| Key Indexes |
|
|
| Government |
| Quick access to information based on government's structure
|
|
 |
Fisheries Target Risk Assessment
Prepared for the CCLUP Integration Process
|
|
by the Fisheries Target Committee August 15, 1996
Fisheries Target Risk Assessment
Executive Summary
The purpose of the Fisheries Target Committee was to identify
how well short term timber sources can be reconciled with long term fisheries
targets in the CCLUP area. We interpret "fisheries targets" to be no net loss of
fish habitat due to cumulative watershed disturbance.
Due to the large size of the plan area and the limited time
available, the methods used for identifying potential resource conflicts were
largely determined by the nature of readily available information. The
Integration Committee provided seral stage data on each biodiversity unit for
current conditions and for conditions in 2016 which would result with the
proposed timber harvest.
We assumed that cumulative impacts to fish habitat would be
directly related to the amount of harvesting or other disturbance at any given
time, as indicated by seral stage distribution on crown land. We also assumed
that risks to fish habitat would be greater in areas with steeper slopes and
higher precipitation so we categorized the terrain hazard for each biodiversity
unit. We considered the moderating influence of large lakes in estimating
terrain hazards.
Using the above information, we rated the potential risks to
fish habitat for each biodiversity unit that is a watershed. Because "cumulative
effects" is a watershed concept, it does not apply to biodiversity units that
are not watersheds. However, we rated the potential fisheries risks to
aggregates of biodiversity units which make up larger watersheds named in the
CCLUP. This accounts for cumulative effects from most of the non-watershed
biodiversity units.
Our fisheries risk estimates rank biodiversity units and
watersheds according to potential fish habitat impacts resulting from the
combined effects of timber harvesting on crown land, development of private
land, and natural disturbance. They are presented as first approximations of
actual fish habitat impact. This is appropriate for their intended use which is
to help ensure that fisheries targets are met at the landscape level and to help
prioritize the gathering of additional information in the form of watershed
assessments and monitoring. Due to the simplifying assumptions required for this
analysis, the fisheries risk for any individual watershed would be superceded by
site specific assessments.
Among our recommendations are that watershed assessments be
initiated in those watersheds named in the CCLUP as needing controls on the rate
of harvest and ranked as having high fisheries risks in 1996, unless such
assessments are already in progress.
Fisheries Target Risk Assessment
Introduction
The tasks the Fisheries Target Committee undertook were:
a) identify potential conflicts between the Short Term Timber
Availability Assessment and fisheries targets,
b) suggest methods for improving the accuracy of fisheries risk
estimates, and
c) suggest methods for reconciling the Short Term Timber
Availability Assessment with long term fisheries targets in the CCLUP.
In order to meet the objectives for such a large area within a
short time, the Fisheries Committee used seral stage data provided by the
Integration Committee as an indicator of hydrologic recovery and equivalent
clearcut area (ECA) in each biodiversity unit. We then categorized biodiversity
units according to terrain hazard and used these two criteria to estimate
potential risks to fisheries. Our method was therefore similar to a rate-of-cut
analysis with the addition of a terrain hazard indicator.
Background
The Fisheries Committee was set up by the Integration Committee
for the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan to contribute to the short term timber
availability assessment (STTAA). While the Land Use Plan determines where timber
harvesting will occur on a very broad scale and within established targets, the
STTAA will identify more specifically the location of the planned harvest and
the short term impact of the planned timber harvest on meeting the targets in
the CCLUP. The Fisheries Committee is responsible for assessing the initial
proposal for timber harvest to determine the impact of proposed harvesting on
fisheries resource targets and strategies in the CCLUP. The committee considers
"fisheries targets" to mean no net loss to fish habitat.
Use of Biodiversity Units in Identifying Fisheries Concerns
The CCLUP, Appendix 3, identifies fish and wildlife objectives
for zones and sub-zones (see Appendix A). For example, it was stated that the
Horsefly watershed be managed for hydrologic stability and for salmon stocks
through riparian protection and controls on the rate of harvest. These
objectives apply to an area which encompasses several biodiversity units.
