Lower Columbia River Water Use Plan. Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment

Transcription

1 Lower Columbia River Water Use Plan Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment Reference: CLBMON-43 Year 2 Report (2010) Study Period: March- August 2010 Louise Porto MSc., R.P.Bio. Crystal Lawrence BSc. Rachel Keeler MSc., R.P.Bio. AMEC Earth & Environmental Suite Front St. Nelson, BC V1L 4B6 Report Date: June 10, 2011

2 Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) Year 2 Report (2010) Prepared for: BC Hydro Castlegar, BC Prepared by: AMEC Earth & Environmental Nelson, BC June 10, 2011 VE

3 AMEC Earth & Environmental a division of AMEC Americas Limited Suite 203, 601 Front St. Nelson, BC Canada V1L 4B6 Tel +1 (250) Fax +1 (250) CLBMON-43 Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment Year 2 FINAL REPORT Submitted to: BC Hydro Castlegar, British Columbia Submitted by: AMEC Earth & Environmental a division of AMEC Americas Limited, Final Report Submitted: 10 AMEC File: VE

4 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... IX 1.0 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES Purpose METHODS Study Area Environmental Parameters Sample Timing Adult Fish Sampling Backpack Electrofishing PIT Tag Tracking Snorkel Observations & Dip Netting Young-of-the-Year (YOY) Sampling Incidental Captures during other programs Nest Assessments Verification of Sculpin & Dace Identification Microhabitat Use Measurements Index Site Habitat Assessments Data Analyses RESULTS Detailed Questions Are there specific spawning areas utilized by the Columbia sculpin and the Umatilla dace and, if so, what are the temporal and biophysical characteristics of these areas? (A) Are there specific nursery areas used by Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics? (B) Are there seasonal and diel shifts in habitat use by these species and, if so, how do these shifts relate to daily or seasonal water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal)? (C) Adults Larval Stages Do different age classes of Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace use AMEC File: VE Page ii

5 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace TABLE OF CONTENTS Page different habitats seasonally and, if so, do diel habitat shifts differ among age classes? (D) Are there over-wintering habitats used by these species and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics? (E) Do diel and seasonal water level fluctuations affect spawning behaviour, embryo survival, or adult nest guarding behaviour of Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace? (F) Management Questions How do water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal) in the lower Columbia River affect the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace, especially the listed species? Distribution Habitat Use What seasonal and diel habitat shifts do sculpins and dace (especially the listed species) make in response to water level fluctuations? Do the operations of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam alter these natural movements? Specifically, does this risk of stranding increase? Which operations, and at what season, pose the highest risk of stranding or interference with the normal life cycles of sculpins and dace? DISCUSSION How do water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal) in the lower Columbia River affect the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace, especially the listed species? What seasonal and diel habitat shifts do sculpins and dace (especially the listed species) make in response to water level fluctuations? Do the operations of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam alter these natural movements? Specifically, does this risk of stranding increase Which operations, and at what season, pose the highest risk of stranding or interference with the normal life cycles of sculpins and dace? ASSESSMENT OF METHODS RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES Figure 1: Figure 2: LIST OF FIGURES Overview Map of Lower Columbia River Depicting Index and Seasonal Monitoring Study Areas... 4 Hydrograph of discharge and water temperature in the LCR at Birchbank AMEC File: VE Page iii

6 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: (WSC No. 08NE0558) and discharge at Hugh L. Keenleyside (HLK) Dam and Arrow Lakes Generating Station (ALH), Discharge records from January 1 to March 1 for HLK were missing as was temperature from Nov 9 to 11, Arrows indicate dates of field surveys and expected species to sample (CC = sculpin sp. and DC = dace sp.) Columbia sculpin nest observed on June 17, 2010 downstream of the Castlegar-Robson Bridge on the left bank. The bright yellow egg clump was believed to have been recently deposited. Two Columbia sculpins, including a captured female, were observed at the nest Captured female Columbia sculpin from a nest observed downstream of the Castlegar-Robson Bridge on June 17, The red circle indicates the location of the swollen, red gonadopore. This fish was suspected to have recently spawned Shorthead sculpin nest with moving, eyed eggs observed in Pass Creek on July 14, Shorthead sculpin nest containing four egg masses observed in Pass Creek on July 14, Figure 7: Estimated spawning period for shorthead sculpin in Pass Creek, Water temperature was recorded within the Pass Creek index site until July 23, Circles indicate dates of tracking surveys with relative water levels based on photos taken from a benchmark location. Red lines indicate dates nests were observed Figure 8: General estimated spawning period for sculpins in the LCR, Arrow indicates date when YOY sculpins were observed in white sturgeon larval drift nets at river km 18.2 in the LCR. Water temperature and discharge were measured in the LCR at Birchbank (WSC Station No. 08NE0558) Figure 9: Sculpin nest observed in the LCR downstream of Genelle on June 17, A portion of the eggs in this nest were eyed (yellow) while the majority were dead (white) Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Hourly discharge and water temperature at Birchbank (WSC No. 08NE0558) for the period of May 1 to June 30, The arrow indicates when eggs were observed at Genelle on June 17, Transparent box indicates approximate timing of egg deposition, based on egg stage A shorthead sculpin male and nest were observed on the indicated rock in its current location 15 cm from the wetted edge (red line) of Pass Creek on July 14, Hourly discharge and water temperature at Birchbank (BIR) on the LCR during a two-stage flow reduction event (depicted by arrows) at HLK Dam, March 30 and 31, HLK and ALH hourly discharges are also presented Hourly discharge at Brilliant Dam (BRD/BRX) on the lower Kootenay River during load shaping, May 5 to 7, Hourly discharge and water temperature at Birchbank (BBK) on the LCR are also presented for comparison. Arrows depict the sampling period during surveys conducted at the Kootenay Campground index site AMEC File: VE Page iv

7 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table 1: LIST OF TABLES Life stage categories and associated lengths used for habitat use analyses, sculpins and dace LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Sample Timing APPENDIX B Sculpin Nest Data APPENDIX C Electrofishing Data APPENDIX D Larval Dace Data APPENDIX E Habitat & Displacement Analyses APPENDIX F Index Site Habitat Availability Data APPENDIX G Distribution Maps APPENDIX H HLK Flow Reduction Memo APPENDIX I BRD Flow Reduction Memo APPENDIX J Movement Summary Photo Plates AMEC File: VE Page v

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

9 Lower Columbia Sculpin & Dace Cover Photos: Clockwise from top left - Columbia sculpin (Cottus hubbsi); Umatilla dace (Rhinichthys umatilla); Torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus) with Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) tag; Shorthead sculpin (Cottus confusus) nest in Pass Creek; Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tracking antennae. Recommended Citation: AMEC Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43). Year 2 Data Report. Report Prepared for: BC Hydro, Castlegar. Prepared by: AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd. 56pp + 13 App. Key Words: Sculpin, dace, lower Columbia River, life history, spawn timing, larval rearing, overwintering, movements, egg development, hatch. AMEC File: VE Page vii

10 Lower Columbia Sculpin & Dace ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following people are gratefully acknowledged for assistance and information contributions during this study: BC Hydro David DeRosa, Castlegar Guy Martel, Burnaby Gary Birch, Burnaby Jamie Crossman, Castlegar James Baxter, Castlegar Marco Marrello, Castlegar Dean Den Biesen, Castlegar University of British Columbia Don McPhail, Vancouver Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Natural Resource Operations Kristen Murphy, Nelson Tara White, Penticton Sue Pollard, Victoria Jordan Rosenfeld, Vancouver Canadian Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission Jim Clarricoates, Cranbrook Mark Thomas, Cranbrook Kyle Shottanana, Cranbrook Virgil Benallie, Cranbrook Jon Bissett, Cranbrook The following employees of AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd. contributed to the collection of data and preparation of this report: Louise Porto, MSc., R.P.Bio. Crystal Lawrence Rachel Keeler, MSc., R.P.Bio. Eoin O Neill Carol Lavis Senior Aquatic Habitat Biologist, Author Aquatic Biologist, CoAuthor Aquatic Biologist, Reviewer GIS Technician Administration/Formatting The following subcontractor also contributed to this program: Clint Tarala Field Technician Subcontractor AMEC File: VE Page viii

11 Lower Columbia Sculpin & Dace EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Columbia River Water Use Plan Consultative Committee identified that limited information was available to assess the potential impacts of seasonal operations of Hugh L. Keenleyside (HLK) Dam on sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River (LCR) that are listed under the Species-At-Risk Act (SARA). Specifically, the Umatilla dace and Columbia sculpin are listed as Special Concern and the shorthead sculpin is listed as Threatened. During this process, several data gaps were identified with respect to fish habitat use and productivity in the LCR. The LCR sculpin and dace life history assessment (CLBMON-43) program s main objective is to collect information on the life history, timing, and habitat use of four sculpin (prickly, torrent, Columbia, and shorthead) and two dace (Umatilla and longnose) species that may be affected by water level fluctuations resulting from daily and seasonal operation of HLK Dam. While all six species require study, the focus of the study is on the federally listed species (shorthead and Columbia sculpin; Umatilla dace) in the LCR. The present report discusses the results of Year 2, which was conducted in 2010 to assess life history timing and habitats of these fishes as well as the potential impacts due to dam operations. The current state of knowledge with respect to BC Hydro s management questions for CLBMON-43 is provided in the following table. Management Question How do water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal) in the lower Columbia River affect the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace, especially the listed species? What seasonal and diel habitat shifts do sculpins and dace (especially the listed species) make in response to water level fluctuations? Does the operation of HLK Dam alter these natural movements? Specifically, does the risk of stranding increase? Status - Preliminary observations in the LCR indicate that diel fish distribution may change in response to water level fluctuations since sculpins were observed to move away from areas threatened with dewatering; dace were not observed at this time. - Habitat use (diel and seasonal) for sculpins was not observed to vary at this time. However, this is only based on investigations during two flow changes since the program s focus was on the collection of life history attributes. - As indicated above, preliminary observations in the LCR indicated that diel habitat shifts for sculpins did not occur in response to water level fluctuations. Further information on seasonal flow fluctuations is required. - It cannot be concluded at this time whether the operations of HLK Dam specifically alter the natural movements of target species and increase the risk of stranding. However, information collected in the LCR and in the unregulated systems studied provides initial observations to start answering this management question. - Preliminary information indicates that some tagged sculpins moved to deeper areas during flow fluctuations, thus potentially avoiding becoming stranded. However, it is unknown whether these sculpins had to make movements more frequently compared to what occurs naturally at this time. Some AMEC File: VE Page ix

12 Lower Columbia Sculpin & Dace Management Question Which operations, and at what season, pose the highest risk of stranding or interference with the normal life cycles of sculpins and dace? Status sculpins did not move if they were located in deeper/steeper sided locations that did not seem at risk of dewatering. - Preliminary comparisons did not observe differences between pre- and post-flow reduction movements, but this finding is limited because of the small numbers of fish tracked during one HLK flow reduction event in March Sculpins and dace may be vulnerable to interstitial stranding, especially while spawning, as they are often associated with larger cobble substrates having interstitial spaces which are used for cover and spawning. - The period most critical to sculpins and dace life history seems to be the adult egg guarding phase (June/July), since males will stay with their eggs even when water levels decline and dewatered eggs as well as the male may die. Additionally, the sculpins and dace larval rearing period that occurs from July to late August is also a time of high risk for stranding, since this life stage occupies warm, shallow, flooded areas that are prone to dewatering. The overwinter period is a time for sculpins to put on gonadal weight in preparation for spawning the next season (AMEC 2010a). - Natural spawn timing for sculpins occurs along the descending limb of the hydrograph and commences when water temperatures are approximately 8 C. Spawn timing for dace is not available at this time. - In the LCR, the onset of spawning for sculpins occurred during the ascending limb of the hydrograph when water temperatures were approximately 8 C in Although this observed shift from natural spawn timing may reduce the incidence of stranding, it may have implications on abundance and distribution as well as survival. - Male sculpins guard their nests until eggs hatch and will stay on the nest even if it becomes dewatered as evidenced in Pass Creek (unregulated system). Egg survival is usually high in natural systems (~90-95%). - In the LCR, sculpin nests observed at Genelle (mainstem area) had much lower egg survival (8-25%) compared to what is observed in unregulated rivers; there were no significant enough reductions to suggest that the nests at Genelle could have been dewatered. - Dace spawning was not directly observed, but the presence of young-of-the-year (YOY) dace throughout the summer suggests that the spawning period may occur in pulses. Therefore, flow changes in July causing newly flooded or other suitable AMEC File: VE Page x

13 Lower Columbia Sculpin & Dace Management Question Status spawning areas to dewater may interfere with the normal life cycle of dace. In the LCR, YOY dace were observed in quiet, warm, vegetated shoreline margins after emergence and throughout the summer; this is similar to what is observed in unregulated systems. AMEC File: VE Page xi

14 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace 1.0 INTRODUCTION Operations of the Hugh L. Keenleyside (HLK) Dam (Figure 1) affect the trophic productivity, quality and quantity of aquatic habitat, and the ecological health of the lower Columbia River (Aquametrix 1994; AMEC 2010a). As such, the Columbia River Water Use Plan (WUP) was initiated to address flow management issues with respect to impacts on competing water users in the lower Columbia River, including fish, wildlife, domestic water supplies, recreationists, heritage uses, and electrical power needs. During the Columbia River WUP process, the Columbia River WUP Consultative Committee (CC) identified that biological data on threatened and endangered shallow water fish species, such as sculpins and dace, were lacking in the lower Columbia River (BC Hydro 2007). Specifically, limited information was available to assess potential impacts of seasonal operations of HLK Dam on endangered sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River. To address this data gap, the Columbia River WUP Consultative Committee recommended that a study to determine the relative abundance, distribution, life histories, and habitat use of sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River between HLK Dam and the US border be undertaken (BC Hydro Terms of Reference (TOR) 2007). Species of interest include four species of sculpin and two species of dace: prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), shorthead sculpin (C. confusus), Columbia sculpin (C. hubbsi), torrent sculpin (C. rhotheus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) and Umatilla dace (R. umatilla). Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace are both listed as a Species of Special Concern under the Species-At-Risk-Act (SARA), while the Shorthead sculpin is listed under SARA as Threatened (Government of Canada 2011). Limited information exists on the ecology and behaviour of sculpins and dace in the lower Columbia River (McPhail 2007, AMEC 2010a). Previous studies targeting sculpins and dace mainly focused on methods to inventory and determine abundance and density of these species (R.L.&L. 1995, Golder 2002, AMEC 2003). Fish stranding and ramping studies conducted in the lower Columbia River by BC Hydro also provided information on distribution and relative abundance of these species. A few studies have collected seasonal and/or diel habitat use information on sculpins and dace (R.L.&L. 1995, AMEC 2003). Fish identification to the species level has been problematic and many have been misidentified in previous studies (AMEC 2010a). Also, in order to rapidly identify fish species and to focus on specific project objectives, many studies did not always identify fishes to the species level, which limits the species specific information available (AMEC 2010a). It is important that the life history, timing and habitat use of these species, and in particular those federally listed, be assessed to determine potential impacts of flow fluctuations resulting from daily and seasonal operation of HLK Dam. It is also necessary to study these species life history, timing and habitat use in a natural, unregulated setting. Therefore, in 2009 studies were conducted in the unregulated Similkameen system to fill in data gaps for some of the target species (AMEC 2010b). Sampling in the Similkameen system, which included the Similkameen and Tulameen rivers as well as Otter and Allison creeks, was conducted because a number of this program s target species were present in high abundances (AMEC 2010a). Following initial life history information collection, methodology assessment and refinement in the Similkameen system, studies were transferred to the lower Columbia River in October AMEC File: VE Page 1

15 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace 2.0 OBJECTIVES Management Questions of the Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History study (CLBMON-43) as outlined in the Terms of Reference (TOR) for this project are provided below (BC Hydro TOR 2007): 1. How do water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal) in the lower Columbia River affect the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace, especially the listed species? 2. What seasonal and diel habitat shifts do sculpins and dace (especially the listed species) make in response to water level fluctuations? 3. Do the operations of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam alter these natural movements? Specifically, does this risk of stranding increase? 4. Which operations, and at what season, pose the highest risk of stranding or interference with the normal life cycles of sculpins and dace? As knowledge of the basic life history and habitat use requirements for most of these species is lacking, the TOR specified that the monitoring program be designed around the following Detailed Questions: A. Are there specific spawning areas utilized by the Columbia sculpin and the Umatilla dace and, if so, what are the temporal and biophysical characteristics of these areas? B. Are there specific nursery areas used by Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics? C. Are there seasonal and diel shifts in habitat use by these species and, if so, how do these shifts relate to daily or seasonal water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal)? D. Do different age classes of Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace use different habitats seasonally and, if so, do diel habitat shifts differ among age classes? E. Are there over-wintering habitats used by these species and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics? F. Do diel and seasonal water level fluctuations affect spawning behaviour, embryo survival, or adult nest guarding behaviour of Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace? 2.1 Purpose The following fulfills our commitment to provide BC Hydro with a data report for Year 2 (2010) of this program and adds to the dataset collected to support BC Hydro s specific objectives and management questions outlined above. This report covers sculpin and dace studies conducted in the LCR from March through August 2010 (Year 2) and provides comparisons to information collected in Year 1 (2009) on the unregulated Similkameen system, where applicable. AMEC File: VE Page 2

16 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace 3.0 METHODS 3.1 Study Area Although the study area encompassed the approximately 58 km section of the lower Columbia River from HLK Dam to the U.S. Border (Figure 1), the focus of the study was limited to a smaller number of index sites as directed by the TOR. Five index sites were studied in Year 2, which included: i) Pass Creek; ii) Kootenay River Campground; iii) Kootenay River mouth (confluence of the Kootenay and Columbia rivers); iv) Beaver Creek; and, v) Beaver Creek mouth (confluence of Beaver Creek and the Columbia River) (Figure 1). These sites were initially chosen based on the presence of target species and access to the study site during all seasons. Detailed descriptions of each index site are provided in AMEC 2010b. Additional sample sites were also included in the LCR study area to address questions related to seasonal habitat use and life history timing for larval stages of these target species (Figure 1). 3.2 Environmental Parameters In order to address the management questions outlined for this program (Section 1.0) information on discharge and water temperature was collected. Hourly discharge and water temperature records included the Water Survey Canada (WSC) gauge (No: 08NE0558) near Birchbank, HLK Dam, Arrow Lakes Generating Station (ALH), and Brilliant Dam (BRX and BRD). Records were obtained from the MS Access database provided by the BC Hydro contract authority for this program. Hobo Tidbit v2 water temperature loggers were also deployed in Pass and Beaver creeks as well as the Kootenay River index sites on October 24, The loggers recorded water temperature every hour. Temperature loggers were last downloaded on November 24, Temperature loggers were removed from Pass and Beaver creeks at this time while the logger in the Kootenay River continues to record data. 3.3 Sample Timing In 2010, sampling was conducted seasonally to cover the winter, spring and summer periods. Due to the number of species and differences in life history timing between sculpins and dace, some site assessments focused on specific species. Also, not all sites were sampled during each survey. Field surveys conducted in Year 2 focused on anticipated spawning times of the target species (Figure 2). Two flow reductions were also captured: i) HLK reduction in March; and, ii) BRD load shaping in May (further information provided in results). A summary of sampling dates and specific activities for Year 2 is provided in Appendix A. AMEC File: VE Page 3

