Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The role of wood in headwater channels and short-term channel responses to harvesting of second growth… Winfield, Nicholas A. 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2002-0285.pdf [ 13.83MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0090310.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0090310-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0090310-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0090310-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0090310-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0090310-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0090310-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0090310-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0090310.ris

Full Text

The Role of Wood in Headwater Channels and Short-term Channel Responses to Harvesting of Second Growth Riparian Forests in Southwestern British Columbia By Nicholas A . Winfield B.Sc. University of Manitoba, 1991 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M A S T E R OF SCIENCE in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the reauired standard The University of British Columbia January, 2002 © Nicholas A . Winfield, 2002 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract A watershed-scale experiment was set up at Malcolm Knapp Research Forest in southwestern British Columbia to study the effectiveness of variable width riparian reserves on physical and biological components of small streams. One component of the experiment was an investigation into the influence of large woody debris (LWD) on the morphology of 12 headwater streams. Pools were selected as a key response variable as they are considered a limiting factor in small streams and serve an important role as a low-flow refuge habitat for fish. All pool forming LWD was inventoried, and pool volumes and percentage of fine sediments in pools were measured before logging (summer 1998) and after logging (summer 1999). Sub-watershed pairs were determined based on known and predicted peak stream powers. This enabled within-group analysis of channel response to different riparian treatments. Detailed channel assessments and surveys were undertaken in consecutive years to monitor channel morphology changes over time. LWD was the dominant pool-forming element for all streams regardless of channel type. Linear regression analysis found that the variance in pool volume explained by LWD in three step-pool streams and one riffle-pool stream ranged from 15-50%. LWD did not explain the variance in pool volume in the remaining five perennial streams, including two riffle-pool reaches and three step-pool reaches. Removal of old growth trees prior to the 1920s likely explains the low volume of wood and corresponding low pool volumes in these two riffle-pool channels where LWD is expected to play an important role in pool formation. Target levels of LWD for smaller size classes of fish-bearing streams were developed based on relationships between LWD volume and pool volume and predicted pool spacing for different channel types. Comparison of channel response to riparian harvesting based on peak stream power found that streams with low stream power with clear-cut treatments showed reductions in pool volume, specifically reductions in pool size. These streams had insufficient stream power to remove sediment and debris deposited during logging as compared to streams with high stream power which were able to remove sediments. ii T A B L E OF CONTENTS Abstract • " Table of Contents Hi List of Figures v List of Tables vii Acknowledgements ix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Riparian protection standards in the Pacific Northwest 2 1.2 Headwater channels 6 1.3 Goals and Objectives 15 1.4 Thesis Organization 16 2 Methods 17 2.1 Study Area 17 2.2 Disturbance history 20 2.3 Watershed characteristics 22 2.4 Experimental design for integrated research project 22 2.5 Field Methods 24 2.6 Laboratory methods 30 2.7 Statistical analysis 33 3 Results 34 3.1 Watershed groups 34 3.2 Morphological influence of wood in small headwater channels 38 3.3 Changes in residual pool volumes by channel 50 3.4 Channel assessments 60 4 Discussion 64 iii 5 Conclusions and recommendations 73 References 77 Appendix 1: Permanent Reach Transects '. 92 Appendix 2: LWD volumes and locations along stream channel 104 Appendix 3: Pool volume and location along channel 110 Appendix 4: Hydrology—Stream discharge calculations 116 Appendix 5: Complete Dataset for 1998 and 1999 117 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Generalised distribution of salmonids and channel types within a watershed (Hogan and Ward 1997) 7 Figure 2: A model of the changes in large diameter classes ofLWD after clearcut harvesting (Murphy andKoski 1989) 10 Figure 3: Independent variables influencing channel morphology andfish habitat. 11 Figure 4: Generalised sediment transport processes in small channels 13 Figure 5: Location of Malcolm Knapp Research Forest 17 Figure 6: Map of Malcolm Knapp Research Forest and 12 study sites (specifically Streams A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and Mike, South, Spring, East Creeks) 19 Figure 7: Fire disturbance history and railway network in the SE section of the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest (Sanders 1983). 1999 cutblocks have been overlaid on the fire history groups 21 Figure 8: Functional components of hydro-riparian ecosystems studied in the integrated research project at the UBC Malcolm Knapp Research Forest 23 Figure 9: Schematic of large pool dimensions used in calculating residual pool volume. 27 Figure 10: East Creek discharge, 1972-1999. Large peak flow events occurred in 1980, 1981, 1991 and 1992 .*....:. 35 Figure 11: Regression ofpeak discharge offour gauged streams on watershed area.... 36 Figure 12: Four sub-basin watershed pairs identified based on peak stream power 37 Figure 13 (a): Relative frequency ofprimary pool forming elements across all pools by stream for 1998 : : 40 Figure 14: Number ofLWD pieces counted as primary pool forming elements per 100 m channel length in 1998 and 1999 41 Figure 15: Volume of L WD forming pools per 100 m channel length in 1998 and 1999. 41 Figure 16 (a): Relative frequency ofpool types by stream in 1998 43 Figure 16 (b): Relative frequency ofpool types by stream in 1999 44 Figure 17: Frequency of L WD accumulations forming pools in all 12 study streams. As channel width increases the number ofpieces of L WD forming pools increases. The majority of pools formed in channels less than 1.5 m channel width were accountedfor by L WD accumulations of 1-2 pieces 45 Figure 18: Pool volumes and associated LWD for 1998 and 1999 were combined. Ninety five percent of all pools had LWD volumes of less than or equal to 1.59 m3. Twenty percent of all pools had no associated LWD 46 v Figure 19: Comparison of the total residual pool volumes per ten bankfull widths (1998 to 1999) 51 Figure 20: Variation in mean pool volume between watershed groups 52 Figure 21: Turbidity and discharge data for water year 1999-2000for Stream A. Turbidity peaks occur in conjunction with peak discharge events 54 Figure 22: Turbidity and discharge data for water year 1999-2000for Stream I. Turbidity peaks occur in conjunction with peak discharge events 54 Figure 23: Percentage of fine sediment in pools less than 1mm detailing location along channel 56 Figure 24: L WD frequency in Pacific Northwest unmanaged streams and observations at Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. Data are shown as number of LWD pieces per 100 m. 65 Figure 25: L WD frequency in Pacific Northwest unmanaged streams and observations at Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. Data are shown as number of L WD pieces per channel width 66 Figure 26: Four rate loss estimates, 2% per year, 0.12 m3 per 100 myear'1, 4% per year, and 0.25 m3 per 100 myear'1 are plotted for a small stream with a pre-logging L WD volume of 5 m . Based on these rate losses LWD volume will approach zero in 20-50 years with no riparian buffer. Streams with 10 m and 30 m buffers are expected to provide L WD to offset this loss 70 Figure A 1: Channel photography (1998-2001), plan and longitudinal profile of Stream A 92 Figure A 2: Channel photography (2001), plan and longitudinal profile of Stream C... 93 Figure A 3: Channel photography (2001), plan and longitudinal profile of Stream D.. 94 Figure A 4: Plan and longitudinal profile of Stream E 95 Figure A 5: Channel photography (1998-2001), plan and longitudinal profile of Stream D 96 Figure A 6: Channel photography (1998-2001), plan and longitudinal profile of Stream H. 97 Figure A 7: Channel photography (1998-2001), plan and longitudinal profile of Stream I 98 Figure A 8: Channel photography (2001), plan and longitudinal profile of South Creek 99 Figure A 9: Plan, longitudinal and cross sectional profile of East Creek 100 vi LIST OF T A B L E S Table 1: Riparian reserve widths as recommended in the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993) 2 Table 2: Riparian Management Areas for Streams (Anon 1995 (4)) 3 Table 3: Summary of the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel Hydroriparian Classification System (Anon 1995 (3)) 5 Table 4: Watershed and stream characteristics for 12 experimental streams 22 Table 5: Experimental Treatment Types 24 Table 6: Primary pool forming elements 25 Table 7: Classification of pool types 26 Table 8: Channel confinement definitions (RIC 1999) 29 Table 9: Sediment Texture Scales (Wentworth 1922) 31 Table 10: Summary of discharge data for East Creek from 1 October 1990 to 30 September 1999 35 Table 11: Similarity index based on peak stream power 36 Table 12: Summary of all pool and large woody debris data for 1998 and 1999 in 12 study reaches in the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. 38 Table 13: Number of LWD pieces by size class per 100 m for 12 study streams 42 Table 14: Location and size of logjams and associated pools. These extreme values were removedfrom the regression analysis as they were extreme L WD volume values and were widely separatedfrom the main cluster of observations 46 Table 15: Linear model ofpool volume regressed on LWD volume for all pools over 1998 and 1999for each stream 47 Table 16: Quadratic model of pool volume regressed on LWD volume over 1998 and 1999 47 Table 17: Pool spacing of 10 experimental streams expressed in bankfull channel width (WDJ. All streams were within the expected pool spacing range based on channel type except for Stream H where pools were spacedfarther than the expected range 48 Table 18: Sample calculation of target LWD volume per 100 m for a riffle-pool reach of 4.0 m channel width. An estimated volume of 18 m3 LWD per 100 m was calculated. This is equal to 64 pieces ofLWD 0.3 m in diameter or 36 pieces ofLWD 0.4 m in diameter.49 Table 19: Volume calculation for a 4 m long piece of LWD. The number of pieces of wood required to achieve the same volume increases as the diameter decreases 49 Table 20: Sample calculation of target LWD volume per 100 m for a step-pool reach of 2.0 m channel width. Two LWD volumes were calculated based on differences in pool spacing. 50 vn Table 21: LWD volume calculation for a 2 m long piece of LWD required to achieve target LWD volume per 100 m channel length. The diameter class of the LWD should be greater than or equal to the depth of the channel. 50 Table 22: Mean percentage ofpool fines less than 1mm, standard deviation, and sample size (N) for 1998-1999 and significance of the Mann-Whitney UTest comparing the mean percent pool fines between years (P) 55 Table 23: Channel morphology classification and channel disturbance level of 12 study reaches in the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest 60 Table 24: Channel processes occurring after second growth logging and factors explaining these changes 61 Table 25: LWD source, description, role and changes over the 3 year study period (See Appendix 1 for detailed diagrams) 62 Table Al: Stream A channel information 92 Table A2: Stream C channel information 93 Table A3: Stream D channel information 94 Table A4: Stream E channel information 95 Table A5: Stream G channel information 96 Table A6: Stream Hchannel information 97 Table A 7: Stream I channel information 98 Table A8: South Creek channel information 99 Table A9: East Creek channel information 100 Table A10: Stream F channel information 101 Table All: Mike Creek channel information 102 Table A12: Spring Creek Channel information 103 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all those who have been directly or indirectly involved in this research. My supervisory committee - Dr Dan Moore, Dr Scott Hinch, Dr Roy Sidle and Dr Hans Schreier provided the tools and the motivation to complete this research. Several summers of data collection were made much more enjoyable by the assistance of Jody Frolek, Matt Sakals, Elena Middlecamp, and Jamie Phibbs. Malcolm Knapp Research Forest staff and researchers, including Dr. John Richardson, Dr. Michael Feller, and Dr. Kyle Young provided essential data and logistics support. Mr Dan Hogan and Dr Michael Church provided essential guidance on channel morphology. I would like to thank Jim Shum, Doug Takahashi, Julien Winfield and Tim Racine for technical support. My employer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, permitted me the time to undertake this research. Most of all I would like to express my deepest thanks and respect to Andrea Khan who has patiently observed and encouraged the process of learning. ix 1 INTRODUCTION Loss or alteration of aquatic habitat has played a significant role in the reduction or extinction of many stocks of anadromous salmonids (Nehlsen et al. 1991, Meehan 1991, NRCC 1996, Slaney et al. 1996). Degraded fish habitat has been associated with more than 90 percent of documented extinction or declines of Pacific salmon stocks (Gregory and Bisson 1996). A status report of anadromous salmonids in British Columbia and the Yukon assessed 5,487 stocks (57% of estimated total) identifying 624 stocks at high risk, 78 stocks at moderate risk, 230 stocks of special concern and 142 stocks extirpated this century (Slaney et al. 1996). Habitat loss was identified as accounting for most of the 142 stock extinctions. Forestry in BC occurs over 59 million hectares and accounts for an estimated 15 percent of provincial economic activity (Province of BC 2001). With increasing awareness of stock declines and as the social, cultural and economic value of non-timber forest resources has been recognised (Smith and Steel 1996) forestry practices have come under increasing scrutiny in recent decades. In 1995 the British Columbia provincial government introduced the Forest Practices Code Act (the Code) in an effort to move towards environmentally sustainable forest management. The Code supported the sustainable use of the forests to include "conserving biological diversity, soil, water, fish, wildlife, scenic diversity and other forest resources" (Anon 1995 (5)). One of the measures to protect aquatic ecosystems was the requirement to reserve riparian ecosystems adjacent to all fish-bearing streams greater than 1.5 m in width. For smaller fish-bearing streams and all non-fish bearing streams best management practices were to be applied to maintain streambank stability, to protect fish habitat, and to provide a future source of large woody debris (Anon 1995(4)). Since the implementation of the Code numerous environmental challenges to the effectiveness of the management of small stream-riparian ecosystems have been made (SLDF 1997) and investigations by independent auditors (Forest Practices Board 1998) and by resource agencies have been undertaken (Chatwin et al. 2001). The Forest Practices Board (1998) found that retention of vegetation along streambanks and in riparian management zones for small streams on the Coast was not occurring and that improved direction around small stream riparian management was required. As more field level information has been gathered the limited scientific understanding of small stream-riparian interactions has become apparent (Chatwin et al. 2001). As a result, several research programs into the ecology and management of small stream- riparian ecosystems have been initiated to address this knowledge gap (MacDonald and Herunter 1998, Richardson et al. 1 1999, Rosenfeld 2000). The effectiveness of riparian management practices around small streams since implementation of the Code has yet to be scientifically tested. This chapter provides background information on management approaches to protect freshwater fish habitat in the Pacific Northwest using riparian buffers. The wide variability in approaches to riparian management highlights the lack of scientific knowledge regarding smaller headwater streams. This is followed by a critical review of headwater systems as fish habitat, the natural processes that alter channel morphology and the current knowledge regarding morphology of small stream channels, in particular the role of large woody debris (LWD). The knowledge gaps and the hypotheses to be tested in this study concludes this chapter. 1.1 Riparian protection standards in the Pacific Northwest The process of developing habitat management policies in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) has evolved under various environmental, political and legal pressures over the past three decades. In the US, the listing of several stocks of salmon as endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act, forced PNW States to implement conservation strategies to protect these stocks (Sedell at al. 1996). The use of wide riparian buffers as a conservation measure (Table 1) was integral to the Northwest Forest Plan to protect the habitat of at-risk salmon stocks on federal land (FEMAT 1993). In British Columbia, international market pressures also lead to a re-evaluation of stream protection standards. In 1995 the current system of classifying and protecting riparian areas on Crown land emerged. Table 1: Riparian reserve widths as recommended in the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993) Stream type Approximate width of riparian management area High value, permanently flowing, fish bearing Lower value, permanently flowing, fish bearing Permanently flowing, non-fish bearing Intermittent Reserves in non-key watersheds 110m 100 m 55 m 28 m Reserves in key watersheds 110m 110m 55 m 55 m Riparian ecosystems are not easily delineated, but are comprised of mosaics of landforms, communities, and environments within the larger landscape (Gregory et al. 1991). Riparian areas do not have distinct ecological boundaries; therefore protection standards for riparian zones in the Pacific Northwest are frequently hinged upon stream classification systems. These classification 2 systems use geomorphic variables (such as channel width or gradient) and biological indicators (such as fish presence) as their basis. In British Columbia, the Forest Practices Code Act defines Riparian Management Areas (RMA) as zones of varying width that abut rivers, lakes or wetlands. The width of the RMA varies with the nature and width of the waterbody and the presence or absence of fish. The riparian zone is managed as a RMA, which is divided into a reserve zone where no harvesting is permitted, and a riparian management zone where constraints to harvesting apply (Table 2). Table 2: Riparian Management Areas for Streams (Anon 1995 (4)) Stream Characteristics Riparian Management Area Stream width (m) Reserve zone width (m) Management zone width (m) RMA width (m) Fish S1a >100 0 100 100 S1b 20-100 50 20 70 S2 20-1.5 30 20 50 S3 1.5-5 20 20 40 S4 <1.5 0 30 30 No fish S5 >3 0 30 30 S6 <3 0 20 20 The BC riparian classification system is straightforward and operationally efficient. It is based on the assumption that channel width alone is a good indicator of a channel's behaviour and its relationship to hillslope and channel processes. It does not differentiate between similarly sized channels based on their location within the watershed. Small alluvial streams in the valley bottom are classified and given the same level of protection as small colluvial streams on steeper hillslopes. It also does not differentiate between different regions of the province to address specific species needs. Most schemes to describe types of streams have been developed for large rivers and valleys and downstream parts of channel networks (Schumm 1977, Rosgen 1985, Rosgen 1994) whereas few classification schemes have been developed for small headwater streams where existing land management issues exist. Whiting and Bradley (1993) developed a process-based classification system for headwater streams. Variables used to develop the classification systems included hillslope gradient, channel gradient, valley bottom width, channel width, channel depth, and sediment size. This classification grouped channels into process domains. Channels within the same process domain can be expected to transport sediment and water and respond to and recover 3 from basin disturbance in a similar manner (Whiting and Bradley 1993). This system has potential value for identifying locations along small stream channel networks that are particularly sensitive to land use practices and protection measures may need to be applied. Only one process-based classification system currently exists in British Columbia. The Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel (Anon 1995 (3)) recommended a process-based classification system for streams in the Clayoquot Sound area, characterising the type of channel, gradient, confinement and channel width in order to determine a riparian management prescription (Table 3). The Science Panel suggested that the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems were so intimately linked by the exchange of water, material and organisms that it should be treated a single system termed the "hydroriparian ecosystem". The entire hydroriparian zone was designated as a special management zone of 0.6-1.0 site potential tree heights (i.e. 30-50 m) on each side of the stream channel to maintain riparian forest effect on the stream channel. Application of this classification system was proposed during initial terrain mapping. Such variability in stream-riparian protection standards adjacent to smaller streams has forced scientists and managers to review the current state of knowledge regarding these small streams and to question the assumptions made during development of the British Columbia small stream riparian protection standards. 4 Table 3: Summary of the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel Hydroriparian Classification System (Anon 1995 (3)). Channel type Gradient Entrenched Channel width Special Management Prescription Alluvial < 8 % channels N/A < 3 m 3 - 3 0 m > 30 m Reserve entire contemporary floodplain Reserve entire contemporary floodplain Reserve entire contemporary floodplain >8% N/A < 3 m 3 - 3 0 m > 30 m Reserve 30 m from top of streambank Reserve 50 m from top of streambank Reserve 50 m from top of streambank Non-alluvial < 8% channels No < 3 m No Reserve 3 - 3 0 m > 3 0 m Reserve entire contemporary floodplain Reserve entire contemporary floodplain Yes < 3 m 3 - 3 0 m > 30 m Reserve from top of entrenchment slope or 30 m whichever is greater. Reserve from top of entrenchment slope or 50 m whichever is greater. Reserve from top of entrenchment slope or 50 m whichever is greater. 8 - 2 0 % No < 3 m 3 - 3 0 m > 30 m Reserve 30 m from top of streambank. No Reserve for ephemeral flow. Reserve 50 m from top of streambank Reserve 50 m from top of streambank Yes < 3 m 3 - 3 0 m > 3 0 m No Reserve Reserve from top of entrenchment slope or 50 m whichever is greater. Reserve from top of entrenchment slope or 50 m whichever is greater. >20% No Yes Seasonal or perennial Ephemeral Reserve 20 m from top of streambank No Reserve Reserve from top of entrenchment slope or 20 m whichever is greater. 5 1.2 Headwater channels The Strahler (1957) stream ordering system classifies small headwater streams as first or second order streams. They drain zero, first and second order watersheds, which collectively cover a large percentage of the total watershed area (Leopold et al 1964). In steep coastal British Columbia watersheds are highly dissected by small streams resulting in high drainage densities. In comparison, watersheds in plateau areas, such as the Interior of BC, are poorly dissected resulting in low drainage densities. The associated riparian zone of first and second order streams in coastal BC watersheds represents a significant proportion of the timber harvesting land base due to their close spacing (Bren 1995). Several researchers have highlighted the tight coupling of small streams with adjacent riparian areas (e.g. Chamberlin et al. 1991, Church 1998) and that land uses that increase erosion, modify runoff, or alter riparian vegetation have a greater effect on small streams than on larger streams because of this tight coupling. Small headwater streams may also provide important aquatic habitats for fish. Salmonid habitats are products of the physical attributes of a watershed including the geology, topography, soils, vegetation, climate and hydrology (Meehan 1991). Salmonid populations have evolved to exploit a specific range of environmental conditions within their local range. When habitat changes beyond the range of environmental conditions to which the fish have adapted populations may be locally displaced (Reeves et al. 1995), extirpated or driven to extinction (Gregory and Bisson 1996). Streams contain a diverse mixture of habitats of differing depth, velocity and cover, arranged in repeating habitat units of pools, riffles and glides (Bisson et al. 1987). Classification of streams into these habitat units (Bisson et al. 1982) has formed the basis for quantitative analysis of salmonid habitat (Johnston and Slaney 1996, Dolloff and Reeves 1990). Most fish in small streams are habitat specialists and utilise specific habitats within stream channels throughout their freshwater life cycles in response to different spawning, feeding and overwintering requirements (Bjornn and Reisser 1991). Resident salmonid species such as cutthroat trout (Onchorhynchus clarki) may occupy headwater systems for their whole life cycle (Young et al. 1999) and can be found above natural barriers that prevent access to anadromous species (Figure 1). These isolated headwater resident populations may represent important sources of genetic diversity (Northcote 1992). 6 Figure 1: Generalised distribution of salmonids and channel types within a watershed (Hogan and Ward 1997) Anadromous salmonids that are most likely to occupy small streams for both spawning and rearing stages are steelhead trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and, in lower gradient systems, coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch). All salmonids utilise several features of the stream channel to complete the spawning, incubation and rearing stages of their life cycle. Each stage must have optimal physical, biological and chemical conditions for successful reproduction and growth of the species (Bjorn and Reiser 1991). Pools have been identified as important stream habitat components for most salmonids (Beschta and Platts 1986). They are the result of local scour or impoundment induced by structural controls in the channel or streambank. Pools are also that portion of the stream where there is reduced current velocity, deeper water than surrounding areas, and smooth surface and fine sediment deposits (Meehan 1991). Salmonids exhibit a preference for pools as rearing habitat likely due to the low current velocity, a drifting food supply and cover from predators. Changes in pool depth and complexity reduces habitat suitability, which in turn reduces the carrying capacity of the stream or reduces survival by forcing juveniles to compete with other species (Reeves et al. 1995). 