Prepared by:

BioTerra Consulting

#201 - 197 2nd Avenue North

Williams Lake, B.C. V2G 1Z5

Ph: (604) 392-7887

Fax: (604) 392-5887

Prepared for:

Kleena Kleene Resource Association

General Delivery

Kleena Kleene, B.C.

V0L 1M0

The objectives of the Level 2 Fish Habitat Assessment of the Clearwater Lake watershed were to determine appropriate restoration options for the Clearwater Lake watershed, and to provide specific site information to develop prescriptions for the restoration options. The Level 2 FHAP concluded that a decrease in habitat complexity due to stream clearing practices was the limiting factor to the Clearwater Lake watershed rainbow trout population. Increasing the carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek through removal of upstream migration barriers and placing instream log and rock weirs is recommended to increase the rainbow trout production of the Clearwater Lake watershed. A high water assessment of upstream migration obstructions is necessary to finalize prescriptions for removal of obstructions, and placement of log and rock weirs. Three restoration options for Marjorie Creek were presented in order of work order and priority: 1) removal of instream obstructions which may be preventing juvenile/fry (possibly adult) upstream migration 2) placement of instream structures (log and rock weirs) to increase habitat complexity by scouring pools and retaining spawning gravels 3) addition of spawning gravels to the log and rock weirs if gravels are not naturally recruited by the structures.. Preliminary restoration work plans and a sequence for fish habitat restoration are dependent on the completion of a high water assessment conducted by a fisheries biologist and hydrologist/P. Geo. Cost estimates of the spawning assessment and the above restoration options, as well as restoration priority and sequence are summarized in Table 1, page 23.

Ken Jansen of the Kleena Kleene Resource Association for local history and anecdotal information. Sandy Hart, P. Geo. for technical information and expertise. Michael Parker of the MoE, Cariboo Region for technical information and expertise. Steve Ratko for field support and technical expertise. Eric Braumandl for technical expertise. Digital mapping was completed by Richard Barry of Inland Timber Management Ltd.

Peter Nicklin

Resource Biologist

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Project Objectives

3.0 Background Information

4.0 Methods

5.0 Results and Discussion

6.0 Recommendations

7.0 Summary

8.0 References

9.0 APPENDIX 1

Table 1: Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Work Sequence For Clearwater Lake Watershed.....................……………….24

Figure 5. Schematic drawing of anticipated gravel retention and scour of rock...................................18

The Kleena Kleene Resource Association (KKRA), through Forest Renewal B.C. and in coordination with the Ministry of Environment (Watershed Restoration Program), Cariboo Region awarded BioTerra Consulting a contract to perform a Level 2 Fish Habitat Assessment (FHAP) and a Riparian Assessment on the Clearwater Lake watershed. A separate contract was awarded to BioTerra to complete an Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan directed by the KKRA and the Ministry of Forests. An Overview and Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment, Sediment Source Survey and Interior Watershed Assessment were performed under a previous contract with the KKRA.

The Level 2 Assessment contract was awarded in August 1997, to be completed by the end of March 1998. Carry-over of project funding into the new fiscal year was not possible and confined the Level 2 field work to the fall of 1997.

An overview 1:50,000 scale map of the project area is found in 9.0 Appendix 1.

The target species for restoration in the Clearwater Lake watershed is rainbow trout. The Marjorie Creek system (downstream of the Big Stick FSR bridge) is the primary source of recruitment of rainbow trout (spawning and rearing) to Clearwater Lake and is thus the focus of the Level 2 Assessment. Lack of adequate spawning habitat was determined by the Level 1 FHAP to likely be the limiting habitat factor (needs confirmation through assessment of spawners/redd count) to rainbow trout production in the Marjorie Creek sub-basin (BioTerra Consulting, 1996).

The objectives of the Level 2 Assessment are to identify appropriate restoration options and priorities; to provide detailed site information needed to prepare rehabilitation prescriptions (Johnston and Slaney, 1996). The objectives of the Level 2 Clearwater Lake watershed FHAP were as follows:

• To determine appropriate restoration options within the Marjorie Creek sub-basin.
• To provide sufficient site information necessary to prepare prescriptions for restoration works within the context of a watershed wide restoration plan (Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan - IWRP).

The Level 1 FHAP (BioTerra, 1996) concluded that there was minimal fish habitat and opportunity for fish habitat (and habitat restoration) above the beaver dam at the Big Stick Forest Service Road (Site 3, Fig. 1) on Marjorie Creek. Site 3 in reach KKD5 was above the dam at the Big Stick FSR, and after minnow trap sets and visual observation, no evidence of fish presence was found. It appeared that the beaver dam at the bridge crossing was a barrier to upstream fish migration at all flows for all stages of life history. Site 4 of the Level 1 FHAP was located in reach DA2, where there was fish recovery (of the target species, rainbow trout) during electroshocking sampling, and confirmed presence of rearing and spawning habitat in this reach (BioTerra, 1996). Habitat impacts in this reach were identified and consisted of in-filled spawning gravel interstices (and only a few suitable pockets), minimal functional and total large woody debris, and few adult holding pools.

The Level 1 FHAP recommended an assessment of spawners (during the peak spawning period) to determine the extent/existence of spawning habitat limitation in lower Marjorie Creek. Low summer flows in lower Marjorie Creek have been a concern to the residents of Kleena Kleene in recent years (Jansen, 1997). During dry years the flow in the lower reaches of Marjorie Creek (in the month of July) has decreased to extremely low or non-existent levels. Rainbow trout fry have been observed in isolated residual pools, remaining after the stream flow has decreased to the point of no flow (Jansen, 1997). The chance of fry survival in these pools was suspected to be extremely low. A hydrologic assessment (Hart, 1997) conducted subsequent to the Level 1 FHAP recommended retaining the beaver dam above the Big Stick Forest Service Road bridge (refer to accompanying 1:50,000 scale map) to act as a reservoir to augment summer low flows in lower Marjorie Creek.

