Prepared by:

BioTerra Consulting

#201 - 197 Second Avenue North

Williams Lake, B.C. V2G 1Z5

Ph: (604) 392-7887

Fax: (604) 392-5887

Prepared for:

Through a competitive request for proposals process initiated by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Cariboo Region, Williams Lake (MoELP) as part of the Watershed Restoration Program of Forest Renewal B.C. (FRBC), BioTerra Consulting was selected to perform a Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) and Fish Passage Culvert Inspection (FPCI) on the Little River watershed. The FPCI falls under a separate report. The FPCI report covers all culverted road crossings on fish-bearing and suspected fish-bearing streams in the Little River watershed.

As per the specifications of the contract and the methodology outlined in WRP Technical Circular #8 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure, a Level 1 FHAP was performed on Little River Watershed. The results of the Overview assessment from Carmanah Research Ltd. showed fisheries values mainly in the mainstem of Little River as well as Roaring Creek, Ishkloo Creek, Tributary 363 and Maeford Lake. According to the Overview both coho and chinook salmon have been documented in reach 6 of the mainstem and bull trout and rainbow trout are present throughout the system. FISS information indicates that there is lake trout in Maeford and Grizzly Lakes (unnamed lake in reach 14).

Using the results of the Overview assessment, areas were recommended for field reconnaissance, mainly on the Little River mainstem reaches 1 and 7-10. These reaches were rated as high priority from the Overview. A low intensity fish abundance and distribution survey was performed on the mainstem, only where good access existed. Minnow traps were set for 24 hours at several locations (chinook and rainbow trout recovered in reach 1; bull trout recovered in the upper reaches). Evidence of bedload movement and increased peak flows is likely a result of forest harvesting above reaches 6 to 11.

Chinook salmon was identified as the target species for restoration in reaches 1 to 4. Bull trout is the target species for restoration in the upper reaches of Little River (reaches 6 to 11).

Sedimentation of Little River by forest roads is occurring in reaches 6 to 11. Reach one was identified as a high priority for stream restoration activities. Stabilization of mid- and lateral bars using LWD placements is the recommended restoration strategy. Confirmation of regenerating riparian areas in reaches 9 and 10 and monitoring of LWD impacts in these and downstream reaches is a recommendation.

Canadian Helicopters (Williams Lake) was utilized to perform the air video. The air video was shot using Canadian Helicopters nose-mount camera. Peter Nicklin and Brian Chapman recorded the aerial video and quality checked the field assessment. Brian Chapman of MoELP, Cariboo Region contributed technical information. Eric Braumandl contributed technical expertise. Level 1 field work was performed by Monika Geier and Steven Ratko. The mapping and database development was completed by Dan Iseminger and Richard Barry of Inland Timber Management Ltd. The report was co-authored by Peter Nicklin.

Steven Ratko

Fish and Wildlife Technician

Executive Summary

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

1.0 List of Tables

2.0 List of Figures

3.0 Introduction

4.0 Project Objectives

5.0 Project Scope

6.0 Background Information

7.0 Methods

8.0 Results

9.0 Discussion

10.0 Summary of Recommendations

11.0 References

APPENDIX 1: LEVEL 1 - HABITAT SURVEY DATA FORM

APPENDIX 2: LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT - FISH DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY FORM

APPENDIX 3: LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT - HABITAT DIAGNOSIS SUMMARY FORM

APPENDIX 4: B.C. CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE (FIELD FORM)

Table 1: Summary of FHAP sites and Recommendations................................................27

Accompanying 1: 20,000 map sheets are to be used in conjunction with this report. An aerial reconnaissance video of Little River was recorded and can be viewed for more detailed habitat information than that presented in the report photographs (BioTerra, 1997). The Overview Assessment report (Carmanah Research, 1997) should be consulted for complete background information for the Little River watershed.

The Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure is one of three Watershed Restoration Program (WRP) assessments that have been performed on the Little River Watershed (the other assessments are an Overview Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) and a Fish Passage Culvert Assessment (FPCI).

The target fish species in Little River watershed are bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus, blue listed), chinook and coho salmon. Bull trout are known to occupy high gradient, low order stream habitats (up to 30% slope) susceptible to damage from road crossings and forest harvesting due to the perception of low fish values. Other known fish species in the watershed are rainbow trout (RB- Oncorhynchus mykiss), lake trout (LT- Salvelinus namaycush), chub (CBC- chub general), coho (CO- Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook (CH- Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Chinook and coho are important economic species for the commercial and sport fishery in B.C. The long migration from the ocean to natal streams in the Interior of B.C. renders these species susceptible to fishing pressures from the sport, commercial and Native fishery. Degradation of natal streams can lead to a decline in the number of chinook and coho smolts over time. Overwintering and summer rearing habitat is critical for chinook and coho juveniles because of their extended period of residency in this system. Adult holding pools are critical for early arriving spawners to rest, acclimatize and seek cover from predators.

Extensive forest harvesting has occurred on the Little River mainstem up to Maeford Lake (Carmanah Research Ltd., 1997) and related impacts were identified through the Overview FHAP.

The objectives of the Little River watershed FHAP are to make an assessment of the current conditions of the watershed as it relates to present fisheries habitat conditions and to determine the effects on fisheries values by past forest harvesting. The purpose of performing the WRP assessments is to determine the best way to restore the watershed as closely as possible to its pre-logging state. These procedures are not being performed for management purposes.

The Overview and Level 1 FHAP were performed to get an overall picture of what fisheries values (habitat, species) may have existed in the watershed in the past and make an assessment of the present state of those fisheries values. This project will also determine the need for any future (more detailed) assessments and make recommendations for restoration of current fish habitat.

The Level 1 FHAP was performed on reaches 1,2,3 and 7-11 on Little River mainstem including Ishkloo Creek (Reach 1), and tributary -363 (Reach 1). Sites were concentrated on the Little River mainstem specified by the Overview Assessment (Carmanah,1997). The Overview suggested that sites be concentrated in reaches 1 and 7-10 due to their high fish values and logging related impacts. Additional reaches (2 and 3) in the Little River mainstem were sampled due to apparent aggradation and other forest harvesting impacts.

The Little River watershed (160-4661-282) flows into the Cariboo River and Cariboo Lake. It originates from several small lakes to the northeast and flows into Maeford lake. There is a 5 meter falls (FISS) approximately 150 meters downstream of Maeford lake. The mainstem of Little River is a fifth order stream with many small first order tributaries. The watershed is situated in both the Interior Cedar- Hemlock and Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zones.

Including 1996, 11% of the basin had been logged and the majority since the late 1980’s (Carmanah, 1997). Within the watershed most of the logging has taken place from the mouth of Little River and the Cariboo River up to Maeford Lake. According to the Overview FHAP (Carmanah,1997) extensive logging is planned to the year 2001, especially in the Ishkloo Creek sub-basin.

The methodology outlined in the WRP Technical Circular #8 (April 1996) was followed throughout the Level 1 Assessment.

The low intensity fish inventory assessment was performed using minnow traps. Minnow traps were set for a minimum of 24 hours and baited with salted salmon roe. Sites were chosen according to access on the mainstem. For trap site locations refer to accompanying 1: 20 000 maps.

A three hour aerial reconnaissance by helicopter was conducted on September 4, 1997 by Brian Chapman (MoELP) and Peter Nicklin. A Canadian Helicopters Bell 206 Jet Ranger with a nose-mount fixed video camera was used to record the Little River mainstem from the confluence with Cariboo River to Maeford Lake.

The Level 1 habitat assessment sites on the Little River mainstem were determined from guidance of the Overview Assessment (Reaches 1, 7-10) and by field visit (reaches 2 and 3). The majority of these sites were on the Little River mainstem due to the potential impact of logging and the lack of tributaries deemed large enough for FHAP purposes (3rd order). Two tributaries of Little River were assessed due to high fisheries values, discharge, and close proximity to harvesting (Ishkloo Creek and tributary 160-4661-282-363). None of the reaches were subsampled along their entire length, rather, measurements for every habitat unit were taken for a representative section (usually 500m) of the reach and the quantitative and qualitative summaries were extrapolated to the remainder of the reach. Sites were started at the downstream end of the sample site working in an upstream direction. Each site was surveyed for a minimum of 500 meters.

