riparian management and natural function of small streams ... · riparian management and natural...

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?


It is defined from a point along the stream

The further you move up the stream, the smaller the watershed


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


Watershed Cumulative Impacts are usually most detectable in headwater streams

The headwater, or low order streams is what this course/workshop focuses on.


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)


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


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 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.


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


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


B5 Watershed“Aggressive” treatmentB5hi

B4Lo

B5lo

BaptisteBaptiste StudyStudy

B5 Watershed

B3 WatershedB4

“conservative”

“aggressive”


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)?


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


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

)


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


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.


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 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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


Road running surfaces

Fill slopes


Ditches

Using a systematic evaluation of the sediment sources, we can score the sediment hazard at a stream crossing


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)


High HazardHigh Hazard(score 0.8(score 0.8--1.6)1.6)

Very High Hazard, score >1.6


Areas dominated by fine soil textures can present very large erosion and sediment delivery challenges


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


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.


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.


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



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;


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,


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


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


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


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


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?


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




TagaiTagai

Average 14 stems standing/ 100 m right after logging.



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)


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


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).


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


Clark et al. CJFR 1998 (28) 284-290


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



Clark et al. CJFR 1998 (28) 284-290


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


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 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 + ???????


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


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


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 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


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


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







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







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





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






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






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






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



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



1 Short term = 0 to 5 yrsMedium term = 5 to 20 yrsLong term = 20 to 80 yrs

riparian management and natural function of small streams ... · riparian management and natural...

Documents