Executive Summary

The health and viability of freshwater fish populations depends on access to tributary and off channel areas which provide refuge during high flows, opportunities for foraging as well as overwintering, spawning and summer rearing habitats. In addition, open migration corridors can facilitate adaptation to the impacts of climate change such as rising water temperatures and changing flow regimes. Culverts can present barriers to fish migration due to increased water velocity, turbulence, a vertical drop at the culvert outlet and/or maintenance issues. There are hundreds of culverts presenting barriers to fish passage in the Parsnip River watershed with some of these structures obstructing fish movement to valuable fish habitat.


In the spring and summer of 2019, the Society for Ecosystem Restoration Northern BC (in collaboration with New Graph Environment, Hillcrest Geographics and the McLeod Lake Indian Band) conducted fish habitat confirmation assessments throughout the Parsnip River watershed. Prior to the field surveys a literature and Provincial Stream Crossing Inventory Summary System (PSCIS) database review was conducted and a community scoping exercise within the McLeod Lake Indian Band was undertaken to focus the work on fish passage restoration candidates with the highest potential benefits for salmonid populations in the watershed. Crossings prioritized for habitat confirmation field assessments were those identified as having potentially high fisheries value as well as likely large quantities of habitat upstream. The project aligns with the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Streams Action Plan (Fish and ildlife Compensation Program 2014) objective 1d-1 of reviewing existing information on stream restoration/enhancement opportunities and provide prioritized enhancement recommendations. Additionally, the project aims to conserve and enhance high priority species and habitats by aligning with Fish and ildlife Compensation Program (2014) objective 1d-3: restoring fish passage in streams.


Review of the PSCIS database indicated that within the Parsnip River watershed, since 2001, 574 assessments for fish passage (Phase 1) have been conducted at crossing structures. Locations of 99 crossing structure assessments were selected for a detailed office review and ranked for follow up based on upstream wetland, lake, and instream habitat quantity, and quality; fish species present, or suspected, near the crossing; stream order, previously recorded channel size and recommendations of past fish passage assessments.


Habitat confirmation assessments were conducted between August 30, 2019 and September 8, 2019 at 17 crossings ranked as high or moderate priority for follow up. During the habitat confirmations a total of approximately 15 km of stream was assessed with 10 crossings rated as high priorities for rehabilitation, Three crossings rated as moderate priorities and Four crossings rated as low priorities.


As the result of 2019 field work findings and ongoing communications between SERNbc; McLeod Lake Indian Band; Sinclar Group (forest licensee); Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development representatives, site plan designs have been developed for a fish passable structure over an unnamed tributary to Missinka River (PSCIS crossing 125179) located at 12km on the Chuchinka-Missinka FSR Road. The crossing was identified as a barrier to upstream fish migration and a high priority for replacement through this project. The current crossing structures (two round bottom corrugated metal pipes) were noted as being located in fisheries sensitive watershed and adjacent to other streams of similar size and character which are also transected by FSR crossing structure barriers. Should fish passage restoration at crossing 125179 be completed, this setting could present a scenario favorable for monitoring of impacts of stream passage remediation on local fisheries populations (i.e. biological monitoring at the stream where crossing 125179 is located can be compared not only to pre-restoration conditions but also to similar adjacent streams where non-remediated crossing structures are located).


Recommended next steps for fish passage restoration in the Parsnip River Watershed include:

  • Acquisition of funding to contribute towards costs for replacing the high priority structure 125179 which received replacement designs through this 2019/2020 phase of the project.
  • Acquisition of funding to procure site plans and replacement designs for structures identified as high priorities for restoration through this 2019/2020 phase of the project.
  • Explore and pursue opportunities to obtain buy-in and funding for replacement of identified high priority structures.
  • Drafting and implementation of a collaborative plan for assessing the impacts of fish passage restoration investments. The plan should be designed to provide data necessary to effectively monitor the outcomes of restoration efforts, inform future investments and build capacity/momentum for ecosystem restoration activities in the FWCP Peace Region.

Acknowledgements

The Society For Ecosystem Restoration Northern BC gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) for its contribution to this project. The FWCP is partnership between BC Hydro, the Province of B.C., Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and public stakeholders to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife in watersheds impacted by BC Hydro dams. Mussi.


This project was a collaboration between FWCP, the Society for Ecosystem Restoration Northern BC (SERNbc), New Graph Environment, Hillcrest Geographics, Onsite Engineering Ltd. the McLeod Lake Indian Band and many others. Many thanks to John DeGagne from SERNbc for spearheading the initiative and for his help with facilitating of multiple aspects of the project. Thank you Chelsea Cody from FWCP for connecting our team and facilitating collaboration from the office and the field. Much gratitude to Simon Norris for leveraging decades of hard work towards the GIS, modeling and mapping that were key to the success of this work. Thank you to Karla Graf from CN Rail for reviewing our study plan and providing funding for field work assistance for crossings under the CN Railway. Arlene Solonas from the McLeod Lake Indian Band is acknowledged as instrumental for elevating this project off the ground, motivating our team and for engaging the McLeod Lake community. Thank you to Nathan Prince from McLeod Lake Indian Band for playing a lead role in helping the project succeed. Thank you to all the many others not individually mentioned here. Mussi.


Field work for the project was completed by Allan Irvine, R.P.Bio. (New Graph Environment), Jonathan St.Jean, R.P.Bio. (Alces Environmental), Tyler Valle, Environmental Technologist (McLeod Lake Indian band) and Ken Solonas (McLeod Lake Indian Band). Hard work and good times. Mussi.

