Watershed Risk Analysis - a100.gov.bc.caa100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r18314/Penn...Watershed Risk Analysis/Pennask Creek Page 4 File: E02-003 Date 05/10 M.J. Milne & Associates

Watershed Risk Analysis

for

Pennask Creek

Prepared for:

BC Ministry of Environment

1259 Dalhousie Drive Kamloops, BC

V2C 5Z5

Funding provided by:

Government of Canada - Environmental Damages Fund

Prepared by:

M.J. Milne & Associates Ltd. 2603 23rd Street

Vernon, BC V1T 4J7

May 25, 2010

Watershed Risk Analysis/Pennask Creek Page 2

File: E02-003 Date 05/10 M.J. Milne & Associates Ltd.

1.0 INTRODUCTION A risk analysis has been completed on the Pennask Creek watershed for the BC Ministry of Environment with funding provided by the Government of Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund. Pennask Creek drains an area of approximately 9,000 ha upstream of Pennask Lake [refer to overview map – Appendix A] in the larger Nicola River watershed. The watershed is roughly bisected by the Coquihalla Highway. Two basins are defined for discussion purposes – Sunset Creek and Pennask Creek proper. There are two major forest licensees operating in the watershed – Gorman Bros Lumber Ltd. (Gormans) and the Westbank First Nation (WFN). The latter holds roughly 70% of the Pennask Creek watershed within its community forest license established in 2004. At least two range tenures are also present. Pennask Creek has no formal designation under current legislation but is one of several brood stock source systems supplying the provincial fish stocking program. Rainbow trout eggs are collected annually from a station located approximately 1.5 km upstream of the mouth. Pennask Creek and its tributary Sunset Creek are considered some of the most valuable systems in the province in this regard. Water Survey of Canada (WSC) also operates a long term hydrometric station (08LG016) immediately upstream of the egg collection station. Lodgepole pine forms a large component of unlogged stands in the Pennask Creek watershed, particularly downstream of the highway, and is being affected by mountain pine beetle (MPB). Stands containing susceptible pine cover approximately 4,000 ha or 45% of the watershed. Given this situation the purpose of the analysis is to define:

• current risk to resources at stake resulting from past land use activities and inherent watershed condition,

• the risk trend and ability of the watershed and basins to absorb additional land use or natural disturbance related pressure (i.e. the effects of MPB),

• relative change in risk that may result from ongoing land use or natural disturbance related pressure, and

• the type and effectiveness of potential treatment options to mitigate risk.



2.0 BACKGROUND Background or existing information available for Pennask Creek is extensive and was well summarized in a 1999 report produced by Dobson Engineering Ltd1. The summary has been copied up to the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) discussion and provided below followed by a review of Dobson 1999 report findings, and those from a more recent hydrologic assessment by the same author. Anecdotal information from Go Fish BC staff involving the number of trout counted at the egg collection site and trends over time is provided in the analysis section. 2.1 Review of existing information Minister’s Briefing Notes - MELP, File 280-20, Ref. 77.030401, Feb. 15, 1990. This Ministry of Fisheries letter identifies winter construction methods of Highway 97C (Coquilhalla connector) as introducing sediment to both Sunset and Pennask Creeks. The letter suggests immediate action to prevent further habitat degradation. Pennask Creek Fishery and Riparian Zone Protection Area, completed for the Merritt Forest District by Nicola Valley Forest Consultants Ltd., Dec. 1992. This report was completed to determine a strategy to allow timber harvesting while protecting and maintaining the fishery values of Pennask Creek and its tributaries. Findings of this report include:

• Future harvest and road construction should be managed and designed for blowdown caused by strong SW prevailing winds.

• Cutblock boundaries set on dry ridges or eskers are the most Windfirm and these are good landforms for block boundaries.

• Blowdown has occurred in many riparian reserves. Some trees are spanning the channel in these areas and should be removed to prevent potential damming of the channel. In the future, selective harvesting up to riparian boundaries should be incorporated. This will help prevent excessive blowdown (more than one stem spanning the channel per 20 m of bank may have adverse effects on the channel).

• A large over mature spruce forest exists on the upper south end of the Creek. This stand is rooted in wet soils and is subject to

1 Channel Condition and Prescription Assessment and Riparian Assessment and Prescription Procedure for Pennask Creek, April 1999. Unpublished report completed by Dobson Engineering Ltd. for the Pennask Lake Fishing and Game Club, Penticton, BC.



blowdown. Armillaria root rot was found on existing windfall and monitoring the health of the remaining trees is recommended.

• A water quality concern, originally identified by Don Dobson, of Dobson Engineering Ltd., exists in Pennask Creek and originates at the Highway 97C road cut. The potentially impaired water quality (orange stain and increased turbidity) is transferred into Pennask Creek via an unnamed tributary. There is a possibility that an acidic drainage may be entering Pennask Creek, thus, the water quality should be assessed to determine if this is significant to the survival of the rainbow trout population

Pennask Local Resource Use Plan (LRUP) completed by the Ministry of Forests, May 5, 1993. The LRUP is designed to guide and integrate the development of natural resources in such a manner to maximize resource benefits and minimize conflicts among resource users. The plan intends to be dynamic and flexible to adapt to changing circumstances. The Pennask Creek drainage area is covered by the plan. Of the 11 main issues addressed in the LRUP, three are pertinent to this report:

1. Protection of Pennask fish stocks

2. Protection of spawning habitat

3. Protection of water quantity and quality The plan is structured into two resource planning concepts: Resource Emphasis Areas (REAs) and an Integrated Resource Management Area (IRMA). The majority of the plan area is covered by the IRMA which provides guidelines for management of timber and range. The key objectives for timber management include:

• Maintain uneven aged Interior Douglas Fir stands where possible. • Clearcut logging should be the normal harvest method in Montane Spruce

and Engelmann Spruce/Sub-alpine Fir biogeoclimatic zones. • Level of harvest in Pennask Creek not to exceed 25% ECA, however, this

may be adjusted subject to a sensitivity analysis of the watershed. • When harvesting adjacent to or on private land, maintain a

windfirm boundary. The key objectives for range management include:

• Cattle management should be planned and implemented to minimize conflicts with wildlife in riparian zones, recreation sites and newly



forested areas. • Where negative impacts from cattle grazing on wildlife habitat or

reforested areas are identified by BC Environment or the Forest Service, the problem should be addressed through consultation between BC Environment, Ministry of Forests, forest licensees and the grazing tenure holder.

• Where range improvements are required to resolve a conflict, all parties and agencies involved in the issue should participate in a negotiated funding agreement.

Other portions of the plan area are covered by five REAs that provide:

• Protection for Pennask Creek and its tributaries from contamination off Highway 97C.

• Protect the native wild rainbow trout spawning and rearing streams and habitat.

• Manage the forest health of timber stands within the REA to protect water quality.

Although no working REA was ever established for Pennask Creek and its tributaries, it was decided by the members of the LRUP Committee that the width of the REA should be site specific and determined through field inspections. The primary concerns to water are degradation of quality through increased sediment loads and increased temperature through reduction in shading of the water surface. Appendix 4 of the LRUP provided guidelines for streamside protection. Preliminary Assessment of the Health of Pennask Lake and Creek completed for the Pennask Lake Fish and Game Club by Aqua-Tex Scientific Consulting Ltd., July 26, 1994. This report focuses on the water quality of Pennask Lake and Pennask Creek, and the ability of the lake and creek to support a healthy trout population. The report identified a large sediment volume at the mouth of Pennask Creek that did not appear to originate from the lower reaches. No other major concerns are raised in this report. One recommendation was made to monitor the water quality of the lake and creek. Pennask Creek Watershed, Preliminary Hydrological Evaluation, completed for the Pennask Lake Company Ltd. by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, May 4, 1995. The report evaluates the sensitivity of the hydrologic regime of Pennask Creek and the potential effects current and proposed harvest will have on



the hydrological regime. The findings of the report include:

• Forest harvesting in the early 1980s (likely combined with climate variability) caused increased April streamflow, earlier snowmelt freshets and higher flows in late summer and early fall. These observed changes in the hydrograph may be detrimental to rainbow trout spawning.

