BC Timber Sales - British Columbia R1 ---- Riparian function left bank Map R2 ---- Riparian function right bank Map R3 ---- Riparian vegetation left bank Map R4 ---- Riparian vegetation

BC Timber Sales Strait of Georgia Business Area

Burman-Jacklah Watershed Indicators

Forest Investment Account Project #6893001

September 22, 2009

Prepared by:

Glynnis Horel, P. Eng. G.M. Horel Engineering Ltd.

2639 Barnes Road, Nanaimo, B.C. V9X 1N3 Phone: (250) 722-7166 Email: [email protected]

Section PageAcknowledgements i1.0 Introduction 12.0 Information available 23.0 Study area 24.0 Watershed indicators -- discussion 4

4.1 Road density 54.2 Equivalent clearcut area (ECA) 64.3 Streams 74.4 Riparian disturbance 84.5 Landslides 10

5.0 Selection of data for indicators 105.1 Watershed data 10

6.0 Methods 136.1 Landslides 136.2 Road stability hazard rating 136.3 Sediment delivery potential to fish 146.4 Steam channel types 146.5 Riparian condition 15

7.0 Watershed risk ratings 157.1 Qualitative ratings for sensitivity, disturbance and risk 15

7.1.1 Watershed characteristics 167.1.2 Watershed disturbance 197.1.3 Watershed risk rating 21

8.0 Fisheries Rank 219.0 Important Fisheries Watersheds 2210.0 Watershed Condition and Trends 1011.0 Watershed Indicators 23

11.1 Indicators for On-going Forest Management 2311.2 Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management Objectives 23

12.0 Future Restoration Projects 2413.0 Comment on Findings 26References 31

Tables and figures within report text Follows pageFigure 1 Location 1Figure 2 Watershed units 1Table 1a/1b Climate summaries 3Figure 3 Photo - Burman rockslide on page 4Figure 4 Watershed risk and trend 15Figure 5 Watershed units by risk category 21Figure 6 Watershed trends and fish rank 22Table 2 Proposed indicators and monitoring intervals for on-going forest management 23Table 3 Proposed SFM indicators and targets 24Figure 7 Harvest history in Burman watershed 26Figure 8 Logged riparian areas along Burman River - 1995 airphotos 26Figure 9 Photo - upper Popsicle Creek valley on page 27Figure 10 Disturbances recorded in forest cover 27Figure 11 Photo - Jacklah River on page 28Figure 12 Photo - Wilson Creek on page 28Figure 13 Photo - Landslide in Matchlee watershed on page 29Figure 14 Rate of logging in project area on page 30

Table of Contents

BC Timber Sales, Strait of Georgia Business AreaBurman-Jacklah Watershed Indicators

BC Timber Sales, Strait of Georgia Business AreaBurman-Jacklah Watershed Indicators

AppendicesAppendix A Notes on Tables

Table A1 Watershed descriptions and trendsTables A2a & A2b Summary of data by watershed (A2a) & by region (A2b)Table A3 Watershed Risk RatingTable A4 Fish Ranking (M. Belisle)

Appendix B Definitions

Appendix C Project Workplan

Appendix D Map atlas separate document

Map E1 ---- Biogeoclimatic zonesMap E2 ---- Elevation bandsMap G1 ---- Bedrock geologyMap B1 ---- Burman watershed satellite imageMap S1 ---- Era of road construction (pre and post Code )Map S2 ---- Road stability hazard and landslidesMap S3 ---- Road stability hazard and deactivationMap S4 ---- Road grades steeper than 10%Map C1 ---- Stream gradientsMap C2 ---- Channel typesMap C3 ---- Fish rankMap R1 ---- Riparian function left bankMap R2 ---- Riparian function right bankMap R3 ---- Riparian vegetation left bankMap R4 ---- Riparian vegetation right bankMap F1 ---- Potential sites for riparian assessmentMap F2 ---- Potential sites for instream assessmentMap F3 ---- Priority road sections for deactivation assessment

(nonstatus roads)

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Laura Chessor for project coordination; to David Campbell, P. Geo. for his thorough review; to Rick Eriksen for his information and participation in the field reconnaissance; and to Clark Lowe for his assistance with spatial data.

Burman-Jacklah Watershed Indicators –21 September 2009

Page 1 of 33

1.0 INTRODUCTION This project was initiated by BC Timber Sales (BCTS) to provide the basis for physical watershed assessment and to develop indicators for watersheds in the Burman-Jacklah area, formerly part of Tree Farm License 19. The project area, located on the west side of Vancouver Island (Figure 1), is 16,452 ha. It includes the portion of the Burman watershed that is outside of Strathcona Park. Assessing the watershed within the park was not within the scope of the project. The objectives are: To propose indicators for tracking the effectiveness of forest management strategies,

and indicators for Sustainable Forest Management of watersheds; To identify candidate sites for possible riparian, in-stream restoration and road

deactivation projects; and To characterize physical watershed conditions as the basis for developing forest

management strategies. (The management strategies are not part of this project.) This project consisted of the following tasks (as per workplan, Appendix C): A. Planning-level (1:20,000 scale) watershed information: For the entire project area: 1. Identify landslides from airphotos, satellite imagery and helicopter reconnaissance. 2. Assign stability hazard ratings for all road segments with a moderate or higher hazard of

fillslope instability, cost-shared between BCTS and FIA based on the lengths of permitted vs nonstatus roads.

3. Assign sediment delivery potential to fish and other values for road segments with a

moderate or higher stability hazard rating, also cost shared based on lengths of permitted vs nonstatus roads.

4. Identify stream channel type (alluvial, semi-alluvial, nonalluvial) and streams on alluvial

fans, for all streams in BCTS’s spatial data set. 5. Identify riparian condition and function for alluvial and semi-alluvial streams that are not

S6’s. This project actually assigned riparian condition for all mapped streams. B. Watershed indicators For primary watersheds and major basins of large watersheds, where BCTS’s area is greater than 1,000 ha (Figure 2): 1. Compile the above inventory data by individual watershed unit.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

�! ��"��#$$%&��'��

(��)"��*��+��

,��-��.��

/��'-'0$$$$$$

��

�

0$ $ 0$ 1��

��.��

��+��

�

��.��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�#$%�&��$%�&��'�$(�)�"��!�&�%��"�

�$�&��"��*�

�� +�*�"�� $��"

�,%��-�"��!�&�%��"��&��+�*�"�� $��"�

� � � .�+$*�"��/��0��/

1�2��3%+'��4��)��#'/��,*!


Page 2 of 33

2. From this data, develop qualitative factors to rank watershed sensitivity, watershed disturbance, and risk.

3. From the above information, identify current trends in watershed condition, sensitive

areas in each watershed, and key concerns for watershed management. 4. Select indicators to track ongoing forest management practices, and to track long term

Sustainable Forest Management objectives for watershed condition. 5. Using the above inventory information and other BCTS spatial data, develop criteria and

identify candidate sites for site assessments for road deactivation, riparian condition and in-stream restoration.

Because many of the watershed units in the study area were small, this project actually compiled data and assigned indicators for watershed units as small as 348 ha. The total area of watershed units for which indicators were assigned is 13,329 ha and comprises 81% of the project area. The balance of the area is face units draining directly to the sea, for which individual stream drainage areas are less than 348 ha. 2.0 INFORMATION AVAILABLE The following information was used in this project. • 1995 black and white airphotos; • 2007 Spot 5 satellite image; • Digital spatial inventory data available as of June 2009 from BCTS’s Geographic

Information System (GIS) including: - TRIM (20 m) contours - Water features including streams and lakes - Forest cover and harvest history - Terrain stability mapping (Class 4 and 5 terrain) - Roads

The stream data includes Forest Practices Code riparian classes (S1 to S6). Some streams were unclassified, and in a few cases, the classifications appear unlikely. The following information was available from public sources: • Bedrock geology mapping at 1:250,000 scale • Biogeoclimatic mapping • Environment Canada climate data • Climate data projections from the ClimateBC website. 3.0 STUDY AREA The study area is on the south side and west end of Muchalat Inlet and encompasses slopes and small primary watersheds draining into both sides of Matchlee Bay, as well as the Jacklah watershed, part of the Wilson watershed (shared with Western Forest Products Inc.), and the portion of the Burman watershed (23%) that is outside of Strathcona Park.


Page 3 of 33

The study area is in Snow Zone 1, the wettest zone on the windward side of Vancouver Island (Hudson 2004). Climate data from the nearest Environment Canada climate stations are in Table 1a; station locations are shown on Figure 1. Precipitation, temperature and snowpack projections from ClimateBC for various points within the study area (Figure 2) are in Table 1b. Precipitation projected by Climate BC ranges from 2,994 mm at the north end of Matchlee Bay to 4,271 mm at the southern tip of Jacklah-3, the headwater basin of Jacklah River. Precipitation generally increases to the west and south of the study area, and also increases with elevation. Elevation ranges from sea level to 1,820 m at the drainage divide between the Matchlee and Popsicle Creek drainages. B.C’s Biogeoclimatic Ecological Classification (Map E1) show the study area ranging from submontane very wet maritime (CWH vm1) at sea level through montane very wet maritime (CWH vm2) at mid elevations and into windward moist maritime (MH mm1) at upper elevations. Matchlee Creek, Popsicle Creek and the north edge of Burman Remainder extend into alpine tundra (AT). BCTS’s forest cover, at a finer scale than the BEC zones, shows more extensive alpine areas (Map E1). The primary peak flow regimes for watershed units in the study area are most likely rain and rain-on-snow. Watershed units closer to the ocean or with limited high elevation areas (Wilson, A, B, Jacklah and Burman Basins 1, 2 and 3) probably have a greater proportion of rain-driven peak flow events. Watershed units with more extensive high elevation zones (Burman, Matchlee) (Map E2) may have a greater proportion of rain-on-snow events. Late-persisting snowpacks at higher elevations may help to elevate flows into summer in some basins but annual peak flows from snowmelt events alone are unlikely. The Burman River is ungauged. In a hydrotechncial assessment of the Burman River, Askin (2009) used data from Water Survey of Canada gauging stations for the Gold, Ucona, Heber, Elk and Zeballos Rivers and Tofino Creek. Using maximum annual instantaneous discharge, he determined that 83% of the recorded peak flow events occurred between September and December, with the most frequent number of events (44%) in November. The period from January to April accounted for only 16% of annual maximum instantaneous discharges. This is consistent with peak flow events being mainly driven by rain and rain on snow. Askin determined that a peak flow with a return period of 2 years for the Burman would be approximately 420 m3/sec (from Figure 5 of his report); and a peak flow with a 100 year return period would be approximately 1,300 m3/sec. Map G1 shows bedrock geology. The two dominant bedrock units in the study area are Karmutsen volcanics (uTrK) and granitic rocks of the Island Intrusions (JI). There is a small occurrence of Parson Bay/Quatsino sedimentary units (uTrs) along the southwest margin of Jacklah-3. There are numerous rockslides, rockfalls and talus slopes in the upper valley walls and particularly in the alpine areas; but they do not appear to correlate strongly to one or the other of the major bedrock units. In particular, there is a very large rockslide on the north side of the Burman near the Popsicle Creek confluence (Figure 3). A similar large rockslide is visible on GoogleEarth imagery in the Burman watershed within Strathcona Park (Map B1). Till veneers and blankets are prevalent at lower to mid elevations; mid and upper slopes have colluvial veneers and blankets. There are extensive fluvial deposits along the Burman

Station & Elevation Years of Rain Snow Total 1-day rain 1-day snow Mean Max of Min ofAES Station No. m Record mm cm mm mm cm Annual record record

Table 1aClimate Summary -- Environment Canada AES Climate Stations

Mean Annual Precipitation Maximum of record Temperature

Nootka Light Station 16 1978-2004 3229 17.4 3246 210 26.6 10.1C 34C -10C1035614 1978-11-06 1980-01-09 2002-08-13 1989-02-02Tahsis 5 1952-1988 3252 38.3 3311 245 19.0 NA 31C -10C1037890 1981-10-30 1982-02-22 7 occurrences 2 occurrencesTahsis Village North 9 1989-2004 4027 33.5 4062 300 41.0 NA 34.5C -8.0C103 899 1990 11 11 1990 02 06 2002 08 13 41037899 1990-11-11 1990-02-06 2002-08-13 4 occurrencesZeballos 7 1955-1993 3790 33.1 3830 141 1961-11-18 NA NA NA1039030Conuma R. Hatchery 12 1989-2004 3562 44.3 3565 244 53.2 NA NA NA1031844 1994-12-22 1996-12-31Myra Creek 354 1979-2002 2471 213.3 2673 154 60.0 8.3C 37.0C -16.5Cy a C ee 35 9 9 00 3 3 6 3 5 60 0 8 3C 3 0C 6 5C1025254 1992-01-29 1996-03-03 5 occurrences 2 occurrencesEstevan Point 7 1908-2004 2988 28.9 3020 219 51.8 9.3C 28.9C -15C1032730 1944-01-18 1937-02-20 1961-07-12 1944-11-11Gold River Townsite 140 1966-2004 2690 112.3 2798 188 51.8 9.2C 39.0C -19.0C1033232 1995-11-07 1978-01-03 1981-08-09 2 occurrencesGold River (incomplete data) 3 1958-1965 3529 16 5 3540 140 73 9 10 4C 37 2C -9 4CGold River (incomplete data) 3 1958-1965 3529 16.5 3540 140 73.9 10.4C 37.2C -9.4C1033230 1962-11-23 1964-12-21 2 occurrences 2 occurrences

Not all data records are complete for all stations.Climate Mean Annual Mean Annual Mean AnnualPoint Elevation Precipitation Snowpack Temperature

(Fi 2) oC(Fig. 2) mm cm oC1 1200 m 3041 50 5.42 1680 m 3204 52 3.43 0 (sea level) 2994 51 9.54 40 m 3095 53 9.25 1340 m 4271 74 4.7

Table 1bProjected climate data from

ClimateBC [web] for 1971-2000 5 3 06 500 m 4124 76 7.87 0 (sea level) 3494 59 9.18 1180 m 3711 64 6.19 1160 m 3967 66 5.010 1270 m 3570 66 4.411 1820 m 3199 54 2 5


ClimateBC [web] for 1971-2000

11 1820 m 3199 54 2.5


ClimateBC [web] for 1971-2000


Page 4 of 33

valley floor, and in floodplains of limited extent in the Jacklah valley floor. Glaciofluvial deposits are present in places along the valley floors and lower valley slopes, notably at the outlet of Popsicle Creek. There are estuaries at the mouths of Burman, Jacklah and Wilson watersheds. There may be glaciomarine deposits in the lower Burman valley floor near the estuary. Descriptions of individual watershed units are in Table A1, Appendix A.

Figure 3. Looking north at large rockslide on north side of Burman River just west of Popsicle Creek confluence. Photo date: July 2, 2009

4.0 WATERSHED INDICATORS – DISCUSSION The intent of watershed indicators is typically to compare the existing condition of a watershed with a baseline, such as its expected predisturbance condition; or a target, such as an assumed “properly functioning” condition. Suitable indicators will vary depending on


Page 5 of 33

the type and scale of information available, and the particular use that will be made of the indicators. In addition, it is important to interpret the indicators for an individual watershed in the context of natural watershed processes. There are many types of indicators that can be selected to represent watershed condition. Gustavson and Brown (2002) propose 15 strategic and watershed-level indicators.

Strategic: • Road density • Road density on steep slopes • Road-stream crossing density on forest land • Road-stream crossing density on forest land on steep slopes • Equivalent clearcut area (ECA) • Riparian disturbance • Salmon escapement • Fish species at risk

Watershed level: • Landslide area density • Temperature • Turbidity • Habitat complexity • Riparian disturbance • Resident fish populations • Benthic macroinvertebrate diversity

Most of the above strategic-level physical indicators are the same or similar to report card factors from the original Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure (BC Ministry of Forests, 1995). The attraction of report card style indicators is that they can be readily compiled by spatial data analyses with little or no professional assessment or judgment applied. However, this significantly limits the validity of this type of indicator. While report card indicators are helpful, they do not eliminate the need for professional judgment to interpret existing watershed conditions and trends. A limitation of all spatial analyses is the accuracy and completeness of the spatial data set. There can be great variation in the standard of information in data sets, even within the same management area. This complicates the selection of indicators that are meant for comparison between watersheds, especially over large regions. The following sections describe the limitations of report card indicators. 4.1 Road density Simple road density (total road length per area of watershed) does not distinguish between roads that are overgrown relative to those that are in active use; roads that have been deactivated or remediated from roads that have not; or roads built before the Forest


Page 6 of 33

Practices Code (the Code) from those built under Code standards. These are important factors for the condition of road stability and stream crossings; and consequently for the influence of roads on watershed and stream conditions. Further, spatially-calculated road density is a function of how many roads are recorded or retained in a digital road inventory. For example, some operations delete from the inventory some or all of the nonstatus roads (roads not under Road Permit), such as roads that have been permanently deactivated. Other operations retain in the inventory all roads that have been mapped from the earliest records. Calculated road density will vary considerably depending on the data management approach being employed. 4.2 Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) ECA is often taken to be an indicator of stream flow change related to forest harvesting. ECA is in fact an indicator of how a regenerating forest compares to a natural forest with respect to snowpack development and rainfall interception (Hudson and Horel 2007). It is determined by applying hydrologic recovery models to individual harvested stand areas, and cumulating these stand areas for the total watershed. Vegetation cover is one factor affecting stream flow response. Others include: • Amount and character of nonforest area • Topographic relief • Soil depth and permeability (e.g., macropores) • Bedrock permeability (especially karst, if present) • Water storage (lakes, wetlands, icefields, late-persisting snowpacks) • Regional climate • Dominant peak flow regime (snow melt, rain, rain-on-snow) • Nonforest development (agriculture, urban, industrial) • Artificial flow controls or diversions, extraction of groundwater or surface water. Changes in stream flows are of interest for two reasons. One is the potential physical effects on channel characteristics. The second is the potential effect on fish and aquatic ecosystems of changes such as magnitude, frequency and timing of flow events. Low flows are often recognized as a limiting habitat condition in stream systems. The effects on aquatic ecosystems of peak flow increases or shifts in timing are not well understood. Ecosystem effects of changes in peak flows are beyond the scope of this project. This project is concerned with the potential effects on channels from physical processes that may include changes in stream flows. Increases in peak flow diminish with increasing storm magnitude (Hudson 2003, Grant et al 2008). The greatest increases occur in flows with return periods of less than 1 year (Chapman 2003, Alila and Schnorbus 2005, Grant et al 2008). Detectable peak flow increases become statistically insignificant at return periods of no more than 6 years (Grant et al 2008). In rain-dominated basins, peak flow increases become insignificant at return periods of no more than 2 years (Chapman 2003) even at harvest areas modelled up to 100% clearcut (Alila and Schnorbus 2005). In rain-on-snow basins, roads are predicted to have greater influence than in rain-only basins (Grant et al 2008).


