ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED STREAM CROSSINGS IN CANFOR GRANDE PRAIRIE S FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AREA

Transcription

1 ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED STREAM CROSSINGS IN CANFOR GRANDE PRAIRIE S FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AREA Phase I Final Report 2003 FMA

2 ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED STREAM CROSSINGS IN CANFOR GRANDE PRAIRIE S FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AREA Phase I Final Report 2003 Tyler W.P. Johns 1, Michael A. Doran 1, John P. Tchir 1, & Paul J. Hvenegaard 1 1, Bag , Peace River, Alberta, Canada T8S 1T4

3 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested citation: Johns, T.W.P., M.A., Doran, J. P., Tchir, and P. J., Hvenegaard Assessment of selected stream crossings in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest Management Agreement Area Phase I Final Report Technical report, Report code number (e.g., T ), produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Bag , Peace River, Alberta, Canada. (e.g., 57 pp) Digital copies of this and other conservation reports can be obtained from:

4

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was a collaborative effort between Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Grande Prairie and. Funded through Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Grande Prairie. The funding was made available through the Forest Resource and Improvement Association of Alberta (FRIAA). We would like to thank all of the staff at Canfor Grande Prairie for providing input into the review of the first daft of this report. The ACA would like to thank Canfor for their initiative and assistance in this study. They have shown proactive involvement and leadership in addressing environmental issues within their FMA area and continue to research and implement ways to minimize their ecological footprints. Canfor and the ACA are modeling the way to collaboratively solving potential watershed impacts to industrial activities. i

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...I TABLE OF CONTENTS...II LIST OF FIGURES... IV LIST OF TABLES... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION STUDY RATIONALE STUDY OBJECTIVES Phase I Operational Objectives Phase I Operational Deliverables Phase II Strategic Objectives STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ECOREGIONS, FOREST COVER, AND SOILS FISH COMMUNITIES MATERIALS AND METHODS HISTORICAL FISH INFORMATION & GAP ANALYSIS SITE SELECTION CULVERT ASSESSMENT FISH AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT BARRIER CLASSIFICATION PRIORITIZATION OF CULVERT CROSSINGS RESULTS HISTORICAL FISH INFORMATION AND GAP ANALYSIS SITE SELECTION CULVERT ASSESSMENT FISH AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT PRIORITIZATION OF CULVERT CROSSINGS ii

7 5.0 DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATIONS INFORMATION DEFICIENCIES PRIORITIZATION OF CULVERT CROSSINGS FOR REMEDIATION INSTALLATION OF CULVERTS POTENTIAL FUTURE OBJECTIVES LITERATURE CITED GLOSSARY APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. FISH SPECIES RECORDED IN THE SMOKY AND SIMONETTE RIVER BASINS APPENDIX 2. CULVERT ASSESSMENT FIELD GUIDE APPENDIX 3. HISTORICAL FISH INVENTORY DATA IN CANFOR S FMA APPENDIX 4. SPATIAL SCHEMATIC OF HABITAT SAMPLING PROTOCOL APPENDIX 5. HABITAT MEASUREMENTS TAKEN AT EACH TRANSECT APPENDIX 6. STREAM CROSSING FISH INVENTORY HABITAT DATA FORM APPENDIX 7. FISH INVENTORY DATA FORM APPENDIX 8. PRIORITIZED SUMMARY OF CROSSINGS ASSESSED CANFOR S FMA, iii

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest Management Agreement Area ( ) in west-central Alberta, Canada... 4 Figure 2. Calculating maximum jump height of fish... 8 Figure 3. Average jump heights of common fish species present in Canfor s FMA... 9 Figure 4. Locations of existing fish inventory data as of 2003 from the Provincial Fisheries Management Information System in Canfor s Study Area (FMA ) Alberta, Canada Figure 5. Results of gap analysis, historic fish inventory sites located within 3 and 1 km of stream crossings to be surveyed for fish and fish habitat. Fish inventory data from the Provincial Fisheries Management Information System in Canfor s Study Area (FMA ) Alberta, Canada Figure 6. Barrier types found per stream orders in Canfor s FMA area (N=43), Alberta Figure 7. Assessed culvert structures in Canfor s Study Area (FMA ), Alberta Figure 8. Stream crossings assessed using fish, habitat and primary culvert assessments in Canfor s Study Area (FMA ) Alberta, Canada Figure 9. Number of sites assessed in Canfor s FMA area per stream order (N=78).. 19 iv

9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Risks associated with ranges of outfall drop height... 9 Table 2. Risks associated with water velocity limits (All limits based on critical swim speed). (Adapted from Katopodis and Gervais 1991 and Chilibeck et al. 1993).10 Table 3. Outfall Barriers associated with culvert crossings assessed in Canfor s FMA, Alberta Table 4. Velocity barriers associated with culvert crossings assessed in Canfor s FMA, Alberta Table 5. Prioritization of stream crossings in Canfor Grande Prairie s FMA area based upon Strahler stream order, fish presence, proximity to known fish bearing streams, and upstream length above barrier Table 6. Quality of upstream habitat above potential barriers with reference to Arctic grayling v

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Detrimental effects to aquatic environments, resulting from stream crossings, are well documented. Stream crossings such as culverts and bridges, allow for both road crossings and connectivity of waterways, with minimal aquatic impacts when properly installed, monitored and maintained. Improperly installed culverts have been shown to encroach on stream channels. This leads to increased water velocities, scouring, sedimentation and hanging culverts, which can impact habitat connectivity resulting in reduced viability of fish populations. Prioritizing culvert crossings for remediation requires information on the status and effectiveness of culverts to provide fish passage and maintain road integrity. The information collected will form the basis for managers to make informed decisions that will provide the greatest benefit to fish populations. Canfor Grande Prairie identified 79 crossing sites for evaluation and assessment of associated fish and habitat qualities within their Forest Management Agreement Area # (FMA). Seventy-eight crossing structures were assessed for fish passage potential. Culvert assessments were performed on all sites. While, forty-five sites were deemed suitable for fish and habitat assessments. Data were collected in adjacent stream reaches upstream and downstream of the crossing structure. We defined fish passage barriers as either: outfall (distance from culvert outlet to water surface greater than jumping ability of relevant fish species), potential velocity (water velocity greater than fish passage ability), debris (logs, beaver dams, etc), and damaged pipe (physical distortion to culvert shape making the structure impassable to fish). Potential barriers were identified at 55% (43 of 78) of sites. Of 43 potential barrier sites, outfalls accounted for 79% (34 sites), potential velocity accounted for 9% (4 sites), debris accounted for 9% (4 sites), and damaged pipe accounted for 2% (1 site). Sites assessed were prioritized for remediation based on the following criteria: Strahler Stream Order; fish presence at crossing; proximity to fish bearing water; usable upstream habitat; and type of potential barrier. Although a large proportion of culverts assessed did not accommodate potential fish passage, the majority (86%) of crossings were located on first-order and second-order reaches. There is a relatively low probability of fish occurrence in these orders, and stream crossing structures were ranked accordingly. Given the high likelihood of culvert crossings resulting in potential fish passage barriers, it is necessary for responsible watershed stakeholders to monitor, maintain and replace culverts more frequently than other structures (i.e., open bottom arches or bridges) to provide fish passage over longer durations. Canfor s proactive vi

11 approach to dealing with culvert crossings is a step toward sustainable development and reduces the ecological footprint vii

