P.O. Box 820, 100 E. Ludlow

Ladysmith, B.C. V0R 2E0

This report was written by Charlene Mellor. Photo interpretation was conducted by Brent Rouse. Contributing information on suspected riparian zone impacts and recent site photos were provided by Judy Hillaby. Original airphotos, background information, and forest cover maps were provided by Bob Brand, Nikki Skarrig, Lisa Perrault, and Cathy Sipes at Western Forest Products in Ladysmith. Project direction was provided by Mike Parker at the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in Williams Lake.

Acknowledgments

List of Tables

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Study Area

3.0 Objectives

4.0 Watershed Level Assessment

5.0 Conclusions

6.0 Recommendations

7.0 References

APPENDIX A. WATERSHED LEVEL ASSESSMENT DATABASE

APPENDIX B. 1:50 000 SCALE MAPS INDICATING FISH AND RIPARIAN BREAKS (SEPARATE FROM REPORT)

APPENDIX C. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS INDICATING SITES FOR FIELD VISITATION

Table 1. Areas of suspected riparian zone impacts in the Sheemahant River watershed.

Western Forest Products (WFP) of Ladysmith, B.C. initiated Watershed Restoration Projects for three tributaries to Oweekeno Lake (within WFP operating area) in 1997. Through the Watershed Restoration Program of Forest Renewal B.C., the Neechanz, Machmell and Sheemahant River watersheds were selected for Fish Habitat Overview and Level I Assessments, in order to provide specific information that would allow fish habitat restoration work to proceed. As a part of this work, a Watershed Level Riparian Assessment was also undertaken. BioTerra Consulting (Inland Timber Management Ltd.) of Williams Lake, B.C. was contracted to conduct the Watershed Level Riparian Assessment.

The Neechanz, Machmell and Sheemahant Rivers are all tributaries of Oweekeno Lake, at the head of Rivers Inlet in the central coast of B.C. They provide important spawning habitats for sockeye salmon, and also support significant populations of other anadromous and resident salmonids. Forests in the flood plains and delta areas of all three systems have been logged, and more recent harvesting and road building has been conducted over steep slopes elsewhere in the basins, with some negative effects on fish habitat.

All three watersheds lie within the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone. This zone contains low elevation areas, where western hemlock and amabilis fir dominate. Due to the abundant rainfall, the forests in this zone are considered the most productive in Canada. Typical species on floodplains within the Coastal Western Hemlock zone are western red cedar and Sitka spruce. The mature timber provides important habitat for grizzly bear and white-tailed deer (Ministry of Forests, 1992). The study area lies within the Coastal mountains ecoprovince, Pacific ranges ecoregion, and the Northern Pacific ranges ecosection. The Pacific ranges contain the highest peaks in the Coast Mountains, and bedrock structures have controlled the drainage pattern (Holland, 1976).

Harvesting has occurred within all three major watersheds; some areas were harvested during the early 1900’s. During the 1970’s, a camp was built, and harvesting accelerated. Roads were built along the valley bottoms; in some places very close to the river.

Due to the size of the watersheds, and the current level of harvesting activity, a complete, watershed-wide riparian assessment was not undertaken. Instead, due to budget and time limitations, as well as the need for some coordination with fish habitat work, the area of concern for riparian habitat assessment has been condensed.

The intention of the watershed level riparian assessment was to focus the analysis on known areas of fisheries importance, where it was suspected that riparian habitat had been damaged and also to use airphoto interpretation and forest cover map information to suggest further areas for site-level assessment.

The watershed level assessment assesses stream riparian areas on a watershed basis. The results are used to identify areas of concern (based on fisheries concerns), and to identify and prioritize sites for field visitation (site level).

Due to time constraints, it was not feasible to conduct a riparian assessment on the entire study area as per the Riparian Assessment and Prescription Procedures manual (Draft 3A)(Oikos and Johnson, 1996). The following methodology was used.