17 Arrow Lakes Generating Station 0 Hugh L. Keenelyside Dam Celgar Blueberry Creek Norns Pass/Creek 5 Norns Fan Robson Bridge Millenium Park Castlegar Pass Creek CPR Bridge Zuckerberg Island Kootenay Mouth 10 Brilliant Dam 15 Columbia River Kootenay Campground Kootenay Oxbow Kootenay River Legend River Km Sample Site 2009/2010 Index Sites Birchbank Water Survey Canada Station Dam City / Town River Lake Waterloo Eddy China Creek 20 Champion Creek Genelle Murphy Creek 30 Y:\GIS\Proposals\VE9999_CPC Sturgeon\Mapping\MXD\Drafts\overview_v3.mxd Canada United States Gyro Park Boat Launch Trail 35 Trail Bridge Casino Creek Waneta Eddy Bear Creek Rock Island Beaver Mouth Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Ft. Shepherd Eddy Waneta Dam Fort Sheppard Boat Launch Pend d'oreille River Reference Freshwater Atlas scale 1:20,000. CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: JOB No: Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) Map of Lower Columbia River Depicting Index and Seasonal Monitoring Study Areas November 8, 2010 VE51872 GIS FILE: overview_v2.mxd PROJECTION: UTM Zone 11 Scale: 1:200,000 Kilometres BC Hydro ANALYST: EO QA/QC: LP DATUM: NAD83 Figure 1 PDF FILE: overview_v2.pdf

18 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Figure 2: Hydrograph of discharge and water temperature in the LCR at Birchbank (WSC No. 08NE0558) and discharge at Hugh L. Keenleyside (HLK) Dam and Arrow Lakes Generating Station (ALH), Discharge records from January 1 to March 1 for HLK were missing as was temperature from Nov 9 to 11, Arrows indicate dates of field surveys and expected species to sample (CC = sculpin sp. and DC = dace sp.). 3.4 Adult Fish Sampling Backpack Electrofishing In order to determine spawn timing, behaviour, and location (Specific Questions A and E) backpack electrofishing was used opportunistically to determine the presence and sexual maturity of target sculpin and dace species. If males were expressing milt and if females abdomens appeared soft or urogenital pores swollen they were considered sexually mature. In 2010, electrofishing was conducted prior to the suspected spawning period for sculpins and dace (June through August) in May at two index sites (Beaver Creek and Kootenay River mouth). In July 2010, additional electrofishing was conducted below HLK Dam to determine whether this area would be adequate for future index locations. Additionally, this method was used to determine the relative abundance and distribution of target species prior to an HLK flow reduction event (March 30 and ) at known LCR AMEC File: VE Page 5

19 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace stranding index sites (BC Hydro Stranding database) for comparison with stranding surveys conducted by BC Hydro (Specific Questions C and E; Management Questions 1 through 4). A Smith-Root LR-24 backpack electrofisher was used, with conductivity settings based on current water quality conditions and fish response/recovery. Two crew members, one operating the electrofisher and the other dip netting, conducted electrofishing surveys in wadeable shoreline areas of interest. Measurements recorded included: electrofishing start/end time; electrofishing seconds; electrofisher settings as well as the length and width of the area electrofished. Initial capture/tagging and CPUE for target species collected at index sites (October 2009) are found in AMEC (2010b) PIT Tag Tracking Target fish were tagged in October 2009 at index locations (AMEC 2010b, Figure 1). Tracking previously tagged fish in the LCR was used in order to answer Detailed Questions A, C, D, and E as well as Management Questions 1 through 3. Fish previously tagged with Passive Integrated Transponders (PIT) at LCR index sites in Year 1 were tracked during the day and night to determine location, behaviour and microhabitat use as per our methodology as detailed in AMEC (2010b). PIT tagging required an 8.5 or 11.5 mm tag to be surgically inserted into the fish s abdomen, and a Visual Implant Elastomer (VIE) tag to be inserted into the epidermis, as liquid which hardens into a visible marker, on the top of the head. A portable handheld PIT tag antennae designed by Destron Fearing Corp. (MN, USA) was used similarly to a metal detector to scan wadable habitat for PIT tagged fish. One crew member systematically scanned the entire index site with the PIT tag antennae from the downstream end to the upstream boundary. Tag detection with the PIT tag antennae is approximately cm for 8.5 mm tags and approximately cm for 11.5 mm tags. Upon locating a tagged fish, the second crew member recorded the GPS location and entered microhabitat use information (Section 3.9) into a Trimble GeoXM Snorkel Observations & Dip Netting Snorkel surveys were conducted to collect micro-habitat use information for YOY, juvenile and adult life stages of sculpins and dace (Detailed Questions A, B, C and E; Management Question 1 and 2). Day-time snorkel surveys were conducted by crew members experienced with identification of sculpins and dace. The snorkeler entered the water at the downstream end of the area to be surveyed and swam in an upstream direction along the shoreline searching for sculpins and dace. In some cases, this required disturbing the substrate (e.g., boulders) to see if a sculpin was using it for cover or if a nest was present. As snorkelling was not being used to determine abundances, systematic observation of all sculpins and dace habitat was not completed (i.e. every rock in the area was not overturned to determine if a sculpin was underneath). In general, snorkel observations were made in transects along the shoreline toward the thalweg of the site up to the point where swimming could not be maintained due to flow conditions. Additionally, snorkelling was limited to areas with higher visibility, so that bottom substrates and fish were observable (Photo Plate 1). Transects were completed in an upstream direction to minimize fish disturbance. Fish species, length (mm) and microhabitat information (Section 3.9) were recorded at each observation. Fish were captured by hand-held aquarium dip nets, when possible, to confirm species identification and estimated length. AMEC File: VE Page 6

20 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace 3.5 Young-of-the-Year (YOY) Sampling In order to answer Detailed Question A and B, YOY sampling was conducted at index sites and at the following locations in the LCR study area: HLK (right bank); downstream of Celgar (right bank); Norns Fan; Castlegar-Robson Bridge (left bank); CPR Bridge; Millenium Park; Kootenay Oxbow; Genelle (Boat Launch, main right bank area, and within a side channel named Channel E ); Gyro Park Boat Launch; Trail Bridge (left bank); Beaver Creek Boat Launch; Fort Sheppard Boat Launch; and, immediately downstream of the Pend d Oreille confluence on the left bank (Figure 1). YOY sampling was conducted from mid-june to late August 2010 to cover the late spring and summer period (Appendix A). Sample methods included the use of hand-held dip nets, lip seines, beach seines, snorkelling, and drift nets. In June/July, observers walked along flooded river and stream margins and dip netted or lip seined larval fish to determine species. In deeper locations along the shoreline, snorkel observations were taken and YOY were captured by dip net when possible (June through August). In late summer, when flooded areas receded (August), seine nets were used to sample wadeable habitats where dip netting was not effective. Two larval drift nets (0.3 m x 0.5 m rectangular mouth x 1 m length) were used in Pass Creek on July 14, One net was set at the midsection of the index site and another net was set at the downstream tail-out of the site for approximately two hours (Photo Plate 2). Drift nets were set in Pass Creek for at total of 2.5 and 3.5 hours for the two sites, respectively, and were checked intermittently since debris would fill up the net within this time period. No larval sculpins or dace were captured in the drift nets. 3.6 Incidental Captures during other programs Incidental capture of adult sculpins also occurred during BC Hydro s larval white sturgeon sampling program in Drift nets (0.8 m x 0.6 m D-ring mouth x 1.58 m length) were set below the Arrow Lakes Generating Station (ALGS) and downstream of the Kinnaird Bridge to collect larval white sturgeon under the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon WLR program (J. Crossman, Sturgeon Biologist, BC Hydro, Castlegar, BC, pers. comm., 2010). An AMEC biologist accompanied the BC Hydro white sturgeon field crew on August 5, 2010 during retrieval of these drift nets to identify collected sculpins to species and measure their total length. A sub-sample of sculpins was preserved to verify their identification. 3.7 Nest Assessments Nest assessments were used to answer Specific Question A and E as well as Management Question 1 and 4. Nest assessments were conducted during suspected spawning seasons for target species at index sites on the LCR as per methods detailed in AMEC 2010b. A male sculpin will establish and guard a nest rock under which female sculpins will deposit egg masses to be fertilized. More than one female can place eggs on the underneath of a single male s rock through the spawning period and each clump of eggs deposited can be identified by the number, colour and egg stage (AMEC 2010a). Egg diameter is similar for all sculpin species, except for prickly sculpin which lay significantly more eggs per clump and lay smaller diameter eggs (AMEC 2010a, AMEC 2010b). Less is known about dace spawning, but egg AMEC File: VE Page 7

21 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace diameters of longnose and Umatilla dace are similar (AMEC 2010a). Male dace clear a patch of gravel creating a depression to be used for spawning. Females lay eggs and males fertilize them over these cleaned gravel areas. PIT tag tracking was used to find nest guarding male sculpins at index sites. In addition, random nest searches were conducted at index sites and at other locations in the LCR study area. Random nest searches consisted of overturning cobble and boulder substrates to search for the presence of sculpins eggs in wadable areas. Snorkel surveys were also used to access deeper areas with appropriate substrates to conduct random nest searches. Nest searches for dace were also conducted within these locations. However, observations of dace aggregations, cleaned gravel areas, and eggs were not observed during wading and snorkeling. Microhabitat information was collected at the location of each sculpin nest (Section 3.9). Also, the number of female sculpin egg masses, development stage, total number of eggs and egg diameter were also measured. Random nest surveys were conducted within sample sites at the following locations within the LCR study area: HLK (right bank); Norns Fan; Castlegar-Robson Bridge (left bank); CPR Bridge; Millenium Park; Kootenay Oxbow; Genelle (Boat Launch and Channel E); Gyro Park Boat Launch; Trail Bridge; Beaver Creek Boat Launch; Fort Sheppard Boat Launch; and, immediately downstream of the Pend d Oreille confluence on the left bank (Figure 1). 3.8 Verification of Sculpin & Dace Identification Identification of sculpins and dace to the species level can be difficult due to similar external features attributed to several of these species (AMEC 2010a). Voucher specimens and photographs were collected during the study period to confirm species identification. A sample of adult and YOY sculpins as well as YOY dace were sent to Dr. Don McPhail (Curator Emeritus, University of British Columbia Fish Museum, Vancouver, BC) to confirm species identification. Dr. McPhail confirmed that all vouchered specimens were correctly identified by the AMEC study team. 3.9 Microhabitat Use Measurements In order to answer Detailed Questions A, C, D and E as well as Management Question 1, 2 and 3, habitat use information was recorded at locations where PIT tagged fish were observed during tracking surveys, snorkel surveys, YOY sampling, and nest assessments. Measurements recorded were similar to Year 1 and included depth (m), mean column water velocity (m/s), substrate type, % substrate embeddedness, presence of vegetation, location (i.e., bank (left, right, center), distance to bank (m)), and other relevant observations. Further details are provided in AMEC (2010b) Index Site Habitat Assessments Habitat availability was assessed during each PIT tag tracking survey at index sites for the entire tracked area. Point habitat measurements were taken along transect lines set perpendicular to the shore with a Trimble GeoXM GSP unit. Transects were set at regular intervals approximately every 15 m with 2 to 5 points taken per transect depending on the width. AMEC File: VE Page 8

22 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Habitat measurements taken were similar to those listed in Section 3.9, though substrates were quantified by the relative contribution of silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, bedrock and vegetation in a 1 m 2 area at the habitat point. The area tracked within each index site was spatially defined via the Trimble GeoXM unit to obtain boundaries. Further details are also provided in AMEC (2010b) Data Analyses The TOR specified that this program was qualitative in nature, therefore most data were tabulated and summarized by descriptive statistics (means, SD, SE, 95% CI) where possible. All data collected in the LCR system (Year 1 and 2) were housed in an MS Access database developed in Year 2. Habitat use data were compared by season and day versus night for target species where information was available. Multivariate ANOVA was used for multiple comparisons with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Habitat information collected during specified periods of load-shaping and HLK flow reductions were analyzed separately in order to attribute habitat shifts to flow changes, if applicable. Comparisons of habitat use among age classes were facilitated by assigning life stages to all captured individuals based on general life history and development for sculpin and dace species as outlined in AMEC (2010a). General life history categories included adult, juvenile and YOY (Table 1). Habitat information collected during tracking and snorkelling surveys were pooled together, where possible. Table 1: Life stage categories and associated lengths used for habitat use analyses, sculpins and dace. Adult Juvenile YOY >40 mm >20-40 mm up to 20 mm It was very difficult to identify YOY <15 mm TL to species. Therefore, analyses of YOY habitats were conducted by pooling observations into general sculpins or dace categories. Detections of PIT-tagged fishes over time provided the basis of all movement data. The distances moved by PIT-tagged adult sculpins and dace were determined by calculating the difference between detection locations over time as described in AMEC (2010b). Movements were described as displacement distance (or displacement) instead of movement distance to distinguish between movements that subsequent tracking events recorded. The number, mean, minimum and maximum displacement distances by season were calculated for shorthead, torrent and prickly sculpins for comparison purposes; data was not available or too limited to calculate this for the other species. An ANOVA was used to determine differences between seasonal displacements for shorthead sculpins; data was too limited for other species to make these comparisons. All analyses and descriptive statistics were compiled using JMP (Version 7.0) statistical software. AMEC File: VE Page 9

23 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace 4.0 RESULTS The following section is structured based on the Detailed and Management Questions outlined in Section 1. Detailed Questions are presented first because information collected to answer these questions provides the basis for answering the broader Management Questions specified for this program. The letter and/or number for each question are referenced in parentheses under each subheading. In the absence of data for species that are sometimes directly referred to within each Detailed and/or Management question, we have provided information from a closely related/associated species as a proxy for the listed species. In addition, the Detailed Questions outlined in the TOR do not specify information for shorthead sculpins. However, shorthead sculpins are a listed species in the LCR and the Management Questions for this program include listed species. Therefore, information on shorthead sculpins is also provided under the pertinent subsections below. Comparisons to the unregulated Similkameen system are also provided, where applicable. 4.1 Detailed Questions Are there specific spawning areas utilized by the Columbia sculpin and the Umatilla dace and, if so, what are the temporal and biophysical characteristics of these areas? (A) Columbia Sculpin Spawning Habitat Use One Columbia sculpin nest was observed at Robson during the spawning period (Appendix B). No other nest and spawning observations were reported at any other locations during the study period; tagged and marked Columbia sculpin initially captured at the Kootenay Campground index site in October 2009 had not been tracked at the time of this writing. It is possible that 11 nests discovered at Genelle belonged to Columbia sculpins, but the identification of these nests could not be confirmed (see Sculpin Species below). On June 17, 2010, one Columbia sculpin nest was found on the left bank downstream of the Castlegar-Robson Bridge and upstream of the CPR Bridge (Figure 3). Two Columbia sculpins were present on the nest and one fish, a female, was captured by dip net. The female was spent as observed from the red and swollen gonadopore (Figure 4). Fertilized eggs on the underside of the nest rock were freshly deposited based on their bright yellow colouration (Figure 3). The nest was located 2 m from the shoreline in run habitat with cobble substrate (~10% embeddedness) at a water depth of 0.4 m, average water velocity of 0.05 m/s (Appendix B). It was estimated that the area in which the nest was located had likely been flooded within the last two weeks. No other nests were found at this location. AMEC File: VE Page 10

24 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Figure 3: Columbia sculpin nest observed on June 17, 2010 downstream of the Castlegar- Robson Bridge on the left bank. The bright yellow egg clump was believed to have been recently deposited. Two Columbia sculpins, including a captured female, were observed at the nest. Figure 4: Captured female Columbia sculpin from a nest observed downstream of the Castlegar- Robson Bridge on June 17, The red circle indicates the location of the swollen, red gonadopore. This fish was suspected to have recently spawned. Additional spawning habitat use for Columbia sculpins in the LCR may include areas where larval sculpins were collected. Larval sculpins may remain in nearshore areas close to their hatching locations, therefore spawning may have occurred in proximity to these sites. However, due to the difficulty of identifying larval sculpins <20 mm total length, some fish could only be identified as Columbia sculpin or shorthead sculpin and no further delineation was possible. Further information on potential spawning habitat use, where larval Columbia and shorthead sculpins were observed, is provided in Section AMEC File: VE Page 11

25 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace The Columbia sculpin nest observed in the LCR study area was in a habitat similar to those used at index sites studied in the Similkameen River watershed, where a larger population of this species resides (AMEC 2010b). In Otter Creek, Columbia sculpin were observed to use run or riffle habitat with boulder and cobble substrates having an embeddedness range between 10-40%. Nests were located where depths ranged from 0.27 to 0.67 m, with average velocities ranging from 0.36 to 0.74 m/s (late May through mid-june). In the Tulameen River, Columbia sculpin nests were in riffle habitats with boulder and cobble substrates (10-30% embeddedness) at depths ranging from 0.10 to 0.48 m and average velocity ranging from 0.17 to 1.11 m/s. Spawn Timing Spawn timing, which includes the deposition, incubation, and hatching of eggs, is not available for Columbia sculpins in the LCR at this time, since only one nest was observed in However, a generalized spawn timing estimate for sculpins in the LCR is provided below (Sculpin Species), which likely encompasses timing for Columbia sculpins. On August 5, 2010, two Columbia sculpin YOY identified by AMEC were captured in white sturgeon larval drift nets set downstream of the Kinnaird Bridge (BC Hydro, unpublished). Columbia sculpins are approximately 9 mm in length when they hatch (AMEC 2010a). These fish measured 15 and 20 mm TL, suggesting that they had hatched and emerged by end of July/early August. Columbia sculpin nests found in the Similkameen River watershed during our Year 1 investigations indicated that spawning occurred between mid-may and mid-july when water temperatures were between 8 C and 15 C (AMEC 2010b). In Otter Creek, the Columbia sculpin spawning period occurred from mid-may to mid-june with average water temperatures ranging from 8 C to a peak of 13 C when eggs were observed to hatch. In the Tulameen River, the Columbia sculpin spawning period occurred from early to mid-june until early to mid-july with average daily water temperatures ranging from 8 C to 15 C. It was determined that spawning was more influenced by temperature than discharge since both Otter Creek and the Tulameen River had very different discharge regimes. Shorthead Sculpin Spawning Habitat Use Shorthead sculpin spawning habitats were observed through tracking PIT-tagged fish and random nest observations collected at Pass Creek. It is possible that the 11 nests discovered at Genelle belonged to shorthead sculpins, but the identification of these nests could not be confirmed because fish were not directly captured and identified from the nests (see Sculpin Species below). One sculpin nest was also observed in Pass Creek on June 29, The nest from Pass Creek most likely belonged to a shorthead sculpin as the majority of sculpins captured in Pass Creek were shortheads and nests belonging to shorthead sculpins with similarly staged eggs were located on July 14 in close proximity to the nest observed on June 29, 2010 (see below). The nest discovered on June 29, 2010 was found approximately 3 m from the left bank in riffle habitat on a large cobble at a depth of approximately 0.3 m (D. DeRosa, Natural Resource Specialist, BC Hydro, Castlegar, pers. comm., 2010). Five shorthead sculpin nests were also observed on July 14, 2010 at the Pass Creek index site (Figures 5 and 6). Four of these nests were in run habitat with boulder and cobble substrates (5-40% embeddedness). Water depths at the nests ranged from 0.42 to 0.62 m with average velocity ranging from 0.43 to 0.66 m/s (Appendix B). The number of female egg masses per AMEC File: VE Page 12

