middle shuswap river watershed. parts of a... · 13. river has reduced productivity levels due to...

Bridge-Coastal Fish & Wildlife Restoration ProgramVolume 2 Revised Jan 06/03: MIDDLE SHUSWAP RIVER WATERSHED

12-1

Chapter 12

MIDDLE SHUSWAP RIVER WATERSHED

Figure 12-1 . Shuswap River above dam site (Couteau Power Company 1912)

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Facilities

The initial plans for a power project at Shuswap Falls had been developed prior to 1912 bythe Couteau Power Company based in Vancouver, B.C. The Shuswap Falls generatingstation, Wilsey Dam and Peers Dam were constructed and owned by West CanadianHydroelectric Corporation and went into service in 1929.

The project consists of impounded storage in Sugar Lake controlled by Peers (Sugar Lake)Dam, and power generation from Wilsey Dam at Shuswap Falls 31 km downstream. TheShuswap Falls project was acquired by the B.C. Power Commission (a predecessor of B.C.Hydro) in 1945.


12-2

Figure 12-2. Location of Shuswap Falls hydro project

Figure 12-3. Wilsey Dam (Water Powers B.C. 1954)


12-3

Figure 12-4. Brenda Falls in 1920s (BC Archives)

Figure 12-5. Sugar Lake Dam (BC Hydro)


12-4

Specifications about the structures and reservoirs:

DAM Peers WilseyNameplate capacity (MW) 0 5.2Dependable capacity (MW) 0 5Dam function storage diversionDate constructedDate operational 1929 1929Date reconstructedHeight (m) 13 30Length (m) 98 40Dam footprint area (m2)Fishway at dam no noHistoric anadromous fish presence unconfirmed yes

RESERVOIR Sugar Lake headpondCleared/ not cleared nc n/aPresent area (ha) 2217 7Orig. lake area (ha) 1564 0Watershed area (km2)Present elevation a.s.l. (m) 601.6 444.5Normal drawdown range (m) 7.8 max 3Mean depth (m) 35Maximum depth (m) 83 30Storage (million m3) 148 0Mean water retention time 6 mo. <1 dayMean annual discharge (m3/s) 37 50

DIVERSION - - to powerplantStructure type - - penstocks (140m)Licensed flow (m3/sec) - - 31Fish flow release (m3/sec) 5 8.5Mainstem length diminished (km) 0.14Mainstem length augmented (km)

1.2 Hydrology

1.2.1 Basin and Runoff

The Middle Shuswap basin is located in the western ranges of the Monashee Mountains.Sugar Lake is normally fully drafted by March. The Shuswap River begins to rise in Aprilafter the winter months of decreased flow, and usually peaks in late May or early June. Therunoff regime is dominated by melting of the large winter snowpack. A small amount ofglaciation within the watershed does not contribute significantly to the flow regime. Rainfallis a minor contributor to the volume of the annual flow, but can produce large peak flows thatlead to spilling (BCH 1994). Reservoir operation tends to delay the onset of spring freshetflows and elevates winter (December-February) flows (Lister 1990).


12-5

1.2.2 Operation and Licensed Diversion Flow

Various instream flow requirements are described by Lewis et al. (1996). For protection ofthe fish resource downstream of Wilsey Dam, a minimum of 300 (8.5 m3/s) must be releasedat all times, but a local operating order apparently supercedes this and currently allows aminimum release of 15 m3/s.

1.2.3 Habitat Types Flooded by Reservoir

Reservoir impoundment raised the elevation of the original Sugar Lake by about 7 m. Thereservoir area is 2,217 ha after flooding 653 hectares of land (Figure 12-6). The reservoirshoreline length is now 41 km. The bathymetry of Sugar Lake is shown in Figures 12-7 and12-8.

The headpond behind Wilsey Dam has backwatered about 3.7 km of the incised river channelfor an area about 7 ha (Lewis et al. 1996).

The GIS calculations done by this study estimated the following losses of fish habitat fromthe pre-impoundment condition:

Sugar Lake Original habitat lost

Lake flooded (ha) 1564Land flooded (ha) 653Lake shoreline (km) 23Mainstem: length (km) 7 channel (ha) 65 riparian * (ha)Tributary: length (km) 4 riparian ** (ha)Wetland: (ha) 2

* mainstem riparian zone calculated at 30 m from each bank** tributary riparian zone calculated at 15 m from each bank


12-6


12-7


12-8


12-9

2. FISH

2.1 Historical and Current Species Presence

A list of current fish species within major reaches is presented in Table 12-1.

The catastrophic rock slides that blocked Hell’s Gate in the Fraser River Canyon in 1913 and1914 had a major effect on anadromous runs to the Middle Shuswap River. After much ofthe initial rock material was removed by March 1915, work was discontinued due toconflicting opinions within the agencies about their passability to fish until another smallslide occurred in 1941. Finally, the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commissionconstructed permanent fishways on both banks around Hells Gate between 1944 and 1947(Roos 1991). During these 32 years, flow conditions at Hells Gate periodically affected theabundance of salmon runs returning to the Shuswap watershed. This legacy may have led toan under-appreciation of salmon stocks using this system during the planning ofhydroelectric development.

2.1.1 Downstream of Wilsey Dam

The early name for the Middle Shuswap River upstream of Mara Lake was originally theSpallumcheen River (Babcock 1903). Anadromous stocks of chinook, sockeye, pink andcoho salmon had access to the entire river below Shuswap Falls but there was at least onepoint of difficult passage in the river below Mabel Lake. Mabel Lake was classified as non-productive for sockeye on a map of spawning grounds by the International Pacific SalmonFisheries Commission (IPSFC 1945).

2.1.2 Upstream of Wilsey Dam

The original Shuswap Falls were a partial barrier to anadromous fish access; e.g., fishing forchinook salmon near Cherryville was noted in the 1920’s (French 1995), and there was ananecdotal report of sockeye in Sugar Lake (Babcock 1903). The original lower falls(Shuswap) were described as a succession of short drops totalling 12.2 m over a distance of61 m in a narrow rocky canyon.

The original development by the Couteau Power Company in 1913 petitioned to the ChiefInspector of Fisheries against installing a fish ladder at Shuswap Falls costing $20,000 to$25,000 (Mackenzie 1913). Reasons given included the lack of a commercial river fishery,the inaccessibility of the river to sportsmen, the “sheer falls of 38 feet”1 at the outlet of SugarLake, the proposed dam height of 70 feet, and the added financial burden to the project. Anengineering plan of the proposed Wilsey Dam circa 1920 showed a fish ladder which wasnever built due to the proposed dam height of 21 m. Since its construction in 1929, WilseyDam has blocked upstream access to all anadromous stocks for 71 years.

1 Shotton (1913), a fisheries officer, interviewed the surveyor for the project who told him that the upper[Brenda] falls had a sheer drop of 10 feet at most, and that the rapids section had a total fall of 38 feet in 1100.


12-10


12-11

In 1977, DFO released 75 adult chinook salmon above Wilsey Dam as a trial. Chinookreleases in 1993 and 1995 both resulted in fry that reared in the river above the dam (Triton1994d; 1995c). The Ministry of Environment has expressed some concerns about effects ofsalmon transplants on resident salmonids (Jantz 1995).

2.1.3 Upstream of Peers Dam

The original Brenda Falls were described as not over 3 m in any one place, and that the seriesof rapids had a fall of 11.6 m in 335 m (Shotton 1913).

2.2 Impacts on Fish

Facility Description of hydroelectric impacts

Neg

Pos

Source

2. Reservoir footprint flooded 7 km of mainstem channeland associated riparian zone, including loss of SugarLake outlet spawning habitat.

x

3. Reservoir footprint flooded 4 km of tributary channeland associated riparian zone: loss of habitats in lowerreaches.

x

4. Original 1564 ha lake was flooded by 7 m to createpresent 2217 ha reservoir: gain of 653 ha in reservoirhabitat and uncalculated volume.

x x

5. Fluctuating water levels of 7 m reduced productivityfrom shallow littoral habitats: see bathymetric map forshoal features

x BC Hydro1994

Sugar LakeReservoir

6. Fluctuating water levels isolated the shoreline riparianzone from the aquatic environment: original lakeshoreline was increased from 23 km to 39 km ofreservoir shoreline.

x x

7. Dam footprint of __ m2: loss of instream, riparian andupland habitats.

x

8. Debris booms at Peers Dam has reduced LWDrecruitment to river downstream.

x

9. Peers Dam has stopped gravel recruitment from OutletCr. to river downstream.

x

10. Rapid flow changes below Peers Dam have affectedbenthic insect production.

x BC Hydro1994

11. Peers Dam may have blocked anadromous access toSugar Lake, but not substantiated.

x

Peers Dam

12. Dam spill may cause gas supersaturation: magnitudeunknown.

x


12-12

Facility Description of hydroelectric impacts

Neg

Pos

Source

13. River has reduced productivity levels due to loss ofcarcasses from Sugar Lake outlet spawning area.

xShuswap R.between

Dams 14. Loss of ~ 1km of river channel habitats beneath Wilseyheadpond with siltation issues.

x

15. Dam footprint of __ m2: loss of instream, riparian andupland habitats.

x

16. Wilsey Dam has prevented chinook, sockeye, andpossibly coho stocks from using at least 20 km offormer spawning and rearing habitats above ShuswapFalls for over 70 years.

x

17. Wilsey Dam has reduced LWD recruitment to riverdownstream.

x

18. Wilsey Dam has reduced gravel recruitment tomainstem downstream for 3 km to the Bessette Cr.confluence in former chinook spawning grounds.

x workshop

19. The penstock diversion to the powerhouse hasdewatered 180 m of river channel below the base of thedam during low flows.

x

20. Dredging to remove silt in headpond has caused silt andBOD water quality problems downstream; trappingsand and silt may have improved spawning conditionsdownstream.

x x DFO 1970;1971

Hirst 1991BC Hydro

1997

Wilsey Dam

21. Dam spill may cause gas supersaturation: magnitudeunknown.

x

22. Regulated flows since 1929 have diminished the overallhabitat capacity and stocks using the Middle ShuswapRiver downstream.

x BC Hydro1994

23. Hatchery operation below Wilsey Dam has variouseffects on anadromous stocks.

x x

24. Flow fluctuations have stranded fish and dewateredeggs; however, flow management has reduced impactson kokanee spawning by confining them to mainchannel.

x x BC Hydro1994; 1997

MiddleShuswap R.downstream

25. Entrainment and mortality at turbine: unconfirmed.Potential downstream benefits to scavengers.

x x

Other Impacts - Other impacts noted by the workshop participants include effects of logging,and road construction from logging and public access.

