EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - a100.gov.bc.caa100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r11657/Rep… · Web viewAir photos were examined steroscopically and distances on TRIM maps and air photos

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Watershed Restoration Program (WRP) fish habitat and riparian assessment was conducted on nine Bowron River sub-watersheds; Hah Creek, Spruce Creek, Haggen Creek, Post Creek, Pinkerton Creek, Unnamed B Creek, Eighteen Mile Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek and Ten Mile Creek. The study area includes 172 km of mainstem streams and has a combined watershed area of approximately 1,000 km2. Significant areas in these watersheds were harvested in the early 1980’s. An Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (IWAP) revealed these watershed had been affected to varying degrees by forestry activities.

The study included an overview, level 1, and level 2 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) which was carried out following the procedures outlined in Johnson and Slaney (1996). The watershed level and site level Riparian Assessment and Prescriptions Procedure (RAPP) followed the procedures provided in Oikos (1996). In addition, intensive fish sampling, including multiple removal electrofishing and snorkel surveys, was carried out to provide background data on fish populations prior to developing restoration prescriptions. The level 1 FHAP and site level RAPP were conducted on priority reaches identified in the overview FHAP and a total 27.8 km of stream was surveyed. Fish sampling was conducted at 156 sites.

The FHAP identified the general lack of pool habitat and functional large woody debris (LWD) throughout the harvested portions of the assessed watersheds. The habitat surveys identified that habitat complexity in these watersheds was generally determined by LWD. Long riffle sections, lack of off-channel habitat, and lack of diversity in cover were typical for the areas surveyed. The fish sampling indicated the presence of rainbow trout, chinook, bull trout, and several coarse fish species in these watersheds.

In the watersheds studied, the primary impact of forestry has been the logging of the riparian zone to the stream bank and the removal of LWD. However, since most of the forestry affected sites were in the tall shrub stage, the riparian function of providing small organic debris was intact.

The results of the level 1 FHAP and RAPP were used to identify suitable restoration sites which were examined during the level 2 FHAP. In total, a level 2 FHAP was carried out at 8 sites in five of the watersheds examined in this study. Mainstem habitat complexing through LWD additions are proposed for Spruce Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek, and Hah Creek. Side channel development is prescribed for Post Creek, and Haggen Creek. A clean-up of forestry-related debris is recommended for an additional side channel site in Haggen Creek. Although no detailed level 2 assessments were conducted in Pinkerton Creek, Eighteen Mile Creek, and Unnamed B Creek, a number of low-intensity and low-cost restoration opportunities were identified.

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... iiList of Figures.........................................................................................................................viiiList of Tables.............................................................................................................................xiList of Appendices.....................................................................................................................xvList of Attachements.................................................................................................................xviAcknowledgments...............................................................................................................XVIII1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................

1.1 Project Background....................................................................................................1.2 Biogeoclimatic Setting...............................................................................................1.3 Fisheries Resources....................................................................................................1.4 Geomorphology and Hydrology Setting......................................................................

1.4.1 Surficial Geology........................................................................................1.4.2 Upper Bowron Watershed...........................................................................1.4.3 Middle Bowron Watershed..........................................................................1.4.4 Hydrology..................................................................................................

2.0 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................2.1 Hydrology..................................................................................................................2.2 Riparian.....................................................................................................................

2.2.1 Watershed Level.........................................................................................2.2.2 Site Assessment..........................................................................................

2.3 Fish............................................................................................................................2.3.1 Fish Habitat................................................................................................

2.3.1.1 Overview..................................................................................2.3.1.2 Level 1.....................................................................................2.3.1.3 Inorganic Nutrients...................................................................

2.3.2 Fish Population...........................................................................................2.3.2.1 Electrofishing...........................................................................2.3.2.2 Minnow Trapping.....................................................................2.3.2.3 Snorkel Surveys.......................................................................

2.3.3 Data Analysis..............................................................................................2.3.3.1 Population Densities.................................................................2.3.3.2 Theoretical Population Densities...............................................2.3.3.3 Weighted Useable Width..........................................................

2.4 Restoration Prescriptions (Level 2 FHAP)..................................................................2.4.1 Engineering Surveys...................................................................................2.4.2 Water Level Estimates................................................................................2.4.3 Prescriptions...............................................................................................2.4.4 Aerial Photograph Mosaic...........................................................................

2.5 Mapping.....................................................................................................................3.0 HYDROLOGY.......................................................................................................................4.0 RIPARIAN AND FISHERIES RESULTS..............................................................................

4.1 Spruce Creek..............................................................................................................4.1.1 Riparian......................................................................................................

4.1.1.1 Watershed Level.......................................................................4.1.1.2 Site Level.................................................................................

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page iii


4.1.2 Fish Habitat................................................................................................4.1.2.1 Overview FHAP.......................................................................4.1.2.2 Level 1 FHAP..........................................................................4.1.2.3 Water Temperature and Quality................................................

4.1.3 Fish Populations.........................................................................................4.1.4 Restoration Opportunities...........................................................................

4.2 Post Creek..................................................................................................................4.2.1 Riparian......................................................................................................



4.2.3 Fish Population...........................................................................................4.2.4 Geomorphology..........................................................................................4.2.5 Restoration Opportunities...........................................................................

4.3 Haggen Creek.............................................................................................................4.3.1 Riparian......................................................................................................



4.3.3 Fish Population...........................................................................................4.3.4 Geomorphology..........................................................................................4.3.5 Restoration Opportunities...........................................................................

4.4 Fourteen Mile Creek...................................................................................................4.4.1 Riparian......................................................................................................



4.4.3 Fish Population...........................................................................................4.4.4 Restoration Opportunities...........................................................................

4.5 Hah Creek..................................................................................................................4.5.1 Riparian......................................................................................................



Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page iv



4.6 Pinkerton Creek.........................................................................................................4.6.1 Riparian......................................................................................................




4.7 Eighteen Mile Creek...................................................................................................4.7.1 Riparian......................................................................................................




4.8 Unnamed B Creek......................................................................................................4.8.1 Riparian......................................................................................................

4.8.1.1 Watershed and Site Level.........................................................4.8.2 Fish Habitat................................................................................................

4.8.2.1 Overview FHAP.......................................................................4.8.2.2 Level 1 FHAP..........................................................................4.8.2.3 Water Temperature and Quality................................................


4.9 Ten Mile Creek..........................................................................................................4.9.1 Riparian......................................................................................................




5.0 RESTORATION PRESCRIPTIONS......................................................................................5.1 Restoration Priorities..................................................................................................5.2 Biological Objectives of Restoration Projects.............................................................

5.2.1 Mainstem Habitat Complexing....................................................................5.2.2 Side Channel Development.........................................................................

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page v


5.3 Description And Rationale For Prescription Types......................................................5.3.1 Mainstem Habitat Complexing (Type I and II Structures)............................

5.3.1.1 Log V-Notch Weir....................................................................5.3.1.2 Log Wing Deflector..................................................................5.3.1.3 Root Wad.................................................................................5.3.1.4 Log Weirs................................................................................5.3.1.5 Channel Spanning Log Structure..............................................5.3.1.6 Woody Debris Pile...................................................................

5.3.2 Off/Side channels (Type III Projects)..........................................................5.3.2.1 Geomorphological Rationale for Selection of Sites...................5.3.2.2 Preliminary Work (Surveying and Monitoring).........................5.3.2.3 Construction Methodology.......................................................

5.3.3 Removal of LWD Jams (Type IV Projects).................................................5.4 General Work Plans...................................................................................................

5.4.1 Schedule of Work.......................................................................................5.4.2 Supervision and Environmental Monitoring................................................5.4.3 Labour........................................................................................................5.4.4 Equipment Requirements............................................................................5.4.5 Access Plans...............................................................................................5.4.6 Estimated Costs..........................................................................................5.4.7 Material Requirements and Sources.............................................................

5.4.7.1 LWD........................................................................................5.4.7.2 Root Wads...............................................................................5.4.7.3 Boulders...................................................................................

5.4.8 Debris Disposal...........................................................................................5.5 Proposed Restoration Prescriptions.............................................................................

5.5.1 Spruce Creek SENG 1&2............................................................................5.5.1.1 Biological Objectives/Rationale................................................5.5.1.2 Engineering Surveys.................................................................5.5.1.3 Restoration Description............................................................5.5.1.4 Work Plan................................................................................5.5.1.5 Estimated Cost.........................................................................

5.5.2 Spruce Creek SENG3..................................................................................5.5.2.1 Biological Objectives/Rationale................................................5.5.2.2 Engineering Surveys.................................................................5.5.2.3 Description...............................................................................5.5.2.4 Work Plan................................................................................5.5.2.5 Estimated Costs........................................................................

5.5.3 Fourteen Mile Creek 14ENG1.....................................................................5.5.3.1 Biological Objectives/Rationale................................................5.5.3.2 Engineering Surveys.................................................................5.5.3.3 Description...............................................................................5.5.3.4 Work Plan................................................................................5.5.3.5 Estimated Costs........................................................................

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page vi


5.5.4 Hah Creek HENG1.....................................................................................5.5.4.1 Biological Objectives/Rationale................................................5.5.4.2 Description...............................................................................5.5.4.3 Work Plan................................................................................5.5.4.4 Estimated Costs........................................................................

5.5.5 Haggen Creek HSC1...................................................................................5.5.5.1 Biological Objectives/Rationale................................................5.5.5.2 Engineering Surveys.................................................................5.5.5.3 Description...............................................................................5.5.5.4 Work Plan................................................................................5.5.5.5 Estimated Costs........................................................................

5.5.6 Haggen Creek HSC2 and HSC3..................................................................5.5.6.1 Biological Objectives/Rationale................................................5.5.6.2 Engineering Surveys.................................................................5.5.6.3 HSC2 Description....................................................................5.5.6.4 HSC2 Work Plan......................................................................5.5.6.5 HSC2 Estimated Costs.............................................................5.5.6.6 Engineering Surveys.................................................................5.5.6.7 HSC3 Description....................................................................5.5.6.8 HSC3 Work Plan......................................................................5.5.6.9 HSC3 Estimated Costs.............................................................

5.5.7 Post Creek PSC1.........................................................................................5.5.7.1 Biological Objectives/Rationale................................................5.5.7.2 Engineering Surveys.................................................................5.5.7.3 Description...............................................................................5.5.7.4 Work Plan................................................................................5.5.7.5 Estimated Costs........................................................................

6.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page vii

LIST OF FIGURESPage

Figure 1 Project Overview...........................................................................2Figure 2 Mean Monthly Air Temperature at Barkerville............................21Figure 3 Total Rainfall and Snowfall at Barkerville...................................22Figure 4 Mean Monthly Discharges in Bowron River near Wells..............23Figure 5 Overview of Spuce Creek............................................................26Figure 6 Gradient Profile - Spruce Creek...................................................27Figure 7 Water Temperature for Spruce Creek..........................................40Figure 8 Overview of Post Creek...............................................................47Figure 9 Gradient Profile - Post Creek.......................................................48Figure 10 Water Temperture for Post Creek................................................59Figure 11a Overview of Haggen Creek Section 1..........................................65Figure 11b Overview of Haggen Creek Section 2..........................................66Figure 11c Overview of Haggen Creek Section 3..........................................67Figure 12 Gradient Profile - Haggen Creek.................................................68Figure 13 Water Temperature for Haggen Creek.........................................82Figure 14 Overview of Fourteen Mile Creek...............................................92Figure 15 Gradient Profile - Fourteen Mile Creek.......................................93Figure 16 Water Temperature for Fourteen Mile Creek.............................100Figure 17 Overview of Hah Creek.............................................................105Figure 18 Gradient Profile - Hah Creek.....................................................106Figure 19 Water Temperature for Hah Creek.............................................113Figure 20 Overview of Pinkerton Creek....................................................117Figure 21 Gradient Profile - Pinkerton Creek............................................118Figure 22 Water Temperature for Pinkerton Creek....................................125Figure 23 Overview of Eighteen Mile Creek.............................................129Figure 24 Gradient Profile - Eighteen Mile Creek.....................................130Figure 25 Water Temperature for Eighteen Mile Creek.............................139Figure 26 Overview of Unnamed “B” Creek.............................................143Figure 27 Gradient Profile - Unnamed B Creek.........................................144Figure 28 Overview of Ten Mile Creek.....................................................155Figure 29 Gradient Profile - Ten Mile Creek.............................................156

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page viii

LIST OF FIGURES cont’dPage

Figure 30 Water Temperature for Ten Mile Creek.....................................163Figure 31 Plan and Cross-section of Typical Log V-notch

Weir Structures..........................................................................172Figure 32 Plan Cross-section of Typical Log Wing Deflector

Structures................................................................................... 174Figure 33 Plan Cross-section of Typical Root Wad Structures...................175Figure 34 Plan and Cross-section of Typical Log Weir

Structures and Channel Spanning Log Structures......................177Figure 35 Plan and Cross-section of Typical Woody Debris

Pile Structures (which can Include any combination of large woody debris, small woody debris, and root wads).........................................................................................179

Figure 36 Plan and Cross-section of Typical Log and Boulder Inlet Structure for the Surface-fed Side Channels......................183

Figure 37 Spruce Creek SENG1 & 2 Distance Locations and Prescriptions..............................................................................189

Figure 38 Longitudinal Profile for Spruce Creek, Reach 1 and 2, SENG 1 and SENG 2.............................................................190

Figure 39 Spruce Creek SENG 1 & 2 Photo Mosaic (6)............................196Figure 40 Spruce Creek SENG 3 Distance Locations and

Prescriptions..............................................................................207Figure 41 Longitudinal Profile for Spruce Creek, Reach 3,

SENG 3.....................................................................................209Figure 42 Spruce Creek SENG3 Photo Mosaic (4)....................................212Figure 43 Fourteen Mile Creek Distance Locations and

Prescriptions..............................................................................219Figure 44 Longitudinal Profile for Fourteen Mile Creek,

Reach 6, 14ENG1......................................................................221Figure 45 14 Mile Creek 14ENG1 Photo Mosaic (7).................................222Figure 46 Hah Creek ENG1 Prescriptions Locations.................................236Figure 47 Hah Creek ENG1 & 2 Photo Mosaic (5)....................................237Figure 48 Haggen Creek HSC2 Distance Locations and

Prescriptions..............................................................................250Figure 49 Longitudinal Profile for Haggen Creek, HSC2..........................251

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page ix

LIST OF FIGURES cont’dPage

Figure 50 Haggen Creek HSC2 Photo Mosaic (4)......................................253Figure 51 Haggen Creek HSC3 Distance Locations and

Prescriptions..............................................................................259Figure 52 Longitudinal Profile for Haggen Creek, HSC3..........................261Figure 53 Haggen Creek HSC 3 Photo Mosaic (5).....................................262Figure 54 Post Creek PSC1 Distance Locations and

Prescriptions..............................................................................271Figure 55 Longitudinal Profile for Post Creek, PSC1................................272Figure 56 Post Creek PSC1 Photo Mosaic (2)............................................273

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page x

LIST OF TABLESPage

Table 1 Summary of Preliminary Results for the Bowron River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis...................................................20

Table 2 Summary of Preliminary Mean Monthly Discharges for the Bowron River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis......................25

Table 3 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Spruce Creek Watershed..............................................................28

Table 4 Final Riparian Vegetation Classes for Riparian Assessment and Prescription in the Bowron River Watershed, September 1997........................................................29

Table 5 Bowron River Watershed Riparian Assessment of Impact of Forestry on LWD Availability, September 1997............................................................................................32

Table 6 Spruce Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations..................33Table 7 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed

in Spruce Creek...........................................................................35Table 8 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of

Spruce Creek...............................................................................35Table 9 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Spruce Creek.......................37Table 10 Bowron River Watershed Fish and Riparian Assessment

Water Analysis Results - September 8, 1997...............................41Table 11 Spruce Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach..............................43Table 12 Spruce Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid

Densities (fish/100m²).................................................................44Table 13 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in

Post Creek Watershed..................................................................50Table 14 Post Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations......................52Table 15 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed

in Post Creek...............................................................................53Table 16 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of

Post Creek...................................................................................53Table 17 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Post Creek...........................58Table 18 Post Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach..................................60Table 19 Post Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid Densities

(fish/100m²).................................................................................62Table 20 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in the

Haggen Creek Watershed............................................................70

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xi

Table 21 Haggen Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations.................75

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xii

LIST OF TABLES con’tPage

Table 22 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Haggen Creek..........................................................................78

Table 23 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Haggen Creek..............................................................................78

Table 24 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Haggen Creek......................79Table 25 Haggen Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach............................85Table 26 Haggen Creek Snorkel Survey Observations, September

8, 1997........................................................................................86Table 27 Haggen Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid

Densities (fish/100m²).................................................................88Table 28 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in

Fourteen Mile Creek Watershed..................................................94Table 29 Fourteen Mile Creek Site Level Riparian

Recommendations.......................................................................95Table 30 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed

in Fourteen Mile Creek................................................................96Table 31 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of

Fourteen Mile Creek....................................................................97Table 32 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Fourteen Mile

Creek...........................................................................................97Table 33 Fourteen Mile Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach................101Table 34 Fourteen Mile Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid

Densities (fish/100m²)...............................................................103Table 35 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in

Hah Creek Watershed................................................................107Table 36 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed

in Hah Creek..............................................................................109Table 37 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of

Hah Creek.................................................................................. 109Table 38 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Hah Creek..........................111Table 39 Hah Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach................................114Table 40 Hah Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid Densities

(fish/100m²)...............................................................................115Table 41 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in

Pinkerton Creek Watershed.......................................................119

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xiii

Table 42 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Pinkerton Creek.....................................................................120

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xiv


Table 43 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Pinkerton Creek.........................................................................121

Table 44 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Pinkerton Creek.................121Table 45 Pinkerton Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach.......................126Table 46 Pinkerton Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid


Eighteen Mile Creek Watershed................................................132Table 48 Eighteen Mile Creek Site Level Riparian

Recommendations.....................................................................133Table 49 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed

in Eighteen Mile Creek..............................................................134Table 50 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of

Eighteen Mile Creek..................................................................137Table 51 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Eighteen Mile

Creek.........................................................................................137Table 52 Eighteen Mile Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach................140Table 53 Eighteen Mile Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid


Unnamed B Creek Watershed....................................................146Table 55 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed

in Unnamed B Creek.................................................................147Table 56 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of

Unnamed B Creek.....................................................................148Table 57 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Unnamed B Creek.............148Table 58 Unnamed B Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach....................151Table 59 Unnamed B Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid


Ten Mile Creek Watershed........................................................157Table 61 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed

in Ten Mile Creek......................................................................159Table 62 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of

Ten Mile Creek..........................................................................159Table 63 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Ten Mile Creek..................162

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xv


Table 64 Ten Mile Creek Sampled and Theoretical Salmonid Densities (fish/100m²)...............................................................165

Table 65 Prioritization of Instream Restoration Activities........................168Table 66 Cost Estimates for Development of Proposed

Restoration Sites........................................................................185Table 67 Spruce Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Sites SENG1

and SENG2................................................................................193Table 68 Spruce Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Site SENG3............210Table 69 Fourteen Mile Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Site

14ENG1....................................................................................231Table 70 Hah Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Site HENG1...............235

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Riparian and Fisheries Field Data Collection Forms

Appendix B Materials Used During Riparian and Habitat Assessment

Appendix C Laboratory Results

Appendix D Habitat Data Tables

Appendix E Watershed Restoration Program Data Entry System Print-out

Appendix F Fish Data Tables

Appendix G Details of Level Surveys

Appendix H Plots of Surveyed Cross Sections

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xvii

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Photo Binders (3 binders)

Attachment 2 Fish Data Collection Forms

Attachment 3 Digital Deliverables

Attachment 4 Fish Aging Structures

Attachment 5 TRIM maps of Study Area

Attachment 6 Aerial Video by Waberski Darrow Survey Grouptaken Sept. 21, 1995

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xviii

LIST OF DIGITAL DELIVERABLES

ReportReport text Report.docPhoto lables Rptphoto.doc

Figure 12 Hagencr.cdrFigure 18 Hahcrcdr.cdrFigures 2, 3, 4 Hydrover.xlsFigures 38, 41, 44, 49, 52, 55 Longpro2.xlsFigure 21 Pnkrtncr.cdrFigure 9 Postcr.cdrFigure 6 Sprucecr.cdrFigures 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 30 Tempdata.xlsFigure 27 Unnamdcr.cdrFigure 29 10milecr.cdrFigure 15 14milecr.cdrFigure 24 18milecr.cdr

Tables 1, 2 Hydrover.xlsTable 10 H20anlys.xlsTables 12, 19, 27, 34, 40, 46, 53, 59, 64 Popest.xlsTables 4, 5, 20 Riptbls.xlsTables 65, 67, 68, 69, 20 Report.docTable 26 Snorkel.xlsTable 66 Schdpres.xls

Appendix B Equip.docAppendix D Habdata.docAppendix F Allsum1.xlsAppendix F Ages.xlsAppendix H Scxsdat.xlsAppendix H 14mxsdat.xls

DatabasesFHAP MSAccess database Fhap_a.mdb, Fhapdata.ldbFish Collection Form MSAccess database Fishcoll.mdb, Fishcoll.ldb

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project received funding through the Forest Renewal British Columbia, Watershed Restoration Program. Guidance and assistance for this project was provided by Mr. John Spagurd, Northwood Pulp and Timber Ltd and Mr. Andrew Wilson (Watershed Restoration Specialist, MELP, Prince George, BC).

The Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd project team for this watershed assessment project consisted of:

Bruce Ford, MRM, RPBio, Project Manager/ Fisheries SpecialistBill Rublee, BSc., RPBio, Fisheries Specialist/Watershed Restoration

Eva Wichmann, BSc, RPBio, Project Biologist/ Report PreparationRobyn Shortt, BSc, Riparian Field Biologist/ Report PreparationRyan Liebe, BSc, BIT, Riparian and Fisheries Field Technician/Data

Analysis/ Report PreparationRobin Longe, BSc, Fisheries Field Technician/ Mapping Bruce Mattock, BSc, RPBio, Fisheries Field BiologistNatalie Lissimore, Dipl. Tech. Riparian Field TechnicianDon Davies Fisheries Field Technician Terry Davies Fisheries Field Technician Larry Sawchuck Fisheries Field Technician Darrel Davis Data Entry

Brian James, P.Eng. Water Resources EngineerChris Allan, BASc, EIT, Environmental EngineerJamie Stirling, MSc., Geomorphologist

Shannon Shields, B.A., GIS SpecialistJennifer Link, BSc., GIS SpecialistEdward Lem Mappping/ Restoration Drawings

Louise Poirier Word ProcessingSusan Labossiere Word Processing

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page xx

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. (Triton) was retained by Northwood Pulp and Timber Ltd. (Northwood) to conduct fish habitat and riparian assessments in nine Bowron River sub-watersheds; Hah Creek, Spruce Creek, Haggen Creek, Post Creek, Pinkerton Creek, Unnamed B Creek, Eighteen Mile Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek, and Ten Mile Creek (Figure 1). The assessments included the documentation of current habitat conditions and the development of restoration works to mitigate forestry impacts to fish habitat. The assessments were carried out under the Watershed Restoration Program (WRP) with guidance from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks’ (MELP). The WRP is an initiative under Forest Renewal British Columbia (FRBC) that is, among other tasks, mandated to restore the productive capacity of fisheries, forest, and water resources that have been impacted by past forest harvest practices.

This project was conducted in accordance with the standards and information detailed in the Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures (FHAP) (Technical Circular No. 8) (Johnston and Slaney 1996) and the Riparian Assessment and Prescriptions Procedures, Draft #3A, (RAPP) (Oikos Ecological Services 1996). Prescriptions for areas identified for restoration followed those detailed in Fish Habitat Restoration Procedures (Technical Circular No. 9) (Slaney and Zaldokas 1997). The FHAP provides the essential fish and fish habitat information required to identify appropriate restoration activities in streams which have been impacted by forestry activity. The purpose of a RAPP is to identify and assess the loss or impairment of riparian function as a result of forest harvesting and to identify restoration procedures which will re-establish riparian function as rapidly as possible.

The scope of the current project was to conduct a FHAP (overview, level 1, and level 2), a RAPP (watershed level and site level), and a fish population assessment of the nine watersheds of interest. The deliverables for the project include:

· a report detailing study methods, summarizing data, and identifying restoration prescriptions and drawings;

· TRIM maps showing fisheries information (13 sheets);

· TRIM maps showing riparian information (13 sheets);

· a set of project photographs;

· a digital copy of the Watershed Restoration Program access database containing habitat data collected at each site;

· a digital copy of the Field Data Information System containing fisheries data collected at each site

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323Page 1

fig.1


1.1 Project Background

The Bowron River watershed was extensively harvested in the mid 1980's as part of a large scale beetle salvage operation. Previous WRP work was carried out in the watersheds of interest and included a Level 1 Interior Watershed Assessments Procedure (IWAP) on the upper and middle Bowron River watersheds. The IWAPs identified the hydrologic concerns related to harvest, priority for implementing Channel Assessment Procedure (CAP), priority for implementing a road survey and deactivation plan, and calculated the equivalent clearcut area (ECA) (Beaudry and DeLong 1996; Beaudry and Nassely 1994). The IWAPs indicated that a number of sub-basins have been negatively impacted by past forestry activity and in response, the Bowron River Watershed Monitoring Committee submitted a watershed restoration proposal to FRBC.

1.2 Biogeoclimatic Setting

The Bowron River is a major tributary to the Fraser River with its headwaters in the Cariboo mountains and flowing generally north to the Fraser River near Purden, BC. The watershed is situated in the Quesnel Highland Physiographic Region which is located between the Cariboo Plateau and the Cariboo Mountains. The Bowron River Valley is a heavily glaciated valley dipping southeast to northwest. The landscape of the valley perimeter is moderate to steeply rolling hills ranging from 1200 to 1500 m a.s.l. with peaks up to 2000 m a.s.l.

The nine streams studied are generally located in the Sub-Boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zone (SBSvk or SBSwk1). This zone is typified by "seasonal extremes of temperature and moderate annual precipitation" (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). Hybrid white spruce (Picea engelmannii x glauca) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) are the dominant climax trees in upland coniferous forests (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). The upper reaches of some streams occur in the Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir zone (ESSFwk1) while the middle of Hah Creek is in the Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICHvk2) zone. Other species which may occur include Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), western redcedar (Thuja plicata) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla).

1.3 Fisheries Resources

The Bowron River supports both resident and anadromous fish species but is only accessible to anadromous species up to a barrier located 32 km upstream of Bowron Lake. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawn and rear in both the Bowron River and its tributaries. Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) spawn in the Bowron River, upstream of Bowron Lake, and in Sus and Huckey Creek (DFO 1997). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (reported as Dolly Varden in some reports) and rainbow trout


(O. mykiss) are found throughout the watershed. The presence of Rocky Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) has also been documented (DFO 1997).

The escapement records from 1978 to 1987, the period of extensive harvest in this watershed, estimated a maximum escapement of 35,000 sockeye salmon and 10,900 chinook salmon. For both species, migration occurs in late July to mid-August and spawning occurs in late August to mid-September (DFO 1997). Sockeye escapement was lower in the 1980’s than from the 1950’s to the 1970’s. Chinook escapement appears to have increased from the 1950’s to the late 1980’s.

Several fisheries investigations have been conducted on the Bowron River and have focused on anadromous species. Previous studies include fish sampling studies, hatchery studies and releases, spawner counts, and creel surveys. Most studies have focused on the mainstem of this river, although limited work has been carried out in Haggen Creek and at the mouth of several other creeks. Fisheries studies have been conducted in some of the lakes in the study area. In some cases lakes have been stocked by MELP.

A well maintained and active Forest Services Road (Bowron Road) parallels the Bowron River and provides access to several Forest Service Recreation Sites. Given its relatively easy access, recreational anglers likely use the river to some extent. The Bowron Lakes Provincial Park lies upstream of the study area.

1.4 Geomorphology and Hydrology Setting

1.4.1 Surficial Geology

Loamy glaciofluvial materials dominate the soils along the valley-bottoms of the Bowron River watershed while moderate to steeply sloping valley-sides are dominated by variable layers of till and colluvium. The Bowron Valley exhibits extensive areas of river terraces and floodplain deposits. The river terraces have a flat to gently sloping topography with each successive terrace separated by a steep escarpment. Deposition by glacial meltwater streams during the end of the last glaciation resulted in the gravely sands to cobbly gravels that represent the glaciofluvial sediments in the valley. Ice-contact glaciofluvial materials are present throughout the watershed but mostly in the headwaters. Pockets of silt and clay were presumably deposited in small ice-marginal ponds and usually occur within these ice-contact glaciofluvial materials. Large deposits of fine textured sediments (clay, silt and fine sand) were deposited in glacial ice-dammed lakes to the east of the Bowron River mainstem. Glaciolacustrine sediments are common in the downstream parts of many of the Bowron River tributaries such as Spruce Creek. The fine textured glaciolacustrine and sandy glaciofluvial deposits common throughout the Bowron River are highly erodible. This results in portions of the watershed being naturally unstable, especially on the steeper slopes. A sediment source survey performed by Firth Hollins Resource Corp (1994) identified 550 large sediment sources (landslides


and bank failures) of which 35% were attributed to land-use activities. The present ECA for the watershed is low at an average of 24% but ranges from 1 to 63%.

1.4.2 Upper Bowron Watershed

Harvesting in the mid-1980’s resulted in 30% of the Upper Bowron (upstream of the Haggen Creek confluence) being cleared as part of a beetle salvage operation. Due to the extensive harvesting there has been a decrease in vegetative interception and transpiration which typically results in a potential for increased peak flows. The removal of extensive riparian vegetation has decreased bank stability by reducing the root networks and the armouring effects that fallen trees can have on the stream banks. Historical analysis of air photos from 1970 and 1990 indicates extensive adjustments to the stream morphology in recent years in the form of an increase in width, meander wavelength, channel erosion, avulsions, sediment deposition, aggradation, number and size of mid-channel bars and a decrease in sinuosity. These changes will result in a decrease in channel depth and an increase in gradient. The changes are a result of an increase in sediment supply to the channel due to an increase in mass wasting from landslides, high density of road building and the low ECA. The increase in sediment supply and resulting aggradation in the Upper Bowron reaches has caused substantial bank erosion, lateral instability, greater amount of mid-channel bars and fine textural materials. Although not yet proven, it is likely that these changes are at least partially attributed to the extensive clear cutting.

1.4.3 Middle Bowron Watershed

The mainstem of the Middle Bowron (from the Haggen Creek confluence to the highway bridge) is more stable than the Upper Bowron. The Middle Bowron has less hydrological impact than the Upper Bowron due to less harvesting and a lower dominance of sensitive soils. Many of the mass wasting events are small, in gullies, of natural causes, and have revegetated. The majority of the Middle Bowron mainstem is stable and regularly meandering. It is confined by high banks and glacial terraces, and has a limited number of point bars and side bars. The Middle Bowron has less deposition of fine textured materials and a lower mean gradient (1 to 2%) than the Upper Bowron. Therefore, the Middle Bowron is less dynamic with lots of large woody debris (LWD) which is mostly accumulated on the upstream edges of mid-channel islands. There is, however, some evidence of eroding cutbanks and slight lateral channel instability in the Middle Bowron. The bed material in the Middle Bowron is mostly made up of coarse materials, such as cobbles and gravels, with a minimal amount of fines compared to the Upper Bowron.

The reaches in the Middle Bowron have a lower sediment transport capability with a general pool-riffle morphology. There are generally only small localized sites of channel erosion. The main problem with the Middle Bowron is that the increased sediment loads,


excessive instability, and aggradation in the Upper Bowron will be transported downstream resulting in future instability in the Middle Bowron.

1.4.4 Hydrology

The Bowron River exhibits a typical Northern Interior hydrograph where the peak discharge is usually generated in late spring (late may to mid-June) by snowmelt. Discharge gradually decreases into the summer, with near base-flows in the late winter. Occasional high-intensity rain storms or rain-on-snow events create peak flows in the late fall. Historical flow data indicate relatively constant variability over the years.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Hydrology

The creeks in this study did not have established gauging stations from which to create stream flow information, therefore, data from other monitored streams had to be used and adjusted to estimate flow information. The primary source was hydrology information from the active Water Survey of Canada (WSC) gauges on the Bowron River (near Wells, 08KD001, and one located below Box Canyon) and climate information (including precipitation, total and rain and snow components, and air temperature) from the Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) site at Barkerville.

The process began with analyzing data from the two WSC gauges on the Bowron River. The gauge located on the Bowron River near Wells covered the period 1953 to 1995, inclusive, while the other gauge located below Box Canyon had a period of record from 1977 to 1996, inclusive. The analyses produced:

· mean annual discharge, · mean summer seven day low discharge, and · mean winter seven day low discharge.

Also, the peak flows for each year were then run through Environment Canada’s Consolidated Frequency Analysis (CFA) program to provide estimated maximum daily discharges for 2, 20, 50, and 100 year return periods. Peak discharges corresponding to specific return periods used in this analysis were produced by averaging results of the following methods:

· Generalized Extreme Value (Gumbel);· Three Parameter Lognormal; and· Log Pearson Type III.


In order to use the results from the above analyses to estimate stream flow data for the ungauged streams, general physical data was also compiled from the TRIM map sheets including stream length, watershed area, mean elevation, and general aspect for the two WSC sites and for all of the streams included in this study. Three different methods were used to calculate mean annual discharges for each of the ungauged streams and the results were averaged to obtain a representative value. The methods involved:

· proportioning the mean discharge calculated for the WSC station on the Bowron River near Wells to the ungauged stream by using watershed area.

· the same as the first except that mean annual discharges were proportioned to the WSC site on the Bowron River below Box Canyon.

· first calculating a mean annual runoff for each of the ungauged sites by proportioning rainfall amounts recorded by AES in Barkerville to the ungauged watershed using mean elevation. An orographic factor of 10% was used to account for elevation differences where each 100 metre increase in elevation resulted in a 10% increase in precipitation. A mean annual runoff coefficient of 85% was utilized to account for ground losses, evaporation, and other losses. These factors seemed appropriate as the values calculated using these assumptions and applied to the two gauged sites were close to the recorded runoff. The mean annual runoff per unit area was calculated and used to produce an estimated mean annual discharge.

Finally, for all of the ungauged watercourses the following parameters were calculated by proportioning the estimated mean annual discharges with the WSC gauged site on the Bowron River near Wells:

· mean summer seven day low discharge;· mean winter seven day low discharge;· year return period discharge;· year return period discharge;· year return period discharge;· year return period discharge.

2.2 Riparian

2.2.1 Watershed Level

Based on the overview level fisheries assessment, stream locations and reach breaks were delineated on overlays of aerial photos of the streams. The widths of riparian management areas (RMA) and reserve zones (RZ) were identified based on an assessment of stream width measured from the aerial photos (~1:16,000) and the likelihood of fish presence. The RMA widths (40, 50 and 70 m) were delineated on aerial photo overlays.


The riparian assessments focused on areas adjacent to fish bearing streams greater than 1.5 m wide and where forest cover had been removed. Each reach was further qualified into stream segments or sections, portions of a creek which have similar general riparian vegetation types (i.e. old growth or shrub cover). Riparian vegetation classes (RVC) were defined as described in the RAPP (Oikos Ecological Services 1996) and were identified using primarily the aerial photos and the 1:20,000 forest cover maps. Other sources of information such DFO, Ministry of Forests (MoF) and MELP opening files were used as available. Once identified, RVCs were numbered and delineated on the air photo overlays. The RVCs were prioritized for site visitation based on whether they had been harvested, the extend of RMA affected by harvesting, and the priority of the reach in the overview level fisheries assessment.

2.2.2 Site Assessment

Data were collected in the field between August 24 and September 10, 1997. A two person crew visited each high priority RVC (51 sites) to confirm the classification and assess the impact of forestry on the function of the riparian zone. A data form was developed to incorporate the Silviculture Prescription Form (MoF) and the Ecological Classification Forms (Luttmerding 1990) and is found in Appendix A. Data collected included physical and ecological descriptions of each site including soils description, vegetation composition, and slope position and shape. Where possible, sites were described to the site series level, based on the soil types and the composition and cover of shrub and herb layers, as well as the natural regeneration for harvested sites. In addition, the crew noted any signs of channel or slope instability.

An assessment of the impact of forestry activities on the RVC was conducted as described in the RAPP. This included identification of the nature and extent of the affected riparian function (e.g. LWD, slope stability, or shading). The degree of impact to the riparian function was quantified with a series of 3.99 m diameter fixed area plots established in a systematic random manner within the effective distance of the riparian function being assessed. Interpretation of these data was based on the impact class tables in the RAPP, however the values for stream class in the LWD tables were not doubled as is suggested in the manual. The effect of doubling the value assigned to stream class in the determination of impact was a minimum impact class of medium, even for old growth riparian zones.

