riparian management and natural function of small streams ... · riparian management and natural...
TRANSCRIPT
Riparian Management and Natural Function of Small Streams in the
Northern Interior of British Columbia
Course Manual
March 2007
P. Beaudry & Associates Ltd.
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Streamflow Section 3: Sediment in Streams Section 4: Water Quality Section 5: Temperature and Shade Section 6: Large Woody Debris Section 7: Productivity Section 8: Copy of a Newsletter Distributed to Industrial Partners Section 9: Bibliography Section 10: Prince George District Manager’s Policy for Maintaining the Biological and Physical Attributes of S4, Small Fish-bearing Streams Section 11: Prince George Small Stream Study: 5-year Results and Management Matrix
1
Riparian Management and Riparian Management and Natural Functions of Small Natural Functions of Small
StreamsStreams
P. Beaudry & Associates Ltd.
Tour GuideTour Guide
Who
How
What
WhenWhy
2
OutlineOutlineWho:Who: Introductions Introductions What: What: Course objectives Course objectives and definitions and definitions How:How: Experiences in small Experiences in small streams and the Prince streams and the Prince George DM ProjectGeorge DM ProjectWhy:Why: Effective resource Effective resource management & legislative management & legislative requirementsrequirementsWhen: When: Agenda Agenda
IntroductionsIntroductionsTodayToday’’s speakers:s speakers:
Pierre Beaudry Pierre Beaudry –– Pierre Pierre Beaudry & Associates Beaudry & Associates (PBA)(PBA)Erland MacIsaac Erland MacIsaac ––Department of Fisheries Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)and Oceans (DFO)John Rex John Rex –– Ministry of Ministry of Forests & Range (MOFR)Forests & Range (MOFR)
Other project members Other project members include: include:
Leisbet Beaudry (PBA) ,Leisbet Beaudry (PBA) ,Herb Herb HerunterHerunter (DFO),(DFO),Dave Maloney (MOFR)Dave Maloney (MOFR)
3
Who are you?Who are you?
Course ObjectivesCourse Objectives
We have three primary course objectives:We have three primary course objectives:
Demonstrate current knowledge of small stream functions Demonstrate current knowledge of small stream functions and riparian management in the northern interior of B.C.and riparian management in the northern interior of B.C.
Review concepts about the ecology and function of Review concepts about the ecology and function of headwater streams based on current literature and recent headwater streams based on current literature and recent research projects.research projects.
Provide you with an assessment of the Prince George Provide you with an assessment of the Prince George District ManagerDistrict Manager’’s Policy on Small Stream Riparian s Policy on Small Stream Riparian retention, including management considerations.retention, including management considerations.
4
Small Streams and Riparian Small Streams and Riparian ZonesZones
Small streams: an active Small streams: an active channel width <2m, they channel width <2m, they are important because:are important because:
The most common The most common channel type,channel type,Their aggregate Their aggregate characteristics determine characteristics determine downstream conditions.downstream conditions.
Riparian area: area Riparian area: area adjacent to a wateradjacent to a water--body. body.
Prince George DM PolicyPrince George DM PolicyFPCFPC-- No prescribed retention No prescribed retention zone on S4, S5, or S6 streams zone on S4, S5, or S6 streams only a riparian management only a riparian management zone. zone.
The PG DM provided five The PG DM provided five riparian management objectives, riparian management objectives, namely : namely :
Maintaining 50 to 70% of the Maintaining 50 to 70% of the natural shade levels,natural shade levels,Maintaining adequate long Maintaining adequate long and shortand short--term supply of term supply of large woody debris (LWD),large woody debris (LWD),
5
Prince George DM PolicyPrince George DM Policy
Maintaining natural root structure Maintaining natural root structure adjacent to streams particularly to adjacent to streams particularly to minimize soil disturbance within minimize soil disturbance within 5m of the stream channel,5m of the stream channel,Not overloading stream with Not overloading stream with fine organic debris,fine organic debris,Concentrating retention (both Concentrating retention (both patch and single tree) in the 10patch and single tree) in the 10--15m closest to the stream. 15m closest to the stream.
PG Small Streams ProjectPG Small Streams Project
Project was initiated in Project was initiated in 2000 with funding from 2000 with funding from FRBC and has continued FRBC and has continued under FIAunder FIA--FSP.FSP.Adaptive management Adaptive management based project started based project started with applying the with applying the minimumsminimums
6
Study AreasStudy Areas
Three locations in the Three locations in the Prince George District:Prince George District:
ChuchinkaChuchinka-- study and study and control streamcontrol streamBowron Bowron -- two study and two study and control streamscontrol streamsTagaiTagai -- two study and one two study and one control streamcontrol stream
Synoptic study areasSynoptic study areas
TagaiTagai, Bowron, and Chuchinka, Bowron, and Chuchinka
BEC zone BEC zone -- SBSvkSBSvkActive stream width Active stream width 1m, gradient 4%1m, gradient 4%Elevation: 900Elevation: 900--920m920mAspect: NWAspect: NWDecember 2002 December 2002 --BCTS (operator)BCTS (operator)
BEC Zone: SBSwk1BEC Zone: SBSwk1Active stream width 0.9m, Active stream width 0.9m, Gradient 1%Gradient 1%Elevation:780Elevation:780--820m.820m.Aspect: SWAspect: SWJuly 2003July 2003-- CanforCanfor
BEC zone BEC zone -- SBSdw2SBSdw2TagTag--13 Active stream 13 Active stream width 0.8m, gradient 3%. width 0.8m, gradient 3%. Tag 12 1.1m, 5%Tag 12 1.1m, 5%Elevation: 900Elevation: 900--1000m1000mAspect: NEAspect: NETag 13Tag 13--March 2004 TagMarch 2004 Tag--12 July 2004 12 July 2004 -- BCTS BCTS (operator)(operator)
7
Project ComponentsProject Components
Channel Morphology (LWD/Erosion)Channel Morphology (LWD/Erosion)Riparian Tree InventoryRiparian Tree InventoryAngular Canopy Angular Canopy DensiometerDensiometer
Pierre Beaudry & AssociatesPierre Beaudry & Associates
Air and Stream TemperatureAir and Stream TemperatureGroundwater AdditionGroundwater AdditionProject ManagementProject Management
Ministry of Forests and RangeMinistry of Forests and Range
Water Quality and QuantityWater Quality and QuantityBiological productivity (Primary and Biological productivity (Primary and Secondary)Secondary)Fisheries SurveysFisheries Surveys
Department of Fisheries and OceansDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans
Project DutiesProject DutiesAgencyAgency
Study DesignStudy Design
The project employs a The project employs a BACIBACI--PS design.PS design.
Treatment data are Treatment data are compared to spatial compared to spatial controls before during controls before during and after the activity of and after the activity of interest.interest.
22--3 years of pre3 years of pre--harvest harvest data and 2data and 2--3 years of 3 years of postpost--harvest dataharvest data
C A 100 m50 m
TreatmentForestedForested
Stream
Cutblock
Treatment
Cutblock
BC A 100 m50 m
TreatmentForestedForested
Stream
Cutblock
Treatment
Cutblock
B
8
Our GoalOur Goal
To provide information that can enhance To provide information that can enhance management of these resources:management of these resources:Extension products are a key deliverable:Extension products are a key deliverable:
Course and Field ToursCourse and Field ToursWeb page : Web page : www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/ffipwww.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/ffip
Extension notesExtension notesJournal articlesJournal articlesSynthesis report due out next yearSynthesis report due out next year
9
WhyWhyFPC FPC –– District policy was District policy was developed to address a developed to address a management issue.management issue.FRPA: Results based codeFRPA: Results based code--professional reliance and due professional reliance and due diligencediligence…… keeping up to keeping up to date with current knowledge. date with current knowledge. On the ground practice and On the ground practice and generation of FSPS.generation of FSPS.
Section 8, Section 52(2)Section 8, Section 52(2)
Results & Strategies
Policy Realm
Effectiveness Evaluation
Professional Reliance
Objectives Plan & Practice
Requirements
Complianceand
Enforcement
FRPA
Results & Strategies InspectionsResults & Strategies
Policy Realm
Effectiveness Evaluation
Professional Reliance
Objectives Plan & Practice
Requirements
Complianceand
Enforcement
FRPA
Results & Strategies Inspections
AgendaAgenda
08:30 08:30 -- 09:0009:00 Introduction Introduction 09:00 09:00 -- 09:3009:30 Streamflow (PBA)Streamflow (PBA)09:30 09:30 –– 10:0010:00 Sediment Dynamics (PBA)Sediment Dynamics (PBA)Coffee BreakCoffee Break
10:20 10:20 -- 11:2011:20 Water Quality (DFO) Water Quality (DFO) 11:20 11:20 -- 12:0012:00 Shading and Temperature (MOFR) Shading and Temperature (MOFR) Lunch Lunch
13:00 13:00 -- 13:4513:45 Woody Debris and Channel Morphology (PBA) Woody Debris and Channel Morphology (PBA) 13:45 13:45 -- 15:0015:00 Biological Components (DFO) Biological Components (DFO) Coffee BreakCoffee Break
15:20 15:20 -- 15:4015:40 Discussion GroupDiscussion Group15:40 15:40 -- 16:2016:20 Management Implications and Discussion (PBA + Panel)Management Implications and Discussion (PBA + Panel)16:20 16:20 -- 16:3016:30 Closing Comments and Course Evaluation Closing Comments and Course Evaluation
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 1
Watersheds and Streamflow
Sloping surface that sheds water
Watershed – what is it?
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 2
It is defined from a point along the stream
The further you move up the stream, the smaller the watershed
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 3
Headwater and First Order Watersheds
The effects of many disturbance activities in a watershed can beconcentrated through the stream network and result in negative cumulative downstream impacts
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 4
Watershed Cumulative Impacts are usually most detectable in headwater streams
The headwater, or low order streams is what this course/workshop focuses on.
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 5
Abundant data from the central interior clearly show that small streams dominate the landscape and may be the most vulnerable to land use impacts.
0
5
10
15
20
25
<0.5 m wide .5 to 1.5 m 1.5 to 5 m 5 to 20 m >20 m wide
Stream Size Class
Num
ber o
f Cro
ssin
gs
NoneLowModerateHighVery High
n=33 (33%)
n= 53(52%)
n=11 (11%)
n=3 (3%)
Sediment Source Hazard Ratings
Distribution of SCQI Crossings by Stream Class SizeLamprey Watershed 2005 (101 crossings)
n=0 (0%)
WHAT IS STREAMFLOW?It is the total volume of water flowing in a stream channel at a
given point (e.g. watershed outlet)It is measured as a volume per unit time (cubic metres per sec)
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 6
WHAT IS A HYDROGRAPH?
A graphical representation of streamflow over timeFinlay River below Cascadero Falls
28 Jul 2003 - Dec 14 2005
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
29-J
ul-0
3
26-A
ug-0
3
23-S
ep-0
3
21-O
ct-0
3
18-N
ov-0
3
16-D
ec-0
3
13-J
an-0
4
10-F
eb-0
4
09-M
ar-0
4
06-A
pr-0
4
04-M
ay-0
4
01-J
un-0
4
29-J
un-0
4
27-J
ul-0
4
24-A
ug-0
4
21-S
ep-0
4
19-O
ct-0
4
16-N
ov-0
4
14-D
ec-0
4
11-J
an-0
5
08-F
eb-0
5
08-M
ar-0
5
05-A
pr-0
5
03-M
ay-0
5
31-M
ay-0
5
28-J
un-0
5
26-J
ul-0
5
23-A
ug-0
5
20-S
ep-0
5
18-O
ct-0
5
15-N
ov-0
5
13-D
ec-0
5
Stre
am D
isch
arge
(cm
s)__
_ June 2004
June 2005
Typical interior hydrograph
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 7
Coastal Hydrograph
Streamflow Characteristics of Headwater (or low order) Watersheds
Respond very quickly to precipitation events. Respond very quickly to precipitation events.
Hydrograph rises and falls very quicklyHydrograph rises and falls very quickly
Other variables also respond very quickly (e.g. Other variables also respond very quickly (e.g. temperature, turbidity etc)temperature, turbidity etc)
This tends to make them sensitive to disturbances This tends to make them sensitive to disturbances within the watershed. within the watershed.
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 8
Streamflow response is usually very rapid in small forested watersheds
A significant amount of water is used by the trees and lost to evaporation. A large amount of water infiltrates into groundwater and very little runs over the surface.
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 9
When trees in a watershed are removed and roads and ditches are built, that results in increased water flow to the streams – i.e. the water budget is changed.
Results from the Fool Creek experimental watershed ColoradoLogged (40%)
Results modeled using Upper Penticton Creek watershed data
(Schnorbus et. al. 2004
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 10
Effects of forest removal on snow Effects of forest removal on snow accumulation and melt ratesaccumulation and melt rates
later
“Interior” Process
Changes to peak Changes to peak discharges after discharges after forest harvesting forest harvesting operations (Jones operations (Jones and Grant )and Grant )
100% cut
6% Roads, no cut
6% roads, 25% cut
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 11
B5 Watershed“Aggressive” treatmentB5hi
B4Lo
B5lo
BaptisteBaptiste StudyStudy
B5 Watershed
B3 WatershedB4
“conservative”
“aggressive”
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 12
Increase in spring flow after harvest –Baptiste B5
Macdonald, Beaudry, MacIssac, Herunter, CJFR 2003
55% harvest
About 30% increase in spring flows, no hydro recovery
What about Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on What about Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on snow accumulation and melt rates?snow accumulation and melt rates?
later
“Interior” Process
Where does a dead pine forest fit on this graph (relative to snow accumulation and melt)?
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 13
Snow surveys are being conducted in 20 pine stands south of Vanderhoof(Timber supply block F) in 2006 and 2007.
