Wahleach Project Water Use Plan Lower Jones Creek ... - BC Hydro

Wahleach Project Water Use Plan 

Lower Jones Creek Fish Productivity Indices 

Reference: WAHMON#1 

Fish Productivity Monitoring in Lower Jones Creek 2008-2009 

Study Period: 2008 - 2009 

Report Date: January 2010 

Greenbank Environmental Services 

Living Resources Environmental Services 

January 2010

WAHLEACH WATER USE PLAN MONITORING 

Lower Jones Creek Fish Productivity Monitoring 2008-2009 

~ Draft – Subject to Revision ~ 

Prepared for: BC Hydro, Generation and Aboriginal Relations 

6911 Southpoint Drive 

Burnaby, BC V3N 4X8 

Prepared by: J. Greenbank 1 and J. Macnair 2 

January 2010 

1. Greenbank Environmental Inc., 913 Baker Driver, Coquitlam, BC V3J 6X3 

2. Living Resources Environmental Services, #3 108 West 11 th Ave. Vancouver, BC V5L 2C

Executive Summary 

As required by the Wahleach Water License, BC Hydro has undertaken a fish productivity 

monitoring program in Lower Jones Creek. The objectives of the monitoring program are 

outlined by the Consultative Committee (CC) of the Wahleach Water Use Plan (WUP). The 

primary focus of the monitoring program is to examine the impacts of operational changes 

(specifically changes to the flow regime) on Lower Jones Creek fish productivity. The fish 

productivity monitoring program will focus on the central question to be addressed: Will the 

operational changes to the flow regime of Lower Jones Creek improve fish productivity as 

defined by the productivity indices outlined in the WUP. This report presents the results of Year 

4 (2008-2009) of the adult salmon escapement monitoring and juvenile migration components of 

monitoring program. 

The results of the monitoring program will be used to evaluate the productivity of these species 

along with factors contributing to survival such as flow, temperature, substrate, water quality and 

channel morphology in an effort to determine which factors most influence spawning success 

and egg-to-fry survival. Background data gathered from 1999-2004 (prior to the implementation 

of operational changes) will be used to compare results generated in future years. 

The results of the 2008 salmon escapement monitoring estimated the annual abundance of 

chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) salmon spawners utilizing Jones 

Creek. Using live counts gathered during stream side surveys and applying the result to 

an Area-Under-the Curve (AUC) method provided an estimate of adult salmon escapement and 

their distribution within Lower Jones Creek (coho escapement is estimated using the peak 

single day live and carcass count due to their very low abundance in Jones Creek). Estimated 

adult escapement by species for the 2008 was 537 chum salmon (Confidence Interval: 501 - 

578) and 4 coho salmon. This return is average chum to lower Jones Creek (average chum 

salmon escapement: 473, 1999-2007). 

There were a total of 231 chum fry and no coho smolts captured during the outmigration study. 

Five mark-recapture tests were pooled to provide a population estimate of 1527 chum fry (95% 

Confidence Interval: 758 to 2058). Potential egg deposition for chum salmon was calculated 

from the 2008 escapement estimate and a literature-based fecundity estimate of 2,765 eggs per 

female. The PED of 154,840 resulted in an egg-to-fry survival rate for chum of 0.99%. The 

survival rate estimate for chum fry was the lowest recorded since the new flow regime was 

initiated in 2005. 

Lorenzetta Creek was trapped from March 23 to April 23. There were 2,061 chum fry and 123 

coho smolts captured during that period. Chum fry from Lorenzetta Creek are used for the 

mark- recapture tests in Jones Creek. 

Lower Jones Creek Fish Productivity Monitoring 2008-2009 ii

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ii 

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 

2. Site Description and Background ..........................................................................................2 

3. Methods .................................................................................................................................4 

3.1 Adult Enumeration..............................................................................................................4 

3.2 Escapement Estimates........................................................................................................5 

3.3 Channel Morphology and Spawner Density ........................................................................7 

3.4 Fry Trapping ........................................................................................................................8 

3.5 Population Estimates...........................................................................................................9 

3.6 Flow and Environmental Monitoring ..................................................................................10 

4. Results.................................................................................................................................10 

4.1 Chum Salmon Escapement...............................................................................................10 

4.2 Coho Salmon Adult Escapement ......................................................................................13 

4.3 Flow and Channel Morphology..........................................................................................13 

4.4 Temperature Monitoring ....................................................................................................16 

4.5 Lower Jones Creek Fry Migration .........................................................................................17 

4.5.1 Trapping Results.........................................................................................................17 

4.5.2 Egg-To-Fry Survival Estimates ...................................................................................19 

4.5.3 Water Temperature and Accumulated Thermal Units ................................................20 

4.8 Lorenzetti Creek Trapping Results....................................................................................20 

4.8.1 Temperature and Accumulated Thermal Units ...........................................................22 

5. Discussion ...........................................................................................................................23 

5.1 Chum Salmon Escapement...............................................................................................23 

5.2 Coho Salmon Escapement................................................................................................24 

5.3 Fry Out-Migration ..............................................................................................................25 

5.4 Flow and Channel Morphology.........................................................................................26 

5.5 BC Hydro Enhancement Monitoring.................................................................................26 

6. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................27 

7. References ..........................................................................................................................28 

Lower Jones Creek Fish Productivity Monitoring 2008-2009 iii

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Lower Jones Creek study location.................................................................................3 

Figure 2 Lower Jones Creek Fry trapping locations and adult survey sections...........................4 

Figure 3 Illustration of chum observations in Lower Jones Creek by survey date alongside daily 

discharge. ...................................................................................................................................11 

Figure 4 The side channel marked in blue became completely dewatered due to channel 

shifting following heavy flows on October 18, 2008. ...................................................................15 

Figure 5 Lower Jones Creek hydrograph for the spawning period. This chart shows the results 

of flow measurements limited to 4.0 cms and below to indicate target flows (1.1cms) through the 

spawning period (September 15 to November 30). Target flows are indicated by the dashed red 

line. .............................................................................................................................................16 

Figure 6 Lower Jones Creek daily temperature during escapement period. The temperature 

range for chum during their spawning period was 12.5 -5.0 degrees Celsius. ...........................17 

Figure 7 Illustration of chum fry daily capture and Lower Jones Creek discharge. Markrecapture 

tests are highlighted in green at the flow recorded during release. ............................18 

Figure 8 Lower Jones Creek mean daily water temperature and ATUs from the start of chum 

spawning (September 22, 2008), to the end of emergence, (May 14, 2009)..............................20 

Figure 9 Lorenzetti Creek daily coho smolt capture, 2009. Flow information is not available for 

Lorenzetti. ...................................................................................................................................21 

Figure 10 Coho smolt daily capture in Lorenzetti Creek, 2009. .................................................22 

Figure 11 Lorenzetti Creek mean daily water temperature and ATUs from the start of spawning 

(September 15, 2008) to the end of Lower Jones trapping (May 14, 2009)................................23 

Figure 12 Chum and pink salmon escapement to lower Jones Creek, 1999 - 2008..................24 

Lower Jones Creek Fish Productivity Monitoring 2008-2009 iv

List of Tables 

Table 1 Survey-life calculation constants applied to escapement calculations............................6 

Table 2 Daily chum observations by section...............................................................................12 

Table 3 Chum salmon spawning density in Lower Jones and Lorenzetta Creek 2008. .............12 

Table 4 Lower Jones Creek adult chum observations by date 1999-2008. ................................13 

Table 5 Lower Jones Creek average wetted width and available spawning area by reach.......14 

Table 6.Species composition of fish captured in the Lower Jones Creek trap 2009. .................18 

Table 7 Chum fry mark-recapture test results and stage elevation on the release day..............19 

Table 8 Species composition of the Lorenzetti Creek trap captures...........................................21 

Table 9 Lorenzetti Creek coho smolt capture records 2005-2009. .............................................22 

Table 10 Chum spawning distribution by section 2001-2008. ...................................................24 

Table 11 Chum and pink fry population and egg-to-fry survival estimates .................................25 

Table 12 Summary of Jones Creek capture efficiencies during the WUP monitoring program. 26 

Table 13. Results of minnow trapping in the rearing habitat enhancement area, 2009.............27 

List of Appendices 

Appendix 1 Photo record of trap configurations........................................................................30 

Lower Jones Creek Fish Productivity Monitoring 2008-2009 v

1. Introduction 

The Wahleach Water Use Plan (WUP) was submitted to the Provincial Comptroller of Water 

Rights in December of 2004 and BC Hydro was ordered to implement the conditions of the 

WUP in January of 2005. The conditions of the WUP defined minimum flow requirements (the 

minimum flow requirements are 1.1 cms from September 15 to November 30 and 0.6 cms 

during the rest of the year), physical works and monitoring programs. One component of the 

monitoring program defined under the WUP is to monitor fish productivity. Specifically, the 

program will monitor annual escapement of pink, chum and coho salmon and estimate egg-tofry 

survival for each brood year. Coho and steelhead escapement and smolt production will also 

be monitored. 

