You are on page 1of 139

Ecofish Research Ltd.

Suite 1220 – 1175 Douglas St.
Victoria BC V8W2E1
Phone: 250-480-0050
info@ecofishresearch.com
www.ecofishresearch.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Voelker, Kwiakah First Nation
FROM: Morgan Hocking, Ph.D., R.P.Bio., Matt Bayly, M.Sc., and Adam Lewis,
M.Sc., R.P. Bio., Ecofish Research Ltd., and Brendan Connors, Ph.D., ESSA
Technologies Ltd.
DATE: March 9, 2017
FILE: 1250-07

RE: Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3

1. INTRODUCTION
The Kwiakah First Nation asserts Aboriginal title and rights in and to the area surrounding Phillips
Arm and have become concerned that past and proposed industrial forestry in Phillips Arm has and
will further impact marine and freshwater resources they require for the practice of their Aboriginal
rights. The Kwiakah First Nation is engaged with the British Columbia government with respect to
industrial forestry and requires more information on the population status of, and potential impacts
of forestry on, several key marine resources. In response to these concerns, the Kwiakah First
Nation have retained Ecofish Research Ltd. (Ecofish) to investigate potential effects of industrial
forestry on Pacific Salmon populations in Phillips Arm. This work is being conducted in phases with
each phase building on analyses in previous phases. This memo presents results from the Phillips
Arm Salmon Data Analysis Phase 3, which builds upon work conducted in the Phillips Arm Aquatic
Resource Assessment (Hocking et al. 2015) and Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Phillips Arm Salmon
Data Analysis (Hocking and Connors 2015, Hocking et al. 2016).
The objectives of the Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis Phase 3 were to:
1) Expand the number of salmon populations considered to >50 watersheds that occur across the
same distribution of streams assessed in Phase 1 and that fall within a region of synchronous
variation in salmon survival (Pyper et al. 2001 and 2002). Selected watersheds were required to have
long term records of Chum and/or Pink Salmon population abundance as assessed by DFO and
also have accessible forest cover and age data to backcast forest harvest history in the watershed.
2) Obtain relevant hydrologic, environmental and watershed data (e.g., mean annual precipitation,
maximum elevation, drainage area) for each selected watershed.
3) Identify and obtain suitable forest cover and age data and backcast forest harvest history for each
selected watershed. Forest harvest metrics that were calculated in this phase included equivalent
clearcut area (ECA) of the forested area of each watershed.

1250-07 Page | 1
4) Estimate spawner-recruitment relationships for the selected Chum and Pink Salmon populations
from DFO Management Areas 7-13 based on estimates of spawner abundance, catch and age-at-
maturity.
4) Quantify the influence of forestry on Chum and Pink Salmon survival across all watersheds,
including the Phillips River watershed, using a hierarchical modeling approach.
5) Interpret the results of the analyses and provide recommendations for further study.

2. BACKGROUND
Forest harvest and associated road construction can have negative impacts on watershed hydrology,
stream channel geomorphology, hillslope processes, and the biodiversity of terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems (Pike et al. 2010). These impacts are variable and highly context-specific, but generally
result in changes to watershed functioning that can persist for decades (reviews in Tschaplinski and
Pike 2010, Winkler et al. 2010).
There are three main ways forestry can affect watershed function and salmon populations in
freshwaters: a) shifts in watershed hydrology; b) reductions in riparian forest cover; and c) increases
in the frequency and intensity of landslides. In turn these factors can affect stream channel structure,
composition and complexity, and water temperature and water quality, which can influence salmon
spawning, egg incubation and juvenile rearing success.
Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) has been used in British Columbia and elsewhere as a coarse filter
indicator of the effects of forest harvest on the hydrologic functioning of watersheds, in particular to
water yield, peak flows and low flows (Hudson 2002, Schnorbus and Alila 2004, Moore and
Wondzell 2005, Grant et al. 2008, Winkler et al. 2010). ECA is defined as the area of a watershed that
has been clearcut, adjusted to account for the areas that have experienced hydrologic recovery
through forest regeneration (Hudson 2000). When forests are harvested, this decreases canopy
interception of precipitation and alters soil storage and runoff patterns, which subsequently can alter
stream flow. Changes in stream flow are known to influence salmon spawning, incubation and
rearing habitat through various mechanisms (MacIsaac 2010). Recent research based out of the
University of British Columbia has shown that ECA is correlated across streams to several key
aquatic habitat indicators that are important for salmonids such as in-stream wood, pools, substrate
and embeddedness (Chen and Wei 2008), and that ECA is likely to be most useful when used to
quantify the cumulative effects of forestry in large watersheds and across large spatial and temporal
scales (Wei and Zhang 2011).
The Province is using ECA as a harvest intensity criterion for important salmon streams in the
Great Bear Rainforest such as the Phillips River (Coast Information Team 2004). Under the Great
Bear Rainforest Order, which sets the guidelines for forestry in the Central and North Coast regions,
the first objective for maintaining ecological integrity and human well-being of Important Fisheries
Watersheds states: “(1) Maintain hydrological and fluvial processes in watersheds within the range of

1250-07 Page | 2
natural variation by maintaining an Equivalent Clearcut Area of less than 20% in each of the
Important Fisheries Watersheds shown in Schedule E.” Given that the Province uses ECA to set
forest harvest in Important Fisheries Watersheds, we used ECA as a first order indicator of potential
forest harvest effects to salmon populations in the Phillips watershed.
In the Phillips Arm Aquatic Resource Assessment, we described a negative correlation between
Chum Salmon and odd-year Pink Salmon spawner abundance and the equivalent clearcut area
(ECA) of the Phillips River watershed (Hocking et al. 2015). The ECA in the Phillips watershed
averaged 14.8% (9.4% - 17.9%) over a 30 year period from 1979 to 2009. This negative correlation
between salmon populations and ECA suggests that forestry may have caused declines in salmon
spawning and egg incubation success. However, these relationships could be confounded by changes
in salmon harvest over time as well as regional scale changes in ocean conditions influencing salmon
survival.
In Phase 1 of the Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis (Hocking and Connors 2015) we conducted a
more rigorous analysis that related Phillips River Chum and Pink Salmon productivity, or survival
(measured in recruits-per-spawner rather than escapement), to ECA while controlling for within
population density dependent effects on survival as well as the influence of regional scale variation
in survival due to environmental processes (e.g., Connors et al. 2010; Krkosek et al. 2011). To do this,
we compiled data on salmon escapement and salmon harvest for 16 Chum and Pink Salmon
populations on the central coast of British Columbia from watersheds that had no or limited history
of forestry (based on Moore 1991). These data were used to construct brood tables (estimates of
adult recruitment by brood year), which were then fit using hierarchical models of stock-recruitment
dynamics to test the hypothesis that salmon survival is inversely related to the intensity of forestry in
the watershed in which they occur. By including unlogged watersheds in our analyses we sought to
disentangle the hypothesized influence of forestry from other shared drivers of variability in salmon
population dynamics at local and regional spatial and temporal scales such as salmon harvest and
marine conditions (Pyper et al. 2001 and 2002).
The Salmon Data Analysis Phase 1 estimated that there is a 99% chance that the effect of forestry
(as measured by ECA) on Phillips Chum Salmon survival is negative. Chum Salmon survival is
predicted to have been depressed by ~40% for 30 years relative to what would have been with no
forest harvest. Our analyses also estimated that there is a 79% and 77% chance that the effect of
forestry (as measured by ECA) on Phillips Pink Salmon survival is negative for odd-year and even-
year populations, respectively.
The results of the Salmon Data Analysis Phase 1 were strong but preliminary, and more analyses
were required to strengthen the inference that could be made. Because we only considered a single
“impacted” river (the Phillips watershed), it is possible that some unmeasured factor influencing
Phillips River salmon survival that is correlated with ECA confounded our interpretation of the

1250-07 Page | 3
patterns we observed. We therefore made several recommendations in the Phase 1 final report that
provided further direction for this work.
In Salmon Data Analysis Phase 2 (Hocking et al. 2016), we followed through on some of these
recommendations including a sensitivity analyses on the Phase 1 data and an investigation into
potential mechanisms of salmon survival decline at the Phillips River. Phase 2 work showed that our
results from Phase 1 were not sensitive to our assumptions regarding fishing pressure, age structure
and inclusion of individual control watersheds in the model.
Phase 2 results also highlighted that forest harvest has caused degraded habitat condition both below
and above Phillips Lake, the two locations for Chum and Pink spawning in the watershed. For
example, in 1965, the log flume connecting the estuary to Phillips Lake blew out in a rainstorm and
resulted in a major shift in the location of the main channel below Phillips Lake. This resulted in
degradation and loss of spawning habitat, which was compensated by the construction of a Pink
Salmon spawning channel in 1984. Clear impacts from forest harvest have also occurred in the reach
above Phillips Lake, which is thought to be the most valuable salmon habitat in the watershed.
Evidence of sediment accumulation, channel widening and loss of large woody debris was evident
from analyses of historical air photos. Most significant impacts to this reach most likely occurred in
the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s during the peak of forest harvest and forestry-related landslide activity in
the watershed. Review of work conducted at Carnation Creek also supports observations at Phillips
where Chum Salmon populations are the most sensitive to the impacts of forestry. The primary
impact mechanism is thought to be through declines in egg-to-fry survival due to 1) accumulation of
fine material that reduces intra-gravel water flow and oxygen delivery to the eggs, 2) egg
entombment by deposited sand and gravel, and 3) stream channel scour. Size selective mortality
against larger emerging alevins in fine sediment can also lead to reduced early life survival of Chum
fry.
Another key recommendation from Phase 1 was to replicate the analysis across a larger number of
logged watersheds, which would substantially increase the strength of inference that could be drawn.
The most rigorous approach would be to include streams with differing levels of forest harvest
throughout the same distribution of streams used in Phase 1. In the following sections we describe,
in detail, the data sets and methods used to address this recommendation in the Phillips Arm
Salmon Data Analysis - Phase 3.

3. WATERSHEDS FOR ANALYSIS
All watersheds included in this analysis were located in the coastal region between Campbell River
on Vancouver Island and Klemtu on the central coast of British Columbia. The scope of watersheds
initially considered for analysis was based on availability of historic Chum and Pink Salmon
escapement data from the DFO NuSEDS database. We initially selected 72 watersheds with Chum
and Pink Salmon data that spanned DFO’s statistical areas 7 to 13. Each of these watersheds varied

1250-07 Page | 4
in size from 956 ha to 779,195 ha, and included watersheds that were smaller and larger than the
Phillips River (45,827 ha; Figure 1; Table 1). Of these 72 watersheds, 14 watersheds were excluded
based on insufficient coverage of forest age layer data. Most of the excluded watersheds were
located within Tree Farm License (TFL) areas with privately held datasets.