Given the above results of the Level 1 FHAP, other assessments performed on the Clearwater Lake watershed and historical information regarding the low flows of lower Marjorie Creek, the Level 2 was completed on the lower four reaches of Marjorie Creek (reaches D5, DA1, DA2 and DA3).

The methods presented in Technical Circular No. 8 (April 1996) were used to perform the Level 2 FHAP.

The Level 2 field assessment was directed by the results of the Level 1 FHAP (BioTerra, 1996). The lower three reaches of Marjorie Creek were the confirmed fish bearing reaches from the Level 1 and thus offer opportunity for fish habitat rehabilitation in the watershed. The Level 2 field assessment explored rehabilitation options for the Marjorie Creek sub-basin and attempted to confirm the limiting habitat factors for the rainbow trout fishery (through on-ground assessment).

The Level 2 ground assessment consisted of a walk-through and visual assessment of existing rainbow trout spawning, rearing and overwintering habitat (spawning habitat was determined by the Level 1 FHAP as the likely limiting habitat for the Clearwater Lake watershed rainbow trout). The area assessed was the Marjorie Creek channel from the mouth (emptying into Clearwater Lake) to the road crossing at Sites 1 and 2 (Level 1 FHAP - see accompanying 1:50,000 scale map); determined to be the upper limits of viable fish habitat (BioTerra, 1996). Upstream of Site 1, fish habitat values are minimal due to low flows (BioTerra 1996) and intermittent barriers consisting of lack of surface flow (natural barriers to fish migration at all times of the year). Electroshocking during the Level 1 FHAP did not produce any fish at the time of survey (September 1996) above reach D5. Detailed assessment of reach DA2 (Site 4: Figure 1) was available and consulted as background information (BioTerra, 1996). Fish presence in reaches DA1, DA2 and DA3 was established during the Level 1 FHAP (BioTerra, 1996), thus only visual fish assessments were performed for the Level 2 FHAP.

Crown lands are designated as eligible for WRP funding, whereas private lands are not. Therefore, the majority of reach DA3 is not eligible for funding since it flows through private land. However, it was necessary to visually assess the entire reach to get an impression of the habitat values contained within this reach and to determine its contribution to Marjorie Creek fish habitat on an overall scale.

Lake shoal and ephemeral tributary spawning habitat were suspected to contribute to the recruitment of rainbow trout in the watershed, and were visually assessed by using boat access as part of the Level 2 FHAP.

Sandy Hart of J.S. Hart and Associates was consulted during the field assessment for the restoration option of excavating a spawning side-channel downstream of the Big Stick Forest Service Road bridge crossing. Mr. Hart was also consulted for technical expertise regarding hydrologic information for the construction of a permanent dam (replacing the existing beaver dam) at the outlet of Pond A (above the Big Stick FSR bridge: see Marjorie Creek Hydrologic Assessment Map - Hart, 1997; accompanying 1:20,000 scale map).

Biostandards for the predicted results of rehabilitation (increased production of rainbow trout) of mainstem habitat complexity through the use of weirs in lower Marjorie Creek are taken from the data presented in Koning et al (1997).

Biostandards and calculations for the estimation of wood volume needed in lower Marjorie Creek are taken from the data and calculations presented in Cederholm et al (1997).

Five fish habitat issues guide restoration options in the Clearwater Lake watershed.

1) Rainbow trout is the target species for restoration. The life history requirements of rainbow trout are as follows: 1) Stream spawning (in spring) 2) Fry emergence and rearing in the stream 3) Overwintering in the stream, pond or lake and 4) Continued rearing in the stream or lake until maturity.

2) Marjorie Creek is the major source of recruitment for rainbow trout in the watershed (specifically the stream below the bridge crossing at the Big Stick FSR).

3) The carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek (presently limited to the lower four reaches, approximately 1.9 kilometers) is a major factor in determining the status of the rainbow trout population in the Clearwater Lake watershed.

4) The limiting factor to fish production is difficult to determine in this watershed. Fish with extended rearing phases, such as rainbow trout, tend not to be limited by the quantity of spawning habitat unless highly degraded (Whyte et al, 1997), therefore, the amount of rearing habitat in Marjorie Creek would be suspected to be the limiting factor for fish production. However, the quantity and quality of spawning substrates in Marjorie Creek appears to be marginal (BioTerra, 1996 and see below) and thus may contribute to the limit for fish production.

5) Fish habitat impacts to Marjorie Creek result from stream debris clearance, very low summer flows, and in-filling and low quantity of spawning gravels. The practice of stream clearance and channelization has significantly contributed to a general lack of LWD in many streams (Cederholm et al, 1997). Sullivan et al (1987) reported that pool area is significantly reduced after stream clearance, declining from 70% to 20% of the pool area as a result of smoothing of channel gradient and in-filling of the deepest pools. LWD contributes to escape cover from predators and high velocities for adult and juvenile salmonids. Accumulation of fine sediments and the scouring of gravels are the primary causes of spawning habitat degradation (Whyte et al, 1997). The removal of LWD in the Marjorie Creek system has likely resulted in the degradation and loss of spawning habitat. The loss of spawner holding pools and cover has probably further reduced the suitability of a number of historic spawning sites.

In order to put the amount of rainbow trout spawning habitat into a watershed-wide context, a visual survey of Clearwater Lake and tributaries of Clearwater Lake other than Marjorie Creek was conducted by boat. Local concern about the increasing dominance of weeds in Clearwater Lake (Jansen, 1997) prompted the visual assessment of shoal spawning habitat within the lake. The entire littoral area around the edge of the lake was visually checked, as well as shore margins around the island (refer to 1:50,000 scale map), for spawning substrate presence. No gravel was visible; the lake bed consisted of a weed, algae and detritus layer, likely limiting the spawning opportunities within the lake. Reaches KKC1 (Site 7, FHAP Level 1, see 1:50,000 scale map, Appendix 1) and KKE1 (refer to 1:50,000 scale map, Appendix 1) were found to be flowing at the time of survey (October 1, 1997; the reaches are on two different tributaries) and historical information (Jansen, 1997) indicates that rainbow trout have spawned in both of these reaches. These tributaries are about half the channel width (approximately 2 meters) of Marjorie Creek and do not appear to offer a significant amount of spawning habitat relative to Marjorie Creek.

There are 18 beaver dams between the outlet of Clearwater Lake and McClinchy Creek (Hart, 1997). There is no opportunity for rainbow trout spawning in this channel due to low velocity flow, lack of suitable spawning substrate and probable migration barriers (Site 8 Level 1 FHAP - BioTerra, 1996; Site 3 - Hart, 1997 page 22). The boat survey concluded that the majority of spawning habitat for the entire watershed is within the lower three reaches of Marjorie Creek.

The walk through assessment of Marjorie Creek from the mouth to Site 1 confirmed that the suitable spawning habitat in the creek is found in reaches DA3, DA2 and DA1. There are adequate spawning substrates available in reach DA3 (on private land) with fewer suitable areas farther upstream. The Level 1 FHAP found only pockets of suitable spawning substrates for rainbow trout in DA1 (BioTerra, 1996). The visual assessment of reach DA2 (FHAP 2) found pockets of suitable spawning gravels, however, much of the gravel interstices were in-filled by organics and silt. Upstream of reach DA1 (reach D5, Figure 1) the gradient drops to 0.5% slope, the channel becomes less confined and meanders through a low energy wetland/shrub type habitat up to the beaver dam at the Big Stick Forest Service Road (FSR) bridge (Figure 1). The substrate of this reach is a 10 to 50cm deep 100% organic/silt layer and unsuitable for spawning.

Past logging and related practices (in the Marjorie Creek case beaver activity, stream clearing, beaver dam removal and irrigation impacts) can create obstructions through excessive instream debris and thus limit access to upstream spawning habitat. Upstream access may be restricted for all fish species and life stages or restricted to salmonid fry and juvenile stages (Koning et al, 1997). Obstructions to fish migration should be evaluated at various flow conditions since many obstructions prevent or restrict fish movement during only some flows (Whyte et al, 1997). The assessment of migration barriers is best performed during the period of migration (Whyte et al, 1997). Assessment of migration barriers at low to medium flows has taken place during both the Level 1 and Level 2 FHAPs. The preliminary determination is that upstream migration for adults is limited by the beaver dam at the Big Stick FSR bridge crossing by the beaver dam at this crossing. Beyond this dam there is minimal opportunity for spawning due to lack of flow, natural barriers and general lack of suitable habitat (BioTerra, 1996). Assessment of numerous obstructions in reaches DA2 and DA1 during high flows will likely confirm that spawners have access to all spawning habitat up to the aforementioned bridge crossing, but in order not to ignore a relatively simple opportunity for habitat rehabilitation, access will be confirmed at high flow. Should assessment of spawner migration (through observation of high flows) show that barriers do exist, manual hand labor removal of the obstructions can take place during the in-stream work window (mid-to-late July until late August for the Marjorie Creek system).

The beaver dam at the Big Stick FSR bridge (reach D5, Figure 1) is likely a barrier to upstream migration at all flows for all stages of life history. The dam should not be removed because it is storing water (pond A) that acts as a reservoir to augment Marjorie Creek flows during the low flow season. Beyond this dam there are minimal opportunities for trout spawning due to low flows and inaccessibility to potential spawning areas (natural barriers in the form of lack of surface water flow, subsurface only). Thus the conclusion of the ground assessment of Marjorie Creek was that spawning opportunities exist in reaches DA3 (mostly on private land), DA2 and DA1. All of these reaches offer only marginal spawning opportunities due to lack of suitable substrate and/or in-filled gravel interstices.

Due to the timing of both the Level 1 and 2 FHAPs, spawning habitat use has not been assessed during the spawning period (late April to mid-May depending on temperature; Jansen, 1997), after spawning is completed (redd count) or subsequent to fry emergence. In order to confirm that spawning habitat is a limiting factor for rainbow trout production in the Clearwater Lake watershed, the Level 1 FHAP recommended a field assessment during the spawning period (BioTerra, 1996). The timing of the Level 2 FHAP did not allow for a field assessment in the spring. However, it is necessary for an assessment of spawners (a redd count may be more feasible due to low visibility in Marjorie Creek at high flows; Chapman, 1997) to be completed before final rehabilitation prescriptions for addition of spawning gravels are written (see restoration option 3, following page). A high water survey will determine the upper limits of adult migration (recommended for the upcoming peak flow season), and thus guide rehabilitation activities (Whyte et al, 1997).

Three possible options for rehabilitating spawning habitat in Marjorie Creek were explored.

1. The possibility of excavating a surface fed or groundwater spawning channel downstream of the Big Stick FSR bridge (Pond A) and parallel to reach D5.
2. Adding instream structures (log and boulder weirs) in reach DA2 to catch and recruit spawning gravels moving downstream. Instream structures would promote local scour and increase habitat complexity (rearing cover, water retention through pool formation and possibly spawner cover). These structures would also serve as gravel retention structures should spawning gravels be added to the system (see below).
3. Adding clean spawning gravels to suitable sites in reaches DA1, DA2 and DA3 of Marjorie Creek.

