LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL *

Appendix A Results of Fish Passage Assessments

Appendix B Results of Maintenance and Repair Assessments

Table 2.1. FPCI scoring matrix. *

Map 1 - Fish Passage - Culvert Inspection Map Pocket 1

Culverts in roads crossing fish-bearing streams can have negative impacts on fish habitat and fish populations, including sediment loading and reduction of habitat due to passage constraints. The two most common causes of fish passage problems at culverts are:

1. an outfall drop which is too high for resident and/or migratory fish to jump; and
2. flow velocities too high to permit fish to swim up through the culvert.

Draft procedures described in Fish Passage – Culvert Inspection Completion Procedures (Parker, 1998), have been developed to identify culverts which may be a barrier to fish passage. Other assessment procedures, such as the Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (Johnston and Slaney, 1996) and Sediment Source Surveys (Moore, 1994) include some evaluation of culverts. However, only the Fish Passage Culvert Inspection (FPCI) procedure ensures that all culverts in a watershed are inspected, that there is direct assessment of the degree to which a culvert acts as a barrier to fish movement, and that preliminary prescriptions to address problem culverts are produced. FPCI procedures include description of culvert characteristics, stream characteristics, fish presence or absence, barrier evaluation, and preparation of preliminary prescriptions.

This report presents results of FPCIs conducted by Summit Environmental Consultants Ltd. (Summit) for Weldwood of Canada Limited, Quesnel Operations (Weldwood) within the Kimball Creek, Cunningham Creek, and Matthew River sub-basins of the Cariboo River watershed.

The three objectives of the study, in order of priority, were as follows:

1. To identify all culverts in the study area that may be barriers to upstream fish passage, and establish priorities for rehabilitation;
2. To confirm the necessity for Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessments in the Matthew River, Kimball Creek, and Cunningham Creek watersheds; and
3. To use the FPCI procedure to provide a preliminary indication of correct culvert sizing under the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act (the Code).

A project initiation meeting was held in Williams Lake on August 25, 1998. In attendance were Mr. Gerry Naito (Summit’s Project Manager for this assignment), Mr. Mike Parker (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks), and Mr. Brent Carter (Weldwood). Project schedule and deliverables were discussed. At this time Mike Parker confirmed that little, if any, fish information was available other than that contained in the FISS database.

The first tasks following this meeting were:

1. to review existing fisheries data (FISS);
2. to contact Weldwood representatives to identify roadways that were scheduled for deactivation (with culvert removal) in the next year; and
3. to examine the 5 Year Development Plan Map provided by Weldwood.

Based on the findings of this review, we prepared a field plan that indicated potential study sites and logistical considerations such as site access. We assumed that all stream crossings had culverts, unless otherwise noted on the 5 Year Development Plan Map. As directed in the draft FPCI procedures streams classified as S5 and S6 on the 5 Year Development Plan Map were not included in the field plan.

A two-person crew then inspected all stream crossings. At crossings where a bridge or ford was present, its condition was noted, as was the potential for fish passage problems at the stream crossing. Every culvert was examined to determine if it was in a fish-bearing or potentially fish-bearing stream, based on the following criteria:

1. The stream was a true channel and not a vegetated draw or seepage area;
2. There was water flowing in the stream;
3. The gradient was <25%; and
4. There were no natural barriers to fish movement within 50 m (upstream or downstream) of the culvert.

Channels with a gradient of up to 25% were considered potential fish-bearing streams, as bull trout were present in the study area. Large waterfalls were considered natural barriers. At smaller falls (>1 m drop) over large woody debris, the crew looked for the presence of plunge pools. If plunge pools were absent, it was assumed that fish passage was not possible at any time of the year.

At sites with culverts meeting criteria 1 – 4 above, the field crew completed Form A (FPCI Completion Procedures). At sites where culverts did not meet these criteria, the crew examined the culverts for condition only, and determined maintenance and repair requirements.

In order to complete Form A, a variety of measurements were taken in the field:

1. UTM co-ordinates (determined using a handheld CMT GPS unit or from digital map coverage;
2. culvert length and diameter (using a 30 m measuring tape);
3. channel width (using a 30 m measuring tape);
4. stream gradient (using an Abney level or builders level and survey rod);
5. water depth in creek and culvert (using a survey rod); and
6. water velocity in creek and culvert (with a Swoffer current meter).

