Sarita and Pachena Watershed Effectiveness Evaluation of ...

Huu-ay-aht First

Nations

Sarita and Pachena

Watershed

Renewal:

Effectiveness

Evaluation of

Restoration Works

in the Pachena

River Watershed,

2020

Prepared by

30 September 2020

EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION OF RESTORATION WORKS IN

THE PACHENA RIVER WATERSHED, 2020

Prepared for:

Huu-ay-aht First Nations 170 Nookemus Road

Anacla, BC

V0R 1B0

Prepared by:

Marc Gaboury

MN Gaboury Associates Ltd.

2459 Holyrood Drive

Nanaimo, BC V9S 4K7

September 2020

Effectiveness Evaluation in Pachena River Watershed September 2020

MN Gaboury Associates Ltd. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF PHOTOS ......................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

Scope ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.1

2 RESTORATION OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................ 3 3 METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 5

Effectiveness Evaluations ............................................................................................... 5 3.1

4 ROUTINE EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS .............................................................. 6 Pachena River – Reach P2 .............................................................................................. 6 4.1

Pachena River – Reaches P6, P7 and Trib G1 ................................................................ 8 4.2

Rousseau Creek – Reach R1 ......................................................................................... 11 4.3

Trib F - Reach 1 ............................................................................................................ 14 4.4

5 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 16 6 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 20

APPENDICES

PHOTO PLATES


MN Gaboury Associates Ltd. ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The HFN watersheds showing the locations and reaches of Pachena River and

Rousseau Creek. Note: Trib F, Reach 1 shown as Reach R5 of Rousseau Creek. ................. 4

Figure 2. Comparison of mean physical and biological performance ratings for all LWD

structures in the surveyed streams. ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 3. Comparison of mean condition and stability ratings for all LWD structures in the

surveyed streams. .................................................................................................................. 19

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of fish habitat restoration works constructed in HFN watersheds (1998-2009)

................................................................................................................................................. 2 Table 2. Watershed- and site-level restoration objectives for the constructed works. .................. 3

Table 3. Summary of rating system used to evaluate restoration treatment and structure

performance in the Routine Effectiveness Evaluation (after Gaboury and Feduk 1996).

Detailed ratings for specific objectives are described in

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/fia_docs/ree_guidelines.pdf. ............................... 5

Table 4. Routine effectiveness evaluation for instream works in Pachena River – P2, 2020. ...... 7 Table 5. Routine effectiveness evaluation for instream works in Pachena River – P6, P7 and Trib

G1, 2020. ................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 6. Routine effectiveness evaluation for instream works in Rousseau Creek, Reach R1,

2020....................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 7. Routine effectiveness evaluation for instream works in Trib F - Reach 1, 2020. ......... 15

Table 8. Summary of average overall ratings for physical and biological performance, condition,

structure stability and maintenance of LWD structures. ....................................................... 17

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. UTM coordinates for 82 habitat rehabilitation sites, 2020.

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1. Right bank LWD structure at Site 1 in Reach P2 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020. Photo 2. Right bank LWD structure at Site 10 in Reach P6 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020. Photo 3. Right bank LWD structure at Site 12 in Reach P6 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020. Photo 4. Right bank LWD structure at Site 16D in Reach P6 of Pachena River, 2 September

2020.

Photo 5. Right bank LWD structure at Site 22A in Reach P6 of Pachena River, 2 September

2020. Photo 6. Right bank LWD structure at Site 31 in Reach P7 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020. Photo 7. Right bank LWD structure at Site 32 in Trib G1 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020. Photo 8. Left bank LWD structure at Site 59 in Reach R1 of Rousseau Creek, 1 September

2020.

Photo 9. Left bank LWD structure at Site 9 in Reach R1 of Rousseau Creek, 1 September 2020. Photo 10. Left bank LWD structure at Site 42A in Reach R1 of Rousseau Creek, 1 September

2020.


MN Gaboury Associates Ltd. iii

Photo 11. Right bank LWD structure at Site 45A in Reach R1 of Rousseau Creek, 1 September

2020. Photo 12. Left bank LWD structure at Site 60 in Trib F – Reach 1, 1 September 2020. Photo 13. Left bank LWD structure at Site 61A in Trib F – Reach 1, 1 September 2020.

Photo 14. Left bank LWD structure at Site 66 in Trib F – Reach 1, 1 September 2020. Photo 15. Right bank LWD structure at Site 69 in Trib F – Reach 1, 1 September 2020.


MN Gaboury Associates Ltd. iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to express his appreciation to the Huu-ay-aht First Nations (HFN)

ʔuuʔałuk Watershed Renewal Technical Working Group who supported and approved the

implementation of this project. Stefan Ochman assisted with the field work and the evaluation of

instream structures.

Funding for this project was provided by Huu-ay-aht First Nations.


MN Gaboury Associates Ltd. 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Between 1998 and 2009, approximately $1.5 million was spent on restoring fish habitat

and populations in the Sarita, Pachena, and Sugsaw watersheds (S. Ochman, unpublished

data; Table 1). Habitat damage to these systems included channel over-widening, loss of

instream cover, bank instability and erosion, and degraded spawning, rearing and

overwintering habitats. Restoration works in these watersheds followed from Overview,

Level 1 and Level 2 fish habitat assessments conducted in these watersheds under the

direction of the Huu-ay-aht First Nations (HFN) between 1997 and 2001 (Bocking et al.

