United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-121

March 2004

Guide to Effective

Monitoring of Aquatic

and Riparian Resources
Abstract _______________________________________________

Kershner, Jeffrey L.; Archer, Eric K.; Coles-Ritchie, Marc; Cowley, Ervin R.; Henderson, Richard C.; Kratz, Kim;

Quimby, Charles M.; Turner, David L.; Ulmer, Linda C.; Vinson, Mark R. 2004. Guide to effective monitoring

of aquatic and riparian resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 57 p.

This monitoring plan for aquatic and riparian resources was developed in response to monitoring needs

addressed in the Biological Opinions for bull trout (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1998)

and steelhead (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service). It provides a consistent

framework for implementing the effectiveness monitoring of aquatic and riparian resources within the range of the

Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH) and the Inland Fish Strategy (INFISH). The primary objective is

to evaluate the effect of land management activities on aquatic and riparian communities at multiple scales and

to determine whether PACFISH/INFISH management practices are effective in maintaining or improving the

structure and function of riparian and aquatic conditions at both the landscape and watershed scales on Federal

lands throughout the upper Columbia River Basin.

A list of attributes thought to be important in defining aquatic and riparian habitat conditions and their

relationship with listed species were identified. The list of attributes was then translated into measurable criteria

and compiled to form sampling protocols for both stream channel parameters (Part II) and vegetation parameters

(Part III). These sampling methods were tested for variability, and the results are documented in two other

publications “Testing Common Stream Sampling Methods for Broad-Scale, Long-Term Monitoring.” (Archer and

others 2004) and “The Repeatability of Riparian Vegetation Sampling Methods: How Useful Are These

Techniques for Broad-Scale Monitoring?” (Coles-Ritchie and others, in preparation).

Keywords: effectiveness monitoring, stream habitat, riparian habitat, monitoring strategy, aquatic sampling,

vegetation sampling, watershed conditions, critical riparian area

The Authors ____________________

Jeffrey L. Kershner is a Washington Office Aquatic Ecologist with the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fish and Aquatic

Ecology Unit in Logan, UT. He completed a B.S. degree in 1976 at

Humbolt State University, Arcata, CA, in fisheries. He earned an M.S.

degree in natural resources from Humbolt State University in 1982, and a

Ph.D. degree in ecology from the University of California, Davis, in 1991.

Eric K. Archer joined the Forest Service as a Fisheries Biologist in

1999. He is the Supervisor of Field Operations and Data Analyst for the

Effectiveness Monitoring Project in Logan, UT. Eric received a B.S.

degree in fisheries management in 1996 from Utah State University,

Logan, and an M.S. degree in aquatic ecology in 1999 from Utah State

University, Logan.

Marc Coles-Ritchie is a Riparian Vegetation Ecologist for the U. S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fish and Aquatic Ecology

Unit in Logan, UT. He received a B.A. degree in comparative literature

from the University of Massachusetts and an M.S. degree in environmental studies from Bard College, which included research on the

harvest of tropical forest materials in Ecuador. Marc is completing a

Ph.D. degree in vegetation ecology at Utah State University, Logan.

Ervin R. Cowley is a Rangeland Management Specialist with the

Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management in Boise, ID. He

received a B.S. degree in range management from Utah State

University, Logan. Ervin began working for the BLM in 1965 and

presently is the Soil, Water, and Air and Riparian Management

Program Leader for the BLM in Idaho.

Richard C. Henderson earned his B.S. degree in fisheries biology

from Colorado State University in Fort Collins in 1992. In 1998 he

received his M.S. degree in fisheries biology from Utah State University,

Logan. He is currently a Fisheries Biologist for the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit in Logan, UT.

Kim Kratz is the Watershed Policy Coordinator for the Habitat Conservation Division, NOAA Fisheries. Kim received his Ph.D. degree in

population and community ecology from the University of California,

Santa Barbara.

Charles M. Quimby earned his B.S. degree from the University of

Arizona in 1970 with a major in rangeland management and a minor

in wildlife management. He earned his M.S. degree in watershed

management with emphasis on water quality and natural resource

recreation from the University of Arizona in 1976. He is currently

Rangeland Program Manager with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

David L. Turner is a Rocky Mountain Research Station Mathematical

Statistician with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, in

Logan, UT. Prior to joining the Forest Service in 1989 he was a tenured

Associate Professor in the Applied Statistics Department at Utah State

University for 14 years. He completed a B.S. degree in statistics at

Colorado State University, Fort Collins. He earned M.S. and Ph.D.

degrees in statistics at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, in 1973

and 1975. He has been consulting with researchers on the design,

analysis, and salvage of studies since 1969. He speializes in the

analysis of messy data, applying modern statistical techniques to

Forest Service problems.

Linda C. Ulmer is an Aquatic Ecologist with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. Linda received a B.S. degree in marine

biology from Farleigh Dickinson University and an M.S. degree in

marine biology from California State University, Long Beach. Linda

joined the Forest Service in 1989 after 11 years with California Department of Fish and Game. She is currently serving as the Columbia River

Basin Anadromous Coordinator in Portland, OR.

Mark R. Vinson is an Ecologist with the U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, in Logan, UT. He completed a B.S degree

in water resources at the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point; an M.S

degree in biology at Idaho State University, Pocatello; and a Ph.D.

degree in watershed science at Utah State University, Logan.
Guide to Effective Monitoring of

Aquatic and Riparian Resources

Jeffrey L. Kershner

Eric K. Archer

Marc Coles-Ritchie

Ervin R. Cowley

Richard C. Henderson

Kim Kratz

Charles M. Quimby

David L. Turner

Linda C. Ulmer

Mark R. Vinson

Contents

Page

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... iii

Part I: A Plan to Monitor Aquatic and Riparian Resources (PACFISH/INFISH) and Biological

Opinions for Bull Trout , Salmon, and Steelhead ......................................................................1

Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................................................2

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2

Goal and Objectives .....................................................................................................................................3

Goal .....................................................................................................................................................3

Objectives/Study Questions ................................................................................................................3

Guiding Principles and Assumptions ...................................................................................................3

Approach ......................................................................................................................................................4

Objective 1 ...................................................................................................................................................4

Study Design and Methods .................................................................................................................4

Analyses ..............................................................................................................................................8

Objective 2 ...................................................................................................................................................8

Study Design and Methods .................................................................................................................8

Analyses ..............................................................................................................................................8

Annual Reporting .................................................................................................................................9

Objective 3 ...................................................................................................................................................9

Study Design and Methods ...............................................................................................................10

Analyses ............................................................................................................................................10

Data Summary, Decision Support, and Adaptive Management ........................................................10

Project Structure ........................................................................................................................................10

Data Quality Assurance and Quality Control .....................................................................................11

Timelines ...........................................................................................................................................11

Conclusions................................................................................................................................................11

Glossary .....................................................................................................................................................12

Appendix I-A...............................................................................................................................................14

Part II: Effectiveness Monitoring for Streams and Riparian Areas Within the Upper

Columbia River Basin: Sampling Protocol for Integrator Reaches Stream

Channel Parameters—2001 ........................................................................................................16

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................17

Sampling Order ..........................................................................................................................................17

Establishing the Sample Reach .................................................................................................................17

Alkalinity and Conductivity .........................................................................................................................18

Conductivity .......................................................................................................................................18

Alkalinity ............................................................................................................................................18

Pools ......................................................................................................................................................18

Pool Length and Residual Pool Depth ..............................................................................................18

Percent Surface Fines in Pool Tails ..................................................................................................18

Streambed Particle Size Distribution..........................................................................................................19

Pebble Counts ...................................................................................................................................19

i
Channel Cross-Sections ............................................................................................................................20

Entrenchment ....................................................................................................................................20

Channel Transects .....................................................................................................................................21

General Transect Measurements ......................................................................................................21

Bank Angle (Normal and Undercut) ..................................................................................................22

Bank Stability .....................................................................................................................................26

Streambank Stability Classification Key .....................................................................................................28

Large Woody Debris ..................................................................................................................................31

Large Woody Debris Counts .............................................................................................................31

Reach Description Measurements .............................................................................................................31

Sinuosity and Valley Length ..............................................................................................................31

Reach Gradient .................................................................................................................................31

Part III: Effectiveness Monitoring for Streams and Riparian Areas Within the Upper

Columbia River Basin: Sampling Protocol for Integrator Reaches Vegetation

Parameters...................................................................................................................................33

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................34

Sampling Order ..........................................................................................................................................34

Riparian Vegetation Classifications............................................................................................................34

How to Use Vegetation Classifications ..............................................................................................35

Establishing the Sample Area ....................................................................................................................35

Greenline....................................................................................................................................................35

Vegetation Cross-Sections.........................................................................................................................41

Undescribed or “New” Communities: for Greenline or Vegetation Cross-Section Data Collection ............45

Effective Ground Cover ..............................................................................................................................46

Woody Species Regeneration....................................................................................................................47

Plant Communities at Stream Transects....................................................................................................47

Collecting Specimens.................................................................................................................................49

References for Parts I, II, and III ................................................................................................................50

Appendix III-A (Equipment list)...................................................................................................................52

Appendix III-B Forms 5–8 ..........................................................................................................................53

ii
Executive Summary

This plan was prepared at the request of the Regional

Foresters in Regions 1, 4, and 6 of the USDA Forest Service,

the State Directors of the USDI Bureau of Land Management

in Idaho and Oregon, the Director of the Pacific Region of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director of the National

Marine Fisheries Service in the Northwest Regional Office.

Part I of this document provides a consistent framework for

implementing the effectiveness monitoring of aquatic and

riparian resources within the range of the Pacific Anadromous

Fish Strategy (PACFISH) and the Inland Fish Strategy (INFISH),

and is directed by the Biological Opinions for salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Under the direction from these strategies,

the effectiveness monitoring plan is intended to evaluate the

effect of land management activities on aquatic and riparian

communities at multiple scales and will assess whether management direction, implemented through PACFISH/INFISH

and the Biological Opinions (PIBO), is effective in maintaining

or improving aquatic and riparian conditions at both the landscape and watershed scales on Federal lands.

Parts II and III of this document contain the protocols for

measuring specific aquatic and riparian attributes that describe

habitat conditions.

iii

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 1

Part I: A Plan to Monitor

Aquatic and Riparian

Resources (PACFISH/

INFISH) and Biological

Opinions for Bull Trout,

Salmon, and Steelhead

Jeffrey L. Kershner

Marc Coles-Ritchie

Ervin Cowley

Richard C. Henderson

Kim Kratz

Charles Quimby

David L. Turner

Linda C. Ulmer

Mark R. Vinson

Part I Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge a number of people for their comments and review. Brett Roper, Gina

Lampman, Dave Hohler, and Bob Hamner of U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; and Tim

Burton, Ron Wiley, and Karl Stein of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

provided helpful feedback and comments on earlier drafts. Doug Young of U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service contributed a number of ideas to the original plan. Ann Carlson, Jim Frazier, Amy

Lind, Joanne Fites, and Ken Roby of the Sierra Framework Aquatic Monitoring group helped to develop

many of the ideas related to the stressor-response model. Tony Olson (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency) and Tom Edwards (U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey) assisted with the overall

sample design. Tom Quigley, currently Director, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, provided valuable insight into document consistency. We especially thank our

peer reviewers Peter Kiffney, Michael Pollock, and Phil Roni (U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Marine Fisheries Service); Rick Woodsmith and Steve Wondzell (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service); and Steve Ralph (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service liaison) for their helpful suggestions and insights. Finally, we thank the Interagency

Implementation Team and the Regional executives for moving forward with this monitoring effort.
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Purpose and Need_______________

This document provides a consistent framework for

implementing the effectiveness monitoring of aquatic

and riparian resources within the range of the Pacific

Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH) and the Inland Fish Strategy (INFISH), and it is directed by the

Biological Opinions (PIBO) for salmon, steelheead,

and bull trout (fig. I-1). Under the direction from these

strategies, the effectiveness monitoring plan is intended to evaluate the effect of land management

activities on aquatic and riparian communities at

multiple scales, and the plan will assess whether

management direction, implemented through

PACFISH/INFISH and PIBO, is effective in maintaining or improving aquatic and riparian conditions at

both the landscape and watershed scales on Federal

lands. This document will serve as The Effectiveness

Monitoring Module—PIBO Monitoring Plan that will

guide the aquatic and riparian monitoring at the

landscape scale.

At the landscape scale, the effectiveness monitoring

plan is intended to answer the question, “Are key

biological and physical attributes, processes, and functions of upslope, riparian, and aquatic systems being

degraded, maintained, or restored within the geographic range of PIBO?” At the watershed scale, monitoring will be used to assess the condition of individual

watersheds and evaluate the extent to which management practices are effective in maintaining or restoring key ecological indicators.

Figure I-1—Map of PACFISH/INFISH study area

(enclosed in bold line).

The need for this monitoring plan is based on direction provided in the bull trout, salmon, and steelhead

Biological Opinions issued by the U.S. Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and

the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine

Fisheries Service (USNMFS). Direction in the Biological Opinions identified requirements for the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS)

and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management (USBLM) to develop a mechanism

for improved accountability and oversight for activities that may influence habitat for these “listed” fish

across their range. This plan was developed at the

request of the Regional Foresters of Regions 1, 4, and

6 of the Forest Service, the State Directors of the U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management in Idaho and Oregon, the Director of the Pacific

Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the

Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service in

the Northwest Regional Office. Implementation of

this plan began in 1998, and the concepts and ideas

were tested and evaluated though 2002. Full implementation of this plan began in FY 2003.

This plan is not intended to replace or supercede all

effectiveness monitoring that currently exists within

the PIBO area. It provides a framework to answer

questions related to aquatic and riparian systems at

multiple scales and provides some needed consistency in approach and analysis (fig. I-2). Effectiveness monitoring that addresses specific questions

related to Forest and District planning and/or activity monitoring should continue. Forest or District

offices of the USFS and USBLM may want to reexamine, and potentially modify, their efforts where

there is overlap with the broad-scale effort in order to

improve efficiency.

Introduction ____________________

The decline of native fish species in Western North

America has prompted new interest in monitoring the

relationships between land management activities and

aquatic and riparian ecosystems. The condition of the

aquatic and riparian habitats in any place and at any

scale is the integrated product of the ecosystem processes, function, and structure. Analysis of watershed

conditions requires considering the degree to which key

processes that create and maintain habitat are intact

and functional through time. The basic components of

aquatic ecosystems that need to be evaluated include

basin geomorphology, hydrologic function, upland and

riparian conditions, in-stream habitat conditions, water quality, and biological integrity (Karr and Chu

1997; Naiman and others 1992). Ecologically healthy

watersheds have lateral, longitudinal, and vertical connections between system components, and they exhibit
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 3

a range of spatial and temporal connectivity. Consequently, watersheds exist in a variety of states and

exhibit considerable variation (Ebersole and others

1997; Reeves and others 1995). Successful monitoring

of these relationships must be sensitive to the dynamic

nature of ecosystem processes across spatial and temporal scales.

While there has been considerable research documenting the effects of various land use practices on

watershed function, most of these efforts have been

attempted at relatively small spatial and temporal

scales. There are few existing efforts to evaluate anthropogenic effects on aquatic resources at larger

scales (Larsen and others 2001; Whittier and Paulsen

1992). Currently, the Environmental and Assessment

Program (EMAP, USEPA) and the North American

Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA, USGS)

are the primary large-scale monitoring programs being implemented in the United States, but the purpose

and goals of these efforts are somewhat different than

the plan outlined here. Multiscalar monitoring plans

specifically focused on relationships between anthropogenic activities and watershed function are in development by land management agencies but are not yet

fully operational (for example, the Northwest Forest

Plan, Ringold and others 1999, and the Sierra Province Assessment and Monitoring Effort). This plan has

tried to incorporate many of the ideas and concepts

that have been developed as part of these other efforts.

There is considerable overlap in the goals and objectives of these monitoring efforts, and we have

attempted to use this existing foundation wherever

possible and expand these concepts to fit the situation

in the PIBO area.

Reviews of past monitoring efforts have indicated

that a number of key steps must be present in any plan

for it to be successful (Conquest and others 1994;

MacDonald and others 1991; Noon and others 1997).

These steps include, but are not limited to, clear goals

and objectives, a conceptual model linking the stressors to consequences, consistent and reliable measurement protocols, a study design that has the potential

to detect differences, and clear linkage between monitoring results and management decisions. We believe

that a monitoring plan framework developed by Noon

and others (1997) is a logical framework, and we have

incorporated many of the ideas that were developed by

them in the following plan.

