"Science, Faculty of"@en . "Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Watts, R. Dean"@en . "2008-09-25T21:03:28Z"@en . "1992"@en . "Master of Science - MSc"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "With increased urban development in the Fraser River Basin, it is expected that fish habitat degradation will become more widespread bringing into question the sustainability of the fisheries resource. This thesis examines the dynamics of land use and fish habitat in the Salmon River watershed located in the Lower Fraser River Valley. The study was initiated to:1) quantify the distribution and recent trends in land use changes; 2) identify and quantify critical fish habitat to provide a basis for assessing habitat deterioration in the future; 3) characterize recent fish habitat changes; and4) describe trends and processes associated with fish habitat and streamside land use relationships. Geographic Information System techniques were used to analyze the land use data and to display the results.\r\nThe distribution and temporal changes in land use from1979-80 to 1989-90 are examined in three ways: 1) an evaluation of overall watershed conditions; 2) an evaluation of a 500 meter buffer zone of the stream network; and 3) an evaluation of 500meter buffer segments of four key fish habitat reaches.\r\nA significant decrease in agriculture, a substantial increase in undeveloped areas, and a modest increase in residential development were measured over the 10 year period for both the overall watershed and the stream network buffer. Similar land use trends were observed for the four key fish habitat buffer segments. A large increase in residential development was particularly notable in two of the four buffer segments.\r\nStream morphology characteristics were measured in prime fish habitat areas of the Salmon River, and its principle tributary Coghlan Creek. The fish habitat was classified into four hydraulic unit types; riffles, glides, pools and sloughs. A comparison of reaches between the two streams showed that the Salmon River had twice the stream volume relative to Coghlan Creek. The reaches selected for study within the two streams are considered the most critical spawning and rearing areas for salmonids in the basin. Measurements of preferred hydraulic habitat for salmonids (riffles, glides and pools) showed that Coghlan Creek had 20% more high quality habitat than the Salmon River.\r\nA interesting 2:1 relationship was found between reaches in the Salmon River and Coghlan Creek for both stream volume and smolt catch numbers. This ratio was consistent for five years between 1979 and 1989 for which reliable data is available. However in 1990 and 1992, smolt catch statistics decreased by half in the Salmon River which coincides with significant increases in urbanization. More information is needed to document these trends and to provide evidence for cause and effect relationships.\r\nThe techniques used in this study provide a new approach for examining potential interactions and relationships between land use, fish habitat and fish production. The study contributes a set of baseline data which can be used for future monitoring of fish habitat dynamics in relation to land use changes."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/2372?expand=metadata"@en . "15497122 bytes"@en . "application/pdf"@en . "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\u00C2\u00A9 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.xi iDEDICATIONThis 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) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2I\u00E2\u0080\u0094,i\u00E2\u0080\u0094,(D t4'<0\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 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 alluviumIDrn clayey alloytuttrtLag Grovels 0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0111Glottal 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\u00C2\u00B0E3:2- 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\u00E2\u0080\u00A2L BUFFER OF FISHHABITAT STUDY REACHESCI, C2, Si, AND S2WATERSHED BOUNDARYSTREAM NETWORKZctOJ cno *1-1M^Pi 0C) CD(It \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 a Meci\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 5 Cnrho 'rQ "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "1993-05"@en . "10.14288/1.0086181"@en . "eng"@en . "Resource Management Science"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "A GIS evaluation of land use dynamics and fish habitat in the salmon river watershed - Langley, B.C."@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/2372"@en .