Riparian Effectiveness Evaluations

Indicator Development

Peter J. TschaplinskiResearch Branch

Ministry of Forests

Types of Indicators• ROUTINE LEVEL:

• Relatively simple measures• Obtained relatively quickly at a large sample of

sites (e.g., at 80 % of sites in a given area)• Cover as many sites as possible

• Identify visible impacts at high-risk sites

• Identify a subset of sites for more detailed assessments

Types of Indicators• EXTENSIVE LEVEL:

• More quantitative• Increased level &/or frequency of

measurement at each site• Different types of measurements• More effort (time and cost) to obtain• Used at a smaller population of managed

sites (e.g. 20 %)

Who Was Involved?

Interagency Technical Team:– MOF: D. Hogan, P. Tschaplinski– F. P. Board: S. Chatwin– Consultant Geomorphologist: S. Bird– Consultant Biologist: D. Tripp– MWLAP: R. Thompson, A Witt– DFO: E. MacIsaac– UBC: J. Richardson

What Was Done?

• Most effort directed at Extensive Indicators• Obtained FII funding for developing indicators

and methods:– Empirical data on channel/riparian conditions in BEC

Zones – Identify thresholds for channel/riparian attributes– Work begun in May. 2003-2004 project on-going.

• Drafted initial list of 61 Extensive Level Indicators (Tripp/Tschaplinski)

What Was Done? (cont.)• List circulated among technical team and

reduced to 28.

• Workshop: 21 July 2003• Extensive Indicators/Methods discussed:• Evaluation Criteria:

– Scientifically sound– Methods must be available– Realistic to do (clear measures; time & cost)

Workshop Results

• 18 Extensive-Level Indicators accepted for testing:

– Channel, Physical

– Channel, Biological

– Riparian (Biological & Physical)

Channel: Physical Indicators• Bank erosion• Sediment variability• Sediment bar frequency• Sediment bar type• Degraded (scoured) channel• Channel depth variability• Logjam frequency• LWD Volume• LWD Supply (RMZ)• Substrate embeddedness

Channel: Biological Indicators

• Fish cover types

• Aquatic habitat connectivity

• Stream moss cover

• Benthic invertebrate “diversity” (major taxa present)

Riparian Indicators

• Riparian vegetation (canopy) cover

• Bare, disturbed ground (percent RMA)

• Deep-rooted streambank vegetation

• Shade cover over stream

• Streamside moss cover

Example: Channel, Physical

• INDICATOR: Bank erosion• MEASURE: Proportion sloping or vertical

banks per unit channel length (1 bankfull width)

• SCORE (by BEC Zone):Non-functioning: > 0.60Functioning, High Risk: 0.50 - 0.60Functioning, at Risk: 0.39 - 0.49Proper Functioning: </= 0.39

Example: Channel, Biological

• INDICATOR: Aquatic connectivity

• MEASURE: Presence of blockages or barriers

• SCORE:Non-functioning: Any seasonal/year-roundFunctioning, High Risk: Any partial/year roundFunctioning, at Risk: Any partial seasonalProper Functioning: No barriers

Example: Riparian

INDICATOR: Shade cover over stream

• MEASURE: Percent canopy cover.

• SCORE:Non-functioning: < 75 % Functioning, High Risk: 75 - 85 % Functioning, at Risk: 86 - 95 %Proper Functioning: > 95 %

Routine Indicators

• Draft extensive-level indicators reviewed by FP Board audit team

• Indicators considered to complicated/time consuming/costly to implement over large-enough sample of sites

• Request Routine-level indicators

Routine Indicators• Draft indicators produced in ca. 2-week

timeframe (S. Bird, D. Tripp, P. Tschaplinski)

• Revised indicator document sent to F.P. Board (S. Chatwin)

• Routine Indicators organized into Channel Physical, Channel Biological, and Riparian subsets

• Overview (e.g., aerial survey) and Ground-based indicators provided

Routine Indicators (cont.)

• Overview and Ground-based Surveys:– Yes/No checklists– Questions and supporting statements

• Overview level (2 questions) used to determine need for further examination:

• Q1: Is the aquatic habitat and riparian area intact and free of any on-site, forestry-related disturbances?

Overview Indicators

• RRZ/RMZ present as required (Y/N)• Evidence of windthrow/cattle use vs unlogged

sites (Y/N)• Is 1st 10 m of RMZ unlogged? (Y/N)• Unusual or unexpected canopy openings (Y/N)• Roads, trails, crossings in RMA (Y/N)• Evidence of ground disturbance, exposed mineral

soil….(Y/N)

Overview Indicators• Q2: Are the RMA changes minor, so that the

RMA treatment can be considered effective?• Windthrow present < 5 % of standing trees (Y/N)• No windthrow in stream, or increased the amount

of channel bank or side slope disturbance (Y/N)• Ground disturbance in RMA is < 1 % of total area

(Y/N)• IF OVERVIEW INDICATES PROBLEMS,

PERFORM GROUND-BASED ASSESSMENT

Ground-level Routine Indicators

• 15 Questions with supporting statements– Yes/No checklists

• Channel Morphology questions stratified for 3 types of channel:– Riffle-pool or cascade-pool channels (relatively

low gradient)– Step-pool channels– Steep, non-alluvial channels

Routine Physical Indicators(Examples)

• Q1. Is the channel bed disturbed? Y/N

• Q2. Are the channel banks disturbed? Y/N

• Q3. Are LWD processes disturbed? Y/N

• Q4. Has channel morphology been disturbed Y/N

Example Question & Rating

• Question 1: Is the channel bed disturbed?(a) Riffle-pool or cascade-pool channels:– Are there abundant mid-channel bars

(along >50 % of the reach)? Y/N– Are multiple channels &/or braids prevalent (along

> 50 % of the reach)? Y/N– Are there long stretches of channel with little or no

gravel bars (along > 50% of the reach)? Y/N– If the answer is “Y” to 2 or more, then answer is

“Yes” for Question 1

Next Steps

• Routine Indicators provided to FP Board for testing

• FPB further modified indicators to suit their specific auditing objectives

• Work on routine/extensive indicators continuing

• How do all “R” or “E” indicators get “rolled up” into an overall assessment of “Effective vs. Not Effective” for a site or for an area?

Costs/Lessons• Contract costs ca $25,000 for indicator

development.• Teams must be aware that different agencies have

different goals that can translate to different uses for indicators and different product needs.

• FPB needs routine indicators suitable for identifying visible impacts within audit-type surveys stratified by risk.

• MOF needs routine indicators to inform where further, more detailed-level evaluations are needed

Costs/Lessons (cont.)• Science-based, extensive-level indicators needed to

evaluate effectiveness of different RRZ widths and RMZ tree retention levels

• Scientific analyses of research database to generate quantified channel/riparian attributes and impact thresholds per BEC zones takes time (e.g., 1 year)

• Could not keep up with the need to produce indicators within a couple months

• Extrapolation and expert opinion needed to draft extensive-level indicators within the tight timelines required.