Habitat units were recorded working in an upstream direction. The locations of assessment sites were marked using fluorescent green flagging tape at the upstream and downstream boundaries. Measurements of stream widths and depths were taken with a 30m eslon tape and meter stick respectively. General habitat pictures were taken (35mm auto focus camera) along with secondary channels, erosion problems, possible fish passage problems, restoration opportunities and any other unique features. A hip chain was used to measure the length of the site and lengths of all habitat units. All measurements and notes were recorded on water proof Level 1- Habitat Survey Data Forms found in Appendix 1.

The Level 1 - Habitat Survey Data Form for reaches surveyed is in Appendix 1. Habitat values such as wetted and bankfull widths have been averaged on a per reach basis. The Level 1 - Fish Distribution Form is found in Appendix 2. The summary of Level 1 field survey data is presented in Appendix 3: Level 1 - Habitat Diagnosis Summary Form. Habitat unit ratings in the results are referring to the results of the Habitat Diagnosis Summary Form (Appendix 3). Refer to 9.0 Discussion for degree of impact caused by forest harvesting.

Eight chinook spawners were observed in reach 2 of Little River during the recording of the aerial reconnaissance video (BioTerra, 1997). Fieldwork commenced on September 2, 1997 and was completed on September 17, 1997.

This reach originates at the Cariboo River and ends approximately 4780 meters upstream. Both resident rainbow and juvenile chinook were captured in the minnow traps. The site assessment was performed (walked and measured) over a length of 2900 meters. This reach had the third lowest pool area of all sites in Little River at (0.9%) which gave it a poor rating. Only half of these pools were considered deep enough (>1m residual) to function as adequate adult holding pools. Cover in the pools was fair, due to the presence of large woody debris. The large woody debris (functional) rating for this reach was the highest of all the reaches sampled (Figure 1) on the mainstem at 6.24 pieces/channel width (wb), giving it a good rating. The gradient in this reach averages 1-1.5 % slope. Cover is dominated by large woody debris (LWD; mostly in the form of log jams) and subdominated by overhanging vegetation (deciduous). Spawning gravels are extensive, and found in long glides (ideal for chinook). The spawning gravel is considered to be suitable for both resident trout and anadromous salmon (chinook). The gravel is rated fair due to sand being subdominant in most of the habitat units, while intersticial spaces are generally clear. The riparian area is dominated by a mature mixed forest, which provides large woody debris recruitment. Five small dead ended (slough) channels were present in this reach as off-channel habitat, with an average length of 21 meters and with good access in only 2 out of 5. Fisheries values are considered high due to probable spawning habitat for both resident and anadromous species, good rearing and the presence of off channel habitats that can provide high water refuge. Most of the gravel in this reach is loosely compacted, indicating regular movement of bed material during high flows. Further evidence of bedload movement is seen in the high frequency of large, unvegetated bars throughout this reach (Fig. 1). Bank texture within section 1A was composed of a high degree of fines making them susceptible to erosion (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Reach 1 Little River (Mapsheet 93A84). Prominent scour. Likely sediment source (natural).

Access to Reach 2 was from the J road north off the 8400 rd (refer to 1:20,000 maps). Approximately 1774 meters of this reach was sampled. The total length of this reach was 7530 meters. This reach had the third highest large woody debris tally per channel width at 2.37 pieces/ channel width (rated good). Pool frequency was 14.8 channel widths between pools (rated poor). Seven of the eight pools measured at this site were greater than 1 meter residual depth and most provided enough cover to rate them as good adult holding pools. The three dominant cover types in this reach were deep pool, LWD and overhanging vegetation. Spawning gravel for the most part was abundant in almost all of the habitat units sampled (Figure 3). This gravel, due to its larger size, was suitable for anadromous species. Gravel quality was deemed good due to a lack of sand/silt substrate and clear gravel interstices. There were three sidechannels present in this reach with an average length of 57 meters with good access. The riparian area consisted of a mature coniferous forest dominated by spruce. The most abundant disturbance type noted in this reach was that most LWD was parallel to the banks, indicating presence of high flows of considerable energy (large pieces >50 cm diameter were moved). The channel morphology is a glide-riffle sequence with the occasional pool in between. This reach has long glides and riffles (Figure 4) that can likely be attributed to aggradation accelerated by harvesting in the upper watershed (through increased peak flows). This reach has a high fisheries value as a result of abundant anadromous spawning gravels, and habitat (glide habitat preferred by chinook), along with a diversity of cover for all life stages of fish. However, a lack of pool quantity throughout the reach is attributed to a likely increase and movement of bed load (in-filling of pools) from the upper watershed.

Reach 3 begins approximately 100 meters downstream of the G road bridge and continues 1570 meters upstream (Figure 5). The portion of reach sampled was approximately 646 meters, beginning at the downstream reach break. This reach had the highest pool area (13.23%) for all of the entire sampled mainstem, but was still rated poor. The large woody debris in this reach was rated poor with a value of 0.96 LWD/channel width. Cover is dominated by overhanging vegetation and large woody debris (Figure 6). All of the pools sampled were greater than one meter deep, but lacked enough cover to be considered good holding pools. Depth of pools alone does not offer much cover due to the high clarity of the water. Spawning gravels in this reach are better suited for anadromous species. Sand/silt is subdominant in some of the habitat units therefore giving the spawning gravel a fair rating because of in-filling of intersticial spaces. There are only small amounts of this spawning gravel present in isolated pockets. Substrate within this reach is large and is not favorable for resident trout spawning. The morphology in this reach is a riffle-pool repeating sequence. The dominant disturbance indicator in this reach was PD (LWD parallel to banks). In this reach there are long riffles that are likely the result of aggradation from increased bed material movement from upper reaches of the watershed. The dominant riparian vegetation is mature coniferous forest. The fisheries values in this reach are limited, due to extensive riffle zones present (offering minimal cover) and the reach is likely acting as a migration corridor.

Reach 7 begins downstream of the last bridge crossing (8432.2 km, refer to mapsheet 93A75) of Little River. Of the total 1600 meters of this reach, 1300 meters were sampled during the Level 1 Assessment. Pool frequency for this reach was the lowest for all of the mainstem sampled at 102.18 channel widths between pools. Pool area for this reach was also rated poor with a value of 0.73%. The majority of LWD was parallel to the river and high on the banks (non-functional). There is evidence that high flows are depositing LWD high onto the banks. Log jams had naturally recruited and forest harvest LWD within them. The LWD on the banks is likely a result of the adjacent cutblock and several others upstream of this reach (note squared off ends of logs; Figure 8). Riparian area was split between a recovering pole sapling (due to adjacent cut-block) and young mixed forest. Cover in this reach was dominated by overhanging vegetation (shrubs). This reach has an increase in gradient (average 3.5%, Fig. 7) compared to the lower reaches sampled. Reach 7 is characterized by a boulder, bedrock substrate and is confined. There were two small sidechannels located within this reach with an average length of twenty three meters and good access for rearing and high water refuge. Spawning gravels in this reach were lacking due to the size of the dominant substrate (boulder, cobble). During the inventory one bull trout was recovered close to the bridge crossing (Appendix 2).

This site began approximately 820 meters upstream of the 8432.2 km bridge crossing of Little River. Reach 8 was relatively short (460 meters). Approximately 430 meters were sampled. The channel morphology in this reach is more confined than reach 7 and has an increase in large boulders (Figure 10) and bedrock. The pool frequency was the second lowest of all the sampled sites on the mainstem at 53.09 channel widths between pools. Cover for this reach was dominated by overhanging vegetation (shrubs) and deep pool. The riparian area was dominated by a mature coniferous forest structure. This reach contained no off-channel habitat. The downstream end of this reach contained a large log jam (Figure 9). The logs are suspected to be recruited from the upper watershed (logging and natural LWD). Spawning gravel was minimal, located in only one of the habitat units, and suitable to chinook and coho species (cobble size). The gravel quality is rated as fair because sand is the subdominant substrate in some habitat units, but the intersticial gravel spaces were generally clear. Holding pools for resident and especially anadromous fish were infrequent. Of the pools recorded none were greater than one meter in residual depth. Fisheries values in this reach were low due to a lack of suitable spawning gravel and minimal pool habitat for rearing and adult holding. FISS information has recorded a 10 meter falls at the upper reach break that could not be located by ground assessment (the FISS location of these falls was explored on the ground) or air reconnaissance. This reach is above a series of falls/cascades, therefore anadromous fish are not expected in this reach.

Reach 9 is 5520 meters in length and approximately 1916 meters were sampled. Site 4 begins adjacent to a cutblock containing an adequate riparian buffer (>50m). Further upstream there is harvesting adjacent to the river, eliminating the riparian area, especially on the south side of Little River (Figure 12). Percent pools is rated as the second highest for the mainstem at 4.74%; it is still rated poor. Large woody debris for this section of river was the second highest for all of the mainstem that was sampled at 3.44 LWD pieces/ channel width (aided by recruitment of harvesting LWD). Occasional unvegetated bars with pockets of spawning gravel (Figure 11) were present. The riparian area consists of a mature coniferous forest at the downstream end and shrub in the upstream end of the reach (Figure 12). The pools were considered deep enough for resident fish to use as cover and holding. Cover in this reach was dominated by LWD, overhanging vegetation and deep pools. Located within this reach was one sidechannel with good access and a length of 13 meters. There was a higher frequency of areas of scour which may be attributable to moving LWD (Figure 13). Log jams contain evidence of in-stream logging debris (cut off logs present). During the field sampling a fish was observed that had white leading edges on its anal and pectoral fins and is suspected to be a bull trout (approximately 30cm in length, Appendix 2).

This reach is 240 meters in length and entirely sampled. The channel morphology for this reach was cascade throughout, with an average 4% slope. Cover was dominated by large woody debris and overhanging vegetation. Disturbance impacts were multiple channels and several log jams. The riparian vegetation for this reach was dominated by shrubs (Figure 14). The pools did not meet the minimum criteria of FHAP guidelines. This reach has minimal fish value for spawning due to a lack of spawning gravel. However, rearing habitat is considered fair, represented by a series of shallow pools and log jam cover. Habitat appears suitable for bull trout within this reach. No barriers were found to prevent access to this reach. The substrate was dominated by cobble.

This reach, according to the Overview Assessment (Carmanah Research, 1997) is 140 meters long. Within this reach there is a 5 meter falls (impassable to upstream migration) approximately 150 meters downstream of Maeford Lake (Figure 15). Reach 11 has a cascade morphology with the occasional pool. Cover in this reach is split between deep pool and boulder. There is a definite increase in confinement and quantity of bedrock (Figure 16) compared to reach 10. Substrate in this reach is dominated by bedrock and subdominated by boulder. Pool area for this reach averaged third highest for the mainstem at 2.91%, giving it a poor rating. Large woody debris was infrequent, with a rating of 0.33 LWD pieces/channel width and rated poor. The lack of functional LWD may be attributable to confinement, which suspended any LWD above the active channel. There was no off-channel habitat recorded for this reach due to confinement and slope.

Sampling for this reach commenced at the confluence with Little River. The tributary is located approximately 560 meters downstream of the bridge crossing at the G road (mapsheet 93A85). This tributary was sampled for 353 meters, up to the falls (series of 20-30 meter falls (Figure 17)). FISS information indicates that rainbow trout use the lower section below the falls. According to the Reconnaissance Level Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory there is a resident bull trout population above the falls (Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd., 1996). A very low pool area was recorded for this site (3.1%) along with a poor pool frequency of 43.31 channel widths between pools. Large woody debris was rated as poor (0.601 pieces/channel width); some LWD pieces were spanning the channel. The banks were generally stable with a gradual increase in slope approaching the falls. Cover is dominated by overhanging vegetation. Riparian vegetation in this reach was dominated by a mature coniferous forest. The substrate in this reach was dominated by cobble and gravel as subdominant. Spawning is isolated mainly to the mouth (Figure 18) of this tributary and an isolated small pocket at the base of the falls. There is high value rearing/overwintering at the base of the falls for chinook, coho, bull and rainbow trout. The morphology for this reach was dominated by a cascade, riffle repetition.

This reach was sampled from the confluence with Little River to 500 meters upstream. Ishkloo Creek appears to be approximately the same discharge as Little River at the point where the two streams confluence (Figure 19). This reach is basically a cascade morphology throughout the length of the sample site (Figure 20). There were no pools encountered that met the minimum requirements of the FHAP. Large woody debris counts were extremely low, with a rating of 0.21 LWD pieces/channel width. The riparian structure consisted of a young-mature coniferous forest. Substrate in this reach is dominated by boulder and subdominant cobble. Spawning gravels are isolated to very small pockets, deemed suitable for trout species. According to the Reconnaissance Level Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory there was a resident bull trout captured in this reach (Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd., 1996). Preparation for forest harvesting has begun in this sub-basin.

The upper reaches of this assessment (7-11) in the watershed are characterized by an increase in confinement and boulder/bedrock as dominant bed materials. Impacts from riparian harvesting, input of harvesting LWD and possible sediment from roads is evidenced by point bar deposition, log jams with harvesting debris and canopy removal adjacent to the stream. The target species for restoration in the upper watershed is bull trout.

Mainstem adult holding and rearing habitat in reaches 1 to 4 is limited. Chinook (and possibly coho) are mainstem spawners in Little River and although there is adequate spawning habitat, often there is little cover near to the spawning areas and low compaction indicates bed material is in constant flux. LWD in the lower reaches is considered fair, recruited naturally and by past forest harvesting. Log jams are providing the best rearing habitat due to the presence of excellent cover and creation of scour pools. Mainstem habitat is important because of the severe low winter flows and probable lack of off-channel overwintering habitat. Excellent off-channel and rearing habitat exists near the mouth of Little River (two channeled flood plain; refer to 1:20,000 map sheet 93A84).

Although FISS information indicates chinook and coho spawning in reach 6, a series of falls in reach 5 is the likely barrier to upstream migration and the limit to anadromous species (BioTerra, 1997). Therefore reaches 6 - 12 (below Maeford Lake) are considered to contain resident populations only (bull trout, lake trout, rainbow trout). Compared to reaches 1 to 4, gradients are relatively high (average approximately 3.5%) and these reaches are more confined. Substrate is larger (boulder, cobble and bedrock) and spawning habitat is more limited than in the lower reaches due to absence of suitable spawning gravels and suitable channel morphologies. Riparian area harvesting and subsequent introduction of LWD has created log jams which have benefited habitat complexity of the upper watershed. However, excessive amounts of LWD can lead to debris torrents and/or formations of fish barriers. Sedimentation from forest roads in adjacent cut-blocks has resulted in formation of sediment wedges and likely contributed to the in-filling of spawning gravel interstices downstream. Upstream migration is limited to upper reach 11 due to the presence of a 5 meter falls approximately 50 meters downstream of Maeford Lake. Therefore restoration opportunities within reaches 6- 11 will benefit the resident population within these reaches and the Ishkloo Creek sub-basin, but will not contribute to the fisheries values of Maeford Lake and above.

Assessment and prioritization of rehabilitation opportunities within the Little River watershed are contingent upon the degree of impact attributed to forest harvesting and the value of rehabilitation to the target fish species. The target fish species for the Little River drainage are chinook salmon, rainbow trout and bull trout. The target habitats for the above species are the Little River mainstem, Ishkloo Creek, tributary 363, off channel rearing and high water refuge habitat. The upper limit of fish upstream migration in the Little River mainstem is reach 5 (series of impassable chutes); tributary HWC 160-4661-282-363 has a series of falls preventing upstream migration. Resident bull trout populations above the barriers in tributary -363 are confirmed (Triton Environmental Consultants, 1996).

Forest harvesting has likely exacerbated the effects of spring peak flows in the Little River watershed. Clearcutting has occurred adjacent to the Little River mainstem and in the riparian area of reaches 7-10. These clearcuts have likely increased the spring peak flows and impacts associated with the peak flows. Scour and bedload movement in the upper reaches has likely increased the aggradation of the lower reaches. Probable sediment delivery from logging roads in reaches 7 - 10 has lead to increased sedimentation of spawning sites in reaches 1 - 4. Sedimentation (siltation) from natural landslides and bank erosion occurs throughout the watershed. Sedimentation is likely not a major impact to the lower reaches due to constant flushing during peak flows. Aggradation (bed material) is evidenced by low bed compaction and extensive amounts and frequency of unvegetated bars in reach 1 (and to a lesser degree in reach 2).

Restoration opportunities within the Little River watershed involve in-stream and upslope work. All species will benefit by deactivation of forest roads above reaches 6 to 11 to decrease the sediment entering the river. Reaches 9 and 10 (medium restoration priority) have had riparian harvesting performed on them. There appears to be adequate functioning LWD in these reaches at the moment, therefore in-stream placement of LWD is not recommended at this time (reaches 9 & 10). Confirmation of replanting/regeneration of the riparian areas of these reaches should be performed during the prescription phase. Monitoring of the continued function of the existing LWD should be performed on a yearly basis to determine the need for placement of structures. Abundant material is available for in-stream LWD placements (taken from non-functional places).

Reach 1 (refer to mapsheet 93A84) is designated as a high restoration priority due to its high fish values, degree of impact and ease of access. Stabilization of this reach will likely have great benefit to the chinook (and possibly coho, rainbow trout) fishery. Reach 1 has extensive areas of unvegetated bars, and monotypic riffle habitat. While there is adequate LWD in this reach, approximately 50% do not appear to be functional (BioTerra, 1997). Aggradation has likely in-filled many of the pools in this reach, thereby decreasing the area of rearing and adult holding pools. Approximately 30% of the unvegetated bars have been stabilized naturally by LWD. The goal of restoration in reach 1 would be to stabilize the extensive bars by burying LWD along lateral and mid-channel bars (leading to scouring of the main channel, pool creation and revegetating bars). LWD placements will recruit sediments (providing a growing medium for pioneer plant species such as alder) on the downstream side of the structure where velocities are lower; shunt flow away from the bar and promote scour of the main channel (thereby increasing the depth of the channel to promote pool formation); provide increased cover and adult holding pools for anadromous spawners (chinook salmon) (Soto et al, 1997).

It is recommended that LWD be placed (in reach 1) as per the specifications in the article Lateral and mid-channel bar stabilization (Soto et al, 1997). It is recommended that the LWD not be cabled into place, but rather have the downstream end buried into the bar as specified by Figure 7 in the aforementioned article. The LWD would be placed on the lateral bar with the root wad facing upstream and the downstream end buried in the substrate. Logs are placed in a lattice type of framework in order to have the greatest stability. This structure would trap other pieces of wood and settle out finer materials downstream. Small plants and shrubs would then take root in these areas (Soto et al, 1997). Many of the placement sites can be chosen using the aerial video (BioTerra, 1997). Templates for LWD orientation and construction should rely on the natural patterns that are functioning on some of the existing bars, again derived using the aerial video and ground reconnaissance.

No rehabilitation should be undertaken in this watershed until prescriptions have been written. It is understood that prescriptions involve calculations of habitat patterns to ensure placement of structures will have the greatest chance of success in surviving peak flow events.

Table 1: Summary of FHAP sites and Recommendations

* Little River site/reach