3.1. Watershed Delineation
We delineated the upstream drainage area for each watershed from its mouth in order to summarize
the forestry data. We used the drainage basin of each watershed as a spatial boundary to summarize
forestry data, ECA estimates and land cover attributes. We selected the mouth of each watershed as
the most downstream point from the BC Freshwater Atlas (BC FLNRO 2015). We then used the
BC Freshwater Atlas network codes in a GIS framework to select all upstream reaches for each
watershed. We extracted these features as polygons for each stream reach (the smallest unit available
from the BCFWA) and dissolved all polygons together for each watershed producing a single
polygon outlining the drainage basin boundary. This process allowed us to generate accurate scale-
free watershed delineation from point locations across coastal BC. Each watershed was inspected
visually with additional layers from the BCFWA, a digital elevation model (NRC 2016) and Google
Earth satellite imagery. We identified one issue with the watershed James Bay, where a subtle
drainage divide across a lowland area between James Bay and Windy Bay was not detected in the
BCFWA. James Bay was manually adjusted by clipping out a portion of the watershed following a
contour line. Final watershed boundaries are included in Appendix A.

1250-07 Page | 5
Table 1. Watersheds considered in the Phase 3 analysis.
Watershed Lat.1 Long.1 DFO Area Elev. Forested3 Age ECA range
Areas 2 (ha) (m) (%) range4

Adam River 50.466 -126.28 12 62,681 716 - 2-460 Incomplete Coverage
Ahnuhati River 50.891 -125.64 12 18,479 1,008 63 29-614 1.8(2007) - 6.2(1957)
Ahta River 50.871 -126.16 12 6,515 806 90 8-519 0.5(2002) - 2.1(1954)
Allard Creek 51.466 -127.33 9 7,085 662 87 35-410 0.9(1991) - 2.5(1969)
Amor de Cosmos Creek 50.357 -125.69 13 20,123 320 - 2-511 Incomplete Coverage
Apple River 50.717 -125.41 13 19,596 1,037 - 16-385 Incomplete Coverage
Carter River 52.866 -128.37 7 6,111 409 84 39-460 0.7(1997) - 2.1(1972)
Cascade River 52.612 -127.63 8 3,144 685 66 50-310 4(1986) - 20.7(1954)
Chuckwalla River 51.731 -127.33 9 35,291 951 79 20-437 2.2(2009) - 6.8(1969)
Clatse Creek 52.335 -127.84 7 2,428 317 87 1-310 0.4(1998) - 6.8(2005)
Cluxewe River 50.612 -127.18 12 9,490 465 - 2-319 Incomplete Coverage
Clyak River 51.869 -127.35 9 26,711 808 79 6-364 2.5(1965) - 14.9(1995)
Dean River 52.818 -126.94 8 779,195 1,251 - 2-466 Incomplete Coverage
Draney Creek 51.407 -127.25 13 3,844 584 - 40-435 Incomplete Coverage
Elcho Creek 52.401 -127.54 8 2,909 573 81 20-410 2.7(1965) - 7.2(1954)
Grassy Creek 50.502 -125.54 13 3,281 331 92 4-413 9.3(1962) - 25.6(1998)
Gray Creek 50.538 -125.53 13 3,159 407 - 2-463 Incomplete Coverage
Heydon Creek 50.576 -125.58 13 6,477 329 - 2-414 Incomplete Coverage
Homathko River 50.934 -124.86 13 577,946 1,630 34 2-445 4.6(1956) - 7.5(1972)
Hook Nose Creek 52.125 -127.84 8 1,516 309 94 89-392 <0.4 (after 1954)
James Bay Creek 52.720 -128.23 7 2,887 304 97 24-359 0.3(1971) - 0.7(1993)
Johnston Creek 51.492 -127.54 9 6,367 556 98 1-487 0.7(2003) - 3(1966)
Kainet Creek 52.760 -127.88 7 6,844 693 75 25-360 2.5(2008) - 6.7(1966)
Kakweiken River 50.813 -126.02 12 32,404 892 79 2-519 3.2(2010) - 7.3(1980)
Keogh River 50.675 -127.35 12 12,402 218 - 2-519 Incomplete Coverage
Kilbella River 51.732 -127.35 9 36,240 920 74 20-498 3(2010) - 8.1(1990)
Kimsquit River 52.884 -127.08 8 103,357 1,104 65 2-554 4(1975) - 10.1(1956)
Kingcome River 50.928 -126.19 12 135,925 1,102 48 2-519 3.6(1966) - 7.8(1995)
Klinaklini River 51.103 -125.62 12 587,950 1,511 39 2-618 2.9(1973) - 6.8(1998)
Koeye River 51.781 -127.87 8 17,093 391 93 16-510 0.2(1954) - 0.8(1996)
Kwakusdis River 52.303 -128.12 7 2,051 196 95 14-284 0(1954) - 14.7(2002)
Kwalate Creek 50.782 -125.69 12 7,752 824 66 47-467 1.9(1989) - 6(1962)
Kwatna River 52.104 -127.37 8 38,458 861 81 14-607 3.8(2009) - 11.2(1992)
Lard Creek 52.732 -127.82 7 4,969 771 58 40-421 2.6(1997) - 8.8(1966)
Lockhart Gordon Creek 51.409 -127.25 9 7,924 703 81 35-460 1.2(2001) - 4.6(1966)
Machmell River 51.648 -126.68 9 144,141 1,380 - 10-655 Incomplete Coverage
MacNair Creek 51.713 -127.56 9 4,272 571 96 1-460 0.2(1993) - 10.8(1999)
Matsiu Creek 50.706 -125.83 12 6,571 798 90 8-519 1.9(1985) - 5.5(2000)
Milton River 51.786 -127.44 9 6,661 689 94 4-510 1.1(1973) - 14.2(1989)
Mussel River 52.922 -128.03 7 16,840 719 62 25-410 1.9(2008) - 5.1(1961)
Nameless Creek 52.426 -128.23 7 1,386 193 100 8-309 0.1(1957) - 0.3(1954)
Neekas Creek 52.475 -128.16 7 1,587 206 94 39-309 0.3(1954) - 1.5(1977)
Nekite River 51.401 -127.12 10 38,959 899 67 20-510 2.3(2007) - 9.3(1979)
Nimpkish River 50.566 -126.99 12 176,442 610 - 2-414 Incomplete Coverage
Noeick River 52.040 -126.67 8 61,833 1,372 51 5-410 7.9(1963) - 10.9(1976)
Nootum River 51.947 -127.68 8 10,002 490 95 6-407 0.8(1983) - 17.2(1998)
Orford River 50.598 -124.86 13 42,283 1,291 34 2-400 2.5(1973) - 13.1(1993)
Phillips River 50.571 -125.37 13 45,827 984 37 3-528 0.9(1954) - 17.9(2000)

1250-07 Page | 6
Table 1. Continued.
Watershed Lat.
1
Long.
1 DFO Area Elev. Forested3 Age ECA range
Areas2 (ha) (m) (%) range4

Poison Cove Creek 52.898 -128.02 7 9,942 729 72 20-365 2.2(1991) - 4.7(1956)
Quartcha Creek 52.517 -127.84 7 2,997 493 79 19-310 0.5(1954) - 7.4(1977)
Quatam River 50.379 -124.93 13 15,724 932 60 2-428 4.1(1995) - 17.3(1971)
Quatlena River 52.028 -127.61 8 14,378 695 92 11-507 1.8(1954) - 8.5(2006)
Quatse River 50.699 -127.48 12 9,612 233 - 3-519 Incomplete Coverage
Rainbow Creek 51.135 -126.72 11 5,113 665 95 9-546 3.9(1995) - 19.7(1978)
Read Creek 50.537 -125.78 13 5,459 426 99 4-463 6.2(1963) - 20.6(1981)
Roscoe Creek 52.479 -127.74 7 3,337 563 69 25-310 1.6(2009) - 6.9(1966)
Salmon Bay Creek 52.483 -128.20 7 959 256 100 9-409 0.1(1957) - 2.2(2007)
Seymour River 51.195 -126.68 11 41,131 1,039 62 4-617 3.1(1977) - 7.3(1984)
Sheemahant River 51.745 -126.63 9 103,857 1,390 - 11-539 Incomplete Coverage
Shushartie River 50.843 -127.87 12 7,504 310 98 2-369 0.1(1991) - 2.1(1997)
Skowquiltz River 52.610 -127.17 8 27,171 975 55 30-477 2.8(2000) - 8.1(1977)
Southgate River 50.892 -124.78 13 198,444 1,731 21 6-527 1.9(1959) - 7.5(1970)
Stafford River 50.721 -125.48 13 38,253 1,043 - 2-587 Incomplete Coverage
Taaltz Creek 51.054 -126.64 11 5,790 722 89 1-431 2.5(1994) - 4.8(1977)
Takush River 51.264 -127.60 10 7,819 184 95 2-517 0.1(1954) - 0.4(1995)
Taleomey River 52.024 -126.67 8 43,661 1,370 52 7-404 2(1954) - 7.2(1989)
Viner Sound Creek 50.789 -126.36 12 2,532 514 97 3-519 2.4(1984) - 18.6(1996)
Wakeman River 51.063 -126.53 12 75,740 974 58 2-417 2.1(1957) - 6.7(1987)
Walkum Creek 51.352 -127.06 10 1,772 789 80 40-410 0.6(1954) - 3(1976)
Warner Bay Creek 51.029 -127.09 11 1,160 161 91 5-382 11.3(1988) - 29.6(1995)
Waump Creek 51.191 -126.92 11 10,445 940 73 29-582 0.9(1977) - 1.8(1988)
Wortley Creek 50.490 -125.70 13 1,546 324 98 2-313 6.8(1963) - 14.5(1988)
1
Approximate latitude and longitude of watershed mouth (WGS 84).
2
DFO Statistical Management Areas.
3
Portion of watershed classified as productive forested area.
4
Age range from youngest - oldest (dated from 2016)

1250-07 Page | 7
Figure 1. Initial selection of watersheds considered for analysis across the central coast of British Columbia. Watersheds
are highlighted in yellow if reliable forestry age data was available and grey if forestry age data was not available.

1250-07 Page | 8
3.2. Watershed Attributes
In addition to size and location, several other key basin-level attributes were calculated for each
watershed with the potential of being included as covariates in our analysis. These basin-level
attributes were summarized for each watershed in a GIS framework and included key features
relating to topography, climate and hydrology (Table 2). We summarized each of these variables
across watersheds by taking the mean, min or max.
Table 2. Watershed-level basin characteristics and physical attributes calculated across
study area.