Following the field sampling, the information obtained was transferred from the aerial photo overlays to 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Mapped information included the RMA boundaries, the RVC numbers and locations, and the sites sampled. The RVC classifications were finalized and summary tables created. Rehabilitation methods for highly affected stream segments were recommended based on the procedures outlined by the RAPP.


2.3 Fish

2.3.1 Fish Habitat

2.3.1.1 Overview

An overview FHAP was conducted on the 9 sub-watersheds in accordance with the procedures outlined in the FHAP manual (Johnston and Slaney 1996). One of the key tasks in the overview FHAP was the identification of stream reaches and sections. Stream reaches were defined as a length of creek with relatively uniform instream fish habitat. The criteria used to identify reaches in a FHAP were changes in gradient, changes in channel braiding, and confluence of a tributary with greater than 10% of the watershed area. Sections were defined as portions of creek within a reach which have similar riparian vegetation and, therefore, relate to segments identified during the RAPP. For example, old-growth riparian vegetation and harvested riparian vegetation would be two separate sections within the same reach.

Materials used for the overview are detailed in Appendix B and generally included:

· 1:20,000 TRIM maps; · approximately 1:16,000 scale air photos taken in 1990;· existing background information listed in the references section; and· a 1995 overflight video of some of the creeks.

Air photos were examined steroscopically and distances on TRIM maps and air photos were measured using a digital map wheel. Forms 1, 2 and 3 of the FHAP manual were filled out during the overview and the data were entered into a MSAccess database using the WRP data entry tool. The purpose was to prioritize reaches for further investigation into high, medium and low categories.

As part of the overview stage, a draft Work Plan was prepared, submitted, and discussed with Northwood and MELP. The Work Plan identified priority reaches to be examined during the level 1 assessment and outlined sampling methods to be used.

The final stage of the overview was combined with the first stage of the level 1 FHAP which consisted of a helicopter overflight of each creek. During the overflight, reach breaks were confirmed and in some cases adjusted, access was assessed, and general observations were recorded.


2.3.1.2 Level 1

The level 1 FHAP was carried out from August 24 to September 10, 1997 and followed the methodology outline in the FHAP, WRP Technical Circular No. 8 (Johnston and Slaney 1996). The habitat survey was carried out by a two-member field crew which documented data collected on Form 4 of the FHAP (Johnston and Slaney 1996). The habitat surveys targeted sections of stream with adjacent forestry activity that were high and medium priority reaches or sections identified in the overview assessment. However, in some cases access and stream conditions warranted surveying at other locations.

The length and direction of survey was generally dependent upon the size of stream, access points, and variability in the habitat observed within the survey site. For example, Haggen Creek was the largest stream in this study, was surveyed in an downstream direction, and had the longest survey sites (1.2 to 1.8 km) which often spanned sections within reaches. Given the size of this stream, the riffle-glide-pool sequence is expected to repeat itself in the order of every 200-300 m, or every 5 - 7 channel widths (Newbury and Gaboury 1993). In a smaller stream, such as Spruce Creek, the riffle-glide-pool sequence is expected to repeat itself approximately every 50 m and the habitat survey sites were therefore shorter (400 to 600 m). Smaller streams were generally surveyed in an upstream direction.

Within each survey site, the habitat crew used a combination of complete and random sub-sampling methods to collect data on individual habitat units. The complete sampling method was used to collect data on basic parameters for each habitat unit encountered within a survey site. The basic parameters collected on every habitat unit allowed for calculation of the percent habitat type per reach and included:

· Reach· Distance (hip chain)· Habitat unit type· Habitat unit category· Length (hip chain or meter stick)· gradient (clinometer)· Bankfull depth (meter stick)· Water depth (meter stick)· Mean bankfull channel width (measure tape, meter stick or range finder)· Mean wetted width (measure tape, meter stick or range finder)

Random sub-sampling was used to select specific habitat units within each survey site where detailed data measurements were taken. The data collected through the random sub-sampling could then be extrapolated to the reach. The random sub-sampling targeted collection of full data on a minimum of three representative habitat units per habitat type


per reach (i.e. 3 pools, 3 riffles, and 3 runs). However, in many sites there were not three habitat units of a given habitat type, most notably pools.

The habitat data were recorded on Form 4 of the FHAP manual (Johnston and Slaney 1996) while additional comments were made in a field book. The sample methods and equipment outlined on pages 43 - 53 of the manual were generally followed, although variations from these methods are summarized in point form below. A list of equipment models is presented in Appendix B.

Discharge - measured using a flow meter in conjunction with electrofishing; floating chip estimate was also used during habitat surveys.

Stream Temperature (oC) - A pocket thermometer was used at all sites. Thermographs were installed near the mouth of all creeks except Unnamed B. Thermographs were installed during the first days of the field program and were removed in early October at the end of the second level 2 field visit.

Sub-sampling Fractions - A combination of complete and random sub-sampling was used. Basic data were collected on all habitat units within a survey site while full data were collected on a random sub-sample of habitat units. The crews collected full data on approximately 3 units per habitat type per reach (total of 9 units per survey site). Some reaches warranted collection of additional data while in some reaches data on fewer units were collected due to access difficulties.

Distance (m) - The distance recorded in the field reflected the distance from the starting point of the survey to the first contact with a habitat unit. For entry into the Access database, all distances were then converted to reflect the distance between the start point of the survey and the downstream end of a habitat unit. All distances were measured using a hipchain. At the start of each survey section a GPS reading was taken if coverage was available.

Gradient (%) - The gradient was measured using a clinometer to the nearest 0.5%.

Bankfull Depth (m) - The bankfull depth was measured as described on page 48 of the FHAP manual (Johnston and Slaney 1996). Measurements were made from a horizontal line at the height of the bankfull width to the water surface.

Riparian Vegetation Type and Structural Stage - These were confirmed with the riparian crew before Form 4 finalization.

Fish Distribution - Fish distribution was primarily documented through electrofishing, although minnow traps, snorkel surveys, and visual observations were also used. Specific fish sampling sites were identify by the habitat crew using flagging tape at the


time of the habitat survey. Electrofishing crews generally sampled sites within 24 to 48 hours of habitat documentation by the habitat crew. Details of the fish sampling methodology are provided in Section 2.3.2

Photographs - Upstream and downstream looking photos with a scale reference were taken at habitat units for which full data were collected. In addition, photos of relevant features or signs of impact were taken. Photo numbers, location, and relevant details were recorded in Form 4. Photographs are included in binders in Attachment 1.

2.3.1.3 Inorganic Nutrients

On September 8, 1997, one water sample was collected near the mouth of each creek. In conjunction with the water sample collection, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH were measured. Samples bottles were rinsed three times prior to sample collection. A duplicate sample was collected from one creek and labeled with a fictitious name. Water samples were packed in a cooler with ice packs and sent by overnight courier to Vancouver for analysis. Analytical Laboratory Services analyzed the samples for low level nitrate, ortho-phosphorus, alkalinity, and total suspended solids (TSS). Nutrient rating for each creek were based on standards provided in the FHAP diagnostic (Johnston and Slaney 1996; Table 5, page 57).

Duplicate water samples were taken from Pinkerton Creek on September 8, 1997. Coincidentally, ASL Laboratories conducted a replicate analysis on the Pinkerton Creek sample as part of their internal quality control. All three samples were found to have similar alkalinity, and similar levels of nitrate nitrogen and dissolved ortho-phosphate (Appendix C). Total suspended solids varied slightly between samples, from 1.0 to 4.0 mg/L.

2.3.2 Fish Population

Fish sampling was carried out from August 24 to September 10, 1997 by two to three crews of two persons each. The sampling followed the general methodologies outlined in the Fish Collection Methods and Standards (RIC 1997) with additional project specific requirements described below. For reaches examined, the field program targeted sampling 3 habitat units per stratum per reach. However, given unexpected road conditions, difficult helicopter access, and the total number of reaches examined, the number of units sampled per habitat type varied slightly by reach. Fish collection focused on electrofishing, but also included minnow trapping and snorkel surveys. A total of 160 sites were sampled; 144 sites were electrofished, 4 sites were minnow trapped, and 12 site were snorkel surveyed.

2.3.2.1 Electrofishing


Fisheries crews sampled habitat units identified by the habitat crew who provided a list of sample sites and approximate locations. Each sample site was marked with flagging tape which was labeled with the Creek Name, Reach, Habitat Unit Number, Unit Type and other relevant information. At each site, 1/4" mesh knotless nylon stop nets (1 m by 8 m) were used to set-up net enclosures either across the stream or in margin habitat, depending on the size of stream. Enclosures generally cordoned off one whole habitat unit, although in larger streams only a portion of a unit could be enclosed (i.e. margin habitat) and in smaller streams sometimes more than one unit was cordoned off (e.g. a riffle and glide).

Multiple-removal electrofishing was carried out within the net enclosure with minimum recovery times of 20 minutes between passes. In general, the aim was to conduct three passes at each site. However, experienced crews were aware that if removal was particularily effective in two passes (i.e. high catch first pass, low catch second pass), a reliable population estimate can still be generated. If no fish were caught on the first pass while effort was high and habitat was marginal, a second and third pass was often not attempted due to time constraints. At very few sites, sampling effort could not generate a lower catch on the third or fouth pass of a site and was often due to presence of good cover (i.e. root wads). In such situations, additional passes were not attemped in an effort to minimizie fish stress and mortality.

Alkazelter was used to anesthetize the fish for measuring. The data collected were recorded using the Fish Collection cards supplied by MELP (Appendix A). Summarized sample procedures are as follows while a list of equipment makes and models can be found in Appendix B:

· For each species, the number of fish collected with each pass was tallied.

· For all salmonids, the fork length was measured and a sub-sample of 10 individuals was weighed. For all other fish, the fork length or total length in mm, as appropriate, was measured.

· Within the sub-sample that was weighed (except obvious 0+ fish), non-destructive aging structures were collected as described in the Fish Collection Methods and Standards, Version 4, RIC, 1997. For Dolly Varden/bull trout, the left pelvic fin ray was collected, cleaned with water, patted dry, and stored in labeled envelopes. For other species, scales were collected and stored on labeled microscope slides. The scales were sent to AMC Laboratories for sample analysis while the fin rays were sent to North/South Consultants for analysis.

· Voucher specimen were collected in cases where the field crew needed to confirm identification of fish species.


· Flow measurements were taken at each sample site using a flow meter. Velocities were recorded at 5-10 equally spaced locations along a transect perpendicular to the flow in the unit and measured at a depth ratio of 0.4 the from the bottom.

· One upstream and one downstream photograph was taken at each sample site. Photo number, site number, photo direction and other relevant details were recorded.

The following data was recorded at each site:

· water temperature;· average depth with meter stick (3 times at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 distance across the unit);· average length and width with tape or chain, and· pH and conductivity.

The details surrounding the electrofishing sampling at each site was recorded on Fish Collection cards and the data was entered into an MS Access database. Information such as site area, electrofishing effort per pass, and equipment settings can be found in the electronic and hardcopy version of the Fish Data Collection Forms (Attachment 2).

2.3.2.2 Minnow Trapping

G-type minnow traps were used in one watershed (Unnamed B) to identify possible presence of fish upstream of a large barrier. Four minnow traps were baited using cheese, tuna, bread and/or ham, and were placed in pools or glides in association with LWD. The traps were left in place for a minimum of 20 hours and retrieved the following morning.

2.3.2.3 Snorkel Surveys

Snorkel surveys were carried out in Haggen Creek to evaluate the presence of adult fish. The surveys were carried out on September 8, 1997 by two experienced fisheries biologists who were equipped with dry-suits, masks, snorkels, fins, waterproof paper, and pencils. The surveyors simultaneously floated downstream along either side of the stream and recorded fish seen on their respective sides. Their lane widths were approximately 3 -5 m wide depending on the width of the creek. Surveys site lengths were generally 250 m - 300 m long and were surveyed once. Water clarity was good with visibility of approximately 4-6 m. Fish seen were recorded by species, approximate size range, and habitat type (i.e. pool, riffle, glide). The data from each site was complied into a master list after each survey. The habitat units snorkeled generally coincided with habitat units surveyed by the habitat and electrofishing crews so that habitat measurements were collected for snorkel sites. On the day of the survey, water temperatures in Reach 1 of Haggen Creek ranged from 7.5 oC to 12.5 oC with an average temperature of 9.9 oC.


2.3.3 Data Analysis

The data collected during the habitat and fish surveys were reviewed and then entered into a MSAccess database using the WRP data entry tool and the Fish Collection Card data entry tool, respectively. It should be noted that given the slightly different focus of this study, the data entry into the Fish Collection Card database was different than for inventory projects. For example, to maintain the link between the fish sample site and the habitat data collected on Form 4, the habitat unit number assigned by the habitat crew was entered in “lake sequence” and the comments section. Sites were not assigned NIDs and streams were not assigned ILP’s. In addition, each card was entered as a separate record to allow for the difference in sampling crews, dates, and comments for each site. The electronic versions of the database are included as Attachment 3.

Once entered, various queries were performed to extract data to Excel 5.0a spreadsheet for statistical analysis. The habitat data were weighted by unit length to calculate the mean parameters for each survey section. These results were then used to complete Form 6 using the habitat diagnostics provided in Table 5 of the FHAP manual (Johnson and Slaney 1996). In addition, the total area and percent area per habitat type per reach were calculated. The locations of survey and sample site as well as selected additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat were mapped on 1:20,000 TRIM maps using GIS.

2.3.3.1 Population Densities

The results of the electrofishing, minnow trapping, snorkel surveys and visual observations were used to complete Form 5 of the FHAP. Using the data collected from the multiple pass electrofishing, fish population estimates were generated for each sample site using the statistical software Pop/Pro (Kwak 1991). The results from the scale and fin ray analysis were used in combination with length-frequency distributions to identify length-at-age categories (fry - 0+; juvenile - 1+ and older; adult - 3+ for rainbow trout and 4+)(Attachment 4). Using the precentage of fry, juvenile and adult fish of each species caught at each site, a population estimate was generated for each species and age class. At some sites, the standard error was quite high due to a low removal rate. However, for the purpose of this study, the all population estimates that were generated, were used. Area measurements from each site and estimated fish populations were used to calculate fish densities for each site. These were then extrapolated to the entire unit and to each habitat type per reach.

The current study involved a very detailed sampling effort of specific habitat units or portions of units in selected reaches of these watershed. However, not every reach in a watershed was sampled, and often those that were sampled were selected based on adjacent forest activity and affected habitat. Therefore, in expanding population


densities from 'sample sites' to 'habitat types' to 'reaches', a measure of accuracy is lost due to the numerous assumptions that are made. For example, in extrapolating from sample site to habitat type, it is assumed that the fish densities recorded in the sample site are reflective of the whole unit, while in many cases only margin habitat of a unit was sampled. If this data was then used to expand from reach to watershed, it would have to be assumed that the densities sampled in areas with harvested riparian and affected habitat would be representative of populations densities in unaffected reaches. Given these assumptions, it would be a great overestimation to expand from fish densities per site to estimated fish population per watershed. Therefore, fish population densities are provided for sample sites and reaches only.

2.3.3.2 Theoretical Population Densities

A theoretical optimal fish population density was generated for each sample site using the model developed by Ptolemy et al. (1991). The model is based on mean fish size per age class and stream alkalinity and has identified the following relationship for nine salmonid species including rainbow trout, chinook and bull trout:

FPUT = 36.3 ALK0.5 x Size -1

where: FPUTO = theoretical optimal fish per unit area (fish per 100 m2)ALK = total alkalinity measured in a laboratorySize = mean fish weight (g) per class

The theoretical densities of salmonids was calculated for each sample site using water quality results and the mean mass of the fish collected from the each watershed. It should be noted that the theoretical densities are based on one measure of alkalinity taken near the mouth of each creek.

2.3.3.3 Weighted Useable Width

Since the model developed by Ptolemy et al. (1991) does not consider the suitability of the habitat at each sample site, a second model was used to adjust the theoretical density in respect to site habitat. The depth and velocity data collected at a transect through each sample site were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. A habitat model was then applied to the data, to calculate discharge, wetted area per cross-section, as well as several other hydrological parameters. Since different species and age classes have different habitat requirements and preferences, a weighted useable width was calculated for each species collected. The habitat model allows for the selection of several habitat suitability criteria based on species and age class. These criteria are used to estimate the useable stream width for each species and stage at each transect.


The following sources were used for the habitat criteria for the current study:

Ptolemy 1994 chinook fry Bradford 1995 rainbow trout fry

rainbow trout parrRaleigh et al 1986 chinook parrEnvironmental Management Associates 1993 bull trout fry and parr

The estimated useable width was then used to adjust the theoretical fish per unit area to reflect the existing depth-velocity conditions at each sample site. The weighted usable width for chinook, rainbow trout and bull trout for each site are found in Appendix F and were used in the following equation:

FPU = WUW x FPUTO

where: FPU = fish per unit area (fish per 100 m2)FPUTO = theoretical optimal fish per unit area (fish per 100 m2)WUW = weighted useable width (in % of total width)

It is important to note that the calculations are based on models created using data collected in the field at other locations or in laboratories. In addition, models are based on only a few selected criteria, while streams and fish habitat are subject to a variety of environmental conditions. Therefore, it is possible that observed densities are occasionally higher than the theoretical densities.

2.4 Restoration Prescriptions (Level 2 FHAP)

The level 2 FHAP was carried out in two phases. Between September 7 and September 10, 1997, a preliminary field visit was conducted by the restoration specialist team which consisted of a hydrological engineer, a geomorphologist and two senior fisheries biologists. The preliminary field visit consisted of an overflight of each of the creeks, on-site discussions with the crews investigating fish, fish habitat, and riparian issues as well as identification of preliminary restoration opportunities for each watershed.

A second field visit was conducted by the restoration team from October 7 to October 10, 1997 after a preliminary review of the data collected during the Level 1 FHAP. A meeting was held with the MELP WRP biologist to review the preliminary findings and to prioritize restoration areas and types. The second field visit focused on the collection of site specific data at each restoration site which will allow the development of restoration prescriptions for each site. Longitudinal and cross-section surveys were conducted, types of prescriptions were identified, and chainage of restoration items within a site were recorded. In addition, a series of low level aerial photos were taken.


Although most of these watersheds have some potential for restoration, available funding did not allow all opportunties to be investigated to the Level 2 stage. The study team identified watersheds and reaches that were a priority for Level 2 assessment based on:

· Northwood and MELP priority watersheds (based on other restoration activities, such as up-slope work)

· nature and degree of forestry impacts· fish habitat and populations· public use of watershed · access

2.4.1 Engineering Surveys

Detailed surveys were conducted in selected reaches on the mainstem of Spruce Creek and Fourteen Mile Creek, and on side channels in Haggen Creek and Post Creek. Work on Hah Creek involved ground reconnaissance of a portion of the creek and photo documentation but did not include level surveying. Level surveys were conducted to provide the hydraulic characteristics of the creek sections identified for restoration prescriptions. Cross-section level surveys were used to record elevations across the channel from top of bank to top of bank, the creek channel bottom, and the wetted edges. Longitudinal profile surveys along the thalweg and cross-section surveys were carried out at intervals of generally 20 m. The azimuth (angle measured clockwise from north and referenced from the left side of the channel) was recorded and photos were taken to document each cross-section surveyed. The survey activities were carried out by a crew of 2 to 3 people using standard level survey techniques. The survey results were entered into an Excel Version 5 spreadsheet and were used to generate longitudinal and cross-sectional profiles.Locations of surveyed cross-sections on Spruce and Fourteen Mile Creeks, the surveyed side channels on Haggen and Post Creeks, and the sections of Hah Creek were included on the air photo mosaics.

2.4.2 Water Level Estimates

Water levels corresponding to conditions existing at the time of the survey were recorded and bank full discharge water levels were estimated for each section of the mainstem channel of the creeks where detailed cross-section level surveys were conducted.

2.4.3 Prescriptions

Individual prescriptions were identified on site through consultation between the geomorphologist and one of the fisheries specialists. As the engineering survey progressed upstream at each mainstem restoration site, individual prescriptions (LWD, root wads, wing deflectors, etc.) were identified with corresponding chainage and brief


description. Those items currently existing in the stream were flagged for future identification. Using the chainage, description and photographs, the prescriptions were added to the photo mosaic.

2.4.4 Aerial Photograph Mosaic

The low level aerial photographs were taken using a helicopter mounted 40 mm camera. The helicopter flew at an elevation of approximately 200 m above the ground and at a speed of about 20 miles per hour. The frequency of shutter release was timed to provide sufficient overlap to create a photo mosaic. The restoration sites were generally flown in an upstream direction with a shutter release of once every two seconds. The film was developed and photographs were scanned onto a CD. The photo mosaic was then generated using CorelDraw version 7.0 and was overlain with the cross-section locations. Restoration details were overlain to provide the locations of items as well as an estimation how post-restoration sites may appear.

2.5 Mapping

Sample sites and features were marked on field copy TRIM maps during the field surveys. The sample sites and riparian information was digitized and transfered onto TRIM maps using Arc/Info. The mapping was carried out following the Fish Habitat Assessment Porcedure Digital Data Sepcifications, April 28, 1997 provided as Attachment 2 of the project contract. The TRIM maps created for the project are included as Attachment 5.

3.0 HYDROLOGY

The Bowron River watershed study area is located north of Barkerville and southeast of Prince George. Mean monthly air temperatures range from approximately 15°C during July and August to -10°C in January (Figure 2). Precipitation is highest during early summer and winter months, and lowest during late winter and early spring (Figure 3). For example, Barkerville receives an annual total precipitation of approximately 1,028 mm, consisting of approximately 51% rainfall (majority during summer months) and 49% snowfall (Figure 3). Mean monthly discharges in the Bowron River system peak during June, and are minimal during the winter months (Figure 4).

Preliminary results of the hydrologic analysis for the Bowron River watershed and for each watershed included in this study are presented in Table 1. This hydrologic analysis was based on available stream flow data recorded by Water Survey of Canada (WSC) for the Bowron River near Wells (gauging station # 08KD001). Information for this WSC station is also included in Table 2. Mean monthly flows for each watershed have also been


tab.1


fig.2


fig.3


fig.4


estimated based on the WSC station Bowron River near Wells, and are presented in Table 2.

The estimate mean annual discharge in the nine watersheds studies ranged from a low of 0.14 m3/s in Ten Mile Creek to a high of 15.4 m3/s in Haggen Creek (Table 1). The mean summer seven day low flow which would likely occur between January and March was calculated at a low of 0.07 m3/s for Ten Mile Creek and a high of 7.80 m3/s in Haggen Creek. A 50 year return period discharge was generally under 6 m3/s except in Spruce Creek (8.92 m3/s), Post Creek (15.1 m3/s) and Haggen Creek (90.2 m3/s).

4.0 RIPARIAN AND FISHERIES RESULTS

4.1 Spruce Creek

The headwaters of Spruce Creek originate in the Cariboo Mountains on the northeast side of the Bowron River (Figure 5). This creek has a length of 18.4 km and ranges in elevation from 1,600 m asl to 795 m asl. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 6. The IWAP indicated that this watershed has an area of 67.3 km2 and accounts for 14% of the area in the middle reach of the Bowron River watershed (Beaudry and Nassey 1990). The IWAP identified a high level of concern for Spruce Creek due to forest harvesting with an ECA of 28% of the total watershed area.

4.1.1 Riparian

4.1.1.1 Watershed Level

Spruce Creek is within the SBSwk1 biogeoclimatic zone, site series 5 and 7 (submesic and subhygric, medium to rich). The predominant old growth is hybrid spruce with some western hemlock, fir and cottonwoods on the floodplains. The length of stream directly affected by forestry activity is 5,045 m (27%). In general, the watershed was harvested in 1987 and 1988, burned in 1989 and 1990, and replanted (1989 through 1992) with lodgepole pine and hybrid spruce. Further logging is planned for 1999.

The overview FHAP identified that Spruce Creek contains salmonid species and has a channel width of approximately 8 m. The riparian management area for Spruce Creek is therefore 50 m. To this size of stream, LWD is of high importance for fish habitat, particularly in the areas affected by harvesting.

4.1.1.2 Site Level

Table 3 shows the final RVC classifications and descriptions for Spruce Creek. Table 4 presents the final riparian classifications of each of the streams by reach and segment.


tab.2


fig.5


fig.6


Table 5 shows the degree of impairment and recommended treatments by RVC. The RMA and RVCs are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps.

Table 3 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Spruce Creek Watershed

RMA Width

Reach Riparian Segment

Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years Since

Harvest

RVC RVC Label Sample Site #

50 1 340 SBSwk1 NA 2 INIT n50 1 SBSwk1 NA 23 OF / S (BAc)50 1 SBSwk1 5 10 34 SHR / Pl(SBAc) 4350 1 SBSwk1 10 16 SHR / S50 2 1 1375 SBSwk1 7 10 16 SHR / S 4450 2 2 290 SBSwk1 NA 15 OF / S50 3 1 3565 SBSwk1 NA 13 OF / S (B)50 3 1 SBSwk1 NA 15 OF / S50 3 1 SBSwk1 NA 35 OF / S (HB)50 3 2 1955 SBSwk1 7 10 16 SHR / S 4550 3 2 SBSwk1 NA 15 OF / S50 4 1 1470 SBSwk1 NA 15 OF / S50 4 2 25 SBSwk1 10 2 INIT n50 4 2 SBSwk1 NA 13 OF / S (B)50 5 1080 SBSwk1 NA 13 OF / S (B)50 6 450 SBSwk1 NA 35 OF / S (HB)50 7 1045 SBSwk1 7 NA 35 OF / S (HB) 4650 8 867 SBSwk1 NA 10 OF / SB50 9 1 1350 SBSwk1 NA 10 OF / SB50 9 2 SBSwk1 7 9 16 SHR / S 4750 10 195 SBSwk1 NA 13 OF / S (B)50 11 650 SBSwk1 NA 13 OF / S (B)50 12 200 SBSwk1 NA 13 OF / S (B)50 13 3500 SBSwk1 NA 13 OF / S (B)50 14 50 SBSwk1 NA 13 OF / S (B)

Reach 1 was partly old forest hybrid spruce with subalpine fir and black cottonwood (RVC 23) and partly low shrub stage lodgepole pine, with hybrid spruce and subalpine fir regeneration (RVC 34, Site 43). The riparian management area in RVC 34 was very highly impacted (with respect to LWD), however it has been replanted and the seedlings are taller than competing vegetation. The riparian management area in RVC 16 has been


tab.4


tab.4


tab.4


tab.5


replanted with spruce, however the spruce have been affected by spruce leader weevil (20%). Reach 2 segment 1 was also RVC 16 (Site 44; shrub stage spruce, harvested to banks) on both sides of the creek, while segment 2 was old spruce forest on both sides.

The riparian management areas of Reaches 3 and 4 are mostly old forest spruce and fir (with some hemlock), but there was also a 2 year old cutblock with low shrubs (RVC 16, Site 45) and planted spruce. This area was very shrubby, and the shrubs overtop tree seedlings. Reaches 5 through 8 are old forest spruce and fir (RVC 13, 35, 10, Site 46). Reaches 6 and 9 are lakes, with a cutblock area along the shorelines which were harvested in 1988, burned in 1990 and planted with spruce in 1992 (RVC 16, Site 47). Reaches 10 and 11 are old forest hybrid spruce with subalpine fir (RVC 13). The site level riparian recommendations are provided in Table 6.

Table 6 Spruce Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations

Reach /Segment

RVC # label

Management Objective Preferred/ alternative treatment

Area affected

(m2)

Priority

R1 34SHR/Pl(SBAc)

Enhance riparian function by enhancing the density, age

class and species diversity of conifers

Fill plant with spruce

/ manual brush

10,000 Low

R2 S1 16SHR/S

Accelerate development of conifers for the production of

LWD

Manual brush, remove infected

trees / manual brush

137,500 Mod.

R3 S2 16SHR/S


LWD

Manual brush/None

97,750 High

R9 S2 16SHR/S


LWD

Plant with spruce / None

5,000 Low


4.1.2 Fish Habitat

4.1.2.1 Overview FHAP

The overview assessment of Spruce Creek identified 14 reaches with varying degrees of forestry activities including cutblocks and road crossings. Road construction activity suggests further harvesting will take place.

Previous fisheries sampling documented rainbow trout in Reach 1 (Envirocon Ltd. 1980) and rainbow trout and Dolly Varden in lakes of this watershed (Reaches 5 and 9)(MELP 1997; Wescott 1989). While the channel was not always visible on the air photos, the general channel characteristic was a riffle-bar-pool channel type with few disturbance indicators. The air photo analysis identified no significant barriers, and identified frequent functional LWD in harvested areas. The percent area of pool habitat in reaches ranged from 1 to 50%. Both the air photos and forest cover maps indicated Reaches 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 have adjacent cutblocks. However, the air photos did not show the more recent harvest adjacent to Reach 3. Some of this creek's adjacent stand structure was mature forest with no visible impact.

The overview identified 2 high priority reaches (Reaches 1 and 2), 5 moderate (Reaches 3, 4, 5, 7, 8) and 8 low priority reaches or sections for the level 1 habitat assessment. Preliminary restoration opportunities that were identified in the overview include the addition of boulder, pool, and functional LWD cover; the stabilization of banks; the restoration of riparian areas; and the examination of road crossings.

4.1.2.2 Level 1 FHAP

The level 1 FHAP was carried out on all of Reach 1 and parts of Reach 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, totaling a stream distance of 1,616 m. The locations of the habitat survey sites are shown in Figure 5 while additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Reaches 1, 3, and 4 were surveyed traveling downstream while Reaches 2, 6, and 7 were surveyed in an upstream direction. Reaches 1, 2, and 3 had adjacent harvested riparian zones while the riparian area in Reach 4 consisted of old growth spruce and fir. However, Reach 4 was surveyed to provided some data on likely habitat conditions in Spruce Creek prior to harvest. Reaches 6 and 7 are located between the two lakes in the Spruce Creek watershed and were also undisturbed by forestry activities. Although a cutblock was located adjacent to these reaches, the creek was entrenched in a valley and a mature riparian zone has been maintained.

Summary habitat data for each reach is provided in Table 7 while the percent area habitat composition is presented in Table 8, with a detailed breakdown in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented mean water depths ranging from 0.2 m to 0.4 m, mean


bankfull channel widths ranging from 5.1 m to 11.3 m and mean wetted widths ranging from 4.3 m to 8.9 m. Riffles dominated the percent area habitat composition in all sites regardless of riparian zone forestry impacts. Glide was the second most abundant habitat type contributing 7% to 46% habitat by area. There was a low percent habitat area of pools in all reaches with a maximum of 6% habitat by area documented in Reaches 1 and 3.

Table 7 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Spruce Creek

ReachReach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m)

Mean Gradient

(%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)

Mean Water

Depth (m)

Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted

Width (m)1 340 340 1.5 0.5 0.3 8.1 6.22 1655 268 3.1 0.3 0.4 7.4 4.83 5520 321 1.3 0.3 0.4 6.9 5.54 1470 473 2.9 0.2 0.2 11.3 8.96 450 189 2.6 0.2 0.3 4.5 4.37 1045 173 0.9 0.2 0.2 5.1 4.4

Table 8 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Spruce Creek

Percent Area Per Habitat Type Per Reach (%)Reach Reach Length

(m)Survey

Distance (m)Riffle Area

(%) Glide Area

(%) Pool Area

(%)Other Area

(%)1 340 192 77 17 6 02 1655 268 76 23 1 03 5520 321 64 30 6 04 1470 473 54 46 0 06 450 189 93 7 0 07 1045 173 63 37 0 0

The FHAP habitat diagnostic was carried out and revealed generally poor or fair habitat conditions in sites with harvested as well as non-harvested riparian zones. However, functional wood debris was good in several reaches including Reach 2 and 3 which had adjacent cutblocks. One barrier to fish migration was identified in the study in Reach 1. At this location material from an old bridge was trapping bedload and has created a 1.5 m cascade (Photo 1). A summary of the habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 9, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E.


photo 1 & 2


Table 9 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Spruce Creek

Reach Pool Habitat

Functional LWD

Cover Rating

Dominant Substrate

Winter Rearing Habitat

Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access

(# barriers)

1 Poor Fair Poor Gravel Fair Good Fair 1.02 Poor Good Fair Cobble Good Poor Fair 0.03 Poor Good Fair Gravel Fair Poor Fair 0.04 Poor Good Poor Cobble Fair Fair Good 0.06 Poor Fair Fair Gravel Poor Poor Fair 0.07 Poor Poor Fair Gravel Poor Poor Fair 0.0

The data collected re-affirms the general observations of abundant riffle habitat, moderate glide habitat and little pool habitat in Spruce Creek (Photo 2 and 3). The habitat complexity in Spruce Creek was largely defined by LWD. Larger boulders are not a prominent source of habitat complexity in this system. During the overflight it was seen that Spruce Creek had greater functional LWD than other creeks in the study, although the functional LWD was old and will decompose before the riparian zone matures. In cutblock areas of Reaches 1, 2 and 3, the riparian zone had been harvested to the stream edge resulting in a loss of source material for functional LWD and overhead cover. A functional riparian zone may take up to 70 years to re-form.

With a substrate dominated by gravel or cobble, winter-rearing and spawning habitat was generally fair or good in this watershed. However, without strategically positioned LWD, spawning sites will degrade as LWD disappears from the creek and areas of gravel deposition are lost. Sediment was embedding gravels and cobble in some areas, which further affects rearing and spawning opportunities.

In addition to the chronic riparian related impacts, this watershed was experiencing some more acute impacts which can be addressed in the short term. During the field survey it was noted that the access road leading from the creek crossing in Reach 4 to the cutblocks adjacent to the Reach 5, 6, and 7, appears to have slope stability and erosion problems. Reports by MELP suggest a tributary entering upstream of the survey area in Reach 3 may be contributing sediment sources which could affect spawning gravels in this reach as well as downstream (pers. comm., Andrew Wilson, Watershed Restoration Specialist, Omineca Region). In Reach 1, debris from an old bridge was trapping bedload and creates a barrier to fish. The abutments of the existing road crossing in Reach 1 are within the wetted width of the creek even during low flow (Photo 4). There was evidence that the creek flow backs up above the constriction caused by the bridge which has affected channel morphology.


photo3&4


The habitat diagnositic shows that ‘unlogged’ reaches do not necessarily have better habitat conditions than ‘logged’ reaches. Many habitat conditions within the logged reaches could be improved to meet more optimal habitat conditions as defined by the FHAP habitat diagnositic. However, as described in the FHAP manual, prescriptions were developed to impove those habitat features which were identified to be poor or fair. Reaches 1, 2, and 3 were rated high priority for future restoration activities and were surveyed during the level 2 assessment. Reaches 4, 6, and 7 were a low priority for a level 2 assessment.

4.1.2.3 Water Temperature and Quality

A temperature data logger was placed in Reach 1 on August 25, 1997 and removed on October 10, 1997. The data collected revealed temperatures ranged from a maximum temperature of 13.4 oC on August 25, 1997 to a minimum of 4.3 oC on October 7, 1997 (Figure 7). Despite daily fluctuations in water temperature, a general cooling trend was recorded from August to October. Maximum daily fluctuations in water temperature were 2.5 oC in August, with the fluctuation decreasing to 0.9 oC in October. Spruce Creek had the lowest maximum daily fluctuation in water temperature in this study (2.9 oC).

Temperature monitoring carried out in 1980 indicated a greater range in temperatures during August and September, with greater maximum temperatures (15.0 oC) and lower minimum temperatures (4.0 oC) (Envirocon Ltd 1980). In addition, the 1980 data showed that of the creeks included in both studies, Spruce Creek had the highest maximum but also the lowest minimum temperature from June (20.0 oC) to September (2.0 oC).

The data suggests water temperatures in Spruce Creek may be acceptable for bull trout which generally prefer cooler water temperatures and are uncommon in areas where water temperatures rise above 15 oC for longer periods (Donald and Alger 1993, as seen in McPhail and Baxter 1996). However, the high temperatures recorded in June 1980 raises some concern regarding the duration of the elevated temperatures, particularly since these temperatures were recorded prior to the harvesting in this watershed. The removal of riparian vegetation in Reaches 1, 2, and 3 may have lead to elevated mid-summer water temperatures which are unsuitable for bull trout. Since the current study did not cover June and July, a temperature logger installed at the bridge crossing in Reach 1 could be used to document water temperatures throughout the summer in order to confirm the creek’s suitability for bull trout.

