fwp 2003 03 rpt level1classificationgisbasedstreamreachcharacteristics

Report 2.4.1b

Level 1 Classification: GIS – Based Stream Reach Characteristics

Prepared by Richard McCleary, Chantelle Bambrick, Chad Sherburne and Scott Wilson

Foothills Model Forest March 12, 2003

Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics

Foothills Model Forest Publication Disclaimer

The views, statements and conclusions expressed, and the recommendations made in this

report are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be construed as statements or

conclusions of, or as expressing the opinions of the Foothills Model Forest, or the partners or

sponsors of the Foothills Model Forest. The exclusion of certain manufactured products does not

necessarily imply disapproval, nor does the mention of other products necessarily imply

endorsement by the Foothills Model Forest or any of its partners or sponsors.

Foothills Model Forest Page i


Acknowledgements

Rick Bonar, Chief Biologist of Weldwood of Canada Ltd. (Hinton Division) originally

expressed the need for a stream classification system that would be useful to guide forest

management activities. As a result, we initiated work on this field classification project in 1999.

The project was completed with support from partners including Weldwood of Canada Ltd.

(Hinton Division) Forest Resources Improvement Program, the Canadian Forest Service, Alberta

Sustainable Resource Development, the Alberta Conservation Association and Jasper National

Park.

Foothills Model Forest Page ii


Abstract

This report describes the second component of an ecosystem-based classification of

watersheds and streams. The classification is hierarchical in nature and is divided into three

parts: GIS–based watershed classification; GIS-based stream reach classification; and field-based

stream reach classification. This report includes the methods and results of the GIS-based stream

reach classification. A stream reach is a relatively homogenous length of stream with a sequence

of repeating structural characteristics and processes. The study area included all streams within

15 watersheds that represent the wide range of basin types within the west-central foothills of

Alberta.

Stream Reaches, delineated through an automated process, were described by upstream

basin size, stream channel slope and dominant riparian vegetation type. These descriptors were

selected because they are related to important physical and biological processes including habitat

selection, sediment transport capacity and channel response to land-use related disturbances.

We found that headwater streams in the Lower foothills natural sub region had a lower

drainage density. Dominant slope class in Lower foothills was 0-4%, suggesting that sediment

transport capacities and rates are much lower than in higher relief basins. Lower foothills

streams were dominated by shrub and black spruce/larch riparian vegetation types, in

comparison to spruce and pine in steeper watersheds.

Our findings confirmed that stream reach characteristics were highly variable between

watersheds and within individual basins. A total of 41 of the 105 had medium or high similarity

based on dominant slope and riparian vegetation type.

Foothills Model Forest Page iii


Table of Contents Foothills Model Forest Publication Disclaimer ............................................................................... i Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... ii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Methods................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Determining Slope Class by Stream Reach .................................................................... 2 2.2 Determining Dominant Riparian Vegetation Class by Stream Reach............................ 3 2.3 Classification by Drainage Area Size Class ................................................................... 7

3 Results................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Summary of Reach Characteristics for All Watersheds................................................ 10 3.2 Similarity of Watersheds based on Reach Characteristics ........................................... 13 3.3 Details of Slope and Riparian Vegetation Characteristics for Each Watershed.......... 13

3.3.1 Anderson Creek Watershed .................................................................................. 14 3.3.2 Antler Creek Watershed........................................................................................ 16 3.3.3 Emerson Creek Watershed.................................................................................... 18 3.3.4 Fish Creek Watershed ........................................................................................... 20 3.3.5 Lambert Creek Watershed .................................................................................... 22 3.3.6 Lynx Creek Watershed ......................................................................................... 24 3.3.7 MacKenzie Creek Watershed ............................................................................... 26 3.3.8 Moon Creek Watershed ........................................................................................ 28 3.3.9 Pinto Creek Watershed ......................................................................................... 30 3.3.10 Solomon Creek Watershed ................................................................................... 32 3.3.11 Teepee Creek Watershed ...................................................................................... 34 3.3.12 Tri-Creeks Watershed ........................................................................................... 36 3.3.13 Upper Erith River Watershed................................................................................ 40