Variable Name Description Source
Watershed Area (ha) Total area of the watershed. Calculated from the BCFWA
Total Stream Length Total stream length in each watershed Calculated from the BCFWA
(m) streams
Glacier Coverage (%) Coverage from glaciers, ice fields and Calculated from the BCFWA
perennial snow fields in the watershed
Lake Coverage (%) Coverage from lakes in the watershed Calculated from the BCFWA
Mean Elevation (m) Average elevation of the watershed Calculated from CDEM, Can.
Geogratis
Max Elevation Max elevation of the watershed Calculated from CDEM, Can.
Geogratis
Mean Annual Mean annual precipitation across the ClimateWNA
Precipitation (mm) watershed
Mean Annual Mean annual temperature across the ClimateWNA
o
Temperature ( C) watershed

Precipitation as Snow Precipitation as snow across the watershed ClimateWNA
(mm)
Mean Basin Slope (°) Mean slope of the basin Calculated from CDEM, Can.
Geogratis
Max Basin Slope (°) Max slope of the basin Calculated from CDEM, Can.
Geogratis

1250-07 Page | 9
4. DATA SOURCES

4.1. Chum Salmon
Spawner-recruitment estimates for Chum Salmon populations from DFO Management Areas 7-13
(i.e., the management areas that span the populations considered, hereafter referred to as “areas”)
were compiled from spawner, catch and age-at-return data. Spawner estimates from 1954 to 2010
were provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada as reported in Peacock et al. (2014). All records of
‘none-observed’ and ‘adults present’ were removed. We also removed populations with short time
series of fewer than 10 of the possible 57 years of observations.
Annual area-specific fisheries harvest rates were compiled from a harvest dataset of Central and
North Coast salmon populations (areas 7-10; English et al. 2013) (Figure 2). Harvest rates for areas
12 and 13 were provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (VanWill, pers. comm. 2015). We
assumed that harvest rates were the same across all streams within each area in a given year. From
these harvest rates we calculated total returns to each population in each year as:
(eqn. 1) Ni,t = Si,t (1- ha,t )-1
where N is the total return to a given river i in year t and ha,t is the harvest rate for area a in year t.
Chum Salmon mature at varying ages, ranging from 3 to 5 years (Quinn 2005). Age-at-return is
typically estimated from otolith or scales samples collected from adult fish harvested in fisheries or
on the spawning grounds. For areas 8-10, area specific age-at-return data were provided by Fisheries
and Oceans Canada as described in Peacock et al. (2014). For missing years and areas, age structure
was estimated by assuming that missing return years had the same age structure as other years for
that area, and areas without any age data were the same as adjacent areas.
With the resulting spawner, return and age data, we then estimated recruitment to each brood year
as the sum of 3, 4 and 5 year old fish that returned to the coast prior to harvest. We also excluded
watersheds with incomplete or missing forestry age data (described below). This resulted in 1,916
unique stock-recruitment observations from a total of 52 Chum Salmon populations (Phillips River
+ 51 additional watersheds) (Table 3). The average number of annual spawner-recruit observations
in our final dataset for Chum Salmon was 37. Annual time series trends for each watershed are
shown in Appendix A.

1250-07 Page | 10
Figure 2. Estimated Chum Salmon harvest rates for each DFO statistical area.

100
Area 7 Area 8
80
Harvest rate (%)

Harvest rate (%)
60

40

20

0

100
Area 9 Area 10
(%)

80 Year Year
rate(%)

Harvest rate (%)
Harvest rate

60
Harvest

40

20

0

100
Area 12 Area 13
80 Year Year
Harvest rate (%)

Harvest rate (%)

60

40

20

0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year Year Year

4.2. Pink Salmon
Spawner-recruitment estimates for Pink Salmon populations from areas 7-13 were compiled from
spawner and catch data as described above for Chum Salmon. Estimated Pink Salmon harvest rates
are shown in
Figure 3. Age-structure information was not required for Pink Salmon because of their fixed 2-year
life cycle, which results in distinct odd and even year populations within a given watershed. Spawner
estimates from 1960 to 2010 were provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada as reported in Peacock
et al. (2013). As with the Chum Salmon data all records of ‘none-observed’ and ‘adults present’ were

1250-07 Page | 11
removed. We did not included watersheds in our analysis that had less than 10 annual spawner-
recruit observations. We also excluded watersheds with incomplete or missing forestry age data
(described below). After applying these criteria we had 900 unique Pink even-year observations and
763 unique Pink odd-year observations (Table 3). These observations were distributed across 42
watersheds for even-year populations and 39 watersheds for odd-year observations. In our final
analysis, each watershed had on average 21 and 19 annual observations for even-year and odd-year
populations of Pink Salmon, respectively.
Figure 3. Estimated Pink Salmon harvest rates for each DFO statistical area.

100
Area 7 Area 8
80
Harvest rate (%)

Harvest rate (%)

60

40

20

0

100
Area 9 Area 10
(%)

80 Year Year
rate(%)

Harvest rate (%)
Harvest rate

60
Harvest

40

20

0

100
Area 12 Area 13
80 Year Year
Harvest rate (%)

Harvest rate (%)

60

40

20

0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year Year Year

1250-07 Page | 12
Table 3. Chum and Pink Salmon data availability by watershed.

Watershed
1 Chum Chum Yrs. Chum Pink Pink Yrs. Pink E. Pink O.
Abundance 2
Obs. Abundance1
Obs.2 Obs.2
1
Ahnuhati River 7,000 1954-2005 48 60,000 1962-2010 25 22
Ahta River 7,000 1954-2005 52 20,000 1962-2010 25 24
Allard Creek 400 1954-1991 21 400 1979-1994 7 7
Carter River 700 1955-2005 40 20,000 1962-2010 25 24
Cascade River 9,000 1954-2002 49 4,000 1962-2009 23 18
Chuckwalla River 8,000 1955-2005 42 90,000 1962-2010 25 22
Clatse Creek 8,000 1954-2005 52 30,000 1962-2010 25 24
Clyak River 8,000 1954-1999 39 30,000 1962-2006 23 13
Elcho Creek 10,000 1954-2005 52 10,000 1962-2010 25 22
Grassy Creek - - 0 40,000 1962-2004 22 0
Homathko River 20,000 1954-1992 39 - - 0 0
Hook Nose Creek 3,000 1954-1997 40 5,000 1962-2008 24 18
James Bay Creek 800 1954-2004 44 20,000 1962-2010 25 24
Johnston Creek - - 0 40,000 1962-2005 22 22
Kainet Creek 40,000 1954-2005 52 60,000 1962-2010 25 24
Kakweiken River 5,000 1954-2002 32 300,000 1962-2010 25 24
Kilbella River 4,000 1956-2004 13 50,000 1962-2010 25 22
Kimsquit River 50,000 1956-2005 49 200,000 1962-1996 18 11
Kingcome River 20,000 1954-2005 34 - - 0 0
Klinaklini River 20,000 1954-1998 24 - - 0 0
Koeye River 4,000 1954-1989 25 70,000 1962-2009 22 24
Kwakusdis River 20,000 1954-1997 38 8,000 1962-2009 21 22
Kwalate Creek - - 0 2,000 1962-2005 13 12
Kwatna River 9,000 1954-2002 49 80,000 1962-2009 21 24
Lard Creek 2,000 1962-2005 30 900 1962-2010 19 19
Lockhart Gordon Creek 5,000 1954-1999 46 3,000 1964-2004 17 13
MacNair Creek 2,000 1954-2005 44 2,000 1964-2005 18 15
Matsiu Creek - - 0 3,000 1968-2000 6 3
Milton River 300 1966-1994 14 5,000 1962-2010 23 14
Mussel River 30,000 1954-2005 52 40,000 1962-2010 25 24
Nameless Creek 5,000 1954-1989 36 20,000 1962-1994 17 16
Neekas Creek 40,000 1954-2005 52 30,000 1962-2010 25 24
Nekite River 30,000 1954-2005 48 20,000 1962-2009 22 21

1250-07 Page | 13
Table 3. Continued.

Watershed
1 Chum Chum Yrs. Chum Pink Pink Yrs. Pink E. Pink O.
Abundance 2
Obs. Abundance
1
Obs.
2
Obs.
2

1
Noeick River - - 0 3,000 1962-1985 8 4
Nootum River 2,000 1954-1988 14 4,000 1962-2001 19 9
Orford River 30,000 1954-2005 48 30,000 1963-2010 1 14
Phillips River 3,000 1954-2005 52 70,000 1962-2010 25 22
Poison Cove Creek 1,000 1954-1989 36 2,000 1962-2007 18 17
Quartcha Creek 5,000 1954-2005 52 5,000 1962-2010 23 24
Quatam River 2,000 1954-2003 29 2,000 1963-2010 3 24
Quatlena River 2,000 1954-2002 26 3,000 1962-2009 11 12
Rainbow Creek 2,000 1978-1991 13 30 1985-1995 0 4
Read Creek 800 1954-2004 28 7,000 1962-2010 25 13
Roscoe Creek 30,000 1954-2005 52 8,000 1962-2009 20 21
Salmon Bay Creek 5,000 1954-2005 52 10,000 1962-2010 25 24
Seymour River 7,000 1977-1998 22 - - 0 0
Shushartie River - - 0 4,000 1962-1997 12 4
Skowquiltz River 2,000 1954-1999 33 3,000 1962-2006 16 15
Southgate River 40,000 1954-1996 35 - - 0 0
Taaltz Creek 20,000 1977-1998 18 - - 0 0
Takush River 5,000 1954-1995 35 - - 0 0
Taleomey River 900 1954-1987 30 2,000 1962-1992 16 8
Viner Sound Creek 30,000 1954-2005 52 2,000 1962-2010 17 13
Wakeman River 4,000 1954-2005 35 70,000 1962-2010 25 22
Walkum Creek 3,000 1954-1991 34 300 1975-1995 8 9
Warner Bay Creek 900 1977-1995 19 - - 0 0
Waump Creek 5,000 1977-1997 14 - - 0 0
Wortley Creek 600 1954-1999 31 30,000 1962-2006 23 0
Grey shading indicates that watersheds were excluded from the analysis.
1
Median spawner abundance across observation years.
2
Count of spawner-recruit observations across years.

