1. Natural Resource District
Sea to Sky
Natural Resource District
January, 2016

2. FREP is one of the methods for completing Effectiveness Evaluations
FRPA
Professional Reliance
Effectiveness Evaluation = FREP
Objectives
Compliance
&
Enforcement
Plan &
Practice
Requirements

3. 11 FRPA Values Biodiversity – stand Wildlife Biodiversity – landscape
Timber
Recreation
Cultural heritage
Resource features: visual quality
Soil
Water
Fish
Forage & associated plant communities

4. Reports:
A Multiple Resource Value Assessment (MRVA) report was completed in 2013 with data up to 2012.
The report and map are available from the FREP website:
hfp/frep/index.htm
Next step:
In 2016 we are starting the next MRVA report to include data and external data sources (such as fish passage).

5. FREP 2015 42 Surveys Completed (127 from 2013 – 2015) Water Quality
Riparian
Stand Level Biodiversity
Visual Quality
Stand Development Monitoring
Cultural Heritage Resources

6. Water Quality indicators
Measures the volume of fine sediment input into streams originating from roads, cutbanks, gravel pits, etc.

7. Water Quality Results Left: 2010 to 2012 data (61 samples)
Right: preliminary 2013 to 2015 data (196 samples from 26 cutblocks (and their associated downstream road networks)
Recommendations:
Better inlet/outlet armoring
maintain natural drainage patterns
more frequent culverts on steeper grades/finer textured soils
better culvert locations – cross drain culverts above stream crossings
Design grade breaks to minimize long continuous steep grades

8. Riparian indicators
1. Channel bed disturbance 2. Channel bank disturbance 3. LWD characteristics 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/ bare ground 12. LWD supply/root network 13. Shade & microclimate 14. Disturbance-increasers/ noxious weeds/invasive plants 15. Vegetation form, vigour, & structure

9. Riparian indicators
1. Channel bed disturbance 2. Channel bank disturbance 3. LWD characteristics 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/ bare ground 12. LWD supply/root network 13. Shade & microclimate 14. Disturbance-increasers/ noxious weeds/invasive plants 15. Vegetation form, vigour, & structure

10. Riparian 2005 – 2012: 45 samples 2013 – 2015: 23 samples
Riparian condition:
Very low impact: properly functioning
Low impact: properly functioning but at risk
Medium impact: properly functioning but at high risk
High impact: not properly functioning

11. Riparian 2013 to 2015 data
23 streams sampled

12. Riparian 2013 to 2015 data Riparian Indicator Sample Results
23 streams sampled

13. Riparian Recommendations: keep slash out of streams
retain deep-rooted vegetation near stream banks
minimize fine sediment input from roads through design & maintenance
increase retention in the first 10 m for S6 streams, especially those connected to fish streams or drinking water sources

14. Stand Level Biodiversity indicators
% of cutblock retained
CWD volume
Patch size & location
CWD piece size
Ecological Anchors
Windthrow
Large snags
Invasive Species
Tree species
Large diameter trees

15. Stand Level Biodiversity 2013 and 2014 data
2013 to 2015 Data is still being compiled
27 samples collected in 6 BEC variants
Preliminary results:
CWD volumes generally good (high), but often missing larger piece sizes that contribute to the top rating.
Wildlife tree retention levels generally good, but don’t always represent typical forest cover attributes, tending toward the poor to average quality trees.
Invasive species found on 9 of the 27 blocks

16. Stand Level Biodiversity 2013 and 2014 data
Recommendations:
Provide wildlife tree retention with every block
the bigger the better:
large woody debris
large trees (≥ 70 cm dbh) and snags (≥10 m tall and ≥30 cm dbh) in densities similar to pre-harvest
bigger patches with less edge

17. Visual Quality 2013 to 2015 data
34 cutblocks assessed

18. Visual Quality Recommendations: strive for natural-looking openings
partial cutting to retain more volume/stems
smaller openings in R and PR areas

19. Stand Development Monitoring
This assessment determines the stocking of free growing stands that are years old.
Data reviewed against the original prescription and can be used to adjust site index and forest cover data, with applications for timber supply review, forest health, and stand development modelling.
The SDM protocol is undergoing significant revision in The new protocol will be piloted in 2016 and implemented in 2017.

20. Stand Development Monitoring 2013 - 2015 Results
From 2013 to 2015 we collected data from 23 openings. Data is being compiled by the regional coordinator for the program.
87% of blocks were still Free Growing and had similar or slightly more well-spaced, free-growing stems per hectare than at the initial declaration.
Higher elevation stands, steeper sites, north facing and richer / wetter sites frequently had poor distribution and areas of low stocking.

21. Stand Development Monitoring 2013 and 2015 Results
Minor discrepancies between the original stocking standards and today’s, especially for hemlock: it was often not listed as preferred or acceptable, but assessments found it abundant and thrifty.
Forest health factors that were identified in initial surveys, such as armillaria, were generally still present, and often more widespread.
Snowpress, damaged/dead/forded tops were common problems on steeper, high elevation sites.
Brush competition and resulting patchy stocking were significant in many blocks.

22. Cultural Heritage Resources
The CHR assessment evaluates whether cultural heritage resources are being protected and conserved for First Nations cultural and traditional activities as a result of forest practices. 
The assessment addresses these questions:
Do forest management planning and implementation processes meaningfully incorporate First Nations interests and are they functioning effectively and respectfully?
Are the forest management strategies and practices being implemented on the ground effectively conserving and/or protecting cultural heritage values?

23. Cultural Heritage Resources
CHR training session held Oct. 14 and 15th
One CHR sample collected in the Lillooet Lake area
Anticipate collecting 10 samples in 2016
Tammy Peters and Johnny Jones attended. Total of about 20 participants. Cultural depressions – house and cache pits, CMTs, trail, war club!