Kootowis, Staghorn, Lost Shoe Watershed Restoration Project, KWRP
Summer Completion Report: Instream Work (Aug. 3rd - 27th, 1999).
For:
Warren Warttig, Project Coordinator
Enhanced Forestry Division
International Forest Products
P.O. Box 36 2960 Spit Road
Campbell River, B.C. V9W 4Z9
By
D.R. Clough Consulting
6966 Leland Road
Lantzville B.C. V0R 2H0
December 1999
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................................................. 2
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Monitoring............................................................................................................................................ 4
Maintenance Activities (1998 Restoration sites) ................................................................................. 5
Kootowis Creek ............................................................................................................................... 5
Rifle Range Tributary....................................................................................................................... 5
West Staghorn Creek ...................................................................................................................... 5
1999 Restoration Sites ........................................................................................................................ 5
West Staghorn Creek ...................................................................................................................... 5
Public Relations................................................................................................................................... 6
Project Summary................................................................................................................................. 6
Maintenance and Restoration timeline ............................................................................................ 6
Maintenance and Restoration cost outline ...................................................................................... 7
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 7
KWRP Work Plan for the 2000/2001 fiscal year ..................................................................................... 8
2000 KWRP Site Selection ................................................................................................................. 8
Hiring ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Training ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Maintenance ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Instream Activities ............................................................................................................................... 9
Monitoring............................................................................................................................................ 9
Reporting ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A: A summary of the Risk Assessment Method (W. Warttig MS status) .............................. 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Restoration and maintenance areas. ........................................................................................ 3
Table 2. KWRP 1999 labour activity summary ....................................................................................... 6
Table 3. KWRP 1999 project cost summary. ......................................................................................... 7
Table 4. Risk assessment of the targeted enhancement reaches ......................................................... 8
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P2
Overview
On August 3rd crews on the Kootowis, Lost Shoe, Staghorn Watershed Restoration Project
(KWRP) resumed working to restore the Hydrological, Biological and Riparian functions of the Kennedy
watershed to improve instream fish habitat and adjacent flood plain conditions. The work primarily involved
the removal of small woody debris and anchoring of large woody debris. The instream component began
August 3rd and ended August 27th (4 weeks). This is the fifth year of restoration activities in the watershed
area.
As before, the objective of the restoration was to primarily work from the top down. The
top down method addressed the risk of headwater debris inundating a lower restored reach. It also allowed
fish to utilize upper spawning habitat , which is in short supply. Together these have benefited the migration
of adult and juvenile fish, reduced inundation of adjacent flood-plains and enhanced the recovery of the
emerging young forest in the riparian zone.
Over 1400 meters of stream length was restored in work areas on West Staghorn Creek and it's
tributaries (Table 1, Figure 1). Also conducted in the four-week period was any required maintenance on
the 1998 enhancement sites (Table 1, Figure 1).
There were 33 debris jams unplugged on the West Staghorn Creek and its tributaries. Workers
used close to 1,200 meters of cable to anchor approximately 605 pieces of large woody debris, as well as
removing approximately 350 cubic meters of small woody debris.
There were three crews working on the project in 1999. Two funded under Forest Renewal B.C.
(FRBC) and one funded by Fish Renewal B.C. (FsRBC). An added benefit to the workers employment and
testament to their skill was the contracting out of one crew to the Muriel Creek FRBC project.
A partnership was also developed with the forestry operations of International Forest Products
(Interfor) over the upgrading of the Alaska White Pine mainline (AWP) bridge. Interfor provided LWD and
other materials to construct a V-weir complex at the bridge site and the KWRP project provided the labour
crew and biological design.
Table 1. Restoration and maintenance areas.
Restoration Area
Distance (m)
West Staghorn Creek
850
Tributary 1 (West Staghorn)
519
Other West Staghorn Tributaries
100
Total
1469
Maintenance Area
Distance (m)
Main stem; Kootowis Creek
4,200
Creek 1 (Kootowis Creek) *
0
Creek 2 (Kootowis Creek) *
0
Creek 4 (Kootowis Creek) *
0
Rifle Range Trib (Kootowis Creek)
841
West Staghorn Creek
850
Total
5,891
* Note: No maintenance was required on these systems.
