Idaho State Office, BLM and Intermountain Region, US Forest Service

Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian VegetationMultiple Indicators

Interagency Technical Bulletin Version 5.0 / April 2008

Timothy A. Burton Steven J. Smith Ervin R. Cowley

BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150

Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian VegetationMultiple Indicators Version 5.0 2008
Timothy A. Burton, Steven J. Smith, and Ervin R. Cowley TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________ 1 Selecting Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) ______________________ 4 Selecting Appropriate Indicators __________________________________ 6 Establishing the Line Transect ____________________________________ 8 Skills, Training, Collection Time, and Equipment _____________________ 8 MONITORING PROCEDURES A. Procedure: Locating the Greenline (Modified from Winward 2000) __ 11 B. Procedure: Measuring and Recording Streambank and Vegetation Indicators ____________________________________________________ 16 1. Greenline Vegetation Composition __________________________ 16 2. Streambank Alteration ____________________________________ 18 3. Streambank Stability and Cover ____________________________ 21 4. Residual Vegetation Measurement (Stubble Height) 5. Woody Species Regeneration (Modified from Winward 2000)) 24 25

6. Woody Species Use ______________________________________ 28 C. In-Channel Indicators________________________________________ 31 7. Greenline-to-Greenline Channel Width (GGW) _______________ 31 8. Max Water Depth (Thalweg Depth) _________________________ 33 9. Water Width ____________________________________________ 34 10. Substrate Composition ___________________________________ 34 DATA INTERPRETATION _____________________________________ 36 1. Successional Status Ecological Status ______________________ 37 2. Vegetation Erosion Resistance Rating _______________________ 38 3. Wetland Rating __________________________________________ 39 4. Streambank Stability ______________________________________ 41
i

5. Residual Vegetation (Mean and Median Stubble Height) ________ 42 6. Woody Species Regeneration _______________________________ 43 7. Greenline-to-Greenline Channel Width (GGW) _______________ 44 8. Woody Species Use _______________________________________ 44 9. Thalweg Depth Variation Index ____________________________ 44 10. Water Width-Maximum Depth Ratio _______________________ 45 11. Percent Substrate Fines (<6 mm) __________________________ 45 12. D84 Substrate Particle Size Diameter _______________________ 46 13. Stage from Discharge ____________________________________ 46 14. Roughness Coefficient ___________________________________ 46 15. Pool Quality Index ______________________________________ 47 16. Photographs____________________________________________ 47 17. PFC Validation _________________________________________ 47 18. Winward Greenline Calibration (Winward 2000) _____________ 48 REFERENCES ________________________________________________ 49

ii

APPPENDICES A. Selecting the DMA and Monitoring Indicators B. Guide to the Selection of Monitoring Indicators C. Greenline Location D. Modified Daubenmire Monitoring Frame E. Data Entry and Analysis F. Riparian Monitoring Data Sheet Instructions G. Example Greenlines H. Greenline Dominance Plant Types I. Riparian Vegetation Community Types of the Intermountain Area J. Streambank Alteration K. Streambank Stability L. Greenline-to-Greenline Width M. Woody Species UseBrowse N. Testing Precision and Accuracy O. Equipment List

