MESSS 2015 Final Report_no pics_in

M a i n l a n d E n h a n c e m e n t S a l m o n i d S p e c i e s S o c i e t y ( M . E . S . S . S . )
G e n e r a l D e l i v e r y ; S i m o o m S o u n d ( B C ) , V 0 P 1 S 0
M.E.S.S.S. 2015 Habitat Assessments;
A biotic and abiotic survey of Gilford Island’s Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour creeks
Report Prepared By:
Marie-Josée Gagnon (B.Sc)
Stream Technician: Seth Jones (Cpt.)
gagnonmariejosee@yahoo.ca
May-June 2015

M.E.S.S.S. 2015 Habitat Assessments
2
May-June, 2015
Table of Contents
1. Project Rationale………………………………………………………………………….4
2. Survey Sites………………………………………………………………………………..4
- Figure 1. M.E.S.S.S. 2015 stream habitat assessments survey locations…
- Figure 2. Fisheries Report Topographical Map (1988)…
3. Escapement History – 1953-2014………………………………………………………...5
- Table 1. Salmonid escapement records from 1953-2004…
4. Methodology………………………………………………………………………………7
4.1 Abiotic Survey………………………………………………………………………..8
- Cross-Sectional Survey……………………………………………………………….......8
- Longitudinal Survey……………………………………………………………………...8
- Water Quality Survey…………………………………………………………………….10
4.2 Biotic Survey………………………………………………………………………….10
- Invertebrate Sampling…………………………………………………………………….10
- Salmonid Survey.……………………………………..............….………………………11
Maple Cove Habitat Assessment
1. Stream Location…………………………………………………………………………...13
- Figure 3a/b Google earth and topographicalmaps of Maple Cove creek…
2. Watershed Historical Information………………….………………………….….……..13
3. Results............................................................................................………………………...14
3.1 General Information………………………………………………………………….14
- Table 3. Abiotic survey mean and total values…
- Reach #1/Reach #2/Reach #3
3.2 Barriers to Access……………………………………………………………………..17
3.3 Spawning Habitat……………………………………………………………………..19
- Table 4. Survey locations and coordinates of spawning habitat
3.4 Water Quality and Invertebrate Survey…………………………………………….19
- Table 5. Water quality measurements mean values in reach #1-3…
- Table 6. Stream health and water quality assessment:invertebrate survey…
- Table 7. Site assessment rating from invertebrate indicator species…
3.5 Salmonid Survey………………………………………………………………………21
- Table 8. Total number of fry observed through visualsurveys/dip net/ fry traps …
4. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………22
Shoal Harbour Habitat Assessment
1. Stream Location…………………………………………………………………………...23
- Figure 16. Google earth and topographicalmaps of Maple Cove creek …
2. Watershed Historical Information……………………………………………….………23
3. Results.…………………………………………………………………..…………………24
3.1 General Information
- Table 9. Abiotic survey mean and total values…
- Reach #1/Reach #2/Reach #3//Reach #4/Reach #5
3.2 Barriers to Access…………………………………………………………………….27
3.3 Spawning Habitat……………………………………………………………………..28
- Table 10. Survey locations and coordinates of spawning habitat…
3.4 Water Quality and Invertebrate Survey…………………………………………….29

3
- Table 11. Water quality measurements mean values in reach #1-5…
- Table 12. Stream health and water quality assessment:invertebrate survey…
- Table 13. Site assessment rating from invertebrate indicator species…
3.5 Salmonid Survey………………………………………………………………………30
- Table 14. Total number of fry observed through visualsurveys/dip net/ fry traps
4. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………31
5. Data Comparison: 1994/2009/2015……………………………………………………….32
5.1 Maple Cove – 2009 vs. 2015
5.2 Shoal Creek – 1994/95 vs.2009 vs. 2015
- Table 15. Comparison of data from abiotic survey conducted in 1994/95, 2009, 2015…
- Table 16. Comparison of stream health assessments from invertebrates samples…
6. Habitat Quality Rating – Longitudinal Survey (Streamkeepers)…………………………33
- Table 17. Pacific Streamkeepers Federation habitat assessment scoring system…
- Table 18. Habitat quality rating of streamreaches based on longitudinal survey characteristics…
Appendix I – Maple Cove Abiotic/Biotic Data 2015…………………………………………36
- Table 19-23. Cross-sectional, longitudinal, water quality, salmonid survey data.
Appendix II – Shoal Harbour Abiotic/Biotic Data 2015…………………………………….41
- Table 24-28. Cross-sectional, longitudinal, water quality, salmonid survey data.

Project Rationale
Under the direction of the Mainland Enhancement Salmonid Species Society (M.E.S.S.S.),
complete habitat assessments of Maple Cove creek and Shoal Harbour creek were conducted
during May of 2015. This report documents the findings of these stream surveys that included
the collection of abiotic stream characteristic, biotic data, water quality measurements as well
as a documentation of spawning habitat and barriers to fish access. Abiotic parameters were
collected by conducting cross-sectional surveys and longitudinal surveys. The biotic survey
consisted of invertebrate sampling and an assessment of salmonid diversity/abundance.
Stream habitat assessments that collect water quality measurements as well as abiotic and data
provide basic information about streams and help to isolate watershed problems. This data can
be used to detect changes in the system when streams are monitored on a long term and periotic
basis. The data gathered in these surveys provides important baseline information for use in
future surveys and a basis of comparison to previous surveys. Don Wilson (Silverking
Ventures) conducted complete assessments of watersheds in the Broughton Archipelago for
M.E.S.S.S. in 1994-1995 while the M.E.S.S.S. spring/summer salmonid species and habitat
quality assessments led by Megan Adams surveyed selected reaches of 33 watersheds in 2009.
Both projects assessed Shoal Harbour, however Maple Cove was not surveyed by Silverking
Ventures. The 2009 crew only surveyed reach #1 of Maple Cove (0-400m) and, the first 1000m
of Shoal creek. Historical information was also provided in the DFO fisheries report (Fish
Habitat Inventory & Information Program 1986-1988) and reviewed prior to conducting these
habitat assessments.
2. Survey Locations
Figure 1. M.E.S.S.S. 2015 stream habitat assessments survey locations:Maple Cove and Shoal
Harbour creek, which are located on Gilford Island in the Broughton Archipelago.

5
Figure 2. Fisheries Report Topographical Map (1988), outlining salmon bearing watersheds
including Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour surveyed during the 2015 habitat assessments.
3. Escapement History – 1953-2014
The escapement summary for Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour from 1954 to 2014 is as follows:
Year
Maple Cove Shoal
Pink Chum Coho Pink Chum Coho
2014 56 0 0 687 37 3
2013 0 0 0 75 307 10
2012 47 morts 0 0 214 54 8
2011 4 1 1 mort 29 198 2
2010 20 1 0 11 1 11
2009 0 0 1 164 116 16
2008 N/A N/A N/A 1 30 0
2007 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0
2006 N/A N/A N/A present 199 29
2005 N/A N/A N/A present 184 0
2004 N/A N/A N/A 81 present 57
2003 N/A N/A N/A 0 43 20
2002 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0

6
May-June, 2015
2001 present 0 0 6 11 60
2000 100 0 0 25 50 100
1999 0 0 0 0 19 0
1998 0 0 0 0 0 0
1997 0 0 0 0 0 1
1996 300 0 0 100 46 2
1995 N/I N/I N/I 0 32 30
1994 N/I N/I N/I N/A 32 30
1993 0 N/A N/A N/A 55 N/A
1992 N/I N/I N/I 3 150 6
1991 N/I N/I N/I N/A 50 N/A
1990 N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I
1989 N/I N/I N/I N/A 50 N/A
1988 N/I N/I N/I N/A 2500 N/A
1987 N/I N/I N/I 0 1100 0
1986 N/I N/I N/I 75 259 70
1985 N/I N/I N/I N/A 1900 N/A
1984 0 0 0 N/A 5000 100
1983 0 0 0 6 250 50
1982 0 0 0 6 250 50
1981 N/I N/I N/I 0 300 100
1980 0 0 0 0 350 200
1979 N/I N/I N/I N/A 1000 200
1978 N/I N/I N/I 0 350 25
1977 N/I N/I N/I 0 200 75
1976 N/I N/I N/I 25 900 200
1975 N/I N/I N/I 25 400 25
1974 N/I N/I N/I 40 1000 75
1973 N/I N/I N/I 50 4000 100
1972 0 0 0 200 3000 200
1971 0 0 0 0 750 0
1970 0 0 0 N/A 25 25
1969 0 0 0 0 200 25
1968 N/I N/I N/I 0 200 75
1967 N/I N/I N/I 0 1500 75
1966 0 0 0 75 200 25
1965 0 0 0 0 400 0
1964 N/I N/I N/I 400 3400 200
1963 0 200 0 0 1500 0
1962 0 400 0 0 3500 0
1961 0 0 0 0 3500 400
1960 N/I N/I N/I 400 3500 400
1959 N/I N/I N/I N/A 3500 750
1958 N/I N/I N/I 25 7500 200
1957 N/I N/I N/I N/A 1500 750
1956 N/I N/I N/I 0 3500 1500
1955 0 25 200 N/A 3500 3500
1954 0 200 400 N/A 15000 3500
1953 0 200 200 N/A 7500 1500
Table 1. Salmonid escapement records for Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour creek from 1953-
2014 (observed counts); N/I: not inspected; N/A: no data; 2011*: Five inspections:0 live
salmon observed,1 coho mort; 2012*: single inspection,no live salmon observed:morts
reported; 2013*: single inspection, no signs of salmon.

7
The escapement data for Maple Cove is limited and the creek was not inspected on a regular
basis prior to 2009. The highest pink escapement was 300, recorded in 1996. The highest chum
and coho escapement observed was 400, recorded in 1962 and 1954 respectively. According to
the 1988 fisheries report, coho salmon were observed in the lower 0.8 km of Maple Cove in
1984. The stream was inspected twice in 1984 but no pinks or chums were observed. The
distribution summary states that no fish were observed in this system from 1963-1988.
The maximum escapement in Shoal creek was recorded in 1954 with numbers for coho and
chum reaching 15,000 and 3500 respectively. The most recent peak spawning year in Shoal
creek was 1984 when 4000-5000 chums were recorded. The highest pink escapement was
recorded last year (2014) with a total of 687 observed in 9 visits in reach #1 of the system. It
should be noted that the Scott Cove hatchery released approximately 25,000 fry into Shoal
creek yearly from 1984 until the early 90s. Coho were also captured from this system to help
establish the Scott Cove creek brood stock. In 1998, a total of 14,477 coho fry were out-planted
from the Scott Cove hatchery into Bridie Lake. The Scott Cove hatchery closed in 2007.
4. Methodology
For comparative purposes and consistency of results, the methodology for these habitat
assessments was based on previous habitat surveys conducted by Don Wilson (Silverking
Ventures 1994/1995) and the MESSS 2009 spring/summer habitat assessments. An adapted
version of The Pacific Streamkeepers Federation habitat survey modules was also integrated
into our overall methodology. (http://www.pskf.ca/index.html)
Full assessments of the Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour watersheds included the collection of
abiotic and biotic stream characteristics. Barriers to salmonid access as well suitable spawning
habitats were also documented with pictures, GPS coordinates, site measurements and physical
descriptions. Abiotic data was collected by conducting cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal
surveys as well as measurements of water quality at regular increments along each reach.
Biotic data was collected by taking invertebrate samples to calculate stream health indices and
by estimating both the presence and relative abundance of salmonid species. For practicality
purposes, we opted to set fry traps at strategic locations within each reach and to conduct visual
salmonid surveys. We also made a valiant effort to capture fry using a dip net when visual
identification was not possible.
When completing a full habitat assessment, one watershed is considered an experimental unit.
The first step is to divide the watershed into sampling units, commonly known as reaches. A
stream reach is a relatively homogeneous section of a stream having a sequence of repeating
structural characteristics (or processes) and fish habitat types. The key physical factors used to
determine reaches in the field are channel pattern, channel confinement, gradient, and
streambed and bank materials. Stream reaches generally show uniformity in those
characteristics and in discharge.
At regular increments within each reach, the longitudinal and cross-sectional abiotic
characteristics of the stream were sampled. The first reach of Maple Cove and Shoal creek was