Step 1. Potential areas of riparian concern were identified by the fisheries biologist conducting the Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP). These areas included sites identified for restoration. These areas, along with the fisheries reach breaks and section breaks, were highlighted on 1:20 000 scale maps to guide the photo interpretation.

Step 2. All available forest cover information was compiled to assist in accurate determination of vegetation within the riparian areas assessed. This included forest cover maps, site photos and applicable terrestrial ecosystem mapping data.

Step 3. All areas were photo interpreted for the categories outlined in Appendix A (database). Where applicable, the riparian reserve zone was used as the boundaries for photo interpretation. The riparian reserve zone was determined using fish presence, and followed guidelines according to the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Riparian Management Area Guidebook (1995). Use of the reserve zone ensured that any work proposed for restoration or rehabilitation will be under the regulations of the Forest Practices Code for work in and around the riparian area. Where a reserve zone was not present (i.e., S1 rivers >100 meters wide or S4) the total riparian management area width was used. The effective distance for all riparian functions, with the exception of those affected by trees greater than 30 meters tall, are within the riparian widths used for photo interpretation in this project. It is likely that when trees >30 meters tall are present, there is little impact to the riparian function. The percent of the total RMA or RRZ area that each structural stage comprised was recorded as a percent to provide further detail of RMA or RRZ composition.

According to WRTC #6, the objective of the watershed level riparian assessment is to divide (fish) stream reaches into uniform segments. Therefore, riparian breaks will coincide with fish reach breaks. This does not imply that stream morphology and riparian vegetation change at the same point. Riparian breaks within the fish reaches were identified based on uniform vegetation composition, age and structural stage. All photo interpreted attributes were recorded in a spreadsheet by sub-basin number (watershed code or Interim Locational Point (ILP), fish reach number and riparian segment number.

The database of photo interpretation results are presented in Appendix A. Maps (1:50,000 scale) indicating fish and riparian breaks are presented as Appendix B (separate from the report).

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.

Anadromous fish exist in the Sheemahant up to its headwaters more than 40 km from the mouth. The study area in this case extended to 27 km, below which most of the anadromous species were concentrated. Mainstem flooding over this area 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.

The primary area of interest is in Reaches 2 to 6 where forest roads and old cut blocks exist on both sides of the river, within the flood plain, and where cut blocks are in various stages of revegetation. On the right bank, there are old cut blocks and infrastructure that has become revegetated and stable. On the left bank, the riparian zone has been encroached by the mainline road, which plays a part in forming more complex tributary and wetland habitats between the road and the toe of the slope.

The Neechanz River is a fifth-order stream with a magnitude of 139. The study area extends to the confluence with Kulee Creek, approximately 10 km from the mouth. Anadromous fish are concentrated in important spawning areas in Reaches 1 and 2, below boulder cascades at the start of Reach 3. Reach 1 near the confluence with Marble Creek provides important spawning habitat for sockeye salmon, especially and is also inhabited by large numbers of grizzly bears. Six other species of anadromous fish (pink, chum, chinook and coho salmon, as well as anadromous cutthroat and steelhead) are also recorded there. While many species do not go beyond Reach 2, the absolute upper limit of anadromous fish access has not been determined in this system, as steelhead have been found far upstream of the study area. Similar to many other watersheds in the Oweekeno Lake drainage, resident fish, including rainbow and cutthroat are also present, and Dolly Varden are recorded above the barriers almost throughout the system.

The Neechanz watershed is characterized by stable, vegetated banks throughout its mainstem, and some upwelling groundwater areas in the lower spawning grounds. It has had a limited amount of forest harvesting activity, and road building has been directed well away and up slope from the mainstem area. In most areas, the riparian zone has been unaffected.

