2002 interior watershed assessment update mission...• in the spring of 1997, a 20 to 30 year peak...

2002 Interior Watershed Assessment Update

for the

MISSION CREEK WATERSHED

(Penticton Forest District)

Prepared forRiverside Forest Products Limited (Kelowna)

Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd. (Westbank)Tolko Industries Ltd. (Lavington)

Small Business Forest Enterprise Program (Penticton)

By

January 2003

Mission Creek Watershed Assessment 2002 Update Page i

File: 544-008 Project: 21031 Date: Jan. 03 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 METHODS.........................................................................................................................................................................................3

3.0 KEY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT ISSUES .........................................................................................................................3

4.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION.............................................................................................................................................4

4.1 SUMMARY OF THE 1998 IWAP CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................44.2 STATUS OF THE 1998 IWAP RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................54.3 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................................................64.4 UPPER MISSION CREEK TERRAIN STABILITY STUDY...............................................................................................................74.5 RESTORATION WORK COMPLETED SINCE 1998 .........................................................................................................................74.6 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................84.7 FISHERIES VALUES ........................................................................................................................................................................9

5.0 CURRENT WATERSHED CONDITION................................................................................................................................9

5.1 PEAK FLOWS...................................................................................................................................................................................95.2 SURFACE EROSION.......................................................................................................................................................................105.3 LANDSLIDES..................................................................................................................................................................................115.4 RIPARIAN ......................................................................................................................................................................................115.5 CHANNEL DISTURBANCE............................................................................................................................................................125.6 GRAZING IMPACTS.......................................................................................................................................................................135.7 HAZARD RATINGS........................................................................................................................................................................14

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED FOREST DEVELOPMENT (2002-2007)................................................................ 14

6.1 PEAK FLOWS.................................................................................................................................................................................146.2 SURFACE EROSION.......................................................................................................................................................................156.3 LANDSLIDES..................................................................................................................................................................................156.4 CHANNEL DISTURBANCE............................................................................................................................................................15

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................................. 17

Mission Creek Watershed Assessment 2002 Update Page ii


TABLES

TABLE 11998 Watershed Hazard Ratings for the Mission Creek Watershed

TABLE 2Remedial work completed on High Priority Field Sites in the Mission Creek Watershed

TABLE 3ECAs for the Mission Creek Watershed


FIGURES

FIGURE 1Location and Sub-basins of the Mission Creek Watershed

Mission Creek Watershed Assessment 2002 Update Page iii


APPENDICES

APPENDIX AOkanagan-Shuswap LRMP

APPENDIX BRound Table Meeting Minutes

APPENDIX CWatershed Report Cards

APPENDIX DWater Quality Assessment Summary

APPENDIX EField Assessment Information

APPENDIX FWatershed Maps


2002 Interior Watershed Assessment Updatefor the


1.0 INTRODUCTION

As requested by Riverside Forest Products Ltd., Kelowna Division (Riverside); Gorman Bros.Lumber Ltd. (Gormans); Tolko Industries Ltd., Lavington (Tolko); and the Small Business ForestEnterprise Program, Penticton (SBFEP) (the licensees), the Interior Watershed AssessmentProcedure (IWAP) for the Mission Creek watershed has been updated from the December 1998report to 2002. The IWAP update includes a summary of the 1998 IWAP, an office review ofwork completed since 1998, field assessments of selected sites in the watershed, andrecommendations for the development proposed in the forest development plan (FDP) update forthe period of 2002 to 2007. The current assessment was conducted in accordance with therequirements of the Okanagan-Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (refer toAppendix A for details).

The objectives of the report are as follows:

• Address the issues identified by the Watershed Assessment Committee (WAC) at theDecember 12, 2001 meeting.

• Present the current condition of the watershed based on the field assessments conducted inAugust 2002.

• Review the current five-year FDP (2002-2007) in relation to the current watershedcondition.

• Discuss the potential hydrologic effects of the proposed development and providerecommendations.

• Comply with the requirements of the Forest Practices Code Operational PlanningRegulation that watershed assessments must be completed for community watershedsevery three years and prior to submitting an FDP.

Mission Creek is located in the western portion of the Okanagan Highland and is the largesttributary of Okanagan Lake (Figure 1). The area of the community watershed above the BlackMountain Irrigation District (BMID) intake is approximately 60,000 ha. Elevations in thewatershed range from 640 m at the point of interest (POI) to over 1880 m at the headwaters.Average annual precipitation within the watershed ranges from 580 mm measured at the Joe RichStation (elevation 875 m) to approximately 1,640 mm above the 1,800 m elevation. Forestdevelopment in the watershed has occurred since the early 1900s starting in the lower portion ofthe watershed. The majority of harvesting occurred in the 1980s and was directed towards thecontrol of Mountain Pine Beetle infestations.

Mission Creek Watershed Assessment 2002 Update Page 3


2.0 METHODS

This IWAP report updates the results of the 1998 IWAP report and provides a summary of thepertinent background information. Some of the hazard ratings reported in this update report varyfrom those reported in the 1998 report because the methodology of the assessment has changed.The current IWAP procedure utilizes the April 1999 IWAP Guidebook, which is based primarilyon professional judgement and field investigations with office analyses as supporting information;whereas, the 1998 IWAP report was based primarily on results from office analyses with limitedfield investigations. The change in the assessment procedure results in the hazard ratingsreflecting the actual field conditions rather than the results of an office-based numerical analysis. To initiate the IWAP process, an initial round table meeting was held with the members of theWAC on December 12, 2001. At the initial WAC meeting, the 1998 IWAP report was reviewedand current water-related concerns for the Mission Creek Watershed were discussed (refer toAppendix B for initial meeting minutes). In the 2002 Mission Creek IWAP, the analysis of equivalent clearcut area (ECA) above the H60elevation was replaced with an analysis of ECA above the snowline (snowline at the time of peakflow), which was determined through the Adaptive Management Plan process [Mission CreekAdaptive Management; March 1999, 2000, and 2001; Dobson Engineering Ltd.] (refer to section4.3).

3.0 KEY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT ISSUES

At the December 12, 2001 WAC meeting, the following issues/actions were identified:

• Incorporate the Adaptive Management Planning process into the IWAP.Status—Addressed in sections 4.3 and 5.5.

• Incorporate fish concerns.Status—Addressed in section 4.7 and Appendix A.

• Address outstanding issues from the 1998 IWAP.Status—Addressed in sections 4.2 and 4.5.

• Conduct a modified reconnaissance channel assessment procedure (Re-CAP) on thewatershed and sub-basin mainstem channels downstream from recent and proposeddevelopment.Status—Addressed in section 5.5 and Appendix E.

• Update the watershed report cardStatus—Addressed in Appendix C.

• Incorporate the requirements of the LRMPStatus—Addressed in Appendix A.



4.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

4.1 Summary of the 1998 IWAP Conditions

The following is a summary of the 1998 IWAP conclusions:

• There does not appear to be any discernible increases in peak flows associated withpast forest development.

• Mainstem channels within the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basin are the

most active channels within the Mission Creek watershed. Several natural landslidesare directly connected to the upper mainstem channels within this sub-basin and havecontributed a significant amount of sediment to the Mission Creek system.

• In the spring of 1997, a 20 to 30 year peak flow event occurred in the Mission Creekwatershed, which resulted in extensive bank erosion, channel widening, and thereworking of vegetated bars within the mainstem channels upstream from Highway33.

• Mission Creek has been channelized and confined through the lower floodplain.

• Within the Daves Creek sub-basin, channel stability has been reduced as a result ofhigh ECAs and the occurrence of several landslides below Highway 33.

• Rural and agricultural activities have lead to dewatering and bank erosion throughthe lower reaches of Joe Rich Creek.

• Surface erosion on landslides along Mission Creek is a chronic source of sediment

resulting in reduced water quality during rainfall and spring freshet events. No majorpoint sources of sediment related to roads were identified, but roads situatedthroughout the watershed are considered to be a chronic dispersed source ofsediment.

• The proposed development (1998 to 2003) should not affect peak flows sinceprojected ECAs within the watershed and sub-basins are in the 15% to 20% range.One exception is the Belgo Creek sub-basin where the proposed maximum ECA is26% and is a moderate concern for increased peak flows.

• The proposed forest development is not expected to increase the frequency of

landslides since the majority of proposed development is on stable terrain.

A summary of the overall hazard ratings for 1998 is presented in Table 1.




HAZARD CATEGORYDrainage

Peak Flows SurfaceErosion

Landslides Riparian ChannelDisturbance*

Mission abovePearson

Low Moderate High Low

Pearson Low Moderate Low LowJoe Rich Low Moderate Low Moderate

Belgo Low Moderate Low ModerateDaves High Moderate Low High

Watershed Low Moderate High High* Not part of the assessment procedure in 1998.

4.2 Status of the 1998 IWAP Recommendations

The following is a list of the recommendations from the 1998 IWAP and the current statusof each:

• Recommendation 1—To minimize the risk of landslides and increasing bedload in themainstem channels of the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek and Pearson Creek sub-basins, conduct a detailed assessment to identify unstable terrain and develop appropriateroad construction and harvesting techniques.Status—The Upper Mission Creek Terrain Stability Study and terrain stability mappingwere completed in order to obtain better information about the locations of terraininstability and the initiating mechanisms. The Adaptive Management Plan has beenongoing for four years and has, in part, provided greater information about the potentialimpacts of forest development on peak flows and channel morphology through annualmonitoring of snow accumulation, snow ablation, snow line elevation during springfreshet, and channel morphology.

