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 FREP Context Policy Realm FRPA Compliance Plan & and Practice Objectives Enforcement Requirements Professional Reliance Effectiveness Evaluation
FREP Purpose & Objectives: • Determine if forest and range policies and practices are achieving government’s objectives • Assess the effectiveness of legislation • Identify implementation issues • Identify continuous improvement opportunities
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 on wildlife trees and CWD?
• Invasive plants • Large Trees Biodiversity • % retention • Windthrow Indicators: • 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
2005 – 2006 Data Riparian Results
• 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
Recommend
More recommend
