U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5185

Integrated Monitoring of Hydrogeomorphic, Vegetative, 

and Edaphic Conditions in Riparian Ecosystems 

of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Integrated Monitoring of Hydrogeomorphic, 

Vegetative, and Edaphic Conditions in 

Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin 

National Park, Nevada.

By Erik Beever and David A. Pyke.

U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Geological Survey.

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5185.
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary.

U.S. Geological Survey.

Charles G. Groat, Director.

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004.

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services.

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center.

Denver, CO 80225.

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS.

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Beever, Erik and Pyke, David A., 2004, Integrated Monitoring of Hydrogeomorphic, Vegetative, and Edaphic Conditions 

in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 

2004-5185, 88 p.

Key words:

1. Riparian ecosystems. 2. Hydrogeomorphology. 3. Cross-sectional transects. 4. Multivariate statistics (NMS, MRPP, 

indicator species analysis). 5. Monitoring. 6. Great Basin National Park. 7. Nevada. 
Acknowledgments iii

Acknowledgments.

Funding for this research came from the NRPP program of the National Park Service and 

secondarily from USGS support for aridlands research in the Intermountain West. Dru Germanoski and Gregor Auble provided critical scientific reviews of this report. Kristina Heister 

(NPS, Mojave Network Inventory & Monitoring Coordinator, Las Vegas, NV) facilitated communication with the authors and assisted with numerous logistical details. Additional support 

came from Tod Williams (Chief of Resource Management), Neal Darby (Biologist), Gretchen 

Baker (Ecologist), Bryan Hamilton (Wildlife Biologist), and Ben Roberts (Resource Management), and the rest of the staff of Great Basin National Park. Jerry Tiehm of the Northern 

Nevada Native Plant Society determined the identities of plant species we could not identify 

from pressed specimens. Jeanne Chambers (USDA-FS Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Reno, NV) provided comparisons with hydrogeomorphology and riparian plant communities of 

central Nevada, as well as other insights. George Lienkaemper (USGS-BRD, FRESC) created 

the maps in Figure 1, and facilitated other GIS-based analyses. Bruce McCune (Oregon State 

University) provided suggestions and insights critical for the multivariate analyses. Stan Smith 

and Frederick Landau (both of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas) performed research in the 

early 1990s in these and other watersheds of the Park, and provided some historical insights. 

Bonnie Keeler and Carrie Nazarchyk provided significant assistance with data collection and 

entry. Jason Richling assisted with data organization and precursor analyses, and created the 

stream profiles in Appendix E using SigmaPlot. Tom Bullard (Desert Research Institute) and 

Jerry Miller (Western Carolina University) provided additional insights on study design and 

analysis. Ruth Jacobs (USGS, FRESC) and Erik Ackerson (Earth Design, Ink) provided publication support.
iv Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada 
Contents v

Contents.

Acknowledgments. ..................................................................................................................................... iii. 

List of Figures. ................................................................................................................................................v. 

List of Tables. ............................................................................................................................................... vi. 

Abstract. ........................................................................................................................................................ 1. 

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

Study Area: Geologic, Geomorphic, and Ecological Setting. ............................................................... 3. 

Methods. ...................................................................................................................................................... 13. 

Walking surveys of target watersheds. ......................................................................................... 13. 

Site selection: location of transects. ............................................................................................. 13. 

Sampling methods for transects. ................................................................................................... 13. 

Results. ........................................................................................................................................................ 17. 

Walking surveys of target watersheds. ......................................................................................... 17. 

Cross-sectional transects. .............................................................................................................. 17. 

Multivariate analyses. ...................................................................................................................... 30. 

Discussion. .................................................................................................................................................. 33. 

Walking surveys of target watersheds. ......................................................................................... 37. 

Cross-sectional transects. .............................................................................................................. 38. 

Multivariate analyses. ...................................................................................................................... 40. 

Further Management Implications. ......................................................................................................... 41. 

References Cited. ....................................................................................................................................... 43. 

Appendix A. Walking surveys of target watersheds. ....................................................................... 47. 

Key to taxonomic abbreviations. .................................................................................................... 66. 

Appendix B. Notable features from walking surveys. ...................................................................... 68. 

Appendix C. Transect (rebar) locations. ............................................................................................. 71. 

Appendix D. Why monitoring of aggregate soil stability is not recommended. . .......................... 77. 

Appendix E. Cross sections. .................................................................................................................. 78. 

Appendix F. Species-accumulation curves. ...................................................................................... 86. 

List of Figures

1a,b,c. Map of transects sampled in Great Basin National Park. .................................................... 7. 

a. Strawberry Creek. ........................................................................................................................... 7. 

b. Baker Creek. .................................................................................................................................... 9. 

c. Snake Creek. .................................................................................................................................. 11. 

2a,b. Scree plots. .................................................................................................................................... 18. 

3a,b. Results of 2-dimensional NMS ordination of 31 sites. ............................................................ 19. 

4a,b. Results of the first two dimensions of NMS ordination of 31 sites. ...................................... 20. 

5a,b. Results of the second and third dimensions of an NMS ordination of 31 sites. ................. 21. 
vi Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada 

List of Tables..

1. Physiographic and hydrogeomorphic characteristics of each transect. ................................... 4. 

2. Proportion of a 50-m transect occupied by gaps. ......................................................................... 23. 

3. Comparisons of the mean and standard error several physical, geomorphic, 

and biotic variables. ..................................................................................................................... 25. 

4. Number of particles at each of 31 sites. ......................................................................................... 28. 

5. Measurements of coarse woody debris. ........................................................................................ 31. 

6. Proportion of points occupied by four types of cover. ................................................................. 32. 

7a,b. Number of transects in and average distance between points. ........................................... 34. 

8a,b. Results of indicator species analysis. ....................................................................................... 35. 
Integrated Monitoring of Hydrogeomorphic, Vegetative, 

and Edaphic Conditions in Riparian Ecosystems of Great 

Basin National Park, Nevada.

Abstract.

In semiarid regions such as the Great Basin, riparian areas 

function as oases of cooler and more stable microclimates, 

greater relative humidity, greater structural complexity, and 

a steady flow of water and nutrients relative to upland areas.

These qualities make riparian areaʼs attractive not only to 

resident and migratory wildlife, but also to visitors in recreation areas such as Great Basin National Park in the Snake 

Range, east-central Nevada. To expand upon the system of 

ten permanent plots sampled in 1992 (Smith et al. 1994) and 

2001 (Beever et al. in press), we established a collection of 31 

cross-sectional transects of 50-m width across the mainstems 

of Strawberry, Lehman, Baker, and Snake creeks. Our aims in 

this research were threefold: a) map riparian vegetative communities in greater detail than had been done by past efforts; 

b) provide a monitoring baseline of hydrogeomorphology; 

structure, composition, and function of upland- and riparianassociated vegetation; and edaphic properties potentially sensitive to management; and c) test whether instream conditions 

or physiographic variables predicted vegetation patterns across 

the four target streams.

In each of the four watersheds, we performed walking 

transects from the lower-elevation boundary of the park along 

creek mainstems to a point well above the point at which vehicle access stopped. In these transects, we ranked, by cover, the 

riparian and upland woody species on each side of the creek, 

in 0.32-km segments. These walking transects also facilitated 

selection of a suite of cross-sectional transects that might serve 

as an early-warning signal of change for natural (e.g., aggradative) and anthropogenic changes (e.g., due to visitor impacts 

or climate change). At each cross-sectional transect, we used 

several methods: a) measurement of the number, approximate volume, and total length of instream logs greater than 

10 cm in diameter that were within 5 m up- or downstream 

of the transect; b) counts of pebbles by size class, following Wolman (1954); c) line-point intercepts, which provided 

various measures of percent cover; d) gap-intercept transects, 

following Herrick et al. (in press), to measure susceptibility 

of uplands to erosion by wind or water; e) 1-m2 quadrats, to 

obtain frequency of woody species; f) nested-frequency plots, 

to measure frequency of all plant species in quadrats of varying size; g) a field-based soil aggregate stability test following Herrick et al. (2001); and h) an impact penetrometer, to 

measure penetration resistance of soil horizons.

We used species-accumulation curves to assess the ability 

of our methods to detect the majority of plant species at sites, 

using the most species-rich and species-poor sites as illustrations. We compared characteristics of hydrogeomorphic valley 

types (designated by Frissell and Liss 1993), vegetation types, 

and creeks individually and, using multivariate analyses for 

the first two ʻtypes,ʼ simultaneously. For the latter, using both 

the nested-frequency and 1-m2 frequency data, we first used 

nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) to assess relationships of plant communities among sites. Secondly, we 

used multi-response permutation procedures (MRPP) to test 

whether plant-community differences existed among either 

hydrogeomophic valley types or vegetation types. To increase 

the value of these comparisons for management, we used indicator species analyses to quantify the indicator value of each 

individual plant species for separating groups. 

In contrast to the more incised riparian channels of central Nevada, we observed knickzones, downcutting, and incision only rarely and usually with limited extent in the walking 

surveys. Downcutting occurred most frequently and extensively in Strawberry and Snake creeks, due in part to their 

more erodible soils. According to a hydrogeomorphologist 

with extensive experience in Great Basin riparian systems, the 

sediment-delivery and hydrologic systems appeared relatively 

undisturbed in most reaches, with respect to grazing animals 

and other types of anthropogenic alteration. Site elevation 

of the 31 transects ranged from 1,950-2,987 m, and stream 

slope (i.e., gradient) was relatively steep (mean = 9.3%, range 

3-16%). Strawberry Creek averaged the lowest maximum 

water depth, and correspondingly had greatest width/depth 

ratios. Baker Creek sites averaged the smallest amount of 

tree-canopy gaps, whereas Snake Creek sites on average had 

the largest proportion of gaps in understory vegetation. Sites 

in terrace-bound valley types averaged the lowest slope in the 

By Erik A. Beeverand David A. Pyke1.

1U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 

3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.
channel as well as the least cover of trees, litter, and vegetation overall, whereas alluviated, boulder-bed canyon sites 

averaged the greatest widths of the active channel. Sites in 

Lehman Creek averaged nearly twice as much coarse woody 

debris as sites from any other creek, whereas Baker Creek 

sites averaged greatest tree cover (mean = 67%, range 40 

– 96%) and species richness (mean = 17.3 species). Multivariate ordinations suggested that sites in leveed outwash valleys 

and alluvial-fan-influenced valleys had the greatest inter-site 

heterogeneity in plant composition, whereas sites in incised 

moraine-filled valleys appeared most homogeneous. Differences among homogeneity of sites within vegetation types 

were less pronounced, but sites dominated by either aspen and 

Woodsʼ rose or narrow-leaved cottonwood had the most similar plant communities among sites of the same vegetation type.

A number of species were faithful indicators of various valley 

and vegetation types, using either set of plant-frequency data.

We estimate that all 31 sites could be subsequently re-sampled 

in 14-18 field days by individuals possessing familiarity of 

the riparian flora of the southern Snake Range. As with any 

research, monitoring-focused investigations must balance the 

concerns for number of ecosystem attributes measured, extensiveness in time and space of sampling periods and locations, 

and the time and cost of sampling.

Introduction.

In semiarid regions such as the Great Basin, riparian areas 

serve as the interface between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and represent the product of hydraulic forces, historic 

and contemporary anthropogenic influences, and underlying 

geomorphology. Riparian geomorphology and, consequently, 

riparian vegetation are intrinsically dynamic in that aggradation and degradation are natural processes expected within 

some geophysical units along a stream (Auble and Scott 1998). 

In some cases, the magnitude of natural channel evolution 

that occurs due to residual effects of paleological influences 

can eclipse changes due to management or that are otherwise 

human-induced (Chambers et al. 1998, Miller et al. 2001). 

Many plant taxa require bank scouring or other aspects of 

peak-flow events for their establishment and subsequent germination. Timing, magnitude, and duration of rare peak-flow 

events may have dominant effects on steam geomorphology in 

arid and semiarid regions (Baker 1977). 

In concert with these natural disturbances, a host of 

anthropogenic influences have altered the structure, composition, and function of riparian ecosystems in the western United 

States. In the Great Basin in particular, water diversions, 

nearby roads, historic and contemporary mining, logging, 

conversion to agriculture, local eradication of beaver, heavy 

recreational use, introduction of exotic plant and animal species, fire exclusion, dams, and improper livestock management 

have all affected riparian ecosystems (Skovlin 1984, Lee et 

al. 1997, Belsky et al. 1999, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Of 

these factors, many authors have charged improper livestock 

grazing as the most pervasive source of upland and riparian 

habitat degradation in the western United States (Elmore and 

Kauffman 1994, Ohmart 1996, Belsky 1999). Recovery from 

improper grazing management in arid and semiarid ecoregions 

can be protracted, occurring only after sometimes significant 

time lags (Buckhouse et al. 1981, Ohmart 1996, Sarr et al. 

1996). 

Although riparian areas comprise one of the most drastically altered community types over the last 150 years on 

federal lands in the Intermountain West of North America, 

they remain the most biologically diverse (Hessburg et al. 

1999). Because of their relatively abundant shade, water, and 

nutrients, riparian zones act as focal points for many taxa that 

occupy these habitats either obligately or facultatively (Bull 

1978, Thomas 1979, Gregory et al. 1991). However, authors 

have only recently acknowledged the importance of riparian 

habitat for birds, fishes, and other taxa in the context of adjacent uplands and the surrounding matrix, and consequently 

have argued for simultaneous monitoring of riparian and 

adjacent upland communities that incorporates both physical 

and vegetative parameters (Murphy and Meehan 1991, Block 

and Brennan 1993, Belsky et al. 1999).

In Great Basin National Park (GBNP), riparian areas and 

the taxa that inhabit them constitute one of the main management and monitoring foci in the park (Williams et al. 1999), in 

part due to recent efforts to reintroduce Bonneville cutthroat 

trout populations. Smith et al. (1994) performed ordination 

of 229 stands in eight park watersheds, and found that woody 

vegetative composition was highly correlated with site elevation and slope as well as channel pattern, terrace width, and 

flow state. Furthermore, controls on vegetative composition 

varied among the Baker, Big Wash, Lehman, and Snake watersheds when stands within a single watershed were analyzed 

independently with TWINSPAN (Smith et al. 1994). In these 

analyses of individual streams, aspect, flow conditions, valley 

form, and texture of the valley fill alternatively determined 

stand composition in various watersheds, but elevation was the 

strongest determinant of vegetation across all four watersheds 

(Smith et al. 1994). Frissell and Liss (1993) mapped valley 

segments (defined as “the stream channels and the portion of 

the adjacent valley floor and slopes with which the channels 

interact over a time frame of thousands or tens of thousands 

of years”) in nine streams in the park as a result of sampling 

at 191 sites and subsequent map interpretation. Despite this 

work, riparian vegetation has not been explicitly mapped in 

park watersheds, and soils for all riparian areas are classified into a single soil series. Repeat sampling in 2001 of ten 

permanent plots established by Smith et al. (1994) proved to 

be of limited use (Beever et al. in press), because results were 

confounded by potential differences in the methods, which 

were vaguely stated originally. Furthermore, ten plots across 

four watersheds provide the park with little statistical power to 

detect concerted change in park riparian systems over time. 

Thus, the objectives of this research program were to: 

1) map riparian vegetative communities in greater detail than 

2 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
had been done by past GAP projects or by Smith et al. (1994); 

2) provide, within dominant geomorphic and vegetative strata, 

a monitoring baseline of hydrogeomorphology; structure, 

composition and function of upland- and riparian-associated 

vegetation; and potentially management-sensitive edaphic 

properties; and 3) test whether instream conditions and physiographic covariates clearly predicted accompanying vegetation 

patterns across the four target streams. Secondarily, we sought 

to consider, to the extent possible, the magnitude of change in 

stream conditions that may be detected with different levels of 

sampling intensity.

Study Area: Geologic, Geomorphic, 

and Ecological Setting.

The hydrographic Great Basin of western North America 

consists of a series of north-south trending mountain ranges 

between the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains, where the 

entire area drains internally rather than flowing to an ocean. 

Each mountain range contains a unique mix of coniferous 

trees, birds, butterflies, montane mammals, poorly dispersing 

herbaceous plants, and a diversity of other taxa (Brown 1971, 

Johnson 1978, Wilcox et al. 1986, Charlet 1996, Lawlor 1998). 

On a percentage basis, the Great Basin contains more public 

lands than any other ecoregion in the contiguous United States, 

and consequently it represents an important opportunity for 

conservation of biological diversity. This fact, combined with 

the large number and spatial extent of wilderness and roadless 

areas in and adjacent to the Basin, suggest that the region may 

be increasingly relied upon as a reservoir of biodiversity in 

future decades (Newmark 1995, Holling and Meffe 1996).

The Snake Range contains some of the highest areas 

of the interior Great Basin, and has a relief of nearly 2,500 

m. The north-south-trending ridge is cut roughly in half by 

Hwy 50, with the southern portion dominated by Great Basin 

National Park, which was established as a National Park 

Service unit in 1981. The range encompasses extensive areas 

of talus, several groves of long-lived bristlecone pine trees, 

a diversity of insects, a distinctive flora with strong RockyMountain influence (e.g., Charlet 1996), patches of limestone 

substrates, and impressive geologic features. Additionally, 

riparian areas of the range are distinct from the more severely 

incised streams dominant in the interior Great Basin. Sheep 

grazing has been reported to have been heavy across the 

eastern edge of Nevada during 1890-1920 (Young and Sparks 

2002), and plenty of evidence of Basque sheepherdersʼ presence in the park remains etched in trunks of aspen (Populus 

tremuloides) trees (E. Beever, pers. obs., Mallea-Olaetxe 

2000). Cattle grazing occurred in the area of the park from 

the 1860s (Eddleman and Jaindl 1994) until the National Park 

Service terminated grazing permits in 1999 due to conflicts 

with other park uses. Domestic sheep were similarly considered for removal from the park around 2002, but had yet to be 

removed as of September 2004 (G. Baker [Ecologist, GBNP], 

pers. comm.).

Research was conducted at 31 transects across streams 

in four watersheds on the eastern side of the southern Snake 

Range in east-central Nevada, in the park. Transects were 

established along Strawberry, Lehman, Baker, and Snake 

creeks, because roads adjacent to these streams should facilitate re-sampling over time. However, given that not all stream 

segments in the park are near roads, this may mean that the 

sampled transects are not representative of all streams in the 

park. Preliminary sampling for mapping vegetation associations ranged in elevation from 1,890 to 3,080 m (with transects located from 1,950 to 3,000 m), but elevations within 

these drainages vary from 3,968 m at Wheeler Peak down 

to the Snake Valley floor at 1,510 m. Stream gradients of all 

four creeks were similar, and were in the range of A- and 

B-type streams in Rosgenʼs (1985) classification system. The 

hydrogeomorphology for the upper reaches of three of the four 

creeks was that of an incised moraine-filled valley, whereas 

Strawberry Creek was classified as an alluvial system and 

resembled the downstream reaches of Snake and Baker creeks 

(Table 1, Figure 1). Active channel width in mid-summer averaged from 1-3 m, but the channel was significantly braided 

in many locations (E. Beever, pers. obs.). Precipitation on the 

east side of the Snake Range varies from 65.5 cm/yr at 3,182 

m elevation to 33.3 cm/yr at 2,081 m elevation to 19.3 cm/yr 

at the valley floor (Garrison, UT; 1,518 m elevation) (Western 

Regional Climate Center online data, Reno, NV). Much of the 

winter precipitation falls as snow.

Although watersheds varied in plant species composition, 

upland vegetation bordering riparian corridors typically transitioned from salt-scrub to big sagebrush communities below 

the park boundary, to pinyon-juniper-big sagebrush, ponderosa 

pine, white fir-douglas fir, mountain mahogany, aspen, and 

Engelman spruce communities as elevation increased (Figure 

1; scientific names for these species occur in Appendix A). 

Soils in the park generally, and in the study watersheds in 

particular, are derived primarily from granitic or limestone 

parent rock material (SCS 1992). Although the Brokit Series 

encompassed only 0.6% of the park area, it was assigned to all 

riparian areas in the park, despite notable spatial heterogeneity 

in riparian vegetation and likely in associated soils (Smith et 

al. 1994; E. Beever, pers. obs.).

Study Area 3
Transect

Hydrogeomorphic 

classificationa Dominant canopy species

Classification of 

vegetation 

types Elevation (m) Elevation (ft)

Tag # 

attached 

to rebar 

endpoint

BK1 ACB POTR/PIEN/ABCO 5 2664 8740 28

BK2 ACB POTR/PIEN/ABCO 5 2634 8641 29

BK3 LOV POTR/ABCO 4 2486 8157 30

BK4 LOV POTR/ABCO 4 2487 8160 31

BK5 LOV BEOC/POTR/ABCO 4 2303 7557 25

BK6 LOV BEOC/POTR 6 2286 7500 24

BK7 ACB/LOV POTR/ABCO/SALsp/PIMO 4 2204 7230 27

BK8 ACB PIMO/POTR/ROWO/ARTR 1 2160 7085 26

2403 7884

LM1 IMV PIEN/POTR/PIFL 5 2947 9670 18

LM2 IMV PIEN/POTR/PIFL 5 2987 9800 19

LM3 LOV POTR/SALSP/PJ/ROWO 2 2204 7230 20

LM4 LOV POTR/PJ/ROWO 2 2219 7280 21

LM5 LOV ABCO/POTR 4 2551 8370 22

LM6 LOV POTR/ABCO (ARTR/CELE upland) 4 2356 7730 23

2544 8347

SN1 TBV POAN - PJ/ARTR 3 1950 6397 4

SN2 TBV POAN/ROWO/BEOC 3 1950 6399 5

SN3 AFV PIEN/ABCO/PIFL/POTR 5 2563 8410 6

SN4 AFV PIEN/ABCO/PIFL/POTR 5 2593 8508 7

SN5 ACG POTR/ROWO/POAN/ABCO 2 2304 7559 8

SN6 ACG POTR/ROWO/POAN/ABCO (PJ/ARTR upland) 2 2592 8505 9

SN7 AFV POAN/BEOC/PJ/ARTR 3 2048 6720 10

SN8 AFV POAN/BEOC/PJ/ARTR 3 2041 6696 11

2255 7399

ST1 AFV PIMO/POTR/BEOC/ROWO 1 2351 7714 1

ST2 AFV PIMO/POTR/BEOC/ROWO 1 2381 7812 2

ST3 AFV PIMO/POTR/BEOC/ROWO 1 2353 7720 3

ST4 ACG POTR/PIEN/ARTR 5 2580 8465 12

ST5 ACG POTR/PIEN/ABCO 5 2576 8450 13

ST6 AFV POTR/ABCO (ARTR uplnd) 4 2399 7870 14

ST7 AFV POTR/PIMO/BEOC/SALSP/ARTR 1 2317 7600 15

ST8 AV BEOC/SALSP (PJ/ARTR) 6 2148 7048 16

ST9 AV BEOC/SALSP (PJ/ARTR/ROWO) 6 2216 7270 17

2369 7772

GRAND MEAN 2382 7816

Table 1. Physiographic and hydrogeomorphic characteristics of each transect, and averages of values in each of four target watersheds in Great Basin National Park, Snake Range, NV. Julian sampling date followed the calendar year, beginning at Day 1 on 1 January 

2002. Drainage area was calculated in ARC/INFO, as delineated in the text. 

Mean, Baker Creek sites

Mean, Lehman Creek sites

Mean, Snake Creek sites

Mean, Strawberry Creek sites

aClassification of valley segment, following Frissell and Liss (1993). ACB = alluviated canyon, boulder-bed; ACG = alluviated canyon, gravel-cobble-bed; 

IMV = incised moraine-filled valley; TBV = terrace-bound valley; LOV = leveed outwash valley; AV = alluvial valley; AFV = alluvial fan-influenced valley.

bNo water aboveground; piped for agriculture to valley below.

4 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Transect

Hydrogeomorphic 

classificationa

Julian sampling date, 2002Stream aspect (deg)Transect 

aspect (deg)

Slope gradient 

(%), upstream

Slope gradient 

(%), downstream

Avg. slope 

gradient (%)

BK1 ACB 225 105 197 10 14.5 12.25

BK2 ACB 225 76 158 15 10 12.5

BK3 LOV 226 85 170 15 14 14.5

BK4 LOV 226 30 125 9 7 8

BK5 LOV 223 74 156 13 11 12

BK6 LOV 225 114 185 7 7

BK7 ACB/LOV 224 70 153 4.5 3 3.75

BK8 ACB 224 169 238 4 15 9.5

224.8 9.7 10.6 9.9

LM1 IMV 220 96 184 12.5 12 12.25

LM2 IMV 220 28 125 11 13 12

LM3 LOV 221 57 145 12 8 10

LM4 LOV 221 61 128 8 7 7.5

LM5 LOV 222 124 35 14 18 16

LM6 LOV 222 116 18 10 7 8.5

221 106 11.3 10.8 11.0

SN1 TBV 209 68 344 5 6 5.5

SN2 TBV 209 16 282

SN3 AFV 210 102 208 8 10 9

SN4 AFV 210 310 233 14 13 13.5

SN5 ACG 211 350 274 1 5 3

SN6 ACG 211 196 12 3 7.5

SN7 AFV 212 288 200 8 6 7

SN8 AFV 212 307 222.5 5 7 6

210.5 7.6 7.1 7.4

ST1 AFV 206 279 14 7 9 8

ST2 AFV 207 279 14 7 9 8

ST3 AFV 208 75 1 8 7 7.5

ST4 ACG 217 200 114 13 15 14

ST5 ACG 217 7 112 11 12 11.5

ST6 AFV 218 109 3.5 14 8.75

ST7 AFV 218 120 11 10 10 10

ST8 AV 219 73 357 6 6 6

ST9 AV 219 113 352 8 8 8

214.3 8.2 10.0 9.1

GRAND MEAN 217.3 9.1 9.6 9.3

Mean, Baker Creek sites

Mean, Lehman Creek sites

Mean, Snake Creek sites

Mean, Strawberry Creek sites

aClassification of valley segment, following Frissell and Liss (1993). ACB = alluviated canyon, boulder-bed; ACG = alluviated canyon, gravel-cobble-bed; 

IMV = incised moraine-filled valley; TBV = terrace-bound valley; LOV = leveed outwash valley; AV = alluvial valley; AFV = alluvial fan-influenced valley.

bNo water aboveground; piped for agriculture to valley below.

Table 1. Physiographic and hydrogeomorphic characteristics of each transect, and averages of values in each of four target watersheds in Great Basin National Park, Snake Range, NV. Julian sampling date followed the calendar year, beginning at Day 1 on 1 January 

2002. Drainage area was calculated in ARC/INFO, as delineated in the text.—Continued 

Study Area 5
Transect

Hydrogeomorphic 

classificationa

Drainage 

area (ha)

Active channel 

width (m)

Channel width, 

bankfull (m)

Max. water 

depth (m)

Width/depth ratio 

[active channel]

Width/depth 

ratio [bankfull]

BK1 ACB 1442.3 3.6 4.31 0.234 15.41 18.44

BK2 ACB 1450.5 7.42 9.56 0.305 24.34 31.36

BK3 LOV 1468.0 3.88 8.43 0.241 16.08 34.94

BK4 LOV 2263.6 4.65 5.94 0.267 17.44 22.27

BK5 LOV 2629.5 1.52 4.12 0.191 7.98 21.63

BK6 LOV 2639.6 3.38 4.05 0.146 23.14 27.73

BK7 ACB/LOV 3271.8 2.98 6.75 0.298 9.99 22.62

BK8 ACB 3287.7 4.21 7.00 0.338 12.46 20.72

2306.6 3.96 6.27 0.252 15.85 24.96

LM1 IMV 471.2 2.51 4.63 0.152 16.47 30.38

LM2 IMV 451.7 4.4 6.07 0.117 37.66 51.95

LM3 LOV 2188.8 2.83 5.90 0.244 11.61 24.20

LM4 LOV 2162.7 3.85 4.80 0.286 13.47 16.80

LM5 LOV 1251.2 2.74 4.02 0.257 10.68 15.67

LM6 LOV 1964.0 4.25 6.15 0.267 15.94 23.06

1414.9 3.40 5.30 0.200 17.64 27.01

SN1 TBV 5335.5 1.18 4.47 0.160 7.37 27.93

SN2 TBV 449.2 1.97 0.133 14.77 0.00

SN3 AFV 5339.6 1.79 4.22 0.150 11.94 28.16

SN4 AFV 449.2 1.39 4.15 0.112 12.44 37.13

SN5 ACG 2554.3 0b 4.85 0b N/A N/A

SN6 ACG 2559.7 0b 4.95 0b N/A N/A

SN7 AFV 4345.7 2.59 4.40 0.191 13.60 23.01

SN8 AFV 4360.1 2.16 3.00 0.210 10.31 14.32

3174.2 1.85 4.29 0.159 11.74 21.77

ST1 AFV 1245.8 4.23 4.97 0.054 78.37 92.08

ST2 AFV 1212.9 0.77 3.47 0.061 12.63 56.92

ST3 AFV 1241.3 0.64 3.44 0.044 14.40 77.39

ST4 ACG 551.4 1.55 3.30 0.044 34.87 74.24

ST5 ACG 552.7 2.61 3.12 0.032 82.21 98.27

ST6 AFV 747.6 1.73 9.32 0.053 32.43 174.73

ST7 AFV 1295.7 1.05 4.10 0.044 23.62 92.24

ST8 AV 1843.3 1.29 3.50 0.089 14.51 39.37

ST9 AV 1675.2 1.64 4.65 0.080 20.50 58.12

1151.8 1.72 4.43 0.056 34.84 84.82

GRAND MEAN 2.72 5.05 0.165 21.26 43.30

Mean, Baker Creek sites

Mean, Lehman Creek sites

Mean, Snake Creek sites

Mean, Strawberry Creek sites

aClassification of valley segment, following Frissell and Liss (1993). ACB = alluviated canyon, boulder-bed; ACG = alluviated canyon, gravel-cobble-bed; 

IMV = incised moraine-filled valley; TBV = terrace-bound valley; LOV = leveed outwash valley; AV = alluvial valley; AFV = alluvial fan-influenced valley.

bNo water aboveground; piped for agriculture to valley below.