Page 7 of 33

Increases in peak flow also diminish with increasing basin size (Grant et al 2008). Research basins where flow increases were measured were all smaller than 10 km2 (1,000 ha). Chapman (2003) in his analysis of eight watersheds on Vancouver Island, found statistically significant flow increases only in the smallest watershed, Carnation Creek, which is just under 10 km2. It is noteworthy that the other watersheds analyzed by Chapman all had what would normally be considered a significant area in the rain-on-snow zone (300-800 m elevation). Despite this his analysis found that peak flows in these watersheds were predominantly rain-generated. Based on the magnitude of flow increases observed and the return periods of these events, Grant et al (2008) concluded the following: Channels that may be susceptible to increased sediment transport from peak flow

increases are those with gradients of less than 2% and with bed materials that are predominantly gravel or sand.

Steeper gradient channels or streams with coarser bed material are unlikely to be

significantly affected. The potential for channel change as a result of peak flow increases from harvesting is

much less than for other management effects such as nonforest development, changes in sediment supply, or other physical channel disturbances caused by development.

Channel form and condition in coastal watersheds are typically dominated by physical processes such as landslides, erosion, riparian logging along erodible channels, and loss or removal of large wood debris (LWD) from within channels. Potential channel changes from changes in peak flows are usually not significant relative to changes caused by these other physical processes. Even in small alluvial streams, potential changes from altered stream flows have far less effect on channel condition than changes caused by, for example, loss of LWD. Understanding stream flow response to harvesting is important when evaluating watershed sensitivity and effects of forest development. But ECA by itself it has no physical significance to watershed condition and is not an indicator of potential channel disturbance. In coastal watersheds, experience and field observations suggest that ECA is a poor indicator of watershed condition. Indicators that reflect physical hillslope processes, channel sensitivity and riparian condition are more directly relevant to watershed and stream condition. For this reason, ECA is not used here as an indicator of watershed condition. 4.3 Streams In this project, streams are broadly categorized into three types, based on stream characteristics relevant to forest management of coastal streams. The main distinction between the types is susceptibility to channel bank erosion and channel disturbance. This is consistent with findings of the Stream Classification Committee of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Freeman 2000) who concluded that the most appropriate distinction for applying riparian buffers was the erodibility of channel banks. For clarity, definitions for the


Page 8 of 33

stream types used in this project are provided in Table B3a, Appendix B. “Alluvial” streams are those with alluvial channel bed AND bank material, that is, at least one bank is in alluvial deposits. “Semi-alluvial” streams are low-gradient streams (<8%) in confined channels with alluvial bed material and nonalluvial banks, or banks in terraces (e.g. glaciofluvial) that rarely or no longer inundate. Nonalluvial streams are steeper gradient streams which are typically bedrock or boulder controlled but may have forced alluvial morphologies at choke points (“vertical jams”), or log steps storing sediment (upland or headwater streams). Low-gradient streams that have primarily bedrock or boulder-dominated channels are also nonalluvial streams. Report card indicators do not take into account that different stream channel types have different sensitivities to disturbance. Additionally, report-card indicators relating to streams, for example, crossing density and length of riparian disturbance (logging), are highly sensitive to the scale and intensity of stream mapping. Gustavson and Brown, and the CWAP report card indicators, do not specify stream size or stream order to be considered. (Stream order also varies with the intensity of stream mapping.) The scale and intensity of stream mapping vary from area to area, even within individual forest operations depending on where the stream inventory has been enhanced through site-level planning or specific mapping projects. As an illustration, mapped stream densities for other Forest Investment Account (FIA) project areas on Vancouver Island and the coastal mainland are as follows:

TFL 6 and TFL 39 Block 4 (combined area) -- 2.8 km/km2

TFL 37 – 4.5 km/km2 TFL 19 – 2.6 km/km2 TFL 25 Block 2 – 2.6 km/km2 TFL 44 – 1.7 km/km2 FL A19231 – 2.8 km/km2

The difference, notably between TFL 44 and TFL 37, may partly reflect different actual stream density but more likely is a function of the mapping. This illustrates the difficulty in selecting stream indicators that are comparable between operating areas; or even within a single operating area when the stream inventory data is enhanced over time. 4.4 Riparian disturbance Riparian vegetation has both geomorphic and ecological functions related to streams. In certain channel types, the riparian forest has an important role in maintaining channel integrity and structure. This in turn affects the physical quality of habitat in these streams. Riparian vegetation is highly important for stability of erodible channel banks. In alluvial streams with banks in erodible deposits, removal of riparian vegetation can cause excessive channel widening and changes in planform (Millar and Quick 1993 and 1998; Millar 2000; Bailey et al 2005). In contrast, confined streams with nonalluvial banks have stable channel positions and do not experience channel widening or planform changes when riparian vegetation is removed. (Logging of gully sideslopes may cause slope instability). Riparian vegetation in a floodplain also increases surface roughness which


Page 9 of 33

slows flood flows, promotes deposition of transported sediment, reduces erosion rates and increases flood elevations. The riparian forest is also a source of LWD. LWD in a stream reach may come from one or more of the following sources: • Falling in from the adjacent riparian forest as a result of tree mortality, windthrow, bank

erosion or slumping escarpments • Landslides or avalanches initiating upslope and entering the channel, either directly

from the slope or via gully systems • Transported into the reach from upstream sources The relative importance of each source to a particular stream reach depends on watershed processes, stream characteristics, and the position of the stream reach in the watershed (Hogan et al 2005). For example, a stream with low transport potential in a watershed with few or no landslides would derive all of its LWD from the adjacent riparian forest. The role of LWD in streams varies with channel type, stream energy and position in the watershed. In upland or headwater streams, LWD typically forms steps, creating channel roughness and limiting sediment transport (Hogan et al 2005). These streams are often subject to gully processes which may include debris torrents. In small alluvial and semi-alluvial streams, LWD forms steps and plunge pools, influences flow patterns, limits sediment transport, dissipates energy and provides complexity of aquatic habitat. Individual pieces entering the stream can cause local scour or stream bank erosion (Keller and Swanson 1979). In streams without sufficient energy to transport the size of wood in the stream, these structures persist in-situ until they decay and break up (Bahuguna 2008). Where LWD is absent, channels are more planar with fewer pools (Fausch and Northcode 1992), and have coarser substrates. In large alluvial streams, LWD forms jams which dam sediment, cause flow diversions and create scour pools. These jams can cause major shifts in channel morphology (Montgomery et al 2003) and increase flood elevations (Brummer et al 2006). Larger nonalluvial streams tend to have high transport capacity; in these streams LWD often has limited to no function over considerable lengths of channel, but can cause forced alluvial morphologies where jams develop at choke points or individual logs wedge across a channel. These features sometimes persist for many years, but degrade rapidly to the underlying nonalluvial channel when the wood is dislodged or breaks down (personal observation of debris jams in Macktush Creek (2002) and China Creek (2006) that each blew out and degraded in a single storm event). Similarly, larger semi-alluvial streams also tend to have high transport capacity and LWD is often scarce, in the form of floating logs, or absent (personal observation, old growth reaches of Nahmint, Daniels, Nimpkish and other coastal rivers). In report card indicators, riparian disturbance is typically taken to be the length of stream channel logged. This by itself is not a good indicator because it does not reflect the role of LWD and bank vegetation as it relates to stream sensitivity and floodplain stability for


Page 10 of 33

different channel types. It does not make any provision for the age of logging and recovery that may be occurring; for example, a riparian zone logged 40 years ago typically has a well advanced second growth forest. Further, it does not account for floodplains that may have reforested to hardwoods (e.g., alder) rather than conifers. 4.5 Landslides The CWAP report card used number of large landslides entering streams. Gustavson and Brown propose landslide density (number of landslides per watershed area). The effect of a landslide on current stream condition depends on the age of the landslide and its vegetative condition, size, connectivity to streams, and the sensitivity of the receiving channels. Older landslides may be partly or completely revegetated and not producing sediment, while some may still be experiencing mass wasting. Recent landslides are more likely to be active sediment sources. Specific events such as a single large landslide or a group of localized landslides can profoundly impact a channel and may be not be apparent in numerically-derived indicators, whereas a large number of small vegetated landslides may yield a high stability hazard rating but may have effectively recovered as sediment sources or may have limited connectivity to streams. With respect to development-related landslides, changed harvesting and road building practices are known to affect the rate of landslides (Horel 2006). Using total events over the history of development is useful for examining existing disturbance but can confound the prediction of future terrain response. 5.0 SELECTION OF DATA FOR INDICATORS To be practicable for ongoing forest management, indicators must be readily tracked by spatial analyses. As well, to the extent possible, they should be directly measurable, and should make maximum use of data that is routinely available for forest management or can be easily acquired. Therefore, despite the limitations described in Section 4, spatial data is used in this project to assist with describing watershed sensitivity and the effects of forest management. However, recognizing the limitations of spatial data, this project also provides a subjective interpretation of watershed condition and trend (Section 10). This project focuses on indicators for physical watershed condition. Ecological indicators, such as the watershed-level indicators proposed by Gustafsen and Brown (temperature, turbidity, habitat complexity, resident fish populations, macroinvertebrate diversity, salmon escapement and species at risk), while valuable, require information that is not part of normal forest management data sets. This project does not include ecological indicators. 5.1 Watershed Data This project compiles data for two types of watershed factors (Figure 4):

1. Factors reflecting the inherent physical character of the watershed and its relative sensitivity to disturbance (Type 1);

2. Factors reflecting the type and level of disturbance that has occurred (Type 2).


Page 11 of 33

From these factors, qualitative ratings are assigned for watershed sensitivity, disturbance and risk. Table A2a (Appendix A) summarizes watershed data for watershed units in the study area. Definitions for the attributes assigned to roads, streams and landslides are in Appendix B. The data in Table A2a reflect effects from historic practices, recent events, and existing potential hazards. Legacy effects of historic practices are from riparian harvesting, cross stream yarding, logging of unstable terrain, and road construction practices that resulted in landslides and erosion. Legacy effects include landslides from preCode roads and blocks; and inadequate riparian forest to control channel bank erosion (CBE), or supply large wood (LWD). Roads This project compiles the following data for roads (see definitions, Tables B1a and B1b, Appendix B): • Total length of roads with moderate or higher stability hazard • Total length of roads with moderate or higher stability hazard that have not been

permanently deactivated • Length of road on steep terrain, separately for preCode and postCode roads • Landslides per km of road built on steep terrain, separately for preCode and postCode

roads Road length of moderate or higher hazard that is not deactivated indicates the potential for possible future landslides, and is a consideration for risk management of road maintenance. In this project, “steep terrain” is defined as Stability Class 4 and 5 polygons plus slopes steeper than 60% (determined from TRIM mapping) that fall outside the terrain polygons. The inclusion of steep slopes is an attempt to “normalize” the stability mapping because there is considerable difference in the type of terrain included in stability polygons by different mappers and for stability mapping of different ages and standards. Landslides Natural landslides, landslides from roads and landslides from harvested blocks are reported, as well as areas of steep terrain logged before and since 1995. Landslides are reported separately for preCode and postCode roads and harvested blocks to allow the effect of changed management practices to be examined. Number of landslides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain helps to predict the probable occurrence of landslides for new blocks in the same area; and to evaluate how well steep terrain is being managed (Table B2, Appendix B). Landslides per sq km of watershed area help to indicate the significance of the landslides relative to the entire watershed.


Page 12 of 33

Areas of steep terrain logged recently may still be vulnerable to further open-slope landslides, which may be a consideration in risk management for future harvesting on steep slopes. Streams This project classifies all streams in the spatial data set as alluvial, semi-alluvial or nonalluvial (Tables B3a, B3b and B3c, Appendix B). Data relating to physical channel sensitivity and riparian condition are as follows: • Lengths of alluvial, semi-alluvial and nonalluvial streams • For alluvial and semi-alluvial streams, length of stream channel with inadequate riparian

forest on one or both sides to supply functioning LWD. • For alluvial streams, length of stream channel with inadequate riparian forest on one or

both sides to control stream bank erosion and maintain channel stability. This is indicated from airphoto evidence that the channel appears overwidened or its position is unstable relative to the expected predisturbance condition.

This project assesses only the suitability of the riparian forest as a potential source of LWD. This is not an assessment of existing LWD in the channel, which could only be determined by site-level investigation. In field reviews of streams in second growth, it is common to find that streams continue to be deficient in functioning LWD long after the adjacent forest has trees of sufficient size to supply it, because the trees are not falling into the streams. Streams where the riparian zone was logged under preCode forest practices may be deficient in LWD for several reasons: • The trees in the riparian zone are mainly deciduous (e.g., alder) as opposed to conifers,

and break down readily. • The trees in the riparian zone are mainly conifers but have not yet reached sufficient

size to supply functioning LWD. • The trees in the riparian zone are mainly second growth conifers and of sufficient size,

but are not falling into the streams. The age of the riparian forest is a consideration for restoration projects to place LWD in streams, because if the adjacent forest has trees of adequate size and type to eventually replenish LWD, long-term maintenance of LWD in streams is more likely to be successful. While habitat complexity is not directly assessed in this project, some inferences can be made from stream channel type and riparian condition. For example, an alluvial stream with unlogged riparian forest could be expected to have greater habitat complexity than a nonalluvial stream; or than an alluvial stream where the riparian forest has been logged and has inadequate riparian forest to supply large wood debris (LWD) or limit channel bank erosion (CBE).


Page 13 of 33

6.0 METHODS There are no Resource Inventory Steering Committee (RISC) standards for the inventories or indicators developed in this project. This is an overview or planning-level assessment: Road, stream and riparian attributes are based on airphoto interpretation, satellite imagery and spatial data. No site assessments were carried out. The study area was viewed by helicopter on July 2, 2009. 6.1 Landslides Landslides were identified from airphoto interpretation of 1995 black and white airphotos, 2007 Spot 5 satellite imagery, and during the helicopter reconnaissance of July 2, 2009 (although the heli recon did not search the entire area in detail for landslides). The landslide compilation most likely did not capture all landslides that occurred in older logged areas (those logged well before the 1995 airphotos) as many would be overgrown and no longer apparent on airphotos or from the air. Therefore, the numbers of landslides identified for preCode blocks and roads are probably less than the total numbers that have actually occurred over time. Landslide locations are shown on Map S2. 6.2 Road Stability Hazard Rating Era of road construction was determined for all roads in the project area. Roads visible on the 1995 airphotos are assumed to be preCode. Roads not visible on the 1995 airphotos are assumed to be postCode. There is a minor uncertainty with this method, as the actual road construction standard to be met would depend on when the road plan was approved. As well, improved road construction methods were implemented by some operations before the Code was brought into force. The hazard ratings here assume that changed construction standards implemented with the Code would result in roads with lower stability hazards (based on Horel 2006). Road stability hazard rating was assessed using: • era of road construction (pre or post Code), • the occurrence of landslides from or adjacent to the road, • road location on steep slopes, • airphoto interpretation. Definitions are in Tables B1a, Appendix B. A stability hazard rating was assigned for road segments judged to have a moderate or higher hazard. Stability hazard ratings were not reduced for existing deactivation because the residual hazard cannot be determined from an overview assessment. Residual hazard would need to be determined from post-deactivation site inspections. Confidence in the hazard rating depends on how well the road can be seen on the airphotos. The road surface in areas logged shortly before the airphotos were taken is


Page 14 of 33

usually visible. The road surface and adjacent slopes are not visible in areas of advanced second growth, so the hazard rating on these roads is less certain. Because roads built after 1995 cannot be viewed on the airphotos, stability hazard ratings for these roads are based on the intersection of the road alignment with steep terrain, and on landslide occurrence. Since postCode roads are assumed to have a higher standard of construction, postCode road segments on steep terrain are assigned a moderate stability hazard unless landslides have occurred. No landslides have occurred from postCode roads in the study area; so postCode roads crossing steep terrain were all rated as moderate stability hazard. PreCode and postCode roads are shown on Map S1. Road stability hazard and landslides are shown on Map S2. Road stability hazard and deactivation status are shown on Map S3. 6.3 Sediment Delivery Potential to Fish Sediment delivery potential to fish habitat was determined for each road segment assigned a stability hazard. Criteria for sediment delivery potential ratings are in Table B1b, Appendix B. Runout slopes were estimated from TRIM (20 m) contours. For this project, fish habitat was taken to be stream classes S1 to S4 in BCTS’s stream inventory. Unclassified streams with gradients less than 20% that connect to fish streams were also assumed to be fish bearing. 6.4 Stream Channel Types Stream channel type was assigned for all streams in BCTS’s digital stream coverage. Channels on fans were also identified. This is an overview-level classification using airphoto interpretation, topography and gradient (from TRIM 20 m contours). To assist with stream classification, a gradient attribute was assigned for each stream segment (<8%, 8-20%, >20%). Stream channel types (alluvial, semi-alluvial, nonalluvial) reflect the relative geomorphic sensitivity of the channel (Table B3a, Appendix B). Where a stream channel can be seen clearly, confidence in the channel type is high. Where the channel cannot be seen, either because of small size or canopy closure, channel type is inferred from the surrounding valley form identified on airphotos and from stream gradient as determined from TRIM 20 m contours. In this case stream types are assigned conservatively; that is, where contours indicate a gradient of less than 8% in terrain that could contain an unconfined or partially confined stream, the channel is identified as alluvial or semi-alluvial depending on the adjacent topography. Because the confidence level for these streams is low, these classifications could change as a result of on-site reviews. Stream gradients are shown on Map C1; stream channel types and streams on fans are on Map C2.