The water sample for Spruce Creek was taken on September 8, 1997 from reach 1 (Figure 5). At the time of sampling, the temperature was 8.8 oC, the dissolved oxygen was 10.8 mg/L, and the pH was 8.4. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality


criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 10 and suggest a fair nutrient rating.


fig.7


tab.10


4.1.3 Fish Populations

Triple pass electrofishing within net enclosures was carried out at 17 sample sites in Spruce Creek (Figure 5). The sampling recorded juvenile and adult chinook in Reach 1, juvenile bull trout in Reach 3, and rainbow trout in Reaches 1 to 4, 6, and 7. In addition, juvenile bull trout were observed during the habitat survey in Reach 7 but were not recorded during the fish sampling of this reach. In general, the sampling captured primarily rainbow trout, with very few chinook and bull trout.

The results of the fish sampling are generally consistent with sampling carried out in 1980 which documented rainbow trout upstream of the road crossing (Envirocon Ltd. 1980). Sampling in the lakes of this system was not carried out as part of this study, but sampling in 1989 reportedly captured rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, mountain whitefish, and longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus)(Westcott 1989). The study of the lakes in Spruce Creek commented on the importance of the creek as spawning and rearing habitat and suggested the system may be a source of recruitment for the Bowron River. The study also suggested a low, but healthy, rainbow and Dolly Varden populations in these lakes (Westcott 1989).

The length frequency distributions for fish captured in Spruce Creek are found in Appendix F and were used, along with scale analysis, to identify age classes. Fish population estimates were calculated at 13 sample sites while no estimate could be calculated at the remaining 4 sites because the population was not depleted enough during the three electrofishing passes. The catch and population densities at each sampling site are found in Appendix F. Fish densities per site ranged from 1.7 fish/100 m2 to 102.0 fish/100 m2.

Table 11 presents the mean fish densities per reach and indicates that mean densities were considerably greater in the unharvested Reaches 4, 6 and 7, than in Reaches 1 to 3. The highest mean density was recorded in Reach 6 (102.0 fish/100 m2) while the lowest mean density was recorded in Reach 3 (1.7 fish/100 m2). Rainbow trout was the most abundant species and was recorded in all reaches except Reach 3. Fry and juvenile mean densities were similar, while adult densities were considerably lower. Bull trout were only recorded in Reach 3 and had low densities. Sculpins (Cottus sp.) were captured in every reach except Reach 3 and generally had low densities. Low numbers of chinook fry were documented at one site in Reach 1, but no population estimate could be generated at that site. An adult chinook carcass was observed in Reach 1 during the October field visit.


Table 11 Spruce Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach

Estimated Mean Fish Density Per Reach (n/100 m2)Reach Density Sites Per RB BT CC

(n/100 m2) Reach All F J A All F J1 17.5 2 11.7 7.6 3.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.82 10.5 3 9.9 5.5 3.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.73 1.7 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.04 45.6 2 10.6 0.0 7.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.06 102.0 1 99.0 30.7 65.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.17 42.3 3 39.6 28.9 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7

The theoretical fish densities calculated are provided in Table 12 and are presented along with the sampled salmonid density at each site. The theoretical fry density for Spruce Creek was 299.2 fish/100 m2 and the theoretical density for juveniles was calculated to be 28.1 fish/100 m2. After adjusting the theoretical density using the weighted useable width generated from the habitat suitability model, the theoretical densities per site ranged from 4.3 fish/100 m2 to 231.2 fish/100 m2 for salmonid fry. The juvenile theoretical densities ranged from 0.7 fish/100 m2 to 22.0 fish/100 m2. These theoretical densities are amongst the highest calculated in this study due to the high alkalinity values recorded.

The weighted useable width data indicates that the sites sampled had equally suitable habitat for both fry and juvenile salmonids. A comparison of sampled and theoretical densities suggests that Spruce Creek has the capacity to support more fry and juvenile salmonids.

The study results indicate that Spruce Creek provides habitat for resident fish (rainbow trout and bull trout) and is also a source of recruitment for the Bowron River populations (rainbow trout, chinook, and possibly bull trout). Surveys in Reach 1 indicate that chinook utilize the lower portion of creek for rearing and spawning.

4.1.4 Restoration Opportunities

The riparian assessment of Spruce Creek identified that 27% of the stream length had been affected by forestry activity and that in some locations, the riparian management area was highly impacted with respect to LWD availability. The habitat surveys identified that habitat complexity in the lower reaches of this watershed are determined by LWD and that several aspects of habitat complexity, such as pool habitat, are poor. The fish sampling indicated that salmonid densities are generally below the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth, and alkalinity data. Restoration


opportunities in this watershed should therefore focus on increasing the amount and quality of habitat for juvenile


tab.12


salmonids which could be best accomplished by LWD placement and promoting future supply.

Reach 1 and 2

Reaches 1 and 2 were identified as a high priority for restoration activities and were examined during the level 2 assessment. The observation of significant bedload movement upstream and downstream of the bridge indicates channel instability. Although the diagnostic resulted in a 'fair' or 'good' rating for the presence of functional LWD, approximately half of the LWD tallied during the survey was in the smallest size category. The LWD was not providing the hydraulic controls and habitat diversity necessary for good fish habitat. The level 2 assessment resulted in the formulation of prescriptions for restoration sites labeled as SENG1 and SENG2 which are presented in Section 5 of this report.

Reach 3

Reach 3 was rated a high priority for future restoration activities and was surveyed during the level 2 assessment. This reach has a riffle-pool morphology and had recently been logged to the bank on the north side. There was sufficient LWD in the channel as well as some natural v-notch weirs, jams and wing deflectors that were creating good habitat such as pools, accumulation of spawning gravels, and cover. Some of the outer banks had been significantly undercut which provided excellent habitat.

The level 2 assessment lead to the prescriptions for restoration site SENG3 which are presented in Section 5. As with Reach 1 and 2, restoration activities in SENG3 focus on functional LWD adjustments and additions to improve fish habitat in the reach. All of the functioning natural structures should be left alone. Some of the in-channel wood could be moved around to make it function more effectively as bank protection and overhead cover. Addition structures could be added to build on the existing structures and to add stability to the channel.

Prior to any instream works in this reach, the reports of increased sediment loads from the tributary upstream should be addressed. If elevated sediment levels are confirmed, the sediment source must be controlled before any attempts to improve habitat in this reach are carried out. It is important to ensure that silt accumulations do not occur in spawning and rearing areas created through movement and placement of functional LWD, immediately after the restoration works have been implemented.


Reach 4, 6 and 7

Since Reach 4 lies within mature forest it was used to collect data on possible pre-harvest habitat conditions. Therefore, no level 2 assessment and no recommendations for restoration activities were developed for this reach.

Reaches 6 and 7 were also not recommended for restoration activities, largely because clearing did not occur to the stream bank. These reaches have an existing buffer strip of over 50 m and natural recruitment of functional LWD will continue in these reaches. In several areas embedded gravels are of concern, but no large sediment sources were identified between the survey area and the lake and it is suspected that better gravels exist upstream of the survey site.

4.2 Post Creek

Post Creek originates at an elevation of 1,675 m asl on the northeast side of the Bowron River watershed and is a major tributary to Haggen Creek (Figure 8). The creek is 24.8 km long and terminates at its confluence with Haggen Creek at 875 m asl. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 9. The IWAP identified a medium level of hydrologic concern related to harvesting, a high priority for implementing a channel assessment, and a high priority for implementing a road survey and deactivation plan. The ECA in the Post Creek watershed is 25% (Beaudry and DeLong 1996).

4.2.1 Riparian


Post Creek is located in the SBSvk biogeoclimatic zones, medium rich submesic to sub hygric site series (1, 4, 6). The old growth forests consist primarily of spruce, with fir and cottonwood in varying proportions. The lower reaches of this watershed were harvested in 1985 and 1986, and burned following harvest. Hybrid spruce were planted in the harvested areas in 1987. The upper reaches of Post Creek (Reaches 9-10) were harvested in 1993 and hybrid spruce were planted in 1995. Above Reach 10 there has been no harvesting activity.

The overview FHAP identified Post Creek contains salmonid species and has a channel width of 20 m. The RMA is therefore 50 m for this creek and LWD is highly important to fish habitat. The length of reaches affected by forestry was approximately 13.4 km (54%).


fig.8


fig.9


4.2.1.2 Site Level

Table 13 lists the final RVC classifications and descriptions for Post Creek. Table 4 presents the final riparian classifications of each of the streams by reach and segment. Table 5 shows the degree of impairment and recommended treatments by RVC. The RMA and RVCs are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps.


Table 13 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Post Creek Watershed

RMA width Reach

Riparian Segment

Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years Since

HarvestRVC RVC Label

Sample Site #

50 1 - 2200 SBSvk 12 2 INIT n50 1 - SBSvk 6 NA 5 OF / S (Ac) 350 1 - SBSvk 1 12 8 SHR / S (Ac) 450 1 - SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 1 - SBSvk 4 12 23 OF / S (BAc) 550 2 1 480 SBSvk 12 2 INIT n50 2 1 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 2 2 450 SBSvk NA 11 OF / B (S)50 2 2 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 3 1 930 SBSvk NA 11 OF / B (S)50 3 1 SBSvk 6 12 8 SHR / S (Ac) 650 3 1 SBSvk NA 12 OF / S Ac (B)50 3 1 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 3 2 200 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 3 2 SBSvk 4 NA 11 OF / B (S) 750 4 - 390 SBSvk 12 8 SHR / S (Ac)50 4 - SBSvk NA 11 OF / B (S)50 5 - 3435 SBSvk 12 8 SHR / S (Ac)50 5 - SBSvk NA 11 OF / B (S)50 5 - SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)50 5 - SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 5 - SBSvk NA 14 OF / Ac (S)50 5 - SBSvk NA 15 OF / S50 6 - 3440 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 6 - SBSvk NA 15 OF / S50 6 - SBSvk 12 16 SHR / S50 6 - SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)50 6 - SBSvk NA 15 OF / S50 6 - SBSvk 14 2 INIT n50 7 1 910 SBSvk 14 2 INIT n50 7 1 SBSvk 14 16 SHR / S50 7 1 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)50 7 2 250 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)50 7 2 SBSvk 4 14 18 SHR / B (S) 8


Table 13 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Post Creek Watershed

(continued)RMA width Reach

Riparian Segment

Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years Since


Sample Site #

50 8 1850 SBSvk 14 18 SHR / B (S)50 8 SBSvk NA 17 OF / S At50 8 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 8 SBSvk NA 23 OF / S (BAc)50 9 2220 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 9 440 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 10 520 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 11 1640 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 12 1200 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 13 1200 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 14 1400 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 15 1675 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB

Near the mouth of Post Creek, in Reach 1, several road crossings and related washouts are found in the floodplain. These areas are small, but they are relatively unvegetated. The harvested areas (RVC 8, Site 4) were logged and burned in 1985 and planted with hybrid spruce in 1987. Standing snags are abundant, and the shrubs along the stream are dense. The planted spruce are well spaced and thriving. Within the RMA stands of old forest predominate (RVC 5, 10, 23), but these are affected by the cutblock edges which are less than 30 m away from creek in most places (Sites 3, 5). On the low bench flooding occurs regularly, and ground cover was thin. The impact class for LWD, the affected riparian function, for the harvested areas in this reach was very high.

Reaches 2 and 3 are similar to Reach 1, in that they had been harvested in 1985 and planted in 1987 (RVC 8, Site 6), with patches of old growth (RVC 10, 11, 12) along the creek (Site 11). The impact class for LWD is rated as very high, however, there was less impact on the whole as harvesting only occurred on the west side of the creek. Reaches 4, 5 and 6 are all primarily unaffected by forestry activities within the RMA.

In Reaches 7 and 8, there was a relatively new cutblock on the south side of the stream, which was harvested in 1993 (RVC 18, Site 8) and planted in 1995. Most of the RMA was intact (RVCs 10,13,17,23) but in places the forest was harvested to the creek edge (~500 m stream length). The other side of the stream was intact old growth and the impact to this reach was low. The site level riparian recommendations are provided in Table 14.


Table 14 Post Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations

Reach /Segmen

t

RVC # label

Management Objective Preferred/ alternativetreatment

Areaaffected (m2)

Priority

R1 S1 2 Init n Stabilize and reclaim road clearing on banks

Grass seed, plant deciduous shrubs

/ Seed

2500 Moderate

4.2.2 Fish Habitat


The overview FHAP of Post Creek identified 15 reaches with varying degrees of forestry affects. The literature search indicated no fisheries data is available for Post Creek. However, during the overview phase there were reported observations of juvenile bull trout in Reaches 5 to 8 (pers. comm, Nick Leone, DFO, Prince George).

The gradient of Post Creek was generally calculated to be lower than 3.0% for Reaches 1 to 7 and Reaches 9 to 11. The creek’s overall character can be described as riffle-pool or riffle-bar-pool channel type with estimated channel widths of up to 20 m in Reach 1. Falls were identified in Reach 3 while road crossings were noted in Reach 1, 2 and 9 and log jams were observed in Reaches 2, 3 and 5. Pools were thought to make up a moderate to high proportion of the area of reaches, however, given the size of the stream and the scale of the air photos, this may have been overestimated. Functional LWD was either abundant or frequent in Reaches 1 to 3 and 5. Bank instability was noted in Reach 1.

Both the air photos and forest cover maps indicated extensive adjacent forestry activity in Reaches 1 to 6 and 8. A new cutblock which is not shown on the air photos was identified adjacent to Reaches 7 and 8. There was no forestry activity upstream of Reach 9.

The overview identified 4 high priority reaches (Reaches 1, 2, 3, 7), 4 moderate (Reaches 5, 7, 8, 9) and 9 low priority sites for closer investigation during a level 1 assessment. Identified restoration opportunities included functional LWD additions, bank stabilization, and riparian restoration initiatives.



The level 1 FHAP was carried out on parts of Reaches 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 and totaled a stream distance of 3,475 m. The location of the survey sites is shown in Figure 8 while additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Reaches 1 and 3 were surveyed traveling upstream while Reaches 2, 7, and 8 were surveyed in a downstream direction.

Summary habitat data for each reach is provided in Table 15 while the percent area habitat composition is presented in Table 16, with a detailed breakdown in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented fairly consistent mean water depths of 0.3 m. The mean bankfull channel widths ranged from 11.6 m to 17.5 m and the mean wetted widths ranged from 4.8 m to 11.0 m. High bedload movement was apparent in Reaches 3, 7 and 8. Algae and aquatic invertebrates were noted on rocks in several habitat units in Reaches 1 and 8.

Table 15 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Post Creek

ReachReach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m)

Mean Gradient

(%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)

Mean Water Depth (m)

Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted

Width (m)

1 2200 1063 1.2 0.9 0.3 17.5 10.22 930 542 1.5 0.3 0.3 14.7 11.03 1130 865 1.5 0.7 0.3 16.8 6.47 1160 828 2.8 0.5 0.2 11.6 4.88 1850 197 2.1 0.8 0.3 11.9 6.7

Table 16 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Post Creek

Reach Reach Length (m)

Survey Distance (m)

Riffle Area (%) Glide Area (%)

Pool Area (%)

Other Area (%)

1 2200 1063 82 16 2 02 930 542 88 10 2 03 1130 865 77 18 3 17 1160 828 76 19 4 18 1850 197 76 20 4 0

Riffles were the dominant hydraulic type in all sites and contributed greater than 75% of the habitat by area. Glides were the second most abundant habitat type while pools were 5% or less.

A 2.5 m high waterfall was a barrier to fish migration in Reach 3 and defined the upstream extent of chinook migration. In Reach 7, the creek has jumped its banks and


re-routed through the adjacent mature forest where the channel is now braided (Photo 5). This


photo5&6


section of poorly defined channel has several smaller cascades and a lower water depth which may be as a barrier to some fish.

In the mid portion of Reach 3 Section 2, the creek channel has moved laterally leaving large exposed gravel bars and eroding banks (Photo 6 and 7). The bankfull channel was wide (approximately 50 m), with extensive gravel bars and several large debris piles. At the time of the survey the debris was generally out of the water, made limited contribution to fish habitat, and were generally non-functional. A recent blowdown event placed a number of mature trees across the creek channel in this section (Photo 8). Remnant side channels are found within and adjacent to the channel.

The FHAP habitat diagnostic was carried out using the data collected during the field survey and revealed variable habitat conditions in these reaches. A summary of the habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 17, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E. Pool area and frequency was poor in all reaches due to the high riffle component in this watershed (Photo 9). Functional woody debris was good in Reaches 3, 7 and 8. In Reach 3, the LWD was primarily a result of bank instability affected by bedload movement and high peak flows causing bank erosion, undermining the roots, and causing trees to fall into the creek. The dominant substrate in this watershed was boulders which generally provided good winter rearing habitat. There were good quantities of spawning gravel in all reaches surveyed except Reach 7 and chinook spawning activity was noted in Reaches 1 and 3. Off-channel habitat was poor or fair in all reaches but Reach 3.

Table 17 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Post Creek

ReachPool

HabitatFunctional

LWDCover Rating

Dominant Substrate


Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access

(# barriers)

1 Poor Fair Good Boulder Good Poor Good 0.02 Poor Poor Fair Boulder Good Poor Good 0.03 Poor Good Fair Boulder Fair Good Good 1.07 Poor Good Poor Boulder Good Fair Fair 0.08 Poor Good Fair Boulder Good Poor Good 1.0

Localized unstable slopes were recorded in Reaches 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In Reaches 1, 2, and 5, the recent erosional events were associated with existing forestry roads, while the other active slopes occurred in mature forest and appeared to be a result of natural processes. For example, on the right bank in Reach 2, a road parallels the creek in the riparian zone and a fairly recent slide had deposited sediment and LWD into the creek. It was also noted that at this location the stream bank has been lined with rip rap. In Reach


8, abundant bedload movement of sizable material was evident, including large boulders in


photo7&8


photo9&10


some areas (Photo 10). As a result of these processes, a fine layer of silt was overlaying the substrate some reaches such as Reach 1.

The level 1 FHAP identified several habitat parameters which are poor or fair in surveyed reaches of Post Creek. Although several sites of forestry-related impacts were identified, the general instability of this system is thought to be of natural causes, such as the underlying glacial tills which are found throughout the area and the bedrock canyon found in Reach 3 (see Section 4.2.4).

Reach 3 was a high priority for detailed examination during the level 2 assessment. Reaches 1 and 2 would also be a high priority for restoration activities, but given the instability of this system, no detailed level 2 assessment was carried out. Reaches 7 and 8 were a moderate priority for restoration but had similar instability issues as Reaches 1 and 2.


A temperature logger was installed in Reach 1 on August 25, 1997 and was removed on October 9, 1997. The recorded temperatures ranged from a maximum 13.4°C on August 25, 1997 to a minimum of 2.8°C on October 8, 1997 (Figure 10). Daily mean temperatures showed a general cooling trend from 10.3°C on August 25, to 3.5°C on October 8, 1997. Daily fluctuations in temperature averaged 3.3°C, with October data generally having smaller daily temperature ranges compared to August and September. The maximum daily fluctuation in temperature was 6°C on September 1, 1997 and was the highest maximum daily fluctuation recorded in any creek in this study.

The data suggests water temperatures near the mouth of Post Creek are acceptable for all species recorded in the Bowron River watershed including bull trout (see Section 4.1.2.3). However, the current study was carried out in late August and did not document mid-summer temperatures. It is possible that mid-summer water temperatures near the mouth are greater than 15 oC for extended periods and therefore effect the bull trout population in Reaches 1 to 3.

The water sample was taken from Reach 1 (Figure 8) on September 8, 1997 at 12:43 PM. At the time of sampling, the water temperature was 9.5°C, the dissolved oxygen was 11.5 mg/L, and the pH was 8.5. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 8 and suggest a good nutrient rating.


fig.10



Triple pass electrofishing within net enclosures was carried out at 21 sample sites in Post Creek (Figure 8). Bull trout, rainbow trout, chinook, mountain whitefish, and sculpins were captured in Reaches 1 to 3, while only bull trout were recorded in Reaches 7 and 8. The sampling confirmed the reported observation of bull trout in Reach 7 and 8 (N. Leone, DFO, pers. comm). In general, the sampling captured similar numbers of chinook and bull trout, but very few rainbow trout.

The length frequency distributions for fish captured in Post Creek are found in Appendix F and were used, along with scale analysis, to identify age classes. Fish population estimates were calculated at all sample sites. The catch and population densities at each sample site are found in Appendix F. Fish densities per site ranged from 0 to 37.3 fish/100 m2.

Table 18 presents the mean fish densities per reach for Post Creek. Mean densities in Post Creek are generally lower than those recorded in other watersheds in this study. Mean reach densities were considerably greater in Reaches 1 to 3, than in Reaches 7 and 8. The greatest mean density occurred in Reach 3 (22.4 fish/100 m2) and the lowest mean density occurred in Reach 7 (2.6 fish/100 m2).

Table 18 Post Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach

Estimated Mean Fish Density Per Reach (n/100 m2)Reach Density Sites Per RB CH BT CC MW

FLNC

(n/100 m2) Reach All F J A F All F J1 10.0 7 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.4 6.4 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.2

2 15.9 2 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 6.2 5.1 1.7 3.4 1.7 1.7 0.0

3 22.4 6 2.5 0.0 1.1 1.4 3.1 13.5 12.8 0.7 2.8 0.5 0.0

7 2.6 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

8 3.9 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

In Reaches 1 and 2, chinook fry had the greatest mean densities while in Reaches 3, 7 and 8, bull trout had the greatest mean densities. Where present, rainbow trout had low densities and consisted entirely of 1+ and older (juveniles and adults), with no fry captured. Mean bull trout fry densities were slightly higher than that of juveniles in Reaches 1 and 2, while mean juvenile densities where considerably higher than fry in Reach 3. No adult bull trout were documented. Low densities of both sculpin and mountain whitefish were recorded from the mouth of Post Creek to the barrier in Reach


3. Adult chinook were observed in Reaches 1, 2 and 3, and including of spawning activity in Reaches 1 and 3.

The theoretical fish densities calculated are provided in Table 19 and are presented along with the sampled salmonid at each site. The theoretical fry density for Post Creek was 134.0 fish/100 m2 and the theoretical density for juveniles was calculated to be 14.1 fish/100 m2. After adjusting the theoretical density based on the weighted useable width generated from the habitat suitability model, the theoretical densities per site ranged from 3.6 fish/100 m2 to 122.4 fish/100 m2 for salmonid fry. The juvenile theoretical densitiesranged from 0.1 fish/100 m2 to 10.3 fish/100 m2. These theoretical densities are moderate compared to other watershed in this study.

The weighted useable width data suggests that habitat at the sample sites was slightly more suitable for fry than juvenile salmonids. In general, most observed densities were less than the theoretical for fry and juveniles. However, juvenile salmonids greater than theoretical at 4 sites, most of which were secondary or tertiary habitat units.

The sampling results suggest Post Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for rainbow trout, bull trout, and chinook. While Reaches 1 to 3 are a source of recruitment to Haggen Creek, reaches upstream of the barrier have a resident bull trout population. The sampling indicates that salmonid densities are generally below the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth and alkalinity data. This suggests that other habitat parameters, such as cover and habitat complexity, may be limiting fish densities.

4.2.4 Geomorphology

Extensive harvesting in the Post Creek watershed has caused a high degree of channel instability. Relative to the size of the watershed, the mainstem has a high bedload movement and sediment load which has created a relatively wide channel. The system is subject to extreme peak flows and the energy in the system is high. Reach 3 was the most unstable section of this creek and considerable aggradation has taken place. Reach 3 was the first reach in the Post/Haggen floodplain where the channel is less constrained and the gradient is reduced. Therefore, the capacity to transport materials is deminished. The bedload from upstream appears to be initially deposited in this reach and LWD has accumulated along the banks in a large debris jam. The reach has large exposed gravel bars, eroding banks, remnant side channels, and evidence of high bedload movement. Much of the floodplain was covered with LWD several meters high. These stream instability features are most extensive in Reach 3 (Photos 6 to 8).

Much of the channel instabilities in Post Creek are natural although 54% of stream has been affected by forestry activity. The air photos suggest that the lower reaches have altered their course significantly since 1980 compared to the other reaches. There are


several large landslides in this watershed that appear to have initiated from forest access roads.


tab.19



The riparian assessment of Post Creek identified that 54% of the stream length had been affected by forestry activity. In Reaches 1, 2 and 3, the riparian management area was highly impacted with respect to LWD availability since harvest has occurred to one or both streambanks. The habitat surveys identified low habitat complexity in this creek while the geomorphologist identified large-scale natural channel instabilities. The fish sampling indicated that salmonid densities are generally below the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth, and alkalinity data.

Reach 1

From a biological perspective, this reach could have been identified as a priority restoration site with the focus of re-establishing the riffle-pool stability as well as increasing glide habitat. However, further habitat surveys and the subsequent examination of areas upstream of this reach revealed large scale instability throughout Reach 3. Therefore, instream work was not recommended until the upstream reaches becomes more stable.

Reach 2

While fish densities were low in Reach 2 and the habitat diagnostic identified several possible improvements, a level 2 assessment was not carried out in this reach. The habitat diagnostic identified poor pool habitat, poor LWD abundance, and poor offchannel habitat. The instability of the channel identified in Reach 3 would threaten any works installed in Reach 2. The adjacent riparian area was largely mature forest which was currently the primary source of functional LWD for Reach 1 and 2. Many, though not all, restoration activities would require disturbance of the riparian area, particularly those activities used to restore the natural riffle-pool sequence in a creek. No restoration activities are recommended in this reach.

Reach 3

Fish densities in Reach 3 were generally lower than the theoretical densities calculated and the habitat diagnostic identified numerous habitat components that could be improved. From a geomorphological perspective, Reach 3 on Post Creek is very unstable due to extreme amounts of sediment and debris which has been transported downstream through the bedrock canyon just upstream of this reach. Reach 3 was aggradated with debris jams, sediment wedges and bars. There was a very large amount of LWD in the channel but it was in the form of large unstable jams. For these reasons, no in-channel prescriptions are recommend on this reach.


However, the opportunity to develop a 130 m long groundwater-fed side channel was identified during the overflight of the level 2 assessment. Although the floodplain in parts of Reach 3 was laden with LWD several meters high, there was an abandoned side channel free of debris with several ponds and slight surface water flow during baseflow conditions. A detailed level 2 assessment was carried out at this site in Reach 3 and resulted in the development of detailed restoration prescriptions at site PENG1 (Figure 8). The restoration activities involve the enhancement of side channel habitat and augmentation of flow and are described in Section 5 of this report.

Reach 7

Although the improvement of pool habitat and frequency is a possible, restoration opportunity in Reach 7, a level 2 assessment was limited to the overflight of this reach. This is primarily due to the dynamic nature of the creek in Reach 7 Section 2 and in Reach 8, which could affect any restoration which is attempted. No restoration prescriptions were developed for this area.

Reach 8

This reach was considered a moderate priority for restoration activities. The bedload movement would need to stabilize before restoration activities can be considered. While the level 2 assessment included an overflight of this reach, no restoration prescriptions were developed for this area.

4.3 Haggen Creek

Haggen Creek originates in the Cariboo Mountains on the east side of the Bowron River (Figure 11a, 11b, 11c) and is a major tributary to the Bowron River representing 27% of the area of the upper Bowron River watershed (Beaudry and DeLong 1996). The headwaters of Haggen Creek originate at an elevation of 1,745 m als and flow for 62.6 km to its confluence with the Bowron River at 820 m asl. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 12.

The IWAP identified two areas within this watershed; Haggen Creek and Haggen Residual (valley bottom areas). Haggen Creek received a high level of hydrologic concern related to harvest and a high priority for implementing a channel assessment. The ECA is 24%. Haggen Residual also received a high level of hydrologic concern related to harvest, a high priority for implementing a channel assessment, and a high priority for implementing a road survey and deactivation plan. The ECA in Haggen Residual was 33% (Beaudry and DeLong 1996).


fig.11a


fig.11b


fig.11c


fig.12


4.3.1 Riparian


Haggen Creek is within the SBSvk biogeoclimatic zone (site series include 05, 06, 02). The old growth forest is primarily spruce and fir with black cottonwood and trembling aspen in the riparian zone. In general, the lower watershed was harvested in 1983 and 1984, burned in 1985, and planted with hybrid spruce between 1986 to 1988. The upper reaches of the watershed were harvested later (between 1985 and 1989). This area may have been burned or treated mechanically, and it was planted with hybrid spruce or subalpine fir between 1989 and 1991.

A survey of Haggen Creek between the mouth and Dominion Creek in 1992 reported that 50% of the stream length surveyed had been harvested by 1990, and that 43% of the length surveyed had no vegetation other than brush or deciduous trees within the riparian reserve width (Bennett and Guerin 1992). This agrees with our assessment which found that 31.6 km (50%) of stream length is affected by harvesting in the riparian zone.

The overview FHAP for Haggen Creek identified salmonid species in this watershed and a channel width up to 50 m. The riparian management area for this creek is, therefore, 70 m for Reaches 1 through 10 and 50 m for Reaches 11 through 24. For creeks of this size, LWD is rated to be of moderate importance.

4.3.1.2 Site Level

Table 20 shows the final RVC classifications and descriptions. Table 4 presents the final riparian classifications of each of the streams by reach and segment. Table 5 shows the degree of impairment and recommended treatments by RVC. The RMA and RVCs are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps.

The RMA in Reach 1 was partly intact old growth black cottonwood and hybrid spruce or hybrid spruce with cottonwood and subalpine fir. However, there was a road crossing and a campsite near the mouth, and a road which runs parallel to the stream for part of Section 3 within the RMA. There are two areas where 12 year old cutblocks occur near the stream bank (RVC 30, Site 20) and these were planted with lodgepole pine (1987) and fill planted with hybrid spruce on mounds (1996).

The RMA in Reach 2 Section 1 was mostly unaffected by recent harvesting, and was a mosaic of young spruce, fir and cottonwood (Site 24) or mature spruce and cottonwood. These strips of forest are generally well protected from blowdown and are of mixed age classes, but the soils tend to be undeveloped due to routine flooding. There was a road


tab.20


tab.20


tab.20


crossing that was unvegetated and is a potential sediment source. The south side of the creek in Section 2 has been affected by harvesting (RVC 41, Site 19) and while there are narrow (5m) strips of mature spruce, fir and alder along the creek, the RMA was predominantly deciduous shrubs. The lodgepole pine planted in 1987 are, however, well above the competing vegetation, which had been cut back some years ago. The north side of the creek in Section 2 and both sides of the creek in Section 3 are old growth cottonwood with fir and spruce.

The RMA in Reach 3 has been affected by forestry activities along its length. There are however, patches of old forest within the RMA made up of black cottonwoods, fir and spruce. The harvested areas within the RMA are 12 years old, planted with spruce or fir with black cottonwood in varying proportions. Some of these areas have a high water table with pools in the lower areas. The wettest areas have not been planted but have very high deciduous shrub cover (RVC 42, Site 17). The primary impact to riparian function in this area was the loss of LWD sources, and the impact rating was high in affected areas.

The lower part of Reach 4 was harvested 12 years ago, and has been planted with spruce which are now approximately 3 m tall (RVC 43, Site 16a). The primary impact to riparian function in this area was the loss of LWD sources, and the impact rating was high in affected areas. In addition, one bank of Section 5 has been burned and was regenerating naturally. However, most of the RMA in this reach was old spruce and fir forest, with some mature and younger spruce/black cottonwood stands.

The RMA within the first section of Reach 5 was predominantly unaffected old spruce and fir stands (RVCs 23, 13, 5), and younger spruce, fir and cottonwood forest within the flood zone of the creek (RVC 52). There was also an extensive clay bank in this section (70 m) and the toe of the slope was vegetated with deciduous shrubs. Parts of the upstream sections of Reach 5 were harvested to the streambank in 1985 and planted with spruce in 1987 and 1988. The primary impact to riparian function in this area was the loss of LWD sources, and the impact rating was very high in affected areas (RVCs 16, 43, Site 15). The extent of the affected area in this reach was 19% of the length of the reach.

Reach 6 was a steep walled canyon in which the RMA has been affected in places by forestry activity (burning, RVC 43). Access to the RMA in this reach was very limited and no sampling was conducted.

The RMA in Reach 7 has been extensively affected by harvesting activities. The entire length of the reach has been harvested in 1985, with riparian buffer areas varying from 0 m to 150 m wide. The riparian buffers are composed of young spruce and subalpine fir or cottonwood with the widest being either within flood plains or on fairly steep slopes. The drier harvested areas have been planted with spruce, but there are also abundant low,


wet areas (RVC 43, Site 16b). Some of the riparian buffers had been wider, but were burned and have abundant large (>40 cm) downed burned logs and standing burned snags (RVC 43, 44, 45, 16). The primary impact to riparian function in this area was the loss of LWD sources, and the impact rating was high to very high in affected areas. In general, the planted trees are above competing vegetation and the area has been well planted. However, RVCs 44 and 45 (Sites 14 and 27) may be a candidate for fill planting. In addition, the decommissioned road crossing was unvegetated, and should be seeded.

The RMA in Reach 8 has also been extensively affected by harvesting. The entire length of the reach has been harvested in 1983, with riparian buffer areas varying from 0 to 100 m wide. The buffers are composed of young or old forest spruce and subalpine fir and cottonwood. The harvested areas vary from fairly wet (RVC 43, Site 11) to fairly dry (RVC 46, Site 10), but all have been planted with spruce and/or subalpine fir, or lodgepole pine on the upland sites. Some of the buffer areas have been burned and the stems are still standing (RVC 47, Site 9). However, there are usually stands of mature spruce, fir and cottonwoods along the creek where there was dense fir regeneration. These will act as seed trees for the RVC. The primary impact to riparian function was the loss of LWD sources, and the impact rating was moderate to very high in affected areas. In general, the planted trees are taller than the competing vegetation, and the area has been well planted on the whole.

Most of the length of Reach 9 was burned on both sides in 1961 and has regenerated to very dense pole sapling stage spruce subalpine fir stand (RVC 48, Site 26). There was a small area of harvested and replanted shrub stage spruce (RVC 16), and small patches of old spruce forest with cottonwoods (RVC 5). The primary impact to riparian function here was the loss of LWD sources, but the impact rating was low, and the reach was considered a low priority for rehabilitation.

In Reach 10 the RMA was mostly intact old spruce stands with some fir and cottonwoods. The riparian buffer has been affected in several areas where the cutblock extends to within 5 m of the stream. These areas were harvested in 1985 and planted with spruce in 1986, or harvested in 1989 and planted (spruce) in 1990. There was also a small area of wetland / old forest spruce near the upper end of the reach. The most highly impacted area of this reach was the old road crossing which was exposed and consists of unstable gravel.

The RMA upstream of Reach 10 have not been affected by harvesting within or near the riparian zone, although there are cutblocks in the watershed in Reaches 11 and 15 which were harvested from 1986 through 1989 and planted from 1989 to 1990. The site level riparian recommendations are presented in Table 21.


Table 21 Haggen Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations

Reach /

Segment

RVC # label


Area affected

(m2)

Priority

R1 S2 30SHR/Pl(BS)


LWD

Manual brush around spruce

seedlings/None

12,110 Low

R3 S2R3 S4R3 S6

42SHR/B Ac


LWD


/ Manual brush

119,630 Mod.

R7 S6 45 SHR/ S (At)


class and species diversity of conifers; seed road crossing


/Manual brush

7,700 High

R8 S2 43SHR/S(AcAt)


class and species diversity of conifers


/Manual brush

21,000 Low

4.3.2 Fish Habitat


The overview assessment of Haggen Creek identified 24 reaches which had varying degrees of forestry activity originating in the mid 1980's. Information concerning fish presence in this watershed includes records on the extent of salmon rearing and escapement in the creek as well as fisheries investigations of several lakes. The historical fisheries information is provided in the section detailing the results of the Haggen Creek fish sampling.

The air photo interpretation revealed a primarily riffle-bar-pool channel type with a low proportion of the creek area consisting of pools. The gradient in most reaches is less than 1.8% although some mid creek reaches are as high as 3.1%. The abundance of


functional LWD was largely unknown for this creek. The air photos indicated moderate to good off-channel habitat in more than half of the reaches.

The overview identified 14 high, 26 moderate and 17 low priority reaches or sections for further investigation during the level 1 FHAP. With the exception of one section in each of Reaches 2, 3, 3, and 10, the portions of Haggen Creek downstream of Reach 13 were high or medium priority for further investigation. Possible restoration opportunities identified during the overview stage included bank stabilization, riparian rehabilitation, and investigation of road crossing locations.


The level 1 FHAP was carried out on parts of Reaches 1 to 5 and 7 to 12, and totaled a stream distance of approximately 15.5 km (23% of the creek length). Reach 6 was not sampled because this is a canyon with difficult access, deep water, and steep canyon walls. The habitat survey in Reach 9 was limited to the documentation of parameters at a primary pool where a snorkel survey was conducted. The locations of the habitat survey sites are shown in Figure 11a, 11b and 11c, while additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. All of Haggen Creek was surveyed traveling in a downstream direction. It should be noted that the level 1 FHAP diagnostic is intended for creeks with bankfull channel widths of less than 15 m, rather than systems such as Haggen Creek with a channel width of up to 50 m (Johnston and Slaney 1996). However, the criteria provided in the diagnostic were used as a general guidance in evaluating the habitat in this watershed.

