Submitted to:

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

400-640 Borland St.

Williams Lake, B.C.

V2G 4T1

March 31, 1998

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES v

LIST OF MAPS vi

LIST OF APPENDICES vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Physical Features 1

1.2 Climate and General Hydrology 2

1.3 General Geology 3

1.4 Resource Values 3

1.5 Logging History 4

1.6 Agriculture 5

2.0 LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 5

2.1 Fish Distributions and Use 5

2.2 Stream Habitat Condition 6

2.2.1 Diagnostic Value for Percent Pools and Pool Frequency 6

2.2.2 Diagnostic Value for Deep Pools (Holding Pools) 6

2.2.3 Diagnostic Value for Spawning Gravel Quantity 7

2.2.4 Diagnostic Value for Spawning Gravel Quality 7

2.2.5 Diagnostic Value for Off-channel Habitat 7

2.3 Riparian Condition 7

2.4 Recommendations for Rehabilitation 8

3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS 8

3.1 Big Creek 9

3.1.1 Fish Sampling 9

3.1.2 Fish Habitat Condition 10

3.1.3 Riparian Condition 26

3.2 Gaspard Creek 26

3.2.1 Fish Sampling 27

3.2.2 Stream Habitat Condition 27

3.2.3 Riparian Condition 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont=d

3.3 Little Gaspard Creek 33

3.3.1 Fish Sampling 33

3.3.2 Stream Habitat Condition 33

3.3.3 Riparian Condition 37

3.4 West Churn Creek 38

3.4.1 Fish Sampling 38

3.4.2 Stream Habitat 38

3.4.3 Riparian Condition 39

4.0 STREAM REHABILITATION OPTIONS 39

4.1 Big Creek 40

4.2 Gaspard Creek 43

4.3 Little Gaspard Creek 44

4.4 West Churn Creek 45

5.0 LITERATURE CITED 46

 

TABLES

FIGURES

MAP

APPENDIX A

Table 1. Summary of fish captures and observations, by date, reach, location, and species in Big Creek watershed.

Table 2. Level 1 fish distribution for Big Creek watershed.

Table 3. Summary of detailed habitat descriptions for Big Creek watershed.

Table 4. Summary of the percentage of each primary habitat type in Big Creek watershed.

Table 5. Summary of cover attributes in Big Creek watershed.

Table 6. Summary of LWD attributes for Big Creek watershed.

Table 7. Summary of bed material and spawning attributes in Big Creek watershed.

Table 8. Diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition in Big Creek watershed.

Table 9. Riparian condition assessment results for Big Creek watershed.

Table 10. Summary of rehabilitation options and recommendations for further work in Big Creek watershed.

Table 11. Summary of fish captures and observations, by date, reach, location, and species in Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 12. Level 1 fish distribution for Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 13. Summary of detailed habitat descriptions for Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 14. Summary of the percentage of each primary habitat type in Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 15. Summary of cover attributes in Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 16. Summary of LWD attributes for Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 17. Summary of bed material and spawning attributes in Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 18. Diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition in Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 19. Riparian condition assessment results for Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 20. Summary of rehabilitation options and recommendations for further work in Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 21. Summary of fish captures and observations, by date, reach, location, and species in Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 22. Level 1 fish distribution for Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 23. Summary of detailed habitat descriptions for Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 24. Summary of the percentage of each primary habitat type in Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 25. Summary of cover attributes in Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 26. Summary of LWD attributes for Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 27. Summary of bed material and spawning attributes in Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 28. Diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition in Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 29. Riparian condition assessment results for Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 30. Summary of rehabilitation options and recommendations for further work in Little Gaspard Creek watershed.

Table 31. Summary of fish captures and observations, by date, reach, location, and species in West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 32. Level 1 fish distribution for West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 33. Summary of detailed habitat descriptions for West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 34. Summary of the percentage of each primary habitat type in West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 35. Summary of cover attributes in West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 36. Summary of LWD attributes for West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 37. Summary of bed material and spawning attributes in West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 38. Diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition in West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 39. Riparian condition assessment results for West Churn Creek watershed.

Table 40. Summary of rehabilitation options and recommendations for further work in West Churn Creek watershed.

Figure 1. Map of central British Columbia showing the location of Big, Gaspard and West Churn Creek watersheds.

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1. Big, Gaspard and West Churn watersheds showing sub basin boundaries.

Maps showing stream reach breaks, riparian segments, logging history and fish distribution for Big, Gaspard and West Churn creeks. (refer to Appendix A of the Fish Habitat and Riparian Overview Assessment of the Big, Gaspard and Churn Creeks, B.C.)

Appendix A. Photo plates of fish habitat in the Big, Gaspard and West Churn Creek watersheds.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In 1997, LGL Limited was awarded a Forest Renewal B.C. (FRBC) contract (CCA-843) from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), Cariboo Region, to conduct an Overview and Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment (FHAP) and Watershed Level Riparian Assessment (RAP) in the Big, Gaspard and Churn creek watersheds. This report summarizes the findings of a Level 1 Assessment of stream and riparian habitats in the Big, Gaspard and West Churn Watersheds. The project was conducted for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (Watershed Restoration Program). Funding for this project was provided by Forest Renewal BC.

Prior to this Level 1 Assessment, an Overview Assessment (Frith et al.1998) was conducted of each watershed to prioritize reaches and fish habitat for field investigations. Specific recommendations regarding the scope of Level 1 Assessments were also made.

The following is an excerpt taken from AFish Habitat and Riparian Overview Assessment of the Big, Gaspard and Churn creeks, B.C.@ (Frith et al. 1998). The Big, Gaspard and Churn creek watersheds are located approximately 60 km southwest of Williams Lake in the Williams Lake Forest District and within the Cariboo Forest Region (Figure 1). Big, Gaspard and Churn creeks drain the southwest portion of the Chilcotin Plateau and lie to the west of the Fraser River between Williams Lake and Lillooet. Gaspard Creek is wholly contained on the Chilcotin Plateau; however, upper Big Creek watershed extends into the east side of the Chilcotin Ranges of the Coast Mountains and part of Churn Creek lies in the Pavillion Ranges of the Cascade Mountains (Mathews 1986). The Big Creek mainstem flows for approximately 72 km in a northerly direction from its headwaters in the Eastern Chilcotin Ranges and then turns to the north-east for an additional 26 km before joining the Chilcotin River. Churn Creek flows for 40 km from its headwaters before turning to the east and flowing for an additional 30 km to join the Fraser River. Gaspard Creek flows for 24 km in a northerly direction and then turns sharply to the east to flow for 36 km before joining the Fraser River just north of Churn Creek (Map 1).

The Chilcotin Plateau consists of gently rolling, undissected uplands. The study area drainage basins cover 4,237 km² with elevations generally between 1,300 and 1,600 m and rising to the west, reaching around 2,000 m near the Coast Mountains. Much of the plateau is underlain by volcanic flows, though the bedrock is mostly covered by glacial drift; drumlins and eskers provide local relief. The gently rolling surface has steep escarpments along creeks and major river valleys.

The Big Creek, Gaspard Creek and Churn creek watersheds are located mainly within the Interior Douglas-Fir and Sub Boreal Pine-Spruce biogeoclimatic zones at lower elevations and within the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir zones at higher elevations. Where the Gaspard and Churn creeks join the Fraser, the vegetation zone is grassland with common plant species of big sagebrush, rabbit-brush, blue bunch wheatgrass, needle grasses, pasture sage and dropseed. Above the grass zone, Douglas-fir is the dominant tree with blue bunch wheatgrass understory, and lodgepole pine is dominant at higher elevations. Common understory species include common juniper, prickly rose, soopolallie, willows, kinnikinnick and aster. As elevation increases into the ESSF zone, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are dominant with understoreys of shrubs and grasses. Common plants include juniper, soopolallie, grouseberry, lupines, arnicas and lichens (Annas and Coupe 1979).

The Big Creek watershed was divided into seven sub-basins: Big, Tilton, Twinflower, Mons, Rushes Lake, Cooper, and Bambrick. Only the portion of the Big Creek Watershed below Groundhog Creek was included in the study area as no logging has occurred above this point. Gaspard Creek watershed was divided into two sub-basins: Gaspard and Little Gaspard. The whole Gaspard watershed was included in the study area. For Churn Creek, the watershed area above West Churn Creek has not been historically logged and was not included in the study area. West Churn Creek is the largest tributary to Churn Creek and this sub-basin was the only sub-basin assessed for this study. Logging has occurred in other areas of the Churn watershed below West Churn Creek, but most logging occurred away from stream banks (Frith et al. 1998).

The mean annual flow at the gauging station on Big Creek is 5.9 m³/s. When expressed as an equivalent depth over the watershed (1,304 km²) it translates to a mean annual runoff of 143 mm. Mean annual precipitation for the Chilcotin Plateau is 350 to 500 mm, suggesting that annual evapotranspiration and losses to ground water amount to 200 to 350 mm in the Big Creek Watershed. These losses are expected to be somewhat greater for the lower elevation tributaries.

Annual maximum discharges result mostly from snowmelt in May through July or, infrequently, from Pacific Storms that spill over the Coast Mountains in October and November, prior to freeze up.

Annual low flows occur under ice in January through March on the larger streams in the study area. Tributary basins with large lakes in them such as Rushes Lake and lower Mons Creeks may have higher summer seven-day low flows than other nearby streams. In the smaller streams, minimum annual flows may occur in the late summer during unusually dry years.

Most of the study area lies on the Chilcotin Plateau, which is a flat to gently rolling, drift-covered surface at elevations of 1,200 m to 1,500 m. Thick accumulations of glacial drift overlie volcanic bedrock and the drift has been formed into drumlin-like shapes that provide much of the relief on the Plateau.

Deep valleys are found along the lower reaches of Big, Gaspard and Churn Creeks. These valleys occur where the main creeks are incised as they leave the plateau surface and drop steeply into the Chilcotin or Fraser Valleys. The results of this incision are steep-sided valley walls, often covered with unconsolidated glacial drift. Failures of the material on the valley walls occur as a result of river erosion along the toe of the wall and processes on the slopes. After failures occur, gullying, rilling and ravelling continue to contribute additional sediment to the river for an extended period of time. These unstable valley walls are an important source of coarse and fine sediment to the lower reaches of the three study streams.

On the Chilcotin Plateau, the main source of coarse and fine sediment is thought to be bank erosion (by meandering and by channel shifting) along the main rivers, and slope wash and other surface erosion processes.

The Big and Gaspard creeks are not known to support anadromous salmon. A falls in the lower Big Creek and a series of falls below the Little Gaspard confluence on the Gaspard Creek serve as barriers to anadromous salmon. Anadromous salmon have been reported in the mainstem of the Churn Creek, but only Rainbow trout have been reported for West Churn Creek. Rainbow trout are known to occur in the Big, Gaspard and Churn creeks. Recent electrofishing surveys reported frequent occurrence of Rainbow trout in Big Creek (including many tributaries) and in Churn Creek (including West Churn Creek), but no other fish species (Frith et al. 1998). The FISS (1997) database reports the occurrence of Rainbow trout in the Big and Gaspard creeks and pink salmon, bull trout, coho salmon, Rainbow trout, longnose sucker, chinook, longnose dace and sockeye salmon in Churn Creek. Bull trout are suspected to occur in Big Creek, but none have been reported.

The abundance of bird species in the Central Interior Ecoprovince is high at 65% of all bird species in British Columbia. Breeding of the American White Pelican and Barrow=s Goldeneye are unique to this area. High quality habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds (e.g., grebes) occur throughout the plateau. The area is also important for the breeding of greater yellowlegs, yellow-headed blackbird, long-billed curlew, ring-billed gull, eared grebe, sandhill crane, herring gull, and black tern. Moose and mule deer are common to the area. A large population of California bighorn sheep occurs in the Churn watershed. Cougar, black bear, coyote and wolves are common in the Ecoprovince. Small mammals common to the area include the western jumping mouse, muskrat and long-tailed weasel. Big and Townsend=s big-eared bats hibernate in the Ecoprovince. The most common reptile in the area is the western terrestrial garter snake while the western toad and spotted frog are widespread in the region (Campbell et al. 1990).

Logging began in the Big, Gaspard and Churn watersheds prior to 1967. Harvest rate increased during the 1960's and 1970's and a steady rate of harvest has been maintained since the early 1980's. The percent area harvested within the three watersheds was greatest in Gaspard watershed at 19.70%, less in Big watershed at 8.78% and least in Churn watershed at 3.69%. However, due to the greater size of the Big watershed, the area harvested was greatest here at 208.4 km². Clearing from logging and farming occurred to the stream bank in some areas, but for the most part a riparian strip was maintained.