Page 15 of 33

6.5 Riparian Condition Criteria for riparian condition and function are in Table B3b and B3c, Appendix B. Riparian condition was assessed using forest cover data, airphotos and the 2007 satellite image. Riparian attributes are recorded separately for left and right banks (referenced facing downstream). For alluvial streams, effectiveness of the riparian forest to limit bank erosion was estimated by the channel condition visible on the 1995 airphotos and the 2007 satellite image. For LWD in small (S3, S4, smaller S5’s) alluvial and semi-alluvial streams, it was assumed that stands 40 years or older, that are mixed stands (M) or mainly conifers (C), would have trees of sufficient size to provide functioning LWD (e.g., logs >0.3 m diameter). For large streams (S1, S2, large S5’s) it was assumed that mixed or coniferous stands of 60 years and older would have trees of sufficient size (e.g, logs >0.4 m diameter). Stands that are primarily deciduous (D) are not considered adequate to provide functioning LWD because of the rapid decay rate; however, where deciduous stands occurred on unlogged reaches these were ranked as “natural”. For all nonalluvial streams other than S6’s, mixed, coniferous or deciduous stands greater than 40 years are assumed to provide adequate riparian vegetation for physical stream function. Riparian stands younger than 40 years are indicated as “modified” for nonalluvial streams because riparian function in these cases cannot be estimated with confidence in an overview-level assessment. For S6 streams, as for nonalluvial streams, mixed, coniferous or deciduous stands of 40 years and older are assumed to provide adequate riparian vegetation for physical stream function. Stands of 20-39 years are also likely to be adequate, and capable of supplying wood pieces that would provide channel roughness and steps (e.g., pieces >0.1 m diameter); this condition is indicated as “recovered” to identify it as applicable only to S6’s. Riparian stands younger than 20 years are indicated as “modified” because riparian function in this case cannot be estimated with confidence at an overview level. Riparian function and vegetation are displayed on Maps R1, R2, R3 and R4 for left and right banks separately. 7.0 WATERSHED RISK RATINGS Figure 4 illustrates the process for assigning watershed risk levels based on sensitivity and disturbance, as described below. 7.1 Qualitative Ratings for Sensitivity, Disturbance and Risk Qualitative ratings for watershed sensitivity, disturbance and risk are in Table A3. These ratings are derived from the data in Table A2a, and provide an interpretation of the data. Note that the ratings assume “cumulative effects”. That is, the greater the number of landslides, the higher the stability disturbance; or the greater the stream length with inadequate riparian forest, the higher the stream disturbance. However, this cannot

Figure 4 -- Watershed Risk Rating & Watershed TrendSee Table A1

Fish capacity

Watershed CharacteristicsImportant Fisheries Watershed


Fish capacity1 (very high) to 4 (minimal)

Watershed Characteristics

Fisheries Rank 1 +High watershed risk rating

Important Fisheries Watershed


Terrain stability – H, M, L

Regional landslide frequency - H, M, L, VL

% area of steep terrain

2






TerrainStability

Watershed Sensitivity RatingStream Sensitivity


Watershed Sensitivity Rating



% length of alluvial stream reaches

Natural landslides, no./km2


Hillslope connectivity





H M LH 1 2 2M 1 2 3L 1 3 3


Stream sensitivity – H, M, LWatershed Sensitivity Rating1, 2, 3





P f fl d l i



Presence of fans





L 1 3 3

Watershed Risk Rating







Presence of floodplains



Presence of fans


Presence of estuary

Peak flow regime (rain, rain-on-snow)




WatershedDisturbance

1 2 31 H MH M

Watershed Sensitivity Watershed Risk Rating










Presence of fans


Existing disturbance

Presence of estuary





1 H MH M2 MH M L3 M L L










Stabililty disturbance -- H, M, L

Frequency of slides from roads & cutblocks, no./km2

Presence of fans



Presence of estuary




Figure 4 -- Watershed Risk Rating & Watershed Trend

See Figure 5

See Table A1

StabilityWatershed Disturbance Rating

Stream Disturbance












Road length with moderate or higher stability hazard not deactivated, km/km2

Presence of fans



Presence of estuary





See Figure 5

See Table A1

Indicators for ongoing management StabilityDisturbance

H M LH 1 2 2M 1 2 3

Stream Disturbance









Watershed Disturbance Rating1, 2, 3



Stream disturbance H M L



Length of alluvial/semi-alluvial streams with riparian forest inadequate to supply LWD, km/km2

Presence of fans



Presence of estuary





See Figure 5

See Table A1

Indicators for ongoing management(Table 2)

M 1 2 3L 1 3 3












Stream disturbance -- H, M, L




Length of alluvial streams with riparian forestinadequate to control bank erosion, km/km2

Presence of fans



Presence of estuary





See Figure 5

See Table A1


















Presence of fans



Presence of estuary





See Figure 5

See Table A1

Interpretation: recovery, restoration, magnitude of events & effects, current conditionWatershed risk rating


Watershed Trend

















Presence of fans



Presence of estuary





See Figure 5

See Table A1

Interpretation: recovery, restoration, magnitude of events & effects, current conditionSee Table A1

Watershed risk ratinglegacy effects


Watershed Trend

Restoration Priorities

Watershed trend + fish (Figure 6) C did t it

FIA project planning

















Presence of fans



Presence of estuary





See Figure 5

See Table A1


See Figure 6


Watershed trend

SFM indicators (Table 3)FSP/Management strategies


Watershed Trend


Watershed trend + fish (Figure 6)

Map Sets F1, F2 & F3 -- site criteria

Candidate sites


















Presence of fans



Presence of estuary





See Figure 5

See Table A1


See Figure 6


Watershed trend

SFM indicators (Table 3)FSP/Management strategies


Watershed Trend


Watershed trend + fish (Figure 6)

Map Sets F1, F2 & F3 -- site criteria

Candidate sites



Page 16 of 33

account for recovered disturbance, such as landslides that have revegetated; or for severe disturbance from a single event, such as a large landslide that directly enters a stream. Therefore, if a rating derived from the numerical indicators does not reflect the actual watershed condition as apparent from airphotos or imagery, or as observed in the helicopter reconnaissance, then the rating is assigned based on actual observed condition. Watershed characteristics (Type 1) describe the inherent physical character of a watershed and its sensitivity to disturbance. These ratings allow the relative sensitivity of watersheds to be characterized by the same criteria whether they are undeveloped or have been disturbed. These characteristics do not change with time although for example, variations in natural landslide frequency might occur through time. Watershed disturbance ratings (Type 2) indicate the level and type of disturbance caused by development. These reflect legacy effects of historic practices as well as the result of more recent events. Going forward, they can be tracked to monitor watershed recovery and the effects of changed management practices. Ratings and indicators in this project use the same criteria as those for TFL 19 (ref. FIA project no. 6649012) and FL A19231 (FIA project no. 6733001) which are in the vicinity and have similar inventory data standards. Criteria for the ratings were selected from a review of data for watersheds where conditions were documented in watershed assessments, or known from other work. In this respect they are arbitrary; their purpose is to allow comparisons between watersheds. They may not be valid outside the region or for data sets with different inventory mapping standards. 7.1.1 Watershed characteristics The watershed sensitivity rating is based on terrain stability and stream sensitivity (Table A3, Figure 4). Terrain Stability Rating Because this rating is intended to apply to both developed and undeveloped watersheds, it does not use development-related landslide occurrence directly. Factors considered in assigning the terrain stability rating are regional landslide frequency, area of the watershed in steep terrain, occurrence of natural landslides, and hillslope connectivity to the mainstem. Regional landslide frequency is defined in the following table (from Horel and Higman 2006). For undeveloped watersheds, or where the number of recorded events in the region is too few for the frequency to be meaningful, annual precipitation is used to estimate the probable frequency.


Page 17 of 33

RLF Landslide occurrence Annual Precipitation Very low <1 slide per 100 ha logged in steep terrain - Low 1-<3 slides per 100 ha logged steep terrain <2000 mm/year Moderate 3-5 slides per 100 ha logged steep terrain 2000-3000 mm/year High >5 slides per 100 ha logged steep terrain >3000 mm/year For the purpose of this project, “steep terrain” is the combined area of Class 4 and 5 stability polygons plus slopes steeper than 60% that fall outside these polygons. From the precipitation indicated in Table 1b, virtually all of the study area is in the high regional landslide frequency zone. Relative terrain vulnerability is rated as follows: Low Steep terrain area =<10% of watershed area Moderate Steep terrain area 10-30% of watershed area High Steep terrain area >30% of watershed area All of the watershed units in the project area have a high percentage of steep terrain. In Table A2a and A2b, the compilation of natural landslides includes rockslides, rockfalls, and debris slides or flows. The frequency of natural landslides is rated as follows: Occurrence of natural landslides Low Moderate High (all types) <0.5 slides/km2 0.5-1.0 slides/km2 >1.0 slides/km2 All types of landslides are relevant to watershed processes. Debris slides or flows are often direct sediment sources to streams. Coarse sediment from rockslides, rockfalls or talus may transport more slowly by means of fluvial processes or during debris floods in gullies; but may provide ongoing sediment supply. For the purpose of predicting terrain response to harvesting, the presence of natural debris slides or flows is of greater significance than rockslides/falls. From landslide data from other projects, the presence of natural debris flows or debris slides usually indicates a greater likelihood of open-slope landslides following harvesting of steep slopes. The density of all landslides, and the presence of debris slides/flows, are both considered in assigning the terrain stability rating. Hillslope connectivity is represented by the percent of mainstem length with a runout slope adjacent to the stream. In Table A3, yes (Y) indicates that runout slopes are present for 50% or more of the mainstem length. No (N) indicates that runout slopes are either absent, or present for less than 50% of the mainstem length. For this rating a runout slope is considered to be lower valley slopes or fans at least 150 m long with a slope gradient of less than 25% (based on Horel 2007). The presence of floodplains, lakes, wetlands, irregular terrain, and other features can also affect connectivity, runout and sediment transport. From these factors, the terrain stability rating is assigned approximately as follows:


Page 18 of 33

Terrain vulnerability

(% steep terrain)

Natural landslide frequency

Natural debris slides/flows

present RLF

Presence of runout zones

Terrain stability rating

L, M, H L, M rare L yes or no L L L, M, H yes or no M, H yes or no L

M or H H yes M, H no H M or H L, M, H yes M, H yes M*

M L, M, H no M yes or no M* H L, M no M no M H L, M no H no M H H no H no H H H no H yes M*

*Judgment is used in assigning the rating, with regard to the influence of hillslope connectivity and runout zones; and observed watershed condition. Green shaded cells are those that could be applicable to the watershed units in this project. The purpose of the terrain stability rating is to characterize natural watershed processes and also to predict how terrain may respond to future or continued development. However, predictions of landslides that might result from future development by projecting from past landslide history can be confounded by changes in harvesting and road building practices. As well, local variations in soil properties, drainage conditions, valley form and valley orientation relative to storm direction can cause considerable local variation in landslide occurrence within a regional landslide frequency zone. Nevertheless, at an overview level, the terrain stability rating provides a useful first estimate of the possible importance of landslides in watershed processes. Stream Sensitivity Rating Stream sensitivity ratings are based on channel sensitivity, present of floodplains and presence of fans. Since alluvial streams are more sensitive than other channel types, the proportion of alluvial streams in a watershed reflects the overall stream sensitivity. For this project, the criterion used to reflect relative channel sensitivity is the density of alluvial streams per unit watershed area. The presence of floodplains with channel migrations zones reflects the potential for channel instability to occur following harvesting. The presence of floodplains wider than three channel widths is noted (as interpreted from airphotos) in Table A3. Similarly, fans have the potential to destabilize following harvesting of the active fan surface or from increased sediment delivery to the fan. Contemporary fans are those formed by the current fluvial regime. There are other fans that were formed during deglaciation and are no longer fluvially active. At some, the stream subsequently downcut through the fan and formed a second, lower fan which is the contemporary fan.


Page 19 of 33

In this overview-level project, no distinction is made between active and inactive fans, or wet and dry floodplains, unless it is clearly apparent on the airphotos or during the heli recon. These determinations normally need to be made by site assessments. The presence of an estuary is also noted. Estuaries do not relate to stream sensitivity within the watershed but are relevant to site-level risk management of FRPA values. The criteria for rating channel sensitivity are as follows: Low Density of alluvial streams: <0.20 km/km2 Moderate Density of alluvial streams: 0.20 - <0.25 km/km2 High Density of alluvial streams: >=0.25 km/km2 These criteria are particularly sensitive to the intensity of stream mapping. They may not be valid for other data sets unless the intensity of stream mapping is comparable. The stream sensitivity rating considers channel sensitivity, floodplains and fans. The assigned sensitivity values are strongly weighted to the presence of a floodplain with a channel migration zone. Where floodplains of significant extent are present, the sensitivity rating is high. Watershed Sensitivity Rating The watershed sensitivity rating is determined from the terrain stability rating and the stream sensitivity rating as follows:

Watershed Sensitivity Rating Stream Sensitivity Rating

H M L Terrain Stability Rating

H 1 2 2 M 1 2 3 L 1 3 3

7.1.2 Watershed disturbance In this project, watershed disturbance is that caused by development (Figure 4), as separate from naturally active watershed processes. The significance of the disturbance relative to natural processes is important to consider when evaluating watershed trend (Table A1). The following conditions were considered in assigning a watershed disturbance rating: • Frequency of landslides from roads and blocks • Length of stream channels with inadequate riparian forest to provide LWD • Length of stream channels with inadequate riparian forest to control bank erosion and

maintain channel stability (CBE).


Page 20 of 33

Stability Disturbance Rating This rating includes all landslides from preCode and postCode roads and blocks, including landslides initiating in clearcuts, logged gullies, logged stream escarpments, road cuts and road fills. It signifies existing disturbance from development. It is not proposed for tracking future performance because it does not separate the effects of pre and postCode management (see Section 11.1). The stability disturbance ratings are based on landslides from roads and blocks as follows: Stability disturbance rating: Low Moderate High Landslides from roads and blocks

<0.5 slides/km2 0.5-1.0 slides/km2 >1.0 slides/km2

Road stability hazard is not incorporated into the stability disturbance rating because it represents potential hazard rather than actual disturbance; but is a consideration for risk-managing of road inspections and maintenance and is reported here as supplemental information. Potential stability disturbance: Low Moderate High Road length with moderate or higher stability hazard not deactivated

<0.25 km/km2 0.25-0.5 km/km2 >0.5 km/km2

Stream Disturbance Rating Channel condition of alluvial streams is strongly affected by the presence of functioning LWD and by the erosion resistance of the root network in channel banks. Channel structure in small semi-alluvial streams is dependent on the presence of LWD. Because site assessments would be required to determine actual channel conditions, for this overview-level study, stream disturbance is inferred from the condition of the riparian forest. Disturbance levels were assigned as follows: Disturbance level: Low Moderate High Riparian forest inadequate for LWD

<0.20 km/km2 >0.20 km/km2

Riparian forest inadequate for channel bank erosion (CBE)

<0.01 km/km2 0.01-0.05 km/km2 >0.05 km/km2

“CBE” indicates existing channel instability or overwidening as identified form airphotos, satellite image or from the helicopter reconnaissance. Disturbance levels for LWD and CBE are based on the length of stream with either the left or right bank (or both) inadequate for LWD or CBE. The higher of the two ratings was used as the stream disturbance rating. Disturbance ratings are weighted towards streams with floodplains where channels have become unstable or overwidened as a result of riparian logging (CBE). In large streams this instability can persist for many decades until a mature forest is re-established in the floodplain. While landslides can severely impact streams,


Page 21 of 33

channel instability from riparian logging in a large floodplain can be far more persistent than impacts to streams from landslides, and so is given more weight in this rating system. In some instances, disturbance was assigned directly from stream conditions visible during the helicopter flight or on the satellite image. For example, the channels of Wilson and Jacklah Creeks have been scoured by recent debris flows combined with peak stream flows, most probably in the extreme storms of 2006. Watershed Disturbance Rating The watershed disturbance rating is determined from the stability disturbance and stream disturbance ratings as follows:

Watershed Disturbance Rating Stream Disturbance Rating

High Moderate Low Stability Disturbance Rating

High 1 2 2 Moderate 1 2 3

Low 1 3 3 7.1.3 Watershed risk rating Figure 5 shows the watersheds in the project area by risk category. Watershed risk is determined from the watershed sensitivity rating and the watershed disturbance rating (Figure 4).