The monitoring program is expected to run for 10 years. The results will be reported annually 

while an interim review will be undertaken after Year 5 (2009-10) and a final review after Year 

10 (2014-15). Both reviews will examine annual fish productivity and trends over the duration of 

the monitoring period that will help to answer the key management question. The Year 5 review 

will be the first opportunity to revise the monitoring program and potentially re-open the WUP. 

The study area includes the lower 1.2 km of Jones Creek from its confluence with the Fraser 

River upstream to the cascade above the Laidlaw Road Bridge, which is a barrier to upstream 

fish passage. The key management question as outlined in the fish productivity monitoring 

terms of reference (TOR) is: 

Will the operational changes outlined in the amended Wahleach Water License result in 

increased productivity for anadromous and resident fish populations in Lower Jones Creek? 

With respect to this question, the main objective of the 2008-2009 study, as presented in this 

report, are: 

Adult Escapement: 

1. To provide an accurate estimate of returning adults to Lower Jones Creek. 

2. To determine the distribution and density of spawning salmon within Lower Jones 

Creek. 

3. To monitor stream discharge and document the effects of the variable discharge 

on channel morphology and the potential implications to spawning success. 

4. To monitor water quality and water temperature to determine if these factors may 

influence spawning success. 

Fry Outmigration: 

1. To provide an estimate of total chum fry population out-migrating from lower Jones 

Creek. 

2. To provide an estimate of egg-to-fry survival for lower Jones Creek by estimating egg 

deposition from the 2008 escapement estimates and comparing that with the total fry 

out-migration estimates. 

Lower Jones Creek Fish Productivity Monitoring 2008-2009 1

2. Site Description and Background 

Jones Creek is located 30 km west of Hope, British Columbia. The Wahleach Dam is located 

on Jones Creek approximately 8.5 km upstream of its confluence with the Fraser River. The 

Wahleach Dam impounds Jones (Wahleach) Lake reservoir which receives water from upper 

Jones Creek and a number of other inflow sources. The reservoir provides flow to the 

Wahleach Generating Station (WAH GS) which is located on the Fraser River downstream of 

the Jones Creek confluence (Figure 1). Lower Jones creek flows are provided mainly from 

tributary inflow and surficial runoff from areas downstream of the Wahleach Dam, although 

additional flows can be provided via a siphon from the Wahleach Reservoir as well as a water 

diversion from Boulder Creek. Both of these sources are used by BC Hydro to meet the lower 

Jones Creek minimum flow requirements during low flow periods. 

The lower Jones Creek area is characterized as a highly mobile gravel fan which is unstable 

and prone to regular shifts in channel location (Hartman, G.F. and M. Miles. 1997). In addition, 

significant amounts of fine materials are mobilised from upstream areas and are deposited in 

the lower Jones Creek area. This leads to gravel compaction and channel instability. The 

channel instability and stream bed scour are likely major factors in low egg-to-fry survival in 

Lower Jones Creek (Macnair 2004). Low egg-to-fry survival has been estimated in all previous 

fry outmigration enumeration studies completed for the 1999, 2003-2008 brood years where 

egg-to-fry survival rates were estimated to be below 2.5% for both pink and chum salmon. 

An artificial spawning channel for pink and chum salmon was constructed at the lower end of 

Jones Creek in 1953-54 (Figure 2). Pink and chum salmon fry out-migration studies conducted 

between 1954-1981 during the operation of the spawning channel, estimated mean annual 

chum fry production at 71,100 (range 1,700 to 253,600) while odd-year pink salmon fry 

production from the channel was estimated at 747,000 (range 145,000 to 1,500,000). The 

average egg-to-fry survival for chum over the same period was estimated at 34.6% (range 

13.5% to 85.0%) while the average for pink was 37.7% (range 8.5% to 79.1%) (Fraser and 

Fedorenko 1983). The spawning channel was decommissioned after it was severely damaged 

by two landslides in 1993 and 1995. Historical information regarding spawning in Jones Creek 

prior to spawning channel construction is summarized in Hartman and Miles (1997). 

A large bin-wall weir, located 300 m upstream of the Fraser River, was constructed to divert 

returning spawners into the artificial spawning channel during its operation. The diversion weir 

remained in place after the channel was decommissioned and prohibited fish passage into 

upstream areas until 1998, when a small channel was excavated around the downstream 

diversion dam. This allowed fish to access an additional 500 m of habitat in lower Jones Creek 

to the location of the upstream weir which provided intake water for the spawning channel. Both 

of the weirs were removed in August 2004, extending access to a natural fish barrier located 

about 1.2 km upstream of the Fraser River. 

Lorenzetti Creek is a low gradient tributary to Jones Creek with slough-type characteristics in 

most areas. Recent enhancements have provided suitable spawning habitat in the lower 100 m 

which is the most productive area for pink and chum salmon. Coho salmon also spawn in the 

lower area but utilize intermittent spawning habitat in upstream areas. Most of the creek 

provides good rearing habitat for coho and resident trout species. 

The study area includes the lower 1.2 km of Jones Creek from its confluence with the Fraser 

River to the barrier to anadromous fish located just above the Laidlaw Road Bridge (Figure 2). 


Figure 1 Lower Jones Creek study location 


Figure 2. Lower Jones Creek Fry trapping locations and adult survey sections 

3. Methods 

3.1 Adult Enumeration 

BCH 

Rearing 

Channel 

Ground surveys were undertaken by a crew of two people walking in an upstream 

direction. The survey was started at the Fraser River confluence and extended up to the 

barrier to fish migration. Lower Jones Creek was divided into 4 sections (Figure 2) and 

counts were maintained separately for each section. The four survey sections are: 

� Section 1: Fraser River confluence to Lorenzetta Confluence (80m) 

� Section 2: Lorenzetta confluence to boulder riffle (110m) 

� Section 3: Boulder riffle to hydrometric station (655m) 

� Section 4: Hydrometric station to barrier (180m) 

BCH 

Spawning 

Platforms 

The lower section Lorenzetta Creek, from its confluence with Lower Jones Creek to the 

DFO spawning platform approximately 190 m upstream (Section 5) was also surveyed. 


The crew members were on opposite sides of the creek and remained in continuous 

communication with each other to ensure as many fish as possible were observed and to avoid 

duplicate counts of individual fish. Fish were identified to species and live fish were counted as 

either holding or actively spawning. Carcasses were identified to species, enumerated and 

above the high water mark to avoid counting more than once. Counts were conducted once or 

twice weekly from September 9, 2008 to December 22, 2008. 

An observer efficiency was estimated for each of the ground surveys. The observer efficiency is 

a qualitative assessment based on flow conditions and water clarity and provides an estimated 

efficiency for the days count. For example, an observer efficiency of 75% estimates that 75 % of 

the fish present on that day are counted and the count is expanded by that fraction in the AUC 

method. 

An extended section of Lorenzetta Creek (approximately 600m upstream of the 

Laidlaw/Lorenzetta bridge) was surveyed periodically during the coho migration and spawning 

period. This was to better estimate the actual number of coho migrating through Lower Jones 

Creek and to determine the total distribution of this coho population. 

3.2 Escapement Estimates 

The analytical procedure to provide estimates of total escapement from the day-specific 

counts is defined in the Wahleach Water Use Plan Monitoring Terms of Reference 

document and has been approved by fisheries representatives during the TOR 

development phase of the WUP implementation process. The procedure is summarized 

below. 

