General Disclaimer. Disclaimer of Liability

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "General Disclaimer. Disclaimer of Liability"

Emerald Ellen Arnold
5 years ago
Views:

1 General Disclaimer The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the Government of British Columbia of any product or service to the exclusion of any others that may also be suitable. Contents of this report are presented as information only. Funding assistance does not imply endorsement of any statements or information contained herein by the Government of British Columbia. Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), addresses, and contact information contained in this document are current at the time of printing unless otherwise noted. Disclaimer of Liability With respect to documents available from this server, neither the Government of British Columbia nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

3 Peachland Creek Watershed/lWAP i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION KEY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT ISSUES BACKGROUND INFORMATION Physical Characteristics History of Water Use Past Forest Development Previous Assessments METHODS ASSESSMENT Peak Flows ECA Roads Peak Flow Hazard Rating Channel Disturbance Channel Disturbance Hazard Rating Surface Erosion Roads Hillslopes Surface Erosion Hazard Rating Landslides Landslide Hazard Rating Riparian Riparian Function Hazard Rating Summary of Current Watershed Conditions Recreational and Grazing Impacts File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

4 Peachland Creek Watershed.IWAP 11 TABLE OF CONTENTSIContinued 6.0 RISKS OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT Peak Flow Hazards ECA and Channel Stability Surface Erosion Landslides Riparian Functions CONCLUSIONS Watershed Assessment Results (Existing Conditions) Proposed Forest Development RECOMMENDATIONS Forest Development Plan Recommendations Other Recommendations APPENDICES File: I Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

5 FIGURES & TABLES FIGURE Fipure 1 Location of the Peachland Creek Watershed and its Sub-basins. TABLES Table 1 Watershed Inventory Data 1998 Table 2 Watershed Hazards 1998 Table 3 ECA Trends File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

6 Peachland Creek WatershedIIWAP i v APPENDICES Appendix A Watershed Advisory Committee & Meeting Minutes Appendix B Reach Break Map Appendix C Field Photographs Appendix D Longitudinal Profiles Appendix E ReCAP Results Appendix F Watershed Assessment Map File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

7 RIVERSIDE FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED Kelowna Division Interior Watershed Assessment for the PEACHLAND CREEK WATERSHED (Penticton Forest District) 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Riverside Forest Products Limited - Kelowna Division, an Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (IWAP) was completed for the Peachland Creek watershed. The purpose of the assessment was to determine the current watershed condition, the effects of previous land-use practices on the watershed and the potential impacts of proposed forest development. The assessment follows the Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook (ZWAP) - April 1999, as provided by the Ministry of Forests (MoF) and BC Environment (BCE). 2.0 KEY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT ISSUES The initial Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC) meeting was held on December 3, 1998 at the offices of Dobson Engineering Ltd. The committee comprised of representatives from the following organizations: BC Environment Dobson Engineering Ltd. Penticton Forest District Riverside Forest Products Limited (Kelowna Division) The Corporation of the District of Peachland. Minutes from the meeting are provided in Appendix A. The main objective of this watershed assessment process for the Peachland Creek watershed was to determine the potential impacts of proposed forest development plans on water quality and water quantity at the points of interest (POI). Potential water quality impacts associated with recreation and cattle grazing were also reviewed if concerns were identified during the field assessment. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

8 Peachland Creek WatershedlMrAP Page 2 To complete the assessment of the Peachland Creek watershed, the watershed was divided! into two sub-basins (P2 and P3) and one residual area (PI) [Appendix B], which are the same as outlined in the Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (WAP) completed in 1996 by Dobson Engineering Ltd. Points of interest were defined as the mouth of the creek at Okanagan Lake (POI- 1) and the District of Peachland water intake (POI-2). 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Physical Characteristics The Peachland Creek watershed is a tributary to Okanagan Lake and is located approximately four kilometres south of Peachland [Figure I]. The watershed area is approximately 142 km2 with elevations ranging from 340 m to 1,900 m at the summit of Mount Gottfriedsen. Sixty percent of the watershed is situated above an elevation of 1,160 m (H60 elevation). Biogeoclimatic zones included within the watershed are Ponderosa PineBunchgrass (PPBG) at lower elevations, Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) at middle elevations, and Montane Spruce (MS) and Engelmann SpruceISubalpine Fir (ESSF) at higher elevations. Bedrock consists mainly of Monashee Gneiss capped by Chilcotin Basalt. The mainstem channel descends through a deeply entrenched bedrock canyon to Okanagan Lake. The average gradient of the mainstem channel above POI-1 is 4.2%. Peachland Lake is the largest of several small lakes in the watershed. The aspect within the watershed varies between eastern, southeastern and southern. Peachland Creek is a snow-dominated hydrologic system and peak flows occur from late April to mid-june. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