Logging history varies between tributaries. In all sub-basins, the percent area harvested was less than 30%. In the Big watershed, the percent area harvested was greater than 20% in Twinflower and Mons sub-basins, between 10 and 20% in Tilton, Bambrick and Cooper sub-basins, and less than 10% in Big and Rushes Lake sub-basins. In the Gaspard watershed, the area harvested was close to 20% for both the Gaspard and Little Gaspard sub-basins. In the Churn watershed, the area harvested was less than 10% in both the Churn and West Churn sub-basins.

In the Big Creek watershed, generally, there has been little stream side logging and most cutblocks are distant from the stream and do not affect bank stability or LWD recruitment.

Forest harvesting began in the Gaspard Creek watershed before 1967. Harvesting has not been concentrated along the channels and bank stability and LWD recruitment are not heavily impacted by logging.

Little Gaspard Creek has been intensively logged since 1977. The logging has not been concentrated along the channels and bank stability and LWD recruitment are not heavily impacted by logging.

Churn Creek and it s tributary West Churn Creek have total harvested areas that are less than those expected to produce alterations to the hydrologic regime. The total areas harvested are 3.69% and 7.67% of the Churn and West Churn Creek watersheds. The cut is not concentrated along the channels and likely does not affect bank stability or LWD recruitment.

Cattle ranching is the most common agricultural activity in the area. Lands have been cleared for grazing and farming of food crops for cattle, often adjacent to streams and in some areas no riparian strip has been maintained. Cattle trails often cross streams. Some bank erosion has resulted.

Farming and ranching also affect channel morphology and hydrology. Summer and winter low flows are reduced by water extractions for irrigation. Banks are destabilized by cattle access directly into the channel. Also, LWD inputs to the channel are decreased by the removal of the riparian forest for fields. Farming and ranching are mostly located in the middle reaches of Big Creek (Reaches 12 to 24). Land cleared for agricultural use was seen in 6 reaches (Reach 14, 20, 23, 28, 29, 30) although logging licences may have been issued for clearing the land initially. Agricultural impacts are also widespread in tributaries to Big Creek, Gaspard Creek, Little Gaspard Creek and West Churn Creek systems.

2.0 LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Level 1 Stream Habitat Assessments of the Big, Gaspard and Churn watersheds were conducted during October of 1997. These surveys were conducted on foot, and involved a crew of two people. Detailed fish-habitat surveys involved complete sampling of all habitat units within a 250 or 500 m section of the reach and photo documentation. Within each habitat type (pool, riffle, glide, cascade), physical attributes were measured and recorded according to methodologies and procedures either described or referenced in Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No.8 (WRPTC 1996a).

Fisheries surveys were conducted using a Smith-Root Type X11 electrofisher and/or setting out baited Gee-traps. Evaluations were conducted for fish presence/absence, distribution, and relative abundance. Captured fish were identified to species, the fork-length=s measured and immediately released. Location of capture and habitat type, including instream cover determinations, were recorded.

Maps were prepared, at 1:50,000 scale, showing the current understanding of fish distributions in the watershed based on this and previous studies (Frith et al. 1998).

Ratings for percent pool habitat and pool frequency (spacing) for each reach were based on gradients less than 5% and bankfull widths less than 15 m. These are the most common gradients and stream widths for reaches where habitat rehabilitation projects are recommended. Accordingly, a poor rating was given if percent pool was less than 30%, a fair rating was given if less than or equal to 40%, and good rating was given if greater than 40%. Similarly, for pool frequency, a poor rating was given if the number of bankfull widths between pools was greater than 4, a fair rating was given if less than or equal to 4, and good rating was given if less than 2.

Circular No. 8 (WRPTC 1996a) uses the simple criteria of residual pool depth greater than 1 m to define a Agood@ holding pool for adult fish. However, this ignores the importance of overhead cover within the pool for creating good fish holding habitat. To account for the inter-relationship between pool depth and cover, the number of deep pools (holding pool) were identified using the following criterion:

deep pool, if (maximum depth x overhead cover >= 30),

where overhead cover includes LWD, boulder, cutbank and overhanging vegetation. Maximum depth was measured during summer low flows. This diagnostic was developed to better reflect the interaction of cover and pool depth in providing suitable habitat to adult salmonids. It is based on observations by the authors, within Vancouver Island streams, of numerous pools that had greater than 1.0 m depth, no cover and no utilization by adult salmonids (or juvenile fish for that matter). Conversely, there are also numerous examples of pools with less than 1.0 m depth, abundant cover (e.g., cutbanks) and adults present. According to Hunter (1991), a depth of 0.15 m is sufficient as a minimum in providing pool cover for trout.

The diagnostic value of 30 results in inclusion of roughly 30% of all pools within the project area as suitable for adult holding. On one hand, you may have a 3 m deep pool with 10% overhead cover and on the other hand, you may have a 0.5 m deep pool with 60% cover. Each would rate as a good holding pool. Note that there are very few primary pools with depths less than 0.5 m; this is because residual depth must be greater than 0.4 m in channels 2.5 m wide for a pool to be classified (WRPTC 1996a). Note that if pool depth is measured outside of the summer low flow period, then residual pool depth may be a more appropriate measure.

The diagnostic value used to assess adequacy of adult holding pools within a reach was then the total number of deep pools per 1000 m of stream within each reach. A rating of poor was given if the number of deep pools as defined above was less than 1 per 1000 m of stream, a rating of fair was given if greater than or equal to 1, but less than or equal to 2, and a rating of good was given if greater than 2.

Spawning gravel quantity was calculated as 100% of the stream wetted area with available gravels (2-64 mm) plus 10% of the stream wetted area with available cobbles (64-256 mm) times the wetted area of the reach. Gravel quantity was rated as poor if the spawning area was less than 10% of the wetted total area, fair if greater than or equal to 10%, but less than or equal to 25%, and good if greater than 25%.

Spawning gravel quality was coded as high, medium or low based on the degree of compaction and embeddedness (percent fines). Loose and clean substrates (fines < 25%) providing excellent spawning opportunity received a rating of high (H); while, compact and embedded substrates (fines > 50%) received a ranking of low (L). A medium ranking (M) refers to embedded, loose gravel (25% < fines < 50%).

Off-channel habitat was rated as good if there was more than 1 off-channel area (of any type), fair if there was only 1 off-channel area, and poor if no off-channel areas were present. Note that this diagnostic as currently defined in WRPTC 1996a, does not account for the amount of off-channel habitat (i.e., length). However, for an off-channel area to be included, it had to be considered, in the opinion of the field biologist, as important habitat. Minimum length or area was not considered.

As a way to allow the fisheries biologist to make an independent assessment of the riparian area (independent of the riparian specialist), the following assessment of riparian condition was made. This was done with two primary riparian functions in mind: 1) bank stability, and 2) future LWD supply. This cursory riparian assessment is meant to augment future Level 1 Riparian Assessments by a riparian specialist and not replace it.

Dominant and sub-dominant trees, herbs, and shrubs were identified to species within a 20 m strip on either side of the bankfull channel width. We noted whether the distribution of tree species of LWD value was uniform and abundant or clumped and sparse. In some locations, tree spacing was quantified.

Our riparian assessment focussed on two primary functions: bank stability and LWD input to the stream. Each of these riparian functions was given a ranking of low, medium or high. Bank stability was evaluated using the vegetation species and their stabilizing influence on the stream bank. A high ranking was assigned if few or no conifer species were present, while a low rating was assigned if bank vegetation was dominated by coniferous trees. A medium ranking indicated a mixture of coniferous and deciduous species. The rationale for this is that, in general, conifer species have larger root masses and, hence, provide greater bank stability.

It is important to note that a high impact rating for bank stability does not necessarily mean that there is significant bank erosion. Bank erosion is the result of a number of factors including bank stability, channel type, channel width, surficial geology, and discharge regime. Hence, the rating for bank stability here is an indication of the potential for bank erosion.

LWD was assessed using the number of woody stems per hectare. A high ranking was given to those areas with less than 50 stems per ha, while a low rating alludes to areas with greater than 100 stems per hectare. A moderate rating refers to areas with 50 to 100 stems per hectare.

Rehabilitation methods and procedures are described in several sources in the literature. The most frequently used references in this study include: Adams and Whyte (1990), Hunter (1991), Newbury and Gaboury (1993), Watershed Restoration Program Technical Circular No.6 (WRPTC 1996b), and Watershed Restoration Program Technical Circular No. 9 (WRPTC 1996c).

3.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The following section provides a detailed fish habitat condition assessment of selected reaches in the Big, Gaspard, Little Gaspard, and West Churn watersheds. As a companion to this document, the reader is referred to the air photo mosaics which were part of the Overview Assessment (Frith et al. 1998).

As a result of the draft overview assessment (Frith et al. 1998), 7 reaches in the Big Creek mainstem (Reaches 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28 and 32) were assigned a medium or high priority for Level 1 Assessment. Our survey concentrated on these reaches, with a fish-use survey conducted on low priority Reaches 20 - 22. Habitat surveys in Mons Creek were conducted in Reaches 1 - 4, and in areas of cutblocks or road crossings. Twinflower Creek was assessed in Reaches 2, 3, 5 and 6 which received a medium or high priority from the overview. Although identified for further assessment in the Overview, Rushes Lake Creek was not surveyed in detail as it is a man-made channel constructed by Ducks Unlimited (Brian Chapman, pers. comm. 1998). A total of 11 reaches in Bambrick Creek received a high or medium priority. All of these reaches were assessed with the exception of Reach 13 because of difficult access. Cooper Creek, Reaches 1, 3, 4 and 6 were assessed.

Table 1 contains fish capture data obtained for the Big Creek watershed. Rainbow trout juveniles were the only species captured throughout the watershed.

Rainbow trout abundances were highest in the Bambrick Creek system, with up to 100 juveniles observed in a pool in Reach 11 (Table 1). A great deal of this creek was dewatering at the time of the survey, and fish were concentrated in pools. There was only 1 fish captured in Cooper Creek, and this stream seemed to have very low habitat value. Captures in Twinflower Creek were relatively low, with the highest abundance of Rainbow trout just upstream of the road crossing in Reach 5. No fish were captured in the upper beaver ponds in Reach 6. The highest abundance of Rainbow trout in Mons Creek was in the lower portion of Reach 1 (20; Table 1), no fish were captured in the upper reaches. Fish captures in the Big Creek mainstem were relatively low with the exception of a riffle in Reach 19, where over 50 Rainbow trout juveniles were observed (Table 1). Off-channel and side channel habitat seems to be important in this system, as captures were higher in these areas than in the mainstem.

Table 2 summarizes the current understanding of distributions of fish species within the watershed. This is similar to what was reported in the Overview Assessment (Frith et al. 1998), supported by the results of the Level 1 Assessment. The Level 1 Assessment confirmed what were formerly suspected - the presence of rainbow trout in the following 12 Reaches: Big 19, 21, 23 and 32; Bambrick 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12; Twinflower 4; and Mons 1.

Supplementary fish distribution information may be found in 3 inventory reports of the Big Creek watershed conducted by Triton Environmental Consultants (1997). These reports indicate Rainbow trout in Big Creek (Reaches 1 and 26), Bambrick Creek (Reaches 2, 5, 11, and 14), and Twinflower Creek (Reaches 5 and 6).

Habitat assessment results are provided in Table 3. Tables 4 through 7 contain summaries of important habitat features and Table 8 contains a diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition. The following sections describe the condition of stream habitat for specific reaches in the Big Creek watershed. The majority of the reaches assessed were of riffle-pool habitat type, which are typically important for incubation, juvenile rearing and spawning. In this habitat type, LWD plays a major role for trapping gravel, forming pools and providing cover (WRPTC 1997).

Reach 18 in the Big Creek mainstem is located approximately 28 km upstream from the mouth of Big Creek and extends for 4 km upstream. A 250 m section was surveyed between the 1500 to 1750 m mark and another 250 m section between the 2950 and 3100 m mark (Appendix A: Plates 1 - 3). Mean gradient is calculated at 0.5% and channel type is RPgw throughout. There are no logging cutblocks located in this reach, but there has been a large portion of land cleared for agriculture next to the stream on the north side. Channel disturbance indicators include mid-channel bars and eroding banks. Wetted width in this reach ranged between 10 and 21 m, while mean bankfull width was 31 m.

The dominant habitat type in this reach is riffle (55%), followed by glide (28%) and pool (17%). Substrate includes fines (23%), gravel (36%), cobble (34%) and boulder (7%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (3086 m²) and quality were rated as good (Table 8). Deep pool cover is the major source of instream cover in this section (21%), followed by LWD cover (16%), and boulder cover (9%; Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (17%) was rated as poor, while pool frequency (1 per 3 bw) and number of deep pools for adult holding (2 per 1000 m of stream) was rated as fair (Table 8). Number of functional pieces of LWD (32; Table 6), is considered inadequate (WRPTC 1997). The role of LWD is considered important in this type of channel for creating pools, cover and trapping gravel (WRPTC, 1997). Although there were no off-channel rearing sites in this section, there is one very large off-channel lake just downstream that offers excellent rearing and overwintering conditions for juvenile trout. Access to this lake is poor during low water conditions, but good during high water.