Table 1. Physiographic and hydrogeomorphic characteristics of each transect, and averages of values in each of four target watersheds in Great Basin National Park, Snake Range, NV. Julian sampling date followed the calendar year, beginning at Day 1 on 1 January 

2002. Drainage area was calculated in ARC/INFO, as delineated in the text.—Continued 

6 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Figures 1a,b,c. Map of transects sampled in a) Strawberry, b) Baker and Lehman creeks, and c) Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, southern Snake Range, Elko Co. Nevada. The image is derived from binned GAP vegetation data overlaid on a digital orthophotoquad image, supplemented by GIS coverages of hydrography and roads. Valley segments within stream corridors are divided into hydrogeologic units mapped for the creeks by Frissell and Liss (1993). Our plots from 2001 (denoted with “PP#”) and 2002 sampling appear in 

all four watersheds.

Study Area 7
�������������������� ����������

��

���

���

���

���������� �����

���������� �����

����� ���

��������������

�������������� ������

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��������������

����� ���

������

��������������

���

���

���

���

���

���

��������

���������

���������

������

�������� �����

����� ���

�������� �����

�������� ��������

������

��������������

����������

��������� �����

���������

������

�������� ��������

�������� �����

��������������

���������

����������

��������� ����� �������� �����

����� ���

��������

���������

���������

������

������

������

������

������

������

������

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

���� ���������� �� ��� ��������

���� ���������� ������

� ������ �

��������������� �������� ������

�����������

������

�����������������

������ ������

�������� ���� ������ ��

���������� ���� ������ ��

��� ���� ������ ��

���� ��������

�����������

��������� ����� ����� ������

������ ������� ����

�����������

������ ������ ���������

������������ ������

��������� ����� ������ ��

���

�

���

�

�

������������� ��������

����� ��� � �����

������
Figures 1a,b,c. Map of transects sampled in a) Strawberry, b) Baker and Lehman creeks, and c) Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, southern Snake Range, Elko Co. Nevada. The image is derived from binned GAP vegetation data overlaid on a digital orthophotoquad image, supplemented by GIS coverages of hydrography and roads. Valley segments within stream corridors are divided into hydrogeologic units mapped for the creeks by Frissell and Liss (1993). Our plots from 2001 (denoted with “PP#”) and 2002 sampling appear in 

all four watersheds.—Continued

Study Area 9
�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

������������ ������ ���������� ������������

��

�

��

�

���

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

� �

� �

�

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

���

����� �����

��������� ����

������

����

������

����� ���

��������

�����

��������

��������

����� ���

������

����������

��������� �����

���������

����� ����� ��������������

��������� ����

������

������

����� �����

��������� ����

����� ���

������

������

����������

��������� �����

���������

������

����

��������

��������

����� ���

��������

�����

������

��������������

������

����� �����

��������� ����

��������������

�����������

����� ���

��������� ������

����� �����

��������� ����

��������� ������

����� ���

����� �����

��������� ����

��������������

�����������

������ �����

�����

�����

�����

�����

������ �����

���

����

���

���

������

����� ���

����� ���

�

�

�

� �

� �

�

�

� �

�

�

������

����� ���

����� ���

�

����� ����� ��

������� ���� ��

����� ������ ��

����� ������ ��

������

������

������

������

������

������

������

������

��������������

���� ���������� �� ��� ��������

���� ���������� ������

� ����� ����� � �����

������

� ������ �

��������������� �������� ������

�����������

������

�����������������

������ ������

�������� ���� ������ ��

���������� ���� ������ ��

��� ���� ������ ��

���� ��������

�����������

��������� ����� ����� ������

������ ������� ����

�����������

������ ������ ���������

������������ ������

��������� ����� ������ ��

���

�

���

�

�

������������� ��������
Figures 1a,b,c. Map of transects sampled in a) Strawberry, b) Baker and Lehman creeks, and c) Snake Creek, Great Basin National 

Park, southern Snake Range, Elko Co. Nevada. The image is derived from binned GAP vegetation data overlaid on a digital orthophotoquad image, supplemented by GIS coverages of hydrography and roads. Valley segments within stream corridors are divided into hydrogeologic units mapped for the creeks by Frissell and Liss (1993). Our plots from 2001 (denoted with “PP#”) and 2002 sampling appear in 

all four watersheds.—Continued

Study Area 11
�

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��������������

������������������� �����

��������

��������

�������� ��������

����� ���

����� ���

����� ���

���������

������

����� �����

��������� ����

��������� ������

��������

�����

����� ���

����� �����

��������� ����

����� ���

��������

�����

����� ���

��������

�������� ��������

��������

�������� ���������

������

���������

����� �����

��������� ����

����� ���

��������������

������������������� �����

��������� ������

��������

�����

�������� ���������

����� �����

��������� ����

������

����� ���

��������

��������

��������

�����

��������

��������

����� ���

����� ���

�������� ��������

���������

������

����� ���

���������

����� ���

��������

��������

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

����� ����� ����� �����

������

��������

��������

��������������

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��������

��������

��������������

������

���

���

���

���

���

���

�������� ����� ��

����� ����� ��

������

������

������

������

������

������

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

���

�

�

�

�

���

�

�

�

���������� ����������

���� ���������� �� ��� ��������

���� ���������� ������

����� ����� � �����

������

� ������ �

��������������� �������� ������

�����������

������

�����������������

������ ������

�������� ���� ������ ��

���������� ���� ������ ��

��� ���� ������ ��

���� ��������

�����������

��������� ����� ����� ������

������ ������� ����

�����������

������ ������ ���������

������������ ������

��������� ����� ������ ��

���

�

���

�

�

������������� ��������
Methods.

Walking surveys of target watersheds.

We used several methods to allocate our sampling among 

the various vegetative and geomorphic units present in our 

four watersheds. We first attempted to define sampling units 

by comparing aerial photographic images (orthophotoquads) 

with a mapped GAP vegetation GIS coverage. This proved to 

be too coarse-grained to extract meaningful information, and 

was instead used solely to confirm and corroborate selections 

derived from other methods. 

We thus performed walking transects in each of Strawberry, Lehman, Baker, and Snake Creek watersheds, starting 

from the lower-elevation boundary of the park and continuing 

to either the headwaters or as far as logistics permitted surveying. Each stream was divided into sections of approximately 

0.32 km. In Strawberry Creek, we used the vehicle odometer 

along the road that runs adjacent to the stream to delineate 

0.32-km segments. In the remaining creeks, we began sampling at the low-elevation park boundary, and used a handheld 

global positioning system (GPS) unit (Magellan Map 330; not 

differentially corrected) to ascertain when we had traveled an 

additional 0.32 km from the start point. Distances for this latter method were all measured from the first start point, rather 

than segment-by-segment. Because both methods use straightline distance, increased stream sinuosity or changes in stream 

azimuth mean that distances strictly along the watercourse 

exceed 0.32 km. However, mainstems for all four creeks are 

nearly linear, minimizing the importance of this difference. 

Sampling occurred during 18-26 July and 13 August 2002. 

We sampled only along the mainstem in each of the four 

watersheds, identified by 1:100,000-scale maps and Frissell 

and Lissʼ (1993) sampling. Within each segment, we used 

ocular estimation to rank by cover the dominant shrub and tree 

species, independently on each side of the stream. We merged 

data across sides of the stream if there was no heterogeneity 

in plant composition from one side to the other and where 

there was no aboveground water flow. Because our cross-sectional sampling in these watersheds spans from the waterway 

through the riparian corridor to the surrounding uplands, we 

divided species into riparian-associated species (usually 3 to 5 

m from waterʼs edge, depending on channel and bank morphology) and upland species (usually from 3-5 m to 30 m from 

waterʼs edge). In addition to using known riparian obligates to 

distinguish the two groups of species, riparian zones tended to 

remain green throughout the summer, due to their connection 

via their roots to the stream or hyporheic zone. Two exceptions to this distinction were Rhus aromatica var. trilobata and 

Rosa woodsii, which often occurred at distances 3-8 m from 

the stream edge. We included these two species in riparian 

lists, because they often penetrated the outer edge of the zone 

of riparian-associated species. These data appear in Appendix 

A, as do the position and elevation of most segment endpoints. 

We also noted the lowest-elevation occurrence that we encountered for each tree species in each watershed (Appendices A, 

B) and notable features along each mainstem (Appendix B). 

Site selection: location of transects.

These vegetation surveys identified locations along 

streams where there occurred detectable shifts in vegetative 

community, particularly in dominant species. To establish 

cross-sectional transects, we first allocated samples among 

different hydrogeomorphic units mapped in our target watersheds by Frissell and Liss (1993). We sought to maximize the 

diversity of hydrogeomorphic units that we sampled, rather 

than sample repeatedly the same unit in the same drainage that 

occurred in several elevational bands. Within these bands, we 

avoided boundary areas between adjacent hydrogeomorphic 

units, and secondarily placed transects well within one or two 

of the dominant vegetative communities located within the 

selected hydrogeomorphic units. At finer scales, because we 

sought to provide an early-warning monitoring perspective, we 

often placed transects where bank erosion had already begun 

or where significant recreation influence might be expected in 

current and future years. 

To address the adequacy of different sampling intensities within a hydrogeomorphic-vegetative combination, we 

sampled from two (in most cases) to five transects in these 

combinations. Transects were placed to represent vegetative 

conditions throughout the combination, and were located at 

least 50 m from other transects except in the five-transect 

combination. At the finest scale, transects were placed perpendicular (or nearly so) to the stream in riffle sections of reaches. 

In total, we sampled eight transects from four vegetativehydrogeomorphic strata in each of Snake and Baker creeks, 

six transects from three vegetative-hydrogeomorphic strata 

in Lehman Creek, and nine transects from three vegetativehydrogeomorphic strata in Strawberry Creek. 

Sampling methods for transects.

Our sampling integrated information on hydrogeomorphology, vulnerability of slopes to erosion by wind and water, 

stream-obligate vegetation, and upland vegetation. Methods 

we employed generally followed Harrelson et al. (1994) and 

Herrick et al. (in press).

Cross-sections – In order to track hydrogeomorphic 

evolution over time within the channel, we mapped an 

approximation of cross-sectional stream geometry using the 

height from a permanently marked reference point to both the 

water surface and channel bottom (following Herrick et al. 

in press). We placed the transect endpoints well outside the 

100-yr floodplain (and usually more than 2 m from the stream 

edge). We determined this floodplain following Harrelson 

et al. (1994), using characteristics such as existing terraces. 

Endpoints consisted of 3/8”-diameter, 4ʼ long rebar pounded 

Methods 13
into the soil as far as feasible yet still permitting a nylon string 

to travel taut between the endpoints at the same height. We 

marked the height of the string on each endpoint with a notch 

from a hacksaw blade, and used a clinometer at string level on 

one endpoint to choose the height of the notch on the second 

rebar. A third observer 5-10 m upstream confirmed that the 

string was level. The 0-m end of the transect occurred on the 

south side of the stream; transect length varied from 4 to 17.5 

m. Beginning at the 0-m end, and every 20 cm across the 

transect, we measured distance from the string to the water 

surface and to the bottom of the channel (or simply to the soil 

surface if not over water). We also noted the location along 

the string of the wetted edge and bankfull position on both the 

north and south edges of the stream, following Harrelson et al. 

(1994). To obtain width/depth ratios, we additionally noted the 

position along the string of the maximum water depth and the 

corresponding heights (to water surface and channel bottom). 

Due to logistical and financial constraints, we did not measure 

elevations with a surveyorʼs level, as suggested by Harrelson 

et al. (1994). We argue, however, that the method employed 

was suitable to achieve the study objectives, and permitted 

more extensive sampling in the small amount of field time 

available. Graphical, quantitative representations of these 

cross-sections appear in Appendix E.

50-m integrated transect – To permit monitoring of 

dynamics of both riparian and adjacent upland vegetation, 

we used duct tape to secure the center (25-m point) of a 50-m 

fiberglass reel tape to the center of the cross-sectional string. 

We then pulled taut the ends of the 50-m tape along the same 

azimuth of the short transect and pounded in another piece of 

3/8”-diameter rebar to 15-25 cm height (above ground) at each 

end of the 50-m transect. When necessary, we threaded the 

tape under vegetation to minimize its height above the ground. 

We measured the azimuth of the transect and of the 10-m 

segment of the stream centered at the transect with a handheld 

compass. 

All four pieces of rebar were topped with a small yellow 

rebar cap and their locations recorded with a differentially corrected GPS unit. We wrapped pink-and-black-striped ribbon 

around many endpoints to facilitate their relocation. Furthermore, we noted distance from three prominent landmarks 

(thoroughly described in our notes, which are summarized in 

Appendix C, right column) to further assist in plot re-location. 

GPS locations of each piece of rebar, generally four per site, 

appear in Appendix C. Following Harrelson et al. (1994), we 

took six digital photographs per transect as photo points of 

the stream, each 5 m from the point of interest. Each point of 

interest was accompanied by a 1.5-m-tall PVC pole with 10-

cm alternating black-and-white stripes to provide a reference 

scale. Four of these photopoints consisted of the four rebar 

endpoints, photographed 5 m further from the stream than the 

rebar; the remaining two photopoints included upstream and 

downstream views of the transect centerpoint, each 5 m away. 

To measure percent cover of litter, woody vegetation, and 

total vegetative cover, as well as minimum estimates of plant 

species richness, we used point-intercept transects (Herrick et al. in press). Beginning at the 0-m mark and each 1 m 

thereafter, we recorded each species that touched a sampling 

pin (10-gauge rod) placed vertically at the point. The sampling pin extended upwards to include all tree species (using a 

clinometer to determine whether questionable trees occurred 

above the meter mark or not), understory shrubs and herbaceous species. The pin was also extended downward to include 

basal cover categories (e.g., plant base, moss, lichens, water, 

rock, litter, cryptobiotic crust, gravel, or soil). We defined 

total cover as the proportion of the 50 points that intercepted 

anything organic (i.e., anything except solely water, rock, soil, 

or gravel). Total canopy cover represented the percentage of 

the 50 points that intercepted at least one rooted plant, dead 

or live. Litter was defined as any unrooted material derived 

from organic sources, and the minimum estimate of species 

richness simply represented the count of different species that 

appeared anywhere in the transect. 

We sought to characterize soil characteristics amenable to 

monitoring using impact penetrometers (to measure penetration resistance, a surrogate of soil compaction) and soil-stability kits, both following Herrick et al. (in press). Unfortunately, 

however, neither method appeared to be appropriate for use 

in park riparian cross-sections. Impact penetrometers require 

that soils be dried to field capacity to the depth to which 

compaction might be expected. This did not happen during 

2002, due to the frequent precipitation that kept upland soils 

moist. Penetrometer measurements also require that soils be 

relatively rock- and boulder-free, which is generally not true 

in park riparian areas and lateral slopes (Frissell and Liss 

1993, E. Beever, pers. obs.). We did not continue soil-stability

sampling after pilot sampling found that extensiveness of plant 

litter and subsurface rocks prevented repeatable sampling at 

regularly spaced intervals (Appendix D).

Gap-intercept transects (sensu Herrick et al. in press) 

measure the number and extent of gaps in vegetative canopy 

or plant bases along a line transect, thus indexing a siteʼs 

vulnerability to erosion by wind or water, respectively. 

The minimum-length criterion was defined to be 20 cm for 

understory (grasses, forbs, shrubs, and tree biomass occurring 

below 3 m height) canopy gaps. The end of gaps was defined 

as any vegetation which covered at least 50% of a 3-cm segment. We recorded starting and ending positions of gaps to 

the nearest cm along the 50-m transect by sliding a sampling 

pin (10-gauge rod, ~1 m long) along the left edge of the tape 

while walking from 0 to 50 m on the right side of the tape. 

Starting and ending points of tree-canopy gaps were recorded 

to the nearest 0.1 m by looking directly above the line (at 90°) 

with a clinometer. Minimum-length criterion for tree-canopy 

gaps was 1.0 m. Basal gaps were measured by dragging the 

sampling pin along the ground on the left edge of the tape. 

Minimum gap length was again 20 cm, and a gap was ended 

by interception of any plant base under one side of the transect 

line (i.e., shrub base, tree root, any herbaceous stem at ground 

level). Past research (e.g., Lavee and Poesen 1991, Herrick et 

al. 2002) has shown that the larger the gap size, the greater the 

vulnerability to erosion by wind or water. Consequently, we 

14 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
measured the proportion of the line occupied by gaps greater 

than the threshold lengths of 25 cm, 50 cm, 1 m, and 2 m (following Herrick et al. in press).

Within the bankfull channel, we performed pebble 

counts (Wolman 1954) in the riffle zone near the transect 

to characterize the grain size of the bed and bank material. 

Because of the narrow width of the channel (within which we 

sampled approximately three-fourths of our pebbles), we used 

a random-walk path rather than a step-toe procedure. After 

each step (in a random direction), we picked up the particle 

first touched when reaching 20 cm to the side of the boot 

tip, alternating to the left and right of the tip at each step. We 

measured length of the intermediate axis of the particle using 

a gravelometer with 1/

2

 phi values for class intervals, for a total 

of 15 size classes (< 2 mm to > 180 mm). We measured 100 

pebbles per transect, and did not replace pebbles immediately 

after sampling to ensure that pebbles were not re-counted. 

Because pebble counts and other monitored variables determine the streamʼs gradient (Hack 1957, Ritter et al. 2002), we 

used a handheld clinometer to obtain the channel slope from 

the center-point of the transect to points 10 m up- and downstream. We used the clinometer to also measure the lateral 

angle of the stream from the transect center to the endpoints of 

the 50-m transect. 

Because of the strong role played by coarse woody debris

in both fish-bearing and high-gradient streams as well as in 

affecting macroinvertebrates and other elements of aquatic 

biodiversity (Richmond and Fausch 1995, Hildebrand et al. 

1997, Doloff and Warren 2003, Wondzell and Bisson 2003), 

we measured occurrence of logs greater than 10 cm in diameter that spanned more than 1

/

2

 of the width of the channel that 

was ʻwetʼ at time of measurement within 5 m up- or downstream of the transect. Diameter was measured in the middle 

of the stream, and log length was measured as that portion of 

the log in or above the stream within the wetted edges of the 

stream (i.e., the part of the channel that was ʻwetʼ at the time 

of sampling). Because flow volume in these streams will vary 

during the year with respect to the last occurrence of a rainfallrunoff event, these debris measurements are applicable only to 

this portion of the year. At worst, our estimates will underestimate the volume of woody debris that would be involved 

at peak flows. Nonetheless, we suspect that in most cases 

our debris variables would vary only slightly across the year, 

given the cross-sectional geometry of the streams.

To assess the frequency of woody species at transect 

locations, we noted which shrub and tree species occurred 

within 25 1-m2 quadrats along each of two transects that ran 

parallel to the main 50-m transect, each 2 m either up- or 

downstream of the main transect. On each line, we alternated 

(synchronously between lines) whether the quadrat was placed 

on the right or left side of the secondary transect, such that the 

quadrats sampled areas from 1 to 3 m from the main transect. 

We started (at the 0-m point) and ended (at 50 m) on the left 

side, as one looked from the 0-m end towards the 50-m end. 

In practice, it was easier to define the sampling area by using 

two adjacent 1 m x 0.5 m quadrats rather than one 1-m by1-m 

quadrat.

To measure frequency of all plant species in park target 

streams and vegetative-hydrogeomorphic strata, we used 

nested-frequency plots (NFP) (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, McCawley and Smith 1986). The nested areas were 

10 x 10 cm, 20 x 20 cm, 20 x 40 cm, and 40 x 40 cm. Measurements were again made on alternating sides of secondary 

transects 2 m up- and downstream from the main transect, 

synchronously on both transects. The smallest plot was always 

placed to the right side. The six points on the frame, used to 

calculate an overall summary of the relative proportions of 

basal vegetation, vegetative canopy, litter, bare ground, gravel 

or rocks, and cryptogamic crust, were the outermost corner of 

each of the four ends of PVC emanating from the base plus the 

two bottom outside corners of the frame. Species were only 

considered to occupy a given area if they were rooted within 

that plot. We placed the bottom part of the frame at the sampling mark, and the rest of the plot toward the 50-m end. On 

both lines, we started at 0 m on the left side (looking from 0 to 

50 m), on the right side at 2 m, left side at 4 m, until sampling 

on the right side at 48 m. At Strawberry 1, the first transect 

sampled, we only measured plots to 38 m. 

To assess the adequacy of our sampling effort to detect 

plant species at each site, we created species-accumulation 

curves at both our most species-rich and most species-poor 

transect for the NFP and 1-m2 sampling techniques. The most 

species-rich and species-poor transects were selected by ranking among sites the average of the values of species richness 

obtained by the line-point-intercept, 1-m2 frequency, and NFP 

(largest frame size) sampling techniques. Because the crosssectional nature of our sampling dictated that new species 

were often found towards the end of the 50-m transects (given 

the stratification of the riparian zone and across-stream differences in upland vegetation community), we randomized 

the order of transects before creating each curve. Thus, we 

assessed the effect of increasing sampling effort rather than 

change of position among vegetative strata. Our amount of 

sampling seemed sufficient to detect species in the 1-m2 sampling, because at least 83% of woody species were detected 

at the most species-rich site overall (BK5), most species-poor 

site (BK8), and most species-rich 1-m2 site (SN6) within 

the first 19-28 samples (Appendix F). Species-accumulation 

curves for NFP sampling also suggested that our sampling 

effort was adequate, because curves tended to plateau around 

the middle range of sampling effort (although slightly less so 

for larger plot sizes at BK5 (Appendix F). 

To explore correlations between variables hypothesized 

to be interrelated, we used correlations and Fisherʼs r to Z statistics to assess significance of the correlation. To assess which 

groups differed significantly from others in ANOVAs, we used 

Bonferroni-Dunn post-hoc comparisons, thus adjusting the 

critical alpha to reflect the multiple comparisons.

Multivariate analyses – We sought to assess the relationships of plant communities among sites, using NFP and 

1-m2 frequency data as the main data sources, with multivariMethods 15
ate ordinations. Ordination is an analytical technique that 

condenses information from multiple-variable datasets into 

a small number of continuous composite variables (or axes) 

that express much of the information in the original data 

(McCune and Grace 2002). In our research, these datasets 

were composed of frequency of many individual species at 

each of the 31 sites, and the ultimate goal was to describe the 

strongest patterns in species composition. We chose nonmetric 

multidimensional scaling (NMS; Kruskal 1964, Mather 1976) 

to ordinate sites in species space using PC-ORD v4.0 (MjM 

Software, Gleneden Beach, OR). 

We used the quantitative version of the Sørensen coefficient as our distance measure for the matrix of dissimilarity 

coefficients. In a preliminary analysis, we determined the 

dimensionality of the data set by exploring the first six axes, 

using an instability criterion of 0.0005, and compared 50 

runs using the real data with 30 runs using randomized data 

(where data are shuffled within columns after each run) using 

a Monte Carlo test at each dimensionality. From a scree plot of 

final stress versus the number of dimensions, we selected the 

number of dimensions beyond which additional dimensions 

only slightly reduced stress. We then ran the analysis again 

using the selected dimensionality and the starting configuration that produced the lowest final stress, with one real run and 

no randomized runs. 

NMS was preferable to other methods because of its 

three strengths: a) it is robust to data that are non-normal or 

on arbitrary or discontinuous scales; b) it uses ranked rather 

than absolute distances, and, therefore, it does not suffer from 

the “zero-truncation” problem; and c) it allows the use of 

any distance measure or relativization (McCune and Grace 

2002). NMS works as an iterative search for the best positions of samples (sites) on k dimensions (axes) that minimizes 

the “stress” of the k-dimensional configuration (McCune and 

Grace 2002). Before ordinating the NFP and 1-m2 frequency 

data, we removed species that occurred at less than 5% of 

sites (with N = 31, this meant species that occurred at only one 

site). These “singleton” species should not affect the relationships among sites, given that they are not shared by any sites.

We then desired to relate the graphical relationships 

among sites (i.e., the ordination scores) to a suite of topographic and hydrogeomorphic (hereafter, physical) variables. 

We achieved this using joint plots in PC-ORD, which are 

overlaid on ordinations. The angle of the line associated with 

each variable is defined by 

figure: equation 1.

where rx is the correlation of the variable with the horizontal 

axis. The length of the variable line is proportional to a function of the r 2

 values with the two axes:

figure: equation 2.

We used the default threshold criterion of r2 > 0.200 to 

display a physical variable in the joint plots. We used orthogonal (rigid) rotation of the ordination in 5-degree increments 

to orient elevation (a dominant determinant of vegetation in 

Great Basin mountains; Beever 1999) parallel to one of the 

two axes. Such rotation changes the correlations of variables 

with ordination axes and the variance represented by individual axes, but does not change either the geometry of the 

constellation of points in ordination space or the cumulative 

variance represented by the axes (McCune and Grace 2002). 

We additionally helped interpret the meaning of NMS axes by 

performing Pearson and Kendall correlations of the ordination 

axes with species scores in the main site-by-species matrix.

Secondarily, we sought to test whether composition of 

plant communities differed between hydrogeomorphic valley 

types or between our vegetation types, using either the NFP or 

1-m2 frequency data as main data sources. Hydrogeomorphic 

types for each site were taken from maps in Frissell and Liss 

(1993). One site (BK7) was intended to be placed within the 

ACB type, but ended up being placed on the border between 

the ACB and LOV types; because this was the only site of 

this type, it was removed for MRPP analyses, as within-group 

distances could not be produced. Vegetation type at each site 

was assigned to one of six types we created from our characterization of overstory dominants at sites and confirmed with 

our walking transect surveys.

For both types of groups, we used multi-response permutation procedures (MRPP; Mielke 1984, Mielke and Berry 

2001) to test the hypothesis of no difference in species composition among the different hydrogeomorphic types as well 

as among the different vegetation types. MRPP is the nonparametric equivalent of discriminant analysis and MANOVA, and 

differs in that it doesnʼt require the distributional assumptions 

of multivariate normality and homoscedasticity, which are 

rarely met with ecological community data (McCune and 

Grace 2002). To maintain consistency with the NMS analyses, 

we again used the Sørensen (Bray-Curtis) distance measure 

to calculate the distance matrix. In addition, for calculating δ

(delta; the weighted mean within-group distance), we defined 

Ci as 

figure: equation 3.

to weight groups. The test statistic, T, describes the separation 

between groups, and is defined by 

figure: equation 4.

When all items within groups are identical, Amax = 1, and A < 0 

when there is more heterogeneity within groups than expected 

by chance. In addition to finding the measure of effect size 

provided by MRPP, we also explored differences between 

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

16 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
groups by overlaying the variables defining groups onto the 

NMS ordinations of NFPand 1-m2 frequency data (e.g., Figures 3-5). 

Because this randomization technique provides little 

information other than the measure of “effect size” (i.e., the 

chance-corrected within-group agreement, A, defined as [1 – 

(observed δ/ expected δ)]), we used indicator species analysis 

(Dufrêne and Legendre 1997) to describe the indicator value 

of each individual species for separating the groups. Indicator 

species analysis is a companion test to MRPP in that it supplements the test of no multivariate difference between groups 

with a description of how well each species separates among 

groups (McCune and Grace 2002). The method combines 

information from both the concentration of species abundance 

in a particular group with the faithfulness of occurrence of a 

species in that group. A perfect indicator species for a group is 

always present at sites within that group (i.e., is faithful), but 

is exclusive to that group, never occurring in other groups. We 

used 1000 randomizations in a Monte Carlo test to determine 

significance of indicator values for each species. Because NFP 

data had so many more species than 1-m2 data (N = 98 vs. 26 

spp.), we used a more stringent criterion of alpha to identify 

significant indicator species (P < 0.0125 for NFP, P < 0.05 for 

1-m2).

Results.

Walking surveys of target watersheds.

We conducted surveys on 101 stream segments, each 

approximately 0.32 km long, producing ranked characterizations of woody vegetation within 5.5 – 12.6 km of riparian 

corridor in each of the various drainages. Upland vegetation 

types progressed relatively consistently across watersheds with 

increasing elevation, as mentioned in the “Study Area” section. In contrast, vegetation along riparian corridors was more 

patchy and exhibited numerous discontinuities, especially 

in the species Betula occidentalis, Salix spp., and Populus 

tremuloides. Woody vegetation generally exhibited significant 

variability across the two sides of the stream, especially in species other than the single-most abundant species (Appendix A). 

Exceptions to this cross-stream heterogeneity included upland 

areas dominated by Pinus monophylla at the lowest sampled 

elevations, upland and riparian areas dominated by P. engelmannii at highest elevations, and aspen stands (Appendix A).

As Smith et al. (1994) also found, we observed variability in elevational distribution of some tree species across 

watersheds. In contrast to the findings of Smith et al. (1994), 

however, we observed greater homogeneity in the lowest-elevation occurrence of Picea engelmannii (all within 180 m of 

each other elevationally), P. tremuloides (within 100 m), Abies 

concolor (within 50 m), and Pinus monophylla (within 125 m). 

Similarly, Pinus flexilis was detected as low as 2,300 – 2,315 

m in Baker, Lehman, and Snake creeks, but was not detected 

in Strawberry Creek, although it remains possible we simply 

did not find it. The lower elevational bound of Pseudotsuga 

menziesii differed erratically from results of Smith et al. 

(1994) in our four target watersheds, increasing by 100 – 350 

m in two drainages, and decreasing by 100 – 200 m in the 

other two. This may have resulted from the speciesʼ superficial 

similarity to A. concolor, and consequent misidentifications by 

field crews of Smith et al. (1994) or this research. Although P. 

engelmannii exhibited similar lower-elevation bounds across 

watersheds in 2002, they were 175 – 200 m higher than in 

1992 sampling in three of the four target drainages. In similar 

fashion, Populus angustifolia exhibited an apparently higher 

high-elevation boundary in 2002 compared to 1991-1993 sampling, being found 200 m higher in Baker Creek and 700 m 

higher in Lehman Creek. It should be noted that some of these 

differences (especially the last) may have occurred because 

sampling in 1991-1993 was not continuous along riparian corridors, but only at regularly spaced sites.

Geomorphically, stream reaches in our four target watersheds within GBNP were straight and narrow, and only a few 

segments (N = 8 locations in Lehman, 4 in Baker, and 3 in 

Strawberry creeks; total length = 1.7 km) possessed significantly long bifurcations (Appendix B). True channel braiding 

was rare, however, and was noted only at two locations in 

Baker Creek (Appendix B). In contrast to the more incised 

riparian channels of central Nevada (e.g., in the Toiyabe 

Range), we observed knickzones, downcutting, and incision only rarely and usually with limited extent (often < 5 m 

long and < 1 m high; Appendix B). Although not reflected in 

Appendix B, downcutting occurred most frequently and extensively in Strawberry and Snake creeks. From on-site surveys 

of scattered locations in our target watersheds during 17-18 

June 2002, the sediment-delivery and hydrologic systems 

appeared relatively undisturbed in most reaches, at least with 

respect to grazing animals and other types of anthropogenic 

alteration (D. Germanoski, Dept. of Geosciences, Lafayette 

College, pers. comm.). Banks generally appeared stable, and 

high vertical bank walls (indicative of past incision) were rare. 