iii

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian VegetationMultiple Indicators (also referred to as Multiple Indicator Monitoring or the MIM Protocol) is to provide an efficient and effective approach to monitoring streambanks, stream channels, and riparian vegetation. Monitoring within stream channels and their margins is particularly useful to the management of stream-dependent resources, including water quality and quantity, aquatic biota, and near-stream terrestrial biota. This protocol is designed to meet the recommendations in the University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Report (University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Team 2004) to integrate annual grazing use and long-term trend indicators. The monitoring procedures described in this document can be used to help evaluate livestock grazing management to determine whether the vegetation and stream channels are responding as anticipated. While the MIM protocol was initiated as a result of grazing management concerns, the long-term monitoring techniques described herein will provide useful data describing the general condition and trend of stream channels and riparian vegetation regardless of the kind of management activities occurring on the site. An inevitable consequence of developing and testing a new monitoring protocol is that additions and refinements will occur. From the beginning, we have emphasized the use of existing techniques, as much as possible, to maintain consistency through time. For this reason, the techniques of the MIM protocol in this version have not been modified from previous versions. This version provides some minor clarifications, additional results of testing, and the addition of a new metric to account for the effect of riparian vegetation on terrestrial insect production. Recent research has demonstrated that terrestrial insect production is a major component of the diets for salmonid fishes and can be influenced by livestock grazing effects on riparian vegetation (Saunders and Fausch 2007). An overall description of grazing effects on stream fisheries and riparian vegetation can be found in Platts (1991). Adaptive livestock grazing management, as described by the University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Team (2004), requires developing specific riparian and stream management objectives, a grazing management plan designed to meet those objectives, and long-term monitoring criteria used to evaluate success. Annual monitoring of livestock use helps determine if grazing management is being implemented as planned and if the plan is helping to achieve resource objectives. This includes monitoring annual indicators of grazing use, assessing the effects of this use on resource objectives, and then evaluating whether or not the grazing plan needs to be adjusted. This is consistent with the Department of Interiors recent policy to emphasize adaptive management in agency programs and procedural guidance (Sec. Order No 3270, 2007).

Trigger indicators of livestock use (e.g., residual stubble height, woody species use, streambank alteration, use compliance, changes in species preference) are monitored to determine when to move the animals to another grazing area. Endpoint indicators of livestock use (residual stubble height, woody species use, streambank alteration) are monitored after the end of the growing and grazing season to determine if the use or disturbance was within allowable levels. Endpoint monitoring data provides information necessary to evaluate the effect of grazing on long-term trends in stream and riparian habitat conditions. Single indicators of condition or trend are usually not adequate to make good decisions (University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Team 2004). Data on the condition and trend of vegetation and stream channels (multiple indicators), combined with the knowledge of current management practices is the key to defining cause-and-effect relationships important for making well-informed decisions. Because of site complexity, it is not possible to know in advance which indicator(s) best detect management influences on stream and riparian condition. For that reason, using multiple indicators is suggested as a more complete and useful approach. Once cause-and-effect relationships have been established, it may be possible to select the specific indicator(s) that are most effective for detecting change at the site. Appropriate vegetative cover, stream channel geometry (width and depth), substrates free of excess fine sediments, and high streambank stability are essential for achieving good water quality and aquatic habitat. Monitoring the current years grazing impacts (short-term indicators) along with long-term indicators of riparian vegetation, streambank condition, and stream channel conditions at the same location, provides the basis for making grazing adjustments needed to achieve desired conditions. Annual indicators of grazing use (e.g., stubble height, streambank alteration, and woody species use) alone do not provide the data needed to determine condition and trend. Previous approaches have been relatively inefficient partly due to the fact that separate protocols were required for each indicator. This protocol combines observations of up to ten indicators along the same transect, using simple refinements of the existing protocols. Since travel time to field sites represents a considerable time commitment, collecting multiple indicators at one location, using one protocol, is more efficient. A critical component of understanding and detecting trends through time, despite natural variability in channel and riparian condition, is limiting the selection of monitoring indicators to those that are sensitive to disturbance and that can be measured objectively, precisely, and efficiently. This monitoring protocol is designed to maximize objectivity by emphasizing precision and accuracy. This is accomplished by selecting indicators that are measurable, locating observation points along the greenline according to strictly defined

rules, and making class determinations using systematic procedures and classification keys. This monitoring protocol addresses ten procedures that can be used to monitor streams and associated riparian vegetation. Seven procedures provide indicators for long-term (trend) monitoring: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Modified greenline vegetation composition (Winward 2000), Modified woody species regeneration (Winward 2000), Streambank stability (Henderson et al. 2004, Greenline-to-greenline channel width (Burton et al. 2006), Maximum water depth (Henderson et al. 2004), Water width (Henderson et al. 2004), and Substrate composition (Bunte and 2001).

