FREP Mission To be a world leader in resource stewardship - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

FREP Mission

To be a world leader in resource stewardship monitoring and effectiveness evaluations; communicating science- based information to enhance the knowledge

• f resource professionals and

inform balanced decision making and continuous improvement of British Columbia’s forest and range practices, policies and legislation.

FREP Objectives

Long-term commitment by government to:

• Assess the effectiveness of forest and

range legislation

• Determine whether forest and range

practices are achieving government’s

• bjectives
• Resource value status and trends, and
• Opportunities for continued improvement

Policy Realm

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

Results-based Model

How the Program Works

5

6

FREP Context

• Under FRPA,

– the forest industry is responsible for developing results and strategies for the sustainable management of resources. – the government is to ensure compliance with established results and strategies and other practice requirements, and evaluate the effectiveness of forest and range practices in achieving management

• bjectives.

7

What is FREP and what are FREP goals?

• Assess whether forest and range practices under FRPA

are effectively maintaining the 11 FRPA resource values

• Determine whether these practices, and the legislation

itself, meet the government’s broader commitment to sustainable resource management in B.C.

• Implement

continuous improvement

• f

forest management.

8

How does FREP work?

• Protocols guide the collection of

data

• Ministry staff collect the field data
• n randomly selected blocks
• Provincial staff analyze the data
• Results from the data collection

are communicated

• 4000 samples
• plus 1000 additional forage and

soils

• Random selection –

follows harvest

FREP Values, Information & Results

– Biodiversity – Fish/Riparian – Water Quality – Visual Quality – Timber – Cultural Heritage – Forage – Soils – Visit our website.

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

Communicating FREP Results

1. Chief Forester’s Report 2. Individual resource value reports 3. Extension notes 4. Presentations 5. YouTube

FREP RESULTS – Opportunities

Biodiversity Leaving large trees (live and dead), long CWD, mix of dispersed and patch retention Fish/Riparian Leaving full retention within first 10m of all S4 and perennial S5-6 streams that deliver water, nutrients and invertebrates downstream to FBS and/or drinking water Water Quality Shorter ditchlines, filtering suspended sediment and avoid ditchlines ending at creeks Visual Quality Leaving higher levels of in-block retention and design Timber Planting species densities and mixes that account for pest, disease and abiotic factors Forage Retaining natural range barriers and following well established BMPs Soils Avoiding compaction on very wet soils and thick layers of slash Cultural Heritage Engaging First Nations through proactive pre- planning/communications

13

Okanagan Shuswap District

Forest & Range Evaluation Program

results from field seasons 2006-2010

14

Okanagan Shuswap Forest District FREP Program

• Starting in 2006 the District

has implemented the biodiversity, riparian, water quality and visuals protocols.

15

Stand Level Biodiversity Evaluation Question

Is stand-level retention providing the range of habitat with the structural attributes understood as necessary for maintaining the species dependent on wildlife trees and coarse woody debris (CWD)?

16

Stand Level Biodiversity Indicators

• % of cutblock

retained

• Patch size & location
• Ecological Anchors

(Cavity nests, active wildlife trails, hollow trees,…)

• Veteran trees
• Large snags
• Tree species
• Large diameter trees

(>= to 50 cm dbh)

17

Stand Level Biodiversity Indicators cont.

• CWD volume
• CWD long pieces
• Windthrow
• Invasive Species

18

Stand Level Biodiversity Results 2006 to 2010

BEC Subzone # of FREP sampled Blocks # of Baseline Cruise Blocks

ESSFdc 8 21 ESSFwc 10 5 ESSFxc 2 ICHmk 5 31 ICHmw 11 42 ICHwk 1 IDFdk 4 IDFmw 5 IDFxh 1 MSdm 14 72 MSxk 3

Total 64 171

19

Stand Level Biodiversity Results

• 64 blocks sampled, 1,833 ha gross area
• 56 blocks with retention
• 6 blocks with no retention
• 156.9 ha in patch retention
• 62.6 ha of dispersed retention
• 72 patches <= 2 ha (78%)
• 20 patches > 2 ha (22%)
• Windthrow

: 5 blocks = 0%, 40 blocks <5%, 5% < 9 blocks < 10%, 10 blocks >10%

• 25 patches internal to cutblock

boundary (27%)

• 61 patches on the edge of the cutblock

(66%)

• 6 patches external to cutblock

(7%).

