Tla'amin Watershed Protection Plan

TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN MARCH 30th, 2021

Prepared for:

Tla’amin Nation 4779 Klahanie Rd, Powell River, B.C., CANADA, V8A 0C4

By: Dr. Kelly Chapman & Dr. Robert Patrick

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... viii

PART 1: WATERSHED PLAN

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 Our People and History ...... 2 1.2 Our Lands and Waters ...... 2 2 GOALS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES ...... 4 2.1 GOALS ...... 4 2.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ...... 4 3 PLANNING CONTEXT ...... 5 3.1 Plan Purpose ...... 5 3.2 Planning Process ...... 5 3.3 Our Laws ...... 6 3.4 Previous Studies ...... 6 4 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION ...... 7 4.1 Physiographic History ...... 7 4.2 Climate ...... 7 4.3 Groundwater ...... 8 4.3.1 Glacial Till & Bedrock Aquifers ...... 8 4.3.2 Glaciofluvial and Fluvial Aquifers ...... 8 4.3.3 Arsenic ...... 8 4.4 Hydrology ...... 9 4.5 Biogeoclimatic Zones & Vegetation Cover ...... 10 4.6 Traditional Resource Use ...... 10 5 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS ...... 11 6 WATERSHED RISKS, INDICATORS & MITIGATIONS ...... 12 6.1 Healthy Watershed Characteristics ...... 12 6.2 GIS-Based Criteria for Monitoring Watershed Risk ...... 12 6.2.1 Watersheds ...... 12 6.2.2 Biodiversity & Culturally Sensitive Areas ...... 13 6.3 Field-based Criteria for Monitoring Watershed Condition ...... 22 6.3.1 Watershed Condition ...... 22 TLA’AMIN i WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

6.3.2 Water Quality ...... 22 6.3.3 Streamflow ...... 27 6.3.4 Biodiversity & Culturally Sensitive Areas ...... 27 6.3.5 New & Upgraded Small Dams & Hydro Projects ...... 28 6.4 Climate Change Considerations ...... 32 6.5 Mitigations for Reducing Risk ...... 34 6.6 SOURCE WATER PROTECTION ...... 43 6.7 The Multi-Barrier Approach to Safe Drinking Water ...... 43 6.8 Sources of contamination ...... 43 6.9 Overview and scope of the Procedure...... 43 7 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 47

PART 2: WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS & PRESSURES

1 SLIAMMON WATERSHED ...... 58 1.1 Watershed Description ...... 58 1.1.1 Topography & General Description ...... 58 1.1.2 General Hydrology ...... 58 1.1.3 Fisheries ...... 59 1.1.4 Biodiversity ...... 59 1.1.5 Wildlife & Species at Risk ...... 60 1.1.6 Sensitive Ecosystems ...... 61 1.1.7 Cultural Values ...... 62 1.2 Watershed Pressures ...... 62 1.2.1 Forestry ...... 62 1.2.2 Recreation ...... 64 1.2.3 Urban, Rural and Industrial Development ...... 64 1.2.4 Water Extraction ...... 64 1.2.5 Water Flows & Sliammon Lake Weir ...... 65 1.2.6 Mining ...... 66 1.2.7 Climate Change ...... 66 2 OKEOVER CREEK WATERSHED ...... 69 2.1 Watershed Description ...... 69 2.1.1 Topography & General Description ...... 69

TLA’AMIN ii WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

2.1.2 General hydrology ...... 69 2.1.3 Fisheries ...... 69 2.1.4 Biodiversity ...... 70 2.1.4.1 Ecological Communities at Risk ...... 70 2.1.4.2 Wildlife & Species at Risk ...... 70 2.1.4.3 Sensitive Ecosystems ...... 71 2.1.5 Cultural Values ...... 71 2.2 Watershed Pressures ...... 72 2.2.1 Forestry ...... 72 2.2.2 Recreation ...... 72 2.2.3 Water Flows ...... 73 2.2.4 Water Extraction ...... 73 2.2.1 Urban, Rural and Industrial Development ...... 73 2.2.2 Climate Change ...... 73 3 OKEOVER-THEODOSIA INLETS WATERSHED ...... 76 3.1 Watershed Description ...... 76 3.1.1 Topography & General Description ...... 76 3.1.2 General hydrology ...... 76 3.1.3 Fisheries ...... 76 3.1.4 Biodiversity ...... 77 3.1.4.1 Ecological Communities at Risk ...... 77 3.1.4.2 Wildlife & Species at Risk ...... 77 3.1.4.3 Sensitive Ecosystems ...... 78 3.1.5 Cultural Values ...... 78 3.2 Watershed Pressures ...... 79 3.2.1 Forestry ...... 79 3.2.2 Recreation ...... 80 3.2.3 Water Extraction ...... 80 3.2.4 Rural Residential Development ...... 80 3.2.5 Mining ...... 80 3.2.6 Climate Change ...... 80 4 THEODOSIA RIVER WATERSHED ...... 82 4.1 Watershed Description ...... 82 4.1.1 Topography & General description ...... 82

TLA’AMIN iii WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

4.1.2 General hydrology ...... 82 4.1.3 Fisheries ...... 84 4.1.4 Biodiversity ...... 84 4.1.4.1 Ecological Communities at Risk ...... 84 4.1.4.2 Wildlife & Species at Risk ...... 84 4.1.4.3 Sensitive Ecosystems ...... 85 4.1.5 Cultural Values ...... 86 4.2 Watershed Pressures ...... 87 4.2.1 Forestry ...... 87 4.2.2 Recreation ...... 87 4.2.3 Water Extraction ...... 87 4.2.4 Theodosia Diversion Dam ...... 88 4.2.5 Mining ...... 88 4.2.6 Climate Change ...... 88

PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 1. Bedrock geology of the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover- Theodosia Inlets...... 95 Map 2. Mapped aquifers and fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets...... 96 Map 3. Biogeoclimatic subzones in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover- Theodosia Inlets...... 97 Map 4. General hydrology of the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover- Theodosia Inlets...... 98 Map 5. BC Data Catalogue fish observations from the Sliammon Creek watershed...... 99 Map 6. BC Data Catalogue fish observations from the Okeover Creek watershed...... 100 Map 7. CDC records of species and ecological communities at risk in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets...... 101 Map 8. Mapped Critical Habitat for species at risk in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets...... 102 Map 9. Sensitive ecosystems in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover- Theodosia Inlets...... 103 Map 10. Wildlife Habitat Areas and Old Growth Management Areas in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets...... 104 Map 11. Trails and recreation sites in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets...... 105 Map 12. Water licenses and groundwater wells in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets ...... 106

TLA’AMIN iv WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Map 13. Mineral tenures and private lands in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets ...... 107 Map 14. Potential water quality monitoring locations (and Water Survey of Canada hydrometric monitoring station) in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover- Theodosia Inlets ...... 108 Map 15. Bedrock geology of the Theodosia watershed...... 109 Map 16. Fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits in the Theodosia watershed...... 110 Map 17. Biogeoclimatic subzones in the Theodosia watershed...... 111 Map 18. General hydrology of the Theodosia watershed...... 112 Map 19. BC Data Catalogue fish observations from the lower section of the Theodosia watershed...... 113 Map 20. BC Data Catalogue fish observations from the upper section of the Theodosia watershed...... 114 Map 21. CDC records of species and ecological communities at risk in the Theodosia watershed...... 115 Map 22. Mapped Critical Habitat for species at risk in the Theodosia watershed...... 116 Map 23. Sensitive ecosystems in the Theodosia watershed...... 117 Map 24. Old Growth Management Areas, Wildlife Habitat Areas and Ungulate Winter Range in the Theodosia Watershed...... 118 Map 25. Water licenses and groundwater wells in the watersheds for the Theodosia watershed...... 119 Map 26. Mineral tenures and private lands for the Theodosia Watershed...... 120 Map 27. Potential water quality monitoring locations and Water Survey of Canada hydrometric monitoring stations in the Theodosia Watershed...... 121

REFERENCES ...... 122

TLA’AMIN v WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Characteristics of a healthy, functioning watersheds in coastal BC...... 12 Table 2. Broad-scale Tier 1 (GIS-based) watershed indicators, representing the risk to watershed health posed by different categories of impact ...... 15 Table 3. Site level Tier II (field-based) watershed indicators for assessing current watershed conditions on the ground...... 23 Table 4. Basic water quality monitoring parameters for addressing general water concerns, with some suggested sampling frequencies...... 26 Table 5. Selection of indicators for assessing water quality impacts in watersheds, with suggested indicators for monitoring the potential water quality effects of different activities ...... 29 Table 6. Projected climate related changes in winter weather, storm impacts and streamflow in BC ...... 32 Table 7. Projected climate change impacts on fish in the South Coast Region...... 33 Table 8. Selection of potential mitigations for reducing the impact of human activities on watershed health, and for increasing watershed resilience against projected climate change impacts. 35 Table 9. Recommendations for implementing watershed protection planning and management in the study area...... 48 Table 10. Known occurrences of ecological communities at risk in the Sliammon Creek Watershed .. 60 Table 11. Known occurrences of species at risk in the Sliammon Creek Watershed ...... 61 Table 12. Ethnohistoric and archaeological records for Sliammon Creek watershed...... 62 Table 13. Known occurrences of ecological communities at risk in the Okeover Creek Watershed .... 70 Table 14. Known occurrences of species at risk in the Okeover Creek watershed...... 71 Table 15. Ethnohistoric and archaeological records for Okeover Creek watershed...... 72 Table 16. Known occurrences of ecological communities at risk in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets Watershed ...... 77 Table 17. Known occurrences of species at risk in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets Watershed ...... 78 Table 18. Ethnohistoric and archaeological records for Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watershed...... 79 Table 19. Known occurrences of ecological communities at risk in the Theodosia River Watershed .. 85 Table 20. Known occurrences of species at risk in the Theodosia River watershed ...... 85 Table 21. Ethnohistoric and archaeological records for the Theodosia River watershed ...... 86 Table 22 Summary of climate change impacts to stream habitats and salmonids in Theodosia River...... 90

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Study area watersheds...... 3 Figure 2: Tla’amin Source Water Protection Plan Process...... 44 Figure 3. Sliammon Creek spawner surveys from 1951-2019...... 68 Figure 4. Okeover Creek spawner surveys from 1951-2019 ...... 74 Figure 5. Natural hazard areas, including steep slopes...... 75 Figure 6. Plan of the Theodosia dam/Olsen Lake diversion ...... 83 Figure 7a. Theodosia River spawner surveys from 1951-2019 – Chinook, Chum and Coho ...... 91 Figure 7b. Theodosia River spawner surveys from 1951-2019 – Pink and Sockeye ...... 92

TLA’AMIN vi WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A WORKSHOP: AGENDA, NOTES & ATTENDEES ...... 130 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS FOR SLIAMMON & THEODOSIA WATERSHEDS ...... 144 APPENDIX C GROUNDWATER AQUIFER REPORTS ...... 149 APPENDIX D DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONES IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 157 APPENDIX E STEPS FOR DESIGNING A WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM ...... 160 APPENDIX F DESCRIPTIONS OF SELECTED SPECIES AT RISK IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 163 APPENDIX G SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SUNSHINE COAST AND ADJACENT ISLANDS ...... 171 APPENDIX H DAM INFORMATION ...... 174 APPENDIX I WATER LICENSE INFORMATION ...... 177

TLA’AMIN vii WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Watershed Protection Plan provides an overview of the current risks to watershed health in all three main Tla’amin watersheds: Tla’amin River; Okeover River; and Theodosia River.

The planning process for the Watershed Protection Plan encouraged broad engagement of Tla’amin citizens, individuals, academics, provincial and federal agencies and non-governmental groups. At the outset of the planning process a Working Committee was established by Tla’amin Nation for the purpose of providing technical, historical, and scientific information that would help to inform this planning process and the plan document.

Watershed health criteria are identified as well as recommendations to protect and enhance watershed conditions across all three watershed areas. In addition, a drinking water protection plan is provided as a guide for consideration as a means of protecting the source of community drinking water and domestic water serves and distribution supply.

This plan contains two parts: Part 1: Watershed Protection Plan introduces the goals and guiding principles for the plan. A regional description of the plan area is provided as well as watershed risks and indicators of watershed health. A drinking water protection plan is provided. The recommendations coming out of the plan are presented at the end of Part 1.

Part 2: Watershed Descriptions and Pressures provides a detailed description of each watershed including the climate, topography, fisheries, biodiversity, culture and hydrology. This information came from existing reports and other documents as cited. Watershed pressures in each of these watersheds is also reported in Part 2. These watershed pressures include: forestry, urban development, recreation, water extraction/diversion, urban/community expansion and climate change.

TLA’AMIN viii WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1: WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

TLA’AMIN 1 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

1 INTRODUCTION

Water is life. Our creation stories speak of how the She teh gos (Creator) put Tla’amin people on this land. We have a deep connection to our land, established at the time of our birth when our umbilical cord was buried into the ground. This connection is nourished by our Ums Ta-ow (teachings), which show how we are bound to the forests and waters of our territory. Our people have depended on this land for our survival since the beginning of time. Tla’amin connection to the land is reflected in the words jej jeh which mean both “relative” and “tree” in our language.

Collectively we are known as the Tla’amin Nation. We speak our Tla’amin language and are part of the larger grouping of Coast Salish peoples. We are a Sovereign, self-governing, modern-day Treaty Nation. We have our own Constitution, Laws, Plans and Governance structure following from the Tla’amin Final Agreement signed with the provincial and federal governments on April 16th 2016.

This plan, the Tla’amin Watershed Protection Plan (Watershed Protection Plan), helps to define our sovereignty over lands and resources and our commitment to sustainable resource management. The Watershed Protection Plan draws strength from community members, management and leadership and the many existing Tla’amin laws and plans. The Watershed Protection Plan aims to integrate water-related policies and statement from other Tla’amin Laws into a single, water-focused document. The Watershed Protection Plan covers all Treaty Settlement Lands (TSLs) of the Tla’amin Nation, including the three main watersheds: Tla’amin River, Okeover River and Theodosia River watershed areas (Figure 1). The goal of the Watershed Protection Plan is the protection of watershed health including drinking water quality as well as fish and all aquatic habitat. The methodology for this plan included establishment of a working committee and engagement sessions, a document review of previous watershed assessment reports, field inspections to identify current risks to watershed health, selection of watershed health criteria, and an educational video describing the planning process and planning outcomes. The Watershed Protection Plan makes recommendations for future priority projects to protect, restore and improve watershed health within Tla’amin Nation.

1.1 Our People and History Tla’amin Nation is one of the many indigenous Coast Salish tribes inhabiting the northern part of the Pacific Coastal region. Our people are descendants of a rich heritage with a history that stretches back well over 4000 years. All of our economic and political systems along with our spirituality is based on our relationship with the traditional territory of our ancestors and their unique relationship with the land and water.

Today, our community has over 1100 members with the majority living in the main village site, Teetoshum. We have a young population that is rapidly growing with over 60% of our members under the age of 40.

1.2 Our Lands and Waters

Our traditional territory is commonly known as the northern part of B.C.’s Sunshine Coast, extending down both sides of the Strait of Georgia (Salish Sea), occupying an area over 400 square kilometers. Historically this consisted of numerous permanent and temporary settlements of our people within this territory. Our people also frequently ventured outside of our territory to trade with our neighbours up and down the Pacific coast.

TLA’AMIN 2 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Theodosia River

Okeover- Theodosia Inlets

Okeover Creek Sliammon Creek

Figure 1. Study area watersheds.

TLA’AMIN 3 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

The Constitution of the Tla’amin Nation lays the necessary framework for our Sovereignty through establishment of our laws, policies and plans. For example, in section 14 of our Constitution it is stated that Tla'amin Nation has owned and exercised stewardship over Tla'amin Territory, including the water and resources, since the beginning of time. Further, under section 15 of our Constitution, we note that Tla'amin Nation owns Tla'amin Lands and Resources, subject to such interests as it may grant in and to those lands and resources. As well, in section 16 of the Constitution, the Tla'amin Government exercises governance authority over and may make laws in respect of Tla'amin Lands and Resources, including their protection.

This Tla’amin Water Management and Protection Law (April 5 2016) establishes a comprehensive environmental management regime to protect human health and the quality of water, land and air on Tla'amin lands through a system that governs the management of waste, environmental emergencies, and contaminated sites.

This Watershed Protection Plan compliments that Water Management and Protection Law by providing specific watershed-scale indicators of watershed health, identifies potential watershed threats and recommends management actions to improve watershed health.

Therefore, the goals of this Watershed Protection Plan are consistent with, and supportive of, the Tla’amin Nation Constitution.

2 GOALS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

A series of goals have helped guide the development of this Watershed Protection Plan. These goals are foundational to the implementation of this plan.

2.1 GOALS • To honour and pay tribute to Tla’amin Ancestors and Elders; • To respect, protect, and promote Tla’amin heritage, culture, traditions, practices and Ta’ow (teachings), and our traditional governance; • To maintain our connection to our lands and resources and ensure the responsible, sustainable stewardship of lands, waters, air, and other resources; • To preserve, protect, and enhance the natural environment; • To establish a comprehensive, effective system for managing access to, use of, and flow the Tla’amin Water Reservation (Tla’amin, Okeover, Theodosia watersheds) within a watershed-based approach to water management that focuses on the entire water cycle and respects traditional teachings and principles and aims to protect both tla’amin Citizens, water quality and the environment.

2.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES • Tla'amin's Ta'ow includes the principle of "Tio metsxw otl ma tuxw"which includes the concepts of sustainability and only taking enough to satisfy present needs while leaving sufficient resources for future generations; • Tla’amin is committed to continuing traditional, cultural and spiritual uses and protection of water • The Tla’amin Constitution includes fundamental values that are relevant to water including ensuring the responsible and sustainable stewardship of lands, waters, air and other resources.

TLA’AMIN 4 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

3 PLANNING CONTEXT

3.1 Plan Purpose

The Tla’amin Watershed Protection Plan (Watershed Protection Plan) provides an overview of the current risks to watershed health in all three main Tla’amin watersheds: Tla’amin River; Okeover River; and Theodosia River watersheds (Figure 1), making recommendations for future priority projects to restore and improve overall watershed health. While a detailed watershed assessment of local hydrogeology, geomorphology or hydrology was not the purpose of the Watershed Protection Plan, field assessments were undertaken to report habit conditions, vegetation, spawning channels, land use activities and other natural conditions.

The specific tasks of this Watershed Protection Plan project were to:

• Establish a Watershed Protection Plan Working Committee made up of community members • Define long-term goals, objectives for the Watershed Protection Plan • Coordinate all Working Committee meetings (in person, Powell River: October 20/21, 2020; on Zoom March 3, 2021) • Review existing Tla’amin Nation watershed assessment reports (2000; 2004) • Conduct field inspections: Sliammon River and Lake (October 22, 2020); Theodosia River (November 18, 2020); Okeover River (January 29, 2021). • Present the Draft Watershed Protection Plan to Tla’amin Natural Resource Committee (on Zoom March 10, 2021) • Present Draft Watershed Protection Plan to Tla’amin Executive Committee (Chief and Council), Zoom March 17, 2021) • Identify watershed health criteria • Install two climate stations • Produce a short video on the Watershed Protection Plan (Skeena Media Productions) • Initiate river turbidity monitoring • Host information sharing meetings with the community • Finalize the Watershed Protection Plan

3.2 Planning Process

Meetings of the Working Committee were held in Powell River during October 2020 (see Appendix A for meeting minutes and attendance). The Working Committee consisted of Tla’amin Nation membership, Elders, Youth, Tla’amin staff and management, provincial and federal agency personnel. Plan facilitation was provided by Cathy Galligos, Director of Lands and Resources, Dr Kelly Chapman (Kwest Inc), Dr Robert Patrick (University

TLA’AMIN 5 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

of Saskatchewan). Plan communication and the recording of story-telling was provided by videographer, Quinn Barabash (Skeena Media).

Field assessment tours were coordinated by Tla’amin Nation into Sliammon watershed and Sliammon Lake (October 2020), Theodosia watershed (November 2020) and Okeover watershed (January 2021). The Watershed Protection Plan videographer, Mr Quinn Barabash from Skeena Media Inc., documented the planning process and made a film of the three watersheds. Weather monitoring stations were installed and a water turbidity meter was purchased as a starting point for a water quality monitoring program.

Public presentations of the plan were conducted in accordance with provincial health protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. Final adoption of the plan will be a decision of Chief and Council.

3.3 Our Laws Tla’amin Nation has established important laws, including the Tla’amin Water Management and Protection Law (April 5 2016), mentioned above, to guide responsible, sustainable and respectful human and cultural relationships with the land, animals and water in our territory. This and other laws are foundational to our belief system and traditional knowledge. These laws must be recognized and respected in this, and any future, Tla’amin planning document.

• Culture and Heritage Law • Environmental Protection Law • Fish & Wildlife Harvesting & Protection Law • Forest Law • Land Use Planning & Zoning Law • Water Management & Protection Law • Tla’amin Nation Delegation (Foreshore Agreement) (2016). • Tla’amin Nation. Land and Water Use Plan for Tla’amin Traditional Territory (2005).

3.4 Previous Studies

A number of studies have been completed that are relevant to watershed planning and management on Tla’amin Nation’s lands. These include reports prepared for the Nation, BC Timber Sales and the Theodosia Stewardship Roundtable. A summary of these reports is as follows.

• In the 1990s, BC Timber Sales commissioned assessments for the Sliammon Community Watershed, including a Level 1 Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure (Summit 1996), terrain stability mapping (Ryder and Associates 1996), and a reconnaissance Level 2 Channel Assessment (Summit, 1997). Updates were completed in 2000 by Carson Land Resources Management Ltd. (Carson 2000) and in 2004 by Summit Environmental Consultants (Summit, 2004). The objectives of these studies were to identify and evaluate hydrologic risks of forest development, and to provide guidance on avoiding or minimizing risks to water quality and aquatic habitat (Summit 2004). A summary of the findings and recommendations from these assessments is located in Appendix B.

• In 2004 the Nation also initiated the Sliammon Traditional Territory Water Volume Study (Bates & Paul 2005), with the aim of identifying available water volumes for fisheries, potable water, and economic

TLA’AMIN 6 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

opportunities, and to generate data for determining the need for a water reservation to meet anticipated growth. This study included the Sliammon, Okeover and Theodosia watersheds.

• In 2012, Patrick Little prepared the Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Plan (Little 2012) for the Theodosia Stewardship Roundtable Group. The purpose of this report was to document past and future challenges related to stewardship and restoration of the Theodosia watershed, and to make recommendations for future steps and climate change adaptation. As part of this project, a video was produced by Living Rivers Georgia Basin/Vancouver Island (2012), documenting historical accounts of the Theodosia River by Tla’amin elders, including Elsie Paul, and the late Agnes McGee and Annie Dominick. See Appendix B for a summary of the report recommendations.

• In 2017 a hydrometric program was undertaken for Sliammon Creek by Aquarius R&D (2017a, 2017b), for the purpose of reviewing and generating data for the design and economic feasibility analysis of a proposed hydropower project. The study recommended that the hydrometric program continue for at least another five years (with site visits at least four times a year), to reduce the uncertainty of the hydrological estimates generated for the report, and a revisiting of flood measurements after larger flows are measured.

• In 2018, a Design Basis Report for a Sliammon Lake Replacement Dam, was prepared by BBA Engineering (BBA 2018). The report includes a hydrotechnical and environmental assessment of Sliammon CreeK. The study findings support a plan by Tla'amin Nation (Tla'amin) to replace the aging dam, because of its hazardous state, and to accommodate current and future water withdrawals along with changing environmental conditions, such as drought frequency and reduced surface runoff.

• In 2018, the Nation worked with Tiffany Ortomond, from Pfizer College, to identify suitable sites for a water quality monitoring program and to take baseline measurements of physico-chemical water quality parameters.

4 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION

4.1 Physiographic History BC’s Coast Mountains are primarily formed from the Coast Plutonic Complex, a huge mass of intrusive igneous rocks1 (also known as plutonic rocks, formed from magma that intruded into the Earth’s crust and cooled), uplifted by tectonic forces. In southwestern BC these rocks have been dated to 145-66 million years (Blank 2013). Because of their durability and resistance to weathering, plutonic rocks support the steep slopes and rugged topography that typify the Coast Mountains (Church & Ryder 2007). The bedrock geology of the Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watersheds is shown in Map 1. The bedrock geology of the Theodosia River watershed is shown in Map 15.

4.2 Climate The steep Coast Mountains are typically moist with saturated air masses from the Pacific west coast and Strait of Georgia depositing high levels of precipitation over the fall, winter and spring months (Little 2012). Coastal influence on lower elevation areas near the sea moderates year round temperatures. Summers are typically quite dry along the coastal shoreline areas and in the upper elevations. Higher elevation areas have colder

1 Which on the southwest Coast Mountains, range in age from 167 to 91 million years old (Bustin et al. 2013). TLA’AMIN 7 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

winter temperatures and much higher snowfall accumulations. The shoreline areas receive very little snow in winter.

4.3 Groundwater 4.3.1 Glacial Till & Bedrock Aquifers Glacial till overlying igneous bedrock is typical of coastal BC geology. Because both geological formations are relatively impermeable2 (although when fractured, igneous bedrock can be highly permeable; Earl & Panchuk 2019), most groundwater flow occurs in saturated soils overlying the till or bedrock, with flow facilitated by tree root channels (Winkler et al. 2010, citing others). Wells drilled in glacial till and igneous bedrock tend to have low productivity, due to their impermeability (Bernardinucci & Ronneseth 2002).

No aquifers have been mapped within the boundaries of the study area watersheds. The nearest mapped aquifer is Aquifer 957 (Province of BC 2020a), a bedrock aquifer abutting the southwestern boundary of the Okeover Creek watershed and the extreme southwestern boundary of the Sliammon watershed (Map 2). It is overlain by another smaller aquifer, Aquifer 961 (Province of BC 2020b), just west of Sturt Road, compromised of dioritic intrusive rocks (see Appendix C), which likewise characterize most of the bedrock underlying the study area watersheds. This aquifer is rated as having low productivity (0.18 L/s mean) and high vulnerability to contamination. Its high vulnerability is due to being partially unconfined3, having shallow depth to water, and being comprised of fractured bedrock4 (see Appendix C for full report). These vulnerabilities are potentially common to bedrock aquifers underlying the study area’s watersheds, particularly the Sliammon and Okeover Creek Watersheds, given their proximity and geologic similarities to Aquifer 957.

4.3.2 Glaciofluvial and Fluvial Aquifers Glaciofluvial and fluvial deposits comprised of coarser sand and/or gravel, such as those below Sliammon Lake and along the Theodosia River (Maps 2 & 16), tend to yield more productive aquifers (they have larger spaces between grains, through which groundwater can more easily flow) (Bernardinucci & Ronneseth 2002). However, these deposits are also often highly vulnerable to contamination because they are often very permeable and occur at the land surface (Berardinucci & Ronneseth 2002). If overlain with a deep and/or impermeable (confining) layer of sediment, the vulnerability of these aquifers is reduced (Berardinucci & Ronneseth 2002). For example, Aquifer 961 is a small, moderately productive (2.66 L/s mean) glaciofluvial sand and gravel aquifer (overlying bedrock Aquifer 957; Map 2). A confining layer of clay, 20+m deep, overlies this aquifer. As consequence, the aquifer is rated as moderately vulnerable to contamination (GeoBC 2012; see Appendix C for full report).

4.3.3 Arsenic Arsenic is naturally and ubiquitously found in the granitic bedrock of the Sunshine Coast, and has been the cause of high arsenic levels in some wells around Powell River (Carmichael & Clarkson 1995). Wells with the highest arsenic concentrations were generally the deepest wells (i.e. those most likely drawing from bedrock aquifers

2 Till tends to have low permeability to groundwater because spaces between coarser grained materials, such as gravel, are tightly filled with smaller grained material, such as clay and sand. 3 Unconfined aquifers lack an impermeable overlying layer of sediments, which serve to protect the aquifer from surface contamination. 4 Water (and therefore accompanying contaminants) moves more quickly through fractured bedrock aquifers than aquifers comprised of unconsolidated sand and gravel (Berardinucci & Ronneseth 2002). TLA’AMIN 8 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

rather than shallower aquifers in unconsolidated sand and gravel (Carmichael & Clarkson 1995). No wells sampled north of the City of Powell River, however, were found to have arsenic levels exceeding the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (0.025 mg/L) (Carmichael & Clarkson 1995).

4.4 Hydrology Watersheds in the study area fall into two types of coastal streamflow regimes: rain dominated regimes and hybrid rain-snowmelt regimes. On the south coast, the snowpack zone starts from about 800m elevation (Hudson & Horel 2007). Streams with higher elevation watersheds (typically above 1000m) with winter snowpack have snowmelt dominated flow regimes, and typically reach highest flows during the spring snowmelt (Hudson & Horel 2007). Mixed or hybrid rain-snowmelt stream regimes, occur in watersheds having both low elevation, rain dominated reaches, as well as higher elevation snow pack dominated reaches. These streams have characteristics of both rain- and melt-dominated streamflow regimes, and are common in coastal BC (Eaton & Moore 2010). Hybrid streams in coastal BC typically have two periods of peak flow: rain-dominated high flows in the fall (October to January), and similar magnitude melt-dominated flows in the spring (April to June). In these systems, the relative importance rainfall decreases with elevation (particularly >1000masl) and with distance from the Coast, where winter precipitation is more likely to fall as snow than rain (Eaton & Moore 2010). Significant flooding can occur in hybrid watersheds as a result of midwinter rain-on-snow (ROS) events, with snowmelt plus rainfall causing streamflows to spike. ROS events are particularly intense in open sites (such as clearcuts) with shallow, transient snowpacks, which quickly melt during rainfall (Winkler et al. 2010). Wind accelerates snowmelt, so large open areas exposed to the wind have increased snowmelt and run-off. On the coast the elevations at which shallow snowpacks form vary year to year, but typically occur between 300-800m asl (where shallow snowpacks can melt and reform more than once in a winter) (Hudson & Horel 2007). ‘Pineapple Express’ rainstorms that last for several days can also melt out deeper snowpacks and cause significant flooding (Winkler et al. 2010).

Heterogeneous forest cover, such as that of old growth forest, leads to a more heterogeneous snowpack, because some stands receive more direct solar radiation than others. This spreads snowmelt out over a longer time period (Perry et al. 2016, citing others). Forest harvesting reduces snowpack heterogeneity, leading to greater snowmelt synchrony (the snowpack melting all at once) and higher peak/flooding flows, with increases up to 50% reported in the literature (Perry et al. 2016, citing others). Harvesting in Douglas-fir/Western hemlock watersheds in the Pacific Northwest has been shown to exacerbate summer low flows in the long term (while increasing low flows in the short term), with recent long-term studies indicating that streamflows in plantation forests do not return to original levels seen under mature/old growth forest cover, even when riparian buffers are in place (Perry & Jones 2017, Segura et al. 2020).

In all cases, the presence of storage in the watershed can attenuate flows, decreasing high flows as water goes into storage and augmenting low flows through storage depletion (Eaton & Moore 2010). Storage has the general effect of reducing variation in stream flow over time – less flow in during high precipitation/melt periods, and more flow during dry periods. Lakes, ponds and wetlands in a watershed all serve as water storage, capturing water during peak flows, and slowly releasing it during drier periods (Eaton & Moore 2010). Riparian groundwater is particularly important for augmenting streams during periods of low flow. Aquifers are also a source of water storage and discharge (Eaton & Moore 2010). Groundwater storage capacity is a function of geology (see Section 4.3 above for details); for example, a watershed underlain by highly permeable/fractured bedrock will have more groundwater recharge during rain and melt events, thereby decreasing storm runoff and augmenting flows during dry weather. However, as is the case in the study area, watersheds underlain by

TLA’AMIN 9 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

relatively impermeable granitic bedrock will have less groundwater storage, with lower moderating effects on streamflow5.

The granitic bedrock geology of the study area is largely overlain by veneers of glacial till, which is also relatively impermeable (Eaton and Moore 2010, citing others therein). This impermeable layer is overlain with soils from the forest floor, which in undisturbed coastal forests, have high water infiltration capacity, largely due to root channels and organic material (which is very porous; Winkler et al. 2010). As a consequence, in coastal watersheds (where shallow soils typically overlie bedrock or glacial till), water primarily moves in shallow subsurface flows through forest soils. Because of the high infiltration capacity of coastal forest soils, overland flows of water are rare (Winkler et al. 2010). However, when these soils become saturated during spring melt (meaning they have no additional storage capacity), even moderate rain-on-snow events can generate significant peak/flooding streamflows (Winkler et al. 2010).

4.5 Biogeoclimatic Zones & Vegetation Cover

The study area watersheds span four different biogeoclimatic (BEC) zones, and five subzones (Maps 3 & 17). Starting from sea level and working upwards in elevation, these include: • Coastal Douglas-fir Zone (CDF) o Moist Maritime Subzone (CDFmm) • Coastal Western Hemlock Zone (CWH) o Very Dry Maritime Subzone (CWHxm) o Dry Maritime Subzone (CWHdm), o Very Wet Maritime subzone (CWHvm), • Mountain Hemlock Moist Zone (MH) o Moist Maritime Subzone (MHmm) • Coast Mountain Heather Alpine Zone (CMA)

Descriptions of climatic conditions and vegetation cover in each of these zones are summarized in Appendix D.

4.6 Traditional Resource Use Both descendent and ancestral Tla’amin settlement patterns focused on the coastline of the mainland, the heads of bays, coves, and inlets, and along island shorelines (Springer 2018). Families traditionally made seasonal rotations between villages and harvesting sites in their territory. Prior to the last century, travel was typically by canoe but trails also crossed the territory to join settlements by land routes (Springer 2018). These rotations were largely based on the timing of major salmon runs. According to Paul (2009), families would move to Theodosia in September, to harvest ‘big dog’ chum salmon, twice the size of those running in Okeover Creek, which would be smoked on site. After this run, people would move to the smaller Okeover Creek, where a smaller but richer and oilier chum salmon was harvested, and smoked very dry. By early November, people would move back to Sliammon (tišosəm – meaning milky waters from herring spawn), where winters were mainly spent to escape the snow and ice in Theodosia. Here the herring would come in around February/March (Paul 2009).

5 In smaller headwater streams, however, groundwater flow through fractures in otherwise impermeable bedrock can play an important role in moderating streamflows (Eaton and Moore 2010, citing others). TLA’AMIN 10 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Cultural heritage resources may include specific traditional use areas, sites or features on the landscape. According to Hebb et al. (2016), examples include: 1. Important resource gathering areas; 2. Sites of spiritual significance; 3. Culturally modified trees; 4. Ceremonial sites; 5. Natural resources, such as plants, animals or habitat types, to which cultural values may be attached. For example, Western Red Cedar, Yellow Cedar and various species of wild salmon are of central importance to many coastal First Nations culture; and 6. Plants with culturally significant medicinal, food or material uses are often associated with specific habitat types, e.g. tea plants found in swampy areas and pine mushrooms.

5 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS

The watersheds that are part of the study area are illustrated in Figure 1. Full descriptions of the watersheds and the pressures they face are detailed in Part 2 of the report. The following is a brief general description of each watershed.

The Sliammon Creek watershed is located west of Powell River on the Sunshine Coast of British Columbia. It originates at the top of the Bunster Range (Map 4), a small mountain range wedged between the lower arm of Powell Lake to the east, and Okeover and Theodosia inlets to the west and north. The watershed comprises an area of approximately 5836 ha, with its northern boundary reaching elevations of up to 1100m. The upland portion of the range is characterized by deeply hummocked topography, with steep rocky knolls and hollows. Although its upper reaches feature some steeper terrain, most of the watershed slopes relatively gently southward, towards its outflow into the Straight of Georgia.

The Okeover Creek watershed is nestled inside the elbow between the Malaspina peninsula and the Bunster Range, with its outlet at the terminus of Okeover inlet. It includes the low lying basin of Okeover Creek, and the southwest flank of the Bunster Range (Map 4), where the watershed slopes upwards to its greatest height at 759m. The watershed comprises an area of approximately 1622 ha, reaching elevations of up 240m on its western boundary.

The Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watershed includes the western flank of the Bunster range draining into Okeover and Lancelot inlets, and the northwestern flank of the range draining into Theodosia Arm (Map 4). The watershed reaches elevations of up to 1100m, at the peak of the Bunster Range. Below the steep ridge top, the terrain levels into a hummocky topography of rocky knolls and hollows. To the south, the hummocky terrain smooths out and trends gently downwards. In the northwestern quadrant of the watershed, the hummocky terrain drops off into steep-sided slopes, cliffs and rock outcrops, then levels off into a gentler hummocky roll before dropping more steeply into the inlets below. Much of watershed terrain features deeply incised stream channels.

The Theodosia River watershed is a sizeable coastal basin (13794 hectares) originating from steep mountain headwaters and draining southwest into the Theodosia River and ultimately Theodosia inlet. At approximately 13km upstream from the river outlet (at 175m elevation), a dam (Map 18) diverts a portion of the Theodosia river flow into Olsen Creek and Lake, which drain into Powell Lake. At this point the watershed is naturally divided into upper and lower sections, with the upper section characterized by steep terrain, rising to elevations of up to 1840m (with 80% of the watershed area higher than 600masl; Little 2012, citing others). TLA’AMIN 11 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

6 WATERSHED RISKS, INDICATORS & MITIGATIONS

6.1 Healthy Watershed Characteristics Healthy aquatic ecosystems that can support fish populations and provide a safe and secure water supply, are reliant on healthy functioning watersheds. In coastal BC, characteristics of healthy, properly functioning watersheds that meet the goal of protecting aquatic ecosystems and human water supply requirements are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of a healthy, functioning watersheds in coastal BC (adapted from Porter et al. 2019).

Health Category Watershed Characteristics Hydrological • Natural low flow regimes Processes • Peak flows and timing do not exceed natural variability • Storage: Intact, functioning lakes and wetlands • Sediment production and transport at natural levels • Natural low flow regimes

Surface Erosion • Sediment production and transport at natural levels

Mass wasting • Landslide rates similar to natural rate

Riparian Health • Natural riparian and stream channel functioning • Intact riparian structure around streams, lakes and wetlands • Regular and consistent short and long term LWD contributions

Fish Passage • Unrestricted access of fish to a watershed’s stream network

Water quality • Natural aquatic thermal conditions • Water quality that is protective of aquatic life, wildlife and their habitats, • Water quality that is protective of drinking water

6.2 GIS-Based Criteria for Monitoring Watershed Risk

Pressure from human activities and natural events (e.g. wildfire, pest outbreaks, floods, etc.) can impact the capacity of a watershed to support healthy aquatic ecosystems, fish populations and a safe and secure water supply. An assessment of the cumulative impact of pressures in a watershed can provide an indication the potential “risk” of impairment in the watershed’s condition and functioning. This risk assessment can be used to help project the future risks posed by new or continued human activity and natural disturbance.

6.2.1 Watersheds In BC, a number of frameworks with benchmark indicators have been developed to assess cumulative risk to watershed functioning. Key current frameworks relevant to the study area include:

• Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol (WSEP): Tier 1 Watershed-level Fish Values Monitoring (Porter et

TLA’AMIN 12 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

al. 2019) – remote sensing/GIS based monitoring; focuses on forestry-related impacts6 and typically applied to community forests and watersheds designated by the Province as Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds7. • Interim Assessment Protocol for Aquatic Ecosystems in British Columbia: Standards for British Columbia’s Cumulative Effects Framework Values Foundation (MOE 2020) - integrates WSEP indicators with non- forestry related impacts. Also includes suggested initial benchmarks for each indicator. • Methods for Assessing Status and Trends in Pacific Salmon Conservation Units and their Freshwater Habitats (PSF 2020) - includes additional indicators with a stronger fisheries focus, as well as benchmarks for each indicator. • Hydroriparian Planning Guide (Coast Information Team 2004a) – for a precautionary approach to managing hydrologically sensitive areas.

The indicators in these frameworks are ‘Tier 1’ indicators that can be assessed remotely using GIS data layers readily available from the BC Data Catalogue or other ministry providers. Table 2 summarizes risk indicators from these frameworks, which are relevant to the watersheds in the Tla’amin Nation study area. Together these indicators capture different aspects of watershed functioning and can help inform a range of watershed management decisions. For example, assessments of these indicators can help Tla’amin Nation resource managers understand: • The likely current condition/status of the watershed • The type and extent of water-related problems that may exist in a watershed • The possible hydrologic implications of proposed developments and activities in that watershed • The possible future state of the watershed, as a result of continuing human and natural activities (i.e. the anticipate risk of further habitat degradation) • Management actions that can help mitigate the impacts of localized development pressure (MOE 2020; Porter et al. 2019).

