chinook and chum salmon redd superimposition assessment

Sarita and Pachena

Watershed

Renewal:

Sarita River

Chinook and Chum

Salmon Redd

Superimposition

Assessment

Prepared by LGL Limited

29 May 2018

blank page

EA3716B

Sarita and Pachena Watershed Renewal: Sarita River Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment

Prepared by:

C. W. Burns, C. McCulloch, and J. Novoa

LGL Limited environmental research associates

9768 Second Street Sidney, BC

V8L 3Y8

Prepared for:

Huu-ay-aht First Nations 170 Nookemus Road

Anacla, BC V0R 1B0

29 May 2018

blank page

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

LGL Limited i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sarita Watershed is located on the west coast of Vancouver Island within the traditional territories (the Haa-houlthee) of the Huu-ay-aht First Nations. The watershed has been heavily logged and most (greater than 90%) of the forest is second growth while approximately 2% is old growth. Past forestry practices have resulted in the degradation of the fish and aquatic habitat in the watershed and estuary.

Within the Sarita River, the most abundant salmon species in recent years has been Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta); however historical information suggests that Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) abundance was significantly higher than in recent years. Given the concerns for Chinook Salmon abundance in the Sarita River, several factors limiting their success have been identified. It has been suggested that a possible factor limiting Chinook Salmon recovery is interspecific competition for spawning habitat between Chinook and Chum salmon via redd superimposition. The objective of this study was to conduct a redd superimposition assessment to determine the degree of intraspecific and interspecific redd superimposition impact on Chinook Salmon redds.

In the Sarita River, Chinook and Chum salmon redds were identified to species, marked, and georeferenced throughout the spawning period. Physical dimensions of each redd (i.e., pot width, pot length, tail spill length, tail spill width) were measured. Analysis of potential redd superimposition impact was conducted using the redd location data and field measurements of redd dimensions to create ellipse polygons in a geographic information systems software. The modeled polygons represented three areas of the redd structure: the pot, the egg pocket, and the tail spill. Weekly and cumulative estimates of potential redd superimposition impact (interspecific and intraspecific) were estimated using geographic information systems-based spatial output. The historical (1995 to 2016) distribution and timing of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning were analyzed from two data sources: Fisheries and Oceans Canada stream inspection logs and total daily discharge data from the Water Survey of Canada.

There was spatial overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon spawning distribution in the Sarita River. In 2017, the majority of Chinook Salmon spawned downstream of the South Sarita River confluence while Chum Salmon spawned throughout all anadromous reaches of the Sarita River. Peak Chinook and Chum salmon spawning timing was separated by a 2-week period. No interspecific competition via redd superimposition was identified as there was no redd egg pocket overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon over the spawning period. There are two possible explanations for the negligible redd superimposition between Chinook and Chum salmon: 1) increased habitat availability during Chum Salmon spawning due to higher water levels; and 2) differences in depth and velocity spawning habitat preferences between the two species. Cumulative redd egg pocket overlap was 10% over the Chinook Salmon spawning period and therefore Chinook Salmon intraspecific competition was likely low. However, these results should be interpreted with caution as there were difficulties distinguishing individual Chinook Salmon redds from one another due their aggregate spawning nature in a short spawning period. Therefore, the degree of Chinook Salmon redd superimposition impact by the same species is likely greater than observed in this study.

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LGL Limited ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A team of dedicated people were involved in the successful completion of this study. From Huu-ay-aht First Nation, we are grateful to Christine Gruman and Amelia Vos who provided local information and knowledge of salmon spawning distribution in the Sarita Watershed. From LGL Limited, Christopher Burns was the project manager. Field assistance was provided by Stefan Ochman, Shannon Nookemus, Richard Nookemus, and Robert Seward. Connie Kleckner and Joanne Dovey were essential in providing field logistics support. Dawn Keller provided reporting quality assurance and control. Lastly, we thank Bob Bocking and Elmar Plate for their senior review.

Citation: Burns, C. W., C. McCulloch, and J. Novoa. 2018. Sarita and Pachena watershed renewal: Sarita River Chinook and Chum salmon redd superimposition assessment. LGL Report EA3618B. Prepared for Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Anacla, BC, by LGL Limited, Sidney, BC.

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment LIST OF TABLES

LGL Limited iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. ii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... iv

ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ v

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 2017 Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1.1 Field Methods ....................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Data Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Historical Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 4

3 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 2017 Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 5

3.2 Historical Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 5

4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 6

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 8

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 25

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Fish species present in the Sarita Watershed. .................................................................. 10

Table 2. Sarita River survey segment locations. ............................................................................. 10

Table 3. Description of redd dimension measurements. ............................................................... 11

Table 4. Frequency of Chinook Salmon redd egg pocket overlap. ................................................. 11

Table 5. Cumulative Chinook Salmon redd egg pocket overlap summary statistics. ..................... 11

Table 6. Historical daily discharge data summary statistics during peak Chinook and Chum salmon spawning periods. ................................................................................................ 12

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment LIST OF APPENDICES

LGL Limited iv

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Sarita Watershed. .................................................................................... 14

Figure 2. Waterbodies of the Sarita Watershed. ............................................................................. 15

Figure 3. Survey segments within the Sarita River. ......................................................................... 16

Figure 4. Examples of physical redd dimension measurements. .................................................... 17

Figure 5. Diagram of salmon redd egg pocket defined as the area of overlap between the pot and tail spill ellipses. ................................................................................................... 17

Figure 6. Diagram view of salmon redd measurements, demonstrating the representative pot and tail spill polygons (in pink) and egg pocket polygon (in red). .............................. 18

Figure 7. Diagram of salmon redd pot ellipses and an overlapping area of egg pocket superimposition impact. ................................................................................................... 18

Figure 8. Location of Chinook and Chum salmon redds within the Sarita River. ............................ 19

Figure 9. Chinook Salmon redd distribution by river segment in 2017. .......................................... 20

Figure 10. Mean daily discharge and daily water temperature during the 2017 redd survey period. ............................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 11. Mean proportion of peak live Chinook Salmon abundance by river segment from 1995 to 2016. .................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 12. Mean proportion of peak live Chum Salmon abundance by river segment from 1995 to 2016. .................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 13. Live Chinook Salmon abundance by statistical week from 1995 to 2016. ....................... 22

Figure 14. Live Chum Salmon abundance by statistical week from 1995 to 2016. ........................... 22

Figure 15. Mean daily discharge during the Chinook and Chum salmon spawning period from 1995 to 2016. .................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 16. Chinook and Chum salmon spawning depth habitat suitability curve. ............................ 23

Figure 17. Chinook and Chum salmon spawning velocity habitat suitability curve. ......................... 24

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Salmon redd survey conditions, 2017............................................................................... 26

Appendix B Salmon redd measurements, 2017 ................................................................................... 28

Appendix C Historical salmon abundance by river segment................................................................ 36

Appendix D Historical salmon abundance by statistical week ............................................................. 41

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment ABBREVIATIONS

LGL Limited v

ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are used in this report:

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

GIS geographic information systems

GPS global positioning system

HFN Huu-ay-aht First Nations

LIDAR light detection and ranging

WSC Water Survey of Canada

blank page

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment INTRODUCTION

LGL Limited 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background The Sarita and Pachena watersheds are located on the west coast of Vancouver Island within the traditional territories (the Haa-houlthee) of the Huu-ay-aht First Nations (HFN). Until the 1990s, road building and timber harvesting throughout much of the watersheds had been carried out on steep unstable slopes and up to the edge of watercourses. Roads were often poorly built and stream crossings poorly designed. This has resulted in numerous landslides, the mobilization of sediments to watercourses, increased peak and annual flows, changes in stream channel morphology, loss of fish habitat, fish passage restrictions, and the degradation of the Sarita River estuary. In recent years, forest practices have greatly improved; however, the legacy of poor forest practices remains (LGL 2017).

The land base within the Sarita and Pachena watersheds include HFN owned lands, provincial crown land, private land, and a small portion of Pacific Rim National Park. As of present, the timber harvesting land base in the Sarita watershed is 18,957 ha and 4,077 ha in the Pachena watershed. Both watersheds have been heavily logged and most (greater than 90%) of the forest is second growth while approximately 2% is old growth (greater than 250 years of age). Currently, there are 634 km of roads in the Sarita watershed and 183 km of roads in the Pachena watershed.

In 2017, HFN and LGL Limited developed a framework for renewal of the Sarita and Pachena watersheds (LGL 2017). The purpose of the Renewal Framework is to provide direction that will ultimately lead to the development of a comprehensive Renewal Plan. The Renewal Plan will incorporate a two-pronged strategy that prioritizes both long term objectives (10 years or greater) intended to restore ecosystem processes, and short-term objectives required for the management and conservation of high value species or the protection and enhancement of important fish and wildlife habitat. Monitoring and adaptive management will form part of the Renewal Plan which will be a living document for many decades.

