Gooch Creek and Associated Ecosystems:

Issues and Solutions

Moralea Milne

Student # 9913797

ER 390

April 12, 2004

Abstract

Gooch Creek and associated ecosystems provides habitat for two provincially blue-listed species: coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) and red-legged frog (Rana aurora) as well as three spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Gooch Creek and associated ecosystems were mapped using Global Positioning Systems technology. Studies using Streamkeepers, Wetlandkeepers, Urban Salmon Habitat Program and Proper Functioning Condition to assess Gooch Creek have found the cumulative effects of land conversion, land use, livestock usage, invasive species encroachment and roads practices have negatively effected the aquatic health this system. Water quality sampling was conducted every second week at six locations for dissolved oxygen, water temperature, total dissolved solids, pH and turbidity. Chemical analysis of soil and water was also performed.

Gooch Creek was found to suffer from low dissolved oxygen, high water temperatures and fluctuating pH at some sites during the summer and turbidity was found to be a concern, especially in the spring. Fecal coliform counts were extremely high. Insufficient large woody debris (LWD) and boulders, low summer flows, siltation, lack of riparian vegetation and insufficient depth of riparian vegetation were found to be areas of concern. Removing culverts, dredging Ben Acre pond, fencing out livestock and using best management road practices are recommended ways of improving water quality. Adding LWD, fencing out livestock, planting native riparian vegetation and liaising with the local roads coordinator are recommended strategies to improve stream function and condition. Monitoring is proposed to assess changes over time, to provide data that can determine adaptive management strategies and to gauge the success of restoration projects. Monitoring subjects should include: continue, at least annually, a designated date for chemical water testing from site three; test the creek water at site three, for petro chemicals to give base line data; continue seasonal water sampling from site one (in the marsh), gee trap twice a year at designated times to ascertain continued fish prescence; conduct assessment of aquatic invertebrates at least once a year at a designated location and date, for use as biological indicators of creek health; undertake photopoint monitoring to track physical changes over time; inventory and assess invasive plant species encroachment and monitor Parker’s Pond for algal blooms. Projects completed include: redesign of the weir at Ben Acre pond to allow easier access to fish and planting of Hooker’s willow (Salix hookeriana), red alder (Alnus rubra) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) to augment riparian species at one location.

Table of Contents

List of Tables

1. Reach Interpretation 13

2. Gee Trapping and Fish Observation 13

3. Bird Observations 14

4. Species Percent Cover of Marsh Plants 16

5. Water Sampling-Site 1 26

6. Water Sampling-Site 2 27

7. Water Sampling Site 3 28

8. Water Sampling-Site 4 29

9. Water Sampling-Site 5 30

10. Water Sampling Ste 6 31

11. USHP Data Interpretation 34

List of Figures

1. Climate Graph 6

2. Topographic Map of Watershed 8

3. Biogeoclimatic Zones of British Columbia 9

4. Map of Marsh Showing Transects 11

5. 1930 Photo of Ben Acre Marsh 15

6. 2004 Map of Ben Acre Marsh 16

7. Map of Plant Communities of Ben Acre Marsh 17

8. Salmon Habitat Inventory Map (SHIM) 18

9. Turbidity Chart 20

10. Water Temperature Chart 21

11. Dissolved Oxygen Chart 22

12. pH Chart 23

13. Total Dissolved Solids Chart 23

14. Photo of New Bridge 25

15. Photo of Clay Causeway 25

16. Photo of Redesigned Weir 36

List of Appendices

1. Soils, Upland 40, 41

2. Soils, Swamp 42, 43

3. Soils, Marsh 44, 45

4. Soil Analysis Swamp and Marsh 46

5. 1858 Map of Metchosin 47

6. Site Visits 47

7. Vegetation in Marsh 50

8. Marsh Transect 51

9. Shrub Vegetation at Marsh Edge 52

10. Vegetation in Swamp 52

11. Vegetation Surrounding Ben Acre Pond 52

12. USHP Table A 53

13. USHP Table B 54

14. PFC Reach One-front and back 56, 57

15. PFC Reach Two-front and back 58, 59

16. PFC Reach Three-front and back 60, 61

17. PFC Reach Four-front and back 62, 63

18. PFC Reach Five-front and back 64, 65

19. PFC Reach Six-front and back 66, 67

20. PFC Reach Seven-front and back 68, 69

21. PFC Reach Eight-front and back 70, 71

22. Air Photo 1926 72

23. Air Photo 1970 73

24. Fecal Coliform Testing (Winter, 2001)-Site 3 74

25. Fecal Coliform Testing (Summer, 2001)-Site 3 75

26. Chemical Water Analysis, Summer , 2001-Site 3 76

27. Chemical Water Analysis, Winter, 2001-Site 3 77

28. Nitrogen Levels in Water, August, 2001-Site 3 78

29. Nitrogen Levels in Water, December, 2001-Site 3 79

30. Soil Particle Size and Organic Content 80

31. Parker’s Pond Alkalinity Testing-Site 5 81

32. Jone’s Spring Fecal Coliform Levels-Site 6 82

33. Wetland Survey TR1-QU1 83

34. Wetland Survey TR1-QU2 84

35. Wetland Survey TR2-QU1 85

36. Wetland Survey TR2-QU2 86

37. Wetland Survey TR3-QU1 87

38. Wetland Survey TR3-QU2 88

1. Introduction

a. Goals and Objectives 5

b. History 5

2. Study Area

a. Description and Location 5

b. Landuse 5

c. Climate 6

d. Geology 6

e. Landforms i) Upland ii) Shoreline 6

f. Soils 7

g. Hydrology 7

h. Ecology 8

3. Methods

a. Water Quality 9

b. Soils 9

c. Maps 10

d. Site Visits 10

e. Fish and Invertebrates 10

f. Birds 10

g. Vegetation 10

h. Creek and Marsh Mapping

i. Urban Salmon Habitat Program 12

ii. Proper Functioning Condition 12

iii. Streamkeepers 12

iv. Wetlandkeepers 12

v. Salmon Habitat Inventory Mapping 12

4. Results

a. Water Quality 13

b. Fish 14

c. Birds 14

d. Invertebrates 15

e. Vegetation 16

f. Creek mapping

i. Urban Salmon Habitat Program 16

ii. Proper Functioning Condition 16

iii. Streamkeepers 17

iv. Wetlandkeepers 17

v. Salmon Habitat Inventory Mapping 18

5. Discussion

1.General 18

2. Water Quality 20

3. Reaches

a. Beach 25

b. Marsh 25

c. Reach One 26

d. Reach Two 27

e. Reach Three 28

f. Reach Four 28

g. Reach Five 29

h. Reach Six 29

i. Reach Seven 30

j. Reach Eight 30

k. Reach Nine 30

l. Reach Ten 31

m. Reach Eleven 31

n. Above Reach Eleven 32

6. Recommendations

a. Water quality 32

b. Beach 32

c. Marsh 32

d. Reach One 32

e. Reach two 32

f. Reach Three 32

g. Reach Four 32

h. Reach Five 33

i. Reach Six 33

j. Reach Seven 33

k. Reach Eight 33

l. Reach Nine 33

m. Reach Ten 33

n. Reach Eleven 34

o. Summary of Restoration Priorities 34

7. Monitoring 35

8. Projects Completed 36

9. Conclusion 36

10. References 37

11. Appendices 40

1. Introduction

a. Goals and Objectives

The long term goal of this project is the restoration of Gooch Creek and associated ecosystems to a state which would ensure the healthy existence of its native inhabitants. The short term goal is the education of the landowners of the properties through which the creek runs and is affected, to the value of these ecosystems. The following objectives contribute to this goal: to gather baseline data on the stream and marsh; to produce a map of the ecosystem; to identify areas in need of restoration; to raise landowners awareness of the value of the ecosystem and the creatures that inhabit it, especially the blue listed species: coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) and red-legged frog (Rana aurora); to indicate ways in which landowners can repair and protect their riparian zones; and to initiate some restoration, within financial and landowner constraints.

b. History

There is evidence of prehistoric use of the Parry Bay area of Metchosin. Numerous cairns and middens are found in the area and the remains of a defensive site, considered to be “probably the best preserved trench and embankment on the island” (Kidd, 1959), is located near the end of Taylor Road (Keddie, 1997a), in this watershed. One midden at Ash Point in Pedder Bay in Metchosin has been dated to 1700 years ago (Keddie, 1997b).

European settlement of Metchosin began around 1850 when the Kakyaaken or Ky-Aakan people received £43/6/8 (paid in blankets), relinquishing their rights to the land, through negotiations with (Sir) James Douglas. Much of Gooch Creek flows through Section 2 (320 acres), which was purchased from Edward Kitson by Sir James Douglas for use as a summer retreat and hunting lodge. This property was later bought and farmed by the Fisher family (Weir, 1983). Current property owners are long time residents with very low turnover of properties.

2. Study Area

a. Description and location

Gooch Creek and its watershed are located in the District of Metchosin on southeastern Vancouver Island in an area approximately bounded by the Juan de Fuca Strait, specifically Parry Bay; Rocky Point Road (Rd); Happy Valley Rd; Parry Rd and Taylor Rd. The majority of the creek flows through private properties from 4545-4659 William Head Road. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP) states the watershed code is 76800-20-11-150 PD325599, UTM Zone 10, Northing 53576000, Easting 460750.

Gooch Creek is a small coastal stream and marsh within the agricultural land reserve that is home to two anadromous fish species: coastal cutthroat trout and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). The stream has the unique history of intermittently opening to the Juan de Fuca Strait during the wet winter season and losing this access from late spring till fall.

The brackish marsh, which is located at the lowest point of the watershed and through which Gooch Creek runs is infrequently flooded with saltwater, in particular during winter extreme high tide and storm events and it is subjected to periodic freshwater flooding throughout the fall and winter.

b. Landuse

Landuse is rural-residential and agricultural. All properties have acreage and many properties are “hobby” farms with horses. There is one farm commercially producing hay and sheep and several farms with small scale commercial fruit and vegetable production. Metchosin town centre, involving a machine repair business, restaurant, general store, firehall, municipal hall, community hall and recently vacated elementary school and garage impact this watershed. Unfortunately, there is no information on the disposal system that flows from the town centre into the ditch along William Head Road, leading to Gooch Creek. The roads coordinator for the district has not been able to unravel the intricacies of the waste disposal systems in this area (Wong, pers. comm., 2003). There are concerns about potential toxic wastes from some of these locations.

c. Climate

This is considered to be a “Mediterranean” type climate with cool, wet winters and moisture deficit conditions in summer (Environment Canada, 2003). With climate change prognostications these seasonal differences could even more pronounced (Hebda, 1996). The Parry Bay area of Metchosin has drier weather conditions, similar to Gonzales Hill weather station in Victoria, than the higher precipitation experienced at Victoria airport weather station.

Figure 1

d. Geology

Bedrock is composed of Metchosin Volcanics from the Carboniferous and Devonian eras. During the later Jurassic period the landscape was partly replaced by batholithic intrusions. Millions of years of erosion reduced this to lowland. Glaciation occurred three to four times during the last one million year period known as the Pleistocene era. During the Vashon ice advance of 10,000-15,000 years ago (Edwards, 1967), the weight of the ice submerged this area under 150-300 metres of seawater (Yorath and Nasmith, 1995). As the ice retreated, the land gradually rose to its present level, with soils developing from morainal and marine deposits (Edwards, 1967)

e. Landforms (upland and shoreline)

i. Upland

Landforms of the lower watershed include a gently sloping topography with a stream cut valley ending in a brackish marsh with a barrier berm or barrisway, which seasonally opens to Parry Bay. There are forested areas with second growth conifers, fragments of Garry oak woodlands and tableland converted to agricultural use. The upper watershed was originally forested hillsides with wetlands in low lying pockets, this has been converted to rural residential use with (generally) 2-10 acre properties.

ii. Shoreline characteristics

Wolf Bauer (1976) describes the Parry Bay Drift Sector (3.38 km) as an integrated erosion-transport-accretion beach system. From the southern end by a rocky promontory for approximately 274 metres (m) is a Class I beach of sand and gravel with a moderately steep foreshore and broad, stable berm partly covered by trees and dune grass, considered a near-neutral drift zone. From Sherwood Pond to 402 m past Taylor Road, is a Class II sector beach (less stable and wet during extreme high tides) located in front of a slowly receding low-bank terrace, except for a low backshore berm, occasionally breached by Gooch Creek. While drift is multi-directional, net drift is northward. Drift belt in the upper foreshore is heavy and tends to keep bank erosion to a low recession rate. Just past Gooch Creek begins a Class III beach (beach less stable and wet during high tides) and high bluffs which are slowly eroding, providing sand to Witty’s Lagoon.

The creek is only periodically (October-May) open to Parry Bay, limiting access of the anadromous cutthroat trout and sticklebacks. Generally the beach berm, which prevents access to Parry Bay, can only be breached during the winter wet season. The berm restricts the creek to underground seepage through the beach sands into Parry Bay until the rains have contributed enough water to flood the marsh, providing sufficient pressure to breach the berm.

f. Soils

Upland soils are considered to be site series BG (Douglas fir, grand fir-Oregon grape), previously considered site series 04 FdBg-Oregon grape (appendice 1, 2, 3).