Information was collected to assign preliminary stream classification to those streams that had not been classified previous to this study. The Fish-stream Identification Guidebook (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1998) outlines two broad categories of streams: fish streams and non-fish streams. Streams are considered fish streams if they contain, at any time of the year, anadromous salmonids, freshwater game fish, threatened or endangered fish, or regionally important fish. Streams flowing into the Pacific Ocean, a lake known to support fish, or another fish bearing stream are also considered fish streams if the average gradient of the stream is < 20%. "Fish streams" are further divided into four stream classes (S1, S2, S3, S4) based on channel width, while "non-fish streams" are divided into two stream classes (S5, S6).

A minimum of six, evenly spaced channel width measurements were taken, three upstream of the culvert and three downstream of the culvert. According to the method outlined in the Fish-stream Identification Guidebook, measurements were taken where there was no sign of anthropogenic disturbances. These data, along with fish sampling results, were used to classify the stream. As fish sampling was minimal, and did not follow the requirements outlined in the Fish-stream Identification Guidebook, stream classifications are considered preliminary for streams where no fish were caught.

FISS maps were the primary source of fisheries data used to identify fish species that would benefit from restoration of fish passage through culverts. Streams were assumed to contain the same fish species as their receiving waterbodies if there were no apparent barriers to fish movement (falls, dams) downstream of the culvert being assessed. Limited fish sampling was done to determine fish presence above and below the culverts. Methods used were angling using light tackle, and electrofishing using a Smith-Root Model 12B Backpack Electrofisher.

The Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act (the Code) requires culverts at permanent crossings to be of a size sufficient to carry 100-year flood discharge. In order to estimate the required 100-year return period culvert diameters, we utilized information from two sources.

An equation for the area required to pass a 100 year flood discharge (Q₁₀₀) was obtained from the Forest Road Engineering Guidebook (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1995):

A₁₀₀ = 3((W₁ + W₂)/2)*D) (1)

Where A₁₀₀ is the area required to pass Q₁₀₀

W₂ is the mean bankfull width (m)

D is the mean bankfull depth (m)

Equations to estimate the culvert area required to carry the Q₁₀₀ , assuming the culvert has been embedded 20%, were provided in the FPCI Completion Procedures (Parker, 1998). For round culverts the equation is:

A = A₁₀₀ x 1.16 (2)

and for elliptical culverts the equation is:

A = A₁₀₀ x 1.25 (3)

The table of the effective culvert area and diameter relationship found in the FPCI manual was also used.

It is important to note that equation (1) is intended to provide rough and conservative estimates of the area required to pass a 100-year flood discharge. Summit has developed more accurate and precise methods for several clients in B.C. (but not within the study area). For the purposes of the present project, we have utilized the above-noted procedures while recognizing that they likely overestimate the culvert size actually required to pass Q₁₀₀.

Four photographs were taken at each culvert: upstream and downstream views from the inlet and outlet, and views of the inlet and outlet.

We compared field data to information found in the FPCI Completion Procedures and determined the degree to which culverts were barriers to fish passage. This decision was based on fish presence upstream and downstream of the culvert, and physical characteristics such as outfall drop, and water velocity and depth in the culvert.

Suitable hydraulic conditions exist for a fish to jump into culverts when the ratio of plunge pool depth to culvert outlet drop is greater than 1.25, and the outlet drop is less than the maximum jump heights of the fish present. Different fish species have different minimum pool depth requirements and maximum jump heights. Information such as the swimming and jumping limitations of resident and anadromous salmonids was provided in the FPCI Completion Procedures. Information regarding sustained, prolonged and burst swimming speeds of fish was used to determine the maximum water velocity through which a fish could pass.

Culverts were considered full barriers if passage to all fish of all lifestages was prevented and partial barriers if passage to only some fish species or lifestages was prevented. An undetermined barrier was indicated in those cases when the culvert was broken or blocked, and full measurements were not possible. Failure to catch fish upstream of a culvert where fish were caught downstream was also considered to indicate a potential barrier to fish movement. Prescriptions based on the barrier evaluation were completed in the field.

The fish passage concerns were summarized on Form B in the FPCI Completion Procedures. Form B includes (for each culvert) the degree of barrier, the stream length to be gained from replacement of the culvert, the preliminary prescription, and a priority ranking. The priority ranking was based on a total of five scores found in the FPCI Scoring Matrix (Table 2.1)

The FPCI Scoring Matrix outlines values for five parameters to determine the priority for restoring fish passage in culverts. The first value is assigned depending on the number or significance of fish species that would benefit from restoration of fish passage through culverts. This value was dependent on the fish species suspected to be present based on FISS map information. The habitat value of the stream above the culvert, based on a subjective evaluation by the field crew, was the second score in the matrix. This value was independent of the length of stream habitat to be gained by restoring fish passage. The third score was based on the degree to which the culvert acts as a barrier. The fourth score was based on the length of new habitat to be gained by modifying the culvert, and the final score was based on the presence of other culverts upstream. The total of the five scores can range from 12 to 45, with higher priority assigned to those culverts with higher scores. The FPCI procedures suggest culverts with total scores between 33 and 45 are high priority, those with scores between 26 and 32 are moderate priority, and those with scores between 12 and 25 are low priority for restoration.

