Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A GIS evaluation of land use dynamics and fish habitat in the salmon river watershed - Langley, B.C. Watts, R. Dean 1992

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
ubc_1993_spring_watts_dean.pdf [ 14.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0086181.json
JSON-LD: 1.0086181+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0086181.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0086181+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0086181+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0086181+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0086181 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0086181.txt
Citation
1.0086181.ris

Full Text

A GIS EVALUATION OF LAND USE DYNAMICS AND FISH HABITATIN THE SALMON RIVER WATERSHED - LANGLEY, B.C.byR. DEAN WATTSB.Sc. University of Montana, 1988A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Resource Management Science)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADECEMBER, 1992© R. Dean Watts, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of Resource Management ScienceThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate December 18. 1992DE-6 (2/88)i iABSTRACTWith increased urban development in the Fraser River Basin,it is expected that fish habitat degradation will become morewidespread bringing into question the sustainability of thefisheries resource. This thesis examines the dynamics of landuse and fish habitat in the Salmon River watershed located inthe Lower Fraser River Valley. The study was initiated to:1) quantify the distribution and recent trends in land usechanges; 2) identify and quantify critical fish habitat toprovide a basis for assessing habitat deterioration in thefuture; 3) characterize recent fish habitat changes; and4) describe trends and processes associated with fish habitatand streamside land use relationships. Geographic InformationSystem techniques were used to analyze the land use data and todisplay the results.The distribution and temporal changes in land use from1979-80 to 1989-90 are examined in three ways: 1) an evaluationof overall watershed conditions; 2) an evaluation of a 500 meterbuffer zone of the stream network; and 3) an evaluation of 500meter buffer segments of four key fish habitat reaches.A significant decrease in agriculture, a substantialincrease in undeveloped areas, and a modest increase inresidential development were measured over the 10 year periodfor both the overall watershed and the stream network buffer.Similar land use trends were observed for the four key fishhabitat buffer segments. A large increase in residentialdevelopment was particularly notable in two of the four bufferiiisegments.Stream morphology characteristics were measured in primefish habitat areas of the Salmon River, and its principletributary Coghlan Creek. The fish habitat was classified intofour hydraulic unit types; riffles, glides, pools and sloughs.A comparison of reaches between the two streams showed that theSalmon River had twice the stream volume relative to CoghlanCreek. The reaches selected for study within the two streamsare considered the most critical spawning and rearing areas forsalmonids in the basin. Measurements of preferred hydraulichabitat for salmonids (riffles, glides and pools) showed thatCoghlan Creek had 20% more high quality habitat than the SalmonRiver.A interesting 2:1 relationship was found between reaches inthe Salmon River and Coghlan Creek for both stream volume andsmolt catch numbers. This ratio was consistent for five yearsbetween 1979 and 1989 for which reliable data is available.However in 1990 and 1992, smolt catch statistics decreased byhalf in the Salmon River which coincides with significantincreases in urbanization. More information is needed todocument these trends and to provide evidence for cause andeffect relationships.The techniques used in this study provide a new approachfor examining potential interactions and relationships betweenland use, fish habitat and fish production. The studycontributes a set of baseline data which can be used for futuremonitoring of fish habitat dynamics in relation to land usechanges.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSChapter^ PageABSTRACT ^LIST OF TABLES ViiLIST OF FIGURES ^ ixACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiDEDICATION ^ xii1. INTRODUCTION 11.1 Goal ^ 31.2 Objectives ^ 32. BACKGROUND 43.2.12.22.32.4STUDY3.13.23.33.4Sustainability of Salmonid Fish Resources inthe Fraser River Basin ^The Salmon River Watershed: A Case Study^Government Agencies, Interest Groups, andPublic Involvement in the Salmon RiverGeographic Information Systems (GIS) ^2.4.1 Important Aspects of GIS2.4.2^The Use of GIS to Evaluate FishHabitat and Land UseAREAPhysical Description ^3.1.1 Climate3.1.2 Surf icial Materials ^3.1.3 Stream Flow3.1.4 Water Quality ^Human Population TrendsFish Resources ^3.3.1 Fish Populations3.3.2^Spawning and Rearing Habitat ^Land Use Issues and Impacts on Salmonid FishHabitat3.4.1^Historic and Present Land Use Trends . ^3.4.2^Agricultural and Urban Land UseImpacts on Salmonid Fish Habitat ^3.4.3^Barriers to Fish Migration ^410121515161821212123242829293132. .323336V4. METHODS ^ 404.1 Evaluation of Land Use Dynamics ^ 404.1.1 Base Map ^ 404.1.2 1979-80 Land Use Mapping 424.1.3 1989-90 Land Use Mapping 434.1.4 Land Use Distribution Categories ^ 464.1.5 1979-80/1989-90 Land Use Changes 464.1.6 Cumulative Analysis of 1989-90 LandUse^ 494.2 Evaluation of Fish Habitat ^ 504.2.1 1980 Habitat Inventory and SamplingDesign 514.2.2 1990 Habitat Inventory and SamplingDesign^ 564.2.3 1980/1990 Fish Habitat Comparison ^ 624.2.4 Statistical Analysis ^ 625. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 645.1 LandUse Dynamics (1979-80/1989-90) ^ 645.1.1 Overall Watershed Land Use Patternsand Temporal Changes 655.1.2 Overall Stream Buffer Land UsePatterns and Temporal Changes ^ 685.1.3 Comparison of Land Use Trends: StreamNetwork Buffer vs Overall WatershedConditions ^ 705.1.4 Land Use Patterns and Temporal ChangesAssociated with Key Fish HabitatReaches 755.1.5 Comparison of Land Use DistributionCategories ^ 785.1.6 Cumulative Analysis of Land UseWithin Buffered Habitat Reaches ^ 815.2 Fish Habitat Dynamics 845.2.1 Overall Survey of Hydraulic Units(1990) ^ 845.2.1.1 Distribution of HydraulicUnits ^ 915.2.2 Comparison of Temporal Changes inFish Habitat (1980/1990) ^ 935.2.2.1 Representation of the 1990Detailed Inventory to theOverall Survey 1055.3 Land Use and Fish Habitat Trends ^ 1075.3.1 Water Quantity, Stream ChannelAlteration, and Water Quality ^ 1075.3.2 Fish Production and Fish Habitat inCoghlan Creek and the Salmon River ^ 1115.3.3 Dynamics of Land Use and Land UseChange in Relation to Buffered FishHabitat Reaches ^ 113vi6. SYNTHESISANDCONCLUSIONS ^ 1167. RECOMMENDATIONS ^ 123REFERENCES ^ 126APPENDIX A:APPENDIX B:APPENDIX C:APPENDIX D:Comparison of Average Discharge Between 1980and 1990 and Percent Gradient for ReachesCl (a) and Cl (b), C2 (a) and C2 (b), Si,and S2 ^ 135General Habitat Survey (1990) Data Collectionin Coghlan Creek (C) and the Salmon River (5) ^ 136Detailed Habitat Inventory (1990) DataCollection in Coghlan Creek (C) and theSalmon River (S) ^ 152Comparison Between 1979-80 and 1989-90 LandUse Within a 500 m buffer of the StreamNetwork Above the Salmon River GaugeStation (#08MH090) at 72nd Avenue ^ 156viiLIST OF TABLESTable^ Page1. Fraser River Basin population distribution and densitybysub-basin(1986) ^ 72. Sampled species of fish in the Salmon River watershed... .293. Annual coho salmon escapements to the Salmon Riverwatershed averaged every 10 years from 1951 to 1980,and averaged every 5 years from 1981 to 1990 ^ 304. Line work digitized from National Topographic mapsheets to form digital base map for project ^ 415. Definitions of 1979 "land use" designations describedby DeLeeuw and Stuart (1981) ^ 436. Land use generalizations made from codes developed bySawicki and Runka (1986) and used to produce a detailedand general land use data base for the 1989-90 digitalmap^ 457. Description of hydraulic units recognized in the1980 habitat inventory of Salmon River and CoghlanCreek^ 528. Type and number of hydraulic unit sites sampled by MOEin 1980 539. Staff gauge height readings and stream temperaturestaken at Coghlan Creek and Salmon River study areastations during the 1990 habitat inventory ^ 5710. Type and number of hydraulic unit sites sampled in the1990 detailed inventory corresponding to reach Cl, C2,51 and S2 ^ 6011. Comparison of land use trends between the overallwatershed conditions (OW) and a 500 meter buffer ofthe stream network (0B). (1979-80 and 1989-90) ^ 7412. Percent land use change for buffered habitat reachesCl, C2, S1 and S2 (1979-80 to 1989-90) ^ 7513. Percent cumulative analysis of streamside land use(1989-90) comparing habitat study reaches in CoghlanCreek and the Salmon River ^ 8314. Number of hydraulic units sampled in the 1990generalhabitatsurvey 85viii15. Significant differences in length, wetted width, area,depth, volume, and substrate composition parametersbetween hydraulic units (Salmon River and CoghlanCreek hydraulic units combined) ^ 8516. Summary statistics for 1990 general habitat surveyof hydraulic units. Coghlan Creek and Salmon Riverreaches combined (CS) ^ 8817. Significant differences in length, wetted width, area,depth, volume, and substrate composition parametersbetween hydraulic units (Salmon River and CoghlanCreek hydraulic units differentiated) ^ 8918. Summary statistics for the 1990 general habitat surveycomparing hydraulic units in Coghlan Creek to theSalmon River ^ 9019. Hydraulic unit distributions in area (m2) and volume(1T13 ) for Cl and C2 in Coghlan Creek and Si and S2 inthe Salmon River ^ 9220. Significant differences in length, wetted width, area,depth, and volume between hydraulic units sampled inthe 1990 general survey and random samples taken forthe 1990 detailed inventory (Salmon River and CoghlanCreek hydraulic units differentiated) ^ 10621. Comparison of coho salmon and trout smolt catches inCoghlan Creek and the Salmon River for 1979, 1980, and1987-1992. Also total volume (m3) of preferred hydraulichabitat for salmonids in Coghlan Creek and the SalmonRiver^ 111ixLIST OF FIGURESFigure^ Page1. The Fraser River watershed and boundaries of its 13sub-basins ^ 52. Location of the Salmon River watershed ^ 193. The Salmon River watershed stream network 204. Surf icial materials of the Salmon River watershed ^ 225. A 20 year hydrograph (1970-1990) of the Salmon Rivermainstem at 72nd avenue crossing - gauge #08MH090 ^ 256. Mean monthly discharge of the Salmon River mainstemwith minimum and maximum variations (1979-1990) -gauge station #08MH090 ^ 267. Daily discharge for the Salmon River mainstem duringJuly, August and September in 1980 and 1990 - gaugestation #08MH090 ^ 278. The road and stream network of the Salmon Riverwatershed depicting the major culverts that act asbarriers to fish migration ^ 399. Comparative land use distribution categories OW(overall watershed conditions) and OB (overall bufferof the entire stream network) ^ 4710. Comparative land use distribution categories Cl, C2,Si and S2, which represent buffers around criticalfish habitat areas ^ 4811. Fish habitat study areas in Coghlan Creek (reach Cland C2) and the Salmon River (reach Si and S2). Alsolocation of the 1990 detailed habitat inventory sites... .5912. The 1979-80 land use map of the Salmon River watershed.. .6613. The 1989-90 land use map of the Salmon River watershed...6714. Overall watershed land use changes (ha) amongagriculture, residential and undeveloped areas -1979-80 to 1989-90 ^ 6815. The 1979-80 land use map of the overall stream networkbuffer ^ 7116. The 1989-90 land use map of the overall stream networkbuffer 7217. Changes in land use (ha) for the overall streamnetwork buffer - 1979-80 to 1989-90 ^ 7318. The 1979-80 land use map of buffered fish habitatreaches in Coghlan Creek (Cl and C2) and the SalmonRiver (S1 and S2) ^ 7619. The 1989-90 land use map of buffered fish habitatreaches in Coghlan Creek (Cl and C2) amd the SalmonRiver (Si and S2) ^ 7720. Changes in land use (ha) for buffered fish habitatreaches Cl, C2, Si and S2 - 1979-80 to 1989-90 ^ 7921. Comparison of all land use distribution categories inthe Salmon River watershed showing variation oftemporal land use change in agriculture, residentialand undeveloped areas - 1979-80 to 1989-90 ^ 8022. The 1989-90 detailed land use map of buffered fishhabitat reaches in Coghlan Creek (C1 and C2) and theSalmon River (Si and S2) ^ 8223. Comparison of stream morphology characteristics in1980 and 1990. Mean, maximum and minimum variationsbetween riffles, glides, and pools shown for reachesCl, C2, 51 and S2 ^ 9424. Comparison of percent substrate composition in 1980and 1990. Mean, maximum and minimum variationsbetween riffles, glides and pools shown for reachesCl, C2, Si and S2 ^ 9725. Comparison of salmonid cover requirements in 1980 and1990. Mean, maximum and minimum variations betweenriffles, glides and pools shown for reaches Cl, C2,SlandS2 ^ 9926. Comparison of stream temperature and stream dischargein 1980 and 1990. For temperature, the mean, maximumand minimum variations between riffles, glides andpools shown for reaches Cl, C2, S1 and S2. Only themean for each reach is shown for discharge ^ 104xiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSPartial funding for this thesis was provided by theDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans.I am very grateful to Dr. H. Shreier, my thesis supervisor,for his guidance and continuous enthusiasm throughout the courseof my research. I also owe thanks to all of my committeemembers, particularly Drs. J. Post, T. G. Northcote and L. M.Lavkulich for sharing their knowledge and experience with me atcritical times during my study.A special appreciation goes out to Sandy Brown, Kathy Cookand Maureen Christofferson who helped with the various technicalaspects of the study.I owe an immeasurable amount gratitude to all of thevolunteers who helped me collect fish habitat data during thesummer of 1990. Without their efforts, it would have beenimpossible to complete my field work during the two month lowflow period. Sincere gratitude is extended to the Gilmour's andthe Debruyn's who offered me a place to stay during unusualcircumstances and difficult times. I must thank my family whohave supported and encouraged me throughout my academictraining, and also the U.B.C. swimming pool for keeping me saneover a three year period.Finally, and most important of all, my deepest appreciationis reserved for "A. M." Debruyn, who kept me "balanced" duringtimes when it all seemed unreasonable.xiiDEDICATIONThis thesis is dedicated to the late A. J. Hilton who introducedme to the art of fishing and the concept of fisheriesconservation.1CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONThe salmonids and other fish stocks that frequent theFraser River Basin make up a very complex web of spawning andrearing processes in the freshwater and estuarine environments.To manage the fish and these environments is an extremelydifficult task, especially if one considers the increasingnumber of competing resource users in the basin. To compoundthe problem, many freshwater and estuarine environments withinthe Fraser Basin have been directly altered by human activitieswhich have resulted in losses of salmonid production (Tutty,1976; Birtwell et al., 1988; Northcote and Burwash, 1991). Someexamples of these human related large scale alterations includerailway construction at Hell's Gate, dam construction on theNechako, Bridge-Seton, Stave, Alouette, and Coquitlam rivers,logging effects on Nadina River and Weaver Creek, and dyking anddraining of a large component of Sumas Lake.Examples of small scale impacts on salmonid production andother fish stocks also occur throughout the Fraser Basinprimarily in the form of incremental encroachment of humandevelopment. Specifically, continual urban and agriculturalencroachment often produce undesirable fish habitat alterationsover the long-term and even over a short-term period. However,unlike large scale impacts on fish production, small scaleimpacts are often less obvious to humans and are much moredifficult to assess. It is suggested that the primary risk to2sustained fish production in the Fraser Basin is the cumulativeeffect of these small scale habitat alterations which havedirect negative impacts on fish production (Fleming et al.,1987; Servizi, 1989; Northcote and Burwash, 1991).Management of the Fraser River fish stocks in the face ofthis gradual encroachment of human development requires carefulmaintenance of fish habitat and planning of land and water usewithin the basin. In order to do this, we need to investigatemore fully the quantitative relationships between land and waterresource use and fish habitat quality and quantity. It is notuntil we understand these relationships that we can rationallymake better land and water use decisions that are compatiblewith "sustainable" production of salmonids and other fish stocksin the Fraser Basin. To date no structured plan exists thatmaps out the long term strategies necessary to comprehensivelymanage fish habitat in conjunction with associated land andwater use.Although many non-salmonid fishes utilize the Fraser RiverBasin and its tributaries to carry out their life processes,this paper will primarily focus on salmonids and their habitatrequirements because of their important commercial,recreational, and Native Indian food fishery values. It shouldbe stressed, however, that many of the biological, physical, andchemical characteristics that influence salmonids are alsoimportant to non-salmonids.31.1 GoalThe goal of this study is to identify relationships betweenimportant characteristics of fish habitat and land use in theSalmon River watershed using Geographic Information System (GIS)techniques. Baseline information on fish habitat and land usewill be useful in the development of long-term strategies tomanage fish habitat in conjunction with associated land andwater use.1.2 Objectives1. To compare the distribution of land use within the SalmonRiver basin among categories of overall land use conditions, a500 meter buffer around the stream network, and 500 meter buffersegments around critical fish habitat reaches.2. To quantify temporal changes in land use within the basinover a 10 year period (from 1979-80 to 1989-90), again comparingoverall watershed conditions, a 500 meter buffer around thestream network, and 500 meter buffer segments around criticalfish habitat reaches.3. To identify critical fish habitat areas (spawning andnursery rearing sites) that fish use (specifically salmonids)and to characterize any physical features that have changed overa 10 year period from 1980 to 1990.4. To describe possible relationships and trends between fishhabitat and stream-side land use.4CHAPTER 2BACKGROUND2.1 Sustainability of Salmonid Fish Resources in the FraserBasinThe Fraser River Basin (Figure 1) has seen some dramaticchanges over the last few hundred years in terms of its naturalenvironment. The increasing demands on the natural resourcebase together with pressures of settlement and development willcontinue to put more stress on the basin's natural environment.Today, many groups and individuals are voicing concern about thefuture of the many components that make up the Fraser RiverBasin including the salmonid fishes. The nature and scale ofhuman activity is receiving greater attention with respect tothe sustainability of development (Dorcey, 1991).Before describing some aspects of sustainability ofsalmonid fish resources in the Fraser Basin, a betterexplanation of the word "sustainability" with respect to fishresources is needed. From the perspective of the Department ofFisheries and Oceans (DFO), an agency responsible for theconservation and management of Fraser River Salmon, a fishery issustainable if the average annual harvest does not lead to thelong-term, continuous decline in abundance of the stock that isthe target of the harvest. This particular definition ofsustainable development, even in a fisheries context, is quitenarrow in focus. Ultimately, if we are concerned about thelong-term sustainability of salmonid fish resources in the5Figure 1. The Fraser River watershed and boundaries of its 13sub-basins.6Fraser Basin, definitions of sustainability will have to beexpanded. Henderson (1991) states that the process throughwhich an expanded definition is developed will of necessity haveto involve all those who use or affect, directly of indirectly,the water resources of the Fraser River Basin. A definitionshould not only represent production and biological aspects ofsalmonids, but also incorporate a wide range of human socialinteractions. Toward this end, DFO has recently established the"Fraser River Environmentally Sustainable Development TaskForce" that is devoted to exploring sustainable developmentconcepts in relation to the Fraser River Basin.Due to its size, age, and importance as the greatestsalmonid producer in the world (Northcote and Larkin, 1989), theFraser River Basin provides an excellent system in which toexamine and test possibilities for sustainable development(Northcote and Burwash, 1991). The Westwater Research Centrehas recently published two books relevant to this topic whichfocus on water resources and the way in which they might bemanaged under a policy of sustainable development (Dorcey, 1991;Dorcey and Griggs, 1991).The dramatic increase of human population growth rates isof obvious concern to the sustainability of salmonid fishresources in the Fraser Basin. Based on the 1986 census,British Columbia had a population of 2.9 million people, ofwhich approximately 63% live in the Fraser River Basin (Table1). The population distribution in the Fraser Basin can bedescribed in three ways: acute urban concentration, small rural7populated areas, and vast regions of relatively uninhabitedlands. The Fraser Basin is probably the most contrastingexample of population concentration of any major river system inthe temperate regions of the world (Schreier, et al. 1991).Table 1. Fraser River Basin population distribution and densityby Sub-basin (1986). (Adapted from Boeckh, et al. 1991).Total^% of Total^Area^PeopleSub-basin^Population Fraser Basin^(ha) per haUpper Fraser 5,585 0 2,818,650 0.0020Stuart 6,564 0 2,021,700 0.0032Nechako 19,534 1 3,131,250 0.0062West Road 479 0 1,251,150 0.0004Quesnel 9,566 1 1,231,050 0.0078Chilcotin 2,115 0 1,963,950 0.0011Bridge-Seton 3,872 0 659,550 0.0059Middle Fraser 114,594 6 2,988,150 0.0383North Thompson 16,062 1 2,067,600 0.0078South Thompson 40,871 2 1,718,100 0.0238Thompson 80,762 4 1,781,400 0.0453Lillooet 2,218 0 814,950 0.0027Lower Fraser 1,526,359 83 713,100 2.1405Total 1,828,581 100 23,160,600 0.0790(GVRD) (1,262,387) (69) (260,360) (4.8486)Most of the people living in the basin (approximately 1.8million) reside in the Lower Fraser Sub-basin west of Hope.Statistics Canada (1988) documented that between 1981 and 1986the Lower Fraser Basin had one of the fastest growth rates inthe country (9.1%). Furthermore, the population growth rate isexpected to stay high due to the region's attractive climate,landscape, recreation interests, and economic opportunities. If8population growths continue at this rate, the amount andconcentration of various human activities will also increase.One of the most important threats to the sustainability ofsalmonid fish resources in the Fraser Basin is the effect ofhabitat alterations caused by various human activities. Dykingand filling of the Fraser River estuaries and wetlands topromote alternative land uses, log boom storage on the North Armof the Fraser, dredging of the river bottom to benefit shippingroutes, and removal of large woody debris in small "urban"streams are just a few examples of physical activities which canlead to potential habitat problems. Several recent papers dealwholly or in part with salmonid fish habitat issues related tohuman impacts in the Fraser Basin (see Tutty, 1976; Levy andNorthcote, 1982; Birtwell et al., 1988; Servizi, 1989; Northcoteand Larkin, 1989; Henderson, 1991; and Fausch and Northcote,1992).Water quality is also an important parameter of salmonidfish habitat. Evidence of mercury contamination in trout, char,and whitefish was found in Pinchi Lake in the Stuart Sub-basinwhere cinnabar deposits (mercury sulphide ore) were mined andtailings discharged to the lake (Peterson, et al., 1971). Manyof these fish were below the acceptable standards for fishconsumption (Northcote et al., 1975). In addition, recentstudies have revealed high levels of dioxin and otherorganochlorines in juvenile chinook salmon exposed to pulp milleffluent in the Upper Fraser River (Rodgers et al., 1989).9In general, there are vast complex problems associated withrecent salmonid fish habitat changes within the Fraser RiverBasin, many of which can be directly attributed to humanactivities as a result of increased population pressures. Somehabitat management improvement measures (e.g. DFO's policypertaining to "no net loss" of fish habitat) have beenrelatively successful, however, new approaches need to bedeveloped to arrive at better sustainable scenarios for salmonidfish resources. Protection of spawning and rearing areas withinthe Fraser River Basin and identifying factors that control thefreshwater environment are necessary (Henderson, 1991). For themost part, descriptions of spawning and juvenile rearing areasare reasonably complete for all major Fraser River salmonidstocks. However, Henderson (1991) suggests that there is littleinformation pertaining to spawning and rearing sites for thesmaller Pacific salmon stocks, particularly small coho salmonstocks. It can be said that a disproportionate amount of thegenetic stock of a species, and consequently the ability tosurvive in a changing environment, is contained within thesesmaller populations (Scudder, 1989).This paper examines the Salmon River, a small watershed inthe municipality of Langley which is presently being subjectedto increased human activities brought about by populationpressures. This sub-basin is also an important spawning andrearing area for a small but important population of coho salmonand other salmonids.102.2 The Salmon River Watershed: A Case StudyVisualizing a "sustainable" fisheries resource in theFraser Basin is difficult because of the basin's largegeographic area and the complex interactions that take placebetween the human components and the natural system. An attemptto establish more "sustainable" methods of fish management in asmaller geographic area like the Salmon River watershed may bemore desirable in developing and understanding "sustainable"processes, although even areas of this size have extremelycomplex interactions when information is processed at anappropriate scale.The likely development pattern for the Salmon Riverwatershed reveals that increased population growth along withresidential land development will be the key issue for fisheriesmanagement as urban development moves into rural areas. Thistrend of human encroachment is quite evident in the Lower Frasersub-basin as one views False Creek, Musqueam Creek, CapilanoRiver, the North Shore watersheds, Brunette River, CoquitlamRiver, Nicomekl River, Serpentine River, and now otherwatersheds that continue east up into the Fraser Basin. Paish(1981) commented that settlement in the Lower Fraser sub-basinshows that the Salmon River is simply on the "leading edge", andthat problems that have led to the loss of so much fish habitatto the west are already occurring within the basin's municipalboundaries. Reports prepared for the Salmonid EnhancementProgram by Paish (1981) recommend more research in order tostrengthen the scientific basis for a cooperative watershed11planning and management system in the Salmon River watershed.Paish (1981) also notes that the Salmon River is as important tothe understanding of urban/rural fringe watersheds as CarnationCreek is to forested watersheds.The Salmon River watershed presents a good case forevaluating relationships between land use and fish habitat forseveral reasons. First, the Salmon River is one of the mostproductive systems (for its size) for coho salmon and othersalmonids (i.e. steelhead and cutthroat trout) in the FraserBasin. Recent escapements of Salmon River coho are about 4% ofthe Fraser River total (Farwell et al., 1987). The physicalfeatures that are in the middle reaches of the Salmon River andits main tributary Coghlan Creek, provide excellent spawning andrearing habitat for salmonids. Second, the rate of land usechange from agricultural and undeveloped lands to urban areashas been high in the last few decades and continues to increase.The basin is therefore appropriate for identifying trends ofincremental small scale human development in relation tosalmonid habitat. Finally, if linkages between importantcharacteristics of fish habitat and land use can be made, abasic framework from which to comprehensively manage fishhabitat in conjunction with land and water use can be generated.122.3 Government Agencies, Interest Groups, and PublicInvolvement in the Salmon River WatershedIf we want to comprehensively manage fish habitat inconjunction with land and water