8
May-June, 2015
surveyed at 50m and 100m increments respectively. The remaining reaches of both systems
were surveyed at irregular increments as deemed appropriate to take stock of the habitat
characteristics of a survey section. A hip chain was used to measure survey increments as well
as exact locations of stream features upstream from the stream segment start point. Abiotic and
biotic data of both watersheds were compiled in a master Excel database. Detailed tables of
incremental data can be found in Appendix I/II at the end of this report.
4.1 Abiotic Stream Sampling
Cross-Sectional Survey
Cross-sectional parameters surveyed included, bankfull width, wetted width, mean depth,
turbidity, average flow velocity, discharge (m3/sec), and the change (δ) in height between the
bankfull and wetted width which allows for an estimation of the total capacity of the system at
high water levels.
The bankfull channel is the active stream channel, formed during annual floods and its
boundaries are marked by permanent reminders left by receding flood waters. Both bankfull
and wetted width were measured using a transect tape. The wetted depth was measured with a
meter stick at 1m intervals across the stream. The initial and final measurements were taken
0.1m away from each endpoint. The bankfull channel width and depth reflect the total
discharge or volume of water during annual flood events. A change in the bankfull channel
dimensions may be a warning sign of changing runoff patterns in the watershed.
Turbidity: was measured in a deep pool with a standard household tape measure (black
numbers on yellow) by lowering the tape into the water until we could no longer see the
number “one” at the end of the tape. When the water was clear to the bottom of the pool,
turbidity was recorded as “greater than ... depth.”
Water velocity was measured in a riffle area where the cross-section profile was completed. To
measure water velocity, a section of 10 m was measured. An orange was dropped into the
water and the time taken for the orange to float 10 m downstream was recorded. Three replicate
trials of this procedure were completed by dropping the orange from the same start point along
3 cross-sections of the creek. Stream discharge was calculated by multiplying average water
velocity (m/s) by wetted channel cross-sectional (mean depth multiplied by wetted width,
multiplied by a correction factor of 0.8.
Longitudinal Survey
A longitudinal survey is meant to collect information about habitat quality over the entire
length of a stream reach. There are nine important habitat characteristics that can be used to
rate the habitat quality at the stream and capacity for biological productivity. The
characteristics are considered primary, secondary, or tertiary, based on their significance to
habitat quality. Composition of streambed material, embeddedness of substrate, and instream
cover (large woody debris: LWD, rooted undercut banks: RCB) are most important in defining

9
habitat quality and types of plant and animal life in the stream. Characteristics of secondary
importance include the % pool habitat, off-channel habitat, and bank stability. Tertiary
characteristics include stream bank vegetation, % overhead canopy, and size of riparian zone.
Primary Characteristics:
1) Streambed Material Composition: Different kinds of streambed material influence plant
and animal life in a stream. Substrate sizes range from “fines” like silt, sand, and clay,
to large boulders and bedrock (Table 2). Although variety in substrate size is desirable,
a streambed comprised primarily of fine sediment is less stable than one comprised
primarily of boulder, cobble, and gravel. Large substrates provide better quality fish and
aquatic invertebrate habitat.
Substrate Size (cm diameter)
Fines/Sand < 0.2 (ladybug size or smaller)
Gravel 0.2-5 (ladybug – tennis ball)
Cobble 5-25 (tennis ball – basketball)
Boulder > 25 (bigger than basketball)
Bedrock Solid slab or rock
Table 2. Size categories of streambed material.
2) Embeddedness %: is an estimate of the % of rock surface buried in fines. A stain line
often indicates the level of burial. Embedded riffle substrates provide less desirable
habitat for invertebrates, and reduce habitat quality, stream productivity, and fish
spawning habitat.
3) Instream Cover: a) large woody debris (LWD) and b) rooted cut banks:
a) LWD: is defined as an aggregation of logs and rootwads having a mid-point
diameter of at least 0.1 m a length of 1 m, and protruding into the bankfull channel.
Instream wood is intricately linked to stream health and as such. In fact, channel
assessment and enhancement efforts often associate habitat quality to the quantity
and volume of LWD. By moderating peak flows and reducing bed instability, LWD
regulate channel morphology, which helps to control flooding and damage to banks.
By providing instream cover, this wood provides cover and nutrients. By increasing
structural diversity, it helps create favourable stream habitats for fishes and other
aquatic organisms. LWD also generates pool habitats which generate flow refuges
acting to protect stream fauna from predators.
b) Rooted cut banks (RCB): occur when moving water digs out, and washes away the
stream bank. Water level are held in place by the roots of plants growing on the
surface. RCB offer fish excellent hiding places from predator when water levels are
sufficiently high.
Secondary Characteristics
1) % Pool Habitat: refers to the proportion of pool habitat at your reference site. Pools

10
May-June, 2015
provide a refuge in flood conditions and may be the only habitat available during
drought conditions.
2) Side Channels: ponds, wetlands, and secondary overflow channels next to the main
channel provide off-channel habitat. Off-channel habitat provides seasonal breeding
and rearing areas and protection from flood flows for many animal species
3) Bank Stability: is assessed by examining banks for signs of sloughing soil, raw
appearence and counting the number of places where active erosion is present and
measuring the length of stream bank affected by each impact.
Tertiary Characteristics:
1) Stream Bank Vegetation: contributes to a healthy stream habitat. It binds the soil with
root networks, moderates temperature fluctuations, absorbs pollutants from runoff, and
provides a source of food and large woody debris.
2) % Overhead Canopy: Tree and shrub branches overhanging the stream form an
overhead canopy. This canopy provides food, shade, and cover for animals in the
stream below.
3) The riparian zone is assessed by estimating the average width of the riparian zone, in
terms of the number of bankfull channel widths. It is defined as the vegetated area
between the stream bank and the upland slope at the edge of the flood plain. Stream
bank vegetation needs to be wide enough to provide a buffer from land use impacts near
the stream.
As per the Pacific Streamkeepers Federation methodology, the results for these 9 stream
characteristics were assigned scores that reflect their significance to habitat quality and the
biological productivity of a stream section. These scores were then used to rate the overall
habitat quality of each reach (1:poor, 2:marginal 3:acceptable; 4:good). Results of the survey
ratings for each reach of Maple Cove and Shoal creek are found in section 6. (Table 17/18).
Water Quality Survey
Water quality parameters including pH, water temperature, specific conductivity and dissolved
oxygen (ppm/%) were measured using the HANNA HI 9829 multiparameter portable meter.
The multiparameter was calibrated after each use and measurements were taken in ripples of
moderate flow, on average every 200-300 meters.
4.2 Biotic Stream Sampling
Invertebrate Sampling
1) Field Procedure
The Pacific Streamkeepers methodology was followed throughout the data collection process
in order to ensure that this study can be repeated and compared to others following the same
protocols. A D-frame net with an opening size of 30 x 30 cm and a mesh size of 353um was

11
utilized for invertebrate sampling. The net was place firmly on the substrate with the operator
standing 12-14 inches upstream of the opening. All subsample sites consisted of shallow riffles
(water depth ~10-20 cm), with water velocity of ~0.5-1.0 m/s, and gravel/cobble substrate.
A quadrat of 30cm x 30cm was delineated using the D-net. With water flowing into the net, the
surface sediments and rocks were overturned and brushed to detach and collect invertebrates.
All stones of 5 cm or larger were held under water in front of the collecting net and rubbed
gently by hand to dislodge invertebrates. Cleaned stones and debris were then placed
downstream of the sampling area. The streambed was then gently agitated to a depth of 2-5cm
to loosen any remaining invertebrates. The D-net was then overturned over a bucket half-filled
with water. The net was dipped in the water to collect the invertebrate and sediment content. A
visual inspection of the net was then conducted and any remaining invertebrates were collected
using tweezers. Invertebrates were handpicked and placed into a 1L water-filled jar with 100ml
of 70% ethanol. The water in the bucket was decanted gradually to facilitate visual isolation of
specimens. Three sub-samples were taken at each site and combined in the same ethanol-filled
jar. The combined sample was brought back home to be quantified and identified using a
dissecting microscope.
2) Data Analysis
The data gathered in this biosurvey was used to calculate the following parameters as per
Streamkeepers methodology: total density/abundance of organisms (number per m2),
predominant taxonomic group, pollution tolerance index, EPT index, EPT to total ratio index,
predominant taxon ratio index. These parameters were subsequently used to obtain an overall
site assessment rating.
Three categories are used to classify invertebrates: pollution tolerant, semi-tolerant and
pollution intolerant. An abundance of pollution intolerant species can indicate a healthy
system, but a diverse assortment of all three is the best indicator as it also represents a system
that can support a wide variety of species, in abundance. EPT is a term used for three specific
pollution intolerant species that provide the best indications of a healthy system. These include
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (or EPT and commonly known as mayflies,
stoneflies, caddisflies larvae). They are grouped together because they all require clean water to
survive, making them the best indicators of a healthy system.
Salmonid Survey
The water levels in Maple Cove and Shoal Harbour were too low to accommodate a snorkel
survey. And so presence and relative abundance of salmonids was estimated through visual
surveys and by setting fry traps in a maximum number of suitable pools along habitat units. We
did not try to determine absolute number of fry and smolts. During every visit, a constant effort
was invested to visually detect fry and inspect shallow side pools, which fry prefer as holding
habitat.
Salmonid presence was sampled within each reach using Gee Minnow traps (Streamkeepers
Federation: module 11). Salmon roe was suspended in a perforated film canister inside the trap.

12
May-June, 2015
Traps were set in pools with minimal flow and positioned parallel to the flow. In order to avoid
catching lamprey, traps were fully submerged but did not rest on the bottom. Traps were
generally collected on the second day of the creek assessment. Trout and salmon fork lengths
were measured and the fry were photographed prior to release. It should be noted that fry
trapping only yielded presence/absence of salmonid species as smaller fry may have been able
to escape. It is also possible that smaller fry were predated upon by larger cutthroats while in
the traps. The 2009 crew noted that traps excluded fry and did not always trap every fish in the
habitat unit. They also found that some smaller fish may have been scared off before entering a
trap by the larger predators (cutthroat) already inside. They concluded that swim surveys
allowed for a better viewing of fish within the system but restricted the ability to acquire fry
measurements.

