WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS FOR 7 SUB-BASINS TRIBUTARY TO THE SUSTUT RIVER

Transcription

1 WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS FOR 7 SUB-BASINS TRIBUTARY TO THE SUSTUT RIVER Prepared for: Judy Vasily, R.P.F. Planning Forester Takla Forest Management Inc. P.O. Box 527 Prince George, B.C., V2L 4S8 Prepared by: P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd S. Nicholson Street Prince George, B.C. V2N 1V8 February 2003

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES OF STUDY METHODOLOGY Watershed and Stream Characteristics Harvesting and Land-use History Hazards Associated with Loss of Riparian Functions and Large Sediment Sources Sediment Hazards from Roads (i.e. Surface Erosion Hazard) Stream Channel Conditions Hazard Assessments Increases in Peak Flow Hazard Reduction in Riparian Functions Hazard Hazard Associated with Road Related Sediment Sources INDIVIDUAL WATERSHED REPORTS Tributary #1 (Solomon Creek) Watershed Description Extent of Land-use Tributary #1 Watershed Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight Summary of Hazard Ratings for Tributary #1 Watershed Interpretations and Recommendations Selected Photographs from Field Assessments Tributary #1 Watershed Teressa Creek Watershed Description Extent of Land-use Teressa Creek Watershed Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight Summary of Hazard Ratings for Teressa Creek Watershed Interpretations and Recommendations Selected Photographs from Field Assessments Teressa Creek watershed Boyd Creek Watershed Description P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page i February 2003

3 4.3.2 Extent of Land-use Boyd Creek Watershed Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight Summary of Hazard Ratings for Boyd Creek Watershed Interpretations and Recommendations Selected Photographs from Field Assessments Boyd Creek Watershed Tributary # Watershed Description Extent of Land-use Tributary #3 Watershed Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight Summary of Hazard Ratings for Tributary #3 Watershed Interpretations and Recommendations Selected Photographs from Field Assessments for Tributary #3 Watershed Chelsea Creek Watershed Description Extent of Land-use Chelsea Creek Watershed Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight Summary of Hazard Ratings for Chelsea Creek Watershed Interpretations and Recommendations Selected Photographs from Field Assessments for Chelsea Creek watershed Tributary # Watershed Description Extent of Land-use Tributary #7 Watershed Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight Overview of stream channel conditions Tributary # Summary of Hazard Ratings for Tributary #7 Watershed Interpretations and Recommendations Selected Photographs from Field Assessments Tributary #7 Watershed February Creek Watershed Description Extent of Land-use February Creek Watershed Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight Summary of Hazard Ratings for February Creek Watershed Interpretations and Recommendations Selected Photographs from Field Assessments February Creek RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENTS LITERATURE CITED P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page ii February 2003

4 APPENDIX I. SCQI FIELD DATA APPENDIX II. 1:25,000 MAP SHOWING THE RESULTS OF THE SCQI SURVEY 79 APPENDIX III. PICTORIAL EXAMPLES OF SCORING FOR VARIOUS EROSION SITUATIONS P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page iii February 2003

5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Location of the seven study watersheds tributary to the Sustut River Photograph #796. Riparian retention along Teressa Creek Photograph #785. Extensive wetlands in lower watershed Photograph #779. Crossing of Teressa Creek along mainline Photograph #781. Stream crossing of Teressa Creek Photograph #1768. Crossing #10, SCQI score = Photograph # Crossing #13, SCQO score = Photograph #1778. Crossing #17, SCQI Score = Photograph #1799. Crossing # 29. SCQI score = Photograph #805. Lower reaches are low gradient with wetlands Photograph #806. Lower reaches are low gradient with wetlands Photograph #814. Effective erosion control at stream crossings Photograph #819. Crossings not de-activated, but stable Photograph #1794. Crossing #28, SCQI score = Photograph #1807. Crossing #31, SCQI score = Photograph #1820. Crossing #46, SCQI score = Photograph #1850. Crossing #50, SCQI score = Photograph #834. Wetlands in lower reaches of Tributary # Photograph #835. Riparian management along Tributary # Photograph #843. Riparian management at small streams Photograph #840. De-activated stream crossing and erosion control Photograph #1936. Crossing #75, SCQI Score = Photograph #1935. Crossing #71, SCQI Score = Photograph #1941. Crossing #77, SCQI = Photograph #846. Mainline bridge across Chelsea Creek Photograph #848. Riparian management in the Chelsea Creek watershed Photograph #849. Temporary plywood bridge across a tributary Photograph #1850. Mainline bridge over Chelsea Creek Photograph #1932. Crossing # 69, SCQI score = Photograph #1944. Crossing # 79, SCQI score = Photograph #1946. Crossing #79, SCQI score = Photograph #861. Extensive wetlands in lower reaches of Trib # Photograph #875. Extensive wetlands in lower reaches of Trib # Photograph #945. Overview of harvesting pattern in Trib#7 basin P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page iv February 2003

6 Photograph #879. Extensive riparian buffers on all tributary streams Photograph #1869. Crossing # 58, SCQI score = Photograph # Crossing # 56 (mainline), SCQI score = Photograph #1920. Crossing #65, SCQI score = 0.0,Class 5 stream Photograph # Crossing #63, SCQI score = 0.3, class 5 streams Photograph #1923. Site #67, good riparian retention on small stream Photograph #1876. Site #58, good riparian retention on small stream Photograph #1900. Site #61, localized blowdown along stream Photograph # Site #62, localized blowdown along small stream (not mapped on TRIM) Photograph #914. Mainline crossing over February Creek Photograph #918. Mainline crossing over February Creek Photograph #924. Crossing over Loonie Creek Photograph #933. Natural sediment sources along Loonie Creek Photograph # Crossing #95, SCQI score = Photograph #1971. Crossing #96, SCQI score = Photograph #1977, Crossing #98, SCQI score = Photograph #1986. Crossing #102, SCQI score = P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page v February 2003

7 LIST OF TABLES Table Exec-1. Summary of key watershed indicators and hazard ratings for the seven watersheds tributary to the lower Sustut River.... x Table 1.1 June 11, 2002 Meeting Action Plan... 2 Table 3.1. Example calculation of Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI) for Bogus Watershed (size = 30km 2 ) Table 3.2. Determination of Peak flow hazard rating Table 3.3. Determination of riparian hazard rating (both condition must apply) (from airphotos and overview flight) Table 3.4. Determination of hazard associated with road related sediment sources Table Summary information Biophysical Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard) Table Extent of land-use in the Tributary #1 watershed Table Tributary #1 Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Tributary #1 Watershed Table Surface erosion hazard Tributary #1 Watershed Table Summary information Biophysical Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard) Table Extent of land-use in the Teressa Creek watershed Table Teressa Creek Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Teressa Creek Watershed Table Surface erosion hazard Teressa Creek Watershed Table Summary information Biophysical Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard) Table Extent of land-use in the Boyd Creek watershed Table Boyd Creek Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page vi February 2003

8 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Boyd Creek Watershed Table Surface erosion hazard Boyd Creek Watershed Table Summary information Biophysical Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard) Table Extent of land-use in the Tributary #3 watershed Table Tributary #3 Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Tributary #3 Watershed Table Surface erosion hazard Tributary #3 Watershed Table Summary information Biophysical Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard) Table Extent of land-use in the Chelsea Creek watershed Table Chelsea Creek Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Chelsea Creek Watershed Table Surface erosion hazard Chelsea Creek Watershed Table Summary information Biophysical Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard) Table Extent of land-use in the Tributary #7 watershed Table Tributary #7 Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Tributary #7 Watershed Table Surface erosion hazard Tributary #7 Watershed Table Summary of channel conditions in the lower sections of Tributary # Table Summary information Biophysical Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard) Table Extent of land-use in the February Creek watershed P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page vii February 2003

9 Table February Creek Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size February Creek Watershed Table Surface erosion hazard February Creek Watershed P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page viii February 2003

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Watershed assessments were conducted on seven tributary watersheds to the lower Sustut River. The size of these watersheds varied between 2.4 and 72.1 km 2. These assessments were initiated in response to concerns expressed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP) about perceived problems with current forest management practices in the Sustut operating area. These concerns were expressed in a letter, dated March 18, 2002, written to Janine Elo, District Manager, Fort St James Forest District, following the determination letter for Amendment #23 (SUS110). The area is currently being managed jointly by Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor) and Takla Forest Management Inc (TFMI). The assessments focused on the calculations of specific cumulative impact watershed indices, such as ECA and peak flow index (PFI) and presents the results of both aerial overview assessments and ground based assessments. The field work focused primarily on assessing the hazard associated with road related erosion and sedimentation. This field assessment was done using the Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI), a method developed for Canfor s sustained forest management certification process. In addition to evaluating the surface erosion hazard, the field work also evaluated the effectiveness of riparian retention and stream channel stability in selected watersheds. The assessments identified very few watershed cumulative effects issues that could cause fish habitat problems in any of the seven watersheds examined in this review. The riparian zones have been well managed and despite some very difficult soil conditions, there has been some very effective erosion and sediment control throughout the area. The small streams (i.e. S4 and S6) have all been protected by leaving extensive riparian buffers along them. Of course the question remains as to how much is enough?, relative to riparian retention on small streams, and how to control blowdown problems in the riparian areas. These issues cannot be easily answered and will require further long term research. Individual assessments were made for each of the seven watersheds and hazard ratings were developed for peak flows, riparian functions, fine sediments and channel stability, as per the guidelines provided in the Watershed Assessment Procedure guidebook. The detailed results of these assessments are provided in Section 4 of this report. The following table summarizes some of the key information and hazard ratings derived from the watershed assessments. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page ix February 2003

11 Table Exec-1. Summary of key watershed indicators and hazard ratings for the seven watersheds tributary to the lower Sustut River. Watershed Name Watershed size (km 2 ) Current ECA (%) Projected ECA at end of FDP (%) Increased Peak Flows Current Hazard Rating Increased Decreased Fine Riparian Sediment Functions from Roads Decreased Channel Stability Tributary #1 Teressa Creek Boyd Creek Tributary #3 Chelsea Creek Tributary #7 February Creek Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate Very Low Low Very Low Low Low Low Very Low Very High Very Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Moderate Low Moderate Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page x February 2003