9 Peachland Creek WatershednWAP Page 3 FIGURE 1 Location of the Peachland Creek Watershed and its Sub-basins. File: Project: Dare: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

10 Peachland Creek WatershedIIWAP Page History of Water Use The District of Peachland is the largest of several organizations that hold water licenses on Peachland Creek. The District of Peachland water intake is located 5.6 km upstream from Okanagan Lake. Peachland Lake, which is located within the upper portion of the watershed, has been dammed to provide storage and to aid in regulating stream flow for domestic and irrigation use. The Peachland Lake reservoir normally reaches full pool in July. Therefore, spring freshet peak flows below the reservoir can be during the period that runoff is being stored [refer to WAC Minutes - Appendix A]. 3.3 Past Forest Development Riverside Forest Products Limited (Kelowna Division), the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program (SBFEP) and one woodlot licensee (woodlot license #345) currently operate within the Peachland Creek watershed. Forest development in the watershed has taken place since the early 1960s and has focused on areas near the main tributaries of the watershed with more recent harvesting in the Peachland Lake area. Woodlot license #345 is located near Headwaters Lake (Trout Creek watershed) and is only partially within the Peachland Creek watershed. Approximately 30% of the watershed has been harvested or is in clearingslurban areas. This includes large areas that were selectively harvested in the 1950s to 1960s which have, for the most part, fully recovered from past forest development. The current ECA is 13.8%. 3.4 Previous Assessments Extensive assessment work (funded by Forest Renewal BC) was completed in the Peachland Creek watershed in 1996 on behalf of the District of Peachland. This included a watershed assessment (based on the 1995 Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook), a sediment source survey and a fish habitat assessment. An integrated watershed restoration plan was also prepared for the watershed. 4.0 METHODS In summary, the assessment process as described in the Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook, dated April 1999, consists of two components: an office assessment and a field assessment. The office assessment consists of the compilation and analysis of data to describe the basic geophysical characteristics of the watershed, along with the extent and location of past forest harvesting activities (the watershed report card). The field assessment component consists of a reconnaissance overview of the watershed to determine actual hydrologic hazards. The field assessment includes a reconnaissance level sediment source survey and channel assessment to identify sensitive andlor disturbed road segments and channel reaches. The reconnaissance level channel assessment procedure (ReCAP) is based on the Channel Assessment Procedure Field Guidebook - December File: I Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

11 Peachland Creek WatershednWAP Page ASSESSMENT Table 1 presents the current watershed report card for the Peachland Creek watershed and its sub-basins. TABLE 1 Watershed Inventory Data for Peachland Creek 1998 WATERSHED INVENTORY CATEGORY P1 Sub-basin P2 Sub-basin P3 Sub-basin POI-1 POI-2 Area (ha) ,165 13,482 H60 Elevation (rn) 1,160 1,160 1,160 1,160 1,160 Total Area Harvested (ha) 1,392 1,845 1,057 4,295 4,197 File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

