Literature Review for the Threatened or Impaired Watersheds Regulations Related to Riparian Areas

1. BOF Technical Advisory Committee March 8, 2007 Literature Review for the Threatened or Impaired Watersheds Regulations Related to Riparian Areas

2. What are the Threatened or Impaired Watersheds Rules? • Interim Forest Practice Rules for protection of listed anadromous salmonids (termed the Threatened or Impaired, or T/I rules, under 14 CCR §§ 916.9, 936.9, and 956.9). • T/I rules include special riparian buffer widths, as well as water drafting, vegetation retention, and road construction and maintenance standards.

3. Reason BOF TAC was Formed • BOF TAC formed to oversee a scientific literature review of studies pertinent to riparian buffers and functions in support of the Threatened or Impaired Watersheds Rule Package.

4. Example of Changes in FPRs—Class I Fish-Bearing Buffer Strips

5. Example of Changes in FPRs—Class I Fish-Bearing Buffer Strips

6. Example of Post-Harvest Class I WLPZ in the Big River Watershed, Western Mendocino County

7. Federal/State Listings of Salmon & Steelhead • Steelhead • Northern California (T) June 7, 2000 • Central Coast (T) August 18, 1997 • Central Valley (T) March 19, 1998 • South Central (T) August 18, 1997 • Southern California (E) August 18, 1997 • Steelhead status’ reaffirmed January 5, 2006 • Chinook • Sacramento Winter Run (E) January 4, 1994 • Central Valley Spring Run (T) September 16, 1999 • California Coastal (T) September 16, 1999 • Chinook status’ reaffirmed June 28, 2005 • Coho • Southern Oregon/Northern California (T) May 6, 1997 • Central Coast Coho (CCC) listed as “T” on October 31, 1996 • CCC coho relisted to “E” on June 28, 2005 • Chinook (California State Listing) • Sacramento River Winter Run (E) September 22, 1989 • Sacramento River Spring Run (T) February 1999 • Coho (California State Listing Effective March 30, 2005) • Punta Gorda North to State Border (T) • Punta Gorda South to Aptox Creek (E) (South of SF listed “E” since December 31, 1995)

9. Photograph: Chris Berry Southern most coho salmon. Smolt in San Vicente Creek, Santa Cruz County, June 2006

10. Central California Coast (CCC) Coho Salmon

11. Geographic Scope of T/I Rules:Boundaries for Watersheds with Threatened or Impaired Values (coho + Chinook + steelhead)

12. BOF TAC Mission Statement “Provide professional expertise and guidance to the Board to ensure the scientific literature review related to anadromous salmonids and forest management activities provides credible, comprehensive and relevant information for the Board’s rulemaking and policy processes.”

13. BOF TAC Representatives • Gary Nakamura(chair, UCCE) • Dr. Ken Cummins (HSU) • Dr. Kate Sullivan (PALCO) • Dr. Sari Sommarstrom (consultant) • Dr. Brian Dietterick (Cal Poly-SLO) • Dr. Cajun James (SPI) • Dr. Bill Trush (McBain and Trush) • Dr. Michael Wopat (CGS) • Charlotte Ambrose (NOAA Fisheries) • Gaylon Lee (SWRCB) • Dr. Marty Berbach (DFG) • Pete Cafferata (CAL FIRE) • Chris Zimny [lead staff] (BOF/CAL FIRE)

14. BOF TAC Meetings • TAC has met 9 times (in person), since October 2006 in Sacramento and Redding (alternating). • Meetings are open to the public—usually 1-3 public attendees. • Over 15 conference calls and numerous email correspondences. • Information generated by TAC posted on BOF website, ftp site, and presented at BOF Forest Practice Committee meetings.

15. Main BOF TAC Tasks • Review and edit a draft Scope of Work (SOW). • Ensure contractor’s literature review is progressing appropriately. • Communicate progress on project periodically to BOF. • Ensure that contractor summary/synthesis of literature is completed appropriately.

16. BOF TAC Key Riparian Functions • Wood • Heat/Microclimate • Sediment • Biotic/Nutrients • Water TAC Subcommittees to refine Scope of Work elements for each function. TAC Subcommittees refined the Scope of Work elements for each function. 5 TAC Subcommittees Formed to Address Each Function

17. Wood Riparian Function:Examples of Wood in Stream Channels

18. Wood Riparian Function:How Does Riparian Management Affect Wood Recruitment in a Class I WLPZ?

19. Heat Riparian Function:How Does Riparian Management Affect Stream Shading and Water Temperature?

20. Sediment Riparian Function:How Does Riparian Management Affect Sediment Production and Delivery to Stream Channels?

21. Sediment Riparian Function: How Does Riparian Management Affect Bank Stability?

22. Nutrient Riparian Function:How Does Riparian Management Affect Nutrient Input into a Stream Channel?

23. Water Riparian Function:How Does Riparian Management Affect the Amount of Streamflow?

24. BOF TAC Contract Information • Total of only $50K available for contract. • We decided we needed to narrow the Contract Scope due to financial constraints. • For this to be possible, the TAC did a considerable amount of background work for each riparian function.

25. Contract Issues Resolved by TAC Narrowed Contract Scope due to financial constraints by: • Creating Background “Primers” for each riparian function, so that the contractor would not have to research and write about background information. • Creating a literature “screening criteria” to narrow the list of articles to review. • Pre-Screening over 1500 potential papers in the literature to produce a short list for the contractor. • Limiting papers to review for each riparian function to a reasonable number of newer references (generally those written after 1996).

26. TAC Literature Review Screening Criteria Decision Tree

27. BOF TAC Contract Information • One main contractor for contract, awarded based on a Request for Proposal (RFP). • Ability to use highly qualified subcontractors for each of the 5 riparian functions.

28. Main TAC Approach-For Each of the Five Riparian Functions- • Develop a basic PRIMER stating what is widely accepted in the literature. • Develop a list of KEY QUESTIONS that the contractor will focus on. • Develop a list of SUGGESTED REFERENCES (manageable number) for the contractor to review and report on.

29. More Information on TAC Primers • Brief summary of what is widely accepted in the literature for each riparian function. • Sets the “baseline” of known information; avoids having contractor review unnecessary literature. • Several are partially constructed from recent, well-written published papers that have largely summarized the literature for that topic. • Where appropriate, sections have been added for California-specific information and salmonid requirements related to that function. • Provides information to the public and the Board.

30. Example of TAC Primer for Heat/Microclimate (K. Sullivan-Lead) • Key points from Moore, Spittlehouse, and Story (2005) listed (published review in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association). • Complete reproduction of the Moore and others (2005) paper. • Additional new sections on “The Physiological Basis for Salmonid Temperature Response” and “California Regional Temperatures.” • Primer References.

31. More Information on Key Questions • Questions to drive literature search and review. • Questions for which there is not widespread agreement on the answers.

32. General Form of Key Questions • How do forest management activities in or near the riparian zone affect the production of the key riparian function (e.g., wood)? • How do forest management activities in or near the riparian zone affect the delivery of the riparian function? • What bearing do the findings of the reviewed papers have on buffer strip delineation? • Are there regional differences in the effects of forest management activities in or near the riparian zone for the function under consideration?

33. California Geomorphic Regions CGS 2002 Note No. 36

34. Examples of Key Questions • Wood: What is the riparian forest condition (species, size) and area (distance from watercourse) necessary to produce and deliver wood to the watercourse over time? • Heat: What conditions of canopy, density, and width protect water temperature, and how might this vary with CA forest types? • Sediment: What riparian zone delineation (area influencing sediment) or characteristics (e.g., cover, plant species and structure, etc.) are shown to be needed to ameliorate sediment production and delivery from managed forests? • Nutrients: What riparian buffer width is required to achieve desired conditions of algal growth, litter turnover, and invertebrate prey for juvenile salmonids? • Water: What bearing do the findings of the reviewed papers have on riparian zone buffer strip delineation (area influencing water transfer/exchange function) or characteristics (cover, plant species and structure, etc.)?

35. BOF TAC Contractor Tasks • Task 2: Identify and consider any additional literature to review. Public will be given opportunity to nominate papers as well. • Task 3: Review Literature and summarize using a “Literature Review Form.” • Task 4: Prepare a summary of the articles reviewed and a synthesis of the literaturefor the riparian function under consideration. • Task 5: Present Literature Review to Board.

36. BOF TAC Timeline • TAC Finishes SOW February 28, 2007 • BOF Approves SOW March 8, 2007 • CAL FIRE Contracting Solicits Contract May 1, 2007 • Contract Awarded June 1, 2007 • Contract Completed by Contractor August 1, 2007 • Presentation to the BOF August 7, 2007 • Technical Expert Forum September 1, 2007 • BOF Policy and Regulatory Deliberations September 7, 2007 Begin Note: Time lines could be pushed back 1-2 months.

37. TAC Questions for the Board • Do Key Questions, as restructured, reflect your literature review expectations? • The TAC recommends that the Board attend a workshoppresenting Primer information that the TAC would host prior to the completion of the contract. Would the BOF be willing to attend such a workshop? • What is the TAC’s role in presentation of the contractor’s literature review results? • What is the TAC’s role in subsequent policy discussions? • Would the Board find it useful for the TAC to provide: 1) science advice during the policy debate?; 2) recommendations for policies/regulations?; and 3) future processes for incorporation of science into policy?

38. BOF TAC Final Thoughts… • TAC members have been able to work together well and reach consensus. • Limited funding remains a concern. • Are there additional questions for the TAC members present today?