use, planning should involve allrelevant stakeholders. Some of the major government and non-government groups that have a key role in managing the fisheriesresource and land and water resources in the Salmon Riverwatershed include the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans(DFO), the provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks(MOELP), the Municipality of Langley, several conservationgroups, and the general public.The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible foradministering the Fisheries Act which directs the agency toprotect fish and fish habitat in "waters frequented by fish"(Chilibeck et al., 1992). The habitat management frameworkoutlined in the Fisheries Act is specifically the responsibilityof the Habitat Protection Division. The act itself defines fishhabitat to include spawning grounds, nursery and juvenilerearing grounds, and food supply and migration areas on whichfish depend, directly or indirectly, in order to carry out theirlife processes. The federal Department of Environment plays asupportive role with regard to the regulation of waterpollutants.At the provincial level, the Fisheries Branch under MOELPmanages steelhead and cutthroat trout. Provincial managementactivities are directed by the federal Fisheries Act and theprovincial Wildlife Act which are applied mainly to recreational13fishing activities. The Fisheries Branch, under the FisheriesAct, is responsible for assessing and managing freshwater fishstocks and their habitat. In realistic terms, this means theprovince has a shared responsibility for overall salmonidhabitat protection with DFO. The implementation of watermanagement activities including floodplain management, watershedprotection, and water licensing, is also a provincialresponsibility under the Water Management Branch.The Langley Municipal Government is primarily responsiblefor regulating land development within its jurisdiction.Moreover, the municipality reviews and authorizes developmentapplications for eight communities within its municipalboundaries. Many of the development applications (mostly urbanproposals) within the Salmon River watershed occur in thecommunities of Salmon River Uplands and Fort Langley. Due tothe increase in urban development beginning in the late 1970's,the municipality began to participate in the fisheries referralprocess in 1980. As well, in 1980 the Langley council endorsedthe principle of "cooperative watershed management" as proposedby Paish (1980), which addressed issues of maintaining andimproving salmonid production through the cooperative planningand management of watersheds.In addition to the various government agencies that conductmanagement activities within the Salmon River watershed, thereare a few non-government organizations that have direct input aswell. For example, the British Columbia Conservation Foundation,a non-profit society located within Langley Municipality, has14been involved in many fish habitat restoration programs, stream-side protection and stabilization programs, clean-up projects,and storm drain marking programs. Also, public initiatives suchas the West Creek citizens group have conducted literaturereviews on water quality, vegetation, and other natural resourceissues in the watershed. Some members of the West Creek groupnow sit on an environmental committee and make recommendationsto the municipal council on a variety of environmental issues.With respect to public involvement, individuals who live inthe watershed do not formally participate in the decision-makingprocess. However, most of the land base within the watershedand particularly the stream-side land base, is under privateownership. Under these circumstances, it seems logical thatcooperation with individual property owners is essential formanaging the fisheries resource in conjunction with land andwater use. Even people who do not own stream-side property butstill live within the watershed and beyond, should be involvedto some degree in decision-making. In general, people likesalmonids! The public equates healthy populations of salmonidsin "their stream" to a healthy aquatic environment. Most of thepeople that live in the Salmon River watershed decided to makeit their home because of the unique natural features (includingthe presence of salmon and trout) that the area provides (Paish,1981).152.4 Geographic Information Systems (GIS)2.4.1 Important Aspects of GISGeographic Information Systems (GIS) are an integrated setof hardware and software tools for the collection, maintenance,analysis and display of geographically referenced data.Geographical data describe objects in terms of their positionrelative to a known coordinate system, their non-spatialattributes, and their topological and spatial interrelations.Data can be accessed, transformed, and manipulatedinteractively, facilitating thematic mapping, inventory,updating, multidisciplinary surveys and maps for specific andmulti-user needs (Starr and Estes, 1990; Arnoff, 1989; Burrough,1986).Geographic Information Systems use both spatial and non-spatial forms of data. Spatial data represent points, lines,and polygons (e.g. hydrometric stations, streams, and land usepolygons, respectively) while non-spatial data are descriptiveattributes associated with spatial features (e.g. streamdischarge and fish habitat characteristics).Data may be graphically represented within a GIS in eitherraster or vector formats. Raster data structures consist of anarray of grid cells referenced by coordinates and independentlyaddressed with the value of an attribute. Information isstandardized to one resolution based on the grid size. Vectordata structures position point data by an x,y coordinate pair.Lines consist of a beginning point, an end point and a series ofline segments. Unlike raster data structures which have16problems of precision associated with grid cell size, vectorformats define position, length, and dimensions of spatial datacorresponding to the accuracy and precision reflected in thesource map base.2.4.2 The Use of GIS to Evaluate Fish Habitat and Land UseThe use of GIS has become accepted in the mainstream ofmanagement systems, and is now becoming recognized as a helpfultool in fisheries management. In 1985, DFO released a federalpolicy document on fish habitat management consisting of ninestrategies. Four of nine management strategies are closelylinked to the use of GIS in managing fish habitat in conjunctionwith land use as outlined by Collins and Simmons (1986). First,"protection and compliance" requires evaluation of habitat inrelation to development initiatives. Second, "consultativeresource planning", necessitates assimilation of large amountsof spatial and non-spatial data from numerous sources. Third,"scientific research" necessary to improve the quality andquantity of habitat information can benefit from the analyticalcapabilities of GIS. Fourth, "habitat monitoring" is morereadily accomplished by the storage and updating capacity ofGIS.There are only a few examples available where GIS has beenused in relation to fisheries and land use issues. Dick (1989)developed a cartographic model for riparian buffers using GIS toprocess site specific data that influence stream temperature.The goal of the study was to recommend riparian designs that17would maintain stream temperatures suitable for fish. Collinsand Simmons (1986) used GIS concepts and applications toformulate a demonstration project on the Nepisiquit River innorthern New Brunswick. The project illustrated how GIS couldbe used to describe salmon habitat and facilitate the reviewprocess for development approvals.Although there are limited examples of GIS projects relatedspecifically to fish habitat and land use, the widespreadacceptance of GIS technology in other resource-relateddisciplines is growing rapidly.18CHAPTER 3STUDY AREAThe Salmon River watershed is located east of Vancouver,British Columbia in Langley Municipality within the lower FraserBasin (Figure 2). A small portion of the upper region of thewatershed occupies land in Matsqui Municipality. The watershedhas an area of approximately 8070 ha and has an elevation rangeof 2 to 137 meters (1:25,000 NTS map sheet). The Salmon Riveritself flows in a northwesterly direction for 33 km and entersthe Fraser River immediately west of Fort Langley. CoghlanCreek (Figure 3), the principal tributary, joins the mainstemapproximately 14 km upstream from the Fraser River. The upperreaches of the basin are marshy with low summer flows and haverelatively open flat stream bank slopes. In the middle reaches,the river flows across moderate gradient terrain where flow isconsistent through summer months due to spring-fed conditions.Stream bank slopes in the middle reaches range from 5 to 40percent which act to buffer the mainstem and major tributaries.This middle area is particularly valuable to salmonids becauseof its alternating riffles, glides, pools, and sloughs, itsmedium sized gravel substrate, and extensive stream-sidevegetation. The lower reaches are slow moving with deepchannels that meander sharply through floodplain conditions.This lower area primarily acts as a travel corridor forsalmonids to access spawning and rearing areas in the middlereaches.it '-ziil H-O kgcn oa) ilil a)< N.)11) •I—,i—,(D t4'<0• 0AirtI-u0Z01-1)rt11)rna1-,50Z7CH-C(1)11A)rtCDIiU)(I)SIH-ZrtZ'CDti0CDil1-,toM 1000 500 0^1.0^2.0^3.0^4.0 k.STREAM NETWORKWATERSHED BOUNDARYFLOW GAUGESALMON RIVER STUDY REACHCOGHLAN CREEK STUDY REACHsmALL PONDSLOWER REACHES/UPPER REACHES/SMALL TRIBUTARIES/INTERMITTENT STREAMS213.1 Physical Description3.1.1 ClimateThe major climatic influences on the Salmon River watershedare the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Coast Mountains to thenorth, and the Cascade Mountains to the east. The closestweather station is located to the south in Langley Prairie .The station records an average rainfall of 1554 mm per yearbased on a 30 year record (an additional 74 mm falls as snow).December is the wettest month with an average precipitation of241 mm. The driest months occur between July and earlySeptember. Rainfall during this period averages only 6% of thetotal annual precipitation. The mean annual air temperature is9.6 degrees Celsius (Carmelita, et al., 1990). The climaticregime contibutes to the basin's stream flow hydrograph.3.1.2 Surficial MaterialsEggleston and Lavkulich (1973) divided the Salmon Riverwatershed into geomorphic units based on the origin and textureof surficial materials using the surficial geology informationof Armstrong (1957) and the soils information of Luttmerding andSprout (1966). Based on this information (Figure 4), five majorsedimentary units can be distinguished: (i) on the westernmostedge, glacial-marine deposits are dominant (5%); (ii) fillinga central, north-south corridor linking Langley and FortLangley, are marine deposits up to 250 meters thick (19%); (iii)to the east, around the Salmon River/Coghlan Creek confluence,large areas of outwash sands and gravels are present (29.5%);VI Alloytom5-A3 sandy allow"loom alluviumIDrnclayey alloytuttrtLag Grovels 0■111Glottal lisytne01-01 Orgonc\ X Grovel Pot1)4/Glacwl OoloothCI MaroneGlottol Myron*loamy olottolIMAMclayey pace'toariooBeath oar Monne orGlottal MynasFan Glogai Otetwesh overGM Glottal Marine05MiLES23(iv) the easternmost part of the watershed around Aberdeen, isunderlain by glacial marine sediments (39%); (v) the final unitunderlies the abandoned meander of the Fraser River and iscovered with flood plain materials (7.5%) which corresponds tothe depression encircling Fort Langley (Slaymaker and Lavkulich,1978). In a subsequent study to Eggleston and Lavkulich (1973),Slaymaker and Lavkulich (1978) describe the term geomorphic unitas a spatial entity that is homogeneous with respect tosurficial materials, slope and drainage. Geomorphic unit mapswere used to determine the ability of the land to cope withpollutants attributed to various land uses. These units play animportant role in the streamf low regime of the Salmon basin.3.1.3 StreamflowDue to the nature of the surficial materials and therelatively high water table in the middle reaches of thewatershed, the basin has an unusually "flashy" hydrologic system(personal observation, 1990) for an area with very littleoverall relief. This is especially evident during intenserainfall events. This rainfall/streamflow response is lessobvious in the lower reaches of the basin where the Salmon Riveris regulated at the Fraser River confluence by a flood gate andpump system that operate during spring freshet.Gauging of the Salmon River discharge was initiated byEnvironment Canada, Water Resources Branch, in 1960 andreestablished in 1968. The gauge station (#08MH090) is locatedon the mainstem of the Salmon River at 72nd avenue crossing (see24Figure 3 - page 20).Discharge records for the Salmon River station from 1970 to1990 show that low flow periods generally occur between themonths of June and September and high flow periods occur betweenNovember and March (Figure 5). The mean monthly discharge andminimum and maximum variations are shown in Figure 6. Thelowest minimum daily discharge recorded during this time was0.099 m3 s-1 on October 1, 1975, and the largest maximum dailydischarge was 39.3 m3 s-1 on February 12, 1986. The highestinstantaneous discharge (within one day) ever recorded was 64.6m3 S-1 on December 17, 1979.Daily discharge records for July, August and September, in1980 and 1990, are compared in Figure 7. The average dischargeover the three month period for 1980 is 0.35 m3 S-1 as comparedto 0.25 m3 s-1 for 1990. The 3 months within these two yearscorrespond to fish habitat data collection times described laterin this paper.3.1.4 Water QualityThe water quality in the Salmon River and its tributarieshas been identified as a major concern over the last few decades(Grant and Blackhall, 1991; Paish, 1981; Beale, 1976; Hall, etal., 1974; Benedict et al., 1973). Benedict et al. (1973) foundthat of 17 Lower Fraser tributary streams and rivers, the SalmonRiver system ranked the lowest overall in terms of 13 waterquality parameters during a 1972 summer sampling period.Biochemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen, fecal coliforms, and25I^t^I^t^I^I^I^t^I^IJ^F^M^A^M^J^J^A S^0^N^D20 YEAR AVERAGEFigure 5. A 20 year hydrograph (1970-1990) of the Salmon Rivermainstem at 72nd avenue crossing - gauge #08MH090 (EnvironmentCanada, 1991).Figure 6. Mean monthly discharge of the Salmon River mainstemwith minimum and maximum variations (1970-1990) - gauge station#08MH090 (Environment Canada, 1991).270.0^.IIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111HIIIIIIIIIIII11II111IIIIIIIH11111111111111111111111JUL AUG^SEP^OCTFigure 7. Daily discharge for the Salmon River mainstem duringJuly, August and September in 1980 and 1990 - gauge station#08MH090 (Environment Canada, 1991).28some trace metals were particularly high relative to otherstreams. High sediment loads in many of the Salmon Rivertributaries are also a problem according to various sources,although very little quantitative documentation exists. Most ofthe water quality problems are associated with non-pointsources; however, sewage effluent from Trinity Western Collegeis at least one point source of pollution that is of concern.3.2 Human Population TrendsLangley Township is approximately 75% rural (e.g. dairyfarms, crop production, hobby farms) and 25% urban in thedesignated communities of Aldergrove, Brookswood, Fernridge,Fort Langley, Murrayville, Salmon River, Walnut Grove,Willowbrook and Willoughby. Langley Township and the City ofLangley are two separate municipalities, both of which aremembers of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). Ofthe 18 GVRD municipalities, Langley Township had the secondhighest increase in population between 1981 and 1986. Populationhas grown rapidly from 36,000 in 1976 to 63,100 in 1990.Between 1986 and 1990 the average growth rate was over 4%annually. By 2001, the population is expected to be over 90,000(Langley Community Development Department, 1990).Approximately 12,000 people live within the Salmon Riverwatershed boundary, mainly in the Fort Langley and Salmon RiverUplands communities. These two communities have experiencedpopulation growths of 4% and 11% respectively from 1986 to 1990.By 2001, population in the Salmon River Uplands community is29expected to be close to 7,000. In addition, housing contractsin this community increased by 11.8% from 1,519 in 1986 to 1,698in 1990 (Langley Community Development Department, 1990). TheSalmon River Uplands community is located in the middle reachesof the watershed.3.3 Fish Resources3.3.1 Fish PopulationsAt least 15 different species of fish utilize the SalmonRiver and its tributaries to carry out at least part of theirlife cycle (Table 2). In particular, the Salmon River is ahighly productive system for coho salmon and steelhead andcutthroat trout. The following is a brief summary of researchconducted on salmonid fishes in the Salmon River watershed.Table 2. Sampled species of fish in the Salmon River Watershed(adapted from Hartman, 1968; supplemented from McPhail, 1992).Species^ Common NameOncorhynchus kisutchOncorhynchus mykiss Oncorhynchus clarki clarki Cottus asperCatostomus macrocheilus Catostomus sp. Ameiurus nebulosus Ptycocheilus oregonensis Cyprinus carpio Mylocheilus caurinus Richardsonius balteatus Hybognathus hankinsoni Gasterosteus aculeatus Lampetra tridentata Lampetra richardsoni Coho salmonSteelhead troutCutthroat troutPrickly sculpinLargescale suckerSalish suckerBrown bullheadNorthern squawfishCarpPeamouth chubRedside shinerBrassy minnowThreespine sticklebackPacific lampreyWestern brook lamprey30General descriptions of growth, life history anddistributions of Salmon River coho salmon, steelhead andcutthroat trout are provided by McMynn and Vernon (1954),Hartman (1965), Hartman and Gill (1968), and Hartman (1968).Annual adult coho salmon escapements have been estimated for theSalmon River watershed from 1951 to the present (Farwell et al.1987; Schubert and Kalnin, 1990; Schubert, 1991.) (Table 3).Since collection efforts and techniques for obtaining escapementfigures have varied substantially since 1951, the data isinconsistant and comparisons are difficult (Schubert, 1991).Peterson mark-recapture methods were used to calculateescapement from 1986 to 1990.Table 3. Annual coho salmon escapements to the Salmon Riverwatershed averaged every 10 years from 1951 to 1980, andaveraged every 5 years from 1981 to 1990 (Farwell, 1987;Schubert and Kalnin, 1990; Schubert, 1991).Year^ Escapements (Avg)^1951-1960 8881961-1970^ 2931971-1980 32271981-1985 21611986-1990 7550The abundance of juvenile salmonids and estimates ofreturns by adults have been determined for several years in thelate 1970's and in the 1980's.^Electroshocking surveys ofjuvenile coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout inparticular reaches of the Salmon River, and its tributary,31Coghlan Creek, were conducted in 1979, 1980, and 1981 (seeDeLeeuw 1982 for results and DeLeeuw 1981 for methods). Fencetraps, described by Schubert (1982), have been used to countcoho salmon and trout smolts in 1979 and 1980 during migrationperiods (March to June). Coded wire tagging of coho salmonsmolts during this time was also done to estimate the proportionof smolts that return as adults and to determine thecontribution of Salmon River coho to the tidal fisheries.Additional years of study were conducted from 1986 to 1990(Schubert and Kalnin, 1990; Schubert, 1991).3.3.2 Spawning and Rearing HabitatOnly a few salmonid habitat surveys have been conducted inthe Salmon River watershed. McMynn and Vernon (1954) present ageneral description of stream morphology, discharge and streamtemperature for most areas in the watershed. This work wasinitiated because local opinion suggested that high irrigationdemands, especially during low flow periods, were jeopardizingsalmon and trout populations. In 1972, Erickson and Hardingsubmitted habitat information on a Ministry of Environmentstream survey form. A map (scale: 1 inch = 1 mile) was producedthat divided the basin into suitable, potential and marginalfish habitat based on substrate analysis, stream-side vegetationand instream cover. The last and substantially morequantitative habitat inventory was completed by DeLeeuw (1982)based on field work done in 1979, 1980 and 1981 during low flow32conditions. Part of the impetus for this work was to determineif a major flood event which occurred in the winter of 1979 hada substantial impact on stream habitat and salmonid populations.The study concluded that only surface substrate conditions hadbeen altered. DeLeeuw's habitat inventory included detailedstream morphology, substrate analysis and instream andoverstream cover of the Salmon River and Coghlan Creek basins.3.4 Land Use Issues and Impacts on Salmonid Fish Habitat3.4.1 Historic and Present Land Use TrendsWith the exception of the flood plain located in the FortLangley area, the entire Salmon River drainage was originallycovered by a dense coniferous forest. The area was logged andlater replaced by secondary growth, primarily Douglas fir andWestern hemlock. Agricultural use of the land first began inthe latter part of the 19th century when homesteads wereestablished near the confluence of the Salmon and Fraser Rivers.Early clearing and settlement first took place in the upper andlower regions of the basin, where the more productive soils arefound. The middle regions of the basin, having more poroussoils, were later cleared and replaced by cultivated crops(McMynn and Vernon, 1954). McMynn and Vernon (1954) reportedthat the removal of forest cover in this middle region seemed toincrease the rate of percolation and produced higher streamdischarges during periods of heavy precipitation. The increasedpercolation rate also resulted in lower reserves of ground water33during the arid months. Farmers with wells in this areareported a five to seven meter drop in the water table duringthe summer. Minimum summer discharge also decreased with theremoval of forest cover.From the 1950's through to the late 1970's, the SalmonRiver watershed was generally classed as an agricultural region.However, from the late 1970's to the present, urban related landuse has been increasing at a high rate. Presently, the twoprinciple land uses in the watershed are agriculture andresidential development.3.4.2 Agricultural and Urban Land Use Impacts on Salmonid FishHabitatAgricultural and residential land uses in the Salmon Riverwatershed can have both direct and indirect influences on thequality and quantity of fish habitat that can ultimately limitfish production. Low summer flows, diminishing water qualityand stream bank erosion are just a few of the issues that havebeen documented as management problems.With respect to agricultural practices, Paish (1980) notesthat large scale withdrawal of water from the river cantheoretically remove half of the low summer flow for much of thesystem. The middle reaches of the Salmon River mainstem and thelower reaches of Coghlan Creek, recognized as prime salmonidspawning and rearing areas, are particularly susceptible becauseof the high number of water licenses in the area (aprox. 9034licenses - unpublished data from MOELP). Low summer flows canincrease temperatures, decrease oxygen levels, reduce benthicinvertebrate populations, increase predation, and decrease theamount of available cover to fish ( McMynn and Vernon, 1954;Hamilton and Buell, 1976; Toews and Brownlee, 1981).A significant proportion of the water quality problems inthe watershed are associated with the use of commercialfertilizers, pesticides and herbicides on agricultural crops(Grant and Blackhall, 1991; Paish, 1981). Beale (1976)conducted a study on the effects of land use and soils on thewater quality of the watershed and found that pH, temperature,phosphate-phosphorus, iron, copper and manganese exceededpublished water quality criteria for drinking water. The reportindicated that some agricultural field crops in the study areacould be linked to these variables, although geologic materials,residential land use and schools, were also factors. Highdensity production of poultry, swine and other livestock havealso contributed to water quality problems in the form ofnitrates and fecal coliforms (Paish, 1980; Paish 1981; Beale,1976; Grant and Blackhall, 1991).The concentration of domestic stock in and near streamsleads to bank breakdown and is one of the most detrimentalinfluences in the watershed (Paish, 1980). High sediment loadsfrom unstable stream banks can have serious consequences ondownstream spawning grounds and juvenile rearing sites.The primary effect of residential development in the35watershed is the change it brings about in the natural surfacecover of the catchment area under which natural fish populationsand the habitat that supports them have evolved. Replacement ofvegetation and soil by concrete and asphalt has and willcontinue to change the moisture retention capability of thewatershed and will increase contaminant runoff into streams.Increased storm water runoff collected from paved parking lots,rooftops, roadways, golf courses and residential lawns, canquickly transport heavy metals, road salts, oil products, soapsand detergents, fertilizers, and numerous other contaminantsinto the streams and creeks (Grant and Blackhall, 1991).In concentrated residential areas and municipal parks,particularly in the middle regions of the watershed, riparianzones along the streams have been thinned out (pers. observ.1990). These riparian areas are the sources of instreamvegetation and woody debris that form important components ofphysical fish habitat. Deforestation of riparian areas anddirect removal of large woody debris (LWD) from streams iscommon in many urban watersheds. Fausch and Northcote (1992)comment that standing dead trees are often removed due to theperceived hazard to human life and property, and fallen debrisis removed for firewood or "cleaned up" for misguided aestheticreasons. Fausch and Northcote (1992) studied a small coastalstream and found that stream reaches that had been "cleaned" ofLWD had less instream complexity and fewer salmonids presentthan stream reaches that were relatively untouched.363.4.3 Barriers to Fish MigrationA flood gate and numerous culverts in the Salmon Riverwatershed are two of the most obvious forms of barriers thateither prevent or hinder upstream and downstream migration ofsalmonid fishes and impact fish habitat.The flood gate, located at the mouth of the Salmon River,was built and installed between a series of dykes in 1949. Thisstructure prevents Fraser River water from flooding agriculturaland residential areas in floodplain regions of the watershedduring spring freshet. During this time, the flood gates areclosed and water from the Salmon River is pumped over the dyke.In most years, pumping periods extend from late March to July,although the pumps operate automatically at any time when FraserRiver water levels are high. The flood gate is maintained andoperated by Langley Municipality.Unfortunately, spring pumping periods coincide with thedownstream migration of Salmon River coho salmon and troutsmolts. Estimated mortality rates of smolts that pass throughthese pumps range anywhere from 20 to 40 percent (Schubert,1991; Schubert and Kalnin, 1990; Paish, 1981;). Other estimatesof smolt mortality are as high as 90 percent (Carmelita, 1990).Culverts are used extensively throughout the watershed andpose considerable problems related to fish migration and fishhabitat. As more roads are built to service residential areasand other land uses associated with population growth, thenumber of culverts installed at stream crossings will also37increase (Figure 8). Adult salmonids migrating upstream,salmonid smolts migrating downstream, and anadromous andresident fish of all species and sizes can be adversely affectedby habitat changes and unfavourable conditions caused byculverts. Some habitat changes caused by culverts include:physical disturbance of instream cover and stream banks duringculvert installation; scouring of stream banks upstream anddownstream of culverts producing high sediment loads and habitatalterations; and changes in stream hydraulics which can reducerefuge habitat for fish. Other unfavourable conditions causedby culverts include increased stream velocity and waterfallswhich act as migration barriers (Toews and Brownlee, 1981).When culverts become barriers, fish are restricted from reachingimportant feeding, rearing and spawning habitats, and may alsobe more prone to predation.A small project conducted by Allsopp et al. (1992) examinedthe effects of culverts on anadromous fish passage in the SalmonRiver and Coghlan Creek. Specifications of culvert types anddata from high and low flow conditions were used to:i) calculate minimum size requirements of salmonids to passthrough culverts by month; ii) make recommendations of minimumwater depths required by salmonids to pass through culvertsduring low flow periods; iii) depict problems related to culvertoutlets (eg. waterfalls, high discharge rates, downstreamhydraulics); and iv) calculate culvert velocity barriers duringspecific salmonid migration periods. The study concluded that38four of five culverts on Coghlan Creek and five of eightculverts