Introduction

The health and viability of freshwater fish populations depends on access to tributary and off channel areas which provide refuge during high flows, opportunities for foraging as well as overwintering, spawning and summer rearing habitats (Swales and Levings 1989; Bramblett et al. 2002). Culverts can present barriers to fish migration due to increased water velocity, turbulence, a vertical drop at the culvert outlet and/or maintenance issues (Whyte et al. 1997). In addition, open migration corridors are essential for adapting to the impacts of climate change such as rising water temperatures and changing flow regimes (Seliger and Zeiringer 2018). There are hundreds of culverts presenting barriers to fish passage in the Parsnip River watershed with some of these structures obstructing fish movement to valuable fish habitat (Gollner, Cain, and Russell 2013; Hooft 2014).


In the spring and summer of 2019, the Society for Ecosystem Restoration Northern BC (in collaboration with New Graph Environment, Hillcrest Geographics and the McLeod Lake Indian Band) conducted fish habitat confirmation assessments throughout the Parsnip River watershed. Prior to the field surveys a literature and database review was conducted and a community scoping exercise within the McLeod Lake Indian Band was undertaken to focus the work on fish passage restoration candidates with the highest potential benefits for salmonid populations in the watershed. Crossings prioritized for habitat confirmation field assessments were those identified as having potentially high fisheries value as well as likely large quantities of habitat upstream. Prioritization rankings were assigned based on upstream wetland, lake, and instream habitat quantity, and quality; fish species present, or suspected, near the crossing; stream order, previously recorded channel size and recommendations of past fish passage assessments (Gollner, Cain, and Russell 2013).


Although there currently are no plans for long-term maintenance of the site, an interactive version of this report was made available at https://newgraphenvironment.github.io/Parsnip_Fish_Passage/.

Background

As a result of high-level direction from the provincial government of British Columbia, a Fish Passage Strategic Approach protocol has been developed for British Columbia to ensure that the greatest opportunities for restoration of fish passage are pursued. A Fish Passage Technical Working Group has been formed to coordinate the protocol and data is continuously amalgamated within the Provincial Stream Crossing Inventory System (PSCIS) which has been built to house all culvert related data. Historically, British Columbia Timber Sales has administered most of the fish passage assessment, design and remediation contracts in the province with the majority of funding typically provided by the Land Based Investment Strategy (LBIS). The strategic approach protocol for fish passage restoration involves a four-phase process as described in (Fish Passage Technical Working Group 2014):

  • Phase 1: Fish Passage Assessment – Fish stream crossings within watersheds with high fish values are assessed to determine barrier status of structures and document a general assessment of adjacent habitat quality and quantity.
  • Phase 2: Habitat Confirmation – Assessments of crossings prioritized for follow up in Phase 1 studies are conducted to confirm quality and quantity of habitat upstream and down as well as to scope for other potential nearby barriers that could affect the practicality of remediation.
  • Phase 3: Design – Site plans and designs are drawn for priority crossings where high value fish habitat has been confirmed.
  • Phase 4: Remediation – Implementation of re-connection of isolated habitats through replacement, rehabilitation or removal of prioritized crossing structure barriers.


The scope of this project included planning and implementation for Phase 2 of the strategic approach protocol in the Parsnip River watershed. The Parsnip River watershed was chosen for habitat confirmation actions due to its high fisheries values, because it is a watershed impacted by dam operations and because there has been significant investment in Phase 1 assessments since 2001 with 574 assessments for fish passage already completed.


Study Area

The Parsnip River watershed is located within the south-eastern portion of the 108,000 km2 traditional territory of the Tse’khene from the McLeod Lake Indian Band. The Tse’khene “People of the Rocks” are a south westerly extension of the Athabascan speaking people of northern Canada. They were a nomadic hunting people whose language belongs to the Beaver-Sarcee-Tse’khene branch of Athapaskan (“History - Who We Are,” n.d.).


The continental divide separates watersheds flowing north into the Arctic Ocean via the Mackenzie River and south and west into the Pacific Ocean via the Fraser River (Figure 1). The Parsnip River is a 6th order stream with a watershed that drains an area of 5597 km2. The mainstem of the river flows within the Rocky Mountain Trench in a north direction into Williston Reservoir starting from the continental divide adjacent to Arctic Lakes. Major tributaries include the Misinchinka, Colbourne, Reynolds, Anzac, Table, Hominka and Missinka sub-basins which drain the western slopes of the Hart Ranges of the Rocky Mountains. The Parsnip River has a mean annual discharge of 147.6 m3/s with flow patterns typical of high elevation watersheds on the west side of the northern Rocky Mountains which receive large amounts of precipitation as snow leading to peak levels of discharge during snowmelt, typically from May to July (Figures 2 - 3).


Construction of the 183 m high and 2134 m long W.A.C. Bennett Dam was completed in 1967 at Hudson’s Hope, BC, creating Williston Reservoir (Hirst 1991). Filling of the 375 km2 reservoir was complete in 1972 and flooded a substantial portion of the Parsnip River and major tributary valleys forming what is now known as the Peace and Parsnip reaches. The replacement of riverine habitat with an inundated reservoir environment resulted in profound changes to the ecology, resource use and human settlement patterns in these systems (Hagen et al. 2015; Stamford, Hagen, and Williamson 2017; Pearce 2019). Prior to the filling of the reservoir, the Pack River, into which McLeod Lake flows, was a major tributary to the Parsnip River. It now enters the Williston Reservoir directly as the historic location of the confluence of the two rivers lies within the reservoir’s footprint.


Overview Map

Figure 1: Overview Map


Parsnip River Above Misinchinka River (Station #07EE007 - Lat 55.08194 Lon -122.913063). Available daily discharge data from 1967 to 2015.

