Volume 15
Number 2
Winter 2013
Peer-reviewed Research Article
A Review of the Properly
Functioning Condition
Assessment for Evaluating
the Effects of Land Use
Activities on Riparian
Areas and Stream Channels
also provided information on specific
regions of the province where the
management of rangelands and
resource roads1 requires attention
(Tschaplinski 2010). Because the
procedure can provide some
information on the effects of resource
roads, it may also inform cumulative
effects assessments in areas where
the mining and oil and gas industries
1
According to British Columbia legislation,
resource roads include all roads on public
land intended for use by motor vehicles,
except highways. In general terms, these
roads are typically used to support the
forestry, mining, and petroleum industries.
Continued on page 2
Richard McCleary
Introduction
F
our of the main land use activities
on forested public lands in western
Canada include forest practices,
petroleum exploration and extraction,
mining, and cattle grazing. Each
of these activities can negatively
impact the ecological functions of
riparian areas and stream channels,
thereby affecting water-related values,
including biodiversity and water
quality (see reviews by Waters
1995; Hartman 2004; Hogan
and Luzi 2010). The British
Columbia government
through the Forest
and Range
Evaluation Program has developed
a procedure based on the concepts
of properly functioning condition
(PFC) for assessing the level of
ecological function and indicating
the potential cause of any site-specific
impacts that are detected (Tripp
et al. 2009a, 2009b). Because this
procedure provides information that
can be linked to forest practices and
other land use activities, it should
be considered as an important tool
in the management of cumulative
watershed effects. For example, a
provincial-scale application of the
procedure, specifically designed to
evaluate the impacts of the varied
history of riparian management
practices, yielded information on
opportunities to further reduce the
impacts attributed to streamside
harvest; however, it
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
Inside this issue:
A Review of the
Properly Functioning
Condition Assessment
for Evaluating the
Effects of Land Use
Activities on Riparian
Areas and Stream
Channels
Putting PUB into
Practice in Mountainous
Regions
Water Repellent Soils
and their Assessment in
the Field
Update
1
Published by:
FORREX Forum for Research and
Extension in Natural Resources
Suite 400, 235 1st Avenue
Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4
Project Manager:
Rob Scherer
Tel: (250) 762-5445, Ext. 4792
Email: interiorwatershedmanagement@forrex.org
Distribution/Mailing List:
Email: streamline@forrex.org
Technical Review Committee:
K. Bladon, S. Lapp, R.D. Moore,
R. Pike, T. Redding, R. Scherer
Technical reviewers for this issue:
P. Lee, G. Scrimgeour, J. Rex, R. Smith,
R. Winkler, B. Campbell, B. Chapman
and P. Jordan
Website Support: Matt Johnson
Graphic Layout: Kaatza Publishing Services
Editing: Kaatza Publishing Services
Cover Illustration: William McAusland
McAusland Studios, Kamloops, BC
Streamline is a refereed publication published
twice a year by FORREX. All articles published
in Streamline are technically reviewed to
ensure that we extend reliable and technically
sound information to our readers. Content
published in Streamline is intended to provide
general information and should not be
relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion.
The information and opinions expressed in
this Publication are those of the respective
authors and FORREX does not warrant
their accuracy or reliability and expressly
disclaims any liability in relation thereto.
ISSN 1705-5989
© 2013, FORREX Forum for Research and
Extension in Natural Resources Society,
Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada.
http://www.forrex.org/publications/streamline
Continued from page 1
are prevalent. In such instances, the PFC
assessment for riparian areas and stream
channels should be combined with other
appropriate assessments, including road
and stream crossing inspections (see
review by Baird et al. 2012).
The endorsement of the findings from
the provincial-scale application of the
PFC procedure by the Chief Forester
of British Columbia (Snetsinger 2011)
represents the completion of the four
stages of an adaptive management
loop (Figure 1). Given that managing
cumulative effects at the regional scale
is fraught with challenges on numerous
fronts (e.g., Creasey 2000; Reid 2010),
other jurisdictions across Canada that
are seeking to improve management
of their stream and riparian resources
may wish to consider adopting a PFC
procedure such as the one used in
British Columbia.
Like many jurisdictions in western North
America, the Province of Alberta has
sampling methods that are capable
of describing changes in the structure
of riparian vegetation due to cattle
grazing (Fitch et al. 2001); however,
Alberta has no standardized system for
evaluating the effects on these functions
This article explores the
potential application
of British Columbia’s
Properly Functioning
Condition procedure
for assessing stream
channels and riparian
areas in Alberta.
from other prevalent land use activities,
especially resource road development.
Furthermore, although the Alberta
government has long maintained
some of the strongest riparian area
protections in North America (Lee et
al. 2004), the buffer-strip strategy has
come into question for two reasons.
First, as a result of accelerated harvest
to counter the mountain pine beetle
infestation, options to manage lodgepole
pine within riparian reserves are being
evaluated (e.g., Briand and Buckmaster
2010). Second, in Alberta and other
provinces, harvesting within buffers
may be an important component of
the move towards forest management
that emulates natural disturbance at the
landscape scale (Sibley et al. 2012).
Set management objectives
(Forest and Range Practices Act)
Make recommendations for
enhancing management
(Snetsinger 2011)
Undertake management activity
(Forest practices with
required riparian protections)
Project Manager’s Acknowledgements
For this issue of Streamline, it is important
to acknowledge the collaboration and
support of the Foothills Research Institute
(FRI). Without FRI’s in-kind and financial
support, this issue would not have been
possible. Furthermore, I would also like to
thank the Streamline Technical Committee
and the peer reviewers for their assistance.