An area-under-the-curve trapezoidal approximation analysis was applied to the day specific 

counts to provide an estimate of escapement for chum and pink salmon to 

Lower Jones Creek. This method is a modification of the area-under-the-curve method 

commonly applied to these types of survey results and is shown below (Equation 1). 

Equation 1 Area-under-the-curve trapezoidal approximation method (Hilborn et. al. 1999) 

� � 

�x* i x i � 1� 

ti 

� ti 

� 1 

n 

1 � x * 1 x * n 

� * � 

N j � � � � � � 

2 � r1 

v1 

rnvn 

i� 

2 

rivi 

� 

where: 

N = total population estimate 

i = survey number (first survey date i=1) 

n = total number of surveys 

t = survey date 

r = survey-life of adult spawner 

v = visibility 

x* = total count of adults observed for each survey number i and section j 

Perrin and Irvine (1990) and Schwarz and Manke (2000) concluded that survey life of 

adult spawners cannot be extrapolated between years or species on the same stream 

without introducing serious errors in escapement. To quote Perrin and Irvine (1990) 

“Survey life (residence time) should be determined on a site-specific basis each time the 

AUC method is used to estimate escapement”. Although some survey life assessment 


were completed for pink salmon during the spawning channel operation, recent site specific 

survey life is not available for either chum or pink in Lower Jones Creek. The 

values used for survey life (r) are based on available information from the literature. A 

maximum survey life value for both chum and pink salmon was applied to a model 

developed by Korman et al. (2002) (Equation 2) which results in a decaying survey life 

value as the spawning period progresses. With this model each day within the spawning 

period is given a specific survey life and the day-specific survey life is applied to the total 

count on the corresponding day. 

Equation 2. Daily survey life calculation 

� 

� 

� 

max� 

� 

�� 

ri � r 1� 

r 

r 

� 

half �c 

t 

� 

i 

� 

� 

rhalf 

�c 

rhalf 

�c 

� 

� t 

half i �� 

Where: 

c = modified slope constant 

r max = maximum survey life possible 

t half = the day at which the survey life is half the maximum 

t l = day of the run 

The maximum survey life ( r max) is determined using the mean r calculated by Perrin and Irvine 

(1990), for salmon spawning in the Georgia Straight Region. The maximum 

survey life selected for both chum and pink salmon was 18 days. The day at which the 

survey life is half of the maximum value ( t half) was defined as the date at which the sum 

of the peak live plus dead count was greatest. The rate of change of the survey life or 

slope of the survey life curve (c = 1.25 for pink, c = 1.0 for chum) has been used in 

previous studies and was tailored to ensure a reasonable minimum survey life ( r min) as 

defined by the literature. 

Uncertainty regarding survey life is assumed to be normally distributed around the 

assessed value, with a standard deviation assessed in Perrin and Irvine (1990) and 

outlined in Table 1. The normally distributed error for survey life eri is then calculated as: 

Equation 3. Survey life estimate error calculation 

Er = 1.96 √ V(r) 

Table 1 Survey-life calculation constants applied to escapement calculations 

Species rmax V(r) c 

Chum 18 0.42 1.25 

Pink 18 0.44 1.00 

where: 

rmax 

= maximum estimated survey life 

V(r)= Variance (r) 

c = modified slope constant 

The WUP monitoring TOR also describes a visibility/observer efficiency error calculation. 


Visibility is often different between surveys and by calculating the difference in visibility 

between adjacent surveys the effects of extrapolating errors in visibility for the 

unsurveyed period between surveys can be assessed. The error in visibility (ev) is then 

calculated as follows: 

Equation 4. Observer efficiency estimate error calculation 

ev = 1.96 √ V(dV) 

Where: 

V(dV) = the standard deviation of the absolute value of the differences of observer 

efficiency between adjacent surveys. 

The 95 % confidence limit for the escapement estimate is calculated by substituting vi 

with vi +/- ev and ri with ri +/- Er into Equation 1 simultaneously. We have modified the 

terms of reference slightly to include confidence limits using the calculation described 

above as well as using only the survey life error since the observer efficiency error 

calculation often results in the substitution of unreasonable observer efficiencies. That 

is, observer efficiencies resulting from the error calculation are often well above one or 

near zero. 

An estimate of escapement was not provided for coho salmon due to the very low 

numbers observed. Also, coho salmon spawn primarily in areas of Lorenzetta Creek 

outside of the defined survey limits of Section 5. Although surveyed a number of times this year, 

Lorenzetta Creek is not routinely covered during the ground surveys. We provide daily counts 

and carcass recovery information. 

3.3 Channel Morphology and Spawner Density 

Wetted area for each section was estimated by measuring wetted width at a number of 

locations within each section and multiplying the average width by the length of the 

section. Since Lower Jones Creek is very prone to channel shifting the wetted area 

assessment was completed four times during and after the peak spawning period. The 

initial assessment was completed near the beginning of the spawning period and the 

following assessments were completed after significant flow events to determine their 

effect on channel morphology. An assessment of spawning habitat within each section 

was also provided. 

Spawner density was calculated for each section by applying the percent distribution of 

total live counts for each section to the estimate of total escapement for each species. 

This was considered a better approach than calculating escapement estimates for each 

section due to the uncertainty in fish movement during the spawning period. 

The wetted area and transect measurements taken throughout the season were 

compared to determine whether or not the channel was shifting or changing significantly 

during the spawning period. Photo documentation was also provided to demonstrate 

any significant changes in channel morphology. Shifting channels will potentially impact 

egg-to-fry survival if they occur during the spawning or incubation periods. 

Other environmental information collected during each of the surveys included: 


� Staff gauge reading and discharge measurements at the upstream weir. 

Discharge was either directly measured with a flow-transect or estimated 

from the stage-discharge curve 

� Water visibility/clarity was visually estimated. 

� Current weather conditions were recorded. 

� Water temperature was collected continuously at two locations (Jones Creek 

upstream weir and Lorenzetta Creek) with Onset Tid Bit thermistors. 

3.4 Fry Trapping 

As per previous years, a modified fyke-net and live-box downstream migrant trap was used for 

the 2009 enumeration. Trapping is not possible at the furthest downstream extent of Lower 

Jones Creek due to inundation of the Fraser River which generally occurs about half way 

through the out-migration period. In 2009 the trap was located at the furthest downstream end 

of Reach 3 (Figure 2) which is upstream of the Fraser River inundation and provides a reference 

point for separating adult escapement counts conducted in the fall. From March 19 to April 24 a 

single trap configuration was used in Lower Jones Creek (Appendix 1). Following inundation of 

the Lorenzetta trap during the Fraser River freshet, the trap was moved to Lower Jones Creek 

to create a dual-trap configuration (Appendix 1) which was used until the completion of trapping 

program. Only adult spawners from areas upstream of the trap were considered when 

estimating egg-to-fry survival. 

The trap consists of a fyke-net (1/8” mesh) with 7 m wing panels funneling to a 1 m 2 opening at 

the cod end. Additional panels were added during the course of the study to improve trap 

efficiency when possible. The net panels were anchored to the substrate using 5/8 inch rebar 

secured via cedar bracing poles. The cod end funneled to an 8 inch diameter PVC pipe 

attached by two steel pipe clamps. The 7.4 m PVC pipe discharged directly into a 0.75 x 1.4 x 

1.0 m aluminum live-box. A mesh baffle served to reduce turbulence in the box and also 

provided the fry with separation from predators that may have also been captured. 

The trap operated continuously from March 19 to May 14, 2009, for a trapping effort of 57 days 

in total. Traps were fished continually for the entire period with the exception of a few days when 

high water levels damaged the traps or clogged the intake. The traps were cleaned of debris 

several times daily. Fish were generally counted once in the morning and again at the end of 

the day. All efforts were made to keep the traps fishing as efficiently as possible, with slight 

adjustments sometimes necessary to ensure that maximum efficiency was maintained. 

Lorenzetti Creek was also trapped to increase the overall captures in the system to ensure 

adequate numbers for mark and recapture tests in Jones Creek. The trap in Lorenzetti Creek 

was similar in design to Lower Jones. It employed the same PVC pipe, though shorter at 4.5 m 

in length, with a cod end of 0.5 m 2 . The wings were also smaller, extending only 5m from the 

conduit opening. This trap operated from March 23 to April 23 which is when the Fraser River 

inundated the area. Mark-recapture experiments were not undertaken on Lorenzetti Creek 

since it is not possible to trap the entire outmigration period. We reported on smolt captures 

and calculated ATU’s for comparison with Jones Creek. In addition to the downstream trapping, 

six days of minnow trapping were completed in Lorenzetti Creek after the downstream migrant 

trap was removed. 

