Field Stream Classification (Poulin) for Peace Forest District - CANFOR field trial at Flatbed Creek, Murray River and Wolverine River

Transcription

1 VA POULIN & ASSOCIATES LTD. Senior Biologist: Vince Poulin, RPBio Contact Info: Office Date: March, Field Stream Classification (Poulin) for Peace Forest District - CANFOR field trial at Flatbed Creek, Murray River and Wolverine River Draft Report Prepared for: Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Chetwynd, B.C. Prepared by: V.A. Poulin, R.P.Bio. The purpose of this project was to field trial the risk management tool: Stream Classification (Poulin) for the Peace (Dawson) Forest District in watersheds southeast of Chetywnd, BC and introduce CANFOR to the methodology. The tool was developed by V.A. Poulin & Associates Ltd. with support from Louisiana-Pacific Canada Cooperation Ltd., West Fraser Mills Ltd., and Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Ft. Nelson) using funding provided by Forest Investment Account. The tool is a method developed for use by forestry technicians and resource consultants to screen and classify non-fish bearing streams in the absence of a fish stream survey. Stratifying streams with little or no habitat potential was the basis for Local Area Agreements (LAA s) under the Forest Practices Code. No such agreement was formulated for the Dawson Creek Timber Supply Area. Work began on the tool in 2002 and has continued yearly. The method is at a stage where operational field trials are underway, but sampling in support of model verification is still limited. Habitat use by sport fish varies by geographic area, fish species, and time of year, making it essential to back-up any risk

2 CANFOR FIELD TRIAL management tool with rigorous testing and applied monitoring. An important time of year for use by fish of area streams is fall. Only in late August and early September do bull trout and mountain whitefish ascend streams in search of spawning opportunities. Not surprisingly is a paucity of information on the habitat preferences of these species as most inventory sampling was done in summer when unpredictable weather conditions and falling stream temperatures can be avoided. Only 28 sites are on record in the Timber Supply Area for containing bull trout of which 8 sites were added during model development (2003/ /2005). This report presents the results of the field trials while explaining how the model is used to classify streams. With this background and a spring training course, CANFOR at Chetwynd will be able to introduce the method operationally in HOW THE MODEL WORKS The model works by predicting the probability of use by sport fish in streams using easily obtained and repeatable measurements of habitat. Summing the value of individual measures of habitat produces a rating which when ranked against all known fish streams enables the site to be placed in one of four categories for decision making. These include streams having Nil, Low-Nil, Moderate or High potential to support sport fish. Nil streams lack adequate habitat to support fish. They make-up a high percentage of streams encountered by forest technicians in operational areas. Low-Nil streams are those where habitat is in such insufficient quantity or lacking critical elements that probability of use is sufficiently low as to allow them managed as non-fish bearing streams. This category captures another large component of operational streams and is the category in most need of continued evaluation. Streams rated Moderate contain habitat of sufficient quality and amount that fish use is possible thus requiring a fish stream survey or defaulting the stream to fish bearing in the absence of a survey. High indicates an abundance of preferred habitat making fish use assured unless prevented by an impasse or barrier. The approach is innovative. No field tool in the Province bases risk-management decisions on field measurements of parameters used to quantify fish habitat in this manner and is the only method founded on regional inventory data compiled by Fisheries Renewal BC (FRBC) for the Area. SCOPE OF WORK The model was applied to test streams in three areas: Flatbed Creek, Murray River and Wolverine River during a single sampling episode (September 14-20, 2005). Streams were selected at random from base maps provided by CANFOR containing TRIM 1

3 CANFOR FIELD TRIAL streams. Efforts were to sample as many sites as feasible within the work window while including those considered most beneficial in testing thresholds established by the model. These are those that fall within categories of Low-Nil and Low-Moderate. The latter objective was difficult to satisfy without the benefit of being able to conduct sampling within operational blocks which was a stipulation for funding by FIA. To locate suitable test streams all open access roads outside of operational areas were driven and the streams they crossed considered for sampling. The team sampled 19 sites (Table 1), but unfortunately 11 scored-high. Only 8 sites fell into categories of Moderate, Low-Nil and Nil. Much of the problem lay in the terrain and inaccurate mapping of TRIM streams. At Murray River, 43 out of 51 sites examined were either dry, very steep (>20%) or had no visible channel. Twenty-five out of the 43 lacked a visible channel, but appeared as Order 1 or Order 2 streams on TRIM 1 base maps. A similar problem existed at Wolverine River where 37 sites were checked with 24 having no visible channel and 6 not sampled due to steepness, lack of water or otherwise unsuitable for sampling. Table 1. Watersheds containing streams sampled in the CANFOR trials (September 2005) Watershed Watershed Code No. of Streams Sampled No. of Sites Sampled Flatbed Creek 4 4 Murray River 7 8 Wolverine River 7 7 Total: CALIBRATION AREA The model tested in this trial is for use in the Dawson Creek Timber Supply Area, an area that extends westerly from the Alberta border to the divide in the Northern Rocky Mountains. It is bounded in the north by the Peace River and in the south by a southeasterly swing in the Rocky Mountain Divide until it crosses into Alberta. The area included in the calibration includes sites at Flatbed Creek, Murray River and Wolverine River (Appendix 1). They fall into three biogeoclimatic zones, BWBSwk1, SBSwk2, and ESSFmv2 that occupy high mountain valleys and plateaus. Sport fish present in these areas include bull trout, mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, and arctic grayling with bull trout and mountain whitefish the dominant species. METHODS Field Sampling Field sampling followed the methods outlined in the Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Standards and Procedures (BC Ministry of Fisheries 1998) for all relevant parameters. Parameters measured included: stream width, wetted width, riffle crest depth, channel depth, pool depth, residual pool depth, stream gradient and substrate size. Qualitative determinations included: morphology,