Goal and Objectives _____________

Goal

Our Goal is to design a monitoring plan within the

PIBO area with the capability to determine whether

PACFISH/INFISH management practices are effective in maintaining or restoring the structure and

function of riparian and aquatic systems.

Objectives/Study Questions

1. Determine whether a suite of biological and physical attributes, processes, and functions of upland,

riparian, and aquatic systems are being degraded,

maintained, or restored across the PIBO landscape.

2. Determine the direction and rate of change in

riparian and aquatic habitats over time as a function

of management practices.

3. Determine if specific Designated Management

Area (DMA) practices related to livestock grazing are

maintaining or restoring riparian vegetation structure and function.

Guiding Principles and Assumptions

1. Develop an effectiveness monitoring plan that is

cost effective and practical.

2. Develop an effectiveness monitoring framework

that incorporates measurable, repeatable methods

that will be useful in answering monitoring questions

on Federal lands at different scales.

Figure I-2—Responsibilities of organizational units

within BLM/Forest Service for effectiveness

monitoring.

Scale - PIBO landscape

Example: Are range - wide conditions

improving?

Who: PIBO monitoring team

Scale - BLM District, National Forest

Example: Are district/forest plan standards 

and guidelines effective at meeting

PACFISH RMOs?

Who: Local unit, level 1 teams

Scale - district, activity

Example: Are riparian/aquatic conditions 

in a specific allotment improving?

Who: District, local personnel
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

3. The implementation of CRA practices will mitigate

the grazing-related effects of human-caused stressors.

Approach ______________________

The condition of the aquatic and riparian ecosystem

is the integrated product of ecosystem processes, rates,

and attributes. The central premise of this approach is

that a variety of stressors exert significant influence

on the structure and function of aquatic and riparian

ecosystems and that the addition of anthropogenic

stressors may change the timing, magnitude, and

duration of ecosystem response. The combined result

is manifested in the current condition of watersheds

throughout the PIBO area.

This stressor-response model forms the foundation

for the effectiveness monitoring plan. This model is one

part of a broader framework developed by Noon and

others (1997) that describes the key components of a

monitoring plan. An exhaustive list of potential stressors was developed as part of the Sierra-Nevada Ecosystem Aquatic Monitoring effort and used as a starting

point to identify stressors that may influence riparian

and aquatic habitats in the PIBO area (table I-1).

Conceptual models linking stressors to a set of

biophysical consequences in aquatic and riparian systems were developed as part of the Sierra Province

Assessment and Monitoring effort and the Northwest

Forest Plan. We reviewed these models and developed

a composite model that best fits the situation in the

PIBO area (fig. I-3). At the bioregional scale, geology,

climate, and topography influence broad-scale vegetation development, the type, frequency, and magnitude

of disturbances, and other ecosystem processes such

as hydrologic and nutrient cycling, carbon flux and

storage, primary productivity, site productivity, and

trophic dynamics. These processes directly influence

processes and functions occurring at the watershed

scale. Lines connecting these components are bidirectional, indicating that influences may occur between

processes and scales. The consequences of stressors on

watershed processes in uplands, riparian areas, and

streams are integrated and ultimately influence components of aquatic biodiversity.

The list of the biophysical consequences was used to

develop potential indicators that could be used to

measure the response of aquatic and riparian communities to the anthropogenic stresses (appendix I-A).

We used a set of rating criteria developed by the Sierra

Province Aquatic and Riparian Monitoring Plan (in

preparation) to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of each indicator (table I-2). The final indicators

reflect stressors/indicators associated with uplands,

riparian-flood-plain systems, and in-channel subsystems (table I-3). Once this set of indicators was

selected, we developed a full description for each

indicator including the biological and physical importance, the relationship of the indicator to management, field methods, and a description of how data

have been analyzed and interpreted in past studies

(appendix I-A). These descriptions were used to guide

the study design and sampling efforts.

Objective 1 _____________________

Study question: Are priority biological and physical

attributes, processes, and functions of riparian and

aquatic systems degraded, maintained, restored in

the PIBO area? Additional questions will also be

tested.

Study Design and Methods

We propose an “extensive” approach to monitoring

by subsampling a fixed percentage of the 6th hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds within the PIBO

area on a yearly basis. We will stratify the sample area

by using geology, watershed size, elevation, precipitation, and vegetation as our primary stratification

criteria, and “managed” and “reference” as secondary

Table I-1—Aquatic and riparian ecosystem stressors in the

PIBO area. Stressors are divided into two

categories relative to their relationship to human

activities and scale.

Stressors that are a direct result of human activities

1. Impermeable ground surfaces—urbanization,

campgrounds, pavement, and so forth

2. Water pollution—eutrophication, herbicides, toxic spills,

and so forth

3. Direct human land/resource use—recreation, hunting,

fishing, hiking, and so forth

4. Roads and log landings in upland and riparian areas,

especially stream crossings, culverts, and so forth

5. Dams and water diversions, and so forth

6. Air pollution

7. Mining effects

8. Vegetation management—timber harvest, prescribed fire,

fire suppression, wildlife habitat conversion, and so forth

9. Livestock grazing

10. Introduced (exotic) species

Large-scale environmental stressors that can be

influenced spatially and temporally by human activities

• Climate change

• Drought

• Flood

• Mass earth movement

• Wildfire

• Insects/pathogens

• Invasive species
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 5

Figure I-3—Conceptual model of processes and stressors that influence processes, functions, and potential

consequences at the watershed scale.

Watershed Processes and Functions 

Ecosystem process Stressors Consequences 

General process Key process Human influenced Human caused 

Upslope Vegetation Wood production, Fire, insects, Forest management, Fragmentation, debris

growth, mortality, transport pathogens recreation, grazing recruitment, nutrient

succession cycling, altered species composition

Soil cycle Sediment production, Mass wasting, Forest management, Nutrient cycling, soil

transport, erosion, debris flows, surface roads, mining, moisture, formation 

 nutrient cycle, mass erosion grazing, recreation rates, sediment regime

wasting, debris flows development

 

Hydrologic Water storage, Precipitation, Forest management, Changes in runoff timing

cycle yield, precipitation floods, drought

Flooding, drought

mining, grazing, roads magnitude, water storage, routing

Riparian/floodplain Vegetation growth, Wood production, Fire, insects, Forest management,

direct habitat loss, change

Changes in species composition,

mortality, succession transport, community pathogens, recreation, grazing

structure, regeneration herbivory in riparian microclimate,

 change in nutrient 

 cycle, change in woody

debris recruitment

 

Soil cycle

 

 Sediment production, Mass wasting, Forest management, Changes in sediment regime,

transport, erosion, debris flows, mining, recreation, soil moisture

 nutrient cycling, erosion, flooding roads 

 Hydrologic cycle Water storage, yield Forest management, Change in water temperature,

 roads, recreation,

grazing, mining, timing and magnitude, 

 diversion, impoundment toxins

 

 Energy exchange Heat delivery Insulation, shading

Insulation, shading

Forest management, Changes in microclimate, water

 grazing temperature

 Chemical/nutrient Chemical/nutrient Deposition, erosion, Forest management Changes in nutrient production,

turnover delivery transport, storage introduction of toxins

Stream Hydrologic cycle Water timing, quantity, Flooding, drought Diversion, impoundment Changes in water quality, temperature,

hyporheic exchange debris transport, habitat loss

 Energy exchange Heat delivery Forest management Changes in water temperature

Channel structure Sediment, wood delivery, Scour, deposition, Dredging, mining, grazing, Habitat loss, change in stream channel

habitat formation debris transport, channel forest management, morphology, sediment regime

 migration recreation

 Chemical/nutrient Delivery of chemicals/ CPOM/FPOM input, Forest management, Changes in nutrient cycle, water

 turnover nutrients erosion, toxins grazing, recreation, quality

waste disposal, mining

 

Aquatic communities

Bioregional conditions 

Geology, 

climate, 

topography

Processes

Speciation, nutrient flow, species 

interactions, disturbance, sedimentation 

hydrologic regime, runoff
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Table I-3—Final indicator selection summary showing relationship to stressors, a composite usability ranking, and an indication

of how the data will be gathered.

Indicator Direct/indirecta Usability Data collectionb

Land use history and current management (upland and riparian)

Equivalent road acres, harvest history D High Allc

Road density—hydrologically connected D High Allc

Number of culverts and stream crossings D High Office, fieldc

Culvert failure rate D High Office, field

Mining history/extent D Med Office, field

Fire frequency D Med/high Office, field

Roads: landslide frequency, size, location D Med Office, fieldc

Livestock management history D med Office, fieldc

Riparian/floodplain habitat

Fragmentation of riparian vegetation— high contrast I High Rm, field

Seral stage / structural complexity of riparian I High Rm, field

Flood-plain interactions/connectivity I Med/high Field

Effective ground cover D Med Fieldc

In-channel/community integrity

Invertebrate community structure I Med/high Fieldc

Water quality - direct measures I Med Fieldc

Water temperature - direct measures I High Fieldc

Distribution of large woody debris I High Fieldc

Cross section mapping I High Fieldc

Width-to-depth ratio, frequency of large pools, I High Field, rmc

longitudinal profiles, residual pool depth,

bank angles, percent undercut bank, substrate composition,

bank stability

a

Direct (D) or indirect (I) measure of a stressor.

b

Remote sensing (rm) = aerial photos, maps, infrared, and satellite imagery; office = information on file in Forest offices or that can be

gathered through library research; field = requires field data collection; all = all three of these techniques are used. c

Data are quantitative, measured, and not estimated.

Table I-2—Review criteria used in the initial screening of indicators for the PIBO effectiveness monitoring

plan. Criteria were evaluated at four spatial scales: site, watershed, basin, and PIBO area.

1. What is the availability of existing data? - none, low, moderate, high.

2. How relevant is the indicator to our original goals, objectives, and questions? - none, low, moderate,

high, indirect.

3. Can the results be consistently interpreted within known reference conditions or contexts? - no, yes.

4. Is change detectable at scale of interest? - no, yes.

5. How sensitive is the indicator to stressors? - low, moderate, high.

6. How confident are we that the indicator represents a function or process of interest? - none, low,

moderate, high.

7. Is there a direct measure of the stressor available? - no, yes.

8. Are there existing methods available to measure the indicator? - no, yes.

9. Can the indicator be applied at multiple spatial scales? no, yes (which scales?)

10. Are the metrics associated with the indicator repeatable (and doable)? - no, yes.

11. What is the relative cost? - low, moderate, high
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 7

strata. We will test whether our stratification criteria

contribute significant value to our analysis using analysis of covariance. If stratification criteria are not meaningful, we will combine samples where appropriate.

We will develop 177 blocks of 20 contiguous watersheds throughout the PACFISH/INFISH area. Each

year we will randomly choose 20 percent of the blocks

and then subsample seven of the watersheds within

each block. We will repeat this process over a 5-year

period until we have sampled approximately one-half

of the potential watersheds that have perennial streams

and greater than 50 percent Federal ownership above

the sample reach. We will then resample the same

watersheds over subsequent 5-year periods. This design is represented as a rotating panel that is serially

augmented and alternates over a given period

(Urquhart and others 1998). Initially, we will randomly select the subsample of reference and managed

watersheds within the group. Our goal will be to select

an even number of “reference” and “managed” watersheds for sampling. Because the number of “reference”

watersheds is generally low, we will sample as many

as possible within the group, up to half of the total

number of watersheds.

We will work with individual field units to verify the

status and condition of each watershed. Watersheds

that do not meet sampling criteria will be dropped

from sampling and alternates chosen. For example,

watersheds that appear to fit sampling criteria on the

map, but have intermittent flow during the sampling

season, will be dropped in favor of a watershed having

perennial stream flow. This will allow us to maximize

crew and sampling efficiency within given areas while

meeting our assumption of randomness.

The sample watersheds will be selected from the

current list of watersheds developed during consultation with both the USNMFS and the USFWS to track

implementation monitoring within the sample watersheds during year 1. In subsequent years, the random

sample of effectiveness monitoring watersheds will

trigger the selection of implementation monitoring in

the same watersheds. This will allow us to determine

whether the key management practices have been

fully implemented. At this time, only watersheds having greater than 50 percent Federal land ownership

will be considered for sampling to reduce the variability associated with mixed-ownership management.

Sample watersheds will be a priori divided into two

analysis categories—reference and managed—that

exhibit a range of land management activities. We will

establish category ownership by developing a set of

screening criteria using management activities and

the percentage of those activities that currently exist

in the watershed. In addition, we will also use information from other water quality assessments and the

Inland West Strategy (where data are available) to

further define management categories. If we determine that reference watersheds are unavailable

throughout a basin, we will gather information from

field units on the status and distribution of riparian

and aquatic habitats that have been minimally influenced by land management activities and convene

expert panels to evaluate these data and establish

“reference” conditions for these areas (fig. I-4).

We will use the “stream” as our sampling unit within

the watershed, and stream reaches will be our sample

locations. We will potentially use two reach types in

the survey:

1. Response reaches, which have less than a 2

percent gradient and respond to sediment and wood

input by adjusting channel form.

2. Transition reach, which have a 2 to 3 percent

gradient, are generally the transition between response reaches and transport reaches, and show little

visible effect in channel form from sediment and debris inputs.

Initial reach determinations will be made from U.S.

Geological Information System (GIS) maps available

for each watershed. We will select a minimum of one

reach within each watershed. Potential integrator

reaches that are influenced by beaver activity will be

excluded from sampling. This reach will normally be

Figure I-4—Approach to establishing reference

conditions (modified from Barbour and others 1995).

 Preliminary Reference Site Assessment

Aquatic/riparian

integrity rating

Central tendency,

shape of distribution

Where “reference” sites

exist, establish

expectations

Minimal disturbance

Reference sites available

Aquatic/riparian

integrity rating

Hypothetical expectations,

shape of distribution, central

tendency

Use (1) neighboring site

classes, (2) expert consensus,

or (3) composite of “best”

ecological information

Ecological modeling

No reference sites
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Analyses

We will evaluate questions 1 and 2 using a variety of

analyses. Our initial design is an incomplete randomized block analysis of variance where:

• Group represents potential strata (for example,

geology, precipitation, ecoregion).

• Years are the incomplete blocks; in other words, a

random subset of sites (selected without replacement) are visited each year.

• Each site will eventually be visited at 5-year (or

more) intervals, depending on funding.

• Sentinel sites will be visited every year but by

different crews (in other words, crews change

virtually every year).

• The ANOVA breakdown would be as follows:

Source

Group

Site (group)

Year

Year x group

Year x site (group)

Crew (year)

Crew (year) x site (group)

Residual

This analysis will be used to determine if watershed

condition, as expressed by the indicators, is changing

over time. Results of these analyses will be used to

display the trajectories of watershed condition across

the PIBO landscape. In addition, we will evaluate the

distribution of watershed condition indicators among

the selected reference and managed watersheds by

evaluating the frequency distribution of condition of

watersheds across the whole PACFISH/INFISH region. Patterns of ecological functions are spatially and

temporally dynamic. Hence, watershed condition will

be defined by comparing individual indicators or static

estimates of watershed condition with the natural

range of watershed function and integrity. How rapidly the frequency distribution changes will depend on

a variety of factors, including current conditions, natural disturbances, intensity of management activity,

and degree of degradation from which a watershed is

recovering. Under natural conditions, watersheds

across the landscape ranged from diverse, productive

biotic communities, to relatively simple, unproductive

systems (Overton and others 1995; Reeves and others

1995). If the aquatic conservation strategy of PACFISH/

INFISH is effective, it should create a landscape of

managed watersheds that trends toward improved

functioning over time (fig. I-5).

the most downstream reach in the watershed and

should represent a response reach wherever possible.

This “integrator” reach should be a minimum of 20

times the bankfull width, but never less than 80 m. An

integrator reach will never have a gradient greater

than 3 percent. In general, these reach types represent

pool-riffle channels that should have the greatest

sensitivity to increases in sediment supply and peak

flows (Montgomery and MacDonald 2002). In composite watersheds where there are multiple small streams

entering a large stream (greater than 4th order) we will

randomly select one stream and sample the most

downstream reach. At each watershed we will collect

information on management history indicators,

in-channel and water quality indicators, and riparian

community indicators.

Analyses

See objective 2.