6.2.2 Biodiversity & Culturally Sensitive Areas Many activities that impact the health of aquatic ecosystems in a watershed have the potential to also affect biodiversity and culturally sensitive areas. Within the study area these values are often associated with hydrologically sensitive features (e.g. riparian areas, wetlands, fish-bearing streams, floodplains, estuaries, lakeshores, stream headwaters, etc.). As such, it may be desirable to incorporate these values into a watershed risk monitoring program.

Table 2 outlines some suggested Tier I GIS-based indicators and protocols for evaluating the risk human activities and natural events pose to biodiversity in the study area watersheds. Key guidance documents include:

6 The WSEP protocols have replaced the older CWAP (Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure) protocols. CWAPs were previously completed for the Sliammon Watershed Community Forest in 1997, 2000, and 2004 (see summaries in Appendix B). 7 Fisheries Sensitive Watershed (FSW) is a designation applied by the Province of BC to watersheds identified as having significant fisheries values as well as watershed sensitivity. The goal of FSW designation is to conserve fish habitat and the natural functions and processes required to maintain fish habitats now and in the future, while forest management and other land use activities proceed. WSEPs were designed monitor and assess watersheds with FSW designations, to ensure that goals of maintaining natural functions and processes necessary for conserving healthy fish habitats populations are being met. TLA’AMIN 13 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

• Tla’amin Land Use Plan8 (2010) • Ecosystem-Based Management Planning Handbook (Coast Information Team 2004b) • Standards for Assessing the Condition of Forest Biodiversity under British Columbia’s Cumulative Effects Framework (MOE 2020)

Table 2 also includes a suggested Tier I GIS-based indicator and protocol for evaluating the risk human activities and natural events pose to known culturally sensitive areas9, or areas with high potential for cultural heritage resources. Suggested key guidance documents include:

• Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010) • FREP Protocol for Cultural Heritage Resource Stewardship Monitoring (Hebb et al. 2016)

8 The sensitive areas guidelines in the Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010) identify environmentally sensitive areas as including: waterways (fish-bearing and non-fish bearing), wetlands, estuaries, the edge of the sea and the intertidal zone, riparian areas, coastal bluffs, areas with high habitat value and rare or endangered species and heron and raptor nesting trees. 9 The sensitive areas guidelines in the Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010) identify culturally sensitive areas as including: a) archaeological sites, b) areas that are currently used for cultural activities; and c) culturally significant landmarks or landscape features. TLA’AMIN 14 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Table 2. Broad-scale Tier 1 (GIS-based) watershed indicators, representing the risk to watershed health posed by different categories of impact (adapted from Porter et al. 2019, MOE 2020, PSF 2020, and others).

IMPACT TIER 1 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED HEALTH & RISK RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia

Equivalent ECA is the percentage of total watershed area that is considered functionally and x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) Clearcut Area hydrologically comparable to a clearcut forest; it is an indicator of potential changes in peak flow throughout a watershed and is used to inform the peak flow Methods for Assessing Status (ECA) index. The ECA includes the area of land that has been harvested, cleared or and Trends in Pacific Salmon burned (Porter et al. 2019). Landscapes that have been altered by urban, road, (PSF 2020) rail, and forestry development as well as crown tenure can also be considered (PSF 2020). Peak flow index The peak flow indicator is an estimate of the likelihood that harmful changes in x x x x Interim Assessment Protocol for (0-1 scale) streamflow will result from current land use activities. A large proportion (up to Aquatic Ecosystems in British 80%) of total annual water yield is discharged in the peak flow period. Peak flows Columbia (MOE 2020) are of considerable management concern as they can result in channel forming events, and are important when considering the design of stream crossings, in- WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) stream structures or the effects of flooding on downstream values. In particular, an increase in peak flow frequency and magnitude may result in harmful hydrogeomorphic events such as floods, bank erosion, channel instability, debris floods, and debris flows. Peak flows are regulated by a combination of factors, including those that are linked to natural runoff generation potential, surface flow Hydrological attenuation, and equivalent clearcut area (ECA). It is the combination of these Processes factors that control the magnitude, timing, and duration of peak flows. The absence of lakes and wetlands and man-made reservoirs in a watershed can have an influence on peak flow discharges because lakes and wetlands are shown to mitigate peak flows. The size and placement of wetlands within a watershed has also shown to influence attenuation, with larger lakes and wetlands located on the main-stem channel lower in a watershed being more effective at reducing downstream flooding (MOE 2020).

Forest Logging and other disturbances that reduce forest cover can change watershed x x x x Methods for Assessing Status Disturbance hydrology by affecting rainfall interception, transpiration, and snowmelt processes. and Trends in Pacific Salmon (%watershed Changes over time can affect salmon habitats through altered peak flows, low (PSF 2020) area) flows, and annual water yields. This indicator is based on the percentage of total watershed area that has been disturbed by logging and burning in the last 60 years (PSF 2020). Road Density for Road development can interrupt subsurface flow, increase peak flows, and x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) entire subbasin interfere with natural patterns of overland water flow in a watershed. Roads are a (km/km2) significant cause of increased erosion and fine sediment generation, which can Interim Assessment Protocol for impact downstream spawning and rearing habitats (Porter et al. 2019). Aquatic Ecosystems in British TLA’AMIN 15 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT TIER 1 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED HEALTH & RISK RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia

Columbia (MOE 2020)

Methods for Assessing Status and Trends in Pacific Salmon (PSF 2020) On the coast the elevations where shallow snowpacks form vary year to year, but x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) Road density typically occur between 300-800masl (Summit 2004). This is the elevation band between 300 and where rain-on-snow flood events are most likely to occur. Greater effects on peak 800m elevation flows are expected when road density is high within this band, because roads located on steeper, high elevation areas will act as channels to rapidly transport melting snowpack downhill (Porter et al. 2019).

% Wetland Wetlands serve important hydrological, geochemical, and biological functions. x x x x Interim Assessment Protocol for disturbance Thus, the conservation of existing wetlands and the restoration of lost/degraded Aquatic Ecosystems in British wetlands are considered important for mitigating flood runoff, for abating sediment Columbia (MOE 2020) and nutrient loading from land disturbances and human activities (e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen) and for the recharge of aquifers (MOE 2020). Road density High road density near streams may contribute significant amounts of sediment to x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) <100 from a streams, affecting water quality, streambed morphology and biota. Erosion and stream (km/km2) transport processes are dependent on precipitation, soil texture, road construction Interim Assessment Protocol for and maintenance practices (Porter et al. 2019). Aquatic Ecosystems in British Columbia (MOE 2020) Road density on Risks of fine sediment inputs to streams resulting from road construction and road x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) erodible soils use are greater in areas that are more naturally prone to erosion. This indicator (km/km2) requires an inventory of soil types throughout the extent of the watershed. A qualified hydrologist or geologist must delineate the soils most susceptible to erosion. Extent of surface erosion may also be influenced by road condition, road traffic, slope, and climatic patterns. Detailed soil maps that accurately define Surface Erosion erodible soils are currently only available for a limited number of watersheds in British Columbia (Porter et al. 2019). Road density on High road density in close proximity to streams will create an increased risk of fine x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) erodible soils sediment inputs from surface erosion. The extent of this erosion risk will depend <100m from a on road type, road maintenance and road use (Porter et al. 2019). stream. (km/km2) Stream crossing Stream crossings (i.e., roads, utility lines, other linear developments) represent a x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) density (#/km2) potential focal point for local sediment and flow delivery. Crossing structures can be a barrier to upstream fish passage, thereby restricting habitat and potentially Interim Assessment Protocol for fragmenting populations. Aquatic Ecosystems in British Columbia (MOE 2020) TLA’AMIN 16 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT TIER 1 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED HEALTH & RISK RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia

A higher density of stream crossings in a watershed is generally indicative of greater risks of fine sediment inputs, although these risks will be dependent on the Methods for Assessing Status construction type (i.e., open box versus closed box culverts), as well as the and Trends in Pacific Salmon condition of stream crossing structures (Porter et al. 2019). (PSF 2020)

As above for Recreational trails (for hiking, quadding, mountain biking, etc.) can have impacts x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) trails (density and similar to that of roads (as note above), and can be significant points of sediment stream crossings delivery at poorly designed or maintained stream crossings. Density of Mass wasting events can affect stream conditions and aquatic productivity x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) Landslides in throughout a watershed. Tracking of mass wasting events can act as a surrogate watershed indicator for the extent of coarse and fine sediment delivery to streams, (#/km2) recognizing that many local geomorphological factors, as well as distance from the receiving stream, will affect the actual sediment delivery of any individual mass wasting event. Frequency of mass wasting events generally increases with expanded forest development due to road construction and skid trails. These activities often lead to road fill failures, drainage concentration, and diversion of runoff (Porter et al. 2019). Road density on Roads on unstable terrain increase the chance of mass wasting by undermining or x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) potentially loading slopes, by saturating soils and by reducing soil root networks. Roads can unstable slopes alter surface drainage patterns and divert subsurface flow to the surface increasing Interim Assessment Protocol for (km/km2) the chance of soil saturation and gulley erosion. Clearings associated with roads Aquatic Ecosystems in British reduce the root network that provides structural support to soil and they increase Columbia (MOE 2020) Mass Wasting the chance of soil saturation by reducing rainfall interception and increasing snowmelt rates (Porter et al. 2019).

Density of Logging or other development disturbance on steep slopes greatly compromises x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) streambanks the stability of ground surfaces within a watershed. The extent of logging around logged on steep streams on steep slopes >60% reflects the potential risk of mass wasting events slopes (km/km2) likely to have most impact on streams. When timber is harvested on steep gradients peak flows increase, exacerbating surface erosion during heavy precipitation or snowmelt events. Removing vegetation on slopes >60% (or 50%) weakens surface and subsurface materials, resulting in increases to soil erosion susceptibility. Increased erosion along logged stream banks will result in high amounts of sediment deposition. Excessive sedimentation can result in reduced survival of eggs and alevins, reduced physical complexity of river channels, loss of interstitial space for refuge, and reduced benthic invertebrate production (Porter et al. 2019).

TLA’AMIN 17 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT TIER 1 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED HEALTH & RISK RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia

Portion of stream Riparian areas are intimately connected with stream, lake and wetland X x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) logged or ecosystems, providing a wide variety of ecological services and functions. Multiple disturbed factors contribute to riparian condition including water quality, watershed area, Interim Assessment Protocol for (km/km2) distribution and types of vegetation, regulatory compliance, vegetation Aquatic Ecosystems in British disturbance, form and structure. Riparian areas and floodplains also store water Columbia (MOE 2020) and evacuate excess water from the land (CIT 2004). Hydroriparian Planning Guide Riparian areas can affect channel morphology and aquatic habitats through the (Coast Information Team 2004a) provision of large wood. Riparian areas also influence water quality, provide shade, cool stream water, and are sources of food for benthic invertebrates. As the proportion of disturbed streams increases within a watershed, so does the risk of surface erosion and mass-transport of sediment during heavy precipitation events. When riparian vegetation is lost, stream channels are weakened due to the lack of root structures, and intensified surface erosion and mass-wasting are common outcomes (Porter et al. 2019). On the coast, most of the streams damaged by forestry activity are small non-fish- Riparian & bearing S6 streams (and some S4), which don’t have mandatory riparian retention Wetland Health targets. Small streams are the most abundant in a watershed, and typically comprise ~80% of the total drainage area. They are particularly slow to recover in headwaters. Small streams contribute water, nutrients and energy downstream, and are important habitat for benthic invertebrates (particularly shredders). They support an additional 100-2,000 young salmonids in each km of fish bearing stream downstream (Tripp et al. 2017).

Portion of fish As above x x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) bearing stream logged or disturbed (km/km2) Riparian As above x x x x Interim Assessment Protocol for Disturbance for Aquatic Ecosystems in British Lakes and Columbia (MOE 2020) Wetlands (km/km2) Barriers to fish Land use activities can restrict fish access to and movement within their historical x x x WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) habitat (# / stream networks. Barriers to fish movement can limit spawning and rearing watershed) opportunities and restrict overall habitat availability in a watershed. Quantifying the Fish Passage effects of barriers to fish habitat accessibility requires determining the number of locations where fish movements are currently blocked and the amount and type of historical fish habitat that has been made inaccessible. Evaluating effects on TLA’AMIN 18 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT TIER 1 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED HEALTH & RISK RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia

connectivity broadly across a watershed will require coupling the Tier 1 GIS-based inventory of all potential stream obstructions (e.g., identifying all stream crossing locations) with field-based assessments of fish passage probabilities at a representative sample of stream crossing sites (see Table 3) (Porter et al. 2019)

Water Heavy use of both surface and hydraulically connected groundwater for human x x x x Interim Assessment Protocol for withdrawals (# / purposes can affect fish habitats at critical times of year by reducing instream Aquatic Ecosystems in British watershed) flows to levels that could constrain physical access to spawning and rearing Columbia (MOE 2020) habitats or potentially dewater fish spawning habitats (redds). Reductions in both surface water and groundwater supplies can also increase water temperatures with resultant impacts on all fish life stages (MOE 2019).

Water Quantity Dams (# / The damming of a river has been termed a cataclysmic event in the life of a stream x x x x Interim Assessment Protocol for watershed) ecosystem. Dams interrupt and alter most of a river’s important Aquatic Ecosystems in British ecological processes. Dams can affect flows, alter water quality, change volumes Columbia (MOE 2020) of sediments, simplify channel morphology, and create barriers or impediments to fish movement. Restricted access to spawning streams and/or lakes can have Long term Aquatic Monitoring consequent impacts to fish survival and productivity (MOE 2020). Protocols for New and Upgraded Hydroelectric Projects (Lewis et al. 2012) Total Land Cover Total land cover alteration is the percentage of the total watershed area that has x x x x Methods for Assessing Status Alteration (% been altered by human activity. This is a synthesis of the indicators for forest and Trends in Pacific Salmon watershed area) disturbance, urban land use, agriculture/rural land use, mining development, and (PSF 2020) other smaller developments. This indicator represents a suite of potential changes to hydrological processes and sedimentation, with potential impacts on salmon habitats (PSF 2020).

Mines (# / Mines can pose a potentially significant threat to aquatic ecosystems. Fuel and oil x x x x Interim Assessment Protocol for Human watershed), spills are a risk at all mine sites where equipment is used. Runoff from mines, Aquatic Ecosystems in British Development quarries, well sites, and mine wastes have potential to contribute sediment, Columbia (MOE 2020) Footprint metals, acids, oils, organic contaminants and salts to water bodies. Metal mines have potential to generate acid rock drainage based on the type of bedrock the mine site is located on. Tailings pond failure poses a low probability, but high consequence risk. Toxic chemicals affect water quality and can kill fish and their invertebrate food supply. Historic placer mining has also been known to be a significant source of water quality impairment. More recent placer mining activity can still pose a threat to channel bank, fan and floodplain stability where not undertaken properly (MOE 2020).

TLA’AMIN 19 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT TIER 1 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED HEALTH & RISK RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia

Impervious Extensive impervious surfaces in a watershed can alter and affect natural x x Methods for Assessing Status Surfaces (% hydrologic flow patterns and lead to stream degradation through changes in and Trends in Pacific Salmon watershed area) geomorphology and hydrology, and can also lead to increased nutrient loading and (PSF 2020) contaminant loads downstream (PSF 2020).

Disturbance of The Georgia Basin area of BC’s South Coast has the highest number of x x x x Ecosystem-Based Management Red & Blue listed ecosystems at risk in BC, many of which are globally imperilled. Within the study Planning Handbook (Coast ecosystems (% area, most of the Red and Blue listed ecosystems are associated with Information Team 2004b) disturbed) hydrologically sensitive areas (riparian areas, floodplains, active alluvial fans, and wetlands). Many of these ecosystems also host culturally significant plant species, including western redcedar, devil’s club, salmonberry, Sitka spruce, and Labrador tea.

Disturbance of The Georgia Basin area of BC’s South Coast has the highest number of species at x x x x Ecosystem-Based Management habitat for risk in BC. Three of the four species at risk that are known to occur in the study are Planning Handbook (Coast species at risk in rely on hydrologically sensitive habitat. Western Painted Turtles rely on freshwater Information Team 2004b) known ponds and surrounding riparian habitat. Marbled Murrelets rely on remnant high occurrence elevation old growth stands for nesting, and Whitebark pine is similarly found at locations (#) high elevation in the Bunster Range. Harvesting old forest stands in the upper Biodiversity reaches of watersheds increases the risk of rain-on-snow events and snowmelt synchrony, and resultant damaging peak flows.

Disturbance of Critical habitat10 has been mapped for three species at risk that occur in the study. x x x x Ecosystem-Based Management Critical habitat for This mapped habitat overlaps with hydrologically sensitive areas, as noted above. Planning Handbook (Coast Species at Risk Information Team 2004b) (%) Disturbance of Sensitive ecosystems are ecologically sensitive and/or rare on the landscape. x x x x Ecosystem-Based Management sensitive These ecosystems also have high biodiversity and contain important habitats for Planning Handbook (Coast ecosystems (%) many threatened and endangered plant and animal species. They are also often Information Team 2004b) hydrologically sensitive areas (e.g. riparian areas, floodplains, wetlands, high elevation old forest remnants), or areas with steep, dry and shallow soiled terrain (cliffs, rock outcrops, and dry woodlands, e.g. arbutus stands), and areas that host culturally important plants.

10 Species At Risk Act (SARA) describes Critical Habitat (CH) as the habitat that is: a) necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species, and b) identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. TLA’AMIN 20 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT TIER 1 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED HEALTH & RISK RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia

Mature & old Studies indicate streamflows in plantation forests do not return to original levels x x x x Standards for Assessing the forest amount (% seen under mature/old growth forest cover, even when riparian buffers are in place Condition of Forest Biodiversity remaining in (Segura et al. 2020). Remaining old forests in the CDFmm, CWHxm and CWHdm under British Columbia’s each BEC subzones (located at lower elevations in valley bottoms and near-coast areas that Cumulative Effects Framework subzone) are more accessible to logging), now have less than 10% old growth remaining (MOE 2020) province wide11. In addition, very few old forests with site index values >20 (i.e. productive sites which grow big trees) remain province-wide. These types of old Ecosystem-Based Management forest are at high risk of near-term & irreversible loss of biological diversity and Planning Handbook (Coast ecological resilience (Gorley and Merkel 2020). By volume, old growth forests of Information Team 2004b) coastal BC and the PNW store more carbon than any other forest in the world (Midrexlar et al. 2020).

Old forests can also be a source of cultural heritage resources, such as monumental cedar, which are often found on hydrologically sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetlands and riparian areas. Old forests in the upper reaches of a watershed can help augment low flows and mitigate peak/flooding flows by spreading out snowmelt over a longer time period (due to having a more heterogeneous snowpack, with some parts more exposed to solar radiation than others) (Perry et al. 2016); harvesting these forests increases risk damaging peak flows, and lower summer flows. Older trees and forests have more genetic diversity, giving them greater adaptive potential in the face of climate change.

Old forests are also more resistant to wildfire (trees have thicker bark), and generally have lower fire intensity and rate of spread compared to young, dense forest (Bains & Blackwell 2015).

Culturally Disturbance of Traditional and historic village sites were typically situated next to important fish- x x x x FREP Protocol for Cultural Sensitive Areas known or high bearing streams and rivers, which remain important areas for food gathering and Heritage Resource Stewardship potential for other cultural activities. Monumental cedar and cultural plants such as Sitka spruce Monitoring (Hebb et al. 2016) cultural heritage and Labrador tea, are often found in hydrologically sensitive areas, such as resources (#) floodplains, riparian areas and wetlands. Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010)

11 Based on historic disturbance regimes, the approximate expected percentage of old forest in each BEC subzone is: CDF (40%), CWHxm (70%), CWHdm (70%), CWHvm (90%), MHmm (90-95 %) (MOE 2020).

TLA’AMIN 21 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

6.3 Field-based Criteria for Monitoring Watershed Condition While the risk indicators outlined in Table 2 help resource managers understand the likely risks human activities pose to a particular watershed’s health and functioning, they do not indicate the current watershed condition on the ground. Table 3 summarizes the Tier II field-based indicators and protocols for assessing watershed condition (derived from the Tier II WSEP), which are relevant to the study area. Field based assessments of these indicators can be used to determine the actual functioning condition of the watershed on the ground, and to directly inform management decisions within the watershed (including the need for remedial action). Table 3 also includes field-based water quality and streamflow indicators, for a more complete evaluation of actual watershed condition, and additional indicators for values related to biodiversity and cultural heritage. Together, these field-based indicators directly measure: • riparian and stream channel function, • sediment delivery processes, • habitat connectivity for fish, • streamflow regime (using data from hydrometric monitoring stations), and • water quality (via a structured water quality monitoring program), • biodiversity values, • cultural heritage resources.

Descriptions of these field-based indicators are summarized below.

6.3.1 Watershed Condition Depending on the outcome of the Tier I risk assessment and other factors (e.g. newly proposed harvesting or developments, local concerns, or uncertainty associated with Tier I data) a more intensive field-based ‘Tier II’ assessment of current condition can be undertaken. Key guidance for undertaking Tier II assessments of current watershed condition includes:

• Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol (WSEP): Tier II Fish Values Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol (Pickard et al. 2014) – field based monitoring with a forestry focus, incorporating the following FREP field protocols: • FREP Riparian Protocol (Tripp et al. 2020) • FREP Water Quality Protocol (Carson et al. 2009) • Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (FLNRO 2012).

6.3.2 Water Quality A basic set of water quality monitoring parameters for addressing general water concerns is outlined in Table 4, based on guidance from:

• Assessment Methods for Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of Applications to Dam, Divert, or Extract Water from Streams in British Columbia (Lewis et al. 2004).

TLA’AMIN 22 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Table 3. Site level Tier II (field-based) watershed indicators for assessing current watershed conditions on the ground (adapted from Pickard et al. 2014, and others).

IMPACT TIER 2 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED CONDITION RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia Flow regime Flow monitoring can be used to monitor for potentially harmful changes in streamflow, + ? x Key Hydrometric Planning which may be occurring as a result of land or water use (e.g. forest harvesting, water Questions for Small Stream extraction or water diversion), or because of climate change. Flow alterations affect the Monitoring (Pike et al. 2019) health of aquatic habitat. Low water flows can impact fish survival and reproductive success by increasing temperatures, lowering oxygen concentrations, and hindering Manual of British Columbia spawning and migration behaviour. Peak/flooding flows can cause floods, bank erosion, Hydrometric Standards (MOE Hydrological channel instability, debris floods, and debris flows, all of which can potentially harm 2018). Processes aquatic health and fish and fish habitat (Hatfield 2003). Instream flow thresholds for fish and fish habitat as guidelines for reviewing proposed water uses- Synopsis (Hatfield et al. 2003)

Sediment Fine and coarse sediment have direct impacts on fish health and their habitat. Sediment x x x x FREP Water Quality Protocol Delivery sources (i.e., places where sediment may be artificially delivered to a stream) may (Carson et al. 2009) include: stream crossings, locations where the road is within close proximity of a stream, road induced mass wasting events connected to a stream, any other location where a management activity intersects a stream or riparian area, and artificial drainages (e.g. Surface where a road ditch collects water from previously nonclassified drainages). This site Erosion level assessment is a critical supplement to the Tier I (GIS based) indicators, which can identify the extent of various pressures but cannot determine the extent to which those pressures result in impacts. For example, road density can be estimated using remote sensed data, but road quality cannot (Pickard et al 2014).

Riparian & Riparian meadows and forests extend from the smallest headwater tributaries to the x x ? x FREP Riparian Protocol (Tripp et Stream Channel mouths of the highest-order streams within watersheds. Riparian areas form the key al. 2009) Functioning boundary that moderates all hydrological, geomorphological, and biological processes associated with the interconnected stream channel network. Riparian vegetation also regulates aquatic ecosystem processes with inputs of light, nutrients, and organic matter. Riparian areas provide food for aquatic and terrestrial organisms, stabilize the Riparian streambanks, modify sediment inputs from the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem, and are a Health source large wood important for habitat cover and channel structure in woody debris dependent streams (Pickard et al 2014).

These ecological services and functions can be changed dramatically when riparian vegetation is altered such as by streamside forest harvesting. Falling and yarding, windthrow, and low riparian retention are the three greatest causes of damage to stream functioning in BC (Tchaplinski & Tripp 2017). Riparian areas are highly vulnerable to

TLA’AMIN 23 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT TIER 2 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED CONDITION RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia disturbance from both natural processes and events and human-related activities occurring on site and upslope and upstream (Pickard et al 2014).

This site level protocol assesses the health and functioning a stream and its riparian habitat at the cutblock level, and is the foundation for determining if riparian management strategies and road crossing BMPs have been effective postharvest (Pickard et al 2014).

Fish Habitat Fish passage failure at road crossings constitutes a major, if not the major, loss of x x x Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook Connectivity freshwater habitat by both migratory and resident fish populations in British Columbia. A (FLNRO 2012). special investigation Forest Practices Board report highlighted the need to remove barriers to fish passage at fish stream crossings. Culverts can be barriers to fish passage due to primarily to: (i) turbulence and increased velocity; (ii) no streambed Fish substrate and low flow issues; and (iii) perched culverts. Watersheds that maintain the Passage free movement of aquatic organisms are more resilient in the face of ever growing pressures from climate change and human activity. A Tier I indicator of stream crossing density can give you a general idea of the potential risk to fish habitat if road stream crossings are a barrier. The field based assessment collects the necessary data to evaluate with greater certainty the extent of fish habitat fragmentation in the watershed (Pickard et al 2014). Refer to Table 5 x x x x Refer to Table 5 Water Quality

Species and Occurrence data for species and ecological communities at risk is incomplete and x x x x Accounts and Measures for ecological sometimes out of date. Likewise, Critical Habitat for many species at risk has not been Managing Identified Wildlife communities at fully mapped, or existing maps require updating or groundtruthing. On sites where Coast Forest Region (MWLAP risk & Critical species or ecological communities at risk potentially occur, a registered professional 2004) Habitat biologist, in consultation with the B.C. Conservation Data Centre or Ministry of Forests regional ecologists (in the case of forestry developments), can conduct an assessment Silviculture Practices for to 1) confirm the occurrence, 2) assess likely impacts of proposed developments, and 3) Enhancing Old Forest Stand recommend mitigation and management measures (Zevit 2018). Structure in Red- and Blue-Listed Biodiversity Plant Communities in the CDFmm (Negrave & Stewart 2010)

Species at Risk and Critical Habitat: Understanding Responsibilities & Making Informed Decisions On Private Land (Zevit 2018). TLA’AMIN 24 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT TIER 2 RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED CONDITION RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL CATEGORY INDICATOR theo Inlets \e- Sliammon Okoever Ck Ok Theodosia

Develop with Care: South Coast Region (Province of BC 2014a).

Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010)

Sensitive Sensitive ecosystem inventories for the study are incomplete (they were not completed Accounts and Measures for Ecosystems & for the CWHvm and MHmm subzones) and out of date. In addition, many important Managing Identified Wildlife Important Habitat habitat features are too often small to detect remotely, such as animal dens, eagle and Coast Forest Region (MWALP Features heron nests, and wildlife trees. On sites where environmentally sensitive ecosystems 2004) and habitat features might occur, a registered professional biologist or ecologist can conduct an assessment to 1) confirm the presence and extent of sensitive ecosystems Develop with Care: South Coast and features, 2) assess likely impacts of proposed developments, and 3) recommend Region (Province of BC 2014a). mitigation and management measures (e.g. timing construction to avoid bird nesting windows or sensitive periods for fish). Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010)

Cultural Heritage In areas with moderate to high potential for archaeological sites, an archaeological x x x x Cultural Heritage Resource Resources assessment can 1) identify and evaluate the significance of any archaeological remains Identification and Management in Culturally located within the development area, and 2) identify and evaluate possible impacts by Forestry Developments (Archer Sensitive the proposed development to these archaeological sites, and recommend appropriate CRM 2009). Areas impact management action. Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010)

TLA’AMIN 25 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Table 4. Basic water quality monitoring parameters for addressing general water concerns, with some suggested sampling frequencies (adapted from Lewis et al. 2004).

Variable Frequency Replicates/ Unit Comments site Temperature * 2 hour 2 oC Employ continuous recording thermographs Dissolved oxygen * Quarterly 3 Mg/L Target low flow periods (summer/winter) Turbidity * Weekly 3 NTU High and low flow periods Total suspended Quarterly 3 Mg/L High and low flow periods solids Specific Annually 3 μS/cm Critical period stream flow (month of lowest conductance flow during the growing season).

Total alkalinity Annually 3 Mg/L Critical period stream flow (month of lowest flow during the growing season). pH* Quarterly 3 pH units Total phosphorus Quarterly 3 μg/L Nitrite Quarterly 3 μg/L Nitrate Quarterly 3 μg/L *Variables used by Streamkeepers (Fulton & Fyke 1994) in the water quality component of their stream monitoring programs.

More sophisticated evaluation of long-term trends and the potential impacts of different activities taking place in a watershed should be undertaken with the help of qualified environmental professionals (QEPs). Designing a water quality monitoring program is a complex, multistep process which requires considerable planning around objectives, variables to be measured, statistical design, quality assurance and control, and budgeting and staffing (see Appendix E for a summary of the step involved, and Maps 14 & 27 for potential sampling locations). The key guidance document for designing a water quality monitoring program in BC is:

• The Guidelines for Designing and Implementing a Water Quality Monitoring Program in British Columbia (Cavanagh et al. 1998a)

Once a monitoring program is designed and variables/indicators are selected, further protocols are required for sampling procedures and data interpretation. The key guidance documents for water quality sampling protocols are:

• Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) • Water Quality Sampling Strategy for Turbidity, Suspended and Benthic Sediments (Caux & Moore 1997) • EPT Index described in Streamkeepers Handbook Module 4 (Munro and Taccogna 1994) • Streamkeepers Handbook Module 3 (Fulton & Fyke 1994) – for very basic monitoring programs

The key guidance documents for water quality benchmarks and data interpretation are:

• British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife & Agriculture (MOE 2019) • Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (Cavanagh et al. 1998b).

TLA’AMIN 26 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

On the basis of existing and likely future activities and disturbances within each of the watersheds, Table 5 outlines a list of potentially useful water quality indicators, and recommended sampling protocols for each. However, the final determination of indicators to be monitored in a water quality program should fall out of the program design process outlined in Appendix E (as detailed in Cavanagh et al. 1998a).

6.3.3 Streamflow Like water quality monitoring, designing a streamflow monitoring program (to evaluate flow regime, as per Table 3) is a complex multi-step process requiring many considerations, particularly when it involves establishing monitoring stations (rather than using data from existing hydrometric stations). Key guidance for designing a hydrometric monitoring program for small streams includes:

• Key Hydrometric Planning Questions for Small Stream Monitoring (Pike et al. 2019) • Assessment Methods for Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of Applications to Dam, Divert, or Extract Water from Streams in British Columbia (Lewis et al. 2004)

Key guidance for meeting BC standards for collecting hydrometric data, to ensure data quality and accuracy includes:

• Manual of British Columbia Hydrometric Standards (MOE 2018).

Data (and analysis tools) from existing hydrometric stations can be downloaded from:

• Government of Canada Water Office: https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/index_e.html • BC Water Tool: https://kwt.bcwatertool.ca/streamflow

BC’s instream flow guidelines can be referred to for determining thresholds (i.e. benchmarks) for altering natural streamflows, beyond which risk to fish and fish habitat is expected. The key guidance document is:

• Instream flow thresholds for fish and fish habitat as guidelines for reviewing proposed water uses- Synopsis (Hatfield et al. 2003)

6.3.4 Biodiversity & Culturally Sensitive Areas As noted in Section 6.2.2 many activities that impact the health of aquatic ecosystems in a watershed have the potential to also affect biodiversity and culturally sensitive areas. As such, it may be desirable to incorporate these values into a field-based program for evaluating and monitoring watershed condition.

Table 3 includes suggested Tier II field-based considerations for assessing on the ground presence and extent of 1) species and ecosystems at risk, 2) environmentally sensitive ecosystems, and 3) important habitat features12, as well as site-level management considerations (this should be done by a registered professional biologist). Key guidance documents include:

12 Including sensitive features too small to be delineated in the sensitive ecosystem mapping, such as animal dens and burrows, ground nests, raptor and heron nests and wildlife trees. TLA’AMIN 27 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

• Tla’amin Land Use Plan13 (2010) • Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife Coast Forest Region (MWLAP 2004) • Silviculture Practices for Enhancing Old Forest Stand Structure in Red- and Blue-Listed Plant Communities in the CDFmm (Negrave & Stewart 2010) • Species at Risk and Critical Habitat: Understanding Responsibilities & Making Informed Decisions On Private Land (Zevit 2018). • Develop with Care: South Coast Region (Province of BC 2014a).

Table 3 includes a suggested Tier II site-level protocol for identifying and evaluating the significance of any archaeological remains located within a proposed development area, and the potential impacts of the proposed development. A suggested key guidance document is:

• Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010) • Cultural Heritage Resource Identification and Management in Forestry Developments: A Supplement to the FREP Protocol (Archer CRM 2009).

6.3.5 New & Upgraded Small Dams & Hydro Projects Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat has developed long-term aquatic monitoring protocols for new and upgraded hydro and water storage projects14. The protocols outline a suite of methods for evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation and compensation activities undertaken during the development and operation of a project, and to evaluate the project’s effects on fish and fish habitat. The key guidance document is:

• Long term Aquatic Monitoring Protocols for New and Upgraded Hydroelectric Projects (Lewis et al. 2012)

13 The sensitive areas guidelines in the Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010) identify environmentally sensitive areas as including: waterways (fish-bearing and non-fish bearing), wetlands, estuaries, the edge of the sea and the intertidal zone, riparian areas, coastal bluffs, areas with high habitat value and rare or endangered species and heron and raptor nesting trees. 14 The protocols apply to small (<50 MW) and large (≥50 MW but <200 MW) run-of-river hydroelectric projects involving streams or lakes, as well as projects that involve the creation of a storage reservoir. TLA’AMIN 28 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Table 5. Selection of indicators for assessing water quality impacts in watersheds, with suggested indicators for monitoring the potential water quality effects of different activities (adapted from Cavanagh et al. 1998a,b).

RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

(Results to be interpreted according to: • British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife

INDICATOR RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED CONDITION & Agriculture (MOE 2019) • Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (Cavanagh et al. 1998b) Forestry (cutting & yarding Road building & use Recreation developmentUrban Sewage Treatment Agriculture Aggregate Extraction Temperature Temperature affects the solubility of many chemical compounds and can x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling therefore influence the effect of pollutants on aquatic life. Increased Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) temperatures elevate the metabolic oxygen demand, which in conjunction with reduced oxygen solubility, impacts many species. Vertical stratification patterns that naturally occur in lakes affect the distribution of dissolved and suspended compounds. Anthropogenic sources: industrial effluents, agriculture, forest harvesting, urban developments, mining.

Dissolved Dissolved oxygen is essential to the respiratory metabolism of most aquatic x x x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling oxygen organisms. It affects the solubility and availability of nutrients, and therefore Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) the productivity of aquatic ecosystems. Low levels of dissolved oxygen facilitate the release of nutrients from the sediments. Anthropogenic causes: forest harvesting, pulp mills, agriculture, sewage treatment plant effluent, industrial effluents, impoundments (dams).

Conductivity Specific Conductivity may be used to estimate the total ion concentration of x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling the water, and is often used as an alternative measure of dissolved solids. It Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) is often possible to establish a correlation between conductivity and dissolved solids for a specific body of water. Anthropogenic sources: mining, roads (de-icing salts), industrial & municipal effluents pH High pH values tend to facilitate the solubilization of ammonia, heavy metals x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling and salts. The precipitation of carbonate salts (marl) is encouraged when Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) pH levels are high. Low pH levels tend to increase carbon dioxide and carbonic acid concentrations. Lethal effects of pH on aquatic life occur below pH 4.5 and above pH 9.5. Anthropogenic sources: mining, agriculture, industrial effluents, acidic precipitation (derived from emissions to the atmosphere from cars and industry).

Turbidity High levels of turbidity increase the total available surface area of solids in x x x x x x x Water Quality Sampling Strategy for suspension upon which bacteria can grow. High turbidity reduces light Turbidity, Suspended and Benthic TLA’AMIN 29 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

(Results to be interpreted according to: • British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife

INDICATOR RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED CONDITION & Agriculture (MOE 2019) • Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (Cavanagh et al. 1998b) Forestry (cutting & yarding Road building & use Recreation developmentUrban Sewage Treatment Agriculture Aggregate Extraction penetration; therefore, it impairs photosynthesis of submerged vegetation Sediments (Caux & Moore 1997) and algae. In tum, the reduced plant growth may suppress fish productivity. Turbidity interferes with the disinfection of drinking water and is aesthetically unpleasant. Anthropogenic sources: forest harvesting, road building, agriculture, urban developments, sewage treatment plant effluents, mining, industrial effluents.

Suspended High concentrations of non-filterable residue increases turbidity, thereby x x x x x x x Water Quality Sampling Strategy for sediments* restricting light penetration (hindering photosynthetic activity). Suspended Turbidity, Suspended and Benthic material can result in damage to fish gills. Settling suspended solids can Sediments (Caux & Moore 1997) cause impairment to spawning habitat by smothering fish eggs. Suspended solids interfere with water treatment processes. Anthropogenic sources: forest harvesting, road building, industrial effluents, urban developments, placer mining, municipal sewage treatment plants.

Nitrogen** The importance of nitrogen in the aquatic environment varies according to x x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling the relative amounts of the forms of nitrogen present, be it ammonia, nitrite, Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) nitrate, or organic nitrogen (each of which are discussed in detail above). Anthropogenic sources: sewage treatment plant effluents, agriculture, urban developments, paper plants, industrial effluents, recreation, mining (blasting residuals).

Phosphorous Since phosphorus is generally the most limiting nutrient, its input to fresh x x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling water systems can cause extreme proliferations of algal growth. Inputs of Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) phosphorus are the prime contributing factors to eutrophication in most fresh water systems. Anthropogenic sources: sewage treatment plant effluent, agriculture, urban developments (particularly from detergents), industrial effluents.

Metals Metals can be toxic to aquatic life. x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling package *** Anthropogenic sources: various: mining activities, industry, pulp and Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) paper plants, agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides), urban runoff. Impoundments, or the flooding of terrestrial areas can cause natural release of mercury.

TLA’AMIN 30 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS

(Results to be interpreted according to: • British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife

INDICATOR RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED CONDITION & Agriculture (MOE 2019) • Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (Cavanagh et al. 1998b) Forestry (cutting & yarding Road building & use Recreation developmentUrban Sewage Treatment Agriculture Aggregate Extraction Polycyclic The lower molecular weight PAHs (two or three benzene rings) are acutely x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling Aromatic toxic to aquatic life. PAHs with four to seven rings are not as acutely toxic, Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) Hydrocarbons but several are known to be carcinogenic. Anthropogenic sources: fossil fuels, agricultural burning, industrial processes, pest treatment, urban runoff

Oil and Oil and grease can be toxic to aquatic life. x x https://arjayeng.com/wp- Grease Anthropogenic sources: heavy equipment, urban run-off, stormwater, content/uploads/2017/02/Guide-to-Oil-in- industry. Water-Monitoring-2014.pdf

Coliform The presence of coliform bacteria in water may indicate contamination from x x x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling bacteria human or animal wastes. The general philosophy associated with using an Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) indicator organism is that if it can be shown that fecal contamination of the water has occurred, then pathogenic organisms may also be present. Anthropogenic sources: sewage treatment plants, recreation areas, pulp and paper mills, livestock, urban runoff.

Benthic Generally, low taxonomic richness or abundance reflects some impairment x x x x x EPT Index: “Streamkeepers’ Handbook” invertebrates of ambient conditions. Conversely, increases in richness and abundance Module 4 (Munro and Taccogna, 1994) (EPT) reflect increases in water quality, habitat diversity, and/or habitat suitability. Presence or absence of pollution-sensitive organisms of the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies) provide an indication of water quality.

Chlorophyll-a High chlorophyll-a concentrations are a direct result of high nutrient inputs x x x x x Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling and/or high light inputs in streams that are light limited. Low values indicate Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) low productivity (oligotrophic waters). High values indicate high productivity (eutrophic waters). Elevated temperature and/or the input of either sediments or herbicides tends to result in lowered chlorophyll a concentrations. Anthropogenic sources: agriculture, sewage treatment plant effluent (severity depends on the type of treatment), forest harvesting, urban development, recreation.

