Types of Indicators

1. Riparian Effectiveness EvaluationsIndicator DevelopmentPeter J. TschaplinskiResearch BranchMinistry of Forests

2. 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

3. 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 %)

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. Workshop Results • 18 Extensive-Level Indicators accepted for testing: • Channel, Physical • Channel, Biological • Riparian (Biological & Physical)

8. 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

9. Channel: Biological Indicators • Fish cover types • Aquatic habitat connectivity • Stream moss cover • Benthic invertebrate “diversity” (major taxa present)

10. Riparian Indicators • Riparian vegetation (canopy) cover • Bare, disturbed ground (percent RMA) • Deep-rooted streambank vegetation • Shade cover over stream • Streamside moss cover

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 %

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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?

17. 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)

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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?

23. 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

24. 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.