Prepared for:

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

Cariboo Region

Ste. 400 - 640 Borland St.

Williams Lake, B.C.

V2G 4T1

Prepared by:

BioTerra Consulting

#201 - 197 2nd Ave N.

Williams Lake, B.C.

V2G 1Z5

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 Level 1 FHAP falls under a separate report. The FPCI report covers all road crossings requiring culverts on fish-bearing and suspected fish-bearing streams in this watershed.

The majority of the culverts are on non fish-bearing tributaries (due to high gradient and low flow) to Little River. No fish were recovered after sampling during the inspection. Very low population density has been attributed to the lack of fish recovery. Deactivation by Weldwood, Williams Lake is planned for the logging roads in areas of completed harvesting and silviculture. These roads were driven to look for any potential problems that needed immediate attention (no immediate impacts were noted). The main road through the watershed is the 8400 road; all logging roads branch off of this road. The 8400 road is used for active harvesting as well as for access to high use recreation areas, thus use will not decline to a great extent once harvesting has been completed in this watershed.

A total of 69 stream crossings were visited, 6 of those crossings were assessed in detail for fish passage issues. Three of the 6 sites assessed in detail are considered to be barriers to fish passage.

Table of Contents

Table of Figures

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Methodology

3.0 Results and Discussion

4.0 General Watershed Information

Table 1: Summary of Inspected Culverts and Recommendations

5.0 Summary

6.0 References

Appendix 1: FPCI Field Cards

The Fish Passage Culvert Assessment (FPCI) is one of three Watershed Restoration Program (WRP) assessments being performed on the Little River Watershed (the other assessments are an Overview Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) and a Level 1 FHAP). The FPCI is contiguous with the Level 1 FHAP. The Ministry of Environment (MOELP), Cariboo Region opted to include the FPCI as part of the second step in the WRP assessment of Little River because of the road network adjacent to possible high value fisheries tributaries of the Little River.

The fish species of particular concern in this watershed is bull trout. Bull trout are known to occupy high gradient habitats (up to 30% slope) susceptible to damage from road crossings due to perception of low fish values in the past and present.

Extensive forest harvesting has occurred on the Little River mainstem up to Maeford Lake (Carmanah Research Ltd., 1997). The 8400 logging road parallels Little River upstream from Claire Creek to two kilometers northeast of Maeford Lake. At this point Little River bends east and the 8400 road continues up a major tributary (HWC 160-4661-282-842) beyond the watershed boundary (8447 km). The 8400 road is a high recreation use road, as it forms part of a loop to Barkerville, access to Ghost Lake, the Cameron Ridge Trail, and Cariboo Mountains Provincial Park. Once harvesting and silviculture have been completed in this watershed there will still be a considerable amount of traffic on this road. Maintenance of this road will need to continue indefinitely.

The Little River is bounded on the north and south by steep (>25%), high elevation slopes. This system resembles a coastal stream, containing many high gradient first and second order tributaries pouring directly into the Little River mainstem. There are many culverts on the logging roads, which may or may not be impacting fish passage along Little River tributaries, due to improper installation and/or maintenance. Culvert problems on logging roads are often resolved by deactivation (culvert removal) subsequent to harvesting and silviculture. Roads remaining in use and having active culverts must be maintained to ensure continuing proper culvert function (allowing fish passage at all flows) and to prevent road fill erosion.

Culverts can cause degradation and/or loss of habitat for a number of reasons. Improperly sized culverts can prevent fish access upstream by; increased/decreased water velocities and depths at all times or during periods of high and/or low runoff. Formation of a scoured plunge pool at the culvert outlet can eventually become a large enough drop (species specific) to prevent fry, juvenile and in some cases adult migration. Culvert installation at improper angle and installation at improper slope (mainly too steep) can be other causes of fish passage problems. Not all culvert problems are associated with a small culvert. Loss of habitat due to low flows in a large culvert can prevent upstream and downstream migration to juveniles and adults. Critical to proper culvert placement is an understanding of hydrology (flow rates by season) within a watershed to ensure fish passage is probable at all flow regimes. In some cases fish-friendly culverts (baffled and arch) may be needed to replace culverts creating velocity or migration barriers (low flow, insufficient depth).

The objective of this project is to assess the culverts on fish bearing or possible fish bearing streams in the Little River watershed for passage problems. As mentioned previously, a Level 1 FHAP has also been completed on this system, but none of the sites chosen for that assessment overlapped with the sites assessed for this project. Little was known about the streams passing through any of the FPCI sites. The majority of these sites were on small, first order tributaries to Little River. Given the flashiness and high energy of the Little River system in general (determined from evidence of scour, aggradation, changes in wetted width and lack of moss on exposed bed material) the larger tributaries had bridges for stream crossings. Placement of bridges eliminates the risk of culvert failure associated with this type of river system.

