1 Introduction

Since 2020, the Society for Ecosystem Restoration Northern British Columbia (SERNbc) has been undertaking an initiative to plan and conduct fish passage restoration planning activities in the Bulkley River and Morice River watershed groups which are sub-basins of the Skeena River watershed. The study area was expanded in 2022 to include the Zymoetz Watershed Group and the Kispiox River watershed group.

This report builds on reporting from field activities conducted in 2020 (Irvine 2021) and 2021 which can be viewed interactively here and here. Additionally, although part of the same overall intitive, to facilitate timelines, reporting for field activities conducted in the Bulkley River Watershed Group in 2022 have been included under separate cover and can be viewed here.

Please note that at the time of reporting, this document was a living document changing over time. Version numbers are logged for each release with modifications, enhancements and other changes tracked here. Issues and planned enhancements are tracked here.

The health and viability of freshwater fish populations can depend on access to tributary and off channel areas which provide refuge during high flows, opportunities for foraging, overwintering habitat, spawning habitat and summer rearing habitat (Bramblett et al. 2002; Swales and Levings 1989; Diebel et al. 2015). Culverts can present barriers to fish migration due to low water depth, increased water velocity, turbulence, a vertical drop at the culvert outlet and/or maintenance issues (Slaney, Zaldokas, and Watershed Restoration Program (B.C.) 1997; Cote et al. 2005). As road crossing structures are commonly upgraded or removed there are numerous opportunities to restore connectivity by ensuring that fish passage considerations are incorporated into repair, replacement, relocation and deactivation designs.

Although remediation and replacement of stream crossing structures can have benefits to local fish populations, the costs of remedial works can be significant and the impacts of the work often complex to evaluate and quantify. Additionally, allocation of ecosystem restoration funding towards infrastructure upgrades on transportation right of ways are not always considered ethical under all circumstances from all perspectives. When funds are finite and invested groups are engaged in fund raising, cost benefits and the ethics of crossing replacements should be explored collaboratively alongside the cost benefits and ethics of alternative investment activities including transportation corridor relocation/deactivation, land procurement/covenant, cattle exclusion, riparian/floodplain restoration, habitat complexing, water conservation, commercial/recreational fishing management, salt water interventions and research.