Prepared by:

BioTerra Consulting

#201-197 North Second Avenue

Williams Lake, BC

V2G 1Z5

For:

Kleena Kleene Resource Association

General Delivery

Kleena Kleene, BC

V0L 1M0

March 25, 1998

This report was prepared by Ron Reinholt. Thanks to Trina Avender for word processing. Mapping and associated database was completed by Richard Barry of Inland Timber Management Ltd. I appreciated the assistance of Glenn Goymer for database editing and reviews. Many thanks to Ken Jansen of the Kleena Kleene Resource Association for his assistance and use of his home for meeting facilities and Sandy Hart for his cooperation and expertise .

Ron Reinholt R.P.F.

Table 1. Scenarios and Strategies for Roads Requiring Deactivation.

The Kleena Kleene Resource Association (KKRA) was created in 1991 with the philosophy that the Association could have influence on the policy decisions affecting local resource use. The Association is designed to ensure that growth and development in the Kleena Kleene area proceeds in a manner which protects and maintains resource values. The Association is intended to be a vehicle for local people to participate in the management of their local resources.

As part of the Watershed Restoration Program (WRP), the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Cariboo Region and Ministry of Forests, Chilcotin Forest District, approved funding (through Forest Renewal B.C.) for the KKRA to carry out the following:

• Interior Watershed Assessment Level 1 (IWAP)
• Fish Habitat Assessment Overview and Level 1 (FHAP 1)
• Sediment Source Survey (SSS)
• Hydrologic Assessment of Marjorie Creek Watershed
• Channel Condition in Marjorie Creek Basin
• Access Management Map (AMM)
• Fish Habitat Assessment Level 2 (FHAP 2)
• Riparian Assessment Procedures and Prescriptions Watershed and Site Level (RAPP)
• Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan (IWRP)

This report details the AMM and IWRP. Briefly the AMM proposes strategies for access management within the project area considering current and future uses/needs. The IWRP defines the overall project scope of the WRP in the watershed and develops a clear set of watershed objectives. The objectives are based on a review of the above assessments and the recommendations contained within them.

The Clearwater Lake watershed generally follows the boundary of Bucket #353, and is defined by the area drained by Marjorie Creek above the confluence with McClinchy Creek. The area is within the Kleena Kleene Integrated Resource Management Zone, (Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan). The watershed totals 7,300 hectares with elevations ranging from 700 to 1,600 meters. The watershed lies within the Fraser Plateau physiographic zone on the transition between the Fraser Plateau and Coast Mountains. The Fraser Plateau is characterized by flat to gently rolling topography with large areas of undissected upland at elevations of 1,200 to 1,500 meters. A portion of the watershed lies within this upland. Surficial material is primarily composed of glacial drift while the bedrock geology is dominated by flat or gently dipping late Miocene or Pliocene olivine basalt flows (Holland, 1976).

The watershed is located within the sub-boreal pine spruce, very dry-cold (SBPS xc) biogeoclimatic sub-zone. The SBPS xc is dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and to a lesser extent (higher elevation) with white spruce (Picea glauca) with associations of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) (B.C. MoF 1989).

Annual precipitation is less than 400 mm (very dry) with a mean annual temperature of less than 2 degrees Celsius (cold). These temperature/precipitation values generally result in a short growing season and thus a forest productivity of low to poor (B.C. MoF 1989).

All harvesting within the watershed was carried out under the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program through the Chilcotin Forest District, Ministry of Forests between 1980 and 1991 with a majority taking place in the years 1989-1990. All of the harvested blocks exist within the upper reaches of the watershed.

The following is a brief description of the overview assessments listed in Section 1.0

A watershed assessment is a tool to assist forest managers understand the type and extent of current water-related problems that exist in a watershed. The Level 1 watershed assessment is a reconnaissance level analysis intended as a coarse filter to identify areas that may have impacts from the cumulative effects of past forest harvesting. The assessment focuses on four impacts:

1. the potential changes to peak flows
2. potential for accelerated surface erosion
3. impacts to channel riparian buffer
4. landslide potential

The collection and collation of data that describes the basic geophysical characteristics of the watershed and the extent and location of harvesting activities are used for this assessment. The results of this assessment will be used to determine the need for a more detailed Channel Assessment Procedure.

This assessment consists of two components: 1) an overview assessment of existing information and habitat information and 2) a watershed level 1 field survey of priority areas identified from the SSS and overview FHAP. The objective of the FHAP is to target specific stream areas for potential restoration.

The Sediment Source Survey focuses on active sediment sources regardless of origin. An active sediment source is a source currently producing sediment or a source from which there is a potential risk of sediment production. The survey includes sediment sources caused by natural events as well as those initiated by anthropogenic activity such as timber harvesting, mining, agriculture and recreation.

The objectives of this survey were twofold. The first was to identify and map active sediment sources which included a rating of each source for the potential of sediment generation. The second objective was to provide some direction for a rehabilitation program that will address the risk the identified sediment source pose to the environment.

Completed by J.S. Hart and Associates Ltd., this assessment was initiated by observations of low summer flows in Marjorie Creek. The objectives of this assessment were as follows:

• to map the natural drainage network of Marjorie Creek basin above Big Stick Lake Road (3-0).
• to evaluate the impact of logging and road construction on peak flows and low flows.
• to evaluate the impact and map the location of beaver (Castor canadensis) activity within the study area.
• to provide preliminary observations of channel conditions and opportunity for channel restoration.

Completed by J.S. Hart and Associates Ltd., this assessment was initiated by KKRA to provide information about the condition of the channels within the harvested area of Marjorie Creek basin and to develop strategies for restoration of these channels.

The Channel Conditions and Prescriptions Assessment methodology as outlined by Hogan et.al. (1996) was not followed during this assessment. The altered methods focused on the identification of specific channel sites where direct disturbance by harvesting equipment has been noted with feasible opportunity for restorative works under the WRP.

The objectives of this assessment are to identify appropriate restoration priorities and options and provide detailed site information necessary to develop prescriptions. Specifically this assessment determined appropriate restoration options within the Marjorie Creek drainage and provide sufficient site information necessary to prepare prescriptions for restorative works within the context of the IWRP.

The watershed level RAPP classifies riparian vegetation into segments where the impairment/loss of function is consistent and identifies those reaches where the impairment is a result of harvesting related activities. From the watershed level, reaches are prioritized for inclusion in the Site Level assessment where the following is assessed:

• identify significant loss or impairment and quantify the degree of riparian function loss.
• develop a rehabilitation plan prioritizing at the landscape and watershed level.
• develop a prescription providing management objectives, both preferred and alternative and prioritize stream segments for rehabilitation.

The overall objectives of the Access Management Strategies are to minimize road caused (short and long-term) watershed/ecosystem impacts by recommending strategies for road upgrading, maintenance, road deactivation, and access control.

The strategies are based on a Sediment Source Survey (a road condition inventory) (BioTerra, 1996) and an inventory of future access needs in the watershed by reviewing current planning documents including the Anahim Round Table (ART) Access Management Plan (AMP). Strategies include:

• type of access required (2WD, 4WD and None).
• proposed access strategies including roads requiring upgrading, roads requiring regular maintenance, inactive roads requiring reactivation, roads requiring deactivation (semi-permanent and permanent), and roads where no work is recommended and locations of access control points.

Roads potentially eligible for FRBC funding under the Watershed Restoration Program are also delineated.

Upon review of the completed assessments (Section 1.2) the underlying purpose of the IWRP is to define the overall project scope within the watershed and to develop a clear set of watershed and project objectives. The plan then sets planning and scheduling priorities for the prescription phase. The IWRP also considers the scheduling and access requirements for all proposed activities of the Watershed Restoration, Resources Inventory and Enhanced Forestry Programs.

Roads for assessment and strategy were taken from current forest cover maps and updated where possible with aerial photo coverage (1994). All roads were assigned a unique number (i.e., 1-1-2-2-2) generally according to the following hierarchical scheme:

Note that in some cases this produced a 6-digit road number. Maps were produced showing roads with their ID numbers, contours, streams (fish-bearing and suspected fish-bearing based on a 20% gradient), logged blocks and alienated land.

Although the watershed boundary exists on the IWRP map (Appendix III), roads extending outside the boundary and accessed from within the watershed area, were included in this report. The following road series were therefore included: 2-1, 3-0, 4-0, 5-0, 6-0.

A future use inventory was conducted for all roads in the watershed through a review of all current consolidated Forest Development Plans (FDP), licensee FDP’s, Small Business Forest Enterprise Program (SBFEP) plans and the Anahim Round Table Access Management Plan.

A draft of Preliminary Access Management Strategies and Map were produced using the future access needs inventory above and the road condition data contained in the Sediment Source Survey. Strategies were applied to all roads in the watershed using the following criteria (also see Table 1):

• Roads noted as overgrown or partially overgrown, with a low hazard rating were assumed to be stabilized. They received a Leave strategy.
• Roads with drainage or rutting problems received a Deactivate strategy.
• Roads with no field data especially in areas of recent logging and/or on moderately sloped terrain received a Field check designation. This refers to the need for these roads to be checked prior to the prescription development stage (Note: all roads received a field assessment).
• Older roads with no field data (i.e. pre-1980 harvesting), on gentle terrain, with no through access were assumed well vegetated, relatively armored and stable. They received a Leave strategy (not applicable).
• Harvesting/silviculture plans pre-1999 were not considered for a future use designation, as this (report) assumes that deactivation actions would occur no sooner than fall of 1998 and therefore these harvesting/silviculture activities would have been completed.
• Roads on or providing access to existing harvesting operations or public use were designated Maintain with 2WD access.
• Access Control Point locations were transferred from the Anahim Round Table, Access Management Plan to the IWRP map.

Roads eligible for WRP funding were then determined in consultation with Chilcotin Forest District. Roads under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport and Highways (MoTH) were determined from available MoTH maps and transferred to the AMM maps. Roads not under the jurisdiction of MoTH and roads without current permits are eligible for funding and were delineated on the preliminary AMM.

The draft AMM was then tabled in a public/agency review. The review, January 5-16, 1998 was preceded by advertisements in local papers and postings from December 22, 1997 to January 2, 1998 (Appendix IV). The two week review period was held concurrently at BioTerra’s office, Chilcotin Forest District Office, and offices of the KKRA. An open house was held at the Chilcotin Forest District office 9am-2pm and the Tatla Lake Library 3pm-7pm on January 15, 1998, where knowledgeable representatives from both BioTerra, KKRA and Ministry of Forests staff were available. Comment received from both the pubic and agency review (Appendix IV) was given due consideration and any revisions were incorporated into the IWRP map (Appendix III).

The road condition assessment and Sediment Source Survey identified deficiencies and problems associated with existing roads in the watershed. The Access Management Strategies address these identified problems by using strategies to correct problems and minimize future impact, while meeting needs of the various users in the watershed. Some roads were actively degrading and producing sediment. These roads were recommended for deactivation to a level consistent with future use and upgrade/maintain if the road is to remain fully open. Other roads were found to be stable (sometimes overgrown), well vegetated and armored against erosive forces, or previously deactivated. These roads were recommended to be left to natural recovery processes. Access Control Points (lock blocks) are shown at specific road junctions. These closures will be removable to allow access for future activities. The following table summarizes the lengths of road recommended under the various strategies by sub-basin (Table 2).

Strategies to reduce watershed impacts are outlined on the IWRP Map. Roads with problems were recommended for deactivation when future use was limited (not a main access or haul road). Main access roads with problems were recommended for upgrading or maintenance. Roads with problems but no identified future use were deactivated without access and with no designated future use. The Access Management Strategies are then incorporated into the development of the IWRP.

Following the review of all recommendations outlined in the previous assessments completed for the watershed (Section 1.2), the first approximation of the Watershed Level Objectives (WLO) are tabled at a meeting involving the client, Government representatives and all assessment contractors. The WLO are then discussed and refined at this meeting. The WLO serve to guide the restoration plan by setting planning and scheduling priorities for the prescription phase. Activities proposed under the Watershed Restoration, Resources Inventory and Enhanced Forestry Programs are also considered for scheduling and access requirements.

The IWRP map includes both the access strategies necessary for the Access Management Map and the components required for the IWRP.

Following a review of the completed assessments, which provides a perspective of the future watershed condition, the Watershed Level Objectives are developed. Objectives must be specific enough to clearly guide the restoration process, economically feasible to implement under the WRP and measurable to facilitate a monitoring/evaluation program.

Activities under the WRP will be utilized to conduct the following:

Through the IWAP it was determined that a high proportion of the watershed has been harvested (24%). The harvesting took place between 1980 and 1991 and it is the rate of harvest that prompted the KKRA to implement a number of assessments.

Prior to implementing the WRP assessments, however, the KKRA requested the Ministry of Forests to carry out a number of assessments pertaining to harvesting related activities. The three resulting reports produced by the Regional Hydrologist, Patrick Teti in 1994/95, examined; 1) water supply for irrigation, 2) road conditions and 3) potential hydrologic impacts.

Two indications, members of the association suspected to be the result of harvesting are decreased summer low flows and a decrease in the Clearwater Lake rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) population. Although the assessments did not conclude that harvesting activities directly resulted in either the decreased flow or rainbow trout population, the activities may have contributed to this outcome. Never the less there are activities under WRP which could be implemented to rehabilitate the area directly impacted by harvesting activities.

Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) ECA is the area of the watershed that has been clearcut, with a measure of hydrologic recovery that is determined by the degree of regeneration within each opening. The ECA, as a proportion of total watershed area, is 24%. This represents a considerable proportion of the watershed. Since all harvesting is recent and all regeneration is less than 3 meters in height, the blocks have not hydrologically recovered.

H₆₀ In the B.C. Interior, this is the elevation at which 60% of the watershed lies above. It represents a measure of snow presence during spring thaw. This is the time at which rain or snow events occur and have a high potential to impact the land base. Clearcut block have a higher potential to affect peak flows when above the H₆₀ (B.C. Ministry of the Environment, 1995). Seventy eight percent of the harvested area in this watershed is above the H₆₀ elevation.

Road Density A main contributor of potential increased surface erosion in many watersheds is the construction and existence of forest roads regardless of their status.

Road density throughout the watershed is moderate, however, road density above the H₆₀ elevation scores high from the IWAP analysis. It is roads above the H₆₀ where more problems are encountered through the SSS and Channel Condition Assessment.

Channel Condition Observations by Hart (1997b) indicated that channel disturbance in the study area was primarily related to direct disturbance by harvesting equipment operation along channels by the proximity of roads and stream crossings. Opportunities for the rehabilitation of these channels is limited, however to sites where a diversion potential exists or flows have previously been diverted.

Johnston and Moore (1995) outline a process to determine restoration strategy, by way of a flowchart. A series of questions are posed in the flowchart concerning the impaired resource, which lead the reader to one of four strategies outlined below. When attempting to deal with an impaired resource there are two aspects which the restoration process may deal with; form and function. Restoring the form of a resource presupposes that the original state of the resource is the desired future condition. Therefore, restoring form may be a costly and time consuming strategy. Restoring the function of a resource attempts to re-establish the basic "workings" of the site in an effort to allow the resource to function as it did prior to disturbance. Because of its scope, restoring the function of a resource is technically less complex and less costly.

Johnston and Moore specify four restoration strategies:

The following Table 3 details specific impacted sites requiring restoration measures. The last column in this table is intended to develop cost estimates for the prescription phase of the plan (see Section 10.0). Note, ACP refers to the Access Control Points from the Anahim Round Table, Access Management Plan.

Site Type	Ref No.	Impact	Associated Road Strategy	Restoration Strategy	Estimated person-days for Level 2 (professional, based on a 10 hr. day)
Sediment Source	1	- erosion of fine textured soil on fire guard (ATV trail) potential for direct delivery into diversion ditch on a £ 35% slope	01-Jan - leave - ACP	- recontour and install cross-drains by hand - revegetate with herbaceous and woody species	0.1
	2	- moderate surface erosion from cutslope - potential direct delivery into a fish bearing stream £ 35% slope	1-1 - leave - ACP	- recontour and install cross-drains by hand - revegetate with herbaceous and woody species	0.15
	3	- minor surface erosion (channelization) of fine textured soils £ 18% slope	1-1 - leave	- recontour and install cross-drains - revegetate with herbaceous and woody species	0.15
	4	- seasonal water flow over road surface (ephemeral stream), no culvert, < 10% slope	3-0 - upgrade, 2WD	- install culvert - road upgrading will correct problem	0.1
	5	- several fords (11) with potential delivery into suspected fish bearing creek	5-0,5-5 - permanent deactivation - ACP -see also prescription sites #14,15	- limit access - armour base and decrease approach angle of fords	0.1
	6	- moderate road surface erosion along 1.3 km of road	5-3 - leave - ACP	- install/reinstall cross-drains - revegetate with herbaceous and woody species	0.15
	7	- major surface erosion on road, 15-20 % slope	5-6 - permanent deactivation, 4WD - ACP	- limit access - install/reinstall cross-drains and armour base	0.1
	8	- minor gully formation, exposed mineral soil subject to erosion during peak flows with slopes up to 40%	5-6-8 - permanent deactivation - ACP	- prevent access - recontour, install cross-drains - revegetate with herbaceous and woody species	0.15
	9	- scattered areas of exposed mineral soil associated with ridges, 0-35% slope - loss of site productivity	5-6-1-5 - leave - ACP	- prevent access - recontour, install cross-drains - revegetate with herbaceous and woody species	0.2
Channel Assessment Prescription Site	1	- discontinuous channel development upstream - road fill across drainage line for spur road crossing - no culvert	4-5-2 - leave - ACP	- re-establish stream channel	0.1

Table 3 con’t
Site Type	Ref No.		Impact		Associated Road Strategy		Restoration Strategy		Estimated person-days for Level 2 (professional, based on a 10 hr. day)
Channel Assessment Prescription Site	2		- spur road crossing - road fill over logs		4-5-1 - leave - ACP		- remove log and fill - prevent access		0.1
	3		- road crossing - log culvert with fill - potential for flow diversion east along road		4-7 - leave, 4WD		- log removal - install ford and re-establish stream		0.1
	4		- road crossing -cross-drain to east would carry high flow only		4-7 - leave, 4WD		- log removal - install ford and re-establish stream		0.1
	5		- road crossing - channel and two adjacent drainages diverted by ditch along road to cross at 4th drainage line - plugged log culvert at this crossing causing erosion of road surface		5-1 - leave - ACP		- re-establish streams - remove log culvert and fill		0.25
	6		- channel disturbance and riparian zone rutting - skidder crossing noted at 5 sites - potential for diversion from channels due to ruts 250m downstream from road, - accelerated sedimentation and scouring		N/A		- prescribe to check during high flows		0.15
	7		- cross drain located 20m east of natural channel - potential for portion of flow to be diverted away from natural drainage path		5-0 - permanent deactivation 4WD - ACP		- install and armour ford - re-establish natural drainage channel		0.15
	8		- channel in ruts at skid trail crossing at landing		N/A		- prescriber to check during prescription phase		0.15
	9		- seepage flow deflected around landing and along logging road, away from natural drainage path		N/A		- re-establish stream channel		0.1
	10		- flow diverted from natural pathway to adjacent channel by road berm		5-3-1		- restore natural drainage pathway		0.15
	11		- road crossing 90m from cutblock boundary - eroding fill and log debris at cross-drain - considerable downstream sedimentation related to roadfill erosion and surface erosion along upslope road		5-1 - leave - ACP		- re-establish stream and install cross-drains		0.15
	12		- road crossing - stable ford - up 5-4 to NE seepage is flowing 75m along road cuts thence to stream		5-4 - permanent deactivation - ACP		- install cross-drains - revegetate with herbaceous and woody species		0.15

Table 3 con’t
Site Type	Ref No.		Impact		Associated Road Strategy		Restoration Strategy		Estimated person-days for Level 2 (professional)
Channel Assessment Prescription Site	13		- road crossing - eroding road fill in shallow cross drain impounding small pond upstream - plugged metal culvert - runoff and moderate surface erosion 200m along road to this crossing		5-6-1 - permanent deactivation, 4WD - ACP		- remove culvert - re-establish stream by installing ford and armour - install cross-drains		0.2
	14		- road crossing - channel disturbance and riparian zone rutting immediately upstream - potential for flow diversion out of natural path immediately below crossing		5-0 - permanent deactivation - 4WD - ACP		- re-establish stream, reinstall ford improving approach angle and armouring - re-establish stream channel upstream and downstream of crossing		0.15
	15		- frequent channel disturbance - riparian zone rutting and logging debris over channel - road paralleling channel on north side, potential for flow diversion along road		5-4-1 - leave - ACP		- install cross-drain to stream and cross-drains across road		0.15
Monitoring Site	M1		- N/A		3-0 -Marjorie Creek (main channel)		- maintain stream flow gauging station		previously established
	M2		- N/A		Marjorie Creek (diversion channel)		- maintain stream flow gauging station		previously established

The following work sequence (Table 4) outlines activities that are to occur within the project area in a specific order. A number of assumptions are made, however, that are not outlined in this table, these are as follows:

• It is assumed that work conducted on road systems will commence at the end of the road and move down the road system, unless otherwise specified.

• It is assumed that spur and branch roads off the main road specifically addressed below will be deactivated sequentially along with the main road.

• Road work located upland of impacted channels will be addressed prior to channel rehabilitation unless otherwise specified.

• All rehabilitation measures should obtain guidance from this report and the accompanying map as well as the previous assessments listed in Section 1.0.

Tables 3 and 4 provide an estimate of the time required for professional development of prescriptions for restoration works. Table 3 applies to the time required for specific sites. While Table 4 applies to the road related prescription only and not the sites listed under the Notes column. The estimated person-days in Table 4 is based on field prescription rate of 1 km/hour and 10 hours/day.

Following the complete review of the assessments listed in Section 1.0, an IWRP is completed. The underlying purpose of an IWRP is to define the overall project scope within the watershed and to develop a clear set of watershed and project objectives. Priorities and rehabilitation strategies for the objectives are then developed guiding the prescription phase and subsequent major works.

The Clearwater watershed has experienced a considerable rate of harvest during the period 1980-91. This prompted the KKRA to begin a series of assessments through the WRP. The IWAP (BioTerra, 1996a) provided inventory data on the general watershed condition while the remaining assessments addressed site specific impacts. Although the FHAP Level 1 and 2 and the RAPP identified no restoration opportunity directly associated with forest harvesting activities, the SSS, Channel Condition and Hydrologic Assessment did identify numerous restoration opportunities under the WRP.

The restoration strategy assigned to the component projects, focuses on restoring resource function. This is the most appropriate strategy given the existing watershed condition. This restoration strategy will guide the prescription phase by focusing efforts on restoring resource function. Data in Tables 3 and 4 provide information required to develop costs for the prescription phase.

During the preparation of this IWRP several items of concern surfaced which warrant attention. The following are several recommendations. Input is welcome from Government, licensee and landowner associations in this early stage of IWRP in the Cariboo Forest Region.

• The access planning recommended a strategy of Leave when the air photo review and field assessment indicated that no work was required as the road has , for example, revegetated and/or previously deactivated. In many cases the road was only assessed at its point of origin and not the entire length. It is recommended further field assessment be undertaken, on these roads, during the prescription phase to verify their hydrologic stability.

• Although road closures are not considered an access management planning component they do appear on this plan as this information was obtained from the Anahim Round Table, Access Management Map.

• The recommended sequence of restoration works outlined in Table 4, may still be used in the event the access strategy is changed from that outlined in this plan.