• Recommendation 2—Post-harvesting inspections should be conducted for all blocks toidentify and address any hydrologic concerns that may have occurred as a result ofharvesting activities.Status—Post-harvesting inspections are conducted as standard practice.

• Recommendation 3—A monitoring program should be established on mainstem channelswithin the watershed to identify changes in stream channel stability and sedimentmovement that could be considered in the development of long-term ECA levels in thesub-basins and the watershed.Status—Channel monitoring has been addressed through the Adaptive Management Planon streams in Riversides operating area, along with water quality monitoring conductedby Gormans.



• Recommendation 4—Periodic monitoring of non-status roads and recently deactivatedroads (non-status) should be carried out to confirm that sedimentation is not an issue.Status—Extensive deactivation was conducted through Watershed Restoration Program(WRP) funding; however, ongoing monitoring has not occurred due to lack of funding.

• Recommendation 5—Review the current priority of the 22 “high priority” sites that havenot been addressed as referenced in the 1996 Road Assessment report.Status—Three sites were reassessed in 2002 and are no longer considered high prioritysites, 9 other sites are located in the KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley sub-basins, and two othersites remain outstanding (refer to section 4.5).

• Recommendation 6—Consideration should be given to developing a consolidated long-term forest development plan for the watershed that includes all forest licenses andwoodlots.Status—This has been addressed through the Adaptive Management Planning process.

• Recommendation 7—To ensure that stream channel stability and water quality areprotected, determine the long-term sustainable level of harvest for the watershed basedon information collected from the channel monitoring sites, hydrometric data, and theconsolidated long-term FDP.Status—This has been addressed through the Adaptive Management Planning process.The final decision on the Greystokes Protected Area (Okanagan-Shuswap Land andResource Management Plan) since 1998 has influenced planning and development in thewatershed.

4.3 Adaptive Management Plan

In 1999, seven channel monitoring sites were established in the Mission Creek watershed as partof the Adaptive Management Plan to monitor potential changes in channel morphology. Channelmonitoring was conducted in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The results of the study have shownthat Mission Creek above Fish Hawk Creek, Belgo Creek, Lees Creek, and Un-named Creek arestable. Whereas, active bedload transport and localized minor bank erosion have occurred inMission Creek above Pearson Creek, Fish Hawk Creek, and Pearson Creek. It was suggested thatthese channel changes have resulted from the downstream movement of old landslide material,which were mostly non-forestry related, as opposed to increased peak flows.

In addition to channel monitoring, Riverside conducted snow accumulation/ablation andsnowline studies in the Mission Creek watershed during the spring freshets of 1999, 2000,2001, and 2002 as part of the Adaptive Management Plan. The snow accumulation/ablationstudy was used to determine the effects of forest harvesting on snow accumulation and melt.The snowline study was used to determine the areas within the watershed where peak flowsare generated. Together, these two studies provide detailed information regarding thehydrologic sensitivities in the Mission Creek watershed. It was determined that the areaswithin the watershed that are sensitive to the effects of forest cover on peak flows (snowsensitive zone) are in the Pearson Creek and Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basins,above approximately 1400 m (refer to Map 1 in Appendix E for the exact location of the



line). Based on these studies, several recommendations were made to guide forestdevelopment in the watershed, aimed at limiting future forest development related effects onpeak flows, channel stability, and associated water quality impacts.

4.4 Upper Mission Creek Terrain Stability Study

A terrain stability study was conducted in the upper Mission Creek watershed in 2000 [UpperMission Creek Terrain Stability Study; March 2000; Westrek Geotechnical Services] to providedirection to the Adaptive Management Plan. The study was initiated to address concerns relatedto the high level of suspended sediment and bedload transport in Mission Creek following the1997 spring freshet and the extent of channel disturbance through downstream private land. Atotal of 95 active and inactive landslides and erosional features were identified in the upperwatershed. The dates of occurrence of the landslide events appeared to be 1974 and 1997. It wasconcluded that these events are part of the natural processes involved in the formation of thevalley. Ninety-seven percent of the identified landslides occurred naturally and approximately75% of the disturbance occurred in unlogged portions of the watershed. It was suggested thatfuture landslide and erosion events should be expected and that the introduced debris will increasethe availability of sediment within the channel system. It was suggested that increased peak flowscould also increase the rates of erosion and the occurrence of landslide activity related toerosional undercutting.

4.5 Restoration Work completed since 1998

Since 1998, 358.1 km of road has been semi-permanently deactivated in the watershed. As of2002, a total of 420.4 km of road has been permanently or semi-permanently deactivated. Inaddition, most roads that are not mainlines or semi-permanently/permanently deactivated are in atemporary state of deactivation to control drainage. Since 1998, 194.8 km of new road has beenconstructed totaling 1096.5 km for the watershed.

In 1994 and 1995, a total of 37 high priority road assessment/surface erosion sites were identifiedin the Mission Creek watershed (includes KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley Creeks; Road ConditionAssessment Report - Mission Creek completed by Dobson Engineering Ltd. in 1996). The 1998Mission Creek IWAP report indicated that 13 of these sites were deactivated in 1997 and 2 werereassessed in 1998 and were not considered a high priority. The remaining 22 sites had not beenaddressed.

In 2002, the inventory of outstanding sites was reviewed and indicated that only 14 high prioritysites remained outstanding in 1998. The reason for this discrepancy in numbers is uncertain (22sites versus 14 sites). Of these, 9 sites are located in the KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley sub-basins andwere not reviewed during the 2002 field investigations (refer to Table 2). Of the remaining 5sites, three were reassessed and two were not reassessed (unable to locate one site). The threesites that were reassessed are no longer considered high priority sites (sites 11, 45, 46; refer toAppendices E and F).



TABLE 2Remedial work completed on High Priority Field Sites in the Mission Creek Watershed

2002Site No.

1996Site No.

1996 Site Details Comments/2002 Condition

5 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley9 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley10 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley15 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley16 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley17 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley19 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley20 Addressed in 1998 IWAP21 Addressed in 1998 IWAP22 Addressed in 1998 IWAP23 Addressed in 1998 IWAP24 Addressed in 1998 IWAP25 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley26 KLO/Hydraulic/Pooley28 Addressed in 1998 IWAP31 Addressed in 1998 IWAP

45 38 Old Philpott slide area; stabilityconcerns

Reassessed in 2002; continued erosion onsurface of slide; sediment pond at outlet ofcrossing minimizes transport downstream

45 Sediment delivery from skid trails intocreek

Not reviewed in 2002

46 46 Plugged wood culvert; washing road;Hilda Creek downslope

Reassessed in 2002; crossing is stable

11 50 Fill slope eroding and deliveringsediment to creek

Reassessed in 2002; fill slope is stable

58 Fill slope failure into stream Reviewed in 2002; unable to locate in field

4.6 Water Quality Assessment and objectives

A report titled Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Mission Creek CommunityWatershed was completed by Burke Phippen and BWP Consulting in January 2001, for theBC Environment. This report summarized the data collected at 12 monitoring sites in thewatershed between 1996 and 1999. One of the sampling sites was an automated waterquality monitoring station that was established immediately upstream from the BMIDintake.

The report concluded that the Mission Creek watershed is a prime candidate for waterquality impacts due to the extent of forest development, cattle grazing, and recreationalactivity coupled with the natural instability of portions of the watershed. Water qualityobjectives for coliform bacteria, turbidity, true colour, dissolved organic carbon, watertemperature, and total suspended solids are summarized in Appendix D. The reportrecommended that the automated station be operated for the next three years during springfreshet and supplemented with grab samples between one month prior to spring freshet untilthe end of summer each year.



4.7 Fisheries Values

Mission Creek provides habitat for several fish species including kokanee, rainbow trout, redsideshiners, and longnose dace. Fisheries resources are an important value in the lower portion of thechannel. Waterfalls are located at approximately 19 km upstream from Okanagan Lake andpresent a barrier to fish; resident rainbow trout occur above the falls.

5.0 CURRENT WATERSHED CONDITION

The current watershed report card for the Mission Creek watershed is presented in Appendix C.The 2002 report card includes all forest development completed up to, and including, January 1,2002. A modified reconnaissance channel assessment procedure was completed at several sitesassessed in the 1998 IWAP, as well as downstream from recent and proposed development. Thedetailed results of the assessment are provided in Appendix E and the watershed assessment mapsare provided in Appendix F. A total of 47 sites were reviewed in the field. The representation offorest cover disturbance on the maps does not differentiate between complete forest removal andonly partial removal; however, the percentage of forest removal for burned areas and partial cutswas accounted for in the ECA calculations. In the current assessment (2002), some of the hazardratings are lower than those reported in the 1998 IWAP report due to changes in the assessmentprocedure, as explained in the Methods section (section 2.0).