• ECA should not exceed the current value of 16% (at the time of report completion) in order to ensure the protection of the rainbow trout stocks. Additional harvest in the watershed should be carefully distributed throughout the various sub-basins and not be concentrated in any one area.

• Sediment source surveys should be completed and rehabilitation of any logging related sources should be pursued under a Watershed Restoration Program.

• Water temperatures measured by BC Environment should be analyzed and the main channel should be surveyed.

Review of Pennask Local Resource Use Plan, completed for the BC Wildlife Federation, Okanagan Region by Dan Jenkins of the Peachland Sportsmens Association, Jan. 18, 1996. This report was completed to review the development taking place in the Pennask Local Resource Use Plan area with respect to the protection of fish and wildlife. Key findings in the report include:

• There is no evidence of siltation resulting from cut blocks. Forest roads are well placed and away from streams. Stream crossings are designed to reduce on site erosion and culverts are installed to allow fish passage.

• Overgrazing by cattle in cutblocks on fall exit routes was noted (approximately 75% of the potential forage growth is cropped by cattle at some locations).

• Overgrazed forage and cattle trampled stream banks near Pennask Lake are problems needing correction.

Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Level 1 Analysis for the Pennask Creek Watershed (IWAP), completed for MELP Southern Interior Region by Silvatech Consulting Ltd., Nov. 1997. The IWAP was completed as a requirement under the Forest Practices Code Regulations. The purpose of the IWAP is to serve as a management tool to address future forest development in the watershed with respect to current water related issues. The Level 1 analysis is an office-based



exercise with no field confirmation of results. Key findings in this report include:

• The 1997 ECA was 22.7% for the watershed. This includes areas cleared for the highway and power lines as well as the areas burned by wildfire.

• Peak flow hazards were high in both the Sunset and Pennask Sub-basins, primarily as a result of high road densities.

• The surface erosion hazards are high for the watershed, primarily as a result of the road density and number of stream crossings in the upper basins.

• The riparian hazard (related to streams shown logged to the banks on forest cover maps) is moderate. Streambanks that have been burned by wildfire were included in this calculation.

• No landslides were identified in the watershed which suggests there are minimal areas of unstable terrain.

• Stream channel assessments are recommended throughout the watershed to identify any evidence of peak flow increase and to evaluate the movement of sediment throughout the stream network.

• Stream channel assessments in conjunction with riparian assessments may identify impacted areas that are affecting the condition of fish habitat.

• Further analysis of streamflow data should be completed to determine the causes of the shift in the hydrograph noted by NHC report (referred to above).

• A Sediment Source Survey and an Access Management Plan should be undertaken to address potential road related sediment inputs to the channels. This should be followed by an Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan.

Channel Condition and Prescription Assessment and Riparian Assessment and Prescription Procedure for Pennask Creek, completed by Dobson Engineering Ltd. for the Pennask Lake Fishing and Game Club, Penticton, BC. April 1999. This report outlined numerous land-use related effects on channels and riparian areas in the Pennask Creek system. The single most significant disturbance was sediment generated and delivered to Pennask and Sunset Creeks during the construction of the Coquihalla Highway. Other less significant effects have been realized as a result of forest road construction and use, and cattle access to channels and riparian areas throughout the watershed. An acid lechate was also identified in a tributary to Pennask Creek from the Coquihalla road cut, and the highway was mentioned as a specific concern with respect to potential inputs of road salt, sedimentation, and otherwise toxic materials.



Four specific roads sites where sediment input to channels was noted include:

• Sunset Lake FSR crossing on Sunset Creek,

• Sunset Lake FSR crossing on Pennask Creek,

• Gravel pit access road crossing on Pennask Creek, and

• Bear FSR crossing on a tributary in opening 209. Concerns around cattle induced bank shearing, sediment input to channels, and grazing related effects on riparian function were noted on all low gradient alluvial or meadow reaches. Channels were being infilled by range use in these areas resulted in wider, shallower channels with less riparian cover. Potential increases in stream temperature were also noted as a concern resulting from this land-use activity. Several reaches were identified for riparian restoration prescription. Cattle grazing with direct access to channels was noted as the main disturbance factor in all cases. Past and planned forest development was not seen as a major disturbance factor in the condition of the Pennask Creek system. The Pennask watershed was described as a having a low hydrologic sensitivity based on low rolling terrain, well drained soils, low drainage density, and presence of extensive wetland/meadow complexes with beaver dams on the lower half of the system. Aside from above mentioned road sediment input sites, roads were generally well located and built. Wind related damage along cutblock boundaries was noted as a specific concern in some areas and identified as a key consideration for future cutblock planning. Based on general recognition as a sensitive watershed and low hydrologic sensitivity, ECA constraints were considered unnecessary in Pennask Creek, favouring joint industry/government review of development proposals where and when required. Prescriptions and treatments were never applied to channel/riparian reaches identified in the Dobson report and it is unclear as to what action resulted from the report on the range management side. Some effort was applied to control sediment inputs to channels at the road sites identified above but the issues are ongoing. Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) - Okanagan Region The LRMP process was underway for the Okanagan at the time of Dobson report completion and was implemented in 2001. Pennask Creek is specifically mentioned as a provincial broodstock collection system, described as the most valuable trout stock in the province providing 40% of all wild rainbow trout eggs to provincial stocking program.



As a result of known values a goal to conserve the natural diversity of fish and fish habitat in Pennask Creek was defined along with an objective to maintain productivity from a brood stock perspective2. To achieve this a number of land management strategies were defined along with the establishment of a new goal 1 protected area covering a 250 m wide buffer strip on either side of Pennask Creek and a portion of Sunset Creek [refer to overview map]. Commercial logging, mining, and energy exploration and development was banned from the new Pennask Creek Provincial Park but other land-use activities such as grazing, hunting, guide-outfitting, and trapping were allowed to continue under management plan direction. Forest health would also be managed within the park to an acceptable risk level with respect to resources at stake. Grazing would be monitored to ensure consistency with long term conservation goals established for the protected area. Land management strategies outlined in the LRMP for Pennask Creek include:

• Completion of risk assessment procedures prior to any development planned in the watershed.

• Use of risk assessment procedures to determine potential cumulative effects of development as planned.

• Inclusion of risk assessment reports with any development plan submissions.

• Application of management direction provided in the Riparian and Wetlands section for development in riparian areas not covered by the Pennask Creek protected area.

• Management of livestock away from riparian areas such that:

o streambanks are not destabilized,

o concentrated trampling does not occur along spawning areas, and

o livestock watering does not negatively affect spawning areas.

• Where acid rock drainage are identified and determined to have a negative effect on water quality, remedial actions should be taken.

Under general resource management – riparian and wetlands section, the LRMP objective is to provide adequate riparian habitat to sustain healthy aquatic ecosystems, fish and wildlife populations. Strategies outlined to achieve this include:

• Enhanced riparian reserves in a portion of the LRMP affected area.

• Increased retention in reserve and management zones along most

2 http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/kamloops/okanagan/plan/files/oslrmpfull.pdf



channels according to class, use, and the presence of fish.

• Consideration of potential windthrow related damage when establishing reserve and management zones.

• Application of restoration effort to expedite recovery in critical harvested riparian areas.

• Management of livestock away from riparian areas.

