Vedder River Management Area Plan Update

VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE

PRESENTED TO CITY OF CHILLIWACK

DECEMBER 11, 2015 ISSUED FOR USE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH

Tetra Tech EBA Inc. Suite 1000 – 10th Floor, 885 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver, BC V6C 1N5 CANADA

Tel 604.685.0275 Fax 604.684.6241

This page intentionally left blank.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Aggradation in the Vedder River and the Vedder Canal can increase the risk of flooding. The Vedder River Management Area Committee (VRMAC) has planned and managed gravel removals for flood control purposes annually from 1990 to 1997 and biennially from 1998 to the present. Gravel removals were also undertaken prior to 1990 by various entities, but those removals were not coordinated by VRMAC.

The purpose of the gravel removal program is to maintain the flow capacity of the Vedder River and Canal over the long-term so that the level of flood protection provided by the dyke system is not diminished. Recently, the main focus has been to reduce the water level in the freeboard limited reach, which is in the Lower Reach of the Vedder River. Historical flood profile studies have found that gravel removal from the Vedder Canal and the Vedder River Lower Reach (downstream of the rail bridge) could effectively reduce the water level in the critical area. For comparison purposes, an effectiveness coefficient has been developed and determined for each historical removal site. Instead of using water level reduction as the only criterion, this coefficient takes the reach length influenced and the excavation volume into consideration. Higher coefficients were calculated for the Vedder Canal sites, and lower values were calculated for the Vedder River sites, based on data reported in previous studies (Bland, 2002- 2008). The analysis concluded that gravel removal is more effective in the Vedder Canal than in the Vedder River Lower Reach. In the Middle and Upper Reaches of Vedder River, where excavations have been designed as gravel traps, refill ratios were used to identify the effectiveness. A long term (2000-2012) refill ratio was determined for each gravel removal site by averaging the biennial refill ratios. Higher refill ratios were found in the Vedder River Middle Reach from Railway Bar to Peach Creek Bar. In contrast, gravel excavations in the Middle to Upper Reaches from Brown Bar to Garrison Bar have not been as successful in trapping gravel. The historical gravel budget was also reviewed to guide future gravel management. The gravel budget for 1981 to 2010 indicates a positive budget in the Vedder Canal and Vedder River Lower Reach, i.e. the amount of gravel deposition exceeds the amount of excavation. Negative gravel budgets were calculated for the Vedder River Middle and Upper Reaches, indicating that more gravel was excavated than deposited.

Based on the three factors discussed above, it is recommended that, in the short term, gravel removal be focused on the Vedder Canal and the Vedder River Lower Reach. The gravel bars in the Vedder River Middle Reach (from Railway Bar to Peach Creek Bar) can be excavated as a trapping zone to reduce sediment load to the critical area, if necessary. No action is recommended on the bars in the Vedder River Middle and Upper Reaches (from Brown Bar to Garrison Bar) in the near future as they have been proven less effective as gravel traps. The biennial hydraulic modelling will indicate if removals are needed to address dyke freeboard shortfalls in the future. Gravel removal for other purposes, e.g., erosion control and habitat enhancement, can be conducted on an as-needed basis.

During a field assessment on January 26 and 27, 2012, 30 erosion sites were identified along the right and left banks of the Vedder River and Vedder Canal. Based on a range of criteria, including severity of local erosion, location of thalweg in relation to the sites, and proximity to infrastructure (primarily the Vedder Rotary Trail), these erosion sites were classified as low, moderate or high priority. On the right bank, eleven sites were classified as low, four sites as low to moderate, three sites as moderate, and two sites as moderate to high priority, while on the left bank, 10 sites were classified as low priority. No sites were classified as high priority. The majority of sites were identified as bank erosion, but there were some large debris jams accumulated on bars and random large woody debris scattered at creek outlets that could potentially influence erosional patterns along the banks. Low to moderate erosion sites were identified on the right bank in the Upper Reach of Vedder River between Vedder Crossing and Peach Road and in the upper section of the Middle Reach between Lickman Road and Hopedale Stockpile. Moderate erosion was encountered on the right bank in the lower section of the Middle Reach and in the upper section of the Lower Reach upstream and downstream of the SRBC railway trestle. Moderate to high erosion was identified along the right bank between Hopedale Stockpile and the SRBC railway trestle in the lower section of the Middle Reach.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Four options are recommended for managing bank erosion on the Vedder River and Canal. These options are monitoring the rate of erosion, removing gravel bar material to redirect the flow, installing riprap revetments or deflection structures (e.g. groynes) to protect the bank, and relocating infrastructure away from the eroding site. As two recent examples show, it can sometimes be beneficial to combine two of these options to achieve the desired results.

The habitat section details the results of a review, by Nova Pacific Environmental (NPE), of the gravel removal program and environmental aspects of flood control projects on Vedder River from 1994 to 2011. This section provides an overview of methods used to evaluate the excavations, a summary of the gravel removal quantities, a comparison of the outcomes from the excavations against the criteria and guidelines used to design individual excavations, and an analysis of the assessment methods employed. Additional components of the study include a review of habitat values in the mainstem and off-channel habitats of the Vedder River, erosion control impacts on habitat, and wildlife concerns.

A total of 76 excavations, completed since 1994 with a total volume removal volume of 1,310,929 m³, were reviewed. Although the precise location varies, 20 general excavation locations have been used for sediment removal projects. Most bars have been excavated two or three times. Yarrow Bar was excavated nine times, providing 17% of gravel removed from the Vedder River and 50% of gravel removed from the Lower Reach.

Excavations were designed following a set of constraint guidelines and planning procedures that were established based on the observed habitat impacts of deep pit excavations from 1994 to 1998 and were intended to minimize detrimental changes to habitat as a consequence of the excavations. This method of sediment removal has mostly yielded positive or neutral habitat ratings and summary scores. To better reflect the intent of each guideline, they were regrouped as “Program Guidelines”, “Pit Location Guidelines” and “Pit Design Guidelines”. A series of minor modifications to the guidelines for the program as well as an adaptive management approach and more detailed guidelines to better manage the more aggressive sediment removal projects were recommended.

A polygon mapping method, established by NPE in 1997, provides a meso-scale approach to evaluating habitat condition and value to fish. This method yields a qualified result that is a pragmatic and relatively complete overview description of the habitat changes in the area of influence. Validation of some of the assumptions of the assessment methods would increase the reliability of the Vedder River Habitat Assessment Protocol and further develop the model for wider application. One key area recommended for further investigation is the distribution of juvenile salmonid abundance.

Habitat values in the off-channel areas were found to be significant and additional oversight by the VRMAC is recommended.

The recreation section discusses issues and conflicts regarding facilities and trails, maintenance and erosion, public safety, signage, and mapping issues.

As a base case, necessary recreational changes include completion of the trail system in the Upper Reach of the Vedder River along the left bank. This will result in a continuous trail system along both the right and left banks that is looped at the Vedder Crossing Bridge and the Keith Wilson Bridge. Although the trail usage is much lower on the left bank than the right bank, the lack of continuity introduces a potential safety concern, particularly in the summer when there is a high traffic volume driving to and from Cultus Lake.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Desirable recreational enhancement features include providing a permanent toilet/washroom facility in the Upper Reach on the right bank. This is the most heavily used area and the existing portable toilet is not a satisfactory long term solution. A three hectare site on part of the former CFB Chilliwack lands has been set aside for park development. Vedder Park would be a very suitable location as it has both vehicular access and excellent pedestrian access from the trailhead next to the Vedder Crossing Bridge. In addition, “branding” is needed to coordinate and upgrade signage. Signage needs are varied and include directional, interpretive and identification purposes, prohibitions, distance markers, mapping and sponsors/stakeholders. The use of downloadable messaging is an innovative feature which should be encouraged and expanded.

Desirable long term enhancement features include exploring opportunities to create a safe walkway across the existing trestle bridge over the Vedder River with the Southern Railway of British Columbia. The City of Chilliwack should also explore improved connectivity beyond the Vedder River Management Area with interested stakeholders including the City of Abbotsford and the Province of BC (e.g. Explore the Fraser program).

A preliminary field reconnaissance by the Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre (SRRMC) identified five areas of archaeological potential and one Sxwôxwiyám/Cultural Landscape Feature (a stl’áleqem or supernatural being habitat) that require further management. Prior to future ground disturbing activities in these areas, it is recommended that additional work be undertaken in the form of Archaeological Impact Assessments.

The stl’áleqem habitat is located within the Vedder River Management Area covering most of the Vedder River and side channels. These sites, described in Stó:lō narratives in relation to Transformation Stories and the Flood Story, comprise individual rocks and features, such as mountains, that are viewed as living parts of the landscape that must be treated with respect. The stl’áleqem habitat is protected from disturbance by the Stó:lō Heritage Policy. Development activities proposed within the Sxwôxwiyám/Cultural Landscape Feature Use Area need to be assessed for their potential impacts on surface integrity and appearance. The SRRMC is currently conducting interviews with community members to determine management protocol for stl’áleqem habitats. Proponents should consult directly with the SRRMC regarding disturbance of the stl’áleqem habitat.

iii

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 GRAVEL MANAGEMENT ...... 1 2.1 Gravel Removal Benefits ...... 1 2.1.1 Water Level Reduction ...... 1 2.1.2 Gravel Trap Effect ...... 3 2.2 Long Term Gravel Budget ...... 3 2.3 Future Gravel Removal Site Selection ...... 4 2.4 Future Gravel Removal Volumes...... 5 2.5 Permitting Issues ...... 5

3.0 EROSION ...... 6 3.1 Options for Mitigating Erosion Sites...... 6 3.1.1 Option 1: Monitor the Rate of Erosion ...... 6 3.1.2 Option 2: Removal of Gravel Bar Material ...... 7 3.1.3 Option 3: Riprap Revetments or Deflection Structures ...... 8 3.1.4 Option 4: Relocation of Infrastructure ...... 9 3.2 Site-Specific Suggestions for Managing Erosion ...... 9 3.3 Concluding Remarks ...... 14

4.0 HABITAT...... 15 4.1 Overview of Habitat Values in the Active Channel of the Vedder River ...... 15 4.2 Sediment Extraction Methods ...... 17 4.2.1 Updates to Guidelines and Constraints ...... 19 4.3 Assessment Methodology ...... 24 4.4 Off-Channel Habitats ...... 27 4.5 Endangered Species and Wildlife ...... 28 4.6 Conclusion ...... 30

5.0 RECREATION ...... 31 5.1 Discussion of Issues and Conflicts ...... 31 5.1.1 Facilities and Trails ...... 31 5.1.2 Maintenance and Erosion ...... 31 5.1.3 Public Safety ...... 32 5.1.4 Signage ...... 33 5.1.5 Mapping Issues ...... 34 5.2 Recommendations ...... 35 5.2.1 Vedder River Management Plan Update Elements ...... 35 5.2.2 Base Case – Necessary Recreational Changes ...... 35 5.2.3 Desirable Recreational Enhancement Features ...... 35 5.2.4 Desirable Long Term Enhancement Features...... 35

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

6.0 HERITAGE AND FIRST NATIONS ISSUES ...... 35 6.1 Areas of Archaeological Potential (AOP 1-5) ...... 36 6.2 Sxwôxwiyám/Cultural Landscape Features ...... 36 6.3 Study Limitations and Unanticipated Materials ...... 37

7.0 FUTURE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 37

8.0 CLOSURE ...... 38

REFERENCES ...... 39

CONTACTS ...... 40

LIST OF TABLES IN TEXT

Table 2.1: Effectiveness of Gravel Removal on Water Level Reduction ...... 2 Table 2.3: Vedder Canal and Vedder River Historical Gravel Budget (1981-2010) ...... 4 Table 2.4: Recommendations Regarding Gravel Removal Sites ...... 4 Table 3.1: Recommendations for the Management of Erosion Sites ...... 9 Table 4.1: Habitat Value Allocation Chart...... 17

APPENDIX SECTIONS

TABLES

Table 1 Future Management Strategies Summary Table

APPENDICES

Appendix A Tetra Tech EBA’s General Conditions

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

LIMITATIONS OF REPORT This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of CITY OF CHILLIWACK (client’s name) and their agents. Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech EBA) does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than CITY OF CHILLIWACK (client’s name), or for any Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions stated in Tetra Tech EBA’s Services Agreement. Tetra Tech EBA’s General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) is pleased to submit this Management Phase Report as a component of the Vedder River Management Area (VRMA) Plan Update process. This report does not constitute an updated plan, but will serve as a basis for one.

The main objective of this phase is to develop a suite of management alternatives with estimates of risk reduction/habitat enhancement for consideration. The components of the assignment are as follows:

. Gravel Management

. Erosion

. Habitat

. Recreation

. Heritage Sites and First Nations Interests.

The emphasis in this phase of the update preparation has been to extract information from the data gathering and analysis phases to provide management strategies. The Data Gathering Phase Report and Analysis Phase Report are appended to this report as Addenda One and Two. 2.0 GRAVEL MANAGEMENT

There are five key items to address related to the gravel management of the Vedder River during the management phase of this assignment.

. Gravel Removal Benefits

. Long Term Gravel Budget

. Future Gravel Removal Site Selection

. Future Gravel Removal Volumes

. Future Gravel Management Strategies.

2.1 Gravel Removal Benefits

The purpose of the gravel removal program is to maintain the flow capacity of the Vedder River and Canal over the long-term. Recently, the main focus has been to reduce the water level in the freeboard limited reach, which is in the Lower Reach of the Vedder River (EBA, 2010).

2.1.1 Water Level Reduction

Vedder Canal and Vedder River hydraulic profile update studies have been carried out by Bland Engineering (2002, 2004, 2005 and 2008) and EBA Engineering (2010 and 2012) in the past ten years. In each study, the proposed

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

gravel removal plan was evaluated using the HEC-RAS hydraulic model. Water surface profiles, for the pre- and post-excavation conditions, were compared to identify the influencing reach and the average water level reduction at each cross section. Evaluations were conducted on the river reach or gravel bar basis, depending on the method used in the study. Water level changes determined for each removal site were rounded up to the nearest 0.1 m to reflect the expected accuracy limitations. A summary of the flood reduction benefits is given in Table 2.13 of the Analysis Phase Report. Model results show that excavation sites downstream of the SRBC Bridge (XS17) are beneficial to reduce the water level in the freeboard limited reach. Excavations upstream of the SRBC Bridge do not provide direct benefit on water level in the critical reach. They were designed as gravel traps to reduce the bed load entering the Lower Reach.

Considering significant variations in the excavation volume and influencing reach length of each excavation site, an effectiveness coefficient (C) was determined for each river reach or gravel bar as it was presented in the study. The coefficient was computed using the following equation:

C = Mean Water Level Reduction per XS (cm) × Influencing Reach Length (km) × (10000/excavation volume) (m3).