* Non-filterable/filterable residue for sewage treatment ** Ammonia for sewage treatment *** Sediment metals for sewage treatment

TLA’AMIN 31 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

6.4 Climate Change Considerations The effects of climate change are increasingly compounding watershed pressures from human activity. Summers are becoming dryer and hotter with more frequent heat waves and increased year-to-year variability compared to historical levels. Winters will likely become increasingly warmer and wetter. Large and frequent winter rainstorms and large decreases in snowfall are expected (Little 2012). These changes in precipitation and temperature will have significant implications for hydrology and aquatic ecosystems (Table 6).

Table 6. Projected climate related changes in winter weather, storm impacts and streamflow in BC (source: Price & Daust 2013, citing others).

The following is a summary of some of the predicted climate change impacts on coastal aquatic ecosystems (adapted from: Pike et al. 2010, Klassen & Hopkins 2016, and Price & Daust 2013 citing others).

1. Increased evaporation: Increased evaporation, due in part to increased air temperature, will reduce the water available in streams, lakes and reservoirs, decrease survival and growth of existing vegetation in drier areas (e.g. the CDFmm and CWHxm zones), with a big increase in fire severity and frequency in the Georgia Basin. Modeling predicts that water deficit will increase from 20 – 60% depending on location and climate scenario.

2. Altered vegetation composition affecting water interception: Vegetation intercepts precipitation and draws moisture from the soil through transpiration. Projected future climates will lead to changed productivity, changed dominant species. As vegetation communities shift to reflect climate, water interception, evaporation and transpiration will change.

3. Increased water temperature: Water temperature in streams and lakes will increase with implications to aquatic ecology. Salmon species are tolerant to particular temperature windows. Increased water temperature has consequences for sensitive populations, including increased disease, altered growth and development, thermal barriers to migration, and altered species distribution. Small changes in water temperature will likely result in distribution shifts and loss of salmonids in areas already near their limit (see Table 7 for details).

4. Increased frequency and magnitude of storms: Increased wind and precipitation will likely increase windthrow, flooding and landslides. Associated increases in erosion and landslide-derived log jams will destabilise channels and change the temporal input of woody structure, affecting stream ecology, hydroriparian function and fish populations.

TLA’AMIN 32 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

5. Decreased snow accumulation and accelerated snowmelt: Less water will be stored overwinter for release in spring to groundwater or streams, changing the streamflow regime. The central and northern coasts, and high- elevation sites on the south coast, are projected to have the biggest declines.

6. Altered timing and magnitude of streamflows: The impacts of climate change will vary with watershed hydrological regimes. Watersheds with rain-dominated regimes (with peak flows in winter and low flows in summer) will likely reflect projected changes in precipitation. For example, increased storms will lead to increased storm-related peak flows in winter, and drier summers will lead to more low-flow days. As snow decreases and rain increases in winter, hybrid rain and snow dominated watersheds (with peak flows in winter and spring and low flows in summer) may shift to rain-dominated regimes with more frequent winter peak flows. Larger and more frequent winter peak flows will be exacerbated by more frequent of rain-on-snow events, particularly in the shallow snowpack zone between 300 and 800m elevation.

7. Altered timing and magnitude spring peak flows in hybrid rain and snow dominated watersheds: As snow decreases and rain increases in winter, hybrid rain and snow dominated watersheds may shift to a rain-dominated regime with more frequent winter peak flows. Coastal watersheds with hybrid regimes often have 4-5m deep snowpacks above 1000m. Deep snowpacks can store a large amount of rain, dampening wateshed response to large midwinter rain events. If these snowpacks no longer form or are very shallow, and as winds and temperature increase, large midwinter snowfall events will become large rain or melt events, thereby increasing frequency of peak/flooding flows through the winter. With less snow, spring freshet will also be smaller and earlier, and summer low flows be lower and longer. Groundwater storage will also be decreased.

Table 7. Projected climate change impacts on fish in the South Coast Region (adapted from: Klassen & Hopkins 2016).

Feature Projected Impacts on Fish

Increased • Increased incidence and severity of disease in some salmonid species. stream • Changed behaviour (e.g., movement to higher elevations to remain within suitable thermal water envelopes). temperature • In cool areas, productivity might increase. • Decreased incubation and freshwater residence time could impact prey availability or result in a thermal mismatch between freshwater and marine environments leading to decreased survival of juveniles. • Decreased dissolved oxygen could decrease carrying capacity for fish.

Increased • Warming could decrease critical nearshore habitat and feeding opportunities. lake water • Salmonid thermal niche will change as cold-water habitat shrinks or shifts into deeper temperature water. • Introduced warm-water species (e.g. smallmouth and largemouth bass, yellow perch, common carp) may increase.

Low • Cumulative effects of development and increased summer drought will exacerbate summer naturally low flows in many small coho and trout-rearing streams. flows

Peak flows • Changed timing of peak flows could lead to a mismatch between hydrological regime and migration and spawning. • Changed timing or magnitude of peak flows could lead to fewer migrating smolts, decreased speed of migration or increased predation.

Winter • Low elevation habitat could experience increased sediment deposition thereby decreasing flooding spawning habitat and reducing egg survival.

TLA’AMIN 33 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Isolated • Changed climate poses risks to isolated peripheral fish populations (e.g. headwater stocks populations of cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden) that may have disproportionate conservation value. • Increased fire intensity and extent could impact habitat and kill fish, with potentially high impacts in isolated populations.

Marine • Changes in sea level, estuarine hydrological regimes, and storm surges might impact changes salmonids.

7 Mitigations for Reducing Risk

Several actions can be taken to mitigate the risks human activities and climate change pose to a watershed’s capacity to support healthy aquatic ecosystems, fish populations and safe and secure water supply. A selection of mitigations that could potentially be applied to reduce risk to the study area’s watersheds is summarized in Table 8, together with recommended guidance and best management practices.

TLA’AMIN 34 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Table 8. Selection of potential mitigations for reducing the impact of human activities on watershed health, and for increasing watershed resilience against projected climate change impacts (adapted and expanded from: Klassen & Hopkins 2016, Little 2012).

IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS GUIDANCE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY

• Undertake WSEP evaluations prior to harvesting, especially in watersheds supporting • WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) important fisheries and/or community forests. • Hydroriparian Planning Guide (Coast Information Team • Consider changes in precipitation patterns (especially storm events) when designing 2004a) Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) limits. • Road Engineering Manual (FLNRO 2019a) • Consider implications of increasing frequency and intensity of rain-on-snow events • Resource Road Engineering Standards & Guidelines when planning roads and cutblocks in the 300—800m elevation band. (FLNRO 2019b) • Anticipate increased natural disturbance (e.g. wildfires, insect outbreaks) and manage • Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and harvest to stay within ECA limits. Account for increased runoff from burned sites in Conservation in BC- Forestry Chapter (Wetland ECA calculations. Stewardship Partnership 2009a). • Evaluate hydrological implications of salvaging disturbed stands. • Ecosystem-Based Management Planning Handbook Forestry • Design and maintain roads and drainage structures to accommodate increased peak (Coast Information Team 2004b) flow. Build adequate ditches; replace selected culverts with bridges. • Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (FLNRO 2012). • Minimize new road construction, especially in currently unroaded areas and on flood Hydrological plains. Processes • Reserve forest (or retain large trees) on wetlands, active fluvial units, and floodplains, including buffers. • Follow interim guidelines for wetland protection and conservation in BC. • Establish patches of forest reserve in the headwater source zones, around unstable terrain (Class IV and Class V), and around concentrations of small streams. Maintain remaining old/mature forest cover in watershed headwaters. • Consider cumulative effects of new developments on watershed functioning, together • Interim Assessment Protocol for Aquatic Ecosystems in with future climate change effects. British Columbia (MOE 2020) • Limit development on floodplains, stay far away from current stream channels15; do • Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and Development not locate houses near tributary streams or on alluvial fans. Conservation in BC- Agriculture & Development & Agriculture • Protect and restore wetlands and riparian areas in urban and agricultural areas. (Wetland Stewardship Partnership 2009b). • Apply best practices/interim wetland protection guidelines. • Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and • Limit impermeable surfaces in new developments. Adaptations Plan (Little 2012)

15 A survey using a design flood of twice the magnitude of the Q100 should be done in order to delineate ground that would be flooded during an event of this magnitude (Little 2012). TLA’AMIN 35 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS GUIDANCE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY

• Minimize cumulative effects of water withdrawals and dams; secure water licences for • Instream Flow Thresholds For Fish and Fish Habitat as environmental flows if needed. Guidelines for Reviewing Proposed Water Uses- • Ensure new or upgraded dams and weirs are designed and managed to minimize Synopsis (Hatfield et al. 2003) impacts on aquatic environments, including projected climate change effects. • Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and • Adapt design and operation of existing storage (dam/weir) to help augment low Adaptations Plan (Little 2012) Water streamflows and buffer peak flows. Restore a healthy flow regime to Theodosia River, • Long term Aquatic Monitoring Protocols for New and extraction & with higher regular and low flows, while diverting excess flows during peak flow Upgraded Hydroelectric Projects (Lewis et al. 2012) diversion events. • Sand and gravel management and fish-habitat • Ensure dams are properly designed, maintained and operated, to reduce risk of protection in British Columbia salmon and steelhead catastrophic failure; upgrade hazard rating for Theodosia dam to reflect downstream streams (Rosenau & Angelo 2000). fisheries and cultural values. • Consider sediment restoration on river reaches below Theodosia dam. Redesign dam to allow sediment through-put. • Undertake WSEP evaluations prior to harvesting, especially in watersheds supporting • WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) important fisheries and/or community forests, or draining into marine sensitive • Road Engineering Manual (FLNRO 2019a) areas16. • Resource Road Engineering Standards & Guidelines • Design and maintain roads and drainage structures to accommodate increased peak (FLNRO 2019b) • FREP Water Quality Protocol (Carson et al. 2009) Forestry & flow and sediment transport: e.g. improve surfaces on high hazard roads, seed Roads erodible cut slopes, replace selected culverts with bridges, limit road density in erosion-prone areas. Surface Erosion • Deactivate roads after harvesting, especially high risk roads; provide operator and contractor training in road construction and deactivation. • Minimize new road construction, especially in currently unroaded areas. • Maintain healthy riparian buffers (see Riparian Health section). • Maintain healthy riparian buffers (see Riparian Health section) • Land Development Guidelines for Protection of Aquatic Development • Apply erosion and sediment control measures during site development, as per DFO Habitat (DFO 1993) land development guidelines.

16 Under FRPA “marine-sensitive features” include herring spawning areas, shellfish beds, marsh areas, existing aquaculture sites, juvenile salmonid-rearing areas, and adult salmon–holding areas, the nearshore (littoral) zones of marine and estuary systems, and marine areas where water is less than 10 m deep.

TLA’AMIN 36 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS GUIDANCE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY

• Redesign and restore erosion prone and braided trails, as per best practice17. • BC Recreation Manual –Chapter 10: Recreation Trail • Design trails for ‘hydrologic invisibility’; incorporate design features that ensure proper Management (MOF 2001). grade and drainage. • Closing and Reclaiming Damaged Trails (IMBA 2018). Recreation • Close and reclaim damaged trails. • Guidelines and Best Practices for Planning, Design and • Install appropriate bridging at water crossings, following best-management practices; Development of Summer Off‐Highway Vehicle Trails ensure trails approach all stream crossings at right angles. (Province of BC 2012)

• Undertake WSEP evaluations prior to harvesting, especially in watersheds supporting • WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) important fisheries and/or community forests, or draining into marine sensitive areas16. • Terrain Mapping Standards & Guidelines (FLNRO 2019c) • Avoid locating roads and cutblocks on or above unstable terrain. Reserve all class IV • and V terrain, and areas with highly erodible soils (if not, have a qualified professional Guidelines for Terrain Stability Assessments in the conduct block specific flat over steep assessment). Forest Sector (ABCFP 2008b). • Road Engineering Manual (FLNRO 2019a) • Develop specific strategies to minimize potential slope failures and risks to water • Resource Road Engineering Standards & Guidelines resources. (FLNRO 2019b) • Establish linear reserves in source zones where streams are deemed susceptible to Mass Wasting Forestry debris flows. • Deactivate roads after harvesting, especially high-risk roads; provide operator and contractor training in road construction and deactivation. • Design and maintain roads and drainage structures to accommodate predicted increases in peak flows. For example, size culverts to accommodate flows considerably larger than historical Q100 flooding flows. By 2080, the magnitude of the Q100 is expected to be twice as large as the historical Q100 (Little 2012). • Retain large wood on unstable sites. • Undertake WSEP evaluations prior to harvesting, especially in watersheds supporting • WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) important fisheries and/or community forests, or draining into marine sensitive areas16. • FREP Riparian Protocol (Tripp et al. 2009) • • Ensure streams are identified and are not under-classified (in terms of size, fish- Riparian Management Area Guidebook (FLNRO 2021) bearing vs non-fish-bearing, etc.). • Best Riparian Management Practices Leading To Good Riparian Health Forestry Outcomes For Small Streams (Nordin & Bradford 2017) • At a minimum, apply FRPA guidelines for riparian reserves and management zones • FREP Post-Harvest Condition of Stream Channels, around streams, wetlands and lakes. Use management zones to improve outcomes Fish Habitats, and Adjacent Riparian Areas for non-fishing bearing streams flowing into fish-bearing streams or marine sensitive (Tschaplinski & Tripp 2017) areas, by retaining enough trees and understory for streambank stability and

17 See also: Powell River Regional District Regional Trails Plan (BHA 2016) TLA’AMIN 37 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS GUIDANCE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY

preventing high temperatures. • Forest Planning and Practices in Coastal Areas with • For fisheries sensitive watersheds, consider applying more rigorous standards for Streams (FPB 1998) riparian management, such as Forest Stewardship Council riparian standards, • Hydroriparian Planning Guide (Coast Information Team Hydroriprian Planning Guide prescriptions, and/or standards from other similar 2004a) jurisdictions18. For a comparison, see Riparian Management and Effects on Function • Forest Stewardship Council Regional Certification (Tchaplinski et al. 2010). Standards for British Columbia–Appendix B • Protect small streams during harvest, especially in hydrologically sensitive areas and Requirements for Riparian Management (FSC 2005). headwaters, as per FREP best practices for small streams (as relates to planning and • Low-tech Process-based Restoration of Riverscapes layout, harvesting, roads and postharvest monitoring). For example: (Wheaton et al. 2019) • Riparian management and effects on function o Ensure sufficient trees are retained for stream bank/channel stability; leave taller stumps; consider alluvial vs non-alluvial streams. (Tschaplinski & Pike 2010). • Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and o Fall and yard trees away from streams and clean logging debris from streams after harvesting. Adaptations Plan (Little 2012) • Best Practices for Preventing the Spread of Invasive o Improve communication with contractors and operators about FREP best practices, and provide training for falling and yarding, erosion control, wind- Plants During Forest Management Activities- Pocket firming, etc. around small streams and other hydrologically sensitive areas. Guide (FLNRO 2013) o Consider applying riparian buffers to small streams, especially in hydrologically sensitive areas and streams connected to fish habitat (some studies recommend minimum 10m buffer) (Nordin & Bradford 2017) • Apply riparian protections to small and non fish-bearing streams that flow directly into areas with marine sensitive features19, especially on steep and unstable terrain and in areas susceptible to rain-on-snow flooding/peak flow events. • Apply riparian protections to fisheries sensitive features, such as lake shorelines and nearshore habitat (where water is less than 10m deep), and flooded depressions, ponds, and swamps that perennially or seasonally contain water or fish. • Restore streams, wetlands and riparian forests. Where riparian areas consist of young forests (due to logging or other disturbance) thin trees to accelerate growth of conifers within the riparian corridor.

18 Forest example, in the Pacific Northwest, the US Forest Service requires riparian buffers of 90m on fish bearing streams and up to 30m for small non-fishbearing streams). See Tchaplinski et al. (2010) for a review of different riparian management standards and regimes. 19 Under FRPA “marine-sensitive features” include herring spawning areas, shellfish beds, marsh areas, existing aquaculture sites, juvenile salmonid-rearing areas, and adult salmon–holding areas, the nearshore (littoral) zones of marine and estuary systems, and marine areas where water is less than 10 m deep.

TLA’AMIN 38 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS GUIDANCE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY

• Protect and restore off-channel habitat in floodplains. • Catalogue and protect thermal refugia provided by groundwater and tributary inflow, undercut banks, and deep stratified pools. • Control and prevent spread of invasive species in riparian areas. • Retain and restore 30m riparian setbacks between streams and urban, industrial and • Riparian Areas Protection Regulation (RAPR)(Province agricultural developments (or adjusted setbacks as per guidance in the Riparian of BC 2021a) Areas Protection Regulation) • Develop with Care: Site Development and • Maintain lakeshore and wetland riparian zones and natural shoreline habitat, as well Management (Province of BC 2014b) • Development other fisheries sensitive features, such as nearshore habitat (where water is less than Low-tech Process-based Restoration of Riverscapes 10m deep), and flooded depressions, ponds, and swamps that perennially or (Wheaton et al. 2019) seasonally contain water or fish. • Coastal Invasive Species Committee (Province of BC • Maintain and restore riparian areas where possible; control and prevent spread of 2021e) invasive species in riparian areas.

• Install appropriate bridging (e.g. decking, corduroy, log rounds, board walks) in wet or • BC Recreation Manual –Chapter 10: Recreation Trail Management. (BC MOF 2001) Recreation sensitive areas, following best-management practices outlined BC Ministry of Forests (2001) Recreation Trail Management Manual.

• Survey and assess existing culverts; remediate as necessary. • Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (FLNRO 2012). • Land Development Guidelines for Protection of Aquatic Forestry & • Maintain fish passage; remove anthropogenic barriers to migration. Fish Passage Habitat (DFO 1993) General • During site development, install culverts and maintain fish passage, as per DFO land development guidelines. • Undertake WSEP evaluations prior to harvesting, especially in watersheds supporting • WSEP: Tier 1 (Porter et al. 2019) important fisheries or community forests, or draining into marine sensitive areas. • FREP Water Quality Protocol (Carson et al. 2009) • Avoid sedimentation via surface erosion and mass wasting, by applying above • Road Engineering Manual (FLNRO 2019a) mitigations for ‘Surface Erosion’, ‘Mass Wasting’ and ‘Riparian Health’. • Resource Road Engineering Standards & Guidelines • Reduce stream warming, especially in temperature sensitive watersheds and (FLNRO 2019b) • headwater areas, by: Hydroriparian Planning Guide (Coast Information Team Forestry & Water Quality maintaining ditches and culverts and deactivating roads to restore natural 2004a) Roads o drainage as soon as possible. • Forest Stewardship Council Regional Certification o Avoiding harvesting on sites with high or seasonally fluctuating water tables Standards for British Columbia–Appendix C: Highly (e.g. floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas). Hazardous Pesticides (FSC 2005). o Retaining adequate riparian vegetation next to streams, lakes, and wetlands, as per above mitigations under ‘Riparian Health’. • Avoid broadcast use of herbicides to control broadleaf growth in cutblocks; apply the Forest Stewardship Council’s list of highly hazardous pesticides that are prohibited for TLA’AMIN 39 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS GUIDANCE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY

use in FSC forests. • Protect lands and water around the Sliammon Lake water intake, including a policy of zero drainage concentration of seepage/ storm run-off from land and road ditches adjacent to the intake. • Retain adequate riparian vegetation next to streams, lakes wetlands as per above • Riparian Areas Protection Regulation (RAPR)(Province mitigations under ‘Riparian Health’, especially in temperature sensitive watersheds of BC 2021a) and in headwater areas. • Groundwater Protection Regulation (Province of BC • Consider engineering artificial wetlands for stormwater treatment in urban areas. 2021b). • • Ensure septic and sewer systems comply with BC regulations BC Sewerage System Regulation (Province of BC 2004) • Ensure water wells are designed, maintained and decommissioned to minimize the • Development risk of groundwater contamination, as per BC Groundwater Protection Regulation Develop with Care: Site Development and & Agriculture Management (Province of BC 2014b) • Encourage pesticide and herbicide-free zones in residential and agricultural areas. • Management of Riparian Areas (Province of BC 2021c) • Maintain vegetative cover over the soil throughout the year • Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish • Minimize animal trampling or vehicle traffic on wet soils or in riparian areas. Habitat including Aquatic Species at Risk (DFO 2016) • Avoid overuse of fertilizers or manure that may be transported into riparian areas and streams. • Avoid disposing of toxic substances on soils. • Ensure properly sited, designed and maintained toilets are installed at high use • BC Parks Recreation Drawings for Recreation Sites recreation sites near water. and Trails (Province of BC 2021d) Recreation • Discourage recreational use of lands and water around the Sliammon Lake water intake. • Ensure gravel quarries are following best management practices for sediment control, • Environmental Objectives And Best Management fuel handling and spill containment. Ensure all mining activities are at least 50m from Practices For Aggregate Extraction (Bracher 2002). Quarries any watercourse. • Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat including Aquatic Species at Risk (DFO 2016)

Human • Minimize cumulative effects of urban, industrial and agricultural development, • Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelines for Urban Development General and Rural Land Development (Province of BC 2014c). Footprint

TLA’AMIN 40 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS GUIDANCE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY

• Reserve known and potentially occurring red-listed and other non-listed naturally rare • Silviculture Practices for Enhancing Old Forest Stand ecological communities, and Critical Habitat for species at risk. Structure in Red- and Blue-Listed Plant Communities in • Avoid harvesting/disturbing sensitive ecosystems and blue-listed ecological the CDFmm (Negrave & Stewart 2010) communities, especially those that are in hydrologically sensitive areas (riparian • Forest Stewardship Council Regional Certification areas, wetlands, floodplains, etc.). Standards for British Columbia–Appendix D: High • Protect Critical Habitat and maintain connectivity for red and blue-listed and focal Conservation Value Forest Assessment Framework wildlife species. (FSC 2005). • Reserve old forests considered at risk of permanent and irreversible biodiversity loss, • Ecosystem-Based Management Planning Handbook including remnant old forest in the CDFmm, CWHxm and CWHdm subzones, and old forest with site index values >20. (Coast Information Team 2004b) • • Prioritize retention of remaining old/mature forest in hydrologically sensitive areas, Standards for Assessing the Condition of Forest including higher elevation stands in watershed headwaters. Encourage recruitment of Biodiversity under British Columbia’s Cumulative mature and old forest in hydrologically sensitive areas. Effects Framework (MOE 2020) Forestry • Increase landscape level and stand-scale and species diversity (e.g., retain and • Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified plant a variety of species, including broadleaf; expand breadth of “acceptable” Wildlife Coast Forest Region (MWALP 2004) species in young stands). • Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook (MOF • Follow best management practices for invasive plants. 1995). • Increase fire resilience at the stand level by managing surface fine fuels, • Pest Management Plan for Invasive Alien Plant and species composition, density, crown base height, crown bulk density and age- Noxious Weed Control on Provincial Crown Lands

Biodiversity class of forest stands. within the South Coastal Mainland of British Columbia

(Province of BC 2011) • Coastal Invasive Species Committee (Province of BC 2021e) • Best Management Practices for Whitebark Pine (Moody & Pigott 2017).

• Protect/avoid disturbing known and potentially occurring species and ecological • Species at Risk and Critical Habitat: Understanding communities at risk, and Critical Habitat for species at risk. Responsibilities & Making Informed Decisions On • Protect/avoid disturbing sensitive ecosystems and important habitat features. Private Land (Zevit 2018). • Follow sensitive environmental area guidelines in Tla’amin Land Use plan. • Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelines for Urban • Follow Develop with Care Guidelines and DFO Land Development Guidelines. and Rural Land Development (Province of BC 2014). • Manage wildfire risk around Sliammon community and important infrastructure, as per • Develop with Care: South Coast Region (Province of General guidance in Powell River Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Bains and Blackwell BC 2014a). 2015). Increase fire resilience at the landscape level by creating strategic fuel breaks, • Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010) prescribing fire, and allowing ecologically appropriate fires in suitable locations to burn • under appropriate conditions Powell River Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Bains and Blackwell 2015). •

TLA’AMIN 41 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

IMPACT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS GUIDANCE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY

• Follow cultural areas guidelines in Tla’amin Land Use plan. • Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010) • Identify and protect known heritage resource sites and features with a buffer or • FREP Protocol for Cultural Heritage Resource special management provisions that maintain the site or feature as desired. Stewardship Monitoring (Hebb et al. 2016) • Improve communication with contractors and operators about locations of known and • Cultural Heritage Resource Identification and potential cultural heritage resources, and appropriate management and protections; Management in Forestry Developments (Archer CRM Culturally General provide training if needed. 2009). Sensitive Areas • Undertake archaeological assessments in areas with high potential for archaeological • Forest Stewardship Council Regional Certification sites prior to site disturbance (via development, road, trail, etc.). Standards for British Columbia–Appendix D: High • Protect/avoid disturbing significant fishing, hunting, and trapping areas; protect with Conservation Value Forest Assessment Framework no-development buffers or special management provisions. (FSC 2005).

TLA’AMIN 42 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

8 SOURCE WATER PROTECTION

Safe drinking water is a priority for Tla’amin Nation. Source water is untreated water from groundwater or surface water sources that supplies potable water for human consumption or contact. Source water protection is about preventing contaminants from reaching water sources by using a variety of management actions. Protecting water at the source is an important means of preventing human illnesses. In addition, protecting water at the source helps to protect ecosystems and local economies. It is many times less expensive to protect a water source from contamination than it is to remediate it after contamination.

8.1 The Multi-Barrier Approach to Safe Drinking Water

Source water protection is the first barrier in the multi-barrier approach to safe drinking water. The other key barriers include drinking water treatment such as chlorination and filtration, maintenance of the water distribution system, testing and monitoring drinking water quality, and emergency planning (Figure 1). Together, these barriers are referred to as the “multi-barrier” approach to safe drinking water. The multi-barrier approach is really a system of redundancies that allows a drinking water system to avoid failure should a single barrier fail.

Source water protection is the first barrier, and perhaps most important barrier, in the multi-barrier approach and seeks to minimize the risk of water contamination at the source. Source water protection alone will not ensure a safe supply of drinking water in your community. It is important to follow all the barriers as outlined above. But without source water protection, the potential for contamination of the drinking water supply will certainly increase. This source water protection plan is the critical component of the Tla’amin Watershed Protection Plan.

8.2 Sources of contamination Both natural and human factors influence the quality of a drinking water source. Natural and human-generated risks to source water present difficult challenges to the water treatment plant and may impact human and environmental health.

Natural factors may contribute to drinking water contamination if left unchecked. Wildlife, for example, contains micro-organisms such as bacteria, parasites and viruses that may cause diseases in humans. Ongoing changes to the natural environment such as wildfire, storm events, flooding and erosion can also introduce risk to source waters. Natural factors affecting water quality are often unpredictable and may occur very suddenly. For example, a severe rainstorm may cause stream bank erosion and introduce sediments into source water, raising turbidity (cloudiness). Landslides into a source of drinking water such as a lake, reservoir or river may also affect water quality by adding debris and organic material into the water column causing high turbidity in the water. Human activities may also contribute to drinking water contamination from land uses such as forestry, mining, and agriculture. Many residential activities also introduce potential risk to source water such as domestic animals, outdoor recreation, sewage disposal systems, landfills, lawn care, road networks, road salts, and abandoned residential and community wells.

8.3 Overview and scope of the Procedure The Tla’amin Source Water Protection plan follows a five-stage process with the goal of producing a watershed assessment, which includes the ranking of risks to the source water, identifying management actions to reduce those risks, and an implementation strategy to deliver on those management actions. The five stages are illustrated in Figure 4. In summary, the stages are:

TLA’AMIN 43 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

• Stage 1: Establish a Source Water Protection Plan Working Committee • Stage 2: Complete a source water assessment • Stage 3: Identify management actions to address potential risks to your source water • Stage 4: Develop an implementation strategy • Stage 5: Review and update your source water protection plan approximately every year

STAGE 5 1 STAGE 1 Review and Establish Update Working SWPP Committee

5 2

STAGE 4 STAGE 2 Develop Source Water Implementation Risk Strategy Assessment

4 STAGE 3 Identify Risk 3 Management Actions

Figure 2: Tla’amin Source Water Protection Plan Process.

Stage 1: Establish a Working Committee

During the Tla’amin Watershed Protection Plan process, risks to the Tla’amin source water and overall drinking water system were discussed. Follow-up discussions took place with the Director of Lands and Resources to identify potential threats to the drinking water supply. Summer-time water restrictions are also a concern in the community. The Working Committee noted that summer water restrictions are the result of water distribution system capacity limitations and not water quantity limitations at Sliammon Lake. Professional reports and documents were also available to inform decisions regarding reliable and safe drinking water supply (Summit Final Report, 2004).

TLA’AMIN 44 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Stage 2: Complete a source water assessment

Stage 2 of this source water protection plan contains several important sub-stages. The following presents the five sub-stages to be covered in this section:

Sub-stage 2.1: Delineation of drinking water sources and systems Source water delineation refers to the process of drawing the boundaries of a watershed on a map. This can easily be done by using a topographic map, which shows elevations (and therefore hills and slopes), to identify those areas contributing to the source waters.

Sliammon Lake is the source of drinking water for Tla’amin Nation. The lake is fed by all drainages into the lake, the most significant being Appleton Creek. The drinking water intake is located near the outlet of Sliammon Lake, about 3.5 km upstream of the mouth and accessed by a mountain forest road. Sliammon Lake is drained by Sliammon Creek. The watershed area draining into Sliammon Lake is approximately 43.8 square kilometers (Summit 2004). The watershed area is comprised of two sub-basins and a residual area. There are three major streams in the watershed: Appleton Creek, Tributary #1 and Tributary #2 (Map 2). Upper Appleton Sub-basin is situated above the confluence of Appleton Creek and Tributary #2, Upper Sliammon Sub-basin drains Tributary #2, and the Sliammon (Residual) Unit is comprised of Appleton Creek (lower) below the confluence of Appleton Creek and Tributary #2, Tributary #1 and Sliammon Lake.

The land base supports forest harvesting and recreational activities such as camping, fishing and hunting. A fish hatchery owned and operated by the Tla’amin Nation is situated on Sliammon Creek near the mouth. Most streams draining to Sliammon Lake in the Sliammon Community Watershed support resident trout populations. The lower reaches of Sliammon Creek support both natural and hatchery raised salmon populations including: Chum, Pink, and Coho.

Sub-stage 2.2: Description of drinking water system

Tla’amin Nation has a piped distribution system to each household and commercial/institutional building. Source water is gravity fed from Sliammon lake through an 8-inch diameter pipe buried alongside the lake access road running 3 kilometers to the water treatment plant. The source water enters a settling reservoir next to the water treatment plant. After treatment, the water is held in a series of storage tanks for piped distribution into the community. Several storage tanks have been flagged for replacement based on their age and limited capacity to supply the community during peak demand in summer months.

Sub-stage 2.3: Inventory and Description of potential contamination sources

Based on preliminary field survey the immediate shoreline and riparian areas around Sliammon Lake appear healthy and relatively undisturbed. Appleton Creek below the forst service road also supports a healthy riparian zone. There is a history of forest harvesting activity in the upper Appleton Creek area. Watershed assessments have been undertaken in the past (Summit 1996; Ryder and Associates, 1996; Summit 1997), Carson (2000) completed an undated Sliammon Community Watershed assessment noting that the watershed is in good condition. Remediation works identified by Summit (1997) were noted as completed by Summit in 2004.

Recreation including day use and camping near Appleton Creek at Sliammon Lake is a low level concern. There is an outhouse structure with pump-out holding tank to prevent leaching of sewage. With careful TLA’AMIN 45 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

maintenance this is a good facility for its intended purpose. There is no motor boat activity (officially) permitted on the lake, no boat launch facility. This appears to be the only ‘formal’ day use area on the lake.

The water intake screen should be checked, and cleaned, annually. The lake level is management by an aging control structure. A previous study has looked at a rebuild and replacement of the control structure at Sliammon Lake. To ensure reliable water supply into the future this should be a priority for the Nation. The transmission supply line from the lake to the water treatment plant location should be inspected with a view of replacement in the future. This will be a costly and environmentally sensitive project. Budget considerations and sources of funds to support supply line replacement or repair should be a priority at this time.

Sub-stage 2.4: Assessment of source contamination risks

A first assessment has not taken place for the identified threats at this time (February 2021).

Sub-stage 2.5: Prioritization of source contamination risks

There has been no prioritization of risks at this time.

Stage 3: Identify management actions to address potential risks to your source water

Management action include need to monitor land use activities at Sliammon Lake, including forestry and recreation activities. Maintenance of the water intake and control structure at lake outlet. Priority should be given to replacement of the control structure and an assessment of the water supply line from the lake to the treatment plant reservoirs. Replacement of aging water tanks and the addition of water tanks as needed to supply community water in all seasons.

Stage 4: Develop an implementation strategy

Implementation looks to timelines for project initiation and completion as well as funding sources and necessary partnerships. At this time, an implementation strategy has not been undertaken. It is recommended that this be initiated soon.

Stage 5: Review and update your SWPP approximately every years

As with any land and water-planning document, there should be an annual review of this section within the Tla’amin Watershed Protection Plan to further the goal of developing a more fulsome source water protection plan.

TLA’AMIN 46 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of recommendations and potential partners are proposed in Table 9, for consideration by the Tla’amin Nation. These recommendations are based on participant input from the workshops (see Appendix A), and from a synthesis of relevant policy, research and spatial data. The recommendations fall under the following categories:

1.0 Evaluate Watershed Risk (GIS-based, as per indicators in Table 2).

1.1. Conduct a Cumulative Effects Evaluation for aquatic ecosystems (GIS-based) as a framework for monitoring overall risks to watershed health, and guiding/informing management activity. 1.2. Conduct Tier 1 Watershed Risk Evaluations (GIS based) for guiding/informing forestry planning.

2.0 Evaluate Watershed Condition (Field-based, as per Indicators in Tables 3 & 5)

2.1. Conduct Tier 2 Watershed Condition Assessments (field-based) for guiding/informing forestry activity on the ground. 2.2. Develop and implement a water quality monitoring program. 2.3. Develop and implement a hydrometric monitoring program. 2.4. Establish the Bunster Range / Sliammon Creek catchment as a research watershed for running hydrological and climate models.

3. 0 Mitigate to reduce risk and improve watershed condition (as per potential mitigations in Table 8)

3.1. Implement shared decision-making for the Theodosia Watershed, designate it as a Fisheries Sensitive Watershed, and implement the Theodosia Climate Change Adaptation Plan. 3.2. Bring Tla’amin Nation and Thichum together to work on forestry planning, risk reduction and climate change adaptation. 3.3 Observe guidelines outlined in the Forest Practices Code and monitor results. 3.4 Continue to develop skills of forest workers to manage watersheds. 3.5. Establish a Riparian & Small Stream Working Group and/or Climate Change Adaptation & Resource Sector Working Group. 3.6. Undertake a culvert and stream crossing assessment and replacement program. 3.7 Undertake a design project to replace the Sliammon Lake weir (lake level control structure). 3.8. Host a ‘Water Licensing 101’ course for Tla’amin staff and council. 3.9. Undertake wildfire planning & mitigation 3.10. Update traditional use and contemporary use studies, and expand archaeological surveys into upland areas.

TLA’AMIN 47 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

Table 9. Recommendations for implementing watershed protection planning and management in the study area.

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS 1. EVALUATE 1.1. Conduct Cumulative Effects Evaluation for Aquatic Ecosystems (GIS-based) as a • Monica Pearson, RISK (GIS- framework for monitoring overall risks to watershed health, and guiding/informing Regional Initiatives, management activity. based) MFLNRO. • Jason Hwang, PSF Collaborate with MFLNRO Regional Initiatives to pilot GIS-based cumulative effects evaluations • Lee George, *As per indicators for aquatic ecosystems in each watershed, and work with Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) to in Table 2 integrate findings with fisheries data for each watershed. Apply the Tier 1 protocols and indicators Sliammon Hatchery outlined in Table 2. Use this as an opportunity to build Tla’amin’s GIS analysis capacity and data library, and to create an in-house framework for monitoring and evaluating risks of cumulative effects in each of the Nation’s key watersheds, and for creating strategies for managing risks. Key guidance/resources include:

• Interim Assessment Protocol for Aquatic Ecosystems in British Columbia: Standards for British Columbia’s Cumulative Effects Framework Values Foundation (MOE 2020) • Pacific Salmon Explorer Data (PSF 2021) • Methods for Assessing Status and Trends in Pacific Salmon Conservation Units and their Freshwater Habitats (PSF 2020)

1.2. Conduct Tier 1 Watershed Risk Evaluations (GIS based) for guiding/informing forestry • Thichum planning • A&A Trading • 20 Monica Pearson, Retain a qualified professional (QEP ) to undertake Tier 1 WSEPs (to evaluate watershed risk – Regional Initiatives, indicators included in Table 2) for the Sliammon Creek watershed, as is typically required for MFLNRO. community forests, and also for Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlet watersheds, given • their importance to freshwater and marine fisheries. Consider partnering with MFLNRO Regional Jason Hwang, PSF Initiatives (Monica Pearson) and Pacific Salmon Foundation, as they have data for many of the relevant indicators used in WSEPs, and have expressed an interest in sharing data and collaborating. Key guidance/resources include:

• Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol (WSEP): Tier 1 Watershed-level Fish Values Monitoring (Porter et al. 2019) –applicable to community forests and watersheds

20 The QEP should meet requirements in the 2020 ABCFP’s Professional Practice Guidelines for conducting watershed assessments. TLA’AMIN 48 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS designated by the Province as Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds. • Joint Professional Practice Guidelines – Watershed Assessment and Management of Hydrologic and Geomorphic Risk in the Forest Sector (ABCFP 2020a)

2. EVALUATE 2.1. Conduct Tier 2 Watershed Condition Assessments (field-based) for guiding/informing • Thichum CONDITION forestry activity on the ground • A&A Trading • FREP (field-based) In recognition of the important fisheries in these two watersheds, retain a qualified professional19 to undertake Tier 2 WSEPs (to evaluate on-the-ground watershed conditions; see indicators in *As per Indicators Table 3) in preparation for forestry activity in both the Sliammon and Okeover Creek watersheds. in Tables 3 & 5 For the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watershed, at a minimum, apply the FREP Water Quality Protocol (Carson et al. 2009) given the amount of steep terrain in the watershed, and the risks sedimentation and mass wasting potentially pose to valued marine resources in these inlets (salmon rearing and holding habitat, shellfish beds, herring spawning areas, etc.). Consider applying full Tier 2 protocols in this watershed, especially when conducting forestry activities in the catchments of small streams with outlets near the estuaries in Okeover and Theodosia inlets, or elsewhere close to valued marine resources. Consider conducting these assessments as training packages for building in-house staff capacity to conduct field assessments of watershed condition (possibly in collaboration with FREP, see Recommendation 3.4). Key guidance/resources include:

• Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol (WSEP): Tier II Fish Values Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol (Pickard et al. 2014) – field based monitoring with a forestry focus. This protocol incorporates the following FREP field protocols: • FREP Riparian Protocol (Tripp et al. 2020) • FREP Water Quality Protocol (Carson et al. 2009) • Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (FLNRO 2012).

