greeley creek watershed source protection plan draft

of 2

City of Revelstoke

Council Report

Date: April 23, 2013

To: Mayor and Council

From: Mike Thomas, Director of Engineering & Public Works

Subject: Greeley Creek Watershed Source Protection Plan Draft Report

1. ISSUE

As part of completing the Source Protection Plan for Greeley Creek and to meet the

CBT funding proposal, the City is required to hold a Public Open House to review the

Draft Source Protection Plan and mapping for the watershed.

2. RECOMMENDATION

THAT City Council receive the Draft Source Protection Plan for Greeley Creek and notification of the Public Open House as information.

3. CAO COMMENTS

Agree with recommendation. Penny Page-Brittin our contractor leading the source

protection initiative will be available to summarize the project to date and answer

questions that Council may have at this time. TP

4. BACKGROUND

4.1. The City is required to complete a Source Water Protection Plan for the Greeley Creek

Watershed under the Provincial Drinking Water Protection Act to meet the terms and

conditions of the Permit to Operate.

4.2. A Technical Advisory Committee was formed in August 1012, and Golder Associates

was contracted to complete the Plan.

4.3. The purpose of the Plan is to delineate and characterize the watershed, conduct a

contaminant source inventory, characterize risks related to source protaction including

climate impacts and recommend actions to improve drinking water protection and

climate resiliency.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1. The cost of an open house has been accounted for in the project budget.

6. DISCUSSION

6.1. The Plan follows the BC Comprehensive Drinking Water Source to Tap Assessment

Guidelines.

AgendaItem#9d.AgendaItem#9d.AgendaItem#9d.AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley Creek Watershed Source Protection Plan Draft Report

Page 99 of 333Page 99 of 333Page 99 of 333Page 99 of 333

of 2

6.2. In 2012 the City joined the CBT Communities Adapting to Climate Change Initiative

(CACCI) and has received funding to ensure the Source Protection Plan also assesses

potential climate impacts in the watershed.

6.3. The draft report and information regarding the Public Open House are attached and

were both on the agenda of the Infrastructure and Security Committee on April 18,

2012.

7. RELEVANT LEGISLATION

7.1. Drinking Water Protection Act.

8. RECOMMENDATION AND OPTIONS

8.1. Recommendation:

THAT City Council receive the Draft Source Protection Plan for Greeley Creek and

notification of the Public Open House as information.

8.2. Option 1: That council request staff and the consultant to revise the documents prior to

the public open house.




Trans-Canada Highway

23

Highway South

23

Highway

North

GreeleyCreek

Hamilton Creek

Clachnacudainn Creek

TonkawatlaCreek

Bridge Cree

k

DolanCreek

West

Twin

Cree

k

Wells Creek

Il lecillewaet Ri ve

r

Griffith Creek

Begbie Creek

Montana CreekScottC

reek

Colum

biaRiv

er

Upper Arrow Lake

Lake

Reve

lstok

e

500

1700

1500

1900

1800

1000

900

800

1100

1000

900

1400

1300

1200

2100

1700

1600

19001800

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

900

1500

220019001800 1700

160015001400170

0

16001500

1400130

0120

0110

0

1000

900800

700

2400

2300

2200

2100

2000

1900

1900

1200

600 500

180017001600

1400

1200

12001100

2200

2400

230022

00

20001300

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

1000

800

700

600

800

700

19001600

2300

2000

1800

2300

2400

2300

1700

18001900

2000

1900

800

2100

22002100

1500140

0

1700

1800

2300

2200

2200

700

600

2300

23002200

2300

2400

800

700

2500

2300

2100

2100

2200

2000

1400

1300

2000

2200

2100

1600

1700

600

1800

1900

2100

600

1700

2000

600

1500

1600

500

TW02-3(GolfCourse)

WaterIntake

TreatmentPlant

ArrowHeightsResevoir

Trans CanadaHwy Resevoir

Mt.MacKenzie

Mt.Revelstoke

GhostPeak

REVELSTOKEAIRPORT RD

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

1_Ke

y_Pl

an.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 10

:52:

42 A

M

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

KEY PLAN

MAP 1

12-1493-0116

SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

16 JAN 2013

CHECK

AS

PVA

16 JAN 2013

GREELEY CREEK WATERSHEDSOURCE PROTECTION PLANREVELSTOKE, B.C., CANADA

PROJECT PRINTED PAGE SIZE: 11" x 17"

Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Environment Canada Climate stations from GeoBC. Elevation from Geobase, Greeley Community Watershed from GeoBC.

DATUM: NAD83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 11

LEGEND

Greeley Community Watershed (WAA)

Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Resevoir

Well Location (ID)

Environment Canada Climate Stations

Water Main (From Intake to Resevoirs)

City of Revelstoke Boundary

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Contours (100m)

Named Watercourse

Water Body

Wetland

Glacier

Revelstoke Airport and Dam

Revelstoke Mountain Resort

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

2 0 2

KILOMETRESSCALE 1:70,000

Greeley CommunityWatershed

City ofRevelstoke

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

Kelowna

Vancouver

Revelstoke

Prince George

BRITISHCOLUMBIA

Study Location

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

2_La

nd_U

se_D

etai

l_in

_Low

er_W

ater

shed

.mxd

/ 4/4

/201

3 / 1

0:25

:32

AM

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

LAND USE DETAIL INLOWER WATERSHED

MAP 2SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT

Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, Imagery from Bing Maps, other base features from theCity of Revelstoke. Greeley Community Watershed and Tenures from GeoBC.


LEGEND


Intake Protection Zone (150m Radius)

Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Flow Monitoring Station

Water License (POD ID)

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Contours (100m)

Named Watercourse

Downie Timber Roads

Downie Timber Cutblock 17

Proposed Tenure Application


Parcels and Tenure (Roll Number)

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

0.25 0 0.25


AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

PRINTED PAGE SIZE: 11" x 17"

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report



GreeleyCreek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r

Water IntakeTreatment Plant

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

3_Bi

ogeo

clim

atic

_Zon

es_a

nd_F

ores

t_H

ealth

.mxd

/ 3/2

7/20

13 /

10:5

1:15

AM

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONESAND FOREST HEALTH

MAP 3SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA



Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, other base features from the City of Revelstoke.Greeley Community Watershed, Pest (>Year 2000) and BEC Zones from GeoBC.


LEGEND




HighwayMain RoadOther Road

Railway

Named Watercourse

Water Body

Wetland

Glacier

Pest Infestation TypeWestern Balsam Bark Beetle (IBB)Mountain Pine Beetle (IBM)Fire (NB)

Biogeoclimatic ZoneInterior Cedar -- HemlockEngelmann Spruce -- Subalpine FirInterior Mountain -- Heather

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report



GreeleyCreek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

4_Be

droc

k_G

eolo

gy.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 10

:51:

49 A

M

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

BEDROCK GEOLOGY

MAP 4SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA



Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, other base features from the City of Revelstoke.Greeley Community Watershed, Bedrock Geology from GeoBC.


LEGEND





Railway

Named Watercourse

Water Body

Wetland

Glacier

Bedrock Geology Typeorthogneiss metamorphic rocksmudstone, siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rockslimestone, slate, siltstone, argillitelimestone, marble, calcareous sedimentary rocksundivided sedimentary rocks

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report



GreeleyCreek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r

10001100

12001300

1400

1200

11001000

900800

16001700

1800

1900

700

600

2200

21002000

2100

2000

1900

23002200

2100

2100

2000

90010001100

110012001300

2200210

0

2100

2000

1600

1700

2200

1500

15001400

1900 1900

2300

500

600700

800900

1000

1300 1100

14001500

2300

2100

1700

2000

2300

2200

12001300

1400

1500

2200

2300

2300

800

1000 900

1100

1200

1300

24002300

2200

2100

800

700

600

1400

18001700

2400

2300

2200

2300

2100

2300

24002200

1800

19002300

1900

2100

2000

2000

1800

2100

1900

800

1700

1600

2100

2000

2000

1900

1900

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1600

1600

1600

1600

1600

600

700 800

800

900

900

900

1000

1000

1100

1200 1200

1300

1300

700

1000

1300

1400

1400

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

2100

2100

2000

2000

1900

1800

1500

14001500

2100

2000

2200 20

00

1500

2200

2200

2100

2000

2000

1900

1900

1800

1800

1800

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1600

1600

1600

1600

1600

1100 1100

1100

1200

1200

1200

1300

1300

1300

1100

1300

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1500

1500

1500

2100

2100

2000

2000

1900

1800

1600

1500

2000

2200

22002200

2200

2100

2100

2000

2000

2000

1900

1900

1900

1900

1800

1700

1700

1600

1600

1600

1500


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

5_Te

rrain

_Sta

bilit

y.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 11

:39:

44 A

M

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

TERRAIN STABILITY

MAP 5

12-1493-0116

SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

AL

GC

PVA



Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, other base features from the City of Revelstoke. GreeleyCommunity Watershed from GeoBC. Terrain Stability (TSIL D) Classification datafrom Forsite Consultants Ltd, 1997.


LEGEND



Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Named Watercourse

Water Body

Wetland

Glacier

Terrain Stability ClassificationUnclassifiable

Alpine

Stable

Potentially Unstable

Unstable

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

6_H

isto

ric_a

nd_P

roje

cted

_Mea

n_An

nual

_Tem

pera

ture

_and

_Pre

cipi

tatio

n.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 12

:00:

30 P

M

REV. 1DESIGN

HISTORIC AND PROJECTED MEAN ANNUALTEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION

MAP 6SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT

Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, Imagery from Bing Maps, other base features from theCity of Revelstoke. Greeley Community Watershed from GeoBC. Climate datacalculated using ClimateWNA software, future data are based on the'AR4_cccma_cgcm3_A2-run4' scenario.


REFERENCES

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURE - BASELINE (1961-1990) MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURE - FUTURE (2050)

MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - FUTURE (2050)MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - BASELINE (1961-1990)

2 0 2


DRAFT

LEGEND


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Named Watercourse

Mean Annual Temperature (°C)-2.1 - -1.1

-1 - -0.1

0 - 0.9

1 - 2.9

3 - 4.9

5 - 7

Mean Annual Precipitation (mm)1,428 - 1,699

1,700 - 1,899

1,900 - 1,999

2,000 - 2,099

2,100 - 2,199

2,200 - 2,371

MAP SCALE

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

7_H

isto

ric_a

nd_P

roje

cted

_Sum

mer

_and

_Win

ter_

Tem

pera

ture

s.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 2:

26:0

6 PM

REV. 1DESIGN

MAP 7SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT



REFERENCES

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


MEAN SUMMER TEMPERATURE - BASELINE (1961-1990) MEAN SUMMER TEMPERATURE - FUTURE (2050)

MEAN WINTER TEMPERATURE - FUTURE (2050)MEAN WINTER TEMPERATURE - BASELINE (1961-1990)

HISTORIC AND PROJECTEDSUMMER AND WINTER TEMPERATURE

2 0 2


DRAFT

LEGEND


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Named Watercourse

Mean Seasonal Temperature (°C)-11.3 - -10.1

-10 - -8.1

-8 - -6.1

-6 - -2.1

-2 - 0

0.1 - 1.9

2 - 3.9

4 - 4.1

4.2 - 5.9

6 - 7.9

8 - 9.9

10 - 11.9

12 - 13.9

14 - 16

MAP SCALE

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

8_H

isto

ric_a

nd_P

roje

cted

_Sum

mer

_and

_Win

ter_

Prec

ipita

tion.

mxd

/ 3/2

7/20

13 /

2:27

:37

PM

REV. 1DESIGN

MAP 8SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT



REFERENCES

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


HISTORIC AND PROJECTEDSUMMER AND WINTER PRECIPITATION

2 0 2


DRAFT

LEGEND


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Named Watercourse

Mean Seasonal Precipitation (mm)259 - 299

300 - 349

350 - 399

400 - 449

450 - 499

500 - 549

550 - 599

600 - 649

650 - 699

700 - 749

750 - 799

800 - 849

850 - 899

900 - 949

MAP SCALE

MEAN SUMMER PRECIPITATION - BASELINE (1961-1990) MEAN SUMMER PRECIPITATION - FUTURE (2050)

MEAN WINTER PRECIPITATION - FUTURE (2050)MEAN WINTER PRECIPITATION - BASELINE (1961-1990)

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report

8 of 333Page 108 of 333Page 108 of 333Page 108 of 333


GreeleyCreek

Hamilton Creek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r

Montana CreekScottC

reek


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

330232

1000591

1014832

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

9_La

nd_R

eser

ves_

Tenu

res_

and_

Appl

icat

ions

.mxd

/ 4/4

/201

3 / 9

:14:

01 A

M

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

LAND TENURES, RESERVES,AND APPLICATIONS

MAP 9SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT

Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, Imagery from Bing Maps, other base features from theCity of Revelstoke. Greeley Community Watershed from GeoBC.


LEGEND



Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Named Watercourse

Downie Timber Roads


Ghost Peak Recreation Reserve



Parcels and Tenure

Selkirk Metals Mineral Claim (Tenure Number ID)

Mineral and Placer Reserves (Site Number ID)

Crown Tenures (Within WAA)Alpine Ski - General

Cat Ski

Heli Ski

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


GreeleyCreek

Hamilton Creek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r

Montana CreekScottC

reek


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_1

0_W

ildfir

e_R

isk_

Rat

ings

.mxd

/ 3/2

7/20

13 /

11:4

3:36

AM

REV. 1DESIGN

WILDFIRE RISK RATINGS

MAP 10SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT

Wildfire Risk Ratings provided by B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. (MLI et. al. 2011)Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10, Elevation from Geobase, Imagery from Bing Maps, other base features from theCity of Revelstoke. Greeley Community Watershed from GeoBC.


LEGEND

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

SEEINSET

INSET

DRAFT



Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Named Watercourse

Fire Risk Ratings (Consequence - Probability)Low - Low

Low - Moderate

Low - High

Moderate - Low

Moderate - Moderate

Moderate - High

No Risk Data

Hazarduous Fuel Types

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


April 9, 2013

DRINKING WATER SOURCE-TO-TAP ASSESSMENT

City of Revelstoke Greeley Creek Watershed Source Protection Plan

REPO

RT

Report Number: 1214930116-001-R-RevC

Distribution:

City of Revelstoke - 2 Copies Golder Associates Ltd. - 1 Copy

Submitted to: City of Revelstoke Attn: Penny Page-Brittin - Sustainability Coordinator PO Box 170 216 McKenzie Avenue Revelstoke, BC, V0E2S0




GREELEY CREEK WATERSHED SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN

April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC i

Acknowledgements

This project is supported by the Columbia Basin Trust’s Communities Adapting to Climate Initiative (CACCI) www.cbt.org/climatechange

Technical Advisory Committee Golder wishes to thank the following organizations and their representatives for their membership in the Technical Advisory Committee and their valuable contributions to this source protection plan.

Communities Adapting to Climate Change Initiative Ms. Katherine Mahoney, Coordinator Ms. Cindy Pearce, Technical Support Mr. Jeff Zukiwsky, Project Liaison

City of Revelstoke Mr. Tony Edwards, former Acting Director of Engineering and Public Works Mr. Robert Girard, Fire Chief Mr. Gordon Hall, Engineering Technologist Mr. Darren Komonoski, Operations Manager Ms. Penny Page-Brittin, Environmental Sustainability Coordinator Mr. Doug Pendergast, Utilities Foreman Mr. Mike Thomas, P.Eng., Director of Engineering and Public Works

Downie Timber Ltd. Mr. Dieter Offermann, Planning Forester

Interior Health Authority Mr. Robert Fleming, Drinking Water Officer

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Mr. Kevin Lavelle, Stewardship Officer





April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC ii

Executive Summary

Golder Associates Ltd. has developed a source watershed protection plan for the Greeley Creek drinking water source, which follows Modules 1, 2, 7, and 8 of the BC Comprehensive Drinking Water Source-to-Tap Assessment (CS2TA) Guideline and is required under the Provincial Drinking Water Protection Act for the City’s Permit to Operate. There are eight Modules under the CS2TA Guideline, but the objective of this plan is to address only those that characterize Greeley Creek and consider risks and recommendations for drinking water protection at the watershed level. The City’s water treatment and distribution, operations and maintenance, and finance and governance, which are the focus of Modules 3 through 6, are not considered or included as part of this Plan.

Development of this Plan followed the general methods outlined in:

(a) the Modules 1, 2, 7 and 8 of the CS2TA Guideline; and,

(b) the requirements of the Request for Proposals issued by the City of Revelstoke, including a review of information regarding projected climate changes in the Columbia River basin to define a climate change scenario for the 2050s.

The climate change scenario forms the basis for an assessment of potential climate change impacts to the water supply from the Greeley Creek Watershed. To supplement previously published regional scale climate change projections, Golder extracted more detailed data using the ClimateWNA software tool to consider projected climate variables within the watershed assessment area to the year 2050. The assessment of projected climate change impacts focused on the relevant Key Priority Impacts from Local Government listed in the City of Revelstoke Climate Adaptation Scanning and Planning Workshop.

Golder conducted a review of available information in order to complete the watershed characterization and development of a preliminary hazard identification table, which was then updated to include input from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) following review of the draft report.

Golder developed the hazard and risk matrix to qualitatively rank the watershed based on the available information reviewed based on qualitative criteria for each likelihood and consequence rating. These relative risk rankings were discussed during a meeting between Golder and the TAC following review of the draft report, and the risk rankings presented incorporate feedback from the TAC.

Based on the risk characterization, for current conditions, the identified existing intrinsic and land use activity drinking water hazards, listed by relative risk, were:

Very High Risk

mass movements

High Risk

stream channel instability, and, climate change





April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC iii

Moderate Risk

wildfire, wildlife, and avalanches

Low Risk

windthrow, forest insects and disease, forestry, and ski recreation

Hazards related to potential future development were:

High Risk

other recreation (snowmobiling, hiking, mountain biking, ATVs, motorcycling and camping)

Moderate Risk

placer and mineral mining

Low Risk

roads and infrastructure and hydroelectric power generation.

For the projected climate change scenario, the risk characterization for the identified existing intrinsic and land use drinking water hazards changed such that wildfire, wildlife and roads and infrastructure increased to high risk, and forests, insects and disease, forestry, and hydroelectric power generation increased to moderate risk.

A set of recommended actions to improve drinking water protection (Module 8 of the CS2TA Guideline) were developed, with guidance from the TAC. The recommended actions for the City to consider include:

1) Conduct Assessment of Back-up Water Supply Elements

2) Implement Access Restrictions

3) Assess and Mitigate Wildfire Risks

4) Emergency Response

5) Institute Flow and Climate Monitoring Program within Greeley Creek WAA

6) Water Supply Management

7) Climate Adaptation

8) Long-term Monitoring of Terrain and Channel Stability

9) Development of Watershed Stakeholder Groups or Committees

10) Application for mineral, petroleum and coal no staking reserve





April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC iv

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Watershed Setting ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 City of Revelstoke Water System ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Drinking Water Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 PROJECT METHODS ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 MODULE 1 – WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ....................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Greeley Creek Watershed Setting ....................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Geographic and Geomorphic Overview ......................................................................................................... 8

3.1.2 Bedrock Geology............................................................................................................................................ 9

3.1.3 Biogeoclimatic Setting .................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.4 Fish Status ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Greeley Creek Watershed Characterization ...................................................................................................... 10

3.2.1 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.2 Water Use and Streamflow .......................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Greeley Creek Watershed Air Photo Review ..................................................................................................... 16

3.4 Greeley Creek Municipal Water Intake .............................................................................................................. 18

3.4.1 Description of Water Intake .......................................................................................................................... 18

3.4.2 Evaluation of Water Intake ........................................................................................................................... 19

3.5 Greeley Creek Watershed Intrinsic Hazards ...................................................................................................... 19

3.5.1 Wildfire ......................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.5.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................................... 21

3.5.3 Mass Movements ......................................................................................................................................... 21

3.5.4 Avalanches .................................................................................................................................................. 21

3.5.5 Windthrow .................................................................................................................................................... 21

3.5.6 Stream Channel Stability .............................................................................................................................. 21

3.5.7 Forest Insects and Disease .......................................................................................................................... 22

3.5.8 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................... 22





April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC v

3.6 Greeley Creek Watershed and Projected Climate Change ................................................................................ 22

4.0 MODULE 2 – CONTAMINANT SOURCE INVENTORY ................................................................................................. 27

4.1 Existing Land Use in Watershed Assessment Area ........................................................................................... 28

4.1.1 Forestry ........................................................................................................................................................ 29

4.1.1.1 Potential Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 29

4.1.1.2 Regulation of Forestry Activities ............................................................................................................... 29

4.1.1.3 Forestry Activities in WAA ........................................................................................................................ 30

4.1.2 Ski Recreation .............................................................................................................................................. 31

4.2 Potential Hazards Related to Development in the Area ..................................................................................... 32

5.0 MODULE 7 – RISK CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Evaluation of Drinking Water Protection Barriers ............................................................................................... 32

5.2 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 33

6.0 MODULE 8 – RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO IMPROVE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ................................... 36

7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 41

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 43





April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC vi

TABLES (IN TEXT) Table 1: Water Licences held for Greeley Creek (complete list of attributes is in Appendix C). ................................................. 2

Table 2: Environment Canada Climate Station for Revelstoke, BC. ......................................................................................... 10

Table 3: Values shown on Figure 2 (bold values are maximum and minimum). ...................................................................... 11

Table 4: WSC Hydrometric Stations on Greeley Creek. ........................................................................................................... 14

Table 5: Summary of Air Photos Reviewed for Greeley Creek Watershed Source Protection Plan. ........................................ 17

Table 6: Evaluation of Greeley Creek Water Intake. ................................................................................................................ 19

Table 8: Summary of Climate Change Impacts for the Columbia-Shuswap in the 2050's (PCIC 2012). .................................. 23

Table 9: Greeley Creek Watershed Projected Climate Variables to 2050 Using ClimateWNA. ............................................... 24

Table 10: Contaminant Inventory. ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Table 11: Timber Agreements within Watershed Assessment Area. ....................................................................................... 30

Table 13: Qualitative Measures of Probability .......................................................................................................................... 34

Table 14: Qualitative Measures of Consequence ..................................................................................................................... 34

Table 15a: Unabated Risk Analysis Matrix. .............................................................................................................................. 35

Table 15b: Abated Risk Analysis Matrix. .................................................................................................................................. 35

Table 17a: Abated Drinking Water Hazard Risk Assessment for Current Conditions. ............................................................. 36

Table 17b: Abated Drinking Water Hazard Risk Assessment for Projected Climate Change Scenario ................................... 36

TABLES (FOLLOWING TEXT)

Table 7: Hazard Identification

Table 12: Drinking Water Barriers Assessment

Table 16a: Risk Characterization for Current Conditions

Table 16b: Risk Characterization for Projected Climate Change Scenario

Table 18: Recommended Risk Management Actions

FIGURES Figure 1: Outline of Module 1 from the CS2TA (MHLS 2010). ................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2: Average monthly temperature recordings at Revelstoke Airport Road (Environment Canada 1971-2000). .............. 11

Figure 3: Average monthly rainfall, snowfall, and precipitation at Revelstoke Airport Road (Environment Canada 1971-2000). ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4: City of Revelstoke monthly water consumption from 2001-2011............................................................................... 13

Figure 5: City of Revelstoke annual water consumption from 2001-2011 (Jan. and Feb. missing in 2001). ............................ 13

Figure 6: WSC hydrometric flow data on Greeley Creek from stations 08ND021 and 08ND024. ............................................ 14

Figure 7: Mass curves using WSC data from stations 08ND021 and 08ND024....................................................................... 15

Figure 8: City of Revelstoke available streamflow data on Greeley Creek. .............................................................................. 16

Figure 9: Monthly total precipitation in WAA for historic and projected future time frames ....................................................... 25

Figure 10: Monthly precipitation as snow in WAA for historic and projected future time frames .............................................. 25





April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC vii

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Maps

APPENDIX B Selected Photos from Site Visit on November 20, 2012

APPENDIX C Provincial Water Licenses on Greeley Creek

APPENDIX D Meeting Notes

APPENDIX E GIS Data on DVD

APPENDIX F IDF Information from Revelstoke Airport Road Climate Station

APPENDIX G Water Consumption Data

APPENDIX H City of Revelstoke Stream Flow Monitoring Data

APPENDIX I Water Quality Results

MAPS (APPENDIX A) Map 1: Key Plan

Map 2: Land Use Detail in Lower Watershed

Map 3: Bedrock Geology

Map 4: Biogeoclimatic Zones and Forest Health

Map 5: Terrain Stability

Map 6: Historic and Projected Mean Annual Temperature and Precipitation

Map 7: Historic and Projected Summer and Winter Temperatures

Map 8: Historic and Projected Summer and Winter Precipitation

Map 9: Land Tenures, Reserves, and Applications

Map 10: Wildfire Risk Ratings





April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAC Annual Allowable Cut

BCWMB BC Wildfire Management Branch

CS2TA Comprehensive Drinking Water Source to Tap Assessment Guideline

FL Forest License

FRPA Forest and Range Practices Act

FSP Forest Stewardship Plans

GCDWQ Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality

IHA Interior Health Authority

masl metres above sea level

MOE British Columbia Ministry of Environment

MOFR British Columbia Ministry of Forest and Range

MFLNRO Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations

NPV nuclear polyhedrosis virus

NTU nephelometric turbidity units

ROW Right-Of-Way

RMR Revelstoke Mountain Resort

SFMP Sustainable Forest Management Plan

SFIP Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program

SRES Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

TAC Technical Advisory Committee

TSA Timber Supply Area

TSR Timber Supply Review

TDS Total dissolved solids

UBCM Union of BC Municipalities

WAA Watershed Assessment Area

WSC Water Survey of Canada

WTP Water Treatment Plant





April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION As requested by the City of Revelstoke (the City), Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has developed a source watershed protection plan for the Greeley Creek drinking water source, hereafter referred to as this “Plan” This Plan follows Modules 1, 2, 7, and 8 of the BC Comprehensive Drinking Water Source-to-Tap Assessment (CS2TA) Guideline (MHLS 2010) and is required under the Provincial Drinking Water Protection Act for the City’s Permit to Operate. There are eight Modules under the CS2TA Guideline, but the objective of this plan is to address only those that characterize Greeley Creek and consider risks and recommendations for drinking water protection at the watershed level. The City’s water treatment and distribution, operations and maintenance, and finance and governance, which are the focus of Modules 3 through 6, are not considered or included as part of this Plan.