Objective 2 _____________________

Study question: What is the direction and rate of

change in aquatic and riparian habitats over time?

Study Design and Methods

In addition to our annual random sampling, we will

select a fixed number of watersheds from each strata

to track over time. This will allow us to determine the

rate and direction of change in managed and reference

watersheds, which will allow us to better estimate the

“year” effect and to project how long it will take for the

expected changes from management to occur. These

“sentinel” sites will be sampled yearly. We anticipate

that there will be 50 of these watersheds in the annual

sample, divided equally between the two categories.

We will use the same sample reaches and transects for

our field measurements. Sample reaches and transects

will have permanent survey monuments and be

geospatially located to facilitate finding these sites

through time.

Once the final indicators were selected (table I-3),

we developed a description of all methods for both land

use history variables and habitat variables. A complete description of the methods for assessing land use

history is in development, while a description of the

methods used to assess stream and aquatic habitat is

found in Part II, and the methods for assessing riparian communities are found in Part III.

A quality control plan was developed to test the

variability of our methods, the variability between

crews, and seasonal variability (Archer and others, in

press; Coles-Ritchie and others, in preparation).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 9

Data will be annually summarized for all sample

watersheds into an aggregate rating for each sample

strata. Comparative analyses will be summarized by

stratum to determine differences in watershed condition between the managed and reference watersheds.

Initially, strata where frequency distributions for

variables are similar and where less than 25 percent

of the variables are significantly different between

managed and reference watersheds will be considered

“maintained or restored.” Watersheds where differences are apparent in the shapes of the distributions

and/or more than 25 percent of the variables are

significantly different between managed and reference sites will be subject to further analyses. This

“further analysis” categorization triggers an examination of the individual management watersheds within

the strata to determine causation. These watersheds

will be subject to review by District Managers/Forest

Supervisors and interagency review teams. Local

managers can review the current conditions of the

watershed, determine whether current management

practices are being implemented correctly, and evaluate whether changes are needed.

Objective 3 _____________________

Study question: Are site-specific DMA practices

being implemented, and are they effective in maintaining or restoring riparian habitats (grazing as an

example)?

DMA practices are designed to protect aquatic and

riparian habitats from land use effects. A basic assumption underlying the DMA concept is that land use

activities can be mitigated by implementing these

practices. Best Management Practices (BMP) are generally included as DMA practices but are specifically

designed to protect water quality. DMA monitoring is

an evaluation of whether or not the implementation of

the practices over time is actually moving specific

resource conditions toward desired conditions (related

to the PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives).

DMA indicators are selected to be directly and rapidly responsive to the land use, although in practice

this may be difficult to achieve. For example, riparian

hardwood recruitment and retention is responsive to

grazing (both livestock and big game) and presumably

to the implementation objective for residual stubble

height. While the indicator is responsive to grazing

impacts, it may also be affected by ground-water

availability (which in turn can be affected by roads or

logging). However, if the site objectives are related to

the need to increase woody vegetation, and grazing

impacts are a concern, the use of the riparian hardwood recruitment/retention indicator may be the best

choice available.

Figure I-5—Hypothetical change in frequency distribution

moving from historic, to current, to expected change.

Target distribution does not equal historic distribution

(adapted from Noon and others 1997).

Past

Current

Future

Condition index

Time

Frequency

Appropriate

trajectories

Inappropriate

trajectories

value at

t2

t0

t1

t2

Exploratory analyses will assess the relationships of

the variables used in our comparative analyses. This

has two purposes: first, we can evaluate the contribution of the indicators to explain pattern and process;

and second, it should allow us to validate the value of

the stratifications that we a priori identified. These

types of analyses may include cluster analysis, discriminant functions analysis, ordination, and regression.

Annual Reporting

Data from sentinel sites will be used in combination

with our previous data set to project trends and rates

of change in aquatic and riparian community characteristics across the PIBO landscape. These data will be

used to forecast the outcomes of management changes

over time, and we could potentially use this information to project watershed recovery rates within similar

geographic areas. For example, long-term data from

sentinel sites in some strata may indicate that channel

response to changes in management may be slow due

to the influence of the geology or climate in an area. By

understanding this relationship, managers could potentially use this information to promote recovery by

making more substantive changes in management

practices or by identifying restoration activities that

accelerate recovery.
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Study Design and Methods

To date, only the monitoring protocol for grazing is

specifically developed. Each pasture that contains a

riparian area will have one or more key areas where

Implementation Monitoring is to occur. These key

areas will be monitored to determine if the end-ofseason grazing implementation standard has been

achieved.

The sampling framework for grazing practice effectiveness monitoring will be the same as the strategy

outlined for question 1. Grazing effectiveness monitoring will be conducted within the same watersheds

selected to answer objective 1 (where livestock grazing

is present). In watersheds that are grazed, we will

sample DMAs within one pasture containing significant amounts of riparian vegetation-dominated habitat. We will exclude small special management pastures—such as on-off allotments, holding pastures,

cow camps, pastures containing only forested riparian

areas with little or no grass-dominated vegetation,

and riparian exclosures—and place them in a separate

category. Sample reaches will be chosen by field unit

personnel. If more than one DMA is present, we will

randomly choose one sample site. Composite watersheds

(watersheds not having a clearly defined topographic

outlet) will be sampled using a similar procedure.

Grazing response reaches should be a minimum of 110

m (Winward 2000). If a response reach is unavailable

within the first pasture, then we will sample a transition reach within the same pasture. Only riparian

community and streambank indicators will be measured in the grazing reach.

Analyses

The analyses to answer this question are similar to

the comparative analyses outline under objectives 1

and 2. In addition, analysis of covariance may be

attempted to look at the influence of the stubble height

Key Management Practices (KMP) on meeting effectiveness monitoring objectives.

Data Summary, Decision Support, and

Adaptive Management

Because DMA monitoring is designed to provide

short-term feedback on the effectiveness of specific

management practices, this information must be rapidly summarized and analyzed to provide feedback to

managers. Data will be summarized by watershed and

made available to local field personnel on an annual

basis. In addition, summaries and analyses of riparian

community indicators by strata will be included so

that managers can evaluate the results of their management against similar prescriptions in proximity to

their sites. This should give managers information to

make changes, if necessary, to the residual stubble

height standards in their allotments. Data will also be

used in the analyses and reporting described in question 1.

Project Structure ________________

The effectiveness monitoring plan provides the conceptual framework, sample design, core indicators,

and analysis to evaluate riparian and in-channel conditions and assess watershed conditions across the

PACFISH/INFISH area. Regional executives from the

BLM, NMFS, FWS, and Forest Service oversee the

monitoring efforts related to PACFISH/INFISH and

the Biological Opinions. Their direct representatives

are the Interagency Implementation Team. The Effectiveness Monitoring Technical Team is an interagency

team responsible for the development of the effectiveness monitoring plan and provides guidance to the

Field Implementation Team. Technical oversight and

peer review are conducted by the Technical Advisory

Group, which is composed of scientists and managers

from agencies and academia. The Effectiveness Monitoring Field Implementation Team develops sampling

protocols, analyzes and interprets data, and reports

findings to agency managers. This team will report

Figure I-6—Organizational structure of PIBO

effectiveness monitoring team.

Interagency

Regional

Executives

Interagency

Implementation

Team

Technical

Advisory

Group

Effectiveness

Monitoring

Technical Team

Field Implementation Team

Field offices,

District,

Supervisor’s Office,

Level 1 teams
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 11

directly to the Effectiveness Monitoring Technical

Team. We propose a centralized structure to ensure all

elements of data quality control and quality assurance

are maintained. Local field units will interact with the

Effectiveness Monitoring Field Teams to validate assumptions, define indicator relevance and importance,

and coordinate logistical needs for data collection. The

Effectiveness Monitoring Field Team will provide assistance to local field units when requested and provide each field unit with a copy of field and office

protocols, sampling locations and maps, technical data

and analysis, and an annual report of monitoring

activities.

Effectiveness Monitoring Field Team responsibilities are:

• Develop and implement the effectiveness monitoring plan.

• Develop and apply a sampling scheme to select

sampled watersheds.

• Train field implementation teams, and coordinate data acquisition efforts.

• Maintain a corporate data structure for acquired

information.

• Compile and analyze data to establish status and

trend information for resource conditions within

the PACFISH/INFISH area.

• Report monitoring results annually to agency

executives.

• Make recommendations to adapt the effectiveness

monitoring program to include new or refined

indicators developed through statistical analyses and other research results as they become

available.

• Advise managers on observed effectiveness of key

management practices.

• Coordinate logistics for annual data collection

with administrative units.

• Compile, verify, and summarize indicator data for

all watersheds sampled in the region.

• Develop and maintain a quality control program

for monitoring data.

• Work with the Technical Advisory Team and the

Effectiveness Monitoring Technical Team to

modify sampling methods and protocols where

needed.

Local field-unit staff will interact with the teams to

refine local indicators, give relative weighting to indicators in assessments, contribute technical support to

data acquisition and interpretation, and work with

the technical team to develop predictive models.

Because watershed condition assessments will be

subject to local interpretation, appropriate documentation must accompany each assessment to describe

how core indicators are applied and which additional

indicators, if any, are integrated into watershed condition assessments. Proper documentation and oversight

of this process will be critical to ensure that the

database will have value when aggregated at the

regional scales.

Data Quality Assurance and Quality

Control

Quality assurance and quality control measures for

collecting data and assessing watershed condition are

built into the organizational and implementation

structure for the effectiveness monitoring plan (Archer

and others, in press; Coles-Ritchie and others, in

preparation). Quality-control measures will include:

(1) developing and using standardized protocols for

data collection; (2) testing the ability of crews to obtain

consistent results with field protocols; (3) documenting data sources and the assumptions used to develop

indicator reference conditions, weights, and relations

used in the analysis; and (4) annual review of protocols, protocol testing, and project design.

Results of quality control testing have been provided

to outside peer reviewers for comment and review.

Objectives of outside review are to validate the information and assumptions used in the process, to gain

internal team understanding and support of the assessment results and the process used, and to provide

feedback on information and research gaps, with suggestions for future work.

Timelines

The PIBO effectiveness monitoring project underwent pilot testing for 3 years. In 2001 and 2002 the

project sampled at 50 percent of projected full implementation (table I-4). The first year of full implementation is projected was 2003. At full implementation

250 “extensive” watersheds and 50 “sentinel” watersheds will be sampled annually. Approximately 50

percent of the watersheds meeting the Federal ownership criteria will be sampled over a 5-year sampling

period. At year 6, a new sampling cycle will begin, and

the same watersheds will be sampled over the next

5-year cycle. During a typical forest planning cycle

(15 years) approximately 50 percent of the watersheds

in the PIBO will be sampled two to four times.

Conclusions____________________

One of the largest problems with monitoring plans of

this type is the truncation of monitoring before enough

data are gathered for interpretation (Reid 2001). This

project is designed to be long term, and many of the

changes, as a result of changes in management, will

most likely not occur during a short period (1 to 5

years). Some of these changes will be dependent on the

recurrence intervals of major flood events (greater

than 25 years), fire frequencies, and forest succession.
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Long-term monitoring will be the only way that we will

be able to detect whether changes in past management

are indeed influencing watershed conditions.

This plan should be viewed as a “living” document

and should evolve as new information becomes available. While we envision the basic sampling scheme to

remain intact, it may be necessary to modify our

design or sampling to accommodate new information.

For example, one question that arose during the pilot

study was, “Are conditions at the integrator reach

reflective of conditions in the watershed as a whole?”

This has been addressed by other efforts in a variety of

ways. In the Aquatic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (AREMP, in preparation), multiple reaches

are selected within a watershed to develop a watershed characterization. In the EMAP program

(Kaufmann and others 1999) random reaches are

selected that “represent” conditions for a particular

watershed. We will subsample a number of our “intensive” watersheds to determine whether the conditions

at the integrator sites reflect conditions within the

watershed. In addition, we will sample multiple response reaches and transport reaches throughout the

watershed and use these data to compute the variability associated with measured variables. We will statistically determine if the error associated with increased

sample sizes appears to decrease at some threshold. If

we can detect a threshold, then we will adjust our

sample strategy in the sentinel watersheds. If we are

unable to detect significant differences between integrator reaches and watershed reach summaries, then

we will discontinue whole watershed sampling.

Finally, the intent of this plan is to provide information that will help managers to understand whether

actions that have been implemented on the ground are

maintaining or restoring stream habitat. This plan

will only succeed if the results from this monitoring

are transmitted in a timely manner and result in

positive change.

Glossary _______________________

Aquatic community – an association of interacting

assemblages in a given water body, the biotic component of an ecosystem.

Biogeographic regions – any geographical region characterized by a distinctive flora and/or fauna.

Biological integrity – functionally defined as the condition of an aquatic community inhabiting unimpaired

water bodies of a specified habitat as measured by an

evaluation of multiple attributes of the aquatic biota.

Three critical components of biological integrity are

that the biota is (1) the product of the evolutionary

process for that locality or site, (2) inclusive of a broad

range of biological and ecological characteristics such

as taxonomic richness and composition, atrophic structure, and (3) is found in the study biogeographic

region.

Biological monitoring or biomonitoring – the use of a

biological entity as a detector and its response as a

measure to determine environmental conditions. Toxicity tests and ambient biological surveys are common

biomonitoring methods.

Community – any portion of a biological community.

The community component may pertain to the taxonomic group (fish, invertebrates, algae plants), the

taxonomic category (phylum, order, family, genus,

species, stock), the feeding strategy (herbivore, omnivore, predator), or the organizational level (individual,

population, assemblage) of a biological entity within

the aquatic or riparian community.

Confidence interval – an interval that has the stated

probability (for example, 95 percent) of containing the

true value of a fixed (but unknown) parameter.

Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) – areas with pastures that represent the condition of riparian areas

affected by grazing within the pasture. Location of

effectiveness monitoring for vegetation and bank

parameters.

Table I-4—Projected sampling cycle for sentinel and extensive monitoring watersheds in the

PIBO area.

Watershed 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Sentinel 25 25 50 50 50 50 50

Group 1 125 250a

Group 2 125 250

Group 3 250

Group 4 250

Group 5 250

a

An additional suite of 125 watersheds will be selected out of this group.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 13

Degradation – any alteration of ecosystems such that

chemical, physical, or biological attributes are adversely affected.

Ecological integrity – the condition of an unimpaired

ecosystem as measured by combined chemical, physical (including habitat), and biological attributes.

Effectiveness monitoring – monitoring to determine

whether the correct implementation of land use practices is “effective” at moving resource condition in

some desired direction.

Historical data – data sets existing from previous

studies, which can range from handwritten field notes

to published journal articles.

Impact – a change in the chemical, physical (including

habitat), or biological quality or condition of a water

body caused by external sources.

Integrator reach – generally the downstream-most

reach within a 6th code watershed that is less than 2

percent gradient.

Macroinvertebrates – animals without backbones of a

size large enough to be seen by the unaided eye and

that can be retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve

(28 meshes per inch, 0.595 mm openings).

Managed site – the location under study of which the

condition is unknown and suspected of being adversely affected by anthropogenic influence.

Metric – a calculated term or enumeration representing some aspect of biological assemblage structure,

function, or other measurable aspect; a characteristic

of the biota that changes in some predictable way with

increased human influence; combinations of these

attributes or metrics provide valuable synthetic assessments of the status of water resources.

Nonpoint source – the origin of pollution in diffuse

sources such as agriculture, forestry, and urbanization. Such pollution is transported by rainfall or snowmelt runoff carrying pollutants overland or through

the soil.

Population – an aggregate of individuals of a biological

species that are geographically isolated from other

members of the species and are actually or potentially

interbreeding.

Quality assurance (QA) – includes quality control

functions and involves a totally integrated program

for ensuring the reliability of monitoring and measurement data; the process of management review

and oversight at the planning, implementation, and

completion stages of environmental data collection

activities. Its goal is to assure that the data provided

are of the quality needed and claimed.

Quality control (QC) – refers to the routine application

of procedures for obtaining prescribed standards of

performance in the monitoring and measurements

process; focuses on the detailed technical activities

needed to achieve data of the quality specified by data

quality objectives. Quality control is implemented at

the bench or field level.

Reference condition – the set of selected measurements or conditions of watersheds characteristic that

are minimally influenced by anthropogenic stressors.

Reference site – a specific locality that is minimally

influenced and is representative of the expected ecological integrity of other localities in the same watershed or nearby watersheds.

