An Overview and Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) was requested by Riverside Forest Products Limited, under the Watershed Restoration Program of Forest Renewal B.C. for the Bill Miner and associated watersheds. BioTerra Consulting was awarded the contract to perform the assessment. The delivering agent for the FHAP was the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MoELP).

As per the specifications of the contract and the methodology outlined in Watershed Restoration (WRP) Technical Circular #8 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures, an Overview and Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure was performed on the Bill Miner and associated watersheds. The results of the Overview phase identified that fisheries values were primarily in the first reach of each watershed as gradient (>20%) and fall (>2m) barriers limit upstream movement. Field sites were selected based on the high priority sites identified from the Overview procedure. A high priority site may have important fish values and/or impact(s) (natural, forestry) which could be limiting fisheries habitat. A low intensity fish inventory was also conducted to verify important habitat values within each watershed.

The Level 1 Assessment procedure identified no high priority restoration sites within any of the surveyed watersheds. The majority of the impacts (limiting factors) within the reaches important to fish are naturally occurring. Impacts related to forest harvesting are site specific, they do not occur at a watershed level. Forest resource development for the most part has occurred in the upper portions of each watershed which has diluted the potential effects on downstream fisheries values. The Warttig Creek watershed is the exception as forest resource development (cutblocks, road construction) has occurred adjacent to the MoELP stocked Warttig Lake and it’s fish bearing tributaries. The site impacts in this watershed have been minimized as the lake aids in dissipating the increase sediment input. The riparian zone harvest impacts that have degraded a fish bearing tributary of Warttig Lake are in natural repair and have limited on-going effects.

Based on the results of the low intensity fish survey two culvert crossing sites (on the 6100 Road, Warttig Creek watershed) were assessed as per the methodology outlined in the MoELP Fish Passage Culvert Inspection - Draft 2A Manual (April 1997).

The first site was located on the southeast inlet stream for Warttig Lake (upstream end of reach 6A). The assessment concluded that the culvert is a low flow barrier to upstream fish passage (as per specifications outlined in the Stream Crossing Guidebook for Fish Streams, working draft 1997/1998). The second site was located on an unnamed tributary that flows south into the west side of Warttig Lake. The inspection concluded that this crossing was a barrier to fish passage (at all flows) to limited rearing habitat upstream of the road. In addition one of the two culverts used at this crossing is non functioning as a drainage structure forcing the water to drain through the smaller overflow culvert.

This project was funded by the Watershed Restoration Program of Forest Renewal B.C. The project was under the auspices of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MoELP) Cariboo Region. Mike Parker of MoELP was the scientific authority for the project. I would like to thank Eric Braumandl, Charlene Mellor and Peter Nicklin of BioTerra Consulting for their technical review. The Project Leader would also like to thank Shane Hink for his dedicated involvement during the Level 1 field component. Mapping and database development was completed by Mark Ho and Richard Barry of Inland Timber Management Ltd.

Guy Scharf

3.1 Methods

3.2 Results and Discussion

3.3 Recommendations For Further Assessment

4.1 METHODS

4.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.3 Culvert Inspection

4.4 Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment

4.5 Recommendations for Restoration Opportunities

Figure i: Overview map illustrating the study areas (1:100, 000 scale)...............................................................................47

Figure ii: Overview map illustrating the study areas (1:20, 000 scale) ......................................................Inside Back Cover

Figure iii: Level 1 assessment map illustrating study areas (1:20, 000 scale) .......................................Accompanying Report

**NOTE:

All photos are presented in a separate binder.

Table 1: Summary of watershed information for the Bill Miner and associated watersheds.

Riverside Forest Products Ltd. (Williams Lake, B.C.), with the assistance of Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MoELP), submitted a proposal to FRBC to undertake watershed restoration research within their forest tenure located on the south side of Quesnel Lake. Specifically, the proposal outlined the requirements of conducting an Overview and Level 1 Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment (FHAP) to assess the current state of the fish and fish habitat resources values in the identified watersheds. A limited Culvert Inspection was also performed based on results of the Level 1 FHAP fish sampling results. The specific study areas included the watersheds of Bill Miner Creek, Warttig Creek, Emily Creek (local name), Bouldery Creek and four small unnamed creeks between Emily Creek and Warttig Creek all flow into the east arm of Quesnel Lake.

BioTerra Consulting (a division of Inland Timber Management Ltd.) was awarded the contract to conduct the FHAP. This report presents the results of the study. Additional WRP-based projects currently under way (under direction of Ministry of Forests, Horsefly District) include a Level 1 Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (IWAP), Sediment Source Survey and Mapping (SSS), and the development of a Watershed Access Strategy and maps.

There are no urban areas within the study area. The closest community is the village of Horsefly, a small town approximately 80km west of the study area. Activities in the watersheds include forestry, sheep grazing and agriculture.

The elevations within the project area range from 740 meters at Quesnel Lake to 2200 meters in the upper drainage of both Bill Miner and Bouldery Creeks. The watersheds lie within the Southern Interior Mountains Eco-Province, in the Columbia Highlands Eco-Region within the Quesnel Highlands Eco-region (Demarchi, 1995).

The Quesnel Highland is characterized by upland areas, remnants of a highly dissected plateau of moderate relief rising from about 1500 meters. Infolds of Carboniferous and Perian age volcanic and sedimentary rocks are found with closely folded schistose sedimentary rocks of Proterozoic and Lower Cambrian age. Most summits are rounded and glacial material is deposited over much of the area (Holland, 1976).

The biogeoclimatic subzones within the project area are typified in the low elevations areas as ICHwk2, moderate elevation zones are ESSFwk1, high elevation zones are ESSFwc3 with the alpine areas as AT. The subzones include; wet (>1000mm) mean annual precipitation and cool (2 - 2.9^oC) to cold (<2.0^o C) mean annual temperature classes (MOF, 1989). Due to the naturally high shade conditions found within the riparian areas moderate and minimally fluctuating stream temperatures are likely to occur during the critical late summer low flow periods. All the watersheds are located in the West Cariboo Mountain Hydrological Zone; no specific discharge information is available (Connatty, pers. comm. 1997).

