The purpose of this workshop is to help us continue on the path of achieving the 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.

This workshop is an opportunity for us to:

• Continue to build and strengthen our relationships,
• Review and discuss our successes and challenges -- looking for opportunities to improve all aspects of FREP,
• Review and discuss some of the monitoring and evaluation results from the past field season, and
• Provide an opportunity for all people involved in the program to contribute their voice to how the program continues to develop.

For the 2008 workshop minutes and agenda, please see below:

• Agenda - FREP Continuous Improvement Workshop 2008 (PDF, 355Kb)
• Meeting Minutes - FREP Continuous Improvement Workshop 2008 (PDF, 607Kb)
• FREP Continuous Improvement Workshop 2008 Evaluation Summary (PDF, 234Kb)
• FREP Continuous Improvement Workshops - Evaluation Comparison (PDF, 113)
• Barry Elliott's speech addressing the Nadina District being awarded the Chief Forester's Award for 2007 (PDF, 91Kb)

ABSTRACT
This document presents by biogeoclimatic (BEC) zone, the results for the Forest and Range Effectiveness Program (FREP) stand-level biodiversity (SLBD) monitoring during the field season 2005 and 2006. The blocks sampled during these field seasons were randomly chosen from a population of blocks harvested under the auspices of the Forest Practices Code (FPC). For purposes of the FREP Continuous Improvement session, Feb. 2008, an example is given for the CWH BEC zone.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 234Kb)
• View Presentation Material (PDF, 311Kb)

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 2.6Mb)

ABSTRACT
Timber cruise information is a valuable source of baseline data for the timber harvesting land-base, and has potential to be used in effectiveness monitoring. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of using these data as baseline information in FREP Stand Level Biodiversity assessments. I compared various stand structure and composition characteristics present in timber cruise and FREP samples for seven cutblocks. Mean densities were calculated for live and standing dead trees by diameter class (12.5 - 30cm, 30 - 50cm, =50cm), total live and dead trees (all diameter classes), functional snags (=30cm dbh, and =10m tall) and big trees (=50cm, live and dead combined). Relative species composition was compared using the proportion of basal area of species present in the timber cruise and post-harvest FREP assessment. Preliminary results indicate that similarities are evident between several characteristics within the timber cruise and post-harvest FREP data. There seems to be substantial overlap between most stand structure characteristics, however, a few important discrepancies were identified. Species composition in FREP data is generally lower than timber cruise data, as can be expected due to different sampling intensities. Within those differences, all species unaccounted for in the FREP post-harvest assessments represented <5.5% of the timber cruise species composition. Large dead trees are evident only in very small numbers in both the timber cruise and FREP samples. These results suggest that rare elements, specifically rare species and large snags, are possibly being missed in both the timber cruise and FREP samples. Further research is needed with a focus specifically on rare forest elements to address this knowledge gap.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 634Kb)
• View Poster (PDF, 8.7Mb)

ABSTRACT
Karst is a distinctive topography in which the landscape is largely shaped by the dissolving action of water on carbonate bedrock (usually limestone dolomite, or marble). This geological process occurs over many thousands of years, results in unusual surface and subsurface features ranging from sinkholes, vertical shafts, disappearing streams and springs to complex underground drainage systems and caves.

The Karst protocol is attempting to answer the following question:

"Are current forest practices adequately protecting and maintaining the structure, function and ecological integrity of the surface and subsurface elements of karst systems?"

Using the following environmental factors to assess karst features:

• Removal of native forest cover
• Reduction of shade
• Change to native lower plant community
• Soil/ground disturbances
• Post-harvest windthrow
• Introduced materials (slash or road materials)
• Burning

The Karst protocol guides field staff through indicator evaluation and data collection of all karst features including caves, cave entrances, sinkholes, sinking streams and watercourses, epikarst exposures and interkarst terrain. It will allow staff to determine the condition of the indicators, the karst feature and the potential causal factors.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 7.2Mb)

ABSTRACT
A collaborative model for cultural heritage resource effectiveness evaluations: Past successes and our vision for the future.

British Columbia's forest managers are increasingly recognizing the importance of First Nations' cultural resources and values. Yet, understanding the diverse and often unique perspectives held by First Nations about cultural heritage resources (CHRs) is a challenge, and an ongoing learning process. As responsible forest managers, it is critical to ask - what exactly are these values, and how can we manage them effectively?