Conduct monitoring:
1. Establish effectiveness
monitoring procedures
(Tripp et al. 2009a, 2009b)
2. Evaluate effectiveness
(Tschaplinski 2010)
Figure 1. The standard adaptive management model showing an example of how the
properly functioning condition assessment for riparian areas and stream channels was applied
in British Columbia.
2
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
To explore the potential application
of British Columbia’s PFC procedure
in Alberta, in this article I review three
pertinent topic areas individually. The
first section provides a review of the
PFC procedure, including a comparison
of the indicators used by the British
Columbia procedure versus those
included in rangeland assessments
from other jurisdictions. The second
section includes a comparison of the
British Columbia stream classification
system and a classification system
applied in the foothills of Alberta.
This comparison is required because
the criteria for assessing individual
indicators vary according to channel
type; thus, a channel classification
system underpins the entire PFC
framework. The third section outlines
strategies and considerations for
calibrating the indicators for use in
Alberta. In the conclusion, I emphasize
the benefits and challenges of wider
use of the PFC procedure for assessing
stream channels and riparian areas.
A Review of the Properly
Functioning Condition
Assessment Procedure
Riparian areas perform a broad suite
of ecological functions (Naiman and
Décamps 1997). These functions form
the basis for a group of assessment
techniques that have become
increasingly popular and have been
adapted according to the region,
pressure(s), and value(s) at stake (e.g.,
Prichard et al. 1998b; Fitch and Ambrose
2003; Tripp et al. 2009b). For example,
riparian areas in Alberta are rated as in
PFC if these areas perform a subset of
the recognized functions, including:
s dissipate stream energy during high
flows and improve water quality;
s trap fine sediment, capture bedload,
and contribute to floodplain
development;
s improve flood water retention and
ground water recharge;
s develop root masses that protect
streambanks from erosion;
2
s develop diverse channel
characteristics to provide
habitat, water depths, flows, and
temperatures necessary for fish and
wildlife production; and
s support greater biodiversity (Fitch et
al. 2001).
In British Columbia, stream and riparian
areas are considered to be in PFC when
the impacts of development are small
or within the natural variability of the
system and are not likely to prevent
the operation of natural ecological
functions of the habitat.2
The PFC assessment was originally
developed for use by the Bureau of
Land Management in the United States
(Prichard et al. 1998a), and has been
subsequently adapted to support
rangeland management in Alberta
(Fitch and Ambrose 2003) and British
Columbia (Fraser 2009). In 2003, the
Province of British Columbia supported
a small research project intended to
develop a procedure to evaluate the
effectiveness of the riparian management
provisions within the new results-based
Forest and Range Practices Act (P.
Tschaplinski, pers. comm., May 2012).
Because a provincial-scale assessment
was required, the team recognized
the need for a rapid assessment that
could be completed by generalist staff
at thousands of sites; hence, the team
settled on the PFC concept and began
the process of selecting indicators and
adapting the methodology for a scored
checklist format. Specific impacts on
streams and riparian areas from forestry
activities in British Columbia had been
well documented during the course of
various long-term research projects (see
reviews by Tschaplinski et al. 2004; Toews
and Hetherington 2010; Tschaplinski and
Pike 2010). Based on these documented
impacts and a thorough review of the
literature, the team compiled a list
of more than 60 potential indicators
and began testing them for relevance,
sensitivity, cost-efficiency, and potential
for non-expert application. The
final procedure, called the Resource
RSBC 1996, Chapter 159, Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Operation and Site
Planning Regulation (B.C. Reg. 107/98), Section 52. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/
archive/fpc/fpcaregs/oplanreg/opr-7.htm#52.
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
Stewardship Monitoring evaluation,
includes a checklist of 15 main indicator
questions that are addressed by
114–120 observations, estimates, and
measurements made to evaluate 38–
60 specific indicators, depending on
stream channel type (morphology) and
fish-bearing status (Tripp et al. 2009b). As
a result of this effort, the set of indicators
used for resource stewardship monitoring
is more extensive than the procedures
used in other jurisdictions (Table 1).
Typically, PFC assessments have been
formalized by an interdisciplinary
scientific team; however, expert
application of the field procedure is not
always a requirement. For example, the
British Columbia resource stewardship
monitoring procedure is not designed for
the exclusive use of experts, such as those
who developed it; rather, it was intended
for trained individuals from a more
general background in natural sciences
(Tripp et al. 2009b). Nonetheless, for
certain applications, expert use of a
more intensive field approach, such as
the resource stewardship monitoring
parent procedure, may be required to
answer the specific questions of interest
(P. Tschaplinski, pers. comm., May
2012). For all three PFC procedures that
were reviewed (Table 2), the summary
of a reach-specific PFC assessment is
completed on a single page in a field
assessment (Prichard et al. 1998b; Fitch
and Ambrose 2003; Tripp et al. 2009b);
however, all of the corresponding
jurisdictions provide detailed descriptions
of PFC procedures. Where rangeland
management is a goal, detailed
assessments of riparian vegetation
condition are available to inform the
PFC procedure (e.g., Hansen et al.
1995; Thompson and Hansen 2003).
The channel component of the
assessment requires specific knowledge
of the types of channels in the
evaluation area. For example, the British
Columbia assessment uses various
channel morphology types including
riffle-pool, cascade-pool, step-pool,
and non-alluvial streams that pertain
to most of the streams within that
province (Tripp et al. 2009b).
