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