On July 11, 2003, a soil sample was taken from the marsh to a depth of 2 metres. The soil was estimated to be 4-5, using the Von Post scale and it appeared to remain the same throughout the sample. At approximately 70 cm, there was a piece of burnt wood. Overall, the soil was wet and mushy, with a consistent degree of semi-decomposition throughout, indicative of many years as a sedge marsh. Soil samples were taken from the marsh and swamp and sent to MB Labs for analysis. These indicate a pH of 5.92 (marsh) and 6.19 (swamp), organic matter of (marsh) 35.5% and (swamp)12.7%. Sodium levels in the marsh were 7578 ug/g versus 600 ug/g in the swamp, which confirms periodic saltwater incursion into the marsh (appendice 4).

g. Hydrology

The apex of the groundwater system is an area fed by adjoining hills in a converted wetland bounded by Arden Road and Herilhy Place. This area drains approximately northeast, feeding the Gooch Creek watershed. The main drainage system is subsurface in the summer until it becomes Jones Spring at 4546 William Head Rd. The spring appears to have been modified and bermed. As Jones Brook it is then ditched through this property, crosses William Head Rd through a culvert and begins year round flow through 4545 William Head Rd. This flow is supplemented by surface and subsurface runoff from ditches and properties along William Head Rd. from the town centre and from properties to the south. Gooch Creek once flowed overland from a spring fed pond on Parry X Road. It has been culverted and is only visible as surface flow through some yards in the winter months. The Jones Brook tributary enters Gooch Creek at (approximately) 4536 Parry X Road. The creek and marsh are also fed by groundwater and stormwater from properties along Taylor Rd and William Head Rd

An additional vernal wetland and creek system flow through 4596 William Head Rd. When it reaches William Head Road it joins a ditch which steers the water to a culvert that runs under the road and exits onto 4565 William Head Rd (Plaxton property).

As Gooch Creek reaches its lowest elevation it flows through an alder/skunk cabbage swamp, through a large constructed pond on the Ben Acre property, through further alder/skunk cabbage swamp and into a brackish sedge marsh, before exiting into Parry Bay

Figure 2. Topographic Map of Gooch Creek Watershed

h. Ecology

Metchosin is located within the Coastal Douglas-Fir biogeoclimatic zone, moist maritime subzone (CDFmm) (Meidinger and Pojar, 1991). The lower regions of this watershed comprise part of the range of the threatened Garry oak ecosystem, considered by some a more xeric subzone than is indicated by the BEC classification.

For the purpose of this report I have identified the marsh as CDFmmTmPa (SFTEMIBC, 1998). Triglochin maritimum (Tm) and Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica (Pa) can be indicative of brackish wetlands (Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994)

Figure 3. Biogeoclimatic Zones of British Columbia

3. Methods

1. Water Quality

Water quality was assessed at six sites by sampling approximately every second week for: dissolved oxygen (DO2) content as 0.1mg/l and expressed as mg/l [ppm]), total dissolved solids (TDS) in mg/l, turbidity as Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU’s) which are equivalent to Nephelometer Turbidity Units (NTU’s), pH, air and water temperature.

Separate chemical analysis of water samples was conducted by MB Labs of Sidney, BC. Site one was located at the bridge in the marsh in reach one. Site two was at the weir in the Ben Acre constructed pond. Site three was located at the beginning of reach four at the base of a large boulder. Site 4 was located on the Plaxton property, downstream of the entrance of the stormwater ditch from William Head Rd. Site five was from the float on the Parker pond and site six was Jone’s Spring. Water quality criteria for salmonids was evaluated, in part, according to parameters which are applied to fish hatcheries (Sigma Resource Consultants, 1979) as data for free ranging sea-run cutthroat trout was difficult to find.

2. Soils

Terrestrial ecosytem mapping was completed according to Standards forTerrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (SFTEMIBC, 1998), which included soil pits in the upland, swamp and marsh. Marsh soils were also examined with the use of a Hiller sidewall corer and a chemical soil analysis was completed on both marsh and swamp soil samples by MB Labs of Sidney, BC.

3. Maps

Airphoto maps were complied from federal, provincial and municipal government sources and from University of Victoria. Topographical maps were copied from the District of Metchosin maps.

1:20,000 TRIM map No. 92B.033 was produced in 1993 for the former Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The 1858 map of District of Metchosin was discovered at the Plans Vault, Archaeology and Registry Services Branch (appendice 5).

d. Site Visits

See appendice 6

5. Fish and Invertebrates

Fish presence was validated with gee trapping, according to Streamkeepers criteria. Fish abundance was not surveyed, as electrofishing methods were considered potentially damaging to aquatic populations. Invertebrate sampling was conducted as part of Streamkeepers assessment.

6. Bird

Bird presence was surveyed by observation

7. Vegetation

Vegetation was mapped in conjunction with Urban Salmon Habitat Program (USHP) and Wetlandkeepers assessments. Three methods were used to inventory plants within the marsh. One method entailed walking through the marsh and estimating species presence and abundance. The second method involved estimating species abundance along a transect which traversed the length of the marsh and the third method required more detailed assessment of plant species cover of six one square metre plots, distributed throughout the marsh according to Wetlandkeepers criteria.

Figure 4. Map of Marsh Showing Transects

8. Creek and Marsh Mapping

Mapping of Gooch Creek was accomplished using several different techniques. The first mapping occurred in 2000 using Steamkeeper methods, one section of reach three was mapped as a reference section. The second mapping occurred on July 31^st and August 9^th 2001 following the proscribed methods of the USHP with Lew Carswell as their representative and finally the creek was mapped using Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment with Patrick Lucey and Lehna Malmquist on May 20^th and 23^rd, 2003. GPS mapping was conducted with Springfield Harrison of Stellar GPS and Mapping of Sidney, BC. The marsh was mapped following Wetlandkeepers criteria in the spring of 2003.

i. Urban Salmon Habitat Program (USHP)

The USHP was developed to focus on salmon species and salmonid habitat in urban areas and data interpretation is based on using salmonids as a keystone species; if the ecosystem functions well for salmonids, it has a quality of characteristics which provide a healthy community for its other inhabitants. Stream assessments include measuring: water quality; channel structure, characteristics and processes; bank stability, amount of LWD and other cover, adjacent landuse, fish abundance and vegetation. No electrofishing was attempted, as it was considered potentially damaging to aquatic life, therefore there is only an indication of fish presence, not abundance. Assessments are transferred to a computer program, which evaluate the data and judge stream health, indicating areas of concern (Michalski et al, 2000).

ii Proper Functioning Condition (PFC)

The National Riparian Service Team (2004) describes PFC as a “methodology for assessing the physical functioning of riparian and wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process, and a defined, on-the-ground condition of a riparian-wetland area. In either case, PFC defines a minimum or starting point”.

Twenty questions on hydrology, vegetation and soil-erosion-deposition are answered in a yes/no/na fashion by an interdisciplinary team to ascertain functioning condition of an aquatic ecosystem (Prichard et al, 1998), on which people can then place value judgments. For example, giving high fish production a top priority means managing the riparian environment so that it maintains an intermediate, arrested successional pattern. High fish production needs a large, steady supply of food and high water quality, characteristics of an intermediate stage in succession. “Old growth” characteristics provide clean water but less streamside vegetation, thus less food for fish, invertebrates etc.

iii Streamkeepers

Streamkeepers is a program for volunteers to assess stream health by collecting and interpreting data on water quality, channel characteristics, stream discharge, streambed composition, bank stability and vegetation. These parameters are graphed to produce a value index of the stream (Taccongna and Munro, 1995). However the invertebrate surveys and gee trapping were the only parts of the Streamkeeper assessment that was accomplished. Invertebrate surveys were recorded with Susan Low (formerly) of Streamkeepers as an alternate means to monitor ecosystem health. The proportion of water quality sensitive invertebrates such as caddisflies (order Trichoptera), stoneflies (order Plecoptera) and mayflies (order Ephemeroptera), invertebrates that are particularly sensitive to water quality indicate stream health (AERABI, 2000).

iv. Wetlandkeepers

Wetlandkeepers program consists of inventories of plant and bird species (Southam and Curran, eds., 1996). There is no mechanism embedded in the program to determine wetland health from these inventories. Three transects were laid out which included two quadrats of one square metre for each transect. These were inventoried for plant species.

v. Salmon Habitat Inventory Mapping (SHIM)

SHIM mapping “provides reliable, current, and spatially accurate information about local fish and wildlife habitats” (SHIM website: www.shim.bc.ca/what.html.2004) and is meant to produce a digital map of a stream, incorporating the GPS co-ordinates as well the usual assessment parameters onto a map available online. GPS mapping occurred over two days in 2002 and produced a map of the ecosystem which incorporated some SHIM data. Unfortunately there was not enough expertise available at that time to realize the full complement of SHIM parameters.

4. Results

*Note on different interpretations of reach:

Using different models, such as USHP and PFC to map and assess Gooch Creek and my own inexperience, has led to the use of different criteria to describe a reach. In the interests of clarity, reaches will be described as defined by USHP. Where pertinent, the compatible PFC reach numbers will be used.

Table 1. Reach Interpretation

USHP	PFC
1	1,2
2	3
3	4
4	5
5	5
6	5
7	5
8	5
9	n/a
10	6, 7
11	8

a. Water Quality Testing Results

See graphs under discussions

· High temperatures were experienced at sites one and five.

· DO2 was critically low at sites one, two and six

· Turbidity was a concern at all sites except site five at some point in the year, generally throughout the spring, after heavy rains.

· PH was found to be slightly above neutral at all sites except sites one and five.

· TDS readings were within acceptable parameters and also indicate periodic flooding of saltwater into Ben Acre marsh, a natural and historic occurrence.

b. Fish

Table 2. Gee Tapping and Fish Observation

Fish Presence/Absence

Date Cutthroat Trout Threespine Stickleback Comments

Oct 26, 2000	2	3	Gee trapping
Aug 15, 2001	0	0	Gee trapping
Sept 17		4	Gee trapping
Sept 18	2	2	Gee trapping
Oct 15	0	0
Feb 1, 2002	10		Gee trapping/no fish Small trout seen around redds (15-20 cm)
Feb 9	2		2 (15-20 cm) trout seen
Feb 12	1		Trout seen
Feb 24	1		Trout jumping
Feb 26	7		Trout spawning, 2 lg 40- 60 cm, sea-run
March 12	2		Lg trout (sea run size)
May 17	1		Trout in weir, went Downstream (to outlet?)
June 4	10-20		Fry found at various locations . Possible fish jumping at Parker’s Pond (Rainbow?)
June 12		3	Gee trapping Fish jumping at Parker’s
June 13	1	2	Gee trapping
July 4	1		Seen downstream of weir
Oct 24		3
Jan 8, 2003			No trout spawning yet
Feb 17	2		40 cm and 15 cm
July 11	0	0	Gee trapping

c. Table 3. Bird Observations from 2000

Common name	Latin name	Comments/Habitats
Virginia rail	Rallus limicola	Heard and saw in marsh
Common snipe	Gallinago gallinago	Marsh
Mallards	Anas platyrhynchos	Marsh, creek, pond
Marsh wren	Cistothorus palustris	Marsh, several
Lincoln sparrow	Melospiza lincolnii	Marsh, saw flock twice
Red-winged blackbirds	Agelaius phoeniceus	Marsh, saw flock once
Pileated woodpecker	Drocopus pileatus	Swamp
Northern flicker	Colaptes auratus	Orchard
Hairy woodpecker	Picoides villosus	Swamp
Downy woodpecker	Picoides pubescens	Swamp, marsh-edge thickets
Winter wren	Troglodytes troglodytes	Swamp, marsh-edge thickets
Stellar’s jay	Cyanocitta stelleri	Swamp and forests
Fox sparrow	Passerella iliaca	Marsh-edge thickets
Song sparrow	Melospiza melodia	Marsh-edge thickets
Yellow warbler	Dendroica petehia	Thickets, brambles
Warbling vireo	Vireo gilvus	Marsh-edge thickets
Golden-crowned sparrow	Zonotrichia atricapilla	Grassland
White-crowned sparrow	Zonotrichia leucophrys	Grassland
American robin	Turdus migratorius	Orchard
Chestnut-backed chickadee	Parus rufescens	Marsh-edge thickets
Golden-crowned kinglet	Regulus satrapa	Marsh-edge thickets
Ruby-crowned kinglet	Regulus calendula	Marsh-edge thickets
Brown creeper	Certhia americana	Upland
Bushtit	Psaltriparus minimus	Upland
Red-tailed hawk	Buteo jamaicensis	Overhead
Bald eagle	Haliaeetus leucoecphalus	Nests in forest
Northwest crow	Corvus caurinus	Overhead
Common raven	Corvus corax	Overhead
Hawk sp. Cooper or sharp-tailed	Acipiter sp.	Overhead
Great blue heron	Ardea herodias	Overhead, on beach
Turkey vulture	Cathartes aura	Overhead

d. Invertebrate

Invertebrate sampling showed poor species diversity and very few of the sensitive species such as caddisflies, stoneflies and mayflies, whose low presence/absence indicate poor water quality.

e. Vegetation

See appendices 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 for vegetation surveys

Unfortunately, the research conducted during this project focused heavily on fish habitat and reliable data was not collected on invasive species. However, some early data collection indicates the presence of invasive species and personal observation indicates an increase in the abundance of the following introduced and problematic species:

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) in upland, gorse (Ulex europaeus) in upland and swamp edge, daphne (Daphne laureola) in upland forests, ivy (Hedera spp.) in forest and riparian, holly (Ilex spp.) in swamp and riparian, common reed (Phragmites australis) in marsh, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) in marsh

Common reed has established itself as evidenced by comparing past and present photos of the marsh.