26 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace nest ranged from 1 to 4 and the number of eggs per mass ranged from 42 to 305 (Appendix B). One nest was located in a recently dewatered area (Section 4.1.6). Additional spawning habitat use for shorthead sculpins may include areas where larval sculpins were collected. Further information on potential spawning habitat use, where larval Columbia and shorthead sculpins were observed, is provided in Section Shorthead sculpin were not present in the Similkameen system, so comparisons cannot be made. Figure 5: Shorthead sculpin nest with moving, eyed eggs observed in Pass Creek on July 14, Figure 6: Shorthead sculpin nest containing four egg masses observed in Pass Creek on July 14, AMEC File: VE Page 13

27 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Spawning Timing Spawn timing for shorthead sculpin in Pass Creek is estimated to range from mid- to late June to late July, when average daily water temperatures were between 8 C to 14 C (Figure 7). Spawning likely did not begin before average daily water temperatures reached 8 C, since nests were not observed on June 15, 2010 when intensive nest searches were conducted in Pass Creek (Figure 7). Discharge and water level information was not available for Pass Creek during this period. However, photos taken from March to July 2010 along the left bank of the Pass Creek index site provide an indication of the discharge regime during the spawning period (Photo Plate 3). Water levels were lowest at this site during winter tracking on March 28, rising slightly by the initial spring tracking session on May 6, 2010 (Photo Plate 3). Water levels increased through the spring with the highest level observed on June 14, 2010 at which point the left bank was completely inundated to the base of shoreline vegetation. Flows had declined on July 14, 2010 to approximately early May levels (Photo Plate 3). Estimated spawn timing is based on eggs observed on June 29 during random nest checks and July 14, 2010 during tracking surveys. The eggs in the nest discovered on June 29, 2010 were not yet eyed and contained two egg masses, one of which appeared newer than the other (D. DeRosa, BC Hydro, pers. comm., 2010). The nests observed on July 14, 2010 had between one to four egg masses. Egg stages observed on July 14, 2010 included eyed and not moving, eyed and moving, hatching, and hatched. Water temperatures had reached daily averages near 8 C prior to June 19, 2010 (7.3 C, 7.2 C, 7.6 C on May 13, June 3 and June 13, respectively; Figure 7). Water temperatures were not available beyond July 23, 2010 for Pass Creek because the thermologger was found lying on the bank beside the river on a subsequent visit. AMEC File: VE Page 14

28 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Figure 7: Estimated spawning period for shorthead sculpin in Pass Creek, Water temperature was recorded within the Pass Creek index site until July 23, Circles indicate dates of tracking surveys with relative water levels based on photos taken from a benchmark location. Red lines indicate dates nests were observed. Sculpin Species General spawn timing for sculpins in the LCR is estimated to range from the end of May to mid- July, when average daily water temperatures at Birchbank were between 9 C to 16 C (Figure 8). Discharge during the estimated spawning period was increasing at the end of May and peaked in early June and again in mid July (Figure 2). This was the highest discharge period observed during 2010 (Figure 2). Estimated spawn timing is based on the one Columbia sculpin nest observed at the Castlegar- Robson Bridge and 11 unidentified sculpin nests observed at Genelle. The nests at Genelle were also observed on June 17, 2010 (as was the one Columbia sculpin nest), within 2 to 3 m of the shoreline along the right bank of the LCR mainstem in an area beginning approximately 200 m downstream of the boat launch (Photo Plate 4). It is possible that the nests belonged to either Columbia, torrent or shorthead sculpins based on the diameter of eggs, but observed sculpins could not be captured during the snorkel survey to confirm their identification. Darkly coloured male sculpins were observed moving from nest rock locations when the substrate was disturbed during this survey. Nests were in run habitat with mostly boulder and some cobble substrates (between 10-20% embeddedness) at depths between 0.5 to 1.2 m with velocities ranging from AMEC File: VE Page 15

29 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace an estimated 0.1 to 0.5 m/s (Appendix B). The majority of the eggs from these nests were dead and/or fungused (Figure 9; Section 4.1.6). The stage of the eggs observed at the nests found at Genelle ranged from un-eyed fertilized eggs to eyed, but unmoving eggs (Appendix B). Based on these observations, the eggs found at Genelle may have been deposited up to 20 days prior, when average daily water temperatures at Birchbank were about 9 C (Figure 8). Figure 8: General estimated spawning period for sculpins in the LCR, Arrow indicates date when YOY sculpins were observed in white sturgeon larval drift nets at river km 18.2 in the LCR. Water temperature and discharge were measured in the LCR at Birchbank (WSC Station No. 08NE0558). AMEC File: VE Page 16

30 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Figure 9: Sculpin nest observed in the LCR downstream of Genelle on June 17, A portion of the eggs in this nest were eyed (yellow) while the majority were dead (white). Dace Species No direct observations of spawning Umatilla dace, areas of cleaned gravel, deposited eggs, and/or males guarding nests were recorded in 2010 despite 27.5 hrs of snorkelling effort at 14 different locations during the suspected spawning period (Appendix A). Electrofishing was also used on three separate occasions between late May and mid-july in an attempt to capture ripe dace. No Umatilla dace were captured during 2347 electrofishing seconds in Year 2 (Appendix C, Table C1). However, nine Umatilla dace were captured at the Beaver Creek mouth on July 13, 2010 during 2 hrs of lip seining effort. These fish were likely juveniles to sub-adults as they ranged in size from 34 to 47 mm TL. They were checked for maturity, but no signs of sexual ripeness were observed. Little information is available for Umatilla dace spawning. However, information on longnose dace is helpful to discern general spawning behavior for this species. Longnose dace spawning occurs over a depression of cleaned substrate created by the male whom defends the area following egg deposition and fertilization. Egg incubation time is approximately one week and fry are about 6 mm TL at hatch and 8 mm TL when their yolk is absorbed and exogenous feeding begins (AMEC 2010a; McPhail 2007). It is possible that dace nursery areas were close to spawning areas since larval dace 12 mm TL were observed at: i) Beaver Creek mouth (July 15 and 23); ii) Genelle (July 16 and 30); iii) Fort Sheppard (July 23); iv) Gyro Boat Launch (July 30); and, v) Kootenay Oxbow (July 30, 2010). These dace were very recently emerged YOY (Appendix D; Section 4.1.2). Although a subsample of these YOY were identified and confirmed to be longnose dace, it is possible that Umatilla dace may have been present in the schools of hundreds of YOY observed at these sites as these two species have often been captured in the same habitat (AMEC 2010a). However, based on the few adults captured during this study, Umatilla dace YOY were likely rare and their presence could have been missed in the subsample collection. Subsamples were used because sampling all YOY observed schooling in AMEC File: VE Page 17

31 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace nursery areas in 2010 would have been impossible due to their numbers and survival of these small fish during sampling would be low because of their small size and fragility Are there specific nursery areas used by Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics? (B) Sculpin Species Only general sculpin nursery areas, as opposed to species specific, were compiled in 2010 because it was difficult to identify small YOY sculpins to species. Identification of sculpin YOY to the species level can be difficult, especially when characteristics used to differentiate two species (such as the posterior terminus of the lateral line; a distinguishing feature between Columbia and shorthead sculpin) are not obvious in YOY (Photo Plate 5). As a result, many sculpin YOY observed were recorded as general sculpin species though they were likely Columbia or shorthead sculpin (torrent and prickly YOY were commonly identified to species, even at small sizes, based on the lack of prickles and number of anal fin rays). The locations where sculpin YOY were identified included: Beaver Creek Mouth, Genelle, HLK, Kootenay River Campground, and Kootenay River Mouth (Figure 1). Nursery areas for YOY sculpins encompassed water depths between 0.25 and 1.5 m (mean depth of 0.7 m) with velocities ranging from 0 to 0.2 m/s (mean velocity of 0.1 m/s) in mid July 2010 based on 90 observations (Appendix E, Table E1). Although some YOY sculpins were observed using flooded vegetation or silty backwatered areas, the majority were observed using cobble or boulder substrates. Sculpin YOY were often observed resting on top of large substrates (e.g., boulders) sometimes with multiple individuals on the same rock, potentially indicative that they were hatched nearby or even under the observed rock. YOY sculpins were also observed between 1 m and 15 m of the shoreline. YOY sculpins were also searched for in proximity to the Columbia sculpin nest observed at the Castlegar-Robson Bridge and unidentified sculpin nests at Genelle (Section 4.1.1) one month after they were discovered, but no YOY were found. Shorthead sculpin YOY were not observed in July 2010 despite sampling in proximity to highuse areas for these species in Pass Creek and its outlet, Norns Fan, and at Beaver Creek. The only observation of a suspected shorthead sculpin YOY in these areas was made on July 13, 2010 during a snorkel survey. This fish was approximately 15 mm TL and was observed at the outlet of Beaver Creek in a depth of 0.4 m in low velocity water (~0.05 m/s) using cobble substrate about 1 m from the shoreline. Additional YOY sculpins were collected throughout the summer in larval sturgeon drift nets deployed by BC Hydro. A subsample of YOY was identified to species by AMEC on August 5, 2010 and the majority of the samples were torrent and prickly sculpin with only two fish being identified as Columbia sculpin. The numbers of incidental sculpin captures were quantified beginning July 16, but life stage (i.e., YOY vs. adult) was not recorded (BC Hydro, unpublished). The number of incidental sculpins captured in BC Hydro drift nets at Kinnaird (Km 18.2) peaked in late July, as discharges were beginning to decline after freshet (BC Hydro, unpublished). Fewer sculpins were observed in drift nets set below the Arrow Lakes Generating Station (ALGS), but captures were observed mostly in July 2010 (BC Hydro, unpublished). However, the origin and habitat use of these sculpins are impossible to determine based on their AMEC File: VE Page 18

32 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace collection in mid-stream larval drift nets; those from the ALGS site are likely from upstream of HLK Dam. Dace Species As mentioned, larval Umatilla dace were not directly identified during sampling conducted in 2010 (Section 4.1.1) as subsamples of YOY were identified and confirmed to be longnose dace (D. McPhail, Professor Emeritus, UBC, pers. comm., 2010; Photo Plate 6). Adults of both species were found in these areas, but only a few Umatilla dace were present. Therefore, general larval dace habitat use areas were used to identify nursery areas (Appendix D). Larval dace were observed using shallow, low velocity nearshore areas from July 13 to August 20, 2010 at the following locations: i) Beaver Creek Mouth; ii) LCR upstream of Beaver Creek Mouth; iii) Fort Sheppard Boat Launch; iv) Genelle; v) Gyro Boat Launch; vi) Kootenay Campground; and, vii) Kootenay Oxbow (Figure 1; Appendix D). Surveys did not go past August 20, Larval dace were often located in similar habitats as larval suckers (Catostomus spp.). Both dace and sucker YOY were found in schools along flooded shorelines, at times numbering in the thousands (Appendix D). Larval dace were often observed in seasonally flooded areas with a variety of substrates including vegetation, mud, silt, sand, gravel, cobble and boulder (Appendix D; Photo Plate 7). Water temperatures were often higher in areas where larval dace were observed (i.e., flooded low velocity areas) by approximately 10 C (Appendix D). For example, at Kootenay Campground the water temperature in slack flooded areas where YOY dace were observed was 25 C and flowing water 2 m away was 12 C (Appendix A and D). Substrate used by YOY dace was mostly silt and depended on the site, but substrate use remained similar throughout the summer period (Appendix D; Section 4.1.3). Maximum depth and velocity used by YOY dace increased through the summer period (Appendix D). Total length of larval dace also increased throughout the summer sampling period. For example, dace YOY first observed in mid-july ranged in size from 13 to 19 mm TL and by late August ranged from 12 to 40 mm TL (Appendix D). Newly hatched larval dace were also captured throughout the sampling period since the minimum TL of captured YOY remained <13 mm, whereas maximum lengths continued to increase (Appendix D) Are there seasonal and diel shifts in habitat use by these species and, if so, how do these shifts relate to daily or seasonal water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal)? (C) Habitat use information collected within LCR index sites was limited to habitats that were wadeable and/or able to be viewed while snorkelling. Therefore, habitat use information presented herein is limited to these areas, which may not be representative of habitat availability in the LCR. However, the focus on shallow areas was relevant because these areas are dynamic and most likely to be impacted by flow changes. However, at Pass Creek the entire index site was wadeable, with the exception of a small area in mid-june, and information on the habitats available has been provided (Appendix F). The following information focuses on seasonal and diel habitat use for adults and larval sculpins and dace. Information related to water level fluctuations is provided in Section 4.2 below so it is not duplicated here. AMEC File: VE Page 19

33 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Adults Seasonal Habitat Use A summary of habitat use observations by season are provided in Appendix E, Table E2. Further habitat use descriptions are also provided below for each species. Columbia Sculpin Habitat use was collected for eight adult Columbia sculpin during the spring, whereas only two fish were observed during the summer and none in winter (Appendix E, Table E2). In the spring, Columbia sculpin were observed at an average depth of 0.54 m and velocity of 0.18 m/s, using cobble/boulder substrates which were 5-20% embedded. During the summer, average depth was 0.75 m and velocity was 0.25 m/s, and fish used cobble substrates that were 5% embedded (n=2 fish only). These habitat observations were within the range observed for Columbia sculpin studied in the Similkameen system. Historically, Columbia sculpins have been observed in various locations throughout the LCR and lower Kootenay River, (Appendix G: Columbia Sculpin Map), but habitat data are lacking for these locations (AMEC 2010a). Shorthead Sculpin Average depth used by shorthead sculpin was observed to vary by season with the deepest water used in summer, followed by winter, and shallower depths used in spring (Appendix E, Table E2). During the spring, fish were observed moving into shallow, newly flooded areas along the left bank in the Pass Creek index site. Although velocity was observed to be higher in mid-spring than in early spring and summer, shorthead sculpin were observed in fastest currents during summer, whereas velocity in winter and spring did not vary. The majority of shorthead sculpin were observed using cobble substrates in all seasons with embeddedness ranging between 5-10%, which was similar to that available in the entire site (Appendix F). No shorthead sculpin were observed in the Similkameen system. Historically, Shorthead sculpin have been observed in a few locations throughout the LCR and lower Kootenay River, but habitat data are lacking for these locations (AMEC 2010a; Appendix G: Shorthead Sculpin Map). Prickly Sculpin Habitat use was collected for 24 adult prickly sculpin during the winter and spring, whereas 15 fish were observed during the summer (Appendix E, Table E2). In winter, prickly sculpin were observed at an average depth of 0.39 m and velocity of 0.28 m/s, using cobble/boulder substrates which were 10-30% embedded. During the spring, average depth was 0.73 m and velocity was 0.10 m/s, and fish used cobble/boulder substrates that were mostly 10-20% embedded. In summer, average depth and velocity was similar to spring, but almost exclusive use of boulders that were between 5-10% or 30-40% embedded was observed. Prickly sculpin habitat use in the Similkameen system was similar, but this is based on five fish. Torrent Sculpin Habitat use was collected for 29 adult torrent sculpin in winter, 66 fish in spring, and 15 fish in summer (Appendix E, Table E2). In winter, torrent sculpin were observed at an average depth of 0.39 m and velocity of 0.07 m/s, using cobble/boulder substrates which were 20-30% AMEC File: VE Page 20

34 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace embedded. During the spring, average depth was 0.58 m and velocity was 0.11 m/s, and fish used cobble/boulder substrates that were mostly 5-30% embedded. In summer, torrent sculpin were observed at an average depth of 0.46 m and velocity of 0.36 m/s, using mostly boulder substrates which were 5-30% embedded. Torrent sculpin used similar habitat in the Similkameen during all seasons with an average water depth of 0.30 m and velocity of 0.40 m/s. They also used the the larger substrates available that were between 10-60% embedded (AMEC 2010b). Umatilla Dace Direct habitat use measurements were made for 9 Umatilla dace at the Beaver Creek mouth index site during the summer period, while observations during other seasons were not available; these fish were collected by lip seine. Umatilla dace were observed at an average depth of 0.16 m in slack water with no velocity over mud/vegetated substrates (Appendix E, Table E2). Historically, Umatilla dace have been captured in various locations throughout the LCR and lower Kootenay River (Appendix G: Umatilla Dace Map), but habitat data are lacking for these locations. Longnose Dace Habitat use was collected for 2 adult longnose dace during winter tracking only, whereas fish were observed during snorkel surveys conducted in spring (n=22) and summer (n=42) (Appendix E, Table E2). In winter, one fish (44 mm FL) was observed at the Kootenay River Campground site in run habitat with cobble substrate (30% embeddedness) at an average depth of 0.8 m and velocity of 0.2 m/s. The other longnose dace (84 mm FL when tagged) was observed in Pass Creek in riffle habitat with cobble substrate (10% embeddedness) at an average depth of 0.4 m and velocity of 1.1 m/s. During spring, longnose dace were observed in an average depth of 0.79 m and velocity 0.14 m/s; fish used mostly cobble/boulder substrates that were 5-30% embedded. In summer, longnose dace were observed in flooded, vegetated areas at an average depth of 0.69 m and velocity of 0.17 m/s. Substrates in these areas during the summer included mud, gravel, cobble and boulder. Cobble and boulder substrates used in summer were approximately 5-20% embedded. Habitat information for longnose dace in the Similkameen system was based on one fish and was similar to Pass Creek during winter. Diel Habitat Use Habitat use was not observed to be significantly different during the day versus night for prickly, shorthead, and torrent sculpins (Appendix E, Table E3). This finding was similar for winter and all spring sampling sessions. Summer diel tracking was not conducted due to different sampling priorities. These comparisons were supported by tracking observations, since diel displacements were not significantly different between seasons and species (Appendix E, Table E4). However, these findings are limited to wadeable habitats only as discussed previously. AMEC File: VE Page 21