7 Riffles are areas of coarser bed materials with shallower, faster-moving water. Riffles tend to support higher densities of benthic invertebrates and are thus important food-producing areas for fish. Riffles are also used as spawning areas as they provide: (1) the needed water velocities to keep the substrate clean; (2) high surface and subsurface flows for adequate transport of dissolved oxygen; and (3) sufficient subsurface flows to remove embryo and alevin wastes (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Certain species and age groups of salmonids prefer specific pool types that often are associated with wood in streams (Bisson et al. 1982). Salmonids use wood-associated cover heavily during periods of high discharge, when the low velocity areas created by the wood may offer the only suitable refuge (Bustard and Narver 1975; Tschaplinski and Hartman 1983). The importance of woody debris to fish has been proven by significant decreases in population size after the removal of debris from streams (Bryant 1983, Dolloff 1986; Elliot 1986). The primary factors controlling channel morphology include the volume and time distribution of water supplied to the channel; the volume, timing and character of sediment delivered to the stream channel; and the nature of the geological material (Church 1992). Secondary factors may include local climate, influence of riparian vegetation, and land use activities. Stream channels are shaped primarily during high flow when water moves the sediment lining the channel bed and LWD becomes mobilised. The size of the stream substrate relative to the depth of the channel, termed relative roughness, determines the behaviour and morphology of streams (Church 1992). As small streams typically do not have sufficient stream power to move the large substrate in the bed material individual particles constitute a major form element. Montgomery (1994) indicates that LWD functions in the same way as large sediment particles in steeper channel reaches by trapping and storing sediment. One role of LWD is to regulate the rate of export of sediment and debris to downstream reaches. Large woody debris has a strong influence on channel morphology depending on channel slope, width and depth, the geomorphic setting and the longitudinal position along the channel (Bilby and Ward 1989; Ralph et al. 1994; Swanson et al. 1984; Robison and Beschta 1990; Nakamura and Swanson 1993, Beechie and Sibley 1997). LWD provides significant control on the formation and physical characteristics of pools, bars and steps (Heede 1985, Lisle 1986). Live riparian vegetation also influences channel morphology by the provision of root strength that in turn contributes to bank stability, especially in relatively non-cohesive alluvial deposits (Montgomery and Buffington 1997, Millar 2000). The effect of root strength on channel bank 8 stability is greatest in low-gradient, unconfined reaches, where the loss of bank reinforcement may result in dramatic channel widening (Smith and Smith 1984). Bilby and Ward (1989), studying streams from 4 -20 m channel width in Western Washington, found that the measurable role of LWD declined as stream size increased. Reduction in the effectiveness of sediment trapping, a reduction in the number of plunge pools, and a reduction in organic matter accumulations was observed as channel width increased. Many workers have observed decreases in large woody debris volumes resulting in decreases in pool volume (Fausch and Northcote 1992; Hogan 1986; Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Many have inferred that the role of LWD increases as channel size decreases. However, no studies could be found to verity this finding for channels less than 4 m channel width. LWD recruitment and loss Mechanisms of LWD recruitment to small-forested streams are highly variable (Swanson and Lienkaemper 1978; Sedell et al. 1988; McDade et al. 1990). They include fire, disease or natural senescence, bank undercutting, windthrow, debris flows, or post-harvest logging debris. The channel type and the degree of confinement of the channel is likely the most important factor in determining whether LWD will influence channel morphology (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). In reaches constrained by the adjacent hillslope, typically cascade-pool or step-pool morphologies, individual trees that fall toward the channel may break apart into small pieces and be easily transported downstream. Alternatively trees that fall may be suspended across the sideslopes and then may not influence channel morphology until they have decayed and fallen into the channel. In reaches that are unconstrained by the adjacent hillslope, fallen trees do interact directly with the channel. Here they enter the channel as a whole piece temporarily storing sediments and creating scour (Nakamura and Swanson 1993). Three mechanisms for the loss of LWD from the channel have been proposed: 1) direct loss through removal during stream cleaning operations; 2) channel destabilization and subsequent transport and 3) long term decay processes (McHenry et al. 1998). In situations where riparian stands have been removed, a long-term decline in the recruitment of LWD is expected. Past forest practices have resulted in long-term decline in debris and debris-related fish habitat in small-to-medium streams (Bisson et al. 1987). Streams draining managed forests often have reduced pool frequencies, volumes, surface areas and average depths (Hogan 1986; Seddell et al. 1990) and this loss of pool habitat has been attributed to a decrease in LWD (Bisson and Seddell 1984) and an increase in sediment load (Lisle and Hilton 1992). 9 Murphy and Koski (1989) developed a model to predict LWD recruitment after riparian harvesting based on data from SE Alaska where LWD volume rate losses were 1-3% per year,. They estimated 70% reduction in LWD 90 years after clearcut logging without a streamside reserve strip and recovery to pre-logging levels would take more than 250 years (Figure 2). Grette (1985) concluded that reduction of old-growth derived LWD following logging of riparian forest on the Olympic Peninsula was 0.5 pieces per 100 m year"1 and that inputs of second growth derived LWD were inadequate to offset this loss. Bilby and Ward (1991) described a much higher loss rate for the first 5 years immediately following logging with the magnitude of loss increasing with the size of the stream. Figure 2: A model of the changes in large diameter classes of LWD after clearcut harvesting (Murphy and Koski 1989). Channel disturbance and channel response Changes in channel morphology occur as a result of alterations in sediment transport capacity (stream discharge) and sediment supply. Sediment is mobilised either by hillslope processes or by channel processes (Figure 4). Hillslope processes include bank erosion by debris flows, landslides, bank erosion by fluvial processes and other sediment production processes such as 10 windthrow and soil creep (Reid and Dunne 1996). Channel processes include debris flow transport and fluvial transport. An increase in sediment supply may exceed the channel's sediment transport capabilities resulting in an aggraded channel bed. Alternatively, increased stream discharge with decreases in sediment supply may result in a degraded channel bed (Anon 1995(2)). Riparian vegetation Sediment transport Sediment supply and large woody debris capacity of channel to channel Independent variables ^ Fish habitat Figure 3: Independent variables influencing channel morphology and fish habitat Pools are depositional environments for fine sediments in small stream channels. Their substrate indicates the nature of flows as well as the dominant particle sizes that are transported and deposited over a range of flows. The substrate composition in pools reflects the accumulation of sediment during fall/winter storms plus small amounts of fines that have been deposited in the channels subsequent to fall/winter. During waning flood flows fine-grained bedload sediment is commonly winnowed from zones of high shear stress (such as riffles) and deposited in pools (Lisle and Hilton 1992). As sediment load increases, more fine sediment becomes available for deposition in pools (Lisle and Hilton 1992). In general, finer material representative of the bulk of the normal bed material load resides in the deep sections, or pools, below flood stages (Lisle 1979). Pool sediments sampled at similar low flow periods provide information on the changes that occur in the channel as a result of channel disturbances. Fine sediment is conventionally considered to be material of sand size or finer and is naturally made available for fluvial transport by freezing/thawing or wetting/drying along streambanks, by minor ravelling and bank collapse (Church 1998). Fine sediment is of particular harm to fish populations due to the reduction of micro-invertebrate food supply and the destruction of rearing and spawning habitats (Anderson et al. 1996). Land use activities may increase the supply of fine sediments by increasing soil erosion and destabilising streambanks. Fine sediments tend to have Dependent variables \ Channel morphology 11 high transport velocities and can be flushed rapidly from streams (Lisle and Hilton 1992) A high concentration of fine sediments on a streambed can indicate either widespread and chronic inputs of fine sediments, or recent and local inputs of fine sediment (Platts and Megahan 1975). Fine sediment preferentially settles in pools thus decreasing pool volumes (Lisle and Hilton 1992). Recent studies have shown that fine sediment in pools can be used to characterise the fine, mobile mode of the bed material load (Lisle and Hilton 1999). Fine sediments in pools were therefore identified as an important variable to investigate whether riparian harvesting influenced the supply of fine sediments. Montgomery and Buffington (1993) identified criteria required for a useful channel classification system. These included the need to: (1) encompass the whole channel network to ensure that the products of processes acting up slope are considered, (2) ensure that process-based schemes reflect channel processes, and (3) ensure the scheme is predictive, allowing for assessment of likely channel response. Within a watershed the division of channels into sediment source zones, sediment transport zones and sediment deposition zones provides a general framework for understanding sediment transport processes (Schumm 1977). The division of channels into alluvial or non-alluvial channels has been proposed as a useful assessment tool for linking channel response to land use activities. Alluvial channels are those that flow through their own deposits and under fluvial processes are competent to change their own form (Anon 1995(4)). Local geology and gradient may permit an alluvial reach at any location along a channel continuum. Non-alluvial channels are those that do not flow in their own deposits although they may have an alluvial component to their bed. 12 Figure 4: Generalised sediment transport processes in small channels The British Columbia channel assessment procedure (Anon 1995(2)) divides channels into step-pool (3 sub-types), cascade-pool (2 sub-types) and riffle-pools (2 sub-types). Reach-level responses to changes in sediment supply or sediment transport capacity have been developed according to these channel types. Step-pool morphologies are the steepest channels in the BC channel classification system with gradients typically greater than 5%. Three phases of sediment transport have been identified in step-pool channels. The first is a low-flow flushing of finer material stored in pools. The second is a frequent high-flow mobilization of larger bed forming materials such as pool-filling gravels. The third is a less-frequent higher discharge mobilization of all substrate sizes including step-forming grains (Grant 1990, Warburton 1992). In other words there are three stream discharge stages that affect the morphology of the channel. The functional role of LWD varies depending on gradient and confinement. Log steps have been reported to be a significant element in certain step-pool channels functioning to reduce flow velocities, store sediment and create plunge pools (Bilby and Ward 1989, Nakamura and Swanson 1993, Chesney 2000). Stream reaches with cascade-pool morphologies using the BC classification have gradients from 4 to 10 % (Anon 1995 (2)). They are characterised by a disorganized bed material typically 13 consisting of boulders and cobbles. The size of the largest particles may exceed the bankfull flow depth and individual bed elements form the primary channel roughness elements by creating flow obstructions and local hydraulic jumps (Grant 1990). Similar phases of sediment transport exist for cascade-pools as for step-pools. Montgomery and Buffington (1997) hypothesises that because of the steep gradients and lack of depositional sites most of the finer material introduced to the channel is rapidly transported downstream. Stream reaches with riffle-pool morphologies have the lowest gradients in the BC channel classification system, usually less than 2% gradient (Anon 1995 (2)). Riffle-pool morphologies have heterogeneous beds, usually with a coarse surface layer and finer subsurface layer (Leopold et al. 1964). Armoured gravel-bed channels typically exhibit a near bankfull threshold before the bed surface begins to move. Movement of surface grains releases fine sediment trapped by larger grains and exposes finer subsurface sediment to the flow (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Bed movement is sporadic and these channels exhibit a mixture of supply and transport-limited characteristics depending on the degree of bed surface armouring and consequent mobility thresholds (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Riffle-pool channels show the greatest variability of response to changes in sediment supply. These channels are also responsible for the majority of salmonid spawning and rearing (Hogan and Ward 1996). The British Columbia channel assessment procedure provides a theoretical framework for understanding the role of LWD in channels of different gradients. It states that the role of LWD in channel morphology decreases in steeper channels (>8%), such as step-pools and cascade-pools. The reduced role of LWD is accounted for by the high transport capability of steeper streams, the higher frequency of bed stabilising elements such as boulders or clusters of cobbles, and the confined nature of steeper streams. For stream channels less than 5 m channel width it describes LWD as controlling channel morphology up to 8% gradient. For stream channels up to 12% gradient LWD plays an important but not dominant morphological role. Above 12% gradient LWD may be present but does not function in channel morphology (Anon 1995(4)). Research in forested mountain drainage basins in Southeast Alaska and Washington also highlighted the spacing between pools as dependent on the volume of woody debris in different channel types (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Despite numerous channel morphology studies in BC and a good theoretical understanding of channel responses to disturbance, few studies have reported on the function on LWD in channel morphology in streams less than 5 m channel width. Several studies on intermediate sized alluvial channels of 5 m - 20 m channel width have reported a decline in pool volume associated 14 with a reduction in LWD volumes (Bilby and Ward 1989, Fausch and Northcote 1992; Hogan 1986; Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Very little information exists on the relation between LWD and pools in small fish-bearing streams. Quantification of the amount ofLWD necessary to maintain high quality fish habitat is also unknown. In the absence of these data the application of parameters and target conditions has been used as a tool in watershed management (Peterson et al. 1992; Johnston and Slaney 1996). Parameters and target conditions serve as a precautionary measure in the absence of a comprehensive data set and as an early warning measure for the prevention of cumulative effects. Parameters include LWD frequency by channel width, LWD volume by channel width, percent pool area and substrate composition. The British Columbia Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures use several habitat parameters for evaluating fish habitat conditions at the reach scale (Johnston and Slaney 1996) including the number ofLWD pieces per channel width. An analysis of target LWD conditions for small streams in coastal British Columbia was a major research aim of this study. 1.3 Goals and Objectives Stream-riparian interactions for streams greater than 5 m channel width are fairly well documented. However, a detailed literature review revealed a lack of published data on stream-riparian interactions, particularly channel morphology, for streams less than 5 m channel width. This thesis attempts to fill this knowledge gap by addressing three central goals, each with specific research questions. Goal 1: To identify the functional role ofLWD in small stream channel morphology Research questions 1. Is there a relation between pool volume and LWD volume in small stream channels? 2. Is there a critical amount ofLWD that is needed to maximize pool volumes in small stream channels? Goal 2: To describe the processes ofLWD recruitment and loss in small stream channels Research questions 1. What are the mechanisms of LWD recruitment to the channel? 2. What regulates the volume ofLWD in the channel? 15 Goal 3: To describe the morphological response of small stream channels to disturbances that occur as a result of riparian harvesting Research questions 1. How does pool volume change after clearcut harvesting as compared to 10 m, 30 m and no-harvest riparian treatments? 2. Does riparian harvesting result in changes in fine sediment composition in pools? 1.4 Thesis Organization To achieve these goals the thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the experimental methods. It includes a description of the field methods, the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis used to address the research questions. Chapter 3 describes the results of research. Chapter 4 is a discussion of the relevance of these results to the research questions. Chapter 5 concludes with the major findings of this research. 16 2 METHODS The following chapter describes the study area, experiment and methods used in order to address the goals of this study and answer the research questions posed in Chapter 1. An opportunity was provided to link this study to an Integrated Riparian Reserve Project at the UBC Malcolm Knapp Research Forest initiated in 1998. A field-sampling program was established to collect pre-logging baseline data. These data were used as a basis for comparison of response variables in future years. These data are also of use for longer-term monitoring of channel morphology responses to variable width riparian harvesting. Figure 5: Location of Malcolm Knapp Research Forest 2.1 Study Area The UBC Malcolm Knapp Research Forest is located in the foothills of the Coast Mountains, 60 km east of Vancouver, British Columbia. The research forest is bordered on the north and east by Golden Ears Provincial Park, on the northwest by Pitt Lake, and on the southern edge by developed urban land (Figure 5). The area includes mountains, lakes, steep slopes and rock outcrops to the north, and more gentle slopes of glacial till interspersed with marine deposits in the south. Elevations in the research forest range from just above sea level at Pitt Lake to 1,025 m on the slopes of the Golden Ears. The climate is Maritime due to the substantial influence of the Pacific Ocean, although modified by the mountains and inland location that imposes a slight continental influence. Mean annual precipitation ranges between 2,150 mm at the southern end to over 3,000 mm in the north. 17 The climate is characterized by mild temperatures with frequent cloudiness, a narrow temperature range, wet mild winters, cool relatively dry summers, a long frost free period and heavy precipitation, most of which occurs during the winter season. The twelve sub-watersheds that form the basis of this study are situated in the southeast corner of the research forest. This area has a mean annual precipitation of approximately 2,200-2,700 mm. The sub-watersheds are low elevation, ranging from 110 m to 455 m. The average daily mean temperature in the warmest month is 17°C and 0°C for the coldest month. The soils are of glacial origin, primarily till, though there are some glacial marine deposits in the lower portions of watersheds A and C. Soils in the research forest are generally shallow, and classified as Humo Ferric Podzols (Feller, 1999). The research forest is located within the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone and the dominant tree species are western hemlock {Tsuga heterophylld), Douglas-fir {Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western red cedar {Thuja plicata). Some paper birch {Betula papyrifera), big-leaf maple {Acer macrophyllum) and red alder are scattered in openings and wet sites (Feller, 2000). The natural disturbance type for this area is classified as NDT2 in the Biodiversity Guidebook (Anon 1995(1)). This signifies ecosystems with infrequent stand-initiating events. Wildfires of moderate size (20 to 1000 ha) are expected in this area with unburned areas resulting from sheltering terrain features, higher site moisture or chance. The mean return interval for these disturbances is about 200 years for the CWH biogeoclimatic zone. The research forest is a second growth stand originating from a fire in the 1930s that burned the logging slash left after railway logging that took place in the 1920s (Sanders 1983). The streams within the watersheds are relatively low gradient, first or second-order headwater systems, ranging from an average of 4 to 14% slope. Most of the streams are perennial although some are seasonal, having no flow during the driest parts of summer. These small streams are all tributary to either the Alouette or the North Alouette River which are important salmon producers, particularly for chum salmon (Onchorynchus keta) and pink salmon (Onchorynchus gorbuscha). The fish species observed in several of the research streams include coastal cutthrout trout {Onchorynchus clarkii) and juvenile steelhead trout {Onchorynchus mykiss). The forest being harvested for this experiment is an even-aged second growth stand of western red cedar {Thuja plicata), western hemlock {Tsuga heterophylld) and Douglas-fir {Pseudotsuga menziesii) of approximately 70 years age. The stand had a noticeably high tree density per unit area and several areas appeared to be in a state of early decay. Many large partially decayed tree stumps are still visible in new clearcut areas. The average diameter of these trees is approximately 2 m showing the naturally large size of the old growth stand harvested in the 1920's. 18 19 2.2 Disturbance history The history of watershed disturbances in the southeast section of the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest is shown in Figure 7. The research forest is a second-growth stand that is mainly the result of logging and fires at the turn of the 20th century. In the 1920s Abernathy and Lougheed Logging Company established the largest railway network of its time in BC to harvest trees from the forest. Gravel was imported from Alouette Lake to build the railway grade (Sanders 1983). Logging of the forest was done by "cold decking and swinging" (Sanders 1983). This was a method of cutting and yarding trees within a 300 m wide cutblock, and "swinging" the trees onto railcars. Trees outside the 300 m cutblock were felled in the forest and yarded to log pile locations (known as "cold decks") at the edge of the cutblock using mobile skidders. These were then yarded across the cutblocks to the railcars. Such methods effectively removed all old-growth trees within the SE portion of the research forest. Cross-stream yarding would have been commonplace at this time and it was common for stream channels to be used as transportation corridors in steeper confined reaches. Channel disturbance from historical logging was seen during channel assessments, in particular in the upper sample reaches of East Creek and Spring Creek where cut tree stumps greater than 1 m in bole diameter were upturned in the channel. Channel erosion from the rail line was also observed below Mirror Lake and above Stream G (N. Winfield, personal observation). Fires were recorded in 1868, 1925, 1926/1931 and 1957 (Sanders 1983). Many of the fires originated from forest camps after timber harvesting had occurred. These fires were sufficiently hot and frequent to have burned much of the logging debris and slash on the cutblocks. Very little remnant coarse woody debris was observed on the forest floor adjacent to the streams (N. Winfield, personal observation). Natural disturbances that have the potential to deliver sediment to the channel, such as debris flows and landslides, have not been observed due to the relatively low gradients of the channels in the SE corner of the research forest. It can be summarised that the general condition of the channels prior to initiation of the riparian buffer project was highly disturbed from logging, forest fires and railway grade construction some 80 years ago. 20 Figure 7: Fire disturbance history and railway network in the SE section of the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest (Sanders 1983). 1999 cutblocks have been overlaid on the fire history groups. 21 2.3 Watershed characteristics The watershed and stream characteristics for each of the study sites are summarised in Table 4 and shown on Figure 6. Watersheds in the study range in size from 11.5 ha (F Creek) to 111.0 ha (Spring Creek). Average channel gradients range from 11% for A Creek to 2% for Spring Creek. Average bankfull width ranges from 0.5 m to 4.0 m; and average depth ranges from 0.1 m to 0.4 m. Table 4: Watershed and stream characteristics for 12 experimental streams Watershed Treatment Watershed Area Treatment Area Channel gradient Channel Length Drainage Density Fish presence Confinement (ha) (ha) (m m"') (m) (m/ha) East Creek 44.0 0 0.08 855 30 Yes Confined Spring Creek Control 111.0 0 0.02 - - Yes Frequently confined Mike Creek 29.7 0 0.08 1200 - - Frequently confined A Creek 58.5 19.5 0.11 1835 49 Yes Confined E Creek 0m buffer 12.2 12.2 0.11 805 66 No N/A I Creek 12.6 12.6 0.08 570 45 No Confined C Creek F Creek 10m buffer 89.1 11.5 46.8 11.5 0.07 0.09 2015 605 55 109 Yes No Confined N/A G Creek 83.5 28.1 0.04 1935 42 Transplanted Frequently confined South Creek 18.6 18.6 0.10 1105 59 No Confined D Creek 30m buffer 43.3 43.3 0.08 1180 47 Yes Confined H Creek 55.4 28.2 0.06 1440 48 Transplanted Frequently confined 2.4 Experimental design for integrated research project This study is one component of an integrated research project conducted by a team of researchers from the University of British Columbia at the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. The goal of the integrated research project is to evaluate the effects of 3 logging treatments in the riparian zone of headwater streams on the structure and function of stream and riparian ecosystems over several years (Table 4). The overall objectives are to test the efficacy of riparian management zones in meeting the expected goals of protecting stream and streamside habitats. A conceptual design of the research components is provided in Figure 8. The project provided an 22 opportunity for pre- and post-logging data to be collected to quantify channel responses to alternative riparian treatments. terrestrial components stream components wind groundwater chemistry soils precipitation >- discharge t i V _> water chemistry light -> algae bacteria invertebrates Y riparian disturbance > channel morphology fish habitat litter decomposition terrestrial invertebrates temperature Figure 8: Functional components of hydro-riparian ecosystems studied in the integrated research project at the UBC Malcolm Knapp Research Forest A total of 12 streams were identified for the controlled experiments. There are three control streams and three treatments that are each replicated three times (Table 5). These were pre-determined by the integrated research project team and were all located within the SE corner of the research forest. The channels were considered comparable for many of the studies that test the biological responses of variable width riparian zones. However, from a geomorphic perspective the streams had sufficient variability in watershed area, channel gradient and large woody debris accumulations that these factors could increase the variability of response within a given treatment. 23 Table 5: Experimental Treatment Types Treatment Description No reserve. All trees cut to the stream edge. 10 m reserve A minimum width of 10 m of trees retained next to the streams on each side. 30 m reserve A minimum width of 30 m of trees retained next to the streams on each side. The reserve was that area that would remain uncut. The assessment of the response of hydro-riparian ecosystems to riparian management treatments was to be based on comparisons of before, and after, harvesting as well as between treatment differences. Three independent variables influence channel morphology. These are sediment supply, transport capacity and vegetation (instream LWD and streambank vegetation). A field sampling program was set up to collect information on channel morphology responses over one year, specifically pool volumes and fine pool sediments, as a result of manipulation of one dependent variable: riparian vegetation. Information on sediment supply and transport capacity was collected by reviewing local hydrological data. Field sampling and a review of the historical records for the research forest permitted information to be gathered on the effects of logging on input and export processes ofLWD on channel morphology. 2.5 Field Methods The schedule of field sampling was initiated in April 1998. All in-stream data were collected during base flow conditions in July. Forest harvesting was started in the summer of 1998 and was completed by the winter of 1998. A second year of field sampling was conducted in the summer of 1999 in order to collect data on post-logging conditions. Instream measurements for whole channels were completed in 1998 and 1999 with the same personnel to reduce the effects of operator bias between the years. Representative reaches for each of the streams were surveyed both years. Different field assistants were used; however, the author was the primary user of all survey equipment so again the effects of operator bias were kept to a minimum. Channel scale studies were undertaken in 1998 and 1999 to examine longitudinal profiles, to characterize the morphology of each channel, to collect pool sediments and to select the study stream reach. A minimum of 200 m of channel length was examined for each stream. 24 Channel morphology Channel morphology data were collected for the full length of the channel contained within the cutblocks (Figure 6). These lengths ranged from 200 to 400 m in length. Distances were recorded using a hip chain. For each pool the following were recorded: location, dimension (including volume), primary pool-forming element and pool classification. Primary pool-forming elements were identified and these elements were based on commonly accepted definitions outlined in Table 6. The classification of pools (Table 7) was based on the methods of other workers such as Bisson et. al. (1982). Table 6: Primary pool forming elements Pool forming element Code Description Large woody debris LWD Pieces of wood greater than 1.0 m in length and greater than 0.1 m in diameter. Root wads R W The stump of upturned trees or exposed roots of live trees. These divert water flows and redirect water energy so that water scours the streambed or streambanks. Rocks R Rocks or boulders. These divert water flows and redirect water energy so that water scours the streambed or streambanks. Small woody debris SWD Pieces of wood less than 1 m in length and/or 0.1 m in diameter. These create a strong matrix and obstruction that deflect water flow into the downstream streambed or streambanks; or create a backwater eddy that scours the streambed upstream of the obstruction. Basal till T Geological materials deposited during glaciation that is cohesive enough to offer resistance to flow and redirect energy so that water creates a scoured depression. 25 Table 7: Classification of pool types Pool type Code Description Reference Submerge d jet pool SuJP Submerged jet pools can be classified as a type of scour pool (scour pools are created by the action of current flowing against an obstruction). Water is forced under an obstruction such as rocks or large woody debris to scour the bed of the stream. Hawkins etal . 1993. Bisson eta l 1982. Stream jet pool S J P Stream jet pools can be classified as a type of scour pool (scour pools are created by the action of current flowing against an obstruction). Water is constrained through elements such as rocks or large woody debris, therefore forcing the flow to scour the bed of the stream. Hawkins etal . 1993. Backwater pool BWP Backwater pools are formed by water backing upstream through an obstruction that narrow the channel (such as bedrock, boulder or rootwads). The pools are caused by eddies behind these large obstructions. Bisson et al 1982. Plunge pool P P Plunge pools are created when water passes over a complete or nearly complete channel obstruction, and drops steeply into the water below thereby creating a scoured depression in the streambed. Bisson etal . 1982. Residual pool volume sampling Dimensions of each pool were measured in the field to enable the calculation of residual pool volume. For pool lengths greater than 1.0 m, three sets of measurements were made. These were the widths and maximum depths at baseflow conditions for the lower, middle and upper portions of the pool (Figure 9). Residual pool volume was estimated by averaging the cross-sectional areas of two half ellipses that comprise the lower and upper halves of each pool and then multiplying this value by one half of the pool length (L/2). Thus the residual volume (V) of the total pool (upper plus lower half) was computed as: [1] V,= K/4 [L/2(0.5WU • Du +0.5WM DJ + L/2 (0.5WM' Dm + 0.5WD DJ] Vi- n/16 L (WU Du +2WM Dm + WD Dd) where W m is the middle width of the pool, W u the upper width of the pool, and Wj is the lower width of the pool, D m is the depth at the middle of the pool, D u the upper depth of the pool, and D d is the lower depth of the pool, and L is the length of the pool (Sidle and Sharma 1999). Small pools were measured if they were greater than 0.5 m and less than 1.0 m in length. Only mid-pool dimensions were measured for these streams. The volumes of these small pools were 26 calculated as a half of an elliptical cross-section assuming an average pool length of 0.75 m. The residual small pool volume (Vs) was computed as: [2] Vs = 0.5n (0.5W D) 0.75 m < • Wd Figure 9: Schematic of large pool dimensions used in calculating residual pool volume. Large woody debris sampling Large woody debris (LWD) was classified as a pool-forming element if it was stable and forced flow in a direction consistent with scour of the pool. The size criteria for large woody debris was greater than 0.1 m in diameter and greater than 1.0 m in length, the criteria used by Swanson et al. (1976), Hogan (1986) and many other workers. The number, width and length of LWD pieces was measured and recorded. LWD was only recorded within the active channel and truncated at bankfull width. The volume of a cylinder was used to calculate LWD volume: [3] V = n x (0.5 width)2 x length Similarly, small woody debris (SWD) was classified as a pool-forming element if it was stable and forced flow in a direction consistent with scour of the pool. SWD was designated as anything 27 smaller than 0.1 min diameter. These were recorded as pool forming elements but their volume was not measured. Sediment texture in pools Pools were selected as the sampling unit for fine sediments. Pool sediments were sampled at similar low flow periods to provide information on the changes that occurred in the channel as a result of channel disturbances. Samples of streambed sediment were collected in every pool within the sample streams to detect changes in particle size distribution within the streams. Approximately 200 g of sediment was extracted from the depositional zone of the pool by hand and placed in a waterproof plastic bag. Organic pieces and rocks greater than 50 mm were removed from the sample to reduce sample bias. These samples were then taken to the laboratory for analysis. Channel assessments During channel sampling, data were also collected to enable classification and determination of the disturbance level of the streams using the provincial Channel Assessment Procedure (Anon 1995 (2)). Information was collected on the average channel gradient (s), depth (d), bankfull width (Wb) and the largest stone moved by water (D). Average channel gradient was measured using an inclinometer. Level shots were taken between two field workers standing at waters edge. Sighting was made on the point of the other field worker with the same distance to the ground. Slope was measured over the longest length of channel while maintaining visibility with the other field worker. Channel depth was measured at five locations along the thalweg of the reach using a stadia rod. Channel depth was based on the height to the bankfull stage. Channel width was recorded using a fibre measuring tape or stadia rod. Criteria used to determine channel width included change in vegetation from bare ground to vegetated ground or a topographic break from vertical bank to the floodplain. To measure the largest stone moved by water five of the largest stones at a cross section were measured along their intermediate axis. Given the size of the stones, measurements were made to the nearest 10 mm. Channel confinement was determined using the reconnaissance fish and fish habitat inventory methodology (RIC 1999) as described in Table 8. 28 Table 8: Channel confinement definitions (RIC 1999) Confinement type Description Entrenched Entrenched channels are confined by fluvially eroded gullies or valleys or bedrock walls. Confined Confined channels are prevented or restricted from lateral migration by valley walls. Frequently confined Frequently confined channels are restricted from lateral migration by the valley walls but are able to store sediment on a valley flat which is typically less than or equal to 1 channel width wide. Occasionally confined Occasionally confined channels are able to store sediment on a valley flat, typically 1 - 1 0 channel widths wide and can migrate laterally in all but a few segments of channel. Unconfined Unconfined channels are not restricted from lateral migration by the valley walls. N/A Confinement is not always applicable to every stream reach. Permanent Transects The objective of the permanent transects was to observe any changes in channel dimensions (such as width and depth of the channel) over time within a fixed reach. A reach is a fundamental channel unit defined as a length of channel that has the same channel pattern, the same relationship with the hillslope, and the same discharge (Kellerhals et al. 1976). Changes in channel dimensions may indicate a change in the water and sediment discharge characteristics of the stream. Sample reaches provide the opportunity to repeat surveys using the fixed points in order to develop a long-term record of channel morphology changes. The total channel length available for sampling was calculated from the map and a random number generator was used to locate the site. Sample reaches were standardised to 30 m based on 10 times the average channel width of 3.0 m. Most channels were homogeneous as there were neither significant gradient breaks nor obvious morphological changes in the channels. In locations where roads intersected the cutblocks, samples were selected above the road crossing in order to reduce the added complication of road runoff and sediments. Permanent transects were marked using either wooden survey stakes or 2.5 cm diameter PVC pipes. Survey stakes were spaced 3.0 m apart along one side of the stream. Cross-sections were established perpendicular to the stream. Additionally, a permanent backsight (BS) was added by marking a permanent feature such as a stump and marked with an iron nail and flagging. A Leica Total Surveyor was used to survey the channel reaches. Datapoints along the streambank, channel cross-sections, thalweg and longitudinal profiles were recorded into a datalogger and were later downloaded onto a computer for processing in an AutoCAD drafting program. 29 Reach mapping Manual extension photography was selected to map the survey reaches and complemented the detailed reach surveys. For each sample reach a remote controlled 35 mm Pentax WR90 camera was attached to a 32-foot aluminium pole with a camera mount, a photography technique developed by Mr. Dan Hogan. Low level aerial photographs were taken for each of the 30 m reaches. Photographs were to be used to supplement stream sketches, to describe the bed material, wetted perimeter, and to calculate the volume of wood in the channels. Some channels were obscured by ground vegetation or over-hanging branches such that the photographs did not display all the desirable features described. Photographs were taken in 1998 and repeated in 2001. 2.6 Laboratory methods Watershed characteristics Watershed boundaries were determined by UBC Research Forest field staff and plotted onto a 1:5,000 map of the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. A Planix 7 Digital Planimeter (Tamaya Technics Inc.) was used to calculate watershed areas. Stream lengths were calculated from the 1:5,000 map and drainage densities were calculated as total stream length within a watershed divided by total watershed area. Information on the land use history of the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest was collected from Sanders (1983). Using Adobe PhotoShop 5.0, a scaled digital map of the SE portion of the research forest was created. Spatially referenced data showing the location of streams, historical railway grades, fire history, current road locations, cutblock boundaries, watershed boundaries, and V-notch weirs were overlaid onto the digital base map. 30 Sub-basin watershed pairs A regression of peak stream power on watershed area for four gauged streams, specifically Streams G, I, East Creek and South Creek was developed. This regression equation was used to estimate the relative peak stream powers for the remaining eight streams by assuming a general relationship between watershed area and peak discharge. Based on these peak stream powers, channels were grouped as four sub-basin watershed pairs for the purpose of further between group analysis of channel changes. Sediment size distributions Sediment samples were air dried in a greenhouse at UBC for several weeks. The sieving process took place in the sediment laboratory at UBC. The total dry weight of each sample was measured prior to sieving. The samples were then divided into particle sizes using 32-64 mm, 16-32 mm, 8-16 mm, 4-8 mm, 2-4 mm, 1-2 mm, and 0.5-1.0 mm, 0.25-0.50 mm and 0.18-0.25 mm size classes. The sediment in each of the sieves was weighed and recorded. Any left over sediment was designated as less than the lowest size class. Table 9 shows the sieve sizes used and the corresponding texture description based on the Wentworth (1922) classification system. Table 9: Sediment Texture Scales (Wentworth 1922) Texture description Upper size limits, mm Sieve sizes used for study Medium and Coarse Gravel 64.0 mm Fine Gravel 8.0 mm Yes Granules ("pea gravel") 4.0 mm Yes Very coarse sand 2.0 mm Yes Coarse sand 1.0 mm Yes Medium sand 0.5 mm Yes Fine sand 0.25 mm Silt 0.064 mm Clay 0.004 mm 31 The lower and higher distributions of the samples were lumped together to provide comparable data. The final size classes used for comparison were >8.0 mm, 4.0 mm-8.0 mm, 2.0 mm-4.0 mm, 1.0-2.0 mm, 0.5-1.0 mm, 0.5-0.25 mm, <0.25 mm. Permanent transects Data recorded in the Leica Total Surveyor were downloaded onto a personal computer then converted into AutoCad drawings. All aerial photographs were scanned into a personal computer and converted into digital images of the survey area. Using Adobe PhotoShop 5.0, scaled digital maps of the channel were created showing the streambank, large woody debris (LWD), and dominant substrate. Hydrology Gauging stations based on V-notch weirs have been operated on East Creek and South Creek since 1985. Stream stage was recorded and was converted into discharge by applying known stage-discharge relationships (Feller pers comm 2001). Three additional V-notch weirs were installed early in summer 1999 at the bottom of the treatment areas at reaches A, G, and I. Pressure transducers were used to measure the height of water. Raw data for these streams were recorded in pressure units (PSI). There were two steps to calculating discharge. First, the height (or the stage) of the stream was calculated using pressure data. Second, the discharge was calculated using the stage-discharge relationship. (See Appendix 3 for an example of these calculations.) Turbidity In November 1999 turbidity meters were installed at the weirs on streams A, G and I. Water turbidity was recorded every 15 minutes in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Sediment-rating curves had not been derived for these systems at the time of writing; therefore, data could not be converted into sediment volumes and is presented in their raw form as NTUs. 32 2.7 Statistical analysis Regression analyses were performed on the pool volume and large woody debris (LWD) data, one for each stream. Both linear and non-linear models were tested to determine the relation between pool volumes and LWD volumes. A quadratic regression model was compared to a linear regression model in order to determine which model best fit the data set. A linear model would suggest that pool volume continues to increase as LWD volume increases. A quadratic model would suggest that pool volume increases to an maximum or threshold level before further increases in LWD volume would begin to cause the pool volume to decrease. 33 3 RESULTS 3.1 Watershed groups Stream power is an index for describing the erosive capacity of streams. Stream power is defined as the rate of potential energy expenditure over a reach, or per unit of stream length. Peak stream flows are the significant flows for channel shaping processes and provide a useful method for comparing streams. To make meaningful comparisons of harvesting treatments on channel morphology, watershed groups were established based on similarities in peak stream power. Data from a network of gauged streams in the experimental area was used to determine stream powers. Peak stream power, co,, is expressed in units of kg m s"3 (or Watts m"') and was computed as: [4] C0 T = PgQpeakS where p is the density of water (1000 kg m"3), S is the slope (m m"1), g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m s'2), Qpesy, is peak discharge (m3 s"') during a fixed time period. Using this formula peak stream power was calculated for four gauged streams, specifically Streams G, I, East Creek and South Creek. Estimates of the relative peak stream powers for the remaining eight streams were made by assuming a general relationship between watershed area and peak discharge. Discharge data from a storm event on November 26,2000 from a maximum number of four gauged streams provided the basis for this estimation (Figure 11). The longest period of recorded stream discharge exists for East Creek, which dates back to 1972. These are shown in Figure 10 to demonstrate the discharge regime in these small channels. Within the period of record large peak flow events occurred in the winters of 1980, 1981,1991 and 1992. More recent discharge data for East Creek are summarised to show the annual variability in streamflows (Table 10). Annual discharge and mean discharge were greater in 1999 than in 1998 although the largest peak storm event was comparable for these years. Based on the regression of peak stream discharge (Figure 11), channels were grouped as four sub-basin watershed pairs based on their similarity in peak discharge (Table 11). All further data in this paper are presented in these four groupings (Figure 12). These groups are also recommended for all future comparative channel studies as part of the integrated research project. 34 1972 Figure 10: East Creek discharge, 1972-1999. Large peak flow events occurred in 1980,1981,1991 and 1992. Table 10: Summary of discharge data for East Creek from 1 October 1990 to 30 September 1999 Water year (1 O c t - 3 0 Sept) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Number of storm events >0.15 m 3s" 1 12 9 8 7 15 12 14 7 13 Peak storm event (mV1) 0.55 0.39 0.27 0.42 0.31 0.38 0.53 0.43 0.42 Annual discharge (106) 0.994 0.746 0.656 0.653 0.824 1.041 1.203 0.784 1.119 Average daily discharge (m3) 2,723 2,039 1,797 1,790 2,259 2,852 3,286 2,148 3,065 Median discharge (m3) 1,139 638 756 600 808 1,205 1,689 1,035 1,491 35 190.00 -i Watershed area (hectares) Figure 11: Regression of peak discharge of four gauged streams on watershed area Table 11: Similarity index based on peak stream power Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 A-C 1.0 H-East 1.0 Spring-Mike 0.9 F - E 0.8 D-East 0.9 South-Mike 0.8 l - E 0.8 G - East 0.9 36 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 ~ 1 2 0 0 0 0 H 1 0 0 0 0 0 E 8 0 0 0 0 H is o I 6 0 0 0 0 8 K 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 G r o u p 1 G r o u p 2 G r o u p 3 G r o u p A C E a s t H D G M i k e S p r i n g S o u t h E F I Figure 12: Four sub-basin watershed pairs identified based on peak stream power 37 Table 12: Summary of all pool and large woody debris data for 1998 and 1999 in 12 study reaches in the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. 1998 1999 Pools Large Pools LWD woody debris Channel Number Mean Relative Number Mean Number Mean Relative Number Mean length pool length of LWD pool length of LWD surveyed volume of pieces volume volume of pieces volume (m) m 3 channel per pool m 3 channel per pool (SD) in pools m 3 (SD) in pools m 3 (SD) (SD) A 380 48 0.316 0.19 137 0.435 55 0.342 0.19 153 0.353 (0.256) (0.634) (0.311) (0.480) C 360 37 0.346 0.18 101 0.513 43 0.393 0.23 100 0.267 (0.309) (0.644) (0.263) (0.286) D 220 26 0.137 0.14 52 0.231 24 0.108 0.12 35 0.168 (0.096) (0.116) (0.068) (0.230) East 160 18 0.654 0.33 37 0.326 20 0.643 0.35 33 0.413 (0.740) (0.388) (0.702) (0.624) E 170 19 0.181 0.09 48 0.259 21 0.046 0.08 53 0.071 (0.189) (0.334) (0.023) (0.076) F 230 24 0.144 0.16 42 0.423 21 0.036 0.08 16 0.175 (0.142) (0.622) (0.017) (0.285) G 270 35 0.853 0.31 115 1.140 27 0.854 0.20 69 0.515 (0.688) (1.500) (0.756) (0.512) H 320 13 0.770 0.14 51 0.846 26 0.442 0.14 60 0.530 (0.637) (0.738) (0.323) (0.718) I 140 28 0.216 0.39 83 0.172 21 0.214 0.23 51 0.268 (0.217) (0.198) (0.144) (0.391) Mike 150 21 0.303 0.23 28 0.123 23 0.174 0.20 25 0.197 (0.115) (0.134) (0.112) (0.262) South 280 44 0.236 0.15 58 0.328 47 0.107 0.13 40 0.102 (0.238) (0.616) (0.102) (0.294) Spring 170 24 0.208 0.17 63 0.527 26 0.125 0.17 44 0.357 (0.124) (0.551) (0.091) (0.539) 3.2 Morphological influence of wood in small headwater channels One of the primary research objectives was to describe the role of wood in pool forming processes given the importance of this habitat feature for fish. The proportion of pools that were 38 formed by basal till, boulders, roots, small woody debris, or large woody debris are shown in Figures 13(a) and 13(b) for the two sample years. Large woody debris accounted for the highest proportion of pool forming elements in 1998 and in 1999. The mean frequency of pools formed primarily by LWD for all streams was 0.66 in 1998 and 0.56 in 1999. All streams showed very similar proportions of LWD forming pools across years except for F Creek, which decreased from a frequency of 0.71 to 0.33 from 1998 to 1999. This decrease was accounted for by an increase in the frequency of small woody debris as a forming element (up from 0.13 to 0.48). The number of LWD pieces per 100 m channel length in 1998 and 1999 and the volume of LWD pieces per 100 m channel length (Figure 14 and Figure 15) were highly variable across channels. Streams A and C had the highest number of LWD pieces per linear length for both years. Stream G had the highest volume of LWD in the channel in 1998 but A and C had the highest volumes in 1999. 39 Group 1 CL 1.00 0.90 0.80 H 0.70 0.60 0.50 0 40 0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 East • Roots 0.14 0.05 a Basal till 0.06 009 ID Small woody debris 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.16 000 0.10 0.21 0.13 0.07 0 Boulders 0.42 003 0.17 0.14 0.43 057 0.21 0.04 036 0.17 0.31 B Large Woody Debris 0.54 0.95 0.67 0.71 057 0.43 0.58 0.87 0.54 0.79 0.71 0.62 Figure 13 (a): Relative frequency of primary pool forming elements across all pools by stream 1998 for a. Group 1 Group 2 1.00 0.90 H 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 ^ 0.10 0.00 Group 3 Group 4 East • Mike Spring South 0 Roots 004 009 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.05 0 11 0 Basal till 005 0 05 0.04 0.05 0.03 • Small woody debris 0.05 010 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.48 H Boulders 0.49 0.14 0.15 027 0.38 0.44 0.43 0.32 0.43 0.05 0.14 0 32 a Large Woody Debris 0.51 077 0.70 069 0 50 0 56 0.48 0.55 0 40 0.71 033 0 58 Figure 13 (b): Relative frequency of primary pool forming elements across all pools by stream for 1999 40 Group 3 Group 4 E 8 Q . V) u o Q . E 3 0 -A C East H D G Mike Spring South E F I • 1998 data 71 48 30 17 22 42 18 37 22 24 18 46 • 1999 data 74 59 33 9 14 25 19 26 14 18 7 40 Figure 14: Number of LWD pieces counted as primary pool forming elements per 100 m channel length in 1998 and 1999. 16.0 n Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 0.0 -A C East H D G Mike Spring South E F I • 1998 12.32 11.60 3.66 9 80 2.75 14.42 3.20 7.50 5.46 2.84 352 9.40 • 1999 9.44 6.76 5.17 4.29 1.73 5 07 3.36 5.51 1.79 0 64 0.81 437 Figure 15: Volume of LWD forming pools per 100 m channel length in 1998 and 1999. 41 Primary pool forming LWD data were further organised by size-class (Table 13). LWD was organised into four size-classes, 0.1 m to less than 0.2 m in diameter, 0.2 m to less than 0.5 m, 0.5 m to less than 0.8 m, and greater than 0.8 m in diameter. The size or volume ofLWD pieces provides a basis for assessing the future longevity ofLWD structures. The largest size classes represent old growth LWD likely recruited prior to, or during, first rotation harvesting in the 1920's. The average percent ofLWD pieces across sample years for all streams by size class was 2% for the largest size class, 6% for the 0.5-0.8 m size class, 23% for the 0.2-0.5 m size class and 48% for the 0.1-0.2 m size class. Table 13: Number of LWD pieces by size class per 100 m for 12 study streams 1998 1999 >0.8m 0.5-0.8m 0.2-0.5m 0.1-0.2m Total >0.8m 0.5-0.8m 0.2-0.5m 0.1-0.2m Total A 1.6 2.7 25.2 41.2 70.8 0.8 5.5 29.0 39.0 74.3 C 2.0 1.6 18.9 25.7 48.2 0.0 2.2 25.1 31.7 59.0 D 0.5 0.5 10.9 10.4 22.3 0.0 0.5 8.8 5.1 14.4 E 0.7 0.7 12.7 9.7 23.8 0.0 0.0 9.8 8.2 18.0 F 0.5 2.5 6.0 9.1 18.1 0.0 1.0 2.9 3.4 7.2 G 0.8 4.7 22.7 13.3 41.5 0.4 2.7 8.0 14.1 25.2 H 0.4 1.8 7.5 6.8 16.5 0.5 0.9 3.6 4.0 9.0 I 0.7 0.7 19.5 25.0 45.9 0.9 2.8 8.3 27.6 39.6 Mike 2.4 0.8 7.3 7.3 17.8 1.2 1.9 14.4 8.1 25.6 Spring 2.6 3.2 16.7 14.2 36.7 0.0 1.5 11.1 5.9 18.5 East 0.0 1.3 12.7 16.0 30.0 0.0 3.3 19.9 10.0 33.2 South 0.9 1.8 10.7 8.9 22.3 0.4 0.0 7.3 6.5 14.2 Mean 1.1 1.9 14.2 15.6 32.8 0.4 1.8 12.3 13.6 28.2 Pool types are presented for descriptive purposes and are not analysed statistically (Figures 16(a) and 16(b)). Most streams showed similar frequencies of pools types across years. Mike Creek had a greater expression of backwater pools in 1998 (32%) than in 1999 (4%). Plunge pools increased from 1998 (37%) to 1999 (61%). Mike and Spring Creeks had a high percentage of backwater pools in 1998, 32% and 17% respectively. High flows during the winter of 1998 broke up temporary dam structures that were formed by small woody debris matrices and formed backwater pools. This resulted in a greater expression of plunge pools. For Mike Creek these 42 were up from 37% in 1998 to 61% in 1999; and for Spring Creek they were up from 13% in 1998 to 59% in 1999. For Spring Creek frequency of submerged jet pools decreased from 0.30 in 1998 to 0.0 in 1999. Plunge pools increased from 0.13 to 0.59. A high frequency of plunge pools is to be expected in step-pool morphologies where log steps create hydraulic drops and thereby initiate pool development. A higher frequency of stream jet pools is expected in riffle-pool morphologies where wood directs flow to the streambed and thereby creates scour. This was consistent with our observations. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 m Backwater pool 0.04 0.03 0.22 0.14 0.06 0.32 0.17 0.08 0.33 0.07 0 Submerged jet pool 0.10 0.18 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.30 0.10 0.05 0.04 0 07 S Stream jet pool 0.31 0.29 0.56 0.29 0.33 0.60 0.21 0.39 0.05 0.32 0.13 0.48 8 Plunge pool 0.54 0.50 0.17 0.43 0.48 0.31 0.37 0.13 0.77 0.63 0.50 0.38 Figure 16 (a): Relative frequency of pool types by stream in 1998 43 A C East H D G Mike Spring South E F ID Backwater pool 0.07 0 Submerged jet pool 0.04 a Stream jet pool 0.24 s Plunge pool | 0.65 0.20 0.10 0.55 0.15 0.08 0.54 0.38 0.13 0.67 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.74 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.30 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.16 0.32 0.53 0.35 0.65 0.61 0.36 0.59 0.60 0.28 0.57 0.43 0.29 0.71 Figure 16 (b): Relative frequency of pool types by stream in 1999 LWD was primarily oriented perpendicular to channels less than 4 m in width. LWD was anchored in the riparian zone rendering them immobile. Only LWD pieces that had entered the channel in a parallel orientation or that were less than the channel width could be moved by flowing water. LWD frequently formed log-jams ranging from individual pieces to greater than 7 pieces per pool. LWD accumulations of 1-2 LWD pieces formed the majority of pools in all three groups of smaller streams (0.5 -1.5 m, 1.5 - 2.5 m and 2.5 - 3.5 m channel width) accounting for 56%, 43% and 39% of all pools respectively. In the larger streams (3.5 - 4.5 m channel width) LWD accumulations of 3 - 4 LWD pieces were more frequent than any other group (33%) and larger clusters ofLWD were not uncommon accounting for 15% of the remaining pools (Figure 17). 44 Channel width 0.5-1.5 m Channel width 1.5-2.5 m 0.60 0.50 0 0.40 0) g. 0.30 1 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.50 n 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 •I •a 1^ N = 130 observations B8S 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 >7 Number of LWO pieces per pool Channel width 2.5-3.5 m N = 38 observations 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 >7 Number of LWD pieces per pool 0.50 0.40 I 0.30 Sf 0.20 0.00 0.40 -j 0.30 -o 0> z> J T 0.20 -£ U - 0.10 -0.00 -N = 426 observations - M w 1 n 0 1to2 3 to 4 5to6 >7 Number of LWD pieces per pool Channel width 3.5-4.5 m 3 N = 99 observations 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 >7 Number of LWD pieces per pool Figure 17: Frequency of LWD accumulations forming pools in all 12 study streams. As channel width increases the number of pieces of LWD forming pools increases. The majority of pools formed in channels less than 1.5 m channel width were accounted for by LWD accumulations of 1-2 pieces. To determine whether the volume of LWD influences the volume of pools in these small stream channels the data were reviewed and prepared for statistical analysis. LWD volume and pool volume observations for Stream E and Stream F were removed from the analysis because they were seasonal channels and, having infrequent flow in their upper sections, did not interact with LWD in the same way as the other alluvial channels. Five observations from the remaining dataset were excluded (Table 14) because they had extreme LWD volume values and were widely separated from the main cluster of observations. The large volumes of wood at these locations may be attributable to logging debris, skid bridges, or wood that floated downstream after very large storm events. 45 Table 14: Location and size of log jams and associated pools. These extreme values were removed from the regression analysis as they were extreme LWD volume values and were widely separated from the main cluster of observations Stream name Location upstream (m) LWD volume (m3) Pool volume (m3) A 276 m 3.5 m 3 0.20 m 3 C 172 m 5.30 m 3 0.96 m 3 H 231 m 19.88 m 3 1.82 m 3 I 121 m 8.72 m 3 0.79 m 3 Mike 65 m 2.36 m 3 0.36 m 3 After removing these sites the total number of observations was 606. It was noted that 95% of observations had an associated pool volume of less than 1.5 m 3 and that 95% of these observations had LWD volumes less than or equal to 1.59 m 3 (Figure 18). 1.00 -i 0.90 -0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 LWD volume per pool (m ) Figure 18: Pool volumes and associated LWD for 1998 and 1999 were combined. Ninety five percent of all pools had LWD volumes of less than or equal to 1.59 m3. Twenty percent of all pools had no associated LWD. A linear regression model was compared to a quadratic regression model to determine which model best fit the data set. The regression patterns were sufficiently parallel across years that pool and LWD volumes were combined for the analyses. Alpha was fixed at .05. To control for family wise error rates, the Bonferonni procedure was utilized. As there were 10 comparisons 46 made at alpha = .05, the critical value of alpha was fixed at .005 (.05/10 = .005). Significance values that are bolded denote that LWD volume accounted for a significant portion of the variance in pool volume in a given stream. The adjusted R 2 value explains what proportion of the variance in pool volume was explained by the variance in LWD volume (Table 15). Table 15: Linear model of pool volume regressed on LWD volume for all pools over 1998 and 1999 for each stream. Channel Type Stream Regression Coefficients Test of Significance Name Adjusted R 2 a b F Sig Df Riffle-pool G 0.104 0.683 0.196 8.052 0.006 1,60 Riffle-pool H 0.012 0.142 0.123 1.470 0.233 1,37 Riffle-pool Spring 0.000 0.156 0.020 0.447 0.507 1,48 Step-pool A 0.002 0.308 0.056 1.220 0.272 1, 101 Step-pool c 0.038 0.328 0.128 4.128 0.046 1,78 Step-pool D 0.277 0.092 0.156 19.729 0.000 1,48 Step-pool East 0.204 0.408 0.648 10.487 0.003 1,36 Step-pool Mike 0.000 0.241 -0.033 0.126 0.725 1,42 Step-pool South 0.510 0.110 0.282 94.748 0.000 1,89 Cascade-pool I 0.045 0.181 0.161 3.257 0.078 1,47 The linear model (of the general form y = ax +b) described the relationship between pool volumes and LWD volumes for streams D, East and South. Table 16: Quadratic model of pool volume regressed on LWD volume over 1998 and 1999. Channel Stream Name Regression Coefficients Test of P value of Type Significance x2 term Adjusted R 2 a b C F Sig Df Riffle-pool G 0.198 0.531 0.681 -0.117 8.518 0.001 2, 59 0.006 Riffle-pool H 0.000 0.511 -0.031 0.064 0.988 0.416 2,36 0.556 Riffle-pool Spring 0.037 0.128 0.197 -0.102 1.947 0.154 2,47 0.070 Step-pool A 0.037 0.264 0.302 -0.114 2.952 0.057 2, 100 0.034 Step-pool C 0.148 0.235 0.582 -0.219 7.845 0.001 2,77 0.627 Step-pool D 0.268 0.097 0.093 0.056 9.973 0.000 2,47 0.508 Step-pool East 0.222 0.293 1.312 -0.329 6.303 0.005 2, 35 0.181 Step-pool Mike 0.000 0.224 0.373 -0.695 0.994 0.379 2, 41 0.248 Step-pool South 0.505 0.113 0.252 0.012 46.998 0.000 2, 88 0.698 Cascade-pool I 0.102 0.138 0.523 -0.261 3.724 0.032 2,46 0.634 47 The quadratic regression model (of the general form y = a + bx + cx2) described the relationship between pool volumes and LWD volumes for stream G where the x2 coefficient was negative and significant. LWD volumes in Stream G reached a threshold point beyond which further increases in LWD no longer increased pool volumes. LWD volumes did not explain the variance in pool volume in streams A, H, I, Mike and Spring. Calculations for L W D volumes for pool formation in small streams Relationships between pool spacing and pool gradients have been established in Pacific Northwest streams. Pool spacing is a function of slope and the number of LWD pieces per linear length of channel. An average spacing of 2-4 Wbf is expected for pool-riffle morphologies and 1-4 W b f for step-pool morphologies in unmanaged forests (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Most study reaches were at the upper range of spacing for the channel types except for Stream G which showed a much shorter spacing of 2 channel widths per pool. Table 17: Pool spacing of 10 experimental streams expressed in bankfull channel width (WM). All streams were within the expected pool spacing range based on channel type except for Stream H where pools were spaced farther than the expected range. Stream East Creek Spring Creek Mike Creek Stream A Stream I Stream C Stream G South Creek Stream D Stream H Type SP RP SP SP CP SP RP SP SP RP Expected pool spacing 1-4 2-4 1-4 1-4 N/A 1-4 2-4 1-4 1-4 2-4 Observed 3.3 4.6 4.5 3.4 2.4 4.1 2.0 4.4 4.0 5.6 pool spacing Knowledge of pool spacing by channel type in undisturbed forests (Table 17) in combination with the above regression curves was used to derive target instream LWD volumes in small streams. Sample channel widths and channel types were chosen to undertake these calculations. Multiplying the number of pools expected per channel length and the volume of wood required to create pools, a target volume of LWD per 100 m of channel length was derived (Table 18 and 20). The equivalent number of LWD pieces of differing diameters to achieve this LWD volume was also calculated (Table 19 and 21). 48 Table 18: Sample calculation of target LWD volume per 100 m for a riffle-pool reach of 4.0 m channel width. An estimated volume of 18 m 3 LWD per 100 m was calculated. This is equal to 64 pieces of LWD 0.3 m in diameter or 36 pieces of LWD 0.4 m in diameter. Channel type Riffle-pool Channel width 4.0 m Expected pool spacing (Wb() 4 channel widths per pool. Expected pool spacing (m) 16 m per pool Pool volume from regression 1.5 m 3 per pool LWD volume from regression 3.0 m3per pool Number of pools per 100 m channel 6 LWD volume per 100 m channel 18 m 3 of instream LWD Table 19: Volume calculation for a 4 m long piece of LWD. The number of pieces of wood required to achieve the same volume increases as the diameter decreases. Length (m) Diameter (m) Volume (m3) Number of pieces of LWD to achieve a volume of 18 m 3 4.00 0.8 2.01 9 4.00 0.5 0.79 23 4.00 0.4 0.50 36 4.00 0.3 0.28 64 4.00 0.2 0.13 143 4.00 0.1 0.03 573 The number ofLWD pieces per 100 m channel will depend on the size of the pieces. Assuming each piece is 4 m in length and 0.5 m in diameter then 23 pieces of LWD will provide the required 18 m 3 of instream L W D per 100 m. If only smaller diameter LWD is available, for example, 0.3 m in diameter, then 64 pieces ofLWD will provide the required 18 m 3 of instream LWD per 100 m. 49 Table 20: Sample calculation of target LWD volume per 100 m for a step-pool reach of 2.0 m channel width. Two LWD volumes were calculated based on differences in pool spacing. Channel type Step-pool Channel width 2.0 m Expected pool spacing (Wb() 2 - 4 channel widths per pool. Expected pool spacing (m) 4 - 8 m Pool volume from regression 0.4 m 3 LWD volume per pool from regression 1.4 m 3 Number of pools per 100 m of channel 12-25 LWD volume per 100 m of channel 17 - 34 m 3 of instream LWD Table 21: LWD volume calculation for a 2 m long piece of LWD required to achieve target LWD volume per 100 m channel length. The diameter class of the LWD should be greater than or equal to the depth of the channel. Length (m) Diameter (m) Volume (m 3) Number of pieces of LWD to achieve a volume of 17 m 3 Number of pieces of LWD to achieve a volume of 34 m 3 2.00 0.1 0.02 1082 2165 2.00 0.2 0.06 271 541 2.00 0.3 0.14 120 241 2.00 0.4 0.25 68 135 2.00 0.5 0.39 43 87 2.00 0.8 1.01 17 34 3.3 Changes in residual pool volumes by channel Changes in the total residual pool volume over the initial two-year study period were scaled to ten bankfull channel widths (10 Wbf) to provide a relative comparison between channels (Figure 19). Two factors contributed to the total residual pool volume in each stream. These were the mean residual pool volume (Figure 20) and the number of pools observed - pool frequency. Table 12 summarises the changes in mean residual pool volume and the number of pools. Statistical analysis was not conducted on the pool volume data, as the observations represented a complete census of all pools in the study reaches. In addition the pools could not be treated as independent observations. 50 G r o u P 2 Group 3 Group 4 a 1998 1 79 1.58 1 15 2.00 0.48 379 0.61 027 090 0.15 0.15 0.99 • 1999 210 2.39 1.26 1.94 0.35 2.87 0 45 0.14 0.41 0.04 0 03 0.59 Figure 19: Comparison of the total residual pool volumes per ten bankfull widths (1998 to 1999). The number of pools doubled in stream H from 13 to 26. Combined with a major reduction in the mean residual pool volume (0.77 m3 to 0.44 m3) this resulted in no net change in total pool volume from 1998-1999. In Streams A and C, both of which were step-pool reaches, the number of pools increased from 48 to 55 and from 37 to 43 respectively. Combined with slight increases in mean residual pool volume these additional pools contributed to the total increase in residual pool volume. The addition ofLWD and the re-arrangement of large roughness elements accounted for the increases in the number of pools between years. In streams Mike, Spring, South, E, F and I, the number of pools remained fairly constant between years. This suggested that channel structure was stable between the sampling years. Reductions in the total pool volume in these streams were accounted for by decreased mean pool volumes. In group 1 minor changes in mean pool volume was observed between years. In group 2 stream H showed the widest variability in pool size. In group 3 the pool sizes both increased and decreased between 1998 and 1999. In group 4 streams E and F exhibited reductions in mean pool volume. The riparian buffer treatments of 0 m and 10 m explained the reduction in total pool volumes in these streams. These results demonstrate that the natural processes occurring within the channels are highly variable and occur independently of the riparian treatment. Where structural pool-forming 51 elements are not stable, particularly in the riffle-pool reaches, pool numbers fluctuate between years. Where structural pool-forming elements are stable the number of pools remains constant between years. Changes in pool volumes occur as sediments are transported through the system and are deposited in pools. Sediments that were delivered to the channel as a result of riparian harvesting in the smaller seasonal streams resulted in a reduction in pool size and in total pool volume. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group A u - A C D East G H Mike South Spring E F 1 0 m 10 m 30 m control 10 m 30m control 30 m control 0 m 10 m 0 m 01998 0.32 0.35 0.14 0.65 085 077 0.3 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.14 0.22 • 1399 0.34 0.4 0.11 0.64 0.85 042 0.17 0.33 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.21 Figure 20: Variation in mean pool volume between watershed groups. Fine sediments Figures 22 and 23 show that fine suspended sediments were transported seasonally during winter storm events and remained relatively stable throughout the summer months. Summer sampling of sediments deposited in pools therefore reflected the accumulation of suspended sediments during fall and winter storms and small amounts of fines that were deposited in the channels from adjacent streambanks. Fine sediments were a natural component of streambeds. The relative volume of fines less than 1 mm varied depending on the soil parent material, the channel bed material and stream power. Figure 24 shows the percentage of fine sediment (less than 1 mm) 52 including the locations of these pools along each stream. Certain sections of the streams were comprised of fine organic material. This included the upper reaches of Streams D and I as well as parts of Streams E and F. Changes in the percentage of pool fines less than 1 mm provided an indication of where fine sediment was being deposited. An increase in fine sediments indicated a potential sediment source such as windthrow, bank erosion or runoff from roads. To determine the significance of these changes to the whole reach non-parametric statistical tests (Mann Whitney U) were performed given the small sample size and assumption that the data were non-normally distributed. Pool fines less than 1 mm increased between 1998 and 1999 in Stream A (only below the road crossing) and Stream I (Table 23). These channels were both clearcut treatments suggesting harvest operations as the primary cause of introduced fine sediments to the channels. Stream A (only below the road crossing) also showed a significant increase in fine sediments suggesting road sediments as another potential source. Mike Creek showed a significant decrease in fine pool sediments within the sample area. The upper end of Mike Creek is an organic wetland so additional fine sediments deposited in 1998 were likely flushed from the system during high winter flows. 53 V) 0) D) k_ Cfl SI o Cfl b 450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 Turbidity in ! • I n*n. «,iL ij.u 111 i i jyi ii 160 140 120 100 + 80 ~ 60 ? t 4 0 ¥ "O 20 5 3 o i -<? 4? Ntf* $r ^ *r * ^ A Figure 21: Turbidity and discharge data for water year 1999-2000 for Stream A. Turbidity peaks occur in conjunction with peak discharge events. <0 TO is 120.0 100.0 H 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 T 80.0 60.0 4 40.0 T 2 0 0 £ •e ,, JuUl., i 1 0.0 o* & / J S * Figure 22: Turbidity and discharge data for water year 1999-2000 for Stream I. Turbidity peaks occur in conjunction with peak discharge events. 54 Table 22: Mean percentage of pool fines less than 1mm, standard deviation, and sample size (N) for 1998-1999 and significance of the Mann-Whitney U Test comparing the mean percent pool fines between years (P). Reach 1998 1999 Mann Whitney U Test Mean SD N Mean SD N U W Z P (%<1mm) (%<1mm) Asym sig (2 tailed) A - below road 0.168 .184 22 0.261 .149 25 157 410 -2.516 .012 A 0.242 .136 27 0.183 .138 30 290 755 -1.838 .066 C - below road 0.449 .160 10 0.327 .190 16 51 187 -1.528 .126 C 0.404 .177 28 0.410 .213 24 331 631 -0.092 .927 D 0.334 .259 26 0.435 .201 24 229 580 -1.612 .107 E 0.401 .175 19 0.356 .174 21 168 399 -0.853 .394 East 0.294 .244 10 0.421 .196 20 67 122 -1.452 .147 F 0.423 .164 24 0.423 .200 23 262 562 -0.298 .766 G 0.198 .141 35 0.217 .147 29 468 1098 -0.533 .594 H 0.242 .178 11 0.338 .177 25 95 161 -1.460 .144 I 0.234 .221 29 0.435 .183 21 144 579 -3.155 .002 Mike 0.444 .196 21 0.283 .183 23 140 416 -2.385 .017 South 0.133 .147 48 0.150 .163 47 1015 2191 -0.837 .402 55 Figure 23: Percentage of fine sediment in pools less than 1mm detailing location along channel 100 200 300 Distance upstream (m) 400 0.45 •80.15 10 .10 £0.05 100 200 300 400 Distance upstream (m) 50 100 150 200 Distance upstream (m) 250 56 Figure 23 (cont.) 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) 200 50 100 150 200 250 Distance upstream 50 100 150 200 250 300 Distance upstream (m) 57 Figure 23 (cont.) Stream H windthrow 50 100 150 200 Distance upstream (m) 250 300 50 100 Distance upstream (m) 150 50 100 Distance upstream (m) 150 58 Figure 23 (cont.) South Creek -1998 •1999 100 150 200 Distance upstream (m) 300 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Spring Creek -»-1998 -^1999 f . A / ; / / • YfV- - n A / \ \ f\ V / / / v \ \ A t 20 40 60 80 Distance upstream (m) 100 120 0.80 - i E E 0.70 -V 0> n 0.60 -a (A 0.50 -n 3 w 0.40 -o a- 0.30 -o c 0.20 -cu o CD 0.10 -0. 0.00 -East Creek 20 40 Distance upstream (m) 60 •1998 •1999 80 59 3.4 Channel assessments The Channel Assessment Procedure (Anon 1995(4)) was used to determine channel morphologies and the disturbance rating for each channel prior to riparian harvesting (Table 23). Streams A, C, D, South, East, and Mike were classified as step-pool morphologies; Streams G, H, and Spring were riffle-pool morphologies; and Stream I was a cascade-pool morphology. Streams E and F only have seasonal flows and therefore could not be classified using this procedure. Table 23: Channel morphology classification and channel disturbance level of 12 study reaches in the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest Watershed Treatment Channel Classification Largest rock moved (m) Channel bankfull width (m) Channel depth (m) Channel gradient (m m"1) Morphology Bed material Channel disturbance D W M d S East Creek Control 0.06 2.7 0.20 0.08 Step-pool Boulder Moderately degraded Spring Creek 0.05 1.6 0.20 0.02 Riffle-pool Cobble Moderately degraded Mike Creek 0.05 1.5 0.20 0.08 Step-pool Boulder Stable A Creek 0 m 0.08 2.3 0.27 0.11 Step-pool Boulder Moderately degraded E Creek reserve 0.03 0.5 0.10 0.10 Seasonal Organic N/A I Creek 0.06 1.9 0.25 0.08 Cascade-pool Cobble Stable C Creek 10 m 0.08 2.4 0.25 0.07 Step-pool Boulder Partially aggraded F Creek reserve 0.03 1.0 0.10 0.09 Seasonal Organic N/A G Creek 0.09 4.1 0.40 0.04 Riffle-pool Cobble Severely degraded South Creek D Creek 30 m reserve 0.07 0.06 1.7 2.1 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.08 Step-pool Step-pool Boulder Boulder Stable Stable H Creek 0.09 4.0 0.40 0.06 Riffle-pool Cobble Moderately degraded East, Spring, A, G and H channels were all found to be moderately or severely degraded. Only channel C was in an aggraded state. Four channels, Mike, I, South and D, were assessed to be 60 stable. This confirmed the assumption that the channels were already disturbed at the beginning of study period. Permanent transects Changes in the morphology of the channel over 30 m representative reaches were assessed using detailed survey methods. These were overlaid with detailed channel drawings showing large woody debris, dominant substrate, and streambank changes extracted from low-level photographs. Channel aggradation and channel degradation processes over a 3-year period are displayed for each of the surveyed streams (See Appendix 1). In addition the source, description and role ofLWD within each of the study reaches is presented. Channels were classified into type and a channel disturbance category was assigned to each channel based on field indicators. The stream channels were all in different states of recovery after disturbance either in responses to limited sediment supply or limited sediment transport capabilities. The responses of the channels over the study period are summarised in Table 24. Table 24: Channel processes occurring after second growth logging and factors explaining these changes Morphology Stream Treatment Channel processes Sediment supply limited Sediment transport limited Cascade-pool 1 0m None -Riffle-pool Spring Control - Yes H 30 m Channel widening Yes -G 10m Channel widening Yes -Step-pool South 30 m None - -Mike Control None - -D 30 m None - -East Control Some channel widening Yes -A 0m Degradation continuing Yes -C 10 m Aggradation continuing - Yes Note: Streams E and F were classified as seasonal streams and do not have a disturbance category All of the riffle-pool reaches and two of the step-pool reaches were either moderately or severely degraded indicating that they were sediment supply limited. Only one channel was partly aggraded indicating limited sediment transport capability. For two of the riffle-pool reaches (G 61 and H) Mirror Lake provided a buffering effect by receiving and storing any sediments generated upstream of the lake. Table 25: LWD source, description, role and changes over the 3 year study period (See Appendix 1 for detailed diagrams) Morphology Stream Treatment LWD source LWD description LWD role LWD changes Confinement Seasonal E Om Old growth logging, fire Covers channel entirely Cover, sediment storage - N/A F 10 m Fire, old growth logging, windthrow Covers channel entirely Cover, sediment storage Confined Cascade-pool I Om Logging and natural mortality of smaller diameter trees Accumulations of wood at lower end of reach Sediment storage Slight increases from introduced logging debris Entrenched Riffle-pool Spring Control - - - -H 30 m Old growth logging No LWD in this section None No net change. Wood is mobile. Frequently confined G 10 m Old growth logging No LWD in this section None No net change. Wood is mobile. Frequently confined Step-pool South 30 m Old growth logging and shedding of branches Six key pieces (>0.8 m diameter) parallel to channel Sediment storage, cover No change. Wood is stable. Confined Mike Control Old growth logging, fire Complex section with very large wood (>1.0 m diameter) spanning the channel Pool formation, sediment storage, cover No change. Wood is stable. Confined D 30 m Fire and natural mortality Three key pieces are perpendicular to the channel Sediment storage No change. Wood is stable. Confined East Control Old growth logging Three very large trees (>1.0 m span the channel) Cover, sediment storage No change. Wood is stable. Frequently confined A 0 m Old growth logging Two key pieces perpendicular to channel, embedded in stream banks. Sediment storage Slight increases from introduced logging debris. Wood is stable. Confined C 10m Old growth logging No key pieces. All parallel to channel. None No change Confined Changes in LWD characteristics between 1998 and 2001 are shown in Table 25. Significant changes in the volume of LWD were not observed over the short time period of this study. Slight increases in LWD volumes were observed in clearcut treatments where debris was introduced 62 into the channel after logging. Several of the larger riffle-pool reaches (G and H) had very low volumes of LWD prior to the beginning of the study. The depth of these channels at high flows (>0.5 m) was sufficient to float and move non-embedded LWD downstream. All other channels were incapable of moving LWD that was either greater in length than the channel width or greater in diameter than the channel depth. 63 4 DISCUSSION Role of L W D in small stream channel morphology The influence of large woody debris on channel morphology varied with characteristics of the channel and with the size, volume and orientation of different debris pieces. The headwater channels investigated ranged from 0.5 m - 4.0 m channel width and from 2-14% gradient. Individual large key pieces served a significant role in channel morphology in all channels, irrespective of width or gradient, as they anchored other pieces of wood, trapped stream sediments, and stored organic matter floating downstream. In the steeper step-pool channels LWD created log steps which acted as obstructions to downstream movement of sediment and formed downstream plunge pools. In the riffle-pool reaches two types of scour pools were formed by LWD. Submerged jet pools were formed under LWD pieces that spanned the surface of the channel and stream-jet pools were formed where LWD pieces interacted with the channel bed, created a hydraulic drop and scoured the streambed downstream of the obstruction. Observations of LWD frequency and volume were compared with data from other Pacific Northwest studies (Figure 25). Bilby and Ward (1989) developed a regression model for LWD frequency based on piece counts from a variety of channels ranging from 4-20 m channel width in western Washington. They found that LWD piece counts increased as channel size decreased. The regression equation: [5] Number of LWD pieces = -1.12 logio channel width + 0.46 described this relation. The reduction in piece frequency as channel width increased was explained by the LWD transport capabilities of the channel. Once the channel width is greater than the length of the LWD piece then it is more likely to be transported out of the reach. A wide range ofLWD frequencies per channel length has been reported in the literature. Bilby and Wasserman (1989) reported a frequency of 27 pieces per 100 m channel length for streams 2-10 m channel width and 60 pieces per 100 m channel length for streams 1 m channel width. Ralph et al (1991) reported 19 pieces per 100 m channel length for streams 1-5 m channel width and 38 pieces per 100 m channel length for streams 6-10 m channel width. We found a range of 24 - 40 pieces per 100 m for streams 2-4 m channel width and 18 pieces per 100 m for streams 1 m channel width in the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. Our observations were within the range 64 of LWD frequencies reported elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. A much larger dataset from undisturbed forested stream channels is required to determine a natural range of LWD for the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone. Additional data from small Pacific Northwest streams is also needed to determine whether LWD piece counts in undisturbed forests continue to increase as channel size decreases. 70 n 60 S o 50 H. Q . «) 40 o a. a 30 o 6 20 A 10 • • + + A A A A Iog10 LWD frequency = -1.12log10 channel width + 0.46 4 6 8 Channel width (m) 10 + Washington (Bilby and Wasserman 1989) A Washington (Ralph 1991) O Washington (Sullivan 1987) — Western Washington (Bilby and Ward 1989) o Southeast Alaska (Murphy and Koski 1989) x Southeast Alaska (Robison and Beschta 1990) • Malcolm Knapp Research Forest 12 Figure 24: LWD frequency in Pacific Northwest unmanaged streams and observations at Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. Data are shown as number of LWD pieces per 100 m. LWD data were also standardised by channel width (Figure 26). Approximately 2 pieces of LWD for every channel width is within the range of observations for undisturbed reaches and provides a useful objective for the management of streams less than 4 m in channel width. 