Continued on page 4
3
Continued from page 3
Table 1. Components and example indicators of the properly functioning condition procedures used by three
different jurisdictions
Component
1. Floodplain
Example indicators
United
Statesa
Albertab
British
Columbiac
Floodplain frequently inundated
Adequate riparian vegetation to protect banks and dissipate energy
during high flows
Human-caused bare ground absent
2. Streambanks
Channel banks intact
Streambank vegetation with root masses capable of withstanding high
streamflow events
3. Streambed
Sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient in balance with setting
Channel bed undisturbed
Point bars are revegetating with riparian vegetation
Lateral stream movement associated with natural sinuosity
Amount of moss on the substrate indicates a stable and
productive system
4. Vegetation
Riparian vegetation with diverse age class distribution and community
composition
Sufficient vegetation retention to provide shade and bank microclimate
Riparian vegetation sufficiently protected from windthrow
Riparian vegetation resembles normal healthy vegetation in
unmanaged reaches
5. Woody debris
Sufficient live and dead vegetation to maintain large woody debris
supply
Riparian plants exhibit high vigour
6. Aquatic
biodiversity
Stream supports a diversity of aquatic invertebrates
Aquatic habitats connected to allow normal movements of fish, organic
debris, and sediment
7. Uplands
and landscape
considerations
Stream is in balance with water and sediment supplied by
the watershed
Upland watershed not contributing to riparian degradation
Stream supports a good diversity of fish cover attributes
Introduction of fine sediment minimized
8. Grazing
pressure impacts
a
b
c
4
Increase of undesirable plant species through disturbance limited
Limited utilization of preferred trees and shrubs
The Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest Service PFC procedure for lotic areas (Prichard et al. 1998a).
The Cows and Fish Program PFC procedure (Fitch and Ambrose 2003).
British Columbia’s Resource Stewardship Monitoring procedure (Tripp et al. 2009b).
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
Table 2. A comparison of drainage features from the Alberta foothills system
and the British Columbia provincial system
departures from a stable state were
observed with varying frequencies.
Drainage features of the
Alberta foothills systema
Comparable drainage features from the
British Columbia provincial systemb
Wetland
Wetland
No
Swale
Non-classified drainage
Fisheries sensitive zone
No
No
Discontinuous channel
Non-classified drainage
Fisheries sensitive zone
No
No
Seepage-fed channel (where
gradient > 10 %, substitute
colluvial channel)
Organic bottom channel
Small non-alluvial channel
Large non-alluvial channel
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fluvial channel
Alluvial channel:
Riffle-pool
Cascade-pool
Step-pool
Yes
The PFC procedure is an important
component of a science-based
monitoring program, whereby sample
sites for the field-based assessment are
selected using an appropriate statistical
design. The approach for site selection
must reflect the study objectives and
scale of interest. For example, in an
assessment of the effectiveness of
riparian management practices in
British Columbia, forestry cutblocks
and adjacent streams were randomly
selected within all regions of the
province (Tschaplinski 2010). In another
project involving the assessment of the
long-term effects of clearcut harvesting
without riparian buffers, sites were
distributed between the source and
stream outlet in several watersheds with
both buffered and non-buffered reaches
sampled (Nordin et al. 2008).
a
b
c
Included in
RSM?c
Derived from McCleary (2012).
Derived from Tripp (Tripp et al. 2009a, 2009b).
The PFC assessment procedure used for British Columbia’s Resource Stewardship Monitoring
(RSM).
In British Columbia, once the type of
channel is determined, an assessment
specific to that type is completed
to determine whether the existing
conditions are within the natural
range of variation for pre-disturbed
conditions. Empirical data for
numerous stream channel reference
sites from across the different forested
ecological zones in the province was
used to establish the natural range of
variation for channel conditions in the
PFC assessment (Tschaplinski 2010).
Many of the reference sites were
established during the course of various
forestry-fisheries research projects in
British Columbia (Tschaplinski 2010).
In addition, a sample of 50 natural
reference sites has been identified
province-wide in support of the PFC
assessments (P. Tschaplinski, pers.
comm., May 2012).
The use of the natural range of
variation for channel and riparian
conditions represents a departure
from the approach used for channel
assessment in British Columbia (B.C.
Ministry of Forests and B.C. Ministry of
Environment 1996), and also from the
approach used in other PFC procedures.
The new approach is consistent with an
emerging natural disturbance paradigm
that recognizes, even in unmanaged
landscapes, several disturbance
agents will affect riparian and channel
functions at varying frequencies and
intensities (Moore and Richardson
2012). To establish the natural range
of variation, numerous reference
streams were surveyed in unharvested
watersheds that had experienced a
range of natural disturbances, including
wildfire, floods, and landslides, to
support investigations at both the
provincial scale (Tschaplinski 2010)
and drainage basin scale (Nordin et
al. 2008). For example, to meet the
requirements for a “stable” rating
according to the British Columbia
channel assessment procedure, pools
should represent 50–70% of a rifflepool channel (B.C. Ministry of Forests
and B.C. Ministry of Environment
1996). In comparison, a riffle-pool
channel “properly functioning within
the natural range of variation” will
have 25% or more of the sample reach
as pool habitat (Tripp et al. 2009b).
This second rating system reflects
the findings from the reference site
surveys in unmanaged systems where
Despite the importance of the overall
rating (i.e., properly functioning,
properly functioning with limited
impacts, properly functioning with
impacts, or not properly functioning)
in British Columbia, the provincialscale analysis of individual indicator
questions provided much of the
specific cause-and-effect information
incorporated into the adaptive
management cycle (Tschaplinski 2010).