13
Maple Cove Creek 2015 Habitat Assessment
1. Stream Location
Watershed Code: 90-6300-300 / 905557500828
Lat./Long. Mouth: 50o 41’ 0” N; 126o 27’ 20”
The lake headwaters of Maple Cove creek flow southwest into Maple Cove, which is located in
Port Elizabeth on the south side of Gilford Island. Port Elizabeth opens into Knight Inlet,
accessed from Retreat Passage when travelling from Echo Bay. Maple Cove can also be
accessed from Shoal Harbour by driving along the South M/L, which turns into the Maple
Cove M/L. The estuary is approximately 8km away and the creek can be accessed from a trail
just above the mouth of the creek, on the road, marked with blue tape. The creek can also be
accessed from Scott Cove by driving along the Connector M/L located at the 4km mark.
Figure 3a. Google earth view of Maple Cove creek outlining the survey effort, logging road and stream location of reach #1 (0-
400m), reach #2 (400-1360m) and reach #3 (1360-upper bridge); b) Topographical map of Maple Cove creek highlighting the
stream area and delineation of reaches #1-3.
2. WatershedHistorical Information
A fish habitat inventory and information program was completed by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO/MOEP) in 1986-88. The report provides important historical
information of Maple Cove and states that logging stopped in 1965. Logging in the vicinity of
the watershed resumed again for a few years starting in 2000. According to the report, there is
an abundance of logging debris throughout the system. It is documented that the creek is clear
from the mouth to 0.8km upstream. It also states the creek should be cleaned and has been

14
May-June, 2015
ruined by past logging, noting that there is coho in this 0.8km stretch and good potential for
coho and pink. However the report concludes that it would not be cost effective to conduct
stream clean-ups and repairs.
3. Results
Maple Cove is a shallow, medium sized creek with relatively good flow levels and a stable
channel. We surveyed this creek from the estuary to the upper bridge located 1900m upstream.
This distance measurement was obtained using a hipchain. However according to mapping
information, the actual distance to the upper bridge is 1780m. The upper bridge can be
accessed from a severely overgrown side road around the 6km mark. We surveyed this system
by walking upstream from the estuary to 1360m and downstream from the bridge to 1360m.
We also set fry traps along in swampy tributaries accessed from this same side logging road.
There is a logging road that parallels the creek to the left (Maple Cove M/L), and a bridge that
once crossed the stream at 460m. It was de-activated in 2009 and very few signs of it remain.
The ease of access to this logging road is best from the estuary, 460m and 600m.
The first 2 reaches of the stream have a low gradient and a high percentage of cobble/gravel
substrate that provides excellent spawning and rearing habitat. The percentage of gravel/cobble
substrate in reach #1-3 was estimated at 65%, 50% and 20% respectively. There are some high
gradient sections in reach #2/3 and two steep waterfalls sections that are dominated by boulder
and bedrock substrate at 870m and 1780m. Compared to other watersheds, this system has a
high number of LWD. The LWD abundance is highest in the first reach with 72 units counted
within 400m. This woody debris provides excellent refuge for rearing juveniles and migrating
adults (Figure 4a/c).
This watershed has been subjected to heavy logging activity and there are excessive blow-
downs throughout the creek. Overall, the riparian area has recovered well from logging
however the left bank buffer zone of the first reach (0-400m) is mediocre (Figure 4b). While
several LWD clusters along the creek create holding pools and good shelter habitat for fish,
there are a few significant logjams that are an impediment to fish passage. The most significant
are located at the 465m, 515m, 600m and 1360-1500m marks. The logging damage suffered in
reach #3 is extremely severe and has left the streambed permanently damaged.
Longitudinal Survey
Reach #
1 2 3
Mean Banfull Width (m) 9.94 8.62 6.45
Mean WettedWidth (m) 8.55 6.08 4.03
Mean Depth (m) 0.24 0.15 0.23
Mean Flow Rate (m/s) 0.67 0.38 0.41
Mean Discharge (m3
/s) 1.11 0.25 0.40
Turbidity 20 33 15
Cross-Sectional Survey 1 2 3
Total # LWD 72 52 22

15
Total # RCB 8 10 2
% F_S / G_P / C / B_B 20 / 41 / 24 / 15 33 / 22 / 28 / 18 30 / 5 / 15 / 50
% Embeddedness 25 40 85
% Pool Habitat 14 35 20
% Overhead Canopy 36 54 60
% Eroded Banks 13 30 73
Total # Side Channels 2 8 5
Table 3. Mean and total values obtained from abiotic surveys conducted at periodic increments
along reach #1-3 of Maple Cove creek from May 1st-21, 2015. (Detailed data found in Appendix
I: Table 19/20).
Reach #1 (0-400m)
A longitudinal and cross-sectional survey was conducted every 50m in this reach. The majority
of pink spawning activity occurs in this reach. The first 100m have a higher percentage of
boulder/bedrock substrate compared to the rest of the reach (33%; Table 18). This area is also
dominated by ripples and has relatively fast flow at peak water levels (Figure 4a). We surveyed
the first 200m following a week of heavy rains, which is reflected in our mean depth and
discharge measurements (Table 18). Water levels subsequently dropped quickly following a
period of dry weather. The proportion of gravel/cobble in this reach is 65%. There is a 50m
long sandy stretch upstream from the 315m LWD logfall zone (Figure 4d). Some erosion is
evident along the banks however the stream course is relatively stable due to the low gradient
in the area. The streambed is also confined from flooding by high banks throughout the reach.
There is an abundance of LWD in this reach. There are several collections of large logs that
have fallen across the creek, making instream walking quite challenging. The trail in this reach
has several log obstructions and is overgrown by salmon berry bushes. The most significant
collection of LWD is located from 270-315m (Figure 4c/8a/b). There are 2 distinct collections
of LWD in this reach consisting of approximately 15 and 20 logs. These logs mostly hover
above the creek, benefiting fish by creating shade and protection from predators. Some LWD is
lying flat on the streambed and are generating deep holding pools for fish. The pool habitat is
minimal in this stretch and so despite creating a slight challenge to fish passage, instream logs
such as the one located at the 200m-mark are beneficial to fish. Ripples are predominant in this
reach and the proportion pool habitat is less than 14%.
Reach #2 (400-1360m)
There is a high percentage of gravel/cobble substrate in this reach and an abundance of good
quality spawning habitat. However the creek is very shallow and undercut banks are minimally
abundant, making the risk predatory exposure for migrating fish and rearing juveniles high.
There are a total of several side channels in this reach. We counted a total of 8 side and flood
channels, which are prone to drying up in the summer. There are steep falls from 870m-915m.
This section has a higher proportion of boulder/bedrock substrate and is followed by a flat
stretch with nice gravel/cobble (915-1035m). There is higher collection of deep dark pools and
evidence of bank erosion in this reach (Table 3, Figure 5c/d). Mudded steep banks have slid
down into the creek in some sections starting at 1000m.
There is a significant logjam just above the decommissioned bridge at 465m. While coho are

16
May-June, 2015
able to navigate through this blockage, pinks are not very likely to invest the energy to migrate
past this point (see barriers to access 3.2 section for further details). The most severe logjam in
this reach is situated at 600m. It has diverted the creek into 2 branches, leaving the right branch
is completely blocked. This channel is prone to drying up in the summer, trapping fry milling
around shallow pools. It should be noted that there is a road sign marked 800m on the logjam
island and that this corresponds to the 800m logjam documented in the 1988 fisheries report
(Figure 5b). 600m, was the distance we measured using a hipchain. Coho fry were not
observed beyond the 600-meter mark. However several small fry were observed between 600-
800m. Because we were not able to catch them, we cannot confirm if they were coho or
cutthroat.
Reach #3 (1360-Upper Bridge)
The final reach of this creek begins at 1360m where extensive logging damage has created a
‘trash zone’140m in length. The end boundary for this reach is the upper bridge at 1900m. The
damaged area between 1360-1500m resulted from unregulated logging activity that occurred
before 1965. The damage is severe and the channel has been diverted into a series of small
narrow branches that are filled with mud, silt and small woody debris (SWD). The banks have
completely collapsed into the creek creating a series of muddy islands overgrown with dense
bushes (Figure 6c). While coho may be able to navigate their way through in flooding
conditions the diverted branches dry up quickly, blocking fish passage under normal-low flow
conditions.
In undisturbed streams, fines do not accumulate significantly in riffles. And so large amounts
of fines on riffle substrates may indicate erosion problems in the watershed. The percentage of
bank erosion in this reach is 73% and the sedimentation related to the logging damage is
extreme. Given the extent of the damage, it would not be cost-effective to clean up this
damage. This is unfortunate because there is good spawning gravel/cobble habitat upstream
from this ‘trash’ zone. There is a deactivated bridge at 1680m with grassy steep banks on each
side (Figure 6a). The channel from 1625 to 1750m is shallow and narrow with good
gravel/cobble substrate (Figure 6b). There are steep fall from 1780-Upper Bridge (Figure 6d/e).
A total of 16 cutthroat smolts were observed along this reach including a nice group of 7 at the
1360m found playing in a shallow pool (Figure 15b). We set 2 fry traps in deep pools just
below the upper bridge. A total of 9 cutthroat smolts were captured in these traps.
3.2 Barriers to Access
There are several LWD clusters in reaches #1/2 that are not blocking fish passage but that
likely increase the energy investment of fish when water levels are low. Some of these LWD
clusters are creating structure by generating holding pools, shade and shelter habitat. Examples
of such LWD clusters are found at 100m, 170m and 270m.
Some of the LWD aggregations described below have significant SWD accumulations that
are creating siltation in associated pools. It would be beneficial to remove SWD build ups as
well as large debris pieces that impede flow but that are not critical to stream stability. This
would to increase flow and decrease sedimentation at these sites.

17
Location: 270m (50o 41' 208"; 126o 27' 420); 315m (50o 41' 218"; 126o 27' 411");
Description: This is a large log aggregation that is not blocking access to fish and generating a
beneficial holding pool and good cover habitat (Figure 7a-c).
Recommended Action: None.
Location: 390m (50o 41' 213"; 126o 27' 413")
Description: Aggregation of 25 logs approximately 8m long, most overhanging above the
stream (Figure 8a/b). This is old logging debris that is increasing slope stability and creating
structural diversity by providing cover and nutrients for fish and invertebrates. However the
banks show signs of erosion and SWD deposition, which is contributing to siltation of the pool
(Figure 8c/d).
Recommended Action: Water flow and fish passage is permitted. Removal would not only be
extremely complex, but could also have hydrological consequences. Cleaning SWD would help
prevent further sedimentation.
Location: 465-80m (50o 41' 246"; 126o 27' 257")
Description: Location of bridge decommissioned in 2009. Logjam has diverted the creek into
2 branches. Overall cross-sectional length: 12.3m. Main branch cross-sectional width is 8m,
longitudinal length is 4.5m (Figure 9a). Right side bank blockage has a longitudinal length of
3.7m, and cross-sectional width of 4.3m (Figure 9c). Coho are able to get through at moderate-
high flow. Blockage is restricting water flow and has generated a very large deep pool above
the logjam (Figure 9a/b). Significant SWD build-up under the logjam is restricting water flow
and diminishing discharge downstream.
Recommended Action: Clean up SWD debris to prevent further sedimentation. Cutting a
pathway through the right branch log blockage is a possible option considering that branch is
not providing substantial structure. This watershed is shallow and prone to drying up. This
action could help regulate water flow.
Location: 525m (50o 41' 273"; 126o 27' 310")
Description: This blockage has a cross-sectional width of 10.8m and longitudinal length of
3.8m (Figure 10a). The lowest log is overhanging by a few inches above the streambed and a
very small passage was visible upon a second inspection at low water (Figure 10c). An
accumulation of SWD is clogging up water flow and creating siltation in the pool below
(Figure 10b).
Recommended Action: removal of SWD and large debris pieces that impede flow but that are
not critical to stream stability could increase flow and decrease sedimentation at this site.
Location: 600m (50o 41' 229"; 126o 27' 228")
Description: The main branch blockage has a cross-sectional width of 24.8m and longitudinal
length of 13.5m. This is a significant logjam that consists of a mudded island created upon a
streambed collapse, which has diverted the channel into 2 branches. There is significant SWD,
sedimentation and eroded banks at the site (Figure 11a/b). The damage has also caused the
upstream channel to rise about a meter (Figure 11c). The right branch is narrow and completely
blocked. We captured a coho fry with a dip net in a shallow pool of the right channel (Figure
11d). This side channel dries up in the summer, trapping fry. No coho fry were captured
beyond this logjam. This barrier may be passable in flooding and high water conditions but
passage is questionable for juveniles and early-run coho in September/October.