on the Salmon River are barriers to at least one typeof salmonid for at least one month during periods of migration(Figure 8). [The author provided data and consulted on theproject].rt4.0 kr.M 1000 500 0 1.0^2.0^3.0C lCULVERT CODESS=SALMON RIVERS 1- CONCRETE TUNNEL/FISH LADDER AT 64th Qv°E3:2- CULVERT AT 248th Sts3- CULVERT AT 256th StS4- CONCRETE TUNNEL AT 40th Ave5E3- DOUBLE CULVERT AT PRIVATE DRIVE56- CULVERT AT 264th Sts7 - CONCRETE TUNNEL AT 264th StC=COGHLAN CREEKCl- CULVERT AT TRANS CANADA HIGHWAYC2- CONCRETE TUNNEL AT 248th StC3 - OVAL CULVERT Al 64thAveC4- CONCRET TUNNEL AT 256th St(2E3- CONCRETE CULVERT AT 60U, AveSiROAD/STREAM OVERLAYWATERSHED BOUNDARYROAD NETWORKSTREAM NETWORK40CHAPTER 4METHODS4.1 Evaluation of Land Use DynamicsThree different types of maps produced from three differentsources were used to quantify the spatial distribution andtemporal (1979-80 to 1989-90) land use changes in the SalmonRiver watershed. The next three sections describe these threemaps and are followed by two sections that characterize thespatial and temporal aspects of the study.4.1.1 Base MapAn important step in developing a digital database for anyproject is to digitize a good quality base map. This map formsthe basis upon which information is compiled and determines theease with which different information sources may be integrated.All points, lines and polygons digitized from various maps arereferenced to coordinates defined by the base map.Four National Topographic 1:25000 map sheets were used toproduce a digital base map of the study area. Two of the mapsheets (92G/2a, 92G/2d) were compiled and printed in 1957-59,and the remaining two (92G/2g, 92G/2h) are updated editionscurrent to 1968. All latitude/longitude coordinates from themap sheets were converted to Universal Trans Mercator gridcoordinates using a program devised by Underhill GeographicSystems Ltd. Coordinates from 14 points located at roadcrossings throughout the watershed were used to register the map41sheets that formed the base map. Registration error did notexceed 0.001 meters. Once registration was complete, variousline work was digitized and placed on different GIS levels forprocessing (Table 4). Additional maps were incorporated intothe digital base map in order to update the line work from theoriginal map sheets. For example, 1:25000 Langley Municipalroad maps were digitized to update the road network to 1979-80,and 1:5000 Municipal planning maps were digitized to furtherupdate the road network to 1989-90. Only map scales of 1:25000or larger were registered to the base map throughout the study.Table 4. Line work digitized from National Topographic mapsheets to form digital base map.Line Type^ Number of LevelsWatershed Boundary^ 1Contour Lines 1Road Network^ 4Stream Network 4Railways 1Gas Lines 1Power Lines^ 1424.1.2 1979 -80 Land Use MappingIn 1979, DeLeeuw and Stuart (1981) developed a 1:25000"land use" map for MOE which was used in this study to producea 1979-80 digital land use map. Land use maps from municipaland regional sources including Agriculture Land Reserve maps andMinistry of Agriculture land use maps, were used to generate the1979 map (DeLeeuw and Stuart, 1981).In addition to land use maps, it was later learned thatdistrict zoning bylaw maps were also used by DeLeeuw and Stuartto generate the 1979 map. In order to transform the 1979 mapinto an actual land use map, all polygons were verified andcorrected by using 1979 1:10000 black and white air photographs(Maps B.C., Ministry of Crown Lands). Most of the adjustmentsmade to the map (ie: polygon labels and boundaries) occurred inthe lower and upper regions of the watershed. Once corrected,the map was registered to the base map and digitized usingcommon boundary techniques with roads, streams and railway linesto improve digital accuracy.A total of nine land use types are designated in the 1979map legend which are defined by DeLeeuw and Stuart (1981) (Table5). Two of the land uses, commercial and industrial, arecombined for the 1979-80 digital land use map. Also, a categoryreferred to as "land use not mapped within boundary" was addedto the digital land use legend which represents differences inwatershed boundaries between the base map and the various landuse maps registered to the base map.43Table 5. Definitions of 1979 "land use" designations describedby DeLeeuw and Stuart (1981).Agricultural - a use providing for the growing, producing andharvesting of agricultural products; includesmushroom growing and the keeping of animals andbirdsResidential^- a use providing for the accommodation and homelife of a person of personsUndeveloped^- land for which the best use has not beendesignated (includes non-commercial forest andidle land)Commercial^- a use providing for the selling of goods andservicesIndustrial^- includes areas where goods and services areprocessed,^fabricated,^assembled,^stored,transported and distributed.Extraction^- a use providing for the extraction, grading,crushing, screening and storage of sand, gravel,minerals and peatTransportation/- major transportation corridors and supportUtilities^servicesInstitutional - a use providing for government functions andservices; includes schools, hospitals, prisonsand community centresRecreational - a use providing for outdoor recreation and openspace4.1.3 1989-90 Land Use MappingThree 1989 land use maps produced by Sawicki and Runka(1990) at a scale of 1:10000 (prepared for and supplied byLangley Municipality) were used to develop a 1989-90 digitalland use map for the study area. The three maps used (#1,#2,and #4) covered approximately 90% of the area within thewatershed boundary as defined by the digital base map. Sawicki44and Runka used extensive ground truthing with the aid of 1984air photographs to produce the 1989 maps. Land use wasclassified as to land "activity" (approximately 178 differentland use types) and land "cover" according to the classificationdescribed by Sawicki and Runka, 1986.The number of land use types established by Sawicki andRunka in 1989 were generalized in two stages (Table 6). Thefirst stage involved grouping 178 land use codes into 28categories (referred to in this study as "detailed land use")for analysis in relation to fish habitat areas. The secondstage involved taking the 28 categories and further generalizingdown to 9 land use types (referred to in this study as "generalland use") which correspond to the land use designationsdescribed by DeLeeuw and Stuart (1981). This was done tofacilitate an assessment of temporal land use change over a 10year period between the two digital maps.Before incorporating the 1989 maps into digital form, someadjustments were made to update the data, specifically areas ofresidential development in the middle regions of the watershed.Municipal planning maps at a scale of 1:5000 were used to updatethe obvious polygons that had undergone change. Once the 1989maps had been generalized, coded and updated, the three mapswere registered to the base map and digitized using commonboundary techniques with roads, streams, railway lines andpolygon boundaries from the 1979-80 digital map. This techniquereduced the number of sliver polygons created during subsequentoverlay procedures.45Table 6. Land use classes generalized from codes developed bySawicki and Runka (1986) and used to produce a detailed andgeneral land use data base for the 1989-90 digital map.General Land Use^Detailed Land Use^* Land Use CodesUndevelopedCommercialIndustrialExtractionTransport/UtilityInstitutionalRecreationalCrop ProductionLivestock ProductionOther AgricultureAgri-ForestryResidentialWholesale/Retail/Service/StorageAquaculture ProductionManufacturingTreating/Disposal of WastesSurface ExtractionUnderground ExtractionHighwaysRailwaysAirportsCommunication ActivitiesInstitutional ServicesFlood Control and DrainageFish and Wildlife ActivitiesLand Dependent RecreationIndoor/Outdoor RecreationLand for Research andConservationA100-A190A200-A233A240-A290F100-F200D100-D290C100-C300,M500-M590 ,M900Q100-Q200M100-M400M600-M690E100-E190E300H110H120H130H200J100-J900P200G100-G229R100-R190R200-R220P100AgriculturalResidentialFormer Agriculture^B100Former Forestry B200Former Extraction B300Former Recreation^B400Former Residential B500Former Transportation,^B600-B900Storage, Commercial, InstitutionUndeveloped/No Activity^N000* See Sawicki and Runka (1986) for definitions of land usecodes.464.1.4 Land Use Distribution CategoriesTo compare the distribution of land use within the studyarea, a number of categories were set up to represent overallland use conditions, land use occupying a 500 m buffer aroundthe stream network, and land use occupying 500 in buffer segmentsaround key fish habitat reaches (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Thesegments around the fish habitat reaches are not intended asspecific buffer widths for management purposes. A total of ninedifferent categories were examined: i) overall watershedconditions (OW); ii) overall buffer of the entire stream network(08); iii) a buffer of all habitat study reaches in CoghlanCreek and Salmon River (CS); iv) a buffer of the Coghlan Creekstudy area (C); v) a buffer of the Salmon River study area (S);vi) a buffer of the first study reach in Coghlan Creek (Cl);vii) a buffer of the second study reach in Coghlan Creek (C2);viii) a buffer of the first study reach in Salmon River (Si);and ix) a buffer of the second study reach in Salmon River (S2).The Coghlan Creek and Salmon River study areas are defined byreaches C1/C2 and Sl/S2 respectively which correspond to fishhabitat evaluation sites that are described later in section4.2. The symbols OW, OB, CS, C, S, Cl, C2, Si and S2, are usedthroughout this paper to represent the spatial categories forboth the 1979-80 and 1989-90 digital data bases. All 500 inbuffers are defined as 250 m from either side of the stream.4.1.5 1979-80/1989-90 Land Use ChangesIn order to quantify temporal changes in land use for theP1 1000 500 0^1.0^2.0^2.0^4 .0 k.SPATIAL LAND USE GROUPSOVERALL WATERSHEDCONDITIONS (OW)OVERALL BUFFER OFSTREAM NETWORK (0B)STREAM NETWORKPI 1000 500 0^1.0^2.0^2.0^4.0 K.SPATIAL LAND USE GROUPSim L BUFFER OF FISHHABITAT STUDY REACHESCI, C2, Si, AND S2WATERSHED BOUNDARYSTREAM NETWORKZctOJ cno *1-1M^Pi 0C) CD(It   a Meci 5 Cnrho 'rQ<D En• p. 0 0" 1..!< 'Q u,n1-1 11M w 2-Ln 0 Mo t-t) Cfrt)N i5 M (1) M <IIMWMCD Nm H1--   i -  a^ETr-t) trI (D 1;13) EPO1-1^r-r)cri CD^CDo^(I) )5 M W H-Z 1-1 „,1-t)^" Mt%O a 1-1 0 H-O^trV EnM^(D^ftzctCJirt-^0 (D(D^HI.▪ flt^rtz trcn^a rt(n^H trl(I)^H^0t-t)O 13) (D(") gl) 1-1tr.rt5^N)• a rt.49study area, a series of GIS overlays was executed using thedigital data bases produced for 1979-80 and 1989-90. All ninespatial categories defined in section 4.1.4 were employed in theoverlay functions. This analysis provided information on thedynamics of recent changes among various land use types.Although there are nine general land use types described insections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, only agricultural, residential andundeveloped areas are emphasized in identifying temporal landuse trends because of the large proportion of the watershed theyrepresent. The other six land use types have limitationsassociated with generating temporal trends because they occupysmall geographic areas at a 1:25000 scale. This is particularlyrelevant for industrial, commercial and extractive land uses.Before the various GIS overlays were conducted, eachdigital data base was converted from a vector data structure toa raster format. The raster data structure was defined using a15x15 m grid cell which was determined to be an appropriateresolution in relation to the scale of the project. Once aparticular overlay was processed, a new data base was createdwhich could then be queried for land use change.4.1.6 Cumulative Analysis of 1989-90 Land UseA cumulative evaluation of land use patterns using the1989-90 detailed data base was conducted for the buffer segmentsof Coghlan Creek (C) and Salmon River (S). This analysisprovided information on how sensitive important fish habitatreaches are to streamside land use in the basin.50To obtain a downstream cumulative land use pattern, eachupstream habitat buffer (C2 and S2) was compared to both habitatbuffers for each study reach combined (C and S). Because eachhabitat buffer segment was different in size, all areas werecomputed to percent values. The Coghlan Creek and Salmon Riverstudy reaches are compared to assess which stream is more proneto land use pressures.4.2 Evaluation of Fish HabitatMost researchers who have studied salmonid fishes in theSalmon River watershed have recognized the middle reaches of thewatershed as being the most productive (Hartman, 1965; Hartman,1968; DeLeeuw, 1982; Schubert and Kalnin, 1990). In addition,fish habitat inventories conducted by McMynn and Vernon (1954),Erickson and Harding (1972), and DeLeeuw (1982), note that thecapacity of habitat to produce fish is highest in the middlereaches. Given this information and after conducting a brieffield survey of the stream network in May of 1990, it wasdetermined that this middle region would be a good study area toinvestigate fish habitat characteristics in more detail.Specifically, four stream reaches were chosen in the middleregion of the watershed that feature important salmonid spawningand nursery rearing habitat. Two of the stream reaches (Cl andC2) are located on the mainstem of Coghlan Creek and the othertwo (Si and S2) are located on the mainstem of the Salmon River(Figure 11). Similar to the spatial categories described insection 4.1.4, the Coghlan Creek (C) and Salmon River (S) study51areas are defined by reaches C1/C2 and S1/S2 respectively. Thesymbol CS refers to all fish habitat study reaches in bothCoghlan Creek and Salmon River.Fish habitat data were collected in reaches Cl, C2, S1 andS2 for 1980 and 1990 and are used in this study to characterizechanges in physical fish habitat parameters over a 10 yearperiod. The next two sections describe the 1980 and 1990habitat inventories and sampling designs followed by twosections describing the method of comparison between the twosets of data.4.2.1 1980 Habitat Inventory and Sampling DesignA 1980 fish habitat data base was developed for this studyby extracting information from a Ministry of Environment VAXcomputer which contains habitat "unit" data collected during theearly 1980's according to methods described in DeLeeuw, 1981.The 1980 habitat inventory itself was carried out by bothRegional Provincial fisheries staff and the Fish HabitatImprovement Section as part of the Salmonid Enhancement Program(SEP). Part of the impetus for this work was to assess impactsof a 1979 winter flood event on the morphology, substratecomposition, fish cover, and fish populations of the SalmonRiver. The results of the inventory are summarized in DeLeeuw,1982.Description of field techniques and sampling design for the1980 habitat inventory are presented in DeLeeuw (1981, 1982).Field data collection was carried out on a site-specific basis52within previously designated stream reaches. The reaches werepartitioned according to stream gradient analysis from 1:25000topographic maps and verified in the field using a Suuntooptical clinometer (Model PM-5/360 PC). Within each reach, fourdifferent hydraulic units consisting of riffles, glides, poolsand sloughs were recognized and used as sites for measuring anumber a instream parameters at low flows during July and August(see Table 7 for definitions of hydraulic units). A minimum ofsix hydraulic units in a row were sampled at one location in aparticular reach and another series of six units were sampled atanother location within the same reach. Lesser numbers ofhydraulic units were sampled where habitats were fairly uniform.Unfortunately, site selection was non-random and related mainlyto accessibility, primarily at road/stream crossings (Sebastian,1991).Table 7. Description of hydraulic units recognized in the 1980habitat inventory of Salmon River and Coghlan Creek (DeLeeuw,1981).Hydraulic Unit^ DescriptionRiffle^- A shallow, high velocity area of a streamwhere the water surface is broken into wavesby bed material wholly or partiallysubmerged.Glide^- A section of flowing water that ismoderately deep with the surface unbroken bybed material.Pool^- An area of the stream that is deep and hasno velocity relative to contiguous hydraulictypes.Slough^- A very low velocity stream section having auniform width and depth.53A total of six stream reaches (four in Coghlan Creek andtwo in the Salmon River) inventoried by MOE fisheries staff wereused to develop the fish habitat data base for 1980. The fourreaches in Coghlan Creek were combined into two reaches for thisstudy due to the low number of sample sites evaluated in each ofthe original four reaches. The result was a data base withhabitat information in four areas that correspond to reaches Cl,C2, Si and S2 as described in section 4.2. The type and numberof hydraulic unit sample sites in each reach during the summerof 1980 are presented in Table 8.Table 8. Type and number of hydraulic unit sites sampled by MOEin 1980 (DeLeeuw, 1982; Sebastian, 1991).Stream Reach^Hydraulic Unit^# of SitesCl^ Riffle^11Glide 10Pool 3Slough^0 Total^24C2^ Riffle^12Glide 4Pool 8Slough^0 Total^24Si^ Riffle^6Glide 2Pool 4Slough^0 Total^12S2^ Riffle^5Glide 4Pool 3Slough^0 Total^1254DeLeeuw (1981) states that the number of units described(originally 12 units per reach) should adequately "characterize"each reach. No sloughs were selected in any of the reaches andthe precise location of sample sites taken in each reach was notdocumented.For each hydraulic unit, a number of physical instreamvariables were measured that emphasize available stream habitatand salmonid cover requirements. Following is a list ofdefinitions (DeLeeuw, 1981) for parameters used to describe eachhydraulic unit measured in 1980 and subsequently used to developthe historic fish habitat data base for this study.1. Length (m): The length of the hydraulic unit beinginventoried.2. Wetted Width (m): The wetted width of the hydraulic unitat time of inventory. Where width is not uniform, theaverage width is recorded.3. Area (1112): Computed in the field by multiplying length bywetted width.4. Depth (m): The average depth of the hydraulic unit beingmeasured (employing full length and cross-section).5. Volume (M3 ): Computed by multiplying average depth, wettedwidth and length.6. Channel Width (m): The mean width of the channel fromrooted vegetation to rooted vegetation (terrestrial). Meanannual high water level is used in the absence ofvegetation.7. Velocity (m/sec): Recorded primarily to enable computationof discharge in a given reach. The measurement is usuallytaken in a riffle or glide where depth and wetted width arefairly uniform using the "float chip" method. At least 3measurements are taken for each estimate to ensure"accurate" results.8. Fines (%): Visual estimate of percent composition ofstreambed substrates in the size range 0.0-0.1 cm.559. Small Gravel (%): Visual estimate of percent composition ofstreambed substrates in the size range 0.1-4.0 cm.10. Large Gravel (%): Visual estimate of percent composition ofstreambed substrates in the size range 4.0-10.0 cm.11. Cobble (%): Visual estimate of percent composition ofstreambed substrates in the size range 10.0-30.0 cm.12. Boulder (%): Visual estimate of percent composition ofstreambed substrates greater than 30.0 cm. in diameter.13. Instream Log (m2): Pertains to the cover afforded tosalmonids by debris piles, stumps, root wads, and fallentrees within the wetted area of the hydraulic unit understudy.14. Instream Boulders (m2): A group of boulders (each boulder30 cm. in diameter or larger) in reasonable proximity toeach other which provide cover to salmonids. Themeasurement includes the actual area of the bouldersbecause the interstices underneath also constitute cover.15. Instream Vegetation (m2): The area of submerged vegetationin the hydraulic unit being measured. It does not includealgae covering the substrate.16. Overstream Vegetation (m2): A measure of overhead (organic)cover within 1 vertical meter of the water surface; thetotal area of the water surface with riparian vegetationleaning over it.17. Cutbanks (m2): A measurement of the eroded area within andbeneath a stream bank which acts as holding areas forsalmonids. Average depth (horizontally into the bank)multiplied by the length along the bank produces the area.18. Temperature (°C): All thermometers are standardized priorto taking stream temperatures. The measurement is made byholding the entire thermometer underwater. Several readingsare made to ensure accuracy.A meter stick or metric tape was used to measure thelength, wetted width, depth, channel width, instream log,instream boulders, instream vegetation, overstream vegetationand cutbanks.564.2.2 1990 Habitat Inventory and Sampling DesignIn order to formulate a 1990 fish habitat data base forthis study, a comprehensive inventory was conducted to establishan information base. The first phase of this inventory was toobtain a complete record of all hydraulic units within theCoghlan Creek (C) and Salmon River (S) study areas. This phaseis referred to as the "general survey". The second phaserequired taking selective samples of hydraulic units from thegeneral inventory and measuring the same physical fish habitatparameters used to develop the 1980 fish habitat data base.This phase is referred to as the "detailed inventory". For the1990 field season, all measurements and notations were recordedfrom August 1 to September 27. Although different volunteershelped at various times throughout the two months of field work,the author was present at every field site during datacollection to ensure an accurate and consistent data set.Prior to initiating the habitat inventory on August 1, astaff gauge was installed in both the Coghlan Creek and SalmonRiver study areas to give a relative indication of stream flowon a day to day basis during the sampling period. This was donebecause many of the physical characteristics of a hydraulic unit(e.g. wetted width) are greatly influenced by stream flow. Anysampling, therefore, should be done under similar flowconditions to obtain comparable results between hydraulic units.Each staff gauge was secured in the substrate approximately25 meters above the Coghlan Creek/Salmon River confluence.Before each sampling day, the staff gauge height and stream57temperature were recorded (usually between 8:00 am and 9:00 am)at each station (Table 9). As Table 9 reveals, very littlevariation in gauge height occurred between sampling days ineither Coghlan Creek or Salmon River.Table 9. Staff gauge height readings and stream temperaturestaken at Coghlan Creek and Salmon River study area stationsduring the 1990 habitat inventory.Date^Coghlan Creek^ Salmon Riverday/mo Gauge (m) Temp (°C) Gauge (m) Temp MI01/08 0.260 14.00 0.090 16.0°13/08 0.255 15.0° 0.070 18.0°14/08 0.250 14.0° 0.080 17.0°15/08 0.250 14.0° 0.080 17.0°16/08 0.255 14.50 0.080 17.5°17/08 0.260 14.5° 0.080 17.0°18/08 0.260 14.0° 0.080 17.0°19/08 0.260 14.0° 0.080 16.0°20/08 0.260 14.5° 0.080 16.5°21/08 0.260 14.0° 0.080 16.5°22/08 0.260 13.5° 0.100 16.0°30/08 0.260 13.0° 0.080 14.5°02/09 0.260 14.0° 0.090 15.5°11/09 0.260 14.0° 0.090 15.5°12/09 0.260 13.0° 0.100 15.0°13/09 0.260 12.0° 0.100 16.0°15/09 0.260 12.5° 0.100 14.0°17/09 0.270 13.0° 0.130 14.5°18/09 0.260 12.0° 0.120 13.5°19/09 0.260 13.0° 0.110 14.0°20/09 0.260 12.0° 0.120 13.0°22/09 0.260 12.5° 0.110 14.0°23/09 0.260 12.5° 0.120 14.5°25/09 0.260 12.0° 0.100 13.5°27/09 0.260 12.5° 0.090 13.5°The general inventory of all hydraulic units within thestudy areas of C and S was initiated at the Coghlan Creek/SalmonRiver confluence. Each hydraulic unit was identified accordingto DeLeeuw's (1981) classification and measured for length,58wetted width, depth, and general substrate characteristics (i.e.%fines, %gravel, %boulder). Additional comments were also notedfor each hydraulic unit such as rootwad formations, boulderclusters, overstream vegetation, tributary inputs, and variousforms of barriers (barbed fences, culverts, beaver dams, etc.).Each hydraulic unit was then coded and grouped into reach breaksthat were marked on 1:25000 black and white air photographs.The number of reach breaks that occupied any given study reach(Cl, C2, S1 or S2) depended on the number of field referencepoints (e.g. telephone poles, houses, roads, stream meanders)that could be identified on the air photos. This system wasdesigned to aid in the location of specific hydraulic units(during the same low flow period) once the general inventory wascomplete. Unlike the 1980 inventory, all four hydraulic unittypes (including sloughs) were identified and sampled in thestudy area.The general survey formed the basis for selection ofhydraulic units that were measured in more detail forcharacteristics of fish habitat. This was done by using randomnumber tables for selection of sites. The number of siteschosen are representive of at least five percent of eachhydraulic unit type. A total of 12 riffles, 12 glides, sixpools, and six sloughs were selected from reach C and reach Sfor a sum of 72 sample sites. The type and number of hydraulicunits sampled within the designated reaches of Cl, C2, S1 and S2are presented in Table 10. The general location of thesesample sites is shown in Figure 11.C lM 1000^500^0^1.0 kmSiSALMON RIVER BASINFISH HABITAT STUDY AREAS2 1990 DETAILED HABITATSAMPLE SITESFISH HABITAT REACHESCl, C2, Si, AND S2COGHLAN CREEK/SALMON RIVEROPIalMI--,-0.4rt^Grn-1MK)M.......--■^1-■vD01-,ks:).oaad-I-xiMI--rt-MmPI-  tn1--APCD t---,Pa rfo 1- c-t-a)^0ry 7z1 rt1--,-1-"(1'WCD rtrt- 11 oa 11< MPmPll (-)(1)ci-Po chhi EnLc '-' 1-"U) P)F.,.^nrt a 0(D 4En CI) to 1-.— pir•(-)O III--,Mm mO pv.......i--, 11O (DO 0)0)0rt I--O n• 1-,60By examining the 1:25000 air photographs, it was possibleto find each selected hydraulic unit that was to be sampled forthe detailed inventory. Additional information from physicalstream descriptions made during the general habitat surveyhelped in identifying hydraulic units. The same variablesmeasured in the general survey (i.e. length, wetted width, anddepth) were measured again to verify the site. After each sitehad been located, flagging tape marked with its original codewas fixed (usually around a tree) above the high water mark.Table 10.^Type and number of hydraulic unit sites sampled inthe 1990 detailed inventory corresponding to reach Cl, C2,^Siand S2.Stream Reach Hydraulic Unit # of SitesC l Riffle 4Glide 4Pool 2Slough 1Total 11C2 Riffle 8Glide 8Pool 4Slough 5Total 25Si Riffle 9Glide 9Pool 4Slough 3Total 25S2 Riffle 3Glide 3Pool 2Slough 3Total 1161The same physical fish habitat parameters defined byDeLeeuw (1981) and used to develop the 1980 fish habitat database were measured for each of the selected hydraulic units in1990. In some cases, a more thorough methodology was followedor a new technique was employed to obtain data for a givenparameter. As well, some additional parameters were measured tosupplement the data base. The following list outlines anychanges in data collection techniques and additional parametersmeasured in 1990 that differ from the 1980 habitat inventory asdescribed in section 4.2.1.a) Wetted Width: Where width is not uniform, the average isdetermined by: a) averaging the width of 2 transects if thehydraulic unit is 0-5 in in length; b) averaging the widthof 3 transects if the hydraulic unit is 5-20 in in length;C) averaging the width of 4 transects if the hydraulic unitis 20-50 in in length; and d) averaging the width of 5transects if the hydraulic unit is over 50 in in length.b) Depth: Taken at 3 points (1/3, 1/2, 2/3) along each wettedwidth transect and averaged.c) Channel Width: Where width is not uniform, the average isdetermined from the same transects described for wettedwidth for each hydraulic unit. Each transect is measuredfrom rooted vegetation to rooted vegetation or at the meanannual high water level.d) Velocity: Recorded primarily to enable computation ofdischarge (m3/s-1) in a given reach. The measurement istaken in riffles or glides where depth and wetted width arefairly uniform. Mean water column velocity is measuredwith an Ott flow meter at 0.6 depth from the surface usingthe appropriate propellers. Velocity measurements are takenat 3 points (1/3, 1/2, 2/3) along at least one wetted widthtransect and averaged for each hydraulic unit.Additional Parameters1.