5.1 Peak Flows

The peak flow hazard ratings are maintained at low for the entire watershed and all of the sub-basins except the Daves Creek sub-basin (Table 4). The ECAs for the entire watershed and theMission Creek above Pearson Creek, Pearson Creek, and Belgo Creek sub-basins have alldecreased slightly since the 1998 IWAP (Table 3) and are considered low. In addition, peak flowrelated channel disturbance was not observed in these sub-basins during the 2002 fieldinvestigations. Channel disturbance along Mission Creek mainstem and lower Pearson Creek(sites 13b, 17, 22, 32, 34, 42, 47) is related to old landslides (97% are natural as suggested by theUpper Mission Creek Terrain Stability Study; refer to section 4.4) and disturbance through themiddle and lower reaches of Belgo Creek (sites 13a) is related to the removal of riparianvegetation on private land and old landslide impacts. The ECA for the Joe Rich Creek sub-basinhas increased by 3.3% since 1998, but is considered low at 13.7%. Joe Rich Creek is moderatelyto severely disturbed through the middle and lower reaches due to riparian harvesting on privateland and further aggravation by landslides off Highway 33 (sites 15-17); however, peak flowimpacts were not observed. The lack of peak flow impacts observed during the 2002 fieldinvestigations, the results of the channel monitoring under the Adaptive Management Plan (referto section 4.3), and the low ECAs all support low peak flow hazard ratings for these basins.

The peak flow hazard rating is reduced from high to moderate for the Daves Creek sub-basin.The hazard was rated as high in the 1998 IWAP based primarily on the high sub-basin ECA, butalso the associated channel instability. During the 2002 field investigations, evidence of channelrecovery was observed in the middle reaches, as indicated by minor amounts of moss on rocksand the aging of past bank scour (sites 40, 41, 43). These factors coupled with the robustness ofthe channel in the middle and lower reaches (boulder dominated with some cobble and gravel)



support reducing the peak flow hazard rating to moderate for the Daves Creek sub-basin. This isconsistent with the decrease in ECA by 10.3% since 1998 to 37.0%.

TABLE 3ECAs for the Mission Creek Watershed

Equivalent Clear-cut Area (%)Drainage

1997Current(January1/2002)*

Proposed(2007)*


14.9 10.3 13.0

Pearson 13.2 12.2 15.4Joe Rich 10.4 13.7 19.6

Belgo 23.9 20.7 23.0Daves 47.3 37.0 28.2

Watershed 19.3 16.2 18.4

5.2 Surface Erosion

The surface erosion hazard ratings are reduced to low from moderate for the Pearson Creek andBelgo Creek sub-basins. Most of the active and deactivated roads that were reviewed during fieldinvestigations were stable with negligible to minor amounts of sediment delivered to the channelsystem (applies to the entire watershed). An old wood culvert on a branch road off MugfordRidge FSR was failing during the field review, but has since been deactivated (site 10). Theactive landslides connected to the lower reach of Pearson Creek continue to deliver sediment tothe channel system (sites 22); however, notwithstanding the significance of the initial landslidedeposit in Pearson Creek, the hydrologic impacts of continued erosion in both sub-basins isminor. The minimal amount of sediment delivered to the channels from surface erosion in thePearson Creek and Belgo Creek sub-basins warrants reducing the surface erosion hazard ratingsto low.

The surface erosion hazard ratings are maintained at moderate for the Joe Rich Creek, DavesCreek, and Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basins, and for the entire watershed. Minorsurface erosion was observed at the Joe Rich Creek and JR road crossing (site 14), but theimpacts are negligible. However, extensive amounts of sediment are likely delivered to Joe RichCreek from surface erosion on the numerous bank failures through the private land in the lowerreaches, as well as from the landslides off Highway 33 in the middle reaches (sites 15-17). Inaddition, the mainstem channel has avulsed in the middle reaches and flows down an old skid,which delivers sediment to the channel system (personal communication with Todd Cashin,Regional District of Central Okanagan). The cumulative impacts to water quality are likelysignificant and warrant a moderate surface erosion hazard rating. For the Daves Creek sub-basin,minor to moderate surface erosion was observed around the Daves Creek crossings at Highway



33 and Goudie Road. At Highway 33, sediment is delivered to the channel system from thecutslope approximately 50 m east of the crossing and from the fillslope immediately above theculverts (site 41). At Goudie Road, the fill material around the inlet of the crossing has erodedand sediment is delivered from a ~150 m long ditch directly connected to the channel on the westside of the crossing (site 40). These erosion sites along with the minor to severe livestock impactsat channel crossings in the headwaters (sites 35, 36, 38, 39) and the landslides below Highway 33warrant a moderate surface erosion hazard rating for the sub-basin. For the Mission Creek abovePearson Creek sub-basin and the entire Mission Creek watershed, the sediment delivered from theactive landslides connected to Mission Creek mainstem impacts the water quality in MissionCreek and warrants moderate surface erosion hazard ratings.

5.3 Landslides

The landslide hazard ratings remain low for the Pearson Creek, Joe Rich Creek, Belgo Creek, andDaves Creek sub-basins. Past landslides impacted the mainstem channels in all of these sub-basins; however, their influence on the hydrologic condition of the Mission Creek watershed isnegligible compared to the impacts of the landslides along the mainstem of Mission Creek. Inaddition, no recent landslides have been confirmed in any of these sub-basins; although, recentbedload movement in Joe Rich Creek upstream from Highway 33 suggests that there may havebeen recent landslide activity on the slopes below Highway 33 (site 15). As in 1998, the channelis slightly to moderately aggraded, but it is uncertain whether the recent bedload transport activityis related to the transport of old landslide material or more recent landslide activity. The increasein bedload transport, resulting from the landslides combined with material from channelwidening through the private land on the north side of Highway 33, has caused the culverts at theHighway 33 crossing to in-fill and requires immediate attention (site 16). The landslide impactsare minor compared to the impacts from the bank erosion on the private land (sites 16, 17).Overall, the landslide hazard ratings for the Pearson Creek, Joe Rich Creek, Belgo Creek, andDaves Creek sub-basins are rated as low.

The landslide hazard ratings remain high for the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basinand the entire watershed. Between 1998 and 2002, only one landslide occurred in the MissionCreek watershed (notwithstanding the possibility of recent landslide activity in the Joe RichCreek sub-basin below Highway 33). It is located in the Mission Creek above Pearson Creeksub-basin and contributed only minor amounts of sediment to Mission Creek (site 44). Sinceoccurring, it has been rehabilitated and is stable. However, the results of the Upper MissionCreek Terrain Stability Study suggest that future landslide and erosion events should be expectedand that increased peak flows could increase rates of erosion and the occurrence of landslideactivity related to erosional undercutting. Due to the extensive channel and water quality impactscaused by the past landslides and the potential for additional landslides, high landslide hazardratings are warranted for the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basin and the entireMission Creek watershed.

5.4 Riparian

The riparian hazard ratings are maintained at low for the Pearson Creek and Mission Creek abovePearson Creek sub-basins, and is maintained at moderate for the Belgo Creek sub-basin. As in1998, the majority of riparian vegetation in the Pearson Creek and Mission Creek above Pearson



Creek sub-basins is intact and contributing to channel stability and complexity. In the headwatersof the Belgo Creek sub-basin, riparian harvesting has occurred adjacent to several small channels(< 3 m width) in an effort to control Mountain Pine Beetle, but has not impacted channel stability(site 4, 6, 8). However, riparian harvesting on private land through the lower and middle reachesof the Belgo Creek mainstem channel has lead to bank instability and channel aggradation (site13a) and, thereby, warrants a moderate riparian hazard rating.

The riparian hazard rating is reduced to moderate from high for the Daves Creek sub-basin.Extensive riparian harvesting has occurred along many of the small headwater channels in theDaves Creek sub-basin, which, in combination with livestock activity, has lead to channelinstability (sites 35, 36, 38, 39). These disturbances have likely resulted in elevated levels ofsediment transport throughout the sub-basin, but have lead to only minimal channel impactsthrough the middle and lower reaches since the high channel gradient causes the fine sediment tobe readily transported through the entire system. Overall, based on current conditions, a moderateriparian hazard rating is warranted.

The riparian hazard rating is increased to high from moderate for the Joe Rich Creek sub-basin.Past riparian harvesting on private agriculture lands adjacent to the mainstem channel has lead tosevere bank instabilities through the lower reaches with moderate channel aggradation andreduced channel complexity (site 17). In addition, recent riparian harvesting and landdevelopment activity on private land immediately upstream from Highway 33 has resulted insevere channel widening as well as in-filling of the Highway 33 crossing (site 16). Theseinstabilities have increased the supply of sediment to Mission Creek. Although all of the riparianharvesting associated channel and water quality impacts in the Joe Rich Creek sub-basin arerelated to private land activities, the levels of these impacts are severe and warrant a high riparianhazard rating for the entire sub-basin. The implications to upstream forest development are tomanage harvest levels (ECAs) in order to avoid increasing peak flows, which could exacerbatethe channel instabilities.

The riparian hazard rating is reduced to moderate from high for the entire watershed. Overall, theimpacts of riparian harvesting in the Mission Creek watershed on channel stability and waterquality are relatively minor compared to the impacts related to the landslides along the mainstemof Mission Creek. As a result, a riparian hazard rating of moderate is warranted for the MissionCreek watershed as a whole.

5.5 Channel Disturbance

The channel disturbance hazard ratings are high for the Joe Rich Creek and Daves Creek sub-basins. Riparian harvesting on private land adjacent to Joe Rich Creek has lead to severe bankerosion and de-watered sections of channel. Problems in the Joe Rich channel have been furtheraggravated by landslides off Highway 33 (sites 15-17), as well as severe erosion on private landupstream from the Highway 33 crossing that occurred during the week of May 19-25, 2002 (site16). At this location, riparian harvesting and land development recently occurred along a ~150 msection of channel. The channel has widened from ~3.5 m to as much as ~12 m, and hascontributed at least 650 m3 of sediment to the channel system. Sediment has subsequentlydeposited in the culverts at the Highway 33 crossing, which are nearly filled and requireimmediate attention. In the Daves Creek sub-basin, cumulative impacts from increased peak



flows related to high ECAs, landslides off Highway 33 (site 41), riparian harvesting on privateland in the middle reaches and on Crown land in the headwaters, and subsequent extensivelivestock impacts have caused channel disturbance (sites 35, 36, 38, 39). Evidence of channelrecovery was observed through the middle reaches of Daves Creek, as indicated by minoramounts of moss on some rocks and the aging of past bank scour (sites 40, 43); however, themainstem channels in both sub-basins are sensitive to forest development in terms of the potentialfor peak flow and landslide impacts.

For the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek and Belgo Creek sub-basins, the channel disturbancehazard ratings are moderate. The deposition of landslide material in Fish Hawk Creek andMission Creek (97% natural landslides) has resulted in minor to moderate channel aggradationand bank scour along Mission Creek mainstem upstream from Daves Creek (sites 13b, 17, 32, 34,42). Although minor channel recovery was observed during the 2002 field investigations, recentchannel monitoring under the Adaptive Management Planning process has indicated that activetransport of old landslide material has occurred in Mission Creek above Pearson Creek and FishHawk Creek (as well as Pearson Creek; refer to section 4.3). For Belgo Creek, the channelmonitoring indicates that the channel is stable in relation to the downstream movement of oldlandslide material; however, riparian harvesting through the lower and middle reaches of BelgoCreek (primarily on private land) has resulted in continued bank erosion and channel aggradation.

The channel disturbance hazard rating is low for the Pearson Creek sub-basin. Although thelower reach of Pearson Creek has minor to moderate channel aggradation and active bedloadtransport due to an old landslide (site 22), the remaining channel is generally stable with riparianvegetation generally intact (site 19). In addition, minor channel recovery through the lower reachwas observed during the 2002 field investigations.

The channel disturbance hazard rating is moderate for the entire Mission Creek watershed. Evenwith the existing disturbance levels in Joe Rich, Belgo, Pearson, and Daves Creeks, the conditionof the Mission Creek mainstem and the overall hydrologic condition of the Mission Creekwatershed is dominated by the impacts of the numerous landslides connected to Fish Hawk andMission Creeks. Overall, the level of disturbance to Mission Creek mainstem is consistent with amoderate channel disturbance hazard rating.

5.6 Grazing Impacts

Livestock are present in the watershed and cause channel disturbance. Livestock impacts arenegligible throughout most of the watershed; however, minor to severe livestock impactswere observed throughout the upper portion of the Daves Creek sub-basin and are a highconcern for potential hydrologic impacts (sites 35, 36, 38, 39). Livestock impacts are also aconcern for Joe Rich Creek through the private agriculture lands. Livestock activity oftenoccurs in the same locations year after year and contributes sediment and manure to thewater.



5.7 Hazard Ratings

A summary of the overall hazard ratings is presented in Table 4:


HAZARD CATEGORYDrainage

Peak Flows SurfaceErosion

Landslides Riparian ChannelDisturbance


Low Moderate High Low Moderate

Pearson Low Low Low Low LowJoe Rich Low Moderate Low High High

Belgo Low Low Low Moderate ModerateDaves Moderate Moderate Low Moderate High

Watershed Low Moderate High Moderate Moderate

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED FOREST DEVELOPMENT (2002-2007) A total of 3174.9 ha of timber are proposed for harvest in the Mission Creek watershed during theperiod of 2002 to 2007 representing 5.3% of the watershed area. The blocks are generally welldistributed between all of the sub-basins except Daves Creek (only 13.6 ha proposed). Thewatershed report card incorporating the development proposed to 2007 is presented in AppendixC. 6.1 Peak Flows

The trend is for continuing hydrologic recovery with declining ECAs. The 2007 ECAs areproposed to be lower than the 1997 ECAs (reported in the 1998 IWAP) for the MissionCreek above Pearson Creek, Belgo Creek, and Daves Creek sub-basins, and for the entireMission Creek watershed (Table 3). In fact, the 2007 Daves Creek ECA is proposed to be19% lower than that in 1997. For the Pearson Creek and Joe Rich Creek sub-basins, the2007 ECAs are proposed to be higher than the 1997 ECAs; however, the 2007 ECAs willremain under 20% and are considered low. For the Pearson Creek and Mission Creek abovePearson Creek sub-basins, the ECAs above the snowline are proposed to increase by 2.7% to3.7% and by 6.1% to 10.5%, respectively (calculated as the ECA in hectares above thesnowline divided by the area above the snowline). Any potential peak flow increases willlikely be negligible. It is expected that the peak flow hazard ratings for all of the sub-basinsand the entire watershed would remain unchanged or decrease. It should be noted that the blocks proposed for CP 141 (southern portion of the blocksproposed in the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basin; refer to Map 2 in Appendix



F) were also reviewed in the 1998 IWAP (among others). Since 1998, Riverside hasincreased the block sizes and reduced the total number of blocks without increasing the totalharvest area. Riverside has also indicated that similar changes will be made to CP 116(northern portion of the blocks proposed in the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basin). Since peak flow increases are driven more by total harvest areas (i.e. ECA) than byindividual block sizes, it is not expected that these changes would lead to discernible peakflow increases.

6.2 Surface Erosion

In total, 133.4 km of road is proposed for construction in the Mission Creek watershed between2002 and 2007. Overall, the surface erosion concerns in the Mission Creek watershed arelocalized issues. It is not expected that the forest development proposed for the watershed wouldincrease the surface erosion hazard ratings as long as the cumulative impacts from roads areminimized by road construction, deactivation, and maintenance procedures consistent with theFPC.

6.3 Landslides

The Upper Mission Creek Terrain Stability Study suggested that increased peak flows couldincrease the rates of erosion and the occurrence of landslide activity related to erosionalundercutting (refer to section 4.4). Since the proposed development is not expected to increasethe peak flow hazard ratings for any of the sub-basins or the entire Mission Creek watershed, it isunlikely that the proposed development would lead to increased landslide activity related toerosional undercutting.

Several cutblocks and approximately 2.4 km of road are proposed on potentially unstable terrain(class IV terrain). Terrain Stability Field Assessments (TSFA) are required for these blocks androads to ensure that the potential for landslides is not increased by the development. Providedthat the TSFAs indicate that the development proposed on potentially unstable terrain isacceptable, the landslide hazard ratings for the entire watershed and the sub-basins are expected toremain unchanged.

6.4 Channel Disturbance

The majority of the proposed development is well removed from the channel system and shouldnot affect channel stability. Most of the concerns regarding the current channel conditions arerelated to non-forestry impacts. One exception is the Daves Creek sub-basin where the ECA ishigh; however, the ECA has decreased by 10.3% since 1997 (as reported in the 1998 IWAP) andis proposed to decrease an additional 8.8% to 28.2% in 2007. Only 13.6 ha are proposed forharvest in the Daves Creek sub-basin. In the Joe Rich Creek sub-basin, the ECA is proposed toincrease by 5.9% to 19.6% in 2007. Although the lower reach of Joe Rich Creek is sensitive topotential peak flow increases, ECAs under 20% are considered low and any potential increase inpeak flows should be negligible. It is unlikely that the forest development proposed for theMission Creek watershed would increase the channel disturbance hazard ratings as long as theriparian management practices are consistent with the FPC.



7.0 CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were determined based on a review of the current condition of theMission Creek watershed and the proposed forest development:

• The proposed development is generally a low concern for potential peak flow, surface erosion,

landslide, and channel disturbance impacts.

• In terms of forestry related impacts, the Mission Creek watershed is considered to be in goodcondition, overall.

• Sediment continues to be delivered to Mission Creek from the numerous natural landslidesconnected to Mission, Fish Hawk, and Pearson Creeks, and active bedload transport of oldlandslide material is ongoing. Minor channel recovery was observed during fieldinvestigations.

• The landslide impacts in Mission and Fish Hawk Creeks continue to dominate the hydrologiccondition of the entire Mission Creek watershed.

• The Joe Rich Creek sub-basin is now considered the most sensitive sub-basin in the watersheddue to the channel and water quality impacts associated with private land activities. Severebank erosion along Joe Rich Creek resulting from recent and past riparian harvesting onprivate land has continued, and has been further aggravated by landslides upstream from theHighway 33 crossing and a channel avulsion down an old skid trail. The two culverts at theHighway 33 crossing are nearly filled with eroded material and require immediate attention.

• Channel instability is a concern through the private lands in lower Belgo Creek resulting fromriparian harvesting on private land and old landslides. Riparian harvesting related to thecontrol of Mountain Pine Beetle has occurred in the headwaters, but has not led to notablechannel impacts.

• Substantial hydrologic recovery has occurred in the Daves Creek sub-basin and evidence ofchannel recovery was observed in the middle reaches. The landslides below Highway 33 arewell vegetated, but sediment is delivered to Daves Creek from surface erosion at the Highway33 and Goudie Road crossings. Minor to severe livestock impacts continue in the headwaters,which is subsequent to past riparian harvesting.



8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Forest Development Plan (FDP) Related Issues • In order to promote continued hydrologic recovery in the Daves Creek sub-basin, ECAs

should decrease to a moderate level (i.e. 30%+/-). After recovery occurs, a reassessmentshould be conducted to determine appropriate long-term ECA levels.

• In order to maintain existing channel stability and to protect water quality, it is recommendedto consider natural barriers (e.g. riparian buffers, debris, topography, etc.) to restrict livestockaccess to channels (for stream classes as defined in the FPC) during layout of development inareas with potential for livestock disturbance.

