Executive Summary

The health and viability of freshwater fish populations can depend on access to tributary and off channel areas which provide refuge during high flows, opportunities for foraging, overwintering habitat, spawning habitat and summer rearing habitat (Bramblett et al. 2002; Swales and Levings 1989; Diebel et al. 2015). Culverts can present barriers to fish migration due to low water depth, increased water velocity, turbulence, a vertical drop at the culvert outlet and/or maintenance issues (Slaney, Zaldokas, and Watershed Restoration Program (B.C.) 1997; Cote et al. 2005). As road crossing structures are commonly upgraded or removed there are numerous opportunities to restore connectivity by ensuring that fish passage considerations are incorporated into repair, replacement, relocation and deactivation designs.

Through this initiative, the Provincial Fish Passage Remediation Program and connectivity restoration planning led by the Canadian Wildlife Federation and funded by the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund, bcfishpass has been designed to prioritize potential fish passage barriers for assessment or remediation. The software is under continual development and has been designed and constructed by Norris (2021d) using of sql and python based shell script libraries to generate a simple model of aquatic habitat connectivity which includes tools to assess the intrinsic value of habitat upstream of potential barrier locations.

Following review of background literature, fisheries information, Provincial Stream Crossing Inventory System (PSCIS) and bcfishpass outputs, 70 modelled and PSCIS crossings were reviewed to select sites for follow up with Phase 1 and 2 fish passage assessments in the Morice River watershed. Although planning for field assessments was still underway at the time of reporting through ongoing modelling, engagement with the Office of Wet’suwet’en, DFO, FLNRORD, BC Ministry of Environment, the Morice Watershed Monitoring Trust and numerous others, 14 crossings were ranked as high priority for future follow up with Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 assessments, 26 crossings ranked as moderate priorities, and 30 crossings ranked as low priorities. Online interactive and georeferenced field maps were produced and a field plan for future on the ground assessments formulated. Some key areas targeted for future fieldwork activity include assessments within the Owen Creek, Lamprey Creek, McBride Lake, Nanika Lake, and Morice Lake watersheds.

During 2020 fieldwork, a total of 31 fish passage assessments were conducted with 13 crossings considered “passable,” 3 crossings considered “potential” barriers and 15 crossings considered “barriers” according to threshold values based on culvert embedment, outlet drop, slope, diameter (relative to channel size) and length. “Barrier” and “Potential Barrier” rankings used in this project followed MoE (2011) and reflect an assessment of passability for juvenile salmon or small resident rainbow trout at any flows potentially present throughout the year (Clarkin et al. 2005 ; Bell 1991; Thompson 2013).

Habitat confirmation assessments were conducted at 22 sites in the Bulkley River watershed group and one site in the Morice River watershed group. A total of approximately 18 km of stream was assessed using standardized site assessment procedures (Resources Inventory Committee 2001), fish sampling utilizing electrofishing and/or minnowtrapping was conducted at eight sites, and three sites were mapped using remotely piloted aircraft. All data is included in reporting and whenever possible, workflows have been scripted either in R, SQL or Python to facilitate workflow tracking, collaboration, transparency and continually improving research.

As collaborative decision making was ongoing at the time of reporting, habitat confirmation site prioritization can be considered preliminary. In total, Twelve crossings were rated as high priorities for proceeding to design for replacement, 9 crossings were rated as moderate priorities, and 2 crossings were rated as low priorities.

Recommendations for potential incorporation into collaborative watershed connectivity planning for the Bulkley River and Morice River watershed groups include:

• Continue to develop bcfishpass,bcfishobs, fwapg and other open source data analysis and presentation tools that are scalable and facilitate continual improvement and collaborative adaptation.

• Continue to conduct fish passage and habitat confirmation assessments at road and rail stream crossings at sites in the study areas prioritized through this project and future connectivity analysis/modelling. In the Bulkley River watershed group, particular sites of note where future Phase 1 and Phase 2 assessments are recommended include John Brown Creek, Toboggan Creek, Cesford Creek, Watson Creek and Ailport Creek.

• Continue to acquire funding to procure site plans and replacement designs for structures collaboratively identified as high priorities for restoration. Explore cost benefits and ethics of crossing structure upgrades alongside the cost benefits and ethics of alternative restoration activities and look for opportunities to leverage initiatives together for maximum restoration benefits.

• Refine barrier thresholds for road-stream crossing structures to explore passability metrics specific to life stage and life history types of species of interest.

• Model fish densities (fish/m²) vs. habitat/water quality characteristics (i.e. gradient, watershed size, channel size, alkalinity, elevation, etc.) using historically gathered electrofishing data to inform crossing prioritization, future data acquisition needs, and the monitoring of subsequent restoration actions.

• Expand the Bulkley River fish passage working group focus area to include the greater Skeena River watershed.

• Build relationships with other working groups (ex. Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group) to share knowledge and biuld capacity related to large scale connectivity remediation.

• Continue to collaborate with potential partners to build relationships, explore perspectives and develop “road maps” for fish passage restoration in different situations (MoT roads, rail lines, permit roads of different usages, FSRs, etc.) – documenting the people involved, discussions and processes that are undertaken, funding options, synergies, measures of success, etc.