This Renewal Framework identifies several assessments and inventories that can be conducted while the Renewal Plan is being prepared to address known information gaps relating to the condition of the Sarita and Pachena watersheds, the condition of fish and wildlife habitats, and the status of fish, wildlife, and species at risk in the watersheds (LGL 2017). The purpose of these assessments and inventories will be to specify where and what kinds of renewal actions are required to achieve short and long-term renewal goals, such as restoring watershed processes, fish habitat and productivity, estuary productivity, wildlife habitat and populations, and species at risk.

Within the Sarita River, the most abundant salmon species in recent years have been Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta); however historical information suggests that Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) abundance was significantly higher than in recent years (Barry 2010). Given the Chinook Salmon management concerns in the Sarita River, several factors limiting their success have been identified. These limiting factors include: lack of deep pools for adults holding in the Sarita River, lack of summer rearing habitat for juveniles in the estuary, lack of stable spawning habitat in Sarita and South Sarita rivers (Barry 2010). While the Sarita River has abundant gravel as potential spawning substrate, gravel stability is a concern.

It has been suggested that an additional factor limiting Chinook Salmon recovery in the Sarita River might be interspecific (i.e., between different species) competition for spawning habitat between Chinook and Chum salmon through redd superimposition. This factor maybe limiting Chinook Salmon recovery because of the documented increase in Chum Salmon abundance from escapement assessments and anecdotal observations of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning in the same locations.

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment METHODS

LGL Limited 2

Redd superimposition has been reported to occur in salmonids when spawning habitats become limited (Weeber et al. 2010), whether by habitat limitations or high spawner abundance. Redd superimposition has been inferred as a major cause of density-dependent embryo mortality through egg displacement (Fukushima et al. 1998). Intraspecific (i.e., within species) competition for spawning habitat has been studied for Chinook Salmon populations in other watersheds (Campos et al. 2014). Interspecific competition for spawning habitat has been studied between various salmonid species; such as Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) and Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus; Weeber et al. 2010), Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha; Fukushima and Smoker 1998), and other salmonids. However, interspecific competition for spawning habitat between Chinook and Chum Salmon has to our knowledge not been studied.

1.2 Study Area The study area for this assessment includes the Sarita Watershed, which is located on the west coast of Vancouver Island adjacent to Barkley Sound (Figure 1). This watershed supports a diversity of fish species (Table 1).

The Sarita Watershed is 19,247 ha in area. The main watercourses of the Sarita Watershed include the Sarita River, South Sarita River, Sabrina Creek, and Frederick Creek. Smaller tributaries of the Upper Sarita include: Central, Hunter, Thompson, and Miller creeks (Figure 2). Sarita Lake (147 ha) is located at the midpoint of the watershed. Fish passage is blocked by falls approximately 1 km downstream of Sarita Lake. Downstream of Sarita Lake, the width of the Sarita River varies between 15 and 30 meters until it reaches the estuary at Numukamus Bay in Trevor Channel. The South Sarita River discharges into the Sarita River half way between the estuary and Sarita Lake. Other lakes within the watershed include Frederick Lake (41 ha) and Bewlay Lake (11 ha).

1.3 Objectives The objectives of the Sarita River Chinook and Chum salmon redd superimposition assessment were as follows:

2017 Analysis

• Identify and map the distribution of Chinook and Chum salmon redds; • Identify the timing of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning; and • Assess the degree of intraspecific and interspecific redd superimposition impact on Chinook

Salmon redds.

Historical Analysis (1995-2016)

• Assess the historical distribution of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning locations; and • Assess the historical timing of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning in relation to discharge.

2 Methods

2.1 2017 Analysis

2.1.1 Field Methods Field survey start and termination dates were informed by weekly salmon escapement snorkel surveys and observations of spawning activity conducted by HFN. The field survey commenced on October 5 and terminated on November 1, which coincided with the start of Chinook Salmon spawning and completion


LGL Limited 3

of Chum Salmon spawning. Surveys were conducted twice per week, unless high discharge events prevented safe and effective survey conditions.

The Sarita River was divided into 13 survey segments (approx. 500 m in length) from the falls to the high tide line for a total of 6.5 km of survey length (Figure 3; Table 2). These survey segments were selected based upon existing Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) segment markers developed for the salmon escapement snorkel surveys.

During each survey the following environmental parameters were recorded and the selection of parameters was based on the WCVI Snorkel Survey Protocols for Salmon Enumeration in West Coast Vancouver Island streams (DFO 2015):

• Date and time; • Segments surveyed; • Water clarity conditions (clear, tea, muddy, slightly turbid); • Water level (extremely low, below normal, normal, above normal, flood); • Cloud cover (clear – 0%, scattered – 25%, partly cloudy – 50%, cloudy – 75%, overcast – 100%); • Light level (full, bright, medium, dark); • Precipitation (none, rain, snow, light, medium, heavy); and • Redd visibility (low, medium, high).

Water temperature, level, and discharge data for the duration of the assessment was obtained from the real-time Water Survey of Canada continuous data logger for the Sarita River (Station number: 08HB014; WSC 2018a).

For each Chinook Salmon redd location, the following data were recorded:

• Unique identifying number; • Date and time of the observation; • Number of fish observed on the redd; • Comments regarding observable redd superimposition; • Physical dimensions of redd (i.e., pot width, pot length, tail spill length, tail spill width) measured

using a fiberglass extendable rod (Table 3; Figure 4); and • A positional data point taken at the center of the redd’s pot with a handheld global positioning

system (GPS) manufactured by Trimble Navigation Limited (Trimble Geo 7X handheld, 5-30 cm post processing accuracy).

Each Chinook Salmon redd location was marked with a gravel filled muslin bag (5 x 20 cm) and a short length of pink biodegradable flagging was tied to the drawstring, and assigned a unique identifying number. This size of gravel filled bag has proven to be stable and resisted displacement during high flow events of up to 28 m3/s (Belknap et al. n.d). The marker was then placed at the head of the pot.

In areas where Chinook Salmon redds were identified and in areas of low density Chum Salmon redds, individual Chum Salmon redds were marked and assessed in the same manner as detailed for Chinook Salmon redds. In areas where Chinook Salmon redds were not identified and where Chum Salmon redd densities were high, individual Chum Salmon redds were not marked and the spawning area was delineated with the Trimble GPS.


LGL Limited 4

2.1.2 Data Analysis Methods An analysis of potential redd superimposition impact was conducted using the redd GPS locations and field measurements of redd dimensions to create ellipse polygons in ArcGIS Pro (ESRI 2018). The modeled polygons represented three areas of the redd structure: the pot, the egg pocket, and the tail spill. Since stream flow vectors were not modelled (e.g., River2D software) to determine the exact direction of the river’s flow (Campos et al. 2014), it was assumed that the orientation of the pot and tail spill ellipses were parallel to the river bank and wetted width using 20 cm resolution light detection and ranging (LIDAR) imagery from July 2015.

The length of the recorded pot was increased by a factor of two and used with the original pot width measurement to construct an ellipse that was representative of the total excavated pot dimensions for each redd observed. The tail spill ellipses were drawn downstream of the recorded redd locations at a length equaling the original pot measurements. The location of the redd egg pocket was then defined as the area of overlap between the pot and tail spill ellipses (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Weekly and cumulative estimates of potential redd superimposition impact (interspecific and intraspecific) were estimated using geographic information systems (GIS)-based spatial output. Potential superimposition impact was defined as the amount of overlap of a neighboring redd’s pot ellipse over a modeled egg pocket polygon for the cumulative analysis (Figure 7), and the amount of overlap of the pot and egg pocket polygons within each weekly stratum for the weekly analysis. For the weekly and cumulative estimates of redd superimposition impact, statistics were calculated based on the amount of overlap (%) and the number of overlapping pot polygons.

2.2 Historical Analysis To assess the historical distribution and timing of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning, data was obtained from two primary sources: DFO stream inspection logs (1995 to 2016) and total daily discharge (m3/s) data from the Environment Canada - Water Survey of Canada (WSC) database (WSC 2018b). The discharge station utilized in this analysis included the “Sarita River Near Bamfield” station (08HB014; 48°53'33" N x 124°58'09" W). This dataset has undergone detailed quality-control analysis before posting to the WSC database.

Snorkel escapement survey inspection logs were reviewed to assess historical distribution of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning. To determine spawning location, the distribution of peak adult live counts by river segment and year was collated. Since adults counts by river segment were not consistently recorded and/or of variable data quality, only the following years were used for this analysis: 1995−2000, 2004, 2015, and 2016. Frequency distributions were then constructed to visualize the distribution of adult live counts by river segment.