12 1.0 INTRODUCTION In March of 2002, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP) expressed several concerns about perceived problems with current forest management practices in the Sustut operating area. These concerns were expressed in a letter, dated March 18, 2002, written to Janine Elo, District Manager, Fort St James Forest District following the determination letter for Amendment #23 (SUS110). The area is currently being managed jointly by Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor) and Takla Forest Management Inc (TFMI). In the March letter, MWLAP staff indicated that they have concerns regarding the following points: 1. Maintenance of water quality, fish and fish habitat and general biodiversity in the area. 2. The high equivalent clearcut areas (ECA) in certain small sub-basins tributary to the Sustut River are creating a potentially high risk to an isolated Dolly Varden stock. 3. Stand level impacts from blow down of the riparian reserve retention around SUS Long term maintenance of the riparian areas along small streams. MWLAP provided several suggestions relative to actions that could be taken to ensure that environmental risks are minimized. 1. That the proposed watershed associated with SUS110, and several other small watersheds with similar values in the area, be designated as watersheds under Section 14(1)(b) by the District Manager. 2. That Canfor and TFMI monitor water quality and fish habitat in the watershed to assess the effectiveness of the management practices. 3. That water quality assessments would need to be done on a regular basis throughout harvesting years and for an unspecified time following. 4. On the point of blowdown, it has been requested that Canfor and TFMI take aggressive measures to ensure that the planned riparian retention is made blowdown resistant. Canfor and TFMI developed several actions to deal with the immediate concerns identified. These were presented to the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection during a meeting which was held on June 11 th, The June 11 th Meeting action plan is provided in the Table below. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 1 February 2003

13 Table 1.1 June 11, 2002 Meeting Action Plan. Action Task Date/Owner Item 1. Gather information on Fish and water studies done in the Sustut to date and give to Pierre. June 18 Canfor Status: Done 2. Pierre collate data and propose specific watershed boundaries on areas that may be vulnerable to development activities. Calculate ECA values for each watershed identified. June 20 Pierre Beaudry Status: Done 3. Submit watershed boundaries and preliminary ECA calculations to the MOF and MWLAP for review and comment. Status: Done. June 20 Pierre Beaudry 4. Field day to review the Sustut areas and watersheds (including erosion, riparian management channel stability). Review unnamed watershed in detail. Status: Done 5. Field day for fisheries biologist to assess the impacts of development on the un-named watershed. Status: Done 6. Develop a detailed watershed plan that will include extent and types of field assessments that will conducted and actions that could be taken based on results of field assessments. Watershed Plan to be submitted to MoF and MWLAP for review and comment. This is an operational plan, not intended to be included in FDP. Status: Field work, data analysis and reporting to be completed in the Summer and Fall of Field assessments, reviews and recommendations Status: Field shift planned for Aug 12. June 21 Canfor/Pierre Beaudry June 14 Ecofor December 2002 Canfor/Pierre Beaudry Completed by end of September Canfor/Pierre Beaudry P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 2 February 2003

14 This report addresses action item # 6 (Table 1.1) and presents the results of watershed assessments for seven (7) small tributary watersheds to the Sustut River. The assessments focused on the calculations of specific watershed indices, such as ECA and peak flow index and present the results of both aerial overview assessments and ground based assessments. Individual watershed assessment reports are provided for the following seven basins: 1. Tributary #1 watershed 2. Teressa Creek watershed 3. Boyd Creek watershed 4. Tributary #3 watershed 5. Chelsea Creek watershed 6. Tributary #7 watershed 7. February Creek watershed A generalized overview map of the study basins is provided as Figure 1.1. Specific objectives of the assessments are provided in Section 2 of this report, while Section 3 provides a detailed description of the methodologies used in the data collection, field work and watershed analysis. Section 4 of this document presents the seven individual watershed reports, which include results, interpretations and recommendations for forest planning purposes. The report is concluded by providing recommendations for future assessments and monitoring. Appendices I, II and III provide, respectively, the raw field data, the detailed watershed map that shows the field results and a pictorial example of various SCQI erosion scores. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 3 February 2003

15 Figure 1.1 Location of the seven study watersheds tributary to the Sustut River. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 4 February 2003

16 2.0 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The general objective of this study is as follows: To complete watershed assessments for each of seven watersheds tributary to the Sustut River (henceforth termed the seven watersheds ). The assessment will focus primarily on describing the extent of forest harvesting related disturbances in each of the watersheds and evaluating the hazard associated with the generation of road related fine sediments. The specific objectives of this watershed study are as follows: 1. Describe the general characteristics of each of the seven watersheds. 2. Describe the extent of forest harvesting disturbance in each of the seven watersheds. 3. Calculate standard watershed assessment indices and develop hazard ratings for peak flow, sediment sources, riparian function and channel stability for each of the seven watersheds. 4. Provide detailed results of the road related surface erosion survey conducted in each of the seven watersheds and along the mainline road system. The survey was conducted using the Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI) which is described in detail in the methodology section. 5. Using the hazard ratings developed for the seven watersheds, provide recommendations for the forest development plan and for future assessments and monitoring. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 5 February 2003

17 3.0 METHODOLOGY This section of the report provides a description of the methodology used to collect and analyse the watershed information for each of the indicators for each of the seven watersheds. 3.1 Watershed and Stream Characteristics Most of the watershed and stream characteristics were measured from Government of BC 1:20,000 digital TRIM II maps. The TRIM maps were analysed with MapInfo Professional and Vertical Mapper GIS computer software. The watershed boundaries for each of the seven sub-basins were digitized by P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd. (PBA) based on the TRIM contours and stream network. The stream characteristics were defined by using a combination of digital air-photos (ortho-photos), helicopter reconnaissance flight and ground based assessment. 3.2 Harvesting and Land-use History The harvesting related disturbance history, in each of the analysed watersheds, was obtained from digital forest cover maps provided by Canfor of Prince George. The Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) was calculated from the information provided in the associated databases. All of areas retained in cut blocks as riparian reserves and wildlife tree patches were removed from the ECA calculations according to the digital files provided by Canfor. The location of the roads was obtained from the digital road cover maps and development plans provided by Canfor. The distribution of slope gradients within the watershed and the H 60 for each watershed was calculated using digital elevation modelling software (i.e. Vertical Mapper). The equivalent clearcut area (ECA) is defined as the area that has been disturbed (i.e. logging, wildfire, right of ways), with a reduction factor to account for the hydrological recovery due to forest regeneration. The watershed assessment document (BC Government 1999) provides a hydrological recovery table which indicates a recovery factor for different heights of a forest. For example, a stand that has a height between 5 and 7 metres, has a recovery factor of 50% and a nine metre stand has a recovery factor of 90%. The value for the stand height was obtained from the forest cover inventory database. In all cases the height of the regenerating stands in the Sustut area was less than three metres tall and consequently has no current hydrological recovery. The H 60 is the elevation in a watershed (expressed in metres above m.s.l.) above which there is 60% of the watershed area. Forest harvesting above the H 60 line is considered to P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 6 February 2003

18 have a greater effect on peak flows (compared to below the H 60 ) because this is considered the peak flow generating area for mountainous terrain where the hydrograph is dominated by snowmelt. The peak flow index (PFI) is calculated to provide a numeric value that represents the effect of the ECA that is above the H 60 line. To calculate this index, the ECAs for each of the cutblocks (or proportions of cutblocks) that are located above the H 60 line are weighted by a factor of 1.5. For example, if all of the cutblocks were located above the H 60 and the ECA was 30%, then the peak flow index would be 45%. If all of the cutblocks were located below the H 60 then the ECA value and the peak flow index (PFI) would be identical. The stream density, road density and stream crossing density are indices that relate to both the potential for peak flow increases and increases in the supply of sediment to the stream system. A high value does not necessarily mean that there is a surface erosion problem in the watershed, but it does indicate that the potential for problems is present and that a field survey may be required. These values were calculated from the road information provided by Canfor, using the GIS software. The watershed descriptors and values for ECA, PFI, stream density, road density and stream crossing density are provided in the first three tables in each of the watershed assessment reports. 3.3 Hazards Associated with Loss of Riparian Functions and Large Sediment Sources The extent of riparian removal in each of the watersheds was evaluated during the helicopter overview flight (June 21, 2002) and by using the ortho-photos. There has been very little riparian harvesting in any of the seven watersheds analyzed. Some small, localized patch removal has occurred along small headwater tributaries in some of the watersheds, but the extent is minimal. Loss of riparian function is discussed in each individual watershed report. During the overview flight and the ortho-photo analysis we looked for large sediment sources associated with forest harvesting activities (i.e. larger than 0.05 ha). These types of sources typically include landslides associated with poor drainage on road networks and open slope failures associated with cut blocks. During our survey we did not find any such large sediment sources. 3.4 Sediment Hazards from Roads (i.e. Surface Erosion Hazard) The inventory of sources of road related surface erosion is a field-based exercise. This cannot be done with the use of maps or airphotos. Erosion from roads can include one or several of the following sources: a) road running surface, b) eroding ditch, c) eroding cutbank, d) eroding fill and e) road sections encroaching on stream channel. For the purposes of this inventory, only sediment sources that are connected to stream channels and have the potential to deliver sediment to a stream are relevant (Watershed Assessment guidebook page 37). To complete the inventory of road related sediment P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 7 February 2003

19 hazards, we used a methodology that we developed for Canadian Forest Products in 2001 called the Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI). This procedure focuses on erosion and sediment delivery at stream crossings. It is my opinion that almost all of the road related surface erosion that reaches a water course does so at a stream crossing (especially in areas with low to moderate topography). Thus a survey that focuses on stream crossings should do a good job in characterising road related surface erosion problems. The SCQI procedure is based on the concept of the stream crossing density index used in the watershed assessment procedure (WAP). In the WAP each stream crossing that is identified on a map is counted and divided by the watershed area which produces the index of number of crossing per square kilometer. Of course not all of these crossings produce and deliver sediment. The SCQI is a field based assessment that actually evaluates erosion and sediment delivery problems for each stream crossing. The SCQI procedure scores each crossing on a scale of 0 to 1. A score of 0 means that no sediment is being delivered to the stream from the crossing, while a score of 1.0 means that there are significant sediment delivery problems. After each crossing is assessed, the scores can be summed up to produce a total watershed score. The score can then be divided by the watershed area to produce an equivalent stream crossing density index for the watershed. To obtain an accurate equivalent stream crossing density for a watershed it is necessary to inventory 100% of the stream crossings in the watershed. This was completed for all but one of the seven watersheds surveyed. In Tributary #3 watershed two crossings were not surveyed because of accessibility problems. The objective of the SCQI procedure is to address the issue of cumulative impacts over the entire watershed. The impact of numerous crossings in a watershed with a low or moderate score may be greater than the impact of only a few crossings with a high score. Each crossing that was surveyed received a score between 0.0 and 1.0. We have grouped the results in four classes termed water quality concern ratings (WQCR) to cover the range of scores as follows: SCQI score less than 0.0= WQCR of None SCQI score between 0.0 and 0.40= WQCR of Low SCQI score between 0.41 and 0.80 = WQCR of Medium SCQI score greater than 0.80 = WQCR of High Each of the stream crossings surveyed was plotted on the watershed map and identified with a color coded star representing it s WQCR (blue = none, green = low, yellow= medium and red=high). The database containing all of the information associated with each survey point is provided in Appendix I of this report. Appendix II is a map that provides the location of each SCQI survey point, its identification and the actual score. The following information is provided in this database: P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 8 February 2003