A major side channel is located between the 2900 and 3100 m marks and is approximately 600 m in length (Appendix A: Plates 4 - 5). Mean gradient is calculated at 0.5% and channel type is RPgw throughout. Channel disturbances include mid-channel bars and eroding banks. Wetted width in this section ranged between 6 and 10 m, while mean bankfull width was 16 m. The upper 250 m of this channel was surveyed. Access into the upstream end of this channel is blocked off by small woody debris.

This section consists of mainly glide habitat (72%; Table 4), with fines (44%), gravel (29%), and cobble substrate (24%;Table 7). Although gravel quantity is rated as good (620 m²), the high content of fines (44%) makes this substrate only fair quality for spawning and incubation purposes (Table 8). The only main source of cover in this section was instream plant cover (30%;Table 5). The percentage pools (15%), pool frequency (1 per 16 bw), wood cover in pools (0%) and the number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) all received a poor rating. There was a complete lack of LWD in the surveyed portion of the side channel (Table 6), which is typically important for creation of pools, cover and trapping of gravel in this type of channel (WRPTC, 1997).

Reach 19 begins approximately 32 km upstream from the mouth of Big Creek and 400 m downstream of a main road crossing (Appendix A: Plates 6 - 7). The reach extends 4,860 m upstream with a mean gradient of 0.5%. There are several logging cutblocks located on the south side of the creek and encroachment of old logging roads has resulted in some major bank erosion. Channel type is RPgw and channel disturbances include mid-channel bars, and major bank erosion adjacent to an old logging road. Wetted widths in this section ranged between 12 and 33 m, while mean bankfull width was 30 m. A 500 m section was surveyed between the 2000 and 2500 m mark.

This section was dominated by riffle habitat (80%; Table 4), with an equal mixture of fines (23%), gravel (29%), cobble (26%) and boulder substrate (22%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (3187 m²) and quality were considered good (Table 8). Total percent instream cover was highest in pool habitat types (74%) with LWD (16%), and deep pool (58%) the major sources of instream cover (Table 5). Boulder cover was also significant in riffles (25%). The percentage of pools (7%) and pool frequency (1 per 6 bw) were rated as poor while the number of adult holding pools was rated as good (4 per 1000 m of stream). This is a reflection of an inadequate number of functional pieces of LWD (5; Table 6). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing is also absent from this section (Table 8).

Reach 23 is located approximately 43.5 km upstream from the mouth of Big Creek and 600 m upstream from a main road crossing (Appendix A: Plates 8 - 9). There are no logging cutblocks adjacent to the stream in this reach, but most of the land in the riparian zone has been cleared for agricultural use. The reach extends for 7 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.4%. The main channel disturbances were eroding banks and mid-channel bars. A 500 m section of this reach was sampled at the start of this reach. Channel type is RPgw with wetted widths in this section ranging between 7 and 22 m. Mean bankfull width was 49 m.

Habitat in this reach is mainly riffle (58%) and glide (40%; Table 4), with predominately gravel (37%) and cobble substrate (43%; Table 7). Deep pool (7%) provides the greatest source of instream cover in this reach (Table 5). The diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition revealed that this section has good gravel quality and quantity (3237 m²). The percentage of pools (2%), pool frequency (1 per 10 bw), and number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream)are all rated as poor (Table 8). Poor pool attributes are a reflection of an inadequate number of functional pieces of LWD (3; WRPTC 1997). Off-channel rearing habitat in this section is good with a large channel located 50 m downstream from the start of this section (500 m length), and a side channel (150 m length) at the 250 m mark.

Reach 24 is located approximately 50 km upstream from the mouth of Big Creek (Appendix A: Plates 10 - 11). Mean gradient is 0.6% and channel type is RPgw. A 500 m section was surveyed between the 1000 and 1500 m marks. There are no logging cutblocks adjacent to the stream in this reach, but most of the land in the riparian zone has been cleared for agricultural use. Channel disturbances include mid-channel bars, eroding banks and low frequency of pools. Wetted widths ranged between 20 and 33 m, while mean bankfull width was 30 m.

Habitat in this reach is riffle (54%) and glide (46%) with fine (19%), gravel (33%), cobble (31%) and boulder (17%) substrate (Table 7). Both gravel quantity (4379 m²) and quality are rated as good (Table 8). Juvenile rearing cover was relatively low and provided solely by boulders in riffle and glide habitat (13%;Table 5). The surveyed portion of this reach had a total lack of pools (0%), off channel habitat and is wood deficient (0 pieces; Table 6).

Reach 26 is located approximately 53 km upstream from the mouth of Big Creek and 10 km upstream from the mouth of Bambrick Creek (Appendix A: Plates 12 - 14). The reach extends for 5.7 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.6%. With the exception of a few small areas that have been cleared for agricultural use, the riparian zone in this reach is intact. Channel type is RPgw and channel disturbances include mid-channel bars, eroding banks, scour and low frequency of pools. A 500 m section was surveyed between the 800 and 1300 m marks and another 500 m section between the 2500 and 3000 m marks.

Habitat in this reach is riffle (47%) and glide (53%; Table 4), with fine (14%), gravel (32%), cobble (36%) and boulder (20%) substrate (Table 7). Both gravel quantity (6926 m²) and gravel quality were rated as good (Table 8). The major source of instream cover is provided by boulders (21%; Table 5). A diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition (Table 8) revealed that the surveyed portion of Reach 26 has a poor percentage of pools (0%), pool frequency and number of holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream). The reach also lacks off-channel habitat and is wood deficient (Table 8).

Reach 28 is located approximately 60 km upstream from the mouth of Big Creek and extends for 2.6 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.8% to a point 1.5 km upstream from the mouth of Cooper Creek (Appendix A: Plates 15 - 16). There is one large cutblock that intrudes into the riparian zone. This cutblock is located in the upper portion of this reach and extensive land clearing for agriculture near Cooper Creek. Channel type is RPgw and channel disturbances include eroding banks and mid-channel bars. A 540 m section of this reach was surveyed from approximately 100 m downstream of the mouth of Cooper Creek (1100 m mark) to 440 m upstream of the mouth (1640 m mark).

Habitat in this reach is mainly riffle (40%) and glide (55%; Table 4) with predominately gravel (35%) and cobble substrate (39%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (6071 m²) and quality were rated as good (Table 8). Total percent instream cover was highest in pool habitats, with boulder (27%) being the major source of instream cover (Table 5). A diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition revealed that the surveyed portion of Reach 28 has a poor percentage of pools (5%), poor pool frequency (1 per 11 bw), and a fair number of deep pools (1.6 per 1000 m of stream) for adult holding (Table 8). There was a total lack of LWD in this section, which is typically important for trapping gravel, creating pools and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC 1997). There is a series of small ponds near the 1300 m that could provide good rearing; however, access is poor (Table 8).

Reach 32 is located in the upper portion of the watershed approximately 65 km upstream of the mouth of Big Creek (Appendix A: Plates 17 - 18). The reach extends approximately 700 m upstream at a mean gradient of 0.7%. There are no logging cutblocks within the riparian zone in this reach, but a large portion has been cleared next to the stream on the south side for agricultural use. Channel type is RPgw with eroding banks and mid-channel bars as channel disturbances. The lower 500 m of this reach was surveyed.

Habitat in this reach is predominately riffle (59%) and glide (33%; Table 4), with mainly gravel (27%) and cobble (33%) substrate. Both gravel quantity (3188 m²) and quality were rated as good (Table 8). Total percent instream cover was highest in pool habitats (83%). Deep pool is the major source of instream cover (71%) followed by boulder cover (12%;Table 5). The overall percent pools (8%)and pool frequency (1 per 9 bw) were rated as poor, while percent deep pools for adult holding (2 per 1000 m of stream) was rated as fair. Again the poor pool attributes for this reach are a reflection of the number of functional pieces of LWD (3; Table 6), which is considered inadequate for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). There is a large side channel located at the start of the reach that extends for approximately 500 m upstream, which only provides fair rearing because of the lack of pools and cover. Only a few Rainbow trout were observed using this channel at the time of the survey. Another large side channel that extends from the start of the reach toward the road offers poor rearing because of stagnant water conditions. No fish were captured in this channel at the time of the survey.

Cooper Creek flows into Big Creek approximately 61 km upstream of the mouth of Big Creek at the 1100 m mark of Reach 28 (Appendix A: Plate 19). There are no logging cutblocks within the riparian zone, but a large portion of the land has been cleared next to the stream for agricultural land use. This reach extends for approximately 2.5 km upstream at a mean gradient of 1.4%. A 250 m section of this reach was surveyed upstream of the 360 m mark and another 250 m section upstream of the 700 m mark. Channel type is RPgw and the main channel disturbance is areas of fine sediment throughout.

This reach is predominately glide (67%; Table 4) habitat with fine (56%), gravel (20%), cobble (14%) and boulder substrate (10%; Table 7). Although gravel quantity is considered fair (348 m²), quality is poor because of the high percentage of fines. Total percent instream cover was highest in riffle habitats (18%). Boulder is the major source of instream cover (Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (9%), pool frequency (1 per 81 bw) and number of adult holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) were all rated as poor (Table 8). There was a total lack of LWD in the surveyed portion of this reach which is typically important for trapping gravel, creating pools and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC, 1997). There was also a lack of off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing and overwintering in this reach.

Reach 3 is located approximately 3.4 km upstream of the mouth of Cooper Creek (Appendix A: Plates 20 - 21). Channel type is RPgw and channel disturbance is caused by areas of fine sediment throughout. The reach extends at a mean gradient of 0.4%, 2.2 km upstream to an old road crossing. The majority of this reach falls within agricultural land and only a small portion has an intact riparian zone. A 400 m section of this reach was surveyed between the 900 and 1300 m marks.

This reach is mainly pool (52%) and riffle (38%; Table 4) with fine (51%), gravel (19%), cobble (15%) and boulder (15%) substrate (Table 7). Gravel quantity (318 m²) is rated as fair, while quality is rated as poor because of the high content of fines (51%;Table 7). Instream cover was highest in pools (67%) with deep pool (49%) being the dominant element (Table 5). The percentage of pools (52%) was rated as good while pool frequency was poor (1 per 12 bw) and the number of holding pools (5 per 1000 m of stream) received a fair rating. The number of functional pieces of LWD (6; Table 6) for creating pools and providing cover in this length of stream is considered inadequate (WRPTC 1997). There was also a lack of off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing (Table 8).

Reach 4 is located approximately 5.6 km upstream from the mouth of Cooper Creek and extends 600 m at a mean gradient of 0.5% (Appendix A: Plates 22- 23). Although no logging cutblocks are located in the riparian zone of this reach, the old logging road infringes on the channel. Channel type is RPgw and channel disturbances include areas of fine sediment throughout and an old road crossing. The lower 400 m of this reach was surveyed.

Habitat is predominately glide (53%), followed by riffle (26%) and pool (21%). Substrate is fines (35%), gravel (13%), cobble (28%), and boulder (24%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity and quality were rated as fair for spawning, incubation and rearing purposes (Table 8). Total percent instream cover was highest in riffle habitat types (56%) with boulder (33%) being the major source of instream cover (Table 5). Percentage of pools (21%), and pool frequency (1 per 14 bw) were rated as poor, while number of adult holding pools (7.5 per 1000 m of stream) was rated as good. The number of functional pieces of LWD (10; Table 6) was considered inadequate for creating pools and providing cover in the length of this section (WRPTC 1997).

Reach 6 is located approximately 10 km upstream of the confluence with Big Creek (Appendix A: Plates 24 - 25). The reach extends for 2.4 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.5%. There are no logging cutblocks located in the riparian zone of this reach, but there is a main crossing by a logging road at the top of the reach. Wetted width in this section ranged between 3 and 8 m, while mean bankfull width was 6 m (Table 3). A 174 m section of this reach was surveyed at the top end of this reach.

Habitat is predominately glide (54%) and pool (38%; Table 4) with fine (44%) gravel (18%), cobble (18%) and boulder substrate (20%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (135 m²) and quality is considered fair (Table 8). A diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition revealed that Reach 6 has a fair percentage of pools (38%), poor pool frequency (1 in 9 bw), and poor number of holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream). There was a total lack of LWD which is typically important for trapping gravel, creating pools and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing was also absent from this reach.

Reach 7 is located just upstream of the lower road crossing and extends 400 m upstream to the top of the sample site with a RPgw channel type (Appendix A: Plate 26). The reach consists of entirely agricultural land with no tree species present in the riparian zone. The major evidence of channel disturbance was high concentrations of fines throughout. Wetted width in this section ranged between 3 and 8 m, while mean bankfull width was 9 m (Table 3). Only 75 m of this reach was surveyed, as it was a uniform agricultural section.