Methods
Our instream restoration techniques and methods have been developed over 5 years of work
experience. Crew skills and methods have progressively evolved to a safe and reliable work plan.
Training
The crew training consisted of one day, which was less than desired but sufficient given the budget
and crew experience. The training day consisted of a part day of "in class" discussion, and the remaining
part of the day in the field. The inside training consisted of a refresher course on review of the work plan
and techniques. Slide photographs of past work successes and failures were shown with discussion. The
field portion consisted of a tour of some of the past year's restoration sites and demonstrations of
successful strategies. All but two of the crewmembers had previously worked on the project in the past.
Job safety protocols were identified at the start and again through out the day. The crew were given a
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P3
personnel/supervisor contact list with emergency numbers and radio frequencies, copies of written safe
work procedures, emergency transport guidelines, off road driving regulations, the designation of first aid
personnel as well as discuss all of the items.
Monitoring
The integrity of the 1998 restoration structures was accomplished by scoring them on the attached
1998 Gant Chart. This activity was done prior to maintenance so we could direct the crew on any areas of
concern.
Maintenance
Maintenance of last years’ restoration areas was done in the first week as this allowed the crew to
orient themselves with the work plan. The crew could see the way past work had created scour pools and
other functions. The details of activities are covered in the results section and 1998 Gant Chart
assessment.
Restoration
The restoration method used to restore clustered debris sites for this project was to first remove
the Small Wood Debris (SWD) that was clogging and blanketing the stream section. The LWD on site is
then assessed to determine its best location for cover, scour or drainage functions. It then may be
relocated and anchored. The SWD was hauled safely above the floodplain where the piles will rot. This
benefits the forest inhabitants as food and cover as well as returning nutrients to the soil. The stream banks
of the West Fork Staghorn were high and near the restoration sites to allow this method of SWD removal.
A detailed description of techniques is written in the 1996 KWRP Level 2 Inventory Report (D.R. Clough
Consulting).
Bundled clusters of logs and large wood debris (LWD) were manipulated into place using chainsaw winches, turfer jacks, or chain blocks. The LWD was then fastened in place by cabling to; stumps,
large immovable logs, or live trees when necessary. If no suitable anchor point was available then a
"Duckbill" was used to anchor the LWD to the stream bank or bed. Attempts to reduce the amount of cable
were achieved by creatively cutting notches or drilling holes to shorten the required cable lengths and to
hide the cables.
The crews accessed the maintenance sites using the road and trail system in place from the 1998
enhancement operations. Access to the work sites on the West Staghorn Creek was by building trails off of
the spur road that parallels the creek to the west and the L1000 spur road on the eastside of the creek.
Results
Monitoring
The results of 1998 restoration are shown on the attachment “Gant Charts of 1998 Restoration
Sites and Assessment”. Each structure and function was rated on scores of 1 to 4 with a score of 4
meeting all requirements. The scores of each structure/function were mainly 4’s with the exception of the
duckbill failures on one jam site, the lack of scour in several sites, and loose cables on some sites. The
loose cables were due mainly to the scour caused by the new structures. The loosened cables do not effect
the function of the structures, but tightening them does increase their efficiency. This is an expected result
and is planned for in the maintenance schedule. The scour function was not expected to be realized in
such a short term assessment. It was noted in the Level 2 Inventory (1996) that scour in very low gradient
sections (<1%) of the creek may take several years to achieve. The Winter Restoration Monitoring Report
1998/99 (D.R. Clough Consulting July 1999), discusses the Hydrology, 1997 structure assessment, and
fish presence over the winter of 1998/99.
The 1999 restoration sites have been made ready for monitoring in the attachment “Gant Charts of
1999 Restoration Sites”. As with the 1998 site high overall scores, we expect the same or better for 1999
restoration sites. Due to funding shortfalls in 1999/2000 no winter monitoring will be conducted, other than
structure stability in the summer of 2000. Fish presence was not surveyed but local salmonid enhancement
groups (Tofino/Thornton SEP) continue to attest to a moderate increase in Coho (est 1000 +) and a
significant increase in Chum (est. 300 – 500).
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P4
Maintenance Activities (1998 Restoration Sites)
The maintenance of the 1998 restoration sites took place after a technical review of each site was
conducted and the site was scored on a Gant chart created after completion of the 1998 summer work.
The 1998 works covered 4.2 km. of the mainstem Kootowis Creek, 841 meters of the Rifle Range tributary,
and 850 meters of the West Staghorn Creek. The maintenance consisted of SWD removal, the replacing
of a Duckbill in one site, and the tightening of some of the cable placed in 1998.
Kootowis Creek
There were 38 debris jam sites restored on the Kootowis Creek mainstem in 1998. Most of the
restoration sites on Kootowis Creek required the removal of small amounts of SWD pasted against the
crest LWD. The SWD was generated primarily by substrate scour created by restoration structures
upstream or was trapped under LWD during low flow. Some portions of the 38 sites treated in 1998
required higher levels of maintenance. For example some duckbills that were anchored poorly (not deep
enough or soft substrate) had pulled out and needed replacement, also one jam site was missed
completely in 1998. This jam required full restoration in 1999. The restoration was conducted as part of the
maintenance of an adjacent work site.
There are 9 beaver dams between station's 1+336 and 2+395 on the Kootowis mainstem, which
had their crests taken down to summer water levels. Inspection in 1999 indicated that the beavers had
rebuilt most of the jams and the repairs actually increased the floodplain area.
Rifle Range Tributary
The restoration sites on the Rifle Range Tributary to Kootowis Creek required very little
maintenance due mainly to the limited amounts of new SWD recruited. The maintenance consisted of the
tightening some cables and the removal of a small amount of SWD.
West Staghorn Creek
The 1998 restoration sites on West Staghorn Creek were 450m above to 400m below the Alaska
White Pine mainline bridge. The maintenance on these sites was limited to the removal of small amounts
of SWD from the restoration structures. The SWD was usually loosened from scoured areas upstream and
had drifted downstream into the structures. The anchor cables on some pieces of LWD required tightening
to improve their function. All in all the restoration sites were functioning very well to design specifications.
1999 Restoration Sites
The restoration sites chosen for the 1999 work period were controlled by the risk assessment
ranking of the KWRP work area sections. The risk assessment ranking method used was developed by
Warren Warttig of International Forest Products and is summarized in appendix A. The data used in the
risk ranking was from inventories and assessments conducted in the previous years of this project (1995 1998). The West Staghorn Creek section had the highest assessed risk score and was therefore the top
priority for the 1999 work period. With the limited funding available in the 1999 work year there was only
enough resources to restore the West Staghorn Creek section and to conduct maintenance on the 1998
restoration sites. The other priority sections that need restoration are listed in the 2000/2001 Work Plan.
West Staghorn Creek
West Staghorn Creek ranked the highest on the risk assessment of the KWRP stream sections
remaining to be restored and was therefore the primary target for the 1999 restoration work. The reasons
were; it had a high degree of habitat damage, it offered good rearing and rare headwater spawning habitat,
it was easily accessible and it would not require the additional cost of helicopter time to remove the SWD.
This reach had high density wood debris along its 850 meter mainstem from historic logging and cedar
salvage. There were 17 debris jams on the mainstem consisting of high density LWD and SWD. The SWD
consisted mainly of shake spalt and discarded shake blocks. The SWD that was removed was carried clear
of the 1:50 year floodplain. All of the remaining LWD that was not stable was anchored in place.
There was one major tributary to the West Staghorn in the restored section (Tributary 1). This
tributary was located on the west side of the West Staghorn approximately 350m upstream of the
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P5
deactivated spur road crossing above the Alaska White Pine mainline bridge. The impacted section of this
tributary was 519m long and had 16 debris jams that required restoration. There were also 4 small
tributaries to Tributary 1 that had restoration sites consisting mainly of SWD. The debris jams on the
Tributary 1 contained a similar mix of LWD and SWD as the mainstem West Staghorn jams.
There were several other short tributaries to the mainstem of the West Staghorn Creek that were
restored. The total length restored on these short systems was 100m in length. They contained SWD that
was removed to above the floodplain.
Public Relations
An interpretive trail was constructed with informative signs to allow the public to view the various
restoration sites (see photo and flyer in attached Photo log). More local employment was generated with
this project as workers were hired to erect signs and groom trails. Aside from the general public gaining
access to the restoration sites the local salmon enhancement groups have been able to utilize some of the
trails to increase their monitoring of the systems. The local people (sportfishers & enhancement personnel)
most familiar with the systems have reported an increase in water quality and fish access into the restored
areas. People are generally becoming more aware of the KWRP and of the work being conducted. The
general public tends to see the project as positive and valuable.
Project Summary
Maintenance and Restoration Timeline
The project began Aug 3rd with 1 day of training. The access clearing and maintenance continued
for the first week. Maintenance work carried on to the end of the second week with one crew while the
other two commenced with work in the prescribed areas. There were three crews of five persons each
including a crew supervisor. In addition there was a field manager and weekly biological support. Table 2
shows the timeline for each activity and the crews involved. The field manager and contract biologists
provided technical support throughout the four-week period to all crews. A total of 255 person days were
spent on the entire project, the field manager and biologist time contributions are not included in this
number.
The crews chose to work an extended work day in order to have a 4 day work week.. This work
schedule had the added benefit of increasing productivity with the crews on site for a longer period each
day thereby reducing setup time.
In addition to working on the KWRP, one of the field crews was sub-contracted by Northwest Ecosystems Institute (NEI) for one week. This crew worked on LWD placement in Muriel Creek. The fact NEI
chose to sub-contract KWRP workers reflects a growing recognition of their skill, teamwork, and product
quality.
Table 2. KWRP 1999 Labour Activity Summary.
Activity
Time period
Training
Maintenance
Aug 3rd: 3 Crew Days
Aug 4-6, 9-12
Aug 4-6, 9,10
Aug 4,5
14 Crew days
Aug 16-20, 23-26
Aug 11,12, 16-20, 2326
Aug 6, 9-12, 16-20
30 days
Aug 18,19
Aug 20
Aug 18
Crew days incl. in
above
Aug 23-26: 4 Crew days
51 Crew Days
Sub Total
Instream work
Sub Total
Bridge reconstruction
Sub Total
Subcontracted to Muriel Creek project
Total
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
Crew ID
Number
1, 2, and 3
1
2
3
Person
Days
15
35
25
10
70
41
53
48
142
Restoration Site
1
2
3
4
2
2
8
AWP mainline Bridge
AWP mainline Bridge
AWP mainline Bridge
3
20
255
Muriel Creek
1
2
3
NA
Kootowis Mainstem
Kootowis/W Staghorn
Riffle Range/W
Staghorn
West Staghorn & Tribs
West Staghorn & Tribs
West Staghorn & Tribs
P6
Maintenance and Restoration Cost Outline
Table 3 lists the expenditures of the project for the 1999 work in stream window. This does not
include the wages from the NEI project at Muriel. Final costs will be adjusted slightly higher to reflect
reporting and winter monitoring costs. All figures shown are approximate and rounded off for clarity. The
project objective was to keep employment high and expenses as low as possible. The short term nature of
the 1999 project (4 weeks) resulted in less time to amortize the start up costs, wages were 55 % of the
budget and cost per restored meter was $32.54. Thus in the longer 10 week 1998 period we accrued
better savings with 70 % towards wages and $27.00 per restored meter.
Table 3. KWRP 1999 Project Cost Summary.
Wages
Expenses (see below)
Total
$37,889.97
$30,210.28
$68,100.25
Wages as a percentage of total
$ 55.64
1999 Restoration costs per meter @ 1,469m
$ 32.54
1999 Maintenance costs per meter @ 5,891m
$ 3.44
1998 Restoration costs per meter @ 9,269m
$ 27.00
Expenses include:
 Biological monitoring
 Chainsaw rentals
 Crew vehicles
 Miscellaneous supplies, for example:
 Fuel/oil
 Equipment rentals (turfer jacks, chainsaw winches, etc)
 Cable/cable clamps/staples/duckbills etc.
Conclusion
The instream restoration portion of the project began on August 3rd 1999 and finished on August
27th 1999 for a total of four weeks. Even with the short working period the crews managed to accomplish a
large amount of quality work as seen from our assessments.