18
May-June, 2015
Recommended Action: There is great gravel beyond this logjam and so attempting a clean up
would benefit pinks and early-run coho that may use the gravel habitat upstream for spawning.
However the logjams downstream from this point would also need to be worked on for this to
be worthwhile. Because of the mudded nature and size of this logjam, the fisheries report
advises against a clean-up. However SWD and perhaps some of the larger debris pieces should
be removed to prevent further sedimentation.
Location: 1360-1500m (50o 41' 502"; 126o 27' 810" - 50o 41' 545"; 126o 27' 764")
Description: Simply said, this is a major trash zone. There are 4 main channel diversions with
several dry sections and side channels (Figure 12 d/e). The stream banks have literally
collapsed into the stream creating muddy, silted channels that are severely overgrown by brush
and filled with SWD debris (Figure 12a-c). The banks along this stretch are severely eroded.
Walking through this section is a bushwalking effort. Coho have an amazing ability to navigate
through ditches and un-hospitable channels. Consequently, we cannot rule out the possibility
that they may navigate their way through under flooding conditions. A high number of
cutthroats were observed and caught upstream and downstream from this blockage
Recommended Action: None: The extent of the damage along this stretch is severe and
permanent. Due to the narrow channel diversions, overgrown mudded island and extent of
SWD build-up, it would not be cost-effective to conduct a clean-up effort.
Location: 1770m (50o 41' 606"; 126o 26' 573")
Description: This is a singular but very large log barrier that is lying flat on the streambed
channel and that has diverted the channel into 2 branches. A tiny trickle of water is flowing
through. This logjam is located just below steep falls.
Recommended Action: Chain-sawing this log would increase water flow downstream.
However given the downstream barriers and size of this log, this action is likely not feasible.
3.3 Spawning Habitat
Pink spawning activity in this system is mostly confined to the first reach and to a lesser
degree, the first 200m of the second reach. No adult coho have observed in this system since
1955. One coho mort was observed in 2011 in reach #1. We saw quite a few coho fry during
our assessments and so the escapement records clearly do not reflect the actual population
number. Coho spawning activity likely occurs in reach #1/2. Because we did not capture coho
fry beyond 600m, we could not confirm if coho are able to spawn beyond the 600m-barrier.
Survey
Section (m)
Spawning
Habitat (m)
Coordinates
N W
0-50 50-60 50o
41' 144" 126o
27' 589"
50-100 80 50o
41' 163" 126o
27' 544"
100-150 145-155 50o
41' 161" 126o
27' 495"
150-200 180, 210 50o
41' 182" 126o
27' 483"
200-255 256 (RB) 50o
41' 202" 126o
27' 428"
255-300 265 (LB) 50o
41' 213" 126o
27' 413"
300- 400 320, 385 50o
41' 218" 126o
27' 411"

19
600-655 635-650 (center) 50o
41' 229" 126o
27' 228"
655-770 676, 735-745 50o
41' 374" 126o
27' 203"
770-870 820 50o
41' 398" 126o
27' 068"
870-1100 988, 1055-1100 50o
41' 447" 126o
27' 939"
1100-1200 1135 50o
41' 435" 126o
27' 898"
1780-1360 1570-1700 50o
41' 599" 126o
26' 643"
1900-1780 1770 50o
41' 610" 126o
26' 572"
Table 4. Survey locations and coordinates of optimal spawning habitat along
reaches 1-3 of Maple Cove creek (LB: left bank, RB: right bank).
3.4 Water Quality and Invertebrate Survey
The water temperature was relatively cool during our assessment averaging between 7.49-
11.1°C. Lower water temperatures dissolve more oxygen which is reflected in our dissolved
oxygen values (Table 5).. The pH was quite acidic, with mean values remaining below 5.29
throughout the survey period. Stream pH level depends on the geology of the surrounding area,
and usually falls between 6.5 and 8.0. Streams that drain soils with high mineral content
usually are alkaline, whereas streams that drain coniferous forests usually are acidic. There is a
high abundance of red cedar in the riparian zone which is likely contributing to stream acidity.
Reach #
1 2 3
Air Temp. (°C) 9 12.88 13.25
Water Temp. (°C) 7.49 10.06 11.1
pH 5.17 5.29 5.14
Dissolved Oxygen (%/ppm) 101.5 / 12.20 93.85 / 10.59 87.0 / 9.51
Specific Conductivity mΩcm 0.0561 0.0639 0.0667
Table 5. Mean values obtained from water measurements taken along reach #1-3 in Maple Cove creek
using the Hanna HI multiparameter.
Invertebrates die or flourish in response to changing water quality conditions. The larvae of
many insect groups including mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies require good water quality.
Species from these groups require clear, clean, well-oxygenated water, as do salmon and trout.
The predominant taxa in Maple Cove were mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies (in order of
abundance), indicating good water quality. Reach #1 had a higher abundance/density of
invertebrates and a higher pollution tolerance index than remaining reaches (Table 6). Detailed
identification data of invertebrate abundance and diversity appears in Appendix I (Table 22).
Samples collected from several locations within a stream provide baseline data that can help
identify habitat concerns and choose appropriate restoration projects. Surveying the same
stations over several years can help recognize changes in water quality. A comparison of
results from invertebrate surveys conducted in 2009 appears in sections 5.1 and 5.2.
Invertebrate Survey/
Habitat Quality Assessment
MC-210m MC-635m
- Date 03/05/15 07/05/15
- Abundance and Density 400.00 292.59

20
May-June, 2015
- PredominantTaxon Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph
- Pollution Tolerance Index
- (>22 good, 22-17 acceptable, 16-11 marginal, <11 poor)
24 14
- EPT Index (>8 good, 5-8 acceptable, 2-5 marginal, 0-1 poor) 11 14
- EPT to Total Ratio
- (0.75-1.0 good, 0.5-0.75 acceptable, 0.25-0.5 marginal, <0.25 poor)
0.74 0.73
Diversity Assessment (Total # of taxa) 19 18
- PredominantTaxon Ratio
- (<0.4 good, 0.4-0.6 acceptable, 0.6-0.8 marginal, >0.8 poor)
0.44 0.41
- Site AssessmentRating
(4 good, 3 acceptable, 2 marginal, 1 poor)
3.50 3.00
Table 6. Stream health and water quality assessment obtained following the identification of stream
invertebrate indicator species from samples taken at 210m and 635m in Maple Cove creek.
A score of 1 (poor) to 4 (good) was assigned to each water quality and diversity index or ratio.
The average gives a general rating of stream health at the site. Sometimes individual indices or
ratios may suggest contradictory stream conditions. The general site rating helps even out such
results. For example, both species presence and water quality measurements may show good
water quality conditions, while species diversity may be low because of physical problems.
Reach # 1 had a higher site assessment rating than reach #2 (Table 7).
Index / Ratio MC-210 MC-635
Pollution Tolerance Index 4 2
EPT Index 4 4
EPT to Total Ratio 3 3
PredominantTaxon Ratio 3 3
Total 14 12
Average (/4) 3.50 3.00
Table 7. General site assessment rating of stream health;
(4.00: good,3.00: acceptable; 2.00: marginal, 1.00: poor)
3.5 Salmonid Survey
Salmonids are categorized as fry when they are < 70mm and pre-smolt when >70mm. The fork
length of all salmonids captured were measured while those of salmonids observed through visual
surveys were estimated. Coho fry were observed in the first 600m of the stream. We observed 8
coho fry during our assessments. We could not confirm the ID of small fry observed during visual
surveys. And so these are categorized as either cutthroat or coho (CH/CT). A total of 44 small fry
that could be either coho or cutthroat were observed during a 3-day period from 600-800m.
An abundance of cutthroat pre-smolt were captured and observed all the way to the upper bridge.
The confirmed number of cutthroat viewed through visual surveys, fry traps and dip nets was 65.
However this does not include small fry observed visually whose identification we could not
confirm. Detailed data including length and location of fry viewed appears in Appendix I.
Reach
#
# Survey
Days
Survey
Method Species
Total
Viewed

21
1 3 Visual CH 2
1 3 Visual CT 22
1 3 Visual CH/CT 25
1 1 Fry Trap CH 2
1 1 Fry Trap CT 1
2 5 Visual CH 4
2 5 Visual CT 2
2 5 Visual CH/CT 44
2 1 Fry Trap DV 1
2 2 Fry Trap CT 5
3 2 Visual/Dip net CT 7
3 1 Fry Trap CT 9
4 1 Fry Trap CT 1
Table 8. Total number of fry observed through visualsurveys and
captured with fry traps in reaches 1-3 of Maple Cove creek from
May 1st-20, 2015. (CH: coho; CT: cutthroat; DV: Dolly Varden).
4. Recommendations
The Maple Cove trail from 0-600m is in need of substantial brushing and chainsaw work.
There are several fallen trees between 200-450m and salmon berries have overtaken the trail in
the first reach. Because this creek is shallow, instream walking is feasible throughout the
season. However there is an abundance of log barriers that makes the walk challenging and
treacherous in some sections.
There is an abundance of spawning and rearing gravel/cobble substrate in this system. As such,
we do not recommend the addition of any gravel. There are several logjams with SWD build-
up that could benefit from woody debris removal to prevent further siltation, regulate water
flow. Logjams located at 465m, 515m and 600m require the most attention.
This creek has been monitored by M.E.S.S.S. in the past 5 years. However surveying was
limited to 1-2 visits in some years and confined to the first reach (0-400m). It is recommended
that this system be surveyed on a more consistent basis and beyond the 400m-mark especially
during even years when pink returns are the highest. The added effort would also increase
probability of spotting coho. It would be interesting to have an observation session at the upper
bridge later in the season (late October-November) to survey late run coho and trout jumping at
the falls. The goal would be determine if coho are able to navigate through the ‘trash’ zone.

22
May-June, 2015
Shoal Harbour Creek Habitat Assessment 2015
1. Stream Location
Watershed Code: 90-6300-340/905557500276
Lat./Long. Mouth: 50o 43’ 53” N; 126o 28’ 53” W
Figure 16. Google earth view of Shoal Harbour creek outlining the logging road, survey effort and stream
locations of reach #1 (0-600m), reach #2 (600-1200m), reach #3 (left tributary: 1000-1400,) reach #4 (1200-
1600), Reach #5 (upper tributaries).
2. WatershedHistorical Information
Shoal Harbour is the site of some of the first logging on Gilford Island. Billy Proctor’s ‘Full
Moon Tide’ reports that starting around 1886, the Powell River Company built a fore and aft
road up to the lake. Logging activity has been nonstop since that first road was put in, right up
to the present day. There was extensive logging near Bridie Lake and along the fore and aft
road from 1918-1928. The watershed was subsequently logged with truck logging in the 1980s.
However the valley has recovered well. Ironside was also logging in the vicinity of the
watershed and had a floating camp in the estuary that closed down in 2010.
Strong winds combined with a poor riparian buffer zone in reach #1 triggered a severe logfall
in October 2011. Significant debris and a series of large logs fell into the creek at 600m during

23
the height of the spawning season. The logjam zone was cleaned up by M.E.S.S.S. in 2012,
following consultation with the forestry company responsible for cutblocks as well as First
Nations. Beneficial LWD was left in place and has generated structure and deep holding pools.
The 1988 DFO fish habitat inventory report states that beaver dams below the lake and on the
feeder streams were a problem for fish passage and only possible in extreme flood conditions.
However they also report that beaver dams provide an excellent coho rearing habitat. While
beaver dams are still present in reach #5, they do not currently create an impediment to fish
passage. According to the report, coho, pink and chum have been recorded from the estuary to
the lake. It is stated that coho spawning habitat was adversely affected by logging operations
and would require a cleanup. M.E.S.S.S. crews invested significant time and effort during the
80s-90s to remove logjams and repair habitat.
3. Results
Shoal Creek drains northwest into Shoal Harbour on Gilford Island. The system is fed from
Bridie Lake and a swamp at its head, as well as runoff from the surrounding watershed. There
are several unnamed tributaries that flow into the stream. Shoal creek enters the harbour on the
right and an active logging road parallels the creek on the left-hand side, crossing above the
surveyed area approximately 100m up from the beach. The trail begins along the right-hand
side of the creek above the bridge, crossing at some points but providing easy access and
visibility over the entire distance. The accessible length is 3.5km and the watershed area is
20km2.
Shoal Creek has a relatively wide, stable channel width a low gradient and moderate flow. The
lower segment of the creek has a slightly higher gradient consisting primarily of
boulder/bedrock substrate. The system offers a good mix of pools and riffles and excellent
spawning and rearing areas in the first 2 reaches (0-1200m). Above 700m, the surrounding area
begins to level further, with areas above 1600m being primarily marshlands. The system is
relatively short with easy access to a swamp and Bridie Lake at the 2300m.
There are many small logjams throughout the streams as well as several old beaver dams in the
third reach (1650-2300m). The water flow is regulated by Bridie Lake, beaver dams in reach #5
as well as several unnamed small lakes in the upper reaches. There are some signs of flooding
in the stream, and the 1988 DFO report does report flash flooding in the past. There are no
severe erosion problems or critical logjam obstructions. The riparian area is open and allows
easy travel with some woody debris but very little undergrowth.
Longitudinal Survey
Reach #
1 2 3 4
Mean Banfull Width (m) 12.3 9.3 4.2 6.1
Mean WettedWidth (m) 6.2 6.0 2.9 3.4
Mean Depth (m) 0.19 0.20 0.08 0.10
Mean Flow Rate (m/s) 0.31 0.25 0.11 0.09
Mean Discharge (m3
/s) 0.25 0.21 0.16 0.006