Fry were transferred from the traps to plastic buckets and moved streamside for processing. 

Fry were identified to species and enumerated while ensuring that marked fry were identified 

and enumerated separately. Captured fry were stored in covered 20 L buckets until they were 


equired for a mark and recapture. All adults and smolts captured were transferred to buckets, 

measured and immediately released downstream of the Lorenzetti Creek trap site. 

A total of 5 marked releases were undertaken in Jones Creek. Fry were marked by immersion 

in a dilute solution of Bismarck Brown Y dye (concentration 1:100,000) for 60 to 90 minutes. 

Marked fish were held for a minimum of 6 hours prior to release to ensure survival and good 

condition. The condition of all batches of marked fry was assessed before being released. Fry 

were released between 19:00 and 22:00 hours, at a location approximately 600 m upstream of 

the trap (Figure 2). Fry were released at dusk or in the dark to mimic natural emergence and 

migration behavior and to provide maximum cover from predators during migration. 

3.5 Population Estimates 

Trap efficiency was determined using the results of five mark-recaptures completed during the 

study period. The first two mark groups (April 8, April 17) released were under the single trap 

configuration on Lower Jones Creek, the remaining three were done under the dual trap 

configuration (April 25, April 29, May 5). As mentioned previously, we were not able to capture 

sufficient numbers of chum and pink fry from the lower Jones Creek trap to undertake the marks 

so all marked release groups were augmented with fry from the Lorenzetti trap. 

The daily catch from the fry trap was used to estimate the total number of fry out-migrating 

during the trapping period. The total out-migrating chum fry populations were calculated by 

applying the Peterson estimate (Ricker 1975) as shown below in Equation 1. There were 

generally sufficient recapture numbers to allow a stratified estimate using each marked release 

group independently, however, we decided against this approach due to the large difference in 

trap efficiency between the single and dual trap configurations. Therefore, mark recapture tests 

were pooled for each configuration, with the single trap pooled estimate of 0.086 covering 

March 19 –April 23, and the dual trap estimate of 0.304 covering April 24 – May 14. We also 

made the assumption that the unmarked and marked fish were randomly mixed within the outmigrating 

population. The dual trap configuration offered a higher CE, however, the Lorenzetta 

trap is required to accumulate catch for the early efficiency tests in Jones Creek. An additional 

trap for the program would overcome this problem. 

Equation 1: Peterson population estimate for mark-recapture experiments 

N � �M�1�x�C�1� / �R � 1� 

� � 

Where: N = total population estimate 

C = total daily catch 

R = number of marks recaptured 

M = number of marks released 

Confidence limits (95%) were calculated by substituting the upper and lower limits of R (marks 

recaptured) into Equation 1. Pearson’s formula was used to calculate the upper and lower limits 

of R, as shown in Equation 2 (Ricker 1975). 


Equation 2: Peterson's formula for limits of R 

R �1. 92 �1. 

96 ( R �1) 

3.6 Flow and Environmental Monitoring 

Flows in Lower Jones Creek were monitored at an established transect near the BC Hydro 

remote hydrometric station located 40 m downstream of the Laidlaw Bridge (Figure 2). Daily 

flows in the creek were measured using a swoffer flow metre and top-set wading rod since data 

from the hydrometric station was not available during the spring out-migration period. To 

measure flows, a measuring tape was strung perpendicular to the flow at the location noted 

above. Depth and velocity was measured at 0.5 m intervals which resulted in approximately 27 

measurements across the channel. Depths were measured to the nearest centimeter with the 

top-set wading rod and a velocity measurement was taken at the same location using. Depth of 

the velocity measurement was set by the 60% scale on the top-set wading rod. 

Temperature was monitored using 2 TidBit temperature loggers, one placed downstream of the 

hydrometric station in Lower Jones Creek and the other in Lorenzetti Creek (Figure 2). Logger 

depth was approximately 0.5 m at each location although depth varied with river stage. Loggers 

were set to measure temperature at hourly intervals. Currently, there is no quality assurance 

procedure to measure instrument drift with the Onset temperature loggers. Accumulated 

Thermal Units (ATUs) were calculated using the cumulative total of the mean daily temperature. 

The ATUs were used to track emergence timing estimates and length of incubation between 

species. 

Photos were taken over the course of the trap operation documenting any changes in stream 

channel morphology that might occur. 

4. Results 

4.1 Chum Salmon Escapement 

The first observation of chum salmon was on September 22, 2008 when 7 chum were 

observed (Figure 3, Table 2). Numbers increased throughout the first week in October until the 

peak count on October 6, 2008 when a total of 132 chum were observed. Two chum were 

observed in Lower Jones Creek on November 18, 2008 and none were observed on 

subsequent surveys. Carcass recovery was completed during each of the field surveys. 

Excluding Lorenzetta, a total of 66 carcasses were recovered. The peak carcass count of 20 

occurred on October 6, 2008. Lorenzetta Creek was not fully accessible to chum until October 

1, 2008. The peak count in Lorenzetta was 14 adults on October 8, 2008. 


140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Chum Adult 

Discharge (cms) 

Sept 12 Sept 17 Sept 22 Sept 27 Oct 1 Oct 6 Oct 8 Oct 12 Oct 19 Oct 22 Oct 27 Oct 30 Nov 2 Nov 9 Nov 16 Nov 18 Nov 26 

Figure 3 Illustration of chum observations in Lower Jones Creek (left axis) by survey date 

alongside daily discharge (right axis). 

Figure 3 illustrates the escapement timing in Lower Jones Creek. The first adult chum to enter 

Lower Creek, was September 22, and the last observation was November 18, both of these 

timing dates are typical for the system (Table 4). Peak spawning occurred in Lower Jones Creek 

on October 6, which is the earliest peak date since 1999 (Table 4). Peak spawning on 

Lorenzetta occurred on October 8, two days later than Lower Jones Creek. 

Lower Jones Creek Fish Productivity Monitoring 2008-2009 11 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0

Table 2 Daily chum observations by section. Distribution by percent is calculated using Lower 

Jones Creek numbers only. 

Lower Jones Creek Lorenzetta 

Date S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 

22-Sep-08 6 0 1 0 n/a 

27-Sep-08 48 0 2 0 n/a 

1-Oct-08 86 2 2 4 4 

6-Oct-08 103 1 12 6 6 

8-Oct-08 109 1 9 4 14 

12-Oct-08 84 0 22 8 12 

19-Oct-08 24 2 44 8 3 

22-Oct-08 53 4 36 6 3 

27-Oct-08 15 3 2 0 11 

30-Oct-08 15 2 3 1 4 

2-Nov-08 17 0 2 2 12 

9-Nov-08 11 2 1 1 5 

16-Nov-08 7 0 0 0 5 

18-Nov-08 0 2 0 0 9 

26-Nov-08 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 578 19 136 40 88 

Distribution 70.5% 2.3% 16.6% 4.9% 

For the estimate of total escapement we have excluded the counts from Lorenzetta 

since those fish are not directly subjected to the flow regime of Jones Creek. Applying the day 

specific counts to the AUC model described above results in an escapement estimate of 537 

chum salmon. This assumes a maximum survey life ( r max) of 18 days, a half survey life ( t half) at 

20 days and a slope constant (c) of 1.0. Observer efficiency was generally poor during the 

majority of the run, and very poor in the latter half (OE ranged from .85-.25 from Oct 19 to the 

end of the run). By applying the survey life error estimate of 1.3 days to the day-specific counts 

results in escapement estimates ranging from 501 to 578 chum salmon. The escapement 

estimate of 537 chum salmon is near the average over the time period (1999-2007 average 

escapement 473) (Table 4). 

The majority of chum spawning activity in Lower Jones Creek (70.5%) was observed in 

Section 1, which holds approximately 10% of all the available spawning area in Lower Jones 

Creek, (Table 2,5). Sections S3 (16.6%) and S4 (4.9%) had the next highest levels of activity 

(Table 2). 

