Judy E. Hillaby and Ardice Neudorf

Western Forest Products

#118-1334 Island Highway

Campbell River, B.C.

V9W 8C9

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,

680 Borland Street,

Williams Lake, B.C.

V2G 4T1

• From October 13th to 24th, 1997, stream surveys were conducted throughout the lower sections of the Sheemahant River, in order to identify and describe potential sites that may be candidates for fish habitat restoration. Potential restoration sites were focused on the lower 25 km of mainstem, and its associated tributaries.
• A field crew of 17 individuals, primarily local residents familiar with the area and conditions, gathered information on stream habitat conditions. There were also 20 sites sampled for fish, in tributaries and wetlands partially isolated from the mainstem. All of the study area was within the range of anadromous fish access.
• Like other streams in the vicinity, the Sheemahant River is subject to extreme flooding. When this happens, the mainstem becomes one long glide and the water flows over the banks, mainline roads and often the camp infrastructure as well. At this time, culverts flow backwards and mainstem fish are distributed into wetlands and low-gradient tributaries that are not accessible at other times.
• Fish habitat has been compromised by the West Main road on the right bank, which has not been deactivated to current standards. Field inspection showed areas of stream instability and riparian zone destruction which should be addressed in concert with an updated Access Management Plan.
• Juvenile coho salmon were the species most frequently found in off-channel habitats. Three-spined stickleback were also present in the wetlands, and smaller numbers of rainbow and cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden char, and steelhead were also found in several complexed tributary habitats.
• There were 15 sites proposed for further development to improve and create fish habitat, and others that could be developed with further consideration and site-specific information. For the 15 specific opportunities, costs and procedures are defined for possible implementation in 1998 and beyond, for at least $165,000, much of which is conditional upon further road construction and/or redesign.

The authors wish to recognize those individuals who conducted and assisted in the field work, during often adverse field and weather conditions. Mike Wigle, Mike Edmunds, Frank Hanuse Jr., and Patrick Johnson of the Gumbooters team; Lisa Forrington, Fred Smith, and John Johnson of the Happenings team; Ardice Neudorf, Lindsay Windsor, Ted Walkus and Rick Shaw of the Bravo team; and Wayne Jacob, Ivy Hanuse, Donovan LeBlonde and Clifford Smith of the Ol’ Chums team. Thanks are also due to Mark Rourke of Coast Forest Management, as well as Troy Larden, Mike Parker and Mike Howard of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in Williams Lake, for their contribution to organization, funding and quality control.

Extensive field support was required for this project, which was ably provided by Western Forest Products, through their workers at the Machmell and Sheemahant camps. These were headed by Dale Reinholz of G.B. Logging in Machmell camp and Nikki Skarvig of Western Forest Products in Ladysmith. Aircraft support was excellent, provided mostly by Forest Industries Flying Tankers, as well as by Vancouver Island Helicopters, Sharp Wings Ltd., Quatna Air, and Timberline Air. Considerable boat transportation was also provided by individual crew members, with the support of the Oweekeno Nation, which is gratefully acknowledged.

Considerable data organization was required to compile this report. Gordon Hanuse and Wayne Jacob, of the Oweekeno Nation, put in many long hours to this end and their efforts are greatly appreciated. Ardice Neudorf of Madrone Consultants very capably completed the hydrology overview and GIS integration, and contributed to the overview research and report as well. Carolyn Deering also provided great assistance at the word processing, photo archiving and final report assembly stage.

Special thanks also goes to Bob Brand and Bill Dwyer of Western Forest Products, as well as Percy Walkus and Alex Morris of the Oweekeno Nation, for ensuring that this project was properly initiated and brought to its conclusion.

At the request of Pacific Forest Products (now Western Forest Products), Forest Renewal B.C. has provided funding to undertake a Level I Fish Habitat Assessment on the Sheemahant River. In August and September of 1997, a Fish Habitat Overview study was conducted, which concluded that there were several species of fish that were potentially affected by fish habitat degradation, especially in the lower 25 km of the Sheemahant River where logging activity has been concentrated. With the cooperation of the Oweekeno Nation and with the technical and professional assistance of other consultants, field work was initiated in October 1997.

The overview assessment outlined approximately 30 km of stream length to be considered (considering both banks of the mainstem). Approximately three quarters of that was identified as "high" or "medium" priority assessment and was specifically addressed in this study. The initial restoration strategy outlined three areas of fish habitat concern:

• The West Main road on the right bank has been deactivated, but may have cut off or destroyed the riparian zone of peripheral fish habitats in sidechannels and sloughs;
• The mainline road on the left bank is active and well-maintained, but has cut off access to sloughs and low-gradient fish habitat behind the road. These may provide opportunities for sidechannel development; and
• Eroding banks and destruction of the riparian zone along the mainstem river, as well as tributaries crossing blocks adjacent to the mainstem.

To provide directed field information that refined the opportunities identified in the overview assessment, a Level I Fish Habitat Assessment was conducted. Its general objectives were:

• to confirm or revise the identification of the nature, location, extent and severity of forest harvest impacts on fish habitat
• to provide sufficient information to identify and prioritize restoration options, and to identify initial project objectives and scope
• to identify the need for any level 2 assessments
• to prepare initial budgets and schedules for restoration projects.