24
May-June, 2015
Turbidity (cm) 13 22 10 14
Cross-Sectional Survey 1 2 3 4
Total # LWD 29 33 7 59
Total # RCB 12 10 1 14
% F_S / G_P / C / B_B 8 / 13 / 39 / 40 20 / 28 / 44 / 2 10 / 10 / 70 / 10 80 / 13 / 2 / 4
% Embeddedness 25 20 45 75
% Pool Habitat 16 30 5 20
% Overhead Canopy 70 47 75 78
% Eroded Banks 12 33 45 74
Total # Side Channels 5 0 1 1
Table 9. Mean and total values obtained from abiotic surveys conducted at periodic increments along reaches 1-4
of Shoal creek from May 19th-24, 2015. (Detailed data found in Appendix II: Table 23/24).
Reach #1 (0-600m)
The first reach of this system is 600m long, ranging from the estuary to the 2011 windfall
section. This reach has a moderate incline and a higher proportion of boulder/bedrock substrate
than the rest of the creek (Table 9; Figure 17a/b). The habitat units consist of stepped pools and
long riffles. The reach has excellent spawning areas with a good quality and proportion of
gravel/cobble substrate (52%) (Figure 17d). However these are often found on raised banks and
prone to drying up when precipitation is lacking. The water flow can be high in this section
when rainfall is sufficient. Instream cover is fairly limited and predation exposure can be high
when water levels are low. The total # of LWD in this reach was 29 which is significantly
lower than what was counted in the first reach of Maple Cove. There is good crown cover
throughout the reach with an overhead canopy estimated at 70%. There are also several side
channels that occasionally trap fry in drying pools (Table 9). The right bank is steep, sandy,
exposed and eroded in some sections (Figure 17c).
Reach #2 (600-1200m)
The second reach is 600m long and begins just past the 2011 windfall. Overall, this reach has
great instream cover for both migrating adults and rearing salmonids when water levels are
sufficiently high. However because the channel is shallow, the exposure to predators can be
high when the channel is dry. Still, this reach has better cover than the lower reach due to the
high #of rooted cut banks (RCB) which are continuous from 780-1100m (Figure 18c). The
stream course is relatively stable due to the anchored nature of LWD and low gradient
throughout the reach. The stream in this reach is also confined by high gravel banks and
bordered by flat grassy banks
There is a high proportion of gravel/cobble substrate in this reach (72%) (Figure 18a/b). The
spawning habitat although good, is inferior to the substrate in the first reach. Accordingly, very
few pinks chose to spawn in this reach. The majority of pinks spawn in the first reach. Coho
are more likely to utilize this reach for spawning when they migrate back downstream from the
lake. The main channel splits into 2 branches at the 1000m mark. The left tributary is reach #3
and the right branch continues to Bridie Lake. The dominance of gravel/cobble substrate

25
persists to 1200m. There are 2 other tributaries that flow into this reach. The flow in these
tributaries is intermittent and substrate mostly organic debris.
Reach #3 (1000m Tributary)
This reach is the tributary channel that branches to the left at 1000m. The tributary is long and
flat and predominantly composed of cobble substrate (70%). According to mapping
information, its accessible length is approximately 1900m. The tributary has been used for
rearing and spawning in the past but no adult salmon have been observed in this reach during
recent fall escapement surveys. The banks are severely eroded in the first 60m. However there
is a nice stretch of RCB from 1051-1060m. There is a very tall cedar-like bridge logjam that is
blocking flow and fish passage at low water. The channel upstream from this point is shallow,
narrow and prone to drying up. We surveyed this reach on May 22nd and the channel had
several dry zones starting at 1150m. It veers to the right at 1180m and crosses the logging road
twice at 1400m near the connector M/L, and further along Northeast at 2560m.
Reach #4 (1200-1600m)
The section between 1200-1600m is heavily silted, dominated by fines/sand (80%) and littered
with SWD and organic debris (Figure 19a-c). This section can notably be turbulent during
winter flood. The stream is shallow but has some deep pools. The banks in this reach are
undercut and wood debris has been deposited in the stream through erosion (Figure 19c). It
might be beneficial to add gravel in this section just downstream from the bridge. This is
elaborated upon in the recommendation section
Reach #5 (1600m-Bridie Lake 2300m/Upper Tributaries)
The section upstream from the road bridge (1600m) is a swampy channel with low gradient and
flat banks. There is excellent rearing habitat up to Bridie Lake (2300m) and, in the upper
tributaries (Figure 20c-d). This reach has the best cover of any of the reaches in the dark water
and deep pools of the swamp. There are several beaver dams in this section that help to
regulate water flow. We set fry traps in the upper swamp tributaries and were excited to find a
healthy population of sticklebacks (Figure 20b, 29b/c).
3.2 Barriers to Access
There are no major log barriers in this system. There is evidence of habitat repair along the 4th
reach with some instream logs having been split with a chainsaw. The fisheries report
documents that beaver dams in reach #5 are barriers to fish. They note that fish passage is only
possible upon flooding. However the beaver dams remaining in this stretch are currently not a
barrier to coho migration.
Location: 200m (50o 41' 452"; 126o 27' 206)
Description: Log uprooted and fallen into the creek: some right bank erosion and significant
SWD build-up under the logjam is restricting flow. The logjam has created a beneficial holding
pool upstream.

26
May-June, 2015
Recommended Action: Clean up SWD debris to prevent further sedimentation.
Location: 600m (50o 43' 492"; 126o 28' 580")
Description: 2011 windfall zone. Several overhanging logs spanning 50 meters (Figure 22c).
The right bank is very steep and eroded. As mentioned in the historical notes, the area was
cleaned up in 2012. The aggregation of LWD creates refuge, shade, and holding pools for fish
(Figure 22d). The majority of pinks observed during the first half of the season in 2014 were
holding beneath these logs. This section is passable by fish since pinks were observed upstream
from the windfall at the height of the drought last season (2014).
Recommended Action: None.
Location: 720m (50o 43' 492"; 126o 28' 580")
Description: Log blockage with significant SWD accumulation that is generating siltation in
the associated pool. This pool is creating shelter for fish in a high exposure area.
Recommended Action: Remove SWD and associated siltation.
Location: 880m (50o 43' 452"; 126o 28' 545)
Description: large log sitting flat on the stream bottom with no space on the underside.
Recommended Action: The log is not promoting bed stability and structural diversity. A
narrow passage should be created using chainsaw to facilitate fish access at low water.
Location: 1270m (50o 43' 374"; 126o 28' 379”)
Description: log down, presents a challenge at low water levels. Accumulation of SWD.
Recommended Action: clean SWD build up to regulate water flow and facilitate fish passage.
Location: 1445m (50o 43' 273"; 126o 28' 223”)
Description: This logjam consists of a high wall-like log collection. The bottom log is lying
flat against the streambed and creating a flood channel. Water flow is severely restricted and
diverted towards the left bank. SWD accumulation is generating sedimentation. There is a
small pool formed by this debris. This logjam is passable but the side channel dries up in the
summer.
Recommended Action: Removal of this debris would stop the water flow into the flood
channel, preventing fry from being trapped in side pools. Removing the blockage would mean
a slight reduction cover but there is already a sufficient amount of cover throughout this reach.
Location: Left tributary-1095m (reach #3) (50o 43' 410"; 126o 28' 403”)
Description: Very tall and wide cedar barrier that forms a bridge crossing across the stream.
The log is fallen to the bottom and is currently a barrier to access at low water.
Recommended Action: Could benefit from SWD clean-up. However fish seldom utilize or
spawn in this branch and so investing restoration efforts in this branch may not be worthwhile.
3.3 Spawning Habitat
Salmon migration in this stream is closely related to water levels. Low water can prevent
migration through several areas of the stream. Several gravel patches are raised near the banks
and very prone to drying up. Low water levels during the early part of the migration cycle is
the greatest concern. The fish tend to move very quickly through this system following heavy

27
rainfall. Most coho move directly into Bridie Lake and upper tributary streams. As such,
observed numbers during escapement surveys significantly under-estimate actual coho returns.
There is spawning activity throughout the accessible portion of the stream. Most of the
spawning is in the first and second reaches. The spawning habitat in reach #4 is very poor
(Figure 27d). There is severe silting in this reach and gravel patches are not optimal, being
quite small and in high exposure areas. When exiting the lake to spawn, coho are likely to
travel downstream to the second reach where cobble/gravel substrate is predominant. Don
Wilson notes in his report that the tributaries of Shoal creek may also have significant
spawning activity.
Survey
Section (m)
Spawning Habitat (m)
Coordinates
N W
0-100 45 (LB), 70-85 (LB) 50o
43' 815" 126o
28' 857"
100-200 130-135,145-150 (RB) 50o
43' 790" 126o
28' 799"
300-400 310-315,330 (RB) 50o
43' 717" 126o
28' 714"
400-500 400, 415 (LWD), 430-50 50o
43' 662" 126o
28' 658"
500-600 500, 555-585 (before windfall) 50o
43' 629" 126o
28' 631"
Windfall Zone 600 (windfall pool), 620 (under LWD) 50o
43' 584" 126o
28' 608"
Post Windfall 625-40,669 50o
43' 545" 126o
28' 591"
700-800 730-770 50o 43' 492" 126o 28' 580"
800-1000 850-880,910-920,1000 50o
43' 402" 126o
28' 471"
1100-1200 1185 50o
43' 374" 126o
28' 379"
1200-1300 1253,1270, 1280-90,1292-1300 50o
43' 360" 126o
28' 334"
1300-1400 1305 50o
43' 331” 126o
28' 278”
1400-1600 silted stretch (muddysandysubstrate) 50o
43' 273” 126o
28' 223”
Table 10. Survey locations and coordinates of optimal spawning habitat along reach 1-4 of Shoal
creek. (RB: right bank; LB: left bank).
3.4 Water Quality and Invertebrate Survey
Mean values of measurements taken during the same survey period indicate that reach #4 had a
higher water temperature, lower dissolved oxygen and slightly more acidic pH than reach #1/2
(Table 11). The dissolved oxygen was moderate. Healthy streams are saturated with oxygen
(90 to 110% saturation) during most of the year. Warm water holds less oxygen than cold water
and shallow water heats up more quickly than deep water. Furthermore, slow flowing water has
little surface turbulence, so little oxygen mixes into the water. The pH was relatively basic
compared to other Broughton watersheds. Most aquatic organisms are sensitive to small pH
changes and prefer a pH of 6.0 to 8.5.
Reach
1 2 3 4
Air Temp. (°C) 14.3 15.0 N/A 14.2
Water Temp. (°C) 12.3 13.4 N/A 15.7
pH 6.7 6.4 N/A 6.0
Dissolved Oxygen (%/ppm) 88.7 / 9.53 72.1 / 7.5 N/A 67.5 / 6.6
Specific Conductivity (mΩcm) 0.0275 0.0342 N/A 0.033
Table 11. Water quality measurements mean values obtained in reach #1-3 of Maple Cove creek using the Hanna

