Water Stewardship Information Sources
| Citation | Tripp, D and Hogan, D. 1998. Focus on forestry-fisheries problems: Lessons learned from reviewing applications of the coastal fisheries-forestry guidelines. In: Hogan, D.L., P.J. Tschaplinski, and S. Chatwin (Editors). B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Land Manage. Handb. No. 41. |
|---|---|
| Organization | FLNRO |
| URL | https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Lmh/Lmh41.htm |
| Abstract/Description or Keywords | A common complaint about research is that by the time the studies are complete and the information disseminated, the original problem that initiated the work no longer exists. Studies to explore the influence of different streamside management practices on aquatic ecosystems began over 20 years ago in Carnation Creek. Do we still have streamside management concerns? Have we learned enough already to enable forest harvesting activities while retaining fish habitat integrity? Determination of the influence of forestry on hillslope processes and stream environments was the focus of work begun on the Queen Charlotte Islands over 10 years ago. Have these problems been solved such that forest and fishery management coexist in complete harmony? This presentation will attempt to answer these types of questions, and thereby provide a frame of reference for much of what will be discussed in this workshop. Recent findings of environmental audits to assess the effectiveness of the 1988 Coastal FisheriesForestry Guidelines (CFFG; see Tripp, this volume) were used as a basis for the types of questions being addressed by the Fish/Forestry Interaction Program. The audits provided an opportunity for identifying the type, nature and severity of common, and, very importantly, contemporary stream impacts. This was an opportune situation, because the usefulness of past research has often been limited by the passage of time. Once research results are finalized, the forest industry has frequently found that the past harvesting activities—as considered in the research—are no longer practised. The next claim is that the research findings are no longer applicable. The environmental audits referred to here are detailed in Tripp (this volume). The audit population included only those cutblocks in coastal British Columbia with fisheries concerns. These were blocks that encompassed or impinged on Class I or II streams, or blocks that included Class III or IV streams that could affect Class I or II waters downstream. Stream reach classification was based primarily on fish use as defined in the 1988 CFFG. Class I stream reaches included any reaches with anadromous salmonids or better-than-low levels of resident sport fish at any time of the year. Class II streams were reaches with low levels of nonanadromous sport fish. (Class I and Class II streams are now referred to as Class A streams in the 1993 edition of the CFFG.) A Class III stream reach was a reach with resident non-sport fish only; a Class IV stream reach was a reach with no fish, nor any likelihood of fish use in the future. (These streams are now called Class B and C streams, respectively.) The cause of any impacts was identified wherever possible during stream inspections |
| Information Type | Article |
| Regional Watershed | Coast Region |
| Sub-watershed if known | |
| Aquifer # | |
| Comments | |
| Project status | complete |
| Contact Name | |
| Contact Email |