• Minimization of activities that degrade riparian areas, generally. Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment of Mountain Pine Beetle Infested Stands and Proposed Retention Plan, prepared by Dobson Engineering Ltd. for Heartland Economics LLP (Westbank First Nation), September 2008. This report reviews the potential effects of mountain pine beetle infestation and planned salvage on the part of the Westbank First Nation (WFN), on equivalent clearcut area in particular. Watershed condition is also discussed in the context of 1999 report findings. Road related sediment contributions to fish bearing channels continue to be a problem, illustrated by report photos. Current (as of December 2007) peak flow hazards are described as low for the watershed and basins. The effect of MPB without any planned salvage would be to increase the peak flow hazard for the watershed and Pennask basin from low to moderate over the period of time required for death and deadfall to occur (estimated to be 10 – 15 years). The peak flow hazard in the Sunset basin was expected to remain low despite MPB. Proposed salvage was expected to have a similar effect on peak flow hazards but the increase would be expedited by salvage. Based on conditions at the time salvage according to the WFN retention plan was considered acceptable in the Sunset basin but review and approval from government agencies familiar with Pennask Creek would be required for salvage to occur as planned in the Pennask basin. Recommendations were also provided to:

• Review crossing structures downstream of heavy infestation areas to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate expected increase in runoff.

• Maintain existing sediment control structures at road crossings and consider surfacing through problem crossing sites to reduce sediment input to channels.

• Use temporary roads where possible to access salvage areas.

• Consider the creation of defensible zones using planned and existing cutblocks, and natural openings and barriers to reduce the wildfire risk.



Most of the salvage development planned by WFN and addressed in this report was completed on the downstream side of the highway between 2008 and 2009 in both the Pennask and Sunset basins. Salvage on the upstream side of the highway as per the retention plan has not been completed. Fish Passage Culvert Inspection at Selected Crossings of Pennask Creek, Pennask Creek Tributary (gazetted), Pennask Creek Un-named Tributaries 1, 2, 3, and Brenda Creek, completed by Columbia Environmental Consulting Ltd. for Westbank First Nation, February 2007. Fish passage was assessed at 12 sites on known fish-bearing channels within the WFN Community Forest portion of the Pennask watershed. Of the twelve, five were determined to be full barriers to fish passage, one was a partial barrier, and six were not barriers. Of the sites assessed, structures on Sunset Main at Brenda Creek and Un-named Tributary 1 (located between the hydro right of way and Pennask Creek) were a high priority for replacement based on score and habitat to be gained. Sites on the hydro right–of-way access southeast of Hidden Lake and Brenda Lake inlet channel were moderate priorities. The remaining 8 sites were low priorities. To date none of the priority structures have been replaced. 2.2 Background Summary Several common themes emerge in the review of existing information on Pennask Creek:

1. The system is known to support a very high value rainbow trout population from which brood stock is collected to supply the provincial trout stocking program.

2. The system has been the subject of multiple watershed and landscape level assessment, planning and management exercises. As a result a comprehensive set of guidelines are in place at the LRMP level to direct land management.

3. Sediment input to channels during the construction of the Coquihalla highway had a significant effect on the system and associated fish and fish habitat.

4. Other land-use related disturbances have been identified in multiple reports, some action has resulted from a restoration or management perspective, but there are recurring themes that require attention. These include:



a. chronic input of fine sediment from a short list of problem road sites and sections,

b. ongoing range related effects on streams, riparian areas, and associated fish habitat,

c. concerns around post harvest windthrow along exposed boundaries particularly where it involves riparian areas, and

d. barriers to fish passage that have been identified on several Forest Service and otherwise permitted roads but not addressed.

3.0 METHODS Ortho photos and digital files were obtained from BC Ministry of Environment to prepare field maps. Ortho photos were reviewed to identify likely sediment source sites, access constraints, and areas where land-use may have affected channels or riparian function. In the field a review of the entire road system (permitted and non-status) was completed for road risk analysis purposes. Streams and riparian areas were reviewed strategically to assess stability and function, respectively. A detailed ECA analysis was done to understand the potential effect of mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestation on susceptible stands and planned development from an ECA perspective [Appendix A]. Methods were developed by Huggard3 and refined for application in Pennask Creek. The model accounts for dead standing pine, non-pine overstory, and understory related effects on ECA over time. Stands with a low susceptibility to MPB attack and mortality are those with ≥40% pine and ≥50 years old in the ESSF biogeoclimatic zone; moderate susceptibility stands are those in other biogeoclimatic zones with ≥40% pine and ≥50 but less than 100 years old, and highly susceptible stands are those with ≥40% pine and more than 100 years old. Four scenarios have been modelled under two different MPB attack situations – moderate and heavy, with recovery over a 60 year period. Under the full attack situation all stands ≥50 years old with ≥40% overstory pine are attacked by MPB and all pine are killed. MPB mortality is assumed to have begun in Pennask Creek one year ago and is expected to run its course over a five year period ending in 2014. Under the moderate MPB situation stands ≥50 years old with ≥40% overstory pine are potentially susceptible to MPB, but only 50% of such stands in the ESSF biogeoclimatic zone are killed. In other biogeoclimatic zones 65% of susceptible stands <100 years old and 80% of stands ≥100 years old are killed. Both runs are included for discussion purposes.

3 Huggard, D. 2008. Effects of salvage options for beetle-killed pine stands on ECA (December 2008 update). Unpublished report for BC Ministry of Environment, Kamloops.



Scenarios include:

1. Un-salvaged - all susceptible pine is left to die with no salvage effort.

2. WTP 80+% Pl - all susceptible stands with 80% or more pine are clearcut salvaged with 10% retained in wildlife tree patches. The remaining susceptible pine is left to die with no additional salvage effort.

3. Proposed - stands proposed for development by the Westbank First Nation (WFN) are clearcut logged. Remaining susceptible pine is left to die with no additional salvage effort.

4. Proposed +CC salvage – stands proposed for development by WFN are clearcut logged along with all remaining susceptible pine in the watershed.

The risk assessment component of the project follows partial risk analysis methods as defined in BC Ministry of Forests - Land Management Handbook 564. Definitions for terms used in the risk assessment are as follows: Risk assessment – involves the steps of preliminary assessment and risk

estimation. It includes the systematic use of information to identify streamflow, sediment source, and riparian function related hazards and estimates the chance for, and severity of, injury or loss to individuals or populations, property, the environment, or other things of value (resources at stake).

Hazard – a source of potential harm, or a situation with a potential for causing

harm, in terms of human injury, damage to property, the environment, and other things of value; or some combination of these. In watershed management hazards can include:

• increases in the frequency and magnitude of high flow events,

• reductions in low flow,

• sediment or other deleterious material input to streams from roads, landslides or other upslope sources, and

• reductions in riparian function. Hazard rating – the measurement or expression of the likelihood of hazard

occurrence, or probability of occurrence.

4 Land Management Handbook 56: Landslide Risk Case Studies in Forest Development Planning and Operations. BC Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Victoria.



Consequence – the resource at stake (human well-being, property, the environment, or other things of value) and the change, loss, or damage to the resource(s) that may result from a landslide, road erosion event, high streamflow event, etc…

Risk – the chance of injury or loss as defined as a measure of the probability of

hazard occurrence and the consequence of an adverse effect on the resource at stake. Risk ratings are generated using a three by three matrix as follows:

Hazard rating

Low Moderate High

Low Very low Low Moderate

Moderate Low Moderate High

Con

sequ

ence

ra

tin

g

High Moderate High Very high

4.0 RISK ANALYSIS The Pennask Creek watershed is described in the following sections in terms of natural characteristics and processes, resources at stake, current condition from a streamflow, sedimentation, and riparian function perspective, and conditions expected with mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestation and MPB plus development planned by the WFN. An evaluation of risk with respect to resources at stake is provided for current, MPB un-salvaged, and MPB plus proposed development scenarios. 4.1 Watershed Characteristics The Pennask watershed is characterized by a moderately steep upland area upstream of the Coquihalla highway and gentle rolling terrain on the downstream side characterized by well drained but erodable soils, and extensive wetland/meadow complexes along both Sunset and Pennask Creeks. Biogeoclimatic zones include ESSFxc2 and ESSFdc2 over most of the area upstream of the highway and a combination of MSdm2 and MSxk1 on the downstream side with the latter being more dominant. Pennask and Sunset Creeks are known to support high value rainbow trout populations, as described above. Trout are assumed to use all accessible portions of the watershed for spawning and rearing [Appendix A], with the prior activity occurring anywhere suitable gravel substrate is available. Mature and juvenile



rainbow trout were observed in high numbers throughout the watershed during the field review. Trout and their habitat can be affected by several watershed and site level factors including:

• changes in streamflow

• changes in stream temperature

• displacement by other species, and

• the quality and distribution of critical habitats.

