Skip to content

Kimberley City Council discusses the Mark Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan

Kimberley City Council has approved the receipt of the revised Mark Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan (MCIWMP).
10620230_web1_DSCF1214
The Mark Creek Reservoir (Corey Bullock/Kimberley Bulletin file).

Kimberley City Council has approved the receipt of the revised Mark Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan (MCIWMP).

On Tuesday, Feb. 13 at a regular council meeting, Council voted five to two to receive the plan, with councillors Darryl Oakley and Nigel Kitto Voting against.

The Mark Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan, as stated by Senior Manager of Operations, Chris Mummery in a report to Council, has been prepared to develop and/or conserve resources in the Mark Creek Watershed.

“Preservation and protection of water quality (including drinking water quality), quantity, and timing of flows are primary considerations of the MCIWMP,” said the report. “The plan contains specific resource management measures to protect water quality, set a conservative rate of timber harvest, define access management strategies and establish contingency plans. With implementation and monitoring procedures to be consistent with the Forests Practices Code of British Columbia Act.”

Mummery says that the MCIWMP will help with water treatment deferral in the future, thus reducing the need for costly water treatment infrastructure, “the capital cost, operation and maintenance of a water treatment facility would be very onerous to the City of Kimberley and deferral is beneficial.”

Included in the document is a recommendation that the city not allow recreation in the watershed for its protection, however the Kimberley Trails Society has been invited to sit on the committee, which Councillor Darryl Oakley says is a contradiction and therefore he does not support the receipt of the report.

“I find there’s quite a serious contradiction in this report, regarding the invitation of the Trails Society onto the watershed committee,” said Oakley. “I’m glad to see them there, hopefully they will be very involved because I truly support a stewardship process in the watershed, but also in the report is a resolution of council that’s gone to FLNRO (Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operations) saying that they do not support recreation in the watershed. The fact is, there’s a recreational trapper in there… the report is saying they do not support recreation in there, yet they have invited the Trails Society, and the Trails Society is all about a stewardship/recreational approach to the watershed.”

Oakley then suggested deferring the motion until council can “sort out the contradiction”. He says it should be one way or the other: recreation is allowed and therefore the trails society has room to take leadership in the form of a stewardship process, or they are not a part of the committee and recreation is now allowed.

Councillor Albert Hoglund disagreed, saying that trappers are not there for recreation, and that the trails society was asked to be on the committee with regards to the Matthew Creek Watershed and trails in Bootleg Mountain, as opposed to trails within the Mark Creek Watershed.

Oakley responded saying, “I still feel that this document contradicts itself. The trails society has to be clear on how they will participate on this. Trappers don’t make a living on that, so its a recreational process, its a tenureship in the watershed and theres a purpose for that. If you’re going to be doing this and logging in there, the stewardship process is set up to keep an eye on the activity thats going on in there…”

Councillor Kent Goodwin says the Mark Creek Watershed Committee has been going for a very long time.

“It [the committee] has taken on, to some extent, the mandate of looking at the Matthew Creek Watershed as well, so the work of the committee is one thing,” said Hoglund. “This is the Mark Creek Watershed report specifically. The question before us is do we endorse what it says about the Mark Creek? Whether we agree with how the committee operates in the future or how we want to design the committee, that’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is this report that’s been several years in the making. It’s being updated because it’s a new iteration of a 20 year old report. In this report, it says the City’s position is: that there should be no recreation in that watershed. If we endorse it then we endorse that position.”

He added that the Trails Society will pick and choose which meetings to attend, especially if they pertain specifically to the Bootleg Gap trails and the Matthew Creek Watershed.

Mayor Don McCormick says that Oakley is, “absolutely correct when he says there is recreation going on in the watershed,” however the City has had a hard time enforcing the no recreation rule that they have put in place which creates some inconsistencies.

“What we have here is a plan in front of us that allows for a number of important things to go forward, as is mentioned in the recommendations,” explained McCormick. “First, is the specific resource management measures that are taken and required to be consistent with the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Secondly, without this [report], we’re not going to get water treatment deferrals, which is really important to us right now, otherwise we’re going to have to pour a ton of money in there sooner than later with respect to water filtration. There are some inconsistencies, but I don’t see this as a static document, it’s a living document. With respect to recreation in the watershed, I think we’ve got a whole lot more discussion to go on with this; I don’t see that it’s in our best interest to vote against this just because that is not clear at this point in time.”

Hoglund added that recreation is often brought up at watershed meetings.

“The biggest thing is that the city can’t enforce it because we don’t own the land,” said Hoglund. “It’s the provincial government’s land. We make the recommendations to those people, and people disobey the signs. The city’s hands are tied.”

Councillor Goodwin agreed, saying they have put in place measures to try and keep recreation out, but “the province needs to be on board.”

The Mayor ended the discussion saying that it is a very large area which makes it “virtually impossible” to enforce no recreation.

“The concept of getting behind the stewardship program to compliment this is a great idea, but it’s not going to happen overnight,” he said.

Councillor Oakley was still not convinced however, on the basis of the “contradiction” in the document.

10620230_web1_DSCF1256
The Mark Creek Dam is part of the Mark Creek Watershed, which is closed to public and recreational access. Kimberley’s drinking water flows through this Dam and into a chlorination station before entering our taps. (Corey Bullock/Kimberley Bulletin file).


Corey Bullock

About the Author: Corey Bullock

Corey Bullock is a multimedia journalist and writer who grew up in Burlington, Ontario.
Read more