The Machmell River is a glacially-fed fourth-order stream with a magnitude of 146. Elevation ranges from near sea level to 7,600 ft (2,300m). Anadromous fish are concentrated below bedrock chutes in the mainstem at 22km, near the confluence of Pashleth Creek (Reach 4). The lower Machmell River below 6 km (Reach 2-3) is an important spawning area for sockeye salmon. Six other species of anadromous fish (pink, chum, chinook and coho salmon, as well as anadromous cutthroat and steelhead) are recorded there, many of which are also thought to be present to the Pashleth confluence. Resident fish, including rainbow and cutthroat are also present, and Dolly Varden are recorded above the barriers almost throughout the system.

Riparian zone concerns fall into three general categories:

1. steep slope tributaries that have been harvested to the stream edge and subsequently have eroding banks, blowdown, bedload movement, etc. that has an impact on fish habitat further downstream;
1. low gradient tributaries that contain isolated populations of Dolly Varden that have been logged on both sides of the stream, with the complete destruction of the riparian zone in the years immediately after logging. It is likely that fish were discovered in these creeks after logging activities had ceased; and
1. unstable and barren mainstem channel areas in the lower reaches. Flood events are continually scouring the channel and the channel is moving towards the right bank; however, apparently increasing instability is keeping vegetation from reforming along the banks to the extent that the channel itself is widening and taking the riparian zone with it.

The following section gives a general description of the riparian area; detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix A.

The following reach - sections were assessed during the watershed level riparian assessment. Reach-sections 5-2 and 5-3 were not assessed, even though they were identified as high potential for impact by the fisheries biologist. This was due to a lack of recent aerial photo coverage illustrating the impacts (i.e., impacts occurred after 1989). A description of each of these areas (in table) follows.

Reach 2 was divided into 4 sections (fisheries derived). Section 1 is dominated by mature mixed and coniferous forest. Shrub occurs naturally as a small component. A harvested area (planted in 1987) is present beyond the mature forest. Section 2 is dominated by a mature deciduous forest, with a small component of young deciduous forest. Section 3 is also dominated by mature deciduous forest, with a strong component of old coniferous forest. Small pockets of shrub are located along the river bank, and is likely a result of clearing to maintain the road right-of-way. Two roads (west and east haul roads) run parallel to the river on either side in this section, at times approximately 15-20 meters from the river bank. The haul road also runs within the reserve zone along the left bank of section 4. Section 4 is dominated by mature forest (deciduous and coniferous). A small portion of the reserve zone (5%) is comprised of initial vegetation caused by harvesting.

Reach 3 was divided into two sections. A small harvested area (planted in 1979 and 1987) is within section 1. A patch of shrub is present on the right bank, likely due to maintenance of the road right-of-way. The riparian vegetation is predominantly mature forest, with a component of old forest. Section 2 was divided into two separate riparian segments. Both segments contain mature and old forest in relatively the same proportion. The Sheemahant west haul road, bordered by shrub vegetation, is located within segment 1.

Reach 4 was divided into two sections. Section 1 is dominated by mature deciduous and old coniferous forest. Tall shrub is present (naturally occurring). A block (planted 1977) is within the reserve zone beyond the young forest. A haul road runs along the left bank of this section. Section 2 contains harvested areas (planted 1979 and 1991), one of which has grown to a young forest structural stage, while the other is initially vegetated (at time of aerial photo) (reduces sediment filtering capability). The harvested areas are separated from the river by bands of mature and old forest, 10-25 meters in width.

Reach 5 (section 1) is dominated by mature and old forest. A block (planted in 1982-1983) exists beyond the mature forest (within the RMA), with only a small portion within the reserve zone (5%).

Reach 6 was divided into two sections. Five percent of section 1 is a harvested area (planted), which is present along the river’s edge. The remainder of the riparian reserve zone is comprised of old, mature and young forest. Section 2 is also comprised of old, mature and young forest. Shrub naturally occurs along the river, and is likely maintained in the shrub stage by brushing along the road right-of-way. A small percentage (5%) of the reserve zone is comprised of a harvested area which has been planted.

Reach 7 was divided into four riparian segments based on vegetation changes. Segment 1 is a mix of old coniferous, mature mixed and coniferous forest and young deciduous forests. A harvested area (planted in 1981 and 1983) comprises 25% of the reserve zone area. This block is located beyond a narrow band of mature forest. Segment 2 is predominantly mature forest with a young forest component. Segment 3 is dominated by old and mature forest. A harvested area exists beyond the mature forest. Segment 4 does not contain any harvesting, and is predominantly old forest.

The following reach - sections were assessed during the watershed level riparian assessment. Reaches 2 and 3 were not assessed due to lack of aerial photo coverage. A description of each of these areas (in table) follows.

Kull Creek (first reach preliminary classification S2) splits into two channels before entering reach 2 the Sheemahant. Mature coniferous forest dominates the 30m reserve zone. Some shrub, which reduces stream shading, is present in the first reach; however, this vegetation is considered natural. A cutblock (planted 1980-1981) borders the left reserve zone. The second reach was not assessed due to a lack of aerial photo coverage.

The following reach - sections were assessed during the watershed level riparian assessment. Reach 4, also identifed as a highly impacted site, was not assessed due to insufficient aerial photo coverage (impact occurred after 1989). A description of the riparian area of Reach 1 (Marble Creek) is covered in the riparian description of Neechanz reach-sections 1-3 and 2-1. A description of each of these areas (in table) follows.

The Neechanz River flows into the first reach, first section of the Machmell River. Reach 1 is separated into three sections (fisheries). Section 1 is almost entirely (98%) comprised of old forest. Section 2 is mainly mature, old, and pole-sapling forests. Shrub vegetation (may reduce channel stability) exists along the left bank to the edge of the haul road, which runs parallel to the river, approximately 15-40 meters from the river’s edge. A harvested area (planted in 1989) makes up 15% of the reserve zone in section 3; however, the river is protected from the harvested area by a band of mature forest (10-25 meters wide) along the river. Reach 2 reserve zone is comprised entirely of mature forest, both deciduous dominated and mixed.

The following reach - sections were assessed during the watershed level riparian assessment. There was insufficient photo coverage to assess the upper reaches of the Machmell (4-1, 4-2, 5-1) (i.e., available photo year was pre-harvest). Also, the high impacts suspected along the Pashleth could not be assessed due to insufficient aerial photography (i.e., available photography was black and white 1979, pre-impact). A description of each of these areas (in table) follows.

The river in reaches 1 and 2 is very braided, and much of the riparian area exists on a floodplain. The main deciduous tree present was cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa). Cottonwood trees require abundant moisture, and increase in rate of growth when flooded by fast-moving water (increase in oxygen increases growth) (Fowells, 1965). The coniferous component is comprised of spruce, hemlock and fir. Spruce (Picea glauca x engelmanni), in particular, tends to have shallow root systems, and is likely to be uprooted during flood events that do not impact cottonwood stands.

Reach 1 was divided into 5 sections by the fisheries biologist. Sections 1 and 2 are predominantly mature forest. The reserve zone in section 3 contains harvested areas (planted 1981), with shrub and initial vegetation. Another block has been harvested since the date of the aerial photography (at time of photography, the area contained mature forest). The shrub vegetation is on the right bank, from the river’s edge to the RMA line. The initial vegetation (left bank) is beyond a buffer of young forest. A harvested area (planted 1981) runs the entire length of section 4 (right bank). A haul road runs through the harvested area. A small patch of shrub is located within the block along the river’s edge. The remainder of section 4 is mature forest. The haul road also runs through section 5 (right bank) at the edge of the reserve zone. Initial vegetation exists from the edge of the reserve zone, beyond the haul road.

Reach 2 was divided into three sections. Section 1 is a mixture of mature forest and younger, deciduous dominated stands. The riparian reserve zone has been harvested to the stream edge along the right bank (approximately 15% of the total), and at the time of aerial photography is seen as initially vegetated. A road runs parallel to the river on the right bank, at times as close as 5 meters from the bank. This section contains a large island vegetated with deciduous young and pole-sapling forest. Several areas of off-channel habitat are found along the left bank of this section. Although not entirely within the reserve zone, the riparian structure was identified. The dominant vegetation surrounding these off-channel areas is mature deciduous stands, with approximately 20% of the area comprised of young deciduous forest.

The riparian vegetation of section 2 within reach 2 is predominantly deciduous, with a mix of mature and young forest. A shrub component is also present along the road, and is likely maintained in this structural stage due to road right-of-way clearing. There are also several off-channel habitat areas along the right bank in this section. These areas extend outside of the reserve zone. The dominant vegetation is mature deciduous forest, with a component of shrub next to the cutblock and along the road. The reserve zone in section 3 has been partially harvested on the left bank, and is seen on the photos as initially vegetated (planted). The road also runs close to the river’s edge. A mix of deciduous and coniferous mature and young forest make up the remainder of the reserve zone.

The following reach - sections were assessed during the watershed level riparian assessment. A description of each of these areas follows.

Clear Creek runs into reach 2, section 3 of the Machmell. Reaches 1 and 2 were identified as areas of riparian concern; however, photo coverage only allowed interpretation of reach 1. Reach 1 is dominated by mature coniferous and mixed forest along the banks. Cutblocks are present on both sides of the creek, beyond the buffer (~ 40 meters) of mature forest. SOD input and stream shading are of concern; however, the buffer of mature forest along the stream should provide these functions. This area has changed since the time of aerial photography, with new blocks being harvested upstream (reach 2) of the current blocks. A small stream (tributary to Clear Creek) runs through the newly harvested area (no riparian buffer remaining), and sediment input to Clear Creek may be of concern.

All structural stages identified within each biogeoclimatic zone in the study area were assessed according to Appendix 2 of WRTC No. 6. The results are presented in Table 4. Backchannel fish habitat was identified by the manual as the primary function of importance for four of the five stream classes present. However, no site level methodology is outlined in the manual for determining the level of impact to backchannel fish habitat. Areas of backchannel concern identified by the fisheries biologist were assessed; however, due to the scale and year of aerial photography, it was difficult for the photo interpreters to identify backchannels and the associated riparian vegetation or function impairments (i.e., too small to be seen, under canopy). The statements made regarding the vegetation in the vicinity of the backchannels are general, and should be used in conjunction with descriptions outlined by the fisheries biologist in the Fish Habitat Assessment report.

The fisheries biologist in charge of the Fish Habitat Assessment was questioned as to what additional functions are of very high or high importance in the study areas. Table 5 presents the riparian functions identified as significant for each specific study area, and indicates which of those functions are lost according to the structural stages present (according to WRTC No. 6). All further discussion is based upon the riparian functions outlined in Table 5.

* MFm and MFc were not included, as there are no riparian functions lost for these structures.

^ VH = very high and H = high

Table 6 provides comments specific to the study area in relation to prioritizing criteria identified in WRTC #6. The relative fish habitat values were determined based on the numbers of spawners present, areas of suspected riparian impacts, and areas containing valuable off-channel habitat that had been impacted by riparian vegetation removal.

A major concern regarding riparian function within all areas studied is the lack of channel stability. Channel instability, or erosion, can be caused by natural as well as anthropogenic sources. Systems such as the Sheemahant transport a high sediment load, in part attributed to the glacier fed nature of the river. In general, a considerable amount of snow is lost to evaporation and sublimation when a mature forest canopy intercepts snow fall. However, harvesting within the watershed, especially the headwaters, can increase the rate of snow accumulation. Vegetation also intercepts water as it flows downhill (i.e., water uptake through root systems), removal of this vegetation can increase the volume of water entering the river system. A higher volume of water may increase the potential for bank erosion, which can cause a loss of riparian vegetation.

There are several areas where cutblocks and roads exist along the river banks (or within the riparian reserve zone). These areas may contribute to a decline in channel stability, and may be prone to mass wasting events. Channel stability is considered important (and impacted) for the Neechanz River, Machmell River and Kull Creek. Assessing the loss of channel stability will require the assistance of a specialist in stream stability (e.g., hydrologist) to determine whether the erosion is due to natural or man-made factors. The areas on which to focus a channel stability study are outlined in Table 6 and section 6.0.

Sediment filtering was also identified as a concern in several of the study areas (Sheemahant River and Clear Creek). This function is lost when initial vegetated and non-vegetated structural stages are present. Sediment filtering is assessed at the site level by inspecting for evidence of overland flow traveling from the upland sites across the RMA and into the adjacent stream (Oikos and Johnson, 1996). WRTC #6 also suggests that most of these situations will be where buffers have slopes in excess of 35%, and where there is a source of sediment above the stream. Initially vegetated and non-vegetated areas, which lack sediment filtering capability, are present within the reserve zone of the Sheemahant. Four areas have been identified where, in 1989, harvested blocks were located along the stream bank. These areas were in reach 2 (section 3), reach 3 (section 1), reach 6 (section 1) and reach 6 (section 2). Many of these sites may have grown in with shrub or planted trees, but an assessment of the current level of riparian function should be made to confirm that sediment filtering is occurring.

The area surrounding Clear Creek in reach 1 was harvested prior to 1989. Since then, an additional block has been harvested above the existing blocks (approximately 1996). Although a buffer of mature forest exists between the blocks and the stream, there is potential for sediment to enter Clear Creek, especially from the new cutblock. A riparian site should be included to assess the level of impact to sediment filtering capabilities.

Large woody debris inputs were identified as a riparian concern for the lower reaches of the Machmell River. WRTC #6 identifies LWD inputs as lost for all structural stages other than mature forests. The riparian area is predominantly mature coniferous or deciduous vegetation, with components of young and pole-sapling deciduous forests. There was no indication that the pole-sapling or young deciduous forests identified during the photo interpretation were attributed to anything other than natural growing conditions. Areas of initial vegetated and shrub structures caused by harvesting are buffered from the river by mature or young forest. These areas have also likely grown into young or pole-sapling deciduous structural stages since the time of aerial photography (1989), in which case, these areas will not differ from the natural state of riparian vegetation.

Stream shading was a concern in Kull and Clear Creeks. As the Clear Creek riparian area was predominantly comprised of mature forest in 1989, no concern regarding stream shading was identified. However, with the addition of new cutblocks, further investigation may be warranted. Stream shading was not considered impacted for Kull Creek, as the harvested area is buffered from the creek by mature forest.

Small organic debris inputs were of concern for Clear Creek. However, the only structural stage present along Clear Creek that could impact this function is the initial vegetated stage. Since (in 1989) the cutblocks do not extend to the creek edge, there is no further assessment identified.

The main focus of a site level assessment for the study watersheds should be to assess channel stability and sediment filtering concerns. According to Table 6, the highest fish habitat value is within the lower reaches of the Neechanz River. The following recommendations identify specific sites for site level assessment.

The following are recommendations for further study. Site maps are in the form of aerial photos and are included in Appendix C.

Assessment of channel stability: An assessment of the following areas should be conducted to assess the level of impact to channel stability from riparian vegetation removal. The sites are listed in order of priority.

Assessment of sediment filtering: An assessment of the following areas should be conducted to assess the level of impact to sediment filtering from riparian vegetation removal.

If restoration is required, several options are available. For those areas where the riparian buffer has been removed (e.g., road right-of-ways, harvested areas), planting of fast-growing species such as willow can be used to stabilize the banks and reduce channel instability. Once the area has been stabilized, planting of trees such as cottonwood may occur. To address sediment filtering concerns, the site should be planted with a mixture of trees, shrubs and herbs. However, prior to conducting any riparian restoration, it must be ensured that any upslope sediment sources or slope instabilities are addressed. Therefore, it is recommended that a sediment source survey be conducted on the study areas. If this is not feasible, the riparian assessment team for the site level assessments should include a geotechnical specialist.