The CHR team is using a multi-pronged approach to evaluate whether:

1. Forest management planning and implementation processes meaningfully incorporate First Nations' interests and that function effectively and respectfully (PROCESS INDICATORS); and
2. On-the-ground management strategies and practices are effectively and meaningfully conserving or protecting cultural heritage values on the land base (OUTCOME INDICATORS).

The team will use a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate these two different yet interconnected indicator sets: in-depth interviews with First Nations, BCTS, industry and MFML district operational staff; cultural plant field inventories and predictive modelling; field checklists for site-specific cultural features; comprehensive FSP review, and more. The presentation will outline the progress that has been made, and future opportunities in all of these aspects of the program.

Finally, another key component of the CHR program are the excellent working partnerships that we have developed, and continue to develop, with First Nations. First Nations have been directly involved in indicator development, field visits, and the interview process to date, and we expect to increase this participation through the creation of FREP First Nations field technician positions in the summer 2008.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 637Kb)
• View Poster (PDF, 3.3Mb)

ABSTRACT
Routine riparian management effectiveness evaluations were completed for a total of 624 streams province wide in the first two years of operational assessments under FREP. All of the streams assessed were managed under the Forest Practices Code of B.C. In 2005, 248 streams were assessed in 19 B.C. Forest Service districts, while 376 streams were covered across all 29 districts in 2006. Overall, nearly one-half of the sampled sites were class S6 (non-fish-bearing) streams (48 %), while S4 fish-bearing streams made up an additional 21 % of the combined sample. These small headwater streams respectively made up nearly 70 % of all streams surveyed. Non-fish-bearing S5 streams (> 3 m wide) made up only 5 % of the sample. The rest of the sample consisted of the larger fish-bearing streams with mandatory no-harvest riparian reserves: S3s (20 %), S2s (5 %), and S1s (0.5 %).

The physical and biological conditions of each stream site were assessed with a Routine-Level Checklist covering 15 main indicators. Each indicator was posed as a question to be answered yes or no. The answer for each main question was determined by answering further statements which are indicators in themselves. More than 50 measures and observations were required to answer all main questions and complete the survey at any location. The condition of each stream-riparian site was determined from the total number of no answers for the 15 main questions. Streams were identified to be in either properly functioning condition (PFC; 0-2 "no" answers), properly functioning but at risk (PFC-R; 3-4 "no" answers), properly functioning but at high risk (PFC-HR; 5-6 "no" answers), or not properly functioning (NPF; > 6 "no" answers).

The overall results of the condition assessments were closely comparable between years. Overall, 38 % of streams were in properly functioning condition, 31 % in PFC but at risk, 18 % in PFC but at high risk, and 14 % were not properly functioning. The percentage of streams belonging to each of these categories varied by 2 % or less between the two years. The majority of the streams deemed to be in poor health (NPF) were class S6 streams. Province-wide, 22% of S6 streams were identified as not properly functioning, together with 10 % of S4s, and less than 3 % of S5s. No streams among the smaller numbers of class S2s (n = 30), or S1s (n = 3) available for sampling were deemed to be NPF; however, about 6 % of class S3s were identified to be in poor health in spite of riparian reserves 20 m wide that were mandatory under the Forest Practices Code. Post-harvest windthrow and impacts unrelated to the riparian management treatments on-site contributed to the outcomes for these S3s.

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.

The frequencies of yes versus no answers for the individual indicators showed more similarities than differences between the two years. The results for 6 of the 15 indicators differed by a span of about 5 % between 2005 and 2006. Another 5 indicators differed by about 8-10 %, and 3 were approximately within 15-18 %. However, the results for the indicator moss abundance and condition varied widely between years: Nearly 90 % of streams scored yes answers in 2005, but only 50 % in 2006. These differences appear to be related to difficulties in assessing this indicator and the changes in protocol and checklist support materials for the field crews.

In both years, a 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. For other indicators, the percentages of no answers in 2005 and 2006 was highest for vegetation form, vigour, and structure (39-48 %), followed by aquatic connectivity (28-30 %), riparian soil disturbance/bare ground (20-35 %), and LWD supply/root network (24-30 %). The indicators shade and microclimate (15-29 %), channel LWD characteristics (19-24%), and aquatic invertebrate diversity (23-39 %) showed similar ranges in no answers.