4 Discussion............................................................................................................................. 42 4.1 Stream Size Class .......................................................................................................... 42 4.2 Slope Class.................................................................................................................... 42 4.3 Riparian Vegetation Class ............................................................................................ 42 4.4 Fish Habitat .................................................................................................................. 42 4.5 Sensitivity to Disturbance ............................................................................................. 43

5 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 44

Foothills Model Forest Page iv


List of Figures Figure 1. Stream reaches classified by slope class. ........................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Classified stream reaches with 30 m buffer. ................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Map of AVI data and buffered stream reaches................................................................ 5 Figure 4. Intersection of AVI data and buffered stream reaches. .................................................. 5 Figure 5. Dominant riparian vegetation class by stream reach....................................................... 7 Figure 6. Percent occurrence of fish by drainage area size class from Foothills Model Forest

backpack electrofishing inventories (FMF 1996 – 2002). ...................................................... 9 Figure 7. Percent of each slope class for all selected monitoring watersheds. ............................ 11 Figure 8. Percent of each riparian vegetation class for all selected monitoring watersheds. ....... 12 Figure 9. Distribution of slope classes in the Anderson Creek Watershed................................... 14 Figure 10. Total length of each slope class represented in the Anderson Creek Watershed. ...... 14 Figure 11. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Anderson Creek Watershed. ......... 15 Figure 12. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Anderson Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 13. Distribution of slope classes in the Antler Creek Watershed. ..................................... 16 Figure 14. Total length of each slope class represented in the Antler Creek Watershed. ........... 16 Figure 15. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Antler Creek Watershed. ............... 17 Figure 16. Total length of each riparian class represented in the Antler Creek Watershed. ........ 17 Figure 17. Distribution of slope classes in the Emerson Creek Watershed. ................................. 18 Figure 18. Total length of each slope class represented in the Emerson Creek Watershed. ....... 18 Figure 19. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Emerson Creek Watershed. ........... 19 Figure 20. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Emerson Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 21. Distribution of slope classes in the Fish Creek Watershed. ........................................ 20 Figure 22. Total length of each slope class represented in the Fish Creek Watershed................ 20 Figure 23. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Fish Creek Watershed.................... 21 Figure 24. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Fish Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 25. Distribution of slope classes in the Lambert Creek Watershed................................... 22 Figure 26. Total length of each slope class represented in the Lambert Creek Watershed. ........ 22 Figure 27. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Lambert Creek Watershed. ............ 23 Figure 28. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Lambert Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 29. Distribution of slope classes in the Lynx Creek Watershed........................................ 24 Figure 30. Total length of each slope class represented in the Lynx Creek Watershed. ............. 24 Figure 31. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Lynx Creek Watershed. ................. 25 Figure 32. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Lynx Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 33. Distribution of slope classes in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed............................. 26 Figure 34. Total length of each slope class represented in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed. ... 26 Figure 35. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed. ....... 27 Figure 36. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the MacKenzie Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 37. Distribution of slope classes in the Moon Creek Watershed....................................... 28

Foothills Model Forest Page v


Figure 38. Total length of each slope class represented in the Moon Creek Watershed. ............ 28 Figure 39. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Moon Creek Watershed. ................ 29 Figure 40. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Moon Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 41. Distribution of slope classes in the Pinto Creek Watershed........................................ 30 Figure 42. Total length of each slope class represented in the Pinto Creek Watershed. ............. 30 Figure 43. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Pinto Creek Watershed. ................. 31 Figure 44. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Pinto Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 45. Distribution of slope classes in the Solomon Creek Watershed.................................. 32 Figure 46. Total length of each slope class represented in the Solomon Creek Watershed. ....... 32 Figure 47. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Solomon Creek Watershed. ........... 33 Figure 48. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Solomon Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 49. Distribution of slope classes in the Teepee Creek Watershed..................................... 34 Figure 50. Total length of each slope class represented in the Teepee Creek Watershed. .......... 34 Figure 51. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Teepee Creek Watershed. .............. 35 Figure 52. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Teepee Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 53. Distribution of slope classes in the Tri-Creeks Watershed. ........................................ 36 Figure 54. Total length of each slope class represented in the Wampus Creek Watershed. ....... 37 Figure 55. Total length of each slope class represented in the Deerlick Creek Watershed. ......... 37 Figure 56. Total length of each slope class represented in the Eunice Creek Watershed............. 37 Figure 57. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Tri-Creeks Watershed.................... 38 Figure 58. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Wampus Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 59. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Deerlick Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 60. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Eunice Creek