Snorkel escapement survey inspection logs were reviewed to assess historical timing of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning. Since the start, peak, and end of spawning timing data fields were rarely recorded or inconsistent in their determination, peak live adult count data were used as a surrogate for peak spawning timing. To determine peak spawning timing, the distribution of adult live counts by statistical week and year was collated. Then mean adult live counts, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated and plotted to visualize the distribution of adult live counts by statistical week. Summary statistics for total daily discharge (m3/s) were calculated for the selected statistical weeks of peak Chinook and Chum salmon spawning timing.

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment RESULTS

LGL Limited 5

3 Results

3.1 2017 Analysis The 2017 redd assessment results showed spatial overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon spawning distribution in the Sarita River. Chum Salmon spawned in the same river segments where Chinook Salmon spawned (Figure 8). However, the proportion of spawning use by river segment varied between the two species. The majority of Chinook Salmon spawned downstream of the South Sarita River confluence, with greatest spawning use in river segments 1-0 (38%), 2-1 (27%), and 0-T (25%; Figure 8 and Figure 9). Low discharge during most of the 2017 Chinook Salmon spawning period prevented the majority of fish to migrate upstream of river segment 2-1 (i.e., Hunter Creek pool) until statistical week 103. Chinook Salmon redds were not surveyed in river segments upstream of the Blenheim Bridge because a high discharge event during statistical week 103 (mid-October) prevented safe and effective survey conditions when river segments upstream of the bridge were scheduled to be surveyed. Chinook Salmon were not observed spawning upstream of the bridge prior to statistical week 103 during salmon escapement snorkel surveys. However, Chinook Salmon were confirmed to have spawned in river segments 9-8 and 6-5 through post-spawn carcass surveys on October 31 (Burns and Plate 2018).

Due to the high number of Chum Salmon redds observed, only Chum Salmon redds in proximity to Chinook Salmon redds were georeferenced and enumerated. However, individual Chum Salmon redd locations and mapped spawning areas show that they spawned in all river segments. Based upon the distribution of individual Chum Salmon redds and delineated spawning areas, the greatest concentration of Chum Salmon spawning use occurred in river segments 2-1, 6-5, 11-10, and 12-11 (Figure 8).

The 2017 redd assessment showed no peak temporal overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon spawning timing in the Sarita River. Chinook Salmon spawning commenced during statistical week 101 (1st week of October), peaked during statistical week 102 (2nd week of October), and quickly terminated during statistical week 102 (2nd week of October). Approximately 89% of all Chinook Salmon redds below the confluence of the South Sarita were constructed during statistical week 102. Chum Salmon spawning commenced during statistical week 101 (1st week of October), peaked during statistical week 104 (3rd week of October), and terminated during statistical week 105 (1st week of November). Therefore, peak Chinook and Chum salmon spawning timing was separated by a 2-week period.

Daily discharge was considerably lower during the peak of the Chinook Salmon spawning period than the Chum salmon spawning period. Daily discharge was low and ranged between 0.3 to 1.2 m3/s during the start, peak, and termination of Chinook Salmon spawning (Figure 10). Daily discharge was high and ranged between 50.4 and 5.8 m3/s during the peak Chum Salmon spawning period (Figure 10).

A total of 150 Chinook salmon redds and 325 Chum salmon redds were observed during the spawning period. Regarding interspecific competition there was no redd egg pocket overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon over the spawning period. Regarding intraspecific competition, cumulative redd egg pocket overlap for Chinook Salmon was 13% over the spawning period. Redd egg pocket overlap for Chinook Salmon was 13% and 10% for statistical weeks 101 and 102, respectively (Table 4). Of the 19 Chinook redds with egg pocket overlap, the percentage of overlap ranged between 1% and 100% with a mean of 47% (Table 5).

3.2 Historical Analysis An analysis of the historical snorkel escapement survey inspection logs showed high spatial overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon spawning distribution throughout the Sarita River. Chinook and Chum salmon spawn in all river segments of the Sarita River; however, the proportion of spawning within river

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment DISCUSSION

LGL Limited 6

segments varied. In all years analyzed, the majority of Chinook Salmon spawned downstream of Blenheim Bridge, with greatest spawning use in river segments 4-3 (19%) and 3-2 (14%; Figure 11 and Figure 3). While Chinook Salmon spawned in river segments upstream of the Blenheim Bridge, most of the river segments were of low spawning use; except for river segment 9-8 (13%) that had the third highest spawning use in the Sarita River. Most Chum Salmon spawned near and downstream of Blenheim Bridge, with the greatest spawning use in river segments 2-1 (15%), 1-0 (14%), and 6-5 (12%; Figure 12 and Figure 3). Upstream of Blenheim Bridge, Chum Salmon spawning use was greatest near the falls in river segment 11-10.

An analysis of the historical snorkel escapement survey inspection logs showed no peak temporal overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon spawning timing in the Sarita River. On average, peak Chinook and Chum salmon spawning timing was separated by a 2-week period. Chinook Salmon entered the river during statistical week 91 (early September), peak abundance and spawning was during statistical weeks 94 and 101 (late September and early October), then abundance declined until the end of statistical week 105 (late October; Figure 13). Chum Salmon entered the river during statistical week 101 (early October), peak abundance and spawning was during statistical weeks 104 and 105 (mid October to early November), then abundance declined until the end of statistical week 113 (late November; Figure 14).

Historical daily discharge data showed that daily discharge was greater during peak Chum Salmon spawning period than peak Chinook Salmon spawning period. Daily discharge was relatively consistent (1-3 m3/s) until mid-September, after which discharge increased until mid-November (71 m3/s) and remained high for the remainder of the year (Figure 15). On average, mean daily discharge during peak Chinook Salmon abundance and spawning varied between 7.12 and 14.39 m3/s (Table 6). In comparison, mean daily discharge during peak Chum Salmon abundance and spawning varied between 25.37 and 39.47 m3/s.

4 Discussion There is high spatial overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon spawning distribution throughout the Sarita River. Discharge was below average during the 2017 Chinook and Chum salmon spawning period, with a few large discharge events. The low discharge during the Chinook Salmon spawning period prevented fish from crossing shallow riffles and resulted in most of the fish being restricted to the lower Sarita River downstream of the South Sarita River confluence. After peak Chinook Salmon spawning, a large discharge event enabled fish to access the upper Sarita River. While discharge during 2017 may have restricted access to available spawning habitat, historical data shows that the majority of Chinook Salmon spawn downstream of Blenheim Bridge, with the greatest spawning use in river segments 4-3 (i.e., corner pool area) and 3-2 (Hunter Creek pool area). These river segments and all other river segments are also used by Chum Salmon for spawning based upon the 2017 and historical data.

There is no peak temporal overlap between Chinook and Chum salmon spawning timing in the Sarita River. Chinook Salmon abundance consistently rises to a peak during statistical week 101, followed by a sharp decline in abundance. Chum Salmon abundance has greater variability with an extended peak over a two to three-week period starting during statistical week 104. While there is interannual variability in peak spawning timing between the species, peak Chinook and Chum salmon spawning timing is, on average, separated by a 2-week period. However, there is some temporal overlap of Chinook and Chum salmon spawning in the Sarita River.

There was no redd superimposition impact between Chinook and Chum salmon. These results indicate that the potential for disruption and dislodgement of incubating Chinook Salmon eggs from Chum Salmon redd construction is negligible. There are two possible explanations for the negligible redd superimposition impact between Chinook and Chum salmon: 1) increased habitat availability during Chum Salmon spawning due to higher water levels; and 2) differences in depth and velocity spawning habitat

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment DISCUSSION

LGL Limited 7

preferences between the two species. From the historical analysis, mean daily discharge during peak Chum Salmon spawning was, on average, 3 to 4 times greater than during peak Chinook Salmon spawning. This increased discharge may provide more available habitat for Chum Salmon spawning that was not available during the Chinook Salmon spawning period. Furthermore, Chinook Salmon redd locations were in deeper and faster water during the Chum Salmon spawning period due to increased discharge. Based upon provincial fish habitat suitability curves (Ministry of Environment, unpublished data), Chum Salmon are known to prefer shallower depths and slower velocities for spawning than Chinook Salmon (Figure 16 and Figure 17). While water depth and velocity data were not specifically collected at redds during this study, field observations were in general agreement with the provincial spawning habitat suitability curves. Therefore, the negligible redd superimposition impact between Chinook and Chum salmon may be due to the seasonal river discharge patterns and habitat preferences in the Sarita River.