2.2. Develop and Implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program • Pam Shaw, VIU? • Monica Pearson, Given the complexities involved in designing and implementing an effective water quality Regional Initiatives, monitoring program, and given the rigorous QA/QC requirements and required skill level of MFLNRO. personnel who will be involved, explore a partnership with an academic institution (and possibly • DFO government and NGO partners, e.g. Pacific Salmon Foundation) to develop a well designed, • statistically sound water quality monitoring program (as per relevant water quality indicators in Jason Hwang, PSF Table 5, and steps outlined in Appendix E), and to develop staff capacity to oversee and TLA’AMIN 49 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS implement the program. In the interim, it is recommended that the Nation undertake a basic water quality survey program by: • Compiling any existing/historical water quality data. • Sending key staff for training on how to use water quality sampling equipment, and quality control techniques related to equipment use, calibration and contamination. • Scouting potential sampling locations21, as noted in Maps 14 & 27. • Starting to collect reconnaissance field data for basic water quality parameters outlined in Table 4 (building on Tiffany Ortomond’s 2015 water quality sampling), to help make preliminary determinations about expected background water quality within key streams and waterbodies in the study area watersheds. • Identifying water quality training opportunities for targeted staff (e.g. VIU Natural Resources Extension Program Water Quality Monitoring course, or UNBC’s Advanced Water Quality Monitoring Field Course). Key guidance/resources include: • The Guidelines for Designing and Implementing a Water Quality Monitoring Program in British Columbia (Cavanagh et al. 1998a) • Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling Field Manual (Province of BC 2013) • Water Quality Sampling Strategy for Turbidity, Suspended and Benthic Sediments (Caux & Moore 1997) • EPT Index described in Streamkeepers Handbook Module 4 (Munro and Taccogna, 1994) • British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife & Agriculture (MOE 2019) • Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (Cavanagh et al., 1998)

21 Sampling locations are typically situated at: . the mouths of main tributaries (integration of all upstream diffuse inputs) . upstream and downstream from industrial projects, resource extraction activities, waste outfalls, and urban centres, . near-shore lake locations that are adjacent to industrial projects, resources extractive activities, waste outfalls and urban centres, . deepest point in lake, . at points of major water withdrawals, and . if possible, in the stream headwaters, to obtain true background (control) levels (Cavanagh et al. 1998).

TLA’AMIN 50 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS 2.3. Develop and Implement a Hydrometric Monitoring Program • DFO • Monica Pearson, Find institutional and/or academic partners to develop a hydrometric streamflow monitoring Regional Initiatives, program for the Nation. Streamflow monitoring is needed to generate data for 1) evaluating long MFLNRO. term climate change impacts on streamflows in key watersheds; 2) determining whether instream • Mike Demuth, flow thresholds and environmental flows are being met; 2) monitoring effectiveness of watershed management/mitigations, such as dam releases and WSEP prescriptions, and 3) generating Research additional data needed for redesigning the Sliammon weir and dismantling or redesigning the Geoscientist Theodosia dam. (The 2017 Aquarius hydrometric study recommended the Sliammon Creek hydrometric program continue for at least another five years, with site visits at least four times a year to reduce the uncertainty of the hydrological estimates generated for the report; and a revisiting of flood measurements after larger flows are measured). Use data from existing Water Survey stations on the Theodosia River, reinstall a hydrometer station on Sliammon Creek, and consider another for Okeover Creek. Key guidance/resources include:

• Key Hydrometric Planning Questions for Small Stream Monitoring (Pike et al. 2019) • Design Basis Report for a Sliammon Lake Replacement Dam (BBA 2018) • Hydrometric Program for Kwahtum Teeshohsum (Aquarius R&D 2017). • Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Plan (Little 2012). • British Columbia Hydrometric Standards (MOE 2018).

2.4. Establish the Bunster Range / Sliammon Creek catchment as a research watershed • Mike Demuth, for running hydrological and climate models. Research Geoscientist Partner with Mike Demuth (research Geoscientist) and Robert Patrick (University of • Robert Patrick, U of Saskatchewan) to establish the Bunster Range and Sliammon Creek watershed as a research Sask watershed for running hydrological and climate models (for example, by using a HRU- • based hydrological model such as CRHM to run some climate, B-G zone shift and land use Pam Shaw, VIU? scenarios). Use the results to help inform climate change adaptation (e.g. measures for addressing future water supply and demand, design requirements for Sliammon dam replacement, culvert/stream crossing design requirements, forestry mitigations, etc.). This would tie in with Recommendation 2.3: develop a hydrometric monitoring program, and Recommendations 1.1 and 1.2: conduct cumulative effects and watershed risk evaluations. It would also make use of the climate station proposed for Bunster Ranges in the upper reaches of the Sliammon watershed.

TLA’AMIN 51 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS 3. MITIGATE 3.1. Implement shared decision-making for the Theodosia Watershed, designate it as a • Monica Pearson, Fisheries Sensitive Watershed, and implement the Theodosia Climate Change Adaptation Regional Initiatives, *As per potential Plan • MFLNRO. mitigations in • Jason Hwang, PSF Urge the Provincial government to enter into Shared Decision Making with Tla’amin Nation, and to • DFO Table 8 designate the Theodosia River as a Fisheries Sensitive Watershed as a framework for compelling operators in the watershed to: 1) undertake integrated management action that prioritizes aquatic • South Coast ecosystem heath and climate change adaptation, 2) conduct WSEPs for the watershed22, and 3) Conservation implement the recommendations in the Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Association23? Adaptation Plan (Little 2012; see Appendix B for summary). PSF potentially has funding for undertaking Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning. Key guidance includes:

• Tla’amin Shared Decision-Making Agreement Within The Theodosia River Watershed • Fisheries Sensitive Watershed: Default-objectives and Designation Procedure (FLNRO 2017) • Watershed-Based Fish Sustainability Planning: Conserving B.C. Fish Populations and their Habitat (DFO & MOE 2001) • Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Plan (Little 2012).

3.2. Bring Tla’amin Nation and Thichum together to work on forestry planning • Thichum • Tla-amin Land & Bring Tla’amin Nation and Thichum together to work on forestry planning, risk reduction and Resources climate change adaptation for the key areas affecting watershed and aquatic health. Focus on • Tla’amin Cultural hydrologically sensitive areas (such as streams, riparian areas, flood plains, headwater streams, Department small streams and wetlands), as well as biodiversity (species and ecosystems at risk, critical • habitat, sensitive ecosystems) and culturally sensitive areas, as per possible mitigations and key A&A Trading guidance documents/protocols outlined in Table 8.

22 Watershed Status Evaluation Protocols (WSEPS) are only required for Community Forests, and designated Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds. 23 The South Coast Conservation Association (based in Sechelt) apparently have been advocating to have Theodosia River (among others) designated as a Fisheries Sensitive Watershed https://www.thescca.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265&Itemid=198.

TLA’AMIN 52 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS 3.3 Observe Guidelines Outlined in the Forest Practices Code and Monitor Results. • Thichum • A&A Trading As per Carson’s recommendation in his 2000 Watershed Assessment report, due diligence in • Tla-amin Land & observing the Forest Practices Code guidelines should be carried out to reduce risk to local Resources hydrology and water quality. The Code has many guidelines that, when adhered to, will help protect water quality for the Sliammon Community Watershed. Every opportunity should be given to manage harvesting operations to meet the objectives of the Code (Carson 2000).

3.4 Continue to Develop Skills of Forest Workers to Manage Watersheds • Thichum • A&A Trading Continue to develop skills of forest workers to manage watershed impacts, and adapt practices to • MFLNRO. contend with increasing climate related risks and impacts (see for some examples). For Table 8 • FREP example, ensuring crews are familiar with: • Subsurface materials in the area, and how they should be handled during road construction and maintenance, under differing conditions, as they are encountered (Carson 2000). • Best management practices for road design, construction and deactivation, and for designing and installing drainage structures and stream crossings (e.g. sizing culverts and ditches for projected increases in flooding flows). • Best practices for working around small streams and riparian areas. • Best practices for applying riparian retention and management zones. • Identifying and classifying streams. • Identifying sensitive ecosystems and habitats, and appropriate management and protections. • Identifying culturally sensitive areas, and appropriate management and protections.

Consider entering into collaboration with FREP (Forest & Range Evaluation Program) to assist with training, and as per Goal 4 of their newly released three year strategic plan (2020/21 to 2022/23): Indigenous communities are active partners in FREP and other stewardship monitoring.

• FREP Three-year Strategic Plan 2020/21 to 2022/23 (FREP 2020)

The plan outlines the following strategies for meeting this goal: • Support increased Indigenous community engagement in FREP training, sampling and reporting. • Collaborate with Indigenous communities to explore opportunities to improve the Cultural TLA’AMIN 53 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS Heritage Resource monitoring protocol. • Provide FREP training and technical support for government-to-government stewardship projects such as Environmental Stewardship Initiatives (ESIs), Collaborative Stewardship Framework forums (CSFs), or ‘Guardian’ projects. • Explore opportunities to strengthen monitoring partnerships through engagement with First Nations associations and indigenous communities, and consideration of models such as Guardian programs.

3.5. Establish a Riparian & Small Stream Working Group and/or Climate Change Adaptation • Thichum & Resource Sector Working Group • A&A Trading • Lisa Nordin, FREP Form a riparian and small streams working group (and/or a resource sector climate adaptation • Local FLNRO office working group), comprised of foresters, fish experts, hydrologists/geotechs and contractors. • Share knowledge and develop strategies and best practices for reducing climate related risks and DFO improving protection and management of streams, riparian areas, small streams and other • PSF hydrologically sensitive areas (e.g. headwaters, floodplains and alluvial fans). Key guidance • Hydrologist/Geotech includes: • FREP • Best Riparian Management Practices Leading To Good Outcomes For Small Streams (Nordin & Bradford 2017) • The Importance Of Small Streams In British Columbia. FREP Extension Note #38. (Tripp et al. 2017) • Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (FLNRO 2012). • Hydroriparian Planning Guide (Coast Information Team 2004a) • Forest management on fans: Hydrogeomorphic hazards and general prescriptions (Wilford et al. 2005) • Timber Harvesting Activities and Geomorphology in Coastal British Columbia (Millard et al. 2007) 3.6. Undertake a Culvert and Stream Crossing Assessment and Replacement Program • Thichum • A&A Trading Establish a program of assessing stream crossings (roads and trails), and cataloguing and • Hydrologist remediating and/or replacing culverts, etc. Consult a hydrologist to determine future requirements • Monica Pearson, for culvert sizing. Partner with the Province as part of their culvert assessment program. Tie this Section Head, in with Tier 2 Watershed Condition Assessments (as per Recommendation 2.1). Ensure remediations recommended in 2004 Summit Watershed Assessment report have been completed Regional Initiatives, South Coast TLA’AMIN 54 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS (See Appendix B). Engage recreational users to raise awareness of issues and best practices, MFLNRO. and to help improve problematic stream crossings. Key guidance includes: • Qathet Regional District • Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (FLNRO 2012). • Brookfield? • Road Engineering Manual (FLNRO 2019a) • Fisheries • Resource Road Engineering Standards & Guidelines (FLNRO 2019b) • PRPAWS • BC Recreation Manual –Chapter 10: Recreation Trail Management (MOF 2001). • BOMB Squad • Guidelines and Best Practices for Planning, Design and Development of Summer Off‐ • ORUG Highway Vehicle Trails (Province of BC 2012) • ATV club

3.7. Undertake Design Project to Replace Sliammon Lake Weir • DFO

As per the BBA report recommendations, undertake a design project to replace Sliammon Lake Weir. Additional hydrometric monitoring and data is required (see Recommendation 2.3). Key guidance includes:

• Design Basis Report for a Sliammon Lake Replacement Dam (BBA 2018) • Hydrometric Program for Kwahtum Teeshohsum (Aquarius R&D 2017).

3.8. Host a ‘Water Licensing 101’ course for Tla’amin staff and Council • Oliver Dann & Bryan Zandberg, Ministry Work with representatives from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, to have of Indigenous the Province to deliver a ‘Water Licensing & Approvals 101’ (including dams) Q&A workshop for Relations and Tla’amin staff and Council. The purpose would be to increase understanding of BC’s water Reconciliation licensing and approvals systems, and to identify intervention points for acquiring licenses and • Jeff Grass, Snr Dam responding to water related applications. Key subject matter includes information from: Safety Officer • Province of BC’s Water Licenses & Approvals website • Thomas Cummings, https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-licensing- Snr Authorizations, rights/water-licences-approvals South Coast Groundwater Team

TLA’AMIN 55 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 1 WATERSHED PLAN

CATEGORY ACTION / DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL PARTNERS 3.9. Undertake Wildfire Planning & Mitigation • Thichum • A&A Trading Work with qathet Regional District and the Province to implement recommendations in the Powell • BC Wildfire Service River Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and undertake additional wildfire risk reduction as Regional Wildfire needed. Integrate protection of hydrologically sensitive areas and species and ecosystems at risk Risk Reduction into wildfire planning (e.g. identify water sources, fish habitat, sensitive areas, wetlands/streams/ creeks). Key guidance documents include: Coordinator Stefana Dranga • Powell River Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Bains and Blackwell 2015) • qathet Regional • Silviculture Practices for Enhancing Old Forest Stand Structure in Red- and Blue-Listed District, Ryan Thoms Plant Communities in the CDFmm (Negrave & Stewart 2010)

3.10. Update traditional use and contemporary use studies, and expand archaeological • Sliammon Cultural surveys into upland areas. Department • FREP Identify and protect known heritage resource sites and features with a buffer or special management provisions that maintain the site or feature as desired. Undertake archaeological assessments in areas with high potential for archaeological sites prior to site disturbance. Consider collaboration with FREP (see Recommendation 3.4). Guidance includes:

• Tla’amin Land Use Plan (2010) • FREP Protocol for Cultural Heritage Resource Stewardship Monitoring (Hebb et al. 2016) • Cultural Heritage Resource Identification and Management in Forestry Developments (Archer CRM 2009).

TLA’AMIN 56 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2: WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS & PRESSURES

TLA’AMIN 57 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

1 SLIAMMON WATERSHED

1.1 Watershed Description 1.1.1 Topography & General Description The Sliammon Creek watershed is located west of Powell River on the Sunshine Coast of British Columbia. It originates at the top of the Bunster Range (Figure 1), a small mountain range wedged between the lower arm of Powell Lake to the east, and Okeover and Theodosia inlets to the west and north. The watershed comprises an area of approximately 5836 ha, with its northern boundary reaching elevations of up to 1100m. The upland portion of the range is characterized by deeply hummocked topography, with steep rocky knolls and hollows. Although its upper reaches feature some steeper terrain, most of the watershed slopes relatively gently southward, towards its outflow into the Straight of Georgia.

1.1.2 General Hydrology Three major streams drain the upper reaches of the Sliammon Creek watershed: Appleton Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries (Map 4). These streams ultimately drain into Sliammon Lake, the largest lake in the watershed (176ha) and the site of Tla’amin Nation’s community water intake. Sliammon Lake drains into Sliammon Creek, a short (2.6km), modestly sized stream, which is nonetheless the largest watercourse on the Malaspina peninsula beyond Powell River. A weir constructed by DFO for fisheries enhancement controls water flow from the lake into the creek. Sliammon Creek runs southwest from the lake, flowing to its outlet on the ocean foreshore near the centre of Sliammon community. Sliammon Creek watershed hosts a number of other waterbodies, including the 14 ha Little Sliammon Lake, as well as numerous small lakes and wetlands, particularly in the upper, northerly extent of the basin (Map 4).

Carson (2000) provides a detailed description of the watershed hydrology. About a third of the upper watershed is above 800m elevation, beyond which heavy winter snowpack forms. This snow pack sustains spring runoff from Appleton Creek. As a result, Appleton Creek and its tributaries have ‘hybrid’ hydrological regimes typical of small coastal streams, driven by mixed rain and snow (see Part 1, Section 4.4 for details). Almost half of the watershed lies between 300 and 800m contours – the zone where flood generating rain-on-snow events are most likely to occur. Average monthly streamflows are highest in the spring, during snowmelt. Peak daily stream flows, however, occur as a result of combined snowmelt and rain run-off when warm winter storms create rain on snow events (Carson 2000). Water storage capacity in the upper watershed is enhanced by the numerous small lakes and wetlands occupying its higher reaches (by way of capturing run-off and slowing its release into streams and rivers). This capacity may help ‘smooth out’ the hydrological regime of Appleton Creek and its tributaries, by attenuating high stream flows during heavy rains, and augmenting low flows during the drier summer months (Carson 2000).

Sliammon Lake, and to a lesser extent Little Sliammon Lake, lend substantial water storage capacity to the lower part of the watershed. This capacity markedly buffers any extreme hydrological events caused by high or low flows in Appleton Creek (Carson 2000), thereby smoothing out Sliammon Creek’s flow regime, reducing flooding during heavy rains and snow melt, and sustaining flow during dry summer months. The fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits aligned along the riparian zone of Sliammon Creek (Map 2) may provide additional water storage during storm events (and hence flow ‘smoothing’), provided they’re not saturated or capped with impermeable layers of till or marine sediment.

There is a discontinued Water Survey of Canada hydrometric station on Sliammon Creek (Map 14). It collected three years of continuous flow data between 1949 and 1951: TLA’AMIN 58 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

• Sliammon Creek near Powell River 08GB005 (flow: 1949-1951).

1.1.3 Fisheries Sliammon Lake and Sliammon Creek support both natural and hatchery raised salmon spawning, with high levels of hatchery enhancement for both chum and coho spawning. Other species naturally spawn in the lower reaches, but a large percentage of escapement is retained by the hatchery for artificial production (BBA 2018). Spawner surveys (PSF 2021; Figure 3) show large numbers of chum (CM) using the system (peaking around 45000 in the 1980s), and much smaller numbers of coho (CO), which appear to be in overall decline since peaking in the early 1990s, and pink (PK), which periodically show up in the creek. The BBA (2018) report indicates that there are also very limited Chinook, and that other species spawning naturally do so in the lower reaches. Additional BC Data Catalogue fish observations24 from Sliammon Creek include Kokanee (KO), steelhead (ST), cutthroat trout (CCT), lamprey (L), sculpin (CC), rainbow trout (RB), and three-spine stickleback (TSB) (Map 5).

Most of the fish species found in Sliammon Creek have also been recorded in Sliammon Lake (Map 5). Hatchery raised coho fry are released in the lake for ongoing enhancement (BBA 2018). Coho also migrate to Sliammon Lake via the weir’s fishway (BBA 2018). Coho spawn in creek below the lake, in Appleton Creek near its outlet, and in the lake at mouth of Appleton Ck. Coho have also been recorded spawning on the northeast shore of the Lake near two small creek outlets. Juvenile and fry coho, rainbow trout and cutthroat throat trout have been observed above the cascade in Appleton Creek, just above the inflow of its first tributary. Most streams draining into Sliammon Lake support resident cutthroat trout populations (Summit 2004).

1.1.4 Biodiversity

1.1.4.1 Ecological Communities at Risk

The BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) database (BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer) has records of five Red Listed ecological communities occurring in the Sliammon watershed. These occurrences are summarized in Table 10, and their locations shown in Map 7. Three of these communities are also globally imperilled (G2) or critically imperilled (G1). The global range of these ecological communities is largely or almost entirely restricted to the CDFmm25 and CWHxm subzones of southwest British Columbia, underscoring both their global uniqueness and BC’s responsibility for their conservation. Note that more ecological communities at risk are likely to occur in the area, as inventory and mapping of these communities is incomplete.

These ecological communities at risk also have cultural relevance. For example, Western redcedar are of central importance to Tla’amin culture, and all parts of the cedar were traditionally used (Paul 2009). Grand-fir was traditionally carved by the Coast Salish to make halibut hooks, its bark used for basketry dye, and its pitch as medicine (McKinnon & Pojar 1999; Haggan 2006). Grand-fir and three-leaved foamflower have broad spectrum antibiotic properties (McCutcheon 1987). Sitka spruce was traditionally used for food and medicine, and making

24 This point location dataset of fish observations is a regularly updated compilation of BC fish distribution information taken from a combination of all the official provincial databases including the BC Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS). Fish occurrences in this dataset represent the most current and comprehensive information source on fish presence for the province https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/known-bc-fish-observations-and-bc-fish-distributions. 25 The CDF zone is home to the highest number of species and ecosystems at risk in BC, many of which are ranked globally as imperilled or critically imperilled (see CDFCP.ca for more information).

TLA’AMIN 59 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

baskets and hats (McKinnon & Pojar 1999) in different colours (Lee George pers. comm.). Sitka spruce is an uncommon element in the drier coastal forests of the area.

Table 10. Known occurrences of ecological communities at risk in the Sliammon Creek Watershed, from publically available records in the CDC database.

Occurrence Ecological Community GLOBAL BC OCCURRENCE COMMENTS ID number RANK LIST

8394 Douglas-fir / Dull G2 Red Located along the Sunshine Coast between Lund and Oregon-grape Sliammon, in areas close to the coast. Dominated by young forest (71%), with good representation of mature (25%) Douglas-fir dominated stands. Western red cedar, bigleaf maple, red alder and arbutus also occur. 11834 Grand Fir / Three-leaved G1 Red Located on relatively flat terrain immediately inland of Foamflower coastal residential developments near the mouth of Sliammon Creek. Young forests, mostly a mixture of coniferous and deciduous tree species, with some deciduous stands. 11835 Grand Fir / Three-leaved G1 Red Located inland of the Sunshine Coast Highway along Foamflower Sliammon Creek, Wilde Creek and nearby areas. Mostly young mixture of coniferous and deciduous forest. Occurs on moist, nutrient-enriched soils. 11120 Sitka Spruce / G3 Red Located on the fluvial fan of Appleton Creek where it Salmonberry Very Dry enters Sliammon Lake. These communities occupy high- Maritime bench floodplain sites that experience flooding at greater than five-year intervals. 10821 Western Redcedar / GNR Red Located on the floodplain of Sliammon Creek from the Common Snowberry mouth to 2.9 kilometres upstream. High bench floodplain forest comprised of young and pole-sapling western redcedar forest. 15667 Western Redcedar / GNR Red Occurs on the edge of Sliammon Lake. This forest Salmonberry community occurs on strongly fluctuating water table sites.

1.1.4.2 Wildlife & Species at Risk

The BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) database (BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer) and the BC Vegetation Resource Inventory have records of four species at risk occurrences in the Sliammon watershed: Marbled Murrelet26, Western Painted Turtle (Pacific Coast population), Common Woodnymph (incana subspecies) and Whitebark Pine27. These occurrences are summarized in Table 11, and their known locations shown in Map 7. (Note that there are likely to be more occurrences of species at risk in the area, as inventories are not comprehensive). Map 8 shows areas in the watershed that the federal government has mapped as Critical

26 See the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Canada (Environment Canada 2014). 27 See the Species at Risk Act Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis): proposed recovery strategy 2017 (Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017). TLA’AMIN 60 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Habitat2829 for the Marbled Murrelet and Western Painted Turtle. Sliammon Creek watershed also contains suitable habitat for Blue-listed Roosevelt Elk and Grizzly Bear. See Appendix F for summary descriptions of these species at risk and details of what habitats they use in the watershed.

Table 11. Known occurrences of species at risk in the Sliammon Creek Watershed, from publically available records in the CDC database and the Vegetation Resources Inventory.

Occurrence Species GLOBAL COSEWIC BC LIST OCCURRENCE COMMENTS ID number RANK

15333 Common Woodnymph, G5T4T5 - Red Thirteen Common Wood-nymphs, incana Subspecies observed across 9.5 km area of second- growth forests and clearcuts during a 2014 survey. 7011 Marbled Murrelet G3 Threatened Blue Series of nests found in the Bunster Range between 1995-2001 during tree climbing and radio telemetry surveys. Most were found in large diameter yellow cedar trees in old forest. 9047 Painted Turtle – Pacific Coast G5T2 Threatened Red A single turtle found in a small wetland Population (Dogleg Pond) between Big Sliammon and Little Sliammon Lakes, during a 2011 survey. Hm(PaBa) Whitebark Pine30 G3 Endangered Blue Mountain hemlock stand with Whitebark pine as a minor species. Rare occurrence of Whitebark pine on the west slopes of the Coast Mountains. HwPa(Ba) Whitebark Pine G3 Endangered Blue Mixed stand of Western Hemlock and Whitebark pine. Rare occurrence of Whitebark pine on the west slopes of the Coast Mountains.

1.1.4.3 Sensitive Ecosystems

28 The Species At Risk Act (SARA) describes Critical Habitat (CH) as the habitat that is: a) necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species, and b) identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. 29 Note that not all of the area within these boundaries is necessarily critical habitat. To precisely define what constitutes critical habitat for a particular species it is essential that this geospatial information be considered together with the biophysical attributes (as outlined in the species’ recovery strategy) that complete the definition of a species’ critical habitat https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/critical-habitat-for-federally-listed-species-at-risk-posted- 30 The Whitebark pine occurrences are from the BC Vegetation Resources Inventory; they are not part of the CDC database. TLA’AMIN 61 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

the CDF, CWHxm, and part of the CWHdm subzones). Also note that SEI mapping for old and mature forest is out of date (recent forest cover mapping was used instead, to delineate mature and old growth forest in Map 9). See Appendix G for more a more detailed descriptions of sensitive ecosystems and their types.

1.1.4.4 OGMAs and WHAs

Old growth management areas (OGMAs) and wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) are shown on Map 10, in relation to sensitive ecosystems and species and ecological communities at risk. The WHAs are no-harvest zones established for Marbled Murrelet.

1.1.5 Cultural Values The historic village of tišosəm̓ (milky waters from herring spawn) is now part of the main Tla’amin community (Springer 2018, Table 12). Traditionally, families would move back to tišosəm in early November, after having rotated through the villages at the Theodosia River and Okeover Creek, fishing the large chum runs in these systems. The February/March herring harvest would then become a focus for the community (Paul 2009).

Sliammon Creek and Sliammon Lake host important salmon runs (primarily chum and coho, now hatchery enhanced), which today serve as very important food sources for the Sliammon community (Lee George, pers. comm.). Medicinal plants were traditionally gathered in the riparian and floodplain forest along Sliammon Creek (Lee George pers. comm.). Cedar growing in the watershed’s riparian and floodplain areas was, and continues to be, of central cultural importance. Cedar was used in constructing long houses, dugout canoes, baskets, mats, clothing, cordage, storage boxes, and fish weirs, as well as fuel (Patrick 2004).

The slow growing yellow cedars in the upper reaches of the watershed were valued as canoe trees, and for wood working implements (Lee George pers. comm.). Higher elevation areas were also important for hunting deer and bear, and gathering later ripening berries (e.g. huckleberries) in late summer and early fall. Devil’s Club would also be gathered in the higher watershed reaches, in damp areas alongside streams and wetlands (Lee George, pers. comm.).

Table 12. Ethnohistoric and archaeological records for Sliammon Creek watershed, as compiled by Spring (2018).

Code31 Location Area m2/masl Comments DlSd-10 Current Tla’amin 1600/5 tišosəm̓ Historic village, now part of main Tla’amin community community.

1.2 Watershed Pressures 1.2.1 Forestry Resident fish habitat and fish populations are affected by forestry operations, particularly historic logging from the early 1900s, which cleared right to stream edges. According to Carson (2000) the foremost disturbance caused by this activity was large amounts of large woody debris left in stream channels, which have affected the historic magnitude and frequency of debris floods on the streams (see Part 1 Table 2 for a summary of how forestry and other activities can impact watershed values).

31 Borden code assigned to sites registered with the Archaeology Branch of British Columbia. TLA’AMIN 62 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

At present, the main risks in the upper part of the watershed are forestry-related effects on fish in the many of the creeks draining into Sliammon Lake (including resident cut-throat and rainbow trout populations, spawning coho and coho fry, and a number of other species), and along the shore of Sliammon Lake itself. However, the most recent watershed assessment (Summit 2004) found that forestry related risks to the upper watershed were low to moderate (see Appendix B for summary). Factors which buffer the risk of forestry-related impacts in the watershed include: recovery of riparian forest canopies from historic logging and fire32 (~80 years ago); improved forestry practice in recent years (e.g. application of riparian buffers); the absence of landslides/mass wasting; quality road placement, construction and maintenance; and relatively low levels of more recent harvesting. A further factor which helps buffer risk is the presence of significant stands of old growth forest remaining in the upper headwater reaches of the watershed (which can help augment low flows and mitigate peak/flooding flows; Perry et al. 2016). In addition, the presence of multiple small lakes and wetlands in the upper reaches of the watershed enhance the storage capacity of the watershed, which may lend some resilience against some forestry related effects (e.g. by smoothing out streamflows – reducing flooding/peak flows, and augmenting low flows; Eaton & Moore 2010).

Factors which increase the risk of forestry-impacts on fish and fish habitat in the watershed include: lingering channel instabilities related to the historic logging practices and debris, the presence of unstable terrain and highly erodible soils in a number of areas (see terrain stability mapping in the 2004 Summit report), the risk of rain-on-snow events in a large portion of the watershed (between 300m and 800m elevation bands), and the risk of sediment of delivery and alteration of subsurface flows posed by unmaintained roads and road crossings. (A January 2021 field visit found that recommended remedial action appears to have been completed for 3 of the 5 problem areas/sediment sources identified in the 2004 Summit watershed assessment report; the other sites could not be accessed – see Appendix B for details). The active alluvial fan where Appleton Creek drains into Sliammon Lake (where the CDC has identified a Red Listed Sitka Spruce – Salmonberry ecological community) also has elevated risk of sedimentation and channel damage. This site is of particular importance given the number and variety of fish that have been documented in this reach of Appleton Creek, including spawning coho.

Forestry related activities also potentially pose risks to the very high value fish values in the lower watershed (the sub-basins of which drain directly into Sliammon Lake and Sliammon Creek). However, because most of the lower watershed is below the 300m elevation band (above which shallow snowpacks form), it has much lower of risk of peak/flooding flows generated by rain-on-snow (ROS) events. In addition, the large storage capacity of Sliammon Lake buffers Sliammon Creek against extreme peak/flooding flow events in the upper watershed (e.g. ROS events in winter and early spring) (Carson 2000). It also buffers Sliammon Creek from high turbidity flows coming from Appleton Creek during these flood events (by allowing sediments to settle out in the lake) (Carson 2000). Sliammon Lake also serves to augment flows in the Sliammon Creek during the dry summer months. Dampening of peak/flooding flows and augmentation of low flows is enhanced by additional live storage created by the weir, which controls the discharge of Sliammon Creek (Carson 2000).

32 The combination of logging and fire in the early 1900s removed virtually all old growth from the lower watershed (including riparian zones), and left heavy slash in stream channels. This led to frequent logjams and periodic flooding (Carson 2000). TLA’AMIN 63 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

1.2.2 Recreation Recreation poses additional potential threats to fish values, primarily by way of sedimentation from hiking, biking and quad trails at stream crossings, particularly those with poorly designed or maintained bridges. Recreational traffic can also increase the risk of sediment run–off from forestry roads. The popular Sunshine Coast trail crosses the lower part of the watershed, along which are two recreation sites, a hut, and three campsites (including one on Sliammon Lake, and another on Little Sliammon Lake; Map 11). If poorly sited, designed and/or maintained, outhouses have the potential to become sources of nutrient and coliform bacteria contamination, which is primarily a concern for drinking water (particularly the outhouse on the south end of Sliammon Lake, as it is closest to Tla’amin’s drinking water intake), but which can also affect aquatic life by creating conditions for algal blooms. In absence of outhouses, bush toileting can also pose a threat to water quality, particularly when it takes place close to streams and other waterbodies.

1.2.3 Urban, Rural and Industrial Development Within the lower part of the watershed is the Wilde Road residential subdivision and a smaller subdivision along Southview Road (Map 13). Within these areas there is also small scale farming activity and a gravel pit. Because the Wilde Road subdivision is located near the confluence of Sliammon Creek and Wilde Creek, and because it appears to be situated overtop permeable glaciofluvial and fluvial sediments (Map 2), developments and activities in this area have the potential to introduce a variety of contaminants into the Wilde and Sliammon Creek, via surface flow and groundwater flow (see Section 1 Table 5 for a checklist of potential water quality concerns). Possible sources of contamination include agricultural fields and pens (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and manure), vehicles (oil, grease, hydrocarbons, hydraulic fluids), and septic fields (nutrients, E.coli, metals)

The gravel pit in the Wilde Road subdivision is a potential source of sediment contamination if erosion and sediment control measures are not in place. If fuels and other contaminants are stored on site, these pose a potential risk to groundwater quality (and hydrologically connected streams), particularly if adequate storage and containment measures are not in place. Spills from heavy equipment and during re-fuelling also present risks (for more details on environmental risks and best practices for aggregate extraction, see Environmental Objectives And Best Management Practices For Aggregate Extraction, Bracher 2002).

Sliammon community is also located within the lowest part of the watershed, near the outlet of Sliammon Creek. It is partly situated on permeable fluvial sediments that are vulnerable to groundwater contamination (Map 2). Highway 101 also intersects the watershed here. Because Sliammon is on a sewer system, it does not pose septic-field related risks to groundwater and connected surface water. Stormwater run-off (containing oil, grease, hydrocarbons, hydraulic fluids, road salts etc.) likely poses the greatest risk to water quality in this part of the watershed.

1.2.4 Water Extraction Map 12 shows BC Data catalogue locations of surface water licenses and groundwater wells in the watershed. Bates and Paul (2006) noted that there might also be non-licensed water withdrawals in the watershed. Appendix I summarizes license information available from the BC Data Catalogue. The largest licenses are held by Tla’amin Nation on Sliammon Lake, for the purposes of storing and withdrawing the community’s domestic water supply. There are also a number of small domestic water licenses on Wilde Creek where it runs through the subdivision. There are two larger licenses for irrigation, one abandoned and one current (at the subdivision on Southview Road). Only a couple of unlicensed groundwater wells are mapped in the watershed. If

TLA’AMIN 64 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

improperly constructed, sited or maintained, wells can be source of groundwater contamination. Wells can now be looked up using BC’s new Well Search app https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/.

An analysis of the impact of water extraction on streamflows was beyond the scope of this project. For additional information, see the 2006 water volume study that was conducted for the watershed by Bates and Paul (2006). It should be noted that changes in the volumes and timing of streamflows brought about by changes to the Sliammon weir or water extraction from the lake, will affect fish and fish habitat in Sliammon Creek, Sliammon Lake and the lower reaches of Appleton Creek, and therefore require careful consideration (Bates & Paul 2006).

1.2.5 Water Flows & Sliammon Lake Weir Sliammon Lake is artificially impounded by a weir constructed by DFO. The weir is designed to store lake water for conservation purposes using stop logs at the outlet of Sliammon Lake (BBA 2018). It dictates low flow discharge of Sliammon Creek as well as moderation of peak flow, live storage capacity of Sliammon Lake and changes in lakeshore level. As such, the weir plays a role central to needs of fisheries and Tla’amin’s water supply (Carson 2000). Prescribed instream flow requirements (IFRs) regulate downstream flows into Sliammon Creek, under conditional water licence (WL) 116139, now held by Tla’amin Nation (previously held by DFO; Appendix I). The weir is in a hazardous state of disrepair, with considerable leakage through the coarse unconsolidated material underneath the weir itself, and discharge is not being closely regulated (Carson 2000; BBA 2018). The current storage capacity is vulnerable to drought conditions and limited by the leaky state of the dam (BBA 2018).

Carson (2000, citing others) states that the major limitation for fish habitat on Sliammon Creek is the very low discharges in late summer/early autumn that limit resident fish habitat and prevent returning salmon from entering the creek. An analysis by BBA (2018) indicates that Sliammon Creek flows have decreased relative to historic conditions, and are likely to continue decreasing (as is consistent with climate change considerations noted in Part 1 Section 6.4). BBA’s modeling found that in some years, licensed withdrawals from the lake will prevent established IFRs (0.25 m3/s over summer months) from being met in Sliammon Creek (e.g. during drought conditions of August 2016). When the modeling factored in additional withdrawals allowed under the Tla’amin Final Agreement water reservation, it found sustained IFRs above 0.25 m3/s may not be attainable without additional storage or more precise regulation of the dam in response to changing surface runoff in the lake (BBA 2018). Bates and Paul (2005) cautioned that increased drawdown of the lake would could potentially: 1) impact fish and fish habitat in Sliammon Creek by further reducing low flows during dry summer months, 2) impact kokanee and cutthroat populations within the lake and lower Appleton Creek, and 3) result in poor water quality at the water plant intake.

In sum, the BBA report found that current prescribed inflow releases (IFR) from the dam are not adequately meeting environmental flow needs (EFN33), and that decreasing flows and more frequent drought conditions could impact overall water security for both the Tla’amin community and for EFN (i.e. fisheries). The study supports a plan by Tla’amin Nation to replace the aging dam, because of its hazardous state, and to accommodate current and future water withdrawals along with changing environmental conditions (e.g.

33 EFN is defined by the BC Water Sustainability Act as “the volume and timing of water required for proper functioning of the aquatic ecosystem of the stream”.

TLA’AMIN 65 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

increased drought frequency and reduced surface runoff). BBA notes, however, that this conclusion is based on a conceptual model that involves a number of assumptions and uncertainties that require further study, as well as consideration of environmental and socioeconomic issues that would result from further inundation of the lake if dam storage were increased.

1.2.6 Mining There is no record of mines operating in the watershed, however, exploration has yielded evidence of metal and industrial mineral deposits, and records show that there has been sporadic exploration activity in the Bunster Hills since the 1930’s (Truscott 2004). There are several mineral tenures in the upper portion of the watershed, most held by Eastfield Resources Ltd. (Map 13). MINFILE records show measured reserves of copper and molybdenum reserves in this area. According to Truscott (2004), the industrial mineral potential of the area is rated high and metallic mineral potential as medium (Truscott 2004). The Bunster Range is a headwater for all four of the study area watersheds; any mining development in this area would pose a potential threat to aquatic systems and other key resources in these watersheds.

1.2.7 Climate Change Projected effects of climate change on south coast stream hydrology (see Part 1 Table 6 for a summary), suggest that the creeks in this watershed will experience reduced flows in dry summer months, with longer periods of low flows. There will also likely be decreased groundwater storage. This is particularly of concern for Sliammon Creek, which has already been suffering the effects of low flows for a number of years, which has impeded spawning salmon returns. It also presents a potential concern for Tla’amin’s future water needs (BBA 2018).

Slope instability and mass wasting events will become more likely with increasing storm precipitation, which in turn will increase the potential for sedimentation. Creeks, especially the Appleton Creek system in the upper watershed, will likely become ‘flashier’, and experience more frequent and greater magnitude rain-on-snow flood/peak flow events, damaging stream channels and spawning habitat via scouring etc. Reduced snowpack will result in earlier and diminished spring peak flows. By the middle of the 21st century, it is likely that very little snowpack will be left to contribute to spring streamflow (Little 2012). Changes in flows and flow timing are also expected to change gravel and sediment deposition in ways that impact aquatic habitat, including spawning habitat. Temperature will increase in lakes and streams, posing risks to more temperature sensitive fish species, such as coho. Warming will be a particular concern for Sliammon Creek, given its temperatures are already high as a result of solar warming of Sliammon Lake surface (Carson 2000). See Part 1 Table 7 for a summary of projected climate-related impacts on south coast fish.

Many culverts will be too small to deal with future flooding events. This will cause inadequately sized culverts to plug more often, which in turn will lead to more frequent debris flows and landslides. Forest roads adjacent to streams may become increasingly susceptible to wash outs in the future. Similarly, bridge foundations may experience higher levels of erosion and scour and low bridges will be more susceptible to destruction during times of extremely high flows (Little 2012).

Climate change impacts on south coast forests will also have indirect effects on hydrology and fish. The Georgia Basin is predicted have a large increase in the severity of droughts and fires. Stressed forests will also be more susceptible to insect (particularly spruce beetles and western hemlock loopers) and disease outbreaks, and invasive species. Loss of forest cover from these disturbances, as well as salvage operations, will increase the likelihood of mass wasting events, and contribute to the magnitude of rain-on-snow events. Forest production

TLA’AMIN 66 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES will decline on drought-limited sites (yellow cedars have already been declining precipitously and western redcedar and arbutus may lost from drier sites because of water stress) (Klassen & Hopkins 2016).

TLA’AMIN 67 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Chum

Coho

Pink (even)

Pink (odd)

Figure 3. Sliammon Creek spawner surveys from 1951-2019. The dotted line indicates average count over all years (source: Pacific Salmon Explorer PSF 2021).

TLA’AMIN 68 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

2 OKEOVER CREEK WATERSHED

2.1 Watershed Description

2.1.1 Topography & General Description The Okeover Creek watershed is nestled inside the elbow between the Malaspina peninsula and the Bunster Range, with its outlet at the terminus of Okeover inlet. It includes the low lying basin of Okeover Creek, and the southwest flank of the Bunster Range (Figure 1) where the watershed slopes upwards to its greatest height at 759m. The watershed comprises an area of approximately 1622 ha, reaching elevations of up 240m on its western boundary.

2.1.2 General hydrology This small watershed feeds Okeover Creek (Map 4), a low gradient, modestly sized stream (approximately 2km long), which flows northwest to its outlet at the flat sandy terminus of Okeover inlet. Two major unnamed tributaries (#1 & #2) drain the upper reaches of the watershed’s eastern side (the lower flank of the Bunster Range). The sub-basins for these two tributaries lies mostly between the 300 and 800m elevation bands (where the risk of rain-on-snow events are high). A smaller tributary (#3) drains a steeper slope on the watershed’s western side, draining into Okeover Creek near its outlet. Other water bodies in the watershed include a few small wetlands along the upper reaches of Tributary #1, and another at the outlet of Okeover Creek.