Table 3 Chum salmon spawning density by section in Lower Jones and Lorenzetta Creek 2008. 

Lower Jones Creek Lorenzetta 

s1 s2 s3 s4 total s5 

Escapement 379 12 89 26 537 57 

Area m2 600 829 6788 617 8834 579 

Spawners/m2 0.631 0.015 0.013 0.042 0.061 0.098 


Table 4 Lower Jones Creek adult chum observations by date 1999-2008. 

Date 1999 Date 2001 Date 2003 Date 2004 Date 2005 Date 2006 Date 2007 Date 2008 

Sept. 11 0 sept. 11 0 14-Sep 1 

Sept. 18 4 sept. 18 1 19-Sep 0 Sept. 23 1 Sept. 22 7 

Sept. 23 3 sept. 21 4 22-Sep 5 25-Sep 50 Sept. 25 2 Sept. 27 50 

Oct. 5 375 Oct. 1 32 sept. 25 2 Oct. 3 3 27-Sep 4 29-Sep 60 Sept. 27 10 Oct. 1 94 

Oct. 12 223 Oct. 9 43 sept. 29 25 Oct. 8 25 3-Oct 2 6-Oct 97 Oct. 5 14 Oct. 6 132 

Oct. 13 19 Oct. 15 76 Oct. 1 21 Oct. 12 47 6-Oct 14 13-Oct 276 Oct. 10 12 Oct. 8 123 



Nov. 4 13 Nov. 6 0 Oct. 9 196 Oct. 30 102 25-Oct 16 27-Oct 209 Oct. 23 37 Oct. 22 99 

Nov. 10 12 Oct. 16 38 Nov. 6 72 28-Oct 0 2-Nov 219 Oct. 30 13 Oct. 27 20 

Nov. 18 5 Oct. 27 70 Nov. 10 82 3-Nov 4 9-Nov 57 Nov. 5 10 Oct. 30 21 

Nov. 24 2 Nov. 4 45 Nov. 16 124 9-Nov 2 16-Nov 21 Nov. 8 4 Nov. 2 21 

Dec. 1 0 Nov. 12 13 Nov. 22 47 22-Nov 12 Nov. 15 0 Nov. 9 15 

Nov. 23 27 Nov. 27 14 Nov. 21 0 Nov. 16 7 

Nov. 27 4 Dec. 3 3 Nov. 18 2 

682 153 417 573 107 1250 132 537 

An index of adult spawning density in Lower Jones Creek was calculated by applying the 

percent distribution (Table 2) for each section to the estimate of total escapement (537 

chum), and comparing it to the average area of available spawning habitat throughout the 

escapement period (Table 5). Within Lower Jones Creek, Section 1 had by far the highest 

spawner density with 0.631 fish/m2 (Table 5). All other sections had very low) spawning density 

(< 0.042 spawners/m2). This distribution is unusual for Lower Jones Creek, which normally 

sees the highest activity in Sections 3 and 4 (Table 11). Section 5 in Lorenzetta Creek, had a 

density of 0.098 fish/m 2 . 

4.2 Coho Salmon Adult Escapement 

A total of 4 adult coho were observed during the escapement period in Lower Jones Creek. A 

total of 11 were observed in S5, (Lorenzetta Creek), with a peak single day count of 5 coho, (on 

November 16, 2008). All observations of coho in Lower Jones Creek were in section S1. No 

coho redds were observed in lower Jones Creek. Three separate redds believed to be coho 

were observed in section S5 of Lorenzetta Creek. The first coho was observed on October 30 

and the last was observed on December 5, 2008. 

4.3 Flow and Channel Morphology 

We monitored stream channel morphology by daily observations and photographs, combined 

with fluctuations in total wetted area by measuring wetted width at established transects within 

each section. Detailed substrate and channel morphology assessments are also undertaken in 

lower Jones Creek at odd-year intervals by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 

Detectable channel shift affecting an active spawning area in Lower Jones Creek was 

documented in 2008. An ephemeral side channel that is normally dry (except at very high flows 

eg. >5cms) was wetted during the 2008 spawning season. Flow measurements indicated that 

approximately 33 to 40% of the flow (depending on the creek stage) was entering this side 

channel. 


The side channel itself is 225m in length (only 125m of which is accessible by adult salmon), 

with a maximum wetted width of 5.0m. The channel is broken by the remaining section of the 

steel bin wall that was constructed during operation of the Lower Jones Creek spawning 

channel (Fig11). This prevents any fish using this channel from accessing other areas of Lower 

Jones Creek. Prior to its dewatering, a peak count of 26 adult chum were counted here on 

October 6 th and 8 th . Following high flows on October 18 th the side channel became completely 

dewatered. Flow did not return to this area for the remainder of the spawning period and well 

into incubation (no flow observed as of Feb. 1, 2009). 

Wetted area by reach was estimated five times over the spawning period by multiplying the 

average wetted width by reach length (Table 5). Total wetted area expanded and decreased as 

expected with discharge. No areas where redding was active were impacted by channel 

migration. However, a 44m length of a secondary channel in Section S3-1 (Table 5) of the 

creek did migrate approximately 7m from its original location according to the October 27, 2008 

transect survey. This channel was likely too small for fish access and no fish or redds were 

observed in this channel. 

Table 5 Lower Jones Creek average wetted width (ww) and available spawning area by reach 2008 

Date 27-Sep 19-Oct 27-Oct 18-Nov 5-Dec 1-Apr 27-Apr 

Stage 0.56m 0.62m .56m 0.61m 0.605m 0.48m 0.47m 

Flow .89cms 1.62cms 1.01cms 1.3cms 1.19cms 1.12cms 1.0cms 

Avg Reach 

Reach WW(m) area m 2 

Avg Reach 

WW(m) area m 2 

Avg Reach 


Avg Reach 


Avg Reach 


Avg Reach 


Avg Reach 


S-1 6.1 484 6.6 528 6.4 512 9.0 720 9.5 756 8.6 688 8.6 688 

S-2 5.8 580 6.5 645 9.6 960 9.8 983 9.8 975 9.5 950 9.3 930 

S3-1 8.4 871 10.0 1095 9.3 921 8.8 963 10.6 1049 9.8 1078 9.2 1012 

S3-2 11.3 2076 13.8 2570 15.8 2364 12.7 1690 13.5 1846 12.1 1844 12.0 1820 

S3-3 11.4 3522 12.7 3927 11.5 3559 12.1 3751 12.1 3739 11.9 3689 11.7 3627 

S4 13.4 610 13.7 625 13.2 601 13.7 623 13.7 625 12.9 587 12.7 578 

Total 8143 9390 8916 8729 8990 8836 8655 


Figure 4 The side channel marked in blue became completely dewatered due to channel shifting 

following heavy flows on October 18, 2008. 

The continuous flow monitoring at the hydrometric data station in Lower Jones Creek was 

stopped in September 2008 due to frequent vandalism of equipment. Flow transects were 

completed during each site visit. BC Hydro is required to deliver a minimum of 1.1cms to Lower 

Jones Creek throughout the pink and chum salmon spawning period (September 15 to 

November 30). Flows ranged from 0.73 to 2.0cms from September 15 to October 12, 2008 

(Figure 5). Flows less than 1.1 cms during this period did not prohibit fish access to the 

spawning areas. 


4 

3.8 

3.6 

3.4 

3.2 

3 

2.8 

2.6 

2.4 

2.2 

2 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

Sept 12 

Sept 17 

Sept 22 

Sept 27 

Oct 1 

Oct 6 

Oct 8 

Oct 12 


Oct 19 

Figure 5 Lower Jones Creek hydrograph for the spawning period. This chart shows the results of 

flow measurements limited to 4.0 cms and below to indicate target flows (1.1cms) through the 

spawning period (September 15 to November 30). Target flows are indicated by the dashed red 

line. 

4.4 Temperature Monitoring 

Water temperature is monitored throughout the year in Lower Jones Creek. Over the course of 

the active spawning period for chum (September 22 – November 18), mean daily temperature 

ranged from a high of 12.5C (September 22) to 5.0C (November 18). Figure 6 shows the daily 

max, min and mean temperature for the entire survey period. For chum salmon the average 

daily mean temperature during the spawning period was 7.8C (with a maximum of 12.5C and a 

minimum of 5.0C). 