Watershed Risk Rating Watershed Disturbance Rating

1 2 3 Watershed Sensitivity Rating

1 High Moderately high Moderate 2 Moderately high Moderate Low 3 Moderate Low Low

The highest sensitivity watersheds are those with floodplains where the stream has a channel migration zone and could become unstable if the riparian zone is logged. The highest risk category is where channel instability has actually occurred as a result of riparian logging and the channel stability has not yet recovered. 8.0 FISHERIES RANK This is a simple ranking meant for comparing the relative fisheries capacity between watershed units (Map C3). It helps to set management objectives for watershed units but is not intended for site-level risk management. The rankings are primarily subjective; approximate criteria are as follows:

1 Jacklah-Remainder Burman-Remainder

2 Wilson Jacklah-2, MatchleeA, B, Burman-1, Burman-2, Burman-3, Burman-4,

Popsicle

3 Jacklah-1, Jacklah-3

1 2 3

Figure 5

Wat

ersh

ed S

ensi

tivity

Rat

ing

Watershed Units by Risk Category(From Figure 4 & Table A3)

Factors for sensitivity & disturbance ratings are in Table A3, Appendix A.

1 2 3

Watershed sensitivity: 1 - most sensitive, 3 - least sensitiveWatershed disturbance: 1 - most disturbed, 3 - least disturbedDisturbance includes both pre & post Code events.

Risk categoryHigh

Moderately highModerate

Low

Note: Heavily weighted factors for sensitivity are the presence of large fans,or floodplains with significant lengths of alluvial streams.Heavily weighted factors for disturbance are unstable or eroding alluvialreaches on fans or floodplains.

Watershed Disturbance Rating

See Figure 4

Factors for sensitivity & disturbance ratings are in Table A3, Appendix A.


Page 22 of 33

Rank Description Typical channel conditions 0 No data 1 High to very high capacity. Large or

potentially large anadromous runs At least 5 km fish access up from ocean and >2 km of alluvial channels in the anadromous reaches.

2 Moderate anadromous capacity or important resident fishery.

2-5 km anadromous access and >1 km of alluvial channels.

3 Small but significant anadromous capacity or some resident fish.

<2 km anadromous access or <1 km of alluvial channels.

4 Limited fish capacity. Few resident or anadromous fish.

<0.5 km anadromous access.

Hatcheries, enhancement activities and community water supply areas are not accounted for in the rankings. These aspects, as well as species at risk or other focus species, would be considered separately in site-level risk management. Myriam Belisle of BCTS completed the fish rankings (Table A4, Appendix A). 9.0 IMPORTANT FISHERIES WATERSHEDS There are specific objectives for watersheds with high sensitivity and high fish values in S. 14 of the Government Actions Regulation (2004). The most sensitive watershed in the project area with the highest fish rank is the Burman watershed. It has an extensive floodplain with alluvial streams and anadromous access that extends 13 km from the estuary. Burman River historically had large runs of anadromous fish. Jacklah River is also considered to have important fish values but has less extensive floodplain areas and fewer alluvial reaches. The upper limit of anadromous habitat in the Jacklah River has not been identified in the available fisheries data. 10.0 WATERSHED CONDITION AND TRENDS Figure 6 illustrates watershed trends relative to fisheries rank. Table A1 describes the physical character of the watersheds, identifies sensitive areas and key concerns, and indicates the current watershed trend. This information will provide the basis for selecting management strategies for individual watershed units. Watershed trend is a subjective interpretation of current watershed condition based on the data (Table A2a), risk ratings (Table A3), and on changes apparent from airphotos, satellite imagery and the heli reconnaissance. It considers the legacy effects of preCode management practices as well as recent disturbances; recovery that has taken place; and risk reduction (for example, through road deactivation or restoration works in stream channels). Note that “trend” (Figure 6) and “risk” (Figure 5) convey different information about a watershed. For example, a highly sensitive watershed with minimal development-related

D. Highly disturbed Jacklah-Remainder Wilson

C. Moderately disturbed; OR improving but still of concern

Matchlee Jacklah-2

B. Improving, may have sites that are still disturbed

Burman-Remainder Burman-4

A. Stable, OR consistent with natural Burman-3

A, B, Burman-1, Burman-2, Popsicle, Jacklah-1, Jacklah-3

1 2 3 4

Fisheries rank:0 No data1 High to very high fish capacity; large or potentially large anadromous runs.2 Important resident fishery or moderate anadromous capacity.3 Small but significant anadromous capacity; or some resident fish.4 Limited fisheries capacity. Few resident or anadromous fish.

-- Watershed trends are the basis for proposed SFM watershed indicators; and for on-goingmanagement strategies. -- Management strategies are not part of this project.

Note: Heavily weighted factors for current trend are lengths of alluvial streams (including channelson fans) that are still eroding or unstable; and recent development-related landslides with visiblechannel impacts.

Fish Rank

Watershed Trends and Fish RankFigure 6

Wat

ersh

ed T

rend

(from Table A1)


Page 23 of 33

disturbance may show as a “moderate risk” because of stream sensitivity, whereas the trend would be described as “consistent with natural”. A watershed may be described as “stable” if stream channels have experienced minimal to no impact from development, or if channel stability has recovered through riparian forest regeneration. This does not mean that the streams are in a natural condition; they could still be lacking the structure of natural channels, for example, because of the absence of LWD. Conversely, “consistent with natural” does not mean “stable”, if for example, there are active natural mass wasting processes that contribute high sediment loads to streams and cause channel instability. A “natural” watershed is not necessarily “stable”. 11.0 WATERSHED INDICATORS Indicators are used to monitor watershed recovery from legacy impacts, to monitor the effectiveness of current management strategies, and to track progress toward Sustainable Forest Management objectives. 11.1 Indicators for On-going Forest Management Table 2 gives monitoring intervals, objectives and thresholds for proposed indicators for watershed units in the study area. Statistical sampling or analysis is not proposed because the indicators are based on complete inventory information which is intended to be updated at the intervals indicated. These indicators are intended to guide on-going forest management as well as to track progress toward Sustainable Forest Management objectives (Section 11.2). In addition to tracking watershed data, watershed and stream conditions should be reviewed using new aerial photography or other high resolution imagery every ten years; and/or by periodic helicopter overviews, especially if extreme storms or large landslides occur. Indicators with three-year monitoring intervals reflect processes that are evident over fairly short time intervals. Indicators with ten-year monitoring intervals reflect processes that take place over longer time intervals. For example, watersheds exhibiting channel disturbance from landslides, such as scoured or aggraded channels, may be expected to show improvement in channel condition over about ten years. Watersheds with floodplains that have experienced channel instability and loss of LWD, and have regenerated primarily to alder, may take many decades to approach a predisturbance condition, if it requires re-establishing mature conifers in the riparian zone. 11.2 Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Objectives The proposed indicator for this objective is the number of watershed units that exhibit a target watershed condition relative to the total number of watershed units. (The indicator could also be expressed as an area ratio). It is proposed that the target condition be to have all watershed units in the bottom two trend categories shown on Figure 6. These are:

A – Stable, or consistent with natural. B – Improving, may have sites that are still disturbed.

Indicator Reason Interval to re-measure Targets & Thresholds

A.

Potential stability hazards -- these represent vulnerability to future instability

1. Area (ha) of steep terrain logged in last 10 years (rolling time interval)

Limits may be set for individual watersheds in management strategies. Track effectiveness of these strategies to manage steep terrain.

Every 3 years

Measure together with No. 3.

2. Road length of moderate or higher stability hazard not deactivated

Potential hazard, ongoing management of road systems

Every 3 years

Include in risk management of road system

Landslide occurrence3. No. of landslides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain

harvested in last 10 years (rolling time interval) -- measured over total project area.

Track how well steep terrain is being managed, & how well TSA's predict instability.

Every 3 years

Maintain low frequency of landslides in harvested steep terrain (<3 slides/100 ha logged steep)

4. No. of landslides per km of road on steep terrain, constructed since 1995 -- measured over total project area.

Track the performance of road construction on steep terrain

Every 3 years

Maintain low frequency of landslides from new roads constructed on steep terrain (<0.1 slides/km).

5. Total number of landslides from roads and cutblocks per watershed area (no./km2) in last 10 years (rolling time interval) -- for each watershed unit.

Track significance of development-related landslides at watershed scale.

Every 3 years

If >0.5 slides/km2, OR after extreme storm, review channel conditions to assess impacts.

B.

Riparian condition (by watershed)*6. Length (km) of alluvial & semi-alluvial streams (other

than S6's) with inadequate riparian forest to supply LWD.Track recovery of riparian forest. Every 10

yearsContinual decline in riparian forest inadequate for LWD.

7. Length of alluvial & semi-alluvial streams (other than S6's) per watershed area with inadequate riparian forest to supply LWD (km/km2)

Track significance of riparian function at watershed scale.

Every 10 years

Long term decline to <0.01 km/km2

for watershed units that currently exceed this

8. Length (km) of alluvial streams with inadequate riparian forest to control bank erosion (CBE).

Track recovery of riparian forest. Every 10 years

Continual decline in riparian forest inadequate for CBE.

9. Length of alluvial streams per watershed area with inadequate riparian forest to control bank erosion (km/km2)

Track significance of riparian function at watershed scale.

Every 10 years

Long term decline to <0.01 km/km2

for watershed units that currently exceed this

*Recovery of riparian forest to a large degree depends on growth of trees which for large streams can take many years to achieve adequate riparian function.

Table 2 -- Proposed indicators, monitoring intervals and thresholds for on-going forest management

Landslides -- objective: To prevent material adverse effects on water quality, fish habitat, timber and long-term soil productivity caused by development-related landslides.

Stream channels -- objectives: To maintain functioning riparian forests needed for stream channel integrity; and to allow continued recovery of riparian forests with preCode legacy impacts.


Page 24 of 33

Progress toward the SFM objective would be demonstrated by watershed units dropping down the trend categories in Figure 6. Table 3 indicates estimated time intervals for disturbed watershed units to improve by one trend category. The estimates are purely subjective, and based on the nature of the disturbance. For example, disturbance caused by inadequate riparian forest is assumed to take longer to recover than disturbance caused by landslides. 12.0 FUTURE RESTORATION PROJECTS Maps F1, F2 and F3 display candidate sites for the following:

Riparian assessments Assessments for in-stream treatments Road deactivation assessments

Site specific projects such as improving fish access at road crossings cannot be identified from the overview-level information in this project; but the stream gradients, channel types, era of road construction and fish ranking may help to narrow the range where these sites might occur. Priority watersheds The watershed units with the greatest fisheries values and highest sensitivity are:

Burman Remainder Jacklah Remainder

The upper limit of anadromous habitat should be verified for the Jacklah River because anadromous reaches would be a higher priority for restoration works. Hydrologic assessments should be done for proposed for in-stream works to assess channel stability, especially for any sites in the Burman, which has highly active alluvial channels. Criteria for riparian assessments (Map F1) The purpose of riparian treatments for stream restoration is to promote the development of riparian forest that will supply functioning LWD and will have a root network adequate to resist bank erosion. There may be ecological objectives as well. Stands chosen for riparian treatments are those where the riparian forest has been logged and the regenerated stands are inadequate for these functions; for example, floodplains that have regenerated to alder, or even-aged dense second growth stands with shallow root mats. Riparian treatments in second growth conifers include spacing and other treatments to promote tree growth and increased tree diameters. The intent is to accelerate the rate at which the conifers will reach sufficient size for improved ecological function as well as for channel bank erosion and LWD supply. Riparian treatments in alder stands include small clearings to release understory conifers, where present; and where conifers are sparse or absent, small clearings to plant conifers.

Table 3 -- Proposed SFM Indicator and Targets

Long Term SFM objective: all watershed units to be in the bottom 2 trend categories (A, B) in Figure 6:

Indicator: proportion of watershed units that are in the target condition (A,B)

Long Term SFM objective: all watershed units to be in the bottom 2 trend categories (A, B) in Figure 6:A - Stable; or consistent with naturalB - Improving, may have sites that are still disturbed

Indicators in Table 2 provide measurements for management strategies to meet this objective.

Forecast for watersheds in trend categories C & D

W t h d it C t t d Estimated time to


No. of watershed units in categories A & B =10/14 (71%)Area of watershed units in categories A & B = 7,845 ha/13,329 ha (59%)



Current condition:

Watershed units now in categories C, D Fish rank Current trend

(Figure 6/Table A1) Nature of main disturbanceEstimated time to improve to next trend category

Jacklah-2 4 Moderately disturbed (C) Some scoured channels, aggraded lower reach of main stream; disturbed from landslides/slumps & high flood flows

10 years





Current condition:

Matchlee 3 Moderately disturbed (C) Sediment in channels from landslides; fan aggraded 10 yearsJacklah-Remainder 2 Highly disturbed (D) Channels scoured, alluvial reaches overwidened & aggraded

from riparian logging & from landslides.20 years

Wilson 3 Highly disturbed (D) Scoured channel from landslides 10 years





Current condition:


Page 25 of 33

The intent is to promote conifer growth in order to develop more effective root mats to resist erosion, and to ensure a long term supply of durable LWD. There may also be treatments for ecological objectives, e.g. scarring trees to promote mortality. Juvenile conifers or alder stands that have become established because of natural disturbances are not normally targeted for riparian treatments. They often indicate a high level of natural channel activity. Candidate sites for riparian assessments are selected using the following criteria: • Riparian class: S1, S2 or S3 • Channel type: alluvial • Age of riparian forest: Riparian age class 3 or 4 (20-60 years – Table B3b). Several alluvial reaches in the Jacklah meet these criteria (Map F1); there are few other candidate sites in the study area. There are numerous alder bands in the Burman floodplain but most of these have been created by natural disturbance. The sites identified on Map F1 need to be reviewed in the field to confirm that they are potential candidates for riparian treatments. Criteria for in-stream sites (Map F2) Experience has indicated that restoration works in small low-gradient streams are likely to have a higher success rate than in larger, higher energy streams (Hartman and Miles, 1995). Most main channels of large streams, and channels on active fans, are usually not desirable sites for in-stream works. Potential candidate sites for in-stream restoration work are alluvial reaches where the riparian forest has been logged (less than 60 years old). Map F2 identifies alluvial reaches of the Jacklah where suitable sites might be present; these need field confirmation. The majority of streams on the Burman floodplain are in a natural condition; a few have been affected by road construction or riparian logging. Potential sites for instream work have been identified by M.C. Wright and Associates. The Burman is a highly active fluvial system and hydrologic assessments should be done for any in-stream work proposed. See Section 13. Road deactivation (Map F3) Criteria for candidate sites for road deactivation are: • Road not under permit (as indicated in the GIS data) • Road not already permanently deactivated • Stability hazard:

o 1st priority: Moderately high or high stability hazard with moderately high or high sediment delivery potential to fish.

o 2nd priority: Other road segments with a moderately high or high stability hazard. o 3rd priority: Moderate stability hazard with moderately high or high sediment

delivery potential to fish. o 4th priority: Other road segments with moderate stability hazard.