Because this watershed’s terrain falls below the 800-900m elevation contour where the heavy winter snowpack starts, it lacks the spring meltwater runoff that sustains the streams and rivers in the study area’s other watersheds. As a consequence, its streams likely have hydrological regimes that are rainfall dominated, as is typical of other lowland areas of the South Coast. In these regimes, the stream flows vary closely with rainfall, having highest flow rates during November and December, when rainfall events are most intense, and lowest flow rates during the dry months of July and August (Eaton & Moore 2010).

The Okeover Creek has little water storage in the way of lakes and wetlands, or deep winter snowpack. It also has little groundwater storage in the way of fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits along the valley floor (Map 2). As such, the watershed’s storage capacity appears to be largely limited to thin soils overlying the bedrock and impermeable glacial till that blankets most of the basin. This limits the watershed’s natural capacity to ‘smooth out’ stream flows during and after rain events (by capturing run-off and slowing its release into streams and rivers), as well as its capacity to augment low flows during dry periods between rain events.

2.1.3 Fisheries Spawner surveys (PSF 2021; Figure 4) show large numbers of chum (CM) using Okeover Creek (peaking close to 20,000 around 2013, with no enhancement). The creek supported coho (CO) spawners in the 1960’s and 70’s (~150 in 1967), however those numbers have since dropped dramatically. Pink salmon have also infrequently spawned in the creek (PSF 2021). BC Data Catalogue fish observations34 for the creek also include coastal

34 This point location dataset of fish observations is a regularly updated compilation of BC fish distribution information taken from a combination of all the official provincial databases including the BC Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS). Fish occurrences in this dataset represent the most current and comprehensive information source on fish presence for the province. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/known-bc-fish-observations-and-bc-fish-distributions TLA’AMIN 69 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

cutthroat trout (CT or CCT; Map 6). Two obstacles (rocks and falls) to fish passage have identified on the creek mainstem (Map 6). Wetlands along the creek mainstem also provide important fish habitat (including spawning habitat). Juvenile chum and pink salmon rear in eelgrass beds and estuary/marsh habitats at the head Okeover Inlet. This occurs for several weeks to months in the spring after moving from natal streams to the marine environment (Truscott 2004). The head of Okeover Inlet also supports a large sand flat and a regionally significant clam bed (Truscott 2004).

2.1.4 Biodiversity

2.1.4.1 Ecological Communities at Risk

The BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) database (BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer) has record of one Red Listed ecological community occurring in the Okeover Creek watershed: Western Redcedar / salmonberry (Table 13, Map 7). Note that more ecological communities at risk are likely to occur in the area, as inventory and mapping of these communities is incomplete. Western redcedar is also of central importance to Tla’amin culture (Paul 2009).

Table 13. Known occurrences of ecological communities at risk in the Okeover Creek Watershed, from publically available records in the CDC database.

Occurrence Ecological Community GLOBAL BC OCCURRENCE COMMENTS ID number RANK LIST

15666 Western Redcedar / GNR Red Located along stream. This forest community occurs on Salmonberry strongly fluctuating water table sites.

2.1.4.2 Wildlife & Species at Risk

The BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) database (BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer) includes one species at risk occurrence in the Okeover Creek watershed: a Marbled Murrelet35 nest site in the highest reach of the watershed (Table 14, Map 7). Note that there are likely to be more occurrences of species at risk in the area, as inventories are not comprehensive. Map 8 shows areas in the watershed that the federal government has mapped as Critical Habitat3637 for the Marbled Murrelet. See Appendix F for a summary description of Marbled Murrelets (and other species at risk) and details of what habitats they use in the watershed.

35 See the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Canada (Environment Canada 2014). 36 The Species At Risk Act (SARA) describes Critical Habitat (CH) as the habitat that is: a) necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species, and b) identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. 37 Note that not all of the area within these boundaries is necessarily critical habitat. To precisely define what constitutes critical habitat for a particular species it is essential that this geospatial information be considered together with the biophysical attributes (as outlined in the species’ recovery strategy) that complete the definition of a species’ critical habitat. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/critical-habitat-for-federally-listed-species-at-risk-posted- TLA’AMIN 70 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Table 14. Known occurrences of species at risk in the Okeover Creek watershed, from publically available records in the CDC database.

Occurrence Species GLOBAL COSEWIC BC LIST OCCURRENCE COMMENTS ID number RANK

7011 Marbled Murrelet G3 Threatened Blue One of a series of nests found in the Bunster Range between 1995-2001 during tree climbing and radio telemetry surveys. Most were found in large diameter yellow cedar trees in old forest.

2.1.4.3 Sensitive Ecosystems

Sensitive ecosystems are ecologically sensitive and/or rare on the landscape. These ecosystems also have high biodiversity and contain important habitats for many threatened and endangered plant and animal species (i.e. ‘at risk’ species). Sensitive ecosystems mapped in the Okeover Creek Watershed include: swamp wetlands, riparian areas, herbaceous (non-forested ecosystems), old forest and woodlands (Map 9). Mature forests are also important ecosystems that have high biodiversity values. Note that sensitive ecosystem mapping is incomplete and does not cover the uppermost reach of the watershed. Also note that SEI mapping for old and mature forest is out of date (recent forest cover mapping was used instead, to delineate mature and old growth forest in Map 9). See Appendix G for more a more detailed descriptions of sensitive ecosystems and their types.

2.1.4.4 OGMAs and WHAs

2.1.5 Cultural Values An important and historic Tla’amin village, toχʷnač (abandoned circa 1920), was located at the head of Okeover Inlet (on the west side of Okeover Creek), together with two associated lookouts. The remains of an early 19th century AD fish trap skirt the creek mouth (Springer 2018, Table 15).

Okeover Creek supports a culturally important salmon run, and continues to be used as a fish camp. Traditionally, families would move to toχʷnač after harvesting the ‘big dog’ chum in the Theodosia River in the early fall (Lee George pers. comm.; Paul 2009). The Okeover Creek chum were smaller than those in Theodosia, but richer and oilier, and smoked very dry on site (Paul 2009). Cedar growing on the productive lower floodplain of the watershed would have been used in constructing long houses, dugout canoes, baskets, mats, clothing, cordage, storage boxes, and fish weirs, as well as fuel (Patrick 2004; Lee George pers. comm.). Medicinal plants were also gathered in the riparian areas along Okeover Creek (Lee George pers. comm.).

TLA’AMIN 71 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Table 15. Ethnohistoric and archaeological records for Okeover Creek watershed, as compiled by Spring (2018).

Code38 Location Area m2/masl Comments DlSe-14 Okeover Inlet (head) 3874/4 toχʷnač Historic village abandoned ca. 1920, trail to šɛʔaystən (Emmonds Beach) DlSe-53 Okeover Inlet 1445/8 Ancestral lookout on top of marine terrace abutting toχʷnač village, probable date AD 1710 DlSe- 15 Okeover Inlet 692/8 Ancestral lookout on top of marine terrace just NE of toχʷnač village, probable date AD 1127 DlSe-54 Okeover Inlet Wood fish trap, probable date AD 1842

2.2 Watershed Pressures 2.2.1 Forestry The historic and current forestry-related risks to fisheries values (including spawning chum, coho and cutthroat trout) in this watershed are similar to those outlined for the Sliammon Creek Watershed in Section 1.2.1. Factors which likely increase the risk of forestry-impacts on fish and fish habitat in this watershed include: lingering channel instabilities related to the historic logging practices and debris, an actively used and expanding road network, and the watershed’s eastern flank lying mostly between 300 and 800m elevation bands (where the risk of rain-on-snow events are high, with the attendant risks of flooding/peak flows and stream sedimentation). Blank (2013) identified a number slopes greater than 60% in the watershed (Figure 5); these slopes tend to be inherently unstable and pose a higher risk of landslides/mass wasting and sedimentation when undergoing road or cutblock development.

Several roads and cutblocks have been recently developed within the 300-800m elevation band which is most likely to experience rain-on-snow storms. These are largely situated on relatively level terrain, but there are stream segments in some cutblocks where riparian buffers do not appear to have been reserved (lack of riparian buffers makes streams more vulnerable to flooding/peak flows, sedimentation and channel damage).

The Okeover Creek watershed has little in the way of natural storage (e.g. lakes, wetlands, fluvial deposits, deep winter snowpack, etc.), which would otherwise reduce hydrological risk by buffering peak streamflows during and after rain events, and augmenting low flows during dry periods. Exceptions are a few wetlands along the Okeover Creek mainstem, and in the upper reaches of the watershed. The presence of some remnant old growth forest in the uppermost reaches of the watershed may help augment low flows and mitigate peak/flooding flows.

2.2.2 Recreation The popular Sunshine Coast trail crosses the lower watershed and parallels the mainstem of Okeover Creek. A campsite for the trail is located near Tokenatch, and the Homestead Creek recreation site is situated at a well- used trailhead for hikers (Map 11). Tokenatch is a destination for off road vehicles, and there are a number of quad tracks criss-crossing the watershed in this area. Threats posed by these recreational activities are the same as those outlined for the Sliammon Creek Watershed.

38 Borden code assigned to sites registered with the Archaeology Branch of British Columbia. TLA’AMIN 72 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

2.2.3 Water Flows There are no records of water flows in Okeover Creek. However, it can be assumed that water flows in the creek have likely been decreasing relative to historic levels, based on regional trends.

2.2.4 Water Extraction The BC Data Catalogue only identifies one water license and few groundwater wells in the watershed (Map 12 and Appendix I). As such water extraction does not currently pose substantive risk to the watershed functioning. Wells can now be looked up using BC’s new Well Search app https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/.

2.2.5 Urban, Rural and Industrial Development A small subdivision falls within the upper margin of the watershed’s western flank, along Plummer Creek Road and at the end of Craig Road (Map 12), near the headwaters of a small tributary to Okeover Creek. The subdivision hosts residential developments and some small-scale agriculture. The risks associated with these developments are the same as those outlined for subdivisions in the Sliammon watershed (see Section 1.2.3).

2.2.6 Climate Change Because the Okeover watershed does not extend into the permanent deep snowpack zone above 800+m (and therefore lacks significant spring snowmelt contributions to its flow), its streamflow will directly reflect climate- driven changes in precipitation patterns. Projected effects of climate change on south coast stream hydrology (see Part 1 Section 6.4 for a summary), suggest that the creeks in this watershed will experience reduced flows in dry summer months with more low flow days, and more storm-related peak flows in the winter.

Slope instability and mass wasting events will become a greater concern with increasing storm precipitation, leading to more potential for stream sedimentation. Creeks will likely become ‘flashier’, and experience more frequent and greater magnitude rain-on-snow flood/peak flow events, which can damage stream channels and spawning habitat via scouring, etc. Changes in flows and flow timing are also expected to change gravel and sediment deposition in ways that impact aquatic habitat, including spawning habitat. Temperature will increase in wetlands and streams, posing risks to more temperature sensitive fish species, such as coho. See Table 7 for a summary of projected climate-related impacts on south coast fish.

TLA’AMIN 73 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Chum

Coho

Pink (even)

Pink (odd)

Figure 4. Okeover Creek spawner surveys from 1951-2019 (source: Pacific Salmon Explorer PSF 2021).

TLA’AMIN 74 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Figure 5. Natural hazard areas, including steep slopes, identified in a natural hazard study for the qathet Regional District (source: Blank 2013).

TLA’AMIN 75 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

3 OKEOVER-THEODOSIA INLETS WATERSHED

3.1 Watershed Description

3.1.1 Topography & General Description The Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watershed includes the western flank of the Bunster range draining into Okeover and Lancelot inlets, and the northwestern flank of the range draining into Theodosia Arm (Figure 1). The watershed reaches elevations of up to 1100m, at the peak of the Bunster Range. Below the steep ridge top, the terrain levels into a hummocky topography of rocky knolls and hollows. To the south, the hummocky terrain smooths somewhat as it trends gently downwards. In the northwestern quadrant of the watershed, the hummocky terrain drops off into steep-sided slopes, cliffs and rock outcrops, then levels off into a gentler hummocky roll before dropping more steeply into the inlets below. Much of watershed terrain features deeply incised stream channels.

3.1.2 General hydrology The Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watershed hosts a series of smaller steeply-graded streams, draining the western and northern flanks of the Bunster Range. All the streams in this watershed flow directly into the marine waters of Okeover, Lancelot and Theodosia inlets. Roughly a third of the Okeover-Theodosia watershed is above 800m elevation (beyond which heavy winter snowpack forms), making this a hybrid system with both rain- and melt- dominated streamflow regimes. Hybrid streams in coastal BC typically have two periods of peak flow: rain- dominated high flows in the fall (October to January), and similar magnitude melt-dominated flows in the spring (April to June) (see Part 1 Section 4.4). Roughly another third of the watershed lies between the 300 and 800m contour lines – the zone where flood generating rain-on-snow events are most likely to occur, during warm winter rainstorms. Much of this band is also comprised of steeper terrain, with slopes greater than 60% in some areas (Figure 5).

Other water bodies in the watershed include a concentration of small lakes and wetlands in the upper reaches of the basin, as well as a small lake and wetland pockets on the lower bench of the basin’s northwestern quadrant. Lakes and wetlands enhance the water storage capacity of a watershed (by way of capturing run-off and slowing its release into streams). This capacity may help ‘smooth out’ streamflows, by attenuating high stream flows during heavy rains, and augmenting low flows during the drier summer months.

3.1.3 Fisheries There are no recorded fish populations using the streams in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets Watershed. The streams in the watershed are steeply graded and drain directly into the marine waters of Okeover, Lancelot and Theodosia inlets, which contain many marine sensitive features39. These inlets support aquaculture, traditional cod, prawn and scallop fisheries, as well as traditional clam, sea cucumber and sea urchin harvest (Truscott 2004). The outlets of Okeover Creek and Theodosia River feature large sand flats and estuaries, which serve as

39 Under FRPA “marine-sensitive features” include include herring spawning areas, shellfish beds, marsh areas, existing aquaculture sites, juvenile salmonid-rearing areas, and adult salmon–holding areas, the littoral zones of marine and estuary systems, and marine areas where water is less than 0 m deep.

TLA’AMIN 76 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

are important salmon rearing and holding areas. There is a regionally significant wild clam beach at the head of Okeover Inlet, and wild clam beaches in other parts of the inlet (Truscott 2004).

3.1.4 Biodiversity

3.1.4.1 Ecological Communities at Risk

The BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) database (BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer) has one record of a Blue Listed ecological community occurring in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watershed: the Labrador-tea / Western bog-laurel / peat-mosses ecological community, which is bog wetland (Table 16, Map 7). Coastal First Nations boiled Labrador-tea and bog laurel into medicinal teas, and used bog laurel infusions to treat skin conditions (Pojar & McKinnon 1994).

Table 16. Known occurrences of ecological communities at risk in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets Watershed, from publically available records in the CDC database.

Occurrence Ecological Community GLOBAL BC OCCURRENCE COMMENTS ID number RANK LIST

14637061 Labrador-tea / western G4 Blue Located ~1km east of Hillingdon Point on Okeover Inlet. bog-laurel / peat-mosses These shrubby, acidic peat-bog wetlands are uncommonly found in drier subzones, in small depressions with high water tables. This bog rings a small lake, with some western redcedar and western hemlock trees.

3.1.4.2 Wildlife & Species at Risk

The BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) database (BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer) includes occurrences of two species at risk in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watershed: the Marbled Murrelet40 and the Common Woodnymph, incana Subspecies (Table 17, Map 7). Note that there are likely to be more occurrences of species at risk in the area, as inventories are not comprehensive. This watershed also contains Critical Habitat4142 mapped by the federal government for both Marbled Murrelet and Whitebark Pine43 (Map 8). The Okeover- Theodosia Inlets watershed also contains suitable habitat for Blue-listed Roosevelt Elk and Grizzly Bear. See

40 See the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Canada (Environment Canada 2014). 41 The Species At Risk Act (SARA) describes Critical Habitat (CH) as the habitat that is: a) necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species, and b) identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. 42 Note that not all of the area within these boundaries is necessarily Critical Habitat. To precisely define what constitutes Critical Habitat for a particular species it is essential that this geospatial information be considered together with the biophysical attributes (as outlined in the species’ recovery strategy) that complete the definition of a species’ Critical Habitat. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/critical-habitat-for-federally-listed-species-at-risk-posted- 43 The mapping is finalized for Marbled Murrelet and proposed for Whitebark Pine. See https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/critical-habitat-for-federally-listed-species-at-risk-posted- TLA’AMIN 77 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Appendix F for summary descriptions of these species at risk and details of what habitats they use in the watershed.

Table 17. Known occurrences of species at risk in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets Watershed, from publically available records in the CDC database.

Occurrence Species GLOBAL COSEWIC BC LIST OCCURRENCE COMMENTS ID number RANK

7011 Marbled Murrelet G3 Threatened Blue Series of nests found in the Bunster Range between 1995-2001 during tree climbing and radio telemetry surveys. Most were found in large diameter yellow cedar trees in old forest. 15333 Common Woodnymph, G5T4T5 - Red Thirteen Common Wood-nymphs, incana Subspecies observed across 9.5 km area of second- growth forests and clearcuts in 2014

3.1.4.3 Sensitive Ecosystems

Sensitive ecosystems are ecologically sensitive and/or rare on the landscape. These ecosystems also have high biodiversity and contain important habitats for many threatened and endangered plant and animal species (i.e. ‘at risk’ species). Sensitive ecosystems that have been mapped in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets Watershed include: wetlands (swamp and marsh), riparian areas, herbaceous (non-forested ecosystems), old forest, woodland, and cliffs (Map 9). Mature forests are also important ecosystems that have high biodiversity values. Note that sensitive ecosystem mapping is incomplete and does not cover the upper part of the Okeover- Theodosia Inlets watershed (it only covers the CWHxm, and part of the CWHdm subzones). Also note that SEI mapping for old and mature forest is out of date (recent forest cover mapping was used instead, to delineate mature and old growth forest in Map 9). See Appendix G for more a more detailed descriptions of sensitive ecosystems and their types.

3.1.4.4 OGMAs and WHAs

3.1.5 Cultural Values An ancestral village and istoric campsite is located at Thor’s Cove. It is likely associated with another ancestral village at the entrance to Theodosia Inlet (Springer 2018, Table 18). There is also an archeological site located in the upper reaches of the watershed, at the top of the Bunster Range above Theodosia Inlet.

The foreshore of this watershed supported many important shellfish areas, including significant clam beaches. Devil’s club was collected along wetlands and streamsides in the watershed’s higher reaches. Upper reaches of the watershed were also important for hunting deer and bear, and harvesting slow growing yellow cedar for canoes and carving implements.

TLA’AMIN 78 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Table 18. Ethnohistoric and archaeological records for Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watershed, as compiled by Spring (2018).

Code44 Location Area m2/masl Comments EaSe-25 Thor’s Cove 3766/2 Ancestral village/historic campsite EaSe-24 Entrance to 2165/2 Ancestral village Theodosia Inlet

3.2 Watershed Pressures

There are few developments in this watershed other than forestry-related activity, and a scattering of residential developments along the marine shoreline.

3.2.1 Forestry Because there are no recorded freshwater fish populations in the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets Watershed, the pressures posed by forestry-related activities in the watershed are primarily a concern for shellfish and marine fish and fish habitat, particularly the estuary and sand flat ecosystems at the head of Theodosia and Okeover inlets. A discussion on the impacts of forestry on marine environments is beyond the scope of this report. However, generally speaking, streams carrying high sediment loads due to forestry and associated road-building activities, can increase sediment loads in the near shore areas of the marine waters they discharge into. As suspension feeders, shellfish are particularly susceptible to increased sediment, which can obstruct feeding (Holden et al. 2019). Forestry debris (bark and wood residue) can also be transported into marine foreshore areas by streams and run-off. In high concentrations, woody debris can cause significant oxygen depletion and smother clam beds and eelgrass beds. Leachates from woody debris deposits can also be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms (Holden et al. 2019).

Within this watershed there are many steeply sloping areas (+60%) and deeply incised stream channels with potentially unstable terrain, as mapped by Blank (2013; Figure 5). These areas pose a higher risk of landslides/mass wasting and sedimentation when undergoing road or cutblock development. This steep terrain largely lies between the 300m and 800m elevation bands, where there is also greatest risk of flooding flows as a result of rain-on-snow storm events, with attendant risks of stream sedimentation and stream channel damage. A large portion (including large-scale cutblocks) of the lower northern flank of the Bunster range has been logged where it drains into Theodosia inlet and its estuary. Much of this harvested area is within private managed forest land (PMFL), which is subject to less rigorous harvesting restrictions than Crown land, as per the Private Managed Forest Land Act (for example, terrain assessments and riparian reserves around streams are not required). Logging and road building activity on PMFL in this area caused a large landslide in 1995, damaging buildings and roads, increasing stream sedimentation, and disturbing forest ecology on the former Toquana Reserve. This event was likely triggered by saturation, then failure, of an old logging road fill slope on the hillslope above the Toquana Reserve (Rollerson 1995, cited in Little 2012). Given that Theodosia Inlet supports valuable shellfish resources and sensitive estuary ecosystems that serve as important salmon rearing and holding habitat, the impacts of forestry related activities on hillslopes above the inlet are of concern.

44 Borden code assigned to sites registered with the Archaeology Branch of British Columbia. TLA’AMIN 79 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Logging is much less extensive on the hillslopes above the head of Okeover inlet. There are some recent cutblocks in this area where riparian buffers do not appear to have been reserved around some stream segments. These cutblocks are within the 300-800m elevation band which is most likely to experience rain-on- snow storm events. This makes streams in these areas more vulnerable to flooding/peak flows, and resultant sedimentation and channel damage, especially those without riparian buffers. The FREP Dashboard shows that a 2016/17 FREP evaluation was conducted on the lowest recent cutblock on the most southerly tributary in this watershed. Riparian condition in this cutblock was given a rating of ‘not properly functioning’ (the lowest rating). Riparian condition in the cutblock just to the north was rated as ‘functioning but at risk’.

Factors which may help buffer the risk of forestry-related impacts on streams in this watershed (via reducing flooding/peak flows and augmenting low flows) include: 1) significant stands of old growth forest remaining in the upper reaches of the watershed, and 2) multiple small lakes and wetlands in the upper reaches of the watershed (which can enhance the storage capacity).

3.2.2 Recreation There are relatively few recreation trails in this watershed, and recreation does not appear to pose significant concerns (Map 11).

3.2.3 Water Extraction The BC Data Catalogue identifies a small number of water licenses in the watershed, which appear to be mostly associated with aquaculture and residential parcels along the foreshore (Map 12 and Appendix I).

3.2.4 Rural Residential Development There are a few private parcels along the foreshore of the watershed (Map 13), in which there is some residential development, and with which some small-scale agriculture is likely associated. The possible sources of contamination coming from residential developments and agriculture are as discussed for other watersheds in previous sections.

3.2.5 Mining There are several mineral tenures in the upper portion of the watershed, most held by Eastfield Resources Ltd. (Map 13). There is no record of mines operating in the watershed, however, exploration has yielded evidence of metal and industrial mineral deposits, and records show that there has been sporadic exploration activity in the Bunster Hills since the 1930’s (Truscott 2004). There are several mineral tenures in the upper portion of the watershed, most held by Eastfield Resources Ltd. (Map 13). MINFILE records show measured reserves of copper and molybdenum reserves in this area. According to Truscott (2004), the industrial mineral potential of the area is rated high and metallic mineral potential as medium (Truscott 2004). The Bunster Range is a headwater for all four of the study area watersheds; any mining development in this area would pose a potential threat to aquatic systems and other key resources in these watersheds.

3.2.6 Climate Change Projected effects of climate change on south coast stream hydrology (see Part 1 Section 6.4 for a summary), suggest that the creeks in this watershed will experience reduced flows in dry summer months, with longer periods of low flows. Reduced snowpack will result in earlier and diminished spring peak flows. By the middle of the 21st century, it is likely that very little snowpack will be left to contribute to spring streamflow (Little 2012).

TLA’AMIN 80 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

The greatest impacts will likely be caused by increased frequency and magnitude of winter floods, exacerbated by more rain-on-snow events, particularly in the 300-800m elevation band. Slope instability and mass wasting events will become more likely with increasing storm precipitation, which in turn will increase the potential for stream channel damage and sedimentation. This will increase the risk of sediment and debris related impacts on sensitive marine features in the inlets where the streams discharge.

Loss of forest cover due large scale fire and/or insect/disease outbreaks may have severe consequences for the forests and hydrology of the watershed, increasing the likelihood of mass wasting events, and contributing to the magnitude of rain-on-snow events. In addition, forest production will likely decline on drought-limited sites (yellow cedars have already been declining precipitously and western red cedar may lost from drier sites because of water stress) (Klassen & Hopkins 2016).

TLA’AMIN 81 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

4 THEODOSIA RIVER WATERSHED

4.1 Watershed Description 4.1.1 Topography & General description Theodosia watershed is a sizeable coastal basin (13794 hectares), originating from steep mountain headwaters and draining southwest into the Theodosia River and ultimately Theodosia inlet (Figure 1). At approximately 13km upstream from the river outlet (at 175m elevation), a dam diverts a portion of the Theodosia river flow into Olsen Creek and Lake, which drain into Powell Lake (Figure 6). At the dam location, the watershed is naturally divided into upper and lower sections, with the upper section characterized by steep terrain, rising to elevations of up to 1840m (with 80% of the watershed area higher than 600m; Little 2012, citing others).

4.1.2 General hydrology The upper section of the Theodosia River includes 14 km of mainstem channel, which is steep and largely confined, with some wider floodplain sections (Little 2012, citing others). In the lower section of the watershed, below the dam, the river mainstem becomes a shallow gravel-bed river with a number of reaches confined by bedrock and canyons. Waterfalls span the river 7 km upstream from its mouth, forming a natural barrier to spawning fish passage (Little 2012). The watershed contains only a few scattered wetlands and small lakes, the largest being 35ha subalpine tarn lake in its headwaters (Map 18). A notable chain of small wetlands are strewn along a low gradient tributary which drains a broad u-shaped valley (running parallel to and south of the Olsen Creek drainage). Because the watershed has relatively few lakes and wetlands, its lacks natural storage capacity; consequently, the watershed responds to precipitation events in a very ‘fast and flashy’ way (Little 2012). Valley bottom fluvial terraces (Map 16), however, likely provide storage capacity in the form of groundwater.

According to Little (2012), about half of the total watershed area falls above 900m, the transition line to heavy winter snow pack. This snow pack persists until spring and sustains spring runoff from into the Theodosia River and its tributaries. As such, the Theodosia River has a typical coastal ‘hybrid’ hydrological regime, driven by mixed rain and snow (see Part 1 Section 4.4). Peak streamflows are likely to occur: 1) during intense rainstorms in the fall and early winters, 2) during occasional warm rain-on-snow winter storms, which generate extremely large flooding streamflows (probably the largest of the year), and 3) during warm spring temperatures that melt the snowpack (spring freshet). The summer season characterized by low rainfall and low stream flow (Little 2012). The Olsen Lake diversion at the Theodosia Dam currently diverts ~40-70% of average monthly discharge from the upper Theodosia River. This has resulted in the river having two distinct streamflow regimes (see discussion below, in Section 4.2.4).

Five Water Survey of Canada hydrometric stations are located along the Theodosia River (Map 27). • Theodosia River Near Bliss Landing 08GC004 (1953-1993 partial), • Theodosia River Diversion above Olsen Lake 08GC005 (flow: 2000-2010, flow & level: 2011 – present), • Theodosia River Diversion Bypass 08GC006 (flow: 2000-2010, flow & level: 2011 – present). • Theodosia River below Olsen Lake Diversion 08GC007 (flow: 2000-2010, flow & level: 2011 – present). • Theodosia River Above Scotty Creek 08GC008 (flow: 2000-2010, flow & level: 2011 – present).

TLA’AMIN 82 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Figure 6. Plan of the Theodosia dam/Olsen Lake diversion, showing hydrometric station locations (source: Water Survey of Canada 2000, map author R.S. Furguson, cited in Little 2012).

TLA’AMIN 83 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

4.1.3 Fisheries The Theodosia River supports several species of spawning anadromous salmon (Figures 7a & b), including chum (CM), coho (CO), Chinook, pink (PK) and sockeye. Anadromous salmonids are restricted to the portion of Theodosia River downstream of a bedrock waterfall located approximately 7 km from the mouth (Little 2012). Chum are by far the most abundant, with up to ~40,000 spawners recorded in recent years. Coho are the next most abundant, with up to a couple thousand spawners in recent years. There is low-level hatchery enhancement for both species (PSF 2021). Chinook spawners show up in small numbers, and Pink and Sockeye spawners have been sporadically recorded. Additional BC Data Catalogue fish observations45 from the lower Theodosia River (below the falls) include steelhead (ST), cutthroat trout (CCT), Dolly Varden (DV) and rainbow trout (RB) (Map 19). In the watershed reaches beyond the falls, Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout occur in substantial numbers (Little 2012, citing others). Dolly Varden have been recorded 5km upstream from the dam, beyond which fish passage appears blocked by a rock barrier. Rainbow trout (RB) and prickly sculpin (CAS) are also found in the upper the reaches of the watershed (Map 20).

4.1.4 Biodiversity

4.1.4.1 Ecological Communities at Risk

The BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) database (BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer) has records of two Red Listed and one Blue Listed ecological communities occurring in the Theodosia River watershed (Table 19, Map 21), all of which are associated with floodplain/riparian habitats. Note that more ecological communities at risk may occur in the area, as inventory and mapping of these communities is incomplete. These ecological communities at risk also have cultural relevance. For example, western red cedar are of central importance to Tla’amin culture – all parts of the cedar were traditionally used. Sitka spruce was traditionally used for food and medicine, and making baskets and hats (McKinnon & Pojar 1999) in different colours (Lee George pers. comm.).

4.1.4.1 Wildlife & Species at Risk

The BC Conservation Data Centre’s (CDC) database (BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer) includes two occurrences of species at risk in the Theodosia River watershed, both of which are Marbled Murrelet46 (Table 20, Map 21). Note that there are likely to be more occurrences of species at risk in the area, as inventories are not comprehensive. Map 22 shows where the federal government has mapped Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat47 in the watershed. The Theodosia River watershed is also home to Blue-listed Roosevelt Elk and Grizzly Bear. See Appendix F for summary descriptions of these species at risk, and details of what habitats they use in the watershed.

45 This point location dataset of fish observations is a regularly updated compilation of BC fish distribution information taken from a combination of all the official provincial databases including the BC Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS). Fish occurrences in this dataset represent the most current and comprehensive information source on fish presence for the province. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/known-bc-fish-observations-and-bc-fish-distributions 46 See the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Canada (Environment Canada 2014). 47 The Species At Risk Act (SARA) describes Critical Habitat (CH) as the habitat that is: a) necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species, and b) identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. TLA’AMIN 84 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Table 19. Known occurrences of ecological communities at risk in the Theodosia River Watershed, from publically available records in the CDC database. Occurrence Ecological Community GLOBAL BC OCCURRENCE COMMENTS ID number RANK LIST

11157 Sitka Spruce / G1G2 Red Young riparian forest located along two branches of an Salmonberry Dry unnamed tributary to Theodosia River. These communities occupy high-bench floodplain sites that experience flooding at greater than five-year intervals. 11206 Black cottonwood – Red GNR Blue Young mixed forest on the floodplain of the upper Alder / Salmonberry Theodosia River. Associated with adjacent highbench ecosystems and gravel bars of the riverine system. 11205 Black cottonwood – Red GNR Blue Young mixed forest on the floodplain of the Theodosia Alder / Salmonberry River. Associated with swamp wetland. Extensively harvested in the past. A dam occurs upstream 15665 Western Redcedar / GNR Red This forest community occurs on strongly fluctuating Salmonberry water table sites. Associated with areas of open water. Located along an unnamed tributary to Theodosia River. 15664 Western Redcedar / GNR Red This forest community occurs on strongly fluctuating Salmonberry water table sites. Located along Theodosia River, south of Unwin Range.

Table 20. Known occurrences of species at risk in the Theodosia River watershed, from publically available records in the CDC database.

Occurrence Species GLOBAL COSEWIC BC LIST OCCURRENCE COMMENTS ID number RANK

7044 Marbled Murrelet G3 Threatened Blue Nest found during 1995 radio telemetry study; ~15 nests found during a 1998- 2001 radio telemetry study, including one of the first documented cliff nests in BC48. 7011 Marbled Murrelet G3 Threatened Blue Series of nests found in the Bunster Range between 1995-2001 during tree climbing and radio telemetry surveys. Most were found in large diameter yellow cedar trees in old forest.

4.1.4.2 Sensitive Ecosystems

48 See Cliff and Deciduous Tree Nests of Marbled Murrelets in Southwestern BC (Bradley & Cooke 2001). TLA’AMIN 85 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

reach of the watershed. Also note that SEI mapping for old and mature forest is out of date (recent forest cover mapping was used instead, to delineate mature and old growth forest in Map 23). See Appendix G for more a more detailed descriptions of sensitive ecosystems and their types.

4.1.4.3 OGMAs, WHAs & UWR

Old growth management areas (OGMAs), wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) and ungulate winter range (UWR) are shown on Map 24, in relation to sensitive ecosystems and species and ecological communities at risk. The WHAs are no-harvest zones established for Marbled Murrelet. The UWRs are conditional harvest zones established for Mountain Goat.

4.1.5 Cultural Values The head of Theodosia Inlet was historically the location of the Tla’amin village toqʷanan (Table 21). Oral histories of toqʷanan describe it as a densely populated community with wood framed homes extending two miles up the river, some on stilts because of yearly flood threat (Patrick 2004, citing others). The area was rich in resources, the most important being several sizeable salmon runs. Chum comprised the main harvest, and were notable for their very large size and distinctive taste (Paul 2009). Elders recall that the salmon from Theodosia were so large that they were too big to hang in the smokehouse and instead, Theodosia salmon were first barbequed and then laid flat on racks (Paul 2009; Little 2012, citing others).

Table 21. Ethnohistoric and archaeological records for the Theodosia River watershed, as compiled by Spring (2018)

Code49 Location Area m2/masl Comments EaSd-7 Theodosia Inlet (head) 13523/2 toqʷanan – Historic village abandoned in the 1920s

Clam gardens were well established in the estuary and inlet, with butter clams, littleneck clams, and cockles being harvested (Sliammon Treaty Society 1999, cited in Little 2012). The Theodosia valley was also very productive – fruit orchards and berry patches were plentiful, as were grouse, deer, elk and medicinal plants. Enormous red-cedars grew on the productive lower floodplain of the watershed, and were used in constructing long houses, dugout canoes, baskets, mats, clothing, cordage, storage boxes, and fish weirs, as well as fuel (Lee George pers. comm.; Patrick 2004). Sitka spruce, also on the valley floodplain, provided roots of different colours for weaving (Lee George, pers. comm.).

In the upper reaches of the watershed, mountain goat and bear were hunted. The slow growing yellow cedars, of the subalpine Mountain Hemlock zone, were valued for constructing implements (paddles, bows and arrows, etc.) because of their fine-grained wood (Lee George, pers. comm.; McKinnon & Pojar 1999). Higher elevation areas were also important for gathering late ripening berries (e.g. huckleberries) in late summer and early fall, as well as plant medicines such as Devil’s Club, which prefers damp soils alongside creeks and wetlands (Lee George, pers. comm.). toqʷanan village was largely abandoned in the 1920s, upon construction of the Theodosia rail line and the commencement of the Merrill and Ring lumber operation. However, toqʷanan continued on as an important

49 Borden code assigned to sites registered with the Archaeology Branch of British Columbia. TLA’AMIN 86 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

fishing and gathering point for Tla’amin families, and a refuge for families refusing to send their children to residential schools (Patrick 2004; Paul 2009). Despite increased flooding and damage to salmon and salmon habitat caused by large-scale logging and the 1955 Theodosia Dam and river diversion project, the area remains culturally important to the Tla’amin Nation who continue to hunt, fish and gather food in the area.

4.2 Watershed Pressures 4.2.1 Forestry The Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Plan (Little 2012) describes the impacts of forest harvesting on the Theodosia watershed as follows. Historic riparian logging to river and stream edges caused channel widening and instability, disruption of salmon habitat, and increased stream temperature for several years after tree removal. Over half of the watershed has been harvested at least once, and much has been harvested multiple times (remaining old growth is almost entirely restricted to small patches in the watershed’s upper reaches). This has likely had a large impact on the hydrology of the Theodosia watershed, one that has likely affected salmon populations. Large-scale harvesting and road construction has been shown to increase peak flows, stream sedimentation and streamflow variability. Forestry-related road construction has also caused several landslides within the watershed.

Forest harvesting (past and present) is of particular concern in the valley bottom forests, which are hydrologically sensitive and play an important role in stabilizing the river channel and providing large woody debris inputs. Much of the valley bottom forest is young, aged between 30-55 years. Young forests do not provide the large diameter conifers that serve to structure fish habitat within the river channel.

The Theodosia watershed has many steep-sided slopes, particularly in its upper section. Steep slopes are at higher risk of landslides/mass wasting and sedimentation when undergoing road or cutblock development. This is particularly the case at elevations susceptible to rain-on-snow storm events, with attendant flooding flows and risks of stream sedimentation and channel damage. A large portion of the lower watershed is within private managed forest land (PMFL; Map 26), where very large cutblocks have been logged, and which is subject to less rigorous harvesting restrictions than Crown land (for example, terrain assessments and riparian reserves around streams are not required). On Crown land, riparian buffers appear to have been applied to tributary streams in some cutblocks, but not others.

Factors which help buffer the risk of forestry-related impacts on streams in this watershed include: 1) remnant patches of old growth forest remaining in the hydrologically sensitive upper reaches of the watershed, and 2) extensive and sand and gravel fluvial terraces on the valley bottom (particularly in the lower half of the watershed), which enhance the groundwater storage capacity of the watershed. These features likely help smooth out streamflows by reducing flooding/peak flows, and augmenting low flows during dry periods.

4.2.2 Recreation Because of its relative remoteness, there is minimal recreational activity in this watershed, mainly hunting and fishing. Tla’amin Nation maintains a recreational cabin on the former Toquana Reserve.

4.2.3 Water Extraction The BC Data Catalogue identifies three water licenses in the watershed (Map 25 and Appendix I), one for domestic purposes on Sunnydale Creek, and two other large licenses to divert water for power generation via Olsen Creek (259,030,800 m3/year). The effects of this diversion on streamflow in the lower Theodosia River

TLA’AMIN 87 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

are described in detail by Little (2012) in the Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Plan. The data catalogue also shows a groundwater well in the upper reach of the watershed on the Bunster Range. Wells can now be looked up using BC’s new Well Search app https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/.

4.2.4 Theodosia Diversion Dam In 1956, a diversion dam was installed on the Theodosia River to feed a larger hydroelectric dam for the Powell River paper mill (see Appendix H for the BC Data Catalogue dam information). The majority of the river’s flow was diverted through Olsen Lake and into Powell Lake, resulting in a major decrease of salmon returns (FNFC 2018). The following is a summary of the diversion’s impacts from the Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Plan (Little 2012).

The Olsen Lake diversion extracts ~40-70% of the upper Theodosia River’s average monthly discharge. In months where stream discharge is higher than average, the water quantity and the percentage of overall flow diverted from the upper Theodosia River is higher than in months with lower discharge. During low streamflow periods of less than 2 m3/s, most of the water entering the diversion channel is re-directed into the bypass channel and back into the (lower) Theodosia River (Figure 6). When flows in the diversion channel are between 2-4 m3/s, the bypass re-directs an average of 1.9 m3/s back to Theodosia River. The result is a flattened hydrograph for the lower Theodosia River, with lower variability between peak and low flows, and lower peak flows. There is also less water available for meeting environmental flow needs in salmon spawning and summer rearing habitat of the lower Theodosia River.

Little (2012, citing others) states that regulated peak flows in the lower Theodosia were approximately 55-60% of “natural” peak flows. This reduction in peak/flooding flows has changed stream geometry in the lower Theodosia, and reduced its capacity to flush out sediment, and maintain hydrological connectivity with adjacent riparian forest. By effectively splitting the Theodosia River into two rivers (the Olsen Lake diversion and lower Theodosia), there is less energy available to transport sediment downstream, causing deposition of a large amount of large bed-load sediment (sand, gravels and cobbles) at the diversion. Only a small portion of these bed-load sediments is carried over the dam (with proportionally less large gravel), resulting in a deficit of gravel and cobble deposition (which creates spawning habitat) in the lower Theodosia. This reduction in bedload sediment has resulted in narrower (by ~74% in unconfined sections) and more stable stream channels.

