Prepared for

West Fraser Mills Ltd.

P.O. Box 6000

Quesnel, B.C.

V2J 3J5

by

Carmanah Research Ltd.

1556 6^th Avenue

Prince George, B.B.

V2L 5B5

Telephone: (250) 564-9983

Fax: (250) 564-9973

Email: info@carmanah.com

February 5, 1998

At the request of West Fraser Mills Ltd., Quesnel Division, Carmanah Research Ltd. conducted a Riparian Assessment of the Cottonwood River Watershed. The Watershed Level Assessment is the first step in the Watershed Riparian Assessment and Prescription Procedures (RAPP), a process which was developed to fulfil the Watershed Restoration program (WRP) goals of restoring and maintaining fisheries, aquatic, and forest resources that have been adversely impacted by past forest management (Oikos and Johnson, 1997). The main goal of the overview is to provide an initial indication of the amount and priority of rehabilitation activities within a drainage. The process identifies areas with suspected impairments to riparian function and prioritises them for Site Level riparian assessments. Within the Cottonwood River watershed, riparian areas were assessed using aerial photography supported by fish inventory data, forest cover and Terrain Resource Inventory Maps, and related publications.

The Cottonwood River watershed consists of twelve sub-basins, however riparian assessments were conducted only within the TFL 52 study area, as defined by West Fraser Mills Ltd. The sub-basins (or portions thereof) which were assessed include: Cottonwood Residual, Ahbau, Umiti, John Boyd, Lightning, Swift, Victoria, Reddish, Sovereign, McMartin, and Little Swift. The present condition of riparian habitats, along with the impacts of resource development, and suspected impairments to riparian function is presented for each sub-basin.

As a result of this Watershed Level Assessment, forty three sites with suspected impacts to riparian function have been identified and prioritized for Site Level riparian assessments. The Site Level Assessments are required to identify site-specific riparian concerns, to assess the level of impairment of ecological function, and to develop rehabilitation prescriptions to restore the ecological integrity of these riparian ecosystems. The results of the Watershed Level assessments were used to plan and prioritize a Site Level riparian assessment program for the 1997 field season.

The Riparian Vegetation Types (RVTs) within each of the forty three priority sites have been assigned preliminary classifications. These RVTs will be assessed for impairment to ecological function at the site level. Site Level assessments will provide additional data required to determine the degree of impairment of riparian function and the level of impact on fish habitat, which will in turn help develop preliminary prescriptions for rehabilitation for these impacted areas.

This overview report for the Cottonwood River Watershed Riparian Assessment was conducted under the auspices of the Forest Renewal of British Columbia Watershed Restoration Program. Guidance and direction for this project were provided by Al Hunter, Forester at West Fraser Mills Ltd., Quesnel Division, and Mike Parker, Fisheries Specialist- MOE Cariboo Region. Carmanah Research Ltd. staff, namely Guy Thorburn, Northern Division Manager, and Roberta Pedersen, Fisheries Specialist, provided assistance, support and constructive comments. Support was also provided by Mike Neal, and Adam Dewey, Carmanah’s Geographic Information Systems Specialists.

Executive Summary *

Acknowledgements *

Table of Contents *

List of Tables *

List of Figures *

1 Introduction *

2 Cottonwood River Watershed Characteristics *

3 Methodology-Watershed Level Riparian Assessment *

4 Results *

5 Summary and Recommendations for Site Level Assessments *

6 References *

Appendix A *

Appendix B *

Table 1: Riparian Vegetation Type Summary Table *

Figure 1. The Cottonwood River watershed is located in the Interior Plateau of central British Columbia. *

2. Introduction

This document presents the findings of the Watershed Level Riparian Assessment for the Cottonwood River watershed. The study focuses on the following sub-basins: Cottonwood Residual, Ahbau, Umiti, John Boyd, Lightning, Swift, Sovereign, Victoria, Reddish, McMartin, and Little Swift River. The overview assessments are meant to provide an initial indication of the amount and priority of rehabilitation activities in a drainage (Oikos, 1997). Assessment activities focussed on S1-S3 streams and valley bottom S5 streams where there is a Riparian Reserve Zone. Stream riparian classification was completed by using recent Reconnaissance Level Stream Inventory information (Carmanah Research Ltd., in progress, 1997 and 1996). Riparian Vegetation Types (RVTs) were determined for all riparian areas which were suspected of having resource development impacts. Results of this assessment were used to direct and prioritize field visitation and surveys that will provide additional data for the development of rehabilitation prescriptions. These prescriptions will focus on restoring the ecological functions of impacted riparian areas. The overview is primarily an office based activity that focuses on identifying riparian vegetation segments and areas with impacts due to resource development. The areas with suspected impacts were prioritized for Site Level Riparian Assessments.

 

3. Cottonwood River Watershed Characteristics

The Cottonwood River watershed comprises a study area of 247, 363 hectares, located in the Quesnel Highlands in the Interior Plateau. The watershed is located northeast of Quesnel and flows west into the Fraser River (Figure 1). The eastern boundary of the watershed abuts the Willow River watershed, while the southern and western boundaries abut the Quesnel River watershed. The Cottonwood River watershed consists of twelve sub-basins, however, only 11 were assessed, as the Nelson Kenny sub-basin is located outside of the TFL 52 study area, which is the boundary of this project (Figure B). The sub-basins that were assessed are: Cottonwood Residual, Ahbau, Umiti, John Boyd, Lightning, Swift, Victoria, Reddish, Sovereign, McMartin, and Little Swift.

Twenty seven third order tributaries constitute the 12 sub-basins in the watershed that were defined by West Fraser Mills Ltd. (Appendix A). In order of confluence with the mainstem from the mouth, the sub-basins are Ahbau, Umiti, John Boyd, Lightning and Swift River. Smaller tributaries of the sub-basins form separate sub-basins, as designated by West Fraser Mills Ltd. Sovereign, Victoria and Reddish creeks and Little Swift River flow into Swift River. The upper section of Swift River, upstream of the confluence with Little Swift River, is designated as the McMartin sub-basin.

Two biogeoclimatic zones dominate the study area. These zones are the Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS) zone and the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir zone (ESSF). Figure A illustrates the biogeoclimatic zones of the Cottonwood River watershed. The SBS zone is found in the low to mid elevation portions of the study area. Its climate is continental, and characterized by severe snowy winters and relatively warm, moist, short summers (Meidinger and Pojar, 1991). Mature climax forests in the SBS are dominated primarily by hybrid white spruce and subalpine fir, with lodgepole pine as a seral species. The ESSF zone occupies the middle to upper elevations of the Cottonwood River watershed. It occurs predominantly in mountainous terrain and is characterized by a relatively cold, moist and snowy continental climate with short, cool growing seasons and long, cold winters (Meidinger and Pojar, 1991). Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are the dominant climax tree species; lodgepole pine is a seral species. There is also a small portion of alpine tundra zone (AT) in the high elevations, eastern boundary of the Cottonwood Watershed.

The Cottonwood watershed is affected by continental climates. Most of the annual precipitation falls as snow in the winter months. Summer rainstorms are typically of short duration and high intensity.

The watershed lies within the boundaries of the Quesnel and Prince George Forest Districts. Forest harvesting has occurred throughout the watershed, in the twelve sub-basins. The major operation timber licensees in the watershed are West Fraser Mills Ltd, Weldwood of Canada Ltd. and Dunkley Forest Products. The provincial Small Business Forest Enterprise Program also operates in the watershed. Placer and hydraulic mining have been active in the watershed since 1860 and have been identified as having an extensive and significant impact on the stream systems in the Cottonwood River watershed (AIM, 1996).

Settlements within the Cottonwood River Watershed form a population base of less than 500 people. Hamlets in the watershed include Cottonwood, Wingdam, Beaverpass House and Van Winkle. Highway 97 crosses sections of the Cottonwood Residual and Ahbau Creek. Highway 26 runs along Lightning Creek before crossing into the Willow Creek watershed. Transmission lines, underground pipeline right-of-ways and railways also pass through the Cottonwood River watershed.

Popular recreation destinations in the Cottonwood Watershed include Cottonwood Provincial Park, Cottonwood House Provincial Park, Cottonwood River Canyon, Troll Mountain Ski Hill, Hush Lake cross country ski trails and many forest recreation sites. Watershed location and tenure information can be found in Appendix A.

The Cottonwood River watershed provides migration, spawning, incubation and rearing habitat for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho (O. kisutch), pink (O. gorbuscha) and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) (Fish Information Stream Summary (FISS), 1994). Chinook salmon are present in the lower reaches of the Swift River, Lightning, Reddish, Sovereign and Victoria creeks (Imhof and Sutherland, 1995). Waterfalls on the Swift River may limit the migration of chinook salmon (Rowland and McDonald, 1996). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Dolly Varden (S. malma) are distributed throughout the Swift and Little Swift rivers and Lightning Creek (FISS, 1994).

Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) have also been noted in the Swift River and Victoria Creek (Carmanah Research Ltd., 1996). The main commercial anadromous species in this watershed is chinook, while pink and coho salmon are found in the river in odd years (Fish Habitat Inventory and Information Program, 1990).

Forest Renewal British Columbia (FRBC) has funded several projects directed toward improving the breadth and quality of information for the Cottonwood River watershed. Examples of these projects include:

• Sediment Source Survey Level 1 (Carmanah Research Ltd., in progress),
• Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan (Carmanah, in progress),
• Fish Habitat Overview Level 1 (Carmanah, in progress),
• Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory (Carmanah, in progress)
• Sediment Source Inventory and Mapping (CARR Ecological Consultants Ltd. and AIM Ecological Consultants Ltd., 1996),
• Riparian, Wetland and Terrestrial Assessment ( AIM Ecological Consultants Ltd., 1996) and
• Level 1 Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (IWAP) (Dobson Engineering Ltd., 1995).

1. Methodology-Watershed Level Riparian Assessment

The objectives of overview, watershed riparian assessments are to:

1. classify riparian vegetation into relatively uniform classes where the loss or impairment of ecological function and rehabilitation prescriptions are consistent;
2. identify stream reaches in the Cottonwood River watershed where riparian ecological function has been lost or impaired as a result of forest harvesting or as a result of activities related to forest harvesting such as road building and river crossings, logging camps, log sorts and other developments.
3. prioritize these reaches for site assessments, with the intention of developing rehabilitation prescriptions for riparian areas impacted by forest harvesting.

The methods used are outlined in the Riparian Assessment and Prescription Procedures (RAPP), Watershed Restoration Program, Field Guide, June 1997 (Oikos, 1997). The methods are summarized as follows:

1. Stream riparian classes (FPC classification) were identified and labeled on air photos based on information provided by the Preliminary Overview Fish Habitat Assessment (FHAP) of the Cottonwood River watershed (Carmanah, 1997) and Reconnaissance Level Stream Inventory information (Carmanah Research Ltd., in progress, 1997 and 1996).
2. Stream reaches and their associated riparian management areas (RMAs) were divided into uniform segments that had similar management interpretation and visitation priorities. Each stream riparian segment was identified using a unique number which was used to index segments in a database. Stream riparian segments referred to portions of the stream that were uniform in:

1-Stream reach, riparian classification, RMA width; and

2-vegetation composition, age and structural stage.

Structural stages of RMA vegetation were based on those described in Table B3 in Appendix B. Age class and species composition information from forest cover maps were used for structural stage determination. Other stand attributes were further refined based on air photo interpretation. The effects of stand structural stages on riparian functions are summarized in Table B4 in Appendix B. This information, which was used to determine the relative importance of stand structural stage on riparian function, aided in prioritization of segments for Site Level assessments.

3. The type of vegetation growing in the RMAs fell into a small number of stand composition structural classes. These riparian vegetation types (RVTs) were found repeatedly throughout the watershed due to the repetition of ecological sites, similar harvesting methods, and similar condition of forest regeneration following harvesting in the RMA. RVTs were connotatively labeled on air photos by adding the overstory tree species as a suffix to the structural stage. For example, a mature forest of balsam and white spruce would have the label MFc/BlSw. Using forest cover maps and air photo interpretation, it was possible to develop a classification for RVTs. All riparian segments within stream reaches were assigned to at least one RVT. In some cases more than one RVT occurs within the RMA. For example, opposite banks may have different RVTs or they may be banded [one RVT in the riparian reserve zone (RRZ) and a different RVT in the riparian management zone (RMZ)]. Tables B1 and B2 in Appendix B describe the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia (FPCBC) stream riparian classification, RMA widths and relative importance of riparian function. This information helped determine the stream classification and the relative significance of impacts to each of the riparian functions at each assessment site. This information helped prioritize areas for Site Level assessments.
4. The final step in the Watershed Level Riparian Assessment was to assess and prioritize riparian segments for field visitation and Site Level riparian assessments. Visitation priority was developed in a hierarchical fashion by focussing on most significantly impacted areas that are important fish habitat areas.

1. Results

Eighteen RVTs were identified within the Cottonwood River watershed study area. Table B3 of Appendix B describes the structural stage classification used for classifying stream segments, and Table B4 of Appendix B describes the effects of these structural stages on riparian function. Table 1 describes the 18 RVTs which were classified at the watershed level. Descriptions of the RVTs will be refined at the site level.

 

Table 1: Riparian Vegetation Type Summary Table

RVT NUMBER	RVT DESIGNATION	GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1	SHls/ SxBl (Pl)	Shrub herb areas dominated by young spruce and balsam regeneration, with a minor component of lodgepole pine scattered throughout. Herb layers are well developed and graminoids, Lonicera involucrata and Epilobium angustifolium are abundant. Shrub layer ranges from sparse to very abundant. Common in recently harvested areas which have been planted with spruce. More common in subhygric and wetter areas. Wetter site series are represented.
2	MFc/SxBl (Pl)	Mature forest (>80 yrs and <250 yrs) dominated by spruce and balsam with a lesser component of lodgepole pine. Regeneration abundance varies. Understory herb and moss layers are generally well developed, particularly on richer sites. Shrub layers vary with site conditions (i.e. site series).

 

3	SHts	Shrub herb area dominated by Salix spp., Lonicera involucrata, and Alnus spp. Shrub layer is generally dense. Regeneration may be sparse to abundant. Common along stream channels, and in seepage and depressed areas. Shrub layers can reach 5-10 meters in height. Herb and moss layers are generally poorly developed.
4	PSc/SxBl	Coniferous pole-sapling stands dominated by spruce and balsam. Understory consists mostly of low shrub. Herb and moss layers are moderately well developed. Commonly occupying wetter (subhygric) sites along stream channels.
5	PSc/Pl (SxBl)	Coniferous pole-sapling stands dominated by lodgepole pine with a lesser component of spruce and balsam. Understory shrub, herb and moss layers are moderately well developed. Most common in mesic sites.
6	Hg	Herb structural stage dominated by graminoids, with well developed herb layers. Shrub and moss layers are generally poorly developed. Tree cover is low. Occupying disturbed (harvested) sub-mesic to sub-hygric sites adjacent to streams.
7	SHc/Pl	Shrub herb areas dominated by young lodgepole pine regeneration. Understory layers are moderately well developed. Occurring predominantly in well drained, planted upland sites.
8	SHc/SxPl	Shrub-herb area dominated by planted spruce and lodgepole pine regeneration. Shrub, herb and moss layers are poorly developed. Occurring at high elevation ESSF sites.
9	YFm/SxBlAcEp (PlAt)	Young forest composed of conifer and deciduous species. Common throughout the Cottonwood River watershed in areas which were harvested in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Understory conifer regeneration is generally sparse. Alnus spp., Lonicera involucrata and Salix spp. are abundant. Herb and moss layers are moderately well developed. Occupying sub-mesic to sub-hygric sites adjacent to stream channels.
10	PSb/AtEpAc	Deciduous pole-sapling stands dominated by aspen, birch and cottonwood, with varying amounts of conifer regeneration. Occupying primarily raised and upland areas. Site series are generally sub-mesic to mesic.

 

11	YFc/SxBl	Young conifer forest dominated by spruce and balsam with a lesser component of lodgepole pine. Understory conifer regeneration is sparse. Herb and moss layers are well developed; shrub layer is sparse. Found predominantly in areas which were harvested in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
12	PSm/SxBlAtEp (PlAc)	Pole-sapling stands of conifer and deciduous species. Shrub, herb and moss layers are poorly to moderately well developed.
13	MFm/SxBlEpAc (PlAt)	Mature forest of mixed conifer and deciduous species. Common throughout the Cottonwood River watershed. Understory layers are generally well developed. Occurring on a variety of sites from sub-mesic to hygric.
14	MFb/AtAc(Ep)/SxBl	Mature forest dominated by deciduous tree species. Common throughout the Cottonwood River watershed. Understory layers are generally well developed; shade tolerant spruce and balsam regen is common. Commonly found along stream banks and in wetter microsites.
15	SHm/SxAc(Bl)	Shrub-herb areas dominated by conifer and deciduous species. More common in areas which have not been planted. Occupying upland and depressed sites.
16	YFb/Ac(AtSx)	Young deciduous stands dominated by cottonwood, with lesser components of aspen and spruce. Common in disturbed areas along roadsides. Generally occupying drier sites.
17	SHls	Shrub-herb area dominated by well developed herb layers. Cover values are generally high. Moss layers are poorly developed. Shrub layers vary, but are generally moderately well developed. Conifer regeneration is low. Commonly found adjacent to stream banks and in wetter sites.
18	NSsp	Areas with less than 10% vegetation cover. Most common along disturbed or mined stream banks where vegetation has not become re-established. Substrate commonly consists of tailings, gravel and exposed soil.

 

Figure 2.: Cottonwood Residual of the Cottonwood River watershed drains an area of 30, 741 hectares as it flows west toward Fraser River. Fish distribution is based on Overview FHAP assessment.

4.1 Cottonwood Residual Sub-basin

The Cottonwood Residual sub-basin covers an area of 307 km², of which 40% has been harvested (AIM, 1996). It begins at the confluence of Lightning Creek and Swift River, and it flows west to the Fraser River (Figure 2). Cottonwood Residual, which includes portions of Cottonwood River that are not in any other sub-basin, drains an area of 30,741 hectares (Dobson, 1996). It has a mainstem length of 58 km with eight reaches delineated in the gradient profile (Figure 3). Major sub-basins of the Cottonwood River are Ahbau, Umiti, John Boyd, Lightning and Swift River. Cottonwood Residual lies completely within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone.

 

Figure 3.: Gradient profile of Cottonwood Residual from confluence with Fraser River to 58 km upstream with eight reaches delineated, by triangle. (Watershed code 100-4811)

 

Cottonwood River flows through gently rolling undissected uplands. The river channel meanders and forms braided back channels and unvegetated sand bars throughout its 58 km length. Riffles, pools and bars, with gravel and woody debris form the channels. The channel is formed by riffles, pools and bars with gravel and woody debris. Large bank failures along the mainstem are common. Some are due to agricultural and linear developments while most are from natural slumping. Gullies and tributaries of the Cottonwood River area also prone to bank failures and affect the river by increasing sediment input and by altering the stream channel and riparian area.

Carr et all. (1996) described 73% of the sediment source problems as being associated with logging, while mining, recreational, residential and utility activities make up the remainder. Highway 97 from Quesnel and Highway 26 from Barkerville provide access into the Cottonwood Residual area. Several logging, mining, recreational and agricultural roads branch off of these Highways.

Logging has removed 40% of the forested area in the Cottonwood Residual sub-basin, mainly along tributaries (AIM, 1996). Forest-related impacts to fish habitat along the mainstem are low.

The lower reaches of the Cottonwood River mainstem lie outside of the TFL 52 study area, and were therefore not included in the assessment process. Watershed level assessments of the remainder of the Cottonwood Residual identified four areas with suspected impairments to riparian function. These areas were assessed and prioritized for Site Level assessments. Suspected impairments to ecological function of the riparian area are due to forest harvesting and mining activities within the RMAs. Preliminary assessments and prioritization are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Watershed level assessment results for the Cottonwood Residual sub-basin

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classi-fication	Site #	Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Riparian Function impairments (based on table B4 in appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Cottonwood Residual	7	S1	1	3700	2, 3, 4 9, 11, 14	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	High
Cottonwood Residual	7	S1	2	1165	3,9,10,11	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	High
Cottonwood Residual	5	S1	3	880	18	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	High
Cottonwood Residual	5	S1	4	500	2,3,9,11	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	High

These sites are located along reaches of Cottonwood River which have an FPC stream classification of S1, and are within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA in maintaining selected riparian functions as low-medium (with the exception of back channel fish habitat, which is very high). However, Table B4 of Appendix B, which describes the effects of stand structural stages on riparian function, identifies areas where riparian function is lost and impaired. Due to these assessments and the adjacency of these sites to fish bearing reaches, all four areas are assigned a high priority rating for Site Level assessments.

Figure 4. Ahbau sub-basins. Ahbau sub-basin drains an area of 42, 920 ha as it drains southwest into Cottonwood River. Fish distribution is based on overview FHAP assessment.

4.2 Ahbau Creek Sub-basin

Ahbau Creek flows south into the Cottonwood River, 11 km upstream from the Cottonwood and Fraser River confluence (Figure 4). The creek has a mainstem length of 76.9 km consisting of 15 reaches delineated on the gradient profile (Figure 5). Ahbau Creek drains a watershed area of 42, 920 ha (Dobson Engineering Ltd., 1995). There are three third-order tributaries on Ahbau Creek.

There are three major lakes on the mainstem. Ahbau Lake is located 40.6 km upstream of Abhau Creek and Cottonwood River confluence, and covers an area of 8.1 km². Hay Lake is located 57.5 km upstream of Abhau Creek and Cottonwood River confluence and covers an area of 0.5 km². Lodi Lake is located 62.8 km upstream of Abhau Creek and Cottonwood River confluence and covers an area of 1.6 km².

 

Figure 5.: Gradient profile of Ahbau Creek with 15 reaches delineated, by triangle. (Watershed code 100-4811-073)

 

According to FISS (1994), chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and rainbow trout (O. mykiss) reside in the creek to Ahbau Lake. Chinook salmon migrate up to Ahbau Lake, while kokanee salmon (O. nerka) reside in Ahbau Lake.

Abhau Creek flows over gently rolling terrain in the lower reaches, while the upper reaches are more dissected. The creek meanders within a narrow flood plain formed of glacial drift soils. Slumping of creek banks is a common occurrence in Abhau sub-basin and along the mainstem. Slope failures can be associated with skid roads and cutblocks on gullies and tributaries. Most of the slope failures along the mainstem are associated with natural slumping of the steep riverbanks.

Ahbau Creek runs along the northern boundary of TFL 52. Approximately 25km of Ahbau creek lies within the TFL 52 study area; overview riparian assessments along this length yielded two areas with suspected riparian impacts. Both sites are located along unnamed creeks which flow north into reach 3 of Ahbau Creek mainstem. Suspected impacts to riparian function are related to harvesting activities within the RMA. Assessment results and site level assessment prioritization are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Watershed level assessment results for the Ahbau Creek sub-basin

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classifi-cation	Site #	Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Riparian Function impairments (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Ahbau Creek (unnamed creek)	1 (of un-named creek)	S3	5	800	5,16	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, nutrient filtering	medium-high
Ahbau Creek (unnamed creek)	2-4 (of un-named creek)	S3	6	3500	5	LWD, SOD, Channel stability, nutrient filtering	medium-high

Sites 5 and 6 are located along S3 streams within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 in Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at these sites in maintaining selected riparian functions as medium to very high. Table B4 of Appendix B, which summarises the effects of stand structural stages on riparian function, identifies LWD function in these areas as lost, with SOD, channel stability and nutrient filtering functions as impaired. These two sites have been assigned a medium to high priority for Site Level assessments, due to the degree of impact and because they are located along potential fish bearing streams. Priority assignments may be re-evaluated upon field visitation; if the priority drops, the sites will be evaluated as time permits.

Figure 6. Umiti Creek drains an area of 14, 876 ha as it flows west into Cottonwood River. Fish distribution is based on Overview FHAP assessments.

4.3 Umiti Creek Sub-basin

Umiti Creek flows from elevations of 1850m westward into Cottonwood River, 43 km upstream of the Cottonwood and Fraser River confluence (Figure 6). The creek has a mainstem length of 31km with 5 reaches delineated in the gradient profile (Figure 7). Umiti Creek sub-basin drains an area of 14 876 ha (Dobson, 1995) and contains one unnamed tributary (100-6570-287-?).

Figure 7. Gradient profile of Umiti Creek with five reaches delineated, by triangle. (Watershed code 100-4811-287)

 

Umiti Creek is characterized by a low-gradient sinuous stream channel along its entire length. Moderate amounts of forest development and placer mining activity have occurred throughout the sub-basin. The Cottonwood/Swift River IWAP indicated that the ECA for Umiti Creek was 23.3% (Dobson, 1995). Dobson (1996) stated that portions of the stream channels in the Umiti Creek sub-basin were unstable due to forest development and placer mining activity. Fish habitat has been affected by the removal of riparian areas from several reaches and input of sediment from streamside logging activities (AIM, 1996).

FISS (1994) does not document the presence of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Umiti Creek, but chinook salmon are suspected of using Umiti Creek as rearing habitat (Fish Habitat Inventory and Information Program, 1990; Appendix B4; Figure 9).

Watershed level assessments of Umiti Creek sub-basin identified 10 sites with forest harvesting-related activities which are suspected to have resulted in impairments to riparian function. A total of 14.75 km of riparian is recommended for Site Level riparian assessments. Harvesting activities within the RMA has occurred at all ten sites; eight sites have been logged to the channel bank on one side of the stream channel, two have been logged on both sides. Assessment results and site level assessment prioritization are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Watershed level assessment results for the Umiti Creek sub-basin

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classi-fication	Site #	Length	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on table B4 in appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Umiti Creek	5	S3	7	3600	1,2,4	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Umiti Creek	4	S3	8	1650	1,2,3,4,7, 18	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Umiti Creek (Un-named Tributary	1	S3	9	1850	1,2,4,15, 16	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	medium
Umiti Creek	4	S3	10	1400	1,2,4,5,18	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Umiti Creek (un-named tributary	1	S6	11	1800	1,2,7	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	low
Umiti Creek	3	S3	12	700	2,3,7	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Umiti Creek	2	S3	13	1500	1,2,3,7	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Umiti Creek	1	S3	14	1000	1,4,5	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Umiti Creek	1	S3	15	400	1,2,4,5	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	medium
Umiti Creek	1	S3	16	850	1,2,4,5	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	medium

All sites, with the exception of site 11, are located along S3 streams within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA in maintaining selected riparian functions as medium to very high. Effects of stand structural stages on riparian function (see Table B4 of Appendix B) identify LWD and channel stability as the most heavily impaired riparian functions (lost in many areas), with additional impairments to stream shading, SOD and sediment and nutrient filtering functions. Impacted sites along known fish bearing stream segments were given high priority for site level assessments, other segments (eg. sites 9, 15, and 16) were assigned a medium priority. Site 11 was given a low priority as it is located along an S6 stream and vegetation cover along the stream banks appears to be well established. Site Level assessments will be conducted at all high priority sites. Priority assignments may be re-evaluated upon field visitation; if the priority drops, the sites will be evaluated as time permits, if the rating increases, site level assessments will be conducted.

 

Figure 8. John Boyd Creek drains an area of 11, 046 ha and flows west into Cottonwood River. Fish distribution is based on Overview FHAP assessments.

4.4 John Boyd Creek Sub-basin

The John Boyd sub-basin is located in the north-central portion of the watershed and covers an area of 110 km². John Boyd flows west into the Cottonwood River, 45 km upstream of the Cottonwood and Fraser River confluence (Figure 8). The creek has a mainstem length of 21 km with 6 reaches delineated on the gradient profile (Figure 9). There are three third order tributaries on John Boyd Creek; an unnamed tributary

(100-4811-308-?), is located 0.5 km upstream of John Boyd and Cottonwood confluence; Alice Creek, located 11.5 km upstream of John Boyd and Cottonwood confluence, and Mary Creek, a tributary of Alice Creek, located 1 km upstream of Alice and John Boyd Creek confluence.

 

Figure 9. Gradient profile of John Boyd Creek with six reaches delineated, by triangles. (Watershed code 100-4811-308)

 

Chinook salmon and rainbow trout are found throughout the river with a few areas suspected of being chinook rearing habitat (FISS, 1994).

John Boyd sub-basin is characterised by a large amount of forest development and mining activity with riparian areas missing from 27 km. Forest harvesting has removed 48% of forest cover from the John Boyd sub-basin (AIM, 1996). The Cottonwood/Swift River IWAP indicated that the ECA for John Boyd Creek was 40% (Dobson, 1996). Dobson (1996) states that portions of the stream channels in the John Boyd Creek sub-basin were unstable due to forest development and placer mining activity. The high riparian buffer hazard rating indicated that numerous stream channels in John Boyd Creek sub-basin have been harvested to the stream edge.

Seven kilometers of John Boyd Creek lie within the boundaries of the TFL 52 study area. Watershed level riparian assessments within this section yielded one area with suspected impairments to riparian function. These suspected impairments are a result of forest harvesting within the RMA. The area of concern is a 500m long section of stream that was harvested to the bank in 1971 and planted with spruce and pine in 1973. Vegetation throughout the RMA is well established, but sparse. A mature conifer forest dominates the north side of the creek. Preliminary assessments and prioritization for Site Level assessments are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Watershed level assessment results for the John Boyd sub-basin.

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classi-fication	Site #	Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
John Boyd	4	S3	17	500	2,4,17	stream shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high

This section of John Boyd Creek has a FPC stream classification of S3 and is located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at this site, in maintaining selected riparian functions, as medium to very high. Table B4 of Appendix B, which summarises the effects of stand structural stages on riparian function, identifies LWD and channel stability as the most heavily impaired riparian functions (lost in some areas), with additional impairments to stream shading, SOD, and sediment and nutrient filtering functions. This site is located adjacent to a fish bearing reach, and therefore, due to potential impacts to fish habitat, has been assigned a high priority for site level riparian assessments.

Figure 10. Lightning Creek drains an area of 24, 940 ha as it flows west into Cottonwood River. Fish distributions are based on the Overview FHAP assessments.

4.5 Lightning Creek sub-basin

Lightning Creek flows west, from an elevation of 1640m, to the Cottonwood River, 61.7 km upstream of the Cottonwood and Fraser River confluence (Figure 10). Lightning Creek has a mainstem length of 50km with 6 reaches delineated on the gradient profile (Figure 11). Lightning sub-basin drains a watershed area of 24 940 (Dobson, 1996). Dobson (1996) indicates that 15.5 % of Lightning Creek sub-basin has been clear cut. Lightning drains Peter Creek and several small tributaries into the Cottonwood River. This area, with its abundant wetlands, is an important moose habitat area.



Figure 11. Gradient profile of Lightning Creek with six reaches delineated, by triangles. (Watershed code 100-481-389)

 

According to FISS (1994), chinook salmon and rainbow trout are found throughout Lightning Creek. Chinook spawn throughout the creek in August and September. Bull trout also reside in the creek. Fish production is limited by poor gravel quality due to siltation and low water flow which causes access problems (Imhof and Sutherland, 1996).

Lightning Creek is characterized by significant amounts of forestry and mining developments. Thirteen kilometers of Lightning Creek are located within the TFL 52 study area; this area was assessed. Four sites within the study area were identified as having impacted riparian areas, as a result of harvesting and mining activities. All sites are located along reach 1 of the Lightning Creek mainstem. Preliminary assessments of these impacted sites are presented in Table 6.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Watershed level assessment results for the Lightning Creek sub-basin.

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classi- fication	Site #	Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Lightning Creek	1	S3	18	1600	2,8,9,18	stream shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Lightning Creek	1	S3	19	1200	2,18	stream shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Lightning Creek	1	S3	20	300	2,9,18	stream shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high
Lightning Creek	1	S3	21	1000	2,9,18	stream shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	high

Reach 1 of Lightning Creek has a FPC stream classification of S3 and is located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at this site, in maintaining selected riparian functions, as medium to very high. Table B4 of Appendix B, which summarises the effects of stand structural stages on riparian function, identifies LWD, channel stability, SOD and stream shading as the most heavily impaired riparian functions (lost in some areas) with additional impairments to sediment and nutrient filtering functions. This reach is a fish bearing reach, and therefore, due to potential impacts to fish habitat, all four sites have been assigned a high priority for site level riparian assessments.

Figure 12. Swift River drains an area of 36, 277 ha and flows west to form Cottonwood River when it meets with Lightning Creek. Fish distributions are based on Overview FHAP assessments.

4.6 Swift River Sub-basin

The Swift River flows west to become the Cottonwood River when it meets Lightning Creek, 58km upstream of Cottonwood and Fraser River confluence. It has a mainstem length of 55 km with 12 reaches delineated in the gradient profile (Figure 13). It drains a watershed area of 36 277 ha. (Dobson, 1996). Third order tributaries of Swift River are unnamed tributary (100-4811-426), Sovereign, Victoria, Bendixon, Porter and Reddish creeks and Little Swift River. Approximately 35km of the Swift River lies within the TFL 52 study area. The unnamed tributary lies outside of the TFL 52 boundary and was therefore not assessed.



Figure 13. Gradient profile of Swift River excluding the upper section that is profiled under the McMartin sub-basin with 12 reaches delineated, by triangles. (Watershed code 100-4811)

 

According to FISS (1994), chinook salmon spawn in the main channel of Swift River from mid-August to mid-September. Fish Habitat Inventory and Information System report (1990) described waterfalls on Swift River, 23 km upstream from the confluence with Cottonwood River, that are a migration obstruction for chinook and coho salmon. Rainbow and bull trout, mountain whitefish and suckers are also found in the river.

Forest harvesting has removed 27% of the forest cover from the Swift River sub-basin (AIM, 1996). Photo interpretation of this sub-basin identifies many sites where riparian vegetation has been removed. Swift River meanders and braids through back channels and small bars. The pools and riffles that form the creek are occasionally enhanced by large woody debris.

The channel of Bendixon Creek is composed mostly of fine gravel with a few boulders (Imhof and Sutherland, 1996). Instream vegetation provides cover for rearing habitat, that is correspondingly enhanced by large organic debris, pools, overhanging vegetation and cutbanks. One cutblock in the vicinity of the creek was identified at the watershed level, however a 50-70m wide riparian buffer was maintained at the time of harvesting. The opposite side of the creek is a mature, intact conifer forest. No riparian impacts are suspected at this site. No other reaches along Bendixon Creek have apparent impacts.

No apparent impacts to the riparian area and fish habitat were identified along Porter Creek. The creek flows in a riffle and run channel formed by cobble and gravel in reaches 1 through 3. Imhof and Sutherland (1996) stated that the fish habitat was enhanced by large organic debris, cutbanks and, in some areas, overhanging vegetation. Reaches 4 and 5 are formed by pool and riffle habitat that has a bed of gravel with some larger cobble. Cover for fish species is provided by deep pools, large organic debris and overhanging cutbanks.

Watershed level assessments of the Swift River sub-basin (within the TFL 52 boundary) identified two sites with suspected riparian impacts. Both sites, which are located along the Swift River Creek mainstem, were clear-cut harvested to the stream bank. Riparian functions are therefore believed to be impaired. Preliminary assessments results and prioritisation for Site Level assessments are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Watershed level assessment results for the Swift River sub-basin.

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classifi-cation	Site #	Segment length	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Swift River	9	S2	22	900	1,2	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	High
Swift River	3	S2	23	2100	3,5	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	High

Reaches 3 and 9 of Swift River have a FPC stream classification of S2 and are located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at this site, in maintaining selected riparian functions, as medium to high. Table B4 of Appendix B, which summarises the effects of stand structural stages on riparian function, identifies all riparian functions as being impaired, with LWD and channel stability functions as lost in some areas. These sites are located along to fish bearing reaches, and therefore, due to potential impacts to fish habitat, have been assigned a high priority for Site Level riparian assessments.

Figure 14. Sovereign Creek drains an area of 11 249 ha as it flows west into Swift River. Fish distribution is based on Overview FHAP assessments.

4.7 Sovereign Creek Sub-basin

Sovereign Creek is a third order stream located within West Fraser Mills Tree Farm License (TFL) 52, approximately 35km east of Quesnel, B.C. (Figure 14). Sovereign Creek is approximately 25km long and drains west from its headwaters to its mouth at the confluence of the Swift River, 7 km upstream of the Swift River and Lightning Creek confluence. The elevation ranges from 820m at the Swift River confluence to 1200m in its headwaters. The watershed is located within the Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS) biogeoclimatic zone. Sovereign Creek lies within a valley in the Cariboo Plateau, and drains an area of 11, 249 ha (Dobson, 1995). Sovereign Creek has a number of large

tributaries and several small 1^st and 2^nd order tributaries. The gradient profile for Sovereign Creek, with its 11 reaches delineated, is illustrated in Figure15.



Figure 15. Gradient profile of Sovereign Creek with eleven reaches delineated by triangles. (Watershed code- 100-4811-434).

Chinook salmon and rainbow trout are present in Sovereign Creek and its tributaries (FISS, 1994; Carmanah, 1996). The lower four reaches of Sovereign Creek are used as chinook rearing habitat. Juvenile chinook were found in Chipp Creek (100-4811-434-107) and an unnamed tributary 100-4811-434-358.

AIM (1996) states that "habitat alteration along the lower reach of Sovereign Creek has resulted in high priority ratings for the lower 8.7 km section of the creek" (AIM, 1996). There are four major areas in the sub-basin that are rated as having high / very high habitat impacts related to streamside harvesting of riparian buffers. The largest concern has been found to be along reaches 1 and 2 of the Sovereign mainstem (AIM, 1996).

Reach 1 is approximately 2.4 km long and has a pool riffle habitat type. The entire length of the reach was harvested to the stream bank in the early 1980s, leaving questionable impacts on fish habitat. The harvested areas were replanted and riparian vegetation communities appear to be well established along most of the reach. Floodplain vegetation is dominated by deciduous species.

Reach 2 is morphologically similar to reach 1 with mainly riffle pool habitat types. Forest harvesting activities have removed riparian vegetation from most of the reach; in some areas, both sides of the stream have been harvested to the stream bank. The harvested areas have been replanted and the conifer regeneration appears to be well established in most areas. Floodplain vegetation is dominated by deciduous species.

The overview assessments identified seven areas within the Sovereign Creek sub-basin which have suspected impacts to riparian ecological function as a result of forest harvesting and placer mining activities within the RMA. These seven sites were prioritized for Site Level assessments. Preliminary assessment results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Watershed level assessment results for the Sovereign Creek Sub-basin

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classifi-cation	Site #	Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Sovereign Creek	1	S3	24	2400	1,2,3,4,5,6,18	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	high
Sovereign Creek	2	S3	25	4700	1,2,3,4,5,18	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	high
Sovereign Creek	3	S3	26	1000	1,2,3,4,	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	high
Sovereign Creek (unnamed tributary)	1	S3	27	400	3,4,5	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	medium
Sovereign Creek	5	S3	28	650	3,4,5	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	medium

 

Sovereign Creek (Unnamed Creek)	1	S4	29	2000	3,4	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	low
Eskridge Creek	1	S3	30	1300	1,3,4	shading, LWD, SOD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	medium

The first three reaches of the Sovereign Creek mainstem have a FPC stream classification of S3 and are located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at these sites, in maintaining selected riparian functions, as medium to very high. Table B4 of Appendix B, which summarises the effects of stand structural stages on riparian function, identifies all riparian functions as being impaired, with LWD and channel stability functions as lost in some areas. These sites are located along fish bearing reaches, and therefore, due to potential impacts to fish habitat, have been assigned a high priority for site level riparian assessments. The site along reach 5 has been assigned a lower priority (medium) due to the well established nature (and age) of the vegetation communities along the stream banks. The remaining three sites are located along non-fish bearing streams and have been assigned a lower (medium-low) priority. Lower priority areas will be assessed as time permits.

Figure 16. Victoria Creek drains an area of 29,949 ha and flows west into Swift River. Fish distribution is based on Overview FHAP assessments.

4.8 Victoria Creek Sub-basin

Victoria creek is a third order stream located partially within the TFL 52 study area and the Quesnel Timber Supply Area (TSA). Victoria Creek flows west into Swift River, approximately 30 km upstream of Swift River and Lightning Creek confluence (Figure 1). Victoria Creek has a mainstem length of approximately 54km with 13 reaches delineated on the gradient profile Figure (Figure 17). The elevation ranges from 860m at the Swift River confluence to 1080m in its headwaters. Victoria Creek meanders through a shallow valley in the Cariboo Plateau, and drains an area of 309km². Victoria Creek has a number of large tributaries, Chiaz Creek being the largest, and several small 1st and 2nd order tributaries. This sub-basin is located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone.



Figure 17. Gradient profile of Victoria Creek with thirteen reaches delineated by triangles.

 

Rainbow and bull trout and non-game fish (suckers, squawfish and red-sided shiners) were recorded throughout the sub-basin, and it is suspected that chinook salmon spawn up to reach 8.

Victoria Creek is characterized by low amounts of forest harvesting and has been described as having no future development constraints (Carr et al., 1996). The ECA for this sub-basin is 6% (Dobson, 1996). All hazard indices for Victoria that were calculated as part of the IWAP are low. AIM (1996) also indicated in the Riparian, Wetland and Terrestrial Assessment that riparian concerns in the sub-basin are low.

The watershed level assessment for Victoria Creek sub-basin, which was conducted within the TFL 52 study area, identified one site with riparian impacts which are related to forest harvesting within the RMA. Preliminary assessments are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Watershed level assessment results for the Victoria Creek sub-basin.

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classi-fication	Site #	Site Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Victoria Creek (unnamed tributary)	1	S3	31	1300	2,3,7	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	high

 

This section of unnamed tributary of Victoria Creek has a FPC stream classification of S3 and is located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at this site, in maintaining selected riparian functions, as medium to very high. Table B4 of Appendix B, which summarises the effects of stand structural stages on riparian function, identifies all riparian functions within RVT 3 and RVT 7 areas, with the exception of SOD, as being impaired. LWD and channel stability functions are lost. This site is located adjacent to a fish bearing reach, and therefore, due to potential impacts to fish habitat, has been assigned a high priority rating for Site Level riparian assessments.

Figure 18. Reddish Creek drains an area of 7,245 ha and flows south into Swift River. Fish distribution is based on Overview FHAP assessment.

4.9 Reddish Creek Sub-basin

Reddish Creek is a third order stream located within West Fraser Mills Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 52, approximately 35km east of Quesnel, B.C. (Figure 18). The mainstem is approximately 11 km long and drains south from its headwaters to its mouth at the confluence of the Swift River. The Reddish Creek mainstem has 3 reaches, which are delineated by the gradient profile in Figure 19. The elevation ranges from 1035m at the Swift River confluence to 1040m in its headwaters, with Fontaine Creek headwaters at an elevation of 1560m. The watershed is located within the ESSF and SBS biogeoclimatic zones. Reddish Creek lies within a valley in the Cariboo Plateau, and drains an area of 7,245 ha (Dobson, 1996). Fontaine Creek, a second order stream, measures 12km in length and is the only major tributary in this system.



Figure 19. Gradient profile of Reddish Creek with 3 reaches delineated, by triangles. (Watershed code 100-4811-729)

 

Rainbow trout reside throughout Reddish and Fontaine creeks (Carmanah, 1996c; Appendix B10; Figure 21). Non-game species include lake chubb and long-nosed sucker. Several tributaries to Reddish and Fontaine creeks also have rainbow trout. Horan Creek, which is a first order tributary to Fontaine Creek, has rainbow trout throughout.

Reddish Creek is characterised by a low gradient sinuous stream channel along its entire length. Fontaine Creek, similar in size to Reddish Creek, has a mainstem length of 12km with six reaches delineated in the gradient profile (Figure 20). Extensive forest harvesting has occurred throughout the Reddish and Fontaine creeks. In many areas, forest harvesting has removed riparian vegetation to the stream edge, leaving questionable impacts on fish habitat.



Figure 20. Gradient profile of Fontaine Creek with six reaches delineated by triangles.

 

A total of seven areas within the Reddish Creek sub-basin were identified at the watershed level as having suspected impairments to the ecological function of the riparian areas. All impacts are the result of forest harvesting activities within the RMA. Preliminary assessments and prioritization for Site Level riparian assessments are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Watershed level assessment results for the Reddish Creek sub-basin.

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classi-fication	Site #	Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Reddish Creek (mainstem)	3	S3	32	800	3	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	Low-medium
Reddish Creek (Fontaine Creek)	4	S3	33	2100	2,3	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	High
Reddish Creek (Horan Creek)	2	S3	34	760	1,3	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	High
Reddish Creek (Horan Creek)	2	S3	35	750	1,2	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	High
Reddish Creek (Font Creek)	1	S3	36	700	1,2	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	High

 

Reddish Creek (Fontaine Creek)	6	S3	37	3100	1,2,3	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	High
Reddish Creek (Horan Creek)	1	S3	38	500	1,3	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	High

All seven sites have a FPC stream classification of S3 and are located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at this site, in maintaining selected riparian functions, as medium to very high. Table B4 of Appendix B summarises the effects of stand structural stages on riparian function. Riparian functions which have been determined to be impaired at these sites, are stream shading, and sediment and nutrient filtering. LWD and channel stability functions have been lost. These sites, with the exception of the first one on Reddish Creek mainstem, have been given high priority for Site Level riparian assessments, due to the severity of the riparian function impairments, and also to their proximity to fish bearing streams(and possible implications for fish habitat).

The site along the Reddish Creek mainstem was assigned a low-medium priority for a number of reasons. The section of stream which was assessed is located in a wetland, and due to the stable nature, low transport and natural buffering capacity of the wetland, impacts at this site due to adjacent harvesting activities are low. Also, no harvesting activities have occurred within the RMA of the stream as the RMA is located within the wetland. Harvesting beyond the RMA has occurred, but impacts to the stream and fish habitat are low due to the distance of harvesting activities from the stream channel.

Figure 21. McMartin sub-basin is formed from the upper 38 km of the Swift River and drains an area of 16, 080 ha. Fish distribution is based on the Overview FHAP assessments.

4.10 McMartin Sub-basin

McMartin sub-basin forms the upper reaches of the Swift River. This section of the Swift River flows west in the Swift River approximately 55km upstream of the Swift River and Lightning Creek confluence (Figure 21). The sub-basin has a mainstem length of 37km with nine reaches delineated by the gradient profile (Figure 22).

 

Figure 22. Gradient profile of McMartin sub-basin, upper 37 km of Swift River with nine reaches delineated by triangles.

 

The McMartin sub-basin is characterised by moderate amounts of forest development with minimal impacts on the stream, however, forest harvesting in the lower reaches has removed riparian vegetation to the stream bank. The Cottonwood/Swift River IWAP indicated that the ECA for McMartin sub-basin was low (Dobson, 1996).

According to FISS (1994) rainbow trout and bull trout are found throughout the McMartin sub-basin.

Watershed level assessments of McMartin sub-basin identified three areas with suspected impacts to riparian function. Impacts at all three sites are related to forest harvesting within the RMA. Preliminary assessments are presented in Table 11.

 

 

Table 11. Watershed level assessment results for the McMartin Creek sub-basin.

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classi-fication	Site #	Site Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
McMartin Creek	2	S3	39	100	1,2	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	medium
McMartin Creek	4	S3	40	400	1,2	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	medium
McMartin Creek	4	S3	41	500	1,2	shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering nutrient filtering	medium

These three sites are located along sections of McMartin sub-basin which have a FPC stream classification of S3 and are located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at this site, in maintaining selected riparian functions, as medium to very high. Effects of stand structural stages on riparian function (see Table B4 of Appendix B) identify all riparian functions within RVT 1 areas, with the exception of SOD, as being impaired. LWD and channel stability functions are lost. The two cut areas along reach 4 have been given medium priority for Site Level riparian assessments due to the riparian buffer that was maintained along the channel at the time of harvesting, and the well stocked nature of the harvested area. The stream banks are stable (old growth on both banks), and LWD function is not impaired. Beyond the riparian buffers (further into the cutblocks), riparian functions may be impaired, however, due to the proximity of these areas to the stream channel, impacts to fish habitat are unlikely. The site along reach 3 of McMartin sub-basin has also been assigned a medium priority for Site Level riparian assessments because the harvested area is well stocked with conifer regeneration which is currently in the pole-sapling stage and stream banks appear to be stable. A mature conifer forest dominates the opposite side of the stream, and is compensating for losses in LWD function on the harvested side. These sites will be visited as time permits.

 

Figure 23. Little Swift River flows south into Swift River and drains an area of 13,118 ha. Fish distribution is based on Overview FHAP assessments.

4.11 Little Swift River Sub-basin

Little Swift River flows west to the Swift River, 55 km upstream of the confluence of Swift River and Lightning Creek (Figure 23). The river has a mainstem length of 28.8 km with 15 reaches delineated in the gradient profile (Figure 24), and drains a watershed area of 13, 118 ha (Dobson, 1996).



Figure 24. Gradient profile of Little Swift River with 15 reaches delineated. (Watershed code 100-4811)

Rainbow trout are found in the lower eight reaches of Little Swift River (FISS, 1994), and bull trout are found throughout (Imhof and Sutherland, 1996). Forest harvesting has occurred in Little Swift River although with minimal impacts as much of the forest related development has occurred away from the river.

Reaches 1 through 3 of Little Swift River lie within the TFL 52 study area; these reaches were assessed. The watershed level assessment identified two areas with suspected impacts to riparian function as a result of forest harvesting within the RMA. Preliminary assessments and prioritisation for Site Level riparian assessments are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Watershed level assessment results for the Little Swift River sub-basin.

Sub-basin name	Reach #	Stream Classification	Site #	Length (m)	Riparian Vegetation Types	Impaired Riparian Functions (based on Table B4 of Appendix B)	Priority rating for site level riparian assessments
Little Swift River	1	S3	42	250	2, 8	Shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	High
Little Swift River	2-3	S3	43	1300	1, 2, 3, 4	Shading, LWD, channel stability, sediment filtering, nutrient filtering	High

Both sites are located along reaches of Little Swift River which have a FPC stream classification of S3 and are located within the SBS biogeoclimatic zone. Table B2 of Appendix B identifies the relative importance of the RMA at this site, in maintaining selected riparian functions, as medium to very high. Effects of stand structural stages on riparian function (see Table B4 of Appendix B) identify all riparian functions, with the exception of SOD function, within RVT 1, RVT 3 and RVT 8 areas, as being impaired. LWD and channel stability functions are lost. Within RVT 4 areas, LWD function is lost and SOD, channel stability and nutrient filtering functions are impaired. Both sites have been assigned a high priority for Site Level riparian assessments.

 

2. Summary and Recommendations for Site Level Assessments

The Watershed Level assessment for the Cottonwood River watershed identifies forty three sites with riparian functions which are suspected to have been impaired as a result of resource development. Impacts are due primarily to forest harvesting within the RMA and also to mining activities. High priority for Site Level riparian assessments was assigned to sites located adjacent to high value fish habitat which have or are suspected of having an impact on fish habitat. Medium priority was assigned to areas with lower fish habitat value, less severe impacts to riparian areas, and to areas which appear to be recovering well from prior impacts. Low priority was assigned to areas with negligible impacts to riparian function and areas adjacent to non-fish-bearing streams. Table 13 provides a summary of the Watershed Level riparian assessments and priority ratings for Site Level assessments.

AIM Ecological Consultants Ltd. 1996. Cottonwood River Watershed Riparian Wetland and Terrestrial Assessment. Prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Williams Lake, B.C. 74p plus appendices.

Carmanah Research Ltd. Brydges, K., S. Luzzi, and M. Burrell. 1996a. Draft Report of a Reconnaissance Fisheries Inventory of the Sovereign Creek Watershed. Prepared for West Fraser Mills Ltd., Quesnel, B.C., by Carmanah Research Ltd., Victoria, B.C.

Carmanah Research Ltd. Brydges, K., S. Luzzi, and M. Burrell. 1996b. Draft Report of a Reconnaissance Fisheries Inventory of the Reddish Creek Watershed. Prepared for West Fraser Mills Ltd., Quesnel, B.C., by Carmanah Research Ltd., Victoria, B.C.

Carmanah Research Ltd. Brydges, K., S. Luzzi, and M. Burrell. 1996c. Draft Report of a Reconnaissance Fisheries Inventory of the Victoria Creek Watershed. Prepared for West Fraser Mills Ltd., Quesnel, B.C., by Carmanah Research Ltd., Victoria, B.C.

Carmanah Research Ltd. In progress. A. Fisheries Inventory of the Swift River Watershed. Prepared for West Fraser Mills Ltd., Quesnel, B.C., by Carmanah Research Ltd., Victoria, B.C.

Carmanah Research Ltd. In progress. B. Fisheries Inventory of the Umiti River Watershed. Prepared for West Fraser Mills Ltd., Quesnel, B.C., by Carmanah Research Ltd., Victoria, B.C.

Carr, W.W., I.C. Wright and J.A. Beer. 1996. Cottonwood River watershed – Watershed Restoration Program – Cariboo Region – Sediment Source Inventory and Mapping. Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Williams Lake by CARR Environmental Consultants Ltd., Cloverdale, B.C. and AIM Ecological Consultants Ltd., 100 Mile House, B.C. p.

Dobson Engineering Ltd. 1996. Cottonwood River watershed - Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure -Summary Report. Prepared for AIM Ecological Consultants, 100 Mile House, B.C. (contracted to Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Williams Lake, Cariboo Region) by Dobson Engineering Ltd., Kelowna, BC. 20p.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. British Columbia. 330p.

Imhof, D. and D. R. Sutherland. 1996. Fish Habitat Inventory of the Swift River Watershed 1995. Prepared for British Columbia Environment Fisheries Branch. Prepared by British Columbia Conservation Foundation, Prince George, B.C. Fisheries Regional Report No CA964. 21p plus 5 appendices.

Johnston, N.T. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8. Watershed Restoration Program. Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks and Ministry of Forests. 97p.

Rood, K.M. and R.E. Hamilton. 1995. Hydrology and water use for salmon streams in the Quesnel Habitat Management Area, British Columbia. Canadian Manuscript Report Fish and Aquatic Sciences. No. 2296. 138p.

Rowland, D.E., and L.B. McDonald. 1996. Salmon Watershed Planning process for the Fraser River Basin within the Cariboo Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP) area. Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Unit, Prince George, B.C. and the Fraser River Action Plan, Vancouver, B.C. 375p.

Cottonwood, 30 km from Quesnel along Highway 26

Quesnel, 28 km downstream of Cottonwood and Fraser River confluence, via canoe

Wells, 78 km from Quesnel along Highway 26

Barkerville, 82 km from Quesnel along Highway 26

Cinema, 37 km from Quesnel along Highway 97

Wingham, 60 km from Quesnel along Highway 26