12 Peachland Creek WatershedmAP Page Peak Flows A discussion of the current condition of the Peachland Creek watershed, based on the field assessment, is provided in the following sections: ECA ECA's for the entire Peachland Creek watershed, PI sub-basin, P2 sub-basin and P3 sub-basin are 13.8%, 8.7%, 19.2% and , respectively. The ECA's above the H60 line for the entire Peachland Creek watershed, P1 sub-basin, P2 sub-basin and P3 sub-basin are 10.6%, 0.1%, 18.3% and 7.5%, respectively. These ECA's are considered to be a low concern for potential impacts to the watershed. The 27.9% ECA for the area above Peachland Lake is a moderate concern. ECA's for the drainage areas of several small streams northwest of Peachland Lake are as great as 45% and are considered to be a high concern for potential impacts to the local area Roads Another indicator of potential impacts on peak flows is the density of roads within the watershed. The main impact roads may have on peak flows results from the interception of both surface and sub-surface flows by ditch lines and re-routing of water directly into streams. The re-routing of runoff can reduce the time required for water to reach a stream, which could increase peak flows. The current road densities in the entire Peachland Creek watershed, P1 sub-basin, P2 sub-basin and P3 sub-basin are 2.4 krnlkrn', 2.9 krn/krn2, 2.7 krn/krn2 and 1.6 km/km2, respectively. These road densities are considered high, but based upon field observations of the condition of the roads and associated ditch lines, there is no evidence to suggest roads are contributing to increased peak flows. Road ditch lines do not appear to be conveying large amounts of water and are considered highly permeable given that the majority of roads are located on deep glacial tills. The majority of roads are also located on gentle terrain. Consequently, the potential for the rerouting of water during high flow events is low Peak Flow Hazard Rating Forest development related impacts associated with increased peak flows were not discernible at POI-1 or POI-2. The peak flow hazard rating for all sub-basins and the entire Peachland Creek watershed is low based upon the ECA's. The peak flow hazard rating for the area above Peachland Lake is moderate. The local ECA's for a number of small drainages northwest of Peachland Lake are high. However, the influence of these drainages at a sub-basin scale is low. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

13 Peachland Creek Watershed/TWAP Page Channel Disturbance The channel sections of Greata Creek situated within the P3 sub-basin between Glen Lake and the confluence with Peachland Creek were characterized as having stable riffle-pool morphology [refer to ReCAP Results - Appendix El. Bolivar Creek from 100 m upstream of Peachland Main (FSR) crossing to the confluence with Greata Creek was characterized as having slightly disturbed step-pool and riffle-pool morphologies. The channel disturbance observed in this area is related to a large (30 m by 35 m) road-related bank failure 100 m upstream from the Peachland Main (FSR) crossing. The road is inactive and completely overgrown with seven-metre tall conifer and deciduous trees. This bank failure and channel disturbance has had minimal influence on Greata Creek, as the majority of suspended sediment has deposited in the lower 100 m of Bolivar Creek which is characterized as a wetland complex. The small tributary streams located within the Sunset Main area of the P2 sub-basin, northwest of Peachland Lake, were characterized as having slightly disturbed cascadepool and step-pool morphologies. Evidence of bank erosion and scour was observed on one of these tributaries below CP 67. Since there was no evidence of culvert failure or road drainage problems, it is possible that the channel disturbance is related to a high local ECA. The current ECA for this drainage is 42%. Impacts from this channel disturbance on water quality and quantity at POI-1 and POI-2 are considered to be negligible given the small scale of disturbance noted. The majority of stream reaches of Peachland Creek were characterized as having stable riffle-pool and cascade-pool morphologies. One exception was noted 200 m upstream and downstream of the Peachland Main (FSR) crossing. This section of channel was characterized as slightly disturbed as a result of aggradation of sediment above the crossing and the increased flow velocity through the culvert. Sediment in the channel appears to have been introduced by several natural bank failures initiated over the past 60 years above the crossing. A large portion of this sediment is being stored upstream of the crossing Channel Disturbance Hazard Rating The channel disturbance hazard rating associated with past forest development for all sub-basins and the entire Peachland Creek watershed is low. The large bank failure above the Peachland Main (FSR) and Bolivar Creek crossing is road related and remedial work should be considered. However, the hazard associated with this failure is low, as it has had minimal influence on Greata and Peachland creeks. File: I Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