Summary habitat data for each reach surveyed in Haggen Creek is provided in Table 22 while the percent area habitat composition is presented in Table 23, with a detailed breakdown in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented mean water depths ranging from 0.4 m to 0.8 m, mean bankfull channel widths ranging from 22.5 m to 50.0 m and mean wetted widths ranging from 15.9 m to 31.7 m. Riffles were the dominant habitat type in all survey sites, followed by glide habitat. There was a low percent area of pool habitat in all reaches and it was noted that most pools were associated with bedrock outcroppings (Photo 11).


photo 11&12


Table 22 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Haggen Creek

ReachReach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m)

Mean Gradient

(%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)

Mean Water

Depth (m)

Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted

Width (m)

1 2471 1528 0.7 0.9 0.5 50.0 23.92 3528 1892 0.8 0.7 0.5 39.4 31.73 3788 1808 0.7 0.8 0.5 33.6 19.04 3021 1369 0.7 0.6 0.6 31.6 18.35 6089 1250 0.8 0.6 0.6 44.3 22.37 5942 1653 1.3 0.5 0.4 29.3 17.88 6332 1190 2.5 1.2 0.8 24.7 15.9

10 7197 870 1.8 0.4 0.5 22.5 18.011 4224 1250 0.3 0.3 0.5 27.7 18.212 1360 1463 2.7 0.4 0.5 23.1 17.6

Table 23 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Haggen Creek

Percent Area Per Habitat Type Per Reach (%)Reach Reach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m) Riffle Area

(%) Glide Area

(%) Pool Area

(%) Other Area

(%)1 2471 1528 36 54 10 02 3528 1892 48 51 1 03 3788 1808 64 36 0 04 3021 1369 40 55 6 05 6089 1250 78 15 7 07 5942 1653 60 29 10 08 6332 1190 77 16 7 0

10 7197 870 76 24 0 011 4224 1250 35 58 7 012 1360 1463 97 2 1 0

The FHAP habitat diagnostic was carried out based on the data collected during the field survey and indicates quite variable habitat conditions in Haggen Creek. Pool area and frequency received a poor rating in all reaches surveyed. Functional woody debris was good in all reaches except Reach 10 and 12, which were rated poor. However, given the size of this system, individual pieces of LWD do little to affect channel morphology and are more important as small to moderately sized debris piles. Boulders or cobble dominated the survey sites and provided good winter rearing habitat in all reaches. Spawning gravel was fair to good, but a layer of sometimes thick sediment was observed


in Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. Haggen Creek had poor or fair off-channel habitats which were seen to be easily affected by discharge fluctuations in the mainstem. In the side channel shown in Photo 12, spawning chinook were observed during the habitat survey. Two days later the discharge in the mainstem had dropped and the same side channel consisted of a series of standing pools. A 10 m high bedrock waterfall in Reach 10 was a barrier to fish and was the only barrier identified downstream of Reach 13 (Photo 13). A summary of the habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 24, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E.

Table 24 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Haggen Creek

Reach Pool Habitat

Functional LWD

Cover Rating

Dominant Substrate


Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access

(# barriers)

1 Poor Good Fair Boulder Good Fair Good 0.02 Poor Good Fair Cobble Good Poor Poor 0.03 Poor Good Fair Cobble Good Fair Good 0.04 Poor Good Poor Cobble Good Fair Good 0.05 Poor Good Good Boulder Good Fair Poor 0.07 Poor Good Good Boulder Good Poor Poor 0.08 Poor Good Poor Boulder Good Poor Good 0.0

10 Poor Poor Good Boulder Good Poor Good 1.011 Poor Good Good Boulder Good Fair Good 0.012 Poor Poor Good Boulder Good Fair Poor 0.0

In addition to the harvest, the forestry activities in this watershed included the development of a several roads and a Forest Service Recreation Site located at the mouth in Reach 1. In addition to harvest of the riparian zone, forestry related effects are associated with the condition of roads and creek crossings as well as slope failures. Although most roads in this watershed are in some form of deactivation, some issues have arisen. For example, bridge material was observed in a side channel in Reach 10. In Reach 3, a bridge deck was found washed up on a gravel bar downstream of the deactivated road crossing while in Reach 7, an old bridge deck on the left side of the channel has created habitat by promoting the formation of a scour pool in which rainbow trout were observed (Photo 14). Although the bridge decks may be contributing to the habitat in this system, this may not be the best use of bridge decks from a public relations point of view.

With respect to slope failures, it is understood that several assessment and restoration activities have and continue to be carried out to address slope failures in Haggen Creek (J.


photo13&14


Spagurd, Northwood Pulp and Timber, pers. comm.). A number of slope stability and bedload movement observations were recorded during the survey. In Reach 2, a small tributary contributes notable sediments to Haggen Creek. Another tributary with abundant bedload enters Haggen Creek from the north in the upstream half of Reach 8. In Reach 4 a slide on the left creek bank appears to be of natural causes. Slides in small gullies entered the creek at several locations in Reach 5. In Reach 7, there was a large and prominent slope failure associated with a tributary on the right side of the channel (Photo 15). Localized bank erosion was recorded throughout Reaches 7 and 10 (Photo 16). In Reach 12 a slope failure which contributed sediment was recorded. At the top of the slope at this location, one row of mature coniferous trees remains.

The level 1 FHAP identified several poor or fair habitat parameters in surveyed reaches of Haggen Creek. Although several sites of forestry-related effects were identified, the general instability of this channel as well as the instream habitat conditions are thought to be of natural causes and due largely to the underlying glacial tills which are found throughout the area (see Section 4.3.4). Nevertheless, several forestry related slope failures and eroding banks in some reaches are contributing to the natural sediment loads which would affect fish rearing and spawning habitat. With the completion of the slope stabilization activities in this watershed, the observed sediment and silt should be reduced in the future. However, given the size and instability of the channel in this watershed, a level 2 assessment of the mainstem was considered a low priority at this time.


A temperature data logger was placed in Reach 1 on August 27, 1997 and removed on October 9, 1997. The logger recorded temperatures ranging from a maximum 14.4°C on September 2, 1997 to a minimum of 2.6°C on October 8, 1997 (Figure 13). Daily mean temperatures showed a general cooling trend from 11.5°C on August 27, to 3.2°C on October 8, 1997. Daily fluctuations in temperature averaged 2.8°C, with October data generally having smaller daily temperature ranges compared to August and September. The maximum daily fluctuation in temperature was 5.0°C on September 8 and 9, 1997. Water temperature data collected in 1980 (Envirocon 1980) had a greater range in temperatures in August and September with a maximum temperature of 17 oC and minimum temperature of 4.0 oC.

The data suggests water temperatures in Haggen Creek are acceptable for all species recorded in the Bowron River watershed including bull trout which generally prefer cooler water temperatures (see Section 4.1.2.3) However, the higher temperatures recorded in 1980 raises some concern regarding the duration of the elevated temperatures, particularly since these temperatures were recorded prior to the harvesting in this watershed. However, given the size of this system, it is not anticipated that the removal of riparian vegetation will have affected water temperatures substantially. Since the current study did


fig.13


photo15&16


not record mid-summer temperatures, the possibility of elevated water temperatures for extended periods could not be confirmed and may influence bull trout utilization of this creek.

The water sample was taken from Reach 1 (Figure 11a) on September 8, 1997 at 10:10 AM. At the time of sampling, the water temperature was 8.0°C, the dissolved oxygen was 11.2 mg/L, and the pH was 8.4. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 8 and indicates a fair nutrient rating when using the concentrations provided in Johnston and Slaney (1996).


Information concerning fish presence in Haggen Creek includes records on salmon rearing and escapement as well as fisheries investigations of several lakes in this watershed. Juvenile chinook are documented through visual observations from the mouth to Reach 9 (DFO 1997) and through electrofishing carried out in Reach 1 (Stewart and Murrary 1986; Levings et al 1985). Spawner counts have been conducted on Haggen Creek between 1986 and 1990 and estimate escapement at 50 to 200 chinook annually, with a mean of 136 (Bennett and Guerin 1992). A comparison of the data presented by Bennett and Guerin (1992) suggests escapement for Haggen Creek was considerably lower than for other systems in the area (Indianpoint - mean 802, Willow -mean 1,417, Torpy - mean 2,333, and Herrick - mean 700).

A study carried out in 1984 on five Haggen Lakes located approximately 9-10 km southeast of the Haggen/Bowron confluence, found rainbow trout in one lake, suckers in another lake, and redsided shiners (Richardsonius balteatus) in a third lake (MELP 1997). In addition, the study reported generally poor habitat conditions in the inlet/outlet streams which flow into Reach 3 of Haggen Creek. However, in 1989 and 1990, 4 of the 5 lakes were stocked with rainbow trout (MELP date unknown). Studies of the Clear Mountain Lakes located adjacent to Reaches 11, 12 and 13, reported no fish in 1983 but rainbow trout were present in 1989. Stocking records for the region indicate rainbow trout stocking took place in one of these lakes in 1990 and 1993 (MELP date unknown).

Fish sampling carried out during the level 1 FHAP included both electrofishing and snorkel surveys on Haggen Creek. A total of 61 sites were sampled between the mouth and Reach 12; 12 snorkel sites and 49 multiple pass electrofishing sites within net enclosures. Nine electrofishing sites located in Reaches 4, 7, 10, 11 and 12 had no catch of fish. The sampling captured primarily chinook, with small numbers of bull trout and very few rainbow trout. It is interesting to note that two fishing lures were found in the pool at the base of the falls in Reach 10, despite its relatively remote location. The sample sites are shown in Figures 11a, 11b, and 11c.


The length frequency distributions for fish captured in Haggen Creek are found in Appendix F and were used to identify age classes. Fish population estimates were calculated at 47 sample sites while no estimate could be calculated at the remaining 2 sites because the population was not depleted enough during the three electrofishing passes. The catch and population densities at each sampling site are found in Appendix F. Fish densities per site ranged from 0.0 fish/100 m2 to 93.2 fish/100 m2.

Table 25 presents the mean fish densities per reach and indicates that mean densities generally decreased from Reach 1 to Reach 12. Greatest mean densities were recorded in Reach 1 (44.9 fish/100 m2) while lowest mean densities occurred in Reaches 10 and 12 (1.0 fish/100 m2).

Table 25 Haggen Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach

Estimated Mean Fish Density Per Reach (n/100 m2)Reach Density Sites Per RB CH BT CC MWF

(n/100 m2) Reach All F J A F All F J1 44.9 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.42 31.9 4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.03 30.6 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 17.1 0.04 12.8 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.05 18.6 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 1.5 1.0 0.5 4.9 0.07 7.5 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1.8 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.08 8.6 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.6 2.1 0.5 3.8 0.010 1.0 4 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.011 0.7 6 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.012 1.0 2 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chinook were the most abundant species recorded and followed the same trend in density decrease from the mouth to Reach 10. Maximum chinook densities were generally comparable to those recorded in other creeks in this study. Adult chinook were observed in Reaches 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, but the escapement estimates for 1997 were not available prior to finalization of this report. The observations from the snorkel survey are provided in Table 26 and suggest that low number of adult chinook were in the system in early September (19 live adults and 9 carcasses were seen). However, the chinook spawning is thought to peak in August so fish seen in this survey would have be at the tail end of the spawning period.

Bull trout was the second most abundant salmonid species in Haggen Creek and were recorded from the mouth to the barrier in Reach 10. Both fry and juvenile bull trout were


tab.26


recorded during electrofishing but both had low densities (maximum of 2.6 fish/100 m2). Only 8 adult bull trout adults (200 mm+) were observed during the snorkel survey (Table 26), despite the availability of suitable adult habitat.

Electrofishing recorded rainbow trout in Reaches 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12, but documented low mean densities that were highest in Reach 12. Rainbow trout densities consisted primarily of juveniles and no fry were captured from Reach 1 to 11. Adult rainbow trout were observed during snorkel surveys in Reaches 1, 3 to 7, 9, and 10, but were low in numbers given the availability of suitable adult habitat (Table 26).

Other species recorded in Haggen Creek included low to moderate densities of sculpin from the mouth to Reach 10 and mountain whitefish in Reach 1, 5, and 7. Suckers were observed in Reach 4 during the snorkel survey.

The theoretical fish densities calculated are provided in Table 27 and are presented along with the sampled salmonid density at each site. The theoretical fry density in optimal habitat for Haggen Creek was 174.2 fish/100 m2 and the theoretical density for juveniles was calculated to be 11.0 fish/100 m2. After adjusting the theoretical density based on the weighted useable width generated from the habitat suitability model, for salmonid fry the theoretical densities per site ranged from 14.2 fish/100 m2 to 126.3 fish/100 m2. The juvenile theoretical densities ranged from 0.2 fish/100 m2 to 9.9 fish/100 m2. These theoretical densities are moderate compared to other theoretical densities in this study.

The weighted useable width data indicates that all sites had habitat more suitable for fry than juvenile salmonids. The observed density for fry and juveniles was generally lower than the theoretical densities at sample sites.

Haggen Creek, being a 4th order system, would be expected to support resident population of trout and char, However, very few adults were observed in the mainstem. While fry and juveniles may be using tributaries for rearing, the snorkel surveys found a lack of adults despite suitable habitat. Chinook escapement appears to be producing low to moderate densities of chinook fry. The sampling indicates that salmonid densities are generally below the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth and alkalinity data. The channel instability of this system may be affecting the potential for fisheries production and similar instabilities may limit production from tributary systems.

4.3.4 Geomorphology

The Haggen Creek watershed can be characterized as having steeper terrain, wetter micro-climates, and a higher unit area of runoff than the rest of the Bowron River watershed. It also has more erodible soils, more fine textured soils, and a higher concentration of landslide activity (both natural and logging related). The channel instability characteristics


tab.27


tab.27


described for the Upper Bowron (Section 1.3.2) are similar to that of Haggen Creek. This includes the general changes observed on the air photos and the characteristics observed during the field assessment.

The mainstem of Haggen Creek is naturally unstable and flows through a wide alluvial valley that is relatively steep for this size of a system. Air photo analysis indicated that between 1946 and 1966 there was significant changes in stream location and width, with the rate of change increasing significantly between 1966 and 1990.

The high degree of sediment movement and instability on Haggen Creek will continue to cause problems for the Bowron River downstream of the confluence with Haggen Creek. Channel gradient decreases at the confluence and, therefore, sediment transported down Haggen Creek has been deposited in this area. The channel has become shallower as a result and has responds by widening to maintain an equilibrium in cross-sectional wetted perimeter. This has caused instability the site in the form of bank erosion, bar formation and aggradation.


The riparian assessment of Haggen Creek identified that 50% of the stream length had been affected by forestry activity. Although LWD is rated to be of moderate importance in this size stream, Haggen Creek was highly impacted by the loss of trees.

From a biological perspective, Haggen Creek has numerous opportunities for fish habitat restoration. All reaches examined lack pool habitat and would benefit from habitat diversification. In addition, localized eroding banks and other sediment sources have lead to siltation of the substrate in many reaches. Fish densities were low, particularly for rainbow trout and bull trout but also for chinook escapement. However, the fisheries investigation, which included electrofishing as well as snorkel surveys, revealed the existing habitat was generally under-utilized, particularly primary pools. While low densities of fry may be attributed to the use of tributary habitat rather than mainstem habitat, there was also a lack of juveniles and adults.

During the overflight portion of the level 2 assessment of Haggen Creek, it was concluded that no mainstem restoration activities are currently viable due to the instability of the mainstem. Localized bank restoration could be undertaken in the future if the channel becomes more stable. However, the level 2 assessment identified the opportunity to improve side channel habitat to provide rearing habitat for chinook and also to benefit rainbow trout and bull trout.

The level 2 assessment resulted in the identification of three restoration sites; HSC1, HSC2 and HSC3. HSC1 involves minor side channel restoration through the removal of road and bridge material. Major side channel development is prescribed for HSC2 and


HSC3 and involves more extensive channel modifications and habitat construction. Prescriptions for each site are provided in Section 5 of this report.

4.4 Fourteen Mile Creek

Fourteen Mile Creek lies on the southwest side of the Bowron River, upstream of the Haggen Creek confluence, and has a length of 17.4 km (Figure 14). This watershed ranges in elevation from 1,300 m asl to 900 m asl. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 15. The IWAP identified a medium level of hydrologic concern related to harvest, a high priority for implementing a channel assessment, and a high level priority for implementing a road survey and deactivation plan. The ECA in the Fourteen Mile Creek watershed is 30% (Beaudry and DeLong 1996). The presence of the Forest Service Recreation Site at the lake indicates there is a level of recreational harvest of the rainbow trout population in this watershed.

4.4.1 Riparian


Fourteen Mile Creek is located primarily in the SBSvk biogeoclimatic zone, mostly in rich, submesic to subhygric site series (SBSvk 4 to 7). The predominant old growth forests along the mainstem is composed of hybrid spruce with lodgepole pine and some subalpine fir. Reach 5 is Fourteen Mile Lake. Harvesting in this watershed has occurred from 1984 through to 1990. The area around the lower reaches was harvested in 1987 and some areas were treated mechanically in 1988 and planted with lodgepole pine in 1990. The areas near Reach 4 were harvested in 1984, mechanically treated in 1986 and planted in 1987 with lodgepole pine and spruce. Reaches 6 to 8 were harvested in 1986 through 1988, and planted in 1990, 1991 and 1995 with spruce, fir and lodgepole pine. A more recent cutblock was established in Reach 8 in 1990 and was planted in 1993 with lodgepole pine and fir. The length of stream affected by harvesting was 1,280 m (7%).

The overview FHAP for Fourteen Mile Creek identified salmonid species in this watershed and a channel width of up to 10 m. The RMA’s for this creek are, therefore, 40 to 50 m.

4.4.1.2 Site Level



fig.14


fig.15


Table 28 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Fourteen Mile Creek Watershed

RMA width


Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years Since

HarvestRVC RVC Label Sample

Site #

50 1 - 129 SBSvk 4 NA 11 OF / B (S) 3750 1 - SBSvk 6 12 4 SHR / Pl50 2 - 692 SBSvk 6 12 4 SHR / Pl 3650 2 - SBSvk 12 2 INIT n50 3 - 2279 SBSvk NA 6 OF / wetland50 3 - SBSvk NA 15 OF / S50 3 - SBSvk NA 19 OF / S Pl(B)50 4 - 5113 SBSvk NA 6 OF / wetland50 4 - SBSvk NA 19 OF / S Pl(B)50 4 - SBSvk NA 20 OF / SPlB50 4 - SBSvk 12 2 INIT n50 5 - 1989 SBSvk 7 NA 13 OF / S (B) 3840 6 1 203 SBSvk NA 6 OF / wetland40 6 1 SBSvk NA 20 OF / SPlB40 6 2 459 SBSvk 5 NA 22 SHR / S (B) 3940 7 625 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)40 8 1 1661 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)40 8 2 1145 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)40 9 1 573 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)40 9 2 136 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)40 9 3 540 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)40 10 1120 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)40 11 747 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)

At its confluence with Bowron River, Fourteen Mile Creek crosses through an old subalpine fir and spruce forest (Site 37). Upstream, in Reach 2 , the stream was surrounded by a 12 year old cutblock which has been planted with lodgepole pine (RVC 4, Site 36). There was also a road crossing which affects approximately 25 m of stream length. The primary impact to riparian function in this area (RVC 4) was loss the of LWD sources, and the impact rating was very high. The total stream length affected was 821 m.

Reaches 3 and 4 are both generally unaffected by harvesting within the RMA, as the creek meanders through shrubby wetland areas (RVCs 6, 15, 19 and 20). Reach 5 was


the lake shore, and the RMA was well buffered from forestry effects (RVC 13, Site 38). There was also another road crossing in Reach 4.

Reach 6 includes both old forest (RVCs 6 and 20) and cutblock (RVC 22, Site 39). The primary impact to riparian function here was loss of LWD sources, and the impact rating was high. The stream length affected was 459 m, and it has been planted with hybrid spruce which are 8 years old. The site level riparian recommendations are provided in Table 29.

Table 29 Fourteen Mile Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations

Reach /

Segment

RVC # label

Management Objective Preferred/alternative treatment

Area affected

(m2)

Priority

R1and R2

4 SHR/Pl

Enhance riparian function by enhancing the density, age class and species diversity of conifers

Fill plant (spruce or subalpine fir) / Manual brush

69200 Moderate

4.4.2 Fish Habitat


The overview of Fourteen Mile Creek identified 11 reaches including one lake (Reach 5). As discussed in the riparian assessment, harvest in this watershed occurred in the mid 1980's and resulted in the development of a Forest Service Recreation Site at the lake. Previous fisheries sampling has documented rainbow trout in Reaches 1 to 5 (DFO 1997 and Wescott 1989) and juvenile chinook in Reach 1 (Envirocon Ltd 1980).

The air photo interpretation revealed a primarily riffle-bar-pool channel type for those section that were visible. Both the proportion of the creek area consisting of pools and amount and distribution of functional LWD was largely unknown for this creek. The gradient was generally greater than 1.5% with the exception of Reach 1 and 5 (the lake). At the downstream end of Reach 2, a 10 m high waterfall presents an impassable barrier to upstream migration from the Bowron River and suggests an isolated rainbow trout population in this system. The other potential barrier identified in this watershed was a beaver dam in Reach 3.

The overview identified 2 high priority reaches (Reaches 1 and 2), 3 moderate priority (Reaches 5, 6, and 9) and 10 low priority reaches or sections for further investigation during the level 1 FHAP. Possible preliminary restoration opportunities for this creek focused on restoration of riparian areas.



The level 1 FHAP was carried out on all of Reach 1 and parts of Reaches 2, 3, 4, and 6 for a total a survey length of 1,720 m. The locations of the habitat survey sites are shown in Figure 14, while additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 4 were surveyed traveling upstream while Reach 6 was surveyed in an downstream direction.

Summary habitat data for each reach surveyed in Fourteen Mile Creek is provided in Table 30 while the percent area habitat composition is presented in Table 31, with a detailed breakdown in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented a riffle-pool morphology with mean water depths ranging from 0.2 m to 0.4 m, mean bankfull channel widths ranging from 4.4 m to 11.4 m, and mean wetted widths ranging from 2.9 m to 7.8 m. In Reach 1 a white cottony algae was noted on the substrate. Further examination of several rocks failed to document aquatic invertebrates in this reach. Algae was also abundant near the lake outlet in Reach 4.

Table 30 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Fourteen Mile Creek

ReachReach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m)

Mean Gradient

(%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)

Mean Water

Depth (m)

Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted

Width (m)

1 90 90 2.7 0.3 0.2 6.7 5.22 692 500 2.7 0.3 0.3 6.3 5.53 2279 347 1.1 0.3 0.4 11.4 7.84 5113 478 2.3 0.4 0.2 5.8 3.96 662 314 1.1 0.2 0.2 4.4 2.9


Table 31 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Fourteen Mile Creek

Percent Area Per Habitat Type Per Reach (%)Reach Reach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m)Riffle Area

(%)Glide Area

(%)Pool Area (%) Other Area

(%)1 129 90 80 19 1 02 692 500 32 38 30 03 2279 347 23 31 46 04 5113 478 57 39 3 06 662 314 47 51 2 0

Beaver activity was documented in Reaches 2, 3, and 6. In reaches without beaver activity, riffles were the dominant habitat type and contributed over 55% of the total habitat. In these reaches glides were the second most abundant habitat while pool habitat was low. In reaches with beaver activity, the three habitat types were more equally represented.

The FHAP diagnostic was carried out using the data collected during the field survey. Pool area and frequency were generally rated poor in Fourteen Mile Creek. Functional woody debris was poor or fair in all reaches but Reach 6 Section 2, which had a harvested riparian zone on both streambanks. Although the dominant substrate was boulder in Reach 2, cobble or gravel dominated the other reaches and provided good winter rearing and good spawning habitat. A 10 m high waterfall at the downstream end of Reach 2 was an impassable barrier to all fish (Photo 17) while a beaver dam at the upstream end of this reach was a barrier to some fish. Additional beaver dam barriers were identified in Reaches 3, and 6. A summary of the habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 32, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E.

Table 32 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Fourteen Mile Creek

ReachPool

HabitatFunctional

LWDCover Rating

Dominant Substrate


Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access

(# barriers)

1 Poor Fair Fair Cobble Fair Good Fair 0.02 Poor Poor Good Boulder Fair Poor Good 2.03 Poor Poor Poor Gravel Good Fair Good 1.04 Poor Fair Good Gravel Good Good Good 0.06 Poor Fair Poor Gravel Good Poor Good 1.0


photo17&18


Probably the most significant forestry-related effect in this watershed has been the removal of the mature riparian zone in Reaches 1, 2, and 6. All reaches surveyed had fair or poor functional LWD. With the exception of Reach 4, the riparian zone consisted of small re-planted conifers which will not be contributing functional LWD or overhead cover for the next 80 to 100 years (Photo 18). The gradual loss of LWD through natural degradation will lead to the further deterioration of habitat conditions in these reaches.

Other impacts include small, localized slope failures which were observed in the mid portion of Reach 2 and which resulted in a fine layer of silt in glides. In Reach 4, near the Forest Service Recreation Site, the bridge at the road crossing has collapsed into the creek and considerable garbage was found in the upstream section of this reach. If left in its current state, the collapsed bridge could lead to blockage problems in the future.

Reaches 1, 2, 3 and 4 were a low priority for a level 2 assessment while Reach 6 Section 2 was a high priority for further examination in a level 2 assessment.


A temperature data logger was placed at the downstream end of Reach 2 on August 28, 1997 and removed on October 10, 1997 The logger recorded temperatures ranging from a maximum 13.5°C on September 2, 1997 to a minimum of 3.1°C on October 8, 1997 (Figure 16). Daily mean temperatures showed a general cooling trend from 10.6°C on August 27, to 4.8°C on October 9, 1997. Daily fluctuations in temperature averaged 2.5°C, with October data generally having smaller daily temperature ranges compared to August and September. The maximum daily fluctuation in temperature was 5.1°C on September 1, 1997. Temperature data collected during the same period in 1980 by Envirocon Ltd (1980) were similar to that collected during this study. The data suggests water temperatures in Fourteen Mile Creek are acceptable for all species recorded in the Bowron River watershed.

The water sample was taken from downstream end of Reach 2 (Figure 14) on September 8, 1997 at 11:34 AM. At the time of sampling, the water temperature was 9.0°C, the dissolved oxygen was 11.0 mg/L, and the pH was 8.2. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 8 and suggest a good nutrient rating.


A total of 18 sites were sampled in Fourteen Mile Creek using multiple pass electrofishing within net enclosures (Figure 14). Fish sampling was carried out in Reaches 1 to 4 and 6, and recorded the presence of chinook fry, burbot (Lota lota), and coarse fish in Reach 1


fig.16


(downstream of waterfall) and rainbow trout in all reaches sampled. In addition to these species, sampling carried out in 1980 also recorded mountain whitefish in Reach 1 (Envirocon 1980).

The length frequency distributions for fish captured in Fourteen Mile Creek are found in Appendix F and, along with scale analysis, were used to identify age classes. Given that only four rainbow trout were captured in Reach 1, there was insufficent data to identify differences in size at age relationships for fish collected upstream and downstream of the falls. Fish population estimates were calculated at 17 sample sites but no estimate could be calculated at one site because the population was not depleted enough during the three electrofishing passes. The catch and population densities at each sample are found in Appendix F. Fish densities per site ranged from 0.0 fish/100 m2 to 259.7 fish/100 m2.

Table 33 presents the mean fish densities per reach and indicates that mean densities were considerably greater in Reach 2 (139.2 fish/100 m2) than in other reaches that were sampled, both in this watershed and others in this study. Reaches 1, 3 and 4 also had high mean densities in relation to other creeks in this study. Densities were lowest in Reach 6. Rainbow trout was the most abundant species in all reaches except Reach 1, where chinook were dominant. With the exception of Reach 1, rainbow trout fry were 10-fold more abundant than fish 1+ and older. Sculpin, burbot, and longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) were generally found in low densities.

Table 33 Fourteen Mile Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach

Estimated Mean Fish Density Per Reach (n/100 m2)

Reach Density Sites Per RB CH CC BB LNC

(n/100 m2) Reach All F J A F1 77.9 2 11.4 0.0 7.9 3.5 40.6 14.4 0.8 11.42 139.2 3 139.2 126.8 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 67.4 4 67.4 61.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 73.3 5 73.3 60.5 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 1.1 3 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Adult rainbow trout were documented in Reach 1 in low densities. No adult rainbow trout were captured in the upper reaches of Fourteen Mile Creek although Wescott (1989) reports abundant adults in the lake. Westcott suggests these fish are outlet spawners, however, this suggestion was made based on visual observations of Reach 6 shortly after the harvest of the adjacent cutblock.


The theoretical fish densities calculated for Fourteen Mile Creek are provided in Table 34 and are presented along with the sampled salmonid density at each site. The theoretical fry density in ideal habitat in this watershed was 153.3 fish/100 m2 and the theoretical density for juveniles was calculated to be 16.7 fish/100 m2. After adjusting the theoretical density based on the weighted useable width generated from the habitat suitability model, the theoretical densities per site ranged from 66.9 fish/100 m2 to 151.8 fish/100 m2 for salmonid fry. The theoretical juvenile densities ranged from 3.5 fish/100 m2 to 13.0 fish/100 m2.

The theoretical densities calculated for Fourteen Mile Creek were moderate compare to others calculated in this study. The observed densities were generally lower than theoretical densities for both fry and juveniles in most reaches. The weighted useable width data indicates that habitat in these reaches was generally more suitable for fry than juvenile salmonids.

The fish sampling indicates Reach 1 provides recruitment of chinook and rainbow trout to the Bowron River. However, the remaining watershed sustains a resident rainbow trout population which is not expected to contribute to the Bowron River population. In addition, the sampling indicates that salmonid densities are generally higher than the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth and alkalinity data. The exceptions occurs in Reaches 1 and 6, suggesting that other habitat parameters, such as cover and habitat complexity, may be limiting fish densities in these reaches.


The riparian assessment of Fourteen Mile Creek identified that 7% of the stream length had been affected by forestry activity. In the areas harvested, the riparian management area was highly impacted with respect to LWD availability. The habitat surveys identified the habitat complexity in reaches adjacent to harvested areas are determined by LWD and that several aspects of habitat complexity, such as pool habitat, are poor. The fish sampling indicated that salmonid densities in two reaches are below the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth, and alkalinity data. Restoration opportunities in this watershed should therefore focus on LWD placement and promoting future supply, particularly in reaches where observed fish densities were lower than the theoretical densities.

Reaches 1, 2 and 3

Although the creation of pool habitat and additions of functional LWD are possible restoration opportunities in these reaches, a level 2 assessment was not carried out here. This is primarily due to the high fish densities recorded during sampling in Reach 2 and 3. It was concluded that the cost-benefit of activities in these reaches would likely be lower


tab.34


than other reaches in this watershed. Since it is anticipated that natural recruitment of LWD will not be restored for 80-90 years, future restoration activities (in ~15 years) may be required in Reaches 1 and 2 to replace functional LWD which naturally degrades with time.

Reach 4

Although pool habitat and functional LWD abundance could be improved in Reach 4, the sampling documented an abundant fish population which, for juveniles, exceeds the theoretical optimal densities in this creek. Furthermore, this reach has not been significantly affected by forestry-activities. Due to cost-benefit considerations, this reach was not considered for instream restoration activities and a level 2 assessment was not carried out.

However, it is strongly recommended that the collapsed bridge be removed from the channel and either replaced or deactivated in accordance to the Forest Practices Code. If the bridge material is left in this location, debris from upstream will be trapped over time and could quickly lead to spawning access problems in the future.

Reach 6

The FHAP and fish surveys of Section 1 and Section 2 revealed low rainbow trout densities and the lack of pools and cover. This reach is also in proximity to the Forest Service Recreation Site and provides educational opportunities. Section 2 was, therefore, rated high priority for future restoration activities and was investigated during the level 2 assessment. The lower 184 m of this reach (Section 1) was not recommended for rehabilitation because it was relatively stable, has good natural habitat, and sufficient mature riparian vegetation. The design for restoration site 14ENG1 located in Section 2 (Figure 14) was developed with full restoration prescriptions and is presented in Section 5 of this report.

4.5 Hah Creek

Hah Creek is located on the northeast side of the Bowron River and was the most northern watershed examined in this study (Figure 17). The headwaters of Hah Creek originate at an elevation of 1,180 m asl. This creek has a length of 6.9 km and flows into the Bowron River at 770 m asl. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 18. The IWAP indicated this watershed has an area of 15.1 km2 and accounts for 3% of the middle Bowron River watershed. This creek had a medium level of concern and an ECA of 12% (Beaudry and Nassey 1990).


fig.17


fig.18


4.5.1 Riparian


Hah Creek is within the SBSwk1 biogeoclimatic zone, mesic and subhygric site series (1, 9, and 12). The mature forest is hybrid spruce stands with lodgepole pine and some subalpine fir. The length of stream affected by harvesting was approximately 1,985 m (29%). The watershed was harvested in 1988, burned and mechanically treated in 1989, and planted with hybrid spruce and lodgepole pine in 1990.

The overview FHAP for Hah Creek identified salmonid species in this watershed and a channel width up to 5 m. The riparian management area width is 40 m, and LWD is rated as very high importance to the stream. In terms of lost riparian function, LWD has a very high impact rating in Reach 3, and a high impact rating in Reach 4.

4.5.1.2 Site Level


Table 35 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Hah Creek Watershed

RMA Width Reach

Riparian Segment

Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years Since


Sample Site #

40 1 - 473 SBSwk1 16 19 OF / S Pl(B)40 2 - 467 SBSwk1 16 19 OF / S Pl(B)40 3 1 497 SBSwk1 1 16 32 SHRt / Pl (S) 5040 3 1 25 SBSwk1 16 2 INIT n40 3 2 155 SBSwk1 NA 19 OF / S Pl(B)40 3 3 278 SBSwk1 1 16 32 SHRt / Pl (S) 5140 3 4 765 SBSwk1 16 33 SHRt / S (Pl)40 4 - 265 SBSwk1 12 16 33 SHRt / S (Pl) 5240 5 1 1740 SBSwk1 9 10 16 SHR / S 5340 6 335 SBSwk1 NA 19 OF / S Pl(B)40 7 1170 SBSwk1 NA 19 OF / S Pl(B)40 8 770 SBSwk1 NA 19 OF / S Pl(B)


Reaches 1 and 2 are unaffected old growth spruce and fir stands with some lodgepole pine. There was an active road crossing (culvert) in Reach 3 followed by a 16 year old lodgepole pine and spruce stand (RVC 32, Sites 50, 51). The pine and spruce are well spaced and well above competing vegetation. There are dense alders along the creek which are 3 to 4 m tall and which provide shade as well as small organic debris inputs. Reach 4 was primarily a 10 year old cutblock planted with hybrid spruce (RVC 16, Site 53). In Reach 3 segment 4 and in Reach 4, the creek was heavily affected by beaver dams, and the whole area was very wet, with ponds and side channels flooding the forest. The riparian zone was variable, but on the whole well treed with the tall shrub stage pine and spruce.

Hah Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations

There are no riparian recommendations for this watershed. Although 29% of the stream length was affected by forestry there are few opportunities for restoration and the riparian zone was well recovered from forestry related activities

4.5.2 Fish Habitat


The overview identified 8 reaches with varying degrees of forestry effects. Previous electrofishing documented Dolly Varden in Reach 1 in 1980 (Envirocon 1980) while pole seining captured no fish in 1985 (Levings et al 1985).

The air photo interpretation revealed channel types including riffle-bar-pool in Reach 1, riffle-pool in parts of Reaches 2 and 3, and debris-cobble-cascade-pool in parts of Reaches 3 and in Reach 4. The proportion of pools in relation to total creek area was identified as either low or moderate. However, because of the scale of the air photos it was difficult to determine pool habitat and the presence of functional. The gradient is low in Reaches 1 and 2 (<0.5%) and greater than 3% upstream of Reach 3.

The overview identified Reach 4 as a high priority reach for further investigation during the level 1 FHAP. In addition, 2 moderate and 8 low priority reaches or sections were identified. Preliminary restoration opportunities focused on the condition of the road crossings and disturbances at the upstream end of Reach 4 as well as bank stabilization to control sediment inputs.


