1 / 29

Why did we do the survey?

Assessment of Class S4 Streams in the Central Interior to Evaluate Riparian Practices Implemented under the Forest Practices Code Peter J. Tschaplinski Research Branch Ministry of Forests. Why did we do the survey?. Concerns of DFO and MELP that logging around S4 streams was damaging habitat

sook
Download Presentation

Why did we do the survey?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment of Class S4 Streams in the Central Interior to Evaluate Riparian Practices Implemented under the Forest Practices CodePeter J. TschaplinskiResearch BranchMinistry of Forests

  2. Why did we do the survey? • Concerns of DFO and MELP that logging around S4 streams was damaging habitat • Assess the effectiveness of the FP Code in maintaining S4 stream channels and fish habitats

  3. Objectives 1) Frequency of different streamside practices 2) Do practices meet objectives of the RMA Guidebook 3) Do practices result in impacts to fish habitat

  4. Who did the study? 1. Interagency Technical Team: 11 persons • MOF, MELP, DFO, COFI, ILMA • project Terms of Reference, design, methods 2. Consulting Firm: Pre-survey SP Review 3. Field Crew: 16 • Tech Team (8) + MOF (3), MELP (2), DFO (3) regional staff + field HQ co-ordinator 4. MOF Region (2) and District (6) contacts

  5. Study Area • Central Interior Plateau • Districts: • Kamloops • Clearwater • Salmon Arm • Merritt • Williams Lake • 100 Mile House

  6. Study Scope and Sequence • Examine ALL (2989) full-Code SPs to identify target cutblocks • harvested in 1997 or 1998 • 47,800 ha • Identify cutblocks with a classified S4 fish-bearing stream • Visit and evaluate all 72 logged S4 streams

  7. Field Assessments • RMA treatment & tree retention levels • Types & cause of disturbances within 100-m sections

  8. Field Assessments • m altered / 100 m = Channel Impact Value (CIV)

  9. Field Assessments • Logging slash in channel

  10. Field Assessments • Windthrow frequency and impact

  11. Streambank sediments exposed by windthrow

  12. Field Assessments • Sediment sources and severity rank

  13. Harvest of streambank trees (count/100 m) • Shade loss (ranked L/M/H)

  14. Study Phases and Timelines1. Technical Team • Develop Terms of Reference • Visit field sites (coast) to define problem • March to August 2000 • 5 months • 8 versions

  15. 2. Develop and Test Field Sampling Methods • July - August 2000 • Field tested on Vancouver Island • Finalized after 4 versions • consensus on observations & interpretations

  16. 3. Review SPs and Identify Sites • Mid-August to early October • Consulting firm plus district staff • Identify: • cutblocks • S4 streams • riparian treatments

  17. 4. Field Surveys • 2 - 13 October 2000 • Set up field HQ • logistics, communications • 2 survey teams, 4 persons each • 2 helicopters

  18. 5. Analysis and Reporting • Data analysis and first draft: Oct - Dec • Initial extension: Dec - Jan • Iterative revisions & reviews: Dec - June • Report release: July 2001 • TOTAL TIME: 15 MONTHS

  19. 6. Costs • Total: $200,000 + • Development/field tests: $15,000 • Field Equipment: $3,000 • SP Analysis: $18,000 • Helicopters: $70,000 • Other field logistics: $35,000 • Post-survey & report: $10,000 • Staff & in-kind support: $48,000

  20. Project Strengths 1. Full participation and ‘buy-in’ by all parties 2. Specific Terms of Reference: - defined study scope and methods - ensure consistent observations, measurements, interpretations

  21. Project Strengths 3. Comprehensive coverage of cutblocks & streams 4. Full participation of Technical Team in report content

  22. Project Weaknesses 1. Prolonged process of TOR development: • high degree of sensitivity among parties • industry and district staff felt their performance was under audit • turnover in Tech Team membership affected continuity

  23. Project Weaknesses 2. Insufficient liaison with districts: • needed dedicated staff for communications • district staff and operators felt alienated from the process

  24. Project Weaknesses 3. Observations were limited in scope: • short-term “snapshot” of impacts/effectiveness • long-term impacts not directly assessed (e.g., LWD longevity, supply) • obvious measures of physical alterations • no direct measures of change to biological communities and processes

  25. Project Weaknesses • several physical processes not assesseddirectly e.g., riparian canopy removal vs. stream temperature • conclusions limited to the geographic region covered

More Related