35 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Diel changes in habitat use were also not observed in the Similkameen system for Columbia sculpins (AMEC 2010b). Observations were not available for Umatilla or longnose dace in either systems. Habitat Shifts & Water Level Fluctuations Information as related to water level fluctuations is provided in Section 4.2 below Larval Stages Larval dace were first observed during mid-july surveys (Appendix D). Larval dace were predominantly observed to use flooded river margins in the early summer (Section 4.1.2; Appendix D). Throughout the summer, the numbers of schooling YOY dace in nearshore areas were variable with the highest numbers (thousands per school) observed in mid-summer (Appendix D). By late summer (August 20, 2010), dace YOY were observed in a wider range of depths than previously observed (Appendix D). At that time, discharge in the LCR was diminishing and the seasonally flooded areas observed previously were dewatered (Figure 2). Dace YOY were observed to remain in backwatered areas as high waters receded, becoming stranded. For example, on July 13, 2010, dace YOY (along with adults) were observed in a back flooded area of the LCR at the mouth of Beaver Creek. The area consisted of mud substrates with flooded vegetation throughout. Ten days later, the flooded area had receded and only a pool measuring 12 m by 4 m remained, which was disconnected from the Beaver Creek mouth by approximately 25 m (Photo Plate 8). Dace and sucker YOY were observed in this pool where the water temperature was 6.5 C warmer than in the connected backflooded areas and there was evidence of avian predation throughout the dewatered area. High risk stranding sites were sampled on August 20, prior to a scheduled HLK flow reduction ( m 3 /s; kcfs) on August 21, Dace YOY were observed at all sites sampled on August 20, 2010, which included: Fort Sheppard, Genelle, Kootenay Campsite and the Kootenay Oxbow (Figure 1); larval sculpin were not observed at these locations at this time. Stranding surveys conducted on August 21, 2010, following the flow reduction observed juvenile longnose dace at Kootenay River (left bank; n=33) and Fort Sheppard launch (n=1), but they were not reported at Genelle (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). Also, a small number of juvenile sculpins were stranded at the Kootenay River site (n=6) and Millenium Park (n=3) at this time (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). Diel habitat use information in relation to water level fluctuations was not collected for larval sculpin or dace during studies conducted in Do different age classes of Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace use different habitats seasonally and, if so, do diel habitat shifts differ among age classes? (D) Life stage comparisons (a proxy for age class) could only be made for the summer period, when the majority of juvenile and YOY sampling occurred. Comparisons were also made by combining all individuals into a general sculpin or dace category to determine general trends. Seasonal and diel sampling was focused on tagged adults as outlined in our original proposal for this program. Some juvenile habitat use observations were made in the spring, but too few were available to be included in further analyses. As mentioned above, significant diel habitat shifts were not observed during the study for adults; this was not studied directly for juveniles AMEC File: VE Page 22

36 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace and YOY. As discussed previously, habitat use data were limited to areas that could be sampled in 2010 and do not necessarily represent what is available in the LCR. However, sampling in these areas is relevant as they are the most dynamic and likely to be impacted by flow changes and these data may show trends that can be further studied in Year 3. Overall, adult dace were observed to use deeper water on average compared to juveniles and YOY, and YOY used the shallowest water depth (Appendix E, Table E5). Similarly for water velocity, adult dace were observed using higher velocities on average compared to juveniles and YOY, and YOY were found mostly in areas with very slow to no water velocity. Juvenile dace were associated mostly with larger boulder substrates, while adults used a combination of boulder/cobble/gravels. YOY were also associated with boulder/cobble/gravels similar to adult dace, but YOY also used areas that were seasonally flooded and composed of finer sands/silt/mud that were usually vegetated. YOY sculpins were observed in significantly deeper water than juveniles, whereas water depth for adults overlapped with these two life stages (Appendix E, Table E5). No differences in water velocity were observed between the three life stages, whereas significant differences were found in substrate use. Juvenile sculpins were observed over mostly cobble substrates, whereas adults used a combination of boulder/cobble substrates. YOY were mostly associated with boulder substrates, but also used cobbles Are there over-wintering habitats used by these species and, if so, what are their biophysical characteristics? (E) Sculpin Species Overwinter microhabitat information was based on tracking PIT-tagged species in late March 2010: prickly sculpin (n=24); shorthead sculpin (n=212); torrent sculpin (n=29); and, longnose dace (n=2). Information could not be compiled for other species such as Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace, since these species were not observed during the overwinter period in Overwinter microhabitat data (depth, velocity, substrate, % embeddedness) for the three sculpin species is summarized in Appendix E, Table E2. All fish used for these comparisons were considered adults. Overall, prickly and torrent sculpin used shallower depths and higher embedded (~30%) cobble substrates during the winter. Shorthead sculpin were not observed in different overwinter habitats than in the spring, likely because observations were taken in Pass Creek, which had more consistent habitats compared to the mainstem LCR and Kootenay River. In the Similkameen system, habitat use was not observed to vary between spring, summer, and fall (a proxy for winter) for sculpins (AMEC 2010b). Shorthead sculpin used the highest average velocity during the overwinter period, followed by prickly sculpin, whereas torrent sculpin were located in very low water velocities (Appendix E, Table E2). Water depths used were not different among species. All sculpins were using mostly cobble substrates followed by boulder. However, shorthead and torrent sculpins were observed in over 80% cobble substrates, whereas prickly sculpin used cobbles slightly less (<70%). Only 1% of shorthead sculpin were observed in gravel substrates. The majority of prickly and torrent sculpins were observed in substrates that were 30% embedded, whereas the majority of shorthead sculpins were observed in 10% embedded substrates during the winter period, which is a reflection of what is available at Pass Creek (Appendix F). AMEC File: VE Page 23

37 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Dace Species Two longnose dace were tracked during the overwinter tracking survey. One fish (44 mm FL when tagged) was observed at the Kootenay River Campground site during the daytime in run habitat with cobble substrate (30% embeddedness) at an average depth of 0.8 m and velocity of 0.2 m/s. The other longnose dace (84 mm FL when tagged) was observed in Pass Creek during the day in riffle habitat with cobble substrate (10% embeddedness) at an average depth of 0.4 m and velocity of 1.1 m/s. Overwinter habitat use for longnose dace in the Similkameen system was not available since only one fish was observed during summer (AMEC 2010b). Overwintering habitats for Umatilla dace are not available because few fish were observed in Only two Umatilla dace were tagged (one at Kootenay Campground and one at Beaver Creek mouth), but they were never found again. Nine Umatilla dace were also captured via lip seine at the Beaver Creek mouth index site on July 13, 2010 (Section ; Appendix E, Table E2) Do diel and seasonal water level fluctuations affect spawning behaviour, embryo survival, or adult nest guarding behaviour of Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace? (F) Spawning Behaviour LCR Regulated System: Sculpins spawning behaviour in the LCR occurred during the ascending limb of the hydrograph in 2010 when water temperatures were between 9 C and 16 C (Section 4.1.1). Information for dace was not available at this time (Section 4.1.1). Pre-spawning and spawning movements for tagged sculpins and dace were not available due to the low number of observations collected at index sites in the LCR (Pass Creek is unregulated and is described below). For example, movement information was only available for the early spring period for three shorthead sculpin at potentially flow-impacted sites in the LCR and their movements were within the range observed for this species at the Pass Creek index site (Section 4.2.3). Also, too few observations were available to compare spawning movements for the other sculpin and dace species in Further information on spawning behaviour in the LCR is required. Similkameen - Unregulated System: Columbia sculpins spawning in the Similkameen system were observed during the descending limb of the hydrograph when water temperatures were approximately 8 C (spawning was observed between 8 C and 15 C). Even though different flow regimes were observed at index sites on the Similkameen system, the onset of spawning seemed to be triggered by water temperature. For example, the spawning period varied by almost one month between Otter Creek (mid-may to mid-june) and the Tulameen River (mid-june to mid-july); Otter Creek is headed by a small lake and low elevation tributaries which drain snowmelt early in the spring. Also, Otter and Allison creeks were receding from peak spring flows when spawning started, while flows in the Tulameen River were still increasing from snow run-off, which kept water temperatures cooler and thus delayed the onset of spawning. AMEC File: VE Page 24

38 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Shorthead sculpins were observed to spawn in Pass Creek from late June to late July when water temperatures were between 8 C and 15 C (Section 4.1.1). Spawning was observed during the period when flows had likely just peaked and were beginning to recede (Section 4.1.1). Columbia sculpin males moved <10 m during the spawning period in spring, but some fish were observed to move upstream during the post-spawning period (AMEC 2010b). Shorthead sculpins in Pass Creek moved approximately 15 m in early spring, 10 m in mid-spring and late spring, and between m in summer (Section 4.2.3); separate analyses by sex were not possible due to low sample sizes. During tracking surveys, shorthead sculpins were also observed to move into a flooded section of Pass Creek along the left bank when water levels rose through spring (Photo Plate 3). As water levels receded in early July 2010, these sculpins moved back into the mainstem of Pass Creek. This flooded area did not seem to be used for spawning since nests were not observed at this time. Embryo Survival High egg survival (>95%) was observed for all shorthead sculpin nests (n=5) observed in Pass Creek in However, egg survival for unidentified sculpin nests (n=11) observed on June 17, 2010 at Genelle (near the boat launch) was as low as 8% and averaged 25%. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the nests may have belonged to Columbia, shorthead or torrent sculpin, but fishes could not be captured during the snorkel survey to confirm identification. Sculpin nests at Genelle were at depths between 0.5 to 1.2 m and the majority of the eggs were dead and/or fungused. Egg stage for some of these nests indicated that they may have been spawned up to 20 days prior to this observation (Section 4.1.1). Hourly discharges at Birchbank increased steeply in mid-may 2010, and generally increased with some hourly fluctuations afterwards; there were no significant enough reductions to suggest that the nests at Genelle could have been dewatered (Figure 10). Although, direct field observations were not taken prior to finding the Genelle nests, nest depths observed during the survey were such that dewatering was not likely. A thick, green algae was also observed to cover some of the nest rocks, while others were in slightly shallower depths and not covered by algae; it cannot be determined at this time whether nests covered in algae had higher mortality than nests without it. AMEC File: VE Page 25

39 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Hourly Discharge (m 3 /s) 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 BIR Discharge BIR Temperature Approximate Egg Deposition Timing Hourly Water Temperature (C ) 1, Date Figure 10: Hourly discharge and water temperature at Birchbank (WSC No. 08NE0558) for the period of May 1 to June 30, The arrow indicates when eggs were observed at Genelle on June 17, Transparent box indicates approximate timing of egg deposition, based on egg stage. Adult Nest Guarding Behaviour Spawning sculpins were observed guarding their nests on June 17, 2010 at Genelle (Section 4.1.1). The majority of eggs on the 11 nests observed at Genelle were dead and/or fungused (see embryo survival above), but males in spawning colour were observed in close proximity to each nest and assumed to be actively guarding. On July 14, 2010, five shorthead sculpin nests were located in Pass Creek. Three of these nests belonged to previously tagged males, whom were actively guarding their nests. These fish had moved over 50 m from their late winter locations (March 2010) to their nest locations. One of the tagged males was observed to be guarding his nest in an area stranded from the mainstem of Pass Creek (Figure 11). The nest was in recently dewatered habitat and contained four egg masses with approximately 375 eyed, unmoving eggs of which 12 were dead. A small pool of water, elevated in temperature (21 C compared to 8 C in Pass Creek), remained under the rock, covering both the sculpin and his nest. Water levels were declining in Pass Creek after the spring freshet (Section 4.1.1; Photo Plate 3). The other two tagged males were in approximately 0.5 m of water with velocity of approximately 0.5 m/s; these nests contained over 300 eggs each that were eyed. AMEC File: VE Page 26

40 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace One nest was also observed with a non-tagged male whom was actively guarding. The nest was in wetted habitat and had eyed eggs (eggs were not counted). An additional nest, with recently hatched eggs, was also found in Pass Creek at this time. However, the male was no longer guarding the nest, as all eggs had already hatched. Figure 11: A shorthead sculpin male and nest were observed on the indicated rock in its current location 15 cm from the wetted edge (red line) of Pass Creek on July 14, Management Questions The following section presents results for the Management Questions specified for this program, which are related to the influence of water level fluctuations and hydroelectric operations on target species. The first two years of this program was focused on collecting information on general life history of the target species. However, two tracking surveys and additional fish sampling were conducted to consider the effects of flow reduction events. These included: 1) HLK Dam - 2 stage flow reduction on March 30 ( m 3 /s; kcfs) and March 31, 2010 ( m 3 /s; kcfs) (Figure 12); and, 2) Brilliant Dam Load shaping Occurred from April 23 to May 7, 2010 resulting in nightly flow reductions. For example on May 7, 2010 flows were reduced by approximately 200 m 3 /s ( m 3 /s) in the lower Columbia River at Birchbank (Water Survey Canada Station No:08NE049; Figure 13). In addition to these tracking surveys, fish were sampled at high risk stranding areas (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished) prior to the following flow reductions: March 30 and August AMEC File: VE Page 27

41 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace 21, Flows were reduced at HLK Dam from 1160 to 935 m 3 /s (41-33 kcfs) on August 21, Figure 12: Hourly discharge and water temperature at Birchbank (BIR) on the LCR during a twostage flow reduction event (depicted by arrows) at HLK Dam, March 30 and 31, HLK and ALH hourly discharges are also presented. AMEC File: VE Page 28

42 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Figure 13: Hourly discharge at Brilliant Dam (BRD/BRX) on the lower Kootenay River during load shaping, May 5 to 7, Hourly discharge and water temperature at Birchbank (BBK) on the LCR are also presented for comparison. Arrows depict the sampling period during surveys conducted at the Kootenay Campground index site How do water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal) in the lower Columbia River affect the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace, especially the listed species? Distribution HLK Flow Reduction March 2010 Pre-Flow Change A total of four sites were electrofished in suspected high stranding risk areas on March 28 and 29, 2010 determine relative abundance and distribution prior to the March 30 to 31, 2010 HLK flow reduction event (Appendix C, Table C2). Surveyed sites included the left bank of the Kootenay River near the confluence and at the oxbow area, Genelle (mainland, boat launch and back channel areas), Gyro Park boat launch (Trail), and, Fort Shepherd boat launch (Figure 1). In total, 11 sculpins and 22 dace were captured prior to the flow change. Very few listed target species were captured at this time: one Umatilla dace was captured at the Kootenay River AMEC File: VE Page 29

43 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace confluence site; and two shorthead sculpins were captured at Genelle (mainland and back channel area). The Gyro and Fort Shepherd boat launches did not have any target species captured at this time (Appendix C, Table C2). In total, 15 fish were tracked at Kootenay River Campground and one fish, a torrent sculpin, was located at the Kootenay River mouth during pre-flow reduction surveys conducted on March 26, 2010 (Appendix H). The locations of these fish and any new fish tracked were monitored during the flow reduction on March 30 and 31, 2010 (see post-flow change below). Post-Flow Change In total, 120 sculpins and 55 dace were observed stranded at various sites in the LCR after the March 30 and 31, 2010 flow reduction (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished; Appendix C, Table C2). Listed target species included: three Umatilla dace at Genelle (mainland); two Columbia sculpins (identified in the database as mottled sculpin) at Norn s Creek fan; and one Columbia sculpin at Kootenay River (left bank). Twenty-eight sculpins were not identified to species at Norns Creek Fan, Kootenay River (left bank), and Tin Cup Rapids during the stranding survey conducted (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished; Appendix C, Table C2). Overall, 22 tagged fishes were tracked at the index sites during the flow reduction (Appendix H). Of these, two fish were located at the Kootenay mouth site (12% of tagged fish), while 20 fishes were tracked at the Kootenay Campground location (37% of tagged fish). Species tracked at these two index sites included 10 torrent sculpins, 6 prickly sculpins, 5 shorthead sculpins, and 1 longnose dace. Preliminary tracking information indicated that the majority of the tracked fishes at Kootenay Campground likely did not move during the two day flow reduction event (Appendix H). However, the magnitude of the flow reduction on Day 2 at this location did not seem as obvious as at the Kootenay mouth index site and tagged fishes seemed undisturbed by the fluctuations. These fishes were in no immediate danger of dewatering. For example, Appendix H, Figure 1 depicts a fish located in an area that was not prone to dewatering at the Kootenay Campground site, which was typical of the lack of movement observed at this site. The most detailed movement information was observed for two fish tracked at the Kootenay mouth, which moved in response to the flow reduction (Appendix H - Table H2). On March 30, 2010, a torrent sculpin located at the Kootenay mouth site was observed approximately 0.20 m from the water s edge at 0845 hours (Appendix H - Figure H2). Water levels at this site dropped slowly during the tracking period and by 1015 hours on March 30, 2010 this fish was tracked in deeper water approximately 0.30 m from the water s edge, indicating that it moved to avoid becoming dewatered (Appendix H - Figure H2). On March 31, 2010, this torrent sculpin was not tracked within the site, nor was it found in the dewatered zone along the bank and is assumed to have moved to a section of the river too deep to track (Appendix H - Figure H3). The second fish found at this site was a prickly sculpin, which was located at the cobble point directly at the confluence approximately 2.5 m from the water s edge on March 30, 2010 (Appendix H - Table H2 and Figure H4). On day 2 of the flow reduction, water levels at the confluence point had dropped substantially to reveal a cobble shelf at this location and tracking could be extended further along this area than in the previous day (Appendix H - Figure H4). AMEC File: VE Page 30

44 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace The prickly sculpin was tracked on March 31 approximately 3 to 4 m from its initial location on March 30, 2010 (Appendix H - Figure H4), indicating that it had moved to deeper water to avoid being stranded in the dewatered area. There were no differences between flow and non-flow event movements at that time (df = 19.3; p>0.05; Appendix E, Table E6), but sample sizes for flow events were small. Seasonal comparisons could not be made due to the low number of flow events sampled. HLK Flow Reduction August 2010 High stranding risk sites were sampled on August 20, prior to a scheduled HLK flow reduction ( m 3 /s; kcfs) on August 21, Dace YOY were observed at all sites sampled: Fort Sheppard, Genelle, Kootenay Campsite and the Kootenay Oxbow (Figure 1); larval sculpins were not observed at that time. Stranding surveys conducted on August 21, 2010, following the flow reduction observed juvenile longnose dace at Kootenay River (left bank; n=33) and Fort Sheppard launch (n=1), but they were not reported at Genelle (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). Also, a small number of juvenile sculpins were stranded at the Kootenay River site (n=6) and Millenium Park (n=3) at this time (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). BRD Load Shaping May 2010 It was estimated that night-time flows on May 7, 2010 were reduced by about 0.5 m vertically and the wetted width changed by about 2.5 to 3.0 m at the Kootenay Campsite site (left downstream bank) due to load shaping at Brilliant Dam (Appendix I, Figure 13). Night tracking was conducted within the wetted, wadable portion of the Kootenay Campground index site as well as in the recently dewatered area along the shoreline. The dewatered area was also inspected for sculpin nests and stranded fishes by flipping rocks. Dewatered sculpin nests were not found, but one 50 mm Umatilla dace and one 80 mm torrent sculpin were observed stranded within the dewatered area within this index site at 0330 hours on May 7, Both stranded fish were alive and it was estimated that they had been out of water for about 3.5 hours. These two stranded fish were returned to the river, but it is unknown if they would have survived until the water flows came back up at 0400 hours. It is also unknown how many other fish were stranded in this area as a stranding survey was not completed at this time (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). In total, 2 prickly and 5 torrent sculpins were tracked during the daytime prior to load shaping, whereas 11 tagged sculpins (torrent=7; prickly=1; shorthead=1) were relocated at night on May 7, One torrent and one prickly sculpin were observed close to the wetted edge during the day, but moved in response to declining flows at night; these fish would have been stranded if they had not moved from their previously tracked locations. The other fish tracked at night were in close proximity to their daytime location and were in areas that were not dewatered (or prone to dewatering). No PIT-tagged fish were located along the dewatered shoreline during nighttime tracking conducted on May 7, AMEC File: VE Page 31

45 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Habitat Use HLK Flow Reduction At Kootenay River mouth, two fishes (one torrent and one prickly sculpin) were observed to move in response to the flow reduction (see above), seeking deeper areas away from recently dewatered areas. Habitats where fish were observed pre- and post-flow change were similar for fish that remained within the Kootenay River mouth index site. However, habitat use could not be determined for fish that moved outside the index site at this time. Sculpins located at Kootenay River Campground remained in similar locations pre- and postflow reduction because they were in areas not prone to dewatering (i.e., they were far enough away from the moving water s edge in a steeper drop-off area such that changes in depth were not observed). Also, this site was located further upstream from the confluence and may not have been as affected by the HLK drawdown as the Kootenay River mouth site. BRD Load Shaping Diel habitat use changes were not observed for the five tagged sculpins tracked both during day and night (three torrent sculpin; two prickly sculpin) pre- and post-brd load shaping on May 7, 2010 because too few fish were tracked during both time periods. The two sculpins that were observed to move from areas that were becoming dewatered moved to deeper water (see above), but these habitats were similar besides changes in water depth What seasonal and diel habitat shifts do sculpins and dace (especially the listed species) make in response to water level fluctuations? Results to answer this question are presented in Section and Do the operations of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam alter these natural movements? Specifically, does this risk of stranding increase? A summary of shorthead, torrent and prickly sculpin seasonal movements (number, average, minimum, maximum) is presented in Appendix J. Overall, movements (i.e., displacements) were in the 3 to 8 m range for torrent and prickly sculpins, whereas shorthead sculpins were observed to make displacements that averaged between 6 and 25 m. Displacements of shorthead sculpins also varied seasonally with longer displacements observed during summer followed by early spring (p<0.05; Appendix J). Shorthead sculpins were observed to move a minimum of 0.1 m up to a maximum of 88 m (Appendix J). Movements of torrent and prickly sculpins did not vary seasonally (p>0.05; Appendix J). Torrent sculpins moved a minimum of 0.7 m to a maximum of 72 m, whereas prickly sculpin moved a minimum of 0.6 m and a maximum of 10 m (Appendix J). Pre-flow reduction displacement distances were not significantly different from post-flow reduction distances during the March 2010 HLK event for all species combined at both the Kootenay River Campground and mouth sites (p>0.05; Appendix E, Table E6). Diel displacement distances were not significantly different between flow events and non-flow events (p>0.05; Appendix E, Table E6). Information collected during the HLK flow reduction demonstrated that fish at the index sites sampled in the Kootenay River moved in response to the flow reduction as water levels receded. Also, some fish did not move from their daytime or pre-flow locations if they were in deeper areas that did not seem threatened by dewatering. AMEC File: VE Page 32

46 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Additional movement analyses could not be conducted to compare movements in unregulated sites with movements in regulated sites because some sites could not be sampled across their entire depth range. Therefore, analyses may not directly show movement differences between sites, since fish likely move outside sample areas. Further information is provided throughout the results section and is summarized in Section Which operations, and at what season, pose the highest risk of stranding or interference with the normal life cycles of sculpins and dace? Information to answer this question is presented in the discussion. 5.0 DISCUSSION The following discussion is structured in terms of the four broad management questions. A discussion of the Detailed Questions is not provided separately, since information to answer these questions was required to answer each Management Question. Also, Detailed Questions are not presented herein to avoid redundancy between the Results and Discussion. It should be noted that observations collected at LCR index sites (with the exception of Pass Creek) were restricted to the shallow shoreline areas and information may not necessarily represent what is occurring throughout the LCR. The focus of the program was to sample shallow, wadeable habitats since these are likely the most prone to water level fluctuations. Therefore, our sample methodology was successful in compiling information for sculpins to use in future comparisons in shallow water habitats where flow regime changes are most noticeable. The following discussion is mostly focused on sculpins, since few observations were available for dace, with the exception of information collected on dace nursery areas. 5.1 How do water level fluctuations (diel and seasonal) in the lower Columbia River affect the distribution and habitat use of sculpins and dace, especially the listed species? Water level fluctuations may influence the distribution and habitat use of sculpins located in shallow shoreline areas that are at risk of dewatering in the LCR. Preliminary observations taken during the current study indicated that fish distribution may change in response to water level fluctuations since fishes were observed to move away from areas that were at risk of dewatering. Habitat use during flow fluctuations was not observed to vary at this time. However, this information is based on two investigations conducted during flow changes and on a very small sample size for sculpins only. Seasonal and diel shifts in habitat use were not commonly observed for sculpins studied in the unregulated Similkameen system, where peak flows occur in spring (mid-may to mid-june) and low flows occur from the summer through the early spring period (mid-august through April; AMEC 2010b). This finding was consistent for shorthead sculpins in Pass Creek, an unregulated system, where they were observed in similar diel and seasonal habitats. In the regulated LCR, discharge is now bimodal compared to pre-hlk Dam conditions, with peak flows occurring from mid-may to late July (~3000 m³/s) and from late October to late January (~2000 m³/s; AMEC 2010a). As water levels receded during the observed flow reductions, some tagged fish moved from shallow to deeper areas, whereas fish did not move if they were located in deeper/steeper sided locations that did not seem at risk of dewatering. AMEC File: VE Page 33

47 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace However, some sculpins and dace were found in isolated pools or interstitially during the flow reductions. Further information on stranding risk is provided in Section 5.3. Propst and Gido (2004) observed the effects of regulated flows on dace in the San Juan River and found that the lowest densities were during years when discharge was low in spring, but high in summer. Higher flows were thought to clean fine sediments from cobbled riffles, the preferred habitat for speckled dace thus increasing spawning and macroinvertebrate habitat quality (Propst and Gido 2004). 5.2 What seasonal and diel habitat shifts do sculpins and dace (especially the listed species) make in response to water level fluctuations? As discussed above, preliminary observations in the LCR indicated that diel habitat shifts did not occur in response to water level fluctuations. However, this finding is considered preliminary since only two flow events were sampled in 2010 and few tagged fish were relocated at this time. Diel changes in distribution were observed during flow fluctuations as evidenced by sculpins that moved to avoid becoming interstitially stranded. However, diel habitat use changes were not observed in response to water level fluctuations because fish either moved short distances to areas with similar habitats or they moved outside the sample area where habitats could not be quantified. In general, seasonal habitat use shifts were not observed for sculpins during the present study; not enough dace were observed at this time. 5.3 Do the operations of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam alter these natural movements? Specifically, does this risk of stranding increase We cannot conclude at this time whether the operations of HLK Dam specifically alter the natural movements of target sculpins and dace and increase their risk of stranding. However, information collected in the unregulated systems can be used to compare preliminary (Year 2) and future flow change surveys to start answering this management question. In the unregulated Similkameen system, the majority of tagged Columbia sculpins were observed to move <10 m throughout the year, with the exception of spring (June/July) when displacements between 81 and 90 m were more common (AMEC 2010b). Some male Columbia sculpins were observed to move upstream during the post-spawning period (late July) in the Similkameen system (AMEC 2010b). Shorthead sculpins in Pass Creek moved an average of 15 m in early spring compared to an average of 10 m in mid- and late spring, whereas in summer, these fish moved distances between 19 and 25 m. During spring tracking surveys, shorthead sculpins were also observed to move into a flooded section of Pass Creek along the left bank when water levels rose. As water levels receded in early July, these sculpins moved back into the mainstem of Pass Creek. These newly flooded areas did not seem to be used for spawning, since nests were not observed at this location. In the LCR, torrent sculpin displacements were not different seasonally, but prickly sculpins were observed to make longer displacements in winter compared to early spring; information on other species was not available at this time. It is unknown whether these displacement differences were due to flow fluctuations. Preliminary surveys conducted during one HLK flow reduction observed that as water levels receded, some tagged fish located in areas that were prone to dewater moved to deeper areas, thus potentially avoiding becoming stranded. However, fish did not move if they were located in deeper/steeper sided locations that did not AMEC File: VE Page 34

48 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace seem at risk of dewatering. Perhaps the phased HLK Dam flow reduction, which occurred over two days (March 30 and 31, 2010), provided time for some fish to respond to declining water levels. Displacement distances were not significantly different between pre- and post-flow reduction sampling. However, it is unknown whether these fish had to make movements more frequently compared to what occurs naturally at this time. Some sculpins and dace were found stranded in isolated pools or interstitially during the sampled flow reductions. Stranding effects have been observed during this period (December 15 to May 1) for several sites in the LCR and on the Kootenay River, although the risk of stranding for listed species was observed to be higher from the September 30 to December 15 period at stranding index sites (Golder risk table provided by D. DeRosa, December 20, 2010). This period of increased stranding risk likely corresponds to a period that would naturally not have much water level fluctuation and would have a longer wetted history, a factor that influences higher fish stranding (Irvine et al. 2008). In the LCR, both adult and juvenile sculpin and dace species were observed to be prone to stranding below HLK Dam during rapid discharge reductions (R.L.&L. 1995). Sculpin and dace species can often make up a large proportion of the catch during fish salvage activities conducted below HLK Dam (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). Experiments conducted in the study area using native fish species (including longnose and Umatilla dace and sculpins) to determine factors influencing fish stranding found that higher natural fish density, longer periods of wetted history and higher ramping rates all led to higher probabilities of pool stranding (Irvine et al. 2008). However, none of the factors was significant in predicting the probability of these species becoming stranded interstitially (Irvine et al. 2008). The findings of Bell et al. (2008), whom studied the effects of daily reservoir fluctuations on salmonid fry, are pertinent for sculpins and dace stranding risk, especially since their results were similar to those reported for other riverine studies. They observed that: Stranding was found in habitat with 6% slope. Most stranded fish were detected on rock substrate, typically in interstitial spaces among cobbles or in potholes. Few stranded fish were observed in vegetative substrate, but detection probabilities were lower in vegetated areas as vegetation density increased. No relationship was apparent between the range in fluctuation and the number of stranded fish; range of fluctuation is only significant in that it affects the total area that is exposed and the number of potential potholes or other features that become accessible and then drained. No relationship was apparent between the average rate of water surface decline and the number of stranded fish; stranding was independent of the rate of fluctuation, but rates of decline less than 18 cm/hr were not observed in this study. And, Incidence of stranding appeared to decrease when flow reductions occurred at night, when fish are more likely to be actively swimming in the water column rather than seeking cover. AMEC File: VE Page 35

49 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Sculpins and dace may be vulnerable to stranding as they are often associated with larger cobble substrates having interstitial spaces for them to hide or spawn under. Index sites with a high incidence of sculpins and dace stranding likely are comprised of areas with low gradients and cobble substrates. For example, Umatilla dace have been historically observed stranded at 10 of the 21 stranding index sites that are surveyed in the LCR study area (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). These areas include: Bear Creek (left bank); Fort Shepherd Launch (left bank); Gyro Park boat launch (Trail); Kootenay River Campground (left bank); Kootenay River (right bank) Norn s Creek Fan; Millenium Park; Tin Cup Rapids (left bank); and downstream of the Trail Bridge (left bank). Historical sites where higher numbers of stranded sculpin species are observed include: Genelle; Kootenay River (left and right banks); Norn s Creek Fan; and, Zuckerberg Island (left bank). Additional habitat use information may further clarify the distribution of these target species in the LCR and Kootenay River. 5.4 Which operations, and at what season, pose the highest risk of stranding or interference with the normal life cycles of sculpins and dace? Although the present study did not observe stranding incidence throughout the LCR, observations on sculpins and dace life history may provide information regarding operations that may interfere with their normal life cycles. The period most critical to sculpins life history seems to be the adult egg guarding phase (June/July), since males will stay with their eggs even when water levels decline and dewatered eggs as well as the male may die. Additionally, the sculpins and dace larval rearing period that occurs from July to late August is also a time of high risk for stranding, since this life stage occupies warm, shallow, flooded areas that are prone to dewatering. The risk of stranding for listed species was observed to be higher from the September 30 to December 15 period at stranding index sites (Golder risk table provided by D. DeRosa, December 20, 2010), which may relate to the use of shallow areas by larval and juvenile life stages. The overwinter period is a time for sculpins to put on gonadal weight in preparation for spawning the next season (AMEC 2010a). Natural spawn timing for sculpins seems to follow the descending limb of the hydrograph and commences when water temperatures are approximately 8 C. In the LCR, sculpins were observed to spawn when water temperatures reached 8 C, but in 2010 this occurred during the ascending limb of the hydrograph. Information on spawning habitats used by Umatilla dace are lacking (AMEC 2010a), which may be because its spawn timing is only generally known to occur in mid-summer and fish may spawn at depth, which may preclude direct observations for habitat use and spawn timing. It is also believed that Umatilla dace eggs hatch within 10 days, which may make it difficult to find males guarding eggs within this short timeframe. Although the observed onset of spawning during the ascending limb of the hydrograph may reduce the incidence of stranding, it has other negative implications for affecting sculpins and dace abundance, distribution and survival. Firstly, pre-spawning and spawning movements may be impacted if fish cannot move between nest sites due to higher discharges during this period. Movements to choose appropriate nest sites by male sculpins are likely required during the prespawning season, whereas females need to move between these nests during the spawning period to select and spawn with males. Secondly, spawning movements during the rising hydrograph as opposed to the declining hydrograph may cause direct mortality. For example, direct mortality of sculpins from large flood AMEC File: VE Page 36

50 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace events has been observed and researchers speculated that the cause of flood-related mortality was streambed movement that crushed sculpins within their interstitial habitat (Natsumeda 2003, Erman et al. 1988, Keeler et al. 2007). Also, survival probabilities of slimy sculpins declined with increasing maximum discharge (Keeler et al. 2007). Lastly, larvae that hatch during the ascending portion of the hydrograph may be flushed into inappropriate rearing habitats or crushed during transit downstream. River regulation affects channel edge and backwater habitats, which otherwise depend on flows that produce shallow, slow velocity micro-habitats, especially along vegetated stream reaches occupied by nesting and YOY fish (Stalnaker et al. 1996). More detailed observations are required to determine whether high flows during the sculpins and dace spawning period are impacting movements, guarding behaviour or causing direct mortality. Natural movement observations indicated that the use of flooded areas may be part of the normal life cycle for adult sculpins, but whether this was related to spawning or feeding is unclear. The incubation period for sculpins occurs for approximately one month during which the adult male actively guards its nest. Male sculpins will continue to guard their nests until eggs hatch even if threatened with dewatering, which can result in direct mortality for the adult and his eggs. This was exemplified by the male observed actively guarding a nest in a stranded location in Pass Creek in Sculpin egg survival in natural systems is high. For example, in the Similkameen system and at Pass Creek egg survival for sculpins ranged between 90% and 95%. However, egg survival at Genelle near the boat launch was as low as 8% and averaged 25% for nests observed on June 17, Such low egg survival had not been reported for sculpins (D. McPhail, pers. comm., 2010; Keeler and Cunjak 2007). Algae covered some of the nests observed at Genelle, but differences in egg survival between nests with algae and those without were not assessed. At night, algae absorbs oxygen and this pulse in low oxygen may affect egg survival (D. McPhail, pers. comm., 2010). Egg survival for dace species is unknown at this time (AMEC 2010a). Dace spawning was not observed during this study, but the presence of dace YOY < 12 mm total length observed throughout the summer suggests the spawning period may be long or occur in pulses. Therefore, flow changes in late July causing newly flooded or other suitable spawning areas to dewater may interfere with the normal life cycle of dace in the LCR. Larval dace have been observed to use quiet, warm shoreline margins after emergence and throughout the summer before shifting to slightly deeper, faster habitats by late summer. For example, in the Slocan River, Umatilla dace YOY used shallow (<10 cm) areas that had no measureable current and had sand or silt substrate (McPhail 2007). In the Fraser River, longnose dace fry were abundant along stream margins, but by August they had shifted to slightly deeper areas (Gee and Northcote 1963 in AMEC 2010a). In the LCR, YOY dace were observed in shallow, vegetated shoreline margins with little to no flow in July and August, similar to what has been observed in unregulated systems. These habitats often overlapped with those used by other YOY, mainly sucker species. YOY rearing areas in the LCR included: i) the left side of lower Kootenay River just upstream of the oxbow and areas of the oxbow itself; ii) side channel areas at Genelle; iii) Fort Shepherd (boat launch and mainstem); iv) Beaver Creek mouth; and, v) Gyro Park boat launch. However, these areas could be prone to stranding by becoming disconnected to the mainstem and/or dewatering AMEC File: VE Page 37

51 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace depending on hydroelectric operations. For example, YOY dace and suckers were observed in a disconnected pool adjacent to the Beaver Creek mouth on July 23, 2010; this area had been flooded 10 days earlier and numerous adult and YOY longnose dace and some adult Umatilla dace had been observed using this habitat. Historically, thousands of larval sculpins and dace have been stranded at Genelle (mainland) and Tin Cup Rapids (left bank) during HLK flow reductions in July (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). Additional sites having fewer numbers of stranded YOY sculpins and dace also included: Kootenay River (left and right banks); upstream of Norn s Fan; Millenium Park; and along the left bank of Zuckerberg island (BC Hydro Stranding database, unpublished). The extent of YOY sculpins and dace stranding following peak run-off in natural systems is unknown. Fish species using shallow water environments are particularly prone to changes in flows since these habitats are more likely to become dewatered compared to the thalweg. Bain et al. (1988) observed that species using shallow water habitats in the margins of a regulated river were reduced in abundance and sometimes absent from their study sites compared to an unregulated river with similar habitat characteristics and species assemblages. Fish using deeper, mainstem habitats had higher abundances in the regulated river (Bain et al. 1988). Flow fluctuations may also affect channel edge and backwater habitats, especially along vegetated stream reaches occupied by nesting and YOY fish (Stalnaker et al. 1996). Effects of fish stranding caused by downstream flow fluctuations at the population level include direct mortality, decreased spawning success due to disruption of spawning activities or exposure and desiccation of eggs, increased stress, higher energy expenditure and susceptibility to predation due to forced relocation to seek suitable habitats elsewhere (AMEC 2010a). Fishes concentrated in isolated pools are also vulnerable to predation. 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF METHODS The focus of the past two years of study has been to observe natural life history characteristics of target species in the unregulated Similkameen system (Year 1) and in Pass Creek (Year 2), while determining whether sampling techniques were applicable to the LCR (Year 2). Additional tracking surveys (e.g., weekly compared to seasonally) may have provided different conclusions, but information collected during the present study was successful in determining general movement trends and for observing tagged sculpin males on nests. As mentioned throughout this document, observations collected at LCR index sites (with the exception of Pass Creek) were restricted to the shallow shoreline areas and information may not necessarily represent what is occurring throughout the LCR since deeper habitats could not be sampled adequately. However, sampling shallow, wadeable habitats focused efforts in areas prone to water level changes during flow fluctuations. Therefore, the sample methodology was successful in compiling information for sculpins to help answer the management questions required for this program. Additional techniques will be used in Year 3 to try to sample deeper habitat areas to determine their extent of use by target species, where possible. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The objectives of this program were to study a total of six species of sculpins and dace with a focus on those that are listed. However, it is very difficult to study the life history of sculpins and dace simultaneously, as they seem to have different timing and potentially habitat requirements. AMEC File: VE Page 38