Figure 2: Parsnip River Above Misinchinka River (Station #07EE007 - Lat 55.08194 Lon -122.913063). Available daily discharge data from 1967 to 2015.


Summary discharge statistics (annual maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation) for Parsnip River at hydrometric station #07EE007. Solid line is long term mean.

Figure 3: Summary discharge statistics (annual maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation) for Parsnip River at hydrometric station #07EE007. Solid line is long term mean.

Fisheries

Fish species recorded in the Parsnip River watershed are detailed in Table 1 (MoE 2019). In addition to flooding related to the formation of the Williston Reservoir, transmission lines, gas pipelines, rail, road networks, forestry, elevated water temperatures, interrupted connectivity, invasion from non-native species and insect infestations affecting forested areas pose threats to fisheries values in the Parsnip River watershed (Hagen et al. 2015; Stamford, Hagen, and Williamson 2017; Hagen and Weber 2019; Comittee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2012). A brief summary of trends and knowledge status related to Arctic Grayling, Bull Trout, Kokanee, Mountain Whitefish and Rainbow Trout in Williston Watershed streams is provided in Fish and ildlife Compensation Program (2014) with a more detailed review of the state of knowledge for Parsnip River watershed populations of Arctic Grayling and Bull Trout provided below.


Table 1: Fish species recorded in the Parsnip River watershed.
Scientific Name Species Name Species Code
Catostomus catostomus Longnose Sucker LSU
Catostomus commersoni White Sucker WSU
Catostomus macrocheilus Largescale Sucker CSU
Coregonus clupeaformis Lake Whitefish LW
Cottus asper Prickly Sculpin CAS
Cottus cognatus Slimy Sculpin CCG
Couesius plumbeus Lake Chub LKC
Lota lota Burbot BB
Mylocheilus caurinus Peamouth Chub PCC
Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow Trout RB
Oncorhynchus nerka Kokanee KO
Prosopium coulteri Pygmy Whitefish PW
Prosopium williamsoni Mountain Whitefish MW
Ptychocheilus oregonensis Northern Pikeminnow NSC
Rhynichthys cataractae Longnose Dace LNC
Richardsonius balteatus Redside Shiner RSC
Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout BT
Salvelinus fontinalis Brook Trout EB
Salvelinus namaycush Lake Trout LT
Thymallus arcticus Arctic Grayling GR
NA Coarse or non-game fish OS
NA Fish Unidentified Species SP

Bull Trout

Bull Trout populations of the Williston Reservoir watershed are included within the Western Arctic population ‘Designatable Unit 10’, which, in 2012, received a ranking of ‘Special Concern’ by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (Comittee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2012). They were added to Schedule 1 under the Species of Risk Act in 2019 (Species Registry Canada 2020) and are also considered of special concern (blue-listed) provincially (BC Species & Ecosystem Explorer 2020).


A study of Bull Trout critical habitats in the Parsnip River was conducted in 2014 with the Misinchinka and Anzac systems identified as the most important systems for large bodied bull trout spawners accounting for a combined total of 65% of spawners counted. The Table River was also highlighted as an important spawning destination accounting for an estimated 15% of the spawners. Other watersheds identified as containing runs of large bodied Bull Trout spawners included the Colbourne, Reynolds, Hominka and Missinka River with potentially less than 50 spawners utilizing each sub-basin (Hagen et al. 2015). Hagen and Weber (2019) have synthesized a large body of information regarding limiting factors, enhancement potential, critical habitats and conservation status for Bull Trout of the Williston Reservoir and the reader is encouraged to review this work for context. They have recommended experimental enhancements within a monitoring framework for Williston Reservoir Bull Trout (some spawning and rearing in Parsnip River mainstem and tributaries) which include stream fertilization, side channel development, riparian restoration and fish access improvement.


In 2018, sub-basins of the Anzac River watershed, Homininka River, Missinka River and Table River watersheds were designated as fisheries sensitive watersheds under the authority of the Forest and Range Practices Act due to significant downstream fisheries values and significant watershed sensitivity (Beaudry 2013a, 2014a, 2014b, 2013b). Special management is required in these watersheds to protect habitat for fish species including Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling including measures (among others) to limit equivalent clearcut area, reduce impacts to natural stream channel morphology, retain old growth attributes and maintain fish habitat/movement (Forest and Range Practices Act 2018).


Tse’khene Elders from the McLeod Lake Indian Band report that sa’ba (Bull Trout) size and abundance has decreased in all rivers and tributaries from the reservoir with more injured and diseased fish captured in recent history than was common in the past (Pearce 2019).


Arctic Grayling

A detailed review of Arctic Grayling life history can be referenced in Stamford, Hagen, and Williamson (2017). Since impoundment of the Williston Reservoir, it appears that physical habitat and ecological changes have been the most significant factors limiting Arctic Grayling productivity. Although these changes are not well understood they have likely resulted in the inundation of key low gradient juvenile rearing and overwintering habitats, isolation of previously connected populations and increases in abundance of predators such as Bull Trout (Shrimpton, Roberts, and Clarke 2012; Hagen, Pillipow, and Gantner 2018).


