Cumulative Effects Framework:
Knowledge and Policy Summary for British
Columbia’s Aquatic Ecosystems Value
Prepared by
Aquatic Ecosystems Working Group – Ministries of Environment and Forest, Lands
and Natural Resource Operations – for the Value Foundation Steering Committee
21 October 2016
Version 2.0
1
Preface
This document supports provincial cumulative effects assessment related to aquatic
ecosystems by providing an overview of (1) policy objectives that set the context
for assessment; (2) the main components and subcomponents of aquatic
ecosystems and their functional roles; (3) anthropogenic influences on aquatic
ecosystems; and (4) the indicators and approach used to assess the value and its
components.
The provincial-scale assessment procedure described in this document is a first
iteration. It has known shortcomings, which will be addressed over the coming year
(see the future work section).
Acknowledgements
This knowledge summary was drafted by Dave Daust with guidance from the
provincial Aquatic Ecosystem Technical Working Group: Zaid Jumean, Richard
Thompson, Peter Tschaplinski, Lars Reese-Hansen and Sasha Lees. It incorporates
information from an expert workshop with the following participants: Zaid Jumean,
Richard Thompson, Peter Tschaplinski, Lars Reese-Hansen, Dave McEwan, Malcolm
Gray, Sasha Lees, Marc Porter, Doug Lewis, Mike Milne, John Rex, Don Morgan,
Geneen Russo, Kevin Rieberger, Dave Maloney, Scott Barrett, Derek Tripp, and Kim
Hyatt. Don Morgan and Doug Lewis provided valuable advice on assessment
methods over the course of the project.
This knowledge summary has also benefitted from ideas in other watershed
assessment procedures, including those developed by Doug Lewis, Mike Milne, Don
Morgan, Lars Reese-Hansen and Marc Porter.
2
Table of Contents
Preface ......................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ 2
Table of Contents ........................................................................................... 3
1
2
3
Introduction ............................................................................................ 5
1.1
Purpose of document ........................................................................... 5
1.2
Attributes and significance of freshwater ecosystems .............................. 5
1.3
Impacts to freshwater ecosystems ........................................................ 8
Management direction for aquatic ecosystems ........................................... 12
2.1
Importance to public ......................................................................... 12
2.2
Policy and procedures ........................................................................ 12
2.3
Legal objectives and regulations ......................................................... 14
2.4
Broad Objectives for Aquatic Ecosystems Assessment ........................... 16
2.5
Implications of policy for assessment .................................................. 17
Factors affecting freshwater ecosystems ................................................... 18
3.1
Riparian function............................................................................... 22
3.2
Stream morphology .......................................................................... 23
3.3
Water quantity ................................................................................. 25
3.4
Water quality ................................................................................... 27
4
Summary of development impacts on aquatic ecosystem function ................ 29
5
Estimating risk to aquatic ecosystems ...................................................... 31
5.1
Purpose and limitations ..................................................................... 31
5.2
Approach ......................................................................................... 31
5.3
Indicators and Summary Statistics ...................................................... 32
5.4
Assessment Purpose and Hypothesized Risk ......................................... 37
5.5
Spatial strata used in assessment ....................................................... 39
5.6
Assessment Method .......................................................................... 39
6
Communicating risk ............................................................................... 41
7
Future work .......................................................................................... 42
7.1
Ecological Importance ....................................................................... 42
7.2
Watershed Sensitivity ........................................................................ 43
3
Appendix 1. Table of legal objectives and regulations related to aquatic ecosystems.
................................................................................................................. 48
Appendix 2. Cross-walk of indicators to key components and identified subcomponents of Aquatic Ecosystems. ............................................................... 51
4
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of document
Making decisions for public lands and resources requires understanding societal
values and the effects of alternative decisions on those values. Freshwater aquatic
ecosystems, including the water they supply, are one of several “values” identified
as important to the people of British Columbia (Robertson et al., 2012).
Risk is defined as the likelihood of an effect and the consequence of that effect to
something of value. This document provides information for analysts, specialists,
resource management professionals and decision-makers considering risks to
aquatic ecosystems, and key components thereof, from land and resource
management. It focuses on ecological risk; that is, the likelihood of impacts to
aquatic ecosystem structure and function to sustain water quality, water quality,
and riparian systems and the organisms and processes they support. A Provincially
consistent assessment of risks may require the support of hydrologists,
geomorphologists or biologists to assist in interpreting ecological risk to qualitative
legal or policy objectives set for aquatic ecosystems, components of aquatic
ecosystems, or indicators used to assess the risk from impacts to aquatic
ecosystems. Any deviations from the standard assessment procedure should be
recorded and supported with an ecological rationale.
This introduction continues with an overview of aquatic ecosystem ecology and
related anthropogenic threats. It then divides into two main sections:

a summary of management direction for aquatic ecosystems;