Riparian zone – transitional areas between terrestrial

and aquatic ecosystems, distinguished by gradients in

biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota.

They are areas through which surface and subsurface

hydrology connect water bodies with adjacent uplands. They include those portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (in other

words, a zone of influence). Riparian areas are adjacent to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams,

lakes, and estuarine-marine shorelines (National Research Council 2002).

Sentinel watershed – watersheds that are annually

sampled.

Stressor – A disturbance that alters resources or acts

as a physiological disrupter such that the limits of an

ecosystem or population to adapt may be shifted, and

if the magnitude and duration are significant, the

system moves into a new state.

Taxa richness – refers to the number of distinct species

or kinds (taxa) that are found in an assemblage,

community, or sample.

Transition reach – a stream reach that is generally

between 2 and 3 percent gradient.
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Appendix I-A ____________________________________________________

Potential indicators for each biotic or physical consequence for PIBO effectiveness monitoring effort (adapted

from Sierra Nevada Framework aquatic monitoring plan).

Biotic or physical consequence Potential indicators

Changes in runoff timing/magnitude • Hydrographs - peak flow, frequency, and so forth

• Watershed/near-stream road density

• Elongation of stream into ditches (length)

• Number of culverts and stream crossingsa

• Culvert failure rate

• Number of dams and diversions, acres of reservoirsa

• Length of perennial stream (ratio to intermittent)a

• Lake/pond water level

• Mining history/extenta

• Ground-water conditiona

Direct habitat loss/fragmentation • Soil quality - compaction, cover, organicsa

and change • Fragmentation of riparian vegetation - high contrast

• Fragmentation of riparian vegetation - low contrast

• Seral stage/structural complexity of ripariana

• Native riparian community mosaic, compositiona (spatial extent, mosaic,

nonriparian openings width of obligate riparian, root density)

• In-stream/lake aquatic vegetation

• Fire frequencya

• Fish/wildlife populations parameters (natality, survival, and mortality rates,

movements)a

• Fish/wildlife distribution, abundance, connectivitya

• Timber harvest history

• Location/size of recreation sites

• Location/size of other disturbance

Changes in nutrient production/cycles • Chemical and nutrient content of water

• Invertebrate community structurea

• Instream-channel carbon load

• Fire frequency

• Primary productivity/algal community

• Native riparian community mosaic, compositiona

Introduction of toxins in water • Number of reported toxic spills - type and quantity

and potability • Water quality - direct measures

• Sublethal/mortality effects on vertebratesa

• Invertebrate community structurea

• Seral stage/structural complexity of ripariana

• Number of culverts and stream crossingsa

Changes in fish/wildlife population • Fish/wildlife population parameters (natality, survival, and mortality rates,

parameters movements for priority species)a

• Fish/wildlife distribution, abundance, connectivitya

• Genetic diversity/similarity

• Fish health

• Angler/hunter surveys

Changes in community structure/ • Community composition/integrity metrics

composition • Special habitats distribution and abundancea

• Fish stocking history

Changes in sediment regime • Instream - channel sediment measures

• Channel morphologya

• Slope erosion indicatorsa

(con.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 15

Changes in woody debris recruitment/ • Frequency, distribution, arrangement of LWD

transport • Large tree density/diameter

• Seral stage/structural complexity of ripariana

• Slope erosion indicatorsa

• Number of dams and diversions, acres of reservoirsa

Changes in water temperature • Direct measuresa

• Canopy closure - over stream and ripariana

• Presence/distribution of special thermal habitats (cold pools, hot springs,

and so forth)

• Fish/wildlife distribution, abundance, connectivitya

• Length of perennial stream, ratio to intermittenta

Changes in stream channel morphology • Habitat mapping (fast/slow water)

• Width-to-depth ratio, frequency of large pools, longitudinal profiles, residual

pool depth, bank angles, shore depth, substrate, and so fortha

• Flood-plain interactions/connectivity

• Number of dams and diversions, acres of reservoirsa

• Animal Unit Months (cattle and pack stock) a

• Mining history/extenta

• Root density/bank stability

Changes in soil moisture/hydrologic • Native riparian community mosaic compositiona

regime • Soil quality - moisture, compaction, organicsa

• Presence/absence of a defined stream channel, width-to-depth ratio,

frequency of large pools, longitudinal profiles, residual pool depth, bank

angles, shore depth, substrate, and so fortha

• Flood-plain interactions/connectivity

• Number of dams and diversions, acres of reservoirsa

• Animal Unit Months (cattle and pack stock)a

• Ground-water conditiona

Changes in riparian microclimate • Direct measures (temperature and humidity)a

• Canopy closure - over stream and ripariana

• Seral stage/structural complexity of ripariana

• Fish/wildlife distribution, abundance, connectivitya

a

Indicator is useful for monitoring more than one consequence.

Appendix I-A (Con.)
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Part II:

Effectiveness Monitoring

for Streams and Riparian

Areas Within the Upper

Columbia River Basin:

Sampling Protocol for

Integrator Reaches Stream

Channel Parameters—2001

Richard Henderson

Eric Archer

Jeffrey L. Kershner

Part II Note

This document describes the sampling protocol used in 2001 and evaluated in the companion publication Archer

and others (2004). Many of the methods have since been modified following additional testing and review. In

addition, other methods that have we are currently testing were not included. See our website at http://

www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp/ for the most recent version.

Part II Acknowledgments

The authors thank everyone who helped in developing and testing this protocol. First, we thank Tim Burton,

Kerry Overton, Sherri Wollrab, Darren Olsen, Jack Schmidt, Charles Hawkins, and many others for their advice

and review of the various drafts. We especially appreciate the critical input from over 50 summer technicians who

were invaluable in refining, clarifying, and evaluating the methods. We also thank Kate Dircksen and Emily Hall

for their artistic drawings, and Deanna Vinson for final edits. Finally, thanks to Regions 1, 4, and 6 of the Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Idaho and Oregon/Washington State Offices of the Bureau of

Land Management, Department of the Interior, for funding the monitoring effort.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 17

Introduction ____________________

An interagency team representing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS), the

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management (USDI BLM), the U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

(USDI FWS) was convened to develop a large-scale

monitoring program with the primary objective of

determining whether PACFISH/INFISH management

practices are effective in maintaining or restoring the

structure and function of riparian and aquatic habitats throughout the upper Columbia River Basin. A

list of attributes that were thought to be important in

defining aquatic habitat conditions and their relationship with listed species were identified. The team also

specifically stated that existing methods be used to

measure each attribute. This sampling protocol for

stream channel parameters (which is part of the “Plan

to Monitor Aquatic and Riparian Resources in the

Area of PACFISH/INFISH and the Biological Opinions for Bull Trout, Salmon, and Steelhead”) is the

result of that interagency effort.

The general sampling methods used by the program

and described in this report were taken from existing

sampling protocols. The following list includes the

original citations for each of the methods used:

• Harrelson and others (1994)—Reach layout, gradient, sinuosity, site map, and channel crosssections

• Wolman (1954); Overton and others (1997)—

Streambed particle counts

• Platts and others (1987)—Bank angle and undercut banks

• Bauer and Burton (1993); Platts and others

(1987)—Bank stability

• Overton and others (1997)—Defining habitat units

and large woody debris

• Lisle (1987)—Residual pool depths

• Hawkins, Charles; Vinson, Mark; Ostermiller, Jeff

(personal communication)—Macroinvertebrates

• Stevenson, Jan; Hawkins, Charles (personal

communication)—Periphyton

The individual methods were initially modified to

describe each attribute at a reach scale and increase

repeatability between observers. Additional changes

were made following 2 years of use, evaluation, and

peer review.

Finally, the protocol and the individual methods

were designed and tested specifically to sample a

stream “reach” and to monitor the effects of management activities in a specific set of stream types. Reach

lengths are a minimum of 20 bankfull channel widths

in length and range from 80 to 300 m. All reaches are

within unconstrained valley bottoms with gradients

less than 3 percent and have wadeable channels with

bankfull widths between 1 and 15 m. We feel strongly

that it should not be used in other stream types

without additional review and testing.

Sampling Order _________________

1. Locate the flag at the downstream end of the

reach.

2. Identify the pool tail near the flag and mark the

exact downstream end of the reach.

3. Measure alkalinity, conductivity, and take a Global Positioning System (GPS) reading.

4. Measure the average bankfull width at each of

the riffles.

5. Determine the reach length by measuring along

the thalweg and placing transect flags.

6. Conduct pool sampling (pool-tail depth, maximum depth, length).

7. Conduct particle size counts in the riffles.

8. Measure channel cross-sections.

9. Conduct transect sampling (bank angle, undercut depth, and bank stability).

10. Measure and count large woody debris.

11. Finish site maps, gradient, and sinuosity.

12. Review all forms (especially Form 1) for

completeness.

13. Review all entries in the data logger.

14. Check to make sure you have all equipment

and forms.

Establishing the Sample

Reach _________________________

After arriving at the site, locate the flag at the

downstream end of the reach. Identify the pool tail

near the flag and mark the exact downstream end of

the reach. Next, examine the bankfull indicators (described below) throughout the reach to identify the

bankfull elevation. For a more thorough discussion see

Harrelson and others (1994).

1. Examine streambanks for an active flood plain.

This is a relatively flat, depositional area that is

commonly vegetated and above the current water

level.

2. Examine depositional features such as point bars.

The highest elevation of a point bar usually indicates

the lowest possible elevation for bankfull stage.

3. A break in slope of the banks and/or change in the

particle size distribution from coarser bed load particles to finer particles deposited during bank overflow

conditions.

4. Define an elevation where mature key riparian

woody vegetation exists. The lowest elevation of birch,

alder, and dogwood can be useful, whereas willows are

often found below the bankfull elevation.
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

5. Examine the ceiling of undercut banks. This

elevation is normally below the bankfull stage.

6. Stream channels actively attempt to reform

bankfull features such as flood plains after shifts or

down cutting in the channel. Be careful not to confuse

old flood plains and terraces with the present indicators.

7. Depositional features can form both above and

below the bankfull elevation when unusual flows occur during years preceding the survey. Large floods

can form bars that extend above bankfull, whereas

several years of low flows can result in bars forming

below bankfull elevation.

Then measure the bankfull width at a representative point within each of the first four riffles. Record

the four bankfull widths on Form 1 and calculate an

average. Use the average width to determine the

width category from table II-1. The minimum stream

length is defined for each width category and is equal

to 20 times the width category. The upstream and

downstream boundaries of the reach are located at a

pool tail crest. Therefore, the upstream boundary is

located at the first pool tail encountered after the

minimum length has been attained.

Alkalinity and Conductivity _______

Conductivity

Measure conductivity once at each reach using a

hand-held conductivity meter. Measure immediately

upon arrival and before walking through the channel

and disturbing the sediment. Take the reading near

the surface, in flowing water, and record in parts per

million (ppm) on Form 1 and in the electronic data

recorder. Recalibrate the conductivity meter at the

beginning of each 8-day sampling period.

Alkalinity

Measure and record both total alkalinity and P

alkalinity once at the same time and location as

conductivity. Record measurements to the nearest

4 ppm. Specific instructions are found in the water

testing kit.

Pools _________________________

Pool Length and Residual Pool Depth

Objectives

• Quantify the relative length of pool habitat in

each reach.

• Determine the average residual depth of pools.

Where to take measurements

Sample every pool within the sample reach that

meets the following criteria for summer pool conditions:

1. Pools are bounded by a head crest (upstream

break in slope) and a tail crest (downstream break in

slope).

2. Only consider main-channel pools (the thalweg

runs through the pool) and not backwater pools.

3. Pools are concave in profile.

4. Pools occupy greater than half of the wetted

channel width.

5. Pool depth is at least 1.5 times the pool tail depth.

6. Pool length is greater than its width.

How to take measurements

1. Measure the pool length, maximum depth, and

pool tail crest depth for each pool.

2. Measure pool length along the thalweg between

the head crest and tail crest and record to the nearest

centimeter.

3. The maximum depth represents the deepest point

in the pool and is found by probing with a depth rod

until the deepest point is located. The pool tail crest

depth is measured at the maximum depth along the

pool tail crest. Record both maximum pool depth and

pool tail crest depths to the nearest centimeter.

Percent Surface Fines in Pool Tails

Objective

• Quantify the percentage of fine sediments on the

surface of pool tail substrate.

Where to take measurements

1. Take measurements in the first four scour pools

in each reach.

Table II-1—Width categories.

Average bankfull width Width category Minimum reach length

m m

0 to 4 4 80

4.1 to 6 6 120

6.1 to 8 8 160

8.1 to 10 10 200

10.1 to 12 12 240

12.1 to 14 14 280
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 19

2. Only sample scour pools that meet the criteria

described below, even if that means less than four

pools are sampled.

3. Take three grid measurements within each pool

tail.

How to take measurements

1. Measure surface fines in all pools that are formed

by scouring, but not in pools formed by damming (such

as a log or debris pile).

2. Sample within the wetted, flowing area of the

pool tail (in other words, not in stagnant water).

3. The sampling area extends from the pool tail

crest upstream a distance equal to 10 percent of the

pool length. Divide the sampling area into three zones,

taking one sample in each zone. See figure II-1 to

determine how to define each zone.

4. Randomly toss the 14- by 14-inch grid once into

each zone. Count the number of intersections where

the substrate under the intersection (49 intersections

and the upstream right corner = 50) is less than or

equal to 6 mm. Use a Plexiglas viewer to reduce the

glare.

5. Vegetation may be growing under the grid, hindering the identification of particle size. First, attempt

to identify the particle size by moving the vegetation.

If this is not possible, then list the number of

nonmeasurable intersections on the data form.

Streambed Particle Size

Distribution ____________________

Pebble Counts

Objective

• Determine the percent fines less than 6 mm in

diameter (D), D16, D50 (median particle size),

and D84 within riffles/runs.

Where to take measurements

1. Take measurements within the first four riffle/

runs that meet the following criteria. If one of the first

four riffles/runs does not meet these criteria, use the

next upstream riffle/run if it is within the reach. Only

sample riffle/runs that meet these criteria, even if

fewer than four are sampled.

2. The riffle/run must be at least one-half as long (as

measured along the thalweg) as the bankfull width

“category.”

3. Sample in both channels when a side channel is

present.

How to take measurements

1. Divide 100 by the number of riffles/runs to be

sampled to determine the number of particles to sample

in each unit (for example, four riffle/run habitat

units = 25 particle counts per unit, and three riffle/

run habitat units = 33 particle counts per unit).

Figure II-1—Location of pool tail fines grid tosses in the pool tail showing the three sections and

distance upstream from the riffle crest.
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

2. Sample throughout each habitat unit by establishing four evenly spaced transects perpendicular to

the streamflow. First, determine the length of the

riffle by pacing its length. Walk back, placing flags at

20, 40, 60, and 80 percent of the riffles’ length to

establish transect locations.

3. You must measure a minimum of 100 particles in

each reach. Visually determine the number of heel-totoe steps needed between each particle measurement

so that the desired number of particles are sampled in

each habitat unit. For example, measure six to seven

particles per transect when there are four riffles, and

eight to nine particles per transect for three riffles.

4. If less than 25 particles were sampled after the

fourth transect, randomly choose a fifth transect and

sample with the same spacing pattern used for the

previous transects.

5. Sample the entire streambed width at each

transect starting with the heel of the boot at the point

where the streambed and streambank meet. Never

sample a particle on the streambank or on slump

blocks.

6. The upstream and downstream boundaries of the

riffle are rarely perpendicular to the channel. Only

sample particles within the riffle, and discontinue

sampling when the transect crosses into pool habitat.

7. Depositional features are considered streambed

material. End the count at the bankfull elevation

when depositional features extend above bankfull or

at the point where a depositional feature becomes

greater than 50 percent vegetated with perennial

species (fig. II-2).

8. Sample the particle at the toe of the foot. Reach

down with the forefinger (without looking down) and

pick up the first particle touched. Measure the middle

width (B axis) of the particle in mm. Visualize the B

axis as the smallest width of a hole that the particle

could pass through.

9. Record particles less than or equal to 4 mm as

4 mm. Record the width of larger particles to the

nearest millimeter.

10. Record the number of riffle/runs sampled on

Form 1 and in the data logger.

Channel Cross-Sections__________

Entrenchment

Objective

• Determine bankfull and wetted widths, width-todepth ratios, and the entrenchment ratio.