South 1400 Rd Area -2006 Snow Surveys
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
01-Jan
08-Jan
15-Jan
22-Jan
29-Jan
05-Feb
12-Feb
19-Feb
26-Feb
05-Mar
12-Mar
19-Mar
26-Mar
02-Apr
09-Apr
Ave
rage
Sno
w W
ater
Equ
ival
ent (
cm)
Green
Grey
Clearcut
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 14
Gregg Creek Area - 2006 Snow Surveys
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
01-Jan
08-Jan
15-Jan
22-Jan
29-Jan
05-Feb
12-Feb
19-Feb
26-Feb
05-Mar
12-Mar
19-Mar
26-Mar
02-Apr
09-Apr
16-Apr
Ave
rage
Sno
w W
ater
Equ
ival
ent (
cm)
GreenRed AttackClearcut
SWE vs Crown Closure - 6 M arch - Gre gg Creek
y = -0.1009x + 12.464R2 = 0.9115
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Crown Closure %
Snow
Wat
er E
quiv
alen
t (cm
)
Relationship between crown
closure and Snow Water Equivalent
SWE vs Crown Closure - South 1406 Rd. - 6 March
y = -0.0916x + 9.4522R2 = 0.9283
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Crown Closure %
Snow
Wat
er E
quiv
alen
t (cm
)
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 15
Snowmelt Phase
Average daily rate of snowmeltGregg Creek Area - Spring 2006
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
06-M
ar
08-M
ar
10-M
ar
12-M
ar
14-M
ar
16-M
ar
18-M
ar
20-M
ar
22-M
ar
24-M
ar
26-M
ar
28-M
ar
30-M
ar
01-A
pr
03-A
pr
05-A
pr
07-A
pr
09-A
pr
11-A
pr
Ave
rage
Dai
ly S
now
mel
t (cm
of s
we)
Green AttackRed AttackClearcut
ECA Factor = 0.40(for max snow melt rates)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
06-M
ar
08-M
ar
10-M
ar
12-M
ar
14-M
ar
16-M
ar
18-M
ar
20-M
ar
22-M
ar
24-M
ar
26-M
ar
28-M
ar
30-M
ar
01-A
pr
03-A
pr
05-A
pr
Ave
rage
Dai
ly S
now
mel
t (cm
of s
we)
Green AttackGrey AttackClearcut
Average daily rate of snowmelt1400 Rd Area - Spring 2006
ECA factor = 0.51(for max snow melt rates)
Red Zone
Grey Zone
Hypothetical Evolution of ECA Factor over Time
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Years
ECA
Fac
tor
Infested standClearcut
Clearcut
Infestation begins
Much of initial stand fallen to ground, natural regeneration lowers ECA slowly
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 16
1. The Mountain Pine Beetle infestation will most likely increase total annual flows and seasonal peak flows in small watersheds.
2. The more a watershed is disturbed the bigger the effect. 3. Those watersheds that have a high sensitivity to
increased peak flows should be considered more carefully.
4. Additional retention in the riparian areas of small streams may mitigate negative impacts of increased peak flows…… stayed tuned to this channel.
Some Implications of this Study
Some Implications of this Study1. The Mountain Pine Beetle infestation will most likely
increase total annual flows and seasonal peak flows in small watersheds.
2. The more a watershed is disturbed the bigger the effect. 3. Those watersheds that have a high sensitivity to
increased peak flows should be considered more carefully.
4. Additional retention in the riparian areas of small streams may mitigate negative impacts of increased peak flows…… stayed tuned to this channel.
Streamflow module, March 2007 Page 17
Take Home Message:Take Home Message:Low Order Watersheds and Low Order Watersheds and StreamflowsStreamflows
Easy to harvest a large Easy to harvest a large percentage of a small percentage of a small watershedwatershed
These are the These are the ““feederfeeder””streams for downstream streams for downstream organisms and processes organisms and processes (river (river contiuumcontiuum))
In the central interior, much In the central interior, much of the disturbances occur in of the disturbances occur in headwater watershedsheadwater watershedsTakla research watershed
Take Home Message:Take Home Message:Low Order Watersheds and Low Order Watersheds and StreamflowsStreamflows
It is relatively easy to impact It is relatively easy to impact processes because streams processes because streams are small and flows volumes are small and flows volumes are loware low
These small streams are These small streams are NOT ditches, they are Very NOT ditches, they are Very important component of important component of larger watershedslarger watersheds
Takla research watershed
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 1
Sediment and Small StreamsSediment and Small Streams
Sediment ConcernsSediment ConcernsWater quality Water quality –– domestic domestic and industrial useand industrial useChannel aggradation, pool Channel aggradation, pool depthdepthChannel stabilityChannel stabilityAlgae survivalAlgae survivalMacroinvertebrateMacroinvertebratesurvival and species shiftsurvival and species shiftSurvival, emergence and Survival, emergence and growth of growth of salmonidssalmonidsImpacts on visual feedersImpacts on visual feeders
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 2
Sediment the ParadoxSediment the ParadoxSediment is an essential element for virtually all Sediment is an essential element for virtually all streams. It is not an inherently toxic substance. streams. It is not an inherently toxic substance.
“Sediment”Includes:
-coarse particles bounced along the bottom (bedload)
- Fine particles carried in suspension (suspended sediment)
Sediment the ParadoxSediment the Paradox
There is a broad middle There is a broad middle ground between too much ground between too much and too little sediment in and too little sediment in small stream ecosystems. small stream ecosystems.
The quantity, frequency The quantity, frequency and timing of sediment and timing of sediment delivery are importantdelivery are important
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
81-
Apr
8-A
pr
15-A
pr
22-A
pr
29-A
pr
6-M
ay
13-M
ay
20-M
ay
27-M
ay
3-Ju
n
10-J
un
17-J
un
24-J
un
1-Ju
l
8-Ju
l
15-J
ul
22-J
ul
29-J
ul
5-Au
g
12-A
ug
19-A
ug
26-A
ug
2-Se
p
9-Se
p
Stre
amflo
w F
orfa
r Cre
ek (m
3/se
c)
97% of sed. yield
2.5% of sed. yield
Forfar Creek Hydrograph - 1995
Timing of Sediment InputTiming of Sediment Input
- 97% of annual sediment yield occurs over 30 days
Forfar Creek, May streamflows when 97% of the annual sediment yield occurs (56,000 kg)
- Sensitivity of increased sediment changes with different life stages of aquatic organisms
Sediment impacts can be dependent on:
- Amount
- Duration and
- Timing
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 4
Natural Sediment SourcesNatural Sediment Sources(DM Policy study streams)(DM Policy study streams)
0 to 3 sediment 0 to 3 sediment sources per 50m sources per 50m (predominately (predominately rootwadsrootwads))Lacustrine parent Lacustrine parent material have material have eroding banks.eroding banks.Natural rate of Natural rate of blowdown.blowdown.
Typically wide disconnected valley flats
Sediment sourcesSediment sources
Pre-harvest Tagai 2001
Post-harvest Chuchinka 2003Post- harvest Tagai 2003
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 5
PostPost--Harvest Changes in Sediment Harvest Changes in Sediment Sources (DM Policy Study Streams)Sources (DM Policy Study Streams)
3.52005 post-harvest
32004 post-harvest
32003 pre-harvest
22002 pre-harvest
Bowron
12005 post-harvest
12004 post-harvest
12003 pre-harvest
12002 pre-harvest
Chuchinka
2.252005 post-harvest
2.252004 post-harvest
12003 pre-harvest
12002 pre-harvest
Tagai
# of sediment sources/50
mYearArea
All new sediment sources were from blowdown
PostPost--harvest Changes in Sediment at harvest Changes in Sediment at BaptisteBaptiste small stream studysmall stream study
Fairly large accumulations of fine sand were noted post harvest
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 6
Forest harvesting
Macdonald, Beaudry, MacIssac, Herunter, CJFR 2003
Doubling of spring sediment supply in 1997 and 1998.
Increase in suspended sediment – Baptiste small streams
Increases in Suspended Sediments During Rain only Events
Baptiste October 10, 2001 - Rainfall Event
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:0
0
11:0
0
12:0
0
13:0
0
14:0
0
15:0
0
16:0
0
17:0
0
18:0
0
19:0
0
20:0
0
21:0
0
22:0
0
23:0
0
Time
Tota
l sus
pend
ed s
olid
s (p
pm)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Rai
nfal
l (m
m/1
5 m
in)
Rainfall
B5Hi (TSS)
B5Lo (TSS)sediment transport = 16.2 kg
sediment transport = 6.04 kg
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 7
De-activated culvertLower B5 crossing
Major sedimentsource
RoadsRoadsErosion volumes are small
but cumulative impacts can be large.
In small central interior streams, crossings can be the single largest contributor of accelerated sediment
A recent riparian effectiveness evaluation identified road crossings as having the biggest impact
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 8
As part of several sustainable forest management initiatives As part of several sustainable forest management initiatives we have surveyed over 6,500 stream crossings in the we have surveyed over 6,500 stream crossings in the Interior of BC and western Alberta to assess the sediment Interior of BC and western Alberta to assess the sediment source hazard.source hazard.
Stream crossings can typically have numerous sources of sediment associated with them
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 9
Road running surfaces
Fill slopes
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 10
Ditches
Using a systematic evaluation of the sediment sources, we can score the sediment hazard at a stream crossing
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 11
Low HazardLow Hazard(Score range 0.1(Score range 0.1--0.3)0.3)
Moderate HazardModerate Hazard(score range = 0.4 to 0.7)(score range = 0.4 to 0.7)
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 12
High HazardHigh Hazard(score 0.8(score 0.8--1.6)1.6)
Very High Hazard, score >1.6
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 13
Areas dominated by fine soil textures can present very large erosion and sediment delivery challenges
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 14
Grande Prairie SV Project 2004 "FB104-high" 19 July
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:0
011
:00
12:0
0
13:0
014
:00
15:0
016
:00
17:0
018
:00
19:0
020
:00
21:0
022
:00
23:0
0
Tur
bidi
ty (N
TU
)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Rain
fall
(mm
/15
min
)Ra infa llSV15 Ups tre amSV16 Do wns tream
High intensity very short duration impacts – does this have an effect on aquatic resources ??????
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OVER TIME
New road construction and active hauling.
Good attempt at ESC
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 15
SV 05 & 06 Turb id ity
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
13-S
ep
14-S
ep
15-S
ep
16-S
ep
17-S
ep
18-S
ep
19-S
ep
20-S
ep
21-S
ep
22-S
ep
23-S
ep
24-S
ep
25-S
ep
26-S
ep
27-S
ep
28-S
ep
29-S
ep
30-S
ep
01-O
ct
02-O
ct
03-O
ct
04-O
ct
05-O
ct
06-O
ct
07-O
ct
08-O
ct
09-O
ct
10-O
ct
11-O
ct
12-O
ct
13-O
ct
Turb
idity
(NTU
)
SV 05 Min tu rb
SV 06 Min tu rb
Ch ilako Ra in f a ll and S tage
0 .0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .0
1 .2
1 .4
1 .6
1 .8
2 .0
13-S
ep
14-S
ep
15-S
ep
16-S
ep
17-S
ep
18-S
ep
19-S
ep
20-S
ep
21-S
ep
22-S
ep
23-S
ep
24-S
ep
25-S
ep
26-S
ep
27-S
ep
28-S
ep
29-S
ep
30-S
ep
01-O
ct
02-O
ct
03-O
ct
04-O
ct
05-O
ct
06-O
ct
07-O
ct
08-O
ct
09-O
ct
10-O
ct
11-O
ct
12-O
ct
13-O
ct
Rain
fall (
mm
)
0 .13
0 .14
0 .15
0 .16
0 .17
0 .18
0 .19
0 .20
0 .21
0 .22
Stag
e (m
)
Ra in f a ll @ SV 05
Stage @ SV 05
This could be a serious water quality problem for a small fish bearing stream.
Table xx. Impact assessment model for clear water fishes exposed to conditions or reduced water clarity (from Newcombe 2004).
Visual larity of
water NTU1)
Severity-of-ill effects Scores (SEV)
1100 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 600 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 400 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 230 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 75 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 12 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 4 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
1 3 7 1 2 6 2 7 4 11 30 Hours Days Weeks Months
Net Duration of Exposure Note: The SEV impact assessment is based on net duration (less clear-water intervals) and weighted-average visual clarity. Recurrent events sum when integrated over relevant intervals 1. NTU is the Nephelometric turbidity unit, which is a measure of light scattering by suspended clay particles and is directly related to water clarity.
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 16
In summary:1)Riparian treatments
are typically not a problem for sediment delivery when an effective machine free zone is maintained
2) Road crossings, however can potentially be a significant source of accelerated sediment delivery to small streams.
Sediment module, March 2007 Page 17
3) Erosion and sediment control efforts must recognize the importance of small streams in the landscape
Possible Mountain Pine Beetle Implications to the issue of sediment and small streams
1.Increased flows can cause accelerated bank erosion and thus could alter the sediment supply (depends of stream sensitivity)
2.More active roads, means more active crossings and thus potentially increased sediment supply.
3.More aggressive riparian salvage treatments = ?????????
1
Prince George Small Stream Riparian Buffers StudyPrince George Small Stream Riparian Buffers Study
Riparian Management and the Water Quality of Headwater Streams
Erland MacIsaac, Science Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada School of Resource & Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University
Fisheries Objectives for Sustainable Forestry Fisheries Objectives for Sustainable Forestry Management of Headwater StreamsManagement of Headwater Streams
Maintain water qualityMaintain water quality (e.g. temperature, oxygen, (e.g. temperature, oxygen, suspended sediment, nutrients, water chemistry)suspended sediment, nutrients, water chemistry)
Retain shade, manage road crossings, manage organic Retain shade, manage road crossings, manage organic debris loads, minimize watershed soil disturbancesdebris loads, minimize watershed soil disturbances
Maintain physical habitatMaintain physical habitat (e.g. pools, cover, (e.g. pools, cover, undercuts, spawning gravels)undercuts, spawning gravels)
Retain large woody debris inputs and Retain large woody debris inputs and streambankstreambank trees, trees, minimize new sediment sourcesminimize new sediment sources
Maintain stream productivityMaintain stream productivity (e.g. litterfall, (e.g. litterfall, invertebrates, periphyton, fish)invertebrates, periphyton, fish)
Management currently hampered by inadequate Management currently hampered by inadequate knowledgeknowledge
2
Maintain Water Quality of Headwater StreamsMaintain Water Quality of Headwater Streams
Water chemistryWater chemistry
Inorganic nutrients Inorganic nutrients (Nitrogen & Phosphorous)(Nitrogen & Phosphorous)
Dissolved organic matterDissolved organic matter
Suspended sediment Suspended sediment (turbidity/discharge)(turbidity/discharge)
Water temperature (John Rex)Water temperature (John Rex)
Effects of Riparian and Watershed Processes Effects of Riparian and Watershed Processes
on Water Chemistryon Water Chemistry
““Logging increases ion flux from the watershedLogging increases ion flux from the watershed””
Stream nutrients, dissolved organics and ion chemistry Stream nutrients, dissolved organics and ion chemistry largely determined by watershed processeslargely determined by watershed processes
Soil chemistry and disturbanceSoil chemistry and disturbance
Reduced vegetation uptakeReduced vegetation uptake
Groundwater versus soilGroundwater versus soil--water sourceswater sources
Large riparian buffers may moderate landLarge riparian buffers may moderate land--use effects on use effects on stream water chemistry (e.g. agriculture)stream water chemistry (e.g. agriculture)
Effects of forest harvesting on stream water chemistry Effects of forest harvesting on stream water chemistry are mixed and site dependent (Feller 2005 JAWRA)are mixed and site dependent (Feller 2005 JAWRA)
3
Site Schematic – Bowron Sampling Stns
Bow C Bow T2 Bow T3 Bow T1
Bow C Bow T2-T Bow T3-T Bow T1
Bow T3-CBow T2-C
Water sampling stn Turbidity/discharge stn
Cut block
Sampling reach
Road
Site Schematic – Chuchinka Sampling Stations
Chu-A Chu
Chu-T
Chu-C
Chu-A
Chu-X
Water sampling stn Turbidity/discharge stn Sampling reach
Road
Cut block
4
0
30
60
90
120
150
Apr
-01
Oct
-01
Apr
-02
Oct
-02
Apr
-03
Oct
-03
Apr
-04
Oct
-04
Apr
-05
Oct
-05
Con
d (u
S)
Bow C
0
30
60
90
120
150
Apr
-01
Oct
-01
Apr
-02
Oct
-02
Apr
-03
Oct
-03
Apr
-04
Oct
-04
Apr
-05
Oct
-05
Con
d (u
S)
ChuC
0
30
60
90
120
150
Apr
-01
Oct
-01
Apr
-02
Oct
-02
Apr
-03
Oct
-03
Apr
-04
Oct
-04
Apr
-05
Oct
-05
Con
d (u
S)
ChuT
0
30
60
90
120
150
Apr
-01
Oct
-01
Apr
-02
Oct
-02
Apr
-03
Oct
-03
Apr
-04
Oct
-04
Apr
-05
Oct
-05
Con
d (u
S)
Bow T3CBow T3T
Control Treatment• Total ion content of water (groundwater generally higher than soil water)
• Peaks during low summer flow (more groundwater influence)
• No significant changes after harvesting
Specific conductance
Stream NutrientsStream Nutrients
Inorganic Nitrogen and Inorganic Nitrogen and Phosphorous Phosphorous
periphyton (algae) periphyton (algae) production production fungi and bacteria: N fungi and bacteria: N & P enhance litter & P enhance litter breakdown and food breakdown and food quality for aquatic quality for aquatic invertebratesinvertebrates
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
ChuC SRP (ug/L)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35ChuT SRP(ug/L)
Control
Treatment
Example:Chuchinka streams:Soluble Reactive Phosphorous (SRP)
•Primary nutrient for periphyton, microbial communities
•No significant changes after harvesting
•Levels of nutrients in these headwater streams very low
Nutrient and water chemistry changes after harvestingNutrient and water chemistry changes after harvesting
No ChangeNo Change
(1 (1 –– 100 100 ugug N/L)N/L)
No ChangeNo Change
(1 (1 –– 400 400 ugug N/L)N/L)
Inorganic NitrogenInorganic Nitrogen
(nitrate/ammonium)(nitrate/ammonium)
No ChangeNo Change
(30 (30 –– 90 90 uSuS))
No ChangeNo Change
(30 (30 -- 120 120 uSuS))
Specific ConductanceSpecific Conductance
No ChangeNo Change
(0.2 (0.2 –– 6 6 ugug P/L) P/L) **No ChangeNo Change
(<0.2 (<0.2 –– 3 3 ugug P/L) P/L) **Dissolved Inorganic PDissolved Inorganic P
(soluble reactive P)(soluble reactive P)
No ChangeNo Change
(5 (5 –– 20 20 ugug P/L) P/L) **No ChangeNo Change
(2.0 (2.0 –– 7 7 ugug P/L) P/L) **Dissolved PhosphorousDissolved Phosphorous
(inorganic + organic)(inorganic + organic)
ChuchinkaChuchinkaBowronBowronChemical ConstituentChemical Constituent
* Dissolved phosphorous very low for aquatic habitats
6
Water ChemistryWater Chemistry
No significant changes in stream nutrient levels or No significant changes in stream nutrient levels or ion content 2.5ion content 2.5--3 years after logging3 years after loggingDM Policy riparian prescriptions likely had little DM Policy riparian prescriptions likely had little influence on water chemistryinfluence on water chemistryWatershed processes likely dominate:Watershed processes likely dominate:
% of watershed harvested and vegetation % of watershed harvested and vegetation regrowthregrowthsurficialsurficial geology and soil processesgeology and soil processesdegree of soil disturbance and hydrologic degree of soil disturbance and hydrologic changeschanges
Very low phosphorous levels have implications for Very low phosphorous levels have implications for stream productivitystream productivity
Stream Dissolved Organic MatterStream Dissolved Organic Matter
Dissolved organic Dissolved organic matter (DOM)matter (DOM)
nutrient for bacteria nutrient for bacteria biofilmsbiofilmsnaturenature’’s Ultraviolet s Ultraviolet Radiation (UVR) Radiation (UVR) sunscreensunscreen
Watershed soil Watershed soil processes determine processes determine DOM levels leaching to DOM levels leaching to streamsstreams
7
Photo: Max Bothwell
DOM and Ultraviolet Radiation (UVR)
UVR affects all biota
Effects of UV Radiation on Behaviour, Physiology, and Development of Juvenile Coho
Max Bothwell, Blair Holtby, et al. unpublished
• actively avoid UVR; may limit foraging time• fish fatty-acid changes indicate stress• lower burst swimming speeds• growth rates and condition factors lower• high fin fraying from nutrition or hormone problems
Direct Effects On Fish & Indirect Effects On Foodwebs
8
Kelly, David J., Clare, John J., Bothwell, Max L.Attenuation of solar ultraviolet radiation by dissolved organic matter alters benthic colonization patterns in streamsJournal of the North American Benthological Society 2001 20: 96-108
Dissolved organic matter (DOM) absorbs UVR in streams
Low level of DOM can expose invertebrate communities to UVR
Colonization rates reduced
Drift rates may increase
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Apr-
01
Oct
-01
Apr-
02
Oct
-02
Apr-
03
Oct
-03
Apr-
04
Sep-
04
Mar
-05
Sep-
05
BowT2C DOC(365)BowT2T DOC(365)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Apr-
01
Oct
-01
Apr-
02
Oct
-02
Apr-
03
Oct
-03
Apr-
04
Sep-
04
Mar
-05
Sep-
05BowC DOC(365)DOM in Bowron Streams
UVR (365 nm) absorption (cm-1) by DOM measured
Naturally low UVR absorbencies
0.1 cm-1 = 32% UVR transmittance at 5 cm depth
No significant change in DOM levels and UVR absorption in treatment stream after harvesting
Control
Treatment
9
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Apr-
01
Oct
-01
Apr-
02
Oct
-02
Apr-
03
Oct
-03
Apr-
04
Sep-
04
Mar
-05
Sep-
05
ChuC DOC(365)DOM in Chuchinka Streams
•UVR (365 nm) absorption (cm-1) by DOM measured
•Naturally low UVR absorbencies
•No significant change in DOM levels and UVR absorption in treatment stream after harvesting
Control
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Apr-
01
Oct
-01
Apr-
02
Oct
-02
Apr-
03
Oct
-03
Apr-
04
Sep-
04
Mar
-05
Sep-
05
ChuT DOC(365)Treatment
Direct Solar Radiation Exposure of StreamDirect Solar Radiation Exposure of Stream
Measure DOM UVR Measure DOM UVR absorbance plus direct absorbance plus direct solar radiation solar radiation exposure of streamexposure of streamSolar Pathfinder Solar Pathfinder (stream level)(stream level)Direct Solar Radiation Direct Solar Radiation exposure depends on exposure depends on stream aspect and stream aspect and canopycanopy
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
30-M
ar-01
16-Oct-
01
4-May-02
20-Nov-02
8-Jun-03
25-Dec
-03
12-Jul-0
4
% D
irect
Sol
ar R
adia
tion
Bow CBow T2TBow T3T
Low UVR absorbance by DOM + Reduced riparian shade
= UVR exposure of stream biota
% of total daily direct-solar radiation reaching stream surface for Bowron control stream and 2 treatment streams (Solar Pathfinder)
5-10% increased to 25-55%
P.G. District Managers S4 Policy ObjectiveP.G. District Managers S4 Policy Objective
#1:#1: Maintain Maintain 50 to 70% of the natural shade50 to 70% of the natural shade and and light intensity reaching the stream surface.light intensity reaching the stream surface.
• Shade = 100% -% direct solar radiation reaching stream surface
• DM Policy: Shade reduced from 90-95% to 45-75%
•Meets policy objective but exposure significantly increases from 5-10% to 25-55% of total daily UVR (2.5-11 fold increase)
11
• No changes in naturally low levels of DOM after harvesting
• Increases in stream exposure to UVR due to reduced shade
• DM Policy enough? • UVR effects on biota still uncertain • Low DOM headwater streams may require
higher shade retention for UVR protection of all biota
DOM and Ultraviolet Radiation (UVR)
0
100
200
300
400
500
May
-02
Aug
-02
Nov
-02
Feb-
03
May
-03
Aug
-03
Nov
-03
Feb-
04
May
-04
Aug
-04
Nov
-04
Feb-
05
May
-05
Aug
-05
0
100
200
300
400
500Bowron Control
Bowron T3
Relative Turbidity (NTU)
• Sediments directly affect fish, and smother invertebrates, periphyton and spawning areas
•Significant increases in suspended sediments after harvesting
• Largest suspended sediment impacts associated with road crossings, not riparian treatments
Water Quality and Suspended Sediments
12
Site Schematic – Bowron Sampling Stns
Bow C Bow T2 Bow T3 Bow T1
Bow C Bow T2-T Bow T3-T Bow T1
Bow T3-CBow T2-C
Water sampling stn Turbidity/discharge stn
Cut block
Sampling reach
Road
Roads, roads, roads…..
Need to improve road crossing management on small streams to minimize sediment impacts
13
Fisheries Objectives for Sustainable Forestry Management of Fisheries Objectives for Sustainable Forestry Management of Headwater StreamsHeadwater Streams
Maintain water qualityMaintain water quality (e.g. temperature, oxygen, (e.g. temperature, oxygen, suspended sediment, nutrients, water chemistry)suspended sediment, nutrients, water chemistry)
Retain shade, manage road crossings, manage organic Retain shade, manage road crossings, manage organic debris loads, minimize watershed soil disturbancesdebris loads, minimize watershed soil disturbances
DM Policy prescriptions:DM Policy prescriptions:Nutrient and water chemistry unchangedNutrient and water chemistry unchangedDOM unchanged but UVR exposure of stream biota a DOM unchanged but UVR exposure of stream biota a concern due to reduced shadeconcern due to reduced shadeSignificant suspended sediment impacts from road Significant suspended sediment impacts from road crossingscrossings
1
Shade and TemperatureShade and Temperature
OutlineOutline
Heat and temperatureHeat and temperatureStream type and temperature regimesStream type and temperature regimesImportance of temperatureImportance of temperatureSmall streams projectSmall streams project
ShadeShadeAir temperatureAir temperatureWater temperatureWater temperature
Literature findings Literature findings
2
Modes of Heat TransferModes of Heat Transfer
Solar RadiationSolar Radiation
LongLong--wave radiationwave radiation
ConvectionConvection
EvaporationEvaporation
ConductionConduction
AdvectionAdvection
Environmental FactorsEnvironmental Factors
Percent ShadePercent Shade
Stream aspect and terrainStream aspect and terrain
Stream elevationStream elevation
Stream bank (e.g. Stream bank (e.g. undercuts)undercuts)
Streambed compositionStreambed composition
Stream depth and widthStream depth and width
3
Environmental Factors (continued)Environmental Factors (continued)
Stream dischargeStream discharge
Ambient air temperatureAmbient air temperature
Wind, precipitation, and Wind, precipitation, and day lengthday length
Presence of hydraulic Presence of hydraulic retention featuresretention features
Sources of stream water, Sources of stream water, type of geology, and type of geology, and water pathways.water pathways.
Influence of Stream DepthInfluence of Stream Depth
Mean water temperature as a function of stream depth for fully vegetated and open sites.
From Adams and Sullivan 1990
4
Influence of Stream Depth and Influence of Stream Depth and ShadingShading
Diurnal fluctuation of water temperature in relation to stream depth at four different
shading levels.
From Adams and Sullivan 1990
Interior vs. Coastal StreamsInterior vs. Coastal StreamsInterior streamsInterior streams
Wetlands or lakes in Wetlands or lakes in headwaters.headwaters.Moderate hillModerate hill--slope gradientsslope gradientsCooler climateCooler climateLower storm frequenciesLower storm frequenciesModerate annual Moderate annual precipitationprecipitationLess cloud coverLess cloud coverDominant riparian canopy Dominant riparian canopy species (e.g., white spruce, species (e.g., white spruce, lodgepole pine, lodgepole pine, subalpinesubalpine fir).fir).
Coastal streamsCoastal streamsFewer wetlands or lakes.Fewer wetlands or lakes.Steeper gradients and Steeper gradients and confined valleysconfined valleysWarmer climateWarmer climateHigh winter storm High winter storm frequencies frequencies High annual precipitationHigh annual precipitationMore cloud coverMore cloud coverDominant riparian canopy Dominant riparian canopy species (e.g., red cedar, species (e.g., red cedar, western hemlock.).western hemlock.).
5
Shallow Headwater StreamsShallow Headwater Streams
Are all small streams headwater streams?Are all small streams headwater streams?
Does stream temperature increase or decrease in a Does stream temperature increase or decrease in a downstream direction? downstream direction?
Questions for youQuestions for you
6
Headwater Vs. Lake/WetlandHeadwater Vs. Lake/Wetland--headedheaded
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16Upstream (C)Downstream (A)
04/0
5/20
05
10/0
5/20
05
15/0
5/20
05
21/0
5/20
05
26/0
5/20
05
01/0
6/20
05
07/0
6/20
05
12/0
6/20
05
18/0
6/20
05
23/0
6/20
05
29/0
6/20
05
05/0
7/20
05
10/0
7/20
05
16/0
7/20
05
21/0
7/20
05
27/0
7/20
05
02/0
8/20
05
07/0
8/20
05
13/0
8/20
05
18/0
8/20
05
24/0
8/20
05
30/0
8/20
05
04/0
9/20
05
10/0
9/20
05
15/0
9/20
05
21/0
9/20
05
27/0
9/20
05
02/1
0/20
05
08/1
0/20
05
13/1
0/20
05
19/1
0/20
05
Date (Day/Month/Year)
2
4
6
8
10
12
Dai
ly A
vera
ge T
empe
ratu
re (C
elsi
us)
Tagai 13 (Swamp headed stream)
Bowron T3 (Headwater stream)
Seasonal TrendsSeasonal Trends
Date
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Dai
ly M
ean
Air t
empe
ratu
re (C
elsi
us)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16Upstream (C)Downstream (A)
04/0
5/20
05
10/0
5/20
05
15/0
5/20
05
21/0
5/20
05
26/0
5/20
05
01/0
6/20
05
07/0
6/20
05
12/0
6/20
05
18/0
6/20
05
23/0
6/20
05
29/0
6/20
05
05/0
7/20
05
10/0
7/20
05
16/0
7/20
05
21/0
7/20
05
27/0
7/20
05
02/0
8/20
05
07/0
8/20
05
13/0
8/20
05
18/0
8/20
05
24/0
8/20
05
30/0
8/20
05
04/0
9/20
05
10/0
9/20
05
15/0
9/20
05
21/0
9/20
05
27/0
9/20
05
02/1
0/20
05
08/1
0/20
05
13/1
0/20
05
19/1
0/20
05
Date (Day/Month/Year)
2
4
6
8
10
12
Dai
ly A
vera
ge T
empe
ratu
re (C
elsi
us)
Tagai 13 (Swamp headed stream)
Bowron T3 (Headwater stream)
7
Importance of Temperature Importance of Temperature
All life stages of stream organisms;All life stages of stream organisms;Algal and invertebrate productivity;Algal and invertebrate productivity;Composition of aquatic organisms;Composition of aquatic organisms;Fish growth;Fish growth;Disease susceptibility;Disease susceptibility;Development of salmonid eggs; andDevelopment of salmonid eggs; andSurvival and behaviour of fish Survival and behaviour of fish populations.populations.
Bjornn and Reiser, 1991
Small Streams ProjectSmall Streams Project
Air
Water
8
ShadeShade
One measurement every One measurement every 5m for a 50m section of 5m for a 50m section of the treatment and the treatment and control areas.control areas.
Measured between 10am Measured between 10am and 2pm.and 2pm.
South facing and at the South facing and at the stream surface. stream surface.
PrePre--harvest Shadingharvest Shading
Angular canopy density in SBS ranged Angular canopy density in SBS ranged from 57 to 85%.from 57 to 85%.
8282Subalpine firSubalpine fir
7171SpruceSpruce
6868Lodgepole pineLodgepole pine
6565AspenAspen
Angular CanopyAngular CanopyDensityDensity (%)(%)
Leading StandLeading Stand
9
Shade ResultsShade Results
Bowron Small Stream Shade Data
SiteT2 T3 Control
Per
cent
Sha
de (E
stim
ated
by
AC
D)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2001 2003 2004 2005
• Shade generally decreased after harvesting,
• Variability due to technique and natural variability,
• Shade levels at some sites are not statistically different from pre-harvest conditions 2-3 years after harvesting (i.e. a site specific response)
Climate Conditions Climate Conditions Air temperature was not Air temperature was not consistent.consistent.Unique opportunity to Unique opportunity to assess treatment effects assess treatment effects over different conditions:over different conditions:
2003 2003 -- normalnormal2004 2004 -- monthly mean was monthly mean was 2200C higher than normalC higher than normal2005 2005 -- warmer spring and warmer spring and cooler summer (~1cooler summer (~100C)C)2006 2006 –– May, June, July, May, June, July, and September (1and September (1--1.81.800C C warmer), August was warmer), August was coolercooler
Mean monthly air temperature and 30 year normals for thePrince George Airport (Environment Canada)
Date
Jan-
02
May
-02
Sep-
02
Jan-
03
May
-03
Sep-
03
Jan-
04
May
-04
Sep-
04
Jan-
05
May
-05
Sep-
05
Jan-
06
May
-06
Sep-
06
Jan-
07
Tem
pera
ture
(Cel
sius
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20Monthly Mean (Grey)Monthly Normal
10
Air TemperatureAir TemperaturePrePre--Harvest : Treatment Harvest : Treatment sites were statistically similar sites were statistically similar to control areas. to control areas. PostPost--Harvest: Treatment Harvest: Treatment sites were statistically similar sites were statistically similar to landings (existing to landings (existing clearings).clearings).Greatest difference between Greatest difference between treatment and control treatment and control occurred in 2004, the occurred in 2004, the warmest year regionally.warmest year regionally.
2004
Site
Landing Control Treatment
q
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
2002
Site
Landing Control Treatment
q
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
Y-Axis: LSM, X Axis: Site
QuestionsQuestions
Is an increase in air temperature important?Is an increase in air temperature important?How large a buffer would be required to prevent How large a buffer would be required to prevent a change in air temperature?a change in air temperature?Given these results how much of a change do Given these results how much of a change do you expect to see in stream temperature?you expect to see in stream temperature?
11
Temperature AnalysesTemperature Analyses
Numerous techniques to analyze stream temperature, Numerous techniques to analyze stream temperature, here we will look at three of them, namely:here we will look at three of them, namely:
Daily mean and maximumDaily mean and maximumMaximum mean weekly temperatureMaximum mean weekly temperatureDiurnal fluctuationDiurnal fluctuation
Some preliminary thermal recovery data are also Some preliminary thermal recovery data are also presented.presented.
Summary Water ResultsSummary Water Results
Statistically significant Statistically significant increase in water increase in water temperature following temperature following harvesting.harvesting.Increase in daily mean Increase in daily mean was 1was 1--1.51.500C higher than C higher than the control site.the control site.Is this an issue?Is this an issue?
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Diff
eren
ce in
Tem
pera
ture
Incr
ease
(Cel
sius
)
-0.4-0.20.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.8
Bowron T2 Stream
Pre-Harvest
Post-Harvest
12
It DependsIt Depends
Chinook Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Rainbow Trout
Bull Trout
Fisheries ContextFisheries Context0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
ChinookMigrationSpawningIncubationAdult PreferenceIncipient Lethal
Coho Pre-harvest (2002)Average Post-harvest (2003/2005)Post-harvest (2004)
Sockeye
Chum
Steelhead
Rainbow
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Bull
Temperature (Celsius)
Temperature (Celsius)
Bowron T3
Bowron T3 Bowron T2 Bowron C Chuchinka T Chuchinka C2002 8.1 10.0 9.6 12.0 10.92003 9.8 12.0 10.8 11.8 11.32004 11.3 14.3 12.2 13.9 13.52005 9.6 12.0 9.9 11.7 11.1
13
Diurnal FluctuationsDiurnal Fluctuations
Torpy Study by Shrimpton, 1999
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:0
0
11:0
0
12:0
0
13:0
0
14:0
0
15:0
0
16:0
0
17:0
0
18:0
0
19:0
0
20:0
0
21:0
0
22:0
0
23:0
0
24:0
0
Time
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0T3Control
Tem
pera
ture
(Cel
sius
)
Bowron T3 site on August 14, 2005
Thermal RecoveryThermal Recovery
Recovery is often due to dilution (groundwater or colder tributaRecovery is often due to dilution (groundwater or colder tributaries) ries) and the rate may be enhanced by the degree of shading.and the rate may be enhanced by the degree of shading.
Torpy Study by Shrimpton, 1999Bowron T3, stream hottest day and time in 2005, C = 8.7 B = 10.2A = 11.7 50m = 11.5100m = 11.2
14
Literature FindingsLiterature Findings
Buffers providing direct shade protected Buffers providing direct shade protected streams from increases above natural warming streams from increases above natural warming trend, ~1trend, ~100CCTemperatures increased earlier in the summer, Temperatures increased earlier in the summer, up to 7up to 700C difference, recovery took 15 yrsC difference, recovery took 15 yrs
8.6 8.6 -- 30.5m30.5m
0 0 –– 20m20m
W. OregonW. Oregon5,65,6
20m width appeared to keep stream20m width appeared to keep stream’’s thermal s thermal regime and fish habitatregime and fish habitatComplex relationship between buffer width and Complex relationship between buffer width and stream warmingstream warmingBuffers do not need to be wider than several Buffers do not need to be wider than several meters, canopy height and species must be meters, canopy height and species must be considered. considered. Stream temperature changed, within limits of Stream temperature changed, within limits of biota and did not recover within 5biota and did not recover within 5--7 years7 years
0 and 20m0 and 20m
30 and 60m30 and 60m
VariableVariable
LowLow--High High RetentionRetention
W. NewfoundlandW. Newfoundland11
New BrunswickNew Brunswick22
S. OntarioS. Ontario33
British ColumbiaBritish Columbia44
FindingFindingTreatmentTreatmentLocationLocation
1. Curry et al. 2002, 2. Bourque and Pomeroy 2001, 3. Barton et al. 1985, 4. Herunter et al. 2004, 5. Zwieniecki and Newton 1999, 6. Johnson and Jones 2000
ConclusionConclusionThe relationship is The relationship is complex.complex.Temperatures Temperatures increased with the increased with the DM policy as did the DM policy as did the diurnal variability.diurnal variability.The policy may be The policy may be effective for some effective for some areas but not all.areas but not all.
15
Considerations for MPBConsiderations for MPB
ConsiderationsConsiderationsAs the riparian canopy As the riparian canopy opens energy exchange opens energy exchange may be enhanced:may be enhanced:
increasing local air increasing local air temperaturetemperatureand stream temperature.and stream temperature.
Increase riparian Increase riparian retention to:retention to:
decrease direct solar decrease direct solar radiation, radiation, prevent degradation of prevent degradation of wetter areas.wetter areas.
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 1
Role of Large Woody Debris in Role of Large Woody Debris in Small StreamsSmall Streams
increases structural increases structural diversity of stream;diversity of stream;
LWD is woody material in the stream that is 5 cm in diameter
and larger.
Structural diversity includes formation of pools and drops, contributes to bank stability, and deflects stream flow and creates hydraulic diversity in the stream
Role of Large Woody DebrisRole of Large Woody Debrisin Small Streamsin Small Streams
improves physical improves physical retention of organic retention of organic matter and inorganic matter and inorganic matter input from the matter input from the surrounding forest;surrounding forest;
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 2
Role of Large Woody Debris Role of Large Woody Debris in Small Streamsin Small Streams
direct food source for direct food source for invertebrates invertebrates (shredders and (shredders and filterers; filterers; and detritus and algae and detritus and algae can be directly eaten by can be directly eaten by aquatic consumers aquatic consumers (small fish etc)(small fish etc)
Role of Large Woody DebrisRole of Large Woody Debrisin Small Streamsin Small Streams
refuge for fish and refuge for fish and invertebrates, invertebrates,
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 3
Role of Large Woody Debris in Role of Large Woody Debris in Small StreamsSmall Streams
substrate for microbes substrate for microbes and algae.and algae.
This in turn This in turn influences nutrient influences nutrient cycling and cycling and downstream water downstream water qualityquality
Interior Interior vsvs Coastal StreamsCoastal StreamsInterior streamsInterior streams
LWD recruitment from LWD recruitment from blowdown.blowdown.
Woody debris jams not Woody debris jams not commoncommonRiparian vegetation Riparian vegetation composed of different composed of different speciesspeciesSmaller diameter trees.Smaller diameter trees.
Coastal streamsCoastal streams
LWD recruitment from debris LWD recruitment from debris flows/ massflows/ mass--wasting events wasting events and blowdown.and blowdown.Woody debris jams common.Woody debris jams common.
Riparian vegetation with red Riparian vegetation with red alder.alder.
Larger diameter trees.Larger diameter trees.
Be careful of extrapolating Coastal studies to Interior situations
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 4
Important Characteristics of LWD Important Characteristics of LWD in Small Streamsin Small Streams
Species, Species, DiameterDiameterDensity (number of pieces/length of stream)Density (number of pieces/length of stream)OrientationOrientationEmbedednessEmbedednessPeriod when functional (or zones of functionality)Period when functional (or zones of functionality)Span Span Decay ClassDecay Class
In general you are looking for a substantial variability in In general you are looking for a substantial variability in each of the characteristics, e.g.:each of the characteristics, e.g.:
You don’t want all of the LWD oriented parallel to the streamflowYou want variability in size, span and zone of functionalityYou want some pieces that are “bridging” the stream, while others that are fully submerged at all flows. In essence you need diversity and chaos, just like the terrestrial systems
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 5
DIVERSITY REIGNS IN UNDISTURBEDDIVERSITY REIGNS IN UNDISTURBEDSMALL STREAMSSMALL STREAMS
Riparian retention prescriptions must ensure that diversity is maintained in the riparian area.
DM Policy Small Stream ProjectDM Policy Small Stream ProjectWhat we sampledWhat we sampled
Streams: Streams: 8080--160 cm wide160 cm wide< 6% slope< 6% slope
LWD:LWD:> 5cm diameter> 5cm diameterin and over the channelin and over the channel
Stand:Stand:10 m wide10 m wide
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 6
DM Policy Small Stream ProjectDM Policy Small Stream ProjectWhat we sampledWhat we sampled
LWD Characteristics:LWD Characteristics:-- DiameterDiameter-- EmbedednessEmbededness-- Function at which flowFunction at which flow-- SpanSpan-- Decay classDecay class-- OrientationOrientation-- SpeciesSpecies-- Bole source distanceBole source distance-- Perpendicular source Perpendicular source
distancedistance
Number of standing stems in riparian zone (10 m on each
side) before and after application of the DM Policy
0
50
100
150
200
2002 2003 2004 2005
Stan
ding
tree
s/50
m le
ngth < 15cm dbh
15-30 cm dbh
> 30 cm dbh
Bowron
05
1015202530354045
2002 2003 2004 2005
Stan
ding
tree
s/50
m le
ngth
Chuchinka0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2001 2004 2005
Stan
ding
tree
s/50
m le
ngth
Tagai
Goal was to retain 10-12 stems >15cm diameter every 100m within 10-15m of the stream
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 7
Tagai
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
In st
ream
LW
D P
iece
s/50m
5 t o 15 cm
15-30
>30
Bowron
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
In s
trea
m L
WD
Piec
es/5
0m
5 to 15 cm
15-30
>30
Chuchinka
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
In st
ream
LW
D P
ieces
/50m
5 to 15 cm
15-30
>30
In-stream LWD – all classes before and after application of
DM Policy
before after
before after
before after
The density of functional LWD is very high, i.e. lots of pieces.
Pl dominated
Sx,Bldominated
Sx,Bl, Hw dominated
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE ON THE GROUND?
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 8
BowronBowronAverage 16 stems standing / 100
m right after logging
Average 6 stems/ 100 m in 2005
Advance regeneration post treatment = 200 trees /100m
ChuchinkaChuchinka
Average 20 stems standing/ 100 m right after logging
Average 16 stems/ 100 m in 2005
Advance regeneration post treatment = 60 trees /100m
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 9
TagaiTagai
Average 14 stems standing/ 100 m right after logging.
Average 10 stems/ 100 m in 2005
Advance regeneration post treatment = 200 trees /100m
Location of the LWDLocation of the LWD
Most small LWD enters the stream directly.Most small LWD enters the stream directly.Larger LWD is suspended over stream until broken.Larger LWD is suspended over stream until broken.More decayed LWD found in stream.More decayed LWD found in stream.For the most part, LWD stays in place (i.e. not rafted For the most part, LWD stays in place (i.e. not rafted downstream)downstream)
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 10
Source DistanceSource Distance
Source of LWD Source of LWD within 10 m of within 10 m of stream.stream.-- BowronBowron 86%86%-- TagaiTagai 89%89%-- ChuchinkaChuchinka 77%77%Related to stand Related to stand height.height.Farther in spruce Farther in spruce stands and wetter stands and wetter subzones.subzones.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Perpendicular source distance (m)
Cum
ulat
ive
quan
tity
of L
WD
BowronTagaiChuchinka
Windthrow recruitmentWindthrow recruitment
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
T agai Chuchinka Bowron
# pi
eces
> 5
cm/5
0 m
of s
tream
4 years3 years2 years 1 year pre-harvestpre-harvest
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 11
How do we know if it is enoughHow do we know if it is enough
We studied several LWD decay models (e.g. We studied several LWD decay models (e.g. Murphy and Murphy and KoskiKoski 1989), both in1989), both in--stream and on stream and on landlandWe wanted to model the amount of LWD in our We wanted to model the amount of LWD in our streams at a future point in timestreams at a future point in timeNone of the models were a perfect fit for our small None of the models were a perfect fit for our small headwater interior streams.headwater interior streams.However, we did use the information to build a However, we did use the information to build a reasonable conceptual model.reasonable conceptual model.
Rate of LWD Decomposition
Submerged wood decays Submerged wood decays slower than terrestrial wood slower than terrestrial wood or wood that is wetted and or wood that is wetted and dried.dried.Conifer decay rates are Conifer decay rates are slower than deciduous decay slower than deciduous decay rates.rates.In one 5 year study loss of In one 5 year study loss of bark was the main bark was the main contributor to diameter loss contributor to diameter loss of LWD (of LWD (BilbyBilby et al. 1999).et al. 1999).
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 12
InstreamInstream woody debris volumeswoody debris volumes
Clark et al. CJFR 1998 (28) 284-290
Conceptual changes in long-term LWD
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 200 0 200 0 200 0 200
time (yrs)
woo
dy d
ebri
s (m
3/ha
)
Volumes based on natural disturbance regime of a pine stand in the Interior
InstreamInstream woody debris volumeswoody debris volumes
Clark et al. CJFR 1998 (28) 284-290
Conceptual changes in long-term LWD
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 200 0 200 0 200 0 200
time (yrs)
woo
dy d
ebri
s (m
3/ha
)
Total riparian removal with no replacement, e.g. urban or agricultural situation
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 13
InstreamInstream woody debris volumeswoody debris volumes
Clark et al. CJFR 1998 (28) 284-290
Conceptual changes in long-term LWD
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 200 0 200 0 200 0 200
time (yrs)
woo
dy d
ebris
(m3/
ha)
Implementation of DM Policy – every 100 years
Is the yellow line enough to maintain a Is the yellow line enough to maintain a functional stream ecosystem?????functional stream ecosystem?????
Clark et al. CJFR 1998 (28) 284-290
Conceptual changes in long-term LWD
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 200 0 200 0 200 0 200
time (yrs)
woo
dy d
ebris
(m3/
ha)
Implementation of DM Policy
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 14
LWD Model LWD Model ConclusionsConclusionsThe continued implementation of the DM policy will result The continued implementation of the DM policy will result in a substantial reduction in inin a substantial reduction in in--stream LWD (stream LWD (~ ~~ ~60%)60%)Channel deterioration will likely occur over the long run. Channel deterioration will likely occur over the long run. More retention is suggested as stream sensitivity increasesMore retention is suggested as stream sensitivity increases
What are the possible long term implications of reduced LWD?
Channel simplificationChannel simplificationLoss of immediate habitatLoss of immediate habitatDownstream impacts such change to sediment Downstream impacts such change to sediment supply, change in invertebrate drift + ???????supply, change in invertebrate drift + ???????
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 15
The LWD modeling suggests that the minimum DM Policy will not provide enough LWD for long term sustainability. However, most operations leave much more than the minimum required by the policy.
Channel MorphologyChannel MorphologyProvides habitat complexity Provides habitat complexity through variety of channel through variety of channel structures and stream structures and stream velocities.velocities.Variety of habitats supports Variety of habitats supports more diverse algal, more diverse algal, invertebrate and fish invertebrate and fish assemblages and possibly assemblages and possibly more resilience to natural more resilience to natural disturbances.disturbances.Includes variability in depth, Includes variability in depth, width, gradient, pattern, width, gradient, pattern, sinuosity, bed material etcsinuosity, bed material etc
Diagram from Church 1992
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 16
For the small stream project we chose to measure changes in average width and average depth and also their variability. Possible outcomes from severe disturbance of the watershed and more specifically the riparian zone include:
• Increase in average channel width
• Decrease in the variability of channel width
• Decrease in average channel depth
• Decrease in the variability of channel depth
020406080
100120140160180200
Tag 12-1 (p=0.00)
Tag12-2 (p=0.00)
Tag 13-1 (p=0.01)
Tag 13-2 (p=0.01)
Tag C (p=0.00)
Streams (50m reach)
Ban
kful
l wid
th (c
m)
2002 pre-harvest2003 pre-harvest2004 harvest2005 post-harvest
Changes in Bankfull Width
Width increased over time at all sites, including control – no treatment effect detectable
LWD Module, March 2007 Page 17
05
1015202530354045
Tag 12-1 (p=0.00)
Tag12-2 (p=0.00)
Tag 13-1 (p=0.00)
Tag 13-2 (p=0.00)
Tag C (p=0.00)
Stream (50m reach)
Ban
kful
l dep
th (c
m)
2002 pre-harvest
2004 pre-harvest
2004 harvest
2005 post-harvest
Changes in Bankfull Depth
Width and depth measurements are very difficult to collect accurately and precisely. Defining where to take the measurement is very subjective and the measurement error is very large compared to the variable being measured.
Possible Implications for MPB Zone
Small streams need LWDSmall streams need LWDThe beetle itself does not remove the LWD sourceThe beetle itself does not remove the LWD sourceThe dead MPB trees may fall in the stream sooner but The dead MPB trees may fall in the stream sooner but they are still a gradual source of LWDthey are still a gradual source of LWDThe DM Policy requirements (i.e. 10The DM Policy requirements (i.e. 10--12 trees >15 cm) 12 trees >15 cm) should remain the absolute minimum target. The data should remain the absolute minimum target. The data suggests that a few more are required (even if all dead suggests that a few more are required (even if all dead pine). pine). If there is a species mix in the riparian, retain living If there is a species mix in the riparian, retain living mature trees first and make up the rest with the dead mature trees first and make up the rest with the dead pine.pine.
1
Prince George Small Stream Riparian Buffers StudyPrince George Small Stream Riparian Buffers Study
Riparian Management and the Productivity of Headwater Streams
Erland MacIsaac, Science Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada School of Resource & Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University
Fisheries Objectives for Sustainable Forestry Fisheries Objectives for Sustainable Forestry Management of Headwater StreamsManagement of Headwater Streams
Maintain water qualityMaintain water quality (e.g. temperature, oxygen, (e.g. temperature, oxygen, suspended sediment, nutrients, water chemistry)suspended sediment, nutrients, water chemistry)
Retain shade, manage road crossings, manage organic Retain shade, manage road crossings, manage organic debris loads, minimize watershed soil disturbancesdebris loads, minimize watershed soil disturbances
Maintain physical habitatMaintain physical habitat (e.g. pools, cover, (e.g. pools, cover, undercuts, spawning gravels)undercuts, spawning gravels)
Retain large woody debris inputs and Retain large woody debris inputs and streambankstreambank trees, trees, minimize new sediment sourcesminimize new sediment sources
Maintain stream productivityMaintain stream productivity (e.g. litterfall, (e.g. litterfall, invertebrates, periphyton, fish)invertebrates, periphyton, fish)
Management currently hampered by inadequate Management currently hampered by inadequate knowledgeknowledge
2
hhSome riparian trees harvested, shade declines, light Some riparian trees harvested, shade declines, light increases increases **hhInorganic nutrients (N & P) increase (watershed Inorganic nutrients (N & P) increase (watershed soil/vegetation disturbance) soil/vegetation disturbance) ****hhPeriphyton growth increases (more light & nutrients)Periphyton growth increases (more light & nutrients)hhLitterfall from Litterfall from overstoryoverstory trees declinestrees declineshhIncrease in periphyton primary production compensates for Increase in periphyton primary production compensates for litterfall declinelitterfall declinehhBenthic invertebrates: Benthic invertebrates: ““shreddersshredders”” decline but decline but ““scrapersscrapers””increaseincrease
Stream productivity maintained or increasedStream productivity maintained or increased
Expectations for Effects of DM Policy Riparian Prescriptions on Headwater Stream Productivity
* Direct solar radiation increased 2.5-11 fold** No change in nutrients detected
Periphyton
ScraperInverts
InorganicNutrients
Fish
Light (PAR)
RIPARIANCANOPY
DOM
InvertebrateDrift
Litterfall
PredatorInverts
Collector-GathererInverts
ShredderInverts
FPOM
Microbes
AUTOCHTHONOUSORGANIC MATTER
ALLOCHTHONOUSORGANIC MATTER
Fungi
Does the DM Policy maintain the productivity of headwater streams?
Parametermeasured
3
Key Headwater Stream Productivity Processes StudiedKey Headwater Stream Productivity Processes Studied
Organic matter inputs:Organic matter inputs: leaf litter, leaf litter, periphyton (algae), DOM, fine periphyton (algae), DOM, fine particulate organic matterparticulate organic matterStream canopy:Stream canopy: light and shade light and shade (UVR and light for algae growth)(UVR and light for algae growth)Nitrogen and phosphorous nutrientsNitrogen and phosphorous nutrientsAbundance of benthic Abundance of benthic macroinvertebratesmacroinvertebratesInvertebrate driftInvertebrate drift (fish food)(fish food)Downstream exportDownstream export to fishto fish--bearing bearing waters (nutrients, organic matter, waters (nutrients, organic matter, invertebrate drift)invertebrate drift)Fish habitat useFish habitat use
Do the DM Policy riparian treatments maintain stream productivity?
Litterfall InputsLitterfall Inputs
““Organic matter inputs to Organic matter inputs to headwater streams headwater streams dominated by litterfalldominated by litterfall””““Litterfall declines after Litterfall declines after riparian harvestingriparian harvesting””““Shift to deciduous Shift to deciduous understory litterunderstory litter””
May to October bankMay to October bank--toto--bank collectorsbank collectorsSpherical canopy Spherical canopy densiometerdensiometerNo comparable interior No comparable interior BC dataBC data
4
PrePre--harvest litterfall harvest litterfall vsvs % canopy closure for all 3 sites% canopy closure for all 3 sites
0
50
100
150
60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
Canopy Cover (% Closure)
Litte
rfal
l Dry
Wei
ght (
gDW
/m2)
BowronChuchinkaTagai
Changes in Litterfall Inputs to the Bowron StreamsChanges in Litterfall Inputs to the Bowron StreamsPre and post harvest years (2002/2003)Pre and post harvest years (2002/2003)
Bowron T2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT
Dry
Wei
ght (
g/m
2/da
y) LeavesNeedlesReprod.
Bowron T3
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT
Dry
Wei
ght (
g/m
2/da
y)
Harvest
Harvest
Leaf, needle and conifer reproductive part litter reduced after harvest
5
Litterfall Litterfall vsvs % Canopy Closure % Canopy Closure –– Bowron StreamsBowron Streams
Stream Litterfall
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0
30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
% Canopy Closure
gmD
W /
m2 / d
Pre-harvestControlPost-harvest
• Litter not maintained by DM prescriptions (avg. 35% of natural)• Canopy closure: poor indicator of impaired litterfall because natural variation high at high canopy closures
Shade and LightShade and Light
Direct solar radiation Direct solar radiation exposure of Bowron streams exposure of Bowron streams increased 2.5 increased 2.5 –– 11 times11 timesReduced shade:Reduced shade:
increases light for increases light for periphyton growthperiphyton growthincreases UVR exposure of increases UVR exposure of biotabiotaincreases stream increases stream temperaturetemperature
6
Periphyton ProductionPeriphyton Production
Periphyton (attached algae) Periphyton (attached algae) require light, nutrients, require light, nutrients, stable substrates and stable substrates and moderate flowsmoderate flowsPeriphyton methodsPeriphyton methods
artificial substratesartificial substrates5 samplers per 505 samplers per 50--m m reachreachchlorophyll accrual/max chlorophyll accrual/max biomassbiomass
Other parameters: direct Other parameters: direct solar radiation (solar solar radiation (solar pathfinder), canopy pathfinder), canopy density, nutrients, density, nutrients, temperature, dischargetemperature, discharge
PrePre--harvest geographic differences in maximum periphyton harvest geographic differences in maximum periphyton biomass (ugChl/cm2)biomass (ugChl/cm2)
Periphyton Biomass
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Bow
T1
Bow
C
Bow
T2C
Bow
T2T
Bow
T3C
Bow
T3T
Chu
C
Chu
T
Chu
RC
Chu
A
Tag
12C
Tag
12T
Tag
13C
Tag
13T
Max
imum
Chl
a (u
g/cm
2 ) BowronChuchinkaTagai
Levels indicate unproductive streams
7
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Maximum Chl biomass (ug Chl/cm2)
Bowron Ctrl Bowron T2 Bowron T3
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015Chl accrual (ug Chl/cm2/d)
Bowron Ctrl Bowron T2 Bowron T3
Harvesting
Periphyton Response to DM Policy Prescriptions
•Bowron Streams
•No significant long-term change in maximum biomass after harvest (low)
•No significant long-term change in periphyton accrual rates after harvest (low)
•Post-harvest growth suppression?
•Periphyton production remains low despite light increases
Harvesting
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
Maximum Chl biomass (ug Chl/cm2)
Chl accrual (ug Chl/cm2/d)
Harvesting
Harvesting
Chu-A Ctrl Chu-T
Chu-A Ctrl Chu-C Ctrl
Chu-C Ctrl
Chu-T
Periphyton Response to DM Policy Prescriptions
•Chuchinka Streams
•No significant long-term change in maximum biomass after harvest (low)
•No significant long-term change in periphyton accrual rates after harvest (low)
•Post-harvest growth suppression ?
•Periphyton production remains low despite light increases
8
Periphyton ProductivityPeriphyton ProductivityCurrent views on algae in headwater streamsCurrent views on algae in headwater streams
Periphyton growth limited by light (hi shade)Periphyton growth limited by light (hi shade)Riparian harvesting increases periphyton (reduced Riparian harvesting increases periphyton (reduced shade)shade)
Why no periphyton response to increased light due to DM Why no periphyton response to increased light due to DM policy?policy?
Current views not supportedCurrent views not supportedNutrients (P) are very low: likely limit production in Nutrients (P) are very low: likely limit production in these headwater streamsthese headwater streams
DM Policy prescription has no large effect on periphyton DM Policy prescription has no large effect on periphyton production in these streams because of nutrient limitationproduction in these streams because of nutrient limitation
MacroinvertebratesMacroinvertebrates
Link between stream productivity Link between stream productivity and fish growth and survivaland fish growth and survival
High spatial/seasonal variability High spatial/seasonal variability with complex life cycles with complex life cycles
Small changes difficult to detectSmall changes difficult to detect
Benthic invertebrates used as Benthic invertebrates used as indicator of biological integrityindicator of biological integrity
Invertebrate drift provides fish Invertebrate drift provides fish forageforage
not all benthic invertebrates driftnot all benthic invertebrates drift
drift high if stream productivity highdrift high if stream productivity high
drift high if disturbed (short term)drift high if disturbed (short term)
9
Invertebrates - Methods
Surber Samplingsamples invertebrates living on/in the stream substratesampled twice per year (spring/fall)
Drift Samplinginvertebrates drifting downstream in the watersampled monthly, 24 hour collection
AnalysisTotal Abundance and Total BiomassTaxon Order (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera,
Diptera)Functional feeding groups (e.g. shredders)
Invertebrate Total Abundance and Biomass
• many studies have found increased invertebrate abundance/biomass after forest harvesting
Increased light and nutrients
Increased algae growthIncreased organic matterIncreased temperature
10
Chuchinka Surber Total Biomass
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3A
Jun
e-02
A J
une-
03
A S
ept-0
4
A S
ept-0
5
C J
une-
02
C J
une-
03
C J
une-
04
C J
une-
05
T O
ct-0
1
T O
ct-0
2
T S
ept-0
3
T S
ept-0
4
T S
ept-0
5
X O
ct-0
2
X S
ept-0
3
X S
ept-0
4
X S
ept-0
5
Bio
mas
s (g
/m2)
CHU-TCHU-A CHU-C CHU-X
Total Benthic Invertebrate Biomass
Subtle composition changes hidden
InvertebrateFunctional Feeding Groups
Basic Food Types: Basic Feeding Groups:CPOM (litter) ShreddersFPOM (detritus) CollectorsPeriphyton (attached algae) ScrapersPrey (other invertebrates) Predators
Changes in organic matter inputs can affect functional feeding group composition of invertebrate communities
E.g. Logging may reduce litter, increase periphyton, and increase detritus
11
ChuA Pre AB/m2
CPrScSh
ChuC Pre AB/m2
ChuA Post AB/m2
ChuC Post AB/m2
Chuchinka Control StreamsPre Harvest/Post Harvest Feeding Group Composition
(collectors, predators, scrapers, shredders)
ChuT Pre AB/m2
CPrScSh
ChuX Pre AB/m2
ChuT Post AB/m2
ChuX Post AB/m2
Chuchinka Treatment StreamsPre Harvest/Post Harvest Feeding Group Composition
(collectors, predators, scrapers, shredders)
12
Chuchinka Surber Scraper Abundance
0
500
1000
1500
2000
ChuA Ju
ne-20
02
ChuA O
ct-200
2
ChuA Ju
ne-20
03
ChuA Ju
ne-20
04
ChuA Sep
t-200
4
ChuA Ju
ne-20
05
ChuA Sep
t-200
5
ChuC O
ct-20
01
ChuC Ju
ne-20
02
ChuC O
ct-20
02
ChuC Ju
ne-20
03
ChuC S
ept-2
003
ChuC Ju
ne-20
04
ChuC S
ept-2
004
ChuC Ju
ne-20
05
ChuC S
ept-2
005
ChuT O
ct-20
01
ChuT J
une-2
002
ChuT O
ct-20
02
ChuT Ju
ne-20
03
ChuT Sep
t-2003
ChuT Ju
ne-20
04
ChuT Sep
t-2004
ChuT Ju
ne-20
05
ChuT Sep
t-2005
ChuX Ju
ne-20
02
ChuX O
ct-200
2
ChuX Ju
ne-20
03
ChuX Sep
t-200
3
ChuX Ju
ne-20
04
ChuX Sep
t-200
4
ChuX Ju
ne-20
05
ChuX Sep
t-200
5
Abu
ndan
ce (#
/m2 )
Chuchinka Surber Collector Abundance
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Abu
ndan
ce (#
/m2)
Detritus collector-gathers replacing algal/biofilm scrapers
BowC Pre AB/m2
CPrScSh
BowT2T Pre AB/m2
BowC Post AB/m2
BowT2T Post AB/m2
Bowron Control and Treatment StreamsPre Harvest/Post Harvest Feeding Group Composition
(collectors, predators, scrapers, shredders)
13
Taxon changes may reflect changes in stream productivity and organic matter sources
Mayfly scrapersChironomid
Collector-Gatherers
Fine organic detritusPeriphyton/biofilms
Implications for invertebrate drift production and fish forage• quality of drift (prey size)• seasonal patterns (life cycles)• not all benthic invertebrates drift
Chuchinka Drift Total Biomass
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Chu
A Au
g-01
Chu
A Ju
n-02
Chu
A O
ct-0
2C
huA
May
-03
Chu
A O
ct-0
3C
huA
Sep-
04C
huA
May
-05
Chu
A Au
g-05
Chu
A O
ct-0
5
Chu
C A
ug-0
1C
huC
Jul
-02
Chu
C S
ep-0
2C
huC
May
-03
Chu
C J
un-0
3C
huC
Sep
-03
Chu
C M
ay-0
4C
huC
Jun
-04
Chu
C M
ay-0
5C
huC
Jun
-05
Chu
C A
ug-0
5C
huC
Oct
-05
Chu
T Au
g-01
Chu
T Ju
l-02
Chu
T Se
p-02
Chu
T M
ay-0
3C
huT
Jun-
03C
huT
Aug-
03C
huT
Oct
-03
Chu
T M
ay-0
4C
huT
Jul-0
4C
huT
Sep-
04C
huT
May
-05
Chu
T Ju
l-05
Chu
T Se
p-05
Chu
X Ju
n-02
Chu
X Au
g-02
Chu
X O
ct-0
2C
huX
May
-03
Chu
X Ju
l-03
Chu
X O
ct-0
3C
huX
May
-04
Chu
X Ju
l-04
Chu
X M
ay-0
5C
huX
Jun-
05C
huX
Aug-
05C
huX
Oct
-05
Bio
mas
s (g
/m3)
Drift Biomass - Chuchinka
• no consistent changes in drift biomass after harvest• drift highly variable (seasonal, taxa differences, disturbance responses)
14
Bowron Drift Total Biomass
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
Bow
C A
ug-0
1Bo
wC
Oct
-01
Bow
C J
ul-0
2Bo
wC
May
-03
Bow
C J
un-0
3Bo
wC
Aug
-03
Bow
C O
ct-0
3Bo
wC
Jun
-04
Bow
C J
ul-0
4Bo
wC
Sep
-04
Bow
C J
un-0
5Bo
wC
Jul
-05
Bow
C S
ep-0
5
Bow
T2T
Aug-
01Bo
wT2
T O
ct-0
1Bo
wT2
T Au
g-02
Bow
T2T
Oct
-02
Bow
T2T
May
-03
Bow
T2T
Jul-0
3Bo
wT2
T O
ct-0
3Bo
wT2
T Ju
n-04
Bow
T2T
Jul-0
4Bo
wT2
T M
ay-0
5Bo
wT2
T Ju
n-05
Bow
T2T
Aug-
05Bo
wT2
T O
ct-0
5
Bow
T3T
Aug-
01Bo
wT3
T Ju
n-02
Bow
T3T
Aug-
02Bo
wT3
T O
ct-0
2Bo
wT3
T M
ay-0
3Bo
wT3
T Ju
l-03
Bow
T3T
Sep-
03Bo
wT3
T M
ay-0
4Bo
wT3
T Ju
n-04
Bow
T3T
Aug-
04Bo
wT3
T M
ay-0
5Bo
wT3
T Ju
n-05
Bow
T3T
Aug-
05Bo
wT3
T O
ct-0
5
Bio
mas
s (g
/m3)
Drift Biomass - Bowron
• no consistent changes in drift biomass after harvest• drift highly variable (seasonal, taxa differences, disturbance responses)
InvertebratesInvertebrates
Shifts in community composition indicate Shifts in community composition indicate disturbancedisturbance
DM Policy changes organic matter sources, DM Policy changes organic matter sources, temperature, shade and UVRtemperature, shade and UVR
Implications of invertebrate changes to stream and Implications of invertebrate changes to stream and fish productivity uncertainfish productivity uncertain
High variability coupled with very low productivity High variability coupled with very low productivity of headwater streams make detection of effects of headwater streams make detection of effects difficultdifficult
Still analyzing dataStill analyzing data
15
• In small headwater streams, temporal and spatial variability of fish >> invertebrates
• Ephemeral use of streams• Low densities• Potential carrying capacity of stream and downstream habitat better indicator
• Note: streams are study surrogates for other tributary and fish-bearing streams
FishFish
Fish - Methods
Fish traps CPUE, habitat use, condition, diet
Fish responses to forest harvesting can including:growth rates (food, temperature) stress and survival spawning/egg incubation success, predationfish movement
16
Fish – Bowron Stream Spatial Distribution
Total Fish Caught
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Bow
T1 2
001
Bow
T1 2
002
Bow
T1 2
003
Bow
T1 2
004
Bow
C 2
001
Bow
C 2
002
Bow
C 2
003
Bow
C 2
004
Bow
T3 2
001
Bow
T3 2
002
Bow
T3 2
003
Bow
T3 2
004
Bow
T2 2
001
Bow
T2 2
002
Bow
T2 2
003
Bow
T2 2
004
Tag1
3C 2
001
Tag1
3C 2
002
Tag1
3C 2
003
Tag1
3C 2
004
# fis
h
Ephemeral use by Rainbow trout – spring spawners“Fish poor indicator of fish habitat”
Implications for stream fish inventories and DM policy
Fish – Drift vs DietBow ron RBT food preferences (all f ish pooled)
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Di Tr Ep Co Pl Os Ar Hym Col Ol Lep
% o
f foo
d ite
ms
inge
sted
Bow T1 Relative Abundance in Drift (2001 - 2003)
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Di Tr Ep Co Pl
rela
tive
% in
drif
t
Difficult to interpret invertebrate and drift changes because fish are selective feeders
Drift
Stomach Contents
17
hhShade declines, light (UVR/PAR) increases Shade declines, light (UVR/PAR) increases YESYEShhInorganic nutrients (N & P) increase Inorganic nutrients (N & P) increase NONOhhPeriphyton increases (light, nutrients) Periphyton increases (light, nutrients) NONOhhLitterfall declines Litterfall declines YESYEShhPrimary production compensates for litterfall Primary production compensates for litterfall NONOhhStream productivity increases Stream productivity increases NONOhhInvertebrates: composition changes indicate disturbance Invertebrates: composition changes indicate disturbance but effects on drift and fish forage difficult to interpretbut effects on drift and fish forage difficult to interprethhNote: productivity of these subNote: productivity of these sub--boreal headwater boreal headwater streams is naturally very lowstreams is naturally very low
DM Policy Prescriptions:Effects on Headwater Stream Productivity
P . B ea u d ry a n d
A ssocia tes L td .In teg rated W aters h e d M an a g e m en t
Riparian Function and ManagemenStreams 2005 Update
The Prince George Small Stream Project, whose members are comprised of Ministry ofResearch, P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd.; Department of Fisheries and Oceans, SciencForest Products Ltd., are working on describing and quantifying natural stream functionPrince George Forest District and the effects of forest management on these functions. important because they make up a major portion (70-80%) of every watershed1. The pr2001 field season to determine if harvesting to the minimums specified in the Prince GePolicy for “Maintaining the Biological and Physical Attributes of S4, Small Fish-bearinPolicy”) maintains the necessary ecological attributes for healthy fish habitat. You mayproject having attended one of the field tours or the Natural Function of Small Streams provides some interim results for consideration when managing small streams in the SB The experimental design for the project is based on a Before-after-control-impact pairedescribed by Schwarz (19982). This type of design has at least two types of sampling (in areas (treatment and a control) with biological and environmental variables being meof time and space. In 2001 plots were established in 3 locations for intensive aquatic anmonitoring:
1) Bowron - SBSvk, spruce-subalpine fir stand 2) Chuchinka - SBSwk1, white spruce-subalpine fir
stand and 3) Tagai - SBSdw2, lodgepole pine stand.
The streams in this study are small (80 to 160cm bankfull width) and low gradient (3-6%). The sites were monitored for 2 years pre-harvest and monitoring has continued post-harvest. The sites were harvested to the minimum standards specified in the “D.M. Policy”. The Bowron site was harvested in winter 2002/03, the Chuchinka in summer 2003 and the Tagai sites in spring and summer 2004. The pre-harvest data have been compiled to describe natural stream functions in smbiogeoclimatic zone. A summary of some of the key findings documented to date are p There is a large range of woody debris found in these small streams. Every stream hadwoody debris pieces (5-15 cm diameter), and every stream had large woody debris, i.e.streams require a range of woody debris for channel and streambank stability and ecoloretention of organic matter, as a food source for invertebrates, a refuge for fish and a sualgae. On average, 60 to 80% of the woody debris was recruited from a distance of 10 mstream, while only 40-50% of the woody debris was recruited from within 5 m of the stthat trees retained for future woody debris contribution should be located within 10m odistance was related to stand height with taller stands having longer woody debris sourcof trees into small streams is a natural process. 1 Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson, 2002. Understanding Processes and Downstream Link
BioScience, Vol. 52, No. 10. 2 Schwarz C.J. 1998. Studies of Uncontrolled Events. In: Statistical Methods for Adaptive Manageme
For., Res. Br., Victoria, BC, Land Manage. Handb. No 42.
1
t of Small
Forests Regional e Branch and Canadian s in small streams in the
Small streams are oject was initiated in the orge District Manager’s g Streams” (“D.M. be familiar with this course. This update S biogeoclimatic zone.
d design (BACI-P) before and after impact) asured in combinations d riparian ecosystem
all streams in the SBS rovided below:
an abundance of small > 30 cm diameter. Small gical diversity, for bstrate for microbes and from the edge of the
ream. Thus we suggest f the stream. Source e distances. Blowdown
ages of Headwater Systems.
nt Studies. Res. Br, B.C. Min.
2005
Riparian Function and Management of Small Streams Northern Forest Region
An average of 3 sediment sources (mostly old root wads) were identified for every 100m along undisturbed small streams. There were more natural sediment sources found on streams in lacustrine parent material. These small streams are relatively cool in the summer months ranging from 6.7-10.6oC with small daily fluctuations of 1 or 2 degrees Celsius. The low temperatures are attributed to stream shading and input of cooler groundwater along the length of these streams. Rainbow trout were caught only intermittently in these small streams indicating that fish are a poor indicator of fish-bearing status in headwater streams. This is attributed to transient stream use dependent on annual stream flow conditions and variable recruitment of spawners from downstream populations. Very low nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorous) and low levels of benthic invertebrates (i.e. insects that live on the bottom of the stream) were found in these streams when compared to data from coastal BC, suggesting that theses streams naturally have lower productivity than coastal streams of the same size. Preliminary post harvest data have been collected at all treatment sites. We found that the D.M. Policy requirements for protection around small streams can be operationally achieved. The retention did not increase the number of sediment sources except on one site where there were very high levels of blowdown. Blowdown levels declined substantially the second year after harvesting. Not all blowdown contributed to woody debris in the stream. Some increase in turbidity (in-stream sediment) was noted, which was attributed to roads and skidtrails. At two years post-harvest there have been no significant changes in stream width or depth, which is not surprising as there has been no time for wood or root decay and the streambanks were well protected with an effective 5 m machine free zone. The retained trees will contribute woody debris in the future and minimize changes to stream width and depth. In the 2 years post-harvest the average, maximum and minimum stream temperature changed less than 3oC, on average. The highest temperatures occurred in late July, early August corresponding to the warmer air temperatures at this time of year. This temperature change may have been larger in the absence of the retained buffer and riparian understory. The low nutrient levels and low levels of benthic invertebrates have not changed during the first 2 years post-harvest despite the harvesting disturbances. There has been a reduction in downstream invertebrate drift. The post-harvest increased light levels, recorded at the stream surface, have not increased the abundance of periphyton, which is the matrix of algae and other microbes that grows on the stream bottom substrate. Their growth appears to be limited by the low stream nutrient levels. A reduction in the canopy biomass has resulted in a significant decrease in litterfall inputs; which are important for the productivity of these small streams. The project researchers are continuing to monitor these sites to determine the changes that occur over time. To obtain more information on the Prince George Small Stream Project contact the researchers directly, attend the next Natural Function of Small Streams course (UNBC continuing studies), read published articles in Streamline (spring 2003), Trout Unlimited: Forest Land - Fish II Conference (2004), American Water Resources Assoc. Riparian Ecosystems and Buffers (conference 2004); or look for a new MOF website on fish-forestry projects (due on the Ministry of Forests website by December 2005). Contacts: John Rex, BC Ministry of Forests. [email protected] Erland A. MacIsaac, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. [email protected] Leisbet J. Beaudry, P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd. [email protected]
2 2005
Natural Function of Small streams in the Northern Interior of BC (2006) Bibliography
Adams, T. N. and K. Sullivan. 1990. The physics of stream heating – A simple model.
Weyerhaeuser Technical Report 044-5002/90/1. Barton, D.R., W.D. Taylor, and R.M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips
required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 5: 364-378.
Beaudry, P.G., M. Martin, B. Floyd, M. Sloat and K. Richards. 2002. Water Quality
Inventory of Small Headwater Streams in the Bowron River Watershed – Progress Report 2001 Field Season. Prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Prince George Division. Prepared by P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd. And Environmental Dynamics Inc. 107pp.
Beschta, R.L. and W.S. Platts. 1986. Morphological Features of Small Streams:
Significance and Function. Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association. Vol. 22, No. 3.
Bilby, R. and J. Ward. 1999. Characteristics and function of woody debris with
increasing size of streams in western Washington. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 118:368-378.
Bourque, C.P.-A. and J.H. Pomeroy. 2001. Effects of forest harvesting on summer stream
temperatures in New Brunswick, Canada: and inter-catchment, multiple-year comparison. Hydology and Earth System Sciences. 5(4): 599-613.
Brosofske, K.D., J. Chen., R.J. Naiman, and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on
microclimate gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications. 7(4): 1188-1200.
Browlee, M.J. Sheperd, B.G. Bustard, D.R. 1988. Some effects of forest harvesting on
water quality in the Slim Creek watershed in the central interior of British Columbia. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; 1613.
Chesney, C. 2002. Paradigm downshift, paradox found altar: performance targets for
self-replenishing channel wood in small, steep stream channels. From Feb 2002. Symposium on small stream channels and their riparian zones: their form, function and Ecological importance in a watershed context. UBC. Vancouver, B.C.
Church, M., R. Kellerhals and T.J. Day. 1989. Regional clastic sediment yield in British
Columbia. Can. J. Earth Sci. 26, 31-45. Church, M. 1992. Channel Morphology and Typology. Pages 126-143 in P. Calow and
G.E. Petts, eds. The Rivers Handbook – Volume 1. Blackwell Science Ltd.
Cooperative Study Group (MoF, DFO, PBA). 2002. The Effects of Riparian Harvesting
on Fish Habitat and Ecology of Small Streams – 2001/2002 Year End Report. Ministry of Forests, Prince George Forest Region (FRBC Research Award: OPR02001-05) 19 pp.
Cummins, K.W. 1992. Invertebrates. Page 234-250 in P. Calow and G.E. Petts, eds. The
Rivers Handbook – Volume 1. Blackwell Science Ltd. Curry, R.A., D.A. Scruton, and K.D. Clarke. 2002. The thermal regimes of brook trout
incubation habitats and evidence of changes during forestry operations. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 1200-1207.
Dong, J., J. Chen., K.D. Brosofske, and R.J. Naiman. 1998. Modelling air temperature
gradients across managed small streams in western Washington. Journal of Environmental Management. 5: 309-321.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2000. Effects of sediment on fish and their habitat. DFO
Pacific Region, Habitat Status Report 2000/2001. Fushs, S.A., S.G. Hinch, and E. Mellina. 2003. Effects of streamside logging on stream
macroinvertebrate communities and habitat in the sub-boreal forests of British Columbia, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 1408-1415 (2003).
Gjerlov, C and J. Richardson 2002. Patchy resources in a heterogeneous environment:
effects of leaf litter and forest cover on colonisation patterns of invertebrates in a British Columbian stream. Department of Forest Sciences, UBC, Vancouver, Canada.
Gluns, D.R. 2001. Snowline Pattern during the Melt Season: Evaluation of the H60
Concept. From March 2000. Watershed Assessment in the Southern Interior of British Columbia: Workshop Proceedings. Penticton, B.C., Canada.
Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson, 2002. Understanding Processes and
Downstream Linkages of Headwater Systems. BioScience, Vol. 52, No. 10. Heise, B. 2001. Sicamous Creek Silvicultural Systems Project: Effects of Timber
Harvesting and Road Construction on Stream Invertebrates in the Sicamous Creek Watershed - Final Report of the five year study period from May 01, 1996 to April 30, 2001. Department of Natural Resource Sciences, University College of the Cariboo. 38pp.
Heise, B. 2001. Upper Penticton Creek Watershed Project: Effects of Timber Harvesting
and Road Construction on Stream Invertebrates – Final Report of the five year study period from May 01, 1996 to April 30, 2001. Department of Natural Resource Sciences, University College of the Cariboo. 34pp.
Herunter, H.E., Macdonald, J.S. and MacIsaac, E.A. 2004. Effectiveness of variable-retention riparian buffers for maintaining thermal regimes, water chemistry, and benthic invertebrate communities of small headwater streams in central British Columbia. Pages 105-113 in G.J. Scrimgeour, G. Eisler, B. McCulloch, U. Silins and M. Monita. Editors. Forest Land-Fish Conference II – Ecosystem Stewardship through Collaboration. Proc. Forest-Land-Fish Conf. II, April 26-28, 2004, Edmonton, Alberta.
Johnson, S.L. and J.A. Jones. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and
debris flows in western Cascades, Oregon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(Suppl. 2): 30-39.
Kelly, D.J., M.L. Bothwell and D.W. Schindler. 2003. Effects of Solar Ultraviolet
Radiation on Stream Benthic Communities: An Intersite Comparison. Ecology, 84(10), 2003, pp. 2724-2740.
Kim, M.A. and J.S. Richardson. 1999. Effects of Light and Nutrients on Grazer-
Periphyton Interactions. From proceedings of a Conference on the biology and management of Species and Habitats at risk, Kamploops, B.C., Feb. 1999. Volume Two. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. 520pp.
Liquori, M. 2002. Observations on the morphology of headwater channels. In Symp. on
small stream channels and their riparian zones: their form, function and Ecological importance in a watershed context, Feb 2002, UBC, Vancouver, B.C.
Macdonald, J., MacIsaac, E. and H. Herunter. 2003. The effects of variable retention
riparian buffers on water temperatures in small headwater streams in boreal forest ecosystems of British Columbia. Can. Jour. For. Res. 33: 1371-1382.
Martin, M., M. Sloat and K. Richards. 2001. Water Quality Inventory of Small
Headwater Streams in the Bowron River Watershed, Progress Report – 2000 Field Season. Prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Prince George Division. 93 pp.
McArthur, M.D. and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Microbial utilization of dissolved organic
carbon leached from riparian litterfall. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59: 1668-1676 (2002). Meleason, M.A. and J.M. Quinn. 2004. Influence of riparian buffer widths on air
temperature at Whagapoua Forest, Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand. Forest Ecology and Management. 191: 365-371.
Mellina, E. S. Hinch and S. Fuchs. 1996. A synoptic survey investigation of the impacts
of clearcut logging on stream habitat, fish and invertebrate communities, an physiological responses of resident salmonids in the central interior of British Columbia. Preliminary report to Prince George Forest Region, unpublished.
Mellina, E. R. Moore, S. Hinch, J. Macdonald and G. Pearson. 2002. Stream temperature responses to clearcut logging in British Columbia: the moderating influences of groundwater and headwater lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 59:1886-1900.
McDade, M., F. Swanson, W. McKee, J. Franklin and J. Van Sickle. 1990. Source
distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Can. J. For. Res. 29:326-330.
Murphy, M., and K. Koski. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaskan
streams and implications for streamside management. N.A. J. Fish. Manage. 9:427-436.
Naiman, R. T. Beechie, L. Benda, D. Berg, P. Bisson, L. MacDonald, M. O’Connor, P.
Olson and E. Steel. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific northwest coastal ecoregion. In: R. Naiman (editor) Watershed management balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York Inc. pp 127-188
Nislow, K. and W. Lowe. 2003. Influences of logging history and stream pH on brook
trout abundance in first-order streams in New Hampshire. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 132:166-171.
P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd. 2003. Year End Report: Prince George Forest District S4
Riparian Guideline Monitoring Project - Phase 2 (PBA component of FII project). Prepared for Ministry of Forests, Northern Forest Region, Prince George, British Columbia. 36 pp.
P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd. (PBA) and Environmental Dynamics Inc (EDI). 2000.
Water Quality Inventory of Small Headwater Streams in the Bowron River Watershed, Progress Report–1999 Field Season. Prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Prince George Division. 109pp.
Richards, K. 2002. Addendum to: Water Quality Inventory of Small Headwater Streams
in the Bowron River Watershed: Progress Report – 2001 Field Season. Prepared for P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd. and Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Prepared by EDI Environmental Dynamics Inc. 18pp + appendices.
Richardson, J.S. 1999. Life Beyond Salmon Streams: Communities of Headwaters and
Their Role in Drainage Networks. Proceedings of a Conference on the biology and management of Species and Habitats at risk, Kamloops, B.C., Feb. 1999. Volume Two. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. 520pp.
Richardson, J.S., P.M. Kiffney, K.A. Maxey, and K. Cockle. 2002. An experimental
study of the effects of Riparian management of communities of headwater streams and
riparian areas in coastal BC: How much protection is sufficient? From Sustainable Forest Management Network Conference “Advances in Forest Management: From Knowledge to Practice” 13-15 November 2002, Edmonton, Alberta.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Printed Media Companies. Minneapolis,
Minn. Shrimpton, J.M., J.F. Bourgeois, J.T. Quigley and D.M. Blouw. 1999. Removal of the
Riparian Zone During Forest Harvesting Increases Stream Temperature: Are the Effects Cumulative Downstream? Proceedings of a Conference on the biology and management of Species and Habitats at risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15-19 Feb., 1999. Volume Two. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. 520pp.
Teti, P. 2002. The effects of shade on water temperature under different seral stages of
forest vegetation: a physical modeling approach. In Symp. on small stream channels and their riparian zones: their form, function and Ecological importance in a watershed context, Feb 2002, UBC, Vancouver, B.C.
Wallace, J.B., J.R. Webster, and J.L. Meyer. 1995. Influence of log additions on physical
and biotic characteristics of a mountain stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 2120-2137.
Zwieniecki, M.A. and M. Newton. 1999. Influence of streamside cover and stream features on temperature trends in forested streams of western Oregon. West. J. Appl. For. 14(2): 106-113.
Ministry of Forests
PRINCE GEORGE FOREST DISTRICT
DISTRICT MANAGER POLICY
SUBJECT Management of Small Fish-streams (S4)
H:\DM Policy for Small(S4) Fish Streams.doc
April 23, 1999 ORIGINATOR
Jim Reid, Zone Officer (Timber)
Page 1 of 7
SECTION I Policy for Maintaining the Biological and Physical Attributes of S4, Small Fish-bearing Streams
This policy sets out five objectives that should be recognized to address the biological and physical habitat requirements of small fish-bearing streams (S4). These objectives will guide the statutory decision maker in making a determination to approve an operational plan with respect to the management of S4 streams. By setting out these objectives and the companion guidelines document, it is anticipated that prescribing foresters and reviewing foresters will be able to prepare and review prescriptions and plans while knowing the statutory decision maker’s expectations. This document presents the key elements that should be considered and evaluated in any prescription or plan. PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to communicate the guiding principles that the district manager will use to structure his thought processes when making a statutory decision with respect to Section 41(1) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. AUTHORITY REFERENCES: • Section 41 (1) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act • Sections 39 (4)(a)(ii), (4)(b), (5)(a), and (5)(b) of the Operational Planning Regulation • Section 37 (1)(f) of the Operational Planning Regulation • Sections 59 and 60 of the Operational Planning Regulation • Fisheries Act, Canada • Riparian Management Area Guidebook • Fish-stream Identification Guidebook, Second Edition • Pierre Beaudry’s report, Riparian Management of S4 Streams in the Prince George Forest District
(April 1999)
Ministry of Forests
PRINCE GEORGE FOREST DISTRICT
DISTRICT MANAGER POLICY
SUBJECT Management of Small Fish-streams (S4)
H:\DM Policy for Small(S4) Fish Streams.doc
April 23, 1999 ORIGINATOR
Jim Reid, Zone Officer (Timber)
Page 2 of 7
PRINCIPLES: Issue Definition: These objectives are meant to describe the biological and physical habitat requirements of small fish-streams, and are based as much as possible on current scientific literature. It is expected that individual prescriptions will include site specific strategies designed to achieve these objectives and reflect local site and stand conditions. Policy Decision: Section 37 (1)(f) of the Operational Planning Regulation requires that a riparian assessment to determine the riparian class of streams must be available before a silviculture prescription may be approved. Section 39 (4)(a)(ii) of the Operational Planning Regulation requires that for the area under a silviculture prescription and the area adjacent to that area, that the prescription contain a map that illustrates all streams and their riparian class. Section 39 (4)(b) of the Operational Planning Regulation requires that for the area under a silviculture prescription and the area adjacent to that area, that the prescription describe and contain for each stream a reserve zone, where applicable, and a riparian management zone (RMZ), including a description of the residual basal area or stems per hectare to be retained within. Section 39 (5) of the Operational Planning Regulation requires that the silviculture prescription addresses harvesting within riparian management areas (RMA). The prescription specifically has to address cross-stream yarding, debris management, stream bank protection, and maintaining shade for known temperature sensitive streams. Guiding Principles for Management of S4 Streams: Stream Classification: A small stream classified as a fish-stream (S4) must be managed as a fish-bearing stream regardless of the method used to classify it. The licensee always has the option of classifying a stream in accordance with the Fish-stream Identification Guidebook, if they feel that default classification is in error. Note: Local area agreements, when developed, may also affect the classification of these streams. It is inappropriate to classify a stream as S4, simply to avoid the process of stream classification, and then to manage the stream as though it were non-fish-bearing. The practice of “defaulting” all small streams to S4 results in an unnecessary expenditure when providing for fish passage at creek crossings and may necessitate different riparian management practices.
Ministry of Forests
PRINCE GEORGE FOREST DISTRICT
DISTRICT MANAGER POLICY
SUBJECT Management of Small Fish-streams (S4)
H:\DM Policy for Small(S4) Fish Streams.doc
April 23, 1999 ORIGINATOR
Jim Reid, Zone Officer (Timber)
Page 3 of 7
A reach should be assessed for fish presence, and a classification made as to whether it is a S4 or S6 stream. The results of such an inventory can be applied immediately to a silviculture prescription or a road permit design. It is not necessary to have the inventory approved by a government agency prior to its’ use, but the inventory may be subject to a review to ensure that it was undertaken in accordance with the Fish-stream Identification Guidebook. Riparian Management Objectives for S4 Stream RMZs: Objective #1: Maintain 50 to 75 percent of the natural levels of shading and light intensity reaching the stream surface and forest floor. • Shading as assessed using the concept of angular canopy density (Pierre Beaudry’s report,
Riparian Management of S4 Streams in the Prince George Forest District (April 1999)). Objective #2: Maintain an adequate long and short-term supply of large woody debris (LWD) in the stream channel. Definitions: • Short-term: the 50 years immediately following forest harvesting. • Long-term: the period between 50 and 150 years after forest harvesting. During this period a “new forest”
will replace the harvested forest. Detailed definitions of adequate and LWD are provided in Pierre Beaudry’s report, Riparian Management of S4 Streams in the Prince George Forest District (April 1999). Objective #3: Maintain natural root structure adjacent to streams with particular emphasis on minimizing soil disturbance within 5 metres of the stream channel. Objective #4: Do not overload the stream with an excessive supply of fine organic debris (FOD). Definitions: • FOD: Branches and other fine logging slash. • An excessive supply is an amount sufficient to alter or divert the stream flow. Objective #5: Concentrate retention (both patch and single tree) in the most critical portion of the RMZ, that is the 10 - 15 metres closest to the stream.
Ministry of Forests
PRINCE GEORGE FOREST DISTRICT DISTRICT MANAGER GUIDELINES
SUBJECT Management of Small Fish-streams (S4)
H:\DM Policy for Small(S4) Fish Streams.doc
April 23, 1999 ORIGINATOR
Jim Reid, Zone Officer (Timber)
Page 4 of 7
SECTION II Guidelines to Assist Prescribing Foresters in Developing Management Strategies Which Will Achieve
the Desired Management Objectives for S4 Streams SCOPE: This district manager’s guideline provides recommendations to prescribing foresters on how they may achieve the management objectives described in the District Manager Policy for riparian management of S4 streams. It provides a body of information that will guide the statutory decision maker in making a determination to approve a silviculture prescription with respect to the management of the biological and physical habitat requirements of a small fish-stream (S4). PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to communicate the district manager's expectations with respect to best practices that could be employed to manage S4 streams. The strategies outlined in this document will be considered by the statutory decision maker when making a determination to approve an operational plan under Section 41 (1) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. AUTHORITY REFERENCES: • Section 41 (1) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act • Sections 39 (4)(a)(ii), (4)(b), (5)(a), and (5)(b) of the Operational Planning Regulation • Section 37 (1)(f) of the Operational Planning Regulation • Sections 59 and 60 of the Operational Planning Regulation • Fisheries Act, Canada • Riparian Management Area Guidebook • Fish-stream Identification Guidebook, Second Edition • Pierre Beaudry’s Report, Riparian Management of S4 Streams in the Prince George Forest District
April 1999 PRINCIPLES: Issue Definition: This document describes examples of strategies that could be employed to achieve the objective of maintaining biological and physical habitat requirements of small fish-streams, and are based as much as possible on current scientific literature. It is expected that individual prescriptions will include site specific strategies that reflect local site and stand conditions.
Ministry of Forests
PRINCE GEORGE FOREST DISTRICT DISTRICT MANAGER GUIDELINES
SUBJECT Management of Small Fish-streams (S4)
H:\DM Policy for Small(S4) Fish Streams.doc
April 23, 1999 ORIGINATOR
Jim Reid, Zone Officer (Timber)
Page 5 of 7
Policy Decision: Section 39 (4)(b) of the Operational Planning Regulation requires that for the area under a silviculture prescription and the area adjacent to that area, that the prescription describe and contain for each stream a reserve zone, where applicable, and a RMZ including a description of the residual basal area or stems per hectare to be retained within it. Section 39 (5) of the Operational Planning Regulation requires that the silviculture prescription addresses harvesting within RMAs. The prescription specifically has to address cross-stream yarding, debris management, stream bank protection, and maintaining shade for known temperature sensitive streams. Strategies for Management of S4 Streams: Points to Consider when Developing Site Specific Strategies: • The prescription must describe and contain for each S4 stream, a RMZ including a description of the residual
basal area or stems per hectare to be retained within. • Large deciduous trees can be utilized to supply short-term LWD. • Retention for LWD recruitment should target stems greater than 15 centimetres diameter at breast height
(dbh). These trees should be positioned such that they will have a good probability of eventually falling across the stream channel.
• Basal area retention or stems per hectare retention do not need to cover the entire RMA, but rather cover an
area large enough to achieve the desired objectives. • The shape and size of retention patches should not be dictated by the RMA width, but rather the need to
create a patch that is as windfirm as possible considering the timber type, stand structure, and topography. These patches may fill the role of wildlife tree patches.
• The natural brushy margins and deciduous cover along many S4 streams may be sufficient to achieve the
shading objective. Where insufficient, additional retention may be required to meet the 50 to 75 percent shading objective.
• The slope and aspect of the block and the relative location of the stream within the block may be sufficient to
meet most of shading requirements for the stream.
Ministry of Forests
PRINCE GEORGE FOREST DISTRICT DISTRICT MANAGER GUIDELINES
SUBJECT Management of Small Fish-streams (S4)
H:\DM Policy for Small(S4) Fish Streams.doc
April 23, 1999 ORIGINATOR
Jim Reid, Zone Officer (Timber)
Page 6 of 7
Examples of Strategies Which May Be Employed to Meet Management Objectives for S4 Streams: Note: The examples do not preclude a prescribing forester from proposing alternatives that achieve the desired result, which is to protect the integrity of the stream and stream habitat. These strategies take into account the stand structure of the forest through which the stream flows.
Examples of Strategies That Could Be Employed to Meet the Riparian Management Objectives for S4 Streams
in the Prince George Forest District
STAND STRUCTURE EXAMPLE PRESCRIPTION TO MEET MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Single Storied • The RMZ, within the cut-block, should be managed by leaving
undisturbed windfirm residual tree patches (preferred option) and dispersed leave trees along the length of the stream. Riparian shrub or deciduous vegetation along many streams may provide adequate cover to achieve Objective #1.
• When shade effective riparian vegetation is not present, patches should be retained which cover at least 40 percent of the channel and, where possible, be at least 150 metres in length.
• Where shrubs or deciduous cover provides shading or the RMZ is being clearcut, LWD recruitment still needs to be accommodated by leaving 10 to 12 overstory trees per 100 metres of stream length to provide “short-term” LWD (evenly distributed).
• The residual patches may also serve as wildlife tree patches. It is assumed that the residual patches will serve to meet the shade requirements. The residual patches will also provide the “long-term” supply of LWD.
Two-Storied (overstory and intermediate crown class only, no understory)
Release intermediate layer if of adequate stocking and quality. The intermediate layer and shrub layer will provide shade and control light intensities, while providing for the long-term supply of LWD. A minimum of 10 overstory trees per 100 metres of stream length should be retained to provide a supply of short-term LWD. These residual trees should be positioned such that they will have a good probability of eventually falling across the stream channel and should be greater than 15 centimetres dbh.
Multi-storied 25 to 35 percent of the basal area should be retained. If this objective can be met by leaving only trees in the intermediate class, then the removal of the overstory is acceptable. Advance growth in the understory should be protected, as it will be the source of the long-term supply of LWD. If the intermediate class does not provide 30 percent of the basal area, then 5 to 10 overstory trees per 100 metres of channel length should be left to provide for the short-term supply of LWD.
Ministry of Forests
PRINCE GEORGE FOREST DISTRICT DISTRICT MANAGER GUIDELINES
SUBJECT Management of Small Fish-streams (S4)
H:\DM Policy for Small(S4) Fish Streams.doc
April 23, 1999 ORIGINATOR
Jim Reid, Zone Officer (Timber)
Page 7 of 7
Natural Shelter-wood (overstory and advanced regeneration, no intermediates)
Remove the overstory, but leave 10 overstory trees per 100 metres of stream length harvested. Protect the advance regeneration during harvest. This will provide the long-term supply of LWD to the stream channel and the inputs of terrestrial detritus to the aquatic ecosystem, especially if the shrub layer is minimal.
Irregular (open overstory with abundant understory)
Release the intermediate and/or understory crown classes if either has adequate stocking and quality. Leave 8 to 10 overstory (C1) and intermediate (C2) trees per 100 metres of stream channel logged, evenly distributed along the length of the channel. Choose trees leaning towards the channel when possible. Advance regeneration must be protected.
T. P. (Phil) Zacharatos, R.P.F. District Manager
A summary of results and implications for management of small streams in the Prince George TSA using the DM Policy for S4 streams (5-m machine free zone; retention of all non-merchantable stems and 10 merchantable stems per 100 m stream length) (Based on findings to Feb. 2006)
Stream or riparian characteristic
AssociatedNatural ecological functions
Variables measured in small stream project
Interactions with other stream processes
Expected time frame for changes to occur from
riparian harvest1
Were there significant changest o individual sream characteristic?
Level of Concern for negative impacts to
occur when using "DM Policy" (relative to
individual characteristic).
Type of stream most sensitive to this
change
Implications for small streams in MPB zone
Streamflow regimes
- controls rate of dowstream transport of sediment, LWD, organic matter- controls rates of channel migration and bank erosion - determines amount and quality of fish habitat (e.g. pool depth)- affects fish passage and movement
- continuous stream stage data- stage discharge curves
- sediment transport- channel morphology- invertebrate drift
Short term
Insufficient long-term data from co-op study; increased
spring peakflows observed at Baptiste
Not applicableRelated to amount of
watershed harvested, no so much riparian
treatment
Increased flows caused by reduced ET (dead and salvagedtrees) suggests more riparian retention to control bank stability and erosion
Fine sediment transport- affects natural stream substrate condition (e.g. spawning gravels, invertebrate substrates)- maintains natural concentrations of suspended sediment in water
- continuous turbidity data
- sediment sources- invertebrate and periphyton abundance- suspended sediment effects on fish
Short-medium term
Yes (from roads and trails, not riparian treatment) LOW Related to quality of
stream crossings
Because of very high road density, good erosion and sediment control at stream crossings is very important
Stream sediment supply- maintains stream substrate condition (e.g. spawning gravels, invertebrate substrates, pool depths)
- identify stream sediment sources- streambank tree windthrow
- channel morphology- bank stability- nutrients
Short-medium term
No significant change, sediment supply maintained
within natural rangeLOW lacustine parent material
Because of very high road density, good erosion and sediment control at stream crossings is very important
Channel morphology - natural variability enhances diversity and influences biological productivity - stream width and depth
- streamflow regimes- sediment transport and supply- large woody debris- bank stability
Long term
No significant change yet, however may be affected in
the long term by reduced LWD supply
MODERATE All except bedrock controlled channels
Riparian retention extra important as flows will
increase.
Large woody debris
- stream structural diversity, channel morphology- retention of organic matter and sediments- fish cover and habitat- refuge for organisms- substrate for growth
- large woody debris in stream (quantity and age classes)- riparian recruitment distance- riparian composition
- sediment transport- streamflows- fish and stream productivity
Long term
No significant change yet, however modelling predicts a
significant decrease in the future
HIGH
DM policy provides insufficient long term supply
of LWD for all riparian types studied, with the worst impact being in ecosystems
dominated by spruceand subalpine fir.
Retention of both dead and green riparian trees important
(more than DM policy suggests)
Shade- controls solar heating- minimizes UV radiation exposure of biota- controls photosynthetically active radiation for periphyton growth
- canopy density- angular densiometer- solar pathfinder (direct solar exposure)
- temperature- periphyton- invertebrates- cover for fish
Short term Yes, a significant decrease HIGH"Temperature sensitive" streams; loss of cover for
fish
Potentially reduced shade (fewer pine); more retention
required.
Water Temperature Regimes
- cool water source (headwater streams)- affects all stream productivity processes- changes fish growth and health; egg survival- stream invertebrate community composition and productivity- invertebrate drift production
- water temperatures- all stream biota and productivity processes Short term
Yes, a significant increase, although relatively small MODERATE
Designated temperature sensitive streams and
those supporting temperature sensitive
species such as Bull trout
More retention may be required in areas where shade is reduced from needle loss. Road crossings should be
minimized to decrease stream exposure.
Litterfall - dominant source of organic matter for headwatestream productivity
- litterfall traps- canopy density
- Invertebrates- Nutrients- Micro-organisms
Short term Yes, a significant decrease HIGH All streamsLoss of pine litter inputs may affect productivity of MPB
streams
Inorganic nutrients- inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous availability affects stream productivity and organic matter processing
- nitrogen water chemistry - phosphorous water chemistry- conductivity- discharge
- periphyton- organic matter processing- invertebrate production
Short to mid-term
No changes detected, riparianmay have minimal role and may be more a watershed
level process
LOW All streams
Changes in watershed vegetation and soil disturbance
from salvage activities may affect soil and stream nutrients
Dissolved organic matter- natural sunscreen to protect against UV exposure of biota- nutrient for microbial communities
- dissolved organic carbon- UV absorbtion
- shade and direct solar radiation exposure- temperature- litterfall- inorganic nutrients
Short to mid term
No changes detected, riparianmay have minimal role and may be more a watershed
level process
LOW All streams
Changes in watershed vegetation and soil disturbance
from salvage activities may affect soil and stream DOM
inputs
Periphyton -organic matter for invertebrate production - periphyton accrual rates and maximum biomass
- invertebrates- light- temperature- suspended sediment- inorganic nutrients
Short to mid term
Yes/No, remained low in some streams (nutrient
limited), increased in others (light limited)
LOW All streams
Changes in stream nutrients and shade will determine response of periphyton
communities
Invertebrate drift production - primary food source for resident fish- production for downstream export to fish habita
- 24 hr drift nets
- benthic invertebrates- water temperature- discharge- fish growth and health
Short to mid term Yes/No, complex changes in some streams MODERATE All streams
Productivity affected by changes in stream shade,
nutrients, litterfall and periphyton.
Benthic Invertebrates - source of invertebrate drift- instream processing of organic matter - Serber sampling
- shade and UV radiation- nutrients- litterfall- periphyton
Short to mid-termYes/No, complex changes in
some streams MODERATE All streams
Productivity affected by changes in stream shade,
nutrients, litterfall and periphyton.
Fish - headwater streams are important spawning and rearing habitats
- fish traps, length-weight
- stream productivity- invertebrate drift- stream habitat and cover- water temperatures
Short to mid-term Ephemeral use of the streamscomplicates assessment MODERATE All fish bearing streams
Productivity affected by changes in stream shade,
nutrients, litterfall and periphyton.
1 Short term = 0 to 5 yrsMedium term = 5 to 20 yrsLong term = 20 to 80 yrs