British Columbia Forest and Range Evaluation Program (FREP) - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

British Columbia Forest and Range Evaluation Program (FREP) Ministry of Forests and Range Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture and Lands

FREP Context -- FRPA Construct

Policy Realm

FRPA Professional Reliance Effectiveness Evaluation Objectives Compliance and Enforcement Plan & Practice Requirements

FREP Context

FREP Purpose & Objectives:

• Determine if forest and range policies and

practices are achieving government’s

• bjectives
• Assess the effectiveness of legislation
• Identify implementation issues
• Identify continuous improvement
• pportunities

FREP Mission

To be a world leader in resource stewardship monitoring and effectiveness evaluations; providing the science-based information needed for decision-making and continuous improvement of British Columbia's forest and range practices, policies and legislation.

FREP on the Web www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/index.htm

• Reports and Publications
• Values
• Indicators and Protocols
• Continuous Improvement session presentations
• Much, much more

Biodiversity Question

Is stand-level retention providing the range of habitat with the structural attributes understood as necessary for maintaining the species dependent

• n wildlife trees and

CWD?

Biodiversity Indicators:

• % retention
• Invasive plants
• Large Trees
• Windthrow
• CWD

• 2008-2009 each district will be monitoring 15 blocks for

SLBD and 15 reaches across a minimum of 10 blocks for Riparian

• Some districts will also monitor for 1 or more of:

water quality visual quality soils cultural heritage karst features timber values

Communications

• District – Industry communications on

FREP results

• Formal reports
• Field visits
• Industry tag-alongs on monitoring field work
• Informal discussions

• All have taken place in the Coast Region
• Not all in every district

– Most common are informal discussions and/or tag-alongs during field work

• Not every district has done industry

communication

• Communication Issues

– District staff / industry staff relationships – Methodologies and results being questioned – terminology

Riparian Results 2005 – 2006 Data

• Streams with NPF or PCF-HR outcomes tended to be more frequent

in regions and districts where steep terrain and high precipitation were prominent factors. For example, about 32 % of S6 streams were NPF in the Coast Forest Region in both 2005 and 2006.

• The corresponding results for S6 streams in the Northern Interior

Forest Region were 24 and 19 % NPF, while 3 and 22 % of S6 streams were NPF in the Southern Interior Forest Region in 2005 and 2006 respectively.

• Substantially greater percentage of streams scored yes answers for all

indicators with the exception of fine sediments and moss abundance and condition. Fine sediments scored no answers at 70 % of stream sites in 2005 and 62 % in 2006.

• Excess amounts of in-stream fines was the most prominent post-

harvest impact to streams in general. Fines are also known to be an important factor in determining the abundance and condition of in- stream moss and aquatic invertebrate diversity.

Possibilities for small streams

• Limit introduction of sediments and debris into channels
• Limit physical contact with stream banks and beds
• Some level of tree retention (non-merchantable,

understory and smaller)

Stand-Level Bio-Diversity Results 2005 – 2006 Data

• CWH -baseline
• •9 subzonessampled,
• –6 with BCTS cruise for tree

baseline

• •CWD comparison done between

patch and harvest

– North Coast Photo

Awesome Connie Herman Arrow Boundary District

"Wildlife Tree Patch, Wet Belt" Joe Alcock Columbia Forest District

Thank you

• http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/index.htm