Culverts not meeting the criteria for full assessment were examined to determine the need for maintenance or repair. Maintenance or repair was indicated if there appeared to be significant structural or sediment delivery concerns. These included the following problems:

• The inlet or outlet was bent or crushed;
• The inflow or outflow was blocked by sediment or debris; or
• The culvert was split or otherwise broken.

For these culverts, Form C in the FPCI Completion Procedures was completed. This form summarizes the maintenance issues, and provides a priority rating based on observations of the fisheries value of the stream. Photographs were taken to illustrate problems found.

Bridges and fords were examined for evidence of fish passage problems, and for maintenance and repair concerns.

Table 2.1. FPCI scoring matrix.

Field work was conducted between September 9 and September 17, 1998. Weather during the survey was generally warm, overcast, and dry, with occasional showers. It is important to note that the summer of 1998 was extremely dry in the Cariboo region of British Columbia. As a result, water levels were lower than usual, and a lack of flow in many of the study area streams prevented complete assessment of the culverts in the area.

A total of 73 culverts, 10 bridges, and one ford were examined. Of these, nine culverts met the criteria for full assessment. The locations of all culverts are indicated on the Fish Passage - Culvert Inspection Map (Map 1).

Many culverts did not meet the criteria for full assessment due to the absence of streamflow in the channel at the time of survey, and/or high channel gradient. Several culverts were within 50 m of a natural barrier to fish passage such as a waterfall. The culverts that did not meet the criteria for full assessment are listed in Table 3.1 along with a brief description of the channel conditions that precluded full assessment. The information is summarized in Table 3.2.

It is important to note that several of the culverts were located on very small streams with extremely low flows. These culverts were not assessed, as accurate measurements of water velocity in the culvert and in the stream were not possible. However, these streams may be fish-bearing during periods of higher flow, and may have had resident fish in isolated pools at the time of the survey. As a result, our recommendations (Section 4.0) include re-evaluation of these culverts during higher flow conditions. It is also important to note that culverts located on streams classified as S5 or S6 (i.e. non fish-bearing) on Weldwood’s Five Year Development Plan map were not examined. Finally, a relatively large proportion of culverts that did not meet the criteria for full assessment were located on streams that had barriers formed by woody debris. This indicates a need for assessment of the impacts of historical logging practices on fish and fish habitat in the study area.

Table 3.1. List of culverts that did not meet the criteria for assessment.

* = culvert requires maintenance or repair

Table 3.2 lists the primary reasons for not completing full assessments, as well as the total number of culverts for which the reasons apply.

Table 3.2. Summary of numbers of culverts that did not meet criteria for full assessment.

¹many culverts failed to meet more than one criterion

² no flow refers to stagnant water or flow so slight it was unmeasurable

A summary of the results is presented in Appendices A and B. Locations of culverts, and the priority for replacement, modification, maintenance, or repair are indicated on the Fish Passage - Culvert Inspection Map (Map 1).

Of the nine culverts assessed for fish passage concerns, two were located in the Kimball Creek sub-basin, four in the Matthew River sub-basin, and three in the Cunningham Creek sub-basin. These culverts are indicated with numbers on Map 1, and are colour coded to denote the degree to which they are a barrier to fish passage. Table 3.3 summarizes the locations, barrier type, and stream classification for all culverts assessed for fish passage.

Four of the nine culverts were full barriers, two were partial barriers, one was not a barrier, and two were undetermined. All culverts assessed for fish passage were found to be below the recommended size to meet Forest Practices Code standards.

Six culverts were on S3 streams, two were on S2 streams and one was on a S4 stream. However, stream classification is preliminary for six of the streams as no fish were caught and/or less than six channel width measurements were taken. None of the streams on which we assessed culverts for fish passage were classified previous to our study.

* indicates preliminary stream classification only

Results of assessments for these culverts are presented in Appendix A. Included are Form A, a text description, and photos for each culvert, and Form B for each watershed.

Table 3.4 summarizes the results of the culverts assessed for fish passage.