28
May-June, 2015
multiparameter.
While reach #1 had the lowest abundance and density of invertebrates, it had the highest
diversity assessment and pollution tolerance index. Streams with good habitat and water quality
have high diversity (many taxa). Low diversity (very few taxa) in a stream may suggest water
quality or habitat problems. Mayflies nymphs followed by stoneflies were the predominant taxa
in reach #1 (Table 25) (Figure 28b). Five mayfly taxa were identified, of which Acentrella
nadineae was the most abundant. This species is differentiated by its pronounced abdominal
gills and has 2 tails unlike most other mayflies, which have 3 tails (Figure 28a).
Reach #2 had the highest abundance and density of invertebrates. Mayflies nymphs were
dominant followed by caddisfly larvae. We took an invertebrate sample under the road bridge
at 1600m, just downstream of the swampy stretch to Bridie lake (reach #5) (Figure 20d). This
site was dominated at 64% by net-spinning caddisfly larva of the Hydropsychidae family.
Instead of living in cases like other caddisflies (Figure 28d), they construct silk net dwellings
known as "retreats", which are fixed to the sides of rocks and crevices (Figure 28c). This site
which was bordered by swampy and silted habitat had the lowest EPT index, lowest diversity
assessment and accordingly, lowest overall site assessment rating (Table 12/13). Detailed
identification data of invertebrate abundance and diversity appears in Appendix II: (Table 26).
Invertebrate Survey/
Habitat Quality Assessment
SH-75m SH-1000m SH-1600m
- Date 17/05/15 24/05/15 19/05/15
- Abundance and Density 385.19 533.33 440.74
- PredominantTaxon Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph Caddisfly Larvae
21 18 18
- EPT Index (>8 good, 5-8 acceptable, 2-5 marginal, 0-1 poor) 11 11 4
0.82 0.85 0.79
Diversity Assessment (Total # of taxa) 20 17 14
0.46 0.46 0.64
- Site Assessment Rating
3.50 3.50 2.75
Table 12. Stream health and water quality assessment obtained following the identification of stream invertebrate
indicator species from samples taken at 75m, 1000m and 1600m in Shoal creek.
Index / Ratio SH-75 SH-1000 SH-1600
Pollution Tolerance Index 3 3 3
EPT Index 4 4 2
EPT to Total Ratio 4 4 4
PredominantTaxon Ratio 3 3 2
Total 14 12 11
Average (/4) 3.50 3.50 2.75
Table 13. General site assessment rating of stream health. (4.00: good,
3.00: acceptable; 2.00: marginal, 1.00: poor).

29
3.5 Salmonid Survey
The fry in this system disperse throughout the accessible areas, moving from the spawning
beds into the adjacent rearing zones and filling the available habitat uniformly. There are side
channels and flood channels in reaches #1-3 that can trap fry in the drying pools. There was
higher concentration of fry at end of the first reach likely due to the superior spawning habitat
and tendency for any fry migration to be downstream. The highest concentration of coho was
viewed between 580-700m with 45 fry observed over 2 days in shallow gravel patches. The
visibility was optimal and we were able to confirm identification of coho by distinguishing
their double parr mark feature. The fourth reach had the lowest fry concentration due to the
silting in this reach, which limits spawning habitat.
We set Gee fry traps in the swampy tributaries that were accessible from the logging roads. The
tributaries are located approximately 200m upstream of Bridie Lake. We caught a high number
of sticklebacks in these swamps at the height of their breeding season. Two females were
notably gravid (Figure 29b/c). We also set 1 trap under the road bridge at 1600m just before the
swampy channel to Bridie Lake and 2 more a few meters downstream (Figure 29a). We caught
18 coho, 7 cutthroat and 1 stickleback. And so while reach #4 offers poor spawning habitat, it
has excellent rearing habitat.
Reach
#
# Survey
Days
Survey
Method Species Total
1 1 Visual CH 33
1 1 Fry Trap CH 5
1 1 Fry Trap CT 3
2 2 Visual CH 49
2 3 Visual CT 5
4 1 Fry Trap CH 18
4 3 Visual CH 27
4 1 Fry Trap CT 8
4 2 Fry Trap SB 1
5 1 Fry Trap CT 1
5 1 Fry Trap SB, CT 45
Table 14. Total number of fry observed through visualsurveys
and captured with fry traps in reaches 1-4 of Shoal creek from
May 19th-24, 2015. (CH: coho; CT: cutthroat; SB: stickleback).
4. Recommendations
Shoal creek is presently in good condition. There are still numerous logjams throughout the
stream but none block the migration of fish. Some larger logs that have fallen instream and
lying flat on the streambed could be chainsawed to facilitate fish passage provided they are not
adding structural benefits (Figure 30a). The 1445m logjam in reach #4 is the most significant in
this stream. SWD build-up should be cleaned to improve water flow and ease of fish migration.
It might be beneficial to add gravel in reach #4 just downstream from the 1600m bridge. This
would cut down the travelling distance of coho migrating down from Bridie Lake to spawn.

30
May-June, 2015
There is little spawning habitat in this reach and silting throughout, which obscures most of the
spawning gravel (Figure 30b). Consequently, coho must likely travel down to lower reaches to
spawn. Adding gravel would decrease their travelling energy expenditure and lower their
exposure to predators.
Lastly, we highly recommend that the first reach of this system not be surveyed during high
wind conditions. A poor riparian buffer zone on the right bank of reach #1 increases the risk of
trees falling along the trail and into the stream when winds are strong. Trees in the riparian
zone are dry and already quite shaky. The 2011 windfall at the 600m-mark was a direct
consequence of a poor riparian buffer zone and high winds. Many small trees have fallen across
the stream and trail in the past year. However these have not created new barriers to fish
(Figure 30c).
5. Data Comparison: 1994/2009/2015
5.1 Maple Cove: 2009 vs. 2015
As previously mentioned, the Don Wilson Silverking Venture watershed assessment (1994/95)
surveyed Shoal creek but not Maple Cove while the 2009 spring/summer habitat quality
assessments surveyed the first reach of both systems.
Cross-sectional measurements of reach #1 for Maple Cove were comparable (Table 15). The
flow rate and discharge was higher in 2015. We surveyed this reach from May 1-3rd following
a week of steady rainfall. The 2009 crew surveyed the system on May 10th. As reflected in
measurements taken in reach #2/3, the sun came out and water levels/velocity decreased
quickly during the rest of the survey period. The amount of LWD was higher in 2015, which is
to be expected as woody debris is deposited into the system over time. pH values were
comparable in 2009 and 2015, but the water temperature and specific conductivity was higher
in 2015.
The site assessment ratings based on invertebrate samples collected were the same in 2009 and
2015 (3.50). The abundance/density of invertebrates and pollution tolerance index was higher
in 2015 while the diversity assessments were higher in 2009. The dominant taxa were mayfly
nymphs in both years (Table 16).
5.2 Shoal Creek – 1994/95, 2009, 2015
Results from 1994/95, 2009 and 2015 for reach #1 and 2 were generally comparable. As
expected, the abundance of LWD was higher in 2015. Don Wilson recorded a higher
proportion of gravel/pebble substrate in reach #2. (Table 15) However we definitely found that
cobble was dominant over gravel, as did the 2009 crew. To put it in perspective, cobble is the
size of a tennis ball to a basketball while gravel is the size of a ladybug to a tennis ball.
The site assessment ratings based on invertebrate samples collected were was the same in 2009
and 2015 (Table 16). The abundance/density of invertebrates, EPT index and diversity

31
assessment was higher in 2015 than 2009. In both years, the dominant taxa were mayfly
nymphs.
* * *
As far as differences and comparisons between Maple Cove and Shoal creek are concerned,
Maple Cove had a greater abundance of LWD. The pH was significantly more acidic in Maple
cove and the water temperature of shoal creek was higher and dissolved oxygen lower than
Maple Cove. Reasons for these differences are elaborated upon in the respective water quality
sections of each stream.
Abiotic/Biotic Data
MC-2009
Reach #1
(0-400m)
MC-2015
Reach #1
(0-400m)
SH-1994
Reach #1
(0-685m)
SH-2009
Reach #1
(0-600m)
SH-2015
Reach #1
(0-600m)
SH-1994
Reach #2
(685-1300m)
SH-2009
Reach #2
(600-1000m)
SH-2015
Reach #2
(600-1200m)
Banfull Width (m) 8.3 9.94 10.0 10.2 11.3 10.0 8.4 9.3
WettedWidth (m) 7.4 8.55 5.0 8.7 6.2 5.0 5.0 6.0
Average Depth (m) 0.2 0.24 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20
Flow Rate (m/s) 0.29 0.67 0.3 0.35 0.31 0.15 0.28 0.25
Discharge (m3
/s) 0.31 1.11 0.3 0.38 0.25 0.30 0.16 0.21
LWD 41 72 N/A 20 29 N/A 19 33
Fines/Sand % 15 20 10 1 8 20 15 20
Gravel/Pebble % 58 41 20 18 13 60 10 28
Cobble % 15 24 30 41 39 20 66 44
Boulder/Bedrock % 13 15 40 41 40 0 9 2
Water Temp. (°C) 6.8 7.49 N/A 8.5 12.3 N/A 9.0 13.0
pH 5.5 5.12 N/A N/A 6.7 N/A 6.5 6.4
Specific Conductivity 0.017 0.056 N/A 0.0247 0.0275 N/A 0.023 0.0342
Table 15. Comparison of longitudinal and cross-sectionaldata from surveys conducted in 1994/95, 2009 and 2015.
Water Quality Assessment
MC-2009
(Reach #1)
MC-2015
(Reach #1)
SH-2009
(Reach #1)
SH-2015
(Reach #1)
- Date 10/05/09 03/05/15 07/05/15 17/05/15
- Abundance and Density 322.22 400.00 314.81 385.19
- PredominantTaxon Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph Mayfly Nymph
17 24 24 21
- EPT Index (>8 good, 5-8 acceptable, 2-5 marginal, 0-1 poor) 12 11 6 11
0.51 0.74 0.65 0.82
Diversity Assessment (Total # of taxa) 22 19 14 20
0.24 0.44 0.26 0.46
- Site Assessment Rating
3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50
Table 16. Comparison of stream health and water quality assessment obtained from stream invertebrate samples taken from reach #1
of Shoal Harbour and Maple Cove creeks in May of 2009 and 2015.

32
May-June, 2015
6. Habitat Quality Rating – Longitudinal Survey
The Pacific Streamkeepers Federation habitat assessment methodology (module 2) makes it
possible to rate the stream quality by assigning a score to habitat characteristics values obtained
during the longitudinal survey. The scores for the nine characteristics described in the method
section are weighted to reflect their significance to the biological productivity of the stream.
Primary characteristics (1-3), related to streambed composition and instream cover
(LWD/RCB), are ranked between 0 and 20 points. Secondary characteristics (4-6), related to
channel structure and stability, are ranked between 0 and 15 points. Tertiary characteristics (7-
9), related to streamside vegetation, are ranked between 0 and 10 points (Table 31).
*While this rating system gives a general idea of habitat quality, I find its overall objectivity
and reliability somewhat debatable*. Please visit: http://www.pskf.ca/program/program.html for
Pacific Streamkeepers modules and complete methodology.
Table 17. Pacific Streamkeepers Federation habitat assessment scoring system. (Instream cover score
obtained with this equation: (Instream cover = #LWD + #RCB ÷ (length of reference site ÷ bank).

