Water Stewardship Information Sources
| Citation | M. Porter, S. Casley, N. Ochoski, and S. Huang. 2015. Watershed Status Evaluation: An Assessment of 71 Watersheds Meeting BC's Fisheries Sensitive Watershed Criteria. Victoria BC FREP Report 39. |
|---|---|
| Organization | FLNRO |
| URL | https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/FREP/reports/FREP_Report_39.pdf |
| Abstract/Description or Keywords | Under British Columbia’s Forest and Range Practices Act Government Actions Regulation, and the Oil and Gas Activities Act Environmental Management and Protection Regulation, watersheds with significant fish values and watershed sensitivity can be designated as Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds (FSWs). Effectiveness monitoring and assessment is critical to ensure that FSW designations succeed in achieving the intended goals of maintaining natural functions and processes to conserve healthy fish habitats and associated fish populations. Integrated GIS-based (Tier I) and field-based (Tier II) methods for assessing the habitat status of FSWs have been developed jointly by government and private partners through watershed status evaluation monitoring protocols. This pilot project used the WSE Tier I GIS-based methods described in Porter et al. (2013) to assess the watershed indicator “risk” status of 71 watersheds across most of British Columbia’s natural resource regions. Measured values for as many as nine habitat indicators within surveyed watersheds were compared to indicator benchmarks defined in Porter et al. (2013) to assess risk “status” for each FSW (i.e., GIS-derived watershed values relative to indicator benchmarks). The defined indicator benchmarks represent one of three risk levels associated with fish habitat impact: (1) low, (2) moderate, and (3) high. The analytical proficiency of modern GIS spatial tools is easily capable of the type of analysis conducted in this WSE Tier I evaluation. The limitations to this type of analysis exist primarily with the base data. Despite the various uncertainties inherent in current databases and GIS layers supporting watershed status evaluation Tier I assessments, the survey results and interpretations presented here are a good first step toward the development of more consistent and regularly repeated evaluations of broad habitat pressures acting across provincial FSWs. This assessment has helped to identify gaps in underlying data requirements and has flagged several priority needs for improvement. To improve the utility of future watershed status evaluation Tier I analyses, and other GIS-based forms of analysis, we make the following recommendations. • As a high government priority, improve critical GIS data layers • Expand the number of primary indicators • Increase the frequency of field-based Tier II watershed condition assessments • Adopt and improve watershed status evaluation Tier I monitoring |
| Information Type | report |
| Regional Watershed | Province |
| Sub-watershed if known | |
| Aquifer # | |
| Comments | |
| Project status | complete |
| Contact Name | |
| Contact Email |