Where to take measurements

1. Measure one cross-section and flood-prone width

within the first four riffle/runs that meet the following

guidelines. If one of the first four riffles/runs does not

meet these criteria, use the next upstream riffle/run if

it is within the reach boundaries. Only sample riffle/

runs that meet these criteria, even if fewer than four

are sampled.

2. The channel must be relatively straight and have

clearly defined bankfull indicators along at least one

streambank. Do not sample a riffle/run if the entire

length of the riffle/run occurs at a meander or the

bankfull elevation cannot be determined.

3. When a side channel is present, use the main

channel to determine if the channel is straight or

meandered.

4. There are no minimum length criteria for the

riffle/run.

5. Locate cross-sections at the widest part of the

riffle. Measure widths between bankfull elevations

with the tape stretched perpendicular to the channel.

If islands are present, subtract the width of the island

above the bankfull elevation from the total width of

both channels.

6. Do not sample areas where human/animal crossings or old channels exist, thereby increasing the

channel width.

7. Take measurements at the point where one pool

ends and the other begins when riffle/runs are not

present.

Figure II-2—End pebble counts at the bankfull elevation when depositional features extend

above bankfull (left side). End pebble counts where the depositional feature becomes greater

than 50 percent vegetated (right side).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 21

How to take measurements

1. Determine and flag the bankfull elevation on

each bank. Stretch the tape perpendicular to the

channel between bankfull elevations with the “zero”

end of the tape on the left bank (RL) looking downstream. Make sure the tape is straight and not bowed.

Measure and record bankfull width in meters to the

nearest centimeter.

2. Take a minimum of 10 equally spaced depth

measurements starting at bankfull on the left bank

and including bankfull on the opposite bank. Calculate the distance between measurements by dividing

the bankfull width by 10. Randomly chose the location

of the first measurement (using the random number

table on the data logger) between bankfull on the left

bank and the distance of the interval calculated above

(fig. II-3).

3. At each depth measurement record the distance

along the tape and the depth from the streambed to the

bankfull elevation in centimeters. At the bankfull

location of each bank, record the location along the

tape and a depth of “0.”

4. In addition, record the location and depth (to

bankfull elevation) at the left and right wetted edges,

maximum depth, and the riffle number. Record the

maximum bankfull depth and riffle number on Form 1.

5. Measure only to the edge of the bank when an

undercut exists. Do not measure beneath the undercut.

6. Measure islands lower than the bankfull elevation as described above. For islands higher than

bankfull, measure the two channels separately using

the techniques described above. Make sure to record a

“0” depth at bankfull for both channels. Also record

“island” in comment column.

7. Measure the flood-prone width at each crosssection. The flood-prone width is the width of the

channel at twice the maximum bankfull depth as

determined during the cross-section measurement.

8. In wide meadows the flood-prone width can be

large. Do not obtain a precise measurement if it is

greater than three times the bankfull width. Record

the measurement as 100 m.

Channel Transects ______________

General Transect Measurements

Objective

• To define the location for measurements of bank

angle, bank stability, undercut depth, bank type,

bank material, and vegetation community type.

Random number = 0.2 m Left edge water Right edge water Maximum depth

Bankfull width = 6.4 m 0.3 6.1 2.7

Interval = 0.6 m 20 20 45

Entrenchment width = 10.0 m

Distance on tape

(m)

0 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.1

Bankfull depth

(cm)

0 10 30 40 38 44 40 35 33 30 30 0

Figure II-3—Channel cross-section showing measurements.
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Where to take measurements

1. The distance between transects is the “width

category” used to determine reach length. Chose a

random number (k) between zero and the “width

category” value from a random number table. Establish the first transect (k) meters upstream from the

bottom of the reach. Place subsequent transects at

regular intervals (one “width category” value) as measured along the thalweg. Place flags in both banks.

2. Measure all variables on both the right and left

banks at each transect.

3. When a side channel is present, and it both leaves

and re-enters the main channel within the reach:

a. Measure the maximum bankfull depth of the

side channel 1 m down from the upstream end,

in the middle, and 1 m up from the downstream end.

b. Collect transect measurements on the outside

bank of the side channel if the average of the

three depths is greater than or equal to onehalf of the average maximum bankfull depth

calculated from channel cross-sections.

c. If not, take measurements on the bank of the

island associated with the main channel.

4. When a side channel or old channel enters or

leaves the main channel, but this channel either began

or ended outside the reach:

a. Only take measurements if the bank is associated with the main channel. Otherwise enter

999 for all transect measurements.

b. Measure newly forming banks at the junction

with old channels if the bank height is greater

than or equal to the bankfull elevation.

c. If the height of the newly formed bank is less

than the bankfull elevation and the bank behind it is associated with the side channel,

enter 999.

5. In a few limited situations where a tight meander

occurs, the transect may cross a point bar without

intersecting the actual bank (located behind the point

bar). Enter 999 in this situation.

6. Depositional features such as point bars are

considered depositional when perennial vegetation

cover is less than 50 percent and considered streambank

when greater than or equal to 50 percent vegetated.

Bank Angle (Normal and Undercut)

Objective

• Quantify bank angle and the frequency of undercut banks within the reach.

Where to take measurements

1. These methods were describe by Platts and others (1987) and have been more thoroughly defined to

increase measurement precision. The bank angle methodology is complex and describes many different situations. The process will be easier if you use the following steps at each location before taking measurements.

Define these locations at each flag.

÷ The location where the streambed and bank meet—

The streambed is composed of particles that are

transported by the stream during high flows. The

bank is normally composed of finer material and

is consistent with the soil type throughout the

riparian area.

÷ Scour line (SL)—Locate the scour line by examining features along the streambank. The ceiling of

undercut banks, limit of sod forming vegetation,

and limit of perennial vegetation are useful in

identifying the SL. On depositional features such

as point bars, the SL is often defined by the limit

of perennial vegetation, or by an indentation in

the bar (locally steep area) just above the SL.

÷ Bankfull elevation—Use indicators described in

the “Establishing the Sample Reach” section.

÷ First flat, depositional feature—This feature defines the upper boundary of the streambank that

will be assessed for both bank angle and stability.

Stop the measurement at the first flat, depositional feature beginning at the bankfull elevation

up to twice the bankfull elevation. If this feature

is not present, stop the measurement at twice the

bankfull elevation.

2. Determine whether slumping has occurred and if

the slump block is still attached to the streambank. If

so, use the rules described for “nonundercut” banks

(# 1 below) to identify the measurement location.

3. If the bank is inaccessible at a transect (in other

words, dense vegetation or a debris jam), record 999.

How to take measurements

1. For a nonundercut bank, lay a depth rod along

the bank and perpendicular to the channel at the exact

location of the transect flag. Place a clinometer on top

of the depth rod (not on the sides) and record the angle

to the nearest degree.

a. If the bank slopes away from the streambed,

the bank angle is greater than 90∞ from horizontal. To obtain the actual angle for these

banks, subtract the value on the clinometer

from 180 (for example, the clinometer reading

is 30; 180 - 30 = 150∞).

b. Measure the angle from the base of the bank

(where the streambed and bank meet) up to

the first flat, flood-plain like surface located

at or above the bankfull elevation but at less

than twice the maximum bankfull elevation.

Add the average maximum bankfull depth
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 23

from cross-sections to the bankfull elevation

at each transect to determine the upper limit

for bank measurements.

c. Streambanks are rarely one continuous angle

from the streambed to the first flat, depositional feature. When a bank has more than

one angle, consider each angle with a vertical

height of greater than or equal to 10 cm.

d. Some banks rise steeply from the streambed

and then become less steep near the flat floodplain like surface (convex). Measure the angle

of the lower portion of the bank if it is taller

than the upper portion (fig. II-4). Similarly,

measure the angle of the upper portion of the

bank if it is taller (fig. II-5).

Figures II-4 and II-5—Measure the tallest angle when the bank has two dominant angles.

e. The same concept applies to concave shaped

banks.

f. It is difficult to accurately measure the angle

when the bank rises in a stair-step fashion. A

stair-step bank is defined as three or more

separate angles each greater than or equal to

10 cm in vertical height. This applies to concave, convex, and relatively straight banks.

Measure the average angle by laying the

depth rod along the outer corner of the steps

(fig. II-6). The bottom of the depth rod will be

on the streambed and not where the streambed and bank meet.

Figure II-6—Measure the angle of banks with three or more angles by laying the

rod along outer edges.
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Figure II-7—Begin measuring the angle from

the point where the deposit and bank meet.

Figure II-8—Do not measure an angle when the

deposit covers the first flat, flood-plain-like feature.

Record 999 for bank angle.

g. Depositional features are not considered part

of the bank. On unvegetated depositional features such as point bars, start the measurement at the point where the top of the depositional feature and streambank meet (fig. II-7).

h. Do not measure if the deposition ends at or

above the first flat, flood-plainlike feature and

record 999 (fig. II-8).

i. Use the point where the depositional feature

becomes greater than 50 percent vegetated

(perennial species) to define were the deposition ends and bank begins (fig. II-2).

j. Use the rules from bank stability to define the

location of bank angle measurements when

slump blocks are still attached to the bank.

Include the slump block if the bottom of the

fracture feature is elevationally above the SL

(fig. II-9). Measure the angle of the fracture

feature behind the slump block if the bottom of

the fracture feature is elevationally equal to or

below the SL (fig. II-10).

k. As with slump blocks, view logs (greater than

or equal to 10 cm) and rocks (greater than or

equal to 15 cm) as part of the bank if they are

embedded within the bank. If the rock or log is

partially embedded, consider it embedded if

the bottom of the space between the rock/log

and the bank is elevationally above the SL.

Measure the bank behind the rock/log if the

space is elevationally below the SL.

2. If the bank is undercut or vertical (less than 90∞),

the bank angle can be read directly from the clinometer. Measure from underneath the overhang using

the following criteria:

a. The undercut must be greater than or equal to

5 cm deep, greater than or equal to 10 cm in

height, and greater than 10 cm in width.

b. Overhanging bank angles are measured from

the deepest point of the undercut up to the

ceiling of the overhang (fig. II-11).

c. Occasionally, the back of the undercut will be

a consistent depth, thereby lacking a deepest

point (fig. II-12). Place the depth rod at the

highest elevation, resulting in the smallest

angle (angle B).

d. Enter the angle as “1∞” if the deepest part of

the undercut is elevationally above the ceiling

(fig. II-13).

e. In some situations, there will be an undercut

with a ceiling below bankfull and a second undercut with a ceiling above bankfull. Measure

the lower undercut and ignore the upper one.

3. Take a horizontal undercut depth measurement

using the following criteria:

a. Measure undercut depths at the same location

as the bank angle. After measuring the angle,

leave the end of the rod against the deepest

point of the undercut and drop the rod until it

is horizontal to the water surface and perpendicular to the stream channel. Measure the

distance from the deepest point to the outer

edge of the bank to the nearest centimeter

(fig. II-11).

b. The previous criteria are for typical undercut

banks where the ceiling of the overhang is

below or equal to the bankfull elevation. In

situations with active erosion or cut banks, the

ceiling of the overhang may be above the

bankfull elevation. These banks are measured

similar to nonundercut banks. Place the bottom of the depth rod where the streambed and

streambank meet and the top at the outer edge

of the bank above the undercut. Record the

undercut depth as 999 when the angle is less

than 90∞ (fig. II-14 and II-15).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 25

Figures II-9 and II-10—Location of bank angle measurements with a slump block still attached and relative

to the scour line.

Figure II-11—Measure undercut bank angle from

the deepest point to the ceiling of the undercut and

depth from the deepest point to the outer edge of

the bank in centimeters.

Figure II-12—Undercut banks with a

constant depth are measured with the base

of the depth rod at the highest elevation

(angle B, not angle A).
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Figure II-13—Take the depth measurement with

the depth rod horizontal and directly underneath

the ceiling. Record the angle as 1∞.

< 90o

Undercut

Depth = 999

Figures II-14 and II-15—Undercut banks with the ceiling above bankfull are measured from where the

streambed and bank meet to the outside edge of the undercut.

Bank Stability

Objective

• Calculate the percent of the streambank that is

stable.

Where to take measurements

This method was described by Bauer and Burton

(1993) and Overton and others (1997). They have been

modified and more thoroughly defined to increase

measurement precision. The following guidelines define the area of bank to evaluate:

1. Evaluate streambank stability when water is at

or below the SL.

2. The stability plot is 30 cm wide (15 cm on each

side of the transect flag) and perpendicular to the

streambank (not stream channel).

3. The sample area includes the portion of the

streambank that is above the SL and at the steepest

angle to the water surface. The measurement extends

up to the first flat, depositional feature located at

bankfull or up to twice the bankfull elevation (fig. II-16).

4. Unstable features are counted if greater than or

equal to 10 cm at the widest point. Record the unstable
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 27

Figure II-16—Location of bank stability plots on

banks that extend above two times bankfull (left) and

banks with a flood plain at bankfull (right).

c. At least 50 percent of the bank surfaces are

protected by rocks of cobble size (15 cm) or

larger.

d. At least 50 percent of the bank surfaces are

protected by logs of 10 cm in diameter or

larger.

e. At least 50 percent of the bank surfaces are

protected by a combination of the above.

2. Finally, use the classification key to assign and

record a stability class as defined below:

• CS = Covered and stable (nonerosional). Streambanks are both covered and stable as defined

above.

• CU = Covered and unstable (vulnerable).

Streambanks are covered but unstable as defined

above. These banks are typically observed in meadows where breakdown, slumping, and/or fracturing is present along the bank, yet vegetative cover

is abundant.

• US = Uncovered and stable (vulnerable). Streambanks are uncovered but stable as defined above.

Uncovered, stable banks are typical of banks

trampled by concentrations of ungulates. Such

trampling flattens the bank so that slumping

and breakdown do not occur even though vegetative cover is significantly reduced or eliminated.

This class also includes situations where the

streambank is not present due to excessive

deposition.

• UU = Uncovered and unstable (erosional and

depositional). Streambanks are not covered or

stable as defined above. These comprise the typical bare, eroding streambanks and include all

banks at a steep angle to the water surface with

little cover.

• FB = False bank. Streambanks have slumped in

the past but have been stabilized by vegetation.

These banks are usually lower than existing banks

and generally provide no cover to fish.

• 999 = Unclassified. Areas along the bank where

side channels, tributaries, springs, and so forth,

cause an opening or where brush is too thick to

make an assessment.

feature when both stable and unstable features occur

at the same plot.

5. Hoof prints by themselves are not a sign of instability unless they move the bank by greater than or

equal to 10 cm.

6. Slump blocks that have fractured but are still

attached to the bank can be large enough to function

as part of the bank. They may also have a flat, floodplainlike feature at or above bankfull. They are classified as a fracture feature and evaluated under Part III

of the section “Streambank Stability Classification

Key.”

7. Do not evaluate the bank as fractured if the

bottom of the fracture feature is elevationally above

two times the bankfull elevation.

How to take measurements

1. Streambank cover is an assessment of the percent of bank protected. Banks are considered “covered” if they show any of the following features.

a. Perennial vegetation ground cover is greater

than 50 percent (moss is not perennial).

b. Roots of vegetation cover more than 50 percent of the bank (deep rooted plants such as

willows and sedges provide such root cover).
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Streambank Stability Classification Key______________________________

Depositional bank—A streambank with deposition extending above the SL.

Scour bank—A streambank with no deposition or deposition is below or equal to the elevation of the SL.

Scour line—On undercut banks it is defined as the elevation of the ceiling of the undercut. On nonundercut scour

banks and depositional banks it is defined as the lower limit of perennial vegetation.

Slump block—That piece of the bank that is detaching or has detached from the streambank.

Crack—A crack in the streambank (start of a fracture feature), but the slump block has not begun detaching from

the bank.

Fractured—Slump block has at least partially broken from the bank and is separated from its original location

by greater than or equal to 10 cm.

Fracture feature—The piece of the bank (usually vertical) exposed by the detaching of the slump block.

Covered—Perennial vegetation cover is greater than 50 percent, roots and root mats cover more than 50 percent

of the bank, at least 50 percent of bank consists of rocks greater than or equal to 15 cm in size, or at least

50 percent of bank is covered by large woody debris (LWD) greater than or equal to 10 cm in diameter.

