|Forest Investment Account (FIA) - Forest Science Program|
|FIA Project S094213|
|Synthesis of results and recommendations from Fish/Forestry Interaction Programs (FFIP) completed in the Pacific Northwest|
|Project lead: Maloney, David (BC Ministry of Forests and Range)|
|Subject: Forest Investment Account (FIA), British Columbia|
|Series: Forest Investment Account (FIA) - Forest Science Program|
|Attempts to resolve issues associated with the interactions between fisheries and forestry resources management in the Pacific Northwest began about a half century ago. Many important studies have been completed over this time. The results of these projects have been used for a wide assortment of applications, ranging from increasing scientific understanding to applied resource management practices. As well, this knowledge has formed the basis of many influential training and extension programs.|
The project proposed here is intended to synthesize FFIP studies in a systematic and objective manner that: a) archive the original results, management recommendations, and study limitations, and; b) provide operational summaries of the various studies. As a result, the synthesis will; i) increase current forest manager’s access to past study information; ii) the identification of successes and failures and; iii) provide practical management recommendations. An added benefit of the synthesis is that it will ensure all relevant reference materials are readily available to resource managers and forestry proponents to prevent poor management practices due to inaccessibility of historic research results.
To accomplish our objectives of providing a readily available source of synthesized fish-forestry results, we propose:
1. To locate and archive historical study reports, including management recommendations, in a location that is readily available to resource managers. It is important to note that many historical study reports are no longer in print and are becoming difficult, if not impossible, to locate. This presents a possibility where legal arguments may be made that problems of access to the literature provide due diligence arguments.
2. Once the archived background literature is completed, physical and biological fish-forestry concerns will be detailed, as well as evaluating the risks and uncertainties of various management options. To accomplish this, the archived studies will be synthesized and summarized to include:
1. why each project was initiated (research purpose), including driving questions / challenges / issues being investigated;
2. the study (background experimental) design, including details regarding time and space scales;
3. the type of streams studied (size, morphology, riparian and watershed forest type, geographic location, etc);
4. factors considered (hillslopes, roads, sediment sources, stream crossing type, fish species/habitat, aquatic ecosystems, etc.);
5. the riparian prescriptions studied (management options);
6. the stream or riparian function parameters studied;
7. effectiveness of the experimental practices to maintain or in altering aquatic functions; and,
8. a summary of management considerations including conclusions (including ecological implications) regarding the riparian management practice.
3. A document will be produced that synthesizes the above, but will also include identification of any ongoing issues and knowledge gaps that have not been resolved through the various studies. For example, management treatment impacts, or conversely how well a management treatment protected aquatic values, and provide the result and recommendations for the future. The final product will be a document that forest managers can use to interpret the science and ensure the protection of aquatic values. This document will include the identification of common mistakes made in the past, and the most likely reason, or source, for the impact, and how to prevent such mistakes in future. We propose to use this information to produce a “how to document” and this will probably include the following:
2. Aquatic values and water quality attributes requiring protection
3. How forest management can impact aquatic resources and water quality values.
4. Case Studies (projects, results, management recommendation), see list below:
5. Tools currently available in BC to meet aquatic resource and water quality objectives.
6. Proposed future research to address what we don’t know (research priorities).
4. The synthesis documents will be attached to existing fish-forestry web sites and will be made public through extension programs.
The fish-forestry projects that tested and measured the effects of a riparian prescription on stream or riparian processes are many; we propose to synthesize the results, outcome management recommendations, along with any limiting conditions, of the following, as well as any others that become known through the first stage of this project:
• Alsea Watershed Study in Oregon, begun in 1958
• North Umpqua watershed study in Oregon
• Slim-Tumuch in central British Columbia
• Carnation Creek in the south coast
• Queen Charlotte Islands in the north coast
• Upper Penticton Creek in the southern interior of British Columbia
• Stuart-Takla in the northern interior of British Columbia
• Malcolm Knapp Research Forest
• Forest Harvesting and Food Limitation in BC's Interior
• Prince George Small Stream Riparian Buffers Project
• Weyerhaeuser's VR Adaptive Management (VRAM) study areas (Lewis Lake, Moakwa Creek and Kennedy Lake)
• Babine/Skeena Stream Study
• S3 Lake-Headed Streams
• LWD Small Stream Study
• Taweel Lake and Penticton Creek studies
|Contact: Maloney, David, (250) 828-4173, firstname.lastname@example.org|
Updated August 16, 2010
Please direct questions or comments regarding publications to For.Prodres@gov.bc.ca