4 CANFOR FIELD TRIAL percent riffle-pool, bed material, stream pattern, confinement and flow stage. Crown closure in this method is the cover produced by overstory trees. It is determined using visual reference charts. The measure provides a good description of the riparian stand when combined with a forest cover label. It does create an inconsistency with respect to the RIC measurement, but analysis suggests it produces no affect on the model. Over stream vegetative cover was recorded as per RIC for inclusion in FDIS. Stream order is not a RIC field measurement nor does it fall out of the FDIS inventory without referring to maps. Stream order was determined in the field using TRIM as given by Version 1. Fish stream sampling was accomplished using electrofishing and baited minnow traps. Electrofishing used the first-fish capture approach. This method involved continuous sampling of a reach or reaches until a fish is captured or sufficient habitat investigated to be satisfied fish are not present. Sample distances varied but could include up to 500 meters or more of continuous effort. Temperature and conductivity were measured at each sample site. Minnow traps were set and left over-night. Field Card The field card is in two parts (Appendix 2). Part 1 (front) is for data entry and includes all fields necessary to complete a site assessment. Part 2 (back) uses the results of the site assessment and establishes the numerical rating for probability of use. The total score places the site within one of the four ratings. Version 06/05 of the field card was used in the field study. Stream scores were calculated after completing the field work using EXCEL. FDIS Data Entry All site data collected as part of the field project was entered and submitted to the Ministry of Sustainable Resources, Prince George, Field Data Information System (FDIS) for repository and public use. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Field Tests Field surveys were completed at 19 sites (Appendix 3). The sampling produced results of considerable significance to the use of the model. 1. Brook trout trout were captured in a small stream directly tributary to the Murray River (Murray Tributary 2, Site 203a, Appendix 4). The abundance of trout in this stream was unlike any sampled since 2002 for it s size. The reach sampled scored 60 points for a rating of Medium. Sampling was continued up the stream and beyond a steep, rocky section containing gradients of up to 15%. A second reach card was not completed at the gradient break, but using values present in this segment and re-adjusting values for order, morphology, confinement and substrate, a score of 31 points and a rating of Low-Nil would have been produced with brook trout still present in the system. This would make this segment the first reach in the Timber Supply Area to contain sport fish with a rating of Low-Nil. A second site on the same stream was sampled 1.5 km upstream and close to a small wetland that was considered a possible link to the residency of the fish. That site scored 51 points for a rating of Moderate. No fish were captured in that reach suggesting the fish must over-winter in the downstream segments. 2. Site sampling after completion of the CANFOR field surveys produced additional results that were equally important. Brook trout were found in several additional streams. All of them contained lakes that had been stocked with brook trout. Brook trout are not native to British Columbia which means the fish present in stream 203a were derived from those stockings. It also implies the

5 CANFOR FIELD TRIAL brook trout in 203a had moved out of one of the other streams with lakes and entered the Murray River ultimately finding their way into stream 203a where they successfully reproduced. 3. Several other brook trout streams scored low. Site 219 (Murray Tributary 19-8) scored 35 points (Low-Nil) and site 215 (Murray Tributary 15-6), 41 points (Moderate). Both are situated below lakes which increases the risk of use even in streams with poor habitat should they be located downstream. For this reason, users are required to undertake a survey on any stream containing a headwater lake. However, the site scores do reflect a problem in areas where brook trout have been stocked. The model bases it s determinations on the habitat preferences of rainbow trout, bull trout and arctic grayling, not brook trout which means their unique use of small, spring-fed, headwater streams can result in them being present and the model not reflecting probability of use. Brook trout are not factored into the procedure because they were absence from the inventories used to establish the model. This looks to be the first capture of brook trout outside of streams containing lakes. 4. An additional outcome of the post-canfor sampling was the capture of a bull trout in a stream (Murray Tributary 14-24) near Bully Creek that scored 13 points for a rating of Low-NiL. This is another significant finding and one linked to the brook trout issue. The stream derives it s flow from a large mineral spring situated at the head of an Order 1 stream. Like the brook trout streams, the resulting habitat is fed by ground water. In this case, mineralized water bubbles to the surface over a large area and collects to form a defined stream. What is happening is the persistent flow mitigates for the loss of channel depth and pool depth. Other limiting factors are also compensated such as being of Order 1. The use of springs by sport fish for over-wintering is well recognized and why springs in northern latitudes are critical habitats requiring the highest level of environmental protection. Understandably, the model can t isolate springs on the basis of limiting factors that apply to streams and no adjustment in habitat values could capture them. However, the findings do reveal a weakness in the application of the model. A prevision of the methodology is to undertake a fish stream survey (or default) on any stream that is lake-headed, but this was not extended to spring-fed streams. The results of this survey show they need to be treated in the same manner. An important task is determining just how best to characterize such sites so that a forest technician can identify them when completing a stream assessment. Above: mineral spring on a Murray River tributary containing bull trout. Sites such as this are not adequately assessed using the model due to the presence of strong-ground water flow. Sites such as this can provide critical wintering habitat to fish without having deep channels or residual pools. This channel is an Order 1 stream. 5. Excluding the issue of spring-fed streams, the survey results are consistent with the findings obtained in previous years. To illustrate the relationship between the 2005 sites and previous samples, site scores for all previous test sites (since 2003) are given in Table 2. Sites shown in green are those sampled in 2006 including Murray River sites examined on behalf of LP.

6 CANFOR FIELD TRIAL Table 2. Ratings for stream sampled in the Dawson Timber Supply Area using Stream Classification (Poulin) Stream Score Rating Sample Stream Score Rating Sample Stream Score Rating Sample 1 G N NFC ME L-N NFC ME 106 H BT 2 WKT2-2a -55 N NFC L-N NFC M1 106 H RBT 3 MTrib 18 (10) -55 N NFC L-N NFC H RBT 4 A -53 N NFC S2 27 L-N NFC Calamag Creek 108 H NFC 5 G N NFC R3 27 L-N NFC S7 113 H BT/RB 6 WKT N NFC ME5 28 L-N NFC ME 114 H RB/BT 7 WKT N NFC Murray Trib 4 29 L-N NFC WKT1 116 H RB 8 R2-45 N NFC G2 34 L-N NFC Club Creek MS 118 H BT 9 G5-35 N NFC S3 34 L-N NFC G1 121 H RB N NFC MTrib 19 (8) 35 L-N EB WR Trib H BT N NFC S L-N NFC HC2 123 H RBT 12 MTrib 10 (13) -33 N NFC LM2 39 L-N NFC MW 124 H BT 13 G N NFC R1 41 M NFC S8 126 H NFC 14 MTrib 13 (20) -30 N NFC M7 41 M NFC Perry Creek 126 H NFC N NFC MTrib 15 (6) 41 M EB M3 133 H RBT 16 WKT N NFC M M NFC S1 135 H BT/RB N NFC HC2 43 M NFC M1 138 H RB 18 MTrib 16 (7) -25 N NFC M NFC MTrib 17 (9) 143 H EB 19 WKT N NFC WR Trib 4 46 M NFC Flatbed Creek 146 H NFC 20 WKT N NFC M5 48 M BT WM 147 H NFC 21 WKT N NFC MTrib 2 Upper 51 M NFC SM 151 H NFC 22 WR Trib 3-10 N NFC G4 52 M NFC Murray Trib H NFC N NFC M NFC M4 156 H NFC 24 WKT N NFC Flatbed Trib 3 57 M NFC N NFC Murray Trib 2 60 M EB N NFC WKT M NFC N NFC R3 63 M NFC N NFC WKT2 64 M RB 29 B -4 N NFC M NFC 30 Murray Trib 5-4 N NFC M NFC 31 ME1 0 L-N NFC WKT M NFC 32 ME3 0 L-N NFC G6 73 M NFC 33 MTrib 9 (10) 1 L-N NFC M2 75 M RB 34 WKT1-8 5 L-N NFC WKT2 77 M RB 35 G1 6 L-N NFC G3 78 M NFC 36 MTrib 12 (19) 6 L-N NFC 1 82 M NFC 37 MTrib 8 (11) 7 L-N NFC 1 83 M NFC 38 SE1 10 L-N NFC M2 84 M NFC 39 ME2 10 L-N NFC 9 85 H RBT 40 S4 12 L-N NFC Flatbed Trib 1 85 H NFC 41 MTrib 14 (24) 13 L-N BT Murray Trib 7 86 H NFC L-N NFC M6 89 H NFC 43 ME4 17 L-N NFC H BT 44 HC1 17 L-N NFC Murray Trib 6 92 H EB 45 ME L-N NFC Mast Creek 96 H NFC 46 SE L-N NFC LM1 98 H NFC 47 Mast Trib 1 20 L-N NFC S1 100 H BT/RB/MW 48 M L-N NFC WR Trib H BT L-N NFC S6 103 H RB 50 S5 24 L-N NFC Murray Trib H NFC

7 CANFOR FIELD TRIAL 6. The importance of surveys such as the one completed should be apparent. The greater the number of sites tested the broader the verification of the model and the greater the level of confidence in it s use. Only through efforts like this can the model be improved and rationalized. This project identified a weakness in the model when dealing with strong-ground water fed streams. These streams defy limiting factors that otherwise limit use in most operational streams. 7. No adjustments in the rating thresholds or individual values for habitat are considered necessary based on the samples. However, future use of the model must ensure that spring-fed streams are identified and treated as if fish bearing in the absence of a fisheries inventory. This provision presently applies to lakes and will be inserted in a revised field card for Consideration needs to be given as to how such sites can be readily identified. Mineral springs do not poise a problem if encountered directly, but if they lie upstream of a reach being measured they could be over-looked. Also challenging is isolating streams such as those used by brook trout where strong ground water provides that species with effective habitat. The water source may arise from a lake or basin aquifer and be less readily identifiable without some defining key. Case Studies 1. Sampling was completed at 19 sites including 18 streams. Work commenced in the Flatbed Creek area, but after sampling the main-stem Flatbed Creek and several tributary streams without the capture of sport fish, sampling was abandoned and commenced in the Murray River area. Sampling in Murray River was challenged by lack of sites and a large number of Order 1 and 2 streams having no visible channel despite being mapped as TRIM 1 streams. Sampling in Murray River was rewarded by the brook trout finding at site 302a which prompted a deeper investigation into the streams supporting them. In an attempt to find test sites in categories that best evaluate the model, sampling was extended to Wolverine River where all streams accessible by the Wolverine Forest Road and tributaries to Mast Creek were considered. There too, virtually every Order 1 and 2 stream had no visible channel resulting in sampling being done on larger stream systems than preferred. 2. To provide a sense for how the method works, each of the sites sampled are discussed in Appendix 1. Sites are illustrated using images of the site and supported by information describing the respective habitat as measured using the field card. The field card used in the project is given in Appendix 2. The site data compiled for each site is provided in Appendix 3 and maps giving site locations in Appendix 4. CONCLUSION This project enabled the testing and verification of model use over an additional 19 sites. The project identified a weakness in the model when dealing with streams fed by strong, ground water flow. We captured a single bull trout at a large mineral spring near Bully Creek, and brook trout at two sites where stream scores using the model could not adequately predict probability of use due to the model s construct of measuring habitat on the basis of stream characteristics derived for the most part, from surface water. For this reason, a change has been made in the procedure where it is now recommended that streams fed by strong ground water be surveyed. This stipulation applies to streams containing lakes in their watersheds. The change implies users will need to identify such streams. Criteria are provided on distinguishing spring-fed streams from those the model are based. See Poulin 2006a and Poulin 2006b for additional discussion. The change has been made to the 2006 Field Data Card. The revised card is not attached to the report, as some additional minor changes are being considered to improve use of the card. A revised card can be provided if requested, but is not advised until all changes are made. The card will be available prior to the spring 2007 training. Excluding the issue of spring-fed streams, the survey results are consistent with findings obtained in previous years. The results

8 CANFOR FIELD TRIAL did not support any changes to values used by the model to derive site scores or stream ratings. Users of the 2005 card will find the procedure unchanged with the exception of its applicability to springs. RELATED 2006 REPORTS Poulin, V.A. 2006a. Field stream classification (Poulin) for Peace Forest District - Operational field trial: field stream classification (Poulin) for Peace Forest District (Dawson). Prepared for Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Dawson Creek, BC. 17 p. Poulin, V.A. 2006b. Risk managing streams with strong ground-water flow. Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Ft. St. John, BC. 6 p. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was made possible by Colin Johnston, Planning Forester, Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Chetwynd, British Columbia. His support is greatly appreciated for without continued verification and sampling it is not possible to improve the methodology. This procedure has its origins in projects supported by Doug Russell, Operations Planner, Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Brian Pate, Forestry Supervisor, West Fraser Mills Ltd, and Kevin Kuhun, CANFOR, Ft. Nelson. Without their commitment toward finding answers to unnecessary fish stream surveys this work would never have begun. It was a pleasure working with Coleen Stevens, RPBio., and Ryan Dobbs, RPBio., Ecofor, Ft. St. James. Coleen and Ryan handled the fish sampling and completed the fish collection forms for each site. Guy Poulin did the data transfer from field cards to Excel and subsequent entry into FDIS. Funding for this project was provided by the Forest Investment Account.

9 APPENDIX 1: SURVEY SITES Senior Biologist: Vince Poulin, RPBio Contact Info: Office Date: January 19, Flatbed Creek Site 101 Score: 146 (High) Date: 09/14/2005 Flatbed Creek: Sites 101, 102, 103 and 104 Flatbed Creek Site 102 ( ): Flatbed Creek is a >4 order stream that drains a large watershed southeast of Tumbler Ridge. A falls located not far upstream of it s confluence with Murray River is considered to prevent upstream movement of sport fish, but resident fish including arctic grayling, bull trout, brook trout, mountain whitefish and burbot are listed according to Fisheries Data Warehouse. Five sites were sampled in the watershed including the mainstem at 32 km, Calamagrostis Creek (25 km), Babcock Creek and two smaller tributary streams, one located at 39 km and another just upstream of the mainstem site at 32 km. No fish were captured at any of the sample sites. Coarse fish were taken by the study team in a previous test sample, but no sport fish. Order 4 streams are sufficiently large as to almost always score High for probability of use by sport fish Their large width is normally accompanied by a moderate gradient, excellent channel depth, and deep pool. They tend to have open canopies, riffle-pool morphology and abundant in-stream cover for fish. Sampling is almost always rewarded with confirmation of use by sport fish except above barriers where they may be absent. Above: Flatbed Creek mainstem channel at 32 km. Stream channel width is m wide, channel depth is m with residual pool depths of up to 0.82 m. Gradient is low at 0.5 to 2%. Morphology is riffle-pool. Substrate is gravel-cobble. D95 is 23 cm and D, 11 cm. Pattern is irregular. The channel is occasionally confined. A falls is present, but does not limit use by resident sport fish. Fish presence must be assumed in the absence of multiple sample sites and sampling done at several different times during open-water period.

10 SURVEY SITES Flatbed Creek Site 102 Flatbed Creek Site 102 Score: 85 (High) Date: 09/14/2005 Flatbed Creek Site 102 ( ): drains directly into the main channel of Flatbed Creek. The stream has been heavily impacted by flooding. Channel width ranged from 3.01 to 5.4 m. Stream order based on Trim 1 is 2, but likely Order 3 if determined using Trim 2. Order is generally under represented by Trim 1 mapping. Slimy sculpin were collected within the immediate confluence of the stream, but absent from upstream areas. Rafted and clumped woody debris is present throughout the channel with small jams containing stored alluvial deposits. The site scores High due to a large channel width (over-widened by flood damage and filled with bedload), channel depth of m, a good residual pool depth (0.29 m) and positive gradient (3.8%). Substrate is mostly gravel. Stream is sinuous (+), but unconfined (-). No barriers are present. Data records (FDW) lack fish information. Flatbed Creek Site 103 ( ): order 2, 1.7 m wide stream draining plateau in upper Flatbed Creek. The stream is heavily modified by beaver and flows through multiple wetlands. Connectivity to Flatbed Creek is not likely. The stream immediately above the site passes through a perched highway culvert that is made impassable by screening that plugs the culvert inlet. Headwater lakes are absent with the exception of some ponding caused by the plugged culvert. The channel scores 57 points (Moderate). Channel width ranges from 1.28 to 2.54 m and channel depth m (average of less than poor). As with other beaver modified streams, residual pool varies from shallow to deep, but creating a good overall of 0.26 m. These factors combined with a low gradient (2.2%) and a gravel substrate yield a relatively high score for an otherwise low probability of use stream. The most significant consideration is lack of use is limitations imposed by beaver and low likely hood of access over any extended period of time. Flatbed Creek Site 103 Flatbed Creek Site 103 Score: 57 (Moderate) Date: 09/15/2005

11 SURVEY SITES Calamagrostis Creek Site 104 Score: 108 (High) Date: 09/15/2005 Calamagrostis Creek Flatbed Creek Site 104 Calamagrostis Creek ( ): order 4 or > stream tributary to Flatbed Creek, the stream was sampled to help assess fish use in watershed. As with all other Flatbed Creek sites no sport fish were captured. The stream was sampled above and below the highway bridge. Calamagrostis Creek contains otherwise good habitat for bull trout and mountain whitefish. The site averaged 6.3 m wide. Factors such as channel depth (0.20), residual pool depth (0.25 m), and gradient (3.5%) retained adequate to good conditions throughout. The channel above the highway drops in width to m wide and gradients to 2%. The highway culvert (3000 mm) is perched 1.15 m above water surface elevation and placed at 2% gradient. Calamagrostis Creek Calamagrostis Creek - upstream

12 SURVEY SITES Club Creek Site 201 Score: 118 (High) Date: 09/16/2005 Murray River Murray River: Sites 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 Club Creek Site 201 ( ): a large >4 order tributary to Murray River that drains the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountain foothills. The active channel is m wide with wetted width of m at the time of survey. Large streams such this all score High. Club creek has a deep channel (0.42 m), and low-moderate gradient (2.9%). Morphology is cascade-pool, substrate boulder-cobble, stream pattern sinuous and channel unconfined. The lower channel is braided and contains abundant unconsolidated boulder, cobbles and gravel from prior flood events. Further upstream the channel is more stable and exhibits the classic characteristics a high quality bull trout mountain stream. Sampling was done for calibration of equipment and transitional to an upstream test site. That site was given as a second order TRIM stream, but turned out to lack a no visible channel and could not be included in the survey. Sampling confirmed bull trout were in present in Club Creek and available to equipment; Fisheries Data Warehouse lists bull trout and Dolly Varden. Site 202 Score: 103 (High) Date: 09/16/2005 Site 202 Murray River Site 202 (Canary Creek ): an order 4 stream with a channel width of m. The channel is severely degraded by flooding, but retains sufficient physical characteristics to enable it to score High. Channel depth is marginal at 0.25 m and residual pool depth poor at 0.15 m. Lack of residual pool is due to a high transient bed load which fills the channel profile. Stream gradient is 1-3%, only two measurements fell outside this range. Average gradient is 2.6%. Other factors that support the high rating are riffle-pool morphology, gravel-cobble substrate and sinuous channel pattern. This stream is dammed by beaver closer to the Murray River. No fish were captured. Fisheries Data Warehouse indicates bull trout and mountain whitefish present.

13 SURVEY SITES Site 203a Score: 60 (Moderate) Date: 09/17/2005 Murray River Site 203 ( ): is the most interesting of sites sampled to date. It identifies a weakness in the model when non-target or unknown sport fish are present. The stream is Order 2 and drains a long depression above the Murray River. The channel contains Eastern Brook trout, a species lacking in the inventories that established the model. Brook trout are non-native. They were stocked in several near-by lakes. This stream is not lake headed, indicating they migrated from the original point of stocking. The original stockings Site 203a, confluence Stream Order 2+200mR were very successful and made so by the lakes having formed in karsts (topography on carbonate rock - limestone and dolomite). Karst s supply abundant, calcium-rich water from aquifers that would favor survival in otherwise less suitable streams. Site 203 has a channel width of m (average 1.3 m), channel depth of 0.17 m and no significant residual pool (0.13 m). Reach 1 has a gradient of 2.6% and riffle-pool morphology. Flow is over clean gravel, but fines present. The reach scored 60 points on the basis of gradient and being directly tributary to a 3M or greater order stream (200 m rule applies). Brook trout are abundant in the lower stream, but absent from a site sampled 1.5 km upstream. Maturity is achieved at 120 mm and fish that size or larger were either ripe or spawned-out suggesting they are resident fish. Fish were also sampled in a second reach (upper right) where stream gradient was 15%. Had the stream card been completed for this segment a score of 29 or Low-Nil would have been produced. See report for discussion on this topic. Site 203b Score: 51 (Moderate)

14 SURVEY SITES Murray River Site 204 ( ): a large stream situated on the divide between the Murrary and Wolverine Rivers east of Mast Creek. It has the highest score of the streams surveyed in the sample of 151. Order is 4, width 7.0 m, channel depth 0.32 m, residual pool 0.33 m, and a gradient of 1.2%. All other factors are equally strong. Fisheries Data Warehouse records show grayling, bull trout, and mountain whitefish are present, but sampling did not confirm fish presence in this otherwise excellent stream. Site 205 Site 204 Score: 151 (High) Date: 09/19/2005 Above: Site 205 Score: 29 (Low-Nil) Date: 09/20/2005 Murray River Site 205 ( ): an order 3 stream draining the first terrace above the west bank of Murray River. The stream contains abundant well-drained cobbles that were mostly dry at the time of survey. Lying east of Canary Creek it is heavily filled with bed-load possibly derived from the event that triggered the debris torrents in Canary Creek. Factors most affecting probability of use are shallow channel depth (0.14 m), a gradient above 4.5%, straight channel pattern and being unconfined. No fish were captured. Murray River Site 206 ( ): a small (1.2 m), order 2 stream draining a steep hillside on west bank of Murray River. The channel lacked habitat values that support probability of use. Channel depth is 0.11 m,, residual pool 0.08 m, gradient 5.1%, substrates consisting of fines, and a straight channel. Site 206 Score: -4 (Nil) Date: 09/20/2005

15 SURVEY SITES Murray River Site 207 ( ): an order 3 stream containing one of the headwater lakes stocked with brook trout. Trout were sampled throughout the survey section, but not in the abundance as those at Site 206. The channel scored high owing a moderate order, large width (4.6 m), deep channel (0.42 m) and fair gradient. The stream had been recently de-stabilized by flooding which may have contributed to the less dense population of trout compared to the smaller, more stable site at 206. This stream is situated high above the Murray River. Fish access is prevented by a falls, but the stream is situated only 1.5 km upstream of Site 206. Site 207 Score: 92 (High) Date: 09/20/2005 Site 207 brook trout Wolverine River: Sites 301, 302, 303, 304, 305 bull trout All first and second order TRIM streams crossed by the Wolverine FSR River (some 18 streams) with the exception of one between the new mine and the upper bridge were not streams. All contained no visible channels. This limited sampling to only a few streams most of which were High sites. Wolverine River Site 301 ( ): an Order 4 stream that scored high due to a large channel width (10.8 m), excellent channel depth (0.4 m) and favorable gradient (3.6%). The stream is directly tributary to the Wolverine River with no obstructions. Bull trout were captured. The score is typical for this channel. Site 301 Score: 100 (High) Date: 09/18/2005

16 SURVEY SITES Wolverine River Site 302 ( ): this is an exceptionally fine stream having a score of 121 points (High). Bull trout were abundant. Directly tributary to the Wolverine River, the stream is Order 4, has a large channel width (6.9 m), deep channel (0.43 m) and gradient of 4.0%. Notable are abundant boulders, stable cobbles and deep, but disbursed pools. Colonies of what appear to be brown algae cover much of the darkly stained bottom substrates. The covering is an indicator of stable flows and lack of channel disturbance. Site 302 Site 302 Score: 121 (High) Date: 09/18/2005 Site 302 Wolverine River Site 303 (no watershed code): a small, Order 1 channel with a 9 m step (37% gradient) at the channel mouth. It is directly tributary to site 302 which contains bull trout. The site scored -10 (Nil) due to a shallow channel (0.11 m), lack of residual pool depth (0.02 m), and variable stream gradient (10.6%). Stream gradient over the 120 m of stream sampled varied from 2-37%, raising the question what value to assign for morphology?. Average gradient nor the steep step at the stream mouth (see image) accurately reflected the habitat upstream of the step which was riffle-pool. This channel is not a TRIM stream, but rather a good example of a common in-block stream. No fish were captured in this stream, suggesting the 37% step of 9 m was impassable. Bull trout were present in the reach where the stream entered the primary channel. Perry Creek - Wolverine River Site 304 ( ): this is another large stream sampled due to the lack of smaller streams within which to test. Perry Creek scored an unsurprising 126 points (High) due to it s large channel width (11.6 m), deep channel (0.46 m), and good gradient 2.2%. Other factors contributed to the favorable score, but unlike stream 302 where stability and classic bull trout habitat features are present, Perry Creek is an active system with high bed-load and potential for large scale instability. These factors likely manifest themselves in reduced habitat capability with distance upstream. Sport fish were not capture in the survey, but are present according to Fisheries Data Warehouse. Those records indicate bull trout and arctic grayling present. Site 304 Score: -10 (Nil) Date: 09/18/2005 Site 303 Score: -10 (Nil) Date: 09/18/2005

17 SURVEY SITES Wolverine River Site 305 ( ): this stream is located east of Perry Creek. It flows directly into the Wolverine River without any obstructions below the sampled reach. The stream scored 46 points (low-moderate) on the basis of order (2), channel width (3.3 m), and a stream gradient of 4.8%. It lacked channel depth (0.22) and was nearly absent of residual pool (0.08). The latter two parameters are indicative of upstream instability and high sediment transport. No fish were captured, but the site is an example of one that could easily contain sport fish due to its position with respect to the larger river and acceptable habitat despite the lack of residual pool and and low channel depth. A perched culvert is present 200 m upstream of the mouth. The culvert is an obstruction to fish passage. It is perched 0.88 m and has an effective leap requirement of 0.74 m. This can achieve by adult grayling, but not most juvenile fish. Culvert gradient is the limiting factor at 5%. Adult grayling would not be able to pass a non-embedded culvert at this grade in spring flood. Bull trout are not known for an equivalent leaping ability. They ascend steep streams but usually those with defined steps, not those containing vertical falls. Thus, it is unlikely they would attempt to gain access through a culvert perched at this height. Site 305 Score: 46 (Moderate) Date: 09/19/2005 Site 306 Score: 20 (Low-Nil) Date: 09/19/2005 Mast Creek - Wolverine River Site 306 ( ): this stream is located in upper Mast Creek. The stream scored 20 points (Low-Nil) due primarily to a stream order of 2, small channel width (1.6 m), shallow channel (0.16 m), lack of residual pool ( 0.08 m) and being unconfined. No fish were captured. Mast Creek - Wolverine River Site 307 ( ): site 307 is the mainstem of Mast Creek located adjacent to site 306. The site scored High (96 points) on the basis of a favorable stream gradient (2.2%), riffle-pool morphology, and being of Order 3M. This order is given to a primary stream where the order drops from 4 to order 3 or order 2. Sampling shows a higher probability of use in mainstem segments of a stream compared to those of tributary streams having the same order. No fish were captured. The stream was dammed immediately downstream of the test site by beaver. A dam obstructed access to site 306 and dams are in the above watershed. Site 307 Score: 96 (High) Date: 09/19/2005

18 APPENDIX 2: FIELD CARD 2006 SITE CARD for FIELD STREAM CLASSIFICATION (POULIN), V06/05, Dawson Creek Forest District only STREAM NAME (no.) (Block) (local name) SITE #! REACH #! WATERSHED CODE! NID MAP #! WayP! UTM E!! UTM N! Elev DATE! TIME! AGENCY! CREW! CHANNEL C Width! Wetted W! C Depth! Pool D! Riffle C! Res. Pool! G % avg. FOREST COVER: COMMENTS Photo No. MORPHOLOGY TRIM version 1 2 2m 3 3m 4 or > LC RP CP SP Turbid Murky Low Clear P1R9 P2R8 P3R7 P4R6 P5R5 P6R4 BED MATERIAL! Dominant: O F G C B R! Subdominant: O F G C B R D95 (cm)! WATER CLARITY D (cm) PATTERN! TM! ME! IM! IR! SI! ST CONFINEMENT! EN! CO! FC! OC! UN! NA! Flow Stage Dry! Low >0-30% Wb! Med 30-90% Wb! High >90% Wb % Amount! D! S! Large woody debris (LWD) IMPASSE Type: Rock Falls Log/Root Step Gradient/chute/bedrock-channel BeavD Dewatering Overland Small woody debris (SWD) Type Type Type Boulder (B) Undercuts (UT) Height (H) Height (H) Slope (%) Deep pool (DP) Overstream vegetation (OV) %OV Pool Depth (PD) Pool Depth (PD) Length (m) Instream vegetation (IV) Riffle Crest (RC) Riffle Crest (RC) N-none,T-trace (3-5%),M-moderate (5-20%),A-abundant (>20% of site),d-dominant,s-subdominant CD (Q1) CD (Q1) RIPARIAN VEG.! IN! SH! PS! YF! MF WSEL=plunge pool depth at time of survey COVER STREAM COVER Bank Height! STREAM ORDER 200 m Rule: >1 m stream within 200 m of 3M or > channel and 0.5-<3% gradient Crown Closure 0! 1-20! 21-40! 41-70! 71-90! >90 DETERMINATION OF STREAM or REACH: The FRPA defines a "stream" as a watercourse, including a watercourse that is obscured by overhanging or bridging vegetation or soil mats, that contains water on a perennial or seasonal basis, is scoured by water or contains observable deposits of mineral alluvium, and that has a continuous channel bed that is 100 m or more in length, or flows directly into a fish stream or a fish-bearing lake or wetland, or a licensed waterworks. Non-classified Drainage (NCD's) are watercourses that do not satisfy the definition of a reach Key for determination of a stream: VESSEL PRESENT Y N-NCD CHANNEL BED SCOURED TO MINERAL SOIL OR WITH ALLUVIUM Y N-ORGANIC BED - NCD IF YES, obtain traverse data. WHERE channel bed is 100 m, reach is a stream (see exceptions above). Use field data to complete following: STREAM CLASS DETERMINATION IN ABSENCE OF FISH SURVEY - Classification (POULIN) for Dawson Forest District only PROBABILITY OF USE RATINGS Order 1! -10 2! 0 2 Mainstem! 6 3! 12 3 Mainstem! 16 4! m Rule! 12 <1! <2! 0 2-<3! 12 3-<5! 15 5 or >! 20 Points Width Points! CD*! <0.2! -10! 0.2-<0.3! 0! 0.3 or >! 20 ResPool! <0.15! -10! 0.15-<0.25! 0! 0.25-<0.3! 12!! 0.3 or >! 20 Gradient! flat! 10! 0.5-<3! 40! 3-4.5! 30! 4.5-8! 20! 8-<12! 0! 12 or >! -10! Points Points Points Morphology LC! 0 RP! 11 CP! 6 SP! -10 Points Bed (dom) Points F/O! 0 G! 3 C! 5 B! 3 R! -10 Pattern Points ST! -10 SI! 5 IR! 5 TM ME IM! 3 *Users are required to have completed training in the necessary field measurements and determinations. Method is under development, no unauthorized use permitted. Direct inquires to V.A. Poulin, 2153 West 46th Ave., Vancouver, BC, V6M 2L2 ( ), vpoulin@shaw.ca. Confinement Points TOTAL SCORE EN! -10 CO! 0 FC! 10 OC! 10 RATING UN! 4 Crown C Points 0%! 5 STREAM CLASS 1-20%! %! %! %! 0 Elecro Y(m)/N: >90%! -10 RT/BT/G/NS Probability of Use by Sport Fish** Impasses not present*** Rating! Total Points! Class Nil! <0! S6/S5 Low-Nil! 0 - <40! S6/S5 Moderate! 40 - <85! Survey High! 85 or >! Survey/S1-S4 **Habitat use varies with species and area. Card validated for Dawson Creek Forest District only. *** Assess barriers for passage. Undertake a fisheries survey or default to fish stream if perennial habitat on M-H probability streams occurs above a barrier. Streams upstream of barriers with Nil and Low-nil probability of use and those that simultaneously dry or freeze solid in winter are classified S6/S5. Outlet streams of lakes that support sport fish require a fish stream survey.

19 APPENDIX 3: SITE DATA Stream Classification (Poulin) Spreadsheet Dawson Timber Supply Area - September 2006 Stream UTM Field Watershed NID Map Sheet Watershed Code Trim Version LPUTME LPUTMN Stream ILP ILPMap WSA No. Site Date SiteUTME Murray River Murray Trib 5 093i NA NA /20/ Murray Trib 4 093i NA NA /20/ Murray Trib 3 093p NA NA /19/ Murray Trib 2 Upper 093i NA NA b 9/20/ Murray Trib 6 093i NA NA /20/ Murray Trib 2 093i NA NA a 9/17/ Murray Trib 1 093i NA NA /16/ Club Creek MS 093i NA NA /16/ Wolverine River Mast Creek 093p NA NA /19/ Mast Trib 1 093p NA NA /19/ WR Trib 4 093p NA NA /19/ Perry Creek 093p NA NA /19/ WR Trib 3 093i093 NWC i093 NA 303 9/18/ WR Trib 2 093i NA NA /18/ WR Trib 1 093i NA NA /18/ Flatbed Creek Calamagrostis Creek 093i NA NA /15/ Flatbed Trib 3 093i NA NA /15/ Flatbed Trib 1 093i NA NA /14/ Flatbed Creek 093i NA NA /15/ No. Sites 19 ORDER 1-10 Streams Width 2M 6 < <2 0 3M 16 2-<3 12! < R d Site "Snapped" Site UTM SiteUTMN UTME UTMN Order Pts Channel Width (CW) Wetted Width (WW) ! R ! ! M ! ! ! ! ! CHANNEL DEPTH < < Channel Depth (Wb-CD) Pool Depth (PD) Riffle Crest (RC)

20 APPENDIX 3: SITE DATA Riffle Crest (RC) Residual Pool Depth (RD) Gradient RESIDUAL POOL Flat 10 < < < < < or > 20 > >12-10 Pts Gradient (G) Pts Crown C Bed Pattern Confine 0% 5 Morp O/F 0 ST -10 E % 5 Score Rating LC 0 G 3 SI 5 C % 2 <0 Nil RP 11 C 5 IR 5 FC % 0 0-<40 Low-nil CP 6 B 3 TM ME IM 3 OC % 0 40-<85 Moderate SP -10 R -10 UN % or > High Morp Pts Bed Pts Pattern Pts Confine Pts Crown C Pts Score Rating Stream Factors BioGeo Elevation ft CP 6 FC 0 ST -10 C 0 60% 0-4 Nil NFC open flow SBSwk CP 6 CG 5 ST -10 UN 4 30% 2 29 Low-nil NFC dewatered SBSwk RP 11 GF 3 IR 5 OC 10 30% High NFC open flow ESSFmv RP 11 FG 0 SI 5 FC 10 20% 5 51 Moderate NFC open flow SBSwk CP 6 CB 5 ST -10 FC 10 30% 2 92 High EB above falls SBSwk RP 11 GF 3 IR 5 UN 4 15% 5 60 Moderate EB open flow SBSwk RP 11 GC 3 SI 5 UN 4 5% High NFC beaver SBSwk CP 6 BC 3 SI 5 UN 4 45% High BT open flow SBSwk RP 11 GF 3 IR 5 UN 4 20% 5 96 High NFC beaver SBSwk CP 6 GF 3 SI 5 UN 4 40% 2 20 Low-nil NFC beaver SBSwk CP 6 CB 5 SI 5 C 0 15% 5 46 Moderate NFC open flow BWBSmw 2773 CP 6 BC 3 SI 5 OC 10 30% High NFC open flow SBSwk RP 11 FF 0 IR 5 UN 4 50% 0-10 Nil NFC open flow SBSwk CP 6 BC 3 SI 5 FC 10 20% High BT open flow SBSwk CP 6 BC 3 SI 5 UN 4 30% High BT open flow SBSwk CP 6 BC 3 IR 5 FC 10 30% High NFC open flow BWBSwk LC 0 GF 3 ME 3 UN 4 3% 5 57 Moderate NFC beaver BWBSwk RP 11 GC 3 SI 5 UN 4 15% 5 85 High NFC open flow BWBSmw 3163 RP 11 GC 3 IR 5 OC 10 20% High NFC open flow BWBSmw 3167

21 APPENDIX 4: SITE LOCATIONS NFC site 101 NFC site culvert ponded 3 wetland lacking ponded water 4 NFC site 103 OT-1 OT1-1 LP2000 sport fish captured (G-grayling, BT-bull trout, RT-rainbow trout) sport fish not captured (NFC) habitat or access limited for sport fish primary stream site lable primary tributary stream site lable beaver dam where noted beaver dam complex (2 or more dams) reference locator Map 1: Flatbed Creek Area Locator: 093i097 base from: Canadian Forest Products BCGS series map UTM Zone 10 NAD 83 N Poulin

22 SITE LOCATIONS NFC MT ponded NFP (culvert dammed) NFC MT NFC EL site OT-1 OT1-1 LP2000 sport fish captured (G-grayling, BT-bull trout, RT-rainbow trout) sport fish not captured (NFC) habitat or access limited for sport fish primary stream site lable primary tributary stream site lable beaver dam where noted beaver dam complex (2 or more dams) reference locator no visible channel LP1004: Map 2: Calamagrostis Creek Area Locator: 093i096 base from: Canadian Forest Products BCGS series map UTM Zone 10 NAD 83 N Poulin

23 SITE LOCATIONS ponded? Canary Creek flood-torrented ELNFC VCdry1.2m NSlargestream NCD site OT-1 OT1-1 LP2000 sport fish captured (G-grayling, BT-bull trout, RT-rainbow trout) sport fish not captured (NFC) habitat or access limited for sport fish primary stream site lable primary tributary stream site lable beaver dam where noted beaver dam complex (2 or more dams) reference locator no visible channel Map 3: Murray River Area Locator: 093i095 base from: Canadian Forest Products BCGS series map UTM Zone 10 NAD 83 N Poulin

24 SITE LOCATIONS NFCEL site 205 TENT FIRE CREEK VC,<0.5M dryns torrented NCD steepns NFCEL site 206 gullyns L-N Map 4: Murray River Area Locator: 093i084/093i095 base from: Canadian Forest Products Ltd. BCGS series map UTM Zone 10 NAD 83 N LP2000 NS sport fish captured sport fish not captured (NFC) habitat or access limited for sport fish OT-1 primary stream site lable OT1-1 primary tributary stream site lable beaver dam where noted beaver dam complex (2 or more dams) reference locator no visible channel not sampled site 201 site 203a site 203b Poulin

25 SITE LOCATIONS dry0.5 MAST CREEK >20% dry0.5 dry0.75 NFCEL site 306 site 307 NFCEL NFCEL site 204 M20/CAMP CREEK WIZARD LP2000 NS sport fish captured sport fish not captured (NFC) habitat or access limited for sport fish OT-1 primary stream site lable OT1-1 primary tributary stream site lable beaver dam where noted beaver dam complex (2 or more dams) reference locator no visible channel not sampled Map 5: Wolverine River Area Locator: 093p005 base from: Canadian Forest Products Ltd. BCGS series map UTM Zone 10 NAD 83 N Poulin

26 SITE LOCATIONS Wolverine River site 301 site 302 LP 3001 site 303 NFCEL LP2000 NS sport fish captured sport fish not captured (NFC) habitat or access limited for sport fish OT-1 primary stream site lable OT1-1 primary tributary stream site lable beaver dam where noted beaver dam complex (2 or more dams) reference locator no visible channel not sampled Map 6: Wolverine River Area Locator: 093p005 base from: Canadian Forest Products Ltd. BCGS series map UTM Zone 10 NAD 83 N Poulin

27 SITE LOCATIONS dry culvert NFCEL site 305 Perry Creek NCD? site 304 open pit mine LP2000 NS sport fish captured sport fish not captured (NFC) habitat or access limited for sport fish OT-1 primary stream site lable OT1-1 primary tributary stream site lable beaver dam where noted beaver dam complex (2 or more dams) reference locator no visible channel not sampled Map 7: Wolverine River Area Locator: 093p005 base from: Canadian Forest Products Ltd. BCGS series map UTM Zone 10 NAD 83 N Poulin