33
Characteristics MC #1 MC #2 MC #3 SH #1 SH #2 SH #3 SH #4
1. Streambed Material:
(% boulder & cobble)
39% 46% 65% 79% 46% 80% 6%
12(A) 14(A) 16.5(G) 18(G) 14.5(A) 18(G) 3(P)
2. % Embeddedness 25%
13(A)
40%
12(A)
85%
3(A)
25%
13(M)
20%
14(M)
45%
11(A)
75%
5(P)
3. Instream Cover 1.9
10(A)
0.22
1(P)
0.29
1(P)
0.84
4(P)
0.67
3(P)
0.07
0(P)
0.62
3(P)
4. % Pool Habitat 14%
1(P)
35%
5(M)
20%
2(P)
16%
2(P)
30%
2(P)
5%
1(0)
20%
2(P)
5. Off-channel habitat 2
2(P)
8
8(A)
8
8(A)
5
5(M)
0
0(P)
1
1(P)
1
1(P)
6. Bank stability
(% eroded banks)
13%
14(G)
30%
11(G)
73%
3(P)
12%
15(G)
33%
11(A)
45%
9(A)
74%
3(P)
7. Bank vegetation % 100%
10(G)
100%
10(G)
85%
7(A)
100%
10(G)
100%
10(G)
80%
6.5(A)
100%
10(G)
8. Overhead canopy % 36%
9(G)
54%
10(G)
60%
10(G)
70%
10(G)
47%
10(G)
75%
10(G)
78%
10(G)
9. Riparian zone:
(# bankfull channels w ide)
>2
10(G)
>2
10(G)
>2
10(G)
>2
10(G)
>2
10(G)
>2
10(G)
1-2
5(A)
TOTAL SCORE 83(A) 81(A) 60.5(A) 88(A) 74.5(A) 67.5(A) 42(M)
Table 18. Habitat quality rating of Maple Cove and Shoal creek reaches based on scoring system
of Pacific Streamkeepers methodology. (First row=results; second in bold=score; G (good); A
(acceptable); M (marginal); P (poor).

34
May-June, 2015
Appendix I – Maple Cove Abiotic/Biotic Data2015
3.1 Cross-Sectional Survey
Table 19. Raw Data and mean values obtained from cross-sectionalsurveys conducted at periodic increments along reach 1-3 of Maple Cove
creek from May 1st-20, 2015
Section
Surveyed (m)
Survey
Location
(m)
Date
Reach
#
Bankfull
Width (m)
Wetted
Width (m)
Average
Depth (m)
Mean Flow
Rate (m/s)
Discharge
(m_/s)
Turbidity
0-50 50 01/05/15 1 13.7 12.3 0.27 0.68 1.67 33
50-100 100 01/05/15 1 9.2 7.5 0.29 1.13 1.96 6
100-150 150 01/05/15 1 9.2 6.8 0.20 0.72 0.80 12
150-200 200 01/05/15 1 7.6 7.4 0.44 0.77 2.02 6
200-255 255 02/05/15 1 9.6 7.8 0.10 0.7 0.44 >10
255-300 300 02/05/15 1 8.6 7.2 0.17 0.3 0.30 35
300- 400 375 02/05/15 1 11.7 10.9 0.17 0.41 0.59 30
400-580 515 03/05/15 2 11.8 10.8 0.08 0.66 0.43 30
600-655 635 07/05/15 2 10.8 7.3 0.11 0.16 0.10 55
655-770 745 20/05/15 2 6.1 4.5 0.13 0.28 0.14 >13
770-870 870 20/05/15 2 6.2 3.7 0.23 0.28 0.19 14
870-1100 1100 20/05/15 2 7.2 4.5 0.10 0.53 0.19 N/A
1100-1200 1200 20/05/15 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N/A
1200-1360 1360 20/05/15 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N/A
1360-1780 1500 21/05/15 3 4.8 3.15 0.14 0.25 0.09 >14
1780-1900 1780 21/05/15 3 8.1 4.9 0.32 0.57 0.71 15
Mean Reach #1 0-400 May 1-3 1 9.94 8.55 0.24 0.67 1.11 20
Mean Reach #2 400-1360 May 3-20 2 8.62 6.08 0.15 0.38 0.25 33
Mean Reach #3 1360-1900 May 21 3 6.45 4.03 0.23 0.41 0.40 15

35
3.1 Longitudinal Survey
Survey
Location (m)
Instream Cover # Overhead
canopy
(%)
Pool
Habit
at (%)
Eroded
Bank
length (m)
Substrate %
Embeded-
ness (%)
Turbidity
(cm)
Side
Channels
LWD RCB
Fines/
Sand
Gravel/
Pebble
Cobble
Boulder/
Bedrock
50 7 0 10 6 18 10 40 20 30 25 33 1
100 6 0 65 1 0 5 40 20 35 25 6 0
150 9 3 35 3 9 10 45 30 15 30 12 0
200 17 2 50 40 5 25 40 30 5 40 6 0
255 13 2 50 15 2 15 60 20 5 30 10 0
300 5 0 30 5 8 30 35 30 5 15 35 0
375 15 1 10 25 10 45 30 15 10 10 30 1
515 9 0 20 20 40 45 20 30 5 20 30 1
635 7 0 40 35 45 40 50 5 5 20 55 1
870 7 2 40 5 75 20 20 30 30 60 10 1
1100 7 3 70 55 23 15 10 30 45 60 14 3
1200 13 3 75 25 80 40 20 20 20 n/a n/a 1
1360 4 2 70 65 25 35 10 50 5 n/a n/a 0
1500 15 2 55 35 380 55 5 10 30 90 5 4
1780 7 0 65 5 15 5 5 20 70 80 75 1
Mean/Total #1 72 8 36 14 52 20 41 24 15 25 19 2
Mean/Total #2 52 10 54 35 288 33 22 28 18 40 33 8
Mean/Total #3 22 2 60 20 395 30 5 15 50 85 55 5
Table 20. Raw Data, mean values and total values obtained from longitudinal surveys conducted at regular survey intervals along reach 1-3 of Maple Cove creek
from May 1st-20, 2015

36
May-June, 2015
3.4 Water Quality Survey
Table 21. Raw Data and mean values obtained from water quality measurements taken with the Hanna 9829
multiparameter along reach 1-3 of Maple Cove creek from May 1st-20, 2015.
Pollution Tolerance Common Names
MC-210 MC-635
# Counted # of Taxa # Counted # of Taxa
Category 1 -
Pollution Intolerant
CaddisflyLarva (EPT) 3 2 10 4
Mayfly Nymph (EPT) 47 5 32 6
Stonefly Nymph (EPT) 30 4 16 4
Subtotal 80 11 58 14
Category 2 -
Semi Tolerant
Aquatic Beetle 1 1 0 0
Cranefly Larva 1 1 0 0
Dragonfly Larva 1 1 1 1
Fishfly Larva 1 1 0 0
Subtotal 4 4 1 1
Category 3 - Aquatic Worm 6 1 9 1
Survey
Location (m)
Date
Air
Temp
(0
C)
Water
Temp
(0
C)
pH mvpH
Dissolved Oxygen Specific
Conductivity
mΩcm(%) ppm
50 01/05/15 8.5 7.40 5.10 106.2 97.8 11.75 0.0500
100 01/05/15 8.5 7.60 5.10 101.7 97.3 11.64 0.0530
200 03/05/15 10.5 7.88 5.31 91.7 108.3 12.88 0.0625
300 02/05/15 8.5 7.09 5.16 98.8 102.5 12.51 0.0590
515 03/05/15 10.5 8.46 5.18 98.9 98.2 11.48 0.0595
635 07/05/15 13.5 9.29 5.19 101.6 96.1 11.08 0.0625
745 20/05/15 14.0 11.10 5.62 74.8 92.8 10.15 0.0667
1100 20/05/15 13.5 11.37 5.18 99.00 88.3 9.64 0.0667
1500 21/05/15 13.5 11.11 5.2 97.8 82.3 9.00 0.0667
1780 21/05/15 13.0 11.09 5.07 104.5 91.7 10.01 0.0667
Mean Reach #1 9.00 7.49 5.17 99.60 101.5 12.20 0.0561
Mean Reach #2 12.88 10.06 5.29 93.58 93.85 10.59 0.0639
Mean Reach #3 13.25 11.10 5.14 101.15 87.0 9.51 0.0667

37
Pollution Tolerant Blackfly Larva 14 1 3 1
Midge Larvae (chriromonid) 4 2 8 1
Subtotal 24 4 20 3
Total 108 19 79 18
Table 21. Abundance and diversity of stream invertebrates samples taken at triplicate subsites from 2
survey locations along Maple Cove creek.
3.5 Salmonid Survey
Location (m) Reach # Date Count
Method of
Capture
Species
Fork Length
(mm)
Coordinates
N W
200 1 01/05/15 1 Visual CH 35 50o
41' 186" 126o
27' 472"
200 1 03/05/15 4 Visual CT 30-40 50o
41' 188" 126o
27' 475"
210 1 03/05/15 1 Dip net CH 32 50o
41' 188" 126o
27' 475"
250 1 02/05/15 1 Dip net CT 38 50o
41' 202" 126o
27' 428"
250 1 02/05/15 9 Visual CH/CT 30-45 50o
41' 202" 126o
27' 428"
250-279 1 03/05/15 6 Visual CH/CT 35-45 50o
41' 202" 126o
27' 428"
270 1 02/05/15 16 Visual CT 30-45 50o
41' 213" 126o
27' 413"
270 1 02/05/15 1 Dip net CT 36 50o 41' 213" 126o 27' 413"
280-295 1 03/05/15 3 Visual CH/CT 35-42 50o 41' 213" 126o 27' 413"
345 1 02/05/15 1 Visual CH/CT 40 50o
41' 218" 126o
27' 411"
390 1 02/05/15 2 Visual CH/CT 35-40 50o
41' 224" 126o
27' 381"
400 1 03/05/15 5 Visual CH/CT 35 50o
41' 224" 126o
27' 381"
510 2 03/05/15 1 Visual CT 65 50o
41' 273" 126o
27' 310"
520-600 2 03/05/15 7 Visual CH/CT 35-60 50o
41' 273" 126o
27' 310"
600 2 07/05/15 1 Dip net CH 38 50o 41' 229" 126o 27' 228"
600 2 07/05/15 3 Visual CH* 30-45 50o
41' 229" 126o
27' 228"
610-634 2 07/05/15 8 Visual CH/CT n/a 50o
41' 374" 126o
27' 203"
635-650 2 07/05/15 6 Visual CH/CT n/a 50o
41' 229" 126o
27' 228"
610-655 2 15//05/15 12 Visual CH/CT 30-50 50o
41' 374" 126o
27' 203"
600-655 2 20/05/15 11 Visual CH/CT 40-55 50o
41' 320" 126o
27' 240"
655-770 2 20/05/15 7 Visual CH/CT n/a 50o
41' 375" 126o
27' 131"
870-1100 2 20/05/15 2 Visual CT n/a 50o 41' 447" 126o 27' 939"
1360 3 21/05/15 6 Dip Net CT 120-205 50o
41' 480" 126o
26' 828"

38
May-June, 2015
1900-1780 3 21/05/15 1 Visual CT 85 50o
41' 610" 126o
26' 572"
50 1 01/05/15 0 Fry Trap n/a n/a 50o
41' 144" 126o
27' 589"
200 1 02/05/15 2 Fry Trap CH 68, 34 50o
41' 185" 126o
27' 206"
250 1 07/05/15 1 Fry Trap CT 115 50o
41' 188" 126o
27' 475"
615 2 17/05/15 1 Fry Trap DV 69 50o
41' 229" 126o
27' 228"
640 2 17/05/15 4 Fry Trap CT 97, 140, 125, 115 50o
41' 229" 126o
27' 228"
620 2 21/05/15 1 Fry Trap CT 125 50o
41' 229" 126o
27' 228"
645 2 21/05/15 0 Fry Trap N/A n/a 50o
41' 229" 126o
27' 228"
Upper Bridge-1845 3 15/05/15 2 Fry Trap CT 68, 117 50o
41' 639" 126o
26' 472"
Upper Bridge-1865 3 15/05/15 7 Fry Trap CT 62, 65, 76, 90 50o
41' 629" 126o
26' 505"
115, 120, 148
SwampTributary 4 15/05/15 1 Fry Trap CT 115 50o
41' 770" 126o
26' 965"
Table 23. Fry count observed May 1st-21, 2015, through visual surveys and fry captured in dip nets and traps as well as associated species ID, fork length
measurements and coordinate data of survey sites along reach 1-3 of Maple Cove creek. (CH: coho; CT: cutthroat; DV: dolly varden).

39
Appendix II – Shoal Harbour Abiotic/Biotic Data2015
3.1 Cross-Sectional Survey
Table 24. Raw Data and mean values obtained from cross-sectionalsurveys conducted at periodic increments along reach 1-4 of Shoal
creek from May 19th-24, 2015.
Section
Surveyed (m)
Survey
Location
(m)
Date
Reach
#
Bankfull
Width
(m)
Wetted
Width
(m)
Average
Depth
(m)
Mean Flow
Rate (m/s)
Discharge
(m_/s)
Turbidity
0-100 100 22/05/15 1 10.3 4.5 0.19 0.25 0.17 9
100-200 170 22/05/15 1 12.1 4.5 0.17 0.26 0.16 8
200-300 300 22/05/15 1 14.3 5.8 0.28 0.26 0.16 22
300-400 400 22/05/15 1 6.7 5.2 0.13 0.44 0.24 N/A
400-500 500 22/05/15 1 12.2 8.6 0.13 n/a n/a 13
500-600 600 22/05/15 1 12.2 8.7 0.27 0.28 0.53 27
600-700 700 22/05/15 2 13.9 5.6 0.14 0.40 0.25 14
700-800 800 22/05/15 2 9.8 5.6 0.08 0.40 0.25 8
800-1000 1000 22/05/15 2 6.5 3.6 0.30 n/a n/a 17
1100-1000 1030 24/05/15 2 8.2 7.7 0.24 0.11 0.16 25
1200-1100 1135 24/05/15 2 8.2 7.7 0.24 0.11 0.16 25
1300-1200 1200 19/05/15 4 7.2 5.7 0.27 0.40 0.25 30
1390-1300 1300 19/05/15 4 5.8 3.2 0.04 0.40 0.25 30
1500-1390 1390 19/05/15 4 5.1 2.45 0.02 n/a n/a 30
1600-1500 1500 19/05/15 4 6.2 2.3 0.05 0.11 0.16 5
1000-Tributary 1000-1330 22/05/15 3 4.2 2.9 0.08 0.11 0.16 10
Mean Reach #1 0-600 May 22 1 11.3 6.2 0.19 0.31 0.25 13
Mean Reach #2 600-1200 May 22-24 2 9.3 6.0 0.20 0.25 0.21 22
Mean Reach #3 1000-1330 May 22 3 4.2 2.9 0.08 0.11 0.16 10
Mean Reach #4 1200-1600 May 19 4 6.1 3.4 0.10 0.09 0.006 24

40
May-June, 2015
3.1 Longitudinal Survey
Survey Location
(m)
Instream
Cover # Overhead
canopy
(%)
Pool
Habitat
(%)
Eroded
bank
Length
(m)
Substrate %
Embeded-
ness (%)
Turbidity
(cm)
Side
Channels
LWD RCB
Fines/
Sand
Gravel/
Pebble
Cobble
Boulder/
Bedrock
100 5 1 80 5 0 5 10 45 40 10 9 1
170 4 4 70 10 0 5 10 40 45 25 8 1
300 6 0 40 30 25 10 15 35 40 40 22 1
400 7 5 75 0 10 0 10 40 50 40 n/a 1
500 4 2 85 10 30 5 15 40 40 20 13 1
600 3 0 70 40 5 25 20 35 25 20 27 0
700 7 1 10 50 25 35 25 40 0 20 14 0
800 5 1 50 45 35 25 20 55 0 20 8 0
1000 11 2 70 25 35 10 30 55 5 10 17 0
1030 5 3 60 15 50 10 35 50 5 20 25 0
1135 5 3 45 15 50 25 35 45 0 30 25 0
1200 12 5 65 10 90 65 25 5 5 75 30 1
1300 18 5 75 35 55 85 5 0 5 70 30 0
1390 13 5 85 10 90 90 5 0 5 80 30 0
1500 16 4 85 25 60 80 17 3 0 75 5 0
1000-Tributary 7 1 75 5 150 10 10 70 10 45 10 1
Mean/Total #1 29 12 70 16 70 8 13 39 40 25 15.8 5
Mean/Total #2 33 10 47 30 195 20 28 44 2 20 17.8 0
Mean/Total #3 7 1 75 5 150 10 10 70 10 45 10 1
Mean/Total #4 59 14 78 20 290 80 13 2 4 75 23.8 1
Table 25. Raw Data, mean values and total values obtained from longitudinal surveys conducted at regular survey intervals along reach 1-4 of Shoal creek from
May 19th-24, 2015.

41
3.4 Water Quality Survey
Table 24. Raw Data and mean values obtained from water quality measurements taken with the Hanna 9829 multiparameter
along reach 1-4 of Shoal creek from May 19th-24, 2015.
Pollution Tolerance Common Names
SH-75m SH-1000m SH-1600m
# Counted # of Taxa # Counted # of Taxa # Counted # of Taxa
Category 1 -
Pollution Intolerant
CaddisflyLarva (EPT) 4 2 44 5 76 1
Mayfly Nymph (EPT) 48 5 66 4 12 2
Stonefly Nymph (EPT) 33 4 13 2 6 1
Subtotal 85 11 123 11 94 4
Category 2 -
Semi Tolerant
Aquatic Beetle 1 1 0 0 0 0
Cranefly Larva 1 1 1 1 0 0
Dragonfly Larva 0 0 1 1 1 1
Water Flea (Cladoceran) 1 1 3 1 10 1
Subtotal 3 3 5 3 11 2
Category 3 - Aquatic Worm 7 2 3 1 2 1
Pollution Tolerant Blackfly Larva 4 1 12 1 4 1
Midge Larvae (chriromonid) 3 1 1 1 1 1
True Bug Adult 1 1 0 0 1 1
Water Mite 1 1 0 0 5 3
Survey
Location (m)
Date
Air Temp
(0
C)
Water Temp
(0
C)
pH
mVoH
Dissolved Oxygen Specific
Conductivity
mΩcm(%) ppm
100 22/05/15 14 11.90 6.8 8.2 94.6 10.26 0.024
200 22/05/15 14.5 12.40 6.7 16.5 91.4 9.79 0.026
600 22/05/15 14.5 12.73 6.6 20.4 80.2 8.53 0.0323
1000 22/05/15 15 12.84 6.63 n/a 76.0 7.84 0.0356
1135 24/05/15 15 13.67 6.25 38.9 70.2 7.35 0.0334
1200 19/05/15 14.5 15.46 5.94 59.3 73.1 7.28 0.0333
1300 19/05/15 14 15.46 6.05 52.1 56.6 5.43 0.0323
1500 19/05/15 14 16.06 5.89 59.8 72.9 7.20 0.0333
Mean Reach #1 14.3 12.3 6.7 15.0 88.7 9.53 0.0275
Mean Reach #2 15.0 13.4 6.4 84.3 72.1 7.50 0.0342
Mean Reach #3 14.2 15.7 6.0 57.1 67.5 6.6 0.0330

42
May-June, 2015
Subtotal 16 6 16 3 13 7
Unidentified 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 104 20 144 16 119 14
Table 26. Abundance and diversity of stream invertebrates samples taken at triplicate subsites from 3 survey locations along Shoal
Harbour creek.
3.5 Salmonid Survey
Location (m)
Reach
#
Date
Method of
Capture
Count Species Fork Length (mm)
Coordinates
N W
0-100 1 22/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o
43' 777" 126o
28' 835"
100-200 1 22/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o
43' 783" 126o
28' 765"
290-300 1 22/05/15 Visual 7 CH 30-50 50o
43' 726" 126o
28' 714"
300-400 1 22/05/15 Visual 1 CH 40 50o
43' 691" 126o
28' 662"
400-500 1 22/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o
43' 662" 126o
28' 658"
580-600 1 22/05/15 Visual 25 CH 35-60 50o
43' 584" 126o
28' 608"
690 2 22/05/15 Visual 17 CH 20-35 50o
43' 525" 126o
28' 558"
600-700 2 22/05/15 Visual 19 CH 45-55 50o
43' 525" 126o
28' 558"
700 2 22/05/15 Visual 1 CT 95 50o 43' 525" 126o 28' 558"
700-800 2 19/05/15 Visual 4 CH 30-55 50o
43' 493" 126o
28' 568"
800-1000 2 19/05/15 Visual 2 CH 30-55 50o
43' 402" 126o
28' 471"
1000-Tributary 3 22/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o
43' 410" 126o
28' 403"
1000-1100 2 24/05/15 Visual 4 CT 75 50o 43' 369" 126o 28' 479"
1100-1200 2 24/05/15 Visual 7 CH 30-55 50o
43' 354" 126o
28' 353"
1200-1300 4 19/05/15 Visual 2 CH 35 50o
43' 353" 126o
28' 359"
1300-1500 4 19/05/15 Visual 0 N/A n/a 50o
43' 283" 126o
28' 245"
1500-1600 4 19/05/15 Visual 13 CH 30-55 50o
43' 246" 126o
28' 187"
1500-1600 4 20/05/15 Visual 8 CH 30-55 50o
43' 246" 126o
28' 187"
1500-1600 4 24/05/15 Visual 6 CH 30-55 50o
43' 246" 126o
28' 187"
300 1 24/05/15 Fry Trap 3 CT 105, 125,139 50o 43' 726" 126o 28' 714"
600 1 21/05/15 Fry Trap 5 CH 45, 50, 55, 45, 44 50o
43' 584" 126o
28' 608"
685 2 20/05/15 Fry Trap 0 N/A N/A 50o
43' 525" 126o
28' 558"
725 2 20/05/15 Fry Trap 0 N/A N/A 50o
43' 492" 126o
28' 580"
SwampTributary 5 17/05/15 Fry Trap 20 SB 55-75 50o
42' 744" 126o
27' 673"

43
SwampTributary 5 17/05/15 Fry Trap 1 CT 118 50o
42' 744" 126o
27' 673"
SwampTributary 5 17/05/15 Fry Trap 25 SB 45-77 50o
42' 744" 126o
27 '673"
Under Bridge-1600 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 5 CH 58, 52, 65, 75, 115 50o
43' 201" 126o
28' 137"
Under Bridge-1600 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 2 CT 113, 112 50o
43' 201" 126o
28' 137"
Under Bridge-1585 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 7 CH 39, 65, 59, 60, 75, 52, 85 50o
43' 201" 126o
28' 137"
Under Bridge-1585 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 1 SB 65 50o
43' 201" 126o
28' 137"
Under Bridge-1575 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 6 CH 45. 49, 55, 92 44, 58 50o
43' 201" 126o
28' 137"
Under Bridge-1575 4 20/05/15 Fry Trap 2 CT 100, 80 50o 43' 201" 126o 28' 137"
Table 27. Fry count observed May 19th-24, 2015, through visual surveys and fry captured in dip nets and traps as well as associated species ID,
fork length measurements and coordinate data of survey sites along reach 1-4 Shoal creek. (CH: coho; CT: cutthroat; SB: stickleback.

MESSS 2015 Final Report_no pics_in

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to MESSS 2015 Final Report_no pics_in

Similar to MESSS 2015 Final Report_no pics_in (20)

MESSS 2015 Final Report_no pics_in