Skip booklet index and go to page content

Recovery Strategy for the Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) in Canada (proposed)

Species at Risk Act recovery strategy series, recovery strategy for the Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) in Canada.

Species at Risk Act
Recovery strategy series

Salish Sucker

2012

About the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series

What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)?

SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003 and one of its purposes is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.”

What is recovery?

In the context of species at risk conservation, recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened, or extirpated species is arrested or reversed and threats are removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of the species’ persistence in the wild. A species will be considered recovered when its long-term persistence in the wild has been secured.

What is a recovery strategy?

A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. It sets goals and objectives and identifies the main areas of activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning is done at the action plan stage.

Recovery strategy development is a commitment of all provinces and territories and of three federal agencies -- Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada -- under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. Sections 37–46 of SARA spell out both the required content and the process for developing recovery strategies published in this series.

Depending on the status of the species and when it was assessed, a recovery strategy has to be developed within one to two years after the species is added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. Three to four years is allowed for those species that were automatically listed when SARA came into force.

What’s next?

In most cases, one or more action plans will be developed to define and guide implementation of the recovery strategy. Nevertheless, directions set in the recovery strategy are sufficient to begin involving communities, land and water users, and conservationists in recovery implementation.

The series

This series presents the recovery strategies prepared or adopted by the federal government under SARA. New documents will be added regularly as species get listed and as strategies are updated.

To learn more

To learn more about the Species at Risk Act and recovery initiatives, please consult the SARA Public Registry.

Recommended citation:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver. viii + 64 pp.


Additional copies:

Additional copies can be downloaded from the SARA Public Registry.

Cover illustration:

M. Pearson


Également disponible en français sous le titre « Programme de rétablissement pour le meunier de Salish (Catostomus sp.) au Canada [proposition] »

©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, 2012. All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-0-662-45387-1
Cat. no. En3-4/19-2007E-PDF

Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source.

Preface

The Salish Sucker is a freshwater fish and is under the responsibility of the federal government. The Species at Risk Act (SARA, Section 37) requires the competent minister to prepare recovery strategies for listed extirpated, endangered or threatened species. The Salish Sucker was listed as endangered under SARA in June 2005. The development of this recovery strategy was co-led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Pacific Region and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, in cooperation and consultation with many individuals, organizations and government agencies, as indicated below. The strategy meets SARA requirements in terms of content and process (Sections 39-41) and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment has reviewed and accepts this document as scientific advice.

Success in the recovery of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing the directions set out in this strategy and will not be achieved by Fisheries and Oceans Canada or any other party alone. This strategy provides advice to jurisdictions and organizations that may be involved or wish to become involved in the recovery of the species. In the spirit of the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans invites all responsible jurisdictions and Canadians to join Fisheries and Oceans Canada in supporting and implementing this strategy for the benefit of the Salish Sucker and Canadian society as a whole. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Province of BC will support implementation of this strategy to the extent possible, given available resources and their overall responsibility for species at risk conservation.

The goals, objectives and recovery approaches identified in the strategy are based on the best existing knowledge and are subject to modifications resulting from new information. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will report on progress within five years.

This strategy will be complemented by one or more action plans that will provide details on specific recovery measures to be taken to support conservation of the species. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will take steps to ensure that, to the extent possible, Canadians interested in or affected by these measures will be consulted.

Responsible jurisdictions

The responsible jurisdiction for Salish Sucker under the Species at Risk Act is Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Acknowledgements

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Province of British Columbia cooperated in the development of this recovery strategy. A recovery team was assembled to provide science-based recommendations to government with respect to the recovery of Salish Sucker.

Members of the Recovery Team for Salish Sucker are listed below:

Tom G. Brown, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Karen Calla, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (previous Co-Chair)
Todd Hatfield, Solander Ecological Research (Recovery Team Coordinator)
Don McPhail, University of British Columbia
Mike Pearson, Pearson Ecological (Writer)
John Richardson, University of British Columbia
Jordan Rosenfeld, British Columbia Ministry of Environment (Co-Chair)
Dan Sneep, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (previous Co-Chair)
Dolph Schluter, University of British Columbia
Heather Stalberg, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Co-Chair)
Marina Stjepovic, Township of Langley
Eric Taylor, University of British Columbia
Paul Wood, University of British Columbia

Financial support for the development of the recovery strategy was provided by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and the Province of British Columbia.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy Plan and Program Proposals, the purpose of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally-sound decision making.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts on non-target species or habitats.

While this recovery strategy will clearly benefit the environment by promoting the recovery of Salish Sucker, potential effects on other species were also considered. The strategy calls for the protection, creation, and enhancement of deep pool and marsh habitat, which could eliminate some of the riffle habitat of Nooksack Dace, another species listed as Endangered under SARA. The strategy recommends cooperation with local stewardship groups and agency staff on habitat management, and proposes to address potential conflicts with recovery of Nooksack Dace by coordinating recovery activities for both species in watersheds where they coexist through the development of a joint action plan. The recovery strategy also calls for minimizing probability of predator introductions, by documenting their occurrence and educating the public on their impacts, which could provide benefits to other species that could be affected by introduced predators. Further information on potential interactions with other species is presented in the Recovery section of the document, in particular under the headings Broad Strategies to Support Recovery Objectives and Effects on Other Species. Taking these into account, it was concluded that the benefits of this recovery strategy far outweigh any adverse effects that may result.

Residence

SARA defines residence as: “a dwelling-place, such as a den, nest or other similar area or place, that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life cycles, including breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, feeding or hibernating” [SARA S2 (1)].

As stated in the Recovery potential assessment for the Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) in Canada (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009), the concept of residence does not apply to Salish Sucker.

Executive summary

The Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) is a small-bodied, fine-scaled fish documented in 11 British Columbia watersheds, all in the Fraser Valley. At least four other populations occur in northwestern Washington State. One of the 11 British Columbia populations (Little Campbell River) is believed to have been extirpated. Salish Sucker populations have been in decline since at least the 1960s in Canada, and probably for longer.

Adults are most abundant in headwater marshes and beaver ponds. Juveniles are found in shallow pools or glides containing cover, but may also use other habitats. Spawning occurs in riffles over fine gravel; diet is composed predominately of insect larvae. Most individuals have small home ranges (mean of 170 m of channel, May - Oct), although some individuals venture kilometres during the spawning period. Within watersheds, distribution is extremely clumped, with a few sites harbouring most of the population. Consequently spatial distribution and longevity of habitat patches, in addition to their size, may be important for long-term persistence of Salish Sucker.

Salish Sucker populations appear to be most vulnerable to acute hypoxia and to habitat loss. These conditions are common throughout the range and result primarily from over-application of fertilizers and manure, drainage, channelization, dredging and infilling activities associated with agriculture and residential land development. Hypoxia is difficult to address in the current regulatory and policy context and is likely the single largest threat.

Although it is poorly known, predation by introduced species is currently considered only a moderate threat, as these species appear to have coexisted with Salish Sucker for a decade in some parts of their range. However, the ubiquity of introduced predators and their documented impacts on other species justifies the ranking of this threat as moderate. Habitat fragmentation is currently a moderate threat to Salish Sucker, but its impacts are poorly understood. Sediment deposition and toxicity (in the form of contaminated sediments) appear to be major threats in some, but not all, watersheds.

Critical habitat for Salish Sucker includes all reaches in streams currently containing populations with more than 50 m of continuous pool and a water depth exceeding 70 cm at summer low flows. As the primary habitat for the majority of the life cycle, with the exception of spawning, all deep pools in such reaches are important features of critical habitat for Salish Sucker. The 50 m threshold was chosen because it is the minimum length of all reaches known to contain moderate or high densities of Salish Sucker (catch per unit effort > 1.8 individual per trapFootnote 1, Pearson, unpubl.). Critical habitat for Salish Sucker includes all aquatic habitat and riparian reserve strips of native vegetation on both banks for the entire length of these reaches. Riparian reserve strips are continuous and extend laterally from the top of bank to a width equal to the widest zone of sensitivity (ZOS) calculated for each of five riparian features, functions and conditions. The ZOS values are calculated using methods consistent with those used under the Fish Protection Act (S.B.C. 1997, c. 21).

The total length of critical habitat identified for Salish Sucker in this recovery strategy is 145.74 km (of 329.1 km of surveyed stream channel). The areas identified as critical habitat are those considered necessary to support the species survival and recovery and to reach the population and distribution objectives for Salish Sucker. Additional habitats that fall outside the definition above will also be identified as critical habitat in subsequent action plans if it is known to provide a critical function as per the description of habitat in SARA.

Under SARA, critical habitat must be legally protected once it is identified. This will be accomplished through a SARA order, which will prohibit the destruction of the identified critical habitat. SARA includes a provision for permitting related to the prohibition against destruction provided specific conditions are met.

Recovery

Recovery of Salish Sucker populations is both technically and biologically feasible. It will involve the establishment and/or maintenance of sufficient high quality habitat for all life stages in each creek. Required actions will vary, but will generally include water quality improvement and restoration of degraded or destroyed habitat. Management activities will be required in all watersheds.

The goal of recovery is:

To ensure long-term viability of Salish Sucker populations throughout their natural distribution in Canada.

The recovery strategy has three objectives:

  1. Prevent extirpation of Salish Sucker in each of the 10 watersheds with extant populations by preventing net loss of reproductive potential.
  2. Reach or exceed each of the following targets by 2020:
    1. occupation of all instream critical habitats,
    2. watershed-specific abundance targets for mature individuals,
    3. one or more source habitats with high density in each watershed.
  3. Reintroduce Salish Sucker to Little Campbell River, if feasible.

Nine broad strategies have been identified in support of these objectives.

  1. Reduce incidence of severe hypoxia in instream critical habitats.
  2. Protect existing habitat, restore lost or degraded habitat and create new habitat.
  3. Increase the integrity and function of all riparian habitats.
  4. Encourage stewardship among private landowners, local government and agencies, and the general public.
  5. Reduce fragmentation of instream and riparian habitats.
  6. Reduce toxic contamination of instream habitat.
  7. Reduce sediment entry to instream habitats.
  8. Reduce impacts of introduced predators.
  9. Assess feasibility of reintroducing Salish Sucker into the Little Campbell River.

The objectives and strategies are presented in detail in the recovery strategy.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Double ended cylindrical funnel traps 100 x 55 cm, 0.5” mesh, baited with dry cat food set for 24 h (see Pearson and Healey 2003).

Return to footnote 1

Return to Table of Contents

Lists of figures, tables and appendices

List of figures


List of tables


List of appendices

Return to Table of Contents

1. Background


1.1 Species information

The status report and assessment summary for Salish Sucker is available from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Secretariat.

Common name: Salish Sucker

Scientific name: Catostomus sp.

Assessment Summary: November 2002

COSEWIC Status: Endangered, April 1987 and May 2000

Species at Risk Act (SARA) Status: Endangered, June 2005

Reason for Designation: This species has a restricted range in Canada, and is in significant decline due to habitat loss and degradation.

Range in Canada: British Columbia

Status History: Designated Endangered in April 1996. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2000. Last assessment based on an existing status report

1.2 Species description

The Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) is closely related to the Longnose sucker (C. catostomus), a widespread species in North America. The two taxa diverged when a population became geographically isolated in the Chehalis River valley (present-day Washington State) sometime during the Pleistocene glaciations (McPhail 1987). The Salish Sucker is considered an evolutionarily significant unit (McPhail & Taylor 1999) and can be considered a “species in the making” (McPhail 1987), although its precise taxonomic status is currently being investigated.

The Salish Sucker is dark-green, mottled with black dorsally, dirty-white ventrally and develops a broad red lateral stripe during the spawning season. This stripe is especially vivid in males. Scales are fine, the snout is short and blunt, and the small mouth is located on the lower surface of the head (McPhail & Carveth 1994). Few males exceed 200 mm (fork length) and they can reach sexual maturity at less than 100 mm; females seldom exceed 250 mm (Pearson & Healey 2003).

1.3 Populations and distribution

Populations of Salish Suckers have been documented in 11 British Columbia watersheds, all in the Fraser Valley. At least four others occur in northwestern Washington State (Figure 1). The population in Little Campbell River, BC is believed to have been extirpated, although there is an unconfirmed report of Salish Suckers in a pond within the floodplain of the Little Campbell (Pearson pers. comm. 2011). Current information suggests that approximately 25% of the global range and 70% of all populations are in Canada (Figure 1). The species has been in decline since at least the 1960s (McPhail 1987), and probably for much longer (Pearson 2004a).


Figure 1. Distribution of the Salish Sucker

Maps showing the distribution of Salish Sucker in Canada (see long description below).

In Canada (left panel), the Salish Sucker has been observed in eleven watersheds: (1) Little Campbell River, (2) Salmon River, (3) Bertrand Creek, (4) Pepin Brook, (5) Fishtrap Creek, (6) Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough, (7) Chilliwack Delta (Atchelitz/Chilliwack/ Semmihault Creeks), (8) Elk Creek/Hope Slough, (9) Mountain Slough, (10) Agassiz Slough, (11) Miami Creek. Globally, it is also found in four other watersheds in northwestern Washington (right panel).

Description of Figure 1

Figure 1 is a map showing the distribution of Salish Sucker in Canada. The map depicts the Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland area of British Columbia, stretching from Vancouver on the west side of the map to Harrison Lake in the northeast corner of the map to the United States border along the southern border of the map. The following watersheds where Salish Sucker have been observed are identified on the map: Salmon River, Bertrand Creek, Pepin Brook, Fishtrap Creek, (Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough, Chilliwack Delta (Atchelitz/Chilliwack/ Semmihault Creeks), Elk Creek/Hope Slough, Mountain Slough, Agassiz Slough, and Miami Creek. The Little Campbell River watershed is depicted as a watershed where the Salish Sucker is believed to be extirpated. A second map shows the global distribution of Salish Sucker in southwestern British Columbia and western Washington State. In addition to the watersheds listed above, four watersheds in Washington State where Salish Sucker is known are identified (adapted from Pearson 2004a and McPhail 1997).


In the current landscape, there are virtually no aquatic connections between adjacent populations. Exceptions include a small headwater pond that feeds both Mountain Slough and Miami Creek and an occasional high water connection between Bertrand Creek and the Salmon River via a headwater wetland (Pearson pers. comm. 2010). The only other route between watersheds is via the mainstem Fraser River or Nooksack River, although no Salish Suckers have ever been reported from either and captures in larger sloughs are extremely rare (Pearson pers. comm. 2010). Prior to the drainage of Sumas Lake (1920s) and the construction of the dyke system following the 1948 flood, permanent and high water connections among populations would have been more common. This raises the possibility that the populations were historically linked in a meta-population structure.

1.4 Description of the species' needs

1.4.1 Biological needs, ecological role, and limiting factors

Salish Suckers are well-equipped to inhabit headwater streams, where habitat conditions may vary widely on daily, seasonal, and longer time scales. They tolerate higher temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen levels than most other native fish that occur in this region of British Columbia. The major natural limiting factor for populations is the availability of high quality habitat. Salish Suckers have life history characteristics that promote rapid population growth, given adequate habitat. Compared to Longnose sucker, the Salish Sucker is small, short-lived, and early-maturing. Most spawn for the first time in their second year, and they rarely live beyond 5 years (McPhail 1987). Salish Suckers begin spawning in April, but the period is protracted (6 to 8 weeks, Pearson 2004a), relative to the Longnose sucker (2 to 3 weeks, Barton 1980; Schlosser 1990; Scott & Crossman 1973), a trait that increases fecundity in species otherwise limited by small female body size (Blueweiss et al. 1978; Burt et al. 1988). Spawning occurs between early April and mid July (McPhail 1987; Pearson & Healey 2003) and egg incubation is likely complete by mid-August.


1.4.2 Habitat needs

Physical habitat

Adults are most abundant in marshes and American beaver (Castor canadensis) ponds with mud or silt substrates. The proportion of channel deeper than 70 cm is the strongest predictor of adult presence in a reach. Occupied reaches also have significantly less riffle and more in-stream vegetation than reaches in which Salish Suckers are absent. Although fewer data exist for young-of-the-year, they appear to be associated with shallow pool and glide habitats containing abundant vegetation (Pearson 2004a). Spawning typically occurs in gravel riffles (McPhail 1987), but groundwater upwellings are likely used in systems lacking riffle habitats (Pearson unpublished data). Most individuals appear to have small home ranges (mean of 170 m of channel) although some individuals are known to venture thousands of metres during the spawning period (Pearson & Healey 2003).