12 1.0 INTRODUCTION Detrimental effects to aquatic environments, resulting from stream crossings, are well documented (Furniss et al. 1991). Stream crossings such as culverts and bridges, allow for both road crossings and connectivity of waterways, with minimal aquatic impacts when properly installed, monitored and maintained. Improperly installed culverts have been shown to cause encroachment of stream channels (Harper and Quigley 2000). This leads to increased water velocities, scouring, sedimentation and hanging culverts, which can impact habitat connectivity resulting in reduced viability of fish populations (Parker 2000). Beechie et al. (1994) estimated a 13% loss of coho salmon summer rearing habitat from culverts on forest roads in the Skagit River basin in Washington State. Based on field surveys conducted in Washington, Conroy (1997) reported that as many as 75% of culverts in given forested drainages were either full blockages or partial barriers to fish passage. A recent study (Tchir 2002) completed in support of the Northern Watersheds Project (Scrimgeour et al. 2003) identified road crossings and revealed several fish habitat related issues. Canfor, being proactive, has identified road crossings for remediation and will use information provided by the ACA to help prioritize remedial efforts and to provide data for long-term planning. Prioritizing culvert crossings for remediation requires information on the status and effectiveness of culverts to provide fish passage and maintain road integrity. From this, road managers can make informed decisions that will provide the greatest benefit to fish populations. 1.1 Study Rationale Fish populations require various habitats to fulfill life-cycle requirements. In stream access by fish to these areas is critical to survival in fluctuating seasonal and annual water and habitat conditions. Critical areas can be identified through historic and current fisheries assessments. With this information land managers can focus culvert assessments and remediation efforts to provide an informed fisheries knowledge base within their active areas. Enhanced fish and fish habitat data will be applied to the strategic objective and will lend itself to achieving existing and immediate operational objectives. All new fisheries information collected as a result of this initiative will be available to fisheries managers (as a requirement of the fish research license # FR) in support of sustainable resource development. The project will directly benefit Canfor s FMA area and will indirectly benefit other proponents working in the watershed by providing insight into important fish distribution and risk associated with resource development activities in sensitive areas. 1

13 This is the final report in a series of progress reports that were compiled over the 2003 fiscal year. This report is a summary and analysis of culvert crossings, fish and fish habitat information collected in Canfor s FMA. All data resulting from this project are provided with an accompanying CD. Stream crossing data have been entered in an Access database. Geo-referenced data have been provided as Arc view shape files. Hard copy maps are provided depicting sampling locations, roads and stream networks and fish inventory locations. 1.2 Study Objectives Enhanced fish and fish habitat data are required by Canfor to improve operational and strategic planning of forest harvest activities. Existing fish data were augmented and used to address short-term operational objectives (i.e. stream crossing maintenance). Development of a fisheries database in support of operational short-term objectives will provide the basis for informational requirements directed by the strategic objective. Canfor s strategic objective is "To improve management of fisheries habitat within the FMA area by enhancing fish and fish habitat data where it currently does not exist, with emphasis on fisheries 'hot spots' 1. The following objectives and deliverables were completed in support of the above strategic objective Phase I Operational Objectives Objective 1: Determine extent of available fish, fish habitat data and deficiencies within Canfor s FMA. Objective 2: Collect fish and fish habitat data to fill data deficiencies within Canfor s FMA. Objective 3: Identify risk to fish and aquatic habitat with respect to immediate and existing operations (e.g., stream crossings) using the enhanced data set resulting from the completion of objectives 1 and 2. 1 Hot spots generalized term denoting areas of fish habitat that have been identified as requiring prioritized attention from resource managers. 2

14 1.2.2 Phase I Operational Deliverables Progress report #1: Summary Report of existing fish and fish habitat data in Canfor s FMA area(data output). Gap analysis (methods and results) including sites selected for fish and fish habitat assessments. Progress Report #2: Development of stream crossing assessment field guide. A combination of fish passage, sedimentation and crossing integrity parameters jointly developed with Canfor. Progress Report #4: Status field report on fish and fish habitat data collections. Number of sites inventoried and some general findings. Annual progress report: detailing work to date and percent completion by task Phase II Strategic Objectives The following objectives will be completed in Objective 1: Identify potentially sensitive watershed areas based on observed and predicted fish presence. Objective 2: Statistical validation and assessment of the models classification success watersheds in Canfor s land-base to be tested by Alberta Conservation Association using methods outlined in the following references: Haddon 2000; Kleijnen and Groenendaal 1992; Sokal and Rohlf 1997; Zar Further model testing and field validation may occur in future years. Objective 3: Develop vector based general and sensitive species-specific distribution maps. Attribute relevant watershed polygons with percent frequency of occurrence based on Strahler stream order, contributing watershed classes. Compile final report detailing methods, results and implications. 3

15 2.0 STUDY AREA 2.1 Description The study area was located completely within Canfor s FMA and is located in west central Alberta Canada (Figure 1). Small portions of the FMA (Puskwaska and Peace Blocks) are located east and north respectively of Grande Prairie with the majority of the FMA area approximately 50 km southeast of Grande Prairie. The study area did not include the Peace Block and encompasses portions of the Simonette, Smoky and Little Smoky River watersheds. The total land area of the FMA is 649,160 ha. Elevation ranges from 1400m above sea level in the southwest portion of the FMA area to 620m in the extreme northern areas. Using GIS and spatial data acquired in 1997, we estimated stream-crossing density in the Simonette watershed to be crossings per kilometer of stream. This is an underestimate due to recent road construction unaccounted for on our data layers. FMA Figure 1. Location of Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest Management Agreement Area ( ) in west-central Alberta, Canada. 4

16 2.2 Ecoregions, Forest Cover, and Soils The FMA area is located primarily within the Lower Boreal-Cordilleran Ecoregion and to a lesser extent the Upper Boreal-Cordilleran, Mid Boreal Mixedwood and Subalpine Ecoregion respectively. These areas typically have low annual precipitation with short summers and long cold winters (Strong and Leggat 1992). Annual precipitation in the Upper Boreal Cordilleran and Subalpine is about 25% higher than in the and Mid Boreal Mixedwood. Annual precipitation in the Lower Boreal-Cordilleran Ecoregion is approximately 464 mm with summer precipitation representing approximately two-thirds of the total. Mean summer temperatures are lowest in the Subalpine (9.4 o C ) and highest in the Mid Boreal Mixedwood (13.5 o C). During winter the lowest average temperature is 13.2 o C in the Mid Boreal Mixedwood and highest in the Upper Boreal Cordilleran (-6 o C). Minimum temperatures can reach - 30 o C from January to March in all of these ecoregions (Strong and Leggat 1992). These ecoregions are associated with foothills topography as well as undulating and rolling terrain. Coniferous trees dominate forest stands in the Upper Boreal-Cordilleran and Subalpine. White spruce (Picea glauca) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) are found in the lower elevations and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) located at higher elevations. In lower elevations of the Lower Boreal-Cordilleran and Mid Boreal Mixedwood pure and mixed stands of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) are interspersed with lodgepole pine and white spruce. Poorly drained depression areas are dominated by black spruce (Picea mariana). Soils consist of Gleyed Luvisols and Gleysols in the Lower Boreal-Cordilleran. Brunisolic and Luvisolic soils are common in the Upper Boreal-Cordilleran and Subalpine (Strong and Leggat 1992). 2.3 Fish Communities Historical data shows 9 families and 22 species of fish present in the Smoky and Simonette River Basins (Appendix 1). Cyprinids are the dominant family followed by Salmonids and Catostomids (Unpublished data Fisheries Management Information System 2003). Important sport fish species include: bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), walleye (Sander vitreus), northern pike (Esox lucius), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 5

17 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Historical Fish Information & Gap Analysis To determine existing fish and fish habitat data in Canfor s FMA area, a study area polygon was constructed that encompasses Canfor s road network and FMA area boundaries. Existing fish inventory data were queried using Oracle Discoverer and the Provincial Fisheries Management Information System (FMIS). 2 A gap analysis was performed to determine the extent of fish inventory data within close proximity to selected crossing survey sites. A spatial join of crossing survey sites with existing fish inventory data within 1 and 3 kilometres was used to help identify potential crossings that may require future monitoring. Extent of existing fish information was determined by developing a spatially bounded database query using Oracle Discoverer. Data were then exported into Microsoft Excel where field names were modified to be compatible with Arc view 3.2a. The data were then added as an event theme, converted to a shape file and clipped to the FMA area polygons. We summarized the existing data for analysis of the 2003 fish survey sites as identified by Canfor. 3.2 Site Selection Canfor identified 79 stream crossing sites as potential hotspots through an internal review of crossings. Site locations were derived through GIS and ground truthed with a Garmin E trex Global Positioning System hand-held unit. 2 FMIS is a provincial database containing comprehensive information on fish and fish habitat data. It was developed by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) to meet the data storage and data requirements of fisheries managers. As a requirement of a fisheries research licence fish information collected must be sent to SRD for inclusion in the database. ASRD and the Alberta Conservation Association use the data to develop fish management and land use planning strategies. 6

18 3.3 Culvert Assessment Culvert measurements were taken at each stream crossing to determine fish passage potential. Culvert assessments were conducted between July 23 and September 7, 2003 following parameters outlined in the Culvert Assessment Field Guide (Appendix 2). The parameters are standard measurements aligned with various publications (Adams et al. 1990; Anderson et al. 1986; Bain et al. 1999; Baker et al. 2001; Bates et al. 1999; B.C. 2001; Cahoon et al. 2001; Flanagan et al. 1998; Harper and Quigley 2000; Hvenegaard, 1998; Johnson et al. 1998; Kahler et al. 1998; Knotek et al. 2001; Marshall, 1996; McCleary et al. 2003; Parker, 2000; Roni et al. 2001; Simonson et al. 1994; Tchir, 2002; Wilson et al. 2003;). Digital photographs were taken at each site of the culvert inlet and outlet to document culvert condition. The photographs allow for current and easy visual assessment as well as a reference for future comparisons of culvert status. 3.4 Fish and Habitat Assessment Fish and habitat assessments were performed following a modified version of Cooperative Fisheries Inventory Sampling Protocol (Hvenegaard, 1998) (Appendix 7). Sampling occurred between July 23 and September 7, Stream reaches (upstream and downstream of crossing) were identified as being 25 times the bank-full width or a minimum of 150 meters. Fish were sampled using a Smith Root Type 12A backpack electroshocker. Fish sampling started at the downstream reach moving upstream, covering as much usable habitat as possible. At the end of each reach captured fish were identified, measured, and released. Unknown species were identified in the laboratory using The Fishes of Alberta as a reference (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the aquatic environment were recorded as outlined in (Hvenegaard, 1998) (Appendix 6). Habitat assessments were conducted instream at 4 equidistant transects, perpendicular to the stream channel within each stream reach (Appendix 4 & 5). Each transect was divided into 3 equally spaced areas and are referred to as left, centre and right (facing upstream). At each transect, measurements were taken to quantify bank-full width, wetted width, mean wetted depth, bank-full depth and substrate composition. Stream water velocities were measured at Transect 3 below the stream crossing and at Transect 0 above the stream crossing using a Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate current velocity meter. Percent cover of substrate sizes were determined by visual estimates following the Modified Wentworth Substrate Size Classification (Cummins 1962) (Glossary). Digital Photographs were taken at each of the habitat transects. Unique coordinates of the habitat site locations upstream and downstream of the crossing were captured using a Garmin E-trex handheld Global Positioning System. 7

19 3.5 Barrier Classification We defined fish passage barriers as either: outfall barrier (i.e. culvert outlet not flush with water level), potential velocity (i.e. water velocity greater than sustained swim speed of fish present in Canfor s FMA), debris (accumulation of organic material at the inflow of culverts) and damaged pipe (i.e. physical distortion to culvert shape making the structure impassable to fish). Through the literature review associated with the creation of the Culvert Assessment Guide (Appendix 2), specific biologically significant limits associated with outfall and velocity barriers were created (Table 1, Table 2). This information may provide useful to the quantification and knowledge base of the risk and impacts of culverts on fish. Current quantified limits do not exist provincially for Alberta. Outfall Barriers are defined as the culvert outlet hanging above the surface of the water. This prevents fish from swimming through the culvert and applies to all fish within the stream reach. Depending on the flow conditions at the time of survey outfall drop heights can have low risk to fish passage in high water events or a high risk to passage during low flow periods. To determine risk to fish passage associated with outfall drop height the average size of representative fish species occurring in Canfor s FMA area were used to calculate burst swim speed and subsequent maximum jumping height of fish. Burst swim speeds were calculated from fish length-velocity regressions reported by Jones et al. (1974). Where p-values were greater than 0.05 regression equations were not used. In these cases we used (9*fish length = burst swim speed) described in Reiser and Peacock (1985) (Figure 2). H=v 2 /2G H = maximum jumping height v = burst swim speed G = acceleration due to gravity (9.8m/s 2 ) Figure 2. Calculating maximum jump height of fish. 8

20 Figure 3. Average jump heights of common fish species present in Canfor s FMA. An outfall barrier classification was developed based on the average jump heights of common Cyprinids, Catostominds, and Salmonids found in Canfor s FMA area (Table 1). If the outfall drop height is greater than or equal to 3 cm but is not greater than or equal to 10 cm the barrier is classified as a partial barrier. Table 1. Risks associated with ranges of outfall drop height. **Outfall drop height (cm) Barrier Classification >= 3 Complete Barrier to Cyprinids >= 10 Complete Barrier to most Catostomids and Salmonids **Categories based on plunge pool depths 1.25 times or greater than outfall drop height (Reiser and Peacock 1985). Where plunge pool depths are inadequate barriers will occur at lower heights than stated. 9

21 Potential Velocity Barriers are defined by a situation where the average water velocity within the culvert is greater than that of the critical swim speed of the smallest fish utilizing this stream. Velocity is an indicator of current and potential impacts from a culvert (Table 2). Table 2. Risks associated with water velocity limits (All limits based on critical swim speed). (Adapted from Katopodis and Gervais 1991 and Chilibeck et al. 1993) Water Velocity (m/s) Barrier None Barrier to larval stage Partial barrier >0.75 Complete barrier to most resident fish 3.6 Prioritization of Culvert Crossings Assessed culvert crossings were prioritized for remediation based on the following criteria. Strahler Stream Order In a previous study conducted in the Simonette River watershed Scrimgeour et al. (2003) indicated the presence of fish was moderately to highly predictable based on watershed area, stream width, elevation and to a lesser extent reach slope, stream bank width and substrate size. Fish occurrence was strongly affected by stream order. Fish occurrence typically increased with stream order although for some species percent frequency of occurrence was highest in fourth rather than in 5 th and 6 th orders likely due to sampling bias. Therefore stream order was identified as having the highest ranking for prioritization. To determine stream order at crossing sites we joined data from the hydrographic network with stream crossings based on spatial location. Fish presence at crossing We ranked fish presence at the time of assessment second highest for prioritization. Although fish were not captured during a particular sampling event, it cannot be assumed that fish were absent within the stream reach. Code of Practice states that 3 different surveys at 3 different times of the year (6 assessments) are required to confirm absence of fish within a selected stream reach (J. Rosin pers. comm.). 10

