1. Assessment of Class S4 Streams in the Central Interior to Evaluate Riparian Practices Implemented under the Forest Practices Code Peter J. Tschaplinski Research Branch Ministry of Forests

2. Why did we do the survey? Concerns of DFO and MELP that logging around S4 streams was damaging habitat Assess the effectiveness of the FP Code in maintaining S4 stream channels and fish habitats

3. Objectives 1) Frequency of different streamside practices 2) Do practices meet objectives of the RMA Guidebook 3) Do practices result in impacts to fish habitat

4. Who did the study? 1. Interagency Technical Team: 11 persons –MOF, MELP, DFO, COFI, ILMA –project Terms of Reference, design, methods 2. Consulting Firm: Pre-survey SP Review 3. Field Crew: 16 –Tech Team (8) + MOF (3), MELP (2), DFO (3) regional staff + field HQ co-ordinator 4. MOF Region (2) and District (6) contacts

5. Study Area Central Interior Plateau Districts: –Kamloops –Clearwater –Salmon Arm –Merritt –Williams Lake –100 Mile House

8. Study Scope and Sequence Examine ALL (2989) full-Code SPs to identify target cutblocks –harvested in 1997 or 1998 –47,800 ha Identify cutblocks with a classified S4 fish- bearing stream Visit and evaluate all 72 logged S4 streams

10. RMA treatment & tree retention levels Types & cause of disturbances within 100-m sections Field Assessments

11. m altered / 100 m = Channel Impact Value (CIV)

12. Logging slash in channel Field Assessments

13. Windthrow frequency and impact Field Assessments

14. Streambank sediments exposed by windthrow

15. S ediment sources and severity rank Field Assessments

16. Harvest of streambank trees (count/100 m) Shade loss (ranked L/M/H)

17. Study Phases and Timelines 1. Technical Team Develop Terms of Reference Visit field sites (coast) to define problem March to August 2000 –5 months –8 versions

18. 2. Develop and Test Field Sampling Methods July - August 2000 Field tested on Vancouver Island Finalized after 4 versions –consensus on observations & interpretations

19. 3. Review SPs and Identify Sites Mid-August to early October Consulting firm plus district staff Identify: –cutblocks –S4 streams –riparian treatments

20. 4. Field Surveys 2 - 13 October 2000 Set up field HQ –logistics, communications 2 survey teams, 4 persons each 2 helicopters

22. 5. Analysis and Reporting Data analysis and first draft: Oct - Dec Initial extension: Dec - Jan Iterative revisions & reviews: Dec - June Report release: July 2001 TOTAL TIME: 15 MONTHS

23. 6. Costs Total: $200,000 + Development/field tests: $15,000 Field Equipment: $3,000 SP Analysis: $18,000 Helicopters: $70,000 Other field logistics: $35,000 Post-survey & report: $10,000 Staff & in-kind support: $48,000

24. Project Strengths 1. Full participation and ‘buy-in’ by all parties 2. Specific Terms of Reference: - defined study scope and methods - ensure consistent observations, measurements, interpretations

25. Project Strengths 3. Comprehensive coverage of cutblocks & streams 4. Full participation of Technical Team in report content

26. Project Weaknesses 1. Prolonged process of TOR development: –high degree of sensitivity among parties –industry and district staff felt their performance was under audit –turnover in Tech Team membership affected continuity

27. Project Weaknesses 2. Insufficient liaison with districts: –needed dedicated staff for communications –district staff and operators felt alienated from the process

28. Project Weaknesses 3. Observations were limited in scope: –short-term “snapshot” of impacts/effectiveness –long-term impacts not directly assessed (e.g., LWD longevity, supply) –obvious measures of physical alterations –no direct measures of change to biological communities and processes

29. Project Weaknesses –several physical processes not assessed directly e.g., riparian canopy removal vs. stream temperature –conclusions limited to the geographic region covered