52 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace The majority of information in Year 1 and Year 2 was collected for sculpins, so the focus of Year 3 should be to determine basic life history for dace. Specifically, spawn timing and spawning habitats used by dace in the LCR in comparison to an unregulated system (e.g., Slocan River) is a critical piece of information. Seasonal and diel habitat use for different life history phases of dace is secondary at this time. Additionally, Year 3 should also focus on determining the impacts of water level fluctuations on target species, specifically during the spawning through larval rearing period. Addressing these objectives will provide an additional stepping stone in answering the management questions. Although additional information is required for this program to fill in data gaps (e.g., flow fluctuations during overwinter period), it is not recommended at this time to deviate from the above focus. Also, it is recommended that one to two main index sites be used in the LCR for studies conducted in Year 3, which will concentrate repeated efforts during the spawning period. Investigation into additional linkages between this program and BC Hydro s fish stranding program during the spawning through rearing period should also be conducted depending on planned operations in AMEC File: VE Page 39

53 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace 8.0 REFERENCES AMEC Preliminary observations of dace and sculpin winter habitat use in the lower Columbia River, B.C. Prepared for BC Hydro. Castlegar, B.C. AMEC. 2010a. Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) Literature Review. Prepared for BC Hydro. Castlegar, B.C. AMEC. 2010b. Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) Year 1 Report (2009). Prepared for BC Hydro. Castlegar, B.C. Aquametrix Research Ltd Columbia River Integrated Environmental Monitoring Program (CRIEMP): interpretive report. Consultant report prepared for CRIEMP Coordinating Committee. Bain, M. B, J. T. Finn, and H. E. Booke Streamflow regulation and fish community structure. Ecology 69: BC Hydro Columbia River Project Water Use Plan. BC Hydro Generation 11 January BC Hydro Terms of Reference (TOR) Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Program Terms of Reference CLBMON-43 Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment. 16 October pp. 10. Bell, E., S. Kramer, D. Zajanc, and J. Aspittle Salmonid fry stranding mortality associated with daily water level fluctuations in Trail Bridge Reservoir, Oregon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: Erman, D. C., E. D. Andrews, and M. Yoder-Williams Effects of winter floods on stream fishes in the Sierra Nevada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) Lower Columbia River Fish Community Indexing Program 2001 Phase 1 Investigations. Burnaby, BC. Report prepared for BC Hydro. Burnaby, BC. Government of Canada Species at Risk Public Registry. Website Accessed on 27 May 2011 at: osid=&common=umatilla%20dace&scientific=&population=&taxid=0&locid=0&desid=0&s chid=0&desid2=0& Irvine, R. L., T. Oussoren, J. S. Baxter, and D. C. Schmidt The effects of flow reduction rates on fish stranding in British Columbia, Canada. River Research and Applications 25: AMEC File: VE Page 40

54 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Keeler, R. A., A. R. Breton, D. P. Peterson, and R. J. Cunjak Apparent survival and detection estimates for PIT tagged slimy sculpin in five small New Brunswick streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: Keeler, R. A., and R. J. Cunjak Reproductive ecology of slimy sculpin in small New Brunswick streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: McPhail, J. D The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. The University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, AB. Natsumeda, T Effects of a severe flood on the movement of Japanese fluvial sculpin. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68: Propst, D. L. and K. B. Gido Responses of native and nonnative fishes to natural flow regime mimicry in the San Juan River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: R. L. & L. Environmental Services Ltd. (R.L.&L.) Shallow-water habitat use by dace and sculpin spp. in the lower Columbia River Basin Development Area, investigations. Final report prepared for BC Hydro. Castlegar, BC. Stalnaker, C. B, K. D. Bovee and T. J. Waddle Importance of the temporal aspects of habitat hydraulics to fish population studies. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12: AMEC File: VE Page 41

55 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX A Sample Timing AMEC File: VE

56 Table A1. Sample locations, dates and general information for surveys in the lower Columbia River system, Site Name 1 Sample Date Season Crew 2 Sample Methods Electro Flow Reduction Day/Night fishing Seconds Pass Creek 24 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Night 6 Clear Pass Creek 25 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Day 3 Overcast Day tracking of night section Pass Creek Extention Area 25 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Day 5 Overcast Day tracking above and below regular tracking (high use) area Kootenay River Campground 26 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Day 6 Rainy Downstream tracking start; lots of benthic algae in site Kootenay River Campground 26 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Night 5 Overcast Beaver Creek Mouth 27 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Day 6 Clear Beaver Creek Mouth 27 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Night 5 Clear Beaver Creek Upper 27 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Day 6 Clear tracking edges; thalweg too turbulent Kootenay River Mouth RB 28 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking No Day 4.5 Overcast Genelle 28 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day 151 Prior to 30 March flow reduction; Genelle boat launch Snorkel Hours Water Temp ( C) Weather Comments Genelle 28 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day Genelle 28 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day Genelle 28 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day Prior to 30 March flow reduction; 100 m d/s of Genelle boat launch Prior to 30 March flow reduction; 200 m d/s of Genelle boat launch Prior to 30 March flow reduction; right bank u/s of rainbow trout fence Genelle 28 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day 189 Prior to 30 March flow reduction; channel inside rainbow trout fence Gyro Boat Launch 28 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day 151 Prior to 30 March flow reduction; no fish caught Fort Sheppard Boat Launch 28 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day 214 Prior to 30 March flow reduction Kootenay Oxbow 29 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day 487 Prior to 30 March flow reduction Kootenay Oxbow 29 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day 326 Prior to 30 March flow reduction Kootenay River Mouth LB 29 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Electrofishing Yes Day Prior to 30 March flow reduction Kootenay River Mouth RB 30 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking Yes Day 5 Overcast Flow change just starting to be noticeable Kootenay River Campground 30 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking Yes Day 5 Overcast 50 cm decrease Kootenay River Mouth RB 31 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking Yes Day 6 Overcast Flow reduction day 2 Kootenay River Campground 31 Mar 10 Winter RK, CL Tracking Yes Day 6 Overcast Kootenay River Mouth RB 5 May 10 Early Spring RK, CL Substrate Flip, Tracking No Day 7 Partly No fish tracked Kootenay River Campground 5 May 10 Early Spring RK, CL Tracking No Day 7 Overcast Pass Creek 6 May 10 Early Spring RK, CL Tracking No Day 4 Partly Kootenay River Campground 7 May 10 Early Spring RK, CL Tracking Yes Night 6 Clear Load shaping out of BRX/BRD results in night time flow reductions. Observed drop was about 50 cm vertical for about 4 hrs a night Kootenay River Campground 7 May 10 Early Spring RK, CL Tracking No Day 7 Clear In day, following night flow reduction Beaver Creek Mouth 25 May 10 Mid Spring RK, CL Electrofishing, Tracking No Day 10 Clear mouth backflooded; creek still high Pass Creek 25 May 10 Mid Spring RK, CL Tracking No Night Partly Nearly full moon Kootenay River Campground 26 May 10 Mid Spring RK, CL Tracking No Day 9 Partly Water much higher than previous Pass Creek 26 May 10 Mid Spring RK, CL Tracking No Day 5 Partly Kootenay River Mouth RB 27 May 10 Mid Spring RK, CL Electrofishing, Snorkeling, Substrate Flip, No Day Tracking Rainy Kootenay River Mouth RB 15 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Substrate Flip, Tracking No Day 14 Clear Kootenay River Campground 15 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Tracking No Day 13 Clear No fish tracked Pass Creek 15 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Substrate Flip, Tracking No Day 9 Clear Only able to track what is refered to as flooded area; water too high and fast in original channel Beaver Creek Mouth 16 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling No Day 2 Water too high to track, snorkel observations only in backwatered mouth area Kootenay River Mouth RB 17 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day Rainy Snorkeling to look for nests, larval and habitat use Kootenay River Campground 17 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip, Visual Observation No Day

57 Site Name 1 Sample Date Season Crew 2 Sample Methods Electro Flow Reduction Day/Night fishing Seconds Castlegar Robson Bridge 17 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day Overcast Genelle 17 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day 2 12 Overcast High abundance of dead egg nests Kootenay Oxbow 17 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip, Visual Observation No Day 0.5 Beaver Creek Boat Launch 18 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day 0.5 Overcast Gyro Boat Launch 18 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day 0.3 Overcast Millenium Park 18 Jun 10 Late Spring RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day 0.8 Overcast Beaver Creek Mouth 13 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL Dip Net, Snorkeling, Substrate Flip, Tracking No Day Overcast backflooded; able to track some left bank areas Beaver Creek Upper 13 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL Tracking No Day 12 Overcast Dip Net, Drift Net, Snorkeling, Substrate Water level down; still some flooded left bank areas; tree down Pass Creek 14 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL No Day 2 8 Clear Flip, Tracking across channel Pass Creek Extention Area 14 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL Tracking No Day 14 Clear Extended lower tracking area Kootenay River Mouth RB 15 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL Snorkeling, Substrate Flip, Tracking No Day 2 12 Clear Snorkel Hours Water Temp ( C) Kootenay River Campground 15 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL, LP Dip Net, Snorkeling, Substrate Flip, Tracking No Day 2 12 Clear Castlegar Robson Bridge 15 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL, LP Dip Net, Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day 0.3 Overcast Kootenay Oxbow 15 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL, LP Dip Net, Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day 1 Overcast Norns Fan 15 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL, LP Dip Net, Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day 0.3 Overcast Genelle 16 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL, LP Dip Net, Snorkeling, Substrate Flip No Day 1 Clear HLK 16 Jul 10 Summer RK, CL, LP, DD Dip Net, Electrofishing, Snorkeling, No Day Substrate Flip Clear Across from Lions Head 16 Jul 10 Summer LP, DD Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day 15 Clear Bay DS of Celgar 16 Jul 10 Summer LP, DD Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day 15 Clear Lions Head Rock Bluff 16 Jul 10 Summer LP, DD Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day 15 Clear DS of Celgar 16 Jul 10 Summer LP, DD Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day 15 Clear Beaver Creek Mouth 23 Jul 10 Summer CL, KM Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day 17.5 Clear Waneta 23 Jul 10 Summer CL, KM Dip Net, Snorkeling, Substrate Flip, Visual Observation No Day 1 19 Clear Fort Sheppard Boat Launch 23 Jul 10 Summer CL, KM Dip Net, Snorkeling, Visual Observation No Day Clear Genelle 30 Jul 10 Summer CL, LP Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day 18 Partly Gyro Boat Launch 30 Jul 10 Summer CL, LP Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day Partly Kootenay Oxbow 30 Jul 10 Summer CL, LP Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day 20 Partly Trail Bridge 30 Jul 10 Summer CL, LP Dip Net, Visual Observation No Day 15 Partly River km 18.2 and DS of ALGS 5 Aug 10 Summer LP BC Hydro White Sturgeon Larval Drift Nets No Day 17.8 Clear Accompany BC Hydro crew on retrival of larval drift nets to enumerate and identify larval sculpin incidental captures Kootenay River Campground 20 Aug 10 Summer CL, LP Seine, Snorkeling No Day Clear Prior to 21 Aug flow reduction Genelle 20 Aug 10 Summer CL, LP Dip Net, Seine, Visual Observation No Day 22 Clear Prior to 21 Aug flow reduction Kootenay Oxbow 20 Aug 10 Summer CL, LP Seine, Visual Observation No Day 19 Clear Prior to 21 Aug flow reduction Fort Sheppard Boat Launch 20 Aug 10 Summer CL, LP Dip Net, Seine, Snorkeling, Visual Observation No Day 1 20 Clear Prior to 21 Aug flow reduction Notes: 1 LB= left bank; RB= right bank; HLK= Hugh L. Keenlyside Dam; ALGS= Arrow Lakes Generating Station 2 RK= Rachel Keeler (AMEC); CL= Crystal Lawrence (AMEC); LP= Louise Porto (AMEC); DD= Dave DeRosa (BC Hydro); KM= Kristen Murphy (MOE) Weather Comments

58 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX B Sculpin Nest Data AMEC File: VE

59 Table B1. Sculpin nest information for nests located in the lower Columbia River system, 2010 Location Sample Date PIT Number Species Code 1 River Location Habitat Type Water Depth (m) Average Velocity (m/s) Substrate Type % Embeddedness Nest Rock Dimensions (cm) Number of Egg Masses Number of Eggs Egg Diameter (mm) Egg Stage Comments Pass Creek 6/29/2010 CC Left Riffle 0.3 fast Cobble/boulder 2 Not yet eyed Data provided by D. DeRosa (BC Hydro) Pass Creek 7/14/2010 3D9.1C2D CCN Right Run Cobble (64 256) 5 15x20x Eyed and moving near hatching Pass Creek 7/14/2010 3D9.1C2D CCN Left Other 0 0 Boulder (>256) 10 27x16x Eyed but not moving located in dewatered area; 0.15 m from water edge; small water pool under rock - 21 deg; 12 eggs dead; male stranded Pass Creek 7/14/2010 3D9.1C2D25D870 CCN Right/Center Run Cobble (64 256) 40 15x10x8 4 - Eyed but not moving under bunch of other cobbles Pass Creek 7/14/2010 CC Left/Center Run Boulder (>256) 5 30x20x Hatching all hatched just case left; none dead Pass Creek 7/14/2010 CCN Right/Center Run Boulder (>256) 40 35x20x10 1 male observed; nest under cobble pile; Eyed and moving - only a few eggs moving Robson Bridge 6/17/2010 CBA Left Run Cobble 10 20x Fresh Just deposited, captured female and observed probably male, eggs very bright mustard yellow colour, smaller than those obserrved in Otter Creek (possibly not fertilized yet or yet to expand), area flooded within previous ~2 weeks. Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder Dead, except for 3 almost at eyed stage Lots of algae in area Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder 10 Dead Too deep to lift rock Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder 10 30x Dead,except for 10 almost eyed Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Cobble 10 23x 1 15 Dead Rocks covered in algae Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder Dead, except for a few Too deep to move rock, photos underwater Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder 20 35x 1 50 Dead, except for 10 eyed but not - moving Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder 20 40x 1 85 Half dead, not eyed, appear <1 week - old Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder 20 30x Dead,except for 25% eyed but not moving Clutches are different colours and sizes (egg diameter yellow is 3 and darker is 4) Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder 20 40x 1 70 Dead, except for 25% alive eyed but - not moving Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder 20 28x 1 3 Half dead, alive are eyed Genelle 6/17/2010 CC Right Run Boulder 20 45x Dead Too deep to get out of water Notes: 1 CBA= Columbia sculpin (Cottus hubbsi ); CCN= Shorthead sculpin (Cottus confusus ); CC= (Cottus sp.) " " denotes no information available

60 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX C Electrofishing Data AMEC File: VE

61 Table C1. Electrofishing (EF) captures and effort in the lower Columbia River system, 2010 Sample Date Site Name 1 EF Site Length Site Width Species Total Length 3 Seconds (m) (m) Code 2 (mm) 3/28/2010 Genelle CAS 3/28/2010 Genelle CCN 3/28/2010 Genelle CCN 3/28/2010 Genelle CRH 3/28/2010 Genelle CRH 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/28/2010 Genelle LNC 3/29/2010 Kootenay Oxbow CAS 3/29/2010 Kootenay Oxbow CAS 3/29/2010 Kootenay Oxbow CAS 3/29/2010 Kootenay Oxbow CRH 3/29/2010 Kootenay Oxbow CRH 3/29/2010 Kootenay River Mouth LB CAS 3/29/2010 Kootenay River Mouth LB LNC 3/29/2010 Kootenay River Mouth LB UDC 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth CBA 34 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth CCN 57 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth CRH 42 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth CRH 44 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth CRH 45 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth CRH 47 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth CRH 49 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth CRH 62

62 Sample Date Site Name 1 EF Site Length Site Width Species Total Length 3 Seconds (m) (m) Code 2 (mm) 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth LNC 40 5/25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth LNC 55 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB CBA 47 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB CBA 47 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB CBA 48 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB CRH 46 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 30 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 35 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 35 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 35 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 35 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 45 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 45 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 45 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth RB LNC 45 7/16/2010 HLK CAS 50 7/16/2010 HLK CAS 52 7/16/2010 HLK CAS 62 7/16/2010 HLK LNC 42 Notes: 1 LB= Left bank; RB= Right bank; HLK = Hugh L. Keenlyside Dam 2 LNC= Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae ); UDC= Umatilla dace (Rhinichthys umatilla ); CRH= Torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus ); CAS= Prickly sculpin (Cottus asper ); CBA= Columbia sculpin (Cottus hubbsi ); CCN= Shorthead sculpin (Cottus confusus ); SU= Sucker spp. (Catostomus spp. ); RB= Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss )

63 Table C2 Electrofishing results at selected sites in the lower Columbia River system prior to and following a stepped flow reduction at Hugh L. Keenlyside Dam on March 30 and 31, Site Name Sample #Pools #Pools Species Life Stage #Live #Dead #Fish Comments Date Present Sampled Fish Fish Salvaged Lions Head (upstream of Norns Fan) (RUB) Lions Head (upstream of Norns Fan) (RUB) Norns Creek Fan (RUB) Norns Creek Fan (RUB) Estimated Vertical Drawdown Size of Interstitial Area Sampled 30 Mar Longnose dace Juvenile BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Mountain whitefish Larval No pre stranding survey conducted Redside shiner Juvenile Sucker spp. Juvenile Mar Mountain whitefish Larval BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Sucker spp. Juvenile Torrent sculpin Juvenile Mar Longnose dace Adult BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Mountain whitefish Larval No pre stranding survey conducted Peamouth Juvenile Rainbow trout Juvenile Redside shiner Juvenile Sucker spp. Juvenile Mar Longnose dace Adult BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Mottled sculpin Adult Columbia sculpin Mountain whitefish Larval Northern pikeminnow Juvenile Peamouth Juvenile Rainbow trout Juvenile Redside shiner Juvenile Sculpin spp. Juvenile Sculpin spp. Adult Sucker spp. Juvenile Torrent sculpin Juvenile Torrent sculpin Adult Kootenay River Confluence (left bank) 29 Mar 10 Longnose dace Adult 1 Prickly sculpin Adult 1 Rainbow trout Juvenile 6 Kootenay River Oxbow Area Kootenay River (LUB) Kootenay River (RUB) Pre stranding electrofishing survey; downstream of oxbow along confluence area; EF sec=487 Umatilla dace Adult 1 29 Mar 10 Prickly sculpin Adult 3 Pre stranding electrofishing survey; EF sec=335 Torrent sculpin Adult 2 30 Mar Mountain whitefish eggs BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Sucker spp. Juvenile Mar Longnose dace Adult BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Mottled sculpin Juvenile Columbia sculpin Mountain whitefish Larval Redside shiner Juvenile Sucker spp. Juvenile Torrent sculpin Adult Torrent sculpin Juvenile Millenium Park (Tin Cup LUB) 30 Mar No Fish / Not Available N/A BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Millenium Park (Tin Cup 31 Mar Northern pikeminnow Juvenile BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) LUB) Peamouth Juvenile 1 0 1

64 Site Name Sample Date Estimated Vertical Drawdown #Pools Present #Pools Sampled Size of Interstitial Area Sampled Species Life Stage #Live Fish Redside shiner Juvenile Sucker spp. Juvenile Torrent sculpin Adult CPR Island (MID) 30 Mar No Fish / Not Available N/A BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Genelle (Mainland) (LUB) Pre stranding electrofishing survey; Boat launch area; EF sec= Mar 10 Sucker spp. YOY 3 Longnose dace Adult 6 Pre stranding electrofishing survey; 100 m downstream of boat launch area; EF sec=145 #Dead Fish #Fish Salvaged Longnose dace Adult 3 Torrent sculpin Adult 1 Shorthead sculpin Adult 1 Longnose dace Adult 11 Torrent sculpin Adult 1 Shorthead sculpin Adult 1 Torrent sculpin Adult 1 Comments Pre stranding electrofishing survey; 200 m downstream of boat launch area; EF sec=185 Pre stranding electrofishing survey; right bank just upstream of rainbow trout exclusion fence; EF sec=214 Genelle (Mainland) (LUB) 30 Mar Longnose dace Adult BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Mountain whitefish Larval Peamouth Juvenile Redside shiner Juvenile Sucker spp. Juvenile Umatilla dace Juvenile Genelle (Mainland) (LUB) 31 Mar Longnose dace Juvenile BC Hydro Stranding Database (FSD2.2.mdb) Rainbow trout Juvenile Redside shiner Juvenile Redside shiner Juvenile Sucker spp. Juvenile Torrent sculpin Adult Torrent sculpin Juvenile Umatilla dace Juvenile Gyro Boat Launch, Trail 28 Mar 10 No Fish Pre stranding electrofishing survey; EF sec=189 Fort Shepherd Boat Launch 28 Mar 10 Rainbow trout Juvenile Pre stranding electrofishing survey; EF sec=178 Notes: " " Data not available or not applicable.