It should be noted that each excavation site yields a unique effectiveness coefficient. As a generalized approach, the Vedder Canal and Vedder River were divided into four reaches: Vedder Canal, and Vedder River Lower Reach, Middle Reach and Upper Reach. For the reaches with freeboard issues, a range of effectiveness coefficients was calculated, as listed in Table 2.1. The coefficients represent the lowest and highest values that were calculated for all the excavation sites within the defined reach.

Table 2.1: Effectiveness of Gravel Removal on Water Level Reduction Flood Reduction Effectiveness Excavation Location Excavation Sites Influencing Reach Coefficient (C) Boundary Vedder Canal Keith Wilson XSC10-XS17 3.0-5.3 (XSC10-XSC37) Powerline Salad Vedder River Greendale Lower Reach Community XS1-XS24 0.4-3.2 (XS1-XS17) Yarrow Note: Not all the excavated gravel bars are included in this analysis due to data gaps on gravel volumes and available water surface profiles. Based on data from the Bland (2002, 2004, 2005) reports.

As listed in Table 2.1, gravel removals from the Vedder Canal can influence the water level up to XS17 in the Vedder River. They are generally very effective in reducing the flood level in the freeboard limited area (XS1-XS16). In comparison, gravel removal from the Vedder River lower reach (XS1-XS17) is less effective as indicated by shorter influence reach lengths and lower effectiveness coefficients. This is likely because the Vedder Canal main channel is relatively narrow and sediment removal increases the channel capacity by a higher percentage. The effectiveness of the upstream gravel bar excavations, which were designed as gravel traps, will be discussed in the following section.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

2.1.2 Gravel Trap Effect

In the Vedder Canal and Vedder River, the gravel excavation pits trap sediment at different rates. Long term (2000- 2012) refill ratios were determined for each gravel removal site by averaging the biennial refill ratios. The refill ratio was calculated by dividing the volume of gravel deposition by the volume of gravel removal. This indicates the refill pattern and measures the effectiveness of the excavations as gravel traps in the Vedder River Middle and Upper Reaches. A range of long term refill ratios is provided for each reach in Table 2.2.

On the one hand, higher refill ratios were noted from the upstream end of the Vedder Canal (Salad Bar) to the Middle Reach of the Vedder River up to cross section XS27. On the other hand, the gravel excavations in the Middle and Upper Reaches of Vedder River (from XS27 to XS45) have not been successful in trapping gravel. The recent gravel extractions from the Vedder River Upper Reach (e.g. Peach Road Bar and Garrison Bar) were designed to direct the flow away from the erosion prone areas. This might have contributed to the lower gravel trapping ratio. If the pit layouts were designed for the sole purpose of gravel trapping, a higher trapping rate might have been achieved.

Table 2.2: Long Term Average Refill Ratios for the Gravel Excavation Sites River Reach Gravel Bars Refill Ratio Vedder Canal Salad Bar 103% Greendale Vedder River Lower Reach Community 56%-72% (XS1-XS17) Yarrow Railway Vedder River Middle Reach 1 Relief 71%-95% (XS17-XS27) Bergman Peach Creek Browne Vedder River Middle Reach 2 Lickman 3%-14% (XS27-XS35) Campground Vedder River Upper Reach Peach Road 7%-30% (XS35-XS45) Garrison Bar Note: Not all the bars that have been excavated were included in this assessment due to data gaps.

2.2 Long Term Gravel Budget

The historical gravel budget is provided in Table 2.3. A review of the 30-year gravel budget indicates a positive budget in the Vedder Canal and Vedder River Lower Reach, i.e. the amount of gravel deposition exceeds the amount of excavation. In contrast, negative gravel budgets were calculated for the Vedder River Middle and Upper Reaches, indicating that more gravel was excavated than deposited.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table 2.3: Vedder Canal and Vedder River Historical Gravel Budget (1981-2010) Vedder Canal Reach Excavation (m³) Sediment Deposition (m³) Cumulative Bed Change (m³) Vedder Canal -97,900 145,000 47,100

Vedder River

Reach Excavation (m3) Sediment Deposition (m3) Cumulative Bed Change (m3) Upper Reach -377,280 153,700 -223,600 Middle Reach -844,328 826,500 -17,800 Lower Reach -471,662 510,400 38,700 1981-2010 Total Vedder River -202,700

2.3 Future Gravel Removal Site Selection

From a flood control perspective, selection of future gravel removal sites takes three factors into consideration: the effectiveness on water level reduction; the long term refill ratio of the pit; and the historical gravel budget. Based on these three factors, recommendations regarding short-term future gravel removal site selection are summarized in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Recommendations Regarding Gravel Removal Sites Flood Historical Gravel Reduction Budget Reach Gravel Bar Benefit Refill Ratio (1980-2010) Recommendations Boundary Keith Wilson Focused area for future Vedder Canal High 103% Deposition>Excavation Powerline gravel removal Salad Greendale Vedder River Focused area for future Community Moderate 56% - 72% Deposition>Excavation Lower Reach gravel removal Yarrow Railway Effective as gravel trap, indirect flood benefit, Relief Indirect 71% - 95% Deposition

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

2.4 Future Gravel Removal Volumes

Future extraction volumes should be managed with regard to the historical gravel budget and predicted annual deposition. As discussed in the analysis phase, the sediment transport rate is correlated to the discharge. The current approach of removing gravel biennially at a 30-year average rate does not reflect the variation of the natural bed load input to the Vedder River. If the biennial removal program is to continue, a less aggressive approach is recommended in terms of reducing targeted removal volumes. The overall removal rate should be kept under the long term average for relatively low peak flow years (maximum daily flood < 400 m³/s) by about 10%. This is the average percentage by which excavation has exceeded deposition for the past 30 years (1981-2010). The focus of future gravel removal should be on the freeboard limited area of the Vedder River and the upper reach of Vedder Canal that have been identified as effective for water level reduction. Moreover, these two areas tend to be refilled and need to be excavated regularly to maintain the flood benefit. The Upper Reach of Vedder River has been over excavated as a gravel trap, which has proven ineffective. No more removal is recommended for this area at this time unless it is required for bank erosion control. However, a higher gravel removal target should be set following a high flood year (maximum daily flood > 400 m³/s). The HEC-RAS sediment transport model, or the correlation based on flow volumes above various thresholds, can be used to provide a rough estimate of the targeted volumes, depending on the magnitude of the high flows.

The HEC-RAS model was calibrated to estimate the sediment deposition volume within 13% of the surveyed volume for the period of 2008-2010. As future river surveys become available, the model should be further tested to provide added confidence on the volume estimation. This is not intended to replace the present process of surveying the channel every two years, but to provide some confirmation that the proposed removal volume reflects the deposition volume over the last two year period.

2.5 Permitting Issues

For areas with recurring gravel removal activities, obtaining a long term gravel removal permit would be a practical solution. The possibility of applying for such a permit has been confirmed by Mr. Tom Yacyshen, FrontCounterBC, Ministry of FLNRO. The following permits/tenures are needed from the Province:

. Multi-year Land Act tenure; . Shorter term Land Act tenure; . Water Act Approval; . Mines Act Permit or letter from MEMPR.

If a non-Provincial agency (e.g. the City of Chilliwack) holds the Land Act tenure, it would be a licence of occupation and the City could qualify for a nominal rent tenure under the community/institutional policy. These two tenures can be held for multi-year terms.

On the Fraser River, the multi-year, Land Act tenure is held by the Provincial Agency and the contractor doing the work then applies for:

. A shorter term Land Act tenure; . Water Act Approval; and . Mines Act Permit or letter.

The company doing the work must apply for these well in advance (140 days) of doing the work to ensure they are issued within the required work timing window. The multi-year tenure should include all areas of gravel removal and storage as well as any other areas being utilized.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

3.0 EROSION

During the field assessment of the Vedder River and Vedder Canal on January 26 and 27, 2012, 30 erosion sites were identified and are detailed in the Analysis Phase Report (see location of the sites in Figures 3.1A and 3.1B, and Photographs 1 to 33 in that report, which is Addendum Two to this report). As discussed in the Analysis Phase Report, the majority of these sites are considered low priority as erosion is estimated to progress at a relatively low rate and therefore will likely not impact existing infrastructure along the river in the near future. However, since the sites are adjacent to infrastructure such as the Rotary Trail, it is recommended to monitor the rate of erosion at these sites. Apart from the Rotary Trail, the other infrastructure potentially at risk is sections of unpaved road.

3.1 Options for Mitigating Erosion Sites

Four options are recommended for managing bank erosion on the Vedder River and Canal. These options include:

1. Monitoring the rate of erosion; 2. Removal of gravel bar material; 3. Installation of riprap revetments or deflection structures; and, 4. Relocation of infrastructure.

The following sections detail the recommended erosion mitigation options. Examples of previous attempts to manage erosion are described briefly where available. Also included are general issues associated with the implementation and construction of these mitigative measures. These previous attempts to manage erosion within the study area are taken into consideration when making our site-specific recommendations. The recommendations are influenced by the hydraulic modeling results, the proposed gravel management plan, habitat protection issues, and the need to protect recreational facilities, heritage sites and First Nations interests as described in the other sections of this report.

3.1.1 Option 1: Monitor the Rate of Erosion

This option refers to the “do nothing” approach and focuses on monitoring the sites. As long as the erosion sites do not immediately affect any infrastructure and remain at sufficient distance from adjacent infrastructure, it is recommended to allow erosion to occur in order to maintain a more natural state of the river. As existing bank armour deteriorates over time, lateral movement of the river channel could restore natural habitats. However, it is recommended to monitor such sites closely for increases in the rate of erosion or changes in the extent of the affected area, which may be caused by changes in channel alignment. These changes may be a result of aggradation in the river channel or gravel excavation in the vicinity of the erosion sites. In addition, flood risk management is exacerbated if the sediment that is mobilized during bank erosion is deposited within freeboard limited areas. This option is the least expensive and is a good option primarily for the left bank where minimal development has occurred.

The recommended frequency of monitoring is every two years prior to gravel extraction or following a flood event with an estimated return period of at least 5 years. If the monitoring program identifies that the rate of erosion at any of the sites has increased, a detailed site specific assessment should be carried out at the respective sites. The site specific assessment may result in the need to reclassify the sites in question to a higher priority according to the priority ranking system discussed in the Analysis Phase Report. Something to consider in the decision whether to maintain the banks or let them deteriorate, beyond the need to protect infrastructure such as the Rotary Trail, is that VRMA lands contain significant off-channel fish and wildlife habitat that is dependent on the existing bank protection works.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

3.1.2 Option 2: Removal of Gravel Bar Material

Selective removal of gravel from bars within the Vedder River and Canal serves two main purposes: first and most importantly, to lower the elevation of the river bed along the channel to reduce the flood profile, and second, to a lesser extent, to reduce erosional pressure on the bank by redirecting flow away from the bank sections that are affected by erosion.

The fastest rates of lateral erosion are typically experienced where the thalweg of the channel is in proximity to the toe of the eroding bank. Where bank armouring is not a feasible or preferred option to protect the bank, selective gravel removal may be effective in reducing the erosional pressure on the bank by either relocating the thalweg or excavating a second channel to divert the majority of the flow away from the eroding bank. Compared to bank armouring (see Section 3.1.3), gravel removal does not alter the riparian zone permanently. In-channel excavation may also allow more complex habitat types to develop due to the modification of flow dynamics.

In general, site-specific design of the excavation (i.e., depth, size, shape and location of the pit) may be effective in reducing the erosional pressure on the eroding bank. It is often difficult though to predict negative impacts of selective gravel removal on the environment, which may include increased erosion in the vicinity of the excavation, unexpected changes in channel alignment upstream or downstream of the excavation, and detrimental effects on fish habitat. Existing guidelines designed to manage sediment removal are intended to mitigate these negative impacts and should be developed further to better incorporate erosion control measures into the design. Results of the excavations can deviate from the expected outcome as refilling of the pits depends on the intensity of the flows during the following winter and summer flood seasons and the amount of bed load transported into the reach.

Selective gravel removal has been used successfully to control bank erosion in the Vedder River. The following example illustrates this method: Erosion of the right bank near XS 44 starting in the mid-2000s resulted in loss of riparian vegetation as the bank eroded closer to the Rotary Trail (Bruce Wright, personal communication). In 2009, riprap was placed to protect the section of the bank that was affected the most from further erosion. To prevent erosion of the bank from continuing upstream and downstream of the protected section, a wide channel was cut across Garrison Bar in 2010 to divert the flow and reduce flow velocity along the right bank. The design of the excavation was based on the inspection report by NHC (2010). During the field inspection in January 2012 it was observed that gravel is depositing along the right bank downstream of the new riprap (Photo 04; EB 04), which indicates that the velocity of the river along the bank downstream of the armoured section has been reduced successfully. However, it is recommended to continue monitoring this section as the thalweg is still located close to the right bank and erosion continues upstream from the recently placed riprap (Photo 03, EB 03).

Another example of successful gravel removal for bank protection purposes is located between XS 41 and 42 on the right bank of the river at Peach Road. Here, the thalweg was located close to the toe of the right bank, which was subject to continuing erosion. Riprap was placed along the bank between XS 41 and 41-2 as bank erosion was continuing to move upstream (Tara Friesen, personal communication). In 2010, two excavations were executed on Peach Road Bar. One large, deep excavation on the northern side of the bar was intended to widen the main channel, while another shallow excavation was intended to divert some of the flow along the left bank (see preliminary report on the “2010 Vedder River Gravel Excavation” by NPE, 2012). The following year, the main channel had relocated further to the center of the floodplain and a bar had formed between the right bank and the main channel. The field assessment in 2012 confirmed this new alignment. Although erosion appears not to be a current issue on the right bank upstream of the armoured section (Photo 34) it is recommended to monitor the bank to determine if erosion is still increasing towards XS 42.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

3.1.3 Option 3: Riprap Revetments or Deflection Structures

Placing riprap along an eroding bank is a common and typical mitigative solution, especially if the site of erosion is close to adjacent infrastructure and threatens to affect the integrity of this infrastructure. Although bank protection works are relatively expensive, they are an effective and viable option of controlling erosion where the benefits of a hardened bank outweigh the costs of construction or loss of habitat and riparian vegetation. This is particularly the case at sites where erosion has been occurring over a period of time, is adjacent to infrastructure, is expected to persist and cannot be remedied with one of the other methods suggested.

Armouring an eroding bank section with riprap may have a negative impact on the local ecology as riparian vegetation established along the bank has to be removed prior to construction, and growth of riparian vegetation on an armoured bank is limited. This riparian vegetation includes overhanging vegetation, which is regarded as often significant drop-in food source and as hiding opportunity for aquatic species. In addition, the hardened bank limits lateral movement of the channel, which potentially interferes with the formation of in-channel features that provide good habitat, such as pools, riffles, cut banks, and accumulations of LWD. These negative effects on fish habitat can be mitigated by incorporating elements into the bank armour that facilitate establishment of riparian vegetation, by selecting sizes of rock for the armouring that provide cover for fish within interstitial openings, and by limiting the extent of the bank armour.