1997; Ochman 1998; Ochman and Gaboury 2000; Gaboury 2000; Ochman and Gaboury

2001).

Evaluation of the performance of instream habitat structures is critical to informing future

restoration efforts and structural designs. Routine Effectiveness Evaluation (REE)

assesses the physical and biological performance of a specific restoration measure by

examining the current conditions at each restoration site. REEs are a low intensity,

standardized procedure for determining the success of stream and off-channel restoration

projects at a broad scale and low cost. The evaluation procedure compares the realized

performance to the planned performance, as specified by the original watershed- and site-

level objectives in the restoration design reports. REEs also provide limited feedback

regarding the overall appropriateness of prescriptions at a site level.

Previous REEs were conducted in the Sarita, South Sarita Rivers and Sabrina Creek in

2000, 2001, 2003 and 2017 and in Hunter Creek in 2001, 2003 and 2017 (S. Ochman

unpublished data and Gaboury 2017). All remedial works recommended in Gaboury

(2017) at a total of 63 sites in Sabrina, Hunter, Shaky Bill’s and Rousseau creeks, and

South Sarita and Sarita rivers were carried out in August 2017. Following the de-building

of a log jam at chainage 1850 m on Rousseau Creek and the spreading out of LWD from

a LWD accumulation in Tributary F with an excavator, 23 LWD structures were

constructed and cabled in Rousseau Creek and Tributary F in September 2018.

Additional instream work occurred in 2019 based on rehabilitation designs prepared by

Gaboury (2018) that recommended the construction of LWD structures at seven sites in

Pachena River – P2, 21 sites in Pachena – P6, one site in Pachena River – P7, 25 sites in

Rousseau Creek, two sites in Trib G, and 10 sites in Trib F (Ochman 2019). Moderately

high discharges through the winter of 2019-2020 were believed to have potentially

impacted the stability and integrity of the structures constructed in 2019. This report

includes results and recommendations on REEs conducted in September 2020 on 85

LWD structures constructed in 2019 in Pachena River mainstem – Reaches P2, P6, and

P7, as well as Trib G – Reach 1 (tributary to Pachena River), Rousseau Creek, and Trib F

– Reach 1.



Table 1. Summary of fish habitat restoration works constructed in HFN watersheds (1998-2009)

Year Location Description

Lower Sarita To increase habitat complexity and create pools for Coho Salmon fry, log

cover structures were installed at 2 sites on the Sarita River.

Sarita Log cover structures were at 1 site at the confluence of the Sarita & South

Sarita.

South Sarita Construction of a 1500 m2 side channel in Reach 20

Lower Sarita To increase off-channel rearing habitat for Coho Salmon fry in low flow

conditions, a fishway was installed in 1999 to provide access to the beaver

pond in Reach 3. Log structures were installed at 6 sites in Reach 3, and at 4

sites in Reach 4 to enhance habitat complexity and pools for rearing Coho fry.

South Sarita In 1999, large woody debris structures were installed at 2 sites in Reach 20.

Four riffle structures and 8 large woody debris structures were installed in

Reach 34.

Two log jams were lowered and large woody debris structures were installed

at 25 sites in Reach 35.

The side channel previously built in Reach 20 was extended by 115 m to

provide summer and winter off-channel habitat for Coho Salmon fry and large

woody debris was added.

Five structures were constructed to protect an eroding bank in Reach 20, and

3 structures previously built were repositioned and recabled.

Large woody debris was added to 9 sites in Reaches 30-31.

Small woody debris was removed from a logjam in Reach 35.

Twenty new large woody debris structures were installed in Reach 37.

Hunter Creek Large woody debris was placed at 9 sites in Reach 50 to increase habitat

complexity and provide cover for rearing juvenile Coho Salmon.

Rip-rap armouring was added to the upstream corner of the berm in Reach 20.

Large woody debris was added to 10 sites in Reaches 30-31.

Small woody debris was removed from a logjam in Reach 35.

Eighteen new large woody debris structures were placed in Reach 34.

Four new large woody debris structures were installed in Reach 35.

Six new large woody debris structures were installed in Reach 37.

2004 Sugsaw Installation of six riffles and spawning platforms, and 11 LWD structures in

Reach 1

2005 Pachena 13 LWD structures in Rousseau Creek. De-built log jams in Rousseau Creek

and backwatered falls impediment in Pachena River to provide fish passage.

South Sarita 7,500 m2

of new side channel (56 km) rearing habitat was created in Reach 20

and a 3420 m2 pond.

Sarita Construction of the 6,550 m2 I.R. 1 side channel

2007 Sarita Repairs to side channel on I.R 1.

2008 Sarita Repairs to side channel on I.R 1.

2009 South Sarita The Reach 20 side channel and the protection berm were rehabilitated due to

flooding damage.

South Sarita

Sabrina Creek

2000

1999

1998

2001

2006

Sabrina Creek

South Sarita

Sabrina Creek



Scope 1.1

This Routine Effectiveness Evaluation project was designed to evaluate the effectiveness

of stream restoration works and to develop remedial measures where appropriate. The

specific objectives for this project were to:

Complete a qualitative evaluation of the effectiveness of constructed instream LWD

structures in the Pachena River and Rousseau Creek watersheds (Figure 1) at meeting

physical and biological objectives;

Complete an evaluation of the condition of the logs, cables, and boulder attachments at

each structure;

Complete an evaluation of the stability of each structure; and

Provide recommendations for site-specific maintenance or remedial works, where

applicable.

2 RESTORATION OBJECTIVES

The REE assesses the physical and biological performance of a specific restoration measure

by examining the current conditions at each restoration site. The evaluation procedure

compares the realized performance to the planned performance, as specified by the original

watershed-and site-level objectives in the restoration design reports. The restoration

objectives for the 2019 constructed instream sites evaluated in 2020 are described in Table 2.

Table 2. Watershed- and site-level restoration objectives for the constructed works.

Stream Watershed-Level Objectives Site-Level Objectives

• restore holding, rearing and spawning

habitat for salmonids; and

• increase number of functional large

woody debris (LWD);

• re-establish a more stable channel.• increase pool frequency and instream

LWD cover in pools;

• increase local scour and residual depth

at appropriate pool locations; and

• improve spawning gravel quality,

quantity and hydraulic stability.

Pachena River,

Rousseau

Creek, Trib F,

Trib G



Figure 1. The HFN watersheds showing the locations and reaches of Pachena River and Rousseau Creek. Note: Trib F, Reach 1 shown as Reach R5

of Rousseau Creek.


MN Gaboury Associates Ltd. Page 5

3 METHODS

Effectiveness Evaluations 3.1

The effectiveness of constructed restoration works in Pachena River and Rousseau Creek

watersheds were assessed following a Routine Effectiveness Evaluation (REE) protocol

developed in British Columbia (Gaboury and Feduk 1996; Koning et al. 1997). The assessment

of physical and biological performance relates to the original performance objectives that the

restoration works were designed to meet, as specified in the restoration design reports. The task

of the REE methodology is to contrast the planned performance with the realized performance

of the site. As such, physical and biological performance objectives for site-specific restoration

structures are indicated and evaluated on the REE field form using a standardized rating system

(Table 3). The site-specific objectives for in-stream restoration can relate to short-term habitat

generation or long-term channel re-forming processes. In addition, structural condition,

structural stability and recommendations for maintenance are evaluated and given separate

ratings.

Table 3. Summary of rating system used to evaluate restoration treatment and structure performance in

the Routine Effectiveness Evaluation (after Gaboury and Feduk 1996). Detailed ratings for specific

objectives are described in http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/fia_docs/ree_guidelines.pdf.

Rating Biological and Physical Performance Objectives

4 Fully meeting or exceeding performance

3 Adequately meeting performance objective or unanticipated performance objective

2 Poorly meeting performance objective (e.g., excessive infilling of pools,

aggradation of sand on spawning gravels, loss of cover, etc.)

1 Not meeting performance objective

Structural Condition

4 Good to very good condition; almost as constructed

3 Adequate condition; some deterioration of some components

2 Poor condition; maintenance required to upgrade structural components

1 Structure has failed or in danger of collapse

Structural Stability

4 No movement or rotation of individual elements or structure

3 Small movement or rotation of individual elements or structure that do not affect

performance or cause distress to the structure; no maintenance required

2 Large movement or rotation of individual elements or structure that affect

performance or cause distress to the structure; maintenance required

1 Complete failure; most of the material or structure has moved and it is not

functioning as originally designed

Maintenance Recommendation

4 No repairs or maintenance required

3 Minor repairs or maintenance could be undertaken but are not mandatory

2 Repairs or maintenance are required to return to a functioning state

1 Major repairs should be undertaken using the existing or new design

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/fia_docs/ree_guidelines.pdf



4 ROUTINE EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS

The following sections describe the REE results for each watercourse evaluated 1-2 September

2020.

Pachena River – Reach P2 4.1

LWD structures constructed in Reach P2 of Pachena River in 2019 were evaluated for physical

and biological performance (Table 4; Appendix A). Of the eight LWD structures constructed,

100% and 88% were considered to be functioning well physically and biologically, respectively

(ratings of 3 and 4) (Photo 1). The mean ratings were 3.3 and 3.2 for physical and biological

performance, respectively, and 4.0 for both structural condition and stability. Pool depths at the

structures ranged from ~0.5-1.5 m. No maintenance measures were recommended for the LWD

structures.



Table 4. Routine effectiveness evaluation for instream works in Pachena River – P2, 2020.

Name of Sponsor_HFN Watershed Pachena River Survey Crew REE Interval

Project Name Routine Effectiveness Evaluation Sub-watershed Reach P2

Forest District Port Alberni___________ Date

Performance Objectives

Po

ol

Rif

fle

Deb

ris

Cat

cher

Gra

vel

Bar

Ban

k P

rote

ctio

n

Str

eam

Co

ver

Fis

h A

cces

s

Nu

trie

nt

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Sp

ecie

s

Lif

e S

tag

e

Ov

erw

inte

r

Rea

rin

g

Sp

awn

ing

Incu

bat

ion

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Str

uc.

Co

nd

itio

n

Str

uc.

Sta

bil

ity

Mai

nte

nan

ce3

Comments

Pachena 2019 P2 1 1 RB 4 4 4.0 Co Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 4 4

Pachena 2019 P2 2 2 RB 4 4 4.0 Co Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 4 4 1.0-1.5 m deep

Pachena 2019 P2 3 3 LB 3 3 3.0 Co Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 1.0 m deep

Pachena 2019 P2 4A 428 LB 3 3 3.0 Co Ju 2 3 2.5 4 4 4 4 4 0.5 m deep

Pachena 2019 P2 4B 429 LB 3 3 3.0 Co Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.9 m deep

Pachena 2019 P2 5 5 RB 3 3 3.0 Co Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.5 m deep



Average 3.3 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.0

1Values without yellow highlight identify original performance objectives; rating values with yellow highlight are unanticipated benefits, observed during field monitoring

3Rating value for Maintenance range: 4 - no maintenance required or recommended; 1 - major repairs required

Abbreviations: Co - coho salmon; St: Steelhead trout; Ju - juvenile life stage; d/s - downstream; u/s - upstream.

Site number refers to sites constucted in 2019 . See Ochman (2019).AS-BUILT REPORT OF 2018 & 2019 FISH HABITAT REHABILITATION PROJECT IN THE PACHENA RIVER

WATERSHED

September 2, 2020

2The "Overall Rating" is the averaged values of the original objectives (in yellow) and the unanticipated benefits (no color) when scores are equal or greater than the original objectives for "Physical" and

"Biological" Performance Objectives. Rating value range: 4 - excellent; 1 - poor (Based on FIA Aquatic Restoration and Rehabilitation Standards - REE Guidelines, April 2003).

Hig

h F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Lo

w F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Stefan Ochman, Marc Gaboury

Lef

t o

r R

igh

t B

ank

Physical 1

Biological 1

Way

pointStream

Year

BuiltReach

Site

(m)



Pachena River – Reaches P6, P7 and Trib G1 4.2

LWD structures constructed in Reaches P6, P7 and Trib G1 of Pachena River in 2019 were

evaluated for physical and biological performance (Table 5; Photo 2 to Photo 7). Of the 32 LWD

structures constructed, 56% and 66% were considered to be functioning well physically and

biologically, respectively (ratings of 3 and 4) while 44% and 34% were considered to be poorly

meeting physical and biological performance objectives, respectively (ratings 1 to 2.5). Mean

ratings were 2.7 and 2.8 for physical and biological performance, respectively, and 4.0 and 3.9 for

structural condition and stability, respectively. As a consequence of scour and hydraulic effects

associated with the LWD structures, some gravel sorting and aggradation had expanded on the

available area of suitable spawning gravels, particularly as back eddy accumulations downstream

of the structures. Pool depths at the structures ranged from ~0.1-1.4 m. No maintenance measures

were recommended.



Table 5. Routine effectiveness evaluation for instream works in Pachena River – P6, P7 and Trib G1, 2020.


Project Name Routine Effectiveness Evaluation Sub-watershed Reach P2



Po

ol

Rif

fle

Deb

ris

Cat

cher

Gra

vel

Bar

Ban

k P

rote

ctio

n

Str

eam

Co

ver

Fis

h A

cces

s

Nu

trie

nt

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Sp

ecie

s

Lif

e S

tag

e

Ov

erw

inte

r

Rea

rin

g

Sp

awn

ing

Incu

bat

ion

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Str

uc.

Co

nd

itio

n

Str

uc.

Sta

bil

ity

Mai

nte

nan

ce3

Comments

Pachena 2019 P6 10 10 RB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.8-0.9 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 11 11 LB 3 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.2-0.6 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 12 12 RB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.5 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 13 - LB 4 4 4.0 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 4 4 1.3-1.4 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 14 13 LB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 3 4 4 4 0.8 m deep


Pachena 2019 P6 16A 430 RB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 3 2 2.5 4 3 4 4 4 0.3 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 16B 431 RB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 3 2 3 2.7 4 4 4 4 4 0.3 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 16C 15 RB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 3 2 3 2.7 4 4 4 4 4 0.3 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 16D 432 RB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 3 2 3 2.7 4 4 4 4 4 0.2 m deep


Pachena 2019 P6 18A 17 LB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.7 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 18B 17 LB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.7 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 18C 18 LB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.4-0.5 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 19 18 RB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.7 m deep

Pachena 2019 P6 20 20 LB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.3-0.5 m deep


Pachena 2019 P6 22A 433 RB 1 1 1.0 Co+ST Ju 3 1 2.0 4 4 4 4 4 totally aggraded/infilled structure

Pachena 2019 P6 22C 434 LB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 3 2 2.5 4 4 4 4 4 0.2 m deep






Stream Year

BuiltReach

Site

(m)

Way

point

Lef

t o

r R

igh

t B

ank

Physical 1

Biological 1

Hig

h F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Lo

w F

low

Fu

nct

ion

September 2, 2020




Physical 1

Po

ol

Rif

fle

Deb

ris

Cat

cher

Gra

vel

Bar

Ban

k P

rote

ctio

n

Str

eam

Co

ver

Fis

h A

cces

s

Nu

trie

nt

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Sp

ecie

s

Lif

e S

tag

e

Ov

erw

inte

r

Rea

rin

g

Sp

awn

ing

Incu

bat

ion

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Str

uc.

Co

nd

itio

n

Str

uc.

Sta

bil

ity

Mai

nte

nan

ce3

Comments


Pachena 2019 P6 27B 27 LB 2 2 2.0 Co+ST Ju 3 2 2.5 4 4 4 4 4 0.15 m deep




Pachena 2019 P6 30A 435 RB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.6 m deep


Pachena 2019 Trib G1 32 32 RB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 2 2 2.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.3 m deep

Pachena 2019 Trib G1 33 33 LB 2 2 2.0 Co+ST Ju 2 2 3 2.3 3 4 4 4 4 0.4-0.5 m deep

Average 2.7 2.8 4.0 3.9 4.0




Site number refers to sites constucted in 2019 . See Ochman (2019).AS-BUILT REPORT OF 2018 & 2019 FISH HABITAT REHABILITATION PROJECT IN THE PACHENA RIVER WATERSHED

2The "Overall Rating" is the averaged values of the original objectives (in yellow) and the unanticipated benefits (no color) when scores are equal or greater than the original objectives for "Physical" and "Biological" Performance

Objectives. Rating value range: 4 - excellent; 1 - poor (Based on FIA Aquatic Restoration and Rehabilitation Standards - REE Guidelines, April 2003).

Stream

Biological 1

Hig

h F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Lo

w F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Year

BuiltReach

Site

(m)

Way

point

Lef

t o

r R

igh

t B

ank



Rousseau Creek – Reach R1 4.3

LWD structures constructed in Rousseau Creek, Reach R1 in 2019 were evaluated for physical

and biological performance (Table 6; Photo 8 to Photo 11). Of the 31 LWD structures

constructed, 81% and 74% were considered to be functioning well physically and biologically,

respectively (ratings 3 to 4) while 19% and 26% were considered to be poorly meeting physical

and biological performance objectives, respectively (ratings 1 to 2.7). Mean ratings were 3.3 for

both physical and biological performance, and 4.0 and 3.9 for structural condition and stability,

respectively. Pool depths at the structures ranged from ~0.1-1.6 m. No maintenance measures

were recommended.



Table 6. Routine effectiveness evaluation for instream works in Rousseau Creek, Reach R1, 2020.


Project Name Routine Effectiveness Evaluation Sub-watershed Rousseau Creek



Po

ol

Rif

fle

Deb

ris

Cat

cher

Gra

vel

Bar

Ban

k P

rote

ctio

n

Str

eam

Co

ver

Fis

h A

cces

s

Nu

trie

nt

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Sp

ecie

s

Lif

e S

tag

e

Ov

erw

inte

r

Rea

rin

g

Sp

awn

ing

Incu

bat

ion

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Str

uc.

Co

nd

itio

n

Str

uc.

Sta

bil

ity

Mai

nte

nan

ce3

Comments

Rousseau 2019 1 57 58mid-

stream4 4 4.0 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 3 3 4 4 4

1.3m deep

Rousseau 2019 1 58 58A RB 4 4 4.0 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 2 4 1.0 m deep

Rousseau 2019 1 59 59 LB 4 4 4.0 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 2 4 1.2 m deep


Rousseau 2019 1 8 8A LB 4 4 4.0 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 2 2 1.3 deep

Rousseau 2019 1 35 35 LB 4 3 3.5 Co+ST Ju 3 4 3.5 4 4 4 4 4 1.3 deep

Rousseau 2019 1 36 NOT BUILT



Rousseau 2019 1 39 39 RB 4 3 3.5 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 3 4 4 3 1.4 m deep


Rousseau 2019 140B &

40C

mid-

stream2 4 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 3

Rousseau 2019 1 40D LB 3 4 3.5 Co+ST Ju 3 4 3.5 4 4 4 4 4

Rousseau 2019 1 40E LB 4 4 4.0 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.6 m deep


Rousseau 2019 1 42A 42 LB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.5 m deep

Rousseau 2019 1 42B 42A LB 2 2 2.0 Co+ST Ju 2 2 2.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.5 m deep

Rousseau 2019 1 42C 42A LB 1 1 1.0 Co+ST Ju 1 1 1.0 4 4 4 4 4 ~50 m long site

Rousseau 2019 1 43 43 RB 4 4 4.0 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 4 41.2 m deep


Rousseau 2019 1 45A 421 RB 1 2 1.5 Co+ST Ju 2 2.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.1 m deep


Rousseau 2019 1 46 46 LB 3 2 2.5 Co+ST Ju 2 3 2.5 4 4 4 4 4 0.6-1.1 m deep


Lef

t o

r R

igh

t B

ank Physical

1Biological

1

September 1, 2020

Hig

h F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Lo

w F

low

Fu

nct

ion

WaypointSite

(m)Stream

Year

BuiltReach




Po

ol

Rif

fle

Deb

ris

Cat

cher

Gra

vel

Bar

Ban

k P

rote

ctio

n

Str

eam

Co

ver

Fis

h A

cces

s

Nu

trie

nt

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Sp

ecie

s

Lif

e S

tag

e

Ov

erw

inte

r

Rea

rin

g

Sp

awn

ing

Incu

bat

ion

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Str

uc.

Co

nd

itio

n

Str

uc.

Sta

bil

ity

Mai

nte

nan

ce3

Comments






Rousseau 2019 1 53 53 RB GONE


Rousseau 2019 1 55A 55 RB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 2 3 2.5 4 4 4 4 4 0.6 m deep

Rousseau 2019 1 55B 55 RB 3 4 3.5 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.5-1.0 m deep

Rousseau 2019 1 56 56 LB 2 4 2 2.7 Co+ST Ju 2 2 2.0 4 4 4 4 4 0.3 m deep; 2-LWD to cable

Average 3.3 3.3 4.0 3.9 3.8





2The "Overall Rating" is the averaged values of the original objectives (in yellow) and the unanticipated benefits (no color) when scores are equal or greater than the original objectives for "Physical" and "Biological" Performance Objectives. Rating value range: 4 -

excellent; 1 - poor (Based on FIA Aquatic Restoration and Rehabilitation Standards - REE Guidelines, April 2003).

Stream Year

BuiltReach

Site

(m)Waypoint

Lef

t o

r R

igh

t B

ank Physical

1

Hig

h F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Lo

w F

low

Fu

nct

ionBiological

1



Trib F - Reach 1 4.4

LWD structures constructed in 2019 in Trib F, Reach 1 (shown as Reach R5 of Rousseau Creek

in Figure 1) were evaluated for physical and biological performance (Table 7; Photo 12 to

Photo 15). Of the 14 LWD structures constructed, 43% and 21% were considered to be

functioning well physically and biologically, respectively (ratings 3 and 3.5) while 57% and

79% were considered to be poorly meeting physical and biological performance objectives,

respectively (ratings 1 to 2.5). Mean ratings were 2.4 and 1.9 for physical and biological

performance, respectively, and 3.9 and 3.4 for structural condition and stability, respectively.

Pool depths at the structures ranged from ~0.15-1.2 m. No maintenance measures were

recommended.



Table 7. Routine effectiveness evaluation for instream works in Trib F - Reach 1, 2020.


Project Name Routine Effectiveness Evaluation Sub-watershed Rousseau Creek - Trib F



Po

ol

Rif

fle

Deb

ris

Cat

cher

Gra

vel

Bar

Ban

k P

rote

ctio

n

Str

eam

Co

ver

Fis

h A

cces

s

Nu

trie

nt

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Sp

ecie

s

Lif

e S

tag

e

Ov

erw

inte

r

Rea

rin

g

Sp

awn

ing

Incu

bat

ion

Ov

eral

l R

atin

g 2

Str

uc.

Co

nd

itio

n

Str

uc.

Sta

bil

ity

Mai

nte

nan

ce3

Comments

Trib F 2019 1 60 60 LB 4 4 4.0 Co+ST Ju 4 4 4.0 4 4 4 4 4 1.0 m deep

Trib F 2019 1 60A 423 RB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 3 3 3.0 4 4 3 3 4 0.5 m deep

Trib F 2019 1 60B 424 RB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 2 3 2.5 4 4 3 3 4 0.6 m deep

Trib F 2019 1 61A 61 LB 1 4 2.5 Co+ST Ju 1 1 1.0 4 4 2 1 30.15 m deep, partially in-filled with

gravel

Trib F 2019 1 61B 61 LB 2 3 2.5 Co+ST Ju 2 2 2.0 4 4 2 2 4 0.5 m deep

Trib F 2019 1 62A 63 LB 1 3 2.0 Co+ST Ju 1 1 1.0 4 4 2 1 4 0.3 m deep

Trib F 2019 1 62B 63 LB 1 1 1.0 Co+ST Ju 1 1 1.0 3 2 2 1 4PARTIALLY GONE; 4 logs remaining;

no maintenance recommended

Trib F 2019 1 62C 63 LB 1 1 1.0 Co+ST Ju 1 1 1.0 3 3 2 1 4 totally in-filled with gravel

Trib F 2019 1 63 63 RB 3 3 3.0 Co+ST Ju 2 2 2.0 4 2 2 2 4

Trib F 2019 1 65 NOT BUILT

Trib F 2019 1 64 65 LB 2 2 2.0 Co+ST Ju 1 2 1.5 4 4 2 2 4


Trib F 2019 1 67 67 RB 2 2 2.0 Co+ST Ju 1 1 1.0 4 4 2 1 4 0.2 m deep


Trib F 2019 1 69 186 RB 1 1 1.0 Co+ST Ju 1 1 1.0 4 2 2 1 4 0.2 m deep

Average 2.4 1.9 3.9 3.4 3.9






Year

BuiltStream Reach

Site

(m)

Way

point

September 1, 2020

2The "Overall Rating" is the averaged values of the original objectives (in yellow) and the unanticipated benefits (no color) when scores are equal or greater than the original objectives for "Physical" and "Biological" Performance Objectives. Rating value range: 4 -

excellent; 1 - poor (Based on FIA Aquatic Restoration and Rehabilitation Standards - REE Guidelines, April 2003).

Hig

h F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Lo

w F

low

Fu

nct

ion

Lef

t o

r R

igh

t B

ank

Physical 1

Biological 1



5 DISCUSSION

A total of 85 LWD structures were evaluated in the mainstems of Pachena River (Reaches P2,

P6, P7) and Rousseau Creek (Reach R1), as well as Tributaries G (Reach G1) and F (Reach 1)

(Table 8). The structures were constructed in 2019 based on designs prepared by Gaboury

(2018). The Routine Effectiveness Evaluations (REE) of these restoration works determined

that existing structures in Pachena River - P2 and Rousseau Creek - R1 were adequately to fully

meeting or exceeding performance objectives for physical, biological, structural condition and

structural stability (Figure 2 and Figure 3). LWD structures in Pachena – P6, P7 and Trib G1

were poorly to adequately meeting physical and biological performance objectives but

adequately to fully meeting objectives for structural condition and stability. Structures in Trib F

– Reach 1, a tributary to Rousseau Creek, were on average poorly meeting physical and

biological performance objectives but adequately to fully meeting objectives for structural

condition and stability.

Many of the LWD structure sites in Pachena P6, P7 and Trib G1 had low physical and

biological performance scores because the pools associated with the structures had shallow

depths and would likely function poorly for juvenile coho and steelhead rearing. Potentially,

pool depths may increase as significant flood events occur and there are more opportunities for

hydraulic scour in the pool under each LWD structure. However, in some cases, some of the

large diameter ballast rock anchoring the structure has been placed at the apex of the structure

which has effectively prevented pool scour to date and may prevent any future scour.

Trib F – Reach 1 is quite unstable with evidence of extensive channel wandering within its

valley walls and significant sand and gravel transport and deposition. As a consequence of its

inherent instability and high bedloads, sand and gravel have aggraded in the pools of some

LWD structures, resulting in shallow water depths. Poor physical and biological performance

ratings were given for several structures with shallow pool depths. The shallow depths are

providing poor juvenile rearing habitat for coho and steelhead. There was also some evidence

of movement or rotation of individual logs as well as loss of some logs which reduced structural

stability. However, no maintenance was recommended as the existing structures remained

relatively stable.



Table 8. Summary of average overall ratings for physical and biological performance, condition,

structure stability and maintenance of LWD structures.

Stream Description 2020

Pachena-P2 # Structures 8

Physical 3.3

Biological 3.2

Condition 4.0

Stability 4.0

Maintenance 4.0

Pachena-P6-P7, G1 # Structures 32

Physical 2.7

Biological 2.8

Condition 4.0

Stability 3.9

Maintenance 4.0

Rousseau # Structures 31

Physical 3.3

Biological 3.3

Condition 4.0

Stability 3.9

Maintenance 3.8

Trib F (Rousseau) # Structures 14

Physical 2.4

Biological 1.9

Condition 3.9

Stability 3.4

Maintenance 3.9

All Structures # Structures 85

Physical 2.9

Biological 2.8

Condition 3.9

Stability 3.8

Maintenance 3.9



Figure 2. Comparison of mean physical and biological performance ratings for all LWD structures in the surveyed streams.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Performance Rating

Mean R

ating

Pachena-P2 Pachena-P6-P7, G1 Rousseau Trib F (Rousseau)

PHYSICAL BIOLOGICAL



Figure 3. Comparison of mean condition and stability ratings for all LWD structures in the surveyed streams.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Performance Rating

Me

an

Ra

tin

g

Pachena-P2 Pachena-P6-P7, G1 Rousseau Trib F (Rousseau)

CONDITION STABILITY

Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Designs within HFN Traditional Territory May 2018


6 LITERATURE CITED

Bocking, R., J. Ferguson, S. Yazenko, D. Nookemus (LGL Limited). 1997. Watershed Level Assessment of Stream and Riparian habitat of the Sarita River, Vancouver Island, BC. Prepared for Huu-ay-aht First Nations and MacMillan Bloedel Limited.

Gaboury, M. and M. Feduk. 1996. Watershed restoration project monitoring protocol (draft). Unpubl. report, Watershed Restoration Program, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands

and Parks, Nanaimo, BC. 14pp. Gaboury, M. 2017. Effectiveness Evaluation of Restoration Works in the Sarita, Pachena

and Sugsaw Watersheds, 2017. Prepared for Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Anacla, BC. Prepared by MN Gaboury Associates. 39pp + appendices.

Gaboury, M. 2018. Fish habitat restoration designs within Huu-ay-aht First Nations

traditional territory. Prepared for Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Anacla, BC. Prepared by MN Gaboury Associates. 59pp + appendices.

Koning C.W., M.N. Gaboury, M.D. Feduk and P.A. Slaney. 1997. Techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of fish habitat restoration works in streams impacted by logging activities.

[In] Proc. Of the 50th

annual conference of the Canadian Water Resources Association, Footprints of Humanity, June 3-6, 1997, Lethbridge, AB. 13pp.

Ochman, S. 1998. Sarita River Watershed Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment and Rehabilitation

Opportunities. Prepared for MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. And Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Ochman, S. 2019. As-built report of 2018 & 2019 fish habitat rehabilitation project in the

Pachena River watershed. Prepared for Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Sarita and Pachena Watershed Renewal.

Ochman, S. and M. Gaboury. 2000. Fish habitat restoration designs for Sabrina and Hunter creeks in the Sarita watershed. Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Nanaimo, BC.

Ochman, S. and M. Gaboury. 2001. Sarita River watershed: fish habitat instream restoration

designs and maintenance of existing structure. FRBC Workplan: PAM 01407 FRBC Activity: 717295DAS. Submitted to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Nanaimo, BC, and Weyerhaeuser Limited, West Island Woodlands Division, Port Alberni, BC.

Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Designs within HFN Traditional Territory May 2018


APPENDICES



Appendix A. UTM coordinates for 82 habitat rehabilitation sites, 2020.

Stream Reach Site Name UTM Stream Reach Site Name UTM

Site 1 10 U 345155 5408276 Site 57 10 U 348355 5409616

Site 2 10 U 345403 5408402 Site 58 10 U 348325 5409698

Site 3 10 U 345446 5408397 Site 59 10 U 348269 5409739

Site 4A 10 U 345459 5408425 Site 9 10 U 348142 5409561

Site 4B 10 U 345469 5408446 Site 8 10 U 348153 5409614

Site 5 10 U 345530 5408601 Site 35 10 U 348499 5409576

Site 6 10 U 345545 5408655 Site 37 10 U 348561 5409626

Site 7 10 U 345662 5408775 Site 38 10 U 348599 5409647

Site 10 10 U 349027 5410409 Site 39 10 U 348612 5409674

Site 11 10 U 349008 5410370 Site 40 10 U 348690 5409696

Site 12 10 U 348981 5410362 Site 41 10 U 348892 5409806

Site 14 10 U 348957 5410341 Site 42A 10 U 348896 5409793

Site 15 10 U 348931 5410325 Site 42B 10 U 348945 5409810

Site 16A 10 U 348916 5410327 Site 42C 10 U 348945 5409810

Site 16B 10 U 348900 5410317 Site 43 10 U 349015 5409874

Site 16C 10 U 348892 5410299 Site 44 10 U 349038 5409886

Site 16D 10 U 348879 5410294 Site 45A 10 U 349110 5409940

Site 17 10 U 348874 5410241 Site 45 10 U 349120 5409902

Site 18A 10 U 348850 5410245 Site 46 10 U 349215 5409848

Site 18B 10 U 348850 5410245 Site 47 10 U 349254 5409829

Site 18C 10 U 348827 5410240 Site 49 10 U 349307 5409864

Site 19 10 U 348827 5410240 Site 50 10 U 349386 5409917

Site 20 10 U 348801 5410202 Site 51 10 U 349403 5409889

Site 21 10 U 348775 5410172 Site 52 10 U 349437 5409894

Site 22A 10 U 348756 5410172 Site 53 10 U 349497 5409937

Site 22C 10 U 348760 5410151 Site 54 10 U 349552 5409995

Site 23 10 U 348741 5410161 Site 55A 10 U 349584 5410003

Site 24 10 U 348703 5410131 Site 55B 10 U 349584 5410003

Site 25 10 U 348654 5410102 Site 56 10 U 349595 5409968

Site 26 10 U 348637 5410081 Site 60 10 U 349293 5409793

Site 27 10 U 348635 5410069 Site 60A 10 U 349331 5409784

Site 27B 10 U 348635 5410069 Site 60B 10 U 349341 5409733

Site 28 10 U 348602 5410052 Site 61A 10 U 349318 5409703

Site 29 10 U 348581 5410032 Site 61B 10 U 349318 5409703

Site 30 10 U 348560 5410003 Site 62A 10 U 349319 5409629

Site 30A 10 U 348551 5409954 Site 62B 10 U 349319 5409629

P7 Site 31 10 U 349078 5410429 Site 62C 10 U 349319 5409629

Site 32 10 U 349092 5410454 Site 63 10 U 349319 5409629

Site 33 10 U 349120 5410469 Site 64 10 U 349321 5409586

Site 66 10 U 349366 5409553

Site 67 10 U 349398 5409550

Site 68 10 U 345459 5408425

Site 69 10 U 349462 5409901

Trib G

Pachena

River

R1Rousseau

Creek

Trib F 1 (R5)

P6

G1

P2



PHOTO PLATES



Photo 1. Right bank LWD structure at Site 1 in Reach P2 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020.





Photo 4. Right bank LWD structure at Site 16D in Reach P6 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020.



Photo 5. Right bank LWD structure at Site 22A in Reach P6 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020.




Photo 7. Right bank LWD structure at Site 32 in Trib G1 of Pachena River, 2 September 2020.

Photo 8. Left bank LWD structure at Site 59 in Reach R1 of Rousseau Creek, 1 September 2020.



Photo 9. Left bank LWD structure at Site 9 in Reach R1 of Rousseau Creek, 1 September 2020.

Photo 10. Left bank LWD structure at Site 42A in Reach R1 of Rousseau Creek, 1 September 2020.



Photo 11. Right bank LWD structure at Site 45A in Reach R1 of Rousseau Creek, 1 September 2020.

Photo 12. Left bank LWD structure at Site 60 in Trib F – Reach 1, 1 September 2020.



Photo 13. Left bank LWD structure at Site 61A in Trib F – Reach 1, 1 September 2020.

Photo 14. Left bank LWD structure at Site 66 in Trib F – Reach 1, 1 September 2020.



Photo 15. Right bank LWD structure at Site 69 in Trib F – Reach 1, 1 September 2020.

Sarita and Pachena Watershed Effectiveness Evaluation of ...

Documents

Transcript of Sarita and Pachena Watershed Effectiveness Evaluation of ...