Sandy Hart was consulted about the possibility of constructing a spawning side channel downstream of the Big Stick FSR bridge. Currently, there is not enough water volume in Pond A to support a surface-fed structure (Hart, 1997b) and given the history of groundwater losses in the sub-basin (Hart, 1997) a groundwater fed channel would likely be unsuccessful. A spawning channel would likely exacerbate the low summer flows of Marjorie Creek by accelerating the depletion of Pond A during high flows. Therefore, this option should not be considered for rehabilitation work.

Placement of instream structures, specifically log and rock weirs (in this report weirs refers to partially spanning structures pointing into the flow to promote scour and recruit gravels; Figures 4 and 5) to increase habitat complexity (refer to section 5.3 for evidence of sub-standard complexity in reach DA2 and options for rehabilitation) and trap gravels moving downstream was considered as a rehabilitation option. Marjorie Creek is not a high energy system and the beaver dams and stream morphology prevent the transporting of gravels to reaches DA1 and DA2 at any time of the year. There is no evidence of scour (exposed bedrock, aggradation of reach DA3) in reaches DA1 and DA2, therefore gravel movement is not suspected. However, rock or log weir structures as a solitary rehabilitation option, even in the absence of gravel movement and recruitment, will benefit the rainbow trout production of Marjorie Creek (benefits outlined in section 5.3). Installation of instream structures will likely be necessary to undertake the third rehabilitation option for Marjorie Creek, outlined previously (the addition of clean spawning gravels to select sites within reaches DA1 and DA2). Addition of spawning gravels without increasing the complexity of Marjorie Creek through instream structure work or restoring access to upper reach DA1 and reach D5 is not recommended (rearing habitat is usually the bottleneck for stream rearing species’ production).

Spawning gravel addition without instream retention structures (spawning platforms) will presumably in-fill or wash downstream to an unsuitable area, and is not recommended as a solitary restoration option without careful consideration of the possibility of channel dewatering and other potential problems. Spawning gravel addition may be a viable restoration option upon assessment of instream structure function after one high flow season. Pockets of gravel can be added where gravel recruitment adjacent to instream structures would normally take place, if there was gravel movement (Fig. 5). The addition of gravels in numerous small pockets would decrease the chance of detrimental competition resulting from the construction of one or two prime spawning areas. The chance of channel dewatering at low flows would also decrease by using this method of gravel addition.

Resident rainbow trout spawn in streams and rivers and often migrate to lakes (Clearwater Lake in this system) as juveniles in favour of greater food availability (Whyte et al, 1997), and for some juveniles of this system this may be the case. Clearwater Lake is rearing/overwintering habitat for juveniles migrating from Marjorie Creek and two other spawning tributaries. Marjorie Creek has adequate rainbow trout rearing habitat up to reach D5 (the bridge crossing at the Big Stick FSR bridge crossing). Potential upstream migration barriers to juvenile rainbow trout have been identified at lower flows (not the lowest flows) for juveniles <50mm (>0.3m; Dane, 1978). Should upstream spawner migration be limited at some point downstream of the bridge crossing, juveniles will likely have no means to access rearing areas upstream of the uppermost spawning area.

The rearing areas in Marjorie Creek have poor to good numbers and areas of pools, adequate instream and overstream cover, and nutrients in the lower reaches appear to be plentiful (algae on substrate) (BioTerra, 1996). Many rainbow trout fry/juveniles were observed during the Level 2 FHAP in reaches DA1 (lower section) and DA2. No evidence of fish activity was observed during the Level 1 or 2 FHAP upstream of reach DA1.

Abandoned beaver dams in lower reach D5 may be preventing upstream fish migration. Reach D5 has good rearing habitat in the form of two small beaver ponds, but no evidence of fish presence was observed in either the Level 1 or 2 FHAPs. Pond A (above Big Stick FSR bridge) would provide rearing and possibly overwintering habitat for rainbow trout, but as mentioned previously, the dam at the Big Stick FSR bridge is likely preventing upstream migration for all life stages at all flows.

Beaver ponds are productive ecosystems and have been shown to increase the growth rate and numbers of juveniles they support (coho salmon study) when compared to fish rearing in the main channel of the same stream system (Finnigan and Marshall, 1997). Pond A is 26 hectares (1.5 to 2 meters deep) (Hart, 1997) and could support many rearing fry/juveniles. However, given the long cold winters of the Clearwater Lake area, there is a chance that juveniles rearing in this pond would be winter-killed due to pond freeze through or oligotrophic conditions brought on by the decay of the suspected high amount of organic matter decomposition in the pond.

Extreme low summer flows in the lower reaches of Marjorie Creek may limit the rearing habitat available to fry. Rehabilitation of the rearing habitat of Marjorie Creek consists of removal of any instream obstructions to juvenile/fry upstream migration. Instream obstructions to juvenile upstream migration may be preventing fry from seeking out and utilizing the rearing habitat in reach D5 during the extreme summer low flows. The result of this is increased competition for rearing habitat and a probable general decline in the number of surviving fry/juveniles. Consultation with Sandy Hart has concluded that summer low flows in lower Marjorie Creek can be augmented by constructing a permanent dam above the Big Stick FSR bridge and increasing the headwater by a depth of 1 meter. The addition of a juvenile/adult fish way to the structure would provide access to possible spawning habitat upstream of Pond A and create overwintering habitat for rainbow trout juveniles. However, the high cost of such a structure (approximately $75,000.00) and maintenance required make the plausibility of this structure very low and thus this option is not recommended.