No answers for several indicators were clearly more common for stream classes S6, S5, and S4 where options for riparian harvesting occur. Typically, indicators that depend upon the level of riparian tree retention such as (1) vegetation form, vigour, and structure, (2) shade and microclimate, and (3) LWD supply/root network were affected for these streams where low levels of retention (e.g., through clear cutting) are relatively common. Similarly, these streams were also more prone to have no answers for indicators such as channel LWD characteristics, aquatic connectivity, and riparian soil disturbance and bare ground given that harvest-related activity occurs closer to the streamside for these streams than around ones that have riparian reserves. In particular, this occurred for S6 streams, where cross-stream felling and other activities may result in the introduction of logging debris into the channel. These indicators were generally unaffected in fish-bearing streams with riparian reserves unless substantial windthrow was observed.

Other indicators, especially fine sediments, aquatic invertebrate diversity, and moss abundance and condition affected all streams regardless of stream class. The most frequent impact source for these indicators were fine sediments from roads and road crossings. Roads in general were a dominant impact factor in 42 % of all sites that were identifed as PFC-R, PFC-HR, and NPF. Low tree retention was identified as the principal impact factor associated with harvesting (45 % of sites), followed by windthrow (32%) and slash introduction (20 %; included with falling and yarding).

The mean number of no answers identified as non-forestry related was less than 1 (0.8) across the entire sample of surveyed streams. Therefore, in the absence of forestry-related causes, these streams were in properly functioning condition. With forestry effects added, the average number of no answers per stream increased to nearly 4; i.e., properly functioning but at risk. The harvest-related increment was highest for S6 streams (> 4) and S4s (3.8), and least for the other stream classes (2.1-2.9). This suggests that an approach that focuses on practical and cost effective solutions to a small number of principal impact factors related to riparian activities and roads may result in outcomes for streams and fish habitats close to conditions existing prior to forestry.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 112Kb)

ABSTRACT
The riparian effectiveness evaluation checklist is still 18 pages. The 15 questions we ask when assessing the proper functioning condition or health of streams and riparian areas also remain essentially unchanged. There are the usual wording changes for some of the indicator statements to improve clarity or to be more specific about the information needed to answer the question. The most significant of these word changes are for Question 3 on LWD processes and Question 15 on riparian vegetation. For Question 3, we changed all the words for "large woody debris", "woody debris" or "debris" to just "wood". We also added a clause to debris parallel to the stream being abundant, to emphasize that abundance is judged "relative to the total amount of wood present".

For Question 15, on the vegetation characteristics of the riparian area, the indicators browse and grazing remain as before, but the indicators on vegetation composition (15a) and vegetation form, vigor and recruitment (15b) have been substantially reworded. The intent of these indicators remains the same, to determine if the vegetation and structure of the riparian area has the composition and vigor expected of healthy, unmanaged riparian areas. We are emphasizing however that all vegetation layers and components should be evaluated, not just the dominant species in the tree and shrub layers. We also emphasize with the new wording that all layers and components are assessed collectively.

There are a number of other changes in the checklist to be aware of. A field for Reach Length has been added to the first page, invasive plant species are now to be included with measurements on noxious weeds, moss along the channel bed for non-alluvial streams has been added to the list of continuous indicators, a new table to help identify channel morphology was added, Questions 7 (the "Moss" question) and Question 8 (the fine sediment question) are now "NA" if the stream has an organic streambed, and the indicator statement for Question 13 on bank microclimate now says "Soil in the riparian habitat is moist and cool" instead of "moist or cool".

One of the biggest changes to the field cards is a greater emphasis on recording a specific total for each of the Point and Continuous Indicators, plus the mean or percent of the stream reach length or riparian area that the indicator represents based on the number recorded as the total. A detailed checklist for the "Other Indicators" has also been added, which will now require a "Yes" or "No" answer for each indicator. To help answer the "Other Indicator" questions, simple tables have been added to help tally up boulder step and plunge pool characteristics, wood accumulations, and their characteristics

Up to now, the "Other Indicators" only required that key words be circled to capture an observation. The approach was confusing, and in many cases not completed. The checklist is being added to improve the quality of the data or observations being collected. It is also a first step toward automating the entire checklist. Eventually, the there will no need to go through each question and its indicator statements. With information on reach length, channel morphology and a value or answer to each indicator, the rest of the checklist will be completed automatically. More attention can be paid then to determining the cause of each "No" answer, which is still a weak point of the assessment.