Water quality

Water must have oxygen, pH, temperature, and toxin levels that are not harmful to the species. Salish Suckers appear well-adapted to low oxygen environments and have been captured in areas with concentrations below 2 mg/L (Pearson unpublished data). Sublethal effects (e.g., reduced growth and fecundity) likely occur at these concentrations. Based on observation and experience, an appropriate target for dissolved oxygen in Salish Sucker habitat is ≥ 4 mg/L. This is lower than the federal water quality guideline for aquatic life (5 mg/L, CCREM 1987), but these are intended to protect species like salmonids, which are very intolerant of hypoxia. Thermal tolerances of the Salish Sucker are unknown, but activity is minimal at temperatures below 6°C (Pearson & Healey 2003) and apparently healthy fish have been caught in temperatures of up to 23°C (Pearson unpublished data). The sensitivity of Salish Suckers to toxic contamination is unknown. Salish Suckers are generally absent from reaches where the landscape within a 200 m radius of the channel is more than 50% urban by area (Pearson 2004a). These reaches invariably receive urban stormwater containing contaminated sediments from road runoff (Hall et al. 1991). As bottom-dwelling fish, Salish Suckers in these habitats are likely to be chronically exposed to toxins in sediments.

Spatial distribution and temporal stability of habitats

Distribution of the Salish Sucker is clumped, with a few sites harbouring most individuals (Pearson 2004a). These ‘hotspots’ likely result from rare convergences of optimal levels in a few key environmental variables (Brown et al. 1995). For Salish Suckers these variables likely include extensive areas of deep water (100s of metres of channel) close to spawning riffles and shallow nursery habitat, adequate water quality, and low predation pressure (Pearson 2004a). Most individuals appear to confine their movements to a single reach but some individuals travel more widely (Pearson & Healey 2003). Clumped distribution and bimodal movement patterns suggest that metapopulation and/or source-sink population dynamics characterize the species. If so, factors affecting migration between sub-populations (the proximity of ‘hotspots’ to one another and the occurrence of movement barriers between them) are likely important to long-term population viability. Natural disturbance and succession may produce a pattern in which the location of hotspots moves throughout the landscape over time, but are occasionally eliminated by catastrophic events (Ives & Klopper 1997). Such catastrophic declines at the reach scale have been documented for the Salish Sucker (Pearson 2004a), but the effect on extinction risk for Salish Sucker populations is unknown.

Return to Table of Contents

2. Threats


2.1 Identification of threats to the survival of the species

The potential for recovery of a species at risk depends on the magnitude, timing, frequency, duration and extent of threats it faces. The following sections summarize detailed analyses published elsewhere (Pearson 2004a, b).

Eight factors (Table 1) were considered threats based on knowledge of species biology and habitat conditions across the Canadian range. All are proximate, in that they act directly on Salish Suckers or their habitats. Factors known to drive or trigger threats are described in Figure 2. The vulnerability of the Salish Sucker to each threat and the severity of each threat in each watershed are rated and summarized in Table 2. The ratings are based on analyses of a suite of indicators that cause, exacerbate or mitigate threats. A summary by watershed is presented in Table 3. For details of assessment methods and rationale for ratings see Pearson (2004a; 2004b).

Table 1. Potential threats to the Salish Sucker in Canada.
ThreatManagement Concern
1) HypoxiaEpisodes of extreme hypoxia cause acute mortality or reduced fitness.
2) Physical Destruction of HabitatDrainage, dyking, channelization and infilling of waterbodies destroys habitat.
3) Habitat FragmentationPermanent or temporary barriers such as perched culverts, beaver dams, and agricultural weirs prevent or inhibit fish from traversing some stream reaches. This restricts access to usable habitats and/or alters metapopulation dynamics, and increases extinction risk.
4) ToxicityToxic discharges from point and non-point sources reduce survival or fitness.
5) Sediment DepositionDeposited sediment degrades habitat by reducing invertebrate (food) density, reducing the flow of oxygenated water to eggs in riffles and, in severe cases, by infilling pools.
6) Seasonal Lack of WaterLow flows in late summer eliminate habitat, reducing fitness or survival.
7) Increased PredationIntroduced predators consume individuals or reduce their fitness by inducing behavioural changes (e.g. increased energy expenditure and reduced energy intake)
8) Riffle Loss to Beaver PondsBeaver ponds flood riffle habitat.

 

Table 2. A threats assessment summary for the Salish Sucker. See text for more details.
ThreatVulnerabilitySeverity Across Range
Hypoxiamajor concernmajor concern
Physical Destruction of Habitatmajor concernmajor concern
Habitat Fragmentationmoderate concernmajor concern
Toxicitymoderate concernmoderate concern
Sediment Depositionmoderate concernmoderate concern
Seasonal Lack of Waterminor concernmoderate concern
Increased Predationminor concernmoderate concern
Riffle Loss to Beaver Pondsminor concernminor concern


Figure 2. Factors known or suspected to drive or trigger threats to the Salish Sucker

Flow chart (see long description below).

Description of Figure 2

Figure 2 describes the interaction of factors known or suspected to drive or trigger threats to the Salish Sucker (from Pearson 2004a). Contributing factors including nutrient loading, dredging, dyking, channelization, draining, infilling, water withdrawal, impermeable soils, impermeable surfaces, lack of riparian vegetation, poor erosion control, beaver ponding, pesticide / herbicide use, toxic spills and introduced species are shown as contributing to threats to the species which then affect the abundance and distribution of Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace.

 

Table 3. Assessment of threat severity in each of the watersheds in Canada where Salish Suckers have been observed. Background data and details of assessment methods are provided by Pearson (2004a). The assessment of Elk/Hope Slough is based on data collected very recently (Pearson unpublished data).
ThreatBertrand CreekPepin BrookFishtrap CreekUpper Salmon RiverSalwein/ Hopedale SloughAtchelitz/
Chilliwack/
Semmihault
Miami CreekMountain SloughAgassiz SloughElk / Hope SloughLittle Campbell River
Hypoxiamoderate concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concern
Physical Destruction of Habitatmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concern
Habitat Fragmentationmajor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmajor concernmoderate concernmoderate concern
Toxicitymoderate concernminor concernmajor concernminor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmajor concernmoderate concernmoderate concern
Sediment Depositionmoderate concernmajor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernminor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmoderate concern
Seasonal Lack of watermajor concernminor concernmoderate concernmajor concernminor concernminor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmajor concernminor concernmoderate concern
Increased Predationmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernminor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernminor concernminor concernminor concernmoderate concernmajor concern
Riffle Loss to Beaver Pondsminor concernmajor concernminor concernminor concernminor concernminor concernminor concernminor concernminor concernminor concernmoderate concern

 

2.1.1 Threat 1: Hypoxia

Description

There are several interacting causes of hypoxia, but it is ultimately caused by the cumulative effects of local and watershed-scale impacts. Nutrients in Fraser Valley groundwater and streams are elevated, primarily as a consequence of over-application of manure and fertilizers to agriculture lands (Lavkulich et al. 1999; Schreier et al. 2003), but also from urban stormwater runoff and septic systems (Lavkulich et al. 1999). Increased nutrients result in algal blooms and high densities of macrophytes that strip the water of oxygen at night. Decomposition of dead algae and vegetation exacerbates the problem and may severely depress daytime oxygen levels as well. Lack of shade from riparian vegetation promotes increased water temperatures. Warmer water has less capacity for dissolved oxygen (DO) and increases the metabolic demands of fish and other organisms. Reduced water movement impairs reoxygenation of water and may be caused by channelization, (Schreier et al. 2003), beaver ponds (Fox & Keast 1990; Schlosser & Kallemyn 2000), or low flows.

Vulnerability (major concern)

Salish Suckers are able to tolerate moderate hypoxia and have been captured in areas with concentrations below 2 mg/L (Pearson, unpublished data), yet occasional reach-scale kills of Salish Suckers due to severe hypoxia likely occur. A marsh in Pepin Brook that contained a very high density of Salish Suckers between 1999 and 2002 (over 1000 fish in 1420 m2 of habitat) was near anoxic (DO <1.5 mg/L) and apparently devoid of fish in 2003 (Pearson 2004a). Levels at which sub-lethal effects (e.g., reduced growth, fecundity) occur are unknown. Eggs, larvae, and over-wintering fish are unlikely to be affected by severe hypoxia as it usually occurs in mid to late summer when flows are low and temperatures are high. A DO concentration of ≥ 4 mg/L is likely adequate for the Salish Sucker (see 1.4 Description of the Species’ Needs).

Severity (major concern)

Along with direct habitat destruction, hypoxia appears to be the most serious threat to Salish Sucker populations range-wide. It is a major concern in seven of the 11 watersheds (Table 3). When 58 km of stream areas identified as critical habitat in this recovery strategy were surveyed during late summer 2004, the DO concentration was less than 4 mg/L in 40% of the habitat and less than 2 mg/L in 21% of the habitat (Pearson unpublished data). DO measurements were made during the day, but since the lowest dissolved oxygen levels occur at dawn these are conservative numbers. One of the main factors contributing to hypoxia, nutrient loading, has increased greatly with agricultural intensification in the Fraser Valley (Hall & Schreier 1996). Manure application on agricultural lands in Abbotsford is currently adding approximately three times the amount of nitrate that crops can take up, and the ratio is increasing (Schreier pers. comm. 2005); the excess enters groundwater and surface waters.


2.1.2 Threat 2: Physical destruction of habitat

Description

Channelization, dredging and infilling directly destroy or degrade stream habitats. Channelization reduces channel length (and habitat area), and exacerbates hypoxia by reducing mixing. Dredging removes spawning riffles and other habitat features, and infilling destroys all affected habitats.

Vulnerability (major concern)

Like all species, Salish Suckers are highly vulnerable to large-scale destruction of their habitat. The highest densities of Salish Suckers are found in marshes and beaver ponds (Pearson 2004a), habitats that have often been drained and turned into agricultural lands.

Severity (major concern)

Approximately 77% of pre-settlement wetland areas in the Fraser Valley have been drained or infilled (Boyle et al. 1997). Fifteen percent of the area’s streams no longer exist, having been paved over or piped (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1998). A large, but unknown, proportion of those that remain have been channelized and/or repeatedly dredged for agricultural or urban development. It is difficult to overstate the historical extent of fish habitat loss from these activities. Both permitted and illegal dredging of ditches and stream channels for flood control and agricultural drainage still occur annually in all watersheds known to have Salish Suckers. Along with hypoxia, physical habitat destruction ranks as the most severe threat facing the species. It is considered a major concern in seven of the 11 watersheds and a moderate concern in the remaining four (Table 3). The loss of historic habitats means Salish Suckers are now more dependent on those habitats remaining.


2.1.3 Threat 3: Habitat fragmentation

Description

Physical barriers such as perched culverts, beaver dams, and agricultural weirs commonly prevent fish movement between habitats for all or part of the year in Fraser Valley streams. In addition, any of the other threats discussed may fragment habitat by preventing or curtailing movement of fish within and among affected reaches. On a larger scale, connections between watersheds during floods were undoubtedly more common prior to the extensive dyking and drainage works of the past century.

Vulnerability (moderate concern)

Distribution of the Salish Sucker is clumped, and a small proportion of habitat contains the majority of individuals (Pearson 2004a). Individuals usually stay within a small home range (less than 200m of channel), but occasionally travel longer distances, especially during the spawning period (Pearson & Healey 2003). This suggests that each watershed is inhabited by core subpopulations connected by occasional migration. Movement between these subpopulations typically requires traversing several kilometres of stream, or crossing watershed boundaries during occasional high-water connections. Most barriers and habitat fragmentation in Salish Sucker watersheds date from the past 50 to 130 years, and surviving populations have shown some resilience (Pearson 2004a). The effects, however, may occur over longer time frames. The effect of fragmentation on the long-term persistence of the Salish Sucker is unclear, though where access is available, Salish Sucker populations have demonstrated an ability to colonize new habitat quickly (Patton 2003).

Severity (major concern)

The destruction of aquatic habitat that has occurred within the Fraser Valley over the past 150 years has fragmented available habitat. At the regional scale, high-water connections between watersheds still occur annually in some systems (Miami Creek with Mountain Slough) and at least every few years in others (Bertrand Creek with the Salmon and Little Campbell Rivers, Pearson 2004a), but many former connections have been lost or weakened. The drainage of Sumas Lake, the diversion of the Chilliwack River away from its delta, and the isolation of Agassiz Slough by a dyke and highway overpass are the starkest examples (Pearson 2004a). Within watersheds, physical barriers such as perched culverts, beaver dams, and agricultural weirs commonly prevent movement between some habitats for all or part of the year in virtually all Fraser Valley streams. Historic habitat losses mean greater dependence of the Salish Sucker on those habitats that remain.


2.1.4 Threat 4: Toxicity

Description

Toxic compounds enter Fraser Valley streams through urban storm runoff, contaminated groundwater (e.g., agricultural pesticides and herbicides), direct industrial discharges, sewage treatment plant effluents, aerial deposition, and accidental spills (Hall et al. 1991). Concentrations in the water column are variable over time because dilution varies with stream discharge and inputs are often pulsed (e.g., first flush of stormwater following a long dry spell, Hall et al. 1991). Some contaminants, particularly heavy metals, bind to sediments where they may be taken up and bioaccumulated by aquatic invertebrates and subsequently fish.

Vulnerability (moderate concern)

Data on threshold concentrations for acute and sublethal effects to the Salish Sucker are lacking. The Salish Sucker may be sensitive to contaminants in food items and the water column, and as a bottom-dwelling species that feeds primarily on benthos it may be sensitive to contaminants bound to sediment. Salish Suckers are less likely to be found in reaches where land use within 200 m of the channel is predominantly urban (Pearson 2004a). This may be partly due to toxic materials originating from storm sewer outfalls.

Severity (moderate concern)

Toxicity is considered a moderate threat range-wide. It is poorly documented in most Salish Sucker streams, but is likely present to some degree in all. It is a major concern in localized areas. Agassiz Slough sediments, for example, are contaminated by urban storm runoff and contain copper and zinc levels in excess of recommendations for protection of aquatic life (Schreier et al. 2003). Portions of three other streams (Bertrand Creek, Fishtrap Creek, and Atchelitz/Chilliwack/Semmihault) also receive stormwater from adjacent urban areas and are likely also contaminated. Pesticides and herbicides have been detected in both surface water and groundwater in Salish Sucker watersheds (Hall et al. 1991; Schreier et al. 2003). The list of compounds that could enter creeks from spraying, poor waste management, and accidental spills is enormous.


2.1.5 Threat 5: Sediment deposition

Description

Sediment deposition is controlled by the balance between the rate of sediment delivery to the channel and capacity of the stream to mobilize and carry it downstream. Sediment delivery may be increased by direct discharges, storm drain runoff, or bank erosion accelerated by lack of riparian vegetation and/or increased peak flows (Waters 1995). All of these sources are likely to increase with urban, agriculture and mining development in a watershed.

Vulnerability (moderate concern)

Salish Suckers spawn in riffles between April and early July (Pearson & Healey, 2003) and are probably most susceptible to sedimentation in these habitats during this period. Salish Suckers are less likely to be found in reaches where land use within 200 m of the channel is predominantly urban (Pearson, 2004a); sediment inputs from storm sewer outfalls and its deposition on riffles may partially explain this.

Severity (moderate concern)

Sediment deposition and its negative effects on reproduction are moderate concerns in almost all Salish Sucker watersheds (Table 3). Chronic, large-scale releases from gravel pits have filled in pools and largely eliminated instream cover and food sources from a critical habitat reach in Pepin Brook.


2.1.6 Threat 6: Seasonal lack of water

Description

During late summer, when rainfall is sparse, Fraser Valley stream flows are maintained almost solely by groundwater. Stream hydrographs vary widely depending on surface soil permeability and water use. Watersheds with large unconfined aquifers or mountain tributaries fed by snow melt (e.g., Elk Creek) maintain steady flows of cold water throughout this critical period, while surface flows may cease completely in watersheds with impermeable surface soils (e.g., Bertrand Creek and tributaries). Unfortunately, the late summer low-flow period coincides with peak demand for water from wells and streams for irrigation and domestic use, which can lower water levels further. Common land use changes in the Fraser Valley also tend to exacerbate problems with lack of water. Gravel mining reduces the size of the aquifer contributing to base flow, urban development increases the area of impermeable surfaces, reducing infiltration to the aquifer, and drainage for agriculture lowers water tables, further reducing low flows. Beaver ponds are a stabilizing force, maintaining water levels in reaches that may otherwise dry out. Beaver dams can improve low flows by augmenting groundwater levels and via seepage through the dams (Stabler 1985, Gurnell 1998).