The level 1 FHAP was carried out on parts of Reaches 1, 3, and 5, with a total surveyed stream distance of 1,505 m. Reaches 2 and 4 consisted of a series of beaver ponds and dams, and was not surveyed as part of the FHAP. However, Reach 2 was visited during


the level 2 survey based on observations from the aerial overflight. The locations of the habitat survey sites are shown in Figure 17, while additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Reaches 1 and 3 were surveyed traveling downstream while Reach 5 was surveyed in an upstream direction.

The reaches surveyed in Hah Creek consisted of a riffle-pool morphology. Summary habitat data for each reach is provided in Table 36 while the percent habitat composition by area is presented in Table 37, with detailed breakdown in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented mean water depths ranging from 0.1 m to 0.3 m, mean bankfull channel widths ranging from 4.3 m to 4.9 m, and mean wetted widths ranging from 2.7 m to 3.6 m. In Reaches 3 and 5, riffles were the dominant habitat type and glides were the second most abundant habitat. In Reach 1, glides dominated the habitat with 77% habitat by area. Pool habitat was generally low and was highest in Reach 3 at 14%.

Table 36 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Hah Creek

Reach Number

Reach Length (m)

Survey Distance

(m)

Mean Gradient

(%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)

Mean Water

Depth (m)

Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted

Width (m)

1 473 270 0.5 0.4 0.2 4.3 3.23 1715 645 1.9 0.3 0.3 4.9 2.75 1740 463 3.0 0.3 0.1 4.5 3.6

Table 37 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Hah Creek

Percent Area Per Habitat Type Per Reach (%)Reach

NumberReach Length

(m)Survey


(%)Glide Area

(%)Pool Area (%) Other Area

(%)1 473 270 19 77 4 03 1715 645 57 37 4 25 1740 463 99 0 1 0

The FHAP habitat diagnostic revealed poor availability of pool habitat and frequency. The abundance of functional woody debris was poor in Reach 3 and good in Reaches 1 and 5, which had mature riparian zones. Cobble and gravel dominated the substrate in all survey sites except Reach 1. Reach 1 was within the Bowron River floodplain and had a fine silt substrate and banks (Photo 19). Several beaver dams were observed at the top end of Reaches 1 and 3, and were considered to limit migration of some fish. A summary of the


photo19&20


habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 38, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E.

Table 38 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Hah Creek

Reach Pool Habitat

Functional LWD

Cover Rating

Dominant Substrate


Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access (# barriers)

1 Poor Good Poor Sand Good Fair Poor 0.03 Poor Poor Good Gravel Fair Good Fair 0.05 Poor Good Fair Cobble Good Poor Good 0.0

Since harvest in the mid-1980’s, the riffle-pool character of Reach 4 has been lost due to increased beaver activity. The re-growth of deciduous trees in the riparian zone provided the necessary habitat for beavers and logging in combination with beaver activity has significantly altered most of this reach. The 1990 air photo used in the overview assessment showed a riffle-run habitat with a channel approximately 2 m wide. The current channel character in Reach 4 was primarily beaver ponds up to 100 m wide and several hundred meters long with areas of exposed soils (Photo 20). The logged riparian zone has re-grown with deciduous trees providing ideal habitat for beavers. There has been a significant increase in beaver activity which was evident when comparing beaver activity visible in the 1990 air photo to the observed activity during this field project. At the upstream end of this beaver activity section, a site of extensive bedload deposition was observed both in the air photos and in the field investigation. The source of this bed material was the unlogged headwater area or Hah Creek.

Although extensive channel reconstruction could be undertaken in Reach 4 to restore the channel morphology, the continued presence of beavers would quickly undermine any channel restoration activity. The beaver ponds which now exist likely provide valuable habitat for wildlife species. In addition, the sampling carried out failed to document fish upstream of the beaver affected area, which raises questions as to the costs-benefits of restoration activities in this area. Reaches 3 and 4 were considered a low priority for a level 2 assessment and no restoration prescriptions were developed. Reaches 1 and 5 were also a low priority for further assessment.


A temperature data logger was placed in Reach 3, upstream of the road crossing on August 25, 1997 and removed on October 10, 1997. The logger recorded a maximum temperature of 14.0°C on August 25, 1997 and was the highest water temperature recorded in this study. A minimum temperature of 2.8°C was measured on October 8,


1997 (Figure 19). Daily mean temperatures showed a general cooling trend from 11.9°C on August 25, to 3.8°C on October 9, 1997. Daily fluctuations in temperature averaged 2.7°C, with October data generally having smaller daily temperature ranges compared to August and September. The maximum daily fluctuation in temperature was 4.6°C on August 31 and September 1, 1997.

The temperature data suggests Hah Creek may be suitable for bull trout which generally prefer cooler water temperatures (see Section 4.1.2.3). However, the current study did not record mid-summer temperatures, which in this watershed likely exceed the 15 oC maximum preferred by bull trout (Donald and Alger 1993, reported McPhail and Baxter 1996). The removal of riparian vegetation in Reaches 3 and 4 and subsequent beaver activity has created large ponds which lack shading. While it is assumed that mid-summer water temperatures exceed the preferred bull trout temperatures, this would have to be confirmed and a temperature logger could be installed in Reach 1 or 2 for the summer months.

The water sample was taken from Reach 3 (Figure 17) on September 8, 1997 at 8:45 AM. At the time of sampling, the water temperature was 7.2°C, the dissolved oxygen was 10.6 mg/L, and the pH was 8.2. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 8 and suggest a fair nutrient rating.


Fisheries crews sampled a total of 12 sites in Reaches 1, 3, and 5 of Hah Creek (Figure 17). In Reach 1 and 3, multiple pass electrofishing within net enclosures captured primarily chinook and very few rainbow trout and bull trout. Sculpins were also captured. No fish were captured in Reach 5. Historical data documented the presence of bull trout (reported as Dolly Varden) in Reach 1 (Envirocon Ltd. 1980), a result consistent with the findings presented here.

Fish population estimates were calculated at 10 sample sites while no estimate could be calculated at the remaining 2 sites because the population was not depleted enough during the three electrofishing passes. The catch and population densities at each sampling site are found in Appendix F. Fish densities per site ranged from 0 to 64.7 fish/100 m2.

Table 39 presents the mean fish densities per reach and indicates that mean densities were considerably greater in Reach 1 than in Reaches 3 and 5. The higher densities in Reach 1 are attributed to chinook, which, in this reach had the greatest mean density of any species recorded in Hah Creek. Sculpins were the second most abundant fish species. The maximum mean bull trout density was slightly higher than that for rainbow


trout. Both rainbow trout and bull trout densities consisted of juvenile fish only. One rainbow trout


fig.19


fry was captured in Reach 1. While no adult salmonids were captured in this watershed, one 250 mm rainbow trout was observed in a small pool downstream of the beaver ponds in Reach 3.

Table 39 Hah Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach

Estimated Mean Fish Density Per Reach (n/100 m2)Reach Density Sites Per RB CH BT CC

(n/100 m2) Reach All F J A F All F J1 46.6 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.9 0.0 0.9 12.73 2.1 7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.05 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

The theoretical optimal fish densities calculated are provided in Table 40 and are presented along with the sampled salmonid density at each site. The theoretical fry density for Hah Creek was 80.6 fish/100 m2 and the theoretical density for juveniles was calculated to be 5.3 fish/100 m2. After adjusting the theoretical density based on the weighted useable width generated from the habitat suitability model, the theoretical densities per site ranged from 45.2 fish/100 m2 to 80.6 fish/100 m2 for salmonid fry. The theoretical densities for juvenile salmonids (1+ and older) ranged from 0.3 fish/100 m2 to 4.0 fish/100 m2. These theoretical densities are amongst the lowest calculated in this study.

The weighted useable width data indicates that all sites had habitat more suitable for fry than juvenile salmonids. A comparison of observed and theoretical densities indicates that fry lower than the theoretical density at all sites. Juvenile salmonids were lower than the theoretical density at all but one site in Reach 3.

Given the relatively small size of Hah Creek, this watershed provides primarily rearing habitat for Bowron River populations, particularly in Reach 1. Reach 3 may also provide some spawning habitat although the lack of rainbow trout and bull trout fry suggests spawning may be limited. The beaver ponds in Reach 2 provide rearing and overwintering habitat, but were not sampled partially due the inefficiency associated with electrofishing in deep open pool habitat. The presence of fry and juvenile rainbow trout, bull trout and chinook upstream of Reach 2 indicates the beaver dams allow some fish passage. The sampling indicates that salmonid densities are generally below the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth and alkalinity data, and suggests that other habitat parameters, such as cover and habitat complexity, may be limiting fish densities.


tab.40



The riparian assessment of Hah Creek identified that 29% of the stream length had been affected by forestry activity. The fish surveys conducted on Hah Creek documented densities of rainbow trout, bull trout, and chinook below the theoretical densities calculated for this watershed. In addition, the level 1 FHAP identified the lack of pool habitat, functioning LWD, and cover. There was also the extensive beaver activity in Reach 4.

While several opportunities exist to improve pool habitat and LWD function in Reaches 1 and 3, the level 2 overflight identified Reach 2 as a potential restoration site. Reach 1 lies within the Bowron River floodplain and has a soft silt substrate which is less desirable when placing LWD. Reach 3 has a dense shrub riparian zone. A subsequent ground examination of Reach 2 lead to the identification of restoration site HENG1 (Figure 17). HENG1 focuses on increasing LWD cover in the beaver ponds of Reach 2 to provide improved rearing habitat for juvenile rainbow trout, bull trout, and possibly chinook.

4.6 Pinkerton Creek

The headwaters of Pinkerton Creek originate in the Cariboo Mountains on the northeast side of the Bowron River. The creek flows into Haggen Creek, downstream of the Post Creek confluence (Figure 20). This creek is 7.5 km long and ranges in elevation from 909 m asl to 840 m asl. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 21. The IWAP identified a high level of hydrologic concern related to harvest, a high priority for implementing a channel assessment, and a high priority for implementing a road survey and deactivation plan. The ECA in the Pinkerton Creek watershed is 63% (Beaudry and DeLong 1996).

4.6.1 Riparian


Pinkerton Creek lies within the SBSvk/06 biogeoclimatic zone. The mature and old growth forests within the riparian management areas along the creek are composed primarily of hybrid spruce with small amounts of subalpine fir (RVC 39,13). There are also sections of marsh with old spruce (fir) forests interspersed. The watershed was harvested from 1982 through to 1985, burned the following year and planted with hybrid spruce and/or lodgepole pine in 1984, 1986 and 1990. The riparian zone has been affected by harvesting for 200 m of length which represents 7% of the total stream length.


fig.20


fig.21


The overview FHAP for Pinkerton Creek identified salmonid species in this watershed and a channel width up to 8 m. The riparian management area is 50 m and LWD is of high importance to streams of this size.

4.6.1.2 Site Level

Approximately 200 m of Reach 1 of Pinkerton Creek was a wet, shrubby area, flooded by beaver dams with small stands of old spruce on the slightly higher ground (Site 21). The area has not been planted, as it was too wet. Upstream, the riparian area was composed of mature spruce/fir forests into Reach 2. There was a road crossing in Reach 2 (Site 22), followed by old growth spruce(fir). Reaches 3 and 4 consist of a matrix of marsh grasses, sphagnum moss and clumps of old growth spruce and fir (Site 23). Summary of final RVC classification and descriptions are provided in Table 41.

Table 41 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Pinkerton Creek Watershed

RMA Width Reach

Riparian Segment

Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years Since


Sample Site #

50 1 1 200 SBSvk 6 NA 16 SHR / S 2150 1 2 1350 SBSvk NA 39 MF / SB50 2 1 1820 SBSvk NA 39 MF / SB50 2 3 SBSvk 6 NA 2 INIT n 2250 2 3 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)50 3 3040 SBSvk NA 38 G/ OF / S (B)50 3 SBSvk 6 NA 13 OF / S (B) 2350 3 SBSvk NA 38 G/ OF / S (B)50 4 1100 SBSvk NA 13 OF / S (B)

Pinkerton Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations

There are no riparian recommendations for Pinkerton Creek; the total length of stream affected was less than 10% .

4.6.2 Fish Habitat



Four reaches were identified during the overview assessment of Pinkerton Creek. Previous fisheries sampling was limited to Reach 4 (Pinkerton Lake) where rainbow trout, Dolly Varden (bull trout) and lake chub (Couesius plumbeus) have been documented (DFO 1997, MELP 1997, Little 1983). This would suggest that rainbow trout and Dolly Varden utilize Reach 3 and possibly Reach 2 for spawning and juvenile rearing.

The air photo interpretation revealed a riffle-pool channel type with a moderate to high proportion of the creek area consisting of pools. The gradient is less than 2% and beaver dams were noted in Reach 3. Abundant clumped functional LWD was observed in Reaches 1 to 3. The overview identified 1 high priority reach (Reach 2), 2 moderate (Reaches 1 and 3) and 1 low priority reach (Reach 1) for further investigation during the level 1 FHAP. Possible restoration opportunities identified riparian restoration and concerns with road crossings.


The level 1 FHAP was carried out on parts of Reach 1 and 2 for a total distance of 2,281 m. In Reach 1, the downstream portion of creek had a harvested riparian zone on both stream banks, while mature forest was found in the upper portion of this reach. In Reach 2, the riparian consisted of a mixture of mature forest and grassy wetland adjacent to harvested cutblocks. The locations of the habitat survey sites are shown in Figure 20, while additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Both reaches were surveyed in an upstream direction.

Pinkerton Creek had a low gradient riffle-pool channel morphology. Summary habitat data for each reach is provided in Table 42, while the habitat expressed as a percent of the total area is presented in Table 43, and a detailed breakdown is presented in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented mean water depths of 0.4 m, mean bankfull channel widths of 8.4 m, and mean wetted widths of 7.2 m to 8.2 m. Glide habitat dominated Reach 1 accounting for 54% of the area. Riffle habitat 36% and pool habitat contributed 10% of the total area. In Reach 2, the habitat was equally represented by riffle, glide, and pool habitats.

Table 42 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Pinkerton Creek

Reach Number

Reach Length (m)

Survey Distance

(m)

Mean Gradient

(%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)

Mean Water

Depth (m)

Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted

Width (m)

1 1550 1038 0.3 0.2 0.4 8.4 7.4


2 1820 1243 0.7 0.4 0.4 8.5 8.2


Table 43 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Pinkerton Creek

Percent Area Per Habitat Type Per Reach (%)Reach

NumberReach

Length (m)Survey


(%) Glide Area

(%) Pool Area

(%) Other Area

(%)

1 1550 1038 36 54 10 02 1820 1243 31 34 35 0

Reaches 1 and 2 were heavily affected by beaver activity. In Reach 1, a large beaver dam was found at the deactivated road crossing and had flooded a portion of the adjacent re-planted cutblock. Reach 2 contained 2 to 3 major beavers dams as well as several smaller dams. Two sizable older dams had thick (0.3 m) silt deposition in the upstream beaver ponds, while at a newer dam, pockets of gravel were exposed. Juvenile rainbow trout were observed in several of the beaver ponds in both reaches.

The FHAP habitat diagnostic was carried out using the data collected during the field survey. Both reaches had similar habitat quality with poor pool area and frequency, good abundance of functional LWD, fair winter rearing habitat, poor off-channel habitat, and fair spawning gravel (Photos 21 and 22). The dominant substrate was sand. Highly silted and sandy substrate was noted in numerous habitat units, particularly in the beaver ponds (Photo 23). However, even in riffle units, gravel was often hard and embedded. Reach 1 contained 1 beaver dam which creates a barrier to fish migration and limited spawning access to Bowron River populations (Photo 24). Reach 2 contained 5 beaver dam which could be migration barriers. A summary of the habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 44, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E.

Table 44 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Pinkerton Creek

ReachPools

HabitatFunctional

LWDCover Rating

Dominant Substrate


Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access (#

barriers)

1 Poor Good Fair Sand Fair Poor Fair 1.02 Poor Good Poor Sand Fair Poor Fair 5.0

The forestry activities in this watershed have had minimal impacts on Pinkerton Creek. While 63% of the watershed has been affected by logging, only 7% of the riparian zone has been affected. Impacts are generally related to road crossings, such as the ones found in Reach 1 and Reach 2. At these locations, the silt fences had been installed but were


photo21&22


photo23&24


noted to be failing and material easily fell into the creek. Several areas in both reaches had embedded gravels as a result of sediment loads. However, no major sediment sources were identified in the study.

Reaches 1 and 2 were considered a moderate priority for further examination in a level 2 assessment.


A temperature data logger was placed in Reach 1 on August 27, 1997 and removed on October 9, 1997. The logger recorded temperatures ranging from a maximum 11.5°C on September 2 and 4, to a minimum of 3.2°C on October 8, 1997 (Figure 22). Daily mean temperatures showed a general cooling trend from 10.3°C on August 27, to 3.7°C on October 8, 1997. Daily fluctuations in temperature averaged 1.9°C, with October data generally having smaller daily temperature ranges compared to August and September. The maximum daily fluctuation in temperature was 3.4°C on September 1, 1997.

The data collected suggests water temperatures in Pinkerton Creek are acceptable for all species recorded in the Bowron River watershed including bull trout which generally prefer cooler water temperatures (see Section 4.1.2.3). However, the data collection was not carried out during the mid-summer months when temperatures may be higher than 15 oC for extended periods. There is the possibility of elevated temperatures in the summer, particularly in light of the number of beaver ponds in Reach 1 and 2.

Duplicate water samples were taken from Reach 1 (Figure 20) on September 8, 1997 at 1:44 PM. At the time of sampling, the water temperature was 8.2°C, the dissolved oxygen was 10.8 mg/L, and the pH was 8.4. One of the samples was labeled with a fictitious location for quality control purposes. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 8 and indicate a good nutrient rating.


The fisheries crews sampled 9 sites in Pinkerton Creek using multiple pass electrofishing within net enclosures (Figure 20). Fish sampling was carried out in Reaches 1 and 2 and recorded the presence of chinook in Reach 1 and rainbow trout and sculpin in both reaches. The sampling captured primarily rainbow trout in this watershed.

Historical information on the Pinkerton Creek watershed documented bull trout (reported as Dolly Varden), rainbow trout, and lake chub in Pinkerton Lake in 1983 (Little 1983). The study identifies the possibility of some spawning and rearing habitat in inlet and outlet streams and notes some beaver activity in the outlet stream. Bull trout were not recorded


fig.22


during the current survey although Reach 3, which also contains spawning and juvenile rearing habitat, was not sampled due to time constraints. However, an adult fish, likely a bull trout was observed from the bank in Reach 2.

The length frequency distributions for fish captured in Pinkerton Creek are found in Appendix F and were used to identify age classes. Fish population estimates were calculated at all sample sites and used to generate fish densities for each site. The catch and population densities at each sampling site are found in Appendix F. Fish densities per site ranged from 0.3 fish/100 m2 to 97 fish/100 m2.

Table 45 presents the mean fish densities in Reach 1 and 2 and shows that fish in Reach 2 had a higher mean density than fish in Reach 1. Rainbow trout was the most abundant species in both reaches. Juvenile rainbow trout in Reach 2 had the greatest mean density by species and stage, while mean rainbow trout fry densities were higher than juvenile densities in Reach 1. No adult rainbow trout were captured during the sampling. Mean chinook densities were low and were only captured at one sample site downstream of a beaver dam in Reach 1. Sculpin densities in both reaches were lower than salmonid densities

Table 45 Pinkerton Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach

Estimated Mean Fish Density Per Reach (n/100 m2)Reach Fish Density Sites Per RB CH CC

(n/100 m2) Reach All F J A F

1 15.0 5 6.3 5.0 1.3 0.0 5.3 3.42 42.4 4 38.3 18.4 19.9 0.0 0.0 4.1

The theoretical optimal fish densities are provided in Table 46 and are presented along with the sampled salmonid density at each site. The theoretical density for Pinkerton Creek fry was 305.6 fish/100 m2 and for juveniles was 25.9 fish/100 m2. After adjusting the theoretical density based on the weighted useable width generated from the habitat suitability model, the theoretical densities per site ranged from 12.3 fish/100 m2 to 180.1 fish/100 m2 for salmonid fry. The juvenile theoretical densities ranged from 6.0 fish/100 m2 to 25.6 fish/100 m2. These theoretical densities are amongst the highest calculated in this study

The weighted useable width data suggests that Reach 1 and 2 generally had habitat that was more suitable for juveniles than for fry. The observed densities for fry were generally lower than the theoretical densities. In Reach 1 juvenile densities were generally lower than the theoretical densities, while in the densities in Reach 2 generally exceeded the theoretical juvenile densities.


tab.46


The information collected during this study suggest Pinkerton Creek provides habitat for resident rainbow trout and bull trout populations, as well as for chinook and rainbow trout which are recruited to Haggen Creek. Although the beaver ponds in Reach 1 and 2 provide good rearing and overwintering habitat for rainbow trout, the beaver dams appear to be limiting chinook access to this system. The sampling indicates that salmonid fry densities are below the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth, and alkalinity data, suggesting that other habitat parameters may be limiting fish densities. The same was true for juvenile salmonids in Reach 1.


The riparian assessment of Pinkerton Creek identified that 7% of the stream length had been affected by forestry activity and that the affected area has now been flooded by beaver activity. The habitat complexity in this watershed was determined by LWD and the habitat surveys documented good abundance of functional LWD. However, several aspects of habitat complexity, such as pool habitat and spawning gravel quality, were poor. The fish sampling indicated that salmonid densities were generally below the theoretical densities in Reach 1 and often above in Reach 2.

Reach 1 and 2 were identified as a moderate priority for restoration activities and Reach 1 was visited during part one of the level 2 FHAP. The fish sampling results suggest that improved habitat conditions could benefit rainbow trout and chinook populations in Reach 1 and 2. However, restoration in this watershed was not pursued any further. This was partly because in Reach 2 juvenile densities were above the theoretical density and partly because higher priority restoration opportunities existed in other watersheds in this study.

Future restoration activities in these reaches could focus on:

· provision of access past beaver dams (particularly for chinook); and· restoration of silted and embedded spawning gravels through gravel scarification.

4.7 Eighteen Mile Creek

Eighteen Mile Creek is located on the southwest side of the Bowron River and is 14.9 km long (Figure 23). This creek ranges in elevation from 1,340 m asl to 900 m asl and joins Bowron River upstream of Haggen Creek. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 24. The IWAP identified a high level of hydrologic concern related to harvest, a low priority for implementing a channel assessment, and a medium level of priority for implementing a road survey and deactivation plan. The ECA in the Eighteen Mile Creek watershed is 55% (Beaudry and DeLong 1996).


fig.23


fig.24


4.7.1 Riparian


Lower Eighteen Mile Creek is located in the SBSvk biogeoclimatic zone in rich, submesic to subhygric site series 4, 6, and 11. The upper reaches of the watershed are within the ESSFwk1 biogeoclimatic zone. The predominant old growth in the riparian zone in the lower reaches is made up of hybrid white spruce and subalpine fir with black cottonwood on the floodplains. In the upper reaches, the unaffected forest is primarily spruce and subalpine fir stands. The area beside the creek was harvested in 1984 and 1985, burned in 1986, and replanted with lodgepole pine and spruce in 1987 or 1991.

The overview FHAP for Eighteen Mile Creek identified salmonid species in this watershed and a channel width up to 8 m. Therefore, the riparian management area for the lower reaches (Reaches 1 to 6) in this stream is 50 m. There was approximately 5,888 m (39%) of stream length affected by forestry activity. Reaches 4 and 5 contain extensive wetlands consisting of marsh grasses, sedges, and clumps of willow and alder, and some stands of spruce and fir. These provided a wide buffer for the creek during harvest. The riparian management area for reaches beyond Reach 6 was 40 m, and for the most part these reaches are unaffected by harvesting. According to the RAPP, LWD is a highly important riparian function for Reaches 1-6, and highly important for reaches upstream of Reach 6.

4.7.1.2 Site Level



Table 47 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Eighteen Mile Creek Watershed

RMA width Reach

Riparian Segment

Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years since

harvestRVC RVC Label

Sample Site #

50 1 1 330 SBSvk 11 NA 7 OF / Ac (BS) 3050 1 2 20 SBSvk 11 12 2 INIT n50 2 1 1820 SBSvk 4 NA 3 OF / S B(Ac)50 2 2 SBSvk 6 12 4 SHR / Pl50 3 2200 SBSvk 6 12 4 SHR / Pl 3150 3 SBSvk 4 NA 5 OF / S (Ac) 3250 4 3850 SBSvk 4 NA 3 OF / S B(Ac) 150 4 SBSvk - NA 6 OF / wetland50 5 1320 SBSvk - NA 6 OF / wetland50 6 620 SBSvk - 12 8 SHR / S (Ac) 240 7 1 1228 ESSFwk1 - 12 8 SHR / S (Ac)40 7 1 ESSFwk1 - 12 2 INIT n40 7 2 1022 ESSFwk1 - NA 10 OF / SB40 8 2030 ESSFwk1 - NA 10 OF / SB40 9 440 ESSFwk1 - NA 10 OF / SB

Reach 1 of Eighteen Mile was in an old growth cottonwood stand. There was also an active road crossing of the stream. Upstream of the road the valley narrows and becomes steeper walled. The adjacent upland forest has been harvested to the top of the valley, but for the most part the RMA was intact. The exception to this was in an area within 100 m of the road crossing where the tree layer was dying and there was abundant blowdown. However, the shrubs were thriving in the openings and beside the creek. The LWD impact rating at this site (Site 30) was very high, but confined to less than 100 m of creek length.

Reach 2 was partly old growth spruce and fir with a good riparian buffer. In this area the road was at least 30 to 50 m away from the stream. There was some blow down, but this has created openings for regeneration, and there are abundant conifers within 15 m of the stream. Parts of Reach 2 have been affected by fire, (RVC 4, Site 31) and replanted with pine. Standing LWD greater than 22 cm diameter was common, but the future LWD classes are missing (7.5 to 22.0 cm diameter). The LWD impact rating at these sites was very high, but the young pine appears to be well stocked and free of competition.


Reach 3 also has RVC 4 mixed with RVC 5 (Site 32), mature spruce stands with black cottonwood. In some areas the riparian buffer was only 20 m or so, but riparian functions are intact. The LWD impact rating at these sites was moderate.

Reaches 4 and 5 contain both mature spruce, fir and cottonwood stands (RVC 3, Site 1) and extensive areas of shrubby wetlands composed primarily of willow species and alders. No direct impacts due to forestry activities were detected within this riparian management area.

Areas along the creek in Reach 6 were harvested in 1985 and planted with spruce. It was a wet site with patches of shrubby willows and alders (RVC 8, Site 2). In brushy areas the spruce are restricted, but they are thriving in the herb dominated areas.

Reaches 7 through 9 are old growth spruce and fir mostly unaffected by harvesting. The site level riparian recommendations are provided in Table 48.

Table 48 Eighteen Mile Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations

Reach /Segmen

t

RVC #label


Area affected

(m2)

Priority

R1 / S2 2 Init n Stabilize and reclaim road clearing on banks

Topsoil, seed /Seed

2000 Moderate

R6 8 SHR/S(Ac)


LWD

Manual brush /None

49600 Low

4.7.2 Fish Habitat


During overview FHAP, 9 reaches were identified in Eighteen Mile Creek (Figure 23). The air photo interpretation revealed a primarily riffle-pool channel type with a low proportion of the creek area consisting of pools. In Reaches 1 to 6, the gradient is less than 3.0% but increases farther upstream. The air photos indicated good off-channel habitat in Reaches 3 and 4. The abundance of functional LWD was largely undetermined from the air photos.

The overview identified 3 high priority reaches (Reaches 2, 4 and 6), 2 moderate (Reaches 1 and 3), and 5 low priority reaches or sections for further investigation during


the level 1 FHAP. Possible restoration opportunities identified during the overview stage included bank stabilization, riparian rehabilitation, and investigation of road crossing locations.


The level 1 FHAP was conducted on portions of Reaches 1, 2, 4, and 6, for a total distance of 814 m. The locations of the habitat survey sites in Eighteen Mile Creek are shown in Figure 23, while additional details such a primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. All reaches in this watershed were surveyed in an upstream direction. Reach 4 is the longest reach on this creek, having a length of almost 3.9 km, but was only surveyed for 100 m due to its homogenous habitat composition (Photos 25 and 26). The morphology of this reach was dominated by beaver ponds. The downstream portion of Reach 6 was dry during the survey, while the upstream portion had flow (Photos 27 and 28).

Summary habitat data for each surveyed reach is provided in Table 49 while the percent area habitat composition is presented in Table 50, with a detailed breakdown in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented mean water depths ranging from 0.1 m to 0.8 m, mean bankfull channel widths ranging from 4.6 m to 7.5 m, and mean wetted widths ranging from 2.0 m to 6.8 m. In most reaches, riffles accounted for greater than 70% of the habitat area in all sites. In most areas glide habitat was the second most abundant type contributing 17% to 27% habitat by area. With the exception of Reach 4, there was a very low percent habitat area of pools in Eighteen Mile Creek. However, in Reach 4 the habitat consisted entirely of pools (series of beaver ponds) due to beaver activity. In this reach the bankfull depth was 0 m since beaver activity had raised the water level to the bankfull level.

Table 49 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Eighteen Mile Creek

ReachReach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m)Mean

Gradient (%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)


Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted

Width (m)

1 330 87 2.5 0.4 0.3 6.1 4.82 1820 414 2.4 0.3 0.3 7.5 4.74 3850 100 0.5 0.0 0.8 6.8 6.86 620 213 1.7 1.0 0.1 4.6 2.0


photo25&26


photo27&28


Table 50 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Eighteen Mile Creek

Percent Area Per Habitat Type Per Reach (%)

ReachReach

Length (m)Survey Distance

(m) Riffle Area

(%) Glide Area

(%) Pool Area

(%) Other Area

(%)1 330 87 75 25 0 02 1820 414 71 27 2 04 3850 100 0 0 100 06 620 213 82 17 0 0

The FHAP habitat diagnostic revealed generally poor habitat conditions with occasional areas rated as good. Pool area and frequency and the abundance of functional LWD were poor in all reaches except Reach 4. The dominant substrate consisted of cobble in Reach 6, sand in Reach 4 and boulders in Reaches 1 to 3. Winter rearing habitat was good in all reaches while the low quantity of spawning gravel in most reaches resulted in a poor spawning habitat rating. A small cascade was a barrier to some fish in Reach 2 while beaver dams are barriers to some fish in Reach 4. The portion of dry creek bed was a barrier in Reach 6. A summary of the habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 51, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E.

Table 51 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Eighteen Mile Creek

ReachPool

HabitatFunctional

LWDCover Rating

Dominant Substrate


Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access

(# barriers)

1 Poor Poor Fair Boulder Good Poor Poor 0.02 Poor Poor Good Boulder Good Good Poor 1.04 Good Good Fair Sand Good Good Poor 1.06 Poor Poor Fair Cobble Good Poor Fair 0.0

In those areas were the riparian zone was logged, the resulting regrowth of deciduous vegetation has created favourable conditions for beavers which have now been active along approximately 25% of the mainstem. This activity seems to have improved conditions as the beaver ponds provide rearing and overwintering habitat and control water levels, which may otherwise be extremely low in late summer.

The most prominent forestry effect in this watershed was seen in Reach 2. In this reach a slope failure originates near a cutblock on the south side of the creek. Although several habitat parameters, such as abundance of functional LWD and pool habitat were poor in


reaches of this watershed, the causes may be due to the topography and underlying geology. The lack of water in lower portion of Reach 6 is a concern and is possibly due to naturally low flow.

The reaches in this watershed were a low priority for further examination in the level 2 assessment.


A temperature data logger was placed in Reach 1 on August 28, 1997 and removed on October 10, 1997. The logger recorded temperatures ranging from a maximum 11.6°C on September 2, 1997 to a minimum of 2.1°C on October 8, 1997 (Figure 25). Daily mean temperatures showed a general cooling trend from 9.4°C on August 27, to 3.7°C on October 9, 1997. Daily fluctuations in temperature averaged 2.3°C, with October data generally having smaller daily temperature ranges compared to August and September. The maximum daily fluctuation in temperature was 4.2°C on September 1, 1997. The minimum temperature recorded on October 8, was the lowest water temperature recorded during this study. Although the maximum temperatures are similar to the maximum temperatures reported by Envirocon Ltd (1980) for the same period in 1980, the minimum temperatures recorded in 1997 were slightly lower. The data suggests water temperatures in Eighteen Mile Creek are acceptable for all species recorded in the Bowron River watershed.

The water sample was taken from Reach 1 (Figure 23) on September 8, 1997 at 11:07 AM. At the time of sampling, the water temperature was 6.5°C, the dissolved oxygen was 11.4 mg/L, and the pH was 8.2. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 8 and suggest a fair nutrient rating.


The fisheries crews sampled at 7 sites in Eighteen Mile Creek using multiple pass electrofishing within net enclosures (Figure 23). Fish sampling was carried out in Reaches 1, 2, 4, and 6 and recorded the presence of rainbow trout in all reaches and chinook in Reach 1 and 2. Historical information on the Eighteen Mile watershed is limited to Reach 1 where chinook, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, burbot, mountain whitefish, and sculpin were documented (Envirocon Ltd 1980).

The length frequency distributions for fish captured in Eighteen Creek are found in Appendix F and were used to identify age classes. Fish population estimates were


fig.25


calculated at all sites. The catch and population densities at each sampling site are found in Appendix F. Fish densities per site ranged from 4.6 to 67.9 fish/100 m2.

Table 52 presents the mean fish densities per reach and shows that mean densities were considerably greater in Reaches 1 and 2 than in Reaches 4 and 6. The higher densities in Reach 1 and 2 are attributed to the presence of chinook, which had the greatest mean density of any species recorded in Eighteen Mile Creek. Rainbow trout had the second highest mean densities and were most abundant in Reach 4, where 17.0 fish/100 m2 were recorded. Juvenile rainbow trout were captured in all reaches and were found in greater densities than fry in all reaches. Adult rainbow trout were captured in Reaches 2 and 6, and had low mean densities. Burbot and longnose dace were only recorded in Reach 2 and had the same low mean densities (0.8 fish/100 m2).

Table 52 Eighteen Mile Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach


Reach Density Sites Per RB CH BB LNC

(n/100 m2) Reach All F J A F1 67.9 1 8.8 0.0 8.8 0.0 59.1 0.0 0.02 57.3 3 2.7 0.6 1.3 0.8 53.0 0.8 0.84 17.0 1 17.0 7.5 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 4.6 2 4.6 0.0 1.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

The theoretical optimal fish densities calculated are provided in Table 53 and are presented along with the sampled salmonid density at each site. The theoretical fry density for Eighteen Mile Creek was 96.1 fish/100 m2 and the theoretical density for juveniles was calculated to be 24.8 fish/100 m2. After adjusting the theoretical density based on the weighted useable width generated from the habitat suitability model, the theoretical densities per site ranged from 44.4 fish/100 m2 to 96.1 fish/100 m2 for salmonid fry. The juvenile theoretical densities ranged from 3.5 fish/100 m2 to 20.6 fish/100 m2. These theoretical fry densities are similar and the juvenile densities are higher relative to the other creeks in this study. Both the fry and juvenile observed densities were lower than the theoretical densities for Eighteen Mile Creek. The weighted useable width data indicates that the sample sites generally had habitat more suitable for fry than juvenile salmonids.

Eighteen Mile Creek watershed provides habitat to support a resident fish population as well as provide a source a recruitment for Bowron River population. Reach 1 and 2, in particular provide rearing for chinook, while the upper reaches provide spawning and rearing habitat for resident rainbow trout populations. The beaver ponds in Reach 4


tab.53


provide rearing and overwintering habitat but the beaver dams may be a barrier to some fish movement.


The riparian assessment of Eighteen Mile Creek identified that 39% of the stream length had been affected by forestry activity. Small areas where identified in which the riparian management zone was moderately or highly impacted with respect to LWD availability. The habitat surveys identified the poor habitat complexity as a concern for fish production. In this creek, habitat complexity was generally determined by LWD which was in poor abundance. The fish sampling indicated that salmonid densities were lower than the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth, and alkalinity data and suggests that other habitat parameters, such as cover and habitat complexity, may be limiting fish densities.

The level 1 FHAP identified a number of habitat parameters which could be improved through restoration activities in all reaches that were examined in Eighteen Mile Creek. The fish surveys conducted revealed moderate chinook densities in Reaches 1 and 2 but generally low rainbow trout densities. All reaches had fry and juvenile densities below the theoretical density. However, Eighteen Mile Creek watershed was identified as a low priority for restoration works in relation to other watersheds examined in this study. Given the available budget, other watersheds were identified as a higher priority for developing restoration prescriptions. This watershed was not surveyed during the level 2 FHAP and no detailed restoration prescriptions were developed.

However, potential restoration activities identified during the level 1 survey could focus on increasing pool habitat and functional LWD in Reaches 1 and 2. There is a potential for relatively cost-effective placement of LWD using materials found along the steep slopes in Reach 1 and 2. This material could be grappled and winched into place in a informal manner under the supervision of an experienced biologist. Prior to actual work, the feasibility of this undertaking should be confirmed through a brief site visit by an experienced biologist and forestry worker. In addition, the portions of sluff bank in Reach 6 could be stablized to reduce downstream sedimetation. Future studies in this watershed could examine the cause of dry portion of creek in the lower section of Reach 6 and identify remedial actions.

4.8 Unnamed B Creek

Unnamed B Creek is located on the southwest side of the Bowron River, downstream of the Haggen Creek confluence (Figure 26). The creek has a length of 11.4 km and ranges in elevation from 1,580 m asl to 835 m asl. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 27. The IWAP indicated this watershed has an area of


fig.26


fig.27


24.3 km2 and accounts for 5.0% of the middle Bowron River watershed. The IWAP identified a low level of concern with this watershed and a calculated ECA of 5% (Beaudry and Nassey 1990).

4.8.1 Riparian

4.8.1.1 Watershed and Site Level

Stream Unnamed B occurs in the biogeoclimatic zone SBSvk 04. The old growth and mature forests in the riparian zone are composed primarily of hybrid spruce and subalpine fir, with some trembling aspen and black cottonwood on the floodplains (Sites 33, 34 and 35). Five percent of the watershed was harvested in 1982, burned in 1982 and planted in 1984 and 1987, however some of the area was classified as NSR (not sufficiently restocked).



Table 54 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Unnamed B Creek Watershed

RMA width Reach

Riparian Segment

Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years Since


Sample Site #

50 1 - 200 SBSvk NA 15 OF / S50 2 - 762 SBSvk 4 NA 10 OF / SB 3350 2 SBSvk NA 23 OF / S (BAc)50 2 SBSvk NA 24 MF / B (S)50 3 3100 SBSvk NA 24 MF / B (S)50 3 SBSvk NA 23 OF / S (BAc)50 3 SBSvk NA 26 MF / SB (At)50 3 SBSvk NA 5 OF / S (Ac)50 3 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 3 SBSvk NA 2 INIT n50 3 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 4 1 1787 SBSvk 4 NA 10 OF / SB 3550 4 2 5625 SBSvk 4 NA 25 OF / BS 3450 4 2 SBSvk NA 15 OF / S50 5 5625 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 5 SBSvk NA 15 OF / S50 5 SBSvk NA 6 OF / wetland50 6 1210 SBSvk NA 10 OF / SB50 6 SBSvk NA 6 OF / wetland

The riparian management area of this stream is 30 m but this classification is based on a cursory investigation that suggested fish presence upstream of the falls. Along most of the length of the stream the riparian zone remains intact, except for road crossings in Reaches 3 and 4. The stream was embedded in a fairly steep valley in places, and the forestry activity occurred along the tops of the valley. This resulted in high shrub cover and some blowdown openings along the edges of the forest. However, the cutblocks are generally well removed from the RMA.

Unnamed B Site Level Riparian Recommendations

No riparian recommendations were identified during the study. The stream was well buffered from forestry activity by riparian zones.

4.8.2 Fish Habitat



The overview FHAP identified 5 reaches in the Unnamed B watershed. A waterfall was identified in Reach 2 and forms a barrier to fish movement. No documentation of previous fisheries sampling was found relating to Unnamed B Creek. Due to the small size of the channel and high degree of canopy closure, air photo analysis did not give much insight on channel characteristics.

The overview identified one high (Reach 3), three moderate (Reaches 2, 4, and 5), and one low priority reach for the level 1 habitat assessment. Since air photos were not received for this creek prior to the field investigation, no preliminary restoration opportunities were identified in the overview.


The level 1 FHAP was carried out on all of Reach 1 and portions of Reaches 2 and 3. The total surveyed distance was 891 m. Reaches 1 and 2 had a mature riparian zone but were surveyed to investigate fish habitat and fish use downstream of the waterfall in Reach 2. The locations of the habitat survey sites are shown in Figure 26, while additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Both reaches were surveyed in an upstream direction.

Summary habitat data for each reach surveyed in Unnamed B Creek is provided in Table 55, while the percent area habitat composition is presented in Table 56, with a detailed breakdown in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented uniform mean water depths of 0.2 m, mean bankfull channel widths ranging from 5.5 m to 6.8 m, and mean wetted widths ranging from 3.0 m to 3.4 m. Riffle habitat dominated Reaches 2 and 3, with moderate glide habitat but very low or no pool habitat. Reach 1 had fairly equal portions of riffle, glide and pool habitat. Beaver activity was present in Reach 1, including one dam considered to be a barrier to some fish.

Table 55 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Unnamed B Creek

ReachReach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m)

Mean Gradient

(%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)

Mean Water

Depth (m)

Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted

Width (m)

1 200 191 2.8 0.8 0.2 5.5 3.42 762 207 2.6 0.4 0.2 6.8 3.93 3100 493 1.5 0.3 0.2 5.5 3.0

Table 56 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Unnamed B Creek



ReachReach

Length (m)Survey


(%) Glide Area

(%) Pool Area

(%) Other Area

(%)1 200 191 28 39 32 02 762 207 80 20 0 03 3100 493 55 38 6 1

The data collected during the field survey was used for FHAP habitat diagnostic. Unnamed B Creek was rated as having poor frequency and abundance of pool habitat and poor off-channel habitat. The abundance of functional LWD was good in Reach 1, poor in Reach 2, and fair in Reach 3. In Reach 2, it was noted that much of the potential functional LWD was hung-up on the steep valley slopes and does not enter the creek. Cobble was the dominant substrate in all survey sites and provided good winter rearing habitat. There was good spawning gravel in Reaches 1 and 2, but a low abundance of spawning gravel in Reach 3. A beaver dam in Reach 1 was considered a barrier to some fish while the 25 m high waterfall in Reach 2 was a barrier to all fish. At least two small cascades in Reach 3 were barriers to fish. A summary of the habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 57, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E. Photos 29 and 30 show representative habitat found in Reaches 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 57 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Unnamed B Creek

Reach Pool Habitat

Functional LWD

Cover Rating

Dominant Substrate


Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access (# barriers)

1 Poor Good Fair Cobble Good Poor Good 1.02 Poor Poor Fair Cobble Good Poor Good 0.03 Poor Fair Good Cobble Good Poor Good 2.0

Forestry activity in Unnamed B Creek watershed has generally maintained a riparian zone and minimized effects to this creek. Of note is a small slope failure that was identified on the south side of the canyon in Reach 2. The poor habitat parameters such as a low abundance of pool and off-channel habitat, are likely a result of natural conditions rather than forestry activities. This watershed was a low priority for further examination in a level 2 assessment.


photo 29


photo 30&31



The water sample was taken from Reach 1 (Figure 26) on September 8, 1997 at 12:52 PM. At the time of sampling, the water temperature was 7.5°C, the dissolved oxygen was 11.2 mg/L, and the pH was 8.0. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 8 and suggest a good nutrient rating. A temperature logger was not installed in Unnamed B Creek.


Fisheries crews sampled a total of five sites in Reaches 1 and 2, and 4 sites in Reach 3 (Figure 26). Triple pass electrofishing within net enclosures was used in Reaches 1 and 2 and resulted in the capture of chinook fry and sculpin in both reaches. Rainbow trout were only found in Reach 2. The sampling captured primarily chinook with very few rainbow trout. Four baited minnow traps were set for approximately 22 hours in Reach 3 but did not capture any fish (sampling details are found on Fish Collection Forms). No historical data was found to compare with the results presented here.

Fish population estimates were calculated at all sample sites. The catch and population densities at each sample site are found in Appendix F. Fish densities per site in Unnamed B Creek ranged from 7.2 to 57.8 fish/100 m2.

Table 58 presents the mean fish densities per reach and indicates that mean densities were considerably greater in Reach 1 than in Reach 2. The higher densities in Reach 1 are attributed to greater chinook densities, which had a mean of 37.2 fish/100 m 2 in Reach 1 but a mean of 2.1 fish/100 m2 in Reach 2. Rainbow trout were only captured in Reach 2 and were limited to juveniles, with no fry or adults documented. Low densities of sculpins were captured in both reaches but greater densities than rainbow trout.

Table 58 Unnamed B Creek Mean Fish Densities Per Reach


Reach Density Sites Per RB CH CC

(n/ 100 m2) Reach All F J A F1 42.1 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 4.92 8.3 2 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.1 4.8


The theoretical optimal fish densities calculated are provided in Table 59 and are presented along with the sampled salmonid density at each site. The theoretical fry density for Unnamed B Creek was 72.0 fish/100 m2 and the theoretical density for juveniles was calculated to be 5.7 fish/100 m2. After adjusting the theoretical density based on the weighted useable width generated from the habitat suitability model, the theoretical densities per site ranged from 3.5 fish/100 m2 to 10.5 fish/100 m2 for salmonid fry. The juvenile theoretical densities ranged from 0.6 fish/100 m 2 to 1.2 fish/100 m2. These theoretical densities are amongst the lowest calculated in this study.

The weighted useable width data indicates that habitat suitability in these reaches was generally low and that habitat was generally more suitable in Reach 2 than in Reach 1. Habitat suitability was similar for fry and juvenile salmonids. Observed fry densities were considerably above theoretical densities in Reach 1 while they were lower in Reach 2. Since no juveniles were caught in Reach 1, their density was substantially lower than the theoretical density in Reach 1, but they exceed the theoretical density in Reach 2.

Given the relatively small size of Unnamed B Creek and the lack of suitable adult habitat, Reaches 1 and 2 of this watershed provide recruitment for Bowron River populations and do not sustain resident fish populations. The sampling suggests that only limited fry and juvenile habitat exists in these reaches. However, the sampling indicated that salmonid densities are often above the theoretical densities calculated based on velocity, depth and alkalinity data.


The riparian assessment of Unnamed B Creek identified that the riparian zone not been affected by forestry activity. The level 1 FHAP of Reaches 1 and 2 identified a number of habitat parameters which could be improved through restoration activities. However, the poor habitat condition, such as low abundance of pool and off-channel habitat, are likely a result of natural conditions rather than forestry activities. The fish surveys revealed fish densities often exceeded the theoretical densities calculated for this creek. Therefore, Unnamed B Creek watershed was identified as a low priority for restoration works in relation to other watersheds examined in this study. This watershed was not surveyed during the level 2 FHAP and no detailed restoration prescriptions were developed.

However, the level 1 field investigation did identify the potential for restoration activities in Unnamed B Creek. For example, pool and off-channel habitat could be increased throughout Reaches 1 and 2, while the amount of functional LWD could be increased in Reach 2. As with Eighteen Mile Creek, there is a potential for relatively cost-effective placement of LWD using materials found along the steep slopes in Reach 2. This material could be grappled and winched into place in a informal manner under the supervision of an


tab.59


experienced biologist. Prior to actual work, the feasibility of this undertaking should be confirmed through a brief site visit by an experienced biologist and forestry worker.

4.9 Ten Mile Creek

Ten Mile Creek is located on the southwest side of the Bowron River and was the southern most watershed examined in this study (Figure 28). Ten Mile Creek is 7.9 km long and has its headwaters at an elevation of 1,360 m asl and its confluence with the Bowron River at an elevation of 900 m asl. A stream profile generated from a 1:50,000 NTS map is provided in Figure 29. The mainstem is identified as ephemeral upstream of 1,080 m asl on a 1:20,000 TRIM map. The IWAP identified a medium level of hydrologic concern related to harvest, a medium priority for implementing a channel assessment, and a medium level of priority for implementing a road survey and deactivation plan. The ECA in the Ten Mile Creek watershed is 34% (Beaudry and DeLong 1996).

4.9.1 Riparian


Ten Mile Creek is within the SBSvk biogeoclimatic zone (site series 4 and 6). The old forests consisted of stands of hybrid spruce or lodgepole pine with subalpine fir. The watershed was harvested in stages from 1985 through to 1989. Some areas were burned while some were mechanically treated. Lodgepole pine and hybrid spruce were planted in 1990 and 1991. The length riparian zone affected by forestry activities was 2,486 m (32%).

The overview FHAP for Ten Mile Creek identified salmonid species in this watershed and a channel width up to 2 m. The RMA width is 30 m to 40 m, and therefore LWD is of very high importance to the riparian function.

4.9.1.2 Site Level Table 60 shows the final RVC classifications and descriptions. Table 4 presents the final riparian classifications of each of the streams by reach and segment. Table 5 shows the degree of impairment and recommended treatments by RVC. The RMA and RVCs are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps.


fig.28


fig.29


Table 60 Summary Characteristics for Riparian Assessment in Ten Mile Creek Watershed

RMA Width


Length (m)

Zone/ Subzone

Site Series

Years Since

HarvestRVC RVC Label Sample

Site #

40 1 650 SBSvk NA 19 OF / S Pl(B)40 2 880 SBSvk NA 31 OF / S (Pl)40 3 850 SBSvk NA 19 OF / S Pl(B)40 3 SBSvk 4 8 8 SHR / S (Ac) 4040 4 710 SBSvk 8 8 SHR / S (Ac)40 4 SBSvk 8 29 SHR / S (BAcAt) 40 5 281 SBSvk 8 2 INIT n40 5 SBSvk 4 8 29 SHR / S (BAcAt) 4140 6 249 SBSvk 6 8 30 SHR / Pl (BS) 4240 7 396 SBSvk 8 30 SHR / Pl (BS)30 8 614 SBSvk NA 31 OF / S (Pl)30 8 SBSvk NA 2 INIT n30 9 314 SBSvk NA 31 OF / S (Pl)30 9 234 SBSvk NA 31 OF / S (Pl)30 10 430 SBSvk NA na SHR/SAt(Pl)30 10 1111 SBSvk NA na OF / S (Pl)30 11 530 SBSvk NA 31 OF / S (Pl)30 11 640 SBSvk NA 31 OF / S (Pl)

Reaches 1 and 2 and part of 3 are old forest hybrid spruce, lodgepole pine and subalpine fir (RVCs 19 and 31). However, one stream side in Reach 3 was harvested in 1989 (RVC 8, Site 40) and planted with spruce in 1990. Reaches 4 and 5 are spruce and/or fir regeneration with cottonwood and aspen shrubs along the creek which was in a deeply incised channel. The south facing slope was very hot, and the conifer regeneration on this slope was limited (Site 41). Lodgepole pine was planted in cutblocks adjacent to Reaches 6 and 7, and there was also some fir and spruce regeneration (Site 42). There was a wet depression in Reach 7 which retains water during dry periods. The creek was crossed in two places by an active road and in one place by a deteriorating road. Above Reach 7, the stream narrows to less than 1.5 m wide, and meanders through wetlands and old spruce and pine forests. There was an additional cutblock along the stream in Reach 10, but Reach 11 was in old spruce fir forest.


Ten Mile Creek Site Level Riparian Recommendations

There are no riparian recommendations for Ten mile Creek. The stream is seasonally intermittent and is probably not used by fish upstream of the Bowron floodplain. While 32% of the stream length was affected by forestry, it was of low priority for rehabilitation.

4.9.2 Fish Habitat


The overview assessment of Ten Mile Creek identified 11 reaches with varying degrees of forestry impacts described above. Information concerning fish distributions is limited to Reach 1 where chinook and rainbow trout were recorded in 1980 (Envirocon Ltd 1980).

The overview identified 4 high priority reaches (Reaches 3 to 6), 5 moderate (Reaches 7, 9, 10, and 11) and 2 low priority reaches (Reaches 8 and 11) for further investigation during the level 1 FHAP. Preliminary restoration opportunities focused on riparian restoration.


The level 1 FHAP was carried out on all of Reach 6, and portions of Reaches 3, 4, 5, and 7, for a total survey distance of 1,177 m. Portions of Reach 3 were dry at the time of this survey, due to naturally low water levels. The locations of the habitat survey sites are shown in Figure 28, while additional details such as primary pools, barriers, and off-channel habitat are shown on the 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Reaches 3, and 4 were surveyed traveling downstream while Reaches 5 and 7 were surveyed in an upstream direction.

The reaches surveyed in Ten Mile Creek consisted of riffle-pool, glide, or block-step-pool channel morphology. Summary habitat data for each reach is provided in Table 61 while the habitat composition is presented in Table 62, with a detailed breakdown in Appendix D. The habitat survey documented mean water depths ranging from 0.1 m to 0.5 m, mean bankfull channel widths ranging from 1.7 m to 6.0 m, and mean wetted widths ranging from 0.7 m to 12.7 m. Riffle habitat dominated in Reaches 3 and 4 with low or moderate glide habitat and no pool habitat. In Reaches 5 and 7, glide habitat dominated while Reach 6 consisted primarily of pool habitat (Photo 31). Reaches 6 and 7 had beaver activity and included one large beaver pond in Reach 6.


Table 61 Summary Selected Habitat Data for Reaches Surveyed in Ten Mile Creek

ReachReach

Length (m)Survey

Distance (m)

Mean Gradient

(%)

Mean Bankfull

Depth (m)


Mean Bankfull

Width (m)

Mean Wetted Width (m)

3 850 476 4.6 0.2 0.2 1.7 0.74 710 173 4.2 0.2 0.1 2.2 1.45 281 73 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.5 1.36 249 396 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 12.77 396 59 0.3 0.1 0.5 6.0 2.7

Table 62 Percent Habitat Composition in Surveyed Reaches of Ten Mile Creek


ReachReach Length

(m)Survey


(%) Glide Area

(%) Pool Area

(%) Other Area

(%)3 850 476 91 9 0 04 710 173 63 37 0 05 281 73 10 79 11 06 249 396 0 0 97 37 396 59 19 81 1 0

The FHAP habitat diagnostic was carried out using the data collected in the field survey and revealed generally poor fish habitat conditions in this watershed. There was a general lack of pools, functional LWD, and off-channel habitat. The amount of rearing and spawning substrate were also generally rated as poor. A major barrier to fish movement was the dry channel and gradient barriers in Reach 3 (Photos 32 and 33). Although Reach 4 (Photo 34) was not dry, logging debris and low flow in this reach are also a barrier to fish. A summary of the habitat diagnostic is presented in Table 63, while a print out of Form 6 is found in Appendix E.


Photo32&33


photo 34


Table 63 Summary of Habitat Diagnostic for Ten Mile Creek

Reach Pool Habitat

Functional LWD

Cover Rating

Dominant Substrate


Off-channel Habitat

Spawning Gravel

Spawning Access

(# barriers)

3 Poor Poor Good Cobble Good Poor Poor 0.04 Poor Poor Good Gravel Poor Poor Poor 0.05 Poor Poor Fair Gravel Poor Poor Poor 0.06 Poor Poor Good Sand Good Poor Poor 0.07 Poor Poor Good Sand Fair Poor Fair 0.0

The riparian zone has been harvested along much of this creek. However, the lack of water during low flow periods and gradient barriers are currently of greater concern to fish presence in this watershed. Regardless, several forestry issues were identified during the fish habitat assessment. The culvert at the road crossing in Reach 5 was starting to collapse and had numerous moderate sized rocks in it. In addition, a fine layer of sediment that was easily resuspended was noted in Reach 5.

This creek was considered a low priority for a level 2 assessment and no restoration prescriptions were developed.


A temperature data logger was placed in Reach 5 on August 31, 1997 and removed on October 10, 1997. The logger recorded temperatures ranging from a maximum 10.5°C on September 2, 1997 to a minimum of 4.5°C on October 8, 1997 (Figure 30). Daily mean temperatures showed a general cooling trend from 7.9°C on August 31, to 5.5°C on October 9, 1997. This cooling trend was less noticeable compared to the other creeks. Daily fluctuations in temperature averaged 2.1°C, with October data generally having smaller daily temperature ranges compared to August and September. The maximum daily fluctuation in temperature was 3.6°C on September 9, 1997. The data suggests water temperatures in Ten Mile Creek are acceptable for all species recorded in the Bowron River watershed.

The water sample was taken from Reach 3 (Figure 28) on September 8, 1997 at 12:28 PM. At the time of sampling, the water temperature was 8.5°C, the dissolved oxygen was 10.8 mg/L, and the pH was 8.0. The dissolved oxygen and pH met the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (MELP 1998). The analytical results are provided in Table 8 and suggest a fair nutrient rating.


fig.30



Fisheries crews sampled a total of 7 sites in Reaches 3, 5, and 7 (Figure 28) using electrofishing and captured no fish. However, previous studies reported chinook and rainbow trout fry in Reach 1 near the mouth of Ten Mile Creek (Envirocon Ltd. 1980). Reach 1, lies within the Bowron River floodplain and appears to be heavily influenced by Bowron River water levels. It is likely that the chinook and rainbow trout documented in 1980 by Envirocon were Bowron River populations which periodically use portions of lower Ten Mile Creek which have flow. However, since the overview did not identify Reach 1 as a high priority for sampling, it was not visited during the field survey and access between the Bowron River and Reach 1 could not be assessed.

The sampling data collected at each site are presented in Appendix F and the weighted useable width data are presented in Table 64. No theoretical densities could be generated as no fish were caught and a mean mass for Ten Mile Creek fish could not be calculated. The weighted useable width was calculated for each sample site and suggests suitable habitat does exist at all site sampled. The weighted useable width for fry ranged from 74% to 100%, but was lower for juvenile salmonids (12% to 98%).

A significant habitat limitation to fish populations in Reaches 3 to 5 is the low discharge conditions. While the sampling was carried out at locations with ideal habitat conditions, there were many areas which did not have suitable fish habitat. In several areas, surface flow does not exist and the creek bed was dry. In other areas gradient would limit the presence of fish.


The riparian assessment identified that 32% of the stream length of Ten Mile Creek has been affected by forestry activity. Several attempts to collect fish from this creek failed to document fish indicating low utilization. Therefore, no level 2 assessment was carried. This watershed was a low priority for fish habitat restoration under the Watershed Restoration Program.

5.0 RESTORATION PRESCRIPTIONS

The FHAP identified the general lack of pool habitat and functional LWD throughout the harvested portions of the assessed watersheds. Long riffle sections, lack of off-channel habitat, and lack of diversity in cover were typical for the portions surveyed. With the exception of Haggen Creek and Post Creek, fish habitat complexity was primarily provided by LWD. Boulder and bedrock influences on fish habitat were minimal in most of the watersheds. While most creeks in the study ranged in channel width between 4 and 8.5 m at the mouth, Post Creek and Haggen Creek were considerably larger with channel


tab.64


widths of 17.5 m and 50 m respectively, at the mouth. In addition, both had reaches of mainstem channel instability and associated bedload movement which are a result of the natural geomorphic conditions in these watersheds.

The fish sampling indicated the presence of rainbow trout, chinook, bull trout, and several coarse fish species in these watersheds. Watersheds such as Spruce Creek, Post Creek, Pinkerton Creek and Eighteen Mile Creek support resident fish populations as well as provide spawning and rearing habitat for fish that reside in the Bowron River mainstem. Haggen Creek and Fourteen Mile Creek primarily contained resident fish populations. Hah Creek and Unnamed B are primarily a source of recruitment to the Bowron River. Post Creek and Haggen Creek are large enough to support chinook spawning. The documented population densities were generally lower than the theoretical densities calculated for each creek, particularly in areas where the riparian area has been harvested.

Using the results of the overview and level 1 FHAP, the site and watershed level RAPP, and fish sampling studies, a level 2 assessment was carried out to identify restoration prescriptions at suitable sites. A restoration specialist team consisting of an engineer, a geomorphologist, and fisheries biologists, examined potential sites during the follow up field visit. Given that natural boulder and bedrock habitat is limited in these watersheds, the prescriptions focused on the addition of LWD to improve or maintain spawning and rearing habitat diversity. There is the concern, particularly in harvested areas, that forestry activities have removed the natural source of LWD from the riparian zone. Harvesting has destabilized areas of Post Creek and Haggen Creek watersheds. However, ongoing upslope instability indicates that main channel restoration activities would have a limited success in providing long term habitat complexing and only off-channel prescriptions are provided.

5.1 Restoration Priorities

The fish habitat and riparian assessment of the nine Bowron River sub-watersheds has lead to the development of 8 detailed and several general restoration prescriptions. The locations of the 8 restoration sites for which detailed prescriptions were developed are shown in the overview maps of the respective watersheds and on 1:20,000 TRIM maps. Provided funding is available, it is recommended that restoration activities be carried out during the next instream works window.

In prioritizing the possible restoration activities, the stated goals of the WRP were reviewed:

· to restore, maintain and protect fisheries, aquatic and forest resources that have been adversely impacted by forest harvesting practices;


· to provide community-based training, employment, and stewardship opportunities; and,

· to provide a mechanism to bridge historical forest harvesting practices and the new standards established by the Forest Practices Code.

Although available funding may largely determine which restoration sites can be pursued to the construction stage, the priority for implementation based on the WRP goals are found in Table 65.

With respect to riparian restoration, highest priority should be given to Spruce Creek. Twenty seven percent of the stream length has been affected by logging and the impact was rated as very high, which provides several restoration opportunities in this watershed. Haggen Creek, with 50% of its length affected by forestry, is also of high priority for riparian restoration. However, the importance of the riparian function most affected by forestry in this area (provision of LWD) is lower for Haggen Creek than for Spruce Creek because of the differences in channel size. Of moderate priority for riparian restoration are Eighteen Mile Creek, Post Creek, and Fourteen Mile Creek. These are smaller systems with fewer opportunities for riparian habitat improvement.

5.2 Biological Objectives of Restoration Projects

5.2.1 Mainstem Habitat Complexing

Several watersheds in the current study were documented to have poor habitat conditions and insufficient LWD to provide cover and complexity. The biological objectives of the mainstem habitat complexing will be to increase rearing as well as spawning habitat for rainbow trout, bull trout, and chinook populations.

Mainstem habitat complexing has been carried out throughout the Pacific Northwest to improve instream habitat conditions. Studies carried out to monitor such projects have shown that rainbow trout populations have increased an average of 2.7 fold due to mainstem habitat complexing (from 3.6 rainbow trout/100 m2 to 9.7 rainbow trout/100 m2) (Keeley et al. 1996 adapted in Koning and Keeley 1997). In reaches where mainstem habitat complexing is proposed, rainbow trout fry densities were considerably lower than the respective theoretical densities.

Although such data are not readily available for bull trout, Dolly Varden have increased an average 10.4 fold due to mainstem habitat complexing (Keeley et al. 1996 adapted in Koning and Keeley 1997). Baxter (1997) found bull trout fry and juveniles preferred root wad cover, used silt, cobble and boulder substrates, and used water velocities of 0 - 0.18 and 0.25 m/s respectively. However, Baxter (1997) also found that fry preferred water depths of 0.1 - 0.3 m while juveniles preferred depths of 0.3 - 0.4 m. It is,


therefore, reasonable to assume that increased cover in combination with appropriate velocities and depths could result in increased bull trout densities. In reaches where mainstem habitat


tab.65


complexing is proposed, bull trout densities were considerably lower than the respective theoretical densities.

Mainstem habitat complexing has been documented to increase 0+ chinook densities an average of 9.3 fold (7.3 fry/100 m2 to 68.0 fry/100 m2) (Keeley et al. 1996 adapted in Koning and Keeley 1997) In reaches where mainstem habitat complexing is proposed and chinook are found, their densities were considerably lower than the respective theoretical densities.

5.2.2 Side Channel Development

Side channel and off-channel development is increasingly being used in areas where mainstem channel instability makes mainstem habitat complexing impractical as a habitat restoration option (Lister and Finnigan 1997). Two watersheds in the current study are unstable and side channel development have been proposed as restoration opportunities. The biological objectives of the side channel development will be to increase rearing habitat primarily for chinook. Secondary benefits could include increased rearing habitat for rainbow trout and bull trout populations.

The use of side channels by interior stocks of chinook for rearing and overwintering habitat has been documented (Lister and Finnigan 1997). While numerous studies have documented increases in coho densities, little information is available on increased chinook densities resulting from side channel development. However, the chinook densities documented in secondary riffles and glides in Haggen Creek were generally higher than those documented in mainstem habitat units. Studies of side channel use by different species has suggested that chinook do not appear to make use of side channels for spawning. However, chinook spawning activity was observed in a side channel in Reach 3 of Haggen Creek when adequate flow, depth, and substrate were present. Unfortunately, two days after the observations the discharge in Haggen Creek had dropped slightly and the side channel consisted of a series of standing pools.

Rainbow trout are not known to spawn in side channels but fry will rear in off-channel habitats where available (Lister and Finnigan 1997). Sampling of both Post and Haggen Creeks did not document rainbow trout fry in mainstem or side channel habitats. The lack of fry could be a due to large scale disturbances in these systems during the 1997 freshet or that the majority of spawning and rearing takes place in smaller tributary streams.

While Lister and Finnigan (1997) suggest that bull trout do not commonly use off-channel habitat, McPhail and Baxter (1996) report side channels with an abundance of instream cobbles for cover are considered critical summer rearing habitat for bull trout fry. Juvenile bull trout will utilize tributary stream habitats with pools, glides, and overhead cover and are not generally anticipated to use side channels (McPhail and


Baxter 1996). Although it is known that bull trout prefer headwaters that are groundwater fed for spawning, it is unknown if bull trout would spawn in groundwater fed off-channel habitat (Lister and Finnigan 1997). Fry and juvenile bull trout were documented in both mainstem and side channel habitats during the fish surveys. Although densities were similar in both locations, bull trout densities are likely linked to substrate and velocities, making such a comparison difficult.

5.3 Description And Rationale For Prescription Types

This section provides a description and rationale for the various instream and riparian prescription types recommended for the nine Bowron River sub-watersheds. The instream restoration activities are categorized into Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV as outlined in the project contract. Type I involves in-channel prescriptions where the stream bed is impacted/modified for a longitudinal distance of less than 50 m. Type II is similar to Type I except the length is longer than 50 m. Type III involves side channel development and Type IV involves the removal of LWD jams from the channel. The recommended prescriptions for the current study involves Types I, II, and III. Further descriptions of these prescriptions can be found in Slaney and Zaldokas (1997).

The following information is provided for each prescription type:

· definition;· description and variations;· hydraulic function;· effect on the channel morphology;· purpose and present channel conditions which require a specific type; and· advantages and disadvantages relative to other types.

Along with instream works, the riparian area will have to be restored at each site, if disturbed through the movement of equipment or materials. As a general procedure during the construction and installation of the suggested instream structures, LWD will not be taken from live stands within the riparian zone of the creek. The use of dead-fall from outside of the channel is acceptable, provided approval has been obtained from DFO and MELP fisheries and habitat staff.

Banks destabilized during the instream works will be restored using the vegetative and integrated methods described by Babakaiff et al (1997) or methods otherwise approved by MELP. In addition, any access roads or trails created within the riparian zone will be seeded for stabilization upon completion of the rehabilitation work. These access routes may be planted with appropriate conifer seedlings if the surrounding vegetation is not mature.


The main component of the prescriptions structures for this project is LWD. The term LWD refers to pieces of wood greater than 10 cm in diameter and 2 m in length. Traditionally they include whole trees (with branches and roots), large logs and root wads. In this report root wads are considered as a separate type and are described separately. Usually, LWD is placed in the channel to provide stability, store sediment, create pools, dissipate stream energy and increase habitat diversity. The LWD is prescribed for areas that have little or no in-channel wood. Another use for the LWD is for bank protection. A large log can be cabled to a tree or dead-man and situated lying parallel to a section of streambank that is eroding or susceptible to instability.

In comparison to LWD, the term SWD refers to pieces of wood smaller than 10 cm in diameter and 2 m in length. Traditionally, SWD includes tree branches and brush-type debris. It is rarely prescribed on its own as it is too small to be functional in most systems. Usually SWD is combined with LWD and root wads to form a woody debris pile, which can result in debris accumulations that create ideal habitat conditions and bank protection.

5.3.1 Mainstem Habitat Complexing (Type I and II Structures)

5.3.1.1 Log V-Notch Weir

A typical log V-notch weir is defined as two logs (i.e., LWD) resting on the bed and adjacent to one another in a "v" shape with the point of the “v” in the center of the channel (Figure 31). The figures in this section only illustrate the use of large single logs for the structures. Although this is the ideal log type, if large logs are unavailable in proximity to the site, smaller logs cabled together can be used instead.

Log V-notch weir structures concentrate the flow and resulting scour in the middle of the channel. The result is a long narrow pool followed by a shallow riffle section referred to as the tail-out. The bed material of the tail-out area is coarser than the surrounding area due to the high energy through the tail-out , and therefore, ideal spawning habitat is often created. These structures are also beneficial in directing the flow away from the margins and thus, aiding in bank protection.

There are two types of V-notch weir structures. The upstream type is constructed so the ends closest together are pointing upstream while the downstream type is in the opposite direction (Figure 31). To be effective at all flow regimes, both types of structures should be placed in the channel so that the majority of the logs are submerged even during low flow periods (Figure 31b). This will also reduce the rate of decomposition. The log V-notch weir structures often create shallower and longer pools compared to log weir structures. Prescriptions of V-notch weir structures have been recommended for areas where pool and rearing habitat is lacking.


fig.31


All instream structures discussed in this section need to be secured to prevent significant shifting or removal during peak flow periods. The most common methods of securing are burying, support logs and cabling. Burying involves burying a portion of the structure logs into the side of the bank or the floodplain. Support logs refer to the use of additional logs to increase stability of the structure. The support logs usually do not aid in the hydraulic function that the structure is intended to create, but they do strengthen the structure. Cabling involves attaching the structure logs with cables to either other buried logs, trees or dead-mans located on the floodplain near the bank. The structure logs can also be cabled to boulders in the channel. However, due to the lack of adequately sized boulders in the Bowron River watershed this method will be rarely used. Boulder cabling is an effective securing method, therefore, it is recommended where ever large boulders (diameter of approximately 500 mm or larger) are available. If funding is available, it is often recommended to import boulders to the site. However, this is very expensive and not usually found to be cost effective.

5.3.1.2 Log Wing Deflector

A typical log wing deflector is defined as a log (i.e., LWD) resting on the channel bed pointing either upstream or downstream at approximately 30 to 45 degrees to the flow direction (Figure 32). These structures narrow the channel by extending part way across the channel. Log wing deflectors concentrate the flow and move the thalweg. They also increase the stream velocity due to flow convergence and encourage downstream bed scour. Log wing deflectors restore lost deeper water habitat in uniform channels and create spawning habitat in the tail-out section downstream of the scour pool that is created. They also direct flow away from the bank and provide rearing habitat downstream and behind the structure. Typically, wing deflector structures create longer and shallower pools than log weir structures. A wing deflector can be placed either on its own or in pairs on opposing sides of the channel. Paired wing deflectors can take the form of opposing wing deflectors (directly across from one another) or as alternating wing deflectors (off-set from one another to form a zigzag pattern). Prescriptions of wing deflector structures have been recommended in sections which lack pool and rearing habitat.

5.3.1.3 Root Wad

A root wad is defined as the root bulb system of large dead trees. Root wads provide cover, rearing habitat, scour pools and bank protection. When root wads are cut from fallen trees to create the prescription structure, it is recommended that a portion of the tree trunk be left attached. This additional mass will add stability to the root wad. As shown in Figure 33, the trunk can be buried into the bank, cabled to a tree or dead-man, or if long enough, it can simply rest on the edge of the floodplain. A root wad can be prescribed on its own, in groups or as part of LWD and woody debris pile structures.


fig.32


fig.33


Depending on the size of the root wad, a portion of the root bulb will typically remain above the water surface even at high flow (Figure 33b). They are primarily prescribed in sections lacking in-channel LWD and small woody debris (SDW) but also in areas requiring bank stability.

5.3.1.4 Log Weirs

A log weir is defined as a log (i.e., LWD) that spans the channel width perpendicular to the channel flow, and rests on the channel bed (Figure 34). The log weir is submerged during all flow conditions (Figure 34b) and causes water to plunge over the log resulting in stream bed scour on the downstream side. The log weir creates plunge pools downstream and dammed pools upstream of the structure. Both pools usually form across the width of the channel. The plunge pools often create shorter but deeper pools than V-notch weir and wing deflector structures. In general, log weir structures are less stable than V-notch weir and wing deflectors and, therefore, are not prescribed as often. However, they are sometimes recommended, as they add to the diversity of structure types and the complexity of habitat conditions. Unlike V-notch weirs and wing deflectors, log weirs do not direct flow away from the channel banks. Therefore, they are only prescribed on reaches that are laterally stable and that do not indicate significant lateral migration. The specific sites for these structures should have stable banks. Log weirs can be secured by insuring that a large (i.e. heavy) enough log is used, and by burying logs partially in the bed and banks, or by cabling logs to boulders in the stream. Typically, log weirs are prescribed in sections which lack deep pool habitat.