The riparian protocol has been expanded, with more information on the three different channel types, plus a new one called "Large stream morphology". The latter applies to any low gradient stream where the channel width is very large relative to mean substrate size. In our sample these are mostly low gradient fine textured streams with few or no riffles. All these streams are to be treated as riffle-pool type streams. There is more information on how to measure key indicators such as the boulder step and plunge pool characteristics of step-pool channels, when a plunge pool is or is not a deep pool, plus the wood and riparian characteristics of all streams. In most cases you should hopefully only have to go to the section on indicators in the protocol to determine how it should be recorded. For the section on the main Questions, additional guidance is provided for most indicators on when you should answer "Yes" or "No".

There are a few significant changes to note on basic procedures for stream selection, and which sides of the streams are assessed. Starting in 2008, streams eligible for routine riparian effectiveness evaluations will only include streams in or adjacent to cutblocks harvested between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2006, inclusive. Cutblocks are limited to those harvested at least two years ago to ensure at least two years of post-environmental conditions (e.g., storms). Starting also in 2008, the assessment will include the riparian area on both sides of the stream, regardless of whether one or two sides are actually harvested.

Last but not least, there is a request for additional information on retention if the format on the first page of the checklist fails to capture the retention characteristics of both sides of the stream. You are requested to complete a new section on retention on the last page of the checklist, following the Comments. This new format for recording retention was too much to include in IMS this year, so consider it an opportunity this year to test it out.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 1.15Mb)

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 1.85Mb)
• View Poster (PDF, 279Kb)

ABSTRACT
Monitoring under the Wildlife Resource Value largely addresses the effectiveness of fine filter (species specific) habitat management practices. This includes the establishment and management of wildlife habitat areas (WHAs), ungulate winter ranges (UWRs), and wildlife habitat features. As of February 2008, almost 5 million hectares have been established in UWR and WHAs in BC for approximately 40 species. The priority effectiveness monitoring question for the Wildlife Resource Value relates to the effectiveness of WHAs and UWRs. Specifically, effectiveness monitoring at the stand or site level evaluates whether the habitat, structure and function of these areas has been maintained. At a broader scale, effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether the amount, distribution and quality of protected habitats is sufficient for the species survival (winter survival for ungulates). The wildlife team has been developing and testing monitoring protocols for several species including tailed frogs, badgers, snakes, mountain goats, and goshawks. Pilot species, indicators and pilot areas will be introduced.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 1.49Mb)

ABSTRACT
During the 2007 FREP Continuous Improvement session, Districts were invited to participate in a visuals effectiveness evaluation, to establish the level of performance achieved provincially under the Forest Practices Code. The goal was to determine the level of visual management achieved under the Code, in order that we have a bench mark against which to compare visual management achieved under FRPA. By the end of the 2007 field season, 14 districts had signed on and 182 visual checklists were completed. All Effective Evaluations were submitted to FPB for quality assurance prior to being keypunched. During the QA phase 17 samples were disqualified because they were approved under FRPA, not in a scenic area or were foreground views.

Upon analysing the 163 remaining samples, we learned that VQOs were only met 65% of the time and not met 25% of the time. Modification VQO's are achieved more often than are more restrictive VQOs. Partial cutting was slightly better at achieving VQO's than was clear cutting. Good visual design only occurs 36 % of the time. The implications of these preliminary findings are significant and will be discussed.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 1.15Mb)

ABSTRACT
Over the last three years the Cutblock-Level Soil Effectiveness Evaluation Protocol has been piloted throughout BC. The protocol consists of ground and image-based methods that consider soil disturbance that is observable on the ground as a proxy for longer-term effects on the soil (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/indicators/table.htm#soils). In 2007, the Soil Value Team along with participating District Stewardship staff accomplished the following:

Training
Training was provided primarily to those Districts and staff that had received air photos during fiscal 2006/2007, had not been trained before, and were ready to implement the protocol. In 2007 training sessions were held in Williams Lake, Castlegar and Campbell River. 2007. During the 2-day sessions staff: received an orientation to the Cutblock -level Soil Protocol, were given an overview of soil disturbance mapping using OziExplorer (GPS Mapping Software) and air photos in a computer lab, and learned about collecting data in the field.

Protocol Implementation

• Number of Districts1 involved in monitoring the soil value: 10;
• Number of cutblocks proposed for soil monitoring: 38;
• Number of cutblocks for which air photo work in OziExplorer (i.e., waypoints, tracks, polygons, etc.) and field data (completed forms) were completed and submitted within the timeframe requested: 21 (only 3 of the cutblocks had acceptable air photos and the subsequent analysis done).