The first, second and fourth factors are likely applicable in Pennask Creek as trout are the dominant species with no known predators. Increases in annual water yield and peak streamflow can occur with reductions in forest cover, particularly above the snowline, and changes in annual snow accumulation and precipitation patterns, generally. The latter is largely controlled by regional climatic conditions beyond the control of managers but is important to consider from a long term management perspective. Based on available Water Survey of Canada (WSC) data [Appendix B] the highest flows on Pennask Creek occur in the late spring as a result of snow melt in the area above the snowline at the time of peak flow, estimated to be 1,630 m or H60 in hypsometric terms, or a combination of rain on snow in this area. The average peak discharge over the period of record is approximately 8.6 m3/s with no flows in excess of a five year return period between 1987 and 2007; the last year of data available on line. This result is despite the occurrence of several high peak flow years in the BC Southern Interior between 1995 and 1998. Widespread flooding occurred on other systems at that time suggesting a low sensitivity in Pennask Creek in this regard. This aspect of the system has been pointed out by others as a function of terrain, soils, and drainage density. Low flows are driven by groundwater emergence in channels as a function of recharge during the snowmelt period in particular. Low flows can also be affected by reductions in forest cover, making more water available throughout the year, but reducing potential water availability over the medium to long term if large portions of the watershed regenerate in a single seral stage - that is large areas of even aged regeneration. This may be an important consideration in Pennask Creek with current MPB levels. Changes in stream temperature can occur with reductions in riparian function that result in increased solar inputs to channels. Effects are expected to be more significant in low gradient systems with connected lake and wetland complexes



that increase time of exposure. Reductions in vegetation cover where it provides shade can be expected to increase stream temperature, generally. The quality and distribution of critical habitat can be affected by:

• increases in stream sedimentation,

• increases in streamflow and reductions in riparian function that result in increased bed and bank erosion, and

• barriers to fish movement provided by roads and road drainage structures, or low flows.

In a study of westslope cutthroat trout Valdal and Quinn (2009)5 identified catchment conditions as the key factor affecting fish populations in several BC Kootenay systems. Parallels were drawn between cutthroat and other trout species in this regard. Carver (2001)6 describes increases in sediment load as a key detrimental factor affecting fish from both point and cumulative sources. Increases in fine sediment result in increased turbidity and stream embeddedness (the degree to which coarse materials are covered by silt). Fine sediment accumulation in channels affects:

• the ability of fish to excavate spawning redds,

• egg survival rates, and

• invertebrate populations (i.e. food for fish).

In a summary of available information around turbidity levels and effects on fish at various life stages Newcombe and Jensen (1996)7 found a range varying from no effect though behavioural and sub-lethal effects to lethal effects. Sub-lethal effects include reduced growth rate, reduced fish density, reduced fish population size, and habitat damage. Bryce et al (2008)8 concluded in a study of fish sensitivity to fine sediment accumulation that streambed aerial surficial fine sediment (<0.006 mm in diameter) levels of 5% or less maintained habitat potential for sediment sensitive aquatic vertebrate species (fish) in mountain streams. Negative effects were realized beyond that.

5 http://www.springerlink.com/content/7162jw7w32402107/ 6 Carver, M. 2001. Riparian Forest Management for Protection of Aquatic Values: Literature Review and Synthesis. Nelson, BC. Prepared for: Forest Stewardship Council, Riparian Sub-committee, BC Regional Standards Team. 7 Newcombe, C. and J. Jensen. 1996. Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries: A Synthesis for Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16:693-727. 8 Bryce, S. et al. 2008. Development of Biologically Based Sediment Criteria in Mountain Streams of the Western United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 288:1714-1724.



Increases in coarse sediment load decrease pool depth and abundance and result in a shallowing and widening of channels. The shallowing of channel reduces capacity resulting in increased bank erosion and lateral movement. A shallower channel is also more susceptible to increases in stream temperature, as described below. Given the above considerations, key resources at stake in the Pennask Creek watershed and processes that affect them are as follows:

1. Resident rainbow trout throughout accessible portions of the watershed – affected by:

o increases in stream sedimentation - sand and silt sized sediment in particular.

o reductions in riparian function particularly along low gradient channels and wetland/meadow complexes where vegetation is providing shade,

o high flows that result in bank erosion and increased stream sedimentation,

o reductions in low flow, and

o barriers to movement provided by roads and road drainage infrastructure.

2. Forest road infrastructure, namely culverts on systems with mobile sediment and debris - affected by:

o increases in flow and sediment load, and

o reductions in riparian function that lead to sediment production in upstream areas.

4.2 Current Condition and Risk The current condition of the Pennask Creek watershed is summarized by hazard category as follows:

• Streamflow (peak and low flows) – good.

• Sedimentation – poor to fair.

• Riparian function – fair. Past and present land-use activities are key factors in current condition.



Streamflow Current peak flow hazards for the watershed and basins are low based on the following considerations:

• good regeneration in older logged and burned areas,

• limited road related effects on runoff, and

• an apparent low sensitivity to peak flow at both the basin and watershed level as a result of a moderately steep upland area, low rolling terrain in the lower 2/3’s of the watershed, well drained soils, and a low drainage density.

Past harvest and equivalent clearcut area (ECA) levels are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Pennask Creek Past Harvesting and ECA Summary

Unit Area (ha)

Area logged or burned (ha/%)

Area above the snowline

(ha)

Area logged or burned above the snowline (ha/%)

Current ECA above the

snowline (%) Pennask basin 6,003 1,631/27 3,773 1,163/31 21

Sunset basin 2,189 955/44 1,588 788/50 34

Pennask Watershed 8,940 2,631/29 5,361 1,952/36 24

Current low flow hazards are low for the watershed and basins as a result of the current ECA contribution to water yield, and a relatively un-even age distribution in areas with advanced regeneration (burns and older cutblocks) at this time. Sedimentation Current sedimentation hazards are moderate for the watershed and both basins as a result of:

• significant input of fine sediment to the system during construction of the Coquihalla Highway,

• chronic sediment input to mainstem and tributary channels at selected road crossings (as outlined in the road risk section – Appendix C), and

• widespread cattle related damage to stream beds and banks, focussed in low gradient alluvial reaches defined as wetland/meadow complexes in prior reports [Appendix A].

There is roughly 150 km of forest and public road in the Pennask Creek watershed. Road length by tenure and risk level is summarized in Table 2 and



described in detail in Appendix C. Risk in this case is a function of the likelihood of hazard occurrence, mostly introduction of sediment or other harmful material to streams, and the effect on the resource at stake. The entire stretch of Coquihalla Highway in the watershed received a high risk rating in this process and accounts for more than 50% of the road length in the high risk category. It is important to note that 85% of the road system in Pennask Creek is considered low risk. Sediment input during construction of the Coquihalla Highway was significant and is considered to be a key factor in a decrease in trout population size observed for several years following the event9. Highway construction has left a legacy of damage in Sunset and Pennask Creeks in the form of increased stream sedimentation in channels downstream of the crossings, and records kept by Go Fish BC suggest that increased stream sedimentation can affect fish populations in a negative way. Current sediment production levels from the highway are low as a result of effective sediment capture mechanisms. There is however still a chance of spills on the highway at the crossings and approaches that is worth considering. The likelihood of such an occurrence is unknown.