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 61. Distribution of slope classes in the Upper Erith River Watershed.............................. 40 Figure 62. Total length of each slope class represented in the Upper Erith River Watershed. ... 40 Figure 63. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Upper Erith River Watershed. ....... 41 Figure 64. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Upper Erith River

Watershed. ............................................................................................................................ 41

Foothills Model Forest Page vi


List of Tables Table 1. Slope classes and their respective slope ranges. .............................................................. 3 Table 2. AVI yield group classes and riparian vegetation classes. ................................................. 4 Table 3. Area for each AVI polygon within the 30 m buffer of Reach #104516. .......................... 6 Table 4. Total area of each vegetation class for Reach 104516...................................................... 6 Table 5. Drainage area classes. ...................................................................................................... 8 Table 6. Summary of reach length by drainage area classes (watersheds sorted by mean basin

slope)..................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 7. Summary of dominant slope and riparian vegetation classes for all watersheds........... 12 Table 8. Similarity of Watersheds based on the number of shared dominant reach characteristics

(Dominant Slope Class and Dominant Riparian Vegetation Class). .................................... 13

Foothills Model Forest Page vii


1 Introduction

This report describes the second component of an ecosystem-based classification of

watersheds and streams. The classification system is hierarchical in nature and includes three

parts: GIS-based watershed classification, GIS-based stream reach classification, and field-based

stream reach classification.

The largest ecological unit of this classification is the watershed, also known as the

catchment or basin. A watershed is defined as the topographically delineated land area above

some point on a stream (Brooks et al. 1992). For this project, a total of 15 watersheds were

delineated using the mouth of each stream into a larger river as the point. However, for other

applications of this watershed classification system, the point on the stream used to delineate a

watershed may also include the downstream end of any stream reach in a channel network.

The smallest ecological unit of this classification system is the stream reach. A stream

reach is defined as a relatively homogenous length of stream having a sequence of repeating

structural characteristics and processes that correspond to particular fish habitat types (BC

Fisheries Information Services Branch 2001).

Our GIS-based stream reach classification utilized three reach descriptors including:

reach slope class, dominant riparian vegetation class, and drainage area size class.

The stream reach component of the classification is important for evaluating channel

response to disturbance. When considering the response of a particular stream reach to timber

harvest, several complex interactive variables that should be considered include biophysical

conditions, climate and hydrologic variables and management activities themselves (Brardinoni

et al. 2002).

In comparitive studies it is essential to group only those channels with similar

morphologies and planimetric form because channels respond differently to land-use changes

(Hogan et al. 1998). In addition, the role of riparian vegetation for stream bank stabilization

varies among different types of channel morphologies (Rosgen and Silvey 1996).

Stream reach attributes can also influence fish populations and species richness.

Separation of stream segments into reaches of similar gradient was important in identifying

habitat features related to trout abundance (Kozel et al. 1989). In a study of Coho Salmon smolt

abundance, lower stream gradients were associated with higher smolt density (Sharma and

Hilborn 2001). Stream size is another characteristic used to describe a particular reach and

Foothills Model Forest Page 1


variations in species richness of stream benthic invertebrates were associated with changes in

stream order (Minshall et al. 1985).

As a result of these factors, the stream reach components of this classification system are

important for achieving the two overall goals of the classification exercise, which are:

1. The system represents a key component of our multi-year study into the effects of

human activities on aquatic resources.

2. The system is also intended to facilitate the development of basin and stream

reach specific resource management plans.

2 Methods 2.1 Determining Slope Class by Stream Reach

The stream network was divided into stream reaches. Using an automated process each

reach was described by a number of parameters including slope (Golder 2001). To correct for a

known bias in stream sinuosity, a slope correction factor was applied to all reaches with a

drainage area of less than 20 km² (McCleary and Blackburn 2002).

Reach Slope ClassAa (>10%)A (4-10%)B (2-4%)C (1-2%)E (0-1%)

Figure 1. Stream reaches classified by slope class.