Vulnerability (minor concern)

The deep pool habitats preferred by Salish Suckers rarely dry out completely. Spawning and egg incubation occur in spring and early summer, when water is generally plentiful. Lack of water is a potentially exacerbating factor for several other threats including hypoxia, toxicity, habitat fragmentation and introduced predators.

Severity (moderate concern)

Lack of water is a moderate concern range-wide. It is a major concern in three of the eleven watersheds, a minor concern in three and a moderate concern in the remaining five (Table 3).


2.1.7 Threat 7: Increased predation

Description

Increased predation is most likely to arise from the introduction of new predators to Salish Sucker habitats. Such introductions are implicated in the extinction of numerous native fishes across North America (Miller et al. 1989; Richter 1997; Gido & Brown 1999).

Vulnerability (minor concern)

The impacts of introduced predators on Salish Sucker populations are unknown, but do not appear to be severe. Salish Suckers have coexisted with Brown bullheads, Ameiurus nebulosis, bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, and/or Largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, for at least ten years in various parts of the range (Pearson, unpublished data). All three likely prey on juvenile Salish Suckers, and Largemouth bass become large enough to consume adults. Their impacts probably vary with habitat attributes. All three of these predators thrive in warm water littoral zones. The Brown bullhead is also extremely tolerant of hypoxia (Scott & Crossman 1973). Other introduced fish species, such as Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu, Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus and Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus are spreading in the region, through unauthorized introductions and subsequent range expansions (Hatfield & Pollard 2006). Introduced Smallmouth bass are implicated in the extirpation of small-bodied fish species from lakes in eastern Canada (Chapleau et al. 1997; Whittier et al. 1997; Vander Zanden et al. 1999; Whittier and Kincaid 1999; Findlay et al. 2000; MacRae and Jackson 2001). Introduced species may alter habitat use by Salish Suckers and exacerbate other habitat effects such as increased water temperatures or the frequency and severity of hypoxia. Alternatively, recovery efforts to increase habitat complexity may reduce impacts from introduced species by providing areas of refuge (Jackson et al. 2001).

Severity (moderate concern)

Introduced predators inhabit every stream known to contain Salish Suckers. The threat of effective, new predators being introduced is also ever present.


2.1.8 Threat 8: Riffle loss to beaver ponds

Description

Beaver ponds have been shown to influence fish populations both positively and negatively (Hanson & Campbell 1963; Keast & Fox 1990; Lavkulich et al. 1999; Schlosser 1995), but the impacts of riffle loss through ponding has received scant attention.

Vulnerability (minor concern)

As long as the relatively small amount of riffle habitat necessary for spawning remains intact, riffle loss to beaver ponds is unlikely to impact Salish Sucker populations, although other aspects of ponding are (Pearson 2004a). By stabilizing the otherwise highly variable environments of headwater streams (Hanson & Campbell 1963; Naiman et al. 1986), beaver pond creation is likely to benefit Salish Suckers. Indeed, during late summer low-flow periods, beaver ponds provide the only wetted habitat in a number of reaches (Pearson 2004a). Dams, however, also reduce water movement, increase hypoxia and act as barriers to escape from poor conditions.

Severity (minor concern)

Riffle loss to beaver ponds is a major concern in one watershed, a moderate concern in one other, and a minor concern in the rest (Table 3).

2.2 Summary of threats analysis

Salish Sucker populations appear to be most vulnerable to severe hypoxia and habitat loss. Hypoxia is widespread, degrades areas of otherwise suitable habitat, can kill large numbers of fish quickly, has numerous contributing factors, can easily go undetected, and is likely occurring with increasing frequency. Direct habitat destruction is likely the primary cause of historical decline in Salish Sucker populations. Large portions of all creeks surveyed have been channelized, in-filled, or repeatedly dredged. Damage continues to occur through municipal ditch-cleaning activities and unauthorized works on private land.

Habitat fragmentation is considered a moderate threat to the Salish Sucker, but is also poorly understood. Toxicity, sediment deposition and seasonal lack of water appear to be major threats in particular watersheds, but do not threaten the species across the range.

Introduced predators are considered a moderate threat. Although they are numerous, occur across the Canadian range, and are commonly implicated in decline and extinction of other native species, there are several documented instances of co-existence with the Salish Sucker for more than two generations. The threat of introduction of more effective, novel predators is, however, a concern. Riffle loss to beavers may limit spawning when riffles are rare but is considered a minor concern range-wide, although the potential role of recruitment limitation in limiting Salish Sucker populations remains unknown. Beaver ponding may have opposing influences on the Salish Sucker and another Species at Risk Act (SARA)-listed fish, the Nooksack Dace, in Pepin Brook. Riffle habitats critical to Nooksack Dace are destroyed by beaver dams, but the deep, marshy habitats favoured by adult Salish Suckers are created.

Return to Table of Contents

3. Critical habitat

3.1 Identification of critical habitat

Critical habitat is defined in the Species at Risk Act (2002) section 2(1) as:

“…the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species.” [s. 2(1)]

Species at Risk Act (SARA) defines habitat for aquatic species at risk as:

“… spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced.” [s. 2(1)]

For the Salish Sucker, critical habitat is identified to the extent possible, using the best information currently available. The critical habitat identified in this recovery strategy describes the geospatial area that contains the biophysical features, functions and attributes necessary for the survival or recovery of the species. The identified critical habitat includes all habitats within occupied watersheds considered to be high quality or potentially high quality for the Salish Sucker, and constitutes the habitat deemed to be necessary to achieve the population and distribution objectives.

The current area identified may not be sufficient to achieve the population and distribution objectives for the species and its description will need to be further refined. The schedule of studies outlines the activities required to identify additional critical habitat or refine the description of the existing critical habitat in order to support its protection.


3.1.1 Information and methods used to identify critical habitat

Critical habitat for the Salish Sucker was defined using in-stream habitat characteristics at the scale of the reach, a natural unit of stream habitat that ranges from hundreds to thousands of metres in length (Frissell et al. 1986). There are three reasons for adopting this scale. First, the reach scale corresponds to the distribution of subpopulations within watersheds and usually contains all habitat types used during the life cycle (Pearson 2004a). Second, the ‘channel units’ of critical habitat (riffles and pools) are dynamic and frequently move during flood events in these streams. Effective protection and management of critical habitat in these circumstances must allow for normal channel processes and must, therefore, occur at a spatial scale larger than the channel unit. The reach scale is the next largest in accepted stream habitat classifications (Frissell et al. 1986; Imhof et al. 1996) and by definition represents relatively homogenous segments of stream demarcated by distinct geomorphic or land use transitions. Third, the reach scale corresponds most closely to that of land ownership in these watersheds and, consequently, to most recovery actions.

The protocol used for identifying Salish Sucker critical habitat was consistent with guidelines for documenting habitat quality and use by species at risk (Rosenfeld & Hatfield 2006; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2007) and the approach and results have been reviewed and approved by the Pacific Science Advise Review Committee (Pearson 2008). Specifically, area of deep pool habitat in each reach (a key habitat feature) was used to quantify carrying capacity and the degree of hypoxia was identified as the key variable in determining its quality. Its spatial configuration was mapped and a rough estimate was provided of the present amount that is of sufficient quality to support Salish Suckers. The supply of habitat was equated with population and distribution objectives and advice was provided on the feasibility of restoring additional habitat. All identified critical habitat is believed to be required to meet the population and distribution objectives. Advice was provided on the extent to which threats can lower the quality and quantity of critical habitat.

Defining width of riparian reserve strips

Riparian reserve strips are included in critical habitat for Salish Sucker. The required widths of riparian reserve strips vary among sites and should be defined in reach scale assessments. Riparian reserve strips must be sufficient to control sediment entry to the stream from overland flow, to prevent excessive bank erosion and to buffer stream temperatures. Reserve areas will also remove significant amounts of nitrate and phosphorous from groundwater, although their efficacy depends strongly on hydrogeologic conditions (Martin et al. 1999; Wigington et al. 2003; Puckett 2004;). The effectiveness of a riparian reserve in preventing materials (sediment, nutrients, toxins, etc.) from entering a stream depends strongly on its longitudinal continuity and its lateral width (Weller et al. 1998). Consequently, riparian reserves in critical habitat reaches should be continuous and sufficiently wide. In open landscapes, such as agricultural fields, vegetation from reserve areas will collect windblown insects (Whitaker et al. 2000). Such insects, falling from riparian vegetation into the water constitute an important food source for drift-feeding fishes in headwater streams (Schlosser 1991; Allan et al. 2003;). More than 30 m of riparian vegetation may be required for full mitigation of warming (Brown & Krygier 1970; Lynch et al. 1984; Castelle et al. 1994;), and siltation (Moring 1982; Davies & Nelson 1994; Kiffney et al. 2003), and for long-term maintenance of channel morphology (Murphy et al. 1986; Murphy & Koski 1989). At least 10 m are required to maintain levels of terrestrial carbon (i.e., leaf) and food (invertebrate) inputs similar to those of forested landscapes (Culp & Davies 1983). Reserves as narrow as 5 m provide significant protection from bank erosion and sediment deposition from overland flow (Lee et al. 2003; McKergow et al. 2003).

Failure to maintain an adequate riparian reserve as part of critical habitat is likely to cause population-level impacts. In habitats lacking sufficient flow or groundwater, absence of shade may increase water temperatures to harmful levels. Increased erosion due to poorer bank stability will cause sediment deposition in riffles, and impair spawning and incubation. Nutrient loading will be higher in reaches without adequate riparian vegetation (Martin et al. 1999; Dhondt et al. 2002; Lee et al. 2003) and is likely to contribute to hypoxia through eutrophication. Solar radiation in nutrient rich reaches lacking adequate riparian shading (Kiffney et al. 2003) will also contribute to eutrophication and hypoxia.

Specific research on the widths of riparian reserves required to protect key habitat attributes for Salish Sucker in particular has not been done, although this relationship has been investigated for other fish species. Mature Salish Suckers are benthic feeders (Scott & Crossman 1973) indicating that they are less dependant on insects of terrestrial origin than drift-feeding fishes like salmonids. They also appear tolerant of slightly higher water temperatures than salmonids (Wehrly et al. 2003), suggesting a reduced need for shading, but this may not be true under future climate warming scenarios. However, Salish Suckers are likely to be as vulnerable as salmonids to habitat degradation caused by sedimentation, loss of scope for natural channel movement, reduction in large woody debris supply, and invasive plant overgrowth of riffles fuelled by nutrient loading and riparian loss. Benthic insectivores, like Salish Suckers, are among the most sensitive fish species to loss of wooded riparian areas (Stauffer et al. 2000), probably due to the impacts of siltation and alterations to macroinvertebrate community structure (Kiffney et al. 2003; Allan 2004). Overall, there is little reason to believe that Salish Suckers require narrower or wider buffers than salmonids.

It should be noted that unidirectional transport of sediment in flowing waters means that riparian reserve strips upstream of critical habitat reaches are important in minimizing sedimentation and other impacts within instream critical habitat. For this reason stewardship programs should promote the establishment of continuous riparian reserve strips of native vegetation throughout the watershed, not just along critical habitat reaches.

Widths of riparian reserve strips included in critical habitat for Salish Sucker were assessed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based methodology adapted directly from and consistent with the British Columbia Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR, Reg. 837 under the Fish Protection Act [S.B.C. 1997, c. 21], Province of British Columbia 2006). The B.C. Ministry of Environment (B.C. MoE) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) developed and implemented this methodology for determining riparian reserve widths required to maintain riparian function and protect fish habitat. The Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) was developed under the provincial Fish Protection Act to protect “salmonids, game fish, and regionally significant fish” from the impacts of land development. In the absence of definitive data for a SARA-listed species, this is a reasonable standard to apply in the identification of critical habitat because it represents a benchmark and standard methodology to which both federal and provincial agencies responsible for management of species at risk have already agreed, and it forms the basis of the methodology employed. Further details of methods and an assessment of existing riparian vegetation in these areas can be found in Pearson (2008).


3.1.2 Identification of critical habitat: Geospatial

Critical habitat for the Salish Sucker consists of relatively homogenous segments of stream demarcated by distinct geomorphic or land use transitions, or otherwise known as reaches, within the Salmon River, Bertrand Creek, Pepin Brook, Fishtrap Creek, Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough, Atchelitz/Chilliwack/ Semmihault Creeks, Elk Creek/Hope Slough, Mountain Slough, Agassiz Slough and Miami River watersheds. Only those reaches that include more than 50 m of continuous pool with a water depth exceeding 70 cm under summer low flow conditions constitute critical habitat. Critical habitat within these reaches includes all the aquatic habitat features and attributes identified in section 3.1.3 and riparian reserve strips of native vegetation on both banks for the entire length of the reach. Riparian reserve strips are continuous and extend laterally (inland) from the top of bank to varying widths identified for each reach in Appendix 2. The width of the riparian reserve strip for each reach is equal to the widest zone of sensitivity (ZOS) calculated for each of five riparian features, functions and conditions: large woody debris supply for fish habitat and maintenance of channel morphology, localized bank stability, channel movement, shade, and insect and debris fall. The ZOS values are calculated using methods consistent with those used under the British Columbia Riparian Areas Regulation (Reg. 837) under the Fish Protection Act (S.B.C. 1997, c. 21).

The combined length of critical habitat identified for the Salish Sucker in this recovery strategy is 145.74 km (of 329.1 km of surveyed stream channel). Maps showing the location of critical habitat and the width of riparian reserve strips for identified reaches are provided in Appendix 2.

The areas identified as critical habitat are those considered necessary to support the species survival and recovery and to reach the population and distribution objectives for Salish Sucker. Additional areas may be identified as critical habitat in subsequent action plans if new information determines that they are necessary to the survival and recovery of Salish Sucker.


3.1.3 Identification of Critical Habitat: Biophysical Functions Features and Their Attributes

Within the identified geographic boundaries, the critical habitat supports the following biophysical functions, features and attributes:

Deep pool habitat

Deep pool habitat is the biophysical feature that supports the life cycle functions of feeding and rearing for adult and juvenile Salish Suckers. Adults and larger juveniles (>70 mm) are concentrated in reaches containing long stretches of pool habitat that exceed 70 cm in depth at low flow (Pearson 2004a). As the primary habitat used for the majority of the life cycle, this feature is comprised of all deep pool habitats in reaches that contain more than 50 m of continuous channel and that have a depth exceeding 70 cm. The 50 m threshold was chosen because it is the minimum length of all reaches known to contain moderate or high densities of Salish Suckers (catch per unit effort > 1.8 individual per trapFootnote 2, Pearson, unpublished data). It also includes reaches that contain excellent physical habitat (i.e., meet the 50 m length threshold and 70 cm minimum depth), but where severe hypoxia appears to currently limit Salish Sucker numbers (i.e., this is habitat critical to recovery).

Essential attributes:

  • A minimum depth of 70 cm is an essential attribute of deep pool habitat features.
  • Dissolved oxygen levels of ≥ 4 mg/L
  • Water temperatures between 6 and 23ºC
  • Adequate quantity and quality of food supply (terrestrial and aquatic insects)
  • Little or no additional sediment
  • Few or no additional nutrients
  • Few or no additional toxins
Riffle Habitat

Riffle habitats are an essential feature of critical habitat used by Salish Suckers for spawning and incubation. Riffles tend to be rare (and potentially limiting) in the reaches occupied by high densities of Salish Suckers, which consist predominantly of headwater ponds and marshes (Pearson 2004a). Consequently, all riffle habitats within reaches containing more than 50 m of habitat with water depths exceeding 70 cm are identified as critical. In some reaches fish leave their ‘home’ reach to spawn (Pearson & Healey 2003). The riffles where this is known to occur are within identified critical habitat reaches, but other undocumented spawning sites outside identified critical habitat may exist.