Air Photo Acquisition
A new list of random cutblocks was generated for soil resource monitoring in fiscal 2008/09. Those sites were flown in the summer of 2007 and new high resolution air photos were acquired. These air photos are currently being reviewed for quality before sending them to the Districts2 where the Cutblock-Level Soil Effectiveness Evaluation Protocol will be implemented during the summer of 2008.

Early results of the extent of soil disturbance based on ground surveys and geo-referenced image analyses are also provided. As we move forward we will discuss lessons learned from last year based on feedback from staff.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 782kb)

ABSTRACT
The WQEE procedure started its first year of voluntary application in 2007. The procedure assessed the potential for forest and range management practices to degrade water quality for drinking water and fish habitat. During 2007, 19 districts participated the voluntary program and a total of 62 MFML staff were trained. Trained personnel visited 117 sample openings and assessed 537 sites in 14 districts. Overall 43% of the completed forms scored low for sediment generation, 28% scored low, 23% scored moderate and 6% scored high or very high. Long ditch lines transporting sediment laden water to a creek was identified as the primary reason for the high to very high scores. The presence of a grader berm and poor quality surfacing materials were identified as contributing reasons. With respect to the range component of the WQEE procedure, 41 range forms in 5 districts were completed. The primary cause for range impacts were overgrazing, pugging in stream channels and algal mats. District use of the procedure identified several topics that the trainers need to address in greater detail, as well as components of the field form that need elaboration and refinement. The 2007 field season also resulted in a refined scoring system.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 2.6Mb)

ABSTRACT
In 2005 the E-squared Free-growing project was initiated following a request from the FREP program to the Provincial forest health specialists for an assessment of Forest Health under the Timber value in FRPA. Free-growing policy has often been seen by the forest health community as being at odds with biological reality so the Forest health specialists suggested a more comprehensive review of free-growing policy. E-squared free-growing studies have been conducted in the Lakes (2005), Okanagan (2006) and Strathcona (2006) TSAs so far. These studies involve detailed ground surveys of 60 randomly selected free-growing stands with 15 modified silviculture survey plots per stand. The full scale E-squared studies have pointed out the need for a survey program to fill the apparent gap between the free-growing stand assessment and the next stage at which a stand is likely to be assessed (VRI at age 60). Following the basic protocol developed in the full-scale E-squared studies a new survey protocol is being developed that will be conducted by District staff as part of their FREP RSM procedures. This new survey program will consist of a survey of 15 stands with 10 plots/stand. Data from these surveys will be used to create an inventory of managed stands to fill the gap between free-growing and VRI.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 262Kb)
• View Poster (PDF, 1.6Mb)

ABSTRACT
A FREP intensive evaluation protocol is being developed that aims to address the question "to what degree are stand conditions in harvested areas consistent with the goal to maintain or enhance an economically valuable supply of commercial timber?"

In 2007, the protocol was piloted in a population of cutblocks near Merritt, BC. In this presentation, draft results for three indicators are presented. While reviewing these results, I will briefly discuss seven key steps in the process of developing and conducting the evaluation:

1. Extracting from the FRPA objective a more specific, workable goal statement.
2. Identifying those few critical factors that are most important in controlling goal achievement.
3. Selecting metrics (or indicators) for these factors.
4. Defining benchmark or critical values.
5. Statistical sampling of some population and compiling the indicators.
6. Comparing the observed indicator values to the benchmark values and making a judgement of the degree of consistency with the goal.
7. Intelligently interpreting and using the results.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 1.34Mb)
• View Poster (PDF, 1.3Mb)

ABSTRACT
Small Mammal Project and the Grassland Nesting Bird Project

The physical structure of grasslands can be a critical component of wildlife habitat. The amount of cover, in terms of height, density and arrangement of grass, forb and shrub species, is important for visual screening, for nesting, to avoid detection by predators on land and from the air, and also helps to increase nesting success.

Grazing can change the structure and composition of the vegetation of grassland ecosystems as well as reduce litter cover. Some wildlife species have been shown to be adversely impacted by grazing while others may thrive under light, moderate or even heavy levels of grazing. The scope of the two projects is limited to studying the response of a selection of more structurally dependant wildlife species, both small mammals and grassland nesting birds, to different grazing regimes.

So how much grazing is ok? Are there threshold levels of use?

How do we and range tenure holders monitor impacts of grazing on wildlife habitat?