These indicators provide data to assess the current condition and trend of streambanks, channels, and vegetation. They help determine if local livestock grazing management strategies and actions are achieving the long-term goals and objectives for stream riparian vegetation and aquatic resources. Monitoring procedures for vegetation include modifications of greenline vegetation composition and woody species regeneration described by Winward (2000) and Coles-Ritchie et al. (2004). Streambank stability is a refinement of the PIBO method described by Henderson et al. (2004). The present authors developed the greenline-to-greenline width measurement. Greenline-to-greenline width is the non-vegetated width of the stream channel between the greenlines on each side of the stream. As stream channels recover from disturbance, the width between greenlines often decreases. This is because channel narrowing usually reflects increasing streambank stability and vegetative encroachment. Such narrowing is often associated with restored or enhanced fish habitat quality associated with increases in vegetative and overhanging bank cover, increased water depth, along with cleaner substrates. Stream thalweg depth, width, and substrate parameters are measured at transects using methods similar to the PIBO protocol (Henderson et al. 2004). Permanent photo points provide a long-term visual record of streambank and riparian conditions and trend. This protocol recommends a minimum number of photographs needed for an acceptable visual record. More detailed photos may be added if required to document or answer management questions. Three indicators help determine whether current seasons livestock grazing is meeting allowable use criteria. The protocol includes: 1. Modified landscape appearance for livestock use on woody plants (formerly the Key Forage Plant Method) (Interagency Technical Reference 1996),

2. 3.

Modified residual vegetation (stubble height) Interagency Technical Reference (1996) and Challis Resource Area (1999), and Streambank alteration (Cowley 2004).

Procedures were modified to allow the use of a prescribed plot size that allows collecting data for all ten monitoring indicators in a single pass. Specific rules were developed to facilitate the use of the plot and to maintain consistency, precision, and accuracy in data collection. In addition to documenting stream conditions and trend via field measurements, photos should also be used to document annual grazing use at the monitoring site. This helps those interpreting the data to visualize the data being analyzed, and to provide additional evidence of change through time. The amount of residual vegetation (stubble height) left at the end of the season has a direct relationship to the long-term productivity of herbaceous riparian plants and can ultimately affect the composition of vegetation along the greenline (measured using the greenline vegetation composition procedure). Since streambank alteration by livestock can affect streambank stability, it is useful to monitor the amount of annual streambank disturbance. Shrub use, as measured by woody species use, can directly affect the long-term productivity of woody plants on the streambanks. Research has shown that heavy to extreme use by grazing animals every year is detrimental to plant health, while light to moderate use maintains overall plant health (Thorne et al. 2005). In addition, continued heavy to extreme use of woody species can limit the plants ability to regenerate.

Selecting Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs)

A designated monitoring area (DMA) is the location, or stream reach, where monitoring occurs. Essentially, there are three types of DMAs: 1. Representative DMA: A reach chosen to be representative of a larger area. Representative DMAs should be located within an identified riparian complex. Riparian complexes are defined by Winward (2000) as a unit of land with a unique set of biotic and abiotic factors. Complexes are identified on the basis of their overall geomorphology, substrate characteristics, stream gradient and associated water flow features, and general vegetation patterns. Representative DMAs should be located in areas representative of grazing use (or other use) specific to the riparian area being assessed. Winward (2000) suggests that monitoring should be located at sites within the complex that best represent influences of major activities in that complex. Generally, more than one riparian complex occurs in a management unit; therefore, the DMA should be placed in the riparian complex that is the most