^Thalweg (m): A measurement of the deepest point in eachhydraulic unit. The distance from the thalweg to theclosest stream bank is also noted.622. Surface Substrate (cm): A substrate particle is randomlyselected along each wetted width transect. If the wettedwidth of a hydraulic unit is less than 1 m, a substratesample is taken at every 0.25 m along the transect. If thewetted width of a hydraulic unit is greater than 1 m, asubstrate sample is taken every 0.5 m along the transect.4.2.3 1980/1990 Fish Habitat ComparisonIn order to compare physical fish habitat changes over a 10year period in the Coghlan Creek and Salmon River study area, anumber of changes to the 1980 and 1990 detailed inventory databases were made. First, because no sloughs were inventoried in1980, the sloughs measured in 1990 were discarded from the database. Secondly, only parameters measured in both years that hadsimilar data collection techniques were used in the analysis.Lastly, only stream reaches as a whole can be compared betweenthe two years because hydraulic unit site locations within eachreach were not documented in 1980.4.2.4 Statistical AnalysisA statistical comparison was made between the four types ofhydraulic units identified in the 1990 general survey. A t-testwas carried out to determine the extent of differences in themorphological and general substrate conditions between thesample types. The t-test was appropriate because the samplenumbers were relatively large and most variables were normallydistributed. An analysis of variance was not carried outbecause of the uneven distribution of hydraulic unit samplenumbers. Firstly, the overall differences between hydraulic63units were tested (CS), and secondly, differences betweenCoghlan Creek (C) and the Salmon River (S) were compared.The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine if thehydraulic units measured in the 1990 detailed inventory wererepresentative of those in the general survey. Only theparameters which are consistent in both data sets were used inthe test. This non-parametric analogue was deemed appropriatefor these analyses since not all variables met the requirementsof normal distribution and equal variance.64CHAPTER 5RESULTS AND DISCUSSION5.1 Land Use Dynamics (1979-80/1989-90)The Salmon River watershed occupies a total area ofapproximately 8070 ha (digital base map summary statistics).About 833 ha of the total watershed area is not covered withdigital land use information due to differences in watershedboundaries between the various land use maps employed in theproject. These "empty" polygons are evident in two land usedistribution categories, namely the overall watershed (OW) andthe overall stream network buffer (0B). All figures and tablesthat show land use patterns for 1979-80 and 1989-90 aregenerated using 8 standardized land use types for both digitalmaps. Only agricultural, residential and undeveloped areas areemphasized in temporal analyses. All other land use typechanges were smaller than the accuracy of the digital data andtherefore no significant trends could be discerned.In the next four sections, the distribution of land usebetween the overall watershed, the overall stream networkbuffer, and the four buffered fish habitat reaches are compared,spatially and temporally. Section 5.1.5 outlines the variationof temporal land use change among all nine designated land usedistribution categories. The last section (5.1.6) describes thecumulative distribution of land use within the four bufferedfish habitat reaches using the 1989-90 detailed digital database.655.1.1 Overall Watershed Land Use Patterns and Temporal ChangesThe 1979-80 digital land use map, as shown in Figure 12,illustrates that agricultural, residential and undeveloped areasoccupied the majority of the watershed. Of the three land usetypes, it is evident that agriculture was the dominant land useoccupying 59% of the total area. Residential regions, occupying4% of the area, were concentrated in the northern regions of thebasin, primarily in the town of Fort Langley. About 21% of thebasin was undeveloped (including non-commercial forest land), ofwhich a large proportion was no doubt vulnerable to variousdevelopment initiatives. Many of the undeveloped regionsdepicted in Figure 12, however, are situated in steeply slopedriparian areas along the middle reaches of the basin which aredifficult to develop.The 1989-90 digital land use map, as shown in Figure 13, isslightly more complex. It shows that agricultural, residentialand undeveloped lands still occupy a majority of the basin aftera 10 year period. Given that 50% of the total area remainedunder agriculture, it could still be considered a rural area.Residential areas, occupying 7% of the total area, expanded intothe middle regions of the basin closer to sensitive fish habitatareas. The amount of undeveloped land increased over the 10year period, even though the parcels, accounting for 25% of thetotal area, seem to be more subdivided than in 1979-80.1"21W i-,-rt LC1(D GPI 1-1V) CD(DNJ....,0Z. F3CD1-+WZaG(/)(D5CD0I-t)rt(Dcna)1—.50Z7:1H-C(DtlCOMMERCIAL /INDUSTRYEXTRACTIONTRANSPORT/UTILITYINSTITUTIONRECREATIONLAND USE NOT MAPPEDWITHIN BOUNDARY TOTALAGRICULTURERESIDENTIALUNDEVELOPEDEXTRACTIONTRANSPORT/UTILITYINSTITUTIONRECREATION68Figure 14 illustrates the dynamics of temporal land usechange among agricultural, residential and undeveloped areas forthe distribution category OW. The greatest amount of changeoccurred in agriculture with a 9% overall decrease. Most of theagricultural land (951 ha) was taken out of production anddesignated as undeveloped suggesting that at least some portionof the land was withdrawn from the Agricultural Land Reserve(ALR) and held in speculation for urban development. About254 ha of agricultural land went directly into residentialdevelopment contributing to an overall increase of 3%. Only38 ha of undeveloped land went directly into residentialdevelopment.^Although the overall increases in residentialdevelopment were relatively small, the trend towardsurbanization is clearly visible with the overall decrease inagriculture and increase in undeveloped areas (4%), most ofwhich are likely targeted for future residential development.5.1.2 Overall Stream Buffer Land Use Patterns and TemporalChangesThe most surprising statistic concerning the 500 m buffergenerated around the entire stream network is that it occupiesabout 66% of the entire watershed area. In other words, a largeproportion of the land based activities within the watershed areclose to streams - many of which can have serious implicationsto the water resources and riparian regions of the basin. Thefollowing describes some of the major land uses within thebuffer zone and examines temporal change.SALMON RIVER WATERSHEDLAND USE DYNAMICS (ho)1979-80 TO 1989-90(Scale 1:25000)70The 500 m stream network buffer zone produced for 1979-80,shown in Figure 15, contains 59% agricultural land, 3%residential land, and 24% undeveloped land. For 1989-90,agricultural land use covers 49%, residential land covers 5%,and undeveloped land makes up 30% of the area within the samebuffer zone (Figure 16).The dynamics of temporal land use change amongagricultural, residential and undeveloped lands for the streamnetwork buffer is depicted in Figure 17. The greatest amount ofchange occurred in agriculture with a 10% overall decrease. Asignificant proportion of the agricultural land (700 ha) wastaken out of production and designated as undeveloped. Thistransition in land use contributed substantially to a 6% overallincrease in undeveloped areas close to streams. Another 154 haof agriculture went directly into residential developmentcontributing to an overall increase of 2%. About 26 ha ofundeveloped land went directly into residential development.5.1.3 Comparison of Land Use Trends: Stream Network Buffer vsOverall Watershed ConditionsTable 11 shows the distribution of land use and temporaltrends for the overall watershed conditions and the 500 in streamnetwork buffer. By comparing the proportional changes over the10 year period in both cases, it is evident that the decrease inagriculture is significant, and of the same magnitude for boththe overall watershed and the stream buffer zone. Residentialland use increases slightly in both cases. The proportion of1979-80 LAND USE^AREA PERCENT(ha)^CF^500m BUFFER^BUFFER ^ AGRICULTURE^3154^59^40:.* RESIDENTIAL 144^3 ^UNDEVELOPED^1260^24COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRY^18 <0.5EXTRACTION^8^<0.5; TRANSPORT/UTILITY^55^1^Lai INSTITUTION^109^2RECREATION 103^2^ LAND USE NOT MAPPED^487^9WITHIN BOUNDARYTOTAL 5338 100 0r-nCfCD0CD1-1InCD0rtCDrt05^11989-90 LAND USE500m BUFFERAREA(ha)PERCENTOFBUFFER2598 49AGRICULTURE279 5AZ.74.&^RESIDENTIALMft;^UNDEVELOPED 1560 30COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRY 42 1EXTRACTION 13 <0.5TRANSPORT/UTILITY 73 1INSTITUTION 115 2RECREATION 171 3I^I LAND USE NOT MAPPED 487 9VITHIN BOUNDARYTOTAL 5338 10026RESIDENTIAL UNDEVELOPED.,6STREAM NETWORK BUFFER ( 500m )LAND USE DYNAMICS ( ha )1979-80 TO 1989-90(Scale 1:25000)74undeveloped land increases in both areas but the increases arehigher within the stream buffer zone. This is of some concernbecause much of this undeveloped land is vulnerable toresidential development. Since the increases are higher withinthe more critical stream buffer zone, the potential for urbangrowth seems greater in areas that occupy space close tostreams. This scenario has important ramifications tomanagement of the aquatic environment, particularly thefisheries resource.Table 11. Comparison of land use trends between the overallwatershed conditions (OW) and a 500 m buffer of the streamnetwork (0B). (1979-80 and 1989-90)Land Use^Overall Watershed^Stream Network BufferClass 1979-80^1989-90 1979-80^1989-90Agriculture 59% 50% 59% 49%Residential 4% 7% 3% 5%Undeveloped 21% 25% 24% 30%By comparing the overall watershed conditions to the streambuffer zone for each time period, it is evident that thedifferences in undeveloped areas are quite large. For 1979-80,the difference is 3% (21% vs 24%), and for 1989-90, thedifference is 5% (25% vs 30%). This trend seems to indicatethat there may be increasing urban development pressures in thefuture as more undeveloped sites become available close tostreams. Again, this development scenario in turn could lead todetrimental impacts on the water quality and fisheries resource.755.1.4 Land Use Patterns and Temporal Changes Associated withKey Fish Habitat ReachesA more sensitive evaluation of land use patterns andtemporal changes associated with critical fish habitat areasoccur in buffer segments Cl, C2, Si and S2. Figures 18 and 19illustrate the general land use patterns for 1979-80 and 1989-90respectively. All four segments are combined for each timeperiod.Table 12 shows the percent change in land use inagricultural, residential and undeveloped land for all foursegments. If the land use change is less than 3% for eachsegment, it is assumed to be insignificant and is not indicatedin the table. Segments Cl, C2, S1 and S2 have total areas of56 ha, 178 ha, 274 ha and 165 ha, respectively.Table 12. Percent land use change for buffered habitat reachesCl, C2, Si and S2 (1979-80 to 1989-90).Cl^ C2Land Use^79/80 89/90^Diff.^79/80 89/90 Diff.Agriculture^52^20^-32^57^53^-4Residential 13 28 +15 5 5Undeveloped^10^44^+34^35^35Si^ S2Land Use^79/80 89/90^Diff.^79/80 89/90 Diff.Agriculture^42^20^-22^69^63^-6Residential 5 22 +17 5 5Undeveloped^50^56^+6^23^32^+9500 1.0 kmII^1000ClC21$.:1111..71"(WA!^1979-80 LAND USE PATTERN500m BUFFER OF FISH HABITAT REACHESI• :""74 SYSi^I GRICULTURES2RESIDENTIALAUNDEVELOPEDCOMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRYEXTRACTIONTRANSPORT/UTILITYINSTITUTIONRECREATIONClSi1.0 km1989-90 LAND USE PATTERN500m BUFFER OF FISH HABITAT REACHESAGRICULTURERESIDENTIALUNDEVELOPEDCOMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRYEXTRACTIONTRANSPORT/UTILITYINSTITUTIONRECREATION78For both time periods, segment S2 had the largestproportion of land in agriculture, segment Cl had the largestproportion in residential land, and segment Si had the largestproportion of undeveloped land. Both C2 and S2 had the lowestproportion of residential land for both time periods. Overall,the smallest land use change occurred in segment C2 with a 4%decrease in agriculture and no significant change in residentialor undeveloped areas. The largest land use change occurred insegment Cl with a 32% decrease in agriculture, a 15% increase inresidential land, and a 34% increase in undeveloped areas. Thistrend strongly suggests that relative to the other threesegments, the actual and potential urban development in segmentCl is extremely high.A slightly more dynamic picture which shows the actualamount of land (ha) that went from one type to another over the10 year period is presented in Figure 20. The largest portionof agricultural land taken out of production and designated asundeveloped was 46 ha, which occurred in buffer Si. Also in Si,a total of 30 ha of agriculture and 18 ha of undeveloped landwas converted into residential land.5.1.5 Comparison of Land Use Distribution CategoriesTo emphasize the dynamics of the watershed, Figure 21 showsthe variation of temporal land use changes among all nine landuse distribution categories over a 10 year period. In general,all categories experienced an overall decrease in agriculture,and all categories (except C2 and S2 - no change) experiencedFISH HABITAT BUFFER (500m)LAND USE DYNAMICS (ho)1979-80 TO 1989-90Sco I e 1 :25000 )RESIDENTIAL• 152UNDEVELOPED• 342UNDEVELOPED• 9ZC224AGRICULTURE—42 4- 4S226AGR I CULTURE—6211Si30RESIDENTIAL• 172UNDEVELOPED• 67,18r 4613\\UNDEVELOPEDOZC1-16%-32%-20-25- 30- 35IIOW OB CS5 ^0-5 ii-22%C2^Si^S2201511%105 - 3%0CS^COW OB C I^C2^Si^S2201510 -507%OW OB C S^C34%25 -9%/^0% itCl^C2^SI^S2403530AGRICULTURAL LAND USE CHANGES1979-80 TO 1989-90MN PERCENT CHANGERESIDENTIAL LAND USE CHANGES1979-80 TO 1989-9080MN PERCENT CHANGEUNDEVELOPED LAND USE CHANGES1979-80 TO 1989-90PERCENT CHANGEFigure 21. Comparison of all land use distribution categoriesin the Salmon River watershed showing temporal changes amongagricultural, residential and undeveloped land use types -1979-80 to 1989-90.81increases in both residential and undeveloped land. In mostcases, the degree of change seems to intensify from largegeographic areas to smaller ones for all 3 land use types. Aspreviously discussed, the greatest potential for urbandevelopment seems to be within the habitat buffer of Cl. Thelargest actual increase in residential development occurred inbuffer segment Si.5.1.6 Cumulative Analysis of Land Use Within Buffered HabitatReachesA detailed version of the 1989-90 land use pattern for allfour buffered habitat reaches combined (CS) is illustrated inFigure 22. Crop production, livestock production, residentialand undeveloped areas are the major land uses in this region.The total area of segment CS is approximately 673 ha. TheCoghlan Creek (C) and Salmon River (S) buffered reaches haveareas of 234 ha and 439 ha respectively.Table 13 presents results from a cumulative evaluation ofland use for 1989-90 which indicates how sensitive the SalmonRiver is to streamside land use compared to Coglan Creek. Foreach stream, the upstream habitat buffer (S2 and C2) is comparedto both habitat buffers in each stream combined (S and C). Onlyland use types that occupy at least 9% of their respectivesegment (C or S) are used in the analysis.Si1.0 km1989-90 DETAILED LAND USE PATTERN500m BUFFER OF FISH HABITAT REACHESCROP PRODUCTIONUBMII LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION1111 OTHER AGRICULTURE15110 AGRI—FORESTRYRESIDENTIALWo FORMER AGRICULTUREIMO FORMER EXTRACTIONUlla UNDEVELOPEDNINO COMMERCIAL (WHOLESALE/RETAIL/SERVICE/STORAGE)1111 SURFACE EXTRACTION•^HIGHWAY TRANSPORTINSTITUTIONAL SERVICEMa LAND DEPENDENT RECREATION11111 INDOOR/OUTDOOR RECREATION83Table 13. Percent cumulative analysis of streamside land use(1989-90) comparing habitat study reaches in Coghlan Creek andthe Salmon River.Land Use^ C2^ S2(Cl+C2)^(S1+S2)Crop Production 41 33 45 23Livestock Production 10 10 17 11Residential 3 9 4 16Undeveloped 32 35 31 45The overall trend for both streams reveals that cropproduction and livestock production decrease in intensity whileresidential and undeveloped areas increase in intensity from theupstream reaches to the lower reaches. Only livestockproduction in Coghlan Creek remained constant at 10%.Cumulative land use trends for the Salmon River are quitedynamic. The results show that the magnitude of crop productiondrops by 22%, livestock production drops by 6%, residentialincreases by 12%, and undeveloped areas increase by 14%. Lessstriking results for Coghlan Creek show that the degree of cropproduction falls by 8%, livestock production remains constant at10%, residential areas rise by 6%, and undeveloped areas rise byonly 3%.It is evident that the Salmon River is subject to fargreater variability of land use intensities than Coghlan Creek.Specifically, the Salmon River is under more direct pressurerelated to urban development, but under less pressure fromagricultural practices. This trend probably results from the84fact that more undeveloped areas, conducive to residentialdevelopment due to the nature of the topography, are founddownstream in the Salmon River than in Coghlan Creek.5.2 Fish Habitat DynamicsThe physical fish habitat data collected in 1980 and 1990are associated with features of stream morphology, substratecomposition, and salmonid cover requirements. The next foursections will discuss the results of the 1990 general surveyconducted in Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River, outline thedistribution of hydraulic units for 1990, contrast the fishhabitat characteristics in 1980 to 1990, and outline howrepresentative the 1990 detailed inventory is in relation to thegeneral inventory for 1990.5.2.1 Overall Survey of Hydraulic Units (1990)The 1990 general survey documents all hydraulic unitswithin designated reaches of Coghlan Creek and the Salmon Riverwhich provide important spawning and juvenile rearing habitatfor salmonids. Table 14 shows the type and number of hydraulicunits sampled. It is evident that riffles and glides are morenumerous than pools and sloughs in this area of the watershed.The two objectives of this inventory were: a) to find out ifeach hydraulic unit type is unique; and b) to determine if thereare differences between hydraulic units in Coghlan Creek and theSalmon River.85Table 14. Number of hydraulic units sampled in the 1990general habitat survey.Hydraulic Unit^Coghlan Creek^Salmon River^TotalRiffles 176 235 411Glides 159 197 356Pools 59 56 115Sloughs 44 67 111As shown in Table 15, all riffles, glides, pools andsloughs are significantly different from one another in terms oflength, wetted width, depth, and general substratecharacteristics. The only notable parameters that do not showsignificant differences are % boulder and volume between poolsand sloughs, and area between glides and pools. None of theresults contradict the expected differences in physicalattributes between any of the four hydraulic units tested.Table 15.^Significant differences in length, wetted width(W.W.), area, depth, volume, and substrate compositionparameters between hydraulic units. (Riffles = R, Glides = G,Pools = P, Sloughs = S)note: Salmon River and Coghlan Creek hydraulic units combined.RVGRvPRvSGvPGvSPvSLength * * * * * *W.W. * * * * * *Area * * * - * *Depth * * * * * *Volume * * * * * -% Fines * * * * * *% Gravel * * * * * *% Boulder * * * * * -T-test * oc=0.0586Summary statistics for the hydraulic units in Coghlan Creekand the Salmon River combined (CS) is presented in Table 16.Among the 4 types of hydraulic units, glides occupy the largesttotal area (16026 m2) followed by riffles, sloughs and pools.Average depth is lowest in riffles (11 cm) and highest in pools(74 cm). Both riffles and glides on average contain the highestpercentage of suitable gravel substrate for salmonid spawningpurposes. The largest percentage of boulder substrate, a formof cover for juvenile salmonids, is found in riffles.Table 17 shows significant differences in length, wettedwidth, area, depth, volume and substrate composition betweenhydraulic units in Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River. Similarhydraulic unit types between the two streams show somesignificant differences. In particular, Coghlan Creek sloughsare significantly different from sloughs in the Salmon River formost parameters. Several differences also exist between the twostreams in terms of riffle and glide characteristics. For thepools, only depth and volume proved to be different.Generally, the four hydraulic unit types are different fromone another within each stream - the notable exceptions include:% boulder between Coghlan Creek riffles and pools; area and% boulder between Coghlan Creek glides and pools; length, areaand % gravel between Coghlan Creek glides and sloughs; area,volume and % boulder between Coghlan Creek pools and sloughs;% gravel between Salmon River riffles and glides; length betweenSalmon River riffles and pools; area between Salmon River glidesand pools; and volume, % gravel and % boulder between Salmon87River pools and sloughs.Summary statistics that compare the hydraulic units inCoghlan Creek to the Salmon River are presented in Table 18. Bytaking the cumulative length of all hydraulic units in eachstream, the Coghlan Creek study reach is approximately 5,319 inin length, and the Salmon River study reach is approximately7,732 in in length. In general, the stream morphologycharacteristics for riffles, glides, pools and sloughs arelarger in the Salmon River than in Coghlan Creek. This suggeststhat the Salmon River is somewhat larger in terms of itsphysical capacity to hold water. General substrate compositionbetween the two streams for all four hydraulic unit types arequite similar. Riffles and glides in Coghlan Creek haveslightly more gravel substrate than in the Salmon River but lessboulder substrate. This would suggest that the potential forsalmonid spawning is greater in Coghlan Creek, but the amount ofcover for juvenile salmonids is greater in the Salmon River.88Table 16. Summary statistics for 1990 general habitat survey ofhydraulic units. Coghlan Creek and Salmon River reaches combined(CS).^LENGTH^WETTED^(m)^WIDTH (m)AREA(e)DEPTH(m) OnVOLLIEFINES GRAVEL BOULDERRIFFLESMean 9.6 2.1 22.9 0.11 2.6 14 62 24Standard Deviation 8.0 1.1 27.9 0.02 3.6 7 11 10Minimum 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.1 10 10 0Maximum 57.0 6.0 256.5 0.29 38.5 70 80 80Total 9420.3GLIDESMean 16.3 2.6 45.0 0.23 10.5 21 60 20Standard Deviation 10.1 0.9 35.2 0.07 9.9 11 10 8Minimum 2.0 0.5 2.0 0.10 0.2 10 20 0Maximum 60.0 5.5 214.5 0.60 85.8 70 80 50Total 16026.0POOLSMean 8.3 4.8 42.2 0.74 36.3 40 45 16Standard Deviation 4.2 2.2 37.4 0.38 50.0 13 11 9Minimum 2.0 2.0 7.5 0.10 2.7 20 20 0Maximum 22.0 20.0 300.0 2.50 390.0 70 70 60Total 4851.0SLOUGHSMean 21.1 3.7 82.7 0.39 36.0 33 51 15Standard Deviation 24.5 2.8 137.8 0.15 71.2 12 12 6Minimum 3.0 1.0 7.0 0.15 2.3 10 20 0Maximum 220.0 30.0 1320.0 1.00 660.0 70 80 40Total 9185.089Table 17.^Significant differences in length, wetted width(w.w), area, depth, volume, and substrate composition parametersbetween hydraulic units (Riffles = r, Glides = g, Pools = p,Sloughs = s).note: Salmon River (S) and Coghlan Creek (C) hydraulic units aredifferentiated.C-rVS-rC-gvS-gC-pvS-pC-svS-sLength _ _ - **W.W. - - - -Area - - - **Depth * * ** ** **Volume - - ** **% Fines ** ** _ **% Gravel ** ** - **% Boulder ** ** _ _C-rvC-gC-rvC-pC-rvC-sC-gvC-pC-gvC-sCIDvC-sLength ** ** ** ** - **W.W. ** ** ** ** ** **Area ** ** ** - - -Depth ** ** ** ** ** **Volume ** ** ** ** ** _% Fines ** ** ** ** ** **% Gravel ** ** ** ** _ **% Boulder ** - ** - ** -S-rVS-gS-rvS-pS-rvS-sS-gvS-pS-gvS-sSI)vS-sLength ** - ** ** ** **W.W. ** ** ** ** ** **Area ** ** ** _ ** **Depth ** ** ** ** ** **Volume ** ** ** ** ** _% Fines ** ** ** ** ** **% Gravel _ ** ** ** ** _% Boulder ** ** ** ** ** _T-test ** c<=0.0590Table 18. Summary statistics for the 1990 general habitatsurvey comparing hydraulic units in Coghlan Creek (C) to theSalmon River (S).LENGTH^WETTED(m)^WIDTH (m)AR5A(m )DEPTH(m)VOLUVE(e) FINES%GRAVEL BOULDERRIFFLESC-Mean 9.9 2.3 24.6 0.112 2.9 14.3 66 20S-Mean 9.4 2.1 21.7 0.105 2.4 12.8 60 27C-Stand. Deviation 7.3 1.2 26.7 0.03 3.6 7 11 11S-Stand. Deviation 8.5 1.1 28.7 0.02 3.7 8 9 8C-Minimum 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.05 0.1 10 10 0S-Minimum 1.0 03 0.5 0.10 0.1 10 10 10C-Maximum 40.0 6.0 180.0 0.29 25.2 40 80 80S-Maximum 57.0 6.0 256.5 0.15 38.5 70 80 70C-Total 1734.0 4326.3 504.35-Total 2205.0 5094.0 556.4GLIDESC-Mean 15.4 2.7 42.0 0.235 10.0 22.4 61.1 17S-Mean 17.1 2.6 47.4 0.218 11.0 19.3 58.6 22C-Stand. Deviation 8.8 1.0 31.0 0.09 8.4 11 10 8S-Stand. Deviation 11.0 0.9 38.2 0.05 10.9 11 10 7C-Minimum 3.0 1.0 5.0 0.10 0.8 10 20 0S-Minimum 2.0 0.5 2.0 0.10 0.2 10 20 10C-Maximum 46.0 5.5 161.0 0.60 44.4 70 80 505-Maximum 60.0 5.5 214.5 0.40 85.8 70 80 40C-Total 2442.5 6684.0 1592.75-Total 3376.0 9342.0 2158.2POOLSC-Mean 7.9 4.6 38.9 0.55 23.2 38 45 17S-Mean 8.7 5.0 45.6 0.95 50.1 41 44 15C-Stand. Deviation 3.7 2.5 39.8 0.25 30.0 14 13 11S-Stand. Deviation 4.6 1.8 34.6 0.40 62.1 12 10 7C-Minimum 3.0 2.0 8.0 0.30 2.7 20 20 0S-Minimum 2.0 2.0 7.5 0.10 4.0 20 30 10C-Maximum 19.0 20.0 300.0 2.00 192.0 70 70 60S-Maximum 22.0 13.0 160.0 2.50 390.0 60 70 30C-Total 469.0 2296.8 1367.2S-Total 486.5 2554.3 2805.6Table 18. con't91LENGTH^WETTED^AREA^DEPTH^VOLLMIE(m)^WIDTH (m)^(el (m)^(mJ) FINES GRAVEL BOULDERSLOUGHSC-Mean^15.3^3.2^49.0^0.33^16.4 29 58 14S-Mean 24.8^4.0^104.9^0.44^48.9 36 47 16C-Stand. Deviation^9.3^1.3^37.7^0.11^16.0 11 12 8S-Stand. Deviation^30.1^3.4^171.6^0.16^88.7 12 11 5C-Minimum^5.0^1.0^7.0^0.15^2.5 10 20 0S-Minimum 3.0 1.5 7.5^0.20 2.3 10 20 10C-Maximum^50.0^6.0^225.0^0.75^99.0 70 80 40S-Maximum 220.0^30.0^1320.0^1.00^660.0 70 70 20C-Total^673.0^2158.0 721.9S-Total 1664.0 7027.0^3278.45.2.1.1^Distribution of Hydraulic UnitsThe distribution of hydraulic units in terms of area andvolume for reaches Cl, C2, C, Si, S2 and S, are given in Table19. In general, Coghlan Creek has a higher proportion ofriffles and glides with respect to area and volume calculationsthan the Salmon River. Even the proportional area and volume ofpools in Coghlan Creek are slightly higher than in the SalmonRiver. The actual total area and volume of riffles, glides andpools, however, are greatest in the Salmon River.With respect to proportional differences betweenindividual reaches within Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River,the volume of riffles is highest in Cl, the volume of glides ishighest in both Cl and C2, the volume of pools is highest in C2,and the volume of sloughs is highest in S2. The actual totalvolume of riffles, glides, and pools is greatest in 51,92primarily due to its sheer size relative to the reaches found inCoghlan Creek. Reach S2 has the highest volume in sloughs.Table 19. Hydraulic unit distributions in area (m2) and volume(1) for Cl and C2 in Coghlan Creek (C) and Si and S2 in theSalmon River (S).Clof ClC2of C2 of CSiof SiS2of S2 of SAREA (m2)Riffles 1947.0 (32) 2379.3 (25) 4326.3 (28) 4302.5 (25) 791.5 (11) 5094.0 (21)Glides 2523.5 (41) 4160.5 (45) 6684.0 (43) 7776.0 (46) 1566.0 (23) 9342.0 (39)Pools 898.3 (15) 1398.5 (15) 2296.8 (15) 1858.3 (11) 696.0 (10) 2554.3 (11)Sloughs 727.0 (12) 1431.0 (14) 2158.0 (14) 3155.5 (18) 3871.5 (56) 7027.0 (29)Total Area 6095.8 9369.3 15465.1 17092.3 6925.0 24017.3VOLUME (m)Riffles 238.7 (15) 265.6 (10) 504.3 (12) 474.4 (9) 82.0 (2) 556.4 (6)Glides 593.4 (38) 999.4 (38) 1592.8 (38) 1798.6 (33) 359.6 (11) 2158.2 (25)Pools 445.6 (29) 921.6 (35) 1367.2 (33) 1784.8 (32) 1020.8 (31) 2805.6 (32)Sloughs 282.5 (18) 439.4 (17) 721.9 (17) 1443.8 (26) 1834.6 (56) 3278.4 (37)Total Volume 1560.2 2626.0 4186.2 5501.6 3297.0 8798.6The amount and distribution of hydraulic units can be agood indicator of preferred habitat for different species ofsalmonids. Hartman (1965) examined the differences in micro-distribution between juvenile coho salmon and trout (steelheadand cutthroat trout) in Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River. Thestudy suggests that in spring and summer, when populationdensities are high, coho salmon occupy pools and trout occupyriffles. Hartman emphasized these findings again in 1968.Based on this information and correlating it with Table 19, thedensity of juvenile coho salmon would be highest in reach C2,and the density of steelhead and cutthroat trout would be93highest in reach Cl. The total number of coho salmon andsteelhead and cutthroat trout might be highest in reach Si.5.2.2 Comparison of Temporal Changes in Fish Habitat(1980/1990)Changes in physical fish habitat from 1980 to 1990 arecategorized into 3 major groups; i) stream morphology, ii)substrate composition, and iii) cover requirements. Streamdischarge and stream temperature are also contrasted betweenyears. The physical fish habitat parameters are compared for 3types of hydraulic units (riffles, glides and pools) in streamreaches Cl, C2, S1 and S2.Stream morphology characteristics of length, wetted width,area, depth, volume and channel width, are compared in Figure23. General trends for the study area and the dynamic temporalchanges are highlighted below:Area (from 1980 to 1990)- Riffle area increases - particularly in reach Si (exceptions:riffles in S2).