Migration of mature adult Arctic Grayling occurs in the spring with arrival at known spawning locations coinciding with water temperatures of 4\(^\circ\)C. Spawning in the Parsnip watershed appears to occur between late-May and late-June within sites located primarily within the lower reaches of the Anzac and Table rivers as well as within the Parsnip River mainstem. Side-channel and multiple-channel locations containing small gravels appear to be selected for spawning. Currently, the primary distribution of Williston Arctic Grayling appears to be among fourth order and larger streams (Williamson and Zimmerman 2005; Stamford, Hagen, and Williamson 2017). Stewart et al. (2007) report that Arctic Grayling spawn in large and small tributaries to rivers and lakes, intermittent streams, within mainstem rivers as well as lakes, most commonly at tributary mouths. Although past study results indicate that 0+ grayling appeared to overwinter in lower reaches of larger tributaries (i.e. Table, Anzac rivers) as well as the Parsnip River and that few age-1+ grayling have been sampled in tributaries, habitat use in small tributaries and the extent they are connected with the mainstem habitats of all core areas is not well understood. Between 1995 and 2019, Arctic Grayling population monitoring has been conducted in the Table River in nine out of 25 years (8 years for the Anzac) using snorkel surveys. Results from 2018 are 2019 are intended to contribute to the assessment of the conservation status of the species in the Parsnip Core area (Hagen, Pillipow, and Gantner 2018).


Tse’khene Elders from the McLeod Lake Indian Band report that Arctic Grayling numbers have declined dramatically since the flooding of the reservoir and that few dusk’ihje (Arctic Grayling) have been caught in the territory in the past 30 years (Pearce 2019).


Goals and Objectives

The overall goal of our project was to build capacity, awareness and momentum for fish passage restoration in the Parsnip Watershed. To realize this goal we created a short list of high priority culverts for fish passage restoration in the Parsnip River watershed through a data analysis exercise, scoping for First Nations input, fish passage assessments (BC Ministry of Environment 2011), habitat confirmation assessments (Fish Passage Technical Working Group 2011) and procurement of design specifications for a prioritized crossing.


Methods

To identify priorities for crossing structure rehabilitation in Parsnip River watershed streams, background literature and the PSCIS database was reviewed with potential fish habitat associated with barrier and potential barrier culverts analyzed within the context of outputs from the Fish Habitat Model (Norris and Mount 2016) and associated watershed/fisheries information. The Fish Habitat Model was developed by the BC Ministry of Environment to provide estimates of the amount of fish habitat potentially accessible to fish upstream of crossing locations. The model calculates the average gradient of BC Freshwater Atlas stream network lines at minimum 100m long intervals starting from the downstream end and working upstream. The network lines are broken into max gradient categories with new segments created when the average gradient of the stream lines exceeds user provided gradient thresholds. For our purposes, stream network line segments were grouped into areas upstream of sections not exceeding 5% (0 - 5%), 5 - 15%, 15 - 22% and >22%. Stream areas upstream of gradients estimated at >22% for more than 100m were considered non-fish habitat if no fish observations had been documented upstream.


Following delineation of “non-fish habitat”, the average gradient of each stream segment created by the Fish Habitat Model was also calculated and used to quantify upstream habitat and symbolize stream lines based on stream morphology. We summarized average gradients within six categories (0 - 3%, 3 - 5%, 5 - 8%, 8 - 15%, 15 - 22%) and symbolized mapped stream lines in three categories. Categories symbolized are associated with riffle/cascade (0 - 5%), step-pool (5 - 15%), and step-pool very steep (15 -22%) stream habitats (Table 2). For each crossing location, the linear length of stream habitat upstream of crossings and <22% was summarized by average gradient and the area of lake and wetland habitat upstream was collated and reviewed to give an indication of the potential quantity and quality of habitat potentially gained should fish passage be restored.


Table 2: Stream gradient categories (threshold and average) and associated channel type.
Gradient Channel Type
0 - 5% Riffle and cascade pool
5 - 15% Step pool
15 - 22% Step pool - very steep
>22% Non fish habitat


Past fish passage assessment reports for the Parsnip River watershed were first reviewed to identify crossing structure barriers previously ranked as priorities for rehabilitation in Gollner, Cain, and Russell (2013). All crossings prioritized in Gollner, Cain, and Russell (2013) underwent a detailed office review and ranking for follow up in the field. Of note, Hooft (2014) also contains prioritization information for the Parsnip River watershed however it was not publicly available at the time of field planning due to technical issues with provincial databases and an inability to contact the report author. However, this report was obtained in the spring of 2020 and included prioritizations have been cross referenced with 2019 habitat confirmations in the results of this document. During planning for field surveys, to identify crossing structure barriers located on potentially high value streams not prioritized in Gollner, Cain, and Russell (2013), road crossing structures that met the following criteria in the Fish Habitat Model and/or PSCIS database also underwent a detailed review to rank crossings for Phase 2 - Habitat Confirmations.

  • Stream crossing barriers and potential barriers on streams with confirmed fish presence upstream of the structure.
  • Stream crossing barriers and potential barriers on streams documented as ≥ 1.5m wide with linear lengths of modeled upstream habitat <22% gradient for ≥500 m.
  • Stream crossing barriers and potential barriers located on streams classified as 3rd order or higher.
  • Stream crossing barriers and potential barriers located on streams with >5 ha of modeled wetland and/or lake habitat upstream of the structure.
  • Stream crossing barriers and potential barriers on streams with habitat value rated as “medium” or “high” in past fish passage assessment data.


A Google Earth (.kml) file with crossing locations and rational for prioritizing for habitat confirmations was forwarded to provincial fish habitat biologists, McLeod Lake Indian Band staff, representatives from CN Rail, BC Timber Sales and Canfor Forest Products to provide an opportunity for review and scope for feedback. Additionally, Arlene Solonas (Land and Resource Consultation Coordinator from McLeod Lake) issued a mailout document to scope for feedback from the community on potential fish passage restoration candidates as well as to inquire about fisheries information in traditional territory watersheds potentially relevant to fish passage restoration activities.