Across the watersheds, localized downcutting occurred at 

bends in the stream channel, near smaller-diameter culverts in 

the stream channel, and where the stream was close to roads, 

campgrounds, or other recreational features.

Cross-sectional transects.

The 31 transects were distributed such that each drainage 

contained between six and nine transects (Table 1). Because 

park managers were not interested in focusing attention on 

any particular community, we placed two transects in each 

hydrogeomorphic-vegetative sampling stratum. The only 

exception to this was one stratum on Strawberry Creek, which 

had five transects in the AFV (alluvial-fan-influenced valley) 

hydrogeomorphic type, four of which were dominated by 

Results 17
0

20

40

60

1 3 5 Dimensions

Stress

Randomized Data

Maximum

Mean

Minimum

Real Data

0

20

40

60

1 3 5

Dimensions

Stress

Randomized Data

Maximum

Mean

Minimum

Real Data

a)

b)

18 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

Figures 2a,b. Scree plots used to determine the correct dimensionality of ordination solutions for nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) analyses of frequency data from a) 1-m2

 and b) nested-frequency plot (NFP) sampling. Stress is an inverse measure of fit to 

the data, and can be described as the departure from monotonicity in the plot of distance in the original n-dimensional space (dissimilarity) vs. distance in the ordination space. Species that occurred at only one site were removed, but frequency values were not 

log-transformed before ordination. The ‘randomized data’ are obtained by shuffling cover values of species within each site before 

each run, and are analyzed as a null model for comparison with the real data. Selecting the correct dimension involves balancing two 

conflicting goals: 1) using enough dimensions to minimize stress, where additional dimensions reduce stress only slightly; and 2) using 

as few dimensions as possible, to maximize interpretability of results. A two-dimensional solution was recommended and adopted in a), 

whereas a three-dimensional solution was recommended for the NFP data in b). 
SN1

SN2

SN3

SN4

SN5

SN6

SN7

SN8

LM1

LM2

LM3 LM4

LM5

LM6 ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

ST6

ST7

ST8

ST9

BK1

BK2

BK3 BK4

BK5

BK6

BK7 BK8

Elev'n

MaxDepth

D50

Axis 1

Axis 2

Vegetation 

type

PJ/ArTr

POTR / ROWO

POAN

POTR / ABCO

PIEN

BEOC / SALsp.

SN1

SN2

SN3

SN4

SN5

SN6

SN7

SN8

LM1

LM2

LM3

LM4

LM5

LM6

ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

ST6

ST7

ST8

ST9

BK1

BK2

BK3 BK4

BK5

BK6

BK7

BK8

Elev'n

MaxDepth

D50

Axis 1

Axis 2

ACB

LOV

ACB/LOV

IMV

TBV

ACG

AFV

AV

Hydrogeomorphic

valley type a)

b)

Results 19

Figures 3a,b. Results of 2-dimensional NMS ordination of 31 sites in four watersheds from 1-m2 frequency data (woody species only). 

Species that occurred at only one site were removed, but frequency values were not log-transformed before ordination. In both plots, 

joint plots are overlaid at the centroid of the ordination space to demonstrate the correlations of the ordination points with environmental variables. Length of the arrow reflects the magnitude of the correlation with the two ordination axes, and direction the relative 

correlation with each axis. Thus, for example, the elevation of sites moves from lower to higher from left to right, and from lower to 

higher D50 values from the top to the bottom portion of the graphs. In a), sites are identified by the hydrogeomorphic valley type in which 

they occur (following types of Frissell and Liss (1993), abbreviations of which are defined in Tables 1 and 3), and in b), by the vegetation type (defined in Tables 1 and 7) in which they occur. Note that relative positions of sites in ordination space are equivalent in both 

graphs—sites are simply classified differently.
SN1

SN2

SN3

SN4

SN5

SN6

SN7

SN8

LM1 LM2

LM3

LM4

LM5 LM6 ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

ST6

ST7

ST8

BK1 ST9

BK2 BK3

BK4

BK5

BK6

BK7

BK8

MaxDepth

Axis 1

Axis 2

ACB

LOV

ACB/LOV

IMV

TBV

ACG

AFV

AV

Hydrogeomorphic

valley type

SN1

SN2

SN3

SN4

SN5

SN6

SN7

SN8

LM1 LM2

LM3

LM4

LM5 LM6 ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

ST6

ST7

ST8

ST9 BK1

BK2 BK3

BK4

BK5

BK6

BK7

BK8

MaxDepth

Axis 1

Axis 2

Vegetation 

type

PJ/ArTr

POTR / ROWO

POAN

POTR / ABCO

PIEN

BEOC / SALsp.

a)

b)

20 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

Figures 4a,b. Results of the first two dimensions of NMS ordination of 31 sites in four watersheds from nested-frequency plot (NFP) 

data (all plant species). Species that occurred at only one site were removed, but frequency values were not log-transformed before 

ordination. In a), sites are identified by the hydrogeomorphic valley type in which they occur, and in b), by the vegetation type in which 

they occur. Joint plots occur and site types are defined as in Figure 3.
SN1

SN2

SN3 SN4

SN5

SN6

SN7

SN8

LM1

LM2

LM3 LM4

LM5

LM6

ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

ST6 ST7 ST8

ST9

BK1

BK2

BK3 BK4

BK5 BK6

BK7

BK8

Elev'n

MaxDepth

Axis 2

Axis 3

Vegetation 

type

PJ/ArTr

POTR / ROWO

POAN

POTR / ABCO

PIEN

BEOC / SALsp.

a)

b)

SN1

SN2

SN3 SN4

SN5

SN6

SN7

SN8

LM1

LM2

LM3

LM4

LM5

LM6

ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

ST6 ST7 ST8

ST9

BK1

BK2

BK3 BK4

BK5 BK6

BK7

BK8

Elev'n

MaxDepth

Axis 2

Axis 3

ACB

LOV

ACB/LOV

IMV

TBV

ACG

AFV

AV

Hydrogeomorphic

valley type

Results 21

Figures 5a,b. Ordination results of the second and third dimensions of an NMS ordination of 31 sites in four watersheds from nestedfrequency plot (NFP) data. In this analysis, more of the variability in ordination distances in the n-dimensional space (i.e., sites in 

species space) was described by axis 1, yet nearly equal amounts by axes 2 and 3. Specifically, coefficients of determination for the 

correlations between ordination distances and distances in the original n-dimensional space were: axis 1, r 2

 = 0.384; axis 2, r 2 = 0.236, 

and axis 3, r 2 = 0.234. See text (bottom of pg. 30) for r 2 values for each axis for the correlations for this (orthogonally rotated) representation of the sites. In a), sites are identified by the hydrogeomorphic valley type in which they occur, and in b), by the vegetation type in 

which they occur. All conventions and conditions follow those of Figures 3 and 4. 
P. monophylla. Transects occurred from 1,950 – 2,987 m, 

though only LM1 and LM2 occurred above 2,665 m. We 

sampled hydrogeomorphic types generally in accord with 

their linear extent within our target watersheds; this produced 

sampling of only one pair of sites within alluvial valley (AV), 

incised moraine-filled valley (IMV), and terrace-bound valley (TBV) types, and two pairs each in (ACB) and (ACG) 

types (Table 1). In contrast, we sampled at eight sites within 

leveed outwash valleys (LOV) and nine sites within alluvialfan-influenced valleys (AFV). This allocation of sites agrees 

with the relative abundance of the types within the entire park 

(Table 1 of Frissell and Liss 1993), except that we sampled 

AFV areas about twice as heavily as their abundance in the 

entire park would suggest. After transects were established, 

sampling of all methods required 2.5 – 4.5 hr/site, which 

meant that we never sampled more than two sites per day. 

Although the mainstem in all four drainages generally 

flows from west to east (aspect approximately 90°), examination of the values for stream aspect demonstrate that there 

exists much small-scale variation in stream aspect, both within 

and across drainages (Table 1). Other than one low-gradient (3%) site on Snake Creek, slope ranged from 6 – 14.5% 

(Table 1). The average slope from our sites was within 1.1% 

(absolute values) of the average gradient for the entire creek 

derived from geographic-information-system calculations of 

[rise / run] for each of the four drainages (Table 1; Beever et 

al. in press). Maximum water depth varied from 3.2 – 29.8 cm 

across all sites, with Strawberry Creek sites exhibiting noticeably smaller maximum depths (and consequently larger width/

depth ratios) than sites of other drainages (Table 1). Although 

we observed a fair amount of channel braiding throughout 

the target watersheds during walking surveys, active channel 

width at our 31 sites was greater than 4.7 m at only one site, 

and averaged greater widths in Baker and Lehman creeks than 

in Snake and Strawberry creeks (Table 1). Although Snake 

Creek had a drainage area two to three times larger than each 

of the other creeks (Beever et al. in press), active channel 

width at our Snake Creek sites averaged only slightly greater 

than the width at our sites in Strawberry Creek (Table 1), the 

smallest-area drainage of the creeks. Surface water was absent 

for approximately 4.06 km of Snake Creek (Appendices A, B). 

Gap-intercept data suggested that sites were relatively 

productive (i.e., vegetation-rich), and relatively resistant to 

erosion by wind or water. This was especially true in the 

few meters adjacent to the stream course, but inconsistently 

so more distant from streams. At many sites, there were no 

basal gaps for spans of 1- 12 m. Nonetheless, at the smallest 

threshold for gap size (> 25 cm), from 22.5 – 99.0% (for an 

average of 75.9%) of the 50-m transect was occupied by gaps 

across all sites (Table 2). Snake Creek sites generally had few 

plant bases under the transect, whereas Strawberry Creek sites 

supported the highest abundances of plants, as suggested by 

their greater number of plant bases (Table 2). The proportion 

of the line in basal gaps declined only slightly when switching 

the minimum gap length from 25 cm to 50 cm, but declined 

more strongly across all transects at minimum gap lengths of 1 

m and especially 2 m (Table 2). 

All other things being equal, greater numbers of plants 

(as indexed by number of plant bases) should produce greater 

amounts of litter. This truism was fairly well supported, as the 

proportion of the line in basal gaps tended to correlate with 

litter cover, especially at greater threshold gap sizes (-0.34 <

r < -0.29, 0.06 < P < 0.12). Across all 31 sites, proportions of 

basal and understory gaps were not correlated with amount of 

tree gaps (r > -0.30 for all gap thresholds), but were strongly 

correlated with each other across all gap thresholds (r > 0.50, 

P < 0.003). Within individual watersheds, the latter relationship held true only in Baker Creek (r > 0.82, P < 0.01). 

In contrast, transects at sites were notably more interrupted by occurrences of understory vegetation > 1.5 cm long 

(Table 2). Understory canopy gaps more than 25 cm long 

occupied more than 55% of the transect at only 3 of the 31 

sites, and averaged 30.7% of the transect across all sites (Table 

2). Sites generally had few large (> 2 m) gaps, averaging 

11.1% occupation of the transect across all sites and occupying 

more than 25% of the transect at only two sites (Table 2). Sites 

ranged from a near-total lack of tree-canopy cover (SN1, 88% 

tree gaps) to a completely closed canopy at LM5 (Table 2). 

Tree cover was greatest in ACB-valley sites (average = 15.5% 

gap) and sparsest in TBV- (70.3% gaps) and IMV-valley sites 

(53.4% gaps; Table 3). Not surprisingly, fine-scale assessment 

of tree cover from gap measurements agreed well (r = -0.90, P 

< 0.0001) with measurement of tree cover in point intercepts.

Because of the greater time required to measure 20 cm 

with a ruler in alternating directions from the boot toe, we 

instead visually estimated 20 cm. This may have had the effect 

of undersampling the smallest-diameter particles, as technicians may often have reached for a particle that was easy to 

pick up (i.e., small pebbles are difficult to process rapidly). 

Among the mountain-valley segment types (i.e., IMV, TBV, 

LOV, AV, and AFV), sites in alluvial segments (AFV and AV) 

had finer-texture bed materials than did sites in other types 

(Table 3), as suggested by Frissell and Liss (1993). Across all 

watersheds, D50 values revealed that bed particle sizes were 

largest at the site at the ACB-LOV interface and only slightly 

lower in ACB (alluviated canyon, boulder-bed) valley segments, compared to in LOV (leveed outwash valley) and other 

segment types (Table 3). Mirroring comparisons in active 

channel width and maximum water depth, D50 values revealed 

that sites in Strawberry Creek averaged the smallest bed 

particle sizes, followed closely by Snake Creek, but more distantly by Lehman and Baker creeks (Table 4). To demonstrate 

the magnitude of difference, only one of the nine Strawberry 

sites had a median-particle size above 35 mm, whereas all 

eight Baker sites had D50 > 45 mm (Table 4). In a forward-step 

stepwise regression on D50 values (F-to-enter = 4.000) across 

all sites, maximum water depth at the site entered the model 

but average slope of the stream and drainage area above the 

transect did not. 

At all but one Lehman-Creek site, sites sampled within 

the target watersheds had fewer than 10 logs over or in the 

22 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
–––Tree gap––– —————————Understory-canopy gaps——————————

Transect

Proportion of line 

in tree gaps > 1 m

Proportion of 

line in gaps 

 > 25 cm

Proportion of 

line in gaps 

> 50 cm

Proportion of 

line in gaps 

> 1 m

Proportion of 

line in gaps 

> 2 m

BK1 0.052 0.865 0.850 0.795 0.420

BK2 0.152 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.931

BK3 0.202 0.878 0.818 0.668 0.480

BK4 0.263 0.948 0.934 0.825 0.582

BK5 0.392 0.225 0.213 0.124 0.050

BK6 0.590 0.416 0.384 0.334 0.334

BK7 0.264 0.711 0.651 0.576 0.453

BK8 0.262 0.952 0.945 0.898 0.723

Mean, Baker Creek sites 0.2721 0.7480 0.7232 0.6512 0.4967

LM1 0.484 0.915 0.900 0.793 0.612

LM2 0.584 0.855 0.825 0.691 0.627

LM3 0.354 0.419 0.379 0.310 0.095

LM4 0.304 0.747 0.675 0.509 0.427

LM5 0.000 0.954 0.931 0.824 0.549

LM6 0.414 0.591 0.494 0.330 0.130

Mean, Lehman Creek sites 0.3567 0.747 0.7007 0.5759 0.4067

SN1 0.886 0.963 0.906 0.853 0.656

SN2 0.520 0.898 0.882 0.861 0.626

SN3 0.294 0.966 0.931 0.919 0.831

SN4 0.444 0.582 0.569 0.495 0.457

SN5 0.755 0.846 0.775 0.616 0.437

SN6 0.344 0.987 0.977 0.958 0.904

SN7 0.392 0.887 0.822 0.762 0.658

SN8 0.272 0.951 0.930 0.903 0.745

Mean, Snake Creek sites 0.4885 0.8849 0.8489 0.7958 0.6642

ST1 0.462 0.364 0.343 0.264 0.219

ST2 0.554 0.913 0.859 0.726 0.359

ST3 0.480 0.850 0.769 0.598 0.572

ST4 0.186 0.739 0.639 0.566 0.375

ST5 0.332 0.875 0.850 0.850 0.663

ST6 0.462 0.232 0.146 0.064 0.000

ST7 0.206 0.521 0.458 0.272 0.143

ST8 0.370 0.776 0.722 0.591 0.379

ST9 0.404 0.703 0.681 0.609 0.424

Mean, Strawberry Creek sites 0.3840 0.6636 0.6074 0.5045 0.3483

Grand mean (N = 31 sites) 0.3632 0.7726 0.7342 0.6531 0.5068

Results 23

Table 2. Proportion of a 50-m transect occupied by gaps at three structural levels in the system: tree canopy (an index of the width of 

the riparian corridor); basal (an index of vulnerability to erosion by water); and understory canopy (an index of vulnerability to erosion 

by wind). For the latter two measures, proportion of the line in gaps is reported for four minimum threshold lengths for gaps—in both 

cases, larger gap lengths have potential for more serious erosion.
—————————————Basal gaps—————————————

Transect

Proportion of line 

in gaps > 25 cm

Proportion of line 

in gaps > 50 cm

Proportion of line 

in gaps > 1 m

Proportion of line 

in gaps > 2 m

BK1 0.418 0.363 0.237 0.069

BK2 0.631 0.581 0.520 0.493

BK3 0.296 0.254 0.185 0.125

BK4 0.274 0.182 0.103 0.066

BK5 0.036 0.036 0.000 0.000

BK6 0.054 0.029 0.000 0.000

BK7 0.253 0.230 0.127 0.044

BK8 0.377 0.377 0.316 0.220

Mean, Baker Creek sites 0.2922 0.2564 0.1861 0.1271

LM1 0.159 0.133 0.086 0.000

LM2 0.232 0.175 0.125 0.056

LM3 0.243 0.176 0.130 0.054

LM4 0.147 0.121 0.057 0.000

LM5 0.432 0.405 0.341 0.174

LM6 0.073 0.047 0.032 0.000

Mean, Lehman Creek sites 0.2143 0.1763 0.1286 0.0474

SN1 0.550 0.459 0.367 0.164

SN2 0.354 0.287 0.217 0.071

SN3 0.551 0.434 0.205 0.179

SN4 0.296 0.249 0.232 0.051

SN5 0.333 0.221 0.132 0.052

SN6 0.463 0.362 0.257 0.163

SN7 0.275 0.261 0.199 0.177

SN8 0.193 0.166 0.040 0.040

Mean, Snake Creek sites 0.3769 0.3050 0.2061 0.1123

ST1 0.189 0.154 0.108 0.108

ST2 0.230 0.205 0.123 0.064

ST3 0.202 0.202 0.202 0.128

ST4 0.714 0.674 0.611 0.289

ST5 0.656 0.609 0.521 0.500

ST6 0.212 0.179 0.091 0.043

ST7 0.156 0.096 0.052 0.052

ST8 0.342 0.227 0.067 0.042

ST9 0.170 0.105 0.055 0.000

Mean, Strawberry Creek sites 0.3190 0.2723 0.2033 0.1363

Grand mean (N = 31 sites) 0.3264 0.2776 0.2054 0.1337

24 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

Table 2. Proportion of a 50-m transect occupied by gaps at three structural levels in the system: tree canopy (an index of the width of 

the riparian corridor); basal (an index of vulnerability to erosion by water); and understory canopy (an index of vulnerability to erosion 

by wind). For the latter two measures, proportion of the line in gaps is reported for four minimum threshold lengths for gaps—in both 

cases, larger gap lengths have potential for more serious erosion.—Continued
Alluviated canyon, 

boulder-bed [ACB] (3) ACB/LOV (1)

Alluviated canyon, gravelcobble-bed [ACG] (4)

—––—–———Indicator metric—–—–——–— Mean SE Value Mean SE

Average % slope gradient of stream channel, 

within 5 m of transect 11.42 0.96 3.75 9 2.41

Drainage area in watershed above the x-s transect 2,060 614 3,272 1,555 579

Total volume of coarse woody debris over stream 0.125 0.077 0 0.354 0.164

Median particle size (mm) of bed material (D50) 63.8 8.9 71.4 35.7 9.4

Mean percentage of particles with intermediate 

axis length < 2 mm 0.667 0.667 0 2.5 1.5

Active channel width (m) 5.08 1.19 2.98 2.08 0.53

Maximum water depth (m) 0.292 0.031 0.298 0.038 0.006

Width/depth ratio, active channel 17.4 3.57 9.99 58.54 23.67

Julian sampling date 224.7 0.3 224 214 1.7

Proportion of line in tree gaps 0.155 0.061 0.264 0.404 0.122

Proportion of line under plant canopy 0.86 0.069 0.88 0.82 0.039

Proportion of point-intercepts that possess litter 0.727 0.024 0.76 0.8 0.055

Table 3. Comparisons of the mean and standard error (SE) several physical, geomorphic, and biotic variables between different 

hydrogeomorphic valley types, as defined by Frissell and Liss (1993). F- and P-values refer to the test of no difference among groups 

using a 1-way ANOVA.

———————Valley type [abbreviation used elsewhere] (N)———————

Results 25
Alluvial-fan-influenced 

valley [AFV] (9)

Alluvial valley 

[AV] (2)

Incised moraine-filled 

valley [IMV] (2)

—––—–———Indicator metric—––—–——— Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Average % slope gradient of stream channel, 

within 5 m of transect 8.64 0.72 7 1 12.13 0.13

Drainage area in watershed above the x-s transect 2,249 623 1,759 84 462 10

Total volume of coarse woody debris over stream 0.226 0.089 0.024 0.016 0.365 0.365

Median particle size (mm) of bed material (D50) 26.2 4.4 23.7 7.7 40.5 1.3

Mean percentage of particles with intermediate 

axis length < 2 mm 5.44 1.4 2.5 2.5 0 0

Active channel width (m) 1.82 0.37 1.47 0.18 3.46 0.95

Maximum water depth (m) 0.102 0.02 0.084 0.004 0.135 0.018

Width/depth ratio, active channel 23.3 7.28 17.5 2.99 27.06 10.59

Julian sampling date 211.2 1.5 219 0 220 0

Proportion of line in tree gaps 0.396 0.038 0.387 0.017 0.534 0.05

Proportion of line under plant canopy 0.867 0.026 0.85 0.03 0.61 0.01

Proportion of point-intercepts that possess litter 0.827 0.021 0.87 0.07 0.74 0.02

Table 3. Comparisons of the mean and standard error (SE) several physical, geomorphic, and biotic variables between different 

hydrogeomorphic valley types, as defined by Frissell and Liss (1993). F- and P-values refer to the test of no difference among groups 

using a 1-way ANOVA.—Continued

———————Valley type [abbreviation used elsewhere] (N)——————

26 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Leveed outwash 

valley [LOV] (8)

Terrace-bound valley 

[TBV] (2)

—––—–———Indicator metric—––—–——— Mean SE Mean SE F P

Average % slope gradient of stream channel, 

within 5 m of transect 10.44 1.2 5.5 0 1.61 0.18

Drainage area in watershed above the x-s transect 2,071 176 2,892 2,443 0.65 0.71

Total volume of coarse woody debris over stream 0.366 0.118 0.051 0.051 0.78 0.61

Median particle size (mm) of bed material (D50) 54.0 5.6 34.5 5.3 4.5 0.003

Mean percentage of particles with intermediate 

axis length < 2 mm 1 0.756 3.5 0.5 1.97 0.11

Active channel width (m) 3.39 0.35 1.58 0.4 3.79 0.008

Maximum water depth (m) 0.237 0.016 0.147 0.013 10.14 < 0.0001

Width/depth ratio, active channel 14.54 1.66 11.07 3.7 2.01 0.10

Julian sampling date 223.3 0.8 209 0 15.33 < 0.0001

Proportion of line in tree gaps 0.315 0.061 0.703 0.183 2.57 0.041

Proportion of line under plant canopy 0.902 0.022 0.592 0.092 6.25 0.0004

Proportion of point-intercepts that possess litter 0.819 0.028 0.563 0.037 3.89 0.006

Table 3. Comparisons of the mean and standard error (SE) several physical, geomorphic, and biotic variables between different 

hydrogeomorphic valley types, as defined by Frissell and Liss (1993). F- and P-values refer to the test of no difference among groups 

using a 1-way ANOVA.—Continued

—Valley type [abbreviation used elsewhere] (N)—

Results 27
Transect < 2 mm < 2.8 mm < 4 mm < 5.6 mm < 8 mm < 11 mm < 16 mm < 22.6 mm

BK1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 5

BK2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3

BK3 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 12

BK4 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3

BK5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8

BK6 2 0 0 2 1 4 3 14

BK7 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 3

BK8 0 0 0 1 2 4 9 9

Mean, Baker Creek sites 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 2.0 4.3 7.1

LM1 0 0 0 2 1 4 8 11

LM2 0 0 1 0 5 5 7 13

LM3 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 9

LM4 6 0 0 1 0 4 12 8

LM5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

LM6 0 0 1 2 2 0 3 7

Mean, Lehman Creek sites 1 0 0.3 1.2 1.7 2.5 5.3 8.8

SN1 4 1 1 1 2 3 7 14

SN2 3 0 0 0 3 9 12 16

SN3 12 3 8 9 4 4 6 10

SN4 2 3 0 3 2 1 6 10

SN5 4 2 3 3 4 4 7 11

SN6 3 2 3 4 6 5 8 8

SN7 7 5 3 6 4 7 11 5

SN8 6 0 4 2 5 9 10 7

Mean, Snake Creek sites 5.1 2.0 2.8 3.5 3.8 5.3 8.4 10.1

ST1 10 0 12 5 4 6 3 3

ST2 7 6 4 8 14 10 10 8

ST3 5 2 4 10 11 8 12 15

ST4 4 2 7 12 8 6 10 17

ST5 1 0 0 5 0 4 9 10

ST6 0 0 3 6 4 7 10 11

ST7 0 2 4 9 13 11 12 15

ST8 0 2 2 7 7 8 6 6

ST9 5 1 4 8 7 13 12 22

Mean, Strawbewrry Creek sites 3.6 1.7 4.4 7.8 7.6 8.1 9.3 11.9

Grand mean 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.3 3.5 4.5 6.6 9.2

28 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

Table 4. Number of particles (out of 100) whose median axis measured a length in each of 15 size classes, at each of 31 sites. Particles 

were sampled from within the active channel, and lengths were measured with a gravelometer. Classes were defined based on 1

/

2

-phi 

values. D50 values represent the median length of the intermediate axis, and were calculated following Harrelson et al. (1994).
Transect < 32 mm < 45 mm < 64 mm < 90 mm < 128 mm < 180 mm > 180 mm D50 (mm)

BK1 8 13 13 18 15 15 8 72.7

BK2 6 18 16 15 13 12 15 72.7

BK3 12 20 10 10 15 5 10 45.0

BK4 3 5 9 14 13 22 26 52.0

BK5 5 13 18 23 18 5 7 67.4

BK6 14 9 17 20 5 3 6 46.1

BK7 8 8 12 14 15 7 18 71.4

BK8 13 11 22 12 5 3 9 45.9

Mean, Baker Creek sites 8.6 12.1 14.6 15.8 12.4 9.0 12.4 59.1

LM1 14 18 7 7 8 8 12 39.2

LM2 16 4 6 2 9 0 32 41.8

LM3 18 28 17 6 5 8 2 39.4

LM4 15 10 12 13 9 8 2 37.2

LM5 5 14 17 11 25 10 12 82.9

LM6 9 16 11 11 10 12 16 62.3

Mean, Lehman Creek sites 12.8 15 11.7 8.3 11 7.7 12.7 50.5

SN1 11 10 9 4 9 10 14 39.8

SN2 10 12 9 6 7 8 5 29.2

SN3 6 7 2 6 9 4 10 18.6

SN4 11 8 9 4 7 17 17 53.4

SN5 7 13 12 8 10 8 4 37.0

SN6 18 8 18 11 4 2 0 28.3

SN7 12 9 5 8 2 7 9 24.2

SN8 6 5 5 8 12 11 10 34.6

Mean, Snake Creek sites 10.1 9.0 8.6 6.9 7.5 8.4 8.6 33.1

ST1 7 7 10 4 7 16 6 32.0

ST2 9 16 5 1 0 2 0 11.5

ST3 13 7 6 2 1 3 1 15.2

ST4 5 10 6 6 5 2 0 16.6

ST5 9 7 6 11 17 13 8 60.8

ST6 10 11 12 17 6 3 0 31.1

ST7 13 8 6 3 0 1 3 15.6

ST8 13 10 9 13 9 7 1 31.3

ST9 21 6 1 0 0 0 0 16.0

Mean, Strawbewrry Creek sites 11.1 9.1 6.8 6.3 5.0 5.2 2.1 25.6

Grand mean 10.3 11.4 10.6 9.6 9.0 7.8 8.9 41.0

Results 29

Table 4. Number of particles (out of 100) whose median axis measured a length in each of 15 size classes, at each of 31 sites. Particles 

were sampled from within the active channel, and lengths were measured with a gravelometer. Classes were defined based on 1

/

2

-phi 

values. D50 values represent the median length of the intermediate axis, and were calculated following Harrelson et al. (1994).—Continued
active channel within 5 m up- or downstream of the crosssectional transect, and 14 of the 31 sites had one or no logs 

(Table 5). Across all watersheds, all three variables (number of 

instream logs within 5 m of the transect, total instream length 

of logs, and approximate total log volume) were highly correlated with each other (r > 0.80, P < 0.0001). Sites in Lehman 

Creek averaged more than double the number, length, and 

volume of logs than in any other stream, and Baker Creek sites 

averaged the least in all three measures (Table 5). However, 

it was Strawberry Creek whose sites possessed four of the 

six largest log diameters (all > 28.0 cm). Neither number nor 

volume of logs correlated strongly with measurements of tree 

cover from the point-intercept method (r > -0.25, P > 0.17 for 

both).

Similar to results from our sampling of these watersheds 

in 2001 (Beever et al. in press) and once again in contrast to 

the findings of Smith et al. (1994), cover of litter was abundant, occupying less than 60% at only one site (SN2, 53%) 

and averaging 79% across all sites (Table 6). Amount of tree 

cover varied slightly among vegetation types, averaging the 

most cover at aspen-white fir and Englemann spruce sites 

and least cover at pinyon-juniper and Populus angustifoliadominated sites (F5,25 = 1.81, P = 0.15). If gap-intercept data 

suggested that sites exhibited high standing biomass, pointintercept data on canopy cover confirmed this. Sites averaged 

83.4% cover of plants across watersheds, and only one site 

(SN1) had less than 60% cover of plants (Table 6). Total cover 

was always 82% or greater, and averaged 94.8% across all 

sites (Table 6).

Pooled across watersheds, NFP sampling identified a 

maximum of 179 species within the sampled areas, including 8 tree, 18 shrub, no more than 46 grass, and no more than 

106 forb species. Uncertainty regarding the number of species 

in the last two groups stemmed from our inability to identify plants to species; in some cases, these plants may have 

belonged to another species we encountered. The 81 singleton 

(i.e., single-occurrence) species removed before ordinating the 

data included 8 shrub, 18 grass, and 55 forb species. By far 

the most commonly encountered tree species were white fir 

and aspen, which were found at nearly half of all sites. Among 

shrub species, Rosa woodsii (Woodsʼ rose) and Symphoricarpos oreophilus (snowberry) were the most widely distributed, 

followed by sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata—usually A.t. 

wyomingensis at low elevations, but A.t. vaseyana and A.t. 

tridentata also occur in the park) and Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (green rabbitbrush). Across all species within each lifeform, individual tree species occurred at an average of 5.9 (of 

the 31) sites, shrub species at an average of 5.1 sites, grasses at 

4.5 sites, and forbs at 3.5 sites.