The results indicate that the potential for disruption and dislodgement of incubating Chinook Salmon eggs from their own species redd construction was low. These results further suggest that aggregate Chinook Salmon spawning appears to have a low potential for impact to incubating eggs via encroachment into the egg pocket by adjacent redds. However, these results should be interpreted with caution as there were difficulties distinguishing individual Chinook Salmon redds from one another due their aggregate spawning nature in a short spawning period (i.e., peak for 1-week period). There were also difficulties in surveying all 6.5 km of the Sarita River during the peak Chinook Salmon spawning period, which was followed by a high discharge event that prevented safe and effective survey conditions. Therefore, the degree of Chinook Salmon redd superimposition impact by the same species was likely greater than observed in this study.

In conclusion, the degree of Chinook Salmon redd superimposition impact by the same species is likely greater than observed in this study. This intraspecific competition for spawning habitat is considered to be a major source of density-dependent mortality in salmon populations (Quinn 2005). Extended periods of low discharge during the Chinook Salmon spawning period, such as those experienced in 2017, may increase the risk of redd superimposition due to reduced available spawning habitat. Years with greater Chinook Salmon escapement may also increase the risk of redd superimposition due to limitations in available spawning habitat (Weeber et al. 2010). Regarding interspecific competition, the negligible redd superimposition impact between Chinook and Chum salmon may be due to the seasonal river discharge patterns and habitat preferences in the Sarita River.

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment REFERENCES

LGL Limited 8

REFERENCES Barry, K. 2010. Habitat status report for the Sarita River watershed, Vancouver Island, BC. Prepared for

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, BC.

Belknap, W. C., D. K. Paige, and H. K. Barnett. n.d. Method for biodegradable marking of salmonid redds.

Burns, C. W. and E. Plate. 2018. Sarita and Pachena watershed renewal: Salmon brood stock collection and supporting escapement assessments. LGL Report EA3618B. Prepared for Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Anacla, BC, by LGL Limited, Sidney, BC.

Campos, C., D. Givens, and D. Massa. 2014. Redd monitoring and mapping in the Englebright Dam reach of the Lower Yuba River, CA. Summary report. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2015. WCVI snorkel survey protocols for salmon enumeration in west coast Vancouver Island streams. Nanaimo, BC.

ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2018. ArcGIS Pro 2 [Computer software]. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

Fukushima, M. and W. W. Smoker. 1998. Spawning habitat segregation of sympatric Sockeye and Pink Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:253–260.

Fukushima, M., T. J. Quinn, and W. W. Smoker. 1998. Estimation of eggs lost from superimposed Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) redds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:618-625.

Gallagher, S. P., P. K. J. Hahn, and D. H. Johnson. 2007. Redd counts. Pages 197-234 in D. H. Johnson et al. 2007. Salmonid field protocols handbook: Techniques for assessing status and trends in salmon and trout populations. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

LGL (LGL Limited). 2017. Sarita and Pachena watershed renewal framework. Prepared for Huu-ay-aht First Nation, Anacla, BC.

Lower Yuba River Accord. 2013. Redd superimposition: How to measure the potential for impact retrieved September 1, 2017 from http://www.yubaaccordrmt.com/Presentations/RMT%20Meeting%20Presentations/RMT%20Redd%20Superimposition%20Presentation%20(2-19-13).pdf

Quinn, T. P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. UBC Press. 378 pp.

WSC (Water Survey of Canada). 2018a. Real-time hydrometric data. Retrieved March 01, 2018, from https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/mainmenu/real_time_data_index_e.html.

WSC. 2018b. Historical hydrometric data search. Retrieved March 01, 2018, from https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/search/historical_e.html.

Weeber, M. A., G. R. Giannico, and S. E. Jacobs. 2010. Effects of redd superimposition by introduced Kokanee on the spawning success of native Bull Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:47–54.

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment TABLES

LGL Limited 9

TABLES

blank page


LGL Limited 10

Table 1. Fish species present in the Sarita Watershed.

Fish Species Chinook Salmon

Chum Salmon Coastrange Sculpin

Coho Salmon Coastal Cutthroat Trout

Dolly Varden Kokanee

Lamprey (Lampetra sp.) Pink Salmon

Prickly Sculpin Rainbow Trout / Steelhead

Sockeye Salmon Starry Flounder

Threespine Stickleback

Table 2. Sarita River survey segment locations.

Segment Location

Comment Zone Northing Easting 12 10 5418490 359227 Base of falls mid pool 11 10 5418372 358853 - 10 10 5418267 358475 Just above trestle 9 10 5418058 358003 - 8 10 5418348 357680 - 7 10 5418297 357204 - 6 10 5418115 356745 Blenheim Bridge is halfway between 6 and 5 5 10 5417946 356281 - 4 10 5417555 356361 - 3 10 5417403 356000 - 2 10 5417338 355526 Below the cable car 1 10 5417305 355003 - 0 10 5417205 354374 Deep hole -1 10 5416923 354176 Riffle to tidal zone


LGL Limited 11

Table 3. Description of redd dimension measurements.

Redd Dimension Description Pot Length (PL) Total length of the pot parallel to the stream flow, measured in meters

(to the nearest cm) from the top to bottom edge. When the pot was irregularly shaped, the total length was estimated as accurately as possible.

Pot Width (PW) Maximum width of the pot perpendicular to the stream flow or pot length in meters (to the nearest cm). When the pot was irregularly shaped, the total width was estimated as accurately as possible.

Tail Spill Length (TSL) Total length of the tail spill parallel to the stream flow (in meters to the nearest cm). Measurements were taken from the top edge (i.e., downstream edge of the pot) to bottom edge of the tail spill.

Tail Spill Width 1 (TSW1) Maximum width of the tail spill perpendicular to the stream flow or pot length (in meters to the nearest cm). Measurements were taken from one edge to the other, approx. one-third of the distance downstream from the top edge of the tail spill.

Tail Spill Width 2 (TSW2) Maximum width of the tail spill perpendicular to the stream flow or pot length (in meters to the nearest cm). Measurements were taken from one edge to the other, approx. two-thirds of the distance downstream from the top edge of the tail spill.

Source: Gallagher et al. 2007

Table 4. Frequency of Chinook Salmon redd egg pocket overlap.

Statistical Week Intraspecific Egg Pocket

Overlap Interspecific Egg Pocket

Overlap 101 2 0 102 13 0

Cumulative 19 0

Table 5. Cumulative Chinook Salmon redd egg pocket overlap summary statistics.

Egg Pocket Overlap (%) n Mean SE Min Max

19 47 0.08 1 100


LGL Limited 12

Table 6. Historical daily discharge data summary statistics during peak Chinook and Chum salmon spawning periods.

Species Statistical

Week Daily Discharge (m3/sec)

n Mean Lower CI Upper CI SE Min Max

Chinook 94 154 7.12 4.87 9.38 1.15 0.44 102.00

101 154 14.39 9.81 18.98 2.34 0.40 144.00 102 154 13.71 10.48 16.93 1.65 0.38 129.00

Chum 104 154 25.37 19.84 30.91 2.82 0.72 217.00 105 154 27.48 22.21 32.75 2.69 0.62 152.00 111 154 39.47 31.92 47.02 3.85 0.62 285.00

blank page

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment FIGURES

LGL Limited 13

FIGURES

blank page


LGL Limited 14

Figure 1. Location of the Sarita Watershed.


LGL Limited 15

Figure 2. Waterbodies of the Sarita Watershed.


LGL Limited 16

Figure 3. Survey segments within the Sarita River.


LGL Limited 17

Source: Gallagher et al. 2007

Figure 4. Examples of physical redd dimension measurements.

Source: Lower Yuba River Accord 2013

Figure 5. Diagram of salmon redd egg pocket defined as the area of overlap between the pot and tail spill ellipses.


LGL Limited 18


Figure 6. Diagram view of salmon redd measurements, demonstrating the representative pot and tail spill polygons (in pink) and egg pocket polygon (in red).


Figure 7. Diagram of salmon redd pot ellipses and an overlapping area of egg pocket superimposition impact.


LGL Limited 19

Figure 8. Location of Chinook and Chum salmon redds within the Sarita River.


LGL Limited 20

Figure 9. Chinook Salmon redd distribution by river segment in 2017.

Figure 10. Mean daily discharge and daily water temperature during the 2017 redd survey period.


LGL Limited 21

Figure 11. Mean proportion of peak live Chinook Salmon abundance by river segment from 1995 to

2016.

Figure 12. Mean proportion of peak live Chum Salmon abundance by river segment from 1995 to 2016.


LGL Limited 22

Figure 13. Live Chinook Salmon abundance by statistical week from 1995 to 2016.

Figure 14. Live Chum Salmon abundance by statistical week from 1995 to 2016.


LGL Limited 23

Figure 15. Mean daily discharge during the Chinook and Chum salmon spawning period from 1995 to

2016.

