1 / 34

Riparian Assessment Pilot Program Evaluation

Conducted by the Ministry of Forests, this program evaluates riparian areas to determine if FRPA standards are protecting fish values. The assessment covers various indicators such as channel disturbances, aquatic connectivity, and more.

calvin-skinner
Download Presentation

Riparian Assessment Pilot Program Evaluation

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. Resource Stewardship Monitoring ProgramRiparian Assessment Pilot PeterJ. TschaplinskiResearch BranchMinistry of Forests

  2. Forest Districts Participating • Campbell River - DCR • Chilcotin - DCH • Chilliwack - DCK • Kalum - DKM • Rocky Mountain - DRM

  3. Effectiveness Evaluation Objective for the Fish Value • Determine whether FRPA standards and practices governed by regulation are achieving the desired result of protecting fish values. • includes aquatic ecosystems and adjacent riparian areas • current focus is on streams

  4. Evaluation Approach • Assess physical and biological conditions in streams and their riparian areas • Describe conditions with Routine-Level Checklist covering 14 indicators • Score each Indicator as “Yes = OK” vs. “No = problem” • Roll-up score = overall site condition

  5. Roll-up Scoring System Frequency of “No” Indicators out of 14: 1. Functioning 0 - 2 No’s 2. Functioning, at Risk 3 - 4 No’s 3. Functioning, at High Risk 5 - 6 No’s 4. Non-functioning > 6 No’s

  6. 1. Channel bed disturbance 2. Channel bank disturbance 3. LWD processes (jams) 4. Channel morphology 5. Aquatic connectivity 6. Fish cover diversity 7. Moss abundance & condition 8. Fine sediments 9. Aquatic invertebrate diversity 10. Windthrow frequency 11. Riparian soil disturbance 12. LWD supply 13. Shade & microclimate 14. Disturbance-increaser plants Aquatic-Riparian Indicators

  7. RelatingScorestoForestry • This is the hard part. • Explain stream and riparian conditions in terms of required/permitted practices. • Considerations include: 1. Tree retention standards by stream class: RRZs for S1 – S3; RMZs for S4, S5, & S6 2. Riparian ground disturbance, windthrow 3. Roads and road crossings 4. Effects from upstream areas/activities 5. Compare with “undisturbed” conditions (e.g., upstream reference sites)

  8. RSMP Pilot Objectives • Operational test of Routine-Indicator Checklist: • Are the indicators and methods clear, practical, complete? • Do we need additional support: e.g., a field handbook, refresher training, air photos? • What have we missed: Do we need to add indicators/ questions? • Can surveys be done in a time-efficient way? • How easy is it to identify effective forestry practices or to flag problems?

  9. Survey Sample

  10. Overall Stream/Riparian Condition Assessments

  11. Stream/Riparian Assessments by Riparian Class

  12. Stream/RiparianCondition Assessments by District

  13. Overall Results by Indicator/Question

  14. Stream/RiparianImpact Factors

  15. Stream/RiparianImpact Factors

  16. Stream/RiparianImpact Factors

  17. Stream/RiparianImpact Factors

  18. Stream/RiparianImpact Factors

  19. Stream/RiparianImpact Factors

  20. SummaryObservations • Surveys done thoroughly and accurately • Be sure to fill out mandatory information fields:e.g., riparian class, year of harvest • Resources need to be found for data QA to support analyses • The following observations were important for data interpretation: • RMA retention levels (Can be obtained from photos?) • road location, crossing type, road & crossing age (pre-Code, FPC, FRPA) • Results show a mixture of riparian management and road-related effects • Some results complicated by pre-Code and pre-FRPA practices • Surveyors may benefit from a Field Handbook • Recurrent training should be made available when needed

More Related