The methodology as outlined in Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8 (Johnston and Slaney, 1996) was followed for this study. The methodology varies slightly in that the spatial bounds for this project were identified as first to fourth order watersheds (as derived from 1:50,000 NTS and 1:20,000 TRIM maps) within the study watersheds. The manual suggests "applying the assessment and restoration procedures to third and fourth order sub-basins". This change was necessary due to the overall low fish habitat quality and quantity within the study area.

Overview assessment efforts included tributaries and reaches which may have had low habitat values. This inclusion was due to the limited amount of available inventory information and the overall small amount of fish habitat in the watersheds. Results from a low level fish survey may upgrade the fisheries values (i.e., the presence of a regionally important fish species e.g. bull trout) determined during the overview process and expand the number of sites requiring field review.

The Overview Assessment procedure for Bill Miner Creek and associated watersheds commenced in April 1997. At that time, watershed and sub-basin boundaries were determined for each of the eight watersheds using air photos, and topographical maps. The Gazetteer of Canada and the Provincial Fisheries Branch Inventory internet site (MoELP, 1997a; MoELP, 1997b) were consulted for official names and watershed codes for all watersheds involved in the study. Resources such as SISS catalogues, FISS maps, and MoELP/DFO Fisheries Inventory internet home page were also consulted.

Reach breaks were initially determined using 1:50,000 NTS maps and 1:15,000 scale air photos, then transferred and refined on 1:20,000 scale maps. Reach breaks were identified based on changes in channel form (e.g., from a single channel to a braided channel), channel confinement, discharge (e.g., at the confluence of tributaries that results in an increase of downstream order), gradient changes (>5% over 20 meters) and the presence of known upstream barriers. Reaches that had significant changes in riparian structure or natural barriers were further delineated into sections.

Following the methodology outlined in the "Draft Lake and Stream Inventory Standards and Procedures" (MoELP, 1995), reaches were digitized to determine reach lengths. Numbering began with "1" at the stream confluence and ascended upstream. Each reach number was associated with a unique watershed code and gazetted/local stream name. Water bodies not identified with a watershed code were assigned an "interim locational point" number (ILP #) presented in Appendix 7.

The elevation of each stream reach was determined using 1:20,000 TRIM maps with contours at 20m intervals. Elevation was recorded at the highest and lowest points of each reach. Gradient was obtained as a percentage by dividing the change in elevation by the length of the reach and multiplying by 100.

Air photo analysis of fish habitat conditions was completed for all sections of the mainstem streams and any main tributaries that had gradients of <20% and/or a lake upstream of the >20% gradient barrier with suspected fish presence. Due to the scale of the air photos (1:15,000), dense riparian cover and narrow channel morphology, complete habitat condition information was not always obtainable.

Current information regarding the distribution, abundance, habitat requirements, habitat use, habitat conditions, critical habitats, forest resource development and descriptions of known habitat problems for each watershed were collected for review by contacting various government agencies, forest licensees and First Nation representatives. A list of contacts is presented in Appendix 2.

Table 1 (Summary of watershed information for Bill Miner and associated watersheds.) summarizes basic study area logistical information by watershed. The results of the aerial photo interpretation are summarized in the FHAP "Overview Fish Distribution Summary Form 1" (Appendix 3), "Habitat Condition Summary Form 2" (Appendix 4) and the "Preliminary Habitat Assessment Form 3" (Appendix 5). A 1:20, 000 map of the overview results is presented in the envelope on the inside back report cover (Figure iii).

Existing information is limited to:

1) FISS data (Warttig watershed and a single entry for the Bill Miner watershed)

2) MoELP Stream Survey of Warttig watershed (MoELP, 1989)

3) DFO Stream Survey for the lower reaches of Bill Miner Creek and Bouldery Creek watersheds (Quigley, 1996)

4) personal communication with the Cariboo Region Fisheries Inventory Technician (Rob Dolighan, 1997) regarding site specific fish inventory data

Mr. Dolighan (pers. comm., 1997) suspects that the confluence (with Quesnel Lake) and fan area of each creek may also provide important spawning and rearing habitat for transient and/or migrating salmonids (i.e., kokanee/sockeye) and should be assessed accordingly until field surveys can prove absence.

Fisheries data indicates the presence of three species in the study watersheds. Table 2 lists the species profile for each of the study areas.

The target species chosen for all watersheds in the study area were bull trout, coho salmon and rainbow trout. Due to the high value of the Quesnel Lake watershed for sockeye production, regional fisheries experts should also be consulted regarding the feasibility and cost-benefit of planning restoration and mitigation efforts in the low gradient portions of the study watersheds (which all drain into Quesnel Lake) for this species.

The lack of baseline data streamlined some facets of the Overview Assessment and as such, limited the output from this procedure. It is therefore suggested that a low intensity fisheries survey be part of the Level 1 field assessment in the high value habitat areas to determine fish presence and assist with the prioritization of survey sites and restoration opportunities within each of the watersheds. Overflights of each watershed would be very helpful in identifying areas of forestry related impacts and should be considered during the field assessment component.

The following describes each tributary, incorporating photo interpretation results and historic data, as well as draft results from the Interior Watershed Assessment (Reinholt and Nicklin, 1997, Appendix 6) conducted on the same study area.

Bill Miner Creek is a fourth order stream 11.5 km long, which flows north from its headwaters into the east arm of Quesnel Lake, draining 5200 ha. Included with Bill Miner in this assessment were two third order tributaries (Vic-Brown-John Creek (HWC 160-9249-468) and an unnamed stream (ILP #2), a second order unnamed stream (160-9249-757), and a first order unnamed stream (ILP #8).

Moderate logging has occurred within the watershed (14% of total area, 15 blocks) to 1996 with approximately 3% further harvesting scheduled for the next 5 years (Riverside Forest Products Ltd., 1997). The riparian buffers, in general, are adequate to protect important fish habitat areas (i.e., >50m wide, pre-Forest Practices Code). However, a number of first order tributaries and a few second order tributaries were logged, removing all riparian cover (10km of stream logged) which may have negatively impacted fish habitat through potential increased sediment delivery. There are also 52 active stream crossings, with a road within 100m of a stream (Reinholt and Nicklin, 1997). Preliminary IWAP results indicate that there may be some concern regarding the high hazard index (0.9 for this watershed) for surface erosion.