- Glide area increases - particularly in reach C2 and Si(exceptions: glides in Cl)- Pool area decreases - particularly in reach Cl and S2(exceptions: pools in C2).Volume (from 1980 to 1990)- Riffle volume increases (exceptions: riffles in S2)- Glide volume increases (exceptions: glides in Cl)- Pool volume decreases in Cl - particularly in reach S2; andC2AGSI45401435 -25020_j 15-10F ///2RGPC2AGPSi01980 01990AGS2-1- MAXIMUM-I- MINIMUMRGPRGPCl RGPCI94AGPFE01980 01990‘F.VAV RGPS2MAXIMUM- I- MINIMUMRGPC201980 01990RGPS2--r- MAXIMUMMINIMUM01980 01990AGPS2- MAXIMUM--I-- MINIMUMRGPClClRGPSi5040 ^30: ^—JZ 217110 -()0 IF/ftt:fRGPClRGPC201980 01990RGPS2--r- MAXIMUMMINIMUMRGPSIrtYrRGPC27AGP^AGSI S2MAXIMUMMINIMUM01980 D ioFigure 23. Comparison of stream morphology characteristics in1980 and 1990. Mean, maximum and minimum variations betweenriffles (R), glides (G) and pools (P), are shown for reaches Cl,C2, S1 and S2.95increases in C2 - particularly in reach Si.Riffle and glide hydraulic units are preferred habitatduring the summer months for juvenile steelhead trout (probablycutthroat trout as well), whereas pools are preferred habitatfor coho salmon (Hartman, 1965, 1968; Pearlstone, 1976; Ward andSlaney, 1979; Reeves, et al., 1989). The above temporal trendsfor area and volume suggest that preferred riffle/glide habitatfor juvenile trout may have increased over 10 years,particularly in reaches C2 and Si. Preferred pool habitat forjuvenile coho salmon may have decreased in Cl and S2, butincreased in C2 and Sl.Note: Sloughs may have been identified as pools in 1980 whichmight account for a decrease in pool area in 1990.Depth (from 1980 to 1990)- Riffle depth increases (exceptions: riffles in S2)- Glide depth increases (exceptions: glides in Cl)- Pool depth increases in reach C2 and Si; and decreases inreach Cl and S2.According to Pearlstone (1976) and Ward and Slaney (1979),most juvenile steelhead trout rear during the summer months indepths that range from 0.20 to 0.50 meters. Temporal trends forthe study area suggest that most riffle and glide depths hadincreased slightly - closely resembling the lower limit of thepreferred range as mentioned above. On the other hand, theresults in 1980 are mostly below 0.20 meters. In general,preferred depth conditions for rearing juvenile steelhead troutmight have improved over the 10 year period.96Channel Width (from 1980 to 1990)- Riffle channel width increases (exceptions: reach S2)- Glide channel width increases- Pool channel width increasesChannel width associated with all 3 hydraulic unit typesincreases in all cases from 1980 to 1990. This increase isprobably the result of several high instantaneous dischargeevents that took place over the 10 year period [eq. 32.9 m3 s-1in 1980, 61.4 m3 s-1 in 1986, and 35.9 m3 s-1 in 1989 (EnvironmentCanada, 1991)]. Increased impervious areas as a result ofurbanization might also be contributing to higher dischargerates and widening of the stream channel.Figure 24 compares substrate composition (% fines, % smallgravel, % large gravel, % cobble and % boulder) between 1980 and1990 for the hydraulic units in each stream reach. Given thesubjective nature of this kind of assessment, only the extremedifferences in temporal trends are highlighted below.% Fines (from 1980 to 1990)- For riffles, a large increase is noted in reach S2.- For pools, a large increase is evident in S2; and a largedecrease is apparent in reach Cl.% Small Gravel (from 1980 to 1990)- For pools, a substantial increase occurs in reaches Cl and C2.% Large Gravel (from 1980 to 1990)- For riffles, a large decrease is evident in reach S2.- For glides, a large decrease occurs in reach Sl.97100M -80e 60-Z 40-U- 3030 -20 -10100so-80 -o70WCC 50 -040< 30-Mn10-0R GClCIRGPC2RGP^R G PSI S2-1- MAXIMUM-I- MINIMUMCIV 1980 01990IIRGP^RGPSI S2-1- MAXIMUM- I- MINIMUM01980 0 1990RGPC2M 40-00 o -RGP^RGPS1 S2-y MAXIMUM- I- MINIMUM01980 0 1990RGPC2 RGPS1^S2MAXIMUM-I- MINIMUMV.31980 01990RGPClITk20 - 14t100RGPCIRGPC2▪ 40 -0Ca 3020 -I:-0  nRGP100 ^90 ^80 -illRGPC2I 1 F II a, rA RGP^RGPS2MAXIMUMMINIMUM01980 01990Figure 24. Comparison of percent substrate composition in 1980and 1990. Mean, maximum and minimum variations between riffles(R), glides (G) and pools (P), are shown for reaches Cl, C2, Siand S2.98% Cobble- No significant changes noted.% Boulder- No significant changes noted.According to Pearlstone (1976), 0+ steelhead trout in theBig Qualicum River inhabit areas over substrate ranging from1-10 cm in diameter, and 1+ fish reside over substrate from5-20 cm in diameter. Optimum spawning substrate for steelheadtrout ranges from 0.6-10 cm in diameter (Swift, 1976); whereaspreferred spawning substrate for coho salmon ranges from 1-20 cmin diameter (Reeves, et al., 1989). If these substrate criteriafor rearing and spawning activities are correlated with thesubstrate categories defined by Deleeuw (1981), the followinginferences can be made with respect to temporal changes insubstrate composition:a) Steelhead trout rearing and spawning habitat has possiblydeclined in reach S2 because of high increases in % fines andlarge decreases in % large gravel.^For the same reasons,suitable spawning grounds for coho salmon have possibly declinedin reach S2 as well.b) Suitable rearing substrate for age 0+ steelhead has possiblyimproved in reaches Cl and C2 due to high increases in % smallgravel.Changes in characteristics of cover requirements (instreamlog, instream boulder, instream vegetation, overstreamvegetation and cuttbank) between 1980 and 1990 are shown inFigure 25. The general trends and extreme temporal changes are100-000 1020.1 ^RGPClGPC201980 1=11990AGPSIS27- MAXIMUM-I- MINIMUM 01980 01990GP^RGPS2-T MAXIMUM--I- MINIMUMRGPi';'• 100 ^ch010 -W0CD20.1 -RGP^RGPCl C2AGPC1RGPC2J1980 D1990RGPS2MAXIMUM-I-- MINIMUMAGP^RGPC1 C2RGP^RGPS1 S2-T MAXIMUM--I- MINIMUMRGP01980 019900CD00.1RGP99610020.1_ 02W I0 0.1IL10RGP^AGC2 Si01980 01990TiiAGPS27-- MAXIMUMMINIMUMFigure 25. Comparison of salmonid cover requirements in 1980and 1990. Mean, maximum and minimum variations between riffles(R), glides (G), and pools (P), are shown for reaches Cl, C2, Siand S2.100listed below.Instream Log (from 1980 to 1990)- For riffles, the amount of instream log increases (exceptions:reach Cl).- For glides, the amount of instream log increases (exceptions:reach Cl).- For pools, the amount of instream log increases in C2 -particularly in reach Si; and decreases in Cl and S2.Instream Boulder (from 1980 to 1990)- For riffles and glides, the amount of instream boulderincreases in Cl, C2 and S1 (no significant amount recorded in S2for either year).- For pools, a significant increase in the amount of instreamboulder is evident in reach Si (no significant amount recordedin Cl, C2, or S2 for either year).Instream Vegetation (from 1980 to 1990)- For riffles, glides and pools, the quantity of instreamvegetation increases in all 4 reaches.Overstream Vegetation (from 1980 to 1990)- For riffles, glides and pools, the amount of overstreamvegetation increases in all 4 reaches - particularly glides inreach Si and pools in reach Cl.Cutbank (from 1980 to 1990)- For riffles, glides and pools, the area of cutbank increasesin all reaches except Cl.The quality and quantity of large woody debris, bouldergroupings and streamside vegetation, appear to be major factors101governing the survival of juvenile salmonids throughout thesummer and winter rearing seasons (e.g. Pearlstone, 1976;Facchin and Slaney, 1977; Hunter, 1991).For juvenile steelhead trout (1+) and coho salmon, stableinstream log debris is a major component of winter and summercover (Bustard and Narver, 1975; Pearlstone, 1976; Ward andSlaney, 1979; Reeves et al., 1989). Temporal trends for thestudy area suggest that a large increase in pool log debrisoccurred in reach Si - probably the result of blow down effectsof old-aged coniferous trees, particularly in steeply slopedareas. The increase in pool log debris would greatly benefitrearing coho salmon during the summer, and both coho salmon andsteelhead trout (probably cutthroat trout as well) during winterrearing periods. One area of concern is the overall decrease oflog debris in reach Cl. Because a large area of reach Cl iswithin a "well kept" municipal park (Williams Park), it ispossible that much of the stream-side vegetation (includingconiferous and deciduous trees) has been removed for aestheticand human safety reasons. This removal of vegetation limits thenatural inputs of large organic material into the stream whichin turn impacts salmonid cover requirements.Groups of boulders are utilized by both steelhead trout andcoho salmon as an important source of summer and winter cover(Bustard and Narver, 1975; Facchin and Slaney, 1977; Ward andSlaney, 1979; Reeves, et al., 1989). In reach S1 of the studyarea, the amount of instream boulders in pools increasedsubstantially from 1980 to 1990. This trend in Si suggests that102summer habitat conditions for rearing coho salmon and winterhabitat for trout and coho salmon improved. Virtually noboulder cover for salmonids was apparent in 1980 or 1990 inreach S2. Stream rearing enhancement opportunities in the formof boulder placement would be beneficial to rearing salmonids inthis reach. [Note: Methods of instream boulder measurements in1990 were not consistent with measurements taken in 1980 (i.e.a group of 2-3 boulders was considered sufficient cover forjuvenile salmonids in 1990, but was not in 1980)].Streamside vegetation plays an integral part in moderatingstream temperatures and providing cover and food sources forjuvenile salmonids (Bustard and Narver, 1975; Anonymous, 1980).This type of habitat (overstream vegetation) increasedconsiderably over 10 years for pools in reach Cl and glides inreach Si. Coho salmon would probably benefit most during thesummer rearing period in reach Cl; whereas trout would benefitmost in reach Si.A large portion of the cutbank area measured in the studyarea provides good summer rearing cover (and possibly wintercover) for juvenile salmonids (personal observation, 1990).According to Bustard and Narver (1975), coho salmon andcutthroat trout prefer hydraulic units with overhanging streambanks as opposed to those without bank cover. The increase incutbank area for reaches C2, Si and S2 likely benefit cohosalmon and trout in the summer and perhaps ever during thewinter. The slight increase in cutbank area in these 3 reachesis probably related to the number of high instantaneous103discharge events as discussed earlier in this section. Ofconsiderable concern is the decrease in cutbank area in reach Clwhich has likely impacted the summer and potential winterrearing opportunities for salmonids. The reduction in cutbankarea is likely due to rip-rap and gabion placement along thestream banks in Williams Park. This enhancement work was donein the early 1980's, primarily to stabilize stream banks and toprevent erosion at high flows.Temporal changes in average discharge rates and streamtemperatures for each reach are presented in Figure 26.Discharge rates increased over a 10 year period in CoghlanCreek, while rates decreased in the Salmon River, particularlyin reach Si. Specifically, Si experienced a 50% decrease inflow from 1980 to 1990; a trend likely due to increases in waterwithdrawals for purposes of land improvement, irrigation, anddomestic use (unpublished data from Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks, 1991).Based on recommendations from Thompson (1972), minimum flowrequirements for rearing salmonids is approximately 1.4 m3s-1.All four reaches in Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River are wellbelow this recommended minimum flow regime.The average stream temperature in 1990 was cooler than in1980 for most reaches. Only reach Cl had temperatures that weresimilar for both years. Reeves (1989) notes that if streamtemperatures exceed 20°C for two weeks or more during summer lowflows, production of pre-smolts might be limited due to lessfavourable environmental conditions or by conferring advantage0 200D 15CE 125RGPC2101980 01990OP^RGPSi S2- MAXIMUM- MINIMUMft G PClCi■••■ 0.8 -C.)co--- 0.6(.9cr<OA00.2A^1 / C2 Si S2FE—J1980 01990 MAXIMUM--I— MINIMUM Figure 26. Comparison of stream temperature and streamdischarge in 1980 and 1990. For temperature, the mean, maximumand minimum variations between riffles (R), glides (G) and pools(P), are shown for reaches Cl, C2, S1 and S2. Only the mean foreach reach is shown for discharge.1040105to non-salmonid competitors. Only reach C2 in 1980 hadtemperatures that were around 20°C; a temperature that is alsoclose to the upper avoidance level for most salmonids.Generally, juvenile salmonids prefer to rear in temperaturesfrom 12°C to 14°C (Brett, 1952; Toews and Brownlee, 1981;Chilibeck et al., 1992).5.2.2.1 Representation of the 1990 Detailed Inventory to theOverall SurveyOnly general temporal trends of fish habitat could bedepicted in section 5.2.2 because of experimental designproblems associated with the data sets in 1980 and 1990.Table 20 shows significant differences in length, wettedwidth, area, depth and volume characteristics among similarhydraulic unit types in the 1990 general survey and selectedhydraulic units which form the detailed inventory. It isevident that many of the parameters measured in each of the twosurvey's are different, both in Coghlan Creek and the SalmonRiver. This analysis indicates that the selected hydraulicunits chosen for the detailed analysis do not adequatelyrepresent the characteristics of stream morphology in the studyarea. It is apparent that the physical parameters associatedwith each type of hydraulic unit are highly variable, not onlybetween reaches but also within each reach. In order to obtaina more accurate and representative sample, a larger number ofhydraulic units of each type would need to be inventoried fromthe general survey. [Note: Between 5.1% and 13.6% of each106hydraulic unit type was sampled from the general survey in C andthe S to form the detailed inventory.]The 1980 data set is probably less representative of theactual physical fish habitat conditions for that time periodthan the 1990 data set. A general survey was not conducted in1980 to establish an information base line, and site selectionwas based on non-random methodologies related mainly toaccessibility.Table 20.^Significant differences in length, wetted width,area, depth and volume between hydraulic units sampled in the1990 general survey and random samples taken for the 1990detailed inventory (Riffles = r, Glides = g, Pools = p,Sloughs = s).note: Salmon River (S) and Coghlan Creek (C) hydraulic unitsare differentiated.General SurveyDetailed InventoryC-rvC-rS-rvS-rC-gvC-gS-gvS-gLength _ - - -Wetted Width * * ** * * **Area _ ** _ *Depth * ** * _Volume _ ** - _General Survey C-p S-p C-s S-sv v v vDetailed Inventory C-p S-p C-s S-sLengthWetted WidthAreaDepthVolume__- -- -^-^_^* * _- -Mann-Whitney U test ** a=0.05, * a=0.101075.3 Land Use and Fish Habitat TrendsThis section discusses land use and fish habitat trendswhile examining land use dynamics within the buffered habitatreaches in conjunction with the distribution of hydraulic unitsmeasured in 1990. To provide some linkage between land use andfish habitat, the effects of urbanization on water quantity,stream channel alteration, and water quality are reviewed.Also, fish production between Coghlan Creek and the Salmon Riverare compared and related to fish habitat.5.3.1 Water Quantity, Stream Channel Alteration, and WaterQualityMcPherson (1974) states: "the impact of man on the watercycle is greatest per unit area in urban places". Many studieshave shown that urbanization has had significant influences onstream channel morphology as well as the quality and quantity ofwater that flows through a watershed (Oltmann and Shulters,1989; Osborne and Wiley, 1988; Whipple et al., 1983; Sylvesterand Brown, 1978; Lazaro, 1979; and Stamer, et al. 1979)Urbanization usually means a change in landscape from anatural state to a more impervious environment (e.g. concretesurfaces) which most often alters surface water flows. Inshort, an urbanized "stream system" with large impervious areaswill react more swiftly to rainfall and will flood more rapidlythan a forested or otherwise undeveloped watershed. Theseprocesses will result in steeper rising and falling hydrographlimbs, and higher peak flows. Moreover, large impervious areas108decrease infiltration rates which can reduce basef lows duringthe summer months. Studies that show the influences ofurbanization on the quantity of water with specific reference tostreamf low are found in Oltmann and Shulters (1989); Whipple etal. (1983); Swain et al. (1983); and Sylvester and Brown (1978).Changes in stream channel morphology as a result ofincreased channelization and stream diversions are prevalent inmany urban watersheds. Extension of urban development andchannelization, particularly in upstream reaches, can negativelyaffect fish production through habitat loss as well as toproduce flooding problems associated with accelerated runoff(Fisheries and Oceans, 1983). The installation of culverts alsocontributes to stream channelization (Dane, 1978; Toews andBrownlee, 1981).The water quality of streams is related to water quantity(surface and subsurface runoff), the geology through which astream flows, the climatic and geologic histories of the region,and the land use inputs from point and non-point sources. Whenrunoff has higher concentrations of constituents than normal,the water quality balance of the stream system may be upset(Lazaro, 1979). Many studies have shown that residential/urbanareas generate significantly higher pollutant loadings comparedto other land uses (Osborne and Wiley, 1988; Stamer, et al.1979; Dever, et al. 1979; Sylvester and Brown III, 1978). Manyof these pollutants may taint fish to the extent that theybecome either unpalatable or unsafe for human consumption.Pollutants can also exert sub-lethal effects on fish by reducing109the amount of food organisms, lowering the level of dissolvedoxygen, and by placing fish under stress which has the overalleffect of discouraging fish from populating otherwise goodhabitat (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1983).The groundwater in many watersheds is largely responsiblefor supplying flow to streams during the summer months. Recentstudies by Liebscher, et al. (1992) and Gartner Lee (1992) havefound significant levels of nitrates and pesticides in localgroundwater reservoirs stemming from agricultural activities andrural residential septic systems.Stormwater runoff is probably the most widely recognizedcontributor to water quality problems in urban watersheds. Awide variety of contaminants have been found in urban stormwaterand concentrations of these contaminants can be quite variable(Swain, 1983; Roesner, 1982; Duda et al., 1979; Koch et al.,1977). Mills (1977) sampled stormwater runoff and recordedextremely high concentrations for suspended solids, dissolvedsolids, total solids, conductivity, sodium, chloride, sulphate,lead, alkalinity, hardness and nitrate. Koch et al. (1977)noted that residential wastewaters appear to be a major sourceof copper, and to some extent lead and zinc, in municipalsewage. Swain (1983) found that constituents such as suspendedsolids, total and fecal coliforms, aluminum, copper, lead andzinc were proportional to flow in a residential catchment area.It is generally recognized that the "first flush" of a stormevent seems to produce the highest concentration of contaminantsin stormwater runoff (Chilibeck et al., 1992; Schreier et al.,1101991; Stamer et al., 1979; Howell, 1979; Sylvester and Brown,1978).Siltation, although traditionally treated as an aspect ofwater quality is closely interrelated with both water quantityand stream channel alterations. Within urban areas, increasesin storm runoff add high peaks of energy which augment thenatural erosive forces and greatly accelerate erosion. Streamsare filled with sediment-laden water, and their cross sectionalareas may be enlarged (Hammer, 1972). Erosion and sediment canhave severe negative impacts on all life stages of fish andtheir habitat. Suspended sediment can: a) settle on spawningareas, inf ill the intergravel voids and smother the eggs andalevins in the gravel; b) clog and abrade fish gills, causingsuffocation or injury to fish; c) reduce water clarity andvisibility in the stream, impairing the ability of juvenile fishto find food items; and d) settle and smother and displaceaquatic organisms (benthic invertebrates), reducing the amountof food items available to fish (Chilibeck, 1992). In addition,bed load and settled sediments can inf ill pools and riffles,reducing the availability and quality of rearing habitat forfish, and increased levels of sediment can displace fish out ofprime habitat into less suitable areas (Fisheries and OceansCanada, 1983).1115.3.2 Fish Production and Fish Habitat in Coghlan Creek and theSalmon RiverAs suggested in section 5.2.1.1, the proportional area andvolume of riffles, glides and pools (preferred hydraulic fishhabitat) is higher in Coghlan Creek than in the Salmon River.However, the actual amount of potentially good hydraulic habitatis greatest in the Salmon River. The total volume of the SalmonRiver is about twice that of Coghlan Creek (Table 21).Table 21. Comparison of coho salmon and trout (cutthroat andsteelhead) smolt catches in Coghlan Creek and the Salmon Riverfor 1979, 1980, and 1987-1992 (Schubert, 1982; Schubert, 1992).Also, total volume (m3) of preferred hydraulic habitat forsalmonids (riffles, glides, pools) in Coghlan Creek and theSalmon River (1990).COGHLAN CREEK^ SALMON RIVERCoho^Trout^Total Coho^Trout^Total*1979^14709^942^15651^27566^1529^29095*1980 12206^2118^14324 21502^3604^25106*1987^8476^1082^9558^15572^3231^18803*1988 9949^2791^12740 17142^1919^19061*1989^13568^2128^15696^25649^3567^29216*1990 13265^3652^16917 9904^1745^11649 1991^10667^2484^13151^24346^2392^26738*1992 17140^2082^19222 17361^1371^18732* Traps inoperable for 3 to 8 days due to high flows** Only year where traps were operable for entire trapping period (April 22 May 30)note: (a) peak smolt outmigration occurs during high flow conditions(b) data not available from 1981 to 1985(c) 1986 data unreliable due to trap problems.1990 HYDRAULICHABITATVolume^ 3463 m3 5520 m3Percent of Stream^(83%)^ (63%)STREAM REACH VOLUME^4186 m3 8799 m3112Table 21 also shows 1979, 1980, and 1987-1992 coho salmonand trout smolt catches for Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River.Collection of smolts was facilitated by the use of fish traps(described by Schubert, 1982) operated by Department ofFisheries and Oceans staff. The intention of the smolt captureprogram was to conduct a coded wire tag assessment of cohosalmon. Each trap (one in Coghlan Creek and another in theSalmon River) was constructed not more than 100 meters above theconfluence in each stream for the above mentioned years. Bothtraps were operated during the smolt outmigration period frommid April to early June (peak smolt outmigration occurredbetween May 1 and May 15 at high flow for all trap years). Thefield work was not intended to assess the true size or timing ofsmolt outmigration, however, the number of smolts caught mayindicate relative fish production over time between the twostreams (Schubert, 1992).Smolt catch records from 1979 to 1989 (with the exceptionof trout in 1988), suggest that both coho salmon and troutproduction is higher in the Salmon River than in Coghlan Creek.This trend is likely associated with the large volume of goodhydraulic habitat and total stream reach volume found in theSalmon River. It is apparent in Table 21 that both smoltproduction (particularly coho salmon) and stream reach volumefor Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River show a consistent 1:2ratio from 1979 to 1989 (note: "hydraulic habitat" is only oneof many factors which influence the production of smolts). Theratio is fairly consistent in spite of year by year fluctuation113in fish numbers suggesting that the habitat classification usedmight be a good reflection of fish production.A 1:2 ratio between Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River isalso evident for smolt catch records and stream volume in 1991,however, this was the only year in which traps were operableduring high flow conditions. Peak smolt outmigration usuallyoccurs during high flow conditions (Kalnin, 1992).For 1990, smolt production in the Salmon Riversubstantially decreases by about half with about 5000 fewersmolts than Coghlan Creek. In 1992, the number of smolts caughtare about equal. It is possible that the effects of land useand land use change on stream flow and water quality could beresponsible for this decline. However, additional sampling isneeded to confirm this trend.5.3.3 Dynamics of Land Use and Land Use Change in Relation toBuffered Fish Habitat ReachesIn section 5.1.5 (see Figure 21), it was noted that theSalmon River land use buffer (particularly buffer 51) incurredthe largest increase in residential development from 1979-80 to1989-90. Presumably, much of this development took place duringthe later two to three years and might partially explain theapparent decline in fish production starting in 1990. With a16% loss in agriculture and a 7% increase in undeveloped land,it is evident that urbanization will probably continue in theSalmon River.114The greatest potential for urban development is within theCoghlan Creek land use buffer (particularly buffer Cl) where inproportional terms, there is more preferred hydraulic habitatfor salmonids than in the Salmon River. If intensive urbanactivities are carried out in close proximity to Coghlan Creekas they were in the Salmon River, fish production may alsodecline substantially.In terms of individual land use buffer segments for eachstream, the most dynamic temporal changes occur in buffers Cland Si. As noted in section 5.1.4 (see Figure 20), themagnitude of residential development over 10 years for bothbuffers are quite similar (C1=+15%, S1=+17%). In addition, thepotential for future urbanization is quite high for both buffers(particularly Cl) due to large decreases in agriculture (C1=-32%, S1=-22%) and notable increases in undeveloped land(C1=+34%, S1=+6%) which is prone to future development.Unfortunately, some of the best fish habitat in the basin isalso found within these buffers. As discussed in section5.2.1.1, the highest quality of proportional hydraulic habitatis found in reach Cl and the actual total amount is greatest inreach Si. The riffle:pool ratio is also higher in reaches Cland Si compared to their respective upper regions. Thesereaches are no doubt utilized extensively by salmonids forspawning and summer rearing purposes and are vulnerable to landuse change impacts.A cumulative analysis of streamside land use in CoghlanCreek and the Salmon River further emphasizes the trend towards115urbanization within buffer segments Cl and Si. As examined insection 5.1.6, the intensity of residential and undevelopedareas in both streams (1989-90) increases dramatically from theupper reaches of C2 and S2 to the lower reaches of Cl and Si.If the intensity of land use change and their impacts on theaquatic environment within these buffer zones are severe enough,salmonids that normally migrate up through these areas to accessimportant spawning and rearing areas may be reluctant orrestricted from doing so.In short, literature sources point out that intensive urbandevelopment can influence the quality and quantity of surfaceand sub-surface water and alter the channel morphology of astream. These influences can in turn lead to a net loss of fishhabitat thereby decreasing fish production. Both Coghlan Creekand the Salmon River contain excellent habitat which hashistorically produced a relatively large number of salmonidsmolts (particularly in the Salmon River). Only recently hassmolt production decreased in the Salmon River which could berelated to substantial increases in streamside residentialdevelopment over a 10 year period. The prospect for furtherresidential development in both Coghlan Creek and the SalmonRiver is quite high, particularly in the lower reaches where thequality of fish habitat is also high. If the trend ofurbanization continues near these streams, the possibility ofdeclining fish populations due to habitat loss is a likelyscenario.116CHAPTER 6SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONSInteractions between the fisheries resource and humanactivities in the Fraser River Basin are vast and complex. Ashuman populations and their associated activities continue toincrease, particularly in the Lower Fraser Basin, it is expectedthat fish habitat alterations will become more widespreadputting into question the sustainability of fish production. Asa case study, this thesis examines the Salmon River basin andaddresses land use and fish habitat as two components relevantto the sustainability of fish resources in the Lower FraserBasin. The focus of this study was: 1) to quantify thedistribution and recent temporal trends in land use using GIStechniques; 2) to identify and quantify prime fish habitat inthe basin to provide a basis for assessing habitat deteriorationin the future; 3) to characterize recent fish habitat changes;and 4) to describe trends and processes associated with fishhabitat and streamside land use relationships.The Salmon River watershed near Langley, British Columbiais one of the most productive and important spawning and rearingareas for coho salmon and cutthroat and steelhead trout in theLower Fraser Basin. The watershed is dominantly rural but isunder increasing pressure from rapid urbanization which isexpected to put heavy strains on fish and fish habitat. Todate, a flood gate and numerous culverts have created barriersto fish migration and impacted fish habitat. Problems117associated with water withdrawals, the use of chemicals onagricultural land, stream bank breakdown by domestic stock,stream contaminants from residential development, and theremoval of vegetation in streams and along riparian areas haveall been documented in the