• 36% of the blocks contained invasive species after

harvest.

20

Looking at the retention level What are the benchmarks?

• FRPA states 7% as a default.
• Biodiversity Guidebook (range of retention

depending on emphasis).

• Studies (Huggard

2006- synthesis of 51 bird studies) have shown

–

that retention between 15-20% may be sufficient to maintain abundance of low sensitivity bird species (Black-capped chickadee, downy woodpecker). – More sensitive bird species (mountain chickadee, brown creeper) would require at least 35-40% retention.

21

Looking at the retention level

22

Snags ≥ 30cm DBH and ≥ 10m tall

Large dead trees are important habitat for wildlife tree users.

Retention compared to the baseline

• ICHmw zone: The density
• f large, tall snags in the 11

sampled FREP blocks is lower than the density of large, tall snags in the baseline (i.e., cruise) blocks approximately 90% of the time.

50 100 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

ICHmw

Large snags (sph) Cumulative Distribution

Baseline Retention

23

Snags ≥ 30cm DBH and ≥ 10m tall

Large dead trees are important habitat for wildlife tree users.

Retention compared to the baseline

• MSdm zone: The density
• f large, tall snags in the 14

sampled FREP blocks is lower than the density of large, tall snags in the baseline blocks approximately 70% of the time.

• Note the high percentage of

FREP blocks with zero large snags compared to the baseline.

50 100 150 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

MSdm

Large snags (sph) Cumulative Distribution

Baseline Retention

24

Retention compared to the baseline

Large trees >= 50 cm DBH

Large size is one of the main considerations for determining a high value wildlife tree.

50 100 150 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

ICHmw

50cm and larger trees/ha Cumulative Distribution

Baseline Retention

50 100 150 200 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

MSdm

50cm and larger trees/ha Cumulative Distribution

Baseline Retention

No significant difference between baseline and FREP samples.

25

Retention compared to the baseline

Number of Tree Species

The maintenance of the diversity of naturally occurring plant species is key to the maintenance of biological diversity within landscape units

2 4 6 8 10 12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

ICHmw

Number of Tree Species Cumulative Distribution

Baseline Retention

2 4 6 8 10 12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

MSdm

Number of Tree Species Cumulative Distribution

Baseline Retention

Marginally significant difference. No significant difference.

26 Long pieces of coarse woody debris are more valuable than short pieces of similar diameter. They last longer before they decay into the soil.

Coarse Woody Debris – big pieces/ha

Retention compared to the baseline

50 100 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

ICHmw

CWD big pieces/ha Cumulative Distribution

Patch Harvest

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

MSdm

CWD big pieces/ha Cumulative Distribution

Patch Harvest

No Significant difference. Highly significant difference.

27

Retention compared to the baseline

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Cum Prob 100 200 300 400 CWD Volume

• All BEC zones: CWD

volume in the wildlife tree patches seems to be very similar to the harvest areas in the first 60% of the blocks

Coarse Woody Debris

28

Stand Level Biodiversity Conclusion

• More blocks need to retain functional tall snags.
• More blocks need to retain long CWD piece size (>= 10 m)
• Tree species retention is acceptable.
• All blocks should have retention

(8 samples, 12% have <1%).

• Patch size need to increase (76% <=2 ha)
• 81% of the blocks have less than 15% retention (min

retention for low sensitivity bird from Huggard research paper). (64% of the samples have > 7% retention)

• Retention of large trees for ICHmw and MSdm is

comparable to the baseline. (not enough samples for other BEC zones)

• There is a good windthrow management strategy in place :

70% of blocks <= 5% windthrow.

29

Riparian Evaluation Question

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

30

Riparian Indicators

• 1. Channel bed disturbance
• 2. Channel bank disturbance
• 3. LWD characteristics
• 4. Channel morphology
• 5. Aquatic connectivity
• 6. Fish cover diversity
• 7. Moss abundance &

condition

• 8. Fine sediments

31

Riparian Indicators cont.

• 9. Aquatic invertebrate

diversity

• 10. Windthrow

frequency

• 11. Riparian soil disturbance/

bare ground

• 12. LWD supply/root network
• 13. Shade & microclimate
• 14. Disturbance-increasers/

noxious weeds/invasive plants

• 15. Vegetation form, vigour,

& structure

32

Riparian Results

• 56 streams have

been sampled between 2006 and 2010

Stream Class Number of Samples

S1 S2 1 S3 5 S4 10 S5 2 S6 38

33

34

Factors Affecting Functioning Condition

35

Factors Affecting Functioning Condition

Riparian – ‘no’ answers

• 55% attributed to logging

and road

• 28% attributed to natural

impact sources

• 7% attributed to upstream

factors

• 9% attributed to livestock

36

Riparian conclusion

• 89% of streams are properly functioning at some level
• Manage roads and crossings to limit fine-sediment

delivery to streams

• Limit introduction of logging debris into channels
• Keep machinery away from the riparian area less than

10 m from the stream channel

• Keep cattle away from small streams in particular.
• There is high natural level of fine sediments in many

small streams.

37

Water Quality Evaluation Question

• Are forest practices

effective in protecting water quality?

• Are forest and range

practices increasing the risk of drinking water health hazards?

38

Water Quality Evaluation

• Data is collected on the

effects of forestry and range on water quality

• Mitigation strategies are

recommended

39

Water Quality- How is it done?

• Use turbidity (fine sediment) as a primary characteristic

for water quality

• Identify point sources of sediment
• Assess both mass wasting and surface erosion

40

Water Quality – What do we look at?

• 1. Road surface, ditch, cutbank

and fill that would hydrologically drain to the stream

• 2. Connectivity between disturbed

site and natural drainage 3.Calculate the fine sediment contribution

• 4. Assign site to a Sediment

Generating Class (VL, L, M, H

• r VH)
• 5. Options for improved

management to reduce sediment loading

At a road crossing a stream or going along a stream:

41

Water Quality Results for 2008-2010

Water Quality Results for 2008-2010

42

Note that 85% of the samples did not immediately affect a downstream drinking water supply.

Water Quality Results for 2008-2010

43

Note that only 5% of the samples did not have an immediate fish impact.

44

WQ Range Summary

• Number of sample sites showing range characteristics

compromising water quality – 26

• Most common observations on range leading evaluation of

compromised water quality 1. Livestock feces noted within 3m of waters edge, or on trails, ditch lines or other surface drainage features leading to water. 2. Evidence of livestock standing in stream bed. 3. Absence of livestock control structures limiting access to water source. 4. Livestock drink directly from water source.

45

Factors Affecting Water Quality

• Berms
• r ruts on road

concentrating water and leading water to natural drainages (streams, culverts)

• Large areas of exposed soil
• Long road grades leading to

crossings

• Long ditch lines
• Insufficient/poorly placed culverts
• High concentration of livestock

(causing bare soil and compaction, livestock dung present, no control structure limiting access to water.)

46

Visual Quality Evaluation Question

Are our viewscapes being managed and conserved?

Visual Quality Background

47

Visual Quality Background

48

Visual Quality Background

49

Visual Quality – Provincial Results

50

51

Visual Quality – Provincial Results

52

Visual Quality – Provincial Results

Your DOS FREP Team

• Ted McRae
• Keith Boyes
• Pat Hughes
• Eric Goodman
• Ralph Backer
• Wolfgang Beck
• Heather Rice
• Stan Jones

53

If you want to get involved in a FREP field visit, contact one of these people.

54

DOS FREP Goals for 2011

• The district will evaluate between 35-40 blocks

this year.

• The values that will be assessed are:
• stand level biodiversity,
• riparian,
• water quality,
• visual quality management and
• stand development monitoring.

55

THANK YOU

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