When pooled across watersheds, sampling with 1-m2

quadrats (woody species only) detected a total of 15 tree and 

23 shrub species, of which 2 and 10 species were “singletons,” 

respectively (thus leaving N = 26 species for ordination). In 

contrast to the NFP sampling, individual tree species occurred 

at an average of 8.2 sites, and shrubs at 6.7 sites in the 1-m2

sampling. The three most widely distributed shrubs in 1-m2

quadrats were the same as in sampling of NFP, though their 

order changed slightly. Among trees, aspen and white fir were 

again the most pervasive species, but were followed closely by 

Pinus monophylla (single-leaf pinyon pine).

Multivariate analyses.

NMS. – Although an NMS (nonmetric multidimensional 

scaling) scree plot demonstrated that real runs with 1-m2 data 

produced significantly less stress than randomly shuffled data 

at all six axes, stress was reduced only slightly after the first 

two axes (Figure 2a). Thus, a two-dimensional solution was 

selected for the final run, which produced a stress of 12.32 

with a final instability of 0.00030. Correlations between the 

ordination differences and distances in the original 26-dimensional space (from the original site-by-species frequency 

matrix) showed that the r2 for axis 1 was 0.598 and 0.302 for 

axis 2. Thus, the ordination captured 90.0% of the variation in 

the original matrix in its two axes. Although sites within the 

same hydrogeomorphic-vegetation stratum often paired off in 

the ordination (Figure 3), all sites within watersheds were not 

distinct from sites of other watersheds, especially in comparison to the ordination with NFP data incorporating all plant 

species. 

After the orthogonal rotation, elevation was positively 

associated with axis 1, and median particle size and maximum 

depth of water were negatively associated with axis 2 (Figure 

3). Drainage area of each site was the only other physical 

variable that exhibited r2 > 0.1 with either axis. Species that 

exhibited strongest relationships to axis 1, in descending order 

of r, included R. woodsii (negative correlation coefficient), 

P. engelmannii (positive), P. flexilis (positive), P. monophylla 

(negative), J. communis (positive), and B. occidentalis (negative). These associations are intuitive given the strong positive correlation of axis 1 with elevation. For axis 2, strongest 

relationships were exhibited by P. tremuloides on the positive 

(upper) side and A. tridentata, P. angustifolia, C. viscidiflorus, 

and R. aromatica on the negative (lower) side of the axis. 

As with the 1-m2 data, real runs with data from NFP 

produced significantly less stress than randomly shuffled data 

at all six axes, although a three-dimensional solution was recommended because additional axes further reduced stress only 

slightly (Figure 2b). The final run produced a stress of 11.46 

with a final instability of 0.00050 for the three-dimensional 

solution. After orthogonal rotation, correlations between the 

ordination differences and distances in the original 98-dimensional space showed that the r2

 for axis 1 was 0.268, 0.314 

for axis 2, and 0.271 for axis 3. Thus, the ordination captured 

85.4% of the variation in the original matrix in its three axes. 

Although sites from different watersheds were well mixed in 

ordinations involving axis 1, a plot of sites in relation to axes 

2 and 3 showed sites generally clustered by watershed except 

that two pairs of sites diverged along axis 2 (LM1 and LM2 as 

well as BK1 and BK2). These sites were 400 m (for Lehman) 

and 150 m (for Baker) higher than any other site within their 

30 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Transect Total # logs

Total length of logs 

between wetted edges (m) Total CWD volume over stream (m3)

BK1 0 0 0.000

BK2 2 7.1 0.265

BK3 0 0 0.000

BK4 2 9.82 0.236

BK5 2 6.22 0.168

BK6 2 6.92 0.387

BK7 0 0 0.000

BK8 2 9.2 0.108

Mean, Baker Creek sites 1.25 4.91 0.146

LM1 0 0 0.000

LM2 3 17.66 0.729

LM3 18 48.55 0.928

LM4 9 24.76 0.810

LM5 2 7.44 0.099

LM6 1 2.4 0.299

Mean, Lehman Creek sites 5.5 16.8 0.477

SN1 0 0 0.000

SN2 1 1.92 0.102

SN3 1 1.28 0.028

SN4 2 5.32 0.129

SN5 2 5.5 0.177

SN6 6 42.39 0.764

SN7 1 3.89 0.199

SN8 0 0 0.000

Mean, Snake Creek sites 1.6 7.54 0.175

ST1 7 21.78 0.703

ST2 6 13.23 0.650

ST3 3 4.71 0.195

ST4 1 1.68 0.458

ST5 1 1.32 0.016

ST6 3 5.2 0.116

ST7 1 1.23 0.013

ST8 3 3.45 0.040

ST9 1 1.02 0.008

Mean, Strawberry Creek sites 2.9 5.96 0.244

Grand mean (all sites) 2.6 8.19 0.246

Table 5. Measurements of coarse woody debris (CWD) within 5 m up- or downstream of each of 31 transects from four watersheds 

Great Basin National Park, Snake Range, eastern NV. Logs were counted only if their diameter exceeded 10 cm and if they spanned 

more than half of the active stream channel. Volume was calculated using the log diamter at the middle of the active channel. See text 

for more detailed description of methods. 

Results 31
Transect Total canopy cover Total cover Tree cover Litter cover

Minimum estimate of 

species richness

BK1 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.76 14

BK2 0.86 0.94 0.72 0.74 14

BK3 0.88 0.94 0.74 0.7 15

BK4 0.88 0.92 0.72 0.76 16

BK5 1 1 0.62 0.72 24

BK6 0.9 1 0.4 0.9 24

BK7 0.88 0.94 0.58 0.76 22

BK8 0.74 0.86 0.64 0.68 9

Mean, Baker Creek sites 0.89 0.948 0.67 0.75 17.3

LM1 0.62 0.88 0.46 0.76 8

LM2 0.6 0.82 0.3 0.72 10

LM3 0.88 0.98 0.48 0.88 16

LM4 0.8 0.94 0.4 0.86 14

LM5 0.974 1 0.842 0.868 12

LM6 0.9 1 0.54 0.86 19

Mean, Lehman Creek sites 0.796 0.937 0.504 0.825 13.2

SN1 0.5 0.82 0.16 0.6 11

SN2 0.684 0.816 0.342 0.526 13

SN3 0.76 0.98 0.66 0.98 10

SN4 0.96 1 0.48 0.76 13

SN5 0.72 0.88 0.16 0.82 10

SN6 0.8 0.86 0.66 0.64 11

SN7 0.86 0.94 0.6 0.8 14

SN8 0.84 0.9 0.44 0.8 17

Mean, Snake Creek sites 0.766 0.899 0.44 0.74 12.4

ST1 0.84 0.96 0.46 0.86 17

ST2 0.88 0.94 0.44 0.8 17

ST3 0.76 0.88 0.52 0.8 15

ST4 0.86 0.98 0.7 0.86 16

ST5 0.9 0.94 0.68 0.88 13

ST6 0.92 0.98 0.44 0.84 12

ST7 0.98 0.98 0.8 0.8 15

ST8 0.88 0.98 0.64 0.94 13

ST9 0.82 0.9 0.56 0.8 18

Mean, Strawberry Creek sites 0.87 0.95 0.58 0.84 15.1

Grand mean (all sites) 0.84 0.93 0.56 0.79 14.5

32 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

Table 6. Proportion of points occupied by four types of cover, based on sampling at 50 locations on a point-intercept transect at each 

of 31 sites. Minimum estimate of species richness reflected the count of different species encountered in the transect. Definitions for 

the four categories of cover occur in the text.
watersheds, and a joint plot showed that axis 2 was positively 

correlated with site elevation. Other than the two variables that 

appeared in the joint plot (Figures 5a, 5b), median particle size 

was the strongest of the remaining correlations of the physical 

variables with any axis, nearly missing the joint-plot criterion for its association with axis 3. Species that exhibited the 

strongest correlation with axis 2, which was positively associated with elevation, included R. woodsii (negative correlation 

coefficient) as it was with the 1-m2 data, as well as S. jamesii, 

C. scopulorum, P. nervosa, Juniperus sp., and S. lettermanii (all positively corelated). Notable correlations of species 

with ordination axis 3 included a negative association with 

M. repens and positive correlations with P. angustifolia, C. 

viscidiflorus, and R. aromatica. For axis 1, B. tectorum (cheatgrass) and Agropyron desertorum were positively associated, 

while Carex limnophila was negatively associated. 

Comparisons between vegetative and hydrogeomorphic 

groups. – Multi-response permutation-procedure (MRPP) 

analyses of 1-m2 data suggested that species composition 

differed strongly between hydrogeomorphic types (A = 0.206. 

P = 0.0000274). Sites in IMV (incised moraine-filled valley) 

types were the most tightly clustered, followed by sites in AV, 

ACB, ACG, and TBV types; in contrast, the AFV and LOV 

types were more dispersed (Table 7, Figure 3a). In contrast, 

analyses of 1-m2 data suggested that woody-species composition was not different between our categories of vegetation 

types (A = -0.000475, P = 0.47). Only two vegetation types, 

aspen-Woodsʼ rose and P. angustifolia-dominated sites, had 

average within-group distances within the range of distance 

values for geomorphic valley types; all four other vegetation 

types had higher within-group distances (Table 7, Figure 3b).

As with the 1-m2 data, MRPP analyses of frequency data 

from NFP sampling also showed a greater difference in species composition between different hydrogeomorphic types 

than between different vegetation types. Plant species composition again appeared to differ markedly between hydrogeomorphic valley types (A = 0.124, P = 0.0000274). Although 

sites in IMV valley types were again tightly clustered, the pair 

of TBV sites from Strawberry Creek was even more clustered, 

though only slightly (Table 7, Figures 4a, 5a). Other than the 

ACG valley type, sites from other hydrogeomorphic groups 

were much more highly dispersed (Table 7). Species composition again did not differ significantly between sites of different 

vegetation types (A = 0.009, P = 0.27), as sites from all different vegetation types were well interspersed (Figures 4b, 5b).

Indicator species analysis of 1-m2 data at sites revealed 

that 8 of the 26 woody species were relatively faithful indicators of a particular hydrogeomorphic group (P < 0.05; Table 

8). Of these, Juniperus communis, Cornus sericea, and Cercocarpus ledifolius were the only species found at sites within 

only one valley type, though only J. communis was noted at 

all sites within its corresponding type. Other relatively strong 

indicator species included P. angustifolia, P. menziesii, A. 

tridentata, Prunus virginiana, and R. aromatica. Four of the 

eight woody species were indicators for the ACB (alluviated 

canyon, boulder-bed) valley type.

Reflecting the lack of difference in community composition between vegetation types demonstrated by MRPP analyses, only three (of 26) woody species were strong indicators of 

any particular vegetation type using 1-m2 data. These species 

included B. occidentalis, C. viscidiflorus, and P. virginiana. Of 

the 12 instances in which a species occurred in all sites within 

a given vegetation type, 10 occurred in the two vegetation 

types that were the types that species indicated for in Table 8. 

Indicator species analysis of data from NFP revealed 

that 7 of 98 sites were significant indicators of a particular 

hydrogeomorphic type (P < 0.0125), while another 13 species 

(8 forb, 4 grass, and 1 shrub) exhibited a somewhat weaker but 

still notable indicator value for a particular type (0.0125 < P < 

0.05). Sixteen of the 98 species that occurred in NFPs at two 

or more sites occurred in only one hydrogeomorphic type, but 

only three species occurred at every site within the only type 

they occupied (Indicator Value = 100; Table 8).

Of the 10 plant species that occurred in only one vegetation type, six occurred in the high-elevation, Englemann 

spruce-dominated type. An unidentified hawksbeard (Crepis 

sp.) was the most pervasive species across sites, occurring at 

75% or more of sites in every vegetation type, followed by 

Poa pratensis, which was detected in NFP sampling at 22 

sites. Of the 98 species, none acted as a significant indicator of 

any particular vegetation type, although six species exhibited 

weak (0.0125 < P < 0.05) indicator value for a particular type.

Discussion.

In semiarid ecosystems such as the interior Great Basin, 

riparian areas constitute a landscape resource of far greater 

importance than would be predicted by their limited spatial 

extent, due to their provision of the often-limiting resources 

of water, nutrients, shade, and a lush, diverse riparian vegetative canopy (Gregory et al. 1991). Because of these attractive 

qualities, riparian areas are often used disproportionately heavily by both humans as well as resident and migratory wildlife. 

Due in part to this concentration of uses in such a small area, 

riparian areas are often heavily altered or degraded in arid and 

semiarid regions of the western United States. On the other 

hand, especially relative to adjacent upland systems, riparian 

systems are dynamic and can recover relatively quickly from 

disturbance if thresholds have not been crossed (Yount and 

Niemi 1990, Krueper et al. 2003). Although monitoring trends 

in riparian areas is important for these and other reasons, condition of riparian areas may not indicate trends in other communities of Great Basin mountain ranges. Thus, we recommend riparian monitoring as one part of a more comprehensive 

assessment of protected areas that includes a greater diversity 

of soils and vegetation types. 

Discussion 33
Hydrogeomorphic types (per Frissell and Liss [1993]) N

Equivalent Rosgen (1985) 

stream classification types 1-m2 NFP

Alluviated canyon, boulder-bed [ACB] 3 B1 0.416 0.732

Leveed outwash valley [LOV] 8 D1 0.575 0.794

Incised moraine-filled valley [IMV] 2 A3, B1 0.109 0.342

Terrace-bound valley [TBV] 2 C1-1 0.446 0.333

Alluvial fan-influenced valley [AFV] 9 C3 0.599 0.705

Alluvial canyon, gravel-cobble-bed [ACG] 4 B2, B3, B4 0.432 0.513

Alluvial valley [AV] 2 C1, C2, C3 0.375 0.769

Vegetation types N 1-m2 NFP

PICENG, etc.1 8 0.717 0.775

POPTRE / ABICON2 7 0.668 0.809

BETOCC, etc.3 3 0.626 0.88

PINMON, POPTRE, ROSWOO4 5 0.708 0.771

POPTRE / ROSWOO5 4 0.433 0.683

POPANG6 4 0.498 0.548

1

High-elevation sites, dominated or co-dominated by PICENG

2

Sites co-dominated by POPTRE and ABICON

3

Low-elevation sites with strong presence of BETOCC

4

Sites co-dominated by PINMON, POPTRE, and ROSWOO

5

Sites co-dominated by POPTRE and ROSWOO

6

Sites with strong presence of POPANG

Table 7a, b. Number of transects (N) in and average distance between points within the same a) hydrogeomorphic or b) vegetation 

type, in nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) ordinations of plant-community data from 1-m2 frequency sampling (woody species 

only; N = 26 spp.) and nested-frequency-plot (NFP) sampling (N = 98 spp.). Also included in a) is a cross-walk from the types of Frissell 

and Liss (1993) to those defined by Rosgen (1985), which was made originally by Frissell and Liss (1993).

Average within-group distance

Average within-group distance

a)

b)

34 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
a) 1-m 2

 frequency data

IV from randomized groups

Species Life-form

Valley type with 

highest IV Observed IV Mean SD P

Cercocarpus ledifolius T LOV 50.0 25.2 12.9 0.040

Cornus sericea T ACB 66.7 25.1 14.8 0.017

Juniperus communis T IMV 100.0 25.2 13.2 0.004

Populus angustifolia T ACB 86.6 25.6 13.2 0.001

Pseudotsuga menziesii T ACG 51.9 25.6 13.9 0.040

Artemisia tridentata S ACB 45.0 29.3 8.5 0.047

Prunus virginiana S AV 54.2 28.2 11.7 0.036

Rhus aromatica S ACB 95.2 26.9 14.8 0.001

IV from randomized groups

Species Life-form

Vegetation type 

with highest IV Observed IV Mean SD P

Betula occidentalis T POAN, etc. 48.0 22.2 8.9 0.018

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus S POAN, etc. 42.1 22.9 8.8 0.037

Prunus virginiana S BEOC, etc. 53.7 26.2 9.8 0.012

Discussion 35

Tables 8a, b. Results of indicator species analysis for determining which plant species most strongly created differences observed 

in MRPP comparisons between either hydrogeomorphic valley types or vegetation types, using data either from a) 1-m2

, or b) nestedfrequency-plot (NFP) sampling. Valley types follow Frissell and Liss (1993), and are defined in Table 1. Indicator values (IV) range from 

0-100%, and denote the % of perfect indication. They are a function of the species’ relative abundance in a group (i.e., the mean abundance of the species in a given group of sites over the mean abundance of the species in all site) with the species’ relative frequency 

in a group (i.e., the % of sites in the group at which the species is present). P-values represent the proportion of 1,000 Monte-Carlo 

randomized trials that had an IV > the highest observed IV.
b) NFP frequency data

IV from randomized groups

Species Life-form

Valley type with 

highest IV Observed IV Mean SD P

Populus tremuloides T TBV 53.3 26.0 9.4 0.003

Carex scopulorum CJ IMV 100.0 24.5 13.0 0.004

Poa nervosa G IMV 100.0 24.5 13.0 0.004

Crepis sp. F ACG 35.2 23.8 3.7 0.002

“Unidentified dead forb 3 F TBV 90.0 25.8 12.0 0.003

Phlox stansburyi F TBV 100.0 25.4 14.7 0.005

Smilacina stellata F ACB 85.4 25.9 13.4 0.003

IV from randomized groups

Species Life-form

Vegetation type 

with highest IV Observed IV Mean SD P

None at P < 0.0125.

36 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

Tables 8a, b. Results of indicator species analysis for determining which plant species most strongly created differences observed 

in MRPP comparisons between either hydrogeomorphic valley types or vegetation types, using data either from a) 1-m2

, or b) nestedfrequency-plot (NFP) sampling. Valley types follow Frissell and Liss (1993), and are defined in Table 1. Indicator values (IV) range from 

0-100%, and denote the % of perfect indication. They are a function of both the species’ relative abundance in a group (i.e., the mean 

abundance of the species in a given group of sites over the mean abundance of the species in all site) and the species’ relative frequency in a group (i.e., the % of sites in the group at which the species is present). P-values represent the proportion of 1,000 MonteCarlo randomized trials that had an IV > the highest observed IV.—Continued
Walking surveys of target watersheds.

Although there was some variation in elevational distributions of some species, we observed relatively systematic 

progression of vegetation types from the valley floor up to 

headwaters across our four watersheds (Appendix A, Figure 

1). In addition to the fact that all four watersheds are eastfacing, they are located within 15 km or less of each other. 

Thus, all watersheds probably experience similar weather 

patterns on average, leading to similar evolutionary pressures 

on, and consequently similar physiological tolerances of, the 

dominant canopy species. Given that seed-bearing cones are 

abundant and easily found by highly vagile dispersal agents 

such as birds, it is likely that dominant canopy species are 

rarely dispersal-limited. This was confirmed by comparison of 

NMS ordinations of woody-species-only (1-m2) and all-species (nested-frequency plot) frequency data. Sites from the 

same watershed appeared indistinguishable from sites of other 

watersheds and were clustered together only when they were 

subsamples of the same hydrogeomorphic-vegetative stratum 

in ordinations of woody-species data. In contrast, ordinations 

of NFP (all-species) data much more clearly discriminated 

different watersheds (Figures 2, 3). At smaller spatial scales, 

cross-stream heterogeneity and patchiness in species distributions likely result from the collective effects of small-scale 

variability in surface and upper-horizon soil conditions; differences in aspect, shading, and insolation; allelopathy; and 

vicariance of seed dispersal and small-scale catastrophes (e.g., 

treefalls). 

Elevational distributions of canopy species generally did 

not differ consistently and meaningfully from distributions 

noted in 1991-1993 (by Smith et al. 1994), and most differences may have resulted from species misidentifications, the 

point-specific nature of the Smith et al. (1994) sampling compared to our continuous sampling, or deaths of individual trees 

between the two sampling periods. One notable exception to 

this was Picea engelmannii, a high-elevation tree whose lower 

elevational bound was 175-200 m higher in 2002 sampling 

compared to 1993 sampling (Beever et al. in press). Furthermore, magnitude of change in abundance of the species in four 

0.5 km2 (50-m x 10-m) plots was strongly predicted by plot 

elevation, with greatest declines occurring at lowest elevations 

(F1,3 = 269.2, r2 > 0.99, P = 0.004; Beever et al. in press). This 

trend is consistent with a climate-change scenario of increasing temperatures. 

Overall, at least in comparison to riparian systems in central Nevada, extent and severity of downcutting was limited 

in our four target watersheds. Tree roots were not frequently 

exposed in the channel (as would occur with significant bank 

erosion); channel and floodplain features appeared adequate to 

dissipate energy of high-stream-power events; lateral stream 

movement had recently occurred in numerous locations; and 

riparian vegetation generally exhibited diverse composition and age structure—all attributes of properly functioning 

watersheds (following criteria of BLM 1993). Concern for 

trends over the long term may be merited, however, because 

the system no longer possesses beavers as it did in the past, 

and we did not observe any evidence of the riparian zone 

widening at lower elevations (two additional attributes of 

proper-functioning condition: BLM 1993). D. Germanoski 

noted, from the distribution of some terraces, that streams may 

have experienced significant alterations at some point between 

80-200 years ago. The younger end of this range corresponds 

to the period of intensive sheep grazing in eastern Nevada 

(1890-1920s). However, tree coring should be used to further 

investigate the dynamics of these more distant time periods 

by providing ages of trees at different distances from current 

channel boundaries. 

In our target watersheds, the occurrence of one to four 

terraces may be good indications of incision in degrading 

stream reaches. Higher-elevation floodplains from past times, 

particularly their relation to the current channel, may also 

indicate recent incision. The common occurrence of root 

flares (especially on the more energetic outside edge of channel bends) and root exposure are another type of evidence 

suggesting changes over time. However, a few exposed tree 

roots are not necessarily an indication of downcutting; roots 

in truly unstable systems are additionally separated by some 

measurable height from the channel. An overbank accumulation of fines may also suggest recent disturbance. In contrast, 

the presence of decades-old trees rooted right at the edge of 

the stream channel suggests stability in the system. For most 

of the length of our walking transects, the state of all of these 

indicators suggested that these four watersheds, at least the 

mainstem reaches, are generally stable.

Our observation of more frequent point incisions and 

bank sloughing in Snake and Strawberry creeks compared to 

the other two watersheds is consistent with the mapping of 

valley segments and interpretation by Frissell and Liss (1993). 

They stated that in Snake and Strawberry creeks, the softer 

shales and limestones that weather rapidly into smaller-sized 

particles are more easily transported by fluvial processes than 

are the hard, granitic boulder- and cobble-dominated geology 

of Lehman and Baker creeks (Frissell and Liss 1993). In our 

research, this conclusion was further supported by the pebblecount data, which showed smaller D50 values on average, as 

well as greater proportions of the smallest-diameter (< 2 mm) 

particles, at Strawberry and Snake sites (Table 4). Frissell and 

Liss (1993) suggest that streams dominated by alluvial segment types are additionally likely to be more sensitive to the 

effects of climate change. Bank angle (i.e., slope of the bank) 

is a common indicator of riparian condition, and is evaluated 

by the assumption that as stream banks recover, bank angle 

generally declines (Herrick et al. in press). Although banks 

in Lehman and Baker creeks were usually vertical, this was 

due to the lack of any detectable bank erosion, rather than 

deep incision (D. Germanoski and E. Beever, pers. obs.). This 

apparent contradiction persisted in this system because: a) 

banks were armored against erosion by cobbles, boulders, and 

tree roots; b) height of the bank above the water suface was 

generally very small (i.e., vertical banks were not tall); and 

c) lower width-depth ratios (except at BK2, BK6, and LM2) 

Discussion 37
meant that sites may have been more vulnerable to undercutting than downcutting.

Perhaps because grazing had been terminated 32 months 

before our 2002 sampling (G. Schenk, Ecologist, GBNP, 

pers. comm..) and vegetation may have re-colonized denuded 

patches, we had difficulty detecting widespread evidence of 

livestock influence on stream channels mentioned by Smith 

et al. (1994) and Frissell and Liss (1993). Smith et al. (1994) 

considered livestock grazing the most pervasive influence on 

biotic integrity in the parkʼs riparian areas, whereas Frissell 

and Liss (1993) and Eddleman and Jaindl (1994) noted significant spatial variability in the level of grazing impact. Frissell and Liss (1993) concluded that grazing impact was most 

severe and extensive in alluvial valleys, alluvial-fan-influenced valleys, and bajada-filled canyons, but rarely affected 

stream banks in leveed outwash valleys and canyons. Eddleman and Jaindl (1994) found grazing impacts to be greatest 

at heavily used springs and seeps, and at areas where animals 

were at high stocking rates or not properly moved seasonally. Our anecdotal field observations agree, however, with 

the conclusion of Frissell and Liss (1993) that grazing impact 

appeared to be positively correlated with extent of grassland, 

and negatively correlated with forest (especially coniferous) 

cover and mean size of bed and bank materials. Thus, cobbles 

and boulders not only are resistant to natural scour processes 

and peak-flow events, but also armor banks better and prevent 

entry of cattle into stream channels. We observed livestock 

trails in adjacent uplands at a number of locations, but correlation of these occurrences with greater incision was not readily 

apparent (nor frequent enough to quantitatively test robustly).

Greater occurrence of bank sloughing at stream meanders 

agrees with the hydrological models presented by Brotherton 

(1979), wherein particle deposition occurs at the inside of the 

bend and in low-gradient reaches whereas erosion of banks 

on the outside of the meander is due to shear stress and other 

fluvial forces.

One potential cause of sedimentation in our watersheds 

is the occurrence of dirt roads often in very close proximity to 

stream channels. D. Germanoski noted the extensive erosion 

of the road adjacent to Strawberry Creek, and E. Beever later 

followed this gulleying in the road eventually into the stream 

at several points. Similar diversions of road particles into the 

stream channel also were evident at selected points along 

Snake Creek where the road was very near the waterʼs edge. 

Across the western United States, increased sediment loads 

are the most widespread water-pollution problem in forests 

(Binkley and Brown 1993). Unpaved roads have been shown 

to transport fine sediments to adjacent streams and thereby 

increase their turbidity (Reid and Dunne 1984), reducing 

productivity and growth or survival of fishes (Newcombe and 

Jensen 1996). Although problem-causing roads have been 

remediated in more mesic systems than those in the park to 

reduce future erosion potential (e.g., Weaver et al. 1987, Harr 

and Nichols 1993), effects of past sediment delivery can be 

long-lasting and cumulative, not able to be effectively mitigated, and can be distributed long distances from the site 

of the road incursion (Richardson et al. 1975, Hagans et al. 

1986). Roads can also alter woody-debris dynamics and natural habitat development, create localized alterations in flow 

patterns and consequent erosion (which we observed in Strawberry Creek), and act as barriers to movement of salmonids 

and other fishes (reviewed in Trombulak and Frissell 2000).

Cross-sectional transects.

The occurrence of small bed-particle sizes in alluvial 

valley types was supported by our comparison of median particle sizes among hydrogeomorphic types (Table 3). Post hoc 

comparisons showed that particle sizes at sites in ACB valley 

types were significantly larger than at alluvial valley (AV) and 

alluvial-fan-influenced (AFV) sites. Although proportion of 

smallest-diameter (< 2 mm) bed particles was correspondingly 

smaller at ACB sites than at AV and ADV sites, large variability in values in each type prevented statistical significance. It 

is likely that sampling either at more sites or using more particles per site would confirm this difference statistically. We 

suspected that significantly lower values of canopy cover in 

terrace-bound valley (TBV) and IMV compared to both AFV 

and leveed outwash valley (LOV) hydrogeomorphic types 

were confounded by elevation, but in fact, canopy (vegetative) 

cover was not correlated with elevation (r2 = 0.001, P = 0.89). 

Instead, the smaller particles deposited by alluvial valleys 

(including during peak-flow events) may provide more suitable sites for colonization by plants (sensu Yount and Niemi 

1990). The fact that D50 is correlated to neither channel slope 

nor basin area is surprising, given that slope is usually a function of D50 and basin area. This can mean that the grain size of 

the material found in the channel is a function of past geomorphic events (J. Miller, pers. comm.). However, the strength 

of this relationship alternatively may have been eroded by 

artifacts of our pebble-sampling technique, and our data do not 

allow us to test this possibility with confidence.

Although width/depth ratios in ACG (alluviated canyon, 

gravel-cobble-bed) valley types averaged greater than twice 

that of other types, the nature of this canyon type does not suggest that this should be so. Consequently, we suggest this as a 

question to be addressed by future research. The fact that volume of coarse woody debris did not differ among hydrogeomorphic types in spite of significant differences in tree cover 

(as indexed by tree gaps) between types, as well as a lack of 

correlation between these two measures (r = 0.25, P = 0.18) 

suggests that either the sampling area (10 m x the stream 

width) is too small to properly measure debris, or, perhaps 

more likely, that different tree species vary widely in their 

average age to senescence and vulnerability to windthrow. 

Lower flow values, as evidenced by lower active-channel widths and maximum depths, in Snake Creek than would 

be expected based on hypsography and basin area are due in 

large part to extensive diversion of water from the creek for 

irrigation in the Snake Valley below. We were surprised to find 

that drainage area (derived from digital-elevation models) correlated only weakly with maximum water depth and not with

38 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
active channel width. However, removing Snake Creek sites 

from the analysis multiplied the correlation of drainage area 

with maximum width by 11.5 times, and the correlation with 

maximum depth by 2.8 times (thus increasing the absolute 

value of r2 by 0.263).

Geomorphic and ecological consequences of this could be 

seen in several parameters. First, cross-sections of the two sites 

we sampled in the “dry” reaches of Snake Creek (Appendix 

E) demonstrate that banks are more deeply incised than nearly 

any other locations in our target watersheds. This likely occurs 

because of the disconnection of the water table with bankside 

vegetation, which consequently often becomes less abundant 

(Bendix 1994, Chambers et al. 2004). In turn, banks become 

more vulnerable to peak-flow pulses. Second, the minimum 

estimate of species richness averaged 2.5 species lower at ʻdryʼ

sites than at sites with aboveground flow, likely following the 

model just described. Finally, coarse woody debris accumulated in these segments, and number, length, and volume of 

logs were higher at both ʻdryʼ sites than at any other Snake 

Creek site with aboveground flow (except for one site that had 

slightly greater volume than one of the ʻdryʼ sites). 