Habitat is predominately glide (73%; Table 4), with mainly fines (49%), and boulder substrate (35%; Table 7). The small amount of gravel present (34 m²) was rated as fair quality (Table 8). Juvenile rearing cover was provided by boulder across all habitat types (28%;Table 5). The percentage of pools (21%), pool frequency (1 in 8 bw) and the number of holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) all rated as poor (Table 8). There was a total lack of LWD and off-channel habitat in the surveyed portion of this reach (Table 8.).

Bambrick Creek enters Big Creek just upstream of the start of Reach 23 (Appendix A: Plates 27 - 28). The reach is of RPgw channel type, 1260 m long, and has a mean gradient of 0.8%. There are no logging cutblocks adjacent to the stream in this reach, but most of the land in the riparian zone has been cleared for agricultural use. The main channel impacts in this reach were sediment accumulation, eroding banks and mid-channel bars. Wetted width in this section ranged between 2 and 5 m, while mean bankfull width was 7 m. A 250 m section was surveyed above the 400 m mark.

Habitat is predominately glide (81%; Table 4), with an equal mixture of fines (29%), gravel (41%) and cobble (26%; Table 7). The major source of instream cover is provided by deep pool (14%; Table 5). The percentage of pools (12%), pool frequency (1 in 7 bw), and number of holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) were all rated as poor. The overall number of functional pieces of LWD (21; Table 6) is considered inadequate in creating pools and cover for this reach (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing and overwintering is also lacking in this section.

Reach 2 is located 1.2 km upstream of the mouth of Bambrick Creek and extends 1 km upstream to the main road crossing at a mean gradient of 1% (Appendix A: Plates 29 - 30). All logging cutblocks are well removed from the channel in this reach and there does not seem to be much agricultural use. However, channel disturbances are still evident and include sediment wedges, bank erosion and the road crossing. Wetted width in this section ranged between 3 and 5 m, while mean bankfull width was 7 m (Table 3). A 190 m section was surveyed at the top of this reach to the road crossing.

Habitat is predominately glide (64%; Table 4) with mainly fine (48%) and gravel substrate (30%, Table 7). Gravel quantity (250 m²) and quality in this section is rated as fair (Table 8). Total percent instream cover was highest in pool habitats (37%), with LWD (22%) and boulder (14%) being the major source of instream cover (Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (20%), and pool frequency (1 in 7 bw) were rated as poor, while the number of holding pools (5.3 per 1000 m of stream) were rated as fair. The number of functional pieces of LWD (43; Table 6) is considered inadequate for creating pools and cover in this reach (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing is also lacking in this section.

Reach 5 is located 6.5 km upstream from the mouth and extends for 3.2 km with a mean gradient of 0.8% and a RPgw channel type (Appendix A: Plates 31 - 33). There are no logging cutblocks within the riparian zone, but a large portion of the land has been cleared next to the stream for agricultural land use. Wetted width in the wetted portion of this reach ranged between 2 and 8 m, while mean bankfull width was 7 m (Table 3). A total of three 250 m sections were surveyed in this reach; only the section at the 600 m mark was wetted, the other 2 sections (2000 and 2950 m marks) were completely dewatered. An irrigation channel has been dug at the top end of this reach which is capable of diverting a large portion of flow from the main channel.

Habitat in the wetted portion of this reach is predominately glide (78%; Table 4), with fine (59%) and gravel substrate (38%; Table 7). Although gravel quantity (374 m²) is considered good, quality is only fair because of the high percentage of fines (Table 8). Instream cover was provided by undercut banks across all habitat types (11%; Table 5). The percent pools (21%), pool frequency (1 per 5 bw), deep pools for holding (0 per 1000 m of stream), and percent wood cover (2%) in pools were rated as poor. There was inadequate number (5; Table 6) of pieces of functional LWD (WRPTC 1997), which are typically important for trapping gravel, forming pools and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC 1997).

Bambrick Creek, Reach 6

Reach 6 is located 9.7 km upstream of the confluence of Bambrick Creek with Big Creek (Appendix A: Plate 34). The channel extends 2.4 km upstream at an average gradient of 0.5% and is RPgw channel type. There are no logging cutblocks within the riparian zone of this reach, but a large portion of the land has been cleared next to the stream for agricultural land use. Major channel disturbances in this reach include eroding banks, formation of mid channel bars and multiple channels of flow. Wetted width in this section ranged between 1 and 5 m, while mean bankfull width was 8 m (Table 3). A 500 m section of stream was surveyed upstream of the 1250 m mark.

This reach is predominately glide (71%;Table 4 ) with fine (34%), gravel (37%), and cobble substrate (26%; Table 7). Although the overall quantity of gravel (629 m²) is considered good, quality is only fair because the high fine content makes this substrate marginal for spawning and incubation purposes (Table 8). Instream cover was highest in glide (19%), pool (12%) and then riffle habitat (7%) with LWD being the dominant element (Table 5). The percentage pool (28%) was rated as poor, pool frequency (1 per 3.5 bw) was fair, and the number of holding pools (4 per 1000 m of stream) was rated as good. There is one small side channel (20 m) at the 1630 m mark that provides fair off-channel rearing. The number of functional pieces of LWD (77; Table 6) was considered inadequate for creating pools and cover (WRPTC 1997).

Reach 7 is located approximately 12 km upstream of the confluence with Big Creek (Appendix A: Plates 35 - 36). The reach is RPcw channel type and extends for 1.4 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.7%. There are no logging cutblocks within the riparian zone of this reach, but a large portion of the land has been cleared next to the stream for agricultural land use. Channel disturbances include eroding banks, mid-channel bars, sediment wedges and multiple channels of flow. A 250 m section of stream was surveyed upstream of the 350 m mark. Wetted widths in this section ranged between 1 and 5 m, while mean bankfull width was 8 m.

This reach is primarily glide (46%) and pool habitat (47%; Table 4) with fine (43%) and gravel substrate (51%; Table 7). Gravel quantity (394 m²) in this section is rated as good, however, quality is poor for incubation, rearing and spawning because of the high content of fines (43%; Table 7). Instream cover is highest in pool habitat (27%) with LWD and cutbank the dominant cover elements. Pool attributes in this reach are rated as fair or good. However the number of functional pieces of LWD (30; Table 6) is considered inadequate for the length of stream (Table 8). There is one small side channel (30 m) at the 475 m mark that provides fair off-channel rearing habitat.

Reach 8 is located 13.4 km upstream of the confluence with Big Creek (Appendix A: Plates 37 - 38). The reach is of RPgw channel type and extends 2.6 km upstream at a mean gradient of 1.8%. There are no logging cutblocks within the riparian zone of this reach, but a large portion of the land has been cleared next to the stream for agricultural land use. A 250 m section of stream was surveyed upstream of the 200 m mark and another 250 m section upstream of the 1700 m mark. Wetted width in these sections ranged between 1 and 8 m, while mean bankfull width was 9 m (Table 3). Channel disturbance indicators include eroding banks, mid-channel bars, and sediment wedges.

This reach is dominated by glide (53%) and pool habitat (46%; Table 4) with mainly fine (41%), gravel ( 36%), and cobble substrate (21%; Table 7). Substrate is rated as fair quality for incubation and spawning purposes (Table 8). Instream cover was provided predominately by LWD (11%) and cutbank (7%; Table 5). The diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition revealed that Reach 8 has fair or good pool attributes (Table 8). The number of functional pieces of LWD (59; Table 6) is considered inadequate for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). There is a small side channel at the 291 m mark that provides fair off-channel rearing.

Reach 9 is located 16 km upstream of the confluence with Big Creek (Appendix A: Plate 39). The reach extends for 780 m upstream at a mean gradient of 2.6%. There are no logging cutblocks within the riparian zone of this reach, but a large portion of the land has been cleared next to the stream for agricultural land use. Channel type is RPgw with wetted widths ranging between 2 and 4 m. Mean bankfull width was 7 m. The surveyed portion (250 m) was located at the start of the reach. At the time of the survey, the upper 400 m of this reach was dewatered.

Habitat in this reach is mainly glide (66%) and pool (24%; Table 4), with primarily fine (24%), gravel (35%) and cobble substrate (27%; Table 7). Juvenile rearing cover is provided by boulder (9%), and undercut banks (10%;Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (24%), frequency of pools (1 per 9 bw), and number of adult holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) all received a poor rating. The number of functional pieces of LWD (2; Table 6 ) is considered inadequate (WRPTC 1997); typically, these are important for trapping sediment, creating pools, and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC 1997).

Reach 10 is located 16.8 km upstream from the confluence with Big Creek and extends for 1300 m upstream at a mean gradient of 1.5% (Appendix A: Plates 40 - 41). There are no logging cutblocks within the riparian zone of this reach, and minimal agricultural land use. At the time of the survey, the lower 700 m of this reach was dewatered. Channel type is RPgw with some major channel disturbances including eroding banks, sediment wedges, mid channel bars, low frequency of pools and multiple channels. A large beaver dam near the 500 m mark is a possible barrier to migration. A 500 m section of stream was surveyed from the 500 m mark upstream, the lower 200 m of which was dewatered. The lower 200 m is a large dried up beaver pond with a bankfull width of 30 m. Wetted width above this point ranged between 1 and 3 m, while mean bankfull width was 7 m (Table 3).

The wetted portion of this reach is predominately one long glide (88%), with an equal mixture of fines (32%), gravel (31%) and cobble substrate (24%; Table 7). Juvenile rearing cover was provided mainly by boulder (13%) and undercut banks (10%;Table 5). The percent pool (8%), pool frequency (1 per 14 bw) and number of deep pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) with adequate cover is rated as poor. Poor pool attributes in this reach may be a result of a lack of LWD (18; Table 6), which is considered inadequate for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). There is also a lack of off-channel rearing in the surveyed portion of this reach.

Reach 11 is located approximately 18 km upstream of the confluence with Big Creek and extends 1.6 km upstream at a mean gradient of 1.3% (Appendix A: Plate 42). Logging and encroachment of logging roads has impacted the channel in this reach. Channel disturbance includes eroding banks, mid-channel bars and a large log jam at the 150 m mark. The channel type in this reach is RPgw with wetted width in the surveyed portion of this reach ranging between 2 and 4 m. Mean bankfull width was 8 m (Table 3).

This reach consists of one continuous glide (94%;Table 4) with an equal mixture of fines (24%), gravel (29%), cobble (24%) and boulder (23%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (314 m²) and quality in this section were rated as good (Table 8). Boulder (13%) is the main source of instream cover in this reach followed by LWD (15%; Table 5). The percentage of pools (6%), pool frequency (1 per 16 bw), and the number of holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) were rated as poor habitat attributes. Lack of pool structure in this reach is a reflection of the lack of functional pieces of LWD (7; Table 6) and infilling of pools from aggradation. There was also a lack of off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing in this reach (Table 8).

Reach 12 is located approximately 19.6 km upstream and extends 2 km upstream from the confluence with Big Creek, at a mean gradient of 1% (Appendix A: Plate 43). Logging and encroachment of logging roads has impacted the channel in this reach. Channel type is RPgw with eroding banks as the main channel disturbance. A 250 m section of stream was surveyed upstream of the 650 m mark. Wetted width in this section ranged between 2 and 5 m, while mean bankfull width was 9 m (Table 3).

This reach consists of almost entirely glide habitat (93%; Table 4), with an equal mixture of fines (25%), gravel (26%), cobble (25%) and boulder substrate (24%; Table 7). Instream cover was comprised of boulder (15%) and undercut banks (8%;Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (8%), pool frequency (1 per 9 bw) and adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) all rated as poor (Table 8.). There was a lack of LWD which is typically important for pool formation, trapping gravel and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat was also lacking in this section.

Twinflower Creek is a tributary to Big Creek which enters at approximately the 2000 m mark of Reach 18 of Big Creek (Appendix A: Plate 44). This reach extends for 800 m upstream at a mean gradient of 1% and is of RPgw channel type. Wetted width in this reach ranged between 2 and 15 m. Mean bankfull width was 12 m (Table 3). The main channel disturbance indicator in the surveyed portion of this reach was an old beaver dam and accumulation of fine sediment. There are no logging cutblocks located in this reach, but there is a logging road crossing at the top of the reach. The upper 154 m of this reach was sampled completely.

The surveyed portion of this reach is comprised entirely of pool habitat (99%; Table 4) with fine substrate (98%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity and quality in this section is rated as poor because of the high content of fines (Table 8). Instream cover was comprised entirely of LWD (11%). The number of functional pieces of LWD (14; Table 6) is considered inadequate for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). Although off-channel rearing is absent from this section, mainstem rearing in the large pools is good.

Reach 2 is located approximately 8 km upstream of the confluence with Big Creek and extends for 2 km upstream at a mean gradient of 1.6% (Appendix A: Plates 45 - 46). The entire reach runs through agricultural land and has been heavily impacted. Major channel disturbances include bank erosion, areas of fines, mid-channel bars and a low frequency of pools. Channel type is RPgw and wetted width in this reach ranged between 1 and 2.5 m. Mean bankfull width was 5 m (Table 3). The lower 100 m of this reach and a 500 m section upstream of the 700 m mark was surveyed.

This reach is comprised of almost entirely glide habitat (98%; Table 4), with mainly fine (41%) and gravel substrate (45%; Table 7). Although gravel quantity (528 m²) is rated as good, quality is only fair because of the high content of fines (Table 8). Instream cover was provided by LWD (15%;Table 5). The percentage of pools (2%), pool frequency (1 per 128 bw) and number of holding pools for adults (0 per 1000 m of stream) all rated as poor (Table 8). The number of pieces of LWD (10; Table 6) was considered inadequate for the length of stream surveyed (WRPTC 1997). There was also a lack of off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing in this section.

Reach 3 is located approximately 10 km upstream of the mouth of Twinflower Creek and extends for 2.8 km upstream at a gradient of 3% to a large beaver pond (Reach 4) (Appendix A: Plate 47 - 48). The main channel impacts in this reach are logging related and located in the upper 300 m of the reach. The riparian zone in this area has been logged to the streambanks. Channel type is RPgw throughout and channel disturbances include bank erosion, low frequency of pools and multiple channels of flow. Wetted width in the surveyed portion of the reach ranged between 1 and 4 m. Mean bankfull width was 8 m (Table 3). This reach was surveyed completely for all habitat units for 250 m upstream of the 2150 m mark and 250 m upstream of the 2550 m mark.

Habitat in this reach is comprised mainly of riffle (63%) and glide (29%; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mixture of fines (28%), gravel (27%), cobble (26%) and boulder (20%; Table 7). Gravel quantity (410 m²) was rated as good, while quality is rated as fair for spawning, incubation and rearing purposes. The total percent instream cover was highest in riffle habitat with LWD (34%) and boulder (22%) being the major sources of cover (Table 5). The percentage of pools (9%), and pool frequency (1 per 12 bw) were rated as poor (Table 8). There was an inadequate number of functional pieces of LWD (23; Table 6) in this reach to form pools and provide cover (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing in this reach was rated as poor (Table 8).

This reach is located approximately 15 km upstream of the confluence with Big Creek and extends from the large beaver dam in Reach 4 for approximately 600 m to a barrier falls (3.5 m ht) (Appendix A: Plates 49 - 53). Above the falls the reach extends for another 1 km upstream at a mean gradient of near 1%. Cutblocks are located in the riparian zone of this reach and the main logging road crossing is located 120 m upstream of the falls at the 720 m mark. Channel type in the surveyed portion above the falls is RPgw, and channel disturbances were areas of fines, small log jams and the road crossing. Wetted width ranged between 2 and 4 m. Mean bankfull width was 4 m (Table 3). A 250 m section of stream was sampled above the falls from the 600 m mark.

Habitat in this reach was comprised mainly of glide (58%) and pool (26%;Table 4). Substrate was fines (53%), gravel (29%), cobble (7%) and boulder substrate (11%; Table 7). Although the quantity of spawning gravel (198 m²) is rated as good, quality is rated as poor because of the high content of fines. Boulder cover (20%) in riffle habitat provided the greatest source of instream cover followed by cutbank across all habitat types (13%;Table 5). A diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition revealed that Reach 5 has a poor percentage of pools (26%), pool frequency (1 per 7 bw), and number of holding pools with sufficient cover (0 per 1000 m of stream). There is also an inadequate number of functional pieces of LWD (41; Table 6) to create pools and provide cover. Off-channel habitat in this reach, for juvenile rearing is also lacking (Table 8).

Reach 6 is located approximately 1 km upstream of the main road crossing and 16.6 km upstream of the confluence with Big Creek (Appendix A: Plate 53). This reach was a series of beaver ponds which extended for 4 km upstream. The riparian zone in this reach has been heavily impacted by logging and channel disturbances included several road crossings, mid channel bars, eroding banks, areas of fines and beaver dams. Wetted widths in this reach ranged between 2 and 12 m. Mean bankfull width was 7 m (Table 3).

This reach was comprised of almost entirely pool habitat (95%;Table 4), with predominantly fine substrate (80%; Table 7). Juvenile rearing cover was provided by deep pool cover (72%;Table 5). Pool attributes in this section are rated as good. There was a total lack of LWD in the surveyed portion of this reach for providing cover. Although off-channel habitat is rated as poor, the large deep beaver ponds offer good mainstem rearing for juvenile trout.

Mons Creek flows into the upper side channel in Reach 18 of Big Creek and extends for approximately 5 km upstream to Mons Lake (Appendix A: Plates 54 - 55). Only the area above the lake was assessed. Reach 1 extends from Mons Lake approximately 2 km upstream to a large beaver pond. The lower 300 m of stream has an intact riparian zone. There has been clearing next to the stream at the logging road crossing (500 m mark) and above the road land has also been cleared next to the stream for agricultural use. Channel type is RPgw throughout and channel disturbance included eroding banks, areas of fines and small log jams. Wetted widths in this reach ranged between 1 and 4 m. Mean bankfull width was 6 m (Table 3). A 440 m section of stream was surveyed upstream of the 150 m mark. Habitat in the lower 200 m of this section is surrounded by old growth riparian.

This reach was comprised of an equal mixture of glide (54%) and pool habitat (46%; Table 4). Substrate was mainly fines (73%) and gravel (20%;Table 7). Gravel quantity (220 m²) in this section is rated as fair, while quality is poor because of the high content of fines. Juvenile rearing cover was provided by LWD (34%) in pool habitat (Table 5). With the exception of pool frequency, pool attributes are rated as good (Table 8). The number of pieces of LWD (7; Table 6) in this reach for creating pools and providing cover was considered inadequate (WRPTC 1997). Although off-channel habitat in this reach is lacking, mainstem rearing is good.

Reach 2 is a large wetland located approximately 2 km upstream from Mons Lake (Appendix A: Plate 56). Channel type is RPgw throughout and channel disturbances were beaver dams and areas of fines throughout. Mean bankfull width in this reach is 20 m. A 220 m section of this reach was surveyed from the start of this reach upstream.

Habitat in this reach was almost entirely pool habitat (99%; Table 4) with fine substrate (100%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (15 m²) and quality was considered poor. Juvenile rearing cover was provided by deep pool ( 70%; Table 5). Although there is an abundance of deep pool in this section, there is a total lack of LWD to provide cover in these pools.

Reach 3 is located in the middle portion of the watershed in proximity to two large logging cutblocks and has been heavily impacted by logging (Appendix A: Plate 57). Mean gradient is 0.5%, channel type is RPgw throughout and channel disturbances included mid channel bars, areas of fines, eroding banks, multiple channels of flow, beaver dams and small log jams. Wetted widths ranged between 1 and 4 m, above and below the large beaver pond (Table 3). Three sections in this reach were surveyed, including a 200 m section of stream below the large beaver dam, a 250 m section above the beaver dam, and a 300 m section from approximately 450 m upstream of the dam.

This reach was comprised mainly of riffle (59%) and glide habitat (38%; Table 4). Substrate was predominately gravel (23%), cobble (40%) and boulder substrate (24%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (352 m²) and quality was considered fair (Table 8). Juvenile rearing cover was provided equally across habitat types by boulder (25%), and by LWD (18%) in riffle habitat (Table 5). The percentage of pools (3%), pool frequency (1 per 10 bw), and the number of adult holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) all rated as poor (Table 8.). The number of functional pieces of LWD (16; Table 6) is considered inadequate for creating pools and providing cover in this reach (WRPTC 1997). There was also a lack of off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing in this reach (Table 8).

Reach 4 is located in the upper portion of the watershed approximately 12 km upstream of Mons Lake and is crossed by a main logging road (Appendix A: Plates 58 - 60). Mean gradient is 0.5%, and channel type is RPgw throughout. The main channel disturbance is an inadequate culvert which impedes trout passage. Wetted widths ranged between 1 and 7 m, above and below the road crossing (Table 3). A 250 m section was surveyed above and below the road crossing.

This reach was comprised mainly of riffle (42%), pool (29%) and glide habitat (29%; Table 4). Substrate is fines (33%), gravel (40%), cobble (21%) and boulder (6%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (360 m²) and quality was considered fair (Table 8). Juvenile rearing cover was provided by boulder (14%) in pools, and by cutbank in glide habitat (Table 5). The percentage of pools (29%), pool frequency (1 per 8 bw), and number of adult holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) all rated as poor (Table 8.). There was a total lack of LWD and off-channel habitat in this section of stream.

The riparian areas along fish bearing sections of the Big Creek watershed are naturally sparse because of the semi arid soil conditions. The result is a great deal of natural bank erosion in the system. Agriculture and logging impacts are also responsible for increased bank erosion. Agricultural impacts are throughout the system, while logging related impacts due to encroachment into the riparian zone are mainly due to logging roads.

Bank stability impact and LWD impact was considered high for all reaches in Bambrick and Cooper creeks with the exception of Reach 2 in Bambrick and Reach 3 in Cooper which had moderate values (Table 9). With the exception of the lower portion of Reach 5 which was considered moderate impact for bank stability and LWD, the remainder of the Twinflower Creek sub basin surveyed was considered high impact due to logging of the riparian zone. Reach 3 of Mons Creek sub basin has been heavily harvested and is considered high impact for bank stability and LWD. Values for bank stability and LWD impact ranged from moderate to high in the Big Creek mainstem. Lower Reach 18, Reach 19, and Reach 26 all had moderate values, while upper Reach 18, Reach 23, Reach 24, and Reach 28 were all considered high impact. Reach 32, alternated between areas of moderate and high impact. Only 3 of the surveyed reaches show direct logging related impacts in the riparian zone. Impacts in Reach 19 and 24 are mainly bank erosion as a result of close proximity of old logging roads; while Reach 24 and 32 have been affected by recent logging to the stream banks. However, the logging in these two reaches may have been for agricultural purposes.

3.2 Gaspard Creek

From the overview assessment (Frith et al. 1998), 10 reaches in Gaspard Creek (6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 23, 24 and 27) received either a high or medium priority for assessment. Reaches that were significantly disturbed by logging or agricultural activities, had good access and warranted rehabilitation were designated as medium or high priority. The high priority was assigned to reaches with the greatest potential for improvement of fish habitat due to their proximity to other valuable habitat (off-channel habitat, tributaries, pools). Our habitat survey concentrated on high and medium priority sites.

Table 11 contains fish capture data obtained for the Gaspard Creek watershed. Rainbow trout juveniles were the only species captured throughout the watershed. Fish captures and observations were much higher in Gaspard Creek than in Little Gaspard Creek. The highest numbers of Rainbow trout were in Reaches 23, 24 and 27 downstream of Gaspard Lake. Pools in these reaches were saturated with fish with literally hundreds of fish in a single pool and with size ranging up to 30 cm. Although fish numbers were much less in lower Reaches, 6 - 13, they are still considered relatively high.

The Level 1 Assessment confirmed that rainbow trout are indeed present in Reach 6 (formerly just suspected) (Table 12).

Habitat assessment results are provided in Table 13. Tables 14 through 17 contain summaries of important habitat features and Table 18 contains a diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition. The following sections describe the condition of stream habitat for specific reaches in the Gaspard Creek watershed. The majority of the reaches assessed were of riffle-pool habitat type.

Reach 6 is located approximately 7 km upstream from the confluence of Gaspard and Little Gaspard Creeks (Appendix A: Plates 61 - 63). The reach extends for 3 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.6%. Wetted width ranged between 3 and 10 m, while mean bankfull width was 10 m. A 850 m section of stream was surveyed from the 50 m mark upstream. A large portion of the riparian zone has been cleared for agricultural purposes and there are old logging roads that infringe and cross the channel in this reach. Channel disturbance in this reach included a road crossing, eroding banks, mid-channel bars, and a low frequency of pools.

The surveyed portion of this reach consisted of mainly glide (65%) and riffle (26%; Table 4). Substrate was fines (38%), gravel (38%), cobble (15%) and boulder (9%; Table 7). Although gravel quantity (2255 m²) is considered good, quality is only fair because of the high content of fines (Table 8). Instream cover in this reach is relatively low with boulder in riffle the main element (5%; Table 5). The percent pool (10%), pool frequency (1 per 9 bw) and number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) are all rated as poor (Table 8). There is an inadequate number of functional pieces of LWD (3; Table 6) to create pools and provide cover for this length of stream (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing was also lacking in the surveyed portion of this reach (Table 8).

