum and minimum daily water temperatures in the

Similkameen River upstream of Allison Creek between March and November 2009


-36- June 2010

Figure 27: Average, maximum and minimum daily water temperatures in the Similkameen

River downstream of Allison Creek recorded between March and November 2009

Figure 28: Average, maximum and minimum daily water temperatures in the Tulameen

River recorded between March and November 2009


Figure 29: Average, maximum and minimum daily water temperatures in Otter

Creek recorded between March and November 2009

3.3 Fish Sampling Similkameen watershed fish capture and life history information include winter (February) and summer (July) 2009 electrofishing surveys. The Columbia River watershed data include an electrofishing survey in fall (October) 2009. Information for all fishes captured and tagged is presented in Appendix D.

3.3.1 Similkameen Watershed

In total, 1271 fishes, representing four species of sculpin and one species of dace, were captured within the five Similkameen watershed index sites during February (winter) and July (summer) 2009 electrofishing surveys (Table 4). The captured species included prickly sculpin, Columbia sculpin, torrent sculpin and longnose dace. Columbia sculpin were the most abundant species at all sites, comprising 77% of the total catch (Table 4). The Otter Creek index site had very high abundances of Columbia sculpin (69% of all Columbia sculpin) followed by the Tulameen River site (13% of all Columbia sculpin). Prickly sculpin were rare as they comprised only 1% of the total catch and were only found in Otter Creek (Table 4). Torrent sculpin comprised 15% of the catch and were captured in all sites except Otter Creek. The only dace species captured in the Similkameen River watershed during the surveys was the longnose dace, which was captured in low numbers (n=85; 7%).

3.3.1.1 Relative Abundance

Winter Sampling

Relative abundance for winter electrofishing in the Similkameen River watershed is shown in Table 5. At some sites more than one pass of electrofishing was used to collect fishes but the CPUE analysis only includes captures in the first pass of electrofishing to allow comparisons among sites. In total, 427 fishes were captured in 12,057 electrofishing seconds (EF sec) during the winter for all sites combined (Table 5). Relative abundance was highest at Otter Creek, with


-38- June 2010

81 fishes captured over 1000 EF sec followed by the Tulameen River (CPUE=35), Similkameen LB (CPUE=51), Allison Creek (CPUE=10), and Similkameen RB (CPUE=8; Table 5). All index sites had two or three target species present (Table 5). However, approximately 98% of fishes captured in Otter Creek were Columbia sculpin.

Columbia sculpin were the most abundant species at all sites, except in the Similkameen River right bank site (Table 5). Columbia sculpin CPUE values ranged from 4 to 80 fish per 1000 EF sec. The relative abundance of longnose dace was very low (<1 fish/1000 EF sec) at all sites. However, slightly higher numbers of longnose dace were captured on the Tulameen River (CPUE=6). Prickly sculpin had the lowest relative abundance at all sites with less than two fish captured per 1000 EF sec.


Table 4: Number and percent composition of target species captured during winter and summer electrofishing surveys in index sites in the Similkameen watershed, February and July 2009

Similkameen River-Left Bank

Similkameen River-Right Bank Tulameen River Allison Creek Otter Creek All Sites

Species n % n % n % n % n % n %

Prickly Sculpin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 11 1 Columbia Sculpin 89 56 54 56 126 49 40 58 675 98 984 77 Torrent Sculpin 64 40 34 35 70 27 22 32 0 0 190 15

Longnose Dace 6 4 9 9 59 23 6 9 5 1 85 7 Not Recorded* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 All Species 159 97 255 69 691 1271

Note: *The species of one fish was not recorded

Table 5: Number and relative abundance (CPUE) of target species captured at index sites in the Similkameen River watershed, February 2009

Similkameen River-

Left Bank Similkameen River-

Right Bank Tulameen River Allison Creek Otter Creek All Sites Total Effort (EF sec) 1013 3465 4118 1020 2441 12057 Species n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* Prickly Sculpin 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.2 3 0.2 Columbia Sculpin 29 28.6 12 3.5 62 15.1 7 6.9 194 79.5 304 25.2 Torrent Sculpin 23 22.7 13 3.8 57 13.8 3 2.9 0 0.0 96 8.0 Longnose Dace 0 0.0 1 0.3 23 5.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 2.0 All Species 52 51.3 26 7.5 142 34.5 10 9.8 197 80.7 427 35.4

Note: *CPUE (Catch-per-unit-effort): number of fishes captured per second of electrofishing; values multiplied by 1000 to provide values greater than 0; CPUE values based on fishes captured in the first electrofishing pass only.


-40- June 2010

3.3.1.2 Summer Sampling

In total, 803 fishes were captured in 12,327 EF sec during the summer at all index sites located within the Similkameen watershed (Table 6). The overall relative abundance during the summer (65 fish/1000 EF sec) was almost double that observed during the winter (35 fish/1000 EF sec). The same held for all species except torrent sculpin (Tables 5 and 6).

Otter Creek had the highest relative abundance (CPUE=100) followed by the Tulameen River (CPUE=35), Similkameen RB (CPUE=47), Allison Creek (CPUE=33), and Similkameen LB (CPUE=30; Table 6). Relative abundances at both Similkameen sites (LB and RB) were more similar in summer (CPUE=30 and 47, respectively; Table 6) than in winter (CPUE=51 and 8, respectively; Table 5). Relative abundances of all species captured at the Similkameen RB and Allison Creek index sites demonstrated larger increases during the summer compared to winter surveys (Table 5 and 6). Index sites on the Tulameen River and Otter Creek had slightly higher relative abundances during the summer, but were not dramatically different from the winter period.

Columbia sculpin were the most abundant species at all sites (both absolute numbers and CPUE values), especially at Otter Creek where approximately 97% of the catch was comprised of this species (Table 6). The CPUE for Columbia sculpin captured in the summer was almost double that observed in the winter. Similarly, the relative abundance of longnose dace was higher at all sites in the summer compared to winter. Torrent sculpin was the only species with lower relative abundance in summer than in winter because fewer fish were captured in the Tulameen River; this site had the highest numbers of torrent sculpin observed in the winter compared to other sites (Table 5). As in the winter, prickly sculpin had the lowest relative abundance with less than two captured per 1000 EF sec.

Very few (1.5%) winter-tagged fishes (both PIT-tagged and VIE-marked) were recaptured during the summer electrofishing session (Table 7). It is unlikely that these fishes moved out of the sites, since large movements are expected to be uncommon in a short period (Section 3.6), so it is likely a result of low capture efficiency. (Sculpins are especially difficult to capture with electrofishing because they lack a swim bladder and sink immediately to the bottom and find cover under large substrates). Recaptures of winter-tagged fishes ranged from 1 to 3 at all other sites, except in the Similkameen River where none were recaptured (Table 7). Recaptured fishes included Columbia sculpin, longnose dace and torrent sculpin.


Table 6: Number and relative abundance (CPUE) of target species captured at index sites in the Similkameen River watershed, July 2009

Similkameen River-

Left Bank Similkameen

River-Right Bank Tulameen River Allison Creek Otter Creek All Sites Total Effort (s) 2195 1521 1907 1739 4965 12327

Species n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* Prickly Sculpin 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 1.6 8 0.6 Columbia Sculpin 34 15.5 42 27.6 64 33.6 33 19.0 481 96.9 654 53.1 Torrent Sculpin 27 12.3 21 13.8 13 6.8 19 10.9 0 0.0 80 6.5 Longnose Dace 5 2.3 8 5.3 37 19.4 6 3.5 5 1.0 61 4.9 All Species 66 30.1 71 46.7 114 59.8 58 33.4 494 99.5 803 65.1

Note: * CPUE (Catch-per-unit-effort): number of fishes captured per second of electrofishing; values multiplied by 1000 to provide values greater than 0; CPUE values based on fishes captured in the first electrofishing pass only. Table 7: Number and percent composition of recaptured target species at index sites in the Similkameen River watershed, July

2009

Similkameen

River-Left Bank Similkameen River-

Right Bank Tulameen River Allison Creek Otter Creek All Sites

Species n % of winter

catch n % of winter

catch n % of winter

catch n % of winter

catch n % of winter

catch n % of winter

catch Prickly Sculpin 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Columbia Sculpin 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 14.3 3 1.5 4 1.2 Torrent Sculpin 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.9 Longnose Dace 0 0 0 0 2 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 8.0 All Species 0 0 0 0 3 2.1 1 10.0 3 1.5 7 1.5

Note: Recaptured fish include one VIE-marked torrent sculpin and all the rest were VIE-marked and PIT-tagged.


-42- June 2010

3.3.1.3 Length and Weight Data

Length and weight information measured during electrofishing surveys at each index site is summarized by season and species in Appendix D. The length and weight of sculpins and dace varied by season (Appendix D). Prickly sculpin were the largest species followed by torrent sculpin, Columbia sculpin, and longnose dace in winter. However, Columbia sculpin were smaller than longnose dace in the summer. The length and weight of sculpins and dace also varied by site for both the winter and summer sampling session (Appendix D). For example, the average length and weight of Columbia sculpin ranged from 43 to 75 mm and 1.6 to 7.3 g among Similkameen River water index sites in the winter (Appendix D).

Length Frequencies

Length frequency distributions from each index site in the Similkameen River watershed were compiled by species, except for prickly sculpin because too few individuals were captured (<10 per season) (Figures 30 to 32). Columbia sculpin had two distinct length modes during capture seasons (Figure 30). During winter, highest frequencies were observed for the 31-40 mm and 51-60 mm length categories but in the summer, these shifted to 41-50 mm and 61-70 mm. Torrent sculpin also had two distinct length modes in both seasons: 31-40 mm and the 61-70 mm in summer and these shifted to the 41-60 mm and the 61-90 mm length categories in winter (Figure 31). Longnose dace had three length modes of 21-30 mm, 41-50 mm and 51-60 mm in the winter and one length mode of 51-60 mm in the summer (Figure 32).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 11-20 31-40 51-60 71-80 91-100 111-120 131-140

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Winter 2009 (n=330) Summer 2009 (n=653) Figure 30: Length-frequency distribution for Columbia sculpin captured during

electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 11-20 31-40 51-60 71-80 91-100 111-120 131-140

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Winter 2009 (n=109) Summer 2009 (n=80) Figure 31: Length-frequency distribution for torrent sculpin captured during


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 11-20 31-40 51-60 71-80 91-100 111-120 131-140

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Winter 2009 (n=25) Summer 2009 (n=60) Figure 32: Length-frequency distribution for longnose dace captured during


Length-Weight Relationships

Pooled winter and summer length-weight relationships for Columbia sculpin, torrent sculpin and longnose dace are presented in Figures 33 to 35.


-44- June 2010

y = 6E-06x3.1604

R2 = 0.971

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Total Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Columbia Sculpin (n=983) Figure 33: Length-weight relationship for Columbia sculpin captured at index sites

located in the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009

y = 6E-06x3.1536

R2 = 0.9835

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Total Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Torrent Sculpin (n=188) Figure 34: Length-weight relationship for torrent sculpin captured at index sites


y = 2E-05x2.7872

R2 = 0.9643

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Fork Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Longnose Dace (n=85) Figure 35: Length-weight relationship for longnose dace captured at index sites



Growth

Length and weight information for recaptured fishes was compared to calculate observed growth during the spring (Table 8). Two longnose dace were recaptured in the Tulameen River and the lengths of these fish did not change during the four months between captures (Table 8). The four Columbia sculpin recaptured were 3 to 9 mm longer, but two fish (3D9.1C2D092492 and 3D9.1C2D30CE0A) had decreased in weight (Table 8); this may relate to stomach fullness or a change in gonadal development from pre- to post-spawning as both these fish were mature based on length.


In total, 907 sculpins and dace were captured within the five Columbia River watershed index sites during October (fall) 2009 electrofishing surveys (Table 9). All target species (prickly sculpin, Columbia sculpin, shorthead sculpin, torrent sculpin, longnose dace and Umatilla dace) were caught. Shorthead sculpin were the most common species captured, comprising 57% (n=518) of the total catch with the majority (86%; n=443) captured in Pass Creek. Prickly sculpin were the second most common species captured and comprised 16% (n=145) of the catch, even though they were not captured at two of the sites (Beaver Creek Campsite and Pass Creek). Torrent sculpin comprised 12% (n=110) of the catch and were captured in all sites except in the Beaver Creek Campsite index site. Columbia sculpin, longnose dace and Umatilla dace were relatively rare, each comprising <10% of the total catch. The majority of dace were caught in the Kootenay River campsite, which included 86% Umatilla dace.

3.3.2.1 Relative Abundance

In total, 654 fishes were captured in 6,403 seconds of EF sec for all index sites combined (Table 10). The relative abundance of fishes captured in the Columbia River watershed (CPUE=102) was higher than abundances observed in winter (CPUE=35) and summer (CPUE=65) in the Similkameen watershed. Prickly sculpin and longnose dace were captured in higher abundances in the Columbia watershed than in the Similkameen watershed while Columbia sculpin were much less abundant.

Pass Creek had the highest relative abundance of all sites sampled, with 301 fishes captured every 1000 EF sec. However, 95% of these fishes were shorthead sculpin contributing 43% (CPUE=44.4) to the overall CPUE. Columbia sculpin had the lowest relative abundance of all the species with only two captured per 1000 EF sec. For all other species, CPUE ranged from 8 to 22 fish per 1000 EF sec.


-46- June 2010

Table 8: Length and weight comparisons for recaptured fishes in index sites located in the Similkameen watershed, February and July 2009

Winter Summer Difference

Site Species PIT Tag Number Length (mm) Weight (g)

Length (mm) Weight (g)

Length (mm) Weight (g)

Longnose Dace 3D9.1C2D23A371 48 1.0 48 1.1 0 0.1 Longnose Dace 3D9.1C2D23A779 53 1.3 52 1.5 -1 0.2

Tulameen River

Torrent Sculpin VIE only* - - 41 0.6 - - Allison Creek Columbia Sculpin 3D9.1C2D30C7AB 84 8.3 91 10.1 7 1.8

Columbia Sculpin 3D9.1C2D092492 79 6.9 84 6.7 5 -0.2 Columbia Sculpin 3D9.1C2D23ACFF 59 2.1 68 3.9 9 1.8

Otter Creek

Columbia Sculpin 3D9.1C2D30CE0A 85 9.1 88 7.9 3 -1.2 Note: *VIE-marked fish cannot be individually identified so winter length and weight data is unavailable

Table 9: Number and percent composition of target species captured during electrofishing surveys conducted at index sites in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009

Kootenay River -

Mouth Kootenay River -

Campsite Beaver Creek -

Mouth Beaver Creek -

Campsite Pass Creek All Sites Species n % n % n % n % n % n %

Prickly sculpin 13 43 9 5 123 63 0 0 0 0 145 16 Columbia sculpin 0 0 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 Shorthead sculpin 1 3 17 10 10 5 47 98 443 95 518 57 Torrent sculpin 9 30 44 26 41 21 0 0 16 3 110 12 Longnose dace 2 7 36 21 18 9 1 2 6 1 63 7 Umatilla dace 5 17 48 29 3 2 0 0 0 0 56 6 Not recorded* 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 All Species 30 168 196 48 465 907 Note: *The species of one fish was not recorded


Table 10: Number and relative abundance (CPUE) of target species captured at index sites in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009

Kootenay River -


Campsite Beaver Creek - Mouth Beaver Creek -

Campsite Pass Creek All Sites Total Effort (s) 817 2166 1796 889 735 6403

Species n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE* n CPUE*

Prickly Sculpin 11 13.5 9 4.2 123 68.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 143 22.3 Columbia Sculpin 0 0.0 14 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 2.2 Shorthead Sculpin

1 1.2 17 7.8 10 5.6 47 52.9 209 284.4 284 44.4

Torrent Sculpin 6 7.3 44 20.3 41 22.8 0 0.0 9 12.2 100 15.6 Longnose Dace 2 2.4 36 16.6 18 10.0 1 1.1 3 4.1 60 9.4 Umatilla Dace 2 2.4 48 22.2 3 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 53 8.3 All Species 22 26.9 168 77.6 195 108.6 48 54.0 221 300.7 654 102.1 Note: *CPUE (Catch-per-unit-effort): number of fishes captured per second of electrofishing; values have been multiplied by 1000 to provide values greater than 0; CPUE values based on fishes captured in the first electrofishing pass only.


-48- June 2010

3.3.2.2 Length and Weight Data

Length and weight data at each index site are summarized by season and species in Appendix D. Sculpins and dace in the Columbia River watershed were smaller, on average, than fishes collected in the Similkameen watershed (Appendix D). In the Columbia River watershed, torrent sculpin was the largest species followed by Columbia sculpin, shorthead sculpin, prickly sculpin, longnose dace and Umatilla dace. The length and weight of sculpins and dace varied by site (Appendix D). For example, the average length and weight of shorthead sculpin ranged from 35 to 86 mm and 0.4 to 9.2 g, respectively, among index sites.

Length Frequencies

Prickly sculpin had two distinctive length modes between 31 and 50 mm and 81-90 mm (Figure 36). Only a few Columbia sculpin were captured (n=14), so there are a number of modes (Figure 37). Shorthead sculpin were observed to have two distinct modes at the 41-50 mm and the 61-70 mm length categories (Figure 38). Torrent sculpin had three distinctive length modes at 31-40 mm, 71-80 mm and 101-110 mm (Figure 39). Longnose dace had two length class modes of 31-40 mm and 71-80 mm (Figure 40). Umatilla dace had only one length class mode at 31-40 mm (Figure 41).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1-10 21-30 41-50 61-70 81-90 101-110 121-130 141-150

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Prickly Sculpin (n=145) Figure 36: Length-frequency distribution for prickly sculpin captured during

electrofishing surveys at index sites located within the Columbia River watershed, October 2009


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1-10 21-30 41-50 61-70 81-90 101-110 121-130 141-150

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Columbia Sculpin (n=14) Figure 37: Length-frequency distribution for Columbia sculpin captured during


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1-10 21-30 41-50 61-70 81-90 101-110 121-130 141-150

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Shorthead Sculpin (n=518) Figure 38: Length-frequency distribution for shorthead sculpin captured during


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1-10 21-30 41-50 61-70 81-90 101-110 121-130 141-150

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Torrent Sculpin (n=110) Figure 39: Length-frequency distribution for torrent sculpin captured during



-50- June 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1-10 21-30 41-50 61-70 81-90 101-110 121-130 141-150

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Longnose Dace (n=63) Figure 40: Length-frequency distribution for longnose dace captured during


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1-10 21-30 41-50 61-70 81-90 101-110 121-130 141-150

Total Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Umatilla Dace (n=56) Figure 41: Length-frequency distribution for Umatilla dace captured during


Length-Weight Relationships

The length-weight relationships for all sculpins and dace captured in the Columbia River watershed are presented in Figures 42 to 47.


Figure 42: Length-weight relationship for prickly sculpin captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Total Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Columbia sculpin (n=14) Figure 43: Length-weight relationship for Columbia sculpin captured at index sites

located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009

y = 6E-06x3.1138

R2 = 0.9056

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Total Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Shorthead sculpin (n=374) Figure 44: Length-weight relationship for shorthead sculpin captured at index

sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009

y = 4E-06x3.2282

R2 = 0.8428

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Total Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Prickly sculpin (n=140)


-52- June 2010

y = 3E-06x3.2929

R2 = 0.96

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Total Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Torrent sculpin (n=105) Figure 45: Length-weight relationship for torrent sculpin captured at index sites


y = 4E-06x3.244

R2 = 0.7199

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Total Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Longnose Dace (n=60) Figure 46: Length-weight relationship for longnose dace captured at index sites


y = 2E-05x2.8274

R2 = 0.4868

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Total Length (mm)

Wei

ght (

g)

Umatilla Dace (n=55) Figure 47: Length-weight relationship for Umatilla dace captured at index sites



3.4 Tagging Data The majority of fishes (n=1251; 98%) captured in the Similkameen index sites were PIT-tagged and/or marked with VIE (Table 11). The other 2% were not marked because the fish were small and an attempt at a VIE mark failed. Approximately 63% (n=799) of fishes were implanted with both a PIT tag and VIE, whereas 35% (n=441) were marked only with VIE as they were too small to implant with a PIT tag. Columbia sculpin from Otter Creek comprised the highest number (n=975; 78%) of marked fishes, since this species was most abundant.

In total, 907 sculpins and dace were captured in the Columbia River system, all of which were either PIT-tagged and/or marked with VIE (Table 12). The majority (n=585; 65%) of these fishes were only marked with VIE, since the catch was comprised of a large number of YOY and age 1+ that were too small to PIT tag. The remaining catch (n=322; 35%) was large enough to be implanted with both PIT tag and marked with VIE. The most abundant species captured and marked was shorthead sculpin (n=518; 57%) and the majority (n=443; 84%) of these fish were from Pass Creek.


-54- June 2010

Table 11: Number of marked and tagged target species captured at index sites located in the Similkameen River watershed, February and July 2009

Site

Species Tag Type Similkameen River-

Left Bank Similkameen River-

Right Bank Tulameen River Allison Creek Otter Creek All Prickly Sculpin 11.5 mm PIT 0 0 0 0 11 11

Columbia Sculpin 8.5 mm PIT 9 1 20 14 177 221 11.5 mm PIT 21 41 46 24 243 375 VIE only 59 10 59 1 250 379 All 89 52 125 39 670 975

Torrent Sculpin 8.5 mm PIT 6 4 8 9 27 11.5 mm PIT 44 26 40 9 119 VIE only 13 3 20 4 40 All 63 33 68 22 0 186

Longnose Dace 8.5 mm PIT 1 3 29 1 2 36 11.5 mm PIT 2 4 12 1 1 20 VIE only 2 2 13 3 2 22 All 5 9 54 5 5 78

All Species 8.5 mm PIT 16 8 57 25 179 285 11.5 mm PIT 67 71 98 34 255 514 VIE only 74 15 92 8 252 441 All 157 94 247 67 686 1251


Table 12: Number of marked and tagged target species captured at index sites located in the Columbia River watershed, October 2009

Site

Species Tag Type Kootenay River -


Campsite Beaver Creek –

Mouth Beaver Creek -

Campsite Pass Creek All sites Prickly Sculpin 8.5 mm PIT 5 1 23 29 11.5 mm PIT 5 7 2 14 VIE only 3 1 98 102 All 13 9 123 145

Columbia Sculpin 11.5 mm PIT 6 6 VIE only 8 8 All 14 14

Shorthead Sculpin 8.5 mm PIT 4 1 5 45 55 11.5 mm PIT 1 12 15 120 148 VIE only 1 9 27 278 315 All 1 17 10 47 443 518

Torrent Sculpin 8.5 mm PIT 1 3 14 18 11.5 mm PIT 4 19 1 14 38 VIE only 4 22 26 2 54 All 9 44 41 16 110

Longnose Dace 8.5 mm PIT 10 1 11 11.5 mm PIT 1 1 VIE only 2 26 18 1 4 51 All 2 36 18 1 6 63

Umatilla Dace 8.5 mm PIT 1 1 2 VIE only 5 47 2 54 All 5 48 3 56

All 8.5 mm PIT 6 19 39 5 46 115 11.5 mm PIT 10 44 3 15 135 207 VIE only 14 105 154 28 284 585 All 30 168 196 48 465 907


-56- June 2010

3.4.1 Tagging Mortality

Overall, mortality in the first 24 hours was very low (n=21; <1% of total catch). The majority of the mortalities (n=14; 67%) resulted from electrofishing injuries and occurred prior to any further processing. Tag loss was also very low with only 2 Columbia sculpin (<0.1%) losing their PIT tags in the first 24 hours during the winter sample period (Similkameen watershed). Further information regarding the number of mortalities and PIT tag losses by species and sampling session is provided in Appendix D.

It is difficult to assess the tagging mortality that occurred after the first 24 hours following surgery. However, fishes recaptured at index sites located in the Similkameen watershed appeared healthy and their surgery scars were barely visible (Figure 48).

Figure 48: Recaptured Columbia sculpin from Otter Creek with no visible PIT tag

surgery scar, June 2009. Individual tagged in February, 2009

3.5 Detection Data

3.5.1 Tracking Efficiency

In total, 102 fish were PIT-tagged and released back into lower third of Otter Creek on July 8, 2009. Approximately 80% (n=82) of these fishes were detected after being released for approximately 4 to 6 hours (Table 13). Detection varied between tag sizes, with 93% (n=70) of the larger (11.5 mm) tags detected compared to 53% (n=32) of smaller (8.5 mm) size tags (Table 13). This was expected because the signal strength of the 11.5 mm tags was much higher (35-45 cm signal distance) than the 8.5 mm tag (15-20 cm signal distance). It was not possible to compare tag detection among species because 98% (n=100) of the fishes tagged for this experiment were Columbia sculpin (Table 13).


Table 13: Number and percent of PIT-tagged fish detected during the tracking efficiency experiment in Otter Creek, July 8, 2009

Released Fish Detected Fish n % n %

All Fish Combined 102 100 82 80 11.5 mm 70 69 65 93 Tag Size 8.5 mm 32 31 17 53 Columbia sculpin 100 98 81 81 Longnose dace 1 1 0 0

Species

Prickly sculpin 1 1 1 100

3.5.2 Detection Success

Detections of tagged fishes were made by remotely tracking the presence of their implanted PIT tags with a portable PIT antenna during seasonal tracking sessions at all index sites. All fish detection location data are presented in Appendix E. Detections of individual fish formed the basis for all movement and microhabitat assessments in the Similkameen watershed, so the overall detection success is important for interpretation of results. Summaries of the detection success for each index site are provided in Appendix E.

Of the 799 fish PIT-tagged in the Similkameen watershed, 41% (n=328) were detected at least once during seasonal tracking sessions. Winter tagged fish could be detected in up to 5 tracking sessions, while summer tagged fish could only be detected in the fall sampling session because of the number and timing of tracking sessions. As expected, a higher percent of winter tagged fishes (45%; n=149) were detected than summer tagged fish (37%; n=179; Appendix E). In addition, more 11.5 mm tagged-fishes (44%; n=228) were detected than 8.5 mm tagged fish (38%; n=109) likely because the signal strength was much higher for the larger tags (35-45 detection range) compared to smaller tags (15-20 mm detection range).

Detection success also varied by site with 247 (57%) fish detected at least once in Otter Creek, whereas in the Tulameen River detection success was lowest (19%; n=25; Appendix E). Detection success for the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites were combined because some fishes moved among these sites. In total, 221 fishes were PIT-tagged in these three index sites and 25% were redetected at least once.

Detection success varied by season with low success in spring (3-17%) because areas of the index sites were inaccessible or difficult to track during high flows (Appendix E). In summer and fall detection success was 31% (n=103) and 29% (n=233), respectively.

Proportion of detections varied by species with 46% (n=273) of the 596 Columbia sculpin PIT-tagged being detected at least once in the Similkameen watershed. In total, 25% (n=36) torrent sculpin were detected at least once in the Similkameen watershed. Only 11 prickly sculpin were tagged but 45% of these (n=5) were detected in the fall. Only one (2%) longnose dace was detected, which may have related to their numbers being spread amongst five index sites and the majority being tagged with 8.5 mm tags, which are harder to detect. Alternatively, longnose dace may have used areas that could not be easily tracked (i.e. fast, deep sections) or they may have been avoiding the PIT tag antenna.


-58- June 2010

3.6 Movement A summary of all sculpins and dace displacements in the Similkameen River watershed by season are described in the following section and provided in Appendix E. Data from the Similkameen watershed provide an estimate of movements in a reference, unregulated system which can be compared to movements in the Columbia watershed in future years to help assess the impact of HLK operations. The spawning movements of male Columbia sculpin who had nests are discussed in Section 3.6.2. The diel movements of PIT-tagged sculpins are described in Section 3.6.3.

3.6.1 Seasonal Movements

Generalized movement patterns were difficult to discern, since movements could only be described by displacement distances between subsequent detections and the duration between detections was large (up to three months). This limited the analyses because fishes detected only once after tagging provided limited displacement information, especially if detected after a long period of time (e.g., March release and October detection). Further information on the seasonal movements of each species observed the Similkameen watershed is provided below.

3.6.1.1 Columbia Sculpin

Columbia sculpin were the most common species at each site and 392 displacements were observed for all the index sites combined during 2009 (Table 14). Movements could occur between the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites so data from these sites were combined. Average displacement for all seasons and sites combined was 61 m and ranged from 32 to 64 m among the sites (Table 14). The smallest movements observed were <1 m and these occurred at all sites. The longest distance (371 m) was observed in Otter Creek, the longest of all the sites (Section 3.1.1) and encompassed the extent of the area surveyed.

Table 14: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of Columbia sculpin observed in the Similkameen River watershed index sites, 2009

Observed Displacement (m) Site n Mean Min Max

Similkameen River (Right and Left Bank) and Allison Creek 34 32 2 109 Tulameen River 20 60 7 137 Otter Creek 338 64 0 371 All 392 61 0 371

The seasonal displacement of Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen watershed index sites are shown in Table 15. Not all sites were sampled in all spring sampling sessions (due to accessibility issues during high flows), so only a few (n=5) movements were observed in the early spring (did not include Otter Creek) and the mean movement observed in that session (36 m) was lower than the rest. In all other sampling sessions, a large number of movements were observed (n=28-211) and the average length of observed movements ranged from 48 to 97 m. The largest average movements were observed in late-spring. This timing coincides with the Columbia sculpin spawning period (see Section 3.7.2) and may be related to spawning movement (see Section


3.6.2). However, fishes were detected for the first time in the spring, so these larger movements might relate to fishes moving from their release locations to preferred locations.

Table 15: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of Columbia sculpin observed in the Similkameen River watershed index sites by season, 2009

Observed Displacement (m) Season (Date) n Mean Min Max

Early-Spring (May 5-7) 5 36 8 55 Mid-Spring (May 25-27) 28 97 4 371 Late-Spring (June 8-12) 64 89 1 297 Summer (July 3-10) 83 64 1 309 Fall (October 25-29) 211 48 0 311

A large number of Columbia sculpin were detected in Otter Creek (n=240), so it was not possible to illustrate movement of all fish on schematic diagrams. Instead, the frequency of displacement lengths was graphed to determine movement patterns and assess seasonal trends in displacement of Columbia sculpin (Appendix E). The modes in these distributions provided rough estimates of movement categories: i) short displacements were <30 m; ii) medium displacements were 31-150 m; and, iii) long movements were >150 m. Overall, almost half (49%) of the observed Columbia sculpin displacements in Otter Creek were short, 40% were medium in length and 11% were long. The percent for short displacements increased over the year from 23% in spring to 60% in fall. As mentioned above, these longer movements in spring may be related to spawning or dispersal from their winter release locations.

Table 16: Percent of observed Columbia sculpin displacements characterized as short, medium and long in Otter Creek by season, 2009

Season Spring Summer Fall All Number of observed movements 87 67 184 338 % of Short Displacements (<30 m) 23 54 60 49 % of Medium Displacements (31-150) 64 30 33 40 % of Long Displacements (>150 m) 13 16 8 11

Five Columbia sculpin that had made short movements in Otter Creek are shown in Figure 49. There were no obvious trends in movement of Columbia sculpin in Otter Creek except that most fish stayed around the bottom third of the site (Figure 49) where most fish were captured and the substrate was dominated by cobble and boulder (see Section 3.1.1.5). Two examples of Columbia sculpin that had long displacements are shown in Figures 50 and 51. Long movements were rare and these fish tended to move between areas dominated by larger substrate and appeared to avoid slow, depositional sections of Otter Creek.

In the Tulameen River, there were no obvious patterns in the direction or timing of Columbia sculpin movements (Figure 52). Fish were observed moving in all directions from their release point.


-60- June 2010

The movement of Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites is shown in Figure 53. Only two Columbia sculpin moved between sites on the Similkameen and both of these fish moved from the Similkameen left bank to right bank site later in the year (summer and fall). Most of the movement was focused in the upstream section of the Allison Creek site and was short in length (Figure 54). There were no obvious trends in direction or length of movement of Columbia sculpin in these sites during the year.


Figure 49: Schematic diagram illustrating the detections of five

PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Otter Creek index site which are examples of short movements, 2009

Figure 50: Schematic diagram of a Columbia sculpin (ID# 0CDFD) that conducted long movements in Otter Creek, 2009


-62- June 2010

Figure 51: Schematic diagram of a Columbia sculpin (ID# 4097C)

that conducted long movements in Otter Creek, 2009 Figure 52: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and

detection locations of PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Tulameen River index site, 2009


Figure 53: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and

detection locations of PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites, 2009

Figure 54: Schematic diagram illustrating the detection locations of PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in upper section of the Allison Creek index sites, 2009 (inset of Figure 53)


-64- June 2010

3.6.1.2 Torrent Sculpin

Torrent sculpin movements (n=47) were observed in all sites except Otter Creek where none were captured (Table 17). Movement occurred among the Similkameen River and Allison Creek sites so data were combined. The average observed displacement was 43 m and ranged from 2 m to 138 m (Table 17).

Table 17: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of torrent sculpin observed in the Similkameen River watershed index sites, 2009

Observed Displacement (m) Site n Mean Min Max

Similkameen River (Right and Left Bank) and Allison Creek 42 39 2 138 Tulameen River 5 76 17 136 All 47 43 2 138

Movements were observed for torrent sculpin in all sampling sessions (Table 18). The number of movements observed by sampling season ranged from 4 in mid-spring when flows were high to 13 in the fall when flows were low. The average length of displacements ranged from 26 to 68 m and the highest average displacement was observed in late-spring.

Table 18: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of Columbia sculpin observed in the Similkameen River watershed index sites by season, 2009

Observed Displacement (m) Season (Date) n Mean Min Max

Early-Spring (May 5-7) 9 31 4 93 Mid-Spring (May 25-27) 4 58 19 102 Late-Spring (June 3-10) 6 68 2 138 Summer (July 3-10) 15 50 2 136 Fall (October 25-29) 13 28 4 77

Movements of individual torrent sculpin in each of the sites are shown in Figures 55 and 56. Movement occurred in all directions from the release point in the Tulameen River, although they were not detected in any of the spring sampling sessions (Figure 55). In the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites, movement was in all directions from the release locations including within and between the index sites (Figure 56). On closer examination of the torrent sculpin that moved among sites, many torrent sculpin moved into Allison Creek in the spring sampling sessions (Figure 56). These movements may have been related to the torrent sculpin spawning period but this is unconfirmed because torrent nests were not located in 2009 (Sections 3.7.2).


Figure 55: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and

detection locations of PIT-tagged torrent sculpin in the Tulameen River, 2009

Figure 56: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and detection locations of PIT-tagged torrent sculpin in the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites, 2009


-66- June 2010

3.6.1.3 Prickly Sculpin

Of the 11 prickly sculpin PIT-tagged in Otter Creek, five were detected during 2009 and their movements are illustrated in Figure 57. All these fish were summer tagged fish and none of the winter tagged fish were ever detected. Therefore, observed displacement only occurred between the summer release and the fall tracking session (Figure 57). Displacement distances for the five prickly sculpin ranged from 7 to 39 m, with an average displacement distance of 26 m. These displacements were in the downstream direction from their release location in the lower half of the Otter Creek index site. As mentioned above, the lower section of Otter Creek was a high capture zone and had a lot of cobble and boulder substrate (Section 3.1.1.5).

Figure 57: Schematic diagram illustrating the release and detection locations of

PIT-tagged prickly sculpin in the Otter Creek index sites, 2009


3.6.1.4 Longnose Dace

In the Similkameen River watershed, 56 longnose dace were PIT-tagged, but only one was detected in 2009. The one longnose dace that was detected was originally tagged in Tulameen River index site in July 2009. This fish was detected in the fall tracking session (110 days at-large) and it was approximately 79 m downstream from its release location. The longnose dace was released on the right bank of Tulameen River site and was detected mid-channel in a fast flowing section of the river (Figure 58).

Figure 58: Schematic diagram illustrating the release location and subsequent

detection location of one PIT-tagged longnose dace in the Tulameen River index site, 2009.


-68- June 2010

3.6.2 Spawning Movements


The movements of all tagged male Columbia sculpin with a nest in the Similkameen watershed are illustrated in Figures 59 to 61 (see Section 3.7.2 for more spawning information). Nesting Columbia sculpin males were located in Otter Creek, Allison Creek and the Tulameen River in spring 2009 (Figures 59 to 61).

Four nesting males (ID# 0CABE, 0C9D4, 0CE0A, and 0CF36) were located in Otter Creek in late spring (Figure 59). Most of these males were located in multiple seasons close to the nest site location (<10 m displacement). However, ID#0CF36 moved extensively (~300 m upstream) after the nest was located and ID#0CABE moved 26 m upstream in the fall after the spawning period was over.

The movements of two nesting males (ID# 1A977 and 1AC0C) in Allison Creek are shown in Figure 60. One male (ID#1A977) was located numerous times within a small area of Allison Creek and his displacements were short all year (<20 m). The other male (ID#1AC0C) was only detected once in late-spring by its nest around hatching time and then was not detected again until fall when he was 13 m upstream.

The detections a Columbia sculpin (ID# ED957) with a nest in the Tulameen River side channel is shown in Figure 61. The fish was tagged in the winter and detected at its nest in July and was not detected at any other time of the year.


Figure 59: Schematic diagram illustrating the detection

locations of four male PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin with nests in the Otter Creek index sites, 2009

Figure 60: Schematic diagram illustrating the detection locations of two male PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin with nests in the Allison Creek index sites, 2009


-70- June 2010

Figure 61: Schematic diagram illustrating the detection locations of one male PIT-

tagged Columbia sculpin with nests in the Tulameen River, 2009

3.6.3 Diel Movements

3.6.3.1 Columbia sculpin

Day and night detection locations were compared seasonally for Columbia sculpin in the Allison Creek site and in the bottom third of the Otter Creek site (Figures 62 to 66). In total, 19, 26 and 73 PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin were detected during both the day and the night in spring, summer and fall (Table 19). The observed displacement between day and night locations ranged from 1 m to 36 m. The median movements observed for Columbia sculpin were close for all the seasons, ranging from 6.3 to 7.7 m, suggesting that most Columbia sculpin were using similar areas during the day and night (Table 19).


Table 19: Number, median, minimum and maximum displacements of Columbia sculpin between day and night locations in the Similkameen River watershed index sites, 2009

Displacement Between Day and Night Location (m) n Median Min Max

Spring 19 7.7 1.1 36.2 Summer 26 5.8 1.3 22.4 Fall 73 6.3 1.0 19.0

The day and night detections of individual sculpins are shown by season for Otter Creek in Figures 62 to 64 and Allison Creek in Figures 65 and 66. Columbia sculpin were moving in all directions between their day and night locations with no obvious seasonal trends in direction or length of movements (Figures 62 to 66). Columbia sculpin detections during fall were more concentrated because river widths were narrower compared to spring (diagram outline is based on spring conditions) and a higher number of fish had been tagged by the fall sample session in the fall (Figures 64 and 66).

3.6.3.2 Torrent sculpin

Only one torrent sculpin (ID# 0E80F) was detected in both the day and night in Allison Creek during summer (Figure 65). This fish moved 9.2 m across Allison Creek from its day location to its night location (Figure 65). Three other torrent sculpin (ID #0EADC, 0CA61, 0CA69) were detected during the day but not at night (Figure 65). This suggests that the torrent sculpin were either moving away from the antenna or moving out of the site at night.

3.6.3.3 Prickly sculpin

Very few prickly sculpin were tagged and only one was detected during the day and night in the fall in Otter Creek (Figure 64). This fish was detected in the same location at night as during the day.


-72- June 2010

Figure 62: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night

detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the lower third of the Otter Creek index sites on May 25, 2009

Figure 63: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the lower third of the Otter Creek index sites on July 3, 2009



detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia and prickly sculpins in the lower third of the Otter Creek index sites on October 27, 2009

Figure 65: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia and torrent sculpins in the Allison Creek index sites on July 4, 2009


-74- June 2010


detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Allison Creek index sites on October 26, 2009

Figure 67: Schematic diagram illustrating the day and night detection locations for PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin in the Allison Creek index site on October 26, 2009


3.7 Microhabitat Use

3.7.1 Adults

Adult microhabitat use was determined by detecting PIT-tagged sculpins and dace (>45 mm in length) and comparing their habitat use with the available habitat in the Similkameen watershed index sites. Habitat use and available habitat were measured in each season. Over 200 measurements of available habitat were taken in each season for water depth, water velocity, substrate size and substrate embeddedness in all the Similkameen watershed index sites combined (summarized in Appendix B). Deeper and faster habitats may have been available, especially in spring but only the areas that could be safely searched with the PIT tag reader were included in what was considered available habitat. The available habitat parameters for all Similkameen watershed index sites combined are shown in Figures 68, 70, 73, and 75. Seasonal habitats in each site are shown graphically in Appendix F. Further information on microhabitat use by species is provided below.


Columbia sculpin were using all the available water depths based on that available (Figure 68) compared to where fish were detected (Figure 69). Similarly, water velocities used by Columbia sculpin were similar to that available within the sites during spring and summer (Figure 71). However, in the fall 80% of tagged Columbia sculpin were predominantly using slow moving area (0.11-0.20 m/s) compared to what was available. This is likely because most fish were detected in Otter Creek where the water velocities were lower than other sites in the fall (see Appendix F). Boulder and cobble were the most common substrate used by Columbia sculpin in all seasons (Figure 72); all substrate types were available except bedrock (Figure 73). The embeddedness of the substrate used by Columbia sculpin ranged from 10 to 100% but the majority (~75% in each season) were found in areas where embeddedness was <30% (Figure 74)., which was more selective compared to that available within the site (Figure 75).


-76- June 2010

Figure 68: Frequency of water depths measured in the Similkameen River

watershed by season, 2009

Figure 69: Frequency of water depth use by Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen

River watershed by season, 2009


Figure 70: Frequency of average water velocity measured in the Similkameen


Figure 71: Frequency of average water velocity use by Columbia sculpin in the

Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009\


-78- June 2010

Figure 72: Frequency of substrate use by Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen


Figure 73: Frequency of substrate type measured in the Similkameen River



Figure 74: Frequency of substrate embeddedness use by Columbia sculpin in the

Similkameen River watershed by season, 2009

Figure 75: Frequency of substrate embeddedness in the Similkameen River



-80- June 2010

3.7.1.2 Torrent Sculpin

In the Tulameen River, four torrent sculpin were detected in the summer and one in the fall. In the summer, torrent sculpin were located in riffle (75%) or run (25%) habitat in areas with water depth ranging from 0.25 to 0.51 m and velocity ranging from 0.33 to 0.52 m/s, using cobble (50%) or boulder (50%) habitat with low embeddedness (average 17.5%). In the fall, the torrent sculpin were detected using cobble substrate with low embeddedness (20%) in riffle habitat where water depth was 0.55 m and velocity was 1.3 m/s.

In the Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites, torrent sculpin used similar depths in all seasons as was available (Figure 68 and Figure 76). In spring and fall, velocities were similar and were consistent with the available habitat (Figure 70 and 77). However in the summer, the few (n=6) torrent sculpin detected were located in habitat that was slower than expected (Figure 70 and 77). In all seasons, torrent sculpin were using the largest substrate available in the sites (Figure 78) and that was 10 to 60% embedded but most (>75%) were using <50% embedded substrate in all seasons (Figure 79).

Figure 76: Frequency of water depth use by torrent sculpin in the Similkameen

River and Allison Creek index sites by season, 2009


Figure 77: Frequency of water velocity use by torrent sculpin in the Similkameen

River and Allison Creek index sites by season, 2009

Figure 78: Frequency of substrate use by torrent sculpin in the Similkameen River

and Allison Creek index sites by season, 2009


-82- June 2010

Figure 79: Frequency of substrate embeddedness use by torrent sculpin in the

Similkameen River and Allison Creek index sites by season, 2009

3.7.1.3 Prickly Sculpin

Prickly sculpin were only captured in Otter Creek, and only five of the 11 tagged sculpin were detected in fall 2009 after being tagged in the summer. These fish were found in run habitat with low average velocity (~0.1 m/s) and in depths ranging from 0.2 to 0.76 m. Four of the prickly sculpin were using cobble as cover while one was using a boulder.

3.7.1.4 Longnose Dace

Although longnose dace were captured and tagged in all sites, detection and therefore, habitat use was only measured for one longnose dace. This fish was detected in the summer in the middle of the Tulameen river index site. This longnose dace was located in riffle habitat where the water depth was 0.6 m and the water velocity was 1.1 m/s using cobble substrate that was 40% embedded.

3.7.2 Nest Sites

Columbia sculpin nests were found in three of the Similkameen watershed index sites and a prickly sculpin nest was found in Otter Creek. A detailed description of each nest is available in Appendix G. Nests were located in Otter Creek, Allison Creek and the Tulameen River belonging to some tagged male sculpin and for some unknown sculpin. The unknown nests located in the Tulameen River index site was probably a Columbia sculpin nest because another PIT-tagged


Columbia sculpin nest was found in close proximity and the nest had similar biological and environmental characteristics (see below).

3.7.2.1 Columbia sculpin

Otter Creek Index Site

The first Columbia sculpin nest found was located in Otter Creek on May 25, 2009. This nest consisted of eggs from only one female. Based on the bright yellow colour and the milky consistency of the eggs, it appeared that the eggs had been deposited within the a few days of our visit (Figure 80). There were 225 eggs in the nest and the eggs were approximately 3 mm in diameter.

Figure 80: The first Columbia sculpin nest discovered in Otter Creek, May 25, 2009

Six additional Columbia sculpin nests were located in Otter Creek on June 9 and 11, 2009. Five of these nests were guarded by PIT-tagged males. All eggs were at the eyed stage and the larvae were moving within the eggs. At one of the nests, it was evident that some eggs around the edge of the egg mass had hatched within the day (Figure 81). Some nests were collected for counting and many eggs hatched in the sample bags during the day (Figure 82).

All nests in Otter Creek were spawned by one male and one female except for a nest that had two female egg masses. The number of eggs per egg mass was 150, 155, and 225 for the 3 single egg masses counted. The nest with two female egg masses was also counted and this had a total of 658 eggs but egg masses could not be counted separately they hatched. A very low proportion of dead eggs (<5%) were observed and of the egg masses collected where hatching occurred, almost all of the eggs successfully hatched in the sample bags.


-84- June 2010

Figure 81: Columbia sculpin nest with eggs at the eyed stage near hatching and

some signs of eggs hatching in Otter Creek, June 11, 2009

Figure 82: Larval Columbia sculpin that hatched in sample bags from eggs

collected in Otter Creek, June 11, 2009

The Columbia sculpin spawning period occurred from mid-May to mid-June in Otter Creek based on the condition of eggs observed in spring 2009 (Figure 83). Average daily water temperatures in mid-May were around 8°C and flows were high but started to decline from the peak around early-May. For the remainder of the spawning period the water depth and flow decreased and water temperatures increased to a peak of 13°C around June 11, when eggs were starting to hatch. Although sample sizes were small, the estimated spawning period seems reasonable because very little variability egg condition and maturity was observed within nests.


Figure 83: Average daily water temperature and water depth and the estimated

Columbia sculpin spawning period in Otter Creek, 2009

Columbia sculpin nests were located in Otter Creek in run or riffle habitat within 50 m of the downstream end of the site. Nests were located where depths ranged from 0.27 to 0.67 m, which was within the range of available habitat (Figure 84). The average velocity ranged from 0.36 to 0.74 m/s at nests suggesting that mid-range velocities were selected for nest sites (Figure 85). Columbia sculpin used boulder and cobble habitat for their nests and selected the largest substrate available (Figure 86). The nests had a lower embeddedness (range 10-40%) than expected based on the available habitat (Figure 87).


-86- June 2010

Figure 84: Frequency of available water depths and depths used for nests in

spring 2009 in Otter Creek

Figure 85: Frequency of available average velocity and average velocity used for

nests in spring 2009 in Otter Creek


Figure 86: Frequency of available substrate and substrate used for nests in spring

2009 in Otter Creek

Figure 87: Frequency of substrate embeddedness and the substrate

embeddedness at nests in spring 2009 in Otter Creek

Allison Creek Index Site

Two Columbia sculpin nests were located in Allison Creek on June 12, 2009 by tracking PIT-tagged males to their nests. These nests were in similar condition to those observed


-88- June 2010

in Otter Creek on the same day. Both of the nests were eyed, larvae were moving within the eggs, and started to hatch (Figure 88); one of the nests had three female egg masses (Figure 89). Although water temperature and depth were not measured directly in Allison Creek, the spawning period was likely similar to in Otter Creek (Figure 83), with eggs spawned in mid-May and hatching in mid-June and water temperatures increased while flows were declined.

The Columbia sculpin nests were located in the upper section of Allison Creek (Figure 60). The nest of one fish (ID#1A977) was a boulder with low embeddedness (20%) that had a water depth and velocity of 0.34 m and 0.53 m/s, respectively. The nest of the other fish (ID#1AC0C) was a 50% embedded cobble where the water was 0.38 m deep and flowing at 0.62 m/s.

Figure 88: Columbia sculpin nest in Allison Creek with eggs at the eyed stage and

starting to hatch, June 12, 2009

Figure 89: Columbia sculpin nest in Allison Creek with three female egg masses,

June 12, 2009


Tulameen River Index Site

High flows during the mid-spring sampling periods prevented nest searches In the Tulameen River. However, one sculpin nest was located on June 12, 2009 (Figure 90). The eggs in this nest were bright yellow and milky, suggesting that they had been spawned within a few days. This nest could have belonged to either Columbia or torrent sculpin but it is more likely to be a Columbia sculpin because a spent female Columbia sculpin was captured during nest searches in the area on the same day. This female was dark black in colour, her urogenital pore was red and swollen and likely, she spawned within a couple days of capture (Figure 91).

Figure 90: Sculpin egg mass found in the Tulameen River, June 12, 2009

Figure 91: Spent female Columbia sculpin in the Tulameen River with a swollen

urogenital pore, June 12, 2009

One PIT-tagged Columbia sculpin nest (Figure 92) and eight unknown sculpin nests (examples in Figure 93 and Figure 94) suspected to belong to Columbia sculpin were observed on July 5, 2009 in the Tulameen River. Another five sculpin nests were located on July 10, 2009 and these were also suspected to belong to Columbia sculpin.


-90- June 2010

Of the 14 nests observed in the Tulameen River, 71% had a single female’s egg mass, 29% had two females contributing egg masses to the nest and one nest (7%) had three egg masses (Figure 94). Only one egg mass was counted and had 144 eggs. Egg survival appeared to be high with <5% of the eggs showing signs of mortality (i.e., milky white).

The nests observed in July had a range in egg condition suggesting that the spawning period was variable among individuals. All eggs were at the eyed stage but some larvae were younger and did not move inside the egg (Figure 95), some were eyed and moved within the egg, and some had begun to hatch (Figure 96) on both July 5 and 10, 2009. Assuming that all nests belonged to Columbia sculpin, the range in egg condition suggests that the spawning period in the Tulameen River was more variable and later than the timing observed in Otter and Allison creeks.

The timing of flow changes and water temperature were very different between Otter Creek (Figure 83) and the Tulameen River (Figure 97). In the Tulameen River, water temperatures were low and discharge was high until early June and then the temperatures started to increase more quickly and the discharge started to recede. The average daily water temperature was 8°C by June 12, 2009 when the first eggs were discovered in the Tulameen River index site. The spawning period likely occurred from early to mid-June until early to mid-July and that timing varied by at least a week among individuals. In Otter Creek, water temperatures averaged 8°C on May 17, 2009 around the suspected onset of spawning at that site, so the difference in water temperature may explain the month difference in spawning period observed for Columbia sculpin in the tributaries (Figure 97).

Figure 92: Columbia sculpin nest in Tulameen River, July 5, 2009


Figure 93: Unknown sculpin nest in Tulameen River, July 5, 2009

Figure 94: Unknown sculpin nest with three female egg masses in Tulameen

River, July 5, 2009

Figure 95: Unknown sculpin nest with eggs at the beginning of eyed stage in

Tulameen River, July 10, 2009


-92- June 2010

Figure 96: Unknown sculpin nest starting to hatch in Tulameen River, July 5, 2009

Figure 97: Average daily water temperature and discharge and the estimated

Columbia sculpin spawning period, Tulameen River 2009

Nests were located within a side channel of the Tulameen River that had higher than average substrate size (Figure 98; schematic diagram of area is shown in Figure 61). Although we looked throughout the Tulameen River site, most substrate in the main channel was gravel or small cobble so our searches focused in this side channel. This


area was dominated by riffle habitat and nests were located where depths ranged from 0.10 to 0.48 m, which was lower than the deeper section of the main channel (Figure 99). The average velocity ranged from 0.17 to 1.11 m/s, which was within the expected range given the available summer velocities in the Tulameen River (Figure 100). Columbia sculpin used boulder and cobble habitat for their nests and appeared to be selecting for the largest substrate available (Figure 101). The nests had low substrate embeddedness (range 10-30%) similar to what was available within the site (Figure 102).

Figure 98: Tulameen River index site looking upstream at the right bank where all

the sculpin nests were located, July 5, 2009

Figure 99: Frequency of available water depths and depths used for nests in the

Tulameen River, July 2009


-94- June 2010

Figure 100: Frequency of available average velocity and average velocity used for

nests in the Tulameen River, July 2009

Figure 101: Frequency of available substrate and substrate used for nests in the

Tulameen River, July 2009


Figure 102: Frequency of substrate embeddedness and the substrate

embeddedness at nests in the Tulameen River, July 2009

3.7.2.2 Prickly sculpin

One prickly sculpin nest was found in Otter Creek on May 26, 2009. This nest was found during a random search and the male guarding the nest was not a tagged male. The nest was identified as prickly sculpin because the eggs were about a third the size of Columbia sculpin eggs, which is the only other sculpin species captured in Otter Creek (Figure 103). The eggs were at eyed stage, which suggested that they would have hatched in <6 days and that they were spawned around the second week in May, since incubation is around two weeks (McPhail 2007; Figure 103). The beginning of May was when flows peaked in Otter Creek and the average daily water temperature was around 7°C (Figure 104). The prickly sculpin spawning period was marked by high but declining flows and increasing water temperatures. Hatching occurred when daily water temperatures reached around 12°C (Figure 104). The variability in spawning timing among individuals is unknown because only one prickly sculpin nest was located within the study sties. One female likely contributed all the eggs within this nest because they were in one clump and at the same stage. The egg mass measured about 30 mm in diameter and consisted of approximately 2520 eggs. The eggs were 1.5 mm in diameter and about 10% were dead (based on milky colour). The nest was found in run habitat that had depth and average velocity of 0.39 m and 0.03 m/s, respectively. The nest rock was a boulder (dimensions 27 x 33 x 36 cm) which was only 10% embedded.


-96- June 2010

Figure 103: Unknown prickly sculpin nest in Otter Creek, May 26, 2009

Figure 104: Average daily water temperature and water depth and the estimated

prickly sculpin spawning period in Otter Creek

3.7.2.3 Torrent Sculpin and Longnose Dace

Very little information was collected on the timing of spawning of torrent sculpin and longnose dace. Torrent sculpin nests were not observed and it is unknown if they spawned before the first sampling session or if they used areas that were not sampled in


the spring. Longnose dace likely spawned in mid-July because a ripe female was captured on July 7, 2009 (Figure 105).

Figure 105: Ripe female longnose dace (eggs are visible between pelvic and anal

fins); Tulameen River July 7, 2009

3.7.3 YOY

A few short (~2 hours) larval drift nets were set in Otter Creek on June 8 and 11, 2009 but fish were not collected during day sets. However, three prickly sculpin larvae were collected at night between 1:30-3:00 am on June 11, 2009. The larvae were 13 mm (Figure 106), 6 and 5.5 mm in length and no longer had a yolk sac. Although these larvae were not easily recognizable as prickly sculpin, they were the only larval fish in the site at that time of year based on species composition and spawning timing (Dr. McPhail, pers. comm. May 2009). These larval fish were collected downstream of where the only prickly sculpin nest was found (see Section 3.7.2.2.). The area had run/riffle habitat dominated by boulder and cobble substrate. The net was set to sample the middle of the water column (Figure 107).

We also searched shallow and marginal habitat for Columbia sculpin larvae in July 2009. One larva was found in Otter Creek on July 3, 2009 during the day. This Columbia sculpin was 16 mm and it did not have a yolk sac (Figure 108). The larvae was captured under a patch of flooded grass in a pool that had fine substrate, water depth was 0.3 m and water velocity was too slow to measure (Figure 109).


-98- June 2010

Figure 106: Larval prickly sculpin collected in a night larval drift net in Otter Creek,

June 11, 2009

Figure 107: Mid-column larval drift net set over boulder/cobble habitat in Otter

Creek, July 2009

Figure 108: Larval Columbia sculpin collected in Otter Creek, July 3, 2009


Figure 109: Pool habitat where a larval Columbia sculpin was collected near

flooded grass in Otter Creek, July 3, 2009

3.7.4 Juvenile

Juvenile sculpins and dace were collected with adults using the same habitat during winter and summer electrofishing surveys at all sites (Section 3.1 and Appendix B; Section 3.3; Appendix D). Juveniles could not be PIT-tagged because they were smaller than the 45 mm length tagging criteria. Therefore, we could not investigate their microhabitat use and can only provide a general description of the habitats where they were collected (see Section 3.1 and Appendix B).

3.7.5 Diel Habitat Use

Diel microhabitat use was investigated by comparing day and night detection locations of PIT-tagged fishes in Otter Creek and Allison Creek (see Figures 62 to 66 for schematic diagrams of locations). Only one prickly sculpin and one torrent sculpin were detected during the day and night, so information was too limited to compare diel microhabitat use; longnose dace were not detected for comparison. A larger sample of Columbia sculpin were detected during day and the night in spring, summer and fall (Table 19). However, there were no obvious differences between day and night microhabitat use in summer and fall as water depth, water velocity, substrate type and embeddedness were all similar (Figures 110 to 117). In the spring when water was deepest and fastest, Columbia sculpin were using shallower, slower sections of the stream at night than during the day.


-100- June 2010

Figure 110: Frequency of night-time water depth use by Columbia sculpin by

season in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009

Figure 111: Frequency of day-time water depth use by Columbia sculpin by season

in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009


Figure 112: Frequency of night-time average water velocity use by Columbia

sculpin by season in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009

Figure 113: Frequency of day-time average water velocity use by Columbia sculpin

by season in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009


-102- June 2010

Figure 114: Frequency of night-time substrate use by Columbia sculpin by season

in Otter and Allison creeks, 2009

Figure 115: Frequency of day-time substrate use by Columbia sculpin by season in

Otter and Allison creeks, 2009


Figure 116: Frequency of night-time substrate embeddedness use by Columbia


Figure 117: Frequency of day-time substrate embeddedness use by Columbia



-104- June 2010

4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Contribution to Management Objectives

The Columbia River WUP Consultative Committee recommended a life history and habitat use study be completed for sculpin and dace species in the Lower Columbia to fill existing data gaps. The main objective of the study is to collect information on the life history and habitat use of sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River and determine how they may be affected by the operations of HLK Dam. We collected data in 2009 to answer as many of the management question as possible in Year 1 of a five year program. Year 1 of this program focused on answering specific questions A to E because basic life history and habitat use requirements for most of these species was lacking and we needed to determine reference conditions in an unregulated system (Section 1.2). Studies conducted in Year 2 (2010) on the LCR will contribute further to answering management questions 1 to 4 (Section 1.2). Year 1 contributions to BC Hydro’s management and specific questions (Section 1.2) are detailed below.

1. How do water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal) in the lower Columbia River affect the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace, especially the listed species?

There were no sites in the lower Columbia River watershed until late fall 2009, so we cannot comment on the impact of water level fluctuations in this watershed. Instead, we monitored sites in the Similkameen watershed, which is an unregulated system with natural seasonal water level fluctuations. Investigating distribution and habitat use in an unregulated system provides an idea of reference conditions and will be used to help interpret the results from the lower Columbia River in 2010. Refer to specific question C below for the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace in the Similkameen watershed.

2. What seasonal and diel habitat shifts do sculpins and dace (especially the listed species) make in response to water level fluctuations?

We cannot comment on sculpins and dace responses to water level fluctuations in the LCR at this time. Refer to specific question C for sculpin and dace responses to natural seasonal fluctuations in the Similkameen watershed. In general, sculpins and dace within the Similkameen watershed used all the available water depths and velocities but selected the largest, most unembedded substrate available. The majority of fish observed in the Similkameen system did not move long distances or shift their microhabitat use seasonally or daily in response to natural seasonal water level fluctuations.

3. Does the operation of HLK Dam alter these natural movements? Specifically, does the risk of stranding increase?

We did not have sites below HLK Dam in 2009 until late fall, so we could not compare natural movements to those observed during flow fluctuations. Further information will be provided to help answer this question in Year 2. However, we provide a qualitative review of the impact of HLK Dam operations in our literature review (AMEC 2010).

4. Which operations, and at what season, pose the highest risk of stranding or interference with the normal life cycles of sculpins and dace?

Based on our findings in the unregulated Similkameen watershed, the pre-spawning and spawning periods for sculpin may be more prone to operational risk. Data suggest that Columbia sculpin start to spawn in the spring when daily water temperatures average 8°C


(see specific question A for more details). Males guard the eggs for about one month until they hatch (McPhail 2007). Columbia sculpin males were observed to move very little (<10 m) during the spawning period in spring. Therefore, Columbia sculpin males and nests may be at greater risk of stranding during the month after daily temperatures reach 8°C if HLK flow fluctuations dewater spawning habitat because males are likely reluctant to leave nests. Information on dace was not currently available due to low numbers captured in Year 1. Further information will be provided in Year 2.

A. Are there specific spawning areas utilized by Columbia sculpin and the Umatilla dace and, if so, what are the temporal and biophysical characteristics of these areas?

We found that there are specific spawning areas utilized by Columbia sculpin in the Similkameen system; Umatilla dace were not present in this system and cannot be commented on at this time.

Spawn timing observations for Columbia sculpin varied by almost a month between sites (mid-May to mid-June) but average daily water temperatures around 8°C signalled the onset of egg deposition. McPhail (2007) also found nests in Otter Creek from mid-May (water temperature 7°C) to mid-June (water temperature 12°C). Columbia sculpin nests were located in run or riffle habitat within the available range of water depths (0.10-0.67 m) and velocities (0.03-1.11 m/s). However, Columbia sculpin males appeared to select the largest most unembedded substrate available for their nests. There are no other descriptions of Columbia sculpin nests in the existing literature with which to compare these results.

B. Are there specific nursery areas used by Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics?

Based on limited information collected in Year 1, larval Columbia sculpin may use slow moving pools or backflooded areas having flooded grasses, fine substrates and water depths of 0.3 m.

Very few descriptions of Columbia sculpin nursery areas are available in the literature. McPhail (2007) indicated that YOY Columbia sculpin use flooded vegetation as shelter in the margins at times of high water. Newly hatched larvae range from 7.5 to 8.2 mm and are unpigmented (McPhail 2007). Larvae remain hidden until their yolk sac is absorbed (about 2 weeks at 12ºC; McPhail 2007). After transformation, they emerge from the substrate with pigmentation at about 9.5 to 10.5 mm and begin exogenous feeding (McPhail 2007). In Lawless Creek, a tributary of Similkameen River watershed, newly transformed fry (about 12 mm) were also observed in early July (McPhail 2007).

In the lower Columbia and Kootenay rivers, YOY Columbia sculpin were mostly found along the stream margins with depths <20 cm and velocities <0.1 m/s (R.L.&L. 1995). These shallower, low flow areas most likely provide refuge from predators, since these areas were not used by larger fish (R.L. & L. 1995).

No Umatilla dace were observed in the Similkameen watershed, so determining the biophysical characteristics of their nursery areas will be the priority for 2010.

C. Are there seasonal and diel shifts in habitat use by these species and, if so, how do these shifts relate to daily or seasonal water level fluctuations?

Seasonal and diel shifts in habitat use were not commonly observed for species studied in Year 1. Observations are representative of an unregulated, natural system with peak flows in spring (mid-May to mid-June) and low flows in the summer through early spring


-106- June 2010

period (mid-August through April; Section 3.2.1); these will be compared to the regulated LCR in Year 2, where possible. Additional information is provided below.

Umatilla dace were not captured in the Similkameen watershed in Year 1, so their seasonal and diel habitat use could not be described. Previous sampling in the Columbia watershed found that Umatilla dace were more abundant in nearshore catches during the day compared to night, suggesting a shift to deep habitat at night (R.L.& L. 1995). In addition, a greater abundance of large Umatilla dace was recorded in the nearshore area during summer and fall compared to other seasons suggesting a seasonal habitat shift for this species (R.L.&L. 1995).

Seasonal Habitat Use

In general, sculpins were observed using similar habitats in all seasons, with the exception of a change to lower velocity areas in some seasons depending on species. However, these observations are mostly based on Columbia sculpin, since a larger number of individuals were relocated. Very limited information was collected on dace as only one longnose dace was relocated in Year 1. Further observations from Year 1 are provided for each species below.

Columbia Sculpin

Columbia sculpin used similar habitats in all seasons (i.e., run and riffle; 0.1-1m deep; 0-1.5m/s velocity; boulder/cobble; <30% embedded; Section 3.7.1.1), except in fall where they were observed in slower velocity areas (0.11-0.20 m/s). Previous studies documented similar habitat use by Columbia sculpin but they did not observe the use of slower velocity areas during the fall compared to spring/summer. For example, in the Lower Columbia and Kootenay rivers, adult Columbia sculpin have been observed at sites with substrates dominated by boulders and cobbles, in riffles with mean water velocities exceeding 0.30 m/s, and depths ranging from 0.10-0.69 m (R.L.&L. 1995). Columbia sculpin were not captured in sites dominated by sand or gravel but they did not appear to be show preference for specific water depths (R.L.&L. 1995).

Torrent Sculpin

Torrent sculpin used similar habitats in all seasons (i.e., run and riffle; 0.05-0.77m deep; 0-1.3m/s velocity; boulder/cobble; <50% embedded; Section 3.7.1.2), except in summer where they were observed in slower velocity areas (0.33-0.52 m/s). Torrent sculpin were also not observed in the Otter Creek index site, which had a high population of Columbia sculpin and was the only site where prickly sculpin were captured; whether this represented competition between the species or habitat exclusion is unknown.

In the Lower Columbia and Kootenay rivers, torrent sculpin were generally found in areas with mean water velocities of < 0.35 m/s but the flows in the interstitial spaces where they were located was most frequently <0.04 m/s (R.L.&L. 1995). Capture depths ranged from 0 to 1m without any obvious selection for a specific depth (R.L.&L. 1995).

Prickly Sculpin

Prickly sculpin were only captured in Otter Creek, and only five were redetected in fall 2009. These fish were all found in run habitat with low average velocity (~0.1 m/s) and in depths ranging from 0.2 to 0.76 m. Four of the prickly sculpin were using cobble as cover while one was using a boulder (Section 3.7.1.3).


Prickly sculpin in the lower Columbia and Kootenay rivers were almost exclusively associated with boulder substrate indicating a very specific selection for this cover type (R.L.&L. 1995). They were found in areas of the Lower Columbia and Kootenay rivers with mean water velocities of < 0.35 m/s but the flows in the interstitial spaces where they were located were <0.04 m/s (R.L.&L. 1995). They also appeared to be non-selective in regards to water depth and were found at depths ranging from 0.10 to 0.69 m (R.L.&L. 1995).

Longnose Dace

Longnose dace detections and measurements of habitat use were rare in Year 1 with only one longnose dace being redetected in the summer in the middle of the Tulameen River. This fish was located in riffle habitat having 0.6 m water depth, velocity of 1.1 m/s and cobble substrate that was 40% embedded (Section 3.7.1.4). The habitat of adult longnose dace in the lower Columbia and Kootenay rivers has not been well described because adults have been observed in areas that are too deep to safely wade and electrofish (>1m; R.L.&L. 1995, McPhail 2003, 2007).

Diel Habitat Use

Overall, our observations indicated that most fish were using similar areas during the day and night but some diel activity was observed on a seasonal/species-basis. However, the majority of these observations were from Columbia sculpin, since a high number of individuals were relocated. Previous studies have indicated that sculpins and dace are nocturnal (AMEC 2003, R.L.&L. 1995, Culp 1989, Gee and Northcote 1963) possibly related to feeding activity (e.g., Brandt 1968, Greenberg and Holtzman 1987). Further observations from Year 1 are provided for each species below.

Columbia Sculpin

Columbia sculpin appeared to be using the same habitat day and night in summer and fall. However, in the spring, Columbia sculpin used shallower, slower sections of the stream at night compared to the day. It is unclear why this pattern was observed in the spring, possibly Columbia sculpin need to take refuge from the high water velocities when the river flows are at their highest or there may be other feeding or biophysical criteria that provide benefits in the shallow, slower areas at night. Maybe Columbia sculpin prefer these areas and would use them during the day but they need to avoid the shallow sections to avoid predation. In other summer sampling, banded sculpin, Cottus carolinae, and slimy sculpin, Cottus cognatus, have increased activity at night because this is primarily when they feed (Brandt 1986, Greenberg and Holtzman 1987).

Torrent Sculpin

Diel observations can only be made for the one torrent sculpin that was observed to move 9.2 m from it’s day and night locations in Allison Creek during summer 2009. However, three other torrent sculpin were detected during day sampling, which may indicate that torrent sculpin were either moving away from the antenna or moving out of the site at night. In previous Columbia watershed sampling, torrent sculpin also exhibited seasonal variations in their diel pattern; electrofishing catch rates were higher at night in spring and summer, and higher during the day in the fall/winter period (R.L.& L. 1995). The reason for these seasonal and diel trends is unclear.

Prickly Sculpin

Only one prickly sculpin was detected in the same location during night/day tracking in fall 2009. In previous Columbia River sampling, prickly sculpin exhibited a diel habitat use


-108- June 2010

pattern during the spring, summer, and fall as nearshore electrofishing catch rates were higher at night than during the day (R.L.& L. 1995).

Longnose Dace

Diel observations cannot be made for longnose dace, since only one fish was relocated during the day. However, Culp (1989) noted that adult longnose dace in southern Alberta were nocturnal foragers and they sheltered under substrate during the day, either individually or in groups, and then left their daytime refugia to forage from about one hour after sunset until one hour before sunrise. Nighttime feeding areas and daytime refugia overlapped but no twilight migration was observed (Culp 1989). In the Fraser River, B.C., juvenile longnose dace were most abundant in shallow habitat (<0.3 m) during the day and appeared to move offshore at night as they were captured in habitats >0.3 m deep (Gee and Northcote 1963). Similarly, nearshore sampling captured higher abundances of longnose dace during the day compared to night-time sampling in winter, spring and fall in the lower Columbia and Kootenay rivers (R.L.& L. 1995). However, longnose dace were still more abundant during night sampling in summer (R.L.& L. 1995).

D. Are there over-wintering habitats used by these species and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics?

Overwinter habitats used by sculpins are likely similar as those used during other seasons because large differences in use were not observed between spring, summer and fall and similar habitats were observed in winter (Section 3.1, Appendix B). However, limited observations were collected to determine overwinter habitat use in 2009, since Year 1 studies commenced in February and fish had not been marked/tagged prior to this so that microhabitat information was not collected at this time. Also, some index habitats in the Similkameen watershed contained frazil ice in February 2009, which made sampling difficult. Sampling was later conducted in the early spring period in 2009 as per our study program. Information on dace was also not available at this time. Further information on overwintering habitats will be collected in Year 2 on the LCR.

E. Do diel and seasonal water level fluctuations affect spawning behaviour, embryo survival, or adult nest guarding behaviour of Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace?

Our study provides baseline data for Columbia sculpin behaviour and embryo survival in an unregulated system with natural water level fluctuations that can be compared to the LCR – a regulated system. Additional information collected in Year 2 will add to these results.

In this natural system, Columbia sculpin spawning was observed along the declining limb of the hydrograph when water temperatures were approximately 8°C. McPhail (2007) also found nests in Otter Creek from mid-May (water temperature 7°C) to mid-June (water temperature 12°C). Even though different flow regimes were observed at index sites on the Similkameen system, the onset of spawning seemed to be triggered by water temperature. However, because of the relationship between water temperature and discharge, the flow regime dictated when the onset of spawning occurred. For example, the spawning period varied by almost one month between Otter Creek (mid-May to mid-June) and the Tulameen River (mid-June to mid-July). Also, Otter and Allison creeks were receding from peak spring flows when spawning started, while flows in the Tulameen River were still increasing from snow run-off.


Spawn timing in these natural systems resulted in high egg survival for Columbia sculpin. Egg mortality was observed between <1-5% and often fish larvae could be observed moving inside the eggs. Hatch rate may also be quite high as almost all of the eggs collected hatched in the sample bags.

4.2 Assessment of Methods

Site Selection and Sampling

The Similkameen watershed provided useful information on movement and microhabitat use in an unregulated system. We captured a large number of sculpins (n=1172) and some dace (n=78) in the Similkameen watershed in 2009. The site selection process was effective at finding locations with high abundances of Columbia sculpin, which represented 77% of our total catch. The limitations of using the Similkameen watershed was that two of the target species, Umatilla dace and shorthead sculpin, were not present and longnose dace were rare.

We had the same team sampling all sites for all electrofishing sessions and tried to ensure that the sampling effort was comparable. Our absolute numbers and CPUE values have similar ranking suggesting that the sampling effort was consistent among sites and seasons.