4.3. Forestry
4.3.1. Forest harvest and disturbance datasets
Our analysis required year-by-year estimates of forest harvest or forest harvest related disturbances,
which can be related to long-term records of salmon survival. In general, the joint availability of

1250-07 Page | 14
reliable salmon and forestry age data limited which populations and watersheds we were able to
include in our analysis.
We carried out an exhaustive search for age-layer data and compiled several public and private
forestry data sources to develop a continuous surface of disturbance history across each watershed.
Aging methods from these datasets consisted of either direct records of harvest activity (i.e., from
surveyed cutblocks) or age estimates for individuals stands. Sources and descriptions of each forestry
age layer dataset used in this analysis are described in Table 4. Briefly, the datasets included private
TFL data owned by forest companies, BC Provincial Consolidated Cutblocks data, Vegetation
Resources Inventory (VRI) data for the Great Bear Rainforest and for the Province, and Site Series
Surrogate data compiled through the Joint Solutions Project.
Age estimates from VRI data and the BC Consolidated Cutblocks provided the largest coverage of
age data across all watersheds. Age estimates were provided as spatial polygons within each dataset
corresponding to unique forest stands (a nearly uniform community or patch of trees). The shape of
each stand varied considerably as a result of landscape features and forestry activity, but the
maximum extent of each stand generally ranged from several hundred meters to several kilometers.
We also obtained the site series surrogate data that was created through the Joint Solutions Project
from Jens Wieting of the Sierra Club in June 2016. This dataset was created to support the Central
and North Coast and South Central Coast land use orders that were recently cancelled and replaced
in January 2016 by the new Great Bear Rainforest land use order.
For each age layer datasets, field attributes relating to harvest or disturbance activity assumed a single
disturbance event for each location, rather than recurring disturbance activity. This limitation was
partly expected since developing reliable year-specific disturbance estimates for historical forestry
activity in the early 1900’s or 1800’s is challenging. Fortunately for the purpose of this study, the
time frame of reliable forestry age estimates and annual salmon spawner-recruit observations
overlapped well over the second half of the twentieth century.
A key challenge encountered in our forestry age data compilation was handling age discrepancies
across some overlapping localities between datasets. Age discrepancies between datasets were not
the result of unique disturbance events, but instead were the result of different methods used to
determine the age of each stand (i.e., VRI estimates vs. cutblock records). Age layer datasets also
differed in their extent, degree of detail and resolution. In order to reconstruct the best possible
record of disturbance history for each watershed we developed a ranking scheme to give priority to
the most reliable age-layer dataset for each location (Table 4). The most reliable data possible was
then chosen to represent the disturbance history for each watershed.
To confirm the accuracy of each age-layer dataset we haphazardly selected ~ 30 localities and
compared disturbance year estimates against disturbances visible in historic Landsat Imagery (1974 -
2010). Landsat imagery was viewed on the USGS Earth Explorer (earthexplorer.usgs.gov) and the

1250-07 Page | 15
Google Earth Timelapse (earthengine.google.com/timelapse/). Overall, TFL and consolidated
cutblock record dates matched disturbance history visible in Landsat imagery across years whereas
VRI estimates were often off by several years. Some age layers were developed for smaller regions
with much greater detail and provided age estimates for smaller stands. Following the ranking
scheme outlined in Table 4 we combined all of our age-layer datasets together by rasterizing and
merging values to a final pixel resolution of ~ 40 m.
4.3.2. TFL data
Tree Farm License data often provides the highest quality information to reconstruct forest harvest
and disturbance history in a watershed, although a challenge associated with its use is that it is not
publically available. The private TFL data that we wanted to include in the analysis covered TFL 25
(Blocks 2, 3, 4 and 5), TFL 37 (all) and TFL 39 (Blocks 2, 3 and 5) owned by Western Forest
Products Inc., TFL 45 (all) owned by International Forest Products Inc. (Interfor), and TFL 47
(Johnstone Strait and Bonanza Lake management units) owned by TimberWest. We requested these
datasets from the respective forest companies and obtained all datasets from Interfor and from
TimberWest subject to data sharing agreements, but were denied access to the TFL 25, TFL 37 and
TFL 39 (Blocks 2 and 3) data owned by Western Forest Products.
Owing to the sensitivity of including the TFL 45 and TFL 47 data in our analyses, we conducted our
analyses both with and without these private data. This enabled a sensitivity analysis on the
repeatability of our findings with and without the private TFL data.
4.3.3. Land cover
After all forestry age-layers were merged together we incorporated additional land cover layers as a
spatial mask to crop out productive forested areas from non-forested areas (e.g., alpine, subalpine
and non-treed areas). To delineate non-forested areas we combined data from the BC Freshwater
Atlas (BC FLNRO 2015) and the BC Provincial VRI Age Layer (BC FLNRO 2016). Non-forested
areas sourced from the BC Freshwater Atlas included glaciers and icefields, human water structures,
lakes, marine areas, large stream basins and estuaries. Non-forested areas sourced from the BC
Provincial VRI Age layer included alpine designated locations from the BCLCS (BC Land Cover
Classification Scheme). After forested areas were isolated from non-forested areas each watershed
was assessed visually with satellite imagery to ensure land cover classification was appropriate.
The spatial delineation of land cover for the Phillips River watershed is shown in Figure 4. See
Appendix A for all other watersheds included in the analysis.

1250-07 Page | 16
Table 4. Forestry age layer data sources, coverage and priority rankings.

Priority Source File Name Description and Coverage Source
Ranking
Tree Farm License 47 Partial coverage of mainland East TimberWest (File:
of Johnston Strait (Thurlow, JSO_FC, Jan 4th 2017)
Hardwick and W. Cracroft).

1 Tree Farm License 39 Phillips River watershed and Western Forest Products
portion of Phillips Arm (File: TFL395_FC)
Tree Farm License 45FC Portion of Gray Creek & Klinakini Interfor (File:
River TFL45FC_Kwiakah)

BC Provincial Cutblock dates and records across Provincial GeoDatabase
Consolidated Cutblocks entire study area. Data gaps were downloaded from
2 (Harvested Areas of BC prevelent across most TFL areas DataBC September 20th
(Consolidated Cutblocks) and other special tenures. 2016.

Great Bear VRI Age Layer Updated VRI age layer of the Provided by John Sunde
central coast of BC. High FLNRO (File:
3 resolution and greater detail than GBR_age_TSA)
provincial VRI age dataset. No
coverage of Vancouver Island.
Site Series Surrogate VRI Site Series VRI layer with partial Provided by John Sunde
Data Kwiakah LU coverage of Phillips River. Age FLNRO for Joint
estimations approximate and data Solutions Project (File:
resolution and detail lower than SSS_LU_Selection_Kwia
TFL data layers. kah_2015, June 2016)
4
BC Provincial VRI Age BC Provincial VRI Age Layer data. Provincial GeoDatabase
Layer (VRI - Forest Coverage across entire dtudy downloaded from
Vegetation Composite extent, but numerous data gaps DataBC November 27th
Polygons and Rank 1 throughout TFL areas and other 2016.
Layer) land tenures.

1250-07 Page | 17
Figure 4. Phillips River forested area summary map. Green and beige areas represent
forested areas. Beige denotes areas with recent disturbance (after 1900). Grey
areas are snow caps or icefields, dark blue areas are lakes and light blue areas
represent all other non-forested areas (sub-alpine, alpine, scree and exposed
slopes).

4.3.4. Calculating Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA)
Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) is a metric used to describe the hydrological equivalent of an area
that is clearcut (Ministry of Forests 2001). A variety of methods are available to calculate ECA
depending on data availability, but in general they require a known or expected relationship between
hydrological recovery and regrowth (e.g., Lewis and Huggard 2010). Stand height and age are

1250-07 Page | 18
frequently used as a coarse scale metric to estimate hydrological recovery, but factors such as harvest
method, elevation and cutblock configuration can also be accounted for if known relationships with
recovery are available.
Since our project required generating annual estimates of ECA across 72 watersheds (distributed
over 400 km of coastal British Columbia) we chose to estimate recovery directly from stand age due
to its generalizability. We followed the Ministry of Forest (2001) guidelines of assumed recovery of
forest stands relative to height and age (Table 5). These guidelines assume a sigmoidal-shaped
relationship between hydrological recovery and age. There is delayed recovery immediately following
a disturbance until a period of about 10-20 years when sufficient revegetation from early-mid
successional communities begins to have a meaningful impact on hydrological processes. The rate of
hydrological recovery then decreases and does not return to 100% until mature stands are
regenerated. Although age-based ECA metrics are rough approximations of hydrological recovery
we believe their use was justified for this project to evaluate relative differences between watersheds
at a broad spatial scale. Additionally, productive forested areas within each of our watersheds fell
almost entirely within the Coastal Western-Hemlock BC BEC zone instead of covering a range of
unique ecoregions where difference between rates of recovery may be large.
ECA is calculated for watersheds following equations 1 and 2. For any single point location (x,y) on a
rasterized surface ECA at a given year (t) is calculated as 1 – the estimates hydrological recovery.
These estimates are then averaged across the entire forested area of the watershed following
equation 3 with raster calculations.
(eqn. 2) 𝐸𝐶𝐴(𝑥,𝑦,𝑡) = 1 − ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦(𝑥,𝑦,𝑡)
∑(𝐸𝐶𝐴(𝑥,𝑦,𝑡) )
(eqn. 3) 𝐸𝐶𝐴(𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑡) = 𝑁(𝑥,𝑦)

To generate a time series of annual ECA estimates for watersheds this process is repeated across
years using equations 2 and 3 with age-recovery reference values from (Table 5). Since each location
only has a single age estimate we set recovery to 100% in years prior to disturbance events. Similar
to the salmon dataset, obtaining reliable long-term historic estimates of disturbance and forest
harvest across such a large study extent was exceedingly challenging. Although VRI age-layer
datasets provided age estimates for years prior to 1900, we set recovery to 100% for all years < 1900.
Our time series calculations began in 1901 and we iterated across years until 2015.
In the Phillips River watershed, ECA values of the forested area of the watershed peaked at roughly
17.9% in the late 1980s and 1990s and remained above 15% for more than 18 years and above 10%
for more than thirty years (Figure 5). ECA has declined to less than 10% in recent years coinciding
with the reduction in forest harvest. ECA values for all other watersheds over time are shown in
Appendix A.

1250-07 Page | 19
We hypothesized that ECA could affect Chum and Pink Salmon populations across all watersheds
including the Phillips River by altering watershed hydrologic function, which can subsequently affect
stream habitats for spawning and incubating salmon. Hocking et al. (2015, 2016) also documented
other impacts to the Phillips watershed from forestry during this time period. For example, landslide
rates appear to have peaked at a similar time to ECA. However, landslide rates are currently not
available in a year by year dataset for the Phillips, nor are they available for the wider set of
watersheds included here. In addition, year by year measurements of stream habitat conditions are
also unavailable. Therefore, without additional metrics of logging-related disturbance we consider
ECA as our current best index for forestry activity across watersheds and within watersheds over
time that also takes into account the lagged forestry – stream habitats – to salmon effects that may
have taken place.
Table 5. Assumed recovery of forest stands relative to height and age.

Average height of the
Age (years) % Recovery
main canopy (m)
0 to <3 0 to <10 0
3 to <5 10 to <14 25
5 to <7 14 to <17 50
7 to <9 17 to <20 75
9+ 20+ 90

1250-07 Page | 20
Figure 5. Phillips River annual time series of A) ECA (dashed red line) and forested
area disturbed (ha) (vertical grey bars) and B) Chum and Pink Salmon annual
productivity in ln(Recruits/Spawner). Trends are shown for all other
watersheds in Appendix A.