Reach 8 is located approximately 14 km upstream of the confluence with Little Gaspard Creek, and extends 1.7 km upstream from Gaspard Logging Camp to the main logging road crossing. Only the upper 100 m of this reach was surveyed. Wetted width in this reach ranged between 4 and 7 m. Mean bankfull width was 16 m. Only the upper 100 m of this channel have been cleared for agricultural use and logging cutblocks are well removed from the channel. Channel disturbance in this reach includes mid-channel bars and eroding banks.

Habitat in the surveyed portion of this reach consisted of mainly glide (52%) and riffle (36%; Table 4) with predominately fine (39%) and gravel substrate (52%; Table 7). Gravel quantity (267 m²) in this section is considered good, while quality is only rated as fair for spawning, incubation, and rearing purposes because of the high content of fines (Table 8). The total percent instream cover was highest in pool habitats (20%), with deep pool being the major source of instream cover (Table 5). The percent pools (13%), pool frequency (1 per 6 bw), and adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) are all rated as poor. There was a total lack of LWD to create pools and provide cover in this section. Off-channel habitat is widespread below this section (Table 8.).

Reach 9 is located 15.4 km upstream of the confluence with Little Gaspard Creek at the main logging road crossing (Appendix A: Plate 64). The reach extends for 2.6 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.5%. Wetted width in this reach ranged between 3 and 8 m. Mean bankfull width was 11 m. There are small areas of the riparian zone that have been cleared for agriculture and there is encroachment by the logging road in the upper part of the reach. Channel type is RPgw and channel disturbances include a road crossing, mid channel bars, and eroding banks. The lower 400 m of this reach was surveyed from the road crossing upstream.

The surveyed portion of this reach consisted of primarily glide (49%) with an equal amount of pool (28%) and riffle (23% ; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mixture of fines (43%) and gravel (48%) substrate (Table 7). Gravel quantity (1198 m²) was considered good, but quality was only rated as fair because of the high content of fines (43%;Table 7). Deep pool (21%) is the dominant instream cover element, with cover completely lacking from riffle and glide habitat (Table 5). The diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition revealed that the surveyed portion of Reach 9 has a poor overall percentage of pools (28%), number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream), and wood cover in pools (0%; Table 8). There is an inadequate number of functional pieces (>0.2 m dia) of LWD (12; Table 6) in the surveyed portion of this reach which are typically important in this channel type for creating pools and providing cover (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing and overwintering is also lacking in this section of stream (Table 8).

Reach 11 is located approximately 21 km upstream of the confluence with Little Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plates 65 - 67). This reach extends for approximately 3 km upstream at a mean gradient of 2%. Wetted width in this lower section ranges between 3 and 12 m. Mean bankfull width is 8 m. There is encroachment of the channel and a crossing by an old logging road in this reach. Channel type is RPgw and disturbances included old road crossings, eroding banks, low frequency of pools and mid-channel bars. A 500 m section of stream was surveyed upstream of the 1050 m mark.

The surveyed portion of this reach is an equal mixture of riffle (48%) and glide habitat (46%; Table 4). Substrate was fines (28%), gravel (38%) cobble (18%) and boulder (16%; Table 7). Gravel quantity (1028 m²) is rated as good while quality is considered fair (Table 8). Juvenile rearing cover was relatively poor with the main element being boulder cover (11%; Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (6%), frequency of pools (1 per 12 bw), number of holding pools for adults with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) and wood cover in pools (0%) all received a poor rating. There was a total lack of LWD in this section, which is typically important for creating, pools, trapping gravel and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC, 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing is also lacking in this section (Table 8).

Reach 12 is located approximately 24 km upstream of the confluence with Little Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plate 68). The reach is of RPgw channel type and extends for 1320 m upstream at a mean gradient of 1%. Wetted width in the reach ranged between 2 and 10 m, while mean bankfull width was 9 m (Table 3). This reach seems to suffer from natural erosion due to the sandy soil. Channel disturbances included deposition of fines, mid channel bars and eroding banks. The reach was surveyed upstream of the 750 m mark.

Habitat in this reach is mainly riffle (45%) and glide (46%; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mixture of fines (28%), gravel (35%) and cobble substrate (25%; Table 7). Although the gravel quantity in this reach (625 m²) is considered good, the high content of fines make it only fair quality for spawning and incubation (Table 8). Juvenile rearing cover was relatively low and provided mainly by undercut banks in pool habitat (14%; Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (9%), frequency of pools (1 per 6 bw), number of adult holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream), and wood cover in pools (0%), all received a poor rating (Table 8). There was an inadequate number of pieces of LWD (1; Table 6) to create pools and provide cover in this reach (Table 8). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing and overwintering was also lacking (Table 8).

Reach 13 is located approximately 25.7 km upstream of the confluence with Little Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plates 69 - 70). The reach extends from the old road crossing at a mean gradient of 1%, for 2 km to a point where the channel takes a turn to the north. The riparian zone near the road crossing has been cleared for agricultural use and there is a large logging cutblock located adjacent to the stream in the upper portion of the reach . Channel type is riffle-pool and wetted width ranged between 2 and 6 m. Mean bankfull width was 11 m (Table 3). Channel disturbances in this reach include an old road crossing with major bank erosion at the start of the reach. There are also mid-channel bars, areas of fines and a major beaver dam at the 1600 m mark. A 250 m section of this reach was surveyed upstream of old road crossing at the 650 m mark.

Habitat in the surveyed portion of this reach is primarily glide (50%) with an equal amount of riffle (28%) and pool (22%; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mixture of fines (30%), gravel (39%), and cobble (26%; Table 7). Although gravel quantity (473 m²) was rated as good, quality is only fair because of the high content of fines (30%;Table 7). Instream cover was very low with undercut banks the only main source of cover (3%;Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (22%) is rated as poor, while frequency of pools (1 per 4 bw) received a fair rating (Table 8). There was a total lack of LWD in the surveyed portion of this reach to create pools and provide cover (Table 8). Although off-channel habitat is lacking from this reach, mainstem rearing in the large beaver pond above the 1600 m mark is probably good.

Reach 19 is located approximately 35.5 km upstream from the confluence with Little Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plate 71). The reach extends for 2.4 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.5% to a main road crossing. Channel type is riffle-pool with wetted width ranging from 2 to 8 m and mean bankfull width of 10 m. With the exception of the logging road crossing, most channel impacts seem to be related to natural bank erosion. Channel disturbances include eroding banks, mid-channel bars, a low frequency of pools and the road crossing at the top of the reach.

Stream habitat was mainly riffle (42%) and glide (42%; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mixture of fines (28%), gravel (33%) and cobble substrate (29%; Table 7). Gravel quantity (821 m²) was rated as good while quality was considered fair (Table 8). The highest source of instream cover was vegetation (34%; Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (16%), frequency of pools (1 per 6 bw), and number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) all received a poor rating. There was a total lack of LWD in the surveyed portion of this reach, which is typically important for creating pools, trapping gravel and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC, 1997). There is a large off-channel below the road crossing (200 m long) located near the 2200 m mark, which has poor access from the main channel.

Reach 23 is located in the upper portion of the watershed, approximately 7.5 km downstream of Gaspard Lake (Appendix A: Plates 72 - 74). The reach extends for 1.8 km upstream at a mean gradient of 0.7%. The main channel disturbance in this reach is eroding banks caused by encroachment by an old logging road. A 500 m section of stream was surveyed upstream of the 700 m mark. Wetted width ranged between 3 and 7 m while mean bankfull width was 7 m.

Habitat in this reach is composed riffle (35%), glide (38%) and pool (27%; Table 4). Substrate was fines (33%), gravel (26%), cobble (21%) and boulder (20%; Table 7). Gravel quantity (607 m²) is rated as good while quality was considered fair (Table 8). The highest source of instream cover was boulder (19%) in riffle habitat (Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (27%), frequency of pools (1 per 23 bw), and number of adult holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) all received a poor rating. The number of pieces of LWD (2; Table 6) was inadequate for creating pools and providing cover (WRPTC 1997). There was also a lack of off-channel habitat important for juvenile rearing and overwintering (Table 8).

Reach 24 is located approximately 5.7 km downstream from Gaspard Lake (Appendix A: Plates 75 - 76). The reach extends for 1.8 km upstream at a low gradient to the road crossing. Channel type in this reach is RPgw and the main channel disturbance is eroding banks caused by encroachment of the logging road. There is also a large rock quarry next to the road at the 800 m mark that may be inputting material to the stream during periods of runoff. A 600 m section of stream was surveyed from the 800 m mark upstream. Wetted width below the road crossing ranged between 2 and 7 m. Mean bankfull width was 9 m (Table 3).

Habitat in this section was composed mainly of glide (52%) and riffle (36%; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mixture of fine (18%), gravel (28%), cobble (29%), and boulder (25%; Table 7). Both gravel quantity (839 m²) and quality is rated as good for spawning and incubation purposes (Table 8). Instream cover was highest in riffles (32%) and pools (34%) with boulder and deep pool the dominant cover elements (Table 5). The percentage of pools (12%), pool frequency (1 per 16 bw), and number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) all received a poor rating. Again there was a total lack of LWD, which is typically important for creating pools and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC. 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing and overwintering is also absent from this section (Table 8).

The start of Reach 27 is located 1.8 km downstream of Gaspard Lake (Appendix A: Plates 77 - 78). The reach extends for approximately 1.7 km to 300 m downstream of the lake. Most of the riparian zone in this reach has been cleared for agricultural purposes and there are small channel encroachments by the logging road. Channel type is RPgw and channel disturbances included sediment wedges, eroding banks and mid-channel bars. A 500 m section of stream was surveyed from the 1200 m mark upstream. Wetted width in this reach ranged between 1 and 11 m. Mean bankfull width was 10 m (Table 3).

Habitat in the surveyed portion of this reach was a series of meandering glide (53%) and deep pools (46%; Table 4). Substrate was fines (49%) and gravel (30%;Table 7). Gravel quantity in this section (1061 m²) is considered good, but the high fine content makes this substrate poor quality for spawning and incubation purposes (Table 8). Instream vegetation in glide habitat (40%) was the highest source of cover. With the exception of the number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream), pool attributes rated as good in this section (Table 8). However there was an inadequate number of pieces of LWD (5; Table 6) in this reach to provide cover (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing is also lacking in this reach.

Bank stability and LWD impact is considered high throughout all reaches surveyed in Gaspard Creek (Table 19). With the exception of road crossings, all of these reaches seem to be naturally sparse in riparian vegetation because of the sandy soil type. Logging related impacts due to crossings are located in Reaches 6, 9, 11, 13 and 19. Impacts to the riparian zone from encroachment of the logging are mainly in the upper Reaches 23, 24 and 27. Clearing of the riparian zone for agricultural purposes is mostly in lower Reaches 6, 8 and 9 and below Gaspard Lake in Reach 27. Natural erosional impacts are mainly in Reaches 11, 12 and 19.

3.3 Little Gaspard Creek

From the overview assessment (Frith et al. 1998), 9 reaches in Little Gaspard Creek ( 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 17, 18, 19 and 20) received either a high or medium priority for assessment. Reaches that were significantly disturbed by logging or agricultural activities, had good access, and warranted rehabilitation were designated as medium or high priority. The high priority was assigned to reaches with the greatest potential for improvement of fish habitat due to their proximity to other valuable habitat (off-channel habitat, tributaries, pools). Our habitat survey concentrated on these areas.

The Level 1 Assessment confirmed that rainbow trout are present in Reach 3, 5, 11, 17 and 18 (formerly just suspected in these reaches) (Table 22).

Fish numbers in Little Gaspard Creek were relatively low with only a few fish captured and observed in the lower reaches. There were no captures above the upper road crossing downstream of the lake (Table 21).

Habitat assessment results are provided in Table 23. Tables 24 through 27 contain summaries of important habitat features and Table 28 contains a diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition. The following sections describe the condition of stream habitat for specific reaches in the Gaspard Creek watershed. The majority of the reaches assessed were of riffle-pool habitat type.

Reach 3 is located 1.3 km upstream of the confluence with Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plates 79 - 80). The reach extends for 3 km upstream at a mean gradient of 3%. Channel type is RPgw with wetted widths in this reach ranged between 2 and 3 m. Mean bankfull width of 5 m (Table 3). A man made water diversion channel comes off the top of the reach and extends for 4 km to the bottom of Little Gaspard Creek. This reach seems to suffer from natural bank erosion from the sandy soil type. Channel disturbances included; eroding banks, mid-channel bars, and small log jams. Channel type is RPcw and a 2 m wetted width. Mean bankfull width was 5 m. A 500 m section of stream of this reach was sampled above the 1000 m mark.

