Project Title
: Upper Kispiox Watershed AssessmentProject Category
: Resource Inventory and Watershed StewardshipAmount of Funding Requested
: $100,000 (see Budget)Introduction/Background
The Kispiox River drains an estimated 2,082 km2 (208,200 ha.) (Nortec et. al.1995) providing habitat for the five species of Pacific salmon, kokanee, rainbow trout, steelhead, cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden char, bull trout, Rocky Mountain whitefish, and Pacific lamprey (Nortec Consulting 1997). Intensive forest harvesting began in the 1960s and 70s and by 1998 roads and cutblocks have extended for 75% of the length of the mainstem Kispiox and proceeded up the tributaries as well (Figure 1). Future plans for harvesting within the upper watershed include the Sweetin River and up the mainstem Kispiox past the Nangeese River up adjacent to the Swan Lake Wilderness Area. An ongoing Watershed Restoration Project (WRP) has identified numerous impacts due to "increased sediment inputs off roads and cutblocks, and loss of riparian vegetation." (Nortec Consulting 1997). Recent work has also indicated significant changes in flow regime within the Kispiox River since intensive logging began (Nortec Consulting 1998).
However, as is often the case in environmental studies, there is little to compare these impacts with as there is limited baseline data with which to compare impacts and so to evaluate effects. Without more intensive sampling and characterization of the aquatic and riparian systems in a natural (i.e. pre-harvesting) state, linking these forestry related impacts with effects on the aquatic system are open to criticism.
This proposal is to provide the necessary baseline data on the upper Kispiox River and selected tributaries to evaluate changes brought about by future forestry related impacts. This study will also provide an inventory/census of the aquatic and riparian systems as they currently exist, information which will be valuable in determining distribution of fish (resident and anadromous) and wildlife species (possibly red/blue listed species) and evaluating biodiversity of the area.
Rationale
The lower extent of the Kispiox River has been intensively harvested and there is great concern expressed by First Nations and local residents over proposed harvesting of the upper reaches. Effects on streams due to forest harvesting impacts [to stream edge] include changes in solar radiation, water temperature, forest canopy and streambank vegetation, stream bank stability, suspended solids, fine woody debris, coarse woody debris, channel morphology, substrate sediments, streambed stability, nutrient supply, and stream flows (Slaney and Martin 1997). Under the Forest Practices Code (FPC) logging to stream edges is permitted along non fish-bearing streams and fish bearing streams with an average channel width of less than 1.5 m (Riparian Management Area Guidebook 1995). As flowing water transports materials downhill, impacts to these small streams not protected under the FPC are also carried downstream into larger fish bearing stream (personal observation).
Significant declines in coho salmon stocks throughout the province, and the reliance of coho on small streams for spawning and rearing, require that the effect of forest harvesting on these small streams be assessed. The rearing coho fry are subjected to numerous variables during their growth (i.e. water temperature, sediment load, fluctuating flows, seasonal availability of food sources, etc.) and in order to evaluate forestry induced effects, a knowledge of the functioning of the natural system is required.
The present time provides a unique and valuable time to conduct a large scale assessment of the upper Kispiox watershed to gather baseline data and evaluate these systems prior to timber harvesting. Based on 25 years of observation (G.Wadley, Nortec Consulting) it is estimated that the Kispiox River above the Nangeese river confluence is responsible for at least 40% of the chinook and steelhead spawning, 50% of the remaining coho stock in the river and 95% of the sockeye spawning and rearing. Several cutblocks are proposed for harvesting by Skeena Cellulose Inc. (Repap) in the years 2000 and 2001 yet public support for the protection of the upper area of the Kispiox is strong (see Partnerships). In this environment, it is critical to conduct an inventory/census of the upper Kispiox to determine current conditions from which significant changes may be measured.
Goals
The goals of the proposed work are to:
Partnerships
Drafts of this proposal have been reviewed and the work is supported by:
These partners bring with them support in the form of:
This proposal has also been submitted to Skeena Cellulose Inc. (Repap), the forest company with tenure in the area, for review.
Procedure
Phase 1) Review of maps, air-photos and literature for the upper watershed including a review of proposed cutting plans and interviews with local people for local/traditional knowledge.
Phase 2) Selection of study sites for inventory/assessment (Strata 1) and for detailed site assessment (Strata 2). These are to be done based on information collected in Phase 1 and are subject to change in the field if field conditions are not amenable to proper sampling.
Phase 3) Field Data Collection
The field data collection is divided into two "Strata":
Strata 1: A large scale overview/inventory/assessment of the mainstem and principle tributaries within the study site (Figure 1). This will be a one-time visit to gather information on the large area in order to characterize the nature of the upper watershed.
Strata 2: Detailed assessments of selected streams and two stations on the mainstem. This will involve establishment of eight permanent sample sites for a monthly sampling program during ice free periods.
Strata 1 is to be conducted in July or August 1999 (see Schedule I). Access is helicopter to the upper reaches and inflatable to the downstream areas. Tributaries are to be hiked for a distance from the mainstem. The parameters to be assessed are:
Mainstem
Tributaries
Strata 2 will begin with permanent sites being established in August 1999 (see Schedule I). Eight "permanent sites will be established, two on the mainstem Kispiox, two on streams within proposed cutblocks/road crossings, and four on similar streams but not to be affected by harvesting (controls [two controls per treatment as recommended by Frid 1997]). The mainstem sites are to serve as benchmarks from which to measure bank retreat, lateral channel movement etc. (i.e. large scale, primarily physical processes). The tributary sample sites are to evaluate ecosystem changes (i.e. fish, invertebrates, nutrients, sediments, etc.) These eight sites will be visited on a regular (monthly) basis for sampling (see Schedule II for sampling frequency). Access is to be a combination of helicopter and hiking in from nearby roads. The parameters to be assessed are:
4) Data Analysis/Summary - Report Preparation
Collected data will be statistically analyzed/summarized as well as presented in a descriptive format. The purpose of the statistics is to determine relationships between parameters (i.e. fish density and LWD density, aquatic invertebrate diversity and sediment load, etc. In addition, Nortec staff will provide a presentation of results to stakeholders upon request. Digitized mapping will be provided by S.W.A.T.
Results/Benefits
The proposed work will result in a census/inventory of the upper Kispiox watershed as it currently exists prior to further timber extraction. The detailed site assessments will provide a direct analysis of the effect of forest activities on small stream systems; these results may then be examined for their cumulative effects on the mainstem Kispiox River.
The collected data and synthesized information will not only allow examination of impacts due to road-building or timber removal on the stream ecosystem, but will also provide a baseline database for the area, and provide data which may be used in, or referred to, by future studies.
Schedule I
(see also Schedule II for Phase 3 details)Activity Time Required (man-days)
Phases 1 & 2
May 1999
Review of maps, air-photos and literature 1 week 5
Selection of study sites 2 days 2
Phase 3
July/August 1999
Main channel, off-channel and tributary 10 days 40
survey (Strata 1)
August 1999
First visit to Detailed Assessment Sites (Strata 2) 10 days 20
- Establish permanent sites
September, October, November 1999
Monthly visits to Detailed Assessment Sites 6 days/month 36
(Strata 2)
Phase 4
December/January1999
Report writing summarizing results to date 30 days 30
Schedule II
|
|
Activity | Time |
| Strata 1 | Mainstem and tributaries assessment | July / August 1999 |
| Strata 2 | Discharge, water temperature | Monthly (except winter) |
| Sediment traps | Monthly (except winter) | |
| Fish presence & density | August & October 1999, | |
| Macroinvertebrate taxa and indices | Monthly (except winter) | |
| Nutrients, pH, primary production | August & October 1999 | |
| Habitat units, cross section of site, gradient, aspect | August 1999 | |
| LWD density & movement | August 1999 | |
| Substrate composition | August 1999 | |
| Riparian forest community | August 1999 |
Budget
Table 1. Total estimated budget for upper Kispiox River watershed assessment
Personnel/Wages
Project Manager (20 days est.) $ 8,000
Fisheries Specialist (30 days est.) $ 12,000
Aquatic Biologist (30 days est.) $ 12,000
Ecologist (20 days est.) $ 8,000
Fish/Forest Technician (30 days est.) $ 12,000
Geomorphologist (6 days est.) $ 2,400
Estimate of 135 man-days @ est.$400/man/day Sub Total $ 54,000
Supplies & Materials
Digitized Mapping, GPS Work etc. (SWAT) Est. $ 12,000
Helicopter time (20 hours @ $800/hr) $ 16,000
Boat rental (10 days @ $100/day) $ 1,000
Water quality tests (20 tests @ $ 250 /test) $ 5,000
Photographs (20 rolls @ $25.00/roll, purchase and developing) $ 500
Report Preparation (8 copies @ $450/copy) $ 3,500
-printing, copying, color photograph copies, binding
Sub Total $ 38,000
Administration & Overhead
Estimated at aproximately 10% of project costs $ 9,000
Estimated Total Project Cost $100,000
![]() |
Figure 1. Kispiox River showing extent of development, proposed harvesting area, and proposed Study Area.