Page 26 of 33

Road deactivation information in the digital data may not be up to date. Some roads indicated as candidate sites may already have been deactivated. Potential sites would need to be field reviewed. As well the road status (road permit or nonstatus) should be confirmed. 13.0 COMMENTS ON FINDINGS 1. Burman channel impacts Wright (2009) reports that until 1972, the Burman River supported large runs of pink salmon (escapements up to 165,000), Chinook (up to 10,000), coho (up to 10,000) and chum (up to 20,000). After 1972 these runs declined sharply; in 2001, only 24 individual pink salmon returned to the Burman. Wright attributes these declines to logging impacts, because the decline in salmon runs followed logging in the Burman valley. Wright does not indicate whether the Burman is anomalous in these declines or whether there were general declines in escapements in coastal watersheds during this period. As of June 2009, a total of 292 ha has been logged in the Burman: 256 ha (12%) in the Remainder and 36 ha (7%) in the lower part of Burman-4 (see Figure 7). Roads have encroached on the Burman channel in a few places, and logging of the Burman-4 fan probably aggravated channel instability following logging although the canopy has now mostly closed over the stream channels. There have been no development-related landslides and limited riparian logging along the Burman River. Increased bank erosion on the Burman River can be attributed to logging at one location (Figure 8, Map R1). Twenty-three percent of the Burman watershed is managed by BCTS; the remaining 77% is in Strathcona Park. The watershed area in the park is not within the scope of this assessment; however, some observations can be made from GoogleEarth and satellite imagery. The Burman is a highly active fluvial system. In the portion of the watershed within the study area there are numerous avalanche tracks and active mass wasting (rockfalls, rockslides) in the upper valley walls resulting in a high rate of sediment production and transport (Figure 9). These processes are also visible on GoogleEarth and satellite images of the portion of the watershed in Strathcona Park (Map B1). The top end of the floodplain is at the upper limit of BCTS’s tenure; there are no large floodplains in the park portion of the watershed. Streams within the park appear to be mainly confined channels with high transport capacity. There are numerous headwater lakes in the upland areas in the upper watershed. It is unlikely that the dramatic declines in fish population in the Burman have been caused by logging. Relative to natural processes in the watershed, the extent of disturbance from forest development has been minor. It is more likely that factors external to the watershed have caused the declines. Other disturbance Large-scale natural forest disturbances have occurred periodically in the study area (Figure 10); these are likely to have been caused by fire. The large rockslide on the north side of

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�� !�" #��$��#% �&��#��'��(�"�#$� � ��!�$ �&��#

)�� &��* (�

��

�#�� #�� ! ��#��$ ��

+�,��% �&��#�%��#�� - #��$��

�� .�#��/��0*1/

2.%1*��3��4� "��' /��,�$

0�� ,,�� ,,��

�� 5�! ��,,��

Site A (Figure 7)

NSite A (Figure 7)1969 riparian loggingno channel change evident





Site B (Figure 7)Riparian logging -- colluvial depositsMinimal to no widening road still present


Site B (Figure 7)Riparian logging -- colluvial depositsMinimal to no widening, road still presentbut possibly threatened -- little change in 2007 sat image









Burman rockslide



Burman rockslide

Site C (Figure 7)



Burman rockslide

Site C (Figure 7)

Riparian loggingNo channel change evident



Burman rockslide

Riparian loggingProbable increasedbank erosion

Site C (Figure 7)




Burman rockslide


Site C (Figure 7)


Logging on Burman‐4 fanProbable channel widening following logging

Figure 8 -- Logged riparian areas on Burman River -- 1995 airphotos



Burman rockslide


Site C (Figure 7)



Figure 8 -- Logged riparian areas on Burman River -- 1995 airphotos



Burman rockslide


Site C (Figure 7)




Page 27 of 33

the Burman River occurred some time before 1941, according to the date of establishment for the stands at the base of the rockslide. The rockslide is still active, with ongoing rockfalls and talus development; and tension cracks are visible on the airphotos above and around the headwall area of the rockslide. The Jacklah and Wilson channels have been scoured and aggraded by landslides and by peak flows, most recently during the severe storms of 2006 (Figures 11 and 12). The Matchlee watershed has had numerous landslides from old road systems and has also experienced several recent landslides (Figure 13). The Matchlee fan is aggraded from these events. M. Belisle (BCTS) observed that there is a blockage of landslide debris above the fan that is currently limiting anadromous access.

Figure 9. Looking west in the upper Popsicle Creek valley. Sediment from mass wasting (rockfalls) enters the stream system by transport down gullies. Photo date: July 2, 2009

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "#$��

��

$��

%�&��'��%��"��

()*+��,� ��'��!�� -��&��

� � � .� ��-��$"/�+-

0


Page 28 of 33

Figure 11. Looking downstream along Jacklah River at the confluence of Jacklah-2. Channel scoured, aggraded from landslides and high flow events. Photo date: July 2, 2009.

Figure 12. Looking upstream at Wilson Creek in upper watershed. Channel scoured, aggraded from recent large natural landslide (2006). Photo date: July 2, 2009.


Page 29 of 33

2. Pre and postCode landslide occurrence To 2008, 15% (2,537 ha) of the project area has been logged. Of this area, 32% (813 ha) was harvested since 1995 under Code practices (Table A2b), and 68% (1,723 ha) was harvested before 1995. Figure 14 shows the distribution of harvesting over time. Over the total study area, the frequency of landslides from preCode roads was 1.45 landslides per km of road built on steep terrain (Table A2b). No landslides have occurred from postCode roads. The frequency of landslides from preCode and postCode blocks respectively was 2.9 and 1.4 landslides per 100 ha of logged steep terrain. Landslide frequencies from development are highest in the Wilson, Jacklah and Matchlee watersheds. No development-related landslides were identified in the Burman watershed.

Figure 13. Recent landslide in old block in Matchlee watershed. Photo date: July 2, 2009.


Page 30 of 33

This is a very substantial improvement in the stability performance of postCode roads, and a significant improvement in landslides from harvested blocks although the recent blocks may not yet have been fully tested. The landslide frequencies for harvested blocks and natural debris flows are low compared to landslide frequencies in other areas with similar precipitation. This may be because of local factors such as terrain and soil conditions, or valley orientation relative to storm direction. Glynnis Horel, P. Eng.

September 21, 2009

Figure 14 - Rate of Logging in Project Area


Page 31 of 33

References Alila, Y. and M. Schnorbus. 2005. Hydrologic Decision Making Tools for sustainable Forest Management in Rain Dominated Coastal BC Watersheds. Forest Investment Account, Forest Science Program. Project Y051293. Askin, R. 2009. Burman River: Hydrotechnical Assessment of Proposed Bridge Crossing. Report to BC Timber Sales, Strait of Georgia, dated March 31, 2009. Bahuguna, D. 2008. Postharvest windthrow and recruitment of large woody debris in riparian buffers. M.Sc. thesis, Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, December 2008. Bailey, C.E., R.G. Millar and M. Miles. 2005. A proposed index of channel sensitivity to riparian disturbance. Geomorphological Processes and Human Impacts in River Basins: Proceedings of the International Conference held at Solsona, Catalonia, Spain May 2004. IAHS pub. 299 p. 223-230. BC Forest Practices Board. 2007. The Effect of Mountain Pine Beetle Attack and Salvage Harvesting on Streamflows. FPB/SIR/16 BC Ministry of Forests. 1995, rev. 1999. Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook, Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook. 2nd ed. BC Ministry of Forests. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Guidebook. [web] Brummer, C.J., T.B. Abbe, J.R. Sampson, D.R. Montgomery. 2006. Influence of vertical channel change associated with wood accumulations on delineating channel migration zones, Washington, USA. Geomorphology Vol. 80 p. 295-309. Chapman, A. 2003. Long-Term Effects of Forest Harvest on Peak Streamflow Rates in Coastal BC Rivers. Forestry Innovation Investment. Forintek Canada Corporation Project R2003-0119. Fausch, K.D. and T.G. Northcode. 1992. Large wood debris and salmonid habitat in a small coastal British Columbia stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Vol 49: p. 682-693. Freeman, M.W. [editor]. 2000. Region III Forest Resources and Practices, Riparian Management Annotated Bibliography. Report to the Alaska Board of Forestry. Compiled by Region III Science/Technical Committee, August 2000. Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760. Gustavson, K. and D. Brown. 2002. Monitoring Land Use Impacts on Fish Sustainability in Forest Environments. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Aquatic Information Branch.


Page 32 of 33

Hartman, G. F. and M. Miles. 1995. Evaluation of Fish Habitat Improvement Projects in B.C. and Recommendations on the Development of Guidelines for Future Work. Report prepared for B.C. Min. of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Br., Victoria, B.C. 40 p. Horel, G. 2006. Summary of landslide occurrence on northern Vancouver Island. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin 10(1):1–9. Horel, G. 2007. Overview-level Landslide Runout Study. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin 10(2):15-24. Horel, G. 2007. Watershed Indicators, Tree Farm Licence 6 and Tree Farm Licence 39 Block 4, Western Forest Products Inc., North Vancouver Island Region. Forest Investment Account Projects 6549006 and 6561023. Horel, G. and S. Higman. 2006. Terrain Management Code of Practice. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin 9(2):7-10. Hudson, R. 2000. Assessing Snowpack Recovery of Watersheds in the Vancouver Forest Region. Research Section, Coast Forest Region, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Nanaimo, B.C. Technical Report TR-004/2000. Hudson, R. 2003. Using Combined Snowpack and Rainfall Interception Components to Assess Hydrologic Recovery of a Timber-Harvested Site: Working Toward an Operational Method. Res.Sec. Coast For. Reg., BC Min. For., Nanaimo, B.C. Technical Report TR-027/2003. Hudson, R. and G. Horel. 2007. An operational method of assessing hydrologic recovery for Vancouver Island and south coastal B.C. Research Section, Coast Forest Region, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Nanaimo, B.C. Technical Report TR-032/2007. Keller, E.A. and F.J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of large organic material on channel form and fluvial processes. Earth Surface Processes, Vol. 4, p. 361-380. Millar, R.G. 2000. Influence of bank vegetation on alluvial channel patterns. Water Resources Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, p. 1109-1118. Millar, R.G. and M.C. Quick. 1993. Effect of bank stability on geometry of gravel rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 119 No. 12, p. 1343-1363. Millar, R.G. and M.C. Quick. 1998. Stable width and depth of gravel-bed rivers with cohesive banks. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 124 No. 10, p. 1005-1013. Mongtomery, D.R., B.D. Collins, J.M. Buffington, and T.B. Abbe. 2003. Geomorphic Effects of Wood in Rivers. American Fisheries Society Symposium 2003. Wright, M.C. 2009. Burman River Stream 11 (Orphaned Channel) Restoration Project 208: As-built Report. Report to BC Timber Sales, Strait of Georgia, February 2009.


Page 33 of 33

Other reports providing background information: Askin, R. 2006. Burman Watershed: Engineering Evaluations along the Existing Burman Mainline. Report to BC Timber Sales, March 27, 2006. Prepared by Integrated Watersheds. Apedaile, L. 2006. Burman Mainline Road Reconstruction Plan. Report to BC Timber Sales, Strait of Georgia, September 2006. Prepared by Econ Consulting. Wright, M.C. and Doucet, R. 2007. Prescription to Restore Stream 11 (Orphan Channel) in the Burman River Watershed. Report to BC Timber Sales, Strait of Georgia, March 2007. Forest Investment Account Project #6551001, COTFL 196551.

APPENDIX A

Tables

1. Digital GIS data for this project including forest cover, harvested areas, roads, streams, water bodies, contours, terrain stability, and 2007 Spot 5 satellite image provided by BC Timber Sales. Data as available at June 2009.

2. Road deactivation may not be up to date. Some streams are unclassified, and some classifications are suspect.

3. Landslides idenfied from 1995 airphotos, 2007 satellite image; and heli recon on July 2, 2009.4. "Steep terrain" is the combined area of Class 4 and 5 from terrain stability mapping, PLUS slopes steeper than

60% outside those polygons (from TRIM mapping).5. Total harvest area and steep terrain logged include harvesting up to 60 years old.6. Natural landslides include rockslides in alpine areas. Fully forested old naturals are not included in occurrence of

natural landslides (no./km2), Table A3. Natural landslides may not all be reported, because small landslides under the canopy are difficult to identify.

7. Riparian condition: CBE, LWD -- see definitions Tables B3b and B3c.8. PreCode and postCode roads were determined by whether or not they were visible on the 1995 airphotos.

Roads visible on the airphotos were assumed to be preCode; roads not visible were assumed to be postCode.

9. Stream lengths for large streams (polygons) were determined by intersecting the polygons with lines constructed through the polygons.

10. Pre 1995 and post 1995 harvest areas determined from year of harvest in logging coverage and forest cover.

11. In Table A2, "n/a" means that no harvesting or road construction took place during the period (pre or post 1995) so the indicator is not applicable.

12. In Table A2, a dashed line "-" means zero.

Notes on Tables -- BCTS Burman-Jacklah area of TFL 19

July 2009 Table A1 Page 1

Table A1BCTS -- Burman-Jacklah area

Watershed Fish Trend Assessments & Watershed Descriptions Sensitive Areas Key Management ConcernsRank Watershed Initiatives

Descriptions are based on airphoto interpretation, satellite imagery, digital topographic data, and helicopter reconnaissance. No site-level field investigation has been done.

A 4 Stable (A) Teardrop-shaped watershed draining NE into Matchlee Bay; small fan at outlet. Upper watershed extends into alpine; a few avalanche paths. Two tributary basins joining at 0.6 km upstream of ocean. N tributary entrenched in steep-sided V-shaped valley; a few natural landslides (rockslides) in upper basin; hillslopes well connected to stream. S tributary is steep in lower basin, rises to upland with steep slopes on W side of basin, moderate to steep slopes on E side; hillslopes generally well connected to streams, areas of irregular terrain provide limited runout zones. Streams in watershed mainly nonalluvial; one short alluvial reach in upper S tributary basin. One small pond in upland; no significant water storage. No development-related landslides.

Few sensitive areas. Terrain stability. A few road sections on steep terrain.

B 4 Stable (A) Approximately teardrop-shaped watershed draining E into Matchlee Bay, very small fan at outlet. Asymmetric drainage with most drainage area on S side of watershed. Lake (16.9 ha) in mid watershed; 2 small upland lakes (1.6 ha & 0.3 ha). Extensive steep terrain; a few natural landslides (mainly rockslides, one debris flow on N side of lake). Below lake, hillslopes well connected to stream. Above lake, moderate lower slopes provide some runout zones. Upper watershed extends into alpine & alpine forest. Most streams nonalluvial; alluvial reach & small fan above lake. Existing block on fan; alluvial stream buffered; road appears OK; no fan disturbance evident in heli recon. No development-related landslides.

Small fan & alluvial stream above lake.

Terrain stability; roads on steep terrain; road across fan.

Burman Total Burman watershed area is 22,670 ha. BCTS manages the lower 5,143 ha (23%) of the watershed; the rest is in Strathcona Park.

Burman-1 4 Undeveloped (A) Triangular-shaped basin draining N into Burman River at 0.79 km above estuary; fan at outlet on Burman valley floor. Extensive steep terrain; a few natural landslides (rockslides). HIllslopes generally well connected to streams; limited areas of moderate slopes. Upper basin extends into alpine & alpine forest; several avalanche paths. Several small upland lakes & ponds, the largest is 1.4 ha; no other water storage. Two tributary sub-basins join at top of fan. Streams above fan mainly steep-gradient nonalluvial except for a few short alluvial & semi-alluvial reaches in upper basin. No development to date. Burman 1 & Burman 2 streams may sometimes join on fan.

Fan (active). Harvesting or road construction on fan.

Burman-2 4 Undeveloped (A) Elongate teardrop-shaped basin draining NW into Burman River at 0.96 km above estuary; drains across same fan as Burman 1. Steep-sided V-shaped valley form with engrenched nonalluvial stream; streams above fan are mainly steep-gradient nonalluvial. Upper basin extends into alpine & alpine forest; several avalanche paths; three small alpine lakes, the largest is 1.4 ha. Extensive steep terrain; several natural landslides including rockslides & debris slides or flows. No development to date. Hillslopes well connected to stream.


Burman-3 3 Undeveloped (A) Broad teardrop-shaped basin draining N into Burman River at 5.4 km above estuary. Upper basin extends into alpine & alpine forest. One small upland pond, no other water storage. Fan at outlet on Burman valley floor. Streams above fan are mainly steep-gradient nonalluvial; hillslopes well connected to streams. Two tributary sub-basins join at 0.4 km above fan. W sub-basin has steep-sided gorge, a few natural landslides (mainly rockslides) & numerous avalanche paths. E sub-basin has moderate to steep terrain, a few rockslides in upper valley walls; & a few avalanche paths. No development to date.

Fan Harvesting or road construction on fan.

Burman-4 2 Fan is active but is substantially recovered from previous logging. (B).

Elongate basin draining NW into Burman River at 7.1 above estuary. Upper basin extends into alpine & alpine forest. One small alpine pond; no lakes or other water storage. Active fan at outlet; 2 tributary creeks enter Burman-4 on fan; at times these tributaries may drain directly into Burman River. Fan logged in 1970; no logging above fan to date. Logging may have aggravated fan activity; current fan condition appears close to natural behaviour. Above fan, main basin has steep-sided V-shaped valley with entrenched nonalluvial stream above fan; numerous avalanche paths; rockslides in upper valley walls; hillslopes well connected to stream. E tributary sub-basin above fan has steep nonalluvial stream mainly entrenched in gorge, a few rockslides & avalanche paths. No development-related landslides.


Popsicle 4 Undeveloped (A) Elongate basin with single dominant mainstem drains S into Burman River at 8.8 km above estuary. V-shaped valley with entrenched nonalluvial stream in lower basin, becoming narrow U-shaped in upper basin with short alluvial & semi-alluvial reaches; hillslopes well connected to stream. Basin extends into alpine in upper valley slopes; small alpine lake at top of mainstem. Numerous natural landslides (rockslides & debris slides) & avalanche paths including a large recent rockslide; high rate of natural sediment transport. Postglacial fan-delta or terrace segment where valley outlets on main Burman valley floor; small active lower fan. No development to date.