Table 2. Road Risk by Status – Pennask Watershed

Road length by Risk Level (km) Status Very high High Moderate Low

Public 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0

FSR 0.1 2.8 1.1 20.6

Road Permit 0.0 3.3 4.2 68.9

Non-status 0.0 2.5 3.6 36.6

Total 0.1 16.0 8.9 126.1

Four chronic sediment input sites or road sections were identified on Forest Service Roads (FSR) in the project area. It is important to note that these roads are mainline industrial haul roads that see heavy traffic from areas well beyond Pennask Creek. It is the location and design of the crossings as well as the amount of traffic that creates the sediment generation and delivery issue at the following sites:

• Sunset FSR crossings on Sunset Creek and the Sunset Lake outlet channel [Photos 1, 2 – Appendix D],

• Sunset FSR between the powerline right-of-way and Bear FSR including crossings on an un-named tributary to Pennask Creek and Pennask Creek proper,

9 Personal communication, Mark Siemens, Fisheries Specialist, Go Fish BC, March 2010.



• Bear FSR approaches and crossing on un-named tributary between the Pit Road and Coquihalla Highway, and

• sections of Pennask FSR in and near to the residual area [Photos 3, 4]. Problem sediment sites and sections were also identified on otherwise permitted roads as follows:

• Pit road approaches and crossing on Pennask Creek [Photos 5, 6],

• sections of the Powerline Access and Hydro Access north of the highway,

• Silver Lake road approach to Sunset FSR, and

• sections of roads 82A, 82B, Powerline North, Powerline South, Brenda Lake RP, Upper Pennask, and Pennask East.

Sediment generation and input issues were also identified on non-status roads (NSR) as follows:

• steep sections of the Hidden Lake road draining down to the lake and outlet channel,

• Pennask SW road along either side of the Pennask Creek mainstem channel including a washed out crossing (portions of this old NSR are now contained within Pennask Creek Provincial Park) [Photo 7], and

• Mine Main approaches to Pennask Creek. Sediment input to streams from uncontrolled range use is widespread and chronic [Photos 8 – 12]. The low gradient wetland/meadow reaches (shown as wetlands on the overview map) are common places to find cattle and the most sensitive to range use. Damage is limited in areas back-flooded by beaver dams but not eliminated. Where reaches are back-flooded by beaver, cattle use of the stream and stream banks is assumed to be less as a result of steeper bank angles and deep water [Photos 13 - 15]. Where cattle are accessing sensitive reaches, bank angles are low, channels are wide and shallow, and fine sediment is made available for transport during freshet periods. Small fish bearing and non-fish bearing channels are also being damaged by ongoing range use directly affecting local fish and fish habitat, and making sediment available for transport to larger systems when damaged channels with sufficient power reform during the ensuing freshet. In many cases where active range use was observed along small alluvial fish bearing and non fish-bearing channels damage had rendered the channel unclassifiable according to current legislation10 [Photos 16 - 20]. Other problem sites were noted where ongoing

10 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/archive/fpc/fpcaregs/oplanreg/opr-1a.htm



access occurs to less sensitive reaches but the volume of use has created a sediment input problem [Photo 21]. Riparian Function Current riparian function hazards are moderate for the watershed and basins as a result of uncontrolled range use along wetland/meadow reaches in particular [Photos 8 – 20]. Bank stability and riparian cover has been reduced by cattle use of riparian areas along these sensitive channel types. The result is an increase in stream sedimentation and possible increase in summer stream temperature. The latter is expected to be minor as the pre-disturbance riparian condition was likely deciduous dominated with limited height and closure (i.e. provided limited shade for streams). Riparian function is good where streams are better incised, steeper gradient, and riparian areas are dominated by mature coniferous species [Photos 22, 23]. Past forest harvesting related effects on riparian areas have occurred but they are site-specific in nature mainly the result of post harvest windthrow along old block boundaries. The overall effect of past harvesting and windthrow related damage on riparian function is limited – most key areas have been protected, even prior to park formation. Regardless, post harvest wind related damage along susceptible block boundaries should be an important consideration for future development in the watershed. Current Risk The current risk of negative effects on fish and fish habitat in the Pennask Creek watershed and basins as a result of past and present land-use activity is high. This risk rating is a function of moderate hazards in each of the sedimentation and riparian function categories and a high consequence rating involving negative effects on the high value fish population. The high risk situation can be mitigated by:

• applying stringent controls on range management that effectively exclude cattle from riparian areas throughout the watershed,

• addressing road related problems according to recommendations provided in the road risk section [Appendix C],

• considering post-harvest wind related damage in riparian areas as part of any new forest development in the watershed, and

• ensuring that design specific to the containment of spills on the Coquihalla Highway is built into the crossings and approaches and that quick response plans are in place, as required.



The current risk of damage to forest road infrastructure from undersized drainage structures and uncontrolled drainage is moderate. This rating pertains only to those sites identified in the road risk section where forest road infrastructure and/or access are mentioned as one of the resources at stake. Problem sites include:

• Pennask FSR, and

• Powerline Access north of the highway including Hydro Access. Risk can be mitigated in all cases by implementing recommendations provided in the road risk section. 4.3 Condition with MPB Lodgepole pine in the Pennask Creek watershed is being affected by mountain pine beetle (MPB). A portion of the attacked or highly susceptible stands around and north of the Coquihalla Highway have been salvaged over the past 2 - 5 years by Gormans and WFN. To understand the potential for attack and likelihood of mortality in remaining pine leading stands susceptibility was modelled using stand age, species composition, and biogeoclimatic zone considerations. Stands with a low susceptibility to MPB attack and mortality are those with ≥40% pine and ≥50 years old in the ESSF biogeoclimatic zone; moderate susceptibility stands are those in other biogeoclimatic zones with ≥40% pine and ≥50 but less than 100 years old, and highly susceptible stands are those with ≥40% pine and more than 100 years old. Results indicate that the remaining pine leading stands occupy approximately 45% of the watershed [Appendix A]. Of the total pine leading stands 50% are considered highly susceptible to some level of attack and mortality, 10% are considered moderately susceptible, and 40% have a low susceptibility. Most of the moderate and high susceptibility stands are found below the snowline in the MSxk1 and MSdm2 biogeoclimatic zones. Most of the low susceptibility stands are found above the snowline in the ESSFxc2 and ESSFdc2 biogeoclimatic zones. Some mortality is expected in all areas affected by MPB and it is important to note that juvenile pine stands have not been included in the model based on limited susceptibility information. The result of ongoing MPB infestation and mortality in Pennask Creek will be further reductions in forest cover over time as dead pine become defoliated and eventually fall and deteriorate on the forest floor. Reductions will be offset by any non-pine overstory in the stand or understory that is released by the demise of pine. Regeneration within dead pine stands can also occur helping to offset the effects over time. Reductions in forest cover will result in increases in snow accumulation and snow melt rates in openings, making more water available for



runoff earlier, and potentially increasing the frequency and magnitude of high flow events in the watershed and affected basins, particularly where reductions occur above the snow line. Water yield can also increase over the short to medium term as water use by trees is reduced as the stand is replaced. The opposite situation can occur with reduced water yield over the medium to long term if large areas affected by pine regenerate at the same time creating a single dominant seral stage situation. In the latter case, large areas of young vigorous regeneration can be expected to uptake or use more water than that used by the older pre-MPB stand resulting in lower groundwater levels and less water available for runoff. Low flows can be affected by increased water use during the growing season which is an important consideration for fish. Riparian areas can be affected by MPB if pine are present but the effect on channels is expected to be largely beneficial provided accumulations of woody debris do not create hazardous situations with respect to jams, avulsions, and fish passage. Riparian stands are usually mixed with pine being less abundant than other more moisture tolerant species. Salvage of affected or potentially affected stands using clearcut or selective methods essentially expedites the reduction in forest cover making more water available for runoff in the short term but can also expedite the recovery process if sites are planted shortly after harvest. Salvage also requires the construction of new and use of existing forest roads. Salvage in riparian areas is not considered appropriate on streams larger than approximately 1.5 m bankfull width for reasons provided above, and salvage in adjacent areas can result in wind related damage to management and reserve zones. Salvage can occur along smaller non-fish bearing streams without affecting stability or temperature as most in the Pennask area are dry during the summer and early fall period. Un-salvaged scenario Under the un-salvaged scenario MPB effects are allowed to progress through the Pennask Creek watershed unchecked by salvage activity after December 31, 2009. Hazards Under the un-salvaged scenario riparian function in the Pennask Creek watershed should not be significantly affected. Hazard ratings will remain moderate for the watershed and basins as a result of range related disturbance. Pine that is killed by MPB in riparian areas can contribute large woody debris (LWD) to channels which is seen as a natural process; episodic in nature in fire and insect dominated stands. The amount of LWD input post MPB is not expected to be



