FIA PROJECT # LOUIS CREEK FISH PASSAGE ASSESSMENTS. Project number: 4243 Revision: 1 January 31, Prepared for:

Transcription

1 Project number: 4243 Revision: 1 January 31, 2010 FIA PROJECT # LOUIS CREEK FISH PASSAGE ASSESSMENTS Prepared for: Tolko Industries Ltd Heffley Creek Division Heffley Woodlands 6001 Yellowhead Highway RR#3, Site 10, Compartment 10 Kamloops, BC V2C 5K1 Attn: Michael Bragg, Regional Forester Prepared by: 1326 McGill Rd. Kamloops, BC V2C 6N6

2 Executive Summary Prior to field activities, it was determined that 16 sites were eligible for assessments based on fish habitat, known fish presence and roads data. Sites were located in the field and assessments completed. Assessments found only 6 sites had structures in place; 2 clear span bridges, 2 round culverts and 2 culverts with irrigation pipe run through them. The clear span bridges are ineligible sites (are closed bottom structures) and do pose a barrier to fish passage. The two culverts with irrigation pipe running through them are at a location considered very low to no fish habitat as no visible channel is present. Of the two remaining sites, one site was on a private driveway as a ditch drain and did connect to fish habitat. The other site was a hanging culvert and presented a barrier to fish passage. Post assessment, this site was determined to be on a private road making it ineligible for restoration as a FIA project. In addition, Tolko does have future harvest plans for the area and does have an interest in maintaining access via this road. The analysis phase was completed although implementation plan and restoration plans were required as a result of the assessment findings. No sites were assessed that both presented a barrier or potential barrier to fish passage and was FIA eligible. Final Report Page i

3 Disclaimer This report is rendered for the use of Tolko Industries Ltd in connection with Contract# Louis Creek Watershed Fish Passage Assessments. Triton accepts no responsibility for loss or damages suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report. The objective of this report was to address the following scope requirements: conduct field assessments of stream crossing structures in the Louis Creek Watershed for Tolko Industries Ltd. This report was based on facts and opinions contained within the referenced documents and facts. We have attempted to identify and consider relevant facts and documents pertaining to the scope of work, as of the time period during which we conducted this analysis. However, our opinions may change if new information is available or if information we have relied on is altered. We applied accepted professional practices and standards in developing and interpreting data obtained by our field measurement, sampling and observation. While we used accepted professional practices in interpreting data provided by Client or third party sources we did verify the accuracy of data provided by Client or third party sources. This report should be considered as a whole and selecting only portions of the report for reliance may create a misleading view of our opinions. Final Report Page ii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... i Disclaimer... ii 1.0 Introduction Project Objectives Study Area Methods Planning & Prioritization Field Work Results Sites with Crossing Structures Sites Without Crossing Structures Discussion Analysis Phase Implementation Plan Recommendations Further Work Required Conclusions LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Map... 2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Analysis of Sites Eligible for Assessment... 3 Table 2. Site Assessment Results... 5 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Site Assessments Rationale Appendix 2. Culvert Field Data Submission Appendix 3. Project Area Map with Site Details Appendix 4. Site Photo Index (CD) Final Report Page iii

5 1.0 Introduction The Louis Creek watershed is located in a portion of Tolko Industries Ltd s (Tolko) operating area that was established as a priority area to conduct fish passage assessments based on watershed ranking, its associated fisheries values, and local priorities. Working maps were developed using the GIS model developed by the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Forest Service Roads (FSR), permitted roads and non-status roads were selected from the road network and 101 crossings were identified as likely having closed bottom structures. In November 2009, Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd (Triton) conducted a field assessment for fish passage determination of closed bottom structures in the Louis Creek watershed. Sites were selected post-prioritization and upon Tolko s approval. This project was designed to conform with the following protocols, as required; The Strategic Approach: Protocol for Planning and Prioritizing Culverted Sites for Fish Passage Assessment and Remediation, Ministry of Environment, 3 rd Edition, May 2009 and Field Assessment for Fish Passage Determination of Closed Bottomed Structures, Ministry of Environment 3 rd Edition, May The Field Assessment for Fish Passage Determination of Closed Bottomed Structures, Ministry of Environment 3 rd Edition, May 2009 requires five phases of activity to contribute to determination and restoration of fish passage for culverted sites; Planning Phase, Data Collection Phase, Analysis Phase, Restoration Phase and Reporting Phase. This document is a summation of work completed within scope of the project which includes Data Collection, Analysis and Restoration Phase activities. 1.1 Project Objectives The primary objectives of the Louis Creek Watershed Fish Passage Assessment project were to: Complete assessments on selected sites Determine fish passage (passable, partial barrier or no barrier) Produce a ranked list of sites for restoration for sites presenting a potential barrier or barrier Determine which structures are to be restored FINAL Report Page 1

6 2.0 Study Area The project area, Louis Creek Watershed, was located approximately 58 km north of Kamloops along Highway 5 near Louis Creek (Figure 1). Access is via Highway 5 to Agate Bay Road. The topography is somewhat varied with steep slopes of 20% and greater occurring on both the east and west sides of the valley. Louis Creek is a tributary to the North Thompson River and is known to support populations of salmon, sport, regionally significant, and other fish species. Figure 1. Project Area Map FINAL Report Page 2

7 3.0 Methods 3.1 Planning & Prioritization Tolko provided Triton with a 1:80, 000 scale working map showing locations for 101 potential stream crossing sample sites. Information contained on the working map was developed using the MoE GIS model, which included stream crossings from the FSR, permitted road, and nonstatus road networks. Triton applied a second level planning consistent with MoE protocol for prioritizing culverted sites, which included a review of existing fisheries information for the Louis Creek watershed. The second level of planning was done to ensure assessment efforts were focussed on potential stream crossings with fisheries values (suspected or confirmed fish bearing streams). ARC Environmental Ltd. (2000) completed a 1:20,000 scale Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of Heffley and Louis Creek Watersheds in 1999/2000. Interpretive mapping was done by ARC Environmental Ltd. (2000) based on sample sites within the Louis Creek watershed to define fish species distribution and fish stream classification within the Project area. Triton used the interpretive mapping product to determine which of the 101 potential sample sites occurred on streams that were suspected or confirmed fish bearing. Five groupings were used in this analysis: no visible channel (NVC), confirmed fish bearing, suspected fish bearing, confirmed non-fish bearing and suspected non-fish bearing. Potential sample sites on confirmed fish bearing or suspected fish bearing streams were selected for assessment. Of the 101 sites, only 16 sites were selected for assessment (Table 1). Table 1. Analysis of Sites Eligible for Assessment Sites Identified Using FFHIP maps Duplicates Produced in Mapping Private Road Tenure (ineligible) Not Considered Fish Habitat Total Eligible for Assessment No Visible Channel Suspected Non-Fish Bearing Confirmed Non-Fish Bearing 1 1 Suspected Fish Bearing Confirmed Fish Bearing TOTAL Further analysis of the mapped sites on confirmed fish bearing streams and suspected fish bearing streams resulted in a reduction in the number of sites eligible for assessment. Two of the 12 sites on suspected fish bearing sites were dropped. Site 14 was located on a private road. Site 43 was a duplicate site produced in the mapping process. FINAL Report Page 3

8 Four of the 10 sites on confirmed fish bearing streams were dropped. Sites 40, 41, 42 and 99 were duplicate sites produced by the mapping process. This was confirmed in the field. The 79 remaining potential sample sites were located on streams identified as NVC (12), suspected non fish bearing (66) and confirmed non fish bearing (1). These sites were excluded from further assessment as fish passage concerns are an issue at these sites. Appendix 1 shows results of the analysis and rationale for excluding sites from further analysis. Fourteen sites identified on the working map did have a corresponding road associated with them on the GIS layers provided. Field crew confirmed roads did exist in the areas where crossing sites were shown to be located on the maps. In addition, some potential sample sites appear to be duplicated on the map. For example, FSR is shown on both the Tolko and the Forest Tenure roads GIS layers. The working maps indicate 6 potential sample sites. Two sites were confirmed in the field at this location, on this road. Four sites shown on the map were confirmed to be duplicates as no additional roads or crossing structures existed to support the map information. Removing duplications from the working map data set and querying for sites only where roads are known to occur and intersect a stream, would likely increase project efficiency at the initial planning and prioritization phase. 3.2 Field Work A 3 person field crew consisting of 2 biologists and a R.P. Bio completed field assessments for fish passage determination at those structures identified in the planning and prioritization process. A route plan was developed to maximize travel efficiencies from site to site. The crew began assessments at the southern-most site near Graham Creek and travelled north to the remaining sites (Appendix 3). The sites were located using GPS coordinates, Tolko working map, and the 1: Interpretive maps provided by Triton. At each site, field measurements were taken and recorded consistent with the field data form provided in Field Assessment for Fish Passage Determination of Closed Bottomed Structures, Ministry of Environment 3 rd Edition, May Location and survey data, fish passage criteria, site information, and photo documentation were collected. At sites where a stream channel or crossing was apparent, the field crew would do a ground search for its exact location. Field UTMs were recorded using a Garmin 60CSx GPS. Stream channel slope was determined with a clinometer, outlet drop measurements were made using a measuring stick, rod and level were used to measure slope of culvert and valley fill, culvert length and width were measured with a 50 meter Eslom tape and representative site photos were taken using a digital camera. For those sites where a crossing structure or stream was present or had been removed, photos were taken of the mapped location but measurements were made. All data was entered into the MoE culvert field data submission form. The Fish Barrier Scoring table And Fish Barrier Results table was applied, where applicable. FINAL Report Page 4

9 4.0 Results Of the 16 potential sample sites, 6 of them had crossing structures in place (Table 2). One of which presented a barrier to fish passage. More detailed site information is provided in the culvert field data submission form (Appendix 2). Table 2. Site Assessment Results Crossing ID No. UTM Co-ordinates Zone Easting Northing Stream Name Crossing Type tributary to Louis Ck - NVC none N tributary to Louis Ck - NVC none N tributary to Louis Ck - NVC none N Louis Ck clear span bridge N Louis Ck clear span bridge N tributary to Louis Ck - NVC none N tributary to Louis Ck - NVC none N Barrier? (Y/N) tributary to Louis Ck round culvert Y tributary to Fraser Creek - NVC none N tributary to Fraser Creek - NVC none N Fraser Creek - NVC irrigation pipe through culvert N Fraser Creek - NVC irrigation pipe through culvert N tributary to Fraser Creek - NVC round culvert N Louis Ck none N Louis Ck. none N B NVC none N NVC = no visible channel 4.1 Sites with Crossing Structures Six sites had crossing structures in place; 2 clears span bridges, 2 round culverts and 2 culverts with irrigation pipes run through them. Three of these sites were classified as NVC. FINAL Report Page 5

10 Clear span bridges were found at sites 13 and 44, on Louis Creek. These sites did present a barrier to fish passage. Each bridge was constructed at the top of the bank and did appear to interfere with the watercourse. Site 53 had a round culvert (RC) in place. The channel was dry at time of assessment. Professional opinion, as well as applying the data collected to the Fish Barrier Scoring table provided in the assessment protocol, determined this structure is a barrier to fish passage. The outlet drop is 145cm and the culvert slope is 4.7%. This structure requires restoration to make it passable by fish. The channel was well defined but appears to be ephemeral in nature. Fish habitat value at this site is considered to be low. Post-assessment, it was found that this crossing is on a private road which is within private woodlot 316. Two crossings were identified as culverts with an irrigation pipe run through them. Each of these sites (60 and 62) were said to be on Fraser Creek, a tributary to Louis Creek, however the site was actually in the middle of a hay field and considered a NVC. It appeared that the purpose of the crossings was to run irrigation pipe from one side of the road to the other without disruption. Fish habitat values here are considered low. At site 65, the field crew found a culvert under a private driveway, draining a roadside ditch. A visible channel was observed. 4.2 Sites Without Crossing Structures There were 10 sites without crossing structures observed. Eight of these sites were classified as NVC. A fish passage barrier did exist at these sites and fish habitat values were low to null. No partial barriers were found. For graphic representation of results, refer to a map of the project area highlighting site details (Appendix 3). Site photos are located in the Louis Creek Watershed photo index (Appendix 4). FINAL Report Page 6

11 5.0 Discussion The information provided by Tolko suggested 101 potential crossing structure sites in the Louis Creek watershed project area. In fact only 16 were determined to have potential fish value based on analysis of FFHIP maps and gradient. Field assessments on the 16 sites show that a total of 6 sites had a crossing structure in place. Eleven of the sites were observed as no visible channel (refer to Appendix 1). Three of those sites had structures in place, 8 sites were without structures. Of the 16 sites selected for assessment, 15 sites were visited. Site 56 was located upstream of site 57, which was confirmed in the field as NVC. Because no visible channel was present, it is assumed that no channel was present at the upstream site and assessment was required. Only site 53 had a crossing structure on a suspected fish bearing stream that was considered a barrier to fish passage. When applied to the Fish Passage Scoring table, this structure produced a score of >30 based on data collected in the field. A score of >30 on the Fish Barrier Scoring Table confirms this is a fish passage barrier. Restoration efforts at this site may be required to remove the existing barrier to fish passage. The stream is a tributary to Louis Creek and Interpretive maps indicate potential use by salmon, sport, regionally significant and other fish. Interpretive maps indicate approximately 600 m of accessible fish habitat available upstream of this culvert. At the time of sampling the stream was dry upstream for 200 m and downstream for 400 m. Additional field sampling in spring would be required to make a determination of fish presence should this structure be considered for replacement. The two clear span bridges over Louis Creek (Sites 13 and 44) appeared to be in good condition and functional during the survey. The assessment of integrity was a general observation and based on a detailed engineering inspection. The remaining three sites with crossing structures were located on drainages that were considered NVC. These crossing structures were assumed to be placed solely for drainage purposes as a stream channel or fish habitat was present. Potential fish access to these crossings is possible due to topography and lack of connectivity to downstream or upstream habitat. 5.1 Analysis Phase As mentioned, 5 of the 6 sites found having structures, do require restoration. Sites 60, 62 and 65 occur on drainages that have no visible channel. Site 60 and 62 occur in hayfields where the culvert serves as a conduit for irrigation pipe. Site 65 was a ditch line culvert under a private driveway. The 2 clear span bridges on Louis Creek do pose a barrier to fish passage. Site 53 is the only site with a crossing structure that is a barrier to fish passage and, if restored, may potentially result in 632 meters of fish habitat gained. The gradient of the existing culvert FINAL Report Page 7

12 (4.7%), gradient upstream (4%) and downstream (8%) of the structure, as well as the outlet drop make this a potentially difficult site to restore.. As mentioned above, it is recommended that an assessment of fish presence be completed on this stream should this crossing be considered for replacement. It was determined post-assessment that stream crossing Site 53 is located on a private road and therefore is eligible for Tolko FIA project incorporation. Therefore, the Analysis Phase of this exercise is complete. Restoration options have been omitted from this report. 5.2 Implementation Plan Correspondence with Tolko Representatives Dale Jones and Thomas Bennett indicated that the road at Site 53 is expected to be used for future harvesting activities and is scheduled to be maintained. Implementation of a restoration plan is required at this time. Further to our conversation, it was ed that this road is considered private and therefore is eligible as a FIA funded project for Tolko. FINAL Report Page 8

13 6.0 Recommendations Based on the analysis and results contained within this document and given that no sites qualify as a potential restoration site, recommendations are limited to more general suggestions relating to the process of Fish Passage Determination of Closed Bottom Structures. The following recommendations should be considered; At the planning and prioritization phase, ensure roads information is complete and accurate, specifically road names and status so as to eliminate all non-eligible roads from field assessment and increase efficiency prior to engaging in field activities. Ensure crossing location data is accurate prior to selecting sites for assessment to eliminate all non-site crossings and duplicates that result from mapping exercises. Incorporate fish inventory and habitat data in initial prioritization and planning phase. Incorporate future harvest plans in prioritization and planning phase in addition to restoration phases FINAL Report Page 9

14 7.0 Further Work Required No sites assessed in this project were determined to be eligible for restoration. No further work is required at this time. FINAL Report Page 10

15 8.0 Conclusions By applying a second level of analysis in the prioritization and planning phase and locating sites in the field, we found that several sites identified in the initial prioritization and planning phase did qualify for assessments. These sites were upstream of a natural barrier, upstream of a man-made barrier, gradient >20%, occurred on a drainage classified as NVC or were duplicate sites produced by mapping exercises and therefore non-existent. Several sites visited were at a map location that indicated a stream and road intersection, but no visible channel was observed and therefore no structure was in place. Field assessments of closed bottom structures in the Louis Creek Watershed revealed that only one structure presented a barrier to fish passage. Consistent with FIA standards and protocols, being on a private road makes it ineligible for further activity under a FIA program. Implementation and restoration plans were included in this report because under the scope of the project, no further work is required. The recommendations are focussed on the process of prioritizing sites to be assessed, prior to commencing field activities, to increase project efficiencies. FINAL Report Page 11

16 APPENDIX 1 SITE ASSESSMENT RATIONALE SITE ID LOCATION Zone Northing Easting Road Tenure FISH PRESENCE/STREAM CLASSIFICATION (MoE Model) MoE Model FFHIP SAMPLED (Y/N) RP SNFB N >20% gradient available SNFB N >20% gradient available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB Y available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB Y available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB Y RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient available SNFB N >20% gradient RATIONALE* PRIVATE FISH HABITAT - OBSERVED CFB Y PRIVATE FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB N non-eligible (private road) RP SNFB N UPSTREAM OF BARRIER (FALLS) RP CNFB N UPSTREAM OF BARRIER (FALLS) UPSTREAM OF BARRIER RP SNFB N (FALLS) FINAL Report Appendix 1

17 RP SNFB N UPSTREAM OF BARRIER (FALLS) RP SNFB N UPSTREAM OF BARRIER (FALLS) RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N UPSTREAM OF BARRIER (FALLS) RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP NVC N NVC available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N FINAL Report Appendix 1

18 FSR FISH HABITAT - OBSERVED CFB N DUPLICATE FSR FISH HABITAT - OBSERVED CFB N DUPLICATE OF available FISH HABITAT - OBSERVED CFB N DUPLICATE OF available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB N DUPLICATE FSR FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB Y FSR FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB Y available SNFB N >20% gradient available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB Y FSR SNFB N >20% gradient FSR SNFB N >20% gradient available SNFB N >20% gradient RP NVC N NVC RP NVC N NVC PRIVATE FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SFB Y available NVC N NVC available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED NVC N NVC available SFB Y available SFB Y RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED NVC N NVC available CFB Y RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient available CFB Y RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient FINAL Report Appendix 1

19 PRIVATE SFB Y available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient available SNFB N >20% gradient available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP FISH HABITAT - INFERRED SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient available SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient available SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient available SNFB N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient available NVC N >20% gradient available NVC N >20% gradient RP SNFB N >20% gradient FINAL Report Appendix 1

20 RP SNFB N >20% gradient available FISH HABITAT - OBSERVED CFB Y available SNFB N >20% gradient FSR NVC N >20% gradient FSR NVC N >20% gradient available FISH HABITAT - INFERRED NVC N a site - no stream available FISH HABITAT - OBSERVED CFB Y available FISH HABITAT - OBSERVED CFB N DUPLICATE OF available FISH HABITAT - OBSERVED CFB Y available NVC N a site - no stream * rationale provides additional details on why a site was assessed NVC = no visible channel CFB = confirmed fish bearing SFB = suspected fish bearing CNFB = confirmed non-fish bearing SNFB = suspected fish bearing FINAL Report Appendix 1

21 APPENDIX 2 CULVERT FIELD DATA SUBMISSION (ELECTRONIC.XLS FILE) FINAL Report Appendix 2

22 APPENDIX 3 PROJECT AREA MAP WITH SITE DETAILS FINAL Report Appendix 3

23 APPENDIX 4 SITE PHOTO INDEX (CD ENCLOSED) FINAL Report Appendix 4