United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-203

January 2008

Riparian Buffer Design Guidelines

For Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat Functions on 

Agricultural Landscapes in the Intermountain West

Craig W. Johnson and Susan Buffler

Case Study
Contents

Case Study...............................................................................................................................1

Section A: Water Quality Protocol..................................................................................... 1

Section B: Wildlife Habitat Protocol .................................................................................. 2

Riparian and Shrub-Steppe Restoration Reference List .................................................. 3

Appendix A-1: Water Quality Buffer Data Form...................................................................... 21

Appendix A-2: Water Quality Buffer Unit Worksheet .............................................................. 25

Appendix A-3: Table to Determine Portion of Buffer to Measure Attributes ............................ 26

Appendix A-4: Optimal Buffer Width Key: Unadjusted Width ................................................. 27

Appendix A-5: Adjustment Factors Key .................................................................................. 28

Appendix A-6: Surface Roughness Guidelines and Photos ................................................... 29

Appendix A-7: Estimating Vegetative Ground Cover Percentage .......................................... 34

Appendix A-8: Land Use Specifications.................................................................................. 35

Appendix A-9: Websites for State Sources of GIS Data......................................................... 38

Appendix A-10: Illustrations of Project Boundary Delineation and Buffer Units...................... 39

Appendix A-11: Rosgen Stream Classification Diagrams....................................................... 41

Appendix B-1: Wildlife Habitat Buffer Data Form and Worksheet .......................................... 43

Appendix B-2: Wildlife Species Habitat Model - Example ...................................................... 55

Appendix B-3: List of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Data Needs.............................................. 58

Appendix B-4: List of Dominant Shrub Steppe and Riparian Plant Species .......................... 60

Appendix B-5: Plant Survey Point Sampling Protocol ............................................................ 65

Appendix B-6: Breeding Land Bird Sampling Protocol........................................................... 68

Appendix B-7: List of Riparian Land Birds.............................................................................. 69

Appendix B-8: Websites for Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................... 70

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 1

Case Study

This hypothetical case study illustrates how the riparian buffer planning protocol described in the RB handbook is used to plan a buffer for both water quality and 

wildlife conservation on a specific project site. The case study site includes riparian 

buffer characteristics typical of the study area-variable topography and soils, flood 

plain wetlands, seeps, springs, fringe riparian vegetation, grazed and ungrazed shrubsteppe, and row crop agriculture.

The case study highlights the sequential preparation of maps used to illustrate buffer width recommendations that respond to various site attributes based on dimensions 

obtained from buffer width keys and matrices in the protocol for water quality and 

wildlife habitat. The mapping sequence results in two final riparian buffer maps. One 

map depicts optimum buffer widths and land use zones with accompanying land use 

and restrictions for water quality functions. The second map depicts an optimum buffer configuration and land use zones with accompanying general habitat management 

recommendations for wildlife conservation tiered to levels of landowner willingness/

ability to participate in wildlife conservation.

The hypothetical buffer case study site, 2,100 ft in length, is located on a first order 

stream in a sub-watershed dominated by farming and ranching land uses. There are no 

dams or diversions up stream of the project site. A healthy population of brown trout 

persists in the stream reach bounded by the project site. It is an important recreation 

resource for local anglers and tourists. The landowner cultivates a field devoted to 

small grain production within 300 ft of the stream. Pre-emergent herbicides are applied 

and the field is fertilized annually. Insecticides are also applied if needed. A segment of 

the proposed buffer is grazed and cattle access the river to drink. Surface erosion and 

bank sloughing occur in several cattle access locations. A large patch of shrub-steppe 

upland, which hasn’t been grazed in 30 years, is within the proposed buffer boundary. 

Invasive exotic plant species have established themselves in patches of varying sizes 

across the project site.

Riparian/wetland vegetation is confined to a narrow fringe along the stream edge 

and landward along a spring that flows into the river. Although narrow, age class diversity of native riparian woody vegetation is high and plants are healthy, matching 

adjacent undisturbed reference sites. The ratio of expected to observed riparian obligate and dependant breeding land birds that inhabit the site during the breeding season 

was estimated at 75 percent.

The site is also used as a migration corridor by passive birds that nest at higher elevations. Moose and mule deer use the buffer in early spring and late fall as a migration 

corridor connecting summer and winter ranges. There are no T or E species or State 

listed species of concern that inhabit or use the site in any significant way.

The landowner’s primary objective for the riparian buffer is to improve the quality 

of water leaving the property and entering the stream. However, the landowner also 

wants to improve habitat quality within the buffer for a diversity of riparian obligate 

and dependant species (Level 2 participation).

Section A: Water Quality Protocol

Presented below are a series of bullet points that summarize the previous water 

quality protocol discussion. The bullet points are illustrated on case study maps that 

follow.

Case Study
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study • Watershed context map (fig. CS-1).

• Existing landscapes features map (fig. CS-2).

• Delineate project boundaries and buffer units (fig. CS-3).

• Gather and map primary buffer attribute data (figs. CS-4 and CS-5).

• Gather and map secondary site attribute data (fig. CS-6).

• Determine the unadjusted optimum buffer width for each buffer unit using the 

buffer width key.

• Adjust the width generated from the key for each buffer unit according to 

additional factors (secondary attributes) affecting buffer function (fig. CS-7).

• Map a continuous optimum buffer width line (Zone 2) over the entire project site 

(all buffer units). Map unstable stream banks, which have been caused by human 

disturbance (fig. CS-8).

The optimum riparian buffer configuration designed for water quality functions for 

the entire project site will be delineated when the evaluator has completed the seven 

steps described above.

Section B: Wildlife Habitat Protocol

Presented below are a series of bullet points that summarize the previous wildlife 

habitat protocol discussion. The bullet points are illustrated on the maps that follow. 

The optimum riparian buffer configuration designed for water quality functions as described above serves as the basic footprint for the inventory, analysis, and design of the 

buffer for wildlife habitat.

• Use the optimum water quality buffer configuration as the base map for wildlife 

habitat planning (fig. CS-9).

• Use the same baseline and discrete buffer units used for water quality buffer 

planning to prepare the wildlife habitat plan (fig. CS-9)

• Delineate the riparian/wetland and upland plant communities in each buffer unit on 

the base map (fig. CS-9).

• Determine the level of landowner willingness/ability to participate in a wildlife 

conservation project.

• Determine whether or not T or E species or State listed species of concern inhabit 

or make substantial use of the project site.

• Inventory and rate primary wildlife habitat buffer functional attribute data for both 

upland and riparian/wetland plant communities for each buffer unit by working 

through the protocol matrices.

• Estimate plant community vigor.

• Estimate level of human induced disturbance/fragmentation.

• Estimate relative abundance of invasive exotic plants.

• Calculate ratio of expected riparian obligate and dependent breeding land birds to 

birds observed.

• Rate project scale attribute, stand age diversity for woody riparian/wetland 

vegetation. Note: The project scale attribute may be used to modify functional 

condition ratings only to the riparian/wetland plant community and only when the 

length of the riparian buffer project site is greater than 1200 ft in length.

• Use the riparian and upland Ecological Function Condition Rating Keys to produce 

an Unadjusted Ecological Functional Condition Rating Map (fig. CS-10).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 3

Case Study • Rate habitat suitability for target specie(s) by comparing existing riparian/wetland 

and/or upland plant community functional condition with habitat parameters for 

the target species. Record specific management recommendations for the target 

species in the comments section. Note: This rating only applies to projects where 

the landowner has identified habitat for a target specie(s) as a project objective.

• Using the Functional Condition Adjustment Key produce the Ecological Functional 

Condition Map (fig. CS-11).

• Using the Wildlife Habitat Management and Land Use Zone key, produce a map 

showing wildlife habitat management recommendations and land use zones tiered 

to landowner willingness/ability to participate in wildlife conservation (figs. CS-12 

and CS-13).

• Determine species specific management recommendations if landowner has a target 

specie(s) as a project objective. Note: Consultation with NRCS or state DWR 

biologists is recommended when developing species specific habitat management 

plans. A list of important habitat characteristics to inventory and analyze when 

preparing a specific habitat management plan can be found in Appendix B-3.

The optimum riparian buffer width for both water quality and wildlife habitat for 

Levels 1 and 2 will be delineated when the evaluator has completed the mapping or 

rating steps described above. It is beyond the scope of this handbook to describe the 

patch, corridor, and matrix principles required to effectively expand and connect riparian buffer habitat to adjacent habitats necessary to meet Level 3 landowner objectives. 

However, the NRCS publication “Conservation Corridor Planning at the Landscape 

Level: Managing for Wildlife Habitat” covers these topics in great detail.

Describing habitat enhancement, rehabilitation, reclamation, or restoration techniques is also beyond the scope of this document. Listed below are several excellent 

references specific to the study area that cover these topics. In addition, consulting with 

NRCS, state DWR biologists, and habitat specialists within NGO’s such as Nature 

Conservancy, Audubon, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and others can be very 

useful.

Riparian and Shrub-Steppe Restoration Reference List

Bentrup, G.; Hoag, C. 1998. The practical streambank bioengineering guide: users guide for 

natural streambank stabilization in the arid and semi-arid Great Basin and Intermountain 

West. Aberdeen, ID: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Plant Materials Center. 

165 p.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream corridor restoration: 

principles, processes, and practices. GPO Item No. 0120-A. Washington, DC.

Gardner, P.A.; Stevens, R.; Howe, F.P. 1999. A handbook of riparian restoration and revegetation for the conservation of land birds in Utah with emphasis on habitat types in middle 

and lower elevations. Pub. 99-83. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

48 p.

Paige, C.; Ritter, S.A. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird 

communities. Boise, ID: Partners in Flight Western Working Group. 52 p.
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-1. Watershed context map.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 5

Case Study

Figure CS-2. Existing landscapes features map.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-3. Delineate project boundaries and buffer units.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 7

Case Study

Figure CS-4. Existing slopes on project site.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-5. Average slope per buffer unit.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 9

Case Study

Figure CS-6. Existing soil hydrologic group on project site.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-7. Average soil group per buffer unit.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 11

Case Study

Figure CS-8. Existing surface roughness.
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-9. Averaged surface roughness per buffer unit.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 13

Case Study

Figure CS-10. Existing secondary site attributes on project site.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-11. Buffer adjustments made based on secondary site attributes.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 15

Case Study

Figure CS-12. Land use and management zones.
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-13. Wildlife habitat planning base map.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 17

Case Study

Figure CS-14. Unadjusted functional condition map.
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-15. Adjusted functional condition map.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 19

Case Study

Figure CS-16. Level 1 and 2 habitat management specifications and land use 

zones.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Case Study

Figure CS-17. Level 3 habitat management specifications and land use zones.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 21

Date: ___________________________ Surveyed by:__________________________________

Landowner address: (mailing) USGS quad:__________________________________

________________________________________ Stream name:_________________________________

________________________________________

Buffer Unit #: ____________________ 

Data for Determining the Baseline for Water Quality Buffers

High Watermark: Identify the mean high watermark on the stream bank. This will be the starting point for all 

measurements except where floodplains or wetlands are involved.