2.3 Factors Limiting Fish Diversity and Production

'Limiting factors' have been identified in a general manner based on available informationand current understanding of the major constraints on species and populations of concern.


12-13

Further inventory and research may be needed to determine the particular role of these andother factors.

The following are suspected factors that limit current levels of fish populations within theMiddle Shuswap River watershed. These also reflect the key issues raised at BCRP regionalworkshops.

1. Blocked access to historic habitats: Certain stocks of anadromous and migratory adfluvialresident fish have been excluded from habitats above Shuswap Falls (Wilsey Dam) for 71 years.

2. Loss of habitat: Former spawning, rearing and overwintering areas are permanently lost orseasonally reduced due to dam footprint, reservoir flooding, flow diversions, or operating flows; orfrom non-hydro sources.

3. Reduced downstream habitat capability: Physical habitats below both dams are altered byreduced sediment and wood recruitment.

4. Reduced biological productivity: Sugar Lake has reduced productivity from its shoals andlittoral zone due to water level fluctuations. River productivity has decreased from flooding of thespawning ground at the Sugar Lake outlet, and from loss of historic chinook carcasses.

3. WILDLIFE

3.1 Historic and Current Populations and Habitats

Little information exists about wildlife historically, although some old notes by governmentwildlife surveyors once existed describing habitat and wildlife of the Sugar Lake area;caribou and grizzly were mentioned (Brian Robertson MELP, pers. comm.). A 1921 GameCommission report mentions 50 caribou east of Sugar Lake.

Hatter et al. (1956) mentioned caribou and grizzly at Sugar Lake, that elk were seldom seenso numbers were difficult to estimate, and described Sugar-Mabel lakes as part of theprincipal grizzly ranges of the western and central portions of the Province. A MELP map ofcurrent grizzly bear distribution describes numbers as “Few” at Sugar Lake and “Nil” southof the lake.


12-14

3.2 Impacts on Wildlife

Feature Description of Effects

Neg

Pos

Origin

Dam footprint of __ ha: loss of riverine, riparian, and forestedhabitat.

x

Flooding 649 ha of lowland and 25 ha of upland: Loss ofriverine, riparian, and lowland forested habitats at lake ends anddense coniferous forest along steep sides, with wildlife impactsthat include loss of moose and grizzly habitat.

x x GIS

Barrier to salmon migration: decreased forage for grizzlies,scavengers, and predatory birds using salmon at different lifecycle stages.

x Hirst 1991

Fluctuating reservoir water levels (7.8 m) due to hydroelectricoperations: effects on establishment of aquatic and/or riparianvegetation in drawdown zone.

xBC Hydro

PeersDam,SugarLake

Modified downstream flows: extent of wildlife impacts of highlyvariable daily and monthly flow fluctuations unknown.

x x Hirst 1991

Dam footprint of __ ha: loss of riverine and forested habitat. xWilseyDam Flooding of 5.3 ha of river canyon: minimal wildlife effects x Hirst 1991

3.3 Factors Limiting Wildlife Diversity and Productivity

‘Limiting factors’ have been identified based on available information and currentunderstanding of the major constraints on species and populations of concern. Furtherinventory and research may be needed to determine the particular role of these and otherfactors.

The following are suspected factors that limit current levels of wildlife for species groupsassociated with the habitats listed previously in Table 1-2. These also reflect the key issuesraised at BCRP regional workshops.

1. Habitat Changes: Altered flow regime and land use practices have changed riverine and riparianhabitats. Potential effects on wildlife include changes to habitat quality and quantity for water shrews,harlequins and dippers.

2. Loss of Habitat: Loss of riparian habitat in valley bottom above Sugar Lake. Loss of wetlandhabitats in flooded valley bottoms. Potential effects include availability of habitat for amphibians,water shrews and other small mammals and their predators, browse for ungulates and breeding habitatfor some species of neotropical migrants.


12-15

3. Reduced Habitat Capability: Lack of snags for cavity nesting habitat and structures for largeraptor nests. Potential effects for primary cavity nestors (e.g., woodpeckers) and secondary cavitynestors (e.g,, swallows, squirrels, bats).

4. Reduced Productivity: Lack of riparian vegetation in drawdown zone; effects on ungulates,furbearers, small mammals and several species of passerines including some neotropical migrants.

4. OBJECTIVES

4.1 BCRP Context

BCRP will focus on footprint impacts2, limiting factors3 and restoration opportunities. It isnot intended to respond to all restoration issues in the watershed but should ideallycomplement existing habitat management policies and programs. The BCRP restorationstrategy, presented in Section 6, Volume 1 of the Strategic Plan, identifies the general orderof priorities:

1. Continue to undertake cost-effective measures to reduce ongoing impacts on fish andwildlife.

2. Conserve the remaining important habitats within the watershed.3. Maintain or restore, where feasible, natural processes affecting habitat formation.4. Replace or construct new habitat where it will directly contribute to fish and wildlife

diversity and production in the watershed.5. Provide support for re-introduction of fish and wildlife, and for artificially supplementing

production where necessary.6. Identify performance indicators, monitor and evaluate project results, and re-adjust

restoration strategies and methods based on lessons learned.

In context with the above strategy, restoration objectives and activities within individualwatersheds will be guided by two questions:

• Does the proposed restoration address a hydroelectric footprint impact?• Does the proposed restoration address a biological limiting factor?

The focus is on identifying the particular direct or indirect effects that will be mitigated oroffset by a proposed restoration intervention, and secondly, the particular benefits that will bederived by a species, population or ecosystem if this intervention is undertaken. The table 2 Footprint Impact is an historical effect on fish and wildlife of the physical developments that occurred

primarily as a result of reservoir creation, watercourse diversions and construction of dam structures. Theseimpacts have largely resulted from one-time, irreversible events.

3 Limiting Factor is a critical habitat element within the life cycle requirements of particular species or withinecological communities that currently restricts population abundance and productivity.


12-16

below distinguishes between direct impacts – primarily in the reservoir and mainstem area ofhabitat loss or alteration, and the indirect impacts – subsequent changes in habitats orpopulations that are linked in some manner to the direct impacts. For example, an indirectimpact could occur where reservoir creation may have increased access or developmentimpacts on the habitats or populations in the upper reaches of a watershed.

The table also distinguishes between life cycle limiting factors – those that limit the presenceor abundance of a certain species or population, and landscape limiting factors – those thataffect the larger scale diversity of habitats and ecosystem functions in the watershed. Forexample, a landscape limiting factor may be associated with some previous habitat capabilityor contiguity that has been reduced or fragmented and is currently limiting wildlife values inthe watershed. Greater consideration may be given to the direct footprint impacts and the lifecycle limiting factors, but the indirect impacts and landscape limiting factors will also beconsidered within the BCRP restoration framework.

FOOTPRINT IMPACTS AND LIMITINGFACTORS CRITERIA FOR FISH ANDWILDLIFE RESTORATION

Life Cycle Limiting Factor

A missing or inadequate habitat componentthat has constrained the presence orabundance of a particular species orpopulation of concern

E.g., lack of spawning habitat capacity forrecovery of a specific chinook salmonpopulation

Landscape Limiting Factor

A generally deficient habitat component thatwas historically present and that may now belimiting fish, wildlife or biodiversity in thewatershed

E.g., insufficient wetland habitat to supportaquatic communities that are endemic to thewatershed

Direct Footprint Impact

Primary effect on fish or wildlife created by achange in habitat, flow or barrier associatedwith the original facilities development

E.g., reduced downstream gravel availabilitydue to construction of the dam and reducedflows

Indirect Footprint Impact

Secondary effect on habitat or populationsthat can be linked to a primary effect createdby a change in habitat, flow or barrier

E.g., encroachment and displacement offloodplain habitats that was facilitated byreduced flows

Once the footprint impact and limiting factor questions are addressed in restorationproposals, the selection of activities will focus on actions that can be undertaken either in thevicinity of the footprint impact, or where this is not practicable or efficient, at other locations


12-17

in the watershed, with guidance from the Objectives presented in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below.