65 4 + Washington (Bilby and Wasserman 1989) A Washington (Ralph 1991) O Washington (Sullivan 1987) — Western Washington (Bilby and Ward 1989) o Southeast Alaska (Murphy and Koski 1989) x Southeast Alaska (Robison and Beschta 1990) • Malcolm Knapp Research Forest 12 Figure 25: LWD frequency in Pacif ic Northwest unmanaged streams and observations at Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. Data are shown as number of LWD pieces per channel width. LWD volumes must also be considered in combination with individual piece counts. Ralph et al. (1994) found that historical timber harvesting in Western Washington reduced the volume of LWD but that the number of LWD pieces remained relatively constant. A decline in pool volume has been associated with a reduction in LWD volumes for alluvial channels 5 - 20 m in width (Bilby and Ward 1989, Fausch and Northcote 1992; Hogan 1986; Montgomery and Buffington 1993). In steeper channels (> 8%), such as step-pools and cascade-pools, LWD is expected to have reduced importance in channel morphology due to the high transport capability of steeper streams, the higher frequency of bed stabilising elements, such as boulders or clusters of cobbles, and the confined nature of these streams (Hogan and Ward 1997). Regression techniques were applied to test for the relation between LWD volumes and pool volumes in the experimental reaches. Three relations were observed: 1. A linear relation where increases in LWD volumes resulted in increases in pool volumes. 2. A quadratic relation where LWD volumes and pool volumes increased until an upper limit was reached after which pool volumes decreased as LWD increased. 3. No relation between LWD volumes and pool volumes. 3.5 c (0 | 2.5 01 2 2 a. > 8 1.5 a> 3 £ 1 o 0.5 • x • • o o A A A A A A A A A A • 4 6 8 Channel width (m) 10 66 For three streams, increases in LWD volumes resulted in increased pool volumes. A linear regression model fit the data. For stream D, 28% of the variance in pool volume was accounted for by LWD. For East Creek, 20% of the variance in pool volume was accounted for by LWD. For South Creek 50% of the variance in pool volume was accounted for by LWD. A larger sample of pools with higher associated LWD volumes is required to test the upper limits of this model and natural constraints of small stream channels to ever increasing pool volumes must be considered. For one stream, increased LWD volumes resulted in increased pool volumes, until an upper limit, or threshold, of LWD was reached. Twenty percent of the variance in pool volume was accounted for by LWD. The quadratic model predicted that pool volumes decrease once an upper limit of LWD is reached. This model accounts for the natural limitations of small stream channels to continued increases individual pool volumes. In constrained reaches the loading of LWD beyond a threshold point is most likely to start filling pools with wood rather than forcing pool volumes to increase. For five streams (H, Spring, A, Mike, I) there was no relation between LWD volume and pool volume. For the step-pool and cascade-pool reaches (A, Mike, I), other roughness elements such as boulders or clusters of cobbles were expected to function morphologically. In the riffle-pool reaches (H and Spring) LWD was expected to be an important form element (Hogan and Ward 1997). The low number of pools in these two reaches may not have provided a large enough range of observations to develop a relation. In addition, the volume of LWD in the channel may already have been sufficiently reduced to no longer provide a pool-forming function. The variance in the frequency and volume of LWD between the channels before second-growth harvesting confounded testing the short-term riparian treatment effect on channel morphology. Channels with high LWD volumes may be more capable of trapping increased sediment from riparian disturbances. Several large woody debris clusters were functioning as sediment wedges. The difference in the frequency and volume of LWD between the channels may be attributable to the history of old-growth logging. Removal of old growth trees has had a major influence on the volume of pool-forming LWD in the channels. The experimental streams flowed through a second growth forest stand that was logged in the 1930s and experienced fires in 1868,1925, 1926, 1931, and 1957. These catastrophic events removed standing wood that would otherwise have been recruited to the channel. Based on LWD depletion rates of 1.5% per year (Kennard et al. 1999) the current volume of in-channel LWD may be as low as 10% of old-growth undisturbed conditions. Nakamura and Swanson (1993) studied the effects of LWD on channel morphology and sediment storage in a mountain stream in Western Oregon. They found that in reaches 67 constrained by the adjacent hillslope, trees that fell were either broken apart into small pieces or were suspended across the sideslopes and did not interact directly with the channel. In unconstrained reaches, however, fallen trees did interact directly with the channel. Where they entered the channel as a whole piece they temporarily stored sediments and created scour. Similar observations were made of LWD interaction with the channel in the study reaches. Confined reaches, such as A and C, tended to have LWD suspended across the constraining sidewalls and did not interact directly with the channel. In unconfined reaches, such as G and H, LWD tended to be in the channel and directly influenced channel morphology. LWD provided an important morphological role and was a primary pool-forming element in 80% of all the pools sampled. Several relations between pool volume and LWD volume emerged through regression analysis. As pools are a limiting factor in small streams, the use of target LWD volumes per linear length of stream is a useful tool for fish habitat management in BC. LWD rate losses in small stream channels The removal of riparian vegetation leads to a long-term decline in the recruitment of LWD. Murphy and Koski (1989) collected data from 32 reaches in six channels in SE Alaska ranging in width from 8-30 m. They predicted the loss of LWD based on an exponential decay model. They predicted a 70% reduction in LWD 90 years after clearcut logging without a streamside reserve strip and recovery to pre-logging levels more than 250 years. Seventy-three percent of all LWD was derived from bank erosion and windthrow, with tree mortality accounting for 23%. Ninety nine percent of identified LWD sources came from within 30 m of the streambank. Protection of this 30 m zone was recommended and is now used in Alaska guidelines to allow for future LWD recruitment (Murphy 1995). Mechanisms for the loss of LWD from the channel include abrasion (mechanical breakdown), biological decay, and fluvial transport. LWD losses have been reported in a number of ways for streams of varying size in the Pacific Northwest. Grette (1985) found losses of old-growth derived LWD following logging of riparian forest on the Olympic Peninsula was 0.5 pieces per 100 m year"1. Bilby and Ward (1989) described a much higher loss rate for the first 5 years immediately following logging with the magnitude of loss increasing with the size of the stream. They reported the loss of LWD pieces as 22%, 47%, and 86% for streams 5, 10 and 15 m in width. McHenry et al. (1998) in assessing the same sites as Grette (1985) some 11 years later, found net rate losses (loss of old growth LWD plus gain in second growth derived LWD) ranged from +0.5 to -3.2 m 3 per 100 m year"1 depending on the logging history group. Despite the 68 differences in reporting the data, information can be extracted to compare with this study and seek a general understanding of the processes and timeframes that influence LWD volumes. Anderson et al. (1978) found invertebrate consumption rates of 1.0-1.7% per year of all woody debris in an Oregon stream. Smaller debris is expected to have greater depletion rates, higher transport potential combining in a higher total rate loss. Murphy and Koski (1989) estimated decay rates at 1% per year for large wood and 3% per year for small wood. Although depletion rates vary by species and size-class, empirical data suggests that 1.5% is within the range of depletion rates for most species in small streams (Kennard et al. 1999). A simple model was developed showing how four different rate losses affected instream LWD volumes (Figure 27). Given the late decay class of the wood in our surveys and the higher representation of smaller pieces, rate losses of 2% and 4% per year are shown. The 4% value is based on smaller debris having a higher depletion rate and a higher export rate. In addition, using a volume per linear length approach, as done by McHenry et al. (1998), and following the reasoning of Bilby and Ward (1991) that rate losses decrease in smaller streams, two rate losses of 0.12 m 3 per 100 m and 0.25 m 3 per 100 m are shown. The graph is based on initial LWD volumes for a stream in the mid-range of our observations (5 m 3 per 100 m). In the study sites with clearcut treatments (Streams A, E and I) LWD volumes are expected to approach zero within 20-50 years. Re-growth of riparian vegetation may provide recruitable LWD within 25-50 years depending on species and diameter requirements. Debris >0.1 m from red alder can be recruited within 25 years, however, conifer debris >0.1 m only begins after 50 years (Andrus et al. 1988). It is expected that even with the most conservative rate loss of 2% per year, LWD losses will continue until LWD begins to be recruited at about 70 years. For study sites with riparian buffers (both 10 m and 30 m) LWD losses will be offset by inputs from windthrow, mortality and bank erosion. McDade et al. (1990) studied LWD input processes on 39 streams in the Cascade and Coast Range of Washington and Oregon. They found 11% of the total number of debris pieces originating within 1 m of the channel and over 70% originating within 20 m. Windthrow events had already occurred in the first winter after logging on streams C, G and H contributing LWD to the channel. Further investigation into the rates ofLWD inputs of the different buffer widths due to windthrow will be one of the key research questions to be answered as the long term research project continues. 69 6.00 LWD rate loss 2% per year LWD rate loss 0.12 m3 per 100 m year-Years after riparian harvesting Figure 26: Four rate loss estimates, 2% per year, 0.12 m 3 per 100 m year 1 ,4% per year, and 0.25 m 3 per 100 m year'1 are plotted for a small stream with a pre-logging LWD volume of 5 m 3. Based on these rate losses LWD volume will approach zero in 20-50 years with no riparian buffer. Streams with 10 m and 30 m buffers are expected to provide LWD to offset this loss. Channel morphology changes one year after riparian zone harvesting Residual pool volume was the primary variable selected to evaluate channel morphology changes at the reach scale over time. Changes in total residual pool volume were accounted for by changes in the number and the size of pools. Statistical analysis was performed to determine whether changes in pool size accounted for the changes in total residual pool volume. Decreases in mean pool size were found in streams with low stream powers (group 4) as compared to streams with greater stream power (group 1). Channels with low stream power were not capable of transporting pool-filling sediments, which accounted for the observed decrease in mean pool volume. Clearcut treatments were expected to increase sediment supply as a result of stream bank disturbance. Clearcut treatments were located on one seasonal stream (E), one cascade-pool stream (I) and one step-pool stream (A). Total pool volume was reduced in streams I and E but increased in stream A. Step-pool and cascade-pool reaches are sediment transport reaches and 70 pool volumes are expected to decrease if sediment volumes exceed the sediment transport capacity of these streams. The reduction in pool volume for streams I and E can be explained by their low sediment transport capacity. Stream A had sufficient stream power to transport sediment delivered to the channel during harvesting. Ten metre riparian reserves were applied to one seasonal stream (F), one step-pool stream (C) and one riffle-pool stream (G). Total pool volume decreased in Streams F and G but increased in stream C. Stream F was incapable of transporting sediment delivered to the channel during harvesting whereas Stream C was capable of transporting sediment out of the reach. The response in stream G was more likely due to the continually reforming nature of this relatively wide and unconfined riffle-pool reach. The 10 m riparian buffers were the most susceptible to windthrow due to their narrow width. Windthrow had already been observed in these reaches and the delivery of sediment from windthrow will be important to monitor over time. Thirty metre riparian reserves were applied to 2 step-pool reaches (South, D) and one riffle-pool reach (H). No changes in total pool volume were observed in D and H. Reductions in pool volume did occur in South Creek. A review of the data indicated that two larger pools were formed by LWD that had broken by 1999 and were no longer creating pools. For the control reaches no change in total pool volume was observed in Mike and East. Spring Creek did show a reduction in pool volume. This was likely due to the continually reforming nature of this riffle-pool reach. A reduction in total pool volumes was most prevalent in clear-cut and 10 m treatments. This was as a result of sediment delivery to the channel. Detrimental changes to physical habitat occur several years after harvesting as a result of excessive sedimentation (Scrivener and Anderson 1982), loss of large woody debris, collapsed streambanks and decreased channel stability (Tschaplinski and Hartman 1983). The morphological responses of channels to riparian harvesting will likely occur several years after harvest and continue for decades into the future as LWD volumes decrease. Where no reserves were retained (A and I) it is expected that bank erosion will occur after roots have decayed and high stream discharges have scoured streambanks. An increase in the delivery of fine sediment in clearcut reaches and in areas of windthrow is also expected. Summary of study limitations Several factors complicated the analysis of reach level response to different levels of riparian harvesting. The MKRF project was designed as a before-after-control-impact (BACI) study. 71 Three replicated treatments and controls were used to test the effects of variable width riparian buffers on a wide range of physical and biological variables (Richardson et al. 1999). Hydrological differences in the channels were not previously considered in the study design. To stratify the channels for between group comparison the 12 study streams were separated into 4 groups based on comparable peak stream powers from known and predicted hydrological data. The treatment types (0 m, 10 m, 30 m and control) were not evenly distributed between the groups. Clearcut treatments were only applied to one of the streams in group 1 but 2 out of 3 streams in group 4. None of the streams in groups 2 or 3 had less than a 10 m riparian buffers. The experimental design could have been improved by a larger sample of small streams, stratified by stream power and by channel type. The variance in the decay stage and the volumes of LWD between streams confounded the treatment effects. Smaller LWD size classes in late decay stages were more susceptible to breakage and/or export from the channel during high flows. Streams with higher LWD volumes had a greater ability to store sediment, dissipate energy and were more resilient to morphological changes independent of the riparian treatment. Sediment sources upstream of the study reaches such as streambank erosion and road crossings may also influence residual pool volumes independently of the riparian treatment. Field experiments should attempt to isolate these effects in future studies. Pool volume has been commonly used as an indicator of fish habitat quality and the loss of pool volume has been shown to decrease the diversity of habitat available to salmonids (Bisson et al. 1988). Hicks et al (1999), as part of the MKRF project, did find that more than 70% of the coastal cut-throat trout occupied pools in streams A, C and East in both summer and winter months. Many other physical and biological variables must be considered in combination with channel morphology changes in order to explain changes in fish populations after harvesting. 72 5 C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S The protection of riparian ecosystems is a key strategy for the conservation of aquatic and terrestrial values in the Pacific Northwest (Young 2000). Riparian management strategies in BC are hinged upon stream classification systems that use channel width and fish presence as their basis. This approach has greatly improved the management of aquatic systems for larger fish-bearing streams where riparian reserves have been applied (Forest Practices Board 1998). For smaller streams in coastal British Columbia the high drainage density of watersheds combined with the large number of small streams with a low level of mandatory riparian protection has raised numerous concerns from aquatic resource managers. Headwater systems are closely coupled with adjacent hillslope processes and land use activities in these areas have a high potential of transporting sediment into the channel. Increased sediment load and decreased storage potential from losses of LWD are likely to decrease the quality of fish habitats in adjacent reaches and contribute over several decades to alterations in downstream fish habitats. The functional role of L W D in small stream channel morphology . Is there a relation between pool volume and LWD volume in small stream channels? LWD played an important function in small streams less than 5 m channel width up to 14% gradient. Using data from the ten streams with perennial flow, linear regression techniques revealed statistically significant relationships (p<0.05) between LWD volume and pool volume for four streams. The variance in LWD volume accounted for between 14 - 52% of the variance in pool volume in these streams. Other pool forming elements such as boulders, roots, and basal till accounted for the remaining variance. Six streams did not show significant relations (p>0.05) using either linear or quadratic regression techniques. This result was not expected for two of the streams with riffle-pool morphologies as LWD is known to play an important role in pool formation in these channel types. The low volume of LWD in these channels as a result of historical logging could explain the lack of a significant relation between LWD and pool volume. 73 • Is there a threshold or critical amount of LWD needed to create maximum pool volumes in small stream channels? A linear model described the relation between LWD and pool volume in three of the streams sampled. This suggests that increases in LWD in some small streams are beneficial for increasing pool volumes. However, for one stream a quadratic model described the relation between LWD and pool volumes. This model predicted that a maximum LWD volume existed beyond which an increase in LWD volume would result in a decrease in pool volume. This suggests that excessive delivery ofLWD to certain channels may reduce pool volumes. This also suggests that low LWD volumes as a result of historical harvesting or LWD removal have the reduced the total volume of pools in small headwater streams. • Can target parameters be developed based on empirical data for LWD frequencies in small streams? Target LWD volumes per 100 m channel length in small fish-bearing streams can be developed for different channel types based on LWD volumes required to form pools and empirical data on pool spacing. The number of pieces ofLWD depends on piece size in relation to the depth of the channel. Target volumes only represent the volume of wood required to form pools and do not address the requirements for cover, shade and long-term carbon sources. To describe the processes of L W D recruitment and loss in small stream channels • What are the mechanisms ofLWD recruitment to the channel in MKRF? Historical inputs ofLWD to the MKRF channels included fire, windthrow, and post-harvest logging debris. The channel type and the degree of confinement of the channel was the most important factor in determining whether LWD influenced channel morphology. In constrained reaches, typically cascade-pool or step-pool morphologies, trees were suspended across the sideslopes not directly influencing channel morphology. In unconstrained reaches, particularly riffle-pool reaches, L W D directly influenced channel morphology. Windthrow was observed within the first year after harvesting, especially adjacent to those channels with 10 m riparian buffers. These buffers are susceptible to windthrow and will be the most important short-term LWD sources for second growths stands. 74 • What regulates the volume of LWD in the channel? Long-term decay processes represented the most significant regulator of L W D volumes in these small channels where there is insufficient stream power to mechanically break down and transport LWD. A simple model was developed showing how four different decay rates affected instream LWD volumes. Given the late decay class of the wood in our surveys and the higher representation of smaller pieces, rate losses of 2% and 4% per year are expected. In the study sites with clearcut treatments LWD volumes are expected to approach zero within 20-50 years. Re-growth of riparian vegetation may provide recruitable LWD within 25-50 years depending on species and diameter requirements. It is expected that even with the most conservative rate loss of 2% per year, LWD losses will continue until LWD begins to be recruited at about 70 years. To describe the morphological response of small stream channels to disturbances that occur as a result of riparian harvesting • Are in-channel effects observed after clearcut harvesting as compared to 10 m, 30 m and no-harvest riparian treatments? Decreases in pool volumes were more prevalent in channels with clear-cuts and 10 m buffers than in the 30 m buffers and control channels. Increased sedimentation and low transport capacity explain these reductions in pool volumes. Detrimental changes to physical habitat such as excessive sedimentation, loss of large woody debris, collapsed streambanks and decreased channel stability were not observed at this early stage in the riparian buffer experiment. These channel changes are expected to occur several years after logging in clearcut reaches as root decay reduces streambank stability. • Does riparian harvesting result in changes in fine sediment composition in pools? When streambanks are disturbed during harvest operations increased sedimentation can be detected by an increase in fine pool sediments. The percentage of fine sediment in pools showed a significant increase in two channels with clearcut treatments. Significant increases in fine sediments in pools were also observed below a road crossing suggesting roads as another sediment source. Streams with low stream power were less capable of regulating the transport of fine sediments. Local alterations to channel morphology were observed with increases in sediment load. Streams with higher stream powers were more capable of transporting fine sediments out of the source reach to more distal areas. 75 Small stream riparian management recommendations • Classification of reaches into channel types is a useful tool for describing the interaction ofLWD with the channel. It is recommended that riparian management strategies for small streams in BC be closely linked with channel types. Additional information on channel gradients, channel depth and substrate size should be collected during stream classification and mapping. • Removal ofLWD has been shown to increase the export rate of sediment and organic matter from streams. Where LWD volumes in the channel are below target volumes recruitment ofLWD should be a short-term forest management objective. • Sediment source zones and sediment deposition zones should be identified and mapped. Riparian zones in these areas should be managed conservatively to maintain a natural input and export rate ofLWD, sediment and organic matter. Research recommendations • Further development of target LWD volumes and frequency per 100 m channel reach for small streams is recommended. These should be developed for different biogeoclimatic zones and channel types in BC. A larger data set ofLWD and pool volumes from undisturbed old-growth reference sites should be collected to develop these relations. • Further research on the physical and biological contribution of headwater systems to sediment, debris and energy budgets of downstream reaches is required. • Further research on the changes in primary and secondary productivity with different riparian buffer widths is required. . Data collection methods for small streams should be standardised. Many channel assessment methods have been developed for larger alluvial channels. These need to be fine-tuned for smaller headwater channels. Standardised approaches for assessments of wood should include decay class, size, function, source and mode of entry (windthrow, debris flow, and floatation). • Measurable morphological channel responses are expected after 5 years. It is recommended that sampling of the experimental reaches be repeated on 5-year intervals using the methods of this study and the results as baseline information. 76 References ANDERSON, N.H., J.R. SEDELL, L . M . ROBERTS AND F.J. TRISKA. 1978. The role of aquatic invertebrates in processing wood debris in coniferous forest streams. American Midland Naturalist 100: 64-82. ANDERSON, P.G., B.R. TAYLOR, AND G.C. BALCH. 1996. Quantifying the effects of sediment release on fish and their habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2346. ANDRUS, C.W., B.A. LONG, AND H.A. FROEHLICH. 1988. Woody debris and its contribution to pool formation in a coastal stream 50 years after logging. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 2080-2086. ANONYMOUS. 1995(1). Biodiversity Guidebook. BC Ministry of Environment and BC Ministry of Forests. Forest Practices Code. Province of British Columbia. ANONYMOUS. 1995(2). Channel Assessment Procedure Guidebook. BC Ministry of Environment and BC Ministry of Forests. Forest Practices Code. Province of British Columbia. ANONYMOUS. 1995(3). Sustainable ecosystem management in Clayoquot Sound: Planning and practices. Report 5 of the Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. Province of British Columbia. ANONYMOUS. 1995(4). Riparian Management Area Guidebook. BC Ministry of Environment and BC Ministry of Forests. Forest Practices Code. Province of British Columbia. ANONYMOUS. 1995(5). Forest Practices Code of BC Act. BC Ministry of Environment and BC Ministry of Forests. Province of British Columbia. BEECHIE, T.J. AND T.H.SIBLEY. 1997. Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwestern Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126: 217-229. BESCHTA, R. L. , AND W. S PLATTS. 1986, Morphological Features of Small Streams: Significance and Function: Water Resources Bulletin 22(3): 369-380. BESCHTA, R. L. , AND E. G ROBISON. 1990. Characteristics of Coarse Wood Debris for Several Coastal Streams of Southeast Alaska, USA: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 77 Aquatic Sciences 47(9): 1684-1693. BILBY, R.E., AND J.W. WARD. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris with increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118: 368-378. BILBY, R.E AND L.J. WASSERMAN. 1989. Forest practices and riparian management in Washington State: data based regulation development, pp.87-94 In R.E. Gresswell, B.A.Barton, and J.L. Kershner (Eds.). Practical approaches to riparian resource management: an educational workshop. US Bureau of Land Management, BLM-MT-PP-89-001-4531, Billings, Montana. BILBY, R.E., K. SULLIVAN, AND S.H. DUNCAN. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface sediment in forested watersheds in southwestern Washington. Forest Science 32(2): 453-468. BILBY, R. E. AND J. W. WARD. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 2499-2508. BISSON, P. A., J. L NIELSEN, R. A PALMASON. 1982. A system of naming habitat types in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low streamflow. In: Armantrout, N. B. (Ed.), Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Information: Portland, Oregon (USA), Western Division of the American Fisheries Society, p.62-73. BISSON, P.A., K. SULLIVAN AND J.L. NIELSEN. 1988. Channel hydraulics, habitat use, and body form of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout in streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 262-273. BISSON, P.A., R.E. BILBY, M.D. BRYANT, C A . DOLLOFF, G.B. GRETTE, R.A. HOUSE, M.L. MURPHY, K.V. KOSKI, AND J.R. SEDELL. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present and future. In Proceedings: Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interaction. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. pp. 149-190. BISSON, P.A., T.P. QUINN, G.H. REEVES, AND S.V. GREGORY. 1992. Best management practices, cumulative effects, and long-term trends in fish abundance in Pacific Northwest River Systems. Pages 189-232, in R.J. Naiman (editor) Watershed 78 management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer Verlag, New York. BJORNN, T.C., A N D D.W. REISER. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138, in W.R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. BOUSSU, M.F. 1954. Relationship between trout populations and cover in a small stream. Journal of Wildlife Management 18(2): 229-239. BREN, L.J. 1995. Aspects of the geometry of riparian buffer strips and its significant to forestry operations. Forest Ecology and Management 75: 1-10. BRYANT, M . D. 1983. The role and management of woody debris in west coast salmonid nursery streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: 322-330. BUSTARD, D.R. A N D N A R V E R , D.W. 1975. Preferences of juvenile coho salmon and cutthroat trout relative to simulated alteration of winter habitat. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 681-687. CEDERHOLM, C. J. A N D PETERSON, N. P. 1985. The retention of coho salmon {Oncorhynchus kisutch) carcasses by organic debris in small streams: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (42): 1222-1225. CHAMBERLlN, T.W., HARR, R.D., A N D EVEREST, F.H. 1991. Timber Harvesting, Silviculture, and Watershed Processes. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Pub. 19: 181-205. CHATWIN, S., P. TSCHAPLINSKI, G. MCKINNON, N. WINFIELD, H. GOLDBERG, R. SCHERER. 2001. Assessment of the Condition of Small Fish-bearing Streams in the Central Interior Plateau of British Columbia in Response to Riparian Practices Implemented under the Forest Practices Code. Ministry of Forests Research Program. Working Paper 61. Province of British Columbia. CHEN, G.K. 1992. Use of basin survey data in habitat modeling and cumulative watershed effects analysis. FHR Currents, Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin No. 8. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest region, Eureka, California. 79 CHENG, J.D. 1989. Streamflow changes after Clear-cut logging of a pine beetle-infested watershed in southern British Columbia, Canada. Water Resources Research 25: 449-456. CHESNEY, C. 2000. Functions of wood in small steep streams in Eastern Washington: Summary of results for project activity in the Ahtanum, Cowiche, and Tieton basins. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring Report. TFW-MAG1-00-002. Washington Department of Natural Resources. CHURCH, M . 1998. Fine Sediments in Small Streams in Coastal British Columbia: A Review of Research Progress. In: Hogan, D, Tschaplinski, P.J. and Chatwin , S. (Eds.) Carnation Creek and Queen Charlotte Islands Fish/Forestry Workshop: Applying 20 Years of Coast Research to Management Solutions. CHURCH. M. , 1992. Channel morphology and typology. In: Callow. P and Pens, G.E. (Eds.). The Rivers Handbook. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. CLINNICK, P.F. 1985. Buffer strip management in forest operations: a review. Australian Forestry 48(1): 34-35. CULP, J.M. 1987. The effects of streambank clearcutting on the benthic invertebrates of Carnation Creek, British Columbia. In, Proceedings: Applying 15 years of Carnation Creek results. Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, BC. pp. 87-98. DOLLOFF, C. A. 1986. Effects of stream cleaning on juvenile coho salmon and Dolly Varden in southeast Alaska [USA]. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 743-755. DOLLOFF, C. A. AND G. H. REEVES. 1990. Microhabitat partitioning among stream-dwelling juvenile coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, and Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 2297-2306. ELLIOTT, J.M. 1985. Population dynamics of migratory trout, Salmo trutta, in a Lake District stream, 1966-83, and their implications for fisheries management. Journal of Fish Biology 27 (Supplement A): 35-43. ELLIOTT, S. T. 1986. Reduction of a Dolly Varden {Salvelinus malma) population and macrobenthos after removal of logging debris. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:392-400. 80 ERMAN, D.C. AND D. MAHONEY. 1983. Recovery after logging in streams with and without buffer strips in northern California. Contribution No. 186, California Water Resources Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 50 p. FAUSCH, K. D. AND T. G. NORTHCOTE. 1992. Large woody debris and salmonid habitat in a small coastal British Columbia stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 682-693. FELLER, M.C. 1981. Effects of clearcutting and slashburning on stream temperature in southwestern British Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin 17(5): 863-867. FELLER. M.C. 1999. In: Feller, M.C. and J.S. Richardson (Eds.) Ecology and management of riparian stream ecosystems: a large scale experiment and the University of British Columbia Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. Workshop proceedings, 12 April, 1999. Dept. of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia. FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT T E A M . 1993. Forest ecosystem assessment: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team to President Clinton. USDA Forest Service. Portland, Oregon. FOREST PRACTICES BOARD. 1998. Forest planning and practices in coastal areas with streams. Technical Report, Forest Practices Board, Province of British Columbia. GORDON, N.D., M C M A H O N , T.A., FINLAYSON, B.L. 1992. Stream hydrology: an introduction for ecologists. John Wiley and Sons. Ltd, Chichester, England. GRANT, G.E., F.J. SWANSON AND M.G. WOLMAN. 1990. Pattern and origin of step-bed morphology in high gradient streams, Western Cascades, Oregon. Geological Society of America Bulletin 102: 340-352. GREGORY, S.V, F.J.SWANSON, W.A.MCKEE AND K.W.CUMMINS. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Focus on links between land and water. Bioscience 41(8): 540-551. GREGORY, S.V., AND P.A. BISSON. 1996. Degradation and loss of anadromous salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest. In D.J. Stouder, P.A. Bisson and R.J. Naiman (eds.), Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options, p. 277-314. Chapman and Hall, New York. 81 GRETTE, G.B. 1985. The role of large organic debris in juvenile salmonid rearing habitat in small streams. M.S. Thesis, University of Wshington, Seattle, WA. 105 p. HARR, R.D. 1986. Effects of clearcutting on rain-on-snow runoff in western Oregon: A new look at old studies. Water Resources Research 22: 1095-1100. HAWKINS, CP. , M.L. MURPHY, A N D N . H . ANDERSON. 1982. Effects of canopy substrate composition and gradient on the structure of microinvertebrate communities in Cascade Range streams of Oregon. Ecology 63(6): 1840-1856. HAWKINS, C. P, J. L. KERSHNER, P. A. BISSON, M . D. BRYANT, L. M . DECKER, S. V. GREGORY, D. A. M C C U L L O U G H , C. K. OVERTON, G. H. REEVES, R. J. STEEDMAN, AND M . K. YOUNG. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features. Fisheries 18: 3-12. HEEDE, B.H. 1985. Channel adjustments to the removal of log steps: an experiment in a mountain stream. Environmental Management 9: 427-432. HEEDE, B.H. 1991. Response of a stream in disequilibrium to timber harvest. Environmental Management 15: 251-255. HEIFETZ, J., M.L. MURPHY, A N D K.V. KOSKI. 1986. Effects of logging on winter habitat of juvenile salmonids in Alaskan streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6: 52-58. HICKS, B.J., BESCHTA, R.L., HARR, R.D. 1991. Long-term changes in streamflow following logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resources Bulletin 27:217-226. HICKS, J. K.A. YOUNG A N D S.G.HINCH.1999. Density, movement and growth of cutthroat trout during the fall and winter in small streams exposed to different types of riparian logging, in Feller, M.C. and J.S. Richardson (Eds.) Ecology and management of riparian stream ecosystems: a large scale experiment and the University of British Columbia Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. Workshop proceedings, 12 April, 1999. Dept. of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia. HOGAN, D.L. 1986. Channel morphology of unlogged, logged and debris torrented streams in the Queen Charlotte Islands. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Land Management Rep. 49, 94 p. 82 HOGAN, D.L. A N D M . CHURCH. 1989. Hydraulic geometry of small, coastal streams: progress toward quantification of salmonid habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 46: 844-852. HOGAN, D.L. A N D J.W. WARD. 1997. Watershed geomorpholgy and fish habitat. Watershed Restoration Program, Victoria, BC. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. Chapter 2. HOGAN,D.L. CHEONG, A., A N D HILGER, J. 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, Technical Coordinators. Forestry-fish conference: land management practices affecting aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference, May 1-4,1996, Calgary, Alberta. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-356. HOGAN, D. 2001. Stream Channel Assessment in the Interior of British Columbia, in Toewes, D.A.A and S. Chatwin (eds.) Watershed Assessment in the Southern Interior of British Columbia: Workshop Proceedings, March 9-10, 2000. Working Paper 57. Ministry of Forests Research Program, Province of British Columbia. HOLTBY, L.B. 1988. Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, B.C., and associated impacts on the coho salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 502-515. JOHNSTON, N.T. A N D P.A. SLANEY. 1996. Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8. Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Environment. Province of British Columbia. KEITH, R. M . , BJORNN, T. C , MEEHAN, W. R. 1998, Response of juvenile salmonids to riparian and instream cover modifications in small streams flowing through 2nd-growth forests of southeast Alaska: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(6): 889-907. KELLERHALS, R., CHURCH, M. , AND BRAY, D.I. 1976. Classification and analysis of river processes. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 102: 813-829. KENNARD, P, PESS, G., BEECHIE, T., BILBY, B, AND D. BERG. 1999. Riparian in-a-Box: A 83 managers tool to predict the impacts of riparian habitat on fish habitat. Pages 483-490. In M.K. Brewin and D.M.A. Monita, Technical Coordinators. Forestry-fish conference: land management practices affecting aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference, May 1-4, 1996, Calgary, Alberta. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-356. LEOPOLD, L.B. M.G. WOLMAN, J.P. MILLER. 1964 . Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W.H.Freeman and Company. San Francisco. LIENKAEMPER, G. W. A N D F. J. SWANSON. 1987. Dynamics of large woody debris in streams in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17: 150-156 LISLE, T. E. 1979. A sorting mechanism for a riffle-pool sequence. Geological Society of America Bulletin 90: 1142-1157. LISLE, T. E. 1986. Effects of woody debris on anadromous salmonid habitat, Prince of Wales Island, southeast Alaska [USA]. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6: 538-550. LISLE, T.E., A N D S. HILTON. 1992. The volume of fine sediment in pools: an index of sediment supply in gravel-bed streams. Water Resources Bulletin 28: 371-383. LISLE, T. E. 1995. Effects of coarse woody debris and its removal on a channel affected by the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens, Washington. Water Resources Research 31: 1797-1808. LISLE, T.E., A N D S. HILTON. 1992. Fine bed material in pools on natural gravel bed channels. Water Resources Research 35: 1291-1304. LOTSPEICH, F.B. A N D W.S. PLATTS 1982. An integrated land-aquatic classification system. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2: 138-149. LOWRANCE, R., R. TODD, J. FAIL, JR., O. HENDRICKSON, JR., R. LEONARD, A N D L. ASMUSSEN. 1984. Riparian forest as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. Bioscience 34(6): 374-377. L Y N C H , J.A., G.B. RISHEL, A N D E . S . CORBETT. 1984. Thermal alterations of streams draining clearcut watersheds: quantification and biological implications. Hydrobiologia 111:161-169. 84 MACDONALD, J.S. AND HERUNTER, H.E. 1998. The Takla Fishery/Forestry Interaction Project: study area and project design. Pages 203-207. in M.K. Brewin and D.M.A. Monita, Technical Coordinators. Forestry-fish conference: land management practices affecting aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference, May 1-4, 1996, Calgary, Alberta. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-356. MADEJ, M . A. 1982. Sediment transport and channel changes in an aggrading stream in the Puget Lowland, WA: in Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage basins, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-141: 97-108. MARCUS, M.D., M.K. YOUNG, L.E. NOEL, AND B.A. M U L L A N . 1990. Salmonid habitat relationships in the western U.S.: a review and indexed bibliography. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-188, Fort Collins, Co. 84 p. McDADE, M.H., F.J. SWANSON, W.A. McKEE, J.F. FRANKLIN, A N D J. V A N SICKLE. 1990. Source distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 326-330. MCHENRY, M.L. , E SHOTT, R.H CONRAD, AND G.B GRETTE. 1998. Changes in the quantity and characteristics of large woody debris in streams of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, USA (1982-1993). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 55: 1395-1407. MEEHAN, W.R., F.J. SWANSON, AND J.R. SEDELL. 1977. Influences of riparian vegetation on aquatic ecosystems with particular reference to salmonid fishes and their food supply. In Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium, July 9, 1977. Tuscon Ariz.. US Dep. Agric. Gen. Tech. Rep. R M 43: 137-145. MEEHAN, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. MEGAHAN, W.F. 1982. Channel sediment storage behind obstructions in forested drainage basins draining the granitic bedrock of the Idaho batholith: in Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage basins, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-141: 114-121. MEGAHAN, W.F. 1983. Hydrologic effects of clearcutting and wildlife on steep granitic slopes in Idaho. Water Resources Research 19: 811-819. 85 MILLAR, R.G. 2000. Influence of bank vegetation on alluvial channel patterns. Water Resources Research 36: 1109-1118. MONTGOMERY, D. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability, Water Resources Research 30(6): 1925-1932. MONTGOMERY, D.R., A N D J..M. BUFFINGTON. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel condition. TFW-SH1O-93-002, Wash. Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. MONTGOMERY, D. R. AND J. M . BUFFINGTON. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109: 596-611. MURPHY, M. L . , A N D J. D H A L L 1981. Varied effects of clear-cut logging on predators and their habitat in small streams of the Cascade Mountains, Oregon: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38(2): 137-145. MURPHY, M.L.. 1995. Forestry impacts on freshwater habitat of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: requirements for protection and restoration. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 7. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 156 pp. MURPHY, M.L. , J. HEIFETZ, S.W. JOHNSON, K.V. KOSKI A N D J.F. THEDINGA. 1986. Effects of clearcut logging with and without buffer strips on juvenile salmonids in Alaskan streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43: 1521-1533. MURPHY, M.L. AND K.V KOSKI 1989. Input and depletion woody debris in Alaskan streams and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9: 427-436. N A K A M U R A , F. S. A N D F. J. SWANSON. 1993. Effects of coarse woody debris on morphology and sediment storage of a mountain stream system in western Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18: 43-61. NAIMAN, R.J. A N D J.R. SEDDELL. 1979. Relationships between metabolic parameters and stream order in Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37: 834-847. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION A N D M A N A G E M E N T OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS (NRCC). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D . C , 452 p. NEHLSEN, W.J. J.E. WILLIAMS AND J.A.LICHATOWICH. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. Fisheries 16(2): 4-21. NORTHCOTE T G. 1992. Migration and residency in stream salmonids some ecological considerations and evolutionary consequences. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 67: 5-17. PETERSON, N.P. 1992. Immigration of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) into riverine ponds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 39: 1308-1310. PETERSON, N.P., A. HENDRY, ANDT.P. QUINN. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid habitat: some suggested parameters and target conditions. TFW-F3-92-001. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 75p. PLATTS, W.S. AND W.F. MEGAHAN. 1975. Time trends in riverbed sediment composition in salmon and steelhead spawning areas: South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 40: 229-239. POOLE, G.C., C A . FRISSELL, AND S.C RALPH. 1997. In-stream habitat unit classification: inadequacies for monitoring and some consequences for management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(4): 879-896. PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. 2001. Ministry of Forests Website. http://www for.bc.ca. Province of British Columbia. RABENI, C F . , AND M.A. SMALE. 1995. Effects of siltation on stream fishes and the potential mitigating role of the buffering riparian zone. Hydrobiologia 303: 211-219. RALPH, S.C, T. CARDOSO, G . C POOLE, L L . CONQUEST, AND R.J. NAIMAN. 1991. Status and trends of instream habitat in forested lands of Washington: the Timber-Fish-Wildlife ambient monitoring project. 1989-1991 Biennial Progress Report. Centre for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. RALPH, S .C, G.C. POOLE, L .L . CONQUEST, AND R.J. NAIMAN. 1994. Stream channel morphology and woody debris in logged and unlogged basins of western Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 51: 37-51. REEVES, G.H., F.H. EVEREST, AND J.R. SEDELL. 1993. Diversity of juvenile anadromous salmonid assemblages in coastal Oregon basins with different levels of timber harvest. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122: 309-317. 87 REEVES, G.H., J.D. HALL, S.V.GREGORY. 1995. The impact of land-management activities on coastal cutthroat trout and their freshwater habitats. U.S. Forest Serv., Symp. on Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout: Biology, Management, and Future Conservation, Reedsport, Oregon (USA), 12-14 Oct 1995. REID, L . M . 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-141. Albany, California: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 118 p. REID, L . M . , AND T. DUNNE. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20:1753-1761. REID, L . M . AND T. DUNNE. 1996. Rapid Evaluation of Sediment Budgets. GeoEcology. Catena Verlag. RIC. 1999. Resource Inventory Committee. Stream Inventory Methodology. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Province of British Columbia. RICHARDSON J.S., FELLER, M.C. AND P. KIFFNEY. 1999. Riparian and stream ecosystem function in small coastal BC streams and the effectiveness of riparian buffers, in Feller, M.C. and J.S. Richardson (Eds.) Ecology and management of riparian stream ecosystems: a large scale experiment and the University of British Columbia Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. Workshop proceedings, 12 April, 1999. Dept. of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia. ROBISON, E.G. AND R.L. BESCHTA. 1990 (a). Identifying trees in riparian areas that can provide coarse woody debris to streams. Forest Science 36(3): 790-801. ROBISON, E. G. AND R. L. BESCHTA. 1990 (b). Characteristics of coarse woody debris for several coastal streams of southeast Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1684-1693. ROSENFELD, J. 2000 Freshwater habitat requirements of anadromous cutthroat trout and implications for forestry impacts. Province of British Columbia, Fisheries Management Report 113. ROSGEN, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199. ROSGEN, D.L. 1985. A stream classification system. In Johnson, R.R., Ziebell, C D . , Palton, D.R., Fflolliot, P.F. and Hamre, R.H. (Eds.) Proceeedings of the North American Riparian Conference, Tuscon, Az. 91-95. 88 SANDERS, P. 1983. A management plan for the University of British Columbia Research Forest. Dept. of Forest Science. MSc. Thesis. University of British Columbia. SCHUMM, S.A. 1977. The Fluvial System, John Wiley, New York. SCRIVENER, J.C. A N D B.C. ANDERSEN. 1982. Logging impacts and some mechanisms which determine the size of spring and summer populations of coho salmon fry in Carnation Creek. In: G. Hartman, editor. Proceedings: Carnation Creek workshop: a ten-year review. Malaspina College, Nanaimo, B.C. pp.257-272. SEDELL,. J.R., A N D F.J. SWANSON. 1984. Ecological characteristics of streams in old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. Pages 9-16, in W.R. Meehan, T.R. Merrell, Jr., and T.A. Hanley (editors) Proceedings, fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests symposium. American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, Asheville, North Carolina. SEDELL, J.R., P.A. BISSON, F.J. SWANSON, A N D S.V. GREGORY. 1988. What we know about large trees that fall into streams and rivers. In, From the forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-229, Portland, OR. pp. 347-380. SEDELL, J. R., G.H. REEVES, F. R. HAUER, J. A. STANFORD, AND C. P. HAWKINS. 1990. Role of refugia in recovery from disturbances: modern fragmented and disconnected river systems. Environmental Management 14: 711-724. SEDELL, J.R., G.H.REEVES, A N D P.A. BISSON. 1996. Habitat policy for salmon in the Pacific Northwest, p.375-387. In Stouder, D.J., P.A. Bisson and R.J. Naiman (Eds), Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, Chapman and Hall, New York. SIDLE, R. 1992. A theoretical model of the effects of timber harvesting on slope stability, Water Resources Research 28(7): 1897-1910. SIDLE, R A N D A. SHARMA. 1999. Stream channel changes associated with mining and grazing in the Great Basin. Journal of Environmental Quality 25: 1111-1121. SIERRA L E G A L DEFENSE FUND, 1997. Stream protection under the Code: The destruction continues. Report of the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, Vancouver, British Columbia. SLANEY, T.L. K.D. HYATT, T.G. NORTHCOTE A N D R.J. FIELDEN. 1996. Status of anadromous salmon and trout in British Columbia and Yukon. Fisheries 21(10). 89 SMITH, N.D., AND SMITH, D.G. 1984. William River: An outstanding example of channel widening and braiding caused by bed-load addition. Geology (12): 78-82. SMITH, R. D., R. C. SIDLE, AND P. E. PORTER. 1993. Effects on bedload transport of experimental removal of woody debris from a forest gravel-bed stream. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18: 455-468. SMITH, C.L. A N D STEEL, B.S. 1996. Values in the Valuing of Salmon, p.599-616. In Stouder, D.J., P.A. Bisson and R.J. Naiman (Eds), Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, Chapman and Hall, New York. STRAHLER, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. American Geophysical Union. SULLIVAN, K., T. E. LISLE, C. A. DOLLOF, G. E. GRANT, A N D L. M. REID. 1987. Stream channels: the link between forests and fishes: in Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions., E . 0. Salo, and T. W. Cundy, eds., University of Washington, Seattle, WA. SWANSON, F. J., G. W. LIENKAEMPER, AND J. R. SEDELL. 1976. History, physical effects, and management implications of large organic debris in western Oregon streams. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, PNW-56. SWANSON, F.J. A N D G.W.LIENKAEMPER. 1978. Physical consequences of large organic debris in Pacific Northwest Streams. US Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-69. SWANSON, F. J., A N D R. L . FREDRIKSEN. 1982. Sediment routing and budgets: implications forjudging impacts of forestry practices: in Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage basins, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW 141: 129-137. SWANSON, F. J., M . D. BRYANT,. G. W LIENKAEMPER. 1984, Organic Debris in Small Streams, Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. SWANSON, F. J., R. J. JANDA, A N D T. DUNNE. 1982. Summary: sediment budget and routing studies: in Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage basins, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW 141: 157-165. TOEWS, D.A.A. A N D M.K. MOORE. 1982. The effects of three streamside logging treatments on organic debris and channel morphology of Carnation Creek. In, G. Hartman, editor. 90 Proceedings: Carnation Creek workshop: a ten-year review. Malaspina College, Nanaimo, BC. pp. 129-153. TSCHAPL1NSKI, P. J. AND G. F. HARTMAN. 1983. Winter distribution of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) before and after logging in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, and some implications for overwinter survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 452-461 VANNOTE, R.L., G.W.MINSHALL, K.W. CUMMrNS, J.R.SEDELL, C.E. CUSHING. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37: 130-137. WARBURTON, J. 1992. Observations of bed load transport and channel bed changes in a proglacial mountain stream. Arctic and Alpine Research 24: 195-203. WENTWORTH, C.K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology 30: 377-392. WH1TTAKER, J.G. Sediment transport in step-pool streams. 1987. In: Thorn, C.R., J.C. Bathurst, and R.D.Hey (Eds.). Sediment transport in gravel bed rivers. John Wiley, New York. WHITING, P.J. AND J.B. BRADLEY. 1993 A process based classification system for headwater streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18(7): 603-612. YOUNG, K.A., S.G.HINCH, AND T.G.NORTHCOTE. 1999. Status of resident coastal cutthroat trout and their habitat twenty five years after riparian logging. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 901-911. YOUNG, K.A. 2000. Riparian zone protection in the Pacific Northwest: Who's cutting what? Environmental Management 26:131 -144. ZIEMER, R. R. 1981. Roots and the stability of forested slopes: in Erosion and sediment transport in Pacific Rim Steeplands. Christchurch, New Zealand. International Association of Hydrological Scientific Publications 132: 343-361. ZIEMER, R. R., AND D. N. SWANSON. 1977. Root strength changes after logging in southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service Research Note PNW-306. ZIMMERMAN, R. C , GOODLETT, J. C , AND COMER, G. H., 1967. The influence of vegetation on channel on channel form of small streams: International Association of Scientific Hydrology 75: 255-275. o cn cn • cn co o o' 3 SL < CD' SO O J ID 10 ID ID ID CO X I CD O o o £U 5" 3 q > 3 5 cn 52. o 3 X CQ | -O § l ! o £ o <2. Q) CD ZJ DJ B CO C L o zr CD 3 3 a — o 3 CD > CQ CQ - 1 CO C L tt> 5' 3 "O o o CD cn cn CD cn CD < C L CD 3 CO -3. o_ CD z o 3 CD a. CD O 3 cn O c —1 o CD § 0 3 ?JD~ cn B i g ro CD 3 o CD TJ CD go DJ < 2. O 2* 3- w Q) CD 3 O ro § CO Q. co" o CD 3 cn C L CD 52, o TJ CD O a CQ - i O 5 o CQ CQ 3' CQ O o 3 3 CD 3 CD 3 cr co 3 o CD CD" < CD O 3-co 3 3 <L - < - a CD CD C L CD CO CD co 3 cr co 3 Q —1 co C L CD' 3 o o 3 =ft 3 CD C L 13 CO 3, •< CD CQ CQ —i CD C L CD Q. CO - -CD TJ TJ O O O CO o 3 3 TJ CD' 3 CD CO 3 CD 3 O 3 CD CD cn CD < CD OJ 3 3 CD 5' o 3 si 5' 3 o 3 -0> 3 3 CD o co cr CD > fO CO CD CO 3 o 3 -ni 3 3 CD 3 CO 5" 3 co DJ CD 3 3-CD a o o s 3 CQ CD-CD 3 o cn in • Cfl CD O »-•-o' 3 CD_ < CD' i cn 4-J J CD CD n o o 21 o' 3 cr > o € 3 i o CD o zr 0) 3 3 CD  cn T3 o 3 cn CD CD o CD O 3 CD CO CD CL CD 3 0) CQ CD a CD cn o XJ_' o 3 cn -1 ° y - o 5 CD =± 3 J CD 3 CD CD — 3 ^ CD 3 ^ 9 3 "2. X J CD CD CT — O O CD CD FT * C § <? CQ 01 _. 0) 3,3 £ " O CD CD 3 —i n X J CD CD §1 o c_ CD - h o — - 1 — 3 D CD T CQ O O 3 CD CT ° - o =• CL CD o o CL O cn cn o 3 § CD CD CD CD CD - CL •g CD' o CD cn 03 3. 5 O ^ w S> t" CD CD o 3 = h CL cn O c o CD 22. 5 "n (D J j ' 3 CD CD » CD CL CD 3 as-s "< CD £T &> CL a 3 CL 5L CL 3 ' 3 o m I — CD 92 CQ' 3 = 3 CL CD 2. t= 3 =T CD 9: S . - = g. OCQ = -• £. CQ A> o o -3 CD 3 CD 3 a CT co 3 O CD CD < CD o 3 " CD 3 3 <L >< T3 CD CD Q_ CD CD o o 3 5' o Q-Cfl CO CD CD ST. "O CD X J CO CD CD 3 c r CD 3 c i Ef ho CD 3 O 3 a_ CD' 3 5 X I cu cu' 3 CD CD 3 CD 3 V CO o 3 CD CD cn CD 2 CD o CT a 3 3 cp_ 5' c? 3 CD «-*• o 3 o CT CD 3 3 CD CD CT CD > U 01 -1 CD CD 3 o CT CD 3 3 © 3 Bl 5' 3 CD CD 0) 3" CD a. o 3 5' CQ —1 CD CD 3 so CA o 00 (Q c - 1 CD > o 3 " CD 3 3 (D T3 =r o o (Q -t CO •a CD (O oo N> o o cu 3 0) 3 a o 3 CQ c a 3' co o CD o cn 3 a> 3 m TJ - O •a >-«0 m ID CO oo ( j n C j i c r i C T i ^ ^ C o K l j O i O O O O O XJ o TJ CD rr CU CD 3." o 3 iary IT ne iary ocat 1 T6S LWI 5 T3 o 3 O — i 3 o se CD cn •> 3 » o o CD - j -• cp_ •< 00 o 3 c T J cn CD CD 3 o —h 00 s» 3, O CO o CD 3 3 CD CD-CD 3 3' CQ cn _ | TJ ? 3 CD ~ CD 5" < CD (D DJ OJ CD <D D cn o c 0 o 1 c 3 CD CD 3 CD JQ C CD •< O O 3 3' CD a. CT CD 3 O CD CD < CD o 3-CD 3 3 CD •< TJ CD CD CD C L CD 1 CD CD CD CD 3 s C~L Er i CD 3 XJ •5' CD CD' 3 CD CD CD 3 O C L CD —i CD & < C L CD CQ ~t CD C L CD C L CO CD TJ TJ C O CD o OJ O o 3 o 3-0J 3 3 CD 3 OJ 6 3 m OJ cn CD CD 7T DJ ?-CD > IO m 0) cn CD CD TT O 3" 01 3 3 CD 3 DJ 6 3 cn 3 C L C L m CD O — * i c OW cn" {-j vid O' CD - —1 (D 3 3 CD cr 3 O Q. CD O CD 3 CD sth ree ce O —n ro ,—. 3 ~ cha V cn' cha x 3 his ton 3 cn 0 nei 3 CD CD nei C L 0 3' CD' 5' 0 CQ 1 3 3 CQ CD ete O ing O c S CD 01 cn =r CD a m o> cn O i 3 5' ca 3 CD CD 3 CO Table A 10: Stream F channel information Channel information Channel F Watershed F (shown in green) 11.5 hectares Riparian treatment Gradient Bankfull width Wetted area (m2) Channel type Disturbance level Confinement LWD source LWD description Primary LWD role. Channel response Reach location 10 metre 0.14 m/m 1.0m Seasonal stream with intermittent banks and some alluvial deposits Seasonal stream. Channel not discernible on photographs N/A Confined Fire, old growth logging, recent windthrow (1999) Covers the channel. Water flows underneath large logs and tree stumps. Cover, sediment storage Pool infilling Approximately 200m upstream of road crossing. 101 Table A 11: Mike Creek channel information Channel information Mike Creek Stream Mike (shown in green) 29.7 hectares Riparian treatment Gradient Bankfull width Wetted area Channel type Disturbance level Confinement LWD source LWD description Primary LWD role. Channel response Reach location Control N/A 1.5m N/A Step pool Stable Confined Old growth logging, fire. Complex section with very large wood (>1m Shading and cover provided by diameter) spanning over top of channel and understorey vegetation, smaller instream wood greater than channel width. Pool formation, sediment storage, cover None Approximately 170m upstream of lower end of sample area. Marked with wooden stakes. 102 Table A 12: Spr ing Creek Channel information Channel information Spr ing Creek Watershed Spr ing (shown in green) 111.0 hectares 103 A P P E N D I X 2: L W D V O L U M E S A N D LOCATIONS A L O N G S T R E A M C H A N N E L 4 3.5 3 S 2.5 H cu E = 2 o I ,5 _l 1 0.5 0 UL Stream A L 1998 1999 50 100 150 200 250 Distance upstream (m) 300 350 400 Stream C 1998 1999 _1A J J L H J . 50 100 150 200 250 Distance upstream (m) 300 350 400 104 Stream D 1998 1999 co £ 1 v E = 0.8 o > | 0.6 H - U l J - i l 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) 200 250 1.6 1.4 H 1.2 g 1 « 2 0.8 H o > | 0.6 _i 0.4 0.2 0 Stream E 50 100 Distance upstream (m) 150 • 1998 - 1999 200 105 East Creek 1998 1999 I l l 50 100 Distance upstream (m) 150 200 F Creek 1998 1999 0.5 H l l X 4J A. 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) to*. 200 250 106 Stream G 1998 1999 Itl ,UT1 50 100 150 200 Distance upstream (m) 250 300 8 6 H 4 2 0 Stream H ll 1998 1999 Jt JL. 50 100 150 200 250 Distance upstream (m) 300 350 107 Stream I 1998 1999 2 1 H • f ^ - 1 ~ T — r 20 40 60 80 100 Distance upstream (m) TtfHtt 120 140 160 Mike Creek 1998 1999 JJ 20 40 60 80 100 Distance upstream (m) 120 140 160 108 3.5 _ 2.5 co E 0) E 3 O > 1.5 o 2 H 1 H 0.5 0 J MB-South Creek 1 • 1998 - 1999 i u l« . t . t 50 100 150 200 Distance upstream (m) 250 300 Spring Creek * 1998 • 1999 1 in 11 50 100 Distance upstream (m) 150 200 109 A P P E N D I X 3: P O O L V O L U M E A N D LOCATION A L O N G C H A N N E L 2.0 1.8 H E E | 1-2 i L O o 10.8 S 0.6 4 * 0.4 H 0.2 0.0 Stream A ill It 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) 1998 1999 200 Stream C 1998 1999 50 100 Distance upstream (m) 150 200 110 0.5 0.4 "jz 0.4 -I 10-3 1 1 0.3 "5 ° 0 . 2 75 £ 0 . 2 "cn & 0.1 H 0.1 0.0 Stream D • 1998 m 1999 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) 200 250 0.7 0.6 ro E w 0 . 5 E 3 o 0.4 o a 0.3 75 S0.2 ac 0.1 0.0 Stream E 1998 1999 Ll 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) 200 111 East Creek _T_L 1 * 1998 data • 1999 data 50 100 Distance upstream (m) 150 200 Stream F 1998 1999 XL .III I I I IL -4 11 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) 200 250 112 0.5 HI 0.0 Stream G — r -50 I I I A IL ii 1998 1999 100 150 200 Distance upstream (m) 250 300 Stream H 1998 1999 50 100 150 200 250 Distance upstream (m) 300 350 113 Stream I 1998 1999 20 40 60 80 100 Distance upstream (m) 120 140 0.7 n 0.6 H 0) I o 0.4 a 0.3 a I 0.2 0.1 H 0.0 Mike Creek 1998 1999 1 20 40 60 80 100 Distance upstream (m) 120 140 160 114 E D O > 75 o Q. 75 =j n '</> o ac 1.6 n 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 i 0.0 South Creek i 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) . 1998 • 1999 200 250 Spring Creek • 1998 a 1999 50 100 150 Distance upstream (m) 200 115 A P P E N D I X 4: H Y D R O L O G Y — S T R E A M D I S C H A R G E C A L C U L A T I O N S 50 45 40 H 35 „ 30 E 25 H 20 15 10 5 Equation 1: y»70.627x -15.651 —\ r— 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Pressure (PSI) 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Stream A: Derivation of relationship between pressure and height 60 50 40 H 30 20 10 Equation 2: y = 0.0127X2 4 3 5 8 R2 = 0.9884 10 15 20 Height (cm) 25 30 35 Stream A: Derivation of relationship between height and discharge 116 APPENDIX 5: COMPLETE DATASET FOR 1998 AND 1999 ts 2 I l i i l i 3 l l l l l s § i i l i l l i l l i l § 5 § § l i 5 l 3 i l i l § l l i i l i S l l l l l s l i i l i l l i l l i i i l l i l s s i S i l l l s d d d d d d d d o o d d o c i d d d d o ^ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d c i d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d az|S soaid aBejaAvl S303|d jo jaqiunN suiniOA awn IBJojl 3d A) |ood AieiUMd }ueuia|3 6U|UU0J AJBUl|Jd eiunjOA |ood lejojl s a. 00 |ood jo pug lood jo J J B J S U I E S J J S I OJ CO T— » t CN CM n O l CO ^ CO CO N i n N O T - P ) N C O O ) O CO B CO o 3 T - o o p o o o o o -T- o) q r ; q r q r o q N • to ^ N ^ q d o d d o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o d o o o o o ^ o o o i o o o ^ o o o c o ^ o o o o S ^ i A p a j o o p c n M K d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d c ^ d d d d d d d d d d ^ d d r i d d is. m ^ o> o> ^ ^ co »• »* d d 8:8:8:8:0. i i i i i i i i l i i i iS i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i i l l l s l S l i s l l l s s s s s l s l l s s l s l l S s l s l I l a a s s 117 o o o o o o o o o o CN C \ | r -O O O ci ci o o co co r*- oo v o o o o o o o o o o o ci o o o o o o o o o o o o o C O l O C M C O ^ ^ ^ C O C O I f l r r r O « - N * * _ ^ q r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p ) 4 4 c o n c M * c o i n n o o o o o o o o o o 3 Z | S a o a | d e B e i S A V s a o a j d j o j s q u i n N auin |OA ajvn |B»oi 3 d A) | O O d Ajeu iMd JU3U13 |3 l 6u |LUI0J A J E W L I d l auin|OA |ood |E)ojJ lood 10 pua |ood jo J J B J S ] iuesj)s| r i - O N ^ ^ O O O O O O ^ O O O " T - ' O O T ^ O O C N O O O 0 . Q _ % 0 _ 0 . Q . % 0 . i a . i a . Q Q Q Q S S Q Q Q Q j j - i - i m f f l - i - i - i J o o o o o o o o o o CO T- CO I"- CO CO c d ^ o i o o - r - c r i o c o i r j C M I O C O C D S C O C O O J O J O ) c o c o c o c o c o e o c o c o c o c o C O ^ C ^ C O ^ C O O O C O l f i T } ; t D o S o S c o o i d ^ o o ^ ^ O J ^ U ) ( O © C 0 C O C D O ) O > C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O d o d d d d d d d o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o d d d d o o o o o U j C 0 < 0 N t - ( D S 0 ) O ^ i n i 0 C » U ) N N C 0 i n C 0 O N C 0 O 2 N f f l d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o W O t D O O C n t O ^ N ^ i n S C O N C O T - C O C O N O ^ Q C n i D , - ^ ^ T - C N O ^ ^ ^ ^ O ^ C N ^ C N j T - ^ r - ^ T - ^ O C V J ^ ^ C N ^ o d d o d d d o d d d d d o d d d d d d o d o d d d d d d o o d d o o o o o N r - c o s c o s i n o s o T - i f i a ) » - c o N T - ^ r - o c o T - o c o c o o c o U ) r o i r ) w d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 ) < O n N ^ ^ ( 0 l 0 i - W N O ^ t 0 C f i t O C \ I O f N 0 0 ^ 3 W C 0 C 0 T - C » O ^ N C M O C N T - I - C M ^ C N C N ^ C N C N ^ ^ ^ C ^ d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o S S CO S g CM CO d o d o S M 00 ID d o d o i f l g o W T - c f t N i f l s n w N N ^ n o j N r c o i o n o ^ r o a c o o 5 N q o o N C v i o r o ^ N q T - T - ^ * - N r t N r n o l o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o o o o o ezjs 8D9|d eBBJOAv S999|d jo jaqumN euinioA aMT |B»oi ad A) |00d Aje iUMd }U0UJ3|d BUJULIOJ A j e i u p d eiunjOA |0od | e i o j i lood jo pug |ood jo yejjsl d d d § § § d § d 5 § § 5 5 o d § S § 5 S § i d l d i d o I d d d d d S S o d i S d i i i l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i i i i i i i i i i i i n S o l d 2 5 2 5 5 d S 2 5 3 § S o d § § o ^ ^ co o i co 10 c o s N c o c o m ^ c o CM co r ^ t n N c o o ) T - T ^ i f i ( ^ c o ( D i n o q c q r - - c D W o c o c d u ) c o r « e i i f l o i r i i o V 6 n c » r r m O C p O J T T N O O f f l C D N S C O C O C O C j i a i - r N C O C O r t l D f f l C o i n ( O S N C ) J T - ^ T - T - T - r - T - T - T - r - C V J O J C > i C \ i r \ ) C \ | C N J N ( » > I O I O C O O I C O I O I - T - C M S U J O > C J ) N C O N n ^ ^ - C O N l O C D T - ; ^ r ^ ^ i O o q c o c N i q i q c q ^ ^ ^ ^ o j ^ ^ ^ c o c o C M t O O ^ C D C O C O U O O ) C O C O C D i ^ r ^ r ^ V ^ ^ c N u ^ c O r ^ r ^ c o c i n S S S 0 S 0 0 O ^ O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 " r - ^ ^ ? ^ S 3 B 3 8 8 8 U < 3 O O C J O O O O O O O O O O O O U U O U O U O O O O O 119 o o o o * - ^ t o o * - * - < - o * - * - o p p * - > p T - ; p o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o V o o 3 o > 0 ^ & o M ^ ^ o I M £ 3 o , 3 ^ o ^ o g o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o N CD OJ N p OJ CM CN p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c o c M c o c o o m n c o i n c o N O N N C O N O r N T -o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o E E T r ^ O C » t - C 0 ^ » O ( 0 C M * - 0 > I O I 0 0 0 l O O * - l f > C D I ^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o r « « f - O O O P ) 2 c i 5 w r O ^ M P ) 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o az|s a03|d aBejSAV S333|d jo jaqiunN 9Uin|OA OMH |B)01 ad A) |OOd AjeiuMd J U 3 U 1 3 | 9 Bu |WJOJ AJBLUMd aiun|OA |Ood lejojl | O O d jo pug |ood jo J J B J S I uieajisl o o o o o < O i - C O < O C N C O ( M I O O > ^ © O O O O O O * -o o o o ' o o o ' o o o o o *~ o p j O r f j T i q q q T -o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ' o o • 5 - 5 3 Q Q Q Q - 5 Q Q - 5 - 5 Q Q Q Q Q 5 5 5 5 5 5 s r r l N T - r t M r O O O r O N T - T ^ q r O n q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " co n ^ to a> N , . . CO lO CO CD CO lO ^ ^ t N o t ) T - * c » ( O i - o i t o s t p d i - i n t o s o o T -C N co i n 1- i n - ^ N C O O r W CO s CO CD CO s r ( M ( O t i n ! O S C O O ) O t - N C O T r i f ) C O S C O O ) O r O O O O O O O O O ^ - T - T - ' - ^ - t - r - T - ^ - i - O J C N I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 120 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O W © i r ) t t O O O 5 N t < 0 S r l 0 N S r i - ^ - O O T - i - 0 ^ - ^ - 0 0 ^ - ^ - O C V J * - r - O C M o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o T - C p i - - ( t C O C O * - ( N N O • t - O O ^ - O O O O C M - r -o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O r l f l f f l O S O S © r - ( N C N O C S | * - r - T - f N o o o o o o O J N C V | O O C M N ( 0 3 0 ) 1 0 I - T - O ^ - T - O O O C N T -d o o o o o o o o o C O C O ^ ^ ^ ^ O ^ C O C O T - C O C N ^ C N C N C N C N C N o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o E E E E 3 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o g x o N L , . . , - . O O N W t - W C O N O q o o d o o o o o o o ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O t N ^ - l O C M t O O O O O O O O O O O sa09|d jo jaquinN eiun|OA aMH l<e»oi adA> |ood Ajewud 6u|utioj A i e i u M d auinjOA jood IBJOJJ lood jo pud |ood jo pBis| S N i - C O l D t O l l O O j C M C M oocooooooorv. o o o o o o o o o o o S -^ -^ g CO o o o o o s ^ i - o o c s i « c o i n c o N n o s Q c * ) ( O c o g ) ^ O r O O t - O f ' - I O O ^ p r q N C N j q n N o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o « Q - „ - l 0 . 0 . _ _ a _ -f X - ? Q . 0 - - - j - } Q . C L - 5 Q -0 . ( 0 0 . 0 . ( 0 ( 0 0 . 0 . ( 0 0 . 0. 0. Q . 0 . a a = 3 Q . Q . = 7 Q . a i X Q . O 0 D _ C L W Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ( O r - C O C O O r - N i n m O C O T - O C N T - ' - T - O ' - C S J o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o t co m co S C N I O C N C O W rt co m in CD CN* cS C O CO t - CO CO C7> s N o s o r o r t t i o i f t l D N C D O ) T - T - T - 1 - < - T -T - C N | f 0 ^ l f ) < p N C O r o O r - { N ( O ^ U ) ( D N C O O ) O O O O O O O O O i - ' ' - ^ - ^ - * - ^ - ^ - ' - ' - ' -L i J L U U J L U W W L J J L U L U U J U J L U L U U J W U J l J U U J L U C O C O IT) C N ^  O O C O O O O I O o d o o *-* o d CM CO S CM T - T - *tf a. I a 5%g ( 3 m a 3 o I m c 3 m c 3 c 3 Q Q CD CP CD j d ) d ) j j a S j ( 0 ( 0 j O O O O O O C N O O O i n c n t O T - t o c o f N i n s r d N ^ o d c b c o N O c o C D i - ^ - C N C N T j - i n m C D t D TJ- co co C N O) q t n d i o i f i c p c p s d 2 2 2 9 9 9 8 9 2 r 121 si 3 in •c e a .c u © E ^ i n o o r o e o n n c N ^ ^ c o i o s i o g s p o i i n N O ^ c n o N T - O O O T - O ^ ^ ^ ^ O O r - q ^ t N r ^ r i r i i - t N q ^ o o o o ' o o o o o o ' o o o o ' o o ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ' o ' o o o ' o ' o o o o o o ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o ' o o o ' o o o o o o o o o ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ' o o o o o o i - t N o o i f l ^ o ^ o ( 0 « ( 0 3 S ( O t o c n i o j t o j ^ c f l ^ o o o o o o o o o o ' o ' o o ' o o ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e z | 8 aoojd 36BJ3AV| s a o s i d j o jaquinN] aiun|OAaMT|B10i| 3 d A) | o o d A i e w u d } U 3 1 U 3 | 3 6u|iuioj AieuiLid auinjOA | o o d l e j o j l | o o d j o p u g ! l o o d jo J J S J S U J E 3 J J S I — r r UJ n o ir> -*r c o * - m co co co CM co co <O 2 t S 2 S J o r r q q i- q o q i n q q N q q q q r -r-qqqqiq d d d c i d d d o d d o d d d o o o o o d o o o o o § S § 2 2 2 § 5 d d d d o d d d d d c ^ o i d d d i S d d d d ^ d & & & t & % I 8: S1§1III1 l l l l l l l l l i l l l l l l i l l l l ! ! ! S d d ^ d o d d l o d d o d d l s i d d d d d d d d l o d l d S ( U C D C O C D C D C O C O C D L U L i l L U U J L L I U J L L I L L I L T _ L L L L L L L L U . L L I ^ 122 O O T - O O O T - O O O O O O O O O O O T - T - O O ^ O O O O O O O O O O O O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d i n ^ n s » - u ) i f i c o c o 5 5 © t o c o i o t o o N o o o t - i O N O O ^ O O O r - O O O O O O O O O O O ^ ^ O O r - O O O O O O O O O O O O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o ) f \ i ( o « ) n o K N i o o ) 0 ) T - s t -O O f - t - O ' - ^ - C M ^ - O O ^ - O ^ -d d d d d d d d d d d d d d • * - 0 0 * - * - C M O * - 0 ' « -d d d d d d d d d d d i n t f i T - O t - r J - T - l f ) T - O T - I - O O O O d d d d d d d d ^ © C O N O T - l f i C O © T r N C O * - U ) O O C O ^ < O r * N 5 i n t O f > I N d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d CM g to If) O ) i - s O CM o d d O S S CO O y- O O d d d d E E E E 3 O ^ T - l f i C O l f i l f l O C J l r - r - C N j n a N t O O ) C O C O N C O C O W T - O N C N C M C M C M C M ^ T ^ C M ^ C N C O C ^ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o d d S S O C O S T t ^ T r S C O O ( O S C f t C O C > J C N r N O ) C O S ( § S C \ | C O C O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d az|8 903\6 d6ejaAv S309|d jo jaquinN 0iun|OA QMT |B»oi edAj |ood AjeiuMd 1U3UJ3|9| 6u|uuoj Ajeui|Jd[ aiunjOA |ood |8jojl lood jo pud lood jo pets r-- r-- r-~ co co co co d o d o o o o o o c o c M ^ c o c o ^ - i o c o c o c o r * - y-CO O i - o i n O N ^ C 0 T - 0 J O O O C 0 ^ ^ P ) ^ t - ( 0 i - N C v l N O < N O T - O ( f l O O CM O o O d 8 CO § T J T O O O I O T J T T - O C O C O o d CM 8 8 8 8 S SI s 3 8 o o o o O ^ - O ^ - ^ f C M O O I O O O O O O O C N I 3 3 y 3 3 3 g 9 Q . 3 3 3 y 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 y y y W W 3 y 3 y g g 3 3 3 g CD 0) 00 (D Q) Q Q Q Q O t - * - ( V I 0 3 S C 0 i n 5 W 0 1 C 0 C » ^ t N C 0 ^ C » C 0 N i - T - l 0 l 0 C 0 W d ^ d d d ^ J ^ - : C N i ' « - : d T - " r ^ d * - : d d d ' » - : d d d d d * - * S C M O ^ I O S S S C f l C D d d d d d d d ^ d c o C N I N t D ^ ^ C M S I O C O T -COIOCOCOOJIOCOCDCO CO CO CO CO CD O ) N CO N O ) CO I O o c o d c o c N ^ d c N i r - o S c o o i ^ ^ c o O c n c g c o ^ t c s c N c O T T i n ( O S N c o o T - T - c M n c o ^ ^ « i f i ( 0 ^ ^ i - ^ r - T - T - i - T - l N C M C M C J - " - - - - -C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M S CO CO IO CO CM UO CM 0> r a ) O ) r f l 0 C 0 r ( D n N c 6 q i n N t - C N I C O t l f i l O N © C » O T - C N n ^ W C D N 0 3 0 ) O i - N C O ^ i n c O N C O C n O O O O O O O O O O r T - T - r - r r r r T - i - N N C N N N N N N N C S C O C O n n r t r t 0 0 0 0 0 < D O O O O O < D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O < D O O O < D 123 o o ^ - ^ - o o o ^ - o o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O ^ - ^ - O O O f - O O O o o o o o o o o o o o C O O O O l f i i - C N t O l O N O O ^ - C M C N ^ - O T - C O O O ^ -O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O E E O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O az|8 aoetd OBBJOAV etunioA OAAT |BJOI ddA) |OOd AjeuJMd 6 u | U U 0 J AJBLUMd eiunjOA |ood iciojl |ood jo PI13I |ood jo yejs Luedjj}s| O l f l T - N O n r O C D N O O O O O O O O O O CO O O CN O ^ - O O S O C O O ) O S O C O ai f- m o co o) C N o o 0 d Q- CL 0 - 0 -_ _ -J -> £L -J " ) Q. . 0 . _ 0_ - _ CL 0 . 3 3 - 3 3 3 - 5 Q . - j Q . - j Q . C L a a c o c o c o c o c o c o o - c o a c o Q - a Q 5 j j j j j J i t J O l K j j C O t O t O C O C M t l N O C O C D O O C O C O ^ C O ^ - C O T - O C O I O O J I O C M C O d d W ^ o i d d r ^ ^ d d d d o ' CO CO CM CM T - r - ' N CN i f ) CJ) O CM tf) . . Oi t- T-1 - 1 - i - r - M N t N C M N f O c O CN s co co io co m co co C O N N N C O C f l O C O ^ S C O T - r N C O » - r - T - * - C M C N C N C N C N C O C O r - C N C O ^ U J C O N C O O l O ' - C N j n ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - * - i - ^ - i - - * -X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 124 i n ^ W 5 0 N ^ o j T - T - T - o c o i - c N i n o o ( 0 5 0 c N N O c \ i n u n ( o c o O ^ O O O O O T - O O O O O O O C N O O O O ^ O ' r - ^ O C N ^ - ^ p d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d O ^ O O O O O r - O O O O O O O C N O O O O ' « - 0 ^ - ^ - O C N T - T - 0 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d T - O - r - O O O C N O O O O T - O O C N l O O ^ O C 0 O ^ T - O C N | r - - r - T -d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d r ^ O W O C N I O W O O r r r r r r O O W T - r t r C N t N r r r r t N d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ^ O C O ^ O N K ^ N K t D l f l ( O S r t O n O ) C D ^ O T - N C O C O t N O C O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d r S C O N O r t N O r O t O N i n T - t - N r C N ( O S O t N 1 0 r l O O C O W ( 0 l O O I C O ^ m c O t D O r ^ C O t f J C O ^ l O W ^ t O t O ^ W O l O O C N I l O O ^ - ; * - ^ -d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d oz |8 aoe|d e B e j a A y l seoajd j o j e q i u n N oiuniOA Q M l IBJOjl a d A) | o o d A j e u i M d 6u |LUJOj A J B U J | J d [ OLUn |OA | 0 O d |B)OjJ | o o d p p u g jood j o vns ujeajjsl r ( O O ) CN ( N ( M T - If) <N CO C N f - O O O O O O O O o d d d d d d d o d C O ^ N - C M t O ^ C O l O O ) O O O r - O O ^ - C M T -d d d d d d d ^ - " d m ^ CM o o o o co o o o o T - C O ^ ^ O O O O O O O O t - ^ O r - C M C O O p T - O c O ^ ( N I ^ C s l h - i o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d c d d Illllllllllll§i§§§lllllllllll S 5 d 5 5 § d 5 c i § 5 § 125 a a III •SI fc O CN © N ^ < 0 C I ) C N N C 0 O C 0 g ) C 0 C » C N ( 0 ( N C 0 i - C 0 O O O r N N O r O O t N O r r N N t N r ; d o o o o o o o o o o o o d o d o d o o o o o o o o o o d o o d o d o o o q ^ i - ^ N r - T - T - i - N r - r - r - T - C N j C O M O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o d o o d 8 U ) l 0 C D ^ N O O S 0 ) C 0 ^ ( 0 O U ) O U ) U ) O d o o o o d d o o d o d o o o o o o d T - ^ N N C N i n ^ C Q e O I O C O i - T t C B C D O C O C O J d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d i n c p ( N s ^ n s < f C J ) ^ o ^ c ^ T - ( c ^ g s i f ) C O C O ^ ^ p p C N p C N j O l p ^ C N - r ^ p p p p p dz|S ODGid oBejaAvl ouuniOA QAA"I lejoj] ad A) |ood Ajeuipdl jueiueie BUJUIIOJ AieiuMd 3iun |OA |ood |e)ojl tood jo pugl lood jo JJJBJJSI iuedJ )s | 31333133 1 sis 3331 3i333i3'3333sisi3335 liiiiiiisiiigiiliii 333§§ss33§33§32§s33 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i m i i 126 i ! i ! 3 ! ! ! 5 i ! l 5 3 i i § i i i i i i 2 § i ! l i i ! 1 2 1 2 s 2 2 2 s i 2 2 s s i i § i 2 i i i i 2 2 i 2 2 2 i l S d d d S o o o S d d d S d d d d d d d S d d d S d d o d 2 d S 2 5 5 o § 2 5 5 2 2 2 d 2 5 § o S 2 2 2 o : 2 2 2 o : § o 2 o o o o d d d d o d d o d ^ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 g 3 2 2 2 s § 3 i 2 3 2 S s 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 8 2 | S 30a|d 36BJ3AVI saoajd jo jaqiunN auinioA Q/\A-| |ejojl ad A) |ood AieuiMd juaiuaia Bu|uuoj Aieiuud auin|OA |ood |ejojJ |ood jo pud lood jo J J B J S iueaj}s| 5 § 5 2 2 1 § 22 25 5 5 § 2 o § S 2 S 2 2 § 5 C O C O C N C N J C N O C N J ^ O T - T - O C N C N C O C N J O - > - O O ^ v - t N C N T - r O r s J C N J c n O T -2 § d c i d 2 l d § o d § 2 2 2 l d i § § 2 l § ^ § 2 5 S § § 5 lllllllllllillllllllllillllllll 5 3 3 5 2 5 d § 3 2 § 5 ^ ^ 2> CN (N CN TT CD CM (O m Tf CO ^ CO o n i n c p N Q N c p o w ^ s c N c p f o o o r - w c o c O ' t T t T r i n c o s c o O r O r t r t T f l r t C O C f i S S S S O J C O C f l T - T - r i - ^ ^ r - ^ T - i - i - r - T -N S t O O i n c O C O C D S S C O N ^ < o c b d ^ T t ' s ' - d ^ i p o c \ j c o c o ^ i n c o o ) 0 ^ O N N N C O C O n n ^ C D l D N S S S C O C O O ) 0 > r - T - T - ^ i - » - r - i - i - i - » - T -(D K CO O) 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 B o o o o co co co co 127 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ? E E U > T - ( O O T - O O T -T - O O O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c S c i d d z S d d d d c i s o n t o o O T-O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O E E "1 O O O O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o S T - O r l O O H - O W O T - ^ t O T - ^ f O O O o d d d d d d o o 3 Z | s 3 0 6 | d a 6 e j 3 A V s a o a i d j o jaquinN auin |OA a/wn IBJOJ. 3 d / ) | O o d AjeuijJd J U 3 1 U 3 | 3 6 U | U 1 I 0 J AJBLULId 3Uin|0A | O O d | B } O j J l o o d j o p u g l o o d j o J J B J S U I B S J J S * - n 1 0 co n 5 o o 10 o d d d T - ' d d C M O C O C O C M ^ - C M O n o c o o a n c o o 0 0 0 - » r - * - 0 0 d c i o c S m d d c i o. a. a. D. a . D. i n a a a n c / > m _ i _ i _ i _ i _ i C O o o o o » - o o o C M O O O C O C O C O C O I O risrieriiocri^'d a c o o o N N i n c o T - T - C N C N N N N N « N CO 00 CM CO Ol n n to in CN CS CM Ol O O O O O O N O t n i o i o c o e o j n o i o O T - O O C M O O O O O T - O O d d d c i c i c i d c S c S d d c S T - C M T - O O O t - C M C O r O * » - n ^ V ^ ^ C M C M C O N C M « C M M N l 0 O t - O N N Q Q I 0 T - Q ' » N 3 O $ l 0 C 0 l 0 g p I O C n r O C O I O M I O i o O M W * » - r O r q « O O N N W d d d ^ d d d d d r ^ d d d d t ^ d d d d d d ^ a. a . Q. a . a a o. a. a. „ „ a. „ . „ _ CL 1 J J -a m c o c i i i i i c o ^ a o i c i i o l i o c i i c L al 5 § s § 5 § 5 5 5 5 3 5 § 5 s 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 CO CD N N N Ol W l f ) O D O ^ ( O ^ C D ( D i - C O ( O C N O t O O O C O 5 r * - O N N C 0 i - O O ^ - O O i - r « I ^ C 0 r ; o o d d d o o d o d N ( O N i r * - b N ( M d d o d d o d o d CO N CO U) S « « ^ 3 0) IO O i -CO O) Oi y— N ^ O) ^ S CD m o co in o O J CM CN CO t - i - CO CM IO W S N CD O) CO (O c o c o e d o i c \ i ^ o c o 6 ( o s i o s c \ i O ' - i - ' - C M C M M C O ^ ' C r ^ l O I O C O r - N 0 5 l O C O N C O C » O t - C M C O ^ I O t O S C O O ) O i - t N C O O O O O 0 O O O 0 * - T - * - T - V - T - T - T - * - * - C N C N C N C N c c c c c c c c e c c c c c e c c c c c C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c a a a a a a a a a o . a a a a a a a a a o . a a a 128 E E i n o n r o r t ^ T - c o s ^ n n N i n w o t o t - o ^ r o i o p i c o r Q Q O v O O O O O O T - O O O O O O f O O O O O O i d d o o o o d d o o o o o o o o o o o o o E E i n o o o CO OJ CM o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o s s in •c $ 2 c o E T3 e » o o Q. E E o E E o j o o o o o o o o o o o m eg CO 00 o CO CO IT) o> CM CN m m CM o CM CO i— CM ^— o o 1— o o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o f- O O CM O CM CM CM d d d d CO CO in CM CO CM o CO o CO CM CM CM CM . — co CM * — CM CM . — CM d d d d d d d d d d d d d d C O C O N - ^ - r ^ O T - O ^ - O J O C N O C M C M C M C M C M C O ' - C M ' - T - C M ' - t d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o d T f c o c o i n c o i n - p - o N N i - N O ' - ' - T t 5 d d d (D * O N CO CO CO *** d d d d E E 3 o o o o i ^ c o c D o s o c o c M o r ^ c o ^ - o c o K c n c o t ^ m O ^ M r S r t ^ N t O ^ r C N N O N O q ^ e E 3 "5 > i 9zis aooid aBejaAV saoajd jo jaqwriN auiniOA a/vn |8»ox ad A} | 0 0 d AjBUiMd )UdUI3|3| 6u|uxio| Ajeuj|Jd] auin|OA |ood |BIOJ] CO E cc E 3 O > o o a. |ood jo pugl lood jo JJBJSI weaijsl T - CO O T~ T* O O O O CO d d d d s o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O l 5 f ^ T - N O O O CO o C M l O t - ^ - C O O l O ^ a - C O C O C N O W O O O O O O O O O O O C M O O O O OJ CD f— CM CO O O T f C N T r c O T i - p i - -d d o d d d d ' r -to o o o r- o o o O . 0 . CL o - Q . 3 o . o . o . o . o . o . o . n . 5 - j - > 5 o . o . o . Q . o . C L C L W D . D . D . D _ Q . a C L C L C Q C / ) C C | C Q D . Q . Q . Q . O . CL £L 0 . CL CL CL CL CL CL CL •= O O O Q CO CD ID CD TJ "O "O TJ CD CD CD P = P 2 2 £§5§§5alcSiSSa?