14 Peachland Creek WatershedlIWAP Page Surface Erosion Roads Based upon the sediment source survey conducted by Dobson Engineering Ltd. in 1996, a total of 2.33 km of road was identified as a high priority, 34 km as a moderate priority and 225 km as a low priority. Seventy-two stream crossings were identified on non-status roads that have the potential for direct sediment delivery to streams from road surfaces and ditches. A large portion of the road sections that were classified during the sediment source survey as having high risk ratings are non-forestry related roads or non-status roads. Based upon the sediment source survey and recent field work carried out for this assessment, the majority of status roads appear to be a low concern for surface erosion. One road section of concern is Peachland Main (FSR) at Peachland Creek. A large amount of sediment has eroded from the fillslope of the road and has deposited into Peachland Creek [Appendix C - Photo 241. This crossing is currently under review for remedial work. The fillslope of Peachland Main (FSR) at Bolivar Creek is also eroding and contributing moderate amounts of sediment to the creek [Appendix C - Photo 71. However, the sediment has deposited in a wetland prior to reaching Greata Creek and has had negligible impacts to Greata and Peachland creeks. Also, a large bank failure that occurred 100 m upstream from the Bolivar Creek and Peachland Main (FSR) crossing has significantly impacted Bolivar Creek [Appendix C - Photos 5 & 61. However, the failure has resulted in negligible impacts to Greata Creek. The failure is associated with an old spur road that connects to Peachland Main (FSR) at the Bolivar Creek crossing. A culvert is plugged where Greata Creek flows through private land 50 m upstream from the confluence with Bolivar Creek [Appendix C - Photo 31. Greata Creek is currently flowing over the road but minimal erosion of the road has occurred. The site should be further reviewed and remedial work should be considered. A number of old wood culverts are present throughout the watershed and appear to be functioning with a low likelihood of failure Hillslopes Several bank failures which have occurred along Peachland Creek upstream of the Peachland Main (FSR) crossing have contributed extensive amounts of sediment to the creek (refer to Section 5.2 also). All of the failures appear to be related to the nature of the steep incised terrain adjacent to Peachland Creek. There is no indication that forest development has influenced the initiation of these failures. 1Vo other hillslope surface erosion concerns were identified, File: Prqject: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

15 Peachland Creek WatershednWAP Page Surface Erosiolz Hazard Rating 5.4 Landslides Based on the results of the reconnaissance level sediment source survey and the field investigations conducted during the watershed assessment, the surface erosion hazard is low for all sub-basins and the entire Peachland Creek watershed. Surface erosion impacts from past forest development appear to be minimal. In the sediment source survey of Peachland Creek watershed, one gully concern identified in P2 sub-basin requires a detailed assessment by a Professional EngineerIGeoscientist. The survey also found four forest development related landslides (three in P2 sub-basin and one in P1 sub-basin) which will require further review by a Professional Engineer/Geoscientist. None of the landslides were identified during review of air photos Landslide Hazard Rating..- I 5.5 Riparian Functions The landslide hazard rating for all sub-basins and the entire Peachland Creek watershed is low based upon the limited number of forest development related landslides, the presence of very little Class IV and V terrain, and the limited amount of existing road located on Class IV and V terrain. The condition of riparian zone vegetation was evaluated based upon the amount of stream logged in the watershed and the impacts that development may have had on riparian functions such as large woody debris (LWD) supply and channel stability. One area noted as having reduced riparian functions is situated along the small tributary streams that flow through several recently harvested clearcuts in the Sunset Main area, northwest of Peachland Lake. Although there were no detectable impacts at the time of the survey, the removal of timber adjacent to the stream in this area may result in reduced channel stability and loss of in-channel LWD in the future. The potential consequences on the overall condition of the watershed are small since these tributary streams are quite small. Levels of LWD are naturally low in Peachland Creek between Peachland Lake and the Peachland Main (FSR) crossing downstream. Most LWD is in the form of LWD jams. The minimal amount of LWD is most likely natural as a large portion of Peachland Creek between the Peachland Main (FSR) crossing and Peachland Lake is characterized as a wetland complex with sparsely distributed, small diameter deciduous vegetation. Consequently, LWD input rates are likely to be very low. The stream is also large enough to effectively transport LWD downstream. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

16 Peachland Creek WatershedIIWAP Page 10 For the most part, riparian vegetation and function are relatively undisturbed on the mainstem and tributary channels in the watershed. Mature engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and cottonwood vegetation is very well established along much of these channels. Very little development, both forestry and non-forestry related, has occurred along the mainstem channels due to the deeply incised canyon that Peachland Creek flows through Riparian Function Hazard Rating Based upon the amount of intact riparian areas within the watershed, forest development impacts on riparian functions are low within all sub-basins and the entire watershed. 5.6 Summary of Current Watershed Conditions The overall condition of the Peachland Creek watershed is summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2 Watershed Hazards 1998 DRAINAGE AREA Peak Flows HAZARD CATEGORY Surface Erosion Landslides Riparian Watershed at POI-1 Low Low Low Low Watershed at POI-2 Low Low Low Low P1 Sub-basin Low Low LOW Low I P2 Sub-basin Low Low Low Low P3 Sub-basin LOW Low Low Low Above Peachland Lake Moderate Low Low Low 5.7 Recreational and Grazing Impacts Cattle access to channels in P2 and P3 sub-basins are causing minor amounts of localized bank shearing and stream sedimentation. The consequence of the disturbance is minimal and further consideration is not necessary. Recreational impacts associated with increased surface erosion throughout the watershed are a low concern and no direct impacts were identified. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

17 Peachland Creek WatershedlIWAP Page 11 The potential impacts from pathogens (i.e., fecal coliforms, cryptosporidiurn) associated with grazing uses were not determined since these potential impacts are beyond the scope of this assessment. 6.0 RISKS OF FUTURE FOREST DEVELOPMENT A total of 20 blocks (348 ha) are proposed by Riverside Forest Products Limited to be harvested in the watershed between 1999 to Approximately 45% of the development is proposed to be harvested using a selection system (40% to 60% basal area removal). Riverside Forest Products Limited also proposes 7.7 km of new road. A total of 4 blocks (1 13 ha) are proposed by the SBFEP in the P3 sub-basin (Glen Lake area). Approximately 50% of the development is proposed to be harvested using a selection system (40% to 60% basal area removal). The SBFEP also proposes 5 krn of new road. In woodlot license #345, none of the blocks proposed to be harvested over the next 10 years are located within the Peachland Creek watershed. 6.1 Peak Flow Hazards ECA and Channel Stability The total ECA and the ECA above the H60 elevation for the entire Peachland Creek watershed are presently 13.8% and 10.6%, respectively. With the proposed development, these ECA values will increase to 16.7% and 12.5% in 2004 [Table 31. Potential peak flow impacts as a result of the increased ECA is a low concern for the entire watershed and should not increase potential peak flow or channel impacts. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

18 Peachland Creek WatershedfIWAP Page 12 TABLE 3 ECA Trends DRAINAGE 6.2 Surface Erosion Future surface erosion concerns will continue to be low in the Peachland Creek watershed, as limited proposed development is located on terrain with high or very high surface erosion potential. Proposed road construction should have a limited impact on sediment production provided that the natural drainage patterns are maintained and sediment control measures are implemented. Following harvest, roads should either be maintained or promptly deactivated to a level consistent with future access management requirements. 6.3 Landslides Terrain stability mapping (Level C) has been completed for the watershed. Potential impacts from increased landslides associated with the proposed forest development is a low concern since there is limited harvesting or road construction proposed on Class IV and V terrain. A portion of a proposed block (5.0 ha) and road (1.5 km) within the SBFEP operating area in the P3 sub-basin are on Class IV terrain. As required in the Forest Practices Code these blocks will have to be reviewed by a qualified professional to ensure that slope stability is not impacted. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

19 Peachland Creek WatershedlIWAP Page Riparian Functions Potential impacts to riparian functions associated with the proposed forest development is a low concern provided that appropriate riparian management practices are carried out to maintain stream-bank stability, water quality and riparian functions required for fish and fish habitat. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 Watershed Assessment Results (Existing Conditions) The effects of past forest development on the watershed have been minimal. The peak flow, channel disturbance, surface erosion, landslide and riparian hazards are all low for all the sub-basins and the entire Peachland Creek watershed. The peak flow hazard rating for the area above Peachland Lake is moderate, as the ECA for this area is 27.9%. Channel disturbance was noted in a small tributary stream situated within the Sunset Main area, northwest of Peachland Lake. Channel instability may be related to a high local ECA (42%). Several small natural bank failures have occurred along a section of Peachland Creek between the Peachland Main (FSR) crossing and at least 500 m upstream. These failures have introduced sediment to Peachland Creek and have caused channel aggradation in a section 200 m upstream and 200 m downstream from the crossing. All other sections of Peachland Creek are stable. A large road-related bank failure initiated in the middle of an old overgrown spur road and deposited in Bolivar Creek 100 m upstream from the Peachland Main (FSR) crossing. The failure has resulted in negligible impacts to Greata Creek as the transported sediment has deposited in the lower 100 m of Bolivar Creek which is a low gradient wetland complex. Where Peachland Main (FSR) crosses Peachland Creek and Bolivar Creek, significant amounts of sediment have been introduced to the creeks. Other than in the local area, Peachland and Greata creeks have not been impacted. A culvert is plugged where Greata Creek flows through private land 50 m upstream from the confluence with Bolivar Creek. Greata Creek is currently flowing over the road but minimal erosion of the road has occurred. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

20 Peachland Creek WatershedJIWAP Page 14 The landslide hazard rating for the Peachland Creek watershed is low based upon the limited number of landslides identified, the presence of very little Class IV and V terrain, and the limited amount of existing road located on Class IV and V terrain. The riparian function hazard rating associated with forest development is low for the entire watershed and its' sub-basins. 7.2 Proposed Forest Development Based on the results of the watershed assessment, the development of the proposed access roads and cutting permits associated with Riverside Forest Products Limited and the SBFEP have a low likelihood of impacting water quantity or water quality at either POI. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Forest Development Plan Recommendations If future forest development above Peachland Lake in the Sunset Main area is proposed, detailed hydrologic assessments should be carried out to determine if further impacts could occur. Detailed hydrologic assessments are not required with the current Forest Development Plan since there is no forest development proposed in this area. Remedial work should be considered for the crossings of the Peachland Main (FSR) at Bolivar Creek and at Peachland Creek to reduce surface erosion from entering the creeks. 8.2 Other Recommendations Remedial work should be considered to improve the Greata Creek crossing situated on private land, 50 m upstream from the confluence of Greata and Bolivar creeks. Remedial work should be considered for the bank failure 100 m upstream of the Peachland Main (FSR) crossing at Bolivar Creek to reduce further erosion. File: Project: Date: Sept. 99 DOBSON ENGINEERING LTD.

21 APPENDICES

22 APPENDIX A Watershed Advisory Committee & Meeting Minutes

23 Watershed Advisory Committee Members - Peachland Creek Dobson Engineering Ltd. BC Environment Ministry of Forests Riverside Forest Products Limited Rob Scherer # Springfield Road Kelowna, BC V 1 Y 5V7 Phone: (250) Brian Harris and Dave Gooding Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks # Skaha Lake Road Penticton, BC V2A 7K2 Phone: Ray Crampton, Ken Cunningham, Jerome Jang, and Barb Pryce Penticton Forest District 102 Industrial Place Penticton, BC V2A 7C8 Phone: or (250) Mike Doiron Kelowna Division # Industrial Avenue Kelowna, BC V 1 Y 7E8 Phone: (250) The Corporation of the District of W ally Semenoff Peachland PO Box 390 Peachland, BC VOH 1x0 Location: 5806 Beach Avenue Phone: (250)

24 Watershed Assessment Procedure for the PEACHLAND CREEK WATERSHED Initial Watershed Assessment Committee (WAC) Meeting Summary Notes December 3,1998 Location: Dobson Engineering Ltd. Boardroom 1. Introduction of Attendees Committee Members: Ray Crampton Ken Cunningham Mike Doiron Dave Gooding Brian Harris Jerome Jang Barb Pryce (chair) Rob Scherer Wally Semenoff Penticton Forest District (SBFEP) Penticton Forest District Riverside Forest Products Limited (Kelowna Division) BC Environment BC Environment Penticton Forest District Penticton Forest District Dobson Engineering Ltd. The Corporation of the District of Peachland Description of Watershed Assessment Procedure The main objective of the watershed assessment process for the Peachland Creek watershed will be to assess all the proposed forest development plans (1999 to 2004) in this watershed to determine potential impacts on the water resources (i.e., water quality and water quantity). The procedure will include initial and final WAC meetings, a reconnaissance level channel assessment procedure (Re-CAP), a reconnaissance level sediment source survey and calculation of equivalent clearcut area (ECA) for the proposed forest development plans (1999 to 2004) for the watershed. The current watershed assessment process is based on an interim procedure agreed upon by both the Ministry of Forests and BC Environment. A watershed assessment guidebook is currently in the process of being completed and will be used as a guide for this watershed assessment, provided that the guidebook becomes available in a timely manner. This watershed assessment process was initiated by Riverside Forest Products Limited before the end of 1998 in order to utilize FRBC funds in 1999.

25 Peachland CreekJWAC Minutes Page 2 The role of the WAC is to develop and provide recommendations (in consultation with the contracted hydrologist) to the prescribing foresters regarding proposed forest development plans for 2000 to The prescribing forester will then include the WAC recommendations within their forest development plan or inform the District Manager why their forest development plan is not consistent with the WAC recommendations. It should be noted that the main purpose of this process is to develop recommendations for forest development planning purposes. Issues that are considered to be outside of forest development planning may be identified but may be included for information purposes and may have to be directed toward other individuals (e.g., District of Peachland or a private land owner). 3. Overview of Previous Assessment Work a) History Several assessments were carried out in this watershed in Assessments included a Level 1, Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (IWAP), Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan (IWRP), Sediment Source Survey (SSS), Access Management Strategy (AMS) and Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP). b) Water Delivery Systems Peachland Lake is the only storage reservoir for the Creek. The District of Peachland uses water from the watershed for domestic use. Dam structures on Glen Lake and Wilson Lake have been opened at the request of BC Environment. These reservoirs are no longer used for storage but the District of Peachland is interested in maintaining their water licensees on these lakes for future storage. The District of Peachland water intake is located 5.6 km from Okanagan Lake with no storage reservoir at the intake. The Peachland Lake reservoir sometimes reaches full pool in July. Therefore, it is possible that spring freshet peak flows may be affected by storage in the reservoir. c) Forest Development Riverside Forest Products Limited, the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program (SBFEP) and Woodlot #345 operate within the watershed. A description of the amount of past development will be included within the final WAP report.

26 Peachland CreekIWAC Minutes Page 3 4. Proposed Forest Development Riverside Forest Products Limited proposes to harvest approximately 80 ha within the next five-year period (CP 125). The majority of the proposed harvest will be to deal with blowdown and mountain pine beetle infested trees (salvage logging). SBFEP has four blocks proposed in the Glen Lake area. A total chance layout plan has been completed for the Glen Lake area. It was agreed by the WAC that Riverside Forest Products Limited long-term forest development plans should be included within the WAP (e.g., 2004 to 2008 blocks) Proposed forest development information for Woodlot #345 was not available at the initial WAC meeting. Action: Rob Scherer will contact Laverne Coder (Woodlot Forester with the Penticton Forester) regarding the woodlot's proposed forest development plans. 5. Point of InterestISub-basin Delineation Two points of interest were agreed upon for the assessment: one at Okanagan Lake and one at the District of Peachland water intake. The two sub-basins used in the original IWAP were accepted by the WAC for this assessment (sub-basin P-2 and P-3). ECA's should also be calculated for the area above the Peachland Lake Reservoir but an additional sub-basin above the reservoir was not delineated. 6. Watershed Concerns W. Semenoff is concerned about the amount of recreational use on Peachland Lake and the potential for reduced water quality. Gas motors are currently allowed on the lake. Any measures that can minimize turbidity levels in the spring would be positive. One landslide recently occurred above the intake. The landslide appears to have been natural. Extensive recreation use and cattle grazing were identified as concerns in the watershed.

27 Peachland Creek/WAC Minutes Page 4 7. Other Items Proposed timeline for completion: WAP field work to be done during the spring of Final WAC meeting to be held during the summer of 1999.

28 APPENDIX B Reach Break Map

29 u Kelowna Division POI I Oke~~npnn l.ake Reach Breaks Peachland Creek Watershed

30 APPENDIX C Field Photographs

31 PHOTO 1. Typical road surface within the Peachland Creek watershed. Road is stable with negligible ditch water and surface erosion.

32 PHOTO 2. Greata Creek 600 rn downstream from Glen Lake. Riparian vegetation intact and functioning. Channel is stable.

33 PHOTO 3. Greata Creek 1.2 km downstream from Glen Lake. Plugged culvert causing water to run over road.

34 e PHOTO 4. Bank of Greata Creek sheared by cattle.

35 PHOTO 5. Head scarp of large bank failure above Bolivar Creek. Initiated in middle of old road. PHOTO 6. Bank failure deposited material in Bolivar Creek 100 m upstream from the Peachland Main (FSR).

36 PHOTO 7. Extensive scour below outlet of cuivert at Bolivar Creek at Peachland Main (FSR). PHOTO 8. Surface erosion on fill slope at Bolivar Creek at Peachland Main (FSR).

37 PHOTO 9. Main channel of Bolivar Creek 10 m upstream from confluence with Greata Creek. Wetland complex. No sign of disturbance as a result of upstream bank failure and fill slope erosion.

38 PHOTO 10. Greata Creek downstream from plugged culvert and confluence with Bolivar Creek. Channel stable with negligible bank scour and sediment accumulation.

52 APPENDIX D Longitudinal Profiles