Reach Descriptions

The Vic Brown-John tributary is 6150m long and flows from the east and enters Bill Miner Creek at the upstream boundary of reach 5.

Reach Descriptions

This tributary (4250m long) flows from the south and enters the Vic John-Brown tributary of Bill Miner Creek at the upstream boundary of reach 2.

Reach Descriptions

This tributary is 3450m long and flows from the east and enters Bill Miner Creek at the upstream boundary of reach 7.

Reach Descriptions

This tributary is 6000m long and flows from the west and enters Bill Miner creek on the upstream boundary of reach 6.

Reach Descriptions

Warttig Creek is a second order stream draining 1100 ha, and flows north from its headwaters into the east arm of Quesnel Lake. The portion downstream of Warttig Lake parallels Bill Miner Creek approximately 750m to the west. Also included in the assessment were two unnamed tributaries (watershed codes 160-9229-523 and 160-9229-834). These two first order streams were assessed due to their high fish value (based on available data) and accessibility to the rainbow trout stocked Warttig Lake (MoELP, 1997a). Warttig Creek proper is 4100m in length (1650m of this is upstream of Warttig Lake) with an additional 2200m long by 300m wide for Warttig Lake (classified L1, Riverside Forest Products Ltd., 1997). The system has 7 reaches identified from the maps (NTS 1:50,000/TRIM 1:20,000) and air photo interpretation.

Logging occurred within the watershed (10% of total area, 3 blocks) to 1996; no additional harvest is scheduled within the next 5 years (Riverside Forest Products Ltd., 1997). The riparian buffers appear to be adequate to protect the important fish habitat areas (i.e., >50m wide). However, a number of first order tributaries were logged, removing all riparian cover (2km of stream logged) and potentially impacting fish habitat through increased sediment delivery. There is also one harvested block paralleling the east side of tributary 160-9229-523 (begins at the 2/3 upstream mark of reach 1) that may require further field assessment to evaluate the riparian zone integrity. The draft IWAP results indicate 7 active stream crossings and 1 kilometer of roads on erodable soils within 100m of a stream. There is also a concern regarding the moderate hazard index scores (0.69) for surface erosion.

Reach Descriptions

This second order unnamed tributary to Warttig Lake flows north and then west into the northeast end of the lake. The stream is 3600m long and was divided into 5 reaches.

Reach Descriptions

This first order unnamed tributary to Warttig Lake flows west and then north into the southeast end of the lake. The stream is 3600m long and was divided into 4 reaches.

Reach Descriptions

Emily Creek is a second order stream that flows southeast from its headwaters into the east arm of Quesnel Lake with a drainage area of 1400ha. Its headwaters originate out of the same marsh lowlands as upper Warttig Creek. Emily Creek is 7700m in length with 10 reaches identified from maps (NTS 1:50 000/TRIM 1:20 000) and air photo interpretation.

Logging has occurred (11% of total area, 3 blocks, south side of mainstem) to 1996, with 3% of the area scheduled for harvest within the next 5 years (Riverside Forest Products Ltd., 1997). The riparian buffers appear to be adequate to protect the important fish habitat areas (i.e., >50m wide, pre-Forest Practices Code). The draft IWAP results indicate 3km of stream logged with 17 active stream crossings. There are no roads on erodable soils within 100 meters of the creek. There is concern regarding the high hazard index scores (.91 for this watershed) for potential surface erosion.

Anecdotal information (Chipman, pers. comm.) indicates that fish (species unknown) are known to be within the stream and are confined to the low gradient areas of the first reach. A gradient barrier exists approximately 200m upstream from the confluence with Quesnel Lake. This, combined with the absence of recruitment lakes and available habitat during low flows above the barrier, indicates a low probability of fish populations above the barrier.

Reach Descriptions

Bouldery Creek is a third order stream that flows north then east from its headwaters into the east arm of Quesnel Lake (drainage area of 4500 ha). It parallels Emily Creek approximately 1.5 kilometers to the south. Also included in the assessment was an unnamed second order tributary, labeled ILP 3. Bouldery Creek is 13.5 kilometers in length with 13 reaches identified from maps (NTS 1:50,000/TRIM 1:20,000) and air photo interpretation.

Logging has occurred (8.5% of total area, 4 blocks, south side of mainstem) to 1996, with 5% additional area scheduled for the next 5 years (Riverside Forest Products Ltd., 1997). The riparian buffers appear to be large enough to protect important fish habitat (i.e., >50m wide). The draft IWAP results indicate 4 kilometers of stream logged with 20 active stream crossings. The IWAP identified high hazard index scores for landslide density (0.97 for this watershed) (17 natural slides in total) and moderate scores for potential surface erosion. The report also stated that the headwater portions of first order tributaries are prone to landslide activity (i.e., potential sediment source/impact to downstream fisheries values).

Reach Descriptions

This tributary enters Bouldery Creek at the upstream boundary of reach 8. This system is 2900m long and was divided into 5 reaches.

Reach Descriptions

This unnamed tributary to Quesnel Lake (ILP 4) is a first order stream that flows northeast into the east arm of Quesnel Lake, draining 210 ha. The unnamed tributary is 2600m in length with 4 reaches identified from NTS 1:50,000/TRIM 1:20,000 maps and air photo interpretation. No forest development has occurred within the watershed and none is planned for the next 5 years (Riverside Forest Products Ltd., 1997).

Reach Descriptions

Note:

Forest development has not occurred within the following unnamed watersheds (ILP 5-7) and there is none planned for the next 5 years (Riverside Forest Products Ltd., 1997).

This unnamed tributary to Quesnel Lake (ILP 5) is a first order stream that flows north into the east arm of Quesnel Lake, draining 50 ha. This tributary to Quesnel Lake is 700m long with 3 reaches identified from NTS 1:50,000/TRIM 20,000 map and air photo interpretation.

Reach Descriptions

This unnamed tributary to Quesnel Lake (ILP 6) is a first order stream that flows north into the east arm of Quesnel Lake, draining 72ha. The unnamed tributary is 2000m in length with 4 reaches identified from the NTS 1:50,000/TRIM 1:20,000 map and air photo interpretation.