In the field, PSCIS crossings ranked as high priorities for follow-up were first assessed for fish passage following the procedures outlined in “Field Assessment for Determining Fish Passage Status of Closed Bottomed Structures” (MoE 2011) to confirm that the crossings were still barriers to fish passage. The following criteria, which act as hydraulic indices, were utilized to determine if a crossing was a barrier to fish passage: depth and degree of embedment, outlet drop, slope of culvert, stream width ratio (ratio of average downstream channel width to culvert width), and length of the culvert.


Following fish passage assessments, habitat confirmations were completed in accordance with procedures outlined in the document “A Checklist for Fish Habitat Confirmation Prior to the Rehabilitation of a Stream Crossing” (FPTWG 2011). The main objective of the field surveys was to document upstream habitat quantity and quality and to determine if any other obstructions exist above or below the crossing. Habitat value was assessed based on channel morphology, flow characteristics (perennial, intermittent, ephemeral), the presence/absence of deep pools, un-embedded boulders, substrate, woody debris, undercut banks, aquatic vegetation and overhanging riparian vegetation. Criteria used to rank habitat value is specified in Fish Passage Technical Working Group (2011) and summarized in Table 3. Data from fish habitat assessments and habitat confirmation assessments will be submitted to the PSCIS database.


During habitat confirmations, assessment of habitat was completed following procedures outlined in Resources Inventory Standards Committee (RIC) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Standards and Procedures (BC Fisheries Information Services Branch 2001) with data collated on “Site Cards” and submitted to the provincial database under scientific fish collection permit PG19-550935. The Fish Data Submission Spreadsheet Template - V 2.0, April 16, 2019 was used to store field data and facilitate data input. Among others, habitat characteristics recorded included channel widths, wetted widths, residual pool depths, gradients, bankfull depths, stage, temperature, conductivity, pH, cover by type, substrate and channel morphology. When possible, the crew surveyed the stream downstream of the crossing to the point where fish presence had been previously confirmed. Any potential obstacles to fish passage were inventoried with photos, physical descriptions and locations recorded on RIC site cards. Surveyed routes were recorded with time-signatures on handheld GPS units. When sites surveyed were located in areas near to where the subsequent day’s surveys were planned, minnow-traps were set overnight to obtain fish sampling data.


This pdf report and an online interactive version were generated from Rmarkdown documents processing raw data available at New Graph Environment Github Site. Although there currently are no plans for long-term maintenance of the site, the interactive version of this report was made available at https://newgraphenvironment.github.io/Parsnip_Fish_Passage/ . In addition to numerous spatial layers sourced through the BC Data Catalogue and along with outputs from the Fish Habitat Model, data inputs for this project included completed:


Table 3: Habitat value criteria (Fish Passage Technical Working Group, 2011).
Habitat Value Fish Habitat Criteria
High The presence of high value spawning or rearing habitat (e.g., locations with abundance of suitably sized gravels, deep pools, undercut banks, or stable debris) which are critical to the fish population.
Medium Important migration corridor. Presence of suitable spawning habitat. Habitat with moderate rearing potential for the fish species present.
Low No suitable spawning habitat, and habitat with low rearing potential (e.g., locations without deep pools, undercut banks, or stable debris, and with little or no suitably sized spawning gravels for the fish species present).


Results and Discussion

Review of the PSCIS database indicated that within the Parsnip River watershed, since 2001, 574 assessments for fish passage (Phase 1) have been conducted at crossing structures. Locations of 99 crossing structure assessments were selected for a detailed office review based on upstream wetland, lake, and instream habitat quantity, and quality; fish species present, or suspected, near the crossing; stream order, previously recorded channel size and recommendations of past fish passage assessments. Following review, 26 crossings given a high priority for field review with habitat confirmation assessments. It should be noted that 4 of the crossings prioritized as high priorities for follow up were logged twice in the PSCIS database so in actuality only 22 crossings were present in the field. Thirty-Three crossings were assessed with a moderate priority, 33 crossings were assessed with a low priority and 5 were assessed as “no fix”. Additionally, 2 crossings were noted as “fixed”.


Historic PSCIS photos and details, Fish Habitat Model outputs and prioritization rank/comments related to crossings ranked for follow up with habitat confirmation assessments is available at https://newgraphenvironment.github.io/Parsnip_Fish_Passage/Parsnip_report_planning_summary.html and a Google Earth (.kml) file with crossing locations and pre-habitat confirmation prioritization rational for crossing rated as high and moderate priority for follow up with habitat confirmations is available at https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/Parsnip_Fish_Passage/raw/master/data/planning_high_mod_culverts.zip. In addition to the Parsnip River watershed group, georeferenced field maps were also generated for the Carp River watershed group and the Crooked River Watershed group areas to prepare for future fish passage and habitat confirmation surveys and are available https://hillcrestgeo.ca/outgoing/forNewGraph/parsnip/maps/ along with associated Fish Habitat Model data outputs which are available at https://hillcrestgeo.ca/outgoing/forNewGraph/parsnip/data/.


Habitat confirmation assessments were conducted between August 30, 2019 and September 8, 2019 by Allan Irvine, R.P.Bio, Jonathan St.Jean, R.P.Bio, Tyler Valle, Environmental Technician and Ken Solonas, Environmental Technician with 17 crossings ranked as high or moderate priority for follow up. During the habitat confirmations a total of approximately 15 km of stream was assessed and fish sampling (primarily minnow trapping) was conducted upstream and downstream of six restoration candidate sites. Several crossings were also surveyed briefly from the road with fish passage assessments completed only (no habitat confirmation assessments completed) as conditions were assessed as passable for fish migrating upstream. Crossing 125149 was an overflow for an adjacent channel where a bridge was located, crossing 57621 had been replaced by a bridge and crossing 125261 (Fern Creek) was equipped with baffles and appeared passable to most life stages of salmonids at most flows. Additionally, fish passage assessments were conducted on all significantly sized streams on the Hodda-Lake FSR located immediately east of McLeod Lake with data to be uploaded to the PSCIS database.


Following habitat confirmation assessments, 10 crossings were rated as high priorities for rehabilitation due to the relatively high value and/or quantity of habitat gain associated with rehabilitation. Three crossings were rated as moderate priorities. Four crossings were rated as low priority since the fisheries value gains associated with crossing rehabilitation were relatively low and/or where the presence of natural barriers would nullify the potential value of crossing rehabilitation. Field maps showing crossing locations, habitat confirmation field tracks, Fish Habitat Model outputs, historic fish observations and documented barriers to fish passage are available at https://hillcrestgeo.ca/outgoing/forNewGraph/parsnip/maps/. Results from sites surveyed are summarized in Figure 4 (Overview Map) and Table 4 (Overview Table) with detailed reporting including links to georeferenced maps also provided in site specific appendices of this document (linked through Site column of Table 4).


As the result of 2019 field work findings and ongoing communications between SERNbc; McLeod Lake Indian Band; Sinclar Group (forest licensee); Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development representatives, site plan designs have been developed for a fish passable structure over an unnamed tributary to Missinka River (PSCIS crossing 125179) located at 12km on the Chuchinka-Missinka FSR Road. The crossing was identified as a barrier to upstream fish migration and a high priority for replacement through this project. The current crossing structures (two round bottom corrugated metal pipes) were noted as being located in a fisheries sensitive watershed and adjacent to other streams of similar size and character which are also transected by FSR crossing structure barriers. Should fish passage restoration at crossing 125179 be completed, this setting could present a scenario favorable for monitoring of impacts of stream passage remediation on local fisheries populations as biological monitoring at the stream where crossing 125179 is located can be compared not only to pre-restoration conditions but also to similar adjacent streams where non-remediated crossing structures are located.


Methodology and workflows for this project have evolved significantly from those of past projects and our team welcomes feedback. Please contact (2507771518) with feedback and any questions regarding the project.

Overview Map


Figure 4: Overview Map of Parsnip River Watershed fish passage restoration candidates. Field survey tracks are represented by pink lines. Forest tenure roads are orange lines. Details of sites provided in pop-up windows of crossings with photos currently provided for high priority sites.

Overview Table

Table 4: Overview of stream crossings where habitat confirmation assessments were conducted.
Site Stream Road Tenure UTM (10N) Fish Species *Habitat Gain (km) Habitat Value Priority Comments
57681 Trib to Parsnip River Chuchinka-Colbourne FSR and CN Railway FLNRORD 5506 04 and CN Rail 533218 6067620 BB, CC, LKC, MW, RB, RSC, SU 7 Medium High The culvert is very long, steep and continuous under the CN railway and Chuchinka-Colbourne FSR (PSCIS crossing 125353) and empties directly into margins of Parsnip River. Stream drains Goose Lake. Numerous fish observed upstream. Small woody debris, overhanging vegetation and undercut banks abundant. Some gravels present suitable for spawning. Rainbow trout captured upstream and burbot and rainbow trout captured downstream. Likely very high costs associated with replacement.
57690 Trib to Wichcika Creek Chuchinka FSR FLNRORD 5506 01 0 555027 6046138 RB 0.65 Medium High Multiple drops and rock chutes beginning 350 m upstream of culvert with 1.4 m falls at top end of site (650 m upstream). Deep pools suitable for overwintering and rearing. Rainbow trout (120 mm) observed approximately 60 m upstream of culvert. Some gravels present suitable for spawning present.
57695 Trib to Wichcika Creek Chuchinka-Wichcika FSR FLNRORD 5506 14 0 563257 6038803
1.5 Medium Moderate Pockets of gravels, some shallow pools and some widely spaced large woody debris. No permanent barriers observed but some debris jams ranging from 50 - 100 cm in height present (typical of steeper systems).
57696 Trib to Wichcika Creek Chuchinka-Wichcika FSR CARRIER LUMBER LTD. R21212 D 0 564171 6037942
0.65 Medium Low Cascade at top end of site (650 m upstream) not passable by any species or life stage. Spawning gravel limited to intermittent small patches.
125000 Trib to Parsnip River Chuchinka-Arctic FSR FLNRORD 5506 10 0 577534 6038205 RB, CC 3.5 High High Undercut banks, large woody debris and overhanging vegetation throughout. Pools shallow. Beaver dams start 330m upstream of crossing. Minnow trapping conducted upstream and downstream of crossing with Rainbow Trout and Sculpin captured downstream.
125098 Trib to Parsnip River Unnamed WINTON GLOBAL LUMBER LTD. R01821 B 582902 6035080 RB 1 Low Low Small stream with low flow indicated by moss mid-channel. Very few pools but sections of gravel present.
125128 Trib to Missinka River Unnamed FLNRORD 5506 25 583454 6051827
1 Low Low Beaver influenced extensive wetland area located upstream for as far as visible from 50 m upstream of culvert. 5 m high cascade (10 m long at 50% gradient) is located approximately 5 m below the culvert. Below this is a rock chute for 12 m (30%). Culvert is potentially accessible only to adult adfluvial bull trout however it is unlikely that they would utilize this stream due to the wetland type habitat present upstream of the culvert.
125175 Trib to Missinka River Chuchinka-Missinka FSR FLNRORD 5506 11 0 571772 6051998 RB 0.3 Medium Moderate At approximately 300m upstream of culvert stream splits into three tributaries. Abundant gravels but very little to no overwintering habitat. Lack of large woody debris and no deep pools.
125179 Trib to Missinka River Chuchinka-Missinka FSR FLNRORD 5506 11 0 570308 6052835 BT, RB 2 High High Classified as fisheries sensitive watershed under FRPA due to downstream Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling (Beaudry 2013, FSW-TAG f-7-020). Some deep pools for overwintering and rearing. Large woody debris and undercut banks throughout. Sections of gravel suitable for spawning. Good flow.
125180 Trib to Missinka River Chuchinka-Missinka FSR FLNRORD 5506 11 0 569649 6053047 RB
High High Classified as fisheries sensitive watershed under FRPA due to downstream Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling (Beaudry 2013, FSW-TAG f-7-020). Larger stream with good flow and high habitat complexity. Frequent pockets of gravel suitable for spawning at pool tailouts and behind large woody debris.
125186 Trib to Missinka River Chuchinka-Missinka FSR FLNRORD 5506 11 0 565417 6052678 RB 1.4 High High Classified as fisheries sensitive watershed under FRPA due to downstream Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling (Beaudry 2013, FSW-TAG f-7-020). Large woody debris and pools throughout. Frequent pockets of gravel suitable for spawning.
125231 Trib to Table River Chuchinka-Table FSR FLNRORD 5506 08 0 549976 6065139 RB 2.4 High High Classified as fisheries sensitive watershed under FRPA due to downstream Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling (Beaudry 2014, FSW-TAG f-7-022). Some deep pools and boulders, undercut banks, large woody debris and gravels throughout. Some debris steps from 30 - 70 cms high. Passable railway culvert located downstream (16603641). New bridge upstream.
125247 Trib to Parsnip River Chuchinka-Table FSR and CN Railway FLNRORD 5506 08 0 542959 6062815 RB 0.2 Medium High Abundant undercut banks, overhanging vegetation, large woody debris and gravels. Historic beaver dam 700 m upstream. Railway culvert (modelled crossing 16603287) is 200 m upstream and is barrier (90 m long, unembedded and 3%).
125253 Trib to Parsnip River Chuchinka-Table FSR FLNRORD 5506 08 0 537735 6064732
4.5 High Moderate Stable channel with large woody debris throughout. Railway crossing culvert (modelled ID 16603267) is located 60 m downstream of the crossing and is a barrier. Overhanging vegetation and undercut banks present for cover. Historic beaver impounded area at top of site.
125345 Trib to Parsnip River Chuchinka-Colbourne FSR FLNRORD 5506 04 0 522549 6083674 (RB), CC 4.7 High High Culvert is under Chuchinka-Colbourne FSR but CN railway crossing (PSCIS 57687) is located 10 m upstream and also has barrier crossing. Abundant gravels throughout with deep pools suitable for overwintering.
125403 Trib to Parsnip River Hodda Lake FSR FLNRORD 7698 01 0 520140 6084908
2.4 Low Low Beaver influenced wetland for first 50 m then small stream with deep polls and undercut banks, overhanging vegetation. Large wetland approximately 200m upstream of crossing.
CV1 Trib to Table River CN Railway CN Rail 547303 6063955 RB, (BT) 3.4 High High Classified as fisheries sensitive watershed under FRPA due to downstream Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling (Beaudry 2014, FSW-TAG f-7-022). CN Rail crossing. Abundant gravels, large woody debris, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation and small woody debris. Recently installed bridges downstream and upstream on FSRs. 20 cm long bull trout (suspected) observed approximately 340 m upstream of the culvert. Minnow trapping conducted upstream and downstream with Rainbow Trout captured downstream. 200mm Bull Trout (suspected) observed upstream near redd.

*Habitat gain based on conservative estimates of mainstem habitat upstream.


Recommendations

Recommended next steps for fish passage restoration in the Parsnip River Watershed include:

  • Acquisition of funding to contribute towards costs for replacing the high priority structure 125179 which is receiving replacement designs through this 2019/2020 phase of the project.
  • Acquisition of funding to procure site plans and replacement designs for structures identified as high priorities for restoration through this 2019/2020 phase of the project.
  • Explore and pursue opportunities to obtain buy-in and funding for replacement of identified high priority structures.
  • Drafting and implementation of a collaborative plan for assessing the impacts of fish passage restoration investments. The plan should be designed to provide data necessary to effectively monitor the outcomes of restoration efforts, inform future investments and build capacity/momentum for ecosystem restoration activities in the FWCP Peace Region.

References


BC Fisheries Information Services Branch. 2001. “Reconnaissance (1:20 000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures. Version 2.0.” Resources Inventory Committee.

BC Ministry of Environment. 2011. Field Assessment for Determining Fish Passage Status of Closed Bottom Structures. Victoria, British Columbia: BC Ministry of Environment. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/land-based-investment/forests-for-tomorrow/field-assessment-for-determining-fish-passage-status-of-cbs.pdf.

BC Species & Ecosystem Explorer. 2020. “Salvelinus Confluentus Pop. 10 (Bull Trout - Western Arctic Populations).” http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/reports.do?elcode=AFCHA05122.

Beaudry, Pierre G. 2013a. “Assessment and Assignment of Sensitivity Ratings to Sub-Basins of the Anzac Watershed in Parsnip Drainage – Ominieca Region. Contract Number: GS14823018.” Report. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=51630.

———. 2013b. “Assessment and Assignment of Sensitivity Ratings to Sub-Basins of the Missinka Watershed in Parsnp Drainage – Ominieca Region. Contract Number: GS14FWH-006.” Report. P. Beaudry; Associates Ltd. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=51631.

———. 2014a. “Assessment and Assignment of Sensitivity Ratings to Sub-Basins of the Hominka Watershed in Parsnip Drainage – Ominieca Region. Contract Number: GS15823011.” Report. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=51633.

———. 2014b. “Assessment and Assignment of Sensitivity Ratings to Sub-Basins of the Table Watershed in Parsnip Drainage – Ominieca Region. Contract Number: GS15823011.” Report. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=51634.

Bramblett, Robert, Mason Bryant, Brenda Wright, and Robert White. 2002. “Seasonal Use of Small Tributary and Main-Stem Habitats by Juvenile Steelhead, Coho Salmon, and Dolly Varden in a Southeastern Alaska Drainage Basin.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131 (May): 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(2002)131<0498:SUOSTA>2.0.CO;2.

Comittee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012. “COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Bull Trout Salvelinus Confluentus.” Report. https://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_omble_tete_plat_bull_trout_1113_e.pdf.

Fish, and ildlife Compensation Program. 2014. “Peace Basin Streams Action Plan,” 30.

Fish Passage Technical Working Group. 2011. A Checklist for Fish Habitat Confirmation Prior to the Rehabilitation of a Stream Crossing. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/land-based-investment/investment-categories/fish-passage/habitat-confirmation-projects.

———. 2014. “Fish Passage Strategic Approach: Protocol for Prioritizing Sites for Fish Passage Remediation.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/fish-fish-habitat/fish-passage/strategic20approach20july202014.pdf.

Forest and Range Practices Act. 2018. “Order - Fisheries Sensitive Watershed Prince George Forest District.” http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/fsw/approved.html.

Gollner, M C, Robijn Cain, and Krista Russell. 2013. “FISH PASSAGE CULVERT INVESTIGATIONS - Prince George Timber Sales Business Area - CONTRACT # PD13TGB001.” MarLim Ecological Consulting Ltd.

Hagen, John, Ray Pillipow, and Nikolaus Gantner. 2018. “Trend in Abundance of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus Arcticus) in Index Sites of the Parsnip River Watershed, 1995-2018.” 37.

Hagen, John, and Susanne Weber. 2019. “Limiting Factors, Enhancement Potential, Critical Habitats, and Conservation Status for Bull Trout of the Williston Reservoir Watershed: Information Synthesis and Recommended Monitoring Framework.” Report. http://fwcp.ca/app/uploads/2019/08/Bull-Trout-Info-Synthesis-Monitoring-Framework-_FINAL29Aug2019.pdf.

Hagen, John, Susanne Williamson, Mike Stamford, and Ray Pillipow. 2015. “Critical Habitats for Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling Within the Parsnip River and Pack River Watersheds.”

Hirst, S. M. 1991. “Impacts of the Operations of Existing Hydroelectric Developments on Fishery Resources in British Columbia.” https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/124832main.pdf.

“History - Who We Are.” n.d. McLeod Lake Indian Band. https://www.mlib.ca/about/History.

Hooft, Jason. 2014. “Prince George Forest District: Parsnip Watershed 468 Locations Contract: PD14TGB003,” 25.

MoE. 2019. “Known Bc Fish Observations and Bc Fish Distributions.” Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy - Knowledge Management. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/known-bc-fish-observations-and-bc-fish-distributions.

Norris, Simon, and Craig Mount. 2016. “Fish Passage Gis Analysis Version 2.2 – Methodology and Output Data Specifications.” https://data.skeenasalmon.info/dataset/bc-fish-passage-program.

Pearce, Dr Tristan. 2019. “First Nations Information Gathering on Kokanee, Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling: TSE’KHENE FIRST NATIONS - McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND,” 31.

Seliger, Carina, and Bernhard Zeiringer. 2018. “River Connectivity, Habitat Fragmentation and Related Restoration Measures.” In Riverine Ecosystem Management, edited by Stefan Schmutz and Jan Sendzimir, 171–86. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73250-3_9.

Shrimpton, J. M., S. L. Roberts, and A. D. Clarke. 2012. “Genetic Analysis of Arctic Grayling Population Structure in the Williston Watershedcfe3011493.Pdf.” http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r38246/Report_311_GR_genetics_2012_1379090176074_c3e946726980918f9466d47b59978ad28ded2b969041dd7fe53b83cfe3011493.pdf.

Species Registry Canada. 2020. “Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus), Western Arctic Populations - Species Search - Species at Risk Registry.” https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/species/1202-869.

Stamford, Mike, John Hagen, and Susanne Williamson. 2017. “FWCP Arctic Grayling Synthesis Report,” 148.

Stewart, D B, N J Mochnacz, J D Reist, T J Carmichael, and C D Sawatzky. 2007. “Fish Life History and Habitat Use in the Northwest Territories: Arctic Grayling (Thymallus Arcticus).” Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2797, 64.

Swales, Stephen, and C. Levings. 1989. “Role of Off-Channel Ponds in the Life Cycle of Coho Salmon ( Oncorhynchus Kisutch ) and Other Juvenile Salmonids in the Coldwater River, British Columbia.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences - CAN J FISHERIES AQUAT SCI 46 (February): 232–42. https://doi.org/10.1139/f89-032.

Whyte, Ian, Scott Babakaiff, Mark A. Adam, and Paul A. Giroux. 1997. “Restoring Fish Access and Rehabilitation of Spawning Sites.” In Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9, edited by P. A. Slaney and D. Zaldokas, 5–1–5–13. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FFIP/Slaney_PA1997_A.pdf.

Williamson, S. A, and J. T. Zimmerman. 2005. “Region 7a, Omineca Arctic Grayling (Thymallus Arcticus): Data Consolidation Review and Gap Analysis.” B.C. Ministry of Water, Land,; Air Protection.