1 / 18

Peter J. Tschaplinski Ministry of Environment

The Effects of Roads on the Post-Harvest Condition of Streams, Riparian Areas, and Fish Habitats in British Columbia 1996 – 2010. Peter J. Tschaplinski Ministry of Environment. Riparian Management Evaluation Question.

nicola
Télécharger la présentation

Peter J. Tschaplinski Ministry of Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effects of Roads on the Post-Harvest Condition of Streams,Riparian Areas, and Fish Habitats in British Columbia 1996 – 2010 Peter J. TschaplinskiMinistry of Environment

  2. Riparian ManagementEvaluation Question Are riparian forestry and range practices effective in maintaining the structural integrity and functions of stream ecosystems and other aquatic resource features over both short and long terms?

  3. 1. Channel bed disturbance 2. Channel bank disturbance 3. LWD characteristics 4. Channel morphology 5. Aquatic connectivity 6. Fish cover diversity 7. Moss abundance & condition 8. Fine sediments 9. Aquatic invertebrate diversity 10. Windthrow frequency 11. Riparian soil disturbance/ bare ground 12. LWD supply/root network 13. Shade & microclimate 14. Disturbance-increasers/ noxious weeds/invasive plants 15. Vegetation form, vigour, & structure Stream-Riparian Indicators

  4. Evaluation Approach • Assess physical and biological conditions in streams and their riparian areas with RSM checklist covering15 indicator-questions • Site assessments vary, based on stream morphology and fish use • 114–120 measurements, estimates, and observations are required to complete a stream-riparian assessment based on 38–60 specific indicators • Each main question answered “Yes = OK” or “No = problem” • Roll-up score = overall site condition

  5. Roll-up Scoring System Numberof “No” Indicators out of 15: 1. Properly Functioning Condition 0 - 2 No’s 2. Properly Functioning, with Limited Impacts (= old “at Risk”) 3 - 4 No’s 3. Properly Functioning, with Impacts (intermediate = old “at High Risk”) 5 - 6 No’s 4. Not Properly Functioning > 6 No’s

  6. 2005-2011 Provincial Riparian-Stream Sample

  7. Provincial RSM Summary of Post-harvest Stream-Riparian Condition Assessments, 2005 – 2011 21 %

  8. Overall Stream/Riparian Condition by Stream Class, 2005 – 2011

  9. Comparison of Post-Harvest Outcomes for BC Streams Pre-Code vs. Post 1995

  10. Trends in Post-Harvest Outcomes for BC Streams:FP Code, Transition, and FRPA Eras

  11. Overall Results by Main Indicator-Question

  12. Overall Sources of Impact for Affected Streams

  13. FrequencyofObservedImpactsfromRoad-RelatedSources

  14. Frequency of Observed Impacts on Sediment/Debris from Non-Road Sources

  15. Province-wide Riparian Retention Levels by Stream Class

  16. Functional Outcomes for Streams with Full Retention vs. Understory/Small Vegetation Within First 10 m of the RMA

  17. KeyFactorsAffectingManagementOutcomesforStream-RiparianSystemsKeyFactorsAffectingManagementOutcomesforStream-RiparianSystems • Amount of road‑related sediment found at stream crossings (all stream classes) • Management of fine sediments remains a concern in spite of improvements • 83 % of non-fish-bearing class S6 headwater streams were affected by fine sediments in the FP Code harvest years (1997 – 2003) • This has decreased to 60 % of class S6s during the FRPA years • Levels of riparian tree retention for many small streams (classes S4, S5, S6) • Functional outcomes or “health” of small streams with buffers 10 m wide are equivalent to larger fish-bearing streams with riparian reserves 20 - 50 m wide • Nearly 20 % of class S4s and 45% of S6s are without treed buffers

  18. Establish full wind-firm buffers 10 m wide on all class S4 fish-bearing streams and PERENNIAL non-fish-bearing class S5s and S6s that deliver water, alluvial sediments, nutrients, organic materials, and invertebrates to fish-bearing habitats and (or) drinking water sources • Can be achieved without increasing overall retention levels in a landscape by re-distributing current levels of riparian retention for small streams to priority reaches • Retain, at minimum, all non-merchantable trees, understory trees, smaller vegetation and as many wind-firm trees as possible within the first 10 m of the RMA for all other S5s and S6s (e.g., INTERMITTENT and EPHEMERAL streams with low transport capability) directly connected to fish-bearing areas and (or) drinking water sources • Limit fine sediments input from road crossings and riparian practices • Follow well-established best management practices concerning fine sediment delivery to streams and stream crossings. • Forest Road Engineering Guidebook; Erosion and Sediment Control Practices for Forest Roads and Stream Crossings; and the Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook, Revised Edition, September 2012 ADM Recommendations for Improved Practices Outcomes

More Related