Oct 22 

Oct 27 

Oct 30 

Nov 2 

Nov 9 

Nov 16 

Nov 18 

Nov 26 

Dec 5

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

01‐Sep 

06‐Sep 

11‐Sep 

16‐Sep 

21‐Sep 

26‐Sep 

01‐Oct 

06‐Oct 

11‐Oct 

16‐Oct 

21‐Oct 

26‐Oct 

31‐Oct 

05‐Nov 

10‐Nov 

15‐Nov 

20‐Nov 

25‐Nov 

30‐Nov 

05‐Dec 

10‐Dec 


mean 

Figure 6 Lower Jones Creek daily temperature during escapement period. The temperature range 

for chum during their spawning period was 12.5 -5.0 degrees Celsius. 

4.5 Lower Jones Creek Fry Migration 

4.5.1 Trapping Results 

Of the 57 trapping days completed on Jones Creek (March 19 – May 14, 2009), a total of four 

days were lost due to high flows resulting in a total of 53 operational trapping days. The traps 

remained fishing in the same location in Reach 3 until it was completely destroyed by extreme 

flows in Lower Jones Creek on May 14, 2009. Fish were captured on 30 of the 54 days that the 

trap was operating. 

A total of only 4 fish species were captured in Lower Jones Creek, which represents the lowest 

capture diversity recorded in seven years of trapping (since 1999). Chum fry comprised the 

largest proportion of the catch (95.5%) and followed by the sculpins (3.3%). Together, 

salmonids comprised 96.3% of the total catch (Table 6). No coho fry or coho smolts were 

captured during the survey period, which is the first time this species was not captured in Lower 

Jones Creek since 1999. 

max 

min

Table 6.Species composition of fish captured in the Lower Jones Creek trap 2009. 

Common Name 

Salmonids 

Taxonomic Name Total Catch % Composition 

Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta 231 95.5% 

Rainbow Trout 

Non-salmonids 

Salmo mykiss 2 0.8% 

Sculpins Cottus (sp) 8 3.3% 

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae 1 0.4% 

Total 242 

Chum fry were captured on 30 of the 54 trapping days for a total of 231 fry. The first chum fry 

was captured on March 28 and the last was captured on May 7, 2009. The peak single day 

catch for chum fry occurred on April 25 when 30 were captured, (Figure 7). Out-migration 

timing dates for chum fry were 10% by April 11, 50% by April 25, and 90% by May 5. The 

number of out-migrating chum fry captured in 2009 was the second largest amount since 

surveys began in 1999 (Table 12). 

Daily chum Fry Capture . 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Chum Fry 

Discharge 

22-Mar 29-Mar 5-Apr 12-Apr 19-Apr 26-Apr 3-May 10-May 

Figure 7.Illustration of chum fry daily capture and Lower Jones Creek discharge. Mark-recapture 

tests are highlighted in green at the flow recorded during release. 

A total of five mark-recapture tests were carried out on lower Jones Creek throughout the 

migration period. Mark-recaptures were performed at early, peak and late out-migration timing 

and at a variety of flows. The first two tests were carried out in the single trap configuration and 

had capture efficiencies of 0.113 and 0.065 respectively (Table 7). The final three tests were 

done in the dual trap configuration and had a much higher capture efficiency (0.565, 0.336, and 

0.193 respectively). 


6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Discharge cms

In the single trap configuration, the first mark-recapture test was carried out under medium flow 

conditions, at a creek stage elevation of 0.51m (medium flow considered to be between 0.47m 

and .55m as recorded on the Lower Jones Creek staff gauge) and the second under high flow 

conditions, at a creek stage elevation of 0.575m (0.56m-.070m considered to be high flows) 

(Table 7). The capture efficiency rate under medium flow conditions was nearly twice that of the 

test under high flow conditions in the single trap configuration (Table 7). The remaining tests 

under the dual trap configuration also showed a higher capture efficiency under medium flow 

conditions. The first two tests had capture efficiency rates of 0.565 and 0.336 under medium 

flow (0.50m and 0.47m respectively), while the final test dropped to 0.193 under high flow 

conditions, (Stage elevation of .61m at time of release). 

The mark-recapture results for each trap configuration were pooled and population estimates 

were calculated using the mean capture rate from each configuration. Therefore, the mean of 

0.086% was used for the 33 trapping days in single trap configuration and 0.304% was used for 

the 21 days in dual trap configuration. The combined pooled Peterson estimate resulted in a 

total population estimate of 1,557 chum fry (95% Confidence Interval: 758 to 2,058). 

Table 7 Chum fry mark-recapture test results and stage elevation on the release day. 

Chum Chum 

Date Marked Recaptured Capture Efficiency Staff Gauge 

8-Apr 160 

9-Apr 18 0.113 0.51 

17-Apr 200 

18-Apr 13 0.065 0.575 

25-Apr 200 

26-Apr 113 0.565 0.50 

29-Apr 110 

30-Apr 37 0.336 0.47 

5-May 410 

6-May 79 0.193 0.57 

Pooled Total 1080 260 0.241 

Single Trap 360 31 0.086 

Dual Trap 720 219 0.304 

4.5.2 Egg-To-Fry Survival Estimates 

Chum escapement to lower Jones Creek was estimated at 537 in 2008. It was estimated that 

20.5 % of the chum (112 fish) spawned upstream of the trap site. Assuming the ratio of males to 

females is 1:1, the number of effective females is 56. An average fecundity of 2,765 eggs per 

female was taken from Banford and Baily (1979) and used as a surrogate to calculate potential 

egg deposition (PED) since no direct estimates of chum fecundity in Jones Creek are available. 

The PED (effective females x average fecundity) was estimated at 154,840 eggs upstream of 

the trap location. Based on the total out-migrating population estimate of 1,557 chum fry, the 

egg-to-fry survival rate for lower Jones Creek is estimated at 0.99 %. This is the lowest egg-tofry 

survival rate recorded under the flow regime initiated in 2005 (Table 11). 


4.5.3 Water Temperature and Accumulated Thermal Units 

Mean daily water temperatures and accumulated thermal units (ATUs) from September 15, 

2008 (start of spawning) to May 14, 2009 (end of emergence) are shown in Figure 8. ATU for 

the duration of the trapping program ranged from 731 to 995 (measured from the peak 

spawning date of October 6, 2009 to May 15, 2009); the predicted peak emergence period for 

chum fry using 900-950 ATU was from April 26 – May 6. This precisely matched the observed 

peak, which was April 25 - May 6, (corresponding to between 901-953 ATU’s). The 50% outmigration 

completion date for chum fry was April 25, which corresponds to 896 ATU. Water 

temperature during the emergence period ranged from 0.01 to 8.3 degrees Celsius. 

Temperature Celcius 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

15‐Sep 

29‐Sep 


13‐Oct 

27‐Oct 

10‐Nov 

24‐Nov 

08‐Dec 

22‐Dec 

05‐Jan 

19‐Jan 

02‐Feb 

16‐Feb 

02‐Mar 

16‐Mar 

30‐Mar 

13‐Apr 

27‐Apr 

11‐May 


ATU's 

Figure 8 Lower Jones Creek mean daily water temperature and ATUs from the start of chum 

spawning (September 22, 2008), to the end of emergence, (May 14, 2009). 

4.8 Lorenzetti Creek Trapping Results 

The trap on Lorenzetti Creek was in operation from March 26 to April 23, 2009 for a total of 29 

days. There were 2,061 chum fry and 123 coho smolts were captured during that period. 

Lorenzetta Creek had a much greater diversity of species captured (Table 8) and many more 

chum fry over only a portion of the migration period. 

Chum fry were captured on 25 of the 29 days that the trap was operating (Figure 9). The first 

chum was captured on March 27 (which is the earliest date chum fry have been captured on 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

ATU's

Lorenzetti Creek), and significant numbers were still being captured when the trap was removed 

on April 23. The peak single day catch for chum fry occurred on April 22 when 419 were 

captured. 

Coho smolts were captured on 23 of the 29 days that the trap was operating (Figure 10). The 

first smolt was captured on March 31 and the last was captured on April 23 for a total of 123 . 

The peak single day catch for coho smolts was 20 on April 23, 2009, which was also the day 

that the trap was removed. 

Table 8 Species composition of the Lorenzetti Creek trap captures. 

Common Name 

Salmonids 

Taxonomic Name Total Catch % Composition 

Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta 2061 89.5% 

Coho Salmon (smolt) Oncorhynchus kisutch 123 5.3% 

Rainbow Trout Salmo mykiss 21 0.9% 

Cutthroat Trout 

Non-salmonids 

1 0.04% 

Lamprey lampreta (sp) 53 2.3% 

Sculpins Cottus (sp) 41 1.8% 

Lake Whitefish 2 0.09% 

Northern Pike Minnow Ptychelius orogonesis 1 0.04% 

Redside Shiner Salvelinus malma 1 0.04% 

Total 2304 

Daily chum Fry Capture . 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Figure 9 Lorenzetti Creek daily coho smolt capture, 2009. Flow information is not available for 

Lorenzetti. 


Daily Coho Smolt Capture . 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

3/26/2009 3/31/2009 4/5/2009 4/10/2009 4/15/2009 4/20/2009 

Figure 10 Coho smolt daily capture in Lorenzetti Creek, 2009. 

Table 9 Lorenzetti Creek coho smolt capture records 2005-2009. 

Year Coho Smolts Days Trapping Last Trap Day Mean Fork Length # Smolts Per Trap Day 

2005 35 15 24‐Apr 73.3 2.3 

2006 154 30 30‐Apr 78.9 5.1 

2007 101 15 17‐Apr 74.4 6.7 

2008 75 35 7‐May 72.0 2.1 

2009 123 28 22‐Apr 68.1 4.4 

4.8.1 Temperature and Accumulated Thermal Units 

Mean daily water temperatures and ATU from Sept 15, 2009 (start of spawning) to May 14, 

2009 (end of trapping) are shown in Figure 13. ATU for the fry trapping period ranged from 713- 

854 for chum. The predicted peak emergence period for pink using 900-950 ATUs was from 

May 2- May 11, this did not match the observed peak of April 15-April 23, however the observed 

peak for Lorenzetti cannot be considered accurate because the trap was removed before 

emergence was complete. Daily capture of chum fry was increasing when the trap was 

removed on April 23, 2009. For chum fry the predicted peak emergence of May 2 – May 11, was 

two or three weeks after the trap had been removed. 


Temperature (°C) 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

15-Sep 

29-Sep 

13-Oct 

27-Oct 


ATU's 

10-Nov 

24-Nov 

08-Dec 

22-Dec 

05-Jan 


19-Jan 

Figure 11. Lorenzetti Creek mean daily water temperature and ATUs from the start of spawning 

(September 15, 2008) to the end of Lower Jones trapping (May 14, 2009). 

5. Discussion 

5.1 Chum Salmon Escapement 

The chum escapement estimate of 537 to lower Jones Creek is near the average for the period 

(1999-2007) (Figure 12). The peak spawn was observed on October 6, 2008 which is slightly 

earlier than we generally observe. Chum spawning distribution in 2008 was atypical of Lower 

Jones Creek in previous years, with the majority (72.8%) of all fish spawning in section 1 and 2 

(Table 11). Generally we observe the majority of the fish in Sections 3 and 4. 

Lorenzetta Creek was not fully accessible to chum salmon until October 18, 2008, at which point 

a beaver dam that was blocking access became passable due to high flows. Chum spawning in 

the surveyed section of Lorenzetta Creek (S5) also ended on November 18, 2008. 

02-Feb 

16-Feb 

01-Mar 

15-Mar 

29-Mar 

12-Apr 

26-Apr 

10-May 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

ATU's

Escapement 

5,000 

4,500 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Chum 

1999 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 


Pink 

Figure 12. Chum and pink salmon escapement to lower Jones Creek, 1999 - 2008. 

Table 10 Chum spawning distribution by section 2001-2008. Section 1 and 2 were combined from 

2001-2004, section 4 was made accessible in 2004 following removal of concrete weir. 

Percentages in S5 are presented for information only and reflect the share of total adult spawners 

if, S5 counts were included with Lower Jones escapement. 

Year S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 (lor) 

2001 11% 

89% n/a n/s 

2003 18% 

82% n/a n/s 

2004 67% 

32% 1% n/s 

2005 6.2% 31.0% 27.4% 35.4% (36.9%)* 

2006 4.6% 9.6% 64.8% 21.1% (3.9%)* 

2007 3.8% 15.6% 65.6% 15.0% (39.3%)* 

2008 70.5% 2.3% 16.6% 4.9% (10.2%) 

5.2 Coho Salmon Escapement 

Coho escapement to Lower Jones Creek continues to be very limited. No spawning coho or 

redds were observed in Jones Creek. All coho were observed in Section S1 and were likely 

moving into Lorenzetta Creek. Coho were observed on 5 occasions in Lorenzetta with a peak 

count of 11.

5.3 Fry Out-Migration 

Chum salmon egg-to-fry survival for the 2008 broodyear (0.99%) was near the average egg-tofry 

survival of 1.07% (n=3) observed in lower Jones Creek since implementation of the WUP in 

2005 (Table 11). Average egg-to-fry survival prior to implementation of the WUP is 0.44% 

(n=3). A similar increase has been observed for pink salmon egg-to-fry survival (Table 11). 

There are a number of factors that will need to be more closely analyzed prior to making 

conclusion regarding these results. These factors will be reviewed after completion of the fifth 

monitoring year and will include the following: 

� A review of pre and post WUP flows during the spawning, incubation and emergence 

period. This review will focus on whether post WUP flows are statistically different then 

pre WUP flows during the spawning period when the WUP prescribes an increased 

minimum flow requirement. Egg-to-fry survival for all years will also be correlated with 

the number and severity of high-flow events during all periods. 

� A review of the pre-WUP estimates will be undertaken and a reconciliation of missed 

trapping days will be provided for all trapping years to improve comparisons. 

Table 11 Chum and pink fry population and egg-to-fry survival estimates for lower Jones Creek, 

1999, 2003-2008 brood years. *no estimate due to low capture 

Chum Pink 

Brood Year Fry Capture Pop. Est Egg-to-Fry Fry Capture Pop. Est Egg-to-Fry 

1999 170 3,140 0.59% 396 7,091 0.98% 

2003 164 1,887 0.29% 470 5,950 0.33% 

2004 108 1,118 0.43% 

2005 161 1,242 1.21% 493 3,173 2.04% 

2006 1,572 14,162 1.03% 

2007 11 11* n/a 5377 59,696 2.46% 

2008 231 1,557 0.99% 

Lower Jones Creek egg-to-fry survival estimates are well below salmonid enhancement 

program biostandards for chum in the Lower Fraser River (9% egg-to-fry survival) as well as 

other values reported in literature for this species. For example, Cowan (1991) states that eggto-fry 

survival of 6-31% for chum in coastal streams has been reported, and Fraser and 

Fedorenko reported an average of 34.6% survival (range 13.5% to 85.0%) for chum salmon 

during the operation of the Lower Jones Creek spawning channel (1954-1983). The egg-to-fry 

survival estimates from other systems are provided simply for context and are not directly 

comparable to the Jones Creek estimates since capture methods and fecundity assumptions 

may not be similar. As discussed above, our analysis of the egg-to-fry survival will be based on 

pre and post WUP comparisons and not comparisons with other systems or biostandards. 

Trapping conditions in 2009 were good, with only two days missed during peak migration (April 

23 - 24) and two days missed near the end of migration (May 8 & 9). All previous years (with 

the exception of 2008) had between four and eight days lost during peak out-migration. Missed 

trapping days bias the trapping program results and we likely underestimate total population 

annually. Our intention is to attempt to address the missed trapping days within all year’s 

estimates after we have completed the fifth year monitoring. 

Use of a dual trap configuration on Lower Jones Creek in 2009 provided increased capture 

efficiencies. The three tests completed during this configuration were all higher then average 


and the April 25 and April 29 capture efficiency results (0.565 and 0.336 respectively) were the 

highest on record since monitoring was initiated (Table 12). The increased efficiencies from 

these three tests increased the mean for this year from about 10% observed in previous years 

to about 25% (Table 12). 

Table 12 Summary of Jones Creek capture efficiencies during the WUP monitoring program. 

2008 -09 2007 - 08 2006 - 07 2005 - 06 

Test Chum Pink Chum Chum Pink Chum 

1 11.3% 11.4% 13.2% 13.6% 15.0% 20.5% 

2 6.5% 10.6% 12.1% 13.0% 15.3% 

3 56.5% 1.3% 9.5% 18.3% 8.0% 

4 33.6% 6.2% 8.2% 12.1% 6.8% 

5 19.3% 15.2% 12.1% 18.4% 18.9% 

6 8.4% 

7 10.7% 

Mean 25.4% 9.1% 13.2% 11.1% 15.4% 13.9% 

Note: Bold, italicized efficiencies shown for 2008-09 were observed during the dual-trap configuration 

described in this report. 

5.4 Flow and Channel Morphology 

Flows in Lower Jones Creek were periodically below the target flow of 1.1cms between 

September 15 and November 30 (Figure 5). Sub-target flows were measured between 

September 15 and October 30, 2008 while flows remained above 1.1cms for the remainder of 

the spawning period after October 30. During the period of sub-target flows, water in Lower 

Jones was augmented from the siphon at Jones Lake Reservoir and the diversion at Boulder 

Creek. Metered flows of water from the siphon throughout this period indicated that 

approximately 50 to 60 % of the flow in Lower Jones Creek was being provided from the siphon. 

Continuous flow data for the spawning period is not available since the hydrometric station was 

not in service. The actual flows between the dates of our flow measurements are unknown. 

There were 12 flow measurements taken between Sept. 12 and Oct. 30 and 8 were below 1.1 

cms and 4 were above (Figure 5). Without the continuous flow data it is not clear exactly how 

long flows were above or below the 1.1 cms target. 

The low flows in Lower Jones Creek during the early and peak stages of spawning did not 

appear to prohibit access to spawning areas in the creek. Chum salmon were observed actively 

spawning in all areas of the creek during the sub-target flow period although the majority of the 

fish spawned in the lower sections of the creek. 

Although there have been no barriers to fish access identified during low flow conditions over 

the past few years, potential impacts do exist. Spawning habitat availability is reduced with 

lower flows, and could lead to crowding and redd superimposition. Fish may also undergo 

increased stress migrating through shallow waters, and could be more susceptible to predation. 

5.5 BC Hydro Enhancement Monitoring 

Over the past several years BC Hydro has undertaken habitat enhancement in lower Jones 

Creek and Lorenzetti Creek. These enhancements include removal of the diversion weirs in 

Lower Jones Creek and the construction of off-channel rearing habitat and spawning platforms 


in Lorenzetti Creek. The boulder riffles constructed in lower Jones Creek to overcome the 

gradient at the diversion wall locations are functioning as intended and remain passable to 

salmon. The spawning platforms in Lorenzetti Creek are functioning and being used by coho, 

pink and chum salmon. The downstream platform sees more use and appears to have more 

suitable hydraulics compared with the more upstream platform. The off-channel rearing habitat 

near the Lorenzetti–Jones confluence (Figure 2) remains in good condition. An infiltration 

gallery was installed in 2008 to increase flows to this habitat which is currently functioning well. 

Minnow trapping in this area in 2009 captured coho, rainbow trout, threespine sticklebacks and 

cottids (Table 13). 

Table 13. Results of minnow trapping in the rearing habitat enhancement area, 2009. 

Date 

No. of 

Traps Coho Rbt TSS Cottids 

20-Apr 12 7 2 17 3 

27-Apr 12 6 1 22 6 

04-May 12 11 0 16 4 

11-May 12 5 3 13 1 

6. Conclusions and Recommendations 

Conclusion and recommendations will be provided in the Year 5 report for the WUP review. 


7. References 

Brett, J.R. 1951, Temperature Tolerance in Young Pacific Salmon Genus Oncorhynchus, Pacific 

Biological Station and Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, pp. 49 

Cowie.D, 2000. Jones Creek Adult Enumeration 1999 Summary. BC Hydro, Power Supply 

Environment. 11 p, plus appendices. 

Ellis, R. J. 1969. Return and behavior of adults of the first filial generation of transplanted pink 

salmon and survival of their progeny, Sashin Creek, Baranof Island, Alaska. U.S. Fish Wildl. 

Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 589:13. 

English, K.K., R.C. Bocking and J.R. Irvine, 1992 A Robust Procedure for Estimating Salmon 

Ecapement Based on the Are-Under-the-Curve Method. Can. J. of Fish and Aquat. Sci. V. 49 

No. 10 pp. 1982-1989 

Fraser, F.J. and A.Y. Fedorenko. Jones Creek Pink Salmon Spawning Channel: A Biological 

Assessment, 1954-1982. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Technical Report of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No.1188. August 1983. 

Fukushima. M. and W. Smoker. Determinants of stream life, spawning efficiency, and spawning 

habitat in pink salmon in the Auke Lake system, Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.54 (1997) pp. 

96 – 104. 

Fraser F.J. and S.J. Berry. 1979. Jones Creek artificial pink salmon spawning channel progress 

report: 1954-1978. Unpublished report, Draft, January 1979. Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans. 43p. 

Fraser, F.J. and A.Y. Fedorenko, 1983. Jones Creek pink salmon spawning channel: A 

biological assessment, 1954-1982. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1188:89 p. 

Greenbank, J. 2000. Jones Creek Salmonid Smolt Migration Enumeration. White Pine 

Environmental Resources Ltd. 15 p. plus appendices. 

Hard, J.J., R.G. Kope, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, L.T. Parker, and R.S. Waples. 1996. Status 

Review of Pink Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC- 

25. 10 p. 

Hartman, G.F. and M. Miles. 1997. Jones Creek Spawning Channel – Post Failure Analysis and 

Management Recommendations. February 1997. Habitat Enhancement Branch, Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans. 

Jeffres, Carson, 2003 Life histories, Feeding Tendencies, of Juvenile Anadromous Salmonids 

of The Copper River Basin, UC Davis, pp.15 

Lapointe, M., Eaton, B., Driscoll, S. and Latulippe, C. 2000, Modelling The Probability of 

Salmonid Egg Pocket Scour Due to Flood. Can. J. of Fish and Aquat. Sci. 57:1120-1130 


Macnair, Jason C., 2004, 2003 Lower Jones Creek Salmon Escapement Survey, prepared for 

BC Hydro Generation Sustainability and Aboriginal Relations, 22p. 

Manske, M and Schwarz, C.J. 2000 Estimates of Stream Residence Time and Escapement 

Based on Capture-Recapture Data. Can. J. of Fish. and Aquat. Sci. 57: 241-246 

Morten Creek Publishing, Morten Creek Salmon Enhancement Program 

http://morten-creek.pskf.ca/ 2007 

Pauley, Gilbert B. 1988 Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes: 

Chum Salmon, US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report :82(11.81) pp. 17 

Perrin C.J. and Irvine J.R. 1990, A Review of Survey Life Estimates as They Apply to the Are- 

Under-the-Curve method For Estimating the Spawning Escapement of Pacific Salmon. Can 

Tech. Rep. Of Fish and Aquat. Sci. No.1733 

Rennie, Colin D. and Millar, R.G. Spatial Variability of Stream Bed Scour and Fill: A 

Comparison of Scour Depth in Chum Salmon (Oncorhyncus keta) Redds and Adjacent Bed. 

57:928-938 

Stockwell, Margot, The Influence of Water Temperature and Discharge on Okanagan Sockeye 

Migration, Spawning and Incubation. http://www.obwb.ca/fileadmin/docs/osoyoos_lake 2007 

Triton Environmental Consultants, 2002 1997 Fry Emergence Nechako Fisheries Conservation 

Program, Technical report No. M96-6 

Vallion, A. C., A. C. Wertheimer, W. R. Heard, and R. M. Martin. 1981. Summary of data and 

research pertaining to the pink salmon population at Little Port Walter, Alaska, 1964-80. 

NWAFC Processed Rep. 81-10:102 p. 


Appendix 1 Photo record of trap configurations. 

April 16, 2009 Lower Jones Creek single trap configuration(S.G. = 0.44m). 

May 1, 2009 Lower Jones Creek dual trap configuration (SG = 0.48m) 


April 16, 2008 Lorenzetti Creek.

Wahleach Project Water Use Plan Lower Jones Creek ... - BC Hydro

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?