Figure 5. Ben Acre marsh 1930’s

Figure 6. Ben Acre marsh march 2004

Notice the Phragmites australis evident in the centre of this photo

Table 4.

Species Percent Cover of Marsh Plants Using Three Methods

Plant Species	Guesstimate	Transect	Plot
Triglochlin maritimum	60	30	10
Potentilla anserina	5	8	15
Carex lyngbyi	13	20	3
Carex obnupta	7	7	3
Phragmites australis	3	0	3
Typha latifolia	5	8	0
Misc. grass sp	8	8	8

All other plant species were only recorded as trace abundance

g. Creek mapping

i. USHP

With USHP assessment, highest ratings are assigned to areas of most concern. Overall evaluation indicates that off-channel habitat is the highest concern (30), followed closely by lack of LWD (28), lack of boulder cover (28), % wetted area or summer lows (26), % fines or siltation (22), lack of cover in pool (20), lack of vegetation depth (20) and % crown cover (16) (see appendices 11 and 12).

ii. PDF

PDF assessment indicates Proper Functioning Condition of all areas except reaches six and seven, which are deemed non-functioning. Common concerns are lack of large woody debris, the restriction of sediment movement into the marsh by the dam/driveway, restriction of water flow by the logjam at the beach outlet, some trees should be pulled over to allow light penetration. Reach six and seven have no riparian vegetation and evidence downcutting and reach seven suffers from livestock ranging in the creek and riparian area causing hummocking, erosion and downcutting. Invasive species are a concern in most reaches (appendices 14 [front and back] to 21 [front and back]).

iii. Streamkeepers

Invertebrate surveys show extremely poor water quality for invertebrate health. There were very few of the sensitive invertebrates, although there were many amphipods. The score was extremely low. Unfortunately these surveys were misplaced when sent to “Staples” for scanning, so they cannot be part of the appendices.

iv. Wetlandkeepers

Figure 7. Plant Communities of Ben Acre Marsh

Wetlankeepers inventory showed the presence of reed grass, reed canary grass and ditching

v. SHIM

Figure 8. SHIM Map of Gooch Creek

Part of marsh is missing due to poor quality of map photo.

5. Discussion

General

Gooch creek and its associated ecosystems have been subjected to many changes and pressures since pre-European contact. Analysis of air photos from 1926, 1970 and 2001 (appendices 22, 23, 24) show a decrease in forest cover in the upper reaches of the watershed, although the lower reaches have remained fairly stable. Conversion of this landscape to rural residential and farm use has initiated many changes. The original hydrologic regime, in which seasonal and permanent wetlands fed the surface and sub-surface water flow, has been altered by drainage ditches, roads, driveways, impermeable surfaces, culverts, wells, constructed ponds, logging, land-use conversion, housing and livestock use. Summer lows are a normal part of the hydrology that are exacerbated by a variety of factors, including conversion of forested land, increased rural residential density and the attendant use of wells and the perceived global climate change with the general trend to warmer, drier weather (Hebda, 1996). The Arden Road subdivision, near the apex of the watershed, has just received approval and financing to hook up to the Capital Regional District (CRD) Water system. Hopefully this will reduce the use of well water and restore some degree of natural groundwater flow to the Gooch Creek water system.

Coupled with this are the reduction of wetlands and native groundcover that further reduces the ability of the landscape to retain the winter precipitation. A cascading series of negative reactions begin when people have not recognized the significance of vernal wetlands, creeks and pools and have developed their properties without regard for their hydrological regimes. They remove the original native plants and develop their properties. With the winter rains, they realize they have to drain these vernally wet areas by ditching and culverts to reduce the impact on their converted land uses. Drainage ditches remove surface water quickly and don’t allow the wetlands and soils to retain the water for summer use (Hinman, 2001). The increased volume and velocity of stormwater entering the creeks causes increased erosion and sedimentation which often begets further indignities such as streambank armouring, which in turn increases velocity and reduces habitat quality (Government of Ontario, 2004).

Although erosion and deposition of soil material from the watershed is a natural process, excessive erosion can lead to many serious consequences. The two largest causes of ongoing erosion within Gooch Creek seem to be caused by livestock and road maintenance. Several hobby farms have livestock that have access to the riparian areas and to the creeks. Livestock, especially horses, walk through the creeks and seasonal wetlands and destroy the ground cover, remove vegetation, break down the creek channels and cause transport of soil materials. The road maintenance staff clear the roadside ditches with mechanical equipment that scour the bottom of the ditches, removing all vegetation. Bare earth is left to be transported by the winter rains into ditches leading to the creek, contributing to siltation. This work is carried on without regard to proper timing or best management practices (pers. obs, 2003-2004).

Trout have good auditory and visual abilities that they use for survival. Suspended solids from erosion reduce their ability to see their prey and their predators, thereby reducing their food intake, increasing risk from their enemies and contributing to higher mortality. It can abrade and clog the gills and breathing apparatus of fish and invertebrates. Suspended solids also reduce the amount of light for photosynthesis; thus reducing algae growth which in turn reduces food for invertebrate species (NSDF and DFO, 1994), which are a food source for birds, mammals such as river otters, fish, snakes and amphibians. Juvenile red-legged frogs feed upon algae (Corkran and Thoms, 1996). Siltation and sedimentation can fill the spaces between the gravel, reducing habitat for invertebrates and juvenile fish. It can also coat the redds or spawning beds and prevent oxygen from reaching the developing cutthroat trout embryos and alevins, again contributing to higher mortality rates (NSDF and DFO, 1994).

Contamination of surface, and possibly, groundwater, is evident from the water analysis (appendices 25 and 26). Fecal coliform counts are extremely high. This could be the result of failing septic systems and/or livestock manure. Several properties have livestock in the waterways as well as storing manure next to the waterways. Winter rains leach through these manure piles to pollute the water. CRD Health has stated that 25% of all septic systems are failing (Bergner, pers. comm., 2003) and this would indicate a high probability that some septic systems could be adding to the fecal coliform counts. If the CRD enacts the proposed legislation to order septic system inspection by 2005 and regular pumpouts every 3 to 5 years, the question of septic system contamination might be alleviated.

The was no testing for pesticides or non point source pollution such as oil or gas, which is an expensive process. Chemical analysis of soil and water indicate higher than usual background rates of some heavy metals (appendice 4). The Metchosin town centre has several operating and abandoned businesses that could be a source of pollution. One abandoned site has seen business as an auto wrecking yard, highways maintenance yard and auto storage yard. Some of these businesses were running when groundwater contamination was not considered a factor in regulation. There is an auto repair business which might be of concern, as apparently there are no special contaminant disposal systems in place. It is probable that there are serious contaminants in the soil and possible movement of these through the soil and groundwater. The vacated gas station recently had its tanks and pumps tested and they were been found to be in good condition. This business had oil and water separators on each side of its property which were pumped out regularly (Cooper, 2003, pers. comm.). The restaurant is a relatively new business that would have had to comply with all the newest building codes. However, many trees to the rear of the property are dying, perhaps from installation of the sewage system, which would change the hydrology of the area and could seriously affect the health of the trees. There is a corner store which does not allow patrons to use their washroom facilities, a community hall which is open only occasionally, a recently decommissioned elementary school, a church that is used only for special events and a part-time nursery school. It is not known if farmers use much pesticide in an ongoing manner. The use of road salt during the very occasional snow and ice conditions could be of concern.

The invertebrate surveys, conducted during Streamkeeper assessments indicate an extremely poor aquatic habitat for invertebrates. Considering the surveys were conducted in an area of a reach that was deemed to be of high quality by all other methods of assessment, the question is raised as to why the invertebrate assessment is so dismal. It could be that this is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” and there are unknown toxins affecting the creek health. More in depth chemical analysis should help to pinpoint the nature, if any, of the toxic substances affecting the invertebrate populations (and by extension, the creek biota). Equally the invertebrates could be suffering from sediment deposition that seems to occur with higher frequency during springtime .

Figure 9 Turbidity Chart of Sites 1-6

Impermeable surfaces are not a large concern in a rural setting. Most driveways are gravel and a large proportion of the land is permeable, although not always clothed with native vegetation and probably not as effective in retaining the water table as the original forested land.

Invasive species are a large problem throughout southern Vancouver Island and Metchosin is no exception. Daphne (Daphne laureola), Himilayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), English ivy (Hedera helix), broom (Cytisus scoparius), gorse (Ulex europeus), holly (Ilex sp.) and various introduced grasses are all thriving and expanding their range throughout the watershed (pers. exp.), especially in disturbed areas. Daphne, holly and ivy all cause serious concern in shaded areas, where they succeed in displacing native species. One section of upland vegetation at 4609 William Head Rd. consists of 40% daphne ( see appendice 1). Since fall of 2002, the properties from 4609-4645 William Head Rd have had a commercial supplier to the floral trade harvesting their vast daphne understory. Although the plants are only selectively pruned for their foliage, it is hoped that the harvesting will at least slow their relentless progress. However, if daphne responds like most other aggressive colonizers, it could actually stimulate growth and flowering.

Water quality:

Water temperatures of 9-12ºc are the optimum, spawning is 6-17ºc, incubation is 10-11 ºc, juveniles prefer 15 ºc. Outmigration occurs at 4-6ºc and immigration at 9-12ºc (Pauley et al, 1989). Maximum for long term exposure for eggs is 12ºc (Sigma Resource Consultants Ltd., 1979).

Turbidity: for incubation-3mg/L and for rearing-25 mg/L (Sigma Resource Consultants Ltd., 1979). Above 35 mg/L is problematic (Pauley et al, 1989). Government of Canada guidelines for salmonid habitat recommend turbidity should not exceed 8 NTU’s (BCAWQGC), 1998).

Dissolved oxygen at 85% saturation levels at 20ºc for general rearing and 98% at 0-15ºc for incubation of mature eggs and larvae (Sigma Resource Consultants Ltd., 1979).

pH of 6-8.5 (Taccogna and Munro [eds], 1995)

TDS: The US considers readings above 230 JTS’s to be problematic to aquatic health (Duluth Streams.org, March 29, 2004) although there are no guidelines set by the Canadian government.

Water quality results/discussion:

i. Lack of shade and slow moving water contribute to high water temperatures at site one. This is a natural condition of a marsh with a barrier berm. However, in site two, water flow is restricted by the presence of the dyke/driveway which causes sediment to be dropped in the pond and consequently the pond has become quite shallow over the years, contributing to high water temperatures High summer water temperatures in site 5 are probably the result of water column stratification and inadequate shade

Figure 10 Water Temperature From Sites 1-6

ii. Low flows and low to non-existent turbulence at both site one and two during the summer, coupled with high water temperatures produce extremely low dissolved oxygen levels, problematic for salmonid survival. Site six is spring fed and springwater is often normally unoxygenated (T. Rutherford, 2002, pers. comm.)

Figure 11 Dissolved Oxygen Chart From Sites 1-6

iii. Turbidity probably reflects stormwater issues and is of great concern because the increased siltation caused by turbidity, especially happening during the spring when the trout have just finished spawning, can negatively, even catastrophically, affect the developing trout embryos and alevins.

iv. pH levels are probably a reflection of the high mineral content of the soils the stream drains. Although higher than salmonids and amphibians generally tolerate, local species are probably adapted to these conditions. Site five had an extremely high spike in pH, during one summer, probably the result of an algal bloom. Eutrification coupled with sunlight reaching the sediment layer and a stratified water column, with high water temperatures on the top layer, are the probable cause of algal blooms (DIP&NR, 2004). Algal blooms can cause fluctuations in dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH as well as turbidity. When the algae die they releases large amounts of waste product and bioavailable nitrogen and consume large quantities of dissolved oxygen. They can be toxic and produce offensive odours (Rose, 2004). They produce a very difficult environment for aquatic species to survive.

Figure 12. pH Chart From Sites 1-6

v. Coastal BC streams are generally considered to experience TDS readings of 75 JTU’s (Resources Inventory Committee, 1998). The readings in Gooch Creek are somewhat higher than coastal norms and could be the result of local variation from mineral laden soils or from agricultural or failed septic system inputs. The spike in readings at site one indicate saltwater incursion into the marsh.