In this case, the field studies focused on:

• Walking all tributary creeks and off-channel habitats, to assess the quality of in-stream habitats. Due to the presence of large wetlands, crews also walked around the larger ones, paying close attention to inflow and outflow streams, potential fish access limitations, and the likelihood that some of these ponds would provide non-stream salmonid habitat.
• Fish habitat in the mainstem Sheemahant was not addressed. Engineering opportunities for manipulating in-stream fish habitat were unrealistic given the amount of material moved in the channel. This is a very large Class S1 system (>100m channel width) that requires a different approach to obtain stabilization of the main channel.
• Additional data collected included temperature, discharge, turbidity and bank material, specifically directed at off-channel habitats. Off-channel habitat and wetland habitats were also described subjectively, through photos, diagrams, field notes, fish capture details and other means.
• Stream surveys, where streams existed, recorded the habitat unit, chain distance, features, and habitat units. During the stream walk, a representative subsample length was chosen for more complete measurements, according to the criteria outlined in Technical Circular No. 8.

Consistent with the broader objectives of Forest Renewal B.C., it was also important to develop a closer working relationship between workers at the Oweekeno Nation and the forest licensees. Accordingly, this project provided the means to capture the knowledge and perspective of both local residents and forest industry workers.

The Sheemahant River is characterized by shallow gradient with the predominant channel morphology type being glide. Oreographic lifting, rain on snow events and large, warm weather systems results in a dramatic rise and fall in discharge. As the system rises, wetlands surrounding the mainstem become flooded. These wetlands which also serve as catchment areas for runoff from the surrounding mountains regulate the mainstem’s discharge and sediment load.

The Sheemahant River is a glacially-fed system with high turbidity throughout most of the mainstem. This does not allow for good observation of individual fish or fish habitats. Tributaries, sidechannels and off-channel habitats where fish were visually identified, are characterized by clear water and good flow.

The Sheemahant River is found in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone which is comprised of three biogeoclimatic subzones (Figure 1). The Central Moist Submaritime Coastal Western Hemlock Variant (CWHms2) subzone occurs in the lower elevations (below 700m) of the Sheemahant River. The climate in this area is characterized by moist, cool winters and cool but relatively dry summers. The vegetation in this area is dominated by mountain hemlock, Douglas-fir, western red cedar and amabilis fir. Common understorey species include Alaskan blueberry and a well developed moss layer. At elevation ranges from 700 to 1000m, the Montane Wet Submaritime Coastal Western Hemlock Variant (CWHws2) occurs. This subzone is characterized by moist, warm summers and cool to cold winters with relatively heavy amounts of wet snowfall. Large glaciers at the head of this drainage produce cold air that can influence the climate. The Windward Moist Maritime Mountain Hemlock Variant (MHmm1) is found at upper elevations. Climate at this subzone has long, wet cold winters and short cool moist summers. Total snowfall is usually high, which can result in substantial snowpacks that may persist well into July. Forests in this site are usually dominated by amabilis fir and mountain hemlock. Vegetation and stand characteristics are strongly influenced by local topography, which can in turn affect the timing and pattern of snowmelt.

From October 15^th to the 19^th, flow discharge and rainfall precipitation was measured and the results were recorded (Figure 2). Discharge was measured at the Sheemahant bridge (approximately 5km upstream) by calculating a cross section of the river and using a timed floating object over a predetermined length. These calculations were then multiplied by 0.75 to compensate for the increase in velocity found at the surface. Rainfall was collected from Clear Creek (Machmell drainage) using an AES standard precipitation gauge. When the survey began on October 13th, several days of increasing rain raised water levels enough to quickly flood roads and camp infrastructure. Measurements taken at the peak of the flooding and after the rain stopped showed a slow (4-5 days), but significant decline in river discharge. Observations during the field program as well as the data, though inconclusive, suggest that the Sheemahant River responds dramatically to rainfall events.

Mainstem flooding distributes both water and fish into (and out of) the wetlands throughout the valley bottom. These areas are potentially very productive and sheltered fish habitats. Varying degrees of fish access and stream connectivity, determined mainly by forest road situation and design, as well as beaver activity, affect the degree to which these habitats benefit fish.

Increase in peak flows from logging related activities can increase the amount of fine sediments that are added to the mainstem (Larkin and Slaney, 1996, Beschta 1978, and Anderson, 1971). In the Sheemahant watershed, surrounding steep hills with low gradient wetlands adjacent to the mainstem could be corridors for distribution of sediment into spawning areas, and also affect woody debris and nutrient disbursement. Further studies should be initiated to determine to what degree the fish stocks of the Sheemahant River are being affected by hydrological impacts.

The mainstem Sheemahant River was not walked extensively due to its large size and flood potential. Field studies were diverted towards associated sidechannels, backchannels, tributaries and wetlands that may provide fish habitat. The study area was defined as Reaches 1 to 6, bounded on the upstream end by cascades that are a partial barrier to anadromous fish. As the study progressed, the area was extended to include wetland habitats to the top of Reach 7. This required little extra effort and allowed sure control data for comparison purposes.

Mainstem fish habitat between the roads and the main river flow was not a direct survey objective, as it is all part of an active floodplain.

Crews walked up and down the mainline roads on the east main (left bank, active mainline) and on the west main (right bank, partly deactivated to old standards). This was to identify tributaries that could be restored in conjunction with road works or by using road access points.

Crews were instructed to traverse the perimeter of each wetland encountered, and describe this habitat subjectively, using maps, diagrams, photos and notes. Inlet and outflow streams were then identified, mapped and surveyed using the FHAP stream data criteria. Fish distribution within the wetland was established by minnow trapping and for electrofishing at strategic points around the wetlands.

Crews gathered site-specific information on both tributary and wetland habitats. Reach descriptions in the stream habitat were on a subsampling basis, determined by a projected length of stream to walk each day.