1250-07 Page | 21
5. ANALYSIS
Our analysis was broken down into separate models for Chum Salmon, Pink Salmon (even year) and
Pink Salmon (odd year). We modeled salmon population dynamics using the same hierarchical
modeling approach used in Phase 1 (Hocking and Connors 2015) which has also been used
extensively in recent years to quantify the influence of environmental and anthropogenic stressors
on salmon survival in British Columbia (e.g., Krkosek and Hilborn 2011, Krkosek et al. 2011,
Connors et al. 2010, Peacock et al. 2013 and 2014). This hierarchical modeling approach assumes
Ricker type stock-recruitment dynamics (Ricker 1954) with temporal co-variation in survival at two
spatial scales:
(eqn. 4)
𝑅
ln [ 𝑆 𝑖,𝑡] = (𝑟 + ∅𝑡 + ∅𝑎 + ∅𝑖 ) − 𝛽𝑖 𝑆𝑖,𝑡 + (𝛽1 + ∅𝐸𝐶𝐴,𝑖 )𝐸𝐶𝐴𝑖,𝑡+1 + 𝜖𝑖,𝑡 ,
𝑖,𝑡 𝑡

∅𝑡 ~𝑁(0, 𝜎𝑡2 ),

∅𝑎 ~𝑁 (0, 𝜎𝑎2 ),
𝑡 𝑡

∅𝑖 ~𝑁(0, 𝜎𝑖2 ),
2
∅𝐸𝐶𝐴,𝑖 ~𝑁(𝛽1, 𝜎𝐸𝐶𝐴,𝑖 ),

𝜀𝑖,𝑡 ~𝑁(0, 𝜎 2 )
where Ri,t are the recruits to population i produced by spawner abundance S in brood year t, r is the
population growth rate at low spawner abundance common to all populations, and bSi,t is population
specific density-dependent mortality.
Synchronous environmental stochasticity in salmon survival was modeled at three spatial scales
resulting in four estimated components of stochasticity: variation among years synchronously for all
populations (t), variation among years synchronously for populations within each area (a/t),
variation among watersheds (i) and variation within populations that is independent among years
(i,t). Each of these components was assumed to be a normally distributed random variable with a
mean of zero and variance that is estimated. While the population growth rate was assumed to be
similar across all the populations considered, density dependence was assumed to differ among
populations due to the habitat characteristics unique to each river and density-dependent
competitive interactions within populations.
To test for an effect of ECA on Chum Salmon and Pink Salmon survival we included ECA as a
covariate lagged by one year to correspond to the year juveniles incubated in the gravel and then
emerged and migrated to sea. The term 𝛽1 represented the overall effect of ECA on salmon survival

1250-07 Page | 22
and ∅𝐸𝐶𝐴,𝑖 represented the random population specific deviations from the overall mean effect of
ECA.
In a preliminary analysis we explored the possibility of including a series of basin-level variables
described in Section 3.2 in our analysis. However, many of these terms were either highly collinear
with each other (e.g., watershed area, elevation, slope, precipitation as snow), did not show strong
variability between watersheds (e.g., annual precipitation), or did not have a clear mechanism for
how they may affect salmon productivity. However, we did hypothesize that watershed size may
mediate the relationship between forest harvest and salmon survival and therefore included
watershed area as an additional covariate in our analysis. This included the main effect of watershed
area and the interaction term between watershed area and ECA, which tests if the slope of the
relationship between ECA and salmon survival differs by watershed size.
From our initial global model we evaluated support for alternative random effect structures
following methods in Zuur et al. (2009). All candidate random effect structures were fit to the data
with restricted maximum likelihood and evaluated based on AIC scores. For Chum Salmon we
found the strongest support for a random effect structure of year nested within management area
and a cross random effect with a watershed-level random intercept and random slope for ECA. For
even and odd-year Pink Salmon we found the strongest support for the random effect structure of
year nested within area. However, a crossed random effect structure for Pink Salmon including a
watershed-level intercept and a watershed-level random slope for ECA also had reasonably strong
support (AIC difference of 4.8 (even) and 6.0 (odd)). Since exploratory analysis revealed large
differences in the relationship between ECA and survivorship across watersheds, we chose to
include a watershed-level random slope of ECA in our models for all species. This allowed the
relationship between ECA and survival to differ by watershed (e.g., see Appendix B).
We quantified the evidence for an influence of ECA and watershed area on Pink and Chm Salmon
survival in multimodal framework with model averaging (see Grueber et al. 2011). We tested all
model combinations of ECA and watershed area, but only considered models with a population-
specific density dependence term (bSi,t) to account for unique population-level attributes across
watersheds. From the five possible fixed effect covariate combinations with ECA, watershed area
and their interaction term, we selected top models based on a ∆AIC< 4 (Table 6). We generated
model-averaged predictions of the effects of ECA on survivorship by weighting top models
predictions by their relative Akaike weight scores. The models were fit to the data using the lme4
package in R (Bates et al. 2015) and the MuMIn package in R was used for model averaging (Barton
2016). We followed updated methods from Grueber et al. (2011) for model averaging and generating
coefficient plots using the natural average method across the five unique covariate combinations.
We quantified the predicted effects of increases in ECA (e.g., from 0% - 30% ECA) on salmon
productivity for each population using response plots. To generate these predictions we held

1250-07 Page | 23
spawner abundance at its median value for each population and then predicted productivity across a
range of ECA values (from 0 - 30%) while accounting for all population-level random effects. We
converted these values from changes in productivity ln(R/S) to changes in survival (%) by
exponentiating the difference between predicted productivity at ECAfinal and ECAinitial (1 –
exp([ln(R/S) at ECAfinal] – [ln(R/S) at ECAinitial])) x -100.
To better understand the sensitivity of including the private forestry data sources, we re-ran these
analyses with and without the private TFL data.

6. RESULTS

6.1. Chum Salmon
We found evidence of a strong negative effect of ECA on Chum Salmon survival across all
populations considered (Figure 6, Figure 7A). Once accounting for density dependence that was
allowed to vary by watershed, the top three models all included ECA (Table 6, AIC Weight of ECA
= 0.99). The effect of watershed area and the interaction term between watershed area and ECA
were not significant and had relatively low support (AIC Weight of the watershed area term = 0.43).
Across all populations, the predicted decline in Chum Salmon survival was -28.6% for an increase in
ECA from 0% to 10%, -39.6% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 15%, -48.9% for an increase in
ECA from 0% to 20% and -63.5% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 30% (Figure 8). The
predicted relationships between ECA and Chum Salmon survival are shown for each population in
Appendix C.
We also found strong evidence of a negative effect of ECA on Chum Salmon survival at the Phillips
River. Chum Salmon productivity was similar between the Phillips River and the global average
productivity across all populations (e.g., based on the intercepts of the Survival-ECA relationships in
Figure 7A and B). However, the negative relationship between ECA and Chum Salmon survival was
predicted to be slightly steeper at the Phillips River compared to the global average across all
populations. At the Phillips River the predicted decline in Chum Salmon survival was -34.6% for an
increase in ECA from 0% to 10%, -47.1% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 15% and -57.3% for
an increase in ECA from 0% to 20% (Figure 9). Note that using this method to calculate ECA, the
ECA at Phillips River peaked at 18% and remained above 15% for more than 18 years and above
10% for more than thirty years.

6.2. Even-year Pink Salmon
We found evidence of a strong negative effect of ECA on even-year Pink Salmon survival across all
populations considered (Figure 6, Figure 7A). After accounting for within population density
dependence the top three models included ECA (Table 6, AIC Weight of ECA = 0.91). Watershed
area was also observed in the top model suggesting that even-year Pink Salmon are more productive

1250-07 Page | 24
in larger watersheds. The interaction term between watershed area and ECA had relatively low
support (AIC Weight = 0.13). Across all populations the predicted decline in even-year Pink Salmon
survival was -25.9% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 10%, -36.2% for an increase in ECA from
0% to 15%, -45.1% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 20% and -59.3% for an increase in ECA
from 0% to 30% (Figure 8). The predicted relationships between ECA and even-year Pink Salmon
survival are shown for each population in Appendix C.
We also found a strong negative effect of ECA on even-year Pink Salmon survival at the Phillips
River. Even-year Pink Salmon productivity was higher at the Phillips River compared to the global
average productivity across all populations (e.g., compare the intercepts of the Survival-ECA
relationships in Figure 7A and B). The negative relationship between ECA and even-year Pink
Salmon survival was similar between the Phillips River and the global average across all populations.
At the Phillips River the predicted decline in even-year Pink Salmon survival was -25.6% for an
increase in ECA from 0% to 10%, -37.5% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 15% and -44.5% for
an increase in ECA from 0% to 20% (Figure 9).

6.3. Odd-year Pink Salmon
In a hierarchical analysis of stock-recruitment dynamics, we found a weak negative effect of ECA on
odd-year Pink Salmon survival across all populations considered (Figure 6, Figure 7A). The top
model predicting odd-year Pink Salmon survival only included the density dependence term that was
allowed to vary by watershed (Table 6). ECA had a relatively low likelihood (AIC Weight = 0.37).
The effect of watershed area and the interaction term between watershed area and ECA were also
not significant and had relatively low likelihood (AIC Weight of the watershed area term = 0.50).
Across all populations the predicted decline in odd-year Pink Salmon survival was -3.3% for an
increase in ECA from 0% to 10%, -4.9% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 15%, -6.5% for an
increase in ECA from 0% to 20% and -9.5% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 30% (Figure 8).
The predicted relationships between ECA and odd-year Pink Salmon survival are shown for each
population in Appendix C.
We also found a weak negative effect of ECA on odd-year Pink Salmon survival at the Phillips
River. Odd-year Pink Salmon productivity was higher at the Phillips River compared to the global
average productivity across all populations (e.g., based on the intercepts of the Survival-ECA
relationships in Figure 7A and B). The negative relationship between ECA and odd-year Pink
Salmon survival was slightly steeper at the Phillips River compared with the global average across all
populations. At the Phillips River the predicted decline in odd-year Pink Salmon survival was -6%
for an increase in ECA from 0% to 10%, -8.9% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 15% and -
11.7% for an increase in ECA from 0% to 20% (Figure 9).

1250-07 Page | 25
Table 6. Top models predicting Chum and Pink Salmon productivity. Grey shading
indicates models with relatively little support (i.e., ∆AIC > 4).
Species Intercept ECA1 Area2 Area2:ECA1 River ID:S df Log-likelihood AICc ∆ AIC Weight

1.44 -0.031 - - + 60 -2,881.28 5,886.51 0.00 0.56
0.99 0.052 0.052 -0.009 + 62 -2,879.97 5,888.16 1.66 0.24
Chum
1.42 -0.031 0.002 - + 61 -2,881.28 5,888.63 2.13 0.19
Salmon
1.35 - - - + 59 -2,886.62 5,895.06 8.55 0.01
1.52 - -0.019 - + 60 -2,886.37 5,896.69 10.18 0.00
0.60 -0.031 0.070 - + 51 -1,454.39 3,017.03 0.00 0.40
Pink
1.22 -0.029 - - + 50 -1,455.58 3,017.16 0.13 0.38
Salmon
0.65 -0.041 0.063 0.001 + 52 -1,454.38 3,019.27 2.24 0.13
(even
1.06 - - - + 49 -1,458.74 3,021.24 4.21 0.05
year)
0.53 - 0.059 - + 50 -1,457.89 3,021.79 4.75 0.04
1.07 - - - + 46 -1,199.44 2,496.92 0.00 0.34
Pink 1.68 - -0.066 - + 47 -1,198.49 2,497.28 0.36 0.29
Salmon 1.12 -0.011 - - + 47 -1,199.06 2,498.44 1.52 0.16
(odd year) 1.02 0.143 0.014 -0.017 + 49 -1,197.20 2,499.27 2.35 0.11
1.64 -0.006 -0.059 - + 48 -1,198.37 2,499.34 2.42 0.10
Full Model: ln(R/S) ~ ECA + Area + ECA:Area + RiverID:S + (1|Yr/Area) + (ECA|RiverID)
1
Area values are log(Watershed Area (ha)) for each unique River ID
2
ECA values are year-specific Equivalent Clearcut Area (%) estimates for each River ID

1250-07 Page | 26
Figure 6. Model-averaged coefficient plots showing the effect of ECA, watershed area
(Area) and the interaction between ECA and watershed area on Chum and
Pink Salmon survival. Error bars represent the model averaged 95%
confidence intervals for each parameter.