Figure 13 Total Dissolved Solids From Sites 1-6

vi. Chemical water analysis conducted throughout the study show extremely high fecal coliform counts. These could be from livestock and manure piles in proximity to the creek or from failing septic systems. The higher summer readings evidenced in appendice 26 might indicate septic system failure rather than livestock or manure piles, as there is very little stormwater available in the summer to transport pollutants.

Reaches:

a) Beach

Taylor Beach and the outlet of Gooch Creek are littered with thousands of logs of varying sizes and extreme storms and tides redistribute them over the course of the winter. These logs would not have been in such profusion pre-European contact and the advent of large scale commercial logging. It is unknown what effect these logs have on helping or hindering access of the creek and fish from Gooch Creek to Parry Bay or on the condition of the barrier berm.

b) Marsh

The brackish marsh surrounding much of reach one is a dynamic, productive ecosystem that doesn’t exhibit a great deal of plant biodiversity. Many birds and animals utilize the marsh for food, shelter and/or breeding at various times of the year. It is periodically submerged under freshwater and occasionally flooded with saltwater. The plant communities that survive must be able to adapt to extreme growing conditions. Several years ago saw the last of the glasswort (Salicornia virginica) population disappear (Fletcher, 2001 pers. comm.), which would appear to indicate a change to a more freshwater ecosystem than would support the saltwater loving glasswort (Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994). However, a soil sample taken in 2003 to a two metre depth indicates a sedge meadow community has existed for millennia. R. Hebda (per.comm., 2003) considers sedge meadow soils to accumulate at the rate of one metre per one thousand years. Unfortunately the bridge and boardwalk that was used to set locations of other soil sampling (appendices 2 and 3) were washed away in the winter of 2001-2002. Sedges (Carex and Scripus spp.), grasses, sea arrow grass (Triglochin maritimum), cattails, (Typha latifolia) and silverweed (Potentilla aserina ssp. pacifica) are abundant species within the marsh. At some time in the past the marsh was ditched, probably to facilitate grazing. The marsh has been used as a sheep pasture but this use was discontinued when the sheep were fatally poisoned while grazing (G. Fletcher, 2001, pers comm.). The toxic Pacific water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) is common throughout the marsh. Some of these ditches hold water well into the summer and function as off channel habitat for sticklebacks. Logs located at the eastern edge of the marsh approximately 150 m from the mouth of the creek, indicate (an) extremely high tide and/or storm event(s) in the past. The invasive reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and common reed (Phragmites australis) are present. As evidenced by the marsh plant communities map (figure 7), as the marsh progresses further from the zone of saltwater incursion the plant species change from salt tolerant to salt intolerant, from Carex lyngbyei to Carex obnupta.

A new and handsome bridge (figure 14) has been built to cross Gooch Creek in the marsh. Very recently one of the property owners has constructed a clay causeway (figure 15) to midway across the marsh, aimed towards the bridge. This seems likely to reduce free and natural movement of water through the marsh and this situation should be monitored for consequences.

Figure 12 New Bridge

Figure 13 Clay Causeway

c) Reach One

From the Parry Bay outlet to an alder (Alnus rubra) / skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum) swamp. The creek continues through the alder swamp until it reaches the driveway and culvert/weir. USHP data interpretation suggests that the creek needs more large woody debris (LWD) in this reach (table 11). However, it is possible that there would naturally be very low LWD retention here as the creek runs through the marsh and there are no trees for recruitment. Since the reach was considered to include both the marsh and swamp (as per instructions from L. Carswell), the data regarding crown cover doesn’t accurately represent the reach. There is no crown cover in the marsh section, as marshes, by definition, don’t sustain trees. Swamps however, do include trees (Scott, 1995). The tree cover in the swamp is more accurately represented by the numbers shown in reach three, which indicates 85% crown cover. Historically there would have been no pond and driveway between what is now known as reach one and three, suggesting they would have had similar characteristics. Sixty percent crown cover is considered the ideal balance for cover values, algae and riparian growth (NSDF and DFO, 1994).

It is probable that the driveway has reduced sediment recruitment to reach one, since this is dropped in the constructed pond on the upstream side of the driveway. The pond has been in existence for 30 plus years.

There are several dwellings adjacent to the marsh and creek and it is unknown if their septic systems adversely affect the water quality.

Low dissolved oxygen (DO2) and high temperatures during the summer are limiting factors. These criteria are not met during the summer in the marsh, but may be met in the swamp portion of the reach, which is well shaded. Sticklebacks can be found in this reach year round.

Reach one is infrequently inundated with salt water, usually during extreme high tides and winter storm events, as evidenced by the TDS readings and the analysis of the marsh soil sample.

Table 5 Site One Water Sampling (Conducted at Bridge in Marsh)

Date	Time	DO	pH	TDS	Temp/air	Temp/water	Turbidity	Depth
Jul-31	11:00 AM	6.5	7	60	24	16.6
Aug-15		4	8.5		16	24
Aug-21	12:00 PM	4	7.2		15	20
Sep-13	10:30 AM	3.2	6.8		20	14		71
18-Sep	9:15 AM		7.3		15	14	2.5	69.5
9/27/01	9:00 AM	2	7.4		14	13	2.5	76
Oct-01	10:00 AM	3.11	7.4		14	13	2.5	76
10/15/01	11:00 AM	3.62	7.4			9.2	5	60
29-Oct	10:00 AM	4.8	6.6	250	11	7.4	2.5	65
13-Nov	10:00 AM	8.1	7.3	1000	8	10	4	85
14-Nov	3:00 PM			370				78
15-Nov	1:00 PM			150
19-Nov	10:30							100
23-Nov	2:45 PM							50
11/26/01	11:00 AM	8.95	7.4	190	5	6.5	4	48
12/3/01								155
12/6/01								75
12-Dec	11:45 AM	9.02	7.4	130	7	6.5	5	68
14-Dec	9:15 AM	10.6	7.4	100	10	5.7	13	60
17-Dec
20-Dec	2:00 PM	10.83	6.7	150	8	5.7	5	49
1/4/02	12:00 PM	7.18	6.5	510	10	4.8	5	120
6-Jan	3:00 PM				12			135
7-Jan	11:00 AM							158
1/21/02	10:30 AM	11.82	6.9	130	5	4.2	10	63
2/1/02	10:30 AM	12.48	7.8	110	6	4.3	5	21
2/13/02	11:00 AM	11.6	7.3	140	5	4.3	5	40
2/24/02	2:30 PM	11.71	6.8	10	7	6.9	10	30
3/12/02	11:00 AM	11.63	7.3	70	8	6	15	42
3/27/02	2:30 PM	11.42	7.7	100	6	6.9	5	21
3/28/02	10:30 AM	11.57	7.4	90	8	7.2	20	24
4/9/02	11:00 AM	10.5	6.9	120	10	9	5	11.5
4/25/02	1:45 PM	10.16	7.4	130	15	10.6	4	16
5/8/02	10:00 AM	9.58	7.1	140	8	9.3	5	39
5/17/02	11:00 AM	7.94	7.1	150	13.5	11.1	7.5	39
6/4/02	3:00 PM	7.08	7.4	160	16	15	5	43.5
6/12/02	11:30 AM	5.5		150	20+	13.9	5	51.5
7/4/02	11:00 AM	4.76		180	14	14.4	2.5	55
8/13/02	2:00 PM	3.57		190	25+	18.1	5	63
9/9/02	10:00 AM	3.95	7	160	20	12.9	5	68
1/8/03	11:00 AM	10.44	7	550	4	5.2	5	57

d) Reach Two

Considered the “Ben Acre” constructed pond, measuring approximately 65 m x 30 m (1950 square m), sticklebacks and cutthroat trout have been found here. USHP data interpretation suggests there is not enough LWD, which would add cover for aquatic dwelling species. All other negative interpretations are natural conditions associated with a pond. Crown cover has been listed as poor (not sufficient cover), but that is misleading. Although the cover grows along the edge of the pond and the pond itself is only 10% covered, the pond is well shaded because the trees are large and throw their shade for a long distance. The entire pond is green with duckweed (Lemna minor) by August, the excessive plant life, indicative of eutrification, would contribute to higher DO2 levels during the day and lower levels at night when the plants are excreting carbon dioxide. The duckweed adds cover-protecting the inhabitants from predation, reduces algae and consumes nutrients. It could also contribute to lower dissolved oxygen levels when it decomposes in the fall and winter (Cross, 2003). The pond has been infilling for decades and is much shallower than when it was originally constructed (Chettleberg, pers.comm., 2001). Low summer flows adversely affect the conditions because water flow is insufficient to maintain high water levels in the pond, causing the water level to drop, again reducing the summer habitat and water quality. The driveway and associated culverts and weirs block the natural flow of water and gravel recruitment. Additionally, the weir, which restricts water flow through the culvert and driveway, leaks, with the water running under the driveway, preventing access to the habitat of reach one during the low summer flows and draining the pond. The original design of the weir also prevents easy access for the fish. The driveway is occasionally flooded in winter.

Table 6 Site Two Water Sampling (Conducted in Ben Acre Pond)

Date	Time	DO	pH	TDS	Temp/air	Temp/water	Turbidity
Jul-31	1:00 PM	8.3	7.3	130	24	15.7
Aug-15		8	7		24	16
Aug-21	2:00 PM	6	7.3		20	14
Sep-13	11:00 AM	5	7.2		20	12
18-Sep	9:45		7.3		15	14	1.5
27-Sep	9:30 AM	7	7.4		14	11	5
15-Oct	10:30 AM	6	7.5			9.5	5
29-Oct	10:30 AM	5.9	7	200	11	7	5
13-Nov	10:15 AM	7.5	7.7	200	8	9	4
26-Nov	11:10 AM	7.95	7.4	130	5	6.6	5
12-Dec	12:00 PM	9.81	7.4	120	7	6.5	4
17-Dec	2:15 PM	10.41	7	110	8	5.8	5
1/4/02	12:15 PM	9.48	6.5	140	10	6.5	5
1/21/02	10:40 AM	12	6.8	90	5	4.9	5
2/1/02	10:40 AM	12.65	6.6	110	6	4.4	10
2/13/02	11:10 AM	11.52	7.3	110	5	4.2	5
2/24/02	2:45 PM	11.86	6.7	30	7	6.9	10
3/12/02	11:15 AM	11.98	7.1	70	10	6	17.5
3/28/02	10:45 PM	11.45	7.3	80	8	7.2	25
4/9/02	11:30 AM	8.09	6.8	110	10	9	5
4/25/02	2:00 PM	9.1	7.5	100	15	9	5
5/8/02	10:15 AM	8.75	7.3	120	8	8.9	5
5/17/02	11:15 AM	7.88	7.1	140	13.5	10.9	10
6/4/02	3:15 PM	6.1	7.2	150	16	14.5	5
6/12/02	11:45 AM	5.53		150	20+	15.1	5
7/4/02	11:15 AM	6.1		160	14	14.9	2.5
8/13/02	2:15 PM	3		150	25+	16.1	2.5
9/9/02	10:15 AM	4.77	7	100	20	14.4	1
1/8/03	11:15 AM	9.73	6.8	128	4	5.4	7

e) Reach Three

A fairly flat, slow moving section of the creek with a gradient of 1-2%. USHP data interpretation suggests that there is not sufficient LWD. Crown cover is 85%, too shady for ideal growth conditions (NSDF and DFO, 1994). Much of this reach flows through an alder swamp and this is reflected in the low % cover of pools, most of the riparian vegetation is skunk cabbage. Reach three was not part of the water quality analysis, but it is assumed it would be similar to reach four. The cutthroat trout have been found spawning only in reach three, four and five.

f) Reach Four

A short (19.5m), relatively steep section of the creek. USHP data interpretation indicates a shortage of LWD. Water quality is excellent for most parameters but fecal coliform counts are extremely high (appendices 25 and 26).