basin. More dramatic changes relatedto water quality, water quantity and the stream channel morphol-ogy are likely to occur as intensive urbanization is carried outin the future. The combination of these processes is expectedto deteriorate the habitat conditions in the watershed.The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:1. Land Use Dynamics (1979-80 to 1989-90)The spatial distribution and temporal changes in land usewere evaluated using GIS overlay techniques at a scale of1:25,000 for the entire watershed area, a 500 meter buffer zonearound the stream network, and 500 meter buffer segments aroundfour key fish habitat reaches. The results show thatagriculture is the dominant land use followed by undeveloped andresidential land for both time periods in 1979-80 and 1989-90.There are three trends that dominate the land use dynamicsover the past 10 years for both the overall watershed and thestream network buffer: 1) agricultural land has decreased (9%and 10% respectively); 2) residential land has increased (3% and2% respectively); and 3) undeveloped land has increased (4% and6% respectively). Because undeveloped regions in this studyinclude not only non-commercial forest but also idle land, the118potential for future urban growth in these areas is quite high.A large portion of agricultural land went into an idle statewhile other large areas went directly into residentialdevelopment. Compared to the overall watershed conditions,increases in undeveloped land are higher within the streamnetwork buffer suggesting that the potential for urbanization isgreater close to streams.The largest land use change among the four fish habitatbuffer segments was around the lower reach in Coghlan Creek witha 32% decrease in agriculture, a 15% increase in residentialland, and a 34% increase in undeveloped areas. Relative to theother three buffer segments, the potential for urban developmentin this buffer is high. The buffer zone around the lower SalmonRiver reach had the largest actual increase in residentialdevelopment at 17%. The stream reaches within these bufferzones contain some of the best juvenile summer rearing andspawning habitat in the entire basin.A cumulative analysis of 1989-90 land use for the bufferzones in Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River showed thatagricultural activities decreased in intensity while residentialand undeveloped areas increased in intensity from the upstreambuffers to the downstream buffers in both streams. Cumulativeland use trends were more variable in the Salmon River than inCoghlan Creek.The GIS techniques used in this study facilitated aquantitative evaluation of the land use dynamics at thewatershed level and at smaller geographic areas within the119watershed. This approach enables planners, engineers, policymakers and others, to examine land use dynamics from differentperspectives moving from overall watershed conditions to morespecific buffer segments along the stream. The spatial datathat were generated can be easily stored in a format that allowsfor integration with other data bases. Finally, the entire landuse digital data set is geographically referenced making itpossible to add or update information so that more inter-relationships can be examined in the future.The sources of error associated with the GIS digital database for this project are difficult to quantify. Possiblesources include: 1) error in the original national topographicbase maps and original land use maps; 2) error added during datacapture and storage (accuracy of hand digitizing and processingerrors); 3) error associated with overlay procedures; and 4)error when data are extracted from the computer for displaypurposes. The accuracy of the scale itself should also beconsidered. A digitized line on the computer is about 0.5mm inwidth which represents 12.5 meters on the ground at 1:25,000scale. The land use change figures should be viewed in thecontext of these errors and only overall trends rather thanabsolute values should be used as an information source.2. Fish Habitat Inventory and ComparisonThe 1990 fish habitat inventory was conducted in the bestsalmonid spawning and juvenile summer rearing reaches of CoghlanCreek and the Salmon River. All hydraulic units including120riffles, glides, pools and sloughs were measured for length,wetted width, depth, and general substrate conditions. Asignificance test supported the notion that each type ofhydraulic habitat differed from one another and that the unitschosen for the classification were unique. In terms ofpreferred hydraulic habitat for salmonids, the results showedthat proportionally, Coghlan Creek had more area and volume inriffles, glides and pools than the Salmon River. The actualtotal amount of preferred hydraulic habitat, however, wasgreater in the Salmon River. The total volume of the SalmonRiver study area was twice that of the Coghlan Creek site.An attempt was made to compare habitat changes between aninventory done in 1980 and a randomly selected detailed surveyof the 1990 inventory. Habitat components relating to streammorphology, substrate composition and salmonid coverrequirements were to be compared for each hydraulic unit typebetween the two years. However, the 1980 survey data proved tobe inadequate for a quantitative comparison because ofexperimental design problems.3. Possible Linkages Between Land Use and Fish HabitatThere has been no evidence, up till now, to support thenotion that urbanization in the Salmon River watershed is havinga negative impact on fish and fish habitat. However, land useand fish habitat trends drawn from this study suggest that thisscenario could be likely if fisheries perspectives are notincorporated into future land and water use decisions.121Literature sources have pointed out that urbanizationusually has an adverse effect on the water quality, waterquantity, and the stream morphology of a watershed which in turncan be detrimental to fish and fish habitat. Both reaches thatwere studied in Coghlan Creek and the Salmon River contain someof the best spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for salmonidsin the basin, particularly in the lower reaches. The landwithin 250 meters of these lower reaches has recently beensubject to substantial increases in residential development andthe potential for more urbanization is high.Culverts in the Salmon River watershed are examples of howtrends toward urbanization are already creating problemsassociated with fish migration and changes in fish habitat. Ifmore roads are constructed to service future residentialdevelopments, more culverts will likely be used at streamcrossings.The most interesting link was between preferred hydraulichabitat (on a volume basis) and the number of smolt catches asan indicator of salmonid productivity. From 1979 to 1989, thenumber of smolts migrating out of the Salmon River outnumberedthose in Coghlan Creek by a factor of two to one. This ratiocorresponds well with the volume of preferred hydraulic habitatand particularly with the total volume of water in each stream(8799 m3 in the Salmon River study area versus 4186 m3 in theCoghlan Creek study area). In 1990, however, the number ofsmolts trapped in the Salmon River were significantly lower thanin Coghlan Creek. This distinct change could be an initial122indication that increased urbanization close to highlyproductive habitat reaches in the Salmon River is influencingfish production in a negative way. Unfortunately, insufficientinformation is available to determine whether the decrease inSalmon River smolts is due to natural fluctuation of populationsor related to changes in habitat.123CHAPTER 7RECOMMENDATIONSIn view of this study, it is recommended that the effectsof land use and land use change close to streams, particularlynear critical fish habitat areas, be monitored to ensure asustainable fisheries resource in this unique and highlyproductive basin. Also, alternatives to the use of culvertsshould be explored which do not alter the natural streammorphology and instream habitat conditions or prevent fishmigration. Many of the existing culverts could be modifiedaccording to guidelines set out by the provincial Ministry ofEnvironment and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceansin order to meet these criteria. (see Dane, 1983; Fisheries andOceans Canada, 1983; Chilibeck et al., 1992).It is also recommended that salmonids and other fish stocksand their habitat be continually monitored in Coghlan Creek andthe Salmon River to document linkages between urbanization,changes in fish habitat and fish production.Because an extensive amount of information was collectedthroughout this project from literature reviews, personalinterviews and field observations, the following list ofadditional recommendations are noted:a) The Salmon River flood gate at the Fraser River confluencemust be replaced with a new pump system that is conducive to124fish migration. This most obvious and critical point source offish mortality must be dealt with immediately if sustainabledevelopment in the basin includes a productive fisheriesresource. Also, the fishway at 64th avenue is poorly designedand needs to be replaced to enable proper upstream migration offish.b) Water licenses should be monitored to account for actualwithdrawals in order to protect fish from low flow conditionsduring the summer months. Also, the provincial Water Act mustestablish more comprehensive minimum flow and water qualitystandards, and include fish as a formally recognized user ofwater!c) Better land use planning in the interest of fish and fishhabitat should be incorporated in the Municipal Planning Actwith the input of provincial and federal fisheries staff. Thiswould help change the present reactive approach taken throughthe referral process triggered by individual propertydevelopment proposals.d) Although there has been a large increase in fencing aroundriparian areas over the last 10 years, more fencing is requiredadjacent to fields that support livestock in the upper regionsof the watershed. This will help to minimize stream bankdegradation and reduce sediment in streams.125e) The Salish sucker is a rare and unique fish which has beendocumented in small tributaries in the upper regions of thewatershed.^These fish require clean, small sized gravelsubstrate for spawning purposes. In order to keep populationsfrom further decline, this critical habitat should be preserved.More research on the distribution and the habitat requirementsof the Salish sucker is presently being conducted by theprovincial Fisheries Branch.f) The Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (FisheriesBranch) is currently using historic fish distribution andhabitat data from studies by DeLeeuw (1981, 1982) and DeLeeuwand Stuart (1981) to help develop sea-run cutthroat productionmodels for the Lower Mainland and Sechelt Peninsula. Becausethese studies were based on poor experimental design techniques,any production models assembled should be viewed withscepticism.126REFERENCESAnonymous, 1980. Stream enhancement guide. Fisheries and OceansCanada, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Kerr Wood LeidalAssociates LTD., D.B. Lister and Associates. Vancouver, B.C.82p.Allsopp, M., J. Gibbons, W. Sakamoto, E. Teschke, and P. Thony.1992. The effects of culverts on anadromous fish passage inSalmon River and Coghlan Creek. Major paper prepared for MGNorthcote (Undergraduate course in Forestry 386).University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C. 54 p.Armstrong, J.E. 1957. Surficial geology of New Westminster maparea. British Columbia GSC paper. p. 87-95.Aronoff, S. 1989. Geographical Information Systems: A ManagementPerspective. WDL Publications, Ottawa, 253 p.Beale, R.L. 1976. Analysis of the effects of land use and soilson the water quality of the Salmon River watershed, Langley.M.Sc. graduate thesis, University of British Columbia. Dept.of Soil Science. 243 p.Benedict, A.H., K.J. Hall, and F.A. Koch. 1973. A preliminarywater quality survey of the lower Fraser River system. Tech.Rep. No. 2. Westwater Research Centre. University of BritishColumbia. 50 p.Birtwell, I.K., C.D. Levings, J.S. Macdonald, and I.K. Rodgers.1988. A review of fish habitat issues in the Fraser Riversystem. Water Poll. Research J. Canada 23:1-29.Boeckh, I., V.S. Cristie, A.H. Dorcey, and H.I. Rueggeberg.1991. Human settlement and development in the Fraser Basin.In A.H.J. Dorcey and Griggs (ed.) Water in SustainableDevelopment: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser Basin.Vol.II. Westwater Research Centre Publ., Vancouver, B.C.Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerances in young Pacificsalmon, Oncorhychus. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 9:268-323.Burrough, P.A. 1986. An Introduction of Geographical InformationSystems for Land Resources Assessment. Monogr. on Soil andResources Survey No.12. Oxford Science Publ. 194 p.Bustard, D.R. and D.W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of the winterecology of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhyncus kisutch) andsteelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada32:667-680.127Carmelita, O., D. Corns, J. Rolls, and J. Poppleton. 1990.Geomorphological attributes and constraints associated withthe recently approved Belmont golf course in Fort Langley.Report prepared for The Corporation of the Township ofLangely. Westlang Consultants. 22 p.Chilibeck, B., G. Chislett, and G. Noris. 1992. Land developmentguidelines for the protection of aquatic habitat. Departmentof Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Habitat Management Division.Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, IntegratedManagement Branch. 128 p.Collins, N. and M. Simmons. 1986. Applications of GIS in habitatmanagement: A Spans implementation. Prepared for Fisheriesand Oceans Canada, Gulf Region. 22 p.Dane, B.G. 1978. A review and resolution of fish passageproblems at culvert sites in British Columbia. Fish. Mar.Serv. Tech. Rep. No. 811. 57 p.DeLeeuw, A.D. 1981. A British Columbia stream habitat and fishpopulation inventory system. (MS) Prepared for FishHabitat Improvement Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch,Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. 23 p.DeLeeuw, A.D. 1982. Effects of two winter flood events onjuvenile salmonids and associated rearing habitat in theSalmon River (Langley). Prepared for Fish Habitat ImprovementSection, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment,Victoria, B.C.DeLeeuw, A.D. and K. M. Stuart. 1981. Small stream enhancementpossibilities for sea-run cutthroat trout in the LowerMainland and Sechelt Peninsula. (MS) Prepared for FishHabitat Improvement Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch,Ministry of Environment. Victoria, B.C. Vol. 2. 93 p.Dever, R.J., L.E. Stom, and D.F. Lee. Quality of urban runoff inthe Twinn Cities area. p.143-150. In R.R. Huffsey and R.W. Deyore (ed.). International Symposium On Urban Storm Runoff.July 23-26, 1979. University of Kentucky.Duda, A.M., D.R. Lenat, and D. Penrose. 1979. Water qualitydegradation in urban streams of the southeast: Will non-pointsource controls make any difference. p.151-160. In R.R.Huffsey and R.W. De Vore (ed.). International Symposium OnUrban Storm Runoff. July 23-26, 1979. University of Kentucky.Dick, R.C. 1989. Cartographic modelling of riparian buffers inNew Brunswick. M.Sc. thesis, University of New Brunswick,Dept. of For. Res., Fredrickton, N.B. 75 p.128Dorcey, H.J. 1991. (ed.). Perspectives on SustainableDevelopment in Water Management: Towards agreement in theFraser River Basin. Vol. I. Westwater Research Centre Publ.,Vancouver, B.C.Dorcey, H.J. 1991. Water in the sustainable development of theFraser River Basin. p.3-18. In H.J. Dorcey and J.R. Griggs(ed.) Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring our commonfuture in the Fraser River Basin. Vol.II. Westwater ResearchCentre Publ., Vancouver, B.C.Dorcey, H.J. and R. Griggs. 1991 (ed.). Water in SustainableDevelopment: Exploring our common future in the Fraser RiverBasin. Vol II. Westwater Research Centre Publ., Vancouver,B.C.Eggleston, J., and L.M. Lavkulich. 1973. Geomorphic units,slopes, and soil drainage maps of the Salmon River watershed.(1:50,000 scale) Unpublished data. Westwater Research Centre.University of British Columbia.Eliatamby, D. and M. Meadows. 1990. Impact of urbanization onmain stream flooding. p.48-57. In Riggins, R.E. et al. (ed.)Watershed Planning and Analysis In Action. Symposium onwatershed management. Durango, Colorado. July 9-12, 1990.Environment Canada. 1991. Summary of flow data for the SalmonRiver (1970-1990) at gauge #08mH090. Water Resources Branch.Inland Waters Conservation and Protection. Pacific and YukonRegion. Vancouver, B.C.Erickson, L.J. and E.A. Harding. 1972. Salmon River streamsurvey form. Unpublished data. Habitat Inventory Branch,Ministry of Environment, Province of British Columbia. 12 p.European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. 1984. Report ofthe symposium on habitat modification and freshwater fishes.May 23-25. Denmark. Technical Paper No. 47. Food andAgriculture Organization on the United Nations. Rome, 1984.37p.Farwell, M.K., N.D. Schubert, K.H. Wilson, and C.R. Hanson.1987. Salmon escapements to streams entering statisticalareas 28 and 29, 1951 to 1985. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aqua.Sci. 601: 166 p.Facchin, A. and P.A. Slaney. 1977. (M.S.) Managementimplications of substrate utilization during summer byjuvenile steelhead trout (Salmon gairdneri) in the SouthAlouette River. B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Fish. Tech.Report No. 32: 19 p.129Fausch, K.D. 1989. Do gradient and temperature affectdistributions of, and interactions between, brook char(Salvelinus fontinalis) and other resident salmonids instreams? Physiol. Spec. Vol. 1: 303-322.Fausch, K.D. 1992. Experimental analysis of microhabitatselection by juvenile steelhead and coho salmon in a BritishColumbia Stream. Unpubl. MS. Department of Fishery andWildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,Colorado. 44 p.Fausch, K.D., T.G. Northcote. 1992. Large woody debris andsalmonid habitat in a small coastal British Columbia stream.Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:000-000.Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1983. Urban development: Guidelinesfor protection of fish habitat in insular Newfoundland.Prepared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and LGLLimited. St. John's, Newfoundland. 95 p.Fleming, J.0., J.S. Nathan, C. McPherson and C.D. Levings. 1987.Survey of juvenile salmonids of gravity-fed irrigationditches, Nicola and Coldwater valleys - 1985. Can. Data Rep.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 622.Gartner Lee Limited. 1992. Final report - Fraser Valley GroundWater/Drinking Water Study. Prepared for Ministry of Health,Public Health Protection Branch. Victoria, B.C. 33 p.Grant, A. and B. Blackhall. 1991. Township of Langley CouncilEnvironmental Committee. Report and recommendations tocouncil on: 1) Water quality; 2) Preservation of naturalvegetation, natural resources, and wildlife. 20 p.Hall, K.J., F.A. Koch, and I. Yesaki. 1974. Furtherinvestigations into water quality conditions in the lowerFraser River system. Tech. Rep. No. 4. Westwater ResearchCentre. University of British Columbia. 104 p.Hamilton, R. and J.W. Buell. 1976. Effects of modified hydrologyon Campbell River salmonids. Tech. Rep. Series No. PAC/T-76-20. Dept. of Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service,Habitat Protection Directorate. Vancouver, B.C.Hartman, G.F. 1965. The role of behaviour in the ecology andinteraction of underyearling coho salmon (Oncorhynchuskisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairneri). J. Fish. Res.Bd. Canada. 22:(4) 1035-1075.Hartman, G.F. 1966. Some effects of temperature on the behaviorof underyearling coho and steelhead. B.C. Fish and WildlifeManagement Publ. Report #51. 15p.130Hartman, G.F. 1968. Growth rate and distribution of some fishesin the Chilliwack, South Allouette and Salmon Rivers. B.C.Fish and Wild. Management Publ. No. 11: 33 p.Hartman, G.F. and C.A. Gill. 1968. Distibutions of juvenilesteelhead and cutthroat trout (Salmo gairdneri and S. clarkiclarki) within streams in southwestern British Columbia. J.Fish Res. Board Can. No.25: 33-48.Henderson, M.A. 1991. Sustainable development of the pacificsalmon resources in the Fraser River basin. p.133-154. InA.H.J. Dorcey (ed.) Perspectives on Sustainable Developmentin Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser RiverBasin. Vol I. Westwater Research Centre Publ., Vancouver,B.C.Howell, R. B. 1979. Characterization of constituents in highwayrunoff waters. p.109-114. In R.R. Huffsey and R.W. De Vore(ed.). International Symposium On Urban Storm Runoff. July23-26, 1979. University of Kentucky.Hunter, C.J. 1991. Better trout habitat: A guide to streamrestoration and management. Montana Land Reliance. IslandPress. Washington, D.C.Kalnin, L.W. 1992. Personal communication. Fisheries Branch.Department of Fisheries and Oceans. New Westminster, B.C.Koch, F.A. et al. 1977. Toxic substances in the wastewaters froma metropolitan area. Tech. Report No.12. Westwater ResearchCentre. University of B.C. Vancouver, B.C.Langley Community Development Department. 1990. Statistics onpopulation and growth. Based on 1986 Census. LangleyTownship. 7 p.Lazaro, T.R. 1979. Urban Hydrology: A multidisciplinaryperspective. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor,Michigan.Levy, D.A., and T.G. Northcote. 1982. Juvenile salmon residencyin a marsh area of the Fraser River estuary. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 39:270-276.Liebscher, H., H. Basil, and D. McNaughton. 1992. Nitrates andpesticides in the Abbotsford Aquifer, Southwestern BritishColumbia. Environment Canada - Inland Waters Directorate,North Vancouver, B.C. and Environment Canada - EnvironmentalProtection, Edmonton, Alberta. 83 p.Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1991. Unpublished dataextracted from water license files for the Salmon Riverwatershed in Langley. MOELP. Water Resources Branch. Surrey,B.C.131McMahon, T.E., and G.F. Hartman. 1989. Influence of covercomplexity and current velocity on winter habitat use byjuvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Fish.Aqua. Sci. 46: 1551-1557.McMynn, R.G. and E.H. Vernon. 1954. Physical and biologicalobservations on the Salmon River - Fort Langely. B.C. Fishand Wildlife Branch, Management Rep. No.13: 35 p.McPhail, J.D. 1992. Personal communication. University ofBritish Columbia. Department of Zoology. Vancouver, B.C.McPherson, M.B. 1974. Hydrological effects of urbanization.Paris: UNESO Press.Mills, W.G. 1977. Water quality of urban storm water runoff inthe Borough of East York. Research Report. Department ofEnvironment, Fisheries and Environment Canada/OntarioMinistry of the Environment. 90 p.Neuman, H.R. and C.P. Newcombe. 1977. Minimum acceptable streamflows in British Columbia: A Review. Fisheries ManagementReport. No. 70. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Department ofRecreation and Conservation. Victoria, B.C. 49 p.Northcote, T.G., N.T. Johnston, and K. Tsumura. 1975. Tracemetal concentrations in lower Fraser River fishes. TechReport. No.7, Westwater Research Centre, Univ. of B.C.,Vancouver, B.C.Northcote, T.G., and P.A. Larkin. 1989. The Fraser River: Amajor salmonine production system. In D.P. Dodge (ed.)Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium.Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aqua. Sci. 106 p.Northcote, T.G., and M.D. Burwash. 1991. Fish and fish habitatsof the Fraser River basin. p.117-141. In A.H.J. Dorcey andJ.R. Griggs (ed.) Water in Sustainable Development: ExploringOur Common Future in the Fraser Basin. Vol.II. WestwaterResearch Centre Publ., Vancouver, B.C.Oltmann, R.N. and M. V. Shulters. 1989. Rainfall and runoffquantity and quality characteristics of four urban land usecatchments in Fresno, California, October 1981 to April 1983.U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 2335. 114 p.Osborne, L.L. 1988. Empirical relationships between landuse/cover and stream water quality in an agriculturalwatershed. J. of Envir. Mgmt. No.26 p.9-27.Paish, H., and Associates. 1980. Cooperative management ofwatersheds and salmonid production. Prepared for the SalmonidEnhancement Program. 38 p.132Paish, H., and Associates. 1981. The implementation of acooperative watershed planning and management program for theSalmon River watershed-Langley, B.C. Prepared for theSalmonid Enhancement Program. 114 p.Pearlstone, P.S.M. 1976. Management implications of summerhabitat characteristics of juvenile steelhead trout in theBig Qualicum River. Fisheries Management Report. No. 67. Fishand Wildlife Branch. Department of Recreation andConservation. Victoria, B.C. 13 p.Peterson, G.R., H.J. Warren, R.E. Delavault, and K. Fletcher.1971. Heavy metal content of some fresh water fishes inBritish Columbia. Fisheries Technical Circular No.2. B.C.Fish and Wildlife Branch. British Columbia.Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest, and T.E. Thomas. 1989.Identification of physical habitats limiting the productionof coho salmon in western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech.Rep. PNW-GTR-245. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agri., For.Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.Rodgers, H., C.D. Levings, W.L. Lockhart, and R.J. Norstrom.1989. Observations on overwintering juvenile chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) exposed to bleach kraft milleffluent in the upper Fraser River, B.C. Chemosphere.19:1853-1868.Roesner, L.A. 1982. Quality of urban runoff. p.161-187. In D.F.Kibler (ed.). Urban Stormwater Hydrology. AmericanGeophysical Union. Water Resources Monograph. No.2.Savini, J. and J.C. Kammerer. 1961. Urban growth and the waterregime. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper. No. 1591-A.41p.Sawicki, J. and G. Runka. 1986. Land use classification inBritish Columbia. Prepared for Ministry of Agriculture andFood, Soils Branch and Ministry of Environment Surveys andResource Mapping Branch. Victoria, B.C. MOE Manual 8. 33 p.Sawicki, J. and G. Runka. 1990. Soil degradation and land usechange in Langley Municipality. Report submitted with 1989land use maps (No.1-4). p. 7-13.Schreier, H., S.J. Brown, and K.J. Hall. 1991. The land-waterinterface in the Fraser River basin. p.77-116. In A.H.J.Dorcey and J.R. Griggs (ed.) Water in SustainableDevelopment: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser Basin.Vol.II. Westwater Research Centre Publ., Vancouver, B.C.133Schubert, N.D. 1982. Trapping and coded wire tagging of wildcoho salmon smolts from the Salmon River (Langely), 1978 to1980. Can. MS Rep. Fish Aquat. Sci. 1672: 68 p.Schubert, N.D. 1991. Personal communication. Fisheries Branch.Department of Fisheries and Oceans. New Westminster, B.C.Schubert, N.D. 1992. Personal communication. Fisheries Branch.Department of Fisheries and Oceans. New Westminster, B.C.Schubert, N.D. and L.W. Kalnin. 1990. A coded wire tagassessment of Salmon River (Langely) coho salmon: 1986 tagapplication and 1987 spawner enumeration. Can. MS Rep. FishAquat. Sci. 2053: 43 p.Scudder, G.G.E. 1989. The adaptive significance of marginalpopulations: A general perspective. In Levings, C.D., L.B.Holtby, and M.A. Henderson (eds.) Proceedings of the NationalWorkshop on Effects of Habitat Alteration on Salmonid Stocks.Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aqua. Sci. 105.Sebastian, D. 1991. Personal communication. 1980 habitat dataand attached notes on floppy disk. Stock Management Unit,Fisheries Branch. Ministry of Environment. Victoria, B.C.Servizi, J.A. 1989. Protecting Fraser River Salmon fromWastewaters: An Assessment. In Levings, C.D., L.B. Holtby,and M.A. Henderson (eds.) Proceedings of the NationalWorkshop on Effects of Habitat Alteration on Salmonid Stocks.Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aqua. Sci. 105.Slaymaker, 0. and L.M. Lavkulich. 1978. A review of land use -water quality interrelationships and a proposed method fortheir study. Westwater Research Centre. University of BritishColumbia. Tech. Rep. No. 13. 58 p.Sprout, P.N., and H.A. Luttmerding. 1966. Soil Survey of LangleyMunicipality and Barnston Island. Preliminary Report No. 7.(1 inch = 2000 feet). British Columbia Dept. of Agri,Kelowna, B.C.Starner, J.K. et al. 1979. Magnitudes, nature, and effects ofpoint and nonpoint discharges in the Chattahoochee RiverBasin, Atlanta to West Point Dam, Georgia. Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper. No 2059. 65 p.Starr, J. and F. Estes. 1990. Geographical Information Systems:An Introduction. Prentice-Hall.Statistics Canada. 1988. Census Metropolitan Areas and CensusAgglomerations, Part 1. Catalogue No.94-127. Ottawa, Canada.134Swain, L.G. 1983. Stormwater monitoring of a residentialcatchment area. B.C. Ministry of Environment. WaterManagement Branch. 123 p.Swift, C.H. 1976. Estimation of stream discharges preferred bysteelhead trout for spawning and rearing in WesternWashington. Open file report 75-155. Prepared in cooperationwith the State of Washington Department of Game. UnitedStates Department of the Interior - Geological Survey.Tocoma, Washington. 50 p.Sylvester, M.A. and W.M. Brown III. 1978. Relation of urban landuse and land-surface characteristics to quantity and qualityof storm runoff in two basins in California. GeologicalSurvey Water-Supply Paper. No.2051. 49 p.Thompson, K. 1972. Determining stream flows for fish life.p.31-50. In Proc. Instream Flow Requirement Workshop. PacificNorthwest River Basins Commission. Portland, OR.Toews, D. and M. Brownlee. 1981. A handbook for fish habitatprotection on the forest lands in British Columbia. Land UseUnit. Habitat Protection Division. Department of Fisheriesand Oceans. 165 p.Tutty, B.D. 1976. Assessment of techniques used to quantifysmolt entrainment by a hydraulic suction hopper dredge in theFraser estuary. Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep. PAC/T-76-16.Ward, B.R. and P.A. Slaney. 1979. Evaluation on in-streamenhancement structures for the production on juvenilesteelhead trout and coho salmon in the Keogh River: Progress1977 and 1978. (MS.). Fisheries Technical Circular No. 45.British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. Ministry ofEnvironment. Victoria, B.C. 47 p.Whipple, W. et al. 1983. Stormwater management in urbanizingareas. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.135Appendix AComparison of Average Discharge (Q) Between 1980 and 1990and Percent Gradient for Reaches Cl (a) and (b), C2 (a) and (b),Si, and S2.NOTE: Only riffles and glides and used to calculate averagedischarge.Figure showinglocation ofstream reachesQ_laail^0 1990 % GRADIENTCl (a) Average = 0.14 0.22 0-0.5Cl (b) Average = 0.30 0.26 1.0-3.0C2 (a) Average = 0.01 0.08 0.5-1.0C2 (b) Average = 0.03 0.05 1.0-3.0Si Average = 0.32 0.16 1.0-3.0S2 Average = 0.09 0.06 0.5-1.0136Appendix BGeneral Habitat Survey (1990) Data Collected in Coghlan Creek(C) and the Salmon River (S)Unit 1 = Riffles, Unit 2 = Glides, Unit 3 = Pools, Unit 4 = SloughsLength, Wetted Width and Depth - measured in meters (m)Area measured in square meters (m2)SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area Depth% Sub % SubFine Gravel% SubBid.C1.1 1 1 8.50 1.50^12.75 0.10 20 60 20C1.2 2 2 13.00 1.50^19.50 0.23 20 60 20C1.3 3 1 13.50 3.00^40.50 0.15 20 50 30C1.4 4 2 16.00 2.50^40.00 0.32 50 40 10C1.5 5 1 18.00 3.00^54.00 0.24 30 60 10C1.6 6 2 7.50 2.50^18.75 0.30 50 40 10C1.7 7 1 6.50 4.50^29.25 0.12 40 50 10C1.8 8 2 9.00 3.00^27.00 0.23 60 20 20C2.1 9 3 3.00 5.00^15.00 0.60 30 60 10C2.2 10 2 12.00 4.00^48.00 0.25 40 50 10C2.3 11 1 6.50 2.50^16.25 0.15 10 60 30C2.4 12 2 5.00 2.50^12.50 0.28 10 70 20C2.5 13 1 4.00 4.00^16.00 0.20 10 70 20C2.6 14 3 4.00 2.00^8.00 0.50 20 50 30C2.7 15 2 37.00 4.00 148.00 0.30 20 50 30C2.8 16 3 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.34 40 30 30C2.9 17 1 12.50 2.00^25.00 0.05 10 70 20C2.10 18 3 10.00 8.00^80.00 0.56 30 60 10C2.11 19 2 7.00 2.50^17.50 0.24 20 60 20C2.12 20 1 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.15 20 70 10C2.13 21 2 7.00 3.00^21.00 0.34 30 60 10C2.14 22 3 5.50 4.00^22.00 0.46 50 40 10C2.15 23 2 8.50 2.50^21.25 0.33 30 50 20C2.16 24 1 4.00 3.50^14.00 0.09 20 60 20C2.17 25 2 22.50 4.50 101.25 0.24 40 50 10C2.18 26 1 8.50 4.00^34.00 0.07 10 80 10C2.19 27 4 20.00 4.50^90.00 0.43 60 30 10C2.20 28 2 24.00 2.50^60.00 0.13 20 70 10C3.1 29 1 5.50 2.00^11.00 0.10 10 80 10C3.2 30 2 20.00 3.00^60.00 0.21 30 50 20C3.3 31 1 4.00 6.00^24.00 0.11 10 70 20C3.4 32 4 15.00 6.00^90.00 0.34 70 20 10C3.5 33 2 6.00 3.00^18.00 0.22 30 60 10C3.6 34 1 6.50 2.50^16.25 0.07 20 70 10C3.7 35 2 11.00 3.50^38.50 0.20 70 20 10C3.8 36 3 15.00 20.00 300.00 0.45 30 60 10C3.9 37 4 45.00 5.00 225.00 0.44 20 60 20C3.10 38 2 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.32 10 60 30C3.11 39 1 6.00 5.00^30.00 0.12 10 70 20C3.12 40 2 20.00 4.00^80.00 0.23 30 60 10C3.13 41 4 20.00 1.00^20.00 0.40 50 40 10C3.14 42 2 16.00 2.50^40.00 0.28 20 60 20C3.15 43 1 7.00 2.00^14.00 0.12 10 70 20C3.16 44 2 17.00 4.50^76.50 0.12 30 60 10C3.17 45 1 2.00 2.50^5.00 0.20 10 70 20C3.18 46 2 7.00 4.50^31.50 0.26 30 60 10C3.19 47 1 3.50 3.50^12.25 0.10 10 60 30C3.20 48 4 23.00 3.50^80.50 0.34 30 50 20SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area DepthX Sub 7C SubFine Gravel% SubBld.C3.21 49 2 10.00 2.50^25.00 0.25 20 50 30C3.22 50 1 6.00 3.00^18.00 0.15 10 60 30C3.23 51 2 11.50 3.00^34.50 0.20 20 60 20C3.24 52 1 3.50 3.50^12.25 0.29 10 70 20C3.25 53 3 5.50 4.00^22.00 0.41 70 20 10C4.1 54 1 2.00 2.50^5.00 0.10 10 60 30C4.2 55 2 3.50 1.50^5.25 0.20 30 50 20C4.3 56 1 12.00 2.00^24.00 0.16 10 50 40C4.4 57 2 10.00 4.00^40.00 0.26 30 60 10C4.5 58 1 20.00 1.00^20.00 0.13 10 60 30C4.6 59 2 15.00 5.00^75.00 0.35 60 30 10C4.7 60 4 17.00 2.50^42.50 0.32 30 60 10C4.8 61 2 9.00 2.00^18.00 0.22 30 60 10C4.9 62 1 7.00 2.50^17.50 0.12 10 70 20C4.10 63 3 7.00 5.00^35.00 0.49 70 30 10C4.11 64 2 12.00 2.50^30.00 0.19 30 60 10C4.12 65 3 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.36 70 20 10C4.13 66 2 10.00 1.50^15.00 0.16 20 70 10C4.14 67 3 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.30 40 50 10C4.15 68 2 21.00 2.50^52.50 0.20 20 70 10C4.16 69 1 13.00 5.00^65.00 0.10 20 70 10C4.17 70 2 11.00 3.00^33.00 0.25 20 60 20C4.18 71 1 3.00 2.50^7.50 0.13 20 70 10C4.19 72 2 9.50 3.00^28.50 0.23 30 50 20C4.20 73 1 6.00 2.00^12.00 0.06 10 70 20C4.21 74 2 7.50 3.00^22.50 0.16 30 60 10C4.22 75 1 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.06 40 50 10C4.23 76 2 12.00 5.00^60.00 0.20 20 70 10C4.24 77 1 6.50 2.50^16.25 0.11 10 80 10C4.25 78 2 6.00 2.00^12.00 0.30 20 70 10C4.26 79 3 5.00 9.50^47.50 0.62 40 40 20C4.27 80 1 4.50 1.50^6.75 0.12 10 70 20C4.28 81 3 7.50 3.50^26.25 0.34 40 50 10C4.29 82 2 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.29 20 60 20C4.30 83 1 6.00 4.50^27.00 0.09 20 60 20C4.31 84 2 22.00 5.00 110.00 0.19 20 60 20C4.32 85 1 17.00 5.00^85.00 0.07 10 60 30C4.33 86 2 8.00 3.50^28.00 0.23 10 60 30C4.34 87 1 9.00 5.00^45.00 0.10 10 50 40C4.35 88 2 42.00 3.00 126.00 0.23 10 50 40C4.36 89 1 14.50 3.50^50.75 0.20 10 40 50C4.37 90 3 10.00 6.00^60.00 0.67 20 50 30C4.38 91 1 12.00 3.00^36.00 0.13 10 70 20C4.39 92 3 10.00 6.50^65.00 0.67 30 50 20C4.40 93 2 6.00 3.00^18.00 0.17 20 60 20C4.41 94 1 25.00 4.00 100.00 0.06 20 70 10C4.42 95 2 31.00 3.00^93.00 0.23 20 70 10C4.43 96 1 8.00 2.50^20.00 0.13 20 70 10C4.44 97 2 20.00 3.00^60.00 0.12 30 60 10C4.45 98 1 6.00 1.50^9.00 0.06 10 80 10C4.46 99 3 15.00 5.00^75.00 0.46 40 20 40C4.47 100 1 13.50 5.00^67.50 0.09 10 60 30C4.48 101 2 35.00 4.00 140.00 0.27 20 60 20C4.49 102 1 14.00 5.00^70.00 0.12 10 40 50C4.50 103 2 9.00 4.00^36.00 0.25 30 50 20C4.51 104 1 7.00 3.50^24.50 0.15 20 60 20C4.52 105 4 7.00 6.00^42.00 0.42 40 20 40C4.53 106 1 7.50 4.50^33.75 0.10 10 60 30C4.54 107 2 10.00 4.00^40.00 0.23 20 50 30C4.55 108 1 30.00 4.50 135.00 0.11 20 30 50C4.56 109 2 9.00 4.50^40.50 0.31 30 50 20C4.57 110 1 9.50 3.00^28.50 0.13 20 40 40C4.58 111 2 6.00 3.50^21.00 0.22 20 60 20C4.59 112 1 12.00 2.50^30.00 0.12 10 60 30C4.60 113 2 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.24 30 50 20C4.61 114 1 18.00 2.00^36.00 0.14 20 60 20C4.62 115 2 15.00 3.50^52.50 0.24 10 60 30137SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area DepthX Sub^SubFine GravelSubBld.C4.63 116 4 6.00 4.50^27.00 0.37 40 40 20C4.64 117 2 4.00 4.00^16.00 0.19 50 50 0C4.65 118 1 18.00 3.00^54.00 0.14 20 70 10C4.66 119 2 10.00 3.50^35.00 0.27 20 70 10C4.67 120 1 4.00 2.00^8.00 0.16 20 70 10C4.68 121 2 20.00 5.50 110.00 0.16 30 50 20C4.69 122 3 7.00 4.50^31.50 0.45 30 40 30C4.70 123 1 36.00 5.00 180.00 0.14 20 50 30C4.71 124 2 10.00 5.00^50.00 0.31 40 40 20C4.72 125 1 22.00 4.00^88.00 0.15 20 60 20C4.73 126 4 10.00 3.50^35.00 0.26 30 50 20C4.74 127 3 4.00 5.00^20.00 0.53 50 30 20C4.75 128 4 15.00 5.00^75.00 0.38 20 50 30C4.76 129 1 20.00 4.00^80.00 0.15 20 60 20C4.77 130 2 8.00 3.50^28.00 0.32 30 60 10C4.78 131 3 7.00 4.00^28.00 0.47 70 20 10C4.79 132 1 16.00 3.50^56.00 0.14 20 50 30C4.80 133 2 4.00 2.00^8.00 0.23 20 60 20C4.81 134 1 11.50 3.00^34.50 0.11 20 60 20C4.82 135 2 28.00 4.00 112.00 0.22 20 60 20C5.1 136 1 21.00 2.00^42.00 0.18 10 70 20C5.2 137 3 9.00 4.00^36.00 0.50 70 20 10C5.3 138 2 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.18 20 60 20C5.4 139 3 19.00 4.00^76.00 0.65 20 60 20C5.5 140 1 10.00 4.00^40.00 0.10 10 70 20C5.6 141 4 11.00 5.00^55.00 0.60 30 60 10C5.7 142 2 15.00 4.00^60.00 0.20 30 60 10C5.8 143 1 17.00 4.00^68.00 0.28 10 70 20C5.9 144 2 26.00 4.00 104.00 0.18 20 70 10C5.10 145 3 14.00 4.50^63.00 1.10 40 50 10C5.11 146 1 28.00 3.00^84.00 0.10 10 60 30C5.12 147 2 14.00 3.00^42.00 0.20 10 70 20C5.13 148 1 11.00 4.00^44.00 0.10 10 70 20C5.14 149 2 18.00 4.00^72.00 0.50 20 70 10C5.15 150 3 15.00 4.00^60.00 0.50 30 50 20C5.16 151 1 7.00 3.50^24.50 0.10 10 70 20C5.17 152 2 26.00 3.50^91.00 0.30 20 60 20C5.18 153 1 11.00 2.00^22.00 0.15 20 70 10C5.19 154 3 5.50 5.00^27.50 0.40 50 40 10C5.20 155 2 36.00 3.00 108.00 0.20 30 50 20C5.21 156 1 32.00 3.00^96.00 0.10 30 50 20C5.22 157 3 12.00 4.00^48.00 0.50 40 50 10C5.23 158 1 6.00 2.00^12.00 0.10 10 80 10C5.24 159 2 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.25 30 60 10C5.25 160 1 8.00 2.00^16.00 0.15 20 70 10C5.26 161 3 6.00 5.00^30.00 0.60 50 40 10C5.27 162 1 6.00 1.00^6.00 0.10 20 60 20C5.28 163 2 18.00 3.00^54.00 0.15 20 60 20C5.29 164 1 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.15 20 70 10C5.30 165 3 11.00 4.00^44.00 0.50 50 40 10C5.31 166 1 14.00 2.00^28.00 0.10 10 70 20C5.32 167 2 46.00 3.50 161.00 0.15 30 60 10C5.33 168 3 5.00 5.00^25.00 0.35 50 40 10C5.34 169 2 29.00 3.00^87.00 0.20 10 70 20C5.35 170 1 30.00 2.00^60.00 0.10 10 70 20C6.1 171 3 6.00 5.00^30.00 0.50 50 40 10C6.2 172 1 24.00 2.00^48.00 0.10 10 70 20C6.3 173 3 8.00 3.50^28.00 0.40 30 60 10C6.4 174 2 23.00 3.50^80.50 0.25 10 70 20C6.5 175 1 5.00 1.50^7.50 0.15 10 60 30C6.6 176 2 36.00 2.00^72.00 0.30 10 70 20C6.7 177 1 10.00 1.00^10.00 0.10 10 60 30C6.8 178 3 8.00 3.00^24.00 0.35 20 70 10C6.9 179 1 6.00 2.00^12.00 0.10 10 80 10C6.10 180 2 12.00 1.50^18.00 0.20 20 70 10C6.11 181 3 5.00 4.00^20.00 0.45 40 50 10C6.12 182 1 7.00 2.00^14.00 0.15 10 70 20138SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth Area DepthX Sub ); SubFine Gravel% SubBld.C6.13 183 4 24.00 3.00 72.00 0.45 30 60 10C6.14 184 2 14.00 2.00 28.00 0.20 10 70 20C6.15 185 3 7.00 4.00 28.00 0.70 20 50 30C6.16 186 1 5.00 2.00 10.00 0.10 10 70 20C6.17 187 3 9.00 4.50 40.50 0.60 20 50 30C6.18 188 2 5.00 2.50 12.50 0.40 10 70 20C6.19 189 1 5.00 2.00 10.00 0.10 10 70 20C6.20 190 2 12.00 2.00 24.00 0.20 20 70 10C6.21 191 1 4.00 1.00 4.00 0.10 10 70 20C6.22 192 2 10.00 3.00 30.00 0.30 10 70 20C6.23 193 1 6.00 2.00 12.00 0.10 10 70 20C6.24 194 2 15.00 3.00 45.00 0.20 20 60 20C6.25 195 1 8.00 4.00 32.00 0.10 10 70 20C6.26 196 2 10.00 4.00 40.00 0.30 10 70 20C6.27 197 1 5.00 3.00 15.00 0.10 10 70 20C6.28 198 2 21.00 3.50 73.50 0.25 10 60 30C6.29 199 1 4.00 4.00 16.00 0.10 20 70 10C6.30 200 2 18.00 3.00 54.00 0.40 30 60 10C6.31 201 1 3.00 2.00 6.00 0.10 30 50 20C6.32 202 2 16.00 3.00 48.00 0.20 30 50 20C6.33 203 1 10.00 3.00 30.00 0.10 30 50 20C6.34 204 2 18.00 4.00 72.00 0.45 40 30 30C6.35 205 1 18.00 4.00 72.00 0.10 30 50 20C6.36 206 2 15.00 3.00 45.00 0.20 30 40 30C6.37 207 1 7.00 1.00 7.00 0.10 20 50 30C7.1 208 2 25.00 2.00 50.00 0.15 30 60 10C7.2 209 4 13.00 1.00 13.00 0.25 20 80 0C7.3 210 3 7.50 5.00 37.50 0.75 60 40 0C7.4 211 2 28.00 2.50 70.00 0.30 50 50 0C7.5 212 1 11.00 3.00 33.00 0.10 20 80 0C7.6 213 2 32.00 2.00 64.00 0.15 20 80 0C7.7 214 1 9.00 1.50 13.50 0.10 20 80 0C7.8 215 4 50.00 2.00 100.00 0.25 30 70 0C7.9 216 1 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.15 20 80 0C7.10 217 3 10.00 3.00 30.00 0.50 50 50C7.11 218 1 9.00 1.00 9.00 0.10 30 60 10C7.12 219 2 12.00 3.00 36.00 0.60 30 60 10C7.13 220 1 10.00 2.00 20.00 0.10 30 60 10C7.14 221 2 15.00 3.00 45.00 0.35 30 70 0C7.15 222 1 4.00 1.00 4.00 0.10 30 70 0C7.16 223 3 9.00 4.00 36.00 0.30 40 60 0C7.17 224 1 7.00 1.00 7.00 0.10 30 70 0C7.18 225 4 17.00 3.00 51.00 0.35 30 70 0C7.19 226 2 12.00 2.00 24.00 0.25 40 60 0C7.20 227 1 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.10 20 70 10C7.21 228 2 6.00 1.00 6.00 0.25 20 70 10C7.22 229 3 7.00 4.00 28.00 0.80 40 40 20C7.23 230 4 8.00 2.00 16.00 0.50 30 60 10C7.24 231 2 6.00 2.00 12.00 0.30 20 70 10C7.25 232 3 6.00 3.00 18.00 0.40 40 40 20C7.26 233 1 4.00 1.00 4.00 0.10 20 70 10C7.27 234 2 18.00 1.00 18.00 0.30 30 70 0C7.28 235 1 7.00 1.00 7.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.29 236 2 12.00 2.00 24.00 0.40 30 60 10C7.30 237 1 8.00 1.00 8.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.31 238 4 12.00 1.00 12.00 0.35 30 60 10C7.32 239 3 7.00 3.00 21.00 0.50 60 30 10C7.33 240 1 4.00 3.00 12.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.34 241 4 15.00 2.00 30.00 0.40 30 60 10C7.35 242 1 5.00 2.00 10.00 0.10 30 60 10C7.36 243 2 10.00 3.00 30.00 0.20 20 70 10C7.37 244 1 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.38 245 2 7.00 2.00 14.00 0.20 20 70 10C7.39 246 1 7.00 3.00 21.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.40 247 2 8.00 2.00 16.00 0.25 20 70 10C7.41 248 1 6.00 2.00 12.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.42 249 2 28.00 3.50 98.00 0.30 30 60 10139SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth Area DepthSub Z SubFine Gravel't SubBld.C7.43 250 1 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.10 20 70 10C7.44 251 2 7.00 2.00 14.00 0.40 20 70 10C7.45 252 4 14.00 2.00 28.00 0.30 40 50 10C7.46 253 2 6.00 2.00 12.00 0.20 20 60 20C7.47 254 1 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.48 255 2 9.00 2.50 22.50 0.60 30 60 10C7.49 256 1 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.50 257 2 12.00 1.00 12.00 0.15 20 70 10C7.51 258 1 2.00 2.00 4.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.52 259 4 7.00 1.00 7.00 0.35 30 60 10C7.53 260 1 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.54 261 2 9.00 1.00 9.00 0.10 20 70 10C7.55 262 4 11.00 2.00 22.00 0.40 30 60 10C7.56 263 1 9.00 1.00 9.00 0.15 20 70 10C7.57 264 2 24.00 3.00 72.00 0.20 20 60 20C7.58 265 1 6.00 1.00 6.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.59 266 2 9.00 2.00 18.00 0.15 10 80 10C7.60 267 1 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.61 268 2 4.00 3.00 12.00 0.15 10 70 20C7.62 269 1 4.00 2.00 8.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.63 270 3 8.00 2.50 20.00 0.75 30 60 10C7.64 271 2 16.00 2.00 32.00 0.50 20 60 20C7.65 272 1 3.00 2.00 6.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.66 273 2 13.00 1.00 13.00 0.15 20 70 10C7.67 274 1 8.00 1.00 8.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.68 275 2 8.00 2.00 16.00 0.20 10 80 10C7.69 276 1 7.00 1.00 7.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.70 277 2 11.00 1.00 11.00 0.10 20 70 10C7.71 278 1 8.00 1.00 8.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.72 279 2 8.00 3.00 24.00 0.20 20 70 10C7.73 280 1 3.00 2.00 6.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.74 281 4 12.00 3.00 36.00 0.75 30 60 10C7.75 282 2 9.00 2.00 18.00 0.40 20 70 10C7.76 283 1 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.10 20 70 10C7.77 284 2 5.00 2.00 10.00 0.20 40 50 10C7.78 285 1 12.00 1.00 12.00 0.10 20 70 10C7.79 286 4 11.00 1.50 16.50 0.25 20 70 10C7.80 287 2 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.15 20 70 10C7.81 288 1 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.10 10 80 10C7.82 289 4 12.00 2.00 24.00 0.20 30 60 10C7.83 290 3 9.00 5.00 45.00 0.30 30 50 20C7.84 291 1 7.00 1.00 7.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.85 292 2 19.00 2.50 47.50 0.20 20 60 20C7.86 293 1 9.00 1.00 9.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.87 294 3 8.00 3.00 24.00 0.80 30 50 20C7.88 295 1 25.00 3.00 75.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.89 296 2 24.00 3.00 72.00 0.50 10 70 20C7.90 297 1 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.91 298 2 24.00 2.00 48.00 0.20 10 70 20C7.92 299 1 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.10 20 70 10C7.93 300 4 8.00 2.00 16.00 0.30 30 60 10C7.94 301 2 17.00 2.50 42.50 0.20 20 70 10C7.95 302 1 4.00 3.00 12.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.96 303 4 11.00 3.00 33.00 0.30 30 50 20C7.97 304 2 14.00 3.00 42.00 0.20 10 70 20C7.98 305 1 4.00 2.00 8.00 0.10 10 70 20C7.99 306 2 33.00 2.50 82.50 0.25 20 60 20C7.100 307 1 22.00 2.50 55.00 0.10 10 60 30C7.101 308 2 12.00 3.00 36.00 0.40 20 50 30C7.102 309 1 2.00 2.00 4.00 0.10 10 60 30C7.103 310 2 22.00 3.00 66.00 0.35 10 60 30C7.104 311 1 4.00 2.00 8.00 0.10 10 50 40C7.105 312 3 8.00 3.00 24.00 0.40 30 40 30C7.106 313 2 8.00 3.00 24.00 0.20 10 40 50C7.107 314 1 8.00 1.00 8.00 0.10 20 10 70C7.108 315 3 18.00 4.00 72.00 0.40 20 20 60C8.1 316 2 15.00 2.50 37.50 0.25 20 60 20140SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth Area DepthX Sub % SubFine Gravel7; SubBld.C8.2 317 3 8.00 7.00 56.00 0.75 20 50 30C8.3 318 2 38.00 3.50 133.00 0.25 20 70 20C8.4 319 1 8.00 1.50 12.00 0.10 10 80 10C8.5 320 3 10.00 4.50 45.00 0.60 30 50 20C8.6 321 2 18.00 3.50 63.00 0.25 20 70 10C8.7 322 1 6.50 1.50 9.75 0.10 10 80 10C8.8 323 4 12.00 3.50 42.00 0.35 30 60 10C8.9 324 2 8.00 2.00 16.00 0.25 10 70 20C8.10 325 1 15.00 1.50 22.50 0.10 10 70 20C8.11 326 2 10.00 1.50 15.00 0.20 20 60 20C8.12 327 1 4.00 3.00 12.00 0.10 20 70 10C8.13 328 2 13.00 3.50 45.50 0.30 20 70 10C8.14 329 1 3.00 2.00 6.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.15 330 2 16.00 3.00 48.00 0.20 20 60 20C8.16 331 1 7.00 1.00 7.00 0.10 10 60 20C8.17 332 4 16.00 4.00 64.00 0.25 20 60 20C8.18 333 3 5.00 3.50 17.50 0.60 30 50 20C8.19 334 1 5.00 4.00 20.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.20 335 4 12.00 4.50 54.00 0.30 20 60 20C8.21 336 2 21.00 2.00 42.00 0.20 20 60 20C8.22 337 3 5.00 3.00 15.00 0.50 30 60 10C8.23 338 1 19.00 2.00 38.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.24 339 2 13.00 1.50 19.50 0.15 10 70 20C8.25 340 1 8.00 4.50 36.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.26 341 2 21.00 1.50 31.50 0.15 20 70 10C8.27 342 1 6.00 3.50 21.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.28 343 2 12.00 2.00 24.00 0.15 20 60 20C8.29 344 1 20.00 1.50 30.00 0.10 40 30 30C8.30 345 3 4.00 4.00 16.00 0.50 30 50 20C8.31 346 1 10.00 1.00 10.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.32 347 2 20.00 2.00 40.00 0.15 10 70 20C8.33 348 1 17.00 1.00 17.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.34 349 3 4.00 4.00 16.00 0.50 20 70 10C8.35 350 2 7.00 2.00 14.00 0.20 20 60 20C8.36 351 1 3.00 1.50 4.50 0.10 10 70 20C8.37 352 2 17.00 2.00 34.00 0.25 20 60 20C8.38 353 1 6.00 1.00 6.00 0.10 30 60 10C8.39 354 4 10.00 3.00 30.00 0.30 20 60 20C8.40 355 1 22.00 3.00 66.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.41 356 2 17.00 2.00 34.00 0.25 20 60 20C8.42 357 4 10.00 3.00 30.00 0.25 20 70 10C8.43 358 1 12.00 2.50 30.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.44 359 2 32.00 2.00 64.00 0.15 10 70 20C8.45 360 1 4.00 1.00 4.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.46 361 2 13.00 1.00 13.00 0.10 20 70 10C8.47 362 4 12.00 4.00 48.00 0.30 30 60 10C8.48 363 1 9.00 1.00 9.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.49 364 2 7.00 3.00 21.00 0.20 20 50 30C8.50 365 1 9.00 2.00 18.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.51 366 4 12.00 3.00 36.00 0.25 10 70 20C8.52 367 1 15.00 1.50 22.50 0.10 10 70 20C8.53 368 3 10.00 4.00 40.00 0.70 40 50 10C8.54 368 2 28.00 1.50 42.00 0.20 20 70 10C8.55 370 3 8.00 5.00 40.00 0.50 40 50 10C8.56 371 2 8.00 1.50 12.00 0.20 20 50 30C8.57 372 1 10.00 1.50 15.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.58 373 4 15.00 2.00 30.00 0.15 20 70 10C8.59 374 1 6.00 1.00 6.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.60 375 2 12.00 1.50 18.00 0.15 10 70 20C8.61 376 1 5.00 2.50 12.50 0.10 10 70 20C8.62 377 2 20.00 2.00 40.00 0.15 10 70 20C8.63 378 1 8.00 1.00 8.00 0.15 30 60 10C8.64 379 3 4.00 4.00 16.00 0.50 30 60 10C8.65 380 2 15.00 1.50 22.50 0.15 20 60 20C8.66 381 1 7.00 1.50 10.50 0.10 10 60 30C8.67 382 3 4.50 4.00 18.00 0.90 40 40 20C8.68 383 1 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.10 10 80 10141SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area Depth% Sub^7C SubFine Gravel% SubBld.C8.69 384 4^5.00 4.00^20.00 0.30 30 60 10C8.70 385 2^15.00 2.00^30.00 0.15 20 60 20C8.71 386 4^12.00 5.00^60.00 0.20 20 70 10C8.72 387 2^10.00 1.00^10.00 0.15 40 50 10C8.73 388 4^30.00 2.50^75.00 0.20 30 60 10C8.74 389 1^10.00 0.50^5.00 0.10 10 80 10C8.75 390 2^18.00 1.00^18.00 0.20 20 70 10C8.76 391 1^7.00 1.50^10.50 0.10 10 70 20C8.77 392 2^8.00 1.50^12.00 0.20 10 70 20C8.78 393 1^8.00 1.00^8.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.79 394 3^7.00 2.50^17.50 0.50 30 60 10C8.80 395 1^7.00 2.00^14.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.81 396 2^18.00 2.00^36.00 0.15 10 80 10C8.82 397 4^15.00 3.50^52.50 0.30 30 60 10C8.83 398 1^12.00 1.50^18.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.84 399 2^29.00 2.50^72.50 0.20 20 70 10C8.85 400 1^8.00 3.00^24.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.86 401 2^9.00 3.00^27.00 0.25 30 60 10C8.87 402 1^5.00 2.00^10.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.88 403 4^10.00 4.50^45.00 0.20 20 60 20C8.89 404 1^32.00 1.50^48.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.90 405 2^9.00 1.50^13.50 0.15 10 70 20C8.91 406 1^40.00 2.50 100.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.92 407 4^15.00 3.00^45.00 0.35 20 70 10C8.93 408 2^25.00 1.50^37.50 0.20 20 60 20C8.94 409 1^8.00 3.00^24.00 0.10 20 60 20C8.95 410 3^5.00 5.00^25.00 0.40 30 50 20C8.96 411 1^1.00 1.00^1.00 0.10 10 10 80C8.97 412 3^3.00 3.00^9.00 0.35 40 30 30C8.98 413 1^8.00 2.50^20.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.99 414 2^30.00 2.50^75.00 0.20 20 60 20C8.100 415 1^8.00 1.50^12.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.101 416 4^20.00 5.00 100.00 0.35 30 60 10C8.102 417 2^16.00 2.00^32.00 0.20 20 60 20C8.103 418 1^28.00 3.00^84.00 0.10 10 70 20C8.104 419 2^24.00 2.00^48.00 0.15 10 60 30C8.105 420 1^13.00 2.00^26.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.106 421 4^13.00 3.50^45.50 0.20 10 60 30C8.107 422 1^10.00 1.00^10.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.108 423 3^6.00 6.00^36.00 0.40 20 50 30C8.109 424 2^30.00 2.00^60.00 0.15 10 70 20C8.110 425 1^25.00 3.00^75.00 0.20 20 60 20C8.111 426 2^22.00 2.00^44.00 0.15 10 70 20C8.112 427 1^14.00 2.00^28.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.113 428 2^34.00 1.50^51.00 0.15 20 60 20C8.114 429 1^10.00 1.00^10.00 0.10 10 60 30C8.115 430 2^10.00 2.00^20.00 0.15 10 50 40C8.116 431 1^27.00 1.00^27.00 0.10 10 50 40C8.117 432 3^12.00 8.00^96.00 2.00 30 45 25C9.1 433 1^5.00 1.00^5.00 0.10 20 60 20C9.2 434 2^6.00 2.50^15.00 0.15 30 50 20C9.3 435 4^5.00 3.50^17.50 0.20 30 50 20C9.4 436 1^4.00 0.50^2.00 0.10 10 80 10C9.5 437 4^35.00 3.00 105.00 0.20 20 60 20C9.6 438 1^12.00 3.00^36.00 0.10 20 70 10S1.1 1 2^16.00 3.00^48.00 0.20 20 50 30S1.2 2 1^30.00 4.50 135.00 0.10 20 60 20S1.3 3 4 220.00 6.00 1320.0 0.50 30 50 20S1.4 4 1^10.00 4.00^40.00 0.10 10 50 40S1.5 5 2^12.00 4.50^54.00 0.15 10 60 30S1.6 6 1^14.00 4.50^63.00 0.10 10 60 30Si.? 7 2^18.00 3.00^54.00 0.40 30 50 20S1.8 8 1^4.00 3.00^12.00 0.10 10 70 20S1.9 9 3^11.00 6.00^66.00 1.00 30 50 20S1.10 10 2^16.00 3.00^48.00 0.20 20 60 20142SampleCode No. Unit Length WetWidth^Area Depth ); Sub^7: SubFine Gravel % SubInd.$1.11 11 3^4.00 4.00^16.00 0.90 30 50 20S1.12 12 1^6.00 3.50^21.00 0.10 10 70 20S1.13 13 2^24.00 3.00^72.00 0.20 30 50 20S1.14 14 1^8.00 2.50^20.00 0.10 20 50 30S1.15 15 2^30.00 2.50^75.00 0.20 20 60 20S1.16 16 1^6.00 2.00^12.00 0.10 10 60 20$1.17 17 2^12.00 2.50^30.00 0.20 20 60 20S1.18 18 1^3.00 1.50^4.50 0.15 20 50 30S1.19 19 4^68.00 4.00 272.00 0.30 30 60 10S1.20 20 1^4.00 2.50^10.00 0.10 20 60 20$1.21 21 2^18.00 3.00^54.00 0.20 20 60 20$1.22 22 1^6.00 3.00^18.00 0.10 10 60 30S1.23 23 2^17.00 3.00^51.00 0.20 30 50 20S1.24 24 1^12.00 2.00^24.00 0.10 10 60 30$1.25 25 3^9.50 10.50^99.75 1.10 30 40 30S2.1 26 2^8.00 3.00^24.00 0.15 10 50 40$2.2 27 1^8.00 1.50^12.00 0.10 10 60 70S2.3 28 2^3.00 3.00^9.00 0.30 20 60 20$2.4 29 1^3.00 3.00^9.00 0.10 20 60 20S2.5 30 2^39.00 5.50 214.50 0.40 20 60 20S2.6 31 1^3.00 1.50^4.50 0.10 10 70 20S2.7 32 3^7.00 3.00^21.00 0.90 30 50 20$2.8 33 1^16.00 1.50^24.00 0.10 10 60 30$2.9 34 3^20.00 8.00 160.00 0.60 40 40 20S2.10 35 2^12.00 3.50^42.00 0.20 20 60 20S2.11 36 1^8.00 2.50^20.00 0.10 10 70 20$2.12 37 2^35.00 4.00 140.00 0.20 20 60 20$2.13 38 1^4.00 1.50^6.00 0.10 10 60 30$2.14 39 2^60.00 3.50 210.00 0.20 20 60 20S2.15 40 1^21.00 3.00^63.00 0.10 10 70 20S2.16 41 2^13.00 3.50^45.50 0.20 20 60 20S2.17 42 1^16.00 2.00^32.00 0.15 10 70 20S2.18 43 3^5.00 6.00^30.00 0.70 30 50 20S2.19 44 2^12.00 3.00^36.00 0.20 30 60 10S2.20 45 1^3.00 3.00^9.00 0.10 10 70 20S2.21 46 2^20.00 3.00^60.00 0.25 30 50 20S2.22 47 1^17.00 3.00^51.00 0.10 10 60 30S2.23 48 2^21.00 4.50^94.50 0.30 20 60 20S2.24 49 1^5.00 1.50^7.50 0.10 10 70 20S2.25 50 3^7.00 8.00^56.00 0.10 30 60 10S2.26 51 2^6.00 3.00^18.00 0.25 30 60 10$2.27 52 1^4.00 1.00^4.00 0.15 10 70 20$2.28 53 2^7.00 2.50^17.50 0.15 20 70 10S2.29 54 1^4.00 2.50^10.00 0.10 10 70 20S2.30 55 2^15.00 2.00^30.00 0.15 20 70 10$2.31 56 1^2.00 1.50^3.00 0.10 20 70 10S2.32 57 3^6.00 5.00^30.00 0.80 30 60 10S2.33 58 1^6.00 1.50^9.00 0.10 10 70 20$2.34 59 2^44.00 3.00 132.00 0.20 20 70 10S2.35 60 3^6.00 3.00^18.00 1.00 40 50 10$2.36 61 1^22.00 3.00^66.00 0.10 20 60 20$2.37 62 2^28.00 3.00^84.00 0.20 30 60 10$2.38 63 1^17.00 6.00 102.00 0.10 10 70 20S2.39 64 2^20.00 2.50^50.00 0.20 20 70 10S2.40 65 3^15.00 7.00 105.00 1.00 40 50 10S2.41 66 2^5.00 2.50^12.50 0.15 10 70 20S2.42 67 1^4.00 4.00^16.00 0.10 10 70 20S2.43 68 2^15.00 5.00^75.00 0.35 30 60 10$2.44 69 1^9.00 6.00^54.00 0.10 20 70 10S2.45 70 2^10.00 5.00^50.00 0.20 30 60 10$3.1 71 2^10.00 4.00^40.00 0.20 20 50 30S3.2 72 1^45.00 4.00 180.00 0.15 20 40 40$3.3 73 2^30.00 3.00^90.00 0.20 20 50 30S3.4 74 1^14.00 2.00^28.00 0.15 10 60 30S3.5 75 3^6.00 5.00^30.00 0.90 40 50 10S3.6 76 1^6.00 2.50^15.00 0.10 20 60 20S3.7 77 2^18.00 5.00^90.00 0.25 20 60 20143SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area Depth!I Sub^% SubFine Gravel% SubBld.S3.8 78 3 3.00 2.50^7.50 0.90 20 50 30S3.9 79 1 6.00 1.50^9.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.10 80 2 25.00 3.00^75.00 0.15 10 60 30S3.11 81 1 15.00 1.00^15.00 0.15 20 70 10$3.12 82 3 4.00 4.00^16.00 0.50 30 60 10S3.13 83 1 3.00 1.50^4.50 0.10 10 70 20S3.14 84 2 11.00 3.00^33.00 0.25 20 70 10$3.15 85 1 21.00 5.00 105.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.16 86 2 30.00 3.00^90.00 0.15 20 70 10S3.17 87 1 35.00 3.00 105.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.18 88 2 7.00 3.50^24.50 0.20 20 70 10$3.19 89 1 15.00 2.00^30.00 0.15 10 70 20$3.20 90 4 22.00 6.50 143.00 0.35 30 50 20S3.21 91 2 9.00 3.00^27.00 0.25 30 40 30$3.22 92 1 4.00 3.00^12.00 0.15 20 40 40S3.23 93 2 24.00 3.00^72.00 0.20 30 50 20S3.24 94 1 28.00 2.50^70.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.25 95 2 21.00 2.50^52.50 0.15 10 70 20$3.26 96 4 28.00 3.00^84.00 0.25 20 70 10$3.27 97 1 12.00 2.50^30.00 0.10 10 70 20$3.28 98 2 14.00 2.50^35.00 0.20 20 60 20S3.29 99 1 3.00 2.00^6.00 0.10 10 70 20$3.30 100 2 8.00 2.00^16.00 0.20 20 70 10S3.31 101 1 3.00 2.00^6.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.32 102 3 6.00 5.00^30.00 0.50 30 60 10$3.33 103 1 38.00 2.00^76.00 0.10 10 70 20$3.34 104 2 15.00 5.00^75.00 0.20 10 70 20$3.35 105 1 12.00 5.50^66.00 0.10 20 60 20$3.36 106 2 13.00 4.00^52.00 0.15 10 70 20S3.37 107 3 15.00 5.00^75.00 1.50 30 50 20S3.38 108 1 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.10 10 60 30S3.39 109 2 43.00 3.00 129.00 0.20 20 60 20$3.40 110 1 14.00 1.50^21.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.41 111 2 13.00 2.50^32.50 0.15 10 70 20S3.42 112 1 6.00 2.50^15.00 0.10 10 60 30S3.43 113 2 10.00 2.50^25.00 0.15 10 70 20$3.44 114 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.45 115 2 8.00 3.00^24.00 0.20 10 60 30S3.46 116 1 2.00 2.00^4.00 0.10 10 60 30$3.47 117 2 12.00 3.00^36.00 0.20 30 60 10$3.48 118 3 6.00 4.00^24.00 0.90 60 30 10S3.49 119 1 16.00 1.00^16.00 0.10 10 60 30$3.50 120 3 6.00 5.00^30.00 0.75 50 40 10S3.51 121 1 12.00 1.00^12.00 0.10 10 60 30$3.52 122 4 26.00 6.00 156.00 0.50 30 60 10S3.53 123 2 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.15 20 60 20$3.54 124 4 22.00 5.50 121.00 0.40 60 30 10S3.55 125 2 25.00 4.00 100.00 0.20 20 70 10S3.56 126 1 10.00 1.50^15.00 0.10 10 60 30$3.57 127 2 38.00 3.00 114.00 0.20 10 80 10S3.58 128 1 5.00 1.00^5.