an ecological conceptual model that supports assessment of risk.
1.2 Attributes and significance of freshwater ecosystems
Fresh water is an essential ingredient for life on earth. Freshwater ecosystems
provide water, food, and habitat. They regulate physical, chemical and hydrologic
processes, and are essential for the life cycle stages of many organisms (Austin et
al., 2008). These ecosystems interact closely with adjacent riparian areas and nearshore biological communities. Approximately 25% of the species of vertebrates,
invertebrates, and vascular plants in B.C. are associated with freshwater
ecosystems (Austin et al., 2008). Freshwater ecosystems also provide humans with
many essential services.
The following sections discuss different types and scales of freshwater ecosystems.
5
1.2.1
Major Drainage Areas
British Columbia has more than 2 million kilometres of streams and 25% of
Canada’s supply of flowing fresh water (BC Ministry of Water, Land, and Air
Protection, 2002). Surface water in British Columbia flows through nine major
drainage areas (Figure 1). Streams, lakes, and wetlands cover about 10% of BC’s
surface area; wetlands alone compose about 7%, but are decreasing rapidly
(glaciers cover about 4%). Freshwater ecosystems overlap with the marine
environment in estuaries and intertidal areas. Estuaries cover approximately 2.3%
of the BC coastline, but are highly productive and important for biodiversity.
Figure 1. Major drainages in BC. Eight drainages are associated with a major river system; the coastal
major drainage area captures the many smaller drainages that feed into the ocean.
1.2.2
Groundwater
Examples of groundwater-dependent ecosystems and features include springs,
headwaters, wetlands and floodplains. Released groundwater provides most of the
base flow for many streams during periods of low precipitation, or during winter
when precipitation is locked up as snow or ice; groundwater inputs also ameliorate
extreme surface water temperature. Groundwater can help sustain minimum flows
of suitable water temperature important to stream dwelling species such as fish.
6
Many species of stream and lake-dwelling fish use groundwater upwelling areas as
thermal refugia in summer, spawning habitat, or holding habitat during migrations
(Baxter and McPhail, 1999; Torgersen et al., 1999; Austin et al. 2008).
The hyporheic1 zone is thought to be a critical refuge for surface-dwelling aquatic
macro-invertebrates, and provides habitat for many organisms that live in surface
waters Boulton et al., 1998).
Groundwater provides drinking water for approximately 25% of B.C. residents
(Smerdon and Redding, 2006).
1.2.3
Lakes
Many lakes are characterized by predictable temporal patterns of water-level
fluctuation due to seasonal changes in precipitation, surface/groundwater inflows,
outlet discharge and evaporation (Holt and Hatfield, 2007). Fluctuating water levels
largely determine vegetation patterns on lakeshores. Emergent and submerged
aquatic macrophytes (aquatic plants) are important structural components of
shoreline or littoral lake habitats. They support food webs and provide cover for a
wide variety of invertebrate, fish and wildlife species. Several species such as lakespawning sockeye salmon need stable lake levels for successful reproduction
(Fraley and Decker-Hess, 2006).
Lakes (and headwater streams) uninhabited by fish contain unique aquatic
communities that are unaffected by the presence of predatory fish, due to full or
partial isolation from other water bodies.
Alkaline lakes or ponds have no outlet and a high salt concentration; they usually
occur in dry ecosystems. They have a unique hydrology and species composition.
1.2.4
Wetlands
Wetlands include bogs, fens, swamps and marshes are areas of high species
richness, and diversity Meyer et al., 2003), and contribute to a broad range of
ecological functions (Austin et al., 2008). A large proportion of B.C.’s terrestrial
vertebrate species rely on wetlands to meet some of their needs or use wetland
habitat at some point in their life cycle. Ephemeral wetlands are known to provide
habitat for a number of extremely rare taxa (Deil, 2005). Wetlands play an
important role in storing and filtering water, reducing runoff, recharging
groundwater, maintaining streamflows and water quality, and reducing erosion and
sediment levels in streams, as well as excess nutrients and toxic chemicals in
aquatic systems (Austin et al., 2008).
1
The saturated below-ground ecosystem associated with a river or stream.
7
1.2.5
Estuaries
An estuary is an ecotone, or transition zone, between freshwater and marine
ecosystems. BC has more than 440 estuaries covering 75,000 ha in total distributed
along 2.3% of the Pacific coastwith, with most ranging in size from 1–10 ha (BC
Ministry of Environment, 2006; Ryder et al., 2007). Estuaries are highly productive
environments, used by an estimated 80% of all coastal wildlife (Austin et al. 2008).
Additionally, estuaries are critically important to the survival of Pacific salmon,
particularly juveniles (Casillas, 1999).
1.2.6
Riparian areas
Riparian refers to the transition zone between an aquatic and a terrestrial
ecosystem that is influenced by either surface or subsurface water or both. Riparian
ecosystems may be located beside a stream, lake, wetland, or estuary, and are the
complex interface between aquatic and terrestrial environments within watersheds.
They have been described as three-dimensional ecotones of interaction that include
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and that extend down into the groundwater, up
above the forest canopy, outward across the floodplain, laterally into the nearslopes to various distances into terrestrial areas, and along watercourses at variable
widths (Ilhardt et al., 2000). Riparian areas form the key boundary which
moderates all hydrological, geomorphological, and biological processes associated
with this highly interconnected fluvial corridor (Swanson et al., 1988). Riparian
networks link landscapes, providing corridors for animal and plant movement,
sediment transport, and water transport.
Riparian areas influence water and water influences riparian areas. Examples of
riparian area services and functions include water temperature moderation, water
input, sediment filtration, bank stabilization, and provision of habitat structure,
cover, nutrients, organic materials (e.g., leaves) and food organisms (e.g.,
terrestrial insects) to aquatic ecosystems. In addition, bedrock and soil adjacent to
water bodies determine water chemistry, and channel form for streams. Water
bodies in turn influence riparian areas by eroding banks, depositing sediments that
create soil, modifying microclimates, and altering vegetation and terrestrial
productivity. In well-drained soils, flooding creates mosaics of biologically diverse
and productive communities (Austin et al., 2008).
1.3 Impacts to freshwater ecosystems
1.3.1
Impacts to major drainages
The five smaller drainages that cover 18% of the province are considered to be
secure or relatively secure (Table 1). The larger drainages range from apparently
8
secure to imperiled, with the Columbia drainage facing the highest risk. About a
third of the 769 species associated with freshwater ecosystems2 are of provincial
conservation concern. About one third of freshwater fish species (23/67) and
almost half of amphibian species (9/20) are of provincial conservation concern.
Table 1. Provincial conservation status of major drainage areas in BC.
Major Drainage Area
Columbia
Fraser
Coastal
Mackenzie
Taku
Stikine
Yukon
Skeena
Nass
Conservation Status
Imperilled (S2)
Imperilled/Vulnerable (S2S3)
Vulnerable/apparently secure (S3S4)
Vulnerable/apparently secure (S3S4)
Apparently secure/Secure (S4S5)
Apparently secure/Secure (S4S5)
Apparently secure/Secure (S4S5)
Apparently secure/Secure (S4S5)
Secure (S5)
Area (km2)
102,798
231,459
164,115
278,667
16,585
49,631
24,950
54,401
21,530
Percent
11%
25%
17%
30%
2%
5%
3%
6%
2%
Different types of development activities affect different freshwater elements
(examples in Table 2).
Table 2. Sources of major impacts to freshwater ecosystem elements.
Element
Sources of major of impact
Stream/riparian systems
Disruption of colluvial streams, channelization, loss of large woody
debris and other organic material, loss of connectivity, sedimentation
from road building, alterations to water chemistry.
Groundwater
Water diversion and withdrawal, urban paving, alteration of drainage
patterns, forestry, mountain pine beetles, climate change, alterations to
water chemistry.
Lakes
Water extractions and diversions, climate change.
Wetlands
Ecosystem conversion (draining and filling), pollution.
Aquatic biota including fish
and macro-invertebrates
Fishing, habitat loss, environmental contamination, alien species,
climate change, alterations to nutrient cycling. (Many stocks in decline.)
1.3.2
Impacts to stream/riparian systems
Aquatic ecosystems are sensitive to altered water flow, water quality, channel
structure and riparian function. Impacts result from land alteration, water use,
pollution, alien species, and climate change. Sources of ecosystem alteration
include construction of dams and stream crossings, water impoundment or
diversion, land clearing (e.g. urban development, agriculture, range use, forestry),
mining and gravel removal. Increased runoff related to upland development alters
2
About 25% (769) of 3,079 species of vertebrates, invertebrates and vascular plants examined were
associated with freshwater ecosystems.
9
erosion process and the input of nutrients and sediment to streams. Linear
developments such as roads, pipelines, and seismic lines can cause
disproportionately high impact because they intersect and parallel many streams. A
high proportion of road-stream crossings have disrupted fish passage and are
places where fine sediments and pollutants are introduced to streams. Similarly,
alteration of riparian areas causes a disproportionate impact because riparian areas
provide many functions and ecological service to aquatic ecosystems.
Aquatic ecosystems and watershed processes in the future will be impacted by
climate change. For example glacier retreat will ultimately reduce stream flows and
may increase summer stream temperatures in glacier-fed watersheds.
1.3.3
Impacts to groundwater (Brunke et al., 1997)
Groundwater levels are declining in areas where groundwater withdrawal and urban
development are most intensive. Lowered water tables can have profound effects
on riparian and floodplain vegetation, with cascading effects on local biodiversity. In
addition, there’s the potential for impacts on hyperheic waters within
stream/riparian systems.
1.3.4
Impacts to lakes
Lakes can be impacted in several ways. Alien species have significant impacts to
lake biological communities. Fish introduced to lakes without fish have likely led to
amphibian declines and extirpations (ref.?). The diversion of water from lakes can
cause excessive drawdown of surface waters with consequent reduction of littoral
habitats and disruption of species dependent on aquatic and riparian habitat.
Alkaline lakes and the unique ecosystem attributes they have are vulnerable to
agriculture, rural development, and climate change (ref.?).
1.3.5
Impacts to wetlands
Significant areas of wetlands in British Columbia have been drained or altered in
large part as a result of agricultural and urban development. Eighty-six percent of
wetlands in British Columbia are considered to be endangered, threatened or lost.
1.3.6
Impacts to estuaries
Estuaries are of concern in British Columbia because of their ecological importance,
biological productivity, and the long history of human activity in and around them.
Key threats to west coast estuaries include ecosystem alterations such as bank
armouring, riparian vegetation removal or modification, changes to freshwater
flows, water pollution, sediment contamination, and alien species introductions.
Estuarine ecosystems are also threatened by sea-level rise resulting from climate
change.
10
1.3.7
Impacts to aquatic biota including fish
Impacts to aquatic species and populations can be grouped into three broad and
interrelated categories: (1) physical habitat structure alterations, (2) trophic
responses (food and feeding relationships, growth, and biological production), and
(3) thermal (water-temperature-related) shifts (Tschaplinski and Pike, 2009) .
These categories, separately and in combinations, can have different effects on
aquatic biota including fish, depending upon species, life stage, and distribution in
freshwater (Hartman and Scrivener 1990). Climate change is expected to contribute
substantially to all of these categories of effects on aquatic species via altered
precipitation regimes, stream flow, and water temperature.
Physical habitat structure in streams can be affected by land-based activities such
as forestry through alterations in hydrology (e.g., peak flows and streambed and
bank erosion); alterations (reductions) in large woody debris (LWD) supply;
introduction of excess amounts of fine sediments (e.g.; at road-stream crossings);
and increases in coarse sediment bedload (through landslides, bank erosion [Hogan
and Bird, 1998]). All of these processes can affect the availability, diversity, and
quality of aquatic habitats (e.g., riffle-pool ratios; pool frequency and depths), and
therefore, the capacity of the ecosystem to sustain populations of both benthic
invertebrates and fish (Hartman and Scrivener, 1990). For example, fine sediments
and turbidity can reduce the abundance and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates
in streams (Culp et al., 1986), impeded the ability of fish to find prey, and reduce
egg-to-fry survival in fish species Scrivener and Brownlee, 1989).
Fine sediment effects on benthic macroinvertebrates and consequent reductions in
the availability of food organisms for fish is also an example of trophic impact
potentially affecting growth and survival in fish populations. Activities such as
riparian forest harvesting adjacent to streams may alter aquatic communities by
reducing organic (e.g., leaf litter) input but at the same time increasing primary
production (algal growth) due to increases in solar radiation. These variations will
determine the community composition of aquatic invertebrates and the relative
abundance of those species that feed directly on benthic algae, those that depend
upon detritus-based food webs, and the predators of these types (Merritt and
Cummins, 1996).
Thermal shifts in aquatic ecosystems due to riparian disturbances, stream channel
widening, and/or climatic shifts can have a wide range of effects on species and
populations. Thermal increases can either accelerate or limit fish growth depending
upon species, and shift the timing of seasonal migrations at key life history stages
(e.g., salmon smolt migration timing) (Tschaplinski et al., 2004). Increased water
temperature can also reduce the range and fragment the distribution of
temperature-sensitive fish species such as bull trout. Not only can single species be
affected but elevated water temperatures may shift the composition of entire fish
11
communities (species guilds) from cold-water assemblages to guilds typical of
warmer environments (Isaak et al., 2010).
In addition, partial or total barriers to the passage of fish, water, mineral
sediments, organic materials, and nutrients in streams caused by poor road-stream
crossings can reduce fish population abundance, growth, and survival by limiting
access to habitats, food resources, and seasonal thermal refugia required by
different life history stages Stockard and Harris, 2005).
2 Management direction for aquatic ecosystems
This section describes public interest in aquatic ecosystems and summarizes legal
and non-legal management objectives applicable at federal, provincial and regional
scales. It focuses on provincial objectives.
2.1 Importance to public
At a basic level, fresh water is valuable beyond measure because it is required by
land-based life forms. “Critical to life in all its diversity, water is the lifeblood of
society and a foundation of civilization. In addition to drinking water, freshwater
ecosystems provide other fundamental “ecosystem services” such as irrigation
water, habitat for wildlife, reserves for biodiversity, flood control and drought
mitigation, mechanisms for environmental purification, and sites for recreation. All
these functions are essential to the ongoing health and development of society”
(Brandes et al, 2005).
Water provides many ecosystem services (Brandes et al., 2005): industrial,
irrigation and residential water supply; ecosystem regulation; riparian habitat;
coastal zone maintenance; flood and drought mitigation; water-based recreation;
human food supply; pollution absorption and neutralization; nutrient transport;
floodplain soil fertility; erosion control; aesthetic, cultural and spiritual experiences.
[Federal water policy] “recognizes that water is, at present, Canada's most
undervalued and neglected natural resource. In no part of Canada is fresh water of
sufficient quality and quantity that it can continue to be overused and abused in the
way it has been in recent decades. The underlying philosophy of the policy is that
Canadians must start viewing water both as a key to environmental health and as a
scarce commodity having real value that must be managed accordingly.”
(Environment Canada Federal Water Policy website).
2.2 Policy and procedures
Non-legal objectives for aquatic ecosystems are found in documents signed by an
authorized government representative. Typically they provide guidance to ministry
staff implementing ministry programs. In addition, Regional Land and Resource
Management Plans capture public direction for resource management based on
12
substantial public consultation; hence, they provide guidance to professionals that
serve the public interest (Forest Practices Board, 2008).
2.2.1 Federal policy
The broad aim of federal water policy is “to encourage the use of freshwater in an
efficient and equitable manner consistent with the social, economic and
environmental needs of present and future generations” (Environment Canada
Federal Water Policy website). This aim is supported by two main goals: “to protect
and enhance the quality of the water resource… to promote the wise and efficient
management and use of water”. The first goal means “anticipating and preventing
the contamination of all Canadian waters by harmful substances, and working to
encourage the restoration of those waters that are contaminated” The goals are
supported by a number of specific policy statements.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has the long-term policy aim of achieving an overall
“net gain of the productive capacity of fish habitats”. Three goals support this aim:
“maintain the current productive capacity of fish habitats… rehabilitate the
productive capacity of fish habitats in selected areas… improve and create fish
habitats in selected areas...” (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
website). A historically important means of achieving these goals that is not longer
in force was Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act: “No person shall cause Harmful
Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, either by direct or
indirect means.”
In summary, federal intent is to protect and enhance the quality of the water
resource and to maintain and improve the current productive capacity of
fish habitats.
2.2.2 Provincial policy
Provincial water management in BC is currently in flux. In Living Water Smart, the
province commits to “ensure our water stays healthy and secure”. Tentative goals
considered for the new Water Sustainability Act include: “protect stream health and
aquatic environments; regulate ground water extraction and use in priority areas
and for large withdrawals” (BC Ministry of Environment Living Water Smart
website), among others. “Stream health is the combined measure of a stream’s
ecological integrity and function...” (BC Ministry of Environment Living Water Smart
website). The Act will protect stream health by “ensuring adequate water
flows…protecting habitat in and adjacent to streams; and… by prohibiting dumping
of debris and other material”. Proposed principles supporting the Act include
sustainable use, respect for First Nations cultural use and science-based decisionmaking.
Objectives of the Water Stewardship Division Strategic Plan focus more on human
use and include “minimize impacts of floods and dam failures; safe and reliable
13
community water supplies; …governance… that foster healthy ecosystems and
sustainable use; …decisions balance human and natural values; leading science
informs decision making” (BC Ministry of Environment, 2008).
The province prepares water quality objectives for specific water bodies, as a part
of the Ministry of Environment's mandate to manage water quality. Objectives are
only prepared for water bodies and for water quality characteristics which may be
affected by man's activity, now or in the foreseeable future (BC Ministry of
Environment Water Quality Objectives website). Water quality objectives are based
on provincial water quality criteria (also called guidelines) that describe safe
conditions or levels of a variable (e.g., chemical, nutrients, turbidity, temperature)
necessary to protect various water uses (BC Ministry of Environment Water Quality
Objectives website). Neither guidelines nor objectives which are derived from them,
have any legal standing. The objectives serve as a guide for issuing permits,
licenses, and orders by the Ministry of Environment. For example, contaminant
limits set out in waste management permits have legal standing. Similarly,
guidelines have been developed for managing riparian areas (BC Ministry of
Forests, 1995), stream flow (Hatfiled et al., 2003; Lewis et al., 2004) and instream
work (BC Ministry Water, Land and Air Protection, 2004) to meet stream integrity
objectives.
In summary, at the provincial scale, emerging goals aim to protect the ecological
integrity of streams and aquatic ecosystems by managing water quantity,
water quality and riparian ecosystems.
2.3 Legal objectives and regulations
2.3.1 Summary of Federal and Provincial Acts
Numerous Acts and regulations exist at the provincial and federal levels to protect
fish and wildlife species and habitats, as well as water quality and quantity
(Brandes and Curran, 2009; BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, 2004).
Federal legislation includes the Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act, Canada Water
Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Protection Act, International Boundary Waters
Treaty Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Canadian Environmental
Protection Act and the National Parks Act.
Provincial legislation includes the Water Protection Act, Drinking Water Protection
Act, Water Utility Act, Fish Protection Act, Forest and Range Practices Act, Wildlife
Act, Waste Management Act, Oil and Gas Activities Act, the Drainage, Ditch and
Dikes Act, Dike Maintenance Act, Parks Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and
the Environmental Management Act. Municipalities and regional districts may also
enact local bylaws under the Local Government Act or under a Community Charter.
14
International agreements, affecting rivers that flow into Alaska, limit changes in
average annual flows to less than one percent (or < 3.5 cm/sec) (Daust and
Morgan, 2013). In BC, water withdrawals must maintain 85% of baseline low flow.
BC has stronger water quality regulations than Alaska so BC standards apply.
In addition, legally-required practices can be developed for specific areas: Measures
for Wildlife Habitat Areas; Sustainable Resource Management Plans; Government to
Government Agreements with First Nations.
2.3.2 Summary of provincial legal direction
Under BC’s new Water Sustainability Act, regulations may be made “for the
purposes of sustaining water quantity, water quality and aquatic ecosystems in and
for British Columbia” (BC Water Sustainability Act). Many existing objectives and
regulations support these ends.
The numerous objectives and practice requirements that address aquatic
ecosystems (Appendix 1) can be organized hierarchically from broad to narrow3. At
the broadest level, objectives and requirements call for the conservation of fish, fish
habitat and aquatic ecosystems (Table 3). More specific objectives and
requirements address stream channel integrity, water flow, water quality and
riparian areas. A few objectives address specific elements of channel integrity, flow
or water quality. In theory, the more specific objectives are necessary to meet the
broader objectives. Table 3 is partly structured based on legal direction and partly
based on scientific understanding of how components of aquatic ecosystems
interact.
Regulations specify riparian retention around some streams, lakes and wetlands.
Riparian retention supports broad objectives for conservation of both aquatic and
terrestrial biodiversity. In principle, objectives for wildlife and biodiversity also
apply to fish and aquatic ecosystems. Fish can be designated as identified wildlife.
While objectives are relatively comprehensive, they are not necessarily so across
the whole landscape or across all sectors. For example, some of the stronger
objectives apply to Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds, Community Watersheds, Wildlife
Habitat Areas or Lakeshore management zones. Range and forestry tend to have
stronger objectives than oil and gas. Regulations being developed under the water
sustainability act have the potential to set standards across all sectors.
3
Legal and non-legal policy presented here are based on a water legislation and policy spreadsheet
developed by the Province of BC.
15
There are no objectives for limiting forest clearing in a watershed to protect flow
regimes, however, these hazards must be avoided to meet the broader objectives
for channel integrity, hydrology, water quality and ultimately aquatic ecosystems.
2.4 Broad Objectives for Aquatic Ecosystems Assessment
Objectives for Aquatic Ecosystems include both broad objectives that are
overarching descriptions of desired conditions which often lack clear definitions and
metrics, as well as specific objectives that have metrics directly associated with
them.
16
Table 3. Example of the current hierarchical structure for the forest sector of legal objectives and
regulations relevant to aquatic ecosystems (RPPR-Range Planning and Practices Regulation; FPPRForest Planning and Practice Regulation; GAR-Government Actions Regulation; WLPPR-Woodlot
License Planning and Practices Regulation; FSW-Fisheries Sensitive Watershed; CW-Community
Watershed)
Topic of legal objective or regulation
1. Fish habitat and aquatic ecosystems (RPPR 9, FPPR 8)