I. Streambank present .............................................................................................................................go to II

Streambank absent (side channel, tributary, slew) ............................................................................999

II. Streambank = Scour bank ....................................................................................................................go to III

Streambank = Depositional bank (fig. II-17)

Bank covered .....................................................................................................................................CS

Bank not covered ..............................................................................................................................UU

Bank not present due to excessive deposition .................................................................................US

III. Bank is not fractured, or the bank is fractured with the slump block no longer

attached to the streambank and is either lying adjacent to the breakage or absent ........................go to IV

Bank is fractured with the slump block still attached (fig. II-17)

A. The bottom of the fracture feature is elevationally below the SL (view only the

fracture feature behind the slump block)

Bank not covered

Bank angle within 10∞ of vertical (less than 80 m or greater than100 m) ......................UU

Bank angle not within 10∞ of vertical ................................................................................US

Bank covered ...............................................................................................................................CS

B. The bottom of the fracture feature behind the slump block is elevationally above the

SL (view the bank as the slump block and fracture feature the vertical, exposed bank)

Bank not covered .........................................................................................................................UU

Bank covered

Fracture feature not covered ..............................................................................................CU

Fracture feature covered (and reconnected to bank) ........................................................FB

IV. No crack visible from the SL up to a point 15 cm behind the top of the bank...................................Go to V

A crack is visible within this area (fig. II-17)

Bank is not covered .....................................................................................................................UU

Bank covered ...............................................................................................................................CU

V. Streambank does not display signs of instability, or if a fracture feature is present, the

slump block is no longer attached to the streambank (fig. II-18)

Bank not covered

Bank angle within 10∞ of vertical (less than 80 m or greater than100 m) ......................UU

Bank angle not within 10∞ of vertical ................................................................................US

Bank covered ...............................................................................................................................CS
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 29

Figure II-17—Examples of bank instability types described in sections II, III, and IV in the Classification

Key. The actual stability class chosen depends on whether the bank is covered or uncovered.
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Figure II-18—Examples of bank stability types described in section V in the Classification Key.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 31

Large Woody Debris _____________

Large Woody Debris Counts

Objective

• Quantify the number and size of large woody

debris pieces that are present within the bankfull

channel.

Where to take measurements

Collect measurements along the entire reach.

How to take measurements

1. Consider all large woody debris within the

bankfull channel. This includes “spanners” (single

pieces of large woody debris that span the width of the

stream but are located above the water) if they are

below the bankfull elevation.

2. Estimate the length and diameter of all large

woody debris pieces, including those lying singularly

and those in aggregates. Each piece must be greater

than 3 m in length OR have a length equal to or greater

than two-thirds the wetted width of the stream. Each

piece must be at least 10 cm in diameter one-third of

the way up from the base.

3. Measure the length and circumference for every

fifth piece at reaches with less than 20 pieces of wood

and every tenth piece at reaches with greater than 20

pieces of wood.

4. Estimate and record the percentage (by volume)

that is submerged at bankfull flows for each piece.

Reach Description

Measurements __________________

Sinuosity and Valley Length

Sinuosity is a measure of how much the stream

channel meanders within the valley bottom. Measure

the length of the stream channel along the thalweg

and divide that length by the straight-line distance

between the top and bottom of the sample reach.

Measure the straight-line distance from the points

where the thalweg crosses the top and bottom of the

reach and record as “valley length.” Record the data on

Form 1.

Reach Gradient

Stream gradient is the elevation change from the

water surface at the downstream end of the reach to

the water surface at the upstream end (pool tail to pool

tail). Measure the elevation change twice, with the

level at a different position each time, and record to the

nearest centimeter. Record the average if the two

measurements are within 10 percent of each other. If

not, take a third measurement and average it with one

of the originals.
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 33

Part III:

Effectiveness Monitoring

for Streams and Riparian

Areas Within the Upper

Columbia River Basin:

Sampling Protocol for

Integrator Reaches

Vegetation Parameters

Marc Coles-Ritchie

Richard C. Henderson

Part III Note

This document describes the sampling protocol used in 2001 and evaluated in the companion

publication Coles-Ritchie and others (in preparation). Many of the methods have since been modified

following additional testing and review. Beginning in 2003, we began collecting species cover data

instead of community type cover data for the greenline and riparian cross-secitons. See our website at

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp/ for the most recent version

Part III Acknowledgment

We are indebted to Alma Winward for many of the methods and concepts contained in this protocol. We

thank the many biological technicians who used these methods and provided valuable feedback. The

drawings in this section were done by Emily Hall and Carrie Kennedy.
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Introduction ____________________

An interagency team representing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS), the

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management (USDI BLM), the U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

(USDI FWS) was convened to develop a large-scale

monitoring program with the primary objective of

determining whether PACFISH/INFISH management

practices are effective in maintaining or restoring the

structure and function of riparian and aquatic habitats throughout the upper Columbia River Basin. A

list of attributes that were thought to be important in

defining aquatic habitat conditions and their relationship with listed species were identified. The team also

specifically stated that existing methods be used to

measure each attribute. This sampling protocol for

vegetation parameters (which is part of the “Plan to

Monitor Aquatic and Riparian Resources in the Area

of PACFISH/INFISH and the Biological Opinions for

Bull Trout, Salmon, and Steelhead”) is the result of

that interagency effort.

The sampling methods for this program were taken

from existing sampling protocols. This vegetation sampling protocol is based on three methods developed by

Winward (2000): (1) greenline composition, (2) vegetation cross-section composition, and (3) woody species

regeneration. Another method is also used, effective

ground cover assessment, which is based on soil quality monitoring methods developed by the USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region (R4). Modifications

were made following 2 years of use, evaluation, and

peer review.

The protocol and the individual methods were designed and tested specifically to sample a stream

“reach” and to monitor the effects of management

activities in a specific set of stream types. This is

done by collecting data about the abundance of vegetation types and age classes of woody species at the

reach scale. The vegetation sampling at a reach

corresponds to 110 m of streambank. All reaches are

within unconstrained valley bottoms with gradients

less than 3 percent and have wadeable channels with

bankfull widths between 1 and 15 m. We feel strongly

that it should not be used in other stream types

without additional review and testing.

Data, at the reach and basin scale, are analyzed to

detect change over time as well as spatial variability

due to environmental or management differences. The

data analysis techniques are presented in separate

documents.

Sampling Order _________________

The riparian vegetation at each sample reach is

assessed using four methods: greenline (Winward

2000), vegetation cross-section (Winward 2000), effective ground cover (Intermountain Region 1989), and

woody species regeneration (Winward 2000). The

greenline and vegetation cross-section methods estimate the cover of plant community types. Effective

ground cover estimates ground cover in general categories. Woody species regeneration estimates the

number of woody plants in different age classes. The

following list outlines the order of things to do at each

site, and the rest of this document explains these items

in detail:

1. Determine which vegetation classification to use.

2. Identify dominant plants (using field guides) and

community types (using vegetation classifications).

3. Establish and flag the sample area.

4. Collect greenline data.

5. Collect woody species regeneration data.

6. Collect vegetation cross-section data.

7. Collect effective ground cover data (in conjunction with vegetation cross-sections).

8. Collect greenline community type data at stream

transects (with stream technicians).

9. Collect and label one specimen.

Riparian Vegetation

Classifications __________________

Riparian vegetation classifications have been developed for many portions of the Western United

States. These classifications are based on data from

multiple sites that have similar, repeating assemblages of species. A “community type” or “plant association” represents communities that have similar,

but not necessarily identical, species composition in

both the overstory and understory. The data collector

should be familiar with the classification and its

dichotomous key before collecting data at a site. Use

the following riparian vegetation classifications

within the Upper Columbia Basin (table III-1). It is

important that the correct classification be used for

each Region (table III-2). If the principal classification for the area does not cover all of the vegetation

for a site, then the approved classifications for adjacent areas may be used (table III-2).

How to Use Vegetation Classifications

Use the key to help determine the possible community types for a given area of vegetation (a number of
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 35

Table III-1—Riparian vegetation classifications for the interior Pacific Northwestern United States.

Authors Code Riparian vegetation classification

Kovalchik (2001) KOV-WA Classification and Management of Eastern Washington’s

Riparian and Wetland Sites

Hansen and others (1995) HANSEN Classification and Management of Montana’s Riparian

and Wetland Sites

Crowe and Clausnitzer (1997) CROWE Mid-Montane Wetland Plant Associations of the Malheur,

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

Manning and Padgett (1995) MANNING Riparian Community Type Classification for Humboldt and

Toiyabe National Forests, Nevada and Eastern California

Youngblood and others (1985) YOUNGBLOOD Riparian Community Type Classification of Eastern Idaho -

Western Wyoming

Padgett and others (1989) PADGETT Riparian Community Type Classification of Utah and

Southeastern Idaho

Kovalchik (1987) KOV-OR Riparian Zone Associations: Deschutes, Ochoco,

Fremont, and Winema National Forests

Crawford (2001) CRAWFORD Initial Riparian and Wetland Vegetation Classification and

Characterization of the Columbia Basin in Washington

steps) at a site. Read the description in the classification to see that it matches what you observe, especially

the associated species and their cover values. If they

are similar, then that is the community type to record.

If not, go through the key again to see what other

community types might describe the area of interest.

Establishing the Sample Area _____

1. Determine the number of steps you take over a

110-m distance. In a field or meadow measure 110 m

and place a marker at each end. Walk the distance

with a normal pace and record the number of steps

taken. A clicker is useful to tally the steps. Walk the

distance at least five times and determine the average

number of steps per 110 m, which will be the length of

the greenline sample area. This only needs to be done

once at the beginning of the field season. You may

want to check your steps per 110 m a few times during

the field season and adjust your steps if necessary.

2. From the downstream end of the reach, determine the sample area by stepping off 110 m of

streambank along the stream’s right bank, as shown

by the dashed lines in fig. III-1. This provides a

representative area of streambank and riparian vegetation and a consistent 0.1-acre sample area for the

woody species regeneration data.

3. Place yellow flags (noted in fig. III-1) at the

number of steps that correspond to 0, 27.5, 55, 82.5,

and 110 m (to determine this interval divide the total

number of steps per 110 m by four). These flags

identify the locations of the five vegetation crosssections, as well as the extent of the sampling area for

the greenline and woody species regeneration data

collection (fig. III-1). Vegetation flags are one color

(yellow), which is a different color than flags used by

the stream technicians. It is preferable to place the

flags on just one side of the stream (right bank whenever possible), which will help you relocate them. Note

in fig. III-1 that the stream’s right is the right bank

while facing downstream.

Greenline ______________________

Objectives

• Estimate the percent cover of community types

adjacent to the stream.

• Quantify ratings for successional status, bank

stability, and/or wetland status based on the community types.

• Estimate the percent cover of woody vegetation

adjacent to the stream.

Where to collect data

1. Begin at the upstream end of the greenline sampling area on the right bank (fig. III-1). Walk downstream and record the community types adjacent to

the stream for each step. Continue to the downstream

end of the reach. There will be multiple flags there

because that is also the bottom of the reach for the

stream crew.

2. Cross the stream perpendicular to the channel

and record community types while walking upstream
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Table III-2—List of appropriate classifications by geographical area.

Crew

base

state Forest / BLM State

District/field

office

Principal riparian

vegetation

classification to

use

Other helpful riparian

vegetation classifications

Deschutes OR All Kov-OR Crowe

Ochoco OR All Kov-OR Crowe

Malheur OR All Crowe Crawford

 Umatilla OR All Crowe Crawford

OR Wallowa-Whitman OR All Crowe Crawford

Okanogan WA All Kov-WA Hansen

Colville WA All Kov-WA Hansen

BLM Oregon-Washington OR Prineville Crowe Crawford, Kov-OR

WA Wenatchee Crawford Kov-WA

Nez Perce ID All Hansen Kov-WA, Crowe, Youngblood

Payette ID McCall - Krassil Crowe Youngblood, Hansen, Kov-WA

New Meadows Padgett Youngblood, Crowe

 Council Crowe Padgett, Youngblood

 Weiser Crowe Padgett, Youngblood

Boise ID Emmett Crowe Padgett, Youngblood

ID Others Padgett Crowe, Youngblood

Salmon-Challis ID All Padgett Crowe, Youngblood

Sawtooth ID Southern Manning Padgett, Youngblood

 Northern Padgett Crowe, Youngblood

Humboldt-Toiyabe NV All Manning Padgett

BLM Idaho ID Salmon Padgett Crowe, Youngblood

Challis Padgett Youngblood, Manning

 Cottonwood Padgett Crowe, Youngblood

Idaho Panhandle ID All Hansen Kov-WA

 Clearwater ID All Hansen Kov-WA

Flathead MT All Hansen

Kootenai MT All Hansen

MT Lolo MT All Hansen

Beaverhead-Deerlodge MT All Hansen

Helena MT All Hansen

Bitterroot MT All Hansen

BLM Montana MT Missoula Hansen
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 37

Figure III-1—Location for all vegetation sampling methods at a site.

Upstream end

Downstream end
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

along the left bank. Stop when perpendicular to your

most upstream flag on the opposite bank. It does not

matter that there are slightly different number of

steps on each side. The upstream end of the greenline

sampling area will probably not correspond to the top

of the stream crew’s upstream end point.

3. Define the greenline.

a. The greenline is the first line of perennial

vegetation adjacent to the stream channel

that is at least 0.3 m (1 ft) wide (fig. III-2 and

III-3).

b. Define the greenline at the base of the first line

of perennial vegetation on the streambank of

interest. Most of the time, looking at the canopy

(especially with sedges and other low growing

vegetation) is sufficient to determine the greenline. But canopy alone is not the greenline.

c. If plants are hanging over the edge of the

stream, but are not the first line of rooted

vegetation on that bank, then walk away from

the stream until the first line of rooted perennial vegetation is encountered. At that rooted

point, consider all the overstory and understory vegetation together to determine the

community type (right side of fig. III-3).

d. Early in the season the greenline may be

partially submerged, while later in the summer the greenline may be some distance from

the stream. Do not consider bare or sparsely

vegetated ground between the greenline and

the water (left side of fig. III-3).

e. When banks are eroding or when a stream

becomes entrenched, the greenline may be

located high above the stream and consist of

upland plants. In this case it is necessary to

record nonriparian communities along the

greenline because they are the first perennial

vegetation adjacent to the stream. Record

this nonriparian vegetation as “Upland” and

note the dominant species in the comment

line in the data logger (right side of fig. III-4

and III-5).

f. Always sample the main banks of the channel,

not islands. Figure III-2 identifies the location

of the greenline in relation to islands and

gravel bars. The stream technicians can help

you determine what is an island and what is

the main bank (they do that for the stream

cross-sections). In general, a peninsula becomes

an island when it is no longer connected on

both ends by a strip of vegetation with at least

25 percent cover and greater than 0.3 m (1 ft)

in width.

g. Do not consider scattered forbs, grasses, or

rushes on sandbars as the greenline (fig. III-6).

Most aquatic species are not counted as the

greenline because of their temporary nature,

unless the classification has a community type

for them (fig. III-6). Commonly observed species on sandbars or in the water that are usually not community types include:

• Catabrosia aquatica (brookgrass)

• Cardamine spp. (bittercress)

• Mentha arvensis (field mint)

• Mimulus guttatus (yellow monkey-flower)

• Veronica americana (American speedwel)

• Alopecurus aequalis (shortawn foxtail)

• Alopecurus geniculatus (water foxtail)

• Juncus ensifolius (sword-leaf rush)

How to collect data

1. Determine greenline community types at the

scale of each step (0.3 m by 1 step), which is different

than for the vegetation cross-sections. Use a modified

line-intercept method to tally the number of steps in

each community type.

2. Record steps of vegetation as you walk approximately parallel to the stream, not for steps that are

perpendicular to the stream. In general there should

be one step of vegetation for each step of stream (fig.

III-2 and III-6).

3. Use the classification keys to help you decide on

the community type. The key does not determine the

community type, as would a key for species identification. The key only suggests what community types to

consider. Consult the descriptions to determine the

appropriate community type. When two key leads fit,

then look at both descriptions to see which fits best. If

you cannot see that one fits better than another then

use the one that appears first in the key.

4. For each step, first look up to see if there is an

overstory and use that information as you go through

the key. If vegetation hangs over the greenline then it

is considered part of the community at that step. When

the keys ask for the dominant overstory species, they

generally refer to the species with the highest cover.

That usually means at least 25 percent cover, but it

varies in the different classifications.

5. Record the community type name on Form 5

(appendix III-B) the first time it is encountered and

use dots to record the number of steps. When that

community type is encountered again, add dots to the

tally of steps for that community type.

6. To be counted as a step of a community type, the

vegetation must cover at least one full step. Scattered

plants on a sandbar are not counted.

7. Only record data for community types described in

the classifications or new communities for which you

collect species data (see “Undescribed or New Communities” section). Do not record any physical features as
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 39

Figure III-3—Location of greenline. Note that the greenline is located on rooted vegetation,

not rocks or bare ground underneath the canopy.

Figure III-4—Location of greenline on banks with boulders, bare bank, and upland vegetation.

Figure III-2—The location of the greenline in relation to various bank features. Greenline

data are only collected where there is a dashed line. Greenline data are not collected where

there is a dotted line.
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

greenline data, but you can note them in the comment lines.

8. The greenline may zig-zag back and forth because

of the dynamic state of the stream environment. If you

must step away from or toward the stream to find the

greenline do not tally the steps moving perpendicular

to the stream. Tally only the forward steps that correspond to a step of stream (fig. III-2 and III-6).

Figure III-5—Example of banks with upland vegetation. For the right bank there is no riparian vegetation,

so record upland for the greenline and for one step on the cross-section.

Figure III-6—Example of how community types are sampled along the greenline. Greenline data are only

collected where there is a dashed line. Greenline data are not collected where there is a dotted line.

9. When encountering an obstacle such as a bush or

boulder, step around the obstacle but tally only the

forward steps (fig. III-6 and III-7). If the obstacle is

vegetation, look at the area where you would have

stepped to determine the community type. At locations with dense greenline vegetation it may be easier

to walk in the stream as you record the data (fig. III-7).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 41

How to collect data

1. Use a modification of the line-intercept method to

collect data. This is similar, but not exactly the same,

as the method for the greenline.

2. As you walk through communities record the

number of steps for each community type on Form 6

(appendix III-B). For the cross-sections consider a

larger spatial scale than for the greenline (fig. III-8).

Do not look at the scale of each step, but rather

consider the vegetation in an area of at least a few

square meters and look for multiple individuals. This

will help you identify boundaries between different

communities. There may be only one community or

there may be several, but there should not be a different community type for each step (that is too small of

a scale). This is especially important when trees or

shrubs are scattered. Try to draw an imaginary line

between the different communities and ignore small

variability within those communities. A lone individual plant would not determine the community type

because one individual does not make a community.

Look for the dominant vegetation with multiple individuals (in other words, a community).

3. Include the greenline vegetation in the crosssection, but do not record any data between the

greenline and stream. Do not record anything for the

stream either.

4. A cross-section may cross the stream numerous

times if the channel is very sinuous (fig. III-9). Ignore

the steps when you cross the stream, and continue the

data collection where you exit the stream channel.

5. Cross-sections may be close together if the channel is very sinuous (fig. III-9), however, they should

not cross since they use the same bearing and are

therefore parallel.

Figure III-7—How to walk and tally steps when obstacles are encountered. Only the numbered steps (solid line) are

recorded. The unnumbered steps (dashed line) are not recorded.

Vegetation Cross-Sections________

Objectives

• Estimate the percent cover of community types

throughout the riparian area.

• Quantify a wetland rating based on the different

community types present in the riparian area.

Where to collect data

1. Sample five vegetation cross-sections within each

reach (fig. III-1). The first and last cross-sections

correspond to the upstream and downstream ends of

the greenline sampling area, respectively. Cross-sections 2, 3, and 4 are located at 1

⁄4, 1⁄2, and 3⁄4 of the way

down from the upstream end of the greenline sample

area (fig. III-8).

2. The vegetation cross-section extends across the

riparian area perpendicular to the valley bottom, not

necessarily perpendicular to the stream.

3. The vegetation cross-section forms a continuous

line across the riparian area, but does not include the

stream.

4. Use a compass to determine the direction of the

valley bottom where the sample reach is located. Add

90∞to the bearing and align the compass spindle to the

new bearing. Use this bearing for all five cross-sections and record it on the data sheet. Always begin at,

and include, the greenline and walk toward the edge of

the riparian area in the direction of the compass

bearing.

5. Then walk back to the greenline collecting Effective Ground Cover data (see “Effective Ground Cover”

section below). Cross the channel, ignoring the steps in

the channel, and continue the cross-section in the

opposite direction of the compass bearing until the

riparian vegetation ends or 27.5 m.
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Figure III-9—Example of cross-sections on a very sinuous stream.

Figure III-8—Lines represent vegetation cross-sections going through different

communities (some of which are encircled). Note that woody plants with less than

25 percent cover are in a separate community type than areas with greater than

25 percent cover.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 43

6. If there is no riparian vegetation in the crosssection (right side of fig. III-5), then record just one

step as “upland” on each side of the stream and record

the dominant species (Artemisia tridentata, Juniperus

osteosperma, and so forth) in the comment line of the

data logger.

7. Each cross-section extends the width of the riparian zone up to a maximum distance of 27.5 m on each

side of the stream. Stop recording community type

data at 27.5 m, even when the riparian area continues,

and estimate the additional width of the riparian area

using the following categories (fig. III-10):

0 = Riparian area ends before 27.5 m are stepped

1 = Additional distance is less than distance walked

(less than the 27.5 m)

2 = Additional distance is 1x to 2x the distance walked

(27.5 to 55 m)

3 = Additional distance is 2x to 4x distance walked (55

to 110 m) or

4 = Additional distance is greater than 4x distance

walked (more than 110 m)

8. Distinguish the steps that are in the zone of

flow at two times the bankfull depth, or “twice

bankfull” (fig. III-11). The stream technicians will

flag or show you the point at which the twicebankfull elevation is exceeded along your five crosssections. Record steps between the stream and that

point as “within twice bankfull” (or “w”) and steps

beyond that point as “beyond twice bankfull” (or “b”)

Figure III-10—Estimations of distances of riparian vegetation on cross-sections.

Figure III-11—Example of vegetation cross-section area within and beyond twice-bankfull.
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Figure III-12—Example of vegetation cross-section. Note that while community types may drop below

two times bankfull after crossing the two times bankfull marker, they are still recorded as beyond two

times bankfull.

Figure III-13—Diagram showing changes in topography that correspond to different community types

and the edge of the riparian area (from Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997).

in the corresponding part of the sheet. Once you

cross the twice bankfull point do not record any

more steps as within twice bankfull even if the

elevation drops down again (fig. III-12). Some of the

same community types can be in both the “within”

and “beyond” sections, while other community types

will only be in one of the sections (fig. III-11).

9. If the riparian area is less than 27.5 m wide, it

will be necessary to determine exactly where the

riparian area ends. We define the edge of the riparian

area as the point where the vegetation changes from

riparian communities (plants that require moist conditions to survive) to upland communities (plants that

survive with moisture only from precipitation). Use

the community type classification to determine the

edge of the riparian area, based on the presence and

percent cover of riparian species. Riparian species

normally decrease in percent cover as one approaches

the edge of the riparian area. The point where they

become less than 25 percent (or what the key requires)

will be the edge of the riparian zone. There may be

riparian species outside of the riparian zone, but they

will be less than 25 percent cover. Other clues to

determine the edge of the riparian area:

a. Changes in landform generally correspond to

a change in the ground water depth and therefore a change in soil moisture. Such changes in

elevation and slope will affect vegetation and

often correspond to the edge of the riparian

area. Figure III-13 shows changes in landform

that correspond to changes in vegetation and

the edge of the riparian zone.

b. The presence of nonriparian species (Artemisa

tridentata, Chrysothamnus spp., and so forth)

may indicate that the area is never flooded or

wet. Do not collect data for nonriparian plant

communities.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 45

c. There are some species that occur often in the

transition zone between riparian and upland

areas. Consult regional classifications and

guides to determine what those indicator species are in each area. Some of these transition

species, depending on the region, include:

Dasiphora floribunda, formerly Potentilla

fruticosa (shrubby cinquefoil), Artemisia cana

(silver sagebrush), Populus tremuloides (quaking aspen), and Rosa spp. (rose species).

d. Some species are rhizomatous and can spread

underground from the riparian zone into the

upland zone, while still being connected to the

riparian area where there is water. These

species include: Juncus balticus (baltic rush)

and Equisetum spp. (horsetail) among others.

Use the classification to determine if the percent cover is high enough to consider it riparian.

e. Riparian species may grow outside of the riparian area because of a seep, another drainage, or water concentration along a road. Do

not include that vegetation when it is not a

part of the riparian area being sampled.

f. If a seep extends up a slope, do not continue

the cross-section up the slope. Draw an imaginary line extending the edge of the rest of the

riparian area and cut off the seep from the

area of data collection.

g. Use caution with “facultative” wetland species

such as Poa pratensis, which are capable of

growing in both dry and wet conditions.

Undescribed or “New”

Communities: for Greenline or

Vegetation Cross-Section Data

Collection ______________________

Undescribed communities will occasionally be encountered. When you encounter vegetation that does

not seem to be in the classifications for your area, use

the following rules, in the order they are presented:

1. Review the community type descriptions (especially the average cover and constancy data) again to

determine if the vegetation could fit a named community type. It is important that this information is

thoroughly reviewed in order to avoid extra work in

collecting and analyzing data.

2. If you do not find the community in the primary

classification for the area where you are working, look

in approved classifications that cover adjacent areas.

If there is a community type that matches, with a

similar species list, then use that community type and

note the author of the classification.

3. If you cannot find a community type that fits

and the unknown community is two or fewer steps,

lump the unknown community with adjacent community types.

4. If the three guidelines above do not result in a

named community type, then collect data on this “new

community” in the following manner:

a. Record the number of steps of the new community and name it “new1,” “new2,” and so

forth, in the order encountered at the reach

(start with new1 for each reach with a new

community).

b. Tie flagging at the beginning and end of the

new community so that you can return later to

collect detailed data. When all other data

collection is complete, return to collect new

community data.

c. Determine where to set up three plots, identified as “a,” “b,” and “c,” by dividing the distance

of the new community by four. Walk that

number of steps from the edge of the community and set up the first 1

⁄2- x 1⁄2- m plot in front

of your toe (fig. III-14). The other two plots will

be that number of steps further, so that there

are three plots within the new community.

There will not be a plot at the beginning or end

of the new community because those are transition zones between communities.

d. Use Form 8, “New Community Species Data,”

(appendix III-B) to record the cover of all

species within the plots, using the cover classes

listed on the data sheet. If you do not know the

species then collect a specimen.

e. If this community is encountered again at this

stream then you may use the same “new”

name without having to collect more species

data.

f. For all new communities collect a specimen of

the species with the highest cover in the three

plots combined (see instructions for specimen

collection below).

g. In the data logger, enter new communities as

“new1,” “new2,” and so forth. If it says this is

not a valid type, then hit ok to use it anyway.

Note 1 - You should have few “new” communities

because the classifications include most plant communities, and because describing new communities is a

difficult process. If possible you should “fit” the vegetation in an existing community type (in other words

someone else has already done the detailed species

work for you). On the other hand, it is important to

document new communities so that we have data on

them that we can add to the existing classifications.

Note 2 - If you do document new communities, write

a description of them in your notebook and talk to
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Figure III-14—Collecting new community data on cross-sections and greenline.

other vegetation technicians and Forest Service ecologists about the “new” communities to see if they have

observed similar communities, or if they might fit

within already classified communities.

Note 3 - Not all species in the community type will be

present in every community that fits within that

community type. If the combination of species at a site

are similar to a described community type but the

cover of those species seems different, you may still

use that community type, and make a note of the major

differences on the data sheet and in the comment line

of the data logger.

Effective Ground Cover __________

Objective

• Estimate the area with cover that inhibits erosion

versus the amount of bare ground within the

riparian area.

Where to collect data

Measure this parameter in conjunction with each of

the five vegetation cross-sections.

How to collect data

1. Collect ground cover data at each step while

returning to the stream, along each vegetation crosssection.

2. The area considered is a 2 cm diameter circle (size

of a quarter) located directly in front of your big toe

(fig. III-15).

3. Record the point as bare ground if greater than

50 percent of the area is bare ground (that is, less

than 50 percent of the area is covered by plants, plant

litter, or rock). Stagnant water with no vegetation is

also considered bare ground. Do not include moving

water as bare ground. If there is a side channel or

small tributary then skip those steps.

4. The point is considered covered if one or a combination of the following categories comprise greater

than 50 percent of the area. Record the cover category

that is dominant.

a. Live Vegetation - herbaceous vegetation,

shrubs, or trees with branches less than 1 m

above the ground. Branches above 1 m are not

considered vegetative cover for this method.

Bare ground under a tree with a canopy above
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 47

channel in order to not count the same area twice. This

will also prevent you from counting plants located on

the opposite bank.

5. Some species will not be counted because of our

inability to age them, such as colonial or rhizomatous

species. These species include: Salix exigua, Salix

wolfii, Salix planifolia, Salix commutata, Salix

eastwoodiae, Cornus sericea, and species ofVaccinium,

Symphoricarpos, Spiraea, Phyllodoce, and Arctostaphylos, among others. Consult Crowe and Clausnitzer

(1997) appendix III-D, “Rooting Habit” column, to

determine if a species is rhizomatous and therefore not

counted.

6. For mature individuals, distinguish whether they

are greater than 1 m tall or less than 1 m tall.

7. If there are more than 50 individuals of one

species age class, stop counting at 50 and record that

there are more than 50 individuals.

8. Estimate the age of woody individuals using one

of two methods, depending on whether they produce

many basal stems or just one stem (or a few).

a. Multiple-stemmed species grow additional

stems over time rather than adding growth

rings to existing stems. In general, the more

stems it has the older it is. For multiplestemmed species use table III-3 to estimate

their age. Stems rooted within 12 inches are

considered the same individual. Multiplestemmed species are primarily Salix species

(that are nonrhizomatous).

b. Single-stemmed species add growth rings to

the existing stems each year. These species do

not put on a new stem each year, although

they may have more than one stem. The plant

grows taller and thicker stems as it gets older.

The following species tend to grow as singlestemmed individuals: Betula occidentalis,

Prunus virginiana, and most species of Alnus,

Populus, Pinus, Picea, Abies, and Crataegus.

Use table III-4 to estimate the age of each treelike woody individual. If possible, look at nearby

individuals of the same species to compare the

size of mature to young. The height listed in

meters is only a rough guideline.

The terms may not always seem appropriate, but

don’t let that bother you. For example, mature individuals can be a range of sizes. Just follow the protocol.

Plant Communities at Stream

Transects ______________________

Objective

• Determine the relationship of stream data and

greenline vegetation at the 20 stream transects.

Figure III-15—Area of consideration for recording

effective ground cover.

1 m is not considered live vegetation, except

for the trunk area.

b. Litter - dead plant material such as matted

grasses, leaves, twigs, branches, and so forth.

c. Rock - rocks greater than 25 mm.

Woody Species Regeneration _____

Objective

• Estimate the ratio of individuals in different age

classes of shrubs and trees to determine how

much regeneration of woody plants is occurring.

Where to collect data

Collect woody species regeneration data along the

length of the greenline (110 m) on both sides of the

stream for a 6-ft wide area, centered over the rooted

greenline (fig. III-16).

How to collect data

1. Identify plants rooted within 3 ft of either side of

the point where the greenline vegetation comes out of

the ground. Use a 6-ft pole to determine this area.

2. Do not count individuals with overhanging

branches that are not rooted within 3 ft of the greenline.

3. Record the age class and species of each woody

individual on Form 7 (appendix III-B).

4. In narrow streams (less than 1 m wide) do not let

the 6-ft pole go more than one-half way across the
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Table III-3—Multiple-stemmed species (shrubs).

 Number of stems (at ground level) Age class

1 Seedling/sprout

2 to 10 Young

Greater than 10; greater than 1/2 alive Mature

Greater than 10; greater than 1/2 dead Decadent

Figure III-16—Data collected on woody species regeneration.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 49

d. 4 = 50 to 75 percent cover

e. 5 = 75 to 95 percent cover

f. 6 = 95 to 100 percent cover

4. There is no data sheet for this method. Record

these data in the “Stream” application of the data

logger under “Transects/GLComTyp.” It is best to

collect these data with the stream technicians as they

are doing their stream transects.

Collecting Specimens ____________

When to collect plant specimens

1. At each reach collect a specimen of an abundant

species that helps to determine a community type.

2. If you are unsure of a species that is important in

determining a community type, collect a specimen. It

is not necessary to collect species that have low cover

values.

3. For each “new” community, collect a specimen of

the most abundant species based on the data from the

three plots that you sample.

How to collect specimens

1. Follow the 1 in 20 rule (in other words, only

collect a specimen if there are 20 more individuals

present). This will prevent you from harming an endangered species.

Table III-4—Single-stemmed species (treelike).

Height Age class

Less than 1/2 mature height; less than 0.3 m tall Seedling/sprout

Less than 1/2 mature height; 0.3 to 2 m tall Young

Near full height; greater than 2 m tall Mature

Where to collect data

1. The vegetation technician records the community type at each stream transect. Most of these

transects will be in the area where you have already

collected greenline data, so you will have already

determined the community types. If the stream reach

extends upstream of the greenline sample area then

you may see some different community types.

2. Each stream transect is marked by two flags, one

on each bank, which are perpendicular to the channel.

Imagine a line connecting those two flags and determine where that line intersects the greenline on each

side of the stream. Those two points on the greenline

are the center of an approximately one step by one step

area for which you will determine the community type

(fig. III-17).

How to Collect Data

1. Follow the instructions for the greenline method

to determine the community type.

2. In addition, use the classes below to determine

the total cover of vegetation in that one step by one

step plot.

3. Cover classes (Daubenmire 1959).

a. 1 = 0 to 5 percent cover—not used because

there is not enough cover to be the greenline.

b. 2 = 5 to 25 percent cover

c. 3 = 25 to 50 percent cover

Figure III-17—Sampling areas at stream transects. Note that data are collected at the

intersection of stream transects and the greenline, not at the flag positions.
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

2. For each specimen, fill out and attach the “Plant

Label” provided.

3. Collect as much of the plant as you can, including

roots (if possible) of sedges, grasses, and other herbaceous plants. Try to collect a specimen with a flower or

mature fruits. For woody plants collect branches with

leaves and flowers/fruits if possible. Collect two individuals or branches (under one label) so that we can

dissect some without destroying everything.

4. For new communities, take a photo of the new

community that includes the species from which you

collected a specimen and record the photo number on

the plant label.

5. Place the labeled specimens between newspaper

and then between the felt blotters in the plant press.

Specimens that are not well labeled are useless. It is

essential that you note on the label the community

type, or new community number, that you recorded it

under.

6. Key out unknown species (a microscope may be

necessary) as soon as possible. If you are able to

identify the plant then make the change on the label.

Also review the classification to identify the community type and make the change on the data sheet and

data logger if you still have them. If you no longer have

access to the data sheet and data logger, or you cannot

identify the species, then pass the labeled specimen on

to the vegetation supervisor.

References for Parts I, II, and III____

Archer, E. K.; Roper, B. B.; Henderson, R. C.; Mellison, S. C.;

Kershner, J. L. [In press]. Testing common stream sampling

methods: how useful are these techniques for broad-scale, longterm monitoring? Gen. Tech. Rep. Fort Collins, CO, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station.

Barbour, M. T.; Stribling, J. B.; Karr, J. R. 1995. The multimetric

approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological

condition. In: Davis, W. S.; Simon, T. P., eds. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision

making. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers: 63–80.

Bauer, S. B.; Burton, T. A. 1993. Monitoring protocols to evaluate

water quality effects of grazing management of Western rangeland streams. EPA 910/R-9-93-017. Seattle, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Surface Water Branch,

Region 10. 179 p.

Coles-Ritchie, M. C.; Henderson, R. C.; Archer, E. A.; Kennedy, C.;

Kershner, J. L. [In preparation]. The repeatability of riparian

vegetation sampling methods: how useful are these techniques

for broad-scale, long-term monitoring? Gen. Tech. Rep. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Conquest, L. C.; Ralph S. C.; Naiman, R. J. 1994. Implementation

of large-scale stream monitoring efforts: sampling design and

data analysis issues. In: Loeb, S.; Spacie A., eds. Biological monitoring of aquatic systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 381 p.

Crawford, R. C. 2001. Initial riparian and wetland vegetation

classification and characterization of the Columbia Basin in

Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of

Natural Resources. 83 p.

Crowe, E. A.; Clausnitzer, R. R. 1997. Mid-montane wetland plant

associations of the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman

National Forests. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22-97. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Region. 299 p.

Daubenmire, R. F. 1959. Plants and environment: a textbook of

plant autecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 422 p.

Ebersole, J. L.; Liss, W. J.; Frissell, C. A. 1997. Restoration of stream

habitats in the Western United States: restoration and re-expression of habitat capacity. Environmental Management. 21: 1–14.

Hansen, P. L.; Pfister, R. D.; Boggs, K.; Cook, B. J.; Joy, J.; Hinckley,

D. K. 1995. Classification and management of Montana’s riparian and wetland sites. Missoula, MT: University of Montana,

School of Forestry. 646 p.

Harrelson, C. C.; Rawlins, C. L.; Potyondy, J. P. 1994. Stream

channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field technique.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 61 p.

Karr, J. R.; Chu, E. W. 1997. Biological monitoring: essential

foundation for ecological risk assessment. Human and Ecological

Risk Assessment. 3(6): 993–1004.

Kaufmann, P. R.; Levine, P.; Robison, E. G.; Seeliger, C.; Peck, D. V.

1999. Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams. U.S.

EPA/620/R99/03. Corvallis, OR. 158 p.

Kovalchik, B. L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco,

Fremont, and Winema National Forests. Tech. Pap. R6-Ecol-279-

87. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Region. 171 p.

Kovalchik, B. L. 2001. Classification and management of aquatic,

riparian and wetland sites on the National Forests of eastern

Washington’s riparian and wetland sites. Colville, WA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 6. 439 p.

Larsen, D. P.; Kincaid, T. M.; Jacobs, S. E.; Urquhart, N. S. 2001.

Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. Bioscience. 51: 1069–1078.

Lisle, T. E. 1987. Using “residual depths” to monitor pool depths

independently of discharge. Res. Note PSW-394. Berkeley, CA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p.

MacDonald, L. H.; Smart, A. W.; Wissmar, R. C. 1991. Monitoring

guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams

in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U.S. EPA 910/9-91-001.

Seattle, WA. 166 p.

Manning, M. E.; Padgett, W. G. 1995. Riparian community type

classification for Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests,

Nevada and Eastern California. R4-ECOL-95-01. Ogden, UT:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 274 p.

Montgomery, D. R.; MacDonald L. H. 2002. Diagnostic approach to

stream channel assessment and monitoring. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 1: 1–16.

Naiman, R. J.; Beechie, T. J.; Benda, L. E.; Berg, D. R.; Bisson P. A.;

MacDonald, L. H.; O’Conner, M. D.; Olson, P. L.; Steel, E. A. 1992.

Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the

Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecoregion. In: Watershed management:

balancing sustainability and environmental change. New York:

Springer-Verlag: 127–188.

National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: functions and

strategies for management. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press. 436 p.

Noon, B. R.; Raphael, M. G.; Spies, T. A.; Olsen, A. R. 1997.

Conceptual basis for designing and effectiveness monitoring

program. In: Mulder, B. S.; Noon, B. R.; Olsen, A. R.; Palmer, C. J.;

Raphael, M. G.; Reeves, G. H.; Spies, T. A.; Welsh, H. H., Jr. The

strategy and designing of the effectiveness monitoring program

for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Station: 17–36.

Overton, C. K.; McIntyre, J. D.; Armstrong, R.; Whitwell, S. L.;

Duncan, K. A. 1995. User’s guide to fish habitat descriptions that

represent natural conditions in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-322. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

142 p.

Overton, C. K.; Wollrab, S. P.; Roberts, B. C.; Radko, M. A. 1997. R1/

R4 (Northern and Intermountain Regions) fish and fish habitat

standard inventory procedures handbook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 51

GTR-346. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 142 p.

PACFISH (Pacific Anadromous Fisheries Habitat), U.S. Forest

Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Environmental assessment for the implementation of interim strategies

for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.

Padgett, W. G.; Youngblood, A. P.; Winward A. H. 1989. Riparian

community type classification of Utah and Southeastern Idaho.

R4-ECOL-89-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p.

Platts, W. S.; Armour, C.; Booth, G. D.; Bryant, M.; Bufford, J. L.;

Cuplin, P.; Jensen, S.; Lienkaemper, G. W.; Minshall, G. W.;

Monsen, S. P.; Nelson, R. L.; Sedell, J. R.; Tuhy, J. S. 1987.

Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to

management. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-221. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest, Service, Intermountain Research

Station. 177 p.

Reeves, G. H.; Benda, L. E.; Burnett, K. M.; Bisson, P. A.; Sedell, J. R.

1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining

and restoring freshwater habitats of the evolutionary significant

units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17: 334–349.

Reid, L. M. 2001. The epidemiology of monitoring. Journal of the

American Water Resources Association. 37: 815–820.

Ringold, P. L.; Mulder, B.; Alegria, J.; Czaplewski, R. L.; Tolle, T.;

Burnett, K. 1999. Establishing a regional monitoring strategy:

the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. Environmental Management.

23: 179–192.

Urquhart, N. S.; Paulsen, S. G.; Larsen, D. P. 1998. Monitoring for

policy-relevant regional trends over time. Ecological Applications. 8: 246–257.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Region. 1989. Soil quality monitoring methods. Internal publication. Ogden, UT. 60 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998.

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of

threatened status for the Klamath River and Columbia River

distinct population segments of bull trout final rule. Federal

Register June 10, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 111, Pages 31647–

31674) 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AB94.

Whittier, T. R.; Paulsen, S. G. 1992. The surface waters component

of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

(EMAP): an overview. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health. 1:

119–126.

Winward, A. H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in

riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-47. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 49 p.

Wolman, M. G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse riverbed material.

Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 35: 951–956.

Youngblood, A. P.; Padgett, W. G.; Winward, A. H. 1985. Riparian

community type classification of Eastern Idaho - Western Wyoming. R4-ECOL-85-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 78 p.
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Gear everyone has (verify that you have it with √):

Hand lens

Ruler

Neck string

Plot string

Clicker

Compass

Probe

Tweezers

Clipboard

Microscope

Plant labels

Pencils

Plant press with cardboard and felt (you need to get newspaper)

Yellow flags

Flagging

Plastic zip-lock bags for specimens

Protocol

Notebook (pocket size)

Six-foot pole

Vests

Books (mark which you have with √):

Field Guide to the Willows of East Central Idaho (Brunsfeld and Johnson 1985)

Initial Riparian and Wetland Vegetation Classification and Characterization of the Columbia

Basin In Washington (Crawford 2001)

Mid-Montane Wetland Plant Associations of the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman

National Forests (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997)

The Willows of Montana (Dorn 1970)

Classification and Management of Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites (Hansen and others

1996)

Plant Identification Terminology (Harris and Harris 1999)

Willows of Montana (Heinze 1992)

Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1998)

Field Guide to Intermountain Sedges (Hurd and others 1998)

Field Guide to Intermountain Rushes (Hurd and others 1997)

Riparian Zone Associations -- Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests

(Kovalchik 1987)

Classification and Management of Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Sites On the National Forests

of Eastern Washington (Part 1: the Series Descriptions) Final Draft (Kovalchik 2001)

Major Indicator Shrubs and Herbs In Riparian Zones On National Forests of Central Oregon

(Kovalchik and others 1988)

Riparian Community Type Classification For Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests, Nevada

and Eastern California (Manning and Padgett 1995)

Riparian Community Type Classification of Utah and Southeastern Idaho (Padgett and others

1989)

Monitoring the Vegetation Resources In Riparian Areas (Winward 2000)

Riparian Community Type Classification of Eastern Idaho -- Western Wyoming (Youngblood and

others 1985)

Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Southwestern Idaho (Jankovsky-Jones and others 2001)

Appendix III-A (Equipment List) __________________________________
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 53

Form 5

Green-Line Vegetation Data

Stream Name: __________________________ Data Collector: _______________________________

Reach ID #: __________________________ Steps per 110 m: _______________________________

Riparian Vegetation Classification Used (circle): Kov-OR, Crowe, Kov-WA, Hansen, Padgett, Youngblood,

Manning, Crawford, other: ________________________

Community Type # of Steps on Right Bank # of Steps on Left Bank Total

Greenline Options:

• Record community type or new community only, no physical variables (note them in comments).

• For “new” communities write new1, new2, and so forth, and then use form “New Community Species Data.”

Comments:

Appendix III-B Forms 5–8 _______________________________________
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Form 6

Riparian Vegetation Cross-Sections & Effective Ground Cover

Stream Name: ______________________________ Data Collector: __________________________________

Reach ID #: ________________________________ Compass Bearing (face downstream): _______________

Cross-Sections (Xs)

Community type XS 1

R L

XS 1

total

XS 2

R L

XS 2

total

XS 3

R L

XS 3

total

XS 4

R L

XS 4

total

XS 5

R L

XS 5

total

Within 2x bankfull

Beyond 2x bankfull

Additional distance

> 27.5 m (use key)

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

0 = none, 1 = < distance stepped, 2 = 1x to 2x distance stepped, 3 = 2x to 4x distance stepped, 4 = > 4x distance stepped

Measured distance of

1 right cross-section: ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Effective Ground Cover

Ground Cover XS 1

R L

XS 1

Total

XS 2

R L

XS 2

Total

XS 3

R L

XS 3

Total

XS 4

R L

XS 4

Total

XS 5

R L

XS 5

Total

Live vegetation

less than 1 m

Litter

Bare ground

Rock > 2.5 cm

Ponded water
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 55

Form 7

Woody Regeneration

Stream Name: __________________________ Data Collector: _________________________

Reach ID: ______________________________ Date: _________________________________

Woody Individuals Count

(all shrubs and trees rooted one meter within either side of greenline)

Species Seedling/sprout Young Mature

< 1m >1m Decadent Dead

Multi-stemmed species (shrubs)

Seedling/Sprout = 1 Stem

Young = 2 to10 Stems

Mature = Greater than 10 Stems, greater than 1⁄

2 alive

Decadent = Greater than 10 Stems, less than 1⁄

2 alive

Single stemmed species (tree-like)

Seedling/Sprout less than 1⁄

4 Mature Height, less than 0.3 meters tall

Young less than 1⁄

2 Mature Height, 0.3 to 2 meters tall

Mature greater than 1⁄

2 Mature Height, greater than 2 meters tall

Dead greater than 1⁄

2 Mature Height, and dead
56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004

Form 8

New Community Species Data

Data Collector: Date:

Stream: Reach ID:

Greenline or Cross Section (circle one) New Community # (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, circle one)

Adjacent Community Types (2): Plot (a,b,c, and so forth):

Size of new community (if only a few steps, lump with adjacent community types):

Herbaceous

(grasses, forbs,

sedges, rushes) Species

Cover

Class

Specimen collected

yes or no (collect

the most abundant)

Specimen

ID#

Shrubs

Trees

Cover Classes: 1=0-5%, 2=5-25%, 3=25-50%, 4=0-75%, 5=75-95%, 6=95-100%
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. 2004 57

PLANT LABEL |

Species ID in field: _________________________

Reach ID: ________________________________

Community type recorded as: ________________

% Cover: ________________________________

Associated species: ________________________ | continued_________________________________

Habitat (circle): in water - streambank - meadow

- forest - riparian boundary - other___________

Collector: ________________________________

Photo #/s:________________________________

|

PLANT LABEL |

Species ID in field: _________________________

Reach ID: ________________________________

Community type recorded as: ________________

% Cover: ________________________________

Associated species: ________________________ | continued_________________________________

Habitat (circle): in water - streambank - meadow

- forest - riparian boundary - other____________

Collector: ________________________________

Photo #/s:_________________________________

|

PLANT LABEL |

Species ID in field: _________________________

Reach ID: ________________________________

Community type recorded as: ________________

% Cover: ________________________________

Associated species: ________________________ | continued_________________________________

Habitat (circle): in water - streambank - meadow

- forest - riparian boundary - other___________

Collector: _________________________________

Photo #/s:_________________________________

|

PLANT LABEL |

Species ID in field: _________________________

Reach ID: ________________________________

Community type recorded as: ________________

% Cover: ________________________________

Associated tpecies: ________________________ | continued_________________________________

Habitat (circle): in water - streambank - meadow

- forest - riparian boundary - other____________

Collector: _________________________________

Photo #/s:_________________________________

|

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your

mailing information in label form through one of the following media.

Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects

and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications

may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper