THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR MONITORING FINE GRAINED SEDIMENTATION AT FOREST ROAD STREAM CROSSINGS By John Rex B.Sc., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE m ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE © John Rex, 2002 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2002 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. ■♦I National Library o( C an ad a Bibliothèque natiormle du Canada Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services Acquisitions et senrices bibliographiques 385 Wcllnglon SUMt OtUwaON K1A0N4 Cmnadm 385. ru« W«lington OttaMON K1A0N4 Canada CXrii The author has granted a nmexchisive licence allowing the Naüooal Libiaiy of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or seD (x^ies o f dûs thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats. L’auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliofoèque nationale du C an ^ de rqnoduife, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de m ia’ofîche/film, de reproduction sur p ^ier ou sur format électrorûqim. The authcH'retains ownerdtÿ of foe coMTi#d in this thesis. Neifoer foe foesis nor substantial extracts fomn it may be {Hinted or otherwise reproduced wifoout foe author’s permission. L’auteur conserve la prqxiété du droit d’auteur qui {xrotège cette thèse. Ni la foèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-d ne doivent être inqximés ou autrement reproduits sans son autoiisatioiL 0 -6 1 2 -8 0 6 8 5 -5 CanadS APPROVAL Name: John Rex Degree: Master of Science Thesis Title: A PROTOCOL FOR MONITORING FINE GRAINED SEDIMENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH FOREST ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Alex Hawley Associate Professor, Biology UNBC ogram Supervisor: Dr. Ellen Petticrew Associate Professor, Geography Program UNBC Committee M em ber:'^r. Douglas Baker Associate Professor, Environmental Studies Program UNBC Committee Member: /% . Joselito Arocena Associate Professor^orestry Program UNBC External Examiner: Dr. Richard Woodsmith Research Hydrologist and Team Leader USDA Forest Service Date Approved: f\fr r a i j THE DEVLÔPMENT OF A SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR MONITORING FINE GRAINED SEDIMENTATION AT FOREST ROAD STREAM CROSSINGS Abstract Forest harvesting activities, particularly road construction, are known to increase fine sediment (< 3.35mm) transport and storage in forest streams. Although increased levels of fine sediment storage are known to detrimentally affect all stream trophic levels, forest management is prescriptive in nature with limited field monitoring. This project involved the design and evaluation o f a sampling protocol to assess fine sedimentation around stream crossing construction sites. The protocol includes the application of three fish habitat sampling techniques, namely the McNeil corer, gravel bucket, and infiltration bag. The McNeil core gathers information on bulk streambed composition, while gravel buckets capture sediment depositing on the streambed, and infiltration bags capture fine sediment that deposits on and flows through streambed interstices. These techniques are not compared but rather the sampling protocol is assessed through a review of the results from eight case studies. All case studies are within the Prince George Forest District and each was experiencing road construction activities. The protocol was effective in identifying significant increases in fine sediment storage downstream. A follow-up statistical evaluation to estimate sample numbers returned values that ranged between 4 and 1900 depending upon the ability to detect set levels of difference (i.e. 5 to 20%) 90% of the time. The protocol detected differences at the case study sites with six or less replicates per technique because their site differences far exceeded the 20% estimate used in the sample number calculation. This protocol is an effective monitoring tool and should be used to monitor forest road stream crossing construction and maintenance. Ill Table of Contents Title Page Approval Abstract List of Photos List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements Page i il iii vii vii viii ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.0 Rationale 1 1.1 Sediment Transport Fate and Forestry Effects 3 1.2 Sediment Effects on Biological Communities 7 1.2.1 Primary Producers 7 1.2.2 Benthic Invertebrates 8 1.2.3 Fish 10 1.3 Study Objective and Hypothesis 12 Chapter 2 Sampling Design, Techniques, and Analysis 14 2.0 Introduction 14 2.1 Case Studies 14 2.2 Sampling Design 16 2.3 Site Establishment Procedures 16 2.4 Sedimentation Assessment Techniques 18 2.4.1 McNeil Corer 19 2.4.2 Gravel Buckets 23 2.4.3 Infiltration Bags 25 2.5 Sample Numbers 28 2.6 Grain Size Analysis 30 2.7 Data Analysis 32 IV Chapter 3 Sedimentation Sediment Survey Results 35 3.0 Introduction 35 3.1 Case Study Results 35 3.1.1 Cluculz Creek 36 3.1.2 Spruce Creek 43 3.2 Pseudoreplication 48 3.3 Sample Size Estimates 49 3.3.1 Gravel Buckets 52 3.3.2 Infiltration Bags 53 3.3.3 McNeil Core 53 3.3.4 Formula Based Sample Size Estimates 55 Chapter 4 Discussion 56 4.0 Introduction 57 4.1 Technique Sensitivity 58 4.1.1 McNeil Core 59 4.1.2 Gravel Buckets 63 4.1.3 Infiltration Bags 63 4.1.4 Summary 64 4.2 Cumulative Effects and Forestry 67 4.3 Potential Errors 68 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations 72 References 76 Appendix 1 - Transcribed Field Notes Appendix 2 - TSS Analysis Procedure Appendix 3 - The Wentworth Scale Appendix 4 - Proposed Field Forms List of Photos 3.1 Upstream view of Cluculz Creek from the road showing the two culverts prior to 37 their replacement with a pipe arch and revetment of the streambank. 3 .2 Upstream view of Cluculz Creek from the same location as Photo 3 .1 showing the 37 new pipe arch and the streambank revetment. 3.3 Ditch wall erosion at the 283 road approximately three to five kilometers from 43 the sampling area. List of Figures 1.1 Forest harvesting activities and their potential effects on increased erosion and 6 sediment delivery to streams (from Lewis, 1998). 2.1 Prince George Forest District map showing the approximate location of eight case 15 study streams. 2.2 The original McNeil-Ahnell corer design (McNeil and Ahnell, 1964). 20 2.3 Modified McNeil core design with a 1-liter bottle for scale. 21 2.4 A schematic of the typical McNeil core sampling locations in riffle areas near pool 22 tail-outs, with darker areas representing increased depth (Schuett-Hames et al., 1994). 2.5 McNeil core sampling site approached from the downstream direction and the 23 sample is taken by leaning over the core and forcing it into the streambed until it is flush. 2.6 A gravel bucket sampler. 24 2.7 Gravel bucket schematic showing flush placement with the streambed 25 (Lisle and Eads, 1991). 2.8 Infiltration bag collapsed within the steel ring, a 1 liter bottle is shown for scale. 26 2.9 Infiltration bag deployment and retrieval showing the application of a pulley or 27 winch to remove it from the streambed (Lisle and Eads, 1991). 3.1 Gravel bucket sample weights and upper 95% confidence limits collected from 40 Cluculz Creek during the construction period. 3.2 McNeil core mean percent composition and upper 95% confidence limits one month 41 after the culvert replacement. 3.3 McNeil core sample means and upper 95% confidence limits for November 6. 41 3.4 gravel bucket sample means and 95% confidence limits for November 6. VI 42 3.5 Infiltration bag sample means and upper 95% confidence limits for November 6. 42 3.6 Schematic of the Spruce Creek and unnamed tributary sampling locations. 45 3.7 McNeil core data for Spruce Creek and the tributary on September 11. 1997 46 3.8 McNeil core data for Spruce Creek and the lower tributary station on October 16, 46 1997. 3.9 McNeil core data for Spruce Creek and tributary for November 23. 1997. 47 3.10 Gravel bucket data for Spruce Creek and the tributary collected between 47 September 11 and October 16, 1997. 3.11 Gravel bucket data for Spruce Creeka nd the tributary collected between 48 October 16 and November 23, 1997. 4.1 Several bulk sample standards including that based on the intermediate axis of the 61 Ds4 stone proposed by DeVries (1970). 4.2 Bulk sample standards based on the intermediate axis of the largest stone included 62 in the analysis. List of Tables 2.1 Summary information of the eight case studies. 16 2.2 Sample site channel width, sampling technique, and sample numbers. 29 3.1 Sampling technique, sample number per visit, and a result summary for each of the 36 eight case studies. 3.2 Summary statistics of the Cluculz Creek assessment program. 39 3.3 Summary Statistics for the Spruce Creek assessment program. 45 3.4 Summary results for the re-analysis of data when considering the effects of 49 pseudoreplication. 3.5 Cluculz Creek gravel bucket data grouped by sample depth. 51 3.6 Effective sample numbers for gravel buckets based on groupings by depth. 52 3.7 Effective sample numbers for gravel buckets based on grouping by velocity. 52 3.8 Effective sample numbers for infiltration bags based on grouping by depth and 53 velocity. 3.9 Effective sample numbers for McNeil cores based on grouping by depth. 54 3.10 Effective sample numbers for McNeil cores based on grouping by velocity. 54 3.11 McNeil core sample depth and velocity summary statistics for both McNeil core 55 sample periods. Vll 3.12 Calculated sample numbers for each technique assuming a 90% chance of finding 20%, 10%, or 5% differences between sample sites. 56 4.1 Summary results for the seven case studies where differences were observed 66 between sites. 4.2 Sample size estimates for each sampling technique in 5, 9, and 11m wide creeks. Vlll 66 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. E. Petticrew (UNBC) for providing guidance in the drafting of this thesis and through the graduate program at the University of Northern British Columbia. It has been my pleasure to be one of your students. Also, I would like to thank Dr. J. Arocena (UNBC) and Dr. D. Baker (UNBC) for agreeing to be on my committee and for helping to guide me through the development and completion of this thesis. I also enjoyed and learned much from attending your classes. Further, I would like to thank Dr. R. Woodsmith (U.S Forest Service) for being the external reviewer and providing great direction through his review o f the previous draft. This thesis stemmed from a project conducted in partnership with the Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks. As such, I would like to thank Bruce Carmichael, Dave Sutherland, and Rich Girard for their support of this project. Without it, this work would not have been initiated. Further, I would like to thank Dave Mouland, Jean Beckerton, and Greg Warren who were excellent field partners and good company despite the cold weather and often sore back muscles. Finally, I would particularly like to thank my wife Stephanie for her patience and willingness to cover many of our family duties on her own this last seven months. Without your help and understanding I would not have been able to complete this thesis. Now I look forward to more time with our daughters Adrienne and Marley. IX Chapter 1 Introduction 1.0 Rationale Over the last century anadromous salmon stocks of the Pacific Northwest have deteriorated from a pristine state to one experiencing extinction and uncertainty (Slaney et al, 1996). This decrease in stocks is believed to have resulted from the continued degradation of habitat quality due to urbanization, industrial development, forest harvesting, and intensive fishing pressure from commercial and recreational angling. Considerable resources have been invested in developing better methods for estimating the size of remaining fish stocks and restoring fish habitat previously damaged by forest development. In contrast, habitat quality assessment programs receive a comparatively small amount o f resources. Specifically, there has been little monitoring of pristine areas or of the effects of forest harvesting on pristine fish habitat as activities proceed. Instead, long-term research studies are conducted that focus on determining the post-hoc effects of forestry on a basin’s geomorphology, and hydrology. Although valuable, these studies differ from monitoring programs because they are retrospective and do not provide the information necessary to determine possible biological consequences before they happen. Although forestry is one of the largest industries in British Columbia, there is little monitoring of its effect on watersheds. Rather, it is assumed that adherence to the British Columbia Forest Practices Code (FPC) will ensure that water quality, water quantity, and fish populations are protected. However, FPC effectiveness has not been assessed through environmental monitoring. Instead, monitoring efforts are concentrated on post­ event environmental assessment studies, which are applied retroactively to assess environmental degradation caused by extreme events such as forestry induced debris torrents, road washouts, or landslides. Although the results of these studies may be used to modify management guidelines in regions similar to the area studied, the overall improvement of forest management activities is not a primary objective. Instead, these studies are applied to determine environmental damage so that an appropriate fine can be levied. Consequently, industry is often reluctant to participate in conducting these studies unless legislated to do so as part of their development plan. Present legislation does not require forest companies to submit environmental impact statements (EIS) on how water quality and quantity levels will be altered in their development plans. EIS requires the developer to intensively monitor the environment prior to, during, and sometimes after development has occurred to show that they have maintained the environmental quality levels that were agreed upon with the regulatory agency and included in their development permits. In the absence of this type of monitoring, efforts have been focussed on post-event assessment studies but these do not ensure that the forest resource is managed sustainably. Forest harvesting activities can alter stream temperature, nutrient, metal, pesticide, pH, and dissolved oxygen levels, as well as channel morphology (MacDonald et a l, 1991). Of these, channel morphology changes are the most readily observed and they may have the most severe biological consequences. The alteration of channel morphology includes changes in pool size, riffle stability, woody debris levels, and the sediment transport regime. Forestry and fishery interaction research programs have been implemented in several areas of British Columbia including Carnation Creek, Takla Lake, and the Queen Charlotte Islands. These studies as well as others nationally and internationally have shown that forest harvesting can negatively affect stream hydrology, morphology, and all levels of a stream’s trophic structure (Waters 1995, Hogan et al. 1998, Culp et al. 1986, Anderson et al. 1996, Nakamoto 1998). Although there are many similarities among watershed response to forestry, there are differences. For example, Tripp (1998) found that poor harvesting practices on coastal British Columbia affected 7.5 times more stream area than poor road practices. Huntington (1996) demonstrated that in the Clearwater River watershed of Idaho, roads were the cause of increased fine sediment accumulation within the streambed, which reduced salmonid production. The diversity in response to harvesting activities emphasizes the need for increased monitoring, however the number of active monitoring programs is far exceeded by the number of watersheds opened to forest development. 1.1 Sediment Transport and Forestry Effects Streams transport organic and inorganic material and although each plays an important role in streambed morphology this thesis focuses on sediment, the inorganic fraction. Sediment is a general term referring to all inorganic material within the stream ranging from silt to boulders, it is: The insoluble products of rock weathering, when moved by water are generally called sediment. The source of sediment is, of course, the rocks that occur on the continental surface. Denudation, dr lowering of the land surface by erosion, results from a number of processes, including solution, erosion, and transport by water... (Leopold 1994, 183) A stream’s sediment load is composed of two fractions, namely suspended load and bedload. Suspended load refers to material that remains in suspension within the water column (Leopold, 1997). Typically, this includes finer material such as silt, clay, and fine sand. In contrast, bedload is composed of heavier grains that cannot remain in suspension but are periodically lifted and dropped in the downstream direction (Leopold, 1994). This mode of transport is often referred to as saltation. Particles that are too large to saltate may instead be pushed in the downstream direction so that they slide along the immobile bed surface (Leopold, 1997). Sediment transport levels vary between watersheds because of differences in basin geology, soil infiltration capacity, vegetative cover, stream power, and climate (Brooks et a l.,\9 9 \). The sediment load, which is that amount of sediment passing one point within a watershed, is not equal to the rate of upstream erosion. Approximately 25% of sediment entering a stream escapes the watershed, indicating that 75% is stored throughout the basin in transitional storage areas or depositional zones including the floodplain (Leopold, 1997). For example, sediment eroded from the inside bend of one streambank is often stored a short distance downstream on the outside bend of another (Leopold, 1994). Although streambed composition is dynamic, forest harvesting activities can alter the fine sediment concentration, where fine sediment is defined as having an intermediate axis less than 3.35mm, beyond natural levels. Significant increases in fine sediment can deteriorate fish habitat, particularly in spawning areas (Bjomn and Reiser. 1991). Forest harvesting activities can increase stream sediment loads by initiating debris torrents, (Tripp and Poulin, 1986 and 1992), increasing the number of landslides and stream bank erosion (Roberts, 1987), and increasing surface erosion and delivery to the channel (Lewis 1998 and Comer et al. 1996) (Fig. 1.1). Although harvesting activities and harvested areas can act as sediment sources and at times initiate mass movement, the majority of studies have focussed on road construction and use. Beschta (1978) found a 150% increase in sediment load following road construction in Oregon’s Alsea watershed. Bilby et al. (1989) determined that sediment generation was dependent upon traffic. Further, they found that of 2000 surveyed road drainage points within four watersheds, 34% drained directly into streams that were predominantly first and second order systems. In the Clearwater River watershed, roads were found to contribute as much sediment as landslides (Cederholm et a l, 1981). Bums (1970) indicated that sediment loads in a harvested Califomia basin were greatest during the road constmction period although they were sustained for several years with continued harvesting. Forest road generated sediment can be transported along the road’s surface in rivulets or along its ditches. While there is a storage and transport regime within these systems, the focus of this thesis is sediment delivery to the stream and this is most obvious where streams and roads meet, at crossings. Stream crossings were selected because of their consistent reference in the literature and the ease in designating them as a point source for increased sediment levels downstream. f Yarding'] I Sklddingj Transpiration & interception Burning jCompaclioi o f Root I Strength — Bare Ground disturbed] Banks Water Quantity & Movement Altered Draina^ Patterns Unstable Fills Channel & Bank Morphology Surface \ Erosion b f Sediment I Delivery to I Omnnels Fluvial Sediment Transport Storage ia Channels Figure 1.1: Forest harvesting activities and their potential effects on increased erosion and sediment delivery to streams (From Lewis, 1998). 1.2 Sediment Effects on Biological Communities Sediment yield information is important for resource managers because of the detrimental effect that increased storage can have on all levels of stream biology. An increase in sedimentation levels above typical background concentrations can negatively effect primary producers, invertebrates, and fish (Waters, 1995). 1.2.1 Primary Producers Aquatic primary producers range in size from the easily visible macrophytes such as Canadian pond weed, Elodea canadensis, to the barely visible periphyton such as the diatom Navicula. While macrophytes often adhere to the streambed via roots, periphyton may attach to rocks, sand, or plants with gelatinous stalks (South and Whittick, 1987). Regardless o f their size, all aquatic plants can be affected by increases in fluvial sediment loads. Sediment can affect plants by reducing light penetration through light reflection and absorption in the water column or by settling atop benthic forms. This decrease in light lowers the photosynthetic capability and organic content of plant cells. Further, sediment can damage plants through direct contact and if it deposits in high concentrations it can prevent attachment or may smother them (Wood and Armitage 1997, Waters 1995, Newcom be and MacDonald 1991). Davies-Colley et al. (1992) noted that clay additions downstream of placer mining operations reduced the photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) depth in streams, which in turn reduced periphyton productivity. Further, they found that periphyton biomass decreased upon exposure to placer runoff and that remaining biomass had a high clay content, which made it a poor food source for stream invertebrates. King and Ball (1967) noted that road construction activities and sediment additions resulted in a 68% decrease in the streams periphyton community. Brookes (1988) found that stands of the macrophyte Ranunculus sp. were smothered downstream of a channelization project during low flow because these species could not alter their rooting depth. 1.2.2 Benthic Invertebrates Benthic invertebrates form the next few trophic levels above primary producers, their functional feeding groups range from the herbivorous scrapers to the carnivorous piercers (Peekarsky et a l, 1990). While herbivorous invertebrates are affected by the reduced food quality o f clay laden periphyton, the following discussion focuses on the direct effects experienced by all invertebrates. These include the alteration of substrate composition, instigation of drift due to deposition or saltation, decreased respiratory rates due to sediments depositing on respiratory structures, feeding behaviour alterations, and direct mortality of immobile life stages (Rutherford and MacKay 1986, Wood and Armitage, 1997). A stream’s benthic invertebrate community structure and density is strongly associated with the streambed substrate. Initially, it was believed that invertebrate diversity increased with increasing substrate size. This has been shown to be only true for the surface dwelling Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (HPT) groups (Waters, 1995). Invertebrate community structure is positively affected by increased concentrations of stream detritus, which can increase oxygen exchange and act as a food source (Culp et a l, 1983). So, attempts to define community structure must consider streambed substrate composition as well as hydrology. Fine sediment deposition on the streambed can clog interstitial streambed spaces, which may reduce interstitial oxygen levels. Further, it can restrict the size of depositing detritus (Culp et a l, 1986). This alteration of the benthic environment can induce an escape or drift response from those organisms unable to cope with the change. Saltating sediments can also increase drift upon contact with surface dwelling invertebrates (Quinn et a l, 1992). Culp et a l (1986) noted that during their controlled addition of sands to a surveyed stream channel, the invertebrate population was reduced by more than 50% within 24 hours of sand exposure as a result of catastrophic drift. Eriksen (1966) noted physiological differences between two mayfly species that defined their habitat preference. One species had inefficient gills at low oxygen levels and preferred large substrate where water flow was unrestricted. The other had highly efficient gills at low oxygen levels and was commonly found in silt deposits. Presumably then, an increase in fine sedimentation in an area dominated by the species with inefficient gills could result in a shift from that species to the one capable of inhabiting depositional areas. Further, expanding this to an order level, it is possible that sustained concentrations of increased sedimentation could cause shifts from surface dwelling EFT groups to depositional zone species such as chironomids. Finally, invertebrate feeding behaviour alteration and direct mortalities can occur if sediment concentrations are sufficiently high. Filter feeders will not be able to effectively capture prey items in high concentrations of sediment (Waters, 1995). Immobile life stages such as pupae obviously cannot drift yet they require flowing water for oxygen exchange, so where sediment deposits are thick exposed pupae may suffocate (Rutherford and MacKay, 1986). Although invertebrate communities can be affected in several manners, it is important to recognize that exposure duration is equally important to the concentration of fine sediment (Rosenberg and Wiens, 1978). Most of the aforementioned studies determined that community structure and density often returned to pre-disturbance levels once the sediment wave had passed through the sample area. So, extreme but temporally short events such as a road washout may be less damaging than chronic sediment sources that are not as visibly extreme such as increased erosion from riparian or fire areas (Minshall e/a/., 2001). 