During the stream survey, subsampling by habitat type (1 in 3 riffles, 1 in 2 glides, all pools) was conducted, according to the criteria outlined in Technical Circular No. 8. Field data recorded was consistent with the FHAP Level I data form, but modified to include more detailed temperature and discharge measurements, as well as stream bank characteristics. Crew members also recorded a fish habitat log, correlated with hip chain measurements, and an accompanying diagram that explained more complex stream configurations and habitats. A photo log was also kept, and all photos were labeled and catalogued for archive purposes.

All crews had 1:20,000 Trim maps, compasses, and aerial photos, and were carefully oriented by truck or helicopter before beginning their surveys. Some crew members had GPS equipment, and these were used for positioning where appropriate. Crews walked from known positions on the map, charting their location by hip chain distances, assisted by laser rangefinder distancing where necessary and appropriate. The progress of each crew was charted on master maps after each day’s work.

Fish capture was conducted primarily in off-channel habitats. As many habitats as possible were sampled, with consideration for the cost-effectiveness of access into difficult locations.

Minnow traps were usually set for 24 hours, but occasionally for 5 hours if it was cost-effective to do so. Electrofishing was not conducted extensively in this system, due mostly to weather constraints, but also as minnow trapping was more effective for the locations sampled (beaver ponds and back channels).

Electrofishing was often used as a training tool, to verify species identification, and to remind crews to check and survey micro habitats. Species identification was frequently checked by the crew supervisor. Microhabitat locations and characteristics for reach trap site were recorded, species and life stage was determined for all fish captured, and fish length recorded to the nearest 5mm for all salmonids.

The first line of quality control was in coordinating field traverses and supervision of all crew members. There was a short training session prior to the start of the field program, when habitat recognition and measurement of stream characteristics was repeatedly practiced and data recorded. At the start of the field program, extra supervisory assistance was given by a roving biologist, who traveled at least one day with each team to answer questions and reinforce field measurements and strategies. Data sheets, field notes, equipment anomalies, etc. were checked daily by each team’s leader and by the senior biologist. Location and extent of field surveys were charted daily and field information generally reconciled with map information. Field surveys were structured so that crews did not overlap, and survey start and end points were flagged in the field.

In the field, every fifth day was a "data day" when crews reviewed their work, assembled data in different formats, completed photo records, checked equipment operation, sent film out for processing, etc. The field information was reviewed and discussed with the project biologist, and checked for anomalies and significant findings.

Since most of the field survey locations were accessed only by helicopter, it was not cost-effective to re-survey the same area by a different crew for quality control purposes. Instead, photo records were kept that were used to re-check interpretations of different habitat types and correlate general observations.

Quality control concern was appropriately directed towards flood events. The Sheemahant watershed is subject to extreme flood events which sometimes obscured stream habitat units. Observations during the field program were that this system can respond very quickly to rainfall events, such that a deluge in the morning can raise the river level as much as 2m by late afternoon. Accordingly, depth and surface velocity measurements were taken at the lower Sheemahant bridge and used to derive discharge, which is then used to qualify the data record. It is not appropriate to precisely correlate measured stream depth, etc. with flood records without more detailed analysis. However, the flood events provided valuable information on the fluvial processes affecting stream habitat, which is a subject in itself.

In fact, the active flood plain of the Sheemahant River extends well beyond the road network in the valley, especially on the left bank. When high rain events caused the river to rise, field crews witnessed road flooding, culverts flowing backwards, beaver dams breeched, etc. Field studies were directed towards tributary habitats that were more visible at this time. Limited mainstem surveys were not appropriate when the river was rising, primarily to the physical difficulties of negotiating the banks of this system, but also due to the bear population which moved off the gravel bars and began moving through the roads and high-level riparian trails, as they became unable to fish. As the river dropped, in-stream barriers and their impact on fish distribution became easier to evaluate, and fish capture efforts were intensified.

The data has been assembled and calculated in two documents. The Volume I - Summary contains summarized data and proposed restoration opportunities. Volume II - Data Appendices contain reproductions of the field sheets, sketch maps of certain areas, rough field notes, as well as detailed fish capture results.

Much of the study area consisted of wetlands, rather than streams, and did not easily fit into the stream survey template normally applied to salmonid habitat evaluation. Accordingly, streams were identified and surveyed where these existed, but additional inspections were carried out to determine peripheral fish habitats in isolated wetlands and within wetland complexes. Volume II contains completed Form 5 data, as well as subjective notes and diagrams for each of the field surveys referenced (Field Reference Code). This volume summarizes that information.

Fish capture was frequently an important part of the field surveys, as the mechanisms for fish passage into some of the wetlands was not clear. During the survey period, the mainstem Sheemahant River was observed flooding over the east main road and flowing backwards through the culverts. Some fish were also distributed in this manner.

• Near the Sheemahant camp on the right bank of the mainstem are a number of fingers of intrusions of lake waters, that appear on the map to be tributaries or sidechannels. However, ground surveys determined that these actually have no flow and no stream-like habitat.
• The entire camp area is flood plain, and buildings, roads and operations are expectant of this. The lake level rises, floods the camp and infrastructure, and then drops down again. The mainstem is not particularly volatile at this point, and flow outside the current channel was not observed during this study.
• The standing water that exists in this area are in ponds that are well isolated from the mainstem, do not provide fish habitat, and are suspected to be borrow pits, etc. which have since been filled with water and naturalized.