20 1. Watershed name 2. Crossing ID 3. UTM Easting 4. UTM Northing 5. Structure Type 6. Size of culvert or opening 7. Erodibility of road running surface (by class) 8. Level of road use (by class) 9. Erosion level of the road running surface (score of 0 to 1) 10. Sediment delivery potential of the road erosion (score of 0 to 1) 11. Erosion level for each of the four ditches (score of 0 to 1) 12. Sediment delivery potential for each of the four ditches (score 0 to 1) 13. Width of the stream channel by class size 14. Stream gradient by class size 15. Percentage of structure plugged 16. Level of concern for fish passage 17. Functional condition of the structure (culvert or bridge) to pass water and sediments 18. Culvert drop at the outfall 19. Substrate in culvert 20. Channel constriction 21. Photo numbers 22. Other comments The stream width class used in this section is a measure of the bank full width at the stream crossing (measured in the field). The stream width class has one additional class, compared to the channel width used in FPC riparian assessment (i.e. less than 0.5 m in width). I wanted to identify the very small streams (i.e. less than 0.5m in width) in the field in a class of their own because I believe that they are very different than the 0.5 to 1.5 metre width stream. The SCQI is based on the concept that the impact of stream crossings on water quality can be reduced through effective erosion and sediment control practices, and that this can be evaluated and scored. As with the stream density index, each crossing within a watershed is, at priori, assumed to be having a negative impact on water quality. However, the negative value of this stream crossing can be reduced if the crossing is evaluated and not showing any signs of erosion and sediment transport. Thus a crossing that shows problems receives a value or score of one (1). As the quality of a crossing improves, the score is reduced, eventually reaching zero (0). This can effectively eliminate the crossing from the erosion and sediment producing inventory. As the scores for the individual crossings are reduced, so is the score for that watershed. This mechanism provides an incentive to implement good ESC measures. Table 3.1 provides a simple example of the SCQI concept and the calculation of the Equivalent Stream Crossing Density. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 9 February 2003

21 Table 3.1. Example calculation of Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI) for Bogus Watershed (size = 30km 2 ) Culvert ID Field comments Score Sum of score #1 Severe problems 1 #2 No erosion 0 #3 Severe erosion 0.9 #4 Mild erosion 0.2 #5 Moderate problems 0.7 #6 De-eactivated and stable 0.1 #7 Severe problems 1.0 #8 Moderate erosion 0.5 #9 Slight erosion 0.2 #10 Extensive erosion 0.8 Equivalent Stream Crossing Number = 5.4 Stream crossing density = 10/30 km 2 = 0.33 crossings/km 2 The Equivalent Stream Crossing Density for the Bogus watershed = 5.4/30km 2 = 0.18 crossings/km 2 The SCQI methodology is a snapshot qualitative evaluation of the potential for eroded material to be delivered to the stream at a road crossing. The field based evaluation system searches for and identifies the extent of erosion from cutbanks, road ditches and road running surfaces and the potential for delivery of the eroded material to the stream. If there is good drainage, erosion and sediment control (DESC) at the site, then the evaluation is pretty well independent of when the survey was done. This is simply because the potential for sediment to get to the stream would be low no matter when it is evaluated. If there are long, bare ditches that flow directly into a stream, then the potential for sediment delivery would be very high and this would be identified as such no matter when the survey was done. The SCQI was designed as a method that would generally be independent of when the survey was completed. Of course a very large rainstorm may cause extensive erosion and change the results of the assessment a little bit, but I think that it would not significantly change the score because if there was good DESC at the site than the large rainstorm would not effect that. It is important to realize that the SCQI procedure is not a quantitative evaluation of the absolute amount of sediment that is reaching a stream. It is a simple scoring method with the objective of producing a quick evaluation of the quality of erosion and sediment control at a stream crossing. A score of one (1.0) does not represent the absolute possible worst case scenario, but rather it simply represents a situation that is currently unacceptable for protecting water quality. It is also important to note that a very small stream (e.g. 20 cm in width) may get a score of 1.0 because it is inadequately protected and that a large stream, where the problem may appear to be much larger, will also get a score of 1.0. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 10 February 2003

22 For the purposes of the SCQI objectives, the stream crossing scores are analysed both on an individual basis and collectively for a watershed. Individual stream crossing scores can be used to identify problem areas or unique problem sites. These are easily discernable on the watershed maps provided in the report. The collective (or watershed scores) can be used as an overall index of the potential for water quality problems within a given watershed (or landscape unit). This type of index is required for many forest certification schemes (e.g. CSA). Appendix III provides a description of the scoring system and a series of pictorial examples of various levels of erosion and their respective scores. The entire procedure is currently being quantitatively evaluated using a large network of water quality monitoring stations located throughout the Prince George, Vanderhoof, Fort St James and Chetwynd Forest Districts. This initiative is being funded by Canadian Forest Products Ltd. 3.5 Stream Channel Conditions. The lower mainstem reaches of all seven watersheds were assessed for disturbance levels and indicators of channel instability. This was done by using a combination of the airphoto review, the helicopter reconnaissance and, for Tributary #7, a field assessment based on the indicators suggested in the overview channel assessment procedure (Government of B.C. 1999). Most of the stream channels are very small and flow through a series of ponds and wetlands. We did not observe any signs of channel instability associated with forest harvesting activities in any of the reviewed watersheds. 3.6 Hazard Assessments The WAP guidebook provides the following directive: The hydrologist will use the report card, together with the field assessment maps, to develop hazard rating for peak flow, sediment sources, riparian function and channel stability. He or she will then use these ratings in making specific recommendations for the forest development plan (FDP) (Government of BC, 1999). This WAP requirement has been met and I have developed hazard ratings for each of the seven watersheds analysed. These hazard ratings are presented in detail in each watershed report and are summarized in the executive summary. The hazard ratings were determined by using the descriptive data collected for each watershed, which are presented in each individual watershed report. An explanation of how the hazards were determined in provided in Tables 3.2 to 3.4 of this report. Note that many of the hazard ratings were adapted from the information provided in the first edition of the watershed assessment guidebook. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 11 February 2003

23 3.6.1 Increases in Peak Flow Hazard The hazard caused by potential increases in peak flows was determined by using the Peak Flow Index value which is presented in the third table of each watershed report. The formal hazard classification (i.e. Very Low to Very High) is based solely on the peak flow index because this is the value that I believe is most relevant to establishing this hazard. The development of an algorithm that includes several other values would be complex and would make it more difficult to understand where the hazard rating actually comes from. The use of the peak flow index is simple, straightforward and I believe meaningful. Table 3.2 provides the range of peak flow index values for the five different hazard ratings. For example if the peak flow index is between 35 and 44.9% than the hazard rating is Moderate. According to the literature, peak flows will start to increase when a peak flow index reaches a value of about 30% (or ECA of about 25%). It is important to realize that the literature reports a large variation around the 25% ECA value. A recent study by Stednick (1995), present a wide variation for the threshold of response required for measurable increase in annual water yield. A summary of his results are as follows: Hydrological Region Number of studies reviewed Average threshold of response (% harvest area) All studies Appalachian Mountains Eastern Coastal Plain 7 45 Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Pacific Coast Central Plains 7 50 The threshold of response reported in Stednick (1995) only represents the level at which there is a measurable increase in water yield. It does not address the issue of threshold value for physical or biological impacts to occur. It is quite clear however, that the level and type of impact can change dramatically depending on the type of watershed that is harvested (Grant and Hayes, 2001). Different types of watersheds have different sensitivities to increased peak flows. It is my opinion that many of the watersheds analysed in this report have a relatively low sensitivity to increased peak flows. Each case is discussed individually in its related watershed report. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 12 February 2003

24 Table 3.2. Determination of Peak flow hazard rating Hazard Rating Peak Flow Index Very Low Less than 25% Low 25 to 34.9% Moderate 35 to 44.9% High 45 to 54.9% Very High Greater than 55% Reduction in Riparian Functions Hazard Typically, the hazard caused by a reduction in riparian functions is determined by using a combination of the percent riparian removal of mainstem and the percent removal of all tributaries (Table 3.3). This approach measures the length of stream that is completely harvested. However, in the case of the Sustut analysis the extent of riparian removal was not actually measurable using such an approach. This is because riparian harvesting occurred in only very small localized patches. Consequently, the hazard was assessed as Very Low for all cases. It is true that there may be a loss of riparian function in some cases associated with not enough retention on small streams. However, there is currently no objective information that tells us how much is enough or not enough. The watershed assessment procedure only looks at stream sections that were completely harvested to the stream edge. Table 3.3. Determination of riparian hazard rating (both condition must apply) (from airphotos and overview flight) Hazard Rating Scenario % of mainstem logged % of tributary logged Very Low 1 Less than 5 Less than 6 Low 2 Less than Moderate 3 Less than High 4 Less than Very High 5 Less than 5 Greater than 30 Low 6 5 to 10 Less than 6 Moderate 7 5 to High 8 5 to Very High 9 5 to 10 Greater than 20 Moderate to 20 Less than 6 High to Very High to 20 Greater than 12 High to 30 Less than 6 Very High to 30 Greater than 6 Very High 15 Greater than 30 Greater than 0 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 13 February 2003

25 3.6.3 Hazard Associated with Road Related Sediment Sources The hazard caused by road related sediment sources was determined on the ground by using the Equivalent Stream Crossing Density which is presented in each individual watershed report (Table 4.x.6). Table 3.4 provides the range of values that generate one of the five different hazard ratings. For example, if the equivalent stream crossing density is greater than 0.25 and less or equal to 0.4 crossings/km 2 than the hazard rating is Moderate. Table 3.4. Determination of hazard associated with road related sediment sources Hazard Rating Equivalent Stream Crossing Density (#/km 2 ) Very Low Less than or equal to 0.1 Low Greater than 0.1 and less or equal to 0.25 Moderate Greater than 0.25 and less or equal to 0.4 High Greater than 0.4 and less or equal to 0.6 Very High Greater than 0.6 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 14 February 2003

26 Size (km 2 ) INDIVIDUAL WATERSHED REPORTS 4.1 Tributary #1 (Solomon Creek) Watershed Description Table Summary information Biophysical BEC Zones SBSmc & ESSFmc Elevation Range H 60 Elevation Stream Density (m) (m) km/km Fish species present 1 <10% slope CO,CH, RB, DV Distribution of slope gradients within the watershed (% of watershed) 10 to 30% slope 30 to 60% slope >60% slope Fish species code: CO = Coho Salmon, CH = Chinook Salmon, RB = Rainbow Trout, DV = Dolly Varden, ST = Steelhead. Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard). Reach ID Minimum Elevation (m) Maximum Elevation (m) Reach Length (m) Reach Gradient (%) Extent of riparian harvest (% of reach length) Stream Type and Stability Assessment Low gradient, extensive wetlands, stable Low gradient, extensive wetlands, stable Low gradient, extensive wetlands, stable Extent of Land-use Tributary #1 Watershed The following table provides information about the extent of current and proposed forest harvesting, the extent of the road network and the density of stream crossings in this watershed. These are considered to be important indicators when considering the potential impacts of forestry activities on the aquatic resources. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 15 February 2003

27 Table Extent of land-use in the Tributary #1 watershed. Total harvest 2002 (%) Current ECA (%) Planned Harvest (%) ECA at end of FDP Peak Flow Index Current (2002) (%) End of FDP (2007)(%) Current (2002) Road Density (km/km 2 ) End of FDP (2007) Stream Crossing density (#/km 2 ) Current (2002) End of FDP (2007) Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) The following four tables provide a summary of the field assessment of road related surface erosion in Tributary #1 watershed. We surveyed all five stream crossings in this watershed according to the SCQI methodology described in Section 3 of this report. Two of these five crossings were classified as NCD and consequently do not contribute to the score. The completed field survey forms are provided in Appendix I of this report. These forms provide detailed information about each crossing surveyed, including specifics about where the erosion problems are occurring. We did not find any significant potential water quality problems associated with road related erosion in this watershed. Table Tributary #1 Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Number of crossings surveyed Total # of crossings shown on TRIM maps (1:20,000) Percentage of stream crossings surveyed Watershed Size (km 2 ) 5 (2 NCD) 4 100% 10.8 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings (WQCR) Tributary #1 Watershed No Concern (score = 0) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings Low (0< score <=0.40) Percentage Number of xings Medium (0.40< score <=0.80) Percentage Number of xings High (score >0.80) Percentage 2 67% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 16 February 2003

28 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Tributary #1 Watershed None Low Medium High Stream Class 1 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage # of streams surveyed per class % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 1 1 Stream class sizes: class 1 is greater than 20m, class 2 is between 5 and 20m, class 3 is between 1.5 and 5m, class 4 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, class 5 is less than 0.5m in width. Table Surface erosion hazard Tributary #1 Watershed Equivalent stream crossing density (#/km 2 ) Surface Erosion Hazard 0.03 Very Low Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight The following observations were made during the helicopter overview flight and the review of the air-photos: 1. The terrain where logging has occurred is very gentle which generally reduces erosion hazards (photo #770). 2. No mass wasting events (i.e. large sediment sources) were identified in this watershed, either natural or land-use related. 3. There are numerous extensive wetlands throughout the lower reaches of Tributary #1 (photos 757, 764 &1756). These wetlands contribute significantly to overall channel stability and result in a robust channel network. Such a low gradient stream channel is less susceptible to negative impacts from increased flows than steeper alluvial channels. 4. There are only a few, very minor localized occurrences of forest harvesting in the riparian zones in this watershed. Riparian buffers have been retained throughout the watershed, except of course at road crossings. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 17 February 2003

29 4.1.5 Summary of Hazard Ratings for Tributary #1 Watershed The following table provides a summary of the watershed assessment hazard indices for the Tributary #1 watershed. These hazard indices are derived from the inventory data collected for these watersheds and follow the methodology described in Section 3.0 of this report. These individual hazards are placed in context with watershed characteristics and conditions and the associated risk is discussed in the following sub-section of this report. Table Summary of Hazard Ratings for Key Watershed Indices Tributary #1 Watershed. Increases in peak flows (current/proposed) Reduction in Riparian Function Large logging related sediment sources Road related sediment sources Reduction in stream channel stability VeryLow/ Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Interpretations and Recommendations 1. The overall extent of harvesting in this watershed is currently very low and does not create a significant hazard for causing channel disturbance by increasing peak flows. The extent of proposed harvesting in this watershed does not increase the hazard to a level that causes concerns. 2. There are no issues of concern in this watershed related to harvesting in the riparian areas or increasing the occurrences of mass wasting. 3. There are only five stream crossings in this watershed and none display any problems with surface erosion and sediment delivery to the aquatic environment. The old roads have been temporarily de-activated, but culverts have not been removed (e.g. photos #754 & 1753). These culverts are not a problem from the point of view of water management, but some may impede fish passage. 4. I do not recommend that all old culverts be permanently removed in this watershed, unless they are clearly fish passage problems. It is my opinion that in this type of gentle terrain, the removal of the culverts will cause more water quality problems than if they are left installed. The potential problems arise from two distinct processes: 1) the removal of the culvert itself has the potential to cause significant erosion and increased sediment delivery to the stream channel and 2) once the culvert is removed accelerated surface erosion and sediment delivery is often caused by vehicular access across the stream (quads and 4x4s). However, if the culvert is causing a barrier to fish migration, then removal of the culvert should be considered. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 18 February 2003

30 5. Maintain the high quality of erosion and sediment control practices that are currently being implemented for all future crossings Selected Photographs from Field Assessments Tributary #1 Watershed P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 19 February 2003

31 Photograph #754. Typical stream crossing in watershed. Photograph #757. Extensive wetlands in lower watershed. Photograph #764. Extensive wetlands in lower watershed. Photograph #770. Crossing with no sediment delivery. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 20 February 2003

32 Photograph #1753. Site #2, SCQI score = 0.3 Photograph #1755. Site #3, NCD, no Score Photograph #1756. Abundant wetlands in lower watershed. Photograph #1760. Site 6, SCQI score = 0.0 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 21 February 2003

33 Size (km 2 ) Teressa Creek Watershed Description Table Summary information Biophysical BEC Zones SBSmc ESSFmc Elevation Range H 60 Elevation Stream Density (m) (m) km/km Fish species present 1 <10% slope CO, DVsupected but not caught Distribution of slope gradients within the watershed (% of watershed) 10 to 30% slope 30 to 60% slope >60% slope Fish species code: CO = Coho Salmon, CH = Chinook Salmon, RB = Rainbow Trout, DV = Dolly Varden, ST = Steelhead. Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard). Reach ID Minimum Elevation (m) Maximum Elevation (m) Reach Length (m) Reach Gradient (%) Extent of riparian harvest (% of reach length) Stream Type and Stability Assessment Low gradient, meandering through numerous wetlands, stable Low gradient, meandering through several wetlands, stable Sinuous and stable Extent of Land-use Teressa Creek Watershed The following table provides information about the extent of current and proposed forest harvesting, the extent of the road network and the density of stream crossings in this watershed. These are considered to be important indicators when considering the potential impacts of forestry activities on the aquatic resources. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 22 February 2003

34 Table Extent of land-use in the Teressa Creek watershed. Total harvest 2002 (%) Current ECA (%) Planned Harvest (%) ECA at end of FDP Peak Flow Index Current (2002) (%) End of FDP (2007)(%) Current (2002) Road Density (km/km 2 ) End of FDP (2007) Stream Crossing density (#/km 2 ) Current (2002) End of FDP (2007) Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) The following four tables provide a summary of the field assessment of road related surface erosion in the Teressa Creek watershed. We surveyed all twenty-six stream crossings in this watershed according to the SCQI methodology described in Section 3 of this report. The completed field survey forms are provided in Appendix I of this report. These forms provide detailed information about each crossing surveyed including specific about where the erosion problems are occurring. We did not find any significant potential water quality problems associated with road related erosion in this watershed. Of the 26 crossings surveyed only one had a score greater than 0.4 (i.e. crossing # 29). This was a stream of about 2m in width that has a long ditch that has created the potential for sediment to enter directly into the stream (photo #1799). Simple cross-ditching would solve this problem. Because the equivalent stream crossing density is only 0.24 crossings/km 2 the hazard has been identified as low (Table 4.2.6). Table Teressa Creek Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Number of crossings surveyed Total # of crossings identified on 1:20,000 TRIM maps Percentage of stream crossings surveyed Watershed Size (km 2 ) % 8.2 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 23 February 2003

35 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings (WQCR) Teressa Creek Watershed No Concern (score = 0) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings Low (0< score <=0.40) Percentage Medium (0.40< score <=0.80) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings High (score >0.80) Percentage % % 0 0.0% 1 3.8% Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Teressa Creek Watershed None Low Medium High Stream Class 1 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage # of streams surveyed per class % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 5 1 Stream class sizes: class 1 is greater than 20m, class 2 is between 5 and 20m, class 3 is between 1.5 and 5m, class 4 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, class 5 is less than 0.5m in width. Table Surface erosion hazard Teressa Creek Watershed Equivalent stream crossing density Surface Erosion Hazard 0.24 Low P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 24 February 2003

36 4.2.4 Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight 1. The terrain in the lower half of this watershed is generally quite gentle (86% of this watershed has slopes less than 30% - Table 4.2.1). Accelerated erosion in this watershed is not a problem (photo # 1768). 2. No significant mass wasting events (i.e. large sediment sources) were identified in this watershed, either natural or land-use related. 3. There are numerous extensive wetlands throughout the lower reaches of Teressa Creek watershed (photos # 783 and 785). These wetlands contribute significantly to overall channel stability and result in a robust channel network. 4. Effective riparian buffers have been left on all streams within this watershed. There are only a few, very small localized areas where harvesting has occurred next to the stream. Other than at road crossings, there are only a few, small localized sections of ephemeral streams that have been logged Summary of Hazard Ratings for Teressa Creek Watershed The following table provides a summary of the watershed assessment hazard ratings for the Teressa Creek watershed. These hazard indices are derived from the inventory data collected for these watersheds and follow the methodology described in Section 3.0 of this report. These individual hazards are placed in context with watershed characteristics and conditions and the associated risk is discussed in the following sub-section of this report. Table Summary of Hazard Ratings for Key Watershed Indices Teressa Creek Watershed. Increases in peak flows (current/proposed) Moderate/ Moderate Reduction in Riparian Function Large logging related sediment sources Road related sediment sources Reduction in stream channel stability Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Interpretations and Recommendations 1. The peak flow index in this watershed is currently 39.2% and will increase to 40.9 % at the end of the forest development plan. This extent and distribution of harvest has generated a hazard rating of Moderate. This means that there will probably be a relatively small increase in spring peak flows in this watershed. However, the lower reaches of this stream are relatively insensitive to small increases in peak flows because the channel is low gradient and buffered by numerous large wetlands. There are no signs of instability or accelerated bank P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 25 February 2003

37 erosion in the lower reaches of Teressa Creek. Consequently, the risk of negatively impacting fish habitat from increased peak flows is judged to be low. Mitigation of increased peak flows from future harvest can be achieved by leaving 20-25% canopy cover in partial retention over the block area. This will result in a disproportionately large benefit on controlling increased snow accumulation and melt rates (i.e. the benefit will be more than 20-25% compared to a clearcut). The rational for this recommendation is provided below. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1956) suggests that snow accumulation in a forest with 30% canopy cover would be about 27% more than in the fully stocked mature forest. The same study suggests that the snow accumulation in a clearcut would be about 54% more than in the mature forest. Thus, this study suggests that a 70% canopy removal would actually results in an increase in snow accumulation of only 50% of the increase expected in a complete clearcut. Dunne and Leopold (1978) present extensive information that clearly demonstrates that snow melts rates from radiative sources (short and long wave radiation) do not decrease linearly with increased canopy cover. The decreases are very rapid from 0 to 30% cover and tend to taper off as canopy cover increases. As an example, in a balsam fir and lodgepole pine stand with 80% canopy removal the amount of solar radiation reaching the snowpack is only 40% of the amount measured in the clearcut. Thus a 20% retention would reduce solar radiation to the snowpack by much more than 20% and therefore this type of treatment could have a significant beneficial effect on reducing the peak flow impacts compared to a complete clearcut. Snowmelt modeling efforts completed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) suggest that a 40% canopy retention will actually minimize the total amount of net radiation available for snowmelt during a sunny day (i.e. less than a clearcut and less than a complete forest). Consequently, this model suggests that snowmelt rates during a sunny day in the spring would be less in a cutblock that was 60% harvested than they would be in either a clearcut or an undisturbed mature forest. This is because such a treatment has significantly reduced the amount of solar radiation compared to a clearcut and reduced the amount of longwave radiation compared to an undisturbed mature forest. Although these numbers would vary between forest types, aspect and elevation, the models clearly suggest that even relatively low levels of partial retention (i.e. 20 to 25%) could have a significant beneficial impact on reducing the impacts to peak flows, compared to total clearcuts. 2. There has been no riparian harvesting along the lower reaches of Teressa Creek (photo 796), recent harvesting has maintained good buffers throughout the watershed. There is some, minor localized riparian harvesting along some of the smaller upper tributary streams. Overall, however the riparian management looks good in the upper blocks with riparian reserves and wildlife tree patches P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 26 February 2003

38 distributed throughout the upper block. Consequently, the riparian harvesting hazard is considered as Very Low. 3. The SCQI survey assessed all 26 stream crossings in this watershed. All crossings, except for one were in excellent condition relative to erosion and sediment delivery. Only one crossing had a sediment delivery problem (i.e. #29) and this particular situation can be very easily remediated with some effective cross drainage in the vicinity of this crossing. Due to the effectiveness of the erosion and sediment control in this watershed, the surface erosion hazard has been assessed as being Low (e.g. see photos #779 and 781). These results suggests that fish and fish habitat will not be negatively impacted by increased loading of fine sediment derived from forestry operations. 4. Plans for further harvesting in this watershed are relatively minor, and if current practices are maintained, there should be no negative impacts to fish habitat. 5. The road de-activation situation in this watershed is very similar as that for Tributary #1 watershed. The roads have been temporarily de-activated, but most of the culverts are still in place (photos #1768 and 1778). These culverts currently do not create a significant hazard for water quality or quantity. The removal of these culverts could create problems for water quality that currently do not exist. I recommend that the culverts be removed if they are a barrier to fish migration, but if not considerations should be given to leaving them in place Selected Photographs from Field Assessments Teressa Creek watershed. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 27 February 2003

39 Photograph #796. Riparian retention along Teressa Creek.. Photograph #785. Extensive wetlands in lower watershed. Photograph #779. Crossing of Teressa Creek along mainline. Photograph #781. Stream crossing of Teressa Creek. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 28 February 2003

40 Photograph #1768. Crossing #10, SCQI score = 0.0. Photograph # Crossing #13, SCQO score = 0.0. Photograph #1778. Crossing #17, SCQI Score = 0.0. Photograph #1799. Crossing # 29. SCQI score = 0.85 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 29 February 2003

41 Size (km 2 ) Boyd Creek Watershed Description Table Summary information Biophysical BEC Zones SBSmc ESSFmc Elevation Range H 60 Elevation Stream Density (m) (m) km/km Fish species present 1 <10% slope Co, DV below road Distribution of slope gradients within the watershed (% of watershed) 10 to 30% slope 30 to 60% slope >60%slo pe Fish species code: CO = Coho Salmon, CH = Chinook Salmon, RB = Rainbow Trout, DV = Dolly Varden, ST = Steelhead. Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard). Reach ID Minimum Elevation (m) Maximum Elevation (m) Reach Length (m) Reach Gradient (%) Extent of riparian harvest (% of reach length) Stream Type and Stability Assessment Low gradient, several wetlands, stable Low gradient, several wetlands, stable Sinuous, stable Sinuous, stable Extent of Land-use Boyd Creek Watershed The following table provides information about the extent of current and proposed forest harvesting, the extent of the road network and the density of stream crossings in this watershed. These are considered to be important indicators when considering the potential impacts of forestry activities on the aquatic resources. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 30 February 2003

42 Table Extent of land-use in the Boyd Creek watershed. Total harvest 2002 (%) Current ECA (%) Planned Harvest (%) ECA at end of FDP Peak Flow Index Current (2002) (%) End of FDP (2007)(%) Current (2002) Road Density (km/km 2 ) End of FDP (2007) Stream Crossing density (#/km 2 ) Current (2002) End of FDP (2007) Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) The following four tables provide a summary of the field assessment of road related surface erosion in the Boyd Creek watershed. We surveyed all nine stream crossings in this watershed according to the SCQI methodology described in Section 3 of this report. The completed field survey forms are provided in Appendix I of this report. We did not find any significant potential water quality problems associated with road related erosion in this watershed. All stream crossings in this watershed received a Low or No Concern WCQR. This means that the current road network in this watershed will not cause a detrimental increase in sediments to the stream system. The ditches and old roads were well vegetated and no signs of accelerated erosion and sediment delivery were noted (e.g. photos #1794, 1807, 1820 and 1850). Because of this situation, the surface erosion hazard was assessed as Low. Table Boyd Creek Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Number of crossings surveyed Total # of crossings shown on TRIM maps (1:20,000) Percentage of stream crossings surveyed Watershed Size (km 2 ) % 10.2 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 31 February 2003

43 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings (WQCR) Boyd Creek Watershed No Concern (score = 0) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings Low (0< score <=0.40) Percentage Medium (0.40< score <=0.80) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings High (score >0.80) Percentage % % % % Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Boyd Creek Watershed Stream Class None Low Medium High Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage # of streams surveyed per class % 0.00% % % % 0.00% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 2 1 Stream class sizes: class 1 is greater than 20m, class 2 is between 5 and 20m, class 3 is between 1.5 and 5m, class 4 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, class 5 is less than 0.5m in width. Table Surface erosion hazard Boyd Creek Watershed Equivalent stream crossing density Surface Erosion Hazard 0.18 Low P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 32 February 2003

44 4.3.4 Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight 1. The general topography and channel characteristics are similar to those found in Tributary #1 and Teressa Creek. The terrain is gently rolling and there are numerous wetlands in the lower reached of Boyd Creek (photos # 805 and 806). Surface erosion is not a significant problem in this watershed. 2. Functional riparian buffers have been maintained throughout the watershed. There are no extended sections of stream that have been completely harvested. Short sections of the upper streams have been aggressively harvested leaving in some places a scattered overstorey canopy. However, no sections have been completely harvested. It is my opinion that riparian habitat is functional and in good condition throughout the watershed. 3. We did not find any large sediment sources or land-use related mass wasting events in this watershed Summary of Hazard Ratings for Boyd Creek Watershed The following table provides a summary of the watershed assessment hazard indices for the Boyd Creek watershed. These hazard indices are derived from the inventory data collected for these watersheds and follow the methodology described in Section 3.0 of this report. These individual hazards are placed in context with watershed characteristics and conditions and the associated risk is discussed in the following sub-section of this report. Table Summary of Hazard Ratings for Key Watershed Indices Boyd Creek Watershed. Increases in peak flows (current/proposed) Reduction in Riparian Function Large sediment sources from mass wasting Road related sediment sources Stream channel stability Low/Moderate Low Very Low Low Very Low Interpretations and Recommendations 1. The peak flow index in this watershed is currently at 32.2% and will increase to 40% by the end of the current forest development plan. This level of harvest represents a Low hazard for increasing peak flows, with the hazard rising to a Moderate level by the end of the FDP. However, because the lower reaches are very stable and dominated by wetlands the actual risk to the stream channel is P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 33 February 2003

45 considered as Low. To mitigate the effects of increased peak flows as a result of future harvesting, I suggest that about 15-20% of the canopy be retained in a partial harvest distributed across the block. The basis for this prescription is discussed in more detail in section of this report. 2. There are no significant problems related to surface erosion and increased delivery of fine sediments to the stream network. The field assessment (SCQI) has identified that all of the stream crossings in this watershed are stable and are not contributing accelerated amounts of sediment to the aquatic environment (see photos in section 4.3.7). 3. The road network has been temporarily de-activated, however most of the culverts have not been removed (e.g. photo# 814 and 819). Currently these structures are not creating a problem for water quality and should only be removed if they are creating a barrier to fish passage. The culverts currently provide quad access throughout the watershed, without the need for stream fords. Once the culverts are removed, accelerated erosion and sedimentation can occur from quad and 4X4 access across the streams. 4. Although the peak flow hazard will rise to a moderate level by the end of the FDP, it is my opinion that current forest harvesting practices in Boyd Creek do no create any kind of significant risk to the aquatic environment. 5. Future forest harvesting activities in this watershed should focus on maintaining the high quality of erosion and sediment control practices at stream crossings Selected Photographs from Field Assessments Boyd Creek Watershed. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 34 February 2003

46 Photograph #805. Lower reaches are low gradient with wetlands. Photograph #806. Lower reaches are low gradient with wetlands. Photograph #814. Effective erosion control at stream crossings Photograph #819. Crossings not de-activated, but stable. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 35 February 2003

47 Photograph #1794. Crossing #28, SCQI score = 0.3 Photograph #1807. Crossing #31, SCQI score = 0.2 Photograph #1820. Crossing #46, SCQI score = 0.0 Photograph #1850. Crossing #50, SCQI score = 0.38 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 36 February 2003

48 Size (km 2 ) Tributary # Watershed Description Table Summary information Biophysical BEC Zones SBSmc ESSFmc Elevation Range H 60 Elevation Stream Density (m) (m) km/km Fish species present 1 <10% slope DV in reach #1 Distribution of slope gradients within the watershed (% of watershed) 10 to 30% slope 30 to 60% slope >60%slo pe Fish species code: CO = Coho Salmon, CH = Chinook Salmon, RB = Rainbow Trout, DV = Dolly Varden, ST = Steelhead. Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard). Reach ID Minimum Elevation (m) Maximum Elevation (m) Reach Length (m) Reach Gradient (%) Extent of riparian harvest (% of reach length) Stream Type and Stability Assessment Sinuous, stable Straight, stable Extent of Land-use Tributary #3 Watershed The following table provides information about the extent of current and proposed forest harvesting, the extent of the road network and the density of stream crossings in this watershed. These are considered to be important indicators when considering the potential impacts of forestry activities on the aquatic resources. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 37 February 2003

49 Table Extent of land-use in the Tributary #3 watershed. Total harvest 2002 (%) Current ECA (%) Planned Harvest (%) ECA at end of FDP Peak Flow Index Current (2002) (%) End of FDP (2007)(%) Current (2002) Road Density (km/km 2 ) End of FDP (2007) Stream Crossing density (#/km 2 ) Current (2002) End of FDP (2007) Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) The following four tables provide a summary of the field assessment of road related surface erosion in the Tributary #3 Creek watershed. We surveyed seven of the nine stream crossings in this watershed according to the SCQI methodology described in Section 3 of this report. One of these seven crossings was classified as NCD and consequently does not contribute to the score. Two of the stream crossings were inaccessible due to very wet and soft road conditions. These two crossing are located on small first order streams which have been completely de-activated. We did not find any significant potential water quality problems associated with road related erosion in this watershed. All stream crossings in this watershed received either a Low or No Concern water quality concern rating. Temporary bridges were used on all in-block stream crossings and these crossing have been removed and erosion control measures applied (e.g. photos #840, 1935, 1936 and 1941). It is my opinion that stream crossings in this watershed are not causing a significant increase in the delivery of fine sediments to the stream network. Because of this situation, the surface erosion hazard has been assessed as Low. Table Tributary #3 Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Number of crossings surveyed Total # of crossings shown on TRIM maps (1:20,000) Percentage of stream crossings surveyed Watershed Size (km 2 ) 7 (1 NCD) % 2.4 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 38 February 2003

50 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings (WQCR) Tributary #3 Watershed No Concern (score = 0) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings Low (0< score <=0.40) Percentage Medium (0.40< score <=0.80) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings High (score >0.80) Percentage 3 50% 3 50% % % Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Tributary #3 Watershed. Stream Class None Low Medium High Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage # of streams surveyed per class % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 1 1 Stream class sizes: class 1 is greater than 20m, class 2 is between 5 and 20m, class 3 is between 1.5 and 5m, class 4 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, class 5 is less than 0.5m in width. Table Surface erosion hazard Tributary #3 Watershed Equivalent stream crossing density Surface Erosion Hazard 0.3 Low 1 1 This concept is designed to be applied to watershed that are 5km 2 in size and large. This watershed is only 2.4 km 2 in size consequently a more objective assessment was provided in this case Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight 1. The terrain in most of this watershed is very gentle (98.8% of this watershed has slopes less than 30% - Table 4.4.1). Accelerated erosion in this watershed is not a problem. There are several ponds and wetlands in the lower reaches (photo #834) which contribute significantly to the overall stability of the stream network. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 39 February 2003

51 2. We did not identify any large sediment sources or land-use related mass wasting events in this watershed. 3. Riparian buffers have been maintained along all of the mainstem and tributary streams in this watershed (photo #835, 843, 1935). Certain short sections of tributary streams have experienced removal of the overstory canopy, but the shrubs and deciduous species have been maintained (photo #843). Along the mainstem there is a very effective buffer that was left in the cutblocks for the size of stream (Photo #1935) Summary of Hazard Ratings for Tributary #3 Watershed The following table provides a summary of the watershed assessment hazard indices for the Tributary #3 watershed. These hazard indices are derived from the inventory data collected for these watersheds and follow the methodology described in Section 3.0 of this report. These individual hazards are placed in context with watershed characteristics and conditions and the associated risk is discussed in the following sub-section of this report. Table Summary of Hazard Ratings for Key Watershed Indices Tributary #3 Watershed. Increases in peak flows (current/proposed) Very High/ Very High Reduction in Riparian Function Large sediment sources from mass wasting Road related sediment sources Stream channel stability Very Low Very Low Low Very Low Interpretations and Recommendations 1. The current Peak Flow Index in this watershed is 71.9% and will rise to 85.0% by the end of the forest development plan. These numbers result in a hazard rating of very high for peak flow concerns. However, this watershed is smaller than the minimum size recommended for the Watershed Assessment Procedure (i.e. 5 km 2 ). For this size of watershed, the WAP recommends dealing with site specific issues rather than attempting to address landscape level cumulative impacts. If you keep making your watersheds smaller and smaller, eventually you will get an ECA of 100%. The 5 km 2 watershed minimum size limit is an attempt to deal appropriately with this situation. A peak flow index of about 80% will very likely result in increased peak flows in the spring. This means that the stream will have greater power to alter its channel and may result in localized instability. However, Tributary #7 stream channel is very small and has a relatively low gradient and very low inherent stream power (photo #1935). The stream banks P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 40 February 2003

52 have been well protected with riparian vegetation and are currently very stable (photo #1936). Although there may be localized increases in channel instability, it is my opinion that aquatic habitat will not be compromised because riparian vegetation has been maintained and erosion sources very well controlled. Consequently, the cumulative impacts will be small. Future harvesting in this watershed should continue to focus on maintaining the functionality of the riparian zone and controlling erosion and sediment delivery. In an effort to mitigate the peak flow impacts in this watershed, future cut blocks should maintain a certain level of residual canopy cover (e.g %). See section for a discussion about this concept. 2. Erosion and sediment control has been very effective in this watershed. All cutblocks were accessed with temporary bridges, which were removed after the logging was completed. The stream banks were not damaged and the channel remained intact. All of the approaches to these crossings were grass seeded for long term control and a generous layer of hay mulch was applied as a temporary erosion control. After the logging was completed, several ¾ inch plywood sheets were left at each crossing to be used for silviculture quad access (see photo #1936 and 1941 as an example). I believe that this is a very effective erosion control measure because one of the biggest problems with de-activation of stream crossings is the damage caused by fording the stream after the culverts are removed. Canfor should consider retaining the plywood crossings over the streams during the summer field season (e.g. photo # 1941). These simple crossings are very effective when in place. However, when they are pulled away and stored on the banks, they may not be used for the occasional ATV crossing (e.g. photo #1936). The placement of the plywood boards over the stream will probably be perceived as too much effort for occasional use (e.g. hunters). Significant damage can occur to the streambanks from such use, and thereby negating to a certain extent all of the excellent erosion control work completed to date. During the SCQI assessment, this kind of damage was noted at a few crossings. 3. I believe that although there has been extensive harvesting in this watershed, the cumulative impact hazards for fish habitat are low. This is because erosion has been well controlled and there has been extensive riparian retention on all streams in the watershed Selected Photographs from Field Assessments for Tributary #3 Watershed. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 41 February 2003

53 Photograph #834. Wetlands in lower reaches of Tributary #3. Photograph #835. Riparian management along Tributary #3. Photograph #843. Riparian management at small streams. Photograph #840. De-activated stream crossing and erosion control P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 42 February 2003

54 Photograph #1936. Crossing #75, SCQI Score = 0.2. Photograph #1935. Crossing #71, SCQI Score = 0.0 Photograph #1941. Crossing #77, SCQI = 0.0 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 43 February 2003

55 Size (km 2 ) Chelsea Creek Watershed Description Table Summary information Biophysical BEC Zones SBSmc ESSFmc Elevation Range H 60 Elevation Stream Density (m) (m) km/km Fish species present 1 <10% slope CO, DV in reach #1 no fish above BCR Distribution of slope gradients within the watershed (% of watershed) 10 to 30% slope 30 to 60% slope >60% slope Fish species code: CO = Coho Salmon, CH = Chinook Salmon, RB = Rainbow Trout, DV = Dolly Varden, ST = Steelhead. Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard). Reach ID Minimum Elevation (m) Maximum Elevation (m) Reach Length (m) Reach Gradient (%) Extent of riparian harvest (% of reach length) Stream Type and Stability Assessment Sinuous, no wetlands, stable Sinuous, no wetlands, stable Straight, stable P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 44 February 2003

56 4.5.2 Extent of Land-use Chelsea Creek Watershed The following table provides information about the extent of current and proposed forest harvesting, the extent of the road network and the density of stream crossings in this watershed. These are considered to be important indicators when considering the potential impacts of forestry activities on the aquatic resources. Table Extent of land-use in the Chelsea Creek watershed. Total harvest 2002 (%) Current ECA (%) Planned Harvest (%) ECA at end of FDP Peak Flow Index Current (2002) (%) End of FDP (2007)(%) Current (2002) Road Density (km/km 2 ) End of FDP (2007) Stream Crossing density (#/km 2 ) Current (2002) End of FDP (2007) Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) The following four tables provide a summary of the field assessment of road related surface erosion in the Chelsea Creek watershed. We surveyed all five stream crossings in this watershed according to the SCQI methodology described in Section 3 of this report. The completed field survey forms are provided in Appendix I of this report. We did not find any significant potential water quality problems associated with road related erosion in this watershed. All stream crossings in this watershed received Low or No Concern water quality rating This means that the current road network in this watershed will not cause a detrimental increase in sediments to the stream system. Similarly to Tributary #3 watershed, all in-block streams were crossed with temporary bridges that were removed after harvesting. Erosion and sediment control measures at all of these stream crossings included: grass seeding, straw mulch and plywood crossings for ATV access. The combination of these erosion control measures has proven to be very effective (photos # 849, 1944, 1946). Because of this situation, the surface erosion hazard was assessed as Very Low in Chelsea Creek watershed. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 45 February 2003

57 Table Chelsea Creek Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Number of crossings surveyed Total # of crossings shown on TRIM maps (1:20,000) Percentage of stream crossings surveyed Watershed Size (km 2 ) % 14.4 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings (WQCR) Chelsea Creek Watershed No Concern (score = 0) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings Low (0< score <=0.40) Percentage Medium (0.40< score <=0.80) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings High (score >0.80) Percentage % % % % Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Chelsea Creek Watershed None Low Medium High Stream Class 1 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage # of streams surveyed per class % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 1 1 Stream class sizes: class 1 is greater than 20m, class 2 is between 5 and 20m, class 3 is between 1.5 and 5m, class 4 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, class 5 is less than 0.5m in width. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 46 February 2003

58 Table Surface erosion hazard Chelsea Creek Watershed Equivalent stream crossing density (#/km 2 ) Surface Erosion Hazard 0.04 Very Low Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight 1. The lower reaches of Chelsea Creek are steeper than the neighbouring western watersheds and there are no wetlands or ponds to buffer peak flows and sediment transport ( Photo #846 and Table 4.5.2). However, the terrain in the lower part of the watershed, where forest harvesting has occurred, is gently rolling and erosion problems are generally minimal. 2. There are no land-use related landslides, mass wasting events or large sediment sources in this watershed. 3. There is no riparian harvesting along any of the mainstem channels of Chelsea Creek (photo #848). Nor is there any significant removal of riparian vegetation along any of the tributaries. 4. Relative to the extent of harvesting in this watershed there are very few stream crossings. All of the crossings that are present have been permanently deactivated except for the mainline and extensively managed for erosion control Summary of Hazard Ratings for Chelsea Creek Watershed The following table provides a summary of the watershed assessment hazard indices for the Chelsea Creek watershed. These hazard indices are derived from the inventory data collected for these watersheds and follow the methodology described in Section 3.0 of this report. These individual hazards are placed in context with watershed characteristics and conditions and the associated risk is discussed in the following sub-section of this report. Table Summary of Hazard Ratings for Key Watershed Indices Chelsea Creek Watershed. Increases in peak flows (current/proposed) Very Low/ Very Low Reduction in Riparian Function Large sediment sources from mass wasting Road related sediment sources Stream channel stability Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 47 February 2003

59 4.5.6 Interpretations and Recommendations 1. The current peak flow index is 10.6% and will rise to 18.6% by the end of the current Forest Development Plan. This is a very low value and will not cause any measurable increase in spring peak flows or changes in stream channel stability. For this reason the Peak Flow hazard has been assessed as being very low. Consequently, the extent of harvest in this watershed is not a significant concern. 2. There are no cumulative impact concerns in this watershed relative to riparian management or generation of fine sediments. All streams and tributaries have been well managed for riparian buffers and the few stream crossings that exist have excellent erosion and sediment control. 3. It is my opinion that the overall cumulative impact hazard for fish and fish habitat in this watershed is currently very low. 4. Future harvesting in this watershed should continue to implement effective erosion and sediment control at stream crossings. As for Tributary #3 watershed, the plywood crossings should be maintained in place during the snow free field season (see discussion section 4.4.6) Selected Photographs from Field Assessments for Chelsea Creek watershed. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 48 February 2003

60 Photograph #846. Mainline bridge across Chelsea Creek. Photograph #848. Riparian management in the Chelsea Creek watershed. Photograph #849. Temporary plywood bridge across a tributary. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 49 February 2003

61 Photograph #1850. Mainline bridge over Chelsea Creek. Photograph #1932. Crossing # 69, SCQI score = 0.0. Photograph #1944. Crossing # 79, SCQI score = 0.0. Photograph #1946. Crossing #79, SCQI score = 0.0. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 50 February 2003

62 4.6 Tributary # Watershed Description Table Summary information Biophysical Size (km 2 ) BEC Zones Elevation Range H 60 Elevation Stream Density (m) (m) km/km 2 Fish species present <10% slope Distribution of slope gradients within the watershed (% of watershed) 10 to 30% slope 30 to 60% slope >60% slope 8.3 SBSmc ESSFmc Resident DV Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard). Reach ID Minimum Elevation (m) Maximum Elevation (m) Reach Length (m) Reach Gradient (%) Extent of riparian harvest (% of reach length) Stream Type and Stability Assessment Sinuous, low gradient with ponds and wetlands, stable Sinuous, riffle-poolgravel, stable Sinuous, riffle-poolgravel, stable, disturbed immediately above mainline Extent of Land-use Tributary #7 Watershed The following table provides information about the extent of current and proposed forest harvesting, the extent of the road network and the density of stream crossings in this watershed. These are considered to be important indicators when considering the potential impacts of forestry activities on the aquatic resources. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 51 February 2003

63 Table Extent of land-use in the Tributary #7 watershed. Total harvest 2002 (%) Current ECA (%) Planned Harvest (%) ECA at end of FDP Peak Flow Index Current (2002) (%) End of FDP (2007)(%) Current (2002) Road Density (km/km 2 ) End of FDP (2007) Stream Crossing density (#/km 2 ) Current (2002) End of FDP (2007) Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) The following four tables provide a summary of the field assessments of road related surface erosion in the Tributary #7 watershed. We surveyed all twelve stream crossings in this watershed according to the SCQI methodology described in Section 3 of this report. One of these seven crossings was classified as NCD and consequently does not contribute to the score. The quality of the erosion control at stream crossings within this watershed was generally excellent. All streams located in cut-blocks were crossed with temporary bridges. These bridges were removed after the harvesting operations were completed. Erosion and sediment control measures were implemented immediately. These included: 1) grass seeding of all approaches, 2) application of hay mulch to reduce rain drop erosion and 3) installation of a removable plywood bridge for silviculture access (photo # 1869 and 1910). All stream crossings within this watershed, except for two, were classified as either No or Low concern for water quality. The mainline crossing of the west tributary (crossing #56) received an SCQI score 0.5 (i.e. medium) because of some small problems with delivery of sediment from the road prism. The culvert at this location is too short and some road materials spill over the end (photo # 1864). More aggressive grass seeding will be required at this location, and ideally an extension should be placed on the culvert. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 52 February 2003

64 Table Tributary #7 Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Number of crossings surveyed Total # of crossings identified on 1:20,000 TRIM maps Percentage of stream crossings surveyed Watershed Size (km 2 ) 12 (1 NCD) 5 100% 8.3 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings (WQCR) Tributary #7 Watershed No Concern (score = 0) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings Low (0< score <=0.40) Percentage Medium (0.40< score <=0.80) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings High (score >0.80) Percentage 3 27% 7 64% 1 9% 0 0% Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size Tributary #7 Watershed None Low Medium High Stream Class 1 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage # of streams surveyed per class % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 4 1 Stream class sizes: class 1 is greater than 20m, class 2 is between 5 and 20m, class 3 is between 1.5 and 5m, class 4 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, class 5 is less than 0.5m in width. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 53 February 2003

65 Table Surface erosion hazard Tributary #7 Watershed Equivalent stream crossing density (#/km 2 ) Surface Erosion Hazard 0.27 Moderate Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight 1. The lower part of this watershed, where forest harvesting has occurred, has a gently rolling topography with generally low gradient stream channels (Table 4.6.2). Ninety-six percent of this watershed has slopes that are less than 30% (Table 4.6.1). Active surface erosion processes are rare in this watershed. 2. The lower reaches of both main tributaries are low gradient and are broken-up by frequent ponds and wetlands (photos #861 and 875). These wetlands can be effective buffers for mitigating the impacts of peak flows and downstream movement of coarser sediments (i.e. fine sands and coarser). 3. We did not find any mass wasting events or large sediment sources associated with forest harvesting activities in this watershed. 4. Riparian areas have been conservatively managed throughout this watershed. Riparian buffers have been left along all stream sections (e.g. photos #945 and 879). There have been some localized blowdown problems, but it is currently not a widespread occurrence (photos #1900 and 1909). This topic is discussed in further detail in sections and of this report Overview of stream channel conditions Tributary #7 An overview assessment of the condition of the stream channel was completed on August 15, The objective was to describe channel morphology, evaluate channel stability and assess the impacts of riparian blowdown. Only the east tributary was evaluated because this is where the presence of Dolly Varden has been documented (Bustard 1994). The channel was assessed above and below the mainline road because this is where the greatest impact to channel stability is likely to occur (i.e. below all logging and below the mainline). The table below provides a summary of the channel conditions assessed on August 15. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 54 February 2003

66 Table Summary of channel conditions in the lower sections of Tributary #7. Site I.D. Bankfull width (m) Bankfull depth (m) Channel type RPg Wetland Wetland RPg RPc RPc RPc CPc RPc Streambank and riparian conditions Stable banks, no signs of accelerated erosion. Unharvested riparian but natural blowdown. Wide floodplain (gradual transition from stream to wetland). Stream channel flows under organic layers towards wetland Channel enters wetland and looses all channel attributes No signs of bank erosion or overhanging banks. Fine gravel, sand and silt substrate. Channel is much more incised than at site #107. The banks are well vegetated with no signs of accelerated erosion. There is an abundant supply of LWD that is functional and positioned across the channel. No indicators of channel instability, abundant functional LWD, natural blowdown is extensive Sand, gravel. cobble substrate. No signs of overbank flooding or channel erosion. Banks are completely mossy down to the river s edge. No signs of accelerated bank erosion or channel aggradation, moss down to water edge. Tall, overstory vegetation (i.e. mature trees) is in short supply. Full riparian canopy present. No signs of accelerated erosion or channel aggradation. 1 Channel Types: RPg=Riffle-pool-gravel, RPc=Riffle-pool-cobble, CPc=Cascade-pool-cobble Overall channel stability This section of channel did not have any indicators of channel instability. There is a lot of natural blowdown, function of high water table. The stream is ill defined as it approaches the wetland. The channel is no longer discernable as it flows through wetland. The channel is very stable and has good fish habitat. This section of channel is stable, good substrate, complete canopy cover and functional LWD This section of channel is stable, good substrate, complete canopy cover and functional LWD Stable stream channel section. The riparian forest is mature and is due for some kind of natural disturbance, natural blowdown seems to be extensive. This section of channel is very stable, however there is extensive blowdown in the riparian management area and the overstory cover is relatively thin. This section of channel is stable and the riparian area is fully functional. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 55 February 2003

67 4.6.6 Summary of Hazard Ratings for Tributary #7 Watershed The following table provides a summary of the watershed assessment hazard indices for the Tributary #7 watershed. These hazard indices are derived from the inventory data collected for these watersheds and follow the methodology described in Section 3.0 of this report. These individual hazards are placed in context with watershed characteristics and conditions and the associated risk is discussed in the following sub-section of this report. Table Summary of Hazard Ratings for Key Watershed Indices Tributary #7 Watershed. Increases in peak flows (current/proposed) Moderate/ Moderate Reduction in Riparian Function Large sediment sources from mass wasting Road related sediment sources Stream channel stability Low Very Low Moderate Very Low Interpretations and Recommendations 1. The current stream crossing density in this watershed (1.44 crossings/km 2 ) is considered as very high, according to the Watershed Assessment Procedure (greater than 0.7 crossings/km 2 is considered as very high). This is partly a function of the smallness of the watershed that is being analysed. However, the effectiveness of the erosion control that has been practiced throughout this watershed has resulted in lowering this number to an equivalent stream crossing density of only 0.27 crossing/km 2 (Table 4.6.6). This suggests that there is now the sediment producing equivalent of only about three stream crossings in this watershed, a substantial reduction from 12. The watershed assessment procedure suggests that this is a Moderate hazard and hence the Moderate value provided in tables and As discussed in section of this report, the surface erosion problems are actually quite benign and could be addressed quite easily and effectively, if desired. Considering the effectiveness of the erosion control practices that have been implemented throughout this watershed, I believe that the true surface erosion hazard is substantially less than a moderate. 2. It is my opinion that the riparian management that has been implemented in this watershed is effective for protecting fish and their habitat. There is extensive cover and sources of large woody debris throughout the stream network, especially in the lower reaches where fish have been identified. The issue of blowdown in the riparian areas has been identified as a concern by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Indeed there are certain short segments of the stream channel where blowdown is quite severe (photo#1876 and 1909). However, the problem is currently not extensive over the entire watershed, but P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 56 February 2003

68 rather confined to small patches. I do not believe that this type of localized disturbance is detrimental to the aquatic environment, but may actually be mimicking natural disturbance patterns. These forests are currently mature and natural disturbances are part of the ecological process. From an aquatic management point of view, as long as the severe blowdown occurrences remain localized, then I believe that the aquatic resources are adequately protected. However, if the blowdown becomes extensive throughout the watershed and a large percentage of the stream network is impacted over a very short period, then this may have a detrimental impact. A monitoring program could be implemented by TFMI and Canfor to assess the progression of blowdown throughout these small watersheds. Monitoring strategies and further assessments are discussed in Section The current peak flow index is 35.1% and will rise to 42.1% by the end of the forest development plan. I consider this to be Moderate risk for increased spring peak flows. This means that it is likely that spring peak flows will be slightly increased during the next decade. The stream channel is currently very stable, there are no large sediment sources connected to the stream channel and there are several wetlands and ponds in the lower reach. This means that the risk to channel stability, caused by a modest increase in flows, is quite low. The increases in flows may cause localized accelerated channel erosion, but I do not believe that they will cause overall detrimental cumulative impacts to fish habitat. This is because the other elements associated with watershed cumulative impacts (i.e. surface erosion, riparian and large sediment sources) are not a problem. 4. This assessment has led me to conclude that the risk for negative cumulative impacts to fish and their habitat is low for this watershed. In order to ensure that current moderate peak flow hazard does not create any significant risks, it is important that erosion control and riparian management practices remain at a very high standard Selected Photographs from Field Assessments Tributary #7 Watershed. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 57 February 2003

69 1 Photograph #861. Extensive wetlands in lower reaches of Trib #7. Photograph #875. Extensive wetlands in lower reaches of Trib #7. Photograph #945. Overview of harvesting pattern in Trib#7 basin. Photograph #879. Extensive riparian buffers on all tributary streams. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 58 February 2003

70 Photograph #1869. Crossing # 58, SCQI score = 0.02 Photograph # Crossing # 56 (mainline), SCQI score = 0.5 Photograph #1920. Crossing #65, SCQI score = 0.0,Class 5 stream. Photograph # Crossing #63, SCQI score = 0.3, class 5 streams. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 59 February 2003

71 Photograph #1923. Site #67, good riparian retention on small stream. Photograph #1876. Site #58, good riparian retention on small stream. Photograph #1900. Site #61, localized blowdown along stream. Photograph # Site #62, localized blowdown along small stream (not mapped on TRIM). P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 60 February 2003

72 Size (km 2 ) February Creek Watershed Description Table Summary information Biophysical BEC Zones SBSmc ESSFmc Elevation Range H 60 Elevation Stream Density (m) (m) km/km Fish species present 1 <10% slope DV, STpossible Distribution of slope gradients within the watershed (% of watershed) 10 to 30% slope 30 to 60% slope >60% slope Fish species code: CO = Coho Salmon, CH = Chinook Salmon, RB = Rainbow Trout, DV = Dolly Varden, ST = Steelhead. Table Characteristics of main stream reaches (assessment is based on a combination of air-photo interpretations, TRIM maps, helicopter over-flight and the reports by D. Bustard). Reach ID Minimum Elevation (m) Maximum Elevation (m) Reach Length (m) Reach Gradient (%) Extent of riparian harvest (% of reach length) Stream Type and Stability Assessment Larger, sinuous stream with active channel and floodplain, no wetlands. Larger, sinuous stream with active channel and floodplain, steep eroding streambanks, no wetlands. Larger, sinuous stream with active channel and floodplain, steep eroding streambanks, no wetlands. Sinuous stream with active channel and floodplain, steep eroding streambanks, no wetlands. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 61 February 2003

73 4.7.2 Extent of Land-use February Creek Watershed The following table provides information about the extent of current and proposed forest harvesting, the extent of the road network and the density of stream crossings in this watershed. These are considered to be important indicators when considering the potential impacts of forestry activities on the aquatic resources. Table Extent of land-use in the February Creek watershed. Total harvest 2002 (%) Current ECA (%) Planned Harvest (%) ECA at end of FDP Peak Flow Index Current (2002) (%) End of FDP (2007)(%) Current (2002) Road Density (km/km 2 ) End of FDP (2007) Stream Crossing density (#/km 2 ) Current (2002) End of FDP (2007) Assessment of Road Related Surface Erosion (SCQI Inventory) The following four tables provide a summary of the field assessment of road related surface erosion in the February Creek watershed. We surveyed all nine stream crossings in this watershed according to the SCQI methodology described in Section 3 of this report. The completed field survey forms are provided in Appendix I of this report. Of the nine crossings that were surveyed, three were classified as NCD and did not receive a score and the other six received a Low or None water quality concern rating (WQCR). Because the density of stream crossings is so low in this watershed, the hazard assessment for surface erosion is Very Low (i.e. there are very few problem streams per square kilometre of watershed). The stream crossings in this watershed have all been very well managed for erosion and sediment control (e.g. photo # 924 and 1977). P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 62 February 2003

74 Table February Creek Watershed - summary of stream crossing sediment source survey Number of crossings surveyed Total # of crossings shown on 1:20,000 TRIM maps Percentage of stream crossings surveyed Watershed Size (km 2 ) 9 (3NCD) 7 100% 72.1 Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings (WQCR) February Creek Watershed No Concern (score = 0) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings Low (0< score <=0.40) Percentage Medium (0.40< score <=0.80) Number of xings Percentage Number of xings High (score >0.80) Percentage 3 50% 3 50% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Table Summary of Water Quality Concern Ratings by Stream Size February Creek Watershed None Low Medium High Stream Class 1 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage # of streams surveyed per class % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 1 1 Stream class sizes: class 1 is greater than 20m, class 2 is between 5 and 20m, class 3 is between 1.5 and 5m, class 4 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, class 5 is less than 0.5m in width. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 63 February 2003

75 Table Surface erosion hazard February Creek Watershed Equivalent stream crossing density (#/km 2 ) Surface Erosion Hazard 0.01 Very Low Observations from air-photo analysis and overview flight 1. The main stream channel of February Creek is deeply incised, is very active and there are numerous large failing banks throughout it s length (photo# 914 and 933). These large natural sediment sources are a large contributor to the sediment load of February Creek. 2. The stream channel of February Creek is much larger and much more active than any of the other watersheds assessed for this report. The gradient is generally steeper and there are no wetlands or lakes to buffer streamflows and sediment movement. Consequently, this channel is more sensitive to extensive forest harvesting activities than are the other streams reviewed in this assessment. 3. The riparian areas along the entire mainstem of February Creek and Loonie Creek have been left intact. There is no extensive riparian harvesting anywhere in the watershed Summary of Hazard Ratings for February Creek Watershed The following table provides a summary of the watershed assessment hazard indices for the February Creek watershed. These hazard indices are derived from the inventory data collected for these watersheds and follow the methodology described in Section 3.0 of this report. These individual hazards are placed in context with watershed characteristics and conditions and the associated risk is discussed in the following sub-section of this report. Table Summary of Hazard Ratings for Key Watershed Indices February Creek Watershed. Increases in peak flows (current/proposed) Very Low/ Very Low Reduction in Riparian Function Large sediment sources from mass wasting Road related sediment sources Stream channel stability Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 64 February 2003

76 4.7.6 Interpretations and Recommendations 1. The current Peak Flow index is 9.6% and will rise to only 13.6% by the end of the forest development plan. This level of harvesting will not result in any measurable increase in spring peak flows. Consequently, the peak flow hazard has been assessed as Very Low. 2. The equivalent stream crossing density is only 0.01 crossings/km 2 and no Medium or High WQCR were identified. Consequently, the surface erosion hazard has been assessed as Very Low. 3. We did not identify any mass wasting events associated with forest harvesting activities in the February Creek watershed. Consequently, the mass wasting hazard is very low. 4. The results of this assessment suggest that the overall cumulative impacts hazard for fish habitat is Low Selected Photographs from Field Assessments February Creek. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 65 February 2003

77 Photograph #914. Mainline crossing over February Creek Photograph #918. Mainline crossing over February Creek. Photograph #924. Crossing over Loonie Creek. Photograph #933. Natural sediment sources along Loonie Creek. P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 66 February 2003

78 Photograph # Crossing #95, SCQI score = 0.3. Photograph #1971. Crossing #96, SCQI score = Photograph #1977, Crossing #98, SCQI score =0.0 Photograph #1986. Crossing #102, SCQI score = 0.00 P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd Page 67 February 2003