1.2.3 Fish Although there have been studies of sediment effects on several fish species, the vast majority o f them have focused on the salmonids. Generally, fish can be affected at the behavioural and physiological levels (Waters, 1995). Behavioural responses are the first observable reactions to increased sediment and are also the most transitory. They are often a response to increased suspended sediments and include avoidance and increased cough frequency (Anderson et a l, 1996). Physiological responses are dependent upon 10 life stage and the type of sediment encountered, suspended or depositing. This thesis focuses on sedimentation so only those potential effects are discussed. Excess sedimentation can affect fish populations by reducing habitat and directly affect individuals through increased egg mortalities and reduced fry emergence. Habitat alteration through increased sedimentation can result in a reduction of fish food resource and over-wintering sites due to in-filling of pools, as well as the alteration of spawning gravels (Waters 1995, Anderson et al. 1996, Wood and Armitage 1997). Further, increased bedload transport may result in deep scour or fill which can remove or bury eggs and fry (Montgomery et al., 1996). Scrivner and Brownlee (1989) documented a 50% decrease in coho {Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chum salmon (O. keta) populations of Carnation Creek following harvesting. They attribute this to high levels of fine gravel and sand transport resulting from increased streambank erosion and removal of large organic debris dams. Specifically, they noted that sands formed an impermeable layer within the streambed at varying depths depending upon previous storm flows. They postulated that these layers of sand isolated salmon redds and prevented efficient oxygen exchange or fry emergence. Excess sedimentation has been consistently shown to affect fish communities but the biologically active grain size varies between studies. McNeil and Ahnell (1964) determined that spawning success of pink salmon {O. gorbuscha) was inversely proportional to streambed permeability and the concentration of medium to fine sands 11 and smaller (less than 0.833mm). Others have reported similar findings but focussed on grain sizes ranging between 0.25 and 6.4mm (Chapman 1988. Lisle 1989, Platts et al. 1989, Reiser and White 1988, Phillips et al. 1975). The findings of these studies have been incorporated into environmental protection legislation at the provincial level. A search of sediment criteria in Canada determined that there were none proposed for Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, or federally. When this project was initiated, the British Columbia criterion for fine sediment was 3.35 mm. That is, no streamside activities were to increase background concentration of sediments below this diameter within the streambed (Singleton, 1985). In 1999, these criteria were amended and now state that streamheds should not contain more than 10% of < 2 mm, 19% of < 3 mm, and 25% of <6.35 mm at salmonid spawning sites (Caux et a l, 1997). For example, road construction activities that increased baseline concentrations of the < 2mm fi-action from 9% to 12% would be deemed to have degraded the site to unacceptable levels by the provincial authority. 1.3 Study Objective and Hypothesis The objective of this thesis was to develop and evaluate a Sampling protocol for the assessment of fine-grained sedimentation around forest road stream crossing construction and maintenance sites. It presents a sampling protocol that includes the application of three fish habitat sampling techniques, namely the McNeil corer, gravel bucket, and infiltration bag. These techniques are not compared but rather the sampling protocol is assessed through a review of the results from eight case studies. Further, sample size 12 requirements were estimated in a follow-up program. Sample size estimates were determined using standard statistical formulas and by determining the effective sample size, which is that number of samples at which precision reaches a plateau. The protocol developed has a general form. It does not provide a set of explicit instructions but rather an outline of procedures that can be adapted to address the objectives of any sampling program ranging from simple trend monitoring to a more complex impact assessment study. Procedures described include application of the impact-control sampling design, the collection of biophysical information during site establishment, and data analysis. The project’s null hypothesis is that forest road construction and maintenance activities do not increase fine sediment storage in central interior streams. It is also postulated that increased sediment concentrations can be found with three fish habitat assessment techniques, namely the McNeil corer, gravel buckets, and infiltration bags. 13 Chapter 2: Sampling Design, Techniques, and Analysis 2.0 Introduction The objective of this project is to develop and evaluate a sampling protocol that will quantify increases in the short-term storage of fine sediments downstream of forest road stream crossings. The goal of this protocol is to increase the application of monitoring/assessment studies in forest management. This chapter presents the sampling protocol, a description of the study sites, the sampling design, sampling techniques, grain size and statistical analysis procedures. 2.1 Case Studies The eight sites chosen in the Prince George Forest Region were experiencing some road construction activities (Fig. 2.1). Also, they were all designated S2 streams under the FPC, that is fish bearing streams with active channel widths between 5 and 20 m. These sites were selected based on information gathered during telephone interviews with government and industry staff. Staff members from the Ministries of Environment and Forests were consulted, as were those from Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Slocan, Lakeland Mills, and Finlay Forest Industries. Summary information is provided in table 2.1 and a more detailed site description is provided in Appendix 1. 14 S tre a m s L akes B .C . P a ik s 15 15 45 K ilo m e le rs Scale: 1:1,500,000 # HithiRiver Greer Creek Locaboa of study atcs withm Bnbsh Columbia Figure 2.1 Prince George area map showing the approximate location o f the eight case study streams (highlighted in red). 15 Table 2.1: Summary information o f the eight case studies. Stream Channel Width (m) Study Design Activity Spruce Creek Government Creek Youngs Creek Nithi River Big Bend Creek Cluculz Creek Greer Creek Mugaha Creek 5.0 8.0 12.6 4.5 7.0 6.0 7.0 10.0 Impact-Control* Impact-Control Impact-Control Impact-Control Impact-Control Impact-ControF Impact-Control Impact-Control Ditch Erosion Bridge Construction Historical Crossing Bridge Construction Bridge Construction Culvert Replacement Bridge Construction Bridge Washout ‘impact-control studies are performed after the activity. An upstream ‘control’ and downstream ‘impact’ site are sampled to determine the investigated activity’s effects. ^Dataset includes baseline information before activity was initiated. 2.2 Sampling Design The impact-control design consists of comparing one or more potentially affected sites with similar control sites. A shortfall of this design is the lack of comparative site information before the investigated activity. To counteract this shortfall, it is necessary to collect site information that will account for data variability caused by site differences (Manly, 2001). The Cluculz Creek study differed from the others because baseline samples that ensured control and impact site similarity were collected prior to road construction activities. 2.3 Site Establishment Procedures Where possible, study sites were established within the same stream reach to reduce environmental variability. A reach was defined as two repeating units where a unit is composed of two habitat features such as riffle and run or pool and riffle. Site establishment data was collected at all sites and included measurements of active and 16 bankfull channel width, discharge, mean depth, habitat units, gradient, pebble count, and technique placement depth and overlying velocity (at time of sampling). The active channel width of a stream is the horizontal distance over the stream channel between stream banks that is covered by water. Bankfull width is the channel width where water would just begin to spill into the active floodplain (Platts et a l, 1983). Bankfull indicators include changes in streamside vegetation, slope, bank material, undercuts and stain lines (Harrelson et a l, 1994). Discharge data was collected at each site by measuring velocity at 10-20 evenly spaced locations along a channel cross section selected downstream from the sample area that was relatively flat and free of obstruction that would interfere with flow measurement. When water depths were less than Im, a single velocity reading was taken at 60% of the depth but when depth exceeded Im, two readings were taken, one at 20% and 80% (Harrelson et a l, 1994). Velocity data were gathered over a period of 40 seconds. Discharge was calculated for each location and then summed for the channel. The mean stream depth value was determined as the average of the depths collected during the velocity readings. The sample area was sketched in field notes with specific attention to habitat features and the location of sample replicates. This sketch could be referred to at a later date to determine if the sample area consisted of one or more reaches and to note the similarity of sample replicate locations between sites. Channel gradient information was collected 17 while gathering habitat data. Gradient was measured with a clinometer as follows; field staff positioned themselves at a distance greater than the channel width apart at the stream’s edge. Gradient was measured by sighting the clinometer from one staff to the other at the same distance from the ground. For example, when sighting to a taller individual, the staff member taking the reading may measure to the other’s shoulder whereas if the individual was shorter the measurement may be to the top of the other’s head. Three to five measures were taken and the average gradient was calculated and presented as the channel gradient. The streambed was characterized by conducting a pebble count (Leopold et a l, 1992). These counts were conducted at several cross-sections near the sample area so that representative portions of each habitat unit were sampled. Starting at bankfull elevation, the sampler would blindly reach to their left or right foot. The first particle that was touched was removed and the intermediate axis, or width, of the particle was measured and recorded by the second staff member on a tally sheet that was divided into grain classes as defined by the Wentworth Scale (Appendix 3). The sampler then moved a standard step distance and selected another pebble at the top of the same foot used in selecting the first pebble. This continued until a minimum of 100 pebbles was counted. The final site establishment parameter collected was the overlying water depth and velocity above each sample for each technique. This information was gathered to ensure selected sample replicate sites were comparable within and between locations and it was gathered during each sample visit. Example field sheets are provided in Appendix 4. 18 2.4 Sedimentation Assessment Techniques The two forms of sampling techniques used here were the streambed corer and sediment traps. Streambed corers gather data on streambed grain size composition. While several designs exist, the McNeil core was selected for this program because of its availability and inexpensive sampling costs when compared to others such as freeze coring. Sediment traps collect sediment that deposits on or infiltrates through the streambed. The two types used here were gravel buckets, which collect sediment that deposits on the streambed, and infiltration bags, which collect sediment that moves vertically and horizontally through the streambed. 2.4.1 McNeil Corer Since its development in 1964, the McNeil corer has become a commonly applied technique for assessing spawning gravel composition in streams because it was a significant improvement over the previously applied techniques of visual observation or shovel sampling (McNeil and Ahnell 1964, Schuett-Hames et al. 1994). The McNeil core provided a quantitative and repeatable sampling method (McNeil and Ahnell, 1964). McNeil core samples are measures of bulk streambed composition that are collected by inserting the core tube into the streambed and removing all sediments within the tube. The tube is inserted into the streambed by torquing the corer while keeping it level using the handle on top of the basin (Fig 2.2) or on the sides of the basin (Fig 2.3). These handles also help staff to keep the corer from rocking during the sampling process, which would disturb the fine sediments. Once the core tube has been fully inserted, the sample 19 is removed from the tube by band and transferred to a sample bucket until the end of the core tube is reached. Although originally designed to assess fish habitat quality, the McNeil core has been used to quantify increased fine sediment loading downstream from industrial activities such as coal mining operations (MacDonald and McDonald, 1987). The corer used for this study differs slightly from the original design shown in Figure 2.2. The original design was modified because it was heavy and expensive to construct. The modified version was made with heavy gauge aluminum rather than stainless steel, which made it considerably lighter and cheaper to make. In addition, it is larger than the original, standing 0.9m (vs. 0.45-0.6m) tall with an outer basin diameter of 0.6m, and the coring tube which is equipped with a replaceable ring of steel teeth, is 0 .2 m in diameter and can penetrate the streambed to a depth of 0.25m (Fig. 2.3). Finally, the core handles were placed on the sides of the outer basin and not along the top as shown in Figure 2.2. ■Kcndle Across Center of Basin Water surface ( Silt m suspensicfl) ,Cao TGcsket Stream ijed Figure 2.2. The original McNeil-Ahnell corer design (McNeil and Ahnell, 1964). 20 Figure 2.3. Modified McNeil core design with a 1-liter bottle fo r scale. The sample procedure was also altered from the original. The old technique required sampled sediments to be brought up through the core tube and placed in the basin. Remaining fine sediments in the tube that were kept in suspension by infiltrating water were removed by a single valve pump or the tube was capped which created a vacuum that allowed trapped water to be fitted from the stream and placed in a bucket. For this program, sampled sediment was transferred directly to a clean 4 L bucket. Also, rather than pumping out sediment laden water, the water level within the tube was measured, it was then mixed to suspend settling fine sediment and a 1 liter water sample was taken. This 1 liter sample was analyzed for suspended solids as described in Appendix 2. The 21 mass of suspended solids (SS) was calculated using the concentration of SS and the volume of water in the tube. This data was then added to silt/clay fraction. McNeil core samples were collected from riffle areas near pool tail-outs (Fig. 2.4) as follows: 1. Sample locations were approached from an upstream direction so as to not step over the sample area prior to coring, 2. Field staff faced upstream and positioned their body over the corer and placed their hands on the handles (Fig. 2.5). 3. The corer was kept perpendicular to the streambed as field staff turned the corer into the streambed being careful not to use a rocking motion. 4. Once the corer was fully driven into the streambed staff checked to ensure the basin was flush to the streambed. PL4NVEW R iffle c re sts m a y b e c a r v e d o r a n g iW a c ro ss s tr e a m sec tio n s. W a te r S u rface I i i=ROHl£MEW Substrate Figure 2.4: A schematic o f the typical McNeil core sampling locations in riffle areas near pool tail-outs, with darker areas representing increased depth (from Schuett-Hames et a/., 7P94). 22 -~&s Figure 2.5: McNeil core sampling site approached from the downstream direction and the sample is taken by leaning over the core and forcing it into the streambed until it is flush. 5. The core sample was removed by a hand to a standard depth, the top of the ring of teeth. 6 . Sediment was rinsed off the sampler’s hand into the bucket and a core tube 1 L water sample was collected to determine the mass of fine sediments. 2.4.2 Gravel Buckets Gravel buckets are sediment traps used to measure deposition onto and infiltration into the streambed (Fig. 2.6). These samplers consisted of a four liter hard plastic bucket filled with a washed angular gravel that had an average intermediate axis of 1 .8 cm. Although not commonly referred to in the literature, this bucket size was consistent with that o f Lisle and Eads (1991) as well as Larkin et al. (1998). The gravel size and shape was selected with reference to Meehan and Swanston (1977), who determined that angular gravel with a 1 . 8 cm intermediate axis trapped more fine sediment than circular gravels at velocities greater than 0.4 m/s. 23 Gravel buckets were typically placed in McNeil core sample locations once the core had been extracted or in runs with a stream depth less than 30cm. Once the sites were chosen gravel bucket samples were collected as follows: 1. A hole was dug to the approximate depth of the gravel bucket (-20 cm for 4 liter buckets). Larger material was placed to the side to refill vacant areas around the bucket once installed. 2. The sealed bucket was placed level and flush to the streambed (Fig. 2.7). 3. The velocity and depth were re-measured to ensure replicate site similarity. Figure 2.6: A gravel bucket sampler. This particular sample could not he included in the data set because the bucket was overfilled so the effective sample period was not known. 4. Once upstream sampling was completed and suspended sediment that was generated fi*om this sampling had appeared to move downstream or settle out, the gravel bucket fids were removed as staff moved in a downstream direction. Once the final fid was removed field staff exited the channel below the last bucket. 24 5. During the retrieval visit, staff entered the stream below the last bucket and replaced lids in an upstream direction. Following lid replacement the overlying depth and velocity were again measured to determine changes since installation. rubber gasket experimental gravel collar container Figure 2.7: Gravel bucket schematic showing flush placement with streambed (Lisle and Eads, 1991). Note that a rubber gasket was not used fo r this study. 2.4.3 Infiltration Bags Infiltration bags measure the amount of sediment moving vertically and horizontally through a streambed. The bags are a modified form of the wire basket retrieval system presented by Sear (1993). To prevent the loss of fine sediments when removing openwork wire baskets, Sear placed them in a collapsed polyethylene bag that was forced open with a foam collar. The bag was lifted up over the basket prior to basket removal and it prevented the loss of 26 to 40% of the collected sample. The infiltration bag is essentially a stronger version of the polyethylene bag (Lisle and Eads, 1991). 25 The infiltration bag is a waterproof fabric bag that is approximately 20cm in diameter and 35 cm long. It is attached with a hose clamp to a brightly coloured steel ring that is also 20 cm in diameter. The bag is collapsed into the ring and is buried to a depth o f 30cm in the streambed (Fig. 2.8). The bag is removed fiom the streambed by a winch or pulley that hooks onto lines extending from the buried steel ring (Fig. 2.9). Figure 2.8: Infiltration bag collapsed within 'the steel ring, a 1 liter bottle is shown fo r scale. Infiltration bags were placed in shallow runs that were less than 30cm deep. Following the site selection process, infiltration bag samples were deployed and collected as follows; 1. Infiltration bag sites were excavated as staff moved in a downstream direction so that any suspended sediment generated by this disturbance would move downstream of the sample area. 26 2. Holes were dug to a depth of 35 cm and a width of 30 cm. This provided ample room for the steel ring and incorporates the 30 cm depth typically referred to in the literature for salmonid redds. 3. The collapsed bag was placed into the bottom of the hole and the reference gravel was poured into the hole until it was level with the surrounding streambed. When backfilling was a problem, a sheet metal sleeve was used to support the streambed walls during placement of the bag and reference gravel. floats collapsed infiltration bag chain hoist Figure 2.9: Infiltration bag deployment (A) and retrieval (B) showing the application o f pulley or winch to remove it from the streambed. (Figure from Lisle and Eads, 1991) 27 4. The recovery lines were held by hand so they remained on the surface after the reference gravel was poured. 5. Staff then moved downstream to the next bag. 6 . To retrieve bags the sites were approached from downstream. The lines were located and attached to the winch/pulley system (Fig. 2.9). 7. The bag was brought to the streambed surface and then capped with a 4 liter gravel bucket lid so that upon removing it from the stream bed the overlying water was not sampled. 8 . The sample was transferred to a 4-liter bucket for transport. The bag was rinsed and re-deployed. 2.5 Sample Numbers The sampling techniques presented here were developed for research purposes so there was limited sampling guideline information, particularly for their application in environmental assessments as proposed in this thesis. Although the literature does provide some information for the McNeil core, there were no similar numbers provided for gravel buckets or infiltration bags. Further, there were no historical sediment sampling data from any of the case study creeks that could be used to determine possible sample numbers using statistical methods. As such, the sample number varied between sites and over time as experience was gained and data was received back from the laboratory. Sample numbers ranged between three and six and reflect the availability of appropriate sampling sites within each creek and the creek width (Table 2.2). To address the lack of sampling guidelines another sampling program was undertaken in 1998. To assess the effective sample number, defined here as being that number of samples after which there is limited gain in precision, three creeks were selected for over- 28 sampling. Cluculz, Youngs, and Spruce Creek were chosen for the collection of 12 McNeil core and gravel bucket samples as well as 10 infiltration bags. These sample numbers, 1 2 and 1 0 , were selected because they exceeded the numbers collected during the eight case studies and also exceeded those numbers observed in the literature for McNeil Coring (MacDonald and McDonald 1987, Schuett-Hames et al. 1994). Further, sample requirements greater than these would hamper the application of this protocol in an assessment program because sample weights would be too heavy. These creeks were chosen because of the range in their active channel widths (5-11m). The data were subdivided into clusters ranging from 4 to 12 samples based upon similar site depth and overlying velocity. Coefficients of variation (CV) were then calculated for each cluster. Table 2.2 Sample site channel width, sampling technique, and sample numbers. Stream Channel Width (m) Spruce Creek 9.0 Government Creek Youngs Creek 8.0 12.6 Nithi River 4.5 Big Bend Creek 7.0 Cluculz Creek 6.0 Greer Creek 7.0 Mugaha Creek 10.0 Sampling Technique McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bag McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bueket McNeil Core Gravel Bueket Infiltration Bag McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bag Number of Samples (each site per visit)* 6, 6 6 ,6 3 3, 6, 6 4 ,6 3,4 3,3 3,3 6,6 6, 6 3, 4, 6, 6 4, 6, 6 4 ,4 4 ,6 4 ,4 6, 6 6, 6 4,4 Each num ber represents the sam ple num ber taken that trip, i.e. 6,6, indicates six sam ples were taken during the first and second trip. 29 Another approach to determine sample size was used for comparison to the sample estimates from CV alone. Sample number estimates were calculated using the following formula from Sokal and Rohlf (1969): N > 2 {o lô f {t„ [V] + t 2 (i-p) [v]}^ (Equation 1) Where: N= sample number a - true standard deviation (approximated) Ô = smallest true difference desired to detect t = t-distribution V = degrees of freedom of the sample (Tapprox. a ^significance level p = desired power (i.e. probability a difference is found if it exists) Example Calculation: Gravel Buckets CV = 7.6% for 9 replicates We want to detect a 20% difference 90% of the time. V = 2(9-1) = 16, (tapprox = 7.6 Y/lOO, 20% difference is <5 = 20Y/100 N > 2 (7.6Y/100 / 20Y/100)^ {to; i6 +1.216}}^ N > 2 (7.6/20)2 {1.746+1.34}^ N > 2.74 ~ 3 Samples To confirm 3 is correct, re-calculate using 3 rather than 9 replicates, which gives an answer of 5.35. When 5 is used the answer is 4, so 4 is a good approximation. 2.6 Grain Size Analysis Samples were submitted to Soilcon Laboratories of Vancouver after they were pre­ screened with a 16 and 9mm sieve. The 16 and 9mm data were not included in further analysis because we were interested in the finer fractions, particularly the very fine gravels and smaller as defined by the Wentworth Seale (Appendix 3). Soileon Laboratories applied a gravimetric method to sieving the remaining sample and used sample sieves with mesh sizes of 6.3, 4.0, 2.8, 2.0 mm and 500, 250, 125, 63 pm. 30 Gravimetric analysis is a common procedure for materials testing and soils analysis and is typically observed in the literature because it is more precise than volumetric analysis. The Soilcon Laboratories procedure is as follows: 1. Sediment was removed from the sample container by inverting it onto a drying tray lined with a pre-weighed plastic sheet. A wash bottle was used to rinse fine sediments at the bottom of the pail and wash them onto the tray. The sample was spread in a thin layer to promote drying. 2. After the sample was air-dried to a constant weight, the weight of the air-dried sample was taken. It was corrected for the weight of the plastic sheet. 3. The sample was placed in portions in the top sieve of a stack consisting of 6.3, 4.0, 2.8 and 2.0 mm pre-weighed sieves and a bottom pan. Dry sieves were shaken by hand imtil particles no longer pass through to the next sieve. Each sieve was then removed and weights were recorded (corrected for sieve weight). 4. The sample collected in the bottom pan from step 3 (the ‘minus 2mm fraction’) was then moved in portions to a stack containing a 500, 250, 125 and 63 pm cleaned sieves. These samples were wet sieved. The portions were not limited to a maximum o f 50 g because any larger may have caused the sieves to become overloaded or clogged. Sieves were often checked to ensure they were not being clogged. 5. Once the wash water ran clear the sieves were removed one at a time (i.e. from coarse to fine) and the captured sample was transferred to a pre-weighed aluminum dish. The contents were then oven-dried at 105°C. The sample weight was corrected for aluminum tray weight and recorded. 6 . Because the < 63 pm (silt/clay) fraction is lost during washing it was determined by subtraction of the larger fraction weights from the total “minus 2 mm” sample weight. The data generated were tabulated as percent less than, percent retained on sieve, and sample weight retained on each sieve. The percent retained and sample weights on each sieve were used in the analysis. Percent retained on sieve data was renamed percent 31 composition and was used for the analysis of MeNeil eore data because it provides a measure of streambed composition. Weight data was used for the traps because it provides a measure of sediment loading. 2.7 Data Analysis Generally, there are two approaches for interpreting sediment data, the first is to use the raw data and the second is to generate central tendeney measures. Raw data measures ineorporate eaeh grain size’s weight or percent composition while eentral tendeney measures attempt to reduce all grain size information to one number that best deseribes the entire particle size range. Central tendency measures include the Fredle Index, geometric mean diameter, and median particle size D 5 0 (Waters 1995, Platts et al. 1983). This thesis focussed on the application of raw data because the goal was to quantify inputs of fine sediment from activities of interest and not to describe the general streambed condition. Prior to conducting a statistical analysis, the data were viewed graphically to become familiar with them and to allow for the determination of normality, designation of outliers, and to assess the potential for signifieant differences. Normality is a standard assumption of the parametric statistics applied and required confirmation. Data outliers were viewed in light of site establishment data to see if environmental variables eould explain them. For example, did an outlying sample have higher overlying water velocity than the other samples? Finally, by plotting sample means and their 95% confidenee intervals the potential for significant differences was assessed. 32 The percent composition data were arc-sin transformed in accordance to Sokal and Rohlf (1969) because they are proportions and therefore not normally distributed. Weight data were not transformed. To determine the presence of significant differences between sites a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied using site and grain size as factors. Here site has two categories, namely up and downstream while grain size has seven categories ranging from fine gravel to silt/clay. Tukey’s post-hoc comparison or honestly significant difference (HSD) procedure was used to identify grain sizes that were significantly different between sites when a main effect (site difference) was observed (Sokal and Rohlf, 1969). For presentation purposes in this thesis, the differences are quantified by individual student t-tests results. When the main effect (site difference) was not significant but an interaction effect was, the graph was once again viewed to see if there appeared to be a grain size difference between sites. A significant interaction effect indicates that there is a relationship between the two factors, i.e. grain size composition is influenced by site. Where a significant difference appeared to occur, as noted by a lack of overlapping confidence intervals and means between sites for a specific grain size, a t-test was completed. However, only one or two t-tests were run because the potential for type 1 error, the rejection of a true null hypothesis, increases with the number of t-tests applied. During the data analysis process it was thought that this data may be influenced by pseudoreplication (Hurlbert, 1984). That is, each set of McNeil core, gravel bucket, and infiltration bags replicates can be seen to be correlated and therefore not independent or true replicates. This increases the potential for type 1 error. To address this concern, an 33 ANOVA of means was conducted for each site where more than one data set was collected for a given technique. For example, mean values for each grain size collected with McNeil Cores during each of two trips were computed. The mean values for each grain size over the two trips were grouped by site, yielding two sets of values for each grain size and location. An ANOVA of these values provides results free of pseudoreplication effects (Manly, 2001). However, this analysis could not be applied across all case studies because some did not have more than one sample set. 34 Chapter 3: Sedimentation Survey Results 3.0 Introduction To determine the presence of forest road construction and maintenance effects on downstream fine sedimentation, eight sites were selected and an impact-control study was conducted. Summary results for each study are provided in the following section and two of them, Cluculz and Spruce Creek are presented in more detail. These were selected because they have more extensive databases than most of the other studies and they demonstrate that the protocol worked in different situations. In the Cluculz Creek study the sediment source was less than 100 m from the study area while on Spruce Creek the source was approximately 3 km from the study area. Site establishment data and statistical analysis information for each station is presented in Appendix 1. In addition to the discussion of Cluculz and Spruce Creek, data from an ancillary program designed to determine sample size requirements per given stream width is presented. 3.1 Case Study Results Seven of the eight case studies had significantly higher levels of fine sediment depositing downstream of the selected forest harvesting activity for one or all of the techniques used (Table 3.1). The Greer Creek study did not show a significant increase in fine sediment downstream of bridge construction. This is likely the result of a decrease in discharge during our study period and the application of sediment control measures by the construction crew, which consisted of hay bales and geo-textile. 35 Table 3.1: Sampling technique, sample number per visit, and a result summary fo r each o f the eight case studies. Site Technique Big Bend Creek Cluculz Creek Government Creek Greer Creek Mugaha Creek Nithi River Spruce Creek Young’s Creek McNeil Core Gravel Buckets McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bag McNeil Core Sample Number per Visit 4 and 6 4 and 6 3,4, 6, and 6 4, 6, and 6 4 and 4 3 Results Higher sand downstream Higher sand and clay downstream Higher sand and clay downstream Higher sand and clay downstream Higher very fine gravel upstream Higher sand downstream McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bags McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bag 4 and 6 4 6, 6, and 6 6 and 6 4 and 4 3 and 4 4 6, 6, and 6 6 and 6 3,4, and 6 4 and 6 3 No site differences No site differences Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream No site differences No site differences Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream No site differences 3.1.1 Cluculz Creek Cluculz Creek is an S2 stream, which is a fish bearing stream between 5 and 20 m wide, in the Vanderhoof forest district. Its fisheries population includes the Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and rainbow trout (O. mykiss). The selected crossing was chosen because its two culverts were being replaced with a pipe arch. These culverts had repeatedly failed to accommodate spring flows often resulting in a road washout. So, the culverts were being replaced and the channel bank was being reinforced with boulders to direct flow through the new pipe arch (Photos 3.1 & 3.2). 36 Photo 3.1 Upstream view o f Cluculz Creek from the road showing the two culverts prior to their replacement with pipe arch and revetment o f the streambank. Photo 3.2: Upstream view o f Cluculz Creekfrom the same location as Photo 3.1 showing the new pipe arch and the streambank revetment. 37 The culvert replacement represents a large scale disturbance within the chosen reach of Cluculz Creek. Baseline samples were collected on July 25, 1997 and the construction activities occurred between August 15-21. The creek was redirected through a temporary channel for several hours on August 18 or 19 while the culverts were pulled and the pipe arch was installed. Construction period samples were collected with gravel buckets. Post­ construction samples were collected with some or all techniques on September 23, October 22, and November 16, 1997. Construction activities were found to cause a significant increase in fine sediment depositing downstream of the area up to the final sample date (Table 3.2). The most dramatic increase at the downstream site was observed for the construction period bucket samples, which were retrieved on August 21 two-three days after the creek was redirected. These samplers collected weights for each grain size that were up to threefold greater at the downstream site (Fig. 3.1). Although this signal response is clearly shown in the gravel bucket samples, it is interesting to note that a similar response was not identified for the McNeil core samples. An important aspect of the sampling protocol is identified in these results because the lack of correspondence between techniques may have nothing to do with their sensitivity but instead be a function of operator bias. That is, the first gravel buckets were installed in McNeil core sampling locations during the July 25 visit. Upon our return on August 21, the streambed in this area had changed from its original charcoal grey colour to tan as a result of the high amount of sediment deposited in the area. Despite this obvious increase in deposited sediment, McNeil core samples were not collected there because that area was sampled 38 during the previous visit. Instead, samples were collected downstream of the buckets, outside of the high deposition area. Table 3.2: Summary statistics o f the Cluculz Creek assessment program. Sampler McNeil Core Gravel Buckets Infiltration Bags Date 07/25/97 08/21/97 09/23/97 N' 3 4 6 F-value 0.09 0.002 1.7 p-value 0.77 0.97 0.19 Interaction' 0.98 &99 0.03 11/06/97 6 5.06 0.03 4.92 *10 '? 08/21/97 4 42.71 1.4*10? 0.09 10/22/97 6 0.0 0.99 0.98 11/06/97 6 133.9 6.4*10'? 1.7*10'^* 10/22/97 4 2.72 0.11 0.23 11/06/97 4 &95 0.01 0.04 Significant Differences No Differences No Differences Med. Sand Down (p = 5.04 *10'^) Fine Sand Down (p = 9.98* 10^) V. Fine Sand Down (p = 0.03) Silt/Clay Down (p = 0.0002) Tukey’s HSD indicates Fine Gravel higher Up (p = 0.007), Coarse Sand Down (p = 0.0002), and Med. Sand Down (p = 5.04* 10^) Tukey’s HSD - Higher Weights Down for all grain sizes No Differences Tukey’s HSD - Higher Weights Down for all grain sizes No Difference Tukey’s HSD indicates higher gravel upstream (p=0.049) *N stands for sample number ^Interaction p-value refers to the significance o f the interaction between the two factors site and grain size, A significant interaction indicates that grain size composition is influenced by site. McNeil core data showed a significant difference in the sand and silt/clay fractions between the up and downstream locations four and ten weeks after the culvert 39 replacement (Fig. 3.2 and 3.3). This is likely the result of deposited sands moving downstream from the originally effected area as fall flows increased. 400 Upstream I I Downstream 300 f 200 (U Q. E (D w 100 I 1 1 I V. Fine Gravel C o a rse S a n d Medium S a n d Fine S a n d V. Fine S an d Silt/Clay Grain Size Figure 3.1: Gravel bucket mean weights and their upper P5% confidence limits from samples collected at Cluculz Creek on August 21 during the construction period. An asterisk highlights those grain sizes where there is a significant difference between sites. Some of the gravel bucket and infiltration bag samplers were lost at the downstream location during the October placement as a result of high flows. Neither the buckets nor bags show a significant difference between sites, possibly due to the low number of samples at the downstream station. Ten weeks following construction, buckets show that the crossing was still acting as a sediment source for the sand and silt/clay fractions (Fig. 3.4). The infiltration bags captured significantly more very fine gravel at the upstream locations (Fig. 3.5). 40 60 I Upstream II Downstream 50 - •â 40 I E 0 30 I 1 0. 20 10 - 1 Fine Gravel V.FIne Gravel C oarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand V .FineSand SiK/Clay Grain Size Figure 3.2: Cluculz Creek McNeil core means and upper 95% confidence limits fo r the SeptemberlS samples. Asterisks highlight a significant difference between sites. 70 60 c o I 50 Upstream I Downstream O Q. 40 O •g 30 S (U Û- I 20 10 - a Fine Gravel V. Fine Gravel C o arse Sand Medium S and Fine S and V. Fine Sand SiH/Clay Grain S ize Figure 3.3: Cluculz Creek McNeil core sample means and upper 95% confidence limits fo r the November 6 samples. Asterisks highlight a significant difference between sites. 41 600 500 - Upstream Downstream 400 - I g» ® 300 w a. E 200 co W. 1 00 - i il n tS - V. F in e G ra v e l C o a r s e S a n d M edium S a n d F in e S a n d V. F in e S a n d Silt/C lay Grain Size Figure 3.4: Cluculz Creek gravel bucket sample means and upper 95% confidence limits fo r the November 6 samples. Asterisks highlight a significant difference between sites. 500 400 Upstream [~~l Downstream tn E S Ü 300 I ® 200 a. E <55 100 - a a V.Fine Gravel C o arse S and Medium Sand Fine Sand V.FIne Sand Silt/Clay Grain Size Figure 3.5: Cluculz Creek infiltration bag sample means and upper 95% confidence limits for samples collected on November 6. Very fine gravel was higher upstream. 42 3.1.2 Spruce Creek Spruce Creek is an S2 stream, which is a fish bearing stream between 5 and 20 m wide, in the Prince George forest district. Its fisheries populations include the rainbow trout {Oncorhynchus mykiss) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). It was selected for sampling based upon reports Jfrom Ministry of Forests (MoF) staff of high mam-stem turbidity levels resulting from road construction near the headwaters of one of its tributaries. Prior to site establishment, the road construction area near the tributary’s headwaters was visited. This new road, the 283 road, had some erosion along it ditch walls and at one o f the switchbacks. The ditch wall had deteriorated enough to allow road runoff to enter the tributary (Photo 3.3). Photo 3.3: Ditch wall erosion at the 283 road approximately three to five kilometers from the sampling area. 43 During the site establishment visit on September 11, the tributary and Spruce Creek mainstem near their confluence were sampled. Two stations were selected in the tributary above its confluence with Spruce Creek to determine if the gradient change between them affected sedimentation within the tributary. Two stations were also estabhshed on Spruce Creek above and below the confluence to determine the tributary’s effect on depositing sediment downstream (Fig. 3.6). McNeil core samples did not indicate a difference between the tributary or mainstem stations (Table 3.3 and Fig. 3.7). Ditch Failure Unnamed \ Tributary Spruce Creek Tribu tary Stations Spruce Creek Stations Fig. 3.6: Schematic o f the Spruce Creek and unnamed tributary sampling stations. 44 Table 3.3: Summary statistics for the Spruce Creek assessment program. Sampler Date 09/11/97 N* 6 McNeil Core 10/16/97 11/23/97 10/16/97 11/20/97 Gravel Buckets 6 F-Value 0.02 0.003 0.61 p-value 0.9 0.96 0.44 Interaction^ 0.8 0.1 0.004 6 6 6 0.72 16.06 24.6 0.4 0.0001 6.1*10’^ 0.05 0.4 0.01 Significant Differences No Differences (Spruce) No Differences (Trib.) Coarse Sand Up (p = 0.03) No Differences Higher Weights Down Tukey’s HSD- Higher Weights for all sands and silt clay Down ^Interaction p-value refers to the significance o f the interaction between the two factors site and grain size. A significant interaction indicates that grain size composition is influenced by site. The McNeil core samples showed higher amounts of coarse sand upstream on Spruce Creek in October but not November (Figs. 3.8 and 3.9). In contrast, gravel buckets showed there to be higher depositing sediments at the downstream Spruce Creek site in October and November (Table 3.2, Figs. 3.10 and 3.11). This discrepancy in results may be due to the fact that fine sediment input from the tributary was not sufficiently high to alter natural streambed composition or that the fine sediments captured and retained by the gravel buckets were not retained by the natural streamhed. That is, the fine sediment load sampled by the gravel buckets may have moved downstream from the sample area during the bucket sampling period. If so, the McNeil cores would not be expected to return data similar to that of the buckets. 45 60 I Upstream 3 Downstream I Tributary Up 3 Tributary Down 50 - 10 - —llpU— - —ipj— F in e G ravel V .Fine G ravel C o a rs e S a n d M ed. S a n d F in e S a n d V.F. S a n d Silt/Clay Grain S ize Figure 3.7: McNeil core sample means and their upper 95% confidence intervals fo r Spruce Creek and the tributary on September 11, 1997. 50 ■ H Upstream EÉsafl Downstream ■ m Tributary Down tI 40 - E 0 Ü I I V.Fine Gravel Crs. S an d 1 20 P 10 - Fine Gravel lii Med. S an d 1ii. Fine S an d V.F. S an d Silt/Clay Grain Size Figure 3.8: McNeil core sample means and their upper 95% confidence intervals for Spruce Creek and the lower tributary station on October 16, 1997. 46 60 Upstream Downstream Tributary Down 50 •I 40 - I Ic » «§ 20 10 - -Y — -------------- j gr j — -T-— ---- —-T----- ~ Fin e G ravel V .Fine G ravel C o a rs e S a n d Med. S a n d Fine S a n d V.F. S a n d Silt/C lay Grain Size Figure 3.9: McNeil core sample means and their upper 95% confidence intervals fo r Spruce Creek and tributary fo r November 23, 1997. 120 100 - (U 60 - « a. E (0 « 40 - 20 - Upstream I I Tributary Down ■ ■ Downstream iiiij i V .F in e G r a v e l C o a r s e S a n d M ed . S a n d F in e S a n d j Ü V. F in e S a n d i S ilt/C la y Grain Size Figure 3.10: Gravel bucket sample means and their upper 95% confidence intervals for samples collected on October 16, 1997. All Spruce Creek downstream samples are significantly different from those upstream. 47 250 Upstream Tributary Down Downstream 200 - B 150 - ® 100 a. 50 - V.Fine Gravel C o arse Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand V. Fine Sand Siit/Ciay Grain Size Figure 3.11: Gravel bucket sample means and their upper 95% confidence intervals fo r samples collected on November 23, 1997. The Spruce Creek downstream site has higher sands and silt/clay. 3.2 Pseudoreplication Pseudoreplication is the use o f inferential statistics to test for treatment effects with data drawn from studies where the treatments are not replicated or sample replicates are not statistically independent (Hurlbert, 1984). If data are not independent the sample size used by the statistic is larger than the effective number of independent observations. This can lead to false significant results from tests of significance and the generation of confidence intervals that are narrower than appropriate (Manly, 2001). 48 Although not originally considered in the study design, pseudoreplication effects are investigated here a posteori for those case studies where multiple sample sets were collected (Sec. 2.7). There were some differences from the findings presented in Table 3.1 but the general trend is similar (i.e. one or all of the techniques show increased sedimentation downstream) indicating that the sampling protocol is effective (Table 3.4). Table 3.4: Summary results from the re-analysis o f data when considering the effects o f pseudoreplication (differences from Table 3.1 are highlighted). Site Technique Big Bend Creek Cluculz Creek McNeil Core Gravel Buckets McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Sample Number per Visit 4 and 6 4 and 6 3, 4, 6, and 6 4, 6, and 6 Greer Creek Mugaha Creek McNeil Core McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bags McNeil Core McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bucket 4 and 6 6, 6, and 6 6 and 6 4 and 4 3 and 4 6, 6, and 6 6 and 6 3,4, and 6 4 and 6 Nithi River Spruce Creek Young’s Creek Results Higher Sand Downstream No Site Difference No Site Difference Higher Sample Weight Downstream No Site Differences Higher Sand Downstream No Site Difference No Site Difference Higher Sand Downstream No Site Difference Higher Sand Downstream No Site Difference Higher Sand Downstream 3.3 Sample Number Estimates Sample numbers varied between study streams and sample periods. Sample numbers increased with creek size and where several sets were collected, the latter sets had higher sample numbers. This increase in sample number is attributable to increased field experience and the ability to review sample data as they were returned from the lab. With this gained knowledge, it was clear that data quality would be improved by increased 49 sampling for the remainder of the program. Although the quality and quantity of data from the original design was suitable for hypothesis testing, there was still a need to determine optimal sample numbers. Two approaches were taken, namely the determination of effective sample size using the coefficient of variation (CV) and a formula based estimate. The CV is calculated as the standard deviation divided by the mean and multiplied by one hundred. As sample numbers increase, the mean and standard deviation change as does the CV. The CV is used here to represent changes in precision. Specifically, this exercise focuses on finding the sample number where the CV stabilizes. The effective sample number, defined here as that number of samples after which precision gains are small (i.e. < 5%), was determined for three stream classes as defined by their wetted width, namely 5m (Cluculz Creek), 9m (Spruce Creek), and 1 Im (Young’s Creek). All available data for a site were ranked in two ways, first in order of increasing water depth and second by increasing velocity. Depth and velocity were chosen for identifying sample replicate locations because of their hydraulic relevance and they are two variables that are easily measured in the field. Further, these flow characteristics will influence the local depositing environment and so should be relatively standardized (Petticrew et al., in progress). The weight of sediment deposited at each site as measured by the given technique was then included in these ranked tables (e.g. Table 3.5) and clusters were formed starting 50 with the largest number of similar values. For example, in Table 3.5 six samples have a water depth of 8cm to represent the first cluster (CV=18.9%). The second cluster is identified by including the maximum number of samples of the depth that is most similar to the original cluster. In this case the two samples with depths of 9cm were included (CV=16.3%). The third cluster now incorporates the single sample at 7cm because it is more similar to the original cluster than the samples at 10cm (CV=17.1%). The final cluster includes all samples and it has a CV of 18.4%. Note that the change in CV from six to twelve samples is less than 3%. Very little precision appears to be gained by increasing sample numbers but eight is chosen as the effective sample number because it has the lowest CV. Table 2.5: Cluculz Creek gravel bucket data grouped by sample depth. Sample Identifier Sample Depth (cm) Depositing Sediment Sample Weight (grams) 70.6 74.4 124.8 89.7 81.3 85.2 78.1 90.4 92.8 76.9 94.7 122 Cluster CV 10 8 11 12 10 10 10 Clusters of Samples 12 18.9 (6 ) 16.3( 8 ) 17. 1(9) 18.4 ( 12) Generally, most sample sets returned data with low variability with the exception of the Youngs Creek gravel bucket and infiltration bags. 51 The majority of sample replicate combinations returned coefficients of variation (CV) in the range of 5 to 30%, often showing a minimal decrease in CV with increasing the sample number above six. As such, data collected for the eight case studies, which ranged between 4 and 6, are considered sufficient to adequately describe those sample areas. 3.3.1 Gravel Buckets Gravel bucket sample sets exhibited a low degree of variability regardless of sample number in Cluculz and Spruce Creek but were quite variable for Youngs Creek. The effective sample number for 5, 9, and 11m wide creeks is estimated to be 8, 9, and 10 (Tables 3.6 and 3.7). However, 10 replicates is the suggested minimum for the selected 1 Im wide creek because of the high variability at that site (Tables 3.6 and 3.7). Table 16: Effective sample numbers (highlighted cells) fo r gravel buckets based upon the lowest CVfor groupings by depth. S et# 1 Set # 2 Cluculz Creek (5m) Number C.V. Spruce Creek (9m) Number C.V. Youngs Creek (11m) Number C.V. 6 # 9 12 6 18.9 6 8 16.8 17.0 6 8 90.6 88.7 17.1 18.4 9.1 » 12 6 # 16.5 20.0 # 12 81.2 : 10 12 a 8.5 8.3 T " 12 0 0 30.4 Table 3.7: Effective sample numbers (highlighted cells) fo r gravel buckets based on the lowest CVfor groupings by velocity. Cluculz Creek (5m) Number C.V. 6 20.7 S et# 1 Set # 2 Spruce Creek (9m) Number C.V. 6 17.0 8 17.0 # 12 19.0 @9 12 7 7.7 # 12 8.3 1 8 10 12 w 16.5 12.1 37.2 31.4 30.4 52 Youngs Creek (1 Im) Number C.V. 6 86.5 8 93.8 80J! # 12 81.2 3.3.2 Infiltration Bags The infiltration bag samples show an increasing degree of variability as the wetted width increases. Eight of the ten samples collected in Young's Creek samples were deployed in a depth of 10cm so there was no analysis of grouping based on depth for that creek. The effective sample number for 5, 9, and 11m wide creeks is estimated to be 4, 8, and 10 (Table 3.8). Table 3.8: Effective sample numbers (highlighted cells) fo r infiltration bags based on the lowest CVfor groupings by depth and velocity. Cluculz Creek (5m) Number C.V. Depth Velocity É 23-2 7 10 37.5 31.4 # 7 10 24.7 38.1 31.4 Spruce Creek (9m) Number C.V. 4 31.9 # m r 8 10 4 5 7 28.8 44.3 52.6 49.1 51.2 # Y oungs Creek (11m) Number C.V. 4 6 8 0 54.7 44.1 41.3 -38.2'.............. 3.3.3 McNeil Core The McNeil core data set differs from the gravel buckets and infiltration bags because it shows a decrease in the required sample number as the channel width increases. In accordance with the data in Tables 3.9 and 3.10, the required sample number for 5m wide streams is 10, for 9m it is 7 and for 11m it is 9. This contradicts the trend observed for gravel buckets and infiltration bags as well as general intuition. We would expect that as the sample area increases the number of samples required to characterize it should also increase. 53 This observation may be attributed to a high variability in sample site depth and velocity amongst all o f the creeks (Table 3.11). Given this variability and the low increase in precision with increased sample number from 6 to 12 at Cluculz Creek (average decrease in CV is 2.6%) the effective sample number for streams 5, 9, and 11 m wide is estimated to be 6, 8, and 10 samples. Table 3.9: Effective sample numbers (highlighted cells) fo r McNeil Cores based on the lowest CVfor groupings by depth. S e t# l Set #2 Cluculz Creek (5m) Number C.V. 6 23.2 8 21.3 10 22.8 # 21.1 6 14.8 8 14.7 10 13.3 Spruce Creek (9m) Number C.V. 1 8 10 12 35.7 37.4 34.9 Ë 8 10 12 m 15.1 22.3 21.6 Youngs Creek (1 Im) Number C.V. 6 35.4 0 10 34.5 12 33.9 0 T 8 16.9 10 14.9 12 22.4 - Table 3.10: Effective sample numbers (highlighted cells) fo r McNeil Cores based on the lowest CVfor groupings by velocity. S e t# l Set #2 Cluculz Creek (5m) Number C.V. 0 20.7 8 24.9 10 22 12 21.1 6 14.8 8 15.7 10 13.9 Spruce Creek (9m) Number C.V. 12 12 13.2 : 32.8 8 10 12 6 8 10 36.3 35.7 34.9 24.6 23.6 22.5 % 54 Y oungs Creek (11m) Number C.V. 6 8 10 % . 6 8 10 n 39.9 38.3 34.7 ## 31.5 26.7 27.4 1 1 Table 3.11 McNeil core sample depth and velocity summary statistics fo r both McNeil core sample periods. Mean Velocity Standard Deviation Mean Depth Standard Deviation Cluculz 0.29 0.05 9.33 0.98 Creek 0.52 0.04 8.80 1.53 Spruce 0.64 0.07 9.50 1.00 Creek 0.70 0.14 9.80 1.07 Young’s 0.32 0.04 7.10 0.50 Creek 0.67 0.11 8.70 0.90 Site The results of the clustering CV analysis show the importance of maintaining similarity in site selection. Increased sample numbers are expected to improve the accuracy of the mean and the variation around the mean. However, in some cases the smallest CV was found with the lower sample sizes. This potentially reflects the magnitude of the change of controlling variable used for clustering (i.e. 6 samples from the same water depth versus 9 samples that incorporate 3 depths). As depth and velocity are important controlling variables for sediment deposition it is best to maintain equivalent conditions for all replicates. This is clearly not always the possible and therefore results in ‘natural variability’. The range sampled here was not expected to generate large differences but may be affecting the variation. 3.3.4 Formula Based Sample Size Estimates The formula based sample number requirements were typically much larger than those generated using CV alone (Table 3.12). As with most equation based sample estimates, these numbers ensure statistical requirements are met, i.e. in our example the ability to 55 detect a 5,10, or 20% difference 90% of the time (Equation 1). Note that with the statistically based formula there is no consideration of the environmental limitations of the sample area, whereas the availability of similar sampling sites is implicit within the CV analysis. Table 3.12 Calculated sample numbers fo r each technique assuming 90% chance o f finding 20%), 10%, or 5% differences between sample sites. 5 meter 9 meter 11 meter Detectable Difference 20% 70% 5% 20% 70% J% 20 % 70% J% Gravel Bucket 4 14 56 9 40 75 250 986 1972 Infiltration Bag 30 115 450 46 176 684 83 306 1227 McNeil Core 12 43 146 11 39 143 28 108 421 The difference between the CV and formula based sample estimates can be explained. First, the CV analysis looks at the decrease in variability with increased sample numbers (based on clusters) with an upper limit of 12 samples. So, if the lowest CV is 25% at 8 replicates, this is the best sample number within the possible sample size of 12 replicates despite the high variability. Although this seems a shortfall, seven of the eight case studies saw a significant difference between stations with even less samples than suggested by the CV analysis because the difference in mean sediment levels exceeded the suggested differences from above. Of those included in the table, the 20% is most detectable and relevant as other studies have focussed on quantifying this level of difference between locations (Rood and Church, 1994). 56 Chapter 4: Discussion 4.0 Introduction The objective o f this study was to design and evaluate a sampling protocol to quantify increases in the storage of fine sediments downstream of forest road construction and maintenance activities. Study results confirm that the protocol described here is capable of detecting these increases. One or all the techniques used were able to detect significant increases in the fine sediment concentration for seven of the eight case studies presented. These observations agree with the literature, which often highlights forest roads, particularly stream crossings, as a major contributor of sediment to streams. Sediment delivery pathways include road and ditch runoff as well as mass wasting during road construction or following significant road bed deterioration (Cafferata and Spittler 1998). Beschta (1978) demonstrated that road construction activities increased sediment load to a magnitude similar that of mass wasting in coastal Oregon streams. Bilby et a l (1989) found that 34% of surveyed road drainage points in a southwestern Washington watershed directly entered streams. Further, in most cases fine sand (<0.2 mm) was delivered to the streams by these roads but as gradient increased there was a shift to the larger grain sizes of sand. Many published studies from British Columbia have not emphasized roads as a significant contributor of sediment because they were conducted in coastal environments where landslides or debris torrents are the dominant sediment sources. Scrivner and Brownlee (1989) found that forest roads were not a significant contributor of sediment 57 within the Carnation Creek watershed because they were constructed with blasted rock so they could not generate fine sediment from their surface as observed in many other basins. Tripp and Poulin (1986) suggest that in Queen Charlotte Island watersheds, the collective influence of forest harvesting activities on sediment transport and storage may be as significant as a single landslide. Interior streams may have greater potential to show significant road effects because mass wasting events are often less prominent and soil structures differ ft-om the coastal systems. Slaney (1975) demonstrated significant delivery of sediment to streams from skid-trails and landings in the Slim Creek watershed, near Prince George, because trails were constructed in silty-loam deposits. Beaudry (1999) noted a significant increase in suspended sediments due to road runoff in the Baptiste watershed, near Fort St. James. During the data analysis process and subsequent presentation of results, three issues surfaced that require more detailed discussion. These include technique sensitivity, sediment monitoring and cumulative effects, as well as error analysis. 4.1 Technique Sensitivity Technique sensitivity as defined here refers to the ability of a sampling technique to detect a difference in sediment storage between sites and for it to provide repeatable results. Prior to assessing sensitivity it is necessary to review the sampling protocol for each technique to highlight external influences on sample collection and to clarify each technique’s strength and weakness. 58 4.1.1 McNeil Core The McNeil core is a sediment corer that penetrates the streambed and provides a bulk sample of the bed to the depth that the core is driven. It is the most environmentally representative sampling technique presented here because the natural streambed is sampled directly. Further, Young et al. (1991) determined in laboratory trials with known sediment mixtures that the McNeil core provided more accurate and precise samples than the single or tri-probe freeze corer and shovels. A potential problem with the McNeil core is the under sampling of fine sediments due to the disturbance of interstitial fines during the coring process. Similar to other coring techniques, this disturbance of interstitial fines may bias the sampler to larger grain sizes. Further, the coarser fine sediments (e.g. sands) that have settled out at the bottom of the core may not be adequately suspended or they can settle out again just prior to collection of the one-liter core water sample. However, by ensuring the consistency of sampling personnel and procedure it is appropriate to compare sediment concentrations between sites using this technique. The McNeil core has distinct advantages over other corers and the trap techniques including its ease of use, portability, and adaptability. The core tube can be exchanged for narrower or broader tubes to best suit the range of particle sizes the researcher wants to collect. It collects natural streambed material making it a better measure of streambed conditions than sediment traps. Further, it is the only technique presented where sample volumes can be collected to fit accepted bulk sample standards such as the ISO standards 59 adopted from de Vries (1970) and the truncated sample volumes proposed by Church et a l (1987). Both of these sampling standard volumes exceed those presented in this paper and may be best employed for longer term programs where slight differences need to be determined or larger areas are sampled. Both bulk standards use the sample’s large grain sizes to determine the required total sample volume. The de Vries model assumes that the particle at the 84*'’ percentile (Dg4 ) is suitably large whereas the Church et a l (1987) model allows the sampler to determine the upper grain size included in the analysis, which is defined as the truncated grain size. The de Vries sample volumes are set with reference to three precision levels, namely high, medium, and low (Fig. 4.1). Using a Dg4 of 30 mm (located on x-axis of Fig 4.1) the low precision sample weight required is 60 kg (read the corresponding y-value from the intercept o f 30 mm with line ‘ISO 4364-1977:low precision’), the medium is 600 kg, and the high is 6000 kg. Church et a l (1987) standards require the sampler to select that portion o f the streambed grain size range to which they will compare the fine sediment composition. This upper limit must contain a minimum of 100 grains (Fig. 4.2). Using a truncated limit of 30 mm 40 kg of sample is required (read the 30mm intercept with the ‘0.1%’ precision line of fig 4.2). Although the de Vries sample weights were too onerous for this program, some of the McNeil core samples that were collected did fall within Church et a l (1987) guidelines. However, neither standard was met using the trapping techniques. Adherence to these standards was not a requirement because the goal of this thesis was to develop an easily 60 r 10 000 à 5 6 r•t1 ) 4 s ♦ 7 • 9I ii 1000 I' ËmsàmÉuû/'!,'.!'; ' M M Iglliliiilllil 100 %- =- - #H* * %r ; '■ ^ ‘ ’i iiillil., : gmiiiiÊL gW}'»' « « • « « » « * » * « ? *ji«*iic«>nM(.m I l i nint t I I H n M iiiiitmII i n n Kit immiHiimi luiiiiiiitiiimiNit KwMlllltl'lll n I , I Kg j J i.;t '• iiiiiitif ■ "" r}'./ iiiiffiiHi-■-'.. S====55:Sr:x-h»Ki:5; Kin. 3 838 96 a H » w s i s a B S » «s««i«f«snMifnn«f{ llllliiil ill 100 5&H!«iK!Ki;w • . £ ; 3}Î;ï Ii {miiiii'JiHüM B=#=Â=dâ#mn;iiii ilii llili üi J 10 F percent o f sample weight in largest stone (based on spheroid with density 2.7 g cm -3) ait samples exceed 5 kg unless consisting mainly i™iof sand and granules sss;.= ;ss» ::::::': —' to -— — , .100 1000 b axis o f largest stone (mm) Figure 4.2: Bulk sample standards based on the intermediate axis o f the largest stone included in the analysis (Church et al, 1987). 62 applied but defensible and repeatable protocol that could be used in remote areas. That is, a relatively simple assessment protocol yielding samples that can be physically carried was required. 4.1.2 Gravel Buckets Gravel buckets are impermeable walled containers that trap depositing and/or saltating sediment that settles on the reference gravel’s surface. They provide a standardized measure of sedimentation within a known grain size matrix as related to a specific monitored activity. The gravel bucket is a trap and so it may not be representative of the natural environment because the bucket walls prevent exchange with the surrounding streambed. Further, if the reference gravel has a different grain size composition than the natural substrate, their trapping efficiencies will differ so bucket results may not be indicative of the retained portion of settled solids in the sample area. However, it is important to recognize that the gravel bucket is not meant to simulate the streambed. Instead, its purpose is to measure the contribution of a specific activity to the sediment loading o f a stream. It quantifies the addition of sediment to the streambed and not streambed alteration. To assess streambed alteration the bucket should be deployed with another sampler that samples the streambed directly such as the McNeil corer. 4.1.3 Infiltration Bags Infiltration bags are also traps but unlike the buckets they are collapsed and buried at the bottom of a colunm of reference gravel within the streambed. They have an advantage over gravel buckets because the column of reference gravel is open to exchange with the 63 surrounding streambed and samples depositing sediment and sediment that is vertically or horizontally infiltrating through the streambed. The reference gravel is clean and its size and shape ensure that pore spaces are numerous and capable of retaining settled fines by reducing interstitial flow, all of which make it an effective sampler. Assuming that the sample collected when the bag is removed from the streambed represents the fine sediment burden at that location and time, this technique may be best applied over short periods before and after an event. When it is left for longer periods the reference gravel may come to equilibrium with the fine sediment composition of the bed but the time for this cannot be measured. 4.1.4 Summary Each technique focuses on sampling a different portion of the depositing sediment load and as such it can be expected that they may provide different results for the same site as shown in Table 4.1. As previously stated, the McNeil core may be biased toward sampling of the larger grain size (>lmm) and so may not show increases in finer sediments while the traps do detect a difference. This was observed at Big Bend, Cluculz, and Spruce Creek. Infiltration bags incorporate subsurface and surface sediment movement and can therefore differ from gravel buckets as shown in Young’s Creek. Further, M cNeil core samples and gravel buckets can show significant increase in fine sediments due to surface loading but if these concentrations are not consistent with depth in the streambed they may not be observed by infiltration bags. Infiltration bags do not have the shelter provided by bucket walls nor do they have the potential settling areas available on natural substrate so their surface fines may be more easily disturbed. This 64 was observed at Young’s Creek where both buckets and cores showed higher fine sediment burden than the bags. Insufficient sample numbers may also explain the apparent discrepancy between the data collected by different samplers. Many of the case studies did not have sufficient sample numbers collected as was later determined by the sample number estimate program initiated in Cluculz, Spruce, and Youngs Creek. For example, four McNeil cores and three buckets were originally collected at Nithi River but according to our sample size estimates from the CV analysis, six cores and eight buckets would have been more representative for that stream width. Although neither the McNeil nor gravel bucket data set has the appropriate number of replicates, the McNeil core sample number was closer to the suggested number than the buckets. This may explain why cores determined there to be higher sand concentrations downstream and the gravel buckets did not (Table 4.1). The sample size requirement information indicates that the infiltration bag will return the least variable data with the fewest number of samples for the 5 m wide stream while sample numbers are similar for all techniques in the 9 and 11m wide creek (Table 4.2). Generally, the sample numbers are comparable across techniques indicating that each is capable of returning acceptable data with relatively few replicates. Further, the data gathered by these different techniques is often comparable. Where it is not possible to collect the suggested number of replicates due to site restrictions, the sample size should be no less than three samples, which was shown in the Big Bend, Nithi River, and Government Creek site to be sufficient to determine a difference between sites. 65 Table 4.1: Summary results fo r the seven case studies where differences were observed between sites. Differences between employed samplers are bolded and italicized. Site Big Bend Creek Cluculz Creek Greer Creek Mugaha Creek Nithi River Spruce Creek Young’s Creek Techniques McNeil Core Gravel Buckets McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bag McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bags McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bucket McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bag Results Higher sand downstream Higher sand and clay downstream Higher sand and clay downstream Higher sand and clay downstream Higher very fine gravel upstream No site differences No site differences Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream No site differences No site differences Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream Higher sand downstream No site differences Table 4.2. Sample size estimates fo r each sampling technique in 5, 9, and 11m wide creeks. Stream Widths 5 9 11 McNeil Core 6 8 10 Gravel Bucket 8 9 10 Infiltration Bag 4 8 10 To summarize, technique sensitivity is subjective because each technique was found to return acceptable data with similar sample numbers per given stream width (Table 4.2). Further, there was general agreement between sample results for deployed techniques in each of the eight case studies. Sensitivity then is a consideration best decided upon by the sampler and the monitoring requirements of the project. For example, it is likely that the trapping techniques will be more sensitive to subtle increases in the depositing sediment 66 load when the source is constant because their reference gravels have been cleaned and are o f a size that optimizes trapping of fine sediments (Meehan and Swanston, 1977). However, while they may be more sensitive to increased fine sediments the data collected by them may not represent a similar change to the streambed and so the information gathered may be more relevant if partnered with the McNeil corer. Finally, the McNeil core and infiltration bag may be a more sensitive measure of compositional changes with depth if the sediment supply stops and sediment has already been deposited on the streambed. 4.2 Cumulative Effects and Forestry Forest harvesting activities can increase point source loading of sediment to streams within a watershed. The routing and downstream accumulation of sediment from these point sources is of concern because it will affect stream biota and streambed composition at each of its temporary storage areas. This sedimentary cumulative watershed effect (CWE) is one o f the most detrimental consequences of forest harvesting activities on a watershed. However, the CWE is difficult to assess because its effect is dependent upon the grain size being introduced, the sequence of streams that transport it, and the original sedimentary state of the streambed it encounters (Bunte and MacDonald, 1999). Further, while it may be possible to determine the ehange in fine sediment levels at a single point in the stream, it is difficult to determine which upstream land use activities instigated the change. 67 Bunte and MacDonald (1999) suggest that to manage a watershed for cumulative sediment effects it is necessary to monitor for a minimum of 5 - 10 years pre-and-post harvesting because sediment transport is highly variable. However, this type of program is cost prohibitive and exceeds the time frame required under most resource management programs. The sampling protocol presented here may bridge the gap between the long­ term study and the need for immediate information to address management needs. Applying the monitoring protocol presented here, short-term spatial monitoring around selected activities, will make it possible to designate sediment load increases on an activity and site specific basis. That is, by monitoring a representative number of sites for specific forest harvesting activities the sediment contribution from forest harvesting practices within an affected watershed can be estimated. For example, monitoring 20% of all stream crossings, riparian harvest areas, and landing sites near streams within a harvested watershed will allows for estimation of the contribution from these point sources. Further, these data can be used to justify the modification of those practices found to contribute significant amounts of fine sediment. 4.3 Potential Errors Three sources o f error have the potential to affect project results, namely sampling error, measurement error, and interpretation error. Sampling error refers to errors in the sampling method, which is the selection of sites and techniques. Measurement error refers to error in sampling extraction and analysis. Interpretation error refers to error in data interpretation, which results in an erroneous conclusion. 68 Sampling error was addressed in two manners, site establishment data ensured consistency in sample site conditions between sampling stations within a stream and techniques were deployed in accordance with available standards (McNeil and Ahnell 1964, Lisle and Eads 1991). The site establishment data assured maximum sample site similarity given available field conditions. Although it may have been possible to find more comparable sites further up or downstream of the selected stations, there was a spatial sampling constraint. Specifically, if similar sites were chosen that were more than a couple of reach lengths from each other data interpretation is made more complex because we would have to account for the influence of tributaries, springs, or any sites of increased streambank erosion and sedimentation between the stations. Finally, where the number of sample sites within a station were limited and a sample had to be collected in a location having depth and velocity levels well outside the mean for that station, its data could be excluded from future analysis should it be shown to be an outlier. There was limited information to draw from when developing this sampling protocol. Specifically, there was no sampling guidebook that discussed the theoretical and practical considerations necessary to design an effective sampling program. As such, the design and sampling process provided educational opportunities to improve the protocol. Starting with basic information available from the literature on how to use these sampling techniques, we were able to modify the technique to suit our specific needs and the assumptions behind these modifications were verified in the field. For example, the McNeil core has steel teeth that must be driven into the streambed by exerting pressure from above. It appears that the best approach is to torque the handles forcing the teeth to 69 to cut the streambed. When sampling in the field, it is immediately obvious that when you torque the handles the core can rock, particularly on coarse substrate. This rocking results in the formation of fine sediment plumes behind the corer due to bed disturbance. To counteract this condition two adjustments were needed. First sampling was conducted in an upstream manner to minimize contamination of sample sites downstream with excess fines caused by streambed disturbance during the sampling process. Secondly, to maximize capture of fines the coring process the sampler had to be tall enough to rest their body on top of the core and also had to be sufficiently heavy to force a good seal between the core tube and the streambed. Measurement error refers specifically to sample analysis procedures and field instruments. A commercial laboratory analyzed sediment samples in accordance to ASTM standards for gravimetric sieving. In addition to the adherence of this sampling protocol, 5-10% of the samples sent were re-sieved and the values compared. If the original and re-sieved values were more than 5% different from each other the sample was again re-sieved and if the difference held true, the samples from that batch were excluded. Fortunately, no re-sieved samples lay outside the acceptable level of difference. Field instruments included a measuring tape, velocity meter, clinometer, and ruler. The same field equipment was used throughout the study to ensure consistency between sample stations within and between streams. The velocity meter was calibrated prior to the field season and its maintenance procedures were adhered to throughout the study 70 period. The combination of these activities ensured that collected data were of good quality. Interpretation error is theoretically more complex to address because it refers to our reliance on numerical information gathered by these techniques to reconstruct what happened at our sampling stations. It is a result of the cumulative error generated by program design and statistical analysis. These issues exceed the scope of this thesis. It is assumed here that the sampling design employed at each site was suitable for assessment purposes and that the resulting statistical interpretation led to the appropriate result. 71 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations The results of this thesis confirm that forest road construction and maintenance activities at stream crossings can increase the downstream level of fine grain sedimentation. As such, the null hypothesis, that these activities do not increase fine grain sedimentation, is rejected. Equally important to this finding is the achievement of the thesis objective, which was to develop a sampling protocol that could determine increases in fine grain sedimentation. The protocol presented here included: • The application of one or more fish habitat evaluation techniques (McNeil Core, gravel bucket, infiltration bag). • The use of an impact-control sampling design. • The collection of site establishment data to ensure that sites were hiophysically similar. • The use of a two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test to detect significant differences. The case study findings remained consistent when the effect of pseudoreplication was considered. Further, despite the low number of samples collected at case study sites, when compared to those determined by the sample number estimate program, significant differences were found because the sites exhibited a greater magnitude of difference than that set when using the sample number formula. Each sampling technique has environmental limitations and sampling situations to which they are best applied. Although each technique can detect increases in sedimentation, they are best used in combination because they measure different things. The McNeil 72 core samples the streambed directly, the gravel bucket captures and retains depositing or saltating sediment, and the infiltration bag measures sediment that deposits on and moves horizontally through the streambed. In conclusion, the protocol presented in this thesis is an effective tool for monitoring sedimentation at stream crossings. However, there is no reason for it to be confined to this land use concern. Instead, it should be applied to monitor other forest harvesting activities as well as other land use activities that have the potential to increase a stream’s sediment load. Other recommendations include the application of geochemical fingerprinting, biological monitoring, and the application of these techniques to collect sediment bound contaminants. Incorporating a geochemical analysis of captured sediments would enhance the sampling protocol. Geochemical fingerprinting could increase the reliability of sampling results and may broaden sampling possibilities. Fletcher and Christie (1999) used inductively coupled plasma mass-spectrophotometry (ICP-MS) to identify tracer elements for several newly formed sediment sources in six small streams (<5 m wide) in the Baptiste Watershed near Fort St. James, BC. They defined an element as being a useful sediment when: ... the greater the compositional difference between stream sediments a new source (sediment source), the greater the potential value of an element as a tracer. Compositional differences between sediment and sources were therefore evaluated from: (i) the geochemical contrast (ratio) between concentration of the element within a sediment source and stream sediment above the source and (ii) by testing mean values of the sediment and source for significant differences, (p. 4) 73 Several elements were found to be acceptable tracers for the studied basins including calcium, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, phosphorous, strontium, and titanium. Although not originally identified as a tracer, zinc was also found to be useful because it gave very high concentrations downstream of new stream crossings. They concluded this to be a result of sediment abrading the new galvanized culverts. Once identified, tracer elements were used to determine mixing or dilution of the new sediment into the streambed downstream. They found that within 200m of the new sediment source the added sediment concentrations had fallen to less than 10% on these small streams. This technique would benefit assessment sampling around specified forest harvesting activities because it would be possible to designate the source material of the increased sediment. Further, by sampling at distances dovmstream fi-om the investigated activity it would be possible to determine the total streambed area effected and the period of effect. Finally, the application of this protocol in a Before-Afier-Control-Impaet study design will make study findings more definitive because the temporal change in impact and control sites can be assessed as a function of the investigated activity. Once increases in fine sediment are documented it is possible to hypothesize biological effects with reference to provincial water quality criteria (Nagpal, 2000) and the available literature (Culp et al. 1986, Waters 1995, Shaw and Richardson 2001). If used in this manner the protocol described here holds good potential as a surrogate for determining biological effects: Because it is difficult to reliably assess the relationship between essential in-stream habitat and the eventual survival to adulthood of anadromous salmonids, monitoring the physical attributes of habitats that support aquatic organisms is a fundamental first step in 74 evaluating the link between the effects of timber harvesting and anadromous fishes. (Conquest et a/., 1994 p. 76). As with most biological systems, the rules do not always hold true so instead of relying solely on sediment information it is recommended that these studies be conducted in conjunction with biological monitoring programs to determine the susceptibility of monitored populations to observed increases in fine sediment deposition. Candidate populations include periphyton and invertebrates but if fish are the resource concern it is suggested that redds, eggs, or survival-to emergence of fry be used because unlike the more transient adults these forms reside in the streambed and will be more greatly effected by temporally constrained sediment pulses. Periphyton and invertebrate populations can be collected relatively quickly and interpreted with reference to accepted techniques including the rapid bio-assessment protocols of the U.S. EPA (Plafkin et a l, 1989) or other biologic indices such as the index of biological integrity (Karr and Chu, 1998). When used in combination, the results of the sedimentation and biological community assessment will be more conclusive. Finally, this protocol should not be limited to assessing forest road construction and harvesting effects alone. Instead, it can be applied to the management of all land use activities that have the potential to increase fine sediment deposition in streambeds. Another potential application of the sampling techniques is to capture sediment for the analysis of sediment bound contaminants. This includes those programs focussing on the quantification of pesticides, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, organo-chlorines and others that 75 may be released from industrial activities such as agricultural activities, mining, and pulp mills. 76 References Anderson, P.G., B.R. Taylor, and G.C. Balch. 1996. Quantifying the effects of sediment release on fish and their habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No.2346. 110 pp. + Appendices. Adams, J.N. and R. L. Beschta. 1980. Gravel bed composition in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 37: 1514-1521. Beaudry, P. 1998. Effects of forest harvesting on streamflow sediment concentrations in small central interior streams, p. 127-133: In Mountains To Sea: Human Interaction with the Hydrologie Cycle, CWRA Proceedings June 1998. Beschta, R. L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 14(6):1011-1016. Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan and S. H. Duncan. 1989. Generation and fate of road surface sediment in forested watersheds in western Washington. Forest Science 35(2): 453468. Bjomn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. W.R. Meehan (Ed.) 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. Pp. 83-138. W.R. Meehan (Editor). Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, J.L. Thames. 1991. Hydrology and the management of watersheds. Iowa State University Press. 392p. Brookes, A. 1988. Channelized Rivers: Perspectives for Environmental Management. John Wiley, Chichester, 326 p. Bunte, K. and L.H. MacDonald. 1999. Scale considerations and the detectability of cumulative watershed effects: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement; Technical Bulletin No.776. 327p. Bums, J.W. 1970. Spawning bed sedimentation studies in northern California streams. California Fish and Game 56(4):253-270. Cafferata, P.H. and T.E. Spittler. 1998. Logging impacts of the 1970’s vs. the 1990’s in the Caspar Creek Watershed, p. 103-116. In Proceeding of the Conference on Coastal Watersheds: The Caspar Creek Story; 6 May 1998, Ukiah CA. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-168. 149 p. 77 Caux, P.Y., D. MacDonald, D.R.J. More and H.J. Singleton. 1997. Sampling strategy for turbidity, suspended and benthic sediments in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks. Water Quality Branch. 23p. Cederholm, C.M. L.M. Reid and E. O. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. P. 38-74 . In Proceedings from the Conference Salmon-Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest? Wat. Res. Cen., Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 285 p. Chapman, D. W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117(1): 1-21. Church, M. A., D.G. McLean and J. F. Wolcott. 1987. River Bed Gravels: Sampling and analysis. In Sediment Transport in Gravel Bed Rivers. Pp: 43-87. Conquest, L.L., S.C. Ralph and R.J. Naiman. 1994. Implementation o f large-scale stream moniotring efforts: Sampling design and data analysis. P.69-90. In Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems S.L. Loeb (Ed.). Lewis Publishers. 28 Ip. Comer, R. A., J. H. Bassman, and B. C. Moore. 1996. Monitoring timber harvest impacts on stream sedimentation: Instream vs. upslope methods. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 11(1): 25-32. Culp, J.M., S.J. Wade, and R.W. Davies. 1983. Relative importance of substrate particle size and detritus to stream benthic macroinvertebrate microdistribution. Canadian Journal o f Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 40:1568-1574. Culp, J.M., F.J. Wrona, and R.W. Davies. 1986. Response of stream benthos and drift to fine sediment deposition versus transport. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:13451351. Davies-Colley, R. J., C.W. Hickey, J.M. Quinn, and P. A. Ryan. 1992. Effects of clay discharges on streams: 1 Optical properties and epilithon. Hydrobiologia 248:215234. Eriksen, C.H. 1966. Ecological significance of respiration and substrate for burrowing Ephemeroptera. Canadian Journal of Zoology 46:93-103. Fletcher, K. and T. Christie. 1999. Application of multi-element geochemical methods to identifying sediment sources and tracing trransport of sediment in small (S4) streams before and after watershed disturbance. Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia. 24 pp. 78 Harrelson, C. C., C. L. Rawlins, and J. P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field technique. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM245. 61p. Hogan, D.L., S.A. Bird and S. Rice. 1998. Stream channel morphology and recovery process. In Carnation Creek and Queen Charlotte Islands Fish/Forestry Workshop: Applying 20 Years of Coastal Research to Management Solutions. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program: Land Management Handbook 41. p. 77-95 Huntington, C.W. 1998. Streams and salmonid assemblages within roaded and unroaded landscapes in the Clearwater River sub-basin, Idaho p.413-428. In Forest-Fish Conference: Land Management Practices Affecting Aquatic Ecosystems. Natural Resources Canada Information Report NOR-X-356. Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design o f ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54(2): 187-211. Karr, J. R. and E. W. Chu. 1998. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press. 200p. King, D.L. and R.C. Ball. 1967. Comparative energetics of a polluted stream. Lirrmology and Oceanography 12:27-33. Larkin, G. A., P.A. Slaney, P. Warburton and A. S. Wilson. 1998. Suspended sediment and fish habitat sedimentation in central interior watersheds of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia, Ministry o f Envrionment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry of Forests. Watershed Restoration Management Report No.7: 31p. Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman and J.P. Miller. 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover Publications, New York. 522 p. Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. 278 pp. Leopold, L.B. 1997. Water, Rivers, and Creeks. University Science Books. 184 pp. Lewis, J. 1998. Evaluating the impacts of logging activities on erosion and suspended sediment transport in the Caspar Creek Watersheds. P. 55-70. In Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Watersheds: The Caspar Creek Story; 6 May 1998, Ukiah CA. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-168. 149 p. Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravel, north coastal California. Water Resources Research 25(6) 1303-1319. Lisle. T.E. and R. E. Eads. 1991. Methods to measure sedimentation of spawning gravels. USDA Forest Service. Research Note PSW-411. 7p. 79 MacDonald, L.H., A. W. Smart and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Moniotring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U.S. EPA/910/9-91-001. p 166. MacDonald, D.D. and L.E. McDonald. 1987. The influence of surface coal mining on potential spawning habitat in the Fording River, British Columbia. Water Pollution Research Journal of Canada 22(4): 584-596. Manly, B.F. J. 2001. Statistics for Science and Management. Chapman & Hall/CRC. 321p. McNeil, W.J. and W. H. Ahnell. 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning relative to size of spawning bed materials. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 469.15p. Meehan, W.R. and D.N. Swanston. 1977. Effects of gravel morphology on fine sediment accumulation and survival of incubating eggs. USDA For. Serv. Res. PNW-220. 16p. Minshall, G.W., T.V. Royer, and C.T. Robinson. Response of the Cache Creek macroinvertebrates during the first 10 years following disturbance by the 1998 Yellowstone wildfires. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58:10771088. Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, N.P. Pterson, D.Schuett-Hames, and T.P. Quinn. 1996. Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:1061-1070. Morris, P. and R. Therivel. 1995. Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment. UCL Press. 378 p. Nagpal, N.K. 2000. British Columbia approved water quality guidelines (criteria). Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Water Quality Branch. 46p. Nakamoto, R.J. 1998. Effects of timber harvest on aquatic vertebrates and habitat in the North Fork Caspar Creek, p. 87-95. In Proceeding of the Conference on Coastal Watersheds: The Caspar Creek Story; 6 May 1998, Ukiah CA. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-168. 149 p. Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediment on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11: 72-82. Peckarsky, B. L., P. R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton and D. J. Conklin. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates o f Norteastem North America. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press. 442p. 80 Petticrew, EX., A. Krein, and D.E. Walling. The influence of artificial flood flows on fine sediment mobilization. For submission to Hydrological Processes. Phillips, R. W. R. L. Lantz, E. W. Claire and J. R. Moring. 1975. Some effects of gravel mixtures on emergence of coho salmon and steelbead trout fry. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 3:461-466. Plafkin, J.L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1998. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. USEPA, Office of Water, EPA/440/4-89/001. 180p. Platts, W. S., R. J. Torguemada, M. L. McHenry, C. K. Graham. 1989. Changes in salmon spawning and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:274283. Quinn, J.M ., R.J. Davies-Colley, C.W. Hickey, M.L. Vickers, and P.A Ryan. 1992. Effects of clay discharges on streams: 2 Benthic Invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 248:235-247. Reiser, D. W. and R. G. White. 1988. Effects of two sediment size classes on survival of steelbead and chinook salmon eggs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:432-437. Roberts, R. G. 1987. Stream channel morphology: Major fluvial disturbances in logged watersheds on the Queen Charlotte Islands. BC Ministry of Forests and Lands: Land Management Report 48. 72 p. Rosenberg, D. M. and A. P. Wiens. 1978. Effects of sediment addition on macrobenthic invertebrates in a northern Canadian River. Water Resources Research 12: 753-763. Rutherford, J.E. and R.J. Mackay. 1986. Patterns of pupal mortality in field populations 0 Î Hydropsyche and Cheumatopsyche (Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae). Freshwater Biology 16:337-350. Schuett-Hames, D., A. Pleus, L. Bullchild, S. Hall. 1994. Ambient monitoring program manual. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. TFW-AAM9-94-001. 200p. Scrivner, J.C. and M.J. Brownlee 1989. Effects of forest harvesting on spawning gravel and incubation survival of chum {Oncorhynchus keta) and coho salmon {O. kisutch) in Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 46: 681-696 81 Sear, D. A. 1993. Fine sediment infiltration into gravel spawning beds within a regulated river experiencing floods: ecological implication for salmonids. Regulated River Research and Management 8:373-390. Shaw, A. E. and J. S. Richardson. 2001. Direct and indirect effects of sediment pulse duration on stream invertebrate assemblages and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science (58): 2213-2221. Singleton, H.J. 1985. Water quality criteria for particulate matter. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Water Management Branch. 20p. Slaney, P. A. 1975. Impacts of forest harvesting on streams in the Slim Creek watershed in the central interior of British Columbia. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. 33p. Slaney, T. L., K.D. Hyatt, T.G. Northcote, and R.G. Fielden. 1996. Status of anadromous salmon and trout in British Columbia and Yukon. Fisheries 21:20-35. Smith, L.G. and B. Mitchell (Ed.). 1993. Impact assessment and sustainable resource management: Themes in resource management. Longman Scientific and Technical. 21 Op. Sokal, R.R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. W.H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco. 776p. South, G. R. and A. Whittick.1987. Introduction to Phycology. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 34Ip. Tripp, D. 1998. Problems, prescriptions and compliance with the coastal fisheries-forestry guidelines in a random sample of cutblocks in coastal British Columbia. In Carnation Creek and Queen Charlotte Islands Fish/Forestry Workshop: Applying 20 Years of Coastal Research to Management Solutions. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program: Land Management Handbook 41. Pp. 245-255 Tripp, D. B. and V. A. Poulin. 1986. The effects of mass wasting on juvenile fish habitats in streams on the Queen Charlotte Islands. BC Ministry o f Forest and Lands: Land Management Report 45. 48p. Tripp, D.B. and V. A. Poulin. 1992. The effects of logging and mass wasting on juvenile salmonid populations in streams on the Queen Charlotte Islands. BC Ministry of Forest: Land Management Report 80. 38p. Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in Streams. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. 251p. 82 Wood, P.L. and P. D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment on the lotie environment. Environmental Management 21(2):203-217. Young, M. K., W. A. Hubert, and T. A. Wesche. 1991a. Biases associated with four stream substrate samplers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 48: 1882-1886. 83 Appendix 1 Transcribed Field Forms BIG BEND CREEK General Site Identification F o r e st D istrict: V anderhoof L o ca tio n : Bridge is at 77 km on the K luskus Forest Forest Service Road B io g e o c lim a tic Z o n e: Sub-boreal Spruce m oist cold clim ate (B abine variant) - SB SM C 2 E co reg io n : N echak o Low land S ite R eferra l: N orm F allow s, V anderhoof F o r e st O p era to r: Plateau Forest Products In v e stig a te d A ctiv ity : Bridge built to replace pre-existing culverts D a te s V isited : Septem ber 16, O ctober 22, N ovem ber 10 1997 General Physical Observations B ig Bend Creek is an S2 stream (fish bearing and betw een 5 and 15 m w id e) located on the K luskus Forest Service Road. The creek crosses this Forest Service Road at tw o locations, one at 77.5 km, and the other at 84 km. It is at the 77.5 location w here the n ew bridge w as installed. T w o stations w ere established in the creek w ith the downstream (d /s) station located approxim ately 15 m d/s o f the new bridge, and the upstream (u /s) station located approxim ately 5 m u/s o f the road crossing at the 84 km location. B eaver activity im m ediately u/s o f the new bridge prevented installing the u/s site at that location. H ow ever, given the high density o f beaver dam s it seem s logical to assum e sedim ent additions betw een sites w ould be retained behind the dams. D uring the initial visit, the d/s site w as approxim ately 7.0 m w id e with the u/s site betw een 3 - 4 m w ide. B ecau se o f the distance betw een the sites it w as necessary to com plete site establishm ent procedures at both stations. V isu ally, the creek appeared to be carrying little or no fine sedim ent. H ow ever, the d/s station had considerable am ount o f fine sedim ent on the creek bed as compared to the u/s site. It w as expected that both the M cN eil A h n ell cores and the trapping m ethod installed, gravel buckets, w ould show a difference in the am ount o f material transported d/s versus u/s. Upstream Site (U/S): T his site w as located approxim ately 5 m u/s o f the road crossing at the 84 km location. Sam pling w as conducted in a riffle/run area. D o w n s t r e a m S it e (D /S ): T his site w as located 20 m d/s o f the new bridge constructed at the 77.5 km location. Sam pling w as conducted in a riffle/run area. Site Location and Description UPSTREAM GPS Coordinates North 53° 2 9 ’ 178” Altitude 941 m Channel Width (m) Bankfull Width (m) Bankfull Height (m) Floodplain 3.5 5.0 0.5 Extends 10m on either side o f channel. Predominant vegetation around creek is willow. West 124° 3 1 ’582” DOWNSTREAM North 53° 3 1 ’860” West 124° 3 5’166” Altitude 975 m 7.0 8.0 0.5 Extends 10 m on right bank. Follows channel on left bank. Riparian vegetation is mostly wetland species. Pebble Count Data % < 2mm % 2 - 4mm % 4 - 8mm % 8 - 16mm % 16 - 32mm % 32 - 64mm % 6 4 -9 0 m m % 90 - 128mm % 128 - 180mm % 180 - 256mm % 2 5 6 -5 1 2 m m Streambed Composition Gradient (%) 1*' Instailation - Sep 16 Discharge (mVs) Weather Water Temp. (°C) Dissolved O; (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed 18 2 9 15 26 16 6 2 3 2 1 18% sand, 68% gravel, 13% cobble, 1% boulder 3.0 0.353 4/10 cloud cover, 15.9°C 10.0 12.4 n/a McNeil Cores, Gravel Buckets 44 3 1 8 16 17 3 5 2 1 0 44% sand, 45% gravel, 11% cobble 2.0 0.229 same as upstream 10.7 11.8 n/a MeNeil Cores, Gravel Buckets 1*'Removal/2"“ instailation - Oct. 23 Discharge (m^/s) Channel Width (m) Weather Water Temp. (°C) Dissolved 0% (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed 0.58 3.8 7/10 cloud cover 2.8 13.3 1.73, 1.40, 1.34, 1.11 M cNeil cores and Gravel Buckets 0.60 7.15 as u/s 3.6 13.2 1.12, 0.94, 0.94 as u/s 0.46 5.8 5/10 0.2 13.9 0 .9 8 ,1 .0 1 , 1.05 Gravel Buckets 0.54 8.0 as u/s 0.1 13.4 0 .7 1 ,0 .7 6 ,0 .7 0 McNeil Cores, Gravel Buckets 2"** Removal- Nov. 10 Discharge (mVs) Channel Width (m) Weather Water Temp. (°C) Dissolved O; (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed Site Location and Description Upstream Downstream 15 cm, 0.934 m/s 18 cm, 0.843 m/s 21 cm, 0.901 m/s 21 cm, 0.769 m/s 18 cm, 0.719 m/s 15 cm, 0.662 m/s Infiltration was medium-high. No. 4 had very high infiltration. 12 cm, 0.232 m/s 12 cm, 0.256 m/s 13 cm, 0.347 m/s 12 cm, 0.447 m/s 12 cm, 0.339 m/s 7 cm, 0.223 m/s Samples 1-5 were very silt/clay based. Sample 6 had more gravel than the others. Infiltration was low for all. 15 cm, 0.934 m/s 18 cm, 0.843 m/s 21 cm, 0.901 m/s 21 cm, 0.769 m/s 18 cm, 0.719 m/s 15 cm, 0.662 m/s 12 cm, 0.388 m/s 16 cm, 0.422 m/s 16 cm, 0.273 m/s 21 cm, 0.488 m/s 18 cm, 0.504 m/s 18 cm, 0.455 m/s 1*‘ Installation - Sep 16 McNeil #1 McNeil #2 McNeil #3 McNeil #4 McNeil #5 McNeil #6 Gravel Bucket # 1 Gravel Bucket #2 Gravel Bucket #3 Gravel Bucket #4 Gravel Bucket #5 Gravel Bucket #6 Infiltration Bags Infiltration bags were not used due to high clay content. 1*‘ Installation - 1"** Removal McNeil # 1 McNeil #2 McNeil #3 McNeil #4 McNeil #5 McNeil #6 32 cm, 0.447 m/s 30 cm, 0.414 m/s 31 cm, 0.438 m/s 31 cm, 0.389 m/s 31 cm, 0.347 m/s. 33 cm, 0.281 m/s 25 cm, 0.719 m/s 23 cm, 0.628 m/s 21 cm, 0.571 m/s 21 cm, 0.504 m/s 21 cm, 0.513 m/s 24 cm, 0.571 m/s Gravel Bucket # 1 Gravel Bucket #2 Gravel Bucket #3 Gravel Bucket #4 Gravel Bucket #5 Gravel Bucket #6 40 cm, 0.529 m/s 41 cm, 0.521 m/s 41 cm, 0.513 m/s 39 cm, 0.513 m/s 36 cm, 0.488 m/s 38 cm, 0.463 m/s 23 cm, 0.662 m/s 22 cm, 0.629 m/s 23 cm, 0.662 m/s 23 cm, 0.463 m/s 23 cm, 0.703 m/s 19 cm, 0.662 m/s Gravel Buckets replaced in same holes Gravel Buckets replaced in same holes except #4 20 cm, 0.628 m/s • The upstream site at Big Bend Creek was narrower in channel width and deeper. It was not possible to find similar depths at the downstream site. I"** Removal and Site Closure Upstream McNeil-Ahnell None Taken Gravel Bucket # 1 Gravel Bucket #2 Gravel Bucket #3 Gravel Bucket #4 Gravel Bucket #5 Gravel Bucket #6 64 cm, 0.256 m/s 65 cm, 0.232 m/s 66 cm, 0.232 m/s 65 cm, 0.215 m/s 63 cm, 0.174 m/s 61 cm, 0.174 m/s Downstream 18 cm, 0.595 m/s 21 cm, 0.604 m/s 20 cm, 0.628 m/s 22 cm, 0.562 m/s 22 cm, 0.628 m/s 21 cm. 0.604 m/s Summary Statistics (Results o f Two- Way Anova - arc-sin transformed for McNeil cores and weights for Buckets) Date September 16 Technique McNeil Core Site Difference None; p =0.067 Interaction Effect Yes; p = 0 October 22 McNeil Core Yes; p =0.003 Yes; p = 0 Gravel Buckets Yes; p = 6.7 * 10 ® Yes; p = 0 Gravel Buckets Yes; p= 0.011 Yes; p= 0.01 November 10 Grain Size Differences More gravel upstream (P=0.03) More medium sand downstream (P = 0.00004) Tukey’s HSD - Higher Fine gravel U/S, Med. Sand D/S Tukey’s HSD -Higher Med. and fine sand D/S Tukey’s HSD - Higher Med. Sand D/S CLUCULZ CREEK General Site Identifîcation F orest District: B iogeoclim atic Zone: E coregion: Site R eferral: F orest O perator: Investigated A ctivity: D ates Visited: Vanderhoof Sub-boreal Spruce dry warm climate (Stuart variant) SBSDW 3 Nechako Lowland Norm Fallows, Vanderhoof Canfor Removal o f two smaller culverts- installation o f pipe arch. July 25, August 21, September 23, October 22, November 6 1997 General Physical Observations (pre-construction) Cluculz Creek is located at kilometer 47.5 on the Bobtail Forest Service Road. Prior to the removal o f the two smaller culverts and installation o f the pipe arch, two stations were established, one upstream (u/s) and one downstream (d/s) o f the road. The u/s or control station was located approximately 20 m upstream o f the culvert and the d/s site was located approximately 20 m downstream o f the culverts. A t the time o f the initial visit, the creek was >5 m wide and had a gradient o f 5-6%. The u/s and d/s site each had riffles and glides/runs. The creek appeared to be carrying little or no sediment. It was thought that during culvert removal considerable sediment would be generated that may settle downstream so trapping methods, namely gravel buckets and infiltration bags, were selected. Further, to assess present streambed conditions M cNeil-Ahnell cores were taken pre-construction and will be compared with those follow ing road maintenance activities. U pstream Site (U/S): The site was located approximately 40m from the road. M cNeil-Ahnell cores were taken in the riffle zone. A t the time o f the first visit, it was discovered that stream survey crews would be working in the creek. N o gravel buckets were deployed for this reason, as it would cause bias the collection o f sediment. D ow nstream Site (D /S): The site was located approximately 20 m from the road. The downstream site was located so close to the impact source because o f a change in the channel morphology further downstream. The gradient became steeper past this 20 m location and there was a large woody debris barrier located at 30 m downstream. M cNeil-Ahnell cores were taken in the riffle zone. N o gravel buckets were deployed during the initial field visit for the same reason as mentioned above. Site Location and Description U PSTR EA M 1'' Install - Jul 25 Discharge (mVs) Weather Water Temp. (“C) Diss. O 2 (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed GPS Location Channel Width (m) Bankfull Width (m) Bankfull Height (m) Floodplain Streambank Pebble Count % < 2mm % 2- 4mm % 4 - 8mm % 8 - 16mm % 16- 32 mm % 32 - 64mm % 64- 128mm % 1 2 8 - 180mm % 180 - 256mm % 256 —5I2m m % 512- 1024mm Streambed Composition Gradient (%) A s downstream 8/10 cloud cover n/a n/a n/a M cNeil-Ahnell Cores N 5 3 °4 3 .4 I6 W 123=36.025 Altitude 921 m 6.0 meters 7.0 meters 1.0 ~5 meters Fine gravel/cobble shore D O W N STREA M 0.591 m V same as upstream n/a n/a n/a M cNeil-Ahnell Cores Same as Upstream 7.0 meters 7.0 meters 0.1 meters Little to no floodplain noted High riparian vegetation, undercut 4 I 2 4 15 24 8 38 8 2 3 3 30 24 10 13 4 3 4 8% Sand: 60% Gravel: 23%Cobble: 7% Boulder 5.5 4% Sand: 46% Gravel: 46% Cobble: 4% Boulder 6 Second Installation (A ugust 15,1997) A t the time o f our second visit culvert replacement had begun. M cNeil-Ahnell cores were taken, and gravel buckets were installed. Infiltration bags were not used, due to unsuitable substrate (bedrock) in u/s site. Gravel buckets were placed in the same area as the M cNeil-Ahnell cores. While taking d/s velocity readings, incoming plumes o f silt were noticeable. A small number o f Kokanee were present, swim ming upstream. U PSTR EA M 2"“ Install - Aug 15 Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed 2"^ Removal Discharge (m^/s) Weather Water Temp. (°C) Diss. O 2 (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed 1 M cNeil Cores, Gravel Buckets Aug 20 n/a n/a n/a n/a I M cNeil Cores, Gravel Buckets D O W N STR EA M 12.7 M cNeil Cores, Gravel Buckets A ug 21 n/a 10/10 14.1 Il.O 2 M cNeil Cores, Gravel Buckets T h ird Installation (A ugust 20 an d 21,1997) At the time o f the third installation the culvert replacement had been completed and the stream banks were being back-filled. The creek morphology had changed greatly in that the creek was now more o f a straight channel. The channel width had decreased both upstream and downstream. There was a noticeable increase o f sediment on streambed, especially in the d/s site the downstream streambed substrate was tan in colour as opposed to its previous charcoal hue. The approach at this turn now had a higher slope than pre-construction. Kokanee were still present in the creek. Physical O bservations (post-construction) Due to construction, the creek morphology had changed noticeably, and as a result the u/s and d/s stations were relocated. The riparian vegetation that provided cover to the creek had been removed, resulting in a much more exposed stream. The width o f the creek at the site o f flow measurements was reduced to 3.5 m from 7.0 meters. The streambank on either side o f the road had been changed with the addition o f large boulders to act as a rock revetment. Upstream o f the road, the revetment extended to approximately 30 m on the left bank. Visually the creek appeared to be carrying little to no sediment. M cNeil cores were not collected in the area covered with tan sand because this was the location o f previous sampling so M cN eils were collected downstream outside o f this obvious zone o f impact. U p stream : The new station was located approximately 20 m upstream o f the culvert in a riffle zone. M cNeilAhnell cores were taken in the riffle area and gravel buckets were placed in the same sites. Infiltration bags were placed approximately 5 m downstream o f the gravel buckets and not directly behind them. 3^^' Install - Sep 23 Discharge (m^/s) Weather Water Temp. (°C) D iss. O 2 (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) M ethods Deployed U PSTR EA M D O W N STR EA M Same as downstream 0.316 M cN eil Cores, Infiltration Bags, Gravel Buckets M cNeil Cores, Infiltration Bags, Gravel Buckets Notes: A t the time o f the third removal, it was discovered that some o f the gravel buckets had been washed away, likely due to high discharge. For the 4* installation the gravel buckets were placed in an area with slower flow. Two o f the infiltration bags located D/S had been scoured, and the rims were exposed, therefore the sample was discarded. 3"" Removal/4"^ Install Discharge (m^/s) Weather Water Temp. (°C) D iss. O 2 (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods U pstream Oct. 22 same as D/S 4/10 cloud cover 3.7 12.0 mg/L 1.43, 1.35, 1.33 Gravel Buckets, Infiltration Bags D ow nstream Oct. 22 0.625 same as U/S same as U/S same as U/S 1.23, 1.11, 1.28 Gravel Buckets, Infiltration Bags 4"’ Removal - N ov 6 Discharge (m^/s) Weather Water Temp. (°C) Diss.O j (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Same as downstream 2/10 Cloud, -4®C 2.3 13.4 1.124 Same as Upstream Same as Upstream Site Placem ent D epths an d Velocities 1" In sta ll-J u l 25 M cNeil #1 M cNeil #2 M cNeil #3 2“ I n s ta ll-A u g 15 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #1 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #2 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #3 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #4 2"“ Removal - Aug.21 G.Bucket #1 G.Bucket #2 G.Bucket #3 G.Bucket #4 M cNeil #1 M cNeil #2 M cNeil #3 M cNeil #4 3™ Install - Sept 23 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #1 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #2 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #3 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #4 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #5 M cN eil/ G.Bucket #6 Infiltration Bag #1 Infiltration Bag #2 Infiltration Bag #3 Infiltration Bag #4 3"^“ Removal Oct. 22 G.Bucket #1 G.Bucket #2 G.Bucket #3 G.Bucket #4 G.Bucket #5 G.Biicket #6 Infiltration Bag #1 Infiltration Bag #2 Infiltration Bag #3 Infiltration Bag #4 U pstream D ow nstream 12 cm, 0.347 m/s 10 cm, 0.248 m/s 12 cm, 0.240 m/s 10 cm, 0.331 m/s 12 cm, 0.273 m/s 12 cm, 0.265 m/s 21 cm, 0.339 m/s 18 cm, 0.463 m/s 18 cm, 0.455 m/s 18 cm, 0.496 m/s 16cm, 0.546 m/s 12 cm, 0.446 m/s 18 cm, 0.678 m/s 10 cm, 0.604 m/s 18 cm, 0.165 m/s 21 cm, 0.488 m/s 15 cm, 0.678 m/s 18 cm, 0.554 m/s 24 cm, 0.910 m/s 21 cm, 0.686 m/s 20 cm, 0.298 m/s 15 cm, 0.901 m/s 23 cm, 0.339 m/a 18 cm, 0.604 m/s 18 cm, 0.538 m/s 12 cm, 0.504 m/s 15 cm, 0.314 m/s 15 cm, 0.165 m/s 18 cm, 0.256 m/s 18 cm, 0.562 m/s 14 cm, 0.554 m/s 14 cm, 0.843 m/s 15 cm, 0.769 m/s 11 cm, 1.19 m/s 15 cm, 0.876 m/s 15 cm, 0.446 m/s 9 cm, 0.248 m/s 9 cm, 0.356 m/s 8 cm, 0.298 m/s 6 cm, 0.232 m/s 11 cm, 0.554 m/s 10 cm, 0.504 m/s 12 cm, 0.562 m/s 15 cm, 0.670 m/s 13 cm, 0.761 m/s 12 cm, 0.595 m/s 7cm, 0.289 m/s 7cm, 0.562 m/s 6 cm, 0.132 m/s 5 cm, 0.686 m/s Samplers Reinstalled Samplers Reinstalled 4 "' Removal - N ov. 6 Gravel Bucket #1 Gravel Bucket #2 Gravel Bucket #3 Gravel Bucket #4 Gravel Bucket #5 Gravel Bucket #6 18 cm, 1.149 m/s 20 cm, 1.745 m/s 17 cm, 1.149 m/s 18 cm, 1.149 m/s 20 cm, 1.745 m/s 17 cm, 1.149 m/s 18 cm, 1.217 m/s 22 cm, 1.223 m/s 18 cm, 1.217 m/s 22 cm, 1.223 m/s 21 cm, 1.215 m/s 21 cm, 1.215 m/s Infiltration B ag#l Infiltration Bag#2 Infiltration Bag#3 Infiltration Bag#4 12 cm, 0.736 m/s 18 cm, 0.926 m/s 13 cm, 0.629 m/s 13 cm, 0.868 m/s 9 cm, 0.653 m/s 9 cm, 0.397 m/s 12 cm, 0.570 m/s 12 cm, 0.752 m/s M cNeil Core#l M cN eil Core#2 M cN eil Core#3 M cN eil Core#4 M cN eil Core#5 M cN eil Core#6 18 cm, 1.538 m/s 15 cm, 0.820 m/s 18 cm, 0.910 m/s 13 cm, 0.860 m/s 14 cm, 0.960 m/s 19 cm, 1.100 m/s 14 cm, 1.058 m/s 15 cm, 1.025 m/s 15 cm, 1.216 m/s 17 cm, 1.340 m/s 15 cm, 0.967 m/s 16 cm, 0.794 m/s S u m m ary Statistics (Results o f Two- Way Anova - arc-sin transformedfor McNeil cores and weights for Buckets) Date July 25 August 21 Technique M cN eil Core M cN eil Core Gravel Buckets Site Difference None; p =0.77 None; p = 0.92 Interaction Effect None; p = 0.98 None; p=0.92 Grain Size Differences None None Yes; p = 1.35*10’’ None; p= 0.09 Yes; p = 0.025 Site Difference Tukey’s HSD- indicates all sands and silt/clay are higher downstream Med Sand D/S (P= 5.04*10) Fine Sand D/S (p=9.98*10’0 V.Fine Sand D/S (p=0.03) Silt/Clay D/S (p=0.0002) September . 23 M cN eil Core None; p =0.16 October 22 Gravel Buckets t-test - no differences Infiltration Bags Novem ber 6 M cN eil Cores t-test - no differences Yes; p=0.03 Gravel Buckets Yes; p=6.4*10’” Yes; p = 6.11*10' 17 Yes; 1.7*10’’“ Infiltration Bags Yes; p=0.01 Y es p=0.04 Site Difference - Tukey’s HSD indicates higher gravel U /S, Coarse and Medium Sand D/S Site Difference- Tukey’s HSD indicates higher gravel coarse and medium sand D/S Site Difference- Tukey’s HSD indicates higher gravel upstream G overnm ent C reek General Site Identification Forest District: Prince George Biogeoclimatic Zone: Sub-boreal spruce moist cool climate (Mossvale variant) SBSMKl Ecoregion: Bowron Valley Site Referral: Dave Stevenson Operator: Dunkley Lumber Investigated Activity:Bridge Construction Dates Visited: July 23,1997 General Physical Observations Dave Stevenson (MEL? habitat biologist) recommended this site for the 1996 field season. We were unable to visit the site that year and instead decided to include it in this year’s program. This creek was the first site inventoried during 1997 and served as a training site. As a result, some of the information included for future creeks such as bankfull height and width was not collected for this creek. The bridge investigated was constructed in the fall of 1996 on the 300 road at kilometer 12. It was thought that any resonant fines in the creek at the downstream site might be detected by McNeil coring. We attempted to inventory this creek again later in the summer as road construction activities and harvesting occurred but were unsuccessful due to time restraints. Both sites were contained in one sample reach that can be defined as two sets of the repeating units riffle and glide. Upstream Site (U/S): The upstream site is located approximately 100m up from the bridge construction area. The gradient in this area was approximately 5% and there was a prominent cobble bar at center stream. McNeil cores were taken near the left bank on a riffle bar. Downstream Site (D/S): The downstream site is located approximately 25m downs from the bridge. This site was chosen because it is the most similar site to that upstream. In addition, 10m downstream of this site Government Creek has a steep gradient shift changing to a cascade:pool sequence. McNeil cores were taken at the tail end of a riffle bar near the right bank. The right bank was chosen because the left bank was predominantly a depositional zone. Site Location & Description Upstream Do w n str e a m G P S C o o rd in a te s Sam e as d/s 5 3 °3 2 .1 3 8 ’ N 1 2 2 °2 8 .8 9 6 ’ W A ltitude- 752 m C h a n n e l W id th (m ) P e b b le C o u n t D a ta 8.0 8.0 % < 2m m % 2 - 4 mm % 4 - 8mm % 8 - 16mm % 16 -3 2 m m % 32 - 64m m % 64 -1 2 8 m m % 128 - 180mm % 1 8 0 -2 5 6 m m % 2 5 6 - 5 12mm % 5 1 2 -1 0 2 4 m m 11 6 4 13 17 5 14 20 3 4 3 27 S tre a m b e d C o m p o sitio n G ra d ie n t (% ) 11% Sand, 45% Gravel, 41% C obble, 3% Boulder 27% Sand, 41% G ravel, 18% Cobble, 14% B oulder 5 5 U pstrea m DOWNSTREAM July 23, 1997 Sam e as d/s July 23, 1991 m 10:15am A s upstream 7/10 cloud cover N /A N /A N /A N /A 5 2 11 21 2 1 13 1 3 14 Installation D a te D isch a rg e (mVs) W e a th e r A ir T em p . (°C ) W a te r T em p . (°C ) D issolved O 2 (mg/1) T u rb id ity (N T U ) M eth o d s D eployed S ite P la c e m e n t D e p th s & V elocities 0 .56 N /A N /A N /A N/A 1) M cN eil-A h n ell Cores 1) M cN eil-A h n ell Cores M cN eil-A hnell C ores M cN eil-A hnell C ores 1. 2. 3. 1. N /A 2. N /A 3. N /A 5 - 10 cm 8 cm N /A (M eter m alfunction) N O TE: This w as a one tim e sam pling site. N o trapping m ethods w ere installed. S um m ary S tatistics (Results o f Two- Way Anova - arc-sin transformed fo r McNeil cores and weights fo r Buckets) Date Technique Site Difference Interaction Effect Grain Size Differences July 23 M cN eil Core None; p = 0.20 Y es; p = 8.7* 10- Med. Sand D /S (p = 0.005) Fine Sand D /S (p = 0 .01) GREER CREEK Site Identification F o r e st D istrict: B lo g eo clim a tic Z on e: E co reg io n : S ite R eferra l: F o r e st O p erator: In v e stig a te d A ctiv ity : V anderhoof Sub-boreal Spruce dry cool (S B S D K ) N echako L ow land Plateau Forest Products Road Crew Plateau Forest Products Construction o f a bridge for a new forest road. Dates Visited: August 7, August 21, and September 18 1997 General Physical Observations Greer Creek is an S2 stream (fish bearing and betw een 5 and 15 m channel width) in the V anderhoof Forest District. W e w ere told o f the bridge construction by road crew sta ff for Plateau Forest Products. T he bridge w as being constructed to open up a new area for logging. T he site w as located at 4.5 km on the 31 road o f f o f the K luskus Forest Service Road. W e established the site during the bridge construction and had hoped to rem ove it follow in g bridge and approach com pletion. The goal o f this program w as to assess short-term effects that arise from the bridge construction activities. The sam ple area w as assum ed to be w ithin the sam e reach as there w ere tw o repeating units o f a rififle:run com p lex. There w ere reports o f sedim ent events prior to our date o f installation. Flowever, at no tim e during our visits did w e note sedim ent plum es in the stream. T w o m ethods w ere chosen for this assessm ent, M cN eil cores and gravel buckets. The latter should pick up any depositing sedim ent from events occurring in our absence and the M cN eil cores should show historical im pacts betw een the upstream and downstream sites. There has been no activity in this reach area before so any change in fine sedim ent com position betw een the up and downstream sites w ould likely be due to the im pact o f bridge installation. U p strea m (U /S ) Site: T he upstream site is located approxim ately 50 m u/s o f the bridge construction and im m ediately upstream o f a river bend. The creek w as m uch w ider and shallow er here than at the downstream (D /S ) site. A s a result discharge reading w ere taken downstream as it w as thought that they w ould provide more reasonable data. The stream bed is dom inated w ith large substrate that makes coring difficult so coring sites w ere selected w ith reference to the ability to core. Gravel buckets w ere braced w ith cobble and likely did not have more than 2 0 cm o f overlying water at any one tim e. T he sam pling area w as deem ed to be a run. D o w n stre am (D /S) Site: The downstream site w as approxim ately 30- 40 m downstream o f the new bridge. This site w as deeper and narrower than the upstream site. A riffle bar and shallow run upstream o f the downstream pool w ere chosen for sam pling. Sim ilar to upstream the streambed material is dom inated w ith large substrate. Site Location and Description UPSTREAM As downstream GPS Coordinates Active Channel Width (m) Bankfull Width (m) Bankful! Height (m) Floodplain Streambank Pebble Count Data % < 2 mm % 2-4 mm % 4 - 8mm % 8 - 16 mm % 16 - 32 mm % 32 - 64 mm % 64 - 90 mm % 9 0 - 128 mm % 1 2 8 - 180 mm % 180 - 256 mm % 2 5 6 - 5 1 2 mm % 5 1 2 - 1024 mm Streambed Composition % Sand % Gravel % Cobble % Boulder Gradient (%) 1*‘ Installation - Aug 7 Discharge (m^/s"') Weather Water Temp. (°C) Dissolved Oi (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed 11.5 m Difficult to assess, ~ 20m Left Bank (LB) = 2m, Right Bank (RB) = 0 (Floodplain) 15 m on RB No obvious sediment sources - Alder DOW NSTREAM North 53° 48,411’ Altitude 898 m West 124° 22.252’ 6.8 m -2 0 m RB=1.5m LB=0.5m Up to 50m on LB No obvious sediment sources - Alder 4 1 4 6 7 8 10 10 8 9 25 8 11 2 2 8 8 20 13 9 6 4 15 2 4 26 37 33 3 11 40 32 17 3 0.15 m V 8/10 cloud cover, 15.7 °C n/a 10.9 n/a McNeil-Ahnell Cores, Gravel Buckets Same as upstream same as upstream n/a 10.9 n/a McNeil-Ahnell Cores, Gravel Buckets Notes: A second site visit, to recover samplers from August 7, was conducted on August 21. During this visit it was noted that the water level had dropped significantly. Animals removed three o f the four gravel buckets installed at the d/s site. All the buckets were re-deployed but McNeil cores were not collected. U* Removal - Sept 18 Discharge (m^/s) Weather Water Temp. (°C) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed last site visit UPSTREAM DOW NSTREAM No data 1/10 cloud cover n/a n/a n/a No data Same as u/s n/a n/a n/a last site visit Site Placement Depths and Velocities 1*' Installation - Aug 7 McNeil/ G.Bucket #1 McNeil/ G.Bucket #2 McNeil/ G.Bucket #3 McNeil/ G.Bucket #4 Site v is it - A u g 21 Gravel Bucket #1 Gravel Bucket #2 Gravel Bucket #3 Gravel Bucket #4 1 Removal - Sept 18 G.Bucket #1 G.Bucket #2 G.Bucket #3 G.Bucket #4 McNeil #1 McNeil #2 McNeil #3 McNeil #4 McNeil #5 McNeil #6 Upstream Downstream 20 cm, 0.438 m/s 16 cm, 0.232 m/s 15 cm, 0.314 m/s 21 cm, 0.289 m/s 11 cm, 0.283 m/s 15 cm, 0.356 m/s 8cm, 0.314 m/s 9 cm, 0.215 m/s NO MEASUREMENTS TAKEN (Reset in original location) NO MEASUREMENTS TAKEN (Reset in original location/ 21 cm, 0.620 m/s 16 cm, 0.372 m/s 17 cm, 0.298 m/s 16 cm, 0.256 m/s 13 cm, 0.678 m/s 9cm, 0.265 m/s 11cm, 0.372 m/s 12 cm, 0.347 m/s 12 cm, 0.323 m/s 10 cm, 0.298 m/s 12 cm, 0.339 m/s 21cm, 0.620 m/s 17 cm, 0.314 m/s 18 cm, 0.728 m/s 11 cm, 0.108 m/s 9 cm, 0.323 m/s 9 cm, 0.405 m/s 11 cm, 0.480 m/s 9 cm, 0.339 m/s 11 cm, 0.331 m/s Summary Statistics (Results o f Two-W ay Anova - Arc-sin transformed for M cNeil cores and weights for buckets) Date August 7 September 18 September 18 Technique McNeil Core McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Site Difference None; p = 0.84 None; p = 0.13 None; p = 0.99 Grain Size Differences N/A N/A N/A M ugaha C reek General Notes F o rest D istrict: M ackenzie B iogeocH m atic Z one: Sub-boreal Spruce m oist cool climate (W illiston variant S B S M K l) E coregion: Parsnip Trench W h o R eferred Site: O perator: Jim Tuck, M oF Finlay Forest Industries In vestigated A ctivity: Channel A vulsion and Deactivated Bridge D a tes V isited: September 9, October 8, Novem ber 12 1997 General Physical Observations Two stations were established on Mugaha Creek, the first was 40-50 meters upstream (u/s) and the second 60-70 meters downstream (d/s) of the channel avulsion and bridge deactivation area. Although the initial goal of this program was to detect any affects from the bridge deactivation it is unlikely that affects from this activity can be separated fi-om the large scale movement o f sediment from a channel avulsion. During the initial site visit there was substantial flow through the creek. There is a large amount of deadfall and windthrow in the avulsed channel and the previous channel section is almost dry. Access to the upstream site was difficult due to the slumping caused by avulsion. The newly created channel is considerably different than the original. It consists of an extended riffle and glide. It is approximately 50-60 meters long and has a gradient of 6.5**. Because o f the morphological differences in the avulsed channel the upstream and downstream sites were considered to be two separate reaches and site establishment methods were completed at each site. No visible change in sediment load was observed during the three visits, the water was clear at all times. It was thought that rain events may spur an increase in erosion of the new channel’s streambanks and cause increased loading at the downstream site. Also, it was thought that McNeil cores will show a increased loads downstream due to the avulsion and perhaps bridge deactivation. Upstream Site (U/S): Immediately upstream o f the control site the creek forks . However, the majority of the flow (~ 95%) was visually determined to pass through our upstream station. Sampling will be done in the riffle-run areas. Downstream Site (D/S): Upstream o f this site the avulsed and original channel confluence and where they mix a deep pool with large amount of surficial sediment. This site consists of a run-riflfle. UPSTREAM Channel Avulsion DOW NSTREAM GPS Coordinates 55°28.112N , 123°05.768 W, 838 m Channel Width (m) Bankfull Width (m) Bankfull Height (m) Floodplain Streambank Pebble Count Data 10.45 m 12.0 m 0.5 m 3-4 m Fine textured erodible soil 5.45m 6.95m 1.35m 3-4m Fine erodible soil 10.0 m 12.0 m RB = 0.5 m LB= 1.0 m RB= 5-7 m A s upstream % < 2mm % 2 - 4mm % 4 - 8mm % 8 - 16mm % 16 - 32mm % 32 - 64mm % 64- 128mm % 128 -180m m % 180 -256m m % 2 5 6 -512m m 10 2 6 10 30 25 10 5 1 1 16 2 8 20 31 16 7 9 1 5 11 29 22 11 6 4 2 10% Sand, 73% Gravel, 16% Cobble, 1% Boulder 4.0 16% Sand, 77% Gravel, 7% Cobble, 4.5 9% Sand, 68% Gravel, 21% Cobble, 2% Boulder 4.0 10:00 10:00 0.87 m^s' Streambed Composition Gradient (%) 1** Installation - Sept. 9 Time Discharge (m^/s) Weather Water Temp. (°C) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed A s upstream 4/10 cloud cover, 12.6 °C 8.5“C 12.5 mg/1 0.5 NTU M cNeil, Gravel Buckets, Infiltration Bags 16:30 0.871 mV' 4/10 cloud cover, 14°C 11.4“C 11.5 0.55 NTU M cNeil Cores, Gravel Buckets, Infiltration bags Notes: The field camera was later found to be non-operational so photos were not developed. UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM N o data 9/10 cloud, 30 km wind, snow, 0°C n/a n/a n/a last site visit 1.13 m V ‘ same as u/s n/a n/a n/a last site visit 1**Removal/2"'' Install Oct. 8 Discharge (mVs) Weather Water Temp. (°C) D issolved O 2 (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed Upstream Downstream 1.67 0.2 “C 0.1 14.1 Not Working As last visit A s upstream A s upstream A s upstream As upstream As upstream As last visit 2"** Removal - Nov. 12 Discharge (m^s'*) Weather Water Temp (°C) D issolved O 2 (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed Site Placement Depths and Velocities Upstream Downstream M cNeil #1 M cNeil #2 M cNeil #3 M cNeil #4 M cNeil #5 M cNeil #6 9 cm, 0.455in/s 12 cm, 0.455 m/s 12 cm, 0.562 m/s 15 cm, 0.770 m/s 10 cm, 0.198 m/s 10 cm, 0.562 m/s 6 cm, 0.273 m/s 9 cm, 0.405 m/s 9 cm, 0.157 m/s 9 cm, 0.116 m/s 15 cm, 0.364 m/s 9 cm, 0.240 m/s Gravel Bucket #1 Gravel Bucket #2 Gravel Bucket #3 Gravel Bucket #4 Gravel Bucket #5 Gravel Bucket #6 Infiltration Bag #1 Infiltration Bag #2 Infiltration Bag #3 Infiltration Bag #4 29 cm, 0.810m/s 30 cm, 0.843 m/s 27 cm, 0.893 m/s 32 cm, 0.860 m/s 33 cm, 0.662 m/s 32 cm, 0.695 m/s 9 cm, 0.455 m/s 12 cm, 0.455 m/s 12 cm, 0.562 m/s 15 cm, 0.769 m/s 21 cm, 0.736 m/s 21 cm, 0.711 m/s 27 cm, 0.587 m/s 27 cm, 0.769 m/s 26 cm, 0.447 m/s 26 cm, 0.488 m/s 6 cm, 0.273 m/s 9 cm, 0.157 m/s 9 cm, 0.116 m/s 9 cm, 0.240 m/s U pstream Downstream 1*' Installation - Sept. 9 1“*Removal / 1"**Installation October 8,1997 M cNeil #1 M cNeil #2 M cNeil #3 M cNeil #4 M cNeil #5 M cNeil #6 Gravel Bucket #1 Gravel Bucket #2 Gravel Bucket #3 Gravel Bucket #4 Gravel Bucket #5 Gravel Bucket #6 Infiltration Bag #1 Infiltration Bag #2 Infiltration Bag #3 Infiltration Bag #4 U /S Infiltration Bag # 1 (new) U/S Infiltration Bag #2 (new) U/S Infiltration Bag #3 (new) 20 cm, 0.620 m/s 18 cm, 0.587 m/s 17 cm, 0.587 m/s 20 cm, 0.653 m/s 19 cm, 0.604 m/s 21 cm, 0.612 m/s 20 cm, 0.620 m/s 18 cm, 0.587 m/s 17 cm, 0.587 m/s 20 cm, 0.653 m/s 19 cm, 0.604 m/s 21 cm, 0.612 m/s 10cm, 0.389 m/s 12 cm, 0.579 m/s 21 cm, 0.554 m/s 20 cm, 0.587 m/s 18 cm, 0.588 m/s 24 cm, 0.570 m/s 21 cm, 0.736 m/s U /S Infiltratio n B ag #4 (n ew ) 19 cm , 0.5 5 4 m /s 12 cm, 0.356 m/s 12 cm, 0.380 m/s 12 cm, 0.405 m/s 12 cm, 0.347 m/s 11 cm, 0.397 m/s 14 cm, 0.488 m/s 15 cm, 0.455 m/s 14 cm, 0.488 m/s 14 cm, 0.513 m/s 15 cm, 0.480 m/s 15 cm, 0.414 m/s 15 cm, 0.232 m/s 8 cm, 0.571 m/s 12 cm, 0.256 m/s 10 cm, 0.273 m/s 15 cm, 0.480 m/s Note: At the upstream and downstream sites there was some bedload movement noted by the presence of large substrate on the gravel buckets and infiltration bags. The upstream infiltration bags were moved to a site more representative o f the downstream location. 2"** Rem oval- Nov. 12 M cNeil #1 M cNeil #2 M cNeil #3 M cN eil #4 M cNeil #5 M cNeil #6 Gravel Bucket # 1 Gravel Bucket #2 Gravel Bucket #3 Gravel Bucket #4 Gravel Bucket #5 Gravel Bucket #6 Infiltration Bag # 1 Infiltration Bag #2 Infiltration Bag #3 Infiltration Bag #4 Upstream Downstream 23 cm, 0 .9 5 ! m/s 23 cm, 1.149 m/s 23 cm, 0.967 m/s 24 cm, 0.893 m/s 23 cm, 0.860 m/s 22 cm, 0.339 m/s 23 cm, 0.918 m/s 21 cm, 0.992 m/s 24 cm, 0.893 m/s 24 cm, 0.719 m/s 23 cm, 0.860 m/s 24 cm, 0.885 m/s 27 cm, 0.926 m/s 29 cm, 0.612 m/s 29 cm, 0.959 m/s 21 cm, 0.736 m/s 15 cm. 0.471 m/s 12 cm, 0.612 m/s 12 cm, 0.538 m/s 15 cm, 0.703 m/s 16 cm, 0 521 m/s 15 cm, 0 571 m/s 21 cm, 0 752 m/s 22 cm, 0 562 m/s 22 cm, 0 769 m/s 22 cm. 0.736 m/s 18 cm, 0.678 m/s 17 cm. 0.678 m/s 11 cm, 0.587 m/s 12 cm, 0.653 m/s 11 cm, 0.612 m/s 15 cm, 0 .719 m/s Note: • • There appears to have been some bedload movement through the system as upstream and downstream sites have large bedlbad deposits on the gravel bucket samples. There appears to be more sand contained in the downstream bucket samples. As with the buckets the infiltration bags have a surficial layer o f large bedload. It was very difficult to find the sampler ropes for both up and downstream site because o f the overlying bedload. Summary Statistics (Results o f Two- Way Anova - arc-sin transformedfo r McNeil cores and weights fo r Buckets and Bags) Date September 9 Technique McNeil Core Site Difference None; p = 0.82 Interaction Effect None; 0.76 Grain Size Differences October 8 McNeil Core Yes; p =0.02 Yes; p = 0.0 Site Differences- Tukey’s HSD indicates Coarse and Medium sand higher D/S Gravel Buckets None; p = 0.3 None; p = 0.7 Infiltration Bag None; p = 0.37 None; p = 0.99 McNeil Cores Yes; p=0.002 Yes; p=0.0 Site Differences - Tukey’s HSD indicates Coarse and Meditun Sand higher D/S Gravel Buckets Yes; p=6.7*10 * Yes; p= 0.0 Site Difference- Tukey’s HSD indicates Coarse and Medium sand D/S and Fine Gravel U/S Infiltration Bags Yes; p=0.04 Yes; p=0.0 Site Difference- Tukey’s HSD indicates Coarse and Medium sand D/S and Fine Gravel U/S November 12 N it h i R iv e r General Site Identifieation F o r e st D istrict; B lo g e o c lim a tic Z o n e: E co reg io n : S ite R eferra l: F o r e st O p era to r: In v estig a ted A ctiv ity : D a te s V isited : V anderhoof Sub-boreal spruce dry co o l clim ate (SB Sdk) N echako L ow lands V in ce S ew ell Plateau Forest Products Bridge replacem ent. A ugust 6, A ugust 20, Septem ber 3 1997 General Physieal Observations The site w as located on the 223 road o f f the H oly C ross Forest Service Road. A new bridge w as being installed for planned 1998 logging. This area had not been accessed before so both the road and bridge w ere n ew . T w o stations w ere established roughly 50-70 m eters up and downstream o f the bridge construction. During all site visits it w as noted that the river w as in very low flo w . H ow ever, road crew m em bers told us that this w as a recent event, 3 days prior to our first v isit the river had extended over m uch o f the now dry streambed. The road crew had an exten sive network o f geotextiles and silt fen ces that seem to be effectiv e because no sedim ent plum es w ere readily v isib le in the creek. This site w as selected to note d ifferences, if any, dow nstream o f an apparently clean bridge construction site and to determ ine i f rain events w ill affect the downstream sedim ent load. U p strea m S ite (U /S ): The upstream site w as located im m ediately downstream o f a fork in the river and in a riffle zone. The streambed appears to be dom inated by cobble-boulder substrate and has a fairly good periphyton cover (green algae). D uring the pebble count it w as noted that black fly larvae (S im uliidae) dom inated the invertebrate com m unity. G iven the relatively coarse substrate it w as decided that this creek w ould not be a good candidate for infiltration bags. Instead, M cN eil cores and gravel bucket data w ere collected. D o w n str e a m S ite (D /S ): The downstream site w as established downstream o f a number o f river braids that confluenced upstream o f a sm all pool. The sam ple site w as a riffle zone predom inated by sm all to m edium cobble. As w ith the upstream site it w as determ ined that infiltration bags w ould not be placed but rather M cN eil cores and gravel bucket data w ould be collected. T his bridge construction had begun several days prior to our visit and w e w ere told that there w as som e sedim ent input to the stream. A t the downstream site the streambed appeared to have more in fillin g than that upstream. A lso , there w as little to no periphyton com m unity and invertebrates w ere virtually absent outside o f som e black fly larvae. Site Location & Description U pstrea m Do w n stream 55=56.525' N 124=54.894' W Altitude 822 m Stream bank & Floodplain 54°56.491’ N 124°55.014’ W Altitude - 856 m 4.3 N/A R B = 1.5 -2 .5 LB = gravel/cobble bar N/A Pebble Count Data % < 2mm % 2 - 4mm % 4 - 8mm % 8 - 16mm % 16 - 32mm % 32 - 64mm % 64- 128mm % 128 - 180mm % 180 -25 6 m m % 256- 512mm % 5 1 2 - 1024mm 3 0 2 6 14 22 23 10 .7 5 8 6.7 3.8 2.9 13 26 25 8.6 5.8 1.9 2.9 2.9 3% Sand, 44% Gravel, 45% Cobble, 8% Boulder 4.5 6.7% Sand, 73.6% Gravel, 19.2% Cobble, 2.9% Boulder 4 GPS Coordinates Channel W idth (m) Bankfull Width (m) Bankfull Height (m) Stream bed Composition G radient (% ) 4 -5 N/A R B = 1.5 LB = bar N/A Installation Date Discharge (mVs) W eather Air Temp. (°C) W ater Temp. (°C) Dissolved O; (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) M ethods Deployed Site Placement Depths & Velocities U pstrea m Do w n stream Aug. 06, 1997 0.163 4/10 cloud cover 23.8 16.7 . 11.7 N/A 1) McNeil-Ahnell Cores 2) Gravel Buckets McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 09 cm, 0.165 m/s 2. 12 cm, 0.174 m/s 3. 13 cm, 0.223 m/s Aug. 06, 1997 Same as u/s N/A Same as u/s 19.0 11.3 N/A 1) McNeil-Ahnell Cores 2) Gravel Buckets McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 13 cm, 0.207 m/s 2. 11 cm, 0.422 m/s 3. 09 cm, 0.215 m/s Gravel Buckets 1. 26 cm, 0.612 m/s 2. 30 cm, 0.174 m/s 3. 30 cm, 0.248 m/s Gravel Buckets 1. 28 cm, 0.397 m/s 2. 36 cm, 0.314 m/s 3. 39 cm, 0.347 m/s Returned on Aug. 20, 1997 to retrieve samples. Upon arrival, discovered that 2 o f the d/s gravel buckets were removed by some small animal (possibly a mink or muskrat according to tooth marks on the buckets). The data was lost so three additional buckets were installed. D/s Reinstallation Dow n stream Date Channel Width Discharge (m^/s) W eather A ir Temp. (°C) W ater Temp. (°C) Dissolved O 2 Turbidity (NTU) Methods Deployed Site Placement Depths % Velocities Aug. 20, 1997 3.6 0.022 5/10 cloud cover 24.7 N/A N/A N/A 1) Gravel Buckets Gravel Buckets 1. 26 cm, 0.124 m/s * 2. 33 cm, 0.116 m/s 3. 32 cm, 0.108 m/s 4. 30 cm, 0.066 m/s * Old # 3 bucket 1’*Removal & Site Closure Date Channel W idth Discharge W eather A ir Temp. W ater Temp. Dissolved O Turbidity Site Placement Depths & Velocities U pstrea m Do w n strea m Sept. 03, 1997 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 10 cm, 0.199 m/s 2. 10 cm, 0.306 m/s 3. 12 cm, Surface flow but unable to take reading. Sept. 03, 1997 4.0 N/A N/A 15.7 13.5 11.3 N/A McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 15 cm, 0.000 m/s 2. 15 cm, 0.091 m/s 3. 15 cm, 0.215 m/s Gravel Buckets 1. 20 cm, 0.099 m/s 2. 25 cm. Area has become a back water settling pool and has no flow. 3. 26 cm, 0.50 m/s Gravel Buckets 1. 32 cm, 0.124 m/s 2. 33 cm, 0.100 m/s 3. 32 cm, 0.100 m/s # 1 was completely dry. Sample was not analyzed. Summary Statistics Date August 6 Technique McNeil Core Site Difference None; p = 0.09 Interaction Effect Yes; p = 0.04 September 3 McNeil Core None; p =0.47 None; p = 0.75 Gravel Buckets None; p = 0.6 None; p = 0.9 Grain Size Differences T-test indicate: Higher Fine Sans D/S (p = 0.02) Spruce C r e e k General Notes F o rest D istrict: B iogeocH m atic Z one: E coregion: W ho: R eferred Site: O perator: In vestig a ted A ctivity: Prince George Sub-boreal spruce w et cool climate (W illow variant) - SB S W K l Bow ron V alley Pierre Beaudry N orthw ood Pulp & Timber Construction o f road 283 D a tes V isited: September 11, October 16, and N ovem ber 20 1997 General Physical Observations Road 283 w as recently constructed for proposed logging on winter block 283. The road is located approxim ately 3 km from Spruce Creek and is on a steep 6 ° gradient. The construction area is close to an unnamed tributary o f Spruce Creek. D itch w all erosion at one o f the steep switchbacks allow ed m n o ff to directly enter the unnamed tributary. This runoff remained in suspension and w as added to Spruce Creek causing the turbidity event noted by Pierre Beaudry . For the purpose o f this inventory the tributary to Spruce Creek w ill be treated as a sediment point source. The upstream and downstream sites on Spruce creek are considered tw o separate reaches because o f the tributary confluence. A s a result, three sites w ere established to accurately compare the system s. One in the tributary and the others were established in Spruce Creek u/s and d/s o f the confluence. W hile the tributary is easily accessible from a spur road. Spruce Creek w as difficult to reach because o f deadfall and windthrow in the creek and riparian area. A riffle/run com plex approxim ately 50m in length separates the Spruce Creek stations. Site establishment procedures w ere conducted at both locations because they are separate reaches. The upstream site appears to have little to no sediment input in the recent past and has a large amount o f m oss growth/periphyton on the streambed substrate and is dark brown in colour. Downstream appears to have more silt in the substrate and a lower concentration o f moss/periphyton growth, the substrate a light brown. This difference between sites m ay reflect increased sediment loads from the tributary or the increased discharge upon confluencing with the tributary. W hile there seem s to be little or no sediment being transported in the creek or the tributary presently, it is expected that storm events w ill cause an influx o f sediment into the tributary from the new 283 road. H owever, in the event o f no rain, it is hoped that our cores w ill show a difference from past events. T ributary: The tributary site is located approxim ately 10 - 15 m d/s o f the spur road bridge in a riffle/run area. Approxim ately 3 0 m u /s o f the bridge, the 6 % gradient slow ly reduces until it reaches the d/s site where the gradient is 2.5 %. W hile the creek appears to be carrying little or no sediment at the present time, there appears to be and increasing amount o f fine sediment deposition in the tributary as the gradient decreases. Further, the substrate appears cemented together d/s o f the bridge but relatively free o f fines u /s o f the bridge. The tributary w as considered to be the point source o f sediment entering Spruce Creek. This site had approxim ately the sam e discharge as the control site. Sam pling was done in riffle/run areas 10 to 15 meters d/s o f the bridge. One set o f M cN eil cores w as taken 10 to 15 meters u/s o f the bridge on the first visit to ensure the tributary was similar at these two locations. U p stream Site (U/S): Located 10 m upstream o f the confluence o f Spruce Creek with the tributary. Sam pling w as done in the riffle/run areas. D ow n stream Site (D/S): Located approxim ately 50 meters d/s o f the control site. There w as a substantial amount o f dead fall and wind throw at this site. F low w as higher here than at the other sites. Sam pling w as done in riffle/run areas. Site Location and Description GPS Coordinates Channel Width (m) Bankfull Width (m) Bankfull Height (m) Stream Bank & Floodplain U pstrea m D ow nstream T r ib u t a r y 53° 41.092’ N 121° 40.615’ W Alt. 840 m 4.15 5.00 RB = 0.25 LB = 0.25 RB: 60% slope, (photo) Vegetation cover include, devils club, grass, m osses, raspberry, conifers, etc. LB: Floodplain. Vegetation cover includes m osses, grass, ferns, alders, etc. Extends to waters edge. Small amounts o f cobble and gravel exposed in some areas and are erodible. 53°41.156’ N 121°40.465’ W Alt. 840 m 5.50 7.00-8.00 R B = 1-1.5 LB = 0.25 Similar to u/s site. (control site) 53°41.122’ N 121°40.520’W Alt. 841m 5.00 7.00 RB = 0.50 LB = 0.50 Both RB and LB have a large floodplain due to the low and relatively flat stream bank and area. Vegetative cover - w illow, devils club, alders, raspberry, bunchberry, large conifers, grass, etc. Stream bank has a combination o f silt, sand, gravel and cobble. Finer material easily erodible. 20 1 3 17 24 18 9 5 3 0 0 11.3 0 0 5.2 24.7 20.6 15.5 10.3 10.3 4.1 4.1 19 1 9 17 31 17 5 0 0 0 1 20% Sand, 63 % Gravel, 17% Cobble 11.3% Sand, 50.5% Gravel, 36.1% Cobble, 4.1% Boulder 3.5 19% Sand, 75% Gravel, 5% Cobble, 1% Boulder 2.5 Pebble Count % < 2mm % 2 - 4mm % 4 - 8mm % 8 - 16mm % 16 - 32mm % 32 - 64mm % 64 - 128 mm % 128 - 180 mm % 180 - 256 mm % 256 - 512 mm % 512 - 1024 mm Streambed Composition Gradient % 1.5 1^* Installation U pstream Sept, 11, 1997 0.35 9/10 cloud cover 17.7 12.3 10.8 0 .39,0.41 Downstream Sept. 12, 1997 0.68 5/10 cloud cover 12.0 9.7 11.9 0.62, 0 .7 1 ,0 .5 7 Tributary Sept. 11, 1997 0.33 9/10 cloud cover 17.7 9.1 11 0 .7 1 ,0 .8 1 , 1.16, 1.04, 1.60 M ethods Deployed 1) M cNeil Cores 2) Gravel Buckets 1) M cNeil Cores 2) Gravel Buckets 1) M cNeil Cores 2) Gravel Buckets Site Placem ent D epths & Velocities. M cNeil Cores 1. 15cm, 0.645m /s 2. 18cm, 0.744m /s 3. 18cm, 0.719m/s 4. 21cm, 0,653m/s 5. 26cm, 0.645m /s 6. 27cm, 0.670m /s M cNeil Cores 1. 18cm, 0.529m /s 2. 17cm, 0.496m /s 3. 17cm, 0.496m /s 4. 15cm, 0.587m /s 5. 15cm, 0.554m /s 6. 14cm, 0.628m /s M cNeil Cores 1. 8cm, 0.579m /s 2. 8cm, 0.595m /s 3. 12cm, 0.529m /s 4. 11cm, 0.471m /s 5. 5cm, 0.149, m/s 6. 4cm, To shallow Gravel Buckets 1. 14cm, 0.471m/s 2. 15cm, 0.414m/s 3. 12cm, 0.281m/s 4. 15cm, 0.372m/s 5. 14cm, 0.389m/s 6. 15cm, 0.579m /s Gravel Buckets 1. 18cm, 0.529m/s 2. 17cm, 0.496m /s 3. 17cm, 0.496m /s 4. 15cm, 0.587m /s 5. 15cm, 0.554m /s 6. 14cm, 0.628m /s Gravel Buckets 1. 8cm, 0.579 m/s 2. 8cm, 0.595m /s 3. 12cm, 0.529 m/s 4. 11cm, 0.471 m/s 5 .5 cm , 0.149 m/s* 6. 4cm, To Shallow Date D ischarge (m^/s) W eather A ir Temp. °C W ater Temp. °C D issolved O ; (m g/l) T urbidity (NTU) * Shallow depth may have affected velocity reading. Because o f the visual evidence o f more finer material settled to the bottom o f the tributary d/s o f the bridge as compared to u/s o f the bridge, McNeil Core samples were taken u/s o f the bridge as well as a pebble count conducted. Tributary Upstream of the Bridge Streambed Substrate: 5.8% Sand 0% Very Fine Gravel 0% Fine Gravel 11.5% Medium Gravel 40.4% Coarse Gravel 28.8% Very Coarse Gravel 9.6% Small Cobble 3.8% M ed iu m C obble Broad Breakdown: 5.8% Sand: 80.7% Gravel: 13.4% Cobble Site Placement Depths & Velocities: McNeil Cores 1.9cm , 0.232m/s 2.6cm , 0.116m/s 3.8cm , 0.331m/s 4.8cm , 0.240m/s 5.9cm , 0.504m/s 6 . 11cm, 0.438m/s 1’*Removal & 2"** Installation Upstream Downstream Tributary D ate Channel W idth (m) D ischarge m*/s W eather A ir Temp. ( "€) W ater Temp. ("C) D issolved O 2 (m g/l) Turbidity (NTU) Oct. 16/97 4.4 0.57 10/10 cloud cover N/A 7.2 11.2 1.14, 0 .7 8 ,1 .0 9 , 6 .8 ,1 .3 8 Oct. 16/97 6.75 1.04 10/10 cloud cover 10 6.7 12.7 1.22, 0 .9 9 ,0 .7 4 , 0 .7 5 ,0 .9 8 Oct 17/97 6 65 (145 8/10 cloud cover 73 4 8 128 0 54. 0 86, 0.66, 0.68, 0.67 Depth & V elocities at samples M cNeil Cores 1. 18 cm, 0.695 m/s 2. 18 cm, 0.852 m/s 3. 18 cm, 0.604 m/s 4. 19 cm, 0.761 m/s 5. 19 cm, 0.670 m/s 6. 19 cm, 0.876 m/s M cNeil Cores 1. 20 cm, 0.703 m/s 2. 18 cm, 0.645 m/s 3. 23 cm, 0.645 m/s 4. 19 cm, 0.662 m/s 5. 19 cm, 0.645 m/s 6. 21 cm, 0.579 m/s McNeil Cores 1. 11 cm, 0.777 m/s 2. 11 cm, 0.819 m/s 3. 12 cm, 0.628 m/s 4. 12 cm, 0.835 m/s 5. 12 cm, 0.620 m/s 6. 12 cm, 0.604 m/s Gravel Buckets Removed 1. 18 cm, 0.364 m/s 2. 18 cm, 0.298 m/s 3. 15 cm, 0.248 m/s 4. 18 cm, 0.240 m/s 5. 16 cm, 0.174 m/s 6. 19 cm, 0.265 m/s Gravel Buckets Removed 1. 20 cm, 0.662 m/s 2. 24 cm, 0.653 m/s 3. 23 cm, 0.719 m/s 4. 19 cm, 0.786 m/s 5. 18 cm, 0.670 m/s 6. 17 cm, 0.463 m/s Gravel Buckets Removed 1. 14 cm, 0.604 m/s 2. 14 cm, 0.513 m/s 3. 19 cm, 0.480 m/s 4. 20 cm, 0.389 m/s 5. 15 cm, 0.496 m/s 6. 18 cm, 0.474 m/s Gravel Buckets Reolaced 1. 15 cm, 0.695 m /s 2. 15 cm, 0.695 m/s 3. 16 cm, 0.628 m/s 4. 16 cm, 0.628 m/s 5. 16 cm, 0.620 m/s 6. 20 cm, 0.728 m/s Gravel Buckets Replaced A ll gravel buckets were replaced in the same position except to r# 6. 6. 17 cm, 0.744 m/s Gravel Buckets Reolaced A ll gravel buckets were replaced in the same position except for # 1. 1. 17 cm, 0.538 m/s U p str e a m Nov. 21/97 4.85 0.56 10/10 cloud cover 1.0 1.8 13.3 0.34, 0.34, 0.45 D o w n str e a m Nov. 20/97 6.75 0.90 10/10 cloud cover -1.5 1.3 14.7 0.34, 0.28, 0.39 T r ib u ta r y Nov. 21/97 0.30 N /A 2.1 1.6 13.2 0.23, 0 .2 1 ,0 .2 5 M cNeil Cores 1. 18 cm, 0.703 m/s 2. 19 cm, 0.835 m/s 3. 18 cm, 0.802 m/s 4. 21 cm, 0.728 m/s 5. 18 cm, 0.695 m/s 6. 22 cm, 0.777 m/s M cNeil Cores 1. 18 cm, 0.521 m/s 2. 20 cm, 0.538 m/s 3. 17 cm, 0.653 m/s 4. 17 cm, 0.504 m/s 5. 17 cm, 0.645 m/s 6. 21 cm, 0.463 m/s M cNeil Cores 1. 10 cm, 0.488 m/s 2. 12 cm, 0.529 m/s 3. 10 cm, 0.422 m/s 4. 11 cm, 0.414 m/s 5. 12 cm, 0.538 m/s 6. 11 cm, 0.422 m/s 2"** Removal & Site Closure D ate Channel W idth Discharge W eather A ir Temp. (°C) W ater Temp. (“€ ) D issolved O 2 (m g/l) T urbidity NTU) D e p th & V e lo c itie s at S a m p les 4.4 Gravel Buckets Removed 1. 15 cm, 0.761 m/s 2. 15 cm, 0.777 m/s 3. 13 cm, 0.670 m/s 4. 17 cm, 0.752 m/s 5. 14 cm, 0.571 m/s 6. 16 cm, 0.637 m/s Gravel Buckets Removed 1. 16 cm, 0.653 m/s 2. 18 cm, 0.529m/s 3. 18 cm, 0.678 m/s 4. 16 cm, 0.819 m/s 5. 17 cm, 0.513 m/s 16 cm, 0.637 m/s 6. Gravel Buckets Removed 1. 15 cm, 0.521 m/s 2. 12 cm, 0.438 m/s 3. 16 cm, 0.471 m/s 4. 18 cm, 0.405 m/s 5. 12 cm, 0.364 m/s 6. 13 cm, 0.356 m/s NOTE: In the tributary, d/s of the bridge, there is a newly formed bar approximately 0.4 - 0.5 m high composed mainly o f silt, sand, and a little gravel. It is located d/s o f a wind felled tree near the gravel bucket location. Also at this time, a bridge crossing Spruce Creek was disco\ ered approximately 100 m u/s o f the control site. This may have affected the u/s samples. Summary Statistics (Results o f Two- Way Anova - arc-sin transformed fo r McNeil cores and weights fo r Buckets) Date September 11 Technique McNeil Core October 16 November 23 McNeil Core Site Difference None; p =0.9 None; p = 0.96 None; p = 0.61 Interaction Effect None; p = 0.8 None; p = 0.1 Yes; p=0.004 Grain Size Differences None - Spruce Creek None - Tributary Crs. Sand U/S Spruce (p = 0.03) Gravel Buckets Yes; p =0.0001 None; p= 0.4 McNeil Core None; p =0.72 None; p = 0.05 Higher sample weight D/S Tukey’s HSD- indicates higher sample weights for all at D/S None Gravel Bucket Yes; p= 6.1 * 10^ Yes; p= 0.01 Higher sample weights D/S Tukey’s HSD- indicates higher sample weights for all sizes D/S Y oungs C reek General Notes F o re s t D istrict: B iogeoclim atic Z one: E co reg ion: Site R e fe rra l: F o re s t O p e ra to r: In v e stig ate d A ctivity: D ates S am pled: Prince G eorge Sub-boreal Spruce M oist C ool Clim ate (M ossvale Variant) S B S M K l N echako L ow land Priority List established by BC Environment Lakelands D ecom m issioned crossing. July 26, O ctobers, October 14, N ovem ber 23 1997 General Physical Observations T w o stations w ere established, one upstream (u/s) and another downstream (d/s) o f the decom m issioned crossing. The u /s station is approxim ately 20 - 25 m u/s from the crossing and the d/s station is located approxim ately 5 - 1 0 m d/s from the crossing Both sites consist o f a riffle/run area w ith a sm all pool. The sites w ere w ithin the sam e reach so m ost o f the site establishm ent data w as collected at the upstream site. H ow ever, the pebble count data w as collected in a diagonal manner so that both sam ple areas w ere included. U p stre a m S ite (U/S): Located approxim ately 2 0 - 25 m u/s from the crossing point. Consist o f a riffle and a run w ith a sm all pool in the run area. Sam pling conducted in the riffle and run area. D o w n stream S ite (D/S): L ocated approxim ately 5 - 1 0 m d/s from the crossing point. Consist o f a riffle and a run w ith a sm all pool in the run area. Sam pling conducted in the riffle and run area. Site Location & Description GPS Coordinates Channel Width (m) Bankfull W idth (m) Bankfull Height (m) Streambank & Floodplain Pebble Count Data % < 2mm % 2 - 4 mm % 4 - 8 mm % 8 - 16 mm % 16 - 32 mm % 32 - 64 mm % 64 - 128 mm % 1 2 8 - 180 mm Streambed Composition Gradient (%) U pstrea m Dow n stream 54°13’ N 123=03'W Altitude 654 m Same as u/s 12.6 Only measured once Only measured once N/A N/A Pebble count included both u/s and d/s sites. 14 N/A N/A 17 6 9 14 32 14 3 5 17% Sand, 75% Gravel, 8%CobbIe 2.5 2.0 1"* Installment Date Discharge (m^/s) W eather A ir Temp. (°C) W ater Temp. (°C) Dissolved O 2 (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) M ethods Deployed Site Placement Depths & Velocities U pstrea m Do w n stream July 09, 1997 0.33 4/10 cloud cover N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 ) McNeil-Ahnell Cores 2 ) Gravel Buckets 3) Infiltration Bags 4) Suspended Sediment Trap McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 15 cm, Velocity N/A 2. 25 cm. Velocity N/A 3. 35 cm, Velocity N/A July 09, 1997 Same as u/s Same as u/s N/A N/A N/A N/A 1) McNeil-Ahnell Cores 2) Gravel Buckets 3) Infiltration Bags 4) Suspended Sediment Trap McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 30 cm, Velocity N/A 2. 35 cm. Velocity N/A 3. 40 cm, Velocity N /A Gravel Buckets No data Gravel Buckets No data Infiltration Baes No data Infiltration Baes No data Upstrea m Do w n str e a m July 26, 1997 0.137 4/10 cloud cover 15 N/A N/A N/A McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 10 cm, 0.422 m/s 2. 10 cm, 0.347 m/s 3. 14 cm, 0.132 m/s July 26, 1997 Only measured once Same as u/s Same as u/s Same as u/s N/A N/A N/A McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 12 cm, 0.786 m/s 2. 15 cm, 0.761 m/s 3. 12 cm, 0.339 m/s Gravel Buckets 1. 27 cm, 0.000 m /s* 2. 15 cm, 0.141 m/s 3. 24 cm, 0.000 m/s * 4. 15 cm, 0.182 m/s Gravel Buckets 1. 26 cm, 0.149 m/s 2. 28 cm, 0 . 0 0 0 m/s * 3. 30 cm, 0.025 m/s 4. 27 cm, 0.132 m/s 1*‘ Removal Date Channel W idth (m) Discharge (m^/s) W eather A ir Temp. (°C) W ater Temp. (°C) Dissolved O 2 (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Site Placement Depths & Velocities 1 1 .8 Infiltration Baes Infiltration Baes 1. 18 cm, 0.223 m/s 1. 24 cm, 0.240 m/s 2. 15 cm, 0.091 m/s 2. 30 cm, 0.099 m/s 3. 18 cm, 0.240 m/s 3. 24 cm, 0.199 m/s Note; Discharge is only an approximate. Approximately half o f the creek had depths to low to measure discharge. * => Surface flow evident. However, not enough to affect velocity meter. 2"“ Install Date Channel W idth (m) Discharge (m^/s) W eather A ir Temp. (°C) W ater Temp. (“€ ) Dissolved 0% (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) M ethods Deployed Site Placement Depths & Velocities U pstrea m D o w n stream Oct. 3, 1997 6.9 (Different location than above location) 0.67 1 0 / 1 0 cloud cover 9.0 7.1 10.3 Hach unit 11 standards 1 -1 0 4.98 1 - 100 50.5 1 -1 0 0 0 525 Samples; 5.50, 5.89, 5.81 1) McNeil-Ahnell Cores McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 16 cm, 0.744 m/s 2. 16 cm, 0 . 6 8 6 m/s 3. 18 cm, 0.835 m/s 4. 15 cm, 0.612 m/s 5. 15 cm, 0.513 m/s 6. 18 cm, 0.653 m/s Oct. 3, 1997 Only measured once Same as u/s Same as u/s N/A N/A N/A N/A 1) McNeil-Ahnell Cores McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 16 cm, 0.414 m/s 2. 15 cm, 0.562 m/s 3. 15 cm, 0.819 m/s 4. 15 cm, 0.951 m/s 5. 17 cm, 1.158 m/s 6. 16 cm, 0.910 m/s NOTE: At this time, gravel buckets and infiltration bags were installed. However, both had to be replaced. G ra v e l B u ck et & In filtra tio n B ag R ep lac em en t Date Channel Width (m) Discharge (m^/s) W eather A ir Temp. (”C) W ater Temp. (®C) Dissolved 0% (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Site Placements Depths & Velocities U pstrea m D ow n stream Oct. 14, 1997 13.3 (not same location as before) 0.827 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Gravel Buckets 1. 19 cm, 0.653 m/s 2. 17 cm, 0.496 m/s 3. 15 cm, 0.562 m/s 4. 18 cm, 0.620 m/s 5. 19 cm, 0.612 m/s 6. 21 cm, 0.761 m/s Oct. 14, 1997 Only measured once Same as u/s N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Gravel Buckets 1. 18 cm, 0.323 m/s 6. 19 cm, 0.430 m/s Only two readings were taken because all buckets were placed in one area. Therefore all velocities are similar. Infiltration Bags 1. 16 cm, 0.794 m/s 2. 15 cm, 0.769 m/s 3. 16 cm, 0.695 m/s 4. 22 cm, 0.893 m/s Infiltration Bags 1. 15 cm, 0 . 8 6 8 m/s 2. 24 cm, 0.943 m/s 3. 21 cm, 0.562 m/s 2"** Removal & Site Closure Date Channel W idth (m) Discharge (m^/s) W eather Air. Temp (°C) W ater Temp. f C ) Dissolved O 2 (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Site Placement Depths & velocities UPSTREAM Nov. 24, 1997 N /A due to icy conditions ~ 0.67 1 0 / 1 0 cloud cover Same as d/s Same as d/s Same as d/s Standards same as d/s Do w n stream Nov. 24, 1997 Same as u/s Same as u/s Same as u/s 2 .1 0 .2 13.4 Hach unit 11 standards 0-10 = 4.46 0-100 = 44.2 0 - 1000 = 532 Samples; 0.71, 0.76, 0.70 McNeil-Ahnell Cores 1. 19 cm, 1.141 m/s 2. 21 cm, 1.042 m/s 3. 17 cm, 1.000 m/s 4. 15 cm, 1.017 m/s 5. 18 cm, 1.075 m/s 6. 21 cm, 1.034 m/s Samples; 0.98, 1.01, 1.05 McNeil-Ahnell Cores I. 16 cm, 1.075 m/s 2. 15 cm, 0.918 m/s 3. 18 cm, 0.761 m/s 4. 16 cm, 1.001 m/s 5. 18 cm, 0.984 m/s 6. 15 cm, 1.100 m/s Gravel Bucket Water over gravel buckets were frozen over. Therefore, the flow could not be calculated. Gravel Buckets 1. GB missing 2. 30 cm, 0.819 m/s 3. 27 cm, 0.637 m/s 4. GB missing 5. 22 cm, 0.645 m/s 6. 27 cm, 0.885 m/s Infiltration Bags Infiltration Bags were completely frozen in. Could not recover the samples. Infiltration Bags 1. 18 cm, 0.430 m/s 2. 21 cm, 0.670 m/s 3. 23 cm, 0.323 m/s Note: Icy conditions may have affected same o f the samples. For instance, ice had to be removed from the tops o f several samples including GB’s and IB’s. Summary Statistics Date July 9 July 26 October 3 November 24 Technique McNeil Core Gravel Bucket Infiltration Bag Site Difference None; p =0.9 None; p = 0.95 Yes; p = 0.04 Interaction Effect None; p = 0.5 None; p= 0.99 Yes; p = 0 McNeil Core McNeil Core None; p = 0.3 None; p =0.82 None; p=0.104 Yes; p = 0.05 Gravel Bucket t-test Grain Size Differences Higher sample weight D/S and fine gravel D/S (p = 0.01) Higher fine gravel U/S (p=0.003) Higher Crs. Sand D/S (p=0.002) Higher Gravel U/S (p = 0.0001) Higher Med. Sand D/S ( p=0) Higher F. Sand D/S (p 0.006) Appendix 2 TSS Analysis Procedure Environment Environnement C anada Canada Pacific Environmentai Science Centre 2645 Doiiarton Highway North Vancouver, B.C. V7H-1V2 INORGANIC CHEMISTRY SECTION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR: NON-FILTERABLE RESIDUE WHOLE BOTTLE NON-FILTERABLE RESIDUE FIXED NON-FILTERABLE RESIDUE AND NON-FILTERABLE RESIDUE & FIXED NON-FILTERABLE RESIDUE SO P ID: NFR V ersion: NFR V2.6 Is s u e D ate: S e p te m b e r, 1999 R eview d a te : S ep te m b e r, 2000 C o n tro lled C opy N o .:_____________________ _ A uthorized by: A cting H ead, H ead, In o rg an ic C h em istry S ectio n DISCLAIMER REGARDING UNCONTROLLED DISTRIBUTION: Environment Canada cannot guarantee the accuracy of a document which is photocopied or in an electronic format. Controlled copies will have the Copy Number and Authorization signature in red ink. Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section NFR.V2.6 Method Name: Revision Date: Page: NON-FILTERABLE RESIDUE / NFR Version 2.6 WHOLE BOTTLE NON-FILTERABLE RESIDUE/NFRWB NFRWB FIXED NON-FILTERABLE RESIDUE / FNFR Non-Fliterable Residue Sept, 1999 2 of 11 Sept 1999 NFR FNFR F.NFR Gravimetric, G lass Fibre Filter, Dried at 103 ± 2°C , ignited at 550°C REFERENCED DOCUMENTS [1] Mettler Instrument AG. 1986. Operating Instructions: M ettler J series balances, publication M E-702563. G reifensee, Switzerland. [2] Stevens, D C. March 31, 1985. W TS Program W eights Data Collector. In Balance Workstation D ata Processing Programs, pp. 3-66. W est Vancouver: Environment C anada Laboratories, R evised January 9, 1997. [3] Labware Cleaning Standard Operating Procedure V2.1, Environment Canada Laboratories Manual. SCOPE AND APPLICATION This method is applicable to all types of waters: fresh waters, ground waters and industrial or municipal w a ste waters in the range of 5 mg/L to 2 0 0 0 mg/L nonfilterable residues and 10 mg/L to 2000 mg/L fixed non-filterable residues using a 200 mL sam ple volum e and 100 mL sam ple volum e respectively, or the w hole sam ple for whole bottle analysis. The minimum detectable concentration is lower using a larger sam ple. The upper range can be extended using a smaller sam ple volume. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE Non-filterable residue (NFR) c a u s e s abrasive injuries, clog gills and respiratory p a s sa g e s of various aquatic fauna, and blankets the stream bottom, killing e g g s, fry and food organism s. NFR also c a u s e s turbidity, thus screen s out the light. By carrying down and trapping bacteria and decom posing organic w a stes on the bottom, NFR promote and maintain noxious conditions. Healthy fish can probably swim through water of high NFR content, but fish w eakened by toxic su b sta n ces may be unable to withstand the abrasive and clogging action of the particles. The test is often used a s a general indicator for water quality and p rocess control. Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section NFR.V2.6 Method Name: Revision Date: Page: Non-Fllterable Residue Sept, 1999 3 of 11 Fixed non-filterable residue test provides an estim ate of the non-organic matter present in the solid fraction of the water. DEFINITIONS 1. Non-filterable residue (N FR ) is operationally defined to be the material retained on a VWR Brand Grade 696 g la ss fibre filter that has b een dried at 103°C for one hour following the filtration of a well-mixed sam ple. 2. Fixed non-filterable residue (FN FR ) is operationally defined to be the material that remains on a VWR Brand Grade 6 96 g la ss fibre filter that has been dried at 1G3°C for o n e hour and ignitied at 550°C for one hour following the filtration of a well-mixed sam ple. 3. The terms residue, nonfilterable, and filterable can also be called solids, suspended, and dissolved respectively. SUMMARY OF METHOD A well-mixed sam ple is filtered through a VWR Brand Grade 6 96 g la ss fibre filter (1.1 f^m particle retention) that has been muffled at 550°C for 20 minutes and pre­ w eighed. The filter with the residue is then dried at 103°C for on e hour and w eighed again to constant weight; the resulting weight difference gives the total non-filterable residue (NFR). The filter with dried residue is then ignited in a muffle furnace at 550°C. The residue that remains gives the fixed non-filterable residue (FNFR). SAMPLE HANDLING AND PRESERVATION Collect the sam ple in a clean polyethylene or g la ss container. No chemical preservation is required. If duplicates are required for w hole bottle analysis two containers must be collected. The sam p les should be stored at 4°C and analysed a s soon a s possible to minimise any micro-biological activity. Maximum holding time is 7 days. Equilibrium conditions may change sufficiently to alter the suspended fraction of materials in a water sam ple. Sam ples should be brought to room temperature before analysis. INTERFERENCES 1. U se special handling to insure sam ple integrity when sub-sampling. The Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section NFR.V2.6 Method Name: Revision Date: Page: Non-Fllterable Residue Sept, 1999 4 of 11 sam ple must be stirred or shaken In order to hom ogeneously re-suspend all material. 2. Warm the sam ple to room temperature before analysis to minimise variation due to temperature effects that might alter the non-fllterable fraction. 3. S om e residues may contain materials that d eco m p o se below 103 - 105°C (e.g., ammonium carbonate). 4. The Indicating silica gel In the desiccators should be regenerated when Its colour has faded - place the tray In the oven at 103°C for approximately six hours to regenerate the original purple hue. 5. B eca u se e x c e ssiv e residue on the filter may form a water-entrapping crust, limit the sam ple size (filtered sam ple volume) to that yielding no more than 200 mg residues. 6. For sam ple high In dissolved solids thoroughly w ash the filter to ensure removal of dissolved material. 7. Prolonged filtration tim es resulting from filter clogging may produce high results owing to Increased colloidal materials captured on the clogged filter. 8. Exclude large, floating particles or subm erged agglom erates of nonhom ogen eou s materials from the sam ple If It Is determined that their Inclusion Is not desired In the final result. METHOD PERFORMANCE 1. The effective working range thus varies with the sam ple volume; 5 - 2 0 0 0 mg/L for 100 mL of sam ple; 1 - 4 0 0 mg/L for 500 mL of sam ple for NFR. The Method Detection Limit (MDL) setting at the 99% confidence level above zero (or the blank) Is 5 mg/L for 100 mL sam ple for NFR and 10 mg/L for 100 ml sam ple for FNFR. MDL = where, t = Std. Dev.near zero = 2. 19 9 * Std Dev near zero Student’s t value for a 99% confidence level and a standard deviation estim ate with n-1 d eg rees of freedom [t = 3.14 for sev en replicates]. Standard deviation of the replicate analyses. Method Blank: A nalyse an aliquot of Type 1 deionised water with each batch of Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section NFR.V2.6 Method Name; Revision Date: Page: Non-Filterable Residue Sept, 1999 5 of 11 24 sam p les to monitor contamination and background interference. For current NFR and FNFR Method Blank Data s e e T ables A and B in Appendix 1. 3. Method Accuracy may be evaluated by analysing a synthetic reference sam ple consisting of a 75 pm sieved fraction (No. 2 00 m esh) of marine silt (which has been muffled at 550°C for on e hour and diluted to volum e in Type 1 water). Data limits to monitor method accuracy: For current NFR and FNFR Method Accuracy Data s e e T ables D and E in Appendix 1. 4. Precision is affected by both the quantity and the nature of the entrained material. The following sam p les w ere analysed in the laboratory by a single analyst in on e day to establish method repeatability in different matrixes. Table 1 1 9 9 8 )- Sam ple N Mine Effluent Industrial W astewater Fresh Water 5 5 5 Table 2 5. Single Analyst Method Repeatability for NFR (Data Current to April NFR& NFRWB Mean mg/L <5 28 <5 Std Dev mg/L % RSD 1.2 0.7 0.7 0 39.4 0 Single Analyst Method Repeatability for FNFR Sam ple N FNFR Mean mg/l Std. Dev. RSD % Mine effluent 5 13 1.9 14.6 Industrial w astew ater 5 28 1.7 6.1 Fresh water 5 4 0.3 7.5 Method Precision: Repeatability data derived from duplicate m easurem ents collected, over at least a twelve-month period have been used to se t ( 3 s ) control limits to monitor system precision. Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section NFR.V2.6 Method Name: Non-Fllterable Residue Revision Date: Sept, 1999 Page: 6 of 11 For current NFR and FNFR Single Analyst (Within-Run) Precision Data s e e T ables E and F in Appendix 1. 6. After the analysis is com plete. R inse glassw are three tim es with Type 1 water and sen d to W ash-up area for cleaning if necessary. The filtering apparatus should be rinsed with Type 1 water and 2 00 - 300 mLs of Type 1 water poured through it. 7. Turn both drying ov en s (90-95 & 103°C) and muffle furnace off at the end of the day, if not in use. Note 1. It has been found that if regular NFR filters are heated to 550°C before use, they do not require pre-wash with Type 1 water, a s is usually recom m ended. Note 2. B eca u se the aluminum dish and the filter cool alm ost immediately, it is not n ecessa ry to allow any cooling before weighing. This s p e e d s the process, and it is actually more accurate to weigh the filters immediately. Note 3. U se sufficient sam ple volum e to deposit at least 1 mg of material onto the filter and no more than 200 mg sin ce it will tend to im pede filtration. BATCH QUALITY CONTROL 1. A ssign a Batch ID with every sam ple se t analysed consisting of MMDDPP. This batch ID is the sa m e Batch ID used in Section 3.3.2. For exam ple, 0 1 02NF MM - represents the month - January is 01 DD - represents the date - in this c a s e is the 2"^ PP - represents the parameter NFR. 2. For every 24 sam ples, include a method blank and on e check standard in everyday work. For every 12 sam ples, randomly sele c t on e sam ple to be analyzed in duplicate or run more frequently if required. For w hole bottle analysis duplicates are only possible if two bottle have been submitted for analysis. 3. A s s e s s whether the batch show s statistical control by considering: the results for the method blanks Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section t t NFR.V2.6 Method Name: Revision Date: Page: Non-Filterable Residue Sept, 1999 7 of 11 the range of duplicate results the m easured NFR/FNFR of the check standard If any parameter lies outside the established (3 s) control limits, corrective action is then necessary. Docum ent any non-conform ance and the action taken in the Record Non-conform ance form. Inform the lab supervisor immediately. 4. Report QA/QC Data for Blanks, Duplicates and Control in Excel file YYNFR.xls orYYFNFR.xls (e.g., 99nfr.xls) and insert appropriate notes to docum ent non­ conform ance and action taken. 5. Analysis of Quality Control Charts and procedures followed are se t out by Standard Method for the Examination of W ater and W aste Water, 19^^ Edition, 1995, in 1020 B Quality Control, 7 C, Control Chart: Chart Analysis. CALCULATIONS AND DATA PROCESSING The total non-filterable R esidue (NFR) is given by: mg/L NFR w here = WF = WRF = V = (WRF-WF)xlOOO xIOOO V weight of the muffled g la ss fibre filter (in g) weight of the dried filter with residue (in g) volum e of sam ple filtered (in mL) The fixed non-filterable R esidue (FNFR) is given by: mg/L FNFR = w h e re = WF MRF = V = (MRF-WFIxlOOO xIOOO V w e ig h t o f t h e m u ffle d g l a s s fib re filter (in g) weight of the dried ignited filter with residue (in g) volum e of sam ple filtered (in mL) The results are automatically entered into the lab database by the RWTS program. If manual data entry is necessary, u se either the RENTprogram or the [Enter result] command in the LGR program. W hen prompted for the Batch ID,enter the sa m e Batch ID a s in Section 3.3.2 or in the Batch Quality A ssurance Section. Report the results to three significant figures provided it d o e s not fall below the method detection limit. Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section NFR.V2.6 The test cod e and billing cod e are: Method Name: Revision Date: Page: Non-Filterable Residue Sept, 1999 8 of 11 NFR NFRWB FNFR 104 119 110 REFERENCES [1] Vanous, R.D., P.E. Larson, and C.C. Hach. 1982. The Theory and M easurem ent of Turbidity and R esidue In W ater Analysis: Inorganic Species, P art 1, Volume 1 (R.A. Minear and L.H. Keith, ed), pp. 163-234. Orlando: A cadem ic press. Inc. [2] APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Standard M ethods for the Examination of W ater and W astewater, 19th Edition, Method 2540D Total S u sp en ded Solids, p. 2-56 and 1020 B Quality Control, 7 C, Control Chart: Chart Analysis, pp. 1-4 to 1-7, 1995. APPENDICES 1. Method Performance Table 2. Batch Record Form 3. Balance Calibration Log 4. Record of Non-conform ance Form 5. Standard/R eagent Preparation Log REVISION HISTORY Version 2.6 July 1999 Revision of the procedure for w hole bottle analysis (Buchner funnel no longer used), update of precision and accuracy data. Method for FNFR added. Version 2.5 April 1998 Addition of NFRWB analysis, OA/OC Section revised and precision & accuracy data updated. Version 2.4 D ecem ber 1997 Method update of precision & accuracy: addition of Record of Non-Conformance Form. Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section Version 2.4 Septem ber 1997 NFR.V2.6 Method Name: Revision Date: Page: Non-Filterable Residue Sept, 1999 9 of 11 C hange of g la ss fibre filter from W hatman GF/C to VWRBrand Grade 696 g la ss fibre fiters; method performance data updated. Version 2.4 update May 1997 Format Version 2.3 Novem ber 1995 More method details. Version 2.2 Septem ber 1995 Format and method revised. Version 2.1 D ecem ber 1993 Method revision and performance data updated. Version 2.0 updated. June 1991 Repeatability Version 1.1 April 1987 Precision data added to method. Version 1.0 January 1979 Method Introduced. revision data and method added to performance method and Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section NFR.V2.6 Method Name: Revision Date: Page: Non-Filterable Residue Sept, 1999 10 of 11 APPENDIX 1; METHOD PERFORMANCE TABLE Table A NFR Method Blank - (Data Current to January 1999) N Blank A cceptable NFR mg/L < 5. 234 Mean NFR Std Dev Control Limits mg/L 0.08 0.79 X 2.37 Std. Dev.- standard deviation of the m ean N - No. of an alyses Table B Blank FNFR Method Blank - (Data Current to D ecem ber 1998) N Expected FNFR mg/L M easured FNFR mg/L Std. Dev. Control Limit 16 0 -1.20 1.07 X 3.21 Table C NFR Method Accuracy - (Data Current to January 1999) R eference NFR Value mg/L 150 Table D N Mean % Recovery 97.12 130 Std. Dev. Control Limits 3.06 X 9 .1 8 FNFR Method Accuracy - (Data Current to D ecem ber 1998) FNFR R eference Value (mg/L) N Mean % Recovery Std. Dev. Control Limit 150 13 96.6 4.5 X4.5 Table E NFR Single Analyst (Within Run) Precision - Data Current to January 1999 NFR & NFRWB Analytical R ange mg/L <5 to 1000+ No. of S e ts of Duplicates 382 Mean Normalised Range 0.018 Std Dev 0.050 Control Limits for Normalised Duplicate R ange 0.169 Environment Canada Pacific Environmental Science Centre Inorganic Chemistry Section Table F Method Name: Revision Date: Page: NFR.V2.6 Non-Filterable Residue Sept, 1999 11 of 11 FNFR Single Analyst (Within Run) Precision - Data Current to D ecem ber 1998 FNFR range mg/L No. of s e ts of duplicates Mean % Normalized range Std. Dev. 0 to 1000 17 0.81 1.89 Control Limit for duplicate range 6.48 Appendix 3 Wentworth Scale Wentworth Scale Grain Class Size Ranee tmm'i Clay Silt Fine Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Fine Gravel Fine Gravel Medium Gravel Coarse Gravel Very Coarse Gravel Small Cobble Medium Cobble Large Cobble Very Large Cobble Small Boulder Medium Boulder Large Boulder Very Large Boulder < 0.004 0.004< X <0.0625 0.0625