4.2.5 Mining There is a mineral claim plus some reverted Crown grants overtop the hill just south of Olsen Lake (Map 26). MINFILE records show measured reserves of copper, zinc and silver in this area. Mining development in this area would pose a potential threat to aquatic systems in both the lower Theodosia and the Olsen Creek systems.

4.2.6 Climate Change The Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Plan (Little 2012) details projected climate change effects on the Theodosia watershed. A summary from the plan is as follows. Summers will become dryer and hotter with more frequent heat waves and increased year-to-year variability compared to historical levels. Winters will likely be warmer and wetter. Large and frequent winter rainstorms and a large decrease in snowfall at all elevations in the watershed is expected. This will change the hydrology of the Theodosia River in a number of ways. Reduced snowpack will result in earlier and diminished spring peak flows. By the middle of the 21st century, it is likely that very little snowpack will be left to contribute to spring streamflow. Increased temperatures and reduced snowfall and summer precipitation will likely result in lower summer/fall stream flow

TLA’AMIN 88 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

and more extreme low flow periods. Year round stream temperature will be increased. In addition, the frequency and magnitude of fall and winter flood events will likely increase.

All this will impact aquatic ecosystems and fish populations in several ways, as summarized by Little (2012) in Table 22. The greatest impacts will likely be caused by increased frequency and magnitude of winter floods, exacerbated by more rain-on-snow events. These flood events will increase the risk of mass wasting events, and increase scouring and burial of both coho and chum salmon eggs. Lower summer and early fall streamflow will also be detrimental to fish populations. Complex interactions may arise from mismatched timing of predator/prey interactions or mismatched life history stages with the hydrologic regime. Chum salmon may be better able to adapt to the future climate regime than more temperature sensitive coho, although this is uncertain. Loss of forest cover due large scale fire and/or insect/disease outbreaks may have severe consequences for the forests and hydrology of the watershed, increasing the likelihood of mass wasting events, and contributing to the magnitude of rain-on-snow events (Little 2012). In addition, forest production will likely decline on drought-limited sites (yellow cedars have already been declining precipitously and western redcedar may lost from drier sites because of water stress)(Klassen & Hopkins 2016).

Sediment build-up rates at the Theodosia dam diversion will increase in the future, as larger and more frequent flood events transport more sediment from the upper Theodosia watershed and deposit it immediately upstream of the diversion. This will require more dredging to maintain the diversion, with added cost. If this increase in bed-load sediment is not regularly dealt with, the probability of a right bank avulsion will increase. This would cause the channel to completely bypass the diversion, and create channel aggradation (sediment build-up) in areas of salmon habitat in coming decades as the current pile-up of sediment is transported into the lower section of the watershed. This could destroy spawning habitat and increase the potential for channels to dry up during the summer months (Little 2012).

TLA’AMIN 89 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Table 22 – Summary of climate change impacts to stream habitats and salmonids in Theodosia River. Probability and consequence ranking should be taken as a “best guess” as future outcomes are highly uncertain (source: Little 2012).

STREAM HABITAT AND SALMONIDS

CLIMATE CHANGE BIOPHYSICAL IMPACT SPECIES PROBABILITY CONSEQUENCE IMPACT

Increased frequency / Increased egg scour and Coho and HIGH SEVERE magnitude of floods burial – Lower egg-to-fry Chum survival

Decreased summer Decrease in available Coho and HIGH UNKNOWN low flows habitat – Lower fry-to- Steelhead smolt survival

Increased summer Thermal stress – Lower Coho MEDIUM UNKNOWN temperature fry-to-smolt survival

Decreased late Reduced spawning habitat Early run HIGH UNKNOWN summer / early fall flow – Lower successful Chum volume and wetted spawning area

Increased winter Faster incubation All species HIGH UNKNOWN temperature period, increased growth rate, and life cycle

Change in food availability Chum and UNKNOWN Change in timing of SEVERE Mismatch in predator/prey Coho fry seaward migration interaction

Increased frequency / Increased channel Stream HIGH UNKNOWN magnitude of floods migration, degradation habitat and aggradation. (General channel instability)

Increased frequency / Lack of habitat during Coho fry/parr HIGH UNKNOWN magnitude of floods peak flows

TLA’AMIN 90 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Chinook

Chum

Coho

Figure 7a. Theodosia River spawner surveys from 1951-2019 – Chinook, chum and Coho (source: Pacific Salmon Explorer PSF 2021).

TLA’AMIN 91 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 2 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS AND PRESSURES

Pink (even)

Pink (odd)

Sockeye

Figure 7b. Theodosia River spawner surveys from 1951-2019 – Pink and Sockeye (source: Pacific Salmon Explorer PSF 2021).

TLA’AMIN 92 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

TLA’AMIN 93 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Theodosia River

Okeover- Theodosia Inlets

Okeover Creek Sliammon Creek

Figure 1. Study area watersheds.

TLA’AMIN 94 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 1. Bedrock geology of the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 95 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 2. Mapped aquifers and fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 96 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 3. Biogeoclimatic subzones in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 97 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 4. General hydrology of the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 98 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 5. BC Data Catalogue fish observations from the Sliammon Creek watershed.

TLA’AMIN 99 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 6. BC Data Catalogue fish observations from the Okeover Creek watershed.

TLA’AMIN 100 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 7. CDC records of species and ecological communities at risk in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 101 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 8. Mapped Critical Habitat for species at risk in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover- Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 102 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 9. Sensitive ecosystems in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets. Note that except for Mature Forest (MF) and Old Forest (OF), mapping does not extend into the upper part of the watershed (above the CWHdm subzone). Refer to Appendix F for descriptions.

TLA’AMIN 103 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 10. Wildlife Habitat Areas and Old Growth Management Areas, in relation to sensitive ecosystems and species and ecosystems at risk occurrences in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 104 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 11. Trails and recreation sites in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 105 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 12. Water licenses and groundwater wells in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover- Theodosia Inlets

TLA’AMIN 106 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 13. Mineral tenures and private lands in the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets.

TLA’AMIN 107 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 14. Potential water quality monitoring locations (darkest circles = highest priority), and Water Survey of Canada hydrometric monitoring station (yellow triangle). Tiffany Ortomond’s sampling locations are indicated by stars.

TLA’AMIN 108 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 15. Bedrock geology of the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 109 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 16. Fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits in the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 110 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 17. Biogeoclimatic subzones in the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 111 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 18. General hydrology of the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 112 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 19. BC Data Catalogue fish observations from the lower section of the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 113 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 20. BC Data Catalogue fish observations from the upper section of the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 114 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 21. CDC records of species and ecological communities at risk in the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 115 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 22. Mapped Critical Habitat for species at risk in the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 116 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 23. Sensitive ecosystems in the Theodosia watershed. Note that except for Mature Forest (MF) and Old Forest (OF), mapping does not extend into the upper part of the watershed. See Appendix F for descriptions.

TLA’AMIN 117 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 24. Old Growth Management Areas, Wildlife Habitat Areas and Ungulate Winter Range, in relation to sensitive ecosystems and species and ecosystems at risk occurrences in the Theodosia Watershed.

TLA’AMIN 118 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 25. Water licenses and groundwater wells in the watersheds for the Theodosia watershed.

TLA’AMIN 119 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 26. Mineral tenures and private lands for the Theodosia Watershed.

TLA’AMIN 120 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN PART 3: WATERSHED MAPS

Map 27. Potential water quality monitoring locations (darkest circles = highest priority), and Water Survey of Canada hydrometric monitoring stations (yellow triangles). Tiffany Ortomond’s sampling locations are indicated by stars.

TLA’AMIN 121 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

REFERENCES

ABCFP (2020a) Joint Professional Practice Guidelines – Watershed Assessment and Management of Hydrologic and Geomorphic Risk in the Forest Sector https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/8742bd3b-14d0-47e2-b64d-9ee81c53a81f/EGBC- ABCFP-Watershed-Assessment-V1-0.pdf.aspx

ABCFP (2008b). Guidelines for Terrain Stability Assessments in the Forest Sector. https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/b3f36705-fd6f-46ac-b45c-2fdd5d363b9f/APEGBC-Guidelines-for-Management-of-Terrain- Stability-in-the-Forest-Sector.pdf.aspx

Archer CRM (2009). Cultural Heritage Resource Identification and Management in Forestry Developments: A Supplement to the FREP Protocol. Report prepared for Ministry of Forests and Range. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming- natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/frep/frep-docs/chr_manual__addendum_to_frep_protocol.pdf

Aquarius R&D (2017). Hydrological Analysis for Kwahtum Teeshohsum. Version 0.5 (June 11, 2017). Prepared for Tla'amin Nation. Prepared by: Gabe Sentlinger, P.Eng, Bowen Island, BC.

Bains, B. and Blackwell B. (2015). Powell River Regional District Community Wildfire Protection Plan. https://www.qathet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PRRD-CWPP.pdf Bates, D. and Paul, A. (2005). Sliammon Traditional Territory Water Volume Study: A Summary. Report prepared for Treaty Department of Siiammon First Nation.

BBA (2018). Design Basis Report. Sliammon Lake Replacement Dam. Report prepared for Tla’amin Nation. Final Repot: December 21, 2018. Vancouver, BC. BBC Document No. 3774003.

Berardinucci, J., & Ronneseth, K. (2002). Guide to Using the BC Aquifer Classification Maps For The Protection And Management Of Groundwater. MWALP. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/science- data/aquifer_maps_guide.pdf

BHA (2016). Powell River Regional District Regional Trails Plan. https://www.qathet.ca/wp- content/uploads/2020/01/Regional-Trails-Plan.pdf

Blank, M. (2013). Identification of Natural Hazard Areas: Malaspina Peninsula/Okeover Inlet. Report prepared for Powell River Regional District. https://www.qathet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Electoral-Area-A-Identification-of-Natural- Hazard-Areas-Study.pdf

Bracher, G. (2002). Environmental Objectives And Best Management Practices For Aggregate Extraction. Report prepared for BC Environmental Stewardship Division Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/best-management- practices/aggregate.pdf

Carmichael, V. and Clarkson, L. (1995). Well Water Survey for Arsenic in the Powell River and Sunshine Coast Communities of British Columbia. Report for Public and Preventive Health Services B.C. Ministry of Health. https://www.healthspace.ca/Clients/VCHA/CoastGaribaldi/CoastGaribaldi_Website.nsf/e8db9633a9d595f988256b36000d1 4e7/244ab863b81f4a9188256f7f007e6461/$FILE/Arsenic%20Well%20Water%20Survey.PDF

Carson, B. (2000). Watershed Assessment of Sliammon Community Watershed, Powell River, B.C. Sunshine Coast Timber Supply Area Powell River Provincial Forest. Prepared for The Sliammon Watershed Advisory Committee. 24 pgs. Report prepared by Carson Land Resources Management.

TLA’AMIN 122 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Carson, B., Maloney, D., Chatwin, S., Carver, M., & Beaudry, P. (2009). Protocol for evaluating the potential impact of forestry and range use on water quality (water quality routine effectiveness evaluation). Forest and Range Evaluation Program, BC Ministry of Forests and Range, and BC Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/frep/frep-docs/water-quality- protocol.pdf

Caux, P. and D. Moore (1997). Water Quality Sampling Strategy for Turbidity, Suspended and Benthic Sediments: Technical Appendix Addendum. Report prepared for BC Ministry of Environment. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/waterquality/water-quality-reference- documents/turbidity_sampling_strategy_bcenv.pdf

Cavanagh, N., Nordin, R. N., Pommen, L. W., & Swain, L. G. (1998a). Guidelines for designing and implementing a water quality monitoring program in British Columbia. Aquatic Inventory Task Force of the Resource Inventory Commission, Forest Renewal British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/nr-laws- policy/risc/guidlines_for_interpreting_water_quality_data.pdf

Cavanagh, N., Nordin, R. N., Pommen, L. W., & Swain, L. G. (1998b). Guidelines for interpreting water quality data. Resource Inventory Standards Committee. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/nr-laws- policy/risc/guidlines_for_interpreting_water_quality_data.pdf

CDC (2021). BC Conservation Data Centre. Date retrieved January 2021, from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/conservation-data-centre/explore-cdc- data/known-locations-of-species-and-ecosystems-at-risk/cdc-imap-theme and from: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/

Church, M., & Ryder, J. M. (2010). Physiography of British Columbia. Compendium of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia’.(Eds RG Pike, TE Redding, RD Moore, RD Winker, KD Bladon) Land Management Handbook, 66, 17-46. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/lmh/Lmh66/Lmh66_ch02.pdf

Clague J.J. (2009) Cordilleran Ice Sheet. In: Gornitz V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi-org.ezproxy.viu.ca/10.1007/978-1-4020-4411-3_49 https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.viu.ca/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4020-4411-3_49

Coast Information Team (2004a). Hydroriparian Planning Guide. Coast Information Team, Victoria, BC. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/citbc/c-hpg-final-30Mar04.pdf

Coast Information Team (2004b). Ecosystem-based management planning handbook. Coast Information Team, Victoria, BC. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/citbc/c-ebm-hdbk-fin-22mar04.pdf

DFO (1993). Land Development Guidelines for Protection of Aquatic Habitat https://stewardshipcentrebc.ca/portfolio/land- development-guidelines/

DFO (2016). Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat including Aquatic Species at Risk. https://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/measures-mesures-eng.html

DFO & MOE (2001). Watershed-Based Fish Sustainability Planning: Conserving B.C. Fish Populations And Their Habitat - A Guidebook for Participants. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do?subdocumentId=1422

Douglas, T., Burton, P., Holt, R. and Seaton, R. (2003). Integrating ecosystem restoration into forest management in British Columbia: Practical Examples for Foresters. Forest Renewal BC. http://chapter.ser.org/westerncanada/files/2012/08/2003-Integrating-Ecosystem-Restoration-into-Forest- Management.pdf

TLA’AMIN 123 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Eaton, B., & Moore, R. D. (2010). Regional hydrology. Compendium of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia, 1, 85-110. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/lmh/Lmh66/Lmh66_ch04.pdf

FLNRO (2012). Fish Stream Crossing Guidebook. A revision to the former Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/fish-fish-habitat/fish-passage/fish- stream20crossing20web.pdf

FLNRO (2013). Best Practices for Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants During Forest Management Activities- Pocket Guide for BC’s Forest Workers. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/invasive- species/publications/forestry-bp-09-11-2013-web.pdf

FLNRO (2017). Fisheries Sensitive Watershed: Default-objectives and Designation Procedure: Government Actions Regulation and Environmental Protection and Management Regulation. FSW Procedures Working Group. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/fsw/171231_FSW%20Default%20Objectives%20Designation%20Procedure.pdf

FLNRO (2019a). Engineering Manual. Engineering Branch. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources- and-industry/natural-resource-use/resource-roads/engineering-manual/engineering_manual_july_26_2019_edits.pdf

FLNRO (2019b). Resource Road Engineering Standards & Guidelines. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-resource-use/resource-roads/engineering-standards-guidelines

FLNRO (2019c). Terrain Mapping Standards & Guidelines. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air- land-water/land/terrain/terrain-standards

FLNRO (2021) Riparian Management Area Guidebook. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/silviculture/silvicultural- systems/silviculture-guidebooks/riparian-management-area-guidebook

FNFC (2018). Protecting Water Our Way: First Nations Freshwater Governance in BC. First Nations Fishery Council. https://www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FNFC-Protecting-Water-Our-Way-Report_May- 2018_FINAL-1.pdf FPB (1998). Forest Planning and Practices in Coastal Areas with Streams. Forest Practices Board Technical Report. https://www.bcfpb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SIR02.pdf

FREP (2020). FREP Three-year Strategic Plan 2020/21 to 2022/23. BC Forest & Range Evaluation Program. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/frep/frepstrategicplan-aug2020.pdf

FSC (2005). Forest Stewardship Council Regional Certification Standards for British Columbia. Forest Stewardship Council Canada. https://ca.fsc.org/preview.bc-standard.a-829.pdf

Fulton, K. and J. Fyke (1994) The Streamkeepers Handbook: A Practical Guide to Stream and Wetland Care – Module 3 Water Quality Survey. https://www.pskf.ca/publications/Module03.pdf

Gorley, A. and Merkel, G. (2020). A New Future for Old Forests: A Strategic Review of How British Columbia Manages for Old Forests Within its Ancient Ecosystems. Report prepared for the Minister of Environment. https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/563/2020/09/STRATEGIC-REVIEW-20200430.pdf

Haggan, N., Turner, N., Carpenter, J., Jones, J. T., Mackie, Q., & Menzies, C. (2006). 12,000+ years of change: linking traditional and modern ecosystem science in the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. https://seannachie.ca/Website/Website-docs/12000yrs%20-%20Haggan%20et%20al.pdf

TLA’AMIN 124 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Hatfield, T., Lewis, A., Ohlson, D., & Bradford, M. (2003). Instream flow thresholds as guidelines for reviewing proposed water uses- Synopsis. British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. http://www.geoscientific.com/technical/tech_references_pdf_files/BC%20Instream%20Flow%20Guidelines%20for%20Fish. pdf

Hebb, K., Pressey, N. and Bradford, P. (2016). FREP Protocol for Cultural Heritage Resource Stewardship Monitoring. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/frep/frep- docs/chr_protocol_may_16_2016.pdf

Holden, J. J., Collicutt, B., Covernton, G., Cox, K. D., Lancaster, D., Dudas, S. E., ... & Jacob, A. L. (2019). Synergies on the coast: challenges facing shellfish aquaculture development on the central and north coast of British Columbia. Marine Policy, 101, 108-117. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X18302379

Hudson, R. and Horel. G. (2007). Operational method of assessing hydrologic recovery for Vancouver Island and south coastal BC. Forest Research Technical Report TR-032. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/research/hydroreports/tr032.pdf

IMBA (2018). Closing and Reclaiming Damaged Trails. International Mountain Biking Association Canada https://www.imbacanada.com/resources/trail-building/reclaiming-trails

Kennedy, D. I., & Bouchard, R. (1983). Sliammon Life, Sliammon Lands. Talonbooks Limited.

Klassen, H. and K. Hopkins (2016). Adapting natural resource management to climate change in the West and South Coast Regions: Considerations for practitioners and Government staff. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural- resource-stewardship/nrs-climate-change/regional-extension-notes/coasten160222.pdf

Lewis, A., Hatfield, T., Chilibeck, B., & Roberts, C. (2004). Assessment Methods for Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of Applications to Dam, Divert Or Extract Water from Streams in British Columbia: Final Version. Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection. https://www.ecofishresearch.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/Lewisetal2004_000-1.pdf

Little, P. (2012). Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Plan. Prepared for Theodosia Stewardship Roundtable. https://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/CCAQ_BCRAC/bcrac_theodosia_watershed_plan_2d.pdf

MacKinnon, A., Pojar, J., & Alaback, P. B. (2004). Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast. Lone Pine Publications.

McCutcheon, A. R. (1996). Ethnopharmacology of western North American plants with special focus on the genus Artemisia L (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0087277

Mildrexler, D., Berner, L., Law, B., Birdsey, R., and Moomaw, W. (2020). Large Trees Dominate Carbon Storage in Forests East of the Cascade Crest in the United States Pacific Northwest. In Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.594274/full

Millard, T., Campbell, D. and D. Collins (2007). Timber Harvesting Activities and Geomorphology in Coastal British Columbia. FREP Forest Research Extension Note EN-024. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/research/georeports/en-024.pdf

MOE (2018). Manual of British Columbia Hydrometric Standards. Report prepared by for the Resources Information Standards Committee/ https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource- stewardship/nr-laws-policy/risc/man_bc_hydrometric_stand_v2.pdf

MOE (2019). British Columbia approved water quality guidelines: Aquatic life, wildlife & agriculture - Summary. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/waterquality/water-quality-guidelines/approved- wqgs/wqg_summary_aquaticlife_wildlife_agri.pdf

TLA’AMIN 125 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

MOE (2020a). The Interim Assessment Protocol for Aquatic Ecosystems in British Columbia Standards for Assessing the Condition of Aquatic Ecosystems under British Columbia’s Cumulative Effects Framework. Report prepared by the Provincial Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Working Group for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy and Ministry of Forests, Lands and Resource Operations and Rural Development. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural- resource-stewardship/cumulative-effects/protocols/cef-aquatic-ecosystems-protocol-dec2020_final.pdf

MOE (2020b). Standards for Assessing the Condition of Forest Biodiversity under British Columbia’s Cumulative Effects Framework. Provincial Forest Biodiversity Technical Working Group. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/cumulative-effects/protocols/cef-forest- biodiversity-protocol-sept2020_final.pdf

MOF (1995). Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook. Victoria, BC. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/FPC%20archive/old%20web%20site%20contents/fpc/fpcguide/biodiv /biotoc.htm

MOF (1999). Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedures Guidebook. Forest Practices Code of BC. Victoria, B.C. https://testwww.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/FPCGUIDE/wap/WAPGdbk-Web.pdf

MOF (2001). Chapter 10: Recreation Trail Management. In: BC Ministry of Forests Recreation Manual. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00201/chap10/chap10.htm#s10.1

Moody, R., and Pigott, D. (2017). Best Management Practices for Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis). http://sernbc.ca/uploads/136/Whitebark_Pine_BMP_Mar31.pdf.

Munro K, and G. Taccogna (1994) The Streamkeepers Handbook: A Practical Guide to Stream and Wetland Care – Module 4 Stream Invertebrate Survey. https://www.pskf.ca/mod04/index.html

MWLAP (2004). Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife Coast Forest Region. Identified Wildlife Management Strategy. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/documents/Accounts_and_Measures_Coast.pdf#page=402

Negrave, R., & Stewart, D. (2010). Silviculture Practices for Enhancing Old Forest Stand Structure in Red- and Blue-Listed Plant Communities in the CDFmm. Interim document to provide guidance to practicing professional foresters. https://www.cdfcp.ca/attachments/CDFmm%20Silviculture%20Practices%20BMP.pdf

Nordin, L. and P. Bradford (2017). Best Riparian Management Practices Leading To Good Outcomes For Small Streams. FREP Extension Note #41. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and- industry/forestry/frep/extension-notes/frep_extension_note_41.pdf

Ortamond, T. (2017). Water Quality Project: Tla’amin Nation Activity Report and Field Notes.

Patrick, L. M. (2004). Storytelling in the Fourth World: explorations in meaning of place and Tla'amin resistance to dispossession. Unpublished thesis. University of Victoria. http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/498

Paul, E. (2009). As I Remember It: Teachings (ʔəms tɑʔɑw) from the Life of a Sliammon Elder. http://publications.ravenspacepublishing.org/as-i-remember-it/index

Perry, G., Lundquist, J., & Moore, R. D. (2016). Review of the potential effects of forest practices on stream flow in the Chehalis River basin. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology, Chehalis Basin Strategy. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. http://depts.washington.edu/mtnhydr/people/Perry_Chehalis_forest_streamflow.pdf

TLA’AMIN 126 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Perry, T. D., & Jones, J. A. (2017). Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas‐fir forest in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology, 10(2), e1790.

Pickard, D., Porter, M., Wieckowski, K., & Casley, S. (2012). Tier II watershed-level fish values monitoring protocol: Rationale. Draft version, 3, 1. Report prepared for: BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and BC Ministry of Environment. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/frep/frep- docs/tier2-watershed-values-monitoring-rationale-v3.pdf.

Pickard, D., M. Porter, L. Reese-Hansen, R. Thompson, D. Tripp, Carson, P. Tschaplinski, T. Larden, and S. Casley (2014). Fish Values: Watershed Status Evaluation, Version 1.0. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and BC Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Victoria, BC. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and- industry/forestry/frep/frep-docs/140402_wse_protocol_april_02_14.pdf

Pike, R. G., Bennett, K. E., Redding, T. E., Werner, A. T., & Spittlehouse, D. L. (2010). Climate change effects on watershed processes in British Columbia. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh66/Lmh66_ch19.pdf

Pike, R., Goeller, N., Goetz, J. & S. Crookshanks (2019). Key Hydrometric Planning Questions for Small Stream Monitoring http://confluence-jwsm.ca/index.php/jwsm/article/view/25/7

Porter, M. Casley, S., Pickard,. D., et al. (2019). Watershed Status Evaluation Protocol (WSEP): Tier 1 Watershed-level Fish Values Monitoring. Report prepared for the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/integrated- monitoring/wsep_tier_1_watershed_values_monitoring_protocol_v34_march01_2019.pdf Price, K. and D. Daust (2013). Adapting to Climate Change: Hydrology and Aquatic Ecosystems. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/nrs-climate-change/applied- science/2b_va_hydrology-finalaug30-2013.pdf

Province of BC (2004). BC Sewerage System Regulation. Website: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/22_326_2004

Province of BC (2011). Pest Management Plan for Invasive Alien Plant and Noxious Weed Control on Provincial Crown Lands within the South Coastal Mainland of British Columbia. https://www.coastalisc.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/Pest_Management_Plan_Multi-Agency_South_Mainland_Coast_2011.pdf

Province of BC (2012) Guidelines and Best Practices for Planning, Design and Development of Summer Off‐Highway Vehicle Trails. DRAFT. May 2012. https://www.bvquadriders.com/pdfs/G%26BPs_for_Summer_OHV_Trails_May12.pdf

Province of BC (2013). Ambient Freshwater and Effluent Sampling Field Manual. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-and- reporting/monitoring/emre/bc_field_sampling_manual_part_e.pdf

Province of BC (2014a). Develop with Care: Section 5.6 South Coast Region. Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development in British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource- stewardship/best-management-practices/develop-with-care/dwc-section-5-6-south-coast-region.pdf

Province of BC (2014b). Develop with Care: Site Development and Management. Section 3. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/best-management-practices/develop- with-care/dwc-section-3.pdf

Province of BC (2014c). Develop with Care 2014: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/laws-policies-standards- guidance/best-management-practices/develop-with-care.

TLA’AMIN 127 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Province of BC (2020a). Aquifer 957 Summary. Aquifer report from BC’s Aquifer Search Tool. Accessed February 2021 from: https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/aquifers/957

Province of BC (2020b). Aquifer 961 Summary. Aquifer report from BC’s Aquifer Search Tool. Accessed February 2021 from: https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/aquifers/962

Province of BC (2021a). Riparian Areas Protection Regulation. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/fish/aquatic-habitat-management/riparian- areas-regulation

Province of BC (2021b). Groundwater Protection Regulation. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/laws-rules/groundwater-protection-regulation

Province of BC (2021c). Management of Riparian Areas. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/agricultural-land-and-environment/water/riparian- areas/management

Province of BC (2021d) Infrastructure Drawings for Recreation Sites and Trails. Website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/sports-culture/recreation/camping-hiking/sites-trails/program/maintenance- development/drawings

Province of BC (2021e). Coastal Invasive Species Committee. Website: https://www.coastalisc.com

PSF (2020). Methods for Assessing Status and Trends in Pacific Salmon Conservation Units and their Freshwater Habitats Pacific Salmon Explorer Technical Report. Pacific Salmon Foundation. https://salmonwatersheds.ca/libraryfiles/lib_459.pdf

PSF (2021). Pacific Salmon Explorer: Vancouver Island and Mainland Inlets. Pacific Salmon Foundation. Data retrieved February 3rd, 2021 from: https://www.salmonexplorer.ca/#!/vancouver-island-mainland-inlets&to=watersheds-map

Rosenau, M. L., & Angelo, M. (2000). Sand and gravel management and fish-habitat protection in British Columbia salmon and steelhead streams. Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. https://waves-vagues.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/Library/249096.pdf

Ryder J.M. and Associates (Ryder & Associates). 1996. Terrain Stability Mapping – Terrain Survey Intensity Level D (TSIL D). 1:20,000 Map. Prepared for Ministry of Forests, Powell River, B.C.

Springer, C. (2018). Territory, tenure, and territoriality among the ancestral Coast Salish of SW British Columbia and NW Washington State. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC. http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/19125/etd19934.pdf

Segura, C., Bladon, K. D., Hatten, J. A., Jones, J. A., Hale, V. C., & Ice, G. G. (2020). Long-term effects of forest harvesting on summer low flow deficits in the Coast Range of Oregon. Journal of Hydrology, 585, 124749. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022169420302092?via%3Dihub

Summit (2004). Watershed Assessment – 2004: McNeill Lake and Sliammon Community Watersheds. Final Report prepared for BC Timber Sales. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib96520.pdf

Tla’amin Nation (2010). Tla’amin Land Use Plan. March 2020. https://www.tlaaminnation.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/11/Tlaamin-Land-Use-Plan-March-2010.pdf

Tripp, D., Nordin, L. Rex, J. Tschaplinski, P. and J. Richardson (2017). The Importance Of Small Streams In British Columbia. FREP Extension Note #38. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and- industry/forestry/frep/extension-notes/frep-extnt38-smallstreams.pdf

TLA’AMIN 128 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Tripp, D.B., P.J. Tschaplinski, S.A. Bird and D.L. Hogan. 2020. FREP Protocol for Evaluating the Condition of Streams and Riparian Management Areas (Riparian Management Routine Effectiveness Evaluation). Version 6.0. Revised by D.B.Tripp and L.J. Nordin. Forest and Range Evaluation Program, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Range, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and- industry/forestry/frep/full_riparianprotocol_2020-117pp.pdf

Truscott, J. (2004). Malaspina Okeover Coastal Plan. Report prepared for Land and Water BC Inc. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/land-water-use/crown- land/land-use-plans-and-objectives/coastal-marine/malaspina-okeover-coastal-plan/malaspina_okeover_plan.pdf

Tschaplinski, P. J., & Pike, R. G. (2010). Riparian management and effects on function. In: Compendium of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Research Branch, and FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, BC. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/lmh/Lmh66/Lmh66_ch15.pdf

Tschaplinski, P. & D. Tripp (2017). FREP Post-Harvest Condition of Stream Channels, Fish Habitats, and Adjacent Riparian Areas. Resource Stewardship Monitoring to Evaluate The Effectiveness of Riparian Management 2005-2014. FREP Extension Note #39. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/frep/extension- notes/frep_extension_note_39.pdf

Wetland Stewardship Partnership (2009a). Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and Conservation in British Columbia. Chapter 5- Forestry. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/best-management- practices/wetland_ways_ch_5_forests.pdf

Wetland Stewardship Partnership (2009b). Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and Conservation in British Columbia. Development, Agriculture and Enhancement Chapters. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-planning-strategies/wetlands-in-bc

Wheaton J.M., Bennett S.N., Bouwes, N., Maestas J.D. and Shahverdian S.M. (Editors). 2019. Low-Tech Process-Based Restoration of Riverscapes: Design Manual. Version 1.0. Utah State University Restoration Consortium. Logan, UT. 286 pp. https://lowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu/manual/

Wilford, D. J., Innes, J. L., & Sakals, M. E. (2005). Forest management on fans: hydrogeomorphic hazards and general prescriptions. British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, Forest Science Program. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh57.pdf

Winkler, R. D., Moore, R. D., Redding, T. E., Spittlehouse, D. L., Smerdon, B. D., & Carlyle-Moses, D. E. (2010). The effects of forest disturbance on hydrologic processes and watershed. In: Compendium of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia. BC Min. For. Range, 66, 179. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Lmh/Lmh66/Lmh66_ch07.pdf

Zevit, P. (2018). Species at Risk and Critical Habitat: Understanding Responsibilities & Making Informed Decisions On Private Land. South Coast Conservation Program. http://sccp.ca/sites/default/files/resources/documents/SCCP%20SEAR%20CH%20private%20land%20for%20web%20sep% 202018.pdf

TLA’AMIN 129 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX A

WORKSHOP: AGENDA, NOTES AND ATTENDEES

TLA’AMIN 130 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Watershed Protection Working Committee Meeting

Date/Time: October 20th (8:30am- 4:30pm) and October 21st (9:00-4:00) Location: Town Centre Hotel, Powell River, BC Chair: Cathy Galligos Facilitators: Bob Patrick, Kelly Chapman

AGENDA

Tuesday, October 20th 8:30-8:45 Welcome Why are we here? (Cathy) • Grant application (DFO – IHPP funding) • The need for a watershed plan • Tla’amin Water Act

8:45-9:00 Working Committee member introductions (Roundtable)

9:00-9:15 How will this plan come together? The planning process (Bob)

9:15-10:00 Connecting the Dots: Land, Water & Fish (Kelly) Google earth screen shots – 1980-2020

10:00-10:15 A Watershed Story (Quinn)

10:15-10:30 Health Break

10:30-11:00 Forestry impacts on fish habitat/Salmon Explorer tool (Jason Hwang, Pacific Salmon Foundation)

11:00-11:15 Coastal Climate Change Impact considerations (Mike Demuth, P.Eng., P.Geo).

11:15-12:30 Knowledge sharing circle (Bob and Kelly) • What does each participant want others to know going into this planning process?

12:30-1:15 Lunch

TLA’AMIN 131 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

1:15-1:45 Virtual Watershed Tour (Kelly)

1:45-2:30 Mapping Exercise: Watershed values, stories and experiences (Bob)

2:30-2:45 Summary of previous reports watershed assessments–threats (Kelly)

2:45-3:45 Mapping exercise – watershed concerns and threats (Bob)

3:45- 4:00 Overview and Round-Up (Bob and Kelly) - Identify field trip locations (for Thursday and Friday)

Wednesday, October 21st

9:00-9:30 Recap/summary of Day 1 results (Kelly) 9:30-12:00 Group Exercise: Watershed Visioning (Bob)

11:00-12:30 Indicators and monitoring (weather stations) (Kelly and Bob)

12:30-1:15 Lunch

1:15-3:00 Group Exercise: Achieving your Vision (Bob and Kelly)

• Strategies and actions to achieve your Vision • Information/data gaps • Potential partners going forward

3:00-3:30 Next meetings and field trips (Bob and Kelly)

• Confirm topics, participants and dates for follow up meetings

3:30 Closing (Cathy)

TLA’AMIN 132 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

MEETING NOTES

Watershed Protection Plan Day 1 October 20th, 2020 PR Coast Hotel

1. Cathy Short Presentation/Introduction

In-Person: Cathy, Kelly, Bob, Alex, Delia, Shawn, Jimmy, Craig, Denise, Keith, Lee, Tyrone, Grace, Leslie Adams, Quinn, Serena, Leonard

Zoom: 1. Teri Ripley – DFO 2. Alysha VanDelft – A&A 3. Monica Pearson – Province 4. Layla George – Tla’amin member 5. Chrissy Czebor – Resources Restoration Biologist 6. Kevin Pellet - DFO 7. Haley Tomlin – VIU 8. Ryan O’Connell – DFO 9. Byron Nutton – DFO Biologist 10. Jason Hwaung – PSF 11. Eileen Jones - PSF 12. Mike Deemuth - 13. Laura Terry – DFO Community Advisor 14. Makenzie Leine – joined at 11am 15. 307106 16. Tla’amin Nation

2. Robert Presentation - See Bob’s Summary List of Water studies for Tla’amin Nation - Tla’amin Water Management Law - Why do we plan? - Reclaim Traditional Water Governance - A Process for Watershed Protection Planning o Stage 1 – Establish Working Committee o Stage 2 – Complete Watershed Assessment o Stage 3 – Identify Risk Mgmt Actions o Stage 4 – Developm Implementation Strategy o Stage 5 – Review and Update Plan - Risk Assessment Tool - Table 3: Risk Assessment Matrix – what is likely and what is impact - Multi-Barrier Approach – start protecting water resource from the source - Weather Station

TLA’AMIN 133 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

o Logs on internet every hour for the year, can look at what the o One at Sea level and one high in watershed

Question: What will happen after March 20201? Answer: Hope to get the NRC position on the Org Chart in place to carry on the water work, apply for funding to carry out identified next steps from the high level water plan, hope to start working on the Theodosia Co- management Agreement with the Province, many spin-offs from this water work

3. Kelly Chapman Presentation - Environmental Planner, Registered Professional Biologist - Connecting the Dots - What is a Watershed? - Watershed Parts: uplands, floodplains, riparian areas, Streams and rivers, lakes and wetlands, groundwater - S/t Streams feed groundwater and sometimes groundwater feed the streams - Streams have Hydrographic Signatures - Streams: Rainfall fed, Snowmelt, Mixed, Glacial melt - Lakes and Wetlands - Riparian Large Woody Debris - A Healthy watershed is a connected watershed - Lateral, Vertical, Longitudinal, Temporal Connectivity - River Continuam - Different Types of Forest Structure o Wider streams – photosynthesis o Upper sTream – little algae growth, leaves fall into streams which feed aquatic insects, crustacians, mollusks and worms o Good indicators of stream health, sensitive to water quality, changes in water temperature, o Different type of insects living in different parts of the river o Upper Stream: Shredders, graxers, predators, collectors (upper shredders are important because they shred the leaves, etc., eventually important to feeding the salmon) o Just because a stream doesn’t have fish in it, does not mean that it is not an important Stream - Different Flows have different roles - Environmental Flow Needs – amount of water, flow rate, or water level required in a river to sustain a healthy aquatic environmnent\ - Rule of Thumb: do not remove more than 10 or 15% of natural flow at any given time - Water Quantity and Quality - Water Pollution - Forestry Impacts on Watersheds - Sydney River, Vancouver Island vs Theodosia River - Everywhere you see a road crossing a stream/creek creates impacts on watershed - Logging blocks gets hotter because no forest, higher water temperatures – less oxygen for fish and invertibrates that they eat - Increases temp of groundwater and surface water - Clearing Riparian Areas – cascade of impacts, water quality declines, less shade/more evaporation, more floods/droughts, no shredder/macroinvertibrates,

TLA’AMIN 134 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

- Road Construction – sediment increase, alters/blocks natural flow patterns across landscape – cause algae blooms and trophic streams - Other Water Quality Impacts: dissolved oxygen, increase nutrient release up to 10 yr after harvest; Glyphosate binds to heavy metals and increase nutrient release - Forestry Can Impact Drinking Water - Forestry Impacts on Fish - Juvenile Salmon, Salmon Spawning - Water temperature and Salmonid Production - Harvest Cutblocks o No more than 20 – 30% of watershed (12 – 30 years later – recovered), to have good vegetation to cover upland o Cumulative effects o Maximum cutblock size: 40 hectares - FRPA Riparian Management & Reserve Zone o Reserve Zone – no tree cutting/removing o Tla’amin Forest Law – no reserve zone o Management Zone – Tla’amin to consider the Mgmt Zone sizes to keep including S4, S5, S6 – protect these streams as well - Small Streams - LWD, Falling & Yarding - Best Practices of Road Construction - Climate Change and Salmon

4. Quinn Barabesh – A Watershed Story

- Kitsumkalum/thesis/story being told by the community

5. Jason Hwuang – PSF (and Eileen) - Watershed Based Planning for salmon

- Things are changing for salmon - Northern populations doing better than southern - Many climate related trends not favourable for salmon populations - Still time to moderate and mitigate effects to help support ongoing salmon productivity - What we can do? o Manage Harvest – normal patterns changing, conservation is a major issue, mixed stock fisheries are complex o Manage Hatcheries – more hatchery fish is not automatically better o Manage Habitat – . Seeing things we have not seen before, major forest fires, changes in hydrology, pine beetle epidemic . Changes in Watershed = changes to habitat o Salmon management measures – think of complicated ecology and ecosystem that salmon exists in o Hatcheries can provide useful but can have unintended consequences (hatchery has to be managed the right way)

TLA’AMIN 135 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

o If only try to fix the lower river and not look at everything above, probably going to blow out, look at recovery activities properly o Habitat key message o Salmon ecology is complicated, we don’t always know what the problem is o Watershed Based Fish Sustainability Planning – Conserving BC Fish …. o An approach to mgmt. of fish populations and fish habitat o Closing points . Sometimes solutions are not obvious . Why do this kind of plan instead of just getting going . Good plan – make sure it gets implemented - PSF has funding that can be applied - Pacific Salmon Explorer - Community Salmon Program – Spring/over $1mill. • - Eileen Jones – PSF Salmon Watersheds Program o Pacific Salmon Explorer (tool built at PSF) – data visualization tool o Salmon in BC o Habitat Pressures – use 12 habitat indicators – cumulative pressures o Look at salmon at Conservation Unit – can cover large geographic areas to where they spawn but can look at a CU at a more detailed level o Can see all the different developments in the area (mining, forestry, hydrological licences, etc.) o Quite a bit of information/useful o Information on Hatcheries o Habitat Pressures, Population o 5 Species o For Northcoast area the data gathered from consultants/DFO/Nations and was easier; Southcoast/Fraser/Mainland – information fairly decentralized and has been more difficult accessing information and having to work with