The area of potential restoration to redress footprint impacts encompasses the Upper andMiddle Shuswap watershed, which is assumed for the purposes of BCRP to include: the areain the general vicinity of the reservoir and adjacent tributaries, and the area downstream ofWilsey Dam to Mabel Lake including Bessette, Ireland and nearby creeks, or other areaswhere populations have been adversely affected by footprint impacts.

The following sections describe the fish and wildlife issues, information gaps and objectivesthat will guide the current restoration priorities under BCRP. Priorities will change over timeas they are addressed. Monitoring of results from restoration projects is also an importantconcern.

4.2 Fish Restoration Framework

In the Middle Shuswap River watershed, the hydroelectric footprint impacts includedflooding of 1564 ha of the original Sugar Lake and 11 km of tributary channels by Peers(Sugar Lake) Dam. Wilsey Dam flooded about 3.7 km of mainstem channel, and a shortdiversion also reduced flows in the channel for another 140 m below the dam. Although theoriginal Shuswap Falls made fish passage difficult, Wilsey Dam blocked upstream migrationby chinook salmon, and possibly other species. These and other impacts created oraccentuated limiting factors that currently constrain ecosystem functions, species diversityand species production in the watershed.

The Consultative Committee report for the ShuswapWater Use Plan (CCWUP) identified theflow-related issues for aquatic ecosystems and sought to mitigate the impacts arising fromthe artificial (non-natural) timing and quantities of water releases. The Shuswap Water UsePlan has important implications for BCRP restoration activities. The WUP has conducted anumber of studies to better define the impacts of the flow regime.

Several lessons were learned when analyzing the impacts on fish from all the operatingregime options. The first was that there was no apparent trade-off among species; onealternative maximized fish performance measures across all species. Second, there was notrade-off between fish in the reservoir and fish in the river. Finally, the Status Quo flowregime represented the most favourable alternative for fish in the river.

The Shuswap WUP monitoring program will continue to study environmental effects. Newproposals for funding under BCRP should be coordinated with the findings of the ShuswapWUP to avoid duplicate studies.

To assist in planning the restoration program, Table 1 identifies the restoration issues,information gaps and priorities as they relate to the major limiting factors.


12-18

TABLE 1 Fish Restoration Issues and Information Gaps in Middle Shuswap Watershed

LimitingFactors

Restoration Issues Information Gaps

Blockedaccess

• Migratory stocks have been excluded fromabove Shuswap Falls since 1928.

• Continued blockage confines restorationefforts for migratory stocks to areasdownstream of dam.

• Preliminary scoping of technicalfeasibility for fish passage is completed.

• Biological feasibility and cost-benefitassessment needs to be done.

Loss ofupstreamhabitat

• 1564 ha of lake area and 11 km streamchannel were displaced by reservoir. Thiscould be addressed by improving existinghabitat, creating new habitat or improvingaccess in the reservoir's tributaries.

• Is reduced spawning habitat limitinglake- resident salmonid populations?

• Need more complete inventory toidentify non-salmonid species of concernand habitat factors that limit theirpopulations.

Loss ofdownstreamhabitatbelowWilsey Dam

• A short 180 m of the original mainstem inthe canyon between the base of Wilsey Damand the powerhouse has diminished flowsexcept during spills.

• Present fish presence and habitat use ofthe bypassed channel section are notdocumented. Losses (if any) could beaddressed by enhancing mainstem habitatdownstream of the dam.

Reduceddownstreamhabitatcapabilitybelow eachdam

• Side channel formation has been reduceddue to the stabilization of river flows as wellas from non-hydro bank protection works.

• Loss of gravel and LWD recruitment causedby each dam.

• Identify floodplain propertiesdownstream to Mabel Lake and lowerBessette Creek that are suitable for futuredevelopment of side or off channel habitat.

• Determine presence of non-salmonidspecies at risk that use Shuswap mainstemhabitats.

• Determine whether gravel and LWDrecruitment below the dams are limitingfactors.

Reducedbiologicalproductivity

• Sugar Lake Reservoir drawdown andblockage of salmon migration by Wilsey Damhave reduced biological productivity comparedto the original system.

• The EFZ model developed during theWUP may be useful to address futureactions to restore Sugar Lake productivity.

• Subsequent human inputs may haveoffset the original nutrient losses. Evaluatefertilization of fish-bearing tributaries andSugar Reservoir to improve productivecapacity for resident salmonids and assessimpacts on other species.

Reducedtributaryaccess byboth dams

• Fish access to reservoir tributaries may havebeen reduced by drawdown operations.

• Fish use of tributary habitat withindrawdown zone may be compromised byfluctuations in water level.

• Look for barriers to fish access in lowertributary channels of reservoir anddetermine ease of removal.

• Assess impacts of removing naturalbarriers on other existing stream fauna.


12-19

The following fish restoration objectives will be used to guide the BCRP in the MiddleShuswap watershed.

Objective 1: Determine feasibility of restoring historic access for anadromous stocksupstream of Wilsey Dam.

There are obvious benefits for human economies and local ecological webs if anadromousfish resources can be returned to former watersheds. These include social and economicbenefits to various fisheries from increased abundance of an anadromous stock, and theannual nutrients contributed by spawner carcasses that benefit plants and animals outside theimmediate aquatic environment.

The blockage of fish movement to former habitats above Wilsey Dam is a major footprintimpact. The passage issue has serious implication for future BCRP efforts. If passage is notrestored, restoration projects for anadromous fish must be confined to the lower watershedwhere existing habitats are already utilized by anadromous stocks. Furthermore, blockedpassage also had undoubted secondary effects on wildlife populations above the dam.Therefore, resolution of the fish passage question is a first step that determines the scope andlocation of future fish restoration opportunities in the watershed.

1a. Feasibility Studies

Priority: HIGH

The BCRP Strategic Plan outlined the main issues related to the feasibility of re-establishinganadromous fish stocks (Vol. II: Chapter 1, sect. 3.2). Subsequently BCRP hascommissioned a framework to evaluate fish passage at BCRP facilities including WilseyDam. The purpose of the Stage I assessment is to establish stock and habitat profiles whichincludes the identification of target species, identification of biological and physical habitatrequirements, evaluation of the requirement for donor stock, identification of productiongoals, evaluation of potential impacts with resident stocks, and identification of fishmanagement constraints. The Stage II assessment is intended to establish a conceptual fishpassage plan, identify water management operational requirements and objectives forfacilitating fish passage, and identify constraints to achieving those operational objectives.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans have recently (2002) commissioned a study byNorthwest Hydraulics of these issues at Wilsey Dam.

BC Hydro (2001) also prepared an overview evaluation of restoring historic passage foranadromous fish at BC Hydro facilities. It concluded that Wilsey Dam is a potentialcandidate for salmon passage initiatives because it appears to have good upstream habitatcapability, and does not have problems associated with domestic water supply, drawdown, orinterbasin flow diversion. Height of the dam and biological competition were rated aspotentially posing minor problems. However, there may be some biological implications to


12-20

resident bull trout populations from the reintroduction of anadromous stocks (A. Caverly,MWLAP, Kamloops).

1b. Engineering & Resource Valuation Studies

Priority: HIGH

Conclusions reached in the report on Stage I and II in Objective 1a will determine thedirection of further investigation into detailed engineering and the cost aspects of providinganadromous passage.

1c. Habitat for Anadromous Stocks

Priority: HIGH

The outcome of Objective 1b will indicate the scope of habitat improvement that may benecessary to accommodate anadromous stocks in the upper watershed.

Objective 2: Conserve and improve fish habitats in the Middle Shuswap River betweenWilsey Dam and Mabel Lake.

2a. Identify and maintain important existing habitats

Priority: HIGH

Some inventory information is available to identify key habitats that warrant protection in theMiddle Shuswap River. In any river system, there will be sections that contain relativelymore or better quality habitat features for a particular species and life stage than othersections of the river. Essential features⎯ pools, log debris piles, large midstream boulders,gravelbed runs, etc.⎯ are formed by hydraulic channel processes acting on man-made ornatural structures. Habitat features can also be intentionally constructed in a stream channelto optimize spawning or rearing conditions. Outside of the wetted channel, the hydraulicregime of the river also influences streambank composition and the growth of riparianvegetation.

Stability and persistence of essential habitat features are central to habitat protection andrestoration. In some river systems, features remain at the same location for decades.Features in other rivers may change each year, depending on runoff conditions ⎯ pools fillwith gravel but others often re-form nearby; log piles or gravel accumulations may beredistributed downstream, and so on. The more dynamic the channel, the more annualvariability in the location, quantity or quality of essential habitat features.

An important implementation strategy is to identify and protect those particularly richhabitats that contribute to ecosystem functions, species diversity and species production.Special habitat features, including locations of springs and tributary inflows that currently


12-21

exist in the Middle Shuswap system, should be assessed for their relative hydrologicalstability as well as their sensitivity to disruption from other upland development. Habitatprotection may involve conservation designation or covenants, riparian and drainagetreatments, property acquisition, or other tools.

The criteria for selecting key habitats for conservation measures include the following:

• addresses critical habitat deficiencies for life stage requirements of targeted species;

• provides habitat for red or blue listed species; or

• re-connects or strengthens the connections between high quality habitats.

The BCRP strategy could consider potential opportunities to re-establish a riparian corridoralong the Middle Shuswap River and to increase habitat complexity by opening up sidechannels and enhancing groundwater supply for coho as well as sockeye and kokanee (Dept.of Fisheries & Oceans, 1997). Education of property owners and land managers should bepart of this effort.

2b. Develop habitats for species diversity and production

Priority: MEDIUM

A major BCRP implementation strategy is to undertake improvements to expand the capacityand quality of aquatic habitat below Wilsey Dam. The extent of habitat capacity requireddownstream will depend on whether passage is restored. Restoration proposals should beaware of the previous enhancement projects in the area and the need to complementecosystems and biodiversity values in any habitat development. Local groups havecompleted various bank stabilization, riparian treatments and restoration projects.

Habitat constraints that may be limiting chinook, coho and sockeye salmon, rainbow troutand bull trout are a particular concern, as are the lack of data on the presence of non-salmonid species at risk that may occur in this area, including possibly, mountain sucker(Catostomus platyrhynchus) and chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus).

Habitat enhancement should be guided by the following criteria:• provides a habitat requirement that is in short supply or is a limiting factor for a particular

species;

• promotes habitat-forming processes such as placement of large wood debris in mainstemlocations;

• replicates or mimics habitats that existed historically and that can be productively utilizedby species of concern; and

• assessment of wildlife biodiversity values prior to developing fish habitat sites.


12-22

Objective 3: Conserve and improve habitats for resident fish stocks upstream of WilseyDam.

3a. Identify and maintain important existing habitats

Priority: MEDIUM

The considerations presented in Objective 2a also apply here. Bull trout populations aboveWilsey Dam may be imperilled; they would benefit from LWD structures in mainstemhabitats, particularly in the upper river above Sugar Lake. This is also an area of activeerosion and channel migration. Local conservation groups have noted the erosion andbedload accumulation problems associated with Cherry Creek and Ferry Creek and the needto stabilize channels. Future construction or maintenance of BC Hydro and other accessroads should follow environmental BMP standards to protect essential fish habitat features,such as pools or spawning areas.

The habitat restoration context should also consider forestry and other land uses along thetributaries to Middle and Upper Shuswap River that may be affecting watershed processesand habitat restoration activities.

3b. Develop habitats for species diversity and production

Priority: MEDIUM

Some restoration efforts should attempt to restore former fish productivity lost by reservoirflooding and blockage of anadromous fish stocks. A sustainable increase in resident fishpopulations would enrich the food web of the local ecosystem, from piscivorous birds andmammals to nutrient cycling through lower trophic levels.

Fish species diversity in the upper watershed was reduced by the loss of anadromous stocks.If these stocks are restored in the future, habitats may need to be developed for certain lifestages (linked to Objective 2c).

Original populations of resident salmonids have lost habitat capacity in the lower reaches ofreservoir tributaries. Proposals to improve or create fish habitat should be linked to thesefootprint losses. Projects may improve access between reservoir and creeks, extend accessfurther upstream past local obstructions, or provide essential habitat features for spawning,rearing or overwintering. However, such projects can also have unintended impacts on otherwildlife. Thus, proponents should be asked to include a statement of impact on biodiversityvalues already existing at the site as part of their proposal.


12-23

Objective 4: Improve limnological productivity in Sugar Lake Reservoir.

4a. Limnological and Biological Investigations

Priority: LOW

Relative abundance and species composition of the fish fauna and food web relationshipsabove Sugar Lake Dam (reservoir and tributaries) should be assessed to forecast the benefitsexpected from fertilization. The Shuswap WUP addressed limnological productivity in amodel called the Effective Littoral Zone. After initial investigation, WUP considered that thechanges predicted by the model were insignificant to distinguishing the final flowalternatives. However, this model may be useful in optimizing primary and secondaryproductivity within the reservoir elevations required for recreation, flood control and publicsafety.

4b. Fertilization Experiments

Priority: LOW

An experimental study program could be initiated to determine the relative contributions tofish productivity by fertilizing either the lower reaches of tributaries, or the reservoirepilimnion itself, and the ecological effects of fertilization.

4.3 Wildlife Restoration Framework

In Sugar Lake, the hydroelectric footprint impacts included flooding of 1564 ha of lake, anestimated 54 ha of riverside riparian vegetation, 11 km of stream channel, 2 ha of wetland,and about 628 ha lowland forest and 25 ha of upland forest and lake-edge riparian, increasedshoreline length, construction of a dam, and alteration of flows in the Shuswap Riverdownstream (higher in winter, lower during freshet). These changes may have had impactson historical wildlife use of the watershed. These and other impacts may have created oraccentuated limiting factors that constrain ecosystem functions, species diversity and speciespopulations in the watershed.

There are natural characteristics and land uses that seriously constrain fish and wildliferestoration within the Shuswap watershed, affecting restoration opportunities. The steepterrain of much of the watershed above the Peers Dam and high gradient of portions of themiddle Shuswap River limit restoration opportunities in those areas. Agricultural land usesalso contribute to the pressures on aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats along the middleShuswap River, in addition to those imposed by hydroelectric footprint impacts (Bianchini &Robertson 2001). These characteristics reduce the potential area available for wildlife habitatrestoration in this watershed.

The Consultative Committee report for the Water Use Plan has addressed the flowrequirements for aquatic ecosystems and sought to mitigate the impacts. It aims to “maintainbiodiversity and ecological function in the Shuswap system.” Measures under BCRP are


12-24

proposed to either reduce or to offset the habitat losses directly or indirectly associated withhydroelectric footprint impacts. These measures should ideally complement other habitatmanagement activities in the watershed.

Historical changes in the watershed are dominated by hydroelectric footprint impacts andagricultural development. The largest footprint impacts are associated with the floodedhabitats now encompassed by the reservoir.

To assist in planning the restoration program, Table 2 identifies the restoration issues,information gaps, and priorities as they relate to the major limiting factors.

TABLE 2 Wildlife Restoration Issues and Information Gaps in Middle Shuswap Watershed

LimitingFactors

Restoration Issues Information Gaps

1. AlteredFlowRegime inRiver

• Altered Flow Regime in River• Potential effects on wildlife: water shrews,

harlequins, and dippers.

• Differentiation between footprint impactsand those caused by land use practices.

• Significance of footprint impacts onspecies using the river below Sugar L.

2. Loss ofHabitat:wetland,riparian, andlowlandhabitat infloodedvalleybottomabove SugarLake, anduplandforestaround lake.

• Availability of habitat for amphibians,water shrews and other small mammals andtheir predators.

• Availability of browse for ungulates.• Availability of breeding habitat for some

species of neotropical migrants.

• Assessment of habitat losses as aproportion of available habitat in upperwatershed.

• Significance of habitat losses to speciesusing the upper watershed.

3. ReducedHabitatCapability inDrawdownZone

• Lack of snag recruitment for cavity nestinghabitat and structures for large raptor nests.

• Potential effects on primary cavitynesters (e.g., woodpeckers) and secondarycavity nesters (e.g., swallows, squirrels,bats): snags created around Sugar Lake,especially at the upper end, by the increasedreservoir elevation are now disappearing.

• How many snags occurred in lowlandand around the wetland areas beforeflooding?

4. ReducedProductivity

• Lowland, upland and riparian Vegetationabsent or reduced in the 7.8 m drawdownzone.

• Assessment of habitat suitability in thereservoir drawdown.

• Significance of reduced habitatsuitability in drawdown zone to speciesusing the upper watershed: e.g. ungulates,


12-25

furbearers, small mammals, and severalspecies of passerines including someneotropical migrants.

The following wildlife restoration objectives will be used to guide the BCRP in the MiddleShuswap watershed.

RESERVOIR

Objective 1: Rehabilitate reservoir drawdown zones to enhance productivity andwildlife habitat in Sugar Lake.

The land occurring in the reservoir drawdown zone is the most impacted in that its formervegetation cover has been removed, resulting in bare ground that has the lowest existinghabitat value of reservoir footprint areas. These areas originally comprised several habitattypes of differing wildlife value, from relatively scarce, highly valued wetland, riverine,riparian, and floodplain/lowland habitats, to abundant upland mountainside coniferousforests. The 25 ha of flooded upland habitats around the reservoir is a relatively small area ofhabitat displacement.

Of the habitats originally occurring in the current drawdown zone, riparian habitats have thebest opportunity for restoration (albeit in different locations), within the constraints imposedby the soils, steepness, and flood regime. Investigations are required to identify practicalopportunities for enhancement within the drawdown zone, but the greatest opportunities areexpected to occur in areas near creeks and with lower gradients, particularly at the north endand east side of the reservoir. Restoration activities would include, but not necessarily belimited to, the following:

1a Inventory Species Presence and Habitat Utilization

Priority: MEDIUM

Before designing enhancements, it will be necessary to conduct assessments of need andinventories of species expected to benefit, particularly species at risk and other species ofmanagement concern.

1b Develop Habitats for Species Diversity and Production

Priority: MEDIUM

The following are examples of suitable activities that may arise from the assessment andinventory activities:


12-26

• Develop foreshore habitat complexes at suitable locations.• Create nesting cavities and raptor perches where beneficial through management activities such as snag

creation.• Improve nesting opportunities for osprey by providing artificial nesting structures.

Objective 2: Conserve and enhance wetlands and riparian habitats in the reservoir.

This objective focuses on the creation of small wetlands and associated riparian habitataround Sugar Lake, and recognizes the importance of extensive existing wetlands at themouths of the upper Shuswap River and Sitkum Creek . About 628 ha of lowland forest,mostly at the head of the lake and some on the east side, were flooded. Before flooding, twohectares of wetland habitat were identified within the flooded zone, situated at the head of thelake. Currently, wet meadows that are inundated and dewatered annually occur at the northand east ends of the lake (Draft Shuswap River Water Use Plan 2002). Moose winter rangehas been identified in these portions of Sugar Lake Reservoir (Bianchini and Robertson2001). The creation of additional permanent wetlands and associated riparian vegetationwould provide habitat for aquatic amphibians, waterfowl and other water birds, smallmammals, moose, and eventually cavity dependent species.

2a Develop habitats around Sugar Lake for species diversity and production

Priority: MEDIUM

Activities such as the following would fulfill this objective. • Consider various opportunities to dyke selected drawdown areas to hold water during growing and

breeding season (spring and summer), or fall migration, when reservoir is normally drawn down at thosetimes.

• Create additional wetlands where feasible through activities such as flooding shallow basins in thewatershed.

2b Undertake Habitat Mapping and maintain the wetlands where the Shuswap R andSitkum Cr flow into Sugar Reservoir

Priority: HIGH

Objective 3: Identify and maintain important habitats around the reservoir.

There may be opportunities to maintain important habitats in the upstream areas. Habitatprotection may involve conservation designation or covenants, riparian and drainagetreatments, property acquisition, or other tools. The criteria for selecting key habitats forconservation measures include the following:


12-27



• re-connects or strengthens the connections between high quality habitats.

3a Identify and maintain small groups of old or second growth trees in strategiclocations around the reservoir for current and future nesting use by bald eagles orospreys.

Priority: MEDIUM

Bald eagles have nested recently at Sugar Lake, (Roy in Bianchini and Robertson 2001), andosprey and great blue herons (blue listed) use habitats around the lake. Besides managementfor or creation of snags in wetland areas (Objective 1), areas of older upland forest also offerpotential nest sites.

Identify, map, and preserve suitable old or second growth stands in locations around thereservoir where they would provide potential nesting and perching sites for bald eagles orospreys.

SHUSWAP RIVER

Objective 4: Identify and maintain important habitats along the Shuswap River.

Undertake conservation, through protective measures, habitat acquisition, stewardshipagreements, and other means, to conserve remaining significant habitats in the ShuswapRiver below and between the dams, and in Sugar Lake. The criteria for selecting key habitatsfor conservation measures include the following:



• re-connects or strengthens the connections between high quality habitats

4a Conserve and enhance riparian and wetland habitats in the downstreamportions of the Shuswap River.

Priority: HIGH


12-28

The effect of the construction of the Peers Dam on Sugar Lake has resulted in highly variabledaily and monthly flow fluctuations. While the flow fluctuations are primarily a WUP issue,the creation of the dam has led to a lack of gravel and LWD recruitment in the river belowPeers Dam and siltation of the upper kilometre of the river below the dam, potentiallyaffecting habitat for riverine species as harlequins and dippers. There may have also beenunknown effects on the quality and quantity of riparian habitat. To an unknown extent, themoderation in peak flows may also have enabled the conversion of some floodplain lands toagricultural or other uses. Restoration activities could include, but not necessarily be limitedto, the following:

Prepare and implement a riverine and riparian management plan for the middle ShuswapRiver to improve water quality and other habitat attributes (e.g., gravel and LWDrecruitment).

MIDDLE SHUSWAP WATERSHED

Objective 5: Improve the knowledge base on species of concern, especially endangeredor threatened species, and habitat utilization in the Middle Shuswap watershed.

Some endangered or threatened species that may occur in the watershed, such as owls,diurnal forest and grassland raptors, or other forest or grassland species may be little affectedby the dam footprint. Other species of concern, however, such as cavity-nesting species orspecies using riverine, wetland, or riparian areas, such as painted turtle, harlequin, great blueheron, moose, and grizzly bears may be negatively influenced by habitat reduction or flowchanges. More information is needed about the abundance and habitat utilization of speciesof concern that are dependent on riverine, riparian, floodplain, and adjacent wetland andforest habitats, or whose movements may be negatively influenced by the footprint impact.

5a Map wetland and reservoir shoreline habitats

Priority: MEDIUM

Undertake habitat mapping using accepted Provincial standards.

5b Inventory species of concern and habitat utilization

Priority: MEDIUM

Once the habitats are mapped, inventory those species likely to have been adversely affectedby the footprint impacts.


12-29

References

Bianchini, C., I. Robertson. 2001. B.C. Hydro Shuswap River Water Use Plan WildlifeOverview. Prepared for B.C. Hydro by Roberston Env. Serv. Ltd. 10pp.

Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans, 1997, Strategic Review of Fisheries resources for the SouthThompson-Shuswap Habitat Management Area, Fraser River Action Plan, 111p. + app.

Thomas Roy (pers. comm) in Bianchini and Robertson (2001).

Slaney T., K.D. Hyatt, T.G. Northcote, and R.J. Fielden, 1996. Extinction risk classificationdata for anadromous salmon and trout of British Columbia (draft - unpublished), AmericanFisheries Society.


12-30

5. MIDDLE SHUSWAP RIVER WATERSHED REFERENCES

5.1 Map and Air Photo References

Reference Location Source1921 Pre-emptor’s map, Vernon Sheet, 1:126,720 (see SugarLake) with contours

UBC map library

Legal survey 20 chain=1” Sugar Lake before flooding- fieldbooks from land surveys

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, LegalSurveys Dept.

1;20,000 flood reserve map, 1990 Legal Surveys, MELPAir Photos Shuswap Falls and Sugar Lake, 1951 BC 1379:38, BC 1377: 102

5.2 Hydro Facilities and Fish References

Reference Notes SourcesAcres International LTD (Acres). 1993. Resource Smart: ShuswapFalls Generating Station Review of Rehabilitation Opportunities.Prepared by BC Hydro. H2706

BC Hydro

Aquatic Resources Limited. 1997. Draft. Middle Shuswap River:Flow Ramping and Fish Production. Prepared by BC Hydro MicaProduction Area Revelstoke BC. ARL 215-1 May 1997.

BC Hydro

ARC Environmental Ltd. 1995. Proposal to Provide ProfessionalServices: Shuswap River Fish Stranding Assessment. Prepared for BCHydro. 7701. 2

BC Hydro

ARC Environmental Ltd. 1998. Middle Shuswap River and MabelLake Tributaries. Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory ProgramAppendices. Prepared for Weyerhaeuser. Prepared by FRBC. T096-170. March 1998.

BC Hydro

ARC Environmental Ltd. 2000. Draft. Shuswap River Fish/AquaticInformation Review. Prepared for BC Hydro.

BC Hydro

Babcock, J.P. 1903. Annual Report of Fisheries Commissioner forBritish Columbia for 1902. p. 27

“The Spallumcheen River [entireMiddle Shuswap R. above MaraLake] has two lakes near its sourcethat are frequented, I was told, bysockeye in the years of the bigruns.” Map shows Mabel and Sugarlakes upstream which are notnamed.

Pac. Salmon Comm.SH224 1901-10.

Berry, F.C. and A.L. Kahl. 1982. Catalogue of selected Fraser andThompson River tributaries important to chinook and coho salmonand a preliminary assessment of their enhancement potential. Unpubl.report of DFO Fraser River, Northern B.C. and Yukon Division. 277p.

A catalogue of selected Fraser andThompson River tributariesimportant to chinook and cohosalmon and a preliminaryassessment of their enhancementpotential. Information collectedinclude the physical streamcharacteristics of depth, width,velocity, substrate, temperature, pHand dissolved 02. Salmon spawningand rearing habitat was describedand the presence of barriers toupstream salmon migration noted.

FISS ref # 29K-3

Bowman S.L. 1984. Middle Shuswap River Juvenile SalmonidReconnaissance Program, 1984. Prepared for BCH EnvironmentalResources. A5376. 1932/WP 1808 DSS 03SBSP576-3-5714.

same as below? BC Hydro


12-31

Reference Notes SourcesBowman, S.L. and G.O. Stewart. 1984. Middle Shuswap Riverjuvenile salmonid reconnaissance program, 1984. Report fromEnvirocon Ltd. to Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Vancouver,B.C. 81 p.

same as above? FISS ref # 29K-28;cited in Hirst 1991

BC. Department of Lands and Forests. 1957. Water resourcesinvestigations: report on hydrology of the Watshan and ShuswapRiver watersheds. Water Rights Branch. A4777.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. n.d. Shuswap Falls Hydroelectric DevelopmentInformation Pamphlet. Prepared by: BC Hydro Vernon Production.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. n.d. Draft. Environmental Committee Report ShuswapArea. A5377.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1973. Report to Regional District of North Okanagan onSpullumcheen/Shuswap Valley transmission line crossing.

VanPubLib:621.319 B86sp

BC Hydro. 1974. Memorandum on Rehabilitation of Sugar LakeDam. A0036. 7 p.

dam condition status; proposedrehab dwgs.

BC Hydro

B.C. Hydro. 1979. Shuswap Falls generating station record ofautomatic shutdowns of generating unit. Letter from A.E. Roos to R.Hamilton, Vancouver, B.C. 17 May 1979.

cited in Hirst 1991

BC Hydro. 1982. Shuswap Falls Headpond. A5326 . BC HydroBC Hydro. 1982. Shuswap River Properties Report. Reservoir LandManagement Properties Division. A5460. 7 p.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1983. Shuswap Falls Project: Probable Maximum Flood.Prepared by: Hydroelectric Generation Project Division. H1586

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1984. Dam Safety Deficiency Investigation: Sugar LakeDam Rehabilitation Studies. Prepared by Hydroelectric GenerationProjects Division. A4617 H1679

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1984. Wilsey Dam 1984 Annual Report. A 1572. BC HydroBC Hydro. 1984. Wilsey Dam: preliminary report on site geologicmapping and foundation assessment. Hydroelectric GenerationProjects Division Development Department. A3646. Geo 1/84. 11 p.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1984. Sugar Lake Dam: preliminary report on geologicmapping and foundation conditions. Hydroelectric GenerationProjects Division Development Department. A4618. Geo 2/84. 9 p.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1986. Dam Safety Investigations: Wilsey Dam - DamBreach Inundation. Prepared by: Hydroelectric Engineering Division.Hydrotechnical Department. A1643. H 1885

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1986. Wilsey Dam Emergency Preparedness Plan. A1639. OM 310/01

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1987. Shuswap Development 1985 Annual Report.Prepared by System Operations and Maintenance Division: CivilInspection Section. A1640.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1988. Shuswap Falls Project Dredge Monitoring Report1988. Prepared by Gadbois B. A5454.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1988. Shuswap Generating Station: HeadpondSedimentation. Prepared by: Hydroelectric Engineering DivisionHydrotechnical Department. A3745. H1977

in 1970 DFO disallowed sluicegatesto remove sediment ; avg accum22,000 m3/yr; dredged material nearintakes is 80% finer than 0.5mmdiam.; coarser at inlet; headpond

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1990. Columbia Shuswap Regional District: LakeRevelstoke Recreation and Tourism Development Opportunities.A5815. 7047635. 1

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1990. Shuswap Falls Dredge Monitoring Program Springand Fall 1989. Prepared by McAdam. A5356.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1990. Shuswap Project Rehabilitation/RedevelopmentOverview Study. A5352. H2159

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1991. Shuswap Falls Forebay Dredge Monitoring 1990.A5456. ER-91-08

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1992. Shuswap Falls Rehabilitation/ Redevelopment BC Hydro


12-32

Reference Notes SourcesPrefeasibility Study. A0344. H1596BC Hydro. 1993a. Interoffice memo: Riprap Erosion ProtectionCircuit SL79. Sept.15 memo to H Wagner from BC Anderson. 3 p.

Shuswap R. bank protection fortransmission line; site not identified

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1993b. Sugar Lake Reservoir property inventory. BCHydro Property Services Division. A5465.

good map of Sugar L. and adjoiningprops.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1994. Shuswap Falls Powerplant penstock #2replacement design and construction. Hydroelectric EngineeringDivision. A4877b.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1994. Shuswap Falls debris removal systems feasibilitystudy (2nd draft). Hydroelectric Engineering Division. H2835. 15 p.

Plant now uses only 58% ofavailable avg. annual flow

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1995a. Draft. Flow Ramping at Hydroelectric DischargeFacilities: Methodologies for Impact Assessment and Mitigation.Prepared by Strategic Fisheries Safety and Environment. EA 94-07

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1995b. Resource Smart: Shuswap Falls Debris Remova1Systems Feasibility Study. Prepared by Maintenance, Engineering andProjects: Structural. A5051.1. H2835.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1995c. Shuswap River DFO and MoELP Communication.Prepared by B Hebden.

BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1997. Proposed Sediment Removal from Wilsey DamHeadpond, Shuswap River. Environmental Management Plan. BCHydro, Vernon, B.C. 16 p.

Material is mostly washed sand. Siltcontent is low. Most from CherryCr. & some from Ferry Cr &mainstem banks. Will scheduleSept97 dredging 6-10k cu.yds toplease DFO & chinook.Wilsey Dam was constructed with abottom sluice (lower outlet gates)for sediment release that was usedroutinely from 1929 until the late1960’s.

BC Hydro

B.C. Hydro. 1998. Rare element occurrence: Field guide to the rareand endangered species found within the watershed boundaries ofeach BCH facility. Strategic Fisheries, Power Supply Operations,Burnaby, BC.

all red, blue & yellow listed species BC Hydro

BC Hydro. 1999. Recreation Opportunities, Shuswap, p. 172-176.Power Supply Environment Community Interests. ER 99-08.Reservoirs Recreational Outdoor Recreation.

good color maps of all BCH’sfacilities

BC Hydro

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. Lake plans –Shuswap watershed. MELP, Regional Hdqtr., Penticton.

Annual 6-8 m drawdown virtuallyeliminates any vegetation growth inlittoral zone.

FISS citation #8003

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1991. Summary ofsmall lakes index management aerial angler count for 1991. MELP,Regional Hdqtr., Penticton.

FISS citation #8007

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. n.d. Shuswap-Mabelarea, Bessette Creek: water quality assessment and objectives. BCWater Quality Branch, Victoria. 16 p.

not seen - assesses the water qualityof five creeks in the Bessette Creekwatershed

UBC MICROLOG94-03939

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. Sugar Lake.File #34020-20-03. SUG. MELP, Regional Hdqtr., Penticton.

FISS citation #8067

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. Shuswap Riverstanding stock assessment. MELP, Regional Hdqtr., Penticton.

Triton? FISS citation #8404

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. Ferry Creek.File #34020-20-(03) FER CR. MELP, Regional Hdqtr., Penticton.

FISS citation #8042

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. Ferry Creek -Habitat Conservation Fund report. File #39080-25-(F). MELP,Regional Hdqtr., Penticton.

FISS citation #8043

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. Holstein Lake.File #34020-20-(03) HOLS. MELP, Regional Hdqtr., Penticton.

FISS citation #8050

BC Power Commission. 1957. Shuswap Falls Hydro ElectricDevelopment: Annual Report. Prepared by Maclean DA. A2397.117PD. 14 p.

many b&w photos, incl. Feb9/57shows headpond frozen over w/snow on top; inludes old dwgs from

BC Hydro


12-33

Reference Notes SourcesW. Canadian Hydro-Electric Corp.

BC Power Commission. 1958. Shuswap Plant field survey. A2403. stadia elev. for profiles & x-s BC HydroBC Power Commission. 1960. Report on Sugar Lake Debris. CivilEngineering Division. Victoria . BCH-A1922. 4 p.

large map showing 1958 drawdownzone; excel. b&w photos of lake; noclearing of orig. impoundmentcaused some debris problems

BC Hydro

Bryan, J. and E.V. Jensen, Water Quality Trends in Mara, Mabel andSugar Lakes 1971-1998, BC Environment,

UBC TD 227.B7B793 1999

Brown, R.F., M.M. Musgrave and D.E. Marshall. 1979. Catalogue ofsalmon streams and spawning escapements of Kamloops sub-district.Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 151. 226 p.

cited in Hirst 1991

CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd. 1993. Shuswap Falls GeneratingStation. A5463.

BC Hydro

Clemens, W.A., R.E. Foerster, N.M. Carter and D.S. Rawson. 1938.A contribution to the limnology of Shuswap Lake, British Columbia.Rept. BC Fisheries Department

Cited in Publ. Listfor BC Dept.Fisheries

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1969. Report on fisheriesproblem associated with proposed diversion of water from ShuswapRiver to Okanagan Lake. 97 p.

maps VanPubLib: 639.2;UBC Woodwrd:SH224.B7A3421969

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1970. Desilting estimate -forebay of B.C. Hydro dam at Shuswap Falls on the Shuswap River.Internal memo. from D.L. Egar to K. Kupka. Vancouver, B.C. 23 July1970.

cited in Hirst 1991

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1971. Meeting notes re: WilseyDam silt flushing. DFO, BCH, BC Fish & Wildlife. Vancouver, BC.10 Feb. 1971.

cited in Hirst 1991

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1978. Water level fluctuationsat Shuswap Falls. Internal memo, B. Mitchell to D. Aurel. Kamloops,B.C. 18 September 1978.

cited in Hirst 1991

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1981. Letter from J.W.C.McNally to D.J. McLennan, B.C. Hydro. Vernon, B.C. 24 November1981.

cited in Hirst 1991

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1982. Salmon enhancementprogram at Shuswap Falls. Notes of meeting DFO-SEP-B.C. Hydro,23 March 1982. Vancouver, B.C. 23 April 1982.

cited in Hirst 1991

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1997. Strategic review offisheries resources for the South Thompson-Shuswap HabitatManagement Area. Prepared for DFO, Fraser River Action Plan,Vancouver, BC. 111 p.

cited in DFO 1998

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1998. Salmon watershedplanning profiles for the South Thompson-Shuswap HabitatManagement Area. Prepared for DFO, Fraser River Action Plan,Vancouver, BC. 309 p.Farwell, M.K., N.D. Schubert, K.H. Wilson and C.R. Harrison. 1987.Salmon escapements to streams entering Statistical Areas 28 and 29,1951 to 1985. Canadian Data Rept. Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesNo. 601: 166 p.Fedorenko, A.Y. 1982. Trapping and coded-wire tagging of wildjuvenile chinook salmon in the South Thompson-Shuswap Riversystem, 1976, 1979 and 1980. Canadian Manuscript Report Fisheriesand Aquatic Sciences No. 1677. 63 p.

UBC: MICROLOG83-02526

Fee, J. and J. Jong. 1984. Evaluation of chinook and coho outplantingopportunities in the Middle Shuswap River above and below ShuswapFalls. 2 vol. report by Alpha-Bioresource Environrnental Consultants,Victoria, BC to Department of Fisheries and Oceans. DSS Contract04SB.FP576-3-2462. vol 1- 76 p.; vol.2- 116 p. appendices

Shuswap mainstem, Bessette Cr.,Cherry Cr., Reiter Cr.

Fee, J. 1985. Evaluation of chinook and coho outplantingopportunities in the Middle Shuswap River, above and below

revision FISS citationref#8077;


12-34

Reference Notes SourcesShuswap Falls. (revised addition 1985). BC Ministry of Environment,Penticton, BC. 107 p.

MELP Penticton -ref#2694.

Fielden, R.J. and T.L. Slaney. 1994. Preliminary review of thefisheries implications of summer flow ramping in the MiddleShuswap River. Unpubl. rept. by Aquatic Resources Limited for BCHydro, Kamloops. 20 p.

species noted BC Hydro

Foskett, D.R. 1943. Obstructions to sockeye on the Fraser Riverwatershed. Intl. Pacific Salmon Fish. Comm., Vancouver. File1180.1-46. 5 p.

Pac. Salmon Comm.library

French, D.E. 1995. Historic review of anadromous salmonid passageabove Shuswap Falls, British Columbia. MS rept. for DFO WesternRegion, Vancouver, BC. Contract FP94-5389. 26p.

draft copy missing 3 figures DFO Kamloops

Ginetz, R. and G. Neilsen. 1980. Review of Enhancement Potentialfor Chinook and Coho Salmon Stocks in the Fraser River Watershed.Fisheries & Oceans Canada. Small Projects Division Memo. 17 p.Griffith, R.P. 1979. Enhancement opportunities for resident rainbowtrout in the Middle Shuswap River (above Shuswap Falls) andpotential impact of chinook salmon re-introduction. MS report forB.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Victoria, B.C. 84 p.

CN spawners were released abovefalls in 1977; potential area for 1000CN females w/o impact to RB; RBmay displace MW; App.3 hasgradient profile of mainstem

Griffith R.P. 1986. Rainbow trout production and implications ofcoho salmon enhancement in the Bessette Creek drainage, tributary tothe Middle Shuswap River. Unpubl. rept. for Fisheries ImprovementUnit, BC Fisheries Branch, Victoria. 43 p.

FISS ref#8078

Hamilton, R. 1992. Hydrology and water use for salmon streams inthe Thompson River watershed, BC. Prepared by NorthwestHydraulic Consultants Ltd., N. Vancouver, for DFO Fraser RiverSustainable Develop. Task Force, Vancouver, BC. 47 p.

FISS ref. # EW225

Hatfield Consultants Ltd. 1994. Proposal: Middle Shuswap RiverFlow Monitoring Program. Prepared for: BC Hydro EnvironmentalResources Department.

BC Hydro

Hickey, D.G. and J.A. Trask. 1994. Inventory and rating of salmonidhabitat in the vicinity of Kamloops, B.C. Prepared by ECLEnvirowest Consultants Ltd., for Fraser River Action Plan, Dept. ofFisheries and Oceans, New Westminster, BC.

FISS citationref#EW231: DFONew West.

Hirst, S.M. 1991a. Impacts of the operation of existing hydroelectricdevelopments on fishery resources in British Columbia. Volume 1.Anadromous salmon. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 2093. 144 p.Hirst, S.M. 1991b. Impacts of the operation of existing hydroelectricdevelopments on fishery resources in British Columbia. Volume 2.Inland fisheries. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and AquaticSciences 2093. 200 p. Hutton R. 1987. 1986 Fisheries Job Development Project. JuvenileSalmonid Residency Study: Salmon, & Shuswap Rivers. Prepared forByril Kurtz, Salmon Arm DFO. Prepared by Fisheries JobDevelopment Project, Enderby & District Chamber of Commerce.Contract 1223RX3. June 1987. 31 p.

mostly sampled tribs d/s of WilseyDam

International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. 1977. MiddleShuswap River and Sugar Lake. Notes by S. Tremper (1942), cited inletter from F. Andrew to R.G. Ferguson, B.C. Hydro. Vancouver, B.C.9 November 1977.

cited in Hirst 1991

Jantz, B.A. 1986a. Salmonid production in the Bessette Creekwatershed. Fisheries Section, BC Ministry of Environment, Penticton,BC. 6 p.

cited in Griffith1986

Jantz, B.A. 1986b. Creel survey and life history of rainbow trout andkokanee in Mabel Lake in 1984. Recreational Fisheries Mgmt.Program, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Penticton,BC. 35 p.


12-35

Reference Notes SourcesJantz, B.A. 1992. Effects of winter flow reductions on kokaneesalmon spawning habitat in the Middle Shuswap River. Unpubl.report, BC Ministry of Environment, Penticton, BC. 33 p.

kokanee spawn in s/c susceptible tostranding

FISS ref #8185

Jantz, B.A. 1995. Letter to M. Sheng, DFO, Vancouver. re: proposalto transport and release adult chinook salmon above Wilsey Dam. BCMinistry of Environment, Penticton, BC. Jantz, B.A. 1998. Habitat Conservation Trust Fund Final Report:Lang/Tulley Channel Complexing. BC Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks, Southern Interior Region. March 1998.Kalnin, L.W. 1981. Bessette Creek coho C.W.T. project. Memo toN.D. Schubert, DFO, New Westminster, BC.

FISS ref# 29K-14

Klohn Crippen. n.d. Upper Shuswap River Fish and Fish HabitatInventory. PW 75150105.

BC Hydro

Klohn Crippen Consulting Engineers & Shawinigan Integ. Inc.(Klohn). 1991. Resource Smart: Shuswap Falls Generating StationReview of Rehabilitation Opportunities. Prepared for: BC Hydro.BCH A310a. H2487.

BC Hydro

Knapp, W. M.D. Nassichuk, et. al. 1982. The Thompson RiverBasin: Pacific salmon resources and environmental issues. Can.Manuscr. Rept. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 1668, 117 p.

Overview of the Thompson RiverBasin's salmon resources, includingtheir life histories, spawning andrearing requirements, habitatdistribution, escapements, juvenileproduction and enhancementpotential and summarizes thecontribution which these fish maketo the British Columbia commercial,recreational and native Indianharvests. It also describes theconflicts between land and water useactivities and salmon habitat andwater quality. The discussion isorganized according to the threesub-Basins within the study area: theThompson; north Thompson; andsouth Thompson/Shuswap. 1982.

FISS citationref#29K-22: DFONew West.

Lewis, A.F., G.J. Naito, S.E. Redden and BC Hydro Safety andEnvironment. 1996. Fish flow studies project, fish flow overview report. Triton Environmental for BC Hydro Safety and Environment.Report no. EA:95-06. 144 p.

comprehensive facility statistics formost BCH projects

BC Hydro

Life-Space Design Ltd. 1979. Shuswap Falls properties: arecreational corridor concept. Prepared for BC Hydro Reservoir LandManagement. A5917.

BC Hydro

Life-Space Designs Ltd. 1979. Shuswap Falls Properties ResourceAnalysis. Prepared for BCH Reservoir Land ManagementDepartment. A2133.

BC Hydro

Lipinsky, N. 1978. Middle Shuswap River chinook re-establishmentstudy, 1977. Unpubl. MS, Fisheries and Marine Service, EnvironmentCanada. 23 p.

Fee & Jong (p.1) cited Lipinsky:“Prior to installation of the dam in1929, local residents noted chinookspawning upstream of Wilsey Dam”

cited in Fee & Jong

Lister, D.B. 1990. An assessment of fisheries enhancement potentialof BC Hydro operations at Shuswap River. Unpubl. rept. by D.B.Lister & Assoc. Ltd. for BCH Environmental Resources. 35 p.Lister, D.B. 1990. Files re: assessment of fisheries enhancementpotential of BC Hydro operations at Shuswap River. D.B. Lister &Assoc. Ltd., Sardis, BC.

historical notes on fish above falls

Mackenzie, A.R. 1913. Application for removal of fish ladderrequirement in respect of intake dam - Shuswap Falls. Submitted toF.H. Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries, New Westminster,BC. 25 February.

2 photos of pre-project river; pre-project hydrograph; map of riverwith erroneous note of 38 foot sheerfalls at Sugar Lake outlet; see

BC Archives


12-36

Reference Notes SourcesShotton (1913)

MacKinlay, D.D. 1984. SEP New Projects Unit water quality datacollected 1979-1984. DFO New Westminster. Can. Data Rept. Fish.Aquat. Sci. No. 409, 190 p.

hatchery discharges FISS ref# 29K-31

Merkley, L. 1985. Chemical rehabilitation of Holstein Lake. Unpubl.rept. MELP, Regional Hdqtr., Penticton. 63 p.

FISS ref# 8051;MELP PentictonLibr.#2243

Nordin, R.M. 1978. Water quality in the Shuswap River betweenMabel and Mara lakes, 1977. Water Investigations Branch, BCMinistry of Environment. A5453.

FISS citationref#29K-27;DFO (New West)

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 1987. Shuswap Generating Station.Headpond Silting Hydraulic Model Studies. Prepared for BC Hydro.1513. October 1987. 7 p.

Tested reshaping of 300m x 200mheadpond to reduce silting;[BCH97: Model considered additionof a dividing long-wall structure toproduce flow conditions to reducesediment buildup at both intakes(expensive).]

BC Hydro

Quamme, D., D.J. Clarke and T.L. Slaney. 1997. Draft. MiddleShuswap River: flow ramping and fish production. Unpubl. rept. byAquatic Resources Limited for BC Hydro Mica Production Area.ARL 215-1. 60 p.

BC Hydro

Regional District of North Okanagan. 1975. Shuswap River study, 2vols.. Planning Dept., Kamloops, BC. 69 p.

maps UBC Main:FC3845.S48 S4871975 PL

Robinson, C.H. 1941. Letter to Commissioner F.R. Buler, GameDept, Vancouver, BC. re: water storage dam at Sugar Lake. May 20.

Fee & Jong (p.3) cited this ref:“Robinson suggested that fishpassage was impossible above thenatural barrier of Brenda Falls.”

cited in Fee & Jong1984

Robinson, Gary. 1999. Historical summary of First Nations waterrights in BC – BC Shuswap Indian Reserve.

Vancouver PublicLibrary

Roos, J.F. 1991. Restoring Fraser River Salmon - a history of theInternational Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission 1937-1985. Publ.by The Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC. 438 p.

p.426 - data on SK egg transplantsto Middle Shuswap system

Rosberg, G.E., and D.D. MacKinlay. 1987. A review of the biologicaldesign criteria for the Shuswap River salmonid enhancement facility.Salmonid Enhancement Program, Dept. Fisheries and Oceans.Vancouver, B.C. 258 p.

cited in Hirst 1991

Schubert, N.D. 1988. An assessment of four upper Fraser Riverchinook salmon sport fisheries, 1986. Can. Data Rept. Fish. Aquat.Sci. No. 1890. 52 p.

FISS citationref#EW228

Schubert, N.D. and I.W. Whyte. 1990. Angler effort and catch in fiveFraser River chinook salmon sport fisheries, 1990. Can. Data Rept.Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2142. 58 p.

FISS citationref#EW230

Schubert, N.D. and N.J. Vivian. 1997. Estimation of the 1994Shuswap River system sockeye salmon escapement. Can. Manuscr.Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2427. 48 p.Shotton, H. 1913. Letter report of interviews regarding fish passage atShuswap and Brenda falls. Fisheries officer, Kamloops, to F.H.Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries, New Westminster. 10April 1913. 4 p.

surveyor told him the upper falls hada drop of 38 feet in 1000 feet, not“38 feet sheer” as reported byMackenzie (1913).

Intl. Pac. SalmonFish. Comm.file 1180.1-10

Shuswap Nation Fisheries Commission. 1996. Summary of 1995helicopter surveys of chinook & coho spawners. Prepared by SNFCand Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy DFO by M. Galesloot.

BC Hydro

Shuswap Nation Fisheries Commission. 1997. Summary of 1997helicopter surveys of chinook in streams within the traditionalterritories of the Shuswap People. Prepared by SNFC and AboriginalFisheries Strategy DFO by M. Galesloot.

BC Hydro

Shuswap Nation Fisheries Commission. 1998. Summary of 1998helicopter surveys of chinook & coho spawners in streams within the

CO & CN counts for total MiddleShuswap section; no distribution

BC Hydro


12-37

Reference Notes Sourcestraditional territories of the Shuswap People. Prepared by SNFC andAboriginal Fisheries Strategy DFO by M. Galesloot

map

Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1991. Assessment of resource uses in theSouth Thompson/Shuswap habitat management area. Report to Dept.Fisheries and Oceans, Fraser River Sustainable Develop. Task Force,

FISS ref. #EW234;UBC:Govt. Publ.Microlog 95-07703

Sigma Engineering Ltd.. 1993. Shuswap Flow Capability Study.(800-1176 W Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada). Prepared forBC Hydro Environmental Resources Division. A5349. E5747. 63 p.

BC Hydro

Smith, Geoffrey. 1967. Surficial geology of the Shuswap Riverdrainage, British Columbia. Ohio State University.

UBC Main:QE187.S658 1969A

Starr, P. 1978. A short review of fisheries related informationpertinent to the B.C. Hydro dam and generating plant at ShuswapFalls. Memo Report, Fisheries and Marine Division. Vancouver, B.C.14 p.

cited in Hirst 1991

Summit. 1996. Middle Shuswap River Watershed Storm Assessment.March 1996.

BC Hydro

Thompson, William F. 1945. Effect of the obstruction at Hell’s Gateon the sockeye salmon of the Fraser River. Internat. Pacific SalmonFish. Comm. Bull. I. 175 p.Tredger, D. 1977. A review of Fisheries and Marine Service data(1977) for the Middle Shuswap River (Shuswap Falls to BrendaFalls). Prepared for BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 3 p.

RB, MW, SQ, RSS, (DV?) - critiqueof DFO’s reconn. methods

Triton Environmental Consultants. 1994a. Howell-Bunger BypassValve Testing and Commissioning. Nov 16, 1994. Results of WaterQuality and Water Level Monitoring. Prepared for BC Hydro.2295.00/WP6318. November 1994.

BC Hydro

Triton Environmental Consultants. 1994b. Shuswap Falls Penstock#2 Replacement Environmental Monitoring During Construction.Prepared for BC Hydro. A5956. 2218/WP5711.

BC Hydro

Triton Environmental Consultants. 1994c. Shuswap River FlowMonitoring Program. Prepared for BC Hydro. A5350. 2227.00/WP5801.

BC Hydro

Triton Environmental Consultants. 1994d. Assessment of chinooksalmon fry migration timing in Middle Shuswap River upstream ofWilsey Dam 1994.

cited in ARC 2000

Triton Environmental Consultants. 1995a. Shuswap River standingstock assessment and carrying capacity analyses. Prepared for BCHydro, Kamloops, BC. 2317. 00/WP6507.

BC Hydro

Triton Environmental Consultants. 1995b. Draft. Shuswap Riverwater elevation changes and fish stranding survey. 2297. 00/WP6074.

BC Hydro

Triton Environmental Consultants. 1995c. Chinook salmon adulttransplant on Middle Shuswap River 1995.

cited in ARC 2000

Webber, Jean (editor). 1999. A rich and fruitful land: the history ofvalleys of Okanagan, Similkameen and Shuswap. 239 p.

VanPubLib: 971.15R49w; UBC:FC3845.O4R521999

5.3 Wildlife References

Reference Notes SourceB.C. Hydro. 1998. Rare element occurrence: Field guide to therare and endangered species found within the watershedboundaries of each BCH facility. Strategic Fisheries, PowerSupply Operations, Burnaby, BC.

All red, blue & yellow listed species BC Hydro

BC Fish & Wildlife Branch. 1977. Wildlife Distribution Sugar Lake: Few – (1 bear per 55-400 MELP Surrey: Jack


12-38

Reference Notes SourceMapping Series: Grizzly Bear Distribution and RelativeAbundance.

sq. miles) South of Sugar Lake - Nil

Evans

Hatter, J., D.J. Robinson, P.W. Martin, L.G. Sugden, E,W. Taylorand W.G. Smith. 1956. Inventory and Evaluation of WildlifeResources of British Columbia. Reprinted from the 9th BCNatural Resources Conference Transactions, February 1956.

“Caribou bands are known to range inthe following areas, but it is impossible atpresent to estimate numbers in thisseldom observed species. Sugar Lake-Mabel Lake-Monashee.”The principal grizzly ranges of thewestern and central portions of theprovince are the mountainous regions ofthe following areas:..Sugar Lake-MabelLake…”

MELP Surrey: JackEvans

Hirst, S.M. 1991a. Impacts of the operation of existinghydroelectric developments on fishery resources in BritishColumbia. Volume 1. Anadromous salmon. Canadian ManuscriptReport of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2093. 144 p.Hirst, S.M. 1991b. Impacts of the operation of existinghydroelectric developments on fishery resources in BritishColumbia. Volume 2. Inland fisheries. Canadian ManuscriptReport of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2093. 200 p. Province of British Columbia, 1921. Annual Report of the GameConservation Board of the Province of British Columbia 1920.Authority of the Legislative Assembly, Victoria BC

Caribou, ~50, east of Sugar Lake Provincial Archives,MELP Surrey: JackEvans

Province of British Columbia, 1925. Report of the ProvincialGame Warden 1924. Authority of the Legislative Assembly,Victoria BC

Mountain Goat plentiful in Sugar Lk.District

Provincial Archives,MELP Surrey: JackEvans

Province of British Columbia. 1952. Provincial GameCommission Report. 1951. Authority of the LegislativeAssembly, Victoria BC

Mountain goats east of Sugar Lake Provincial Archives,MELP Surrey: JackEvans

Province of British Columbia. 1947. Provincial GameCommission Report. 1946. Authority of the LegislativeAssembly, Victoria BC

Sugar Lake – set in high, bare-toppedmountains with heavily timbered lowerslopes. Lake raised 25ft by dam whichhas “spoiled” foreshore in most parts.

Provincial Archives,MELP Surrey: JackEvans

Robertson, Brian, MOE Vernon: memory of old survey notes Flooded Sugar Lake area once likelyused by caribou & grizzly bear.

pers. comm.:

middle shuswap river watershed. parts of a... · 13. river has reduced productivity levels due to...

Documents