“This is Our Watershed” ~ A Community Conversation



[pic]

“This is Our Watershed” ~ A Community Conversation

April 9, 2013 * Lion’s Hall, Invermere * Summary Notes

Contents

1. Welcome to the Watershed Conversation; Introductory Exercise

2. Watersheds, Defined

3. Water for People and Fish

4. Water for Forestry

5. Values of the Watershed the you Appreciate

6. Hazards in the Watershed: Landslides and Climate Change

7. Watershed Concerns and Connections

8. Planning and Looking to the Future

9. What Lies Ahead

** ** **

1. Welcome to the Watershed Conversation

Kirsten Harma, Program Coordinator, Lake Windermere Ambassadors

Harma welcomed the group to the day’s event. She mentioned that the Lake Windermere Ambassadors recognize that what’s happening in the lake relates to things beyond and outside the lake. The Ambassadors want to know more about the watershed, but in order to do so they need to tap into the expert knowledge that lies within the community. Broadening the conversation geographically also means broadening the conversation in terms of who and how many people participate. This workshop is designed to begin to share knowledge about the watershed, foster a sense of place, and generate ideas for the future of the watershed.

Introductory Exercise

Facilitator, Ingrid Liepa

Liepa led the group through an introductory exercise. Each person was invited to introduce himself or herself, what group or organization she or he represents, and share one word that describes the watershed. Participants wrote the word on a piece of construction paper, and the words were then hung on a clothes line at the front of the room.

Outcome:

|Valley |Relaxing |Life |Family |

|Life |Looking up stream |Spectacular |Dirty |

|Life |Forest |Pristine |Interconnectedness |

|Fish |Unique |Life |Connected |

|Activities |Community |Tranquil |Cyclical |

|Critical |Multi-use |  |  |

Liepa invited the group to a place of deep listening, to build a strong connection with each other. She presented the agenda for the day and the workshop objectives.

2. Watersheds, Defined

Megan Kinley, Lake Windermere Ambassadors Youth

Kinley provided a definition of a watershed: an area of land that catches rain or snow and drains into a marsh, lake, or other water body. She then provided a definition by John Weasly Powell and said: “that definition certainly leads us to the idea that a watershed, such as the Columbia River watershed, is an integral part of our lifestyles; valuable for its beauty, economic potential, recreational capacities, and natural habitat.”

Heather Mitchell, Columbia Basin Trust.

Mitchell provided a video from CBT that defines the Columbia River’s watershed, and its use for power generation. She defined a watershed as including glaciers, ponds, rivers, and everything that drains into the Columbia River.

The Columbia River is an important river system. It supplies 50% of BC’s hydropower. There are competing interests for water in this region. We have abundant water which will be a draw for people coming here, so we will need to plan to manage our water resources.

The only portion of the river in its natural state is from Canal Flats to Golden. Therefore, the area being discussed today is unique for the Columbia Basin. We are fortunate here in the Basin with regard to water resources, and how we manage these resources is important.

Mitchell described the water related projects she is working on as Special Initiatives coordinator for CBT.

3. Water for Forestry

Jim Smith, Retired Forester, Creston Community Forest

Smith described the watershed near Creston for its value to the town of Creston. The Columbia Brewery draws water from the creeks near Creston, which is then used to produced beer, generating $1 billion in revenue per year.

Smith gave his rationale for watershed-scale management. He said he has seen creeks in BC dry up from industrial logging.

A fully forested watershed supports:

a) Quality – turbidity, chemistry

b) Quantity - volume

c) Timing of Flow: minimize peak flows; maximize minimum flows in late summer and early fall

Industrial forestry’s goals and objectives are raw material supply to the mills- not managing and protecting other values.

Community forest management’s goal is create, maintain and protect these conditions as much as possible to produce good water. Community control through a community forest allows the community to set the goals and objectives for water as the priority.

The West Kootenay has many examples of functioning community forests primarily concerned with watershed management.

4.Values of the Watershed that you Appreciate

Ingrid Liepa, Facilitator

Liepa invited the group to use maps provided on each table to mark the areas that they appreciate in the watershed. She provided green sticky notes for everyone to mark on the maps.

[pic]

Marking places of value in our watershed

Outcomes:

|Agriculture |Agriculture |Agriculture |

|Air quality |Agriculture |Birding |

|Bald eagle nest |Archeological / natural habitat, wilderness, |First Nations, traditional lands / uses |

| |recreation, scenic | |

|Birds, wetland exploration |Canoeing |Clean air |

|Drinking water |Christmas tree production |Golf courses / water use? |

|Drinking/irrigation |Domestic water systems |Golfing! |

|Economic diversity |Drinkable from streams |Griz bear habitat |

|Ecotourism |Fish, cooling off and exploring in Paddy Ryan |Hiking, biking, recreation skiing |

|Impacts of "special events" - running, |Frozen (glacier) vs. fluid (lake/river) vs. |Historical use - David Thompson |

|biking, boating, festivals, rv |wetlands (sponge) | |

|Forest production |Grasslands |Hobby farms |

|Guide outfitting |Hot springs |Hoodoos |

|Hiking/biking |Hunting - Brewer, |Toby Farm wildlife (cows) |

|Hunting and fishing opportunity |Kayaking Canoeing |Incredible beauty |

|Irrigation |Jumbo Wild |Kayaking canoeing |

|Kokanee spawning: Windermere Creek/ |Preservation natural habitats, wildlife, |Landscape management &Construction/ K2/SRL|

|Holland Creek/ Ben Able Creek |scenic, non-intrusive recreation |lands/ Nature trust |

|Kayaking |Medicinal plants |Lifestyle properties |

|Lake Enid - social gathering, fishing, |Industry/ mill sites/ logging/ quarries/ dump |Lillian Lake - swim fish |

|swimming |sites | |

|Large tracts of land protected |Recreation |Mineral lick at Toby Creek |

|Nourishment |Natural views |Mining |

|Peak--> valley: walking, hiking |Property value/ family relaxation/recreation |Peace, tranquility |

|snowshoeing |summer-winter | |

|Safe clean beaches |River floating |Outdoor recreation |

|Roads built around watershed/ awesome |Sunshine Park -- swamps wetlands grasslands |Paddy Ryan Lake -- supplies DOI with |

|views | |drinking water |

|Toby rafting |Traditional use |Public lands for public access |

|Toby Mt-biking, x-country skiing |Viewscapes |Rare plants |

|Water for use and for pleasure |Vitality |Resort develop |

|Western slope streams/ domestic water |Wetlands:observation, birdwatching, painng, |Rowing, sailing, swimming, canoeing |

| |photography | |

|White tail Lake - Trophie fishing |Water quality and quantity |Tourism |

|Wetlands |Water sports |Tourism and jobs |

|Wetlands and waterfowl |Waterfall at Goldie |Wetlands, birds, wildlife |

|Wild life |Wilderness solitude |Water quality |

|Wildlife corridors (paths to lake) |Wildlife habitat |Windermere Creek - gypsum mine, twin lakes|

| | |swimming, fresh drinking water from spring|

5. Hazards in the Watershed: Landslides

Jennifer Clarke, Clarke Geoscience

Clarke was contracted to do a geotechnical review of the Fairmont Landslide. She described watershed processes as flooding, landslides, erosion, debris flows and saturated landslides.

From a geotechnical perspective, a watershed consists of a snow accumulation zone, a transport zone, a transition zone and a deposition zone. Important to consider is what lies at the base of a creeks’ watershed, or drainage basin: the fan. Fine sediments in the fan can bury springs, wash out culverts, and destroy water intakes on creeks.

Considerations for land and water use planning should include:

* Awareness of watershed processes

* Assessments of hazards & risk

* Avoidance through planning mechanisms (by-laws, development permits, zoning)

* Watershed-scale management planning to reduce potential for hazardous events

[pic]

A map of the Windermere Creek watershed and the “fan” area it impacts

Hazards in the Watershed: Climate Change

Ingrid Liepa – CBT Communities Adapting to Climate Change

Liepa provided a summary of climate science from CBT and Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium. Her first point was that a projected increase in annual average temperature of 1 C may not sound like much but is roughly equivalent to 35 days of the year being 10 C warmer than average. Current climate projections suggest unprecedented temperatures and new weather extremes.

What does this mean locally? The projected impact in the Kootenays is a 2-degree increase in annual average temperatures by 2050. This may mean less water in the streams in the summer, and glacier retreat. A water supply and demand study in Kaslo, BC showed that they will be at 100% use of their water supply by 2012-2015. CBT’s Communities Adapting to Climate Change program will support more communities that want to address future climate impacts.

A member of the audience asked if anyone has studied groundwater in our area. Liepa replied that some communities are looking into groundwater monitoring, but in general we are far from understanding our groundwater resources, let alone how climate impacts them.

[pic]

6. Watershed Concerns and Connections

Ingrid Liepa – Facilitator

The same maps used for values mapping in the morning were brought back in this second session. Ingrid invited the group to use yellow post-it notes to indicate areas that are already impacted. Orange post-it notes should be used to mark areas/concerns that are at risk of being threatened in the future.

Outcomes:

Already impacted

|Invasive species |More development |Water quantity |

|No further treatment (septic)? |Invasive muscles? |Potential run of river diversions |

|Roads for lots of new development |Management/ RDEK/ values, east side of lake |Sense of entitlement/ balancing |

| |contrary to individual municipalities vs. |expectations visitor/tourist/ summer |

| |collective - cooperation |settlers vs. locals |

|Jumbo |Microhydro? |Erosion activities (slumping) |

|Rec sites/ eyes in backcountry |Invasive plants and animals |Loss of wildlife corridors |

|Invasive species | Poor wildlife management (predators) |Water going downstream |

At risk

|Erosion |Development pressure on fishery |Invasive species |

|Shoreline degradation |Paddy Ryan drinking water |water deficit |

|ORV use |Shoreline access for "public" |Non-motorized activities/ |

| |strolling/walking |peace/tranquility |

|Loss of glaciers |Water quality |Eutrophication - crap in lake |

|Grizzly ridge "attitude" signage |fish |Septic impacts on lake |

|  |Upland habitat pressure |  |

[pic]

Sample final map with values and concerns mapped.

7. Planning and Looking to the Future

Dave Zehnder

Zehnder described a project undertaken by a consultant for the Columbia Valley Community Action for Responsible Development. The purpose of the project was to use computer software to show a build out of the Windermere OCP based on existing zoning. He presented a historic growth animation showing increase in dwelling units over time, showing the large increases over the past 30 years.

[pic]

A snapshot of an animation used to show the number of dwelling units over time.

The Visualization software can be used as a planning tool both for land developing planning and water use planning.

8. What Lies Ahead

Ingrid Liepa – Facilitator

Liepa invited participants to discuss three questions in small groups. Groups discussed the questions for about 15 minutes each. The questions were:

* In what ways is the watershed calling for our attention?

* What is needed? What can we do? How do we get there?

[pic]

After the group discussions, Liepa invited each table to come up with one “big idea” based on the discussion.

Outcomes

In what ways is the watershed calling for our attention?

Responses can be grouped as follows:

|Quality |* Water quality |

|  |* Water quality monitoring |

|  |* More and longer boil water advisories on East Side |

|  |* Treatment required for safe drinking water and sewage, and what is not being taken out of the |

| |water (ie, pharmaceuticals) |

|Quantity |* Development pressure – development needs water |

|  |* Climate change ⋄ flooding in June & no to low flow in the late summer |

|  |* Climate change + human-induced change ⋄ flooding |

|  |* Need water quantity monitoring |

|Management/ Governance |* Government has failed us. Government agencies are fragmented, and cohesiveness is gone. |

|  |* How do we plan on a larger scale? |

|  |* Long, narrow valley, cumulative effects along the route – are there efforts towards overall, |

| |consistent management? |

|  |* What can we do in the future for prevention? |

|  |* Fragmentation of government responsibility |

|  |* Legislation is fragmented |

|  |* Lack of funding |

|  |* Need a sense of direction |

|  |* Coordination of government towards a common goal |

|  |* Need for overall governance structure |

|Other |* Examining lifestyle choices |

|  |* Recreational opportunities |

|  |* Viewscapes |

|  |* Increased pressures require more energy and attention |

|  |* How do we reverse what’s happened so far? |

|  |* Invasive plants and animals |

What is needed? What can we do? How do we get there?

|Monitoring |* Water quantity monitoring |

|Citizen Engagement |* More meetings/discussion/engagement |

|  |* Political pressure |

|  |* Broaden conversation to more stakeholders |

|  |* Education of public/children |

|Management/ Governance |* Look at positive examples, et Cowichan, Okanagan |

|  |* Political will |

|  |* Need delegated authority for group to do effective watershed governance |

|  |* If the province delegates governance to the local governments, will money follow? |

|  |* Forethought! |

|  |* Decision-making back in our hands |

|  |* Continuing dialogue to affect change |

|  |* We want to avoid crisis |

|  |* More government funding |

|  |* Collaboration between groups |

|  |* Protection system of watershed (fires, pollution, etc.) |

|  |* Modernization of Water Act |

|  |* Community forest agreement |

|  |* Need water usage plan in development (how is water allocated now?) |

|  |* Higher density development/ stop urban sprawl |

|Other Comments |* Need mandatory boat inspection, boat washing facility (user pays) |

|  |* Water is so much more than what we drink – agriculture, etc. |

|  |* Tourism, recreation-based economy makes it difficult |

|  |* Learn from negative examples, ie. Kelowna |

|  |* Private/philanthropic lands w/ conservancy |

Big Idea:

“Local watershed governance

-Delegated authority

-Monitoring”

“Governance Structure

-Water and land; more holistic with government involvement

-Monitoring, enforcement and planning

-Build from the ground up”

“Broaden the Conversation

-Everyone involved

-Invite landowners”

“Water quantity monitoring across all tributaries”

Harma wrote the “big ideas” on a flip chart for everyone to see. She then drew a chart with “Effectiveness” on the y-axis, and “Plausibility” on the x-axis. This generated discussion about how these ideas might actually be implemented. “Broadening the conversation” was plotted as slightly more effective than “gathering data” and “improving governance”, and “gathering data” was graphed as more plausible but less effective than the other two ideas. Then the group came to the conclusion that all of these things would have to happen simultaneously, and feed into each other. They also realized money would be necessary to keep the processes going.

Closing Statements:

Liepa invited the participants to make any closing statements and share anything else they felt they needed to say at the end of the day:

Responses included:

* Join the Lake Windermere Ambassadors

* Our water supply is our glaciers, and these are melting

* Keep the messaging simple when communicating with the public: think of just three top priority messages

* Use new recruitment techniques to involve more people

* Involve kids

Close

Harma closed the event by thanking everyone for coming, acknowledging the funders, Columbia Basin Trust and the Real Estate Foundation of BC, and acknowledging the government representatives present. She invited the participants to continue the conversation amongst themselves, and gave them a “Call to Action.” Additionally, she invited them to pass on any ideas to the Lake Windermere Ambassadors, and to stay tuned for more ways to be involved in the watershed conversation.

Additional Information

People invited to this event (Lake Windermere Ambassadors Board and members not included)

[pic]

Participation in the Conversation (Lake Windermere Ambassadors Board and members not included)

[pic]

Post-Event Questionnaire Results

What was the most interesting thing you learned?

|Future development |Build-out presentation |

|  |Had no idea the rate of unoccupied units was so high |

|  |Amount of land that could be developed |

|Community forest |So much community forest info |

|  |Creston Community Forest |

|Fairmont Mudslide |About Fairmont's mudslide |

|  |Fairmont slide |

|Everything |Everything -- learned loads. Very informative! |

|  |It was all interesting |

|Event structure |Organization of event = speakers/ Skype - in-person; Activities flow |

|Other |The diversity of the attendees was not as broad as I had expected |

|  |Many organizations going in parallel lines. Struc(cgiaa) on similar issues |

|  |Forward looking/hope |

|  |Other comments from people --> need more people at the table |

|  |The varying governance, treaty, and other bodies and non-profits and interest groups |

| |included |

|  |Breadth of watershed definitions and values |

|  |Need action plans |

|  |The people who were involved and activities already happening within our watershed |

What is your greatest concern about water in the Upper Columbia watershed?

…Now?

|Quality |Quality |

|  |Water quality --> lack of science |

|  |Quality |

|  |Quality of water |

|  |Cleanliness |

|Quantity |Quantity- monitoring of use |

|  |Water resource is under pressure |

|  |Pressure from development |

|  |human impacts/demand |

|Quality and Quantity |the maintenance of quality and quantity of water for all |

|  |Poor water quality and quantity |

|Management/Governance |Lack of overall long-term planning and enforcement of regulations |

|  |Lack of baseline info |

|  |use and environmental monitoring |

|  |Overall water policies |

|  |Our future, our plan, taking action |

|Other |Climate change --> loss of glaciers |

…10 years from now?

|Quantity |Quantity -- more users, less water |

|  |Volume |

|  |Potential Development |

|  |Quantity of water |

|  |quality/quantity diminished-impaired |

|  |Quantity- monitoring of use |

|  |Development pressure on water combined with decreased availability and climate |

|Quality and Quantity |Availability and quality |

|  |that water quality, quantity and biodiversity are degraded |

|  |The maintenance of quality and quantity of water for all |

|Management/Governance |No action taken today |

|  |Lack of joint governance structure |

|  |Watershed change and how we will adapt/ reduce the effects. |

|  |Seeing improvements from a set plan of actions |

|Other |Melting glacier |

|  |urban sprawl |

Who else do you think should be participating in this conversation?

|Youth |Youth |

|First Nations |native/first nations |

|Government |Ministry representatives |

|  |Government |

|  |More local government bodies |

|  |government bodies |

|  |Conservation Authority |

|  |Municipal and regional government people |

|Second Home Owners |non-resident land owners |

|  |Tourist home owners |

|  |out of town property owners |

|  |2nd homeowners, |

|  |non-residents |

|Developers |Developers |

|  |Developers |

|  |Realtors |

|  |developers |

|  |developers |

|Geographic representation |Other areas of the valley |

|Other |Private and philanthropic land owners/conservancy |

|  |All organizations come together |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download