Essential Attributes:

  • Cobble or gravel substrate
  • Dissolved oxygen levels of ≥ 4 mg/L
  • Water temperatures between 6 and 23ºC
  • Sufficient water flow to support riffles
  • Adequate quantity and quality of food supply (terrestrial and aquatic insects)
  • Little or no additional sediment
  • Few or no additional nutrients
  • Few or no additional toxins
Shallow pool and glide habitats

Shallow pools and glides less than 40 cm in depth are an essential feature of critical habitat that are used by young-of-the-year Salish Suckers (<70 mm fork length) as a nursery habitat for feeding and rearing, although they are occasionally captured in deeper water (Pearson 2004a). All shallow pool and glide habitats within reaches that contain more than 50 m of continuous habitat and water depths exceeding 70 cm are designated as critical as it is potentially limiting as nursery habitat.

Essential Attributes:

  • A minimum depth of 40 cm is an essential attribute of deep pool habitat features.
  • Dissolved oxygen levels of ≥ 4 mg/L
  • Water temperatures between 6 and 23ºC
  • Adequate quantity and quality of food supply (terrestrial and aquatic insects)
  • Little or no additional sediment
  • Few or no additional nutrients
  • Few or no additional toxins
Riparian Habitats

Riparian habitats with native vegetation are an essential feature of critical habitat that maintain the instream habitat attributes necessary to support Salish Suckers’ use of these areas for biological functions of feeding, rearing and spawning. Native riparian vegetation is an essential attribute of riparian habitat features. Loss of riparian vegetation contributes to bank erosion, siltation, water temperature elevation, and nutrient inputs, all of which directly degrade instream critical habitat.

Failure to maintain an adequate riparian reserve as part of critical habitat is likely to cause population-level impacts. In habitats lacking sufficient flow or groundwater, absence of shade may increase water temperatures to harmful levels. Increased erosion due to poorer bank stability will cause sediment deposition in riffles, and impair spawning and incubation. Nutrient loading will be higher in reaches without adequate riparian vegetation (Martin et al. 1999; Dhondt et al. 2002; Lee et al. 2003) and is likely to contribute to hypoxia through eutrophication. Solar radiation in nutrient rich reaches lacking adequate riparian shading (Kiffney et al. 2003) will also contribute to eutrophication and hypoxia.

Essential Attributes:

  • Native riparian vegetation
  • Continuous for the entire length of the reach
  • Extends laterally (inland) from the top of the bank to a widthFootnote 3 equal to the widest zone of sensitivity, or ZOS (calculated using methods consistent with those used under the BC Riparian Areas Regulation), in order to ensure the following functions:
    • Protects the integrity of other aquatic features such as riffle and shallow pool habitat.
    • Provides large and small woody debris
    • Provides localized bank stability
    • Provides shade to buffer instream temperatures
    • Provides terrestrial insect input
    • Limits entry of added nutrients
    • Maintains natural channel morphology
Summary of critical habitat features functions and attributes

Table 4 summarizes the essential functions, features and attributes of the Salish Sucker critical habitat identified in this recovery strategy:

Table 4. Summary of the functions, features and attributes of Salish Sucker critical habitat
Geospatial locationLife StageFunctionFeature (s)Attribute(s)
Reaches within Salmon River, Bertrand Creek, Pepin Brook, Fishtrap Creek, Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough, Atchelitz/Chilliwack/ Semmihault Creeks, Elk Creek/Hope Slough, Mountain Slough, Agassiz Slough and Miami River watershedsAdults and Juveniles
(> 70 mm fork length)
Feeding and RearingDeep Pool Habitat
  • Minimum water depth of 70 cm
  • Dissolved oxygen levels of ≥ 4 mg/L
  • Water temperatures between 6 and 23ºC
  • Adequate quantity and quality of food supply (terrestrial and aquatic insects)
  • Little or no additional sediment
  • Few or no additional nutrients
  • Few or no additional toxins
Reaches within Salmon River, Bertrand Creek, Pepin Brook, Fishtrap Creek, Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough, Atchelitz/Chilliwack/ Semmihault Creeks, Elk Creek/Hope Slough, Mountain Slough, Agassiz Slough and Miami River watershedsJuveniles
(<70 mm fork length)
Feeding and RearingShallow Pool and Glide Habitat
  • Minimum water depth of 40 cm
  • Dissolved oxygen levels ≥ 4 mg/L
  • Water temperatures between 6 and 23ºC
  • Adequate quantity and quality of food supply (terrestrial and aquatic insects)
  • Little or no additional sediment
  • Few or no additional nutrients
  • Few or no additional toxins
Reaches within Salmon River, Bertrand Creek, Pepin Brook, Fishtrap Creek, Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough, Atchelitz/Chilliwack/ Semmihault Creeks, Elk Creek/Hope Slough, Mountain Slough, Agassiz Slough and Miami River watershedsAdultSpawning and incubationRiffle Habitat
  • Cobble or gravel substrates
  • Dissolved oxygen levels ≥ 4 mg/L
  • Water temperatures between 6 and 23ºC
  • Sufficient water velocity and flow to support riffles
  • Adequate quantity and quality of food supply (terrestrial and aquatic insects)
  • Little or no additional sediment
  • Few or no additional nutrients
  • Few or no additional toxins
Reaches within Salmon River, Bertrand Creek, Pepin Brook, Fishtrap Creek, Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough, Atchelitz/Chilliwack/Semmihault Creeks, Elk Creek/Hope Slough, Mountain Slough, Agassiz Slough and Miami River watershedsAdult and juvenilesSpawning, incubation, feeding and rearingRiparian habitat
  • Native riparian vegetation
  • Continuous for the entire length of the reach
  • Extends laterally (inland) from the top of the bank to a widthFootnote a equal to the widest zone of sensitivity, or ZOS (calculated using methods consistent with those used under the BC Riparian Areas Regulation), in order to ensure the following functions:
    • Protects the integrity of other aquatic features such as riffle and shallow pool habitat.
    • Provides large and small woody debris
    • Provides localized bank stability
    • Provides shade to buffer instream temperatures
    • Provides terrestrial insect input
    • Limits entry of added nutrients
    • Maintains natural channel morphology

Footnotes

Footnote A

Width of riparian reserve strips associated with particular reaches is defined in the table of coordinates and critical habitat maps included in Appendix 2.

Return to footnote a


3.2 Activities likely to result in destruction of critical habitat

The definition of destruction is interpreted as:

Destruction of critical habitat would result if any part of the critical habitat were degraded, either permanently or temporarily, such that it would not serve its function when needed by the species. Destruction may result from single or multiple activities at one point in time or from cumulative effects of one or more activities over time.


Under SARA, critical habitat must be legally protected from destruction once it is identified. This will be accomplished through a s.58 Order, which will prohibit the destruction of the identified critical habitat unless permitted by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada pursuant to the conditions of SARA.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans invites all interested Canadians to submit comments on the potential use of a s.58 Order to protect the critical habitat of the Salish Sucker as soon as possible. Please note that, pursuant to s.58, any such Order must be operational within 180 days of the posting of the final version of the Recovery Strategy, or Action Plan, that identifies critical habitat.

The activities described in this table are neither exhaustive nor exclusive and have been guided by the Threats described in section 2.1 of the recovery strategy for the species. The absence of a specific human activity does not preclude, or fetter the department’s ability to regulate it pursuant to SARA. Furthermore, the inclusion of an activity does not result in its automatic prohibition as it is destruction of critical habitat that is prohibited. Since habitat use is often temporal in nature, every activity is assessed on a case-by-case basis and site-specific mitigation is applied where it is reliable and available. In every case, where information is available, thresholds and limits are associated with attributes to better inform management and regulatory decision-making. However, in many cases the knowledge of a species and its critical habitat may be lacking and in particular, information associated with a species or habitats thresholds of tolerance to disturbance from human activities, is lacking and must be acquired.

Gaps in our understanding of the attributes of critical habitat features and the activities that could affect them will be a focus for research in one or more action plans.

 

Table 5. Activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat for Salish Sucker
Activity
(Related Threat)
Affect – PathwayFunction AffectedFeature AffectedAttribute Affected

Over-application of Fertilizer

(Hypoxia)

Nutrient loading in streams through excessive application of manure is the most common cause of the chronic late summer hypoxia that affects many reaches inhabited by Salish Suckers (Schreier et al. 2003).Feeding, Rearing, Spawning and Incubation

Deep Pools

Shallow Pools and Glides

Riffles

Oxygen levels

Nutrient levels

Drainage projects

(Physical destruction of habitat and sediment deposition)

Dredging, dyking, and channelization directly destroy habitat, cause sediment deposition in riffles, and reduce base flow.Feeding, Rearing, Spawning and incubation

Deep Pools

Shallow Pools and Glides

Riffles

Sediment levels

Water flow

Water levels

Riffle structure

Urban storm drainage

(Toxicity, sediment deposition and seasonal lack of water)

Storm drain systems that discharge directly to creeks are major sources of toxic contamination and sediment. They also reduce base flow by inhibiting groundwater recharge.Feeding, Rearing, Spawning and Incubation

Deep Pools

Shallow Pools and Glides

Riffles

Sediment levels

Toxicity levels

Water flow

Water levels

Riparian vegetation removal

(Hypoxia and Sediment Deposition)

Loss of riparian vegetation causes increased erosion and sediment deposition, elevated water temperatures that can contribute to eutrophication and hypoxia, reduced supplies of terrestrially derived food, and increased nutrient loading.Feeding, Rearing, Spawning and IncubationRiparian Habitat

Native riparian vegetation

Bank stability

Supply of woody debris

Channel movement

Shade

Quantity and quality of terrestrial insects

Riparian vegetation removal

(Hypoxia and Sediment Deposition)

Loss of riparian vegetation causes increased erosion and sediment deposition, elevated water temperatures that can contribute to eutrophication and hypoxia, reduced supplies of terrestrially derived food, and increased nutrient loading.Feeding, Rearing, Spawning and Incubation

Deep Pools

Shallow Pools and Glides

Riffles

Water temperature

Sediment levels

Nutrient levels

Oxygen levels

Supply of terrestrial insects

Mowing native vegetation

(hypoxia and sediment deposition)

Mowing or removal of native vegetation in the riparian portion of critical habitat prevents the establishment of mature riparian vegetation and causes elevated erosion and sediment deposition, elevated water temperatures, reduced supplies of terrestrially derived food, and increased nutrient loading.Feeding, Rearing, Spawning and IncubationRiparian Habitat

Native riparian vegetation

Bank stability

Supply of woody debris

Channel movement

Shade

Quantity and quality of terrestrial insects

Mowing native vegetation

(hypoxia and sediment deposition)

Mowing or removal of native vegetation in the riparian portion of critical habitat prevents the establishment of mature riparian vegetation and causes elevated erosion and sediment deposition, elevated water temperatures, reduced supplies of terrestrially derived food, and increased nutrient loading.Feeding, Rearing, Spawning and Incubation

Deep Pools

Shallow Pools and Glides

Riffles

Water temperature

Sediment levels

Nutrient levels

Oxygen levels

Supply of terrestrial insects

Livestock access to creeks

(Hypoxia and sediment deposition)

Livestock damage habitat by trampling or causing erosion that clogs riffles with sediment. Access also contributes to nutrient loading.Spawning and IncubationRiffles

Sediment levels

Nutrient levels

Oxygen levels

Livestock access to creeks

(Hypoxia and sediment deposition)

Livestock damage habitat by trampling or causing erosion that clogs riffles with sediment. Access also contributes to nutrient loading.

Feeding

Rearing

Deep Pools

Shallow Pools and Glides

Nutrient levels

Oxygen levels

Excessive water withdrawal

(Seasonal lack of water and hypoxia)

Water extraction (surface or ground), especially during dry periods, reduces flows and can contribute to hypoxia and drying of riffles needed for spawning.

Feeding

Rearing

Spawning and Incubation

Deep Pools

Shallow Pools and Glides

Riffles

Water levels

Water flow

Oxygen levels

Water temperature

Riffle structure

Excessive sediment releases
(Sediment deposition)
Sediment deposition in spawning substrate and inhibition of the flow of oxygen-rich water to eggs and larvae during incubation.Spawning and IncubationRiffles

Sediment levels

Water flow

Oxygen levels

 

Table 6. Relative severity of the activities likely to destroy critical habitat for Salish Sucker by watershed.
ActivityBertPepFishSalmSalwChillMiamMounAgasHopeL.Cam
Over application of fertilizermajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concern
Drainage projectsmoderate concernminor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmajor concernminor concernmajor concernmoderate concern
Urban storm drainagemajor concernno concernmajor concernno concernno concernmajor concernmoderate concernno concernmajor concernmoderate concernminor concern
Riparian vegetation removalmoderate concernminor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmajor concernmajor concernmajor concernmoderate concernmajor concernmoderate concern
Livestock access to creeksminor concernminor concernminor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernminor concernmoderate concernmoderate concern
Excessive water withdrawalmajor concernminor concernmoderate concernmajor concernminor concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concernmoderate concern
Excessive sediment releasesminor concernmajor concernmoderate concernminor concernminor concernmoderate concernminor concernmajor concernminor concernmoderate concernminor concern

Bert=Bertrand Creek; Pep=Pepin Brook; Fish=Fishtrap Creek; Salm=Salmon River; Salw=Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough; Chill=Atchelitz/Little Chilliwack/Semmihault/Luckacuck Creeks; Miam=Miami River; Moun= Mountain Slough; Agas=Agassiz Slough; Hope = Elk Creek/Hope Slough; L.Cam=Little Campbell River

3.3 Schedule of studies to identify critical habitat

This recovery strategy includes an identification of critical habitat to the extent possible, based on the best available information. Critical habitat areas and attributes that support life functions during the adult and spawning life stages have been identified. Further research is required to determine if all critical habitat has been identified and to refine our understanding of spawning areas as well as habitats used by juveniles, as per Table 7 below. At present, Salish Suckers are known to occur in 10 watersheds. Critical habitat areas, features and attributes that support functions required by adult and spawning life stages have been identified for these populations. Further research is required to locate and confirm additional spawning areas and critical habitat for juveniles.

 

Table 7. Schedule of studies to identify Salish Sucker critical habitat.
StudyDescriptionTimeframe
Surveys of additional areas for critical habitat featuresApproximately 60 km of channel in watersheds containing populations needs to be surveyed to determine if critical habitat features (eg. deep pools) are present2011-2014
Improve information used to identify juvenile critical habitatIntensive trapping/seining in habitats near known spawning sites to gather more information on juvenile habitat use.2012-2016
Identify spawning sites for all populationsVisual identification of spawning site use.2011-2016

3.4 Knowledge gaps in Salish sucker biology

Additional studies should address the following data needs related to specific threats to the Salish Sucker. This information will contribute to the protection of Salish Sucker populations and their critical habitats.

 

Table 8. Studies required to fill key knowledge gaps for the Salish Sucker.
StudyDescription
Surveys for the presence/ absence of Salish Sucker in other area watershedsSeveral of the currently known populations of Salish Sucker have been found since 2000. Surveys in other areas watersheds could reveal additional populations.
Characterize long-term population dynamicsMeasure changes in abundance at the reach scale in watersheds where Salish Sucker are present.
Characterize impacts of introduced predators on mortality and habitat use by different life stages.A variety of experimental and correlational approaches could be used to study the impacts of introduced predators. Those involving young-of-the-year and yearling Salish Suckers are of highest priority.
Potential connections among watersheds.Assess the possibility and ecological consequences of connections among watersheds via Fraser River mainstem or during occasional floods.

Footnotes

Footnote 2

Double ended cylindrical funnel traps 100 x 55 cm, 0.5” mesh, baited with dry cat food set for 24 h (see Pearson and Healey 2003).

Return to footnote 2

Footnote 3

Width of riparian reserve strips associated with particular reaches is defined in the table of coordinates and critical habitat maps included in Appendix 2.

Return to footnote 3

Return to Table of Contents

4. Recovery

4.1 Recovery feasibility

Feasibility criteriaFootnote 4

  1. Are individuals capable of reproduction currently available to improve the population growth or population abundance?

    Yes. Breeding adults have been captured recently from all populations except that of the Little Campbell River, which is believed to have been extirpated.

  2. Is sufficient habitat available to support the species or could it be made available through habitat management or restoration?

    Yes. Sufficient physical habitat exists to support target population sizes, but a large fraction of it (up to 40%) is seriously degraded by hypoxia and/or low water levels in late summer.

  3. Can significant threats to the species or its habitats be avoided or mitigated through recovery actions?

    Yes. The largest threats, hypoxia and habitat loss can be avoided or mitigated.