Does livestock grazing impact wildlife, wildlife habitat, breeding and nesting success and affect the predator prey relationships by making nests and wildlife more visible? How much livestock grazing is acceptable before there are impacts? What are the threshold levels of use? How do we monitor the impacts?

MOE began a Project in 2004 to assess the relationships between grassland cover in different grassland ecosystems in BC under different grazing pressures using visual screening monitoring methods. Methods tested included the robel pole, use of a cover board with 1 inch squares, use of life size wildlife decoys, and clipping trials. The best relationships were found between the clipping trials and the cover boards so the use of this method to assess cover for wildlife looked promising. Later, the visual screening monitoring method was refined and we made use of life size wildlife silhouettes on cover boards and dowels painted fluorescent orange and digital photography to determine the levels of visual screening that occurred with different grazing levels in different grassland ecosystems. Using a software program called GIMP we analysed the visibility of each silhouette and dowel as grazing levels were manipulated through clipping. Using linear regression we have been able to predict stubble height values for different grass species that result in 0% to 90% visibility. For example in rough fescue plots in order for the sharptail grouse silhouette to be 0% visible we needed a stubble height of 30cm. In order for the same bird to be 50% visible we needed a 10.9 cm stubble height.

We are now at a stage in the project where we are building relationships between real wildlife populations, based on their presence, abundance and nesting success in different ecosystems and under different grazing intensities. The visual screening monitoring method and use of digital photographs seems a useful way to measure the differences.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 1.42Mb)
• View Poster (PDF, 2.0Mb)

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 1.78Kb)

ABSTRACT
Next Releases:
Update on what's coming in FREP IMS in the May and September releases, including an opportunity to provide feedback on how the application is working for you.

Meta Data System:
Update on the development of a process to store and search for all FREP reports and datasets.

Handheld:
Update on research on and use of handhelds in the FREP program.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 2.86Mb)

• National Quality Institute (NQI) Progressive Excellence Program (PEP) (PDF, 170Kb)
• 2008 Forest and Range Evaluation Program Quality Assessment (PDF, 211Kb)
• View Presentation Material (PDF, 128Kb)
• View Strategic Plan Poster (PDF, 1.2Mb)
• View Quality Management Poster (PDF, 871Kb)

ABSTRACT
Under FRPA's GAR (s.14) the assessment and subsequent legal designation of suitable 'fisheries sensitive watersheds' (FSW) is a responsibility of government. FSWs are watersheds that host both significant fish values and sensitivity. Currently, the MOE is developing a program that has begun to evaluate and designate FSWs. Due to the temporal and spatial complexity involved in establishing connections between forest practices and impacts to fish habitat, MOE in partnership with FREP, has embarked on a two and half year project to develop a FSW monitoring program. It is envisioned that a number of FREP protocols will be integrated in an overarching FSW framework-protocol allowing for the full FREP data set to be used to draw inferences about the state and trends within FSWs using information from both (a) within designated FSWs and (b) other watersheds distributed throughout the province. Establishing a FREP based FSW framework-protocol early in the designation process will provide Forest Act agreement holders with clear guidance surrounding governments expectations regarding the desired conditions required to maintain FSW values.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 391Kb)
• View Poster (PDF, 882Kb)

ABSTRACT
Invasive plants are found across our landscape and create problems with forest regeneration and are a nuisance for range operations. There are 42 species of invasive plants which are defined in the Forest and Range Practices Act, Invasive Plants Regulation. Invasive plants was originally being captured under the Stand Level Biodiversity protocol however, due to the aggressive nature of these plants and their ability to impact all resource values FREP and Range Branch is requesting that for any occurrence of an invasive plant you identify on the resource value protocol checklist that invasive plants was observed and then record the required information on the Invasive Plants Field Card. This is a simple card that will be used for each sample unit (i.e. cutblock) regardless of resource value being assessed. The assessor will identify the location and species information, and submit the information to the Regional Range contact or enter into the Report a Weed Program via FREP IMS, once developed in the Invasive Alien Plants Program (IAPP). The Regional Invasive Plants Specialist will then conduct a follow-up inventory of the site to determine distribution and density and assess the risk. The Specialist will then update IAPP as required and prescribe the appropriate treatment.

To assist staff with identification and completion of the Invasive Plants Field Card the following tools and resources will soon be made available

• Invasive Plants Field Card with attached guide
• Invasive Plants Identification Field Guide
• Local Training
• Regional Range Staff

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 78Kb)

ABSTRACT

• How-to manual developed by a non-forester to help people with the day to day tasks of FREP (before, during and after field work)
• Intended as a suggestion of how things can be done - not necessarily how things should be done
• Handbook is written so that what needs to be done first in a FREP season comes first in the manual
• What is in the manual?
  • How to make a "To-do Checklist" from your district random list
  • An example file information sheet to keep track of time, UTMs, & questions
  • How to make a block location map using a district road map to make field day planning easier
  • How to make a plot map in Mapview
  • An appendix shows how to make a plot map in ArcGIS
  • How to make a plot map manually using copier, compass, pencil and paper
  • How to get the cards ready for field work (what you can fill in before you leave for the field)
  • How to find air photos using flight line maps
  • Using a GPS unit (entering UTMs and finding plot points in the field)
  • List of recommended equipment for field work
  • How to submit photos to FREP IMS
    • As attachments in IMS
    • On the FTP server: "mitten.dmz\ftp"
• How can you access the manual?
  • On the FTP server: hfp/gov_internal\!publish\FREP Assistant Manual
  • To check if you have the FTP server mapped to your computer:
    1. Right click on "start"
    2. Choose "explore"
    3. If you see a file server called "ftp on 'mitten.dmz'," you have the server mapped to your computer. Skip step number 4 below.
    4. If you don't have that file server there, you will need to map it as follows:
       1. Right click "start"
       2. Choose "explore"
       3. Right click "My Computer"
       4. Choose "Map Network Drive"
       5. Select a drive letter that is not currently in use (blank)
       6. Type "\\mitten.dmz\ftp" for "Folder"
       7. Choose "finish"
  • Once you have the FTP server on your computer, click on "ftp on mitten.dmz" and follow the path hfp/gov_internal\!publish\FREP Assistant Manual
  • You can also access the FTP server from the Forest Service Intranet page: http://gww.for.gov.bc.ca/

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 2.36Mb)

ABSTRACT
There are various tools and applications that allow users to work with GPS data and to create maps. Some of these applications are MapView, Oziexplorer, and ArcMap, with ArcMap being the most powerful tool available. With ArcMap, data is uploaded directly from the LRDW or Image Warehouse, ensuring the data being represented is current and accurate. ArcMap allows for the creation of Map Templates which store relevant data layers, UTM Gridlines, and editable text fields, resulting in efficient map production when several maps are required for projects. The map created is a useful tool for pre-recording random plot coordinates in the GPS unit and being able to communicate with other field teams, noting their position by using the UTM grid. Overall, ArcMap produces a professional quality map that can be used by auditors in the field and validators at Branch.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 1.21Mb)
• View Poster (PDF, 10.36Kb)

ABSTRACT
Training in 2007 was monumental. We formally trained a total of 343 people in Riparian, Biodiversity, Soils, Visuals, Water Quality and Karst in various locations across the Province. We visited 26 of the 29 Districts for mentoring in Riparian and Biodiversity, 5 Districts for Water Quality and 2 Districts for Karst.

Training is an integral part of FREP and foundational to achieving NQI Level 4 certification. Training is one of the tools we use to expand the understanding of the Resource Stewardship Monitoring. Moreover, training strengthens quality in data collection and resource effectiveness evaluations. Although our main focus is to train staff that are directly involved in data collection and evaluations, it provides other benefits as well. Training builds a sense of "team" within FREP and it promotes FREP to a broader audience.

In 2007 we piloted a regionalized training model whereby a coastal and interior field site was used for all training. This model promoted consistency in training delivery and achieved field proficiency quicker than in previous years. However, there were some issues raised as a result of the locations and time of training. FREP wants to ensure everyone who is collecting the data has been properly trained to ensure consistency and understanding. To improve the delivery of the training this year we established a training working group in October 2007 made up of District, Region and Branch staff. The members on the training working group are:

The training group canvassed District staff to identify the preferred locations and dates for the 2008 training program. The results are as indicated below. Note that Vernon was selected as a fourth training centre and field sites will be developed for use in 2009. Dean McGeough and Joan Cringan will coordinate registrations for the 2008 sessions noted below.

Riparian Effectiveness Evaluations
Training in 2008 will include a 3-day full training venue and a one-day refresher training session during each training venue. Awareness training will be available for overview exposure to riparian assessments on the Wednesday of each training venue. Select the training best suited for you.

One-day refresher training session (Tuesday):

• Staff that have had previous training; and
• In the past year have completed more than 8 riparian assessments; and
• Staff encountered data entry and validation challenges and need assistance; or had
• Average QA site visit rating of <2.5 or they had >2 differences in the number of "No" answers

Full Training session (Wednesday thru Friday and includes a Thursday Evening session)

• For staff directly involved in field assessments in 2008; and
• Staff new to riparian effectiveness training; or
• Staff with previous training but who have completed 6 or less riparian assessments; or
• Average QA site visit rating of <2 or more than 2 differences in the number of "No" answers

Awareness Training session (Wednesday):

• Staff or interested parties who will NOT be directly involved in riparian effectiveness evaluations; or
• Staff interested in upgrading their proficiency and will be conducting assessments in 2008 but who do not meet the refresher criteria.

Data Validation Training session (Tuesday evening):

• Staff who have completed refresher training in 2008; and
• Interested in learning how to validate Biodiversity and Riparian assessments

Stand-level Biodiversity Assessments
Training in 2008 will provide for refresher training on the Tuesday evening of each training venue. This session will review site planning, data validation and an overview to data quality. Full training (a one-day session) will be available for staff new to stand-level biodiversity assessments each Tuesday of the training venues.

Water Quality Assessments
Training in 2008 will provide for full training (a two-day session) at each training venue. There will be two separate sessions during each venue, with sessions on Tuesday-Wednesday or Thursday-Friday.

Mentor Visits
Mentor visits continue to provide Districts with support during field assessments. Trainers will be available in 2008 for district visits during the months of June thru August. Districts are encouraged to complete a minimum of 2 resource value assessments prior to requesting a mentor visit. The mentor visit can also be used as an opportunity to provide awareness exposure to District staff. Such exposure is encouraged on day 1 of a mentor visit, while a second day should be devoted to mentoring RSM field staff by either reviewing completed checklists or assisting in the assessment of new sites. Mentor visits can be scheduled by contacting Dean.

Quality Assurance Reviews
In 2007 QA reviews were completed for both Stand-level biodiversity and Riparian assessments. There were 20 SLB QA reviews covering 11 Districts and 34 Riparian QA reviews covering 13 Districts. The result of these reviews is positive with room for improvement. A field scoring process was implemented for QA reviews and was piloted in 2007 and will be modified for testing in 2008. The QA results are summarized below:

Stand-level Biodiversity Accuracy Scores: The goal is to have accuracy scores above 90%.

Riparian Confidence Ratings (1 = Weak, 2 = Adequate, 3 = Confident) and Conclusion Outcomes:

The goal for Riparian is to have a consistency scoring of one or less than 1 difference and one or less variations between the number of "No" answers by the Team and QA reviewer. Data or field observations should have a confidence rating of >2.5; meaning the information collected adequately agrees with the QA reviewer and does not affect the outcome of the indicator statements.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 4.28Mb)

ABSTRACT
What is Admin FREP?
Admin FREP is the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) to: increase innovation and enhance public acceptance of forest and range management; reduce administrative complexity and costs to industry; and to continue to balance social, environmental and economic interests.

Admin FREP will conduct evaluation and monitoring projects that address priority evaluation questions related to the effectiveness of administrative processes under FRPA (e.g. tracking cumulative impacts) and whether the social and economic goals of FRPA are being achieved. The answers will support the continuous improvement of both FRPA and forest/range stewardship.

How is Admin FREP linked to the current FREP program?
Admin FREP will be resourced by RTEB and will work collaboratively with the existing FREP program. Working with the existing FREP program will create efficiencies in developing Admin FREP and will strengthen the structure that FREP currently has in place. Coordination of business processes (e.g. strategic planning, communication of evaluation results) will be important to avoid overlap of work and to ensure that administrative related issues resulting from resource evaluations are addressed (e.g. have innovative practices been more effective and/or efficient in achieving the resource value objectives set by FRPA?).

The Admin FREP team will work collaboratively with the existing FREP program, the Provincial FRPA Implementation Team, the Minister's Public Advisory Committee, other Ministries, MOFR Branches, Regions and Districts, licencees and other stakeholder groups to identify priority evaluation questions.

Why is the Admin FREP Program needed at this time?
The majority of Forest/Range Licensees and BCTS have their first Stewardship Plans approved and are now working in the results based world. Challenges related to FRPA implementation are fresh in people's minds and there is a 4 year window to address any FSP type concerns. Now is also the time to be evaluating information management systems to determine what information should be tracked to effectively assess the results based model.

• View Presentation Material (PDF, 312Kb)