Table 7 Site Three Water Sampling at Large Boulders in Reach Four

Date	Time	DO	pH	TDS	Temp/air	Temp/water	Turbidity
Jul-31	4:30 PM	8.3	7.4	123	20
Aug-14	10:30 AM	7	7.2
Aug-15		7	7.2		24	16
Aug-21	3:00 PM	10	7.8		21	13
Sep-13	1:00 PM	6	7.6		20	12
18-Sep	10:15 AM		7.9		15	13	4
27-Sep	10:00 AM	9	7.5		14	11	2.5
15-Oct	11:00 AM	10.2	7.9			9.9	0
29-Oct	11:00 AM	10.4	7.5	210	11	8.4	5
13-Nov	10:30 AM	10	7.9	200	8	9.8	2.5
26-Nov	11:20 AM	9.7	7.6	140	5	7.1	4
12-Dec	12:15 PM	10.62	7.6	130	7	7	5
20-Dec	2:30 PM	11.28	7.2	120	8	6.2	5
1/4/02	12:30 PM	11.22	6.9	140	10	7	5
1/21/02	11:00 AM	12.43	6.7		5	5.2	5
2/1/02	11:00 AM	12.66	6.8	110	6	4.9	5
2/13/02	11:30 AM	12.5	7.3	120	5	5	5
2/24/02	3:00 PM	11.47	6.7	40	5	7.3	10
3/12/02	11:30 AM	11.74	7.2	70	7	6.6	10
3/28/02	11:00 AM	11.72	7.4	40	8	7.9	10
4/9/02	12:00 PM	10.36	7.1	110	10	9.2	5
4/25/02	2:45 PM	9.87	7.6	110	15	9.6	5
5/8/02	10:45 AM	9.83	7.6	130	9	8.9	12.5
5/17/02	11:45 AM	9.35	7.4	80	13.5	10.2	12.5
6/4/02	3:30 PM	8.62	7.1	140	16	11.9	10
6/12/02	12:00 PM	8.63		140	20+	11.9	10
7/4/02	11:30 AM	9.2		150	14	11.7	5
8/13/02	2:30 PM	8.83		140	25+	14	5
9/9/02	10:30 AM	10.01	7.7	120	20	12.1	1
1/8/03	11:30 AM	11.41	7	130	4	5.9	7

g) Reach Five

By approximately 200m, and the only significant limiting factor is a shortage of LWD.

h) Reach Six

Approximately 200m of relatively flat gradient, surrounded by hobby farms. USHP data interpretation indicate this reach is impacted by low LWD recruitment, obstruction by fences, siltation, land use issues, 85% crown cover in some sections and turbidity. At one point previous landowners allowed horses to wander in the creek, but the present landowners fence them out. One area previously impacted by horses is slowly producing riparian vegetation, although not all of it is appropriate. The introduced Himalayan blackberries are becoming rampant. The creek has become a shallow, grassed ditch in one section. The landowners also have a burn site in a wet area of the yard, beside the creek, which drains directly into the creek, possibly adversely affecting water quality. Water quality analysis (table 8) suggest a concern with turbidity. A channelized tributary or ditch joins reach six at 4565 William Head Rd and seasonally carries water from a vernal creek. The amount and velocity of stormwater is causing erosion of this property along the ditched section and in particular it is undermining a bridge used by the owners and horses to access a pasture. The owners would like to see this situation improve for them, without losing property or becoming a financial burden to them. They are considering culverting the ditch to reduce erosion and property loss. There is a large manure pile which sits on a concrete pad adjacent to the seasonal tributary, which likely contributes to the fecal coliform counts.

Table 8 Site Four Water Sampling Conducted at Plaxton Property

Date	Time	DO	pH	TDS	Temp/air	Temp/water	Turbidity
Aug-21	12:00 PM	8	7.6		21	14
Sep-13	1:00 PM	7	7.3		20	14	7.5
1-Oct	12:30 PM	9	7.3		20	11	5
15-Oct	11:30 AM	9.3	7.6			11	0
30-Oct	9:00 AM	8	7.3	200	11	8.6	5
14-Nov	3:15 PM	10	7.4	140	10	10.4	15
26-Nov	1:00 PM	9.6	7.4	140	5	7.6	5
12-Dec	12:30 PM	10.47	7.4	130	7	6.7	10
20-Dec	2:45 PM	9.92	7	120	8	6	5
1/4/02	12:45	10.52	7	130	10	7	5
1/21/02	11:30 AM	11.8	6.6		5	5.3	5
2/6/02	10:30 AM	11.25	7	110	6	5.8	5
2/14/02	1:30 PM	12.1	7	110	6	4.4	5
2/24/02	3:45 PM	11.53	6.8	50	6	7.4	10
3/12/02	12:00 PM	11.11	7.1	80	10	7.1	10
3/28/02	1:00 PM	10.81	7.2	80	8	10.6	10
4/9/02	2:45 PM	10.36	7	100	10	9.6	10
4/25/02	2:30 PM	9.65	7.5	100	15	11.2	10
5/8/02	11:00 AM	8.82	7.3	110	8	9	15
5/17/02	11:45 AM	7.93	7.1	80	13.5	11.2	20
6/4/02	3:45 PM	7.97	6.8	120	16	13.7	40
12-Jun	12:15 PM	6.85		120	20+	13.3	35
7/4/02	11:45 AM	6.8		110	14	12.5	30
8/13/02	2:45 PM	5.67		130	25+	16.2	20
9/9/02	11:45 AM	7.05	7.5	100	20	14.2	20
1/9/02	11:30 AM	11.85	7	120	4	5.7	7

i) Reach Seven and Eight

Both considered separate from reach 6 because of the culverts which begin and end them. USHP data interpretation suggests they both lack LWD and the culverts serve as obstructions. Reach 7 has some bank armouring constructed from wooden planks, downstream from a culvert. Reach 8 periodically causes flooding concerns to the landowners. The crown cover values range from 85-90%, too shady for ideal algal growth conditions (NSDF and DFO, 1994). No water quality testing was done through this section as it was considered too much of a burden to the landowners, who are nervous of government interference.

j) Reach Nine

A constructed pond, approximately 84.5 m X 40 m (3380 square m) pond. The pond feeds the creek system through groundwater and through an overflow mechanism. Turtles, muskrats, red-winged blackbirds, marsh wrens and ducks are resident here and river otters visit occasionally. The pond is periodically stocked with rainbow trout but they do not endure. USHP data interpretation suggests the “Parker” pond suffers from fluctuating pH, high summer water temperatures, which can be significantly higher than the surrounding air temperature. The pond will periodically form a large dome-shaped mass, which rises to the surface of the water (Parker, 2002, personal communication) before disintegrating, probably an algal bloom. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) has been found in several locations around the pond.

Table 9 Site Five Water Sampling Conducted at Parker’s Pond

Date	Time	DO	pH	TDS	Temp/air	Temp/water	Turbidity
12-Aug	9:00 AM	11	8.5	77	20.8	21.1
15-Aug		11	8.5
18-Aug			9.5			24
Aug-21	12:00 PM		9.4		20
Aug-28			9.4			21
Sep-13	1:30	11	9.2		20	20	2.5
1-Oct	1:00 PM	11	9		20	17	2.5
15-Oct	12:00 PM	12.2	8.9			13	0
29-Oct	12:00 PM	9.3	7.7	130	11	9.2	0
14-Nov	3:30 PM	11.3	8	110	10	9	2.5
26-Nov	13:15	8.8	7.7	120	5	6.9	0
12-Dec	12:45 PM	10.03	7.6	110	7	5	0
20-Dec	3:00 PM	10.01	7	110	8	4.7	2.5
1/4/02	1:00 PM	11	7.2	110	10	5.2	0
1/21/02	11:45 AM	10.6	6.8	110	5	4.7	0
2/6/02	10:45 AM	10.58	7	110	6	4.6	2.5
2/14/02	1:30 PM	10.68	6.8	110	6	4.9	2
2/24/02	4:00 PM	11.77	7	60	6	6.7	2.5
3/12/02	12:30 PM	11.6	7.3	80	10	7.6	2.5
3/27/02	12:00 PM	12.12	7.6	80	8	9.8	0
4/9/02	3:00 PM	11.83	7.9	80	10	12.1	0
4/25/02	3:00 PM	9.6	7.8	80	15	15.1	0
5/8/02	11:30 AM	9.12	7.5	80	9	13.7	2.5
5/17/02	12:20 PM	8.98	7.4	80	13	16.2	2.5
6/4/02	5:00 PM	9.8		90	16	20.1	1
6/12/02	12:30 PM	9.5		90	20+	19.5	1
7/4/02	12:00 PM	7.5		90	14	19.4	0
8/13/02	3:00 PM	6.62		110	25+	21.6	0
9/9/02	12:00 PM	10.35	7.5	90	20	17.5	1
1/9/03	12:00 PM	11.63	7	100	4	4.6	2.5

k) Reach Ten

The remnants of Jones Brook, a sad ditched affair that, for much of its length, is accessed by livestock (horses, goats, pot-bellied pig). A trickle of water can be seen almost year round. USHP data interpretation indicates it lacks LWD, crown cover and riparian cover. It sustains injury from livestock access which leads to erosion and destruction of the creek bed. Previous landowners fertilized the field through which it runs, pesticide use is unknown. At one point a manure/straw pile sits just above the creek. The present landowners are in the process of selling the property. This reach is considered by PDF assessment to be nonfunctional and to have the worst assessment on USHP data interpretation

l) Reach Eleven

Jones Spring, which appears to have been bermed at some point. It is surrounded by a thick growth of Himalayan blackberry and a few conifers. There is no livestock access to this site. Table 10 shows extremely low dissolved oxygen levels. Higher DO2 levels were found within one metre of the surface, near the creek outlet. Water temperature remains acceptable throughout the year.

Table 10 Site Six Water Sampling Conducted at Jone’s Spring

Date	Time	DO	pH	TDS	Temp/air	Temp/water	Turbidity
Aug-04	11:00 AM	8	7		20	14
Aug-04	12:00 PM		7.3		23	17
Sep-04	2:00 PM	6	6.8		20	14.5	5
1-Oct	1:30 PM	2	7		20	12	16
15-Oct	12:30	one	6.9			9.5	12.5
30-Oct	9:15 AM	0.15	6.8	260	11	8.2	5
14-Nov	3:45 PM	0.89	6.9	160	10	7.8	10
26-Nov	1:30	0.64	7	160	5	7.5	4
12-Dec	1:00 PM	0.88	6.8	160	7	7.8	5
20-Dec	3:15 PM	0.1	6.3	130	8	7.2	5
1/4/02	1:15 PM	0.81	6.5	120	10	8.8	2.5
1/21/02	12:00 PM	2.74	6.6	90	5	6	0
2/6/02		0.92	6.3	90	6	7	1
2/14/02		0.43	6.4	90	6	6.8	1
2/24/02	16:30	1.73	6.8	50	6	7	1
3/13/02	2:00 PM	1.05	7	70	6	7.5	2.5
3/27/02	2:00 PM	0.67	7	60	8	8.4	0
4/9/02	3:15 PM	0.78	6.7	70	10	8.8	0
4/25/02	3:15 PM	0.29	6.6	60	15	10.2	2.5
5/8/02	11:00 AM	0.77	6.4	70	8	9.7	10
5/17/02	12:30 PM	0.4	6.2	50	13.5	10.8	5
6/4/02	5:15 PM	0.65		80	16	12.1	5
6/12/02	12:45 PM	0.49		80	20+	12.9	5
7/4/02	12:15 PM	0.49		80	14	12.1	5
8/13/02	3:15 PM	0.76		80	25+	14	7
9/9/02	12:15 PM	0.98	6.8	70	20	12.6	10
1/9/03	12:15 PM	0.92	6.5	110	4	6.7	5

m) Above Reach Eleven

There is a vernal water system that has partially been tiled with drainage pipes to remove the water and allow access to the fields. Much of the vernal drainage area has been converted to rural use but the wetlands still occur in sections, with thick shrub growth consisting of willows (Salix sp.), ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), salmonberry (Rubus spectibilis), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), grand fir (Abies grandis) and Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii). Much of the originating wetlands have been developed to rural residential usage.

12. Recommendations

* Recommendations for riparian planting widths, in the absence of provincial or municipal laws, are taken from Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat, 1993, Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, for fish bearing streams (15 m from high water mark) and from Streamside Protection Policy Directives, 2001, Ministry of Water, Land and Air, British Columbia for non fish bearing streams and limited riparian vegetation (5 m).

a) Water Quality

To reduce turbidity and siltation, exclude livestock from riparian area and creek. Liaise with Road Coordinator to ensure best management practices are followed for ditch maintenance.

To improve dissolved oxygen, reduce eutrification by removing manure sources near creek and work with landowners to inspect and correct septic systems. Restore natural hydrological regime as much as possible by replacing culverts with bridges. Plant appropriate riparian species where needed to provide cool water temperature. Deepen pools by adding LWD and ponds by dredging. Add aeration devise to Jone’s Spring to incorporate oxygen into spring water.

Reduce pH fluctuations in Parker’s Pond by planting riparian trees to cool water temperatures and add aeration devise to destratify water column.

b) Beach

There are thousands of logs of varying sizes along Taylor Beach and extreme storms and tides redistribute them over the course of the winter. It would be a Herculean task to effectively reduce the quantity of logs to the historic numbers of a prelogging era. Since fish and river otters are still able to access the creek, this would seem to be an area of least concern.

c) Marsh

Filling in the ditches in the marsh would reestablish a more natural hydrological regime. However, the raised landforms around the marsh help the marsh to retain most of its groundwater. The soil sample taken using the Hillman post corer showed saturated, anaerobic conditions throughout the soil sample, indicating that the wetland is probably functioning as it should. Filling the ditches would reduce the off channel habitat that they have created but would help to keep water levels higher in the creek. Monitor for changes in marsh due to clay causeway.

d) Reach One

The water and septic systems should be tested to ascertain if there is any contamination from the septic systems adjacent to the marsh and creek.

Continue water sampling, at least seasonally.