• HP-16 describes about 1 km of low gradient (0 - 3%) shallow, stream accessible from the mainstem Sheemahant (Reach 1 section 3, right bank). This stream extends 380m in from the mainstem, then parallels the mainline at the 3 km road marker for a further 630m. Over this stretch, it is attractive fish habitat as far as the water goes, with gradually increasing instream vegetation and wetland characteristics. There are old beaver dams at 173m, 605m and a large, active one a 1,008m. In between, there are occasional deep pools and patches of spawning gravel. Coho juveniles were found well up this creek

• HP - 8 This is a short tributary flowing over a high falls to provide 155m of low-gradient fish habitat before it confluences with the mainstem Sheemahant. Most of the stream is low gradient (0-4%) with bedrock-controlled riffle-glide pattern and little LWD. The culvert at the Sheemahant confluence is passable to fish at high water levels.

• The West Main road extends from Reach 2 to Reach 6 section 1 and runs parallel to the right bank of the Sheemahant River. It is no longer in use, but was not deactivated to current standards. Spur roads extending up the sidehill into old cut blocks have largely overgrown and are not likely to be further deactivated; however, the fish habitat surveys that were carried out near the old mainline indicates that some work should be done.
• The lower reaches of the tributary streams have been altered drastically. There is considerable channel instability in some areas, causing a re-routing of the creeks in the lower reaches. In some cases, a whole bench area has been created and the slope profile has changed (Reach 5 section 2). It is possible that the streams have not yet finished moving, as there is at least one log culvert and one bridge left in place that have not reached a point of long-term stability.
• The Sheemahant River mainstem is quite unstable, which was known and expected prior to the study. However, now the tributary confluence areas, sidechannels and their banks are also unstable in some sections adjacent to the West Main road.
• The Sheemahant River mainstem in this section contains sockeye spawners, and some were seen in sidechannel and near mainstem habitats, especially adjacent to clear-water tributary mouths, where these exist. The mainstem is low-gradient (less than 5%), gravel/cobble/sand substrate, in one long glide habitat and very turbid, making other observations difficult. In-stream complexing in the mainstem is not apparent, as it is quite unstable and LWD seems to be washed straight out to Oweekeno Lake.
• Several surveys provided subjective data rather than detailed stream surveys, as streams crossing the west main road were either not found, or very little empirical information was gathered. For information on surveys corresponding to Field Codes BR-25 and HP-19, refer to Volume II.

• There are some interesting pond habitats adjacent to the mainstem, which are isolated from fish populations (but were not specifically fished to determine this). They are thought to be gravel pits that have since filled with water and naturalized. They are best left as wildlife habitats.

• BR - 16 This stream was surveyed for 242m below a bridge on the west main road (Figure 9, below). Fish access is bounded on the upstream end by a falls at the toe of the slope immediately upstream of the bridge crossing. The substrate is cobble/gravel, and there are disturbance indicators such as a newly-formed channel around standing timber, mid-stream sediment wedges and a dry overflow channel. Excessive discharge is leading to a wider channel and increased sedimentation.
• BR - 16 also describes Stream #9, which is largely unconsolidated runoff that fans out and disappears in a wetland area downslope of the west main right-of-way (no photo).

• GB - 41 This tributary (555m) flows over the old west main road and has been re-directed into a new channel. This creek is predominantly boulder cascade, flattening to a short stretch of gravel riffle near the Sheemahant mainstem.

• GB - 42 This tributary (315m) also flows over the old west main road and has been diverted. The current channel is a high-energy boulder cascade (11% gradient throughout), and provides very little fish habitat.

• GB - 43 This tributary (430m) is similar to GB - 42 in that it also flows over the old west main road and has been diverted. The current channel is a high-energy boulder cascade (19% gradient throughout), and provides very little fish habitat.

• BR - 26 This stream is one of two branches that is a boulder cascade ( 0 - 23% gradient) habitat, flowing directly into the mainstem Sheemahant River. There was a slide directly below the west main road that blocked the former stream channel. Sediment wedges and LWD have complexed the new stream channel.

This is an area that has been altered significantly from its natural condition, due to a combination of road construction, upslope logging and river flooding. There are four general areas that provide (or affect) fish habitat:

• 5 km wetland was briefly inspected from the mainline road. It is approximately 29.1 ha in size, and is situated between the toe of the slope and the mainline road, adjacent to the mainstem Sheemahant River. It is drained by long culverts approximately every 100m along the roadway, that flows over a 3m bank into the mainstem (OC-42). The wetland is not accessible to fish and was not surveyed further (active logging and road-building).
• The 6 km flood plain consists of an area (10.2 ha) that is generally formed by runoff from lower Kull Creek and the Sheemahant River. This area does not have characteristic wetland vegetation that would indicate a more stable, productive fish habitat and is more accurately described as a flooded area. The lower sections of Kull Creek were surveyed (OC-41 and OC-44).
• Surveys of the 7 km wetland (30.7 ha) were directed toward three stream systems that form a part of it (OC-43, 45 and 46). This is a complex wetland, with several inflows and outflows.
• The 13 km flood plain corresponds to a section of road that seems to have unstable slopes, few culverts and has evidence of bedload movements towards the mainstem Sheemahant. During the heavy rains observed in this study, there were many runoff channels but only one defined stream channel. This was surveyed (BR-17) for fish habitat.

Results are summarized in this document only for the Kull Creek area (6 km flood plain, 7 km wetland streams), and the 13 km flood plain. Subjective notes and diagrams are found in Volume II for all areas inspected.

• OC - 41 Kull Creek splits below the east main road crossing: only the wetted channel was flowing and was surveyed in any detail. The wetted channel is larger (channel width 12 - 19m), high energy creek that has recently changed course. Reach 1 of Kull Creek has almost no LWD or instream cover. It was also noted that Kull Creek has muddy, rather than clear water flow.
• OC - 44 This data describes a short stretch of lower Kull Creek in the flood channel. It has gravel/boulder substrate in a long cascade that ends in a newly-formed debris jam that has re-directed the flow. There is little in-stream cover.