Floodplains and Adjacent Open Wetlands: Identify the landward edge of all floodplains and open wetlands (in 

other words, slope, depression, and riverine wetlands) adjacent to the stream. These features are considered 

part of the stream zone being protected rather than part of the buffer. Begin buffer measurements at the landward 

edge of these features. Check applicable items(s) below.

Neither floodplains nor open wetlands occur immediately adjacent to the stream ______

Slope, depression, and/or riverine wetland identified adjacent to stream ______

Floodplain identified adjacent to stream_______

Top of Stream Bank (TOB): Identify the upslope landward line along which the gradient of the stream bank 

changes to a different (generally lesser) percent gradient. This line will be used as a reference base line in later 

planning steps.

Data for Use with Buffer Width Key (Primary Attributes)

Slope: 0 to 5 percent ______ Soils: hydrologic soils group A _____

>5 to 15 percent ______ hydrologic soils group B _____

 >15 to 25 percent ______ hydrologic soils group C _____

 >25 percent______ hydrologic soils group D _____

source __________________________ source __________________

Surface Roughness: (check one)

Typical or Moderate degree of surface roughness: _____

High degree of surface roughness: _____

Low degree of surface roughness: _____

 

source __________________________ 

Note: Refer to Appendix A-6 and A-7 (Surface roughness guidelines and Estimating vegetative ground cover 

percentage). Surface roughness features include: woody vegetation, emergent wetland vegetation, stout 

stemmed grasses and forbs, coarse woody debris (> 1 inch), rotten stumps or logs, boulders or rocks 12 inch in 

diameter, and undulating micro-topography, a portion of the land surface slopes away from the stream; and intact 

duff layer (surface organic horizon)/lack of exposed mineral soils.

Appendix A-1: Water Quality Buffer Data Form
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Surface Roughness: (continued)

Buffer does not have exposed mineral soils as a result of human activity: _____

(Typical or high degree of surface roughness; no change or subtract 25 ft)

Buffer has exposed mineral soils (in other words, duff layer or cryptogamic crust not intact) as a result of 

human activity: ____

(Automatically low degree of surface roughness; add 25 ft to Zone 2)

If exposed mineral soils, note cause (if known) ______________________________________________

Additional Data Used to Adjust Buffer Width (Secondary Attributes)

Surface Water Features: (check all that apply)

No surface water features located in the buffer: _____

(No adjustment to buffer width)

Surface water feature located in the buffer _____ check type(s) below:

intermittent stream: _____

perennial stream: _____

drainage ditch or swale: _____

irrigation canal or ditch: _____

other: _____

(Add 50 ft to Zone 2; in addition, maintain a 35 ft no-disturbance strip adjacent to perennial

surface water features or irrigation canal or ditch in Zone 2)

Exception: If the surface water feature is not connected to the in-stream habitat being

protected by means of surface drainage, no adjustment is made (for example, isolated pond).

Note: Surface water feature as defined here include rivers, streams or creeks in addition to constructed ditches 

and swales that carry stormwater drainage or return irrigation water to the in-stream habitat being protected.

source_____________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

Note: If surface water features are identified in the field but are not indicated on available map resources, 

locations should be shown on map.

Groundwater Seepage or Spring: (check one)

Springs/groundwater seepage not present in buffer _____

Could not determine if spring/seepage present or not _____ (in some cases it will not 

be possible to positively identify springs/groundwater seepage based on field 

observations) (no adjustment to buffer width)

Spring(s)/groundwater seepage present in buffer (note # and approx. locations):_____

___________________________________________________________________________________

(add 25 ft to Zone 2)

source _____________________________________________________________________________

Note: A field indicator of springs is a relatively constant discharge of cool water to the surface. Typically, there 

is not surface water inflow, yet water trickles/seeps out. Often, there is a seepage wetland or small spring-fed 

stream associated with these groundwater discharge features. Perched or shallow subsurface drainage seeps 

not directly connected to the underlying aquifer should not be counted (groundwater discharge in areas of highly 

permeable fluvial deposits should be assumed to be connected to the underlying aquifer). Springs/seeps often 

occur on lower portions of side-slopes adjacent to streams.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 23

Sand and Gravel Aquifers: (check one)

Mapped Significant Sand and Gravel Aquifer does not occur in buffer _____

(No adjustment to buffer width)

Mapped Significant Sand and Gravel Aquifer (or any portion of such a feature) occurs in buffer _____

(Include entire portion of the aquifer)

source ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Wetlands: (check all that apply)

No wetlands located in the buffer _____

(No adjustment to buffer width)

Isolated wetland (not connected to stream by surface drainage) occurs in buffer _____

Wetland directly connected to stream by surface drainage occurs in buffer _____

(Add 25 ft to Zone 2 for the presence of any wetland regardless of whether it is isolated or 

connected. Further expand Zone 2 to encompass the entire wetland for any wetland that is at least partly 

in the buffer and is connected to the stream being protected by means of surface flows)

source _____________________________________________________________________________

Very Steep Slopes (>25 percent): Note all areas in the buffer that have very steep slopes (check one).

Very steep slopes not located in buffer area _____

(No adjustment to buffer width)

Very steep slopes identified in buffer area _____

(Expand Zone 2 as necessary to encompass the entire area of very steep slopes plus 35 ft beyond break 

of grade

source ____________________________________________________________________________

Additional Data

Streambank Condition

Streambank is stable, abundance of plants with binding root mass or presence of rock outcropping or 

boulders, no evidence of erosion_____

Streambank is unstable, severely degraded or undercut and sloughing into the stream _____

source ___________________________________________________________________________

 

Note: This data does not result in additional adjustments to buffer width, but is helpful in identifying streambank 

locations that require further hydrological evaluation and, potentially, future restoration.

Soils Series and Surficial Geology:

Superficial geologic material(s) in buffer__________________________________________________

source ____________________________________________________________________________

Note: This data does not result specific additional adjustments to the buffer width, but this information may 

help identify soil characteristics, aspects of water movement through the buffer, and areas sensitive to potential 

groundwater contamination.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Identifiable Land Uses:

Type of land use location/coverage source

1.________________________ ________________________ ___________________________

2.________________________ ________________________ ___________________________

3.________________________ ________________________ ___________________________

Note: Land uses affect buffer attributes such as percent canopy cover, surface roughness, and soil 

hydrologic group (infiltration capacity). These, in turn, affect optimal buffer width. But additional buffer 

width adjustments are not made as a result of specific land use practices historically occurring in the 

buffer. There are recommended land use restrictions in the buffer zone (Zone 1 and Zone 2); however, in 

many cases, it is impractical to eliminate historical uses in these zones. Best management practices to 

protect soils and water quality and provide shading should be employed to the maximum extent possible 

within the two zones of the buffer. Best management practices are also recommended in Zone 3 (typical 

crop, pasture or range uses).

Note any differences between actual field conditions and desktop data collected (field data should 

generally take precedent over desktop data):

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Other Notes:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 25

Buffer Unit #: _____

1. Length of buffer unit along baseline/stream*: ___________

2. Width of buffer unit used to measure/determine buffer attributes (in other words, not the same as optimal buffer 

width-use A-4): __________

3. Unadjusted buffer width from key: _________

4. Adjust number from the key to account for those factors that result in specific increases or decreases in buffer 

 width:

 Adjustment for surface water features __________ = __________

 Adjustment for groundwater seepage/springs: __________ = __________

Adjustment for significant sand & gravel aquifers __________ = __________

 Adjustment for wetlands: __________ = __________

 Adjusted Buffer Width: __________

5. Finally, expand the buffer width as necessary to include:

a. all areas of very steep (>25 percent) slopes that are at least partially within the adjusted buffer width 

(as determined in Step 2) plus 35 ft beyond break in grade, and

b. all wetlands connected to the stream by surface drainage that are at least partially within the adjusted 

buffer width (as determined in Step 2)

Describe adjustments made, if any, for very steep slopes: _____________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Describe adjustments made, if any, for connected wetlands: ____________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

 * The length of buffer units should be no more than 300 ft along the baseline of the stream reach 

being protected (the baseline is parallel to the normal high water mark of the stream or, if 

there are adjacent floodplains or open wetlands, the baseline is parallel to the landward edge of these 

features). Evaluators should not be constrained by this number; however, you may choose smaller 

lengths so that breaks between buffer units coincide with logical changes in buffer attributes, such as 

abrupt changes in slope, soils, percent vegetative cover, or wetlands.

Appendix A-2: Water Quality Buffer Unit Worksheet
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

To determine the portion of the riparian buffer for which attributes data is gathered, start by determining the slope in the area between 0 and 100 ft and proceed 

as necessary through the table presented below:

Appendix A-3: Table to Determine Portion of Buffer to 

Measure Attributes

If slope is:

<5 percent in the area between mean high watermark 

(0) or edge of floodplain or open wetland and the 

next 70 ft landward,

5 to 15 percent in the area between mean high watermark (0) or edge of floodplain or open wetlands and 

the next 70 ft, but <5 percent in area between 0 and 

150 ft,

5 to 15 percent in the area between mean high watermark (0) or edge of floodplain or open wetland 

and the next 70 ft, and 5 to 15 percent in the area 

between 0 and 150 ft,

>15 percent in the area between mean high watermark 

or edge of floodplain or open wetlands and the next 

70 ft, but <15 percent in the area between 0 and 

200 ft,

>15 percent in the area between or the edge of floodplain or open wetlands and the next 100 ft, and 

>15 percent in the area between TOB or edge of 

floodplain or open wetlands 0 and 200 ft,

Then measure buffer attributes 

in this portion of buffer:

Mean high watermark to top of bank (TOB) 

+ 35 ft or 70 ft, whichever is greater.

Mean high watermark to TOB + 35 ft or 

125 ft, whichever is greater.

Mean high watermark to TOB + 35 ft or 

150 ft, whichever is greater.

Mean high watermark to TOB + 35 ft or 

175 ft, whichever is greater.

Mean high water mark to TOB + 35 ft or 

200 ft, whichever is greater. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 27

1. Slopes 0 to 5 percent

2. hydrologic group A and B soils

3. high surface roughness 70 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 80 ft

3. low surface roughness 90 ft

2. hydrologic group C soils

3. high surface roughness 90 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 100 ft

3. low surface roughness 110 ft

2. hydrologic group D soils

3. high surface roughness 110 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 120 ft

3. low surface roughness 130 ft

1. Slopes 5 to 15 percent

2. hydrologic group A and B soils

3. high surface roughness 100 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 110 ft

3. low surface roughness 120 ft

2. hydrologic group C soils

3. high surface roughness 120 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 130 ft

3. low surface roughness 140 ft

2. hydrologic group D soils

3. high surface roughness 140 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 150 ft

3. low surface roughness 160 ft

1. Slopes 15 to 25 percent

2. hydrologic group A and B soils

3. high surface roughness 130 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 140 ft

3. low surface roughness 150 ft

2. hydrologic group C soils

3. high surface roughness 150 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 160 ft

3. low surface roughness 170 ft

2. hydrologic group D soils

3. high surface roughness 170 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 180 ft

3. low surface roughness 190 ft

1. Slopes >25 percent

2. hydrologic group A and B soils

3. high surface roughness 160 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 170 ft

3. low surface roughness 180 ft

2. hydrologic group C soils

3. high surface roughness 180 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 190 ft

3. low surface roughness 200 ft

2. hydrologic group D soils

3. high surface roughness 200 ft

3. moderate surface roughness 210 ft

3. low surface roughness 220 ft

Appendix A-4: Optimal Buffer Width Key: Unadjusted 

Width*

Or, top of bank or landward edge of floodplain or wetland plus 35 ft, whichever is 

greater.

* This key yields unadjusted optimal buffer widths that are subsequently adjusted to account for the presence of other buffer 

variables such as wetlands, surface water features, springs, significant sand and gravel aquifers, and very steep slopes.

. . . . . . . . .
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Appendix A-5: Adjustment Factors Key

Adjustment to Buffer Width

If surface water features, whether perennial or intermittent, are present in the buffer and are connected to 

the in-stream habitat being protected by surface drainage, increase the buffer width by 50 ft.

If groundwater seepage or springs or leaking canals are 

present in the buffers that are directly connected to the 

underlying aquifer increase the buffer width by 25 ft.

If significant sand and gravel aquifers are present in 

the buffer, increase the buffer width by 25 ft.

Floodplains, no matter how wide, are considered part 

of the stream resource being protected rather than part 

of the buffer zone. Therefore, establish the baseline 

(start point) for buffer width measurement at the 

landward edge of floodplain plus 35 ft (and also nonforested wetlands as detailed below).

If wetlands or portions of wetlands occur in the buffer, increase the buffer width by 25 ft regardless of 

whether the wetland is isolated or connected. In addition, if these wetlands or portions of wetlands are 

hydrologically connected to the in-stream resource 

being protected by surface (including seasonal or intermittent) drainage, expand the buffer as necessary to 

encompass the entire area of wetlands. Open wetlands 

(riverine, lacustrine, depressional and slope wetlands) 

immediately adjacent to the stream are considered 

part of the stream resource being protected rather than 

part of the buffer zone. Therefore, establish the baseline (start point) for buffer width measurement at the 

landward edge of adjacent open wetlands plus 35 ft.

If very steep slopes occur in the buffer, expand the buffer as necessary to encompass the entire area of very 

steep slopes and add 35 ft landward from the break in 

grade.

Buffers adjacent to first and second order streams, no 

matter how narrow are afforded the same calculated 

optimal riparian buffer widths as larger streams (in 

other words, there is no downward adjustment for narrower, smaller order streams).

The following table lists additional buffer attributes not included in the optimal buffer width key and specifies buffer 

adjustments for each of these variables.

Buffer Attributes

Surface Water Features 

(for example, stream, 

canals, ditches, 

gullies, and ponds)

Groundwater Seepage/Springs 

(includes discharge spring 

water, and canal leakage)

Sand and Gravel Aquifers

Floodplains

Wetlands

Very Steep Slopes 

(> 25 percent)

Stream Order
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 29

Appendix A-6: Surface Roughness Guidelines and 

Photos

High Degree of Surface Roughness

Buffer units with a high degree of surface roughness have the following characteristics:

•  The microtopography is complex. Often there is undulating topography resulting 

from previous geologic and hydrologic events so that a portion of the land slopes 

away from the stream. The land surface does not slope smoothly and consistently 

toward the stream.

•  The buffer unit is forested or covered with dense stands of riparian scrub or shrubsteppe vegetation or dense rush/sedge vegetation. Non-forested or sparsely populated 

riparian/wetland or shrub-steppe buffers have either a typical or a low degree of 

surface roughness. Non-forested or sparsely vegetated, rush/sedge, or shrub buffers 

allow greater quantities of runoff to reach the stream and are more susceptible to 

concentrated flow patterns.

•  The surface organic horizon (duff layer) is intact throughout the buffer unit. If exposed, mineral soil related to human impacts (for example, over grazing, dirt roads, 

and recreation trails where the surface organic horizon has been removed down to 

mineral material) occurs anywhere in the buffer units and automatically, there is a 

low degree of surface roughness. Areas of exposed mineral soil often become concentrated flow paths for runoff. Natural occurrences of mineral soils, such as tip-ups

(trees that fall over bringing the root crown and attached mineral soils to the soil 

surface), may be present. In natural shrub-steppe plant communities, 35 percent 

exposed mineral soil is common and undisturbed sites may be covered with 

cryptogamic crust.

•  In forested areas, dead-and-down wood and rotting logs and stumps are common. 

Specifically, coarse woody debris (>1 inch) is scattered about and older woody debris is being incorporated into the organic horizon.

•  Often, there is a well-developed grass forb layer. However, in shaded riparian woodlands this will not always be the case. A dense grass/forb layer is not necessary, 

although it remains important for a high degree of surface roughness as long as other 

factors are present.

•  Often, boulders and exposed bedrock are common and, where present, add microtopographical complexity. This feature is not required and may not be present in 

some cases.

•  Greater than 65 percent of the land surface contains surface roughness features. 

Surface roughness features include: coarse-woody debris, woody and herbaceous 

vegetation, emergent wetland vegetation, rotten stumps and logs, litter, boulders, 

rock outcroppings, and land that slopes away from the stream (see Appendix A-7 for 

estimating percent coverage).
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Typical (or Moderate) Degree of Surface Roughness

Buffers with a typical degree of surface roughness have the following characteristics:

•  Between 35 and 65 percent of the land surface contains surface roughness features 

(see above for surface roughness features).

•  For an open (non-forested) system, such as shrub-steppe or wet meadow, it must 

not be intensively grazed, mowed, hayed, or intensively managed (for example, 

row crop agriculture or winter feed lot) and vegetation must be rough and dense. 

Usually, there will be clumps of woody vegetation establishing due to lack of mowing or reduced or eliminated grazing. Also, there must be surface roughness features 

other than herbaceous vegetation, such as woody debris, boulders, or hummocky 

topography, over at least 5 percent of the land surface by aerial coverage.

•  The surface organic horizon (duff layer) is intact throughout the buffer unit.

Low Degree of Surface Roughness

Buffers with a low degree of surface roughness have the following characteristics:

•  Less than 35 percent of the land surface contains surface roughness features.

•  Buffer units with exposed mineral soils as a result of human use automatically have 

a low degree of surface roughness, as do managed areas (for example, areas that are 

intensively grazed, mowed, or used for agriculture).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 31

Surface Roughness Features include:

•  wet meadow

•  emergent wetland

•  deep rooted woody and/or herbaceous vegetation, 

and for riverine and lacustrine wetlands, may also 

include coarse woody debris, litter, boulders, and 

micro-topography 

Low Surface Roughness

Less than 35 percent of the land surface contains 

surface roughness features.

Low Surface 

Roughness

Photos by Susan Buffler.
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Moderate Surface 

Roughness

Surface Roughness Features include:

•  wet meadow

•  emergent wetland

•  deep rooted woody and/or herbaceous vegetation, 

and for riverine and lacustrine wetlands, may also 

include coarse woody debris, litter, boulders, and 

micro-topography

Moderate Surface Roughness

Between 35 and 65 percent of the land surface contains surface roughness features.

Photo by Susan Buffler. Photo by Craig Johnson.

Photo by Craig Johnson.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 33

Surface Roughness Features include:

•  wet meadow

•  emergent wetland

•  deep rooted woody and/or herbaceous vegetation, 

and for riverine and lacustrine wetlands, may also 

include coarse woody debris, litter, boulders, and 

micro-topography 

High Surface Roughness

Greater than 65 percent of the land surface contains 

surface roughness features.

High Surface 

Roughness

Photo by Craig Johnson. Photo by Susan Buffler.

Photo by Susan Buffler.

Photo by Craig Johnson.
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Appendix A-7: Estimating Vegetative Ground Cover 

Percentage

Note: To estimate percentages >50 percent, use white portions instead of black (for

example, to get an idea of what 75 percent looks like, look at 25 percent and use the 

white instead of the black). Each fourth of any one square has the same amount of 

black.

Diagram for estimating vegetative ground cover percentage.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 35

Appendix A-8: Land Use Specifications

Land Use Specifications for Zone 1 and Zone 2 and Recommendations for 

Zone 3

Zone 1

Zone 1 includes land from the normal high watermark of the stream landward 

to the top of bank plus 35 or 70 ft, whichever is greater. Or, in the case of floodplains and wetlands, 35 ft landward from the normal high watermark or where 

these features abut slopes >25 percent, extend buffer Zone 1 to TOB +35 ft. Zone 1 

is a no-disturbance or no-harvest zone where land uses that involve disturbance to soils 

or vegetation should be avoided. Many of the intended Zone 1 functions, such as bank 

stabilization and shading, will not operate optimally if tree or shrub removal or other 

land uses occur in this area.

Permitted exceptions to these recommendations include site disturbances associated 

with streambank, wetland, or shrub-steppe reclamation/restoration; wildlife habitat enhancement; and chemical use (spot spraying) to control invasive exotic vegetation. In 

addition, drift boat launch sites may be permitted, but design and specifications should

be reviewed before approval to proceed.

Zone 2

Zone 2 begins at the landward edge of Zone 1 and extends landward variable 

distances depending on primary and secondary site landscape attributes in the 

buffer. There are low-impact uses that can take place in Zone 2 that do not compromise the desired functions of this zone (as noted below). Uses that result in impervious 

surfaces; removal of the organic soil horizon; use of fertilizer or chemicals; significant

alterations to the infiltration capacity of the soils; or removal of trees or shrubs sufficient to jeopardize wind-firm conditions or bank stability should be avoided in this

variable-width zone. Uses that would compromise the desired functions of Zone 2 

include, but are not necessarily limited to, residential and commercial development, 

septic disposal systems, roads, row crop agriculture on slopes >5 percent, and unregulated grazing.

Low-impact tree harvesting, seasonal, short duration grazing, and agriculture (forage 

production) on slopes <5 percent are practices that may occur in this zone without compromising the desired function. Literature indicates that carefully managed vegetation 

removal in this zone serves as a mechanism to remove stored nutrients and chemical 

pollutants sequestered in the boles and large branches of trees, shrubs, and forage and 

enhance vigorous new growth (Welsch 1991; Chase and others 1997). Literature also 

indicates that controlled tree removal can take place without significantly affecting the

infiltration capacity of the soils (Welsch 1991; Chase and others 1997). However, there

is also abundant literature to suggest that forestry operations, row crop agriculture, and 

unmanaged grazing can result in significant sedimentation and other impacts if not

properly controlled (Davies and Sowles 1997) and thus precipitates the need for the 

limitations placed on forestry, grazing, and agriculture operations in Zone 2 (outlined 

below). Permitted exceptions include those described in Zone 1.

The objectives for vegetation management operations in Zone 2 are as follows:
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

•  To establish and maintain wind-firm, well-distributed, uneven-aged, or multi-aged

forest stands where they historically existed.

•  To establish and maintain diverse, vigorous, uneven-aged, or multi-aged shrubsteppe and riparian scrub vegetative stands where they historically existed.

•  To maintain sustainable forage production or grazing on areas in buffers committed 

to this land, use on lands <5 percent slope.

Therefore,

•  Water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be observed at all times.

•  New roads and borrow pits should not be developed in buffer areas.

No more than 40 percent of the volume of timber over 6 inches in DBH should be removed in any 10-year period from Zone 2 buffer areas.

•  A 35-ft no-harvest strip should be maintained adjacent to all perennial surface water

features (in other words, perennial streams, ponds) in Zone 2 that are directly connected by surface flow to the in-stream resource being protected.

•  Harvesting operations in Zone 2 buffers should be curtailed when harvesting equipment creates significant soil disturbance (for example, mineral soils are exposed or

sheet and rill erosion is evidenced). Operations should be limited to periods when 

the soils are frozen solid.

•  Agriculture should be limited to the production of sod forming grasses or alfalfa on 

slopes <5 percent.

•  All grazing in Zone 2 should be seasonal, of short duration, and observe best range 

management practices. Cattle watering facilities should be located outside Zone 2. 

If impractical, river access should be fenced and armored at the stream bank edge.

•  If significant soil disturbance should occur, remediation should be undertaken immediately with logging slash and other appropriate materials. Remediation should 

accomplish restoring conditions to the point where they are functionally similar to 

the predisturbance condition.

If these guidelines are followed, tree harvesting, grazing, and agricultural operations 

may be conducted without adversely affecting buffer function or causing harm to instream habitats. Other land uses that would not compromise intended Zone 2 functions 

include light recreation such as hunting, walking trails, picnic tables, and low-impact 

camp sites.

Land uses affect buffer attributes such as percent canopy cover, surface roughness, 

and infiltration capacity (soil hydrologic group). These, in turn, affect optimal buffer

width. Therefore, buffers that contain agricultural uses or development will, all else 

being equal, cause wider optimal buffer width determinations. There are recommended 

land use restrictions in each buffer zone (Zone 1 and Zone 2); however, in many cases, 

it is impractical to eliminate historical uses, such as residential development, already in 

these zones. To the extent that such uses can be discontinued and the non-conforming 

portions of the buffer can be allowed to revert to naturally vegetated buffer, buffer effectiveness will be maximized. The calculated optimal buffer width will decrease as 

succession allows abandoned lands to revert to forested riparian scrub or shrub-steppe 

systems (for example, due to greater percent canopy, shrub-steppe, or riparian scrub 

coverage and higher degrees of surface roughness).

Where it is impractical to remove/abandon prior uses, best management practices to 

protect soils and water quality and provide shading should be employed to the maximum 

extent possible within the two zones of the buffer. It is beyond the scope of this handbook to review buffer best management practices in detail. Where possible, however, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 37

the establishment of native woody vegetation (by planting or natural succession) within 

the managed portion of the buffer is recommended. In addition, channelization of runoff should be prevented/minimized and adherence to storm water BMPs, particularly 

on-site retention of storm water, should be employed.

Zone 3 Optional Recommendations

Zone 3 is the landscape on the landward edge of Zone 2. Irrigated and non-irrigated crops, grazing, and increasing exurban residential development are predominant 

uses. Research has shown that implementation of BMP (field borders, buffer strips,

filter strips, grassed waterways, storm water management, and other NRCS practices) can significantly reduce sediments and pollutants originating with these land uses

(Schnepf and Cox 2006). Thus, BMPs are recommended for Zone 3 to protect longterm buffer functional efficiency.
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Appendix A-9: Websites for State Sources of GIS 

Data

IDAHO

Interactive Numeric and Spatial Information Data Engine with links to Federal, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, 

Nevada, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and other sites

http://inside.uidaho.edu/default.htm

MONTANA

Montana State Library—Montana Natural Resource Information System—Geographic Information

http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/default.htm

OREGON

University of Oregon Libraries—Map and Aerial Photography Collection Maps and GIS Resources: 

United States, by State

http://libweb.uoregon.edu/map/map_section/map_Statedatasets.html

UTAH

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Index of Available GIS Data

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/DownloadGIS/disclaim.htm

USGS—List of Spatial Data Sets for Water (Water quality and hydrologic data by county for Utah—

bottom of page)

http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getgislist

WASHINGTON

Washington Access—Official State Government Website Department of Ecology GIS

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/data.htm

WYOMING

Wyoming Geographic Information Advisory Council—Wyoming Spatial Data Clearinghouse

http://wgiac2.state.wy.us/html/wsdc_index.asp

GENERAL

Natural Resource Conservation Service—NRCS GIS and Data Sites

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nrcsdata.html

Environmental Protection Agency—EPA Region 8—GIS and Spatial Data (Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado)

http://www.epa.gov/region08/gis/gislinks.html

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Data (Links to all states)

http://www.fws.gov/data/gishome.html
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 39

Appendix A-10: Illustrations of Project Boundary 

Delineation and Buffer Units

Illustration of project boundary delineation and buffer units.
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Illustration of buffer unit cross sections.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 41

Appendix A-11: Rosgen Stream Classification 

Diagrams

Rosgen Stream Classification Diagrams. Source: Rosgen, D.L (1996). Used with permission.
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Rosgen Stream Classification Table. Source: Rosgen, D.L (1996). Used with permission.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 43

Date:_______________________ Surveyed by:__________________________________

 

 USGS quad:__________________________________

Landowner address (mailing):

______________________________________ Stream name:_________________________________

 ______________________________________

Buffer Unit #:________________

Data for Determining the Baseline for Wildlife Buffers: Use the buffer delineated for water quality as a starting 

point.

Data for use in Habitat Management Recommendations and Zones of Use Keys: Check the appropriate 

boxes in response to the questions and matrices that follow.

A. Attribute: Level of landowner willingness/ability to participate in wildlife conservation 

Check the appropriate answer. Level 1_____________ Level 2_____________ Level 3_____________

source ____________________________________________________________________________________

B. Attribute: Federally Listed Species

Check the appropriate answer below.

The presence of habitat for federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered (T or E) plants or wildlife within 

the project site may require special planning procedures to meet requirements of the species of concern. Formal 

consultations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service may be required. Riparian buffer configuration, its structural 

characteristics, and permitted uses within the buffer may be affected to protect the species of concern. 

Threatened or endangered species listed or proposed are present on the project site Y____ N ____

species______________________________________ source _____________________________________

C. Attribute: State Listed Species

Check the appropriate answer below.

Some riparian buffer sites may be inhabited by State listed species of concern. These species do not receive 

the same level of protection afforded Federally listed T and E species, however, the riparian buffer plan should 

give special consideration to conservation of State listed species. Consultation with state wildlife agencies is 

recommended. Riparian buffer configuration, its structural characteristics, and permitted uses within the buffer 

may be affected to protect the species of concern. 

State listed species of concern are present on the project site Y ____ N ____

species______________________________________ source _____________________________________

Appendix B-1: Wildlife Habitat Buffer Data Form and 

Worksheet
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

PRIMARY BUFFER ATTRIBUTES 

D. Attribute: Plant Community Vigor Inventory

Use matrix below to determine resource presence or absence and estimate percent of native species. 

Circle the appropriate answers in the matrix below (H=High, M=Moderate, or L=Low; Y=Yes, N=No, or na=not 

applicable).

 

 RIPARIAN UPLAND

Criteria 

Hydrological processes that operate across the site are sufficient 

to sustain riparian/wetland vegetation (1).

Y N na

Plant horizontal and vertical structure normally associated with 

plant community type is present (2).

Y N na Y N na

Native plant species normally associated with plant community 

type are present. Reported as percent of native species (3).

>90% 75-

90%

<75% >90% 75-

90%

<75%

Rating based on percentage and professional judgment (3). H M L H M L

Range of age classes of dominant tree and or shrub species is 

present in the buffer unit (4).

Y N na

Adapted from: BLM (1998), Berglund (1999), Keate (2004)

Comments:

source/calculation method _____________________________________________________________________

1. Indicators of natural hydrological processes sufficient to sustain riparian/wetland vegetation include but are 

not limited to: absence of upstream or on-site human made dams or diversions, over-bank flow across the active 

flood plain at least once every 2 to 3 years, channel alignment, cross section and gradient in balance with the 

geomorphic setting or mean depth to water table in the riparian zone is < 20 inches.

2. Estimate by comparing project site to reference site, literature descriptions, or historical reference. See 

Appendix B-4 for plant list.

3. Calculate the ratio of native to non-native species of the most dominant trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species 

based on the point sampling procedure detailed in Appendix B-5. Refer to Appendix B-4 for a general plant list. 

The plant list may require modification to reflect sub-regional characteristics. Select final rating (H, M, or L). This 

rating may be lowered based on professional judgment if an expected plant community component is missing. 

4. Estimate by comparing project site to reference site, literature descriptions, or historical references. In the study 

area, age stands are not uniformly distributed along the stream channel. Typically, greatest stand age diversity 

occurs on point bars and transition areas between pools and riffles. In multiple channel or braided streams, 

recruitment is high on in-stream bars and islands. Mature and senescent plants are most prevalent along straight 

reaches and abandoned channels. 

Stand age class diversity for woody species in the riparian plant community should be estimated for the entire 

project area by comparing the length of project site reach with similar length of reach in the reference area. The 

estimate is recorded in Step I. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 45

E. Attribute: Plant Community Vigor Rating - Riparian Plant Community

Use the matrix below with circled responses from Step D to estimate plant community vigor. Circle the appropriate 

answers in the boxes below (H=High, M=Moderate, or L=Low; Y=Yes or N=No).

Criteria

Hydrological processes are present to sustain 

riparian/wetland vegetation (from Step D)

Y N

Plant community horizontal and vertical structure 

normally associated with the plant community type 

is present (from Step D)

Y N Y N

Native plant species normally associated with the 

plant community type are present (use H, M, or L 

from Step D)

H M L H M L H M L H M L

Rating calculated (circle rating) H H L H M L M M L M L L

Actual functional points 

(record points in rating box below)

1.0 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1

Adapted from: BLM (1998), Berglund (1998), Keate (2004)

RATING High Moderate Low

Score - report the functional point score from matrix above

Comments:

source/calculation method ____________________________________________________________________

E. Attribute: Plant Community Vigor Rating - Upland Plant Community

Use the matrix below with circled responses from Step D to estimate plant community vigor. Circle the appropriate 

answers in the boxes below (H=High, M=Moderate, or L=Low; Y=Yes or N=No).

Criteria

Plant Community horizontal and vertical structure normally 

associated with the plant community type is present (from 

Step D)

Y N

Native plant species normally associated with the plant 

community type are present (use H, M or L from Step D) H M L H M L

Rating calculated (circle rating) H M L M L L

Actual functional points 

(record points in rating box below)

1.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.1

Adapted from: Mee and others (2003), Paige and Ritter (1999)

RATING High Moderate Low

Score - report the functional point score from matrix above

Comments:

source/calculation method____________________________________________________________________
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

F. Attribute: Level of Human-induced Distrubance or Fragmentation in the Buffer Unit

Use the matrix below to estimate the level of human induced disturbance/fragmentation in the buffer unit and 

adjacent area. Circle the appropriate answer in the matrix below and record the score in the rating box below 

(H=High, M=Moderate, or L=Low).

Criteria Conditions adjacent to buffer unit (within 600 ft of 

the project boundary)

Conditions within buffer unit Land occurs and 

is managed in 

predominately 

natural state; 

is not grazed, 

hayed, logged; 

or otherwise 

converted; does 

not contain 

buildings

Land not 

cultivated, but 

moderately 

grazed or hayed 

or selectively 

logged; or has 

been subject to 

minor clearing; 

contains 

few roads or 

buildings

Land cultivated or 

heavily grazed or 

logged; subject 

to substantial 

fill placement, 

grading, clearing, 

or hydrological 

alteration; high road 

or building density

Buffer unit occurs and is managed in predominately natural 

state; is not grazed, hayed, logged; or otherwise converted; 

does not contain roads or occupied buildings

1.0 (L) 0.9 (L) 0.7 (M)

Buffer unit not cultivated, but moderately grazed or hayed or 

selectively logged; or otherwise converted; does not contain 

roads or occupied buildings

0.7 (M) 0.5 (M) 0.3 (H)

Cultivated or heavily grazed or logged; subject to relatively 

substantial fill placement, grading, clearing or hydrological 

alteration; high road or building density

0.5 (H) 0.2 (H) 0.1 (H)

RATING

RATING

High Moderate Low

Score - report the functional point score from matrix above

 

Comments: Note types of disturbance, intensity, and season.

Mapping: Outline on the base map any areas >300 sq ft with high levels of disturbance in the buffer unit. (Map 

overlay #1)

source/calculation method____________________________________________________________________

Adapted from: Bergland (1998) and Johnson and others(2004)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 47

G. Atrribute: Relative Abundance of Exotic Invasive Vegetation - Riparian Plant Community

Use the matrix below to determine relative abundance of invasive exotic vegetation. Circle the appropriate answer 

in the matrix and record the score in the rating box (H=High, M=Moderate, or L=Low).

Criteria H M L

>25 pecent of the area of the riparian plant community in the buffer 

unit is occupied by invasive exotic plant species 0.3

Between 10 and 25 percent of the area of the riparian plant community 

in the buffer unit is occupied by invasive exotic plant species 0.7

<10 percent of the area of the riparian plant community in the buffer 

unit is occupied by invasive exotic plant species 1.0

 Adapted from: Keate (2004), Johnson and others (2004)

RATING High Moderate Low

Score - report the functional point score from matrix above

Comments:

Mapping: On the base map, outline grass and forb areas (>300 sq ft), shrub areas (>600 sq ft) and treed areas 

(>900 sq ft) with greater than 75 percent invasive exotic vegetation (Map overlay #2).

source/calculation method___________________________________________________________________

G. Atrribute: Relative Abundance of Exotic Invasive Vegetation - Upland Plant Community

Use the matrix below to determine relative abundance of invasive exotic vegetation. Circle the appropriate answer 

in the matrix and record the score in the rating box (H=High, M=Moderate, or L=Low).

Criteria H M L

>25 percent of the area of the upland plant community in the buffer 

unit is occupied by invasive exotic plant species 0.3

Between 10 and 25 percent of the area of the upland plant community 

in the buffer unit is occupied by invasive exotic plant species 0.7

<10 percent of the area of the upland plant community in the buffer 

unit is occupied by invasive exotic plant species 1.0

 Adapted from: Keate (2004), Johnson and others (2004)

RATING High Moderate Low

Score - report the functional point score from matrix above

Comments:

Mapping: On the base map, outline grass and forb areas (>300 sq ft), shrub areas (>600 sq ft) and treed areas 

(>900 sq ft) with greater than 75 percent invasive exotic vegetation (Map overlay #2).

source/calculation method________________________________________________________________
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

H. Attribute: Habitat Suitability Rating for Riparian Breeding Birds

Use the bird survey protocol described in Appendix B-6 to estimate the habitat suitability of existing vegetation 

for riparian obligate or dependent breeding land birds. See Appendix B-5 for a list of riparian land bird species. 

Circle the appropriate answer in the matrix and record score in rating box (H=High, M=Moderate, or L=Low).

Criteria H M L

>80 percent of the species expected to be present were observed

1.0

60 to 80 percent of the species expected to be present were observed

0.7

<60 percent of the species expected to be present were observed

0.3

Adapted from: Rich (2002)

RATING High Moderate Low

Score - report the functional point score from matrix above

Calculation: number of observed species ÷ number of expected species x 100

Comments:

source/calculation method________________________________________________________________

I. Project Scale Attribute: Range of Age Classes

Range of age classes of dominant native riparian tree and or shrub species for all buffer units combined (applies 

only to buffer projects with a stream length ≥1200 ft (Johnson and others 2004; Keate 2004). 

Use the answer key below to estimate the range of age classes for the project site. 

1. The stream bank length in the project site is ≥1200 ft Y ___ N ___

If the answer is NO, circle na in the rating box below and proceed to the next step; if the answer is YES answer 

question #2.

2. The riparian plant community in the buffer unit has the diversity of age classes of dominant native trees and or 

shrubs typical of riparian zones in this stream class Y ___ N ___ Enter your response in the buffer unit rating 

box below.

If, after evaluating all buffer units, the conclusion is that the project site does not have the expected level of 

stand age diversity circle -0.2 in the project site rating box. Then proceed to Step J, subtract 0.2 from the percent 

functional points and enter the new score in the modified percent total functional points box in Step J.

Buffer Unit Rating Box Y N na

Project Site Rating Box

Adjust the buffer unit score as described above. The adjusted 

score is recorded in the modified percent total functional points 

rating box in Step J.

 -0.2
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 49

Optional Step: Habitat Suitability Rating for Target Species

Conduct this step if the landowner or planning group has selected a target species. Compare the condition of 

existing habitat with the target species habitat model. The levels of target species habitat suitability below provide 

guidelines for evaluation. Circle the appropriate rating in the rating box below.

High: The buffer unit contains most of the food cover, water, space, reproductive sites, security, special features, 

and other life requisites necessary to sustain the target species.

Moderate: The buffer unit contains most of the food, cover, water, space, reproductive sites, security, special 

features, and other life requisites necessary to sustain the target species but one or more of the life requisites is 

limited in quality, quantity, or availability.

Low: The buffer unit contains few or none of the food, cover, water, space, reproductive sites, security, special 

features, and other life requisites necessary to sustain the target species.

Target species name:___________________________________

RATING BOX High Moderate Low

Comments:

Target species name:___________________________________

RATING BOX High Moderate Low

Comments:

source/calculation method____________________________________________________________________

Note: Target species habitat suitability ratings are not used for estimating the functional condition of plant 

communities in the buffer unit. However, they will be useful in developing specific habitat management plans for 

the species.
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

J. Riparian Plant Community Ecological Functional Condition Rating Form: Unadjusted

Enter the general evaluation ratings (H, M, or L) and actual functional points (0 to 1) from the previous sections. 

Add up the actual functional points. 

Function variables

(primary site attributes)

General

evaluation

H-M-L

Actual

functional

points

Possible

functional

points

Plant community vigor

Step E 1.0

Levels of human-induced disturbance or fragmentation

Step F 1.0

Relative abundance of invasive exotic plant species

Step G 1.0

Habitat for riparian obligate and dependent land breeding birds 

Step H 1.0

Totals 4.0

Modified Rating

If the answer to the question in Step I (Project Scale Attribute) is NO, subtract 0.2 from the unadjusted habitat 

quality rating (percent total functional points) and enter the new modified habitat quality rating score in the 

rating box below. If a modification is made as described above, use the modified score to estimate the Function 

Condition Category for the buffer unit, otherwise use the unadjusted score.

Unadjusted Habitat Quality Rating - Riparian

(percent functional points = actual functional points ÷ possible 

functional points x 100

percent of total 

functional

points

Modified Habitat Quality Rating - Riparian Y____N____ Modified percent 

of total functional 

points

J. Upland Plant Community Ecological Functional Condition Rating Form: Unadjusted

Enter the general evaluation ratings (H, M, or L) and actual functional points (0 to 1) from the previously rated 

primary site attributes. Add up the actual functional points. 

Function variables

(primary site attributes)

General

evaluation

H-M-L

Actual

functional

points

Possible

functional

points

Plant community vigor

Step E 1.0

Levels of human-induced disturbance or fragmentation

Step F 1.0

Relative abundance of invasive exotic plant species

Step G 1.0

Totals 3.0

Unadjusted Habitat Quality Rating - Upland _________

(percent functional points = actual functional points ÷ possible functional points x 100) 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 51

Overall Unadjusted Functional Condition Rating and Management Recommendation 

Circle the appropriate functional condition in the rating box for the riparian/wetland and upland plant communities 

using the criteria below.

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC)

Riparian/wetland

 • A score of High for habitat suitability for riparian/wetland obligate or dependent and breeding birds or score 

>80 pecent (0.8) of the possible functional points.

Upland

 • A score of ≥80 percent (0.8) of the possible functional points.

Proper functioning condition plant communities are high quality habitats with numerous niches for a diversity 

of species. They are generally uncommon in the study area. These high quality remnants are critical to the 

persistence of biodiversity in the study area.

Management Recommendation: Preservation

Functional-At Risk (FAR)

Riparian/wetland

• A score of Moderate for habitat suitability for riparian/wetland obligate or dependent land breeding birds or a 

score of <80 percent (0.8) but >60 percent (0.6) of the possible functional points.

Upland

• Score <80 percent (0.8) but >60 percent (0.6) of the possible functional points.

Functional-At Risk plant communities are moderate quality habitat for some species but typically have fewer 

niches and do not support the diversity of species associated with plant communities rated PFC. FAR plant 

communities are more common than PFC communities; they are less stable and thus susceptible to further 

degradation.

Management Recommendation: Enhancement/Rehabilitation

Nonfunctional (NF)

Riparian/wetland

• Does not meet the scoring criteria described above.

Upland

• Does not meet the scoring criteria described above.

Nonfunctional plant communities are typically low quality habitat for most wildlife species; they have few niches 

and wildlife species diversity is low. The condition will persist if the causes of dysfunction are not addressed.

Management Recommendation: Reclamation/Restoration

RATING

Riparian PFC FAR NF

Upland PFC FAR NF
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

K. Functional Condition Rating Adjustment Key

Make functional condition rating adjustments (if necessary) to segments within the buffer unit using the specific 

single attribute criteria below. Make adjustments across buffer unit boundaries (including single attribute 

adjustments) when preparing the final project scale functional condition map using the criteria below.

Adjustment 1 - Specific Single Attribute

Adjustment

Areas >300 sq ft with high levels of human-induced 

disturbance (reference Map Overlay #1 from Step F)

Reduce the Unadjusted Ecological Functional 

Condition by one level in areas outlined as having high 

levels of human-induced disturbance on Map Overlay 

#1. (for example, PRC=FAR, FAR=NF, NF=NF)

Grass and forb areas (>300 sq ft), shrub areas (>600 

sq ft) and treed areas (>900 sq ft) with greater than 

75 percent invasive exotic vegetation (reference Map 

Overlay #2 from Step G)

Reduce the Unadjusted Ecological Functional 

Condition by one level in areas outlined as having >75 

percent invasive exotic plant species on Map Overlay 

#2. (for example, PFC=FAR, FAR=NF, NF=NF)

Adjustment 2 –Across Buffer Unit Boundaries

Modify the boundaries of the functional condition rating across buffer units to more accurately reflect on the 

ground conditions based on additional information and best professional judgment.

Mapping – Final Adjusted Ecological Functional Condition Map

Record the adjustments on a copy of the base map and redraw the map based on the adjustments. The 

redrawn map is the final Adjusted Ecological Functional Condition Map. This map is used to determine final 

habitat management recommendations and land use zones for the entire project site.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 53

L. Habitat Management and Land Use Zone Key for Plant Communities by Level of Participation

Level 1

For Level 1, the configuration of the riparian buffer for wildlife is the same as the buffer delineated for water 

quality. All management and land use recommendations occur inside the buffer. Level 1 landowners do not have 

wildlife conservation as a project objective. However, the buffer unit evaluation may identify areas within the 

buffer unit that are functional at-risk or non-functional. In these cases, the landowner should be encouraged to 

implement appropriate restoration or reclamation techniques to stabilize the problem areas.

Level 2

For Level 2, the configuration of the riparian buffer for wildlife conservation is the same as the buffer delineated 

for water quality. All management and land use recommendations occur inside the buffer.

Level 2: Management Recommendations and Land Use Zone Key

Functional Conditions from Step J/K Management Recommendations Land Use Zones & Specifications

Proper Functioning Condition Preservation Zone 1

Functioning at-Risk Enhancement/Rehabilitation

Nonfunctional Reclamation/Restoration

Comments:

See Appendix A-8 for Land Use Zones and Specifications.

Mapping: Record on the base map the functional condition rating, management recommendation and land use 

zone derived from the matrix above for both plant communities inside the buffer in the buffer unit.

Level 2: Target Species Habitat Management Recommendation Key

Habitat Rating from Step J/K Management Recommendations

Species Name: High Preservation

Moderate Enhancement/Rehabilitation

Low Reclamation/Restoration

Species Name: High Preservation

Moderate Enhancement/Rehabilitation

Low Reclamation/Restoration

Comments:

See Appendix A-8 for Land Use Zones and Specifications.

Mapping: Record on a separate base map the management recommendations for target species derived from 

the matrix above for both plant communities in the buffer unit.
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Level 3

For Level 3, the riparian buffer delineated for water quality is the core of the buffer for wildlife conservation. 

The buffer may be expanded to increase habitat value for wildlife or to enhance habitat functions (for example, 

widening the buffer to accommodate seasonal migration or connecting the buffer to other habitat patches).

Level 3: Management Recommendations and Land Use Zone Key

Functional Conditions from Step J/K Management Recommendations Land Use Zones & Specifications

Proper Functioning Condition Preservation Zone 1

Functioning at-Risk Enhancement/Rehabilitation

NonFunctional Reclamation/Restoration

Comments:

See Appendix A-8 for Land Use Zones and Specifications.

Mapping: Record on the base map the functional condition rating, management recommendation and land use 

zone derived from the matrix above for both plant communities inside the project site boundary. 

Level 3: Target Species Habitat Management Recommendation Key

Habitat Rating from Step J/K Management Recommendations

Species Name: High Preservation

Moderate Enhancement/Rehabilitation

Low Reclamation/Restoration

Species Name: High Preservation

Moderate Enhancement/Rehabilitation

Low Reclamation/Restoration

Comments:

See Appendix A-8 for Land Use Zones and Specifications.

Mapping: Record on the base map the functional condition rating, management recommendation and land use 

zone derived from the matrix above for both plant communities inside the project site boundary. 

Mapping: Record on a separate base map the management recommendations for target species derived from 

the matrix above for both plant communities in the buffer unit.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 55

Appendix B-2: Wildlife Species Habitat Model—

Example

Shorebird Habitat Model

Willet Scolopacidae Catoptrophorus semipalmatus inornatus

Model by Jenn Elliot

General Habitat Description

During the spring and fall, willets can be found along the edges of lakes and ponds; 

along streams, rivers, and canals; in irrigated agricultural areas; in rush/bulrush/sedge/

cattail type marshes; and in aquatic basins, sandbars, mudflats, and playas. Willets

prefer shallow water with little or no emergent vegetation. Habitat also consists of 

desert riparian deciduous woodland that provides a narrow band of trees (especially 

cottonwoods) and shrubs along the margins of streams and rivers. The willet favors 

ephemeral, temporary, seasonal, and alkali wetlands over semi-permanent and permanent wetlands. They also occupy areas that are open with lightly vegetated cover. They 

tend to avoid tilled land, but will use cultivated fields (Lowther and others 2001).

Food

The willet is a generalist (Lowther and others 2001). Overall, the general food habits of the willet are not well known. Both juvenile and adult willets eat the seeds, fruits,

and cones of vascular plants as well as worms, mollusks, crustaceans, aquatic insects, 

and insect larvae. Mollusca and insecta are especially important food sources. Adults 

and juveniles feed in the mud or silt, fresh water, and saline marshes. Willets forge by

probing in moist substrates. They also forage in the ground on their upland nesting 

sites and where there is sparse vegetation.

Water

Willets require wetlands with water depths ranging from dry mud to 4 inches deep 

(NatureServe 2006). As mentioned in the general habitat description, willets also prefer to have other water sources nearby (Lowther and others 2001).

Reproduction Cover

Willets breed and lay their eggs in fresh water marshes that consist of dry grasses, 

forbs, sedges, and rushes. They nest on alkaline grass on the edge of a body of water. 

Their gestation and incubation period is 3 to 4 weeks (NatureServe 2006). Breeding 

occurs from late April through late June for Cache County, Utah (Lowther and others 

2001). Nesting sites are located in open areas up to several hundred yards from the water’s edge (Stokes and Stokes 1996). Nests are usually found near a piece of driftwood, 

dried cattle dung, or rocks. In areas with few or no wetland basins, median distance of 

a nest site to any water feature is generally 1/2 mile (Lowther and others 2001). In the 

U.S. Great Basin, willets often nest at edges of sagebrush near ponds.

Home Range-Territory Size

Willet’s are both nocturnal and diurnal. They migrate during the night. The average 

size of a willet’s territory is 110 acres (NatureServe 2006). Willets are territorial during the breeding season, but little intraspecific hostility is observed following the hatch

(Lowther and others 2001). There is little information available regarding a willet’s 
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

home range size. It is fair to assume that the size of a willet’s home range is at least the 

size of its territory. They often use the same places to roost and forage. The distance 

between roosting and feeding is often around 1/2 mile (Lowther and others 2001).

Interspersion of Habitat Elements In Home Range

Willets require a mosaic of wetland types, from ephemeral to semi-permanent, interspersed with short to moderate height grasslands for nesting and brood rearing. No 

information was found on preferred distance between these features. As wetlands flood

or dry up, willets, along with their chicks, have been known to move to the next shallow water source, often a mile or more away (Lowther and others 2001).

Patch Size and Configuration

No specific information can be found in the literature concerning patch size. Based

on a willet’s territory and home range size, any patch that is smaller than 110 acres may 

not be adequate (Lowther and others 2001).

Factors Adversely Affecting the Species

Wetland availability and drought create unpredictable food resources. Neighborhood 

dogs can potentially disturb roosting birds. Heavy machinery and vehicles, including all terrain vehicles, apparently do not cause any disturbances to nesting willets 

(Lowther and others 2001). There are potential effects on adults and young from insecticides such as carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, dimethoate, and malathion, which 

are primarily used for grasshopper control. These effects and the extent to which they 

cause harm have not been fully researched. Insecticides may also have an indirect effect on the willet’s food resources. Willets have occasionally been hit by cars and have 

been known to run into power lines, particularly during aerial territorial and sexual 

chases (Lowther and others 2001).

Management Options

Recommendations include:

•  Protect contiguous blocks of native grassland >250 acres containing diverse complex of wetland types including temporary ponds (NatureServe 2006);

•  Bury power lines or avoid putting lines through wetlands;

•  Maintain shallow-water ponds with little or no emergent vegetation for pre- and 

post-breeding flocks and maintain shallow-water ponds with margins of emergent

vegetation for broods (Lowther and others 2001); and

•  Use rotational grazing to maintain preferred habitat of shorter, sparser vegetation 

(avoid grazing until early to later June) (Lowther and others 2001).

Site Specific Recommendations

Water depths should be kept shallow at a maximum of 4 inches, but kept stable during nesting and brood care (April through June) (NatureServe 2006). Water should be 

in wetland complexes so that in drought years wetlands and playas will have water. 

Berms should be used to hide architecture and parking lots adjacent to the willet’s

habitat. Berms should have a gradual (not steep) slope and be vegetated with native 

grassland species. Buildings near willet habitat should also have low profiles. No reflective effects should radiate from buildings. Power, telephone, and other utilities

traditionally placed above ground should be buried. Insecticide use should be minimized or eliminated.

Willets should be provided with continuous corridors with suitable wetland/grassland habitat to connect blocks of native grassland. When searching for habitat patches, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 57

look for pasturelands that are over 100 acres. Low growing crops can make an effective 

buffer and can be used for food sources, but habitat should include native grassland for 

successful nesting sites. Cropland used for buffers should not be left tilled, but replanted with a rotating crop (Lowther and others 2001). Nesting locations range between 

900 ft and 1/2 mile. Edges should be planted with the following playa plant species at 

a minimum distance of 300 ft from the water (Stokes and Stokes 1996).

Playa Plant Species List

Plants found in playas that are used by willets.

Common Name Scientific Name

pickleweed Salicornia europaea variety rubra

iodine bush Allenrolfea occidentalis

greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus

salt grass Distichlis spicata var. stricta

knotweed Polygonum spp.

mouse barley Hordeum murinum

pepper grass Lepidium perfoliatum

Gardner’s salt bush Atriplex gardneri

squirrel tail Sitanion hystrix
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Appendix B-3: List of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Data Needs

The following lists should be added to the water quality inventory list when planning for wildlife in the riparian buffer. The information and mapped data will be used 

to identify areas requiring reclamation/restoration or other management functions to 

improve wildlife habitat.

Wildlife Species Data Needs

•  List of species observed or whose presence is inferred from indirect evidence on 

the site

•  List of federal or state listed threatened or endangered species or state species of 

concern (if any)

•  List of species breeding on the site

•  List of potential breeding species (species associated with plant community types 

on the site), but not observed or inferred

•  List of nuisance species (if any)

•  Estimate of species abundance

Wildlife Habitat Data Needs

Existing Vegetation Map Layer

•  Grass plant community type

•  Grass/shrub community type

•  Riparian wooded plant community type

•  Riparian shrub plant community type

•  Riparian grass plant community type

•  Upland wooded plant community type (natural)

•  Upland wooded plant community type (introduced)

•  Wetland type

•  Invasive exotic vegetation

Existing Vegetation Stand Characteristics

•  Percent native species

•  Vegetative structure (layers)

•  Range of age classes (woody vegetation)

Land Use or Cover Type Map Layer

•  Cropland

•  Pastureland

•  Rangeland

•  Conservation Reserve (indicate type)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 59

•  Park/open space

•  Urban

•  Other (specify)

Disturbance Map Layer

•  Natural disturbance regimes are present every 2 to 3 years in the riparian zone 

(overbank flooding)

•  Natural disturbance regimes are present in upland habitat

•  Recreational use (intensity)

•  Bare spots

•  Active erosion, for example, rills, gullies, and slumps

•  Sloughing banks (caused by induced activity)

•  Overgrazing, logged, or chained lands

•  Agriculture

•  Roads, dams, and diversions (mapped in Section A)

•  Other (specify)

Habitat Features Maps

Special Patches

•  Large remnant riparian patches

•  Large remnant upland patches

•  Large introduced patches

•  Special Corridors

•  Migration and dispersal corridors

Special Areas

•  Patches or corridors inhabited by threatened and endangered species, state species 

of concern, or vulnerable populations

•  Lek or other breeding sites (rookeries)

•  Calving or birthing sites

•  Winter range and cover

•  Summer range

•  Thermal cover

•  Irreplaceable sources of food or water

•  Other (specify)

Special Features

•  Snags

•  Dens and burrows

•  Talus or rock poles

•  Cliffs

•  Caves and abandoned mines

•  Other (specify)
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Common Name Scientific Name

Trees

Rocky mountain juniper Juniperus osteosperma

Utah juniper Juniperus scopulorum

Shrubs

serviceberry Amelanchier spp.

sagebrush Artemesia spp.

shadscale Atriplex confertifolia

rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus spp.

bitterbrush Purshia tridentate

sumac Rhus glabra var. cismontane

chokecherry Prunus spp.

snowberry Symphoricarpus spp.

Forbs

common yarrow Achillea millefolium

locoweed Astragalus spp.

balsamroot Balsamorrhiza spp.

Indian paintbrush Castilleja spp. 

larkspur Delphineum spp.

daisies Erigeron spp.

buckwheat Eriogonum spp.

blue flax Linum lewisii

lupine Lupinus spp.

phlox Phlox spp.

penstemon Penstemon spp.

globemallow Sphaeralcea spp.

Grasses

Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides

blue grama Boutaloua gracilis

mountain brome Bromus marginatus

rabbitbrush squirreltail Elymus elymoides

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

needle and thread grass Hesperostipa comata

Great Basin wildrye Koeleria macrantha

junegrass Leymus cinereus

western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii

sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda

bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata

Appendix B-4: List of Dominant Shrub-Steppe and 

Riparian Plant Species

The list below contains dominant plants in the shrub-steppe study area. Typical 

shrub-steppe landscapes include annual precipitation 10 to 12 inches, elevation range 

3,500 to 6,000 ft, and deep and fertile soil. Shrub-steppe habitat varies from semi-arid 

grass dominated landscapes with a scattering of sagebrush to sagebrush dominated 

landscapes with few grasses or forbs. Modify the plant list below as necessary to reflect

sub-regional and project site characteristics.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 61

Common Name Scientific Name

Trees

boxelder Acer negundo

water birch Betula occidentalis

black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii

lanceleaf cottonwood Populus acuminata

Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii

chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Shrubs

redoiser dogwood Cornus sericea

golden currant Ribes aureum

Wood’s rose Rosa woodsi

willow Salix spp.

Grasses, rushes, sedges and forbs

sedge Carex spp.

saltgrass Distichlis spicata

spikerush Eleocharis spp.

scouring rush Equisetum spp.

rush Juncus spp.

Dominant Native Riverine and Lacustrine Plants

Organized by Life Form and Elevation 2500 to 5000 ft Photo by Susan Buffler.

Riverine and Lacustrine Plant 

Community—Elevation 2500 to 5000 ft.
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Dominant Native Riverine and Lacustrine Plants

Organized by Life Form and Elevation 5000 to 8200 ft

Common Name Scientific Name

Trees

boxelder Acer negundo

gray alder Alnus incana

water birch Betula occidentalis

lanceleaf cottonwood Populus acuminata

narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia

Shrubs

redoiser dogwood Cornus sericea

shrubby cinquefoil Potentilla fruiticosa

chokecherry Prunus virginiana

willow Salix spp.

silver buffaloberry Shepherdia argentea

Grasses, rushes, sedges, and forbs

reedgrass Calamgrostis spp.

sedge Carex spp.

tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa

spikerush Elecocharis spp.

scouring rush Equisetem spp.

rush Juncus spp. Photo by Susan Buffler.

Riverine and Lacustrine Plant 

Community—Elevation 5000 to 8200 ft.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 63

Common Name Scientific Name

Trees

gray alder Alnus incana

water birch Betula occidentalis

Shrubs

silver sage Artemisia cana

redoiser dogwood Cornus sericea

shrubby cinquefoil Potentilla fruiticosa

willow Salix spp.

Grasses, rushes, sedges and forbs

sedge Carex spp.

tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa

Dominant Native Riverine and Lacustrine Plants

Organized by Life Form and Elevation 8200 to 11000 ft Photo by Craig Johnson.

Riverine and Lacustrine Plant 

Community—Elevation 8200 to 11000 ft.
64 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Common Name Scientific Name

Shrubs

willow Salix spp.

Grasses, rushes, sedges and forbs

sedge Carex spp.

tufted hairgrass Deshampsia cespitosa

Dominant Native Riverine and Lacustrine Plants

Organized by Life Form and Elevation >11000 ft Photo by Craig Johnson.

Riverine and Lacustrine Plant 

Community—Elevation >11000 ft.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 65

Appendix B-5: Plant Survey Point Sampling Protocol

Adapted from: Mitchell, W.A.; Hughes, H.G. 1995. Point Sampling: Section 6.2.1. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual, Technical 

Report EL-95-25. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 

37 p.

Note: Some modifications have been made to adjust the protocol to the specific

intent of the RB Handbook. Refer to Mitchell and Hughes (1995) for original documentation.

Study Design

The study design below is not unique to point sampling, but is a general design that 

may be used with other vegetation sampling techniques. It is a combination of random 

and systematic sampling and may be altered to fit project needs.

Site Selection

Aerial photographs should be studied and a ground reconnaissance conducted to 

determine the size and characteristics (for example, terrain heterogeneity) of the study 

area. The sites to be sampled should be selected and located on a map of the study area 

prior to data collection. If the area is large and homogeneous, sites may be randomly 

selected by using a numbered grid and random number selection. However, if the study 

area consists of diverse habitats, it may be preferable to select sites representative of 

the vegetation types in proportion to the amount of area occupied by each.

Transects

Although points may be randomly located across a site, it is logistically easier to 

establish randomly located transects and to sample at regular intervals along each 

transect. The random location of transect meets the statistical assumptions of sampling 

unit independence and systematic sampling along each transect facilitates rapid sampling. Transects may be of predetermined or indefinite length and sample points may

be continuous or located at stations equally spaced along the transects. If statistical 

tests are not needed, it may be appropriate to use a grid design in which sampling units 

are evenly distributed over the entire area.

Sampling Design

At each site, data are collected at 20 stations that are located at constant intervals 

along the transects. The distance between stations will be determined by the size of 

the study area and should be great enough to distribute points over the area. At each 

station, 10 points of data are collected at 2-m intervals (approximately a man’s pace 

length) along the transect. If other data are being collected along the transect, the points 

may be located on a line parallel to the main transect and one pace to the right or left of 

it. This procedure may be used with any single-point sampling design.
66 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Sample Size

Sample size is extremely important in habitat studies and should be determined by 

specific research objectives and the types of habitat sampled. The number of sampling

points should be based on the approximate acreage to be included in the study area; at 

least 20 (preferably 20) samples per unit should be taken. Using 100 points per acre for 

sampling rangeland vegetation with the step-point method is recommended. Use the 

following guide for determining the number of sample points:

•  0 to 40 acres (0 to 16 ha) = 1 point/acre (0.5 ha)

•  41 to 80 acres (16 to 32 ha) = 1 point/2 acres (1 ha)

•  81 to 200 acres (32 to 80 ha) = 1 point/4 acres (1.6 ha)

•  >200 acres (80 ha) = 1 point/10 acres (4 ha)

Sample size can be calculated if data are separated by points. A formula used to 

calculate sample size is: 

N = s2

t

2

 d2

where N = number of sample points required

s = standard deviation

t = t value with n - 1 degree of freedom

d = allowable error (arithmetic mean of the sample total times the designated percent 

accuracy)

If a study encompasses many vegetation types, sample size should be determined 

for each type (for example, old field, shrub-steppe, or riparian forest) rather than for the

total acreage of the study area. Sample size may be modified by increasing or decreasing the number of sites or the number of samples collected at each site. The latter may 

be achieved by altering the number or length of transects or by changing the number of 

points sampled at each station.

Preparation

Users should be proficient with point sampling before data collection begins because results may be biased if the technique is learned during the study. The observer 

should use a compass to pace straight transect lines and practice consistent pacing 

between points. Consistent pacing is essential for preventing over- or underestimation 

of vegetative cover. It ensures that intervals between stations and among sample points 

are consistent throughout the study, thus providing reliable data for statistical analysis. 

Transect lines and sampling points can be recorded using GPS.

The sampling procedure should be practiced so users gain confidence with the technique before actual data collection begins. It is recommended that field personnel gain

experience with point sampling by conducting trial runs in the type(s) of vegetation 

that will be sampled in the study. Practice sites should be randomly located in a variety 

of vegetation types to familiarize personnel with using the technique in habitat conditions.

Cover Categories

Three categories of vegetative cover are herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, and trees. 

These categories are defined as follows:
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 67

1. Herbaceous vegetation: grasses, grass-like plants such as sedges and rushes, and 

forbs (broadleaved flowering plants).

2. Shrubs: woody plants, branched at or near the base and usually less than 15 ft 

(4.6m) in height; woody vines may be classed as shrubs or placed in a separate 

category.

3. Trees: woody plants with a main stem (trunk), numerous branches, and a height 

of 20 ft (6.1 m) or more. A tree may be placed in the shrub category if it is less 

than 10 ft tall. Criteria for trees and shrubs will be determined by study objectives.

Step Point

Equipment

The only equipment needed is the observer’s boot with an indicator to define the

sampling point. The tip of one boot should be marked with a small V-shaped notch 

or narrow permanent line. The marker is placed at the boot tip to provide a consistent 

sampling point and to minimize disturbance to the vegetation before sampling. The 

notch or line should be as narrow as possible to avoid overestimation of cover.

Data Collection

The procedure for collecting data at each point along the transect is given below.

1. Pace to the sample point.

2. Examine the vegetation at the tip of your boot.

3. Record the presence (hit) or absence (miss) of each cover category, with 1=hit 

and 0=miss (see data recording). If sampling is conducted in non-forested 

vegetation types, data will be collected for the herbaceous vegetation and shrub 

categories.

a. Herbaceous vegetation: Record a hit if the mark or notch on your boot tip 

is touching a grass or forb. Identify and record the species as a hit. If it is 

not touching herbaceous vegetation, record a miss (if the herbaceous vegetation is growing under a shrub canopy, move aside the shrub limbs and 

foliage to sample the herbs).

b. Shrub: Record a hit if the marker on your boot is touching a shrub or is 

under its canopy.

c. Tree: Look directly overhead. Record a hit if you are under the canopy of a 

tree. Identify and record the species as a hit. If not, record a miss.

4. Visually estimate the percent ground cover of native vegetation along the 

transect.

Data Recording and Analysis

5. Compile a complete list of all species identified in all transects. Separate the list

into native and non-native species present using the following equation:

Number of native species / total number of species in the sample.
68 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Appendix B-6: Breeding Land Bird Sampling Protocol

The following is a survey protocol for estimating presence/absence of riparian obligate and dependent land birds. It is modified from methods described in:

Ratti, J.T.; Rocklage, A.M.; Giudice, J.H.; Garton, E.O.; Golner, D.R. 2001. Comparison of 

avian communities on restored and natural wetlands in North and South Dakota. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 65(4):676-684.

Rich, T.D. 2002. Using breeding birds in the assessment of western riparian systems. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 30(4):1128-1138.

•  Establish counting stations at 600ft intervals through the center of the riparian plant 

community beginning at the boundary between the first and second buffer unit (see

accompanying diagram below).

•  Identify and count all birds detected by sight or sound within 150 ft of the counting 

station. Do not identify or count birds flying overhead.

•  Visit the survey route twice, from mid-May to mid-June, separating the visits by at 

least 7 days.

•  Use trained observers or wildlife professionals to conduct the survey.

•  Surveys should be conducted between sunrise and 10:00 am.

•  Surveys should not be conducted during inclement weather.

•  Compile a list of all species and the number of species detected during the two survey periods for each counting station.

•  Compare the list of species detected during the surveys with the list of expected 

riparian obligate and dependent species (see Appendix B-7).

•  Calculate the percent of species present (number of species detected/number of species expected), and using the following categories, High (H) ≥80 percent, Moderate

(M) ≥60 to 80 percent, and Low (L) <60 percent, assign a rating to the buffer units

on either side of the counting station.

•  Record the rating of the Wildlife Habitat Data Form for the two buffer units.

•  Repeat the procedure for each counting station.

Bird counting stations.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008. 69

Appendix B-7: List of Riparian Land Birds

Note: All species on the list are riparian obligate or dependent and as noted in references, abundant (species is very numerous), common (certain to be seen in suitable 

habitat), or uncommon (present but not seen).

Obligate or Vegetation

Common Name Scientific Name Dependent Layer Used

American dipper Pipilo aberti Obl. U

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Dep. U, M, C

belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Obl. U, M

black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla Dep. M

black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Dep. U, M

black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Dep. M, C

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii Dep. M, C

common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Obl. U

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Dep. M, C

fox sparrow Passerella iliaca Obl. U

house wren Troglodytes aedon Dep. U, M

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Dep. M, C

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei Dep. U, M

orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata Dep. U, M, C

song sparrow Melospiza melodia Obl. U

tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Dep. M, C

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus Obl. U, M

willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Obl. U, M

yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Obl. M, C

yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Obl. U, M, C

U- understory

M- midstory

C- canopy

This species list was adapted for the study area from a master list of riparian obligate or dependent breeding land birds for the western United States presented in Rich 

(2002). The list was refined for the study area using the following references:

Bridgerland Audubon Society. 2002. The checklist of birds of Cache County, UT.

Gardner, P.A.; Stevens, R.; Howe, F.P. 1999. A handbook of riparian restoration and revegetation for the conservation of land birds in Utah with emphasis on habitat types in middle 

and lower elevations. Pub. 99-83. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

48 p.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1999. Long range management plan: Sand Creek 

wildlife management area. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
70 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-203. 2008.

Appendix B-8: Websites for Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Location Website

United States 1 X X X http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html

United States 2 X X http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/esa.cfm#estable

Idaho 3 X http://idahoes.fws.gov/IdahoT&E.html

Idaho 4 X X X http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/t&e.cfm

Montana 5 X X X X X http://montanafieldoffice.fws.gov/

Oregon 6 X X X http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/tebook.pdf

Utah 7 X http://extension.usu.edu/files/factsheets/FactSheet13.pdf

Utah 8 X http://extension.usu.edu/files/natrpubs/endgspec.pdf

Washington 9 X X http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife.htm

Colorado, Montana, X X http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/

Utah, Wyoming 10 

ListingInternationalFederalNational ParkNational ForestEcoregionStateIndian ReservationCounty

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2 EPA Endangered Species Act Review Procedures

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Pacific Region (Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office)

4 Idaho Fish and Game

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife—Montana Ecological Services Field Office

6 Oregon Natural Heritage Program. February 2001. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon

7 Endangered Species Protection Program—Utah State University Extension, Logan, UT (1) Quinney Professorship for Wildlife 

Conflict Management, Jack H. Berryman Institute—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Utah Department of Natural Resources—

Division of Wildlife Resources—Utah State University Extension Service

8 Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah

9 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife—Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species

10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife—Mountain Prairie Region—Listings for Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming