Cariboo Chilcotin LRMP Published Reports Advanced Search | Help | Contact Us All B.C. Government Integrated Land Management Bureau Text Size News | The Premier Online | Ministries & Organizations | Job Opportunities | Main Index B.C. Home B.C. Home AL ILMB SLRP LRMPs Cariboo Chilcotin LRMP SLRP LRMP Printer Version Forests and Range Integrated Land Management Bureau FrontCounter BC GeoBC Gateway SLRPKey Information StrategicLand and LandResource and Cariboo Chilcotin Land Use Plan ResourceManagement Planning Fisheries Target Risk Assessment LegalAccess Objectives to Provincial Natural Resources Prepared for the CCLUP Integration Process Policies, Guidelines by andStrategic Assessments Land and Resource Planning the Fisheries Target Committee ListsResources of SLRPs Information August 15, 1996 FirstStandards Nations and SLRP Committee (RISC) Executive Summary SpatialAdventure Data Tourism Management and The purpose of the Fisheries Target Committee was to identify how well short term timber sources can be Support reconciled with long term fisheries targets in the CCLUP area. We interpret "fisheries targets" to be no net Documentation loss of fish habitat due to cumulative watershed disturbance. Due to the large size of the plan area and the limited time available, the methods used for identifying potential resource conflicts were largely determined by the nature of readily available information. The Integration Committee provided seral stage data on each biodiversity unit for current conditions and for conditions in 2016 which would result with the proposed timber harvest. We assumed that cumulative impacts to fish habitat would be directly related to the amount of harvesting or other disturbance at any given time, as indicated by seral stage distribution on crown land. We also assumed that risks to fish habitat would be greater in areas with steeper slopes and higher precipitation so we categorized the terrain hazard for each biodiversity unit. We considered the moderating influence of large lakes in estimating terrain hazards. Using the above information, we rated the potential risks to fish habitat for each biodiversity unit that is a watershed. Because "cumulative effects" is a watershed concept, it does not apply to biodiversity units that are not watersheds. However, we rated the potential fisheries risks to aggregates of biodiversity units which make up larger watersheds named in the CCLUP. This accounts for cumulative effects from most of the non- watershed biodiversity units. Our fisheries risk estimates rank biodiversity units and watersheds according to potential fish habitat impacts resulting from the combined effects of timber harvesting on crown land, development of private land, and natural disturbance. They are presented as first approximations of actual fish habitat impact. This is appropriate for their intended use which is to help ensure that fisheries targets are met at the landscape level and to help prioritize the gathering of additional information in the form of watershed assessments and monitoring. Due to the simplifying assumptions required for this analysis, the fisheries risk for any individual watershed would be superceded by site specific assessments. Among our recommendations are that watershed assessments be initiated in those watersheds named in the CCLUP as needing controls on the rate of harvest and ranked as having high fisheries risks in 1996, unless such assessments are already in progress. Fisheries Target Risk Assessment Introduction The tasks the Fisheries Target Committee undertook were: a) identify potential conflicts between the Short Term Timber Availability Assessment and fisheries targets, b) suggest methods for improving the accuracy of fisheries risk estimates, and c) suggest methods for reconciling the Short Term Timber Availability Assessment with long term fisheries targets in the CCLUP. In order to meet the objectives for such a large area within a short time, the Fisheries Committee used seral stage data provided by the Integration Committee as an indicator of hydrologic recovery and equivalent clearcut area (ECA) in each biodiversity unit. We then categorized biodiversity units according to terrain hazard and used these two criteria to estimate potential risks to fisheries. Our method was therefore similar to a rate-of-cut analysis with the addition of a terrain hazard indicator. Background The Fisheries Committee was set up by the Integration Committee for the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan to contribute to the short term timber availability assessment (STTAA). While the Land Use Plan determines where timber harvesting will occur on a very broad scale and within established targets, the STTAA will identify more specifically the location of the planned harvest and the short term impact of the planned file:///E|/My%20Webs/Hfly-round-table/reports/2008%20Report-Watershed%20Profile/Appendix%20N/Cariboo%20Chilcotin%20LRMP%20Published%20Reports.htm[28/01/2011 1:06:29 AM] Cariboo Chilcotin LRMP Published Reports timber harvest on meeting the targets in the CCLUP. The Fisheries Committee is responsible for assessing the initial proposal for timber harvest to determine the impact of proposed harvesting on fisheries resource targets and strategies in the CCLUP. The committee considers "fisheries targets" to mean no net loss to fish habitat. Use of Biodiversity Units in Identifying Fisheries Concerns The CCLUP, Appendix 3, identifies fish and wildlife objectives for zones and sub-zones (see Appendix A). For example, it was stated that the Horsefly watershed be managed for hydrologic stability and for salmon stocks through riparian protection and controls on the rate of harvest. These objectives apply to an area which encompasses several biodiversity units. The objectives of the Fisheries Target Committee include identifying potential problems at the CCLUP biodiversity unit level; however, fisheries concerns must be addressed at the watershed level. Therefore, as an initial exercise, we categorized biodiversity units according to watersheds named in the CCLUP and highlighted the management objectives for those units. The result of this is Appendix A of this document, which lists watersheds named in the target section of the CCLUP Final Report as having specific management objectives for maintaining fisheries values. These objectives include riparian protection and controls on the rate of harvest for 17 watersheds and other management objectives for five watersheds of very high concern. Appendix A also lists the SRDZs, IRMZs, and ERDZs under which watersheds were named. Other watersheds not identified in the CCLUP were also delineated and briefly analysed in this study in order to provide useful information for identifying future planning needs. Estimating Cumulative Watershed Impacts One of the critical tasks of the Fisheries Target Committee was to interpret the fisheries objectives of the Land Use Plan with respect to present and future status of biodiversity units. Seral stage information on each biodiversity unit was provided by the Integration Committee, allowing analysis of those biodiversity units which are watersheds. We used the assumptions below to estimate potential cumulative impacts for biodiversity units that are watersheds and also for groups of biodiversity units that make up larger watersheds. Cumulative downstream effects only apply to a stream channel and its contributing watershed. Therefore, we did not estimate cumulative impacts for biodiversity units that are not watersheds. Where applicable, impacts from those biodiversity units are included in the estimate of total cumulative impacts for larger watersheds. For example, the Black Creek biodiversity unit is not a watershed, but cumulative impacts from it are included in the fisheries risk calculation for the Horsefly River. The assumptions are: Negative impacts to fish habitat tend to increase in proportion with the percent of watershed area that is in a disturbed condition at any given time. The major disturbances that are of concern for this report and which can be estimated at the landscape level are timber harvesting on crown land and deforestation of private land. Cumulative impacts on fish habitat are mainly caused by sediment deposition in channels, channel instability, the destabilization of streambanks, and changes in water flow, temperature, and quality. These can result from road building, logging unstable slopes, disturbance of riparian areas, and increased peak streamflows resulting from timber removal (eg. IWAP Guidebook 1995 Appendices 8 and 9, Rood and Hamilton 1995). These disturbances occur on both crown land and private land. Cumulative impacts due to the above factors can be approximated from equivalent clearcut area and terrain characteristics. Estimating Equivalent Clearcut Area The concept of equivalent clearcut area (ECA) is used in the Watershed Assessment Procedure to estimate the effect of timber removal on peak streamflows. However, in this report it is used as an indicator of all cumulative impacts. This reflects the broader targets and strategies in the CCLUP which aim to manage specific watersheds for salmon stocks1. The downstream impacts of forest roads and timber removal tend to be greatest in the decade or so after logging and decrease as the forest grows back. The fisheries target committee estimated tree height as a function of seral stage using professional judgement and personal experience. We then calculated equivalent clearcut area for each biodiversity unit from