Specifically, in order of prevalence, the
primary forestry-related causes of “no”
responses to indicator questions were:
1.
road-related erosion and
subsequent sedimentation;
2.
low levels of riparian area tree
retention;
3.
windthrow;
4.
falling and yarding trees across
streams; and
5.
harvest-related machine
disturbance in the riparian area
(Tschaplinski 2010).
Continued on page 6
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
5
Continued from page 5
A Comparison of Stream
Classification Systems for
British Columbia and the
Foothills of Alberta
Procedures to assign the drainage
feature class for British Columbia
are described by Tripp et al. (2009a,
2009b), and for the Alberta foothills
system by McCleary et al. (2012).
Because both systems are based on
erosional processes associated with
water drainage from the land surface,
many of the British Columbia indicators
can potentially be transferred to the
Alberta foothills. The Alberta foothills
system has five categories, and the
British Columbia system has ten, each of
which can be linked to a specific Alberta
foothills category (Table 1). Note that in
British Columbia, if the drainage feature
is a poorly developed channel (e.g., a
wetland, non-classified drainage, or a
fisheries sensitive zone), it is not suited
to the resource stewardship monitoring
assessment and may or may not require
another type of assessment, depending
on the purpose of the investigation.
For the Alberta foothills system, the
categories have been used to support
spatial modelling and mapping of
erosion processes for forest management
applications, with the discontinuous
channels lumped in with the swale
category (McCleary 2011; McCleary
et al. 2011). Differentiating the types
of channels in headwater positions
was important for these purposes.
Seepage-fed channels and fluvial
channels were the two main types that
covered the entire distance between
the channel head and outlets (Figure 2),
with both types roughly equal in total
extent (McCleary 2011). The following
eight criteria proved important for
differentiating seepage-fed channels and
fluvial channels (McCleary et al. 2012).
1.
2.
6
Texture of fine channel bed material
is mostly silt-sized or smaller (< 50%
sand), with a silt, loam, or silty loam
texture.
The bed is unconsolidated along the
deepest part of the main channel
(indicated if, when standing on one
Figure 2. Examples of (a) a seepage-fed channel, and (b) a fluvial channel from the
Alberta foothills.
foot, the surveyor’s boot sinks to a
depth > 10 cm).
3.
No steps or riffles created by recently
mobile gravel or cobbles.
4.
No pools present.
5.
Organic bridges present.
6.
Head cuts present.
7.
Highly variable channel width:
maximum width greater than 3× the
minimum width.
8.
Total of left and right undercut
widths greater than bank full width.
Seepage-fed channels in the Alberta
foothills classification system may
function similarly to organic bottom
channels in the British Columbia
classification. In a sediment budget
project in the Alberta foothills,
McCleary et al. (2008) found large
amounts of particulate organic matter
and silt or clay-sized particles stored
within the beds of seepage-fed
channels, with the total organic matter
in three different reaches averaging 38,
44, and 69% of the total bed material
mass. In two small watersheds drained
by seepage-fed channels, samples of
total suspended solids from across an
entire runoff season averaged 39%
organic matter (Foothills Research
Institute unpublished data).
The British Columbia classification
system has been designed to support
specific land use evaluations across all
biogeoclimatic regions of the province,
with an emphasis on detecting impacts
to fish habitat; as a result, the system
includes a larger number of categories
than the Alberta foothills system.
Similar refinements may also be
considered if a system is developed for
application across the entire province
of Alberta. The additional categories
in the British Columbia system were
required for two main reasons (Tripp
et al. 2009a, 2009b). First, small
drainage features close to the channel
initiation area are very abundant on
the landscape; however, many of
these terminate downslope after short
distances, are not directly connected to
channels further downslope, and do not
convey sediment and other materials
into the downstream channels.
Based on the potential for negative
consequences from land management
activities, these source-area drainage
features are designated as either nonclassified drainages or fisheries sensitive
zones based on channel bed continuity
and other characteristics that determine
whether the drainage feature has the
potential to contribute water, nutrients,
organic materials, and alluvial sediment
to the channel network into downslope
reaches, including fish-bearing streams.
Second, given the wide range of slope
classes in the mountainous terrain of
British Columbia, alluvial channels are
divided into three classes: (1) riffle-pool,
(2) cascade-pool, and (3) step-pool.
These classes could also be applied
in Alberta; however, steep alluvial
channels of the step-pool class have
limited extent in the province, even in
the foothills region.
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
Strategies and Considerations
for Calibrating the Indicators
for Use in Alberta
Jurisdictions that are considering
adopting a PFC procedure to evaluate
riparian areas and stream channels
should not have to go through a
lengthy indicator screening process,
such as the one that was previously
described for the Province of British
Columbia; rather, because all
indicators have been proven useful
(Tschaplinski 2010), other jurisdictions
can focus on establishing thresholds
for the indicators from the British
Columbia procedure specific to the
forested ecological region of interest
(P. Tschaplinski, pers. comm., May
2012). The natural range of variation
for individual indicators can be
established by comparing natural
and impacted reference sites across
the various channel types within the
forested ecological region of interest.
The British Columbia procedure is also
a strong candidate for use in other
regions simply because of its large,
comprehensive indicator set. Given
the number of main indicators, their
underlying specific indicators, and
associated observations and measures,
if some indicators in the set prove to
be irrelevant or not sensitive to impacts
in a new study area, such indicators
could be excluded with the remainder
still providing sufficient information to
complete a robust local assessment.
Several differences in the physiographies of Alberta and British
Columbia should be considered. First,
although the bedrock and colluvium
surficial materials associated with
the Rocky Mountains do extend into
Alberta (Figure 3), much of this surface
type lies within protected areas.
Furthermore, logging practices in
Alberta are typically limited to slopes of
less than 40%. Second, highly erodible
glaciolacustrine deposits occur in both
provinces, but are much more widely
distributed, covering large portions of
the boreal plain in Alberta. In British
Columbia, these deposits are also
found in interior valley bottoms (Figure
3). While surface runoff and related
Surficial materials
Rock and colluvium
Glacial till
Glaciolacustrine deposits
Glaciomarine deposits
Water
Organic deposits
Eolian deposits
Alluvial deposits
Glaciofluvial deposits
Glacier
Figure 3. Distribution of surficial materials, including glacial till, glaciolacustrine deposits, organic
deposits, and rock and colluvium in British Columbia and Alberta (from Fulton 1995).
erosion processes dominate in the high
relief landscapes covering much of
British Columbia, subsurface drainage
processes are more important in the
drier boreal plain (Steedman et al.
2004), thus the landscape is much less
organized and connections between
land use activities and PFC more
difficult to establish. Regardless of the
forested ecological region of interest,
establishing appropriate stream-size
scaling relations for indicators is
another important consideration
(Nordin et al. 2008).
Regional precipitation and runoff
patterns (i.e., hydroclimate) also
require consideration when establishing
indicator thresholds. For example,
channel morphology has relatively low
variability in cordilleran snowmeltdriven environments characterized
by small differences in relative flood
size, whereas continental rainfall
environments with large differences
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
in relative flood size have higher
variability (see review by Buffington
2012). This is particularly relevant
given the contrasting runoff patterns in
Alberta, where basins within the Rockies
hydrologic region are characterized by
a single peak, snowmelt-dominated
hydrograph and basins within the
Foothills/Boreal region have a double
peak hydrograph with separate peaks
driven by snowmelt and rain (Wagner
2010). Given these known relationships,
a wider natural range of variation
for channel morphology indicators
(e.g., channel bed disturbance levels,
streambank and large woody debris
processes, and pool frequency) is
expected in the Foothills/Boreal region
than in the Rockies region.
The strategy of establishing reference
conditions based on surveys of sites
with minimal human modification
is common in many ecosystem
Continued on page 8
7
Continued from page 7
management programs (e.g., Parsons
et al. 2004; Gibbons et al. 2008);
however, finding such locations in
landscapes with widespread human
modification may not be possible,
thereby necessitating alternative
approaches. For example, in the
developed region on the north shore
of Lake Ontario, Kilgour and Stanfield
(2006) established statistical models
to predict indices of biophysical
condition based on the combination of
landscape metrics and measures of land
use. These models proved useful for
backtesting pre-disturbance reference
conditions, which in turn were used
to quantify the degree to which
ecological functions were impaired.
Such approaches may prove important
in specific regions of Alberta where
protected areas with suitable reference
sites may not be available.
Benefits of Wider Use of the
PFC Procedure
1.
Apply the British Columbia PFC
procedure within reference
sites across the various forested
ecological regions of Alberta. From
this exercise, determine regions
with insufficient reference sites
where alternative approaches
are required, and where suitable,
establish whether the indicator
thresholds capture the natural
range of variation.
2.
Develop a sampling strategy
specific to the type of land use
pressure and forested ecological
region of interest.
3.
Conduct the assessment based on
the validated thresholds.
The consistent application of an
assessment, such as the PFC procedure,
across multiple jurisdictions has several
important benefits. At the national
scale, sustainable forest management
includes evaluating the state of the
full range of values on managed lands
with a system of indicators that can be
applied consistently across the country
(Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
2008). Nevertheless, using different
measurements across jurisdictions
and the evolution of protocols over
time can hinder such reporting (e.g.,
Prichard et al. 1998b). For example,
stream condition was not included as
an indicator in the 2011 national report
(Natural Resources Canada 2011).
Therefore, settling on a protocol is an
important prerequisite for pooling and
comparing data on stream condition
for such exercises. Given the present
use of the PFC procedure for assessing
streams and riparian areas in British
Columbia, Alberta, and on public lands
in the United States, this procedure is
a logical choice. Furthermore, because
the findings from a provincial-scale
application of the PFC in British
Columbia aligned closely with the
findings from other previously used
assessment procedures, including
expert systems approaches (Tschaplinski
2010), the PFC procedure can also
provide a framework for consolidating
the findings generated from various
protocols, and possibly across
jurisdictions. Establishing region-specific
indicator thresholds remains a potential
barrier that can be best addressed
by considering the physiography,
hydroclimate, and locations of reference
sites within the region of interest.
4.
Conduct an indicator sensitivity
assessment and omit any indicators
that do not appear useful for
identifying impacts. It is unlikely that
any new indicators will be needed
for use in Alberta because the testing
procedure used in British Columbia
was exhaustive (P. Tschaplinski, pers.
comm., May 2012).
Alberta employs several different
procedures to measure stream
channel features for aquatic habitat
inventories (e.g., Johnson et al. 1998;
Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring
Institute 2007). A provincial-scale
initiative is also ongoing with the goal
of measuring the degree to which
aquatic ecosystem health is maintained
The use of this procedure in Alberta
could be expedited with the following
approach.
8
(Alberta Environment 2003). Although
the use of indicators is an important
strategy for reporting on the state of
this goal (Coombs 2008), no standard
procedures have been established to
assess riparian and stream channel
condition. Although numerous reaches
have been inventoried using existing
aquatic habitat inventory procedures,
information on the state of riparian
areas and stream channels cannot be
easily extracted from such studies.
Therefore, if the standard aquatic
inventory procedures used in the
Alberta can be modified to determine
whether the reach of interest is in
properly functioning condition, then
ongoing inventory programs may
contribute towards meeting the
provincial goal of measuring aquatic
ecosystem health.
The PFC procedure can also help to
advance the knowledge of watershed
processes by providing a framework
for organizing site selection, measuring
response, and communicating findings
(e.g., Nordin et al. 2008; Rex et al.
2009). Given the relatively low cost of
the PFC procedure, it may serve as a
screening tool for identifying systems
that require assessments completed
by professionals from specialized
disciplines. The scientific credibility of
the PFC procedure can be evaluated
when the findings from such specialized
assessments are published (e.g., Nordin
et al. 2008).
The notion of cumulative watershed
effects can become very difficult for
stakeholder groups to comprehend,
especially when complexities such as
legal terminology and knowledge from
specialized disciplines are introduced.
The PFC approach provides an
opportunity to help navigate through
such complexities. The findings from
a PFC assessment, when combined
with results from other types of
assessments that are warranted based
on specific watershed values, pressures,
and affected processes, can help
demonstrate four important concepts
related to management of cumulative
watershed effects:
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
For further information, contact:
The findings from a
PFC assessment, when
combined with results
from other types of
assessments that are
warranted based on
specific watershed
values, pressures, and
affected processes,
can help stakeholders
navigate through
the complexities of
cumulative watershed
effects.
1.
here is what happened and where;
2.
here is when and why this
happened;
3.
this is what we can do about it; and
4.
if we take the recommended
action, here is when and what we
can measure to find out if it works.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Peter Tschaplinski for
participating in a telephone interview
where we discussed the history of the
development and application of the
PFC assessment in British Columbia and
thanks for providing a thorough review
of a draft of this document. Steve Bird
and Marwan Hassan also provided
input and recommendations that were
extremely helpful. Rick Bonar provided
suggestions, including emphasizing the
importance of establishing natural
range of variation when linking the
assessment with forest management
planning. Thank you also to the
members of the Streamline Technical
Review Committee for providing
constructive comments on an earlier
version and also for encouraging me to
talk directly to Peter. Three anonymous
reviewers also provided helpful
suggestions and criticisms.
Rich McCleary
Foothills Research Institute, Hinton, Alta.
Email: richmccleary@shaw.ca
References
Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute.
2007. Stream field data collection
protocol. University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alta. http://www
.abmi.ca/abmi/reports/reports
.jsp?categoryId=0 (Accessed
September 2012).
Alberta Environment. 2003. Water
for life: Alberta’s strategy for
sustainability. Edmonton, Alta.
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/
library/6190.pdf (Accessed October
2012).
Baird, E.J., W. Floyd, I. van Meerveld,
and A.E. Anderson. 2012. Road
surface erosion – Part 1: Summary
of effects, processes, and assessment
procedures. Streamline Watershed
Management Bulletin 15(1):1–9.
http://www.forrex.org/sites/
default/files/publications/articles/
Streamline_Vol15_No1_Art01.pdf
(Accessed October 2012).
Briand, R. and G. Buckmaster. 2010.
Forest management plan: 2010
mountain pine beetle amendment.
Hinton Wood Products, West
Fraser Mills Ltd., Hinton, Alta.
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/
LandsForests/ForestManagement/
ForestManagementPlans/
documents/WestFraserMillsLtd/
WFMLH-VolI-Section1-4.pdf
(Accessed October 2012).
B.C. Ministry of Forests and B.C. Ministry
of Environment. 1996. Channel
assessment procedure field
guidebook. Victoria, B.C. Forest
Practices Code of British Columbia
guidebook. http://www.for.gov.
bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/
chanfld/cfld-toc.htm (Accessed
October 2012).
Buffington, J.M. 2012. Changes in channel
morphology over human time scales.
In: Gravel bed rivers: Processes,
tools, environments. M. Church,
P.M. Biron, and A.G. Roy (editors).
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester,
UK. pp. 435–463. http://
www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/
rmrs_2012_buffington_j001.pdf
(Accessed October 2012).
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers.
2008. Measuring our progress:
Putting sustainable forest
management into practice across
Canada and beyond. Natural
Resources Canada, Ottawa,
Ont. http://ccfm.org/pdf/
CCFM_Measuring_our_progress.
pdf (Accessed October 2012).
Coombs, M. 2008. Indicators for assessing
environmental performance of
watersheds in southern Alberta.
Alberta Environment, Lethbridge,
Alta. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/
info/library/7945.pdf (Accessed
October 2012).
Creasey, R. 2000. Moving from projectbased cumulative effects assessment
to regional environmental
management. In: Cumulative
environmental effects management:
Tools and approaches. A.J.
Kennedy (editor). Alberta Society of
Professional Biologists, Calgary, Alta.
pp. 3–16.
Fitch, L., B.W. Adams, and G. Hale
(editors). 2001. Riparian health
assessment for streams and small
rivers: Field workbook. Cows and
Fish Program, Lethbridge, Alta.
http://www.cowsandfish.org/
pdfs/StreamsFieldWkbk2005.pdf
(Accessed October 2012).
Fitch, L. and N. Ambrose. 2003. Riparian
areas: A user’s guide to health. Cows
and Fish Program, Lethbridge, Alta.
http://www.cowsandfish.org/pdfs/
ugfull.pdf (Accessed October 2012).
Fraser, D.A. 2009. Range resources
assessment procedure. 2nd ed.
B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range,
Range Branch, Victoria, B.C.
Rangeland Health Brochure No.
9. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/
pubs/Docs/Bro/Bro81.pdf (Accessed
October 2012).
Continued on page 10
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
9
Continued from page 9
Fulton, R.J. 1995. Map 1880A: Surficial
materials of Canada 1:5 000 000.
Geological Survey of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Gibbons, P., S.V. Briggs, D.A. Ayers, S.
Doyle, J. Seddon, C. McElhinny,
N. Jones, R. Sims, and J.S. Doody.
2008. Rapidly quantifying
reference conditions in modified
landscapes. Biological Conservation
141(10):2483–2493. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0006320708002632 (Accessed
October 2012).
Hansen, P.L., R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs,
B.J. Cook, J. Joy, and D.K.
Hinckley. 1995. Classification and
management of Montana’s riparian
and wetland sites. University
of Montana, School of Forestry,
Montana School and Conservation
Experiment Station, Missoula, Mont.
Miscellaneous Publication No. 54.
Hartman, G.F. 2004. Effects of forest
management activities on watershed
processes. In: Fishes and forestry:
Worldwide watershed interactions
and management. T.G. Northcote
and G.F. Hartman (editors).
Blackwell Scientific Ltd., Oxford, UK.
pp. 271–302.
Hogan, D.L. and D.S. Luzi. 2010. Channel
geomorphology: Fluvial forms,
processes, and forest management
effects. In: Compendium of forest
hydrology and geomorphology in
British Columbia. R.G. Pike, T.E.
Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler,
and K.D. Bladon (editors). B.C.
Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest
Science Program, Victoria, B.C. and
FORREX Forum for Research and
Extension in Natural Resources,
Kamloops, B.C. pp. 331–372.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/
pubs/docs/Lmh/Lmh66/Lmh66_
ch10.pdf (Accessed October 2012).
Johnson, C.F., P. Jones, and S. Spencer.
1998. A guide to classifying
selected fish habitat parameters
in lotic systems of West Central
Alberta. Foothills Model Forest,
Hinton, Alta. and Alberta
Conservation Association. http://
10
foothillsresearchinstitute.
ca/pages/Publications/
PublicationByProgram.
aspx?program=700 (Accessed
October 2012).
Kilgour, B.W. and L.W. Stanfield. 2006.
Hindcasting reference conditions in
streams. In: Landscape influences
on stream habitats and biological
assemblages. R.M. Hughes, L.
Wang, and P.W. Seelbach (editors).
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Md. Symposium No. 48.
Lee, P., C. Smyth, and S. Boutin. 2004.
Quantitative review of riparian
buffer width guidelines from Canada
and the Untied States. Journal
of Environmental Management
70:165–180.
McCleary, R.J. 2011. Landscape
organization based on application
of the process domain concept for
a glaciated foothills region. PhD
thesis. University of British Columbia.
Vancouver, B.C. https://circle.ubc.
ca/bitstream/handle/2429/32154/
ubc_2011_spring_mccleary_
richard.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed
October 2012).
McCleary, R.J., S. Haslett, and K.
Christie. 2012. Field manual for
erosion-based channel classification.
Foothills Research Institute, Fish and
Watershed Program, Hinton, Alta.
http://foothillsresearchinstitute.
ca/pages/Publications/
PublicationByProgram.
aspx?program=1166 (Accessed
October 2012).
McCleary, R.J., M.A. Hassan, D. Miller,
and R. Moore. 2011. Spatial
organization of process domains
in headwater drainage basins of
a glaciated foothills region with
complex longitudinal profiles. Water
Resources Research 47(5):W05505.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/
crossref/2011/2010WR009800.
shtml (Accessed October 2012).
McCleary, R.J., M.A. Hassan, and R.D.
Moore. 2008. Partial sediment
budgets from two headwater
catchments in the Rocky Mountain
Foothills. In: 34th Annual Meeting
of the Canadian Geophysical Union,
Banff, Alta. p. 114.
Moore, R.D. and J.S. Richardson. 2012.
Natural disturbance and forest
management in riparian zones:
Comparison of effects at reach,
catchment, and landscape scales.
Freshwater Science 31(1):239–247.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1899/11030.1 (Accessed October 2012).
Naiman, R.J. and H. Décamps. 1997.
The ecology of interfaces: Riparian
zones. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 28:621–658.
Natural Resources Canada. 2011. The
state of Canada’s forests. Annual
Report 2011. http://cfs.nrcan.
gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/32683.
pdf (Accessed October 2012).
Nordin, L.J., J.F. Rex, D.A. Maloney, and
P.J. Tschaplinski. 2008. Standardized
approaches in effectiveness
monitoring programs and regional
relevance: Lessons from the Bowron
River Watershed Riparian Evaluation
Project. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 38(12):3139–3150.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.
com/doi/pdf/10.1139/X08-140
(Accessed October 2012).
Parsons, M., M.C. Thoms, and R.H.
Norris. 2004. Development of a
standardised approach to river
habitat assessment in Australia.
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 98(1):109–130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
B:EMAS.0000038182.03176.97
(Accessed October 2012).
Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J.
Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S.
Leonard, B. Mitchell, and J. Staats.
1998a. Riparian area management:
A user guide to assessing proper
functioning condition and the
supporting science for lotic areas.
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management;
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service; U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Services, Denver, Colo.
Prichard, D., H. Barret, J. Cagney, R. Clark,
J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, P.L. Hansen,
B. Mitchell, and D. Tippy. 1998b.
Riparian area management: Process
for assessing proper functioning
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
condition. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Denver, Colo.
Reid, L.M. 2010. Understanding and
evaluating cumulative watershed
impacts. In: Cumulative watershed
effects of fuel management in the
western United States. W.J. Elliot, I.S.
Miller, and L. Audin (editors). U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Fort Collins, Colo. General
Technical Report RMRS-GTR-231,
pp. 277–298. http://www.
fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr231/
rmrs_gtr231_277_298.pdf
(Accessed October 2012).
Rex, J.F., P. Krauskopf, D. Maloney, and
P. Tschaplinski. 2009. Mountain
pine beetle and salvage harvesting
influence on small stream riparian
zones. Natural Resources Canada,
Canadian Forest Service, Victoria,
B.C. Mountain Pine Beetle Working
Paper No. 2009-17. http://
publications.gc.ca/collections/
collection_2010/nrcan/Fo143-32009-17-eng.pdf (Accessed October
2012).
Sibley, P.K., D.P. Kreutzweiser, B.J. Naylor,
J.S. Richardson, and A.M. Gordon.
2012. Emulation of natural
disturbance (END) for riparian
forest management: Synthesis
and recommendations. Freshwater
Science 31(1):258–264. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1899/11-094.1
(Accessed October 2012).
Snetsinger, J. 2011. Chief Forester’s 2010
annual report on the Forest and
Range Evaluation Program. B.C.
Ministry of Forests, Mines, and
Lands, Forest and Range Evaluation
Program, Victoria, B.C. http://
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/
publications/chief_forester.htm
(Accessed October 2012).
Steedman, R.J., W.M Tonn, C.A.
Paszkowski, and G.J. Scrimgeour,
2004. Forestry and fish in the
boreal region of Canada. In: Fishes
and forestry: Worldwide watershed
interactions and management.
T.G. Northcote and G.F. Hartman
(editors). Blackwell Scientific Ltd.,
Oxford, UK. pp. 413–438.
external/!publish/frep/indicators/
Indicators-Riparian-Protocol-2009.
pdf (Accessed October 2012).
Thompson, W.H. and P.L. Hansen. 2003.
Classification and management
of riparian and wetland sites of
Alberta’s Parkland Natural Region
and Dry Mixedwood Natural
Subregion. Bitterroot Restoration,
Inc. Prepared for the Alberta
Riparian Habitat Management
Program-Cows and Fish, Lethbridge,
Alta. https://www.box.com/shared/
static/cface34db09ab7e599fb.pdf
(Accessed October 2012).
Tschaplinski, P., D.L. Hogan, and G.F.
Hartman. 2004. Fish-forestry
interaction research in coastal British
Columbia: The Carnation Creek and
Queen Charlotte Islands studies.
In: Fishes and forestry: Worldwide
watershed interactions and
management. T.G. Northcote and
G.F. Hartman (editors). Blackwell
Scientific Ltd., Oxford, UK. pp.
389–412.
Toews, D.A.A. and E.D. Hetherington,
E.D. 2010. Forest hydrology in
British Columbia: Context and
history. In: Compendium of forest
hydrology and geomorphology in
British Columbia. R.G. Pike, T.E.
Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler,
and K.D. Bladon (editors). B.C.
Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest
Science Program, Victoria, B.C. and
FORREX Forum for Research and
Extension in Natural Resources,
Kamloops, B.C. pp. 1–16. http://
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/
Docs/Lmh/Lmh66/Lmh66_ch01.
pdf (Accessed October 2012).
Tschaplinski, P. 2010. State of stream
channels, fish habitats, and their
adjacent riparian areas: Resources
stewardship monitoring to evaluate
the effectiveness of riparian
management, 2005–2008. B.C.
Ministry of Forests, Mines, and
Lands, Forest and Range Evaluation
Program, Victoria, B.C. http://
www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/
external/!publish/FREP/reports/
FREP_Report_27.pdf (Accessed
October 2012).
Tripp, D.B., P.J. Tschaplinski, S.A. Bird,
and D.L. Hogan. 2009a. Field
supplement to evaluating the
condition of streams and riparian
management areas (riparian
management routine effectiveness
evaluation). B.C. Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Range
Evaluation Program, Victoria, B.C.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/
external/!publish/frep/indicators/
Indicators-Riparian-FieldGuideMarch-2009-v2.pdf (Accessed
October 2012).
_______. 2009b. Protocol for evaluating
the condition of streams and riparian
management areas (riparian
management routine effectiveness
evaluation). B.C. Ministry of Forests
and Range and B.C. Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Range
Evaluation Program, Victoria, B.C.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/
Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin Vol. 15/No. 2 Winter 2013
Tschaplinski, P. and R.G. Pike. 2010.
Riparian management and effects
on function. In: Compendium of
forest hydrology and geomorphology
in British Columbia. R.G. Pike, T.E.
Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winkler,
and K.D. Bladon (editors). B.C.
Ministry of Forests and Range,
Forest Science Program, Victoria,
B.C. and FORREX Forum for
Research and Extension in Natural
Resources, Kamloops, B.C. pp.
479–526. http://www.for.gov.
bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Lmh/Lmh66/
Lmh66_ch15.pdf (Accessed October
2012).
Wagner, M.J.N. 2010. Hydrologic risk
assessment framework for Alberta’s
green zone. MSc thesis. University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams:
Sources, biological effects and
control. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Md.
11