Reach Descriptions

This unnamed tributary to Quesnel Lake (ILP 7) is a first order stream that flows north into the east arm of Quesnel Lake, draining 55ha. The unnamed tributary is 1100m in length with 2 reaches identified from the NTS 1:50,000/TRIM 1:20,000 map and air photo interpretation.

Reach Descriptions

Reaches 1-2: The dense canopy cover and small scale of the available air photos did not allow the evaluation of habitat conditions within this watershed. Fisheries habitat potential (based on >20% gradient barrier criteria) is limited to the lake confluence area of the first reach.

The results of the Level 1 IWAP were used in conjunction with indicators derived from the FHAP Form 2 "Overview Assessment - Habitat Condition Summary" to identify habitat impact sites and prioritize these sites for Level 1 field assessment. These prioritized sites are outlined in Appendix 8, Table 5 "Major impacts, restoration opportunities and field site prioritization for selected reaches within the Bill Miner and associated watersheds study area". The information is organized by watershed (starting with Bill Miner and working west) reaches, starting from the confluence with Quesnel Lake and working upstream. No reaches were identified within the study area with both a high priority for habitat values and a corresponding high upslope impact potential. These systems are typical high gradient/discharge type streams with high habitat values available only in the fan and low gradient areas of the first reach (Warttig Creek watershed is the exception).

Reaches with one or more of the following characteristics were not included in the prioritization process for field visits when:

• the stream channel was not visible from the air photos
• a reach was above a field confirmed barrier, no resident population is identified above the barrier, and no recruitment lakes are present above the barrier
• a reach is upstream of barriers (i.e., gradients >20% in site specific areas; not when "averaged" over entire reach and/or field confirm falls/chutes/cascades etc. with no recruitment lakes in system)
• gradients in a reach are ³ 6% (when measured over each topography line), as stream channel restoration techniques (i.e., in-stream structures, channel modification and bank stabilization) are not effective at gradients >3% (Slaney, pers. comm., 1997). (NOTE: Six percent gradient was used instead of 3% to account for possible inaccuracy in the mapping data. Sites which measure 6% and less from the Overview will require field truthing of gradients during the Level 1 assessment.)

The areas of high habitat value (confluence of all streams with Quesnel Lake with the exception of Warttig Creek watershed) are susceptible to hydrological changes due to the morphology of the channel. As a result, each stream that has potential upslope impacts (i.e., riparian harvesting, stream crossings) must be evaluated to determine the level of local and downstream impact to fish habitat values. To address these concerns, a Level 1 field assessment should be performed at each of these confluence sites (except Warttig). The results will then be compared to control sites conducted within an area not impacted by forest development activities. Control sites will be chosen within the same creek or in a nearby watershed with similar topography, discharge and morphology.

Fisheries inventory information is limited for all the project watersheds. A low intensity fish survey is a priority prior to beginning the Level 1 assessment. Results from the low intensity fish survey and related Watershed Restoration evaluation studies may upgrade or downgrade the habitat values (i.e., the presence of a regionally important fish species e.g. bull trout) determined during the overview process and increase or decrease the number of sites requiring field review (i.e., culvert inspection on tributaries to identify possible migration barriers and sediment sources).

Three control sites were identified within the study area. The first site is located in reach 1 of ILP 4, the second site is in reach 3 upstream of the cutblock in the unnamed Warttig Lake tributary 160-9929-523 and the third site is in reach 7 upstream of forest resource development in the Bill Miner Creek mainstem.

The Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessments followed the procedures outlined by Johnson and Slaney (1996) in Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8. The Culvert Inspection followed the criteria outlined in the Fish Passage Culvert Inspection - Draft 2A Manual, (April 1997). The following section outlines specific details of the methodology as it pertains to the Bill Miner Creek and associated watersheds Fish Habitat Assessment.

Prior to implementing the Level 1 field habitat assessments, fish sampling was conducted at specific sites in each of the eight watersheds to supplement current fish distribution data and assist with the prioritization of Level 1 field sites. Sample site locations were based on access and a review of the topographic maps and historical data to identify areas of suspected gradient barriers to upstream migration.

Sampling was conducted as per the criteria outlined in the MoELP Fish Collection Methods and Standards, RIC (1996) Roe baited minnow traps and a back pack electroshocker (Smith Root Model 12) were the physical sampling tools. A graduated plastic ruler was used to determine the fork length of each fish captured. Photos (colour, 35mm) were documented of each site and of each representative fish species captured, (presented in the report Figure binder, section C).

Two culvert inspection sites were identified from the fish sampling survey efforts (data forms presented in Appendix 11).

Minnow traps baited with salted salmon roe were used to sample for fish species and abundance. Gradients were measured with a Suunto Clinometer and water depths and culvert dimensions were measured with a 30m nylon surveyors tape. Water velocities were measured using a small piece of orange peel due to the low depth of water in the tributaries and culverts. Photos (colour, 35mm) were documented of each site and of each representative fish species captured, (presented in report Figure binder section A).

The Level 1 fish habitat assessments were performed on areas identified as high priority from the Overview phase assessments. Information collected during a one day field visit of the watersheds by Mike Parker (MoELP FRBC Fisheries Specialist) in the spring of 1997 and follow-up reconnaissance in September 1997 by the BioTerra survey team amended the Level 1 site location priorities.

Each reach or reach section surveyed was identified on 1:20, 000 TRIM maps and site start locations (working in an upstream fashion) were determined as either the high water mark (in the case of lake confluence sites) or as the measured distance from a known feature (i.e., road crossing or confluence with a tributary). Each habitat unit was individually measured in FHAP sites 1-12 and subsampling fractions were used for sites 13-15. All site information required for FHAP field Form 4 was physically measured. Each site was photodocumented (colour 35mm) based on representative habitat units, off channel habitat, disturbance site with source and or any unique feature(s), (presented in Figure binder, section B).