Mirroring results from more-intensive sampling of riparian vegetation by Smith et al. (1994) and Beever and Pyke 

(2002), the index of species richness from point-intercept measurements across all sites was strongly predicted by a secondorder regression of elevation, with maximum richness occurring at intermediate elevations (r2

 = 0.25, P < 0.02). Along two 

large rivers in northern Sweden, Nilsson et al. (1989) found 

that ruderal species increased monotonically downstream. 

However, total species richness was unrelated to position but 

instead increased with substrate heterogeneity and was highest 

at intermediate levels of substrate fineness. In contrast, species 

richness at our sites was not predicted in either a first-order or 

second-order regression on median particle size within stream 

channels. However, size distributions of stream particles may 

not necessarily correlate well with soil texture on adjacent 

streambanks. 

Because they incorporate many elements of stream-channel evolution, width-depth ratios are often used as an indicator 

of geomorphic condition in riparian areas. These ratios are primarily an indicator of the nature of the sediment transported by 

the stream, and the mode through which it is moved (Knighton 

1998). Width and depth tend to increase as one travels downstream in the basin (due to greater drainage areas), although 

the relative rates of change of the two differs from one another 

and is a function of existing flow conditions in the channel. 

Peak-flow events that approach or even exceed bankfull levels 

produce the greatest stream power and often define riparian 

characteristics for years to come (Auble et al. 1994, Friedman 

et al. 1996, Friedman and Lee 2002); thus, width-depth ratios 

using bankfull widths may provide a more important (although 

difficult to measure unequivocally; Harrelson et al. 1994) 

monitoring indicator. 

The impact of peak-flow events on stream morphology 

of riparian areas in the interior Great Basin, independent of 

anthropogenic effects, was supported by evidence from Myers 

and Swanson (1996). Their analysis of rare, peak-flow flooding events indicated that 8 of 30 streams from north-central 

Nevada surveyed from 1979-1993 exhibited major changes at 

some point, regardless of Rosgen (1985) stream type. More 

importantly, the two streams most and least damaged by ungulates remained unchanged after flooding. In addition, research 

in central Nevada riparian systems has suggested that, at least 

in some watersheds, effects of current management practices 

(such as grazing management) are overshadowed by residual 

effects of past (paleo- and historic) climate change on hillslope 

processes and sediment regimes (Chambers et al. 1998, Miller 

et al. 2001).

Although gap-intercept data may be useful for monitoring trends in upland communities in the park, it is not clear 

that they would have equal utility for the areas within the 

riparian corridor. Litter was widespread within the portions of 

the riparian corridor under tree canopy, and often constituted 

a thick layer (3-10 cm). Especially when combined with the 

patches of extremely dense graminoids we frequently encountered, the extensiveness of litter cover (mean = 79% across all 

sites) could be a strong deterrent of erosion of topsoil by either 

water or wind. Wind erosion within the corridor is assumed to 

be even less likely, given the physical protection provided by 

the tree canopy. As we have currently designed the sampling 

and analysis, the data are not easily divided into riparian and 

upland gap values, especially since the boundary between 

these two zones is fuzzy at many sites. Unfortunately, this may 

lessen their utility and interpretability as monitoring indicators 

in this system. 

Although values for proportion of basal gaps seem very 

high (averaging 76.5% across all sites), when compared with 

averages of 96-99.5% gaps from Mojave National Preserve 

(Beever and Pyke 2002), which is < 500 km distant, park 

sites have a relative abundance of plant bases. Re-sampling of 

transects in subsequent decades may reveal whether greater 

variability in gap-intercept indicators, and greater sensitivity 

to environmental changes, than our current results suggest in 

fact exists. Greater correlation among basal and understorycanopy gap indicators than with the tree-canopy gap metric 

suggests that while dynamics are tightly linked in understory 

structure, reliance solely on tree canopy as a monitoring indicator may not detect changes in sitesʼ small-scale vulnerability 

to erosion. The conclusion from gap-intercept data that park 

riparian zones are characterized by high standing biomass and 

high structural complexity was supported in parallel fashion 

by our finding of high vegetative cover (mean = 83.4%) across 

all sites.

Between-creek differences in number, length, and volume 

of logs within active stream channels is not easily interpretable, especially given the fact that neither number nor volume 

of logs correlated with measures of tree cover (r > -0.25). 

Because some of our Baker plots occur near campgrounds, 

it is possible that either management or recreationalists have 

locally altered distribution of debris, for convenience of fishing or to lower the risk of inundation of campgrounds. Assuming that this was not the case, lower occurrence of instream 

Discussion 39
logs in Baker Creek may be due to the re-lining of the stream 

in the early 1960s with bentonite (G. Schenk, pers. comm.), 

a generally impervious substance that may have altered soil 

structure or chemistry and movement of trees into the stream. 

The concentration of the largest-diameter trees within the 

channel at Strawberry Creek sites likely results from the 

drainageʼs smaller area and lower slope gradient, and thus, 

lower stream power. 

Multivariate analyses.

We threw out 81 species that occurred at only one site 

before performing ordinations on data from NFP, and 12 

singleton species from the 1-m2 data. This technique should 

not alter results of ordinations or our other multivariate 

analyses (McCune and Grace 2002) because these species 

are not shared with any other sites and thus do not change 

relationships in ordination space. Interestingly, however, the 

large percentages of these infrequently occurring species suggest that, especially for poorly dispersed forbs and grasses, 

there may be even stronger watershed-specific signatures in 

species composition when all species are considered collectively. Across both data sets, sites that were in both the 

same hydrogeomorphic valley type and the same vegetation 

association were most likely to appear similar to each other in 

ordination space (Figures 3-5). This suggests the possibility of 

continuous variation in vegetation communities as one moves 

up or down a watershed or distance-based divergence of vegetative communities based on a factor other than elevation. 

Ordinations were effective at reducing the complexity of 

the n-dimensional space created by frequency data of all species at all sites, and captured 90% of the variability in the 1-m2

dataset (N = 26 species) in the first two axes and > 85% of the 

variability in the NFP dataset (N = 98 species) in the first three 

axes. These results suggest that the community data are not 

exceedingly complex, if two or three orthogonal axes, each of 

which may represent a complex of environmental factors but 

is dominated by the factors identified in join plots, can reflect 

the variability in the original data. 

NMS ordinations as well as MRPP analyses of both 

woody-species (1-m2) and NFP (all-species) data suggested 

that vegetative communities differed much more strongly 

among hydrogeomorphic types than among vegetation types 

(Figures 3, 5). Greater importance of hydrogeomorphology 

in determining vegetation communities at sites is perhaps 

not surprising, given that both extent and density of riparian 

vegetation depend largely on local geomorphic and hydrologic 

controls (Kondolf et al. 1987, Harris 1988). Vegetative differences may have arisen from the strong differences among 

hydrogeomorphic valley types in a number of physical as well 

as biotic variables that we measured (Table 3), as well as from 

differences in other variables (such as number of terraces and 

lateral slope) detected in past comparisons in the interior Great 

Basin (e.g., Frissell and Liss 1993, Chambers et al. 2004).

Lack of difference among vegetative types could have resulted 

from the manner in which we assigned sites to different types. 

Although dominant canopy species may be easily recognizable, they may not define vegetation associations as strongly 

as elevationally based, broadly occurring categories. 

Baker (1989a) used cluster analysis and Bray-Curtis 

ordination to classify 115 stands that were “as free as possible of postsettlement and land-use effects” in montane and 

subalpine zones in Colorado. Although that work identified 

16 vegetative associations in five habitat types (including 

montane forests, subalpine forests, wetlands, and two types of 

carrs), it provided no quantitative analysis of which species 

distinguished the different associations, or what method they 

used to decide the number of groups into which to divide the 

stands. In a related analysis, Baker (1989b) related scores of 

sites in Bray-Curtis ordination to a suite of environmental 

variables. As we found, his first ordination axis was correlated 

strongly with elevation, but he also found correlation with 

drainage basin variables (especially area, length, relief, and 

ruggedness), and channel width. Baker (1989b) suggested 

that non-linearities and multi-scale effects combine in such 

a way that different forces are driving dynamics at different 

spatial and temporal scales, a view congruent with paradigms 

suggested by the hierarchical paradigm of stream organization 

proposed by others (Frissell et al. 1986, Gregory et al. 1991, 

Naiman et al. 1993).

Both Kruskal (1964) and Clarke (1993) gave rules of 

thumb to evaluating the reliability of final ordination solutions 

based on values of stress. Kruskalʼs (1964) thresholds are considered reasonable for sociological data (for which they were 

developed), but overly stringent for ecological community 

data. From this perspective, values between 10-20 are considered “fair,” in contrast to “excellent” (2.5), good (5), and 

poor (> 20) final-stress values (Kruskal 1964). Clarke (1993) 

suggested that values less than 5 were rarely achieved, but 

would constitute an excellent representation with no prospect 

of misinterpretation; values 5-10 constituted a good ordination 

with no real risk of drawing false inferences; and values 10-20 

could still correspond to a usable picture, although values at 

the upper end have a potential to mislead. McCune and Grace 

(2002) note that in their experience, most ecological community data sets have stress values between 10-20, and that while 

values approaching or exceeding 20 are cause for concern, 

values from 10-15 are quite satisfactory. Since final stress 

tends to increase with increasing sample size (number of sites) 

and with increasing number of original species (with more 

pervasive species exhibiting more influence) (McCune and 

Grace 2002), our finding of slightly lower stress with the 1-m2

data relative to the NFP data is not surprising.

NMS is fundamentally different from other ordination techniques in that it iteratively optimizes the solution to 

beyond a selected threshold criterion. The technique has been 

shown to perform well with simulated gradients in species 

composition, even when beta diversity is high or gradient 

strengths are unequal (Fasham 1977, McCune 1994). NMS is 

being increasingly used as a robust analytical tool to examine community data, and we recommend its use for future 

40 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
analyses of multiple-site vegetation data within riparian zones 

and in other systems. The appearance of cheatgrass as a species that exhibited significantly nonrandom presence at sites 

(i.e., a significant correlation with axis 1) may be of interest, 

particularly since axis 1 was not correlated with elevation (r2

= 0.017).

In both the NMS ordinations and in the corresponding MRPP analyses, we often observed for sites in TBV and 

especially IMV types both greater within-group homogeneity 

and greater distinctness from other sites than in other valley 

types (Figures 3a, 4a, 5a, Table 7). Both of these types occur at 

the elevational extremes of our sampling units. In these types, 

species richness is lower than at intermediate elevations, thus 

minimizing within-group heterogeneity. Furthermore, many 

of the plant species do not occur in many of the other valley 

types, thus increasing their distance in n-dimensional space 

from other valley types. This was evidenced by indicator 

species analyses of the more species-rich NFP data, in which 

five of the seven strongest indicator species indicated either 

TBV and IMV valley types. This was not true for the 1-m2

data (except for Juniperus communis, which was a perfect 

indicator of the high-elevation IMV type), because these types 

possessed so few woody species, and the few that were found 

there do not have narrow elevational distributions (Table 7).

The careful observer may have noted that P-values for 

the data sets from NFP were much smaller, relative to the Avalues, when compared to the 1-m2

 data sets. In MRPP, as the 

number of species being compared between groups increases, 

so does the likelihood of a statistically significant test-statistic, regardless of the chosen alpha. Consequently, statistical 

significance may result even when the effect size (A) is small 

(McCune and Grace 2002). 

Further Management Implications.

Beschta and Platts (1986), in their review of studies 

on small streams across the United States, concluded that 

management actions using in-stream engineered structures 

may appear to improve conditions at the site of application, 

but often degrade conditions upstream or downstream of the 

ʻimprovement.ʼ They further concluded that channel morphology must be matched with the hydraulic, geologic, and vegetative constraints of the managed location, and that vegetation 

is probably the most important constraint from a management 

perspective. Thus, they suggested that more resources should 

be directed toward encouraging and maintaining vegetation 

and channel characteristics associated with natural riparian 

ecosystems and less towards altering them. 

In terms of the observed effects of roads adjacent to 

stream channels, and suspended sediment particles resulting 

from their erosion, management of travel intensity and, more 

importantly, road construction and maintenance may strongly 

influence channel morphology and distribution of particle 

sizes, which may in turn impact fish populations. Roth et al. 

(1996) found that indices of biotic integrity of habitat and fish 

assemblages were highly correlated, and that habitat quality 

and stream biotic integrity were negatively correlated with 

extent of agriculture but positively correlated with extent of 

wetlands and forest. However, they found that correlations 

were strongest at the broadest spatial scales, and became less 

strong at more local scales. 

Alterations in flow regime, due to diversions, dams, and 

other developments, have received extensive coverage in the 

ecological literature. Riparian species occur at different distances from and elevations above the mean active channel, and 

these distributions result from the frequency of flood disturbance that each ʻzoneʼ experiences (Harris 1986). Altered flow 

regimes can thus lead to changes in species composition in 

previously scoured zones, reduced sediments and nutrients as 

well as lower soil moisture conditions in intermediate zones, 

and altered area, density, composition, and species diversity 

of riparian vegetation in terms of its distance from the stream 

(Harris 1986, Kondolf et al. 1987). Auble et al. (1994) used 

TWINSPAN to define three vegetative cover types among 

133 1-x-2-m rectangular plots in five gravel bars in a national 

monument along the Gunnison River by clustering plots 

according to species occurrence. They used a hydraulic model 

to determine the discharge necessary to inundate each plot, a 

flow-duration curve (from the hydrologic record) to determine 

inundation duration, and estimated quantitative changes in 

cover types based on three hypothetical flow regimes. They 

concluded that riparian vegetation is particularly sensitive to 

changes in minimum and maximum flows, and that, because 

species respond individualistically to environmental change, 

species-level (rather than community-level) monitoring would 

be (1) most likely to exhibit detectable change, and (2) most 

appropriate for understanding details of a spatio-temporally 

complex response (Auble et al. 1994). 

Kondolf et al. (1987), using a hydrologic approach that 

linked streamflow and availability of water to riparian plants, 

similarly concluded that autecology of individual species 

would define a communityʼs response to changes in flow 

regime. They advocated four methods for collecting relevant 

hydrologic data, and found that width of the riparian corridor 

was more variable in a U-shaped glacial valley than in alluvial 

fans, which were often in hydrologically losing reaches (i.e., 

losing water to groundwater; Kondolf et al. 1987). In similar 

fashion, Richter et al. (1996) outlined 32 biologically relevant 

hydrologic parameters, based on magnitude, timing, frequency, and duration of water condition (especially droughts 

and floods), as well as the rate of change in water condition, 

for assessing hydrologic alteration.

In this research, we have chosen to sample many aspects 

of not only the riparian corridor and its associated plant species, but also the adjacent upland communities. Several of 

the methods proved to be either difficult to implement (e.g., 

aggregate soil stability, penetration resistance) or generally not appropriate for riparian systems of the Snake Range 

(e.g., basal-gap intercepts). Even without completing these 

methods at all sites, this research involved intensive sampling 

Further Management Implications 41
at each cross-sectional site. The cost of this for researchers 

is a sacrifice of statistical power that could be achieved by 

sampling fewer or less-time-intensive methods at a greater 

number of sites, as has been done by other researchers (e.g., 

Baker 1989, Frissell and Liss 1993, Smith et al. 1994). From 

an optimistic perspective, given that the transects are already 

established and locations of each of four pieces of rebar per 

cross-section have been recorded with a differentially corrected global positioning system unit, we suspect that all 31 

sites could be subsequently re-sampled in 14-18 full field days 

by individuals possessing familiarity with the riparian flora of 

the southern Snake Range. As with any research, monitoringfocused investigations must balance the concerns of number 

of ecosystem attributes measured, extensiveness in time and 

space of sampling periods and locations, with the time and 

cost of sampling.

Because most of our sampling strata contained only two 

replicate cross-sectional sites, this baseline has very little 

statistical power to detect even relatively large changes within 

any particular stratum of valley type and vegetation type. Following discussions with park staff about desired monitoring 

foci before we began the site selection, instead of providing 

the park with very detailed information about one hydrogeomorphic type or one drainage, we have provided a baseline 

that can serve as a repeatable template (using methods clearly 

stated in this publication) for future studies on status and trend 

of riparian resources of the park. Because we have more than 

30 potential response variables (each of which demonstrated 

unique variability and CVs), eight hydrogeomorphic types, 

and approximately 6 vegetation types, a posteriori power 

analyses to assess the robustness of our sampling would serve 

little value. Such analyses are often used to determine, after 

research has been completed and a null hypothesis was failed 

to be rejected, how many sample units it would have taken to 

be able to detect a trend of, say, 50% (or 25%, or 10%) with 

a 95% degree of confidence, given the observed variability in 

the indicator variable. We would advocate such analyses after 

either management or future researchers decide to narrow the 

scope of the research and focus on key questions and drivers 

in these systems.

While the relatively high productivity of riparian systems 

can allow for comparatively rapid recovery of these systems 

from disturbances (Yount and Niemi 1990), other authors 

have argued that succession of vegetation may occur only 

after significant time lags (Buckhouse et al. 1981), or may be 

highly influenced by “climatic” factors such as nutrient chemistry (Fisher 1990). Fisher (1990) further argued that, at least 

for desert streams, the idea of succession should be replaced 

by the paradigm of stability theory because succession often 

does not result in a climax state. Much remains to be learned 

about recovery from disturbance in lotic ecosystems. Among 

other aspects, researchers have highlighted the need to better 

understand consequences of homogeneous versus heterogeneous distributions of disturbance; how the local extent of 

disturbance relates to the patchʼs regional context; critical 

versus noncritical patches (in terms of size and location) of 

disturbance at different spatial and temporal scales; delineation 

of reversible and nonreversible processes; and physical and 

biological constraints on the time frame for recovery (Gore et 

al. 1990). 

42 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
References Cited.

Auble, G.T., J.M. Friedman, and M.L. Scott. 1994. Relating riparian vegetation to present and future streamflows. 

Ecological Applications 4:544-554.

Auble, G.T., and M.L. Scott. 1998. Fluvial disturbance 

patches and cottonwood recruitment along the upper Missouri River, Mont. Wetlands 18:546-556.

Baker, V.R. 1977. Stream-channel response to floods, with 

examples from central Texas. Geological Society of 

America Bulletin 88:1057-1071.

Beschta, R.L., and W.S. Platts. 1986. Morphological features of small streams: significance and function. Water 

Resources Bulletin 22:369-379.

Beever, E.A. 1999. Species- and community-level responses 

to disturbance imposed by feral horse grazing and other 

management practices. Ph.D. dissertation, University of 

Nevada, Reno.

Beever, E.A., and D.A. Pyke. 2002. Soil and vegetation 

changes related to livestock removal at Mojave National 

Preserve. Annual report to the Preserve, unpublished. 

Beever, E.A., D.A. Pyke, S. Smith, and J.C. Chambers. 

Monitoring change over time in riparian vegetation of Great 

Basin National Park. In press, Western North American 

Naturalist. 

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of 

livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in 

the western United States. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation 54:419-431.

Binkley, D., and T.C. Brown. 1993. Management impacts on 

water quality of forests and rangelands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-239. Rocky Mountain 

Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colo.

Block, W.M., and L.A. Brennan. 1993. The habitat concept in 

ornithology. Pages 35-91 In: D.M. Power, editor. Current 

ornithology, vol. 11. Plenum Press, New York, N. Y. 

Brotherton, D.I. 1979. On the origin and characteristics of 

river channel patterns. Journal of Hydrology 44:211-230.

Brown, J.H. 1971. Mammals on mountaintops: nonequilibrium insular biogeography. American Naturalist 105:467-

478.

Buckhouse, J.C., J.M. Skovlin, and R.W. Knight. 1981. 

Streambank erosion and ungulate grazing relationships. 

Journal of Range Management 34:339-340.

Bull, E.L. 1978. Specialized habitat requirements of birds: 

snag management, old growth, and riparian habitat. Pages 

74-82 in R.M. DeGraaf, editor, Proceedings of the workshop on nongame bird habitat management in coniferous 

forests of the western United States. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-64. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, LaGrande, 

Oreg. 

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

1993. Riparian area management: process for assessing 

proper functioning condition. Technical Reference 1737-9. 

Proper Functioning Condition Work Group, USDOI-BLM 

Service Center, Denver, Colo. D. Prichard, Work Group 

Leader. 

Chambers, J.C., K. Farleigh, R.J. Tausch, J.R. Miller, D. Germanoski, D. Martin, and C. Nowak. 1998. Understanding 

long- and short-term changes in vegetation and geomorphic 

processes: the key to riparian restoration. Pages 101-110 in 

D.F. Potts, editor, Proceedings: Rangeland Management 

and Water Resources, 1998 May 27-29. American Water 

Resources Association and Society for Range Management, 

Reno, Nev.

Chambers, J.C., R.T. Tausch, J.L. Korfmacher, D. Germanoski, J.R. Miller, and D. Jewett. 2004. Effects of 

geomorphic processes and hydrologic regimes on riparian vegetation. Pages 196-231 In: J.C. Chambers and J.R. 

Miller, editors, Great Basin riparian areas: ecology, management, and restoration. Island Press, Covelo, Calif. 

Charlet, D.A. 1996. Atlas of Nevada conifers. University of 

Nevada Press, Reno, Nev. 

Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses 

of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of 

Ecology 18:117-143.

Dolloff, C.A., and M.L. Warren. 2003. Fish relationships 

with large wood in small streams. Pages 179-193 In: S.V. 

Gregory, K.L. Boyer, and A.M. Gurnell, editors, The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. American 

Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Md. 444 

pages.

Dufrêne, M., and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages 

and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical 

approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345-366.

Elmore, W., and B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and watershed 

systems: degradation and restoration. In: M. Vavra, W.A. 

Laycock, and R.D. Pieper, editors. Ecological implications 

of livestock herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colo. 

Fasham, M.J.R. 1977. A comparison of nonmetric multidimensional scaling, principal components and reciprocal 

averaging for the ordination of simulated coenoclines and 

coenoplanes. Ecology 58:551-561.

References Cited 43
Fisher, S.G. 1990. Recovery processes in lotic ecosystems: 

limits of successional theory. Environmental Management 14:725-736. 

Friedman, J.M., and V.J. Lee. 2002. Extreme floods, channel change and riparian forests along ephemeral streams. 

Ecological Monographs 72:409-425.

Friedman, J.M., W.R. Osterkamp, and W.M. Lewis, Jr. 1996. 

Channel narrowing and vegetation development following a 

Great Plains flood. Ecology 77:2167-2181.

Frissell, C.A., and W.J. Liss. 1993. Valley segment classification for the streams of Great Basin National Park, Nevada. 

Report prepared for the Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oreg. 

Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurley. 1986. 

A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: 

viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental 

Management 10:199-214. 

Gore, J.A., J.R. Kelly, and J.D. Yount. 1990. Application 

of ecological theory to determining recovery potential of 

disturbed lotic ecosystems: research needs and priorities. 

Environmental Management 14:755-762.

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. 

BioScience 41:540-551. 

Hack, J.T. 1957. Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in 

Virginia and Maryland. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 294-B:45-97.

Hagans, D.K., W.E. Weaver, and M.A. Madej. 1986. Longterm on-site and off-site effects of logging and erosion 

in the Redwood Creek Basin, northern California. Pages 

38-65 In: Papers presented at the American Geophysical 

Union meeting on cumulative effects. Technical bulletin 

490. National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, 

New York, N. Y.

Harr, R.D., and R.A. Nichols. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads 

to help restore fish habitat: a northwest Washington example. Fisheries 18:18-22. 

Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. 

Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field 

technique. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report 

RM-245. Fort Collins, Colo.

Harris, R.R. 1986. Occurrence patterns of riparian plants and 

their significance to water resource development. Biological Conservation 38:273-286.

Harris, R.R. 1988. Associations between stream valley geomorphology and riparian vegetation as a basis for landscape 

analysis in the eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. 

Environmental Management 12:219-228.

Herrick, J.E., J.R. Brown, A. Tugel, P.L. Shaver and K.M. 

Havstad. 2002. Application of soil quality to monitoring and management: paradigms from rangeland ecology. 

Agronomy Journal 94: 3-11

Herrick, J.E., W.G. Whitford, A.G. de Soyza, J.W. Van Zee, 

K.M. Havstad, C.A. Seybold, M. Walton. 2001. Soil aggregate stability kit for field-based soil quality and rangeland 

health evaluations. Catena 44:27-35.

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, and W.G. Whitford. In press. Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland 

and savanna ecosystems. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental 

Range, Las Cruces, N. M.

Hessburg, P.F., B.G. Smith, S.D. Kreiter, et al. 1999. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the interior 

Columbia River Basin and portions of the Klamath and 

Great Basins. Part I: Linking vegetation patterns and 

landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen 

disturbances. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-458, 

U.S.D.A.-Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oreg. 

Hilderbrand, R.H., A.D. Lemly, and C.A. Dolloff. 1997. 

Effects of large woody debris placement on stream channels and benthic macroinvertebrates. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:931-939.

Holling, C.S., and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control 

and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328-337.

Johnson, N.K. 1978. Patterns of avian biogeography and 

speciation in the intermountain region. The Great Basin 

Naturalist Memoirs 2:137-160.

Kauffman, J.B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts 

on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications ... a review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-

438.

Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial forms and processes: a new perspective. Arnold, London, United Kingdom.

 Kondolf, G.M., J.W. Webb, M.J. Sale, and T. Felando. 1987. 

Basic hydrologic studies for assessing impacts of flow 

diversions on riparian vegetation: examples from streams of 

the eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Environmental 

Management 11:757-769.

Krueper, D., J. Bart, and T.D. Rich. 2003. Response of vegetation and breeding birds to the removal of cattle on the 

San Pedro River, Arizona (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology 

17:607-615.

44 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Kruskal, J.B. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a 

numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115-129. 

Lavee, H. and J. W. A. Poesen. 1991. Overland flow generation and continuity on stone-covered soil surfaces. Hydrological Processes 5:345-360.

Lawlor, T.E. 1998. Biogeography of Great Basin mammals: 

paradigm lost? Journal of Mammalogy 79:1111-1130. 

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, J.E. Williams et al. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species 

and habitats. Pages 1057-1496 In: T.M. Quigley and S.J. 

Arbedbide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of 

ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and 

portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. U.S.D.A.-Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oreg. 

Mallea-Olaetxe, J. 2000. Speaking through the aspens: 

Basque tree carvings in Nevada and California. University 

of Nevada Press, Reno, Nev.

Mather, P.M. 1976. Computational methods of multivariate 

analysis in physical geography. J. Wiley & Sons, London. 

532 pages. 

McCawley, P.F., and E.L. Smith. 1986. Monitoring range 

trend with species frequency: guide to measurement, analysis, and interpretation. Cooperative Extension Service, Utah 

State University Range Science Dept., Logan, Utah. 

McCune, B. 1994. Improving community analysis with the 

Beals smoothing function. Ecoscience 1:82-86.

McCune, B., and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological 

communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, 

Oreg. 

Mielke, P.W., Jr. 1984. Meteorological applications of permutation techniques based on distance functions. Pages 813-

830 In: P.R. Krishnaiah and P.K. Sen, editors. Handbook of 

statistics, volume 4. Elsevier Science Publishers. 

Mielke, P.W., Jr., and K.J. Berry. 2001. Permutation methods: 

a distance function approach. Springer Series in Statistics. 

344 pages. 

Miller, J., D. Germanoski, K. Waltman, R. Tausch, and J. 

Chambers. 2001. Influence of late Holocene processes and 

landforms on modern channel dynamics in upland watersheds of central Nevada. Geomorphology 38:373-391.

Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and 

methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New York, N. Y.

Murphy, M.L., and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Stream ecosystems. 

Pages 17-46 In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 19. 

Myers, T., and S. Swanson. 1996. Stream morphological 

impact of and recovery from major flooding in north-central 

Nevada. Physical Geography 17:431-445.

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role 

of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. 

Ecological Applications 3:209-212. 

Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative 

assessment of risk. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 16:693-727.

Newmark, W.D. 1995. Extinction of mammal populations in 

western North American national parks. Conservation Biology 9:512-526.

Nilsson, G. Grelsson, M. Johansson, and U. Sperens. 1989. 

Patterns of plant species richness along riverbanks. Ecology 70:77-84.

Ohmart, R.D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of 

livestock grazing on fish and wildlife resources in western 

riparian habitats. Pages 245-279 In: P.R. Krausman, editor. Rangeland wildlife. Society for Range Management, 

Denver, Colo. 

Reid, L.M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from 

forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20:1753-

1761. 

Richardson, E.V., B. Simons, S. Karaki, M. Mahmood, and 

M.A. Stevens. 1975. Highways in the river environment: 

hydraulic and environmental design considerations training 

and design manual. U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Richmond, A.D., and K.D. Fausch. 1995. Characteristics and 

function of large woody debris in subalpine Rocky Mountain streams in northern Colorado. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:1789-802

Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D.P. Braun. 

1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within 

ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10:1163-1174.

Ritter, D.F., R.C. Kochel, and J.R. Miller. 2002. Process geomorphology, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, N. Y.

 Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A stream classification system. Pages 

91-91 In: R.R. Johnson et al., technical coordinators. Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report 

RM-120.

Sarr, D., R.A. Knapp, J. Owens, T. Balser, and T.L. Dudley. 

1996. Ecosystem recovery from livestock grazing in the 

southern Sierra Nevada. Final report submitted to Aldo 

Leopold Research Institute, Missoula, Mont. 

References Cited 45
Skovlin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and 

riparian habitat: a review of our knowledge. Pages 1001-

1013 In: Developing strategies for range management. 

Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 

Smith, S.D., K.J. Murray, F.H. Landau, and A. Sala. 1994. 

The woody riparian vegetation of Great Basin National 

Park. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, 

National Biological Survey, University of Nevada, Las 

Vegas. Contribution #CPSU/UNLV 050/03. C.L. Douglas, 

NPS Sr. Research Scientist.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. 

Conservation Biology 14:18-30.

Thomas, J.W., technical editor. 1979. Wildlife habitats in 

managed forests of the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, with U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, and the Wildlife Management 

Institute, Washington, D.C.

Weaver, W.E., M.M. Hektner, D.K. Hagans, L.J. Reed, R.A. 

Sonneville, and G.J. Bundros. 1987. An evaluation of 

experimental rehabilitation work, Redwood National Park. 

Technical report 19. Redwood National Park, Arcata, Calif. 

Yount, J.D., and G.J. Niemi. 1990. Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—a narrative review 

of case studies. Environmental Management 14:547-569.

Wilcox, B.A., D.D. Murphy, P.R. Ehrlich, and G.T. Austin. 

1986. Insular biogeography of the montane butterfly faunas 

in the Great Basin: comparison with birds and mammals. 

Oecologia 69:188-194.

Williams, T., W. Cole, A.H. Pfaff, and K. Pfaff. 1999. Aquatic 

resources monitoring protocols, Great Basin National Park. 

White paper for GBNP Park use. 22 pp.

Wolman, G.M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse riverbed material. American Geophysical Union Transactions 

35:951-956.

Wondzell, S.M., and P.A. Bisson. 2003. Influence of wood on 

aquatic biodiversity. Pages 249-263 In: S.V. Gregory, K.L. 

Boyer, and A.M. Gurnell, editors, The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, 

Symposium 37, Bethesda, Md. 444 pages.

Young, J.A., and B.A. Sparks. 2002. Cattle in the cold desert, 

expanded edition. University of Nevada Press. Reno, Nev. 

46 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Snake Creek watershed; sampled 21 and 24 July 2002.

0.0 - 0.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.0 mi: 11 748603 E, 4311698 N — Elevation: 6177 ft. (1893 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPANG RHUARO ROSWOO CORSER SARVER SYMORE SALIsp. BETOCC

S side: POPANG RHUARO CORSER ROSWOO BETOCC PINMON JUNOST

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI EPHVIR SARVER SYMORE

S side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS CERLED AMELsp. SYMORE EPHVIR

Notes: first (lowest-elevation) BETOCC in park detected 0.15 mi from boundary, at 6,230ʼ elev.

0.2 - 0.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.2 mi: 11 748292 E, 4311629 N — Elevation: 6230 ft. (1899 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG RHUARO ROSWOO SALEXI BETOCC SEROCC CHRVIS

S side: POPANG BETOCC CORSER RHUARO ROSWOO JUNOST

Upland species

N side: JUNOST PINMON ARTTRI EPHVIR SARVER CERLED CHRVIS

S side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI SYMORE EPHNEV Elym cine CHRVIS

0.4 - 0.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.4 mi: 11 747977 E, 4311586 N — Elevation: 6294 ft. (1918 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG RHUARO BETOCC SALEXI CORSER ROSWOO SARVER EQUIspp.

S side: POPANG BETOCC CORSER RHUARO SALEXI JUNOST PINMON

Upland species

N side: JUNOST PINMON ARTTRI CHRNAU GUT sp. EPHVIR GRAESP

S side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS EPHNEV ATRCON TETRsp.

Notes: lowest-elevation Equisetum detected in this segment; present along stream up to 5.4 mi from boundary

Appendix A Walking surveys of target watersheds.

Ranked cover data for woody species in 0.32-km (0.20-mile) segments along each of four creek mainstems on east-facing slopes in

Great Basin National Park, Snake Range, White Pine Co., NV. When a superscripted number follows a species’ abbreviation, only the 

superscripted number of individuals were observed within that 0.32-km stream reach. Taxonomic names and life-forms follow Hickman 

(1993) and abbreviations are defined at the end of this appendix. In cases where a species occurs as both a tree and a shrub, we used 

our judgment to select the most appropriate form to approximate the species’ structure and physiognomy in the Park. Perhaps the most 

contentious life-forms are our designation of all willows and Prunus virginiana as shrubs.

Appendix A 47
Snake Creek watershed; sampled 21 and 24 July 2002—Continued.

0.6 - 0.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.6 mi: 11 747643 E, 4311556 N — Elevation: 6290 ft. (1917 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG RHUARO BETOCC ROSWOO EQUIspp. CORSER SALEXI 

S side: POPANG CORSER RHUARO BETOCC ROSWOO SALEXI EPHVIR

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST CHRVIS EPHNEV ARTTRI SARVER SALEXI RHUARO

S side: ARTTRI PINMON JUNOST SARVER CHRVIS CHRNAU

0.8 - 1.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: POPANG ROSWOO RHUARO SALEXI BETOCC EQUIspp. CORSER

S side: POPANG BETOCC CORSER ROSWOO RHUARO SALEXI AMELsp.1

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST CHRNAU ARTTRI RHUARO SARVER

S side: PINMON ARTTRI POPANG CHRVIS SARVER CHRNAU SYMORE

1.0 - 1.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.0 mi: 11 747077 E, 4311185 N — Elevation: 6425 ft. (1958 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG RHUARO ROSWOO CORSER PSEMEN PINMON JUNOST SARVER SALEXI

S side: POPANG ROSWOO CORSER RHUARO AMELsp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRNAU CERLED EPHVIR RHUARO SARVER SYMORE

S side: POPANG PINMON ARTTRI CHRVIS CERLED JUNOST SYMORE EPHVIR CHRNAU

SARVER

1.2 - 1.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.2 mi: 11 746817 E, 4310948 N — Elevation: 6779 ft. (2066 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG ROSWOO RHUARO CORSER CHRVIS EQUIspp. 

S side: POPANG ROSWOO CORSER RHUARO JUNOST JUNIsp. BETOCC* 

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS CHRNAU POPANG

S side: ARTTRI CHRNAU JUNOST CHRVIS

*(all in upper 1/3 of transect)

1.4 - 1.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.4 mi: 11 746517 E, 4310822 N — Elevation: 6530 ft. (1990 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG ROSWOO RHUARO BETOCC SALEXI PINMON JUNOST EQUIspp.

S side: POPANG BETOCC SALEXI RHUARO ROSWOO JUNOST PINMON

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRYSsp. POPANG SARVER

S side: JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS PINMON CHRYSsp.

48 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Snake Creek watershed; sampled 21 and 24 July 2002—Continued.

1.6 - 1.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.6 mi: 11 746177 E, 4310812 N — Elevation: 6555 ft. (1998 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPANG ROSWOO BETOCC SALEXI RHUARO EQUIspp. 

S side: POPANG BETOCC SALEXI JUNOST RHUARO ROSWOO CORSER AMELsp.1

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS SARVER (or GRAESP)

S side: ARTTRI PINMON JUNOST CHRYSsp. SARVER* 

*only in highest-elevation portion of the 0.2 mi segment

1.8 - 2.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.8 mi: 11 745860 E, 4310753 N — Elevation: 6615 ft. (2016 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG BETOCC ROSWOO RHUARO SALEXI EQUIspp. 

S side: POPANG BETOCC PINMON ROSWOO SALEXI RHUARO

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS SARVER EPHVIR

S side: ARTTRI SARVER CHRYSsp. PINMON JUNOST SYMORE CHRNAU TETRsp.

2.0 - 2.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 2.0 mi: 11 745499 E, 4310829 N — Elevation: 6670 ft. (2033 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG BETOCC SALEXI ROSWOO RHUARO 

S side: BETOCC RHUARO POPANG ROSWOO SALEXI JUNOST EQUIspp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRYSsp. SARVER POPANG EPHVIR CHRNAU CERLED

EPHNEV1

S side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRNAU RHUARO SARVER

2.2 - 2.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 2.2 mi: 11 745155 E, 4310864 N — Elevation: 6752 ft. (2058 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG BETOCC ROSWOO RHUARO CORSER SALEXI EQUIspp.

S side: BETOCC RHUARO POPANG ROSWOO CORSER PINMON JUNOST

Upland species

N side: JUNOST PINMON ARTTRI RHUARO SARVER CHRVIS

S side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRNAU POPANG ROSWOO

Notes: stream not evident at surface above 2.25 mi

2.4 - 2.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Riparian species

POPANG ROSWOO POPTRE BETOCC RHUARO ABICON EPHVIR CERLED CORSER

AMELsp.

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRNAU POPANG RHUARO ROSWOO

Appendix A 49
Snake Creek watershed; sampled 21 and 24 July 2002—Continued.

2.6 - 2.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 2.6 mi: 11 744474 E, 4310901 N — Elevation: 6883 ft. (2098 m)

Riparian species

POPANG BETOCC POPTRE CORSER ROSWOO RHUARO ABICON

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS EPHVIR POPANG RHUARO

2.8 - 3.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 2.8 mi: 11 744139 E, 4310961 N — Elevation: 6948 ft. (2118 m) 

Riparian species

POPANG POPTRE CORSER BETOCC ROSWOO RHUARO ABICON CERLED SALEXI

RIBESsp. SYMORE

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI RHUARO CHRVIS POPANG POPTRE CHRNAU

Notes: stream evident at surface briefly in segment

3.0 - 3.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 3.0 mi: 11 743795 E, 4311146 N — Elevation: 7029 ft. (2142 m)

Riparian species

POPANG BETOCC POPTRE ROSWOO CORSER SALEXI RHUARO ABICON

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI POPANG CERLED RHUARO ROSWOO CHRVIS CHRNAU

3.2 - 3.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 3.2 mi: 11 743441 E, 4311399 N — Elevation: 7111 ft. (2167 m)

Riparian species

SALEXI POPANG BETOCC ABICON RHUARO ROSWOO CHRVIS CHRNAU PRUVIR

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS CHRNAU

Note: no trees observed between 3.20 - 3.36 mi

3.4 - 3.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 3.4 mi: 11 743111 E, 4311567 N — Elevation: 7180 ft. (2188 m) 

Riparian species

POPANG PINMON JUNOST BETOCC ABICON CORSER ROSWOO SYMORE

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CHRVIS CHRNAU

3.6 - 3.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 3.6 mi: 11 742790 E, 4311600 N — Elevation: 7249 ft. (2209 m)

Riparian species

PINMON JUNOST ABICON CORSER POPANG ROSWOO SYMORE POPTRE PSEMEN

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI EPHVIR CHRNAU SYMORE CERLED

3.8 - 4.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 3.8 mi: 11 742468 E, 4311648 N — Elevation: 7337 ft. (2236 m) 

Riparian species

POPANG PINMON JUNOST BETOCC ABICON CORSER ROSWOO SYMORE POPTRE

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CERLED RHUARO CHRVIS

50 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Snake Creek watershed; sampled 21 and 24 July 2002—Continued.

4.0 - 4.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 4.0 mi: 11 742147 E, 4311623 N — Elevation: 7390 ft. (2252 m)

Riparian species

POPANG ABICON PINMON ROSWOO POPTRE BETOCC JUNOST RHUARO

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST CERLED ARTTRI CHRVIS POPTRE PSEMEN2 EPHVIR

4.2 - 4.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 4.2 mi: 11 741822 E, 4311609 N — Elevation: 7400 ft. (2256 m) 

Riparian species

POPTRE BETOCC ABICON ROSWOO CORSER SYMORE POPANG RHUARO

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST CERLED ARTTRI EPHVIR CHRVIS RIBESsp. RHUARO

4.4 - 4.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 4.4 mi: 11 741506 E, 4311568 N — Elevation: 7468 ft. (2276 m)

Riparian species

ABICON POPTRE PINMON POPANG BETOCC CORSER ROSWOO SYMORE

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST CERLED CHRVIS ARTTRI ROSWOO POPANG RHUARO

Note: lowest-elevation individual P. flexilis in Snake Creek observed in this segment

4.6 - 4.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 4.6 mi: 11 741180 E, 4311578 N — Elevation: 7524 ft. (2293 m)

Riparian species

POPTRE CORSER ROSWOO SYMORE RIBESsp. POPANG ABICON BETOCC

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST CERLED CHRVIS PSEMEN ARTTRI SYMORE EPHVIR CHRNAU

ROSWOO

4.8 - 5.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 4.8 mi: 11 740854 E, 4311686 N — Elevation: 7588 ft. (2313 m)

Riparian species

POPTRE ABICON POPANG BETOCC CORSER PICENG

Upland species

PINMON JUNOST CERLED ARTTRI CHRVIS PSEMEN PINFLE SYMORE ROSWOO

Note: lowest-elevation (7,609ʼ) individual P. englemanii in Snake Creek observed in this segment

Note 2: water again evident above the surface at and above 4.92 mi

5.0 - 5.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 5.0 mi: 11 740532 E, 4311772 N — Elevation: 7611 ft. (2320 m) 

Riparian species

N side: ABICON BETOCC POPTRE PINPON CORSER JUNCOM SALEXI SALspp. ROSWOO

S side: BETOCC POPTRE ABICON CORSER SYMORE ROSWOO PINPON JUNOST PICENG

EQUIspp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST SYMORE PSEMEN POPTRE POPANG PICENG

S side: POPANG ABICON SYMORE PINMON JUNOST ROSWOO

Note: lowest-elevation (7,611ʼ) individual P. ponderosa in Snake Creek observed in this segment

Appendix A 51
Snake Creek watershed; sampled 21 and 24 July 2002—Continued.

5.2 - 5.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 5.2 mi: 11 740211 E, 4311751 N — Elevation: 7672 ft. (2338 m) 

N side: POPTRE BETOCC POPANG ABICON CORSER SALspp.

S side: BETOCC CORSER POPTRE ABICON SYMORE ROSWOO POPANG

Upland species

N side: POPTRE CERLED ARTTRI ROSWOO CHRNAU AMELsp. SYMORE JUNCOM

S side: POPTRE ABICON ARTTRI SYMORE ROSWOO PICENG PINMON CHRNAU

5.4 - 5.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 5.4 mi: 11 739890 E, 4311778 N — Elevation: 7657 ft. (2334 m)

Riparian species

BETOCC ABICON SALspp. POPTRE ROSWOO SALEXI AMELsp.

Upland species

ABICON ARTTRI CERLED ROSWOO PINMON JUNOST SYMORE SALEXI CHRVIS

Note: P. tremuloides absent from 5.43 - 5.58 mi

5.6 - 5.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 5.6 mi: 11 739566 E, 4311951 N — Elevation: 7859 ft. (2395 m)

Riparian species

BETOCC ABICON SALspp. ROSWOO POPTRE JUNOST SALEXI PRUVIR PICENG

Upland species

CERLED POPTRE ARTTRI PINMON SYMORE ABICON CHRVIS AMEALN

Note: lowest-elevation individual P. engelmanii in Snake Creek observed in this segment

Note 2: Equisetum spp. present along stream from 5.4 - 6.8 mi

5.8 - 6.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 5.8 mi: 11 739238 E, 4312046 N — Elevation: 7923 ft. (2415 m)

Riparian species

BETOCC ABICON POPTRE SALspp. ROSWOO PICENG

Upland species

ARTTRI CERLED PINMON AMELsp. SALEXI SYMORE ROSWOO CHRVIS PRUVIR

6.0 - 6.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 6.0 mi: 11 738927 E, 4312083 N — Elevation: 7977 ft. (2431 m)

Riparian species

POPTRE BETOCC ABICON PICENG SALspp. PINFLE ROSWOO AMELsp.

Upland species

ARTTRI CERLED CHRVIS ROSWOO SYMORE AMELsp. JUNOST

6.2 - 6.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 6.2 mi: 11 738597 E, 4312086 N — Elevation: 8043 ft. (2452 m)

Riparian species

BETOCC PICENG POPTRE ROSWOO ABICON SYMORE SALspp.

Upland species

POPTRE ARTTRI SYMORE ROSWOO CERLED JUNOST ABICON PINMON

52 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Snake Creek watershed; sampled 21 and 24 July 2002—Continued.

6.4 - 6.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 6.4 mi: 11 738278 E, 4312091 N — Elevation: 8126 ft. (2477 m) 

Riparian species

POPTRE BETOCC SALIsp. PICENG ABICON PINFLE PINPON

Upland species

ARTTRI POPTRE SYMORE CHRVIS MAHREP JUNOST

6.6 - 6.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 6.6 mi: 11 737978 E, 4312517 N — Elevation: 8312 ft. (2533 m)

Riparian species

PICENG POPTRE ABICON SYMORE AMEALN SALspp. ROSWOO Carex spp.

Upland species

POPTRE ARTTRI ABICON PINFLE SYMORE CERLED JUNCOM PINPON ARCPAT

6.8 - 7.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 6.8 mi: 11 737651 E, 4312550 N — Elevation: 8385 ft. (2556 m)

Riparian species

PICENG SALIsp. POPTRE Carex spp.

Upland species

POPTRE PICENG ABICON PINPON SYMORE MAHREP BETOCC

7.0 - 7.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 7.0 mi: 11 737333 E, 4312836 N — Elevation: 8582 ft. (2616 m)

Riparian species

PICENG POPTRE SALIsp. ABICON PINFLE Carex spp. : 

Upland species

POPTRE PICENG SYMORE PINPON JUNCOM MAHREP ARCPAT RIBESsp. ABICON

PSEMEN AMELsp.

7.2 - 7.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 7.2 mi: 11 737006 E, 4312642 N — Elevation: 8759 ft. (2670 m)

Riparian species

PICENG POPTRE PINPON ABICON Carex spp.

Upland species

POPTRE PICENG PINPON SYMORE SALspp. ABICON MAHREP AMELsp. JUNCOM

ARCPAT

7.4 - 7.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 7.4 mi: 11 736693 E, 4312595 N — Elevation: 8922 ft. (2719 m)

Riparian species

PICENG ABICON POPTRE Carex spp.

Upland species

PICENG PINPON ABICON MAHREP PSEMEN SYMORE JUNCOM ARCPAT SAMBsp.

PINFLE

Appendix A 53
Snake Creek watershed; sampled 21 and 24 July 2002—Continued.

7.6 - 7.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary [no N-S heterogeneity]

Location of 7.6 mi: 11 736376 E, 4312711 N — Elevation: 9158 ft. (2791 m)

Riparian species

PICENG PSEMEN ABICON PINFLE POPTRE Carex spp.

Upland species

POPTRE MAHREP ARCPAT PINFLE PSEMEN JUNCOM SYMORE AMELsp. ROSWOO

RIBESsp.

Strawberry Creek watershed; sampled 18 July 2002.

0.0 - 0.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC PINMON POPTRE SALEXI JUNOST ROSWOO ABICON.

S side: BETOCC SALEXI ROSWOO PINMON

Upland species

N side: PINMON ARTTRI CHRNAU JUNOST

S side: PINMON ARTTRI CHRNAU JUNOST .

Notes: first (lowest-elevation) ABICON in park detected in this segnent.

0.2 - 0.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC SALEXI ROSWOO PINMON

S side: BETOCC ROSWOO PINMON POPTRE SALspp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON ARTTRI ROSWOO ABICON JUNOST

S side: PINMON ARTTRI CHRNAU

0.4 - 0.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC SALspp. ABICON .

S side: BETOCC SALspp. PINMON ABICON1

Upland species

N side: PINMON ROSWOO ARTTRI JUNOST CHRNAU

S side: PINMON ROSWOO CHRVIS .

0.6 - 0.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC SALIsp. POPTRE* 

S side: BETOCC SALEXI POPTRE* 

*(upper 100 m of segment only)

Upland species

N side: PINMON ROSWOO CHRNAU JUNOST

S side: PINMON SALEXI ROSWOO ARTTRI SYMORE1 CHRVIS Elym cine

54 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Strawberry Creek watershed; sampled 18 July 2002—Continued.

0.8 - 1.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC SALEXI ROSWOO PINMON SALIsp.

S side: BETOCC SALEXI ROSWOO PINMON

Upland species

N side: PINMON ROSWOO ABICON JUNOST CHRNAU ARTTRI

S side: PINMON JUNOST

1.0 - 1.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC SALEXI ABICON SALIsp.

S side: BETOCC SALIsp. PINMON ROSWOO SALEXI

Upland species

N side: PINMON ROSWOO JUNOST SALEXI ABICON1

S side: PINMON ROSWOO CHRNAU ARTTRI

1.2 - 1.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.2 mi: 11 735314 E, 4326881 N — Elevation: 7356 ft. (2242 m)

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC POPTRE SALIsp. SALEXI ROSWOO 

S side: BETOCC PINMON POPTRE ABICON

Upland species

N side: PINMON ROSWOO JUNOST ABICON CHRVIS ARTTRI

S side: PINMON ROSWOO ARTTRI PSEMEN

Notes: lowest-elevation PSEMEN observed at 1.40 mi

1.4 - 1.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC POPTRE SALIsp. ROSWOO CORSER

S side: POPTRE BETOCC ROSWOO ABICON PSEMEN1

Upland species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO ABICON PINMON CORSER

S side: PINMON ARTTRI CHRNAU SYMORE

1.6 - 1.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE BETOCC ROSWOO SALIsp. SALEXI CORSER 

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO BETOCC ABICON

Upland species

N side: POPTRE PINMON ROSWOO ABICON CHRNAU ARTTRI PURTRI SYMORE

S side: POPTRE CORSER ABICON ROSWOO PSEMEN1

1.8 - 2.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE BETOCC SALspp. ABICON 

S side: BETOCC POPTRE SYMORE CORSER ROSWOO SALEXI

Upland species

N side: PINMON SYMORE ROSWOO CERLED ARTTRI CHRVIS CHRNAU

S side: BETOCC ABICON PSEMEN

Appendix A 55
Strawberry Creek watershed; sampled 18 July 2002—Continued.

2.0 - 2.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ABICON BETOCC SALspp. 

S side: BETOCC POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp.

Note: POPTRE dominant in upper half, BETOCC in lower half

Upland species

N side: PINMON ROSWOO SYMORE ARTTRI CERLED1 Elym cine

S side: POPTRE PINMON ROSWOO CHRNAU ARTTRI

2.2 - 2.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE BETOCC SALspp. ABICON PINMON

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO BETOCC SYMORE

Upland species

N side: PINMON ROSWOO SYMORE Elym cine CHRNAU

S side: PINMON POPTRE ABICON ARTTRI CHRVIS

2.4 - 2.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO ABICON SALIsp. SYMORE

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO SYMORE SALIsp.

Upland species

N side: POPTRE ARTTRI ROSWOO PINMON

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO PINMON ABICON

2.6 - 2.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 2.6 mi: 11 733466 E, 4326650 N — Elevation: 7839 ft. (2389 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE SALIsp. ROSWOO BETOCC1

S side: POPTRE SALIsp. ROSWOO

Upland species

N side: POPTRE ABICON ARTTRI ROSWOO

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO ABICON SYMORE

2.8 - 3.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp. ABICON

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO ABICON SYMORE BETOCC SALIsp.

Upland species

N side: POPTRE ABICON ARTTRI ROSWOO SYMORE CHRNAU

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO SYMORE PINMON ABICON

3.0 - 3.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Riparian species

N side: ABICON POPTRE SALspp. BETOCC

S side: ABICON POPTRE SALIsp. BETOCC

Upland species

N side: POPTRE ABICON SYMORE ARTTRI ROSWOO

S side: ABICON POPTRE ROSWOO SYMORE

56 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Strawberry Creek watershed; sampled 18 July 2002—Continued.

3.2 - 3.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 3.2 mi: 3.2 mi: 11 732715 E, 4326087 N — Elevation: 8096 ft. (2468 m)

Riparian species

N side: ABICON POPTRE SALspp. PICENG ROSWOO BETOCC

S side: ABICON POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp. PICENG

Upland species

N side: POPTRE ABICON SYMORE ARTTRI

S side: POPTRE ABICON ROSWOO PICENG

3.4 - 3.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 3.4 mi: 11 732071 E, 4325816 N — Elevation: 8464 ft. (2579 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ABICON PICENG

S side: PICENG POPTRE SALIsp.

Upland species

N side: POPTRE ABICON SYMORE ARTTRI CERLED

S side: POPTRE ABICON SYMORE PSEMEN

Baker Creek watershed; sampled 23 July and 13 Aug 2002.

0.0 - 0.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.0 mi: 11 741947 E, 4319471 N — Elevation: 6745 ft. (2056 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPANG SALEXI ROSWOO POPTRE BETOCC RHARO RIBESsp. 

S side: ROSWOO POPANG BETOCC SALEXI POPTRE PINMON JUNIsp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST CERLED ARTTRI MAHREP EPHVIR PRUVIR PINPON JUNSCO

CHRVIS

S side: PINMON ARTTRI CERLED RHUARO OPUNsp. MAHREP EPHNEV PURTRI

0.2 - 0.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.2 mi: 11 741625 E, 4319382 N — Elevation: 6779 ft. (2066 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE SALEXI ROSWOO PRUVIR SALIsp. POPANG 

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALEXI PRUVIR POPANG SYMORE RHUARO PINMON JUNIsp.

ABICON

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI CERLED EPHVIR MAHREP ABICON CHRVIS CHRNAU

RHUARO

S side: ARTTRI PINMON JUNIsp. EPHVIR CHRVIS RHUARO SYMORE OPUNsp. RIBESsp.

Notes: lowest-elevation A. concolor detected in this segment

Appendix A 57
Baker Creek watershed; sampled 23 July and 13 Aug 2002—Continued.

0.4 - 0.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.4 mi: 11 741323 E, 4319316 N — Elevation: 6853 ft. (2089 m)

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC ROSWOO PRUVIR POPTRE POPANG SALIsp. 

S side: BETOCC ROSWOO SALIsp. PRUVIR CERLED ABICON PINMON SAMBsp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST CERLED ABICON MAHREP ARTTRI CHRNAU EPHVIR RIBESsp.

PURTRI HOLOsp. SAMBsp. CHRVIS

S side: PINMON ARTTRI EPHVIR JUNIsp. CERLED SYMORE RHUARO OPUNsp. AMELsp.

PURTRI SARVER

0.6 - 0.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.6 mi: 11 740996 E, 4319310 N — Elevation: 6948 ft. (2118 m)

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC PRUVIR ROSWOO POPTRE SALEXI SALIsp. 

S side: BETOCC SALIsp. ROSWOO PRUVIR POPTRE ABICON CERLED RIBESsp. CORSER

MAHREP EPHVIR JUNIsp. PINMON

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST CERLED EPHVIR ARTTRI CHRVIS RHUARO PURTRI MAHREP

S side: PINMON JUNOST EPHVIR ARTTRI SARVER AMELsp. CERLED RHUARO CHRVIS

SYMORE

0.8 - 1.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 0.8 mi: 11 740655 E, 4319428 N — Elevation: 7027 ft. (2142 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE BETOCC ROSWOO EQUIspp.

S side: POPTRE SALIsp. ROSWOO PRUVIR BETOCC JUNIsp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST CERLED ARTTRI PRUVIR EPHVIR MAHREP CHRVIS PURTRI

JUNCOM

S side: PINMON ARTTRI CERLED EPHVIR PRUVIR JUNIsp. OPUNsp. PURTRI MAHREP

RIBESsp. RUBIDA

1.0 - 1.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.0 mi: 11 740332 E, 4319468 N — Elevation: 7156 ft. (2181 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE BETOCC ROSWOO SALIsp. SALEXI

S side: SALIsp. BETOCC ROSWOO POPTRE ABICON JUNIsp. PINMON CORSER

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI EPHVIR ABICON MAHREP PRUVIR SYMORE CHRNAU

S side: PINMON ARTTRI CERLED JUNIsp. MAHREP SYMORE

58 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Baker Creek watershed; sampled 23 July and 13 Aug 2002—Continued.

1.2 - 1.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.2 mi: 11 740014 E, 4319379 N — Elevation: 7235 ft. (2205 m)

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC POPTRE SALEXI ROSWOO PRUVIR 

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALEXI BETOCC SALIsp. ABICON PINMON

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST CERLED ARTTRI MAHREP ABICON POPANG

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO JUNIsp. PINMON RIBESsp. SALIsp. ARTTRI SALEXI PRUVIR

CHRNAU SYMORE MAHREP

1.4 - 1.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.4 mi: 1 739702 E, 4319172 N — Elevation: 7348 ft. (2240 m)

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC ROSWOO POPTRE PRUVIR

S side: SALIsp. POPTRE ROSWOO POPANG PRUVIR BETOCC

Upland species

N side: PINMON CERLED ARTTRI POPTRE

S side: ARTTRI PINMON POPANG CHRNAU SYMORE RIBESsp. ABICON JUNIsp.

1.6 - 1.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.6 mi: 11 739380 E, 4319162 N — Elevation: 7465 ft. (2275 m) 

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC POPTRE SALEXI ROSWOO 

S side: BETOCC SALspp. POPTRE Carex-Junc ROSWOO

Upland species

N side: PINMON CERLED ABICON JUNOST PINPON ARTTRI MAHREP RHUARO PRUVIR

PURTRI

S side: POPTRE ABICON PINMON JUNOST Elym cine SYMORE* 

*trace

1.8 - 2.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 1.8 mi: 11 739083 E, 4318970 N — Elevation: 7548 ft. (2301 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG POPTRE BETOCC ROSWOO 

S side: ABICON POPTRE SALspp. BETOCC ROSWOO CORSER Carex-Junc PINFLE1

Upland species

N side: ABICON PINMON CERLED ARTTRI MAHREP SYMORE RIBESsp.

S side: ABICON POPTRE PINMON JUNOST SYMORE MAHREP .

2.0 - 2.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 2.0 mi: 11 738855 E, 4318561 N — Elevation: 7670 ft. (2338 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE BETOCC POPANG ROSWOO PICENG SALIsp. 

S side: POPTRE ABICON BETOCC SALIsp. PRUVIR ROSWOO

Upland species

N side: ABICON PINMON PICENG JUNOST ARTTRI RIBESsp. MAHREP SYMORE JUNCOM

S side: ABICON POPTRE JUNCOM PINMON JUNIsp. PICENG ROSWOO SYMORE RIBESsp.

Appendix A 59
Baker Creek watershed; sampled 23 July and 13 Aug 2002—Continued.

2.2 - 2.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 2.2 mi: 11 738809 E, 4318561 N — Elevation: 7909 ft. (2411 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO POPANG

S side: POPTRE POPANG ABICON ROSWOO PICENG BETOCC PRUVIR

Upland species

N side: PICENG PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI

S side: POPTRE PICENG ABICON ARTTRI SYMORE RIBESsp. JUNOST JUNSCO

2.4 - 2.6 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 2.4 mi: 11 738512 E, 4317629 N — Elevation: 8031 ft. (2448 m)

Riparian species

POPTRE SALIsp. ABICON

Upland species

ARTTRI ABICON PINMON POPTRE SALspp.* ROSWOO JUNIsp.

*on side strm only

2.6 - 2.8 mi from USFS-NPS boundary

Location of 2.6 mi: 11 738223 E, 4318223 N — Elevation: 8111 ft. (2472 m)

Riparian species

ABICON POPTRE SALIsp. PSEMEN

Upland species

ARTTRI ABICON CERLED POPTRE* MAHREP SYMORE SALIsp.

*more on S side

2.8 - 3.0 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 2.8 mi: 11 737889 E, 4317480 N — Elevation: 8229 ft. (2508 m) 

Riparian species

POPTRE ABICON SALspp. PINPON PICENG PSEMEN ROSWOO RUBIDA PRUVIR

Upland species

POPTRE ABICON SYMORE MAHREP

Notes: stream evident at surface briefly in segment

3.0 - 3.2 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 3.0 mi: 11 737580 E, 4317394 N — Elevation: 8500 ft. (2591 m)

Riparian species

POPTRE PICENG ABICON CARNEB SALEXI

Upland species

POPTRE PICENG ABICON PSEMEN MAHREP RUBIDA CERLED ARTTRI CHRVIS

Note: last 3 spp. occurred >35 m from stream edge, and were more common on N side

3.2 - 3.4 mi from USFS-NPS boundary, surveyed largely from road [no surface water]

Location of 3.2 mi: 11 737268 E, 4317313 N — Elevation: 8669 ft. (2642 m)

Riparian species

POPTRE PICENG ABICON PINPON CARNEB ANGKIN

Upland species

N side: POPTRE PICENG CERLED* ARCPAT ABICON MAHREP PINFLE ARTTRI* CHRVIS*

PINMON

S side: POPTRE PICENG MAHREP ARCPAT PINPON

*C.ledifolius and last 3 spp. occurred >25 m from stream edge on N side

60 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Lehman Creek watershed; sampled 25-26 July 2002.

0.07 below - 0.13 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 5.4 - 5.2 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 5.2 mi: 11 741562 E, 4321620 N — Elevation: 6582 ft. (2006 m) 

Riparian species

N side: SALEXI SALIsp. ROSWOO 

S side: SALEXI ROSWOO Carex-Junc SALIsp.

Upland species

N side: Poaceae ARTTRI ROSWOO JUNOST CHRVIS PINMON CHRNAU 

S side: ARTTRI ROSWOO PINMON JUNOST Carex-Junc CHRNAU CHRVIS* 

*relatively near rip. area

0.13 - 0.33 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 5.2 - 5.0 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 5.0 mi: 11 741230 E, 4321742 N — Elevation: 6625 ft. (2019 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG BETOCC ROSWOO SALEXI PINMON 

S side: Carex-Junc ROSWOO POPANG BETOCC SALEXI SALIsp. PINMON POPTRE RHUARO

AMELsp.1 CHRVIS MAHREP

Upland species

N side: PINMON ARTTRI JUNOST POPANG RHUARO CHRNAU CHRVIS 

S side: ARTTRI PINMON Elym cine JUNOST RHUARO CHRNAU PURTRI

0.33 - 0.53 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 5.0 - 4.8 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 4.8 mi: 11 740860 E, 4322035 N — Elevation: 6795 ft. (2071 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE SALEXI ROSWOO POPANG 

S side: ROSWOO POPTRE SALEXI POPANG BETOCC PINMON JUNOST

Upland species

N side: PINMON ARTTRI PURTRI JUNOST CHRNAU EPHVIR CHRVIS SYMORE EPHNEV

S side: PINMON ARTTRI JUNOST EPHVIR OPUNsp. PURTRI CHRVIS

0.53 - 0.73 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 4.8 - 4.6 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 4.6 mi: 11 740489 E, 4322400 N — Elevation: 6899 ft. (2103 m)

Riparian species

N side: ROSWOO POPANG SALEXI BETOCC EQUIspp. 

S side: ROSWOO SALIsp. SALEXI BETOCC PINMON JUNOST PINPON

Upland species

N side: PINMON ARTTRI JUNOST CHRNAU EPHVIR MAHREP PINPON

S side: PINMON ARTTRI JUNOST EPHVIR OPUNsp. RIBESsp. MAHREP CHRVIS

Notes: lowest-elevation P. ponderosa for Lehman Crk. detected in this segment

0.73 - 0.93 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 4.6 - 4.4 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 4.4 mi: 11 740128 E, 4322512 N — Elevation: 7020 ft. (2140 m)

Riparian species

N side: ROSWOO Carex-Junc POPTRE SALEXI PINMON PINPON SALIsp. ABICON1 CERLED1

S side: ROSWOO POPTRE PINPON SALIsp. JUNOST ABICON PINMON

Upland species

N side: PINMON ARTTRI POPTRE JUNOST ROSWOO EPHVIR CHRNAU PURTRI1 RIBESsp.1

S side: PINMON ARTTRI JUNOST OPUNsp. CHRVIS MAHREP AMELsp.

Notes: lowest-elevation A. concolor for Lehman Crk. detected in this segment (4.58 mi); upland CHRNAU present because of road

Appendix A 61
Lehman Creek watershed; sampled 25-26 July 2002—Continued.

0.93 - 1.13 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 4.4 - 4.2 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 4.2 mi: 11 739501 E, 4322414 N — Elevation: 7081 ft. (2158 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE SALEXI ROSWOO SALIsp. RHUARO

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALEXI SALIsp. BETOCC PINMON JUNOST ABICON

Upland species

N side: PINMON ARTTRI JUNOST CHRNAU

S side: PINMON JUNOST ARTTRI MAHREP PURTRI CHRNAU ROSWOO

1.13 - 1.33 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 4.2 - 4.0 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 4.0 mi: 11 739501 E, 4322414 N — Elevation: 7201 ft. (2195 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALEXI SALIsp. 

S side: POPTRE ROSWOO PINMON SALEXI BETOCC JUNOST ABICON AMELsp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON ARTTRI JUNOST MAHREP ABICON

S side: PINMON ARTTRI CERLED JUNOST ROSWOO CHRNAU PURTRI MAHREP EPHVIR

OPUNsp.

1.33 - 1.53 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 4.0 - 3.8 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 3.8 mi: 11 739196 E, 4321181 N — Elevation: 7291 ft. (2222 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp. SALEXI

S side: POPTRE SALIsp. SALEXI ROSWOO JUNOST ABICON PINPON

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNSCO ARTTRI MAHREP ABICON CHRVIS CERLED

S side: PINMON ABICON POPTRE CERLED JUNOST ARTTRI CHRNAU ROSWOO MAHREP

1.53 - 1.73 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 3.8 - 3.6 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 3.6 mi: 11 738882 E, 4322113 N — Elevation: 7388 ft. (2252 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp. BETOCC EQUIspp. 

S side: POPTRE ABICON SALIsp. ROSWOO BETOCC JUNOST Carex-Junc SALEXI EQUIspp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNOST ABICON ARTTRI CERLED MAHREP

S side: PINMON POPTRE ABICON JUNOST CERLED JUNOST JUNCOM

1.73 - 1.93 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 3.6 - 3.4 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 3.4 mi: 11 738602 E, 4321921 N — Elevation: 7489 ft. (2283 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE BETOCC ROSWOO RIBESsp. 

S side: POPTRE* ABICON* BETOCC

*these two species co-dominant

Upland species

N side: PINMON CERLED ABICON JUNOST MAHREP SYMORE

S side: ABICON POPTRE JUNSCO PINMON MAHREP PINFLE1 SYMORE .

62 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Lehman Creek watershed; sampled 25-26 July 2002—Continued.

1.93 - 2.13 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 3.4 - 3.2 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 3.2 mi: 11 738297 E, 4321790 N — Elevation: 7594 ft. (2315 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE SALIsp. BETOCC Carex spp. SYMORE 

S side: ABICON POPTRE BETOCC ROSWOO SALspp.

Upland species

N side: ABICON JUNOST CERLED MAHREP PINPON

S side: ABICON POPTRE PINPON JUNSCO MAHREP

2.13 - 2.33 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 3.2 - 3.0 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 3.0 mi: 11 737968 E, 4321767 N — Elevation: 7580 ft. (2310 m)

Riparian species

N side: BETOCC SALIsp. ROSWOO POPTRE

S side: ABICON POPTRE SALspp. BETOCC Carex-Junc

Upland species

N side: ABICON PINPON JUNOST MAHREP

S side: ABICON POPTRE PINPON PINMON JUNspp. SYMORE PINFLE1 PRUVIR1 AMELsp.1

2.33 - 2.53 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 3.0 - 2.8 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 2.8 mi: 11 737654 E, 4321733 N— Elevation: 7768 ft. (2368 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE BETOCC ROSWOO

S side: ABICON POPTRE BETOCC Carex-Junc ROSWOO SALspp.

Upland species

N side: PINMON ABICON ARTTRI CERLED JUNIsp. CHRVIS SYMORE PINFLE

S side: ABICON POPTRE SYMORE

2.53 - 2.73 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 2.8 - 2.6 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 2.6 mi: 11 737327 E, 4321743 N — Elevation: 7947 ft. (2422 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp. JUNSCO EQUIspp.

S side: POPTRE ABICON BETOCC ROSWOO SALIsp. JUNIsp.

Upland species

N side: CERLED PINMON JUNIsp. ABICON PICENG MAHREP

S side: PICENG* POPTRE* ABICON* SYMORE* CERLED* JUNIsp.*

*all spp. except PICENG occur >30 m from stream edge

2.73 - 2.93 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 2.6 - 2.4 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 2.4 mi: 11 736999 E, 4321724 N — Elevation: 8073 ft. (2461 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE SALIsp. PRUVIR ROSWOO

S side: SALIsp. POPANG POPTRE ABICON ROSWOO JUNIsp. PRUVIR

Upland species

N side: CERLED PINMON JUNIsp. ABICON MAHREP SYMORE JUNCOM

S side: PRUVIR SYMORE RIBESsp. PINMON JUNIsp. MAHREP PICENG JUNCOM

ARTTRI* CERLED*

*these 2 spp. occur >30 m from stream edge 

Appendix A 63
Lehman Creek watershed; sampled 25-26 July 2002—Continued.

2.93 - 3.13 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 2.4 - 2.2 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 2.2 mi: 11 736649 E, 4321803 N — Elevation: 8290 ft. (2527 m)

Riparian species

N side: SALIsp. ROSWOO POPTRE

S side: SALIsp. POPANG ROSWOO PINMON PICENG JUNIsp.

Upland species

N side: CERLED JUNIsp. PINMON ABICON SAMBsp. ARTTRI PRUVIR CHRVIS PICENG

MAHREP

S side: ABICON POPTRE JUNIsp. PRUVIR JUNCOM MAHREP ROSWOO

3.13 - 3.33 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 2.2 - 2.0 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE POPANG ROSWOO

S side: SALIsp. POPANG ABICON ROSWOO POPTRE

Upland species

N side: PINMON JUNIsp. CERLED ABICON ARTTRI SYMORE MAHREP RIBESsp. PRUVIR

CHRVIS

S side: POPTRE ABICON ROSWOO SYMORE MAHREP JUNCOM JUNIsp. RIBESsp. PRUVIR

SAMBsp.

3.33 - 3.53 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 2.0 - 1.8 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 1.8 mi: 11 735862 E, 4322214 N — Elevation: 8757 ft. (2669 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp. POPANG PRUVIR

S side: SALIsp. ABICON POPANG PICENG ROSWOO

Upland species

N side: CERLED ABICON PINMON PICENG ARTTRI MAHREP PSEMEN SYMORE JUNIsp.

S side: ABICON POPTRE ROSWOO SYMORE PRUVIR CERLED

3.53 - 3.73 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 1.8 - 1.6 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 1.6 mi: 11 735540 E; 4322121 N — Elevation: 8871 ft. (2704 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp.

S side: SALIsp. POPANG PICENG POPTRE ROSWOO

Upland species

N side: PINMON PINFLE ARTTRI PICENG CERLED MAHREP PSEMEN SYMORE ARCPAT

JUNCOM

S side: PICENG POPTRE ABICON ARCPAT ROSWOO SYMORE

3.73 - 3.93 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 1.6 - 1.4 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 1.4 mi: 11 735204 E; 4322099 N — Elevation: 9113 ft. (2778 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE ROSWOO SALIsp. RIBESsp.

S side: POPTRE SALIsp. PICENG ABICON PINFLE ROSWOO

Upland species

N side: PICENG PINMON MAHREP JUNCOM PINFLE SYMORE PSEMEN

S side: PICENG POPTRE JUNCOM SYMORE ROSWOO RIBESsp. MAHREP AMELsp.

64 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Lehman Creek watershed; sampled 25-26 July 2002—Continued.

3.93 - 4.13 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 1.4 - 1.2 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 1.2 mi: 11 734912 E; 4321940 N — Elevation: 9250 ft. (2819 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPANG SYMORE ROSWOO RIBESsp.

S side: Carex spp. POPTRE PICENG JUNCOM

Upland species

N side: POPTRE PICENG ABICON PINFLE JUNCOM MAHREP PSEMEN

S side: POPTRE

Note: JUNCOM intermediate between riparian zone and upland community

4.13 - 4.33 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 1.2 - 1.0 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 1.0 mi: 11 734548 E; 4321951 N — Elevation: 9292 ft. (2832 m) 

Riparian species

N side: Carex spp.

S side: Carex spp. PICENG POPTRE JUNCOM PINFLE

Upland species

N side: PICENG POPTRE PINFLE MAHREP

S side: POPTRE PICENG PINFLE ARCPAT MAHREP JUNCOM ROSWOO ARTTRI*

*>30 m from stream

4.33 - 4.53 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 1.0 - 0.8 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 0.8 mi: 11 734303 E; 4321712 N — Elevation: 9407 ft. (2867 m)

Riparian species

N side: Carex spp. MAHREP

S side: Carex spp. PICENG POPTRE PINFLE

Upland species

N side: POPTRE PICENG PINFLE JUNCOM MAHREP SYMORE

S side: PICENG POPTRE PINFLE JUNCOM MAHREP

4.53 - 4.73 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 0.8 - 0.6 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 0.6 mi: 11 734072 E; 4321478 N — Elevation: 9579 ft. (2920 m)

Riparian species

N side: Carex spp. SYMORE

S side: Carex spp. PICENG RIBESsp.

Upland species

N side: PICENG POPTRE PINFLE JUNCOM

S side: PICENG POPTRE JUNCOM RIBESsp. PINFLE

4.73 - 4.93 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 0.6 - 0.4 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 0.4 mi: 11 733739 E; 4321399 N — Elevation: 9820 ft. (2993 m)

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE Carex spp. RIBESsp.

S side: Carex spp. PICENG

Upland species

N side: POPTRE PICENG PINFLE

S side: PICENG PINFLE JUNCOM RIBESsp. POPTRE

Appendix A 65
Lehman Creek watershed; sampled 25-26 July 2002—Continued.

4.93 - 5.13 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 0.4 - 0.2 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 0.2 mi: 11 733458 E; 4321250 N — Elevation: 9847 ft. (3001 m) 

Riparian species

N side: POPTRE Carex spp.

S side: Carex spp. PICENG

Upland species

N side: PICENG POPTRE JUNCOM PINFLE

S side: PICENG JUNCOM RIBESsp.

5.13 - 5.33 mi above USFS-NPS boundary; 0.2 - 0.0 mi from stream emergence below Teresa Lk.

Location of 0.0 mi: 11 733175 E; 4321094 N — Elevation: 10081 ft. (3073 m) 

N side: Carex spp. POPTRE

S side: Carex spp. PICENG POPTRE

Upland species

N side: PICENG JUNCOM RIBESsp. POPTRE PINFLE

S side: PICENG JUNCOM RIBESsp.

Key to taxonomic abbreviations:

Note: Abbreviations of tree species are in bold type face.

ABICON = Abies concolor (Gordon & Glend.) Lindl. (white 

fir)

AGOGLA = Agoseris glauca-“weed”

AGRDES = Agropyron desertorum-“crested wheatgrass

AGRSPI = Agropyron spicatum-“bluish grass”

AMELsp. = Amelanchier sp. [probably A. utahensis (Nutt.) 

Nutt] (service-berry)

ANTMIC = Antennaria microphylla-“Antennaria sp.”

ARADRU = Arabis drummondii-“star lanceolate”

ARCPAT = Arctostaphylos patula E. Greene (manzanita)

ARNCOR = Arnica cordifolia-“viola sp.”, “Hairy spade”

ARTTRI = Artemisia tridentata Nutt. (sagebrush)

ASTASC = Aster ascendens-“orange stem aster”

ASTEAT = Aster eatonii-“purple aster”

ATRCON = Atriplex confertifolia (Torrey & Frémont) S. 

Watson (saltbush)

BERAQU = Berberis aquifolium Pursh (oregon-grape, barberry) [Mahonia repens in Smith et al.] 

BETOCC = Betula occidentalis Hook. (water birch)

BROCIL = Bromus ciliatus-“lm roadgrass”

CALNEG = Calamagrostis neglecta-“puffy/poofy grass”

CARBRE = Cardamine breweri

Carex-Junc = unidentified graminoids, mostly Carex spp. and 

Juncus spp.

CARLIM = Carex limnophila

CARMIC = Carex microptera-“carex doug”

CARNEB = Carex nebrascensis Dewey (Nebraska sedge)

CARPRE = Carex praegracilis-“Juncus sp.”

CERLED = Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt. (curl-leaf mountainmahogany)

CHRNAU = Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Pallas) Britton (rubber rabbitbrush)

CHRVIS = Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (Hook.) Nutt. (yellow rabbitbrush)

CHRYSsp. = tall, unidentified Chrysothamnus-like shrub

COMUMB = Comandra umbellatum ssp. pallida-“thick lf 

forb”

CORSER = Cornus sericea L. ssp. sericea (American dogwood)

CREPsp. = Crepis sp.

DESCES = Deschampsia cespitosa-“golden tip”

DESELO = Deschampsia elongata-“skinny stream grass”

DODALP = Dodecatheon alpinum-“dodecatheon, long narrow 

forb”

Elym cine = Leymus (AKA Elymus) cinereus (Scribner & 

Merr.) A. Löve (Great Basin wildrye)

EPHVIR = Ephedra viridis Cov. (green ephedra)

EPHNEV = Ephedra nevadensis S. Watson (grey ephedra, 

mormon tea)

EPICIL = Epilobium cilatum ssp. glandulosum-“redstem”

EPIGLA = Epilobium glaberrimum-“pink mustard”

EQUIsp. = Equisetum sp. (horsetail)

ERIJON = Erigeron jonesii-“fuzzy basal lfs”

66 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
ERIRAC = Eriogonum racemosum-“fuzzy lf forb”, AND 

“pressed eriog/eriog jones”

GLYSTR = Glyceria striata-“droopy grass”

HOLOsp. = Holodiscus sp. (ocean-spray)

HYPSCO = Hypericum scouleri-“yellow flower forb”

JUNCOM = Juniperus communis L. (common juniper)

JUNENS = Juncus ensifolious ssp. Montana-“carex compound”

JUNIsp. = Juniperus sp.

JUNOST = Juniperus osteosperma (Torrey) Little (Utah 

juniper)

JUNSCO = Juniperus scopulorum Sarg. (Rocky Mountain 

juniper)

LUZPAR = Luzula parviflora-“brown droopy”

MACCAN = Machaeranthera canescens-“forbx”

MENARV = Mentha arvensis-“mint”

MERFRA = Mertensia franciscana-“forked starflower”

OENPAL = Oenothera pallida-“woody stem forb”

OPUNsp. = Opuntia sp. (cactus) 

[[this may be incorrect; Cliftonʼs key identifies other spp. of 

Cactaceae NOT in Opuntia]]

OSMDEP = Osmorhiza depauperata

PENLEI = Penstemon leiophyllus ssp. francisci-penellii-“Hershey forb”

PHLPRA = Phleum pratense

PINFLE = Pinus flexilis James (limber pine)

PINMON = Pinus monophylla Torrey and Frémont (singleleaf pinyon pine)

PINPON = Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum S. Wats. 

(Weber) (ponderosa pine)

POANER = Poa nervosa-“purple node grass”

POPANG = Populus angustifolia James (narrow-leaved cottonwood)

POPTRE = Populus tremuloides Micheaux (quaking aspen)

PRUVIR = Prunus virginiana L. (western choke-cherry)

PSEMEN = Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco (Douglas 

fir)

PURTRI = Purshia tridentata (Pursh) DC (antelope bush; 

bitterbrush)

RHUARO = Rhus aromatica Ait. var. trilobata (Nutt.) A. Gray 

(squawbush; skunkbush)

ROSWOO = Rosa woodsii Lindl. var. ultramontanus (S. 

Wato.) Jeps. (Intermountain rose)

RHUARO = Rhus aromatica Ait. Ssp. trilobata-“rhus”

RIBESsp. = Ribes sp. [probably R. aureum var. aureum] (currant, gooseberry)

RUBIDA = Rubus idaeus L. ssp. strigosus (Michx) Maxim 

(raspberry)

RUMACE = Rumex acetosella- “red lumpy”

SALEXI = Salix exigua Nutt. (narrow-leaved willow; coyote 

willow)

SAMBsp. = Sambucus sp. (elderberry)

SARVER = Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Hook.) Torrey (greasewood)

SAXODO = Saxifraga odontaloma-“heart shaped viola”

SCIMIC = Scirpus microcarpus-“funky carex”

SMISTE = Smilacina stellata (L.) Desf. (false Solomonʼs 

seal)

STEEXI = Stephanomeria exigua Nutt. var. exigua-“wire lettuce”

STELON = Stellaria longipes-“Stellaria-like”

STESPI = Stephanomeria spinosa-“spinyforb”

SYMORE = Symphoricarpos oreophilus (snowberry, waxberry)

TETRsp. = Tetradymia sp. (cotton-thorn, horsebrush)

THERID = Thermopsis ridifolia ssp. Montana-“thermopsis

TRIGYM = Trifolium gymnocarpon T&G ssp. gymnocarpon-

“trifolium”

TRISPI = Trisetum spicatum

URTDIO = Urtica dioica L. ssp. angustifolia Schlecht

Appendix A 67
Appendix B Notable features from walking surveys.

STRAWBERRY CREEK.

• 0-0.20 mi – lots of ARTTRI on south side of creek; 

lowest ABICON observed

• 0.20-0.40 mi – POPTRE is absent; it stopped @ 0.40 

mi

• 0.60-0.80 mi – approx. 100-m stand of POPTRE

• 0.80-1.00 mi – wide meadow 1/3 way up the riparian 

corridor; channel very wide at beginning, due to bifurcated (braided) channel

• 1.00-1.20 mi – wide, grassy meadow on south side of 

stream dotted with ROSWOO, ARTTRI, and PINMON; lateral angle steep

• 1.40-1.60 mi – many beaver-felled trees at lower end; 

stream channel narrows, road borders north side of 

stream transition between BETOCC to POPTRE/

ABICON

• 1.40 mi – wide meadow, bifurcated channel

• 1.60 mi – fence crossing stream

• 1.60-1.80 mi – counted six small tributaries arising on 

south side of main channel

• 2.60-2.80 mi – wet, grassy meadow borders north side

• 2.80 mi – road crosses stream

SNAKE CREEK.

• 0.31 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP10”

• 0.32 mi – huge (1.93-m) rock in stream

• 0.39 mi – cattle trails in uplands notable

• 0.42 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP9”, 1.5-m 

stretch of incision on south side at marker

• 0.43 mi – cattle-induced loss of vegetation; heavily 

used upland just upstream

• 0.53 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP8”

• 0.60-0.80 mi – dominant tree along stream is 

POPANG; switches at 0.7 mi to BETOCC

• 0.67 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP5”

• 0.69 mi – trailing from past cattle movements is evident in upland

• 0.76 mi – point incision

• 0.78 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP4”

• 0.79 mi – permanent plot 9 end (Smith et al. (1994) 

study, UNLV)

• 0.80-1.00 mi – stream veg corridor broadens; road runs 

parallel to stream on north side, 10 m from stream; 

riparian veg crosses road in some places, lots of BROTEC along roadsides/campsites

• 0.87 mi – point incision on north bank, apparently due 

to campground road

• 0.88 mi – channel has migrated, BETOCC distant from 

active channel here

• 0.98 mi – 2-m incision at bend

• 1.05 mi – many large rocks > 7 m in diameter

• 1.06 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker survey sec. 

17/18

• 1.09 mi – stream is >3 m below surface of adjacent 

upland on north side

• 1.12 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP10”

68 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

Notable elements in 0.32-km (0.20-mile) stream surveys that were not reported in file Appendix A, within each of our four target watersheds in the Great Basin National Park Snake Range. Whereas distances for Strawberry Creek were measured with a vehicle odometer 

on the gravel road adjacent to the mainstem (starting at the low-elevation Park boundary), distances for other creeks were continuously 

walked along the stream (and not re-set after each segment) from the 0.0-mile point (at the low-elevation Park boundary, except in 

Lehman Creek).
Appendix B 69

• 1.15 mi – south-side bank almost 4 m above stream

• 1.16 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP9”

• 1.20 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP8”

• 1.20 mi – dirt road crosses creek

• 1.35 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP7”

• 1.41 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP6”

• 1.43 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP5”

• 1.49 mi – broad, low terrace

• 1.50 mi – beginning to see cryptogamic crusts

• 1.54 mi – significant downcutting below PINMON that 

fell into stream

• 1.58 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP4”

• 1.79 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP2”

• 1.90 mi – 1.5-m long downcut

• 1.91 mi – USGS cadastral survey marker “AP1”

• 2.08 mi – grassy meadow

• 2.25 mi – stream goes underground

• 2.60-2.80 mi – heavy cattle usage

• 4.60-4.80 mi – lots of BROTEC along stream bank

• 4.80-5.00 mi – lowest elev. PICENG (2,319 m)

• 6.10 mi – 15 small-diameter fallen trunks across stream

• 6.72 mi – lateral angle becomes steep

• 6.80-7.00 mi – several tree falls originating from inside 

the stream and ending away from the channel

• 6.85-6.88 mi – wet meadow

• 6.91 mi – channel erosion in tributary

• 6.97 mi – persistent downcutting in side stream

• 7.60-7.69 mi – high-gradient stream in main channel

• 7.69 mi – stream flattens out; oxbow present on flat 

bench

• 7.70 mi – cow pies on flat grassy meadows beyond 

oxbow; width of Carex/herbaceous zone = 0.5-1.0 m 

BAKER CREEK.

• 0.03 mi – lowest-elevation PINPON in Park

• 0.10 mi – lowest-elevation ABICON in Park

• 0.22 mi – potential location of transect 1; wide channel 

above rock bridge; meadow

• 0.23-0.31 mi – stream bifurcated

• 0.29 mi – pretty good fence

• 0.33 mi – Pole Canyon trailhead bridge

• 0.40-0.60 mi – cliff narrows stream channel; defines 

riparian zone on south side

• 0.51 mi – point incision (2.5 m long); well armored

• 0.60-0.80 mi – more POPTRE after culvert

• 0.74 mi – stream runs under road

• 0.75-0.78 mi – small bifurcation runs on south side

• 0.80 mi – bank incision: 6 m long, ~ 1 m tall

• 0.83 mi – bank incision: 4 m long, ~ 60 cm tall

• 0.93 mi – big (wide) wood debris dam

• 0.96 mi – campground road crosses stream

• 1.08 mi – point incision (north side only): 15-20 m 

long, 0.5 - >2.0 m tall

• 1.13 mi – point incision: 3 m long, 1.25 m tall; broad 

dry meadow in upland

• 1.18 mi – point incision (offset, but present on both 

sides): 3.5 m long, 1.4 m tall

• 1.20–1.30 mi and beyond – stream too densely vegetated to easily observe; some broad dry meadows exist; 

channel has been split for a long time, and is + braided

• 1.42 mi – wet meadow 100 m to south of stream

• 1.40-1.54 mi – lots of wet and dry meadows to south of 

stream

• 1.00 mi –> unspecified location: beaver-created stumps

• Broad-leaved Populus individuals at 2,271 m elevation; 

seem too broad to be P. angustifolia

• 1.68 mi – stream splits

• 1.68–1.80 mi – braided channel 

• 1.83 mi – lowest-elevation PINFLE at 2,317 m

• 1.76 mi – Baker Crk. CG first observed
• 1.87 mi – Baker Crk. campsite #16

• 1.92 mi – road to “Exit” crosses stream

• 1.93-1.99 mi – stream splits

• 2.07 mi – triangular shed and cattle guard 

LEHMAN CREEK.

(distances are miles from the headwaters of mainstem of 

Lehman Crk.)

• 5.00-5.20 mi – lots of cow pies present; BROTEC, 

ARTTRI, and CHRVIS extend down into stream bed at 

some points

• 4.99 mi – green house with antenna

• 4.96 mi – point bank-sloughing

• 4.90 mi – point bank-sloughing: <3 m long 

• 4.75 mi – point bank-sloughing: <3 m long (occurs at 

bend in the stream)

• 4.70 mi – point bank-sloughing: 8 m long, 2 m high 

(occurs at bend in the stream)

• 4.92–4.93 mi – several large treefalls 

• 4.73–4.91 mi – small stream has been separated from 

and running parallel to main channel to the north

• 4.69 mi –short bifurcation of stream

• 4.61–4.63 mi – longer bifurcation (division into 2) of 

stream

• 4.54 and 4.55 mi – lots of branches over stream

• 4.38 mi – huge pile of branches

• 4.18 and 4.19 mi – logs across stream

• 4.16–4.17 mi – stream bifurcated (2 main channels); 

lots of downed logs throughout

• 4.09 mi – lots of downed logs

• 4.07 mi – stream splits into two

• 4.04 mi – 3-way split of stream

• 3.82 mi – Lower Lehman campground site #10

• 3.69 mi – campsite access (road?)

• 3.66–3.68 mi – stream split into two

• 3.57 mi – island of Salix sp.

• 3.54 mi – pile of downed logs

• 3.52 mi – stream forks

• 3.48 mi – smaller fork in stream

• 3.47 mi – dead willow treefall splits stream; another 

stream runs parallel on north side

• 3.45 mi – stream crosses road

• 3.41 mi – treefall

• 3.34 mi – island of Betula trees divides and broadens 

stream 

• 3.23 mi – stream forks again

• 3.17 and 3.18 mi – campsites located between two 

branches of streams

• 3.14 mi – northernmost channel splits

• (Recreational trail runs on south side of northern channel)

• 3.05 mi – campsites on north and south sides of northern channel

• 3.03 mi – campsites on south side of northern channel

• 2.95 mi – small tributary enters mainstem from the 

south

• 2.89 mi – Upper Lehman campground campsite

• 2.85 mi – road meets stream

2.81 mi – second-highest-elevation campsite in Upper 

Lehman CG (#23?)

70 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Appendix C Transect (rebar) locations.

Transect and 

rebar 

LOCATION (Decimal °) ELEV LOCATION (UTM) ELEV WAAS?

Lat (N) Long (W) (ft) x y (m) Y/N PLOT-LOCATION INFORMATION:

BK1 XSN 38.97212 -114.26310 8740 737105.0 4317245.6 2664.0 N (i) 50MN rebar to POPTRE w/ “NP & GB”, 2 m from rebar, DBH 13.4 cm 196° from rebar 

to tree.

BK1 XSS 38.97205 -114.26312 8730 737103.8 4317238.1 2660.9 NBK1 50MN 38.97222 -114.26308 8741 737106.1 4317256.7 2664.3 N (ii) XSN rebar 1.99 m from POPTRE, DBH 37.3 cm @ stream edge, 145° (stake to tree 

center). BK1 50MS 38.97197 -114.26317 8743 737099.7 4317228.7 2664.9 N

BK2 XSN 38.97247 -114.26075 8559 737307.4 4317290.5 2608.8 N (i) 50MN rebar to POPTRE at edge of trail says “BS X 57”, 11.21 m, DBH 23.3 cm at 171°. BK2 XSS 38.97238 -114.26067 8508 737314.9 4317281.5 2593.2 NBK2 50MN 38.97262 -114.26082 8628 737301.2 4317307.0 2629.8 N (ii) 4.55 m from XSN rebar to closest root of downed Douglas fir, 204° from tree to rebar.BK2 50MS 38.97225 -114.26060 8580 737321.2 4317266.9 2615.2 NBK3 XSN 38.97450 -114.24915 8142 738305.7 4317546.5 2481.7 N (i) From 50MN stake to “V”-shaped POTR (branching begins at 0.93 m hgt. DBH of N-most 

(L) trunk is 32.6 cm, DBH of S-most (Rt) trunk is 35.9 cm. 3.75 m @ 31°.(ii) From 50MS stake to rock of width 65.0 cm, length 106 cm, surrounded by PRUVIR [DIGPIC]; 6.19 m to rocks highest pt @ 270°.

BK3 XSS 38.97447 -114.24912 8175 738308.7 4317542.9 2491.7 NBK3 50MN 38.97472 -114.24920 8149 738300.7 4317570.5 2483.8 NBK3 50MS 38.97425 -114.24912 8174 738309.4 4317518.9 2491.4 NBK4 XSN 38.97645 -114.24440 7980 738710.7 4317775.4 2432.3 N (i) 50MN rebar to hinge of bathroom door is 31.99 m, 275°. BK4 XSS 8082 2463.4 N (ii) 50MN rebar to POPTRE “CS77”; 12.97 m to base of tree, DBH 32.7 cm at 320° (rebar 

to tree). BK4 50MN 38.97652 -114.24470 7988 738684.5 4317782.0 2434.7 N

BK4 50MS 38.97628 -114.24425 8013 738724.3 4317757.3 2442.4 N (iii) XSS rebar to big POPTRE, 5.91 m, DBH 52 cm, 120° (rebar to tree).BK5 XSN 38.98770 -114.23933 7570 739111.8 4319037.5 2307.3 N (i) XSN rebar to POPTRE, “Aleis + grandma”, 6.2 m, DBH 25.7 cm, 43°, from rebar to tree.BK5 XSS 38.98763 -114.23930 7565 739114.9 4319030.1 2305.8 NBK5 50MN 38.98787 -114.23953 7557 739093.9 4319055.4 2303.4 N (ii) 50MN rebar to POPTRE “MIX MU”, 4.06 m, 33°, from tree to rebar, DBH 32.7 cm. BK5 50MS 38.98747 -114.23918 7567 739125.6 4319012.0 2306.4 N

Appendix C 71

Location and elevation of each of the four transect endpoints (pieces of rebar) at each of 31 transects in the four target watersheds, in both metric and English units. 

Nomenclature of point names: a) the first three characters refer to the transect identity; b) XS refers to the (narrower) cross-sectional transect immediately outside the bankfull (N on the northernmost side of the stream, and S on the southernmost side of the stream); c) 50M refers to the 50-m transect endpoints. WAAS (wide-area augmentation system) is a system of ground reference stations and geostationary satellites, which allow precision in point-location estimates of 3-7 m. The rightmost column provides another set of reference points for re-locating transect endpoints.
Transect and 

rebar 

LOCATION (Decimal °) ELEV LOCATION (UTM) ELEV WAAS?

Lat (N) Long (W) (ft) x y (m) Y/N PLOT-LOCATION INFORMATION:

BK6 XSN 38.98867 -114.23785 7519 739237.1 4319148.7 2291.8

N (i) 4.97 m, DBH 22.6 cm 15° (tree to rebar) from XSN rebar to 

BK6 XSS 38.98860 -114.23787 7534 739235.8 4319141.2 2296.4

N POPTRE.

BK6 50MN 38.98885 -114.23783 7514 739237.9 4319169.1 2290.3

N (ii) 5.93 m to base of POPTRE scar from XSN rebar.

BK6 50MS 38.98838 -114.23785 7522 739238.0 4319117.2 2292.7

N (iii) 43.6 cm DBH, 292° tree to rebar.

BK7 XSN 38.99095 -114.22605 7217 740251.5 4319433.2 2199.7

N (i) 50MN rebar to picnic table (south most corner) of campsite, 27.32 m, 54°. 

BK7 XSS 38.99082 -114.22598 7201 740257.8 4319418.6 2194.9

N

BK7 50MN 38.99103 -114.22608 7217 740248.4 4319442.4 2199.7

N (ii) 50MN rebar to ABICON of DBH 61.8 cm (very large girth) 3.81 m @ 181°.

BK7 50MS 38.99065 -114.22592 7201 740264.1 4319400.3 2194.9

N

BK8 XSN 38.99085 -114.22148 7084 740647.5 4319434.2 2159.2

N (i) From XSS stake to large boulder in stream by swim hole, 8.58 m @ 20°. 

(ii) From 50MS stake to NW corner seat of picnic table (Greycliffs cmpgrnd) 20.21 m @ 202°. (iii) Trx runs just upstream from artificial rock dam.

BK8 XSS 38.99080 -114.22153 7087 740643.3 4319428.5 2160.1

N

BK8 50MN 38.99093 -114.22128 7120 740664.5 4319443.9 2170.2

N

BK8 50MS 38.99072 -114.22177 7097 740623.4 4319418.61 2163.2

N

LM1 XSN 39.01095 -114.29795 9661 733957.4 4321465.7 2944.7

Y (i) 5.05 m @ 313°. From S-side XS stake to dwnstrm white corner (top) of stream gauging 

apparatus. (ii) 5.05 m @ 241°. From N-side XS stake to same pt.

LM1 XSS 39.01090 -114.29797 9727 733956.1 4321460.1 2964.8

Y

LM1 50MN 39.01113 -114.29788 9684 733962.5 4321486.2 2951.7

Y

LM1 50MS 39.01072 -114.29803 9732 733950.9 4321439.6 2966.3

Y

LM2 XSN 39.01028 -114.30060 9814 733730.1 4321384.9 2991.3

N (i) From XSN stake to PICENG of DBH 54.2 cm (tallest of 4 on island in center of stream) 

5.69 m @ 41° to center of base. (ii) From N-side 50M stake to dead gnarly (v.large) PICENG of DBH 114.5 cm, 5.76 m to center of base @ 41°. 

LM2 XSS 39.01015 -114.30052 9727 733737.7 4321370.3 2964.8

N

LM2 50MN 39.01038 -114.30073 9839 733718.2 4321395.7 2998.9

N

LM2 50MS 39.01007 -114.30035 9870 733752.4 4321361.5 3008.4

N

LM3 XSN 39.01785 -114.23443 7240 739434.6 4322396.9 2206.8

Y (i) Plot @ same elevation as first turnout on S-side of rd. below lowest Lower Lehman exit 

(~1.6 mi from JCT w/ road to VC). LM3 XSS 39.01792 -114.23438 7281 739438.7 4322404.5 2219.2

Y

LM3 50MN 39.01800 -114.23455 7194 739424.0 4322413.3 2192.7

Y

LM3 50MS 39.01780 -114.23432 7281 739444.8 4322391.7 2219.2

Y

72 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
LM4 XSN 39.01670 -114.23768 7266 739157.0 4322260.7 2214.7 Y (i) From N-side 50MXS stake to E-most corner of concrete slab of womenʼs restroom lower 

lehman campground. site #8; 6.02 m @ 297°. (ii) From N-side XSN stake to center of base of tall PINMON of DBH 38.2 cm (next to skinny dead one); 10.45 m @ 280°.

LM4 XSS 39.01672 -114.23765 7319 739159.8 4322262.7 2230.8 YLM4 50MN 39.01685 -114.23785 7271 739142.1 4322277.0 2216.2 YLM4 50MS 39.01657 -114.23752 7309 739171.9 4322246.4 2227.8 YLM5 XSN 39.01328 -114.26792 8224 736550.4 4321802.4 2506.7 N (i) From N-side XSN stake to POTR of DBH 21.4 cm, says “46” on bark; 6.46 m @ 77°.LM5 XSS 39.01320 -114.26777 8292 736563.7 4321793.6 2527.4 NLM5 50MN 39.01337 -114.26775 8283 736564.6 4321812.1 2524.7 NLM5 50MS 39.01305 -114.26790 8293 736552.7 4321776.6 2527.7 NLM6 XSN 39.01262 -114.25228 7747 737906.5 4321769.2 2361.3 Y (i) From N-side 50 m stake to western most corner of “parking only” post in lower loop of 

Upper Lehman cmpgrnd. 14.01 m @ 91°. (ii) From N-side XSN stake to POTR of DBH 16.5 cm w/ “M” written on it @ waist height; 4.49 m @ 78°. 

LM6 XSS 39.01252 -114.25227 7716 737908.2 4321758.1 2351.8 YLM6 50MN 39.01282 -114.25222 7750 737911.6 4321791.6 2362.2 YLM6 50MS 39.01233 -114.25235 7691 737901.6 4321737.6 2344.2 YSN1 6397 11 747072 E 4311202 N 1949.8 * i) From the closest point where the rock outcrop (~7 m x 8 m) meets the road, looking south 

to XSN is 175 ̊ azimuth and 21.3 m. ii) Highest point of outcrop is 1.25 m from 50MN rebar.

SN2 6399 11 747108 4311249 N 1950.4 * i) 11.70 m at 162 ̊ from high point of squarish-shaped large white rock along road to XSN. 

ii) 14.44 m at 241 ̊ from same point to stake at 6 m, near road.iii) 2.92 m downstream of downstreammost point of BETOCC clump.

SN3 8410 11 737554 E 4312575 N 2563.4 * i) ~0.56 km (~0.35 mi) above Shoshone CG, and just below extensive meadow on south side of stream.

ii) 11.24 m at 115 ̊ azimuth from XSN rebar to POPTRE (26.4 cm DBH, says “DW 1941” on uphill side of trunk.iii) 11.62 at 80 ̊ from XSN to POPTRE (25.4 cm, says “R” on downhill side).

SN4 8508 11 737573 E 4312591 N 2593.2 * i) 6.55 m at 268 ̊ from XSN to 2 POPTRE growing together on N side of creek (60.8 cm 

diameter at V in trunk).

*These points were differentially corrected and thus more accurate (within approximately 0.75 - 1.50 m of the actual point on the earth). SN5 XSN 38.92013 -114.21940 7544 741067.6 4311590.3 2299.4 N XSN stake is: a) 1.10 m at 58° from orange stake w/ “BP# 4972” downhill from forked 

POPANG); b) 6.96 m @ 156° from upstream middle of base of POPTRE w/ “Keith Taylor June 21 1954”, 24.8 cm DBH; c) 8.05 m @ 320° from top of pipe in mid-stream marked w/ black X; d) immediately dwnstrm., of 10-cm diameter stump, 25 cm tall; and e) towards & a bit downstream of POPANG w/ 189 tag.

SN5 XSSSN5 50MNSN5 50MS 38.92017 -114.21970 7546 741041.5 4311593.2 2300.0 N

Transect and 

rebar 

LOCATION (Decimal °) ELEV LOCATION (UTM) ELEV WAAS?

Lat (N) Long (W) (ft) x y (m) Y/N PLOT-LOCATION INFORMATION:

Appendix C 73
Transect and 

rebar 

LOCATION (Decimal °) ELEV LOCATION (UTM) ELEV WAAS?

Lat (N) Long (W) (ft) x y (m) Y/N PLOT-LOCATION INFORMATION:

SN6 XSN 38.91973 -114.21887 7513 741115.2 4311547.3 2290.0

N (i) 18.91 m @ 319° to center of 23.95 cm DBH POPTRE on S side of road w/ stump cut like 

a V. (ii) 17.12 m @ 74° to water pipe upstream of trx; both positions are from 50M endpoint on N side of road.

SN6 XSS 38.91972 -114.21890 7531 741112.4 4311545.4 2295.4

N

SN6 50MN 38.91990 -114.21878 7544 741121.9 4311566.0 2299.4

N

SN6 50MS 38.91957 -114.21890 7560 741112.9 4311528.7 2304.3

N

SN7 XSN 38.91228 -114.16890 6714 745473.6 4310853.8 2046.4

N (i) From rock at south edge of road looking south to N rebar, 141°, 9.9 m rock is by 

CHRNAU. (ii) From 50MN rebar to standing snake rock spire, 138°. SN7 XSS 38.91223 -114.16893 6727 745470.9 4310848.1 2050.4

N

SN7 50MN 38.91233 -114.16865 6720 745495.1 4310860.0 2048.3

N

SN7 50MS 38.91207 -114.16907 6727 745459.9 4310829.3 2050.4

N

SN8 XSN 38.91218 -114.16760 6696 745586.7 4310846.2 2040.9

N (i) 25.5 m @ 299° to center of lone JUOS on N side of road, that has a very rounded crown, 

from 50MN rebar. (ii) 3.83 m from 50MN rebar to crest of road burm, perpendicular to the road berm. (iii) 0.3 m up the road (W) from western terminus of EPHNEV to 50MN rebar.

SN8 XSSSN8 50MN 38.91233 -114.16745 6696 745599.2 4310861.4 2040.9

N

SN8 50MS 38.91200 -114.16792 6692 745559.8 4310825.0 2039.7

N

ST1 7714 11 733796 E 4326741 N 2351.2 * No plot-location information.

i) 8.46 m at 221 ̊ from XSS rebar to center of ABICON tree (43.6 cm DBH, >15 m tall). ii) 17.86 m at 86 ̊ azimuth from XSS to NPS-RM survey point (yellow stake – just W of small tributary of width 30 cm).i) ~5-15 m upstream from exclosure on N side of dirt road. ii) ~5 m upstream from downed log of DBH 35.8 cm; log occurs @ 45 ̊ from stream.iii) 7.04 m at 121 ̊ from XSS to POPTRE (32.1 cm DBH, shape).

ST2 7812 11 733696 E 4326701 N 2381.1 *ST3 7720 11 733758 E 4326731 N 2353.1 **These points were differentially corrected and thus more accurate (within approximately 0.75-1.50 m of the actual point on the earth). ST4 XSN 39.04897 -114.32055 8465 731875.9 4325627.6 2580.1

N (i) 14.10 m from XSS rebar to broken off edge of PICENG, 256° from tree edge to rebar. 

(ii) POPTRE that has Palomo engraved, it is across from location 1, 280° (tree to rebar), 3 m. ST4 XSS 39.04888 -114.32047 8503 731883.4 4325618.5 2591.7

N

ST4 50MN 39.04903 -114.32072 8511 731861.2 4325634.5 2594.2

N

ST4 50MS 39.04882 -114.32028 8498 731899.5 4325611.6 2590.2

N

ST5 XSN 39.04940 -114.31998 8467 731923.5 4325677.1 2580.7

N (i) 8.19 m from POPTRE to N-side stream stake @ 188°, DBH 36.05 cm, “Clark Neilson 

1958” at BH on E-side of road (~2 m). (ii) 15.11 m from POPTRE to S-side stream stake @ 15.11 m from POPTRE to S-side stream stake @ BH on E-side of road (~1 m).

ST5 XSS 39.04925 -114.32012 8455 731912.5 4325660.1 2577.1

N

ST5 50MN 39.04933 -114.32035 8480 731892.0 4325668.8 2584.7

N

ST5 50MS 39.04913 -114.31998 8459 731924.4 4325647.5 2578.3

N

74 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
ST6 XSN 39.05583 -114.30245 7871 733419.8 4326436.1 2399.1 N (i) Base of POPTRE, DBH 33.2 cm, NNW of 5 m wide rock pile, 11.43 m to 50MN stake, 

208° tree to stake. (ii) ABICON DBH 49.0 cm, 24.6 m @ 220° from base of ABICON to 50MN stake. (iii) Group of 4 POPTRE, 1.50 m from XSS stake to center V of upstrm pr., @ 44° NE of stake.

ST6 XSS 39.05588 -114.30270 7889 733398.0 4326441.0 2404.6 NST6 50MNST6 50MS 39.05563 -114.30082 8467 733561.9 4326418.1 2580.7 NST7 XSN 39.05897 -114.29155 7589 734352.8 4326811.9 2313.1 N (i) 2.52 m from XSN rebar to center base of POPTRE, DBH is 50.6 cm, @ 10°. (POPTRE 

has dark crusty base, branching into 3 prominent trunks @ ~ 2 m high). (ii) 12.44 m from XSN rebar to center base of POPTRE, DBH 34.3 cm @ 306°, says “PB” on upslope side.

ST7 XSS 39.05888 -114.29155 7599 734353.1 4326802.7 2316.2 NST7 50MN 39.05912 -114.29153 7586 734353.8 4326828.6 2312.2 NST7 50MSST8 XSN 39.06157 -114.26742 7049 736432.6 4327163.1 2148.5 N (i) 50MS rebar to hightest point of E-most rock (pair 60-65 cm diam.) 1.60 m @ 236°. 

(ii) 50MN rebar to EPHNEV (center of base), 6.59 m at 355°. ST8 XSS 39.06148 -114.26737 7064 736437.2 4327154.0 2153.1 N

ST8 50MN 39.06153 -114.26718 7048 736452.9 4327160.0 2148.2 NST8 50MS 39.06132 -114.26747 7058 736429.1 4327135.2 2151.3 NST9 XSN 39.06012 -114.27735 7269 735577.8 4326976.3 2215.6 N (i) XSS stake to rebar w/ yellow cap says “straw” (faded), 3.65 m @ 114°. 

(ii) XSN stake to PINMON L-shaped stump of 16 cm diam. 1-2 m from road edge, 15.55 m @ 303°.

ST9 XSS 39.06002 -114.27732 7261 735581.1 4326965.3 2213.2 NST9 50MN 39.06017 -114.27723 7305 735587.8 4326982.2 2226.6 NST9 50MS 7266 2214.7 N

Transect and 

rebar 

LOCATION (Decimal °) ELEV LOCATION (UTM) ELEV WAAS?

Lat (N) Long (W) (ft) x y (m) Y/N PLOT-LOCATION INFORMATION:

Appendix C 75
76 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Appendix D Reasons why monitoring of aggregate soil stability is not 

recommended for riparian areas of Great Basin National Park.

1. The number of bare spaces with no litter is often very 

limited, and exactly how one removes this litter to get a 

surface sample will greatly influence the stability value. 

This is difficult to standardize for comparability across 

replicated measurements through time. 

2. The soil is too rocky to sample easily in a defensible and 

repeatable manner.

3. It is very difficult to get to the soil surface under shrubs, 

due to large amounts of duff and surface roots.

4. There is too much fine-root mass in upper soil horizons to 

permit soils to become unstable over time, thus obviating 

the need to monitor soil stability. 

5. The method may not be repeatable enough to be rigorous 

for monitoring purposes. Detecting change can be confounded by observer bias.

6. It is not a rigorously quantitative method, but rather categorical, which limits its precision.

7. Give the combination of factors above, we suspect that the 

response variable will not change enough over time to be 

detected by divergent observers, even if methods are very 

explicit (e.g., exactly where to sample, how to clear off litter, how to pare down soil sample to standard size, etc.).

Appendix D 77
Appendix E Cross sections.

BAKER 2 (2634 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/PIEN/ABCO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification; Alluviated Canyon, Boulder-Bedded

Sbf

(0.48m)

Swe

(1.97m)

Nbf

(10.04m)

Nwe

(9.39m)

Rocks

Channel bottom

Water surface

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

BAKER 3 (2486 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(0.3m)

Swe

(2.02m)

Nbf

(8.73m)

Nwe

(5.9m)

Rock

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

Dominant Woody Vegetation:POTR/ABCO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Leveed Outwash Valley

BAKER 4 (2487 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/ABCO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Leveed Outwash Valley

Log

Sbf

(0.91m)

Swe

(1.44m)

Nbf

(6.85m)

Nwe

(6.09m)

Distance below string (cm)

BAKER 1 (2664 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Dominant Woody Vegetation:POTR/PIEN/ABCO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluviated Canyon, Boulder-Bedded 

Sbf

(1.5m)

Swe

(1.9m)

Nbf

(5.81m)

Nwe

(5.5m)

Rock Rock

Distance below string (cm)

Channel bottom

Water surface

Elevations of the water surface and the bottom of the channel, relative to a string pulled between points on inner pieces of rebar indicated by hacksaw marks (following Herrick et al. in press). Measurements occurred at each 20-cm interval between bankfull endpoints. 

Sbf = bankfull on southernmost edge of stream; Nbf = northern bankfull; Nwe = wetted edge on northernmost side of the stream at the 

time of sampling; and Swe = southern wetted edge. Hydrogeomorphic valley types follow Frissell and Liss (1993).

78 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
BAKER 5 (2303 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(1.38m)

Swe

(3.18m)

Nbf

(5.5m)

Nwe

(4.7m)

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: BEOC/POTR/ABCO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Leveed Outwash Valley

BAKER 6 (2286 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(0.72m)

Swe

(1.1m)

Nbf

(4.97m)

Nwe

(4.48m)

Log

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: BEOC/POTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Leveed Outwash Valley

BAKER 7 (2204 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(1.25m)

Swe

(2.85m)

Nbf

(7.0m)

Nwe

(5.83m)

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/ABCO/SALsp/PIMO

Hydrogeomorphic Classificaion: Alluviated Canyon, Boulder-Bedded/Leveed Outwash Valley 

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-200

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(2.5m)

Swe

(3.42m)

Nbf

(9.5m)

Nwe

(7.635m)

Stick

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

BAKER 8 (2160 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: PIMO/POTR/ROWO/ARTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluviated Canyon, Boulder-Bedded

Appendix E 79
LEHMAN 1 (2947 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(1.17m)

Swe

(2.19m)

Rock

Nbf

(5.8m)

Nwe

(4.7m)

Distance below string (cm)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: PIEN/POTR/PIFL

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Incised Moraine-Filled Valley

LEHMAN 2 (2987 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(1.42m)

Swe

(2.78

Nbf

(7.49m)

Nwe

(7.18m)

Rock

Rock

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: PIEN/POTR/PIFL

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Incised Moraine-filled Valley

LEHMAN 3 (2204 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/SALSP/PJ/ROWO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Leveed Outwash Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(1.32m)

Swe

(3.13m)

Nbf

(7.22m)

Nwe

(5.96m)

Log

Rock

Log

Distance below string (cm)

LEHMAN 4 (2219 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/PJ/ROWO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Leveed Outwash Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

*Sbf

(3.73m)

Swe

(4.2m)

Nbf

(8.53m)

Nwe

(8.05m)

Log

Rock

Rock

Channel bottom

Water surface *Field data suggest Sbf occurs at 3.73m

Distance below string (cm)

80 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
LEHMAN 5 (2551 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation:ABCO/POTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Leveed Outwash Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(1.29m)

Swe

(1.29m)

Nbf

(5.21m)

*Nwe

(4.03m)

Log

*Undercut

Distance below string (cm)

LEHMAN 6 (2356 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/ABCO (ARTR/CERC uplnd)

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Leveed Outwash Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(0.4m)

Swe

(1.83m)

Nbf

(6.55m)

Nwe

(6.08m)

Rock

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

SNAKE 1 (1950 m)

Dominant Woody Species: POAN - PJ/ARTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Terrace-Bound Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-200

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Swe

(3.54m)

Nwe

(4.72m)

Sbf

(0.97m) Nbf

(5.44m)

Channel Bottom

Water Surface

Distance below string (cm)

SNAKE 2 (1950 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POAN/ROWO/BEOC

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Terrace-Bound Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel Bottom

Water Surface

Swe

(1.07m)

Nwe

(3.04m)

*Sbf: NA

*Nbf: NA

*Values for Sbf and Nbf unavailable from field data

Distance below string (cm)

Appendix E 81
SNAKE 3 (2563 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: PIEN/ABCO/PIFL/POTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan-Influenced Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Swe

(3.89m)

Nwe

(5.68m)

Sbf

(1.71m) Nbf

(5.93m)

Channel bottom

Water surface

Distance below string (cm)

SNAKE 4 (2593 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: PIEN/ABCO/PIFL/POTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan-Influenced Valley 

Distance ftom south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(0.8m)

Nbf

(4.95m)

Swe

(2.98m)

Nwe

(4.37m)

Distance below string (cm)

SNAKE 5 (2304 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/ROWO/POAN/ABCO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluviated Canyon, Gravel- and Cobble-Bedded 

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

Channel bottom

Sbf

(1.4m) Nbf

(6.25m)

*Swe: NA

*Nwe: NA

*Dry channel

Distance below string (cm)

SNAKE 6 (2592 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/ROWO/POAN/ABCO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluviated Canyon, Gravel- and Cobble-Bedded 

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Sbf

(0.76m)

Nbf

(5.65m)

*Nwe: N/A 

*Swe: N/A

* Dry channel

Distance below string (cm)

82 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
SNAKE 8 (2041 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation:POAN/BEOC/PJ/ARTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan Influenced Valley 

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Swe

(1.67m)

Sbf

(1.13m) Nbf

(4.3m)

Nwe

(3.83m)

Distance below string (cm)

STRAWBERRY 1 (2351 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: PIMO/POTR/BEOC/ROWO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan-Influenced Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(1.36m)

Swe

(2.1m)

Nbf

(6.33m)

Nwe

(6.33m)

Log

Rock Rock

Distance below string (cm)

SNAKE 7 (2048 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POAN/BEOC/PJ/ARTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan Influenced Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Swe

(1.77m) Nwe

(4.36m)

Sbf

(1.1m)

Nbf

(5.5m)

Log

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

STRAWBERRY 2 (2381 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: PIMO/POTR/BEOC/ROWO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan-Influenced Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(0.4m)

Swe

(1.58m)

Nbf

(3.87m)

Nwe

(2.35m)

Distance below string (cm)

Appendix E 83
STRAWBERRY 3 (2353 m)

Dominant Woody Vegetation: PIMO/POTR/BEOC/ROWO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan-Influenced Valley

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10

-200

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Sbf

(1.52m)

Swe

(3.32m)

Nbf

(4.96m)

Nwe

(3.96m)

Distance below string (cm)

STRAWBERRY 4 (2580 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/PIEN/ARTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluviated Canyon, Gravel- and Cobble-Bedded

Sbf

(1.6m)

Swe

(2.38m)

Nbf

(4.9m)

Nwe

(3.93m)

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

STRAWBERRY 5 (2576 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/PIEN/ABCO

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluviated Canyon, Gravel- and Cobble-Bedded

*Sbf

(1.56m)

*Swe

(1.95m)

Nbf

(5.07m)

Nwe

(4.17m)

Rock

* Field data suggest that Swe occurs at 1.56m, and Sbf at 1.95m

Distance below string (cm)

STRAWBERRY 6 (2399 m) 

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/ABCO (ARTR uplnd)

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan-Influenced Valley

Sbf

(-0.84m)

Swe

(5.13m)

Nbf

(8.48m)

Nwe

(6.86m)

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

84 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada
STRAWBERRY 7 (2317 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 2 4 6 8

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Dominant Woody Vegetation: POTR/PIMO/BEOC/SALSP/ARTR

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial-Fan-Influenced Valley 

Sbf

(1.13m)

Swe

(2.43m)

Nbf

(5.23m)

Nwe

(3.48m)

Distance below string (cm)

STRAWBERRY 8 (2148 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Dominant Woody Vegetation: BEOC/SALSP (PJ/ARTR)

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial Valley

Sbf

(1.2m)

Swe

(2.45m)

Nbf

(4.7m)

Nwe

(3.74m)

Rock

Distance below string (cm)

STRAWBERRY 9 (2216 m)

Distance from south side (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Channel bottom

Water surface

Dominant Woody Vegetation: BEOC/SALSP (PJ/ARTR/ROWO)

Hydrogeomorphic Classification: Alluvial Valley

Sbf

(1.27m)

Swe

(2.18m)

Nbf

(5.92m)

Nwe

(3.62m)

Stick

Distance below string (cm)

Appendix E 85
86 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

BK8 transect.

Frame size 1 (0.01 m )

2

Frame size 2 (0.04 m )

2

Frame size 3 (0.07 m )

2

Frame size 4 (0.16 m )

2

86420

# plant Cumulative

species detected

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

(Total # of plots sampled) + 1

86420

16141210

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

# plant spp. detected Cumulative

(Total # of plots sampled) + 1

1-m2 sampling (woody species only).

NFP sampling (all plant spp.).

Appendix F Species-accumulation curves

Curves that were used to assess the adequacy of our various methods for detecting plant species. Due to the distinctly ordered (stratified) nature of vegetation across a stream, we randomized the order of transects once before plotting curves. BK8 represented the most 

species-poor transect we encountered. In contrast, BK5 was the most species-rich transect, across all methods. We detected the most 

woody plant species at SN6, and thus provide a curve only for the 1- m2

 sampling method at that site. 
Appendix F 87BK5 transect.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

7654321

(Total # of plots sampled) + 1

# plant spp. detected Cumulative 5

0

4540353025201510

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

# plant spp. detected Cumulative

(Total # of plots sampled) + 1

Frame size 1 (0.01 m )

2

Frame size 2 (0.04 m )

2

Frame size 3 (0.07 m )

2

Frame size 4 (0.16 m )

2

1-m2 sampling (woody species only).

NFP sampling (all plant spp.).
88 Integrated Monitoring in Riparian Ecosystems of Great Basin National Park, Nevada

SN6 transect .

86420

16141210

# plant spp. detected Cumulative

1 5

7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

3

(Total # of plots sampled) + 1

1-m2 sampling (woody species only).