[ BACK ]
APPENDIX B:
Revised PFCA Checklist
This
appendix is a revised PFCA checklist that makes efficient use of the team’s
field time to provide a qualitative, accountable, and repeatable rating of stream
and riparian ecosystem health, in comparison to acceptable conditions at
reference sites (i.e., natural, unaltered conditions at relict sites). Factors
are rated on a range of scores from 1 (low quality/poor condition) representing
geomorphically inconsistent (GI) conditions, to 5 (high quality/excellent
condition) representing geomorphically consistent (GC – see Appendix C for more
instructions on how this term applies to the assessment) and unimpaired
conditions. In the Question column: "X" involves use of the in-office
worksheet (Appendix A), as well as field site visit data; “F” indicates an
observation based on a field site visit. The mean score within an impact
category is the arithmetic mean of the individual question scores. Some
questions may be non-applicable (“n/a” or “unkown”) and therefore are not
included in the mean score calculation. The overall PFCA rating is the average
of the impact category mean scores.
|
SCORE |
Impact Category |
Question |
|
|
WQ |
Water Quality |
|
|
Qualifier |
If
the study reach is considered to be GC perennial, whether or not flow has
been altered, continue. If not and flow has not been affected, this section
gets an "n/a" - go to Hydro/Geomorphology. If not because flow has
been eliminated, this section receives a mean score of 1. |
|
|
1 (X) |
Is algal growth GC? |
|
|
2 (F) |
At base flow, is the level of turbidity GC? |
|
|
3 (F) |
Is the extent of channel shading GC? |
|
|
Mean Score |
|
|
|
Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H/G |
Hydrology/Geomorphololgy |
|
|
Qualifier: |
If
the study reach is not considered as GC perennial because flow has been
eliminated, this section receives a mean score of 1 |
|
|
1 (X,F) |
Is
sinuosity GC? |
|
|
2 (X) |
How
closely does the hydrograph resemble the GC natural hydrograph (timing,
duration, frequency, magnitude, ramping rate)? |
|
|
3 (X,F) |
Is
the floodplain inundated in relatively frequent, GC events? |
|
|
4 (F) |
Is
the cover of fine sediment deposition on the streambed GC? |
|
|
5a (F) |
Is
the channel bank GC vertically stable? |
|
|
5b (X,F) |
Is
the channel GC laterally stable? |
|
|
6 (F) |
Is
the diversity of hydraulic habitats (e.g. oxbows, side channels, sand bars,
gravel/cobble bars, terraces, cutbanks, islands) GC? |
|
|
7 (F) |
Is
the integrity of surface soils GC? |
|
|
8 (F) |
Is
the density and condition of beaver dams GC? |
|
|
Mean Score |
|
|
|
Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F/AH |
Fish/Aquatic Habitat |
|
|
Qualifier: |
If
the stream is no longer perennial, but historically was a fishery, this
section receives a mean score of 1. |
|
|
1 (F) |
Is pool distribution sufficient to provide native fish habitat? |
|
|
2a (F) |
Does
underbank cover provide GC aquatic habitat diversity? |
|
|
2b (F) |
Does
overbank cover provide GC habitat for aquatic species? |
|
|
2c (F) |
Is
the extent of channel shading GC? |
|
|
3 (F) |
Does
the level of GC channel floor embeddedness allow for suitable spawning
conditions? |
|
|
4 (F) |
Does
GC large woody debris contribute to aquatic organism habitat? |
|
|
5 (X) |
Is
the number and diversity of GC aquatic invertebrates consistent with stream
type and geomorphic setting? |
|
|
6 (F) |
Does
GC riparian vegetation provide for/enable terrestrial insects to drop into
the stream? |
|
|
7a (X) |
Are
native fish and other aquatic faunal population dynamics GC and consistent
with the management objectives? |
|
|
7b (X) |
Are
non-native fish and other aquatic faunal population dynamics GC and
consistent with the management objectives? |
|
|
8 (X&F) |
Is
the habitat in the study reach GC for aquatic species of special concern
(e.g., sensitive, T&E, etc.)? |
|
|
Mean Score |
|
|
|
Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RV |
Riparian Vegetation |
|
|
1a (F) |
Is
native grass and forb relative abundance in the lower riparian zone (LRZ) GC? |
|
|
1b (F) |
Is
native shrub relative abundance in the LRZ GC? |
|
|
1c (F) |
Is
native middle canopy relative abundance in the LRZ GC? |
|
|
1d (F) |
Is
native upper canopy relative abundance in the LRZ GC |
|
|
1e (F) |
Is
native grass/forb relative abundance in the upper riparian zone (URZ) GC? |
|
|
1f (F) |
Is
native shrub relative abundance in the URZ GC? |
|
|
1g (F) |
Is
native middle canopy relative abundance in the URZ GC? |
|
|
1h (F) |
Is native upper canopy relative abundance in the URZ GC? |
|
|
Mean LRZ |
|
|
|
Mean URZ |
|
|
|
2a (F) |
Does
the % GC cover of LRZ vegetation by structural layer (shrub, canopy, etc.)
offer suitable overall structure to maximize energy dissipation and wildlife
habitat? |
|
|
2b (F) |
Does
the % GC cover of LRZ vegetation by structural layer (shrub, canopy, etc.) offer
suitable overall structure to maximize energy dissipation and wildlife
habitat? |
|
|
3 (F) |
Is
the dominant shrub/woody tree species demography GC? |
|
|
4a (F) |
What
is the relative extent of non-native plant species cover in the LRZ? |
|
|
4b (F) |
What
is the relative extent of non-native plant species cover in the URZ? |
|
|
5 (F) |
Is
the cover of vegetation contributing to GC large woody debris? |
|
|
6a (F) |
a.
Is there evidence of GI mammalian herbivory impacts on ground cover? |
|
|
6b (F) |
b.
Is there evidence of GI mammalian herbivory impacts on browse cover? |
|
|
7 (F) |
Does
the LRZ woody and wetland vegetation indicate GC soil moisture? |
|
|
8a (F) |
a.
Is LRZ vegetation growth vigorous? |
|
|
8b (F) |
b.
is URZ vegetation growth vigorous? |
|
|
Mean Score |
|
|
|
Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WH |
Wildlife Habitat |
|
|
1 (X&F) |
Is
the habitat in the study reach GC for terrestrial species of special concern
(e.g., sensitive, T&E, etc.)? |
|
|
2 (F) |
Are
dense patches of shrubs GC and do they maximize wildlife habitat
availability? |
|
|
3 (F) |
Are
patches of middle canopy trees GC and do they maximize wildlife habitat? |
|
|
4 (F) |
Is
the connectedness of upper canopy patches GC (i.e., are there well-connected
canopies in alluvial reaches)? |
|
|
5 (F) |
Is
the diversity and distribution of fluvial habitat types (i.e., pools, wet
meadows, marshes, riparian vegetation stands) GC? |
|
|
Mean Score |
|
|
|
Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HI |
Human Impacts/activities |
|
|
1 (X) |
To
what extent is streamflow natural and GC (a dewatered stream receives a score
of 1)? |
|
|
2 (X) |
To
what extent is the state of the watershed’s uplands GC? |
|
|
3 (X) |
Is
livestock grazing within the grazing prescription appropriate to that
outlined in the AMP? |
|
|
4 (F) |
Is
the area free of development and other human impacts (i.e, parking lots,
campsites, mines)? |
|
|
5 (F) |
Does
channel geomorphology resemble the unaltered condition (i.e, impacts of
channelization, |
|
|
|
check dams, irrigation canals, etc)? |
|
|
6a (F) |
To
what extent is the area free of road impacts? |
|
|
6b (F) |
How
far from the channel are road impacts? |
|
|
Mean Score |
|
|
|
Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|