overwhelming as non-pine species are common in riparian stands throughout the watershed. The peak flow hazard for the watershed and Sunset basin will remain low with MPB, regardless of attack level, but increase to moderate in the Pennask basin if full MPB mortality is realized. This hazard rating increase is the result of an expected peak ECA of 40% above the snowline around the year 2025 [Figure 2]. Peak ECA’s for the watershed and Sunset basin will remain less than 40% [Figures 1 and 3] which is considered to be a low hazard situation based on watershed characteristics. From a low flow perspective hazards are expected to remain low for the watershed and basins over the short term (0 – 20 years) but increase to moderate in the mid-term period under the full attack situation (20 – 50 years) as a result of up to 50% of the respective drainage areas above the snowline being in a similar advanced seral stage. This situation assumes that no further forest development activity occurs over the 50 year period which is unrealistic. Under the moderate attack situation, no increase in low flow hazard is expected. From a sedimentation perspective only those sites affected by MPB related increases in runoff and streamflow both above and below the snowline can be expected to generate more sediment as a result of increased erosion or increased likelihood of structure failure and washout. Road risk sites where MPB related increases in runoff and streamflow are expected to exacerbate conditions include:

• Pennask FSR

• Powerline Access

• Hydro Access

• Powerline North

• Powerline South

• Pennask SW non-status There may be an increase in sediment input to channels from MPB related effects on the above roads and road sections, which are a concern for fish, but the amount will not be substantial enough to boost current hazard ratings for the watershed and basins. The above assumes that no industrial use of roads in Pennask Creek occurs under the un-salvaged scenario which is also unrealistic. The realty is that active salvage in areas tributary to the Sunset and Bear FSR systems will increase or maintain high levels of industrial traffic on these roads and result in ongoing input of sediment to streams at problem sites if issues are not addressed.



Risk The risk of negative effects on fish and fish habitat at the watershed and basin levels in Pennask Creek is high and not expected to change with MPB under the un-salvaged scenario. Stream sedimentation associated with chronic road input sites and uncontrolled range use will remain the key issue for fish. This issue is best dealt with by implementing treatments recommended on roads with moderate or higher risk ratings, as outlined in the road risk section, and applying stringent controls on range use. There will be an increase in the peak flow hazard in the Pennask basin but its effect on risk will be negligible. Riparian function should not be affected.

Figure 1. Equivalent clearcut areas for the Pennask Creek watershed above the snowline under moderate and full attack situations for four scenarios – un-salvaged, WTP 80+%Pl, Proposed

only, and Proposed + clearcut (CC) salvage.

Figure 2. Equivalent clearcut areas for the Pennask basin above the snowline.



Figure 3. Equivalent clearcut areas for the Sunset basin above the snowline.

The risk of damage to road infrastructure is expected to increase with MPB under the un-salvaged scenario where undersized structures and/or uncontrolled drainage are noted as the hazard in the road risk table, and road infrastructure or access is the resource at stake. The increase in risk on applicable roads can be addressed in all cases by implementing recommendations provided in the road risk section. Proposed Development Scenario Under the proposed development scenario areas shown as proposed blocks on the overview map [Apppendix A] are clearcut logged. Three blocks with a combined area of 270 ha were proposed for development by the WFN at the time of field review, 200 ha of which was located above the snowline. All blocks were located in the Pennask basin immediately south of the Coquihalla Highway and have been logged. No development was planned in the Sunset basin. Under the proposed scenario the key consideration involves incremental effect(s) on watershed and basin hazards as they relate to fish and fish habitat. Hazards Development undertaken by the WFN resulted in a small incremental increase in ECA above the snowline over the un-salvaged scenario for both the moderate and full MPB situations. The increase is a result of the immediate reduction in forest cover realized by logging, but the change is within the margin of error for the model and not expected to increase peak flow hazards in the watershed or basins. Development below the snowline was not a concern from a peak flow perspective.



The incremental increase in ECA above the snowline is more pronounced under the moderate MPB situation as most of the development occurred in low susceptibility areas according to the model. In these areas, typically in ESSF biogeoclimatic zones, a significant portion of the stand is often made up of non-pine species, or where pine dominates mortality is expected to be limited for age or stand density related reasons. While the effect of development was negligible from a peak flow hazard perspective; targeting of low susceptibility stands according to the model is a concern for mid-term timber supply and potentially both peak and low flow reasons. Non-pine species in low susceptibility areas would be available for development in the future if not removed as part of current salvage plans, and if non-pine species are removed now the amount of development over the short to medium term may increase resulting in higher ECA’s and a larger proportion of the watershed in a similar seral stage from a regeneration perspective. Based on the model it appears that some moderate and high susceptibility stands below the snowline may be available for salvage beyond Provincial Park and non-legal Old Growth Management Area (OGMA) boundaries. Some areas within non-legal OGMA’s could be considered for salvage if compensated for elsewhere. The WTP 80+% Pl scenario shown in Figures 1 – 3 may also provide some direction in this regard. Under this scenario only those stands consisting of more than 80% pine are salvaged, retaining 10% of gross block area in WTP’s. Implementation of this strategy for salvage in MPB affected areas above the snowline could minimize the incremental effect of future development on ECA over the un-salvaged scenario and provide the quickest recovery under both the moderate and full MPB situation. According to the WFN11, recent blocks met these criteria which is possible as assumptions around stand type and composition are made in the model by biogeoclimatic zone. On the sedimentation side, development undertaken by WFN likely added to the volume of industrial traffic on the Sunset Lake FSR, and as such likely contributed to erosion and sedimentation problems at crossings on Sunset Creek and the Sunset Lake outlet channel. The incremental effect at these sites would have been negligible when compared to inputs from industrial traffic passing through the watershed from other areas on the plateau. For this reason the sedimentation hazard in the watershed and basins remains moderate despite development undertaken by the WFN; improvements are still required at problem road crossings.

11 Personal communication, Grant Thompson RPF, Heartland Economics LP. Forestry Manager. April 29, 2010.



From a riparian function perspective development undertaken by the WFN in the largest block occurred in the vicinity of an S6 or S4 channel potentially exposing riparian areas to damaging southwest winds. Site plan details were not available at the time of report completion. If the channel was fish-bearing, or not fish-bearing but in excess of 1.5 m bankfull width (large S6) mature riparian vegetation would have been required to protect local and downstream resource values. If the channel was not fish-bearing and less than 1.5 m bankfull width (small S6) then development could have included riparian areas to minimize post harvest windthrow effects. Efforts to retain mature timber in riparian areas along small S6 channels and non-classified drainages (NCD’s) prone to wind related damage often result in worse conditions than logging would produce. These channels are most often dry during the summer and fall period resulting in a negligible contribution with respect to increased stream temperature. Risk The risk of negative effects on fish and fish habitat at the watershed and basin levels in Pennask Creek is high and was not affected by recent WFN development. However, ongoing use of roads in Pennask Creek for the movement of logs produced by any development within or beyond the watershed boundary is a concern for fish if issues at problem sites are not addressed. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided to address current condition and MPB related issues as they relate to fish and fish habitat in the Pennask Creek watershed. 5.1 Stewardship

• Assemble and lead a watershed management or watershed steering committee to oversee land-use practices in the Pennask Creek watershed, prioritize restoration activities identified in this and future reports, and implement priority restoration works as and where required to protect high value fish stocks in the Pennask watershed. Representation should include MOE, MFR, MOT, Gormans, WFN, Go Fish BC, and the Pennask Fishing and Game Club.

• Make the BC Ministry of Forests and Range (MFR) aware of the uncontrolled range management situation in Pennask Creek and its effect on stream sedimentation and riparian function, and contribution to the high risk situation involving fish and fish habitat. Recommend stringent measures to manage cattle away from riparian areas to protect the resource at stake as per LRMP guidelines. Based on site conditions this should apply to all S2 – S6 streams in the watershed and those NCD areas



that may have been either S4 or small S6 channels before range related damage occurred. Suggest a monitoring program to track the effectiveness of any treatments applied and point out the possible use of dead standing or dead fallen pine in riparian areas to limit range access, where available.

• Make the MFR, Gormans and the WFN aware of moderate and higher risk issues on non-status, FSR, and otherwise permitted roads in the watershed. Recommend treatments provided in the road risk section to address issues in all cases and make recipients aware that assessment, prescription, and treatment of non-status roads is eligible for funding under the Forest Investment Account program. Recommend that MFR restrict use of problem roads and road sections by industrial traffic from both within and beyond the Pennask Creek watershed until improvements have been made, and apply wet weather shut-down guidelines thereafter to protect the resource at stake.

• Make the BC Ministry of Transportation aware of high value fish and fish habitat in Pennask Creek and the potential for introduction of harmful materials from the Coquihalla Highway. Ensure that measures are in place to prevent, contain, or minimize the effect of spills or accumulation of other hazardous materials at the crossings and on the approaches, where possible.

• Notify the WFN with regard to findings in the fish passage culvert inspection (FPCI) completed on selected roads and priorities for structure replacement. Full and partial barriers are also identified in the road risk section. There are some potential fish passage related issues on non-status roads that were not assessed in the FPCI but they are expected to be picked up by deactivation or other treatments recommended in the road risk section.

• Notify MFR in regard to the possible fish barrier created by coarse material deposition in the Sunset Lake outlet channel under the Sunset FSR bridge. Material could be removed by hand if benefits for fish are likely. This site was not covered by the FPCI – open bottom structures were ineligible at the time.

• Make Gormans and the WFN aware of the WTP 80%+Pl scenario as a possible best management practice for ongoing salvage in MPB affected areas above the snowline, regardless of susceptibility. This scenario could minimize any incremental increase in ECA over the un-salvaged scenario and provide the quickest recovery from an ECA perspective. Application of these criteria to current and future salvage plans should be based on field surveys. Also make them aware of the extent of moderate and high susceptibility MPB areas in non-legal OGMA’s below the snowline and



suggest some salvage of these stands if OGMA goals could be achieved elsewhere in less susceptible stand types.

• Make BC Parks aware of several moderate and higher risk roads and road sections now contained within protected areas in the Pennask Creek watershed and provide applicable information from the road risk section.

5.2 Restoration

• After priority road erosion, stream sedimentation and fish passage issues have been addressed by MFR and the major forest licensees, and the issue of uncontrolled cattle access to streams has been addressed by MFR, the following streams or stream sections could be considered for restoration using methods provided:

o Pennask Creek tributary downstream of Road 82A in the Pennask basin and Pennask Creek tributary crossed by the moderate risk section on Bear FSR – treatments could include removal of road related sediment by hand, addition of large woody debris for fish cover, also by hand, and planting of riparian areas affected by road construction and past forest harvesting.

• Monitor stream and riparian areas disturbed by ongoing range use in conjunction with similar efforts on the part of MFR to determine if natural recovery can be expected with restrictions on cattle access or whether stream and riparian restoration effort is required. Photographs taken at regular intervals at selected locations over a period of years will be required to make this determination. It is expected that natural recovery will occur quickly if range use pressure can be relieved – no treatment should be required.

6.0 CLOSURE This report dated March 2010 has been prepared exclusively for BC Ministry of Environment. M.J. Milne & Associates Ltd. accepts no responsibility for use of this document for purposes other than the management of forest, water, and fisheries resources on behalf of BC Environment in the Pennask Creek watershed. This concludes the watershed risk analysis for Pennask Creek. We trust that the information contained herein is complete and consistent with the scope of work assigned to M.J. Milne & Associates Ltd.



Michael J. Milne M.E.S. Watershed Hydrologist ABCFP Limited Licensee #0004

25/05/10

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� !�"#��$#%" �$&��' ()�

��

��*+��&($(�%�$#%" �$&

��,��!(��%(�-).�-�(��#�$(/%-"- -%0�%��%%�$&��!��( �%(!��%� -%0

�12� -�(�3451��6 �7��28942

�2��$��%�#�

(*( �/�(�%��($(�% 0�$��/ (%(!�"0��

�-&( 0�:-�. �-&( 0��:-�.��:-��(!�:-�.

� ��

��(�%�%(�#�(�"�#�!��0��

��

�(% ��!9�(�!�, ��&(

�-).,�0�

��!�/(��-%��

��'�%�%#�

�

��

�

2 4 � 8 ; < �- ��(%(��

��:-��(!��:-�.

Maximum Daily Discharge - Pennask Creek at Quilchena - 08LG016

0

5

10

15

20

25

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Dis

char

ge (m

3/s)

Mean 8.6

110 yr return -

Pennask Creek - Road Risk Analysis Table - All Tenure

Road Name BasinLength

(m) Tenure Comments Hazard Resource

Probability of hazard

occurrence

Effect on resource at

stake Risk Recommendations

SUNSET LAKE Pennask 144 FSR

Full barrier to fish passage, significant upstream habitat to be gained. High priority for replacement in Fish Passage Assessment. Fish barrier Fish and fish habitat H H VH Replace with fish passable structure.

SUNSET LAKE Pennask 1273 FSR Sediment input to Pennask from approaches.

Road erosion, ditch scour, sediment input to fish bearing waters. Fish and fish habitat H M H

Improve water management, cap with coarse material, build and maintain sumps.

SUNSET LAKE Sunset 576 FSR

Obvious input of fine sediment to Sunset Creek from downhill approaches. Erodable surface, sumps not maintained. Sediment input to fish stream Fish and fish habitat H M H

Improve water management, cap with coarse material, build and maintain sumps.

SUNSET LAKE Sunset 181 FSR

Sediment input to Sunset Lake outlet channel from approach, possible barrier to fish passage.

Sediment input to fish stream, possible barrier to fish passage. Fish and fish habitat M H H

Reduce sediment input, assess for fish passage and restore if required by hand.

PENNASKPennask residual 771 FSR Surface erosion and ditch scour, failing culverts.

Road washout, increased maintenance

Road infrastructure, access. H M H

Increase cross drain frequency, maintain crown, cap with coarse material.

PENNASK SW Pennask 574 NSR

Old failing wood box and metal culverts with sand fill on large S6 or S3 systems.

Washout, sediment input to fish bearing waters. Fish and fish habitat H M H Deactivate non-status road and close to all vehicles.

HIDDEN LAKE Pennask 1945 NSR

Significant diversion, erosion, and scour related issues on trail. Unclear connection to fish habitat.

Road erosion, sediment input to tributaries.

Fish habitat on fan and in Hidden Lake H M H De-build trail and close to all vehicles.

Coquihalla Highway

Pennask-Sunset 7360 Public

Chance of spill with input to Pennask Creek and tributaries.

Input of unknown deleterious substance to fish bearing waters. Fish and fish habitat M H H

Investigate MOT spill notification and containment plans and advise where required.

BRENDA LAKE RP Pennask 449 RP

Waterbars failing, sediment input from downhill approach, possible barrier to fish passage.

Possible fish barrier, sediment input to fish stream. Fish and fish habitat M H H

Assess fish passage and replace as required, control erosion on approach.

UPPER PENNASK Pennask 584 RP

Sediment input to Pennask Creek from downhill approaches Sediment input to fish stream Fish and fish habitat H M H

Improve water management, surface, build and maintain sumps.

PIT ROAD Pennask 379 RPSurface erosion with input on approaches. Allows cattle access to mainstem.

Sediment input to Pennask mainstem, bank shearing and erosion. Fish and fish habitat H M H

Restrict cattle access, surface approaches, maintain crown, and build and maintain sediment traps.

POWERLINE ACCESS Sunset 1212 RP

North of Coquihalla. Low risk now but uncontrolled drainage is infilling culverts and will result in diversion down to Sunset Creek.

Road erosion, sediment input to Sunset Creek, possible slump off of switchback.

Fish and fish habitat, road infrastructure, access. H M H

Improve water management, surface, and maintain crown.

82B Pennask 561 RPBarrier to fish passage, sediment input to tributary from approaches

Fish barrier, erosion, sediment input to fish bearing tributary.

Fish and fish habitat - limited upstream habitat value. H M H

Improve water management, cap with coarse material, build sumps and maintain.

POWERLINE NORTH Pennask 91 RP

Full barrier to fish passage, sediment input from approaches

Fish barrier, sediment input to fish stream

Fish and fish habitat - limited upstream use. Road infrastructure. H M H

Replace with fish passable structure or deactivate and close to all vehicles.

PENNASK Pennask 548 FSR Road erosion, no culverts.Road surface damage, possible washout.

Road infrastructure, access. M M M Improve drainage, cap with coarse material.

BEAR Pennask 370 FSRSurface erosion input from approaches, stream buried from Coquihalla input during construction.

Sediment input to fish bearing channel. Fish and fish habitat. M M M Surface approaches, build sediment traps.

SUNSET LAKE Pennask 153 FSR Barrier to fish passage. Section near Coquihalla. Fish barrier

Fish and fish habitat - limited upstream habitat available. H L M Deactivate and close to all vehicles.

MINE MAIN Pennask 674 NSRSurface erosion, sediment input Pennask, uncontrolled ford. ATV and 4 x 4 use. Sediment input to Pennask Creek Fish and fish habitat M M M Deactivate non-status road and close to all vehicles.

PENNASK SW Pennask 883 NSR

Old washed out crossing provides access for cattle, possible fan crossing beyond.

Cattle access to mainstem, possible diversions with erosion beyond. Fish and fish habitat M M M Prescribe and deactivate non-status road.

PENNASK SW Pennask 2081 NSR Uncontrolled drainage, failing structures, sand fill.

Erosion, sediment input to fish bearing waters Fish and fish habitat M M M Deactivate non-status road and close to all vehicles.

Page 1 of 2

Pennask Creek - Road Risk Analysis Table - All Tenure

Road Name BasinLength

(m) Tenure Comments Hazard Resource

Probability of hazard

occurrence

Effect on resource at

stake Risk Recommendations

Hydro access Sunset 595 RPDiversions causing erosion and stressing pipes on lower RP road.

Diversion, concentration, washout on road below or diversion to fish stream.

Road infrastructure, fish and fish habitat M M M Improve water management and maintain.

PENNASK EAST Pennask 247 RP

Erosion on road close to mainstem and Sunset FSR, limited connection.

Some sediment input to Pennask Creek Fish and fish habitat M M M Improve water management or deactivate.

POWERLINE NORTH Pennask 1357 RP

Erosion on downhill approaches either side of 82A, sediment input to tributary and issues on 82A.

Sediment input to stream, effect on water quality.

Local and downstream fish and fish habitat. M M M

Deactivate or surface, improve water management and maintain.

POWERLINE SOUTH Pennask 819 RP

Section north of Pennask Creek. Waterbars failing on approaches, road erosion, sediment input to fish bearing tributary. Erosion, sediment input to fish stream Fish and fish habitat H L M Improve deactivation or upgrade and maintain.

POWERLINE SOUTH Pennask 668 RP

Section south of Pennask Creek. Uncontrolled drainage and erosion, poor connection.

Erosion, some input of fines during freshet and heavy rain.

Fish and fish habitat in downstream areas. M M M Improve deactivation.

PENNASK EAST Pennask 154 RP Erosion on approach, fine sediment input to tributary Sediment input to stream

Downstream fish and fish habitat M M M Improve water management or deactivate.

SILVER LAKE Sunset 323 RP

Failing waterbars on approach to crossing. Sediment input to Sunset Creek now, increasing over time.

Uncontrolled drainage, erosion, sediment input to fish stream Fish and fish habitat M M M Improve deactivation and armour.

Page 2 of 2

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

! � " # $ �%&��'('��

�

��

�

��

�&)�*+��,+(*&�,- ��./��-','�(�,+(*&�,-

� ��,��(�+�

��'�(�('�+�'�*�+�)��0��

��

�1�� "2! �(�'��

�'(&��)2�'�)�3 ��-'

�%453�0��)�6'��%(

��

��7�(�(+�

�'�0�5%45�%45��)'��('

��

��3

Photo 1. Sunset FSR approaches to Sunset Creek crossing.

Photo 2. Accumulation of shot-rock in Sunset Lake outlet channel under Sunset Lake FSR crossing. Accumulation may be a partial barrier to fish passage that could be addressed by hand. Rainbow trout fry

were seen in high numbers downstream of the crossing but not above.

Photo 3. Pennask FSR in residual area showing effect of uncontrolled runoff in erodable materials. The ditch is full of sediment up to running surface height.

Photo 4. Infilled culvert inlet on Pennask FSR resulting in continuation of flow with entrained sediment down the ditchline.

Photo 5. Southern approach on Pit Road to Pennask Creek crossing. Drainage is uncontrolled resulting in surface erosion with measurable input to Pennask Creek.

Photo 6. Sediment input to Pennask Creek from Pit Road crossing above showing ineffective sediment control effort and active cattle use.

Photo 7. Old failing wood box culvert with 1 m fill on Pennask SW non-status road. Failure will result in sediment input to Pennask Creek.

Photo 8. Sunset Creek in meadow area downstream of Coquihalla showing channel bed and bank damage from uncontrolled cattle use.

Photo 9. More cattle damage on Sunset Creek downstream of Coquihalla.

Photo 10. More cattle damage on Sunset Creek downstream of Coquihalla.

Photo 11. Cattle access point to Pennask mainstem upstream of Pennask FSR crossing.

Photo 12. Cattle access point to Pennask Creek upstream of Pennask FSR crossing. Vegetation is trampled increasing the area of fine textured materials available for erosion during next freshet.

Photo 13. Beaver dam on Pennask Creek in large meadow complex upstream of confluence with Sunset Creek. Increased water levels associated with back-flooding appears to reduce cattle access to channels

and resulting damage.

Photo 14. Back-flooding created by beaver dam in above photo. Cattle are using the riparian area but access points to the channel are limited, assumed to be the result of deeper water and steeper bank

angles.

Photo 15. Shallow back-flooded channel showing small bank failures exacerbated by cattle use.

Photo 16. Small fish bearing tributary in Sunset Lake area no subjected to range use.

Photo 17. S4 tributary to back-flooded meadow reach shown above. As a result of range related damage, the watercourse can no longer be classified as a stream as per definitions provided in current legislation.

Photo 18. Range related damage to an S4 channel, as above. Rainbow trout fry were seen in the intermittent watercourse.

Photo 19. S6 tributary to lower Sunset Creek trampled beyond recognition. The channel is clearly defined downstream of this site – classified as S6 as a result of a gradient barrier adjacent to Sunset Creek.

Photo 20. S6 tributary to Sunset Creek rendered unclassifiable as a result of range use.

Photo 21. Cattle use a riparian area near Pit Road crossing on Pennask Creek. Reaches with mature coniferous riparian vegetation are more resistant to range related effects than meadow reaches but

where use is concentrated degradation occurs.

Photo 22. Mature coniferous riparian area on Pennask Creek upstream of WSC gauge. Some range use occurs along this reach but stream bed and bank materials are coarse limiting damage around access

points.

Photo 23. Mature riparian area on Pennask Creek upstream of Sunset FSR crossing. Range use is limited

in this area.

Documents

Watershed Risk Analysis - a100.gov.bc.caa100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r18314/Penn...Watershed Risk Analysis/Pennask Creek Page 4 File: E02-003 Date 05/10 M.J. Milne & Associates