  4. Do the necessary recovery techniques exist and are they demonstrated to be effective?

    Yes. Monitoring of experimental habitat restoration projects has demonstrated that habitat creation and restoration are effective means of increasing population size and stability. Invasive weed control, riparian restoration, beaver management, and flow diversion have all been used successfully to reduce hypoxia in Salish Sucker habitat.

Feasibility assessment

Recovery of Salish Sucker populations to levels ensuring long-term survival is both technically and biologically feasible. Given the restricted distribution of the species and the continued pressure on its habitats from a rapidly growing human population in the Fraser Valley it is likely that the species will remain at risk over the foreseeable future.

4.2 Recovery goal, objectives and corresponding approaches

4.2.1 Recovery goal

Ensure the long-term viability of Salish Sucker populations throughout their natural distribution in Canada.


4.2.2 Recovery objectives

  1. Prevent extirpation of Salish Suckers in each of the 10 watersheds with extant populations by preventing net loss of reproductive potential.
  2. Reach or exceed each of the following targets by 2020:
    1. occupation of all instream critical habitats,
    2. watershed-specific abundance targets for mature individuals,
    3. one or more source habitats with high density in each watershed.
  3. Reintroduce the Salish Sucker to Little Campbell River, if feasible.


The objectives 2 and 3 are discussed in detail below.

Occupation of instream critical habitats
Rationale:

A high proportion of critical habitat is not currently occupied (Table 9), primarily due to severe hypoxia. Achieving interim population recovery targets requires that all critical habitat be occupied (see objective 2 below). In most cases, unoccupied areas could become habitable by improving water quality via increased water flow and/or reduced nutrient loading. Relatively simple measures including localized beaver control, fish-sensitive drainage maintenance practices or, in the case of Agassiz Slough, restoration of through-flow are likely to produce dramatic improvements quickly.

Target:

Occupation of critical habitat is defined as, Salish Sucker confirmed present in a reach (n>10 traps per reach; see Pearson & Healey 2003). The amount of critical habitat currently occupied and the amounts identified to support target abundances are presented in Table 9. The difference between the two columns represents the amount of habitat that requires some form of restoration.

Table 9. Occupied and total critical habitat for the Salish Sucker.
WatershedEstimated length (km) of Currently Occupied Critical Habitat (year surveyed)Total Critical Habitat Identified to Reach Recovery Targets (km)
Agassiz Slough<1 (2005)4.3
Atchelitz/Chilliwack/Semmihault<16 (2004)32.4
Bertrand Creek>10 (2009)15.0
Fishtrap CreekUnknownFootnote a (1999)6.5
Hope Slough/Elk CreekUnknownFootnote a (2006)23.6
Miami Creek<1.8 (2002)7.8
Mountain Slough>7.5 (2008)9.7
Pepin Brook>7.5 (2004)11.6
Salmon River>10 (2008)20.2
Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough<2.5 (2004)10.8

Footnotes

Footnote A

Too few individuals were captured to assess occupancy.

Return to footnote a


Watershed-specific abundance targets for mature individuals
Rationale:

Populations of Salish Sucker in the 10 watersheds where they occur are essentially independent of one another, with low probability of natural exchange of individuals between watersheds. Natural exchange is limited by large distances of unsuitable habitat that separate populations. Natural recolonization of habitat from which a population has been extirpated (rescue effect) is therefore highly unlikely, especially if extirpation is due to progressive habitat or water quality degradation, rather than stochastic events. Each watershed, consequently, warrants a separate recovery target. Ideally, these targets would be based on robust population viability analyses, but the necessary demographic data is lacking for the Salish Sucker. Recommendations based on extensive literature reviews indicate that a minimum viable population size (MVP) of 7 000 breeding adults (median value; range 2 000-10 000) will ensure long term persistence in the majority of vertebrates (Reed et al. 2003; Thomas 1990).

To assess Salish Sucker abundance Pearson (2004a) estimated density from catch-per-unit-effort in 84 reaches in four watersheds using an equation calibrated with capture-recapture data. Salish Suckers were present in 34 of these reaches, but density estimates exceeded 0.05 adult/m² in only seven of them. The maximum achievable population in each watershed was estimated by assuming this density occurs in all deep pool habitats within critical habitat reaches. The data suggest that if all deep pool areas in all critical habitat reaches supported this ‘medium density’ (Pearson 2004a), all populations would remain at or below the estimated median minimum viable population (MVP) for vertebrates (7000). This suggests that the maximum achievable population sizes are close to the minimum viable population sizes in these watersheds and that all suitable habitats should be designated critical. Enhancement of critical habitat to increase carrying capacity and construction/restoration of additional habitat is advisable in all watersheds to increase safety margins.

Target:

Watershed-specific abundance targets are presented in Table 10.

One or more source habitats with high density in each watershed
Rationale:

Available distribution data suggest that Salish Sucker populations within watersheds function as source-sink and/or metapopulation systems (Pearson 2004a). In metapopulation systems, subpopulations within watersheds are largely isolated from one another, connected only by occasional migrants (Forman 1995). Population growth may be positive in core (source) habitats of these subpopulations, but negative in surrounding (sink) habitats, even though a substantial portion of the population may reside in sink areas (Pullman 1988). Population persistence in such systems is dependent on the existence of one or more source habitats where population growth is positive and densities are high.

Target:

Source habitat for the Salish Sucker is defined based on a minimum catch-per-unit-effort of three adults/trap. Pearson (2004a) found only three examples among 84 reaches in 4 watersheds. In two more recently restored habitats in Pepin Brook with adequate dissolved oxygen levels, however, this threshold has been achieved within three years (Pearson, unpubl. data), implying that the goal is achievable.

 

Table 10. Area of deep pools and population targets for the Salish Sucker.
WatershedArea of Deep Pool in Critical Habitat Reaches (m2)Population TargetFootnote a
(excludes young of year)
Agassiz Slough39 2002 000
Atchelitz/Chilliwack/Semmihault140 0007 000
Bertrand Creek140 2007 000
Fishtrap Creek94 6004 700
Hope Slough/Elk Creek159 7008 000
Miami Creek30 0001 500
Mountain Slough88 7004 400
Pepin Brook24 000Footnote b1 200
Salmon River165 0008 200
Salwein Creek/Hopedale Slough53 900Footnote b2 700

Footnotes

Footnote A

See Rationale for methods used for determining targets. All numbers rounded to nearest hundred.

Return to footnote a

Footnote B

Does not include several thousand square metres of habitat constructed since 2005.

Return to footnote b


Reintroduce the Salish Sucker to the Little Campbell River, if feasible
Rationale:

Re-establishment of extirpated populations is necessary to fully achieve the strategy’s overall goal: “To ensure long-term viability of Salish Sucker populations throughout their natural distribution in Canada.” This will only be feasible if sufficient habitat is available and threats (e.g., habitat quality and introduced alien predators) are sufficiently mitigated. The goal to have Salish Suckers occupy the full natural range is reasonable, given the species’ restricted distribution in Canada.


4.2.3 Broad strategies to support the recovery objectives

Nine broad strategies have been identified in support of the recovery objectives:

  1. Reduce incidence of severe hypoxia in instream critical habitats.
  2. Protect existing habitat, restore lost or degraded habitat and create new habitat.
  3. Increase the integrity and function of all riparian habitats.
  4. Encourage stewardship among private landowners, local government and agencies, and the general public.
  5. Reduce fragmentation of instream and riparian habitats.
  6. Reduce toxic contamination of instream habitat.
  7. Reduce sediment entry to instream habitats.
  8. Assess impacts of predator introduction and prevent new introductions.
  9. Assess feasibility of reintroducing the Salish Sucker into the Little Campbell River if extirpation from watershed is confirmed.

In Table 11 these strategies are described in greater detail, prioritized and related to the recovery goal and objectives.


4.2.4 Evaluation

Ideally, monitoring and evaluation of a subset of populations should occur each year and the status of each population and watershed evaluated at least every five years. Performance measures for each objective and broad strategy are listed in Table 12. Details and priorities of strategy implementation will be provided in one or more action plans.


4.2.5 Effects on other species

Most recovery efforts will benefit co-occurring native species including Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii) and Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). In particular, Coho Salmon are likely to benefit because juveniles often share habitat with Salish Suckers (Pearson 2004a).

Many Species at Risk Act (SARA)-listed species are known to occur in streams and riparian areas supporting Salish Suckers. The Nooksack Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae sp., Pearson 2004a), Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa, Haycock 2000), and Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) occupy aquatic areas in some Salish Sucker habitat. Nooksack Dace occur primarily in riffles and are seldom found in the same reaches as the Salish Sucker (Pearson 2004a). They are unlikely to be harmed by any of the activities described in this strategy and will benefit from many of them. American Beaver (Castor canadensis) control measures may be necessary in Pepin Brook to counteract inundation of riffles, the primary habitat of Nooksack Dace. This work would likely benefit the Salish Sucker preserving spawning riffles and by reducing hypoxia (currently a threat in the affected reaches) through increased water movement, although some loss of deep pool habitat will also occur. An action plan will consider habitat management jointly for the Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace in the watersheds in which they co-occur.

Oregon Spotted Frogs occur in the same reaches as the Salish Sucker in Mountain Slough, near Agassiz and in Bertrand Creek, near Aldergrove. The frogs are likely to benefit from recovery activities described in this strategy, particularly those that increase oxygen levels in the water (Haycock pers. comm. 2005). Development of best management practices for instream works in habitats where Oregon Spotted Frogs and Salish Suckers coexist will be completed in cooperation with the Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team.

Western Painted Turtles occur in the same reaches as Salish Suckers in Salwein Creek, near Chilliwack. The turtles are likely to benefit from the creation and complexing of deep pool habitats for the Salish Sucker. A habitat enhancement project to benefit both species was initiated in Salwein Creek by members of both Recovery Teams in September 2009.

Many other SARA-listed species are known from riparian areas of Salish Sucker habitat, including the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii), Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora), Western Toad (Bufo boreas), Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa), Oregon Forestsnail (Allogona townsendiana), Vancouver Island Beggarticks (Bidens amplissima), and Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias fannini). None are expected to be harmed by activities proposed in this recovery strategy, and most are expected to benefit from the protection and restoration of native riparian vegetation.

 

Table 11. Broad strategies, research activities and management activities to support the recovery objectives for the Salish Sucker.
Broad StrategyObjectivesThreats AddressedPrioritySpecific ActivitiesOutcomes or Deliverables
1) Reduce incidence of severe hypoxia in instream critical habitats.1, 2HypoxiaHigh

Assess extent, severity, causes and impacts of hypoxia in all watersheds.

Work with stakeholders to eliminate sources of nutrient loading and to increase extent of riparian buffers adjacent to Salish Sucker streams.

Work with municipalities to develop drainage maintenance and beaver management protocols that increase flow without degrading habitat.

Develop and distribute public education materials on the impacts of hypoxia on fish and wildlife to landowners.

Late summer hypoxia maps completed for all watersheds.

Increased dissolved oxygen levels in critical habitats susceptible to hypoxia.

2) Protect existing habitat, restore lost or degraded habitat and create new habitat.1, 2

Physical destruction of habitat

Habitat fragmentation

High

Assess benefits of habitat creation and enhancement to Salish Sucker populations.

Identify high priority sites for protection, restoration or habitat creation.

Work with stewardship groups and landowners to identify and implement habitat creation and restoration projects.

Develop best management practices and work plans for critical habitat reaches that require drainage maintenance or beaver management.

Develop guidelines for joint management where Salish Suckers and other listed species co-occur.

Develop and distribute materials to landowners regarding the importance of habitat.

There are a variety of possible mechanisms to protect critical habitat and other habitats, only some of which are presented here.

Habitat management plan developed for each occupied watershed.

Protection of critical habitat through stewardship agreements, conservation covenants, acquisition or other mechanisms.

Habitat creation/enhancement projects identified and implemented.

Advice on Salish Sucker habitat requirements for local stewardship groups, agencies and consultants involved in habitat work.

Educational materials developed and included in landowner contact programs and other public education applications.

3) Increase the integrity and function of all riparian habitats.1, 2

Sediment deposition

Physical destruction of habitat

Toxicity

Hypoxia

High

Conduct riparian assessments in all critical habitat reaches and make recommendations for reserve zones and other mitigative measures.

Identify, prioritize and develop riparian planting projects in cooperation with landowners, stewardship groups and government agencies.

Develop and distribute public education materials to landowners on riparian reserve strips.

Riparian assessments completed as the basis for establishing defensible reserve zones to protect instream critical habitat.

Riparian planting projects completed in high priority areas.

Educational materials developed and included in landowner contact programs and other public education applications.

4) Encourage stewardship among private landowners, local government and agencies, and the general public.1, 2AllMed

Give presentations and field tours on Salish Suckers and watershed ecology to local stewardship groups, school groups and others.

Advise stewardship groups, agencies and consultants involved in habitat work on Salish Sucker habitat requirements.

Increased awareness of Salish Suckers and local stream ecology among public.

Salish Sucker habitat features incorporated into instream works undertaken for other purposes.

5) Reduce fragmentation of instream and riparian habitats.1, 2Habitat fragmentationMed

Assess the ability of different life stages to cross barriers such as beaver dams and perched or undersized culverts.

Identify permanent/seasonal barriers and prioritize for mitigation.

Identify, prioritize and develop riparian planting projects in cooperation with landowners, stewardship groups and government agencies.

Use of strategically located restoration projects to eliminate barriers and provide ‘stepping stones’ for dispersal to occupied habitats.

Prioritize restoration projects available to local stewardship groups and agency staff involved in habitat work.

6) Reduce toxic contamination of instream habitat.1, 2ToxicityMed

Estimate extent and severity of toxic contamination of creeks.

Work with municipalities to identify, prioritize and develop projects to improve stormwater quality.

Increase width and continuity of riparian reserves (see strategy 3) on agricultural lands.

Develop and distribute public education materials on pesticide/herbicide impacts on fish and wildlife.

Stormwater treatment projects completed at high priority sites.

Riparian planting projects completed in high priority areas.

Educational materials developed and included in landowner contact programs and other public education applications.

7) Reduce sediment entry to instream habitats.1, 2Sediment depositionMed

Estimate levels of sediment in riffles that are harmful to Salish Sucker spawning and incubation.

Map, assess and prioritize mitigation for riffle sedimentation in all watersheds.

Work with landowners, local government and stewardship groups to prevent, mitigate and restore sediment degradation of riffles.

Develop and distribute public education materials on sediment impacts on fish and wildlife.

Recommendations for maximum levels of sedimentation in riffles for Salish Sucker habitat.

Mitigation completed at high priority sites.

Educational materials developed and included in landowner contact programs and other public education applications.

8) Reduce impacts of introduced predators.1, 2Increased predationLow

Document distribution and density of introduced predators in each watershed.

Evaluate susceptibility of different life stages to introduced predators.

Develop and distribute public education materials on impacts of introduced predators on native species.

Maps of introduced predator distributions in each watershed.

Educational materials developed and included in landowner contact programs and other public education applications.

9) Assess feasibility of reintroducing the Salish Sucker into the Little Campbell River.3Multiple threats of unknown severityLow

Confirm extirpation and analyze causes and severity of current threats. Evaluate mitigation options.

If extirpation is confirmed, estimate number of individuals necessary to establish a population.

If extirpation is confirmed, evaluate options for obtaining fish or eggs for transplant.

Extirpation or presence of Salish Sucker in Little Campbell River confirmed

Completed feasibility study if extirpation is confirmed.

Contingent on feasibility study, the reestablishment of a viable Salish Sucker population in the Little Campbell River by 2020.

 

Table 12 (Objectives). Performance measures for evaluating the achievement of objectives and success of strategies.
ObjectivesProcess Performance MeasureBiological Performance Measure
1) Prevent extirpation of the Salish Sucker in each of the 10 watersheds with extant populations by preventing net loss of reproductive potential.Abundance surveys completed in all watersheds.Stable or increasing populations in all watersheds
2) a. Occupation of all instream critical habitats by 2020.Critical habitat identified and occupancy evaluated in all watersheds.Proportion of instream critical habitat occupied.
2) b. Reach or exceed watershed-specific abundance targets for mature individuals
by 2020.
Abundance surveys completed in all watersheds.

Estimated population size relative to target populationFootnote a.

Number of watersheds that yield an average catch-per-unit-effort of 1.8 or more adults per trap in critical habitat reaches.