Bank protection works generally include placement of riprap and, where appropriate, incorporate the use of large woody debris (LWD). LWD is not recommended to be used for bank protection for the Vedder River as it would not be able to withstand the high flow velocities that can be encountered during the flood season. Logs that become dislodged during a flood may contribute to bank erosion when they are pushed into and along the banks by the flow. However, LWD may be suitable to protect the entrance and exit to creeks and small side-channels from extensive erosion, and in addition provide ecological benefits to the local habitat inventory if incorporated into the bank armouring.

It is possible that erosion continues to affect the bank upstream or downstream from the protected area after the placement of riprap. This is currently happening on the right bank near XS 44 (see description of first example in Section 3.1.2 above; Photos 03 and 04). When hardening the bank by placing riprap, situations like the one described (that is, erosion continues past the riprap section) need to be taken into consideration, as continuing addition to riprap will increase the cost of the protective measure over time. However, the advantage of this approach is that erosion would be addressed in phases, starting with placement of riprap at the most affected sections, and then adding more on either side as considered necessary and as budget allows.

Another means of protecting the bank from erosion is a series of groynes or spurs. These deflective structures protrude from the bank into the river channel and depending on site specific conditions are built to either the same height as the bank crest or a determined elevation corresponding to the water level of a specific flood event (e.g., a 20 year event). Groynes can be constructed on their own or in conjunction with riprapping of the banks between the groynes. This option depends on the design of the groynes (length, height and spacing) and bank conditions (height, curvature and severity of erosion). The purpose of deflective structures is to direct the flow away from the eroding bank, in particular where the thalweg is located close to the bank. Deflective structures have less impact on the local ecology and in particular on aquatic habitat compared to riprap revetments as they alter a smaller percentage of a bank section, including the riparian zone, and they may contribute to improvements in habitat along the river bank as they provide niches for local species. LWD can also be incorporated in the low flow areas behind and between the groynes.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

3.1.4 Option 4: Relocation of Infrastructure

Relocating infrastructure is an option to consider if erosion continues to be extensive and has the potential to affect adjacent infrastructure such as trails, bridges, buildings, roads and railways. Costs associated with relocation of infrastructure such as bridges, buildings, roads or railways would be very high and this option would be less likely to be implemented compared to the other options. However, relocation of trails would be relatively less costly, especially for the smaller trails on the left bank compared to the Rotary Trail on the right bank Relocating some sections of the Rotary Trail could be expensive depending on the location as it could involve a large volume of fill material in order to maintain its existing grade. In addition, riparian vegetation would be lost when a section of trail is relocated away from the river bank. Such relocation may also impact off-channel habitat enhancement projects.

In general, the logistics and potential cost of relocating infrastructure suggest this option is typically the least preferred of the four discussed. At present, none of the erosional sites along the Vedder River has warranted relocation of a trail section or other infrastructure. Buildings are located at sufficient distance from the river behind the setback dykes, and erosion close to the Rotary Trail has been addressed successfully by the other three mitigative options suggested.

Should the need arise in the future to relocate any section of the trail system, the impact on various values needs to be considered, in particular terrestrial and off-channel aquatic habitats, riparian vegetation including tree cover, river accessibility and river views (see Recreation Section, 5.1.2 Maintenance and Erosion). The impact of relocating sections of the smaller trails on the left bank would be significantly less than that of the Rotary Trail.

3.2 Site-Specific Suggestions for Managing Erosion

Recommendations pertaining to the management of the erosion sites are made on a site-specific basis and summarized in Table 3.1 below. The sites are also shown on the photos and their locations identified on Figures 3.1A and 3.1B, which are in Appendix F of the Analysis Phase report. General recommendations are described in detail for each site, and erosion control options are listed starting with the preferred action based on conditions observed during the January 2012 field assessment. The last column of the table lists previous erosion assessment reports in which the same erosion site has been reported in the past.

Table 3.1: Recommendations for the Management of Erosion Sites Priority General Suggested Site Identified in Site Photo Description Ranking Recommendations Actions1 Other Reports2 Vedder Crossing, Right bank – Upper Reach EB 03 P 03 Bank erosion upstream of Low to Monitor the rate of 1, 2, 3, 4 City of Chilliwack new riprap section placed in Moderate erosion. Consider 2011, NHC 2010 2011. Gravel at toe of slope, extending bank fine material and exposed armouring if bank erosion roots on top; upstream from progresses laterally to here, trail is set back away the point where the from bank, thalweg is along Rotary Trail is impacted. the right bank. EB 04 P 04 Downstream limit of new Low to Monitor the rate of 1, 2, 3, 4 City of Chilliwack riprap placed in 2011. Moderate erosion. 2011, NHC 2010 Erosion of right bank See recommendation downstream from this point: above for EB 03. gravel at toe, fine material and exposed roots on top; trail moves away from river downstream of this point.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Priority General Suggested Site Identified in Site Photo Description Ranking Recommendations Actions1 Other Reports2

Peach Road – Upper Reach n/a P 34 Upstream end of the bank n/a This site was not 1, (2,) 3 City of Chilliwack armour at Peach Road, right identified as a site of 2011, NHC 2010 bank: In the past, the bank erosion in the analysis, at Peach Road was subject but is included here upon to erosion, which was request. Monitor rate of remedied by placing riprap bank erosion. A gravel between XS 41 and XS 41- bar has formed after the 2. To reduce erosional 2010 excavation of the pressure on the upstream right gravel edge of end of the bank armour, Peach Road Bar, selective gravel excavation which shelters the right on Peach Road Bar in 2010 bank from direct impact was used to shift the from the main flow. thalweg away from the The thalweg appears to bank. have relocated towards the center of the river. The thalweg may continue to relocate to the left bank. DJ 01 P 07 Large debris jam along the Low Monitor for potential 1 City of Chilliwack right bank. The trail erosion. This site could 2011, NHC 2010 separates away from the become a hazard if the river downstream of this jam becomes large point. enough to redirect flow into the bank toe or trap sediment, in which case it should be removed.

Lickman Road – Middle Reach EB 06 P 08 Eroding right bank Low to Monitor the rate of 1, 2, 4 n/a composed mostly of sand. Moderate erosion. A shift of the The top of the bank is thalweg towards the located 7 m from the trail, bank could potentially exposure is 2 m high; lead to lateral bank gravel bar adjacent to the erosion which may river bank, separated by a impact the trail. low-flow back channel. The flow moves away from the right bank with increasing distance downstream.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Priority General Suggested Site Identified in Site Photo Description Ranking Recommendations Actions1 Other Reports2 EB 07 P 09 Erosion within armoured Low to Monitor the rate of 1, 3 n/a reach where thalweg is Moderate erosion. This site is an next to the right bank. example of vegetation Erosion is 6 m away from growing in the the trail and extends bank armour which could upstream and potentially weaken its downstream from photo stability. Consider location. This is a common removing some of the occurrence along this vegetation and place section; mix of small additional riprap in rocks and large boulders, sections that are closer and vegetation is growing to the trail or show signs along the bank. of increasing erosion in the future.

Hopedale Stockpile – Middle Reach EB 08 P 11 Steep and partially Moderate Monitor the rate of 1, 3, 4 City of Chilliwack armoured bank with to High erosion. Consider placing 2011, NHC 2010 thalweg along toe of right riprap to protect the bank, located downstream bank. The access road of parking lot near also doubles as Rotary Hopedale Stockpile. Trail, and off-channel Sporadically placed rocks habitat between river provide some bank bank and railway may be protection but riprap is impacted by high flows unraveling; vertical overtopping the bank, eroding bank approximately which happened in 1990 2 m high, located 2 m from and 2006; NHC (2010) edge of access road to estimated riprap for Railway Bar which is about 300 m of bank to located at crest. Erosion cost about $80,000. continues downstream for approximately 400 m along outer meander bend opposite Bergman Bar/ Relief Bar. EB 09 P 12 Steep, partially armoured Moderate Monitor the rate of 1, 3, 4 City of Chilliwack bank with thalweg along to High erosion. 2011, NHC 2010 toe of right bank; Recommendations as for sporadically placed rocks EB 08 above; best to provide some bank treat before bank retreats protection, but riprap is further; riprap should be unraveling, bank is placed at a less steep undercut and vegetation is angle to decrease slope growing within the riprap. steepness. Access road to Railway Bar is approximately 2.5 m away from the crest.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Priority General Suggested Site Identified in Site Photo Description Ranking Recommendations Actions1 Other Reports2 EB 10 P 13 Steeply sloped bank next to Moderate Monitor the rate of 1, 3, 4 n/a access road approximately erosion. See comments 1 m away from crest, of the two previous sites consists of gravel and above. some large rocks, with vegetation growing along the slope; active erosion.

SRBC Railway Trestle – Lower Reach EB 11 P 14 Boulders on the bank Moderate Monitor the rate of 1 n/a are sporadically placed, erosion. Trail is at crest is 6 m away from trail. sufficient distance, and Thalweg is close to the this probably provides toe of the bank; erosion of some valuable fish fine bank material and habitat. As the trail is at exposed roots. sufficient distance, there is no need to armour at the moment. EB 12 P 15 Undercut bank 6 m from Moderate Monitor the rate of 1 n/a the trail, located erosion. approximately 30 m See recommendations downstream of EB 11. for EB 11 above.

Vedder Crossing, Left Bank – Upper Reach EB P 22, Eroding left bank adjacent Low Monitor the rate of 1, 2, 3 n/a 101 P 23 to Garrison Bar. The bar is erosion. This is currently separated from the bank by of no concern, but should a shallow back channel; be considered eroding bank extends from when planning downstream end of riprap excavations on Garrison section to the bedrock Bar which may potentially outcrop on the left bank. reroute the channel thalweg to the left bank close to the edge of this bank. EB P 24 Erosion along bar edge Low Monitor the rate of 1 n/a 102 just downstream of the erosion. Cut bank left left bank bedrock outcrop– from last excavation in view downstream shows 2010 could be left side of a channel cut susceptible to erosion. in the 2010 excavation to redirect part of the flow from the right bank of the river to the left bank.

Bergman Stockpile – Middle Reach

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Priority General Suggested Site Identified in Site Photo Description Ranking Recommendations Actions1 Other Reports2 EB P 29 Left bank opposite Relief Bar Low Monitor the rate of 1, 2, 3, 4 City of Chilliwack 107 is near vertical and undercut erosion. Riprap is 2011 in some areas; sporadically degrading; consider placed large rocks at the toe value of off-channel provide some protection; habitat and vegetated thalweg is located along the former bar surface left bank. (recreational value) to make decision whether to update the bank armour or let erosion occur. EB P 30 Riprap along left bank toe Low Monitor the rate of 1, 2, 3 n/a 108 opposite Railway Bar erosion. consists of large rocks, See recommendations but finer material dominates for EB 107 above. on top; erosion occurring amongst sporadically placed rocks; Thalweg is located close to the left bank.

SRBC railway trestle – Lower Reach EB P 32; Eroding left bank upstream Low Monitor the rate of 1, (2) n/a 110 P 33 of Community Bar and erosion. There is no (detail) across from Heron Bar; current trail located close the bank is composed of to the bank, and eroding highly erodible sediment bank is still far enough and the thalweg is close to away from the dyke. This the toe of the left bank. section is recommended to allow to erode. Currently, thalweg has started to shift away from the bank, which is a result of the excavation upstream of the erosion site in 2010 (see NPE 2012 preliminary report). 1 Suggested actions to control erosion are listed starting with most recommended choice: 1 = monitor, 2 = remove gravel, 3 = add bank protection (riprap revetments or deflection structures), 4 = relocate infrastructure; numbers in brackets indicate an action that could be recommended in the future, but not at the time of this report. 2 Reports refer to: City of Chilliwack 2011 – Friesen T. & Koczkur J. 2011. Summary of March 1, 2011 Vedder River Bank Inspection. Summary; Photos from March 2011 Inspection. City of Chilliwack. NHC 2010 - Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC). 2010. City of Chilliwack, Vedder River. Inspection of River Bank Protection 2010. Final Report. July 2009 – February 2010.

Vegetation growing within the existing riprap bank protection is a common occurrence throughout the study area on both the right and left river bank. This is currently of minor general concern, but consideration should be given to managing the growth of this vegetation as extensive root systems established within riprap can compromise the integrity of bank protection. Nevertheless it is preferred to manage the growth of riparian vegetation rather than remove it as overhanging vegetation contributes to habitat value by providing a drop-in food source and hiding opportunities for aquatic species.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

It is generally recommended to monitor all sites identified during the field investigation and listed in Table 3.3 in the Analysis Report on a regular basis, e.g. every two years prior to gravel excavation or after passage of a flood equal to or greater than the average 5-year flood. Sites classified as low/moderate to moderate/high are recommended to be monitored more often than low priority sites, and if necessary, erosion should be controlled by suitable measures.

Based on the potential consequences of the described erosion control options, it is necessary to consider each case individually before selecting the most suitable approach according to stakeholders’ interests. In a system as intensely used as the Vedder River, it is important to identify a compromise between potential reduction of conveyance on the floodplain (likely not an issue for erosion control measures), erosion control, property protection and habitat protection, and to choose the option that provides the most desirable results.

As mentioned above, all erosion sites are recommended for monitoring as the first option to be implemented. This is identified as Option 1 as detailed above. If future monitoring identifies that erosion protection mitigation is required then one or more of the other three options should be implemented. These other three options are identified above as Option 2: Gravel Removal, Option 3: Bank Protection (riprap or deflection structures), and Option 4: Relocation of Infrastructure (e.g., trails). Figures 3.1A and 3.1B in this report identify which mitigation option beyond monitoring is the preferred option for each of the eroding bank sites. The selection of the preferred option is based on several factors addressing the various values at risk such as recreation (e.g., trails), utilities (e.g., Yarrow Waterworks wells, hydro poles, pipelines, etc.), bridges (rail and road) and ecological factors (e.g., side channels, wildlife habitat, etc.). Definitions of the priority ranking classes and descriptions of the hazard sites based on the priority ranking are provided in Section 3 of the Analysis Phase Report.

Figures 3.1A and 3.1B in this report also identify the priority ranking for each of the eroding sites as either low, low/moderate, moderate or moderate/high. On the figures the priority ranking of the eroding bank is identified by different colours and the recommended option beyond monitoring is identified by a number (2, 3 or 4) located adjacent to the colour coded site. Hence, Figures 3.1A and 3.1B summarize the results shown in Table 3.1 above. In addition to this information refer to Appendix F of the Analysis Phase Report for photos of each of the erosion sites and the figures showing location and numbering of the erosion sites and photos.