• It is recommended that the ECA for the Joe Rich Creek sub-basin be maintained at low levels(i.e. 20%-25%) in order to avoid aggravating existing channel instabilities through the middleand lower reaches. After channel recovery has been confirmed, a reassessment should beconducted to determine appropriate long-term ECA levels.

• For the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basin, it is recommended that the ECA forthe entire sub-basin be maintained below 25% and the ECA above the snowline be maintainedbelow 20% (calculated as the ECA in hectares above the snowline divided by the area abovethe snowline) in order to limit the potential for peak flow increases and landslides caused byerosional undercutting (refer to section 4.4).

Non-FDP Issues

• The collapsing wood culvert on the branch road off Mugford Ridge FSR (site 10) should bedeactivated or replaced in order to reduce surface erosion and safety hazards. (Has beenaddressed. Refer to section 5.2 in report.)

• In order to reduce the risk to the Highway 33 crossing, it is recommended that the pluggedculverts at the Joe Rich Creek crossing of Highway 33 be cleared of accumulated sediment assoon as possible and no later than March 2003.

• It is recommended that the erosion into Daves Creek from the Goudie Road and Highway 33crossings be controlled or eliminated.

• The landslides off Highway 33 into Joe Rich Creek should be assessed for stability andremedial measures should be considered to minimize the potential for additional hydrologicimpacts.

• It is recommended that alternate livestock management practices be considered in the DavesCreek sub-basin in order to reduce congregation in channels and riparian areas.



• In order to regain the stability of Joe Rich Creek and reduce the delivery of sediment to theMission Creek channel system, it is recommended that private landowners, licensees,government agencies, and other organizations collaborate to implement remedial measures toJoe Rich Creek through the middle and lower reaches (i.e. Crown land below the Highway 33landslides and through the lower private lands).

• It is recommended that private landowners consider remedial measures to lower Belgo Creekto restore channel stability and reduce the delivery of sediment to the lower Belgo andMission Creek channel systems.

R.S. Smith, RPFProject Hydrologist

D.A. Dobson, P.Eng.Senior Reviewer

RS/dd

APPENDICES

APPENDIX AOkanagan-Shuswap LRMP

Okanagan Shuswap LRMPGeneral Resource Management; Water 3-26

Table 2 Attributes Addressed in the Mission Creek IWAP Update

The IWAP must address the objectives and strategies presented in the Water sub-section within the GeneralResource Management section of the Okanagan-Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).Within this sub-section, Parts 3 and 4 are relevant to the completion of the Mission Creek IWAP.

Part three states that, as an objective of the LRMP, the development must "maintain the integrity of thehydrometric inventory system (e.g., buffering snow courses and stream gauging stations)". A Ministry ofSustainable Resource Management snow pillow measurement station and a snow course site are located inthe Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basin. The development proposed in the FDP has been laid outwith consideration for these sites.

Part four states that the development must "achieve and maintain properly functioning conditions of streamsincluding the timing and magnitude of flows". This objective is addressed by the conditions outlined inTable 2 of the General Resource Management section. The following text is a presentation of the issuesaddressed in the current IWAP as they relate to the requirements presented in Table 2. The objectives andguidelines presented below are from the report titled Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for MissionCreek Community Watershed [January 2001; Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks] .

Sediment

Total suspended solids (TSS) or non-filterable residue data are available for Mission Creek watershedfor the period 1996-1999. There is no guideline for TSS for potable water; however, there areguidelines for aquatic life (TSS levels should not increase more than 10 mg/L above ambient levels).Mean TSS levels ranged from 4.2 mg/L in Belgo Creek downstream from Ideal Lake to 16 mg/L inMission Creek below Pearson Creek. Maximum values of 210 and 217 mg/L were recorded in twosamples collected in Mission Creek at the BMID intake on June 6, 1997.

Turbidity data were also collected for Mission Creek. The objectives were established as follows:turbidity in raw drinking water that is to be chlorinated should not exceed 5 NTU for more than twocontinuous hours at the BMID intake; at all other locations upstream from the point of diversion, thehuman-induced turbidity should not exceed the greater amount of 10% above the background or 5NTU. In 1998 and 1999, 98.3% and 75.6% of the samples were lower than 5 NTU, respectively. In1999, 83.5% of the samples were lower than 10 NTU. The turbidity levels measured in 1998 are muchlower than that in 1999 because the sampling in 1998 commenced after the spring freshet occurred. Itis likely that the elevated turbidity levels typical in Mission Creek are related to the downstreammovement of old landslide material and the erosion of stream banks related to the removal of riparianvegetation on private land.

It is likely that the suspended sediment concentrations would be consistent with the following criteria:

• It should usually be possible to maintain good or moderate fisheries in waters that normally contain25 to 80 mg/L.

The proposed development is not expected to exacerbate the sediment issues in the Mission Creekwatershed since the development is generally well removed from the channel system and it is unlikelythat peak flows will increase.

Peak Flows

The peak flow hazard rating for the watershed with regards to forest development is low. Based on thechannel conditions and the ECA for the entire watershed, the current and proposed developmentshould achieve the following criteria:

• Maintain the hydrograph peak flow and return periods within the range of the downstream-evolvednatural channel capacity.

• Maintain the timing of the rising and falling limbs and the base flow components of the hydrographwithin the normal range.

Riparian

The riparian hazard rating is moderate for the entire watershed; however, the hazard rating is mainlyrelated to the harvest of riparian vegetation on private land and is generally unrelated to forestdevelopment.

Channel Assessments

The channel disturbance hazard rating is low for the Pearson Creek sub-basin. The channeldisturbance hazard ratings are moderate for the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek and Belgo Creeksub-basins, and for the entire watershed. The channel disturbance hazard ratings are high for the JoeRich Creek and Daves Creek sub-basins. The moderate and high ratings are mainly related to naturaland non-forestry factors. The only exception is Daves Creek, which has been disturbed by increasedpeak flows (high ECAs) coupled with landslides off Highway 33, riparian harvesting on private andCrown lands, and subsequent livestock impacts. The development proposed in the 2002 to 2007 FDPis not expected to exacerbate the existing watershed sensitivities.

Other attributes concerning water quality for human consumption

• coliform: For raw, untreated water, the Water Quality Guidelines recommend a 90th percentile of =10 CFU/100ml (based on a minimum of 10 samples collected over a 30-day period). For the period1996-1999, the 90th percentile for fecal coliforms at the BMID diversion was 16.9 CFU/100mL.The elevated coliform concentrations are likely related to wildlife and domestic livestock.

• temperature: The Water Quality Guidelines recommend temperatures <15 oC. For the period 1996-1999, water temperatures exceeded the guideline at the BMID diversion 7 out of 90 times. Theelevated summertime stream temperatures experienced in Mission Creek are characteristic of largestreams in the Okanagan, which are not well shaded due to the channel width.

• nitrate/nitrite/phosphorus: Trace• pesticides: Not sampled• algae: Not sampled

APPENDIX BRound Table Meeting Minutes

Interior Watershed Assessment Procedurefor the

Mission Creek Watershed

Initial Roundtable Meeting Minutes

Date: December 12, 2001Location: Riverside Woodlands Office

Participants

Barb Pryce, MOF (Chair)Jerome Jang, MOFAlan Rasmussen, MOFRay King, Public HealthTony Zanotto, MOFPhil Ruskowsky, B.M.I.D.Joel Springer, GormansJerome Girard, RiversideJohn Pethybridge, MOFMike Jobke, MOF

Des Anderson, WLAPMary-Ann Graham, RDCOKerry Rouck, GormansRussell Smith, DELMike Doiron, RiversideMic Werstiuk, WFNTodd Cashin, RDCODon Dobson, DELTed McCrae, MOFDebbie Zandbelt, Tolko

Review of Agenda

Terms of Reference for Technical Advisory Committee (Barb Pryce)

Ø Three-year requirement to update watershed assessments, this assessment applies to Mission Creekcommunity watershed, not the entire drainage basin that flows into Mission Creek

Ø IWAP pertains to crown lands only; focus on forest related development (FDP related)Ø Non FDP items can be identified by the hydrologist, and can be addressed in the reportØ Public health representation and Range representation in 2001, were not present in 1998Ø The Technical Advisory Committee can make additional recommendations not included in the

hydrologists’ report; these are separate from the hydrologists’ recommendationsØ The assessment will be conducted according to the April 1999 guidebookØ There are 4 FDPs plus woodlots in Mission CreekØ Mission Creek EWAC – LRMP productØ EWAC has not started yet, separate from IWAP but linked, the two processes can feed information

to each otherØ EWAC covers crown, private and municipal landsØ EWAC is led by MSRM, and has a much broader scope than an IWAPØ Mike Jobke is the MOF rep on EWACØ More information on the EWAC and the LRMP can be found at the following websiteØ http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/sir/lrmp/okan/

Review of previous WAP report (Don Dobson)

Ø Review of 1998 conclusions - See handouts in Appendix 1Ø ECA – Equivalent Clearcut Area – definition givenØ Mission Creek IWAP covers Mission Creek above the Black Mountain Intake, Hydraulic Creek

portion not assessed in this WAPØ Series of slides in Upper Mission, Fish Hawk all natural slides around 1963Ø Hazard table from 1998 presented, explanation given that the ratings may be different in this

assessment due to a change in assessment procedure, not necessarily changes on the ground. Thenew Assessment is based on a qualified professional field assessment.

Ø Review of 1998 recommendations – See handouts in Appendix 1Ø One additional recommendation was put forward from the committee

Review and update on 1998 WAP recommendations (Barb Pryce)

See Appendix 2 for list of Recommendations

Recommendation #1 (FDP)Mike Doiron gave an update of the Adaptive Management Planning that has been completed inMission Creek. Mission Creek probably the most documented and planned watershed in thedistrict. Riverside, Gormans, Tolko, and SBFEP are involved in the Adaptive Management Plan.Terrain Stability Mapping was also completed.Hydrological Information in the Adaptive Management Plan – ECA’s, channel information, H60line location, and annual flight infoShift away from ECA’s to measure the condition of a watershed, condition of the channel is moreindicative of what is happening to the watershed condition (Don D.)Peak flows are fed from Pearson and Upper Mission, not Little White and Belgo as might havebeen thought

Recommendation # 2 (FDP)Completed as standard practise through Environmental Management System (EMS) procedures

Recommendation #3 (FDP)Sites have been established as per Adaptive Management Plan plus Gormans is doing some spotsampling on feeder streams

Recommendation #4 (Non FDP)Reported to MOF Engineering section, subject to funding, DEL to check status for final report

Recommendation #5 (Non FDP)Same as #4

Recommendation #6 (Non FDP)Adaptive Management Plan is heading towards the consolidated long term FDP

Recommendation #7 (Non FDP)Ties in with the Adaptive Management Plan, establishment of the Graystokes Protected Area since1998 has influenced planning and development within the watershed

Recommendation #8 (Non FDP)CORD in partnership with DFO have hired a habitat specialist (Todd Cashin)Mapping project underway which will identify areas that need protectionMeetings for possible funding for stream works and fencing on private land portions of Joe RichCreekFunding is biggest obstacle to date

2002 IWAP--Proposed Forest Development

Tolko (Debbie Zandbelt)Operations in Belgo Subbasin, No new proposed development in 2001 submission, Tolko's blockshave already been assessed

SBFEP (Tony Zanotto)Operations in Belgo subbasin, 2 blocks that need to be included in the upcoming assessment.

Gormans (Kerry Rouck)No changes to what were assessed in 1998, deferrals account for 28% of the operating area, andthese will be managed for forest health concerns only.

Riverside (Mike Doiron)Riverside manages 40,000 ha within Mission CreekNew Knowledge from the Adaptive Management Plan will be incorporated into a new FDPNothing added since 1999 FDP, but will take new info and add it to the new FDPH60 line is approximately 1340 from annual flightsHarvesting below H60 does not contribute to peak flowQuestion on beetle activity – beetle activity is minimal right now, ongoing trap tree program invarious locations throughout the watershed

WoodlotsWoodlot information will be forwarded to DEL.

Water Delivery System

BMID (Phil Ruskowsky)Ideal, Greystoke and Fish Hawk reservoirs1997 runoff caused problems, now have a water treatment plant, results to date have been goodSurface erosion a concern for BMIDDeactivation of roads in Graystokes has helped, revegetation has been effectiveBMID has to maintain minimum flow rates (license requirement)

LRMP requirements

Refer to table 2 attributes in the LRMP document section 3 – 26.5 attributes to be addressed, sediment, peak flows, riparian, channel assessments and otherattributes.

Other items

Fisheries values, need an understanding of what the fish values are and where they are in thewatershedWater quality issues, treatment required generally from April – JulyShould recovery of the channel be an objective – if there are no issues, then status quo has been thepractise, if there are issues, the objective has been to improve the sub-basin to the extent whereforest development can influence.EWAC may be able to handle watershed objectives

February 16, 199 letter from Dave GoodingThe Adaptive Management Plan should answer most of the questions posed in the letter

E-mail from Jules Morris – summary of interests, e-mail is attached to the appendices.

February 7, 2002 – Joe Rich Hall, presentation of all licensees on planning processes within thewatershed.

Public Safety Issues – No specific issues at this time on crown land.

Flooding is not a high hazard concern in the watershed

Issue of assessing the entire watershed at the same timeFunding is a constraintValue in looking at the broader scale of the entire watershed,Timing may be better for this in the net round of WAPsWorking with EWAC may solve this

WAP direction and next steps

Bring the Adaptive Management Planning process into the IWAPTie back to fish and quality concernsAddress outstanding issues from 1998Modified RECAP in areas of concernLook at the budget to see what can be doneUpdate watershed report cardInclude LRMP requirementsFollow the assessment procedure as outlined in the 1999 guidebook

Next Meeting Date Late Summer/Fall 2002.

Watershed Assessment Procedurefor the


Final Watershed Assessment Committee (WAC) MeetingSummary Notes

November 25, 2002

Location: Riverside Forest Products, Kelowna B.C.______________________________________________________________

1. Introduction of Attendees

Rupert Benzon Interior Health AuthorityTodd Cashin Central Okanagan Regional District (CORD)Don Dobson Dobson Engineering Ltd.Mike Doiron Riverside Forest Products Ltd.Phil Epp Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection (MWLAP)Jeanie Frederick Range licenseeMary Ann Graham CORDPatty Hanson CORDMike Jobke Ministry of Forests (MOF)Gretchen Komick Interior Health AuthorityJohn Pethybridge MOFBarb Pryce (Chair) MOFKerry Rouck Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd.Phil Ruskowsky Black Mountain Irrigation District (BMID)Pat Russell Joe Rich Watershed Monitoring CommitteeRussell Smith Dobson Engineering Ltd.Joel Springer Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd.Shelagh Weddell Range licenseeDebbie Zandbelt Tolko Industries Ltd.

2. Background

The purpose of the WAC is to review the hydrologist’s report, obtain clarification and makerecommendations to the professional hydrologist. They play an advisory role rather than a decision-making role. With the Forest Practices Code being replaced by the Forest and Range Practices Act,watershed assessment requirements in the future are not known at this time. As the new Act is broughtinto force, more information will be available. At this time, the future role of the WAC is unknown.

3. Presentation of Watershed Assessment Report

Russell Smith presented the November 2002 Mission Creek Watershed Assessment Report.

Discussion

§ The report is consistent with the Okanagan Shuswap LRMP.§ BMID intake bypasses flow from Daves Cr. Still part of the community watershed and may need

this source in the future. Fortunate to be able to bypass at this time.§ Daves Creek is also known as 8 Mile Creek.§ Were studies on horses done? There are more horses in the watershed than cows. What is meant

by cattle damage. This includes horses, llamas etc., including those on private land. Recommendwording be changed from “cattle” to “livestock”. Cattle only on Crown land, not horses.

§ Riverside’s reconfiguration of blocks from smaller to larger results in less area harvested andconstruction of fewer roads.

§ The H60 line (sensitive area for peak flows) was at 1000 to 1200m. New snowline research, fromAdaptive Management Plan, indicates snowline is in fact at 1400 to 1500m, therefore, instead of60% of the watershed being sensitive to snowmelt, now about 20% of the watershed is consideredto be sensitive.

§ Has global warming been considered? Yes to some extent. May start seeing lower spring peak andhigher in the fall due to more rain in fall and less snow. BMID depends on spring peak more to fillreservoir (May to June period). Climate change is of concern, but not enough information yet as towhether it is a positive or negative change. The irrigation season has been extended by about onemonth.

§ Can expect additional natural landslides on Mission mainstem due to natural instability.

Discussion of Recommendations

FDP Related Recommendations.

First Recommendation. In order to facilitate further hydrologic recovery, it is recommended tocontinue reducing the ECA in the Daves Creek sub-basin and maintain it below 30%.§ Recommendation can change over time. Need to balance watershed health and condition vs. fixed

ECA %.§ Consistent with current FDPs.§ Mike D. concerned about specifying a hard number for ECAs. Don suggested to reword this to

reflect risk as opposed to ECA percentage.§ Reflect desire to maintain no higher than a moderate hazard category. This takes the natural

condition of the watershed into condition. Don’t want to make watershed condition worse.§ Focus recommendation on what the result should achieve.§ “…, or until further assessment is made.” Until determined that sub-basin can withstand higher or

lower ECAs.

Accepted by WAC. Russell to add wording to final recommendation.

Second Recommendation. In order to maintain existing channel stability, it is recommended toconsider natural barriers against cattle access to channels during layout of riparian buffers.§ Intent to be pro-active in preventing cattle access to areas where they may congregate;

recommendation directed at future development.§ Site specific. Communication needed between forest licensees and ranchers.§ Recommendation requires clarification and guidance – suggestions on what would constitute

natural barriers. Russell to change wording and will reflect in final report. Will discuss with JohnP.

§ What is definition of channel? What is appropriate class of channel? Don and Russell to review.§ Raw water at intake is relatively clean. Joe Rich water is “awful”, but Mission Creek water dilutes

it. Not a big issue.§ Where cattle historically have caused damage, need to pay attention to those areas.§ Drinking water Protection Act may speak to this issue as well.

Accepted by WAC with changes as discussed.

Third Recommendation. The collapsing wood culvert on the branch road off Mugford Ridge FSR(site 10) should be deactivated or replaced in order to reduce surface erosion and safety hazards.§ Move to Non FDP related recommendations.

Fourth Recommendation. It is recommended that the ECA for the Joe Rich Creek sub-basin bemaintained under 25% in order to avoid exacerbating existing channel instabilities through the privateland area.§ Same discussion as for Recommendation 1. Russell to change wording.§ Re-word to recognise that instabilities are also on Crown land upstream.§ Phil Epp suggests ECA of 25% is too high. 20% would be more appropriate.§ Suggest changing from 25% to 20% ECA. DEL to consider. May not need a %.

Accepted by WAC.

Fifth Recommendation. For the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basin, it is recommendedthat the ECA for the entire sub-basin be maintained below 25% and the ECA above the snowline bemaintained below 20% (calculated as the ECA in hectares above the snowline divided by the areaabove the snowline) in order to limit the potential for peak flow increases and landslides caused byerosional undercutting (refer to section 4.4).§ Leave as is.

Accepted by WAC.

Non FDP Related Recommendations.

Third Recommendation. The collapsing wood culvert on the branch road off Mugford Ridge FSR(site 10) should be deactivated or replaced in order to reduce surface erosion and safety hazards.

§ Mugford culvert. Discussed with Daryl Hunt of MOF. To be discussed with MOF and Riverside.Suggestion to post a sign at the site, mark the hole. Should be okay until next spring.

Accepted by WAC.

Addendum to minutes: MOF removed this culvert on December 3, 2002 and 4 wheel drive access topoints beyond has been maintained.

Sixth Recommendation. In order to reduce the risk of a possible failure of Highway 33, it isrecommended that the plugged culverts at the Joe Rich Creek crossing of Highway 33 be givenimmediate attention for assessment and remedial work.§ One culvert has been cleaned out, covered by a piece of plywood and now second culvert is about

half plugged. Substrate has washed downstream.§ Don will notify Ministry of Transportation (MOT) of issues identified. Want to have field

inspection. Impact on downstream users.§ Don to contact Barb about writing letter on behalf of WAC. Barb to write letter to MOT

supporting recommendations after Don talks to MOF.

Accepted by WAC.

Seventh Recommendation. It is recommended that measures be taken to reduce the erosion deliveredto Daves Creek from the Goudie Road and Highway 33 crossings.§ Forward to MOT as per #6.

Accepted by WAC.

Eighth Recommendation. The landslides off Highway 33 into Joe Rich Creek should be assessed forstability and remedial measures should be considered to minimize the potential for additionalhydrologic impacts.§ Forward to MOT as per #6.

Accepted by WAC.

Ninth Recommendation. It is recommended that alternate livestock management practices beconsidered in the Daves Creek sub-basin in order to reduce congregation in channels and riparianareas.§ Relates to mitigation of existing issues in headwaters of Daves Creek.§ John P to discuss with Russell Smith and review under Range Use Plan.

Accepted by WAC.

Tenth Recommendation. It is recommended that private landowners in the Joe Rich Creek andBelgo Creek sub-basins consider planting vegetation in and fencing around riparian areas in order toregain channel stability and reduce the delivery of sediment to the Mission Creek channel system.§ Todd has developed some proposals to address; has met with landowners with positive response,

but no finding to date. One landowner has put up some fencing. Bottom 400m section will requiremore than planting and fencing. No easy fix. Costly.

§ RDCO will continue to work on this issue.§ Includes private landowners, RDCO, Cattlemen’s Association, BMID, MOT, DFO, MWLAP etc.

Not just a private landowner’s issue. Too much for just one party.§ Estimate about $10,000 to study the issue and develop a plan to resolve.§ A large portion of lower Joe Rich Creek now runs down old skid trails below landslides. A3 –

severely aggraded. Need to restore creek to original channel, fix slides to stop the continuingsupply of material.

§ Russell suggests split the Belgo recommendation out, but have similar wording. Tie the Joe Richaspect back to the Highway 33 issues.

Accepted by WAC.

See attached document for final hydrologist’s recommendations.

5. Next Steps.

Barb Pryce will draft meeting notes and recommendations from today’s meeting.

6. Other Items.

Penticton Forest District will be closed by March 31, 2003. Clients will need to contact the newOkanagan Shuswap Forest District office in Vernon if they have questions, concerns etc. after thePenticton office has closed.

7. Adjourn. 2002 Mission Creek Watershed Assessment Process completed.

Watershed Assessment Procedurefor the


Final Watershed Assessment Committee (WAC) RecommendationsNovember 25, 2002

Forest Development Plan (FDP) Related Issues

• In order to promote continued hydrologic recovery in the Daves Creek sub-basin, ECAsshould decrease to a moderate level (i.e. 30%+/-). After recovery occurs, a reassessmentshould be conducted to determine appropriate long-term ECA levels.

• In order to maintain existing channel stability and to protect water quality, it isrecommended to consider natural barriers (e.g. riparian buffers, debris, topography, etc.)to restrict livestock access to channels (for stream classes as defined in the FPC) duringlayout of development in areas with potential for livestock disturbance.

• It is recommended that the ECA for the Joe Rich Creek sub-basin be maintained at lowlevels (i.e. 20%-25%) in order to avoid aggravating existing channel instabilities throughthe middle and lower reaches. After channel recovery has been confirmed, a reassessmentshould be conducted to determine appropriate long-term ECA levels.

• For the Mission Creek above Pearson Creek sub-basin, it is recommended that the ECAfor the entire sub-basin be maintained below 25% and the ECA above the snowline bemaintained below 20% (calculated as the ECA in hectares above the snowline divided bythe area above the snowline) in order to limit the potential for peak flow increases andlandslides caused by erosional undercutting (refer to section 4.4).

Non Forest Development Plan Related Issues

• The collapsing wood culvert on the branch road off Mugford Ridge FSR (site 10) shouldbe deactivated or replaced in order to reduce surface erosion and safety hazards. (Thisissue has been addressed. Refer to section 5.2 in the report.)

• In order to reduce the risk to the Highway 33 crossing, it is recommended that the pluggedculverts at the Joe Rich Creek crossing of Highway 33 be cleared of accumulatedsediment as soon as possible and no later than March 2003.

• It is recommended that the erosion into Daves Creek from the Goudie Road and Highway33 crossings be controlled or eliminated.

• The landslides off Highway 33 into Joe Rich Creek should be assessed for stability andremedial measures should be considered to minimize the potential for additionalhydrologic impacts.

• It is recommended that alternate livestock management practices be considered in theDaves Creek sub-basin in order to reduce congregation in channels and riparian areas.

• In order to regain the stability of Joe Rich Creek and reduce the delivery of sediment tothe Mission Creek channel system, it is recommended that private landowners, licensees,government agencies, and other organizations collaborate to implement remedial measuresto Joe Rich Creek through the middle and lower reaches (i.e. Crown land below theHighway 33 landslides and through the lower private lands).

• It is recommended that private landowners consider remedial measures to lower BelgoCreek to restore channel stability and reduce the delivery of sediment to the lower Belgoand Mission Creek channel systems.

APPENDIX CWatershed Report Cards

Watershed Report Card for Mission Creek 2001*Basin Gross

Area (ha)Total

HarvestedAreaHa%

ECAha%

ECA below

Snowlineha%

ECAAbove

Snowlineha%

Total Rd Density (km/km²)

Total Rd Length

(km)

Permanent Deactivation

(km)

Semi- Perminant

Deactivation (km)

Road on Class IV

or V Terrain

(km)

Stream Crossings

#

Streams LTB km

High/ Moderate Sediment Source

Roads (km)

Landslides Entering Streams

Length of Mainstem

Channel with Non-FunctionaI

RMA (km)

Length of Disturbed Mainstem Channel

Daves 3,415.7 1,844.0

54.0

1,264.0

37.0

1,264.0

37.0

0.0

0.0

2.5 85.3 0.0 42.0 0.0 34 11.10 0.00.00.0

Belgo 17,952.3 5,319.4

29.6

3,708.0

20.7

3,650.2

20.3

57.8

0.3

1.8 314.9 0.7 155.6 4.4 169 59.70 0.00.00.0

Mission Above Pearson

18,671.4 3,216.0

17.2

1,923.1

10.3

1,321.6

7.1

601.5

3.2

1.0 190.9 1.7 94.3 3.6 0 39.20 0.00.00.0

Pearson 7,334.3 1,154.0

15.7

892.5

12.2

860.8

11.7

31.6

0.4

1.2 95.4 3.9 47.8 0.8 59 7.70 0.00.00.0

Joe Rich 4,470.6 724.6

16.2

610.8

13.7

610.8

13.7

0.0

0.0

2.8 127.3 0.0 11.3 11.1 111 7.60 0.00.00.0

Mission 1 1,915.7 310.2

16.2

189.0

9.9

189.0

9.9

0.0

0.0

6.6 52.4 0.3 11.7 0.6 27 1.90 0.00.00.0

Residual Above BMID

6,346.8 1,309.4

20.6

1,168.0

18.4

1,168.0

18.4

0.0

0.0

3.6 230.2 0.0 51.2 11.1 102 8.10 0.00.00.0

Watershed 60,106.9 13,877.5

23.1

9,755.3

16.2

9,064.4

15.1

690.9

1.1

1.8 1,096.5 6.5 413.9 31.6 502 135.20 0.00.00.0

Tuesday, January 28, 2003 Page 1 of 1* Includes all blocks cut or projected to be cut in 2001

Watershed Report Card for Mission Creek 2007*Basin Gross

Area (ha)Total

HarvestedAreaHa%

ECAha%

ECA below

Snowlineha%

ECAAbove

Snowlineha%

Total Rd Density (km/km²)

Total Rd Length

(km)

Permanent Deactivation

(km)

Semi- Perminant

Deactivation (km)

Road on Class IV

or V Terrain

(km)

Stream Crossings

#

Streams LTB km

High/ Moderate Sediment Source

Roads (km)

Landslides Entering Streams

Length of Mainstem

Channel with Non-FunctionaI

RMA (km)

Length of Disturbed Mainstem Channel

Daves 3,415.7 1,857.6

54.4

962.0

28.2

962.0

28.2

0.0

0.0

2.5 85.4 0.0 42.0 0.0 34 11.10 0.00.00.0

Belgo 17,952.3 6,168.8

34.4

4,137.6

23.0

3,801.9

21.2

335.7

1.9

2.0 366.9 0.8 156.0 5.1 193 56.40 0.00.00.0


18,671.4 4,213.4

22.6

2,429.0

13.0

994.1

5.3

1,434.9

7.7

1.2 237.4 12.5 94.3 3.6 0 44.70 0.00.00.0

Pearson 7,334.3 1,634.6

22.3

1,131.4

15.4

1,010.6

13.8

120.8

1.6

1.3 103.3 10.5 47.8 1.1 63 11.40 0.00.00.0

Joe Rich 4,470.6 1,080.5

24.2

875.7

19.6

875.7

19.6

0.0

0.0

2.9 145.4 17.5 5.6 12.6 114 15.20 0.00.00.0

Mission 1 1,915.7 310.2

16.2

164.4

8.6

164.4

8.6

0.0

0.0

7.1 52.4 9.0 11.7 0.5 24 1.90 0.00.00.0

Residual Above BMID

6,346.8 1,787.3

28.2

1,388.6

21.9

1,388.6

21.9

0.0

0.0

3.6 239.0 9.7 29.1 11.0 101 11.10 0.00.00.0

Watershed 60,106.9 17,052.4

28.4

11,088.7

18.4

9,197.3

15.3

1,891.4

3.1

1.9 1,229.9 59.9 386.4 34.0 529 151.80 0.00.00.0

Tuesday, January 28, 2003 Page 1 of 1* Includes all blocks cut or projected to be cut before end 2007

Mission Creek ECA Report and 6 year RecoveryValues in ha and %

Basin 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Daves 1,264.0

37.0

1,207.8

35.4

1,146.9

33.6

1,082.2

31.7

1,018.9

29.8

973.4

28.5

927.8

27.2

Belgo 3,708.0

20.7

3,540.0

19.7

3,354.5

18.7

3,121.9

17.4

2,915.8

16.2

2,707.8

15.1

2,591.3

14.4


1,923.1

10.3

1,835.8

9.8

1,784.8

9.6

1,632.7

8.7

1,568.6

8.4

1,521.9

8.2

1,431.1

7.7

Pearson 892.5

12.2

860.6

11.7

807.1

11.0

762.2

10.4

745.8

10.2

697.5

9.5

639.1

8.7

Joe Rich 610.8

13.7

580.9

13.0

575.6

12.9

558.2

12.5

535.8

12.0

511.8

11.4

477.6

10.7

Mission 1 189.0

9.9

189.0

9.9

180.8

9.4

177.8

9.3

175.0

9.1

175.0

9.1

164.4

8.6

Residual Above BMID

1,168.0

18.4

1,139.1

17.9

1,109.3

17.5

1,030.2

16.2

963.1

15.2

931.0

14.7

886.9

14.0

Watershed 9,755.3

16.2

9,353.1

15.6

8,959.0

14.9

8,365.2

13.9

7,923.2

13.2

7,518.4

12.5

7,118.1

11.8

Tuesday, January 28, 2003 Page 1 of 1

Mission Creek Above snow-line ECA Report and 6 Year RecoveryValues in ha and %

Basin 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Daves 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Belgo 57.8

0.3

57.8

0.3

44.2

0.2

44.2

0.2

44.2

0.2

44.1

0.2

44.1

0.2


601.5

3.2

570.8

3.1

565.0

3.0

545.9

2.9

542.5

2.9

527.8

2.8

524.7

2.8

Pearson 31.6

0.4

31.6

0.4

31.6

0.4

31.6

0.4

31.6

0.4

31.6

0.4

31.6

0.4

Joe Rich 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Mission 1 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Residual Above BMID

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Watershed 690.9

1.1

660.2

1.1

640.9

1.1

621.7

1.0

618.3

1.0

603.5

1.0

600.4

1.0

Tuesday, January 28, 2003 Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX DWater Quality Assessment Summary

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Mission CreekCommunity Watershed

Phippen, B. and BWP Consulting. 2001. Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Mission CreekCommunity Watershed: Second Draft. Water Quality Branch; Water Management Division; Ministryof Environment, Lands and Parks; Southern Interior Region, pp. 58.

A number of general observations can be made about water quality in the Mission Creek communitywatershed, based on the discrete and automated data collected between 1996 and 1999:

• The 90th percentiles for both fecal coliforms and E. coli. exceeded the guidelines of 10CFU/100 ml at most of the sites within the watershed.

• Turbidity values were occasionally very high at the BMID diversion site, with a maximumvalues of 275 NTU measured in a discrete water sample.

• High ambient water values regularly occur in Mission Creek, which is common in this areaof the province, and there are likely high dissolved organic carbon concentrations.

• Maximum summer water temperatures frequently exceeded the 15oC maximum aestheticguideline for drinking water.

• Total suspended solids concentrations were high on occasion• Other parameters, such as pH, specific conductivity, nutrients, and dissolved oxygen, were

consistently within guideline levels.

Coliform Bacteria and E. coli

A water quality objective is proposed for both fecal coliforms and E. coli in Mission Creek. Theobjective states that the 90th percentile of a minimum of 10 samples collected within a 30-day periodmust not exceed 10 CFU/100 ml.

True Colour and Total Organic Carbon

The long-term objective is that the true colour of water at the BMID diversion should not exceed 15TCU at any given time. The long-term water quality objective for dissolved organic carbon forMission Creek at the BMID diversion is not to exceed 4.0 mg/L.

Water Temperature

The long-term objective states that water temperatures should not exceed 15ºC at any time throughoutthe year at the BMID diversion to protect the aesthetic quality of drinking water.

Total Suspended Solids

The objective states that total suspended solids levels should not increase more than 10mg/L aboveambient levels. To determine ambient levels, samples must be collected at all upstream sites on thesame day to determine if increases have occurred. The objective would therefore be exceeded if any ofthe upstream sites had a TSS concentration more than 10mg/L less than the downstream site.

APPENDIX EField Assessment Information

Only the referenced field assessment cards are included in the report.Other field assessment cards are on file at Dobson Engineering Ltd.

1998 and 2002 Field Assessment Information

Reach 1998 ChannelInformation

Slope(%)

AssessmentSites

2002 SiteInformation

A N/A 0.7 47 RPg:A2B CPc:A1 1.0 N/A; ANCC CPc:A1 1.3 N/A; ANCD CPc:A1 1.3 N/A; ANCE SPc:S 6.0 N/A; ANCF CPc:A1 2.0 N/A; ANCG SPb:S 5.0 N/A; ANCH RPc:A2 1.3 42 RPc:A2I RPc:A2 2.0 N/A; ANCJ RPc:A2 2.0 13b, 17 RPc:A2K RPc:A2 2.0 N/A; ANCL RPc:A2 2.0 34 RPc:A2M CPc:A2 2.8 32 CPc:A2N CPc:A1 5.5 N/A; ANCO CPc:A1 5.0 N/A; ANCP CPc:A2 6.0 N/A; ANCQ CPc/b:A1 5.0 N/A; ANCR1 CPc/b:A1 6.0 24 CPc/b:SDA CPc:A2 10.8 41, 43 CPc:A2DB CPc:A2 5.6 40 CPc:A2DC2 CPc:A2 3.5 39 RPg/c-w:A1BA CPc:A1 2.1 13a CPc:A1BB RPg:A2 N/A N/A; ANCBC RPg:S 2.0 2, 3, 4, 8 RPg:SJA RPg:A1 2.5 17 RPg:SJB RPg:A2 2.0 N/AJC RPg:A2 2.0 15, 16 RPg:A2PA CPb:A2 3.0 22 CPb:A2PB CPc/b:A1 5.0 19 CPc/b:A2FA3 CPc:D2 8.0 23 CPc/b:A2FB SPb:D1 20.0 N/A; ANCFC PRc:S 2.0 N/A; ANC

N/A-Not Assessed, ANC-Assumed No Change

Legend

Channel TypesSP - Step PoolCP - Cascade PoolRP - Riffle Pool

Substrates/Large Woods - Sandg - Gravelc - Cobbleb - Boulderr - Boulder Blockw - Large Wood Present

Channel DescriptorA3 - Severely AggradedA2 - Moderately AggradedA1 - Slightly AggradedS - StableD1 - Slightly DegradedD2 - Moderately DegradedD3 - Severely Degraded

1. Bank erosion was observed during the 1998 field review; however, the channel has remained stablethroughout the past 3 years of channel monitoring and the channel appears stable during the 2002field review. Negligible gravel deposits were observed either that those at the confluence with FishHawk Creek, which resulted from the Fish Hawk Creek channel instabilities.

2. It is likely that the difference in channel information is a result of differing channel reviewlocations between 1998 and 2002 compounded with varying channel morphology along the lengthof the reach.

3. The channel is currently dominated by boulder material. It is likely that cobble material has beentransported downstream over the past four years resulting in increased channel robustness andstability.

APPENDIX FWatershed Maps

2002 interior watershed assessment update mission...• in the spring of 1997, a 20 to 30 year peak...

Documents