Slope classes were assigned for each stream reach (Table 1). Table 1. Slope classes and their respective slope ranges.

Slope Range Slope Class 0 – 1 % 1 1 – 2 % 2 2 – 4 % 3 4 – 10 % 4 > 10 % 5

The total length of stream for each slope class within each watershed was calculated

using ArcView 3.2 (ESRI 1999). Maps for each watershed were built using ArcGIS 8.2 (ESRI

2002). The data was queried in Microsoft Access and then exported to Microsoft Excel and

summarized.

2.2 Determining Dominant Riparian Vegetation Class by Stream Reach A number of data sources provided vegetation class information for the forested areas

within the Foothills Model Forest. They included the Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI),

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and the biophysical inventory for Jasper National Park.

However, the Weldwood AVI dataset provided the largest coverage for the study area.

The Weldwood AVI dataset provided a number of classification options for vegetation.

A field called “Yield Group” was selected because it split out black spruce stands located in

upland forests (spruce/hardwood and mixed spruce) from black spruce stands within wetland

areas (black spruce / larch). The latter are non-productive for industrial forestry. Our field

crews have also frequently observed low fish productivity in small streams within black spruce

muskeg areas. Therefore the black spruce / larch yield group may help to explain fish

distributions within the study watersheds.

We grouped similar fields together into a smaller set of riparian vegetation classes (Table

2).



Table 2. AVI yield group classes and riparian vegetation classes.

AVI Yield Group Riparian Vegetation Aspen

Aspen/softwood Aspen

Black spruce / larch Black spruce / larchNone Unclassified

Non-forest Non-forestPine

Pine/black spruce Pine/fir

Pine/hardwood Pine/white spruce

Pine

Spruce/hardwood Mixed spruce White spruce

White spruce/pine

Spruce

The process of determining the dominant riparian vegetation class for each stream reach

required several steps in ArcView 3.2. First, we buffered each stream reach by 30 meters

(Figure 2).

30 m buffer

Reach Slope ClassAa (>10%)A (4-10%)B (2-4%)C (1-2%)E (0-1%)

Figure 2. Classified stream reaches with 30 m buffer.

Next, we displayed the Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) data with the buffered

streams (Figure 3).



30 m bufferAVI Vegetation Polygon

Figure 3. Map of AVI data and buffered stream reaches.

Using an intersection function in GIS, we created a new theme, which captured all of the

AVI information within each buffered reach (Figure 4).

#

Reach 104516

30 m buffer with AVIStream

Figure 4. Intersection of AVI data and buffered stream reaches.



The area for each polygon within this new theme was updated. The data table from this

new theme was exported into a database (Table 3).

Table 3. Area for each AVI polygon within the 30 m buffer of Reach #104516.

Reach ID AVI Polygon ID Vegetation Class Area (m2)104516 56322 NON-FOREST 2669.1104516 56323 PINE 80.6104516 56324 PINE 0.1104516 56325 NON-FOREST 1293.6104516 56326 ASPEN 1024.7104516 56327 PINE 8454.9104516 56328 ASPEN 21378.9104516 56329 PINE 678.3104516 56330 PINE 556.93104516 56331 ASPEN 1139.4104516 56332 ASPEN 251.8

Using database and spreadsheet procedures, the AVI information was summarized for

each reach and the dominant vegetation class was determined. For Reach 104516, the dominant

vegetation class was aspen (Table 4).

Table 4. Total area of each vegetation class for Reach 104516.

Area by Vegetation Class (m2)Reach_ID ASPEN NON-FOREST PINE

Total Area (m2)

104516 23,794.7 Dominant

class

3,962.6 9,770.8 37,528.1

Once the dominant riparian vegetation class was determined, this information was added

to the reach classification table so the results could be visually displayed (Figure 5).



Riparian Vegetation ClassAspenNon-ForestPine

Figure 5. Dominant riparian vegetation class by stream reach.

Maps for each watershed were built using ArcGIS 8.2. The data was queried in

Microsoft Access and then exported to Microsoft Excel and summarized.

2.3 Classification by Drainage Area Size Class Stream order classifications have several limitations including their dependence upon

map scale, frequent modification based on terrain, and failure to describe ecological processes

and headwater streams (Gomi et al. 2002). Therefore, we also included drainage area as a

measure of stream size. The total drainage area for the watershed, of each stream reach, was

calculated as part of the automated classification (Golder 2001). Six drainage area size classes

were established to represent the range in sizes of small streams that are encountered while

backpack electrofishing (Table 5). The six watershed size classes correspond to various levels of

occurrence of fish while backpack electrofishing (Figure 6).



Table 5. Drainage area classes.

Class 1: 0 – 2 km2 Class 2: 2 - 5 km2

Class 3: 5 - 10 km2 Class 4: 10 - 20 km2

Class 5: 20 - 40 km2 Class 6: >40 km2



0102030405060708090

100

1 2 3 4 5 6Drainage Area Classes

Perc

ent O

ccur

renc

e of

Fis

h

n = 23/112

n = 91/148

n = 72/157

n = 88/114

n = 101/107

ll

n = 102/111

Figure 6. Percent occurrence of fish by drainage area size class from Foothills Model Forest backpack electrofishing inventories (FMF 1996 – 2002).



3 Results The results are presented in two parts including classification summaries and

classification results by watershed. The classification summaries are presented first. Sorting

watersheds by mean basin slope proved useful for detecting similarities and differences in

watershed characteristics in Report 2.4.1a – Level 1 Basin Characteristics. Therefore, in the

reach classification summary tables, watersheds were sorted in order from the highest mean

basin slope to the lowest mean basin slope. In the section with the classification results by

watershed, the watersheds are arranged in alphabetical order.

3.1 Summary of Reach Characteristics for All Watersheds Although 65 percent of all reaches had a drainage area of less than 2 km², the amount

within each watershed ranged between 78.6 percent and 38.4 percent (Table 6). The decrease of

length in Class 1 (0 – 2 km²) streams corresponded well to decreases in mean basin slope.

Table 6. Summary of reach length by drainage area classes (watersheds sorted by mean basin slope).

Percent of Reach Length by Drainage Area Class

Watershed

Total km (all

classes) 1

(0-2 km²) 2

(2-5 km²)3

(5-10 km²)4

(10-20 km²)5

(20-40 km²) 6

(>40 km²)

Total %(all

classes)Moon 276.9 78.6 6.4 3.2 3.2 1.6 6.9 100.0

Solomon 365.9 72.1 9.0 5.0 3.8 2.0 8.1 100.0 MacKenzie 365.9 72.1 9.0 5.0 3.8 2.0 8.1 100.0

Deerlick 36.3 72.7 8.4 6.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 Wampus 68.1 77.3 3.7 1.7 7.3 10.0 0.0 100.0 Teepee 159.1 73.9 9.0 3.0 4.5 5.9 3.6 100.0 Eunice 33.7 73.3 9.6 7.8 9.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 Antler 139.7 71.7 9.0 2.8 2.4 9.9 4.2 100.0

Anderson 139.5 61.1 13.4 8.3 7.6 4.9 4.8 100.0 Upper Erith 192.3 57.8 15.2 5.9 5.8 7.0 8.3 100.0

Lynx 102.9 55.1 21.0 5.0 2.4 3.4 13.1 100.0 Fish 73.4 57.5 19.4 3.4 1.6 13.6 4.4 100.0 Pinto 535.8 61.9 12.3 6.1 5.2 3.3 11.4 100.0

Emerson 86.7 43.4 15.1 11.4 7.4 5.2 17.5 100.0 Lambert 161.2 38.4 15.4 7.0 7.5 8.7 23.0 100.0

Total 2633.8 65.0 11.4 5.5 4.7 4.6 8.7 100.0



Overall, all five slope classes were well represented within the study area watersheds and

stream reaches with less than 4 percent slope comprised nearly half of the total stream length

(Figure 7).

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

< 1 % 1 - 2 % 2 - 4 % 4 - 10 % > 10 %

Slope Percent

Perc

ent (

%)

Figure 7. Percent of each slope class for all selected monitoring watersheds.

Four of the five riparian vegetation types were well represented within the monitoring

watersheds (Figure 8). Pine dominated riparian areas were the most common. However, the two

non-commercial classes (Black spruce / larch and Non-forest) comprised over 25 percent of the

total area.



0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Unclassified Black spruce/ Larch

Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen

Riparian Vegetation Class

Perc

ent (

%)

Figure 8. Percent of each riparian vegetation class for all selected monitoring watersheds.

The decrease in slope of the dominant reach slope class corresponded well to a decrease

in mean basin slope except for the Upper Erith and Fish Creek watersheds (Table 7). In Report

2.4.1a – Level 1 Basin Characteristics, we observed that a mixture of plateau benchlands and

areas of steeper topography characterized these two basins. The decrease in basin relief also

corresponded to a general shift from pine to spruce to black spruce / larch as the dominant

riparian vegetation class.

Table 7. Summary of dominant slope and riparian vegetation classes for all watersheds.

Monitoring Watershed

Dominant Slope Class

Slope Range (%)

Dominant Riparian Vegetation Class

Moon 5 > 10 Unclassified Solomon 5 > 10 Unclassified

MacKenzie 5 > 10 Unclassified Deerlick 4 4 – 10 Pine Wampus 4 4 – 10 Pine Teepee 4 4 – 10 Pine Eunice 4 4 – 10 Pine Antler 4 4 – 10 Pine

Anderson 4 4 – 10 Spruce Upper Erith 1 0 – 1 Pine

Lynx 3 2 – 4 Spruce Fish 4 4 – 10 Spruce



Table 7 continued. Summary of dominant slope and riparian vegetation classes for all watersheds. Monitoring Watershed

Dominant Slope Class

Slope Range (%)

Dominant Riparian Vegetation Class

Pinto 3 2 – 4 Pine Emerson 1 0 – 1 Black spruce/Larch Lambert 1 0 – 1 Black spruce/Larch

3.2 Similarity of Watersheds based on Reach Characteristics

Based on the dominant class of two reach characteristics, only 15 of the 105 possible

watershed pairs shared identical characteristics (Table 8). A total of 26 watershed pairs shared

one dominant reach characteristic.

Table 8. Similarity of Watersheds based on the number of shared dominant reach characteristics (Dominant Slope Class and Dominant Riparian Vegetation Class).

Moo

n

Solo

mon

Mac

Ken

zie

Dee

rlick

Wam

pus

Teep

ee

Euni

ce

Ant

ler

And

erso

n

Upp

er E

rith

Lynx

Fish

Pint

o

Emer

son

Solomon 2 MacKenzie 2 2 Deerlick 0 0 0 Wampus 0 0 0 2 Teepee 0 0 0 2 2 Eunice 0 0 0 2 2 2 Antler 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 Anderson 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Upper Erith 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Lynx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Fish 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 Pinto 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Emerson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lambert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3.3 Details of Slope and Riparian Vegetation Characteristics for Each Watershed

Maps and tables illustrating the distribution of stream slope classes and riparian

vegetation classes are provided for each of the monitoring watersheds (Figure 9 – Figure 60).



3.3.1 Anderson Creek Watershed

Figure 9. Distribution of slope classes in the Anderson Creek Watershed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 10. Total length of each slope class represented in the Anderson Creek Watershed.



Figure 11. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Anderson Creek Watershed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Unclassified Black spruce /larch



Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 12. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Anderson Creek Watershed.



3.3.2 Antler Creek Watershed

Figure 13. Distribution of slope classes in the Antler Creek Watershed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 14. Total length of each slope class represented in the Antler Creek Watershed.



Figure 15. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Antler Creek Watershed.

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 16. Total length of each riparian class represented in the Antler Creek Watershed.



3.3.3 Emerson Creek Watershed

Figure 17. Distribution of slope classes in the Emerson Creek Watershed.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 18. Total length of each slope class represented in the Emerson Creek Watershed.



Figure 19. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Emerson Creek Watershed.

0

10

20

30

40

50




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 20. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Emerson Creek Watershed.



3.3.4 Fish Creek Watershed

Figure 21. Distribution of slope classes in the Fish Creek Watershed.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 22. Total length of each slope class represented in the Fish Creek Watershed.



Figure 23. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Fish Creek Watershed.

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.0




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 24. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Fish Creek Watershed.



3.3.5 Lambert Creek Watershed

Figure 25. Distribution of slope classes in the Lambert Creek Watershed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 26. Total length of each slope class represented in the Lambert Creek Watershed.



Figure 27. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Lambert Creek Watershed.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Unclassified Black spruce/ larch



Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 28. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Lambert Creek Watershed.



3.3.6 Lynx Creek Watershed

Figure 29. Distribution of slope classes in the Lynx Creek Watershed.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 30. Total length of each slope class represented in the Lynx Creek Watershed.



Figure 31. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Lynx Creek Watershed.

05

1015202530354045




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 32. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Lynx Creek Watershed.



3.3.7 MacKenzie Creek Watershed

Figure 33. Distribution of slope classes in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 34. Total length of each slope class represented in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed.



Figure 35. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed.

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 36. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed.



3.3.8 Moon Creek Watershed

Figure 37. Distribution of slope classes in the Moon Creek Watershed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 38. Total length of each slope class represented in the Moon Creek Watershed.



Figure 39. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Moon Creek Watershed.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 40. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Moon Creek Watershed.



3.3.9 Pinto Creek Watershed

Figure 41. Distribution of slope classes in the Pinto Creek Watershed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 42. Total length of each slope class represented in the Pinto Creek Watershed.



Figure 43. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Pinto Creek Watershed.

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 44. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Pinto Creek Watershed.



3.3.10 Solomon Creek Watershed

Figure 45. Distribution of slope classes in the Solomon Creek Watershed.

0

40

80

120

160

200

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 46. Total length of each slope class represented in the Solomon Creek Watershed.



Figure 47. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Solomon Creek Watershed.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 48. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Solomon Creek Watershed.



3.3.11 Teepee Creek Watershed

Figure 49. Distribution of slope classes in the Teepee Creek Watershed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 50. Total length of each slope class represented in the Teepee Creek Watershed.



Figure 51. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Teepee Creek Watershed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 52. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Teepee Creek Watershed.



3.3.12 Tri-Creeks Watershed

Figure 53. Distribution of slope classes in the Tri-Creeks Watershed.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

< 1 % 1 - 2 % 2 - 4 % 4 - 10 % > 10 %

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)



Figure 54. Total length of each slope class represented in the Wampus Creek Watershed.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

< 1 % 1 - 2 % 2 - 4 % 4 - 10 % > 10 %

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 55. Total length of each slope class represented in the Deerlick Creek Watershed.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

< 1 % 1 - 2 % 2 - 4 % 4 - 10 % > 10 %

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 56. Total length of each slope class represented in the Eunice Creek Watershed.



Figure 57. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Tri-Creeks Watershed.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Unclassified Blackspruce /

larch



Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 58. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Wampus Creek Watershed.



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


larch



Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 59. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Deerlick Creek Watershed.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0


larch



Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 60. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Eunice Creek Watershed.



3.3.13 Upper Erith River Watershed

Figure 61. Distribution of slope classes in the Upper Erith River Watershed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

Slope Class

Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 62. Total length of each slope class represented in the Upper Erith River Watershed.



Figure 63. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Upper Erith River Watershed.

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0




Len

gth

(km

)

Figure 64. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Upper Erith River Watershed.



4 Discussion 4.1 Stream Size Class

The extent of mapped headwater streams was variable with the largest proportion of streams

less than 2 km² occurring in the basins with the greatest relief. Many of these relief origin

channels may be ephemeral or intermittent streams that occur within small draws reflected in the

mapped topography. In the lower relief basins, many of the streams originate in wetland areas

(overview assessment) and discerning the starting point of a small permanent stream in a wetland

area often presents difficulty for the forestry technician.

4.2 Slope Class Although headwater streams typically have gradients greater than 4 percent in many areas of

western North America, the basins occurring in the Lower Foothills natural subregion often have

numerous headwater streams with gradients less than 4 percent. This suggests that sediment

transport capacities and rates are variable in headwater streams among the basins selected for this

study.

4.3 Riparian Vegetation Class Pine riparian types were the most common overall and also the dominant riparian vegetation

type in many of the Upper Foothills watersheds. In addition, black spruce / larch and non-forest

dominated riparian areas were abundant in lower relief watersheds. These findings illustrated a

very patchy nature of riparian areas, especially in low relief basins. The structure of the stream

channels in non-forested reaches must be maintained either by large woody debris from upstream

sources or other elements such as deep-rooted shrubby vegetation. With reduced sediment

transport rates and decreased potential large woody debris inputs, the importance of large woody

debris in headwater streams of lower gradient watersheds seems worth investigating.

4.4 Fish Habitat In this classification exercise, we documented the variability of three stream reach

characteristics within all stream channels in fifteen watersheds. Our findings suggest that fish

habitat characteristics are highly variable both within and between watersheds. This

classification could be used to develop a stratified sampling system for both operational

inventory and monitoring purposes.



4.5 Sensitivity to Disturbance The sensitivity of a stream channel to increases in discharge or sediment load or alterations

of the riparian vegetation is dependent upon a number of factors including stream size, slope, and

riparian vegetation type. Land-use managers may benefit from knowing the sensitivity to

disturbance of all streams in their area of interest. This classification system should serve to

extrapolate field classification findings regarding channel sensitivity to other reaches and

watersheds.



5 Literature Cited

Brardinoni, F., M. A. Hassan, and H. O. Slaymaker. 2002. Complex Mass Wasting Response of Drainage Basins to Forest Management in Coastal British Columbia. Department of Geography, University of British Columbia. Geomorphology. 49: 109-124.

BC Fisheries Information Services Branch. 2001. Reconnaissance (1:20 000) Fish and Fish

Habitat Inventory Standards and Procedures. BC Fisheries Information Services Branch, Resource Inventory.

Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, and J.L. Thames. 1992. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Iowa State University Press, Iowa, USA. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.). 1999. ArcView, Version 3.2.

Redlands, California, USA. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.). 2002. ArcMap, Version 8.2.

Redlands, California, USA. FMF (Foothills Model Forest). 1996. 1995-96 Fish and stream inventory-site summaries.

Prepared for the ACA, Weldwood of Canada (Hinton Division), and ASRD. FMF, Hinton, Alberta.

FMF (Foothills Model Forest). 1997. 1997 Fish and stream inventory-site summaries.















Golder Associates Ltd. 2001. Automated Stream Classification Project. Project completed for

Weldwood of Canada Ltd. – Hinton Division. Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding Processes and Downstream

Linkages of Headwater Systems. Bioscience. 52 (10): 905 – 916. Hogan, D.L., A. Cheong, and J. Hilger. 1998. Channel Morphology of Small Central Interior

Streams: Preliminary Results from the Stuart-Takla Fish/Forestry Interaction Program. Pages 455-470 in M.K. Brewin and D.M.A. Monita, tech. coords. Forest-fish conference: land management practices affecting aquatic ecosystems. Proc. Forest-Fish Conf., May 1-4, 1996, Calgary, Alberta. Nat. Resour. Can., Can. For. Serv., North. For. Cent., Edmonton, Alberta. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-356.

Kozel, S.J., W. Hubert, and M.G. Parsons. 1989. Habitat Features and Trout Abundance Relative

to Gradient in Some Wyoming Streams. Northwest Science. 63 (4): 175 – 182. McCleary, R., C. Weik, and J. Blackburn. 2002. Comparison Between Field Surveyed and GIS

Derived Descriptors of Small Streams Within the West-central Foothills of Alberta. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta.

McCleary, R., and J. Blackburn. 2002. Riparian Management Guidebook – Version 2.1.

Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta. Minshall, G. W., R.C. Petersen, and C.F. Nimz. 1985. Species Richness in Streams of Different

Size from the Same Drainage Basin. The American Naturalist. 125 (1) 16 – 38. Rosgen, D. and L. Silvey. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa

Springs, Colorado. Sharma, R. and R. Hilborn. 2001. Empirical Relationships Between Watershed Characteristics

and Coho Salmon (Oncorynchus kisutch) Smolt Abundance in 14 Western Washington Streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 58:1453 – 1463.

fwp 2003 03 rpt level1classificationgisbasedstreamreachcharacteristics

Documents

stream classification

foothills model forest

stream channel slope

lower foothills streams

homogenous length of

field classification

canadian forest service

forest management activities