22 Proximity to known fish bearing water Fish presence in proximity to 2003 crossing locations was queried from historical data from FMIS and data collected from sampling in This information was summarized and compiled into usable formats (Appendix 3). Type of potential barrier Outfall barriers were ranked highest for priority followed by potential velocity, damaged pipe and debris. Quantity and quality of upstream habitat above the barrier. The length of upstream habitat lost due to an impassible crossing was determined using the Upstream Grouping Utility extension in Arcview. Upstream habitat was classified as low, moderate, and high for spawning, rearing and overwintering needs of Arctic grayling through the habitat assessment and was included in final prioritization of crossing sites. Habitats were ranked based on criteria for Arctic grayling. In general many of the habitat requirements of Arctic grayling are similar to other common species including: many cyprinids, salmonids, cottids, and catostamids (Nelson and Paetz 1992) that are prevalent in the FMA. Due to the lack of hydrographically corrected data layers, upstream lengths in the Smoky and Little Smoky River watersheds were approximated. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Historical Fish Information and Gap Analysis The spatially bounded oracle query resulted in 1344 fish inventories being retrieved. Data were then clipped to a study area polygon that encompassed Canfor s FMA area boundaries and road network resulting in 1056 fish inventories (Figure 4). Of the 79 sites selected by Canfor, 77 had fish inventory data previously collected within 3 kilometers, fewer (49, 62%) had fish inventory data collected within 1 km (Figure 5). This gap analysis provided a coarse level of detail useful for identifying data requirements and locations where fish were likely to occur. Many of the existing fish data were within close proximity to the sites selected for fish inventory in However, relatively little fish inventory data exist on the same stream order and even less on the same stream reach as stream crossing sites. 11

23 Figure 4. Locations of existing fish inventory data as of 2003 from the Provincial Fisheries Management Information System in Canfor s Study Area (FMA ) Alberta, Canada. 12

24 Figure 5. Results of gap analysis, historic fish inventory sites located within 3 and 1 km of stream crossings to be surveyed for fish and fish habitat. Fish inventory data from the Provincial Fisheries Management Information System in Canfor s Study Area (FMA ) Alberta, Canada. 13

25 4.2 Site Selection Canfor initially identified 79 sites for field assessment. Based on ground truthing, 5 of these sites were eliminated from the sample. Two separate sites (site 58 and 9) were found to be overlapping on the same site. We were unable to locate sites 45 and 46 in the Puskwaska Block. Site 15 was a deactivated bridge crossing on the Wapiti River. We assessed 74 of the initial sites and four replacement sites, which were numbered sequentially from 80 to 83. Site 55 was a bridge that was rebuilt after habitat and fisheries assessments were performed. Sites 67, 68, 69, 70 were assessed and had no evidence of crossing structures present. 4.3 Culvert Assessment Seventy-eight crossings were assessed for fish passage potential (Figure 7). Of the 78 crossings, 43 (55%) posed a risk to fish distribution. Outfall barriers accounted for the greatest risk to fish passage and watershed connectivity (Figure 6). Thirty-four of 43 barriers (79%) were identified as having outfalls (Table 3), 4 sites (9%) were identified as debris barriers, 4 sites (9%) were identified as potential velocity barriers (Table 4) and one site (2%) had a damaged pipe, which poses a potential risk to fish passage. Fish were found at two sites that posed a risk to fish passage in the 2003 field season. Fish were present at site 80 located on a 3 rd order stream; the culvert assessed was a potential velocity barrier. Fish were also found at site 26 on a 2 nd order stream that posed a barrier to fish passage as a result of a debris blockage at the inlet (Appendix 8). Figure 6. Barrier types found per stream orders in Canfor s FMA area (N=43), Alberta. 14

26 Figure 7. Assessed culvert structures in Canfor s Study Area (FMA ), Alberta. 15

27 Table 3. Outfall Barriers associated with culvert crossings assessed in Canfor s FMA, Alberta. Outfall Drop Height Plunge Pool Depth Barrier to Barrier to Barrier to Barrier Site ID (cm) (cm) Salmonids Cyprinids Catostomids Classification Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete No Yes No Partial Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete No Yes No Partial Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Yes Yes Yes Complete Table 4. Velocity barriers associated with culvert crossings assessed in Canfor s FMA, Alberta. Site_ID Velocity (m/s) Barrier Classification Full Partial Partial 16

28 4.4 Fish and Habitat Assessment Habitat assessments were conducted on 45 of the 78 sites. Habitat assessments were performed at all sites with a discernable channel. Fisheries assessments were completed on 32 sites (Figure 8). These assessments were performed on sites where channel profile and depths were sufficient. Several sites provided by Canfor were unsuitable for electrofishing due to low water levels and in some cases no discernable channel. These sites should be revisited during higher flows to better asses habitat and fish population variables. Fish populations were identified at 4 of the sites during the 2003 field season. Potential barriers to fish migration were identified at two of these sites. A potential velocity barrier at site 80 located on a 3 rd order stream, had bull trout, Arctic grayling, long-nose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus), white suckers (Catostomus commersoni), Longnose suckers (Catostomus catostomus), lake chub (Couesius plumbeus), brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), populations present downstream of the potential velocity barrier. Fish present upstream of the barrier included lake chub, slimy sculpin and long-nose sucker. Site 26 on a 2 nd order stream had northern red belly dace (Phoxinus eos) populations present above and below a partial debris barrier. 17

29 Figure 8. Stream crossings assessed using fish, habitat and primary culvert assessments in Canfor s Study Area (FMA ) Alberta, Canada. 18

30 4.5 Prioritization of Culvert Crossings Assessed sites were prioritized for remediation based on: Strahler stream order (Strahler 1957); fish presence at crossing; proximity to fish bearing water; type of potential barrier and quantity and quality of upstream habitat. Sites excluded from this summary table include those with low to no water flow and crossings that contained no other potential barrier during the time of the field assessment. Although a large proportion of the assessed culverts did not accommodate potential fish passage, the majority of crossings (i.e., 86%) were located on ephemeral (streams with no discernable channel at the time of assessment), 1 st order and 2 nd order reaches (Figure 9). Due to limited habitat suitability and water availability in these orders at the time of assessment, it was assumed there was a relatively low probability of fish occurrence and stream crossing structures were ranked accordingly. Figure 9. Number of sites assessed in Canfor s FMA area per stream order (N=78). 19

31 We recommend stream crossings appearing in Table 5 should be investigated according to the priority ranking for remediation. These sites provide the greatest risk to fish passage and watershed connectivity. Qualities of spawning, rearing, and over wintering habitat associated with these sites are based upon rankings performed in a low water year and are outlined in Table 6. Table 5. Prioritization of stream crossings in Canfor Grande Prairie s FMA area based upon Strahler stream order, fish presence, proximity to known fish bearing streams, and upstream length above barrier. Site ID UTM Easting UTM Northing Stream Order Fish Presence Within ~1km of fish bearing water Barrier type Barrier Classification Upstream Length above barrier (m) Yes Yes potential velocity Complete No Yes outfall Complete No No potential velocity Partial No No outfall Complete No No outfall Partial Yes Yes debris/bv dam Complete No No outfall Complete No Yes potential velocity Parital 4592 Table 6. Quality of upstream habitat above potential barriers with reference to Arctic grayling. Site Id UTM Easting UTM Northing Quality of Spawning Habitat Quality of Rearing Habitat Quality of Overwintering Habitat Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Low 20

32 5.0 DISCUSSION This inventory should serve as a template for future stream crossing evaluations. The database developed should be updated with subsequent monitoring information and as maintenance and replacements are completed in the FMA. The inventory and assessment catalogue provides all of the data and photos collected for each culvert crossing assessed. All data resulting from this initiative are provided with an accompanying CD. Stream crossing data have been entered in an Access database. Geo-referenced data have been provided as Arc view shape files. Hard copy maps are provided depicting sampling locations, roads and stream networks and fish inventory locations. The results of this study serve to provide insight into potential risks of selected culvert crossings to fish and fish habitat. Many of the potential barriers to fish passage we assessed were not located on streams with a high probability of fish occurrence. However, in cases where fish inhabit these small streams, populations are generally more sensitive to environmental and anthropogenic perturbations than in larger, more stable systems (Riemen and McIntyre 1993). To confirm the absence of fish in these small streams sampling should occur during the course of different seasons and at various discharges. The dominant cause of culvert failure in this study was also reported as the dominant cause of failure in other studies (Tchir et al. 2003,). Outfall barriers out numbered other types of barriers and accounted for the greatest risk to fish passage and watershed connectivity. The development of outfall barriers can be attributed to a hydrological difference in conditions of the stream morphology post construction. Culverts not properly installed can lead to increased water velocities and scouring, which will eventually turn into outfall barriers (Furniss et al. 1991). Once an outfall occurs the threat of potential culvert failure increases (Parker 2000). Scouring and water flowing around or beneath the culvert are conditions normally associated with outfall barriers. These conditions can further lead to destabilization of the fill jeopardizing the integrity of the road (Dane 1978). A recent study by Tchir et al. (2003) documented that hanging culverts were the dominant cause of stream habitat fragmentation in two Northern Alberta watersheds. 21

33 5.1 Recommendations Information Deficiencies With the use of historical fish and habitat information from FMIS and Geographical Information Systems (GIS), the determination of existing data and data deficiencies can be effectively and efficiently performed and illustrated. This provides for better understanding of fish distribution and can be used as a planning tool for land managers. A structured watershed analysis to classify small sub-basins into categories of current information would provide direction to focusing fish inventory sampling and better resolving fisheries hot spots within the FMA Prioritization of culvert crossings for remediation The prioritization of stream crossings for remediation is a proactive strategy to optimize remediation efforts and ecological benefits. Several companies and agencies prioritize culvert crossings for monitoring and remediation to ensure capital is spent in an organized, effective manner. The ACA has a firm understanding of the importance of connectivity to fish populations. However, safety concerns, the costs of engineering, installation and maintenance of culvert crossings are variables that should be added to improve the operational utility of a system to prioritize culvert crossings for remediation. Additional ordinal variables can be applied to suit Canfor s strategic and operational objectives. Such variables should include: Safe passage for human activities Cost and benefit of remediation Quality of habitat for the entire upstream area from watershed modelling Timeframe of remediation efforts and sensitive species in watershed Installation of Culverts Improper installation of culverts continues to cause habitat fragmentation. Velocity of water, outfall drop height, lack of sufficient plunge pool depth, and damaged or blocked waterways through culverts result in fish passage barriers (Bates et al. 1999). To prevent a culvert from being a barrier to common species in the stream reach, and to maximize the lifespan of the culvert it should provide for the following (Adams and Whyte 1990): 1) A slope of less than 0.5% to minimize velocity barriers. 2) Pool prior to culvert entrance for a rest period. 22

34 3) Provide sufficient volumes of water in the culvert to pass fish. 4) A culvert diameter equal to the bank full width. 5) Culvert should be installed so the bottom of the culvert is approximately 1/3 below the natural grade line of the stream channel. Where fish passage is important, bridges, open bottom arch and open bottom box culverts if properly designed and installed do not impede the passage of fish (Adams and Whyte 1990). These culverts retain the natural stream substrate and can be designed to maintain the normal depth and width of the stream channel (Clay 1995). They do not cause outfall or gradient dependent barriers and allow for natural connectivity of the stream. Round culverts should be avoided when fish passage is important (Adams and Whyte 1990). They generally constrict the stream flow, creating high velocities, which potentially impede fish passage and cause downstream sedimentation. Round culverts provide few resting places for fish and baffles are difficult to install and lose effectiveness over longer terms. If not properly installed round culverts can cause a number of barriers (potential velocity, outfall and debris barriers) (Furniss et al. 1991). To decrease the chances of high water velocities through round culverts, they should be sized according to the stream bank-full width, so as to not restrict the channel width. The culvert should be embedded deep enough (1/3 culvert diameter) to minimize piping (water flowing around culvert), outfall barriers and culvert failure (Adams and Whyte 1990) Potential Future Objectives Additional research is required to better understand the effects of culvert crossings on fish communities. Future studies may include looking at differences in fish populations and species assemblage upstream and downstream of culverts. This would allow for greater clarity on the impact that barriers and culverts have to the distribution of fish and will promote sustainability of fish stocks and ensure sustainable development. Research is needed to evaluate effects of culvert crossings on small non-migratory fish species (Warren and Pardew 1998) as well as swimming performance (Jones et al. 1974) and jumping capabilities of fish found in small stream ecosystems. Given the high likelihood of culvert crossings resulting in potential fish passage barriers, it is necessary for responsible watershed stakeholders to monitor, maintain and replace culverts more frequently than other structures (i.e., open bottom arches or bridges) to provide and ensure fish passage over longer durations. By taking this initiative a reduction in both long term costs and environmental impact can result. Canfor s proactive approach, and collaborative effort with the Alberta Conservation 23

35 Association towards managing culvert crossings, is a positive step towards sustainable development. 24

36 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Adams, M.A. and I.W. Whyte Fish habitat enhancement: a manual for freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. DFO p. Anderson, R., Asquin, D., and P. Jablonski Sizing crossings for eastern slope streams. A handbook of three common methods. Tech. Rep. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Forest Service. Armantrout, N.B., compiler Glossary of aquatic habitat inventory terminology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Bain, M.B. and N.J. Stevenson Common methods aquatic habitat assessment.. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. Baker, D., Cahoon, J., and J. Carson Culvert data collection guide. Prepared by Western Transportation Institute and Montana State University. Bates, K., Barnard, R., Heiner, G., Klavas, P. and Powers, P Fish passage design at road culverts: a design manual for fish passage at road crossings. Washington Department of Fish and Wildelife, Habitat and Lands Program, Environmental Engineering Division. Olympia, WA. B.C. Ministry of Forests Watershed assessment procedure guidebook. 2 nd ed., Version 2.1. For. Prac. Br., Min. for., Victoria, B.C. Forest Practices Code Of British Columbia Guidebook. Beechie, T., E. Beamer., and I. Wasserman Estimating coho salmon rearing habitat and smolt production losses in a large river basin, and implications for habitat restoration. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14: Cahoon, J., McMahon, T., and O. Stein Fish passage at road crossings in Montana watersheds providing bull and cutthroat trout habitat. Tech. Rep. Prepared for Montana Department of Transportation Research Management Unit. Prepared by Montana State University. July Chilibeck, B., G. Chislett and G. Norris Land Development Guidelines 25

37 for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat. Habitat Management Division of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Integrated Management Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Clay, C.H Design of fishways and other fish facilities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Conroy, S. C Habitat lost and found, part two: Pages 7 13 in Washington trout, editors. Washington Trout, Washington Trout Technical Report, Duvall, Washington. Cummins, K.W An evaluation of some techniques for the collection and analysis of benthic samples with special emphasis on the lotic waters. American Midland Naturalist 67: Dane, B.G A review of fish passage problems at culverts sites in British Columbia. Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report. 810:126p. Flanagan, S.A., Furniss, M.J., Ledwith, T.S., Thiesen, S., Love, M., Moore, K. and J. Ory Methods for inventory and environmental risk assessment of road drainage crossings. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Technology & Development Program. Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee Road construction and maintenance. American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 19: Haddon, M Modelling and quantitative methods in fisheries. Chapman & Hall / CRC Press. Washington D.C., USA. 406 pp. Harper, D.J., and J.T. Quigley No net loss of fish habitat: An audit of forest road crossings of fish-bearing streams in British Columbia, Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Hvenegaard, P Cooperative fisheries inventory program, final report Tech. Rep. Prep. For the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada by the Alberta Conservation Association. Johnson, C.F., Jones, P. and C. Spencer A guide to classifying selected fish habitat parameters in lotic systems of west central Alberta. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton, Alberta. 26

38 Jones, D.R., J.W. Kiceniuk, and O.S. Bamford Evaluation of the swimming performance of several fish species from the Mackenzie River. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31: Kahler, T.H., and T.P. Quinn Juvenile and resident salmonid movement and passage through culverts. Final Research Report, Research Project T9903, Task 96 Salmon Thru Culvert. Prepared by fisheries Research Institute School of Fisheries & Washington State Transportation Center. Prepared for Washington State Transportation Commission in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation. Katopodis, C. and R. Gervais Ichthyomechanics. Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Kleijnen J. and Groenendaal W.V Simulation a statistical perspective. Wiley Publishers. NewYork, NY, USA. Knotek, W.L., Schmetterling, D.A., and T.L. Sylte Identification, analysis and remediation recommendations for fish passage barriers at road crossings in a western Montana watershed. Practical Approaches for Conserving Native Inland Fishes of the West: A Symposium. uction%20and%20contents.pdf Marshall, T Stream crossings on the Weldwood FMA 1995 stream crossing inventory report. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton Division, Alberta. McCleary, R., Wilson, S., and C. Spytz A stream crossings remediation planning process for selected watersheds in the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton, Alberta. Nelson, J. S., and M.J. Paetz The fishes of Alberta. The University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta. Parker. M.A Fish passage- culvert inspection procedures. Ministry of Environment, lands and Parks, Williams Lake, British Columbia. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No pp. 27

39 Personal Communication. March 5, Jim Rosin, Fisheries Biologist, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Peace River. Reiser, D. W. and R.T. Peacock A technique for assessing upstream fish passage problems at small-scale hydropower developments. Pages in F.W. Olson, R.G. White, and R. H. Hamre, editors. Symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Western Division, Bethesda, Maryland. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre Demographic and habitat requirements for the conservation of bull trout. General Technical REPORT int-302. USDA-Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, USA. Roni, P., Beechie, T.J., Bilby, R.E., Leonetti, F.E., Pollock, M.M., and G.R. Pess A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in pacific northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management [N. Am. J. Fish. Manage.]. Vol. 22, no. 1, pp Scrimgeour, G. J., Hvenegaard, P. Tchir, J. Kendall S. and A. Wildeman Stream fish management: cumulative effects of watershed disturbances on stream fish communities in the Kakwa and Simonette River Basins, Alberta. Report produced by the (Peace River) and the Alberta Research Council (Vegreville) for the Northern Watershed Project Stakeholder Committee. Northern Watershed Project Final Report No pp. Simonson, T.D., Lyons, J., and P.D. Kanehl Quantifying fish habitat in streams: transect spacing, sample size, and a proposed framework. North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 14, No. 3, pp Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, J.F Biometry the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Third edition. W.H. Freeman and Company. New York, USA. Strahler, A.N Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of the Geophysical Union 38: Strong, W.L., and K.R. Leggat Ecoregions of Alberta. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Edmonton Alberta. Tchir, J.P., P. Hvenegaard, and G. Scrimgeour Stream crossing inventories in the swan and Notikewin River basins of northwest Alberta: resolution at the 28

40 watershed scale. Tchir, J Stream crossing inventory and evaluations in the Simonette watershed. Tech. Rep., Peace River Alberta. Warren, M.L. Jr., and M.G. Pardew Road crossings as barriers to small stream fish movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 127: Wilson, S., R. McCleary, and C. Bambrick Overview assessment of fish passage at stream crossings within selected watersheds. Fish and Watershed Research Program. Foothills Model Forest. Zar, J.H Biostatistical analysis. Fourth edition. Prentice-Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. 29

41 7.0 GLOSSARY Armouring Baffles Bank-Full Width Application of materials to reduce erosion (e.g. rip rap). An obstruction used for deflecting or slowing fluid flow. Sometimes used in culverts to provide areas of slower velocity, which act as resting places for fish. Channel width between the tops of the most pronounced banks on either side of a stream reach. Cross Ditch Culvert Discharge Erosion Fish Habitat Ford Plunge Pool Pool A ditch excavated across the road at an angle and depth sufficient to divert both road surface water and ditch water off or across the road. A passage device, usually a pipe, constructed beneath a road, railroad, or canal to transport water. Rate at which a volume of water flows past a point per unit of time, usually expressed as cubic meters per second. Process of weathering or wearing away of stream banks and adjacent land slopes by water, ice, wind, or other factors. Aquatic and riparian habitats that provide the necessary biological, chemical, and physical requirements of fish species at various life stages. Low-water stream crossing with bank access to allow wading or vehicular passage. A pool created by water passing over or through a complete or nearly complete channel obstruction, and dropping steeply into the streambed below scouring out a basin in the stream substrate. Aquatic habitat in a stream with a gradient less that 1% that is normally deeper and wider than aquatic habitats immediately above and below it. 30

42 Reach An arbitrary assigned section of a stream having similar physical and biological characteristics or a section of stream based on meander length. Riffle Swiftly flowing stream reach with a gradient greater than 4%. Characterized by small hydraulic jumps over rough substrate material. Rip Rap Run Scour Sedimentation Stream Channel Stream Order (Strahler) A layer of boulders or rock fragments placed over a soil to protect it from the erosive forces of flowing water. Swiftly flowing stream reach with a gradient greater than 4%, little or no surface agitation. Term used to describe soil erosion when it occurs under water, as in the case of a stream bed or river bottom. The filling in of stream, rivers and lakes with soil particles, mainly sand and silt resulting from erosion. Long, narrow depression shaped by the concentrated flow of a stream and covered continuously or periodically by water. Hierarchical ordering of streams based on the degree of branching. The smallest permanently flowing unbranched stream is termed a first order stream (1) and the union of two streams of order n produces a stream of order n+1. The union of a stream with an order less than n, i.e., n-1, does not change the order of the larger stream. Stream order increases as stream size increases

43 Substrate Mineral and organic material forming the bottom of a waterway or water body. Substrate size (Modified Wentworth Classification) Size Clssification <2mm Fines 2-16mm Small Gravel 17-64mm Large Gravel mm Cobble >256 Boulder Bedrock Bedrock Velocity Wetted width The distance traveled per unit of time, expressed as cm/s or m/s. The width of the wetted portion of the stream channel. 32

44 8.0 APPENDICES 8.1 Appendix 1. Fish species recorded in the Smoky and Simonette River Basins Family Common Name Scientific Name Acronym Percidae Walleye Stizostedion vitreum WALL vitreum (Mitchill) Gadidae Burbot Lota lota (Linnaeus) BURB Esocidae Northern Pike Esox lucius Linnaeus NRPK Salmonidae Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni MNWH (Girard) Salmonidae Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus ARGR (Pallas) Salmonidae Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus BLTR (Suckley) Salmonidae Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss RNTR (Walbaum) Catostomidae Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus LNSC (Forster) Catostomidae White Sucker Catostomus WHSC commersoni (Lacepede) Catostomidae Largescale Sucker Catostomus LRSC macrocheilus Girard Cyprinidae Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita PRDC (Cope) Cyprinidae Fine scale Dace Phoxinus neogaeus Cope FNDC Cyprinidae Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus LKCH (Agassiz) Cyprinidae Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis FLCH (Richardson) Cyprinidae Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae LNDC (Valenciennes) Cyprinidae Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides EMSH Rafinesque Cyprinidae Northern Redbelly Phoxinus eos (Cope) NRDC Dace Cyprinidae Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus RDSH (Richardson) Percopsidae Trout Perch Percopsis TRPR omiscomaycus (Walbaum) Cottidae Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus SLSC Richardson Cottidae Spoonhead Sculpin Cottus ricei (Nelson) SPSC Gasterosteidae Brooks Stickleback Culaea inconstans (Kirtland) BRST 33

45 8.2 Appendix 2. Culvert Assessment Field Guide Culvert Assessment Field Guide 2004 FMA

46 Acknowledgements This project was a collaborative effort between Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Grande Prairie and the. The funding was made available through the Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Grande Prairie Forest Resources Improvement Program. We would like to thank all of the staff at Canfor Grande Prairie for providing input into this guide. The ACA would like to thank Canfor for their initiative and assistance in this study. They have shown proactive involvement and leadership in addressing environmental issues within their FMA and continue to research and implement ways to minimize their ecological footprints. The primary purpose of the guidebook is to provide land use managers with a quick and easy method to assess culverts. The guide is in three sections. The first section (1.0, 2.0, 4.0 and 5.0) details the rationale and biology for why these specific measurements and conditions can cause impacts on fish populations. The second section (6.0) is a key to the measurements on the assessment field form that describes each field for information to be recorded on the form. The third section (7.0, 8.0 and 9.0) is an appendix that contains a glossary, a sample field form and references used in the creation of this field guide. 35

47 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Fish Passage Barriers Caused by Road Crossings Overall Process for Culvert Assessments Outfall Barriers Velocity Slope Encroachment Prioritization for Remediation Culvert type Recommendations Erosion and Erosion Potential Culvert Definitions and Codes Glossary References Appendix 1. Culvert Assessment Field Form Contact Information 56 List of Tables Table 1. Risks associated with ranges of outfall drop heights 39 Table 2. Risks associated with water velocity limits. 39 Table 3. Guidelines for slope as stated from Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.. 40 List of Figures Figure 1. Design guidelines for proper culvert installation 37 Figure 2. Four main types of culverts Figure 3. A mitered round culvert.. 44 Figure 4. Ramp on culvert outlet Figure 5. Measuring the outfall drop height. 48 Figure 6. Measuring bank-full and wetted widths Figure 7. Stream ordering system (Strahler)

48 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area 1.0 Fish Passage Barriers Caused By Road Crossings Velocity of water, outfall drop height, lack of sufficient plunge pool depth, and damaged or blocked waterways through culverts results in fish passage barriers (B.C. 2001; Flanagan et al. 1998; Harper et al. 2000; Knoteck et al. 2001; Parker, 2000; Tchir, 2001; Tchir et al. 2003; Wilson et al. 2003). To prevent a culvert from being a barrier to common species in the reach, and to maximize the lifespan of the culvert, it should provide for the following (Figure 1)(Adams and Whyte 1990): 6) A slope of less than 0.5% to minimize velocity barriers. 7) Pool prior to culvert outlet for a rest period. 8) A culvert diameter equal to the bank full width. 9) Approximately 1/3 of culvert diameter should be embedded into the stream substrate. Culvert Diameter >= Bank-full Width Culvert slope < 0.5% Substrate Rest Pool at Outlet Culvert Embedded 1/3 into stream substrate Figure 1. Design Guidelines for Proper Culvert Installation. 37

49 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area There are three classifications of barriers to fish distribution: Seasonal will possibly impede the movement of any fish utilizing the stream reach within the year but will allow for passage during some point in the year. Partial will impede the movement of forage or juvenile stages of sport fish, but adult migratory swimmer may pass. Full will impede the movement of the majority of top swimmers in the reach. Fish will distribute themselves to required habitats for various reasons: 1) Spawning drive 2) Rearing habitat 3) Food sources 4) Habitat alteration 5) Over wintering 6) Competition There are 4 main types of culvert barriers: 1) Outfall 2) Velocity 3) Damaged Pipe 4) Debris 2.0 Overall Process for Culvert Assessments 1) Identify Background of Area fish, habitat, hydrology, land uses, managers, roads. 2) Identify Deviation from normal gauge current measured values of crossing biological and physical parameters against natural limits and requirements of area. a. Physical soils, slopes, substrates, discharge, sedimentation, etc. b. Biological swim abilities, life stage distribution, habitat requirements etc. 3) Identify Impact - Severity and consequences of deviation. 4) Identify and apply remediation on prioritized planning. To complete steps 3 and 4 effectively, the biological parameters of the species and life stages found in the watershed being analyzed are required. The following is criteria based on information on the species found in the Northwest Boreal Region of Alberta (FMIS 2003). 2.1 Outfall Barriers Any outfall is a partial barrier. There is a risk of barrier to movement of forage and juvenile fish (Parker, 2000). The following table summarizes risks associated with outfall drop heights for the species identified in Canfor s FMA. 38

50 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area Table 1. Risks associated with ranges of outfall drop heights. **Outfall drop height Barrier (cm) Classification >= 3 Complete Barrier to Cyprinids >= 10 Complete Barrier to most Catostomids and Salmonids **Categories based on plunge pool depths 1.25 times or greater than outfall drop height (Reiser and Peacock 1985). Where plunge pool depths are inadequate barriers will occur at lower heights than stated. Mitigation of outfall by construction of a plunge pool will not be effective in reducing risk of barrier. All outfalls are potential barriers to fish passage and should be repaired whether there is sufficient plunge pool depth or not. Jumping ability is reduced with the encroachment of a culvert. If there is a smaller culvert diameter than wetted width it s shown to decrease the optimal jump abilities (Parker, 2000). Jumping ability is greatly reduced if the plunge water hits any other object or surface prior to entering the plunge pool (Parker, 2000). 2.2 Velocity The upper limit of water velocity that will allow passage for most juvenile and forage species is 0.5 m/s (Parker, 2000). Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) states that for fry, passage water velocities should not exceed 0.3 m/s (Katapodis & Gervais 1991). The following illustrates the risks associated with various water velocities for species identified in Canfor s FMA area (Table 2.) Table 2. Risks associated with water velocity limits (All limits based on critical swim speed). (Adapted from Katopodis and Gervais 1991 and Chilibeck et al. 1993) Water Velocity (m/s) Barrier None Barrier to larval stage Partial barrier >0.75 Complete barrier to most resident fish ** for culverts >10m in length. All limits based on critical swim speed 39

51 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area Types of Swim Speeds (Katopodis and Gervais 1991). Sustained can maintain the swim speed for an infinite period. Prolonged- can maintain the swim speed for < 200 min. Critical can maintain the swim speed for <10min. Burst can maintain the swim speed for 165 s. ** It has been shown that fish will not use burst speeds for normal movement unless to complete a short distance within a passage (Jones et al 1974). Water velocities listed (Table 2.) are based on fish passage utilizing critical swim speeds. Swim speeds must be greater than water velocity to allow for a fish to move relative to the habitat. To understand the relationship between swim speed of a species, water velocity, culvert length and time to fatigue for a swimming fish refer to the following example. EXAMPLE: If the burst swim speed of a fish is 0.6 m/s upstream and water velocity is 0.5 m/s downstream, there is a 0.1m/s gain by the fish through culvert ( = 0.1 m/s). If the culvert length were 20m it would take 200 seconds for the fish to traverse the culvert (0.1 m/s * 200 sec = 20m). The burst speed last 165 seconds and it would take 200 seconds to pass this culvert, therefore this situation would be a barrier. A general formula for this is: LFS = (VF- VW) TF LFS length fish can swim VF- fish velocity VW- water velocity TF time to fatigue 2.3 Slope The following guidelines should be followed when assessing slope: Table 3. Guidelines for slope as stated from Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Adams & Whyte 1990). Slope Percent Baffles Culvert Length <0.5% No >24m long <1.0% No < 24m long <=5.0% Yes An increase in slope in the culvert from the natural background inclination of the stream channel will result in barriers to fish migration and ultimately culvert failure. Increased slopes through culverts can lead to velocity barriers and scouring resulting in outfall barriers. 40

52 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area 2.4 Encroachment Culverts should be sized such that the culvert diameter is equal to or greater than the bank full width of the stream. This will allow for the continuation of the natural stream morphology and prevent an increase in velocity of water through the culvert. By initially sizing a culvert properly remediation costs and environmental impact are reduced greatly. 3.0 Prioritization for Remediation Canfor's number one priority is safety. If an unsafe observation is made during assessments, the hazard should be made visible if it cannot be fixed immediately. Canfor's road maintenance supervisor must be notified and comments noted on the assessment form. Goal: To maximize upstream habitat accessibility and distribution of fish around a barrier culvert through effective and efficient remedial efforts. The following is a list of criteria for remediation prioritization: 1) Safety 2) Strahler Stream Order 3) Fish presence at site 4) Proximity to fish bearing water 5) Type of Barrier and ease of remediation Note: Fixing a large number of small problems may be more effective at increasing the connectivity of a watershed. However, if a bottleneck occurs on a main stem reach as a result of a major crossing problem it should be fixed to ensure increased upstream usable habitat. 4.0 Culvert Type Recommendations Bridges, open bottom arch and open bottom box culverts if properly designed and installed do not impede the passage of fish (Adams and Whyte 1990). These culverts retain the natural stream substrate and can be designed to maintain the normal depth and width of the stream channel. They do not allow for outfall or gradient dependent barriers and allow for natural connectivity of the stream. Round culverts should be avoided when fish passage is important (Adams and Whyte 1990). They generally constrict the stream flow, creating high velocities, which impede fish passage and cause downstream sedimentation. Round culverts provide few resting places for fish and baffles are difficult to install and not effective long-term. If not properly installed round culverts can cause a number of barriers. 41

53 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area To decrease the chances of barriers associated with round culverts, they should be sized according to the stream bank-full width, to prevent restriction of stream channel. 5.0 Erosion and Erosion Potential Aside from the physical barrier to fish migration, culverts may pose other complications to fish and aquatic habitat. One major influence is the increase of in stream sedimentation. Culverts increase sedimentation through several processes: Scouring as a result of increased water velocity through the culvert, due to excessive slope of the culvert or the culvert span is less than 1:1 ratio to the bank-full width. Sediment input from erosion from all steep banks associated with the crossing, lack of vegetation on road slope or other slopes, or downstream bank alteration. Piping of water under or around the culvert. Culvert failure and associated road fill being washed downstream. There are 2 main effects of sedimentation to a stream. The first is a decrease in usable fish habitat through the filling of interstitial areas between rocks. This eliminates habitat used for cover, spawning and rearing by sport and forage fish, as well there is destruction to habitat required for food sources for these fish (Mayhood, 1995). The second detrimental effect is the direct physiological effects on fish (irritate gills, increase stress on fish) (Waters 1995). Some forms of prevention against erosion include the initial proper placement of the culvert (flush at outlet to ensure lack of an outfall, proper size of culvert relative to bank-full width, and gradient or slope minimized to reduce velocity) and/or the use of erosion control devices, such as, rip rap, sedi-mat or other erosion control fabric, vegetation buffers, and/or cross ditches. The armouring of the inlet and outlet of culverts can greatly reduce the sedimentation input into the channel. Reference Material: Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI) P. Beaudry and Associates. Erosion potential index: a method for evaluating sheet erosion at stream crossings guide to (Anderson and Anderson 1987). 42

54 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area 6.0 Culvert Assessment Definition and Codes The following definitions and codes are used to evaluate the physical parameters of culverts. Brief descriptions of each of the entry fields in the culvert assessment field form are described below. Superscript numbers refer to fields on the assessment field form (Appendix I). General instructions on field form state: All data fields must be filled in. Place NA in fields with no observable data. A form must be filled out for each culvert (culvert 1, 2, 3) for the specific site. An initial visit requires full assessment. For additional visits a full assessment is required on crossings with a discernable channel. If there is no discernable channel and it is not an initial visit, assess inlet and outlet conditions and take photographs Site ID 1 Date 2 Surveyor 3 Stream Order 4 UTM E 5 /UTM N 6 Install Date 7 Access 8 Initial Visit 9 Crossing 10 Present The assigned location reference identity. Date of the assessment. Name of Crew members conducting the assessment. Stream order derived from hydrologic data layer or map. Easting and northing coordinates from GPS for the site location. Both need to be recorded for georeferencing. Can be measured in the field or derived. Installation date of culvert in area. Aids in assessing culvert life span. Type of vehicle used to access culvert. Is this the first time the site has been assessed? (Yes/No) Determines whether a full assessment needs to be completed (see Appendix). Is there a culvert crossing at the time of assessment (Yes/No). Discernable 11 Channel Is there any channelized water flowing upstream of crossing? Yes/No. Determines whether a full assessments needs to be completed (see Appendix 1). Culvert Types 12 43

55 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area Round Elliptical Open Bottom Arch Open Bottom Box Figure 2. Four main types of culverts. Multiple culverts at a site are referred to as stacked culverts. Culverts with extensions on the lower half of the culvert are referred to as mitered (Figure 3.). Figure 3. A Mitered Round Culvert. Culvert This is the diameter of the culvert. It is measured at Diameter the widest portion of the culvert. If there are multiple (cm) 13, 14, 15 culverts measure all diameters (Culvert 1 Diameter 13, Culvert 2 Diameter 14 etc.). The culvert diameter should be related to the bank full width of the channel (1:1) to prevent barriers. Refer to section 1.0 Fish Passage Barriers Caused By Road Crossings for more detail. 44

56 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area Culvert Length(m) 16,17,18 The length of the culvert measured from one end of the culvert to the other (including mitered portion of culvert but not including outlet ramp) (Figure 4.). It is easiest to measure this length with a laser range finder if there is a clear view through the culvert. If there are multiple culverts measure all lengths (Culvert 1 Length 16, Culvert 2 Length 17 etc.). Figure 4. Ramp on culvert outlet. 19, 20 Inlet/ Outlet Condition Perched- bottom of the culvert is above the water in channel. 45

57 Assessment of Selected Stream Crossing in Canfor Grande Prairie s Forest management agreement area Flush the bottom of the culvert is touching the substrate in channel. Submerged- the culvert is completely underwater. Damaged Pipe damage that may impede fish passage. 46