The Greeley Creek watershed is located in the Columbia River basin within the Kootenay Hydrologic Region (Zone 22 – Lower Columbia Basin [Coulson and Obedkoff 1998; Obedkoff 2003]) and this basin has been proactive in considering potential impacts of changing climate conditions to biophysical and social components of their watersheds (CBT 2012a); therefore, an abundance of regional-scale data is available regarding projected climate change impacts in the basin. The City of Revelstoke is also forward-thinking in this manner and therefore wished for the available climate change data to specifically be included in this Plan. As such, Golder has included one climate change scenario in the CS2TA Guideline and discussed potential changes throughout this report.

1.1 Watershed Setting Greeley Creek is situated in the Selkirk Mountains east of Revelstoke. The watershed for Greeley Creek is roughly bound by Revelstoke Mountain Resort to the west, the Illecillewaet River to the north and undeveloped forested land to the east and south (Map 1, Appendix A). The Illecillewaet River flows to the west/southwest, discharging into the Columbia River, which then flows in a southerly direction.

1.2 City of Revelstoke Water System Greeley Creek is the City’s primary source of drinking water, with a secondary water source supplied by groundwater well TW02-3, located at the Revelstoke Golf Club (Map 1, Appendix A). Note the City groundwater well is located outside of the watershed area for Greeley Creek. Surface water from Greeley Creek enters a series of small settling ponds before entering the Greeley Creek Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which is capable of supplying up to 175 L/s of treated water to the City (refer to the photo plates in Appendix B). The WTP uses a micro-filtration membrane and chlorination system to treat the surface water source. The treated water is fed down to the City by a buried gravity system that goes under Illecillewaet River and then follows the alignment of the Trans-Canada Highway (Map 1, Appendix A). There are currently two reservoirs, Trans-Canada Highway and Arrow Heights (Map 1, Appendix A) with a combined capacity of 6,820 m3, two booster stations (Arrow Heights and Revelstoke Mountain Resort [RMR]), and approximately 98 km of distribution system that are divided into five pressure zones in the City (CoR 2012). This water system serves approximately 7,000 residents through approximately 2,996 residential and 310 commercial water connections (CoR 2012).

There are three Provincial Water Licences currently held for Greeley Creek (Map 2, Appendix A). The City has two of these Water Licences (C047974 and F011233), and both are intended for potable water supply (municipal






waterworks). The allowable quantity for these two Licences is approximately 0.21 m3/s (210 L/s)1. There is a third Water Licence (C100606) for Greeley Creek held by a private owner and the intended use is for residential power, with an allowable quantity for this licence of 0.085 m3/s (85 L/s). A list of these Water Licences with key information is in Table 1, and a complete list with all information is provided for reference in Appendix C.

Table 1: Water Licences held for Greeley Creek (complete list of attributes is in Appendix C). Licence No. Licensee Purpose Priority Date Quantity (m3/s)

C047974 City of Revelstoke Waterworks July 13, 1976 0.158 C100606 L Birkenbach & F. Nakao Residential Power December 11, 1989 0.085 F011233 City of Revelstoke Waterworks November 17, 1930 0.053

As part of the Provincial Drinking Water Protection Act, in order to meet the terms and conditions of the City’s Permit to Operate (issued by the Health Authority), the City is required to complete a Source Water Protection Plan for their water source. The purpose of the plan is to identify conditions and activities that could affect the quality and quantity of water from Greeley Creek such that the City can influence planning and measure potential impacts on the water system. The City is working together with, and as a member of, the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) Communities Adapting to Climate Change Initiative (CACCI) on this project.

1.3 Drinking Water Hazards Greeley Creek is the primary source of water to the City, and although the watershed is largely undeveloped at the time of writing this Plan, there are potential natural and anthropogenic hazards that could affect drinking water quality and quantity in the future. By definition from the CS2TA (MHLS 2010) and for the purpose of this report, a hazard is an “agent(s) of harm” that can adversely affect a water supply. One of the primary goals of this plan is to identify potential hazards and assign a risk rating to each one, where the risk rating is comprised of two metrics: a likelihood and a consequence.

𝑯𝒂𝒛𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 = 𝑳𝒊𝒌𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒉𝒐𝒐𝒅 × 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆

Drinking water hazards are related to either water quality or water quantity, as these are the characteristics important to the City and its approximately 3,300 customers. As the water purveyor to this many people and local businesses, the safety and security of Greeley Creek is very important to the City. This plan identifies the potential hazards to Greeley Creek, assesses the risk of each hazard, and looks to provide recommendations on mitigation to some of the key hazards.

Water quality characteristics include the physical, chemical, and biological parameters that are used to describe and measure water. In BC, two particular water quality guidelines are considered when assessing drinking water quality: the Approved Water Quality Guidelines, issued by the BC Ministry of Environment, and the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality GCDWQ (Health Canada 2012), developed by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. These guidelines provide criteria for many parameters such as turbidity, nutrients, and specific chemical substances. Natural and undeveloped watersheds often do not have significant water quality issues. However, there are still potential risks.

1 The actual Water Licences are listed to have an allowable quantity of 6,637,291.4 m3/year and the units have been converted in this plan assuming 365 days in a calendar year.






Water quantity is also an important parameter for the City to consider in their long-term planning for water security. It can be affected by many factors and the changes may be related to:

Temporal fluctuations (i.e., peaks coming earlier or later than normal); or,

Volume fluctuations (i.e., more volume at one time or lower peak over longer period).

Current City staff members provided anecdotal data that in their experience, there have not been any problems or shortages in water supply in Greeley Creek, even during lower winter low flows (Penny Page-Brittin, pers. comm. 2012). That being said, water quantity is still an important parameter to evaluate, especially when considering potential future climate change and any uncertainty there may be in water supply. If the water demand from the City exceeds the available flows in Greeley Creek at any time during the year there will be a deficit in water supply to the City from the WTP.

1.4 Scope of Work As described in Golder’s proposal, the scope of work for this Plan is to:

Complete a watershed source protection plan for Greeley Creek following Modules 1, 2, 7, and 8 of the CS2TA;

Module 1 is to delineate and characterize the drinking water source.

Module 2 is to conduct a contaminant source inventory.

Module 7 is to characterize the risks from source-to-tap.

Module 8 is to recommend actions to improve drinking water protection.

Perform a site visit to the water intake and readily accessible areas of the lower watershed;

Include relevant impacts of future climate projections to the year 2050 for the Columbia Region;

Work with and include input from City staff and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC); and,

Attend a public open house to present the draft report.

In total there are 8 Modules in the CS2TA, and Modules 3, 4, 5, and 6 are beyond the scope of this Plan. The Modules that are not being assessed in this Plan are:

Water supply elements (Module 3);

Water system management and operations and maintenance (Module 4);

Auditing water quality and availability (Module 5); and,

Financial capacity and governance (Module 6).

Golder’s scope of work did not include a site visit to the mid to upper watershed. There are no roads to these areas and although a helicopter flight was considered as additional work, this was not proposed or completed because the costs associated outweighed the benefits for the City.






2.0 PROJECT METHODS Development of this Plan followed the general methods outlined in: (a) the Modules 1, 2, 7 and 8 of the CS2TA Guideline, and (b) the requirements of the Request for Proposals issued by the City of Revelstoke. The following tasks were completed by Golder in order to fulfill the above outlined scope of work.

Task 1: Project Initiation Meeting Because consultation with stakeholders is important to the success of any watershed protection planning, Golder included four meetings in the scope of work for the project. The first, a Project Initiation meeting was held between designated City staff, members of the established Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the Golder Project team, by teleconference on November 6, 2012. The key topics for the Project Initiation Meeting included the following:

introduction of key personnel;

discussion of the City’s current and future vision for their water supply;

identification of concerns and issues that the City may have pertaining to the water supply;

discussion of the existence of additional relevant information and reports from the City to be used for the project;

confirmation of the proposed work schedule and identifying dates for future teleconferences and the Public Open House; and,

identification of potential stakeholders.

Summary notes from the project initiation meeting are provided in Appendix D.

Task 2: Health and Safety and Project Management A site-specific health and safety plan was developed for the Project, which described control measures for identified hazards associated with the field work portion of the proposed work as required. Project management was ongoing throughout the Project, with updates provided to the City’s project manager.

Task 3: Data and Literature Review (Modules 1 and 2) Golder conducted a review of available information in order to complete the watershed characterization and development of a preliminary hazard identification table, which was updated to include input from the TAC following review of the draft report. The following sources of information were included in the information review:

The City of Revelstoke Permit to Operate issued by IHA;

Reports specific to the Greeley Creek watersheds and those pertaining to the City of Revelstoke water system (Dayton and Knight, 2009; AGRA 1996; MLI et al., 2011);






Reports relevant to the Greeley Creek Watershed available on the Provincial Government Websites, (Ministry of Environment (MOE) and/or Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations (MFLNRO);

Review of relevant previous studies conducted by Golder in the area (Golder, 2001, 2002 and 2007);

Water Management Reports (City of Revelstoke, 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012);

Relevant online data and mapping for the Greeley Creek Watershed such as, land use and permits, climate data, hydrometric data, topographic maps, surficial and bedrock geology maps, contaminated sites registry;

Aerial photographs covering the Greeley Creek Watershed, provided by the Geographic Information Centre at the University of BC Department of Geography, and the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO); and,

Information collected from interviews conducted with City of Revelstoke representatives.

In addition, Golder reviewed information regarding projected climate changes in the Columbia River basin (Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) 2012 and Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC) 2012a) to define a climate change scenario for the 2050s, which forms the basis for an assessment of potential climate change impacts to the water supply from the Greeley Creek Watershed. To supplement this published work by the PCIC, Golder extracted more detailed data using the ClimateWNA software tool (Wang et al. 2012) to consider projected climate variables within the watershed assessment area to the year 2050. Golder assessed the identified risks to the Greeley Creek drinking water supply source for current conditions, and for the defined climate change scenario, using the Columbia Basin Trust document (CBT 2012a) as a resource.

Details regarding the climate change scenario are presented in Section 3.6, while the results of Golder’s preliminary risk assessment and recommended actions to improve drinking water protection (Modules 7 and 8 of the CS2TA Guideline) are discussed in Section 5.0 and Section 6.0, respectively. The risk assessment and recommended actions include input obtained from the TAC following review of the draft report.

Task 4: Watershed Characterization (Module 1) The Greeley Creek watershed was assessed and characterized based on information collected in Task 3, and from Golder’s observations during the site visit. Golder’s observations also included a review and evaluation of the City’s water intake. The air photo review was performed using imagery provided by the sources noted above and included a review of the following:

Watershed geomorphology;

Forest cover vegetation;

Road network and watershed access;

Stream network, order, and density;

Natural resource activity; and,

Existing infrastructure.






Task 5: GIS Mapping The information collected during the data and literature review and field reconnaissance was used to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) model of the Study Area. An electronic copy of the GIS project data is provided on a DVD in Appendix E, in ArcGIS format, and includes the following map layers:

Watershed boundary and watershed assessment area;

Key features of the City of Revelstoke water supply system (reservoirs, intake and well locations);

Stream channel and water treatment plant infrastructure locations;

Important bio-geophysical and topography information;

Terrain, slopes, and soil types;

Land use and tenure;

Wildfire risk mapping;

Locations of potential contaminant sources (sediment sources, land use risks, natural or human risks, etc.); and,

The relative risk ranking of specific identified drinking water hazards and vulnerabilities.

Task 6: Field Review and Validation (Modules 1 & 2) Following the information review, Golder conducted a field reconnaissance visit on November 20, 2012. Mr. Geoffrey Cahill of Golder was accompanied on the reconnaissance by Ms. Penny Page-Brittin and Mr. John Buhler, both with the City of Revelstoke. Due to the limited access to the watershed assessment area, the field review was limited to the areas of the City’s water intake, Water Treatment Plant, and an area of recent forestry operations to the east of the water intake. The field review included completion of an evaluation of the Greeley Creek intake, as outlined in Table 1-3 of Module 1 in the CS2TA Guideline.

Golder assessed the need and usefulness of conducting a helicopter survey within the watershed at the proposal stage of work and based on the limited use within the watershed, it was Golder’s opinion that the costs associated with a helicopter survey outweighed the benefits to the City at this time.

Task 7: Risk Assessment and Recommendations (Modules 7 & 8) Areas of concern (Hazards) to water quality and quantity in the Greeley Creek watershed were identified from the reviewed data and field investigations through a risk assessment, based on a standard ranking of Likelihood and Consequence to produce a 5-Class ranking of Risk.

𝑯𝒂𝒛𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 = 𝑳𝒊𝒌𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒉𝒐𝒐𝒅 × 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆: Golder prepared a risk assessment for current conditions and one future scenario to explore potential impacts from climate change, as discussed below. For instance, climate change impacts may result in reduced yearly precipitation but increased single precipitation events, resulting in an increase in runoff, and a potential change in timing and frequency of surface flows.






Golder used the hazard and risk matrix to qualitatively rank the watershed based on the available information based on qualitative criteria for each likelihood and consequence rating from 1 (rare or insignificant) to 5 (certain or catastrophic) for each potential watershed hazard (based on Table 7-3 in the CS2TA Guideline). The matrix was constructed to reflect the likelihood, consequence, and overall risk relevant to local and regional concerns and conditions based on the reviewed information.

Task 8: Reporting Draft Watershed Assessment Report As per Golder’s proposal, a draft report was issued to the City. The document was reviewed by the TAC, and a teleconference call (Meeting 3, see below) was held to obtain input from the TAC in order to complete the risk assessment and provide recommendations, and for feedback on the overall report.

Final Draft Watershed Assessment Report Golder incorporated changes based on one set of review comments from the City and TAC, into this second draft report, which was reviewed by the City of Revelstoke and the CACCI members of the TAC.

Final Watershed Assessment Report The final report incorporates comments from the Public Open House (Meeting 4, see below), the City, members of the Technical Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders.

Task 9: Project Meetings As identified previously, Golder allocated time for four project meetings consisting of i) a teleconference project initiation meeting, ii) a face-to-face 1-hr meeting with the representatives from the City of Revelstoke held on the same day as the field reconnaissance, iii) a teleconference meeting to present the results of the draft report to the Technical Advisory committee, and iv) a face-to-face meeting to present the draft results in an open house.

3.0 MODULE 1 – WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION The objectives of Module 1 from the CS2TA are outlined in Figure 1, and the following Sections assess and characterize Greeley Creek following this guideline.

Figure 1: Outline of Module 1 from the CS2TA (MHLS 2010).

Golder has delineated the Greeley Creek watershed contributing to the water intake and this is shown in Map 1 in Appendix A. The contributing watershed area is approximately 46.2 km2, which forms one part of the watershed assessment area (WAA). The second part of the WAA is the intake protection zone (Map 2, Appendix A). Golder has defined the intake protection zone as a 150 m radius around the intake site, which is

1. Delineate the Contributing Watershed

2. Define the Assessment Area

3. Characterize the Watershed

and Water Body

4. Evaluate the Integrity and

Location of the Intake






slightly larger than the recommended minimum of 100 m in the CS2TA. The larger radius for the intake protection zone accommodates recent forestry operations near the intake and recognizes the importance of the intake location.

3.1 Greeley Creek Watershed Setting 3.1.1 Geographic and Geomorphic Overview Greeley Creek drains a watershed area of approximately 47.7 km2 and discharges into Illecillewaet River approximately 8 km upstream of the confluence of the Illecillewaet with the Columbia River. Approximately 46.2 km2 of the watershed contributes to the water supply area. The watershed rises nearly 2,000 m in elevation from the Illecillewaet valley to Ghost Peak and Mount Mackenzie, which lie at approximately 2,490 m and 2,450 m elevation, respectively (Map 1, Appendix A). The watershed primarily has a north-facing aspect and drains the mountain slopes in a dendritic (branching) pattern. At the confluence with Illecillewaet River, the elevation is approximately 516 m and the City’s water intake is at an elevation of approximately 627 m.

Greeley Creek is situated within the Selkirk Mountains, which lie between the Monashee Mountains to the west and Purcell Mountains to the east. Collectively, these three ranges form part of the Columbia Mountains and Southern Rockies physiographic region (Valentine et al. 1994). Approximately 9 km to the west is the Columbia River (Arrow Lake) that separates the Selkirk and Monashee Mountains. This is a mountainous region in the province and is generally characterized by warm, moderately dry summers and cool-cold, moderately wet winters (Moore et al. 2010).

The existing landscape in and around Greeley Creek has been influenced by the last glaciation and the geomorphic processes that have occurred over the Holocene. In the alpine and headwater areas there are remnant glacial landforms such as cirques, arêtes, and tarns, and this area exhibits rugged and steep terrain. Ghost Peak is a horn situated above three cirques (two of which are in the Greeley Creek watershed and one of which is outside). Below the cirques, the stream channels in the watershed are generally steep and confined between even steeper banks and slopes, which is consistent with a geologically young system. On average, the main channel from above the intake up to the headwaters has a longitudinal gradient of approximately 12% and many of the reaches and tributary streams are even steeper.

Because Greeley Creek is steep and confined throughout the mid to upper reaches, it is incising into the parent material and transporting sediment downstream where an alluvial fan exists at its lowest reaches. Golder observed reaches near the intake and on the fan to characterize the bed form of Greeley Creek. The channel has a step-pool form (MoF 1996a) near the intake and the bedload is a mix of gravels and sands with large boulders up to approximately 1 m in diameter. Downstream of the intake on the fan, the channel has a shallow riffle form with a finer bedload composition (sands, gravels, and cobbles up to 0.3 m in diameter). The apex of the alluvial fan is located near the base of the mountains near to where the existing water intake is situated (approximately 627 m elevation). The fan has a total length of approximately 1.4 km, and the run-out toe abuts Illecillewaet River. On the alluvial fan, Greeley Creek is crossed by three bridges; two on local roads and the other on the CN mainline railway and there has been channel training works constructed upstream of the railway.






3.1.2 Bedrock Geology The Selkirk Mountains are one of the ranges that comprise the larger Columbia Mountains and Southern Rockies, which are noted to have complex bedrock geology (Valentine et al. 1994). According to the web-mapping available from the BC Geological Survey (Map 3, Appendix A), the bedrock geology in the watershed is from the Paleozoic Era, primarily Cambrian to Devonian. The lower watershed (following east-west Illecillewaet valley) consists of Devonian orthogneiss metamorphic rocks. The mid and high elevation portions of the watershed consist primarily of a mix of sedimentary rocks, Cambrian to Devonian, Lardeau Group (Index, Broadview, and Badshot Formations), including:

Mudstone;

Siltstone;

Shale;

Limestone;

Slate;

Argillite; and,

Calcareous Sedimentary Rock.

3.1.3 Biogeoclimatic Setting According to mapping available through GeoBC (Map 4, Appendix A) in the lower elevations of the watershed the biogeoclimatic zone is classified as Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH) and as elevations rise, the zones change to Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF) and Interior Mountain-heather Alpine (IMA). The forested areas of this watershed have wet-cool and wet-cold characteristics. Mapping suggest that stand-initiating natural disturbance events (NDT Type I) are rare, meaning that large events such as wildfire or insect infestations are uncommon in these ecosystems. Typical tree species in the watershed include western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), hybrid white spruce (Picea glauca x engelmannii), and western white pine (Pinus monticola). The lower and mid elevation areas of the watershed are forested and the upper watershed has subalpine and alpine areas with sparse or no trees present. Most of the forest vegetation is mature and there are younger, second growth stands developing in the slide tracks. The alpine areas accumulate heavy snow in the winter, and because the watershed has a north-facing aspect there may be some portions of the watershed that have snowpack all-year. The watershed includes an intact small glacier, located just to the east of Ghost Peak.

3.1.4 Fish Status Golder did not perform any fish sampling or investigation work specifically for this Plan, but the lower reaches of Greeley Creek have been previously confirmed as fish-bearing waters (MEC 1998). Fish sampling was not completed in the mid and upper reaches of the watershed in this study, but bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were observed and recorded in the lower, readily accessible reaches. The steep longitudinal gradient of the main channel (approximately 12% on average) could be a potential barrier to fish migration to upstream reaches at higher elevations. The only lakes in the watershed are high-elevation tarns, which will likely be nutrient-poor






(oligotrophic) and not fish-bearing. Fish presence in Greeley Creek can be a function or indicator of overall watershed health, but not necessarily linked to drinking water quality or quantity.

3.2 Greeley Creek Watershed Characterization The Greeley Creek watershed is a 4th order system with a total area of approximately 47.7 km2; above the City’s water intake the watershed area is approximately 46.2 km2. There are approximately 79 km of total stream length including the tributaries currently mapped above the intake, so the drainage density of Greeley Creek is 1.72 km/km2:

𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = ∑(𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ)𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎

= 79.28 𝑘𝑚46.19 𝑘𝑚2 = 1.72

𝑘𝑚𝑘𝑚2

There are limited climate and streamflow data available for Greeley Creek and the surrounding area. The closest climate station is near the Revelstoke Airport, approximately 9 km to the west of the watershed. The streamflow data record for Greeley Creek is discontinuous and incomplete. The following sections characterize the climate and streamflow information that were readily available.

3.2.1 Climate Climate data are not collected at the water intake site or in the upper watershed of Greeley Creek. The nearest data source is near the Revelstoke Airport operated by Environment Canada (Map 1, Appendix A). Details on this station are shown in Table 2. Golder has reviewed the most current available Climate Normals published online from 1971-20002 (Environment Canada 2012). The elevation of the water intake is approximately 177 m higher than this station.

Table 2: Environment Canada Climate Station for Revelstoke, BC. Station Name Climate ID Latitude Longitude Elevation

Revelstoke Airport Road 1176751 50° 57’ 12” 118° 09’ 59” 450 m

Figure 2 and Table 3 show the average monthly temperatures for this climate station. The daily average temperature ranges from -5.3°C in January to 18.2°C in July. The daily average minimum is -8.2°C and the daily average maximum is 25.3°C. The extreme minimum daily temperature is -29.4°C recorded on January 17, 1970 and the extreme daily maximum is 37.2°C recorded on June 26, 1992. There are distinct seasons recorded at this station, where the warmest months are June to August and the coldest months are December to February. Daily average temperatures recorded at this station begin a warming trend in April and May and stay warm until October when they begin to cool again. There is an orographic effect on temperature (Moore et al. 2010; Dingman 2005) and the higher elevations in this watershed will have a lag, with the warming trend occurring later than the recordings at this station.

2 Environment Canada 1981-2010 Climate Normals are not available at this time






Figure 2: Average monthly temperature recordings at Revelstoke Airport Road (Environment Canada 1971-2000).

Table 3: Values shown on Figure 2 (bold values are maximum and minimum).

Month Daily Minimum (°C) Daily Average (°C) Daily Maximum (°C)

January -8.2 -5.3 -2.2 February -5.9 -2.5 0.9 March -2.7 1.8 6.3 April 1.2 7.3 13.4 May 5.7 12.6 19.4 June 9.5 16.1 22.6 July 11.1 18.2 25.3 August 11.0 17.9 24.6 September 7.0 12.6 18.3 October 2.7 6.7 10.6 November -1.6 0.8 3.2 December -6.2 -3.8 -1.4

Figure 3 shows the rainfall, precipitation, and snowfall depths recorded at the Environment Canada climate station on Revelstoke Airport Road. The rainfall and precipitation depths (shown on the primary axis) are for average monthly values based on daily recordings. Precipitation values represent water equivalents for both snowfall and rainfall. The snowfall depths (shown on the secondary axis) are for average accumulated snowfall at the end of each month. Rainfall and precipitation fall throughout the year. Based on the period of record for this station, on average, snowfall has accumulated and been recorded for six months each year; typically November through April. Snowfall is the primary form of precipitation in the winter months (December to February) and rainfall is the primary form of precipitation from May through October. In an average year, this station has recorded 618 mm of rainfall and 946 mm of precipitation. The average depth of snow is approximately 4.25 m per year.

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Tem

pera

ture

(°C)

Daily Average Daily Maximum Daily Minimum






Figure 3: Average monthly rainfall, snowfall, and precipitation at Revelstoke Airport Road (Environment Canada 1971-2000).

There is also an intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curve published for the data collected at this climate station, and this has been included in Appendix F. IDF curves are a plot of rainfall intensity (ordinate) against rainfall duration (abscissa) for different hydrologic return periods. They are constructed using historical data and are frequently used to design municipal stormwater infrastructure. Environment Canada periodically updates the IDF curves, and if data is available, when compared over time these curves can be used to identify shifts in rainfall characteristics due to changing climate conditions or other local factors.

The Environment Canada climate station is situated along the Columbia River near the Revelstoke Airport (Map 1, Appendix A), lower in elevation, and approximately 9 km west of Greeley Creek. Because there is a significant elevation gain of approximately 2,000 m and the watershed has a north-facing aspect there will be differences to the temperatures and total precipitation values described. It can be inferred that the headwaters and higher elevation areas will generally be colder, have more snowfall, and a longer winter season (Moore et al 2010; Eaton and Moore 2010). As elevations decrease in the watershed, more similarity can be inferred to the data recorded at this station and only the climate trends discussed above can be projected for the watershed area of Greeley Creek.

3.2.2 Water Use and Streamflow The City’s WTP was constructed in 2000 and the City provided Golder with water use3 data recorded from 2001 through 2011 (Figures 4 and 5 and Appendix G; January and February 2001 data not included in these Figures). Monthly water use levels are generally consistent from year-to-year over this period and the highest water demand is from May through September. The peak months for these years has been July or August, where on average approximately 248,500 m3 of water is supplied to the City from the WTP. From October through March, the average monthly water use is approximately 165,000 m3. During this period, the average total annual water use in the City is approximately 2,220,000 m3.

3 The term “water use” is used in this report to generally describe the amount of water being supplied to the City from the WTP. It may not be directly consumed by customers as there are other factors, such as water loss in the distribution system, which may account for some of this water volume.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Snow

fall

Dept

h (m

m)

Rain

and

Pre

cipi

tatio

n De

pth

(mm

)

Rainfall Precipitation Snowfall






Figure 4: City of Revelstoke monthly water consumption from 2001-2011.

Figure 5: City of Revelstoke annual water consumption from 2001-2011 (Jan. and Feb. missing in 2001).

Because of its physiographic location and hydrologic characteristics, Greeley Creek is characterized by a snowmelt dominated hydrologic regime. The peak of the annual hydrograph typically occurs at some point in the late spring or early summer months. From the late summer through to the early spring, typical streamflow in Greeley Creek will be low. Base flow likely occurs in either late summer (September) or mid-winter (January-February) depending on how dry the summers or how cold the winters have been. If the base flows were to ever drop below the City’s water demand for a period of time, there could be a water deficit if the supply and storage cannot be sustained.

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Wat

er C

onsu

mpt

ion

(m3 )

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Wat

er C

onsu

mpt

ion

(m3 )






Streamflow data have been recorded for Greeley Creek by two agencies: the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) and the City, with monitoring locations shown on Map 2 in Appendix A. In 1984 and 1985, two hydrometric stations were established and data were recorded for one year by the WSC. These stations, listed in Table 4, and shown on Map 2 in Appendix A are now discontinued. Current City employees were not aware of these stations, where they were established, and why they were only recorded for one year. Daily streamflow data are presented in Figure 6, which shows that the recorded peaks in Greeley Creek were 7.52 m3/s on June 27, 1984 (#08ND021) and 9.17 m3/s on May 25, 1985 (#08ND024). The dates of these peaks are consistent with the climate data assessed and the hydrologic regime. At higher elevations, heavy winter snowfall is kept in storage until warming temperatures are sustained long enough to begin melting the snowpack. The rising flow in the spring months from snowmelt is termed ‘freshet,’ and the peak timing will vary from year-to-year but will likely occur between late May and July. After freshet flows recede, the streamflow decreases through the summer months to a base flow level. These data are limited, but the summer base flows recorded by the WSC in 1984 and 1985 are approximately 1-1.5 m3/s. Greeley Creek has high elevations and a northern aspect, along with an existing (small) glacier, which will all contribute to late summer and fall base flows.

Table 4: WSC Hydrometric Stations on Greeley Creek. Station

ID Station Name Latitude Longitude Drainage Area (km2) Record Length

08ND021 Greeley Creek Above Diversion 51° 0’ 35” 118° 3” 37” 47.0 Apr. 19 - Oct. 3, 1984 08ND024 Greeley Creek Near The Mouth 51° 1’ 2” 118° 3” 40” 47.6 Apr. 30 - Oct. 1, 1985

Figure 6: WSC hydrometric flow data on Greeley Creek from stations 08ND021 and 08ND024.

Current water use by the City is approximately 2,220,000 m3 for an average year (CoR 2012). Using the data available from the WSC for these hydrometric stations, mass curves were constructed showing the cumulative flow volume from the daily values (Figure 7). These data do not represent a full year because of the partial data set, but it is clear that the flow volume in Greeley Creek surpasses the City demand. In the periods of record for 1984 and 1985, more than 35,000,000 m3 of water flowed through Greeley Creek each year, which is more than 16 times the City’s average water consumption. Although this appears to be a large surplus, the hydrologic

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

19-A

pr

26-A

pr

3-M

ay

10-M

ay

17-M

ay

24-M

ay

31-M

ay

7-Ju

n

14-Ju

n

21-Ju

n

28-Ju

n

5-Ju

l

12-Ju

l

19-Ju

l

26-Ju

l

2-Au

g

9-Au

g

16-A

ug

23-A

ug

30-A

ug

6-Se

p

13-S

ep

20-S

ep

27-S

ep

Daily

Flo

w (m

3 /s)

08ND021 (1984) 08ND024 (1985)






regime of Greeley Creek dictates the timing of flows and there could be potential times throughout the year (namely winter low flows) that may not sustain the demand. Storage is one way to alleviate any deficits, but the City only has two reservoirs with a combined capacity of approximately 6,820 m3. Therefore, periods of low flow or even drought in Greeley Creek are a potential risk associated with climate change to be considered, and as such, have been included within the assessment of potential impacts related to projected climate change (Section 3.6).

Figure 7: Mass curves using WSC data from stations 08ND021 and 08ND024.

Since 2007, the City has been collecting flow measurements on Greeley Creek at the bridge crossing on Greeley Road approximately 1.2 km downstream from the intake site at an elevation of approximately 528 m (Map 2, Appendix A). Dayton & Knight Ltd. completed an analysis on the initial two years of data and made recommendations on water management (D&K 2009); one of which was to complete this water management plan, now being completed by Golder. The City provided Golder with the monitoring data for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012 (Appendix H). Data (if collected) from 2010 and 2011 were not provided. Figure 8 shows the data from these years, but it is noted that these data are not continuous and there are many days missing. A technician from the City visits the site periodically to record depth and velocity measurements from the bridge, and a flow estimate is derived by the velocity-area method. The data presented on Figure 8 are incomplete and no inferences have been made to assume flows between days or missed recordings. In 2007 there were 41 site visits, in 2008 there were 33, in 2009 there were 7, and in 2012 there were 13. The recorded peaks are between 5.1-7.6 m3/s and occurred between May 30 and July 4 during these years. Due to the data gaps, there is no certainty that the timing of the site visits aligned with the actual peak. Although these data are sparse, the general trend is consistent with the WSC hydrometric station data. Freshet peaks in Greeley Creek can be expected to occur between late May and July, and outside of the rising and falling limbs of the annual hydrograph the watershed will primarily be conveying base flows.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

Cum

ulat

ive

Flow

Vol

ume

(m3 )

08ND021 (1984) 08ND024 (1985)






Figure 8: City of Revelstoke available streamflow data on Greeley Creek.

The City streamflow data show measurements made outside the months recorded by the WSC. There is great value in having measurements completed throughout the year in order to see the full annual hydrograph and hydrologic regime of the system. Depending on the type of device used to measure water velocity there could be errors and limitations at low water depths; however, from the data collected by the City, base flows were estimated to be in the range of approximately 0.25-0.40 m3/s (or 250-400 L/s). These base flows are above the current treatment and supply capacity of the City’s water treatment plan (175 L/s) by 43-129%. These measurements represent only a small sample in time and the City should strongly consider setting up a more permanent monitoring station.

3.2.3 Water Quality Raw water quality in Greeley Creek is sampled by the City and tested once per year by an independent laboratory. The 2012 test results are included for reference in Appendix I.

A review of water quality testing is outside the scope of work for this Plan, as it is covered in Module 5 (Audit Water Quality and Availability) of the CS2TA; however, Golder reviewed the results of the 2012 in order to assess the general quality of the source water. Based on the analytical chemistry results for the sample taken on December 4, 2012, the raw water quality in Greeley Creek is considered good, with none of the parameters analyzed for, including turbidity, exceeding the GCDWQ. Total coliforms were detected; however, these are not used as indicators of potential health effects from pathogenic microorganisms, but rather they are used as an operational tool to assess effectiveness of a drinking water treatment system.

3.3 Greeley Creek Watershed Air Photo Review Golder requested air photos available from the Geographic Information Centre (GIC) at the University of BC Department of Geography and obtained five flights from 1951 through 1984. Refer to Table 5 showing the flight years and photo numbers. The Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) office in

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

29-Nov 18-Jan 9-Mar 28-Apr 17-Jun 6-Aug 25-Sep 14-Nov 3-Jan 22-Feb

Flow

(m3 /

s)

2007 Data 2008 Data 2009 Data 2012 Data






Revelstoke also provided Golder with a more recent flight from 1996. These flight lines are also shown in Table 5, along with Golder’s observations and comments for all the photos. Along with this air photo review, Golder has also reviewed the current imagery available in Google™ Earth.

Table 5: Summary of Air Photos Reviewed for Greeley Creek Watershed Source Protection Plan. Flight Year

Photo Numbers / Flight Lines

Air Photo Observations and Comments

1951 A 13246 No. 205-207

- Photos only cover southern (high elevation) portion of watershed - Flight coverage does not include present intake location - Headwaters of Greeley Creek has multiple cirque, arête, and tarn features from

past glaciers and glacial processes - Watershed drainage pattern is dendritic - No roads or resource activity observed in mid or upper watershed - There are steep erosional features (tracks) from avalanches and/or mass

movements in the headwaters - Majority of watershed has mature forest cover; except high elevation alpine

areas in headwaters - There are steep tributaries to main channel along east valley slopes

1952 A 13491 No. 62-64

- Coverage is for full watershed - There is a large disturbance area (possible fire) in the forest vegetation on the

east, lower-mid slope of the watershed - There are no discernible changes since 1951 in upper watershed - Current intake and access road not constructed

1961

BC4002: No. 171-177 - Three flight lines completed at a larger scale - There are two landslide scars in the large disturbance area noted in 1952 - There is a bank failure on the left bank of Greeley Creek in the lower reach of

the channel (upstream of current intake location) - Glacier to the east of Ghost Peak is visible and intact - There appears to be very few changes from the 1951/52 photos - Current intake and access road not constructed

BC4003: No. 174-181

BC4004: No. 19-26

1970 BC5378 No. 81-83

- There are possibly two bank failures in the watershed: one on the main Greeley Creek channel and one on a steep tributary

- Still very few changes from the 1951/52 photos - Current intake and access road not constructed

1984 BC84030 No. 33-35

- There are forest roads and cutblocks on and near the top of the alluvial fan (primarily in Illecillewaet valley)

- Road to current intake location appears to be cut in but ponds or infrastructure are not visible

- Forest disturbance area in lower watershed has ‘greened-up’ - Another landslide is visible at the top of this large disturbance area, which flows

down into a tributary stream - No discernible changes in the upper watershed

1996

BCB96042 No. 18-21 - Photos do not cover all of headwater/alpine area - Additional logging area added to cutblock visible in 1984 photo, up to current

intake area that is clearly visible - A settling pond has been constructed at intake site - No discernible changes in the upper watershed

BCB96042 No. 59-61

BCB96042 No. 100-103

n/a Google™ Earth

- Image resolution and coverage is good (photo year is labelled 2011 in mid and lower watershed; 2001 in high elevations)

- No discernible changes in the upper watershed - Intake, settling ponds, and Water Treatment Plant are constructed - Low elevation forest cutblocks have ‘greened-up’ - A new resource road has been constructed above the right bank above the

intake; approximately 150 m upslope from intake






3.4 Greeley Creek Municipal Water Intake Golder performed a site visit on November 20, 2012 to the City’s water intake on Greeley Creek with two City staff members: Penny Page-Brittin (Environmental Sustainability Coordinator/Project Manager) and John Buhler (Utility Person/Relief Foreman). Selected representative photos from this site visit are included in Appendix B. Golder did not review design or construction record drawings of the intake site and the following discussion is based on Golder’s site observations.

3.4.1 Description of Water Intake Access to the City water intake (and Water Treatment Plant) is off Greeley Road and the entrance is gated and locked with signage indicating that access is for Authorized Personnel Only and No Trespassing (refer to photo in Appendix B). The turnoff is located in a rural location and there is minimal developed land nearby. The start of the access road is also at the beginning of an active resource road and requires crossing the CP mainline railway. The water intake site is located approximately 1.3 km up the access from the turnoff and this access road does not go anywhere else (Map 2, Appendix A).

The water intake is a relatively simple hydraulic structure situated on the left bank of Greeley Creek near the apex of the alluvial fan at an elevation of approximately 627 m. There is a sliding gate intake on the left bank that can be controlled by an adjustable in-stream weir structure. The weir is comprised of segmental concrete blocks (“Lock-Blocks®”) that have notches cut for large timber ties to be placed across the stream. As streamflow changes the weir height can be adjusted to back-water the channel and ensure water is supplied through the gate. The timber ties are placed with a one-tonne overhead crane that is mounted at the site. Approximately 5 m downstream of the weir are constriction walls on both banks, which are constructed of two rows of segmental concrete blocks. The walls constrict the channel from approximately 7 m down to 3 m in width. Golder has assumed that these constriction walls are a hydraulic control on the streamflow, which assists in back-watering the channel at different stages. There is a large precast concrete pad (bed) immediately downstream of these constriction walls and downstream of this pad is a vertical drop of approximately 1 m down to what is assumed to be the natural channel bed.

The intake system has two settling ponds upstream of the Water Treatment Plant and water from Greeley Creek flows through the sliding gate control into the first settling pond. There is second sliding gate control between the first and second settling ponds. The first settling pond has a surface area of approximately 300 m2 with a gravel (natural) bed. There are two hydraulic controls on this pond:

1) Level control with overflow channel and direct connection back to Greeley Creek; and,

2) Sliding gate control with connection to second settling pond.

The second settling pond has a surface area of approximately 1,500 m2 with a concrete floor and gravel side slopes. The concrete floor is sloped to a low-point near the downstream end of the pond adjacent a manhole structure that contains a screen and intake pipe to the Water Treatment Plant. There is also a level control on this pond that flows back into Greeley Creek.

The City performs annual maintenance in both settling ponds to clean out sediment accumulation and ensure the system is functioning properly. Anecdotally, this is typically performed in the fall when flows recede and the ponds are readily accessible. During this time the demand for water use from City customers also recedes and there may potentially be less risk if the system must be shut down for maintenance.






3.4.2 Evaluation of Water Intake One of the objectives in Module 1 of CS2TA is to evaluate the integrity and location of the intake. Based on Golder’s observations, Table 6 provides an evaluation of the Greeley Creek water intake.

Table 6: Evaluation of Greeley Creek Water Intake. Factor Comments and Evaluation

Location and Depth

- The intake is located near the apex of the alluvial fan, which should generally be a stable channel location

- The intake is located at an elevation of approximately 627 m, which provides enough static head to feed the City by gravity without the need for power (pumping)

- The depth of the two settling ponds appeared adequate at approximately 1 to 1.5 m, which is shallow enough to easily dredge and deep enough for settling and ice

Design

- Overall intake design is simple and effective - The adjustable in-stream weir provides adaptability to different streamflow stages - The sliding gate valves are readily accessible and provide control (these should be

periodically operated to ensure they don’t seize) - There are level and overflow controls on both settling ponds

Accessibility

- The water intake is approximately 8 km east of the City administrative boundary - There is a single site access road off of Greeley Road, which is gated and locked - The weir, intake, and settling ponds are easily accessible by personnel, vehicles, and

equipment for operation and maintenance - The site is generally accessible by others who want to get in - There are no physical barriers to wildlife accessibility and migration

Flow

- Flow conveyance into and through the intake and settling ponds appears adequate - There are level controls and overflows in ponds allowing for circulation - The second settling pond has a sloped concrete floor to allow for maintenance and

improve water circulation

Stability and Erosion

- There are no obvious signs of instability or erosion - The site is situated at the apex of the alluvial fan, so the channel is generally stable - Through construction, the site has been graded and there is riprap armouring and

segmental concrete blocks to reduce and general stability risks

Sedimentation - Both settling ponds are very accessible by Public Works crews and equipment to

remove sediment accumulations - The concrete floor in the second settling pond allows for efficient cleaning

Ice

- Due to the elevation and geographic location, it is expected that ice could form on the surface layer of these settling ponds (not observed by Golder)

- The level controls on the two ponds allow for water circulation to reduce ice buildup - The water depths in both ponds appear adequate to avert freezing risks - The settling ponds are open to the environment with no physical cover

Protection

- Although this is a rural location and signage exists at the beginning of the road, the intake site is accessible by people that may want to see or access this area

- There is no perimeter fencing or physical barriers - Wildlife can easily access the intake and settling ponds - Ski tracks have reportedly been seen at the intake site

3.5 Greeley Creek Watershed Intrinsic Hazards There are intrinsic hazards to the Greeley Creek watershed that are described below and included in the Drinking Water Hazard Identification Table 7 (at end of text) (Hazard No. 1-1 to 1-8).






Intrinsic hazards can derive from many factors and are site specific to the watershed’s natural characteristics. They are important to identify so that the City is aware of the nature and character of them, so they can monitor and manage their source water supply accordingly. The following section provides a brief account of the intrinsic hazards that have been identified for Greeley Creek.

3.5.1 Wildfire Wildfires occur in BC every year and although some are caused by human errors many are caused by seasonal weather conditions, when hot and dry spells are followed by lightning storms. Naturally occurring wildfires are not preventable and this is a hazard that the City needs to be aware because of the associated risks to water quality and quantity. The City recently completed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Golder reviewed a draft version of this document (MLI et al. 2011). Greeley Creek was not specifically addressed in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, as the watershed is outside the administrative boundary of the City, but many of the conclusions and fire risk ratings can be applied because of the similar climate, ecosystem, and physiographic characteristics. The forested ecosystems in the watershed (ICH and ESSF) are generally wet and cool, and have rare stand-initiating natural disturbance events. During the air photo review a large disturbance area was identified (in 1952 photo) in the watershed that was possibly a wildfire. Possible effects of wildfire on Greeley Creek include (Pike et al. 2010a; Winkler et al. 2010):

The loss of mature forests, riparian vegetation, and understory vegetation;

The exposure of mineral soil layers and loss of forest humus and organics;

The potential for hydrophobic soils that reduce infiltration capabilities and can increase runoff;

The use of chemical retardants and foams in fires suppression operations;

The resulting changes to the hydrologic regime of Greeley Creek; and,

The possibility of stream channel instability and movements.

Wildfire Risk assessments have not been conducted for the entire WAA; however, some areas were included in wildfire risk mapping conducted as part of the most recent Revelstoke and Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan (MLI, 2011), and a Fire Smart assessment of the area around water intake was conducted by The City of Revelstoke Utilities, Revelstoke Fire Rescue Services, related Forest agencies and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan consultant in the fall of 2012. Although areas of moderate to high fire risk were identified by MLI (2011), as shown on Map 10 (Appendix A), results of the Fire Smart assessment indicated that the City of Revelstoke Water Treatment facility is considered a low hazard area for wildfires and fuel hazards in the area did not merit fuel management due to the amount of soil moisture, the young open deciduous stand of trees adjacent to the water treatment plant and the lack of ladder fuels in the older forests, which is of a self-pruning type (Girard 2013, pers. comm.).

However, there is the potential for wildfires to impact large areas of watershed, and it is noted that the community wildfire protection plan does not include drinking water risks (MLI 2011). It is understood that wildfire protection in the WAA is outside of the jurisdiction of the City due to the fact that the BC MoE Stewardship Branch is responsible for wildfire management and BC Wildfire Management Branch is responsible for wildfire protection; therefore, there is the potential for the communication structure to increase the risk of impact to the drinking water supply as a result of wildfire. In addition, lack of access and steep slopes increase difficulty in






controlling wildfires within the WAA, and the recently proposed Revelstoke Adventure Park could result in increased access to the WAA and bordering areas by the public and increased risk for human-initiated wildfires.

3.5.2 Wildlife Greeley Creek is a natural and undeveloped watershed that could provide habitat and migration corridors for many animals. Larger animals, like ungulates, can cross streams which may cause minor amounts of erosion or turbidity problems. Animal use and habitat within the intake protection zone is another hazard to consider. Wildlife, including birds, can be carriers or vectors for some serious pathogenic microorganisms such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and cholera that can all cause serious health problems for humans.

3.5.3 Mass Movements Terrain stability mapping has been previously completed for Greeley Creek and this shows many areas that are ‘potentially unstable’ and ‘unstable’ (Map 5, Appendix A). Based on the air photo review, there is evidence of landslides in the watershed and some of these reach the stream network, which introduces sediment into the system in episodic pulses. A large amount of sediment in the system can be significant concern to water quality and stream processes. This can also be a concern at the water intake, settling ponds, and Water Treatment Plant, where there could be more costs associated with operations and maintenance.

3.5.4 Avalanches Greeley Creek is a relatively high-elevation watershed with significant snowpack during the winter; there are also areas that have snow all year. Avalanches have occurred in the headwater areas by evidence of the avalanche tracks and scars on the steep slopes. When an avalanche is large enough to cut down to soil and rock, or even up-root trees and vegetation, the potential effects to water quality are similar to mass movement and sediments can be introduced to the stream network, as well as the tarn lakes.

3.5.5 Windthrow As much of the watershed area is forested, another hazard exists in windthrow (or blowdown). No evidence of this was found in the air photo review, but the watershed is steep and forested with potential for significant wind flow over ridges or up the valley. Windthrow hazards are related to the loss of mature forest cover, exposure of mineral soils, and increased sediment dynamics. When windthrow occurs adjacent stream channels the effects could be intensified and there are hazards for log jams and blockages in the channel.

3.5.6 Stream Channel Stability The main and tributary channels in the watershed are generally steep and confined, so large lateral movements are unlikely to occur because the channel control is from the parent material. Localized erosion or bank failures caused by either high flood stages or unstable soil and rock masses along the banks are more likely to occur, which was supported in the air photo review. These types of failures can introduce larges pulses of sediment into the system and can be a problem for water quality and treatment. The main channel on the alluvial fan is






downstream of the water intake, so with regard to the City’s water supply there is a lower degree of concern for channel stability along this reach.

3.5.7 Forest Insects and Disease BC has recent experience with large insect infestations, where the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) has been affecting forests over much of the interior for approximately the last decade. Large insect infestations can create hazards and changes to watersheds and their processes (Winkler et al. 2010). Potential forest insects and disease that could be present and a hazard to Greeley Creek include the spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis), western hemlock looper (Lambdina fiscellaria lugubrosa), white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi), and laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii) amongst others. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) conduct annual aerial forest health surveys and the findings are summarized in publicly available reports and maps (MFLNRO, 2011). A review of pest information within the WAA from publicly available digital mapping (imapBC) indicates the following were present (Map 4, Appendix A):

Western Balsam Bark Beetle infestation areas:

13 ha, recorded in 2007; 47.96 ha, recorded in 2006; 18.69 ha, recorded in 2006; 4.44 ha, recorded in 2005; and, 20.97 ha, recorded in 2005.

Mountain Pine Beetle infestation area:

16.45 ha, noted in 2006

Forest Fire area:

18.39 ha, recorded in 2006

3.5.8 Climate Change The potential for, and impact of, climate change is still being studied by many agencies and institutions, but as climate changes there are direct impacts to watersheds (Pike et al. 2010). Causes of climate change can be argued to be either intrinsic or anthropogenic, but because the City has no control on regulations or policies at a global scale (which is the scale for most climate change models), for the purposes of this plan, climate change itself is considered an intrinsic hazard. More information and discussion on climate change impacts is discussed below in Section 3.6.

3.6 Greeley Creek Watershed and Projected Climate Change Based on discussions between Golder, the City and the TAC, it was collectively decided that the climate projections from the Plan2Adapt tool from the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC 2012) would be used to define the one climate change scenario included in this Plan. The Plan2Adapt tool is available online and can be customized to different regions, time periods, and seasons. The climate change scenario up to the year 2050






that is specific to the Columbia-Shuswap region is shown in Table 8. More information and details can be found from the PCIC, but this table represents climate projections from multiple Global Climate Models (GCMs).

Table 8: Summary of Climate Change Impacts for the Columbia-Shuswap in the 2050's (PCIC 2012).

Climate Variable Season Projected Change from 1961-1990 Baseline4

Ensemble Median Range (10th to 90th Percentile)

Mean Temperature (°C) Annual +1.8 +1.2 to +2.7

Total Precipitation (%) Annual Summer5 Winter6

+5 -6 +9

-3 -18 -2

to +11 +1 +17

Snowfall (%) Winter Spring7

-6 -47

-13 -70 to +5

-4 Growing Degree Days8 Annual +285 +154 to +433 Heating Degree Days9 Annual -649 -992 to -414 Frost-Free Days10 Annual +23 +15 to +35

The projected ranges for some of these climate variables show a significant range, which is reflective of the uncertainty in large-scale and complex models. Considering the ensemble median shown in Table 8, the annual mean temperature is for an increase of 1.8°C, which would correspondingly shift upwards the daily average line shown on Figure 2 (Section 3.2.1 of this report). Temperatures in December and January would be slightly warmer and closer to 0°C, and there would generally be a longer summer and longer growing season. This potential change could have an effect on the quantity of water and the timing of streamflow, and there could be associated affects to water quality.

Precipitation projections are expected to increase on an annual basis in the ensemble median, but there is a variation in seasons where values in the summer are projected to decrease and values in the winter are expected to increase. For the security of the Greeley Creek watershed and the City’s water supply, this provides uncertainty and a hazard that must be recognized. The percentage of snowfall in the winter and spring is anticipated to decrease and this creates additional uncertainty and hazards the City needs to recognize.

4 Projections relate to the 1961-1990 baseline period and are drawn from a set of 30 Global Climate Model (GCM) projections based on results from 15 different GCMs. Each model runs a high and a lower greenhouse gas emissions scenario. Neither scenario incorporates the effects of international agreements on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, though other socio-economic factors like population growth are modelled. Each GCM comes from a different modeling centre (e.g. the Hadley Centre (UK), National Centre for Atmospheric Research (USA), Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (USA), and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia), etc.). 5 Summer is defined as June, July and August. 6 Winter is defined as December, January and February. 7 Spring is defined as March, April and May. 8 Growing Degree Days (GDDs): Indicates the amount of heat energy available for plant growth. Calculated by multiplying the number of days that the mean daily temperature exceeded 5°C by the number of degrees above that threshold. For example, if a given day saw an average temperature of 8°C (3°C above the 5°C threshold), that day contributed 3 GDDs to the total. 9 Heating Degree Days (HDDs): A useful variable for indicating energy demand (i.e. the need to heat homes, etc.). Calculated by multiplying the number of days that the average (mean) daily temperature is below 18°C by the number of degrees below that threshold. For example, if a given day saw an average (mean) temperature of 14°C (4°C below the 18°C threshold), that day contributed 4 HDDs to the total. 10 Frost-Free Days: Refers to the number of days that the minimum daily temperature stayed above 0°C. Useful for determining the suitability of growing certain crops in a given area.






The climate projections shown in Table 8 are broad and include a large geographic region. To supplement this published work by the PCIC, Golder reviewed more detailed data using the ClimateWNA11 software tool (Wang et al. 2012) to consider projected climate variables within the watershed assessment area to the year 2050. The data extracted were based on a digital elevation model (DEM) for the WAA (GeoBase 2012), historic climate data for the period 1961 to 1990 generated by PRISM12, and the climate change scenario CGCM313 A2 run 4. The A2 scenario14 assumes that greenhouse gas emissions rise unabated and are nearly five times more than they were in 1990 and generates medium to high CO2 emissions in comparison to other Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) story lines. The specified historic time frame and climate projection scenario were selected because they are widely used (Murdock and Spittlehouse 2011), and correspond to those used by the PCIC to create the regional maps of projected climate impacts at their Plan2Adapt website. This way, the local scale maps produced in this report may more easily be compared to the regional mapping available from Plan2Adapt, if desired.

Table 9 shows the results specific to the Greeley Creek watershed. The results shown in Table 9 are not directly comparable to the regional projections because this shows only one climate scenario specific to the watershed. The regional projections (Table 8) are median values from 30 different scenarios over the entire Columbia-Shuswap Region.

Table 9: Greeley Creek Watershed Projected Climate Variables to 2050 Using ClimateWNA. Climate Variable Season Baseline Projected (2050s) Change

Mean Temperature (°C) Annual 0.59 °C 2.95 °C +2.4 °C

Total Precipitation Annual Summer15 Winter16

1,794 mm 338 mm 655 mm

2,027 mm 329 mm 766 mm

+13% -2.7%

+16.8%

Snowfall Winter Spring17

628 mm 232 mm

669 mm 224 mm

+6.5% -3.2%

Growing Degree Days18 Annual 724 1,074 +350 Heating Degree Days19 Annual 6,335 5,486 -850 Frost-Free Days20 Annual 128 164 +36

11 ClimateWNA is a computer software program used to output high spatial resolution climate variables for locations in western North America based on latitude, longitude and elevation, by downscaling and integrating historical climate data and future climate data for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s which is generated by several global circulation models. It is noted that the climate data represent climate station data and are dependent on the accuracy and resolution of the PRISM data used. Small-scale climate features, local slope and aspect effects, and conditions within and under vegetation canopies and in streams are not represented (Wang et al. 2006). 12 Parameter-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (Daly et al. 2008). A climate mapping system, that uses point measurements of precipitation, temperature, and other climatic factors to produce continuous, digital grid estimates of monthly, yearly, and event-based climatic parameters. 13 Third Generation Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM3) developed by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) (Environment Canada, 2010). 14 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, or SRES (Nakicenovic et al. 2000). 15 Summer is defined as June, July and August. 16 Winter is defined as December, January and February. 17 Spring is defined as March, April and May. 18 Growing Degree Days (GDDs): Indicates the amount of heat energy available for plant growth. Calculated by multiplying the number of days that the mean daily temperature exceeded 5°C by the number of degrees above that threshold. For example, if a given day saw an average temperature of 8°C (3°C above the 5°C threshold), that day contributed 3 GDDs to the total. 19 Heating Degree Days (HDDs): A useful variable for indicating energy demand (i.e. the need to heat homes, etc.). Calculated by multiplying the number of days that the average (mean) daily temperature is below 18°C by the number of degrees below that threshold. For example, if a given day saw an average (mean) temperature of 14°C (4°C below the 18°C threshold), that day contributed 4 HDDs to the total. 20 Frost-Free Days: Refers to the number of days that the minimum daily temperature stayed above 0°C. Useful for determining the suitability of growing certain crops in a given area.






Maps showing the historic and projected changes in temperature and precipitation for the Greeley Creek Watershed are shown in Appendix A, as follows: Map 6 (Mean Annual Temperature and Precipitation), Map 7 (Summer and Winter Temperatures) and Map 8 (Summer and Winter Precipitation). In addition, plots of the monthly total precipitation and precipitation as snow for the historic time frame and future projections for the 2050s are provided in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively.

Figure 9: Monthly total precipitation in WAA for historic and projected future time frames

Figure 10: Monthly precipitation as snow in WAA for historic and projected future time frames

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Tota

l Pre

cipi

tatio

n (m

m)

Historic (1961-1990) Projected Future (2050s)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Prec

ipita

tion

as S

now

(mm

)

Historic (1961-1990) Projected Future (2050s)






Based on the analysis of projected climate change data for the WAA, the data are within the 10th to 90th Percentile Range of the regional projections, with the following exceptions:

Projected change in annual precipitation for Greeley Creek (+13%), is slightly above the Range for the region (-3% to +11%);

Projected change in winter snowfall for Greeley Creek (+6.5%), is slightly above the Range for the region (-13% to +5%); and,

Annual Frost-free days for Greeley Creek (+36) are slightly above the Range for the region (+15 to +35).

The objectives of climate change planning in watershed assessments are to identify the most critical (a) areas of potential affect and (b) areas of uncertainty to plan for future work (TRIG 2012). Based on a detailed discussion of nine broad potential climate change effects to watersheds in BC by Pike et al. (2010b) and potential impacts identified by CBT (2012a) possible effects on the Greeley Creek watershed consist of:

Changes to the temporal streamflow characteristics, including the potential for decrease in summer flow;

Changes to volume of streamflow in a given year;

Changes to the hydrologic regime and water balance in the watershed, including the potential for increase in droughts;

Changes to the mass balance of the existing glacier, with potential for decreased supply of summer runoff over time if the glacier is retreating (to Golder’s knowledge there are no studies or data to support a negative balance of the small glacier in the WAA);

Changes to hydrologic and watershed processes;

Changes to ecosystems, forest vegetation, and natural disturbances, including the potential for increases in landslides and higher wildfire risk; and,

Changes to water quality characteristics such as water temperature, chemical constituents, and pathogens, resulting from the other possible changes listed above.

Based on the information review conducted for this assessment, potential areas of uncertainty and data gaps include:

A lack of comprehensive, watershed-scale climate and hydrologic monitoring data (e.g., temperature, precipitation, stream flow, ground- and surface water quality, snow pack);

Uncertainty with respect to future water supply and demand; and,

The pace and type of future development in the WAA is unknown.

The presented climate change scenario and its inferred effects have been assessed within each of the completed modules of this Plan, in parallel with the assessment for current conditions. Potential drinking water hazards are listed in Table 7. Results of the risk assessment for the drinking water hazards for current conditions are presented in Table 16a (end of text) and summarized in Table 17a (in text), while results for the projected climate change scenario are presented in Table 16b (end of text) and summarized in Table 17b (in text). Potential adaptation strategies for these drinking water hazards were considered in development of the






recommended actions to improve drinking water protection presented in Section 6.0 (Module 8 of the CS2TA), and are summarized in Table 18 (end of text).

Although climate change projections are currently quite variable and there is relatively little local-scale data available, the City can still use the information to guide its policies and long-term water management plans, which are considered by Golder to be possible adaptation strategies for drinking water hazards.

4.0 MODULE 2 – CONTAMINANT SOURCE INVENTORY Module 2 examines the impacts from land use by humans within the WAA and identifies potential hazards from these land uses to the drinking water supply. Due to the limited access to the watershed, the contaminant source inventory was developed based of the results of the Data and Literature Review and a limited Field Reconnaissance, as described in Section 2.0. As such, the contaminant source inventory may have data gaps and should be considered preliminary. In addition, conditions in watersheds may change with time and as more information is gathered, the contaminant inventory should be updated periodically to reflect new conditions and information.

The following sections provide an assessment of the land use hazards identified within the WAA. The results of the hazard assessment are provided in the Table 7 (end of text) and a preliminary contaminant source inventory is provided in Table 10.

Table 10: Contaminant Inventory.

Hazard No.

Contaminant Source Type and Description

Owner/ Jurisdiction

Distance/ Direction from Intake

Possible Contaminants of Concern

Contaminant Transport Mechanism

1-1 Wildfire Crown Land N/A Fire retardants, Sediment

Overland flow, infiltration and subsurface transport

1-2 Wildlife Crown Land N/A Turbidity, Pathogenic micro-organisms

2-1 Forest Cut Block 17

Downie Street Sawmills Ltd.

130 m SE of intake, bordering Greeley Creek

Sediment, microbial, petroleum hydrocarbons (fuel), pesticide/ herbicides

2-2 Recreation (skiing)

RMR and tenure holders 1,000 m S

Oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, Sediment

The following provides a brief summary of the sources and impacts of the above identified potential drinking water contaminants identified for the watershed:

Sediment – Sediment supply and transport are natural processes in watersheds. Sediment is generated from processes like stream channel erosion, mass movements (e.g., landslides), large avalanches, and weathering of native bedrock or exposed mineral soils, which can result from wildfires. If land development is poorly planned, designed, or managed, anthropogenic factors can lead to increases in sediment supply and transport. Excessive amounts of sediment transport could lead to increased water treatment costs or






maintenance, problems at the water intake site, or other water quality concerns due to metals or organics being attached to the sediment;

Turbidity – Sediment and turbidity are not the same water quality characteristic and are not always derived from the same watershed process. Turbidity is a measure of the visual opacity of water based on the scattering or interruption of light, and is typically measured in units of Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Water turbidity is primarily caused from fine sediment such clays and silts, but it is also caused from factors such as organic matter, biological organisms, and chemical contaminants;

Pathogenic Micro-organisms – Microorganisms can include viruses, bacteria, and protozoans and can lead to human health issues in source water supplies. Some general examples that can be harmful to human health include Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and cholera. Fecal contamination from humans and animals in an aquatic environment is a common source of microorganisms; and,

Oils, greases, petroleum hydrocarbons, fire retardants and pesticides/herbicides – There are many of these types of contaminants that are harmful to water quality.. Many of these products can be toxic to humans and aquatic life with bioaccumulation of these products being a significant concern.

4.1 Existing Land Use in Watershed Assessment Area Golder conducted a review of existing land use in the WAA by conducting a GIS assessment of the Study Area (Appendix E) based on digital mapping from various sources, as outlined in the methods section, combined with supporting information obtained from the aerial photograph review, site reconnaissance, and personal communications.

Results of the information review and GIS assessment indicate that land use in the WAA is limited. A review of land ownership status shows that the watershed is comprised entirely of Crown land with some areas designated Commercial Recreation tenure for cat- and heli-skiing, and another portion having a reserve and notation tenure for alpine skiing (Map 8, Appendix A). No Crown Permits, Operating Agreements, Rights-of-Way (ROW), or Applications were identified within the WAA, nor were any survey parcels, ROW, or transportation surveys. Although used for recreation, the WAA is not designated as a park or protected area.

Greeley Creek is designated as a Community Watershed (CWS), defined as a watershed that has a water licence under the Water Act held by a community, having greater than 50% of the watershed within Crown land, and with a drainage area of less than 5,000 km2 (MoF 1996b). The objective of the CWS designation is to protect water that is intended for human consumption, while allowing multiple uses within a watershed area. The CWS Code for the Greeley Creek watershed is #360.003.

A review of licences and permits indicated that there are no range tenures, communication sites, or forest road segments within the WAA; however, small portions of the WAA are covered by two forest licences, located along the east and west boundaries of the lower watershed, and one mineral claim located to the south of the WAA, which overlaps the upper boundary of the watershed. Areas of the WAA have been designated as placer and mineral reserves; however, no coal reserves or petroleum titles were identified.

Currently, land use within the WAA is limited to forestry and recreation, which are discussed in the following sub-sections.






4.1.1 Forestry 4.1.1.1 Potential Impacts Forestry operations may have significant impacts on the water quality, water quantity, and fish habitat depending on the harvesting activities and operational and road building/maintenance procedures (MoF 1996b).

Water quantity may be impacted by forest development as a result of changes to the local water balance through the loss of forest cover and mature trees. Impacts to the local hydrology in clear-cut forest stands may occur due to a decrease in canopy interception of precipitation and a decrease in evapotranspiration associated with the loss of mature trees. These, in turn, may result in increased precipitation reaching the ground with a corresponding increase in soil moisture and overland runoff. An increase in radiation (or sunlight) reaching the snow cover may also occur.

Interior BC streams are typically snow-dominated systems that are controlled by freshet flows (peak flows in the spring caused by the melting of the snowpack). Clear-cut harvesting may result in larger peak flows during freshet due to increases in snow pack (more stored water available to the streams) and faster and earlier melting of the snow pack due to increased radiation. The extent of changes to the steam hydrology is typically dependent on local watershed conditions and the intensity of forestry activities.

Water quality may be impacted in a number of ways as a result of forest development and harvesting. Increases to sediment input and turbidity in water courses are the most apparent water quality impacts related to forestry. Direct sediment input may result during road construction, road maintenance, and from forestry-related landslides. Surface erosion from road surfaces, ditchlines, culvert sites, stream crossings and cutblock areas may also increase the magnitude of sediment input. Increases in stream peak flows, described above or changes in drainage patterns, may also result in increased levels of erosion and sediment production along stream beds and stream banks.

Other impacts to water quality may include increases in chemical parameters such as organic carbon, metals, and nutrients and changes in water colour due to due to these changes in chemistry. Nutrient enrichment may be related to fertilizers and pesticides if used in forestry operations. The abundance of pathogens may also increase due to changes in water quality. The temperature and pH of water may also be affected.

Forest harvesting may also result in the removal of natural buffers/barriers to riparian areas. Impacts to riparian vegetation in some cases may allow increased access to the stream by livestock, wildlife and recreational vehicles (ATVs, motorcycles etc.).

4.1.1.2 Regulation of Forestry Activities Forestry activities in BC are governed by the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) (Queens Printer 2013), which replaced the 1995 Forest Practices Code and took effect on January 31, 2004 (updated January 2, 2013). Under FRPA, licencees are required to prepare Forest Stewardship Plans (FSP) that specify results and strategies to meet pre-defined government objectives with respect to; soil, timber, wildlife, fish, water, biodiversity, cultural heritage resources, recreation resources, and visual quality. It is noted that licencees have additional responsibilities in watersheds designated as CWS, such as Greeley Creek (MoF 1996b).






4.1.1.3 Forestry Activities in WAA Two timber agreements were identified within the WAA (Table 11).

Table 11: Timber Agreements within Watershed Assessment Area.

Company License ID Licence Type Cutting Permit ID

Cut Block ID Status

Downie Street Sawmills Ltd. A31102 Forest Licence 856 17 Active

Revelstoke Mountain Resort Inc. (RMR) L47278 Licence to Cut - A Active

Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR) holds a Licence to Cut within the alpine ski tenure area of the WAA (Map 8, Appendix A). This type of non-transferrable agreement is issued within a Crown land tenure, typically for a period of three years or less, that allows the holder to harvest Crown timber for a stumpage fee (Cortex 2001).

Downie Street Sawmills Ltd. (Downie) holds a Forest License. This is a volume-based tenure that allows for harvest of an annual volume of timber, known as an Annual Allowable Cut (AAC), within a Timber Supply Area (TSA) under cutting permits. The Downie licence A31102 pertains to the Revelstoke Timber Supply Area of the Columbia Forest District. A Forest Licence is issued for a period of less than twenty years and is replaceable every five years (Cortex 2001). In the fall of 2012, Downie conducted harvesting within the watershed in the area comprising Cutting Permit 856, Block 17 (CP856-17), as shown on Map 2 and Map 8 (Appendix A) and observed during Golder’s Site Reconnaissance, discussed in Section 3.4.1 and shown in Photographs within Appendix B. Based on information provided by Downie, the harvested area comprising Block 17 within the WAA is 3.1 ha (estimated using GIS). Based on discussion with Mr. Dieter Offermann, Planning Forester for Downie, harvesting has been completed in Block 17 and the area is scheduled for replanting in 2013. Mr. Offermann indicated that access to Block 17 was established via an existing road that was upgraded in the last two years and that Block 17 is a low risk site from geotechnical point of view.

There were recent forestry operations conducted within the northern tip of the Greeley Creek watershed (near the surface water intake); which Golder observed during the site visit on November 20, 2012. A new resource road was visible in the 2011 imagery from Google™ Earth. Mapping provided by Downie Timber indicates this road is called 8000.320 and it is a short spur road approximately 773 m in length. The elevation of the landing at the end of this road is approximately 695 m. This road accesses Downie Timber Cutting Permit 856-17 (cutblock) that was harvested in 2012. Part of this cutblock is located within the contributing watershed area of the water intake and sample photos have been included in Appendix B. The cutblock was designed with the bottom (northwestern) boundary along the top of a steep slope above Greeley Creek. There is a forested riparian management area or “buffer” of approximately 50 m (not measured) between the cutblock and the channel. The ground slope in this buffer is very steep at approximately 100%. On top of the slope, within the cutblock, is a flat terrace approximately 20 to 30 m wide. The hillslope rises above this terrace and the top (southeastern) cutblock is approximately 250 m up the slope.

The closest edge of the cutblock to the water intake is approximately 150 m and the cutblock is visible from the access road to the water intake. Forestry operations can have associated hazards such as soil displacement, sediment delivery, and hydrocarbons from equipment. Because the northwestern boundary of the cutblock is located on top of such a steep slope, there could also be a windthrow hazard along this edge and there was evidence of overturned trees and exposed soils. It is understood that Downie plans to minimize the impact of the






harvesting by planting the cut block and initiating silviculture in early 2013, using no herbicides, and completing a post- harvest geotechnical analysis (Offermann 2013, pers. comm.).

Based on discussion with Mr. Kevin Lavelle, of BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, aside from Block 17, the remainder of the WAA was removed from the most recent (November 2009) Timber Supply Review (TSR). A review of the TSR (Forsite 2009) indicates that all of the Community Watersheds in the Revelstoke TSA were excluded from the timber harvesting land base. In addition, although RMR does not carry an official park status, it was excluded from the harvesting land base under parks and protected areas. TSR are typically conducted every ten years. It is noted that Downie was an active participant in the TSR process.

A review of Downie’s most recent FSP (Downie 2006), for the period 2006-2011, indicates that Downie has identified Objectives, Results and Strategies to meet requirements of the Forest and Range Practices Act and Forest Planning and Practices Regulation, including requirements for specific objectives for Community Watersheds, and for soils, including the following specific requirements that Downie must maintain natural surface drainage patterns, revegetate soils, and must not cause landslides. Specific soil disturbance limits are also included in the FSP. Downie has an Environmental and Sustainable Forest Management Policy that includes provisions for protection of water resources and is also registered by SAI Global for the period 2010-2014 for operation of a Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program (SFIP).

4.1.2 Ski Recreation As shown on Map 8 (Appendix A), areas of the upper WAA are included within alpine ski, cat-ski and heli-ski recreation Crown land tenures held by Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR) and Selkirk Tangiers. It is noted that no infrastructure (i.e., ski lifts) are in place within the WAA and a review of the RMR Master Plan does not indicate any planned construction of infrastructure within the WAA. Selkirk Tangiers conducts a heli-ski operation within the WAA. It is understood that the staging site is located downstream of the intake area, and that avalanche control and glading (targeted tree cutting to widen heli-ski runs) have not been conducted within the WAA, with the exception of cutting in the helicopter drop off and pick up areas, for safety (Suchovs 2013, pers. comm.). Although these ski tenures are limited to upper watershed areas, there is anecdotal evidence of people skiing further down the mountain to vehicles parked along the Greeley Creek WTP access road.

During the winter months, City staff members that visit and inspect the water intake have noticed ski tracks coming out from the forest above this area, as discussed in the project initiation meeting (summarized in Appendix D). The ski area of RMR is adjacent to the headwaters of Greeley Creek on Mount Mackenzie. City staff have postulated that it is possible that skiers are leaving the boundaries of the ski area and accessing the watershed. Once in the watershed, they eventually exit in the area of the intake and down the access road. Vehicles have been observed by City staff to be parked along this road in the winter. This poses risks when considering this watershed source protection plan. The majority of this watershed is undeveloped and readily inaccessible, so if human use and activity greatly increases there may be associated risks to water quality.

Potential hazards related to alpine ski, cat ski and heli ski recreation include triggering of avalanches, and fuel spills from cat and heli ski operations. There is the potential that access to the WAA by the public for the purposes of ski recreation may increase interest in accessing the WAA for other recreation purposes, as discussed in the following section (Section 4.2).






4.2 Potential Hazards Related to Development in the Area There is currently a very low level of development in the WAA; although there is the potential for increased development, as indicated by the recent application for commercial recreation tenure by Illecillewaet Development Limited Partnership proposal for development of the proposed Revelstoke Adventure Park in the Greeley Meadows area, downstream of the Greely Creek Water Intake (Map 2, Appendix A), and outside of the WAA. Based on a review of available information, increased development in the WAA would most likely be related to recreation and hydroelectric power generation, with some potential for mining; however, geotechnical hazards within the WAA present a limiting factor for commercial, industrial and real estate development. Hazards related to potential development within the WAA are presented in the Hazard Identification table (Table 7 at end of text). These hazards include effects from increased access to the WAA for recreation purposes other than skiing, including snowmobiling, hiking, mountain biking, ATV riding, motorcycling and camping, including the potential for increase in human-initiated wildfires, and construction of roads and creek crossings; and, hazards associated with hydroelectric power generation and construction of transmission lines.

The potential for increased forest harvesting within the WAA is considered low due to the relatively low economic timber value and geotechnical hazards the Community Watershed status of the WAA (pers. comm. with Mr. Kevin Lavelle on January 17, 2012).

5.0 MODULE 7 – RISK CHARACTERIZATION In Module 7 of the CS2TA, a risk assessment is completed to examine the vulnerabilities and potential hazards in the WAA and is applied to the hazards identified in Modules 1 and 2. Risk assessments are useful to water managers and stakeholders to qualitatively rank each potential risk identified in the contaminant source survey and help to prioritize action items.

5.1 Evaluation of Drinking Water Protection Barriers The CS2TA outlines a multiple barrier approach to supplying clean and safe drinking water that comprises the following six barriers:

1. Source Protection;

2. Treatment;

3. Water System Maintenance;

4. Water Monitoring;

5. Operator Training; and,

6. Emergency Response Planning.

Modules 1 and 2 of the CS2TA examine the strengths and weaknesses of the water source area and identify potential risks to drinking water quality and quantity. Protecting the water source supply area is the first line of defence in providing safe drinking water to the Greeley Creek intake. By identifying risks, future works to eliminate or minimize these risks may be initiated.






Source protection can present a significant challenge to water purveyors for a variety of reasons including multiple users within watersheds, naturally variable surface water quality, unknown threats in large, inaccessible land areas and, in the case of the Greeley Creek intake, land within the WAA is outside the municipal control of the City. Nonetheless, drinking water protection barriers do currently exist. To evaluate current source protection barriers, the source protection barrier assessment provided in Appendix 7C of the CS2TA was undertaken for the WAA and is outlined in Table 12 (at end of text).

Based on this barrier assessment, the effectiveness of current source protection barriers is considered to be moderate because several vulnerabilities were noted:

The land within the WAA is Crown land and is not under control of the City;

Although the City’s Water Treatment Plant has a back-up generator and consideration has been given for installation of a back-up chlorinator in previous capital works plans, the system lacks back-up treatment and construction of the treatment plant was initiated as a result of confirmed cases of giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis in 1995;

There is uncertainty as to the capacity of the single backup source (golf course well) to meet full supply requirements; however, there is potential for additional capacity through groundwater supply in the area of the golf course well (Golder 2007); and,

A backflow prevention and cross-connection control program is not yet in place, although one is being developed.

Other means to help provide source protection within the WAA may include policy controls and operational practices. Policy controls include legislative barriers such as the Water Act, the Drinking Water Protection Act, and FRPA that legally protect drinking water sources. Other policy controls include Best Management Practices for specific industries working in the WAA, Official Community Plans and other bylaws, and environmental or other permits issued by government agencies. Operational practices are those conducted by parties working, living, or recreating in the watershed area.

5.2 Risk Assessment There are different procedures to evaluate risks. These are dependent on whether the data and information available has specific values or whether the information is general and descriptive in nature. A quantitative risk assessment can be completed when specific and numeric data are available, while a qualitative risk assessment is completed for general information. Based on the information available for this study, a qualitative risk assessment was completed.

The evaluation of risk is usually based on the likelihood of a water quality or quantity hazard occurring and the consequence if the hazard occurred (MHLS 2010). Using this definition, risk is defined as:

𝑯𝒂𝒛𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 = 𝑳𝒊𝒌𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒉𝒐𝒐𝒅 × 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆

Defining likelihood and consequence for this Plan was based on the definitions provided in the CS2TA as these definitions assessed risk based on issues specific to drinking water. The measure of likelihood is an assessment of how often a hazard occurs or a subjective opinion of the chance a hazard will occur within ten years. Table 13 provides the qualitative measures for probability.






Table 13: Qualitative Measures of Probability21

Level of Probability Descriptor Description

Probability of Occurrence in Next 10 Years

A Almost certain Is expected to occur in most circumstances >90% B Likely Will probably occur in most circumstances 71-90% C Possible Will probably occur at some time 31-70% D Unlikely Could occur at some time 10-30% E Rare May only occur in exceptional circumstances <10%

The qualitative measures of consequence levels of a hazard is provided in Table 14 and outlines the potential impacts if a hazard were to occur. The level of consequence includes assessing the severity of impacts, potential health consequences, level of disruption to operations or service and potential cost repercussions.

Table 14: Qualitative Measures of Consequence22 Level of Consequence Descriptor Description

1 Insignificant Insignificant impact, no illness, little disruption to normal operation, little or no increase in normal operating costs.

2 Minor Minor impact for small population, mild illness moderately likely, some manageable operation disruption, small increase in operating costs.

3 Moderate Minor impact for large population, mild to moderate illness probable, significant modification to normal operation but manageable, operating costs increase, increased monitoring.

4 Major Major impact for small population, severe illness probable, systems significantly compromised and abnormal operation if at all, high level monitoring required

5 Catastrophic Major impact for large population, severe illness probable, complete failure of systems.

After the likelihood and consequence for identified hazards have been assessed, the following risk assessment matrices are used to assign a risk level. Table 15a shows the unabated risk classifications, that is the risk for an unprotected drinking water system, while Table 15b shows the abated risk classifications, that is the risk to the drinking water system considering its level of vulnerability. These may then be used to relatively rank the hazards and follow the risk analysis provided in the CS2TA.

21 From MHLS (2010), Table 7-1, Module 7, p. 9, original sources cited therein. 22 From MHLS (2010), Table 7-2, Module 7, p. 11, original sources cited therein.






Table 15a: Unabated Risk Analysis Matrix23.

Table 15b: Abated Risk Analysis Matrix24.

Unabated Risk Vulnerability

1 Low

2 Moderate

3 High

4 Very High

Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate

High Moderate High High High Very High High High Very High Very High

For this study, hazards to drinking water resources were identified for intrinsic (naturally occurring) threats, existing land use activities, and hazards related to potential development within the WAA (Table 7 at end of text).

Intrinsic threats and human land use activities were examined on a watershed scale and are generally considered non-point sources of contamination. In addition to the qualitative measures for consequence and probability, the risk assessment also took into account; the total area of the hazard (i.e., entire WAA or relatively local), the proximity to the intake, magnitude of potential impacts and mitigating factors. The risk assessment for these are compiled in Table 16a for current conditions and Table 16b for the projected climate change scenario (both tables at end of text), which provides the probability and consequence rating for each hazard, the rationale behind the rating and the final assigned risk based on the assessment. The abated risk ratings for the identified hazards are summarized in the following two tables, with Table 17a presenting the results for current conditions, and Table 17b presenting the results for the projected climate change scenario assessed.

23 From MHLS (2010), Table 7-5, Module 7, p. 30, original sources cited therein. 24 From MHLS (2010), Table 7-6, Module 7, p. 31

Probability Consequence

1 Insignificant

2 Minor

3 Moderate

4 Major

5 Catastrophic

A (almost certain) Moderate High Very High Very High Very High

B (likely) Moderate High High Very High Very High

C (possible) Low Moderate High Very High Very High

D (unlikely) Low Low Moderate High Very High

E (rare) Low Low Moderate High High






Table 17a: Abated Drinking Water Hazard Risk Assessment for Current Conditions.

Existing Intrinsic and Land Use Activity Hazards

Very High Risk High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk

Mass Movements Stream Channel Instability

Climate Change

Wildfire

Wildlife

Avalanches

Windthrow

Forest Insects and Disease

Forestry

Recreation (skiing)

Hazards Related to Potential Development Within WAA


None Identified Other Recreation (snowmobiles, hiking, mountain biking, ATVs, motorcycles and camping)

Placer and Mineral Mining

Roads and Infrastructure

Hydroelectric Power Generation

Table 17b: Abated Drinking Water Hazard Risk Assessment for Projected Climate Change Scenario

Intrinsic Hazards


Mass Movements Wildfire

Wildlife

Stream Channel Instability

Climate Change

Avalanches

Forest Insects and Disease

Windthrow

Hazards Related to Land Use and Development


None Identified Roads and Infrastructure

Other Recreation

Forestry

Hydroelectric Power Generation

Placer and Mineral Mining

Recreation (skiing)

6.0 MODULE 8 – RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO IMPROVE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

Module 8 of the CS2TA is the development of recommended actions to prevent, reduce, and/or mitigate the risks identified in Modules 1, 2 and 7 (MHLS 2010). The Risk Management Action Plans developed can then be used by the City of Revelstoke, in consultation with IHA and the TAC members to develop an Assessment Response Plan to continue with watershed protection strategies identified for the Greeley Creek watershed.






The Risk Management Action Plans outlined in this section are based on the results found during the course of this study, input provided by the TAC and through the public open house, and with consideration to the SMART principle outlined in the CS2TA. The SMART principle stands for developing recommendations that are: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound. Recommended Risk Management Action Plans includes prioritization of recommendations, identifying responsibility and providing a suggested timeline.

In prioritizing the recommended actions or strategies and providing timeframes, the prioritization factors considered those provided in the CS2TA:

Cost;

Risk level of hazard addressed;

Public health implication of hazard;

Risk reduction benefit;

Ease of implementation of recommendation; and,

Need to enhance weak barrier.

The suggested timeframes provided in the recommendations below are based on the guidelines provided in the CS2TA and are as follows:

Immediate – within 3 months;

Short Term – within a year;

Medium Term – 1 to 3 years;

Long Term – 3 years +; and,

On-going – is in reference to programs, studies or planning processes that are currently in-progress or that should be completed on an on-going basis.

The following outlines the recommended risk management actions, listed in the general level of priority, with the highest priority actions listed first. Some recommended actions are specific to one hazard, while other recommended actions will assist in risk reduction for more than one drinking hazard listed in hazard identification table (Table 7, at end of text). A summary of the recommended risk management actions is located in Table 16 (at end of text), which identifies the drinking water hazards, risk levels and recommendation action(s), along with the responsibility and time time-frame for implementing the action.

1) Conduct Assessment of Back-up Water Supply Elements

It is recommended that the City conduct an assessment of back-up water supply elements in order to determine the achievable level of supply under current conditions (flow rates, supply areas based on pressure requirements, length of time back-up supply can be maintained) and develop a plan to address any identified supply gaps in order to address Hazards 1-1 through 1-6 and 2-1 through 2-8. (City, Immediate)

2) Address Access Issues

Consideration should be given to constructing gates and fencing to limit access to the intake and infrastructure by wildlife and the general public. Items for consideration include installing at gate to prevent public access to






Block 17, which borders the riparian area adjacent to the drinking water intake, and installing gates and fencing around the settling ponds. Based on the results of Recommendation 8 (Long-term Monitoring of Terrain and Channel Stability), discussed later, additional areas may be considered for installing signage and fencing. In addition, it is recommended that the City of Revelstoke examine how other jurisdictions have handled access issues to WAA located on crown land, in order to assess options to handle these issues. This recommendation addresses Hazards 1-1, 1-2, 1-6, 2-1, 2-2, and 2-40. (City, Downie and RMR, Immediate)

3) Assess and Mitigate Wildfire Risks

It is recommended that the City conduct a wildfire potential hazard assessment for the remainder of the WAA, as only a portion of the WAA was included in the MLI et al. (2011) study (Map 9 in Appendix A). The assessment should examine the potential risks from a wildfire within the WAA, particularly with respect to the potential for impact to the water treatment plant. The City, in partnership with MOE Stewardship Branch, BC Wildfire Management Branch (BCWMB) and WAA license and tenure holders, including the proponents of the Revelstoke Adventure Park should consider developing a wildfire protection plan that includes a fuel reduction plan, with careful consideration given to treatment impacts on slope stability, and examines appropriate post-fire rehabilitation for the protection of water quality in the event of a fire. The City could consider applying for funds from CBT and Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) to complete prescriptions and treatments for priority fuel types in the area of the intake and other areas of water supply infrastructure. The level of effort for treatment options should reflect the level of risk to drinking water quality. Utilize data obtained from Recommendation 6 to assess risks related to projected climate changes for long-term wildfire management planning. This addresses Hazards 1-1, 1-5, 1-7, 2-1, and 2-7. (City, Revelstoke Fire Rescue Services, MoE Stewardship Branch, BCWMB, Downie, RMR, other tenure holders, Short Term)

4) Emergency Response

The City should consider documenting water emergency response plans within other emergency response plans (for example wildfire response, referring to BC Wildland Fire Management Strategy as a resource) and furthermore should consider preparing a comprehensive water emergency response plan (see Module 3 of the CS2TA), including potential responses to water quality and quantity concerns as a result of wildfire, mass movements, avalanche and/or malicious acts. The recommendations relevant to the drinking water supply presented in the MLI et al (2011) wildfire risk mapping should be addressed, which include but are not limited to the following:

Communicate with MoE Stewardship Branch and BCWMB regarding fire suppression actions that place chemicals into the water supply or increase erosion within the WAA;

Clarify jurisdictions and communications protocols between the City Engineering Department, Revelstoke Fire Rescue Services and BCWMB and document wildfire suppression responsibilities;

Communicate between parties and document locations of fuel caches within and near WAA, including fuel supply for back-up generators, such as at the water treatment plant; and,

Consider increasing initial attack capacity of Revelstoke Fire Rescue Services, given the potential for limited access to provincial resources in extreme wildfire conditions.

This recommendation addresses Hazards 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, and 2-11. (City, Revelstoke Fire Rescue Services, BCWMB, tenure holders, Medium Term)






5) Institute Flow and Climate Monitoring Program within Greeley Creek WAA

It is recommended that a streamflow monitoring program be setup in Greeley Creek at the water intake location. The monitoring station could include a pressure transducer and staff gauge mounted near or on the walls, and with a series of manual measurements (approximately 10 distributed over all flow stages) a stage-discharge curve could be established for Greeley Creek (MoE 2009). Design of the system should address past problems with winter ice build-up, as indicated by the City.

It is also recommended that basic climate data be collected at the City’s Water Treatment Plant. Basic climate variables could include air temperature, relative humidity, air pressure, rainfall, and precipitation. This local data could monitor changes over time and support policies and decision-making by City staff.

Future water supply and demand scenarios are based on current and regional data. Streamflow and climate changes are predicted to occur and the City requires current and local information to make informed decisions, as described in Recommendation 6.This information would help to address the following Hazards 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 2-1, and 2-3 through 2-11. (City, short to medium-term)

6) Water Supply Management

It is recommended to complete the remaining modules of the CS2TA, as follows:

Module 3 – Assess Water Supply Elements, consisting of an assessment of all the physical and operational components of the water system for their condition, security, and suitability for the water supply.

Module 4 – Evaluate Water System Management, Operation and Maintenance Practices, by investigating the human aspect of how the water system is operated. This module takes into account such things as operation and maintenance practices, operator training, backflow prevention and cross-connection control, documentation and reporting, and emergency response planning.

Module 5 – Audit Water Quality and Availability, including an analysis of historical water quality and quantity data, evaluation of treatment system effectiveness, investigation of customer satisfaction, evaluation of monitoring and reporting practices, and an assessment of the future sustainability of the water supply.

Module 6 – Review Financial Capacity and Governance, including a review of the financial management of the water system, available funding mechanisms, and response to development pressures.

Additional items for the City to consider include:

Conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the City acquiring land within the WAA; and,

Conducting feasibility assessment for development of groundwater resources, including conducting Environmental Impact Assessment(s) and aquifer testing required in order to operate the golf course well at a higher capacity and/or drilling of additional water supply wells, taking into account the potential for mutual well interference, and assess feasibility of implementing an aquifer storage and recovery system.

The above listed items are relevant to all of the identified Hazards 1-1 through 1-8, and 2-1 through 2-11. (City, short to medium-term)






7) Climate Adaptation

In keeping with the City’s climate adaptation efforts, it is recommended to integrate projected climate change impacts throughout the various assessment modules of any future CS2TA and Water Supply Management initiatives.

Taking into consideration the hazards identified as part of this assessment, the following actions to reduce impacts and build resiliency are provided as recommendations, listed in order of priority which the City could consider them, and categorized by adaptation strategy (TRIG 2012):

Develop a strategy for and implement water conservation measures, including xeriscaping, within and outside of City operations (no-regrets, high-priority);

Prepare a drought plan (low-regrets, high-priority);

Use local-scale population, climate, and hydrologic data (as developed in Recommendation 5) to develop more accurate water supply and demand projections (adaptive management);

Consider increasing water storage capacity (low-regrets, adaptive management);

Maintain redundancy in the water supply system for the purpose of conducting system maintenance and supplying water in emergency situations (win-win);

Incorporate water use and demand into land use planning, for example by identifying areas particularly suitable for agriculture and/or industrial land use having plentiful groundwater supply and planning for non-potable or dual-supply water systems in these areas in order to decrease water treatment and distribution costs (win-win);

Conduct a full-cost analysis for and if feasible, develop strategy for and implement use of alternative water sources (i.e., rain, stormwater, greywater, groundwater exceeding aesthetic parameters) for non-potable water supply (e.g., irrigation, industrial), aquifer storage and recovery, where possible (win-win); and,

Assess the feasibility of the City co-developing drinking water and hydro-electric power resources within the WAA, in order to maximize safety and efficiency and to minimize environmental and drinking water supply impacts of potential future development within the City and WAA (win-win).

Addressing all of the above listed items in the master plan would address Hazards 1-8, 2-1 through 2-11. (City, short to medium-term)

8) Development of Watershed Stakeholder Groups or Committees

It is recommended that the City consider developing a Watershed Stakeholder Group (WSG) or Committee for the Greeley Creek WAA to assist in information gathering, watershed protection incentives and other objectives that may be developed by the WSG. There are a number of stakeholders and watershed users within the watershed that should form the group, including but not limited to Downie, RMR, cat and heli-ski operators, proponents of the Revelstoke Adventure Park, local recreation groups (ATV, dirtbike, trail and ski groups) and current and future water licence holders. Specific goals and objectives would need to be developed and information disseminated, potentially by a web-based tool, and should promote:

Public and watershed user education about source protection recommendations and strategies;






Monitoring of watershed activities and notification of high-risk activities, for example, illegal dumping sites, camping in undesignated areas, etc.; and,

Multi-stakeholder consultation and consideration for drinking water hazards with respect to future development by tenure holders within the WAA.

This recommendation addresses Hazards 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-8, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 2-4, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11. (City, MOE Resort Development Branch, medium to long-term)

9) Long-term Monitoring of Terrain and Channel Stability

It is suggested that a terrain and channel monitoring program be developed within the Greeley Creek Watershed. The monitoring program could include completing an aerial overview of terrain and stream conditions within identified vulnerable areas when new aerial photos are released for the WAA (approximately every three to five years), or to conducting the survey utilizing an aerial drone on an ad-hoc basis. The aerial review would focus on the main stream and tributary channels, areas of Class IV and V slopes, and other vulnerable areas in order to compare the results to previous aerial reviews to assess any changes in existing sediment sources and to identify new sources. The monitoring program could identify locations along the stream channel that may be impacted by development within the WAA, for example by increased access to the WAA for recreation.

Furthermore, it is suggested that, as part of this monitoring, the annual aerial forest health results be reviewed and monitored on an annual basis

The monitoring would be useful to address the following Hazards 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-8, 2-11. (City, MOE, Long Term)

10) Application for Mineral, Petroleum and Coal No Staking Reserve

There are currently no mining, petroleum or coal activities within the WAA; however, the City could consider applying to MEMPR for the Greeley Creek WAA to be included in a no staking reserve for mineral, petroleum and coal. The request should include the inclusion of all mineral titles that do not meet the good standing requirements. Addresses Hazards 2-6, 2-3, 2-4. (City, Long Term)

7.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Revelstoke and its representatives. The report, which includes all tables, figures, maps, appendices, and attachments, in both printed and electronic format, is based on data and information collected during the investigation conducted by Golder Associates Ltd. and is based solely on the conditions of the area and information collected during the period of this assignment.

In conducting this drinking water source watershed assessment Golder has relied in good faith on information provided by individuals, organizations and agencies noted in the report. Golder accepts no responsibility for any deficiency, misstatements or inaccuracies contained in this report as a result of omissions, misinterpretations of fraudulent acts of the persons or agencies interviewed.

Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it are the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.






This investigation was performed according to current professional geoscience standards and practices. If new information is discovered during future work, Golder should be requested to re-evaluate the conclusions of this report, and to provide amendments as required.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Geoff Cahill, P.Eng. Pattie Amison, M.Sc., EPt Water Resources Engineer Scientist, Hydrogeology Group

Rowland Atkins, M.Sc., P.Geo. Jacqueline Foley, M.Sc., Geo.L. Associate, Senior Geomorphologist Associate, Senior Hydrogeologist

GC/PVA/JF/RA/tc

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

http://capws.golder.com/sites/p214930116revelstokegreeleycreekwatershed/reports/deliverables/draft/1214930116-001-r-revc-cor greeley cr source-to-tap 09apr_13.docx






8.0 REFERENCES CBT (Columbia Basin Trust). 2012a. From Dialogue to Action: Climate Change, Impacts and Adaptation in the

Canadian Columbia Basin. Columbia Basin Trust. September 2012. Available at:

http://www.cbt.org/Initiatives/Climate_Change/?Publications.

CBT. 2012b. City of Revelstoke Climate Adaptation Scanning and Planning Workshop: Summary of Dialogue and Ideas for Action. Draft Report dated January 3, 2012.

City of Revelstoke (CoR). 2010. Annual Water Report. City of Revelstoke Engineering and Public Works Department.

City of Revelstoke (CoR). 2012. 2011 Annual Water Report. City of Revelstoke Engineering and Public Works Department. February 2012.

Church, M. and J.M. Ryder. 2010. “Chapter 2 – Physiography of British Columbia.” In, Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia. Editors: R.G. Pike, T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler, and K.D. Bladon. Land Management Handbook #66. BC Ministry of Forests and Range and FORREX.

Cortex. 2001. A Quick Reference: British Columbia’s Timber Tenure System. Available at:

www.cortex.ca/TimberTenSysWeb_Nov2001.pdf. Accessed on January 17, 2012.

Daly, C., M. Halbleib, J.I. Smith, W.P. Gibson, M.K. Doggett, G.H., Taylor, J. Curtis and P.P. Pasteris. 2008. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int. J. Climatol. (2008) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1688.

D&K (Dayton & Knight Ltd.). 2009. Greeley Creek Flow Measurement Recommendations – 2007 & 2008 Report, Draft 1. Memorandum to Mr. Brian Mallett, P.Eng. April 14, 2009. File 1.37.

Dingman, S.L. 2002. Physical Hydrology. 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ. ISBN 0-13-099695-5.

Downie (Downie Street Sawmills Ltd.) 2006. Forest Stewardship Plan, Forest Licence A31102, 2006-2011. Available at: http://www.downietimber.com/woodlands/forest-stewardship.htm. Accessed on January 17, 2012

Eaton, B. and R.D. Moore. 2010. “Chapter 4 – Regional Hydrology.” In, Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia. Editors: R.G. Pike, T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler, and K.D. Bladon. Land Management Handbook #66. BC Ministry of Forests and Range and FORREX.

ENKON (ENKON Environmental Ltd.) 2003. Environmental Management Plans Mount Mackenzie Resort, Prepared for Land and Water British Columbia.

Environment Canada. 2010. The Third Generation Atomospheric General Circulation Model (AGCM3), developed by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis.

Environment Canada. 2012. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000. Available [online]: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html






Forsite (Forsite Consulting Ltd.) 2009. Revelstoke Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review #4, dated November 23, 2009. Available at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa27/. Accessed on January 18, 2012.

Geobase. 2012. Published by the Canadian Council on Geomatics, Natural Resources Canada. Available Online http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/index.html

Girard. R. 2013. Fire Chief, City of Revelstoke. Email to P. Page-Brittin, of the City of Revelstoke, dated February 20, 2013 communicated to P. Amison of Golder Associates via Email on February 26, 2013.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.) 2001. Drilling, Installation and Testing of Two Test Wells for the City of Revelstoke, Revelstoke, BC. Project No. 012-3023.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.) Drilling, Installation and Testing of Test Production Well TW02-3 for the City of Revelstoke, Revelstoke, BC. Project No. 012-3023a.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.) 2007. Wellhead Protection Plan, Golf Course Well, City of Revelstoke, BC. Project No. 07-1430-0005.

Health Canada. 2012. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality – Summary Table. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment. August 2012.

MEC (Mirkwood Ecological Consulting Ltd.). 1998. Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory for the Revelstoke Forest District. John Addison and Peter Corbett. Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. March 31, 1998. FRBC Reference No. KB96360-IN.

MoE (Ministry of Environment). 2009. Manual of British Columbia Hydrometric Standards. Version 1.0. Science and Information Branch. Prepared for the Resources Information Standards Committee. Province of BC.

MoF (Ministry of Forests). 1996a. Channel Assessment Procedures Guidebook. Province of BC. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act – Operational Planning Regulation.

---. 1996b. Community Watershed Guidebook. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act – Operational Planning Regulation.

MFLNRO (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations). 2011. 2011 Summary of Forest Health Conditions in British Columbia. Annual Publication 2001-. Available Online http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/overview/overview.htm

Moore, R.D., D.L. Spittlehouse, P.H. Whitfield, and K. Stahl. 2010. “Chapter 3 – Weather and Climate.” In, Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia. Editors: R.G. Pike, T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler, and K.D. Bladon. Land Management Handbook #66. BC Ministry of Forests and Range and FORREX.

MHLS (Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport). 2010. Comprehensive Drinking Water Source-to-Tap Assessment Guideline. Version 1.0. Available at: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/protect/source.html.

MLI (Mountain Labyrinths Inc.), B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. and Archie McConnachie. 2011. Wildfire Risk Mapping Enhancement to the Revelstoke & Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan. October 2011.






Murdock, T.Q. and D.L. Spittlehouse. 2011. Selecting and Using Climate Change Scenarios for British Columbia. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, 39 pp.

Nakicenovic, N. et al (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 599 pp. Available online at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm

Offermann, D. 2013. Planning Forester. Downie Timber Ltd., Revelstoke, BC. Technical Advisory Committee conference call. February 7, 2013.

PCIC (Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium). 2012. Plan2Adapt Tool. Summary of Climate Change for the Columbia-Shuswap in the 2050’s. Available [online]:

http://www.plan2adapt.ca/tools/planners?pr=8&ts=8&toy=16.

Pike, R.G., M.C. Feller, J.D. Stednick, K.J. Rieberger, and M. Carver. 2010a. “Chapter 12 – Water Quality and Forest Management.” In, Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia. Editors: R.G. Pike, T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler, and K.D. Bladon. Land Management Handbook #66. BC Ministry of Forests and Range and FORREX.

Pike, R.G., K.E. Bennett, T.E. Rdding, A.T. Werner, D.L. Spittlehouse, R.D. Moore, T.Q. Murdock, J. Beckers, B.D. Smerdon, K.D. Bladon, V.N. Foord, D.A. Campbell, and P.T. Tschaplikski. 2010b. “Chapter 19 – Climate Change Effects on Watershed Processes in British Columbia.” In, Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia. Editors: R.G. Pike, T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler, and K.D. Bladon. Land Management Handbook #66. BC Ministry of Forests and Range and FORREX.

Suchovs. E. 2013. General Manager, Selkirk Tangiers. Reported discussion between Ms. P. Page-Brittin, of the City of Revelstoke, provided to P. Amison of Golder Associates via Email on February 26, 2013.

TRIG (The Resource Innovation Group). 2012. Toward a Resilient Watershed – Addressing Climate Change Planning in Watershed Assessments.

Queen’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 2012. Forest and Range Practices Act [SBC 2002] Chapter 69. Available at: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_02069_01. Accessed on January 18, 2013.

Valentine, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker, and L.M. Lavkulich. 1994. The Soil Landscapes of British Columbia. Fourth Printing. Province of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. ISBN: 0-7718-8265-3.

Wang, T., A. Hamann, D. L. Spittlehouse, and S. N. Aitken. 2006. Development of scale-free climate data for western Canada for use in resource management. Intl. J. Climatol. 26:383-397.

Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D., and Murdock, T. N. 2012. ClimateWNA - High-Resolution Spatial Climate Data for Western North America. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 61: 16-29. Software Available [online]: http://pacificclimate.org/tools-and-data/climatewna

Winkler, R.D., R.D. Moore, T.E. Redding, D.L. Spittlehouse, B.D. Smerdon, and D.E. Carlyle-Moses. 2010. “Chapter 7 – The Effects of Forest Disturbance on Hydrologic Process and Watershed Response.” In, Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia. Editors: R.G. Pike, T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler, and K.D. Bladon. Land Management Handbook #66. BC Ministry of Forests and Range and FORREX.





April 9, 2013 Reference No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC

Table 7: Hazard Identification

Hazard No. Drinking Water Hazard Possible Effects Existing Preventative Measures Associated Barrier(s)

Intrinsic Hazards

1-1 Wildfire

Loss of mature or riparian forest vegetation; loss of understory vegetation; exposure of mineral soil and loss of forest floor organics; hydrophobic soils; retardants and foams used in fire suppression; changes to hydrologic regime; slope or channel instability

Designated as community watershed; communication with MFLNRO and Downie Timber; Provincial fire suppression services; recent wildfire risk mapping conducted (Mountain Labyrinths et al. 2011)

Source protection; treatment; emergency response training; water quality monitoring

1-2 Wildlife Water turbidity; fecal material in water; pathogenic microorganisms Microfiltration water treatment; water chlorination; water quality testing Source protection; treatment; water quality monitoring

1-3 Mass Movements Sediment and turbidity increases; channel blockage or avulsion; loss of mature or riparian forest vegetation; exposed and unstable soils; loss of organic soils (growing medium for vegetation)

None identified Source protection; treatment; water quality monitoring

1-4 Avalanches Similar to mass movements when large enough to soils and debris None identified Source protection; treatment; water quality monitoring

1-5 Windthrow Sediment and turbidity increases; increase in wildfire risk; loss of mature or riparian vegetation; blockage in channel (log-jam) None identified Source protection; treatment; water quality monitoring

1-6 Stream Channel Instability Sediment and turbidity increases; unstable slopes and soils; channel migration None identified Source protection; treatment; water quality monitoring

1-7 Forest Insects and Disease Loss of mature or riparian forest vegetation; changes to hydrologic regime None identified Source protection

1-8 Climate Change Changes to hydrologic and watershed processes Adaptation Planning Initiated Source protection; treatment; emergency response training; water quality monitoring

Hazards Related to Existing Land Use

2-1 Forestry

Decrease in forest cover and road construction has potential to increase peak flows and contribute sediment and microbial contaminants to stream course. Chemical contamination from spills (fuel spills from equipment refuelling) and pesticide/ herbicide applications (if used).

Regulation (FRPA and Forest Stewardship Plans), Community Watershed designation, Best Management Practices (Environmental and Sustainable Forest Management Policy and Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program), active stakeholder engagement

Source protection, treatment; water quality monitoring, emergency response training

2-2 Recreation (skiing) Potential for triggering of avalanches, fuel spills from cat and heli ski operations, potential for increased interest in public access to watershed for other recreation purposes

Regulation (Crown Land Tenure and required Environmental Management Plans), active stakeholder engagement Source protection, treatment; water quality monitoring

Hazards Related to Potential Development

2-3 Roads and Creek Crossings Direct input of sediment from drainage, microbial contamination from cattle and wildlife access. active stakeholder engagement Source protection, treatment; water quality monitoring

2-4 Other Recreation Sediment, microbial and potential chemical contamination from camping and vehicle access in riparian areas, potential for fuel spills and malicious acts.

active stakeholder engagement, signage Source protection, treatment; water quality monitoring, regulation and enforcement

2-5 Hydroelectric Power Generation

Flow diversion, sediment and turbidity increases, microbial contamination from construction activities, loss of habitat and forest cover from construction of transmission lines.

Regulation, active stakeholder engagement Source Protection, treatment, water licences

2-6 Placer and Mineral Mining Impacts from roads and creek crossings (see 2-3), sediment and chemical contamination from operations and mine tailings, (fuel spills from equipment refuelling)

Regulation, Community Watershed designation, active stakeholder engagement

Source protection, treatment; water quality monitoring, emergency response training

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report




Table 12: Drinking Water Barrier Assessment

Barrier Yes No Comment

1. Source Protection

The source is under the control of the water supplier.

X The source facility is under City control; however, the City has little control over the watershed itself, it is on Crown land and not in City's limits.

A source water protection-and-management plan is in place.

X Completion of this Barrier Assessment as part of a Source Protection plan for the Watershed

Watershed uses are limited and designated.

X Currently uses are limited, and are designated (i.e. land tenure agreements and their associated regulations, are in place for much of the WAA area)

Contaminant sources are absent from the catchment area or are low risk. X

Currently contaminants are low risk

There is a low intrinsic source vulnerability (e.g., confined aquifer, stable watershed). X

The integrity and location of the well/intake ensure the best quality source water is captured. X

Yes, the intake is in the appropriate place due to requirement for elevation for gravity-fed system. There are no developed or planned land uses of concern above this elevation.

Source water quality is consistently good, with seasonal fluctuations that do not disrupt treatment systems. X

Turbidity is higher in Spring, but this is not a problem

Total water source capacity can supply current and projected water demand, taking into account the uncertainty associated with climate change and drought. X

It is anticipated the Source Protection Plan will provide more information in this area

A backup (secondary) source is in position. X

Backup Well at golf course, commissioned in 2007

Community and water users are aware of the impact of human activity on source water quality and quantity.

X The community is aware, a public open house as part of the Source Protection Plan will aid to raise awareness

2. Treatment

Appropriate treatment technology is employed, based on source water type, quality and demand. X

Treatment is effective at inactivating/removing pathogens and reducing other constituents such as minerals or chemicals of concern to acceptable concentrations. X

Tested as required

The treatment system is reliable. It can be depended upon to produce high-quality finished water in all but exceptional circumstances. X

Regular process monitoring and system maintenance are performed. X

An optimum disinfection residual is maintained throughout the system. X

Backup treatment is ready to be activated.

X There is no back up treatment at the Greeley Treatment Plant, a boil water advisory would be used, or system would be supplied from the golf course well

3. Water System Maintenance

The physical condition and integrity of water system components prevent contamination and water loss. X

Routine inspection and maintenance programs are practised including:

Leak detection. X

Valve and fire hydrant maintenance. X

Ongoing

Water main flushing and swabbing. X

Flushing but not swabbing

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report






Testing and calibrating automated monitoring systems. X

Up-to-date operation and maintenance protocols are readily available in printed form.

X Updates in progress

Positive water pressure is maintained throughout the distribution system to prevent back-siphonage. X

The water supplier can identify all water system assets and their location. X

Accurate and current maps of the water supply system are available. X

Locations of water main valves and curb stops on service lines are known.

Water main valves yes, curb stops no

A backflow prevention and cross-connection control program is in place.

X Currently being developed

Record-keeping procedures are in place—documenting maintenance activities, operational procedures, process control, preventative strategies, monitoring and corrective actions. X

Security systems are in place to safeguard water from unintentional contamination or sabotage. X

There is a fence across the front of the reservoir and alarms on buildings

Backup equipment and controls are in place and tested regularly. X

A generator is in place, and plant configuration and capacity provides redundancy of treatment units

Proper disinfection and flushing procedures are used for all repairs and new construction. X

A spare parts inventory is maintained. X

4. Water Monitoring

Water quality monitoring is performed routinely for:

Parameters, locations and frequency specified by the local health authority or in the operating permit. X

Water system operations and performance. X

Source water quality and quantity monitoring is performed regularly X

Water volume in the system and demand are measured. X

Customer complaints are relatively few in number, documented and responded to appropriately. X

Reporting of water monitoring results to health authorities and the public are carried out as required under the Drinking Water Protection Act. X

5. Operator Training Operators are trained to the appropriate level based on the Environmental Operators Certification Program (EOCP). X

The supplier and operator are committed to ongoing training and learning X

6. Emergency Response Planning

An emergency response plan is established including, at a minimum, the following elements:

An emergency contact list for the water system management and operators, as well as the drinking water officer, medical health officer and public health inspector. X

Being updated

Steps to follow in responding to each potential emergency situation or abnormal operational circumstance.

Being reviewed

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report






Protocols for public notice if an immediate reporting standard is not met.

Being reviewed

Maps of the water system. X

Needs to be updated as part of review

Water system management and staff understand their roles and responsibilities in an emergency. X

Contingency plans are in place. X

Being reviewed

Supporting Mechanisms: Effective Governance, Sound Management and Affordability Effective governance, sound management and affordability are the foundations supporting the multiple barrier approach to drinking water protection. Best practices in governance and management increase technical and financial capacity to enhance and strengthen barriers.

1. Governance and Accountability

The water supplier has an ongoing mandate to provide safe drinking water. X

The governance structure is appropriate for the water system, its service area and customers. X

One person or entity is accountable for the provision of safe drinking water. X

The water supplier communicates with water users in a timely and appropriate manner about important drinking water information. X

2. Management The water supplier knows and understands all provincial regulations applicable to the operation and maintenance of the water system. X

The multiple barrier approach is applied to source protection. X

A clear plan of organization and control exists among people responsible for the management and operation of the system. X

Management and operations staff have clearly defined functions. X

Qualified staff are managing and administering the water service. X

An up-to-date capital works plan is established. X

The water purveyor has access to external technical and professional services such as: X

Technical/operations assistance. X

Engineering advice. X

Financial advice. X

Insurance. X

Legal counsel. X

The water supply system is assessed on a regular schedule. X

3. Affordability

An up-to-date financial plan is in place. X

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report






Planning is carried out for upgrades to improve water quality and sustainability. X

The water-pricing structure reflects the present and future needs of the water supply system.

X A water metering study is being completed and an Asset Management Plan is being developed

Full-cost accounting is applied to determine the full cost of supplying water.

X This is part of the asset management planning

Adequate liability insurance coverage is in place. X

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report





Hazard No.

Drinking Water Hazard Probability1 Consequence2

Unabated Risk

Level3

Vulnerability4 Abated Risk

Level4 Related Risk(s) Rationale

Intrinsic Hazards

1-1 Wildfire C Possible 2 Minor Moderate 2

Moderate Moderate 1-3, 1-7, 1-8,2-4

High probability in some areas of watershed, and potential to impact large areas of watershed, however, risk in area of intake is considered low based on Fire Smart assessment conducted in fall of 2012.

1-2 Wildlife C Possible

3 Moderate High 1

Low Moderate 1-8 Potential impacts area likely limited to small area of watershed and treatment provides barrier; however, there is no method of back-up treatment and construction of the treatment plant was initiated as a result of confirmed cases of giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis in 1995. There are no physical barriers to wildlife accessibility to the intake and settling ponds.

1-3 Mass Movements

B Likely

4 Major Very High 3

High Very High 1-1, 1-6, 1-8, 2-4

Several areas classified as unstable exist within WAA, in particular, an area in lower watershed along and within approximately 400 m of the main tributary located approximately 1200 m upstream of the intake. Impacts from sediment and turbidity have potential to impact treatment barrier. Limited access beyond the intake increases difficulty of implementing emergency works.

1-4 Avalanches C Possible

3 Moderate High 3

High Moderate 1-8, 2-2, 2-4

Several areas classified as unstable exist within WAA, in particular, an area in lower watershed within approximately 1200 m upstream of the intake which overlaps with alpine ski tenure. Main impact is blockage of supply, with less potential for impacts from sediment and turbidity as for mass movements.

1-5 Windthrow C Possible

1 Insignificant Low 1

Low Low 1-8 Potential impacts likely limited to small area of watershed and treatment provides barrier.

1-6 Stream Channel Instability

C Possible

3 Moderate High 2

Moderate High 1-3, 1-8 Only one area of potential unstable slopes located near a main tributary. Treatment is a barrier. Limited access beyond the intake increases difficulty of implementing emergency works.

1-7 Forest Insects and Disease

E Rare

2 Minor Low 1

Low Low 1-1,1-8 Some risk related to soil erosion and windthrow risks if large numbers of trees are affected.

1-8 Climate Change

B Likely

3 Moderate High 2

Moderate High All See risk assessment for climate change scenario (Table 16b). Proactive climate change adaptation may reduce vulnerability.


2-1 Forestry D Unlikely

3 Moderate Moderate 1

Low Low 1-8, 2-4

Low risk potential for current forestry activities due to high level of regulation and sustainable forestry initiatives of operator. Low potential for additional harvesting within WAA in the near future due to geotechnical hazards and low economic value of timber and removal of WAA outside of Block 17 from TSR. Community Watershed designation requires additional controls to be put into place.


D Unlikely


Low Low 1-4, 1-8, 2-4

Cat and heli ski tenures are limited to upper watershed so potential for contamination due to fuel spills is lower due to distance from intake and dilution. Potential avalanche risk in area of alpine ski tenure.

Hazards Related to Potential Development within Watershed

2-3 Roads and Infrastructure

D Unlikely

2 Minor Low 2

Moderate Low 1-8, 2-4

Unlikely that road construction will occur within the WAA due to steep slopes and type of existing land use. Existing water supply infrastructure considered a low hazard risk due to relatively recent date of construction and back-up generator being in place; however, relatively remote location could result in delayed response, which could be impacted by increased traffic on access road if proposed Revelstoke Adventure Park is constructed.

2-4 Other B 3 Very High 2 1-1, 1-3, Demand for backcountry recreation within WAA will likely increase due to loss of other recreation areas due to development,

1 See Table 13 within report text for definitions 2 See Table 14 within report text for definitions 3 See Table 15a within report text for definitions 4 See Table 15b within report text for definitions

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report





Hazard No.


Unabated Risk

Level3



Recreation Likely Moderate Moderate High 1-4, 1-8, 2-1, 2-2,

2-3

and with increased knowledge of area due to advertising related to skiing, the potential for desire to access WAA for other activities will likely increase. There are many examples of impacts from these types of recreation activities within drinking water source watersheds within the Interior of BC. Creek and intake area are relatively accessible to public; however signage does exist. Recent harvesting in Block 17 increases potential for access to the WAA by the public. The intake and water treatment plant area are generally accessible to the public.


C Possible


Low Low 1-8, 2-3, 2-4

One water license for residential power on Greeley Creek was issued in 1993 for a location downstream of intake. Increased demand for fossil-fuel power alternatives is increasing demand for hydroelectric power. Greeley Creek flow regime (peak flows in late June/ early July) coincides with high electricity demand, making development of resource more economically favorable.

2-6 Placer and Mineral Mining

E Rare 4 Major High 1

Low Moderate 1-8, 2-3, 2-4

The potential for mining development is likely low due to geotechnical hazards within WAA. Mining regulations include provisions for environmental protection. Community watershed designation will likely require a higher standard of protection.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report





Hazard No.


Unabated Risk

Level7



Intrinsic Hazards

1-1 Wildfire A

Almost Certain

3 Moderate

Very High

2 Moderate High 1-3, 1-7,

1-8,2-4

Wildfire risk is already high probability in some areas of watershed, and there is the potential to impact large areas of watershed. Projected increase in temperature and decrease in summer precipitation may result in increase in frequency and severity of wildfires (CBT 2012a), and potential for increased access to the WAA by the public for summer recreation increases probability and consequence relative to current conditions. Vulnerability is moderate due to treatment being in place and proactive fire protection and climate adaptation planning by COR.

1-2 Wildlife B Likely

3 Moderate High 2

Moderate High 1-8

Potential impacts area likely limited to small area of watershed and treatment provides barrier; however, outbreaks occurred in the past. Potential for habitat loss due to projected increase in frequency and severity of droughts, erosion resulting from rapid runoff, increase in frequency and severity of wildfires and changes in pests, diseases and pathogens and biodiversity and decrease in forest productivity (CBT 2012a) may result in wildlife moving from upper watershed into lower areas closer to the intake and reducing quality of source water, with increased treatment costs and potential for insufficient treatment capacity. Projected increases in temperatures are greater for higher elevation areas of WAA (Map 6, Appendix A). Vulnerability is moderate due to treatment being in place and proactive fire protection and climate adaptation planning by COR.

1-3 Mass Movements

A Almost Certain

4 Major Very High 3

High Very High 1-1, 1-6, 1-8, 2-4

Potential for increase in probability of landslides as a result of projected increases in extreme precipitation events, rapid runoff, and soil erosion related to wildfires (CBT 2012a). Treatment is in place; however, access to watershed may limit ability to conduct emergency works so vulnerability is considered high.

1-4 Avalanches C Possible

3 Moderate High 3

High Moderate 1-8, 2-2, 2-4

The projected increase in rain and decrease in snowfall at low elevations in winter (CBT 2012a) may decrease probability of avalanches. Overall risk ratings left unchanged from current conditions.

1-5 Windthrow B Likely

1 Insignificant Moderate 1

Low Low 1-8

Potential for a decline in forest health as a result of frequency and severity of droughts, erosion resulting from rapid runoff, increase in frequency and severity of wildfires and changes in pests, diseases and pathogens and biodiversity and decrease in forest productivity (CBT 2012a) could result in increase in probability of windthrow. Consequence and vulnerability left unchanged from current conditions.

1-6 Stream Channel Instability

B Likely

3 Moderate High 2

Moderate High 1-3, 1-8 Projected increases in rapid runoff, rain-on-snow and rain-on-frozen ground events, and flooding (CBT 2012a) may increase potential for bank failures increasing sediment load and reducing quality of source water, with increased treatment costs and potential for insufficient treatment capacity.

1-7 Forest Insects and Disease

A Almost Certain

2 Minor High 1

Low Moderate 1-1,1-8 Invasive species are projected to increase (CBT 2012a); therefore, probability has been increased. Consequence and vulnerability left unchanged from current conditions.

1-8 Climate Change

A Almost Certain

3 Moderate Very High 2

Moderate High All Climate change affects may be cumulative such that climate change over a period of time may accelerate future changes.

Hazards Related to Land Use and Development

2-1 Forestry C Possible

3 Moderate High 1

Low Moderate 1-8, 2-4 Currently there is a low potential for additional harvesting within WAA due to geotechnical hazards and low economic value of timber and removal of WAA outside of Block 17 from TSR; however, potential for decrease in forest productivity and increase in wildfires and pests (CBT 2012a) could result in economic pressure to harvest within WAA, so probability has been increased

5 See Table 13 within report text for definitions 6 See Table 14 within report text for definitions 7 See Table 15a within report text for definitions 8 See Table 15b within report text for definitions

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report





Hazard No.


Unabated Risk

Level7



from current conditions. However, Community Watershed designation and the presence of treatment reduce vulnerability. Consequence and vulnerability left unchanged from current conditions.


D Unlikely


Low Low 1-4, 1-8, 2-4

Projected climate changes show the potential for decreased winter snowfall (CBT 2012a), which could reduce skiing within the WAA. However, the high elevation and northern aspect of this watershed, which causes relatively larger snowpacks in this watershed relative to many others, could increase ski tourism demand if sufficient snow to continue operations is still present. Due to multiple uncertainties, all risk rankings were left unchanged from current conditions.

2-3 Roads and Infrastructure

C Possible

3 Moderate High 2

Moderate High 1-8, 2-4

It is unlikely that road construction will occur within the WAA due to steep slopes and type of existing land use; however, if roads are constructed, projected increases in rapid runoff, rain-on-snow and rain-on-frozen ground events, and flooding may increase potential for bank and culvert failures and stress on roadways and bridges (CBT 2012a); thus, level of consequence has been increased from current conditions. Projected increases in extreme weather and damage to power lines (CBT 2012a) could increase risk to aging intake and water treatment infrastructure.

2-4 Other Recreation

B Likely

4 Major Very High 2

Moderate

High

1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-8, 2-1, 2-2,

2-3

Warmer temperatures and a longer summer season (CBT 2012a) could increase summer tourism due causing increased water demand and access to WAA by the public. Demand for backcountry recreation within WAA will likely increase due to loss of other recreation areas due to population growth and land development. Consequence increased to major due to increased wildfire risks under projected climate conditions.


B Likely

3 Moderate High 1

Low Moderate 1-8, 2-3, 2-4

Probability increased from current conditions due to inferred increased in demand for non-fossil fuel energy sources in the future.

2-6 Placer and Mineral Mining

E Rare

4 Major High 1

Low Moderate 1-8, 2-3, 2-4 Not expected to be affected by projected climate changes; therefore, risk ratings left unchanged from current conditions.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report




Table 18: Recommended Risk Management Actions

Hazard No.

Drinking Water Hazard Current Abated Risk Level

Climate Change Scenario Abated

Risk Level

Recommendation(s)

Intrinsic Hazards

1-1 Wildfire Moderate High 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 2) Access issues; 3) Assess and mitigate wildfire risks; 5) Emergency Response; 6) Water Supply Management 1-2 Wildlife Moderate High 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 2) Access issues; 6) Water Supply Management 1-3 Mass Movements Very High Very High 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 5) Flow and climate monitoring; 6) Water Supply Management; 8) Stakeholder group; 9) Terrain Monitoring 1-4 Avalanches Moderate Moderate 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 5) Flow and climate monitoring; 6) Water Supply Management; 8) Stakeholder group; 9) Terrain Monitoring 1-5 Windthrow Low Low 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 3) Assess and mitigate wildfire risks; 5) Emergency Response; 6) Water Supply Management

1-6 Stream Channel Instability High High 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 2) Access issues; 5) Flow and climate monitoring; 6) Water Supply Management; 8) Stakeholder group; 9) Terrain Monitoring

1-7 Forest Insects and Disease Low Moderate 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 3) Assess and mitigate wildfire risks; 5) Emergency Response; 6) Water Supply Management 1-8 Climate Change High High 3) Assess and mitigate wildfire risks; 6) Water Supply Management; 7) Climate Adaptation


2-1 Forestry Low Moderate 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 2) Access issues; 3) Assess and mitigate wildfire risks; 4) Emergency Response; 5) Flow and climate monitoring; 6) Water Supply Management; 8) Stakeholder group; 9) Terrain Monitoring

2-2 Recreation (skiing) Low Low 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 2) Access issues; 6) Water Supply Management; 8) Stakeholder group; 9) Terrain Monitoring

Hazards Related to Potential Development within Watershed

2-3 Roads and Infrastructure Low High 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 5) Flow and climate monitoring; 6) Water Supply Management; 8) Stakeholder group

2-4 Other Recreation High

High

1) Assess back-up supply elements; 2) Access issues; 5) Flow and climate monitoring; 6) Water Supply Management; 8) Stakeholder group; 9) Terrain Monitoring

2-5 Hydroelectric Power Generation Low Moderate 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 5) Flow and climate monitoring; 6) Water Supply Management

2-6 Placer and Mineral Mining Moderate Moderate 1) Assess back-up supply elements; 5) Flow and climate monitoring; 6) Water Supply Management; 10) No staking reserve application

https://capws.golder.com/sites/p214930116revelstokegreeleycreekwatershed/reports/deliverables/draft/1214930116-001-r-revc_tables 7, 12, 16 and 18_cor greeley cr source-to-tap 09apr_13.docx

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report



April 9, 2013 Report No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC

APPENDIX A Maps





23

Highway South

23

Highway

North

GreeleyCreek

Hamilton Creek

Clachnacudainn Creek

TonkawatlaCreek

Bridge Cree

k

DolanCreek

West

Twin

Cree

k

Wells Creek

Il lecillewaet Ri ve

r

Griffith Creek

Begbie Creek

Montana CreekScottC

reek

Colum

biaRiv

er

Upper Arrow Lake

Lake

Reve

lstok

e

500

1700

1500

1900

1800

1000

900

800

1100

1000

900

1400

1300

1200

2100

1700

1600

19001800

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

900

1500

220019001800 1700

160015001400170

0

16001500

1400130

0120

0110

0

1000

900800

700

2400

2300

2200

2100

2000

1900

1900

1200

600 500

180017001600

1400

1200

12001100

2200

2400

230022

00

20001300

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

1000

800

700

600

800

700

19001600

2300

2000

1800

2300

2400

2300

1700

18001900

2000

1900

800

2100

22002100

1500140

0

1700

1800

2300

2200

2200

700

600

2300

23002200

2300

2400

800

700

2500

2300

2100

2100

2200

2000

1400

1300

2000

2200

2100

1600

1700

600

1800

1900

2100

600

1700

2000

600

1500

1600

500

TW02-3(GolfCourse)

WaterIntake

TreatmentPlant

ArrowHeightsResevoir

Trans CanadaHwy Resevoir

Mt.MacKenzie

Mt.Revelstoke

GhostPeak

REVELSTOKEAIRPORT RD

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

1_Ke

y_Pl

an.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 10

:52:

42 A

M

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

KEY PLAN

MAP 1

12-1493-0116

SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

16 JAN 2013

CHECK

AS

PVA

16 JAN 2013



Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Environment Canada Climate stations from GeoBC. Elevation from Geobase, Greeley Community Watershed from GeoBC.


LEGEND


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Resevoir

Well Location (ID)

Environment Canada Climate Stations

Water Main (From Intake to Resevoirs)

City of Revelstoke Boundary

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Contours (100m)

Named Watercourse

Water Body

Wetland

Glacier

Revelstoke Airport and Dam


REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

2 0 2


Greeley CommunityWatershed

City ofRevelstoke

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

Kelowna

Vancouver

Revelstoke

Prince George

BRITISHCOLUMBIA

Study Location

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

2_La

nd_U

se_D

etai

l_in

_Low

er_W

ater

shed

.mxd

/ 4/4

/201

3 / 1

0:25

:32

AM

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

LAND USE DETAIL INLOWER WATERSHED

MAP 2SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT

Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, Imagery from Bing Maps, other base features from theCity of Revelstoke. Greeley Community Watershed and Tenures from GeoBC.


LEGEND



Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Flow Monitoring Station

Water License (POD ID)

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Contours (100m)

Named Watercourse

Downie Timber Roads




Parcels and Tenure (Roll Number)

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

0.25 0 0.25


AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report



GreeleyCreek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

3_Bi

ogeo

clim

atic

_Zon

es_a

nd_F

ores

t_H

ealth

.mxd

/ 3/2

7/20

13 /

10:5

1:15

AM

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONESAND FOREST HEALTH

MAP 3SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA



Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, other base features from the City of Revelstoke.Greeley Community Watershed, Pest (>Year 2000) and BEC Zones from GeoBC.


LEGEND





Railway

Named Watercourse

Water Body

Wetland

Glacier

Pest Infestation TypeWestern Balsam Bark Beetle (IBB)Mountain Pine Beetle (IBM)Fire (NB)

Biogeoclimatic ZoneInterior Cedar -- HemlockEngelmann Spruce -- Subalpine FirInterior Mountain -- Heather

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report



GreeleyCreek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

4_Be

droc

k_G

eolo

gy.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 10

:51:

49 A

M

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

BEDROCK GEOLOGY

MAP 4SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA



Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, other base features from the City of Revelstoke.Greeley Community Watershed, Bedrock Geology from GeoBC.


LEGEND





Railway

Named Watercourse

Water Body

Wetland

Glacier

Bedrock Geology Typeorthogneiss metamorphic rocksmudstone, siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rockslimestone, slate, siltstone, argillitelimestone, marble, calcareous sedimentary rocksundivided sedimentary rocks

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report



GreeleyCreek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r

10001100

12001300

1400

1200

11001000

900800

16001700

1800

1900

700

600

2200

21002000

2100

2000

1900

23002200

2100

2100

2000

90010001100

110012001300

2200210

0

2100

2000

1600

1700

2200

1500

15001400

1900 1900

2300

500

600700

800900

1000

1300 1100

14001500

2300

2100

1700

2000

2300

2200

12001300

1400

1500

2200

2300

2300

800

1000 900

1100

1200

1300

24002300

2200

2100

800

700

600

1400

18001700

2400

2300

2200

2300

2100

2300

24002200

1800

19002300

1900

2100

2000

2000

1800

2100

1900

800

1700

1600

2100

2000

2000

1900

1900

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1600

1600

1600

1600

1600

600

700 800

800

900

900

900

1000

1000

1100

1200 1200

1300

1300

700

1000

1300

1400

1400

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

2100

2100

2000

2000

1900

1800

1500

14001500

2100

2000

2200 20

00

1500

2200

2200

2100

2000

2000

1900

1900

1800

1800

1800

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1600

1600

1600

1600

1600

1100 1100

1100

1200

1200

1200

1300

1300

1300

1100

1300

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1500

1500

1500

2100

2100

2000

2000

1900

1800

1600

1500

2000

2200

22002200

2200

2100

2100

2000

2000

2000

1900

1900

1900

1900

1800

1700

1700

1600

1600

1600

1500


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

5_Te

rrain

_Sta

bilit

y.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 11

:39:

44 A

M

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

TERRAIN STABILITY

MAP 5

12-1493-0116

SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

AL

GC

PVA



Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, other base features from the City of Revelstoke. GreeleyCommunity Watershed from GeoBC. Terrain Stability (TSIL D) Classification datafrom Forsite Consultants Ltd, 1997.


LEGEND



Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Named Watercourse

Water Body

Wetland

Glacier

Terrain Stability ClassificationUnclassifiable

Alpine

Stable

Potentially Unstable

Unstable

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

6_H

isto

ric_a

nd_P

roje

cted

_Mea

n_An

nual

_Tem

pera

ture

_and

_Pre

cipi

tatio

n.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 12

:00:

30 P

M

REV. 1DESIGN

HISTORIC AND PROJECTED MEAN ANNUALTEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION

MAP 6SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT



REFERENCES

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURE - BASELINE (1961-1990) MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURE - FUTURE (2050)

MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - FUTURE (2050)MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - BASELINE (1961-1990)

2 0 2


DRAFT

LEGEND


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Named Watercourse

Mean Annual Temperature (°C)-2.1 - -1.1

-1 - -0.1

0 - 0.9

1 - 2.9

3 - 4.9

5 - 7

Mean Annual Precipitation (mm)1,428 - 1,699

1,700 - 1,899

1,900 - 1,999

2,000 - 2,099

2,100 - 2,199

2,200 - 2,371

MAP SCALE

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

7_H

isto

ric_a

nd_P

roje

cted

_Sum

mer

_and

_Win

ter_

Tem

pera

ture

s.m

xd/ 3

/27/

2013

/ 2:

26:0

6 PM

REV. 1DESIGN

MAP 7SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT



REFERENCES

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


MEAN SUMMER TEMPERATURE - BASELINE (1961-1990) MEAN SUMMER TEMPERATURE - FUTURE (2050)

MEAN WINTER TEMPERATURE - FUTURE (2050)MEAN WINTER TEMPERATURE - BASELINE (1961-1990)

HISTORIC AND PROJECTEDSUMMER AND WINTER TEMPERATURE

2 0 2


DRAFT

LEGEND


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Named Watercourse

Mean Seasonal Temperature (°C)-11.3 - -10.1

-10 - -8.1

-8 - -6.1

-6 - -2.1

-2 - 0

0.1 - 1.9

2 - 3.9

4 - 4.1

4.2 - 5.9

6 - 7.9

8 - 9.9

10 - 11.9

12 - 13.9

14 - 16

MAP SCALE

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

8_H

isto

ric_a

nd_P

roje

cted

_Sum

mer

_and

_Win

ter_

Prec

ipita

tion.

mxd

/ 3/2

7/20

13 /

2:27

:37

PM

REV. 1DESIGN

MAP 8SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT



REFERENCES

AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


HISTORIC AND PROJECTEDSUMMER AND WINTER PRECIPITATION

2 0 2


DRAFT

LEGEND


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Named Watercourse

Mean Seasonal Precipitation (mm)259 - 299

300 - 349

350 - 399

400 - 449

450 - 499

500 - 549

550 - 599

600 - 649

650 - 699

700 - 749

750 - 799

800 - 849

850 - 899

900 - 949

MAP SCALE

MEAN SUMMER PRECIPITATION - BASELINE (1961-1990) MEAN SUMMER PRECIPITATION - FUTURE (2050)

MEAN WINTER PRECIPITATION - FUTURE (2050)MEAN WINTER PRECIPITATION - BASELINE (1961-1990)

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report



GreeleyCreek

Hamilton Creek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r

Montana CreekScottC

reek


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

330232

1000591

1014832

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_0

9_La

nd_R

eser

ves_

Tenu

res_

and_

Appl

icat

ions

.mxd

/ 4/4

/201

3 / 9

:14:

01 A

M

DRAFT

REV. 1DESIGN

LAND TENURES, RESERVES,AND APPLICATIONS

MAP 9SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT

Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10,Elevation from Geobase, Imagery from Bing Maps, other base features from theCity of Revelstoke. Greeley Community Watershed from GeoBC.


LEGEND



Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Named Watercourse

Downie Timber Roads


Ghost Peak Recreation Reserve



Parcels and Tenure

Selkirk Metals Mineral Claim (Tenure Number ID)

Mineral and Placer Reserves (Site Number ID)

Crown Tenures (Within WAA)Alpine Ski - General

Cat Ski

Heli Ski

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


GreeleyCreek

Hamilton Creek

West

Twi n

Cree

k

Il lecillewaet Rive

r

Montana CreekScottC

reek


Mt.MacKenzie

GhostPeak

N:\C

AD-G

IS\V

AN\2

012\

12-1

493\

12-1

493-

0116

Gre

ely

Cre

ek\M

appi

ng\M

XD\M

ap_1

0_W

ildfir

e_R

isk_

Rat

ings

.mxd

/ 3/2

7/20

13 /

11:4

3:36

AM

REV. 1DESIGN

WILDFIRE RISK RATINGS

MAP 10SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

CHECK

AS

PVA


PROJECT

Wildfire Risk Ratings provided by B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. (MLI et. al. 2011)Hydrology data from BC Fresh Water Atlas, Transportation data from CanVec10, Elevation from Geobase, Imagery from Bing Maps, other base features from theCity of Revelstoke. Greeley Community Watershed from GeoBC.


LEGEND

REFERENCES

MAP SCALE

1 0 1


AL

GC

16 JAN 2013

25 JAN 2013

12-1493-0116

16 JAN 2013

16 JAN 2013


Water Intake

Treatment Plant

SEEINSET

INSET

DRAFT



Water Intake

Treatment Plant

Highway

Main Road

Other Road

Railway

Named Watercourse

Fire Risk Ratings (Consequence - Probability)Low - Low

Low - Moderate

Low - High

Moderate - Low

Moderate - Moderate

Moderate - High

No Risk Data

Hazarduous Fuel Types

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report




APPENDIX B Selected Photos from Site Visit on November 20, 2012




APPENDIX B Selected Photos From Site Visit on November 20, 2012

April 9, 2013 Reference No. 1214930116-001-R-RevC 1/7

Figure 1: Sign posted at entrance to intake and water treatment plant access road.

Figure 2: Greeley Creek just upstream of the intake site (facing upstream).






Figure 3: Intake site on Greeley Creek (intake on left; facing downstream towards adjustable weir and constriction).

Figure 4: Adjustable weir below overhead crane in Greeley Creek (intake just upstream of weir and crane).






Figure 5: Adjustable sliding gate at intake on Greeley Creek.

Figure 6: Overhead crane showing 1 metric tonne lifting capacity.






Figure 7: First settling pond at intake site on Greeley Creek (gravel/natural bed in first pond).

Figure 8: Sliding gate separating the first (right) and second (left) settling ponds at intake site.






Figure 9: Second settling pond at Greeley Creek intake site (concrete floor in second pond).

Figure 10: Screen intake to water treatment plant in manhole of second settling pond at end of walkway.






Figure 11: Resource (forestry) road accessing lower east area of the Greeley Creek watershed.

Figure 12: Recent (2012) forest harvesting operations in the Greeley Creek watershed upstream of the water intake site.






Figure 13: Current flow monitoring site on Greeley Creek downstream of the intake site.

Figure 14: Greeley Creek downstream of the intake site near the flow monitoring site (facing upstream towards rail bridge).

https://capws.golder.com/sites/p214930116revelstokegreeleycreekwatershed/reports/deliverables/draft/1214930116-001-r-revc_appendix b_cor greeley cr source-to-tap 09apr_13.docx






APPENDIX C Provincial Water Licenses on Greeley Creek




APPENDIX C Provincial Water Licences on Greeley Creek


Licence No.

WR Map/ Point Code

Stream Name Purpose Quantity Units

Qty Flag

Rediv Flag Licensee

Water District/ Precinct

Licence Status

Process Status Priority Date Issue Date

C047974 82.M.010.2.1 C (PD28751)

Greeley Creek

Waterworks Local Auth 4977968.55 MY M No

CITY OF REVELSTOKE BOX 170 REVELSTOKE BC V0E2S0

REV - REVELSTOKE Current N/A 13-Jul-1976

C100606 82.M.010.2.1 D (PD52905)

Greeley Creek

Power- Residential 0.085 MS T No

BIRKENBACH LIONEL & NAKAO FUMIKO PO BOX 321 REVELSTOKE BC V0E2S0

REV - REVELSTOKE Current N/A 11-Dec-1989 12-Nov-1993

F011233 82.M.010.2.1 C (PD28751)

Greeley Creek

Waterworks Local Auth 1659322.85 MY M No

CITY OF REVELSTOKE BOX 170 REVELSTOKE BC V0E2S0

REV - REVELSTOKE Current N/A 17-Nov-1930

Note – This table is from the web query for provincial water licences available online at: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/wtrwhse/water_licences.input

Notes:

WR – Water Rights Qty – Quantity (M – Maximum licenced demand for purpose; T – Total demand for purpose) ReDiv – Rediversion MY – Cubic Metres per Year MS – Cubic Metres per Second

https://capws.golder.com/sites/p214930116revelstokegreeleycreekwatershed/reports/deliverables/draft/1214930116-001-r-revc_appendix c_cor greeley cr source-to-tap 09apr_13.docx

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report




APPENDIX D Meeting Notes




Golder Associates Ltd.

220 - 1755 Springfield Road, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1Y 5V5 Tel: +1 (250) 860 8424 Fax: +1 (250) 860 9874 www.golder.com

Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America


1.0 INTRODUCTION OF ATTENDEES City of Revelstoke Tony Edwards Director of Engineering (acting) [email protected] Rob Girard Fire Chief [email protected] Gordon Hall Engineering Technologist [email protected] Darren Komonoski Operations Manager [email protected] Penny Page-Brittin Environmental Sustainability Coordinator [email protected] Doug Pendergast Utilities Foreman [email protected] CBT Communities Adapting to Climate Change Initiative (CACCI) Katherine (Kate) Mahoney Coordinator [email protected] Cindy Pearce Technical Support [email protected] Jeff Zukiwsky Project Liaison [email protected] Interior Health Authority Rob Fleming Drinking Water Officer [email protected] Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Kevin Lavelle Stewardship Officer [email protected] Golder Associates Ltd. Pattie Amison Project Manager [email protected] Geoff Cahill Water Resources Engineer [email protected] Jacqueline (Jacquie) Foley Project Director [email protected]

November 8, 2012 Reference No. 1214930116-M-Rev0

GREELEY CREEK DRINKING WATER SOURCE TO TAP WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Summary Notes of the Project Initiation Meeting (Teleconference)

Held November 6, 2012 (9:00 - 10:00 AM)




1214930116-M-Rev0 November 8, 2012

2/3

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SCHEDULE

Jacquie Foley reviewed proposal methodology which would follow the BC Comprehensive Drinking Water Source-to-Tap Assessment Guideline, Modules 1, 2, 7 and 8 for the Greeley Creek Watershed.

Penny Page-Brittin had no concerns with the scope.

Jeff Zukiwsky was wondering how the climate change impacts data would be integrated throughout the modules and suggested holding a workshop. He mentioned that CACCI has worked with between nine to eleven communities in the basin on climate adaptation planning and they have completed technical assessments of future stream projections for the community of Kaslo and storm-water management for the community of Castlegar and are willing to provide the reports for Golder to review.

Jacquie Foley agreed that holding a workshop early would probably be helpful; however we need to keep in mind the scope of work and budget within the proposal and referred to the work plan in the proposal which indicated that one climate change scenario would be examined during the risk assessment and recommendations portion (Modules 7&8) of the Source-to-Tap Assessment. Requested that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provide Golder with the climate change scenario that they want Golder to examine and that they provide input for the risk ranking, as it is a subjective process.

Penny Page-Brittin suggested that the Public Open House have a particular focus on climate change and that Golder’s work plan be forwarded to CACCI. Jacquie Foley approved forwarding of the work plan.

The only real change to the proposed work plan was the proposed schedule. Discussed holding the public open house well after the holidays, perhaps in February in order to assure good attendance. Golder approved extending the schedule as long as it did not result in more time being spent than is allocated in the work plan and suggested that a draft report would be completed by mid-December, before the holidays.

3.0 DISCUSSION TOPICS 3.1 Watershed Vision and Specific Areas of Concern

Discussed concerns over outside threats from other stakeholders, specifically people parking cars at the water intake at treatment plan and skiing down from Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). Penny Page-Brittin thought a source protection plan would help the City have a say about what happens on the crown land of the watershed and mentioned that the City had considered annexing the watershed lands.

Discussed logging in watershed. Downie Timber holds a forest license, which is a volume-based tenure that does not pertain to any particular area. There was disagreement about whether they are currently logging in the watershed and if so, where. Anecdotes of Downie logging right above the water intake and/or along watershed boundary. The majority of the watershed has some commercial timber in it. The last Timber Supply Review conducted in 2008-2009 eliminated the Greeley Creek watershed area. The reviews are conducted every 10 years. Ministry of Forests recognizes the importance of the watershed as a domestic water supply. A map showing the forest licence and cut areas may be available.

Wildfire risks discussed. There is planned development on west side of watershed, at base and into higher elevations. Prevailing winds from west are a concern.

Blacktie has commercial recreation tenure near the watershed. Try contacting the Ministry’s Resort Development branch for more information. Blacktie contact name is Jason Roe.




1214930116-M-Rev0 November 8, 2012

3/3

Discussed flows in creek, and data availability. Cindy Pearce said driest years can give indication of impacts of future drought, asked if there are records for 2002-2003. Doug Pendergast said they weren’t monitoring at that time but didn’t remember having any issues with flow. The City has continued monitoring flow after the Dayton and Knight work in 2007-2008, but the data is spotty. Golder requested the City to send all flow data, in excel format if possible.

3.2 Climate Change

Already discussed earlier in call, agreed to discuss at a later date after Golder has a chance to review more information. CACCI may have more information available than what was provided in the RFP package.

3.3 Reporting

Discussed that the report would be technical but readable by a larger audience. It was suggested that the City could write portions in-house but agreed that the City contracted out the work for a reason and Golder should write the draft and it will be reviewed by the TAC. Geoff Cahill said that the Source-to-Tap guideline is fairly prescriptive but that Golder will incorporate other things as best we can within the budget.

3.4 Public Open House

Tentatively to be held in February.

Golder team will be available to answer questions during open house.

4.0 ACTION ITEMS

Geoff Cahill will schedule site visit and update meeting directly with Penny. Doug Pendergast will be his guide/or arrange for a guide out to the water intake site.

Penny Page-Brittin will send Golder a list of the attendees and their titles, Downie Timber contact information and mapping, any more City data available (i.e., flow and water use), a link to the OCP, and the CACCI reports from the Kalso and Castlegar pilot projects.

Kevin Lavelle will gather aerial photos of watershed for Golder to be made available to Geoff Cahill during his reconnaissance.

Minutes Completed by: Reviewed by:

Pattie Amison, M.Sc., EPt Jacqueline Foley, M.Sc., Geo.L. Scientist, Hydrogeology Group Associate, Senior Hydrogeologist PVA/GC/JF/tc CC: Penny Page-Brittin, Environmental Sustainability Coordinator

http://capws.golder.com/sites/p214930116revelstokegreeleycreekwatershed/reports/deliverables/draft/1214930116-001-r-revc_appendix d-1_cor greeley cr source-to-tap 09apr_13.docx




Golder Associates Ltd.

220 - 1755 Springfield Road, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1Y 5V5 Tel: +1 (250) 860 8424 Fax: +1 (250) 860 9874 www.golder.com

Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America


1.0 ATTENDEES City of Revelstoke Penny Page-Brittin Environmental Sustainability Coordinator [email protected] John Buhler Utilities Person / Relief Foreman Golder Associates Ltd. Geoff Cahill Water Resources Engineer [email protected]

2.0 SITE VISIT LOCATIONS

City and Golder met at the Public Works yard at approximately 9 am

Drove east of Revelstoke along Trans-Canada Highway to view watershed

Day was cool, overcast, and low-lying cloud restricted view of watershed

Drove up Greeley Road and viewed current development and private land

Drove up access road to water intake and Water Treatment Plant (WTP)

Drove up resource road to view current forestry operations of Downie Timber

Drove down to Greeley Road to view bridge crossing where flow measurements are taken

3.0 SITE VISIT NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS 3.1 Water Intake

Water intake is located at end of access road (past WTP)

Intake is located on left bank of Greeley Creek

January 30, 2012 Reference No. 12-1493-0116

GREELEY CREEK DRINKING WATER SOURCE TO TAP WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Site Visit Summary Notes

November 20, 2012




12-1493-0116 January 30, 2012

2/2

There are two settling ponds with control gates and overflow regulation

Hydraulic controls are an adjustable in-stream weir and constriction walls

Weir can be adjusted with large timbers placed between concrete blocks

A 1 tonne overhead crane is mounted at site to lift timbers

Second pond has concrete floor

There is a manhole and screen intake to WTP

City told Golder about skiers accessing watershed and exiting at intake site

3.2 Water Treatment Plant

City gave Golder a general tour of WTP

WTP uses micro-filtration and chlorination

3.3 Forestry Operations

Resource road and logging activity is within approximately 150 m of intake (upstream)

Boundary of cutblock is on top of very steep slope (approximately 100% slope)

Evidence of recent windthrow along boundary above intake

3.4 Flow Measurement Site

City periodically measures stream velocity and depth at Greeley Road bridge

Measurements are manually taken from bridge deck (i.e., equipment lowered from bridge)

Bed form and channel characteristics are different from intake site to measurement site

Notes Completed by:

Geoff Cahill, P.Eng. Water Resources Engineer GC https://capws.golder.com/sites/p214930116revelstokegreeleycreekwatershed/reports/deliverables/draft/1214930116-001-r-revc_appendix d-2_cor greeley cr source-to-tap 09apr_13.docx






APPENDIX E GIS Data on DVD






APPENDIX F IDF Information from Revelstoke Airport Road Climate Station




Short Duration Rainfall Intensity−Duration−Frequency Data

Données sur I’intensité, la durée et la fréquence des chutes de pluie de courte durée

5 10 15 30 60 2 6 12 24

Minutes Duration/Durée Hours/Heures

Inte

nsity

(mm

/h)

/ Int

ensi

té(m

m/h

)

1

2

3

4

56789

10

20

30

40

5060708090

100

200

300

400

500600

2

510

2550

100

REVELSTOKE AIRPORTRDBC1176751

1970 − 199422 years / ans

Latitude50o 57’NLongitude118o 10’W

Elevation / Altitude450 m

Return Periods/Périodes de retourYears / ans

Caution/Sujet à caution :Average 95% Confidence Interval > ±25%

Intervalle de confiance moyen 95% > ±25%

95% Confidence Interval > ±25% Intervalle de confiance de 95% > ±25%

2012/02/09

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report




APPENDIX G Water Consumption Data




APPENDIX G City of Revelstoke Water Consumption Data


Summary of Consumption Data Provided by City of Revelstoke (all values in m3)

Month 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average

January 175890 183997 184050 184660 183269 166893 173646 172445 160503 156195 174155

February 160745 169106 181386 162792 162492 151805 163076 154844 144528 152570 160334

March 149250 178725 186813 188871 175932 183557 162534 170721 170057 157550 162581 171508

April 177258 164694 179942 179995 183372 176913 153923 155974 145229 151915 147786 165182

May 191300 184838 202431 181780 221165 200813 193999 172202 170061 174878 159247 186611

June 200722 227711 222492 204728 209875 206938 201302 172346 217429 180283 178762 202053

July 257989 265095 329798 237671 256200 265713 249530 220851 262548 231645 183100 250922

August 257568 262207 284872 242537 294976 244607 240870 202037 251709 212433 213280 246100

September 201166 195291 204429 182363 187067 197000 197000 159316 179923 155936 170724 184565

October 179392 171930 177308 175030 179654 173938 165608 149811 157986 150387 139091 165467

November 161556 165301 163679 161507 174401 157865 155947 135284 139013 133120 122163 151803

December 173385 181132 173093 168917 188382 166313 171304 169129 158058 148769 138317 166982

Total 1949587 2333560 2477959 2288834 2418475 2319419 2210715 2044394 2179303 2001946 1923816 2195273

https://capws.golder.com/sites/p214930116revelstokegreeleycreekwatershed/reports/deliverables/draft/1214930116-001-r-revc_appendix g_cor greeley cr source-to-tap 09apr_13.docx

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report




APPENDIX H City of Revelstoke Stream Flow Monitoring Data




APPENDIX H City of Revelstoke Streamflow Monitoring Data



Date Flow (L/s) Date Flow (L/s) Date Flow (L/s) Date Flow (L/s)

3-Jan 321 3-Jan 434 16-Jan 377 25-Jan 316

10-Jan 368 9-Jan 500 23-Jan 374 2-Feb 358

24-Jan 262 16-Jan 328 6-Feb 437 15-Feb 345

31-Jan 234 1-Feb 320 23-Mar 286 22-Feb 335

7-Feb 275 6-Feb 413 8-Apr 279 7-Mar 273

14-Feb 271 13-Feb 310 22-Apr 726 15-Mar 267

21-Feb 237 20-Feb 309 26-Jun 4474 29-Mar 370

28-Feb 234 27-Feb 244 19-Apr 552

7-Mar 264 5-Mar 244 2-May 1277

14-Mar 478 12-Mar 314 11-May 1200

21-Mar 458 19-Mar 300 25-May 2588

28-Mar 457 26-Mar 253 11-Jun 5066

4-Apr 467 2-Apr 271 6-Sep 1067

11-Apr 800 9-Apr 254

18-Apr 572 16-Apr 341

25-Apr 781 23-Apr 304

2-May 1123 30-Apr 340

9-May 1486 8-May 735

16-May 3301 23-May 3759

23-May 3477 30-May 5723

30-May 3656 11-Jun 4594

6-Jun 4200 18-Jun 5336

13-Jun 4776 26-Jun 5677

20-Jun 6759 10-Jul 4914

27-Jun 7166 28-Jul 2667

4-Jul 7579 22-Aug 1523

11-Jul 6092 3-Sep 1402

1-Aug 2276 19-Sep 1006

22-Aug 1046 1-Oct 782

29-Aug 986 15-Oct 890




APPENDIX H City of Revelstoke Streamflow Monitoring Data



Date Flow (L/s) Date Flow (L/s) Date Flow (L/s) Date Flow (L/s)

19-Oct 984 31-Oct 900

26-Oct 1169 21-Nov 953

31-Oct 980 10-Dec 630

7-Nov 805

14-Nov 790

21-Nov 598

28-Nov 709

6-Dec 774

13-Dec 618

19-Dec 297

27-Dec 55

http://capws.golder.com/sites/p214930116revelstokegreeleycreekwatershed/reports/deliverables/draft/1214930116-001-r-revc_appendix h_cor greeley cr source-to-tap 09apr_13.docx






APPENDIX I Water Quality Results




CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

CLIENT Revelstoke, City of

1200 East Victoria Road, Box 170

Revelstoke BC

V0E 2S0

TEL

FAX

1-250-837-2001

1-250-837-2059

ATTENTION Doug Pendergast

RECEIVED / TEMP WORK ORDER

REPORTED Dec-12-12

COC #(s)

PROJECT Greeley Intake

PROJECT INFO Comprehensive

General Comments:

CARO Analytical Services employs methods which are based on those found in “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water

and Wastewater”, 21st Edition, 2005, published by the American Public Health Association (APHA); US EPA protocols found in “Test

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW846”, 3rd Edition; protocols published by the British Columbia

Ministry of Environment (BCMOE); and/or CCME Canada-wide Standard Reference methods.

Methods not described in these publications are conducted according to procedures accepted by appropriate regulatory agencies,

and/or are done in accordance with recognized professional standards using accepted testing methodologies and quality control

efforts except where otherwise agreed to by the client.

The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report

must be reproduced in its entirety. CARO is not responsible for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from error or

omission in the conduct of testing. Liability is limited to the cost of analysis. Samples will be disposed of 30 days after the test

report has been issued unless otherwise agreed to in writing.

• All solids results are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted

• Units: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

mg/L = milligrams per litre, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

ug/L = micrograms per litre, equivalent to parts per billion (ppb)

ug/g = micrograms per gram, equivalent to parts per million (ppm)

ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air

• "RDL" Reported detection limit

• "<" Less than reported detection limit

• "AO" Aesthetic objective

• "MAC" Maximum acceptable concentration (health-related guideline)

• "LAB" RMD = Richmond location, KEL = Kelowna location, EDM = Edmonton location, SUB = Subcontracted

Please contact CARO if more information is needed or to provide feedback on our services.

CARO Analytical Services

Final Review Per: Jennifer Shanko, AScT

Administration Coordinator, Kelowna

#110 4011 Viking Way #102 3677 Highway 97N 17225 109 Avenue

Richmond, BC V6V 2K9 Kelowna, BC V1X 5C3 Edmonton, AB T5S 1H7

Tel: 604-279-1499 Fax: 604-279-1599 Tel: 250-765-9646 Fax: 250-765-3893 Tel: 780-489-9100 Fax: 780-489-9700

www.caro.ca

Locations:

2120156

15031

Dec-05-12 08:00 / 2.0 °C

Page 1 of 4CARO Analytical Services




CLIENT

PROJECT

Revelstoke, City of

Greeley Intake

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

2120156

Dec-12-12

SAMPLE DATA

Analyte Result RDL Units Prepared NotesAnalyzed

General Parameters

Greely Intake (2120156-01) Matrix: Water Sampled: Dec-04-12 07:45

Dec-05-12mg/LAlkalinity, Total as CaCO3 40 1 Dec-05-12

mg/L< 0.10Chloride Dec-05-120.10 Dec-05-12

Color Unit< 5Colour, True Dec-05-125 Dec-05-12

uS/cm98Conductivity (EC) Dec-05-122 Dec-05-12

mg/L< 0.010Cyanide, total Dec-12-120.010 Dec-12-12

mg/L< 0.10Fluoride Dec-05-120.10 Dec-05-12

mg/L0.070Nitrogen, Nitrate as N Dec-05-120.010 Dec-05-12

mg/L< 0.010Nitrogen, Nitrite as N Dec-05-120.010 Dec-05-12

pH units7.29pH Dec-05-120.01 Dec-05-12

mg/L13.4Sulfate Dec-05-121.0 Dec-05-12

NTU0.1Turbidity Dec-06-120.1 Dec-06-12

%96.4UV Transmittance @ 254nm Dec-10-120.1 Dec-06-12

Calculated Parameters


N/Amg/LHardness, Total (Total as CaCO3) 45.1 5.0 N/A

mg/L57.1Solids, Total Dissolved N/A2.0 N/A

Total Recoverable Metals


Dec-07-12mg/LAluminum, total < 0.05 0.05 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.001Antimony, total Dec-07-120.001 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.005Arsenic, total Dec-07-120.005 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.05Barium, total Dec-07-120.05 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.001Beryllium, total Dec-07-120.001 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.04Boron, total Dec-07-120.04 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.0001Cadmium, total Dec-07-120.0001 Dec-07-12

mg/L15Calcium, total Dec-07-122 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.005Chromium, total Dec-07-120.005 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.0005Cobalt, total Dec-07-120.0005 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.002Copper, total Dec-07-120.002 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.1Iron, total Dec-07-120.1 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.001Lead, total Dec-07-120.001 Dec-07-12

mg/L1.7Magnesium, total Dec-07-120.1 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.002Manganese, total Dec-07-120.002 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.0002Mercury, total Dec-07-120.0002 Dec-07-12

mg/L0.001Molybdenum, total Dec-07-120.001 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.002Nickel, total Dec-07-120.002 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.2Phosphorus, total Dec-07-120.2 Dec-07-12

mg/L0.8Potassium, total Dec-07-120.2 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.005Selenium, total Dec-07-120.005 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 5Silicon, total Dec-07-125 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.0005Silver, total Dec-07-120.0005 Dec-07-12

mg/L1.2Sodium, total Dec-07-120.2 Dec-07-12

mg/L0.0002Uranium, total Dec-07-120.0002 Dec-07-12





CLIENT

PROJECT

Revelstoke, City of

Greeley Intake

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

2120156

Dec-12-12

SAMPLE DATA

Analyte Result RDL Units Prepared NotesAnalyzed

Total Recoverable Metals, Continued

Greely Intake (2120156-01) Matrix: Water Sampled: Dec-04-12 07:45, Continued

mg/L< 0.01Vanadium, total Dec-07-120.01 Dec-07-12

mg/L< 0.04Zinc, total Dec-07-120.04 Dec-07-12

Microbiological Parameters


Dec-06-12CFU/100mLColiforms, Total 7 1 Dec-05-12

CFU/100mL< 1E. coli Dec-06-121 Dec-05-12





CLIENT

PROJECT

Revelstoke, City of

Greeley Intake

WORK ORDER #

REPORTED

2120156

Dec-12-12

ANALYSIS / REPORT INFORMATION

LABAnalysis Description Method Reference(s) (* = modified from)

Preparation Analysis

APHA 2340 B RMDHardness (Calc) N/A

APHA 5910 B KELTransmissivity at 254nm N/A

APHA 4500-H+ B KELpH in Water N/A

APHA 4500-CN E KELCyanide, Total in Liquids APHA 4500-CN C

APHA 4110 B KELChloride in Water by IC N/A

APHA 4110 B KELFluoride in Water by IC N/A

APHA 4110 B KELNitrite-N in Water by IC N/A

APHA 4110 B KELNitrate-N in Water by IC N/A

APHA 4110 B KELSulfate in Water by IC N/A

APHA 2510 B KELConductivity in Water N/A

APHA 2320 B KELAlkalinity, total N/A

APHA 2130 B KELTurbidity N/A

APHA 2120 C * KELColour, True at 410 nm N/A

APHA 9222 G KELE. coli (Partition Method) N/A

APHA 9222 B KELTotal Coliforms (by Endo) N/A

APHA 3125 B RMDTotal Recoverable Metals APHA 3030E *





Golder Associates Ltd. 220 - 1755 Springfield Road Kelowna, British Columbia, V1Y 5V5 Canada T: +1 (250) 860 8424




of 333Page 216 of 333Page 216 of 333Page 216 of 333

You are invited to a Public Open House on the Greeley Creek Source Protection Plan

Learn more about our Community Watershed

What are potential hazards in the Watershed?

What impacts are anticipated as a result of future climate

and how can we increase our resilience?

What can we do to improve drinking water protection?

Wednesday, May 15, 6:00—8:00 pm

Macpherson Room, Community Centre

For further information contact:

Penny Page-Brittin, Environmental Sustainability Coordinator

at [email protected] AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

AgendaItem#9d.

Greeley C

reek Watershed S

ource P

rotection Plan D

raft Report


greeley creek watershed source protection plan draft

Documents

0116 greely creek mapping mxd map 02 land use detail in lower watershed

0116 greely creek mapping mxd map 06 historic and projected mean annual temperature and precipitation

0116 greely creek mapping mxd map 07 historic and projected summer and winter temperatures

0116 greely creek mapping mxd map 01 key plan

0116 greely creek mapping mxd map 05 terrain stability

0116 greely creek mapping mxd map 09 land reserves tenures and applications

0116 greely creek mapping mxd map 04 bedrock geology

0116 greely creek mapping mxd map 10 wildfire risk ratings