1250-07 Page | 27
Figure 7. Model-averaged predictions of Chum and Pink Salmon productivity in
ln(Recruits/Spawner) as a function of % ECA across all watersheds (A) and
for Phillips River only (B).

1250-07 Page | 28
Figure 8. Average predicted change in Chum and Pink Salmon survival across all
populations based on various increases in watershed ECA. As per equation 4,
the estimated percent mortality due to ECA is equal to (1 – exp(𝜷𝟏 ×ECA)) x
100.

1250-07 Page | 29
Figure 9. Predicted change in Chum and Pink Salmon survival in the Phillips River
watershed based on various increases in watershed ECA. As per equation 4,
the estimated percent mortality due to ECA is equal to (1 – exp(𝜷𝟏 ×ECA)) x
100.

1250-07 Page | 30
6.4. Sensitivity of results to removal of TFL data
Our results were generally not sensitive to exclusion of the TFL 45 and 47 data owned by Interfor
and TimberWest. We found a strong negative effect of ECA on Chum Salmon survival across all
populations considered that was nearly identical to the result observed on the full dataset (Table 7,
Figure 10). The strong negative relationship between ECA and even-year Pink Salmon survival was
present but was modestly weaker than with the full dataset. The AIC weight (or likelihood) of the
ECA term for even-year Pink Salmon declined from 0.91 to 0.78. The weak negative relationship
between ECA and odd-year Pink Salmon survival was also the same compared to the full dataset.
Table 7. Top models predicting Chum and Pink Salmon productivity using ECA data
acquired only from public sources and excluding private forestry age data
layers (exception: TFL 39 Block 5 = Phillips River). Grey shading indicates
models with relatively little support (i.e., ∆AIC > 4).
Species Intercept ECA1 Area2 Area2:ECA1 River ID:S df Log-likelihood AICc ∆ AIC Weight

1.43 -0.030 - - + 59 -2,826.42 5,774.71 0.00 0.59
1.46 -0.030 -0.003 - + 60 -2,826.42 5,776.83 2.12 0.20
Chum
1.06 0.045 0.042 -0.008 + 61 -2,825.39 5,776.91 2.20 0.20
Salmon
1.34 - - - + 58 -2,831.66 5,783.05 8.34 0.01
1.58 - -0.025 - + 59 -2,831.27 5,784.40 9.68 0.00
1.18 -0.024 - - + 49 -1,429.73 2,963.31 0.00 0.34
Pink
0.59 -0.025 0.066 - + 50 -1,428.65 2,963.40 0.09 0.33
Salmon
1.05 - - - + 48 -1,431.81 2,965.23 1.91 0.13
(even
0.69 -0.044 0.055 0.002 + 51 -1,428.63 2,965.62 2.31 0.11
year)
0.54 - 0.056 - + 49 -1,431.02 2,965.90 2.59 0.09
1.07 - - - + 45 -1,177.83 2,451.53 0.00 0.34
Pink 1.70 - -0.069 - + 46 -1,176.81 2,451.75 0.22 0.30
Salmon 1.11 -0.010 - - + 46 -1,177.54 2,453.21 1.68 0.15
(odd year) 1.06 0.147 0.010 -0.017 + 48 -1,175.55 2,453.80 2.26 0.11
1.68 -0.005 -0.063 - + 47 -1,176.75 2,453.91 2.38 0.10
Full Model: ln(R/S) ~ ECA + Area + ECA:Area + RiverID:S + (1|Yr/Area) + (ECA|RiverID)
1
Area values are log(Watershed Area (ha)) for each unique River ID
2
ECA values are year-specific Equivalent Clearcut Area (%) estimates for each River ID

1250-07 Page | 31
Figure 10. Average predicted change in Chum and Pink Salmon survival across all
populations based on various increases in watershed ECA using only public
data sources and excluding private forestry age data layers (exception: TFL 39
Block 5 = Phillips River). As per equation 4, the estimated percent mortality
due to ECA is equal to (1 – exp(𝜷𝟏 ×ECA)) x 100.

1250-07 Page | 32
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following points represent our primary conclusions and recommendations from this work:
1. Our analyses examined the influence of forestry (as measured by equivalent clearcut area
(ECA)) on Chum Salmon and Pink Salmon survival across 58 watersheds from Campbell
River north to Klemtu in British Columbia. We make predictions across 52 Chum Salmon,
42 even-year Pink Salmon and 39 odd-year Pink Salmon populations in this region and
specifically focus on confirming the relationship between ECA and salmon survival at the
Phillips River, a key watershed of concern for the Kwiakah Nation. Our analyses were based
on methods and approaches from recent published literature and build upon and support the
analyses conducted in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this work (Hocking and Connors 2016,
Hocking et al. 2016). To provide more confidence around our estimates of effect, we
recommend that this work be followed up with additional analyses as outlined in the points
below and that the work be subjected to external peer-review. For example, it could be
submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for scientific review and wider public profile.
2. ECA is a coarse filter indicator of the hydrological condition of a watershed such as the
magnitude of peak flows. While ECA and peak flows have been observed to be correlated to
degraded stream habitats that are important for salmonids, ECA may also be correlated to
other metrics of forest harvest disturbance such as the number of forestry-related landslides
and riparian disturbances. ECA should thus be viewed as a cumulative effect metric that may
be most useful when applied at large spatial and temporal scales. An ECA criterion of 20% is
currently being used to guide forest harvesting in important fisheries watersheds in the Great
Bear Rainforest under ecosystem based management (EBM). It is possible that this
maximum level of forest harvesting may maintain ecological integrity and human well-being
under the improved EBM forest practices; however, given the results of the present analyses,
its effectiveness in protecting salmon populations is uncertain.
3. We found strong statistical support for a negative effect of forestry (as measured by ECA)
on Chum Salmon survival across the populations we considered. For example a 15%
increase in ECA was predicted, on average, to reduce Chum salmon survival by ~ 50% per
generation. For Phillips River Chum Salmon, the median predicted % change in per
generation survival was -47.1% at a 15% ECA harvest rate. The ECA at Phillips River
peaked at 18% and remained above 15% for more than 18 years and above 10% for more
than thirty years. This suggests that Chum Salmon survival has been depressed by 30% to
50% for more than 30 years (~1980-2010) relative to what it would have been without
logging.
4. We found strong statistical support for a negative effect of forestry (as measured by ECA)
on even-year Pink Salmon survival but not odd-year Pink Salmon survival across the

1250-07 Page | 33
populations we considered. For Phillips River even-year Pink Salmon, the median % change
in per generation survival predicted by our analyses is -37.5% at a 15% ECA harvest rate.
For Phillips River odd-year Pink Salmon, the median % change in per generation survival
predicted by our analyses is -8.5% at a 15% ECA harvest rate. The ECA at Phillips River
peaked at 18% and remained above 15% for more than 18 years and above 10% for more
than thirty years. This means that even-year Pink Salmon survival is predicted to have been
depressed by 40% for roughly 20 years (~1985-2005) relative to what would have been with
no logging.
5. It is important to note that these results primarily reflect impacts from historical forest
practices including those pre- forest practices code (i.e., pre-1996). Forest practices have
improved in recent years (e.g., under EBM) and it is thought that this has led to fewer
landslides and riparian-related disturbances that are important influences on the health of
salmonid habitat. However, the delay between the impact and response to salmon
populations and their habitats can be significant. Recent analyses at Carnation Creek have
shown that the impacts of historical forest harvest may take decades to fully develop and
persist for decades longer (Tschaplinski and Pike 2017). ECA is also a lagged indicator of
forest harvest where peak ECA typically occurs several years after peak harvest and
hydrologic recovery does not occur for several decades. In the future we recommend testing
alternate hypotheses associated with time lags and potential hydrologic and stream habitat
recovery.
6. Numerous methods exist to calculate ECA based on forest composition, cutblock properties
and their configuration as well as underlying hydrological processes. Each of these methods
has different data requirements and is generally designed for small-scale surveys or the
assessment of a single watershed. Since our project required ECA estimates for numerous
watersheds of varying sizes across 400 km of coastal BC we chose to use the most
generalizable ECA calculation methods. In future work we recommend analyses that account
for different cutblock properties and forest harvest practices and tests how different ECA
metrics influence salmon survival. Now that we have the initial database set up, this work is
possible. To do this, we recommend working with Provincial Government biologists to
develop more specific hypotheses and to use the framework that we have developed here to
inform current forest practices.
7. We conducted an initial evaluation of how watershed attributes may influence salmon
productivity and may mediate the effects of forest harvest on salmon survival. We included
watershed area and it’s potentially mediating influence on the effect of ECA as variables in
our model. The watershed area by ECA interaction term tested if the effect of forest harvest
(as measured by ECA) differs by watershed size. This might occur if there are different

1250-07 Page | 34
hydrologic responses and rates of recovery in watersheds dominated by rain vs rain-on-snow
conditions. We did not find strong interactions between watershed area and ECA predicting
salmon survival.
8. Despite the substantial expansion of salmon populations presented in this analysis as
compared to Phase 1, we recommend expanding the number of populations considered even
further. For example, we were limited by the number of watersheds in our analysis that had
high levels of ECA (i.e., >15-20%). This limits the contrasts in ECA that are possible both
within and across populations. The greatest uncertainty in our results was associated with
odd-year Pink Salmon. Our analysis of odd-year Pink Salmon also had the fewest number of
populations considered (39 populations). Some of the populations that were excluded based
on limited odd-year Pink Salmon population data had high levels of ECA in the watershed.
Increasing the number of watersheds/populations considered also increases the power to
test hypotheses regarding how watershed attributes and forest management practices may
influence salmon productivity.
9. We requested some TFL data directly from the forest companies to inform this analysis. The
TFL data is generally the highest quality forest cover data among the forest cover data
sources available. We received data and signed data sharing agreements with Interfor,
TimberWest and Western Forest Products for TFL 45 (all), TFL 47 (Johnstone Strait and
Bonanza Lake management units), and TFL 39 Block 5 (Phillips River watershed),
respectively. We also requested access to TFL 25, TFL 37 and TFL 39 (Blocks 2 and 3) data
owned by Western Forest Products but were denied access to this information. These
streams on northeastern Vancouver Island and in Loughborough Inlet are thought to have
high levels of forest harvest disturbances and also support important salmon populations.
We recommend that these streams be included in future analyses. We also recommend that
this work be presented to the forest companies and that there be an opportunity for
engagement prior to publication of any findings.
10. We tested if our results were sensitive to inclusion of the TFL 45 and TFL 47 data.
Generally, our results were not sensitive to exclusion of these data, although the predictions
for even-year Pink Salmon were not quite as strongly negative as with the full dataset. It is
unclear how our predictions may change if the TFL 25, TFL 37 and TFL 39 (Blocks 2 and 3)
data were included.
11. We recommend several follow up analyses that could be conducted in future phases
including to: 1) expand the use of ECA to include a range of indicators of forestry such as
cutblock properties, landslides, watershed types and locations and elevations of harvest; 2)
test potential effects of forest harvest to Chinook, Coho and Sockeye Salmon populations in
Phillips Arm using similar methods, although obtaining quality datasets for these species will

1250-07 Page | 35
be more challenging; and 3) quantify predicted fisheries losses due to reductions in salmon
survival. These estimates of fisheries losses could then be incorporated into an economic
cost benefit analysis of forestry that explicitly accounts for the external environmental cost
of forestry on historical fisheries yield and revenue.
12. Finally, we also recommend that field surveys to validate of habitat condition be conducted
in key spawning areas for Chum and Pink Salmon. Although these habitat data would not be
able to be compared to pre-logging or peak-logging habitat condition, they would serve as a
useful baseline to any future surveys and could also be used to understand current conditions
of the stream habitat in the Phillips watershed.

Yours truly,
Ecofish Research Ltd.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:
Signed Signed
Morgan Hocking, Ph.D., R.P.Bio. Adam Lewis, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.
Senior Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Biologist/Principal

Disclaimer:
The material in this memorandum reflects the best judgement of Ecofish Research Ltd. in light of the information
available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this memorandum, or any reliance on or
decisions made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Ecofish Research Ltd. accepts no responsibility for
damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions or actions based on this memorandum. This
memorandum is a controlled document. Any reproductions of this memorandum are uncontrolled and may not be the
most recent revision.

1250-07 Page | 36
REFERENCES
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using
lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67: 1-48.
Barton, K. 2016. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.15.6. https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=MuMIn
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands Natural Resource Operation (FLNRO). 2015. BC Freshwater Atlas:
Complete Database Download (Provincial).
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/freshwater-atlas-stream-network. (Accessed 2016-
09-13).
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands Natural Resource Operation (FLNRO). 2016. BC VRI – Forest
Vegetation Composite Polygons and Rank 1 Layer :
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/vri-forest-vegetation-composite-polygons-and-
rank-1-layer. (Accessed 2016-09-13).
Chen, W., and Wei, X. 2008. Assessing the relations between aquatic habitat indicators and forest
harvesting at watershed scale in the interior of British Columbia. Forest Ecology and
Management 256: 152-160.
Coast Information Team. 2004. Hydroriparian planning guide. The Hydroriparian Planning Guide
Work Team, January, 2004.
Connors, B.M., Krkosek, M., Ford, J., and Dill, L.M. 2010. Coho salmon productivity in relation to
salmon lice from infected prey and salmon farms. J. Appl. Ecol. 47: 1372–1377.
English, K., Mochizuki, T., and Robichaud, D. 2013. Review of North and Central Coast salmon
indicator streams and estimating escapement, catch and run size for each salmon
conservation unit. Prepared by LGL Limited for the Pacific Salmon Foundation and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Dataset downloaded from:
http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/library/lib_2/
Grant, G.E., Lewis, S.L., Swanson, F.J., Cissel, J.H., and McDonnell, J.J. 2008. Effects of forest
practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for
western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-760. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p.
Grueber, C. E., Nakagawa, S., Laws, R. J., and Jamieson, I. G. (2011). Multimodel inference in
ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions. Journal of evolutionary biology 24(4): 699-
711.
Hocking, M.D. and B. Connors. 2015. Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis. Draft V1. Consultant’s
report prepared for the Kwiakah First Nation by Ecofish Research Ltd., December, 2015.

1250-07 Page | 37
Hocking, M.D., Bayly, M., and Connors, B. 2016. Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 2.
Draft V1. Consultant’s report prepared for the Kwiakah First Nation by Ecofish Research
Ltd., September, 2016.

Hocking, M.D., Okey, T.A., Ballin, L., and Hatfield, T. 2015. Phillips Arm Aquatic Resource
Assessment. Draft V1. Consultant’s report prepared for the Kwiakah First Nation by
Ecofish Research Ltd., March, 2015.
Hudson, R. 2000. Snowpack recovery in regenerating coastal British Columbia clearcuts. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 30: 548–556.
Hudson, R. 2002. Effects of Forest Harvesting and Regeneration on Peak Streamflow in a Coastal
Watershed. Forest Research Technical Report TR-022 (Hydrology). Vancouver Forest
Region, Nanaimo BC.
Krkosek, M., Connors, B.M., Morton, A., Lewis, M.A., Dill, L.M., and Hilborn, R. 2011. Effects of
parasites from salmon farms on productivity of wild salmon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108:
14700–14704.
Krkosek, M., and Hilborn, R. 2011. Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestations and the productivity
of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia,
Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 17-29.
Lewis, D., Huggard, D. 2010. A model to quantify the effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on equivalent
clearcut area. Watershed Management Bulletin 13(2): 42-51.
MacIsaac, E.A. 2010. Salmonids and the hydrologic and geomorphic features of their spawning
streams in British Columbia. Ch. 14 in Pike et al. (ed.). Compendium of forest hydrology and
geomorphology in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forest and Range, Forest Science
Program, Victoria, B.C. and FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural
Resources, Kamloops, B.C. Land Management Handbook 66 pp. 461-478.
Ministry of Forests. 2001. Watershed assessment procedure guidebook. 2nd ed., Version 2.1 Forest
Practices Branch, Victoria, B.C. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Guidebook.
Moore, K. 1991. An inventory of watersheds in the coastal temperate forests of British Columbia.
Earthlife Canada Foundation & Ecotrust/Conservation International.
Moore, R.D., and Wondzell, S.M. 2005. Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in
the Pacific Northwest: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:
763-784.

1250-07 Page | 38
Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2016. Canadian Geogratis: Canadian Digital Elevation Model 50k
CDEM . http://ftp.geogratis.gc.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/elevation/geobase_cded_dnec/
(Accessed Downloaded 2016-09-13).
Peacock, S.J., Krkosek, M., Proboszcz, S., Orr, C., and Lewis, M.A. 2013. Cessation of a salmon
decline with control of parasites. Ecol. Appl. 23, 606 – 620.
Peacock, S.J., Connors, B.M., Krkosek, M., Irvine, J.R., and Lewis, M.A. 2014. Can reduced
predation offset negative effects of sea louse parasites on chum salmon? Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281: 20132913.
Pike, R.G., Redding, T.E., Moore, R.D., Winkler, R.D., and Bladon, K.D. (ed.). 2010. Compendium
of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forest and
Range, Forest Science Program, Victoria, B.C. and FORREX Forum for Research and
Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, B.C. Land Management Handbook.
Pyper, B.J., Mueter, F.J., Peterman, R.M., Blackburn, D.J., and Wood, C.C. 2001. Spatial covariation
in survival rates of Northeast Pacific pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1501-1515.
Pyper, B.J., Mueter, F.J., and Peterman, R.M. 2002. Spatial covariation in survival rates of
Northeastern Pacific chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 131: 343-363.
Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington
Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Ricker, W. 1954. Stock and recruitment. J. Fish. Board Can. 11: 559 – 623.
Schnorbus, M., and Alila, Y. 2004. Forest harvesting impacts on the peak flow regime in the
Columbia Mountains of southeastern British Columbia: An investigation using long-term
numerical modeling. Water Resources Research 40(5): W05205.
Tschaplinski, P.J., and Pike, R.G. 2010. Riparian Management and Effects on Function (Chapter 15).
In Pike, R.G., T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler, and K.D. Bladon (editors). 2010.
Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry
of Forest and Range, Forest Science Program, Victoria, B.C. and FORREX Forum for
Research and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, B.C. Land Management
Handbook 66 pp. 479-525.
Tschaplinski, P.J., and Pike, R.G. 2017. Carnation Creek watershed experiment – long-term
responses of coho salmon populations to historic forest practices. Ecohydrology 2017;
e1812; DOI 10.1002/eco.1812.

1250-07 Page | 39
Wei, X., and Zhang, M. 2011. Research methods for assessing the impacts of forest disturbance on
hydrology at large-scale watersheds. In Li et al. (ed.) Landscape ecology in forest
management and conservation. Springer. pp. 119-147.
Winkler, R.D., Moore, R.D., Redding, T.E., Spittlehouse, D.L., Smerdon, B.D., and Carlyle-Moses,
D.E. 2010. The Effects of Forest Disturbance on Hydrologic Processes and Watershed
Response (Chapter 7). In Pike, R.G., T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler, and K.D.
Bladon (editors). 2010. Compendium of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British
Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forest and Range, Forest Science Program, Victoria, B.C. and
FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, B.C. Land
Management Handbook 66 pp. 179-212.
Zuur, A., Leno, E.N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A.A. and Smith, G.M. 2009. Mixed Effect Models and
Extensions in Ecology with R. Springer (online).

Personal Communications
VanWill, Pieter. 2015. Stock Assessment Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Email
communication with Brendan Connors, Senior Systems Ecologist, ESSA Technologies Ltd.,
on November 13th 2015.

1250-07 Page | 40
APPENDICES

1250-07 Page | 41
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3

Appendix A. Trends in Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) and Chum and Pink Salmon
productivy across watersheds.

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page i

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Ahnuhati River ............................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Ahta River ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Allard Creek.................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4. Carter River .................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 5. Cascade River ................................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 6. Chuckwalla River ........................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 7. Clatse Creek .................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8. Clyak River ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 9. Elcho Creek .................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 10. Grassy Creek ................................................................................................................................10
Figure 11. Homathko River ..........................................................................................................................11
Figure 12. Hook Nose Creek........................................................................................................................12
Figure 13. James Bay Creek ..........................................................................................................................13
Figure 14. Johnston Creek ............................................................................................................................14
Figure 15. Kainet Creek.................................................................................................................................15
Figure 16. Kakweiken River..........................................................................................................................16
Figure 17. Kilbella River................................................................................................................................17
Figure 18. Kimsquit River .............................................................................................................................18
Figure 19. Kingcome River ...........................................................................................................................19
Figure 20. Klinaklini River ............................................................................................................................20
Figure 21. Koeye River ..................................................................................................................................21
Figure 22. Kwakusdis River ..........................................................................................................................22
Figure 23. Kwalate Creek ..............................................................................................................................23
Figure 24. Kwatna River................................................................................................................................24
Figure 25. Lard Creek ....................................................................................................................................25
Figure 26. Lockhart Gordon Creek .............................................................................................................26
Figure 27. MacNair Creek .............................................................................................................................27
Figure 28. Matsiu Creek ................................................................................................................................28

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page ii

Figure 29. Milton River .................................................................................................................................29
Figure 30. Mussel River .................................................................................................................................30
Figure 31. Nameless Creek ...........................................................................................................................31
Figure 32. Neekas Creek ...............................................................................................................................32
Figure 33. Nekite River .................................................................................................................................33
Figure 34. Noeick River ................................................................................................................................34
Figure 35. Nootum River ..............................................................................................................................35
Figure 36. Orford River.................................................................................................................................36
Figure 37. Phillips River ................................................................................................................................37
Figure 38. Poison Cover Creek ....................................................................................................................38
Figure 39. Quartcha Creek ............................................................................................................................39
Figure 40. Quantam River.............................................................................................................................40
Figure 41. Quatlena River .............................................................................................................................41
Figure 42. Rainbow Creek.............................................................................................................................42
Figure 43. Read Creek ...................................................................................................................................43
Figure 44. Roscoe Creek ...............................................................................................................................44
Figure 45. Salmon Bay Creek .......................................................................................................................45
Figure 46. Seymour River ..............................................................................................................................46
Figure 47. Shushartie River ...........................................................................................................................47
Figure 48. Skowquiltz River ..........................................................................................................................48
Figure 49. Southgate River ............................................................................................................................49
Figure 50. Taaltz Creek..................................................................................................................................50
Figure 51. Takush River ................................................................................................................................51
Figure 52. Taleomey River ............................................................................................................................52
Figure 53. Viner Sound Creek ......................................................................................................................53
Figure 54. Wakeman River ............................................................................................................................54
Figure 55. Walkum Creek..............................................................................................................................55
Figure 56. Warner Bay Creek........................................................................................................................56
Figure 57. Waump Creek ..............................................................................................................................57

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page iii

Figure 58. Wortley Creek ..............................................................................................................................58

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 1

Figure 1. Ahnuhati River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 2

Figure 2. Ahta River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 3

Figure 3. Allard Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 4

Figure 4. Carter River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 5

Figure 5. Cascade River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 6

Figure 6. Chuckwalla River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 7

Figure 7. Clatse Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 8

Figure 8. Clyak River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 9

Figure 9. Elcho Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 10

Figure 10. Grassy Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 11

Figure 11. Homathko River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 12

Figure 12. Hook Nose Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 13

Figure 13. James Bay Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 14

Figure 14. Johnston Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 15

Figure 15. Kainet Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 16

Figure 16. Kakweiken River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 17

Figure 17. Kilbella River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 18

Figure 18. Kimsquit River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 19

Figure 19. Kingcome River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 20

Figure 20. Klinaklini River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 21

Figure 21. Koeye River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 22

Figure 22. Kwakusdis River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 23

Figure 23. Kwalate Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 24

Figure 24. Kwatna River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 25

Figure 25. Lard Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 26

Figure 26. Lockhart Gordon Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 27

Figure 27. MacNair Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 28

Figure 28. Matsiu Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 29

Figure 29. Milton River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 30

Figure 30. Mussel River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 31

Figure 31. Nameless Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 32

Figure 32. Neekas Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 33

Figure 33. Nekite River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 34

Figure 34. Noeick River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 35

Figure 35. Nootum River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 36

Figure 36. Orford River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 37

Figure 37. Phillips River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 38

Figure 38. Poison Cover Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 39

Figure 39. Quartcha Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 40

Figure 40. Quantam River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 41

Figure 41. Quatlena River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 42

Figure 42. Rainbow Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 43

Figure 43. Read Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 44

Figure 44. Roscoe Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 45

Figure 45. Salmon Bay Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 46

Figure 46. Seymour River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 47

Figure 47. Shushartie River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 48

Figure 48. Skowquiltz River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 49

Figure 49. Southgate River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 50

Figure 50. Taaltz Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 51

Figure 51. Takush River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 52

Figure 52. Taleomey River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 53

Figure 53. Viner Sound Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 54

Figure 54. Wakeman River
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 55

Figure 55. Walkum Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 56

Figure 56. Warner Bay Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 57

Figure 57. Waump Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 58

Figure 58. Wortley Creek
(A) Annual time series trends of ECA (equivalent clearcut area) and disturbance (B) Spawner-recruit observations across years for Pink and Chum Salmon. (C) Map
insert showing watershed boundary (pink), non-forested area (grey, light blue and white), forested areas (green) and areas of recent disturbance (yellow/brown).

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3

Appendix B. Exploratory plots of the residuals from linearized Ricker recruits per spawner
model against equivalent clearcut area (ECA).
The following plots were generated for each salmon species by plotting residuals from the linearized
transformation of the Ricker Spawner-Recruit model against ECA. These plots serve as a raw
visualization of the modelled data for each salmon population with ECA. Residuals from the Ricker
SR model demonstrate additional variation in productivity for each population, after accounting for
expected recruit abundance based on population density dependence. Flat trend lines would
potentially indicate weak to negligible effect of ECA on salmon productivity whereas negative slopes
suggest there is a negative impact on population productivity. Interpretation of these plots should be
treated with caution since they do not account for year and regional specific variability shared across
neighbouring watersheds.

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page i

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Chum Salmon residual plots Survival-ECA .............................................................................. 1
Figure 2. Pink Salmon (even-year) residual plots Survival-ECA ............................................................. 2
Figure 3. Pink Salmon (odd-year) residual plots Survival-ECA .............................................................. 3

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 1

Figure 1. Chum Salmon residual plots Survival-ECA
Residuals from the linearized transformation of the Ricker spawner-recruit model are plotted on the y-axis for each
watershed and ECA are plotted on the x-axis for each watershed. Watersheds are sorted based on their maximum
observed ECA value over the study period. Only the first 25 watersheds are shown.

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 2

Figure 2. Pink Salmon (even-year) residual plots Survival-ECA
Residuals from the linearized transformation of the Ricker spawner-recruit model are plotted on the y-axis for each
watershed and ECA are plotted on the x-axis for each watershed. Watersheds are sorted based on their maximum
observed ECA value over the study period.

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 3

Figure 3. Pink Salmon (odd-year) residual plots Survival-ECA
Residuals from the linearized transformation of the Ricker spawner-recruit model are plotted on the y-axis for each
watershed and ECA are plotted on the x-axis for each watershed. Watersheds are sorted based on their maximum
observed ECA value over the study period.

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3

Appendix C. Predicted response of Chum and Pink Salmon survival at changes in ECA.
The following figures show the predicted change in survival for a corresponding change in ECA
(e.g., 0% to 20%) across all watersheds. Response plots were generated from global model average
predictions (methods described in test). Final predictions shown here include all random effects for
each watershed.

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page i

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Ahnuhati River ............................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Ahta River ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 3. Allard Creek.................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 4. Carter River .................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 5. Cascade River ................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 6. Chuckwalla River ........................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 7. Clatse Creek .................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 8. Clyak River ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 9. Elcho Creek .................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 10. Homathko River ............................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 11. Grassy Creek .................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 12. Johnston Creek .............................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 13. Hook Nose Creek.......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 14. James Bay Creek ............................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 15. Kainet Creek................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 16. Kakweiken River............................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 17. Killbella River................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 18. Kimsquit River ............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 19. Kingcome River ...........................................................................................................................10
Figure 20. Klinaklini River ............................................................................................................................10
Figure 21. Koeye River ..................................................................................................................................11
Figure 22. Kwakusdis River ..........................................................................................................................11
Figure 23. Kwalate Creek ..............................................................................................................................12
Figure 24. Shushartie River ...........................................................................................................................12
Figure 25. Kwatna River................................................................................................................................13
Figure 26. Lard Creek ....................................................................................................................................13
Figure 27. Lockhart Gordon Creek .............................................................................................................14
Figure 28. MacNair Creek .............................................................................................................................14

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page ii

Figure 29. Milton River .................................................................................................................................15
Figure 30. Mussel River .................................................................................................................................15
Figure 31. Nameless Creek ...........................................................................................................................16
Figure 32. Neekas Creek ...............................................................................................................................16
Figure 33. Nekite River .................................................................................................................................17
Figure 34. Nootum River ..............................................................................................................................17
Figure 35. Orford River.................................................................................................................................18
Figure 36. Phillips River ................................................................................................................................18
Figure 37. Poison Cove Creek ......................................................................................................................19
Figure 38. Quartcha Creek ............................................................................................................................19
Figure 39. Quantam River.............................................................................................................................20
Figure 40. Quatlena River .............................................................................................................................20
Figure 41. Rainbow Creek.............................................................................................................................21
Figure 42. Read Creek ...................................................................................................................................21
Figure 43. Roscoe Creek ...............................................................................................................................22
Figure 44. Salmon Bay Creek .......................................................................................................................22
Figure 45. Seymour River ..............................................................................................................................23
Figure 46. Skowquiltz River ..........................................................................................................................23
Figure 47. Southgate River ............................................................................................................................24
Figure 48. Taaltz Creek..................................................................................................................................24
Figure 49. Takush River ................................................................................................................................25
Figure 50. Taleomey River ............................................................................................................................25
Figure 51. Viner Sound Creek ......................................................................................................................26
Figure 52. Wakeman River ............................................................................................................................26
Figure 53. Walkum Creek..............................................................................................................................27
Figure 54. Warner Bay Creek........................................................................................................................27
Figure 55. Waump Creek ..............................................................................................................................28
Figure 56. Wortley Creek ..............................................................................................................................28

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 1

Figure 1. Ahnuhati River Figure 2. Ahta River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 2

Figure 3. Allard Creek Figure 4. Carter River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 3

Figure 5. Cascade River Figure 6. Chuckwalla River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 4

Figure 7. Clatse Creek Figure 8. Clyak River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 5

Figure 9. Elcho Creek Figure 10. Homathko River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 6

Figure 11. Grassy Creek Figure 12. Johnston Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 7

Figure 13. Hook Nose Creek Figure 14. James Bay Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 8

Figure 15. Kainet Creek Figure 16. Kakweiken River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 9

Figure 17. Killbella River Figure 18. Kimsquit River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 10

Figure 19. Kingcome River Figure 20. Klinaklini River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 11

Figure 21. Koeye River Figure 22. Kwakusdis River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 12

Figure 23. Kwalate Creek Figure 24. Shushartie River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 13

Figure 25. Kwatna River Figure 26. Lard Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 14

Figure 27. Lockhart Gordon Creek Figure 28. MacNair Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 15

Figure 29. Milton River Figure 30. Mussel River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 16

Figure 31. Nameless Creek Figure 32. Neekas Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 17

Figure 33. Nekite River Figure 34. Nootum River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 18

Figure 35. Orford River Figure 36. Phillips River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 19

Figure 37. Poison Cove Creek Figure 38. Quartcha Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 20

Figure 39. Quantam River Figure 40. Quatlena River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 21

Figure 41. Rainbow Creek Figure 42. Read Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 22

Figure 43. Roscoe Creek Figure 44. Salmon Bay Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 23

Figure 45. Seymour River Figure 46. Skowquiltz River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 24

Figure 47. Southgate River Figure 48. Taaltz Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 25

Figure 49. Takush River Figure 50. Taleomey River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 26

Figure 51. Viner Sound Creek Figure 52. Wakeman River

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 27

Figure 53. Walkum Creek Figure 54. Warner Bay Creek

1250-07
Phillips Arm Salmon Data Analysis – Phase 3 Page 28

Figure 55. Waump Creek Figure 56. Wortley Creek

1250-07