• BR - 17 This is a short creek (187m) that flows under the Sheemahant east main. This creek is full of gravel and cobble and has a nearly complete lack of pools and shows a long straight, sluice with erodible banks and almost no LWD. Fish have access to it throughout the surveyed area, but spawners were only seen at the Sheemahant confluence.

• There are three significant fish-bearing stream systems that extend beneath the east mainline: Alder Creek at 14.5 km, Blue Hawk Creek at 16.5 km, and 20 km Creek (local, ungazetted names). These provide fairly long stretches of fish habitat, and are able to cross under the mainline without obstructions to either juvenile or adult fish.
• These creeks provide fairly complex fish habitat and received several days of crew time to walk and examine their habitat characteristics. They are headed by wetlands, with tributary contributions from the sidehill beyond. Several species and life stages were found (juvenile coho, cutthroat and sticklebacks, spawning sockeye, river lamprey) and fish access frequently extended right to the back of the beaver ponds.
• Productivity in these streams is limited by a lack of LWD, especially adjacent to the road works, and downstream of the beaver ponds, and also by a lack of coniferous forest cover nearby.
• While the fish access into these areas is good, the adjacent road sections are at a similar elevation to the mainstem Sheemahant, and are periodically flooded. Continuing road works in these stretches should be assumed, and measures should be taken to protect fish habitat.

• GB - 45 This data describes a short tributary that provides fish habitat from the bottom of a waterfall, about 100m upstream of the road crossing to its confluence with the main portion of Blue Hawk Creek. It has some pools, LWD, spawning gravel and complex stream habitat.
• GB - 46, 47 This data describes a low-gradient branch of Blue Hawk Creek upstream of the road crossing that has been significantly altered by road construction, and consequently by beaver activity. These channels run parallel to the road (excavated ditch area) and through a wetland at the base of a steep slope. Rearing cutthroat trout, coho salmon and spawning pink salmon are found to the toe of the slope. While patches of spawning gravel exist, it is frequently interspersed with fine material, and there is evidence of some flooding from the mainstem Sheemahant at high water levels. The beaver dam and convoluted wetland/stream areas provide some off-channel habitats; but there is a lack of LWD and scour pools that would provide more complex habitat.

• HP - 9 This creek is the outlet stream to the 20km wetland, which is headed by a beaver dam and beaver pond. It contains 226m of step pool and glide habitat, with predominantly fine substrate and a moderate amount of LWD cover and complexing. Fish were not found in the beaver pond behind the dam.
• HP - 10 This creek feeds the 20km wetland and provides excellent gravel and spawning habitat in its lower 50m, if fish have access to this section. The upper part ends approximately 100m upstream of the pond in a cascade gradient barrier. There is woody debris throughout the channel which slows flow and create some pools.
• HP - 11 This short (100m) creek also feeds the 20 km wetland and also contains patches of LWD which is complexing stream habitat and providing excellent spawning gravel in the lower 25m. There is evidence of stream re-channeling in this area. At this end, the 20 km wetland has been filled with wood debris, and an old road along the end of the wetland has a separate creek running down it, before flowing subgrade.

• The mainline road is a significant fish barrier in some locations. Coho, cutthroat, rainbow, steelhead, Dolly Varden and spawning sockeye were frequently found in outlet streams, but almost never on the upstream side of the road. Occasionally coho juveniles were found, and frequently sticklebacks in the beaver ponds. No juvenile sockeye were found. In most cases, fish access is limiting.
• The larger beaver ponds behind the mainlines (e.g. 23 km wetland) are criss-crossed with old beaver dams. Even if the outlet steam is not blocked, only a portion of the wetland is accessible to upstream-migrating fish.
• The outlet streams provide some fish habitat, but it is usually without LWD or other habitat complexing, and are characteristically fine substrates rather than gravel or cobble-based. These are habitats consistent with channels downstream of beaver dams. This is usually the case as the beavers have dammed up road culverts.
• During the study, field crews witnessed water and presumably fish flowing into beaver ponds above the barriers during extreme flood events. The beaver dams, more so than the mainline itself, seem to be the real fish migration barriers.

• OC - 47 This is the short outlet stream to the 21 km wetland. It contains rearing coho and Dolly Varden, but they are not able to penetrate into the wetland upstream. This creek has numerous small scour pools within a long, low-gradient glide. It has some LWD and offers attractive spawning and rearing habitat.
• OC - 48 This is a short creek, located on the western edge of the 21 km wetland, in its own drainage. It provides attractive fish habitat in the lower 50m, including sand/gravel substrate, some LWD and scour pools, that provide good instream cover. Above this point, the gradient increases, water disappears, and the channel definition is lost.
• OC - 49 This is a short creek that drains into the 21 km wetland. It offers 112m of stream habitat before the channel disappears in the dry coniferous slope behind. It is an open channel with a few shallow pools and no LWD, but with some good patches of spawning gravel where the channel is defined.

• BR - 24 This survey describes a short (145m) pool/glide area that defines the outlet of the 25 km wetland. It provides good rearing habitat tin terms of deep pools and glides, and LWD cover. Spawning gravel is absent, and fish do not have access into the beaver pond at this point.

• This area refers to wetlands at 26 km, 27 km and 29 km. These are found on the right bank of the river. and were examined mostly for control purposes. In this section, mainline road was constructed on the uphill side of the wetland, at the toe of the slope, so potential fish access to the mainstem was not compromised by road works.
• In their natural condition, these wetlands appear to have limited fish access from the mainstem. They are characteristically beaver dam ponds, with high dams that seem to be rarely breached; however, fish capture inside the wetlands indicates that coho are able to penetrate to some portions, but not throughout.
• Fish habitat has been impacted by the road, in that the outside perimeter road may have a lack of drainage culverts and, coupled with some upslope instability or runoff from adjacent cut blocks, this can deposit silt into the wetlands. These areas are fish habitat (although not entirely salmonid habitat) and deserve protection from silt intrusions, loose banks, instability, etc.

• GB-48 This survey went around the circumference of the 27 km wetland, bounded by the mainline road on the hillside, and the mainstem Sheemahant River on the other. This area drains through a beaver dam and flooded woods (no defined channel). Anadromous fish do not penetrate to the main pond; however, stickleback were found upstream.

• GB-49 This survey went around the circumference of the 29 km wetland. Similar to the 27 km wetland, it is bounded by the mainline road on the hillside and the mainstem Sheemahant River on the other. The wetland is formed by a well-established and active beaver dam (2m high) which prevents coho from accessing the pond. Only stickleback were found above this point.

Project Name: West Main bridge removal and bank stabilization.

Location: Sheemahant River, reach 2 / 3 break, right bank.

Impact: There is an old mainline bridge crossing this side channel that will eventually collapse and destabilize the surrounding channel banks. A section of this side channel (called Str #8) already has signs of erosion along the stream banks, reduced habitat complexity and includes impact from a section of road that has been washed out, adding sediment and debris to the channel. Sockeye carcasses were seen in the upper end.

Objectives: To prevent further bank erosion in the side channel and its feeder tributaries, to enhance flow through the side channel, and to complex the habitat for fish rearing and spawning grounds.

Priority: High

Work Plan: Work should be conducted in the following sequence:

1. Deactivate or rebuild the bridge before it collapses.
1. Stabilize the stream banks where evidence of erosion occurs. Riprap and revegetate around the bridge site, if heavy equipment is available (25m right-of-way assumed).
1. Remove LWD at the upstream opening to this side channel, if appropriate.

Bridge removal and bank stabilization should be completed before LWD removal and adjustment is attempted. This area also requires a site-level riparian assessment, to complement heavy equipment work.

A second phase of this work could potentially involve more extensive restoration and complexing of the side channel. This can be determined after the Level II biological design survey.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: Sheemahant Tributary Reconstruction.

Location: Sheemahant River, Reach 6, right bank.

Impact: Sheemahant West Main road is inactive, and the slope and road in this area have all become unstable. The instability has caused re-routing of the stream course, and a loss of in-stream habitat. Fish were seen in the lower part of the north braid (species unknown).

Objectives: Stabilize the entire area, then reroute and confine the channels and complex the stream to recreate fish habitat.

Priority: Low

Support: Fish seen below road in stream, near Sheemahant confluence.

Work Plan: This work is conditional upon heavy equipment access to the site, due to the volume of material, and continuing instability. Work could be conducted in the following sequence:

1. Creek channel stabilized (upslope from fish habitat zone)
1. Re-construct or re-contour road
1. Re-route channels. Consolidate to form one or more channel(s).
1. Complex stream(s) as appropriate.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: Sheemahant Reach 5 Section 3 Tributary Surveys.

Location: Sheemahant River, reach 5, section 3, right bank.

Impact: There are tributaries along approximately 1 km of the West Main road that drain into a large wetland area with sign of beaver activity. The wetland has several dry channels that connect to the Sheemahant mainstem. Fish appear to utilize the wetland (observed fry), however access is limited. More detailed surveying is required to assess sediment sources and extent of the downslope impact.

Objectives: To connect the wetland to the mainstem Sheemahant in several locations along the right bank, reach 5, section 3.

Priority: Medium

Work Plan: In this case, more specific surveys should be conducted to assess the extent of impact and define limits of fish access / utilization. There has been a fairly large shifting of the slope and contours that requires a different kind or level of analysis.

Costing: Specialist assessment team to continue stream walks and develop more detailed restoration options (2 days, estimated cost $ 5,000, split between MOF and MOELP).

Field Reference: HP-17 (see also Site ID: SM4)

Project name: Tributary #8 stabilization

Location: Sheemahant River, Right bank, Reach 3, Section 3

Impact: A creek along side of the cut block has had some up-slope instability which has shifted the creek flow from its original course. This creek now has significant unstable banks, woody debris torrents, a shifting stream course and a lack of riparian zone.

Objectives: To stabilize and rehabilitate about 1,300m of stream channel.

Priority: Medium-High

Work Plan: Upslope work should proceed first, as follows:

1. Stabilize the up-slope area
1. Develop appropriate access management strategy for this area and either property deactivate or re-design and rebuild this road section.
1. Riparian zone reconstruction and some LWD removal could then be done by hand crews in the absence of heavy equipment access. However, channel excavation and LWD complexing could better complete this work.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: West Main Bridge Removal.

Locations: Sheemahant River, right bank, Reach 3/4 break, 11 km Creek

Impact: This is a Creek crossing located at the bottom of a natural slide area. The creek has shifted; however, the ground has since revegetated and is stabilizing. The bridge crossing also seems stable at this time; however, an access management plan is required to create continued long term stream channel stability. The bridge will eventually deteriorate and take part of the sidehill with it. Evidence of old instability and recent revegetation indicates that this has already occurred in the surrounding area.

Priority: Low

Work Plan: Removing or replacing the bridge is necessarily a heavy equipment job and is completely conditional upon equipment access. If it becomes available, further stream complexing could be considered at that time.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: Tributary complexing and obstruction removal.

Location: Sheemahant River, right bank, reach 3, section 2 (Stream #9).

Impact: A slope failure occurred leading to blockage of a wood culvert along the Sheemahant road. A large wetland area is not accessible to fish as a result of the blockage. Below the road a good rearing stream exists with observed salmonid utilization in the lower reaches. Accumulation of SWD and sediments have reduced the habitat quality.

Objectives: To enhance habitat complexity in the lower reaches of stream #9, and facilitate fish access to the wetland above the road.

Priority: Medium

Work Plan: This road section seems to have been built along the bottom of an unstable slope and through a small wetland which was probably inhabited by fish at one time. After development of an access management plan, the wood culvert should be cleared or re-designed to ensure fish passage upstream and connect the up-slope wetland. Subsequently, complex the habitat below the road by deepening the channel, deepening pools and addition of LWD complexes.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: 7 km wetland.

Location: Sheemahant River, left bank, reach 2.

Impact: There are several adjacent small wetlands at this location some with an accumulation of LWD from an adjacent cut block. Currently, the downstream sections of the wetlands appear to be excellent rearing habitat, however fish access becomes restricted at the road crossings. Blocked culverts from beaver activity and an accumulation of woody debris are likely causes.

Objectives: To re-design 1.5 to 2 km of road for better long-term performance; to control beaver activity; to maintain beaver ponds and their fish rearing habitat and to extend fish habitat into those ponds above the road.

Priority: High

Work Plan: A section of the road is being lost at 8 km and some reconstruction/redesign is required. The 1.5 km to the south ( between 8 km and Kull Creek crossing) should also be addressed at this time. Fish accessible culverts should be designed and installed for this area. It is also necessary to examine ways to slow accumulation of woody debris at the culvert openings and ensure that downstream of the road, culverts do not limit fish access.

Costing: Not developed, as this is entirely a road design concern to be undertaken by MOF.

Field Reference: OC-41, OC-44

Project Name: Kull Creek stream clearance

Location: Kull Creek, downstream and upstream of the mainline road crossing. Sheemahant River, left bank, Reach 2, Section 1.

Impact: Some degree of up-slope or bank instability has resulted in large LWD jams, especially downstream of the bridge crossing. This has caused some re-routing of the stream channel and may accelerate other instability.

Objectives: To reduce the size of some of the LWD jams in the creek before torrenting takes place.

Priority: High

Work Plan: This is work for a hand crew to loosen and reduce the size of several LWD jams. It requires a wider systematic survey to more precisely locate and quantify the debris and to estimate work time and methods to deal with it. Given the long-term potential for continued instability, this work should be accompanied by a site level riparian assessment to control future LWD inputs and stabilize banks. It may be undertaken by size-selective removal of woody debris, so that LWD inputs can be monitored over a longer period.

There should also be a wider survey undertaken regarding fish access to the wetland near the lower reaches of Kull Creek. This is more appropriately related to current logging practices, but deserves wider consideration.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed

Field Reference: BR-23, BR-24

Project Name: 25 km Wetland Enhancement.

Location: Sheemahant River, left bank, immediately upstream of the 25 km bridge.

Impact: The culvert closest to the new bridge has a large pool and beaver dam on the stream section immediately down slope of an old access road which restricts fish passage. While fish have access to some of the wetland, the old road has cut off perhaps one third of the pond.

Objectives: To enhance the fish rearing potential of the wetland through channeling, and improve fish access throughout.

Priority: Low

Work Plan: The old road through the center of the wetland is currently inactive and should be properly deactivated by excavating and end-hauling some road material. This would reconnect wetland sections to extend fish habitat.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Field Reference: HP-9

Project Name: 20 km wetland extension

Location: 20 km Creek, Sheemahant River, left bank, Reach 7.

Impact: Mainline road construction may have inhibited fish access, but this is not a complete barrier. It is possible that road construction has created a groundwater - fed backwater which has infrequently become beaver habitat. It now also provides good fish habitat, as far as juvenile salmonids can penetrate.

A small creek coming down from the sidehill adjacent to the wetland has been severely impacted. This is a cut area, where wood debris has been piled. Restoration opportunities for this creek are not apparent; however, enhancing the adjacent wetland could be considered a mitigation project.

Priority: Medium

Work Plan: This work could be conducted independently of road construction. It would involve excavation at one end of the beaver ponds and focus on deepening the ponds and improving fish access. The majority of the wood debris may be removed in order to re-create stream flow. Existing fish habitat must be protected and a more detailed biological design is required.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: Blue Hawk Creek wetland extension

Location: Blue Hawk Creek (ungazetted name at 16.5 km on east main), Sheemahant River, left bank, Reach 6, Section 1.

Impact: Old cut block and skid trail on the side of the wetland associated with this creek may have cut off protective rearing area. While this creek now provides diverse and attractive fish habitat, it seems to have suffered some in-filling.

Priority: Medium

Work Plan: This work could potentially be undertaken independently of road reconstruction works. It would involve excavation at one end of the old beaver ponds (now in succession), accessible from an old skid trail. However, existing fish habitat and fish must be protected and a more detailed biological design is required.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: Alder Creek Road Crossing

Location: Alder Creek, 14.5 km, Sheemahant River, left bank, Reach 5, Section 3.

Impact: Alder Creek (ungazetted name) provides complex fish habitat for several species and life stages behind the mainline are well back from the road culverts where the ponds provide attractive fish rearing habitat. This is compromised by the mainline road, near the Sheemahant River mainstem, where periodic flooding of the road and blocked culverts are problematic for both roads and fish.

Priority: Medium

Work Plan: Improve fish access by re-designing the culvert system, and re-design the road to eliminate flooding in this area. This project should be undertaken as a part of new road construction or re-design at this point. The very good fish habitat above the road and mainstem river access should be protected.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: 23 km wetland beaver boxes

Location: 2 km adjacent to mainline, at 23-24 km markers, Sheemahant River, left bank, Reach 7.

Impact: The mainline road has been constructed on the edge of a large wetland that has well defined beaver pond and channel habitats at the toe of the slope. Anadromous fish access does not extend beyond the road culverts; however sticklebacks are present in the ponds. It is known that beaver activity periodically plugs the culverts and causes road maintenance problems. There are several outlet streams coming from this wetland, and none afford unrestricted fish access.

Objectives: To gain fish access under the mainline and into the beaver ponds by clearing one or more road culverts.

Priority: High - Medium

Work Plan: This work can be conducted independently of road construction; however, the "beaver box" technology is at the pilot stage and this is an opportunity to test it further. Work should proceed to put in one box and if it works (less culvert maintenance; fish access into ponds), installation in other locations may be worthwhile. This technique works best where the culvert can be somewhat backwatered, which is also an option in this case.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: Upper Sheemahant Road Disturbances to wetland areas

Location: Sheemahant Mainline road above 25 km bridge.

Impact: Silt from the road and adjacent cut block is impacting wetland habitats. Generally, these wetlands are formed by beaver dams and have limited access to Sheemahant River fish. The lower sections can usually be penetrated by juvenile coho salmon; however, this shifts to resident salmonid populations (non - target species) and then to no fish as successive beaver dams cut off further access. While salmonids are not now directly impacted by silt intrusions, there are broader concerns about continuing substrate deterioration and overall road and slope stability.

Priority: Low

Work Plan: Three wetland areas are potentially affected by this. An MOF engineering solution should be sought it to deal with road and slope run-off, and riparian planting may also be conducted in selected areas. Priority areas are:

1. 29 km wetland (GB-49)
1. 27 km wetland (GB-48)
1. 26 km wetland, (upstream of 25 km bridge crossing) (HP-13)

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

Project Name: 13.2 km Creek Restoration

Location: Mark 13.2 km along Sheemahant East Main road, Sheemahant River, left bank, Reach 5, Section 1.

Impact: Direct logging impact is not documented. The creek experiences extremely swift flows; however it contains approximately 1,800 square meters of spawning habitat which would benefit from a reduction in flow and stream complexing.

Objectives: To create complex fish habitat including pools and in-stream cover. Increase bank stability using riparian planting.

Priority: Medium

Work Plan: This site is within the Sheemahant flood plain, and may be seasonally flooded and may never have coniferous LWD recruitment. However, gradients up to 10% offer an opportunity for pool creation using LWD scour logs. This work could be done using either heavy equipment, a hand crew, or a combination of the two, over approximately 200m of stream channel. This work should also include consideration for improved road re-design that would add some culverts and provide better runoff control. This work would complement the biological design, but does not necessarily have to precede it.

Costing: Note that costs quoted are intended to indicate only the general scale of the work. Specific prescriptions will be more fully costed when Level II and on-site assessments are completed.

The West Main road requires further deactivation in order to protect fish habitat. An appropriate Access Management Plan (AMP) should be developed to determine to what extent heavy equipment access will be available or not. If MOF does not participate further, MOELP should take the initiative to revegetate banks and complex stream habitats in selected areas. Other MOELP work (SM-11, SM-10 and SM-22) is conditional upon prior upslope stabilization.

Unstable upslope areas have impacted fish habitat in terms of bedload movement along the West Main road and along isolated road sections along the east main. Above the 25 km bridge, improved drainage structures would further protect fish habitat.

Fish access to tributary, wetland and other off-channel habitats behind the East Main road is poor in some locations. This is primarily related to beaver activity rather than poor road design. Fish habitat restoration and improvement is based on reducing beaver-related impacts.

Much of the proposed work includes companion studies on site-level riparian assessments. This should be addressed as follow-up work to the current overview level riparian studies.

This study proposes restoration projects totaling at least $165,000, exclusive of any companion work to redesign or rebuild roads in certain areas. Priority projects are those that have the potential to immediately restore affected fish habitat, with the expectation that road work will be continuing in most areas.

Volume I contains summarized information gained during the field surveys and much more detailed data has been gathered. Refer to Volume II and the accompanying maps for more specific information on each site.

Brown, G.W., and J.T. Krygier. 1971. Clearcut logging and sediment production in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resource. Res. 7 (5): 1189.

Fredriksen, R.L. 1972. Erosion and sedimentation following road construction and timber harvest on unstable soils in three small western Oregon watersheds. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Res.

Johnston, N.T., and P.A. Slaney, 1996. Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure’s Watershed Restoration Technical Circular 8, revised April 1996. Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry of Forests.

Jones, J.A., G.E. Grant. 1994. Peak Flow Responses to Clearcutting and Roads, Western Cascades. Water Resource Research.

Hillaby, J. E. 1998. Sheemahant Watershed Overview Fish Habitat Assessment. prepared under contract to Western Forest Products for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Williams Lake. FRBC Contract No. CCA-856.

This is an overview map, derived from the 1:50,000 FISS map, that describes fish distribution in the Sheemahant River and its tributaries. Fish distribution information and obstructions are derived from existing FISS information, and augmented by new information gained from this study.

This is a project map, derived from the 1:20,000 TRIM map base. It describes the locations where each team surveyed, in terms of survey commencement and end points. Each of the lines on the map corresponds to data sheets, field diagrams, or other field notes in the Appendices (Volume II). Also noted on these maps are fish capture locations, also detailed in the Appendices.

Map 2 also describes specific locations where potential rehabilitation activities are proposed, and a brief explanation of proposed activities. These are further described in the Summary document (Volume I).