Spatially Explicit Riparian Management Mike Liquori Outline • Review Policy Goals
-
Upload
api-26026026 -
Category
Documents
-
view
104 -
download
0
Transcript of Spatially Explicit Riparian Management Mike Liquori Outline • Review Policy Goals
Spatially Explicit Riparian Management
Spatially Explicit Riparian Management
Mike Liquori
OutlineOutline
• Review Policy Goals
• SERM Principles
• Methodology
• Example
• Next Steps
• 7 Reasons Why SERM is a Good Solution for California
Policy GoalsPolicy GoalsPolicy Goals
14 CCR 14 CCR §§ 916.9 [936.9, 956.9] (a)916.9 [936.9, 956.9] (a)
“Every timber operation shall be planned and conducted
to prevent significant adverse impacts to the primary
limiting factors that affect listed anadromous salmonid
species in a planning watershed”
14 CCR 14 CCR §§ 916.9 [936.9, 956.9] (a) 916.9 [936.9, 956.9] (a) (continued)(continued)
• “sediment load increase where sediment is a primary limiting factor;”
• “thermal load increase where water temperature is a primary limiting factor;”
• Etc.
Why is SERM the RIGHT Solution?Why is SERM the RIGHT Solution?
• Rules lack SPATIALLY-RELEVANT GUIDANCE for where factors are limiting
• Otherwise,
ALL FACTORS are Limiting
EVERYWHERE
What is SERM??What is SERM??
SERM methods support
locally relevantriparian exchange
functions
SERM PrinciplesSERM PrinciplesSERM Principles
PrinciplesPrinciples
• SERM achieves riparian goals through spatially-explicit, context-specific objectives
Established by actual site conditions, not rule assumptions
PrinciplesPrinciples
•SERM treatments are based on a Transparent, Science-Based Rationale
Uses the best-available technical tools and
empirical data
PrinciplesPrinciples
• SERM institutes a rigorous 4-Tier Accountability System
– Transparent Objectives
– Performance Standards
– Monitoring
– System-Wide Adaptive Management
SERM Methodology
SERM SERM MethodologyMethodology
Continuum: Watershed v. Unit ScaleContinuum: Watershed v. Unit Scale
Vs.
Continuum: Expert Teams v. RPFContinuum: Expert Teams v. RPF
Vs.
Continuum: Complexity v. SimplicityContinuum: Complexity v. Simplicity
Vs.
Continuum: Analytical Detail v. CostContinuum: Analytical Detail v. Cost
Vs.
Solution: Two PathwaysSolution: Two Pathways
Solution: Two PathwaysSolution: Two Pathways
Solution: Two PathwaysSolution: Two Pathways
Solution: Two PathwaysSolution: Two Pathways
Solution: Two PathwaysSolution: Two Pathways
Solution: Two PathwaysSolution: Two Pathways
Solution: Two Pathways Solution: Two Pathways
Class Size Type* Wood Temperature Nutrients ErosionRegime Moderate Low Low HighBraided Moderate Low Low HighPool Riffle High Low Low HighRegime Moderate Moderate High HighBraided Moderate Moderate High HighPool Riffle Moderate Moderate High HighForced Pool Riffle High Moderate High HighPlane Bed High High High ModerateStep-Pool Moderate High Moderate LowCascade Low High Moderate LowPool Riffle High High High HighForced Pool Riffle High High High HighPlane Bed High High High ModerateStep-Pool Moderate High Moderate LowCascade Low High Moderate LowPool Riffle Moderate Moderate Moderate HighForced Pool Riffle High Moderate Moderate HighPlane Bed Low Moderate Low ModerateStep-Pool Low Moderate Low LowCascade Low Moderate Low Low
III All Colluvial Varied Moderate Low VariedDebris Flow Sources High Moderate Low HighDebris/alluvial Fans High Moderate Low HighTributary Junctions Moderate Moderate High ModerateClass II Transition Low High High Moderate
Sensitivity Zone 75% SPTH 33 feet 66 feet Variable (min 33 feet)
All
Functional Priority Rating
I
II
Hotspots
Large
Medium
Small
All
MethodologyMethodology
MethodologyMethodology
• Vegetation Type– Conifer, Hardwood, Mixed
• Tree Size– Relative to Functional
Diameters
• Stocking Level– Active Mortality
– Eminent Mortality
– Low Mortality
Wood Supply
Nutrient Supply
Thermal Loading
C S D Moderate Poor GoodC S F Poor Poor GoodC S U Poor Moderate ModerateC L D Good Moderate GoodC L F Good Moderate GoodC L U Moderate Moderate ModerateC M D Good Moderate GoodC M F Good Moderate GoodC M U Moderate Moderate ModerateH S D Moderate Good GoodH S F Poor Good GoodH S U Poor Good ModerateH L D Moderate Good GoodH L F Poor Good GoodH L U Poor Good ModerateH M D Moderate Good GoodH M F Poor Good GoodH M U Poor Good ModerateM S D Moderate Moderate GoodM S F Moderate Moderate GoodM S U Poor Good ModerateM L D Good Moderate GoodM L F Good Good GoodM L U Moderate Good ModerateM M D Good Good GoodM M F Good Good GoodM M U Moderate Good Moderate
Riparian Class
Inherent Functional Levels
MethodologyMethodology
MethodologyMethodology
MethodologyMethodology
• 4 Protection Levels for EACH Function
Protect
Maintain
Improve
Generally Available
MethodologyMethodology
Good Fair Poor
High Protect Maintain Improve
Mod. Maintain Improve Improve
LowGenerally Available
Generally Available
MaintainFu
nct
ion
al
Pri
ori
ty
Site Condition
MethodologyMethodology
Wood Temperature Nutrients Erosion
Good Fair Poor
High Protect Maintain Improve
Mod. Maintain Improve Improve
Low MaintainGenerally Available
Generally Available
Fu
nct
ion
al
Pri
ori
ty
Site Condition
MethodologyMethodology
Wood Temperature Nutrients Erosion
Cha
nnel
C
lass
ifica
tion
Riparian Classification
Good Fair Poor
High Protect Maintain Improve
Mod. Maintain Improve Improve
Low MaintainGenerally Available
Generally Available
Fu
nct
ion
al
Pri
ori
ty
Site Condition
Good Fair Poor
High Protect Maintain Improve
Mod. Maintain Improve Improve
Low MaintainGenerally Available
Generally Available
Fu
nct
ion
al
Pri
ori
ty
Site Condition
MethodologyMethodology
Wood Temperature Nutrients Erosion
Cha
nnel
C
lass
ifica
tion
Riparian Classification
MethodologyMethodology
MethodologyMethodology
Wood Temperature Nutrients ErosionProtect Maximize retention of
recruitable woodMaximize retention of vegetation that blocks
incoming solar radiation
Maximize retention of existing high nutrient
vegetation
Prevent and avoid ground disturbances
that may disturb banks and/or
concentrate runoffMaintain Limit removal of
recruitable woodLimit reduction in
shadeLimit reduction in nutrient supply
Limit ground disturbances that may disturb banks and/or concentrate runoff
Improve Carefully identify individual tree selection that
encourage desired silvicultural responses
Carefully identify individual tree selection that
encourages growth of shade-producing
vegetation
Encourage treatments that promote
balanced primary production and
establishment of high-nutrient species
Consider treatments that support recovery of eroding lands (e.g. planting, biotechnical
stabilization, etc)
Generally Available
Treatment constraints for this function are
minimized
Treatment constraints for this function are
minimized
Treatment constraints for this function are
minimized
Treatment constraints for this function are
minimized
Segment Objectives
ExampleExampleExample
Stream NetworkStream Network
Channel ClassesChannel Classes
Riparian ClassesRiparian Classes
Rx A
Rx B
Rx C
Rx D
Rx E
Rx MapRx Map
Channel ClassificationChannel Classification
Riparian ClassificationRiparian Classification
Next StepsNext StepsNext Steps
Next StepsNext Steps
• Simplify Rule Language: Refer to Guidance Documents – similar to County Regulations throughout
California
• Develop SERM Design Manual– Collaborative Effort
– Living Document
– Updates Require Board Approval
Pilot Implementation PeriodPilot Implementation Period
• 2-3 Year Pilot Implementation Period– Analytical Toolbox (Watershed)
– Peer Review Methodology
– Collaborate with Agencies & Scientists
• Case-Study Trials– Jackson Demonstration State Forest
Pilot Implementation PeriodPilot Implementation Period
• 2-3 Year Pilot Implementation Period–Analytical Toolbox (Watershed)– Peer Review Methodology
– Collaborate with Agencies & Scientists
• Case-Study Trials– Jackson Demonstration State Forest
Analytical ToolboxAnalytical Toolbox
Wood Supply– wood budgets
– site-based source distance curves
– surveys of streamside riparian forest composition
– forest growth modeling
– LWD accumulation types???
– Wood supply maps
Analytical ToolboxAnalytical Toolbox
Thermal Loading– analysis of seasonal vs perennial streams
– reach to watershed scale thermal loading (stream size, orientation, topographic shading, flow, vegetation shading, etc.)
– analysis of canopy density etc. of existing riparian stands and role of harvest
– role of stream type/groundwater/hyporheiccharacteristics on heating potential
Analytical ToolboxAnalytical Toolbox
Erosion Controls– analysis of bank erosion potential
– upstream sources and sinks
– equipment exclusion
– legacy mitigation (e.g. roads, landings, etc)
– local drainage pathways (swales, roads, etc)
Why SERMWhy SERMWhy SERM
Why SERMWhy SERM
Ecosystem Functions
Naturally VaryAcross the Landscape
Why SERMWhy SERM
SERM varies management objectives & treatments according to
ecological principles
Why SERMWhy SERM
Establishes a management context that will lead to:
•improved science-based dialog •more innovation •more effective forestry practices
among the forestry community and agencies
Why SERMWhy SERM
It is scalable to the existing information and expertise available to each landowner
Why SERMWhy SERM
Improved assessment of cumulative effects
Why is SERM the RIGHT SolutionWhy is SERM the RIGHT Solution
It’s supported by a 4-Tier
Accountability System
Why is SERM the RIGHT SolutionWhy is SERM the RIGHT Solution
•Applied using available data and tools, –Does not require significant
development of data or tools by state agencies.
•Subject to existing standards and protocols for agency review
Why is SERM the RIGHT SolutionWhy is SERM the RIGHT Solution
•It’s cost effective
•Does not depend on extensive State-funded programs.
THANK YOUTHANK YOU