Habitat in the surveyed portion of this reach is dominated by riffle (80%; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mix of fines (35%), gravel (29%) and cobble (23%; Table 7). Juvenile rearing cover was provided mainly by undercut banks (8%) and boulder (15%) in riffle habitat (Table 5). There was a total lack of pools in the surveyed portion of this reach. The number of functional pieces of LWD (27; Table 6) was inadequate for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). The role of LWD is typically important in this type of channel for creating pools, trapping gravel and providing cover. Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing and overwintering was also lacking (Table 8.).

Reach 5 is located 4.4 km upstream of the confluence with Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plate 81). The reach extends for approximately 1.7 km upstream to the site of an old road crossing at a mean gradient of 3.5%. With the exception of the logging road crossing, most impacts seem to be related to natural bank erosion of the sandy soil. Channel disturbances included eroding banks and mid-channel bars. A 230 m section of stream was surveyed above the 1470 m mark. Channel type in the surveyed portion is RPgw with wetted width between 2 and 4 m. Mean bankfull width was 7 m.

Habitat in the surveyed portion of this reach is dominated by riffle (90%; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mixture of fines (18%), gravel (26%), cobble (25%), and boulder (31%; Table 7). The major source of instream cover was provided by boulder (33%) in riffle habitat (Table 5). The percent pool (3%), pool frequency (1 per 35 bw) and the number of deep pools for adult holding with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) is rated as poor. There was an inadequate number of pieces of LWD (15; Table 6), for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). Off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing was also lacking in this section.

Reach 6 is located approximately 6 km upstream of the confluence with Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plate 82). The reach extends from the site of an old logging road crossing for 680 m upstream at a mean gradient of 1%. The riparian zone has been cleared in the upper section of this reach for agricultural purposes and the old logging road encroaches on the channel. Channel type is RPgw throughout the surveyed portion of the reach (220 m). Wetted width was 3 m and mean bankfull width was 5 m. There is some major bank erosion at the site of an old logging road crossing.

The dominant habitat type in this reach is riffle (96%; Table 4). Substrate was an equal mixture of fines (20%), gravel (21%), cobble (30%) and boulder substrate (29%; Table 7). Instream cover was provided by boulder cover (29%) and instream vegetation (19%; Table 5). Habitat condition in this reach is poor, with a total lack of pools, LWD and off-channel habitat in the surveyed portion of this reach (Table 8).

Reach 7 is located approximately 6.7 km upstream of the confluence with Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plates 83 - 84). The reach extends for 1.4 km with a RPgw channel type and a mean gradient of 1%. The lower 250 m section of this reach was surveyed, with wetted width between 3 and 5 m, and mean bankfull width of 6 m (Table 3). This reach falls within agricultural land use and has been heavily impacted. Channel disturbance indicators include areas of fine substrate and major bank erosion at old road crossing sites. There was also a dead cow in the stream, near the 100 m mark.

The dominant habitat types in this section are pool (45%) and glide (39%; Table 4). Substrate was predominately fines (69%) and gravel (17%; Table 7). Juvenile rearing cover was provided by instream vegetation (46%; Table 5). Although this section has a good percentage of pools, the number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (0 per 1000 m of stream) is poor, because the instream vegetation does not offer cover during winter. There was a total lack of LWD to provide cover in pools, and a lack of off-channel rearing area

Reach 11 of Little Gaspard Creek is located approximately 11 km upstream of the confluence with Gaspard Creek (Appendix A: Plates 85 - 87). The reach extends from a major road crossing for 1.1 km upstream at an average gradient of 3%. A main logging road crosses at the start of this reach, and a large portion of the stream side riparian zone has been cleared for agricultural use. Channel disturbances in this reach include areas of fines, eroding banks and mid-channel bars. Wetted width in this reach ranged between 2 and 5 m. Mean bankfull width was 6 m (Table 3).

Habitat in this reach is dominated by riffle (57%) and glide (29%; Table 4). Substrate was fines (37%), gravel (25%), cobble (17%) and boulder (20%;Table 7). Gravel quantity was rated as good (403 m²), but quality was only fair for spawning and incubation purposes because of the high content of fines. The highest source of cover was boulder cover (25%) in riffles (Table 5). The percent pools (13%), and pool frequency (1 per 10 bw) are rated as poor, while number of adult holding pools with adequate cover (4 per 1000 m of stream) is rated as good (Table 8). There was an inadequate number of pieces of LWD (62; Table 6) in this reach (WRPTC 1997), which are typically important for creating pools and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC, 1997). There was also a lack of off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing and overwintering.

Reach 17 is located in the upper portion of the watershed, 1.5 km downstream of Stobie Lake (Appendix A: Plates 88 - 89). The reach extends for 300 m at a mean gradient of 2% to a main logging road crossing. A 250 m section from the road crossing downstream was surveyed. Wetted width ranged between 3 and 15 m. Mean bankfull width was 9 m. Channel type in the surveyed portion was primarily RPgw. This reach seems to suffer from natural bank erosion from the sandy soil type. The channel is a series of large beaver ponds. Channel disturbance indicators included mid channel bars, sediment wedges, and mid-channel bars.

Pool (72%; Table 4) was the dominant habitat type in this reach. The substrate was predominately fines (59%) and gravel (37%; Table 7). Instream cover was relatively low, with LWD in glide (9%), followed by cutbank in glides (7%;Table 5). Pool attributes in this reach were rated as good. There was an inadequate number of pieces of LWD (8; Table 6) in this reach (WRPTC 1997), which is typically important for providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC, 1997). Although off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing and overwintering is lacking in this reach, mainstem rearing in the large beaver ponds is good.

Reach 18 is located at the intersection of the main logging road crossing, 1.2 km downstream of Stobie Lake (Appendix A: Plates 90 - 92). The reach extends for 500 m from the road crossing at a mean gradient of 1%. Wetted width in this section ranged between 1 and 4 m. Mean bankfull width was 7 m. There are no logging cutblocks next to the stream in this reach and agricultural use seems to be minimal. Channel type is RPgw and channel disturbances included the logging road crossing, a perched culvert, mid channel bars, beaver dams, and areas of fines. The lower 100 m of this reach and a 250 m section of stream above the beaver pond at the 200 m mark were surveyed.

The surveyed portion of this reach consisted mainly of riffle (61%) and glide habitat (26%; Table 4). Substrate was predominately fines (40%), gravel (40%), and cobble (15%;Table 7). Gravel quantity is rated as good (417 m²), but quality is only fair for spawning and incubation purposes because of the high content of fines. Instream cover was relatively low with LWD in pool habitat the dominant element (19%; Table 5). The overall percentage of pools (13%), and frequency of pools (1 per 9 bw), were rated as poor, while the number of adult holding pools (6 per 1000 m of stream) was rated as good. The number of functional pieces of LWD was considered inadequate for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). There is also a lack of off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing (Table 8).

Reach 19 is located approximately 700 m upstream of the main logging road and extends for approximately 600 m to Stobie Lake (Appendix A: Plate 93). There are no logging cutblocks next to the stream in this reach and agricultural use seems to be minimal. Channel type was RPgw and mean gradient was 2%. Channel disturbance indicators include small log jams and eroding banks. Wetted width ranged between 2 and 6, mean bankfull width 7 m. A 220 m section of stream was surveyed downstream of Stobie Lake.

This reach consisted primarily of riffle (63%) and glide (34%) habitat (Table 4). Substrate was fines (32%), gravel (31%), cobble (21%) and boulder (17%; Table 7). Instream cover was provided mainly by boulder (17%; Table 5). The percentage of pools (4%), pool frequency (1 per 28 bw), number of holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) all received a poor rating. The number of functional pieces of LWD (27; Table 6) is considered inadequate for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). There is also a lack of off-channel habitat for juvenile rearing (Table 8).

Reach 20 is Stobie Lake, and at the time of the survey the entrance to the lake was choked with small woody debris, making access difficult for Rainbow trout juveniles.

Bank stability and LWD impact ranged from moderate to high in Little Gaspard Creek (Table 29). Lower reaches, 3 and 5 and upper reaches 18 and 19 are moderate impact due mainly to natural bank erosion of the sandy soil type. The impact rating in Reach 17 is also due to natural bank erosion. Reach 7 is considered high impact because the riparian zone has been completely cleared for agricultural use and an old logging road crossing. There is also been some clearing of the riparian zone in Reach 6 for agricultural use which is considered moderate impact. Reach 11 is rated as mainly high impact with agricultural land clearing and a main logging road crossing in the riparian zone.

3.4 West Churn Creek

West Churn Creek flows into Churn Creek in the upper watershed. The Overview Assessment (Frith et al. 1998) identified Reaches 9 and 11 as high priority sites. The high priority was assigned to reaches with the greatest potential for improvement of fish habitat due to their proximity to other valuable habitat (off-channel habitat, tributaries, pools).

Fish numbers in the 2 surveyed reaches were very low at the time of the survey. No fish were captured in 3 pools in Reach 9 and only 1 Rainbow trout was captured in 2 traps set in pools in Reach 11 (Table 31). The Level 1 Assessment did not alter the results of the Overview Assessment (Table 32).

Habitat assessment results are provided in Table 33. Tables 34 through 37 contain summaries of important habitat features and Table 38 contains a diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition.

Reach 9 is located approximately 12 km upstream from the confluence with Churn Creek (Appendix A: Plate 94). The reach extends for 1 km upstream at a mean gradient of 1% and is RPgw channel type. Wetted width in this section ranged between 1 and 10 m. Mean bankfull width was 6 m. The riparian zone in this reach is naturally sparse. Channel disturbance indicators include major bank erosion, formation of mid-channel bars and areas of fine sediment.

Habitat in this reach was primarily pool (50%), with an equal amount of riffle (27%), and glide (23%; Table 4). Substrate in this reach consisted of fines (48%), gravel (41%), and cobble substrate (10%; Table 7). Instream cover was relatively low and provided by deep pool (15%) and undercut banks (10%; Table 5). The diagnostic summary of salmonid habitat condition revealed that Reach 9 has a good overall percentage of pools, but pool frequency (1 per 5 bw), and number of holding pools (1 per 1000 m of stream) are rated as poor (Table 8). The number of functional pieces of LWD (42; Table 6) is considered inadequate for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). The role of LWD is typically important for trapping gravel, forming pools and providing cover in this type of channel (WRPTC, 1997). There are 3 off-channel areas in this reach which offer good rearing for juveniles.

Reach 10 of West Churn Creek was not assessed in detail. However, the road crossing was inspected (Appendix A: Plates 95 - 96).

Reach 11 is located approximately 13.5 km upstream from the confluence with Churn Creek (Appendix A: Plates 98 - 100). The reach extends for 580 m at a very low gradient (0.5%) to a large beaver pond that acts as a barrier to migration (2 m ht). Above the pond, the reach extends for approximately 500 m at a very low gradient. Only the lower 580 m of this reach was surveyed. Wetted width ranged between 2 and 7 m, while mean bankfull width was 5 m (Table 3). Most of the riparian zone in this reach is naturally sparse. Channel disturbance indicators include major bank erosion, formation of mid-channel bars, areas of fine sediment and a large beaver dam.

Habitat in this reach consisted of pool (37%), riffle (23%), and glide (40%; Table 4). Substrate was fines (45%), gravel (36%), cobble (10%) and boulder (9%; Table 7). The highest source of instream cover was undercut banks across all habitat types (12%) and boulder cover (11%) in riffle habitat. The percentage of pools (37%), and pool frequency (1 per 2 bw) were rated as fair, while the number of adult holding pools (0 per 1000 m of stream) rated as poor (Table 8). There was an inadequate number of pieces of LWD (15; Table 6) for the length of stream (WRPTC 1997). There are 2 small side channels in this reach (340 m mark) and (480 m mark) that offer fair off-channel rearing for juveniles.

Riparian vegetation in Reaches 9 and 11 seem to be naturally sparse from the semi arid soil conditions. Lack of riparian growth does not seem to be logging related as logging cutblocks are well removed from the main channel. Both bank stability impact and LWD impact are considered high due mainly to natural absence of deep rooted trees (Table 39).

It is readily apparent from the air photo mosaics and 1:50,000 scale mapping (Frith et al. 1998) that, with a few exceptions, much of the logging has been away from riparian areas along these creeks. Never-the-less, the cumulative effect of the total cut in the watersheds, along with roads constructed within the riparian area, and road crossings are a concern. The extent to which disturbances (other than bank erosion) to fish habitat are due to logging versus the extensive agricultural use in the area is difficult to separate. Hence, many of our high and medium priority recommendations for stream rehabilitation are directed at point impacts, such as bank erosion and road crossing impacts, which can readily be linked to logging activities. In some instances, we make recommendations for improving instream cover through the addition of LWD.

There is a clear need to address agricultural related impacts to fish habitat in these watersheds. However, this may be beyond the mandate of Forest Renewal BC.

The Level 1 Assessment results and diagnostic summary indicate that Rainbow trout production in the Big Creek Watershed is possibly limited by available rearing habitat during low flow conditions. Most of the reaches suffer from poor pool attributes and limited cover elements for Rainbow trout. Recommendations for improving Rainbow trout habitat in selected reaches are based primarily on pool frequency, overall percentage of pools, overhead cover, and LWD diagnostics. Rehabilitation options and recommendations for further work are summarized in Table 10.

Rainbow trout should be the target of stream rehabilitation in the Big Creek system and there are a number of stream rehabilitation measures that would enhance rearing habitat (and to a lesser extent, spawning habitat) in this system. Improvements to cover elements including LWD and boulder placements would benefit Rainbow trout. However, without a comprehensive program to rehabilitate the riparian areas within the Big Creek watershed (including private land) there will be poor recruitment of LWD to the system.

Although the Big Creek mainstem may have some logging related impacts, the overall habitat is in fair condition with good pools, off channel rearing, and good spawning habitat. The large bankfull width in the mainstem is not conducive to instream works, and greater benefit would be realized by working on the tributaries to Big Creek.

There are, however, numerous locations where major bank erosion is contributing sediment into the Big Creek mainstem. A logging road encroaches on the stream (100 m sections) in 3 locations in Reach 19 and the bank is collapsing into the stream. There is a similar encroachment of an old logging road in Reach 26 (200 m section) that is in a rapid state of collapse. The riparian zone in Reach 23 and 32 has been recently logged to the streambanks, causing bank erosion.

Cooper Creek lacks habitat complexity and has poor fish values, with only 1 fish captured at the time of the survey. Agricultural land use is responsible for most impacts, including bank erosion and buildup of fines. The overall habitat condition in Cooper Creek is a lack of LWD, pools, and cover elements. However, with the exception of two road crossings, impacts cannot be directly attributed to logging since logging cutblocks are well removed from the channel in the surveyed portion of the stream. Improvement of the lower crossing would improve fish access, however, poor fish values in this stream may not warrant this.

The Bambrick Creek system also has obvious agricultural impacts. Most bank erosion in this system can be attributed to cattle activities. Water is currently being diverted in Reach 5 for agriculture. There is also widespread beaver activity in this stream that may account for the buildup of fines and formation of mid-channel bars downstream. Large sections of this stream were dewatered at the time of the survey which make it less conducive for rehabilitation work. There are also vehicle crossings right through the creek with no crossing structures in place. This has caused bank erosion and compaction of sediment at two sites in Reach 5. The overall habitat condition is a buildup of fine sediment causing infilling of pools. There is also a lack of LWD and cover.

The Twinflower Creek sub basin appears to be heavily impacted in the lower two reaches by agricultural land use. Major damage has been caused in Reach 2 which runs through private farm land including bank erosion, formation of mid-channel bars, infilling of pools, and deposition of fines. At the time of the survey, there was obvious manipulation of the channel by machinery. The resulting effect is a long straight ditch with no channel complexity. Logging impacts are located in Reaches 3, 4, 5 and 6. However, most of this area consists of large beaver ponds, which would make rehabilitation work difficult. One possible option would be to improve habitat in Reach 5 near the road crossing. Currently, this section lacks complexity, including pools, and LWD.

In Mons Creek there is considerable habitat damage due solely to logging impacts in Reach 3. A 1 km section of the stream has been logged to the streambank and has caused bank erosion, aggradation, formation of mid channel bars, infilling of pools, and loss of cover including LWD. As a result of the aggradation, the channel lacks complexity and is one long glide.

Rehabilitation in Big Creek is rated as a high priority (Table 10). Bank stabilization measures to restore banks will be required at 3 locations in Reach 19 (2000 m mark, 2900 m mark, and 3650 m mark) and 1 location in Reach 26 (900 m mark). Length of bank to be rehabilitated is approximately 100 m at each site in Reach 19 and 200 m in Reach 26. Rehabilitation measures will require an engineering assessment and would probably involve insertion of log flow deflectors and wattling banks to promote revegetation. Bank protection measures will also be necessary in Reach 23 and 32 which have been recently logged to the stream banks. Although not assessed in this survey, there are numerous other locations that have agricultural related bank erosion problems which may require bank protection measures.

Although there does not seem to be any direct effects of logging in Reach 18, it probably suffers from upstream impacts in Reach 19 and is a good compensation option for other impacts located along the Big Creek mainstem. There is a large off-channel lake at the 1500 m mark of this reach that offers good rearing conditions. However, this lake is poorly connected to the mainstem. Improving access to the lake would involve excavation of an opening to the mainstem. There is also a large side channel located at the 3000 m mark, but the entrance at the upstream portion is blocked by small woody debris. Rehabilitation of this side-channel would involve removing this debris from the entrance. At the time of the survey, this side channel lacked sufficient pools and cover elements. Complexing with LWD should be considered for this area.

Rehabilitation of side channel areas in Reach 18 (3000 m mark) and Reach 32 (0 m mark) would involve adding LWD to create pools and provide cover. There is approximately 500 m of stream to treat at each site. Improving access into the side channel at the upstream portion in Reach 18 would involve stream cleaning of small woody debris and possible protection measures to prevent clogging. Opening access to the off-channel lake in the lower portion of Reach 18 (1500 m mark) would also involve channel excavation.

This system has low fish values and would be a low priority for instream works because of ongoing agricultural impacts (Table 10). Logging impacts on this system are well removed from the stream. However, there is an opportunity to improve fish access at the lower road crossing.

Instream works in this system would be a low priority because of ongoing agricultural impacts and beaver activity (Table 10). With the exception of the road crossing in Reach 2, logging impacts are well removed from the stream. Most impacts are related to agricultural activities including land clearing. A Level 2 sediment source survey should be performed in the upper watershed to investigate reasons for sediment buildup and dewatering.

Instream works are not recommended in the lower two reaches because of ongoing agricultural impacts (Table 10). Reach 3 is also a low priority for any instream work because of widespread beaver activity. Rehabilitation work in Reach 5 at the road crossing site should be a moderate priority. Addition of LWD at this site would encourage the formation of pools and provide cover. The crossing structure (long culvert) should also be improved to allow access to juvenile trout. Baffling the culvert to improve passage or replacing the culvert with a bridge structure are two options. Reach 6, although heavily impacted from logging, would be a poor candidate for rehabilitation works because of widespread beaver activity. However, bank stabilization at old crossing sites may be feasible in this reach and is a medium priority.

In the Mons Creek system, most of the lower reach, upstream of the lake, is not impacted and has an intact old growth riparian zone (Table 10). There are logging related channel impacts at the crossing site in Reach 1. However, beaver activity in this area would make rehabilitation works difficult. Reach 2 in this system would also be a low priority because of widespread beaver activity.

Rehabilitation in Reach 3 of this stream is a high priority. Addition of LWD to create pools and provide cover is recommended for this section. Bank stabilization measures to restore banks in this section will also be required. Reach 4 seems to be relatively unimpacted by logging except for the crossing site. The addition of LWD up and downstream of this crossing along with improvements to the culvert are recommended in this reach.

The general habitat condition in Gaspard Creek is a lack of complexity including pools, LWD, and off-channel habitat. Spawning quality for most reaches was rated as fair because of the high content of fines. Most of the reaches assessed showed agricultural related impacts including bank erosion, mid-channel bars, and buildup of fine sediment. Most logging impacts are related to road crossings or encroachment by logging roads and logging cutblocks are well removed from the stream. Beaver activity is also prevalent in this system and may be responsible for downstream effects like sediment deposition. Rehabilitation options and recommendations for further work are summarized in Table 20.

Analysis of habitat condition in Reach 6 of Gaspard Creek revealed that this reach is severely deficient in pools, LWD, and off-channel habitat. There is also some bank erosion related to old logging roads in several locations of this reach. Upper Reach 8 and lower Reach 9 near the main road crossing suffer from a lack of complexity including pools, LWD, and off-channel habitat. Reach 11 and 12 also lack complexity including pools and LWD. However, most damage in these two reaches is agricultural related or localized at old logging road crossings.

Reach 13 shows impacts from an old logging road crossing near the 800 m mark including bank erosion and deposition of fines downstream. Reach 19 does not show any major impacts other than eroding banks and mid-channel bars near the main logging road crossing. This reach also has a lack of complexity including pools and LWD. Reach 23 and 24 suffer from eroding banks caused by encroachment of an old logging road. Most impacts in Reach 27, just downstream of Gaspard Lake, seem to be agricultural related. However, there are portions of this reach that are encroached by the old logging road and these areas suffer from bank erosion.

The addition of LWD in Reach 6 in proximity to the road crossing is recommended for this reach. This will promote formation of pools, trap gravel, and provide cover. Stabilization of eroding banks in the lower reach (75 - 125 m mark) is also recommended. Although not assessed in this survey, there are eroding banks near the 2500 m mark of this reach. A large off-channel area (300 m long) is also located in this area, but appears to have poor access to the main channel. Connection to this channel should be established and complexing with LWD is recommended. The addition of LWD is also recommended in proximity to road crossings in Reach 9 and 19. There is an opportunity to provide access to a large off-channel area near the 2200 m mark of Reach 19 and complex it with LWD to provide rearing for juvenile Rainbow trout. Access to this site is good because it is in proximity to the main logging road. Instream works in these areas of Gaspard Creek are considered a high priority.

Because of high fish numbers and ample boulder cover in the upper Reaches 23 and 24, no major instream works are recommended. However, bank stabilization related to encroachment by the logging road is recommended. There is also an opportunity to provide cover to pools in Reach 27 as a moderate priority.

With the exception of road crossings, most impacts in this system including bank erosion, formation of mid-channel bars, and wedges of fine substrate seem to be agricultural related. Cutblocks are well removed from the main channel throughout this system. Still, most reaches suffer from a lack of complexity including pools, LWD and off-channel habitat. Rehabilitation options and recommendations for further work are summarized in Table 30.

The main opportunities to improve habitat in this system are in relation to road crossings. Access is impeded by perched culverts at main logging road crossings in Reach 11 and 17. These culverts should either be removed or fixed to allow access for juvenile Rainbow trout. LWD could be added at the same time upstream and downstream of the crossing site. Bank stabilization measures are required in Reach 6 and 7 at the site of an old logging road crossing. The culvert has been pulled from this crossing, but was then dropped back into the creek. Placement of LWD at this site would help to provide cover which is lacking in this section. Stream cleaning of the small woody debris jam at the mouth of Stobie Lake (Reach 20) would improve access for juvenile Rainbow trout. These works should be considered a high priority.

Although pool attributes in Reaches 9 and 11 of West Churn Creek seem to be relatively good, these pools lack cover elements including LWD. The main channel impacts in these reaches are formation of mid-channel bars and sediment wedges as a direct result of naturally highly erodible banks. As a result, gravel quality is only fair for spawning and incubation purposes because of the high content of fines. With the exception of the logging road crossing in Reach 10, logging related impacts are well removed from the channel. Rehabilitation options and recommendations for further work are summarized in Table 40.

A sediment source survey would have to be performed in this stream before any instream works in these three reaches can be performed. However, the only logging related impact seems to occur at the road crossing between these two reaches in Reach 10 which has ample cover in the form of boulder; therefore, this system is rated as a low priority for instream works.

Conservation Data Centre (CDC). 1997. British Columbia Provincial Endangered Species Tracking List, March, 1997.

Cederholm, C.J., L.G. Dominguez and T.W. Bumstead. 1997. Rehabilitating stream channels and fish habitat using large woody debris. In Watershed Restoration Program Technical Circular No. 9: Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. P.A. Slaney and D. Zaldokas, eds. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests.

Fish Information Summary System (FISS). 1997. Department of Fisheries and Oceans and B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Hunter, J.H. 1991. Better trout habitat. A guide to stream restoration and management. Montana Land Reliance. Island Press Publication.

Frith, R., R. Bocking. S. Yazvenko and J. Ferguson. 1998. Fish Habitat and Riparian Overview Assessment of the Big, Gaspard and Churn Creeks, B.C. Report prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Newbury, R.W. and M.N. Gaboury. 1993. Stream analysis and fish habitat design. Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg.

Stevens, V. 1995. Wildlife diversity in British Columbia: Distribution and habitat use of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals in biogeoclimatic zones. Prepared for B.C. Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Victoria and B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria.

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

WRPTC. 1996b. Watershed Restoration Program Technical Circular No. 6. Riparian Assessment and Prescription Procedures. Field Guide. First Approximation. Draft #3. Oikos Ecological Services Ltd., and T. Johnson and Assoc., Smithers, B.C.

WRPTC. 1997. Watershed Restoration Program Technical Circular No. 9: Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. P.A. Slaney and D. Zaldokas, eds. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests.