1 / 24

Types of Indicators

Riparian Effectiveness Evaluations Indicator Development Peter J. Tschaplinski Research 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)

holly-case
Download Presentation

Types of Indicators

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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.

More Related