Tagging

Mortality (<1%) and tag loss (<0.01%) of PIT-tagged fishes were very low within the first 24 hours. Therefore, the project’s methods did not seem to negatively affect the survival of the target sculpins and dace, especially the SARA listed species.

Tracking Efficiency

Tagged fishes were located by remotely detecting the presence of implanted PIT tags with a portable PIT antenna. Tracking efficiency was tested in 2009 by releasing 102 fishes into Otter Creek and a total of 82 (80%) were detected within a few hours. The tracking efficiency experiment was limited in scope but suggested a high detection probability (93%) for Columbia sculpin tagged with large (11.5 mm) tags in Otter Creek. Columbia sculpin tagged with small (8.5 mm) tags were much less likely to be detected (53%). This was not surprising given that tag size is directly related to tag detection range. The maximum detection distance was 15-20 cm for 8.5 mm tags and 35-45 cm for 11.5 mm tags. The antenna was able to pick up signals through most substrates including water, air, biological tissue, rock and ice (Roussel et al. 2000, Gray 2003, Cucherousset et al 2005, Keeler 2006, Keeler et al. 2007, Keeler and Cunjak 2007). Despite reduced tag detection probabilities, small tags are still useful because they allow movement and microhabitat use of smaller fishes (45-60 mm range) to be monitored if they are detected.

It should be noted that Otter Creek is a relatively easy site to track in summer because of substrate size (i.e., not comprised of large boulders), it is narrow (10 m), and has low flows, allowing access to all sections of the stream. In sites like the Similkameen River, with large boulders and higher velocity sections that make it difficult to wade, we would expect detection probabilities to be lower than 93%. Detection probability was only determined for Columbia sculpin because the number of other species was too low to


-110- June 2010

provide reasonable detection estimates. However, it is likely that other sculpin would have high detection probabilities, since other studies on slimy sculpin have demonstrated similar results (Keeler 2006).

The detection probabilities of dace were not measured because only one tagged longnose dace was recaptured. It is not known if these fish would have the same detection probability as sculpin.

Detection Success

A relatively high number of fish were recaptured or detected during our Year 1 program, which averaged approximately 41% (range 19-57% among sites). Studies conducted on slimy sculpin observed similar detection rates (e.g., Keeler 2006). This recapture rate is considered high compared to studies conducted on small bodied fishes, which can range under 5% (e.g., Porto et al. 1999). However, a large number of studies conducted on small fishes like sculpins and dace use electrofishing methods to recapture/detect fish in various habitats during different seasons (e.g., R.L.&L. 1995, AMEC 2003). Although this method is useful in collecting these species, it is difficult to determine actual microhabitat use because fish are drawn out from the habitats they are using.

The detection success for longnose dace in the Similkameen watershed was lower than for sculpins as only one was detected. A number of reasons may explain this low detection success: only 56 were PIT-tagged which is relatively few spread out over the five index sites; most (64%) were tagged with 8.5 mm tags which are harder to detect; they may have been using areas hard to track (i.e. fast, deep sections); or they may be avoiding the PIT tag antenna.

Movement and Microhabitat Use

Although sampling was limited to 5-6 times per site in Year 1, we feel that the estimates of microhabitat use are reasonable given the similarity in habitat use among the seasons and sites. Additional sampling in Year 2 will aid in classifying microhabitats of these target species.

Movement information was also limited in Year 1 compared to other studies of this nature (i.e., Keeler 2006) because duration between detections was large (up to three months) and they may have moved without being detected between surveys. Therefore, we only described the displacement observed between time periods rather than conduct more complex analyses like home range as the number of detections were too few (maximum of 6) and too spread out to extrapolate further. However, information collected was useful in answering management and specific questions for Columbia sculpin, which is a main target species of this program.

4.3 Recommendations for Further Study The following are recommendations to help further address the management and specific questions for this program:

• Conduct additional tracking sessions during the overwinter period within the Similkameen system to determine Columbia sculpin microhabitat use should low numbers of these species be encountered in Year 2 in the LCR. A high number


of individuals are tagged in Otter Creek and taking advantage of this unregulated system may better evaluate winter habitat use for comparison in the regulated LCR.

• Conduct electrofishing surveys and other sampling techniques (i.e. snorkelling) at each site after tracking sessions to assess dace populations, since low numbers were tagged in the fall 2009. This will enable us to better evaluate how to study dace to answer questions related to their behaviour/habitats.

• Collaborate with BC Hydro’s white sturgeon larval sampling program on the LCR. Larval sculpin/dace species may be captured during this program and can provide additional coverage below HLK Dam. Use of overnight larval drift nets at LCR index sites may also be useful (as opposed to shorter sets used in Year 1) to assess egg hatching during spawning times to address larval habitat use.

• PIT-tag detection probabilities in more complex sites should be investigated in 2010 to provide an assessment of our techniques and ensure that they are not biasing our answers to the management questions.


5.0 LITERATURE CITED AMEC. 2003. Preliminary observations of dace and sculpin winter habitat use in the lower Columbia

River, B.C. Prepared for BC Hydro. Castlegar, B.C.

AMEC. 2010. Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) Literature Review. Prepared for BC Hydro. Castlegar, B.C.

Aquametrix Research Ltd. 1994. Columbia River Integrated Environmental Monitoring Program (CRIEMP): 1991-1993 interpretive report. Consultant report prepared for CRIEMP Coordinating Committee.

Bailey, J. E. 1952. Life history and ecology of the sculpin Cottus bairdi punctulatus in Southwestern Montana. Copeia 4: 243-255.

Baras, E., L. Westerloppe, C. Mélard, J-C. Phillippart, and V. Bénech. 1999. Evaluation of implantation procedures for PIT-tagging juvenile Nile tilapia. North American Journal of Aquaculture 61: 246-251.

Baras, E., C. Malbrouck, M. Houbart, P. Kestemont, and C. Mélard. 2000. The effect of PIT tags on growth and physiology of age-0 cultured Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis of variable size. Aquaculture 185: 159-173.

BC Hydro. 2008. Program No. CLBMON-43 Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment; Request for Proposal. August 2008.

Brown, L. and J. F. Downhower. 1982. Polygamy in the mottled sculpins (Cottus bairdi) of southwestern Montana (Pisces: Cottidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 60: 1973-1980.

Cucherousset, J, J-M Roussel, R. Keeler, R Cunjak and R. Stump. 2005. Tracking small fish in shallow streams using portable 12 mm PIT tag detectors. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 25: 270-274.

Culp, J. M. 1989. Nocturnally constrained foraging of a lotic minnow (Rhinichtys cataractae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 2008-2012.

Cushman, R. M. 1985. Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream from hydroelectric facilities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5: 330-339.

Das Mahapatra, K., B. Gjerde, P. V. G. K. Reddy, M. Sahoo, R. K. Jana, J. N. Saha, and M. Rye. 2001. Tagging: on the use of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags for the identification of fish. Aquaculture Research 32: 47-50.

Gee, J. H. and T. G. Northcote. 1972. Comparative ecology of two sympatric species of dace (Rhinichthys) in the Fraser River system, British Columbia. Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29: 330-332.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 2002. Lower Columbia River Fish Community Indexing Program – 2001 Phase 1 Investigations. Burnaby, BC. Report prepared for BC Hydro. Burnaby, BC.

Gray, M. A. 2003. Assessing non-point-source pollution in agricultural regions of the upper St. John River basin using the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Doctoral dissertation. University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB.


-114- June 2010

Keeler, R. A. 2006. Development and application of passive integrated transponder technology to investigate the movement and reproductive ecology of adult slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) in small New Brunswick streams. Master’s thesis. University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB.

Keeler, R. A., A. R. Breton, D. P. Peterson, and R. J. Cunjak. 2007. Apparent survival and detection estimates for PIT tagged slimy sculpin in five small New Brunswick streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 281-292.

Keeler, R. A., and R. J. Cunjak. 2007. Reproductive ecology of slimy sculpin in small New Brunswick streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 1762-1768.

Mason, J. C. and S. Machidori. 1976. Populations of sympatric sculpins, Cottus aleuticus and Cottus asper, in four adjacent salmon-producing coastal streams on Vancouver Island, B.C. Fishery Bulletin 74: 131-141.

McPhail, J. D. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. The University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, AB.

Ombredane, D., J. L. Baglinière, and F. Marchand. 1998. The effects of passive integrated transponders on survival and growth of juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) and their use for studying movement in a small river. Hydrobiologia 371/372: 99-106.

Patten, B. G. 1971. Spawning and fecundity of seven species of Northwest American Cottus. American Midland Naturalist 85: 493-506.

Peden, A. E. In press. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Columbia mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi hubbsi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Peterson, N. P., E. F. Prentice, and T. P. Quinn. 1994. Comparison of sequential coded wire and passive integrated transponder tags for assessing overwinter growth and survival of juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14: 870-873.

Power, M. E., W. E. Dietrich, and J. C. Finlay. 1996. Dams and downstream aquatic biodiversity: potential food web consequences of hydrologic and geomorphic change. Environmental Management 20: 887-895.

Porto, L. M, R.L. McLaughlin and D.L.G. Noakes. 1999. Low head barrier dams restrict the movements of fishes in two Lake Ontario streams. NAJFM 19(4): 1028-1036.

Prentice, E. F., T. A. Flagg, and C. S. McCutcheon. 1990. Feasibility of using implantable passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in salmonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7: 317-322.

R. L. & L. Environmental Services Ltd. (R.L.&L.) 1995. Shallow-water habitat use by dace and sculpin spp. in the lower Columbia River Basin Development Area, 1993-1994 investigations. Final report prepared for BC Hydro. Castlegar, BC.

Roussel, J.-M., A. Haro, and R. Cunjak. 2000. Field test of a new method for tracking small fishes in shallow rivers using passive integrated transponder (PIT) technology. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 1326-1329.

Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of


Canada.

Skalski, J. R., S. G. Smith, R. N. Iwamoto, J. G. Williams, and A. Hoffmann. 1998. Use of passive integrated transponder tags to estimate survival of migrant juvenile salmonids in the Snake and Columbia rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1484-1493.

Van Vliet, W. H. 1964. An ecological study of Cottus cognatus Richardson in northern Saskatchewan. MA Thesis. University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, SK.

Water Survey of Canada, Environment Canada (WSC). 2009A. Archived hydrometric data. Website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/hydat/H2O/index_e.cfm?cname=main_e.cfm. Accessed: November, 2009.

Water Survey of Canada, Environment Canada (WSC). 2009B. Real-time hydrometric data. Received from Lauren Wick. November, 2009.

lower columbia river water use plan lower columbia river...

Documents