The conclusion of the Level 1 FHAP and supported by the Level 2 is that the limiting factor for rainbow trout production in the Clearwater Lake system is the carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek (limited spawning and rearing habitat). Given the fact that inadequate rearing habitat is usually the limiting factor for stream rearing species such as rainbow trout, increasing the amount of rearing habitat available to fry/juveniles will likely benefit fish production. Increasing the carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek through the removal of juvenile (and possibly adult) migration barriers (abandoned beaver dams and related debris) that may be preventing access to rearing/overwintering habitat above reach DA1 is recommended.

Beaver dam removal and stream clearing was performed on Marjorie Creek in the 1980’s. Part of the lack of functional and total LWD in Marjorie Creek is a result of this, and replacement is necessary for the rehabilitation of the rainbow trout production in the Clearwater Lake watershed. The carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek will likely increase through construction of instream rehabilitation structures. Increasing the carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek has been determined to be the best option for increasing the rainbow trout production of the Clearwater Lake watershed.

It has been found that over half the total sediment stored in 1st to 3rd order streams is retained by organic matter and that small channels are highly dependent on in-channel woody debris structure for stability (Cederholm et al, 1997). Mainstem restoration projects’ (consisting of LWD addition and habitat complexing) data show an increase both in carrying capacity of the stream and fish abundance. Subsequent to habitat complexing, Riley and Fausch (1995) found no increase in fish growth rates or survival for rainbow trout but found an increase of 2 to 7 fold over control reaches. The conclusion of the study was that there was an increase in the overall carrying capacity of the stream, evidenced by the immigration of fish from other parts of the stream. The results of data presented in Koning et al (1997) indicate that for the average mainstem restoration project, one can expect an approximate 3 fold increase in both resident and anadromous fish numbers.

LWD or boulder weirs provide shape and stability to the stream channel, store sediment, create pools and provide diverse habitat for either spawning or rearing (Murphy, 1985). Instream LWD abundance has been greatly diminished in the past due to stream clearance practices (Koning et al, 1997) and this is likely the situation in the Marjorie Creek sub-basin. Although natural gravel recruitment is not expected due to reasons specified above, partial spanning structures can be used to create spawning habitat on a more localized basis (Frissell and Nawa, 1992). Log or boulder weirs can be constructed with either large rocks or logs extending outwards from the stream bank in an upstream direction and located at a low profile relative to the streambed (Whyte et al, 1997; see Fig. 4). The small size of Marjorie Creek (average bankfull width of reach DA2 is 3.58m; BioTerra, 1996) and low energy regime allow for the small diameter of natural LWD in the area to trap and retain spawning gravels, scour tertiary holding and rearing pools and to provide juvenile cover.

The average size of mature trees in the Marjorie Creek sub-basin is 0.26m DBH (diameter at breast height) and 18-20m height for pine, and 0.32m DBH and 20-22m height for spruce (BioTerra, 1998). Using the biostandards from Grette (1985) the approximate number of LWD pieces to use for rehabilitation purposes (as log weirs and digger logs) can be calculated as follows:

N=suggested # of LWD pieces

V_a= average volume/piece of available LWD

L= length of reach proposed for rehabilitation (reach DA2 is 640 meters)

Using an average of the length and diameter of pine/spruce presented above and the volume estimates from Cederholm et al (1997), the estimated wood volume per tree in the Marjorie Creek system is 1.48m³.

80m³ per 100m stream length in unlogged tributaries in the Pacific Northwest with <2% gradient is the constant (Cederholm et al, 1997) used as a baseline for the Marjorie Creek system.

N=(80m³/V_a)(L/100m)

N=(80/1.48)(640m/100m)

N=346 pieces of LWD (total LWD tally, functional and non-functional) should be present in reach DA2 using the average volume of tree found adjacent to Marjorie Creek.

The Level 1 FHAP LWD tally over 171 meters of reach DA2 was 28 pieces. Averaged over 640 meters (the entire reach) this brings the total pieces of LWD in the reach to 104 ((640m/171m)*28 pieces). Therefore there appears to be a need for 204 pieces of LWD added to reach DA2 to bring the reach up to the unlogged standards presented above.

This formula should be used with caution since the standard volume of LWD per 100 meters of unlogged tributaries (80m³) is a baseline for smaller sub-basins in the Pacific Northwest and does not account for the small bankfull width of Marjorie Creek (3.58 meters for reach DA2), but appears consistent with findings in old growth and second growth forests (Grette, 1985; Peterson et al, 1992). The baseline established using Pacific Northwest data is for the CWH biogeoclimatic sub-zone, which is the most productive region in Canada (Pojar et al, 1991). The majority of CWH ecosystems are used for forestry (Pojar et al, 1991), due to the high volumes of wood that can be harvested from them. The Clearwater Lake watershed is characterized by a natural lower baseline LWD volume than 80m³ per 100 meters of stream. The biogeoclimatic subzone for the Marjorie Creek sub-basin is the SBS sub-zone and has a relatively low tree density and a site index of 15 (BioTerra, 1998). Volumes of wood per unit area in this ecosystem are less than those found in the CWH ecosystem. For this reason it is incorrect to assume that Marjorie Creek had a natural volume of wood as great as 80m³ per 100 meters of stream.

The number of pieces of LWD that should be present in reach DA2 can be calculated by another method that factors in the natural low tree density of the Marjorie Creek sub-basin and is therefore a better representation of the natural condition of this stream. The formula relies on a tally of LWD pieces rather than a volume baseline. Peterson et al (1992) found that the number of pieces of LWD in streams flowing through unmanaged forests varies between 180-610 pieces per kilometer in small streams (<5 meters width, thus Marjorie Creek falls into this category). Using the lowest number of LWD pieces found in unmanaged streams (180 pieces, simulating low tree density, fewer available trees for LWD recruitment) the resulting number of LWD pieces occurring naturally in reach DA2 should be as follows.

Number of pieces that should be in reach DA2=180 pieces*640 meters/1000 meters

N=115 pieces of LWD

As shown previously there are approximately 104 pieces of LWD along reach DA2. Therefore there is a need for at least 11 pieces of LWD to be added in this reach to achieve the standard of an unmanaged stream system.

In order for the rainbow trout population to be rehabilitated, the carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek must be increased. Reaches suitable for fish habitat and restoration are downstream of the Big Stick FSR (reach D5, DA1 and DA2). The rainbow trout carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek can be increased through rehabilitation of spawning, rearing and overwintering habitat. All 3 of these habitat types should be rehabilitated by increasing the stream complexity of reach DA2 and by confirming upstream access to reaches DA1 and D5 for juveniles (and adults). Instream obstructions/barriers to upstream migration should be removed (and are able to be removed) by hand labour. Section 5.3 outlined the need (using biostandards) for instream structures to increase the stream complexity of reach DA2. Removal of barriers to upstream migration for juveniles (and spawners) up to the bridge crossing at the Big Stick FSR is the highest priority for restoration in the Clearwater Lake watershed. Barriers confirmed during high water flow can be removed during the period of lowest flow, inside the instream work window (the last two weeks of July). Log and rock weirs can be constructed according to the specifications presented in Figures 4 and 5.

The log and rock weirs will serve to create local scour, cover and recruiting of spawning gravels. Should the natural recruitment of gravels prove to be unsuccessful, addition of pockets of clean spawning gravels to the areas in front of and behind the weirs’ scour pools can be done (Figure 5). Spawning gravels should not be added to Marjorie Creek for at least one full year after the instream structures are constructed; giving the weirs a chance to work through all stages of flow in the stream (opportunity for natural gravel recruitment and retention).

Reach DA2 is selected as a high priority for placement of instream structures due to access considerations (refer to section 6.3) and the fact that it was identified as an impacted reach during the Level 1 FHAP. Impacts due to stream clearing and beaver dam removal have been identified during the Level 1 FHAP and the biostandard analysis (Level 2 FHAP; section 5.3).

The stream impact having the greatest effect on the rainbow trout production is the lack of LWD, both functional and total, in reach DA2. Decreased LWD has been shown to decrease stream complexity, which affects spawning, rearing and overwintering. Restoring stream complexity will help to restore the above mentioned habitats and increase the carrying capacity of the stream. Refer to Table 1 for a summary of rehabilitation activities, estimate of cost and work priority.

Instream obstruction removal is the highest priority of the restoration activities prescribed for the Clearwater Lake watershed. Restoring fish access to potential rearing/spawning habitat immediately increases the carrying capacity of Marjorie Creek (below the Big Stick FSR bridge), is low risk with regard to failure, and inexpensive compared to the construction and placement of instream structures (see below for an estimate of costs). Instream obstruction removal will use hand tools (chainsaw, come-along, etc.) due to the smaller nature of the stream and obstructions (consisting of vertical drops from instream debris and remnants of beaver dams that may hinder upstream migration at all flows).

The potential obstructions are at the upper portion of reach DA1 and the lower portion of reach D5. Verification of the status of said obstructions at high flow, and accurate locations of work sites will be given at the time of the high flow assessment. Potential work locations are accessed by foot, and since the tools needed can be transported by hand, this prescription is feasible economically. The removal of potential obstructions is a one to one-and-a-half day task for two people (assume 10 hr work day). This task can be accomplished using a site monitor (experienced fisheries technician) and either one or two laborers skilled in safe chainsaw operation.

Silt fences will be recommended if obstruction removal will require disturbance of the bank or if the obstruction itself is sedimentary in nature (earth fill). Trapping out of fry/juveniles will take place prior to obstruction removal. Specific requirements and locations of silt fencing will be outlined subsequent to the high water assessment.

Cost of instream obstruction removal (assuming 5 to 6 confirmed obstructions; including labour and materials) is as follows.

• Experienced fisheries technician for monitoring and instream work: day rate approximately $400.00/day plus travel expenses for overnight stay and kilometers (2.5 days)
• Skilled labourer (chainsaw experience and safety, first aid): $18 to $20.00/hr (17 hrs total)
• Materials: tool rental, geotextiles material for silt fencing: approximately $500.00.

The total cost of instream obstruction removal, based on removal of 5 to 6 obstructions is approximately $2,500.00.

The construction of instream structures is given a high priority, based on the fact that the stream complexity of Marjorie Creek is lacking and on the importance of the creek for recruitment of rainbow trout.

Marjorie Creek from reach DA1 downstream to the mouth would undoubtedly benefit from LWD placements, but several issues make the feasibility low from a cost/benefit standpoint. 1) Access for a machine or even a pair of draft horses is limited to a single point in reach DA2 (the fireguard at the approximate halfway point along reach DA2). Machine access is not possible without substantial impact to the riparian zone of this reach and therefore not recommended. A minimum width of seven feet is needed for a team of draft horses (Trask and Reininger, 1997); the riparian zone is too dense to allow enough space for log skidding. However, draft horses may be used to transport log and rock materials to the foot of the fireguard on the west side of the stream. 2) The lower 75% of reach DA3 is flowing through private land and is therefore not eligible for funding under the WRP. 3) The riparian zone of this stream is relatively unimpacted and future LWD recruitment is good for reaches DA1, DA2 and DA3.

Consistent with ecosystem principles, the recommendation for instream work is to use naturally occurring LWD materials, and to minimize the amount of anchoring necessary to hold structures in place. The use of cables to anchor LWD is not recommended, but may be necessary to compensate for LWD buoyancy in some places. Considering the 3.58m bankfull channel with and the average diameter of conifers in the area (approximately 0.26 m DBH), not a great deal of ballast is necessary to keep the pieces on the bottom. Using the schematic drawing in Fig. 4, log weirs can be placed with no cable anchoring and no ballast requirements. Buoyancy effects are compensated for by burying and backfilling the LWD in the bank. The log weir is pointed upstream to collect gravel both in front of the log and at the tail of the pool scoured downstream. The weir is set low in the water column to avoid undermining (Fig. 4; Whyte et al, 1997).

All LWD placements will be done by hand due to access constraints for other machinery. Logs can be skidded using a Turfer with 50 feet of cable. The Turfer is basically a large come-along that weighs approximately 25 pounds and can skid 5500 pounds, lift 3300 pounds and rents for $20.00/day (Rosner, 1998). LWD pieces 3m in length with a diameter of 25 cm on average will weigh approximately 200 to 220 pounds (Reinholt, 1998). Log weir structures for Marjorie need not be longer than 3 meters given the fact that the structure will not extend more than half way into the channel. The log weir will be partially buried in the stream substrate, so as to avoid sitting too high in the water column and becoming undermined and non-functional. Anchoring the structure into the bank will involve intense hand labour. The bank will have to be dug out using pick axes and shovels. The backfilling will be done by shovel and with a gas powered tool called a Jumping Jack. The Jumping Jack weighs approximately 110 pounds (can be carried by two people and is gas powered) and rents for $60.00 per day for a minimum of 4 days. It has been used to tamp down earth filled dams for Ducks Unlimited (Rosner, pers. comm.) in the past and is the only tool that will be able to secure the LWD in place in the bank. Duckbill anchors (Fig. 2) and cable may still be required to secure the log in some or all of the locations.

Duckbill anchors can be used in sandy to loamy soil-type applications (applicable to the Clearwater Lake watershed soils, with the limiting factor being coarse fragments, Reinholt, 1998). The anchors are attached to the log by cable and driven into the soil using a hammer and drive-steel (Fig. 2).

Although the energy regime of Marjorie Creek will allow the placement of full spanning digger logs, there is a greater chance of failure associated with these types of structures due to higher susceptibility to damage (Cederholm et al, 1997). Anchoring and backfilling by hand increases the risk to the point where such a structure is not feasible.

Rock weirs are another option for increasing the habitat complexity of Marjorie Creek. The construction of the weirs is less invasive (does not require cable anchoring) and introduces less sediment into the stream since the banks do not have to be excavated to the same extent as for the log weirs. Rocks can be dumped at the foot of the fireguard using an ATV and trailer and then skidded on a rock sled with the come-along to the proposed sites. Boulder sizes for a Class 1 stream <2.3m^.sec^-1 show the D_max to be 0.45m (130kg; Allan and Lowe, 1997) for instream structures to survive a 1:50 year flood event. Natural boulder size in reach DA2 is borderline cobble/boulder (BioTerra, 1996), which has a diameter of approximately 0.25 meters (20kg). Confirmation with a P. Geo (Sandy Hart) regarding adequate rock size, during the high flow assessment, will likely confirm that boulders need not be larger than 30 cm in diameter. Rounded rock should not be used because it fits poorly and tends to roll easily (Allan and Lowe, 1997). Refer to Fig. 5 for a schematic drawing of the rock weir structure.

Placing log weirs is more natural than rock weirs due to the natural recruitment of LWD in the Clearwater watershed. However, log weir placement may be less desirable in this case due to the disturbance to the stream banks (causing sedimentation), increased risk of structure failure over time (log structures may be undermined and subject to ice damage and rot due to wet/dry cycles; Allan and Lowe, 1997) and difficult construction conditions. The fact that the riparian zone is relatively unimpacted and future LWD recruitment is good decreases the long term need for constructed LWD placements.

Access to Marjorie Creek to deliver the structure rock is limited to two points (reach DA1 is inaccessible by ATV). A fireguard crosses reach DA2 approximately halfway along its length (refer to 1:20,000 map) and is the first access point. A one ton truck can dump enough rock for two rock weir structures at the intersection of the private and access road (Fig. 1, rock dump site) and the fireguard (price is variable and depends on the source of rock; source will have to be determined closer to the time of construction). ATVs with pull trailers can transport the rock to reach DA2 at the stream crossing (Fig. 1). From this point, the rock will be skidded by rock sled or trailer to the two sites proposed for rehabilitation. Rock and log weir sites will have been flagged on the side of the stream that they are to be constructed on. Subsequent to the high water survey, the proposed weir sites will be accurately mapped with detailed location instructions (hip chained, rather than GPSed to due inaccuracy of uncorrected GPS units).

Trapping out of fry/juveniles and isolation of the work site by stop nets will take place prior to weir construction if deemed necessary by the site supervisor. Regardless of the site supervisor’s decision, this is recommended prior to the construction of each weir.

The weirs are constructed to promote local scour, recruit spawning gravels and provide cover. There does not appear to be a source of natural spawning gravel upstream of reach DA2. As mentioned previously, it may be necessary to add gravels in places where they would collect due to the presence of the weirs (Fig. 5).

Spawning gravel placement is given a medium priority due to the fact that it may not be needed after the construction of the instream structures. Gravel addition is recommended only after one full season has passed after construction of instream structures.

Clean, round gravel can be obtained from United Concrete and Gravel Ltd., Williams Lake (1 inch minus is suitable for rainbow trout; average 2.5cm diameter (Whyte et al, 1997)) for approximately $15.00/yard. A dump truck will deliver and dump the gravels at the intersection of the private road and the fireguard for approximately $360.00. Six to seven yards of gravel fit in one dump-truck load, which is more than enough material to complete the proposed work. One ATV with a trailer will be required to transport the gravel from the dump site to the foot of the fireguard. Buckets will be filled with gravel and used to transport the gravels to the exact location. It will take approximately one person day (two people a half day) to place the spawning gravels once the dump truck has delivered the load. All gravel placement should be monitored/conducted by a fisheries biologist/experienced technician.

Deactivation of roads in upper Marjorie Creek will probably not deliver a significant amount of sediment to the lower reaches due to the low energy flow in the upper basin (Hart, 1997b) and the buffering capabilities of Pond A (all sediment from upper watershed will settle). Therefore fish habitat rehabilitation can be undertaken on an independent timetable from upper watershed rehabilitation if needed. Ideally, downstream works will be started subsequent to the completion of upslope impacts. Following is a work sequence for fish habitat rehabilitation.

A high water assessment (late April, early May) of potential upstream migration obstructions will precede all instream works.

It would be premature to place 11 instream structures in reach DA2 this low flow season. There is uncertainty about the differing characteristics between log and rock weirs and the result of instream structure placement is different in every stream. It is recommended that one log weir and two rock weirs be placed this year, with assessment of function the following year. At this time it can be determined if the extra work involved in placing log weirs is justified or not. As mentioned previously, the need for addition of spawning gravels can be assessed at this time. Should the addition of spawning gravels be feasible and warranted at this time for all or one or two of the structures, clean spawning gravels can be added (under supervision of a fisheries biologist) with antisiltation precautions (silt fencing) if deemed necessary by the site supervisor.

*Assuming a need for gravel subsequent to task 4.

If flow is restored to the irrigation channel at the downstream end of reach D5 (Fig. 1), a screen should be constructed to prevent fish access into the channel.

The goal of instream restoration in Marjorie Creek is to increase the carrying capacity of the stream through the removal of obstructions to upstream fish migration and the construction of instream structures to increase habitat complexity and retain spawning gravels. Formation of local scour pools via log and rock weir placements and removal of juvenile upstream barriers should increase the carrying capacity of the stream by 1) increasing the rearing and spawning habitat through increased stream complexity and 2) making more stream available for use by upstream migration. Formation of scour pools will help retain more water during periods of low flow and potentially increase fry/juvenile survival.

The Level 2 FHAP concluded that habitat complexity (limiting rearing and spawning) in the Clearwater Lake watershed is likely the limiting factor to rainbow trout production. The three restoration options recommended for the watershed are as follows:

1. Instream obstruction removal to increase access to rearing habitat in reach D5, upper DA1.
2. Instream construction of log and rock weirs to increase stream complexity in reach DA2.
3. Addition of clean spawning gravels above and below the instream structures to ensure gravel retention and continued suitable function should assessment of structures show a need for this restoration option.

Final locations for obstruction removal and instream structure location will be mapped during the high water survey and marked in the field with flagging tape. Accompanying written prescriptions will be included with the mapped locations for obstructions and instream structures.

Allan, Jim H. and Sheldon Lowe. 1997. Rehabilitating Mainstem Holding and Rearing Habitat. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 11.

BioTerra Consulting. 1996. Overview and Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment. Prepared for Kleena Kleene Resource Association. Williams Lake, B.C.

BioTerra Consulting. 1998. Clearwater Lake Watershed: Watershed and Site Level Riparian Assessment

Cariboo Horseloggers Association. 1997. Pers. comm.

Cederholm, C. Jeff, Larry G. Dominguez and Tom W. Bumstead. 1997. Rehabilitating stream Channels and Fish Habitat Using Large Woody Debris. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 8.

Chapman, Brian. 1998. Pers. comm. Fisheries Zone Supervisor, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Williams Lake, B.C.

Dane, B.G. 1978. A review and resolution of fish passage problems at culvert sites in British Columbia (4th edition). In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 5.

Finnigan, Rheal J. And David E. Marshall. 1997. Managing Beaver Habitat for Salmonids: Working with Beavers. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 15.

Frissell, C.A., and R. K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of western Oregon and Washington. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 8.

Grette, G.B. 1985. The role of large organic debris in juvenile salmonid rearing habitat in small streams. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 3.

Hart, J.S. 1997. Hydrologic Assessment of Marjorie Creek Watershed. Prepared for Kleena Kleene Resource Association. Tatla Lake, B.C.

Hart, J.S. 1997b. Pers. comm. J.S. Hart and Associates.

Jansen, Ken. 1997. Pers. comm. Kleena Kleene Resource Association member.

Johnston, N.T. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests.

Koning, C. Wendell and Ernest R. Keeley. 1997. Salmonid Biostandards for Estimating Production Benefits of Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 3.

Murphy, M.L. 1985. Forestry impacts on freshwater habitat of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska - requirements for protection and restoration. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 3.

Peterson, N.P., A. Hendry, and T. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid habitat: some suggested parameters and threshold values. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 8.

Pojar, J., K. Klinka, and D.A. Demarchi. 1991. Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. In Ecosystems of British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, British Columbia. Chapter 6.

Reinholt, Ron. 1998. Pers. comm. BioTerra Consulting, Williams Lake, B.C.

Riley, S.C. and K.D. Fausch. 1995. Trout population response to habitat enhancement in six northern Colorado streams. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 3.

Rosner, Jesse. 1998. Pers. comm. Broadway Rentals, Williams Lake, B.C.

Sullivan, K., T.E. Lisle, C.A. Dollof, G.E. grant, and L. Reid. 1987. Stream Channels: the link between forests and fishes. Pages 39-97. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 8.

Trask, Steve and Bruce Reininger. 1997. The use of draft horses in watershed restoration. Streamline Technical Bulletin. Vol. 2. No. 3.

Whyte, Ian W., Scott Babakaiff, Mark A. Adams, Paul A. Giroux. 1997. Restoring Fish Access and Rehabilitation of Spawning Sites. In Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. Chapter 5.