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.59 129 3 15.00 5.00^75.00 1.00 40 50 10S3.60 130 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.61 131 2 24.00 4.00^96.00 0.30 30 60 10$3.62 132 1 3.00 1.50^4.50 0.10 10 70 20S3.63 133 2 10.00 2.00^20.00 0.15 10 70 20$3.64 134 1 5.00 1.50^7.50 0.10 10 60 30S3.65 135 3 6.00 3.00^18.00 1.00 40 40 20$3.66 136 1 8.00 3.00^24.00 0.10 10 60 30$3.67 137 2 26.00 4.50 117.00 0.30 30 60 10$3.68 138 3 12.00 5.00^60.00 1.00 50 40 10S3.69 139 2 25.00 4.00 100.00 0.20 20 70 10S3.70 140 1 13.00 3.00^39.00 0.15 20 60 20S3.71 141 2 26.00 4.00 104.00 0.20 20 70 10$3.72 142 1 11.00 3.00^33.00 0.15 10 60 30S3.73 143 2 7.00 3.00^21.00 0.40 30 50 20S3.74 144 1 5.00 4.00^20.00 0.10 10 60 30144SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area DepthX Sub^7; SubFine GravelX SubBld.S3.75 145 3 8.00 5.00^40.00 1.20 40 50 10S3.76 146 2 5.00 3.00^15.00 0.30 30 50 20S3.77 147 1 6.00 1.50^9.00 0.10 10 70 20S3.78 148 3 8.00 4.00^32.00 1.00 60 30 10$3.79 149 1 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.15 20 60 20S3.80 150 2 44.00 2.00^88.00 0.20 20 70 10S3.81 151 1 4.00 1.00^4.00 0.10 10 60 30S3.82 152 2 18.00 3.00^54.00 0.25 20 60 20S3.83 153 1 30.00 1.50^45.00 0.15 10 60 30$4.1 154 3 10.00 7.00^70.00 1.00 40 50 10S4.2 155 1 10.00 1.50^15.00 0.10 10 60 30$4.3 156 2 10.00 4.00^40.00 0.20 30 50 20$4.4 157 1 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.10 20 70 10S4.5 158 2 25.00 3.50^87.50 0.20 20 60 20S4.6 159 3 4.00 5.00^20.00 0.70 40 50 10S4.7 160 2 11.00 3.00^33.00 0.25 20 60 20S4.8 161 1 22.00 3.00^66.00 0.10 10 70 20S4.9 162 2 7.00 3.50^24.50 0.20 30 50 20S4.10 163 3 8.00 6.50^52.00 1.70 50 40 10S4.11 164 1 15.00 1.50^22.50 0.15 20 60 20S4.12 165 3 20.00 5.00 100.00 1.00 60 30 10S4.13 166 2 12.00 3.50^42.00 0.30 30 60 10S4.14 167 1 4.00 1.00^4.00 0.15 30 50 20S4.15 168 2 26.00 2.00^52.00 0.20 20 60 20S4.16 169 1 4.00 3.00^12.00 0.10 10 70 20S4.17 170 2 14.00 3.00^42.00 0.20 10 70 20S4.18 171 1 5.00 3.50^17.50 0.10 10 60 30S4.19 172 2 20.00 3.00^60.00 0.25 20 60 20S4.20 173 1 5.00 1.00^5.00 0.10 20 70 10$4.21 174 4 8.00 3.00^24.00 0.40 20 70 10S4.22 175 1 10.00 1.50^15.00 0.10 10 70 20$4.23 176 2 9.00 3.00^27.00 0.20 10 70 20$4.24 177 1 8.00 2.50^20.00 0.15 10 70 20$4.25 178 2 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.20 10 60 30S4.26 179 1 8.00 1.00^8.00 0.15 10 60 30S4.27 180 4 13.00 4.00^52.00 0.40 30 60 10S4.28 181 1 26.00 2.00^52.00 0.10 10 60 30S4.29 182 2 18.00 2.00^36.00 0.20 30 60 10S4.30 183 1 40.00 1.50^60.00 0.10 10 70 20S4.31 184 2 38.00 4.00 152.00 0.30 30 50 20$4.32 185 1 9.00 3.00^27.00 0.10 20 60 20S4.33 186 2 13.00 3.50^45.50 0.25 20 60 20S4.34 187 1 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.10 10 60 30S4.35 188 2 36.00 3.00 108.00 0.40 20 60 20S4.36 189 1 6.00 1.50^9.00 0.10 20 70 10$4.37 190 3 12.00 6.00^72.00 1.50 60 30 10S4.38 191 1 16.00 2.00^32.00 0.15 10 60 30S4.39 192 2 15.00 2.00^30.00 0.20 20 60 20$4.40 193 4 20.00 2.50^50.00 0.30 30 60 10S4.41 194 1 57.00 4.50 256.50 0.15 20 60 20$4.42 195 2 25.00 3.00^75.00 0.35 20 60 20S4.43 196 4 23.00 5.00 115.00 0.50 40 50 10S4.44 197 1 13.00 3.00^39.00 0.10 10 60 30S4.45 198 4 36.00 5.00 180.00 0.50 30 60 10S4.46 199 1 9.00 3.00^27.00 0.15 10 40 50$4.47 200 2 7.00 2.50^17.50 0.25 10 50 40S5.1 201 1 18.00 4.50^81.00 0.10 10 50 40$5.2 202 2 30.00 3.50 105.00 0.20 20 40 40S5.3 203 1 1.00 2.00^2.00 0.10 10 70 20S5.4 204 2 12.00 3.00^36.00 0.20 20 60 20S5.5 205 1 13.00 3.50^45.50 0.10 10 60 30S5.6 206 2 14.00 3.00^42.00 0.25 10 70 20S5.7 207 1 8.00 1.50^12.00 0.10 10 60 30$5.8 208 2 9.00 1.50^13.50 0.20 10 70 20S5.9 209 3 2.00 4.00^8.00 0.50 30 50 20S5.10 210 1 5.00 1.00^5.00 0.10 20 60 20S5.11 211 3 7.00 4.00^28.00 0.70 40 50 10145SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth Area Depth7C Sub^% SibFine Gravel7; SubBld.$5.12 212 4 7.00 3.00 21.00 0.30 20 60 20S5.13 213 3 7.00 4.00 28.00 1.00 40 50 10S5.14 214 1 11.00 3.00 33.00 0.10 10 60 30$5.15 215 2 19.00 3.00 57.00 0.20 20 60 20S5.16 216 1 2.00 2.00 4.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.17 217 2 3.00 2.00 6.00 0.15 10 70 20S5.18 218 1 2.00 3.00 6.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.19 219 2 7.00 2.50 17.50 0.15 10 70 20S5.20 220 1 8.00 3.50 28.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.21 221 2 10.00 2.50 25.00 0.20 20 60 20S5.22 222 3 10.00 5.00 50.00 0.90 50 40 10$5.23 223 2 44.00 2.00 88.00 0.20 20 60 20S5.24 224 1 25.00 2.00 50.00 0.10 10 70 20S5.25 225 2 7.00 2.00 14.00 0.20 20 60 20$5.26 226 3 7.00 6.00 42.00 0.80 40 50 10S5.27 227 1 28.00 1.00 28.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.28 228 2 22.00 3.00 66.00 0.25 20 60 20S5.29 229 1 2.00 2.50 5.00 0.10 10 70 20S5.30 230 2 26.00 2.00 52.00 0.25 20 60 20$5.31 231 1 11.00 1.50 16.50 0.10 10 70 20$5.32 232 2 28.00 2.00 56.00 0.20 20 60 20$5.33 233 1 4.00 2.00 8.00 0.10 10 60 30$5.34 234 2 28.00 2.00 56.00 0.20 20 60 20$5.35 235 1 17.00 1.00 17.00 0.10 10 80 10S5.36 236 2 27.00 2.00 54.00 0.20 20 60 20$5.37 237 1 5.00 2.00 10.00 0.10 10 70 20$5.38 238 2 25.00 2.50 62.50 0.20 20 60 20$5.39 239 1 6.00 1.50 9.00 0.10 10 60 30$5.40 240 2 31.00 2.00 62.00 0.20 10 70 20S5.41 241 1 6.00 2.00 12.00 0.10 10 70 20S5.42 242 3 10.00 5.00 50.00 1.20 50 40 10S5.43 243 1 9.00 3.00 27.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.44 244 4 12.00 5.00 60.00 0.40 60 30 10S5.45 245 2 8.00 2.00 16.00 0.20 30 60 10$5.46 246 1 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.47 247 2 15.00 2.00 30.00 0.20 20 60 20S5.48 248 1 26.00 1.50 39.00 0.10 10 60 30$5.49 249 4 3.00 2.50 7.50 0.30 20 60 20S5.50 250 1 12.00 1.50 18.00 0.10 10 70 20S5.51 251 2 7.00 3.00 21.00 0.15 10 60 30$5.52 252 1 14.00 4.00 56.00 0.10 10 50 40S5.53 253 2 15.00 2.50 37.50 0.20 20 60 20S5.54 254 3 12.00 4.00 48.00 1.00 60 30 10$5.55 255 1 18.00 1.50 27.00 0.10 10 70 20$5.56 256 2 7.00 3.00 21.00 0.25 20 60 20$5.57 257 1 8.00 3.50 28.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.58 258 2 6.00 2.00 12.00 0.30 10 60 30$5.59 259 1 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.60 260 2 14.00 3.00 42.00 0.20 10 60 30$5.61 261 1 8.00 3.00 24.00 0.10 10 60 30$5.62 262 2 20.00 2.00 40.00 0.25 20 60 20S5.63 263 1 4.00 1.00 4.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.64 264 2 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.15 10 60 30S5.65 265 1 6.00 1.50 9.00 0.10 10 50 40$5.66 266 4 10.00 5.00 50.00 0.70 50 30 20$5.67 267 1 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.10 10 70 20$5.68 268 2 18.00 1.50 27.00 0.20 10 70 20S5.69 269 3 8.00 5.00 40.00 1.20 60 30 10S5.70 270 1 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.10 10 70 20$5.71 271 2 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.15 10 70 20$5.72 272 1 14.00 1.50 21.00 0.10 10 60 30S5.73 273 2 17.00 2.00 34.00 0.15 10 60 30$6.1 274 1 10.00 1.50 15.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.2 275 4 3.00 3.50 10.50 0.60 30 50 20S6.3 276 1 12.00 2.00 24.00 0.10 10 60 30S6.4 277 2 10.00 3.00 30.00 0.25 20 60 20S6.5 278 1 4.00 1.50 6.00 0.10 10 60 30146SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area Depth% Sub^7: SubFine Gravel% SubBld.S6.6 279 2 16.00 2.50^40.00 0.20 20 60 20S6.7 280 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.8 281 2 13.00 2.00^26.00 0.15 20 60 20$6.9 282 1 21.00 3.00^63.00 0.10 10 60 30S6.10 283 2 8.00 3.00^24.00 0.20 10 60 30$6.11 284 1 5.00 3.00^15.00 0.10 10 50 40S6.12 285 2 7.00 2.00^14.00 0.20 10 60 30$6.13 286 1 5.00 1.50^7.50 0.10 10 60 30$6.14 287 2 8.00 1.50^12.00 0.20 10 60 30S6.15 288 1 5.00 1.00^5.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.16 289 2 20.00 3.50^70.00 0.25 20 60 20$6.17 290 1 1.00 3.00^3.00 0.10 10 50 40$6.18 291 2 18.00 2.00^36.00 0.25 10 70 20$6.19 292 1 16.00 2.50^40.00 0.10 10 50 40S6.20 293 2 20.00 2.00^40.00 0.20 20 60 20$6.21 294 3 6.00 5.00^30.00 0.80 60 40 10S6.22 295 1 36.00 3.00 108.00 0.10 10 70 20$6.23 296 2 36.00 4.00 144.00 0.25 10 60 30S6.24 297 1 4.00 1.00^4.00 0.10 10 50 30$6.25 298 2 10.00 2.00^20.00 0.15 10 50 40S6.26 299 1 4.00 2.00^8.00 0.10 10 50 40$6.27 300 2 15.00 2.00^30.00 0.25 10 60 30S6.28 301 1 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.10 10 50 40$6.29 302 2 32.00 2.00^64.00 0.25 10 60 30$6.30 303 1 6.00 1.50^9.00 0.10 10 50 40S6.31 304 2 7.00 2.00^14.00 0.20 10 60 30$6.32 305 1 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.10 10 70 20S6.33 306 2 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.20 10 70 20$6.34 307 1 18.00 4.00^72.00 0.10 10 60 30S6.35 308 2 16.00 3.00^48.00 0.15 10 70 20$6.36 309 1 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.10 10 50 40$6.37 310 4 7.00 4.00^28.00 0.60 30 50 20$6.38 311 1 4.00 1.50^6.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.39 312 4 16.00 2.50^40.00 0.35 20 60 20$6.40 313 2 12.00 2.00^24.00 0.20 10 70 20$6.41 314 1 14.00 3.00^42.00 0.10 10 50 40$6.42 315 2 20.00 2.00^40.00 0.25 10 60 30$6.43 316 1 8.00 2.00^16.00 0.10 10 50 40$6.44 317 2 7.00 3.50^24.50 0.20 10 50 40$6.45 318 1 5.00 2.50^12.50 0.15 10 50 40S6.46 319 2 16.00 3.50^56.00 0.30 10 50 40$6.47 320 1 4.00 2.00^8.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.48 321 2 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.20 10 60 30$6.49 322 1 26.00 2.00^52.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.50 323 3 5.00 5.00^25.00 0.70 30 50 20S6.51 324 1 38.00 1.00^38.00 0.15 10 60 30$6.52 325 3 5.00 5.00^25.00 1.30 40 40 20$6.53 326 1 3.00 2.00^6.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.54 327 3 6.00 5.00^30.00 1.20 40 40 20$6.55 328 4 15.00 2.50^37.50 0.40 20 60 20$6.56 329 1 15.00 2.00^30.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.57 330 2 6.00 2.00^12.00 0.15 10 60 30$6.58 331 1 20.00 1.50^30.00 0.10 10 50 40$6.59 332 2 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.20 10 50 40$6.60 333 1 5.00 1.00^5.00 0.10 10 50 40$6.61 334 2 14.00 2.00^28.00 0.25 10 60 30$6.62 335 1 14.00 2.00^28.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.63 336 2 47.00 3.00 141.00 0.25 10 60 30$6.64 337 1 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.10 10 70 20$6.65 338 2 31.00 2.00^62.00 0.20 10 60 30$6.66 339 1 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.10 10 70 20$6.67 340 2 23.00 3.00^69.00 0.25 10 70 20S6.68 341 1 4.00 1.50^6.00 0.10 10 70 20$6.69 342 2 26.00 3.00^78.00 0.30 30 50 20$6.70 343 1 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.10 10 60 30$6.71 344 4 17.00 4.00^68.00 0.60 60 30 10S6.72 345 2 5.00 1.50^7.50 0.20 10 60 30147SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area Depth% Sub % SubFine GravelZ SubBld.$6.73 346 1 17.00 4.00^68.00 0.10 10 50 40S6.74 347 2 21.00 2.50^52.50 0.20 10 70 20S6.75 348 1 2.00 2.00^4.00 0.10 10 60 30S6.76 349 2 23.00 2.00^46.00 0.25 30 50 20S6.77 350 1 6.00 1.00^6.00 0.15 50 30 20S6.78 351 2 5.00 1.50^7.50 0.25 50 30 20S6.79 352 1 15.00 1.00^15.00 0.10 10 60 30S6.80 353 2 21.00 2.00^42.00 0.20 10 60 30S6.81 354 3 4.00 5.00^20.00 0.50 60 30 10S6.82 355 4 5.00 3.00^15.00 0.40 50 30 20S6.83 356 1 7.00 1.00^7.00 0.10 10 60 30S6.84 357 3 6.00 2.50^15.00 0.60 30 50 20S6.85 358 1 1.00 1.00^1.00 0.10 10 60 30S6.86 359 3 12.00 3.00^36.00 0.70 30 60 30S6.87 360 2 10.00 2.00^20.00 0.20 10 70 20S6.88 361 1 11.00 1.50^16.50 0.10 10 60 30S6.89 362 2 14.00 2.50^35.00 0.30 30 50 20S6.90 363 1 8.00 0.50^4.00 0.10 10 50 30S6.91 364 2 40.00 2.50 100.00 0.35 10 70 20S6.92 365 1 5.00 1.00^5.00 0.10 10 60 30S6.93 366 2 16.00 2.00^32.00 0.20 10 60 30S7.1 367 4 12.00 3.00^36.00 0.40 30 50 20S7.2 368 1 1.00 0.50^0.50 0.10 10 70 20S7.3 369 4 20.00 4.50^90.00 0.50 30 50 20$7.4 370 1 14.00 4.00^56.00 0.10 10 60 30S7.5 371 2 60.00 3.50 210.00 0.30 10 60 30S7.6 372 1 4.00 1.00^4.00 0.10 10 60 30$7.7 373 4 11.00 3.00^33.00 0.30 30 50 20S7.8 374 1 2.00 1.00^2.00 0.10 10 70 20S7.9 375 4 4.00 2.00^8.00 0.30 20 60 20S7.10 376 1 4.00 1.00^4.00 0.10 10 60 30S7.11 377 3 5.00 6.00^30.00 1.30 40 50 10S7.12 378 4 15.00 4.00^60.00 0.80 30 50 20S7.13 379 2 18.00 3.00^54.00 0.25 20 50 30S7.14 380 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.15 50 30 20$7.15 381 4 13.00 3.00^39.00 0.30 40 50 10S7.16 382 1 10.00 2.00^20.00 0.10 10 60 30S7.17 383 2 47.00 3.00 141.00 0.20 10 60 30S7.18 384 4 10.00 3.50^35.00 0.40 40 50 10S7.19 385 1 12.00 1.00^12.00 0.10 40 40 20S7.20 386 2 18.00 3.00^54.00 0.20 10 60 30S7.21 387 1 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.10 10 50 40S7.22 388 2 12.00 4.50^54.00 0.25 20 60 20S7.23 389 4 28.00 4.00 112.00 0.50 60 30 10$7.24 390 2 17.00 2.00^34.00 0.20 30 50 20S7.25 391 3 4.00 4.00^16.00 0.90 60 30 10$7.26 392 2 5.00 1.00^5.00 0.30 70 20 10$7.27 393 1 10.00 1.00^10.00 0.10 30 50 20S7.28 394 2 7.00 2.00^14.00 0.15 20 60 20S7.29 395 1 7.00 2.50^17.50 0.10 10 70 20$7.30 396 2 20.00 2.00^40.00 0.35 10 70 20S7.31 397 1 12.00 1.00^12.00 0.10 10 60 30$7.32 398 2 22.00 3.00^66.00 0.20 30 50 10$7.33 399 4 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.70 40 50 10S7.34 400 2 25.00 2.50^62.50 0.20 20 60 20S7.35 401 1 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.10 10 50 40S7.36 402 2 9.00 1.50^13.50 0.25 10 60 30$7.37 403 1 9.00 3.00^27.00 0.15 10 50 40S7.38 404 3 12.00 13.00 156.00 2.50 60 30 10S8.1 405 4 10.00 30.00 300.00 0.30 20 60 20S8.2 406 1 1.00 1.00^1.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.3 407 2 9.00 2.00^18.00 0.20 10 60 30$8.4 408 1 1.00 1.50^1.50 0.10 10 60 30S8.5 409 2 4.00 2.00^8.00 0.20 10 60 30S8.6 410 1 8.00 4.50^36.00 0.10 10 50 40S8.7 411 2 32.00 3.50 112.00 0.25 10 60 30$8.8 412 1 7.00 4.00^28.00 0.10 10 50 40148SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area Depthf; Sub % SubFine Gravel% SubBld.$8.9 413 2 8.00 2.00^16.00 0.20 10 60 30$8.10 414 1 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.11 415 2 9.00 2.50^22.50 0.30 10 60 30S8.12 416 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.10 10 60 30$8.13 417 2 18.00 2.50^45.00 0.30 20 60 20S8.14 418 1 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.15 419 2 11.00 2.50^27.50 0.30 10 60 30S8.16 420 1 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.17 421 4 30.00 4.50 135.00 0.60 10 50 10S8.18 422 1 3.00 2.00^6.00 0.10 10 50 40$8.19 423 2 13.00 2.00^26.00 0.20 20 50 30$8.20 424 1 5.00 3.00^15.00 0.10 10 60 30$8.21 425 2 11.00 2.50^27.50 0.20 20 60 20S8.22 426 4 24.00 4.00^96.00 0.80 40 50 10S8.23 427 1 8.00 2.00^16.00 0.10 20 50 30S8.24 428 4 110.00 4.50 495.00 0.65 40 50 10$8.25 429 2 5.00 2.50^12.50 0.20 20 60 20S8.26 430 1 1.00 1.00^1.00 0.10 10 70 20$8.27 431 4 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.50 40 40 20$8.28 432 1 3.00 3.00^9.00 0.10 10 60 30$8.29 433 2 7.00 3.00^21.00 0.20 10 60 30$8.30 434 4 30.00 4.00 120.00 0.60 70 20 10$8.31 435 2 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.25 20 60 20S8.32 436 1 17.00 2.00^34.00 0.10 20 60 20$8.33 437 2 17.00 1.00^17.00 0.20 20 60 20S8.34 438 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.10 20 70 10$8.35 439 3 6.00 4.00^24.00 1.00 60 30 10S8.36 440 2 10.00 1.50^15.00 0.20 40 40 20$8.37 441 1 1.00 1.00^1.00 0.10 10 50 40$8.38 442 2 41.00 1.50^61.50 0.20 70 20 10$8.39 443 1 2.00 1.00^2.00 0.10 70 10 20$8.40 444 2 13.00 2.00^26.00 0.20 60 20 20S8.41 445 1 2.00 1.00^2.00 0.10 50 10 40$8.42 446 2 15.00 2.50^37.50 0.20 50 20 30$8.43 447 1 12.00 1.50^18.00 0.10 10 60 30$8.44 448 2 10.00 2.50^25.00 0.30 40 50 10S8.45 449 1 13.00 1.00^13.00 0.10 20 60 20S8.46 450 2 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.35 20 60 20S8.47 451 1 8.00 1.00^8.00 0.10 10 60 30$8.48 452 3 20.00 6.00 120.00 1.20 60 30 10S8.49 453 2 20.00 1.50^30.00 0.25 50 30 20S8.50 454 1 1.00 1.00^1.00 0.10 20 50 30$8.51 455 3 6.00 4.00^24.00 0.60 40 50 10S8.52 456 2 8.00 1.00^8.00 0.20 50 20 30$8.53 457 1 7.00 4.00^28.00 0.10 10 50 40$8.54 458 2 16.00 2.50^40.00 0.25 10 60 30S8.55 459 4 16.00 3.00^48.00 0.50 40 40 20$8.56 460 1 10.00 2.00^20.00 0.10 10 70 20$8.57 461 2 24.00 2.50^60.00 0.30 10 70 20S8.58 462 1 8.00 2.00^16.00 0.10 20 60 20S8.59 463 2 5.00 2.00^10.00 0.20 20 60 20$8.60 464 1 5.00 1.00^5.00 0.10 20 40 40S8.61 465 4 20.00 3.50^70.00 1.00 60 30 10S8.62 466 2 11.00 2.00^22.00 0.25 30 50 20S8.63 467 1 5.00 4.50^22.50 0.10 10 60 30S8.64 468 4 39.00 4.00 156.00 0.40 30 50 20S8.65 469 1 10.00 1.50^15.00 0.10 10 60 30$8.66 470 4 6.00 4.00^24.00 0.20 20 60 20$8.67 471 1 8.00 2.00^16.00 0.10 10 50 40S8.68 472 2 20.00 2.50^50.00 0.15 20 60 20S8.69 473 1 5.00 3.00^15.00 0.10 10 60 30$8.70 474 2 36.00 2.50^90.00 0.20 20 60 20S8.71 475 1 20.00 1.50^30.00 0.15 10 60 30$8.72 476 2 9.00 1.50^13.50 0.15 10 60 30S8.73 477 3 7.00 4.00^28.00 0.60 40 40 20S8.74 478 2 6.00 1.00^6.00 0.15 10 70 20S8.75 479 3 12.00 4.00^48.00 0.60 40 40 20149SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area DepthZ Sub X SubFine Gravel% SubInd.S8.76 480 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.10 10 50 40S8.77 481 2 27.00 2.50^67.50 0.20 40 40 20S8.78 482 1 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.10 10 50 40S8.79 483 2 17.00 2.50^42.50 0.20 20 50 30S8.80 484 1 13.00 1.50^19.50 0.10 10 60 30S8.81 485 2 5.00 1.50^7.50 0.30 10 60 30S8.82 486 1 4.00 2.00^8.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.83 487 2 10.00 1.00^10.00 0.15 20 60 20S8.84 488 4 33.00 3.50 115.50 0.40 50 40 10S8.85 489 1 2.00 1.00^2.00 0.10 10 70 20S8.86 490 2 5.00 1.50^7.50 0.20 20 60 20S8.87 491 1 17.00 1.00^17.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.88 492 2 6.00 1.50^9.00 0.15 10 60 30S8.89 493 1 10.00 2.00^20.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.90 494 4 15.00 3.00^45.00 0.35 40 40 20S8.91 495 3 7.00 2.00^14.00 0.55 40 30 30S8.92 496 4 50.00 5.00 250.00 0.65 60 30 10S8.93 497 2 45.00 2.50 112.50 0.25 20 60 20S8.94 498 1 10.00 1.00^10.00 0.10 10 50 40S8.95 499 4 42.00 3.00 126.00 0.50 40 40 20S8.96 500 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.10 10 70 20S8.97 501 4 10.00 2.50^25.00 0.50 40 40 20S8.98 502 1 9.00 1.00^9.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.99 503 2 16.00 2.00^32.00 0.15 20 60 20S8.100 504 1 3.00 1.00^3.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.101 505 4 8.00 4.00^32.00 0.30 30 50 20S8.102 506 1 1.00 1.00^1.00 0.10 10 50 40S8.103 507 4 10.00 4.00^40.00 0.50 50 30 20S8.104 508 1 20.00 1.00^20.00 0.10 10 50 40S8.105 509 2 8.00 2.00^16.00 0.20 20 60 20S8.106 510 4 14.00 3.50^49.00 0.60 50 40 10S8.107 511 2 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.30 10 60 30S8.108 512 1 24.00 1.00^24.00 0.10 10 60 30S8.109 513 4 31.00 5.00 155.00 0.30 30 50 20S9.1 514 4 20.00 4.00^80.00 0.30 20 60 20S9.2 515 2 18.00 1.50^27.00 0.15 10 60 30S9.3 516 4 13.00 4.00^52.00 0.50 30 50 20S9.4 517 1 2.00 3.00^6.00 0.10 20 50 30S9.5 518 3 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.70 20 70 10S9.6 519 1 8.00 3.00^24.00 0.10 10 60 30S9.7 520 4 7.00 2.00^14.00 0.30 30 50 20S9.8 521 1 1.00 0.50^0.50 0.10 10 50 40S9.9 522 4 12.00 3.00^36.00 0.30 40 50 10S9.10 523 1 7.00 0.50^3.50 0.10 10 60 30S9.11 524 4 26.00 3.00^78.00 0.30 30 50 20S9.12 525 1 3.00 0.50^1.50 0.10 30 50 20S9.13 526 4 38.00 2.50^95.00 0.30 30 50 20S9.14 527 2 10.00 0.50^5.00 0.20 30 50 20S9.15 528 3 15.00 4.00^60.00 1.50 30 50 20S9.16 529 4 16.00 3.00^48.00 0.40 40 40 20S9.17 530 2 6.00 1.00^6.00 0.20 30 40 30S9.18 531 4 50.00 4.00 200.00 0.40 40 40 20S9.19 532 1 5.00 0.50^2.50 0.10 30 60 10S9.20 533 4 70.00 3.00 210.00 0.35 40 50 10S9.21 534 1 4.00 0.50^2.00 0.10 20 70 10S9.22 535 4 10.00 1.50^15.00 0.25 40 50 10S9.23 536 1 3.00 0.50^1.50 0.10 20 60 20S9.24 537 4 28.00 3.00^84.00 0.30 40 40 20S9.25 538 1 8.00 0.50^4.00 0.10 30 50 20S9.26 539 4 18.00 3.00^54.00 0.25 40 40 20S9.27 540 1 3.00 2.00^6.00 0.10 20 60 20S9.28 541 4 44.00 3.00 132.00 0.40 40 40 20S9.29 542 1 8.00 1.00^8.00 0.10 20 50 30S9.30 543 3 22.00 5.00 110.00 2.00 50 40 10S10.1 544 4 30.00 3.00^90.00 0.50 40 40 20S10.2 545 1 2.00 0.50^1.00 0.10 10 70 20S10.3 546 3 4.00 4.00^16.00 0.45 20 50 30150SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth^Area DepthZ Sub X SubFine Gravel% SubBld.S10.4 547 1 2.00 0.50^1.00 0.10 20 60 20S10.5 548 4 10.00 3.00^30.00 0.40 30 50 20S10.6 549 2 2.00 1.00^2.00 0.10 30 50 20S10.7 550 3 10.00 5.00^50.00 0.85 30 50 20$10.8 551 4 12.00 1.50^18.00 0.25 30 50 20S10.9 552 1 4.00 1.00^4.00 0.10 10 70 20$10.10 553 4 32.00 4.00 128.00 0.50 40 40 20S10.11 554 1 7.00 3.00^21.00 0.10 30 60 10S10.11 555 4 6.00 4.00^24.00 0.25 30 60 10151Appendix CDetailed Habitat Inventory (1990) Data Collected in Coghlan Creek (C)and the Salmon River (S).Unit 1 = Riffles, Unit 2 = Glides, Unit 3 = Pools, Unit 4 = SloughsLength, Wetted Width, Depth, and Channel Width - measured in meters (m)Area, lnstream Log, Instream Boulder, Instream Vegetation, Overstream Vegetation, and Cutbank - measured in square meters (m 2 )Volume - measured in cubic meters (m3 )Velocity - measured in meters per second (m\s)Temperature - measured in degrees celsius (C°)SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth Area Depth VolumeChannelWidth Vet.ThalwegDepthBFine); SmGravel7: LgGravelZCobbleBBoulderC7.5 212 1 10.4 2.9 30.2 0.07 2.1 4.2 0.36 0.15 20 70 10 0 0C8.114 429 1 10.8 1.1 11.9 0.09 1.1 7.1 0.28 0.12 5 20 45 25 5C8.105 420 1 12.8 2.6 33.3 0.07 2.3 5.5 0.24 0.10 5 25 40 20 10C8.61 376 1 6.2 3.4 21.1 0.06 1.3 6.8 0.23 0.10 10 30 35 20 5C8.52 367 1 16.9 2.5 42.3 0.09 3.8 8.6 0.28 0.28 10 40 30 15 5C7.104 311 1 3.8 3.5 13.3 0.13 1.7 5.9 0.44 0.27 5 35 30 20 10C7.60 267 1 4.8 1.8 8.6 0.07 0.6 6.2 0.32 0.11 10 50 35 5 0C7.53 260 1 4.8 1.8 8.6 0.10 0.9 8.2 0.33 0.24 15 70 10 5 0C1.7 7 1 6.3 4.0 25.2 0.15 3.8 6.3 0.50 0.35 5 40 40 10 5C4.72 125 1 21.5 5.1 109.7 0.16 17.6 8.3 0.48 0.40 10 30 20 25 15C3.24 52 1 3.7 3.1 11.5 0.37 4.3 5.0 0.30 0.25 5 65 25 5 0C4.53 106 1 7.8 6.1 47.6 0.09 4.3 7.4 0.34 0.16 5 30 40 20 5C7.48 255 2 9.8 3.7 36.3 0.33 12.0 6.2 0.05 0.61 35 55 10 0 0C8.56 371 2 9.4 2.7 25.4 0.16 4.1 5.7 0.13 0.28 10 35 35 15 5C4.6 59 2 15.9 4.4 70.0 0.32 22.4 5.9 0.10 0.65 60 25 10 5 0C8.35 350 2 5.8 2.3 13.3 0.21 2.8 6.1 0.11 0.33 15 30 35 20 0C4.17 70 2 10.5 3.3 34.6 0.20 6.9 4.8 0.20 0.56 10 60 25 5 0C5.34 169 2 34.3 2.8 96.0 0.15 14.4 5.7 0.21 0.43 15 30 40 15 0C7.72 279 2 9.9 1.8 17.8 0.11 2.0 8.5 0.19 0.17 20 45 30 5 0C8.99 414 2 36.4 3.4 123.8 0.17 21.0 6.4 0.12 0.50 15 35 30 15 5C4.68 121 2 11.8 4.8 56.6 0.14 7.9 8.1 0.32 0.33 20 40 20 10 10C7.6 213 2 31.9 3.2 102.1 0.09 9.2 6.1 0.32 0.22 20 60 20 0 0SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth Area Depth VolumeChannelWidth Vet.ThalwegDepthBFineB S.GravelX LgGravelBCobbleBBoulderC6.36 206 2 19.2 4.9 94.1 0.18 16.9 9.9 0.12 0.35 30 15 20 20 15C2.4 12 2 4.8 3.2 15.4 0.24 3.7 8.9 0.27 0.35 5 25 35 25 10C8.34 349 3 4.3 3.6 15.5 0.39 6.0 6.0 0.00 0.60 15 30 40 15C6.15 185 3 7.8 3.9 30.4 0.36 10.9 5.3 0.00 0.69 20 30 30 20C4.28 81 3 5.2 3.3 17.2 0.34 5.8 5.7 0.00 0.57 40 40 10 10C2.10 18 3 7.2 6.2 44.6 0.49 21.9 7.7 0.00 0.75 35 40 20 5C8.2 317 3 7.8 5.1 39.8 0.54 21.5 6.6 0.00 0.95 35 60 5 0C7.63 270 3 7.8 3.5 27.3 0.33 9.0 7.2 0.00 0.80 35 50 10 5C8.106 421 4 13.2 2.9 38.3 0.26 10.0 6.1 0.00 0.45 10 30 30 25C4.73 126 4 9.8 3.8 37.2 0.23 8.6 11.4 0.09 0.40 25 55 15 5C8.101 416 4 30.9 3.9 120.5 0.36 43.4 8.7 0.00 0.63 25 20 35 15C8.39 354 4 8.7 4.5 39.2 0.30 11.8 11.6 0.00 0.58 20 25 35 20C7.18 225 4 16.3 3.4 55.4 0.27 15.0 5.4 0.06 0.44 30 45 20 5C7.74 281 4 11.5 3.6 41.4 0.39 16.1 6.8 0.00 0.72 35 35 20 10S5.1 633 1 18.7 8.5 159.0 0.11 17.5 12.5 0.29 0.22 10 20 30 30 1S9.29 974 1 7.8 2.1 16.4 0.05 0.8 12.4 0.18 0.10 15 35 35 15S8.85 921 1 3.2 2.3 7.4 0.04 0.3 13.2 0.26 0.08 5 40 30 25S8.39 875 1 3.1 2.0 6.2 0.08 0.5 11.7 0.46 0.15 70 5 15 10S7.19 817 1 17.7 1.8 31.9 0.09 2.9 13.8 0.14 0.19 40 20 30 5S6.56 761 1 18.5 3.7 68.5 0.07 4.8 10.9 0.33 0.15 10 30 40 15S6.30 735 1 7.1 2.9 20.6 0.08 1.6 13.5 0.24 0.18 5 20 30 35 1S6.9 714 1 26.5 5.0 132.5 0.11 14.6 11.0 0.16 0.30 10 15 25 30 2S5.7 639 1 10.6 2.9 30.7 0.10 3.1 29.9 0.44 0.17 5 30 40 25S1.16 448 1 6.6 3.8 25.1 0.10 2.5 10.6 0.75 0.16 5 35 50 10S2.31 488 1 4.6 4.8 22.1 0.20 4.4 12.9 0.53 0.40 20 50 25 5S3.38 540 1 9.3 3.9 36.3 0.17 6.2 15.8 0.34 0.30 5 30 50 15S4.35 620 2 39.9 5.6 223.4 0.34 76.0 16.1 0.10 1.20 20 25 30 25S6.25 730 2 11.8 3.8 44.8 0.14 6.3 11.0 0.14 0.23 5 15 30 30 2S9.14 959 2 11.7 1.2 14.0 0.11 1.5 11.6 0.23 0.18 10 20 40 30S8.54 890 2 16.5 3.6 59.4 0.16 9.5 13.7 0.10 0.48 10 25 35 30S8.11 847 2 10.9 2.9 31.6 0.36 11.4 10.5 0.14 0.65 15 35 35 15S2.39 496 2 22.2 6.0 133.2 0.15 20.0 14.4 0.25 0.26 10 40 40 10S7.13 811 2 16.2 3.3 53.5 0.16 8.6 8.1 0.09 0.45 20 35 25 20S4.13 598 2 10.1 4.2 42.4 0.43 18.2 13.6 0.15 0.87 35 40 20 5S6.40 745 2 13.5 3.5 47.3 0.21 9.9 9.2 0.11 0.44 5 30 40 20S5.36 668 2 39.3 3.2 125.8 0.17 21.4 27.8 0.11 0.40 15 20 40 20S3.43 545 2 10.7 4.8 51.4 0.14 7.2 11.6 0.23 0.23 10 35 35 20S1.17 449 2 14.8 3.5 51.8 0.28 14.5 11.0 0.15 0.60 20 30 40 10S8.91 927 3 9.8 2.8 27.4 0.42 11.5 15.6 0.00 0.60 40 25 20 15S1.25 457 3 11.3 12.9 145.8 1.32 192.5 19.8 0.00 2.10 15 15 20 20 3S4.1 586 3 15.3 8.8 134.6 0.52 70.0 24.6 0.00 1.30 40 30 20 10S6.54 759 3 15.0 6.6 99.0 0.66 65.3 13.0 0.00 1.70 30 40 20 10S7.25 823 3 4.8 3.3 15.8 0.55 8.7 13.1 0.00 0.83 60 20 10 10SampleCode No. Unit LengthWetWidth Area Depth VolumeChannelWidth Vet.ThalwegDepthZFineX SmGravel% LgGravelXCobbleXBoulder$3.8 510 3 4.5 8.0 36.0 0.38 13.7 13.0 0.00 0.72 35 30 15 15 5S6.39 744 4 25.0 4.8 120.0 0.42 50.4 9.5 0.00 0.82 20 30 30 15 5S7.23 821 4 23.8 6.1 145.2 0.43 62.4 11.1 0.00 1.10 55 20 20 5 0S3.20 522 4 22.3 9.0 200.7 0.35 70.2 13.2 0.00 0.90 30 20 25 15 10S8.92 928 4 43.2 7.7 332.6 0.58 192.9 11.3 0.00 1.48 60 15 15 10 0S9.1 946 4 24.0 6.3 151.2 0.44 66.5 7.1 0.00 0.68 20 20 40 20 0S4.45 630 4 55.2 6.9 380.9 0.33 125.7 11.0 0.00 1.10 30 20 20 20 10SampleCode No. UnitInstrLogInstrBoulderInstrVegOverstrVegCutBank TempC7.5 212 1 0.8 0.0 5.9 10.5 0.0 15.0C8.114 429 1 0.0 0.7 8.0 0.7 0.0 15.0C8.105 420 1 0.0 1.8 1.3 18.0 0.0 16.0C8.61 376 1 5.6 0.2 3.5 19.9 0.0 15.0C8.52 367 1 9.0 0.3 1.4 16.4 0.0 15.0C7.104 311 1 2.0 6.3 2.5 1.5 2.4 16.0C7.60 267 1 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 14.5C7.53 260 1 0.5 0.0 0.3 3.0 0.0 14.0C1.7 7 1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 14.0C4.72 125 1 0.2 17.8 0.0 9.0 0.0 12.5C3.24 52 1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 13.0C4.53 106 1 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 12.0C7.48 255 2 8.4 0.0 0.2 16.5 0.0 13.5C8.56 371 2 0.6 0.6 3.9 12.5 0.0 15.0C4.6 59 2 1.6 0.0 2.8 5.6 1.2 13.0C8.35 350 2 1.2 0.0 0.2 4.0 1.2 14.5C4.17 70 2 0.6 0.0 3.5 10.5 0.0 13.5C5.34 169 2 8.8 0.0 6.0 14.0 7.1 12.0C7.72 279 2 1.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 15.0C8.99 414 2 8.5 0.5 1.7 15.0 7.9 16.0C4.68 121 2 0.8 9.4 9.0 11.8 2.1 12.0C7.6 213 2 0.1 0.0 9.5 21.5 0.0 15.0C6.36 206 2 3.4 14.3 1.6 4.0 1.0 14.5C2.4 12 2 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 13.0C8.34 349 3 3.0 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.5 14.5C6.15 185 3 2.7 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.6 14.5C4.28 81 3 1.2 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.0 13.5C2.10 18 3 0.3 0.0 8.0 33.0 0.0 13.0C8.2 317 3 2.6 0.0 2.7 12.6 3.8 16.0C7.63 270 3 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.2 15.0SampleCode No. UnitInstrLogInstrBoulderInstrVegOverstrVegCutBank TempC8.106 421 4 3.5 1.0 2.4 8.5 3.1 16.0C4.73 126 4 6.0 0.0 1.5 6.2 1.2 13.0C8.101 416 4 8.0 1.5 8.5 54.5 0.0 16.5C8.39 354 4 38.7 0.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 14.5C7.18 225 4 6.3 0.0 13.6 25.0 0.0 15.0C7.74 281 4 3.6 0.0 1.5 13.0 2.5 15.5S5.1 633 1 0.4 23.4 5.5 4.0 0.0 17.0S9.29 974 1 3.0 0.0 1.6 2.0 0.2 15.0S8.85 921 1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.0 16.0S8.39 875 1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.0S7.19 817 1 3.3 0.3 0.6 11.0 0.0 16.0S6.56 761 1 1.0 3.5 5.5 17.0 1.4 15.5S6.30 735 1 0.2 0.7 0.0 5.0 0.0 15.0S6.9 714 1 0.0 47.4 2.1 15.0 0.6 15.0S5.7 639 1 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.0 0.0 17.0S1.16 448 1 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 15.0S2.31 488 1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 14.0S3.38 540 1 1.7 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 14.5S4.35 620 2 26.1 0.0 9.2 19.0 1.0 16.5S6.25 730 2 0.0 8.5 1.0 10.0 0.8 15.0S9.14 959 2 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.0 0.0 16.0S8.54 890 2 3.5 0.0 1.2 2.3 0.0 15.5S8.11 847 2 0.9 0.0 0.8 9.5 3.5 15.0S2.39 496 2 1.0 0.0 1.0 19.8 0.0 14.0S7.13 811 2 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.5 0.0 16.0S4.13 598 2 4.3 0.0 4.5 11.0 0.0 15.0S6.40 745 2 4.0 0.9 4.2 5.0 0.0 15.5S5.36 668 2 10.1 0.5 18.0 10.0 6.0 14.5S3.43 545 2 0.0 0.0 4.0 16.0 0.0 14.5S1.17 449 2 1.4 0.0 7.6 28.0 0.8 15.0S8.91 927 3 1.0 0.0 2.9 2.0 4.8 16.0S1.25 457 3 0.0 89.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 15.0S4.1 586 3 126.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 14.0S6.54 759 3 26.0 0.0 3.2 15.0 7.4 15.0S7.25 823 3 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 16.0S3.8 510 3 9.9 7.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 14.5S6.39 744 4 1.0 7.2 8.4 7.0 1.2 15.5S7.23 821 4 7.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 16.0S3.20 522 4 4.3 46.8 0.5 31.0 0.0 14.5S8.92 928 4 40.9 0.0 5.0 160.0 10.0 16.0S9.1 946 4 3.2 0.0 2.0 14.0 23.7 16.0S4.45 630 4 4.5 27.6 6.4 87.6 2.8 16.5156Appendix DComparison Between 1979-80 and 1989-90 Land Use Within a 500 inbuffer of the Stream Network Above the Salmon River GaugeStation (#08MH090) at 72nd. Avenue.Calculated for hectares (ha) and percent (%) of area.Land Use Type^1979-80^1989-90^% ChangeNo Land UseWithin Boundary 405 ha 405 ha12% 12%Agricultural 1789 ha 1406 ha55% 44% -11Residential 93 ha 229 ha3% 7% +4Undeveloped 764 ha 946 ha24% 30% +6Commercial/Industrial 14 ha 39 ha< 0.5% 1% +0.5Extraction 4 ha 10 ha< 0.5% < 0.5%Transportation/Utility 29 ha 47 ha1% 2% +1Institutional 62 ha 69 ha2% 2%Recreational 68 ha 77 ha2% 2%Total 3228 ha 3228 ha

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 15 2
Canada 8 7
Nigeria 6 0
China 4 6
France 3 0
Albania 2 0
United Kingdom 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 16 5
Beijing 4 0
Wilmington 4 0
Ashburn 3 0
Mountain View 3 0
Langley 2 1
Sunnyvale 1 0
Bagillt 1 0
Ottawa 1 2
Burnaby 1 0
Vancouver 1 0
Campbellton 1 0
Chicago 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086181/manifest

Comment

Related Items