Monitor potential spread of reed canary grass and common reed.

e) Reach Two, Ben Acre Pond

To restore the natural hydrological regime a section of the causeway should be removed and replaced with a bridge. This would allow better access for fish, promote more natural gravel and sediment recruitment and reduce flooding potential. If the causeway and culverts are to remain, the main culvert/weir should be repaired to stop water leaking under the driveway.

The pond should be dredged to provide deeper, cooler summer habitat. Add LWD to provide cover for aquatic inhabitants.

Remove invasive species from the riparian zone.

f) Reach Three

To permit more sunlight to filter through, pull over some alders to decrease the canopy cover from 85 to 60%. Do not cut the roots, they will continue to provide stability to the banks and help prevent erosion.

Add LWD to add complexity and increase habitat, this can be accomplished with wood from the downed trees.

Remove invasive species from riparian zone.

g) Reach Four

Exhibits the best overall ecological integrity in all the reaches of the creek, to enhance this condition:

Add LWD to add complexity and increase habitat.

Remove invasive species from riparian zone

Continue water testing from “site three” to monitor changes.

h) Reach Five

Creek considered in good condition, to enhance this condition:

Remove invasive species from riparian zone.

In the lower section, pull over some trees to decrease canopy cover to approximately 60%. Do not cut the roots.

Add LWD to add complexity and habitat, use wood from the downed trees.

Monitor effects of stormwater outlet from Parry X Rd.

i) Reach Six

Remove invasive species from riparian zone.

Plant native willows to a width of 15 m along creek, around areas with horses to filter contaminants and erosion from horses and burn pile.

The nonfunctional stormwater ditch through the Plaxton property needs to have some calming devises installed to reduce erosion and transport of sediment:

Ø Construct the largest possible pond to hold and slow stormwater as it exits culvert from William Head Rd.

Ø Construct Newbury weirs or log weirs to slow and calm stormwater.

Ø If culverts are deemed necessary, use bottomless culverts instead of enclosed culverts

Ø Plant native riparian species (willows, alders) along creek to stabilize banks.

Ø Move manure pile as far from creek as possible or at least cover so that the runoff doesn’t leak into the creek.

j) Reach Seven and Eight

These sections could be considered a continuation of (USHP) reach 6.

Some trees could be pulled over to decrease canopy cover and to add light to the optimum 60%.

The two culverts contribute to flooding potential, remove and replace with bridges to partially restore natural hydrological regime and reduce risk of flooding. Maintain riparian vegetation.

Conduct water testing during the first fall rains to gauge contaminant levels from town centre businesses.

Conduct additional water quality tests if road salt has been used on William Head Rd during winter conditions involving snow and ice.

Research products or procedures that would accomplish the purpose of using road salt without the presumed detrimental environmental effects.

Work with road coordinator to apply best management practices to roadside ditching.

k) Reach Nine, Parker Pond

Plant native willows and trees to add filtering capabilities, provide greater bank stability, increased shade (which will decrease water temperature) and increased habitat and food source. Use a “destratifier” or air bubbler machinery to mix surface and bottom waters and reduce conditions favourable for algal blooms (DIP&NR, 2004).

Remove invasive species, especially purple loosestrife before it spreads throughout the community. Discourage seeding with non-native fish because of the chance they could escape into Gooch Creek and compete for habitat with the native organisms.

Monitor for aquatic life to gauge the effects of algal blooms.

l) Reach Ten to Jones Spring (USHP) and reach 6 to end of first pasture (PDF)

Plant native riparian species to a depth of 5 m to provide bank stability, reduce erosion and sediment transport, provide shade for cooler conditions and as habitat and food source.

Add LWD.

Remove invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry.

Remove manure pile from below barns.

Add LWD.

m) Reach Eleven, Jone’s Spring

Remove invasive species,

Plant native riparian species to 5 m depth

Add aeration device to supply oxygen

Conduct chemical analysis of water to provide baseline water conditions.

Ascertain reason for turbidity.

Summary of Restoration Priorities

Stormwater and livestock management is a high priority to reduce both erosion and siltation in the creek. Siltation causes a host of negative effects which seriously undermine the health of Gooch Creek and its inhabitants. Predator prey relationships, food sources, survival of young fish, amphibians and invertebrates and infilling of pools occur with improper runoff. One source of sediment laden runoff has been determined to be caused by livestock which are allowed access to the creek and riparian areas. Excluding them from these areas, by fencing, will help correct this situation. Partnering with the road contractor to devise less disruptive methods of keeping ditches clear is recommended. If ditches must be scrapped bare, they should be seeded with grass seed to reduce transport of sediment.

Restoring the natural hydrological regime, as much a possible, is recommended. Where finances permit, remove culverts and replace with bridges. This will allow better access for fish to all parts of the creek, restore gravel recruitment, which is so important as habitat for invertebrates and to provide optimal spawning sites for cutthroat trout.

Add LWD to the creek, this will help provide and maintain deeper, more functional pools that are used as summer habitat, which are needed to offset limiting conditions such as shallow water, low dissolved oxygen and high water temperatures. Studies have found an average of 80 m3 LWD per 100 m stream reach in unlogged tributaries in the Pacific Northwest with 2% gradient in < 8 km2 watersheds (Slaney and Zaldokas, 1997). Conduct an assessment of invasive species presence and abundance and design an invasive species management plan. Finding funds to implement a management plan can be difficult.

Table 11

USHP data interpretation indicates habitat parameter problems and solutions as follows (priorititized by degree of problem):

Problem	Solution	What this Solution Does	Reach Involved
Shortage of LWD	Add LWD	Adds habitat, cover, promotes formation of more and deeper pools	All reaches
Shortage of boulders	Add boulders	Adds cover, promotes pool formation and enhancement	All except 4 (USHP) or 5 (PDF)
Low summer flows (% wetted area)	Plant native riparian species, dredge Ben Acre pond	Helps to maintain a higher water table, Adds summer habitat	2, 6, 10 (USHP) 3, 5, 6,7 (PDF)
Siltation (% of fines)	Fence out livestock, Plant native riparian species Remove culverts and replace with bridges Liaise with road contractor	Reduces erosion potential	Fencing in reach 10 (USHP) 7 (PDF) Remove and replace culvert at Ben Acre pond and throughout Reach 7, 8 (USHP) 5 (PDF)
Shortage of riparian vegetation, cover (% cover in pools)	Plant native riparian vegetation Pull down trees Add boulders and LWD	Adds hiding places, supplies food and cools water More light can penetrate to permit better growth provides cover	Reach 10, Reach 3,5,6,7,8 (USHP) or 4, 5,6 (PDF)
Depth of riparian vegetation not adequate	Plant to a minimum depth of 5m or best possible	Provides filtering capabilities to remove pollutants, adds habitat	Reach 6, 10 (USHP) or 6 and 7 (PDF)

The worst reaches are 10, 6 (USHP) or 5,6,7 (PDF)

*The data indicates the marsh needs more riparian vegetation for cover and to reduce siltation. This data does not take into account that the marsh is a different type of ecosystem and therefore doesn’t support the general riparian species.

*Siltation is caused by problems in the upper reaches of the creek system (low numbers for % of creek eroded in lower reaches) and is affecting all reaches. Removing the cause of erosion in upper reaches should control problems in lower reaches.

*Low percent cover in pools has more than one cause. Reach 10 (USHP) 7 (PDF) has livestock grazing in the creek, removing all vegetation. Other reaches are quite shaded by the tree canopy and not enough light can pass through to provide optimal growing conditions for riparian species or for algae (food for invertebrates and juvenile frogs).

*Low or no boulders and LWD for cover. Landowners might find the recommendation to pull over trees difficult to accept. Boulders are very difficult to move around, especially into creek valley. Incorporating them would probably cause more harm than good, by damaging fragile slopes and vegetation. Newly disturbed landscape would be ripe for further invasive species encroachment.

*Reaches 6-8 (PDF) and 9-11 (PDF) above William Head Rd contribute significantly to the water flow of the Gooch Creek ecosystem. Improvement in these reaches would contribute to reducing the summer low flows by raising the water table and reducing the amount of erosion, would lessen siltation.

7. Monitoring

Monitoring is proposed to assess changes over time, to provide data that can determine adaptive management strategies and to gauge the success of restoration projects.

Water quality testing should be continued at several sites, in order to compare with previous tests, to ascertain if there are upward or downward water quality trends. Testing for petro-chemicals should be completed to understand if there are toxicity problems (relating to past and present businesses) which could be affecting the fish and aquatic invertebrate populations in the creek.

Gee trapping should occur at least twice a year, in spring and fall, under similar circumstances and at designated locations to assess fish presence.

Biological indicator species should be used to assess ecosystem health. As stated earlier, aquatic invertebrate inventories were recorded in Gooch Creek. An improvement or deterioration in the biodiversity of aquatic invertebrate species and an increase or decrease in the number and abundance of certain sensitive aquatic invertebrates could indicate a swing in ecosystem health. Monitoring of aquatic invertebrates should be conducted at least yearly, at the same time and under similar conditions as previous inventories.

Photopoint monitoring should be undertaken to show physical changes over time. Contrasting the 1930’s photo of Ben Acre marsh (fig 5) with the 2004 photo (fig 6) shows incursion of the invasive reed grass and human modifications to the marsh.

Invasive species encroachment should be monitored and steps taken to prevent further incursion and reduce present populations.

Monitor Parker’s Pond for aquatic life to gauge the effects of algal blooms.

8. Projects completed

In the winter of 2001 willows were harvested from the Chettleberg property that were used for live stake plantings on the Plaxton property. From about 50 cuttings only three survived the first year. Much of the failure was probably due to excessive growth of creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), which attained heights of three feet, effectively smothering the willows. The following winter small (to 6 feet) alders (Alnus rubra) and aspens (Populus tremuloides) were planted along the creek on the Plaxton property. These have been more successful. The trees and shrubs were planted to provide riparian structure to the creek in an area that had been previously accessed by horses. It is hoped they will also help alleviate any runoff from the burn pile and erosion caused by nearby horses.

On Oct 3, 2002, at the Ben Acre pond/weir, Tom Rutherford of DFO (Department of Fisheries and Ocean), Peter McCully of Goldstream Hatchery and their associate redesigned the weir at Ben Acre pond to facilitate fish passage. They added a V-notched stoplog to the weir, raised the height of the original stoplog and added a V-notch. This was not cut quite deep enough and the pond began emptying through a second culvert along the driveway instead of through the weir. They came back on October 24, 2002 and recut the V to a deeper notch. The water now flows through the weir in the such a way as to promote easier access for fish.

Figure 16 Photo of Redesigned Weir

9. Conclusion

Through benign neglect, long-term ownership of major properties and rural rather than urban development, Gooch Creek and marsh have retained many original ecological values and a small run of blue-listed anadromous coastal cutthroat trout and a population of, blue-listed red legged frog, a rare achievement in a community so close to an urban centre. Habitat quality is deteriorating and it is time to engage the landowners, governments and other organizations in discussions to restore ecosystem health.

10. References

AERABI, 2000. Aquatic Ecosystems-Rationale and Background Information. Chapter 8. Biological Indicators. Australia and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, from their website Nov. 8, 2003: http://www.ea.gov.au/water/quality/nwqms/pubs/volume2-8-1.pdf

Bauer, W., 1976. Regional Coastal Study, Marine Shore Resource Inventory and Analysis, Western Community Component. Capital Regional District, Victoria.

BCAWQG(C), 1998 Edition. British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines (Criteria), from their website on Nov 10, 2003

http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/approved.html#2

Bergner, A., 2003. Environmental Education Coordinator, Capital Regional District. Personal Communication.

Chettleberg, P., 2001. Landowner. Personal Communication.

Cooper, G., 2003. Proprietor of Metchosin Garage. Personal Communication.

Corkran, C.C. and C. Thoms, 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. A Field Identification Guide. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver.

Cross, J.W., 2003. The Charms of Duckweed. http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/

DIP&NR, 2004. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, 2004. Algae & Algal Blooms Found in NSW Wetlands. New South Wales. From their website February 18, 2004: http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/wetlands/facts/paa/algae/#Causes

Duluth Streams. org, March 29, 2004 from their website: http://www.duluthstreams.org/understanding/param_ec.html

Edwards, Y. R. (ed)., 1967. Revised 1975. Naturalist’s Guide to the Victoria Region. British Columbia Nature Council and Victoria Natural History Society.

Environment Canada, 9/16/2003 http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

Fletcher, G., 2003. Landowner. Personal Communication.

Government of Ontario, 2004. Understanding Stormwater Management: An Introduction to Stormwater Management Planning and Design, 4328e. From their website March 10, 2004: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/cons/4328.htm

Hebda, R., 1996. Atmospheric Change, Forests and Biodiversity. In Press in: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Kluwer Publications. 09/20/2003 http://www.rbcm.gov.bc.ca/nh_papers/atmospheric.html

Hebda, R., 2003. Curator of Botany and Earth History at Royal British Columbia Museum. Personal Communication.

Hinman, C., 2001. Controlling Stormwater the Natural Way. Washington State University.

Keddie, G., 1997a. Aboriginal Defensive Sites, Part 2: Amateur Archaeology Begins. 9/23/2003 http://www.rbcm.gov.bc.ca/hhistory/aboriginaldef-sites2.html

Keddie, G. 1997b. Aboriginal defensive Sites, Part 3: Modern Archaeologists Collect Evidence. 9/23/2003 http://www.rbcm.gov.bc.ca/hhistory/aboriginaldef-sites3.html

Kidd, R.S., 1959. In Devonian Regional Park, A Development Plan, 1982. Parks Division, Capital Regional District. Victoria.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar, 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special report series Six. Research Branch, Ministry of Forests. Crown publications, Victoria.

Michalski, T.A., G.E. Reid and G.E. Stewart, 2000. Urban Salmon Habitat Program, Assessment Procedures for Vancouver Island. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Section. Nanaimo.

National Riparian Service Team. Bureau of Land Management,

U.S. Department of Interior. From website on Mach 22, 2004: http://www.mtnvisions.com/Aurora/pfc.html

NSDF and DFO, 1994. Adopt-A-Stream Program, Community Based Volunteer Program. Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries. Ecologic, Antigonish.

Parker, B., 2002. Landowner. Personal Communication.

Pauley, G.B., K. Oshima, K.L. Bowers, and G.L. Thomas. 1989. Species Profiles:

Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and (Pacific Northwest)--Sea-Run Cutthroat. U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Biol. Rep. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4

Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of Coastal British Columbia Including Washington, Oregon and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria and Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver.

Prichard, D., H. Barrett, J. Cagney, R. Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, Dr. P. L. Hansen, B. Mitchell and D. Tippy, 1998 (revised). Riparian Area Management. Process for Assessing proper Functioning Condition (Lotic). Technical reference 1737-9. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

RIC, 1998. Resources Inventory Committee, 1998. Province of British Columbia. From their website on March 30, 2004: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/aquatic/interp/interp-01.htm

Rose, T., 2004. Frequency of Algal Blooms. WA Waters and Rivers Commission, Australia. From their website: http://www.ozestuaries.org/indicators/In_algal_blooms_f.html

Rutherford, T., 2002. Community Advisor, Oceans and Community Stewardship, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Scott, G.A.J., 1995. Canada’s Vegetation: A World Perspective. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Montreal and Kingston.

SFTEMIBC, 1998. Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia. Resources Inventory Committee. British Columbia.

SHIM Website, 2004. Salmon Habitat Inventory Mapping Website: www.shim.bc.ca/what.html, Feb 22, 2004.

Sigma Resource Consultants Ltd., 1979. Summary of Water Quality Criteria for Salmonid Hatcheries. Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Slaney, P.A. and D. Zaldokas (eds.), 1997. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks., Vancouver, British Columbia.

Southam, T. and E. A. Curran, (eds.) 1996. The Wetlandkeepers Handbook: A Practical Guide to Wetland Care. B.C. Wildlife Federation, Surrey, B.C. and Environment Canada, Surrey, B.C.

Taccogna, G. and K. Munro (eds), 1995. The Streamkeepers Handbook: a Practical Guide to Stream and Wetland Care. Salmonid Enhancement Program, Dept. Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, B.C.

Weir, R.J., 1983. Footprints. Pioneer Families of the Metchosin District. Southern Vancouver Island 18501-1900. Metchosin School Museum Society. Morriss Printing Company Ltd. Victoria.

Wong, S., 2003. Roads Coordinator. District of Metchosin. Personal Communication.

Yorath, C.J., and H.W. Nasmith, 1995. Geology of Southern Vancouver Island. A Field Guide. Orca Book Publishers, Victoria.

11. Appendices

1. Ground Inspection Form, Upland Front

GIF Upland-Back

2. Ground Inspection Form, Swamp-Front

GIF Swamp Back

3. Ground Inspection Form, Marsh

GIF Marsh-Back

4. Soil Analysis of Swamp and Marsh January, 2002

5. 1858 Map of Metchosin District

6. Site Visits

Site Visits

Date	Weather	Comments
Oct 2, 2000	Sun, 15º	Marsh, plant identification
Oct 3, 2000	Sun, 15º	Map creek
Oct 12, 2000	Overcast, calm, 13º	Plant identification
Oct 13, 2000	Overcast, lt rain 13º	Map marsh, vegetation plots
Oct 14, 2000	Cloudy, 13º	Map creek
Oct 15, 2000	Sun, light breeze, 10:30 am, 10º	Water testing
Oct 16, 2000	Cloudy, calm, 12º	Soil pits, Ground Information Forms for upland
Oct 17, 2000	Rain, 12º	Map creek
Oct 18, 2000	Light rain, 12º	Map creek, water quality testing
Oct 25, 2000	Cloudy, 12º, 5pm	Set gee traps
Oct 26, 2000	Calm, 13º, 9am	Collect fish traps
Oct. 30, 2000	Sun, calm, 13º	Re-map lower creek
Nov 2, 2000	Calm, cloudy, 12º	View outlet to Strait
July 31, 2001	Sun/part cloudy, 18º	USHP mapping with Roxie Petts, Louise Ditmar, Joy Williams and Lew Carswell
Aug 9, 2001	Sun, 28º, 11am	USHP mapping with Louise Ditmar, gee trap @ site 1
Aug 12, 2001	Sun, 20º, 9am	Water quality testing
Aug 14, 2001	Sun, 22º 10:30 am	Invertebrate testing with Louise Ditmar, gee trap @ site 1
Aug 15, 2001	Sun, 22º 3pm	Check gee trap (no fish), water quality testing
Aug 18, 2001	22º, clear	Water quality testing
Aug 21, 2001	Cloudy, 20º, noon	Water quality testing and USHP mapping with Gala Milne
Aug 23, 2001	18º, cloudy	Water samples from Site 3 sent to MB Labs
Aug 28, 2001	Sun/cloudy, 23º, calm, noon	Water quality testing, water samples from Jones Spring and Parker Pond, sent to MB Labs
Sept 13, 2001	10:30 am, 20º, sun/clouds	Water quality testing
Sept 17, 2001	Cloudy, calm, 15º, 9:15 am-6:00 pm	Water quality testing, set gee traps, collect gee traps
Sept 18, 2001	Cloudy, calm, 18º 9:00 am-3 pm	Collect and set gee traps
Sept 27, 2001	14º, sun/clouds, 9-11am, 2pm	Invertebrate sampling w/Susan Low water quality testing
Oct 1, 2001	Sun, calm, 19º, noon	Water quality testing
Oct 11, 2001	Sun, light wind, 13º, 1pm	Water quality testing, install depth gauge for site 1
Oct 15, 2001	Sun/cloudy, calm, 13º	Water quality testing, gee traps
Oct 29, 2001	9:30am-noon, 9º, cloud/sun	Water quality testing and visit from Don Eastman and Jennifer Sutherst
Oct 30, 2001	Rain, calm, 9º 4-6pm	Water quality testing
Nov 13, 2001	Rain, 8º, 3pm	Water quality testing, ocean water accessing creek
Nov 14, 2001	Rain, 10º, 10am	Water quality testing (TDS- site1)
Nov 15, 2001	Sun, light wind, 11º	Check ocean accessibility, TDS at site1
Nov 19, 2001	Light rain, 11º 10:30 am	Check site 1 and ocean accessibility
Nov 22, 2001	Cloudy, rain, 9º, 8:30 am	GPS mapping w/Springfield Harrison
Nov 23, 2001	Sun, 10º, 9:40 am	Continue GPS mapping w/Spring
Nov 26, 2001	Sun, calm, 5º, 11 am	Water quality testing
Nov 27, 2001	Light rain, 6º	Water quality testing
Dec 3, 2001	5º, cloudy	Visit from Tom Davis (Ray Creek), check depth at site 1
Dec 6, 2001	9º, cloudy	Check depth at site 1
Dec 12, 2001	Light rain, 7º	Water quality testing and sample from site 3 sent to MB Labs
Dec 14, 2001	Sun, 9º, huge wind/rain storm previous night	Water quality testing
Dec 17, 2001	7º, rain, wind	Check access/blocked
Dec 20, 2001	Cloudy, calm, 8º, 2pm	Water quality testing
January	Various times	Cut and harvest red osier dogwood and willows from swamp and marsh areas, plant live stakes at Plaxton’s
Jan 4, 2002	Cloudy, calm, 11º, noon	Water quality testing
Jan 6, 2002	Rain, wind, 12º	Check depth at site 1
Jan 21, 2002	Rain previous night, 5º, 10:30am	Water quality testing, TDS meter battery dead
Jan 22, 2002	Hail, rain, 0º, 10:30am	Water quality testing, site 6
Jan 25, 2002	6º, rain	Soil samples from marsh and swamp sent to MB Labs
Feb 1, 2002	Cloudy, calm, 7º, 10:30am	Water quality testing, gee traps, possible trout spawning
Feb 9, 2002		Visit from Tom Davis to check spawning/redds (8 redds)
Feb 12, 2002	Sun, wind, 2º	Check redds
Feb 13, 2002	Cloudy, calm, 5º	Water quality testing
Feb 14, 2002	Sun, calm, 8), frost in morning	Water quality testing
Feb 24, 2002	Light rain, calm, 5º, 2:30pm	Water quality testing, heavy rain on 22^nd
Feb 26, 2002	Sun, cool, calm, noon	Check redds (9?)
March	Various times	Plant willows and dogwood at Plaxton’s
March 12, 2002	Cloudy, calm, 10º, 11 am, rain later	Heavy rain on 11^th, water quality testing
March, 13, 2002	Rain, 6º	Water quality testing, check redds(12-14)
March 27, 2002	Light rain, calm, 6º, 2:30pm	Water quality testing
March 28, 2002	Sun, calm, 8º, 10:30am	Water quality testing, check redds, some redds larger (multiple spawners?)
April 9, 2002	Light rain, calm, 10º, 11am	Water quality testing
April 25, 2002	Sun, light wind, 16º, 1:45pm	Water quality testing
May 8, 2002	Cloudy, calm, 8º, 10am	Water quality testing, ocean access still possible
May 17, 2002	Sun, light breeze, 13º, 11am	Rain previous evening, water quality testing, 15cm trout in weir
May 29, 2002	9am-3pm	Visit from Tom Rutherford, Lew and Gloria Carswell, Tom Davis to discuss creek issues, also speak with Peter Chettleburg and Dwight Plaxton
June 4, 2002	Cloudy, calm, 16º, 3 pm	Water quality testing, site 4 extremely turbid, search for fry, check out ecosystem
June 12, 2002	Sun, calm, 20º, 11:30am	Water quality testing, gee traps, angry red-tail hawk!
June 13, 2002	Sun, calm, 20º, 8:30am	Gee traps
July 4, 2002	Cloudy, wind, 14º, 11am	Water quality testing, water sample from site 3 to MB Labs, pH meter broken
July 5, 2002		Water sample sent from site 3 to MB Labs
Sept 9, 2002	Sun, light wind, 20º, 10am	Water quality testing, now using LaMotte pH kit, remove some purple loosestrife from Parker’s Pond
Oct 3, 2002	9am	Tom Rutherford, Peter McCullogh and Kelly improve weir by adding stop logs and notching V, to facilitate movement of fish
Oct 24, 2002	Cloudy, calm, 1pm	Tom Rutherford and Kelly “fix” improved weir
Nov 7, 2002	Light rain, calm, 9º, 5pm	Very high tide, saltwater floods marsh, TDS 1930
Jan 8, 2003	Sun, calm, 4º, 11am	Water quality testing
Jan 9, 2003	Sun, calm, 7º, 11:30am	Water quality testing
Jan 22, 2003	Calm, clouds, cool	Check for redds, possible one
Feb 6, 2003	1 pm	Meet w/Ian Bruce to dig up alders and aspen
Feb 7, 2003	11 am	Plant alders and aspens at Plaxton’s
Feb 17, 2003	Sun/cloudy, light wind, 10º, noon	Check depth in marsh, flooded to 30cm depth, take willow cuttings, check redds (possible 10)

7. Vegetation in Marsh

Vegetation surveys were conducted in October 2000

Vegetation in Marsh

Common Name	Scientific Name	Comments
Sea arrow grass	Triglochin maritimum	60% toxic, deer eat for salt content
Silverweed	Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica	5%
Cattails	Typha latifolia	7%
Lyngby’s sedge	Carex lyngbyei	13%
Reed canary grass	Phalaris arundinacea	4%
Common reed	Phragmites australis	4%
Spearscale	Atriplex patula	+
Spike bentgrass	Agrostis exarata	7%
Quackgrass	Agropyron repens	1%
Meadow barley	Hordeum brachyantherum	+
Creeping buttercup	Ranunculus repens	+
Willowherb ssp.	Epilobium ssp.	+
Pacific water-parsley	Oenanthe sarmentosa	Toxic, 1%
Scripus maritimus	Seacoast bulrush	+
Coastal pearlwort	Sagina maxima	+
Green algae		+
Slough sedge	Carex obnupta	7%
Duckweed	Lemna minor	+