65 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX D Larval Dace Data AMEC File: VE

66 Table D1. Habitat characteristic of larval dace (young of the year) nursery areas in the lower Columbia River, Survey Site Date Method Species 1 Number Area (m 2 ) Area/ Pool Size (m) Length Range (mm) Depth (m) Velocity (m/s) Beaver Mouth 13 Jul 10 Lip Seine DC Water Temp ( C) Substrate Mud, flooded vegetation Bank (L/R/M) Distance to Shore (m) L Kootenay Camp 15 Jul 10 Dip Net DC (80% 17mm) Cobble R Kootenay Camp 15 Jul 10 Dip Net DC (80% 17mm) Cobble R Kootenay Camp 15 Jul 10 Dip Net DC (80% 17mm) Cobble R Kootenay Camp 15 Jul 10 Dip Net DC (80% 17mm) Cobble R Kootenay Camp 15 Jul 10 Dip Net DC (80% 17mm) Cobble R Kootenay Camp 15 Jul 10 Dip Net DC (80% 17mm) Cobble R Notes Along warm backflooded margins with algae, in schools of ~50 dace spp. Along warm backflooded margins with algae, in schools of ~50 dace spp. Along warm backflooded margins with algae, in schools of ~50 dace spp. Along warm backflooded margins with algae, in schools of ~50 dace spp. Along warm backflooded margins with algae, in schools of ~50 dace spp. Along warm backflooded margins with algae, in schools of ~50 dace spp. Kootenay Camp 15 Jul 10 Dip Net DC 0 1 N/A 0.1 > Cobble R Kootenay Camp 15 Jul 10 Dip Net DC 0 1 N/A < Cobble R No dace observed in similar habitat where depths were <5 cm No dace observed in similar habitat but where some flow was present. Genelle 16 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC 75 1 N/A Gravel/Silt R Mix of species though predominantly DC. Subsample (12) sent to Don McPhail was entirely LNC Fort Sheppard Boat Launch 23 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC <0.4 < Boulder/Cobble/Sil t L 3 Middle of boat launch area Fort Sheppard DS End of Boat Launch 23 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC < Silt L 3 DS End of boat launch

67 Site Date Method Species 1 Number Area (m 2 ) Survey Area/ Pool Size (m) Length Range (mm) Depth (m) Velocity (m/s) Water Temp ( C) Substrate Bank (L/R/M) Distance to Shore (m) Notes Fort Sheppard US of Boat Launch 23 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC <0.4 <0.1 Cobble L Roadway depressions becoming isolated pools as water receeds Beaver Mouth 23 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC many 48 12x < Vegetation L 25 Isolated pool previously connected by backflooded CLB at Beaver Mouth. Beaver Mouth 23 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC <0.3 < Silt and vegetation R Backflooded pool area on RB of creek upstream of mouth. Subsample (2) confirmed to be LNC. CLB US of Beaver Mouth 23 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC Boulder/Cobble L YOY only along margins in warmer, silty areas. Kootenay Oxbow Kootenay Oxbow 30 Jul Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation Dip Net, Visual Observation DC to 1 < Cobble/Gravel L 0 to 5 DC >11 <1 Silt and vegetation L US of inlet; Area connected to mainstem; many LNC had fat bellies. Schools of about 300/m2 with 95% being LNC Mainstem between inlet and outlet; Sporadic dip netting to confirm DC ID. Voucher sample collected. Kootenay Oxbow 30 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC x Cobble/Silt M 200 m US of oxbow outlet, upstream of outfall Kootenay Oxbow 30 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC 1000's <0.3 0 Silt M Areas upstream of this are dewatered with some shallow pools and some areas of minimal flow. Few SU observed but predominantly LNC Genelle 30 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC x10 same as others on 30 Jul 18 Cobble R <10 Boat launch area; small pockets of schooling YOY, mainly along the shore Genelle 30 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC x10 same as others on 30 Jul Silt/Cobble/Vegeta tion R Upper extent of Channel E inlet

68 Site Date Method Species 1 Number Area (m 2 ) Survey Area/ Pool Size (m) Length Range (mm) Depth (m) Velocity (m/s) Water Temp ( C) Substrate Bank (L/R/M) Distance to Shore (m) Notes Genelle 30 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC x1 same as others on 30 Jul <0.05 ~23 Gravel/Silt R Midway along channel E, schools in shallow inlet areas; high densities but patchy. Subsample (7) confrimed LNC with Don McPhail. Gyro Boat Launch 30 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC 1000's same as others on 30 Jul 24 Silt with few cobbles L Bay US of boat launch, seperated from mainstem by cobble bar. Subsample (2) confirmed LNC by Don McPhail. Gyro Boat Launch 30 Jul 10 Dip Net, Visual Observation DC/SU/CC few x1 same as others on 30 Jul < Gravel/Cobble with silt L Bay DS of boat launch; more CLB influence (temp) and less fish observed. Trail Bridge 30 Jul 10 Visual Observation None x1 N/A 15 Cobble with algae L Margin areas surveyed under bridge, no fish observed. Trail Bridge 30 Jul 10 Visual Observation None 0 N/A 15 Cobble/Boulder L 500 m DS of the bridge; steep drop off within 5 m of shoreline Kootenay Oxbow 20 Aug 10 Seine LNC x Cobble L Pool closest to bank at dewatered oxbow inlet Kootenay Oxbow 20 Aug 10 Seine LNC x < Cobble/Gravel L Mainstem between cobble bar and oxbow Kootenay Camp 20 Aug 10 Seine LNC Cobble/Boulder L 1 Seining in shallows Kootenay Camp 20 Aug 10 Snorkel LNC to 1.2 <0.5 Boulder L 3 to 5 Snorkeling deeper areas; LNC holding behind and beside boulders Snorkeled backflooded area with Fort Sheppard 20 Aug 10 Snorkel LNC to some direct CLB flow; depths more Boulder/Cobble/Sa L 3 to 7 variable than 23 July; groups of 3 nd to 20 LNC of various sizes around boulders. Genelle 20 Aug 10 Dip Net, Seine LNC Sand L Remaining shallow backflooded top end of channel E Genelle 20 Aug 10 Seine LNC to Cobble L Mainstem shallows Fort Sheppard 20 Aug 10 Snorkel None to 0.5 >0.1 Boulder L Mainstem outside of cobble breakwater; no YOY CC observed in areas seen in 23 July

69 Site Date Method Species 1 Number Area (m 2 ) Survey Area/ Pool Size (m) Length Range (mm) Depth (m) Velocity (m/s) Water Temp ( C) Notes: 1 DC= Dace spp. (Rhinichthys spp.); LNC= Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae ); SU= Sucker spp. (Catostomus spp.); CC= Sculpin spp. (Cottus spp.) Substrate Bank (L/R/M) Distance to Shore (m) Notes " " denotes no data available

70 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX E Habitat & Displacement Analyses AMEC File: VE

71 Table E1. Analysis of larval sculpin habitat use in the lower Columbia River system, 2010 Water Depth (m) Water Velocity (m/s) N Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Maximum Minimum upper 95% Mean lower 95% Mean

72 Table E2 Seasonal habitat use by sculpin and dace in the lower Columbia River system, Results based on both PIT tag tracking and snorkel observation. Overwinter Spring Summer Water Depth Prickly Sculpin Shorthead Sculpin Torrent Sculpin Prickly Sculpin Shorthead Sculpin Torrent Sculpin Columbia Sculpin Longnose Dace Prickly Sculpin Shorthead Sculpin Torrent Sculpin Columbia Sculpin Longnose Dace Umatilla Dace Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean upper 95% Mean lower 95% Mean N Water Velocity Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean upper 95% Mean lower 95% Mean N Substrate % Cobble % Boulder % Gravel %Mud/Vegetation N Embeddedness 0% % % % % % % % % N Notes: Information includes 30 and 31 March flow reduction sampling habitat use All fish presented are adults (fish >40 mm TL or FL).

73 Table E3: Diel habitat use comparisons at index sites in the lower Columbia River, Data does not include sampling during flow reductions. Winter Spring Prickly Sculpin Shorthead Sculpin Torrent Sculpin Shorthead Sculpin Torrent Sculpin Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Water Depth N Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean lower 95% Mean upper 95% Mean Day/Night Signif no no no no NA Water Velocity N Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean lower 95% Mean upper 95% Mean Day/Night Signif no no no no NA Substrate % Cobble % Boulder % Gravel %Mud/Vegetation N Day/Night Signif no no no no NA Embeddedness 0% % % % % % % % % N Day/Night Signif no yes no no NA

74 Table E4. Analysis of diel displacements for prickly (CAS), shorthead (CCN) and torrent (CRH) in the lower Columbia River system, 2010 Level N Mean Std Dev Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95% Signif Comments Early Spring Mid Spring diel displacements were not significant different Winter p>0.05 between seasons CAS CCN CRH Beaver Creek Mouth KR Campground Pass Creek p>0.05 p>0.05 -diel displacements were not significant different between species - diel displacements were not significant different between sites Combined sites, species and seasons to compare flow reduction diel displacements vs. non flow related diel displacements No diel displacements were not significantly different Yes p>0.05 between flow event and nonflow events Diel displacement comparisons for Kootenay Campground site for observations taken during flow reductions sampling (March 2010), load shaping (May 2010), and during regular tracking (no flow events). flow reduction load shaping no flow event Diel displacements pooled by flow event (March and May 2010) and non flow event for the Kootenay River Campground No diel displacements not significantly different between Yes p>0.05 flow events (pooled) and non flow events p>0.05 -diel displacements were not significantly different between these types of events

75 Table E5. Habitat use by sculpin and dace at various life stages in the lower Columbia River system, 2010 Dace Species Water Depth Adult Juvenile YOY Significance N Yes (p<0.05) - differences among all age classes; Mean Adult using deeper water on average compared to Std Dev juveniles and YOY and YOY using shallowest water Std Err Mean upper 95% Mean lower 95% Mean Water Velocity N Yes (p<0.05) - differences among all age classes; Mean Adult using higher velocities on average compared Std Dev to juveniles and YOY and YOY using slowest Std Err Mean upper 95% Mean lower 95% Mean Substrate % Cobble Yes (p<0.05) - differences among all age % Boulder classes;juv observed over mostly larger boulder % Gravel substrates; adults similar use of %Sand boulder/cobble/gravel substrates; YOY as per %Mud/silt/Vegetation adults but mud/silt/vegetation N Sculpin Species Water Depth Adult Juvenile YOY Significance N Yes (p<0.05) - differences between YOY and Mean juveniles, but adults were not different from YOY Std Dev and juveniles. Std Err Mean upper 95% Mean lower 95% Mean Water Velocity N No differences among age classes (p>0.05). Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean upper 95% Mean lower 95% Mean Substrate % Cobble Yes (p<0.05) - differences among all age classes; % Boulder Juv observed over mostly cobble substrates;adults % Gravel similar use of boulder/cobble substrates; YOY as %Sand per adults but mud/veg %Mud/silt/Vegetation N Notes: Information includes 30 and 31 March flow reduction sampling habitat use Age classes are seperated by length: Young of the Year (YOY) < 20 mm; Juvenile = 20 to 40 mm; Adult > 40 mm

76 Table E6: Descriptive statistics for pre-reduction versus flow reduction movement displacement comparison. Level N Mean Std Dev Std. Erro Lower 95% Upper 95% Signif Flow Reduction Pre-Reduction None

77 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX F Index Site Habitat Availability Data AMEC File: VE

78 Appendix F. Habitat availability within lower Columbia River index sites, Data was collected in transects evenly distributed through the index site. Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 3/25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle

79 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 5/6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /6/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /26/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /15/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Run

80 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 7/14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Riffle /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run

81 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 3/25/2010 Pass Creek Extention Pool /14/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Extention Run /14/2010 Pass Creek Extention Riffle /14/2010 Pass Creek Extention Pool /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle

82 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 7/13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Riffle /13/2010 Beaver Creek Upper Run /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle

83 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 3/27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /27/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /25/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle

84 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 7/13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Pool /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Run /13/2010 Beaver Creek Mouth Riffle /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run

85 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 3/28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /28/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool

86 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 3/31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Riffle /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Riffle /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Riffle /31/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Riffle /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool

87 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 5/27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /27/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool

88 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 7/15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Mouth Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run

89 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 3/26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /5/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run

90 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 5/26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /26/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run

91 Sample Date Name Habitat Type Depth (m) Ave velocity (m/s) % Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines % Bedrock % Other Substrate % Embeddedness 6/15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Run /15/2010 Kootenay River Camp Pool

92 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX G Distribution Maps AMEC File: VE

93 Arrow Lakes Generating Station 0 Hugh L. Keenelyside Dam Celgar Blueberry Creek Norns Pass/Creek 5 Norns Fan Robson Bridge Millenium Park Castlegar Pass Creek CPR Bridge Zuckerberg Island Kootenay Mouth 10 Brilliant Dam 15 Columbia River Kootenay Campground Kootenay Oxbow Kootenay River Legend Present Study ( ) Past Studies River Km Sample Site 2009/2010 Index Sites Birchbank Water Survey Canada Station Dam City / Town River Lake Waterloo Eddy China Creek 20 Champion Creek Genelle Murphy Creek 30 Y:\GIS\Proposals\VE9999_CPC Sturgeon\Mapping\MXD\Drafts\study_map\columbia_sculpin_v3.mxd Canada United States Gyro Park Boat Launch Trail 35 Trail Bridge Casino Creek Waneta Eddy Bear Creek Rock Island Beaver Mouth Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Ft. Shepherd Eddy Waneta Dam Fort Sheppard Boat Launch Pend d'oreille River Reference Freshwater Atlas scale 1:20,000. CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: JOB No: November 8, 2010 VE51872 GIS FILE: columbia_sculpin_v3.mxd PROJECTION: Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) UTM Zone 11 Scale: 1:200,000 Kilometres BC Hydro Columbia Sculpin Past & Present Distribution ANALYST: EO QA/QC: LP DATUM: NAD83 Figure PDF FILE: columbia_sculpin_v3.pdf

94 Arrow Lakes Generating Station 0 Hugh L. Keenelyside Dam Celgar Blueberry Creek Norns Pass/Creek 5 Norns Fan Robson Bridge Millenium Park Castlegar Pass Creek CPR Bridge Zuckerberg Island Kootenay Mouth 10 Brilliant Dam 15 Columbia River Kootenay Campground Kootenay Oxbow Kootenay River Legend Present Study ( ) Past Studies River Km Sample Site 2009/2010 Index Sites Birchbank Water Survey Canada Station Dam City / Town River Lake Waterloo Eddy China Creek 20 Champion Creek Genelle Murphy Creek 30 Y:\GIS\Proposals\VE9999_CPC Sturgeon\Mapping\MXD\Drafts\study_map\shorthead_sculpin_v3.mxd Canada United States Gyro Park Boat Launch Trail 35 Trail Bridge Casino Creek Waneta Eddy Bear Creek Rock Island Beaver Mouth Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Ft. Shepherd Eddy Waneta Dam Fort Sheppard Boat Launch Pend d'oreille River Reference Freshwater Atlas scale 1:20,000. CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: JOB No: November 8, 2010 VE51872 GIS FILE: shorthead_sculpin_v3.mxd PROJECTION: Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) UTM Zone 11 Scale: 1:200,000 Kilometres BC Hydro Shorthead Sculpin Past & Present Distribution ANALYST: EO QA/QC: LP DATUM: NAD83 Figure PDF FILE: shorthead_sculpin_v3.pdf

95 Arrow Lakes Generating Station 0 Hugh L. Keenelyside Dam Celgar Blueberry Creek Norns Pass/Creek 5 Norns Fan Robson Bridge Millenium Park Castlegar Pass Creek CPR Bridge Zuckerberg Island Kootenay Mouth 10 Brilliant Dam 15 Columbia River Kootenay Campground Kootenay Oxbow Kootenay River Legend Present Study ( ) Past Studies River Km Sample Site 2009/2010 Index Sites Birchbank Water Survey Canada Station Dam City / Town River Lake Waterloo Eddy China Creek 20 Champion Creek Genelle Murphy Creek 30 Y:\GIS\Proposals\VE9999_CPC Sturgeon\Mapping\MXD\Drafts\study_map\umatilla_dace_v3.mxd Canada United States Gyro Park Boat Launch Trail 35 Trail Bridge Casino Creek Waneta Eddy Bear Creek Rock Island Beaver Mouth Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Ft. Shepherd Eddy Waneta Dam Fort Sheppard Boat Launch Pend d'oreille River Reference Freshwater Atlas scale 1:20,000. CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: JOB No: November 8, 2010 VE51872 GIS FILE: umatilla_dace_v3.pdf PROJECTION: Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment (CLBMON-43) UTM Zone 11 Scale: 1:200,000 Kilometres BC Hydro Umatilla Dace Past & Present Distribution ANALYST: EO QA/QC: LP DATUM: NAD83 Figure PDF FILE: umatilla_dace_v3.pdf

96 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX H HLK Flow Reduction Memo AMEC File: VE