2) c. One or more source habitats with high density in each watershed. by 2020.Abundance surveys completed in all watersheds.Number of watersheds with at least one reach where catch-per-unit-effort exceeds 3 adult Salish Suckers per trap.
3) Reintroduce the Salish Sucker to the Little Campbell River, if feasible.Feasibility study complete.Feasibility findings.

 

Table 12 continued (Strategies). Performance measures for evaluating the achievement of objectives and success of strategies.
StrategiesProcess Performance MeasureBiological Performance Measure
Reduce incidence of severe hypoxia in instream critical habitats.

Maps of critical habitat sites requiring increased water movement.

Area of critical habitat benefiting from management efforts to increase water movement.

Length and area of riparian habitat restored in each watershed.

Area and proportion of critical habitat with dissolved oxygen concentrations above 4 mg/L.

Proportion of critical habitat with measurable flow.

Estimated change in nutrient loading to ground and surface water in watersheds.

Establishment or significant growth of Salish Sucker populations in critical habitat reaches with increased water movement.

Protect existing habitat, restore lost or degraded habitat and create new habitat.

Prioritized list of habitat requiring protection or restoration.

Number of successful restoration/protection projects completed.

Length of critical habitat restored and/or protected.

Proportion of critical habitat restored and/or protected.

Establishment or significant growth of Salish Sucker populations in critical habitat reaches containing protected, created or enhanced habitat.

Increase the integrity and function of all riparian habitats.

Number of riparian assessments completed.

Length and area of riparian habitat restored or enhanced in each watershed.

Length and proportion of critical habitat with greater than 5, 10, and 30 m of riparian reserve.

Establishment or significant growth of Salish Sucker populations in critical habitat reaches with restored riparian reserve strips.

Encourage stewardship among private landowners, local government and agencies, and the general public.

Number of non-government organizations involved in recovery activities.

Number of projects completed or agreements signed on private lands.

Number of landowners and others contacted or involved in programs and consultations.

Length of critical habitat protected or restored on private land or with public involvement.

Establishment or significant growth of Salish Sucker populations in critical habitat reaches on stewarded lands.

Reduce fragmentation of instream and riparian habitats.

Maps of permanent and seasonal barriers to movement in each watershed.

Number of barrier remediation projects undertaken.

Quantity of habitat reconnected by removal of barriers.

Establishment or significant growth of Salish Sucker populations in critical habitat reaches where habitat fragmentation has been addressed.

Reduce toxic contamination of instream habitat.

Identified sources of toxic contamination in each watershed.

Mitigation of toxic contamination.

Area and proportion of critical habitat affected by toxic contamination.

Establishment or significant growth of Salish Sucker populations in critical habitat reaches affected by toxic contamination.

Reduce sediment entry to instream habitats.

Identification of major sources of sediment entry to each watershed.

Development and implementation of sediment mitigation plans.

Area and proportion of critical habitat affected by sediment deposition.

Establishment or significant growth of Salish Sucker populations in critical habitat reaches where sediment deposition has been addressed.

Reduce impacts of introduced predators.Maps of critical habitat occupied by introduced predators.

Proportion of critical habitat containing introduced predators.

Correlation of establishment or growth of Salish Sucker population with introduced predator absence.

Assess feasibility of reintroducing the Salish Sucker into the Little Campbell River.Feasibility study complete.Successful reintroduction, if judged feasible.

Footnotes

Footnote A

Direct estimation of density using capture-recapture methods is far too time consuming for use in monitoring ten populations spread over more than 100 km of channel.  Consequently, catch-per-unit-effort is recommended as the performance measure. An average of 1.8 adults/trap (n>10 traps per reach), corresponds to a density of 0.05 adult/m2 according to equations developed by Pearson (2004a), and is considered an appropriate target for proposed critical habitat at the watershed scale.

Return to footnote a

4.3 Approaches to recovery

An active adaptive management approach (Walters & Holling 1990) should be used in planning and implementing recovery. Whenever possible, management actions should be conducted as controlled experiments designed to inform ongoing strategy and action planning. Recovery planning and implementation should occur at the scale of individual watersheds because the populations are isolated from one another and face different suites of threats in each watershed.

4.4 Actions already completed or underway

Experimental habitat restoration projects

Experimental habitat restoration work targeting the Salish Sucker was initiated by University of British Columbia researchers in cooperation with local stewardship groups and landowners in 1999. Population size and habitat conditions have been monitored repeatedly at two sites in the Pepin Brook watershed (Pearson unpubl) Using this information, additional projects have been constructed in Salwein Creek and Hopedale Slough, Mountain Slough, Bertrand Creek, and the Salmon River by Dr. Mike Pearson, working in cooperation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Township of Langley and the District of Kent. Monitoring should continue on these projects.

Integrated channel maintenance pilot projects

Agricultural drainage maintenance and fish habitat protection objectives have often been in conflict in the Fraser Valley. In 2003, the City of Chilliwack initiated a pilot project integrating drainage maintenance and fish habitat restoration in Salwein Creek, a Salish Sucker watershed. Hand maintenance protocols and shade from riparian zone plantings reduce the need for machine cleaning of waterways for drainage. When machine work is necessary to maintain drainage, additional habitat is constructed as part of the work. In 2004, DFO and the recovery implementation group helped expand the project to another Salish Sucker stream, Atchelitz Creek. A similar program is also underway with the District of Kent in portions of Mountain Slough and the Miami River. Expansion of this program to other watersheds and jurisdictions would be beneficial to the Salish Sucker and other native species.

Landowner contact and public education programs

Between 2000 and 2006, the Langley Environmental Partners Society and the Fraser Valley Regional Watersheds Coalition ran landowner contact programs in cooperation with members of the Recovery Team in all watersheds currently inhabited by the Salish Sucker. Public information meetings were also held in each watershed. Colour display posters on Salish Suckers have also been given to stewardship groups in Chilliwack, Langley and Agassiz for use during public events. Since 2000, Dr. Mike Pearson has provided lectures and habitat enhancement site tours featuring the Salish Sucker and recovery efforts to local schools, universities and stewardship groups each year through the Langley Environmental Partners Society.

Native plants program

Since 2000, native plants and livestock fencing have been provided and installed for landowners of riparian habitats along reaches containing the Salish Sucker in Agassiz Slough, Mountain Slough, Miami River, Salmon River, Bertrand Creek, Pepin Brook, the Little Chilliwack River, Elk Creek and Hope Slough. Much of this work has been done by community volunteers organized by three local stewardship groups (Langley Environmental Partners Society, Fraser Valley Regional Watersheds Coalition and Fraser Harrison Smart Growth) working in cooperation with Dr. Mike Pearson. Through various mechanisms, local governments such as the District of Kent and the Township of Langley have provided support and/or partnership for such projects.

4.5 Statement of when action plans will be completed

Within five years of posting the final Salish Sucker recovery strategy on the SARA Public Registry, one or more action plans will be prepared for the Nooksack Dace and Salish Sucker.

Footnotes

Footnote 4

Draft Policy on the Feasibility of Recovery, Species at Risk Act Policy. January 2005.

Return to footnote 4

Return to Table of Contents

5. Literature cited

Allan, J. D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 35: 257-284.

Allan, J. D., M. S. Wipfli, J. P. Caouette, A. Prussian, and J. Rodgers. 2003. Influence of streamside vegetation on inputs of terrestrial invertebrates to salmonid food webs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60:309-320.

Barton, B. A. 1980. Spawning migrations, age, growth and summer feeding of white and longnose suckers in an irrigation reservoir. Canadian Field Naturalist 90:300-304.

Blueweiss, L., H. Fox, V. Kudzma, D. Nakashima, R. Peters, and S. Sams. 1978. Relationship between body size and some life history parameters. Oecologia 37:257-272.

Boyle, C. A., L. Lavkulich, H. Schreier, and E. Kiss. 1997. Changes in land cover and subsequent effects on Lower Fraser Basin ecosystems from 1827 to 1990. Environmental Management 21:185-196.

Brown, G. W., and J. T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of clear-cutting on stream temperature. Water Resources Research 6:1133-1139.

Brown, J. H., D. W. Mehlman, and G. C. Stevens. 1995. Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76:2028-2043.

Burt, A., D. Kramer, K. Nakatsuru, and C. Spry. 1988. The tempo of reproduction in Hyphessobrycon pulchripinnis (Characidae) with a discussion on the biology of 'multiple spawning' in fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 22:15-27.

Castelle, A. J., A. W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements - A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878 - 882.

CCREM 1987. Canadian water quality guidelines. Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, Ottawa.

Chapleau F., C.S., Findlay and E. Szenasy. 1997. Impact of piscivorous fish introductions on fish species richness of small lakes in Gatineau Park, Quebec. Ecoscience 4: 259-268

Culp, J. M., and R. W. Davies. 1983. An assessment of the effects of streambank clear-cutting on macroinvertebrate communities in a managed watershed. Canadian Technical Reports on Fisheries and Aquatic Science 1208:115 p.

Davies, P. E., and M. Nelson. 1994. Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45:1289-1305.

Dhondt, K., P. Boeck, O. Van Cleemput, G. Hofman, and F. de Troch. 2002. Seasonal groundwater nitrate dynamics in a riparian buffer zone. Agronomie (Paris) 22:747-753.

Findlay, C. S., D. G. Bert, and L. Zheng. 2000. Effect of introduced piscivores on native minnow communities in Adirondack lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 570–580

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1998. Wild, threatened, endangered and lost streams of the lower Fraser Valley Summary Report: Lower Fraser Valley Stream Review Vol. 3. Fraser River Action Plan, Habitat and Enhancement Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2007. Documenting habitat use of species and risk and quantifying habitat quality. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Report 2007/038

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2009. Recovery potential assessment for the Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) in Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/046.

Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 10: 133-142.

Fox, J. G., and A. K. Keast. 1990. Effects of winterkill on population structure and prey consumption patterns of pumpkinseed in isolated beaver ponds. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:2489-2498.

Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10:199-214.

Gido, K. B., and J. H. Brown. 1999. Invasion of North American drainages by alien fish species. Freshwater Biology 42:387-399.

Government of Canada. 2005. Canada – British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk [PDF 1.46 MB].

Government of Canada. 2011. Species at Risk Act Policies. Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Gurnell, A. M. 1998. The hydrogeomorphological effects of beaver dam-building activity. Progress in Physical Geography 22: 167-189.

Hall, K.J. and H. Schreier. 1996. Urbanization and agricultural intensification in the Lower Fraser River valley: Impacts on water use and quality. Geojournal 40: 135-146

Hall, K. J., H. Schreier, and S. J. Brown. 1991. Water quality in the Fraser River basin in J. R. Griggs, editor. Water in sustainable development: Exploring our common future in the Fraser River Basin. Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Hanson, W. D., and R. S. Campbell. 1963. The effects of pool size and beaver activity on distribution and abundance of warm-water fishes in a North Missouri stream. American Midland Naturalist 69:136-149.

Hatfield, T. and S. Pollard. 2006. Non-native freshwater fish species in British Columbia. Biology, biotic effects, and potential management actions. Report prepared for Freshwater Fisheries Society of British Columbia, Victoria BC

Haycock, R. 2000. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) status report on the Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, 1‑22pp.

Haycock, R. pers. comm. 2005. Telephone conversation with Mike Pearson. Hyla Environmental, Port Moody BC.

Imhof, J. G., J. Fitzgibbon and W.K. Annable. 1996. A hierarchical evaluation system for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53 (Suppl. 1): 312-326.

Ives, A. R., and E. D. Klopper. 1997. Spatial variation in abundance created by stochastic temporal variation. Ecology 78:1907-1913.

Jackson, D. A., P. R. Peres-Neto, and J. D. Olden. 2001. What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities - the roles of biotic, abiotic and spatial factors. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58:157-170.

Keast, A. K., and M. G. Fox. 1990. Fish community structure, spatial distribution and feeding ecology in a beaver pond. Environmental Biology of Fishes 27:201-214.

Kiffney, P. M., J. S. Richardson, and J. P. Bull. 2003. Response of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:1060-1076.

Lavkulich, L. M., K. J. Hall, and H. Schreier. 1999. Land and water interactions: Present and future. in M. C. Healey, editor. Seeking sustainability in the lower Fraser Basin: Issues and Choices. Institute for Resources and Environment, Westwater Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Lee, K. H., T. M. Isenhart, R. C. Schultz, and S. K. Mickelson. 2003. Multispecies riparian buffers trap sediment and nutrients during rainfall simulations. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1200-1205.

Lynch, J. A., G. B. Rishel, and E. S. Corbett. 1984. Thermal alteration of streams draining clearcut watersheds: Quantifications and biological implications. Hydrobiologia 111:161-169.

MacRae, P.S.D. and D.A. Jackson. 2001. The influence of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) predation and habitat complexity on the structure of littoral zone fish assemblages. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58: 342–351.

Martin, T. L., N. K. Kaushik, J. T. Trevors, and H. R. Whiteley. 1999. Review: denitrification in temperate climate riparian zones. Water, air and soil pollution 111:171-186.

McKergow, L. A., D. M. Weaver, I. P. Prosser, R. B. Grayson, and A. E. G. Reed. 2003. Before and after riparian management: Sediment and nutrient exports from a small agricultural catchment, Western Australia. Journal of Hydrology.

McPhail, J. D. 1987. Status of the Salish Sucker, Catostomus sp., in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 101:231-236.

McPhail, J. D., and R. Carveth 1994. Field key to the freshwater fishes of British Columbia. Superior Repro, Vancouver.

McPhail, J. D., and E. B. Taylor. 1999. Morphological and genetic variation in northwestern longnose suckers, Catostomus catostomus: the Salish Sucker problem. Copeia 1999:884-893.

Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:22-38.

Moring, J. R. 1982. Decrease in stream gravel permeability after clear-cut logging: an indication of intragravel conditions for developing salmonid eggs and alevins. Hydrobiologia 88:295-298.

Murphy, M. L., J. Heifetz, S. W. Johnson, K. V. Koski, and J. F. Thedinga. 1986. Effects of clear-cut logging with and without buffer strips on juvenile salmonids in Alaskan streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 43:1521-1533.

Murphy, M. L., and K. V. Koski. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:427-436.

Naiman, R. J., J. M. Melillo, and J. E. Hobbie. 1986. Ecosystem alteration of boreal forest streams by beaver (Castor canadensis). Ecology 67:1254-1269.

Patton, T. M. 2003. Evaluation of the Salish Creek mitigation project. M.Sc.Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Pearson, M. P. 2004a. The ecology, status, and recovery potential of Nooksack Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae ssp.) and Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) in Canada. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Pearson, M. P. 2004b. Threats to the Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace. Prepared for the National Recovery Team for Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver.

Pearson, M.P. 2008. An assessment of potential critical habitat for Nooksack Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae ssp.) and Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2007/058, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa.

Pearson, M. P., and M. C. Healey. 2003. Life history characteristics of the endangered Salish Sucker (Catostomus sp.) and their implications for management. Copeia 2003:759-768.

Pearson, M. P., pers. comm. 2010. E-mail correspondence with Todd Hatfield. Pearson Ecological, Aldergrove. B.C.. February 2010.

Province of British Columbia. 2006. Riparian areas regulation assessment methods (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habitat/fish_protection_act/riparian/documents/assessment_methods.pdf).

Puckett, L. J. 2004. Hydrologic controls on the transport and fate of nitrate in ground water beneath riparian buffer zones: results from thirteen studies across the United States. Water Science and Technology 49:47-53.

Pullman, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652-661

Reed, H. R., J. J. O'Grady, B. W. Brook, J. D. Ballou, and R. Frankham. 2003. Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates. Biological Conservation 113:23-34.

Richter, B. D. 1997. Threats to imperilled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093.

Rosenfeld, J. S. and T. Hatfield. 2006. Information needs for assessing critical habitat of freshwater fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 63:683–698.

Schlosser, I. J. 1990. Environmental variation, life history attributes and community structure in stream fishes: Implications for environmental management and assessment. Environmental Management 14:621-628.

Schlosser, I. J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: A landscape perspective. BioScience 41:704-712.

Schlosser, I. J. 1995. Dispersal, boundary processes and trophic level interactions in streams adjacent to beaver ponds. Ecology 76:908-925.

Schlosser, I. J., and L. W. Kallemyn. 2000. Spatial variation in fish assemblages across a beaver-influenced successional landscape. Ecology 81:1371-1382.

Schreier, H., K. J. Hall, L. Elliott, J. Addah, and K. Li. 2003. Ground water and surface water issues in Agassiz, B.C. Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Schreier, H. pers. comm. 2005. Telephone conversation with Mike Pearson. Professor of Resource Management and Environmental Science, University of British Columbia.

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa.

Stabler, D. F. 1985. Increasing summer flow in small streams through management of riparian areas and adjacent vegetation: a synthesis. Pages 206-210 in Symposium on riparian ecosystems and management. Tucson, Arizona.

Stauffer, J. C., R. M. Goldstein, Neuman R.M. 2000. Relationship of wooded riparian zones and runoff potential to fish communtiy composition in agricultural streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 57: 307-316.

Thomas, C. D. 1990. What do real population dynamics tell us about minimum viable population sizes? Conservation Biology 4:324-327.

Vander Zanden, M. J., J. M. Casselman, and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Stable isotope evidence for the food web consequences of species invasions in lakes. Nature 401:464–467.

Walters, C. J., and C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060-2068.

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland.

Wehrly, K. E., M. J. Wiley, Seelbach, P.W. 2003. Classifying regional variation in thermal regime based on stream fish community patterns. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132: 18-38.

Weller, D. E., T. E. Jordan, and D. L. Correll. 1998. Heuristic models for material discharge from landscapes with riparian buffers. Ecological Applications 8:1156-1169.

Whitaker, D. M., A. L. Carroll, and V. A. Montevecchi. 2000. Elevated numbers of flying insects and insectivorous birds in riparian buffer strips. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:740-747.

Whittier, T.R., D.B. Halliwell and S.G. Paulsen. 1997. Cyprinid distributions in northeast U.S.A. lakes: evidence of regional-scale minnow biodiversity losses. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 1593–1607.

Whittier, T.R. and T.M. Kincaid. 1999. Introduced fish in northeastern USA lakes: regional extent, dominance, and effect on native species richness. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:769–783.

Wigington, P. J., S. M. Griffith, J. A. Field, J. E. Baham, W. R. Horwath, J. Owen, J. H. Davis, S. C. Rain, and J. J. Steiner. 2003. Nitrate removal effectiveness of a riparian buffer along a small agricultural stream in western Oregon. Journal of Environmental Quality 32:162-170.

Return to Table of Contents

Appendices

Appendix 1. Record of cooperation and consultation

The Salish Sucker is listed as a threatened species on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). As an aquatic species, the Salish Sucker falls under federal jurisdiction, and is managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).

DFO and the Province of British Columbia cooperated on the development of this draft document. Processes for coordination and consultation between the federal and British Columbian governments on management and protection of species at risk are outlined in the Canada-B.C. Agreement on Species at Risk (2005).

Consultation on the draft Recovery Strategy occurred through posting the draft Recovery Strategy online for comments and community open houses and workshops held in Chilliwack, Harrison Hot Springs and Aldergrove. Letters containing the consultation weblink and offering the opportunity for bilateral meetings or participation in workshops were sent to 29 First Nations and tribal councils. Four First Nations representatives participated in workshops but no other responses to letters were received. Invitations to four workshops held in January and February 2011 were distributed by email to representatives from municipalities, regional districts, provincial ministries, federal agencies, industry, agriculture, environmental non-governmental organizations and stewardship groups. Input from 88 workshop participants on the draft Recovery Strategy was collected through records of discussion and workbooks filled out by participants.

Over 2400 letters containing the consultation weblink, information on community open houses and maps of proposed critical habitat areas were sent to private landowners whose properties contained or were adjacent to proposed critical habitat. Public notices advertising community meetings were also placed in five area newspapers in English and three area newspapers in French. Over 230 people attended community open houses held in Chilliwack, Harrison Hot Springs and Aldergrove. Comments on the draft recovery strategy were gathered through records of discussions and feedback forms submitted by attendees. Other comments on the draft Recovery Strategy were received through online feedback forms, emails and letters submitted directly to DFO.

Key concerns raised by stakeholders were fears regarding the future impacts of the Recovery Strategy and proposed critical habitat on existing land use practices and private lands, drainage maintenance issues, questions around the value and importance of the Salish Sucker and comments on stakeholders’ relationships with DFO. Most comments related to issues beyond the scope of the draft Recovery Strategy, which is based on the best available scientific information as required under SARA.

All feedback received was considered in the finalization of the Recovery Strategy. Suggestions and concerns related to the implementation of recovery for Salish Sucker will be considered in the action plan that will be developed for Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace.

Appendix 2: Watershed scale maps and coordinate table for Salish Sucker critical habitat

The watershed scale maps below depict the location of reaches identified as Salish Sucker critical habitat as well as the widths of the riparian reserve strips of native vegetation included in critical habitat for each reach. Maps are based on data and maps included and described in Pearson (2008) and were generated using high-resolution colour orthophotos (2004) of the areas in question.

Each map shows stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker within a particular watershed. Stream reaches have been labelled individually and the coordinates associated with the start and end points of each reach along the stream are shown in Table 13.

As the legend for each map indicates, the pattern of the line identifying the stream reach as critical habitat indicates the width of the riparian reserve strip of native vegetation included in critical habitat for that reach. Riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend inland from the top of the bank to the width indicated. Maps depict the locations along the watercourse of stream reaches identified as critical habitat; they do not indicate the location of the top of the bank or the boundary of the riparian reserve strip of native vegetation for reaches identified as critical habitat.

Table 13 summarizes the width of the critical habitat feature identified as Riparian Reserve Strips of Native Vegetation for each reach identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. Riparian reserve strips of native vegetation are continuous and extend laterally (inland) from the top of the bank to the specified width on each bank.


Figure 3. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Agassiz Slough watershed

Map of the Agassiz Slough watershed in Agassiz (see long description below).

Description of Figure 3

Figure 3 is a map of the Agassiz Slough watershed in Agassiz, British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 4. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Bertrand Creek watershed

Map of the Bertrand Creek watershed in Township of Langley (see long description below).

Description of Figure 4

Figure 4 is a map of the Bertrand Creek watershed in Township of Langley, British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 5. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Chilliwack Delta watershed (Map 1)

Map of the Chilliwack Delta watershed in Chilliwack, map 1 (see long description below).

Description of Figure 5

Figure 5 is a map of the Chilliwack Delta watershed in Chilliwack, British Columbia that indicates the locations of some of the stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. Other stream reaches within the watershed that have been identified as critical habitat are depicted in Figure 6. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 6. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Chilliwack Delta watershed (Map 2)

Map of the Chilliwack Delta watershed in Chilliwack, map 2 (see long description below).

Description of Figure 6

Figure 6 is a map of the Chilliwack Delta watershed in Chilliwack, British Columbia that indicates the locations of some of the stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. Other stream reaches within the watershed that have been identified as critical habitat are depicted in Figure 5. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 7. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Hope Slough / Elk Creek watershed

Map of the Hope Slough / Elk Creek watershed in the Chilliwack area (see long description below).

Description of Figure 7

Figure 7 is a map of the Hope Slough / Elk Creek watershed in the Chilliwack area in British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 8. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Fishtrap Creek watershed

Map of the Fishtrap Creek watershed in Abbotsford (see long description below).

Description of Figure 8

Figure 8 is a map of the Fishtrap Creek watershed in Abbotsford, British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 9. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Miami River watershed

Map of the Miami River watershed in the Harrison Hot Springs and Agassiz area (see long description below).

Description of Figure 9

Figure 9 is a map of the Miami River watershed in the Harrison Hot Springs and Agassiz area of British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 10. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Mountain Slough watershed

Map of the Mountain Slough watershed in the Agassiz area (see long description below).

Description of Figure 10

Figure 10 is a map of the Mountain Slough watershed in the Agassiz area in British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 11. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Pepin Creek watershed

Map of the Pepin Creek watershed in the Township of Langley and Abbotsford area (see long description below).

Description of Figure 11

Figure 11 is a map of the Pepin Creek watershed in the Township of Langley and Abbotsford area in British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 12. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Salmon River watershed

Map of the Salmon River watershed in the Township of Langley and Abbotsford area (see long description below).

Description of Figure 12

Figure 12 is a map of the Salmon River watershed in the Township of Langley and Abbotsford area in British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.


Figure 13. Map of stream reaches containing critical habitat for Salish Sucker in the Salwein Creek / Hopedale Slough watershed

Map of the Salwein Creek / Hopedale Slough watershed in the Chilliwack area (see long description below).

Description of Figure 13

Figure 13 is a map of the Salwein Creek / Hopedale Slough watershed in the Chilliwack area in British Columbia that indicates the locations of stream reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. In the identified reaches, critical habitat includes aquatic habitat features and attributes as well as riparian reserve strips of native vegetation. The riparian reserve strips of native vegetation extend from the top of the bank on each side of the stream to the widths specified by the symbol used to identify the reach on the map. The coordinates for the start and end point of each critical habitat reach and the widths specified for the riparian reserve strips associated with each reach are listed in Table 13. Reaches on the map are labeled with codes that correspond to codes used to identify the reach in Table 13.

 

Table 13. Widths of riparian reserve strips of native vegetation along reaches that have been identified as critical habitat for Salish Sucker. Riparian reserve strips are a feature of critical habitat that support life processes of Salish Sucker.
WatershedReach CodeLength
of reach
(m)
Reach Start Point (DMS)Footnote aReach End Point (DMS)Footnote bWidth of Riparian
Reserve Strip of
Native Vegetation
(m)
Lat DMS startLong DMS startLat DMS endLong DMS end
AgassizAGZ1 Left i
661
49° 13' 11" N121° 48' 2" W49° 13' 15" N121° 47' 36" W
15
AgassizAGZ1 Left ii
645
49° 13' 15" N121° 47' 36" W49° 13' 10" N121° 47' 10" W
15
AgassizAGZ1 Left iii
363
49° 13' 15" N121° 47' 36" W49° 13' 8" N121° 47' 15" W
15
AgassizAGZ1 Right i
134
49° 13' 11" N121° 48' 2" W49° 13' 14" N121° 47' 58" W
15
AgassizAGZ1 Right ii
870
49° 13' 14" N121° 47' 58" W49° 13' 15" N121° 47' 15" W
30
AgassizAGZ1 Right iii
160
49° 13' 15" N121° 47' 15" W49° 13' 10" N121° 47' 10" W
15
AgassizAGZ1 Right iv
336
49° 13' 15" N121° 47' 36" W49° 13' 11" N121° 47' 22" W
30
AgassizAGZ1 Right v
145
49° 13' 11" N121° 47' 22" W49° 13' 8" N121° 47' 15" W
15
AgassizAGZ2 Left
1488
49° 13' 10" N121° 47' 10" W49° 12' 49" N121° 46' 30" W
15
AgassizAGZ2 Right i
919
49° 13' 10" N121° 47' 10" W49° 12' 43" N121° 47' 4" W
15
AgassizAGZ2 Right ii
829
49° 12' 43" N121° 47' 4" W49° 12' 49" N121° 46' 30" W
30
AgassizAGZ4 Left
454
49° 13' 10" N121° 47' 10" W49° 13' 13" N121° 46' 47" W
15
AgassizAGZ4 Right i
348
49° 13' 10" N121° 47' 10" W49° 13' 11" N121° 46' 51" W
30
AgassizAGZ4 Right ii
159
49° 13' 11" N121° 46' 51" W49° 13' 13" N121° 46' 47" W
15
AgassizAGZ5
2096
49° 13' 13" N121° 46' 47" W49° 13' 41" N121° 46' 3" W
30
AgassizAGZ6
1686
49° 13' 41" N121° 46' 3" W49° 13' 43" N121° 44' 50" W
30
BertrandBTD10
1065
49° 2' 13" N122° 29' 33" W49° 2' 7" N122° 28' 54" W
20
BertrandBTD11
1133
49° 2' 7" N122° 28' 54" W49° 2' 11" N122° 28' 14" W
25
BertrandBTD12
399
49° 2' 11" N122° 28' 14" W49° 2' 19" N122° 28' 2" W
25
BertrandBTD13
356
49° 2' 19" N122° 28' 2" W49° 2' 29" N122° 27' 57" W
25
BertrandBTD14
527
49° 2' 29" N122° 27' 57" W49° 2' 43" N122° 27' 49" W
20
BertrandBTD15
718
49° 2' 43" N122° 27' 49" W49° 3' 3" N122° 27' 47" W
15
BertrandBTD16
285
49° 3' 3" N122° 27' 47" W49° 3' 11" N122° 27' 49" W
30
BertrandBTD17
616
49° 3' 11" N122° 27' 49" W49° 3' 29" N122° 27' 59" W
15
BertrandBTD18
637
49° 3' 29" N122° 27' 59" W49° 3' 34" N122° 28' 23" W
20
BertrandBTD19
916
49° 3' 34" N122° 28' 23" W49° 3' 43" N122° 28' 57" W
15
BertrandBTD20
927
49° 3' 43" N122° 28' 57" W49° 3' 58" N122° 29' 34" W
15
BertrandBTD43 i
779
49° 3' 49" N122° 29' 1" W49° 4' 5" N122° 29' 5" W
15
BertrandBTD43 ii
671
49° 4' 5" N122° 29' 5" W49° 4' 14" N122° 28' 49" W
30
BertrandBTD43 iii
1045
49° 4' 14" N122° 28' 49" W49° 4' 18" N122° 29' 3" W
15
BertrandBTD5
653
49° 2' 15" N122° 32' 3" W49° 2' 16" N122° 31' 32" W
30
BertrandBTD6
352
49° 2' 16" N122° 31' 33" W49° 2' 23" N122° 31' 20" W
30
BertrandBTD7
450
49° 2' 23" N122° 31' 20" W49° 2' 28" N122° 31' 2" W
20
BertrandBTD8
1141
49° 2' 28" N122° 31' 2" W49° 2' 31" N122° 30' 13" W
25
BertrandBTD9
1105
49° 2' 31" N122° 30' 13" W49° 2' 13" N122° 29' 33" W
20
BertrandCAV2 Left i
197
49° 0' 26" N122° 32' 21" W49° 0' 25" N122° 32' 30" W
30
BertrandCAV2 Left ii
113
49° 0' 25" N122° 32' 30" W49° 0' 27" N122° 32' 34" W
15
BertrandCAV2 Right
308
49° 0' 26" N122° 32' 21" W49° 0' 27" N122° 32' 34" W
15
BertrandPHS2 Left
2655
49° 0' 44" N122° 30' 22" W49° 0' 52" N122° 28' 56" W
15
BertrandPHS2 Right i
727
49° 0' 44" N122° 30' 22" W49° 1' 2" N122° 30' 7" W
15
BertrandPHS2 Right ii
494
49° 1' 2" N122° 30' 7" W49° 1' 3" N122° 29' 45" W
30
BertrandPHS2 Right iii
838
49° 1' 3" N122° 29' 45" W49° 0' 44" N122° 29' 20" W
15
BertrandPHS2 Right iv
119
49° 0' 44" N122° 29' 20" W49° 0' 45" N122° 29' 14" W
30
BertrandPHS2 Right v
476
49° 0' 45" N122° 29' 14" W49° 0' 52" N122° 28' 56" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ10
2656
49° 7' 58" N121° 55' 39" W49° 7' 21" N121° 53' 48" W
25
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ12
877
49° 8' 25" N121° 56' 33" W49° 8' 8" N121° 56' 51" W
20
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ20
1193
49° 8' 50" N121° 56' 44" W49° 8' 50" N121° 55' 45" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ23
3330
49° 8' 50" N121° 55' 45" W49° 7' 59" N121° 53' 52" W
25
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ24
1706
49° 7' 59" N121° 53' 52" W49° 7' 58" N121° 52' 28" W
20
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ26
858
49° 9' 2" N121° 58' 28" W49° 8' 36" N121° 58' 34" W
20
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ27
1848
49° 8' 36" N121° 58' 34" W49° 7' 57" N121° 57' 43" W
25
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ28
1508
49° 7' 57" N121° 57' 43" W49° 7' 29" N121° 57' 39" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ33
1645
49° 8' 38" N121° 59' 59" W49° 8' 21" N121° 59' 48" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ34
1507
49° 8' 20" N121° 59' 47" W49° 7' 58" N121° 59' 48" W
20
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ4
1392
49° 9' 15" N121° 58' 56" W49° 9' 2" N121° 57' 50" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ6
1392
49° 9' 2" N 121° 57' 50" W49° 9' 5" N121° 57' 3" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ7
679
49° 9' 5" N121° 57' 3" W49° 8' 50" N121° 56' 44" W
25
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ8
990
49° 8' 50" N121° 56' 44" W49° 8' 24" N121° 56' 33" W
20
Chilliwack Delta - Map 1ATZ9
1428
49° 8' 24" N121° 56' 33" W49° 7' 58" N121° 55' 39" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ2 Left
2954
49° 9' 44" N121° 59' 38" W49° 8' 49" N121° 59' 7" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ2 Right i
532
49° 9' 44" N121° 59' 38" W49° 9' 30" N121° 59' 34" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ2 Right ii
200
49° 9' 30" N121° 59' 34" W49° 9' 30" N121° 59' 24" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ2 Right iii
116
49° 9' 30" N121° 59' 24" W49° 9' 32" N121° 59' 20" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ2 Right iv
284
49° 9' 32" N121° 59' 20" W49° 9' 35" N121° 59' 7" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ2 Right v
608
49° 9' 35" N121° 59' 7" W49° 9' 17" N121° 59' 7" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ2 Right vi
257
49° 9' 17" N121° 59' 7" W49° 9' 14" N121° 58' 56" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ2 Right vii
957
49° 9' 14" N121° 58' 56" W49° 8' 49" N121° 59' 7" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ3 Left
1473
49° 8' 49" N121° 59' 7" W49° 9' 8" N121° 58' 37" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ3 Right i
607
49° 8' 49" N121° 59' 7" W49° 8' 59" N121° 58' 53" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ3 Right ii
523
49° 8' 59" N121° 58' 53" W49° 9' 1" N121° 58' 29" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ3 Right iii
343
49° 9' 1" N121° 58' 29" W49° 9' 8" N121° 58' 37" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Left i
1481
49° 9' 29" N121° 59' 32" W49° 8' 53" N121° 59' 18" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Left ii
362
49° 8' 53" N121° 59' 18" W49° 8' 52" N121° 59' 35" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Left iii
486
49° 8' 52" N121° 59' 35" W49° 8' 49" N121° 59' 48" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Left iv
190
49° 8' 49" N121° 59' 48" W49° 8' 47" N121° 59' 57" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Left v
347
49° 8' 47" N121° 59' 57" W49° 8' 38" N121° 59' 59" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Right i
252
49° 9' 29" N121° 59' 32" W49° 9' 22" N121° 59' 27" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Right ii
122
49° 9' 22" N121° 59' 27" W49° 9' 21" N121° 59' 22" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Right iii
812
49° 9' 21" N121° 59' 22" W49° 8' 57" N121° 59' 25" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Right iv
148
49° 8' 57" N121° 59' 25" W49° 8' 57" N121° 59' 18" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ32 Right v
1530
49° 8' 57" N121° 59' 18" W49° 8' 38" N121° 59' 59" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ5 Left
2153
49° 9' 16" N121° 58' 37" W49° 9' 3" N121° 57' 54" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ5 Right i
384
49° 9' 16" N121° 58' 37" W49° 9' 13" N121° 58' 22" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ5 Right ii
851
49° 9' 13" N121° 58' 22" W49° 9' 25" N121° 58' 5" W
15
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ5 Right iii
262
49° 9' 25" N121° 58' 5" W49° 9' 23" N121° 57' 54" W
30
Chilliwack Delta - Map 2ATZ5 Right iv
658
49° 9' 23" N121° 57' 54" W49° 9' 3" N121° 57' 54" W
15
ElkELK14
1473
49° 10' 37" N121° 51' 7" W49° 9' 50" N121° 51' 7" W
15
ElkELK17
2615
49° 9' 50" N121° 51' 7" W49° 8' 48" N121° 50' 5" W
15
ElkELK2
1902
49° 10' 46" N121° 58' 52" W49° 11' 29" N121° 58' 16" W
15
ElkELK24
2077
49° 10' 17" N121° 49' 41" W49° 10' 33" N121° 48' 22" W
15
ElkELK4
2489
49° 10' 57" N121° 57' 13" W49° 10' 46" N121° 58' 52" W
30
ElkELK5 Left
2994
49° 11' 14" N121° 54' 54" W49° 10' 57" N121° 57' 13" W
15
ElkELK5 Right
3052
49° 11' 14" N121° 54' 54" W49° 10' 57" N121° 57' 13" W
30
ElkELK6
1402
49° 11' 43" N121° 54' 7" W49° 11' 14" N121° 54' 54" W
15
ElkELK6b
1716
49° 11' 43" N121° 54' 7" W49° 11' 0" N121° 53' 55" W
15
ElkELK7
4846
49° 11' 0" N121° 53' 55" W49° 10' 37" N121° 51' 7" W
30
ElkELK8
2151
49° 10' 37" N121° 51' 7" W49° 10' 17" N121° 49' 41" W
30
FishtrapFTP1
1986
49° 0' 8" N122° 24' 25" W49° 1' 3" N122° 24' 15" W
30
FishtrapFTP2
1243
49° 1' 3" N122° 24' 15" W49° 1' 29" N122° 23' 42" W
30
FishtrapFTP27a
420
49° 3' 6" N122° 21' 55" W49° 2' 59" N122° 21' 37" W
30
FishtrapFTP27b
430
49° 3' 5" N122° 21' 55" W49° 2' 59" N122° 21' 37" W
30
FishtrapFTP28
1512
49° 2' 59" N122° 21' 37" W49° 3' 26" N122° 20' 45" W
15
FishtrapFTP4
460
49° 1' 28" N122° 23' 4" W49° 1' 40" N122° 22' 58" W
20
FishtrapFTP7
470
49° 2' 34" N122° 22' 45" W49° 2' 47" N122° 22' 32" W
15
MiamiMIA1 Left
1783
49° 18' 15" N121° 47' 35" W49° 17' 50" N121° 46' 38" W
15
MiamiMIA1 Right i
673
49° 18' 15" N121° 47' 35" W49° 18' 3" N121° 47' 10" W
15
MiamiMIA1 Right ii
358
49° 18' 3" N121° 47' 10" W49° 18' 5" N121° 46' 56" W
30
MiamiMIA1 Right iii
837
49° 18' 5" N121° 46' 56" W49° 17' 50" N121° 46' 38" W
15
MiamiMIA13
1697
49° 17' 35" N121° 46' 23" W49° 16' 49" N121° 46' 0" W
30
MiamiMIA2
1564
49° 17' 50" N121° 46' 38" W49° 17' 8" N121° 46' 39" W
30
MiamiMIA3
445
49° 17' 8" N121° 46' 39" W49° 16' 59" N121° 46' 55" W
30
MiamiMIA4
1446
49° 16' 59" N121° 46' 55" W49° 16' 24" N121° 47' 35" W
20
MiamiMIA5
852
49° 16' 24" N121° 47' 35" W49° 15' 58" N121° 47' 31" W
15
MountainMTN1
382
49° 14' 2" N121° 51' 21" W49° 14' 12" N121° 51' 21" W
5
MountainMTN2
1370
49° 14' 12" N121° 51' 21" W49° 14' 50" N121° 51' 19" W
15
MountainMTN26 Left
297
49° 14' 50" N121° 51' 19" W49° 14' 52" N121° 51' 7" W
15
MountainMTN26 Right i
68
49° 14' 50" N121° 51' 19" W49° 14' 49" N121° 51' 16" W
30
MountainMTN26 Right ii
36
49° 14' 49" N121° 51' 16" W49° 14' 50" N121° 51' 14" W
15
MountainMTN26 Right iii
119
49° 14' 50" N121° 51' 14" W49° 14' 51" N121° 51' 9" W
30
MountainMTN26 Right iv
74
49° 14' 51" N121° 51' 9" W49° 14' 52" N121° 51' 7" W
15
MountainMTN27
825
49° 14' 52" N121° 51' 7" W49° 15' 6" N121° 50' 35" W
20
MountainMTN28
1820
49° 15' 7" N121° 50' 35" W49° 15' 28" N121° 49' 21" W
20
MountainMTN29
425
49° 15' 28" N121° 49' 21" W49° 15' 26" N121° 49' 1" W
20
MountainMTN3
425
49° 14' 50" N121° 51' 19" W49° 15' 2" N121° 51' 12" W
15
MountainMTN30
621
49° 15' 26" N121° 49' 1" W49° 15' 32" N121° 48' 36" W
20
MountainMTN31
847
49° 15' 32" N121° 48' 36" W49° 15' 43" N121° 48' 10" W
15
MountainMTN4
590
49° 15' 2" N121° 51' 12" W49° 15' 13" N121° 50' 59" W
15
MountainMTN47
623
49° 15' 43" N121° 48' 10" W49° 15' 56" N121° 48' 17" W
15
MountainMTN5
836
49° 15' 13" N121° 50' 59" W49° 15' 30" N121° 50' 39" W
15
MountainMTN6
630
49° 15' 30" N121° 50' 39" W49° 15' 44" N121° 50' 23" W
30
PepinPEP1
191
49° 0' 8" N122° 28' 26" W49° 0' 9" N122° 28' 17" W
20
PepinPEP10
560
49° 1' 31" N122° 25' 35" W49° 1' 44" N122° 25' 19" W
15
PepinPEP11
1633
49° 1' 44" N122° 25' 19" W49° 2' 21" N122° 24' 33" W
15
PepinPEP13
1432
49° 0' 9" N122° 28' 17" W49° 0' 33" N122° 27' 52" W
15
PepinPEP17
669
49° 1' 1" N122° 26' 29" W49° 1' 20" N122° 26' 29" W
20
PepinPEP18
263
49° 1' 20" N122° 26' 29" W49° 1' 27" N122° 26' 30" W
10
PepinPEP19
344
49° 1' 27" N122° 26' 30" W49° 1' 35" N122° 26' 36" W
20
PepinPEP2
926
49° 0' 9" N122° 28' 17" W49° 0' 34" N122° 28' 15" W
15
PepinPEP20a Left
494
49° 1' 35" N122° 26' 36" W49° 1' 45" N122° 26' 31" W
15
PepinPEP20a Right i
377
49° 1' 35" N122° 26' 36" W49° 1' 46" N122° 26' 36" W
15
PepinPEP20a Right ii
117
49° 1' 46" N122° 26' 36" W49° 1' 45" N122° 26' 31" W
30
PepinPEP20b Left
376
49° 1' 46" N122° 26' 35" W49° 1' 43" N122° 26' 17" W
15
PepinPEP20b Right
376
49° 1' 46" N122° 26' 35" W49° 1' 43" N122° 26' 17" W
30
PepinPEP3
155
49° 0' 34" N122° 28' 15" W49° 0' 39" N122° 28' 15" W
30
PepinPEP4
206
49° 0' 39" N122° 28' 15" W49° 0' 42" N122° 28' 6" W
15
PepinPEP6 Left
1124
49° 0' 47" N122° 27' 42" W49° 0' 52" N122° 26' 55" W
15
PepinPEP6 Right i
927
49° 0' 47" N122° 27' 42" W49° 0' 48" N122° 27' 1" W
30
PepinPEP6 Right ii
197
49° 0' 48" N122° 27' 1" W49° 0' 52" N122° 26' 55" W
15
PepinPEP7 Left
648
49° 0' 52" N122° 26' 55" W49° 1' 1" N122° 26' 36" W
15
PepinPEP7 Right i
341
49° 0' 52" N122° 26' 55" W49° 1' 2" N122° 26' 48" W
15
PepinPEP7 Right ii
307
49° 1' 2" N122° 26' 48" W49° 1' 1" N122° 26' 36" W
30
PepinPEP8
327
49° 1' 1" N122° 26' 36" W49° 1' 3" N122° 26' 22" W
30
PepinPEP9 Left
1597
49° 1' 3" N122° 26' 22" W49° 1' 31" N122° 25' 35" W
15
PepinPEP9 Right i
1007
49° 1' 3" N122° 26' 22" W49° 1' 27" N122° 26' 1" W
15
PepinPEP9 Right ii
351
49° 1' 27" N122° 26' 1" W49° 1' 27" N122° 25' 45" W
30
PepinPEP9 Right iii
240
49° 1' 27" N122° 25' 45" W49° 1' 31" N122° 25' 35" W
15
SalmonSLN1
5102
49° 10' 37" N122° 35' 13" W49° 9' 35" N122° 35' 22" W
30
SalmonSLN11
1163
49° 4' 55" N122° 31' 35" W49° 5' 7" N122° 30' 54" W
30
SalmonSLN12
1063
49° 5' 7" N122° 30' 54" W49° 5' 22" N122° 30' 15" W
25
SalmonSLN13
1079
49° 5' 22" N122° 30' 15" W49° 5' 30" N122° 29' 29" W
30
SalmonSLN14
604
49° 5' 30" N122° 29' 29" W49° 5' 24" N122° 29' 6" W
30
SalmonSLN15
1726
49° 5' 24" N122° 29' 6" W49° 4' 57" N122° 28' 15" W
30
SalmonSLN16
1013
49° 4' 57" N122° 28' 15" W49° 4' 43" N122° 27' 36" W
15
SalmonSLN17
494
49° 4' 43" N122° 27' 36" W49° 4' 35" N122° 27' 16" W
25
SalmonSLN2
1910
49° 9' 35" N122° 35' 22" W49° 9' 11" N122° 35' 25" W
30
SalmonSLN3
1830
49° 9' 11" N122° 35' 25" W49° 8' 35" N122° 35' 59" W
30
SalmonSLN4
1020
49° 8' 35" N122° 35' 59" W49° 8' 17" N122° 36' 24" W
30
SalmonSLN41
400
49° 5' 5" N122° 31' 13" W49° 4' 55" N122° 31' 5" W
25
SalmonSLN5
1751
49° 8' 17" N122° 36' 24" W49° 8' 1" N122° 35' 46" W
20
SalmonSLN6
1081
49° 8' 1" N122° 35' 46" W49° 7' 46" N122° 35' 14" W
30
SalweinHDL1 Left
491
49° 5' 28" N122° 2' 12" W49° 5' 37" N122° 1' 58" W
15
SalweinHDL1 Right i
150
49° 5' 28" N122° 2' 12" W49° 5' 29" N122° 2' 5" W
30
SalweinHDL1 Right ii
341
49° 5' 29" N122° 2' 5" W49° 5' 37" N122° 1' 58" W
15
SalweinHDL2
481
49° 5' 33" N122° 1' 57" W49° 5' 45" N122° 1' 44" W
20
SalweinHDL3
652
49° 5' 45" N122° 1' 44" W49° 5' 52" N122° 1' 19" W
20
SalweinHDL4
437
49° 5' 52" N122° 1' 19" W49° 5' 53" N122° 1' 6" W
30
SalweinHDL5
604
49° 5' 53" N122° 1' 6" W49° 5' 49" N122° 0' 49" W
15
SalweinHDL6
265
49° 5' 33" N122° 1' 57" W49° 5' 34" N122° 1' 46" W
25
SalweinSWN1
1379
49° 5' 20" N122° 3' 34" W49° 5' 30" N122° 2' 40" W
30
SalweinSWN10
411
49° 5' 37" N122° 2' 50" W49° 5' 45" N122° 2' 54" W
25
SalweinSWN13
720
49° 5' 46" N122° 2' 39" W49° 5' 51" N122° 2' 8" W
30
SalweinSWN14
945
49° 5' 51" N122° 2' 8" W49° 6' 13" N122° 1' 40" W
30
SalweinSWN2 Left
777
49° 5' 30" N122° 2' 48" W49° 5' 42" N122° 2' 31" W
15
SalweinSWN2 Right i
483
49° 5' 30" N122° 2' 48" W49° 5' 45" N122° 2' 44" W
15
SalweinSWN2 Right ii
295
49° 5' 45" N122° 2' 44" W49° 5' 42" N122° 2' 31" W
30
SalweinSWN3
1402
49° 5' 42" N122° 2' 31" W49° 5' 45" N122° 2' 3" W
25
SalweinSWN4
719
49° 5' 38" N122° 2' 4" W49° 5' 54" N122° 1' 55" W
30
SalweinSWN9
877
49° 5' 27" N122° 3' 20" W49° 5' 47" N122° 2' 51" W
30

Footnotes

Footnote A

Reach start point indicates the location of the beginning of the reach in question along the watercourse.

Return to footnote a

Footnote B

Reach end point indicates the location of the end of the reach in question along the watercourse.

Return to footnote b

Return to Table of Contents