Source: Ministry of Environment, unpublished data

Figure 16. Chinook and Chum salmon spawning depth habitat suitability curve.


LGL Limited 24

Source: Ministry of Environment, unpublished data

Figure 17. Chinook and Chum salmon spawning velocity habitat suitability curve.

blank page

Chinook and Chum Salmon Redd Superimposition Assessment APPENDICES

LGL Limited 25

APPENDICES

blank page


LGL Limited 26

APPENDIX A SALMON REDD SURVEY CONDITIONS, 2017

Appendix A Salmon redd survey conditions, 2017

blank page


LGL Limited 27

Appendix A.1. Salmon redd survey conditions, 2017.

Survey Date (dd-mmm-yy)

Start Time (24 hr) Method

Water Condition

Water Level

Cloud Cover

Light Level Precipitation

Redd Visibility

WSC Water Discharge

(m3/s)

WSC Water

Level (m)

WSC Water Temperature

(°C) Survey

Segments Comments

05-Oct-17 13:00 Wading Clear Below

Normal Clear Full None High 0.63 1.352 11.57

Mine Pool to Hunter Creek

Pool

CH starting to spawn. Pots not well developed.

CH on redds. Observed 23 test redds.

All locations are CH redds.



Mine Pool to Hunter Creek

Pool

Peak CH spawning. CU starting to spawn in lower section of river.

CH on redds. CU observed spawning in lower velocity habitat.

Majority of locations are CH redds.



Hunter Creek Pool to South

Sarita Confluence

Peak CH spawning. CU starting to spawn in lower section of river.

CH on redds. CU observed spawning in lower velocity habitat.

Majority of locations are CH redds.

24-Oct-17 10:00 Wading Clear Normal Clear Full None High 13.70 1.822 10.13

Upstream of Blenham Bridge Pool to Hunter

Creek Pool

Peak CU spawning. All CU on redds. No CH on redds.

A few post spawning CH observed upstream of bridge. All locations CU redds.

25-Oct-17 10:00 Wading Clear Normal Clear Full None High 11.60 1.774 10.51

Blenham Bridge Pool to

Upstream of Beaver Dam

Pool

Peak CU spawning. All CU on redds. No CH on redds.

A few post spawn CH observed upstream of bridge. All locations CU redds.

31-Oct-17 10:00 Wading Clear Normal Clear Full None High 3.69 1.544 8.64 Falls to Beaver

Dam Pool

Past peak CU spawning. CU spawning focused on reach near falls.

Approximately 95% of CU on redds. No CH on redds.

A few post spawning CH observed upstream of bridge. All locations CU redds.

01-Nov-17 10:00 Wading Clear Normal Clear Full None High 1.02 1.386 12.26

Blenham Bridge Pool to Mine

Pool

Past peak CU spawning. CU spawning focused on reach near falls.

Approximately 95% of CU on redds. No post spawn CH observed or redds.

Post spawn CU observed. 10% of CU on redds.

All locations CU redds.

blank page


LGL Limited 28

APPENDIX B SALMON REDD MEASUREMENTS, 2017

Appendix B Salmon redd measurements, 2017

blank page


LGL Limited 29

Appendix B.1. Chinook and Chum salmon pot and tail spill measurements, 2017.


Redd ID Species

Fish on Redd

Pot Measurements Tail Spill Measurements Pot

Length (m)

Pot Width

(m)

Tail Spill Length

(m)

Tail Spill Width 1

(m)

Tail Spill Width 2

(m) 05-Oct-17 201 CH Yes 1.0 1.4 2.4 1.8 1.5 05-Oct-17 203 CH Yes 0.7 0.7 3.0 1.8 1.0 05-Oct-17 204 CH Yes 1.0 1.5 4.0 2.7 2.0 05-Oct-17 205 CH Yes 2.1 2.3 2.9 2.3 1.8 05-Oct-17 206 CH Yes 1.8 1.3 2.5 1.4 0.9 05-Oct-17 207 CH Yes 1.5 2.1 4.0 1.5 1.2 05-Oct-17 208 CH Yes 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.4 05-Oct-17 209 CH Yes 2.0 1.6 3.3 2.7 1.8 05-Oct-17 210 CH Yes 1.0 4.3 2.7 2.6 1.6 05-Oct-17 211 CH Yes 2.2 1.5 4.5 2.3 1.5 05-Oct-17 212 CH Yes 1.0 1.1 2.0 1.0 0.9 05-Oct-17 213 CH Yes 1.2 1.5 2.7 1.0 0.8 05-Oct-17 214 CH Yes 1.1 2.9 3.3 1.9 1.5 05-Oct-17 215 CH Yes 1.8 2.5 2.8 1.5 2.2 05-Oct-17 216 CH Yes 2.5 0.9 2.4 2.3 1.6 05-Oct-17 217 CH Yes 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.6 11-Oct-17 1 CH No 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 11-Oct-17 2 CH No 1.0 0.7 1.9 0.9 0.7 11-Oct-17 3 CH No 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.3 11-Oct-17 4 CH No 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 11-Oct-17 5 CH No 1.3 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.8 11-Oct-17 6 CH No 1.2 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 11-Oct-17 7 CH No 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.2 0.4 11-Oct-17 8 CH No 1.3 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.4 11-Oct-17 9 CH Yes 2.5 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.0 11-Oct-17 10 CH Yes 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.3 11-Oct-17 11 CH Yes 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 11-Oct-17 12 CH No 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.5 11-Oct-17 13 CH Yes 1.3 1.3 1.5 0.8 0.5 11-Oct-17 14 CH No 2.0 2.3 1.3 1.2 0.7 11-Oct-17 15 CH No 2.5 3.2 1.3 1.3 0.3 11-Oct-17 16 CU Yes 2.8 2.5 1.6 1.5 0.9 11-Oct-17 17 CU Yes 1.2 3.0 1.7 1.6 1.0 11-Oct-17 18 CU No 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.2 0.7 11-Oct-17 19 CU No 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 11-Oct-17 20 CH Yes 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.6 11-Oct-17 21 CH Yes 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.4 0.9 11-Oct-17 22 CH Yes 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.1


LGL Limited 30

Pot

Measurements Tail Spill Measurements


Redd ID Species

Fish on Redd

Pot Length

(m)

Pot Width

(m)

Tail Spill Length

(m)

Tail Spill Width 1

(m)

Tail Spill Width 2

(m) 11-Oct-17 23 CH Yes 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 11-Oct-17 24 CH No 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.5 11-Oct-17 25 CH No 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 11-Oct-17 26 CH Yes 1.3 2.5 1.8 0.8 0.7 11-Oct-17 27 CH No 0.9 2.4 1.1 1.0 0.7 11-Oct-17 28 CH No 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.2 0.9 11-Oct-17 29 CH No 1.9 1.8 1.5 0.8 0.7 11-Oct-17 30 CH No 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.7 11-Oct-17 31 CH Yes 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.3 0.7 11-Oct-17 32 CH Yes 2.0 7.7 4.0 8.0 4.0 11-Oct-17 33 CH No 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.8 11-Oct-17 34 CH No 1.0 4.0 1.1 3.7 2.0 11-Oct-17 35 CH No 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 11-Oct-17 36 CH No 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.7 11-Oct-17 37 CH No 1.1 1.9 1.0 0.8 0.4 11-Oct-17 38 CH No 1.8 3.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 11-Oct-17 39 CH No 1.7 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.9 11-Oct-17 40 CH No 1.9 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 11-Oct-17 41 CH No 0.6 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.7 11-Oct-17 42 CH No 2.6 2.0 1.3 2.7 1.6 11-Oct-17 43 CH No 1.5 2.1 1.6 1.0 0.5 11-Oct-17 44 CH No 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 11-Oct-17 45 CH Yes 1.8 2.4 1.5 1.0 0.8 11-Oct-17 46 CH Yes 2.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.5 11-Oct-17 47 CH Yes 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 11-Oct-17 48 CH Yes 1.6 2.2 1.6 0.9 0.8 11-Oct-17 49 CH Yes 1.4 2.3 1.8 1.2 1.0 11-Oct-17 50 CH No 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.1 11-Oct-17 51 CH Yes 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.3 0.5 11-Oct-17 52 CH Yes 1.7 2.6 4.0 1.3 1.1 11-Oct-17 53 CH Yes 1.9 2.4 2.6 1.6 1.0 11-Oct-17 54 CH Yes 1.3 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 11-Oct-17 55 CH No 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 11-Oct-17 56 CH Yes 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.4 11-Oct-17 57 CH No 1.6 1.6 2.5 1.6 1.2 11-Oct-17 58 CH No 1.2 1.3 3.3 1.4 1.2 11-Oct-17 59 CH No 1.3 1.7 4.2 1.7 1.2 11-Oct-17 60 CH No 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 11-Oct-17 61 CH Yes 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.9 11-Oct-17 62 CH No 1.9 2.6 2.6 1.3 1.1