6. Mike Demuth – Hydrology/Glacial Water, P.Eng, P.Geo, Research Geoscientist

- Climate Change, upstream of ourselves, Climate change and climate variability (it’s complicated), examining the future of Tla’amin Lands, climate non-stationarity - CO2 – at 410 PPM – - Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – 350 PPM - Historically CO2 was ranging between 180 PPM to 280 PPM and now at 410 PPM - CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now, went back 400,000 years ago - Before Industrial Revolution, temperature was driving CO2 but then suffered regime shift and now CO2 is leading the Temperature - Present thermal state of ice caps - Competing Demands on the Water - Hydrology Graph – snow melt/glacial melt

7. Kelly – Watershed Assessments

TLA’AMIN 136 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

8. Mapping Activity 9. Monica Pearson - Working on Watershed - Values of landscape, - Cummulative effects of - Developing visualization tool so available to public/collaborators - Verifying data right now - Hope that information Monica has can contribute - FREP – Forest Range Evaluation Program 10. Haley Tomlin – MABRI/VIU 11. Chrissy Czembor – Resource Restoration department of DFO - Can help with restoration options, focus on ecosystem health 12. Kevin Pellet – Stock Assessment 13. Alysha VanDelft - PSF good tool for forest managers - Can help bring a forest perspective to the water plan 14. Makenzie Leine - Has background in working with watersheds, impacts of climate change 15. Laura Terry 16. Byron Nutton 17. Serena – lots data provided, new information 18. Leonard – 19. Denise - This is Tla’amin’s plan and want to be able to provide this plan to others

Cathy - TN has been self-governing since April 5, 2016 - 8300 hectares of land to manage - No opportunity to manage Natural Resources - Water Management Law – inclusive of many other sectors - Took away a lot of points from today from all the presenters including: o Kelly – Water 101, and importance of smaller creeks, shredders, microbes, right down to the salmon o Quinn – films of the watersheds he has worked on o Jason – Good information on the PSF and Pacific Salmon Explorer o Mike – Glacial perspective and CO2

Watershed Protection Plan Day 2 October 21ST, 2020 PR Coast Hotel

Present: In-Person - Cathy, Kelly, Bob, Alex, Delia, Serena, Leonard, Quinn, Shawn, Grace, Leslie Adams, Tyrone, Craig, Denise

TLA’AMIN 137 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Zoom: Laura Terry, Byron Nutton, Layla George,

- Kelly presents some relevant sections of 4 laws - Kelly reviews 2004 Sliammon Watershed o 2004 Watershed Rish Analysis - Alysha o Thichum has not been super active in CFA o Some proposed blocks in CFA, ensure still below ECA o Don’t know if the road sediment issues have been addressed o Planning just updated o Large % of riparian area permanentily protected under OGMA and Habitat areas o Addressed as risk in 2004 but now not a risk because it is protected o Updating Haslam Watershed Assessment b/c most harvesting has been in the Haslam o Feb.2020 – Guidelines on Watershed Assessments, watershed assemt of and geomorphic risk, updates will need to be consistent with guidelines

Kelly - Tributaries 1 & 2 - Theodosia FSR - 2012 Theodosia Climate Change overview o Climate Change Projections – applicable to everywhere in PR, but this is not entirely concrete - Fish Water Sustainability – involving all the other organizations - Co-management Agreement – Fish First Approach

Brainstorming Session Suggestions for going forward, sustainably managing water, healthy habitats/aquatic

- Currently have many laws, maps, summaries of many of areas – tool to help refresh dialogue for community - Discussion is about water but it impacts many other areas (Final Agreement is comprehensive, keep in mind there are many other areas to consider) - Land Use Plan, many Theodosia studies, know what problems are just need to know how to fix t - Ie. Bring other stakeholders in to help restore the Theodosia and financially contribute to restoration (requires money, partnership, these partnerships need to help) - Draft Theodosia Shared Decision Making Agreement done by the Province (not very good plan, one- sided) - What decisions are being made in Theo, Private Forest Practices, who do we talk to, - Nation to strike a summarized report to take forward - Private Managed Forest Land Council/Association - Broader conversation with Private MFLA about working together using Theodosia as an example - Forest Certification lens (CFI) - Identify Theodosia documents, Theodosia Roundtable (notes/minutes/historical recommendations) so that it can be included in the Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) - Grace to send Theo Roundtable docs to Kelly

TLA’AMIN 138 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

- Identify generic measures - Are there any other FNs who have worked on Watershed plans? - Kelly to do search for local FNs watershed planning (Cowichan, Nisga’a) - Theodosia Round Table, no one to lead it o Action: pull together main themes from the past reports (10 years ago) o ID Docs, look at generic measures o Nisga’a Plan/Agmts – other plans to look at other watershed plan o Sechelt? - Involvement of other Stakeholders, not just Tla’amin - Tla’amin to lead the process - Re-iteration of: o What has private stakeholders contributed o Currently doing Stock Assessment of the rivers (Theo) o what happens when the stocks start depleting and Tla’amin is the only one trying to protect o What is the future of Theo - Important Statement for plan – no coincidence that Tla’amin has land at the mouth of every River, most productive parts of the landscape o Upland activities affect the whole river

Okeover/Sliammon Watersheds - Recommend Tla’amin Nation and Thichum work together on the forestry planning with the key area of water management (creeks, streams, rivers) - 2004 Watershed plan being looked at to be done with new Water guidelines - Identify best practices for Riparian areas - A&A/Thichum already has best practices for road building and harvesting - Best mgmt. practices identified in the pre-work then relayed - Possible look at creating larger Riparian areas among all creeks/streams including S4, S5, S6 and Tla’amin recommending to the Tla’amin Community Forest Agreement areas as well - Monica – has information on watershed assessments and can help point in the right direction - Suggestion of a meeting to further discuss other values (Tla’amin, Thichum/A&A, Province), bring together all the other values to improve our process - Kelly - Filtering the minimize of impacts information down to the forestry field workers/operators - Mackenzie – follow up inspections are being done to ensure practices are followed, broader contractor relationships that understand A&A standards o Climate change and the importance of small streams and the ecosystem o Suggest meeting to discuss further, look at streams from a planning perspective o Direct connectivity to down stream, sensitivity, increasing level of management o Where do we apply, why, how much o Different streams have different reliance, not all streams the same (alluvial/non-alluvial) o If other ways to protect small streams – look at o Ribboned streams o Leaving taller stumps around streams o Also bring in FLNRORD on discussions - Craig

TLA’AMIN 139 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

o Need to look at broadly as well o Economic revenue – what Thichum makes also goes to Nation o Balance revenue/economic development/jobs/environment/culture - Carbon offsets around what is being left - Forest Carbon Initiative – funding - Forestry can be done in conjunction with proper water management

- Small Stream Management - Forestry, Fish experts, Water, Contractors, Geotechs – to discuss innovative strategies going forward - Big picture/supporting environment - Working Small Stream group: o FREP, Lisa Nordean o A&A reps o Thichum o Tla’amin o Qathet RD? o City o Brookfield? o Hydrologist o Fisheries - Invasive Plants – Risk Factor o Introduced by forestry, trail users, pesticide use o Ie: knotweed - Forestry Pesticides – What is Tla’amin’s position on using pesticides (Glyphosate) o Invasive Plant Operating Procedure – 1 part pro-active looking for invasive plants (Inv.Alien Plant Prog), query where invasive plants are in area, dirty dozen reported back to team, 2nd part Reactive – what to do when find plants o Depends on plant and where it is, site specific o Check with other users o FRPA changing soon, update on forest planning regulation – invasive plants – specific rules - Recreation Users o Increasing education/ATV users/impacting environment o Sedimentation - Highlight where rec trails cross streams, have discussion with users o Best practices for ATV trails/trail user group o Installation of bridges/trail engineering - Pilot projects in Sea to Sky – district office (collaboration with Squamish/Lilloet) o Monica - Risk Management Approach o Identify high risk areas, potential impacts to environment – prioritize o Who else can help - Qathet Trails Master plan - BOMB Squad/ATV club/ORUG/PRPAWS o Educate/help fix recreational stream crossings

TLA’AMIN 140 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Afternoon Session

- Network with neigbouring community o Identify areas of concerns for stream crossings - Fire Retardants - Wild fire Planning o Collaborative planning o Identify water sources, fish habitat, sensitive areas, wetlands/streams/creeks - Community Wildfire Protection/Resiliency Plan - Tla’amin Community Wildfire Resiliency Plan o Include protection areas o Use of Equipment in riparian areas o Fire risk assessment and management o Affects of wildfire on the water system, run-off o Forest Fire Suppression related concerns - Forest protection in non-urban interface - ID Crown Species at Risk - Prov.interest in the interface w/ urban - Min of Forest FESBC - Erin Smeak – Coordinator of Forest Funding - Post Fire/fire guards/Rehabilitation - Province has funding envelope for rehabilitation - BC Wildfire Service o Systems in place for the crew

Road Assessment - Assess all the culverts/roads in Tla’amin area - Model run to identify opportunities - which culverts are fish passage barriers o Monica – believe province wide - Roads are large part of Watershed Assessment - Prov’l Cummulative Effects – coarse level of all lands o Monica to provide the information - FREP – Water Quality Protocol o Water quality testing over past 15 years o Dave Maloney o Brian Carson o Lisa o Shawn to send contacts

- Climate change effects/culvert may have worked years ago and may not work now - Baseline of water quality for area o What type of system to use and what to measure - Watershed Assessment - Water Monitoring Program

TLA’AMIN 141 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

o Identify sampling sites o Sampling methodology . Turbidity . Temperature . Flows o When to sample o Possible Guardian Watchman program conducting the water sampling o Monitoring equipment - Chrissy – DFO has partnerships with FNs on water monitoring, ECC? o Provincial water quality monitoring o Look into training/funding - Water monitoring stations o 1 above Scotty Creek o 1 on Theodosia River o 1 broken down one on Sliammon River - Water licencing o Investigate of who owns which water licences in TN territory o Renewal of licences o When does the Theodosia licence expire? o Nation priority on all current water licences (treaty)

- Tla’amin Nation dam o 2016 TN took over water licence/dam from DFO o Design for replacement of dam – leave dam at the current size, need dam safety inspector o Fish passage on dam design o For purpose of flow for low flow and drinking water - Using dams for flooding control, avoid large flood events, more dynamic mgmt. regime - Lee George has the capacity/knowledge to manage the dam flow/mgmt - Drinking water o Replacement of asbestos pipe from the lake to the water treatment plant o Replace the old storage tank and the need for new storage tanks o No shortage of drinking water but more infrastructure that needs upgrading for storage o Nation informed by AANDC – cannot hook up to the City of PR for drinking water or backup – have own system - GAR – Kaarst cannot be damaged or affected o Texada – limestone – cave o Is there any Kaarst features in Sliammon, Theodosia, Okeover - Groundwater o Treaty rights o Monica – most GW aquifers are identified as low use o Monica to link Kelly to data source o Cathy to provide presentation to Kelly on groundwater o No GW allocation for Tla’amin - Water Quality Testing – Okeover

TLA’AMIN 142 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

o Who does water testing? o What type of water testing o AMMA – local shellfish group o Does DFO do testing o Environment Canada

- Archaeological o Many archaeological sites not identified o Only shoreline was surveyed, not in land o 20,000 people at one time o Archaeological site protection o Updated Traditional Use Study – Contemporary Use Study o Shawn to provide studies to Kelly

TLA’AMIN 143 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS FOR SLIAMMON AND THEODOSIA WATERSHEDS

Watershed report card results from past assessments of the Sliammon Community Watershed are outlined in Table AB.1. The findings and recommendations from the 1997, 2000 and 2004 Sliammon Community Forest watershed assessment (CWAP) reports, and from the 2012 Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Plan, are summarized below.

Table AB.1. Summary of past Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure (CWAP) report card results for the Sliammon Community Watershed.

Indicator Summit Carson Summit 1997 2000 2004 Total area = 4,386 ha. Below 300 m = 987 ha, 300-800 m = 2,028 ha, above 800 m = 1,371 ha. 1 Percentage of Watershed Harvested (%) N/A N/A 19.9 Existing ECA (end 2004) Total ECA (%) 389.0 11 9 Total ECA (Ha) 0.8 503.7 400.9 3 Total Road Density (km/km2) 0(3) 0.9 0.9 4 Length of Road as Moderate and High Sediment Hazard (km) 0 0(3) 2.1(4) 5 Total Number of Landslides entering Streams 0 0 0 6 Length of Road on Potentially Unstable Slopes (km) 2.8 N/A 5.0(5) 7 Number of Stream Crossings 17 N/A 20 8 Length of Stream Logged to the Streambank (km) 8.9 N/A 9.3(6) 9 Length of Disturbed Stream (km) 0.2 (7) N/A 0.2(8) Notes: N/A Indicator not part of previous IWAP. Bolded numbers indicated that the indicator values have decreased since last reported. 1. Taken from Summit (1997). Data based on calculations made prior to the 1999 CWAP guidelines (MOF 1999), which changed some procedures. 3. Taken from Carson Resources Land Management (2000). 4. Reported as length of road on erodible soils (Summit, 1997; Carson, 2000). 5. Based on office review (roads on highly erodible and unstable terrain [Ryder & Associates, 1996]) and 2004 field investigation. 6. Increase accounted for by a combination of post-1997 road building as well as more precise mapping available in 2004. 7. Measure of stream logged from recent and historic logging, measured from BCTS’s 2004 FDP 8. This is the estimated length of disturbed channel sections from Summit (1997). 9. Measurement is based on a combination of field-verification at several crossings and measured riparian disturbances from aerial photographs and 2004 FDPs.

TLA’AMIN 144 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

1996-1997 Summit Watershed Assessment, Terrain Stability Mapping & Channel Assessment:

Previous assessments in the Sliammon Community watershed include a Level 1 Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure (Summit, 1996), terrain stability mapping (Ryder and Associates, 1996), and a reconnaissance Level 2 Channel Assessment (Summit, 1997). Results of the Summit (1996) watershed assessment indicated that the channel and riparian index ratings were moderate, while the peak flows and mass wasting indexes were low. The terrain stability mapping (1996) determined that highly erodible soils and Class IV and V terrain were situated mainly in the upper elevations (above 800 m a.s.l.), and Summit (1997) determined that the channels were moderately sensitive through the areas with historically logged riparian areas. A number of the recommendations from Summit (1997) for culvert and bridge removal and replacement were been implemented after 1998 (Meyer, T., pers. comm., 2004).

2000 Carson Land Resources Management Ltd Watershed Assessment Update:

In November 2000, Carson Land Resources Management Ltd. (Carson 2000) completed an updated watershed assessment of Sliammon Community Watershed. Conclusions and recommendations from that report included the following:

1. Conclusion: Sliammon Community watershed is in good condition. Provided the forestry development plans proposed for the period 2000-2002 are implemented with due diligence as per the Forest Practices Code, they can be carried out without causing degradation to local hydrology and water quality.

2. Observe Guidelines Outlined in the Forest Practices Code and Monitor Results. The Code has many regulations that, when adhered to, will adequately protect water quality for the Sliammon Community Watershed. Every opportunity should be given to the licensee to manage their harvesting operations to meet the objectives of the Code.

3. Continue to Develop Skills of Forest Workers to Manage Watersheds. Because of the complex nature of terrain, surface materials, uncertainty of rainfall etc., it is not possible to accurately predict how any terrain will behave. The Committee should increasingly aim for results based management. As an example, during the sediment source assessment, a relatively high variability of subsurface materials was encountered. Because of this variability, mapping of erodibility of subsurface soils would be very expensive on an operational level. It would be more effective to ensure that road construction crews were familiar with all subsurface materials in the area and be clear about how they should be handled under differing conditions, as they are encountered.

4. Continue to Support a Special Management Zone for Lands and Water Adjacent to the Sliammon Community Water Intake. The lands adjacent to and the water around the intake should receive a high level of protection, including a policy of zero drainage concentration of seepage/ storm run-off from land and road ditches adjacent to the intake. Unauthorized persons should be restricted from entering the area. The present gating system restricting vehicle access is appropriate. Ongoing attempts should be made to discourage the dumping of domestic garbage within the watershed.

5. Consider the Design and Management of the Sliammon Lake Weir. Management of storage water and its

TLA’AMIN 145 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

discharge over the Sliammon Lake Weir is central to water quantity management within Sliammon Lake and flow of Sliammon Creek. If desired, there are likely opportunities to improve the function of the weir to increase low season flow, reduce water temperature of Sliammon Creek, increase live storage on Sliammon Lake, reduce period of high lake level and, if deemed desirable, reduce peak flows over the weir.

2004 Summit Community Watershed Assessment Update:

In March 2004, British Columbia Timber Sales retained Summit Environmental Consultants Ltd. to conduct a watershed assessment update for the Sliammon Community Watershed (Summit 2004). A summary of the findings from that report are as follows:

• Overall risks of roads and sediment to water quality was low, but with some moderate risk areas along Theodosia FSR & spur roads recommended for remediation. • Overall risks to peak flow regime from existing forest development was low (ECAs for subbasins were between 9% and 14%). • Overall risk to channel stability was moderate for tributaries to Appleton Creek, identified in Table 4.5 of report (Appleton Creek risk was low): o Extensive historic development and riparian logging in headwaters. o Streambed and banks relatively stable stream despite historic riparian impacts. o Abundance of LWD and SWD deposited in the system- have elevated risk to channel stability due to damming and avulsions. • Low risk to riparian function from existing development. • Historically logged riparian areas have been recovering/revegetating. • Recommended remediation of sites identified from the 1997 watershed assessment were carried out effectively, and have reduced sediment delivery risk in the watershed; • A total of five restoration opportunities were identified within the watershed to reduce the risk of sediment delivery and potential channel instability (restoration actions are described in Tables 4.3 and 4.5 of Section 4.0 of the report). (A January 2021 field visit found that recommended remedial action appears to have been completed for 3 of the 5 problem areas/sediment sources identified in the 2004 Summit watershed assessment report, on Sites # 1, #2 and #3; the other two sites were not accessible).

Recommendations for future development included:

• Planned cutblocks and roads situated near existing water bodies, including lakes should be managed with adequate riparian corridors to reduce sedimentation, maintain water quality and fish habitat. If riparian harvesting is required then Best Management Practices should be applied;

• ECAs exceeding a maximum of 20% in areas draining into Sliammon Lake should be conducted with more than usual care to ensure natural drainage patterns are maintained and that ditches and culverts are regularly inspected and maintained;

• The three planned blocks of CP A58197 are situated on and above Class IV and V terrain and highly erodible soils in the Upper Sliammon Sub-basin (Map 2). A significant portion of the blocks drain to Tributary #2

TLA’AMIN 146 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

(which is considered to be moderately sensitive to changes in peak flows). Given the moderate sensitivity and that unstable terrain and highly erodible soils are present, we recommend block-specific (“flat-over- steep”) assessments for these blocks as per the Community Watershed guidelines; and

• All future blocks situated on or draining over Class IV and V terrain or on highly erodible soils should have block specific assessments (e.g. “flat-over- steep” assessments) carried out by qualified terrain and forest engineering personnel. Specific planning should focus on strategies to minimize risks to water resources and potential slope failures.

2012 Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Plan

In 2012, Patrick Little prepared the Theodosia Watershed Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Plan (Little 2012) for the Theodosia Stewardship Roundtable Group. The purpose of this report was to document past and future challenges related to stewardship and restoration of the Theodosia watershed, and to make recommendations for future steps and climate change adaptation. The report recommendations relevant to watershed health are summarized as follows:

• Develop a seasonal water plan to maintain a healthy hydrologic regime within the lower Theodosia while mitigating against extreme peak flows expected to increase with climate change (see preliminary analysis in Appendix A of the report). During the summer, minimize diversion away from Theodosia. During the winter the increase extraction during times of flood events.

• Redesign the Olsen Lake diversion to enable operation of the seasonal water plan above. (see details in Appendix A of the report).

• Forest companies and the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations should develop a coordinated watershed-scale sustainable harvesting plan to limit harvest rates to a level of acceptable risk, and to detail targeted harvest rates, new protocols for culvert sizing, and plans for restoration and conservation of floodplain forests.

• Stagger harvesting and follow guidelines of an annual rate of harvest for the entire watershed, to mitigate hydrologic impacts of forest harvest such as: increased water yield, increased peak flows, decreased water storage, increased flashiness, and increased slope failures.

• Evaluate and restore riparian forest (bank stability and large wood inputs). Increase the rate of recovery of suitable conifers such as Sitka spruce and western redcedar. Sitka spruce and western redcedar may experience drought on dry sites far away from the river channel. Floodplain restoration more than 2 meters above the channel thalweg should focus on planting of species such as Douglas-fir that can withstand future summer drought.

• Assess, maintain, restore, or relocate roads and culverts to increase slope stability. Size culverts to accommodate flows considerably larger than historical Q100 flows in order to reduce plugging during future events. By 2080, the magnitude of the Q100 is expected to be twice as large as the historical Q100. Size culverts accordingly. Un-used roads should be deactivated as soon as possible and sufficient drainage should be constructed. Areas prone to slope failures should be identified in the field and actions taken to reduce future slides and debris torrents.

TLA’AMIN 147 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

• Identify, catalogue and protect thermal refugia provided by groundwater and tributary inflow, undercut banks, and deep stratified pools. After cataloguing available refugia assess whether additional thermal refugia should be constructed

• Catalogue, protect and restore of off-channel habitat where fish can find refuge from high-energy flows. Harvesting should be avoided near any off channel habitat areas.

TLA’AMIN 148 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX C

GROUNDWATER AQUIFER REPORTS

AQUIFER 957 (Source: Province of BC (2021a). Aquifer 957 Summary. Aquifer report from BC’s Aquifer Search Tool. Accessed February 2021 from: https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/aquifers/957)

AQUIFER CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET DATE: 27-Mar-12 AQUIFER REFERENCE NUMBER: 957 DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION OF AQUIFER: Sunshine Coast Hwy north of Shuttle Bay to the Malaspina Peninsula NTS MAP SHEET: 092F15 BCGS MAP SHEET: 092F097

CLASSIFICATION: IIA RANKING: 9 Aquifer Size: 12.21 km2 Aquifer Boundaries: The aquifer extents were delineated based on the coastline, topography, well lithology, extent of groundwater development and bedrock geology. In the west the boundary is delineated by the ocean. Elsewhere, the boundary was approximated to represent the potential drainage area surrounding the bedrock wells within the region.

Aquifer Sub-type: 6b Aquifer Priority Rating for Observation Wells: 29.64

Geologic Formation (overlying materials): clay, till, sand, and gravel Thin marine or glacio-marine deposits (silt, clay, sand, gravel, and stones). The overlying material ranges in thickness from 0 to 36.58 m. The average and median thickness of the overlying materials are 8.51 m and 5.49 m, respectively. Geologic Formation (aquifer): bedrock Aquifer material is assumed to be dioritic intrusive rocks from the early Cretaceous era (Massey et. al., 2005). Well logs did not provide detailed descriptions on the type of bedrock or degree of fracturing. Confined/Partially Confined/Unconfined: Partially Confined Confining deposits of till, clay, or silt material was reported in 26 of the 57 wells within this

TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN 149

aquifer (46%). The deposits were not observed at elevations above 180 masl. Where reported, the confining materials range in thickness from 1.22 m to 36.58 m. The average and median thickness of the confining deposits are 9.16 m and 6.55 m, respectively.

Vulnerability: A - High The depth to water is shallow. The permeability and porosity of the aquifer is low (fracture bedrock). Confining deposits were reported in 46% of the wells. However, no confining deposits were observed in wells with an top hole elevation greater than 180 masl. As well, where reported, the confining materials are relatively thin. The depth to bedrock is relatively shallow and there are windows of vulnerability. As well, this is a coastal aquifer and it is vulnerable to salt water intrusion.

Productivity: Low - 0.18 L/s (geomean) Yields were provided for 50 of the 57 wells with values ranging from 0.03 L/s to 5.68 L/s. The well yielding 5.68 L/s may be erroneous. This well is located at the base of a hill, and may have a high water potential. However, neighbouring wells at a similar depths report low yields around 0.05 L/s. The type of use for this well is unknown, but the diameter of the well is 15.24 cm, which does not necessarily indicate that the well is meant for commercial or agricultural purposes. A pump test in this location would help to verify this yield. The geometric mean yield, shown above, was used to determine the aquifer rank. The median yield is 0.13 L/s. No studies of transmissivity or specific storage were completed on this aquifer.

Depth to Water: 8.9 m (average) Depth to water was reported for 15 of the 57 wells (26%) with values ranging from 0.61 m to 28.65 m. The average and median depths to water are 8.9 m and 7.62 m, respectively. There was also one well noted to be flowing.

Direction of Groundwater Flow: There is insufficient data to determine the direction of groundwater flow at this time. It is estimated that groundwater flow is influenced by the topography and groundwater is discharging at the coast.

Recharge: Has not been determined. Most likely infiltration of precipitation.

Domestic Well Density: Low - 3.93 domestic wells/km2 The domestic well density was calculated based on the 16 reported domestic wells and 32 unknown wells with a yield of less than 1 L/s. An unknown well with a yield of less than 1 L/s is assumed to represent a domestic well as a commercial or irrigation well would require a hire yield.

Type of Water Use: Drinking Water It is assumed that most well use is for drinking water. No irrigation or commercial wells were reported and aerial photos do not show agriculture within this region. Reliance on Source: Conjunctive. There are springs and surface water licenses within the aquifer extents.

TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN 150

Conflicts between Users: None documented.

Quantity Concerns: One dry well documented.

Quality Concerns: Some comments with respect to some sulphur content in the well. The identification of high arsenic levels in wells in Powell River prompted the Coast Garibaldi Health Unit to initiate a large- scale well water survey. A total of 199 wells in Powell River and 259 wells in the Sunshine Coast area were sampled and analyzed for dissolved arsenic (Carmichael, 1995). Within this region, Arsenic levels were less than 0.025 ppm.

Comments: Well depths vary from 10.67 m to 167.64 m. The average and median depths of the wells are 64.12 m and 57.91 m, respectively.

References: Berardinucci J. and K. Ronneseth, 2002. Guide to Using the BC Aquifer Classification Maps for the Protection and Management of Groundwater. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Water, Air and Climate Change Branch, Water Protection Section.

Carmichael Vicki, April 1995. Well Water Survey for Arsenic in the Powell River and Sunshine Coast Communities of British Columbia. Environmental Health Assessment and Safety Branch, Ministry of Health.

Massey, N.W.D., D.G. Mac Intyre, P.J. Desjardins, and R.T. Cooney. 2005. Digital Geology of British Columbia: Whole Province. B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, Geofile 2005-1.

AQUIFER CLASSIFICATION AND RANKING

AQUIFER LOCATION: Sunshine Coast Hwy north of Shuttle Bay to the Malaspina Peninsula AQUIFER REFERENCE NUMBER: 957 AQUIFER SUB-TYPE: 6b AQUIFER PRIORITY RATING FOR OBSERVATION WELLS: 29.64

CLASSIFICATION: IIA RANKING: 9 Classification Component: Level of Development – low demand, low productivity Level of Vulnerability – depth to water is shallow, permeability of the aquifer is low, and there is only a small inconsistent confining layer reported.

TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN 151

Ranking Component: Ranking Value: Productivity: 1 Vulnerability: 3 Size: 2 Demand*: 1 Type Of Use: 2 Quality: Quantity: Total: 9 * Demand has been assessed subjectively. Demand is based on domestic well density, the presence of several water supply system wells, and general knowledge of well use and land use in the area. Demand assumes that the reported well capacity is the amount of water used, which can be misleading. The reported well capacity is often higher than actual use. Statistical Summary of Well Data for Aquifer #957 Total number of wells available for statistical 57

Depth to Well Depth to Reported Est. Est. Thickness Bedrock Depth Water Well Yield of Confining (m bgs) (m bgs) (m bgs) (L/s) Materials (m)

Number of 49 57 15 50 26 Wells Maximum 36.58 167.64 28.65 5.68 36.58 Minimum 0.30 10.67 0.61 0.03 1.22 Average 8.51 64.12 8.90 0.44 9.16 Median 5.49 57.91 7.62 0.13 6.55 Geometric 4.92 53.74 6.42 0.18 5.90 Mean

TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN 152

AQUIFER 961 (Source: Province of BC (2021b). Aquifer 961 Summary. Aquifer report from BC’s Aquifer Search Tool. Accessed February 2021 from: https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/aquifers/961)

AQUIFER CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET DATE: 27-Mar-12 AQUIFER REFERENCE NUMBER: 961 DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION OF AQUIFER: Coast near Altrevida Reef south of Lund, BC NTS MAP SHEET: 092F15

BCGS MAP SHEET: 092F097

CLASSIFICATION: IIB RANKING: 9 Aquifer Size: 0.12 km2 Aquifer Boundaries: The aquifer extents were delineated based on the coastline, topography, well lithology, extent of groundwater development. In the west the boundary is delineated by the ocean. Elsewhere, the boundary was approximated to represent the potential drainage area and approximate depth of the gravel deposits. This aquifer was delineated based on six well logs, five gravel wells screened in this aquifer, and a nearby bedrock well that reported 8 m of sand and gravel deposits above the bedrock. This aquifer is overlying aquifer 9921.

Aquifer Sub-type: 4b Aquifer Priority Rating for Observation Wells: 29.64

Geologic Formation (overlying materials): clay Two wells reported the gravel deposits starting at surface. Four wells reported layers of thick clay sometimes below a thin layer of fine and coarse sand. The thickness of the overlying deposits, where present, range from 28.96 m to 38.40 m. Where reported, the average and median thicknesses of the overlying deposits are 31.85 m and 30.03 m, respectively. Geologic Formation (aquifer): gravel Aquifer material is assumed to be predominantly deposits of gravel and coarse sand. Surficial geology maps of the region were unavailable at the time of mapping. Confined/Partially Confined/Unconfined: Confined Confining deposits of clay were reported for four of the five wells with thickness ranging from 21.03 to 28.96 m. The average and median thickness of confining materials, where observed, are 25.68 m and 26.37 m, respectively. Vulnerability: B - Moderate The average depth to the bottom of the confining layer is moderately shallow at 31.85 m. The permeability of the aquifer material is high. This is a confined aquifer with and average thickness of TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN 153

confining deposits to be 25.68 m. However, this is a coastal aquifer and it is vulnerable to salt water intrusion. Therefore, the vulnerability classification was raised from a low to a moderate level.

Productivity: Moderate – 2.66 L/s (geomean) Yields were provided for three of the five wells with values ranging from 1.89 L/s to 3.15 L/s. The geometric mean yield, shown above, was used to determine the aquifer rank. The median yield is 3.15 L/s. No studies of transmissivity or specific storage were completed on this aquifer.

Depth to Water: 11.13 m (average) Depth to water was reported for two of the five wells with values of 8.23 m and 14.02 m.

Recharge: Has not been determined. Most likely infiltration of precipitation.

Domestic Well Density: Low – 8.3 domestic wells/km2 The domestic well density was calculated based on one domestic well within the aquifer.

Type of Water Use: Drinking Water It is assumed that most well use is for drinking water. No irrigation, commercial, or water supply wells were reported and aerial photos do not show agriculture within this region. Reliance on Source: Conjunctive. There is an active spring and active surface water licenses within the extents of this aquifer.

Conflicts between Users: None documented.

Quantity Concerns: None documented.

Quality Concerns: None documented. The identification of high arsenic levels in wells in Powell River prompted the Coast Garibaldi Health Unit to initiate a large-scale well water survey. A total of 199 wells in Powell River and 259 wells in the Sunshine Coast area were sampled and analyzed for dissolved arsenic (Carmichael, 1995). Arsenic levels were less than 0.025 ppm in surficial deposits.

Comments: Well depths vary from 20.42 m to 39.01 m. The average and median depths of the wells are 31.27 m and 32.61 m, respectively.

TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN 154

AQUIFER CLASSIFICATION AND RANKING

AQUIFER LOCATION: Coast near Altrevida Reef south of Lund AQUIFER REFERENCE NUMBER: 961 AQUIFER SUB-TYPE: 4b AQUIFER PRIORITY RATING FOR OBSERVATION WELLS: 29.64

CLASSIFICATION: IIB RANKING: 9 Classification Component: Level of Development – moderate demand, moderate productivity Level of Vulnerability – depth to the bottom of the confining material is moderately shallow, permeability of the aquifer is high, there is a thick confining layer reported above four of the five wells. However, this aquifer is vulnerable to salt water intrusion.

Ranking Component: Ranking Value: Productivity: 2 Vulnerability: 2 Size: 1 Demand*: 2 Type Of Use: 2 Quality: Quantity: Total: 9 * Demand has been assessed subjectively. Demand is based on domestic well density, the presence of several water supply system wells, and general knowledge of well use and land use in the area. Demand assumes that the reported well capacity is the amount of water used, which can be misleading. The reported well capacity is often higher than actual use.

TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN 155

Statistical Summary of Well Data for Aquifer #961 Total number of wells available for statistical 5

Depth to Well Depth to Reported Est. Est. Thickness Bedrock Depth Water Well Yield of Confining (m bgs) (m bgs) (m bgs) (L/s) Materials (m)

Number of Wells 0 5 2 3 4 Maximum 0.00 39.01 14.02 3.15 28.96 Minimum 20.42 8.23 1.89 21.03 Average 31.27 11.13 2.73 25.68 Median 0.00 32.61 11.13 3.15 26.37 Geometric Mean 0.00 30.60 10.74 2.66 25.51

TLA’AMIN WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN 156

APPENDIX D

DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONES IN THE STUDY AREA

COASTAL DOUGLAS-FIR (CDF) BEC ZONE:

The lowest elevation coastal areas (below <150m elevation) south of Lund fall within the Coastal Douglas-fir (CDF) zone. Due to the rainshadow created by Vancouver Island mountains, the CDF is much drier than other coastal zones, with dry summers, mild, wet winters. Its Mediterranean-like climate allows a rich and unique set of flora and fauna to thrive in this zone, unlike that found anywhere else50 (CDFCP 2021). The CDF zone has a long growing season, but is also subject to drought. It is typically dominated by coastal Douglas-fir forests, with Arbutus and Shore pine on drier, rocky sites. The understory is commonly comprised of salal and Oregon grape (Meidinger & Pojar 1991). Studies have show that CDF forests historically have higher fire return intervals than other coastal forests (on average every 188 years), likely the combined result of a drier climate and human activity (Murphy et al. 2019).

Historically, First Nations played an important role in shaping and maintaining CDF ecosystems. Controlled burns, tilling, pruning and weeding were used to clear the understory and create openings in the forest canopy, to enhance growth of root vegetables, and promote new shoots to attract game. This cleared the understory of less fire-resistant species, and favoured the dominance of large, thick-barked Douglas-fir and Maple (Islands Trust 2018). Active pruning, tending, selective harvesting and transplanting of other food plants (e.g. berries, crab apples, etc.) would also have further shaped this ecosystem (Haggan 2006). Many CDF ecosystems are now threatened in part because these activities were disrupted by colonization. Replacing open stands largely comprised of relatively fire-proof veteran trees with denser stands of smaller, younger trees, in combination with the cessation of First Nations activities that kept the understory cleared, has increased the susceptibly of CDF forests to catastrophic wildfire (Islands Trust 2018).

CDF zone is the smallest BEC zone in BC. Because this highly restricted zone is home to 75% of BC’s population and has undergone extensive development, is it is also home to the highest number of species and ecosystems at risk51 in BC, many of which are globally imperilled. 80% of land in the CDF is privately owned, less than 1% of old growth forests remain, and only 11% is protected (CDFCP 2018). The core distribution of most CDF ecosystems is within BC, underscoring both the global uniqueness of these ecosystems, and BC’s responsibility for their conservation (CDFCP 2018).

COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK (CWH) BEC ZONE

The CWH zone is the wettest biogeoclimatic zone in BC. It spans low to mid elevations along much of the BC Coast, ranging from sea level up to around 800 to 900m (asl). In the CWH summers are cool and winters are mild (Meidinger & Pojar 1991). Within the study area there are three CWH subzones, which vary in dryness, the driest being the CWHxm, and the wettest being the CHWvm. CWH ecosystems typically consist of western hemlock mixed with Douglas-fir, cedars and amabilis fir. In the drier subzone (CWHxm), Douglas-fir, salal and

50 With the exception some ecosystems which also occur in the San Juan Islands and/or parts of the Washington State’s Puget Basin; however, largely intact examples of CDF ecosystems are almost exclusively found within BC. 51 Including: 224 Red & Blue listed species and 35 Red listed ecological communities, of which 23 of which are Globally Imperiled.

TLA’AMIN 157 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Oregon grape dominate, with arbutus and shore pine sometimes occurring on dry rocky sites. Due to its dryness and restricted range in the province, the CWHxm - like the CDF zone - contains many rare ecosystems and species at risk (CDFCP 2018). As sites become wetter with elevation and aspect (CWHdm and vm), western hemlock becomes more dominant, and more western red cedar and yellow cedar increasingly appear, as do deer ferns and sword ferns (Meidinger & Pojar 1991).

MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK (MH) BEC ZONE

Above the CWH is the Mountain Hemlock zone (MH), which spans elevations between ~900m and 1300m asl. This subalpine zone is typified by short cool summers, and long cool, wet winters, with heavy snow cover for many months (Meidinger & Pojar 1991). Wet cold conditions tend to inhibit burning. Deep, poorly drained organic soils are often present (due to slow decomposition), as are bogs, fens, wetlands and tarns (lakes). Forests in this zone have two modes, 1) parkland, restricted to ‘tree islands’ where snowmelt is earliest and dominated by mountain hemlock on drier sites, and 2) yellow cedar and amabilis fir on wetter sites (Klinka & Chourmouzis 2001). As elevation increases, tree growth thins out with elevation (Meidinger & Pojar 1991) and meadows of blueberries, crowberries and mountain heather become more dominant. Modern fire history has shown that fires are rare in MH forests (most often occurring as small spot fires), with mean fire return intervals of 600 to 1500+ years (Hallett et al. 2003, citing others); however recent studies have shown found shorter intervals in drier, more southern MH locations (Hallett et al. 2003).

Because of the short growing season, poor soils, and low fire frequency in the MH zone, trees grow very slowly and are often very ancient for their size. MH forests in the lower Sunshine Coast’s Caren Range are the oldest forests known in Canada52, and 1200 year old yellow cedar and 800 year old Mountain Hemlock have been found in a recent cutblock on Mount Freda. The Mountain Hemlock zone is important from a watershed perspective. Its forest canopy captures and retains snow, which helps prevent spring flooding. Its deep organic soils and abundant tarns, lakes and wetlands filter and store rain and meltwater. The slow release of this stored water from the MH zone plays a critical role in augmenting low stream flows during dry summer months, helping maintain a continuous supply of water to the watershed’s lower reaches (Klinka & Chourmouzis 2001).

COAST MOUNTAIN HEATHER ALPINE (CMA) BEC ZONE

Above ~1300m asl is the Coast Mountain Heather Alpine Zone (CMA). This zone occurs along the windward spine of the Coast Mountains. Summers are cool, and winters are mild compared to other alpine zones in the province (due to maritime influence). The area sees a large amount of precipitation, much of which is snow, and the snowpack is deep. Within the study area, most of the CMA zone is occupied by exposed bedrock. In areas with sufficient soil for vegetation, alpine meadows dominate, comprised of white and pink mountain heathers and low growing evergreen dwarf shrubs. At tree line, patches of stunted mountain hemlock, yellow-cedar, and subalpine fir occur (McKenzie 2006).

52 1200+ yo Hemlock and 1800+ yo Yellow Cedar have been found in the Caren Forest, world age records for these species. Some MH ecosystems have likely remained undisturbed for up 10,000 years (Jones 2003). See Caren Range Ancient Forest for details

TLA’AMIN 158 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

REFERENCES

CDFCP (2018). Coastal Douglas-fir Partnership. https://www.cdfcp.ca

Hallett, D. J., Lepofsky, D. S., Mathewes, R. W., & Lertzman, K. P. (2003). 11 000 years of fire history and climate in the mountain hemlock rain forests of southwestern British Columbia based on sedimentary charcoal. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33(2), 292-312. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x02-177

Islands Trust (2018). Protecting the Coastal Douglas-fir Zone & Associated Ecosystems: An Islands Trust Toolkit. http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/media/346674/cdf-toolkit-final-web.pdf

Klinka, K., & Chourmouzis, C. (2001). The mountain hemlock zone of British Columbia (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/facultyresearchandpublications/52383/items/1.0107293

McKenzie (2006). The ecology of the alpine zones. Ministry of Forests Range and Research Branch. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Bro/Bro83.pdf

Meidinger, D., & Pojar, J. (1991). Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series-Ministry of Forests, British Columbia, (6). https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/srs/srs06.htm

Murphy, S. F., Pellatt, M. G., & Kohfeld, K. E. (2019). A 5,000-year fire history in the Strait of Georgia Lowlands, British Columbia, Canada. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 90. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00090/full

TLA’AMIN 159 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX E

STEPS FOR DESIGNING A WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

The Guidelines for Designing and Implementing a Water Quality Monitoring Program in British Columbia (Cavanagh et al. 1998) lays out the minimum requirements for developing a water quality monitoring program that meets the above requirements, including quality assurance and quality control. It outlines seven recommended steps for monitoring program design, which are summarized below (starred items indicate steps that have already been partially or fully completed):

1. Define program objectives (e.g. inventory, trend monitoring, impact assessment or compliance), a. Formulate general objective for the program (see Box 1). b. Compile existing/historical data, including information about watershed characteristics* c. Refine general objective into a specific objective (see Box 2) d. Formulate a standard statistical hypothesis 2. Address immediate considerations a. statistical requirements (hire a statistician early in the program) b. budget constraints53 (for labour, analysis and QA/QC - this will dictate the scale, focus and design of the program) c. potential partners to collaborate with (to reduce costs and share data). d. personnel requirements. 3. Conduct preliminary/reconnaissance field inspection a. Establish possible linkages between upslope or riparian activities and instream water quality* b. Develop a greater understanding of the watershed processes*. c. Collect field data to provide preliminary information about expected background water quality levels possible spatial variability* d. Review all information about proposed land activities. 4. Identify variables/parameters of concern* Note: The most important site-specific variables to consider are those that are predicted to be altered, or are already elevated in the environment (see Table 4 for a list of recommended indicators by activity type for each watershed in the study area). a. For inventories/surveys: general suite of indicators for all components of the aquatic systems b. For compliance & trend monitoring: variables defined by specific program requirements c. For impact assessment: variables that link current and proposed lands uses to water quality d. When the budget allows, variables sampled during the pilot study phase of impact assessment programs and for survey/inventory programs should ideally include: i. all water column field measurements [temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, pH, and Secchi depth (for lakes)],

53 A general rule-of-thumb regarding the budget for monitoring programs is that the proportion of labour costs (sample collection) to analyses costs (lab work) is I: I. Additionally, the QA/AC costs typically range from 10 - 35% of the overall cost.

TLA’AMIN 160 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

ii. water column nutrients (phosphorus, nitrogen) to assess the trophic state of the water body, iii. water column and sediments metals package (to assess the inputs from natural geological sources) (note: the ICP metals package for use of low-level metals analysis in the water column is generally not adequate. ICP-MS metals package is a better option), iv. water column turbidity and suspended sediments in rivers or streams (to assess natural inputs of suspended materials due to stream bank erosion or upslope instability), v. stream bottom sediment particle-size distribution (to provide background information when proposed activities might alter this characteristic) vi. miscellaneous organics in sediments and biota (sediments and biota are the most likely receptors of anthropogenic chemicals such as PCP's or pesticides), and vii. biological indicators such as benthic invertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, periphyton, fish (community characteristics). 5. Locate sample sites a. Macro-location* (see Maps 14 & 27 for some recommended sampling sites in the study area) – generally sites are located at: i. the mouths of main tributaries (integration of all upstream diffuse inputs) ii. upstream and downstream from industrial projects, resource extraction activities, waste outfalls, and urban centres, iii. near-shore lake locations that are adjacent to industrial projects, resources extractive activities, waste outfalls and urban centres, iv. deepest point in lake, v. at points of major water withdrawals, and vi. if possible, in the stream headwaters, to obtain true background (control) levels b. Micro-location (actual sampling site- depends on specific sampling protocols for the variables being measured) 6. Develop sample frequency regime a. Determined by statistical objective of the program b. Focus on critical periods (e.g. low flows for dissolved oxygen, high flows for turbidity) c. Must be designed to address natural variability of water quality (e.g. seasonal, flow related or diurnal variability) d. Manual or automated sampling (depends on costs and required sampling frequency) 7. Conduct pilot study a. Required for impact assessment monitoring b. Full sample run and analysis of data c. Identify and quantify variability (both natural and that caused by sample collection techniques or analytical processes). d. Rigorous QA and QC required e. Determine if project is feasible as planned – make necessary changes.

TLA’AMIN 161 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Box 1. Examples of General Objectives Development (source: Cavanagh et al. 1998).

The first, and most crucial step in developing an experimental design is to identify and define the study objectives clearly. Each objective is derived from a particular question that needs to be answered. If the question is not clearly identified a the monitoring program will lack clear direction and the data will not lead to information from which conclusions can be effectively drawn. Examples of general program objectives include:

• Impact assessment - assess the effects of a land use activity/project (i.e., logging, road building, mills, agriculture, mining, recreation, urban developments, etc.) on water quality of stream X or lake X, • Compliance - monitor compliance with or attainment of ambient water quality objectives in watershed X, • Trend - determine trends in lake X water quality over a designated period of time and space, • Survey - establish a baseline set of water quality data for a water body, watershed, or region X (may dictate the need for other forms of monitoring).

Box 2. Examples of Specific Objectives Development (source: Cavanagh et al. 1998).

The specific objectives should be posed in the form of a question. This step should attempt to isolate the activity which is likely to affect a specific water use (for impact assessment monitoring programs) and reiterate the nature of the monitoring classification. It implicitly starts to define the other design factors such as variables, frequency, location, data analysis techniques, and the duration of the monitoring project.

• Impact assessment - Does agricultural activity upstream from an urban development increase bacterial and nutrient contamination at drinking water withdrawal sites? (monitor bacteria levels and nutrient concentrations at domestic water withdrawal sites during periods of high surface runoff); • Impact assessment - Do forestry activities in the watershed adversely alter stream conditions such that aquatic life is impaired? (monitor stream temperature, dissolved oxygen and biological indices at prime habitat sites during low flow periods and turbidity and suspended sediments during high flow periods); • Compliance - Have conditions changed within the watershed such that variable ranges no longer comply with ambient water quality objectives? (monitor variables outlined in objectives reports at pre-determined sites at critical times and sites stated in the specific report); • Compliance - Have management efforts within the watershed resulted in improved water quality conditions such that water quality objectives are now consistently attained? (monitor variables outlined in objectives reports at pre-determined sites at critical times stated in the specific report).

TLA’AMIN 162 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX F

DESCRIPTIONS OF SELECTED SPECIES AT RISK IN THE STUDY AREA

Marbled Murrelet - Federally Threatened, Provincially Blue-listed

The Marbled Murrelet is a long-lived, slow reproducing species, which is reliant on old growth forest for nesting. Murrelets typically nest in mossy platforms on limbs of old-growth trees (Bradley and Cooke 2001). Logging of nesting habitat in old forest is identified as the greatest threat to the Marbled Murrelet; forests which have been clearcut logged will require 140-200 years to regain the necessary characteristics needed by Murrelets (large trees, gappy canopy and large, mossy limbs; BCCDC 2010). The remaining old growth forests in the upper elevations of the Bunster Range (in all four watersheds) serve as critical nesting habitat for Marbled Murrelets, given their close proximity (~7km) to the Desolation Sound area. Desolation Sound is designated as a Globally Significant Important Bird Area54 (IBA) by Birdlife International, because it is an important foraging area for approximately 10% of the remaining Canadian Marbled Murrelet population during summer months.

In the Bunster Range, Murrelets nest in the largest-diameter trees available in a stand, with many potential nesting platforms. To reduce the likelihood of nest predation, they prefer not reusing the same nest site year to year, but will do so if there is a shortage of suitable nesting trees. Yellow cedar is the predominant tree used for Murrelet nests in the Bunster Range, as they have more platforms and epiphytes (moss etc.) than other high elevation tree species in this area (Manley et al. 1999). Many of the known nest locations in the Bunster Range (found between 1995 and 2001 during tree and radio telemetry surveys; Map 7) are now protected within Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) designated as ‘no harvest’ zones to protect core habitat for Marbled Murrelets (established in 2002; Map 10). The federal government has also mapped Critical Habitat5556 for Marbled Murrelets (finalized) within the Sliammon watershed (Map 8). However, from forest cover mapping it appears that some Murrelet nest sites outside the WHAs (Map 10) have since been logged or are now on the edge of cutblocks.

An additional 16 Marbled Murrelet nests were found in the Theodosia watershed during radio telemetry studies between 1995 and 2001, including one of the first documented cliff nests in BC57. Most of these nest sites are in remnant patches old growth high up in the upper Theodosia River valley (Map 21). There are no WHAs for these nests, although about half fall within Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs; Map 24). The only nest site in the lower valley bottom (~2km west of the dam) appears to have been logged. As is the case for the Bunster Range, old forests remaining in the upper Theodosia watershed serve as important nesting habitat for Marbled Murrelets because of their relative proximity to Desolation Sound.

54 See the Desolation Sound IBA factsheet (Birds Canada 2021). 55 The Species At Risk Act (SARA) describes Critical Habitat (CH) as the habitat that is: a) necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species, and b) identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. 56 Note that not all of the area within these boundaries is necessarily Critical Habitat. To precisely define what constitutes Critical Habitat for a particular species it is essential that this geospatial information be considered together with the biophysical attributes (as outlined in the species’ recovery strategy) that complete the definition of a species’ Critical Habitat. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/critical-habitat-for-federally-listed-species-at-risk-posted- 57 See Cliff and Deciduous Tree Nests of Marbled Murrelets in Southwestern BC (Bradley & Cooke 2001).

TLA’AMIN 163 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Western Painted Turtles (Pacific Coast Population) – Federally Threatened, Provincially Red-listed

The Pacific Coast Painted Turtle population58 occurs in the Lower Fraser Valley, the Sunshine Coast north to Powell River, Texada Island, and parts of Vancouver Island (COSEWIC 2016). This population faces a very high degree of threat due to wetland habitat loss/alteration caused by humans and road mortality (COSEWIC 2016). Nesting habitat (flat open areas with southern aspect and exposed soils, including beaches, gravel pits and gravel road shoulders, etc.) is particularly at risk of being damaged or destroyed by people (Environment Canada 2018). Introduced species, such as Red-eared Sliders59 (introduced pet turtles native to Mexico), which compete with Painted Turtles for resources, and American Bullfrogs (introduced from eastern States and Provinces), which eat turtle hatchlings, are also threats (BCCDC 2018). In the Sliammon Watershed, there is a single Painted Turtle record in Dog Leg Pond (between Little Sliammon and Sliammon Lakes; Map 7) from 2011, and the population in the pond is estimated to be one individual (Environment Canada 2018).

The nearest other population of Painted Turtles is in Cranberry Lake, approximately 7km distant, where a small and threatened population (estimated at 5 turtles) is believed to remain (Red-eared Sliders and Bullfrogs are present in Cranberry Lake, and shoreline nesting and basking habitat has been impacted by disturbance and clearing of natural riparian areas by surrounding land owners). Painted Turtles are known to travel up to 3km overland between sites. Hence it is conceivable for the Cranberry and Dogleg populations to be connected via Powell Lake. Map 8 shows areas that the federal government has mapped as Critical Habitat62,60 for the Western Painted Turtles (proposed)61. These areas include movement corridors between and around Dogleg Lake, Sliammon Lake and Cranberry Lake.

Whitebark Pine - Federally Endangered, Provincially Blue-listed

The presence of Whitebark pine in the high elevation reaches of the Sliammon watershed (within and close to the Mountain Hemlock Zone, with which it is typically associated) is of particular interest for two reasons. Firstly, it is unusual for this species to occur on the western slopes of the Coast Mountains (as is the case for the Clark’s Nutcracker, which Whitebark Pine relies upon for seed dispersal and recruitment; there have been recent sightings of these birds in the western Coast Mountains, presumably as a result of these birds being driven west by forest fires in the Interior; Merrilee Prior pers. comm.), and its presence in the Bunster Ranges warrants further investigation and confirmation. In areas where this tree is widespread, Whitebark pine seeds are also an important food source for grizzly bears (USDA 2008).

Secondly, Whitebark Pine is a 'keystone' species of high-elevation ecosystems (BCCDC 2013 citing others). Whitebark pine strongly influences patterns of snow accumulation and snowmelt and watershed hydrology, thereby affecting slope stability and the timing, levels, and quality of stream flow. It also moderates microenvironments and facilitates the recruitment and growth of other plants (BCCDC 2013). Due to widespread pine blister rust, in the period up to 2009, 81% of mature Whitebark pine trees died on the eastern

58 See the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy for the Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys pict bellii) Pacific Coast Population in Canada 2018 (Proposed) (Environment Canada 2018). 59 The Western Painted Turtle Identification Guide shows how to distinguish Red-eared Sliders from Painted Turtles. 60 The Species At Risk Act (SARA) describes Critical Habitat (CH) as the habitat that is: a) necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species, and b) identified as the species’ Critical Habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. 61 “Proposed” Critical Habitat depicted in proposed recovery documents has not been formally identified and is subject to change before it is posted as final. Despite the use of the term “final”, it is important to note that recovery documents (and therefore Critical Habitat) may be amended from time to time.

TLA’AMIN 164 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

slopes of the Coast Mountains. There are concerns that its continued decline may alter watershed hydrology in these areas, and have cascading impacts on ecosystem function and biological diversity (BCCDC 2013).

The Whitebark pine stands in the Sliammon watershed represent one of only three noted occurrences of this species on the south coast (see Figure AF-1), with the second on West Redonda Island, and the third above Howe Sound (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017). At present these stands in the Sliammon watershed are unprotected, as they occur just outside existing Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) and Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) (Map 10). Map 8 shows areas within the Sliammon watershed that the federal government has mapped as Critical Habitat6263 for Whitebark Pine (proposed)64. See Moody & Pigott (2017) for Whitebark Pine best management practices for forestry and resource sector professionals.

Figure AF-1. Southwestern BC range of critical habitat for Whitebark Pine (source: Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017).

62 The Species At Risk Act (SARA) describes Critical Habitat (CH) as the habitat that is: a) necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species, and b) identified as the species’ Critical Habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. 63 Note that not all of the area within these boundaries is necessarily critical habitat. To precisely define what constitutes critical habitat for a particular species it is essential that this geospatial information be considered together with the biophysical attributes (as outlined in the species’ recovery strategy) that complete the definition of a species’ critical habitat. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/critical-habitat-for-federally-listed-species-at-risk-posted- 64 “Proposed” critical habitat depicted in proposed recovery documents has not been formally identified and is subject to change before it is posted as final. Despite the use of the term “final”, it is important to note that recovery documents (and therefore critical habitat) may be amended from time to time.

TLA’AMIN 165 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Common Wood-nymph, incana subspecies - Provincially Red-listed

This butterfly species is mostly restricted to eastern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, with scattered records on the Sunshine Coast and lower mainland (BCCDC 2012). It is more typically associated with the dry, open Garry oak ecosystems of southern and eastern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands65. The record in Table 11 is compromised of 13 Common Wood-nymphs, observed during a 2014 day survey along a 9.5 km stretch of forest service roads through second-growth forests and clearcuts in the CWHxm subzone (warm and dry) of the Sliammon Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets watersheds (Map 7).

Grizzly Bear – Provincially Blue-listed

Grizzly bears historically occurred throughout B.C., but have been extirpated from much of the southwest. They require large tracts of land, avoid people and are highly vulnerable to disturbance from human activity (logging, recreation, roads, etc.). Their high elevation hibernation dens are also vulnerable to logging and other human activities (Zevit 2010a). Coastal Grizzly populations are heavily reliant on spawning salmon, and are impacted by declining salmon stocks.

The lower parts of the watersheds for Sliammon Creek, Okeover Creek and Okeover-Theodosia Inlets were once part of the range of a coastal grizzly bear population, which is now extirpated. The northern flank of the Bunster Range is part of the threatened WMU 2-12 Grizzly population unit. The top of the Bunster Range contains high suitability grizzly habitat (Figure AF-2; MFLNRO 2019), due to its sizeable remnants of old growth forest.

The Theodosia watershed is part of the WMU 2-12 grizzly population unit, which is viewed as threatened (approximately 8.5 bears are thought to live here; populations of less than 10 bears are considered threatened; MFLNRO 2019). Because of forestry related activity (including road construction), little highly suitable grizzly habitat remains in the watershed, except a small portion extending into the old growth forest on top of the Bunster Range (Figure AF-2; MFLNRO 2019).

Mountain Goat – Provincially Blue-listed

Mountain goat populations appear to be declining on the coast; they are now provincially Blue-listed meaning they are considered vulnerable to declines (Government of BC 2021). Mountain goats rely on old growth forests near cliffs and rock faces for food and shelter during winter months. On the South Coast they are particularly reliant on lower elevation forest during winter months, where there is less snowpack (Mountain Goat Management Team 2010). A number of Wildlife Habitat Areas (conditional harvest zones) have been established in the upper reaches of the Theodosia Watershed (Map 24), where there is some remnant mature and old growth forest, to protect Mountain Goat winter range in this area. Winter ranges are typically occupied while the female goats are pregnant or nursing young.

65 See the Garry Oak Ecosystems Species at Risk Field Manual: Common Wood-nymph (Gary Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team (2003).

TLA’AMIN 166 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Figure AF-2. Remaining suitable grizzly bear habitat in the Powell River region. Dark purple are the highest suitability areas, pale tan and yellow are the lowest (adapted from: MFLNRO 2019).

Roosevelt Elk – Provincially Blue-listed

By the 1880s, Roosevelt elk were largely extirpated from the region due to European settlement and market hunting (MFLNRO 2015, citing others). In the 1990s, numbers of Roosevelt elk were translocated from Vancouver Island to the Powell River area. The elk population that occupies MFLNRO’s Bunster Landscape Unit (which incorporates the Theodosia watershed together with the Okeover Creek, Okeover-Theodosia Inlets and Sliammon Creek watersheds) has low to moderate density and is now considered to be ‘recovering’ (MFLNRO 2015). Because the coastal range of Roosevelt elk has been reduced and fragmented, it remains a Blue-listed species (vulnerable to declines) by the Conservation Data Centre (BCCDC 2017).

On the coast, elk forage in open forest and along forest edges, wetland and riparian areas, and recently burned forest stands or clearcuts (Spencer 2017). During the critical winter period they typically use low elevation river valleys and valley bottoms. However, when the snowpack becomes moderate to deep, they shift to densely canopied mature and old forest, and south aspect slopes where there is less snow cover (Spencer 2017). Mature/old forest edges and riparian areas around rivers, lakes and wetlands are highly suitable elk habitat (MFLNRO 2015). The Theodosia valley bottom has a considerable amount of riparian vegetation and numerous small wetlands (Map 23). Although there is almost no old growth remaining in the valley bottom, there are stands of mature second growth timber.

TLA’AMIN 167 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Wolverine & Fisher – Provincially Blue-listed

Two other Blue listed species potentially found in the Theodosia watershed (and possibly the top of the Bunster Range, given the amount of old growth remaining in that area) are the wolverine and the fisher (a large and elusive member of the weasel family which primarily preys on snowshoe hare and porcupine), though both are rarely found on the coast (there have been anecdotal accounts of wolverines in the region). Both species avoid people and are vulnerable to human disturbance and forestry related activity, particularly the fisher, which requires cavities in large, primarily deciduous trees for maternity dens (Badryr 2004, Zevit 2010b, Zevit 2017). Wolverines typically den in the base of large tree hollows or in clusters of boulders.

REFERENCES:

Badyr, M. (2004). Fisher Martes pennant. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/documents/Mammals/m_fisher.pdf

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2005. Species Summary: Ursus arctos. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Feb 1, 2021).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2010. Conservation Status Report: Brachyramphus marmoratus. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jan 30, 2021).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2012. Conservation Status Report: Cercyonis pegala incana. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jan 30, 2021).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2013. Conservation Status Report: Pinus albicaulis. B.C. Minist. Of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jan 30, 2021).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2017. Conservation Status Report: Cervus canadensis roosevelti. B.C. Minist. Of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jan 30, 2021).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2018. Conservation Status Report: Chrysemys picta pop. 1. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jan 30, 2021).

Bradley, R. W., & Cooke, F. (2001). Cliff and Deciduous Tree Nests of Marbled Murrelets in Southwestern British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist, 52-57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3536786?seq=1

Burger, A. E., Manley, I. A., Silvergieter, M. P., Lank, D. B., Jordan, K. M., Bloxton, T. D., & Raphael, M. G. (2009). Re- use of nest sites by Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist, 90(3), 217-226.

COSEWIC (2016). COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta bellii (Pacific Coast population, Intermountain Rocky Mountain population and Prairie/Western Boreal Canadian Shield population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 40 pp

Environment Canada (2014). Recovery Strategy for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. v + 49 pp. https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species- risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_guillemot_marbre_marbled_murrelet_0614_e.pdf

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2017). Recovery Strategy for the Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. viii + 54 pp.

TLA’AMIN 168 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/recovery- strategies/whitebark-pine-2017.html

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018). Recovery Strategy for the Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii) Pacific Coast population in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. 2 parts, 31 pp. + 59 pp. https://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=F0690975-1&offset=1&toc=show

Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team (2003). Species at Risk in Garry Oak and Associated Ecosystems in British Columbia: Common Wood-nymph. Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, Victoria, British Columbia. https://goert.ca/documents/SAR_manual/Cercyonis_pegala_incana.pdf

Manley, I.A., and S.K. Nelson. 1999. Habitat characteristics associated with nest success and predation at marbled murrelet tree nests. Pacific Seabirds 26:40. (Abstract).

Moody, R., and Pigott, D. (2017). Best Management Practices for Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis). http://sernbc.ca/uploads/136/Whitebark_Pine_BMP_Mar31.pdf.

Mountain Goat Management Team (2010). Management Plan for the Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 87 pp. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/recovery/management_plans/MtGoat_MP_Final_28May2010.pdf

MFLNRO (2019). Grizzly Bear Web Viewer (DRAFT) - South Coast Stewardship Baseline Objectives Tool (SBOT). https://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=fcb892d28fde45799e38c0ae88c1ce1d

Manley, I., Waterhouse, L. and A. Harestad (1999). Nesting Habitat of Marbled Murrelets on the Sunshine Coast. Forest Research Extension Note EN-002. Vancouver Forest Region. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/research/wildlifereports/en002.pdf

MFLNRO (2015). A Management Plan for Roosevelt Elk in British Columbia http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/roosevelt_elk_management_plan.pdf

Province of BC (2021). Coastal Mountain Goat Ungulate Winter Ranges. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at- risk/implementation/conservation-projects-partnerships/coastal-mountain-goat-ungulate-winter-ranges

Spencer, S. (2017). Sunshine Coast Community Forest Roosevelt Elk Habitat Assessment. Report prepared for the Sunshine Coast Community Forest. http://www.sccf.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/PA-Elk-Habitat-Assessment-2017- NXPowerLite-Copy.pdf

USDA (2008). Land Managers guide to Whitebark Pine restoration in the Pacific Northwest region 2009–2013. https://ecoshare.info/uploads/whitebarkpine/WPB_LandMgrsGde_PNW_hi-res_093008cl.pdf

Zevit, P. (2010a). BC’s Coast Region: Species & Ecosystems of Conservation Concern Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos). Prepared by: Pamela Zevit of Adamah Consultants for the South Coast Conservation Program (SCCP). https://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/factsheets/pdf/Gulo_gulo.pdf

Zevit, P. (2010b). BC’s Coast Region: Species & Ecosystems of Conservation Concern Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus). Prepared by: Pamela Zevit of Adamah Consultants for the South Coast Conservation Program (SCCP). https://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/factsheets/pdf/Ursus_arctos.pdf

TLA’AMIN 169 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Zevit, P. (2017). BC’s Coast Region: Species & Ecosystems of Conservation Concern Fisher (Pekania pennant). Prepared by: Pamela Zevit of Adamah Consultants for the South Coast Conservation Program (SCCP). https://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/factsheets/pdf/Gulo_gulo.pdf

TLA’AMIN 170 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX G

SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SUNSHINE COAST AND ADJACENT ISLANDS

The Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) was developed by the province as a conservation tool for planning and sustainable development (Government of BC 2004). Sensitive ecosystems are ecologically sensitive and/or rare on the landscape. These ecosystems also have high biodiversity and contain important habitats for many threatened and endangered plant and animal species (i.e. ‘at risk’ species). In developed landscapes, patches of remaining sensitive ecosystems are critical to the survival of many at risk species. They are also vital components of healthy and attractive communities for people. Sensitive ecosystems on the Sunshine Coast include:

OLD FOREST (OF) Because the SEI is outdated and limited in its extent, in this study the old growth polygons (age class 9) from the BC Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) were substituted for the SEI old forest polygons (which were based on structural stage 7, >250 years). Old forests are generally conifer-dominated dry to moist forest types, ~>250yrs. Subclasses: co (conifer dominated) – greater than 75% coniferous species

WOODLAND (WD)

Dry open forests, generally between 10 and 30% tree cover, can be conifer dominated or mixed conifer and arbutus stands; because of open canopy, will include non-forested openings, often with shallow soils and bedrock outcroppings. Subclasses: co (conifer dominated) – greater than 75% coniferous species mx (mixed conifer and deciduous) – a minimum of 25% cover of either group is included in the total tree cover

HERBACEOUS (HB) Non-forested ecosystems (less than 10% tree cover), generally with shallow soils and often with bedrock outcroppings; includes large openings within forested areas, coastal headlands, shorelines vegetated with grasses and herbs, sometimes low shrubs, and moss and lichen communities on rock outcrops. Subclasses: hb (herbaceous) – central concept of the category, non-forested, less than 10% tree cover, generally shallow soils, often with exposed bedrock; predominantly a mix of grasses and forbs, also lichens and mosses cs (coastal herbaceous) - as hb but influenced by proximity to ocean, windswept shoreline and slopes; > 20% vegetation, grasses and herbs, some rock outcrops, moss and lichen communities vs (vegetated shoreline) - low-lying rocky shoreline, soil pockets in rock cracks and crevices; salt-tolerant vegetation, generally with < 20% vegetation cover sp (spit) - finger-like extension of beach, comprised of sand or gravel deposited by longshore drifting; low to moderate cover of salt-tolerant grasses and herbs du (dunes) - ridge or hill, or beach area created by windblown sand; may be more or less vegetated depending on depositional activity, beach dunes will have low cover of salt-tolerant grasses and herbs sh (shrub component) - > 20 % of total vegetation cover is shrub cover, with grasses and herbs

TLA’AMIN 171 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

RIPARIAN (RI) Areas adjacent to water bodies (rivers, lakes, ocean, wetlands) which are influenced by factors such as erosion, sedimentation, flooding and/or subterranean irrigation due to proximity to the water body. Structural stages 1 – 7. Subclasses: fl (low bench floodplain) - flooded at least every other year for moderate periods of growing season; plant species adapted to extended flooding and abrasion, low or tall shrubs most common fm (medium bench floodplain) - flooded every 1-6 years for short periods (10-25 days); deciduous or mixed forest dominated by species tolerant of flooding and periodic sedimentation, trees occur on elevated microsites fh (high bench floodplain) - only periodically and briefly inundated by high waters, but lengthy subsurface flow in the rooting zone; typically conifer-dominated floodplains of larger coastal rivers ff (fringe) - narrow linear communities along open water bodies (rivers, lakes and ponds) where there is no floodplain, irregular flooding gu (gully riparian) - watercourse is within a steep sided V-shaped gully ri (river) – watercourse is large enough to represent >10% of the polygon

WETLAND (WN) Areas that are saturated or inundated with water for long enough periods of time to develop vegetation and biological activity adapted to wet environments. This may result from flooding, fluctuating water tables, tidal influences or poor drainage conditions. Subclasses: bg (bog) – nutrient poor wetland, on organic soils (sphagnum peat), water source predominantly from precipitation; may be treed or shrub dominated fn (fen) – nutrient medium wetland (sedge peat) where ground water inflow is the dominant water source, open water channels common; dominated by sedges, grasses and mosses ms (marsh) – wetland with fluctuating water table, often with shallow surface water, usually organically enriched mineral soils; dominated by rushes, reeds, grasses and sedges sp (swamp) – poor to very rich wetland on mineral soils or with an organic layer over mineral soil, with gently flowing or seasonally flooding water table; woody vegetation sw (shallow water) – standing or flowing water less than 2 m. deep, transition between deep water bodies and other wetland ecosystems (i.e. bogs, swamps, fens, etc.); often with vegetation rooted below the water surface wm (wet meadow) – periodically saturated but not inundated with water, organically enriched mineral soils; grasses, sedges, rushes and forbs dominate

CLIFFS (CL) Very steep slope, often exposed bedrock, may include steep sided sand bluffs; habitat for rare species. Subclasses: cc (coastal cliffs) ic (inland cliffs)

TLA’AMIN 172 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Other important ecosystems on the Sunshine Coast that have high biodiversity values include:

MATURE FOREST (MF) Because the SEI is outdated and limited in its extent, polygons (age classes 7 & 8) from the BC Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) were substituted for the SEI mature forest polygons (which were based on structural stage 6, >80 years). For this study, mature forests are generally conifer-dominated dry to moist forest types, between ~120 and 250 years of age.

REFERENCE:

Government of BC (2004). Report: Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory of the Sunshine Coast and Adjacent Islands. SEI Map Legend. https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=3758

TLA’AMIN 173 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX H

DAM INFORMATION

Publically accessible BC Data Catalogue information about Theodosia and Powell River dams.

Object Name: WHSE_WATER_MANAGEMENT.WRIS_DAMS_PUBLIC_SVW https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bc-dams

DAM_NAME THEODOSIA DAM POWELL RIVER DAM DFILENUM D420126-00 D420007-00 ALT_DAM_NM POWELL RIVER ENERGY POWELL RIVER ENERGY DAM_OWNER INC INC REGION LOWER MAINLAND LOWER MAINLAND DSTR_PRCNT VAN - JERVIS VAN - JERVIS DAM_TYPE Earthfill Concrete–gravity SPLLWY_TYP DAM_FNCTN MAIN MAIN CMMSSND_YR 1956 1911 DAM_HT 5 18 CREST_ELEV 192.3 87.2 CREST_LEN 220 238 FAIL_CONSQ Low Very High RISK_LEVEL 5 3 POINTS_CD PD44836 PD44836 DAM_REG_CD Regulated Regulated DAM_OP_CD Active Active DSO Grass, Jeff FLNR:EX Grass, Jeff FLNR:EX FEAT_LEN 137.9596 243.6668 OBJECTID 194702731 194701843

TLA’AMIN 174 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

DAM CODE DESCRIPTIONS

Column Name Short Name Comments

DAM_NAME DAM_NAME DAM NAME is the name given to a dam, e.g., WILSEY MAIN DAM.

DAM_FILE_NO DFILENUM DAM FILE NUMBER is also known as the D-file number. It is the unique reference number by which dams are identified, e.g., D240006-01.

ALTERNATE_DAM_NAME ALT_DAM_NM ALTERNATE DAM NAME is an alternative name for the dam where one exists, e.g., SHUSWAP FALLS DAM.

DAM_OWNER DAM_OWNER DAM OWNER is a person, including a company, organization, government unit, public utility, corporation or other entity, which either holds a water licence to operate a dam or retains the legal property title on the dam site, e.g., BC HYDRO & POWER AUTHORITY.

REGION_NAME REGION REGION NAME is the region in which the dam is located, e.g., OKANAGAN.

DISTRICT_PRECINCT_NAME DSTR_PRCNT DISTRICT PRECINCT NAME is the the short name of the water district and the precinct in which the dam is located, e.g., VER - LUMBY.

DAM_TYPE DAM_TYPE DAM TYPE is the type of dam construction, e.g., Concrete Arch.

SPILLWAY_TYPE SPLLWY_TYP SPILLWAY TYPE is the type of spillway at the dam, i.e., CL (Culvert), CO (Concrete Overflow), GT (Gated), NO (Native Channel Overflow), OT (Other), TO (Timber Overflow).

DAM_FUNCTION DAM_FNCTN DAM FUNCTION is the role of the dam when there are multiple dams on a reservoir, e.g., MAIN, SADDLE.

COMMISSIONED_YEAR CMMSSND_YR COMMISSIONED YEAR is the year the dam was commissioned.

DAM_HEIGHT_IN_METRES DAM_HT DAM HEIGHT IN METRES is height of the dam, in metres.

CREST_ELEVATION_IN_METRES CREST_ELEV CREST ELEVATION IN METRES is the dam crest elevation above mean sea level, in metres.

CREST_LENGTH_IN_METRES CREST_LEN CREST LENGTH IN METRES is the longitudinal length of the dam crest along the centre line of the dam from the left abutment to the right

TLA’AMIN 175 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Column Name Short Name Comments

abutment, in metres.

FAILURE_CONSEQUENCE FAIL_CONSQ FAILURE_CONSEQUENCE represents the Consequence to downstream should the dam fail.

RISK_LEVEL RISK_LEVEL RISK LEVEL is a subjective numerical rating of the potential of a dam failure based on both the failure consequence and failure probability, i.e., from 1 (high) to 5 (low).

POINTS_CODE POINTS_CD POINTS CODE is the water rights point of diversion number for the dam which links to the water licence(s) for the dam, e.g., PD57752.

DAM_REGULATED_CODE DAM_REG_CD DAM REGULATED CODE indicates whether the dam is regulated or not regulated, and what part of the regulation applies to the dam, e.g., Regulated, Regulated - Part 3 Exempt, Non-Regulated - Including Minor Dam.

DAM_OPERATION_CODE DAM_OP_CD DAM OPERATION CODE is the current operating stage of the dam in its life cycle, i.e., Abandoned, Active, Application, Breached, Deactivated, Decommissioned, Not Constructed, Removed.

DAM_SAFETY_OFFICER DSO DAM SAFETY OFFICER is an engineer or officer employed by the BC government who is designated in writing by the comptroller under the Water Sustainability Act.

FEATURE_LENGTH_M FEAT_LEN FEATURE_LENGTH_M is the system calculated length or perimeter of a geometry in meters.

GEOMETRY GEOMETRY GEOMETRY is the column used to reference the spatial coordinates defining the feature.

OBJECTID OBJECTID OBJECTID is a column required by spatial layers that interact with ESRI ArcSDE. It is populated with unique values automatically by SDE.

TLA’AMIN 176 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX I

WATER LICENSE INFORMATION

See the BC Water Resource Atlas for additional information, including water rights applications https://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/wrbc/

Table AI-1. Water license information for Sliammon Watershed (source: BC Data Catalogue).

Licence Priority No. Status Date Purpose Source Quantity Unit LIcencee name Kwolann Sliammon Indian F007988 Current 19221201 01A - Domestic Springs 127.3 m3/day Band (22729) Indian & Northern Kwolann Affairs Canada F007988 Current 19221201 01A - Domestic Springs 127.3 m3/day (8357) Indian & Northern 00B - Waterworks Sliammon Affairs Canada C112612 Current 19970905 (other than LP) Lake 836.5 m3/day (8357) Indian & Northern 00B - Waterworks Sliammon Affairs Canada C113456 Current 19650708 (other than LP) Lake 454.6 m3/day (8357) 00B - Waterworks Sliammon Sliammon Indian C113456 Current 19650708 (other than LP) Lake 454.6 m3/day Band (22729) 00B - Waterworks Sliammon Sliammon Indian C112612 Current 19970905 (other than LP) Lake 836.5 m3/day Band (22729) 11A - Conservation: Sliammon Tla'amin Nation C116139 Current 20010417 Storage Lake 1628193.6 m3/year (139543) PRIVATE 03B - Irrigation: Steeves INDIVIDUAL C070050 Current 19890119 Private Creek 3700.4 m3/year NAME PRIVATE Steeves INDIVIDUAL C070050 Current 19890119 01A - Domestic Creek 4.5 m3/day NAME PRIVATE Wilde INDIVIDUAL C072259 Current 19690430 01A - Domestic Creek 4.5 m3/day NAME PRIVATE Wilde INDIVIDUAL C032554 Current 19661004 01A - Domestic Creek 2.3 m3/day NAME PRIVATE Wilde INDIVIDUAL C127751 Current 19661011 01A - Domestic Creek 2.3 m3/day NAME PRIVATE Wilde INDIVIDUAL C040834 Cancelled 19720515 01A - Domestic Creek 2.3 m3/day NAME PRIVATE Wilde INDIVIDUAL C108768 Current 19941003 01A - Domestic Creek 2.3 m3/day NAME

TLA’AMIN 177 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

PRIVATE 03B - Irrigation: Capek INDIVIDUAL C049988 Abandoned 19770322 Private Brook 2491.6 m3/year NAME PRIVATE Capek INDIVIDUAL C049988 Abandoned 19770322 01A - Domestic Brook 2.3 m3/day NAME PRIVATE 02E - Pond & Capek INDIVIDUAL C049988 Abandoned 19770322 Aquaculture Brook 0.0 m3/sec NAME

Table AI-2. Water license information for Okeover Creek Watershed (source: BC Data Catalogue).

Licence Priority Quantity No. Status Date Purpose Source m3/day LIcencee name 197708 02B - Processing & Mfg: PRIVATE C054132 Cancelled 29 Processing Fiske Creek 9 INDIVIDUAL NAME

Table AI-3. Water license information for the Okeover-Theodosia Inlets Watershed (source: BC Data Catalogue).

Licence Priority Unit No. Status Date Purpose Source Quantity LIcencee name PRIVATE Mortifee INDIVIDUAL C069953 Current 19880909 01A - Domestic Creek 2.27305 m3/day NAME Red Star Flycatcher Seafoods Ltd. C102348 Current 19900218 01A - Domestic Spring 2.27305 m3/day (153756) PRIVATE Heron m3/yea INDIVIDUAL C106742 Current 19920901 03B - Irrigation: Private Creek 616.74 r NAME Red Star Heron m3/yea Seafoods Ltd. C106261 Current 19910218 03B - Irrigation: Private Creek 616.74 r (153756) PRIVATE Flicker INDIVIDUAL C105811 Current 19920901 01A - Domestic Spring 2.27305 m3/day NAME Oyster Kilo Sea Farm Ltd C064404 Current 19850429 01A - Domestic Creek 2.27305 m3/day (24715) PRIVATE Oyster m3/yea INDIVIDUAL C065317 Current 19870528 03B - Irrigation: Private Creek 2466.96 r NAME PRIVATE Oyster INDIVIDUAL C065317 Current 19870528 01A - Domestic Creek 2.27305 m3/day NAME Theodosia Herkimer m3/yea Seafoods Inc C056826 Current 19760917 03B - Irrigation: Private Creek 3700.44 r (24675)

TLA’AMIN 178 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Theodosia Herkimer Seafoods Inc C056826 Current 19760917 01A - Domestic Creek 4.54609 m3/day (24675) 11B - Conservation: Use Tla'amin Nation C064499 Current 19850719 of Water Bern Creek 0.31148 m3/sec (139543) Okeover Marina Larson Estates Ltd. C037957 Current 19700507 01A - Domestic Brook 4.54609 m3/day (81253) Okeover Marina 02B - Processing & Mfg: Larson Estates Ltd. C037957 Current 19700507 Processing Brook 136.3827 m3/day (81253) Okeover Marina 07B - Power: Larson Estates Ltd. C037958 Current 19700507 Commercial Brook 0.05663 m3/sec (81253) Okeover Marina Larson Estates Ltd. C037957 Current 19700507 01A - Domestic Brook 4.54609 m3/day (81253) Okeover Marina 02B - Processing & Mfg: Larson Estates Ltd. C037957 Current 19700507 Processing Brook 136.3827 m3/day (81253) PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL C112736 Current 19971110 07A - Power: Residential Nina Creek 0.00283 m3/sec NAME PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL C112736 Current 19971110 01A - Domestic Nina Creek 2.27305 m3/day NAME

Table AI-4. Water license information for Theodosia Watershed (source: BC Data Catalogue).

Licence Priority Units No. Status Date Purpose Source Quantity LIcencee name H.S. Christensen Sunnydale Logging Ltd. C124210 Current 20080821 01A - Domestic Creek 2.27 m3/day (143251) Catalyst Paper Theodosia Corporation C113357 Current 19521203 07C - Power: General River 259030800.0 m3/year (73041) Theodosia Powell River C113357 Current 19521203 07C - Power: General River 259030800.0 m3/year Energy Inc (63374)

TLA’AMIN 179 WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN