riverside forest products ltd - british...

General Disclaimer The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the Government of British Columbia of any product or service to the exclusion of any others that may also be suitable. Contents of this report are presented as information only. Funding assistance does not imply endorsement of any statements or information contained herein by the Government of British Columbia. Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), addresses, and contact information contained in this document are current at the time of printing unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer of Liability With respect to documents available from this server, neither the Government of British Columbia nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

Riverside Forest Products Ltd.

Sediment Source Survey Report Salmon River

Prepared for: Riverside Forest Products Ltd.

Armstrong Division Bag Service 5000

Armstrong, BC V0E 1B0

Prepared by: Carmen Fennell, BA. Geo.

Forsite Consultants Ltd.

March 20, 1998

FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT IS PROVIDED BY FOREST RENEWAL BRITISH COLUMBIA

Salmon River Sediment Source Survey 10/26/06

Prepared by Forsite Consultants Ltd. 1 A:\SSS Report.doc

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WATERSHED................................................ 3 1.2 SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES IN THE WATERSHED................................................................................ 4 1.3 RESOURCE UTILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHED................................................. 5 1.4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 6 1.5 FRBC GOALS AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ...................................................................................... 7 1.6 DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................................... 7 1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................. 8 1.8 ASSESSMENT TEAM......................................................................................................................... 9

2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT.................................................................. 10

3 EXISTING SOURCES OF INFORMATION REVIEWED........................................................... 10

4 METHODOLOGY OF THE ASSESSMENT.................................................................................. 10

4.1 METHODOLOGY OF THE ROAD ASSESSMENT................................................................................. 10 4.2 METHODOLOGY OF THE HILLSLOPE ASSESSMENT......................................................................... 15 4.3 ROAD STATUS DETERMINATION AND APPLICABILITY TO THE ROAD SYSTEM............................... 16

5 DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF THE FIELD ASSESSMENT ............................................... 18

5.1 ROAD ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.1 General Condition of the Watershed Road Network ............................................................ 18 5.1.2 Description and Discussion of High Risk Areas................................................................... 20

5.2 HILLSLOPE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................... 22 5.2.1 General Condition of the Watershed .................................................................................... 22 5.2.2 Description and Discussion of High Risk Areas................................................................... 22 5.2.3 Potential Restoration Problems............................................................................................ 24

6 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ................................................................................................ 25

7 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................ 25

7.1 ROAD ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................... 25 7.2 HILLSLOPE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................... 26

8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 27

9 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................... 28

9.1 APPENDIX 1: LIST OF HAZARD DESCRIPTION CODES..................................................................... 29 9.2 APPENDIX 2: ROAD INCIDENT REPORT FIELD FORM ..................................................................... 30 9.3 APPENDIX 3: LANDSLIDE INCIDENT REPORT FIELD FORM............................................................. 31 9.4 APPENDIX 4: SUMMARY OF ROAD STATUS AND FRBC FUNDING ELIGIBILITY.............................. 32 9.5 APPENDIX 5: PRE – FIELD WORK AGREEMENT.............................................................................. 33 9.6 APPENDIX 6: HELICOPTER OVERVIEW FLIGHT .............................................................................. 34 9.7 APPENDIX 7: REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ........................................................................ 35 9.8 APPENDIX 8: LANDSLIDE/EROSION INCIDENT REPORT.................................................................. 36 9.9 APPENDIX 9: SUMMARY OF HIGH AND VERY HIGH RISK ROAD RELATED INCIDENTS AND PHOTOS

(INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER)............................................................................................. 37 9.10 APPENDIX 10: SUMMARY OF NON ROAD RELATED LANDSLIDES WITH PHOTOS (INCLUDED UNDER

SEPARATE COVER)........................................................................................................................... 38



Introduction This report details the Sediment Source Survey completed under the Salmon River Integrated Watershed Restoration Program (IWRP) Contract by Forsite Consultants Ltd. (Forsite). The assessment is part of the Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan administered by the Ministry of Forests (MoF) and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MoELP) for Riverside Forest Products Ltd. (Riverside), Armstrong Division. Roads and trails were assessed for the road portion of the assessment, and landslides, hillslope sediment sources, surface erosion and harvested areas were assessed as part of the hillslope component. The road portion of the assessment was designed to locate sediment sources created by roads, and to locate areas that were not sediment sources, but that were maintenance problems associated with roads and trails. Common concerns identified along the road and trail corridors included surface erosion, cutbank and fillslope erosion/failures, and damaged and/or plugged culverts. The hillslope portion of the assessment was designed to locate landslides within the watershed, using current air photos (1994) as well as through field identification. Landslides were assessed as part of the hillslope component of the assessment, and were described in terms of their cause, type, origin, delivery site, and stream connectivity. Gullies were not assessed at the request of the FRBC contract monitors. However, road, trail, and landslide sediment source concerns occurring within gullies were assessed within the road or hillslope component of the assessment. Hillslopes and harvested areas were assessed for signs of erosion and/or instability, but unless the failures were considered landslides, no formal assessment was conducted on these features. The areas of concern identified in all components of the Sediment Source Survey may pose a threat to human safety, result in a loss to productive forest land and other resources, or may deliver sediment to nearby streams and lakes. The assessment was intended to collect information on sediment sources and areas requiring maintenance within the watershed, to identify sites requiring prescriptions for restoration or rehabilitation, and to identify sites requiring the involvement of a professional.

1.1 Location and Physical Characteristics of the Watershed The Salmon River Watershed encompasses over 145 000 hectares. The northern boundary of the watershed begins at the confluence of Salmon River and Shuswap Lake, and follows the height of land on both sides of the river. The boundary extends southwest as far as Rush Lake at the headwaters of the Salmon River, and extends just past Blackwell Lake to the extreme west. The lowest elevation in the watershed is 360 meters, rising to a maximum elevation of 2020 meters. Following is a list of the fourteen sub - basins delineated within the watershed, including their approximate areas: 1. Lower Salmon River Residual (396 km2) 2. Hobson Creek Community Watershed (3 km2) 3. Gordon Creek Community Watershed (20 km2) 4. Silver Creek Community Watershed (24 km2) 5. Bolean Creek (198 km2) 6. Middle Salmon River Residual (140 km2) 7. Ingram Creek (55 km2) 8. Wolfe Creek Community Watershed (10 km2) 9. Twig Creek (39 km2) 10. Cain Creek (48 km2) 11. Weyman Creek (101 km2) 12. Nash Creek (40 km2) 13. Upper Salmon River Residual (280 km2)



14. Salmon River above Nash Creek (99.1 km2) The location key map at the beginning of this report identifies the location of the sub - basins within the watershed. Gerry MacDougall, the Riverside contract representative, supplied the preliminary watershed and sub - basin boundaries to Forsite as part of the Request for Detailed Proposal package. The boundaries were refined by Forsite, and were amended and later approved by Rita Winkler, Regional Hydrologist for the Kamloops Forest Region. The final boundaries for the Sediment Source Survey were also approved by Gerry MacDougall. Four of the sub - basins (Hobson Creek, Gordon Creek, Silver Creek, and Wolfe Creek) are community watersheds; however, the hydrologic boundaries were used for the Sediment Source Survey rather than the legal boundaries. Three additional community watersheds were noted within the reference material (Rumball Creek, Fowler Creek and Moutell Creek) but MoELP coverage does not include these creeks as community watersheds. Therefore, they were not designated as such for the purposes of the assessment. All watershed boundaries will be shown on the final assessment map. This watershed falls within four distinct biogeoclimatic zones. 1) The Interior Douglas Fir Zone (IDF) The IDF Zone makes up the largest area in the watershed. The zone follows along the river on both sides of the valley. The IDF zone continues to a mid altitude elevation throughout the watershed. Warm, dry summers, a long growing season, and a low to moderate snowfall characterize the IDF Zone. Salmon Arm is within the moist end of the Zone, but moisture deficits can still occur (Land Management Handbook Number 23 – A Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region, 1990). 2) The Montane Spruce Zone (MS) The MS Zone makes up the mid to upper elevations in the watershed. Cool winters and short, warm summers characterize the MS Zone. This area can experience summer moisture deficits. 3) The Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Zone (ESSF) The ESSF Zone occurs in the high elevations of the Fly Hills Plateau, and in the upper elevations of sub - basins eight and fourteen. High snowcover, and short cool summers characterize the ESSF Zone. Moisture deficits are uncommon in this zone. 4) The Interior Cedar Hemlock Zone (ICH) A small area near Mount Ida is the only area in the ICH Zone. Cool wet winters, moderately dry summers, and moderate to high snowfall characterize the ICH Zone. Moisture deficits are minimal in the summer.

1.2 Significant Resources in the Watershed Due to the size of the watershed, numerous user groups operate along the roads and trails throughout the assessment area. The watershed falls within the Salmon Arm, Vernon, Kamloops and Merritt Forest Districts, and all districts utilize roads and trails within their boundaries. Riverside Forest Products Ltd., Tolko Industries Ltd. (Lavington and Nicola Divisions), Federated Co – operatives Ltd., and Weyerhauser Canada are the licencees that utilize roads and trails within the watershed. A small portion of the watershed is within Ardew Wood Products Ltd.’s operating area. Small business operations were also identified in the watershed, as were



woodlots. The Salmon Arm Municipality, The Ministry of Transportation and Highways, BC Hydro, and various Indian bands operate on roads and trails within the watershed. Timber harvesting has occurred in the watershed for a number of years. As mentioned above, four major licencees operate in the watershed. Estimates of the total area forested exceed 185 000 hectares (McPhee et al, 1996), equaling roughly 40 percent of the total watershed area. In addition to harvesting, various forest management activities such as silviculture treatments occur within the watershed. A Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) has begun in the Okanagan Timber Supply Area (TSA). The LRMP will consult the public on issues within the TSA, which includes the Salmon River watershed. Some of the issues include range values, visual quality objectives, tourism, biodiversity, and riparian management. The input from the public will help to establish management objectives for the watershed. The Salmon River Watershed Roundtable maintains an active role within the watershed. The roundtable was founded in 1991 as the Salmon Arm District Environmental Management Committee, but evolved to the Salmon River Watershed Roundtable in 1994. The goals of the roundtable, as stated in The Fraser River Action Plan – Linking Local Roundtables and Provincial Planning, is “to be a catalyst to achieve and maintain a healthy Salmon River Watershed through coordinated management of all resources, respect for all concerns and cooperative action”. Fishing occurs in the numerous lakes within the watershed, including Salmon Lake, Monte Lake, Bolean Lake, Spa Lake, Arthur Lake, Woods Lake, Jimmy Lake, Nugget Lake and Wallenstein Lake. Many of the lakes in the watershed have been stocked. Limited fishing occurs in various creeks throughout the watershed as well. Bolean Creek and Kernaghan Creek have spawning trout in the lower reaches. Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon have been identified in the Salmon River, as well as rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, and numerous non – salmonid species (McPhee et al, 1996). Detailed fisheries information will not be presented in this report. Trumbley Environmental Consultants Ltd. of Vernon, BC are currently conducting a fish inventory assessment, which will provide a detailed report on fisheries values within the watershed. Various birds and mammals reside in the Salmon Valley Watershed. The western grebe, great blue heron, osprey, and bald eagle all reside in the watershed, and all are considered sensitive and vulnerable species. Mammals are abundant within the watershed, with martin, mule and white tailed deer, and beaver listed as a special management concern (McPhee et al, 1996). One active mine operates in the watershed. The LaFarge gypsum/anhydrite mine is located in Falkland, and has been operating in the area for over seventy years (McPhee et al, 1996). Agriculture is prominent in the valley bottom along the Salmon River, from Salmon Arm right up to the headwaters on the Douglas Lake Ranch Property. The same situation occurs along Six Mile Creek and St. Lauren Creek in the Paxton Valley. Roughly 6 percent of the watershed area is cultivated for agricultural purposes (McPhee et al, 1996).

1.3 Resource Utilization and Development in the Watershed Recreation activity is high within the watershed. The Fly Hills Plateau is a popular area for snowmobiling, with the Salmon Arm Snow Blazers snowmobile club maintaining trails within the area. The Haines Creek area is heavily used for mountain biking, all terrain vehicle use, and dirt biking. The Mount Ida Forest Service Road within the watershed leads to a popular hiking area and viewpoint. The Estekwalen hiking trail is located off the Dump Road in Falkland (road becomes the Rob Roy Forest Service Road after the dump).



As mentioned above, fishing is a popular recreation activity. Two fishing resorts operate within the watershed. One lodge is located on Bolean Lake, which operates during the summer months, and the other is the Douglas Lake Resort, which offers fishing in lakes on their property. Pinaus Lake also operates a fishing camp. This lake is not within the watershed area, but the main access roads to the lake were part of the assessment. There are fifteen forest recreation sites within the watershed. Two forest recreation sites are located in the Fly Hills area near Salmon Arm, five are situated near Falkland, one is located near Pinaus Lake, three are located near Weyman Creek, one is located along the Salmon River off the Douglas Lake Road, and the remaining three are located at Woods, Jimmy, and Nugget Lakes. A Class C Provincial Park is located in Westwold. Blackwell Lake has been designated as a candidate area under the Protected Area strategy outlined in the Okanagan Timber Supply Area. Vehicular access is restricted into the area by way of signage and heavy deactivation of the main access road, however walking access is acceptable. Numerous range tenures are held within the watershed. Cattle grazing values are high in the upper elevations of many of the sub - basins. Six range tenures are held in the Salmon Arm Forest District, which includes extensive area in the Haines Creek Plateau, and the Fly Hills Plateau. The Vernon District has thirty one active range tenures, with a large portion of area in the Falkland, Six Mile, and Kelly Mountain regions. One range tenure is held in the Kamloops Forest District, covering areas near Monte Lake and Raspberry Creek. A significant range tenure held in the Merritt Forest District is that of the Douglas Lake Cattle Company Ltd., consisting of ½ a million acres in the upper reaches of Salmon River. There are five registered trapline holders within the watershed as well. The licence numbers are TR0326T006, TR0326T008, TR0329T005, TR0320T002, and TR0312T002. There are four Indian Bands with Reserves within the watershed – the Upper Nicola Band, the Spallumcheen Band, the Neskonlith Band, and the Okanagan Band. The Little Shuswap Band and the Adams Lake Band do not have Reserve land within the watershed, but they have interests within the watershed. Due to the large First Nation population in the watershed, traditional use values of plants and ceremonial sites may be important within the watershed as well as historic archeological sites. A resource to consider within the watershed is aesthetics, due to high tourism and recreation, as well as the high visibility of the watershed from the communities of Salmon Arm and Falkland.

1.4 Terms and Conditions The Sediment Source Survey of the Salmon River watershed was designed to describe the nature, location, and severity of potential or existing slope instability, soil erosion, and stream sedimentation hazards and to identify the risk to onsite, downstream or downslope environmental, social and economic values. The road portion of the assessment describes the roads and trails assessed and identifies areas of concern along the roadway. Some of the problems identified in this portion of the assessment include plugged and/or damaged culverts, fillslope and cutbank erosion and failures, and surface erosion. Landslides have been identified from air photos and during field inspections, and have been described in terms of their cause, type, origin, delivery site, and stream connectivity. Gullies were not individually assessed as part of this assessment at the request of FRBC contract monitors. The information is intended to identify existing and potential sediment sources and maintenance problems within the watershed, and to assist in road rehabilitation project planning.



The Sediment Source Survey is intended to provide an overview assessment of the condition of roads, trails, and hillslopes within the watershed, as part of the Integrated Watershed Restoration Program (IWRP). Areas of concern requiring a Level II assessment or the involvement of a professional have been identified during the assessment, as have areas of low to very high risk requiring maintenance work to correct present or potential hazards.

1.5 FRBC Goals and Eligibility Criteria Forest Renewal BC’s goal, as stated in the Land – Based Programs Handbook 1997/98 (1997) is to:

plan and implement a program of investments to renew the forest economy of British Columbia by enhancing the productive capacity and environmental values of forest lands, and by creating jobs, providing training for forest workers, and strengthening local communities that depend on the forest industry.

Restoration projects are subject to eligibility criteria. Eligible projects cannot be covered by an appraisal allowance or any other means, and they must not fall under contractual or statutory obligations of a forest licence. Projects to mitigate environmental impacts of past activities are eligible for FRBC funding in areas covered by a forest tenure document (i.e. tree farm licence, timber sale licence, old temporary tenure, or special use permit) if the road was built to the "standards of the day" (i.e. before implementation of the Forest Practices Code). Inactive roads (roads that have not been hauled on within the last two years) are eligible for funding. Areas not covered by any of these documents may be eligible for funding, subject to conditions outlined in the Land – Based Programs Handbook 1997/98. Priority for restoration of a particular watershed will be considered for funding, based on fisheries values, level of damage, and the potential for repairing the damage. The following activities have been outlined in the Land – Based Programs Handbook 1997/98 (1997) for funding eligibility, subject to the criteria listed above:

• Assessing watersheds, and preparing plans and detailed prescriptions; • Deactivating or rehabilitating roads to a semi – permanent or permanent status; • Repairing roads and repairing or replacing structures to mitigate existing damage to

downstream aquatic resources or riparian areas, or to mitigate potential damage where a high risk of future problems is evident;

• Rehabilitating hillslopes, gullies, riparian areas, and streams to control erosion and sedimentation;

• Restoring fish and aquatic habitat; and • Monitoring the effectiveness of completed works in the year(s) after project

implementation. The funding eligibility for the Sediment Source Survey was determined by the Contract Monitor. Funding eligibility was determined only for those sites with a risk rating of high or very high. In anticipation of funding constraints for restoration works in the future, only those sites requiring immediate attention were assessed for funding eligibility. Individuals involved in the prescription phase for restoration of high and very high risk sites should be aware of any moderate and low risk sites in the vicinity of the works, as they may be incorporated into the site plan. Eligibility for funding was determined in accordance with the Land – Based Programs Handbook 1997/98 (see Appendix 6 for a table outlining road status and funding eligibility).

1.6 Definitions Artery : Access to more than one sub - basin along the valley bottom.



Level II analysis : a more detailed examination of a problem site in order to prescribe treatments to halt existing damage or to prevent future damage resulting from the problem. A Level II assessment may require the expertise of a professional. Prescription : a detailed plan required for all major works (i.e. road deactivation). Riparian interface : area within one hundred meters of a stream, lake, or wetland area. Quarry : refers to a quarry or borrow pit. Any area used currently or previously as a source of material. Sediment Source Survey : overview assessments of the condition of roads, landslides, and gullies, involving aerial imagery analysis, aerial reconnaissance, and limited, semi – quantitative field visits to confirm the nature, extent, and severity of an incident. Sub - basin : smaller sub units within the watershed, delineated by logical watershed boundaries. Watershed : the total natural upstream land drainage area above any point of reference on a stream.

1.7 Limitations of the Assessment Terrain stability mapping was not available at the time of the assessment. Therefore, the landslide approach as outlined in Appendix E, Technical Circular #3 was used as a guide to determine hazard ratings for incidents identified during the field inspections. The slope hazard was based on air photo interpretation and visual analysis while in the field. Numerous trails identified and assessed in the field were not located on the base map. These trail locations have been approximated on the map. A Global Positioning System (GPS) traverse was not conducted to identify the exact location of these trails. Trails were identified on the air photos and their approximate locations transferred to the map. If the trail was not visible on the air photo, a “best estimate” approach was used to place the trail on the map. These trails are designated on a separate map layer than the roads and trails already existing on the base map. Due to the extensive amount of private land within the watershed, access to some areas was restricted. A number of landowners denied access onto their property. Therefore, these areas were not assessed. The Project Facilitator, was made aware of all areas not assessed due to access restrictions and these areas are indicated on the final assessment map. Paved roads were not included in the assessment, as documented in Forsite’s Pre – Field Work Agreement (Appendix 7). A Forest Practices Code Gully Assessment Procedure was not conducted. Road, trail, and hillslope incidents occurring within a gully were assessed within the road or landslide portion of the assessment, but gullies were not individually assessed. Landslides were assessed as they were encountered in the field. Landslides that were inaccessible by ground methods were assessed from a viewpoint where possible. A small number of landslides were assessed during the helicopter overview flight. Specific methodologies to conduct the landslide assessment were agreed upon by Forsite, the Project Facilitator, and the FRBC Contract Monitor throughout the assessment. Not all landslides identified off of the air photos were examined during the flight. Also, small road related failures were not assessed as a landslide in the latter stages of the field assessments. These incidents were examined and recorded in the road and trail field incident form, but no landslide assessment was conducted.



All main roads, branch roads, spur roads, trails, and landslides were included in this assessment. Most of the assessments were done by ground methods, with some areas being assessed by helicopter. Information collected and presented within the Sediment Source Survey component of the Salmon River Watershed IWRP is intended only for use in preparing the Salmon River Watershed IWRP. The data collected and presented in this report is meant only for this purpose.

1.8 Assessment Team Following is a list of individuals involved with the project, detailing qualifications and involvement within the project. Michael Verschoor – Resource Assessments Operations Manager:

Diploma in Forest Resource Technology, Selkirk College. Responsible for field data review, scheduling, project supervision, administration and co – ordination and field assessments.

Leslie Rousseau, EIT, RPF – Project Manager:

B. ScFE, University of New Brunswick. Responsible for dealing with all phases of the WRP contract, field data review, project supervision, administration and co – ordination and field assessments.

Glenn Thiem – Junior Hydrologist:

Diploma in Forest Resource Technology, BCIT; Diploma in Water Quality Technology, OUC. Responsible for conducting field assessments and reviewing field data.

Carmen Fennell - Geographer:

Bachelors degree in Geography, University of Victoria. Responsible for field assessments, reviewing field data, and for generating the final report.

Lita Cudworth – Archeologist:

Bachelors degree in Archeology, Simon Fraser University. Responsible for field assessments and reviewing field data.

Mitch Krupp – GIS support: Responsible for the development of the final assessment maps. The following individuals were involved in the administration of the IWRP contract: Martin Lindberg – Project Facilitator:

Responsible for contract administration, approving methodologies, providing information, and audits of the field assessments.

Shawn Clough – FRBC Contract Monitor

Responsible for contract administration, approving methodologies, providing information, and audits of the field assessments.



2 Objectives and Scope of the Assessment The assessments described in this report are overviews of the conditions of the roads, trails and landslides within the watershed. These assessments are intended to locate and describe the severity of existing or potential slope instability, soil erosion, and stream sedimentation hazards in the field and to identify the risk to onsite, downslope or downstream social, environmental, and economic values. The information collected was used to assign hazard and consequence ratings to sites, to prioritize sites for restoration works, and to indicate sites that require a Level II analysis. The combined information will be used to assist in the completion of the IWRP. The goals of the IWRP, as stated in the Land – Based Programs Handbook 1997/98 (1997) page 20 are to:

• Restore, protect and maintain fisheries, aquatic and forest resources that have been adversely affected by past forest harvesting practices, and which, without intervention, would require decades to recover naturally;

• Bring areas that were harvested under previous (pre – Forest Practices Code) standards up to Forest Practice Code Standards; and

• Provide community – based employment, training and stewardship opportunities throughout the province.

3 Existing Sources of Information Reviewed A review of existing information report is included as Appendix 9. This report lists all sources of information obtained and reviewed for the Sediment Source Survey, including reports, maps, planning documents, inventory summaries, and aerial photographs.

4 Methodology of the Assessment Over 2 425 kilometers of roads and trails, and 256 landslides were assessed during the field portion of the Sediment Source Survey. The majority of the field assessments were carried out by all terrain vehicle, with some areas being assessed by four wheel drive, foot, or helicopter.

4.1 Methodology of the Road Assessment All unpaved roads, landings, bladed trails and fireguards, and quarries were within the scope of the assessment, however, not all of these features were assessed as per guidelines established and agreed upon by Forsite, the Project Facilitator, and FRBC Contract Monitors. All private access roads were assessed during the field portion of the assessment unless: 1) The road accessed an orchard, hay field, farm field, etc.; 2) The road junctioned a road that was not included in the Sediment Source Survey; 3) Access was denied by the landowner All main roads, branch roads, and spur roads were assessed during the field portion of the Sediment Source Survey, unless:



1) The road accessed a farm field or range land, and did not travel beyond; 2) The structure was a winter road All trails were assessed, checked or noted during the field portion of the assessment unless: 1) The trail accessed a farm field or range land, and did not travel beyond; 2) The structure was a winter trail 3) The trail appeared stable both on a single air photo, as well as from a nearby road or trail; 4) The trail was revegetated with coniferous or deciduous growth, woody shrubs, or herbaceous

cover in excess of one meter in height, with a minimum 50 percent ground cover; 5) The trail was vegetated with greater than 50 percent ground cover by any species of any

height; 6) The trail has been permanently deactivated with reforestation All landings were assessed in the field portion of the assessment unless: 1) The landing was not on an assessed road or trail, and no sediment concerns were noted on a

single air photo All bladed trails and fireguards were assessed during the field portion of the assessment unless: 1) The structure appeared stable on a single air photo and from a nearby viewpoint All quarries were assessed in the field portion of the assessment unless: 1) The quarry appeared stable on a single air photo and from a nearby viewpoint Roads that were not evident on the 1994 air photos, and that were not identified during the field assessments off other known roads were not assessed. All roads and trails assessed or checked by ground methods were flagged in the field with green and purple ribbon, and were sprayed with blue paint (after approval of the Pre – Field Work Agreement, Appendix 7) at the point of commencement. Information recorded on the ribbons included the date, surveyor’s initials, road number, “POC”, and the station of the junction. Ribbons were also tied at the point of termination of all assessed roads and trails. Information recorded on these ribbons included the road name, station, “POT”, and surveyor initials. Trails that were indicated but not assessed received a spray of blue paint, but not ribbon. Any trails not assessed did not receive any makings in the field. Private land roads and trails may have ribbon and paint, just ribbon, or no markings, depending on instructions from landowners, and the type of private land (i.e. a driveway may have no markings, but a woodlot may have ribbon and/or paint). A Road Related Information Form was designed and approved for use. The field form consisted of two parts; the header section and the incident detail section. Refer to the Pre – Field Work Agreement in Appendix 7 for a complete description of the fields used on the data collection form. An assessed road was a road that was identified in the field, numbered, and assessed from beginning to end. A checked road was a road that was identified in the field, numbered, but assessed as an incident off of the road it junctioned. The Pre – Field Work Agreement (Appendix 7) provides a detailed description of assessed and checked roads. Numbers were assigned to all roads and trails assessed or checked within the watershed. The numbering consists of five groups of letter/number combinations, as follows:



Branch Road 1st° Trail Artery

0 00A.00A.00A.00A.00A

Main Road 2nd° Trail Spur Road Figure 1: Road Numbering Identification Artery refers to the main access route within the watershed. Arteries were created to help split the watershed into smaller road numbering units. Five arteries were used in the assessment. • Artery one (1) appears at the beginning of all roads numbered off of the Salmon River Road

between Salmon Arm and the junction of Salmon River Road and Highway 97. All roads numbered within Salmon Arm also begin with Artery one.

• Artery two (2) appears at the beginning of all roads numbered along Highway 97. • Artery three (3) appears at the beginning of all roads numbered along the Douglas Lake

Road. • Artery four (4) appears at the beginning of all roads numbered along the Salmon River Forest

Service Road. • Artery five (5) appears at the beginning of a small number of roads at the north end of Monte

Lake. Main roads have been designated by two numerical digits to indicate a unique road number. The last digit is a letter identifying a secondary main road. A main road is an access road to the height of land, redundant access towards the height of land; or access to a private residence. A secondary main road junctions a main road. Branch roads have been designated by two numerical digits to indicate a unique road number. The last digit is a letter to indicate a secondary branch road. Branch roads access a number of existing or planned blocks, and/or junction a secondary main or main road. Spur roads have been designated by two numerical digits to indicate a unique road number. The last digit is a letter identifying a secondary spur road. Spur roads access one block, either harvested or planned. 1st order trails have been designated by two numerical digits to indicate a unique road number. The last digit is a letter identifying a secondary 1st order trail. A 1st order tail is a path used for vehicular access at one point in time that has no evidence of maintenance activities, and/or the road prism is brushing in, and/or the road surface is accumulating organics. 2nd order trails have been designated by two numerical digits to indicate a unique road number. The last digit is a letter identifying a secondary 2nd order trail. A 2nd order trail was used to identify trails junctioning a 1st order trail, or to avoid duplicate road numbering. A road number was not changed if the road changed type (i.e. became a “trail”) at some point along the assessment, to avoid confusion on the final assessment maps. A check box was indicated in the field forms, to indicate the road type assessed (i.e. road, trail, bladed trail, fireguard, etc.). The road type indicated at the point of commencement was used until the point of termination along the road. Figure 2 illustrates the road naming methodology used during the assessment:



1 00_.01_.00_.00_.01A 2nd order trail off 1st order trail 1 00_.01_.01_.00_.00_ 1st spur off branch 1 00_.01_.00_.00_.01_ 1st order trail off branch 1 00_.01_.01_.01_.00_ 1st trail off spur 1 00_.01_.00_.00_.00_ 1 01A.00_.00_.00_.00_ 1st branch off main Secondary main 1 01A.01_.00_.00_.00_ 1st branch off secondary main 1 01_.00_.01_.00_.00_ 1st spur off 1st main 1 01_.00_.00_.00_.00_ 1st main off artery one 1 00_.00_.00_.00_.00_. Main artery through area 1 02_.00_.00_.00_.00_ 2nd main off artery one 1 02_.01_.00_.00_.00_ 1st branch off 2nd main Figure 2: Road Numbering Methodology Refer to section 1.6 Definitions for a detailed description of main, branch, and spur roads, and trails, rework trails, and arteries. All bridge sites were assessed, and photos taken of all approaches to the bridge. Photos were also taken of all major culverts (2000 millimeters or more as per Forest Practices Code Regulations). All culverts were assessed during the field inspections. Upon confirmation of the Pre – Field Work Agreement, all culverts were sprayed at the inlet and outlet with blue spray paint. If the inlet and/or outlet was not visible, the ground or a nearby feature was painted to indicate the perceived location of the opening. Culvert locations were recorded only if a problem was evident, and culvert locations were mapped only if they were of a moderate or higher risk. If culverts were recorded in the field notes, an approximate diameter was included. The Resource Road Rehabilitation Handbook (July 1994) was used as the technical reference for carrying out the road portion of the assessment. A field form was created by Forsite and approved for use. An example of the field form used is included in Appendix 2 of this report. Specific hazard description codes were developed to code problems identified during the field inspections. See Appendix 1 for a description of the hazard description codes used.



Erosion hazard, consequence, risk and priority ratings were assigned to all problem sites identified in the field (see Section 1 Introduction for an example of problem sites identified in the field). Appendix E of the Resource Road Rehabilitation Handbook (July 1994) was used to determine the erosion hazard rating of a particular site. As discussed in section 1.7 Limitations of the Assessment, the landslide approach was used as a guide to determine the erosion hazard as terrain stability mapping was not available at the time of the assessment. The erosion hazard rating was based on slope stability as well as erosion indicators while in the field. For instance, areas experiencing slide activity or severe erosion on steep slopes (i.e. channel bank erosion) may have been given a high hazard rating; areas experiencing erosion on moderate slopes may have been given a moderate hazard rating; areas with erosion or maintenance problems (i.e. culvert cleaning required) on low gradient slopes may have been given a low hazard rating. The slope referenced may have been the overall slope of the landscape, or of the incident (especially incidents such as eroding channel banks) as appropriate in the situation. Appendix E of the Resource Road Rehabilitation Handbook (July 1994) was used to determine the consequence rating of problem sites identified in the field. The consequence ratings were assigned based on the severity of impact to on – site, downslope or downstream resources, social and economic values. These values were identified during the field inspections using on – site conditions, as well as air photos and maps. The values that were considered when determining the consequence rating include water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, forest site productivity, human life, private property, roads and railways, utilities, aesthetics and recreational features. Risk ratings were determined using Appendix E of the Resource Road Rehabilitation Handbook (July 1994). The hazard rating multiplied by the consequence rating determines the risk rating, as outlined below: Table 4.1 Risk Rating Chart

Hazard Rating Consequence Rating Risk Rating High High Very High High Moderate High

Moderate High High High Low Moderate

Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate

Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low

As per specifications outlined in Appendix E of the Resource Road Rehabilitation Handbook (July 1994), the risk rating could be decreased by one rating if the sediment delivery potential to the above resources was low. Priority ratings were determined using Appendix E of the Resource Road Rehabilitation Handbook (July 1994). Ratings were assigned based on the perceived threat to the resources mentioned in the description of the consequence rating. A High priority rating was assigned if corrective action was immediately required to mitigate detrimental impacts on resources. A moderate priority rating was assigned if there was a serious threat to a particular resource, but corrective action was not immediately required. A low priority rating was assigned if there was no serious threat to resources, but problems were identified. A “no work necessary” rating was assigned where no threat existed to any resources, where substantial recovery had already occurred on a site, or where work on a particular site would not be feasible (i.e. due to access constraints). For the purposes of this assessment, Landslide/Erosion Incident Report developed by the Project Facilitator was filled out for all high priority incidents identified during the field



assessments. The Project Facilitator also supplied a list of contact names, and the incident report was faxed to the appropriate contact for the particular area in which the incident occurred, as well as to the Project Facilitator. If the incident occurred in an area where responsibility for the area was unclear or unknown, the incident report was sent only to the Project Facilitator (see Appendix 10 for an example of the Landslide/Erosion Incident Report form). Any incidents requiring the expertise of a professional or those requiring a Level II assessment were indicated on the field forms during the assessment. Professional involvement was indicated if the expertise of a professional was required to complete a prescription, or if required by legislation. A Level II assessment was indicated where a detailed work plan was required to correct a problem area. Information collected during this assessment may require prescription verification prior to major works being conducted. All incidents recorded with a risk rating of moderate, high, or very high were flagged in the field with green and purple ribbon. Most high and very high risk incidents were photographed in the field. The ribbon includes the surveyor initials, date, road number, station, and the risk and priority rating. Once the field information was collected, road status was determined for all roads and trails assessed within the watershed. The road status consisted of identifying the permit type, where the permit began and terminated along the road or trail, and the permit responsibility. The year of construction or upgrade, and the active/inactive status was also done at this time. Please refer to Section 4.3 Road Status Determination and Applicability to the Road System for the methodology used for determining road status. The FRBC funding eligibility was identified once the road status had been determined. This was done by the FRBC Contract Monitor. Funding Eligibility was determined for all high and very high risk sites. Moderate and low risk sites were not examined for funding eligibility. See section 1.5 FRBC Goals and FRBC Funding Eligibility Criteria for the methodology for determining funding eligibility. All of the information collected in the field was entered into a Microsoft® Access™ 97 database, for storing and querying purposes. A copy of the database has been included with this report. All of the roads and trails numbered during the field inspections were labeled on the final assessment map. To reduce the congestion on the map, all roads and trails were assigned a record number to replace the eighteen digit road number. A report accompanies the map to identify what road or trail the record number refers to. All moderate, high and very high risk incidents were placed on the final assessment map at their location along a specific road or trail. These incidents were also assigned a record number to reduce congestion on the map. A report will accompany the map to link the map record number to the incident. Priority ratings and risk ratings for road segments have also been identified on the maps. Again, these segments have been assigned a record number, and a report accompanies the map to identify specifics of the segment. Roads assigned a no work necessary (N) priority rating have been identified on the map. Quarry locations identified in the field, and quarries identified off of the air photos but not verified in the field have been labeled as such on the final assessment map.

4.2 Methodology of the Hillslope Assessment An initial identification of landslides within the watershed was done on the air photos prior to the commencement of the field work. These landslides were assessed as they were encountered in the field, as were landslides not previously identified from the air photos. A landslide field form was designed and approved for use. An example of the field form is included in Appendix 3.



Specific methodologies for carrying out the hillslope portion of the Sediment Source Survey were agreed upon by Forsite, the Project Facilitator, and FRBC Contract Monitors. Landslides that were inaccessible by ground methods did not require a landslide field form to be filled out. These landslides have been included on the final assessment map, but no information has been collected for them. As the project progressed, the scope of the landslides assessed was modified to exclude minor road related failures at the request of the Project Facilitator and the FRBC Contract Monitor. These incidents were recorded in the road portion of the assessment, but a landslide form was not filled out. All landslides were given a unique identification number. These numbers were generated within the database, and appear on the final assessment map. Landslides were flagged with green and pink - and - black stripe ribbon, and sprayed with blue spray paint after confirmation of the Pre – Field Work Agreement, if the assessment was completed at the site of the landslide. If the landslide was assessed from a viewpoint, the appropriate flagging was hung at the viewpoint area. The ribbon usually recorded the date, surveyors initials, station, landslide identification number (if known), and the risk and priority ratings. Any landslides assessed by helicopter have no markings on the ground. Photos were taken of all landslides where possible. A Landslide Field Information Form was designed and approved for use. The Landslide Rehabilitation Assessment Procedure (May, 1996) was used as a guide to design the field form. The field form consists of three main components: general information, access information, and site information. Refer to the Pre – Field Work Agreement (Appendix 7). The erosion hazard, consequence, risk and priority ratings were established during the field assessment. See section 4.1 Methodology of the Road Assessment for an explanation of how the ratings were determined. Any incidents requiring the expertise of a professional or those requiring a Level II assessment were indicated on the field forms during the assessment. Professional involvement was indicated if the expertise of a professional was required to complete a prescription, or if required by legislation. A Level II assessment was indicated where a detailed work plan was required to correct a problem area. Forest Practice Code regulations require that prescriptions be written and approved by the District Manager for deactivation activity. Areas requiring this type of prescription work will be identified through Access Management Planning. All information from the field form was entered into a Microsoft® Access™ database for storing and querying data. A copy of the database has been included with the report. Upon completion of the Sediment Source Survey, Forsite waives all responsible for the maintenance of the database. All landslides identified on the air photos have been transferred to the final assessment map, as have all landslides assessed during the field inspections. Landslides are identified on the map with a record number, with pertinent information relating to the slide outlined in an accompanying report. The risk and priority ratings for all landslides have been identified on the map.

4.3 Road Status Determination and Applicability to the Road System Following the completion of the Sediment Source Survey, the road status was determined on all assessed and many checked roads within the and FRBC eligibility criteria has been determined on check roads with a high or very high risk rating. Road status and FRBC eligibility criteria was not determined for any roads within the watershed that were not assessed.



The road status determination began with collection and review of information. The Municipality of Salmon was contacted to gather information on public roads within the Watershed. The municipal boundaries appear on the final assessment maps. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways (Vernon, Salmon Arm and Merritt) was also contacted. Most of the highways maintained roads fall under Vernon District jurisdiction. Information regarding road names and permit numbers were collected. The year of construction date was determined using the establishment date of the road, the date the road data was compiled, or specific comments on the upgrading of the road, depending on which form of information was available. The Vernon and Kamloops BC Hydro offices were contacted, and information on right of ways and route maps was collected. The information that was collected indicated that BC Hydro had two main right of ways within the watershed. Currently, BC Hydro does not have an official permit to do maintenance on roads and trails outside or their easements. Occasionally, permits are issued to users requiring access below their powerlines for safety purposes. The Vernon, Kamloops and Salmon Arm Forest Districts were visited to determine which roads were Forest Service Roads, which roads were used to access woodlots, and which roads were Small Business roads. Exhibit A information and the Forest Service Road Ledgers were used to obtain information on Forest Service Roads within the watershed. The status date from the road ledger was used to determine the year of construction of roads. The Kamloops and Merritt Forest Districts were contacted, and pertinent information was forwarded. The district offices were also asked to supply information on any roads hauled on after January 1st, 1995. The woodlot owners were also contacted to get detailed information on any activities being carried out on their woodlots. Riverside Forest Products Ltd., Tolko Industries Ltd. (Lavington and Nicola), Federated Co – operatives Ltd., Weyerhauser Canada, and Ardew Forest Products Ltd. are the major licencees within the watershed and were all visited or contacted to collect information pertaining to road permits, road use permits and roads under cutting permit authority. The review of road users was presented to the Project Facilitator and the FRBC Contract Monitor and the suggestion was made to contact BC Tel and BC Gas, however no pertinent information was obtained from these sources. Roads used by the Indian Bands within the watershed were also mentioned at this meeting. The project base maps were used to determine which roads were located on reserve land. The Department of Indian Affairs in Vancouver was contacted to gather road permit information on these roads, however no information of this nature was on record. The BC Land Administration Office in Kamloops was contacted to determine if any roads were covered by a special use permit. This information was available, and the year of construction was determined using the date of permit issue. Private roads were determined using the forest cover private land boundaries from the assessment maps. Once all the potential road users were contacted, and information obtained, the Microsoft® Access™ 97 database was updated with the following information: • The permit type point of commencement and termination • The permit responsibility • The active or inactive status of the road • The year of construction



The permit types and responsibilities include such items as: road permits; cutting permits; road use permits; Forest Service Roads; special use permits; non status; private; etc.. See the Pre – Field Work Agreement (Appendix 7) for a complete definition of the permit types and responsibilities. The Project Facilitator and the FRBC Contract Monitor agreed upon the definitions for active and inactive. An active road is defined as a road that has a road permit issued after January 1st, 1995. If no road permit information is available, the road is considered active if it accessed a block harvested after December 31st, 1994. An inactive road is defined as a road that has not been hauled on since January 1st, 1995. The year of construction was determined from a variety of sources: the amendment approval date from the road permit information; date of construction from Forest Service Road Ledgers; 1996 constructed roads from the forest development plans; and forest cover history labels where the year of construction was given as the decade the harvesting took place. Where no record existed for a road or trail, current and historic photos were used to determine year of construction dates. Once the road status had been determined, a copy of the database with the permit information and a draft copy of the assessment map was sent to the FRBC Contract Monitor. The Contract Monitor determined FRBC funding eligibility for the roads and trails within the watershed.

5 Discussion and Findings of the Field Assessment The following section describes the general condition of the watershed, and discusses high risk areas of concern where remedial actions should be focused. Due to the size of the watershed, and the number of roads, incidents and landslides identified during the field assessments, these features will not be discussed individually. A print out of the Microsoft® Access™ 97 database, and copies of the original field notes have been included under separate cover. A database printout of all of the high and very high risk incidents has been included in Appendix 4. All incidents and landslides recorded can be located within these documents.

5.1 Road Assessment A total of 8 090 incidents ranging from low to very high risk were recorded during the road portion of the Sediment Source Survey field assessment. The total number of roads assessed is 2 202, and the total number of roads checked is 685 (see section 4.1 Methodology of the Road Assessment (page 10) for the definition of checked and assessed roads). Over 2 292 kilometers of road and trail were assessed, and over 143 kilometers of road and trail were checked within the fourteen sub - basins. Most of the assessment was conducted by all terrain vehicle, with some areas being assessed by foot, four wheel drive, or helicopter.

5.1.1 General Condition of the Watershed Road Network The vast size of the watershed resulted in varied biogeoclimatic zones, slope gradients, soil types, and land uses. Therefore roads and trails within the watershed were assessed under a variety of physiographic conditions. For the purpose of discussing the roads and trails within this report, four categories of terrain types have been created: 1) Roads and trails on steep terrain (Class IV and V), used to access the highest elevations

within the watershed; 2) High elevation plateau areas 3) Moderate slope, dryland areas; and 4) Roads located along the valley bottom



Numerous hazard description codes were available to describe incidents located during the field inspections. However unstable or eroding cutbanks and fillslopes, and plugged or a lack of ditchline account for over 30 percent of the incidents occurring within the watershed. Insufficient drainage accounted for almost 49 percent of the incidents, culvert problems accounted for 16 percent of the incidents, and cattle damage accounted for 8 percent of the incidents. An incident may have more than one hazard description code to identify it. Generally, areas on steep terrain (Class IV and V) appeared to have the most serious problems. Characteristic incidents located on such terrain include cutbank and fillslope erosion, oversteep fillslopes, organic material supporting road fill, berms and landslides. These types of incidents on this type of terrain have a relatively high potential for creating sediment sources due to increased velocity of streams and the potential for direct impact to water sources. Unmaintained or abandoned roads and trails account for many of the problems on steep terrain. The 218_.01_.00_.00_.00_ network located off of the Pinaus Lake Road is good example of this type of terrain. Within this area is an extensive trail network located on steep terrain. Most of these trails are unmaintained, and have severe erosion concerns, such as cutbank and fillslope failures and severe surface erosion. As well, active, maintained roads experience similar problems due to the nature of the terrain. A repeat occurrence of past failures is also a concern on this terrain, as rehabilitation is challenging in these areas. An example of a maintained road with occurrences of repeat failures is Ord Road, the main access road to Bolean Lake. This is a maintained road with numerous cutbank and fillslope failures within a particularly steep section of road. Overall areas on steep terrain require a great deal of attention when dealing with past, present, or future activities located on this terrain. High elevation plateau areas account for a relatively small portion of the watershed area, yet numerous roads and trails were identified in this type of terrain. The Fly Hills Plateau from Salmon Arm to Bolean Lake and the upper elevations of sub - basins fourteen, eleven and eight are located on this type of terrain. These areas are important within the watershed as they are used heavily for recreation and range, as well as pre and post harvesting activities. Certain incidents are typical within this type of topography. Most of the incidents identified relate to surface water. Surface erosion and ponding, insufficient drainage, cattle damage, plugged or damaged culverts, and plugged or a lack of ditches were common problems identified within these areas. Generally sediment delivery potential is low in these areas, as sediment has the opportunity to settle out before impacting water quality in lower stream reaches. Maintaining adequate drainage is important in these areas. A large portion of the watershed falls within the moderate slope, dryland area. The Paxton Valley is characteristic of this type of terrain. These areas consist of dry, open forests, with little water. Due to its open nature, a vast number of road and trail systems exist within these areas. These trails were historically constructed for range, recreation, and harvesting use. The sediment delivery potential in this type of area is generally moderate. The slopes on this type of terrain are significant, but the dry conditions reduce the risk of sediment delivery to streams. Problems identified on this type of terrain include plugged or a lack of ditches, insufficient drainage, surface erosion, organic material supporting the road fill, berms, and cattle damage. Another large area within the watershed is valley bottom, extending along the Salmon River from Salmon Arm to Westwold, up along the Douglas Lake Road, and along Six Mile Creek and St. Lauren Creek in the Paxton Valley. These areas are unique in that a number of the roads and trails in this area occur on private land. Although the terrain in this area is not steep, sediment delivery potential to Salmon River is increased due to the proximity of the river. Many residences are built on the floodplain of the Salmon River, along with roads and trails to access various features on the property. During the spring freshet, the potential for sediment delivery into the river increases as water rises over these features. Common problems identified on roads and trails located within the valley bottom include plugged or a lack of ditches, insufficient drainage,



and surface erosion. Restoration work on all these roads would be difficult, due to the large amount of private land in the valley bottom.

5.1.2 Description and Discussion of High Risk Areas Over 425 high and very high risk incidents were recorded within the watershed. Due to the large number of high and very high risk sites, individual descriptions of incidents have not been included within this report. A summary has been provided in Appendix 4, which describes the high and very high risk incidents separately. A photo of the incident (where available) accompanies each individual incident report. This discussion focuses on general areas or roads and trails that should be considered for future restoration activities. 1) Douglas Lake Road The Douglas Lake Road is situated in sub - basin 13, the Upper Salmon River Residual. This road parallels the Salmon River to its headwaters. In many instances, the road was constructed directly along the river. In some situations, the banks of the river and the fillslope of the road are the same. The close proximity of the road to the river creates serious sediment delivery problems. Because of the close proximity of the river to the road, any raveling of the fillslope enters Salmon River directly. The banks of the river also undercut the fillslope, creating a failure potential. Grading of the Douglas Lake Road results in material being directly delivered to the river, both from the grader itself, and from runoff that enters the river. In one particular section of the road, the river flooded the channel banks and flowed down the road before entering the original channel. Steeper sections of the road are subject to fillslope failures and raveling, erosion at culvert sites, and grader berms. Cutbank erosion is also prevalent along the road. 2) Ord Road One section of road along Ord Road was considered a high priority area during the assessment. Ord Road is the access road from Falkland to the Bolean Lake Fishing Camp. Numerous cutslope and fillslope failures were recorded, as were tension cracks, oversteep fillslopes, and eroding culvert outlets. This steep section of road has been problematic for some time, and had major works constructed the previous year. The steep slopes combined with spring run off initiated another series of failures within the section. Ferris Creek is located directly below this section of road, so sediment delivery potential is high. 3) Hydro Line Access Numerous road related landslides were recorded on BC Hydro Access roads between Jimmy Main and the Ingram Creek Forest Service Road. The failures were severe at gully crossings, and access along the road was by foot only for the last kilometer of the road. Severe cutbank and fillslope failures were recorded, as well as tension cracks, oversteep fillslopes, and a lack of drainage structures. Steep terrain, erodible soils, and a general lack of maintenance were the major concerns identified along this road. Ingram Creek flows below these roads, which increases the risk of sediment delivery. 4) The 17.00.00.10.00 Network (north of the Falkland Ranch) The FRBC Contract Monitor pointed out a large slide area and indicated that this slide was a concern due to its location on private property. The area was assessed and deemed highly unstable. The “slide” is actually a series of stacked slumps. The area appeared very dry on the surface, but information from local ranchers indicated that ground water springs could be the cause of the failures. Lateral tension cracks were noted on the hillside, both on the trail network



and within the natural forested area. This area is considered a high priority due to the large size of the slide area its impacts on private land. 5) Mount Ida The Mount Ida area is filled with a large network of old trails that have been abandoned. Some deactivation had been done on roads within the area, however the waterbars resulted in a number of road related failures. Lateral tension cracks are present in upper elevations. The main Mount Ida Forest Service Road is the main access road to two hiking trails located at the top of the mountain. Visual quality and user access is therefore a concern in this area. Road washouts and “mud bogs” have plagued the road in the past. This area is within the Interior Cedar Hemlock zone, which is characterized by the amount of moisture it receives, making proper drainage an important factor for the roads and trails within this area. 6) Cedar Hills The Cedar Hills area extends off the Cedar Hills road. Numerous road related landslides were observed within this area, both recent and historic. The failures were the result of poor road construction, organics in the fill, and a lack of maintenance on the roads. This area is visible from Highway 97, in particular one historic slide that is over a kilometer in length, which makes it an area of concern. Also of concern is the fact that this area is planned for future development indicated on Tolko Industries Ltd. development plan. Restoration will have to be done on the roads in this area for access, and rehabilitation of failures done to maintain productive forest land. 7) Haines Creek The Haines Creek area has an extensive historic trail network. This area has numerous road related landslides and failures. Uncontrolled drainage is the main reason for the slides, especially at switchback locations. Slopes are moderately steep to steep. The Haines Creek area is of concern as it is heavily used for recreation. The vast number of roads and trails are used for mountain biking, dirt biking and all terrain vehicle use. A majority of sediment problems were noted within five hundred meters of the Salmon River Floodplain. 8) 310.00.00.18.00 (off Douglas Lake Road) The 310.00.00.18.00 trail is a short trail off the Douglas Lake Road, just before the Salmon River Road turnoff. The trail parallels the Salmon River, extending to the floodplain of the river. The trail has historic landslides, as well as recent slide activity. 9) Pinaus Lake Road 30.01.00.25E.03D near Pinaus Lake was noted as being a very unstable road. An old bridge washout was identified on Ingram Creek, as were numerous natural landslides. The 218_.01_.00_.00_.00_ network off of Pinaus Lake Road is an extensive network of abandoned trails on steep terrain, with numerous road related failures. 10) Ivor Creek The top portion of road 27E.00.00.00.00 parallels Ivor Creek. Logging has occurred in this area in the last ten years. A poor culvert crossing is located on Ivor Creek near the new harvesting, and numerous new skid trails are located within the riparian management area. The road has been recently upgraded, but has areas of surface and cutbank erosion. Additionally, several historic and recent landslides extend into Ivor Creek in this area.



100.00.00.02.00 (Trans Canada Highway, near Shuswap Lake) Instability was noted at the beginning of this trail, very near the highway. Ground water appeared to be reaching the trail surface. The result was ponding, rutting, and cutbank slumping along the trail. The trail is on moderately steep terrain, and there is a concern that the instability of the trail could impact the highway, located one hundred meters below. This trail is located in Indian Reserve land.

5.2 Hillslope Assessment The Landslide Field Information Form was completed for 256 landslides within the watershed. An air photo review was conducted to locate all landslides within the watershed, however not all of the slides were visited in the field for a formal assessment. Some low impact road related landslides were not assessed as landslides but as road related problems, as agreed upon between the Project Facilitator, the FRBC Contract Monitor, and Forsite. Landslides that were inaccessible by ground methods were helicopter assessed only if they were approved for assessment by the Project Facilitator and the FRBC Contract Monitor.

5.2.1 General Condition of the Watershed Over 60 percent of the landslides assessed in the watershed are road related. Natural landslides accounted for 25 percent of the assessed slides, and slides of unknown origin accounted for 11 percent of the slides. The road related landslides generally occurred on moderate to steep terrain. A large number of landslides were related to uncontrolled drainage within the road prism, leading to slope failure. Fillslope related landslides accounted for 32 percent of the road related landslides, and cutslope failures accounted for 20 percent. Establishing proper drainage on these slide areas should be a priority. Additional support mechanisms, such as geotextiles, planting, or hydro seeding should be studied for use for landslide prevention and rehabilitation. Over 40 percent of the natural landslides assessed occurred on open slope areas. Landslides occurring on a gully sidewall accounted for 38 percent of the assessed slides. Over ½ of the gully sidewall sites were identified during the helicopter overview flight on October 2nd, 1997. The Weyman, Twig, Cain, Ingram, Will, Bolean, Silver (south branch), and Gordon gullies were flown, as was an unnamed gully north of Sweetsbridge, the Leonard Creek slide, and a few slides along the Salmon River. A helicopter flight review report is included in Appendix 8 of this report. Many of the gully sidewall landslides identified were the result of stream undercutting. Rehabilitation in these areas will be difficult, due to access limitations and steep slopes that are constantly being undermined.

5.2.2 Description and Discussion of High Risk Areas Most of the landslides identified in the watershed are of high or very high risk. Due to the number of slides identified, only the most significant slides or slide areas will be discussed in this report. A summary table has been provided in Appendix 5. The table describes the high and very high risk landslides that were not road related. A photo (if available) is attached to each individual description. All road related landslides are included in Appendix 4.



1) The Falkland Slide This large slide occurred during the spring of 1997, after the field work in the Salmon River watershed commenced. The road assessment below the slide on May 13, 1997 indicated a flow of water over a field and onto the main road. A plugged culvert was indicated at the flow site on the main road. This incident was given a very high risk rating. On May 18, 1997 the slide occurred, delivering a large amount of material onto the field and over the public road. The slide narrowly missed a house at the toe, and a private water intake system was destroyed above the residence. 2) Bolean Canyon The Bolean Canyon was an area covered during the helicopter assessment on October 2nd, 1997. The flight initiated at the junction of Bolean Creek and the Chase Falkland road, and followed the creek channel up to a point where the channel appeared stable. Seventeen landslides were assessed in the canyon. The creek was identified as being severely aggraded and experiencing channel widening. This area is a high priority for restoration. Sediment delivery to the creek is high, and this sediment is a risk to the Salmon River mainstem. 3) Ingram Creek The Ingram Creek Gully was assessed during the Helicopter assessment in October. Six major landslides were assessed in this area. The slides are continually raveling and therefore delivering sediment to the creek. The creek does not appear impacted outside of the slide area, however this area was assigned a high priority rating as Ingram Creek was considered a community watershed at the time of the assessment. Minor disturbances were also noted in the lower reaches of the creek and are attributed to development. 4) Leonard Creek The Leonard Creek Slide is located in the Mount Ida area. The slide occurred in the spring of 1997. The Water Management Branch out of Kamloops assessed this slide. The road assessment around the slide area could not identify a road related cause. The slide was flown during the Helicopter flight in October, and an assessment was conducted. The slide was assigned a high priority due to the recent slide activity, and the fact that this was a high public awareness slide. 5) North of the Falkland Ranch This slide is discussed in the high risk road section of this report as the 17.00.00.10.00 network. As mentioned, the entire hillside showed signs of instability. The “slide” is actually a series of stacked slumps down the hillside. No surface water was evident, but residents of the area indicated that groundwater seepage may be a contributing factor. Lateral tension cracks were noted throughout the area, ranging in size from thirty centimeters to over a meter in depth. This area is a high risk site due to its proximity to private land. 6) Silver Creek The south fork of the Silver Creek gully was assessed during the helicopter flight in October. Five landslides were identified in this gully, but did not appear to be greatly impacting the creek. The landslides were listed as a moderate priority, but the area requires special attention, as Silver Creek is a community watershed. Sediment wedges were also identified in two areas of the creek, downstream of the slides.



5.2.3 Potential Restoration Problems Many sites within the Salmon River Watershed are recommended for impact prevention restoration works. This may be difficult in some areas, due to a number of constraints. There are access restrictions to many sites. Isolated areas may be restricted to walk - in or helicopter access only. Crews will have to walk in or be transported to these areas which may limit the type of restoration activities that could be carried out. Unconventional methods may be required on these sites. Areas located on private land also pose access difficulties when planning restoration works. Various legal processes are involved when trying to plan restoration on private land. Development guidelines that are used when managing Crown forests do not apply on private lands. Legislative agencies within the community, such as the Regional District, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Ministry of Environment have their own standards and regulations as to which activities must be rehabilitated according to specific guidelines. Within the Salmon River Watershed, a “landowner responsibility” approach has been taken to deal with high priority sites identified during the field inspections. Private landowners are made aware of the problem either through the Salmon River Roundtable, or by the Project Facilitator. Suggestions are made to the landowner on ways to remedy a problem situation. If the problem is too large for the landowner to deal with, the Project Facilitator informs the appropriate agency about the problem, and it becomes their responsibility. Currently, FRBC funding is not available for restoration works on private land. Funding may come from another agency if that agency feels the problem is affecting downstream resources, and is a priority within the watershed. Ultimately, restoration works become the responsibility of the landowner, so planning restoration works on private land is a difficult issue. Another restriction to completing restoration works is the completion of the Access Management Plan (AMP) Map and the Integrated Watershed Restoration Plan (IWRP). The AMP will determine which roads are to remain open and which roads can be deactivated and to what level, based on the access requirements along specific segments of road. Once the recommendations are made for the roads, the IWRP combines various assessments (i.e. the Sediment Source Survey, the Channel Assessment, Fish inventory, the Interior Watershed Assessment, and the Access Management Plan Map) to determine the overall restoration objectives for the watershed. The AMP should be completed by August of 1998, and the IWRP by October 1998. Major restoration works, such as removing bridges or deactivating roads should not commence until the overall watershed objectives are defined within the IWRP process. Highly impacted sites pose a problem for restoration activities. Severely disturbed areas may require major works to mitigate environmental impacts. Areas that are subject to repeated failures may require drastic rehabilitation measures, such as moving a section of road to a more stable area. This work would likely be very costly. Time and funding constraints may be a problem for restoration works on certain areas.



6 Interpretation of Results Generally, abandoned and/or unmaintained roads and trails on steep terrain are at risk of causing a serious failure, depositing a large amount of sediment into streams, and starting landslides. Maintained roads are also at risk, but potentially the risk is not as high as regular maintenance on the roads reduces the risk of large failures. Areas on moderately steep and relatively flat terrain pose less risk for serious failure, but erosion hazards and sediment delivery potential are still abundant on these types of roads and trails. Steep terrain has the highest potential for landslides within the watershed. There is a high probability for landslides to occur within gullies as well.

7 Recommendations and Conclusions Over the past years, extensive studies have taken place within the watershed. Many aspects of the watershed have been studied. A small number of publications relating to the Salmon River Watershed are outlined below: • Salmon River Watershed: Water Quality and Quantity Assessment and Objectives (Gwanikar

et al, 1997); • Salmon River Channel Stability Analysis (Miles, 1995); • Assessment of Salmonid Habitat in the Salmon River, Salmon Arm (Burt, D., Wallis, 1997);

and • The Salmon River Watershed – An Overview of Conditions, Trends and Issues (McPhee et

al, 1996) The Sediment Source Survey studied the roads and trails, and landslides in all elevations of the watershed. All of the studies indicate the need to maintain a healthy environment within the watershed, as many users depend on the health of the river. These studies of the watershed have identified areas of concern which now require restoration recommendations. Some restoration activities have been conducted in the past, but more extensive major works are required to improve and maintain the health of the watershed. Due to the high stakeholder interest in the area, the sharing of information is critical to ensure that all interest parties are aware of problems and actions being taken. The Salmon River Watershed Roundtable is an excellent avenue for various groups to get together, and will play an important role in the future plans for watershed restoration. Phase III of the IWRP will begin to prioritize areas for restoration work. Incidents have been assigned priority ratings for the purposes of the Sediment Source Survey, but Phase III will incorporate these results along with results from other assessments to prioritize areas for restoration works. A work schedule for restoration works and prescription information has not been included in this report; it will be incorporated into later phases of the IWRP.

7.1 Road Assessment Once the IWRP has been completed, the overall watershed restoration objectives will be in place. Until that time, restoration works should be focused on the highest priority areas where impacts to resources are most severe. If restoration works are not planned until August of 1998 when the IWRP is complete, more failures may have occurred, and existing problems may have worsened.



7.2 Hillslope Assessment The same general approach used for roads within the watershed should be used for hillslopes. The highest priority areas should be the first to be examined within the watershed. The rehabilitation of naturally occurring slides will have to be examined closely, as rehabilitation in these areas may have a greater impact on resources than the slide itself. Many of the landslides in the watershed are road related and can included with the road rehabilitation prescriptions. The rapidly changing conditions within the watershed stress the need for restoration works to begin immediately.



8 References deShield, C. 1995. Linking Local Roundtables and Provincial Planning: Review of Local Round Tables in the British Columbia Southeastern Interior and Their Potential Linkages with Provincial Planning Initiatives. Vancouver, British Columbia: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Lloyd, D. et al. 1990. A Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region: Land Management Handbook NUMBER 23. Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Forests. British Columbia. Forest Renewal BC (1997). Landbased Programs 1997/98 Handbook. Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. British Columbia. Forest Practices Code (May, 1996). Landslide Rehabilitation Assessment Procedure. Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Forests/Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Moore, G. D. Resource Road Rehabilitation Handbook: Planning and Implementation Guidelines (Interim Methods). Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. McPhee, M. et al. 1996. The Salmon River Watershed An Overview of Conditions, Trends and Issues, Technical Report. Vancouver, British Columbia: Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd. Rousseau, L. 1997. Sediment Source Survey Helicopter Flight Review. Forsite Consultants Ltd. Rousseau, L. 1997. Salmon River Watershed IWRP Pre – Field Work Agreement. Forsite Consultants Ltd. Rousseau, L. 1997. Review of Existing Information. Forsite Consultants Ltd.



9 Appendices



9.1 Appendix 1: List of Hazard Description Codes The following table lists the hazard description codes used to describe specific incidents identified during the field inspections. Appendix 1 List of Hazard Description Codes

Hazard Description Codes Description of Problems A Plugged ditches/no ditches B No ditchblocks C Ditchwater flows directly into stream D Plugged or damaged culverts E Insufficient cross – drain culverts F Undersized cross – drain culverts G Natural drainage blocked/diverted H Ditchline road surface erosion I Unstable or eroding cut/fill slope J Washout of road/bridge/culvert K Damaged/unsafe bridge L Landslide tracks M Tension cracks on road N Fill/debris in channel O Beaver dams/damage P Cattle usage/range damage Q Organic material supporting side cast R Grader berm S Oversteep fill slope U Other (specified in “U – code description” box) V POC

Forsite Consultants Ltd. January 12, 1998



9.2 Appendix 2: Road Incident Report Field Form Following are the field forms used to collect data during the road assessments. The Road Related Component Information Form was used to record information during the road related component of the assessment. The road field forms consisted of two forms – one with location information, the other to record only incident information.



9.3 Appendix 3: Landslide Incident Report Field Form Following is an example of the Landslide Information Field Form used to collect information on landslides assessed during the hillslope component of the assessment.



9.4 Appendix 4: Summary of Road Status and FRBC Funding Eligibility



9.5 Appendix 5: Pre – Field Work Agreement



9.6 Appendix 6: Helicopter Overview Flight



9.7 Appendix 7: Review of Existing Information



9.8 Appendix 8: Landslide/Erosion Incident Report



9.9 Appendix 9: Summary of High and Very High Risk Road Related Incidents and Photos (included under separate cover)



9.10 Appendix 10: Summary of Non Road Related Landslides with Photos (included under separate cover)

riverside forest products ltd - british...

Documents