97 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo 6 April 2010 AMEC File:VE VIA BC Hydro Kootenay Generation Office Castlegar, BC Attention: Mr. David DeRosa and Mr. Guy Martel Reference: CLBMON-43: Lower Columbia River Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March Flow Reduction Event At HLK Dam 1.0 INTRODUCTION This memo summarizes field sampling activities that were conducted in relation to the 30 to 31 March 2010 flow reduction at Hugh L. Keenleyside (HLK) Dam. Field sampling activities focused on the objective of recording the movement and habitat use of target sculpin and dace species in the lower Columbia River to qualitatively assess how water level fluctuations from the operation of HLK Dam affect the distribution and habitat use of these species. Observations and preliminary results are highlighted herein. 2.0 PRE-FLOW CHANGE ACTIVITIES Scheduled winter tracking was conducted at all of the Columbia River index sites between 24 and 29 March, prior to the HLK Dam flow reduction event. The percent of the fish redetected ranged from 5% (1 shorthead sculpin) in the Beaver Creek campground site to 65% (117 fish, mostly shorthead sculpin) in the Pass Creek site. Sites were tracked during the day and at night for all sites except the Beaver Creek campground sites where flows were considered too high to track safely at night. On 28 and 29 March, electrofishing was conducted on sites in the Columbia and Kootenay rivers to look for target species and get an idea of abundance and distribution prior to the HLK flow reduction event in areas that were expected to dewater (Table 1). Although a few sculpin and dace were captured at these sites, the density of the SARA-listed target species (i.e., Columbia sculpin, shorthead sculpin and Umatilla dace) was very low in the areas sampled. AMEC File: VE Page 1

98 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo Table 1: A summary of electrofishing activities at sites expected to dewater prior to the HLK flow reduction event in the Columbia and Kootenay rivers. Bank locations are as facing downstream. Electrofishing Date Site Location 28-Mar-10 Genelle 1 (boat launch area) 28-Mar-10 Genelle 2 (100 m downstream of boat launch) 28-Mar-10 Genelle 3 (200 m downstream of boat launch) 28-Mar-10 Genelle 4 (right bank just upstream of rainbow trout fence) 28-Mar-10 Genelle 5 (channel inside rainbow trout Seconds Species Comments 151 s 3 YOY suckers Good boulder habitat but in back eddy with low flow and high embeddedness. 145 s 6 adult longnose dace 185 s 3 longnose dace; 1 adult torrent sculpin; 1 shorthead sculpin 214 s 11 longnose dace; 1 torrent sculpin; 1 shorthead sculpin 151 s 1 small torrent sculpin Good cobble/boulder substrate; good flow and not too embedded. Good cobble/boulder substrate; good flow and not too embedded. Small cobble; good flow. Small cobble; good flow. exclusion fence) 28-Mar-10 Gyro boat launch 189 s None Good cobble/boulder substrate; good flow and not too embedded. 28-Mar-10 Fort Shepperd boat launch 29-Mar-10 Kootenay Confluence (left bank around point with Columbia River) 29-Mar-10 Downstream of Kootenay Oxbow (left bank) 29-Mar-10 Kootenay Oxbow (downstream portion of oxbow) 178 s 3 juvenile rainbow trout 487 s 1 longnose dace; 1 prickly sculpin; 1 Umatilla dace; 6 rainbow trout juveniles 326 s 2 adult prickly sculpin; 1 adult torrent sculpin 109 s 1 prickly sculpin; 1 torrent sculpin Good cobble/boulder substrate; good flow and not too embedded Good cobble/boulder substrate, good flow and not too embedded. Boulder substrates; back eddy pool. Boulder substrates; back eddy pool. AMEC File: VE Page 2

99 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo 3.0 FLOW CHANGE TRACKING ASSESSMENTS 3.1 HLK Flow Reduction Schedule Flows at HLK Dam were reduced over a two day period and a 2-step ramp down occurred on each day. On 30 March 2010, HLK was reduced from 29 to 22 kcfs (2-steps of 3.5 kcfs each at 0700 hours and 0800 hours). On 31 March 2010 flows were similarly reduced from 22 kcfs to 15 kcfs. Discharge from Brilliant Dam (BRD/BRX) was approximately 18 kcfs at this time ( dated 26 March 2010 from T. Oussoren, Natural Resource Specialist, BC Hydro, Castlegar). It was estimated that the total vertical flow reduction at Norn s Creek fan was approximately 0.95 m for the entire flow reduction (D. DeRosa, Natural Resource Specialist, BC Hydro, Castlegar). 3.2 Potentially Affected Index Sites Tracking assessments were conducted at sites where the flow reduction would have the potential to affect previously tagged sculpin and dace species. Index sites that were re-tracked and sampled on 30 and 31 March included the mouth of the Kootenay River on the right downstream bank and our site on the left bank along the Kootenay Campground just upstream of the oxbow. Water levels at the Beaver Creek Mouth index site may also have been affected by the HLK flow reduction event but tagged fish were not located in the lower section of the site during pre-flow change tracking activities, so this site was not sampled further. On 30 March, tracking occurred at the mouth of the Kootenay River from 0845 to 1015 hours and all field activities at this location was completed at 1200 hours. The total estimated horizontal flow reduction observed at this site was approximately 0.50 m. At the Kootenay Campground site, tracking occurred from 1220 to 1500 hours and all field activities were completed at this time. The total estimated horizontal flow reduction observed at this site was approximately 0.50 m. On 31 March, tracking occurred at the mouth of the Kootenay River from 0830 to 1140 hours. The total estimated horizontal flow reduction observed at this site was approximately 0.50 to 1.0 m. At the Kootenay Campground site, tracking occurred from 1215 to 1430 hours. The total estimated horizontal flow reduction observed at this site was approximately 0.10 to 0.20 m. A summary of our tracking results at each index site is provided in Table 2. Overall, a total of 22 fish were re-located at the index sites sampled during the flow reduction. Of these, two fish were located at the Kootenay mouth site (12% tagged fish), while 20 fish were tracked at the Kootenay Campground location (37% tagged fish). Species re-located at these two index sites included 10 torrent sculpin, 6 prickly sculpin, 5 shorthead sculpin, and 1 longnose dace. Preliminary tracking information indicated that the majority of our re-located fish at Kootenay Campground likely did not move during the two day flow reduction event (Table 2). However, the magnitude of the flow reduction on Day 2 at this location did not seem as obvious as at our Kootenay mouth index site and tagged fish seemed undisturbed by the fluctuation. Also, the locations of these fish were not in immediate danger of dewatering. For example, Figure 1 depicts a fish located in an area that was not prone to dewatering at the Kootenay Campground site, which was typical of the lack of movement observed at this site. AMEC File: VE Page 3

100 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo Table 2: Summary of sculpin and dace species tracked during 30 to 31 March HLK flow reduction event. Site Fish Species (PIT#) Day 1 (29-22 kcfs) 30 March Distance Comments from Water s Edge (m) Day 2 (22-15 kcfs) 31 March Comments Moved in Response to Flow Reduction? Kootenay Mouth Torrent (2D0C2C) Prickly (313207) Sculpin 0.20 (845hr) Same location as 26 This fish was not relocated; may Yes - moved in response to 0.30 (1015hr) March; tracked at have moved to deeper water; flow change because original 845hrs; retracked at was not in dry dewatered area location was dewatered and 1015hrs and moved fish re-located in wetted area ~30 cm to deeper water Sculpin 2.50 New fish Moved ~ 3-4 m from Day 1 Yes - moved in response to location to deeper water flow change because original location was dewatered and fish re-located in wetted area Kootenay Campground Torrent (3133C3) Torrent (312F60) Prickly (3138E) Torrent (3133D8) Prickly (312D99) Prickly (312F72) Prickly (313DCA) Torrent (313D31) Prickly (2CBC1D) Torrent (312E4F) Shorthead (313592) Shorthead (2D03C1) Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin 0.35 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 No observed movement March 0.80 New fish Same location as Day 1 No observed movement 1.50 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 No observed movement March 1.20 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 No observed movement March 2.00 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 No observed movement March 1.00 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 No observed movement March 3.00 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 No observed movement March 5.00 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 No observed movement March 2.00 New fish Not relocated Unknown 1.50 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 March 4.00 Same location as 26 Same location as Day 1 March 5.00 ~ 0.50 m towards the Same location as Day 1 thalweg from previous location on 26 March No observed movement No observed movement No observed movement Longnose (2CF8FE) Shorthead (3130B9) Torrent (31378A) Shorthead (31544D) Torrent (313866) Dace Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin 5.00 New fish Not relocated Unknown 5.00 Same location as 26 Not relocated Unknown March 2.00 Same location as 26 Not relocated Unknown March 5.00 New fish Same location as Day 1 No observed movement 1.50 ~ 0.20 m upstream Same location as Day 1 from previous location No observed movement Shorthead (313A0C) Torrent (2D1238) Torrent (2D106D) Sculpin Sculpin Sculpin 5.00 New fish Not relocated Unknown na na New fish Unknown na na New fish Unknown AMEC File: VE Page 4

101 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo Photo taken on 31 March at 1300 hrs 31 March 1300 hrs: ~ 1.5 m from water s edge Water flow to Columbia River Figure 1: Location of torrent sculpin (#3133D8) at the Kootenay Campground index site (~1.5 m from water s edge at 1300 hours). This fish was not in immediate danger of dewatering and this photo represents a lack of movement typically observed by tagged fish at this site. Photo taken facing the shoreline at the left bank approximately mid-site. AMEC File: VE Page 5

102 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo The most detailed movement information was observed for two fish tracked at the Kootenay mouth, which moved in response to the flow reduction (Table 2). On 30 March, a torrent sculpin (located at the Kootenay mouth site approximately 100 m upstream of the confluence) was observed approximately 0.20 m from the water s edge at 845 hours (Figure 2). Water levels at this site dropped slowly during the tracking period and by 1015 hours on 30 March this fish was re-located in deeper water approximately 0.30 m from the water s edge, indicating that it moved to avoid becoming dewatered (Figure 2). On 31 March, this torrent sculpin was not re-located within the site, nor was it found in the dewatered zone along the bank and is assumed to have moved to a section of the river too deep to track (Figure 3). Photo taken on 30 March at 1015 hrs Water flow to Columbia River 30 March new location at 1015 hrs ~ 30 cm from water s edge Movement Direction 30 March original location at 0845 hr Figure 2: Location of torrent sculpin (#2D0C2C) at the Kootenay Mouth index site (~100 m from the Columbia River confluence). This fish moved into deeper water during the staged flow reduction. Photo taken on 30 March 2010 (1015 hours) facing downstream towards the confluence along the shoreline. AMEC File: VE Page 6

103 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo Photo taken on 31 March at 1015 hrs Water flow to Columbia River? 31 March hrs; not relocated but not in dewatered zone 30 March hrs Movement Direction 30 March hrs Figure 3: Location of torrent sculpin (#2D0C2C) at the Kootenay Mouth index site (~100 m from the Columbia River confluence). Photo depicts previous locations of this fish on 30 March 2010; this fish was not re-located on 31 March 2010 within the wetted or the dewatered zone and it likely moved to deeper water in response to the flow reduction. Photo taken on 31 March 2010 (1015 hours) facing downstream towards the confluence along the shoreline. The second fish found at this site was a prickly sculpin, which was located at the cobble point directly at the confluence approximately 2.5 m from the water s edge on 30 March(Table 2; Figure 4). On day 2 of the flow reduction, water levels at the confluence point had dropped substantially to reveal a cobble shelf at this location and tracking could be extended out along this area compared to the previous day (Figure 4). The prickly sculpin was re-located on 31 March approximately 3 to 4 m from where it was located on 30 March (Figure 4), indicating that it moved to deeper water to avoid being stranded in the dewatered area. AMEC File: VE Page 7

104 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo Photos taken on 31 March at 1030 hrs 31 March hrs; was ~3-4 m from 30 March location Movement Direction Water flow to Columbia River 30 March hrs; was ~2.5 m from water s edge Figure 4: Location of prickly sculpin (#313207) at the Kootenay Mouth index site (confluence point). On the right, the photo depicts the previous location of this fish on 30 March 2010, which was wetted at that time. On the left, the photo depicts the new location of this fish (~3 to 4 m from its original location) indicating that it had moved in response to the flow reduction. Photo taken on 31 March 2010 (1030 hours) at the confluence facing downstream of the Columbia River. Microhabitat use data (e.g., velocity, depth, and substrate) for each fish was also measured during these surveys at each site, but this information has not been included here at this time. Results will be included in the Year 2 data report. 4.0 SITE RECONNAISANCE During the two day flow reduction event, AMEC was also in communications with personnel from Golder Associates Ltd. (herein referred to as Golder) that were conducting fish salvage activities at the same time. On 30 March, after the tracking surveys were completed, AMEC joined Golder at the Genelle site at 1530 hrs. The fish salvage crew had only collected 3 fish at this location; no sculpin/dace species were captured. At approximately 1630 hrs, AMEC checked the right bank between HLK eddy and Celgar for potential impact sites. This site seemed to have substrates appropriate for the target species and in higher flows the exposed cobble shelf would be wetted, which may be appropriate for additional fish composition sampling. AMEC File: VE Page 8

105 BC Hydro CLBMON-43 LCR Sculpin and Dace Life History Assessment March 2010 Flow Reduction Memo On 31 March at 1700 hrs, AMEC inspected dewatered pools that had been sampled by the Golder salvage crew at Norn s Creek fan; approximately 35 sculpin had been captured (D. Burgoon, Biologist, Golder, pers. comm., 2010). AMEC was unable to join Golder to aid in identification of these sculpin, since tracking surveys had not been completed. However, AMEC joined the Golder crew at Genelle at approximately 1730 hrs and identified the sculpin and dace species captured in approximately 14 isolated pools located along the rainbow trout exclusion fence that had been previously set up by BC Hydro. Rachel Keeler went through the identification of both torrent and shorthead sculpin species with Demetria Burgoon and Steve Whitehead (Golder). The following target species were salvaged at the Genelle site on 31 March: 26 adult longnose dace; 3 Umatilla dace; 12 adult torrent sculpin; 42 juvenile torrent sculpin; and 1 adult shorthead sculpin (vouchered). Please let us know if you require any further information regarding our sampling activities conducted during the HLK flow reduction event. Regards, AMEC Earth & Environmental, a division of AMEC Americas Limited Per Louise Porto, M.Sc., R.P. Bio. Project Manager/Biologist Senior Aquatic Habitat Biologist Rachel Keeler, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. Project Biologist Aquatic Habitat Biologist AMEC File: VE Page 9

106 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX I BRD Flow Reduction Memo AMEC File: VE

107 We were also able to take opportunistic flow change observations at our Kootenay Campground index site during this sampling session. Load shaping was occurring at Brilliant Dam from 23 April to 7 May 2010 resulting in nightly flow reductions of about 200 m 3 /s (from 1400 to 1200 m 3 /s on 7 May 2010) in the lower Columbia River at Birchbank (station 08NE049; Water Survey of Canada, Online Real-Time Data, Accessed 17 May 2009). Therefore, in addition to day sampling, we also tracked the Kootenay Campground index site during the night of 7 May 2010, when flows were held low from midnight until 4 am on the lower Kootenay River to fill the reservoir. We also tracked this site in the afternoon on 5 and 7 May to get a better understanding of how these daily fluctuations were affecting our tagged fish. We estimated that flows at night were reduced by about 0.5 m vertically and the wetted width changed by about m (Figure 4). Night tracking was conducted within the wetted, wadable portion of the Kootenay Campground index site as well as the recently dewatered area along the shoreline. We also searched the dewatered area for sculpin nests and stranded fish by flipping rocks. Dewatered sculpin nests were not found, but one 50 mm Umatilla dace and one 80 mm torrent sculpin were observed stranded at 3:30 am in the dewatered area within this index site. Both stranded fish were alive and it was estimated that they were out for water for about 3.5 hours. We returned them to the river, but it is unknown if they would have survived until the water flows came back up at 4 am. Eleven of our tagged fish were relocated at night within the wetted portion of the site. PIT tagged fish were not located along the dewatered shoreline. Two tagged fish were observed close to the wetted edge during the day, but moved in response to declining flows at night; these fish would have been stranded if they had not moved from their previously tracked locations. The remainder of the tagged fish, which were in areas that were not dewatered, were found in close proximity to their daytime locations. Figure 1: Night tracking at the Kootenay River Campground index site was conducted between 1 am and 4 am on 7 May 2010 when load shaping was occurring from Brilliant Dam. Recent dewatering of the site is depicted by the darkened substrate. Water levels and wetted widths differed by about 0.5 m and 3 m, respectively, between the day (near flagged rebar) and night levels.

108 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace APPENDIX J Movement Summary AMEC File: VE

109 Seasonal Displacement Results Shorthead Sculpin Table 1: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of shorthead sculpin observed in the Pass Creek index sites by season, 2010 Observed Displacement (m) Season (Date) n Mean Min Max Winter (March 24-28) Early Spring (May 5-7) Mid-Spring (May 25-27) Late Spring (June 15-18) Summer (July 13-16) Table 2: Table of seasonal comparisons (ANOVA) with lower and upper confidence limits, p-value and significance for shorthead sculpin displacements observed in the Pass Creek index sites, 2010 Level - Level Difference Lower CL Summer Winter E-17 * Mid Summer Spring E-10 * Late Spring Winter * Upper CL p-value Significance Summer Early Spring E-06 * Early Spring Winter E-05 * Late Spring Mid Spring * Summer Late Spring Early Spring Mid Spring * Mid Spring Winter * Late Spring Early Spring

110 Torrent Sculpin Table 3: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of torrent sculpin observed in the LCR by season, 2010 Observed Displacement (m) Season (Date) n Mean Min Max Winter (March 24-28) Early Spring (May 5-7) Mid-Spring (May 25-27) Late Spring (June 15-18) Summer (July 13-16) Total 38 Prickly Sculpin Table 4: Number, mean, minimum and maximum displacements of prickly sculpin observed in the LCR by season, 2010 Observed Displacement (m) Season (Date) n Mean Min Max Winter (March 24-28) Early Spring (May 5-7) Mid-Spring (May 25-27) Late Spring (June 15-18) Summer (July 13-16) Total 23

111 Lower Columbia River Sculpin & Dace Photo Plates AMEC File: VE

112 Photo 1. Snorkel surveys conducted in Beaver Creek on June 16, 2010 Photo 2. Larval drift net deployed in Pass Creek index site on July 14, 2010.

113 March 28, 2010 May 6, 2010 May 26, 2010 June 14, 2010 July 14, 2010 Photo 3. Facing upstream toward the Pass Creek index site from March to July, Time lapse shows water levels rising to flood the left bank in early May and receding in mid July.

114 Photo 4. Right bank of the LCR approximately 200 m downstream of the boat launch at Genelle. Photo is taken facing upstream and depicts the location where sculpin nests containing many dead eggs were observed. Photo 5. Sculpin YOY of unknown species, though it was likely either Columbia or shorthead, collected at the Kootenay River Mouth on July 15, 2010.

115 Photo 6. Longnose dace collected at the Beaver Creek Mouth site on July 23, Photo 7. Flooded margins at the Kootenay River Campground site where schools of larval dace were observed on July 15, Photo was taken facing downstream.

116 Photo 8. Beaver Creek mouth (red arrow) on July 13, 2010 (left) when mouth was backflooded by high discharges in the LCR (white arrow) and on July 23, 2010 (right) when water levels had receded. Red circle indicates general area of dace YOY stranding in an isolated pool.