Prepared by:

BioTerra Consulting

#301-19 First Ave. N.

Williams Lake, BC

V2G 4T6

For:

Kleena Kleene Resource Association

General Delivery

Kleena Kleene, BC

V0L 1M0

November 8, 1996

The Clearwater Lake watershed has experienced the removal of approximately 25% of the forested land-base over an eleven year period. The Kleena Kleene Resource Association (KKRA), recognizing this loss over a relatively short period of time (1980-1991), initiated several individual impact assessments through the Ministry of Forests, Cariboo Forest Region. In addition to these individual assessments, the KKRA submitted (1995) a detailed proposal under the Watershed Restoration Program (WRP) through Forest Renewal British Columbia (FRBC).

Through the WRP the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks approved FRBC funding for the KKRA to carry out a Level 1 Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (IWAP) and an Overview and Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment (FHAP) on the Clearwater Lake watershed area (Appendix I & VI). Through the Ministry of Forests, Chilcotin Forest District, approval was given for the KKRA to complete a Sediment Source Survey (SSS) of Roads, Hillslopes and Gullies within the watershed.

This report represents the summary of the Sediment Source Survey results including the Preliminary Access Management Map.

The Clearwater Lake watershed, totaling 7,300 hectares, generally follows the boundary of Bucket #353, within the Kleena Kleene Integrated Resource Management Zone (CCLUP). Elevations in the watershed range from 700 to 1600 meters (Appendix I). The watershed lies within the Fraser Plateau eco-region on the transition between the Chilcotin Plateau and Western Chilcotin Ranges eco-sections. The Fraser Plateau is characterized by flat to gently rolling topography with large areas of undissected upland at elevations of 1200 to 1500 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 upper portion of the watershed consists of first and second order streams with seasonal flow (ephemeral). There are two main stream systems draining into Marjorie Creek (third order) which in turn drains into Clearwater Lake. A third drainage to the west of Clearwater Lake drains a series (3) of small lakes into the west end of the lake. Upstream of Clearwater Lake, an irrigation ditch diverts water from Marjorie Creek to an agricultural lot (Appendix VI).

Clearwater Lake, with depths less than 10 meters, is considered a shallow impoundment lake. The lake is drained to the east by Marjorie Creek (also known as, Unnamed Creek) into McClinchy River.

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 at higher elevations by white spruce (Picea glauca). Associations consisting of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) can also be found.

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.

A Sediment Source Survey identifies the nature, extent and degree of impact of past forest harvesting on roads, hillslopes and gullies through an overview examination (aerial photo analysis, aerial reconnaissance and field visits). The survey involves several components, including the following:

• the prioritization of project objectives and restoration strategies in the preparation of an Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan (IWRP)
• the determination of current and future access for all activities to be used to develop an WRP Access Management Map
• the development of priorities in areas requiring prescriptions for remedial work

The Clearwater watershed SSS involved a review of August, 1994 aerial photo coverage (August 1994) to update road information and a preliminary review/identification of priority road, hillslope and gully related sites from the air photos. From the air photo review a map was produced with updated road information as well as all priority road, hillslope and gully sites. (Note: A review of critical sites within this watershed revealed no hillslope or gully related problems due to moderate topography). This map was then used for the field assessment which involved:

• a further update or road information (Appendix VI)
• an update of current/future road conditions/access (Appendix II & III)
• a summary of road related concerns (Appendix II & III)
• a verification of the identified priority road, hillslope and gully related sites with respect to sediment source and surface drainage problems (Appendix IV).

Field data was collected and summarized on Table 2(A) (Appendix II). Road Status information was not required. Information collected in the field regarding Future Use, Proposed Vehicle Access, Proposed Access Strategy and Deactivation Level was compiled and detailed in Table 2(A) (Appendix II). This information was later verified in the office with development plan maps and other known current and future access needs.

Information from Table 2(A) (Appendix II) was used to develop the Road Inventory and Preliminary Access Management Strategy (Appendix III).

The following is a description, by column, of the tables in Appendix III and IV.

1. Road ID Number: cross reference with Preliminary Access Management Map Appendix VI.
1. Priority Site: cross reference with Appendix IV - Priority Road, Hillslopes and Gully Related Sites.
1. Road Section: specified portion of road.
1. Summary of Problems: existing problems associated with road integrity/surface erosion and extenuating surface drainage problems caused by the road.
1. Current Vehicle Access: from field data (Table (2A)).
1. Future Use/Proposed Access: based on field data (i.e. current /future recreation use) and other sources providing future use (i.e. Development Plans).
1. Proposed Access: as 6 above.
1. Hazard: in the absence of Terrain Stability Mapping and reliable Environmentally Sensitive Area mapping, Hazard is based on slope class: 0 - 15% Low 16 - 30% Moderate 31 + % High
1. Consequence: environmental, social and economic values from Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 3, July 1994, Table 4, Appendix E.
1. Risk Rating: Hazard X Consequence, from Appendix E of the above reference.
1. Work Priority: Table 4, page 26 of the above reference.
1. Special Comments: specific information from field data relating to: - use - level of revegetation - status - access and deactivation recommendation
1. Proposed Access Strategy: 1. Maintain - for specified use 2. Deactivate - road no longer required for original use 3. Leave - revegetating well on its own/previously deactivated 4. Upgrade - required for specified use
1. Deactivation Level:

• prescribed where vehicular access is maintained (2WD or 4WD)
• regular maintenance suspended for up to three years
• winter roads
• harvesting suspended until the next pass

• generally prescribed where vehicular access is prohibited, however 4 wheel access may be maintained
• no known current or future use

Information relating to Road Number, Future Use, Proposed Access Strategy (PAS) and Deactivation Level (DL) was extracted from Appendix II to produce the Preliminary Access Management Map, Appendix VI.

1. Priority Site: problem sites which require attention (see Appendix VI), no Hillslope of Gully related problems were identified in this watershed.
1. Associated Road Number and PAS/DL: road associated with the Priority Site and Access Strategy/Deactivation Level.
1. Category: Natural - gullies/landslides - may be caused by natural or anthropogenic activities - streams - stream channel failures - lakes - slope failures associated with lakes Anthropogenic - Harvesting (including roads, cutblocks) - Agriculture - Mining - Access - for residential recreation, pipelines, powerlines - Other - specified
1. Hazard: in the absence of Terrain Stability Mapping and reliable Environmentally Sensitive Area mapping, this category is based on slope class: 0 - 15% Low 16 - 30% Moderate 31 + % High
1. Consequence: environmental, social and economic values from watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 3, July 1994, Table 4, Appendix E.
1. Risk Rating: Hazard X Consequence, from Appendix E of above reference.
1. Work Priority: Table 4, page 26 of above reference.
1. Summary of Problems: existing problems associated with road integrity/surface erosion and extenuating surface drainage problems caused by the road, hillslope and/or gully.
1. Recommendations: for remedial action including: - requirement for a specialist - immediate mitigative measures - no action, as road is scheduled for deactivation
1. Photo Number: see Appendix V.

The Priority Road, Hillslope and Gully Related Sites are summarized in Appendix IV. Sites 1 - 16 have been extracted from Appendix II to provide a quick summary of priority sites, where they are located and more detail of these sites with respect to columns 3, 8 and 9. These sites could have been incorporated into Appendix III, however the sites are more easily identified and more detail provided with this format.

Approximately 25% of the watershed area was harvested between the years 1980 and 1991 with a majority taking place between 1989 and 1990. All harvesting was carried out within the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program under the direction of Ministry of Forests, Chilcotin Forest District. According to the IWAP Guidebook, any watershed which has experienced harvesting of 20% of its area within 25 years, is placed on a priority list for an IWAP (see Clearwater Lake IWAP Final Summary of Level 1 Results, October 30, 1996).

The Clearwater Lake watershed has experienced a high rate of harvesting over a relatively short period of time (1980-1991). Regeneration height is, therefore, less than 3 meters, resulting in 0% hydrologic recovery. This combination of low hydrologic recovery on all cutblocks, with 78% of this area above the H₆₀ may result in high peak flow events (see Clearwater Lake IWAP Final Report, October 30, 1996).

A total of 122 kilometers of road exist within the watershed area (including block roads and spurs). According to the IWAP results over 60% of these roads are associated with harvesting and 56% of roads are above the H₆₀ elevation (1100 meters).

There is a general trend associated with the surface drainage above the H₆₀ whether on active roads or roads that have undergone some deactivation measures (water bars/fords/ cross ditches). The general trend observed was a disruption in natural drainage patterns resulting in road surface erosion, ditchline erosion and stream crossing erosion.

Sections 5.2 and 6.0 with accompanying Appendices, will detail the above noted concerns by Road Number and Priority Site.

Appendix IV, Priority Road, Hillslope and Gully Associated Sites, is a summary of all road related sites requiring immediate attention. The priority level given these sites was based on the following priority classes:

All of the Priority Sites are associated with roads, therefore the action taken under the Proposed Deactivation Strategy (PAS) and Deactivation Level (DL) will often mitigate the identified problem. If, however, it was determined the Access Strategy/ Deactivation Level would not correct the identified problem, additional recommendations were stated (see Column 9, Appendix IV). Deactivation measures include the following:

Semi -permanent/ Permanent

Additional measures to mitigate identified problems include:

Appendix III, Road Inventory and Preliminary Access Management Strategy provides a summary of the current status, concerns and work priority of each road. This table also includes the Proposed Access Strategy/ Deactivation Level.

Generally road use within the southern portion of the watershed is restricted to private/ recreational use while the road system in the north and west was originally established for harvesting purposes. For the purposes of this assessment it was assumed that no further harvesting will occur within the watershed (in the near future). Roads 4-0 including 4-4 and 4-4-3 will remain active (PAS - maintain/upgrade) for purposes of accessing blocks to be harvested outside of the watershed area. The rational for the Proposed Access Strategy (Appendix III) was to attempt to identify a use/user group for the specified road. Information used to identify use/user group included:

• Forest Development Plans
• Five-Year Silviculture Plans
• Access Management Plans (not available)
• relevant data collected during field visit (i.e. identified fishing hunting use - camp)
• verbal/ written communication from the KKRA

If no current/future use was identified for a road system, the road was scheduled for deactivation unless the road was previously deactivated or is revegetating well on its own (i.e. PAS - Leave). In this watershed all roads, other than those previously mentioned were scheduled as ‘Deactivate’ or ‘Leave’ unless a recognized recreation use was identified. See Appendix III for a complete listing of all roads and Appendix VI for a graphic representation.

Appendices III and VI provide the KKRA and Ministry a base on which to develop an Access Management Plan.

Based on the assessments completed to date, Sediment Source Survey, Watershed Assessment and Fish Habitat Assessment, the following recommendations are offered to the KKRA:

1. The SSS, IWAP (Peak Flow hazard index (equivalent clearcut area above H₆₀)) and FHAP results suggest that no further harvesting should take place in the watershed until all present cutblocks have attained at least 75% hydrologic recovery (see IWAP Guidebook).
1. All existing roads within the watershed should be treated as PAS - ‘Deactivate’ or ‘Leave’ unless an identified use was noted as per Appendix III.
1. Based on current/future use the following is recommended (see Appendices III, VI): Road No. 3-0 - upgrade as per Appendix III due to considerable recreation/ private use. Road No. 4-0 (0.0 km to 4-10) - upgrade as per Appendix III due to future harvesting/ log hauling use.
1. Take immediate action on the Priority Sites (Appendix IV) in association with the Proposed Access Strategy (Appendix III).
1. Employ the expertise of a Professional Hydrologist/Geotechnical Specialist to assess and prepare prescriptions for restorative measures on those Priority Sites requiring specialists (Appendix IV).
1. Road No. 1-1 (fire break) - close vehicular access and reassess effectiveness of firebreak (consider removing ingress of lodgepole pine).
1. As permanent deactivation does not imply road closure, this Strategy should be used to begin discussions to develop an Access Management Plan (AMP) which will propose road closures.

The Sediment Source Survey concluded that a majority of Priority Sites (Appendix IV) to be addressed are associated with harvesting and in particular, exhibit surface drainage problems as a result of altered natural drainage from road construction/ past deactivation efforts. The IWAP and SSS indicated a need to curtail further harvesting within the watershed until hydrologic recovery is 75% on current cutblocks.

Future access needs in the southern portion of the watershed must be maintained for private/recreational use. Apart from Road 4-0, future access needs in the north and west portion of the watershed, although recreational, were minor. As a result of future access needs, a majority of the roads originally constructed for harvesting are proposed for some form of deactivation (Appendix III).

The information contained in this SSS and Preliminary Access Management Map (Appendix VI) should act as a meaningful resource on which to base discussions towards an Access Management Plan and/or Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan for the Kleena Kleene Resource Association.

Government of British Columbia, 1994. The Cariboo-Chilcotin Land-Use Plan, (CCLUP)