Stream channel integrity and natural stream bed dynamics (GAR14-FSW)

Fish Passage (FPPR 56)

Streambank stability (WLPPR 40; also see riparian)

Mass wasting that affects aquatic ecosystems (FPPR 37,38, 40)

Natural hydrological condition (FSW 14) / Water quantity and timing (FSW, CW,
FPPR8)

Compaction and surface sealing (RPPR 7)

Natural drainage patterns (FPPR 39)

Water quality (FSW, CW, FPPR 8)

Hydrologic function of soils (FPPR 5)

Riparian for temperature sensitive fish (GAR 15)

Harmful substances in drinking water (FPPR 59)

Riparian biodiversity and wildlife habitat (FPPR8)

Riparian forest retention (FPPR 47, 48, 49, 50)
In summary, a broad interpretation of legal policy suggests an overall objective that
applies to all sectors needs to be articulated to sustain aquatic ecosystems and
their components. To help guide the assessment of Aquatic Ecosystems three broad
objectives have been identified and categorized as:
i)
Sustain water quality;
ii)
Sustain water quantity;
iii)
Sustain hydrological and aquatic ecosystem functions and processes
2.5 Implications of policy for assessment
Societal objectives captured in legal and non-legal policy provide a basis for
determining acceptable levels of risk for decision-making (see Gregory et al.,
2012), and set the focus for risk assessment. More specifically, societal objectives
for aquatic ecosystems determine the types of impacts or consequences to consider
in assessment. Based on existing policy, risk assessment for aquatic ecosystems
should consider potential consequences that affect the ecological integrity of
aquatic ecosystems, particularly if those consequences also affect fish habitat. It
should consider potential consequences that affect key components of aquatic
ecosystems: stream channel integrity, water flow/quantity, water quality and
riparian areas. This policy guidance has been used to create the definition of risk
used in this provincial assessment (see Section 5.4).
17
3 Factors affecting freshwater ecosystems
This section provides an overview of the natural and anthropogenic processes that
affect freshwater aquatic ecosystems, focusing on streams. It divides aquatic
ecosystems into three main ecosystem components that affect function: stream and
riparian systems; water quantity; water quality, and riparian function (Figures 2
and 3). Each component has several subcomponents. The influence of riparian
ecosystems is reflected in subcomponents affecting water quality and stream
morphology (e.g, downed wood input). Riparian and aquatic ecosystems are
intimately linked in “hydroriparian” ecosystems (Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel,
1995), but in this report, riparian function is treated as a component supporting
aquatic ecosystems.
Figure 2. Relationships between components and processes and factors that affect the components,
and therefore aquatic ecosystems.
18
a) Model of Aquatic Ecosystems used in the assessment protocol
19
b) Water Quantity Component
20
c) Water Quality Component
21
d) Stream and Riparian Systems
Figure 3. Conceptual model for Aquatic Ecosystems (a) used to assess broad objectives for the
components Water Quantity (b), Water Quality (c) and Stream-Riparian Systems (d). Indicators with
benchmarks used in the draft provincial protocol are circled in black. Note: the conceptual model is not
a comprehensive model for the Aquatic Ecosystem value but is simplified to clearly demonstrate the
influence of selected indicators on functions, processes, and components of the value.
3.1 Riparian function
Streams and riparian areas function as integrated hydroriparian ecosystems;
riparian ecosystems are more of a “partner” with than a component of aquatic
ecosystems. The Forest and Range Evaluation Program defines properly functioning
condition of riparian ecosystems as the ability of a stream, river, wetland or lake
and its associated riparian area to

withstand normal peak flood events without experiencing accelerated soil
loss, abnormal movement or bank movement;

filter run-off;

store and safely release water;

maintain fully connected fish habitat so that fish habitat is not lost or isolated
as a result of management activity;

maintain an adequate root network and large woody debris supply;
22

provide shade and reduce bank micro-climate change (Tripp et al., 2009).
Riparian ecosystems provide a substantial portion of the organic matter, nutrients,
and organisms that together make up the aquatic ecosystem food web and provide
the light environment and cover that determine habitat conditions. Many riparian
functions influence other components of aquatic ecosystems and are discussed
under other components below. The role of downed wood in shaping channel
morphology is particularly important.
Development in riparian areas has multiple and substantial impacts on aquatic
ecosystem integrity. Riparian forest clearing alters food input, light and cover; and
the many other riparian functions that affect aquatic ecosystems directly. Roads
and other developments that harden surfaces and alter drainage patterns in
riparian areas can isolate backchannels and seasonally wetted habitats in the
floodplain, and impede ground water flow. In part, development in riparian areas is
more likely to affect streams simply because of close proximity. Other impacts
related to riparian development affect stream morphology and water quality,
discussed below.
3.2 Stream morphology
The structure of the streambed influences aquatic ecosystem function and the value
of aquatic habitat. For example, fish use specific sizes of gravel for spawning and
use pools and side-channels for feeding and resting.
Stream morphology reflects the balance of coarse sediment4 delivery, bedload
transport (into and out of a reach), and changes in storage in the bed and banks.
Coarse sediment accumulates along the inside of curved stream banks and
upstream of obstacles such as downed wood.
Mass wasting and streambank erosion are the main sources of coarse sediment
input. Mass wasting on “coupled slopes” delivers sediment directly to streams.
Eroding streambanks widen channels and deposit coarse and fine sediment directly
into streams, decreasing the number and depth of pools.
Relatively permanent features, such as bedrock and boulders constrain stream
location and gradient.
In summary, three processes and one feature have a strong influence on channel
morphology: mass wasting, streambank erosion, downed wood input and channel
controls/barriers.
4
Coarse sediment includes gravel and cobbles (i.e., cannot pass through a 2 mm sieve). Sand, silt
and clay comprise fine sediment and can often be suspended in water, depending on discharge.
23
3.2.1
Mass wasting (coarse sediment input)
Mass wasting occurs naturally, depending on slope, soil particle size and
precipitation, but can be increased by human activities. Mass wasting events must
be able to reach streams (“coupled”) to have an impact.
Roads and harvest units on naturally unstable terrain, including steep slopes alluvial
fans, gullies and steep stream, increase mass wasting probability, subject to
variability in road construction and maintenance standards.
Harvesting and related road development above escarpments (i.e., on gentle-oversteep terrain) can concentrate water delivery to escarpment slopes, potentially
leading to failure.
3.2.2
Streambank erosion (coarse sediment input)
Streambank erosion occurs during extreme peak flows or can be a secondary effect
of mass wasting or debris jams, as stream channels widen to accommodate these
obstacles. Streambank erosion related to obstacles can be substantial. Intact
riparian vegetation limits streambank erosion.
Direct anthropogenic causes of streambank erosion include riparian harvesting and
“bank hardening”. Riparian buffers are maintained around many streams but
narrow riparian buffers can blow down and expose erodible soil (however data
through the Forest and Range Evaluation Program found these effects to be rare).
Large rocks placed along streams to protect roads and bridges “harden” banks,
alter flow patterns and increases erosion elsewhere.
Indirect causes of streambank erosion include increased peak flow.
3.2.3
Downed wood input (coarse sediment anchoring/storage)
Downed wood from riparian forest plays an important role in streams by anchoring
sediment, reducing water velocities, and creating a diversity of fast-water and pool
habitats. The size of downed wood pieces needed to influence channel structure
depends on stream size. Bigger streams, found in the transport and deposition
zones (~ < 8% gradient), rely on large downed wood (e.g., >100 year old trees)
while the smaller, steeper-gradient streams, found in the source zone, benefit from
smaller pieces (e.g., ~30 year old trees) (Hydroriparian Planning Guide Work Team,
2004).
3.2.4
Channel control points/barriers
Patterns of water flow, and hence the structure and connectivity of the stream
system are strongly influenced by relatively permanent topographic and bedrock
features as well as by dynamic features such as log jams, large deposits of coarse
sediment left by extreme floods, and beaver dams.
24
Poorly designed, installed or maintained culverts act as barriers to fish and aquatic
animals (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000) by increasing stream gradient and velocity,
resulting in downstream scour and an outlet drop (i.e., water fall). Similarly, roads
running parallel to a main channel can isolate back channels and small tributaries.
3.3 Water quantity
Aquatic organisms are affected by extreme peak and extreme low flows and by the
timing of flows. Increased variability in flows may negatively affect some organisms
(Rita Winkler reference?).
Peak flows have substantial energy and can directly kill aquatic organisms or wash
them away from suitable habitat. Peak flows scour stream beds and banks and
transport and deposit sediment, altering channel morphology.
Extreme low flows can strand small fish or leave them exposed to predation from
birds, and reduce connectivity of stream habitats. Low flows in summer can lead to
increased water temperatures. Low flows in winter increase risk of freezing
mortality.
Water flows, including peaks and lows, vary as a function of net water input
(precipitation minus evapotranspiration) and hillslope drainage efficiency.
3.3.1
Net water input
Precipitation is the ultimate source of streamflow. Precipitation may fall as rain or
may accumulate seasonally in snowpacks or over longer periods in glaciers. Melting
snowpacks release accumulated precipitation in a spring (often peak) flow and
continue melting into summer. Glaciers contribute to late summer and fall flows.
Glaciers grow and shrink with climate cycles and trends, but are now melting due to
climate change. Climate change is expected to increase rainstorm intensity and
duration in coastal areas and to increase snowpacks in some areas.
Forest cover reduces the net amount of precipitation reaching stream systems, by
intercepting rain and snowfall and by increasing evapotranspiration and
sublimation. It slows surface runoff and increases infiltration of water to soil. Forest
cover also shades the snowpack, facilitating a longer snowmelt period. Natural
disturbance and forest harvesting reduce forest cover.
3.3.2
Hillslope drainage
The drainage network determines the rate at which precipitation and meltwater
move into and through the stream system. The drainage network consists of
surface and subsurface channels, surface storage areas, such as lakes and
wetlands, and subsurface storage in aquifers and soil. Surface and some subsurface
channels move water rapidly downhill. Surface and subsurface storage pools buffer
25
storm and melt events, by temporarily storing water, and serve as a source of
water in low flow periods.
3.3.3
Peak flows
Peak flow is highly variable among watersheds due to climate and terrain features
that enhance or buffer runoff. Drainage density ruggedness measures the stream
density within a watershed and indicates the rapidity of delivery to the main
channel. In coastal watersheds heavy rainfall events saturate soils and create a
dense network of drainage channels. Also, steep terrain with shallow soil delivers
water rapidly and creates a dense drainage system (“flashy watersheds”). Lakes
and wetlands attenuate downstream flows (Wu and Johnston, 2008).
Forest clearings (for commercial forestry or linear corridors) increase net water
input, leading to higher annual flows and causing higher peak flows in response to
rainfall events (peak flow response only holds until forested soils become saturated;
i.e., before the major fall storms in coastal ecosystems)(Grant et al., 2008).
Snowpacks increase on harvested sites; they melt more rapidly in the open and can
increase peak flows if their melt coincides with other melting or rainfall events (Jost
et al., 2007). Thus, the elevation and aspect of clearings, in addition to their size
(and hence perimeter-forest shading) substantially influences the hydrological
consequences of harvesting.
Roads increase drainage efficiency in two ways. First, they increase the area of
impermeable surface. Second, ditches associated with roads increase the surface
drainage network and hence delivery rate of water to streams. Roads on saturated
ground intercept and divert subsurface flow. Roads traversing side slopes intercept
and divert subsurface flow; where culvert spacing is too wide, water spilling from
culverts may create channels/gullies rather than dissipating into soil. Urban, rural
and industrial areas, agricultural fields and mine sites also alter soil permeability
and drainage patterns.
3.3.1
Low flows
During hot summers with limited rainfall, flow comes from groundwater, lakes and
wetlands. Watersheds with abundant lake and wetland cover face less seasonal
variability in flow. Subsurface flows can be an important water source during low
stream flow periods. Subsurface water may move relatively rapidly downhill
through soil macro-channels or may percolate relatively slowly downhill until it
reaches a water body.
Forest clearing (e.g., a cutblock) increases net input to groundwater, leading to
higher annual flows and possibly to higher flows during the low flow period.
Increased water input due to clearings may have little effect in dry summers and in
frozen winter landscapes when severe low flows are likely. As cutblocks age, large
26
tracts of second growth with high rates of evapotranspiration may reduce
groundwater, however the importance of this effect is currently uncertain.
The effects of roads and cutblocks on low flows are mixed and generally less
obvious than effects on peak flows. Also, roads associated with clearings decrease
groundwater input, counteracting potential increases related to harvesting. At the
site scale, roads and cutblocks within or above floodplains can interrupt subsurface
and surface flows to small tributaries and backchannels.
Warmer summer air temperatures related to climate change will also affect low
flows by increasing evapotranspiration. Over the long term, loss of glacial
meltwater due to climate change may greatly reduce late summer flow.
3.4 Water quality
Water quality divides into several subcomponents that affect aquatic ecosystems in
different ways: water temperature, suspended sediment, water chemistry and
nutrients. Dissolved oxygen is not treated as a separate subcomponent because it
correlates well with temperature and nutrients.
Water temperature influences the composition of aquatic communities and the
productivity and survival of fish. Within limits, warmer temperatures can increase
fish productivity. High temperatures, or freezing temperatures in small streams,
can kill fish. Temperature affects the distribution of diatom species and the growth
rate and competitive ability of algal species (Schindler, 2001).
High concentrations of suspended sediment may directly kill aquatic organisms and
impair aquatic productivity (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). Suspended sediment
affects a fish’s normal breathing, causing some species to avoid streams with high
turbidity. Turbid water also affects foraging success. In addition, fine sediment
coats streambeds, negatively affecting invertebrate communities that feed fish. The
timing of sediment input is important: fish are most sensitive during the incubation
period (i.e., sediment covers eggs, reducing oxygen entrapment). Increases in
suspended sediment are most important in streams that are normally clear and
support organisms adapted to clear water. Bottom sediments can harbor drinking
water Escherichia coli.
Toxic chemicals, leached from certain types of exposed mineral soils or spilled from
industrial sites, can kill aquatic organisms and/or displace them from their habitat;
chemicals may render water unfit for human consumption.
3.4.1
Water temperature
In natural systems, water temperature is influenced by air temperature, cool-water
sources, warm-water sources and riparian shade.
27
Snowpacks and glaciers provide cold water. Conversely, lakes, wetlands and wet
sites expose water to the sun and serve as warm water sources. Subsurface water
is relatively consistent in temperature; hence relative to stream temperature, it is
cool in summer and warm in winter.
As water flows downstream, it is warmed by heat exchange with the air and by
sunlight, depending on aspect. Riparian vegetation shades streams, reducing solar
heating. Wide streams are influenced less by riparian vegetation than narrow
streams. Slow flowing, shallow streams expose a relatively greater surface area to
the sun for a longer period.
Climate change is projected to lead to warmer air temperatures, smaller snowpacks
and increased glacier melt. Warmer summer air temperatures will increase lake and
stream warming. The relative importance of snowpacks (spring to mid-summer
water) and glaciers (late-summer to fall water) versus riparian cover in maintaining
flows and temperatures is not well understood.
Development activities increase water temperature by diverting subsurface flow to
the surface, increasing surface storage (e.g., reservoirs, ponding) and removing
riparian cover.
Sidehill roads intercept subsurface flow and channel it along exposed surface
ditches.
Reservoirs increase surface storage and water heating. At a smaller scale, drainage
ditches on shallow terrain, deactivated roads and logged wet sites can contain pools
of water that heat in the sun and flush into stream networks during rainfall events.
Removing riparian vegetation exposes streams to sunlight and is particularly
influential along networks of small streams that would otherwise be shaded.
Activities that reduce flow in summer (e.g., climate change) or cause erosion to
widen streams can increase water temperature. Conversely, logging can increase
groundwater storage and discharge during low flow periods.
Roads on or near floodplains can intercept the subsurface flows that prevent small
streams from freezing during winter.
3.4.2
Sediment
Streams vary in their sensitivity to sediment input. The natural sediment regimes of
streams influence aquatic community composition and determine the consequences
of additional sediment input. For example, clear-water streams (e.g., below lakes)
often host valuable spawning beds and are sensitive to anthropogenic sediment
input while glacier-fed streams are less sensitive, although some glacier-fed
streams have an important clear-water period. Thus the relative magnitude and the
timing of anthropogenic sediment delivery should be compared to natural
background levels.
28
Glaciers and surface erosion generate the chronic sources of fine sediment that
have the greatest effect on aquatic ecosystems. Pulses of fine sediment, delivered
in coupled mass wasting or streambank erosion events, dissipate relatively rapidly
and are of less concern, however, surface erosion of soil exposed by mass wasting
can increase chronic fine sediment delivery. Lakes and wetlands capture fine
sediment; streams below lakes and wetlands are the clearest.
Increased glacier melt, due to climate change, will increase sediment loads, but
these streams are already adapted to high sediment loads. Loss of glaciers will
substantially reduce sediment input.
Surface erosion occurs when water moves across exposed erodible surfaces.
Erodibility depends on soil texture. Many valley bottoms have easily-eroded, finetextured lacustrine (lake-deposited) parent material and are therefore sensitive to
exposure.
Roads and related ditches, cuts, fills and rights-of-way expose soil, increasing
surface erosion, and funnel sediment to streams. Erosion potential depends on
construction standards (including surfacing material) and maintenance. Roads with
high traffic can generate more sediment due to mechanical abrasion and dust.
Roads near streams deliver more sediment than those farther away. Stream
crossings are a major source of sediment input; although much of this sediment is
generated upslope and transported by ditches, substantial erosion can occur
directly at culverts and bridges. Cross-drain culvert density on roads traversing
slopes influences erosion: low densities concentrate discharge energy and increase
erosion.
4 Summary of development impacts on aquatic ecosystem function
Development influences each subcomponent and component of aquatic ecosystems
via a number of basic mechanisms or pathways (Table 4). One type of development
can cause impacts via multiple pathways; several types of development can affect
the same pathway. In general, each pathway can lead to a negative impact to a
subcomponent, but the magnitude of impact varies with the specific pathway and
the amount of development. Thus the number pathways affected by a given
development is not a reliable indicator of its overall impact. Rather this table shows
which types of development need to be considering when assessing impacts to a
specific subcomponent.
29
Table 4. Mechanisms linking types of development to subcomponents of water flow, channel
morphology, water quality and riparian function. Major linkages shown with “x”; lesser with “(x)”.
PF
LF
x
Forest clearing (interception, melt rate)
UI Ag
Li
Fo Rd LC
Mi We Re
x
x
x
x
Immature forest (evapotranspiration)
x
x
Ground hardening (reduced infiltration)
x
x
x
Drainage augmentation, concentration
x
x
x
Subsurface flow interception
x
MW SBE DW
Type of development2
Impact mechanism or pathway
Subcomponent1
BT
x
x
CB
x
x
x
x
(x)
x
x
x
x
Slope loading
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(x)
x
x
x
x
(x)
x
x
x
Bank hardening (channel barrier)
x
x
x
Stream crossings (channel barrier)
x
x
Riparian ground hardening, drainage change
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Reservoirs/dams (sediment, water capture)
Nu
x
x
UI Ag
Li
Fo Rd LC
Mi We Re
Forest clearing (interception, melt rate)
x
x
x
x
Ground hardening (reduced infiltration)
x
x
Drainage augmentation, concentration
x
x
Subsurface flow interception
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Stream crossings (sediment input)
x
x
Riparian soil exposure/damage (erosion)
Reservoirs/dams (water storage)
x
Surface Ponding
x
Chemical or nutrient pollution
Ri3
x
Riparian clearing (allochthonous input, cover)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(x)
IP
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(x)
x
x
x
x
Rock exposure (chemical leaching)
Riparian clearing (shade, filtering, stability)
x
x
x
Soil exposure (erosion)
x
IP
x
Riparian clearing (downed wood, stability)
x
x
Mi We Re
x
x
x
Fo Rd LC
x
x
x
Li
Drainage augmentation, concentration
x
x
UI Ag
x
Ch
x
x
x
Te
x
Reservoirs/dams (sediment, water capture)
x
SS
x
x
Forest clearing (interception, melt rate)
x
x
x
x
x
x
IP
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
UI Ag
Li
Fo Rd LC
Mi We Re
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
IP
x
1
Subcomponents identified by initials: Peak Flow, Low Flow, Mass Wasting, Stream Bank Erosion, Downed Wood,
Bedload Transport, Channel Barriers, Suspended Sediment, TEmperature, CHemistry, NUtrients, RIparian function.
2
Types of development: Urban-Industrial, AGriculture, LIvestock, FOrestry, RoaDs, Linear Corridors, MInes, WElls,
REservoirs, Independent Power projects; corridors include gas, oil, utility and penstocks; chemical pollution risk
varies with material transported.
30
3
Riparian alteration influences other subcomponents via several pathways.
5 Estimating risk to aquatic ecosystems
5.1 Purpose and limitations
The assessment described below is intended to be broad, covering all types of
impacts in a general way, and easily applied at the provincial scale. Its purpose is
to “raise flags” indicating the need to involve aquatic resource experts to confirm or
refine assessed estimates and to investigate potential impacts at the site level. The
assessment is defined in a manner to raise flags before significant impacts occur,
however, the broad nature of the assessment approach means that some types of
impacts are not well estimated and may be missed:

Cumulative effects related to climate change are not included;

Impacts on sensitive sites are not properly considered (e.g., fans,
floodplains, gullies, small unstable streams); sensitive sites often compose
small (and often poorly mapped) portions of watersheds and thus can be
substantially affected before being reflected in broad indicators that cover a
range of terrain types;

Variability in types and magnitudes of development impacts is not well
captured. For example, industrial sites with potential to spill highly toxic
chemicals are not singled out.
5.2 Approach
Aquatic ecosystem function reflects the interaction of many natural and
anthropogenic factors. Anthropogenic factors describe human-caused alterations of
water bodies, riparian areas and watersheds that are known to affect aquatic
ecosystem function. Natural factors distinguish watersheds and areas within
watersheds based on their sensitivity to development. Factors related to climate
and climate change are also important to consider (see Future Work section).
Estimating impacts requires:

identifying the subset of factors with the most influence,

developing indicators that can characterize the state of those factors,

calculating the indicators, and

interpreting risk to aquatic ecosystems based on indicator state.
This report has described influential factors. It goes on to describe indicators and to
provide the basic risk scoring necessary to estimate risk over the range of
anticipated indicator results. Indicators focus on development rather than on
31
watershed sensitivity or climate change. Indicator calculation methodology is
currently being developed and tested and is described in a companion document
(BC MOE, 2016).
Risk scores generated by indicators determine which of the components of aquatic
ecosystems — water quality, water quantity, and stream and riparian systems —
face risk in each assessment watershed across the province. These results will be
presented in maps and tables with summaries at three spatial scales. Risk scores
should be considered in conjunction with watershed importance and sensitivity as
discussed below, however importance and sensitivity indicators are still under
development (see Future Work).
In watersheds, where the assessment exceeds the low benchmark, aquatic
ecosystem managers and supporting experts should

confirm broad-scale assessment estimates by examining individual indicator
scores and ancillary detailed information on types of development and factors
affecting watershed sensitivity;

conduct more detailed assessments (Pickard et al., 2014; Carson et al.,
2009; Tripp et al., 2009) to better determine degree of impact;

reduce main causes of impact.
5.3 Indicators and Summary Statistics
Two types of knowledge inform selection of indicators: (1) specific mechanisms by
which development can affect aquatic ecosystems (Table 4 above) and (2) broad
correlations between multiple types of development and impacts to aquatic
ecosystems (Stalberg et al., 2009). Applying existing knowledge to BC requires
expert judgment to account for the natural conditions and development issues that
prevail. The following indicators were selected in a series of workshops by
participants with expertise in hydrology and aquatic ecosystem function (BC Aquatic
Ecosystem Working Group workshop summary, unpublished). They build on existing
indicator-based assessment approaches used in BC (Daust, 2015).
Indicators and summary statistics are described below. Each indicator influences
one or more component or subcomponent of aquatic ecosystems (Table 6). Some
indicators capture multiple pathways of effect and hence cumulative effects. For
example, the riparian disturbance indicator affects two components, while peak flow
index only effects one; i.e., risk related to human footprint raises three flags of
concern.
32
Table 5. Influence of indicators on components and sub-components of aquatic ecosystems.
Interactions are shown with “x”; weak interactions with “(x)”. If any subcomponent is affected, the
component is considered to be affected (“X”). See notes below table*.
Component and subcomponent
Aquatic ecosystem
Water quantity
1. Peak flow
2. Low flow
Water quality
3. Suspended
sediment
4. Temperature
5. Chemistry
6. Nutrient
content
Total land
disturbance
Riparian
disturbance
X
x
x
X
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Road
density
Roads on
steep
slopes
Roads
<100m
from
streams
Stream
crossing
density
X
x
x
(x)
Peak Flow
Index
X
x
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
Stream and Riparian
(x)
X
(x)
Systems
7. Mass wasting
x
(x)
x
8.
(x)
x
x
Alteration/connectivity
* Watershed disturbance includes both human and natural disturbances which potentially affect all
components of aquatic ecosystems. Riparian disturbance should be used to assess riparian structure;
it also potentially affects all subcomponents of water quality and most sub-components of channel
morphology. Road density mainly affects water flow, and highlights the need to consider other road
indictors. Roads on steep slopes affect the mass wasting subcomponent. Roads near streams affect
the fine sediment subcomponent. Stream crossing density affects sediment delivery and indicates
potential barriers in channels.
5.3.1
Assessed Indicators (BC MOE, 2016)
1. Road Density: Roads (km) per square kilometer of watershed
Road density influences peak and low flow and water temperature by increasing
surface runoff and reducing groundwater storage and release. Roads influence
coarse and fine sediment delivery depending on terrain stability and soil texture
and on the proximity of roads that are crossing these sensitive features to streams.
2. Road Density Near Streams: Roads < 100m from as stream (km) per square
kilometer of watershed.
Roads near streams are responsible for the majority of fine sediment delivery that
affects water quality. Erosion depends on soil texture, road construction and
maintenance standards and on precipitation.
3. Road Density on Unstable Slopes: Roads on slopes > 60% (km) per square
kilometer of watershed.
33
Roads on unstable terrain increase the chance of mass wasting by undermining or
loading slopes, by saturating soils and by reducing soil root networks. Roads can
alter surface drainage patterns and divert subsurface flow to the surface increasing
the chance of soil saturation and gulley erosion. Clearings associated with roads
reduce the root network that provides structural support to soil; they increase the
chance of soil saturation by reducing rainfall interception and increasing snowmelt
rates.
Not all terrain with a slope greater than 60% is unstable. Stability depends also on
soil texture. Fans, gullies and steep streams (usually on slopes greater than 60%)
are particularly unstable and prone to failure, but are not distinguished from other
steep terrain at this time.
4. Stream crossing density: Number of stream crossings (culverts/bridges) per
square kilometer of watershed
Exposed soils associated with culverts and bridge structures contribute fine
sediment to streams. Stream crossings serve as points of entry for road-related
sediment transported along ditches. Note that crossing density correlates with
coupled road density so these two indicators should not be added. Stream crossings
also reduce the connectivity of aquatic ecosystems, acting as barriers to fish and
other aquatic organisms.
5. Riparian Area Disturbance: Percent of stream length affected by
development:

same development as watershed human footprint + historic-logged (>20yr);

riparian buffer is defined to be within 30m of a stream;

stream considered affected if any portion of riparian buffer developed.
Riparian areas are intimately connected with stream ecosystems, providing the
majority of food in the aquatic food chain, a varied light environment and hiding
cover. Riparian areas affect channel morphology: downed wood, fallen from riparian
areas, anchors sediment and creates pools used by aquatic organisms such as fish.
Riparian areas affect water quality in many ways: they shade streams, limiting
summer water temperature; they capture sediment and chemical and nutrient
pollutants.
Logged and cleared areas reduce food supply, hiding cover, downed wood supply,
shade and filtering functions. Wood supply takes more than a century to recover in
some stream systems. Urban, agricultural and industrial (e.g., mines, well pads)
contribute chemical and/or nutrient pollutants. Roads and agriculture contribute
fine sediment. Roads in riparian areas can block side channels and small tributaries
and can intercept and divert groundwater flow (a particular problem in floodplains).
Stream crossings associated with roads contribute silt and block fish passage.
34
Linear corridors associated with hydro lines or pipelines typically contain access
roads or trails.
6. Peak Flow Index: Percent of watershed area developed or disturbed through
human causes

urban, agricultural, recently-logged (<20yr) and historic logged (>20yr),
areas; well-pads, mines;

pipeline, utility and road corridors.

Private land, where not affected by any other disturbance, is considered
75% disturbed
Peak Flow Index for the purpose of this procedure is the assessment unit-area
normalized score calculated from Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA)5. ECA is a
modeled metric that attempts to relate the influence of forest cover disturbance
(e.g., clearcuts) to changes in stream flow. ECA includes the area of land that has
been harvested, cleared or burned, with consideration given to the silvicultural
system, regeneration growth, and location within the watershed. It expresses the
relative hydrologic impacts of disturbed forests compared to mature intact forest
canopy, and reflects complex changes in flows resulting from changes in canopy
precipitation interception, evapotranspiration, snow melt dynamics and runoff.
5.3.2
Supplemental Indicators (BC MOE, 2016)
1. Total Land Disturbance: Percent of watershed area developed or disturbed
Human

urban, agricultural and recently-logged (<20yr) areas; well-pads, mines;

pipeline, utility and road corridors.
Natural

insect pests

fire disturbance
This is a broad set of summary statistics intended to display the amount and
distribution of land alteration where spatial data sets are available.:e.g. pipeline
corridors, hydro lines, agriculture.
5
The effect of ECA varies highly depending on the sensitivity of individual watersheds to hydrological
changes; therefore development of benchmarks at a provincial scale should be viewed in the context
of local watershed hydrological regimes.
35
Land development/alteration influences aquatic ecosystems via multiple pathways.
Most developments clear forest, reducing rainfall interception and increasing
snowpack buildup and melt rate. Impervious surfaces and storm-water drainage
systems associated with roads, urban and industrial areas increase surface runoff,
peak flow, delivery of pollutants and potentially decrease groundwater recharge.
Roads and agriculture expose soil, augment drainage and increase fine sediment
delivery.
Natural disturbance, including insects and fire, result in alteration of forest cover,
age structure, terrestrial vegetation communities. The extent and severity of
natural disturbances have been magnified by the impacts of human activity (e.g.
forest management including fire suppression).
This set of summary statistics includes maps and an associated tabular summary
that quantifies the different types of development and natural disturbances. Where
other indicators raise concerns (i.e. increase risk), these summary statistics should
be examined to help understand the types of disturbance that may be contributing
to the potential risk. Technical experts will be able to use this information to better
estimate pathways of impact and potential risks. For example, urban and
agricultural areas cause more chemical and nutrient pollution than forestry, roads
cause more sediment input than most other types of development, and some types
of mines and pipelines pose higher risk of toxic chemical pollution than others.
2. Land Ownership: percent of watershed area separated by ownership category
 four general ownership category: private, crown, federal, or protected
Understanding the proportion of Private, Federal and Provincial Lands within a
watershed will give decision makers and professional staff a better understanding of
the level of responsibility and human footprint as well as provide tools that might
be used to facilitate future management decisions.
3. Mining: number of mines or mine prospects in the watershed

mining includes active mines, deactivated mines, and undeveloped mine
prospects
Mines pose a potential risk to aquatic ecosystems. Depending on the type of mining
activity and the mitigation measures employed mines can have a significant impact
to water quality (e.g. acid rock drainage, tailings discharge) or a direct impact to
aquatic habitat (e.g. placer mining, location of tailings impoundments). This
indicator is meant to alert decision makers and professionals of the potential for
impact and the need for further investigation into the type, extent and mitigation
measures of mining activity within an assessment watershed.
36
4. Permitted Waste Discharges: number of permitted waste discharges in the
watershed
The presence of permitted waste discharges within a watershed presents a potential
risk to aquatic ecosystems. Additional watershed data on water quality/chemistry
should be available in areas with permitted watersheds.
5. Water withdrawal: number of active water withdrawals and water withdrawal
applications in the watershed
Flows, in particular low flows, are important to the maintenance of many aquatic
values. Water withdrawal includes data on points of diversion which is an indicator
of human caused water removal. More detailed examination of the quantity and
timing of removals will need to be carried out to determine the impact on aquatic
values.
6. Dam Locations: number of existing dams in the watershed
Dams can profoundly change aquatic ecosystems. They alter the type of aquatic
habitat present and result in species habitat fragmentation. The presence of dams
within a watershed should result in more detailed investigation of potential risk to
aquatic ecosystems.
5.4 Assessment Purpose and Hypothesized Risk
The purpose of the Aquatic Ecosystems assessment is to determine if British
Columbia’s aquatic ecosystems are being maintained in properly functioning
condition to support water quality, water quantity, and stream and riparian
systems, and the organisms and processes that they support. To test this purpose,
the assessment tests against the following definition of risk applied across all
indicators:
Risk: the likelihood of a change to water quantity, water quality, or stream and
riparian systems that exceeds the range of natural variability and has the
potential to negatively influence aquatic ecosystem function and composition,
including biotic (i.e. fish) populations.
The definition is based on a natural benchmark—range of natural variability—rather
than a normative (current condition) benchmark to avoid the ratchet or creeping
baseline effect (Ludwig et al., 1993) that undermines many cumulative effects
assessments. The Alberta Water Council uses a similar natural benchmark: “a
37
healthy aquatic ecosystem is an aquatic environment that sustains its ecological
structure, processes, functions, and resilience within its range of natural
variability”.
The definition recognizes the four main components (i.e., flow, quality, channel,
riparian) of the aquatic ecosystem value. It highlights the importance of functioning
aquatic systems; in particular for fish populations. More generally, fully functioning
aquatic ecosystems provide a number of ecosystem services, including clean water
and flood control.
Indicators affect one or more components or subcomponents of aquatic ecosystem
function (Table 6 above). Each sub-component must be functioning for the
component to function and each component must be functioning for aquatic
ecosystems to function.
Hypothesized risk relationships translate indicator values to risk classes (Table 7).
Risk applies to the components affected by each indicator. The ranges given in the
table can be used to develop optimistic and pessimistic risk estimates that show
uncertainty.
Table 6. Risk class boundaries and aquatic ecosystem components (and subcomponents) for each
indicator (Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment 2015; Hearns, 2015). Bold numbers
were identified for this procedure by the Aquatic Ecosystems working group and advisory group based
on original Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook benchmarks and updated based on multiple
expert-based delphic workshops. Numbers in regular font show range of indicator values reviewed
through one of these Delphic processes as described in Porter 20131.
Indicator1
Riparian area disturbance
(% of stream length
disturbed)
Road density
(km/km2)
Component
(subcomponent) affected

Water quality

Stream and riparian
systems


Roads density on unstable
slopes
(km/km2)


Road density near streams
(km/ km2)


Stream crossing density
(#/km2)


Water quality
Water quantity
Water quality
Stream and riparian
systems
Water quality
Stream and riparian
systems
Water quality
Stream and riparian
systems
Low

Boundary
Med
Boundary
10%

20%
Tributary2
1-9
Tributary
6-21
Mainstem
5-15
Mainstem
25-30
Hi


0.6
0.2-0.9

1.2
0.6-2.1


0.06

0.12


0.08
>0-0.12

0.16
0.2-0.5


Interior
0.16
0.2-0.24

Interior
0.32
0.6

Coast
Coast
38
Peak Flow Index
1
2

Water Quantity

0.4
0.6
0.25

0.8
1.4
0.45

All road and stream crossing indicator calculations are based on entire watershed area.
Tributaries (non-fish-bearing) have lower class boundaries than mainstems (fish-bearing).
5.5 Spatial strata used in assessment
The following spatial units support assessment of risk to aquatic ecosystems; other
intermediate and large watershed units can be used where appropriate.

Assessment region: assessments should occur in all watersheds in BC.

Assessment Watersheds (AW): assessments characterize risk at the small
watershed scale (approximately 3,000 to 5,000 ha), using Assessment
Watersheds built from BC’s 1:20,000 Freshwater Atlas (as per Carver and
Gray 2010).

Landscape Units (LUs): assessment results are summarized at the scale of
these intermediate watersheds (e.g., 50,000 ha) that are used in forest
management; LU boundaries may be modified to better match assessment
watersheds.

TSA and LRMP areas6: assessment results are summarized at the scale of
these large watersheds (e.g., 500,000 ha); administrative boundaries may
be modified to better match AWs.
5.6 Assessment Method
“Roll-up” of indicators for the value Aquatic Ecosystems, or any of its components,
determines whether they face risk related to a summary of all core indicator
outputs.
The watershed unit value or component roll-up follows a similar procedure to that
of the Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook (BC MOF, 1999).
5.6.1
Value Roll-Up
Each raw, calculated indicator value is translated into a normalized score between 0
and 1 (refer to Table 1). All values within the lowest classification receive a
normalized score of 0 while the remainder of the calculated values are divided into
equal interval classifications (from 0.1-1.0), with an identified upper value serving
as the highest classification, 1.0. Indicator values are assigned a score based on its
corresponding interval. The classification represents the normalized score for the
assessment unit indicator (Table 8). Each assessment watershed will therefore
6
Timber Supply Areas and Land and Resource Management Plan Areas.
39
receive a single normalized score for each of the six benchmarked indicators
assessed.
Once indicator scores are calculated, the average of the six scores for each
assessment watershed is calculated resulting in a single, comprehensive watershed
score for each unit assessed. For coastal assessment watersheds, those that receive
a value <0.3 are scored low; those that receive a value >0.7 are scored high while
those in between are scored moderate. For interior assessment watersheds, those
that receive a value <0.4 are scored low; those that receive a value >0.8 are
scored high while those in between are scored moderate.
5.6.2
Component Roll-Up
The same procedure as above (Value Roll-Up) is used to determine the component
roll-up score for Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Stream-Riparian Systems
however, the average assessment watershed score is calculated from only the
relevant benchmarked indicators in the conceptual model for the respective
component (refer to Fig. 3).
40
Table 7. Indicator value score classification table. Values within a cell represent a range bounded by it
and the number in the cell immediately to its right.
Score
Indicators
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Rd. Density
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
>3.0
Rd. Density
near
Streams
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
>0.45
Rd. Density
on Unstable
Slopes
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
>0.40
Stream
Crossing
Density
(Coastal)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
>2.0
Stream
Crossing
Density
(Interior)
0
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
>0.90
Riparian
Disturbance
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.27
>0.30
Peak Flow
Index
0
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.30
0.36
0.42
0.48
0.54
>0.60
6 Communicating risk
Risk assessment should present results from coarse to fine spatial scales, providing
greater detail at finer scales (Table 9).
Assessments should describe the main assumptions and sources of uncertainty in
the assessment.
Table 8. Suggested presentation material for reporting risk to aquatic ecosystems at multiple scales
Scale
Presentation material
Provincial
Table showing percent area in each risk-extent class in each large watershed, for
aquatic ecosystems and each component*
Provincial
Map showing “at risk” AWs in the province
TSA; LRMP
Table showing percent area in each risk-extent class in each LU, for aquatic
ecosystems and each component
TSA; LRMP
Map showing “at risk” AWs in large WS
41
Scale
Presentation material
LU
Table showing risk scores, by component and indicator and indicator values for each
freshwater assessment watershed
LU
Map showing “at risk” AWs in LU
LU
Maps showing low moderate or high risk ratings for each component in each AW (i.e.,
one map per component)
*water flow, water quality, stream morphology, riparian function
7 Future work
The provincial-scale risk assessment procedure described in this document has just
been developed. Indicators and related benchmarks may be revised. The procedure
has known shortcomings. In particular, watershed importance and watershed
sensitivity should be considered in assessment. Importance and sensitivity
indicators may be added to the provincial-scale assessment or to regional-scale
assessments or both.
The following two sections provide a preliminary description of the types of
importance and sensitivity indicators that could be included in future assessments.
7.1 Ecological Importance
Watershed importance is not rated in the current provincial assessment. Watershed
importance should be considered when setting priorities to further investigate
watershed flagged as “at risk”. This section requires additional development and
then should be incorporated into assessment at the provincial or regional scale.
Watersheds should be rated for importance related to aquatic ecosystem services
most valued by the public: clean drinking water and fish habitat (Table 10).
Watershed importance could also be rated based on communities and infrastructure
susceptible to floods or landslides. Where risk is equal, relatively important
watersheds have a higher priority for management action.
Table 9. Indicators used to describe watershed importance.
Importance variable
Indicator
Fish score

Length of stream and lakeshore with spawning beds.

Salmon spawning biomass.

Presence of listed aquatic species (e.g., bull trout, steelhead)

Based on Watershed Evaluation Tool

Number of domestic water intakes

Community watershed status.
Water score
42
7.2 Watershed Sensitivity
Sensitivity is not formally rated in the current provincial assessment; this step
requires additional development. Known sensitivity factors should be considered
when indicator values are examined. This section requires additional development
and then should be incorporated into assessment at the provincial or regional scale.
Sensitivity refers to the rate of increase in impact relative to the rate of increase in
development. Ideally, each indicator calculation should account for the natural
factors that influence the sensitivity of risk response; such an indicator-specific
approach may be beyond the scope of provincial-scale assessment. A reasonable
alternative approach rates the sensitivity of the watershed based on natural factors
(Table 11). Climate influences sensitivity; climate change can be included in
estimates of future sensitivity.
Table 10. Factors that influence the sensitivity of a watershed to development (italicized elements are
currently being explored)
Highly sensitive sites

Floodplains

Alluvial fans

Gullies

Small streams on steep, unstable terrain
Climate

Rainstorm intensity

Snowpack

Summer/fall rainfall amount and timing

Summer air temperature

Glaciers

Natural disturbance regime
Coupling

Proximity of development to stream

Proximity of development to unstable terrain

Proximity of unstable slope/fan to stream
Properties of water bodies

Stream width

Stream type (source, transport, deposition)

Waterfalls and steep reaches (connectivity)

Drainage density

Lake and wetland area and location

Seasonal low flows

Groundwater storage capacity/release
Properties of watersheds

Natural density of unstable terrain

Soil texture and mineral content

Elevation profile (hypsometry)

Impermeable surfaces

Natural non-forest area
43
Andrusak, H., S. Matthews, I. McGregor, K. Ashley, R. Rae, A. Wilson, J. Webster, G. Andrusak, L.
Vidmanic, J. Stockner, D. Sebastian, G. Scholten, P. Woodruff, , G. Wilson, , B. Jantz, D. Bennett, H.
Wright, R. Withler and S. Harris. 2005. Okanagan Lake Action Plan Year 9 (2004) Report. B.C. Ministry
of Environment, Biodiversity Branch, Victoria, BC. Fisheries Project Report No. RD 111.
Austin, M.A., D.A. Buffett, D.J. Nicolson, G.G.E. Scudder and V. Stevens (eds.). 2008. Taking Nature’s
Pulse: The Status of Biodiversity in British Columbia. Biodiversity BC, Victoria, BC. 268 pp. Available
at: www.biodiversitybc.org.
Baxter, J.S. and J.D. McPhail. 1999. The influence of redd site selection, groundwater upwelling, and
over-winter incubation temperature on survival of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from egg to
alevin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 1233-1239.
Boulton, A.J., S. Findlay, P. Marmonier, E.H. Stanley and H.M. Valett. 1998. The functional significance
of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 59-81.
Brandes, O.M. and Curran, D. 2009. Setting a new course in British Columbia. Water governance
reform options and opportunities. POLIS Discussion Paper 09-02
Brandes, O. M., K. Ferguson, M. M'Gonigle, and C. Sandborn, 2005. At a Watershed: Ecological
Governance and Sustainable Water Management in Canada. Victoria: POLIS Project on Ecological
Governance, University of Victoria.
Carson, B., Maloney, D., Chatwin, S., Carver M., and Beaudry, P. 2009. Protocol for Evaluating the
Potential Impact of Forestry and Range Use on Water Quality (Water Quality Routine Effectiveness
Evaluation). Forest and Range Evaluation Program, B.C. Min. For. Range and B.C. Min. Env., Victoria,
BC.
Carver, M. and M. Gray. 2010. Assessment watersheds for regional applications in British Columbia.
Streamline (13): 60-64. Available at:
http://www.forrex.org/sites/default/files/publications/articles/Streamline_Vol13_No2_Art7.pdf
Casillas, E. 1999. Role of the Columbia River estuary and plume in salmon productivity. Pp. 55-64 in
G.A. Bisbal (ed.). Ocean Conditions and the Management of Columbia River Salmon. Proceedings of a
symposium. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, OR.
Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel. 1995. Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Clayoquot Sound:
Planning and Practices. Available: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib12571.pdf
Culp, J.M., F.J. Wrona, and R.W. Davies. 1986. Responses of stream benthos and drift to fine
sediment deposition versus transport. Can. J. Zool. 64:1345–1351.
Daust, D. 2015. Comparison of watershed assessment methodologies (draft). Report for the Ministry
of Environment, Victoria.
Daust, D. and D. Morgan 2013. NW CEA Pilot: Hydrology Workshop Summary. Report to MoE, Skeena
Region.
Deil, U. 2005. A review on habitats, plant traits and vegetation of ephemeral wetlands – a global
perspective. Phytocoenologia 35(2-3): 533-705.
Forest Practices Board. 2008. Provincial land use planning: which way from here. Special Report 34.
Fraley, J. and J. Decker-Hess. 2006. Effects of stream and lake regulation on reproductive success of
kokanee in the Flathead River system, Montana, U.S.A. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management
1(3): 257-265.
Government of Canada. Federal Water Policy Website (accessed March 30, 2013):
http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=D11549FA-1#Section3
Government of Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Website (accessed March 30, 2013):
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/role/141/1415/14155/fhm-policy/page03-eng.asp
44
Grant et al. 2008. PNW GTR760: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr760.pdf
Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels and D. Ohlson. 2012. Structured decision
making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley-Blackwell, UK.
Hartman, G.F. and J.C. Scrivener. 1990. Impacts of forestry practices on a coastal stream ecosystem,
Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Can. Bull. Fish. Aq. Sci. 223.
Hatfield, T., Lewis, A., Ohlson, D. and M. Bradford. 2003. Development of instream flow thresholds as
guidelines for reviewing proposed water uses. Report to Province of BC.
Hawkins, C.P. and J.A. MacMahon. 1989. Guilds: the multiple meanings of a concept. Annual Rev.
Entomol. 34:423–451.
Hilborn, R., & Walters, C. (1993). Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from
history. Science(Washington), 260(5104), 17.
Hogan, D. L. and S.A. Bird. 1998. Classification and assessment of small coastal stream channels. pp.
189–200. In Carnation Creek and Queen Charlotte Islands fish/forestry workshop: applying 20 years
of coastal research to management solutions. D.L. Hogan, P. J. Tschaplinski, and S. Chatwin (editors).
B.C. Min. For. Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Land Manag. Handb. No. 41
Holt, R. and T. Hatfield. 2007. Key Elements of Biodiversity in British Columbia: Some Examples From
the Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Realm. Biodiversity BC, Victoria, BC. 70pp
www.biodiversitybc.org.
Hydroriparian Planning Guide Work Team. 2004. Hydroriparian planning guide. Report to the Coast
Information Team.
Ilhardt, B. L., E.S. Verry, and B.J. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. In Forestry and the riparian
zone. Conference Proceedings. October 26, 2000. R.G. Wagner and J. M. Hagan (editors). Wells
Conference Center, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. pp. 7–10.
Isaak, D. J., C. H. Luce, B. E. Rieman, D. E. Nagel, E. E. Peterson, D. L. Horan, S. Parkes, and G. L.
Chandler. 2010. Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and salmonid thermal
habitat in a mountain river network. Ecological Applications, 20(5), 2010, pp. 1350–1371.
Jost, G., M. Weiler, D.R. Gluns, and Y. Alila. 2007. The Influence of Forest and Topography on Snow
Accumulation and Melt at the Watershed-scale. Journal of Hydrology 347: 101–115.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.09.006.
Lewis, A. Hatfield, T., Chilibeck, B. and C. Roberts. 2004. Assessment methods of aquatic habitat and
instream flow characteristics in support of applications to dam, divert or extract water from streams in
British Columbia.
Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cummins. 1996. Trophic relations of macroinvertebrates. Chapter 21. pp. 453
– 474. In Methods in stream ecology. F. R. Hauer and G. A. Lamberti (editors). Academic Press. pp.
28–32.
Meyer, J.L, L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Strayer, C.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss, Q.
Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin and P.H. Zedler. 2003. Where Rivers Are Born: The Scientific
Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands. Sierra Club and American Rivers. 26pp.
www.americanrivers.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AR7_Publications.
Pickard, D., M. Porter, L. Reese-Hansen, R. Thompson, D. Tripp, B. Carson, P. Tschaplinski, T. Larden,
and S. Casley. 2014. Fish Values: Watershed Status Evaluation, Version 1.0. BC Ministry of Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations and BC Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Victoria, BC.
Porter, M. 2013. Watershed Processes Summary. Report prepared by ESSA Technologies. (xxxx
confirm this is the best reference)
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. 2016. Cumulative Effects Framework:
Assessment Protocol for Aquatic Ecosystems in British Columbia – Standards for British Columbia’s
Values Foundation.
45
Province of British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002. Status and Trends in
Surface Water Quality. In Environmental Trends in British Columbia 2002. State of the Environment
Reporting Office, Victoria, BC. Available at: www.env.gov.bc.ca/soerpt/6surfacewater/quality.html.
Province of British Columbia. Undated. British Columbia’s Water Act Modernization Discussion Paper.
Accessed March 30 from www.livingwatersmart.ca/water-act/
Province of British Columbia. Undated. British Columbia’s Water Act Modernization Discussion Paper.
Accessed March 30 from www.livingwatersmart.ca/water-act/
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. 2006. Estuaries in British Columbia.
Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, BC. Available at:
www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/Estuaries06_20.pdf.
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. 2008. Water Stewardship Division Strategic
Plan. Accessed March 30, 2013 from www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment Water Quality Objectives Website accessed
March 30, 2013: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/principles.html
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment Water Quality Guidelines Website accessed
March 30, 2013: (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/wq_guidelines.html).
Province of British Columbia. 1995. Riparian Management Area Guidebook (online). Accessed March
30, 2013: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/riparian/rip-toc.htm
Province of British Columbia. 2004. Standards and best practices for instream works.
Province of BC. 2004. Standards and best practices for instream works.
Province of British Columbia, Water Sustainability Act: http://leg.bc.ca/40th2nd/3rd_read/gov183.htm#section2
Robertson, I., C. Murray, M. Miles, S. Allegretto, E. Goldsworthy, A. Hall, M. Neltiz, D. Pickard, M.
Porter, R. Robitaille, N. Sands, S. Sloboda, and J. Werner. 2012. Environmental Values and
Components Manual. Phase 2. Working Draft. Prepared for BC Ministry of Environment, Ecosystem
Protection and Sustainability Branch. Victoria, B.C. by Robertson Environmental Services Ltd.,
Langley, BC.,ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC, and M. Miles and Associates Ltd., Victoria, BC.
Ryder, J.L., J.K. Kenyon, D. Buffett, K. Moore, M. Ceh and K. Stipec. 2007. An integrated biophysical
assessment of estuarine habitats in B.C. to assist regional conservation planning. Canadian Wildlife
Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, BC. Technical Report Series No. 476.
Schindler, D. W. (2001). The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresses on
Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
58(1), 18-29.
Schwab, J. W. 1998. Landslides on the Queen Charlotte Islands: Processes, rates, and climatic
events. In Carnation Creek and Queen Charlotte Islands fish/forestry workshop: Applying 20 years of
coastal research to management solutions. D.L. Hogan, P.J. Tschaplinski, and S. Chatwin (editors).
B.C. Min. For. Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Land Manag. Handb. No. 41: pp.41– 47.
Scrivener, J. C. and M. J. Brownlee. 1989. Effects of forest harvesting on spawning gravel and
incubation survival of chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and coho salmon (O. kisutch) in Carnation Creek,
British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 46:681–696.
Smerdon, B. and T. Redding. 2006. Groundwater: more than water below the ground! Streamline
Watershed Management Bulletin 10(2): 1-6.
Stalberg, H.C., Lauzier, R.B., MacIsaac, E.A., Porter, M., and Murray, C. 2009. Canada’s policy for
conservation of wild pacific salmon: Stream, lake, and estuarine habitat indicators. Can. Manuscr.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2859: xiii + 135p.
46
Stanford, J.A. and J.V. Ward. 1988. The hyporheic habitat of river ecosystems. Nature 335: 64-66.
Stockard, W. and R. R. Harris. 2005. Monitoring the Effectiveness of Culvert Fish Passage Restoration.
Center for Forestry, University of California, Berkeley. 25 pp.
Swanson, F. J., T. K. Kratz, N. Caine, and R. J. Woodmansee. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystems
patterns and processes. BioScience 38:92–98.
Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, H.W. Li and B.A. McIntosh. 1999. Multiscale thermal refugia and stream
habitat associations of chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon. Ecological Applications 9: 301-319.
Tripp, D.B., P.J. Tschaplinski, S.A. Bird and D.L. Hogan. 2009. Protocol for Evaluating the Condition of
Streams and Riparian Management Areas (Riparian Management Routine Effectiveness Evaluation).
Forest and Range Evaluation Program, B.C. Min. For. Range and B.C. Min. Env., Victoria, BC.
Trombulak, S. C., & Frissell, C. A. (2000). Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Conservation biology, 14(1), 18-30.
Tschaplinski, P.J., D.L. Hogan, and G.F. Hartman. 2004. Fish-forestry interaction research in coastal
British Columbia: The Carnation Creek and Queen Charlotte Islands studies. In Fishes and Forestry:
Worldwide Watershed Interactions and Management. Chapter 18. G.F. Hartman and T. G. Northote
(editors). Blackwell Press, London, U.K. pp. 389–412
Tschaplinski, P. and R. Pike. 2009. Chapter 13 — Riparian Management and Effects on Function. In
Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia [In Prep.] R.G. Pike et al.
(editors). B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range Research Branch, Victoria, B.C. and Forum for Research
and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, B.C. Land Management Handbook (TBD). URL:
http://www.forrex.org/program/water/compendium.asp
Hearns, G. 2015. Aquatic Ecosystems Values Foundation Working and Advisory Group – Workshop
Report. Workshop held: 12-13 February, 2015. Vancouver, British Columbia.
Wu, K., & A Johnston, C. (2008). Hydrologic comparison between a forested and a wetland/lake
dominated watershed using SWAT. Hydrological processes, 22(10), 1431-1442.
47
Appendix 1. Table of legal objectives and regulations related to
aquatic ecosystems.
#
ID
Focus
Paraphrased objective or practice
Scope
Reg
10
1
Aquatic
Conserve fish, fish habitat and aquatic ecosystems
Range
RPPR9
16b
1
Aquatic
Sustain aquatic ecosystems
All
WSA
17
1
Aquatic
Conserve native species and ecosystems
All
MOESP
18
1
Aquatic
Maintain or improve water resources
Range
RPPR8
50
1
Aquatic
Conserve water values associated with riparian
reserves
OG
EMPR5
19
1
Feature
Do not damage resource features
Forest
WL45
1
1
Fish
No material adverse effect on wildlife or habitat
WHA
EMPR6
2
1
Fish
No material adverse effect on downstream fisheries
and watershed values
FSW
EMPR6
3
1
Fish
General wildlife measures (section 9)
Identified wildlife
GAR10
4
1
Fish
Specific direction for identified wildlife in WHAs
WHA
FPPR7
GAR10
5
1
Fish
Prevent cumulative hydrological effects on fish
FSW
GAR14
WL57
6
1
Fish
Objectives for important fisheries watersheds
Fishery WS
LA93.4
7
1
Fish
Sustainable diverse wildlife populations and their
habitat
Range
RPPR10
8
1
Fish
Minimize disturbance of wildlife during critical
periods
Range
RPPR10
9
1
Fish
Conserve fish, fish habitat and aquatic ecosystems
Range
RPPR9
12
1
Fish
…unlikely to harm fish or fish habitat
Forest
WL45
FPPR57
13
1
Fish
Conserve fish habitat
Forest
FPPR8
49
1
Fish
Conserve fish habitat associated with riparian
reserves
OG
EMPR5
52
1
Fish
Do not disturb high priority wildlife
OG
EMPR6
20
2
Channel
Protect stream channel and bank above and below
crossings
Forest
WL43
21
2
Channel
Mitigate impacts of stream crossings
Forest
WL43
22
2
Channel
Conserve stream bed dynamics and channel
integrity
FSW
GAR14
91
2
Channel
Do not cause landslides having adverse effects to
fish, water or soil, etc.
Forest
FPPR37
92
2
Channel
Ensure access maintains natural surface drainage
patterns
Forest
FPPR39
48
#
ID
Focus
Paraphrased objective or practice
Scope
Reg
93
2
Channel
Do not cause gulley processes having adverse
effects to fish, water or soil, etc.
Forest
FPPR38
94
2
Channel
Do not cause fan destabilization having adverse
effects to fish, water or soil, etc.
Forest
FPPR40
96
5
Chemical
Must not apply fertilizers within specified distance of
stream or waterworks
Forest
FPPR63
11
2
Passage
No material adverse effect on fish passage
Forest
WL44
24
2
Passage
No material adverse effects on fish passage
Forest
FPPR56
16a
3
Flow
Sustain flow
All
WSA
23
3
Flow
Conserve natural hydrological conditions
FSW
GAR14
25
3
Flow
No material adverse effect on water flow from the
waterworks
CW
WL58
27
3
Flow
Sustain water quantity
28
3
Flow
Prevent adverse impacts to water quantity
CW
FPPR8.2
29
3
Flow
Conserve flow
FSW
GAR14
31
3
Flow
Conserve the quantity of flow
CW
GAR8
46
3
Flow
Mitigate impacts <100m from water diversions to
maintain quality
OG
EMPR4
14
4
Quality
Conserve water quality
Forest
FPPR8
15
4
Quality
Sustain water quality
All
WSA
26
4
Quality
no material adverse effect on water quality from the
waterworks
CW
WL58
30
4
Quality
Conserve the quality of flow
FSW
GAR14
32
4
Quality
Conserve the quality of flow
CW
GAR8
33
4
Quality
Activities consistent with water quality objective
CW
WL58
34
4
Quality
Sustain water quality required for specified uses
All
WSA
35
4
Quality
Manage adverse effects of deleterious materials
Range
RPPR9
45
4
Quality
Mitigate impacts <100m from water diversions to
maintain quality (practice req)
OG
EMPR4
47
4
Quality
No operating in streams, lakes or wetlands (see
specific classes)
OG
EMPR5
95
5
Chemicals
No material harmful to human health to enter water
bodies licensed for human consumption.
Forest
FPPR59
37
5
Compaction
Minimize compaction; minimize sealing of soil
surface
Range
RPPR7
36
5
Erosion
Protect soil properties; minimize erosion; minimize
undesirable disturbance; maintain desirable plant
species; re-establish vegetation after disturbance
Range
RPPR7
42
5
Riparian
Establish lakeshore management zones
Specific lakes
GAR6
WSA
49
#
ID
Focus
Paraphrased objective or practice
Scope
Reg
43
5
Riparian
Maintain native plant community dynamics
Range
RPPR11
44
5
Riparian
Maintain/promote healthy riparian areas; and
desired riparian plant communities
Range
RPPR8
48
5
Riparian
No operating in riparian reserves
OG
EMPR5
53
5
Riparian
Riparian retention near streams
RMA
WL36
FPPR47
55
5
Riparian
Riparian retention near wetlands
RMA
WL37
FPPR48
54
5
Riparian
Riparian retention near lakes
RMA
WL38
FPPR49
56
5
Riparian
Riparian retention near lakes
Lakeshore MZ
WL41
97
5
Riparian
Avoid roads in riparian management areas
RMA
FPPR50
38
5
Stability
Retain enough trees to maintain streambank or
channel stability
S4, S5, S6 feeding
S1, S2, S3 streams or
high-value marine
ecosystems
WL40
39
5
Temperature
conserve riparian area to manage temperature for
protection of fish
Temp Sens Streams
GAR15
40
5
Temperature
Maintain/promote riparian veg to maintain stream
temperature within the range of natural variability
Range
RPPR8
41
5
Temperature
Prevent temperature increases that have a material
adverse effect on fish
Forest
WL42
51
5
Temperature
Maintain sufficient streamside trees to prevent
temperature increases or decreases that would have
material adverse effects on fish
Temp Sens Streams
EMPR5
50
Appendix 2. Cross-walk of indicators to key components and
identified sub-components of Aquatic Ecosystems.
Component and sub-component
Aquatic ecosystem
Water flow
1. Peak flow
2. Low flow
Water quality
3. Suspended sediment
4. Temperature
5. Chemistry
6. Nutrient content
Stream/Riparian Systems
7. Mass wasting
8. Alteration/connectivity
Total Land
Disturbance
X
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
(x)
x
(x)
Riparian
disturbance
Road
density
Road
density on
unstable
slopes
Road
density
near
streams
Stream
crossing
density
X
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
X
(x)
(x)
(x)
x
x
x
51