8. Marsh Transect

Marsh Transect

Using a young alder tree in the midst of a cattail stand as an endpoint @350º from alder tree (0m)

* sedge spp. have very few flowers and grass spp. have lost their flowers, making them difficult to identify

Distance metres (m)	Plant composition and abundance (%)	Comments
0-23	99 cattails + Pacific water parsley	Virginia rail heard, marsh wrens, possible river otter trails
23-40	90 Lyngbey’s sedge, 5 Pacific water parsley + cleavers, silverweed, grass (possible Agrostis sp.)	Song sparrow, oily patches on water (water table at surface)
@ 38.9 old fence @39.7 ditch		1m wide, 50 cm. deep, water oily, cover 50% from duckweed and L. sedge, common snipe
40-49	75 sea-arrow grass, 5 silverweed, 2 grass spp. (poss. Agrostis sp.)
@49 ditch		30cm wide, 15cm. deep, 75% vegetative cover
49-51.6	40 sea-arrow grass, 30 grass sp.
51.6 ditch		60 cm. wide, 45cm. deep, 75% vegetative cover, more sedge on edge of ditches
51.6-57.7	40 sea-arrow grass, 10 grass sp., + L. sedge, + silverweed
57.7 ditch	40 sea-arrow grass, 10 grass sp., + L. sedge, (more sedge on edge of banks, + silverweed	40 cm wide, 15cm. deep, No oily substance, 75% vegetative cover, 5 duckweed
57.7-61	40 sea-arrow grass, 10 grass sp., 10 L. sedge, + silverweed
61m ditch	50 L. sedge, 40 sea-arrow grass, + silverweed	75% vegetative cover
61-65	80 sea-arrow grass, 20 silverweed, + willowherb spp.
65 ditch	65 L. sedge, 30 sea-arrow grass
65-69.7	80 sea-arrow grass, 20 silverweed, + willowherb spp.
69.7 ditch	65 L. sedge, 30 sea-arrow grass
69.7-83	80 sea-arrow grass, 20 silverweed, + willowherb spp.	@83 m is walkway
83-90	60 L. sedge, 30 grass ssp. (15 possible Agrostis sp., 15 Agropyron repens), 5 silverweed
90 ditch	75% vegetative cover, 75% L. sedge	30cm. wide, 15cm. deep
90- 101.5 (by young alder tree)	50 L. sedge, 10 grass sp. + silverweed, 20 reed canary grass	Marsh wren, Bewick’s wren, lg. blue dragonflies, smaller red dragonflies
101.5 creek	10% cover, + common rush, + grass sp. (fescue?), 5 L. sedge, + meadow barley, + sea-arrow grass, + silverweed	1.3m wide, 62.5 cm. wide, oily
101.5-110	L. sedge
110- 133	20 silverweed , 20 grasses and sedges, 4 sea arrow,	unidentified grasses, possible slough sedge
133	ditch
134-190	60 silverweed, 20 slough sedge, + sea arrow grass, + Pacific water parsley, + spearscale, + reed canary grass
190-110	80 slough sedge, 15 unidentified grass	Old fence @ 190
110+	Alder/skunk cabbage swamp

9. Shrub vegetation at Marsh edge

Shrub Vegetation at Marsh Edge

Common Name	Scientific Name	Comments
Pacific crabapple	Malus fusca
Hooker’s Willow	Salix hookeriana.
Red-osier dogwood	Cornus stolonifera
Pacific ninebark	Physocarpus capitatus
Red alder	Alnus rubra
Nootka rose	Rosa nootkana
Indian plum	Oemleria cerasiformis
Salmonberry	Rubus spectabilis
Bitter cherry	Prunus emarginata

Dense shrubs with lots of songbirds, provides excellent erosion control and habitat

10. Vegetation in Swamp

Vegetation in Swamp

Common Name	Scientific Name	Comments
Red alder	Alnus rubra	Provides 65% crown cover
Skunk cabbage	Lysichiton americanum	Provides 75-90% cover in spring and summer,
Lady fern	Athyrium filix-femina	1%
Holly	Ilex sp.	Introduced, invasive
Slough sedge	Carex obnupta	Trace
Sedge sp. possible Henderson’s sedge	Carex hendersonii	Trace
Creeping buttercup	Ranunculus repens	Trace, introduced, invasive
Salmonberry	Rubus spectibilis	Trace

Also seen within the marsh and swamp: black-tailed deer (Odocoileus lemionus), red-legged frog (Rana aurora), Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla), the body of a possible muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus). The marsh is inhabited by a family of river otters (Lutra canadensis) (pers. comm. P. Chettlebergh) and there are bats which frequent the marsh (pers. comm. G. Fletcher).

11. Vegetation Surrounding Ben Acre Pond

Vegetation Surrounding Ben Acre Pond

Common name	Scientific name	Comments
Baldhip rose	Rosa gymnocarpa
Douglas fir	Psuedotsuga menziesii
Bigleaf maple	Acer macrophyllum
Grand fir	Abies grandis
Elderberry	Sambucus racemosa
Oceanspray	Holodiscus discolor
Salmonberry	Rubus spectabilis
Indian plum	Oemleria cerasiformis
Himalayan blackberry	Rubus discolor	Introduced, invasive
Snowberry	Symphoricarpos albus
Western sword fern	Polystichum munitum
Bracken	Pteridium aquilinum
Evergreen blackberry	Rubus laciniatus	Introduced, invasive
Trailing blackberry	Rubus ursinus
Daphne	Daphne laureola	Introduced, invasive
Gorse	Ulex europaeus	Introduced, invasive
Narrow-leafed Oregon grape	Mahonia nervosa
Alaska oniongrass	Melica subulata
Western fescue	Festuca occidentalis
Moss sp., possible electrified cat’s tail	Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus	70% cover
Orchard grass	Dactylis glomerata	Trace, introduced
Northern mannagrass	Glyceria borealis	Patch at creek inlet
Small-flowered bulrush	Scripus microcarpus	Patch at creek inlet
Grass sp. possible red fescue	Festuca rubra	Patch at creek inlet

12. USHP Data Reach 1-6

USHP Data Part One

Stream Name	Gooch Creek			Watershed Code
Habitat Parameter	Reach one	Ratings	Reach two	Ratings	Reach three	Ratings	Reach four	Ratings	Reach five	Ratings	Reach 6	Ratings	Total
% Pool Area	150.00	1	100.00	1	59.30	1	55.75	1	58.78	1	65.05	1	6
Large Woody Debris/Bankfull Channel Width	0.38	5	0.00	5	1.73	3	0.12	5	0.07	5	0.18	5	28
% Cover in Pools	48	1	0	5	5	5	15	3	60	1	3	5	20
Average% Boulder Cover	0	5	0	5	0	5	10	3	0	5	0	5	28
Average % Fines	100.00	5	100.00	5	100.00	5	5.00	1	5.00	1	39.00	5	22
Average % Gravel	0.00	not rated	0.00	not rated	0.00	not rated	35.00	not rated	95.00	not rated	50.00	not rated	--
% of Reach Eroded	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	3	1	6
Obstructions	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	5	5
% of Reach Altered	0	1	100	5	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	10
% Wetted Area	11.32	5	73.19	3	7.68	5	86.88	3	36.51	5	42.17	5	26
Dissolved Oxygen	5.00	3	8.30	1	7.30	1	8.30	1	8.40	1	7.40	1	8
pH	7.50	1	7.30	1	7.20	1	7.40	1	7.90	1	7.50	1	6
Totals		28		32		28		20		22		35	165
Off-Channel Habitat as % of Reach	0	5	0	5	0	5	0	5	0	5	2	5	30
Reach Lengths	277	not rated	65	not rated	132	not rated	17	not rated	202	not rated	202	not rated	894.4
Fish Data
Reach	Reach one	Ratings	Reach two	Ratings	Reach three	Ratings	Reach four	Ratings	Reach five	Ratings	Reach 6	Ratings	Total
Fry Capacity	831	--	2662	--	288	--	44	--	520	--	396	--	4741
Actual Pop.	0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00		0
Fry Densities
Species	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Total
Site One													0
Site Two													0
Species
Site One													0
Species
Site Two													0
Species
Site One													0
Species
Site Two													0
Riparian Ratings
Reach	Reach one	Ave. Ratings	Reach two	Ave. Ratings	Reach three	Ave. Ratings	Reach four	Ave. Ratings	Reach five	Ave. Ratings	Reach 6	Ave. Ratings	Total
Land Use	8	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	4	1	14	4	9
Riparian Slope	6	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	4	1	4	1	6
Bank Stability	6	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	4	1	10	3	8
		Ratings		Ratings		Ratings		Ratings		Ratings		Ratings	--
% Crown Cover	35.00	5	10.00	5	85.00	1	55.00	3	80.00	1	85.00	1	16
% of Reach Accessed by Livestock	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	12	3	3
Average Vegetation Depth	21.5	5	30	3	30	3	30	3	30	3	30	3	20
Totals		13		11		7		9		7		14	61

13. USHP Data Reach 7-11

Stream Name	Gooch Creek			Watershed Code
Habitat Parameter	Reach 7	Ratings	Reach 8	Ratings	Reach 9	Ratings	Reach 10	Ratings		Ratings		Ratings	Total
% Pool Area	43.62	3	11.88	5	57.57	1	44.60	3					12
Large Woody Debris/Bankfull Channel Width	0.00	5	0.00	5	0.00	5	0.00	5					20
% Cover in Pools	0	5	0	5	2	5	61	1					16
Average% Boulder Cover	0	5	0	5	0	5	0	5					20
Average % Fines	80.00	5			100.00	5	100.00	5					15
Average % Gravel	20.00	not rated	0	not rated	0.00	not rated	0.00	not rated		not rated		not rated	--
% of Reach Eroded	0	1	0	1	0	1	25	5					8
Obstructions	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0					0
% of Reach Altered	13	5	0	1	58	5	144	5					16
% Wetted Area	97.50	1	77.78	3	100.00	1	63.64	5					10
Dissolved Oxygen	4.20	5	.		11.00	1	8.00	1	.		.		7
pH	7.60	1			9.40	5	7.00	1					7
Totals		36		25		34		36		0		0	131
Off-Channel Habitat as % of Reach	0	5	0	5	0	5	0	5					20
Reach Lengths	42	not rated	86	not rated	70	not rated	181	not rated		not rated		not rated	377.8
Fish Data
Reach	Reach 7	Ratings	Reach 8	Ratings	Reach 9	Ratings	Reach 10	Ratings		Ratings		Ratings	Total
Fry Capacity	61	--	150	--	8873	--	380	--		--		--	9462
Actual Pop.	0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00						0
Fry Densities
Species	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Coho	Ratings	Total
Site One													0
Site Two													0
Species
Site One													0
Species
Site Two													0
Species
Site One													0
Species
Site Two													0
Riparian Ratings
Reach	Reach 7	Ave. Ratings	Reach 8	Ave. Ratings	Reach 9	Ave. Ratings	Reach 10	Ave. Ratings		Ave. Ratings		Ave. Ratings	Total
Land Use	8	4	8	4	6	3	48	5					16
Riparian Slope	2	1	2	1			8	1					3
Bank Stability	4	2	2	1	2	1	22	2					6
		Ratings		Ratings		Ratings		Ratings		Ratings		Ratings	--
% Crown Cover	85.00	1	90.00	1	0.00	5	0.00	5					12
% of Reach Accessed by Livestock	0	0	0	0	0	0	666	5					5
Average Vegetation Depth	11	5	8	5	30	3	25	5					18
Totals		13		12		12		23		0		0	60

14. PFC Reach One-Front

Reach 1 Back

15. PFC Reach Two-Front

Reach 2-Back

16. PFC Reach Three-Front

Reach 3-Back

17. PFC Reach Four-Front

Reach 4-Back

PFC Reach Five-Front

Reach Five-Back

19. PFC Reach Six-Front

Reach Six-Back

20. PFC Reach Seven-Front

Reach Seven-Back

21. PFC Reach Eight-Front

Reach Eight-Back

22. Air Photo 1926

23. Air Photo 1970

24. Fecal Coliform Testing (Winter, 2001)

25. Fecal Coliform Testing (Summer, 2001)

26. Chemical Analysis of Water Summer, 2001

27. Chemical Analysis of Water Winter, 2001

28. Nitrogen Levels in Gooch Creek-August 2001

29. Nitrogen Levels in Gooch Creek, December, 2001

30. Soil Particle Size and Organic Content-Swamp and Marsh

31. Parker’s Pond Alkalinity Testing

\

32. Jone’s Spring Fecal Coliform Levels

33. Wetland Survey-TR1-QU1

34. Wetland Survey-TR1-QU2

35. Wetland Survey-TR2-QU1

36. Wetland Survey-TR2-QU2

37. Wetland Survey-TR3-QU1

38. Wetland Survey-TR3-QU2