sensitive to management influences. The premise is that if the DMA is placed in the most sensitive complex, and that complex is being monitored and managed to achieve desired conditions, the other less sensitive complexes will also be managed appropriately. However, it is inappropriate to place Representative DMAs in water gaps or other specific concentration zones (see critical DMA, defined below). While the term DMA was initially established for grazing management applications, DMAs may be located in areas to monitor recreation impacts, the effects of roads, and other activities. Representative Designated Monitoring Areas are the most common type of DMA used by land managers. The following criteria should be used to select Representative DMAs: Representative DMAs should only be selected by an interdisciplinary team of qualified personnel with a good understanding of stream functions and riparian ecology and a detailed knowledge of the area. Representative DMAs should occur within riparian complexes that best characterize major activities/uses in that complex (livestock grazing, recreation use, etc.). Where multiple riparian complexes occur in a management unit and it is not possible to establish DMAs in all complexes, select the one that is most sensitive to management influences. Representative DMAs should be placed in areas where it is clear that the achievement of established resource objectives can be monitored and measured. The site should have the potential to respond to and demonstrate measurable trends in condition resulting from changes in grazing management or other management activities influencing stream channels and riparian vegetation. Avoid placing DMAs on reaches impervious to disturbance where vegetation is not a controlling factor, such as cobble, boulder, and bedrock-armored channels. Avoid placing DMAs in streams over four percent gradient unless they have distinctly developed flood plains and vegetation heavily influences channel stability.
5

Avoid putting representative DMAs at water gaps or locations intended for livestock concentration, or areas where riparian vegetation and streambank impacts are the result of site-specific conditions (such as along fences where livestock grazing use is not representative of the riparian area). These local areas of concentration may be monitored to address highly localized issues if necessary (in which case they would be described as Critical DMAs as defined below). Avoid placing DMAs in areas compounded by activities that make it difficult to establish cause-and-effect relationships. For example, an area used heavily by both recreationists and livestock would not make a good DMA to determine the effects of livestock grazing on stream conditions. In addition, avoid areas compounded by non-agency activities since the purpose is to monitor trends related to agency activities.

2. Critical DMA: A reach that is not representative of a larger area but important enough that specific information is needed at that particular site. Critical DMAs are monitored for highly localized purposes. Small critical spawning reaches when there may be concentrated livestock use is an example. Extrapolating data from a critical DMA to a larger area may not be appropriate. 3. Reference DMA: A reach chosen to obtain reference data useful for identifying potential condition, and for establishing initial desired condition objectives for a similar riparian complex. A common example is a grazing exclosure where livestock access to the stream is restricted. After the DMA is selected, it is critical that the ID team document a clear and comprehensive rationale for the identification and selection of the chosen DMA location. This rationale should include a short discussion of the DMA selection process and the intent of collecting data at that site.

Selecting Appropriate Indicators

After the DMA has been located, it is important to select the appropriate objectives and indicators for the site and management strategy. Site potential or capability (vegetation and stream type); management objectives for vegetation, streambanks, and stream channel; timing, duration, and frequency of the grazing strategy; and monitoring questions must all be considered when selecting the indicators that are to be monitored (see Appendix B).

General goals and/or broad objectives are usually established in the agency land use plans, i.e., forest resource plans, resource management plans (RMP), management framework plans (MFP), allotment management plans, ranch plans, and other management plans. An understanding of the basic geomorphic processes and vegetation responses is important to interpreting both the potential and the desired future condition of the stream. Streams with substrate and banks dominated by gravel, with limited fine sediment loads, are likely to be dominated by woody vegetation. In such instances, herbaceous vegetation is likely to be slow to develop, as these types require more fine soils to become established. Riparian Management Objectives should reflect the attainable condition. For example, incised stream channels may not likely fill with sediment under current climatic regimes. Miller et al. (2004) state, The dominant process operating within the upland stream systems today is channel incision. Therefore, it is likely that incised channels will widen, develop a new floodplain, and stabilize the channel near the current elevation. In some rare instances, however, incised channels will fill with sediment and move toward a stable state at the elevation of the channel prior to incision.