5.3.1.5 Channel Spanning Log Structure

A channel spanning log structure is a log or fallen tree (i.e., LWD) that rests on one or both channel banks and is usually only submerged during bankfull discharge (Figure 34). It therefore, has no hydraulic effect at the majority of flow conditions. As a prescription structure, the logs typically span the channel width and rest on both banks. Ideally, spanning log structures should be dead trees with some branches below the water surface during baseflow conditions. They often lay perpendicular to the channel flow and are intended to provide overhead cover for fish. Since the structures are typically very large and rest on the floodplain, they do not necessarily require securing. Hence, they can be mobilized during peak flows and, therefore, provide future sources of LWD for the channel. Usually spanning log structures are prescribed in sections lacking LWD and overhead cover and suitable bank characteristics to support the log.

5.3.1.6 Woody Debris Pile

A woody debris pile is simply a cluster of any combination of LWD, SWD, and root wads that are combined to form a pile of debris. Their function in the middle of the channel is


fig.34


to provide cover and rearing habitat, or they can be placed at the margin to provide bank protection as well as cover (Figure 35). Woody debris piles are prescribed in sections lacking any type of in-channel wood material.

5.3.2 Off/Side channels (Type III Projects)

5.3.2.1 Geomorphological Rationale for Selection of Sites

The construction of off-channel or side channel habitat focuses on the rehabilitation of relic flood-channels within the floodplain of fluvial systems. They are often used where in-channel prescriptions on the mainstem are not practical. This is usually due to the large size and high energy nature of the system. Side channel prescriptions are utilized when the mainstem is subject to extreme peak flows, high sediment yields and channel instability. Haggen Creek and Post Creek are examples of such unstable systems. Reach 3 on Post Creek is probably the most aggraded and, hence, unstable reach of all the assessed systems. The three main types of side channels are overflow, groundwater and wall-based. The two types to be used in the current restoration projects are overflow (surface water-fed) and groundwater-fed channels. The two Haggen Creek side channels are surface-fed and the Post Creek side channel is groundwater-fed. Three main factors were used to determined the type of side channel:

· availability of groundwater to recharge the side channel;

· the preferred side channel type for the target fish species; and

· degree of instability on the mainstem.

Potential sites were identified during the helicopter over-flight portion of the level 2 FHAP and were investigated during a ground reconnaissance to confirm the presence of the site, identify elevations relative to the river, and look for the presence of groundwater. The criteria for the selection of the location for the side channels are as follows: (references to inlets refer only to surface-fed side channels).

· existing abandoned side channel;

· the inlet and the outlet of the side channel are not situated on laterally or vertically unstable sections of the mainstem;

· the inlet and outlet are located on a relatively straight section or preferably on an outer bend of the mainstem;

· the inlet and outlet are not located on the inside bend of the mainstem;


· the bed material of the existing side channel is significantly smaller than that of the mainstem, which indicates a significantly lower energy section relative to the mainstem;


· fig.35


· the inlet and outlet are not located in deposition zones where bar formation may impede the flow of water in or out of the side channel; and

· for the groundwater-fed sites: evidence of sufficient groundwater recharge (i.e., coarse substrate) and adequate groundwater near the surface.

The objective of all side channel development is to improve fish habitat conditions. Successful habitat improvement with respect to the development of side channels relies on three critical factors:

· sufficient channel gradient to provide a range of current velocities;

· proximity to major spawning habitat; and

· accessibility for heavy equipment.

The most critical parameter in the success of side channels is the availability of a constant water source for fish access. Ideal conditions are typically on fans or valley wall edges where groundwater percolation may be expected. Side channels must be selected carefully to minimize design complications and long term maintenance costs. A common difficulty is the accumulation of sediment or debris at the upstream end. Debris catchers and modified water intakes at the upstream end have proven successful but site-specific design is critical. Attempts to correct chronic problems such as dewatering channels or siltation due to poor site selection are rarely successful.

Surface-fed channels usually carry flow during higher than baseflow conditions and are subjected to a variety of flow regimes and water temperatures. However, groundwater channels are removed from the active channel but can still be inundated in extreme flows, as they are part of the floodplain. They can be expected to provide relatively stable flows and a moderated temperature regime.

5.3.2.2 Preliminary Work (Surveying and Monitoring)

A topographic survey on all prescribed side channel sites was performed to provide the physical information and enable the site layout to be optimized. The surveys included the establishment of benchmarks for reference and provided ground elevations throughout the site relative to adjacent stream water surface elevations at the upstream and downstream ends of the side channel sites.

In general, it is recommended that prior to side channel development, a number of test holes be excavated to determine the nature and layering of substrate materials in the area to be excavated. Test holes and groundwater quality and quantity monitoring were not performed as part of the 1997 assessment due to the requirement for suitable equipment to be flown to the site. Although this work is recommended prior to side channel


development, the extent of this will be determined by the availability of funding over the next several years.

For the groundwater side channel site at Post Creek it is recommended that standpipes be installed in the test hole pits to enable monitoring of the water table level as well as groundwater temperature. Dissolved oxygen and excessive levels of chemical constituents such as iron and hydrogen sulfide should be identified from the groundwater samples (Slaney and Zaldokas, 1997). It would be ideal to monitor groundwater levels and quality monthly over a one year period. However, funding often dictates the extent of monitoring.

For example, if funding is available this year to carry out the full restoration, then excavation plans can proceed as proposed and the test pits can be dug just the day before the excavation of the side channels while the crew and equipment are on site. This will confirm the presence of the suitable substrate and groundwater seen during the 1997 field assessment. If the pits indicate inadequate substrate or groundwater the site can be aborted and the crew and equipment can be move to the next proposed side channel site. On the other hand, if minimal funding is available for this year and full construction will not proceed, detailed test pit monitoring can be implemented to accurately determine substrate and groundwater conditions of each proposed site. This will allow the sites to be ranked based on their suitability. As funding for full restoration becomes available in future years, the sites can be developed depending on their ranking.

5.3.2.3 Construction Methodology

Construction specifications for groundwater and surface fed side channel construction will generally follow that outlined in the Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures (Lister and Finnigan 1997). Construction of a side channel entails excavation of the flood-channel and side-casting the material to create a protective berm between the new channel and the river. Rip-rap and vegetation such as grasses, shrubs and trees are recommended to stabilize the banks and berm. The vegetation also provides shade and promotes invertebrate production as a food source for fry and juveniles. Further complexing using LWD increases the juvenile carrying capacity of the channel. Incorporation of ponds is also recommended to assist in the yield of biomass from the improved area.

Armoring of the side channel banks is recommended to prevent erosion and bed aggradation which could cause the bed to rise above the water table and, hence, dry up the side channel. Unfortunately, armour material is rarely available on site and can be expensive to import, especially if the nearest source is far away. It is recommended when excavating a side channel to start downstream and work upstream. As excavation commences downstream and proceeds upstream on a level plain, the excavation depth


increases to achieve more groundwater flow. Additional details concerning side channel slope, width and depth can be obtained from Figure 7-12 in Slaney and Zaldokas (1997).

The in-channel structures for the three proposed side channels on Haggen Creek and Post Creek will consist of the construction of riffle-pool sequences during the excavation of the side channels. The ideal riffle-pool spacing is 5 to 7 channel widths but the natural undulations on the bed of the existing side channel may influence the spacing to some degree. Areas with existing extensive depressions and built-up areas would be the ideal locations for pools and riffles as this would minimize excavation time, thus decreasing costs. After the side channel bed and banks have been constructed, the next step is to place sufficient LWD, root wads and woody debris piles into the pools to improve habitat conditions, primarily as overhead cover. The conceptual design of the inlet structures is provided in Figure 36.

5.3.3 Removal of LWD Jams (Type IV Projects)

No removal of LWD jams is proposed in the current study.

5.4 General Work Plans

5.4.1 Schedule of Work

It is anticipated that instream restoration work during the 1998/1999 project year will be conducted during the instream works window. Both the regional Department of Fisheries and Oceans and regional MELP offices should be consulted to identify the instream window. The estimated number of days required to complete the instream work at each site is based on the assumption that the crew is experienced with such projects and that the crew sizes are as described in Section 5.4.3.

5.4.2 Supervision and Environmental Monitoring

An environmental monitor will be on site during all construction activities, including access road development, stream channel access through the riparian zone and subsequent restoration, in-channel activities, prescription construction, and riparian restoration. Preferably, the environmental monitor will also be qualified to supervise the construction of the prescriptions. Otherwise a qualified engineer, geomorphologist, or biologist will work with the contractor to ensure that the prescriptions are located, oriented and secured as specified. Site supervision and environmental monitoring costs might be reduced if additional crews were used at a restoration site or if more than one restoration site is undertaken at the same time.


fig.36


5.4.3 Labour

Where possible, all work will be done manually to minimize potential impacts on the stream channel and riparian zone. Machinery will only be used to import any additional material required or where the materials are too large or too heavy to be located manually. It is anticipated that two crews of four will be utilized at each restoration site during the construction period (June 15 - July 25) to place and anchor all prescriptions. It is anticipated that forestry workers would be used for these activities due to their experience in handling large logs and the equipment need for the restoration activities.

5.4.4 Equipment Requirements

Equipment required for the prescriptions developed on Spruce Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek and Hah Creek mainstem channels will consist of a front end loader, dump truck, caterpillar tractor, chain saws, large drills, axes, augers and assorted small hand tools. Equipment required for the prescriptions developed on Haggen Creek and Post Creek side channels will be similar except the front end loader, dump truck, and caterpillar tractor will be replaced by a bobcat to be air-lifted in by helicopter. This equipment will be required on site for the days specified for each restoration site (Table 66).

5.4.5 Access Plans

Where practicable, access to each restoration site will be by existing forest road, and then via temporary roads to be constructed along the margins of the particular watercourse. These roads will follow the alignment of the creek channel, staying as close as possible to the creek respecting features within the riparian zone. As required, narrow corridors will be constructed from the access road directly toward the wetted channel only as far as required to construct the prescription. Conifers within this corridor would be saved for re-planting wherever possible. Alders and willow which require removal would be used as a source of cuttings for facines and/or live stakes (see Babakaiff et al 1996). Plans foraccess roads and trails will require approval from the MOF District Manager and MELP habitat staff.

Upon completion of the restoration activities the temporary road along with any access corridors would be deactivated and replanted according to the silviculture plan within the cutblock. All salvage conifers would be replanted and a fast growing grass seed mixture would be spread on exposed soils to minimize erosion. Willow, alder or red-osier dogwood cuttings could be used to stabilize affected banks. Works-in-stream permits would be required prior to any construction activities.


tab.66


5.4.6 Estimated Costs

The estimated costs for each restoration site are presented in Section 5.5 and are based on the generic per kilometre costs found in Slaney and Zaldokas (1997). In order to confirm the costs based on site specific factors within the Bowron River watershed, an independent cost estimate was generated based on construction time and channel length, equipment, personnel, and secondary disbursements for each restoration site. This field-based cost estimate is presented in Table 66. A comparison of the two cost estimates indicates that both are relatively similar and confirms the general accuracy of these estimates. While the generic per kilometre costs are presented in the cost estimate for each site in Section 5.5, Table 66 provides the anticipated breakdown of costs and will allow the identification of potential cost-savings if work can be combined with other local projects.

5.4.7 Material Requirements and Sources

Materials required for each restoration site are described based on the prescription details summarized below in Section 5.5. It is planned to use LWD and SWD material and steel cabling for construction of the prescriptions. To the extent possible, locally available materials will be used. However, materials lying within the riparian zone can only be used for the instream restoration work, following approval of MELP habitat protection staff. At all sites, additional LWD required will be obtained from nearby watersheds and transported by truck to the construction site. In some cases material will be air-lifted to the site from the closes road access point. Any boulders that become available during construction will be evaluated and utilized where deemed to be beneficial for the development of the prescriptions. Live mature trees within dead-fall distance of the creek should not be used for restoration activities.

The following material sources have been identified during the study. However, it should be noted that most of the harvest in this area took place in the mid 1980’s and the timber that was identified is now 10 - 20 years old. In addition, many of these sources were identified from the helicopter without a ground examination or confirmation of current road access. The quality and size of the sources would have to be confirmed prior to instream work to ensure the materials used are of sufficient quality to remain functional for as long as possible.

5.4.7.1 LWD

1. Pile of decked timber adjacent to Indian Lake - generally small and may be too old, but there may be some larger pieces.

2. Pile of decked timber adjacent to Reach 13, Haggen Creek - would have to be checked; may be too old.


3. Small piles of older timber in Eighteen Mile Creek watershed, set back from creek on north side near Reaches 3 and 4; would have to be checked.

4. Upstream end of Unnamed B Creek - windblow area.

5. Haggen Creek (possibly Reach 3) - sizable windblow area.

6. Haggen Creek HSC1 - timber used for bridge construction (provided they are not treated timbers).

7. Indianpoint fuel cache - timber and material stored for bridge crossings (provided they are not treated timbers).

8. Decked timber at a landing along Bowron mainline Forest Service Road, south of the Wendel Creek.

5.4.7.2 Root Wads

1. Cutblock on north side of Hah Creek Reach 1 & 2 - an excellent source and plentiful.

2. Root wads would also be available from other cutblocks recently harvested

5.4.7.3 Boulders

1. Spruce Creek access road possibly including rock-shot adjacent to Reach 3, Spruce Creek.

5.4.8 Debris Disposal

It is anticipated that no debris disposal will be required.

5.5 Proposed Restoration Prescriptions

5.5.1 Spruce Creek SENG 1&2

Restoration sites SENG 1 and SENG 2 are found in Reach 1 and 2 of Spruce Creek, respectively, and are discussed as one site. SENG 1 encompasses all of Reach 1 while SENG 2 extends from the upstream end of SENG1 to approximately 290 m upstream of the road crossing (Figure 5). The total length of SENG 1 and SENG 2 is 520 m.

5.5.1.1 Biological Objectives/Rationale


The goal of the restoration activities in SENG 1 and SENG 2 will be to increase access to the creek for Bowron River fish populations and improve spawning and rearing habitat in Reaches 1 and 2. Mainstem habitat complexing will be utilized to increase the number of habitat forming features in the system before the existing features are lost due to natural degradation. As old LWD breaks down habitat features are lost and channel destabilization could result. Since these reaches have been recently logged to the bank they lack mature riparian cover and future sources of LWD.

The target species for the restoration activities are the currently low densities of chinook and rainbow trout in Reach 1 and 2. In addition, the restoration activities will improve access for Bowron River bull trout which may make use of this watershed for spawning and rearing.

To achieve these goals, the restoration activities of SENG 1 and SENG 2 will focus on:

· restoring historical spawning access for Bowron River populations by removal of barrier in Reach 1;

· restoring the natural creek channel elevation upstream and downstream of the large barrier in Reach 1;

· increasing pool habitat and frequency through strategic placement of functional LWD;

· increasing spawning area within the re-established riffle-pool sequence by creating pool tail-outs and glide sections that will naturally trap and maintain spawning gravels; and

· increasing cover in pools, riffles and glides.

5.5.1.2 Engineering Surveys

Level surveys were conducted over a 520 m section of Reach 1 and Reach 2 of Spruce Creek, beginning at the confluence with the Bowron River. The level survey is referenced to a spike (local datum of 100.000 m) in a conifer on the left side of the channel at station 0+00. Twenty-seven cross-sections were surveyed at 20 m intervals along the thalweg, except between location 2+00 and location 2+60 where a single cross-section was surveyed at station 2+29, the forest road bridge. The level survey also included reference to a spike placed in a tree (or stump) at each surveyed cross-section and in the bridge timbers at the forest road crossing. Locations of the surveyed cross-sections are shown in Figure 37. Details of the level survey are provided in Appendix G.

The thalweg longitudinal profile of the 520 m section of Spruce Creek, Reach 1 and 2 surveyed is presented in Figure 38. Recorded water levels, estimated water levels


fig.37


fig.38


corresponding to the estimated bank full discharge and prescription sites are also shown in Figure 38. Plots of cross-sections surveyed are provided in Appendix H.

5.5.1.3 Restoration Description

Reach 1 on Spruce Creek has a riffle-pool morphology and is the most unstable of all the reaches that are prescribed for instream rehabilitation. For this reason, there are two distinct parts to the restoration prescriptions.

Barrier Removal, Bridge Modifications, and Facilitation of Re-channelization:

A large jam located 150 m upstream from the confluence of the Bowron River currently acts as a fish barrier. The jam consists partly of material from an old bridge at the road crossing which is 229 m upstream from the confluence. The jam has deflected flow to the right margin and created a new channel. This new branch is causing significant bank erosion on the right margin. The channel upstream of the jam is very aggraded and is split for about 40 m. The section between the jam and the mouth of Spruce Creek has several split channels, a large island, and point bars throughout. The first phase of rehabilitation will be to remove the large barrier and re-establish the original main channel which has more stable banks. The removed debris should be piled up on the right margin to divert high flows from re-entering the right branch. The old bridge material should be removed from the channel and either left on the floodplain or hauled away.

No detailed studies were carried out at the current road crossing because MELP and Northwood had advised that a separate study has been conducted at this and other road crossings in the Bowron River watershed. However, it was noted that the current road crossing was affecting stream morphology upstream of the crossing and it is suspected that modifications to this crossing will be required (i.e. move the bridge footings to outside of the active channel so it does not affect the hydrology of the creek). If modifications are undertaken, they should be carried out before any instream restoration is carried out within 50 m upstream of the road.

Reach 1 will require time to stabilize after the barrier removal and bridge modifications before the remaining prescriptions can be implemented. The stabilization process after the jam is removed will result in degradation upstream and aggradation downstream of the barrier site. The most significant change will occur upstream of the barrier site while change will also occur for about 50 m downstream of the site. As with the barrier removal, the removal of the bridge will result in stream channel changes as it downcuts to a natural level and stabilizes. It is not likely that any significant degradation will proceed upstream as far as the bridge which is 80 m from the barrier. This reach may need a few years to stabilize depending on the number of extreme flows. A


geomorphological assessment should be carried out after several peak flows or after a long duration of a moderate flow to monitor the progress of the channel adjustments.

Mainstem Habitat Complexing

Reach 1 upstream of the road crossing and Reach 2 also has a riffle-pool morphology but is significantly more stable than downstream of the road crossing. There is lack of pool habitat but sufficient spawning gravel throughout these sections. However, the spawning material is very mobile and not well imbricated. The main objective of the prescriptions in these sections will be to create scour pools and prevent the gravels from being flushed out of the system.

A total of 34 restoration prescriptions were identified for Reach 1 and 2 of Spruce Creek and are listed in Table 67. The location of each item is provided based on the chainage distances beginning at the mouth of Spruce Creek and continuing upstream. Generic descriptions of the various types of prescriptions and corresponding drawings are provided in Section 5.3. These descriptions represent typical prescription types and additional site specific information regarding individual prescriptions is provided in Table 67. The site numbers listed in Table 67 correspond with those illustrated on the prescription locations drawing (Figure 37) and the air photo mosaics for this site (Figure 39). Photos 35 to 38 are representative photographs of the restoration site showing prescription locations. Additional photographs are provided in the binder of photos submitted with the project deliverables.

5.5.1.4 Work Plan

There are two options to implement the work on Spruce Creek Reaches 1 and 2. Option 1 involves the removal of the barrier (S12) on its own as phase 1 for the restoration project. This represents one day of work for an excavator and operator, a supervisor and a laborer. The majority of this cost is transportation and it is therefore recommended that this work be combined with other work in the area. The next phase which would be carried out after the channel has stabilized, would involve installation of the remaining twenty-nine prescriptions.

Option 2 involves implementation of removal of the barrier (S12) and all prescriptions except those within 50 m upstream and 50 m downstream of the barrier. Phase 1 would, therefore, involve carrying out prescriptions S1 to S10, S12, and S13a to S30. Once the channel in proximity to the removed jam and modified bridge has indicated an increase in stability, the remaining rehabilitation can be implemented in Reach 1 as phase 2. This phase would involve the prescriptions within the 100 m area not previously done which includes S11 and S13. Once again, the majority of the cost for these two sites is


tab.67


tab.67


tab.67


fig.39


fig.39


fig.39


fig.39


fig.39


fig.39


photo35


photo 36&37


photo 38


transportation, therefore, it is recommended to carry out this small task with other work in the area.

Schedule of Work:

It is anticipated that prescription development work for Spruce Creek, Reaches 1 and 2 could be complete by an experienced crew in approximately 6 days (Table 66).

Access Plans:

Access to the identified prescription sites upstream and downstream of the existing bridge will be via temporary roads to be constructed in cutblocks along the southern and northern margins of Spruce Creek, respectively.

5.5.1.5 Estimated Cost

The cost estimate for the in-channel works on Spruce Creek Reach 1 and 2 is based on an average rate of $55,000.00 per kilometer. The main factors that determine the rate are the type of in-channel work to be performed and the accessibility to the site for the required machinery. This average per kilometer rate is partially generated from previous per kilometer rates documented in Slaney and Zaldokas (1997). The cost estimate to implement each prescription incorporates the time to perform the job including mobilization and de-mobilization either by surface or helicopter transportation, the equipment required (e.g., excavator, dump truck, etc.), the material needed (e.g., rip rap, seed, trees, bridging, cables, etc.) and the crew size required for each prescription. The per kilometer rate is also based on the following standard day rates: $1200 for an excavator and operator, $500 for a dump truck and driver, $600 for supervision (usually from an engineer, geoscientist or fisheries biologist) and $200 for each labourer. Equipment and material would likely come from Prince George and, therefore, the combined surface mobilization and de-mobilization cost is estimated at half a day. This time may vary by a few hours depending on the site. In general, this cost will decrease the longer the project takes. The rate of decrease will vary depending on the contractor but usually the mobilization and de-mobilization cost will decrease to zero when projects exceed several weeks. The total cost of each prescription includes the preliminary logistical and administrative time for the project manager to organize the work prior to implementation.

The cost to implement the thirty prescription sites covering 520 m of channel on Spruce Creek Reaches 1 and 2 is estimated at $29,600.00. This estimate is based on the sites being easily accessible for the machines and on the assumption that the work will be implemented with local material only (i.e., rock and logs). There is a well maintained FSR crossing Reach 1 and the riparian vegetation is not well established on the north side of the channel.


Option 1 discussed in the Work Plan is estimated to cost approximately $2,000.00 for Phase 1 (year 1) and for approximately $27,600.00 for Phase 2 (year 2 or 3). The majority of the Phase 1 cost is transportation and it is, therefore, recommended that this work be combined with other work in the area.

Option 2 is anticipated to cost approximately $27,100.00 for Phase 1 (year 1). Phase 2 would be carried out in year 2 or 3 and would cost about $2,500.00. Once again, the majority of the cost for Phase 2 is transportation and it is, therefore, recommended that this small task be carried out in combination with other work in the area.

5.5.2 Spruce Creek SENG3

The restoration site SENG 3 is found in the harvested portion of Reach 3 and extends for approximately 340 m. The location of SENG3 is shown in Figure 5.


The goal of the restoration works in SENG 3 will be to increase the currently low rainbow trout and bull trout densities by providing suitable spawning and rearing habitat. Improvements to habitat conditions will be achieved through mainstem habitat complexing using LWD. Although there is currently LWD in the system, additional wood should be added because a portion of Reach 3 has recently been logged to the bank on the north side and, therefore, lacks mature riparian cover and future sources of LWD.

The focus of the instream restoration activities will be to:

· increase pool habitat and frequency;

· improve rearing and spawning substrates through localized alteration of flow; and

· increase cover in pool, glide and riffle habitats.


Level surveys were conducted over a 200 m section of Reach 3 of Spruce Creek, from location 0+00 downstream to location 2+00. The level survey is referenced to a spike (local datum of 100.000 m) in a conifer on the left side of the channel at station 0+47. The survey consisted of recording creek channel bottom and water surface elevations at 20 m intervals along the thalweg. Locations of the survey sites are shown in Figure 40. Details of the level survey are provided in Appendix G.


fig.40


The thalweg longitudinal profile of the 200 m section of Spruce Creek, Reach 3 surveyed is presented in Figure 41. Recorded water levels, estimated water levels corresponding to the estimated bank full discharge and prescription sites for the section of creek surveyed are also shown in Figure 41.

5.5.2.3 Description

A total of 13 restoration prescriptions were identified for Reach 3 of Spruce Creek and are listed in Table 68. The location of each item is provided based on the chainage distances beginning at the upstream end of the restoration site and proceeding downstream. Generic descriptions of the various types of prescriptions and corresponding drawings are provided in Section 5.3. These descriptions represent typical prescription types while additional site specific information regarding individual prescriptions is provided in Table 68. The site numbers listed in Table 68 correspond with those illustrated on the prescription locations drawing (Figure 40) and the air photo mosaics for this site (Figure 42). Photos 39 to 42 are representative photographs of the restoration site showing prescription locations. Additional photographs are provided in the binder of photos submitted with the project deliverables.

5.5.2.4 Work Plan

Schedule of Work:

It is recommended that the prescriptions for the thirteen sites on Spruce Creek Reach 3 be implemented in one phase. This will keep the transportation costs to a minimum. SENG 3 would be carried out upon completion of SENG1 and SENG2 and could be completed by an experienced crew in approximately 3 days (Table 66).

Access Plans:

The Bowron-Tumuch FRS comes within 300 m of SENG3 while a secondary FRS road parallels the creek coming within 150 m of the site and leads to the upper Spruce Creek watershed. Access to the creek will require a temporary corridor through the cutblock and along the length of the restoration site.

5.5.2.5 Estimated Costs

The cost estimate for the in-channel works on Spruce Creek Reach 3 is based on an average rate of $55,000.00 per kilometer. The cost to implement the thirteen prescription sites covering 340 m of channel on Spruce Creek Reach 3 is estimated at $18,700.00. This cost assumes that all of the work for this reach will be implemented at one time


fig.41


tab.68


tab.68


fig.42


fig.42


fig.42


fig.42


photo39&40


photo 41&42


requiring one mobilization and de-mobilization. See Section 5.5.1.4 for details on how the cost estimate was generated.

The cost estimate is based on the sites being easily accessible for the machines and on the assumption that the work will be implemented with local material only (i.e., rock and logs).

5.5.3 Fourteen Mile Creek 14ENG1

The restoration site 14ENG1 is found in Reach 6 of Fourteen Mile Creek, and extends from 185 m to 460 m upstream of the lake (Figure 14). Recommendations were made to address the collapsed bridge in Reach 4 (at the outlet of the lake) but this has not been further developed into restoration prescriptions.


The presence of the Forest Recreation site at Fourteen Mile Lake suggests some level of angling pressure on the rainbow trout population. During the fish sampling, it was identified that while the outlet of the lake had considerable rainbow trout densities, the inlet was almost barren. An improvement in habitat could result in additional recruitment to the lake.

The restoration activities proposed would focus on complexing mainstem habitat. These types of restoration projects have resulted a 2.7 fold increase in rainbow trout in previous studies (Keeley et al. 1996 adapted in Koning and Keeley 1997). The restoration works will focus on:

· increasing pool habitat and frequency;

· increasing LWD cover;

· improving rearing and spawning substrates through localized alteration of flow; and

· improving access between the lake and the reaches upstream of the lake .

5.5.3.2 Engineering SurveysLevel surveys were conducted over a 204 m section of Fourteen Mile Creek, from location 2+00, to 200 m upstream from the mouth at location 4+04. The level survey is referenced to a spike (local datum of 100.000 m) in the bottom 8”x8” timber stringer on the downstream side of the old forest road bridge at location 2+53. Eleven cross-sections were surveyed at 20 m intervals along the thalweg between location 2+00 and location 4+04. Locations of the surveyed cross-sections are shown in Figure 43. The level survey also included reference to a spike placed in a tree (or stump) at each surveyed cross-section. Details of the level survey are provided in Appendix G.


fig.43


The thalweg longitudinal profile of the 204 m section of Fourteen Mile Creek surveyed is presented in Figure 44. Recorded water levels, estimated water levels corresponding to the estimated bank full discharge and prescription sites for the section of creek surveyed are also shown in Figure 45. Plots of cross-sections surveyed are provided in Appendix H.

5.5.3.3 Description

The large beaver dam at 1+84 m (Figure 43 and 45 is the most downstream recommended prescription. This dam should be removed as it is a fish barrier with a height of 0.6 m. The resulting plunge pool below is 0.47 m deep. Once this beaver dam is removed the bed will degrade upstream of the barrier and aggrade downstream. The prescriptions immediately upstream of the dam have been designed to allow for this stabilization of the bed. These prescriptions can be implemented at the same time the beaver dam is removed because the dam is likely not large enough to cause enough significant downcutting to disturb the prescriptions. The sections of Reach 6 where prescriptions are recommended have naturally good trout spawning habitat. The prescriptions focus on creating pools and stabilizing the banks. There are several undercut banks and root wads that provide excellent habitat which could use additional cover.

A total of 20 restoration prescriptions were identified for Reach 6 of Fourteen Mile Creek and are listed in Table 69. The location of each item is provided based on the chainage distances beginning at the lake and proceeding upstream. Generic descriptions of the various types of prescriptions and corresponding drawings are provided in Section 5.3. These descriptions represent typical prescription types while additional site specific information regarding individual prescriptions is provided in Table 69. The site numbers listed in Table 69 correspond with those illustrated on the prescription locations drawing (Figure 43) and the air photo mosaics for this site (Figure 45). Photos 43 to 46 are representative photographs of the restoration site showing prescription locations. Additional photographs are provided in the binder of photos submitted with the project deliverables.

5.5.3.4 Work Plan

Schedule of Work:

It is recommended that the prescriptions for the twenty sites on Fourteen Mile Creek Reach 6 be implemented in one phase. This will keep the transportation costs to a minimum. Although a beaver dam is being removed, it is not considered large enough to require the surrounding prescriptions be implemented in phases. It is anticipated that an


experienced crew could complete the restoration activities in approximately 4 days. Given


fig.44


fig.45


fig.45


fig.45


fig.45


fig.45


fig.45


fig.45


photo43&44


photo 45&46


tab.69


tab.69


that only rainbow trout are found in most of this watershed, the instream work window for this site is likely July 15 - April 15. Since access to the site would not be via the Bowron FSR but rather via the Stephanie Creek FRS from the Cariboo Forest Region, work at this site is not easily combined with work at other sites.

Access Plans:

As mentioned above, access to the site would not be via the Bowron FSR but rather via the Stephanie Creek FRS from Cariboo Forest Region. This could change is the bridge crossing at the outlet of Fourteen Mile Lake is restored. The Stephanie Creek FSR is moderately maintained and crosses Reach 6, 260 m upstream from the lake. The second growth riparian vegetation is fairly well established along Reach 6 which will make stream-side access more difficult than in Spruce Creek. A temporary access corridor will need to be constructed parallel to the restoration site.


The cost estimate for the in-channel works on Fourteen Mile Creek Reach 6 is based on an average rate of $65,000.00 per kilometer. The cost to implement the twenty prescription sites covering 275 m of channel on Fourteen Mile Creek Reach 6 is estimated at $17,875.00. This cost assumes that all of the work for this reach will be implemented at one time requiring one mobilization and de-mobilization. See Section 5.5.1.4 for details on how the cost estimate was generated.

The cost estimate on a per kilometer rate for Fourteen Mile Creek is higher than that for Spruce Creek because Fourteen Mile is less accessible for the machinery. The cost estimate is also based on the assumption that the work will be implemented with local material only (i.e., rock and logs).

5.5.4 Hah Creek HENG1

The restoration site HENG1 is found in Reach 2 of Hah Creek and extends approximately 300 m (Figure 17). The site is located within the beaver pond area which is easily identified in air photos.


The goal of the restoration activities proposed for HENG1 will be to increase rainbow trout fry and juvenile rearing and overwintering habitat. In addition to increasing rainbow trout densities, improved cover may increase bull trout densities. It is not anticipated that the increased cover in beaver ponds will substantially increase chinook fry densities due to their preference for riffle habitat and flowing water. However, since the reach may provide overwintering habitat and refuge from high flows at freshet, an


increase in chinook utilization may occur. The focus of the restoration activities will be the addition of LWD to increase cover in Reach 2.

The restoration prescriptions for HENG1 focus on adding LWD to the channel to increase instream cover, especially in the deep pools. Although there some natural LWD in this reach, it is recommended that more LWD be added in Reach 2. Given the natural grassy and wetland riparian in this reach, future sources of natural LWD inputs are limited. It is not recommended that the beaver dams be removed even though they appear to be a barrier to some fish at low flows. Dam removal would significantly reduce the present water level and decrease the existing excellent overwintering and refugia habitat.


Several hundred metres of Hah Creek were walked to provide information on creek structure and to identify opportunities for prescriptions. A level survey of Hah Creek was not conducted.

5.5.4.2 Description

Reaches 1 and 2 on Hah Creek are stable meandering riffle-pool systems located in a wetland area. There are numerous small tributaries in these reaches which result from runoff due to the large surrounding wetland. Channel widths are typically 3 to 6 m with greater widths upstream of the dams and narrower widths downstream of the dams and at riffles. Pool bed composition consist of silt and clay size material whereas riffle beds are composed of mostly gravel (D90 is estimated at 30 mm).

A total of 20 restoration prescriptions were identified for Reach 1 and 2 of Hah Creek and are listed in Table 70. Chainage distances and channel surveying was not performed for this restoration site. The approximate location of the prescription sites as well as site reference numbers are identified on the photo mosaics. Generic descriptions of the various types of prescriptions and corresponding drawings are provided in Section 5.3. These descriptions represent typical prescription types while additional site specific information regarding individual prescriptions is provided in Table 70. The site numbers listed in Table 70 correspond with those illustrated on the locations and distances drawing (Figure 46) and the air photo mosaics for this site (Figure 47). Photos 47 to 50 are representative photographs of the restoration site showing prescription locations. Additional photographs are provided in the binder of photos submitted with the project deliverables.


tab.70


fig.46


fig.47


fig.47


fig.47


fig.47


fig.47


photo47&48


photo49&50


5.5.4.3 Work Plan

Schedule of Work:

It is recommended that the prescriptions for the twenty sites on Hah Creek Reach 1 and 2 be implemented in one phase. This will keep the transportation costs to a minimum. It is anticipated that an experienced crew could complete the restoration activities in approximately 4 days (Table 66).

Access Plans:

Road access is to Reach 3 is good since the Bowron FSR crossed Hah Creek. However, the crossing is about 900 m upstream of the restoration site and no cutblocks are found immediately adjacent to Reach 2. Given the wetland nature of the adjacent riparian, equipment access through use of a helicopter to lift equipment from the FSR will minimize impacts. A short path through the wetland floodplain will have to be established adjacent to the site and would be removed at the end of construction. The riparian vegetation is variable with many clear grass patches near the stream which will minimize disruption of the mature trees.


The cost estimate for the in-channel works on Hah Creek Reaches 1 and 2 is based on an average rate of $100,000.00 per kilometer. The cost to implement the twenty prescription sites covering approximately 300 m of channel on Hah Creek Reaches 1 and 2 is estimated at $30,000.00. This cost assumes that all of the work for this reach will be implemented at one time requiring a helicopter to place the LWD in the channel. See section 4.5.1.4 for details on how the cost estimate was generated. The cost estimate on a per kilometer rate is more than Spruce Creek but less than Fourteen Mile Creek due to more difficult access. The cost estimate is also based on the assumption that the work will be implemented with local material only (i.e., rock and logs).

5.5.5 Haggen Creek HSC1

The restoration site HSC1 is found in Reach 10 of Haggen Creek, on the south side of the channel (Figure 11c). It is the location of a former road crossing of Haggen Creek and bridge material has been left in the side channel.


During the level 2 assessment HSC1, which is located on an existing side channel in Reach 10, was identified and examined on the ground. While the site was not recommended for side channel development, the presence of bridge and road materials


within the side channel were noted. It was also observed that at least 8 to 10 chinook fry were stranded in two of the numerous small pools of the side channel. It is suspected that the side channel receives both sub-surface and surface flows and that during moderate to high flows, fish are able to move throughout the side channel. However, the road material has created a dam which ponds flow upstream of the road, while the downstream portion of the side channel is nearly dry during low flows.

The removal of the road and bridge material and restoration of the side channel morphology will restore flow through the side channel. This is aimed at reducing or avoiding the chinook fry stranding observed during the level 2 assessment.


Haggen Creek HSC1 was walked to develop an understanding of the channel structure. A level survey of this site was not conducted.

5.5.5.3 Description

The restoration activities proposed for HSC1 are limited to the removal of the road and bridge material from the side channel. Concurrent with this, the bed of the side channel at the road crossing should be graded and the banks restored to conditions which are similar to those found on either side of the road. The grading of the side channel at the road crossing must avoid the creation of pools which lack low-flow outlets. It should be noted that the material removed from the side channel might be useable for other restoration activities provided the timber has not been treated with wood preservatives. Photos 51 to 53 are representative photographs of the restoration site showing prescription locations. Additional photographs are provided in the binder of photos submitted with the project deliverables.

5.5.5.4 Work Plan

Schedule of Work:

The work activities for HSC1 would be carried out during the low flow period. This will minimize sedimentation resulting from the removal of the timbers and road material. It is anticipated the work can be carried out in one 1 day (Table 66).

Access Plans:

It may be feasible to access to this site through the Bowron Haggen FSR, depending on the level or road deactivation. Alternatively, helicopter access would be required.


photo51&52


photo53&54



The cost estimate to remove the bridge material and re-grade the side channel bed and banks is estimated at $9,000.00. This represents helicopter mobilization and de-mobilization and half a day work for an excavator and operator, a supervisor and a laborer. The majority of this cost is transportation, therefore, it is recommended to combine this work with other work in the area.

5.5.6 Haggen Creek HSC2 and HSC3

Haggen Creek restoration sites HSC2 and HSC3 are found in Reaches 8 and 5, respectively (Figure 11 a and b). Both proposed side channel developments are located on the south side of the channel.


The goal of the restoration activities in HSC2 and HSC3 will be to increase the currently low densities of chinook, rainbow trout, and bull trout in Haggen Creek by providing side channel habitat for rearing and refuge.

While past studies suggest chinook do not appear to make use of side channels for spawning (Lister and Finnigan 1997), chinook spawning activity was observed in a side channel in Reach 3 with adequate flow, depth, and substrate during the current field investigation. Unfortunately, two days after the observations, the discharge in Haggen Creek had dropped slightly and the side channel consisted of a series of standing pools. Interior stocks of chinook fry are know to use side channels for rearing and overwintering (Lister and Finnigan 1997).

Rainbow trout densities were extremely low in Haggen Creek and in the case of fry, may be attributed to the use of tributaries rather than the mainstem. However, juvenile densities were also low. It is, therefore, anticipated that improved side channel habitat design to maintain flow during dry periods and provide refuge during peak flows, could increase chinook fry densities and subsequently chinook escapement in Haggen Creek. Since chinook prefer flowing water in all habitat conditions it is important the side channels are constructed to achieve such critical spawning and rearing habitat parameters for chinook. It is also critical that the design and construction of the channel is such that no stranding of fry or redds occur during dry periods. The side channel may require periodic maintenance to control beaver activities.



A level survey was conducted over a 240 m section of HSC2, from the inlet at location 0+00 downstream to location 2+40 at the location of re-entry to the mainstem Haggen Creek. The level survey is referenced to a spike (local datum of 100.000 m) in a conifer on the left side of the side channel entrance at station 0+00. Fifteen locations along the approximate thalweg of the side channel were surveyed at 20 m intervals. Locations of the survey locations along the side channel are shown in Figure 48. Details of the level survey are provided in Appendix G. The thalweg longitudinal profile of the 240m section of HSC2 surveyed is presented in Figure 49.

5.5.6.3 HSC2 Description

The abandoned side channel on Haggen Creek adjacent to Reach 8 is referred to as HSC2 and has an average width of 3.5 m and a length of 240 m. The gradient of the mainstem adjacent to the side channel is 3.5%. Relatively large size bed material (D90 is approximately 250 mm) indicates that this system is a potentially high energy system and, therefore, the side channel may be at risk of flooding and disruption at high flows. There is a narrower and shorter abandoned side channel with smaller bed material which is about 5 m from the larger side channel and extends for about 70 m. Juvenile chinook were observed in several pools in the larger side channel during the survey. One of the larger pools was measured to be 0.3 m deep with a temperature of 8 oC.

The proposed side channel development would involve excavating a side channel with riffle-pool sequences and the placement of LWD in the pools. In order to achieve the flow conditions suitable for chinook rearing, a surface-fed side channel is recommended over a groundwater system which would have significantly less flow. A modified log curtain armored with the largest available rock in the area is recommended for the inlet of this relatively active side channel. The logs should be cabled together and also cabled to nearby trees or dead-mans (Figure 36). This will help regulate flow and produce more consistent discharges through the side channel during high flow periods. An armored inlet and berm with large rock (diameter approximately >500 mm) would be ideal but the lack of local material would make this option very costly. If funding is available, it is recommended that the desired size rip rap be imported. However, a well cabled and maintained modified log curtain with the largest local rock is an inexpensive alternative that would likely suffice.

The general concepts applicable to all side channel restoration projects are discussed in Section 5.3. Chainage distances and a longitudinal channel survey were conducted commencing at the inlet of the side channel and progressing downstream. Additional details such as the proposed pool sequence for side channel development are provided in the prescriptions locations drawing (Figure 49) and the air photo mosaics for this site


fig.48


fig.49


(Figure 50). Photos 54 to 57 are representative photographs of the restoration site showing prescription locations. Additional photographs are provided in the binder of photos submitted with the project deliverables.

5.5.6.4 HSC2 Work Plan

Schedule of Work:

It is anticipated that the work can be completed by an experienced crew in approximately 4 days (Table 66).

Access Plans:

HSC2 would be access along the Bowron-Haggen FSR as close as possible to the site given road deactivation efforts. Thereafter, a helicopter would be used to lift equipment and personnel to and from the site.

5.5.6.5 HSC2 Estimated Costs

The cost estimate for the surface-fed side channel development on Haggen Creek (HSC2) is based on an average rate of $180,000.00 per kilometer. The cost to develop the 240 m side channel on Haggen Creek Reach 8 is estimated at $43,200.00. This cost assumes that all of the work for this reach will be implemented at one time requiring helicopter mobilization and de-mobilization.

The cost estimate on a per kilometer rate is based on fair to poor road access but good access within the side channel. The second growth riparian vegetation is not well established but there are patches of old growth throughout the area. The cost estimate is also based on the assumption that the work will be implemented with local material only (i.e., rock and logs). If funding is available it is recommended to import rock to armour the berm of the side channel and especially the inlet. This would increase the cost to about $300,000.00 per kilometer but this rate will vary significantly depending on the amount of armouring imported.


A level survey was conducted over a 435 m section of HSC3, from the inlet at location 0+00 downstream to location 4+35 at the location of re-entry to the mainstem Haggen Creek. The level survey is referenced to a spike (local datum of 100.000 m) in a conifer on the left side of the side channel entrance at station 0+00. Twenty-four locations along the approximate thalweg of the side channel were surveyed at 20 m intervals. Locations of the survey locations along the side channel are shown in Figure 51. Details of the level


fig.50


fig.50


fig.50


fig.50


photo55&56


photo 57&58


fig.51


survey are provided in Appendix G. The thalweg longitudinal profile of the 435 m section of Haggen Creek HSC3 is presented in Figure 52.

5.5.6.7 HSC3 Description

The proposed side channel development for HSC3 is adjacent to Reach 5 on Haggen Creek which is located just upstream from the confluence with Post Creek (Figure 8). There are two abandoned side channels at this site which are about 20 m apart and adjacent to one another on the same side of the floodplain. The narrower and shorter one is 200 m long and is closest to the mainstem, whereas the longer and wider one, which is recommended for development, is 431 m long. Juvenile chinook were observed in the ponds of the smaller side channel. However, the smaller side channel is not recommended for development because it would not be biologically practical to develop two channels so close to one another. The larger one is recommended for development as it will provide a greater habitat area than the smaller one. The bed elevation of the longer side channel at the inlet is 0.75 m higher than the baseflow water surface elevation. The upstream 40 m of this side channel is narrow (about 1.5 m wide) while the remaining length is considerably wider with lots of ponds and a few beaver dams throughout.

The type of inlet recommended for this side channel is a modified log curtain similar to that described for the HSC2 site (Figure 11b). The field assessment indicated that this side channel site is not quite as active as HSC2 and is likely subjected to lower peak flows through the side channel. Therefore, the modified log curtain for this site can be designed to withstand a lower peak flow than HSC2.

The general concepts applicable to all side channel restoration projects are discussed in Section 5.3. Chainage distances and a longitudinal channel survey were conducted commencing at the inlet of the side channel and progressing downstream. Additional details such as the proposed pool sequence for side channel development are provided in the prescriptions locations drawing (Figure 51) and the air photo mosaics for this site (Figure 53). Photos 58 to 61 are representative photographs of the restoration site showing prescription locations. Additional photographs are provided in the binder of photos submitted with the project deliverables.

5.5.6.8 HSC3 Work Plan

Schedule of Work:



fig.52


fig.53


fig.53


fig.53


fig.53


fig.53


photo 59&60


photo 61


Access Plans:

Equipment would be brought as close as possible to the site along the Bowron-Haggen FSR. The proximity to the site will depend on the level of road deactivation at the time of construction. Thereafter, a helicopter would be used to lift equipment and personnel to and from the site.

5.5.6.9 HSC3 Estimated Costs

The cost estimate for the surface-fed side channel development on Haggen Creek (HSC3) is based on an average rate of $180,000.00 per kilometer. The cost to develop the 430 m side channel at this location is estimated at $77,400.00. This cost assumes that all of the work for this reach will be implemented at one time requiring helicopter mobilization and de-mobilization.

The cost estimate on a per kilometer rate is based on poor road access and poor side channel access.. Equipment access is limited to helicopter drop-in from the closest active road access at the time of construction. The side channel site is surrounded by mature forest and maneuverability by the machines will be time consuming in an effort to preserve some of the stand. The cost estimate is also based on the assumption that the work will be implemented with local material only (i.e., rock and logs). If funding is available it is recommended to import rock to armour the berm of the side channel and especially the inlet. This would increase the cost to about $300,000.00 per kilometer but this rate will vary significantly depending on the amount of armour imported.

5.5.7 Post Creek PSC1

The restoration site PSC1 is located in Reach 3 of Post Creek (Figure 8). It is found on the east side of the mainstem and location of the upstream end is easily identified by the large LWD piles that have accumulated on the east side of the channel at this location.


The goal of the restoration activities at PSC1 will be to increase the currently low densities of chinook, rainbow trout, and bull trout in Post Creek. A review of side channel habitat utilization as well as the data collected from side channel sites during the study suggests that chinook, rainbow and bull trout rearing, overwintering, and refugia habitat could be provided.

It is, therefore, anticipated that improved side channel habitat which is designed to maintain flow during dry periods and provide refuge during peak flows could increase fry densities in Post Creek. However, it will be critical to design the channel such that no stranding occurs during dry periods.



A level survey was conducted over a 139 m section of PSC1, from the head of the side channel to be developed at location 0+00 downstream to location 1+38 at the location of re-entry to the mainstem Post Creek. The level survey is referenced to a spike (local datum of 100.000 m) in a conifer on the left side of the side channel approximately 20 m from the proposed head of the side channel at station 0+00. Fifteen locations along the approximate thalweg of the side channel were surveyed at 10 m intervals. Locations of the survey locations along the side channel are shown in Figure 54. Details of the level survey are provided in Appendix G. The thalweg longitudinal profile of the 138 m section of the Post Creek side channel surveyed is presented in Figure 55.

5.5.7.3 Description

The general concepts applicable to all side channel restoration projects are discussed in Section 5.3. Chainage distances and a longitudinal channel survey were conducted commencing at the upstream end of the side channel and progressing downstream. Additional details such as the proposed pool sequence for side channel development are provided in the prescriptions locations drawing (Figure 54) and the air photo mosaics for this site (Figure 56). Photos 62 to 65 are representative photographs of the restoration site showing prescription locations. Additional photographs are provided in the binder of photos submitted with the project deliverables.

5.5.7.4 Work Plan

Schedule of Work:


Access Plans:

Equipment and personnel would be brought as close as possible to the site using the Post FSR which, at the time of the field studies was deactivated at the Pinkerton Creek crossing. Thereafter, a helicopter would be used to lift equipment and personnel to and from the site.


fig.54


fig.55


fig.56


fig.56



The cost estimate for the groundwater-fed side channel development on Post Creek adjacent to Reach 3 is based on an average rate of $180,000.00 per kilometer. The cost to develop the 140 m of side channel on Post Creek is estimated at $25,020.00. This cost assumes that all of the work for this reach will be implemented at one time requiring helicopter mobilization and de-mobilization. See Section 5.5.1.4 for details on how the cost estimate was generated.

The cost estimate on a per kilometer rate is based on poor road access and poor side channel access. Equipment access is limited to helicopter drop-in from the Post Road crossing at Pinkerton Creek. To the east, the side channel site is surrounded by mature forest and maneuverability by the machines will be time consuming in an effort to preserve some of the stand. The cost estimate is also based on the assumption that the work will be implemented with local material only (i.e., rock and logs). If funding is available it is recommended to import rock to armour the berm of the groundwater-fed side channel and especially the head. This would increase the cost to about $300,000.00 per kilometer but this rate will vary significantly depending on the amount of armour imported.


6.0 REFERENCES

Babakaiff, S., Hay, D., Formuth, C. 1997. Rehabilitating Stream Banks. Pages 6-1 to 6-23. In Slaney, P.A, D. Zaldokas. 1997. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures.. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Watershed Restoration Program.

Baxter, J.S. 1997. Summer daytime microhabitat use and preference of bull trout fry and juveniles in the Chowade River, British Columbia. Fisheries Management Report No. 107. 36 pp.

BC Environment. 1995. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Silvicultural systems Guidebook.

BC Environment. 1995. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Riparian Management Area Guidebook.

BC Environment. 1995. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Silviculture Prescription Guidebook.

BC Ministry of Forests. 1996. Draft Field Guide Insert for Site Identification and Interpretation for the Southeast Portion of the Prince George Forest Region.

Beaudry, P., J. Nassey. 1994. Watershed assessment middle reach Bowron River. Ministry of Forests, Prince George. Prepared for the Bowron Watershed Assessment Committee. 37 pp + revisions.

Beaudry, P., R. DeLong. 1996. Upper Bowron River watershed IWAP Level 1 analysis and recommendations. Ministry of Forests, Prince George. Prepared for the Bowron Watershed Assessment Committee. 32 pp.

Bennett, S. and J. Guerin. 1992. Streamside harvest survey on 16 upper Fraser River tributaries. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Unit, Prince George, B.C. 45 p.

Bennett, S., J. Guerin. 1992. Streamside harvest survey on 16 Upper Fraser River Tributaries. Prepared for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Unit, Prince George. 45 pp.

Bradford. 1995. File data, BC Hydro, Strategic Fisheries Project, Burnaby. Conducted by Adam Lewis, Triton Environmental Consultants for BC Hydro Ltd.

DFO. 1997. FISS Database. Information received from Marilyn Williams, March 18, 1997.

Envirocon Ltd. 1980. Studies on juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Bowron and Willow Rivers, B.C., During 1980. DSS Contract No. 07SB.FP501-9-1290. 86 pp.

Environmental Management Associates. 1993. Bull trout juvenile and spawning habitat preferences cirteria, Smith-Dorrien Creek, Alberta. Unpublished report to Fish


and Wildlife Division, Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, Alberta, 26 p.

Firth Hollins Resource Science Corporation. 1994. Landslide mapping upper Bowron Watershed. Contract report to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks - Watershed Restoration Program.

Johnston, N.T., P.A. Slaney. 1996. Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8. revised April 1996. Watershed Restoration Program, MELP and MOF. 97 pp.

Koning, C.W., E.R. Keeley. 1997. Salmonid biostandards for estimating production benefits of fish habitat techniques. Pages 3-1 to 3-21. In Slaney, P.A, D. Zaldokas. 1997. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures.. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Watershed Restoration Program.

Kwak, T.J. 1991. Pop/Pro Modular Statistical Software: A series of microcomputer programs for estimating fish population size, production rates and associated variances. Department of Fish and Wildlife, University of Minnesota.

Levings, C.D., J.C. Scrivener, B. Andersen, C. Shirvell, and R. Lauzier. 1985. Results of reconnaissance sampling for juvenile salmonids in the Upper Fraser River and selected tributaries, August and October, 1984. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 549. 27 pp.

Lister, D.B., R.J. Finnigan. 1997. Rehabilitating off-channel habitat. Pages 6-1 to 6-23. In Slaney, P.A, D. Zaldokas. 1997. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures.. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Watershed Restoration Program.

Little, B. 1983. A reconnaissance survey of Pinkerton Lake. MELP, Regional Lake Inventory Files, Prince George, BC.

Luttmerding, H.A., D.A. Demarchi, E.C. Lea, D.V. Meidinger and T. Vold. 1990. (Eds) MOE Manual 11; Describing Ecosystems in the Field. Second Edition. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in cooperation with Ministry of Forests. Victoria, B.C. 213 p.

McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. 35 pp.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar (Ed.). 1991. Ecosystems of B.C. Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests. Victoria, B.C. 330 p.

MELP. 1998. Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data. Version 1. Prepared by LandData BC for the Land Use Task Force, Resource Inventory Committee.

MELP. 1997. Fish Collection Methods and Standards. Version 4. Resource Inventory Committee. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.


MELP. 1997. Lake Survey Fish Data Query from MELP web site (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/ids/dman/). Searched July 10, 1997.

MELP. No date. Trout stocking list Omineca region lakes 1989-1996. Fisheries Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Prince George.

Newbury, R.W., M.N. Gaboury. 1993. Stream analysis and fish habitat design. A field manual. Newbury Hydraulics Ltd. Gibsons, BC. 256 pp.

Oikos Ecological Services Ltd, T. Johnson and Associates. June 1996. Riparian assessment and prescriptions procedures field guide. Watershed Restoration Program Technical Circular No. 6. Draft 3A. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC.

Parish, R., R. Coupe, and D. Lloyd (Eds.) 1996. Plants of Southern Interior British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing. Vancouver, B.C. 460 p.

Ptolemy 1994. file data, MELP Victoria. supplied by Ron Ptolemy to Adam Lewis, Triton Environmental Consultants.

Ptolemy, R.A. 1992. Maximum salmonid densities in fluvial habitats in British Columbia. In Proceedings of the 1992 Coho Salmon Workshop. Nanaimo, British Columbia. 223-250.

Raleigh, R.F., Miller, W.J., and P.C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: chinook salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 8(10.122): 64 p.

Slaney, P.A, D. Zaldokas. 1997. Fish habitat rehabilitation procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Watershed Restoration Program. MELP.

Stewart, G.O., and P.R. Murray. 1986. Distribution and diet of hatchery-reared juvenile chinook salmon in the Bowron river during emergence of wild fry, 1985. Report prepared by Envirocon Pacific Ltd. for DFO. 31 pp plus appendices.

Wescott , R.G. 1989. A reconnaissance survey of Spruce Lake #1. MELP, Regional Lake Inventory Files, Prince George, BC.

Wescott, R.G. 1989. A reconnaissance survey of Fourteen Mile Lake. MELP, Regional Lake Inventory Files, Prince George, BC.


Table 65 Prioritization of Instream Restoration Activities

Watershed Restoration Site Reach Priority (High, Medium , Low)

Type of Activity Estimated Cost

Rationale

Haggen Creek HSC1 10 H side channel clean-up $9,110 creek crossing not deactivated according to FPC

Fourteen Mile Creek

none assigned (see section 3.4.5)

4 H address collapsed bridge NA creek crossing not deactivated according to FPC

Spruce Creek SENG1 & SENG2

1 and 2 H mainstem complexing $30,630improve habitat complexity resulting from forest related impact; model watershed; provides public education opportunity given accessibility

Fourteen Mile Creek

14ENG1 6 H mainstem complexing $15,771improve habitat complexity resulting from forest related impact; recreational fishery; provides public education opportunity given accessibility

Spruce Creek SENG3 3 M mainstem complexing $18,732 improve habitat complexity resulting from forest related impact; model watershed

Hah Creek HENG1 2 M mainstem complexing $30,282 mitigate for forestry impacts in upper reaches which now have heavy beaver activity

Haggen Creek HSC2 8 L side channel development $40,614 introduce important refuge and early rearing habitat lacking in the system

Haggen Creek HSC3 5 L side channel development $70,777 introduce important refuge and early rearing habitat lacking in the system

Post Creek PSC1 3 L side channel development $23,164 introduce important refuge and early rearing habitat lacking in the system

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2579/WP8323


Table 67 Spruce Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Sites SENG1 and SENG2

Site Number

Chainage Location

Prescription Description a Figure Reference b

S1: 0+19 m. Cut the existing channel spanning log structure in the middle and drop into the channel to create a V-notch weir. The emphasis is on protecting the left bank.

Fig 31

S2: 0+22 m. Cut the existing channel spanning log structure in the middle and drop into the channel to create a V-notch weir. The emphasis is on protecting the left bank.

Fig 31

S3: 0+24 m. Cut and move the existing channel spanning log structure to the left margin to create a bank protecting log. .

Fig 35

S4: 0+28 m. Cut the move the existing channel spanning log structure to the left margin to create a bank protecting log on the outer bank.

Fig 35

S5: 0+40 m. Cut and drop the existing channel spanning log structure to create a log weir at the same location.

Fig 34

S6: 0+40 m. Move the log in the channel to the left margin to a bank protecting log on the outer bank.

Fig 35

S7: 0+45 m. Move the log in the channel to the left margin to create a bank protecting log on the outer bank, add a root wad.

Fig 35,Fig 33

S8: 0+50 to0+60 m.

Cut the existing channel spanning log structure at 0+50 m in the middle and drop into the channel to create a V-notch weir. Move log and debris at 0+60 m to the right margin to create a bank protecting log and a woody debris pile. Leave all woody material that is imbedded in the channel bed.

Fig 31,Fig 35

S9: 0+65 to 0+75 m.

Cut and move the large channel spanning log structure at 0+65 m. Cut the log at the right margin of the left channel and cut the log 2 to 3 m from the root wad on the left margin of the left channel. Use the cut log to create a bank protecting log which will deflect the flow away from the right channel at 0+75 m. Drop the root wad into the channel at 0+65 m to add bank stability. Remove woody debris pile from 0+65 m to 0+75 m in the left channel and store on the floodplain.

Fig 35,Fig 33

S10: 0+85 m. Cut the existing channel spanning log structure at 0+85 m and move to 0+75 m to redirect flow from the right channel to the left channel. This log will represent a bank protecting log when the old channel is re-established.

Fig 35,


Table 67 Spruce Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Sites SENG1 and SENG2 con’t

Site Number

Chainage Location


S11: 1+10 to 1+30 m.

Remove woody debris pile in left channel at 1+10 m and place on left margin for bank stability. Remove debris from 0+20 to 0+30 m in left channel and place in right channel at 0+30 m to redirect flow to left channel.

Fig 35,

S12: 1+50 m. Move log and woody debris pile and place on right margin to deflect flow toward left margin.

Fig 35,

S13: 1+70. Move woody debris pile to the two inlets at 1+80 m to reduce and regulate (control) the flow in the right channel. Once the majority of the flow is cutoff from the right channel it will provide good side channel habitat.

Fig 35,

S13a: 2+00 m. Create V-notch weirs with nearest available logs. Fig 31,S13b: 2+45 m. Create log weirs with nearest available logs. Fig 34,S14: 2+60 m. Deepen and widen the small inlet channel to the pond

to allow fish access. The side channel will require small log weirs to preserve water elevation in the pond.

Fig 34,

S15: 2+65 m. Create V-notch weirs with nearest available logs. Fig 31,S16: 2+85 m. Move old big burnt log u/s to the large stump on the

right margin to create a wing deflector and move logs at 2+85 m to create channel spanning log structure at the same location.

Fig 32, Fig 34,

S17: 2+90 m. Move log upstream to create a wing deflector on the right margin, place root wad at 2+95 m.

Fig 32, Fig 33,

S17a: 3+05 m. Create channel spanning log structure with nearest available logs, place root wad at 3+10 m on right margin, create woody debris pile at 3+13 m on left margin.

Fig 34, Fig 33, Fig 35,

S18: 3+20 m. Create wing deflector on left margin. Fig 32,S19: 3+25 m. Place root wad on right margin. Fig 33,S19a: 3+43 m. Create woody debris pile on left margin. Fig 35,S20: 3+55 m. Create V-notch weirs with two root wad on the left

margin downstream of the V-notch weirs.Fig 31, Fig 33,

S21: 3+70 m. Place root wad on left margin. Fig 33,S22: 4+05 m. Add woody debris pile to existing jam to stabilize. Add

more material on u/s end. Stack and interlock logs.Fig 35,

S23: 4+20 m. Add to the existing two woody debris pile. Fig 35,


Table 67 Spruce Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Sites SENG1 and SENG2 con’t

Site Number

Chainage Location


S24: 4+30 m. Add logs and root wads to existing V-notch weirs. Fig 35, Fig 31,S25: 4+45 m. Create upstream V-notch weirs. Fig 31,S26: 4+55 m. Add woody debris pile to existing jam with root wads

on margins.Fig 35,

S27: 4+65 m. Add woody debris pile to outer bank (left margin). Fig 35,S28: 4+75 to

4+85 m.Add woody debris pile to outer bend (right margin) to create cover and bank protection.

Fig 35,

S29: 5+05 m. Cut the channel spanning log structure in the middle and drop into the channel to create a V-notch weir. Add material into the pool below the V-notch weirs.

Fig 31, Fig 35,

S30: 5+15 to 5+20 m.

Cut and move the log and root wad to the left margin for bank stability

Fig 35,

a Reference to bank margins based on looking downstreamb Plan and cross-section of typical structure types are illustrated in Figures 31 to 35


Table 68 Spruce Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Site SENG3

Site Number

Chainage Location

Prescription Description a Figure Referenceb

S1: 0+29 m. Create V-notch weirs using the flagged spruce (standing deadwood) on the left floodplain near the site.

Fig 31

S2: 0+40 to0+60 m.

Cut channel spanning log structures at 0+40 m and 0+55 m and move to left margin to create a bank protecting log on the outer bank along this 20 m section. Make sure the remaining log at 0+40 m on the inside bend is not deflecting flow to the outer bank. Can use flagged snag on the left floodplain at this site. Add an additional log to support the existing wing deflector at 0+40 m. Place logs downstream of the existing root wads at 0+50 m to keep the flow from going behind the root wads and eroding the bank. Add an additional root wad at 0+47 m on the left margin. In general, protect the entire outer bank from 0+40 to 0+60 m. Drop standing dead spruce near site (flagged) to armour left bank at 0+50 m. Move the channel spanning log structures across the channel at 0+57 m to the left margin for bank protection. Create woody debris piles on the left margin at 0+58 m to protect the outer bank.

Fig 35,Fig 32,Fig 33

S3: 0+70 to 0+75 m.

Move the channel spanning log structures at 0+65 m and place on the outer bend to create a bank protecting log (i.e., move the channel spanning log structures from the left margin to right margin). Place nearest available root wad on the outer margin at 0+75 m.

Fig 35, Fig 33

S4: 0+80 m. Leave the channel spanning log structure as it is creating a deep scour pool. Preserve the side channel as it is good habitat. Flagged LWD at side channel inlet needs to be larger to preserve the side channel (i.e., add bigger logs). Remove flagged small woody debris that is blocking the side channel. This will allow for flow into the side channel. The channel spanning log structure at 0+92 m should be left alone.

Fig 35

S5: 1+00 m. With LWD protect the outer bend just upstream from the large existing root wad. Leave the section from 1+00 to 1+50 m alone as there are natural deep pools and good spawning gravel. The outer bank is undercut and creating excellent habitat at 1+37 m.

Fig 35

S5a: 1+16 m. Place root wads on left margin. Fig 33


Table 68 Spruce Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Site SENG3 con’t

Site Number

Chainage Location

Prescription Description a Figure Referenceb

S6: 1+60 m. The outer bank is stable but needs cover therefore drop in a log or root wad. 1+60 to 1+90 m has lots of LWD and small woody debris and is good natural habitat therefore leave.

Fig 33,Fig 35

S7: 1+95 to 2+20 m.

Protect the outer bend from 1+95 m to 2+20 m with logs and root wads. The logs can be a combination of wing deflectors and logs placed parallel to the bank.

Fig 35,Fig 32

S8: 2+20 to 2+30 m.

Remove the log at the surface deflecting flow to the outer bank at 2+20 m. Also remove the flagged channel spanning log structure at 2+23 m. Build on existing wing deflector from 2+20 to 2+35 m using moved logs from 2+20 m. Move root wads from the floodplain at 2+40 m and put in the channel. This will require a machine, however, there is excellent access from the nearby road.

Fig 32,Fig 33

S9: 2+60 m. Leave the two large parallel channel spanning log structures at 2+50 m and move the top channel spanning log structure to the outer bank at 2+60 m to create a bank protecting log. Leave the woody debris pile at 2+56 m.

Fig 35

S10: 2+70 to 2+80 m.

Place log to protect the outer bank at 2+70 m and place root wads at 2+75 m at 90° bend where there is more room. Place root wads if possible or small woody debris piles in the scour area along left margin at 2+80 m.

Fig 35,Fig 33

S11: 2+90 m. Add cover to the bend with LWD, small woody debris and root wads.

Fig 35,Fig 33

S12: 3+09 to 3+16 m.

Add cover to the outer bank with logs and root wads. Move the root wads from the center of the channel to the outer bank.

Fig 35,Fig 33

S13: 3+40 m. Create woody debris piles on left margin to provide habitat cover.

Fig 35

a Reference to bank margins based on looking downstream.b Plan and cross-section of typical structure types are illustrated in Figures 31 to 35.


Table 69 Fourteen Mile Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Site 14ENG1

Site Number

Chainage Location


S1: 1+84 m. Remove beaver dam as it is likely a barrier to fish passage.

S2: 1+92 m. Create V-notch weir that is secure on the bank and let it rest on bed as bed will degrade after beaver dam is removed.

Fig 31

S3: 1+96 m. Place root wad on right bank where one already exists and woody debris pile on right bank at 1+98 m.

Fig 33,Fig 35

S4: 2+03 m. Place logs over cutbank to create cover. Leave large log at 2+10 m as it has created a good pool at the bank.

Fig 35

S5: 2+17 m. Place 2 or 3 root wads on the outer bend. Fig 33S6: 2+20 m. Place a log weir at the riffle to preserve the deep scour

pool.Fig 34

S7: 2+25 to 2+32 m.

Put in five opposing wing deflectors along the long straight riffle on both sides with small root wads behind the logs on the right margin. Put larger structures on the right side where the majority of flow exists. Do not need a root wads on the left side. There is a good natural complex at 2+38 m. No prescriptions for the 20 m section from 2+40 to 2+60 m as the channel may change when the bridge is removed.

Fig 32,Fig 33

S8: 2+70 to 2+82 m.

Place two log weirs at 2+70 and 2+82 m along the long straight riffle. Log weirs can be used here as the banks are stable and flow is unlikely to be redirected around the logs. If additional logs are available they can be used to lie across the bank for cover. At 2+90 m the outer bank has a good natural undercut and root wads.

Fig 34

S9: 2+92 to 2+96 m.

Place channel spanning log structure at 2+92 m, place root wads and woody debris pile by undercut bank on left margin at 2+93 m and place woody debris pile at 2+96 m on the right margin.

Fig 34,Fig 33, Fig 35

S10: 3+05 to 3+07 m.

Place V-notch weirs, place channel spanning log structure at 3+07 m.

Fig 31,Fig 32

S11: 3+12 to 3+20 m.

Place V-notch weirs at 3+12 and 3+20 m. Fig 31

S12: 3+22 m. Place root wads. Leave the woody debris pile at 3+35 m alone as it has good complex, scour pools and cover.

Fig 33

S13: 3+45 to 3+50 m.

Place wing deflectors and root wads at 3+45 m and log weirs at 3+50 m.

Fig 32,Fig 33


Table 69 Fourteen Mile Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Site 14ENG1 con’t

Site Number

Chainage Location


S14: 3+58 m. Place V-notch weirs with root wads behind on each side. Excellent functioning root wads example at 3+65 m.

Fig 31,Fig 32

S15: 3+70 m. Place a log weir angled the other way to the existing one at 3+75 m. (i.e., angled downstream left to right.

Fig 34

S16: 3+80 m. Place two root wads or logs along left margin to provide overhead cover.

Fig 35,Fig 33

S17: 3+90 m. Add material on the outer bank to the existing LWD in the stream to form small log jams along left margin. This will provide bank protection and cover. The naturally tight meander bends from 3+90 to 4+00 m provide good habitat, therefore leave alone.

Fig 35

S18: 4+00 m. Add root wads to scour pool on outer bend. Fig 33S19: 4+10 m. Place V-notch weirs. Fig 31S20: 4+27 to

4+35 m.Place log weirs with root wads at 4+27 and 4+35 m. From 4+40 to 4+60 m there are natural log weirs, therefore leave alone.

Fig 34,Fig 33



Table 70 Hah Creek Restoration Prescriptions for Site HENG1

Site Number


S1: Place channel spanning log structure in the channel. Several large dead trees with branches would be ideal. The logs should be resting on the bank and extend onto the floodplain by at least several meters to keep them from moving during high flow. The shear stress of this channel is low enough that the logs should not need to be secured to the bank with extensive measures such as cabling. The logs should span at least half way across the channel.

Fig 34

S2: Place woody debris pile and root wads on the outer bank of the bend to create bank protection, and most importantly habitat cover.

Fig 35

S3: Refer to discussion for S1. Fig 34S4: Refer to discussion for S2. Fig 35S5: Refer to discussion for S1. Fig 34S6: Refer to discussion for S2. Fig 35S7: Refer to discussion for S2. Fig 35S8: Refer to discussion for S1. Fig 34S9: Refer to discussion for S2. Fig 35S10: Refer to discussion for S1. Fig 34S11: Refer to discussion for S2. Fig 35S12: Refer to discussion for S1. Fig 34S13: Refer to discussion for S1. Fig 34,S14: Refer to discussion for S2. Fig 35S15: Refer to discussion for S2. Fig 35S16: Move the flagged root wads on the floodplain into the channel on the

right.Fig 33

S17: Refer to discussion for S1. Fig 34S18: Refer to discussion for S2. Fig 35S19: Refer to discussion for S1. Fig 34S20: Move the flagged root wads on the floodplain into the channel on the

left margin.Fig 33



APPENDIX A

Riparian and Fisheries Field Data Collection Forms


APPENDIX B

Materials Used in Riparian and Fish Habitat Assessment


Appendix B Materials Used in Riparian and Fish Habitat Assessment

TRIM and Forest cover maps (scale 1:20,000):

NTS_MAP BCGS_MAP093H05 093H033 093H244 093H054

093H12 093H034 093H045 093H062

093H13 093H042 093H052 093H063

093H043 093H053 093H064

093H072

Air Photos (scale ~1:16,000):

WATERSHED PHOTO_SERIES PHOTO_NUMBER PHOTO_SCALEPinkerton Creek 30BCB 90037 039 250-252 1:17200

Pinkerton Creek 30BCB 90037 037 39-41 1:17100

Pinkerton Creek 30BCB 90037 037 147-149 1:17600

Hah Creek 30BCB 90040 44-47 1:16800

Spruce Creek 30BCB 90074 54-56 1:17500

Spruce Creek 30BCB 90039 49-53 1:17200

Haggen Creek 30BCB 90039 249-252 1:19608

Haggen Creek 30BCB 90068 55-56 1:19867

Haggen Creek 30BCB 90068 86-87 1:19592

Haggen Creek 30BCB 90068 201-206 1:19750

Haggen Creek 30BCB 90068 209-211 1:17273

Haggen Creek 30BCB 90068 225-227 1:17333

Eighteen Mile Creek 30BCB 90041 43-47 1:16900

Eighteen Mile Creek 30BCB 90067 101 1:16500

Fourteen Mile Creek 30BCB 90041 96-98 1:17500

Fourteen Mile Creek 30BCB 90041 140-143 1:16500

Post Creek 30BCB 90069 057 1:17300

Post Creek 30BCB 90039 254-258 1:17000

Post Creek 30BCB 90078 257-261 1:17500

Ten Mile Creek 30BCB 90041 142-143 1:16500

Ten Mile Creek 30BCB 90041 187-188 1:16000

Video Materials: An overflight video Haggen, Post and Pinkerton creeks filmed September 20, 1995. Prepared by Waberski Darrow Survey Group Ltd. & Northern Mountain Helicopters Inc. Tape 95202-1 - 80 min.


APPENDIX C

Laboratory Results

· Water Quality Results - Analytical Services Ltd.· Scales - AMC Technical Services Ltd.· Fin Rays - North South Consultants


APPENDIX D

Habitat Data Tables


APPENDIX E

Watershed Restoration Program Data Entry System Print-Out

Form 1Form 2Form 3Form 5Form 6


APPENDIX F

Fish Data Tables


APPENDIX G

Details of Level Surveys


APPENDIX H

Plots of Surveyed Cross-Sections


Documents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - a100.gov.bc.caa100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r11657/Rep… · Web viewAir photos were examined steroscopically and distances on TRIM maps and air photos