LGL Limited 31

Pot



Redd ID Species

Fish on Redd

Pot Length

(m)

Pot Width

(m)

Tail Spill Length

(m)

Tail Spill Width 1

(m)

Tail Spill Width 2

(m) 11-Oct-17 63 CH No 1.2 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.6 11-Oct-17 64 CH No 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.7 0.5 11-Oct-17 65 CH Yes 3.8 3.7 4.6 5.0 4.5 11-Oct-17 66 CH Yes 1.4 1.5 2.8 1.4 0.9 11-Oct-17 67 CH Yes 1.2 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.0 11-Oct-17 68 CH No 2.7 5.0 1.5 1.8 1.3 11-Oct-17 69 CU Yes 2.0 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.0 11-Oct-17 70 CH No 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.4 0.3 11-Oct-17 71 CH No 1.0 1.6 2.8 1.5 1.3 11-Oct-17 72 CH Yes 1.5 2.6 2.5 1.2 0.9 11-Oct-17 73 CH Yes 2.0 1.6 2.1 1.4 0.7 11-Oct-17 74 CH No 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.1 11-Oct-17 75 CH Yes 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.2 0.9 11-Oct-17 76 CH No 1.9 1.4 3.0 1.7 1.2 11-Oct-17 77 CH No 1.9 2.9 3.0 1.7 1.0 11-Oct-17 78 CH Yes 2.2 2.1 4.0 1.5 1.5 11-Oct-17 79 CU Yes 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.9 11-Oct-17 80 CH No 0.9 1.8 1.4 0.8 0.6 11-Oct-17 81 CH No 0.9 0.6 2.0 1.3 0.9 11-Oct-17 82 CH No 1.2 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.0 11-Oct-17 83 CH Yes 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.0 11-Oct-17 84 CH Yes 1.7 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.7 11-Oct-17 85 CH Yes 3.0 2.0 2.6 1.7 1.2 11-Oct-17 86 CH Yes 3.0 3.3 1.6 2.0 1.4 11-Oct-17 87 CH No 1.7 1.7 2.3 1.5 1.2 11-Oct-17 88 CH Yes 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.9 11-Oct-17 89 CH Yes 1.8 1.3 2.0 1.1 0.8 11-Oct-17 90 CH No 1.6 1.4 2.0 0.9 0.8 11-Oct-17 91 CH No 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.9 0.6 11-Oct-17 92 CH Yes 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.9 11-Oct-17 93 CH Yes 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.8 11-Oct-17 94 CH No 1.0 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.5 11-Oct-17 95 CH Yes 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.7 1.0 11-Oct-17 96 CH No 1.4 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.0 11-Oct-17 97 CH No 1.4 2.3 2.8 1.0 0.4 11-Oct-17 98 CH Yes 2.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.0 11-Oct-17 99 CH Yes 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.4 0.8 11-Oct-17 100 CH Yes 3.6 1.7 1.8 1.0 0.8 11-Oct-17 101 CU Yes 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.1 0.8 11-Oct-17 102 CH Yes 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.1 0.7


LGL Limited 32

Pot



Redd ID Species

Fish on Redd

Pot Length

(m)

Pot Width

(m)

Tail Spill Length

(m)

Tail Spill Width 1

(m)

Tail Spill Width 2

(m) 11-Oct-17 103 CH Yes 1.8 1.0 2.4 1.1 0.8 11-Oct-17 104 CH Yes 2.2 1.6 2.4 1.1 1.0 11-Oct-17 105 CH Yes 1.4 1.1 2.0 1.0 0.9 11-Oct-17 106 CH Yes 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.5 11-Oct-17 107 CH Yes 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.1 0.9 11-Oct-17 108 CH Yes 1.8 2.4 1.9 1.3 1.0 11-Oct-17 109 CH Yes 3.4 4.7 2.9 2.8 2.8 11-Oct-17 110 CH Yes 2.6 4.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 11-Oct-17 111 CH Yes 4.0 2.7 1.5 3.0 2.0 11-Oct-17 112 CH Yes 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.9 11-Oct-17 113 CH Yes 1.8 3.2 3.4 2.4 0.8 11-Oct-17 114 CH Yes 4.4 1.1 2.3 1.4 1.0 11-Oct-17 115 CH Yes 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.2 13-Oct-17 116 CH No 1.5 1.6 4.7 1.3 1.2 11-Oct-17 116 CH No 1.6 1.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 11-Oct-17 117 CH No 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 11-Oct-17 118 CH No 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.1 0.5 11-Oct-17 119 CH Yes 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.0 11-Oct-17 120 CH Yes 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 11-Oct-17 121 CU Yes 2.3 2.0 2.8 0.7 0.5 11-Oct-17 122 CU Yes 1.2 1.7 1.9 1.1 1.0 11-Oct-17 123 CH Yes 0.9 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.9 13-Oct-17 124 CH No 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.3 13-Oct-17 125 CH No 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 11-Oct-17 127 CH Yes 2.6 2.0 1.7 1.8 0.5 13-Oct-17 128 CH No 2.3 1.7 2.2 1.7 1.2 13-Oct-17 129 CH No 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.9 13-Oct-17 130 CH No 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 13-Oct-17 131 CH No 1.7 1.3 3.1 1.7 1.3 13-Oct-17 132 CH No 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.9 13-Oct-17 133 CH Yes 2.2 2.6 3.5 2.1 1.7 13-Oct-17 134 CU No 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.4 13-Oct-17 135 CU Yes 2.2 1.4 1.7 1.1 1.0 13-Oct-17 136 CH No 2.2 2.5 1.0 1.1 0.9 13-Oct-17 137 CH Yes 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.5 13-Oct-17 138 CH Yes 2.4 2.2 1.7 2.4 2.3 13-Oct-17 139 CH Yes 1.5 2.2 1.6 1.7 1.0 13-Oct-17 140 CH No 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 13-Oct-17 141 CH No 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.5 13-Oct-17 142 CU Yes 2.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0


LGL Limited 33

Pot



Redd ID Species

Fish on Redd

Pot Length

(m)

Pot Width

(m)

Tail Spill Length

(m)

Tail Spill Width 1

(m)

Tail Spill Width 2

(m) 13-Oct-17 143 CH No 1.8 1.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 13-Oct-17 144 CH No 2.1 2.2 1.2 1.8 1.5 13-Oct-17 145 CH Yes 3.2 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.5 13-Oct-17 146 CH No 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.3 13-Oct-17 147 CH No 3.4 2.8 3.5 2.5 1.5 13-Oct-17 148 CH No 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.5 13-Oct-17 149 CH No 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 13-Oct-17 151 CH No 2.0 1.9 1.0 1.7 1.5 13-Oct-17 152 CH Yes 1.4 1.5 1.1 2.3 1.0 13-Oct-17 153 CH No 1.6 1.2 2.8 1.2 1.1

Note: CH = Chinook Salmon, CU = Chum Salmon


LGL Limited 34

Appendix B.2. Chum Salmon pot measurements, 2017.

Survey Date (dd-mmm-yy) Species

Redd ID

Fish on Redd

Pot Measurements Pot Width (m) Pot Length (m) Pot Area (m2)

24-Oct-17 CU 304 Yes 2.0 1.3 2.6 24-Oct-17 CU 306 Yes 2.0 1.5 3.0 24-Oct-17 CU 309 Yes 1.0 1.0 1.0 24-Oct-17 CU 314 Yes 1.5 1.0 1.5 24-Oct-17 CU 316 Yes 1.5 2.0 3.0 24-Oct-17 CU 319 Yes 1.7 1.5 2.6 24-Oct-17 CU 321 Yes 0.7 1.4 1.0 24-Oct-17 CU 324 Yes 1.3 1.7 2.2 24-Oct-17 CU 327 Yes 3.0 1.8 5.4 24-Oct-17 CU 336 Yes 1.8 1.6 2.9 24-Oct-17 CU 340 Yes 1.8 2.0 3.6 24-Oct-17 CU 345 Yes 2.0 1.6 3.2 24-Oct-17 CU 348 Yes 1.7 1.4 2.4 24-Oct-17 CU 351 Yes 1.5 2.2 3.3 24-Oct-17 CU 361 Yes 1.8 1.3 2.3 24-Oct-17 CU 368 Yes 1.9 1.4 2.7 24-Oct-17 CU 373 Yes 2.0 1.0 2.0 24-Oct-17 CU 396 Yes 1.8 1.4 2.5 24-Oct-17 CU 399 Yes 2.1 1.4 2.9 24-Oct-17 CU 425 Yes 1.7 2.2 3.7 24-Oct-17 CU 429 Yes 1.8 1.2 2.2 24-Oct-17 CU 430 Yes 2.0 1.6 3.2 24-Oct-17 CU 438 Yes 1.6 1.5 2.4 24-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.3 1.0 1.3 24-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.1 1.3 2.7 24-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.7 1.3 2.2 24-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.4 1.7 4.1 24-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.6 2.0 5.2 24-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.6 2.0 3.2 24-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.6 2.0 5.2 25-Oct-17 CU 505 Yes 1.5 1.6 2.4 25-Oct-17 CU 506 Yes 1.6 1.3 2.1 25-Oct-17 CU 508 Yes 0.6 0.8 0.5 25-Oct-17 CU 509 Yes 1.9 1.5 2.9 25-Oct-17 CU 518 Yes 1.3 1.5 2.0 25-Oct-17 CU 519 Yes 1.3 1.2 1.6 25-Oct-17 CU 520 Yes 1.2 1.5 1.8 25-Oct-17 CU 521 Yes 1.5 1.3 2.0 25-Oct-17 CU 522 Yes 1.5 1.3 2.0 25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.5 1.3 2.0 25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.5 1.3 2.0


LGL Limited 35

Survey Date (dd-mmm-yy) Species

Redd ID

Fish on Redd

Pot Measurements Pot Width (m) Pot Length (m) Pot Area (m2)

25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.3 1.9 2.5 25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.9 1.6 3.0 25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.5 1.2 1.8 25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.0 1.5 3.0 25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.0 1.6 3.2 25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.1 1.7 1.9 25-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.8 1.6 2.9 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.1 1.7 1.9 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.8 1.6 2.9 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.3 1.5 2.0 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.9 1.5 2.9 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.4 1.3 3.1 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.7 1.3 2.2 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.6 2.0 5.2 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.2 1.4 1.7 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.6 1.9 4.9 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.9 2.4 4.6 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.9 1.4 2.7 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 2.1 1.7 3.6 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.8 1.3 2.3 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.3 1.5 2.0 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.8 2.4 4.3 31-Oct-17 CU - Yes 1.5 1.1 1.7

Note: CU = Chum Salmon

blank page


LGL Limited 36

APPENDIX C HISTORICAL SALMON ABUNDANCE BY RIVER SEGMENT

Appendix C Historical salmon abundance by river segment

blank page


LGL Limited 37

Appendix C.1. Historical Chinook Salmon abundance by river segment.

Year Survey Date

(dd-mmm-yy) Stat

Week

River Segments

0-T 1-0 2-1 3-2 4-3 5-4 6-5 7-6 8-7 9-8 10-9 11-10 12-11 Total Mean Daily

Discharge (m3/s)

Spawning Timing

Comments Data Quality Comments

1995

21-Sep-95 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 2 23 0.64 -

Good 28-Sep-95 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 12 4 5 2 26 58 1.23 - 05-Oct-95 101 0 4 0 11 0 6 6 3 22 4 1 2 20 79 2.71 - 19-Oct-95 103 9 2 0 4 2 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 27 16.50 - 30-Oct-95 105 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 17 10.20 -

1996

26-Sep-96 94 1 0 90 61 46 20 120 0 0 18 0 0 8 364 1.49 -

Good 02-Oct-96 101 38 0 65 64 62 15 92 4 0 11 0 0 0 351 0.99 Before 25-Oct-96 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 8 28.80 - 31-Oct-96 105 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11.10 -

1997

19-Sep-97 93 300 4 170 80 370 85 80 15 40 69 0 5 11 1,229 14.30 -

Good 26-Sep-97 94 - 20 40 320 310 140 75 3 4 2 7 6 7 934 21.70 - 21-Oct-97 104 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 12 2 21 8.09 End 10-Nov-97 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.80 -

1998

28-Sep-98 101 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.52 -

Good 07-Oct-98 102 100 349 385 61 244 257 86 19 4 118 2 27 51 1,703 0.83 Start 22-Oct-98 104 - 0 5 5 16 24 135 38 34 112 100 106 88 663 5.12 - 29-Oct-98 105 - 0 1 3 2 3 18 2 3 0 24 27 37 120 2.62 -

1999 15-Sep-99 93 13 0 0 61 58 0 10 2 9 0 55 16 5 229 0.75 Before

Good 06-Oct-99 102 10 0 10 15 38 41 89 42 34 184 0 16 6 485 1.68 - 17-Oct-99 104 - 10 20 15 15 70 28 16 5 32 9 32 3 255 3.84 End

2000

18-Sep-00 93 - 1 2 20 16 7 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 59 1.35 Start

Good 02-Oct-00 101 - 15 20 15 50 11 56 10 10 63 0 23 3 276 4.85 Peak 13-Oct-00 102 - 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 9 1.17 - 08-Nov-00 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.29 - 16-Nov-00 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.77 -

2004 20-Sep-04 94 - 174 157 300 345 40 407 89 120 375 200 5 24 2,236 6.87 Before

Good 29-Sep-04 101 - 404 210 114 284 295 320 126 92 784 0 45 97 2,771 2.73 Start 14-Oct-04 103 - 70 53 9 39 5 66 16 23 48 30 50 50 459 7.05 Peak

2015

14-Sep-15 93 - 75 88 422 475 18 72 54 16 10 0 10 47 1,287 1.86 -

Excellent

23-Sep-15 94 - 0 0 30 66 7 9 0 0 2 5 0 13 132 8.66 - 01-Oct-15 101 - 60 330 182 380 3 52 180 47 166 35 58 22 1,515 3.27 - 15-Oct-15 103 - 0 0 10 33 4 22 4 0 0 31 111 12 227 8.44 - 20-Oct-15 104 - 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 31 6 49 4.11 - 26-Oct-15 105 - 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.56 - 03-Nov-15 111 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 17.50 -


LGL Limited 38

Year Survey Date

(dd-mmm-yy) Stat

Week

River Segments


Discharge (m3/s)

Spawning Timing


2016

15-Sep-16 93 - 0 420 166 297 76 47 12 0 16 0 0 11 1,045 1.01 -

Excellent 21-Sep-16 94 - 0 160 565 400 86 32 0 11 14 0 0 0 1,268 2.93 - 30-Sep-16 101 - 30 458 185 301 102 45 1 35 25 0 11 7 1,200 1.33 - 12-Oct-16 103 - 0 0 119 141 23 59 24 145 227 225 110 151 1,224 6.53 - 01-Nov-16 111 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.00 -


LGL Limited 39

Appendix C.2. Historical Chum Salmon abundance by river segment.

Year Survey Date

(dd-mmm-yy) Stat

Week

River Segments


Discharge (m3/s)

Spawning Timing


1995

21-Sep-95 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.64 -

Good 28-Sep-95 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1.23 - 05-Oct-95 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 6 0 2 130 158 2.71 - 19-Oct-95 103 33 144 301 84 49 276 0 38 38 8 0 0 0 971 16.50 - 30-Oct-95 105 151 421 1,149 210 5 74 496 380 35 21 25 178 - 3,145 10.20 -

1996

26-Sep-96 94 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1.49 -

Good 02-Oct-96 101 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.99 Before 25-Oct-96 104 214 252 165 100 51 223 534 38 3 33 283 505 8 2,409 28.80 - 31-Oct-96 105 - 774 260 286 312 580 700 120 18 79 502 710 46 4,387 11.10 Before

1997

19-Sep-97 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.30 -

Good 26-Sep-97 94 - 0 0 4 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 18 11 38 21.70 - 21-Oct-97 104 - 2,765 284 119 890 425 160 110 60 220 225 315 375 5,948 8.09 - 10-Nov-97 112 - 0 20 25 5 150 362 136 8 222 806 1,205 1,353 4,292 9.80 End

1998

28-Sep-98 101 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.52 -

Good 07-Oct-98 102 0 0 30 6 11 24 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 78 0.83 Before 22-Oct-98 104 - 121 1,152 255 452 794 485 328 74 327 612 1,021 538 6,159 5.12 Peak 29-Oct-98 105 - 230 450 500 370 325 1,426 686 260 124 438 484 410 5,703 2.62 -

1999 15-Sep-99 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 -

Good 06-Oct-99 102 60 0 64 35 40 10 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 219 1.68 - 17-Oct-99 104 - 480 700 810 750 725 219 73 30 98 132 127 18 4,162 3.84 -

2000

18-Sep-00 93 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.35 -

Good 02-Oct-00 101 - 60 200 75 225 135 103 54 0 33 0 5 0 890 4.85 Before 13-Oct-00 102 - 0 71 15 110 130 80 4 18 30 0 0 0 458 1.17 End 08-Nov-00 111 - 6 6 19 21 21 35 36 5 50 50 90 1 340 6.29 - 16-Nov-00 112 - 0 2 7 26 26 4 20 4 25 6 9 0 129 2.77 End

2004 20-Sep-04 94 - 20 5 14 30 11 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 82 6.87 Before

Good 29-Sep-04 101 - 38 35 41 74 295 3 5 28 24 0 0 0 543 2.73 Start 14-Oct-04 103 - 1,464 962 655 35 350 289 545 69 310 430 275 110 5,494 7.05 Peak

2015

14-Sep-15 93 - 2 50 41 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 1.86 -

Excellent

23-Sep-15 94 - 0 6 10 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8.66 - 01-Oct-15 101 - 0 100 59 120 111 120 99 27 30 29 7 40 742 3.27 - 15-Oct-15 103 - 0 180 50 256 38 330 37 34 148 130 75 250 1,528 8.44 - 20-Oct-15 104 - 349 364 598 427 200 1,087 19 551 555 294 225 104 4,773 4.11 - 26-Oct-15 105 - 110 730 315 165 73 239 25 12 69 11 10 0 1,759 2.56 - 03-Nov-15 111 - 0 1 121 30 40 50 16 0 0 11 0 5 274 17.50 -


LGL Limited 40

Year Survey Date

(dd-mmm-yy) Stat

Week

River Segments


Discharge (m3/s)

Spawning Timing


2016

15-Sep-16 93 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.01 -

Excellent 21-Sep-16 94 - 0 10 25 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 43 2.93 - 30-Sep-16 101 - 110 203 4 0 2 23 0 1 1 0 0 0 344 1.33 - 12-Oct-16 103 - 630 815 864 1,134 174 484 42 75 230 70 267 79 4,864 6.53 - 01-Nov-16 111 - 408 555 2,050 265 340 1,745 850 431 900 1,520 2,135 2,800 13,999 28.00 -


LGL Limited 41

APPENDIX D HISTORICAL SALMON ABUNDANCE BY STATISTICAL WEEK

Appendix D Historical salmon abundance by statistical week

blank page


LGL Limited 42

Appendix D.1. Historical Chinook Salmon abundance by statistical week.

Year

Stat Week

82 83 84 91 92 93 94 101 102 103 104 105 111 112 113 114 115 121 122 123 Total Analysis Method

Residence Time

(days) Peak

Count

NuSEDS Estimate

Type

Adult Natural

Spawners Total

Return 1995 5 23 58 77 27 17 0 0 136 AUC 15 77 Type 1 (true) 136 144 1996 0 264 367 376 0 0 8 5 0 0 0 493 AUC 35 376 Type 1 (true) 431 768 1997 0 346 458 929 934 21 0 0 0 0 1,869 AUC 20 934 Type 1 (true) 1,570 1,916 1998 0 0 9 4 1,603 1,500 663 810 0 0 0 2,417 AUC 15 1,603 Type 1 (true) 2,231 2,435 1999 229 7 433 485 255 767 AUC 15 485 Type 1 (true) 570 809 2000 59 276 10 0 0 0 301 AUC 15 276 Type 1 (true) 175 480 2001 1,033 962 455 136 269 0 0 0 1,536 AUC 23 1,033 Type 1 (true) 1,247 AP 2002 1,887 1,861 2,240 0 153 0 34 0 0 3,299 AUC 25 2,240 Type 4 (rel) 2,968 3,473 2003 24 94 1,375 2,164 0 20 0 3,705 AUC 17 2,164 Type 3 (rel) 3,380 3,999 2004 2,335 2,771 0 492 0 0 3,445 AUC 22 2,771 Type 4 (rel) 3,104 3,661 2005 108 160 555 0 0 0 1,138 EO - 555 Type 4 (rel) 1,000 1,328 2006 7 381 2,503 1,265 36 3,304 AUC 20 2,503 Type 4 (rel) 2,904 3,363 2007 905 850 0 1,630 EO - 905 Type 4 (rel) 1,300 1,630 2008 351 461 511 705 439 302 46 998 AUC 28 705 Type 4 (rel) 718 1,053 2009 425 194 24 72 26 505 AUC 25 425 Type 5 (rel) 505 820 2010 293 874 17 4 900 AUC 25 874 Type 4 (rel) 725 900 2011 469 549 611 144 1,500 EO - 611 Type 5 (rel) 1,300 1,535 2012 492 250 87 648 4 0 0 1,484 AUC 20 648 Type 3 (rel) 1,484 1,830 2013 61 704 291 522 0 0 0 1,171 AUC 20 704 Type 4 (rel) 1,171 1,473 2014 93 98 150 180 8 0 384 AUC 20 180 Type 4 (rel) 384 638 2015 1,287 132 1,515 227 49 2 1 2,517 AUC 20 1,515 Type 4 (rel) 2,517 2,857 2016 1,186 1,045 1,268 1,220 1,224 0 1 2,661 AUC 20 1,268 - - - Mean 0 0 0 349 357 427 804 1,060 278 378 100 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,644 - 21 1,039 - 1,420 1,756 Note: AUC = Area Under the Curve, EO = Expert Opinion, NuSEDS = New Salmon Escapement Database System

Snorkel Stream walk Boat Bank walk Aerial


LGL Limited 43

Appendix D.2. Historical Chum Salmon abundance by statistical week.

Year

Stat Week

82 83 84 91 92 93 94 101 102 103 104 105 111 112 113 114 115 121 122 123 Total Analysis Method

Residence Time

(days) Peak

Count

NuSEDS Estimate

Type

Adult Natural

Spawners Total

Return 1995 0 0 3 158 976 3,145 132 22 3,721 AUC 15 3,145 Type 1 (true) 3,721 - 1996 0 1 8 4 60 150 2,209 4,387 2,200 70 199 8,473 AUC 20 4,387 Type 1 (true) 8,473 - 1997 1 6 10 0 38 5,948 2,000 500 4,292 434 14,411 AUC 15 5,948 Type 1 (true) 14,411 - 1998 0 0 0 1 3,250 650 6,159 14,600 3,700 4,500 0 31,566 AUC 15 14,600 Type 1 (true) 31,566 - 1999 0 500 219 1,500 4,162 11,896 UK - 4,162 Type 1 (true) 11,896 - 2000 1 890 458 1,200 340 129 3,266 UK - 1,200 Type 1 (true) 3,266 - 2001 0 4 99 175 1,205 3,300 1,021 47 5,321 ADD/SUB - 3,300 Type 1 (true) 5,321 - 2002 1 41 9 250 4,000 20,000 2,028 25,000 5,000 35,000 EO - 25,000 Type 2 (true) 35,000 35,000 2003 0 6 46 27 0 1,500 2,000 10,000 EO - 2,000 Type 4 (rel) 10,000 10,000 2004 89 272 0 7,000 10,000 4,000 22,231 CUMM/NEW - 10,000 Type 4 (rel) 22,231 22,231 2005 9 9 300 1,500 5,000 15,000 EO - 5,000 UK 15,000 15,000 2006 4 9 147 1,830 429 2,529 AUC 12 1,830 Type 4 (rel) 2,529 2,538 2007 1 2,034 2,035 2,500 UK - 2,035 UK - - 2008 0 0 0 1 229 1,617 1,898 4,089 AUC 12 1,898 Type 5 (rel) 4,089 4,089 2009 43 37 473 3,645 5,006 7,655 AUC 15 5,006 Type 5 (rel) 7,655 7,655 2010 22 845 3,452 895 6,400 AUC 18 3,452 Type 4 (rel) 6,400 6,400 2011 209 1,296 644 15,288 33,700 PL+D - 15,288 Type 5 (rel) 33,671 33,671 2012 52 161 637 1,076 1,555 25 6,971 AUC 8 1,555 Type 3 (rel) 6,971 6,971 2013 0 41 723 2,738 6,294 940 61 10,036 AUC 15 6,294 Type 3 (rel) 10,036 10,036 2014 1 3 196 472 148 20 1,006 AUC 15 472 Type 4 (rel) 1,006 1,006 2015 97 25 742 1,528 4,773 1,759 274 6,378 AUC 12.5 4,773 Type 3 (rel) 6,378 6,378 2016 2 1 43 327 4,863 13,999 68 34,095 - 12.5 13,999 - - - Mean 1 0 0 3 3 2 26 135 572 1,778 5,241 4,550 5,426 2,840 254 47 22 0 0 0 12,557 - 14 6,152 - 11,981 12,383 Note: AUC = Area Under the Curve, EO = Expert Opinion, NuSEDS = New Salmon Escapement Database System, UK = Unknown, PL = Peak Live, D = Dead

Snorkel Stream walk Boat Bank walk Aerial

chinook and chum salmon redd superimposition assessment

Documents