§ lScB§co§§§§§S3co (2co N N O C t C t l O O I I O ^ I O O ' t N f f l J C O i n j J T - C O © O I ^ T ^ r ; C > I C N ^ n T ^ r t C O ^ S T ; C J c p d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d t - d d d co o o co m co o> CO V N S It) CN CM d d d d d d 0 - f- O - Tt T|- T- CD CO o> CO TI* CO f- CO S CO T f C O O O O O C M C n c O C O T - C O C O t c o T - c N c o c O T r w i n c o c o r - r - c o O ) CM I f ) I O Tf CO Tf N « l r i - - C O r i S O ) C O N - - r o - i - T - c M C N c o c o T r w i n c o i ' -C O C N C M O ) 0 ) C O i n C N r - 0 ) ^ C O i n c O l O W f l O C O C O N C O C O C O ^ g j ^ Q ^ ^ m j j p j i r t ^ d c o c M W ^ ^ d - r - i ^ c n r ^ c M r ^ o o T - c M C M c o c O T f i o i n i n T - o j c o c O T f i n i o c o c o c o r » c o o ) - ^ T - T - r - T - T - - ^ i - r - T -If) CD N CO O) O C N i P ) T | i r ) t D s c o o ) O T - c N c o T t i n _ 129 ( O O T - f i - C O r N O l O O O O O O O O O O O o o o d d o o o o d o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 r - O O O O O O O O O O O O O s d d s o o o o o o o o CO N N O l CO CM O O O O O r- O d d d d d d d in •c a •5 2 is £ O c o B E E o •A E E o CO T - CO 1- o o o d d c o o i O L O o o g o c o r ^ T - c o c o c M c O T - r ^ c D T - r M O s r ^ o o o c o ^ OCNOOOT-T-T-OT-OT-OOT-T-OT-T-OT-T-T-TtO d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o n o N o n n t N P j i - t o T - T t B N n w ^ r a f l O T - f f l f f l o o c t -N O N T - i - N r r O n m N ^ N ^ N O r ; N N t ; ! < i n r « N M N < -d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o CL E E T CO r-. CM 1— CN CM CN d d d d d ^ t D^^O0inOC4U ) < 0 C 0 U)S ( 0 ( 0 C N C N C N T - C O C N T - C N C N C O C N T - C N C N T - C N d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d W f l N O B S B I f l C O T } C N C O C N T - O C N c i c i d d d d d d E E 3 i n T t i n CO co CO T> m t d d d d d 2 s o o o o o o o o C M C M T - i n c o c N c o c o T f c n c o T j r ^ c - i o c o c M ^ t c o o T j - T - T - T i - o m d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d i ezjs eoaid 9 6 B J 3 A V saoajd jo jaqmn|s| auin|0A Q / W I | B ) 0 i adAj |ood Ajeuipd )U3lU3|3l 6U{UJU0J AjeUILM aiuniOA |ood lejojl CO E. s E 3 O O DL o> lood jo pug] lood jo jjejd o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o d o o o o o o o o n n s ^ N N o n ^ c j n n i n r t i o ^ N T - o n o n ^ f l N N T - N U ) O T - K T - C N O O > O K T - C O d d d d d d d d d d d o o o ••- o o o O C O O h - C M t ^ O J T j I ^ ^ - O ) O O O O t - O C N C O T - W T j -d d d d d d d d d d d C / ) C / ) Q . m c / } c / ) Q . Q . O - CO CL c o Q . a . Q . c / 5 a . o . a . c o o . a . c y ) m ~ * * " a. a. — —i —> CL 00 CO Q D Q - ^ Q C l Q Q Q Q - 5 - 3 - 3 co a> co 2 2 2 D O O -= O Q CO 5 CO CO o CM o CO p CM CM CO 00 o 5 CO CO m CO CM o CO CO T— t n CM CO CM o CO CO CO CO o CO T t 1-CM d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d CO CM i n o> CO CM CO 00 a> CO m CO CM I-- T— T t a> i n CM CO cb ai r«- s t-.' CO oi CO 3 CO o CM d CM CO* CM T t CM CM d T t CM CO T t CM CM i r i m CM iri CO CM CM CO CM ai CM CO CO CM d cn CM co a> CM o CO T— CO T t CO CO ai 3 s CO oi CO CO iri co s s T t c o c o N i n o o i s c o Tt t— CM CM m 00 CM Tt CM m Tt r-CO CO CO CM cn CM d d CO N* CM (-. h- CO oo O) o 3 m CM CM CM CM CM CM CO CO CO CO CO C M c O T t i n c D i ^ e o c n O T - c M c O T t i n c o r ^ o o c n O T - c M c O T t i n c D ^ c o o j o 130 CN o CO CO CN CO m CO •* CO cn in cn CN m cn O) s o OT CO s O o o o o o O o o 1— o o o CN o o CN CN o o o o o *— 1— *— o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ci d d d E E m o OT O CO CO CO CO cn § CN o CO CO CD § in CN CO CO CO r- o CN w s T - CO CN CN CN o o o o o T— o CN o o o * — * — CN CO CN O CN 1 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d (0 r I 2 IS •5 +* C © E C N C N O T - O ^ ^ O O ^ O C N C O O ^ ^ C O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d v. m •tf r- o CN 00 CO CN in CO CN CO CM o CO o i — CN CN d d d d d d d d d d d d d m ,— ,— CO o CO cn CN CM CN 1— CN o d d d d d d d d C N C N o d d o o d d a. E E t E E 3 •tf 00 CN T t CN ,— o cn CO CO ,— cn CN CN CO *— CO CN CN CM T— T— T— d d d d d d d d d d d d d d cn CO OT CO CD T t in o o o T t CO o o o CN in CO CO T t CO T t T— o CO d d d d d d d d d d d d d d Tt co T- in Tt c o c o T t O ' t f o r - . c o r - c o c M -r-r-dT-T-COT-T-Oi-CN d d d d d d d d d c i c i c i c i c i o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e E 3 1 az|s aoajd aBejaAv saoaid jo jeqwriN aiun|OA OAAI |BJ<U edA} |ood AjeuiMd )uauia|8 6 U | U L I 0 J A J E U l L I d auin |0A |ood |B;OM to E o E 3 1 lood jo pug lood jo peid uieejjs| O O O T - O T - T - O C N T -d d d d d d d d c i c i d c i c i c i c i o o o o o o o o S T - o o c o O T t CM O ci ci ci ci d C N C O C N I O T t C N C N C O T - C O C O T - C N W C N C N C N T t T t C N O O T - T - C N C N T -cor^cNcoTtcocnin'tfT-cocooT-omininT-OTT-coin T-OT-TtoincpT-TtincNp^c -T-Tj. _ _ .... d d d d d o o d d o d d d d d o T - o o o o o o o o o o tf o d d i c o i i i . i o i o i a a o i i o i i o i L i o i i . i i . i i / i D i i i . D . i n i i . a . i u i ' i i o s -s ? 5 cS c§ o o o o o o o o I CQ I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T - O O T - O O T - O O O O O O O Tt OO 1- Tf P T t h * r ^ T - c D T - c o o r ^ c N T i - o c N c o i n c o c D r * * K c o o o c n o o c N C N c O T t i n OTT-T-cOTtTtCDCDh^COOTOTT-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-Y-CNCNCNCNCNCNCN in Tt C D T - t f - C O T - O T O T i n C N h - ^ J t f J ^ c o i r i i r i d T t ' c D i r i O T i r i T ^ c o o c N i ^ T - T - c O ' t f T t i n c D C D c o O T c n T - ' -8 r- t- OT T - oo T t c D c o c o c o ^ t f c q CnOOCNCNCOTtTf T-CNCNCNCNCNCNCN 9 ? ? ^ § S ? « ? ^ v « « V ^ ^ O O O O O O O O O T - T - r - T - T -H H i S S i S S 5 U i S 8 H i S o u u u ' j u u u o u o o o o 131 O i - n i O N T C t O N h I - O O O C N T - O T - O O d o d d o d d o o d o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o i o c M T - c N U ) o o c o o o - ^ T t o o - < t - * t o i o 5 I 2 a E •a 0 - - - « - T - O O O O T - - C M d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o o o ID N N CO o d d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - - - - N r - - - - - - - n n - 7 - ^ N W - - ; P J - - ; C ; i d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o a. o o o o o o o o o o S i - C O I f l ^ - t t O C O f f f l N f O i n S f S N d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d E E 3 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o c o - c r o o e o o c o c o c N - r -C M O O O C M O C N T - C M O O d d d d d c i d c i d c i c i a E 3 s Q e z | s e o a j d 3 6 B J 3 A V s a o a j d j o j o q i u n N 3 U i n | 0 A own |B101 a d A} | 0 0 d A j B U i p d )U3U13|3J BUjUXIOJ AJBlUMdl 3Uir i|0A | 0 0 d IBJOM CO E. o E 3 O > O o a. o> o> l o o d j o p u d l o o d j o JJBJS^ U1B3JJS| (O 3 C N co rt i-; p p p q d d d d d d d d d d d d d f - C 0 C M - ^ C O i - ' - ( | - C O C O ' - - ' « t C \ l C O C D C O * * C O O T - T - - * C O C O W C O O T - T - o o T - o m u o r r T - i - O T -d d d d d d d d d d d d d o . Q . a . % Q . a . Q . Q . % a . o . a o . Q . C L Q . C f l Q - Q - D . C L 0 5 Q . C L Q . a . O i - o d d d d 3 3 g CO d o d o t - - - o n n N - - o - - n r o - - N « r 0 0 0 0 - » - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL CL CL Q. CL „ D- 1 - Q . C L Q . C L C L C L Q . C L C L - 3 - 2 —> - J CL - ) • J O . - l T O T - J T T T O 3 3 O Q Q Q O - = Q Q O - = - = U I - I , 3 ' - | " 3 " 3 ! e i e 3 f c ! 3 t ; 3 f e ! ! : ; 3 S i s ; s ; o a * P a 2 O C O O l O C O O C M C D K C O - r - T t O C M P ) U ) - - - ! t M - - - - i - t - - » r t - -d d d d d d d d d d d d d i - O ) C O 0 0 r t U ) N I O I O O ) N O ) W O l W N l D - t t - t t ^ S O S - ^ C O r ; S' s d n c r i c i i r i r t i o c o ' - r i r i c c i c o p - K r - c n c n o O T - C N C N C N C N C N C N C N C N C N C N C O C O C O C O C O C O m c o r - c o o > O T - c 4 c o * « t U ) C O K i - i - r - - - - N N N N N C M C N « o o o o o o o o o o o o o S C O ( D S C D C O I O U ) l f l < D C D S O ) S N n - -o o - - - - o r q T - T - o o o T - o O " ( - - O T - - r - ; e S c i d d d d d d c i c i c i c S d d d d d c o m c o m - f - o ) C N i T - i - c o to n co 3 cn co oo co cn CM CO K 1- ID s c o o > o - - N n ' » » ) « > s Q Q Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q D D Q Q 132 o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CM CO in CM ^_ CO CM CO r- CO CO cn CO 1^ m CO Tt CM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T— 0 i — CO * — CM 0 0 CM d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d to (0 CO o A a) 0 t3 2 m CD E E E in s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co T - m co o o 1- N 1- 1- M B O d d d d d d d O O O O O O O O O O O CO CO CO CO T - CM in •tf 0 0 0 0 O CM *— O CM CM CM d d d d d d d d d d d O T - T -O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ininT-r^o>r-^coT-T-OTfi^coo)T-T-coor** T - T - C N T - T - T J - C N C O C N C N C N C N C O T - O C N C O O C N C N \ d d d d d d d d d O O O O O O O o o Q. E E t T - CN CO CM CM I - CM CM T f T - CO CM T- CN 0 d d 0 0 d d O O T - C » l - - C N O C O T - C M C n r - C N C O T - i n t ^ T J - ^ C M N . C O C N T t C M C M C O C N T - C N T f T - C N C O C N C M T - p c M C N T - ; T - ; d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d s d E E 3 CM O CM I— T— T— m O CM T f CN CO O T f d d d d d d d S T t 01 <o n N s CO CM CM T - O O O d d d d d d d 0 0 0 0 O C O C N C N C O W O T -o o m o o c o o o d d d d d d d d a S az;s 833|d aBejeAv saoajd jo jaquinN auiniOA Qf/c\ |ejoi adAj |ood Ajeuipd juauiaia Bu|iujoj Ajeiuud auiniOA |ood IBJOJI CB E 3 O > 1 0. cn o> cn lood jo p u d |00d JO » J B j d iueaj)s| 0 0 0 CO CO O T -d 0 m T— co o CM CN o S co o co m o CM O O CM O 0 0 d 0 d d co a. a. co co co a. Q a CD CD P 2 2 _ a 3 3 3 J s = 5 3 3 3 co a 5 w O O O O O O O 00 co m CM cn s in ui o» ri N ^ co co r- i»- co o T -T- T - t - T - r - CM CM CM CM CO CO Tf rf GO CO Co N N CO CO g "2 CN CN CO 0> O T - CM CO Tf T - T - CN CN CN CM CM O Q Q Q O Q Q 2 8 S o d d CO T - r - CO CN T - CO O O O O O O O d d d d d d d 3 5 0 0 0 T f d T - T - O T - T - T - C O C N T t T t o C M T f C N O C O O C O O O O J C O T t O C O T - T - O O C O C O C M O T -O T - o o q p p p p p p T - p p d d d d d d d d d d d d d o I— O T f O CO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d d d d d d CL „ „ - 0- 0. „ 0.0.0.0.0.. 0- . C L . a . - CL C O C L C L a c O C O C L C O C O C O C O C O C L C O C L C O C L C O C L C L C O CD Q O O O Q O T 9 o o o o o | J D Q Q Q g f Q Q CL 53 Q 3 c o c M c o i n c o i n c o T t c o c o c o c n c o O O O O O O O O O O O O O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d O O O O O O O m cn CN CN co T - c O T t c O T - t O T - i n c D i n c q ^ co T f d oi c M c o c n i r i ^ ^ c b d T j i r i c M i n T - c o c M O T - c N C N T - C N c o T t T t m m c o c o c o r ^ - N . c o c o c n T - T - T - T -co cd CO N S O) O) S l f l C D T - S S I f l S C O f f l O J n ^ . ^ c c O T t c n c o c o i r i d c M c o i n c o o i n c n c o g T ^ L n T ^ r ^ T ^ O T - T - c N c o c o T - c M c o T f T t m m i n c o N S CO CO O) o> iri CO T f S m c o r ^ c o o i O T - c N c O T f i n c o r - o o c n O T -O O O O O T - T - T - T - T - T - T - T - T - T - C M C N r- CN CO 0 0 o _ _ U i U J L U U J U J L U I i J I i J U J 133 E E m CN O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O E E in t~ co in co o co co T - O CN O T - O CO o d d o d o d CMCOCOCOOTfCOCOOCOCO T - 0 0 * - * - T r p p " - C M T -d d d d d d d d d d d as u) •c ™ o o o o o o o o o r * - T - f - o > c o r ^ f - o C N O T - T - O C N T - T - C O d d d d d d d d d C O C O T t T f O t n h - Q C O C O C N T t T - T - C O C O O C O O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o 0. E E t CM CO CO T> o d d r ^ c o m o i n c o c o c o O C N T - C M C M O C O C N d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o E E 3 Ol O O! K O) N O T- O O r- CM O d d d d d d d o o o o o m o * - o CM o j -Tt O CM CO O O O d d d d d d d m E 3 O > Q 5 az|s eoajd a6ejaAV saoejd jo jaqiunN atun|0A QA/n IBJOJ adAj | 0 0 d AjeuiMd )uauia|M 6u|uuoj AjeuiMd auin|OA | 0 O d |BjojJ CO B e E 3 O > o o o. lood jo pug lood jo peja weans] CO TT Tf CM CO O O O d d d d T- d d CN CO I- CM CO T - T -O m C N K W C O T t O O O D r - C M O m i O T -d d d d d r v ^ d o o o o o o o CO Tt CM in Tt <o * -o o m c o c D c O T - c o o O C O r - O i n T t C O O O i d d d d o o o o o > 0. „ > C L % > £ L C L > C L „ 0 . 0 . 0 . - 3 0 . - 0. m w i n i i o o ) c o « ) W O j B ) i i i o w » ) i » ( O i i . i o 0) (p S 2 ^ 5 Q Q 2 Q Q Q Q Q U U U U U U U U Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q CO CM N> CO o o> T- in d d d d O O C M O O O T - O O *— CT) CO Cl O CN CN CN CM Tt CN r» I- Tf CO CN d d d d d T- r- T - CN CN CO OT . . CO 00 r - o > c o i n c o r - T - C N i n m c o h * c j > O T T - T - 3 (o 1 0 s 1 0 in CM tO CO tN **t cd oi ^  6 00 T- OJ TT u5 10 10 M c o t w c o s c o c n O ' - o i o x t i n i o s c o o j o rocOCOroCD(U(0COCDCT3COC0C0C0COCDC00JC0 L I J U J W W L U U J U J L I J U J U J L I J U J W U J U J U J L I J L I J U J 134 •c * 2 c a E TJ O O 0. i n c o c o e » c o t n c o o T - i n i o O O T - O O O O O O O T -d d o d d d o d o o o o o o d c o c o c o O T - i o i f ) T - m c o ( O i r > T - f -T - C O C M T - O T - T - 0 * - C M T - C O T - 0 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d S o o co o T - CM d o d o o o o o o o i n o c M T t c o o > T - c O T - t n T t i n p ~ C N i n r ^ o > c o i o i o < o T - C O C O T - O T - C N O C N C N C N C O T - O T - O T - C N C N C N T -d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d T - C N C M T - T - C O C O O C N T - C N d d d d d d d d d d d o o o CO uo CO 3 p- p- 03 CM CM CN CN d d d d d d d CO T - T " T - T - O o d d o o o o Tt d o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o l O T - C D T - r ^ . l O C N C O T - C M C O O O C O O O O C O C N C O O O C D C N T - O O C N C O O T f O O O O O o d o c i d c i d d c i o o o d c i d c i E 3 O > o 3 azjs aoajd aBejaAv saoajd jo jaqiunN aiun|0A aAAH lejoi adAj |00d AjeuiMd ) u a u i a | a l B u j U U O J AJBUiMdl aiunioA |ood IBJOJJ o E 3 0 > § 0. lood jo pug l o o d j o W B j d weans 8 S S S o o S d o ci d ci ci ci 0 0 « « - O O O O O O O O O T - O C N T - f - T - CO d d d d o O o o o o o o O O O o o O O o o 0. o. 0. JP 0. JP JP 0. CL CL JP CL JP JP CL CL CL CL CL CL CL 0. 0. £L OT a. OT w 0. CL CL OT CL OT W CL CL CL 0. CL CL CL w L_ CO co CD 1 Q D Q a D TJ Q Q O Q Q Q 33 Q a a Q a O $ 3 O 3 o $ 5 5 3 O 8 5 5 5 W —I co OT OT m w w OT OT OT OT m cc Zi OT _i —i -i *— CO CO Tt CO Tt Tt Tt CO in CO CN CO CO m CN CN CO CN CO o o o o o o o © o o o o O O O o o O o o o d d d d d d o o d d d d d d d d d d d d d CM CO CM CO CN p- p- m m o> CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Tf d in' o> CN 00 CO CN CO d p^  CO CM CO d p^  CO CM lA <o CO CO h- 1— CO Oi o> o *— CM CO Tf IO CO CO CO CM CNI CN at CM CO in CO CM OD CO P~ CO CM w CO CO T~ Tf d ui CO o Tt oi ^1 p-^  cri CN CO oi CO CO CM o> CO p-i CM m CO CO CO t- K- CO o> o» o> CM CN CO Tt in IO CO CO CM CM CN CO Tt W oo P- CO o> o CM CO Tt tn CO p- CO o> o O o o o o o o o o CM CM I L LL LL u_ LL. LU LL LL. L L LL u. LL L L LL LL LL L L L L L L L L L L 135 E E in CM o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O T - CD CO CM o in o o * - p p p p d d O o o d d m T - 3 o> o o o »-d d d d d d d O n N r i n O N O O T - ^ r O I N i p N O l O n O O O O O O ^ O O O T - O O O T - O O O Sddc>QQC>c>cic>dc>cic> o o o o T -d d (A r « E E E o © E E o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O T - T - T -d d d d d o o o o o o o O T - c o c M c o c o c o e o o O T - o o > i n T - c O T t c o o r ^ T - T - c n o > O r - C M ' - C M ' t T - ' - O C M C M e M T - C M e M C M O C O C O C M C O O ' -D d d d d d d d d d d d C O C M C M C M O T - C M ^ C M ' t d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o 0. E E t CM CM CM o o> o T -CO <r- CM CM O t d d d d d d d c o c M o o c M T - i ^ T - c M m i n o r ^ C M C O C M C M C O T ^ i n C M C O C M C O T ^ dc><Dcic}dc>dc>cic>dc>c>o o o o o o E E 3 o o o o O O l N O T - O l f f l O r - l f l C O C O C M C D C M O C M C M r ^ T -d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o o CO T f co t O CO CM CO CM d d d d d o E 3 O > Q 3 azis aoajd a6eiaAv saoaid jo jeqiunN auin|OA aAA~l \&101 adAj |ood Ajeiuu<j )uaiua|« Bujiujoj AjeuiuJ auiniOA |ood |B}0 M lood jo pud lood jo pBjs] uieajjsl O O O O O O O O f K ID N O O) o o CM T - o in T -d d d d d d d CO T f CO T f T f CO CO T— d CM d o c M T - o O T - c O T t T f - f - T - T - o o c o c o m i n c M T f c o c O T - c M T - o c o e o c o e o o O T - T - c o c D T - m C O C M O O O C N C O f - O C C d d d d d d d d d d o o o o O T - O O C M T - T - C M O O O O O 0- 0- „ 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.. - ^  g g 1 I 1 g 3 g -5 g 3 ^ g 1 g § g g § = s 5 5 s ? 5 CD CD Q 2 Q 1 ( O O l t L O J l C O C O C O -£ Q Q -= O Q CM O O O T - O T -C 0 I n r * C J CO T - CO CO CM CO 1^  CO CO T - CM CO T - CM d d CM d d d •— CO o CM Tf d d 0 ) O r S I O S « ) « n « ) « ) T - C D O N - O C » r « - O C M O > C O d o T ^ d ^ C M O T - ' d d d O O l U ) S >• 11 ID CB C N r ^ c p » C M t g T ^ O > C O l r i T - ; ( O K C O f f i ^ l O I O N K O C O T - ' C M C N C o d N e o r r O N O r w n ^ i S i o i O N s e q j ^ N n i p j ) T - C M C O T f c O O O T - T - T - T - T - T - r - T - T - T - T - C M C M C M C M C M C M C M T . ( O U ) K ( 0 S ^ C 0 ( O O ) N S a } CM m CM CO t ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o M s ^ i i i i o c d r ^ c o i O B ^ i - g d i o i n n O I D O M B N O ) r N n ^ l O « ) B N S K O O ^ ( N n t p i O I O S O T - C M C O C O C O C O C » C M C N C M C N C N C M C M C M C M T - C N c O T f i n c o i ^ c o a ) O T - < N c O T f i n c o r ^ c o a > o r - c M c O T f ^ ^ r - -O O O O O O O O O T - T - T - T - T - T - T - T - T - T - C M C N C M C M C M C M C M C M 136 c CO E TJ O (0 o o o. CM CN » - O CO CO CO O O T - T - O O O d d d d d d d d d d d o o o d d d d o o d o o o o d C N ^ ^ C O C N I C 0 O T l N * - t - 0 * t f o ^ o o o p p p o o o d d d d d d d d d d d 2 2 5 S § d d d d d d d d d T - C O W O O O r - C D C M O J T -T - T - T - C M O T - » - T - C O C M d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o O O) T - 3 r t Tf CM CM CO CM o i d d d o d d d T— CO CO ^ ^ CO T-^ Tf. Tf CM CM CM T ^ T ^ CM CM p T ^ CO CM CO UJ CM CM CO d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o r ^ C M C M C 0 T - u 0 C J ) C 0 C 0 C M T f T f l ^ C 0 0 D C 0 T f C M C M T - C 0 O T f C M C M d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d N ca 3 CO o o d d d d d d 3 ;= 3 5 3 S o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 E 3 o > § a z j s e o e i d a 6 e j 3 A v S 8 3 3 | d j o j e q u i r i N 3 U i n | 0 A a/\A~| |B}01 3 d A) | 0 0 d A J B l U U c j )U3Uie|8 6u | uuo i Ajeuipd a u i n | 0 A | o o d |B}OJL| o o a . l o o d j o p u d l o o d j o j J B j d IUB3J)S| T - O O O O T - T - O O O o o o o S £ 3 S d d d d co o o o O T - C O U J C O C O T - T - x - C N T - O T - T f C O C O O O J C O C M C O O - — C O C N C N O T -d T - ' C O C N C O T f C O O C O O C O O r ^ C M T f " U J C M C M O O T f O O T - T - C O v N W d r ^ y ^ d d d d d d d d d Tf o d d O T - O O O CO T- CM UO d d •>-; - J Q . - J Q . - O 3 - J - J Q . - J - J Q . - J Q . t O Q . C O Q . W W O T 0 0 Q . C n c 0 Q . C / ) Q . Q . Q . . „ „ o. o . •_> « Q . Q . —) —> CL CL D_ —3 —> 3 C L - J - J ( 0 C 0 D . D . Q . O 0 ) W [ L W i n ^ Q Q O O Q O _ ^ - ^ 0 ( _ ) _ : _ ; I _ I I _ J I _ I _, i_i i_i _, ^  _ t _ j . _ i . _ i i . n n u > n w o w o » c o o N ^ o w « t c o s i o o 3 0 ) N j 2 ^ C O t n n N N I O N n N r t r r | ^ I O U l ^ ^ N O ^ N r S C C | T r ; d d d d d O T ~ d d d d d d - - d d d d d d d d d o d o -= Q Q -= Q 0> P 3 O Q Q Q CO UO CD Tf CD (Q -w O CO CO -— CO -— CO CO IO T- T- CO in s ra oi CD Tf CO T - CO U> CO CM CO UJ S S CO CO Ch CM IO T— CJ) C M C O T f T f C O d o s c o o i ^ v o i s r i r O T - C O T f T f l O f - h - C O O C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C O C O CM CM CO CO CM UJ UO Tf CO UJ UJ T- Tf . Tf CO CO CO CO UO O l U I S CO O) OO T^  CM CO UJ Tf Tf O D T f c d c o o S r ^ c O T - d rtT>Tfu5coi~-coocM C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C O C O x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 137 E E in CN ? E E in s N C D O S C O n O C O O T - C O p C O C s i p p o o o o o o o o o 3 o o o o o o o o o o o S c o T f c O T - C N O o o o i n c N c o c o c o i n c p c o c o i n O T - O C N I T - . C N C N T - T - T ^ ^ p ^ p p T - T - r ^ d d d d o d d d d d d o d d d d d d d O T f O O - - C N r - C O - - O O r - O O O T -o d o o o o d d o o o o o o o o o E E o c o c o o j o j o o c N O i n O O ^ p C N C N C N C O r -d d d o d d d d o o o o o n s (M « T - - - T - CN o o d d d d 3 o o o o o o o o o 2 a -C U ** c o E TJ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o o o o 0. o o o o o T— T - T - T - CO T - CO CO d d d d d d d d m co o> T- o. CN CM co co o d d d d d o o o o o o o o E E 3 o o o o o o C M O O T - C O O O C M T -d d d d d d d d d o o o o o N N O O I S I O I D C O I I ) c O T f C N O i n c o T - O T i -d d d d d d d d d 3 azjs eoejd 9 6 B J 9 A V saoajd jo jaquiriN au in iOA cuwi odAj |ood AjeiuLid )uauia|a Bujuxioj AjeiUMd 9Uin |0A |00d |B}0J_| CO £ a E 3 1 O o 0-|ood jo pug l o o d j o j j B j g LUBajjsl 8 i - CD CN r - CN CO CN T- O O O O O O d d d d d d d o o o d d o o o o o o W O O T f C O C N C O C O C O C N O T f T f C O C O CO CN T f CN c N O O C N c o T f T f i n T f c o o o j o . C O O O T f - r - p p O C V - — d d d o d d d d o o o o o o o o o ' o o T -o. o. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. o. a. o. - Q_ 0_ "2 „ 0 - CL C L „ > _ — . i j . c / > c / } a c n o . m c / > c / ) b o c o a . a . a. o. a 3 CD 3 o i g o o S 3 8 8 _ 3 3 3 $ 5 3 o $ 3 § 5 5 | | ? 5 <D TJ 2 Q Q Q Q Q O Q c o M n n i n v - o c o N i o ^ c Q i n c o t - c f l o i o c o c o O C O - - T - T ~ T - O O ^ T - T - T ^ C O T - C N C O T r T ^ C O C M d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 0 ) S O ) I O C N C O t - 0 ) C O O ) C B ( I ) S r d r i S r J t C O S r d ^ l . r S c o c N C N C N c o T > T r i n t D r * » N . N . c o c o O) O S r CD S C O C N C N C 0 C 0 C 0 C O CO T - CM I d r i N d r i s i d o i i N i i v i J S N N N N n v ^ i n i D C t N N N C O r i - < S * r - Ol CN c- o in T - co — O T - T - CM CM • - c N c o T f i n c D r ^ e o c j j O T - c N c o T i ' i n c o ^ . c o o j o O O O O O O O O O ^ - T - T - T - T - T - T - T - T ^ T ^ C N C O C M d d T- CN T- CN O O O O O O O O O CL o a i o ( L - . 3 o l c n c L C L o o o - C L - O t o a . P P 3 f o o o o B C I O r S r C O T - J O T - T - i - n c N M N O d d d d d d d d d m co n; r-. C N co ^ ^ c o K c d d c o d i r i C N c O T - T - C N c o c o m i n . CN CO C OJ CO CO C N - O r - T - C N C N C O T f 3 T - CN CO T f O O O O CO CD CO CD O O O CO OJ _ O O CD CD CD 138 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o T- r~ to i~ o cn T -O O O O O O O d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o o o s CO >> n CS o c o E •5 0 0 0 0 0 CO CM T - o g o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CN CO T - CO O CM O O o o o d d d d d d d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 co r*» Tf d d d d o o d C O » - C O C O O C N T - O T - C O C O O T - O O O T - O O O T - O d d d d d d d d d d d 0 0 0 0 0 C O C O C O T - O C O C N T - T * C O C N O O C O C N O > O C M - « - » - O C M O O O T - - ^ O O O T - ; P d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d C M T t T t T - C O l - T - t O C n C O C M T f T - C O O > T -T - T f C M C N O C O T - O T - T - C M p p - ^ C N C M d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o a E E t O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C M O C M C M O O C O l O T f T f T - T f T - T - p i n C O T - C N C M r - T - T - C M C O C N C O C M ^ C O C M C S j d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d E E 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O CO CM T f T f O CM T f CO d d d d d C O C O C O O I - C O T - C O C M C O T -C O C O T f C M C M r ^ C p l O C M T f d d d d d d d d d d d azjs aoajd a6ej3AV saoajd jo jeqiunN 3Uin|OA a M " l I W U edAj |ood AjeiuLid )U3lU8|a BU'ULIOJ A J B U I U d auiniOA |ood lejojl <o B a E 3 O > O o a. l o o d j o p u g l o o d j o p e j d I U B 3 J J S I » CO CO T f O O CM T - W O O C 0 f ~ r - . O O O O O O O T f O d d d d d d d d | 0 2 % % 0 . 0 . 0 . Q . mc/)</)<0Q.0-O-0-CO CO 2 42 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Q. 0. 0. 0. a. 0. a. a. 0. co co co co o 2 2 2 2 sr" -1 -1 s n * y = = 8 = S = > > = = = = o o o o o o o o o o o o o o d CO T f CO CO o o o d d C M C M ^ - O T - O O O C O C M T - 0 0 0 0 0 CM O O O l O T - 1 0 O T— C N O O i _ J o o d o d d d d d O T - O O O O O O O 0. S =5 =5 a. m co co co « « < . O . Q . 0 . - „ C L -0 . Q . Q . - 3 - J - 5 Q . O . - 3 O . a . a . o - c o c o c o a . o . c o a . a> co co 2 Q 2 2 CD CD 0) CD (D r* 2 2 2 32 2 y* -\ -1 -1 -1 n 3> 5 5 5 3 3 s 7 13 3 3 3 3 3 T r - T - O T - O T - O p C O p P ^ p p O p d o o d o d o o d d o o o o o d IS. i " o to CO d i n c o u J c d c b c N i o a > m o h - o o ^ - ' » - - » - c N c o c o CD S CO CO 1 - - r • t CO l O 00 CN CO w c o o ) c o ( o o ) i o s c j ) c q o ) 0 ) s T - t - T - T - i - T - T t N r - r C N I f . C O C O ' t ' J ' l ' l i O l f i t O C O LO CO CO CN CO If) C p t o ' c T l ^ C O ^ C O d r i n (O CD S S CO O) T f ID IT) T f T t N J £ M C O T f l O t O S O O O O r C N C O r T - r T - r - r r r C M C N C M C M C D C D t D C D C D C D C D C D C D " ' ~ O C O T t C \ j O J C J » T t O C J ) l O ' T t C O N o J s c n o i T t ' i n o o ^ o o c i J o i T ^ s O T f S r - r C M C N C O C O C O T f T f i n i i O C D C O T - ( \ | ( O T * U ) C D N O O Q O T - N C O T j i r ) l O O O O O O O O O O T - T - T ^ r ^ T - T i - T -139 s C M I ^ C M T - C N T - T - C M t O T - - - O T - O C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O o d d c i c i d c i c i c i d c i c i d d d d d d o o o o o E E m CD co CN CN o o T - o c d d o d d d d d d d d d d o d d d o d o o o o o s o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O) i - o O O O o d d (9 c <s E TJ o to "5 o a. E I CO -_ OJ OJ LO CO 3 CO CO o in _— CO CO LO -— -— o t- in CO o o CN CM o CN CN CO CO CO o CM CM o CM CM *— CM o o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d CO m CO m f~ o CO CM o CO o m OJ CM CO OJ OJ CO m -— CM Tf CM CM CO CO CO CO CM TT CO CM m CO CO CN CO CO CO CM Tf d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d d d d E E 3 CO CO o CO o 3 -_ CM CO -— o in r - CD CN CN CM m Tf m CO CO CM CN CO CM CO co CM •o-d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d d d d d d a 5 azis aoaid aBejaAv saoajd jo jaquinN aiuri|0A a/\ftn |ejoi adA) |0od Ajeui|Jd )uauia|« 6 U I U I J O J AjeuiMd 8Uin|0A |00d |B}0J_J CO E e E 3 1 § D. OJ cn OJ lood jo pug lood jo yejd lueajjsl o o o o O T - T - O T - C N C N C N O O T -d d d d O C M C N C N T - T - O C N C N O T - T -o m - - o o ) c o o _ - o o T f C N O i o O T - T - O T - C O T - O O O O O O C O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o a 0. o. g =5 CL 3 a. a. m c/> a. oo a. OL CL 0- CL 0. 0. CL CL CL 0. CL a 3 CL CL CL CL oo o. Q. a. a. 0. „ l 3 S; D. Q. CL CQ 00 CL a CP P 3 P * CO CO co 2 2 2 l_l l _ l -= l_ l - L _ L _ - i - i ^ ^ S Q Q Q Q ' 5 : i l Q 3 Q Q 8 j 5 s s l ? 8 5 <: 5 5 8 g | 5 | <: S 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c 5 _ _ _ _ 3 C O C M t ^ t C O S C O I O l O C O S N C O I O C O C D O T - O O C O T - O O O O O O C N - O O O O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o in CD Tf r- Tf in 1 -iri CM f-" d CM iri CO CO CO OJ OJ OJ CO CO OJ CO CO CO CN CO d CO oi T— in r~ CO CO CO CO OJ OJ r - CO OJ O CM CO CN CN CM CM J Z J = x ; J Z J C £ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q O Q O O O O OT OT OT OT OT OT OT C 0 C O » - c 0 O j r » - C O 1 - C N l O 0 J C J J S I f ) oi CO CM co m co CO CN Tf N CO* O) T* CM Tf Tf CD CM CN CN CM CO CO CO CO Tf O) d oo cb iri T- 1 O T - CM CM co i n Tf CM i n CM i n Tf T - C N h - C O C D T f C O O O T - T - CM CM Tf Tf CO C N C M C N C N C N C M C N C N T f i n c o r ^ c o o o T - C N c o T - T - T - C M C N C N C N C N C N C M C N C N C N C O C O C O C 0 C O C 0 C 0 C 0 C O C O T f £ r £ £ £ C £ £ r : c £ £ £ £ r r £ r £ £ £ r c j : 140 E E in CN ci v E E o o o o o o O O C N T - C O C O * - » - * - 0 o o o o o o o o o o D o ' d o ' d o d o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CN CN o> CO o o CO • t f 00 o t— CN CO CN o CO i — o o 1— CN o •— o o o o d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d CO CO CN —^ CN d d d o o o o o o o o o o o o 0. E E t o CO ,— CO 00 o> o CO CO CO CN CO CN CN CO CO o CN CN CO CN CO CO CN CN T— CN d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d E E 3 o CO CO CN CO cn 8 CJ> CO CN o CM CO CN o CM CO CO d d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o E 3 5 Q s az|s aoaid aBejoAy saoaid jo jaquinN aiun|OA a/yn |Bjoi adA) |ood AJeiuud )U3Uld|8 6u|uuoj AjeuiMd aiun |0A |ood IBJOJJ o o 0. lood jo pug lood jo pe id uieajjs CO d 00 •tf d s o 3 CO CD O O O T - CD o d d d o CO CN CD CN CO r- CN CM CN CN O O T - O O O O -> -5 0 . 0 - -> 0- 0 . co to a. a. co o. n. o o m o c D t f - c o o J o c o r ^ o o O T t O r ^ l ^ O C M f - O O O T - O T O p C N C N <6cid^c>ciQCJc>d^c>cJc>c> T f j . ^ T Q . Q . Q . n . Q . O . Q . S j Q . S 9 ; C / > Q . C / ) C O 0 . 0 . Q . Q . Q . 0 . 0 . C / } Q . C 0 C 0 3 o £ j ° j 3 3 n 3 ' j s ' j o i J C 9 d ' j ' j i o i ) ] ' j £ Q 2 Q S | Q Q CO Q ? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO CO CO CO IS* coco t ' N t f a N c o ' c v i n o i O K O C O C D O O T - T - C N C N C N 00 0 0 O ) O > O 5 T — T - T — T— T— T— T— •tf CO CN CN iri o> cb •tf • * -tf CO IO CO (D S CO CO -tf oi iri cn CN N DO CO Ol CO CO I-. CD W N » S S f N n » i ( i ( O s o ) o i O T - c M n f i n « ) s c o o ) O f f i O O O O O O O O O i - T - T - T - T - T - t - T - - i - i - C N C N C N Q ) Q ) C T C 7 3 C n C T ) C J ) C 7 3 C T ) C 7 ) 0 ) C T C ) C J ) C T C T l C T C T C J ) C T C T C n c c c c c c c c c E c c c c c c c c c c c c •c -c c c c c -c c c c c c -c -c c -c c -c -c c c -c a a a a a a a a a a a d a a a a a a c i a a a C O C O C 0 C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C / 5 C 0 C O C / ) C O C O C O C / ) C O 141 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0090310/manifest

Comment

Related Items