Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

FREP Review of Water Quality Effectiveness Evaluation Pilot For Workshop Feb 27, 28, 2007 David Maloney MoFR Brian Carson.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "FREP Review of Water Quality Effectiveness Evaluation Pilot For Workshop Feb 27, 28, 2007 David Maloney MoFR Brian Carson."— Presentation transcript:

1 FREP Review of Water Quality Effectiveness Evaluation Pilot For Workshop Feb 27, 28, 2007 David Maloney MoFR Brian Carson

2 Are forest and range practices effective in protecting water quality? Are forest and range practices increasing the risk of drinking water health hazards? Two key questions Drinking water Fish

3 Year Quarter Activity Development of evaluation methodology Voluntary pilot training Pilot field season (to test concepts and process) Review of field season results (to test process and concepts) Data Cleaning Verification Implementation (Voluntary) Time Line

4 1.Development of Evaluation Methodology 2006/2007 How hands-on should a Routine Evaluation be?

5 Desirable Characteristics of Evaluation Results Based- Evaluates potential change in water quality, not adherence to specific management practices Simple but not simplistic (evaluation to be conducted by technicians but also be relevant to water purveyors) Fast (20 minutes per site) Repeatable (two different evaluators working independently will come up with similar answer) Able to address a wide range of terrain characteristics that occur throughout all Forest Regions of B.C Directly provide recommendations for better management

6 Contractor working closely with Water Quality Effectiveness Evaluation Committee headed by David Maloney of Forest and Range Practices Division. Focus on fine sediment from forestry disturbance, fecal contamination from range practices Four drafts with committee meetings to direct progress Field testing continuous on Sunshine Coast and once in Prince George District Pilot Version (to test concepts and processes) ready by April 2006

7 Visit, characterize and finalize selection of sediment generating sites and livestock disturbance within these sampling areas For all selected sites, estimate contribution to stream sedimentation from mass failures and surface erosion. Where livestock present, evaluate their effect on fecal contamination Five Tasks to determine water quality effect of forestry and range operations Select random sampling areas in District. Pre- select evaluation sites. Task I Task II Task III Assess management practices associated with component or site in relation to sediment generation Task IV Task VSummarize results from all sites in sampling area report card

8 2. Pilot Training

9 Conducted May June 2006 (Volunteer districts) 5 sessions with 20 participants from 11 districts representing coast, south and north interior Nelson, Castlegar, Queen Charlottes, Prince George, Fort St James, Vanderhoof, Dawson Creek, Mackenzie, Williams Lake, Quesnel and Aneheim. Training Conducted by Contractor and Contract Supervisor ½ day presentation, 1 ½ day in field visiting 5 or 6 sample sites within 1 hour drive of office.

10 3. Pilot Field Season

11 Conducted July, August and September Trainees from most districts conducted an evaluation of 6 sample sites (range 2 to 12) over a 1 to 4 day period Focus was on the field evaluation methodology. Random sampling of cutblocks for statistically valid sample was not attempted. Back up was available when trainees encountered difficulty in performing aspects of the evaluation. Telephone, and snail mail Results were copied and mailed to contractor for preliminary review

12 4. Review of field season results

13 Completed October, 2006 Resampling sites were chosen to represent different forestry regions and types of disturbance Contractor and Supervisor visited 14 sites in 4 districts that had previously been sampled by trainees over summer and evaluated same sites independently. Purpose to test methodology, not acquire data

14 Sample #TypeTrainees Results (m 3 ) Review Team Results (m 3 ) Characteristic Contributing to Major Differences Reasons for Discrepancy 1Stream Crossing Mass wasting over- emphasised Trainee considered ditch to be incised and thus included as mass wasting component 2Stream Crossing Connectivity estimate low, estimated disturbed surface area too low Subjective nature of connectivity and portion of fines assigned to component. 3Stream Crossing Totals similar but difference in breakdown of connectivity and partitioning of individual components Example of Outcome of Field Checking between Trainees and Review Team

15 All trainees appeared to have a good grasp of the overall methodology. Trainees were good at defining the boundaries of the mini catchment and identifying the components (road surfaces, ditches, cutbanks, failure slopes) and estimating their surface areas. As for the actual estimation of fine sediment, in all but one case, the results from trainees and review team provided estimates that were within the same order of magnitude. This outcome was the primary objective of this routine/ extensive evaluation. Some trainees were more comfortable with order of magnitude estimates than others. Upon making their estimate of fine sediment production from each component of each disturbed site, trainee evaluators were in an excellent position to provide concise recommendations for improvements that would minimize sediment production. Major findings

16 5. Lessons Learned (Where improvements could be made)

17 Office wrap-up for questions and review at end of 2 days would be useful (formerly done in field at end of 2 nd day) Trainees should try to schedule field season to conduct trials as soon as possible after training Simple field manual required to assist evaluator in making on site decisions Field manual must be printed on waterproof paper and easy to refer to in field a. More emphasis on training and manual development required by Contractor

18 b. Trainees should be encouraged to visit field during heavy rains/ spring thaw so they can see erosion sedimentation processes first hand

19 c.More attention was required by Contractor in the evaluation of range conditions for possible fecal contamination Discussions were held with Ministry of Forestry and Range, Range Branch and Agriculture Canada and methodology upgraded with their specialist’s input

20 d. A reduction in subjectivity associated with certain evaluation decisions were required. For instance: estimation of connectivity and estimate of amount of surface erosion required more instruction.

21 e.The order of magnitude nature of results 0.1, 1, 10, 100 Not vs 3.685

22 Implementation 6. Verification

23 Methodology recognizes a direct link with conditions of disturbed site and changes in stream turbidity. Field verification of changes in stream turbidity at forestry- disturbed sites was conducted over winter Nature of disturbed areas, associated storm run off (turbidity and discharge) and changes in turbidity of creek were measured.

24 Implementation Water Quality Effectiveness Evaluations will be conducted starting this summer after appropriate training of District Staff Training will likely be held at 5 centres throughout BC. Schedules for training will be developed with coordination of FREP and District Staff. While handheld computers will not be available this season for data input and evaluation, the Water Quality Effectiveness Evaluation lends itself to such a procedure.


Download ppt "FREP Review of Water Quality Effectiveness Evaluation Pilot For Workshop Feb 27, 28, 2007 David Maloney MoFR Brian Carson."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google