The objectives of the Fisheries Target Committee include
identifying potential problems at the CCLUP biodiversity unit level; however,
fisheries concerns must be addressed at the watershed level. Therefore, as an
initial exercise, we categorized biodiversity units according to watersheds
named in the CCLUP and highlighted the management objectives for those units.
The result of this is Appendix A of this document, which lists
watersheds named in the target section of the CCLUP Final Report as having
specific management objectives for maintaining fisheries values. These
objectives include riparian protection and controls on the rate of harvest for
17 watersheds and other management objectives for five watersheds of very high
concern. Appendix A also lists the SRDZs, IRMZs, and ERDZs under which
watersheds were named.
Other watersheds not identified in the CCLUP were also
delineated and briefly analysed in this study in order to provide useful
information for identifying future planning needs.
Estimating Cumulative Watershed Impacts
One of the critical tasks of the Fisheries Target Committee was
to interpret the fisheries objectives of the Land Use Plan with respect to
present and future status of biodiversity units. Seral stage information on each
biodiversity unit was provided by the Integration Committee, allowing analysis
of those biodiversity units which are watersheds. We used the assumptions below
to estimate potential cumulative impacts for biodiversity units that are
watersheds and also for groups of biodiversity units that make up larger
watersheds. Cumulative downstream effects only apply to a stream channel and its
contributing watershed. Therefore, we did not estimate cumulative impacts for
biodiversity units that are not watersheds. Where applicable, impacts from those
biodiversity units are included in the estimate of total cumulative impacts for
larger watersheds. For example, the Black Creek biodiversity unit is not a
watershed, but cumulative impacts from it are included in the fisheries risk
calculation for the Horsefly River. The assumptions are:
-
Cumulative impacts on fish habitat are mainly caused by
sediment deposition in channels, channel instability, the destabilization of
streambanks, and changes in water flow, temperature, and quality. These can
result from road building, logging unstable slopes, disturbance of riparian
areas, and increased peak streamflows resulting from timber removal (eg.
IWAP Guidebook 1995 Appendices 8 and 9, Rood and Hamilton 1995). These
disturbances occur on both crown land and private land.
Estimating Equivalent Clearcut Area
The concept of equivalent clearcut area (ECA) is used in the
Watershed Assessment Procedure to estimate the effect of timber removal on peak
streamflows. However, in this report it is used as an indicator of all
cumulative impacts. This reflects the broader targets and strategies in the
CCLUP which aim to manage specific watersheds for salmon stocks1.
The downstream impacts of forest roads and timber removal tend to be greatest in
the decade or so after logging and decrease as the forest grows back.
The fisheries target committee estimated tree height as a
function of seral stage using professional judgement and personal experience. We
then calculated equivalent clearcut area for each biodiversity unit from tree
height as described in the Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook
(IWAP). Because we used seral stage data, natural disturbance is treated as
equivalent to logging. The Guidebook includes logging, burns, and large slides
as contributing to ECA (IWAP Guidebook Appendix 8). The accuracy of these ECA
estimates can be improved by methods described later in this report.
The fisheries target committee made the following additional
assumptions in order to associate seral stages and private land with equivalent
clearcut area.
In most cases, the consideration of private land does not
significantly affect ECA estimates. However, in several biodiversity units and a
few watersheds, the percentage of private land is substantial (i.e. over 10
percent) and 85 percent ECA may be an overestimate at any given time. However,
extensive timber removal from private land over the next 20 years is possible.
Therefore, we chose to use a high equivalent clearcut for private land to
reflect the potential risk to fisheries in the future. Actual risk to fisheries
at any given time and in any given watershed can be better estimated by using
more detailed inventory and analysis methods. This could consist of a
recalculation of fisheries risk by our method using site specific information or
a more detailed method such as the IWAP. However, the problem remains of not
being able to predict future timber removal from private land.
Hydrologic integrity of stands varies depending upon
site-specific conditions. The actual cumulative effects may vary from the
estimated ECA in individual watersheds. However, the seral stage method allows
us to estimate cumulative impacts for conditions in 1996 and 2016 with the
planned timber harvest, for use at the strategic planning level.
1The fisheries target
committee identified an intent to address cumulative impacts to fish habitat
through statements in the CCLUP, such as that in the fisheries sectoral
strategy stating that management of high priority watersheds emphasizes
analysis and planning to “avoid cumulative impacts from future development
activities” (p. 170). The strategy further identifies general objectives to
“maintain the physical and biological diversity of fish habitats...maintain
watershed and stream channel integrity and stability...maintain and/or
enhance water quality and water quantity for instream uses” (p. 168).
Estimating Risks to Fish Habitat
The Fisheries Target Committee designed the fisheries risk
estimate to indicate the probability that there would be a net loss to fish
habitat due to cumulative watershed impacts. For example, "High" fisheries risk
in a watershed means we expect a higher probability of some habitat loss than in
a watershed rated as having "Low" or "Moderate" fisheries risk. Later in this
report, we compare fisheries risk estimates with Level 1 IWAP results and other
indicators of cumulative impacts.
Fisheries risks were estimated from the ECA, as described above,
and the terrain hazard of each watershed for which information was available.
Terrain hazards were categorized as low, moderate, or high for each biodiversity
unit by reference to a Landsat photomosaic and topographic maps. We considered
steepness of terrain, precipitation, distribution of forest land, and previous
studies (Triton Environmental Consultants 1993).
The potential channel changes linking forestry activities with
fisheries risk include increased suspended sediment concentration, decreased
water quality, increased peak streamflow, and decreased physical habitat
diversity. We assumed that fisheries risks increase with increasing slope
steepness and precipitation and that large lakes reduce downstream impacts
associated with landslides and suspended sediment.
Fisheries risks were reported as low, moderate, high, and very
high for conditions in 1996 and 2016. Table 1 shows the combinations of ECA and
terrain hazard by which we determined the risks. These are our estimates of
relative probabilities that a biologically significant impact will occur.
Furthermore, as discussed below, they are also a first approximation of actual
fisheries risk for landscape level planning purposes.
We recognize the concept of magnitude and frequency in the
occurrence of negative impacts. Where cumulative impacts occur, they are the
result of many events of low magnitude and fewer events of larger magnitude.
However, impacts in individual watersheds are the result of highly variably
meteorologic events superimposed on site specific conditions. We use "cumulative
impacts" to include the combined effects of many small events and a few large
events which occur over a period of years. Similarly, our fisheries risks are
intended to represent the impacts associated with the effects of all magnitudes
of events.
|
Fisheries Risks |
|
Terrain Hazard |
ECA Estimated from Seral Stage Data |
|
0-15% |
15-20% |
20-25% |
25-30% |
30-35% |
35%+ |
| Low |
low |
low |
moderate |
moderate |
high |
high |
| Moderate |
low |
low |
moderate |
high |
high |
very high |
| High |
low |
moderate |
high |
high |
very high |
very high |
Table 1. Matrix for Estimating Fisheries Risks
Information Used
-
Seral stage data provided by the Integration Committee which
identifies, by biodiversity unit, the percentage of the total forest area in
‘early’, ‘mature’, and ‘mature plus old’ categories.
Results
Table 3 contains a variety of information on biodiversity units
arranged by larger watersheds named in the CCLUP. The geographic extent of the
larger watersheds is closely approximated by the listed biodiversity units but
is not exact. Table 3 lists total area, area of private land, ECA's, terrain
hazard, and fisheries values for each biodiversity unit. Estimated fisheries
risk is reported for each terrain unit that is a watershed.
The calculated ECAs in 1996 and 2016 are presented as indices of
cumulative effects at the downstream end of watersheds. For those biodiversity
units which are not watersheds, the estimated ECA's are an estimate of local
cumulative effects but they do not correspond with any particular watershed.
Therefore, fisheries risks are not reported for these units. The cumulative
effects contributed by those biodiversity units which are not watersheds are
accounted for in the fisheries risk values for the larger watershed in which
they occur.
Our estimates for 1996 indicate that there is a high or very
high risk that fisheries targets will not be met in 18 biodiversity units. When
data on the Biodiversity Units are combined into larger watersheds, it indicates
that fisheries targets are at high risk in the Horsefly River, Cottonwood River,
Bridge Creek, Beaver Creek, Nazko River, Baker Creek, Canim Creek, Narcosli
River, and Williams Lake Creek.
Our estimates for 2016 indicate that there is a high or very
high risk that fisheries targets will not be met in 27 biodiversity units with
the proposed timber harvest. It also indicates a high or very high risk in the
Horsefly River, Cariboo River, Cottonwood River, Bridge Creek, Baezaeko River,
Beaver Creek, Nazko River, Quesnel River, Baker Creek, Canim Creek, Churn Creek,
Euchiniko River, Narcosli River, Williams Lake Creek, and Willow River with the
proposed timber harvest.
Fisheries Risks were not calculated for biodiversity units which
are not watersheds so our results may not detect some areas with high fisheries
risk.
Fisheries Risk calculations for watersheds identified as
"incomplete" in Table 3 are subject to revision.
Comparison of Fisheries Risks with Estimates of Cumulative
Effects by Other Methods
We compared ECA's obtained from the seral stage data as
described herein with watershed assessments that have been completed for the
same areas. Level 1 Hazard Indices have been calculated for a number of
watersheds as listed in Table 2 (Cariboo Forest Consultants Ltd, 1996; BioTerra
Consulting, 1996; Dobson Engineering Ltd, 1996). This allows our method of
estimating potential fisheries risks at a landscape level to be compared with a
more detailed assessment of cumulative effects.
Table 2 lists the fisheries risk estimates in 1996 for eight
combinations of biodiversity units which correspond geographically with
watersheds that have been assessed using the Level 1 IWAP. The last column is an
interpretation of whether the fisheries risk estimate would have served the
purpose of screening watersheds for the Level 1 IWAP. We consider the fisheries
risk estimates to be appropriate as a first approximation in all eight cases
becasuse there were no instances of a "Low" or "Moderate" fisheries risk being
contradicted by a Level 1 IWAP result on the same watershed. Instances of a
"High" fisheries risk and "No" concern from the Level 1 IWAP are appropriate if
the fisheries risk estimate is used as a first approximation pending the
availability of more detailed information from the IWAP.
The results for the MacKay River biodiversity unit illustrate
one of the limitations of a landscape scale of survey such as this. The moderate
fisheries risk of the biodiversity unit as a whole reflects cumulative effects
below the junction of the MacKay and Upper Horsefly Rivers. However, in the
watershed assessment, these two rivers were each identified as having high
fisheries values and were found to differ considably in their levels of
cumulative effects. This information is being used to make forest development
recommendations for the MacKay and Upper Horsefly Rivers individually. Risks to
small high value streams are addressed by the watershed assessment procedure in
those cases where the IWAP is implemented for planning purposes.
| Biodiversity Unit |
Fisheries Risk, 1996 |
Watershed Name |
Does Level 1 Watershed Assessment indicate a concern? |
Evaluation of Fisheries
Risk Estimate |
| Mckinley |
High |
Mckinley Ck. |
No |
Appropriate |
| McKusky |
High |
McKusky Ck. |
Yes |
Appropriate |
| Moffat |
High |
Moffat Ck. |
Yes |
Appropriate |
|
Mackay |
Moderate |
Mackay R. and Upper Horsefly R. |
MacKay R. - Yes Upper Horsefly - No |
Appropriate |
| Murphy Lake plus Bradley Creek |
High |
Eagle and Bradley Creeks |
No |
Appropriate |
|
Baker plus Tibbles |
High |
Baker Creek |
No |
Appropriate |
| Swift |
Low |
Little Swift R. and McMartin Creek |
Little Swift River - No McMartin Ck. - No |
Appropriate |
|
Cottonwood Total (Ahbau, Swift, Lightning, Umiti, and
Victoria) |
High |
Cottonwood River |
Yes |
Appropriate |
Table 2. Comparison of Fisheries Risk Estimates and Level 1
Watershed Assessments
The fisheries risks reported herein and the Level 1 watershed
assessments are indirect indicators of cumulative impacts to fish habitat.
Direct assessments of fish habitat conditions are extremely labor intensive and
cannot be done for a large area in a short period of time. It is for this reason
that surrogate indicators, such as our fisheries risks for biodiversity units
and Level 1 watershed assessments are used. It should be noted that the Level 1
watershed assessment results are not an absolute measure of fish habitat impact.
They are best used as a screening tool to help a stakeholder committee decide
whether more detailed assessments should be done.
Suspended sediment data have been collected in McKinley Creek,
McKusky Creek, Moffat Creek, and the Horsefly River since 1994 (Teti, 1996,
pers. comm). These results confirm the estimated high fisheries risks in Moffat
Creek, but do not confirm high fisheries risks in McKinley and McKusky Creeks.
For the Horsefly River, the suspended sediment data are not inconsistent with
the high estimated fisheries risk for the Horsefly given in Table 3.
A hydrometric trend analysis was done for gauged watersheds
within the Horsefly River system in order to look for changes as a result of
forest development (Dobson Engineering Ltd., 1995). This analysis found no clear
evidence that forest development has affected peak streamflows or annual water
yield. The consultant concluded that this was not unexpected given the large
amount of development that is typically required in order to detect changes in
streamflow regime.
Based on the above discussion and the results shown in Table 2,
we suggest that if they are properly used, the fisheries risk estimates reported
herein are appropriate first approximations of cumulative effects on fish
habitat. We suggest that "Low" and "Moderate" fisheries risks are reasonably
good indicators that fish habitat at the downstream end of the watershed is not
at high risk and that the risks in general are appropriate strategic level
estimates for landscape level planning. The "High" and "Very High" categories
indicate that fish habitat is at high risk, in lieu of more detailed
information.
Suggested Methods for Improving the Accuracy of Fisheries Risk
Estimates
The fisheries risks in Table 3 are presented as first
approximations of potential cumulative impacts for watersheds in 1996 and 2016.
These are based on seral stage and terrain hazard data which are surrogates for
site specific information. The accuracy of the analysis used herein could be
improved in one or more of the following ways:
-
Conduct an overview of cumulative effects in watersheds
which extend outside of the CCLUP area, but which are named in the CCLUP,
using the methods of this report or refinements as described above. These
watersheds include the Bowron (where assessments have estimated ECA at
approximately 30%), Atnarko, and Bonaparte. Other watersheds straddling the
CCLUP boundary and not identified in the CCLUP, such as the Willow and
Hotnarko, can also be assessed in order to provide information relevant to
future planning, consistent with the CCLUP.
For the higher risk and higher priority watersheds:
Suggested Methods for Integrating Fisheries Targets with Forest
Development
One of the purposes of the IWAP is to give managers a tool for
minimizing impacts to fish habitat while planning forest development. Under
section 32 of the Operational Planning Regulations of the Forest Practices Code,
a forest district manager can require that a watershed assessment be done before
a forest development plan is approved. However, watershed assessments need not
be required under section 32 of the Operational Planning Regulations in order
for the inventory information to be collected and for it to be of use to
resource agencies. For example, watershed assessments can aid in the planning of
restoration work and can provide background justification for management
recommendations by agencies responsible for referrals.
The time required to perform watershed assessments and the
availability of qualified professionals are significant limitations to carrying
out this work over a large geographic area in a timely manner. In the interim,
district managers, other resource managers, and designated Forest Practices Code
officials can make use of this report, the Integration Report, other CCLUP
strategies, and results of watershed assessments which are completed or
currently underway as indicated on the map in Appendix B.
It should also be noted that the IWAP is only a set of
guidelines. Other assessment methods may be more efficient in some watersheds.
For example, it may be appropriate for a professional to perform a detailed
assessment of a watershed instead of a Level 1 assessment. If a sufficiently
skilled person is available for this work, and if a stakeholder group reaches
consensus on the results, it may be possible to resolve critical issues within
weeks rather than months by this method.
A watershed assessment should not be viewed as a simple
deterministic process. As the above examples indicate, the most important part
of a watershed assessment may be a stakeholder committee which represents
fisheries, timber, and other resources. If a committee is properly formed and if
it reaches consensus, then the assessment and recommendation process may be
accellerated. Another way of providing useful information to managers is to
initiate a monitoring program for key parameters, such as suspended sediment or
spawning gravel quality. The prescription and interpretation of such a program
is best done by a small group of specialists, such as fisheries biologists and
hydrologists. This type of program is not able to provide quick answers but with
interpretation by professionals, it can provide valuable information to managers
after several years.
In some watersheds, it is possible that hillslope and stream
restoration will help reverse existing cumulative impacts. The Watershed
Restoration Program was established to facilitate and provide funding for these
types of activities. This program has been initiated in the CCLUP area and is
expected to help integrate fisheries targets with forest development.
A common feature of the above methods is the involvement of
stakeholders. At present, stakeholder groups exist for planning watershed
restoration, for conducting watershed assessments, and for overseeing monitoring
projects in several watersheds within the CCLUP area.
Recommendations
For watersheds ranked as having high or very high fisheries
risks in 1996 (Table 3), but not already being assessed by a Level 1 IWAP
(Appendix B), the Fisheries Target Committee strongly recommends that:
For watersheds named in the CCLUP as needing controls on the
rate of harvest (Appendix A), and which are confirmed to have high or very high
potential fisheries risks, the Fisheries Target Committee strongly recommends
that:
-
multi-agency round tables be established to initiate,
coordinate, and interpret watershed assessments, and to recommend
restoration and monitoring activities in order to help district managers
meet the requirements of the higher level plan.
Conclusion
This review identifies potential issues at the broad strategic
level. Components of the Land Use Plan relating to riparian management, water
management planning/strategies, quality lakes, and enhanced fisheries/tourism
are equally important in protecting and enhancing fish, fish habitat and
fisheries. These issues could not be addressed with the time and data available
in this study. The review does not address localized and site-specific concerns
related to forest practices. Thus, it does not replace consideration of
fisheries resources and habitat in planning processes designed to address either
a smaller scale or other aspects of the impact of land and water use on fish
habitat. This assessment assumes that the Forest Practices Code and guidebooks
will be applied to forest harvesting in order to minimize site specific impacts
to fish resources.
Acknowledgements
The Fisheries Target Committee consisted of the following:
Maurice Lirette, R.P.Bio., Fisheries Biologist, B.C.
Environment, Fisheries Branch. Patrick Teti, P.Geo., Research Hydrologist, B.C.
Forest Service. Coral DeShield, Fisheries Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans.
References
Cariboo Forest Consultants Ltd. 1996. Interior Watershed
Assessment Procedure: Level 1 Analysis, Baker Creek and Merston Creek Sub-Basin.
Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Cariboo Region.
BioTerra Consulting. 1996. Eagle/Bradley Watershed
Assessment, Draft Summary of Level 1 Results. Prepared for Eagle/Bradley
Multi Agency Stakeholder Committee.
Dobson Engineering Ltd. 1995. Hydrometric Trend Analysis -
Horsefly River Watershed. Prepared for Ministry of Environment Lands and
Parks.
Dobson Engineering Ltd. 1996 (in progress). Horsefly River
Watershed - Results of Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure. Prepared for
Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks.
Dobson Engineering Ltd. 1996 (in progress). Cottonwood River
Watershed - Results of Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure.
Prepared for Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks.
Government of British Columbia. 1995. The Cariboo-Chilcotin
Land-Use Plan, 90-Day Implementation Process Final Report.
Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook, Level 1
Analysis (Forest Practices Code of British Columbia). 1995. Co-published by BC
Environment.
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. and Coast River
Environmental Services Ltd. 1996. Applying CCLUP Salmon Fisheries Targets and
strategies, Black Creek Assessment (Draft Landscape) Unit. Prepared for
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fraser River Action Plan.
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. and Coast River
Environmental Services Ltd. 1996. Applying CCLUP Salmon Fisheries Targets and
strategies, McKinley Assessment (Draft Landscape) Unit. Prepared for
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fraser River Action Plan.
Rood, Kenneth M. and Roy E. Hamilton. 1995. Hydrology and Water
Use for Salmon Streams in the Middle Fraser Habitat Management Area, British
Columiba. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2292.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Canada.
Teti, Patrick. 1996 (personal communication) Research
Hydrologist, Cariboo Region, Ministry of Forests.
Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd.. 1991. Quesnel Habitat
Management Area Resource Assessment, Vol.1&2. Prepared for Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
Appendix A
Table A1
|
Management Objectives for Watersheds Named in Appendix 3
of the CCLUP Final Report and Sub-zones in which those Watersheds are
Referenced |
|
Management objectives identified in the CCLUP |
Sub-zone in which watershed is referenced |
|
Watershed |
Riparian Protection |
Control Rate of Harvest |
Hydrologic Stability |
Watershed Assessment |
Monitoring |
Restoration |
SRDZ |
IRMZ |
ERDZ |
|
Horsefly |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
AM |
|
5,8 |
|
Cariboo |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
LM |
|
4 |
|
Cottonwood |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
L |
|
4 |
|
Bonaparte |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
DEI |
G |
10,11,12 |
|
Bridge Ck. |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
E |
|
|
|
Quesnel |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
M |
|
3 |
|
Atnarko |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
C |
B |
|
|
Bowron |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
LM |
|
5 |
|
Beaver |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Chilko |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
B |
|
|
|
Taseko |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
B |
|
1 |
|
Baezaeko |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
F |
|
|
|
Chilcotin |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
C |
2 |
|
Nazko |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
C |
|
|
Dean |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
F |
|
|
|
Hazeltine |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Edney |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Clinton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I |
|
|
|
Baker |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
|
|
2 |
Appendix A - cont.
The CCLUP includes fisheries and hydrology components which aim
to maintain and restore fish and other aquatic resources, as well as maintain
hydrologic functions within watersheds. A brief overview of fish targets,
relevant for the purposes of the STTAA, follows. Details can be found in
Appendices 3 and 4 of the CCLUP Final Report.
Riparian Protection The targets identify management for
salmon stocks through riparian area protection for high priority watersheds
identified in Appendix 3. (Eg. p. 61)
Rate of Harvest The targets identify management for
salmon stocks through restrictions on rate of harvest for high priority
watersheds identified in Appendix 3. (Eg. p. 61)
Hydrologic Stability The targets identify management for
hydrologic stability in high priority watersheds identified in Appendix 3. Also
identified is the need for watershed assessment, restoration, and monitoring in
specific cases. (Eg. p. 61)
Specific Management Goals Specific areas are identified
for management as quality stream fisheries or as a community watershed in
Appendix 3. (Eg. p. 71)
Watershed Assessment Watershed Assessment Procedure is
identified as required in key watersheds in order to ensure the maintenance of
critical fish and wildlife habitats and hydrological stability. (P. 160)
Watershed Level Analysis High priority watersheds
classified by Department of Fisheries and Oceans as enhanced are prescribed a
level of management that emphasizes watershed level analysis in order to assess
past impacts and provide the basis for watershed level planning to avoid
cumulative impacts. (P. 170)
Other Management Other types of management may be
required in specific cases in order to manage for fish or fish habitat. These
include detailed watershed plans, assessment, management actions (such as rate
of cut adjustments, wider streamside management zones, etc.), and monitoring (p.
170).
Managing watersheds for hydrologic stability and for salmon
stocks through controls on the rate of harvest requires assessment and planning
at the watershed level. Sectoral strategies in Appendix 4 state that, “Key or
sensitive watersheds should be selected for intensive research/monitoring to
assess hydrologic and water quality impacts of logging” (p. 164). Some
watersheds require “watershed level analysis in order to assess past impacts of
watershed level planning to avoid cumulative impacts from future development
activities” (p. 170). Specific requirements include: “detailed watershed
plans,... assessment, ... rate of cut adjustments, wider streamside management
zones, provisions for fisheries resource maintenance flows, site specific stream
protection and restoration measures [and] monitoring” (p. 170). Further,
strategies in Appendix 4 include to “assess present and potential development
impacts in fisheries watersheds ... and implement integrated watershed
management plans ... to minimize the cumulative impacts of land use
activities” and to “conduct fish habitat inventories to identify fisheries
sensitive/critical areas that require protection and site specific management
actions” (p. 168, italics added).
Appendix B
Map of biodiversity units ranked as having High fisheries risks
in 1996 and areas where watershed assessments are in progress (not yet
available).
Citation:
DeShield, C., M. Lirette, and P. Teti. 1996. Fisheries Target Risk Assessment.
Report prepared for the CCLUP Integration Process by the Fisheries Target
Committee. August 15, 1996.
<http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/RSI/FSP/Cariboo/Misc055.htm>
Updated March 2007 |
|
|
|