A total of 13 culverts were identified as requiring maintenance or repair. One of these culverts (SC06) was also assessed for fish passage. Of the 13, three are considered high priority, seven of moderate priority, and three of low priority (Table 3.5). The most common problems were bent or crushed culvert ends, and woody debris blockages. Further assessment details are provided in Appendix B.

Table 3.4. Summary of culverts assessed for fish passage.

Table 3.5. Summary of culvert maintenance and repair concerns.

No fish passage concerns were identified at the 10 bridge sites and the one ford site examined.

As discussed in Section 2.1, priority for restoration was assigned to each culvert assessed for fish passage based the scores of the FPCI scoring matrix. Of the nine culverts assessed, six had scores higher than 32 (SC16, SC49, SC50, SC58, SC25, SC335), and were subsequently assigned high priority for restoration. One culvert was found not to be a barrier and was therefore not assigned a priority (SC40). One culvert was an undetermined barrier and had a score of 18, leading to a low priority rating (SC06). Finally, one culvert that was a full barrier received only a moderate rating (SC22). However, the score for this culvert was 32, the top of the range for moderate rated scores. Work priority was also assigned to culverts requiring repair and maintenance. Using these priority ratings, we determined the overall priority for culvert works as follows:

1. culverts that are full barriers to fish passage, and culverts that are high priority for maintenance and repair are given high priority for works;
2. culverts that are partial barriers to fish passage, and culverts that are moderate priority for maintenance and repair are given moderate priority for works; and
3. culverts that are undetermined barriers to fish passage, and culverts that are low priority for maintenance and repair are given low priority for works.

Table 3.6 summarizes the high, moderate, and low priority sites by sub-basin.

Table 3.6. Priority of culvert works.

* undetermined barrier, requires repair and/or cleaning, then reassessment for fish passage

A total of 73 culverts were examined in the field. Nine were assessed for fish passage (Table 3.4) while 64 were examined for maintenance or repair concerns (Table 3.5). We recommend re-evaluation of the 25 culverts for fish passage on streams that were dry, or had extremely low flows during our survey (Tables 3.1 and 3.2). The excessive amounts of debris in some channels, paired with historical riparian logging may be as great a concern with respect to degraded fish habitat as is fish passage through culverts. As channel restoration in these areas may result from further fish and fish habitat assessments, the six culverts (Tables 3.1 and 3.2) on such streams should be re-examined. Restoration of the channel may increase the extent of fish distribution, and would necessitate "fish-friendly" culverts at those locations.

Replacement or modification would improve eight of the nine culverts assessed for fish passage (Table 3.3). Four of the nine culverts were found to be full barriers to fish passage, two were partial barriers and two were undetermined. The ninth culvert was not found to be a barrier to fish passage. High priority for restoration was assigned to six of these culverts based on the FPCI Scoring Matrix. One of the culverts designated as an undetermined barrier was assigned low restoration priority while one of the culverts considered a full barrier was assigned a moderate restoration priority (Table 3.4). Thirteen culverts were confirmed as requiring maintenance or repair. The most common maintenance requirement was debris removal from in or near the culvert.

All culverts requiring work, either for restoring fish passage, or due to maintenance and/or repair concerns, were ranked for restoration priority. Seven culverts were ranked as high priority, 10 were moderate priority and three were low priority (Table 3.6). Although one culvert (SC22) was ranked as a moderate priority from the FPCI scoring matrix, it was assigned high priority relative to all culverts requiring work.

We recommend further fish and fish habitat assessment in the Kimball Creek, Cunningham Creek, and Matthew River watersheds. Two factors indicated a need for further study. First, at five out of nine culverts assessed for fish passage, no fish were caught during the assessment procedure. Determination of what fish species and lifestages, if any, are present in these creeks would help determine design of culvert restoration projects. Second, the presence of excessive woody debris in the streambed was noted at 15 of the 73 culverts examined. (Tables 3.1 and 3.5). Several culverts in each of the three assessed watersheds were blocked or partially blocked by debris. The presence of excess debris may be the result of forestry activity.

A Level 1 FHAP would provide information on the degree to which the watersheds have been impacted and would provide preliminary restoration prescriptions. It would also provide information on fish presence and habitat characteristics that in turn would provide guidance in restoration design.

The FPCI procedure, and equations (1), (2), and (3) indicate that all nine culverts assessed for fish passage may be too small to meet Forest Practices Code standards. However, the equations used likely overestimate the size of culvert required to pass the 100-year return period design discharge. For more reliable determination of culvert size requirements, we recommend consultation with professionals experienced in culvert design.