Triton Environmental Consultants (1997) have identified the stream networks (Little River and tributaries) upstream of Maeford Lake as non-fish bearing, with a recommendation for further sampling. FISS information indicates lake trout presence in Grizzly Lake (see accompanying 1:20,000 scale map, 93A086), therefore all streams below this lake will be considered fish bearing.

Methods used for this report followed those outlined in Fish Passage Culvert Inspection - Draft 2A Manual (April 1997) with the following exception: GPS/UTM coordinates were not recorded on the FPCI forms because accurate locations of fish passage barrier culverts were known using the kilometer signboards from the 8400 logging road (there were no fish barrier culverts off the 8400 road). Stream velocity measurements were not always obtained due to very low flows in some of the streams.

Calculations for diameter of culvert needed to pass 100 year flood volumes (Q100) used the formula presented on page 5 of the FPCI Draft 2A Manual and the stream data presented in the FPCI forms in Appendix 1.

Fisheries inventory information was not available at the time of the fieldwork or the report, thus classification of culverted streams was not known. Culvert inspections were performed on streams based on gradient (up to 30% based on a step-pool morphology, since bull trout reside in the Little River system).

A Smith Root Model 12B was used for all electroshocking. Minnow traps were baited with salted salmon roe. Gradients were measured with a Suunto Clinometer. Flow velocities were obtained using a ping-pong ball due to the low depth of water through the culverts and tributaries. Conductivity was measured with a Pin-point CM6 and temperature with a hand-held thermometer.

The general strategy of the FPCI fieldwork was to begin inspections at the headwaters of the watershed (above Maeford Lake) and work back to the mouth of Little River.

An accompanying set of 1:20 000 scale maps should be used in conjunction with this report.

Refer to Appendix 1 for the FPCI field cards.

All site locations denoted by 84-- refer to locations on the 8400 logging road.

This site crosses tributary HWC 160-4661-282-842-516 and has a 1500 mm culvert, partially crushed down through its entire length. The culvert site is located at 8446 km on the 8400 road. A 70cm section has broken off at the outlet (Figure 1). The culvert water velocity could not be measured because of the low depth, however the upstream velocity was 0.15 m/sec. Electroshocking sampling effort of 80 seconds in all favorable downstream habitat (325 meter distance) did not produce any fish. There were very few areas available to fish to seek cover due to a natural lack of habitat complexity and low flows at the time of survey. The conductivity of the stream was 60 microseimons (favorable for electroshocking) and temperature was 12⁰ Celsius. The stream habitat was adequate for bull trout rearing (no deep pools, but did have some boulder cover) and overhanging vegetation for cover. A natural barrier (0.80 m falls, Fig 2) 250 meters downstream is likely a low flow barrier preventing juvenile and fry upstream migration to the culvert. Two shallow ponds (60 cm depth) are located approximately 75 m downstream of the natural barrier. The ponds were observed for any possible evidence of fish activity, but none was observed.

Access to the culvert is deemed unlikely at low flows and habitat available upstream of the culvert is very marginal (although approximately 300 meters of upstream habitat is currently unavailable to fish). The upstream habitat consists of riffle with no pools, little opportunity for pool formation and a lack of any type of cover (Fig. 3). The culvert is a barrier to fish passage, however, there is a low likelihood of fish seeking out habitat upstream of the culvert due to the low quality of upstream habitat.

Repairs to this culvert strictly for fish passage are unwarranted and not recommended at this site, but the crossingmust be upsgraded to a larger culvert or bridge (FPC standards for passing a 100 year flood event requires a minimum 2.32m diameter culvert at this site; this requires an engineered design). Culvert replacement includes avoiding the present "gun barrel" scenario (ice accumulation is probably responsible for the present break), which acts as a barrier to upstream migration.

Site 3 (location 8445 km) is likely not a fish passage issue because the road is located along the toe of a 26% slope. The tributary is suspected fish bearing up to the toe of this slope (culvert site), but upstream of the road the habitat is very marginal for any species of fish including bull trout (a cascade profile, deemed inaccessible during all flows, Fig. 9). The 1200 mm culvert is aggrading to the point where 50% of the culvert volume is cobble/gravel at the inlet. There is a danger of the culvert plugging with organic debris at high flows, which could cause a road washout or at the least a major sediment input to tributary HWC 160-4661-282-842. The 1200 mm culvert is inadequate for FPC standards (1900 mm minimum to pass 100 year flood), and should be re-placed.

Site 4 (location 8443 km) has similar characteristics to Site 3. The road runs perpendicular to the slope along the toe. The stream below the culvert has fisheries value for all species (high water refuge, rearing habitat), but the habitat above the culvert has minimal opportunities for any species at any time of the year (Fig. 12) due to low flow, high gradient and lack of pools. The 600 mm culvert is filling with gravels/cobbles and there is evidence of downstream aggradation. An outlet drop of approximately 35 cm prevents possible upstream migration of juveniles and fry, classing the culvert as a barrier in the strictest definition. A lack of upstream habitat prevents the site from being classed as a barrier. Site 4 was classed as a moderate sediment source, impacting downstream habitat values (Fig. 13). No fish survey was performed due to a lack of flow and absence of fish habitat above the culvert.

The recommendation for this site is to replace the culvert with a 1200 mm diameter culvert to bring the crossing up to FPC standards for ability to pass a 100 year flood event (calculated using formula from FPCI manual).

Site 5 is a double culvert site located at 8442.5 km. Both culverts are 1200 mm diameter and 18.2 meters long. One FPCI form was filled out for both culverts because both culverts have the same physical characteristics and very similar stream flows. There is evidence of gravel accumulation (5cm depth) within the culverts (Fig. 14) and downstream aggradation. No fish were caught after 200 seconds of electroshocking effort and four minnow trap sets (24 hours). There were no instream or gradient barriers encountered during the downstream survey which would prevent access to the culvert. Low population density was deemed the significant reason for fish absence during the time of survey rather than lack of habitat. Seasonal fish use is highly probable (fall spawning for bull trout, high water refuge) and second trial sampling is recommended at this site during spring freshet to assess for high water barrier.

Organic debris is accumulating on the upstream side of the culverts, and should be checked at high flows to prevent culvert plug-up (Fig. 15). There is no evidence of road fill erosion on either the upstream or the downstream side of the culverts. The stream velocity in the culverts appears to be the same as the velocity of the natural stream (velocity could not be measured due to shallow water). Neither of the culverts is a barrier to fish passage at low flows due to similarity of velocities and substrate to the natural stream. The culverts may be a barrier to fish passage during high water because of increased water velocity through the culverts (30cm high water mark).

To avoid the possibility of a culvert plugging at high flows both of the 1200 mm culverts should be replaced with a single arch plate culvert/bridge to bring the stream crossing up to FPC standards (minimum 1750 mm diameter round culvert). The natural stream bed would form the bottom of the culvert (decreasing high water velocities and increasing the suitability of fish passage) and the chance of a debris plug would be greatly reduced.

Site 6 (location 8441 km) is similar to Site 5. It is a double culvert site with two 1400 mm culverts passing water. The culvert water velocity is 0.745 m/sec (velocity measured in eastern culvert only) which is a barrier to juvenile rainbow trout less than 50 mm in length (MoE, 1997) (rainbow trout are not present in this stream, but the swim velocity will be extrapolated to bull trout). The culverts are placed approximately 4.5 meters apart (Fig. 16). The road is situated at the toe of the slope and runs perpendicular; the stream widens out just above the road due to a gradient drop and less confinement. The lower energy section directly above the culvert has resulted in aggradation above the inlet to the culverts (Fig. 16). The aggradation is concentrated above the inlet of the western (the right culvert in Fig. 16) culvert, which has decreased the volume of water entering it and correspondingly increased the volume of water entering the eastern culvert. Organic debris is starting to accumulate at the inlet of the eastern (left in Fig. 16) culvert, which could become a maintenance problem at high flows (possible culvert failure).

Neither electroshocking (effort 463 seconds) nor minnow trapping produced any fish. The gradient below the culverts is 17% (Fig. 17), which is suitable for bull trout migration. The habitat above the culverts is deemed favourable to fish, consisting of larger step pools (preferred bull trout habitat, Fig. 18). No instream or gradient barriers were encountered upstream or downstream of the culvert. This site and stream are suspected fish bearing.

The recommendation for this site is to replace the double culvert with 1) a single arch-plate culvert using the natural stream materials for the bottom of the culvert or 2) a bridge. The minimum diameter for a round culvert under FPC standards is 2.19 m (requires engineered design), therefore, given the large size of required culvert and high probability of it being a low flow fish barrier, the recommendation for an arch culvert or bridge is given. The arch culvert decreases the velocity of the stream by not constricting the natural stream width and by retaining the roughness of the stream through the structure. Given the fact that the stream is suspected fish bearing, additional sampling (during fall for bull trout spawning or shortly after spring freshet to capture fish utilizing the stream as high water refuge) should be performed before a new culvert is installed to justify expenditure. The recommendation for installing an arch culvert is dependent on the confirmation of a fish bearing status for this stream. However, cost/benefit of a single structure installation may outweigh the consequence of future maintenance of the current site and the possibility of a culvert failure and road wash-out.

Approximately 800 meters of habitat would be made available for juvenile upstream migration by replacing the existing crossing structure with an arch culvert or other suitable fish stream crossing structure (bridge, baffled culvert, etc.). Due to the high amount of potential habitat being made available to juveniles (and possibly adults because of the suspected smaller size of adults in this system) this stream crossing is given the highest priority for replacement (again dependent on the presence of fish during second trial sampling mentioned above).

Site 7 (location 8440 km) is a double culvert crossing consisting of two 900 mm culverts placed approximately 80cm apart. One FPCI form was filled out for both culverts because the culverts have the same physical characteristics and stream flows. The stream crossing is not a fish passage barrier because of the high gradient and unfavourable fish habitat directly upstream of the inlet to the two culverts (26% slope, cascade with no pools). The culverts are aggrading and currently half filled with coarse fragments and gravels (Fig. 19).

Forest Practices Code standards require a minimum 1250 mm diameter round culvert to safely pass a 100 year flood event (according to the Q100 formula in the FPCI manual) at this stream crossing, and at present the crossing is aggraded and likely not able to pass a large flood event. Therefore the recommendation for this site is to bring it up to FPC standards.

Numerous logging roads in the watershed require deactivation. According to the Horsefly Forest District (MoF), the main licensee in the watershed is Weldwood, and all deactivation is still in the planning phase (MoF, Horsefly, Norm DeWinter. pers. comm. July, 1997).

There is future forest harvesting planned in the Ishkloo Creek/Barkers Creek systems (Barkers Creek HWC 160-4661-282-524-239). The new logging road was flown after the video overflight of Little River mainstem, and no immediate problems were observed with respect to fish passage through culverts since most crossings used bridge structures or were on very steep, low volume ephemeral tributaries.

The "G" road exits north at 8427 km down to Little River, crosses (bridge) and continues to new blocks on the north slope of the Little River valley. There are no fish passage issues on this new road due to high gradient (approximately 30% slope) and low flow at all culvert crossings.

Work priority was based on 1) meters of stream that would be made available to fish through replacement of crossing 2) whether or not the culvert was up to current FPC standards 3) maintenance issues and potential/presence of impaired/failed function of the stream crossing.

The Little River Watershed has few fish passage culvert issues. For the most part Little River is bounded by steep valley walls limiting the number of tributaries with fish habitat due to high gradient. The majority of the culverts in the watershed are upslope of high gradient reaches and resident populations are not suspected above due to continuing high gradient and lack of upstream habitat. The larger tributaries (Ishkloo Creek, tributary HWC 160-4661-282-842, Barkers Creek) have bridge crossings which do not present fish passage concerns.

The 8400 road has had problems with failures as recently as the spring of 1997 (MoF, Horsefly District. Norm DeWinter pers. comm., 1997) and is likely a sediment source to Little River at various points. Work has been completed recently to repair past failures and the long term goal is to bring the entire road up to Forest Practices Code standards. Deactivation (by Weldwood, Williams Lake) is planned for the older blocks on both the south and north sides of Little River (MoF, Horsefly District. Norm DeWinter pers. comm., 1997).

The culvert sites requiring work, possibly impacting, or potentially impacting fish habitat were concentrated on tributaries of Little River above Maeford Lake and tributary HWC 160-4661-282-842. No fish were recovered by electroshocking or minnow trapping at any of the culvert sites. No recovery is deemed a result of low population density and seasonal fish use in these areas.

General recommendations for culvert work in this watershed are the following:

1. Bring the entire 8400 road up to FPC standards with exceptions for the culvert recommendations mentioned in Table 1.
2. Deactivate the older logging roads (especially culvert removal and sediment source stabilization) on either side of Little River Valley.
3. Monitor future road construction for fish passage issues using information from the Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory (Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd., 1997).

Carmanah Research Ltd. 1997. Overview Report: Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure - Cariboo River Study Area. Victoria, B.C.

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 1997. Little River Watershed Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory. Richmond, B.C.

Ministry of Environment. 1997. Fish Passage Culvert Inspection - Draft 2A Manual. Williams Lake, B.C.

Ministry of Forests. 1997. Pers. comm. Horsefly District.

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.

Poulin, V.A. and Associates Ltd. and H.W. Argent. 1997. Stream Crossing Guidebook for Fish Streams. A Working Draft for 1997/1998. Forest Practices Code.