Appropriate indicators may change over time. For example, if the DMA is dominated by herbaceous species with no woody species present, woody species regeneration and woody species use would not be selected as indicators. It is important to note that Winward (2000) indicates that there is a potential for willows and other woody species on most streams with a gradient of 0.05 percent or more and periodic over bank flooding with deposition. Woody species reproduction is episodic, as they require a seed source, freshly deposited soil, and moisture for a sufficient time to develop a root system adequate to support the seedling until it is established. When these conditions occur, it is appropriate to add woody species regeneration and woody species use to track the changes. Pastures that are in a rest period may only need validation that livestock use has not occurred. Stubble height, streambank alteration, and woody use monitoring may not be done during that year if it is not answering a specific question. Another situation that may be common is finding that one of the annual indicator thresholds is reached consistently before others, e.g., streambank alteration reaches threshold levels before woody species use or stubble height criteria are met. The decision may be to discontinue the stubble height and woody species use procedures and monitor only streambank alteration each year. However, caution must
7

be exercised since the annual indicators can be affected differently based on the season of use. For example, maximum allowable willow use may be the first indicator met in a riparian zone used late in the fall (well before streambank alteration or stubble height). When the same pasture is used in the spring, it is unlikely that willow use will occur firststubble height or streambank alteration would likely be affected first and therefore be the most appropriate indicator to monitor.

Establishing the Line Transect

After the DMA is selected, a permanently marked line transect is established on both sides of the stream. The following procedure should be followed when establishing the line transect: TRANSECT or REACH: The line transect at the DMA extends at least 110 meters (361 feet) along the stream. Longer reaches may be needed on larger streams (over 5.5 meters or 18 feet bankfull width), or those with extreme variability or site complexity. REACH MARKER: Permanently mark the lower and upper ends of the reach with reach markers. Place the lower marker on the left-hand side (looking upstream) and the upper marker 110 meters upstream (further if a longer reach is used). Steel t-posts are not recommended for reach markers since they attract livestock and will lead to concentrated impacts on the reach. Reach markers should be made of securely capped or bent over larger-diameter rebar or similar material. Straight, jagged, rebar stakes that are not capped or bent over present a serious hazard to horses and other animals. Pace 110 meters (361 feet) up the stream along the thalweg or greenline and place the upstream marker on the right-hand side (looking upstream). Reach markers should be placed a sufficient distance from eroding banks to reduce the risk of losing the marker. REFERENCE MARKER: A permanent reference marker should be used as a reference point to help relocate the DMA. Reference markers should be located well away from the Transect (at least 100 feet if a post that attracts livestock is used). Reference markers can be steel posts, a marked post in a fence line, a marked tree or unique rock, or other natural feature. Provide a geographic positioning system (GPS) location (UTM or latitude-longitude) for both the reference marker, and the reach markers. Sketch the monitoring setup to make sure future visits use the same starting point on the stream.

Skills, Training, Collection Time, and Equipment

8

Skills Individuals must have a basic understanding of riparian ecology and stream function. This requires knowledge of riparian species identification, erosion, and deposition processes. Training Training is required to successfully apply this monitoring protocol. As a minimum, observers should receive the basic 2-day training module, including the overview, field demonstration, field data collection, and data analysis. Ideally, field practitioners should also apply the protocol for several field days in the presence of trainers to gain proficiency in the methodology. For example, bank alteration measurement variability among observers was reduced from about 30 percent variability without training to about 12 percent with training.

Collection Time If all ten indicators are monitored in the same year, sample time is approximately 2 to 4 hours per site. Normally, a subset of the indicators is chosen in a given year which usually reduces sampling time to about 2 hours per site. Equipment See Appendix O.

MONITORING PROCEDURES
1. These procedures were designed to be completed at summer low flows. High water flows obscure greenlines and streambanks; attempts to collect data during these periods will result in unusable data. In addition, do not use these monitoring procedures immediately following a flood or high flow event resulting in sediment deposition and scour. Sediment deposition and scour makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the effects of the current season livestock use, and some vegetation may be temporarily buried. Long-term (trend) monitoring data should be gathered at three to fiveyear intervals. This allows vegetation and streambanks time to respond to the effects of grazing management. In some cases, the period may be extended because of slower recovery rates. Ten years should be the longest interval used on any site.
9

2.

3.

Short-term annual indicator data may be collected in a different season than the trend data; however, short-term data should be collected when it is appropriate, typically immediately following livestock use. If the management prescription requires a certain amount of residual vegetation remaining to protect streambanks during high winter or spring flows, monitoring should be done after the growing season has ended and livestock have been removed from the area. Use handheld computers to record data (see Appendix E). These devices save about one hour per transect. However, the data may be recorded on the Riparian Monitoring Data Sheet if a handheld computer is not available (see Appendix F).

4.

Systematic Procedure 1. After the line transect markers are placed, photographs should be taken before data is collected since the monitoring process will result in some visible disturbance on the site. As a minimum, take photographs at the following locations: a. b. c. d. e. 2. From the lower marker looking upstream, Across the stream from the lower marker, Downstream from the upstream marker, and Across the stream from the upstream marker. Take additional photographs as needed and describe the location of each photo in relation to the downstream marker.

Monitoring should begin at the lower left-hand side of the stream (looking upstream). The monitoring setup should be sketched and GPS coordinates recorded to ensure future monitoring data is collected at the same location and in the same sequence. Use only the indicators appropriate for the site (see Appendix B). If the site does not have the potential for woody species with appropriate management, do not include the woody species regeneration and woody species use as part of the monitoring for the site. However, if the site objectives include woody species, but no woody species are present, woody species regeneration should be included to determine if management is making progress toward meeting the objectives. Woody species utilization data cannot be gathered until woody species begin reestablishing along the greenline. Beginning at the lower transect marker on the left-hand side (looking upstream), determine a random number between 1 and 10, take that number of steps along the thalweg (deepest part of the channel) or along the streambank to the first plot location. Place the monitoring

3.

4.

10

frame (see Appendix D) down at the toe of the boot with the center bar along the greenline. Continue the procedure at predetermined intervals (usually 2, 3, or 4 steps, or short enough to obtain 40 plots on each side of the stream) until the upper transect marker is reached. If the required number of plots is obtained prior to reaching the upper marker, continue reading plots until the marker is reached. Once the upper marker is reached, cross the stream and repeat the procedure down the other side to the end marker. The entire length of the transect on both sides of the stream is sampled. Individuals should determine the length of their steps and adjust the interval between plots so that an adequate sample size can be obtained. Mark a distance, usually 100 feet, and count the number of steps required to cover the selected distance. Determine the average step length by pacing the distance three or four times and calculating the average. For example, if an individual takes an average of 66 steps in 100 feet, then the average step length is 18 inches. Table 1 indicates the number of steps needed to obtain at least 40 plots on a side of the stream. Measuring rods can also be used to measure the distance between plots if desired. Table 1 Determining the Number of Steps between Plots To obtain at least 40 Plots per 110 meter (361 feet)Transect Spacing between Steps plots between plots 15 inch 18 inch 21 inch 24 inch 27 inch 30 inch 7 6 5 4.5 4 3.5 Feet 9 9 9 9 9 9 meters 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75

Average Step length

A. Procedure: Locating the Greenline (Modified from Winward 2000)

The Greenline is The first perennial vegetation that forms a lineal grouping of community types on or near the waters edge. Most often occurs at or slightly below the bankfull stage (Winward 2000). It is found only along streams with defined channels. The greenline often forms a continuous line of vegetation adjacent to the stream, but it can also be patches of vegetation on sand bars and other areas where
11

vegetation is colonizing or being eroded. Individual lineal groupings are considered part of the greenline when they meet the criteria described below. Review Appendices C and G for explanations and examples of many greenline locations. Criteria and Limits 1. The Greenline is often located near the bankfull stage. For entrenched streams, the greenline may be located above the bankfull stage (Winward 2000). In these cases, the greenline may include, or be limited to non-hydric species, i.e., upland species. A guide for field identification of bankfull stage is available at the Stream Systems Technology Center: http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/publications/videos.html The location of the greenline should be determined when the stream is at the summer low flow. Usually, the edge of the perennial vegetation, not the waters edge at low summer flow, is the greenline (Winward, 2000). Some perennial vegetation (e.g., spike rush, Eleocharis spp.) may grow in the margins of streams and in slow backwaters. When this occurs, the greenline used in this protocol is at the waters edge during summer low flow.

2.

Vegetation The lineal grouping of perennial vegetation must have at least 25 percent foliar cover for the entire length and width of one quadrat (50 cm or 19.6 inches by 20 cm or 6 inches). If the vegetation is not continuous within the plot, move the plot up the bank, perpendicular to the stream flow, until the cover requirement is met. A quadrat is considered to exhibit continuous vegetation if there are no barren patches 4 inches in diameter or greater within the quadrat. 1. Colonizer species at or near the waters edge that meet the appropriate criteria (i.e., 25 percent foliar cover, 50 cm by 20 cm) and establishing a distinct lineal grouping of perennial vegetation) are considered greenline, except as described in number 2. For example, short-awned foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis), spike-rush (Eleocharis palustrus), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and coyote willow (Salix exigua) on the streambank (above the summer low flow) should be recorded as part of the greenline (see Appendix G, Figure 10. These species have moderately deep roots and the ability to stabilize streambanks.

12

2.

Colonizers that commonly float on or submerge in the water are NOT part of the greenline. These may include brookgrass (Catabrosia aquatica), watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum), seep spring monkey flower (Mimulas guttatus), American speedwell (Veronica americana), and smartweed (Polygonum amphibium) (see Appendix G, Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). Non-vascular plants such as mosses and lichens are NOT considered as part of the greenline. The quadrat is moved away from the stream, perpendicular to the water flow, until the minimum vegetation, rock, and/or wood meet the criteria for greenline. Under some conditions, particularly in backwaters where the current is slow, Carex spp., Juncus spp., Eleocaris spp., and Scirpus spp. may establish in the still, shallow water along the stream during the summer low-flow periods. This condition occurs most frequently during low water or in a drought period. When this occurs, the greenline is along the edge of the water (see Appendix E, Figures 1, 6, and 7). The greenline runs approximately parallel to the stream channel. When the streambank or the vegetation line becomes approximately perpendicular (75 degrees or more) to the flow of the stream, the greenline ends. Then the transect moves away from the stream perpendicular to the stream flow and begins at the next lineal grouping of perennial vegetation continuing along the greenline (see Appendix C, Figures 3 and 4). When there is no herbaceous understory beneath woody plants, the greenline is at the base of the first rooted plant above the water line (see Appendix C, Figures 6). Woody vegetation overhanging the stream is not considered to be on the greenline. When shrubs or trees have no understory (or less than 25% foliar cover), the greenline is along a line connecting the rooted base of the plants, not at the drip line of the canopy (see Appendix C, Figure 6). If there is an overstory tree with a shrub understory, the greenline is at the base of the shrub. For example, if there were a narrow-leaf cottonwood tree over red osier dogwood, the greenline would be at the base of the dogwood. When shrubs such as willows are over herbaceous vegetation such as sedges, the greenline is at the edge of the sedges or the lower layer of vegetation.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

13

10. Only canopy cover from plants rooted on the streambank on the same side of the stream is recorded. Overhanging canopy from plants on the opposite side of the stream is not recorded, even if it overhangs the plot. This condition often occurs on small streams. Rock as Part of the Greenline In order to be considered as greenline, rocks, boulders, talus slopes, and bedrock that are part of the streambank, must be of sufficient size to protect the streambank from erosion during high stream flows (at least 15 cm or 6 inches in diameter). The rock or boulder must be at least partially embedded/anchored in the streambank, with no evidence of movement by water. Appendix G, Figures 23 and 24 provide examples of rock along the greenline. Anchored and Downed Wood as Part of the Greenline Anchored wood consists of logs or root wads that are anchored in or along the streambank in such a way that high flows are not likely to move them. The anchored wood may be embedded in the streambank or wedged between rocks, trees, or other debris. Anchored wood that is part of the greenline must currently exert a hydrologic influence on the stream. There should be no evidence of active erosion that would destabilize the woody material. When logs are anchored and somewhat perpendicular to the stream, count the amount of anchored wood that joins the vegetation greenline on each side of the log. Detached Blocks of Vegetation Blocks of vegetation obviously detached from the streambanks are not considered as greenline. When deep-rooted hydric vegetation covers the block from the waters edge to the terrace wall, creating a new floodplain (false bank), the greenline is the edge of the vegetation along the stream (see Appendix G, Figure 16). Islands Islands are defined as areas surrounded by water at summer low flow or bounded by a channel that is scoured frequently enough to keep perennial vegetation from growing. The greenline follows the main banks of the stream and not islands (see Appendix C, Figure 3 and Appendix G, Figures 9 and 1).

No Greenline Present In some instances, a greenline may not be present within proximity to the stream. In such cases, the bank may be characterized by annual vegetation, such
14

as cheatgrass, occupying the upland. In other cases, the area in proximity to the stream may be barren. When the criteria for greenline is lacking within 6 meters (20 feet) slope distance from the waters edge, the code NG (no greenline) is recorded in the vegetation column on the field form. The frame is placed on the first terrace above the waterline for measuring the other indicators (e.g. bank alteration, bank stability, etc.). If no terrace is present, place the frame at the position on the bank 6 meters from the waters edge. A terrace is a relatively flat area adjacent to a stream or lake with an abrupt steeper face adjoining the edge of the stream. The first terrace is the first relatively flat area adjacent to and above the edge of the water. It may be an active floodplain or an area too high for the water to reach under the current climate and channel conditions. The second terrace is the next elevated area above the first terrace, with a distinctly steeper slope facing the stream. Record NG or no greenline present when any of these conditions exist: Lineal grouping of perennial vegetation is not present within 6 meters (20 feet slope distance) of the edge of the stream. A sharp meander bend with a narrow peninsula exists with no lineal grouping of vegetation between the stream margin and the top of the peninsula (see Appendix G, Figure 26).

Specific Instructions 1. Observers should look ahead and determine the greenline. This provides continuity for pacing in the appropriate location. The center of the monitoring frame is placed along the greenline. Evaluate the vegetation within the monitoring quadrat on the floodplain side of the greenline (see Appendix C, Figure 2). When there is less than 25 percent perennial foliar vegetation cover, including shrub and tree overstory, or there is one or more barren patches 4 inches in diameter or greater within the quadrat, move up the bank, perpendicular to the stream flow, until the quadrat has the appropriate amount of vegetation. The frame is adjusted along the actual edge of the greenline. Record all other pertinent data at the plot location (e.g., streambank stability, woody species regeneration, streambank alteration, and woody species use, etc.).

2. 3.

4.

15

B. Procedure: Measuring and Recording Streambank and Vegetation Indicators 1. Greenline Vegetation Composition
Prior to collecting vegetation composition on the greenline, it is critical that observers are able to identify the plant species located on the site. Vegetation Classification Two classification systems are commonly used to describe and record the vegetation occurring on the greenline, i.e., riparian community types and dominant plant species. Document the vegetation classification method used on the field sheet or handheld computer. