Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan. Aquatic Productivity Monitoring. Reference: CLAMON#1

Transcription

1 Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan Aquatic Productivity Monitoring Reference: CLAMON#1 Clayton Falls Water Use Planning Aquatic Productivity Monitoring Program Study Period: 26 February September 2006 (Year 2) Kynoch Resources Bella Coola June 2007

2 Water License Requirements Clayton Creek Water Licence Requirement Reporting Ref Study:CLA#2 Study Period: Feb 26, 2006 Sept.17, 2006 Report Date: June 10, 2007 Kynoch Resources

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Proposed Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring (Summary Background) Aquatic Productivity Monitoring 2 2. METHODS Site Selection Fish Collection Fish Sampling Snorkel Observations 4 3. RESULTS Fish Collection Results Site Data Fish Collection Supplementary Snorkelling 9 4. RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS Fish Habitat Stream Discharge & Program Recommendations 11 LITERATURE SOURCES 12 Kynoch Resources i

4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Clayton Creek Stream Reaches & Major Features LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sample Site Habitat Description Clayton Creek Reach 2 (2006) Table 2: Sample Site Habitat Description Clayton Creek Reach 3 (2006) Table 3: Fish Collection Data, Site CF 1 Table 4: Fish Collection Data, Site CF 2 Table 5: Snorkel Observations Reach 2, 2006 Table 6: Snorkel Observations Tailrace, 2006 Table 7: Snorkel Observations Reach 1, 2006 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Fish collection data (.xls digital file). Kynoch Resources ii

5 1. INTRODUCTION This report provides data and findings from Year Two (2006) of a proposed four (4) year monitoring period for Clayton Falls Creek, that began in As described in the Year 1 Clayton Creek Water License Requirement Report (CLA#1; Kynoch Resources, 2006) the Clayton Falls Water Use Planning process (BC Hydro July 2003) was undertaken between September 2002 and April 2003, during which period stakeholders collaborated to identify key effects of the operations of BC Hydro s Clayton Falls Project. The consultative process followed steps outlined in the provincial government s Water Use Plan Guidelines (Province of BC Government, 1998). The Clayton Falls Water Use Plan Consultative Committee consisted of six representatives representing the interests of fish, wildlife, First Nations traditional use and hydroelectric power. Representatives included BC Hydro, provincial and federal agencies, Nuxalk Nation, community fisheries organizations and industry. Refer to the Clayton Falls Water Use Plan Consultative Committee Report (BC Hydro, July 2003) for more information on committee members and representation. The Clayton Falls hydroelectric project is not part of BC Hydro s integrated generation system. The facility is located in the Bella Coola Valley on Clayton Creek, approximately 4 km west of the town site of Bella Coola. The hydroelectric project consists of a run-of-river facility including: a concrete gravity dam; headpond (Clayton Creek); overflow spillway; sluiceway; power intake; penstock; and, powerhouse. The powerhouse is located to the east of Clayton Creek, resulting in creation of a 30 m tailrace, which rejoins Clayton Creek 51 m downstream from the base of Clayton Falls. This section of Clayton Creek (Reach 2; from the confluence of the tailrace channel to the base of the falls) was the subject of consultation regarding potential low flow events during winter headpond drawdown, which may potentially have reduced flow in Reach 2 below suitable fish habitat levels. Reach 1 of Clayton Creek is described as the stream section extending from the high tide level of North Bentinck Arm to the confluence of the tailrace channel with Clayton Creek. Reach 1 is approximately 100 m long and is accessible to anadromous fish. Reach 2 is upstream of the confluence of the tailrace channel and extends 51 m to the base of Clayton Falls, all of which is accessible to anadromous fish. Reach 3 is described as all stream sections upstream of Clayton Falls. Reach 3 is not accessible to anadromous fish as the waterfall presents a naturally impassable barrier. Figure 1 shows the location of Clayton Creek s major features. Photos 1 through 3 show the waterfall and Reach 2 during the September 16 sampling period. 1.1 Proposed Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring (Summary Background) As stated in the Consultative Committee Report, Clayton Falls Water Use Plan (2003), The Clayton Falls Consultative Committee identified the lack of a guaranteed continuous flow in mainstem channel between the falls and the confluence of the tailrace channel [Reach 2] as an important issue to be addressed by the Clayton Falls Water Use Plan. During the Clayton Falls Water Use Plan (BC Hydro, 2003) it was determined that during winter flow regimes (December through March) daily inflows to the headpond were less than maximum turbine discharge capacity, potentially resulting in greatly reduced flow to Reach 2 (below Clayton Falls). The WUP determined effective Performance Measures (PMs) should be developed to quantify the impacts of various alternatives (i.e., flow regimes) being considered by the Consultative Committee. The Committee agreed that optimal salmonid rearing flow for Clayton Creek would likely be between approximately 0.7 m 3 /s and 1.25 m 3 /s. It was estimated during the WUP Kynoch Resources 1

6 Waterfall Reach 1 Reach 2 Site Cf2 Site Cf1 Reach 3 Reach 3 Figure 1: Clayton Creek Stream Reaches & Major Features (BC Hydro, 2003).

7 Clayton Falls WUP Aquatic Productivity Monitoring Program Year 2, 2006 Photo 1:Clayton Creek waterfall and Reach 2 (September 16, 2006). Photo 2: Low stream conditions observed in Reach 2, September 16, Kynoch Resources

8 Clayton Falls WUP Aquatic Productivity Monitoring Program Year 2, 2006 Photo 3: Clayton Creek Site CF1 (September 16, 2006). Photo 4: Full site containment and electrofishing in Reach 2 of Clayton Creek (September 2006). Kynoch Resources

9 process that winter flows to Reach 2 of Clayton Creek consisted of periodic spilling and at times were limited to approximately 0.05 m 3 /s of inflow and dam leakage. Please refer to the Year 1 Monitoring report (CLA#1; Kynoch Resources, 2006) for additional aquatic habitat assessment goals and associated salmonid life cycle use Aquatic Productivity Monitoring In 2005 Kynoch Resources began a four-year period of aquatic monitoring to determine low flow effects within Reach 2 of Clayton Creek. This report describes observations and data collected Between February 26 and September 17, 2006, with primary physical and fisheries data collected on September 16 and 17, The Year 1 data report (CLA#1; Kynoch Resources, 2006) describes habitat assessments completed from September 2005 to February The initial program was designed in 2003 to collect baseline fish and invertebrate population structure and distribution data for Reach 2 of Clayton Creek (the 51 m section of stream below the waterfall). This was to be followed by monitoring with the minimum treatment flow to demonstrate the benefits of providing a continuous year-round flow to the mainstem channel. Results of this monitoring were expected to provide the rationale for continuing or increasing the currently agreed minimum flow above zero release. The primary hypothesis to be tested was: determine if an increase of 0.05 m 3 /s through dam releases combined with the estimated 0.05 m 3 /s natural stream inflow and dam leakage (resulting in a total combined minimum discharge of 0.10 m 3 /s) will alter or restore the productive capacity of the lower Clayton Falls Creek (BC Hydro, 2003). This was to be achieved through implementation of an aquatic productivity monitoring program consisting of three main components to be assessed (as described in the Terms of Reference, BC Hydro, 2005), including: 1. Physical habitat and site selection; 2. Fish species composition and abundance monitoring; and, 3. Benthic invertebrate composition and abundance monitoring. During Year 1 assessment it was determined benthic invertebrate monitoring was not practical in Clayton Creek owing to difficult sample recovery with fluctuating water levels and large substrate size (CLA#1, Kynoch Resources, 2006). Subsequently, in 2006 (Year 2) Kynoch Resources agreed with BC Hydro (Dodd and Mossop, 2006, Pers Com.) that the benthic invertebrate portion of the ecological assessment would be removed from project scope. To further enhance fish information a stream snorkelling component was added during 2005 and continued in 2006 to supplement fish observation data. In March 2005 BC Hydro installed a m diameter steel pipe was in the dam to allow continual minimum flow of 0.05 cms, as described in the 2006 Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan, Construction Completion Report (BC Hydro, 2006). 2. METHODS The Aquatic Productivity monitoring program required selection of two sample sites. In 2005 one site was selected in Reach 2 (downstream of falls) and another in Reach 3 (upstream of falls). Figure 1 Kynoch Resources 2

10 shows the locations of these sites. Refer to the Year 1 report (CLA#1, Kynoch Resources, 2006) for further site selection criteria. 2.1 Site Selection Sample site selection was based on methods devised my MOE (Ptolemy et al. 2006) for similar salmonid fry sampling in the Bella Coola Watershed, with each site area measuring near 100m 2. A minimum area of 100m 2 was sought where practical, to standardize results with other studies in the region (e.g., Ptolemy et al., 2006). Permanently established project sites identified in 2005 were used in 2006 for Year 2 data collection and observations (Sites CF1 and CF2; Figure 1). Fish density was expressed in fish number per 100 m 2 or fish per unit (FPU). Sites were fully (Reach 2) or partially (Reach 3) enclosed. Sites offering natural physical barriers such as midchannel boulders were preferred since upstream-downstream barrier nets were easier to install, more readily isolating the sample site. Based on methods described by Ptolemy et al., 2006, anticipated salmonid fry (e.g., Dolly Varden- Salvelinus malma, and coho- Oncorhynchus kisutch juveniles) were typically bounded by high velocities in mid stream sections; barrier nets were used at downstream sections, and where practical extended across the channel for full site enclosure (Site CF1; Photo 4) or extended well into the mid-stream area of the channel for partial site enclosure (Site CF2; Photo 5). Similar to Year 1 assessment, physical site attributes and habitat types were recorded during site layout and included: habitat classification (riffle, rapid, cascade, glide, run, or pool) at each site; descriptions of depth-velocity profile at m intervals perpendicular to flow (with shorter intervals over high velocity gradients); riparian vegetation; channel confinement; bed material composition; dominant particle size (Dmax and D90 cm); large woody debris (LWD) content; substrate embeddedness; site length; site wetted width; estimated available cover; and, maximum depth. Conductivity was measured with a Site discharge was measured using a Swoffer velocity meter and depth and width measurements at several points (e.g., 5 to 9 stations) across the wetted width of a representative stream transect or sample site. It was not always possible to traverse the entire stream width of Clayton Creek, owing to safety. A Manning coefficient was not applied to compensate for stream bed roughness. 2.2 Fish Collection Methods described by Ptolemy (pers. com, 2005 and Ptolemy et al. 2006), were used for sample site set up and sampling at previously established sites (Sites CF1 and CF2). At CF2, areas providing safe wading in the swift stream current (e.g., <1 m deep) in the study area were sampled using three-sided shore sites, where upstream and downstream boundary stop nets were placed perpendicular to the shore and the off-shore side of the site was bounded by water typically too swift to be utilized by fry. Blocking seines (6 mm square) at downstream limits prevented immigration and emigration during multiple-pass depletion for maximum likelihood estimation. The downstream net allowed complete recovery of stunned fish in swift-water habitats. Containment nets were configured into stable position with guy ropes, bipod stays, and anchored as far across the stream as feasible. Boulders placed along the lead line held the net bottom firmly to the contours of the substrate. Owing to relatively low water levels at Site CF1, while at Site CF2 faster water velocity and higher volume limited net extension to Kynoch Resources 3

11 approximately 6 m from shore despite at-station river widths of ~19m. At Site CF2 velocities estimated as exceeding 100 cm/s limited outer boundaries. At CF1 it was possible to extend a downstream containment net across the entire stream channel, reaching from bank to bank. Juvenile salmonids (and cottids) were captured by a 3-person crew using a Smith Root Type 8a DC backpack electrofishing unit using similar methods of capture, shocker settings (650 v) and population estimate methods of Ptolemy et al. (2006). A fourth crewmember was present to oversee safety and handle collected fish during field activities and during September 2006 assessments, Mr. Brent Mossop (BC Hydro) accompanied the field team on September 16 and 17, 2006 to observe and assist with field activities. Fish collection methods involved securing the electrofisher unit on-shore and using a 20m anode cable lead to the pole/catch-net (Photo 4). A 1 m 2 cathode screen was deployed in the centre of the sampled area using a long lead cable from the shore-based unit. These proven methods facilitated fast, safe and efficient capture of fish species from cobble-boulder interstitial spaces. The anode pole operator or two support samplers using 19 cm diameter nets captured fish. This diameter was considered large enough to capture smolt-sized fish of 17 cm (Ptolemy et al. 2006). The anode operator periodically over-turned rocks to hand-recover fish that had drifted into difficult interstitial spaces. Following methods described by Ptolemy et al. (2006), electrofishing at each site was initiated at the downstream net, and consisted of a thorough habitat search with the electrofisher anode in an upstream direction, followed by a systematic sweep back towards the downstream net. To avoid chasing larger juveniles from the site electrofishing proceeded from the fast water forming the offshore boundary towards the shore (Photo 6). Each catch (c1, c2, etc.) effort involved multiple passes and the same search pattern was replicated in each catch effort. This type of three-sided sample method was described by Ptolemy et al. (2006) as potentially offsetting measurement error caused by exceptions to total site enclosure through greater sampling efficiency afforded by shore-based electrofishing Fish Sampling Salmonids captured during electrofishing were anaesthetized, identified as to species, measured to the nearest mm (fork length, FL), and released alive back into the site following the final completion of sampling. In 2006 owing to an unanticipated equipment problem, weighing of fish was not practical, requiring an estimate of approximate condition factor be assigned. This condition factor was assigned in the field based on field team experience and expertise (Ptolemy, pers. com, 2006); however, cannot be substantiated by field data. Scale samples were collected from a single Dolly Varden sampled at Site CF1 and retained by Ministry of Environment personnel assisting with the project (R. Ptolemy). Scale sample collection was beyond the scope of this project. Numbers of non-salmonid fish were recorded to Genus (e.g., Cottus sp.) with no other data collected from those specimens. 2.3 Snorkel Observations Snorkelling was completed opportunistically as an additional project component. Observations were made by two expert snorkelers equipped with drysuits, masks and snorkels in stream sections of Reaches 1 and 2, and the tailrace channel to assess abundance and distribution of Kynoch Resources 4

12 Clayton Falls WUP Aquatic Productivity Monitoring Program Year 2, 2006 Photo 5: Partial site containment net in Reach 3 of Clayton Creek (September 2006). Photo 6: Electrofishing methods. Kynoch Resources

13 juvenile salmonids throughout the sample site and adjacent habitat of the stream reach. Snorkelers viewed in-water habitat of cascade pools, rock riffles and plunge lines of the stream channel to observe juvenile salmonids habitat use abundance and distribution. Numbers were recorded on dive tablets and summarized by stream section within the reach. Water conditions, visibility and flow were estimated and/or measured during site assessment, however; snorkel counts were not calibrated for variable observer and sighting efficiency. Unadjusted two-swimmer snorkel counts were completed on September 16 at Site CF1 and the tailrace from the generating plant outlet to the confluence of Reaches 1 and 2 (Figure 1). Similar one-swimmer counts were completed on September 17 within the main stem channel at SiteCF2. All swims occurred approximately one to two hours after electrofishing finished and after captured fish had been returned. On September 16 two snorkelers, each encompassing one half of the stream unit of Reaches 2 and 1 (from the downstream sill of the plunge pool to the bridge in Reach 1), completed the count. On September 17 a stream section approximately 20 m long was assessed by a snorkeler, representing approximately the area of Site CF2, Photo 7 shows snorkeler in Reach 3 of Clayton Creek. Kynoch Resources 5

14 Clayton Falls WUP Aquatic Productivity Monitoring Program Year 2, 2006 Photo 7: Snorkel assessment of Reach 2 (September 16, 2006). Photo 8: Area of snorkel assessment and Site CF2 at Reach 3. Kynoch Resources

15 3. RESULTS On September 16 and 17, 2006, Kynoch Resources completed fish sampling and site data collection in Reaches 2 and 3 respectively. Kynoch Resources observation and assessment of stream channel conditions of Clayton Creek on these dates confirmed similar site dimensions and physical habitat characteristics initially described in the Water Use Plan Consultative Committee Report (BC Hydro, 2003) and similar habitat condition as observed during Year 1 assessment (CLA#1, Kynoch Resources, 2006). 3.1 Fish Collection Results During year 2, (September 2006) fish collection at Clayton Creek was completed in Reaches 2 and 3 during field sampling on September 16 and 17, respectively. Ron Ptolemy of BC Ministry of Environment supplied equipment used by MOE for similar sampling throughout the Bella Coola Valley and owing to equipment and protocol familiarity, accompanied the field team as field leader for fish collection. Brent Mossop from BC Hydro also accompanied the Kynoch Resources field team to observe and assist with site snorkelling Site Data Site habitat data were collected on standardized MOE site cards. Data for each site appear in Tables 2 and 3 below. Site CF1 was located in Reach 2, approximately 20 m downstream from the base of Clayton Falls (Figure 1). Based on field observations water level was lower in 2006 than observed in 2005, allowing field crews to establish the survey site across the entire downstream wetted channel, resulting in a slightly larger sample area at Site CF1 in 2006 (approximately m 2, compared to 112 m 2 in 2005). The stream channel exhibited similar boulder-cascade stream morphology as observed in Year 1 (CLA#1, Kynoch Resources, 2006), providing predominantly boulder and cobble habitat cover. Stream width during Year 2 (CLA#2, 2006) assessment was approximately 14.8 m at site CF1, with a maximum site depth of 0.65 m and mean depth of 0.43 m observed on September 16. Maximum site velocity was measured as 1.09 m/s and mean velocity was 0.23 m/s as measured with a Swoffer flow-meter.. Discharge at Site CF1 was calculated using a Swoffer flow-meter and depth and width measurements at nine stations across the entire wetted width of a representative stream transect. Discharge at Site CF1 was determined to be approximately 0.74 m 3 /s based on site discharge and velocity measurements made September 16, These measurements encompassed the entire wetted width discharge of Clayton Creek in Reach 2. Table 1 summarizes data for Site C1 and discharge data re presented digitally in Appendix 1. Kynoch Resources 6

16 Table 1: Sample Site Habitat Description CF1 Stream Clayton Creek Site CF1 Reach 2 Wtrshed Code Date Sept Crew FK/RP/HW/AJ/BM Hydraulic Type Boulder/Cascade Field gradient 5% Channel Width 20.0 m Mean Velocity 0.23 m/s Stream Stage L-M Cover Components % MSTM or SD Chan Sample Width Mean Depth Max. Velocity Turbidity/Visibility MS Map Gradient NA 12.7 m Stream Width 14.8m 0.43 m Max. Depth 0.65 m 0.34 m/s Temperature 8.0 C 1.5 m Time 15:00 h LWD Boulder In. Veg Over Veg. Cutbank Substrate Distribution % Fines Small Gravel Large Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock Sand Substrate Compaction Comments M D90 70 cm Dmax 175 cm Conductivity 35.7 µs/cm Adult salmon noted upstream of site, unconfirmed species. Site 10.8 m long x 12.7 m wide (137.2 m2), Discharge 0.74 m 3 /s, sampled across total channel width of 12.0 m Site CF2 was located in Reach 3, with the downstream end of the site approximately 8 m upstream from the head pond (Figure 1). In Year 2 (September 2006) the assessed area was similar to Year 1, with an approximate sample area of 92.5 m 2, and exhibited similar bouldercascade stream morphology as noted in Reach 2. Substrate and stream habitat covers of CF2 were similar in 2006 as observed in 2005, (Photo 8), providing predominantly boulder and cobble habitat cover. Channel width was approximately 19 m at site CF2, with a maximum site depth of 0.85 m and mean site depth of 0.36 m observed on September 17, Owing to difficulty wading in the stream channel, in September 2006 discharge data was collected over a narrower stream cross section than in This resulted in discharge and velocity data being collected over approximately 25% of the wetted width of the stream channel during Year 2 data collection (e.g., approximately 3.4 m assessed width in 2006, compared to 6.1 m in 2005). This may have influenced stream velocity and discharge data during 2006 site assessment, resulting in lower velocity and discharge numbers in Maximum stream velocity recorded on September 17, 2006 was 0.56 m/s and mean velocity was 0.20 m/s. Discharge at Site CF2 was calculated from data collected at seven points across a representative site transect; however, owing to limited access was limited to approximately 3.4 m of the stream channel. Stream depth and swift velocity precluded field crew ability to collect stream discharge data across the entire stream channel. Discharge at Site CF2 was considered Kynoch Resources 7

17 representative of the fish collection sample site (limited to 5.4 m sample width); however, did not represent total stream discharge. Sample site discharge at Site CF2 was determined to be 0.35 m 3 /s based on measurements made September 17, 2006, assessed over a 3.4 m sample width, while stream wetted width was approximately 19 m. During 2006 site assessment Sites CF1 and CF2 both exhibited similar ranges of conductivity (35.7 µs/cm and 30.0 µs/cm) and approximately similar stream temperatures (8.0 C at Site CF1 and 8.2 C), respectively. Table 2: Sample Site Habitat Description CF2 Stream Clayton Creek Site CF2 Reach 3 Wtrshed Code Date Sept Crew FK/RP/HW/AJ/BM Hydraulic Type Boulder- Cascade Field gradient 7 % Channel Width 19 m Mean Velocity 0.20 m/s Stream Stage normal Cover Components % MSTM or SD Chan Sample Width Mean Depth Max. Velocity Turbidity/Visibility MS Map Gradient NA 5.1 m Stream Width 17 m 0.32 Max. Depth 0.85 m 0.56 m/s Temperature 8.2 C 1.5 m Time 08:30 h LWD Boulder In. Veg Over Veg. Cutbank Substrate Distribution % Fines Small Gravel Large Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock Sand Substrate Compaction Comments M D90 65 cm Dmax 120 cm Conductivity 30.0 µs/cm Lower site boundary approximately 8 m upstream of headpond Site 18.5 m long x 5.1 m wide (94.35 m2), discharge 0.24 m 3 /s for 3.4 m width assessed (approximately 25% of stream width assessed owing to difficulty wading in swift mid-channel sections Fish Collection On September 16 and 17, 2006, two pass electrofishing at Site CF1 resulted in collection of 37 juvenile coho salmon, one (1) juvenile Dolly Varden char, and 54 sculpin. Unidentified species of adult salmon were observed upstream of the site at the falls pludge-pool, however; were not observed within the site during the assessment and fish collection period fish collections equate to 27.0 coho salmon, 0.7 Dolly Varden and 39.4 sculpin collected /100m 2 at Site CF1. Although fisheries population software (Microfish v3.0, 2006) was used to calculate certain basic information from the data set for Site CF1, without specimen weights this Kynoch Resources 8

18 information was limited, as presented in Table 3. Available raw data are presented as Appendix 1 for additional end-user interpretation. Table 3: Fish Collection Data 1, Site CF 1 Species Total Catch Capture Probability Site Pop. Estimate (95% confidence) Avg. weight (g) Total weight (g) Biomass (g/100m 2 ) Avg. length (mm) Estimated Condition Factor 2 coho NA NA NA Dolly Varden NA NA NA 238 NA sculpin NA NA NA NA NA 1- Data assessed through MicroFish 3.0 for Windows 2- Condition Factor was estimated by R. Ptolemy during field assessment On September 17, 2006 four (4) Dolly Varden were collected during intensive single pass electrofishing at Site CF2, resulting in approximately 4.2 fish/100m 2. All fish were collected during a single removal, disallowing maximum likelihood estimates to be made by the MicroFish population program. By default the population estimate and confidence interval was equal to the total catch. Collection of four (4) fish was more fish than in Year 1; however, similar to Year 1 (CLA#1) site CF2 yielded less fish and lower species diversity than downstream areas (Site CF1). Fewer fish collected at Site CF2 was attributed to the site being upstream of Clayton Falls, which provides a natural upstream barrier to fish migration. No other fish were observed at this site during the fish collection period. Similar to Site CF1 data interpretation, fish weight data were not available at Site CF2, limiting fish condition factor and collection data during Year 2 assessment (Table 4). Table 4: Fish Collection Data 1, Site CF 2 Species Total Catch Capture Probability Site Pop. Estimate (95% confidence) Avg. weight (g) Total weight (g) Biomass (g/100m 2 ) Avg. length (mm) Estimated Condition Factor 2 Dolly Varden 4 NA NA NA NA NA Data assessed through MicroFish 3.0 for Windows 2- Condition Factor was estimated by R. Ptolemy during field assessment Supplementary Snorkelling Tables 5, 6 and 7 indicate the numbers of fish observed at in Reach 2, the tailrace and Reach 1, respectively. Table 5: Snorkel Observations Reach 2, 2006 Species coho pink chum chinook Dolly Varden 1 rainbow trout Adult Juvenile Dolly Varden were assessed in an approximate size range from 15 to 45 cm. Kynoch Resources 9

19 Table 6: Snorkel Observations Tailrace, 2006 Species coho pink chum chinook Dolly Varden 1 rainbow trout Adult Juvenile Dolly Varden were assessed in an approximate size range from 15 to 45 cm. Table 7: Snorkel Observations Reach 1, 2006 Species coho pink chum chinook Dolly Varden 1 rainbow trout Adult Juvenile Dolly Varden were assessed in an approximate size range from 15 to 45 cm. One person unadjusted snorkel counts were also completed on one half of the stream unit of the sample site at Reach 3 on September 17, resulting in observation of zero (0) fish. Kynoch Resources 10

20 4. RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS It is beyond the scope of this Data Report to draw conclusions and discuss sample results in detail. Subsequent years of the sample project have allotted resources for such discussions. However, observations of methods and project recommendations can be made at this time to help shape further data collection and interpretation. 4.1 Fish Habitat 2006 fish habitat observations and fish collection of Clayton Creek confirmed relatively homogenous habitat diversity observed in 2005 (CLA#1). Habitat of Reaches 2 and 3 was typically boulder-cascade morphology, common in coastal streams of this gradient; offering limited amounts of year-round rearing and holding habitat for juvenile and adult salmonids. However, increased numbers of fish collected at both sites in 2006 (compared to 2005) indicated fish presence and detection may vary. 4.2 Stream Discharge & Program Recommendations Based on 2005 and 2006 discharge observations, uncertainty of dam water containment, difficulty in bethic invertebrate collection in the stream channel, and lessons-learned it was determined during Year 1 and Year 2 that there would be considerable difficulty in assessing overall ecological effect of the 0.05 m 3 /s increase in through-dam flow resulting from BC Hydro s proposed increased water release. During 2005 and 2006 assessment, flow regimes of Reach 2 of Clayton Creek appeared to be higher than theoretically considered during study design (BC Hydro, 2003) as continual spilling over the dam occurs on a regular basis at Clayton Falls. Although not measured during winter of , observed discharge during CLA#1 field visits often appeared >0.50 m 3 /s (Kynoch Resources, 2006) confounding ability to determine effects of an additional 0.05 m 3 /s. As described in the Year 1 report (CLA#1) much of the observed water discharge from Reach 3 to Reach 2 appeared to be coming from dam leakage, or natural flow around the dam structure. It is recommended BC Hydro undertake an effective water discharge monitoring program at an established reference site to determine overall discharge from Clayton Falls dam to sections of Reach 2 (excluding water usage for power generation). It is also recommended that this project focus on water discharge data collection on a periodic basis (as determined by field and environmental conditions) to assess stream levels and discharge on a regular basis in Reach 2. Personnel could assess water levels opportunistically during observed low-flow or low water winter conditions for the remaining two years of the project (2006 through 2008). These discharge data could subsequently be compared to available precipitation/climate data as well as BC Hydro water withdraw data to better determine overall water resources available for Reach 2. Kynoch Resources 11

21 LITERATURE SOURCES Anon Freshwater biological sampling manual. Published by the British Columbia Resource Information Committee. Available online: BC Hydro, Clayton Falls Water Use Plan. Consultative Committee Report. Prepared on behalf of the Consultative Committee for the Clayton Falls Water Use Plan. July. BC Hydro, Terms of Reference for the Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Program: Aquatic productivity. May. BC Hydro, Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan Construction Completion Report: Water Release and Measurement Device. Prepared by BC Hydro Burnaby. BC Government, Water Use Plan Guidelines. Prepared by Province of British Columbia. December. Dodd, I. and Mossop B (pers. com.) Personal Communication, September 16, site meeting in Bella Coola (Mossop) and and telephone communication March through August (Dodd). Kynoch Resources, BC Hydro Water License Requirements. Clayton Creek Water License Reporting. Report #CLA1. December, Ptolemy, R.A., M. Ramsay, D. Peard and D. Sollitt, 2006 (Draft). Results of Steelhead Stock Monitoring ( ) in the Bella Coola River and Implications for Population Recovery. Prepared for: Ministry of Environment and Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. Ptolemy, R.A (pers. com.) Personal Communication, September 17. Site participation during fish collection and sampling at Clayton Creek, Bella Coola, as part of 2006 field project. Kynoch Resources 12

22 Appendix 1: Fish Collection Data

23 MF Test data. Clayton Creek,Reach 2, Bella Coola BC, September 16, Fish No Site No EF Pass Species Length (mm) 1 CF1 1 coho 55 2 CF1 1 coho 57 3 CF1 1 coho 57 4 CF1 1 coho 63 5 CF1 1 coho 65 6 CF1 1 coho 66 7 CF1 1 coho 67 8 CF1 1 coho 68 9 CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 1 coho CF1 2 coho CF1 2 coho CF1 2 coho CF1 2 coho CF1 2 coho CF1 2 coho CF1 2 coho CF1 2 DV 238 NOTE 33 Sculpin on first EF, 21 on second MF Test data. Clayton Creek,Reach 3, Bella Coola BC, September 17, Fish No Site No EF Pass Species Length (mm) 1 CF2 1 DV 62 2 CF2 1 DV 68 3 CF2 1 DV 73 4 CF2 1 DV 127 No other fish collected.