The Suggested Actions column in Table 3.1 summarizes the recommended options for each site. All erosion sites are recommended for monitoring as the first option to be implemented (Option 1). If future monitoring identifies that erosion protection mitigation is required then one or more of the other three options should be implemented. For example, all of the eroding bank sites on the left bank should be left to naturally erode as they are not in proximity to any infrastructure except for the minor trail systems. If these minor trails are at risk of being lost then it is recommended to carry out Option 4 which refers to relocation of infrastructure and in this case refers to the trails along the left bank. The eroding banks on the right side should be protected with bank armouring (Option 3) if they are located close to infrastructure such as the Rotary Trail. If the banks are not close to infrastructure such as the Rotary Trail then mitigation could be in the form of gravel bar excavation (Option 2).

3.3 Concluding Remarks Bank erosion control measures used repeatedly in the Vedder River to date have been riprap placement and, more recently, selective gravel removal. These measures are intended to protect the bank from erosion and to redirect flow and reduce the rate of bank erosion, respectively. Examples for both measures (at cross sections XS 44 and XS 41 to 42) are described in Section 3.1. They also illustrate that an approach using a combination of methods may be more successful in reducing existing erosion issues to the extent desired. Additional benefits of such an approach may include reducing the environmental impact of mitigative measures and reducing the costs of implementing these measures. Therefore, it is recommended to consider a combination of the suggested erosion control options for future management of the Vedder River to find the best balance between erosion control,

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

lowering flood level, habitat protection, and cost efficiency while considering recreational and heritage values as well as First Nations interests.

When comparing recommendations for erosion protection with those for gravel management, habitat protection, recreation, heritage and First Nations interests, a conflict of interest may arise. Potential conflicts of interest with erosion control may include:

. Gravel Management (Section 2): The volume of gravel removed from a site or the location and dimensions of the gravel excavation may redirect the flow as a result of the excavation; this change in flow pattern may lead to increased erosion along the adjacent bank. However, as design of gravel excavations is taking erosional and flow patterns into account, this issue should be of minor concern.

. Habitat protection (Section 4): Accumulation of LWD on bars is an important component for aquatic habitat, while it may potentially increase local erosion by redirecting local flow patterns (and therefore local erosion patterns); in addition, dislodged logs may increase bank erosion when they are pushed along and into the banks by flood flows.

. Recreation (Section 5): If trails have to be relocated or vegetation has to be removed from the river banks in order to control erosion, trail connectivity could potentially be interrupted by protection measures, or value of the trail section may be reduced.

As far as heritage and First Nations interests (Section 6) are concerned, there are four Areas of Archaeological Potential (AOP) located along Peach Creek on the right bank and one between Giesbrecht Stockpile and the campground on the left bank. There is no potential conflict with measures for bank erosion protection as these areas, which contain mature cedars, are located at sufficient distance from the river banks. However, these areas are located in the potential flooding zone between the river banks and the setback dyke and may be impacted by erosion if the river overtops its banks during a flood. 4.0 HABITAT 4.1 Overview of Habitat Values in the Active Channel of the Vedder River

Salmonids are the dominant group of fishes that inhabit streams in British Columbia. The Vedder River is a highly productive and diverse system that supports important populations of salmonids including Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Chum (O. keta), Coho (O. kisutch), Pink (O. gorbuscha), Sockeye (O. nerka), Steelhead and rainbow trout (O. mykiss), Cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), and Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni).

The Vedder River also sustains wildlife populations and provides ecological and recreational value. As one of the most heavily used recreational fishing rivers in British Columbia, it has significant resource and economic value.

The Vedder River plays a key role for numerous salmonids for spawning or rearing. Attributes of spawning habitat include:

. Sub-gravel flow of clean, oxygenated water

. depth and velocity preference

. substrate size

. adequate space for returning stocks dependent on these areas.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Pink and chum salmon spawners are most readily observed in the Vedder River and occasionally chinook spawners and redds are noted. The sequence of gravel bars and the submerged riffles yield the sub gravel flows and velocity diversity that leads to abundant spawning in the Vedder River. Discharge from the Sardis aquifer likely also plays a role in providing upwelling sub-gravel flows that chum salmon prefer.

The Lower Reach in particular has been noted to support abundant pink spawning with the redd selection sites clearly dependent on the riffle pool sequence. For chum salmon, this is true throughout the lower and middle reaches. Spawning in the Upper Reach appears to be limited by large substrate size and faster water velocities.

Pink and Chum salmon normally select redd sites above and below riffles, respectively. However in years of greater spawner abundance, this site segregation breaks down, resulting in one species spawning overtop redds of the other.

Attributes of rearing habitat used by salmonids in the Vedder River include:

. Substrate

. Cover

. Velocity refugia

. Space requirements for rearing

. Rearing surfaces for invertebrate prey.

Rearing areas of streams are associated with stream bottoms that are relatively free of substrate with a high proportion of fine particles. Gravel substrate associated with salmonid rearing areas meets a number of important habitat requirements including rearing surfaces for invertebrate prey, interstitial spaces for cover and an irregular surface which provides velocity refugia.

Cover from predators is provided by deep pools, rock, undercut banks and most importantly by riparian vegetation. As a dyked and armoured system there is a potential conflict with maintenance of these structures as riparian vegetation grows and matures. Sediment removal plans can also lead to loss of riparian vegetation as morphological shift following excavation leads to loss of emergent and potentially older vegetation. Vegetation also plays a key role in fish productivity through its contribution of insect food and detritus.

In the Vedder, extensive gravel recruitment and the resulting sequence of gravel bars, riffles and pools provide the basic channel forms favoured for rearing salmonids. Large woody debris (LWD) is also an important component of fish habitat and an element in channel forming processes. LWD maintain stream sinuosity and depth, create pools and riffles, and provide cover from predators and substrate habitat for the rearing of aquatic invertebrates, which are an important food source for salmonids.

Riffles play a key role in providing food to salmonid populations. Primary algal production on sunlit riffles is grazed on by aquatic larval insect forms that make up a key part of the diet of rearing salmonids. Shallow areas also provide suitable substrate and contribute to the aquatic food web by similarly providing habitat for algal and aquatic insect production.

These factors are reflected in the habitat value allocation chart (Table 4.1) employed for the purposes of assessing habitats pre and post excavation: The details of the habitat assessment methodology were provided in the Analysis Phase Report and are further discussed in Section 4.3 below.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table 4.1: Habitat Value Allocation Chart Primary Food Support Support Rearing Habitat Type Production Contribution Migration Spawning Cover Space Value Unvegetated Gravel 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Bar Vegetated Gravel Bar 2 2 0 0 2 0 6 LWD 1 1 1 0 3 3 10 Glide 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 Glide Edge Shallows 2 2 0 2 0 1 7 Glide Tail 2 2 0 3 0 1 8 Shallows 2 2 0 1 0 1 6 Backwater 1 2 2 0 2 2 9 Habitat Edge 1 2 1 1 2 2 9 Riffle 2 3 1 1 1 1 9 Micro-channel 2 2 1 2 2 2 11 Secondary Channel 2 1 1 2 1 2 9 Temporary Channel 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 Pool 0 2 3 2 2 2 11 A score of 1 indicates a contribution; 2 indicates an important contribution; and 3 indicates a paramount contribution

Analysis of past excavations through delineation of habitat polygons showed more increases than decreases in habitat rating as measured one year after sediment removal. The short term increase in wetted habitat types was found to be a factor in producing higher ratings, as these include the higher valued habitats such as pool and riffle. Enhancement of secondary and microchannel habitats also contributed to higher values.

Following the guidelines outlined in Section 4.2.1 yielded better results than ignoring the guidelines, although this was related more to specific guidelines and specific circumstances rather than the number of guidelines followed. The guidelines generally seek to preserve existing high value habitats and avoid removals that cause large amounts of change. Excavations that lead to substantial change tended to concentrate the flow in a single channel and lower habitat values (channelization) while the smaller changes tended to add habitat complexity and result in higher habitat values. Ongoing surveys and flood profile analysis show that the program has been effective in maintaining channel capacity using excavation designs that tend to retain habitat values. More aggressive sediment removal practices, those that tend to be larger in volume and ignore the excavation planning guidelines, also contribute to flood profile lowering, however, their application for example at Giesbrecht and Peach Road bars in 1996 and Bergman and Peach Creek Bars in 2000 appears to have caused longer term degradation of the bed without providing better sediment management outcomes. Thus the current practices are favoured over more aggressive approaches that might yield better improvements to the flood profile, but would fail to meet the fish habitat objectives of the sediment removal program.

The extraction methods employed and discussed below are focused on protecting these attributes.

4.2 Sediment Extraction Methods

Excavations are designed following a set of constraint guidelines and planning procedures (summarized below) that were established based on the observed habitat impacts of deep pit excavations from 1994 to 1998. Generally these guidelines are intended to minimize detrimental changes to habitat as a consequence of the excavations. Several guidelines, such as adhering to the fisheries window and working in isolation of flowing water, are intended to avoid detrimental impacts during the excavation.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Three main types of excavations are included in the program: gravel traps, where the purpose is to remove gravel upstream of freeboard limited areas; increased floodway capacity, where the purpose is to lower water levels expected during high flow conditions; and habitat, where the purpose is to improve local conditions, usually as a mitigative component of another excavation. A fourth purpose, reduction of bank erosion had been included informally, and was included in 2010 as a more explicit component of the program.

Some differentiation of approaches by reach is also warranted. Excavations in the upper reach should be designed to refill without any changes outside the footprint unless there is a specific erosion control objective. This reach typically has coarser armoured substrate so berms should be thinner and openings wider to ensure connectivity to the main channel.

With fewer freeboard issues, the middle reach could be allowed to refill, especially in the area between Lickman Bar and Bergman Bar where potential off-channel habitat effects may be occurring. This issue is discussed in more detail below. Continuation of excavations to trap gravel closer to the freeboard limited parts of the river could be continued but further bed lowering is potentially detrimental to habitat value.

Most excavations aimed at increasing floodway capacity are in the Lower Reach but it has been difficult to find suitable excavation sites that meet the program guidelines. Incomplete filling and lower bar profiles have limited removal quantities at several sites. The strategy of removing gravel upstream meets a portion of the sediment removal target and intercepts gravel before it contributes to limited freeboard. This approach also mitigates potential impacts arising from excessive removals in the Lower Reach. It is still necessary from the habitat perspective to allow enough gravel to enter the Lower Reach to maintain the gravel substrate and bar pool riffle habitat. Allowing more gravel to pass through the middle reach might also improve the condition of the bars for excavation.

Reduced sediment removal within the Middle Reach, provided it remains within freeboard requirements, is recommended. The magnitude of the change is anticipated to be modest.

Reduced excavation in the Middle Reach would facilitate the current strategies outlined in section 4.2.1 to protect strategic points where the configuration of bars and riffles contributes to water levels in adjacent secondary channels and microchannels. While this likely has no bearing on high flow conditions, it is particularly important during low flow conditions when some of these habitat areas have no surface flow. These strategic points also likely contribute to water levels in off channel habitats located outside the armoured inner banks of the river. Monitoring of water levels in off channel habitats is recommended for inclusion in the Vedder River Management Area Plan.

Strategic gravel traps within the middle reach, such as that at Railway Bar should continue to be excavated. Generally, there are several good opportunities in the Middle Reach in any removal year and these contribute to lowering the amount of gravel required to be removed from the Lower Reach. A reduction in Middle Reach removals will need to be offset by increased removals in the Lower Reach.

Allowing gravel to pass through the Middle Reach is also intended to ensure that recruitment of gravel of appropriate size for establishing spawning and rearing habitat is not interrupted. This replacement is required as gravel is removed or sequestered outside active fish rearing and spawning areas.

Generally, this replacement has occurred and pre and post excavation habitat values have not usually been different from other reaches. However, low bar profiles, unfilled pools and accumulations of sand imply poorer conditions and can make finding suitable candidate bars in the Lower Reach difficult. Under these condition, finding sufficient volumes to meet freeboard requirements can be challenging due to the constraint of working outside of flowing water.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Balancing removals in the three reaches plus the sequential approach for the Canal reach described below will ensure that floodway capacity targets can be met in a way that maintains habitat quality within the river.

The Canal Reach represents an opportunity to improve both flood management and habitat management in the Vedder River. Section 2 in the Analysis Report (Gravel Management) has shown that flood profile lowering in the Lower Reach can be achieved through sediment removals in the Canal Reach. This could have the additional benefit of encouraging finer sediments to move out of the Lower Reach and be replaced with gravel accruing from the suggested less aggressive program in the Middle Reach.

As part of the long term approach in the Canal Reach, it is recommended to start with Boundary Bar and continue to excavate bars sequentially upstream in subsequent years. This could help to ensure that the river is assisting in moving gravel substrates downstream. Monitoring of substrate and spawning conditions related to this program is recommended.

Past excavation assessment has focused on the direct effects of the excavation and the conditions one year later. There is some evidence that repeated excavation at one location leads to a longer term lowering of habitat values. For example, excavations tend to result in some loss of riparian vegetation each time, so when repeat excavations occur there tends to be a longer term reduction in riparian vegetation. There also appears to be a component of channelization with repeated excavations leading to loss or degradation of secondary and micro-channels. Some sites appear to refill consistently and are resilient from the habitat perspective. Some, such as Railway Bar, can be excavated annually while others, such as Bergman and Peach Bars, can be excavated alternately. It is recommended that the sediment management program continue to include enough sites to avoid excessive repeat excavations. Sediment trapping remains a key part of this approach as there are not enough potential sites in the freeboard limited areas to meet the flood risk reduction targets. Further evaluation of the effects of repeat excavation is recommended. Changes to the assessment methodology discussed below should facilitate this analysis.

Past excavations have been evaluated by habitat mapping that measures and rates habitat value in the probable impact area by habitat type pre and post excavation. In addition, a summary score is generated for each excavation. The summary score is an overall evaluation of the excavation that considers: direct post-excavation changes, habitat changes as rated one year later, the durability and desirability of altered habitat features into the second year, and evidence of specific problems such as loss of spawn, inducing erosion or trapping of adult or juvenile salmonids.

4.2.1 Updates to Guidelines and Constraints

To determine if revisions to the guidelines should be made, the compliance of past excavations with the guidelines and constraints outlined in 1999 were compared with the habitat outcomes and summary scores from each excavation.

During the period from 1994 to 1998, eighteen guidelines or constraints were followed at various times. These were reviewed in a 1999 report by Nova Pacific Environmental (Wright 1999) and 16 were considered to be valid and continued to form the basis of excavation planning for the Vedder River. In practice the distinction between the guidelines and constraints is of limited use because at various times, all have been modified to fit particular circumstances. To simplify, the term guideline is used in the balance of this discussion and all 18 are considered.