This project was short of its intended length (2.6km) of stream restored due to an initial
underestimation of the bankfull widths in the work area. The wider channels increased the volume of the
SWD that required removal.
Fish are utilizing a greater amount of the streams we have worked on, and changes reflecting a
more appropriate natural hydraulic function are noticeably apparent. Monitoring sweeps of the restored
sites have documented adult fish utilization in areas they had not been able to properly access for years.
The KWRP project has delivered some very important and specific economic benefits as well as
those personal benefits and growth that are not always as easy to quantify. Social benefits through
community and partnership building are increasing, such as the FsRBC Interpretive Trail Program.
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P7
KWRP Work Plan for the 2000/2001 Fiscal Year
We have now treated approximately 27 kilometers of over 160 km of lineal stream length in the
three watersheds. We will continue with the following list of priority work areas for 2000. The list was
derived from the work areas identified in preceding years. There are still over 128 km of high density wood
debris and clustered wood debris sites having significant effect on fish production. Our work plan is to
methodically restore all the areas on a priority basis. The areas and priority are described below.
2000 KWRP Site Selection
Within the KWRP watershed, with over 160 km of stream length, it is important to assess our
annual work areas. Within the scope of this watershed the risk assessment factors can be determined
from our past inventory and work experience. Using the risk assessment model the hazards,
consequences, and feasibility can be outlined as follows:

Hazard: The current state of the Kootowis/Lost Shoe/Staghorn Creek system is very poor in
relationship to it's potential. Many areas have poor or little access, habitat space is compromised by the
infilled wood debris and riparian zones that are inundated with water. The hazard is continued lack of
full potential fish or riparian zone production.

Consequence: The KWRP wood debris sites have been impacted for 20 years. The impacts of
leaving the area un-restored are continued reduced production. The low gradient system reduces the
possibility of wood debris torrents.

Feasibility: The ability to undertake the project successfully and efficiently relative to the region or
watershed scope. On a regional scale this project is a very high score compared to the Mooyah,
Escalante. The degree of road and trail access on the KWRP sites is the key to efficiency on this
project.
Table 4 lists the areas of the KWRP watershed identified from previous experience to be the most
likely candidates for work in 2000 based on impacts, production and access. The table also lists their risk
assessment scores.
Table 4. Risk Assessment of the Targeted Enhancement Reaches.
Site
Morton Trib, Lost Shoe Ck
Hazard
5
Consequence
4
Feasibility
5
Score
100
Lost Shoe mainstem below
Hwy 4A
Lost Shoe Mouth
Staghorn M/S
Staghorn Middle
Staghorn Middle trib
Kootowis AWP
6
4
6
144
Comment
Important spawning and
rearing, adult access concerns
riparian damage, trail access
6
6
5
5
6
4
4
3
3
3
5
7
6
6
6
120
168
90
90
108
Park permits, long trail
flood concerns, road access
rearing, trail access
rearing, spawning, trail
spawning, road access
Table 4 indicates the West Fork Staghorn mainstem and Lost Shoe Mainstem to be the highest
rated areas. This identifies the work plan priorities for the 2000 in stream work window. Depending on
funding the project will work down this table in order of score through the 2000 work year. The following list
has a basic outline of each section ranked in Table 4

Morton Trib, Lost Shoe: 2200m
This first order tributary from Morton Lake that enters Lost Shoe offers some of the highest habitat
potential for the watershed. Restoration of the clustered wood debris jams will improve channel
morphology and fish access to the lake and above.

Lost Shoe Mainstem: 250 m
This area, just below the Highway 4 bridge has sections of high density wood debris. Work could
be conducted at this site without concern from upstream influence. There is not likely to be
sediment or wood debris transport capable of moving down through the system from above HWY
4. The debris jams in this section create a large "lake" in the winter that causes discharge water to
flow into the Kennedy Watershed.
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P8
…….2000 Site selection cont’d.





Lost Shoe Mouth: 50 m
One isolated jam has built up from logging waste and plugged to the point of preventing Chum
Salmon access. Removal of small wood debris would correct the problem.
Staghorn Mainstem: 250 m
Large clustered wood debris jams immediately downstream of the MB logging road bridge are
backflooding the road to the point the bridge floats in winter. The resultant effect on the riparian
zone and fish habitat is also detrimental.
Staghorn Middle Fork: 2000m
This third order stream is 3 to 5 meters wide and has clustered wood debris jams throughout.
Staghorn Middle Trib: 1400m
A second order stream with a 3 meter channel width with numerous clustered wood debris jams
impacting on fish access, spawning and rearing.
Kootowis AWP: 2200m
The upper reaches of Kootowis Creek above and below the Alaska White Pine Road. This area
was initially surveyed in 1995 and was found to have high density wood debris above the road and
clustered jams below. These are first and second order reaches.
Hiring
Local and long-term employment is a priority for this project. Experienced workers from last year's
project as well as replacements for attrition will be hired.
Training
The first activity in the 2000 work plan will be crew training in safe work practices, first aid
certification, Stream Keepers review, equipment inventory, work techniques (cable splicing, anchors, saws
and winches) and orientation of the work areas. The presenters will be a mix of professionals and
journeymen with appropriate experience in specific areas.
Maintenance
During the beginning of the work period maintenance of the previous years' structures will take
place. As in past years this will involve up to two weeks of time interspersed with other duties such as
surveys of new work areas, safety training and orientation. The maintenance usually requires some
additional anchoring and small debris removal. Our past experience indicates that the most common task
is removal of upswept wood debris from the stream bottom. Loose cables from shifting of logs is also a
common task. An additional benefit of maintenance is the opportunity for the crew to learn or refresh
themselves with the successful restoration techniques.
Instream Activities
Small wood debris will be removed and large wood debris will be conserved, this continues to be
our main objective. These instream activities will be the same as past year's objectives. The basis of our
work follows the 1996 Level 2 Inventory and work plan established by the forestry, engineering, hydrology,
and biology team. Spawning gravel placement in deficient areas to accelerate production will be conducted
at select sites.
Our crew skills improve every year in terms of efficiency and some aspects of the job have been
improved with better materials. Duckbill anchors have replaced many longer cable attachments. Lower cost
and stronger pulling strength cable turfer jacks have replaced many of the tasks of chainsaw winches.
Waste disposal will be primarily dispersal above the floodplain adjacent the work areas.
Monitoring
All work areas will be lineally measured and marked for distance with flagging or tags. Each
specific area will be photographed for representative before and after pictures as in past years. A follow up
survey of the work areas at the end of the year will be conducted using Gant charts to describe the amount
of distance, number of sites and specific function. The previous years' (1999) work will be assessed with
Gant charts in summer 2000 as well.
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P9
We will also keep quantitative results on amounts of cable, anchors and wood waste material
moved from the sites.
Reporting
The crew supervisor will provide a weekly update on work areas and accomplishments. A final
report and fiscal summary will be provided for the year-end.
Yours Truly,
Gord Stewart, Fisheries Technician
D.R. Clough Consulting
Attachments;
Figure 1: Map of KWRP Annual Restoration Sites
Gant Charts of 1998 Restoration Sites and Assessment
Gant Charts of 1999 Restoration Sites
Photograph log of 1999 Restoration Sites and Activities
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P10
Appendix A: A summary of the Risk Assessment Method (W. Warttig MS status)
To help prioritize work areas available in the future and help develop a system we can use
elsewhere we have used the Risk Rating System developed by Warren Warttig in Table 4. This table was
developed for slope stability risk assessment. The table uses three parameters of risk;
Risk = Hazard x Consequence x Feasibility.
Each rated from 1 to 9 and multiplied to arrive at a risk score. The maximum theoretical score is 9
x 9 x 9 resulting in 729 points. The Hazard rating is considered from the point of view of immanence of
occurrence. The Consequence is a factor of impact on the resource from the habitat damage. The
Feasibility is the cost and effectiveness of the proposed restoration activity. These factors can be used to
assess habitat on a regional or a watershed scale, for the purposes of this report the risk assessment will
be weighed amongst the Kootowis/Lost Shoe/Staghorn Watershed area. The long range plans are to
develop a risk assessment rating for all the Clayoquot regions' watersheds.
1999 KWRP Summer Completion Report
P11