Few sensitive areas. Terrain stability, avalanches. Sediment delivery to Burman River. Difficult terrain for road building.



Burman Remainder

1 Minor riparian disturbance from 1970's logging & road building. (B).

Sidechannel restoration Main Burman valley draining W into S end of Matchlee Bay. Extensive floodplain in valley floor of variable width. Extensive alluvial streams; fans where tributary creeks & basins enter main Burman valley floor. High sensitivity. Upper valley slopes N side extend into alpine; several avalanche tracks. Frequent landslides in mid & upper valley slopes; mainly rockslides, a few debris slides; one very large rockslide on N side of Burman River near Popsicle Creek confluence, still active. No development-related landslides. Logging in 1970's in lower Burman on N side of valley; & in vicinity of Burman-4 fan. Riparian logging on S side of channel opposite large rockslide may have caused channel widening; riparian logging elsewhere has had mimimal effect on Burman channel. Logging of Burman-4 fan in 1970 may have contributed to channel instability on fan; canopy now mostly closed over channel. Old road built close to stream in places & has been eroded away in a few places. Road has been re-opened & some sections realigned away from channel. Overall, development-related disturbance is minor. Burman has highly active channel & high bed load, mainly from naturally occurring mass wasting & sediment transport.

Estuary. Floodplains; extensive alluvial streams; fans from tributary streams. Sidechannel enhancement.

Harvesting or road construction on floodplain, across fans & adjacent to alluvial streams.

Jacklah Total Jacklah watershed area is 4,872 ha. BCTS manages 4,783 ha (98%) of the watershed -- all but a small area (89 ha) at the mouth of the river.

Jacklah-1 4 Stable (A) Deactivation of some spur roads.

Approximately rectangular basin draining NE into Jacklah River at 5.5 km above estuary. V-shaped valley form with irregular alignment & moderate to steep slopes; mainly nonalluvial streams; a few short alluvial & semi-alluvial reaches in mid & upper basin. Upper basin rises to alpine & alpine forest; a few avalanche tracks. Hillslopes moderately well connected to streams; moderate slope areas provide some runout zones. A few natural landslides (ancient rockslides); 2 landslides from a postCode block; 2 landslides from a preCode road; minor sediment to streams from landslides.

Few sensitive areas. Sediment delivery to Jacklah mainstem.

Jacklah-2 4 Moderate channel disturbance from landslides/slumps & high flood flows. (C)

Approximately diamond-shaped basin draining W into Jacklah River at 6.9 km above estuary. Lower basin was logged in 1950's. Two tributary sub-basins join at 0.2 km from Jacklah River confluence; both extend into alpine & alpine forest at upper elevations; both have headwater lakes (5.1 ha in N sub-basin, 4.1 ha in S sub-basin). Streams are mainly nonalluvial with short alluvial or semi-alluvial reaches in vicinity of headwater lakes. Hillslopes generally well connected to streams; upland areas of moderate slopes & irregular terrain provide some runout zones. East end of N sub-basin has low drainage divide to Watershed B. Several natural landslides (rockslides & debris slide/flows); 1 landslide in preCode block, scoured or torrented channel in postCode block, & slumps along gully sidewalls from torrented channels. Scoured channels likely to be from 2006 storms. Aggraded reach just above Jacklah confluence. Channel disturbance from natural & development-related events.

Few sensitive areas. Terrain stability. Sediment delivery to Jacklah mainstem.

Jacklah-3 4 Stable (A) Deactivation of spur roads. Headwater basin of Jacklah mainstem; downstream limit of basin is approximately 13 km from estuary. Dendritic stream pattern with 3 main tributary creek drainages; one small headwater lake (2.8 ha) in N tributary creek drainage, no other water storage. Several alluvial reaches; small fan from N tributary creek at confluence with Jacklah River. Upper elevations rise to alpine & alpine forest; numerous avalanche paths; several natural landslides, mainly rockslides. No development-related landslides. Hillslopes moderately well connected to streams; moderate slope areas & irregular terrain provide some runout zones.

Fan (small), alluvial reaches.

Sediment delivery to Jacklah mainstem.

Jacklah Remainder

2 Channel scoured, alluvial reaches aggraded (D)

Spurs deactivated at top end of unit.

Main Jacklah River valley. Estuary at outlet. Valley alignment variable; bottom 8 km trends generally N-S; top 4 km trends E-W. Low-gradient channel, mainly confined semi-alluvial to nonalluvial with some alluvial reaches; several fans where tributary creeks enter main valley floor. Alluvial reaches have variable but generally limited floodplains. Valley floor & lower slopes were logged between 1950 & 1981; alluvial reaches overwidened & aggraded from riparian logging & from landslides (natural & development-related); channel scoured downstream of Jacklah-2 confluence.

Estuary, floodplains, alluvial reaches, fans.

Harvesting on floodplains & next to alluvial reaches; harvesting or road building across fans. Terrain stability.

Matchlee 3 Aggraded fan from landslides (C)

Irregular-shaped watershed draining SW into Matchlee Bay; small fan at outlet. Steep-sided V-shaped valleys with entrenched steep-gradient nonalluvial streams; hillslopes well connected to streams. Upper elevations extend into alpine; several avalanche paths. Three headwater lakes in E tributary basin (7.6 ha, 2.5 ha, 2.0 ha); numerous alpine ponds in headwaters of W tributary. Several natural landslides (rockslides & debris slides/flows); a few landslides from preCode blocks, numerous landslides from preCode roads. Fan is aggraded from landslides (natural & development related); sediment in channel.

Fan (small) Terrain stability; unstable old roads.



Wilson 3 Channel scoured from Nov 2006 landslide (D).

Some road deactivation. Drains NE into Muchalat Inlet; small fan & estuary at outlet; fan is not on BCTS land. BCTS has east side of watershed; tenure divides down Wilson Creek channel. Streams mainly nonalluvial & semi-alluvial; low sensitivity. Lower watershed has V-shaped valley with confined to entrenched stream; upper valley broadens. Valley slopes rise to narrow rounded ridgetops; some upland areas of moderate slopes; a few upland ponds in the upper valley slopes; SE corner of watershed extends into alpine. Hillslopes generally well connected to streams; areas of moderate slopes provide some runout zones. Block in lower watershed logged in 1950's; most of valley bottom & lower slopes logged in 1980's. Four landslides from preCode blocks, 1 from postCode block, 1 from preCode road. Two natural landslides -- 1 rockslide & 1 large debris flow (Nov 2006), full length of mainstem scoured from this event.

Fan (small), estuary. Terrain stability.

Table A2a -- Burman-Jacklah Watershed Units (see also Notes on Tables)Watershed: A B Total Matchlee WilsonBasin: 1 2 3 4 Popsicle Remainder 1 2 3 Remainder JacklahTotal area, ha 458 531 523 507 348 671 1,738 2,496 422 449 1,290 2,711 4,872 1,565 1,637 BCTS area, ha (see report, Figure 1 ) 458 531 523 507 348 523 1,122 2,120 422 449 1,290 2,622 4,783 1,564 848 BCTS area, % of total area 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78% 65% 85% 100% 100% 100% 97% 98% 100% 52%BCTS area, km2 4.6 5.3 5.2 5.1 3.5 5.2 11.2 21.2 4.2 4.5 12.9 26.2 48 15.6 8.5Fisheries Rank 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 1 4 4 4 2 2 3 3Harvest history - BCTS area - to Jun 2009Total harvested area <60 yrs old 79 96 - - - 36 - 256 89 75 121 669 954 352 189

% of total BCTS area 17% 18% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 12% 21% 17% 9% 26% 23% 22%Area harvested before 1995, ha 56 12 - - - 36 - 256 60 40 - 502 603 352 127 Area harvested 1995 and later, ha 22 84 - - - - - 0.03 29 35 183 166 413 - 62 Total steep terrain, ha 249 305 337 337 192 285 778 1,217 186 257 688 1,684 2,814 834 329 Steep terrain logged before 1995, ha 12 4 - - - 0.2 - 62 29 18 - 110 157 188 49 Steep terrain logged 1995 and later, ha 19 48 - - - - - - 10 24 49 79 162 - 30 Roads - to Jun 2009Total built road length, km 2.3 4.6 - - 0.1 1.9 - 20.2 4.5 6.2 13.6 19.9 44 20.7 11.2 Total length M, MH, H stability hazard, km 0.6 0.8 - - - - - 2.3 1.5 1.6 2.3 4.2 10 12.7 3.0 Length M, MH, H hazard not perm. deactivated 0.6 0.8 - - - - - 2.3 0.7 1.6 1.0 3.9 7 12.7 2.2 Roads on steep terrain built before 1995, km 0.6 - - - - - - 2.4 1.0 0.1 - 1.1 2 10.0 2.0 Roads on steep terrain built 1995 and later, km - 1.9 - - - - - 0.5 0.2 2.4 3.5 1.0 7 - 1.5 Landslides - to Jul 2009Landslides originating at roads:No. of slides at roads built before 1995 - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - - 2 n/a - 2 23 1 No. of slides/km of road on steep terrain <1995 - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - - 21.5 n/a - 0.28 2.3 0.5No. of slides at roads built 1995 or later n/a - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - - - - n/a - No. of slides/km of road on steep terrain >=1995 n/a - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - - - n/a - Landslides originating in harvested cutblocks:No. of slides in pre-1995 cutblocks - - n/a n/a n/a - n/a - - 3 n/a 4 6 3 4 No. of slides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain, logged before 1995 - - n/a n/a n/a - n/a - - 16.8 n/a 3.6 3.8 1.6 8.1 No. of slides in 1995 and later cutblocks - - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - 2 1 - - 3 n/a 1 No. of slides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain, logged 1995 and later - - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - 20.0 4.2 - - 1.9 n/a 3.3 Slides from cutblocks logged >= 1995, no./km2 - - - - - - - - 0.5 0.22 - - 1 - 0.12 Landslides originating in unharvested timber:Fully forested old naturals - 4 1 8 1 - 3 6 6 2 - 15 23 - - No. of natural landslides visible in forest cover 6 5 2 7 5 3 11 17 - 6 - 36 42 4 2 StreamsTotal length of mapped streams, km 13 11 14 14 12 14 36 46 7 10 26 61 103 32 22 Length alluvial channels, km 0.4 0.5 1.2 0.6 0.3 2.2 1.3 17.8 0.3 0.4 2.4 5.1 8 0.5 -

% of total stream length 3% 5% 9% 4% 3% 16% 4% 39% 4% 4% 10% 8% 2% 0%Length semi-alluvial channels, km 0.3 - 0.4 - - - 1.2 1.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 8.5 10 1.6 5.2

% of total stream length 2% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 8% 4% 3% 14% 5% 24%Length nonalluvial channels, km 12 10 12 13 11 11 34 26 6 9 22 47 85 30 17

% of total stream length 94% 95% 88% 96% 97% 84% 93% 57% 89% 92% 87% 78% 94% 76%Length channels in wetland, km - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

% of total stream length 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 0% 0%Riparian condition (alluvial & semi-alluvial streams only)Length assessed, km 12.7 10.7 13.7 13.9 11.7 13.7 36.3 39.5 7.1 10.1 25.5 57.6 100 31.8 22.1 Length natural condition (n), km - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Length modified but adequate (a), km - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Length modified, not assessed (m), km - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Length CBE, km - - - - - - - - - - - 0.9 0.9 - - Length CBE+LWD, km - - - - - - - 0.5 - - 0.2 1.9 2.1 - - Length LWD, km - - - - - 2.2 - 3.7 0.3 - 0.3 2.2 2.8 - 3.0

Burman Jacklah

Table A2b -- Total study areaTFL 19 takeback -- Burman-Jacklah area TotalSee also Notes on Tables AreaProject area, ha 16,452 Project area, km2 165 Harvest history - BCTS area - to Jun 2009Total harvested area <60 yrs old 2,537

% of total project area 15%Area harvested before 1995, ha 1,723 Area harvested 1995 & later, ha 813.36 Total steep terrain, ha 13,543

% of total area 82%Steep terrain logged before 1995 (<60 yrs), ha 524 Steep terrain logged 1995 & later, ha 347 Roads - to Jun 2009Total built road length, km 150.1 Total length M, MH, H stability hazard, km 32.1 Length M, MH, H hazard not perm. deactivated 28.9 Roads on steep terrain built before 1995, km 19.3 Roads on steep terrain built 1995 & later, km 11.9 Landslides - to Jul 2009Landslides originating at roads:No. of slides at roads built before 1995 28 No. of slides/km of road on steep terrain <1995 1.45 No. of slides at roads built 1995 or later - No. of slides/km of road on steep terrain >=1995 - Landslides originating in harvested cutblocks:No. of slides in pre-1995 cutblocks (includes windthrow) 15 No. of slides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain, logged before 1995 2.9 No. of slides in 1995 and later cutblocks (includes windthrow) 5 No. of slides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain, logged 1995 & later 1.4 Slides from cutblocks logged >= 1995, no./km2 0.03 Landslides originating in unharvested timber:Fully forested old naturals 59 No. of slides visible in forest cover 127 StreamsTotal length of mapped streams, km 362 Mapped stream density, km/km2 2.2Length alluvial channels, km 34

% of total stream length 9%Length semi-alluvial channels, km 22

% of total stream length 6%Length nonalluvial channels, km 306

% of total stream length 84%Length channels in wetland, km -

% of total stream length 0%Riparian condition (alluvial & semi-alluvial streams only)Length assessed, km 362 Length CBE, km 0.9 Length CBE+LWD, km 3 Length LWD, km 12

Table A3 -- Burman-Jacklah Watershed Units Watershed risk ratings See also Notes on TablesWatershed: A B Matchlee WilsonBasin: 1 2 3 4 Popsicle Remainder 1 2 3 RemainderTotal area, ha 458 531 523 507 348 671 1,738 2,496 422 449 1,290 2,711 1,565 1,637 BCTS area, ha (includes some areas of vacant Crown land) 458 531 523 507 348 523 1,122 2,120 422 449 1,290 2,622 1,564 848 BCTS area, % of total area 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78% 65% 85% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 52%BCTS area, km2 4.6 5.3 5.2 5.1 3.5 5.2 11.2 21.2 4.2 4.5 12.9 26.2 15.6 8.5Fisheries Rank 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 1 4 4 4 2 3 3Terrain StabilityRegional landslide frequency H H H H H H H H H H H H H HTotal steep terrain, ha 249 305 337 337 192 285 778 1,217 186 257 688 1,684 834 329

% of total BCTS area 54% 57% 65% 66% 55% 54% 69% 57% 44% 57% 53% 64% 53% 39%Relative terrain vulnerability H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

Natural debris slides/flows present N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y YOccurrence of natural landslides, no./km2 1.3 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.4 0.6 1.0 0.8 - 1.3 - 1.4 0.3 0.2

Relative frequency H M L H H M M M L H L H L LRunout slopes >50% of mainstem length N N N N N N N Y N N N N N NTerrain stability rating H H M H H M H H M H M H H HStreamsAlluvial streams per watershed area, km/km2 0.09 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.09 0.42 0.12 0.84 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.03 -

Channel sensitivity L L M L L H L H L L L M L LPresence of estuary Y Y YPresence of floodplains >3 channel widths extensive YPresence of fans small small Y Y Y Y small Y N N small Y small N

Sensitivity to riparian logging -- fans & floodplains L L M M M M L H L L L H L LStream sensitivity rating L L M M M M L H L L L H L LWatershed sensitivity rating 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 2Disturbance IndicatorsTerrain Stability -- cutblocks and roadsTotal no. of slides from roads and cutblocks - - - - - - - - 2 5 - 4 26 6

no./km2 of watershed area - - - - - - - - 0.5 1.1 - 0.2 1.7 0.7 Relative frequency L L L L L L L L M H L L H M

Roads M, MH, H hazard not perm. deactivated, km 0.6 0.8 - - - - - 2.3 0.7 1.6 1.0 3.9 12.7 2.2 km/km2 of watershed area 0.14 0.14 - - - - - 0.11 0.16 0.35 0.08 0.15 0.81 0.26

Relative road stability hazard L L L L L L L L L M L L H MStability disturbance rating L L L L L L L L M H L H H HStreamsAlluvial & semi-alluvial streams: Channel bank erosion (CBE), km/km2 - - - - - - - 0.02 - - 0.02 0.11 - -

CBE disturbance level L L L L L L L M L L M H L L Riparian forest inadequate for LWD, km/km2 - - - - - 0.42 - 0.18 0.08 - 0.02 0.08 - 0.35

LWD disturbance level L L L L L M L L L L L L L MStream disturbance rating L L L L L M L M L L M H L HWatershed disturbance rating 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 1Watershed risk L L L L L L L M L M L H M MRatings in red text have been adjusted based on observed physical stream conditions from airphotos, satellite image or heli recon.

Burman Jacklah

WATERSHED UNIT WATERSHED CODE OTHER NAME AREA (ha)

FISH RANK SPECIES PRESENT COMMENTS/ KNOWN BARRIER LOCATION

REFERENCE (next page)

A 930-505600 458 4 None No fish bearing streams were identified in this watershed 1 &2B 930-506900 531 4 None No fish bearing streams were identified in this watershed 2

Burman-1 930-507400-04000 523 4 COThe Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS) in Mapster reports that CO were observed in 1979. However, our TSG_Stream_Class layer classifies the tributaries in this watershed as non-fish bearing.

2&3

Burman-2 930-507400-0400 507 4 COThe Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS) in Mapster reports that CO were observed in 1979. However, our TSG_Stream_Class layer classifies the tributaries in this watershed as non-fish bearing.

2&3

Burman-3 930-507400-22200 348 3 CT 1.7m bedrock drop at 594m u/s of Kala creek; gradient barriers in other tributaries 4

Burman-4 930-507400-27700 671 2 CT, COBedrock falls located at 335m upstream of stream Burman M/L 10+189. Gradient barriers on Stream 4 at 320m upstream of the Burman M/L. Gradient barrier on Stream 14 at 445m upstream of the Burman M/L.

5

Burman-5 930-507400-34100 Popsicle Creek 1,738 4 Unknown Default fish ranking based on the slope gradients of the drainage 2

Burman-Remainder 930-507400 Burman River 2,496 1 CO, CM, CH, SO, PK,

ST, CT, RB

High escapements for Pink salmon were historically observed prior to logging in the 1960s. Since 1972, Pink salmon stock have been declining dramatically. Intensive restauration and enhancement efforts are deployed to improve CH, PK, SO, and CO stocks. Anadromous access up to barrier (bedrock cascades) at 13.0 km.

3 &7

Jacklah-1 930-502700 422 4 None No fish bearing streams were identified in this watershed 2Jacklah-2 930-502700-40600 449 4 None No fish bearing streams were identified in this watershed 2&4

Jacklah-3 930-502700 1,290 4 UnknownFish composition and barriers in the Jacklah River unknown in this watershed. However, the layer TSG_Stream_Clas shows that all the other tributaries are classified non-fish bearing.

2

Jacklah-Remainder 930-502700 Jacklah river 2,711 2 CO,CM,CT, SO, ST*,

PK Cascade barriers; specific location unknown 3

Matchlee 930-507900 Matchlee Creek 1,565 3 CM Landslide barrier at approximately 200m from the mouth of Matchlee Creek, thus limiting anadromous access.

3 & Personal observation

Wilson 930-502200 1,637 3 CO,CM,CT Short access from ocean, Cascade barriers; location unknown. 3

PK = Pink salmon

KO = Kokanee

ST = Steelhead trout Anad = Anadromous

CT = Cutthroat trout Res = Resident

u/s = upstreamd/s = downstream

Table A4

DV = Dolly Varden char

RB = Rainbow trout

4 -- Limited fisheries capacity. Few resident or anadromous fish.

Fish Ranking -- Jacklah-Burman watershed units

1 -- High to very high fish capacity; large or potentially large anadromous runs. 2 -- Important resident fishery or moderate anadromous capacity. 3 -- Small but significant anadromous capacity; or some resident fish.

Prepared by Myriam Belisle, BCTS

* = denotes potential large runs of identified species

Fisheries rank: Fish Species:

SO =Sockeye salmon

CO = Coho salmon

CM = Chum salmon

CH = Chinook salmon

REFERENCES -- fish ranking

1. Lemare Lake Logging Ltd., January 2008. Riparian Assessment for A48832 CP8 and CP7, CENGEA Forest 9.2.2a., Site plan electronic database.

2. ESRI ArcMap 9.2, TSG_TRIM_Contours and TSG_Stream_Class layers.

3. Mapster- Internet Database of DFO and MOE that identifies stream locations, elevations and references.

4. Wolfram, Wollenheit, R.P.F., February 2008. ECON consulting PO Box 329 Merville, BC, V0R 2M0. Field Cards for Riparian and Gully Assessment for A82286 E070C2PR-1 & E070C2PR-2.

5. Erika L. Anderson, B.Sc., June 2005. FishFor Contracting Ltd. P.O. Box 646 Port McNeill, BC V0N 2R0. Stream Classification report for A77535 Block F051C2HD.

6. Erika L. Anderson, B.Sc., June 2005. FishFor Contracting Ltd. P.O. Box 646 Port McNeill, BC V0N 2R0. Stream Classification report for A77535 Block F051C2HE.

7. Mike C. Wright, R.P.Bio., March 2007. M.C. Wright and Associates, 2231 Neil Drive, Nanaimo, BC, V9R 6T5. Prescription to restore stream 11 (Orphan channel) in the Burman River Watershed.

APPENDIX B

Definitions

Road Stability Hazard CriteriaHigh H Road on steep slope AND landslides have occurred from or adjacent to road. OR site

information is available from other reports or personal knowledge.Moderately high MH Road on steep slope, no slides evident, road built before 1995.

Moderate M Road on steep slope, no slides evident, road built after 1995. Also includes roads built before 1995 judged to have a moderate hazard of instability from airphoto review.

1. Road stability hazard is estimated from terrain stability mapping, slope mapping (>60%) and airphoto interpretation.2. Only road sections with moderate or higher hazard are assigned a hazard level. Roads not assigned a hazard level are considered low or low-moderate stability hazard.3. The road hazard level does not take into account hazard reduction from deactivation or remedial measures, as this cannot be determined from inventory-level information. The post-deactivation hazard is intended to be recorded in a separate field as residual hazard, which would be determined from on-site inspections.

Sediment Delivery Definitions and CriteriaPotential

High H Definition : Slide from road or cutblock would directly enter fish habitat or impact other resource at time of event.Criteria : Slopes below road or cutblock >25% without a significant break (min.50 m) to fish habitat or other resource.

Moderately high MH Definition: Some slide debris1 may enter fish habitat or impact other resource at time of event. There is a high potential to transport to fish habitat within first seasonal peak flows.Criteria:Stream transport: Slide from road or cutblock would enter nonfish stream2 within 0.5 km of fish habitat or other resource.Runout slope: Slopes below road or cutblock <25% for 50-75 m to fish habitat or other resource.

Moderate M Definition: Most slide debris1 at time of event would deposit at breaks in gradient or slope breaks; fine sediment may reach fish habitat or other resource. Coarse sediment from slide would transport to fish habitat or other resource over time via normal fluvial processes.Criteria:Stream transport : Slide from road or cutblock would enter nonfish stream2 0.5 to 3 km upstream from fish habitat.Runout slope : There is a runout slope <25% for 75-150 m below road or cutblock to fish habitat or other resource.

Low-moderate LM Definition: Some suspended sediment or small wood debris may reach fish habitat or other resource. Coarse sediment would typically be stored in low gradient reaches, on fans, or on gentle slope areas.Criteria:Stream transport : Slide from road or cutblock would enter nonfish stream2 more than 3 km upstream from fish habitat.Runout slope : There is a runout slope <25% for 150-250 m below road or cutblock to fish habitat or other resource.

Low L Definition : Slide material1 is unlikely to reach fish or nonfish stream2 or other resource at time of event, or to transport to stream or other resource.Criteria : There is a runout slope <25% for >250 m below road or cutblock.

1. "Slide debris" means coarse sediment (gravel sizes and larger) and coarse wood debris.2. Fish streams are taken to be S1, S2, S3 and S4 streams in BCTS's GIS streams coverages; and nonclassified streams with gradients <20% that connect to fish streams. "Nonfish streams" are all other streams.3. Since the deposition zone would not exceed the total slide length, roads close to the valley floor may be assigned a shorter runout slope than the above criteria.4. Runout slopes are determined from digital TRIM 20 m contours.

Definitions -- Sediment Delivery Potential from Landslides

Table B1aDefinitions -- Road Stability Hazard

Table B1b

Post-harvesting landslide frequency within or adjacent to a cutblock as a consequence of harvesting*.

High H >5 slides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain.

Table B2Definitions -- Landslide Frequency

Landslide Frequency in Harvested CutblocksHazard rating

High H >5 slides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain.Moderate M 3 - <5 slides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain.

Low L 1 - <3 slides per 100 ha logged in steep terrain.Very Low VL <1 slide per 100 ha logged in steep terrain.

*From Horel, G. and S. Higman. 2006. Terrain Management Code of Practice . Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin 9(2):7-10.

Landslide Frequency From RoadsLandslide frequency from roads following road construction.**

High H >1 slides per km of road built on steep terrainMod. High MH >0.5 - 1 slides per km of road built on steep terrainModerate M 0.1-0.5 slides per km of road built on steep terrain

Low L <0.1 slides per km of road built on steep terrain**Adapted from Klanawa landslide frequency mapping.

Denny Maynard & Associates and Golder Associates Ltd. 2004. Klanawa Terrain and Landslide Hazards Mapping Project Pilot Study Report

q yHazard rating

Klanawa Terrain and Landslide Hazards Mapping Project, Pilot Study Report .Prepared for Weyerhaeuser Company Limited. (FIA project).

Landslides include events of 500 m2 (0.05 ha) and larger.Steep terrain = Class 4/5 PLUS Slopes >60%.Landslide occurrence is the frequency of landslides in the 15 year period following harvesting.

Channel Type DescriptionAlluvial Channel has at least one unconfined erodible bank in alluvial deposits, and a definable channel

migration zone. Alluvial deposits are material that was deposited by the stream under the contemporary flow regime. Large alluvial streams may have fluvial terraces that are rarely inundated; or may have glaciofluvial terraces that are no longer inundated (e.g., return periods >30 years). Streams confined by glaciofluvial terraces usually have stable positions and are not susceptible to channel migration. When channel types are identified by airphoto interpretation, streams with glaciofluvial terraces are identified as alluvial channels if the deposits cannot be distinguished with certainty. These larger alluvial streams confined by rarely inundated or dry terraces typically have stable channel positions. LWD may be sparse or absent; or have minimal influence on channel structure.Where streamflow is against the rooting zone in alluvial stream banks, riparian vegetation is critical to limit bank erosion. In severe flood events or if the riparian zone is logged, the stream may erode its bank(s) and widen its channel. If there is a significant channel migration zone the stream position may change within this zone, triggered by disturbance or a large flood event. Abandoned channels or flood channels may be present. LWD is critical to structure of small channels; and important in large channels, forming jams, pools and flow diversions. Alluvial channels are usually sensitive to disturbance such as logging of riparian forest, increased sediment, removal of LWD from the channel, or loss of LWD supply.Alluvial channels are often reaches of highly productive fish habitat. Riffle-pool or cascade-pool morphology. Gradient up to 8% but typically <5% except streams on fans which can be steeper.

Semi-alluvial Low-gradient (<8%) riffle-pool or cascade-pool channel with no floodplain beyond the seasonally flooded channel. Channel has confining banks and stable position; no channel migration zone. Semi-alluvial reaches may be deposition zones from sources upstream or may have banks in moderately erodible material such as glaciofluvial deposits that continually resupply bed material. LWD varies from important in small channels to absent or nonfunctional in large channels. Quality of habitat may be affected by aggradation or scour, removal of LWD, or loss of LWD supply. Gradient typically <5% but may be up to 8%. For overview-level classification, small streams with gradients 5-8% are usually default classed as semi-alluvial. Overview-level classifications should be checked by field review.

Nonalluvial Channel is typically confined to entrenched with a stable position. Some nonalluvial channels flowing over rock or boulders have limited lateral confinement. Banks are resistant to erosion (i.e. till, colluvium, rock). Nonalluvial channels are less sensitive to disturbance than alluvial or semi-alluvial channels. Small streams, as gradient increases, transition from fluvial to gully processes. Channels in nonrock material may experience bed or bank scour in extreme storm events or debris torrents. Nonalluvial channels are typically transport zones. LWD is typically nonfunctional in high energy streams but in small streams where gully processes occur may help to trap sediment, limit scour, and control sediment transport. Channel bed is typically cascade-pool, step-pool or rock-dominated.

Wetland Stream flows through or disappears into wetland.Notes:1. Stream channel types are identified from airphoto interpretation, TRIM topography and existing information such as watershed assessments.2. Where channels cannot be clearly seen on airphotos because of small size or canopy closure, channel type is inferred from stream gradient and the surrounding landforms. For these streams, channel type is assigned conservatively. That is, where contours indicate a gradient of less than 5% in terrain that could contain an alluvial stream, the stream is mapped as alluvial. Where stream gradients are 5-10% they are mapped as semi-alluvial.

Stream Channel TypesTable B3a

The following attributes are captured in an overview-level riparian assessment. Assessment uses airphotosand/or satellite imagery, and forest cover data. Attributes are assigned for right and left banks separately.

Riparian Vegetation -From forest cover data and airphotos. Visually estimated.Type Description

C Riparian vegetation is >= 70% conifers.D Riparian vegetation is >=70% deciduous.M Riparian vegetation is mixed conifer and deciduous.

min Minimal to no riparian vegetation, eg., permanent clearing.

Fringe -- Y Fringe of mature trees <30 m wide with cutblock or regen behind fringe. If line of trees is less than 50% intact, no fringe is recorded.

Riparian Age Class0 No riparian forest. (Clearing, right of way, development, road fill).1 <10 years2 10-19 years3 20-39 years4 40-59 years5 60-100 years6 >100 years. Includes old growth and second growth stands of this age range. Includes

natural nonforest such as wetland vegetation, alpine, rock, etc.

Riparian FunctionType Condition

Natural (n)Riparian vegetation is in its natural state, typically old growth but can be nonforest or alpine.

Adequate (a) Riparian vegetation has been modified but is adequate to supply LWD and provide bank erosion resistance. See Table B3c.

Modified (m) Riparian vegetation has been modified and riparian function cannot be determined from overview-level assessment. See Table B3c.

Recovered (r) Riparian vegetation has been modified but riparian function has recovered to a condition adequate for the stream. See Table B3c.

LWD (only for alluvial & semi-alluvial streams)

Riparian vegetation inadequate to supply functioning large wood debris (LWD).

CBE (only for alluvial streams)

Riparian vegetation inadequate to provide natural level of erosion resistance on channel banks.

Confidence - Refers to confidence in identifying channel type.H - high Stream channel and valley form is clearly apparent on airphotos.

M - moderate Channel partly or fully obscured by canopy; valley form may not be fully apparent.L - low Channel not visible because of size or canopy closure; valley form is inferred.

Notes:1. Riparian assessment based on airphoto interpretation, forest cover and stream inventory data.2. Right and left banks are defined facing downstream.3. Stands that are primarily deciduous are not considered adequate to provide functioning LWD.4. "LWD" means that riparian forest along this section of bank is inadequate to supply functioning LWD. It does not necessarily mean that there is inadequate LWD in channel; this would require a field review to determine.5. Similarly, "adequate for LWD" means that riparian forest has trees of sufficient size and type to supply LWD. It does not mean that there is adequate LWD in channel.

Table B3bRiparian Condition

Stream size Channel type Riparian function CriteriaS1, large S2 & S5 Alluvial, semi-alluvial Adequate for LWD and CBE (a) M, C stands of Age Class 5 or older (>=60 yrs). S3, S4, smaller S2 & S5 Alluvial, semi-alluvial Adequate for LWD and CBE (a) M, C stands of Age Class 4 or older (>=40 yrs). All except S6 Nonalluvial Adequate (a) M, C, D stands of Age Class 4 or older (>=40 yrs).

Modified (m) M, C, D stands younger than Age Class 4 (<40 yrs)S6 All Adequate (a) M, C, D stands of Age Class 4 or older (>=40 yrs).

Recovered (r) M, C, D stands of Age Class 3 (20-39 yrs).Modified (m) M, C, D stands less than Age Class 3 (<20 yrs).

"Adequate" and "recovered" mean adequate for physical channel processes.

Table B3cCriteria for riparian function

APPENDIX C Work Plan

BC Timber Sales Developing Watershed Indicators and a Monitoring Approach

for Demonstrating Sustainable Forest Management Burman‐Jacklah Operating Area

Work Plan

BCTS Contact: Dave Hamilton, Coastal FIA Coordinator (250) 286‐9346 370 South Dogwood Street, Campbell River, BC V9W 6Y7

Management Units to be addressed: TFL19

This project addresses approximately 16,452 ha in TFL19 Burman and Jacklah Watersheds, on Vancouver Island.

Applicable FIA Component and Standards The following reviews the FIA Standards as listed on the SFM Activity and Aquatic Biological and Physical Monitoring activity websites, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fia/aquatic.htm, and indicates which will apply: 1) Eligible aquatic biological and physical monitoring SFM activities are proposed under the Information Gathering and Management Component (see discussion in http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hcp/fia/landbase/SFMactivities.pdf). The website for “Information Gathering and Management Component, Monitoring Values for SFM Activity Area ‐‐ Aquatic Biological and Physical Monitoring” states that the biodiversity monitoring standard and checklist applies. Therefore the following FIA Activity Standards Document (which also states its applicability to aquatic biological and physical monitoring) will apply to the project: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fia/documents/monitoring_standard.pdf

2) This standard also applies to this project: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fia/documents/monitoring_notification.pdf

3) The project is not focused on a species at risk, so this standard will not be needed: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fia/documents/sar_statement.pdf.

4) The FIA Activity Standard states that “In addition, RISC standards may apply depending on the specific nature of the project”. RISC standards for fish collection appear on the http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fia/aquatic.htm website. The project proposed does not involve fish collection, and there are no other RISC Standards noted for the project proposed.