To analyze the efficacy of the guidelines, all past excavations from 1994 to 2010 have been reviewed to compare compliance and habitat outcomes.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

It should be noted that in practice, following all guidelines at once would be prohibitive, both in terms of developing an executable plan for many sites and in terms of meeting the flood control objective.

The following section details the eighteen guidelines, their application in current practice, issues or concerns regarding their effectiveness and changes recommended for consideration. The guidelines are presented with their original numbers but have been re-grouped from “Constraints”, “Program Guidelines” and “Pit Design Guidelines” to “Program Guidelines”, “Pit Location Guidelines” and “Pit Design Guidelines”. This better reflects the intent of each but results in a list that is not in numerical order. As these were analyzed by number in the Analysis Phase Report, they have not been renumbered.

Program Guidelines

1) No excavations in pink spawning years in the reach where most pink salmon spawn In practice this is interpreted as no sediment removal activity in pink spawning years and serves logistic as well as habitat protection concerns. The lower Vedder River pink salmon stock appears to have thrived since 1994 when it was considered to be depressed (Matt Foy pers. comm.). Several of the guidelines described below are intended in part to retain pink salmon spawning habitat.

3) Work only in isolation from flowing water

This is a core guiding principle and a requirement of most DFO authorizations. In practice, crossing wetted channels with machinery, building berms around wetted portions of shallow bars where authorized, opening pits to flowing water and restoring isolation where high water breaches excavations is an integral part of the Vedder Floodway Management Program. All of these activities are or should be conducted only with the express permission and presence of the environmental monitor.

5) Adherence to the fisheries windows

This guideline is followed for most excavations although extensions of two to three weeks are normally authorized by DFO provided weather and flow conditions are appropriate.

9) Avoid excavating in areas adjacent to sensitive habitat

Because sensitive habitat is in all sections of the river, it is recommended that this guideline be rephrased to say: Leave appropriate buffers to protect sensitive habitat and avoid excavation designs that are likely to alter these habitats in subsequent higher flows. Pit Location Guidelines

2) Avoid excavating in areas of sub-gravel percolation as this may impact chum spawning and water levels in enhanced off channel habitat.

In the 1999 study (Wright 1999), it was recommended to leave this unchanged to prevent negative impacts on spawning, and to avoid unnecessary risks to important side channel habitats. In practice this has been followed more as a matter of judgment than as an absolute constraint as there will be groundwater flow whenever a hydraulic head difference is observed. Hydraulic head differences are typically observed between channels at differing elevations and where riffles are present.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

The Vedder River is a complex depositional environment which in turn leads to a complex system of surface water/groundwater interaction. This complexity makes it difficult to predict how the off-channel habitat may be impacted from excavations. A conservative approach should be taken to excavations where particularly sensitive habitat may be impacted.

To manage the issue, excavations are designed to maintain head where possible and secondary channels are sometimes deepened to maintain sub gravel flow. The exception is around Lickman Bar where an informal hands-off policy has been maintained. This approach has been taken due to the complex, and poorly defined, relationship between the Sardis Vedder Aquifer and the Peach Creek side channel.

Concerns had been identified with regard to excavating in close proximity to the Peach Creek side channel. Excavations could result in a significant head difference between Peach Creek and the main channel resulting in flow from Peach Creek to the Vedder River. The potential exists for these flow rates to be sufficient to impact habitat in Peach Creek.

Additional study, predominantly of water levels in these off channel habitats was recommended in a 2012 report on Vedder River off-channel habitats (Wright and Kozlova, 2012). Evidence of past spawning in predominantly dry off-channel habitats as well as other signs of habitat degradation led to recommendations for further study. A key recommendation is that more careful consideration be given to potential interactions between the river, aquifer and off-channel habitats (outside the bank armour but within the setback dykes) particularly when sediment removal could or had reduced the head difference between the river and off- channel habitats. The Hopedale Spawning Channel provides an example of the potential effects. Following the 2010 gravel excavation at Bergman Bar, the river had shifted so that it was adjacent to the armoured bank and hence closer to the channel. Field flow estimates of 5 lps at the upstream end and 534 lps at the downstream end where it rejoins Hopedale Creek were recorded in October, 2011.

More detailed parameters that could include a minimum bed level between Lickman Bar and the outlet of Peach Creek should be considered. An adaptive management approach that would include monitoring water levels in these side channels as bed levels are allowed to build has the potential to allow significant increases in off-channel habitat value. Areas where the existing surface water/groundwater interactions may be negatively impacted by gravel removal should be carefully reviewed during planning for the excavations.

4) Leave the upstream third of bars

This is an original constraint specified by DFO in 1994 and it continues to be applicable for some excavations. It often is met incidentally while following other guidelines, such as not bypassing riffles. The purpose of this guideline is to avoid destabilizing river sections upstream of an excavation and to maintain glide tail habitats at the head of riffles frequently used for pink spawning. It is recommended that this be retained as a program guideline but note that it is not applicable for all excavation designs.

6) Avoid digging consecutive bars because of potential interaction between them

This guideline refers to adjacent bars but it normally does not apply when pits are relatively small compared to overall bar size. Community and Greendale Bars are adjacent but because of the distance between them and the relatively low slope can be excavated in the same year. This guideline is important but is normally tempered with consideration of adequate spacing for each particular situation.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

8) Protect areas adjacent to points where micro-channels and secondary channels branch off from the main flow

Potential habitat losses can occur when an excavation causes lowering of the water level at a branch point either on the target bar or across the river from the target bar. Protection can be achieved by maintaining the glide tail and riffle so this protection is often achieved by following other guidelines such as not bypassing riffles. Mitigation can be achieved by deepening the entrance and this is probably the second most common mitigation practice after LWD placements for the Vedder River gravel removal program. These features tend to fill over time in any event so modest excavation of smaller channels is often included, even when the excavation does not increase the risk of dewatering. Pit Design Guidelines

7) Excavate channels to replicate natural streambed shape to minimize post-excavation changes

This guideline was introduced in 1998, deleted in the 1999 report but nonetheless used in 1998 and 2000 with the intention of facilitating a new style of excavation in which the river shape was modified and diverted prior to the first spawning season. This was attempted at Peach Bar and Bergman Bar, and in 2000 resulted in an 11% decrease in habitat value and an overall score of -2 and -1 respectively. The complexity of the task was simply too great and significant negative changes to the river resulted as several other key guidelines were not followed.

The excavations at Garrison and Peach in 2010, however, show how this approach might be used constructively. The objective was to establish a secondary channel that would draw high flows away from the right bank and protect the Rotary Trail. At Garrison the design used an existing rocky bluff to direct flows back toward the main channel. This excavation was very effective but the angle of the dogleg thus established was too acute, and erosion of both upstream and downstream sections moved a significant amount of gravel.

In practice, this one guideline might evolve into several guidelines for more aggressive approaches to sediment removal. Thus, one guideline might suggest an angle for the secondary channel to bear off at 30 degrees (approximately where the angles ended up one year later at Garrison) or less. The Garrison excavation would likely have retained more vegetation if a more natural channel shape had been used to finalize the location of this excavation rather than following the path of lowest vegetation density.

This guideline is recommended for inclusion when larger channel changes are planned, for example where an erosion control objective seeks to move a section of the river.

10) Avoid digging long pits associated with elevation drops or which can affect long sections of the river

This guideline is intended to prevent large disruptions to habitat that could arise through diverting flows away from long sections of existing channels. It is similar in intent to avoiding consecutive pits, but as a long single pit is more likely to disrupt habitat than two short pits that might interact, it is perhaps more important.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

11) Leave gently sloped inside edges on upper end of cuts to prevent head cutting and to leave stable habitat for chum spawners

This guideline has been highly effective at reducing the amount of chum spawning along the upper edge of the pits. Because there is less post excavation changes, there is also much less scour of areas containing redds. Though not always effective at preventing the main channel from entering the pit, when this guideline has been ignored, usually through operator error, it has induced large changes and resulted in lost spawn and habitat.

12) Open the upstream end of deep gravel pits so that head-cutting can occur, and to encourage gravel flow into the pits

Guideline 12 advocates encouraging head-cutting where desirable, although the objective is to encourage filling since head-cutting is almost never desirable. Scalping the upstream end and strategic design of inflows to encourage gravel filling is all that is needed. This may be of particular importance upstream where embedded coarse substrate may continue to deflect flow allowing the pit to fill with smaller substrate.

13) Construct internal, cross channel berms in long pits or where there is a significant elevation drop This guideline was determined to be impractical and has not been followed since 1995. It should be dropped from the list. Internal cross-channel berms are still used occasionally to restore isolation from flowing water when the main berm is breached by high flows.

14) Leave the downstream ends of bars since this will preserve tailouts which provide rearing and spawning opportunities Guideline 14 should be modified to require a square blunt end to force upwelling and splitting of flow at the downstream end of excavations. This assists retention of features, such as tailouts and glide tails, at the downstream ends of bars and helps to maintain the sequence of pools and riffles in the main channel. Ensuring that the upstream ends of pits are perpendicular to the direction of flow also helps to retain the pool riffle structure. See for example Bergman 2006 which cut through where the upstream end was further upstream on the left bank. This aspect could be included in this guideline or a new one added.

15) Ensure riffles are not bypassed by excavation This guideline is generally followed although one set of riffles can normally be bypassed without inducing significant morphological changes. Disruptions to habitat usually occur when two sets of riffles are bypassed by one pit. This guideline is a key principle behind others that address long or sequential pits. Riffles are also usually adjacent to the upstream third of bars. Simplification of the guidelines to a few simpler ones has been considered but using the whole set ensures that the full range of habitat concerns are addressed in the pit design. It is recommended that the detail within the guidelines be retained to ensure that a broader range of potential outcomes from an excavation are considered.

16) Adjacent dry channels should be deepened and stabilized with flow control structures such as LWD complexes This guideline should be revised as it is normally wetted channels that are deepened and enhanced as part of the ongoing habitat enhancement component of the program.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

17) Leave pits with large head differences closed to prevent chum salmon from spawning within them or fish trapping. With chum spawning in pits mainly controlled by keeping flat slopes, almost all pits are opened. When a large head difference exists it is usually accompanied by a strategy to direct flow through the pit. It is worthwhile to leave this option available to the environmental monitor.

18) Open excavations thoroughly to avoid creating fish traps. Two deep openings adjacent to the main channel should prevent this problem. Two openings are normally the minimum and in practice three or four are sometimes used, particularly when fish trapping risks are seen or when directing flow to secondary channels. While some anglers prefer to fish in the pits during the fall after their excavation, most angling activity is in the unaffected parts of the river. The current deep and wide openings have been effective, but it may be worthwhile to measure these after future excavations to provide specifications for addition to the guidelines.

A few practices such as leaving outside berms with 1:1 slopes when the objective is to open the excavation fully and avoiding areas of vegetation are not covered by the current set of guidelines.

Generally, the guidelines are important, effective and relevant to the protection of fish habitat values in the Vedder River. The general approach of minimizing changes following an excavation has been effective at limiting habitat change without thwarting the flood risk reduction objective.

Moderate changes to the guidelines as discussed above would help to streamline the design process and allow for additional flexibility in how the sediment removal program is implemented. A few additions and clarifications would help ensure that some habitat losses are avoided. An adaptive management approach has the potential to continue improving the alignment of flood risk reduction and habitat protection goals.

4.3 Assessment Methodology

Two main aspects of the post excavation methods are discussed. The first is the habitat mapping and scoring, and the second is the more subjective summary score determined for each excavation. The second considers the output of the habitat mapping but also takes into account the effects arising from the execution and initial inundation of each excavation site, as well as upstream and downstream effects that may not be noted within the assessment area.

Vedder River Habitat Assessment Protocol (VHAP)

Previous analysis of habitat value in areas subject to sediment removal has focused on before-after comparisons associated with a specific excavation or series of excavations. Evolving methods and evolving questions over this period limits our ability to identify longer term trends in habitat quantity and quality.

The established mapping protocol remains, in the author’s view, the best approach for describing and tracking habitat changes in areas affected by sediment removal, but it is worthwhile at this juncture to clearly delineate methods for continuing this assessment and to suggest a number of improvements.

Identifying and tracking habitat changes in response to the Vedder River sediment removal program has faced several key challenges.

1. The environment is dynamic and hence changes to the river occur with or without excavations.

2. There is no clear measurement of fish habitat value.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

3. Most stream inventory methods are extremely labour-intensive and too coarse to distinguish year to year differences in the same reach in the same river.

4. The assessment methodology, the Vedder Habitat Assessment Protocol (VHAP), was designed specifically for the Vedder where high rates of sediment transfer and frequent instream excavations create a unique challenge for the investigator.

5. The photographic method employed requires flow and weather conditions to be at or near optimal.

6. The ortho-correction method requires a high degree of skill and coordination by the photographer and the cartographer.

Addressing these and other challenges over the years has led to an evolving process that limits the ability to determine long term changes from the excavations or to track and address specific queries without digging back into the original data and modifying original mapped polygons.

The method has been very effective at tracking conditions in small sub-reaches around a particular excavation and provides an objective rating of habitat pre- and post-excavation. This contributes to the ongoing adaptive management of the sediment removal program and ensures that habitat objectives retain their appropriate place in Vedder River Floodway management.

The current review of the Vedder River Management Area Plan provides a good opportunity to lock in the lessons of the past years and provide a consistent tool for ongoing monitoring, continuing adaptive management and improving our collective understanding of the fish habitat issues related to flood risk management.

The following standardizations and changes to the VHAP methodology are therefore recommended:

1. Break all polygons at every cross section

Previously, mapping has been broken at selected cross sections to allow comparison of habitat areas in any given subreach. These have varied from year to year as the accessible bar at a particular location moves upstream or downstream. The small additional effort to divide polygons at all cross sections will add substantially to the assessment capability of the model. 2. Do not change the mapped banks, even if the river changes

Fixed outlines for the assessment area must be determined and included in the base map. In this way, the area mapped from year to year will be constant. These should be set to the existing hard armoured or defense points (i.e. unarmoured setback dyke) and carried forward in the base map. The current active channel includes sections that were originally beyond high banks that were originally mapped as fixed banks. 3. Create a database of habitat value for each unit established by sequential cross sections and fixed banks

The database would allow comparisons over any section of the river and allow either an excavation focused year to year comparison, or identification of broader changes over time. 4. Use moderate low flows for aerial photography and assessment The original rationale for selecting the lowest flows for assessment was that these were the most limiting conditions; habitat limiting conditions at higher flows could not practically be mapped in any event. In practice, the originally targeted flows are too rare and of too limited duration to assure a quality set of photographs.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

5. Return to a single pool type in the habitat classifications Three pool habitat types for mapping purposes were incorporated into the model but these have proven to be unwieldy and difficult to distinguish. 6. Retain glide edge and glide tail distinctions These habitat types had been classified as glide but their importance to food production and spawning were being ignored by the model. While the boundaries are somewhat indistinct, they can still be mapped consistently. 7. Air photo flight elevations must be at least 5000 feet A higher elevation is needed to add consistency to the photomaps on which the habitat assessments are made. Lower elevations, while providing a clear picture for air photo interpretation of habitat types, creates an enormous challenge for creating the maps. It is recommended that permanent target elevations (and zoom factor) be set. Photos could be taken at two elevations, one for mapping and one for interpretation of habitat types. 8. Standardize the distance upstream and downstream of each excavation to be assessed Past assessments have focused on an area that includes all of the area affected by a particular excavation. However, in some cases this has meant the assessment of an area in which the excavation footprint is relatively small. This is less important if the database provisions outlined in point 1 to 3 above are incorporated but it would still improve comparability. 9. A full and detailed documentation of the methodology should be prepared.

As part of the review of the habitat aspects of the gravel removal program and in particular the Vedder River Habitat Assessment Protocol, a peer review and discussion of the habitat rating values used in the VHAP was undertaken with David Morantz of EBA. The following section provides a summary of concerns raised, addresses some of the limitations of the VHAP, and opportunities for improvement.

The system uses a meso-scale approach to evaluate habitat condition and value to fish, as opposed to the micro- scale that typically looks at changes in such variables as velocity, depth, substrate and assemblages of macro- invertebrates.

The advantage of the approach taken is that it provides a relatively complete overview description of the habitat changes in the area of influence. With frequent excavations, in a highly dynamic area, being able to describe the change to be assessed is a key part of the challenge. The VHAP model provides a surrogate for our understanding of fish habitat values in the Vedder River rather than a direct measure. As such, it is an intuitive tool based on the knowledge of experienced biologists, while still providing an objective approach.Because it is intuitive and provides an overview of the changes, it has been useful as a monitoring tool and has provided valuable insights for planning future excavations and developing the guidelines employed for those excavations.

More rigorous scientific approaches, such as through the application of instream flow models such as PHABSIM (physical habitat simulation; Waddle 2001) would result in habitat quantification and inter-annual comparisons, but may also be subject to error due to the complexity of the ecological interactions that influence habitat selection. They are also likely to be considerably more time consuming and costly. An alternative would be to conduct individual studies to validate the VHAP and to extend our knowledge of fish habitat usage in the Vedder River. A good place to start would be to design a study comparing fry densities between the different reaches and different habitat types and to test the validity of the contributions to rearing habitat shown in Table 4.1.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

It would also be possible to increase the rigor of the method by considering species specific requirements when determining habitat ratings. Habitat selection by fish is dependent on the suitability of a number of physical and biological factors and for each of these; there are a range of values that are appropriate for a particular species and life stage. These can often be critical or limiting factors for the total productivity of a particular stock of fish.

A good example is provided by the glide tail habitat type which is given the maximum rating of 3 as a habitat that supports spawning. This is well verified for the Lower and most of the Middle Reach through the ongoing spawning assessments. In the Upper Reach, however, high velocities and substrate coarseness substantially reduce (or limit) the value of this habitat for spawning.

Thus, some improvement of the model could be attained by determining a reach specific habitat value allocation.

The habitat values shown in Table 4.1 are a simplification of the actual contributions made by the various habitat components and are based on observations, assumptions about habitat usage and on professional judgment. Observations about fry distribution were made by snorkeling during the first few seasons of deep pit observations, through occasional placement of minnow traps and electrofishing for salvage purposes. Spawning distribution for pink and chum has been carefully mapped and observed over the timeframe of the VHAP. A few Chinook redds have also been observed, but other spawners are more elusive.

Together, this information is being used as an intuitive predictor of overall salmonid productive capacity.

Summary Score for Individual Excavations

As described in the Analysis Report, the summary score considers outcomes related to an individual excavation that are not incorporated into the habitat rating. The summary score in addition to the habitat rating has included: evidence of direct effects on redds, initiation of erosion or head-cutting, trapping of fish within the pit and other immediate direct effects on fish habitat.

It is recommended that future assessments continue to include this summary score, but that it be documented in a manner that illustrates the contribution of each of the components. These components should be defined, and finalized in the assessment report for the 2012 excavations to provide a standard approach to completing this aspect of the assessment. Direct flood protection benefits are not included in this score as they are well documented by bed level surveys.

4.4 Off-Channel Habitats

Much of the Vedder River is confined by armoured banks leaving an area of forest, wetlands and small streams between the banks and the setback dikes, which provide significant habitat value for fish and wildlife. These areas are used recreationally and to a limited extent for agricultural purposes. There are also several stockpile sites and access routes used for sediment removal programs undertaken for flood risk management.

Wetlands and streams within the off-channel areas appear to be groundwater fed and this high quality water source ensures opportunities for spawning and rearing of salmonids outside the active channel.

A recent study completed by Nova Pacific Environmental (Wright and Kozlova, 2012) provides a description of the five main floodplain areas, identifies high value habitats, outlines enhancement opportunities in each floodplain area and provides recommendations for ongoing management of this part of the VRMA lands.

These off-channel habitat areas were found to contain high quality habitats that should be protected and carefully managed. Groundwater-fed streams form the core of the habitat values while the riparian zones serve double duty for both the active channel of Vedder River and the off-channel habitats.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

The off-channel habitat areas were generally found to have high fish habitat value, although degraded habitats in some areas due to the diversion of flows, presence of migration barriers and risks of stranding were also noted. Nutrient loading, fluctuating water levels, and beaver dams also contributed to habitat degradation.

A short term maintenance program was identified in the off channel habitat study that could address many of these issues economically, while yielding a substantial resource and habitat benefit. It is recommended that these short term projects be undertaken as soon as possible as they are of low cost and will reduce stranding risks for salmonids and contribute to the overall understanding of the flow regimes in the off channel habitat areas.

The report also outlines enhancement projects that have the potential to result in the development of substantial additional habitat for fish at various locations. It is recommended that an implementation plan be developed for these enhancement projects. Some of these activities could be undertaken as part of the ongoing flood risk management program of the VRMAC, particularly when they involve sediment removal such as the channel deepening project planned near Campground Bar at the foot of Giesbrecht Road.

Other opportunities would likely require the participation of other groups such as DFO, the City of Chilliwack and various stewardship groups as some of the projects are complex and would require considerable effort and investment.

4.5 Endangered Species and Wildlife

For this report an overview on how the Vedder River Management Committee might approach the endangered species and wildlife issues was requested.

A good starting point on any assessment of endangered species is to search the Conservation Data Center (CDC) database to determine known occurrences of endangered species for the broad area of interest. As this is fairly straightforward it has been done and for the Vedder Lands produced only a few candidates. These were:

. Mountain Beaver, Alpodontiarufa

. Mountain Beaver, Alpodontiarufarainieri subspecies

. Salish Sucker, Catostomus sp.

. Western Painted Turtle, Chrysemuspicta pop 1

. Northern Red-legged Frog, Rana aurora

. Masked occurrence

(A masked occurrence is a red or blue listed plant, animal or ecological community whose precise location is kept secret because of its sensitivity or because of issues related to land tenure. The sensitivity is usually to some form of human disturbance and may also include a risk of poaching or collection. Where a masked occurrence is present, it is necessary to submit your work proposal to the BC Conservation Data Centre who then make a determination whether or not disclosure of the exact location and species is in appropriate.)

The mountain beaver is likely only found on the hilltops east of Vedder Crossing but shows up in the search area as specified. To deal with the masked occurrence it is necessary to provide a brief description of your project and you will then be advised if it is of further concern. The masking of this information is intended to prevent the presence of an endangered species at a particular location from becoming widely known.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

The next step would be to conduct a search using BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer and this tends to provide a much longer list as it covers a wider geographic area. Listed species can mostly be screened out because they are part of a specific stock in another location or inhabit an obviously different ecosystem.

Any species listed on SARA schedule 1 in the project area will require mitigation measures and permits if they are directly impacted (i.e., if a Salish Sucker stream was to be enhanced, a salvage permit would be issued under SARA by DFO). SARA permits are typically issued federally under Environment Canada and DFO, with DFO only handling aquatic SARA species.

The updated VRMA plan should include a framework for dealing with species at risk. The VRMA lands will also likely include a role in the protection and recovery strategies for some species.

Consideration of endangered species by the VRMA committee should be explicit for both the ongoing activities which are under the direct auspices of the committee as well as activities that are referred to the committee.

A quick assessment should be conducted where the committee sees potential concern. This should include:

1. A search of the CDC database for known occurrences of endangered flora and fauna. This has been completed but could be renewed annually.

2. Avoidance of areas subject to restrictive covenants or protection.

3. Identification of species that could be expected in the area through a search of the BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer database.

4. Habitat assessment in potential areas where suitable habitat for endangered species could be expected.

5. Presence/absence studies where suitable habitats are identified in a project area.

6. Follow best management practices as appropriate. For example, active nesting sites should be avoided and where possible the project delayed until nesting season has passed.

7. Develop mitigation plans where endangered species are identified

8. Where disturbance is unavoidable, permitting and salvage must be undertaken.

Steps one through three can be completed prior to any project activities and form part of the committee’s collective knowledge base. Any identified endangered element habitats can be added to the existing maps that were upgraded as part of the off-channel habitat project. This would ensure that the committee is cognizant of potential concerns where they arise.

For the VRMA Committee’s ongoing sediment management activities, the due diligence, careful planning and mitigation activities associated with sediment removal, dyke upgrades and erosion protection activities addresses most of the concerns identified. Due to the nature of the active channel, vegetated areas are already disturbed and unlikely to support endangered plants. The other endangered elements in the area are not expected to be found in the habitat types of the active channel.

Nonetheless, explicit consideration should be added to the review of each gravel removal proposal. Peripheral activities such as access construction, stockpiling and habitat compensation activities could have impacts in cases where they are not fully contained within the existing infrastructure or currently flowing channels. For example, development of a new off-channel habitat could affect amphibian habitat where red legged frogs are present. Salish Sucker may also be present and are likely to benefit from the types of enhancement activities proposed but permits under SARA legislation could still be needed.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Activities in the VRMA lands, proposed by other parties that are referred or presented to the Committee, should also be screened and it would be reasonable to assume that the referring company, agency or individual undertake the assessment following a similar framework.

4.6 Conclusion

The current program of sediment removal methods appear to be effective at protecting the overall habitat value of the river. On some occasions poor outcomes are noted but considering the level of activity needed to maintain the flood profile and the minor, at least in the longer term, nature of the negative consequences, overall the program is effective.

Mitigation activities including enhancing and maintaining secondary and microchannel habitats, placement of LWD and site selection and design guidelines aimed at protecting valued habitat types have yielded positive or neutral habitat ratings and summary scores for the majority of the sediment removal projects. In most cases where negative outcomes have occurred, modifications to the approaches taken have followed in subsequent years.

A series of minor modifications to the guidelines for the program as well as an adaptive management approach and more detailed guidelines to better manage the more aggressive sediment removal projects are recommended.

The assessment methodology follows a pragmatic approach that consistently provides a qualified assessment of the outcomes of each excavation. Models such as PHABSIM would result in quantified before-after comparisons, but can be very labour intensive and costly. Other fish habitat assessment methods reviewed tended to be more rigorous but either lacked the ability to draw before-after comparisons or were inconclusive.

For monitoring of an ongoing and essential program the current approach seems to be appropriate. Further investigations to validate some of the assumptions contained within the assessment methods should be undertaken to increase the reliability of the VHAP model and to further develop the model for wider application. Quantitative field investigations, potentially involving redd counts and juvenile abundance estimation would be beneficial in validating the model that has been used.

It is recommended that the basic assessment approach be retained. A series of recommended modifications have been included that will lock in the progress, and lock out the missteps that have occurred during the evolution of the methodology since its inception. These innovations should streamline the process and provide a better outcome for a similar level of effort. The principal benefits will be to enhance the rigour of the methods and to improve the ability to track longer term effects.

Additional oversight of the off-channel habitats by the VRMAC is recommended. The risks to these areas from sediment removal projects are unclear due to lack of monitoring information on flow and conditions. It is recommended that several simple maintenance type projects within these habitats be undertaken as soon as possible as they could provide very cost effective enhancements and improve understanding of the flow regime in the off- channel areas.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

5.0 RECREATION 5.1 Discussion of Issues and Conflicts

5.1.1 Facilities and Trails

In most respects, there is a good match between the facilities provided in each reach and the areas of highest recreational usage. Interpretive signage, benches, picnic areas and garbage receptacles are most evident where usage is greatest. This applies to the three reaches on the right bank of the Vedder River. One gap is the lack of a permanent public washroom in the Upper Reach along the right bank. This is the most heavily used reach and only upland area that is densely urbanized. Consideration should be given to having more than a portable toilet. Currently the only two areas where permanent washroom facilities are provided are in the Rotary Interpretive Centre on the right bank and the Yarrow Community Centre on the left bank.

Parking access points are well spaced and the number of spaces provided is significant. There should be no need to provide paved parking at these locations, many of which do double duty as gravel stockpile areas. The one possible exception is the Upper Reach on the left bank where a major new trail was developed by the City. When connectivity is completed east to the Vedder River Crossing Bridge and west to the Vedder South trail, an additional parking area may be needed.

Trails are more clearly identified on the right bank than the left bank. As additional trails are developed, more directional signage will be required.

Existing trails are heavily used for a wide range of recreational purposes, particularly along the right bank. Off-road motorcycles or ATVs are not permitted due to conflicts with pedestrians, equestrians and their environmental impact. Although the incidence of off-road motorcycles or ATVs is not considered a major concern and occurs mainly in the summer, regular monitoring and enforcement is required.

The recreational trails and features have good potential for connectivity beyond the Vedder River Management Area. Specifically these opportunities extend:

. west along the Sumas River Dyke Trail to Sumas Mountain Regional Park and other locations in the City of Abbotsford;

. south-east to Cultus Lake along Cultus Lake and Columbia Valley Roads; and

. east past the Vedder River Bridge along the Chilliwack River.

Connectivity is possible to the Bert Brink Wildlife Conservation Area along the right bank under the Highway 1 Bridge crossing of the Vedder Canal. While the management plan does not prevent public access, the cost to provide and maintain access within the wetland area would be significant (Photos 61, 62). (Photos referred to in this section are located in Appendix H of the Analysis Phase Report, which is Addendum Two.)

5.1.2 Maintenance and Erosion

Most trail sections are well maintained. The one area where maintenance is lacking is the need for more frequent grading of gravel roads where vehicular access is allowed. This applies to the top of dyke access roads and to stockpile areas along the river. Pot holes have recently been filled within the Great Blue Heron Reserve area.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

There is obvious pride of place and little evidence of litter along trails. However this is due in part to the efforts of the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society. This not-for-profit society was formed in 2002 by a group of dedicated people who regularly use the Chilliwack/Vedder River for recreational purposes. The Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society undertakes three river cleanups a year. In 2011, 462 volunteers collected over 7 tonnes of material ranging from coffee cups to rubber tires.

Several well used parking areas lack garbage receptacles. More garbage was observed in those locations compared to locations where garbage receptacles were visible and readily available (Photo 35).

Discarded lumber and no-post guard rails, an abandoned building, and graffiti were observed in several reaches along the left bank (Photos 36, 37, 38, 39). This appears associated with vehicle-accessible areas and where public usage is less prominent. Extensive pot holes were present wherever vehicular access was permitted.

Along the right bank, vehicular barriers consist of a variety of methods which are both functional and aesthetically pleasing. Design solutions include the use of large boulders (Photo 42), gates (Photo 44), metal posts (Photo 45) and a metal barrier in the Great Blue Heron Nature Reserve designed to prevent vehicular access but allow pedestrian and equestrian access (Photo 40). On the left bank, barriers include surplus concrete and piles of dirt in addition to gated access to the Vedder South Dyke barriers (Photo 41). This appears to be a result of a more industrial approach to gravel extraction and less recreational usage. Upgrading over time to the same standards as occurred in the Upper Reach of the left bank should be encouraged.

The erosion hazard assessment (see Section 3.3 and Appendix F in the Analysis Report) identified 30 sites, 20 on the right bank and 10 on the left bank. The erosion assessment was based on the presence and severity of local erosion, the location of the thalweg in relation to the site and proximity of infrastructure. Over two thirds of the sites were identified as a low priority and most of the rest were identified as a low to moderate or a moderate priority. In the latter cases, the location of the trail was typically 6 m or more from the river. The three areas of greatest concern are sites EB 08, EB 09 and EB 10 on the right bank of the middle reach. No sites were identified as a high priority. In each case, the recommended action is to monitor the situation.

There is a potential conflict due to bank erosion. In most cases, the hazard assessment is low or the trail is located 6 m or more from the eroding bank. Should remediation be required, options include relocation of the trail or gravel access road further from the active erosion area of the Vedder River or the placement of riprap. If a trail needs to be relocated, the public will not be concerned about the precise location as long as the amenity value of river views, river access, and tree cover is maintained. However, impacts to other values, such as terrestrial and off-channel fish habitat, and cost implications/property acquisition issues need to be taken into consideration as well. The critical priority from a recreation perspective is to maintain trail connectivity.

5.1.3 Public Safety

The Southern Railway of British Columbia is a short line railway with over 100 kilometres of track between Delta and Chilliwack. The line was originally built in 1910 as an interurban trolley service for passengers until 1950, as well as for freight such as farm produce. The British Columbia Electric Railway was taken over by BC Hydro in 1961. The railway was privatized in 1988 and renamed the Southern Railway of British Columbia (SRBC). The main facility is located on Annacis Island in Delta where motor vehicles are imported and forest products exported. The Southern Railway of British Columbia handles 75,000 carloads annually.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

The Southern Railway of British Columbia operates a trestle bridge that crosses the Vedder River within the Management Plan area. This prominent feature is located on the east side of the Great Blue Heron Nature Reserve on the right bank and east of Yarrow on the left bank (Photo 10). The east side of the trestle bridge contains a walkway for railway maintenance purposes (Photo 48). The Vedder River Trail and South Dyke Trail North cross over the rail line but do not provide access to the trestle bridge. Pedestrians frequently cross the bridge by walking along the tracks but both activities involve trespassing over Southern Railway of British Columbia property. There are two public safety concerns. One is walking along the tracks to access the bridge. The second is the lack of a physical barrier on the bridge separating the maintenance walkway from the tracks. The Southern Railway of British Columbia would have no objection to a separate pedestrian crossing of the Vedder River and would consider a pedestrian crossing attached to its bridge provided maintenance is not hindered and a safe access to the bridge away from the tracks is developed.

The Chilliwack RCMP indicated that crime and public safety are not a major concern within the Vedder River Management Plan area. There have been several well publicized incidents of assaults or public indecency but these have been rare. Automobile theft has been reported from parking areas but the incidence is not considered high. Some partying and drunkenness have been reported, mainly in the late spring or early fall, mainly by teens or young adults. Some drownings have occurred upstream of the Vedder River in the Chilliwack River, where river velocities are higher and the river bed more uneven. The risk to fishermen occurs if they step into a deep area and the water fills their hip waders causing them to lose their balance.

However this has not occurred in the Vedder River or along the Vedder Canal where the river bed is more even, water velocities are lower, the water depth is shallower and high pedestrian traffic along riverside trails enhances rescue opportunities.

From a crime prevention and public safety perspective, the RCMP advocates clear site lines of 30 metres along trails and 3 metres on both sides of trails. This occurs along all dyke trails (North and South Dykes), the Lower Dyke Road (right bank along Vedder Canal Reach), most access trails from the South Dyke to the left bank of the Vedder River, and along the vast majority of the Rotary Vedder Trail. This standard is not met along the Peach Trail and along some of the Vedder Rotary trails in the Great Blue Heron Nature Reserve. Clearing wider areas adjacent to salmon habitat restoration projects and in the nature reserve would likely pose a conflict with habitat values, which are considered to be a top priority.

5.1.4 Signage

There is a wide range of sign types and ages. This is partially a reflection of the multiplicity of stakeholders and indirectly the increasing usage of the Vedder River Management Area. Signage is provided by the City of Chilliwack, the Rotary Club of Abbotsford, the Great Blue Heron Nature Reserve Society, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Trans-Canada Trail markers (Photos, 3, 5, 29-34). In addition, the signage erected spans a lengthy time period and has evolved significantly over the past generation. Some of the signage is ready for permanent retirement due to moisture penetration or fading (Photos 33, 34). When considering only contemporary signage, there is wide variation of materials, a lack of consistency and overall ‘branding’. Although signage is not generally lacking, more distance markers would be a welcome addition. Good examples are the posts with distance markers along the Rotary Vedder Trail along the right bank and those with directional markers provided by the City along the left bank. Signage showing maps with distances at key locations would provide better orientation for new users. Additional trail names would also be beneficial as new trails are developed. Directional signage from key off-site locations is limited and lacks visibility. For example, two directional signs are provided along Keith Wilson Road but they appear as afterthoughts appended to other signage.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

5.1.5 Mapping Issues

The Vedder River Management Area Plan has not been amended since its establishment in 1982. A number of changes to the Vedder River Management Area map are needed including the following:

. Depiction of boundaries using current mapping prepared by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) and City of Chilliwack. The 1982 boundaries are very rough and portrayed on a generalized base map at a very small scale (1:31,680).

. DND Bridging Area on the right bank downriver from the RR Bridge no longer applies and should be amended to reflect the current land uses. The boundaries of the Vedder River Management Area should be expanded north to the North Dyke. This includes much of the most critical wildlife habitat consisting of the Great Blue Heron Reserve. DND use is limited to the CFB Wet Bridging Training Area west of Sumas Prairie Road and the North Dyke.

. Upper Reach on the left bank follows Vedder Mountain Road in the 1982 Vedder River Management Area but is shown as more narrowly drawn on the 2011 MFLNRO map.

. Vedder Canal section ends at the Keith Wilson Bridge in the 1982 Vedder River Management Area and the 2011 Ministry of Environment map but extends downstream to the Highway 1 Bridge on the current City of Chilliwack map. A logical extension would be for the Vedder River Management Area to be extended downstream to the Highway 1 Bridge as this is understood to reflect current management practices.

. Most agricultural leases shown in the 1982 Vedder River Management Plan no longer exist. Only three are believed to remain. They consist of:

− S2 west of Browne Road on the right bank,

− N3 west of Lickman Road on the right bank, and

− N4, also west of Lickman Road on the right bank.

. ALR Boundaries should be added as an additional layer of information as the vast majority of the Vedder River Management Plan area and most of the surrounding land uses are in the ALR with the exceptions of the Upper Reach and most of Yarrow.

. Land Status on Provincial mapping varies from City records. This applies mainly to parts of the Great Blue Heron Reserve. The MFLNRO mapping indicates Crown land in the Great Blue Heron Reserve but City records indicate significant ownership by the Government of Canada. Also no Crown or City of Chilliwack ownership is shown downstream from Salad Bar on the Lower Reach or upstream of Peach Road in the Upper Reach.

. City, Crown Provincial and Federal Government ownership of upland areas is generally lacking from Provincial mapping.

. Major trail names need to be added and standardized. The City nomenclature refers to the Vedder Rotary Trail but this is not generally reflected on the trail signage, at the Rotary Interpretive Centre or on MFLNRO mapping. The other key trails along dykes or major protective structures are the North Dyke trail on the right bank and the South Dyke trail on the left bank.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 Vedder River Management Plan Update Elements

Vedder River Management Plan boundaries should be expanded to include the Great Blue Heron Nature Reserve (DND Bridging Area in the 1982 Plan) and all areas bounded by dykes and flood protection structures north to the Highway 1 Bridge crossing of the Vedder Canal.

Updates should be made to formally reflect the changes in the Vedder River Management Committee membership.

Mapping and documentation should reflect the current data available to the Ministry of Environment and City of Chilliwack. Mapping issues identified in the previous section should be addressed.

5.2.2 Base Case – Necessary Recreational Changes

Completion of the trail system on the Upper Reach along the left bank should proceed subject to land acquisition/rights of way. This will result in a continuous trail system along both the right and left banks that is looped at the Vedder Crossing Bridge and the Keith Wilson Bridge. Although the trail usage is much lower on the left bank than the right bank, the lack of continuity introduces a potential safety concern, particularly in the summer when there is a high traffic volume driving to and from Cultus Lake.

5.2.3 Desirable Recreational Enhancement Features

Provision should be made for a permanent toilet/washroom facility in the Upper Reach on the right bank. This is the most heavily used area and the existing portable toilet is not a satisfactory long term solution. A three hectare site on part of the former CFB Chilliwack lands has been set aside for park development. Vedder Park would be a very suitable location as it has both vehicular access and excellent pedestrian access from the trailhead (see Photo 2) next to the Vedder Crossing Bridge.

“Branding” is needed to coordinate and upgrade signage. Signage needs are varied and include directional, interpretive and identification purposes, prohibitions, distance markers, mapping and sponsors/stakeholders. The use of downloadable messaging is an innovative feature which should be encouraged and expanded.

5.2.4 Desirable Long Term Enhancement Features

The City of Chilliwack should explore opportunities to create a safe walkway across the existing trestle bridge over the Vedder River with the Southern Railway of British Columbia.

The City of Chilliwack should explore improved connectivity beyond the Vedder River Management Area with interested stakeholders including the City of Abbotsford and the Province of BC (Explore the Fraser program). 6.0 HERITAGE AND FIRST NATIONS ISSUES

A preliminary field reconnaissance identified five areas of archaeological potential and one Sxwôxwiyám/ Cultural Landscape Feature (a stl’áleqem or supernatural being habitat) that require further management. The figures and references mentioned in this section are in Appendix J of the Analysis Phase Report (Addendum Two to this report), Archaeological Overview Assessment of Vedder River Management Area.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe is one of the historic tribal groups that make up the Stó:lō collective. In the mid-19th century with the creation of the Indian Act, once strong and territorial based Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribes became nine Indian Act Bands. The modern-day Bands that constitute the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe include: Aitchelitz; Skowkale; Shxwhá:y; Soowahile; Squiala; Tzeachten and Yakweakwioose. Today, most of the current Ts’elxwéyeqw Reserves are within the greater Chilliwack area. Extensive archaeological and historical evidence is now being assembled, documenting the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe’s original areas around Ts’elxwéyeqw (Chilliwack) Lake and throughout the valley of mountains, streams and lands defined by the Ts’elxwéyeqw (Chilliwack) River.

The Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribes have identified and documented 65 former cultural, village and traditional sites throughout the Chilliwack/Vedder River Watershed. New connections, with an old history of one of the Province’s earliest First Nations Communities, are now being brought forward to share with today’s society. Ts’elxweyéqw is a Halkomelem word which in English means "as far upriver as you can go before having to switch to a pole". Ts’elxweyéqw is also the Halkomelem name of the Chilliwack River.

The Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribes consider this part of the Tribe’s traditional territory high in archaeological and cultural heritage resources which need to be protected from potential damage and disturbance.

6.1 Areas of Archaeological Potential (AOP 1-5)

Five locations with archaeological potential were identified in the Study Area (Figure 6). Prior to future ground disturbing activities in these areas, it is recommended that additional work be undertaken in the form of Archaeological Impact Assessments (AIAs). It is recommended that the AIAs be conducted in accordance with:

1. the British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (1998); and

2. the Stó:lō Heritage Policy (SHP) (2003).

The objectives of the AIAs are to:

. identify and evaluate archaeological resources within the AOPs;

. identify and assess all impacts on archaeological resources which might result from the proposed development; and

. recommend viable alternatives for managing unavoidable adverse impacts to archaeological sites including a preliminary program for:

− implementing and scheduling impact management actions and, where necessary,

− conducting surveillance and/or monitoring.

6.2 Sxwôxwiyám/Cultural Landscape Features

One Sxwôxwiyám/Cultural Landscape Feature is located in the Study Area: a stl’aleqem habitat, in the area of the Vedder River (Figure 2). It is essentially the whole of the Vedder River and the side channels. Sxwôxwiyám/Cultural Landscape Feature Use Areas represent sites on the landscape that are integral to the Sto:lō worldview and establish their unique relationship with the land and resources in their traditional territory. These sites, described in Sto:lō narratives in relation to Transformation Stories and the Flood Story, comprise individual rocks and features, such as mountains, that are viewed as living parts of the landscape that must be treated with respect.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Development activities proposed within the Sxwôxwiyám/Cultural Landscape Feature Use Area need to be assessed for their potential impacts on:

. Surface integrity, with an understanding that surface activities that cause superficial damage may be permissible whereas sub-surface activities that cause internal damage to these sites will not be tolerated; and

. Appearance, in relation to sites on the landscape that are identifiable from a distance, making their appearance, shape, and form a crucial aspect of their cultural significance.

A stl’aleqem habitat is located within the Vedder River Management Area. The stl’aleqem habitat is protected from disturbance by the Stó:lō Heritage Policy (2003). The SRRMC is currently conducting interviews with community members to determine management protocol for stl’aleqem habitats. The proponent is to consult directly with the SRRMC regarding disturbance of the stl’aleqem habitat.

6.3 Study Limitations and Unanticipated Materials

Even the most thorough inspection may fail to reveal the presence of all archaeological and other materials protected by the Heritage Conservation Act and the Stó:lō Heritage Policy (2003). Therefore, the City of Chilliwack is advised that if any unanticipated cultural materials or features including, but not limited to, rock art, culturally modified trees, archaeological materials, or human remains are encountered prior to or during development or related activities, all land-altering work in the immediate area should cease, and the Archaeology Branch and the Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre should be contacted immediately so that an archaeological management plan can be developed and implemented. 7.0 FUTURE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Gravel removal site selection from a flood control standpoint has been discussed in Section 2.3. For overall planning, the information from the flood control, erosion, habitat, recreation and First Nations components has been compiled in Table 7.1, which includes recommended future management strategies, taking all the contributory factors into account.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update

VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

REFERENCES

Bland Engineering Ltd. 2002. Vedder River Hydraulic Profile Update. Bland Engineering Ltd. and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 2004. Vedder River Hydraulic Profile Update. Bland Engineering Ltd. 2005. Vedder River Hydraulic Profile Update. Bland Engineering Ltd. 2008. Vedder River Hydraulic Profile Update. EBA Engineering Consultants. 2012. Vedder River Hydraulic Profile Update 2012. Prepared for Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (BC FLNRO), City of Chilliwack, City of Abbotsford. Hay & Company, a Division of EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA). 2010. Vedder River Hydraulic Profile Update 2010. Friesen T., Koczkur J. 2011. Summary of March 1, 2011 Vedder River Bank Inspection. Summary; Photos from March 2011 Inspection. City of Chilliwack. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC). 2010. Inspection of River Bank Protection 2010. Final Report. Prepared for City of Chilliwack. Rafter T. 2001. Contested Spaces: The Chilliwack River Diversion. In A Stó:lō - Coast Salish Historical Atlas, edited by Keith Carlson et al. Vancouver: Douglas McIntyre, University of Washington, and Stó:lō Heritage Trust, pp. 106-107. Stó:lō Heritage Policy. 2003. Unpublished report on file, Stó:lō Nation Archives, Chilliwack, B.C. Waddle T.J. (ed.). 2001. PHABSIM for Windows: User's Manual and Exercises. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Geological Survey, 288 p. Wright B.F. 1997. Evaluation of Habitat Changes and Environmental Impacts Following the 1995 Gravel Excavations. Prepared for B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Wright B.F. 1999. Gravel Removal Constraints, Guidelines and Planning Procedures for the Protection of Fish Habitat: The Vedder River Floodway Protection Program 1994 to 1998. Prepared for Vedder River Management Area Committee. Wright. B.F. and Kozlova T. 2012. Vedder River Off-Channel Habitat and Enhancement Opportunities. Prepared for the City of Chilliwack. Wright B.F. and Robinson M. 1995. Assessment of the Environmental Impacts from 1994 Vedder River Gravel Bar Excavations. Prepared for B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, District of Chilliwack, City of Abbotsford. Wright B.F., Robinson M. 1995. Vedder River Gravel Removal Environmental Monitor’s Report 1995. Prepared for B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, District of Chilliwack, City of Abbotsford. Wright B.F., Scholz P.S., deBoer K. 2010. 2008 Vedder River Gravel Excavation – Habitat Changes and Environmental Impacts. Prepared for Vedder River Management Area Committee.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

CONTACTS

Cpl. Len Van Nieuwenhuizen, Crime Prevention Support Unit & Operational Support Unit, Chilliwack RCMP. Gary Smith, Engineering Division, Southern Railway of British Columbia. Allan Gilbert, GIS supervisor, City of Chilliwack. Tara Friesen, P.Eng., Manager of Flood Protection Infrastructure, City of Chilliwack. Dave Snider, BCSLA, Manager of Parks, Parks, Recreation & Culture Department, City of Chilliwack. Jim Vickerson, Senior Planning Technician, Parks, Recreation & Culture Department , City of Chilliwack. Rick Daykin, Director, Parks Services, City of Abbotsford. David Urban, Fraser Valley Regional District. Randy Fasan, Planner, Canada Lands Company. Janet Hutchinson, Coordinator of Programs & Services, Great Blue Heron Nature Reserve. Volunteers, Rotary Interpretive Centre.

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

TABLES

Table 1 Future Management Strategies Summary Table

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table 7.1: Future Management Strategies Summary Table Reach Bar Flood Control Habitat Erosion Recreation First Nations

Vedder Canal Boundary . High flood . Recommended to . N/A . Expand the Vedder River . N/A Keith Wilson reduction benefit. remove bars in the Management Plan Power Line . High refill ratio. Canal downstream to boundaries to include the upstream, one per DND Bridging Area and all Salad . Historical deposition greater biennial cycle, to help areas bounded by dykes than excavation. manage targets and and flood protection habitat impacts. structures north to the . Focus area Salad Bar can be Highway 1 Bridge for future excavated more crossing of the Vedder gravel frequently. Canal. removal. . Wedge of gravel across . Improved trail connectivity the top of the Canal beyond the Vedder River (Salad Bar) supports Management Area: west heavy pink and some along the Sumas River chum salmon spawning. Dyke Trail to Sumas Mtn. Pink salmon spawning Regional Park and other continues down to below locations in the City of Keith Wilson Bridge. Abbotsford (long term . Rearing salmonid fry enhancement feature). noted along edges and in micro-channels of this reach. . Apply general guidelines to manage excavations. . Riparian vegetation has improved. Continue VRMAC vegetation plan in this reach.

Table 7.1 VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Reach Bar Flood Control Habitat Erosion Recreation First Nations

Vedder Greendale . Moderate flood . All bars provide . Erosion . Create a safe walkway . Sxwôxwiyám/ River Community reduction regular opportunities considered across the existing trestle Cultural Landscape Lower Yarrow benefit. for sediment low on the bridge over the Vedder Feature Use Area. Reach . Moderate refill ratio. removal, but meeting left bank, just River with the SRBC Bridge Development . Historical targets and keeping upstream of (long term enhancement activities proposed deposition greater within guidelines Community features). within the area than excavation. can be difficult. Bar (EB 110). need to be assessed for . Focus area . Continue substrate . Erosion low their potential for future monitoring to ensure to moderate surface integrity gravel sufficient gravel is on the right and appearance removal. entering this reach in bank (EB 11, order to maintain EB 12). impacts. substrate quality. . Cut banks provide good habitat, but erosion above and below Community Bar is too rapid. Excavations should endeavour to mitigate this. . This reach is heavily used by spawners. . Secondary channels need maintenance in conjunction with regular removals.

Table 7.1 VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Reach Bar Flood Control Habitat Erosion Recreation First Nations

Vedder River Railway . Indirect flood . Armoured banks in . Erosion . Remediation to the . Sxwôxwiyám/ Middle Reach Relief reduction varying condition limit moderate on erosion site Cultural Landscape 1 benefit. the quality of riparian the right bank (e.g. relocation of the trail Feature Use Area. Bergman and bank edge . High refill upstream of or gravel road access) Development Peach Creek habitat. Channel is Railway Bar should maintain trail activities proposed ratio, narrow but flow (EB 10). connectivity. within the area effective as conditions support gravel trap. rearing and spawning. . Erosion low need to be . Historical . Regular excavation at on the left assessed for deposition less Railway and Bergman bank (EB their potential than excavation. bars along with less 107, EB surface integrity frequent excavations and appearance . Excavate as a 106). at Peach Creek and impacts. buffer zone to . Erosion Relief Bars has been moderate to . Three sites, AOP2, reduce the accompanied by high on the AOP3, AOP4, were sediment load consistent refilling and identified to the moderately positive right bank freeboard habitat value. (EB 08 just as having limited area, . Continue following downstream of Archaeological if necessary. guidelines for removals, Peach Creek Potential. but at a more moderate Bar, and EB Archaeological level. Continue to 09). Impact ensure that secondary Assessment channels remain (AIAs) is functional. recommended. . Potential interactions with off-channel habitat should be considered in this reach. Could be allowed to refill to enhance off- channel habitat. . Fry assessment and off- channel projects . . have potential to increase habitat benefits.

Table 7.1 VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Reach Bar Flood Control Habitat Erosion Recreation First Nations

Vedder River Brown . Indirect . Armoured banks in . Erosion low to Middle Reach Lickman flood varying condition limit moderate on 2 Campground benefit. the quality of riparian the right bank . Low refill and bank edge (EB 07, EB 06). ratio, not habitat. Channel is . Erosion low effective as narrow but flow on the left gravel trap. conditions support bank . Historical rearing and spawning. (EB 104, EB deposition less . High potential for 105). than excavation. excavation focused . No action is on habitat at foot of recommended, Giesbrecht Road near unless it is Campground Bar. proved that Potential to enhance gravel trapping off-channel habitat if ratio can be the area from Peach improved by Creek Bar to Lickman better pit layout Bar is allowed to refill. design. . Discharge from Sardis Aquifer attracts lots of chum spawning in this area.

Table 7.1 VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Reach Bar Flood Control Habitat Erosion Recreation First Nations

Vedder Peach Road . Excavations on . Thalweg . Add a permanent public . Sxwôxwiyám/ River Giesbrecht Giesbrecht Bar and appears to washroom along the right Cultural Landscape Upper 97+9 Peach Road Bar in have relocated bank, add parking area and Feature Use Area. Reach 2010 were effective in towards centre directional signage to new Development Garrison directing flow away from of the river, trail development the on the activities proposed bank, but not in trapping away from left bank. within the area gravel for a short term. the right . Potential for extending trail need to be . Future excavations bank at connectivity south- east to assessed for their to trap gravel Peach Cultus Lake along Cultus potential surface should be smaller Road. Lake and Columbia Valley integrity and in size, . Erosion Roads; extending trail appearance remain well connected continues connectivity east past the impacts. to the thalweg, and be upstream, but is Vedder River Bridge along . Three sites, AOP1, designed to refill without considered low the Chilliwack River. AOP5, AOP6, were diverting flow away from (Photo 34). . Provide continuous trail identified as having the main channel. . Erosion low to system along both the Archaeological . The need for bank moderate right and left banks that is Potential. hardening can be downstream looped at the Vedder Archaeological decreased by well- of recent Crossing Bridge and the Impact Assessment planned excavations riprap section Keith Wilson Bridge. (AIAs) is designed to direct flow (EB 04), and . Recommend Vedder recommended. away from banks. upstream (EB Park development next Excavation guidelines 03, EB 02, to the Vedder Crossing focused on this type EB 01). Bridge. of excavation should . Erosion low be prepared. on the left bank (EB 101, EB 102).

Table 7.1 VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

Reach Bar Flood Control Habitat Erosion Recreation First Nations

All All . If the biennial . Continuation of the . It is . Need more frequent grading . N/A removal program habitat - focused recommended of gravel access roads (to is to continue, a excavation design to monitor dyke and stockpile sites) less aggressive guidelines as a core banks for where vehicular access is allowed. approach is part of the removal signs of recommended in program is erosion on a . Add more garbage receptacles in parking terms of reducing recommended. regular basis, area. targeted removal Minor modifications e.g. every two . Provide update to Vedder volumes. have been years prior to River Management Area The overall proposed. gravel removal mapping: management area removal rate . Habitat assessment or after boundaries, DND bridging should be kept program is effective at passage of a area, add trail name, under the long monitoring changes year flood equal to ownership area, ALR term average for to year. Adding past or greater boundaries. relatively low peak methodological changes than the . Signage needs “Branding” to flow years and other average 5- maintain consistency. (maximum daily recommendations to year flood. Signage needs include flood < 400 m³/s) improve the program are If necessary, directional, interpretive and by about 10%. outlined in the report. erosion identification purposes, prohibitions, distance markers, . A higher gravel should be . Off channel habitats mapping and removal target controlled are highly valuable. sponsors/stakeholders. The by suitable should be set Protection and use of downloadable measures. following a high maintenance should messaging is an innovative flood year be increased. feature which should be (maximum daily Several encouraged and expanded. flood > 400 potential enhancements m³/s). projects are available.

Table 7.1

VEDDER RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN UPDATE FILE: 704-WTR.WTRM-OH | DECEMBER 11, 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

APPENDIX A TETRA TECH EBA’S GENERAL CONDITIONS

Vedder River Management Area Plan Update GENERAL CONDITIONS

DESIGN REPORT

This report incorporates and is subject to these “General Conditions”.

1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP 4.0 CALCULATIONS AND DESIGNS

This Design Report pertains to a specific site, a specific Tetra Tech EBA has undertaken design calculations and has development, and a specific scope of work. The Design Report may prepared project specific designs in accordance with terms of include plans, drawings, profiles and other support documents that reference that were previously set out in consultation with, and collectively constitute the Design Report. The Report and all agreement of, Tetra Tech EBA’s client. These designs have been supporting documents are intended for the sole use of Tetra Tech prepared to a standard that is consistent with industry practice. EBA’s Client. Tetra Tech EBA does not accept any responsibility for Notwithstanding, if any error or omission is detected by Tetra Tech the accuracy of any of the data, analyses or other contents of the EBA’s Client or any party that is authorized to use the Design Design Report when it is used or relied upon by any party other Report, the error or omission should be immediately drawn to the than Tetra Tech EBA’s Client, unless authorized in writing by Tetra attention of Tetra Tech EBA. Tech EBA. Any unauthorized use of the Design Report is at the sole risk of the user. 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

All reports, plans, and data generated by Tetra Tech EBA during the A Geotechnical Report is commonly the basis upon which the performance of the work and other documents prepared by Tetra specific project design has been completed. It is incumbent upon Tech EBA are considered its professional work product and shall Tetra Tech EBA’s Client, and any other authorized party, to be remain the copyright property of Tetra Tech EBA. knowledgeable of the level of risk that has been incorporated into the project design, in consideration of the level of the geotechnical 2.0 ALTERNATIVE REPORT FORMAT information that was reasonably acquired to facilitate completion of the design. Where Tetra Tech EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of reports, drawings and other project-related documents If a Geotechnical Report was prepared for the project by Tetra Tech and deliverables (collectively termed Tetra Tech EBA’s instruments EBA, it will be included in the Design Report. The Geotechnical of professional service), only the signed and/or sealed versions Report contains General Conditions that should be read in shall be considered final and legally binding. The original signed conjunction with these General Conditions for the Design Report. and/or sealed version archived by Tetra Tech EBA shall be deemed to be the original for the Project. 6.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO TETRA TECH EBA BY Both electronic file and hard copy versions of Tetra Tech EBA’s OTHERS instruments of professional service shall not, under any During the performance of the work and the preparation of the circumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered by report, Tetra Tech EBA may rely on information provided by any party except Tetra Tech EBA. Tetra Tech EBA’s instruments of persons other than the Client. While Tetra Tech EBA endeavours to professional service will be used only and exactly as submitted by verify the accuracy of such information when instructed to do so by Tetra Tech EBA. the Client, Tetra Tech EBA accepts no responsibility for the Electronic files submitted by Tetra Tech EBA have been prepared accuracy or the reliability of such information which may affect the and submitted using specific software and hardware systems. Tetra report. Tech EBA makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES

Unless so stipulated in the Design Report, Tetra Tech EBA was not retained to investigate, address or consider, and has not investigated, addressed or considered any environmental or regulatory issues associated with the project specific design.