Eastern Oregon – Siskiyou Region Forest Practices Act ...€¦ · 25/07/2017 · Propose methods,...

Eastern Oregon – Siskiyou Region Forest Practices Act Streamside

Protections Review

Oregon Board of Forestry, 25 July 2017

Terry FruehInterim Manager, Forest Health and Monitoring, Private Forests

Lena TuckerDivision Chief, Private Forests

AGENDA ITEM A Attachment 8

Page1

Why conduct reviews?

• Required by state laws, rules and department policy• Reviews are routine• Results help us know if we are meeting our goals for

– natural resources protection– efficient and effective programs


Page2

Why review streamside protections in the eastern Oregon/Siskiyou regions?

Oregon Board of Forestry decision (November 2016)– Desire to review areas outside SSBT rule regions– Part of implementing Monitoring Strategy

• Specific Board direction– Work with stakeholders – Propose one or more monitoring questions to address – Propose methods, timelines to answer question(s)– Report to the Board in July 2017


Page3

Map of eastern Oregon/Siskiyou regions


Page4

ODF Project Charter

• Which topic(s): large wood, water quality, riparian forest health

• Where:–Which stream sizes (S, M, L)–Which stream types (N, F, AFHD, D)–Which Georegions (Siskiyou, Eastern Cascade, Blue

Mountains)

• Level of study rigor / timeframe


Page5

What and Why of rule review


Page6

What are the steps in a review?

PlanSelect questionRefine questionAssess state of informationPlan literature/field study

DoImplement Study

CheckRespond to study findings


Page7

This stage of rule review

PlanSelect questionRefine questionAssess state of informationPlan literature/field study

DoImplement Study

CheckRespond to study findings


Page8

Who will conduct the review?

Plan

DoCheck

Private Forests Monitoring Unit– Plans and conducts studies;

or– Collaborates or contract


Page9

Possible responses to study results

Plan

DoCheck

• No change • Education or outreach • More information • Change

• Incentives or voluntary measures

• Regulations


Page10

Who will decide on responses to study outcomes?

Plan

DoCheck

Decision makers– Board of Forestry

• Authority to change rules• Yearly monitoring reports

(Sept)• Special project reports

– ODF (+partners)• Outreach, Training (e.g.,

Compliance audit)• Voluntary measures• Additional study


Page11

Information for Board’s Scoping Decisions


Page12

Information for Board’s Scoping Decisions

• Stakeholder survey + written comments• GIS analysis: stream types & sizes, by

ownership & georegion• Voluntary Measures• Harvest type• Potentially relevant science• Study rigor (methods)


Page13

Preliminary Results: Stakeholder views

• Extensive outreach effort• Online survey:

• 15 questions• 89 respondents

• Input from CFF, SW & EO RFPCs

Caveats: -Not yet analyzed:

-Narrative questions, comment letters-Comparison of stakeholder groups -> Not voting, rather range of responses


Page14


Remember caveats!Most (1) Least (3)

ImportantAGENDA ITEM A Attachment 8

Page15


Most (1) Least (3)Important

Remember caveats!


Page16

Results: Miles of small streams by ownership, georegion, and stream type

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Fish Nonfish Unknown AFHD

Blue Mountains: Small

Public PI PNI Tribal

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Eastern Cascade: Small


0

5000

10000

15000

20000


Siskiyou: Small

Public PI PNIAGENDA ITEM A Attachment 8

Page17

Results: Miles of medium streams by ownership, georegion, and stream type

0

500

1000

1500


Blue Mountains: Medium


0

500

1000

1500


Eastern Cascade: Medium


0

500

1000

1500


Siskiyou: Medium

Public PI PNIAGENDA ITEM A Attachment 8

Page18

Results: Miles of large streams by ownership, georegion, and stream type

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Blue Mountains: Large


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Eastern Cascade: Large


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Siskiyou: Large

Public PI PNIAGENDA ITEM A

Attachment 8 Page19

Results: Voluntary Measures


Page20

Results: harvest type (% of harvest notifications)


Page21

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Interior CoastRange

WesternCascade

SouthCoast

Siskiyou BlueMountains

EasternCascade

2015-16 Harvest notifications by stream type & georegion

Unknown Nonfish Fish Anad + BT

Georegions considered for this review


Page22

Preliminary Results: Search for Science

Purpose: How much science might be available to answer monitoring question?

Completed: Database search, but needs filteringTo do: search other sources (e.g., status and trend data, ODFW large wood, …)


Page23

Levels of Study Rigor – To Be CompletedStudy approach Time to

completeNumber of FTE staff involved/cost

Confidence in results/feasibility

Literature review

Systematic review

Light field study

Intensive field study


Page24

Decision Framework


Page25

Decision Framework

• November 2016 Board direction• Informational analyses • Legal & Policy Context: 2011 FPFO,

FPA


Page26

Decision Framework: Constraints & Opportunities

Caveat: considerations under development

• Staff, funds available to do different levels of work• Diverse forest types in Siskiyou, E. Oregon• Economic context of forest management• Partner agencies’ priorities


Page27

Board policy decisions

• Which topic(s): large wood, water quality, riparian forest health

• Where:–Which stream sizes (S, M, L)–Which stream types (N, F, AFHD, D)–Which Georegions (Siskiyou, Eastern Cascade, Blue

Mountains)

• Level of study rigor / timeframe


Page28

Linking the Information:DRAFT decision matrix

Decision element

Considerations Decision range

Topic

Stream size

Stream type

Geographic regions

Study rigorAGENDA ITEM A

Attachment 8 Page29

Examples of protection reviews

Study Topic Streams (size, type)

Georegions Rigor Time to complete

RipStream WQ, LW, DFC

Small & medium Type F

CR, I High ~14-17 years

Riparian function

WQ, DFC, LW

Small, Medium, Large Type F

I, CR, EC, BM, Sisk, WC

Medium 2-3 years

Stream temp. systematic review

WQ Small & medium Type F

I, CR, SC, Sisk, WC

Medium 1 year


Page30

Next Steps

Report back to Board• Final results of analyses• Outline potential approaches & associated timelines

to address questions• A completed decision matrix

Board decisions:• Which topic(s)• Where (stream sizes, types, & georegions)• Level of rigor


Page31

Questions?

[email protected]


Page32

mailto:[email protected]

Eastern Oregon – Siskiyou Region Forest Practices Act ...€¦ · 25/07/2017 · Propose methods,...

Documents

Transcript of Eastern Oregon – Siskiyou Region Forest Practices Act ...€¦ · 25/07/2017 · Propose methods,...