Work Plan

Page 2

5) Also included in the Aquatic Biological and Physical Monitoring activity website table, is access to other related documents including strategies, best management practices and guidelines as well as reports that the user may reference as they develop their project. The following listed guidelines document was used in this project:

Reference: Monitoring Land Use Impacts on Fish Sustainability in Forest Environments (Gustavson and Brown, 2002) http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/o_docs/aquatic/fish_sustainability/land%20use%20impacts%20on%20fish%20final%20report.pdf The following standard also applies to this project: FIA Activity Standards for Road Deactivation, Landslide and Gully Rehabilitation Projects

• Article 3: S. 3.4 • Article 4: Planning Projects, S.4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.6

Consistency with Government Objectives

As a Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) project, the project has applicability to several government objectives.

1) MoE has developed a Fisheries Sensitive Watershed ranking and Watershed Evaluation Tool (WET). This tool is intended to assist with assessing and designating important fisheries watersheds as provided for in the Order. This project should be useful in informing that process, because the WET tool was designed to use high level data that is available provincially, while this project uses more detailed watershed information than is available for the WET evaluation. The following describes how the “improved data” acquired in this project should fit with the “WET” tool:

“Using the WET: For the purposes of the GAR (s.14), the WET will be applied at two separate scales, or steps. The first is at the provincial scale, and will rank all watersheds in BC using data consistently available for the entire extent of the Province….The second step will focus on “evaluation‐units”. In this step, where improved data exists that can be augmented to the WET, the WET will utilize this information to help better differentiate the relative distribution of ranked watersheds. The second step will help better inform the consultation process, a legal requirement under GAR (s.3), and provide greater confidence in the WET results.”

2) This project is consistent with FREP priority questions in the water, fish/riparian, and soils values, eg. “Are forestry practices, including those for road systems, preserving aquatic habitats by maintaining hillslope sediment supply and the sediment regimes of streams and other aquatic ecosystems”?

A similar FIA report is posted on the FREP website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/values/water.htm and http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/fia/html/FIA2004MR263.htm DEVELOPMENT OF

Work Plan

Page 3

WATERSHED INDICATORS AND MONITORING PROTOCOL FOR DEMONSTRATING SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE BULKLEY TSA FIA Investment Schedule: NOTSA032309 FIA Activity Number: 2309001 (FIRS): The purpose of that project was to develop watershed specific sustainable forest management indicators and associated monitoring protocols for the 68 identified watersheds within the Bulkley TSA. The project had three primary objectives: 1) To establish a priority ranking of the watersheds within the Bulkley TSA relative to specific monitoring requirement; 2) To identify the specific indicators for each watershed on which monitoring energies will be focused; 3) To develop a first approximation of the monitoring protocols (required to evaluate specific watershed indicators).

Consistency with FIA Restoration and Rehabilitation Activities The SFM Activity Area states that significant background work is necessary when developing a plan for achieving sustainable forest management, and that much of this background work can be accomplished through existing activities and associated standards within the Land Base Investment Program. This SFM project relates to the restoration and rehabilitation component as follows:

1) The project when completed will provide watershed ranking information for use in future restoration plans as required under the restoration and rehabilitation FIA standards, eg:

a) In some MU’s, the Land‐base Program, Restoration & Rehabilitation Component, Terrestrial Activity Area (Article 4 “Planning Projects”) in the FIA Activity Standards for Road Deactivation, Landslide and Gully Rehabilitation, may develop overview inventory data for non‐status roads, partial or total risk analysis and an inventory of the SFM values at risk, and the current project will help rank the watersheds.

b) The FIA “Restoration & Rehabilitation Component – Instream Structures and Treatments” in the prioritizing sub‐basins and reaches section, states that “It is anticipated that Sustainable Forest Management planning will have identified the need to develop Watershed‐based Fish Sustainability Plans (WFSP) or Restoration Plans (RP) for watersheds within a particular management unit”.

c) The Restoration & Rehabilitation Component, Riparian Activity Area requires that planning be done by one or more of SFM planning, FIA LBIR ,WFSP planning, WRP planning, or RAPP planning. Planning and prioritization occurs at the management unit and watershed levels.

Restoration and Rehabilitation Activities

It is highly desirable to develop a comprehensive approach to comparisons between watershed units, for prioritizing future work based on ranking derived from indicators. This project will develop a number of watershed‐related inventory attributes to provide the basis for watershed restoration planning as well as for watershed indicators:

Work Plan

Page 4

• Identification of landslides; • Stability hazard ratings for all road segments with a moderate or higher hazard of

fillslope instability, and sediment delivery potential to fish for road segments with a moderate or higher stability hazard rating (RP roads funded by BCTS; nonstatus roads funded by FIA);

• Stream channel type (alluvial, semi‐alluvial, nonalluvial) and identified streams on alluvial fans, for all streams in BCTS’s GIS inventory;

• Riparian condition and function for alluvial and semi‐alluvial streams that are not S6’s.

This portion of the project falls under Article 4 “Planning Projects”, in the FIA Activity Standards for Road Deactivation, Landslide and Gully Rehabilitation Projects. The methodologies in this project are substantially the same as presented in the following Western Forest Products Inc. FIA project reports on watershed indicators:

Area FIA Project No. TFL 6 6549006 TFL 39 Block 4 6561023 TFL 37 6654004 TFL 25 Block 2 6651004 TFL 44 6758001 TFL 19 6649012 Forest License A19231 6733001

Monitoring Plan: Brief Outline of the Proposed Approach

Management Objectives or Criteria to be Addressed This project will further watershed sustainability objectives at the management unit level by developing sustainability indicators using the document posted on the FIA website as a reference: “Monitoring Land Use Impacts on Fish Sustainability in Forest Environments, Gustavson and Brown, 2002”.

The Management Objectives and Criteria to be further developed in the project will be: CCFM Criterion 3. Conservation of Soil and Water Resources (conserve soil and water resources by maintaining their quantity and quality in forest ecosystems); watersheds with significant watershed sensitivity and significant fisheries values and improving the watershed trends; important hydrological processes; important habitat and channel types; watershed restoration projects and ranking; and ranking criteria for fish and biological effectiveness. For primary watersheds larger than 1000 ha this project will:

• Develop indicators that characterize each watershed unit and the extent of existing disturbance.

Work Plan

Page 5

• From these indicators, and using other existing information such as airphoto interpretation, assessment reports and spatial data, identify trends in watershed condition.

• Develop subjective factors based on the above indicators to rank sensitivity and hydrologic hazard (disturbance) for each watershed unit.

• Develop a watershed risk matrix that combines rankings of watershed sensitivity and hydrologic hazard.

The results of this project will be used to prioritize future restoration funding allocations based on watershed risk, trend and relative fish ranking as determined from the indicators developed in this project. Within a watershed unit selected as a candidate for restoration work, the stream classifications and riparian assessments identify potential streams for assessment and restoration. Road stability hazard ratings are used to prioritize future upslope road deactivation. The current watershed trend and risk rating can also be used to select appropriate management strategies for individual watershed units. Prescribing operational management strategies for watershed units is not part of this project. The general methodology is presented in the FIA project report on watershed indicators for TFL 6 and TFL 39 Block 4 (FIA Project No.’s 6549006 & 6561023, dated March 31, 2007). Indicators to be Monitored and Attributes to be Measured To properly evaluate watershed condition and trends requires an understanding of:

1. The inherent physical character of the watershed and its relative sensitivity to disturbance;

2. The type and level of disturbance that has occurred. For the first case (Type 1), using indicators to describe the physical character of the watershed that are independent of indicators for disturbance allows the potential sensitivity of undeveloped watersheds to be evaluated using the same criteria as for developed watersheds. These could include the extent of alluvial stream channels in the watershed, the extent of steep or potentially unstable terrain, the occurrence of natural landslides, the relative fisheries capacity, and the climatic region. These indicators typically do not change with time but are needed to characterize the natural watershed sensitivity. Watershed assessment methods typically focus on disturbance (Type 2 indicators), and report data on the following information categories (FPC CWAP/IWAP Guidebook, 1999; Gustavson and Brown, 2002):

• Road density, • Density of stream crossings, • Landslide frequency, • Extent of existing harvesting and the state of regeneration,

Work Plan

Page 6

• Stream channel disturbance, • Riparian disturbance.

Examples of indicators for these information categories that can be directly measurable from the spatial data that will be developed in this project are:

• Length of deactivated and nondeactivated roads with moderate or higher stability hazard (sediment delivery potential could also be incorporated);

• Occurrence of road slides per km of road on steep terrain; • Slides per unit area of steep terrain harvested, and slides per unit watershed area; • Length of stream channel on one or both sides with inadequate riparian forest to supply

large wood or to control stream bank erosion. Data such as road density and landslide frequency can be reported separately for pre and post FPC road construction and harvesting. This is an important consideration when evaluating existing disturbance, current watershed trends, and potential for future disturbance. It is also important to take into account road deactivation and remedial work that has been undertaken. Gustavson and Brown describe the above information categories as strategic‐level indicators, rather than watershed‐level indicators. This is because data compilation at the strategic level, for example, for province‐wide comparison of watersheds, typically uses 1:50,000 scale watershed information, combined with 1:20,000 scale TRIM data for streams and roads. However, because the data from this project will be considerably more detailed, indicators for these information categories are also valid at the watershed level. Indicators for streams such as density of crossings or length of stream disturbance need to be applied and interpreted with caution because they are highly sensitive to the scale and intensity of stream mapping. BCTS’s spatial data typically include streams that are not in the 1:20,000 TRIM inventory; so comparison of stream crossing densities from BCTS’s inventories to those based on the TRIM inventory would be misleading. The scale and intensity of stream mapping also vary from area to area within BCTS operations depending on where the stream inventory has been enhanced through site‐level planning or specific mapping projects. Type 2 indicators can change over time. Tracking these indicators allows tracking of watershed trends. Watershed trends are determined based on:

• the above Type 1 and Type 2 indicators • specific watershed characteristics (from airphoto interpretation and spatial data) such as

hillslope connectivity, presence of fans or runout slopes, presence of lakes or alpine areas, etc.

• existing watershed assessment reports where available, • work done in the watershed such as road deactivation, riparian restoration, in‐stream

restoration, etc. Watershed trends are subjectively described as undisturbed (for undeveloped watersheds), stable or consistent with natural, improving, of concern, or highly disturbed.

Work Plan

Page 7

In November 2006 severe storms struck the west coast, causing numerous landslides in many areas. One of the project tasks is to fly the project area to get a sense of changes that might occurred during these and other recent storms. Sampling Design and Statistical Significance Gustavson and Brown identified several types of indicators, as considered above. The spatial scale in this project is anticipated as likely to be the watersheds, and to be cost effective is likely to use or develop strategic level forest and stream inventories for most of the indicators noted above in “Attributes to be measured”. If a statistical sampling design of any measures is proposed, the sampling design and statistical significance will be identified. The temporal sampling on many indicators will include both the pre‐Forest Practices Code, and post‐Forest Practices Code timeframes and trends, to provide feedback to management, and to provide information relevant to adaptive management. Indicator Thresholds Accepted thresholds and/or initial thresholds, where these are necessary, will be identified during the project. Thresholds may not be relevant for all indicators.

Tasks The basis for developing watershed indicators will be specific data that reflect watershed characteristics and existing disturbance. These data will be used in conjunction with existing information to determine watershed trends. All data developed for this project will be integrated into BCTS’s spatial data set so that it can be compiled and used efficiently with other existing spatial data for analyses and future land management. A. Watershed Inventories

Task Personnel 1. Identify landslides by air photo interpretation and from event reports. G. Horel 2. Using terrain stability mapping, slope mapping, air photo interpretation,

landslide occurrence and era of road construction, assign road stability hazard ratings by road segment for all roads in the project area. Only road segments with moderate or higher hazard are assigned an attribute.

G. Horel

3. For each road segment with a moderate or higher stability hazard, determine sediment delivery potential to fish habitat.

G. Horel

4. From air photo interpretation and GIS topographic data, identify stream channel types in order to assess the potential for adverse affects on these elements at risk of damage. Stream channel types (alluvial, semi‐alluvial, nonalluvial) reflect the relatively sensitivity of different channel morphologies.

G. Horel

5. For alluvial and semi‐alluvial streams other than S6’s identified in Task 4, identify existing riparian condition from air photo interpretation and

G. Horel

Work Plan

Page 8

forest cover data. Riparian condition will reflect the importance of riparian forest to these channel types and its current level of function.

6. Helicopter overview flight of project area. G. Horel R. Erickson L. Chessor

7. Identify restoration opportunities and priorities for road deactivation, riparian assessments and instream habitat assessments.

G. Horel

B. Indicators 8. Assign fish ranking to all watershed units. BCTS 9. Compile watershed data for watershed units larger than 1000 ha. G. Horel 10. Using air photo interpretation, spatial data and existing information

identify specific watershed characteristics. G. Horel

11. Identify current trend for each watershed unit. G. Horel 12. From the watershed data identified in Task 9 and other existing sources

of information, develop factors for watershed sensitivity ratings. G. Horel

13. From watershed data identified in Task 9, develop factors for existing watershed disturbance.

G. Horel

14. Develop a watershed risk matrix that combines watershed sensitivity and disturbance, and assign watershed risk ratings to each watershed unit.

G. Horel

15. Based on the risk ratings and current watershed trend, propose specific indicators to monitor changes in watershed trends and risk ratings.

G. Horel

16. Final report. G. Horel

Budget Costs for Tasks 2 and 3 are split between BCTS and FIA based on proportion of nonstatus roads to total road length. All other tasks are FIA costs. Total road length = 150.1 km; nonstatus road length = 75.1 km. Costs of Tasks 2 and 3 are therefore split 50/50. Total costs for these tasks was $2,100. G. Horel fees

BCTS: $1,050 FIA: $9,450

Helicopter: $3,616 Total FIA cost: $13,066 In addition, BCTS bore internal costs of compiling fish information and assigning fish ranking (approximate cost $2,500).

Work Plan

Page 9

Deliverables Deliverables for this project will be a report, submitted in portable document format (PDF) file, providing the following: • Definitions and criteria used for all indicators and factors. • Data tables with indicators for all watershed units larger than 1000 ha. • Summary table of specific watershed characteristics and current trends. • Description of the rating system developed from these factors to rank watershed sensitivity

and hydrologic hazard. • Index map of the watershed locations. • Map(s) showing potential sites for road deactivation, riparian assessments, and instream

habitat assessments.

Repository for the data The report will be submitted per the FIA Standard to the ministries library: [email protected].

Schedule The project will be completed by 31 March 2010.

Project Personnel The project team is as follows: 1. Project team leader: Dave Hamilton, Coastal FIA Coordinator, responsible for overall project

coordination. 2. Specialist consultant: Glynnis Horel, P. Eng., of G.M. Horel Engineering Ltd. will be

responsible for the tasks shown above. Glynnis has 30 years of experience as a geological engineer in terrain evaluation, slope stability assessments, watershed assessments; and road deactivation, construction, maintenance and reconstruction. She has completed overview inventories for landslides, road hazards, stream channel types and riparian condition for TFL 6, TFL 39 Block 4, TFL 44, TFL 19 and TFL 37 on Vancouver Island. She also completed a similar watershed indicators project for TFL 6 and TFL 39 Block 4 in 2006/07. Her education, awards, professional affiliations and appointments are as follows:

• B.A. Sc. (1975) Geological Engineering, University of British Columbia • M. Eng. (1984) Civil (geotechnical) Engineering, University of Alberta • 1998 – Watershed Restoration Award – Coastal Forest Site Rehabilitation Workshop. • 1999 – Forest Engineering Award of Excellence – joint APEGBC/ABCFP award. • 2007 – APEGBC Professional Service Award • 2008 – Fellow, Engineers Canada • Member, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. • Chair (1995‐1996), Division of Engineers and Geoscientists in the Forest Sector

(APEGBC).

Work Plan

Page 10

• President (2 terms) and council member of Association of Professional Engineers of Yukon Territory (1987 – 1991)

• Member, Restoration Practices Review Committee, Science Council of British Columbia (1997‐2000)

• Session Instructor, Institute of Forest Engineering of BC, sessions on Road Deactivation and Enhancing Watershed Values (1999‐2001)

• Member, Joint Practices Board (2005‐2007). Work plan prepared by: Dave Hamilton, Coastal FIA Coordinator; Glynnis Horel, Specialist Consultant, G.M. Horel Engineering Ltd. Glynnis Horel, P. Eng.

Work Plan

Page 11

References used to Select the Criteria BC Ministry of Forests. 1999. Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook, Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook. 2nd ed. BC Ministry of Forests. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Guidebook. [web] Green, Kim. 2005. A Qualitative Hydro‐geomorphic Risk Analysis for British Columbia’s Interior Watersheds: A Discussion Paper. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin. Vol. 8/No. 2, Spring 2005. Gustavson, K. and D. Brown. 2002. Monitoring Land Use Impacts on Fish Sustainability in Forest Environments. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Aquatic Information Branch. Wilford, D.J. and R. Lalonde. 2004. A Framework for Effective Watershed Monitoring. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol.8/No. 1, Fall 2004.

Documents

BC Timber Sales - British Columbia R1 ---- Riparian function left bank Map R2 ---- Riparian function right bank Map R3 ---- Riparian vegetation left bank Map R4 ---- Riparian vegetation