The fish habitat survey crew consisted of two people, each with established responsibilities to ensure consistency through the duration of the field project. A hip chain was used to measure the length of each site and the length of each habitat unit to the nearest 0.1 meter. Channel and wetted widths were obtained using a 30 meter fiberglass tape and depth measurements were recorded with a graduated wading staff. Safety concerns prevented the measurement of pools greater than 1.5m deep in high velocity sites. Mean habitat unit depth was based on three cross channel measurements. A Suunto clinometer was used to record gradients over the length of the habitat unit. Cover was recorded as the percentage of the total wetted surface area affected within each habitat unit and then subdivided into three dominant cover types.

Habitat analysis and assessment for preliminary restoration opportunities was performed after completion of the field surveys. Qualitative comparisons were made between existing conditions, control sites and diagnostic measures of habitat quality to identify areas of concern and restoration. At the time of this evaluation regionally specific diagnostic tables were under development, as a result the general province wide diagnostic tables (FHAP Manual, 1996 Table 5, page 56) were used.

The following sections contain results of all the surveys conducted as part of the Level 1 fish habitat assessments. Specifically a discussion of the fish sampling efforts, culvert inspections and the resultant data generated from the field habitat surveys and the habitat assessments derived from the currently available

fish habitat diagnostics.

As recommended from the findings of the Overview assessment phase, fish sampling preceded habitat surveys in an effort to expand the current knowledge base of fish distribution in the watershed. Proposed sites were presented and modified as the result of a pre-field meeting held August 29, 1997 with Troy Larden (MoELP FRBC Coordinator).

Fish sampling sites are presented on the 1:20, 000 project overview map. Thirty five stations were established within the 8 watersheds. Collected field data is presented in Appendix 9 (Table 6 "Fish sampling data"). A summary of the collection data (i.e., fish species caught with location) is outlined in Table 3 "Summary of fish sampling results for Bill Miner and associated watersheds". Sample site locations and results are also summarized using the FHAP Form 5 "Level 1 - Fish Distribution Data Form" from the FHAP Manual (1996) and presented in Appendix 10.

Migratory fish distribution is limited to the first reach (370m) in this watershed due to the 8m falls at the upstream boundary of reach 1. Spawning and rearing habitat (suitable: gradients, morphology, cover and substrates) for resident and migratory fish species (rainbow trout, bull trout, coho) exists upstream of reach 3 in the mainstem and larger tributaries. The existence of resident fish populations within the Bill Miner watershed upstream of the falls barrier in reach 1 was not ruled out given the potential recruitment lake in the head waters of ILP 2 (see 4.2.1.1.1 below). Ten sites were sampled upstream of the barrier with no fish captured.

4.2.1.1.1 Unnamed Creek ILP 2

This tributary to the east side of the Bill Miner Creek mainstem (reach 7) has a unnamed lake in the headwaters (reach 4). The Overview process identified the lake as possibly providing recruitment fish populations to the habitat available upstream of the barriers in reach 1 of Bill Miner Creek. Minnow trapping, angling and electroshocking of the lake and it’s outflow and inflow stream did not produce any fish. No surface activity was observed during the assessment. The lake’s tributaries and shoreline habitats were assessed during a shoreline perimeter walk. Free swimming freshwater shrimp were observed in abundance, with toads present in the lake shallows and diving/dabbler ducks swimming in the center of the lake. No fish populations were identified from the low intensity fish survey. In consultation with Maurice Lirette (MoELP Fisheries Biologist, Cariboo Region) it is unlikely that the lake would winter kill (low conductivity reading of 10 microsiemens) and the likelihood of fish populations in the lake is low due to the observance of free swimming shrimp. Further lake bio-physical and inventory surveys (i.e., MoELP 1:20 000 Fish and Fish Habitat Procedures) is required to confirm the absence of fish populations. Further assessments may identify opportunities to stock the lake and establish a limited access high elevation type fishery.

Migratory and resident fish distribution is limited to the first 42m of reach 1 due to a 25m falls/chute barrier. Resident fish (rainbow trout) were observed throughout the upper watershed below natural barriers (falls, chutes, gradients).

Migratory and resident fish distribution is limited to the first 248m of reach 1 due to a 30% gradient chute barrier. Spawning and rearing habitat (suitable: gradient, morphology, cover, substrate) for resident and migratory fish species (rainbow trout, coho) is available in the mainstem upstream of the chute and fall barriers.

Migratory and resident fish distribution is limited to the first 320m of reach 1 due to a 7m falls barrier. Spawning and rearing habitat (suitable: gradient, morphology, cover, substrate) for resident and migratory fish species ( rainbow trout, bull trout) is available in the mainstem upstream of the chute and fall barriers.

Two culverted crossings on the 6100 road were inspected during the course of the Bill Miner and associated watersheds Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure. Culverts can cause degradation and/or loss of habitat for a number of reasons. Improperly sized culverts can prevent fish access upstream by; increased/decreased water velocities and depths at all times or only during periods of high and/or low runoff. Formation of a scoured plunge pool at the culvert outlet can eventually become a large enough drop to prevent fry (0.30m tall), juvenile (>.5m tall) and in some cases adult migration (1.5m tall resident, 2.5 tall anadromous species). Culvert installation at improper angle and slope (too steep/shallow) can be other causes of fish passage problems. Not all culvert problems are associated with small culverts; loss of habitat due to low flows in a large culvert can prevent upstream and downstream migration of juveniles and adults. The understanding of hydrology (flow rates by season) within a watershed is critical in identifying suitable culvert placement to ensure fish passage at all flow regimes. In some cases fish-friendly culverts (baffled and arch) may be needed to replace culverts creating velocity or migration barriers (low flow, insufficient depth). Culvert problems on logging roads are resolved by deactivation (culvert removal) subsequent to harvesting and silviculture. Roads remaining in use with active culverts must be maintained to ensure proper continuing culvert function (permitting fish passage at all flows) and prevent road fill erosion which may impact downstream values through road fill scour/sedimentation. Refer to Appendix 11 for the Fish Passage Culvert Inspection field cards.

The first site crosses the inlet stream at the south end of Warttig Lake on the 6100 Road at the upstream boundary of reach 6 section A. This stream provides important rearing and valuable spawning habitat for the MoELP stocked lake and a source of drinking water for the Forest Service Recreational camp site located at the mouth of the stream. The metal culvert is 15m long with a 1200mm diameter and 1% gradient. The downstream end of the culvert is at subgrade level and has gravel stream substrates lining it’s belly (Figure # 1). Figures # 2, 3 and 4 illustrate the habitat available upstream and downstream of the culvert. Minnow traps were set for 23 hours at 65m upstream and for 21 hours at 20m downstream of the crossing. Two rainbow trout juveniles (77mm, 79mm, Figure # 139) were captured upstream of the culvert. Based on the depth measurements for this culvert (70mm) it may be a low flow barrier to upstream migration (MoF/MoELP Stream Crossing Guidebook For Fish Streams, working draft 1997/1998 states the minimum water depth for culverts without a simulated or natural stream bed to be 200mm). At 85m upstream of the culvert there is a possible low flow chute barrier limiting upstream migration (Figure # 5). The stream habitat offered good rearing (cover, flow, substrate) and moderate spawning opportunities for stream and lake populations of rainbow trout.

The second site was identified during the fish inventory survey performed as part of the Fish Habitat assessment. Site 2 crossed the 6100 road at the first tributary to the west side of Warttig Lake north of the Warttig Forest Service Recreation site. There were 2 metal culverts used at this crossing. The larger culvert was not surveyed as the upstream end had collapsed and was buried in the road construction substrate (Figure # 6). The buried culvert appeared to be plugged as it was below the water’s surface with only a trickle passing through to the downstream side. The stream gradient steepened (short section of 15-20% gradient) immediately below the downstream outflow acting as a possible barrier to upstream migration at low flows. The second smaller culvert was 13.5m long with a diameter of 600mm at 5% gradient. This culvert is also a barrier to upstream fish migration as it jutted from the road subgrade in "gun barrel" fashion with an out-fall drop of 120cm and a 4cm deep plunge pool (Figure # 7). Figures # 8 and 9 illustrate the habitat available upstream and downstream of the culvert. Minnow traps were set for 24hrs, 4m upstream and 47m downstream of the crossing. One rainbow trout (99mm, Figure # 137) was captured at the site below the road crossing. The habitat downstream of the culvert for the 50m surveyed was limited to rearing opportunities in shallow (<20cm residual depth) woody debris jam pools and stepped cascades (>10% gradient). Limited spawning habitat may be available at the lake confluence. The volume of water was low during the survey (unable to measure accurately) and the stream was mapped as intermittent on the Riverside Forest Products 5 year Development Plan map. Upstream of the culvert the stream flows through a clear-cut (logged in 1992, all riparian trees removed) and climbs to >20% gradient at approximately 300m above the road (measured from 1:20, 000 TRIM). The primary habitat was in the "sediment catchment" pond constructed on the upstream side the road (Figure # 8). Rainbow trout productivity was limited though by the absence of cover, shallow depth, fine substrate material and sediment input. Figure # 10 indicates the degree of sediment transport at site 2 (into the catchment pond) after 30 minutes of heavy rain. Figure # 11 is of another smaller drainage system (the Figures are taken 1 minute apart) which flowed through the same cutblock eroding the road cut line. This "stream" flowed into a ditch line before entering the same sediment trap upstream of the site 2 crossing. Fine sediment and woody debris (Figure # 12) are delivered into streams that flow through cutblocks and may have a serious impact (substrate smothering, gill abrasion) on fisheries values. Sediment controls such as traps and ponds should be installed on all crossings that have potential to damage fish values.

The resultant field data for each surveyed site is presented in Appendix 12 ("FHAP Form 4 Level 1 - Habitat Survey Data") with the mean values for habitat conditions of each sample reach presented in Appendix 13 ("FHAP Form 6 Level 1 - Habitat Diagnosis Summary"). The location of each field site with summary data results is presented on the 1:20, 000 Level 1 FHAP map included with the report. A summary of reaches assessed for the Level 1 FHAP is outlined in Table 4. Fifteen sites were assessed throughout the study area (Bill Miner 3 sites, Warttig 4 sites, ILP 4 1 site, Emily 2 sites and Bouldery 3 sites). In ten of the sites 100% of the reach was physically measured. In the remaining sites, the data collected for the assessed portion of the reach was extrapolated over the entire reach length.

Three reaches of the Bill Miner Creek mainstem were surveyed (mapped field sites 5, 11 and control site 12).

Reach Descriptions

One reach with 2 sections (A+B) were FHAP surveyed (mapped field site 13) on this unnamed tributary to Bill Miner Creek. A point sample (walked 150m) was performed at the upstream end of reach 6 as well to assess possible impacts to the stream channel from a harvest block.

Reach Descriptions

One reach was surveyed (mapped field site 14) on this unnamed tributary to Bill Miner Creek.

Reach Descriptions

This stream flows east then north and enters the Bill Miner mainstem at the downstream boundary of reach 7. Due to the low fish values Level 1 survey information was limited to an field inspection from the cross-ditched haul road which parallels the north side of the creek to the end of the first block in reach 3. The harvest (cut in 1993) impacts to the riparian zone are illustrated in Figure # 60. There is also evidence of slide activity on the steep (>80% gradient) slopes opposite of the harvest block. The morphology is primarily cascade with a boulder and cobble substrate. The mouth of the creek was viewed as well during the Level 1 FHAP assessment of Bill Miner Creek mainstem reaches 6 and 7. The confluence area (with Bill Miner Creek) showed signs of sediment input and substrate aggradation into Bill Miner Creek from the tributary (Figure # 61). Over 50% of the flow to the Bill Miner Creek mainstem at this point originates from this unnamed tributary. The creek appeared to have a similar morphology (riffle, cascade, glide), gradient (<4%) and substrate composition (cobble, gravel) as was found downstream in reach 6 of Bill Miner Creek.

One reach of the Warttig Creek mainstem was surveyed (mapped field site 6).

Reach Descriptions

The entire length of this creek (574m, reach 1, mapped field site 3) was evaluated as a control for a small (first and second order) stream with limited forest development (i.e., <115m long riparian stream zone harvest, with one non impact access road) within the watershed. The location of the stream was changed on the Level 1 map to reflect that the stream flows directly into Warttig Lake and not into the lower third of unnamed 160-9229-523 as indicated from the TRIM information and displayed on the Overview map.

Reach Descriptions

One reach and two sections of another reach in this tributary to the east side of Warttig Lake were FHAP surveyed (mapped field sites 4 and control site 10). In addition Reach 3 section A was walked and assessed along an access trial on the east side.

The first reach of ILP 4 was surveyed (mapped field site 7) as a control for the small (third order or less), high gradient tributaries to east arm of Quesnel Lake in a effort to identify potential mitigation opportunities.

Reach Descriptions

Four mainstem reaches of this tributary to the east arm of Quesnel Lake were surveyed (mapped field sites 8 and 15).

Reach Descriptions

Three mainstem reaches of this tributary to the east arm of Quesnel Lake were FHAP surveyed (mapped field sites 1, 2 and 9).

Reach Descriptions

This stream flows south west into reach 10 on the north side of Bouldery Creek. It also was not assessed for the reasons explained above in reaches 6, 8, 10. This third order tributary appears (based on TRIM analysis) to have access (<20% gradient) to potential fish habitat for the first 1.5km upstream of it’s confluence with Bouldery Creek. There is also a second order tributary to ILP 3 that flows north into the downstream boundary of reach 3 that has approximately 2km (including it’s tributaries) of accessible (<20% gradient) habitat in it’s watershed basin area. Both systems have headwater lakes that are high elevation (1700m), small (<4ha) and shallow (<2m deep). This information coupled with the results of the fish sampling performed in Bouldery Creek and the unnamed lake in the headwaters of ILP 2 suggest that there is no resident fish populations and limited habitat potential for these four ponds.

The Bill Miner and associated watersheds surveyed during the FHAP Level 1 appear to have only minor fish passage culvert issues. The watersheds are bounded by steep valley walls and barriers (gradient, falls) in the lower reaches limiting the access to upstream fish habitat. The impact on fisheries values are limited as forest resource development (i.e., road crossings) has occurred primarily in the upper portions of the watershed. Warttig Creek watershed is the exception as Warttig Lake and it’s tributaries are in the upper watershed and they have populations of lake and stream resident rainbow trout. The crossings in this watershed are located to the south and west side of the lake along the 6100 road and one block access road. Two culverts were inspected on fish bearing streams. Site 1 was located where the upper Warttig Creek crossed the 6100 road. Site 2 was approximately 1km north of Site 1 also on the 6100 road.

Site one is not a barrier to fish passage. The site two crossing is 1) near failure (non-functioning drainage structure), 2) a barrier to fish migration and 3) a sediment source. It is recommended that this crossing be replaced and the site rehabilitated (i.e., sediment controls) as per Forest Practices Code regulations. The remaining crossings should be evaluated and impact(s) to fisheries values addressed.

Sites were prioritized for rehabilitation on the basis of three criteria: 1) Fish value/use, 2) habitat condition and 3) degree of forest resource development connectivity to impact. Each site was then given a restoration priority score of low, medium or high.

Fish value and use was rated based on an evaluation of historical, present and potential habitat usage and availability for the target species. Thus a low score would indicate no historical, present or potential usage by the target species. A high score would identify that a site/reach had any of the above three criteria. There would be no medium scoring either the site had value or it did not.

Habitat condition scoring was based on the ratings derived for percent pools, pool frequency, LWD pieces per channel width, percent function of LWD, percent wood cover in pools, overhead cover and gravel quality in Form 6 from the Level 1 field assessment (Appendix 13). Significant disturbance indicators were also factored into the assessment scoring. A low score would indicate that a site/reach had only good ratings from Form 6 with no significant disturbance indicators. A medium score would result from primarily fair ratings with a mixture of poor and good ratings from Form 6 and limited disturbance indicators. A high score would identify that the habitat diagnosis for the condition impacts described above were given a poor rating and/or there were several or serious disturbance indicators.

Forest resource development involvement with impacted habitat conditions was scored based on their connectivity to the impact as identified from the Level 1 assessment. A low score would indicate no association with the identified impact(s). A medium score would result if there was partial involvement and a high rating would result if forest resource development was a major contributor to the habitat impact.

Likely candidates for evaluation as restoration projects would be those sites that scored a high rating for all three evaluation criteria. Note: other potential anthropogenic impacts to the fish habitat condition such as agriculture, urbanization and tourism were not present in the assessed watershed and therefore were not part of the evaluation criteria.

Appendix 14 (Table 7 "Summary of FHAP Level 1 Sites, impacts and recommendations") summarizes the results of the prioritization for restoration opportunities for each site within the watersheds assessed during the Level 1 FHAP procedure. The data is organized by watershed starting with Bill Miner Creek (highest priority at the top working down to lowest priority) and working west to Bouldery Creek.

4.5.2.2.1 Watershed Descriptions

All the watersheds assessed share similar features. The systems are coast like in nature as they provide limited low gradient (<5%) fish habitat within the first reach and then steepen to upstream migration barriers (falls, chutes, gradient) and then flatten out again. They have steep (>80%) valley walls and experience frequent periods of high flow which impact downstream fisheries values through bedload movement, substrate interstices in-filling and bank erosion.

Migratory fish habitat values are limited to the first reach of the mainstem due to a series of fall (8m high) barriers at the upstream reach boundary. Section A of reach 1 scored the highest priority for restoration (rated a medium rating) within the watershed. Based on the habitat values for each species the target species for this section are sockeye salmon, coho salmon, bull trout and rainbow trout. This site did not receive a high priority for restoration rating (under WRP envelope) because it was difficult to determine the level to which the impacts could be attributed to forest development. The system is naturally flashy and prone to periods of extreme high flows which may be responsible for the channel impacts identified. Several impacts such as eroding banks, abandoned channels, historic and recent debris jams, LWD introduction , sediment wedges, scarred riparian trees, aggradation at the confluence and scour to the stream channel indicate a system that is in constant extreme hydrologic flux. Application of instream structures as a restoration option would not be money well spent. It would only serve as a "band aid" approach to the habitat limitations as the peak discharge energies in the system would likely flush the structures out of position. The limited habitat available for restoration (<150m long) has excellent LWD scores (6.8 pieces/channel width with 44% functionality). The primary fish habitat limitations are spawning substrates, siltation of substrate, overwintering habitat and overhead cover. A portion of the siltation impact is related to the cumulative effect of forest resource development (i.e., stream crossings, road building and riparian zone harvest) in the upper watershed (upstream of reach 3 Bill Miner Creek). The LWD jam at the upstream end of the section is an important natural hydrologic cushion that protects downstream fish habitat values from the impacts of high flow events. The severity of the disturbances present downstream of the log jam indicate the volatile nature of the discharge regime and lend credence to the recommendation to only rehabilitate the upslope impacts.

Recommendations

Fish habitat values for anadromous species are also limited to the first reach of the mainstem due to a series of cascade (27m long 33% gradient) and fall (25m high) barriers which begin 42m upstream of Quesnel Lake. Resident rainbow trout have been stocked into Warttig Lake (reach 5) and they utilize the habitat downstream of the lake outlet and the first 2 reaches or sections of it’s tributaries for rearing and spawning. The tributaries flowing into the lake are similar to those entering the east arm of Quesnel Lake. They have limited habitat within the first 2 reaches and then barriers prevent access to upstream habitat. Based on the habitat values the target species for the watershed is rainbow trout (only species present in watershed).

Reaches 2 and 3A of unnamed tributary 160-9229-523 scored the highest priority for restoration (medium rating) of all reaches surveyed in the watershed. Forest harvest related upslope and channel impacts attributed to riparian zone harvest were observed in reaches 1, 2 and 3A. The primary upslope related impact recorded in reach 1 was cutblock influenced non functioning blow down which spanned the channel near the upstream boundary. The impacts to the channel included the loss of canopy cover and the de-stabilization of the stream bank. Reach 2 (section A fish bearing) and 3A had channel impacts associated with riparian zone clear-cut: i.e., poor riparian and canopy cover values, loss of riparian function/LWD input, small woody in-stream debris piles, old growth blow down, increased sediment input and mid-channel bar aggradation/splitting.

Reach 1 is suspected to be one of only two sources of spawning habitat for lake populations of rainbow trout. The other tributary is located in reach 6A at the southeast end of Warttig Lake. Spawning substrates in reach 1 have been impacted by sedimentation. A large portion of the impact may be attributed to the fines introduced to the stream channel by recent natural blowdown directly upstream of the spawning area. The assessment also found similar substrate sedimentation from old growth riparian "leave" trees on the upstream block boundary in reach 3A. This impact was also noted in the mature timber upstream of the block in control reach 3B. The cutblock was harvested in 1990/91 and has established primary riparian shrub vegetation (thimble/salmon berry, alder) growth providing sediment filtering, small organic input and limited channel edge shading.

Recommendations

This third order stream enters the east side of Quesnel Lake between Emily Creek to the south and Warttig Creek to the north. It was assessed to identify if opportunities existed in the smaller second and third order tributaries to the east arm of Quesnel Lake to mitigate impacts to the four larger systems.

There were no opportunities for restoration or mitigation work (for fish habitat values impacted by forest harvesting) within this watershed as a 6m high fall barrier at 60m upstream of Quesnel Lake prevents access to potential upstream habitat. It is suspected that the other 3 tributaries to Quesnel Lake, ILP 5, 6 and 7 (based on visual estimates of topography during a reconnaissance from the lake) would have similar barriers and not offer any restoration/mitigation opportunities. The target species would be rainbow trout and bull trout.

Recommendations

There are no recommendations for this site.

Fish habitat values were limited to the first reach due to gradient (31% for 22m) and chute (19m long, 24m long, 14m long) barriers at the upstream boundary. Based on the habitat values the target species for this watershed are coho salmon, rainbow trout and bull trout. The impacts assessed in the reaches surveyed all received a low rating for restoration priority due to the nominal impacts to accessible fish habitat. Reach 1 had only 170m of accessible target species habitat and channel impacts were natural with only minimal impacts (sediment input) from upslope conditions. Reach 8A (area of riparian zone harvest) and reach 8B (no area of riparian zone harvest) were heavily impacted from the input of upslope fines. It is suspected that the haul roads and their network drainage is the source for the material. Restoration priority is low in this reach as fish do not have access to the habitat.

Recommendations

Fish habitat values were limited to the first reach due to a series of fall (3m high, 2.5m high, 3m high, 2m high, 3.5m high, 2.25m high) barriers at the upstream reach boundary. Based on the habitat values the target species for this watershed are bull trout and rainbow trout. All the reaches surveyed received a low rating for restoration priority as there was only nominal impacts to accessible fish habitat. The stream channel at the upstream end of reach four on the north side was moderately impacted by a road construction debris slide which allowed sediment and mature riparian timber to enter the creek. A WRP sponsored upslope restoration project conducted in 1995 appears to have stabilized the slide area. Ongoing impacts from the slide include a loss of riparian function and a limited amount of sediment input.

Recommendations

Chipman, G. 1997. Personal communication. Operations Supervisor, Riverside Forest Products Ltd., Williams Lake Division.

Cone, T. 1997. Personal communication. Escapement Data Technician, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, New Westminster.

Connatty, L. 1997. Personal communication. Water Quality Technician, Environment Canada, Williams Lake Office.

Dolighan, R. 1997. Personal communication. Fisheries Inventory Technician, MoELP, Cariboo Region.

Ministry of Forest. 1997/98. Stream Crossing Guidebook for Fish Streams a working draft.

Ministry of Forests. 1989. A field guide for the identification of ecosystems of the Cariboo Forest Region.

Slaney, P. 1997. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks Research Watershed Restoration Program.

insert 1:1000000 map

Draft Results From Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure For Emily Creek Watershed

Table 5: Major impacts, restoration opportunities and field site prioritization for selected reaches within the Bill Miner and associated watersheds study area.

Table 5 continued: Major impacts, restoration opportunities and field site prioritization for selected reaches within the Bill Miner and associated watersheds study area.

Table 5 continued: Major impacts, restoration opportunities and field site prioritization for selected reaches within the Bill Miner and associated watersheds study area.

Table 5 continued: Major impacts, restoration opportunities and field site prioritization for selected reaches within the Bill Miner and associated watersheds study area.