Date post: | 22-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | fri-research |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 1 times |
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
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 2
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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).
Foothills Model Forest Page 3
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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).
Foothills Model Forest Page 4
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 5
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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).
Foothills Model Forest Page 6
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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).
Foothills Model Forest Page 7
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Foothills Model Forest Page 8
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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).
Foothills Model Forest Page 9
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Foothills Model Forest Page 10
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 11
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Foothills Model Forest Page 12
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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).
Foothills Model Forest Page 13
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 14
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 12. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Anderson Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 15
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 16
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 15. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Antler Creek Watershed.
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
Unclassified Black spruce /larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 16. Total length of each riparian class represented in the Antler Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 17
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 18
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 19. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Emerson Creek Watershed.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Unclassified Black spruce /larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 20. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Emerson Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 19
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 20
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 23. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Fish Creek Watershed.
0.05.0
10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.0
Unclassified Black spruce /larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 24. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Fish Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 21
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 22
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 28. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Lambert Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 23
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 24
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 31. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Lynx Creek Watershed.
05
1015202530354045
Unclassified Black spruce /larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 32. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Lynx Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 25
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 26
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 35. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed.
0.020.040.060.080.0
100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0
Unclassified Black spruce/ larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 36. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 27
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 28
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 39. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Moon Creek Watershed.
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
Unclassified Black spruce/ larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 40. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Moon Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 29
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 30
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 43. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Pinto Creek Watershed.
0.020.040.060.080.0
100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0
Unclassified Black spruce/ larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 44. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Pinto Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 31
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 32
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Unclassified Black spruce/ larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 48. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Solomon Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 33
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 34
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 51. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Teepee Creek Watershed.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Unclassified Black spruce/ larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 52. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Teepee Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 35
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
)
Foothills Model Forest Page 36
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 37
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 58. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Wampus Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 38
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Unclassified Blackspruce /
larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
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
Unclassified Blackspruce /
larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 60. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Eunice Creek Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 39
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 40
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Figure 63. Distribution of riparian vegetation classes in the Upper Erith River Watershed.
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
Unclassified Black spruce/ larch
Non-forest Pine Spruce Aspen
Riparian Vegetation Class
Len
gth
(km
)
Figure 64. Total length of each riparian vegetation class represented in the Upper Erith River Watershed.
Foothills Model Forest Page 41
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 42
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Foothills Model Forest Page 43
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
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.
Prepared for the ACA, Weldwood of Canada (Hinton Division), and ASRD. FMF, Hinton, Alberta.
FMF (Foothills Model Forest). 1998. 1998 Fish and stream inventory-site summaries.
Prepared for the ACA, Weldwood of Canada (Hinton Division), and ASRD. FMF, Hinton, Alberta.
FMF (Foothills Model Forest). 1999. 1999 Fish and stream inventory-site summaries.
Prepared for the ACA, Weldwood of Canada (Hinton Division), and ASRD. FMF, Hinton, Alberta.
FMF (Foothills Model Forest). 2000. 2000 Fish and stream inventory-site summaries.
Prepared for the ACA, Weldwood of Canada (Hinton Division), and ASRD. FMF, Hinton, Alberta.
FMF (Foothills Model Forest). 2001. 2001 Fish and stream inventory-site summaries.
Prepared for the ACA, Weldwood of Canada (Hinton Division), and ASRD. FMF, Hinton, Alberta.
FMF (Foothills Model Forest). 2002. 2002 Fish and stream inventory-site summaries.
Prepared for the ACA, Weldwood of Canada (Hinton Division), and ASRD. FMF, Hinton, Alberta.
Foothills Model Forest Page 44
Level 1 Stream Classification: Stream Reach Characteristics
Foothills Model Forest Page 45
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.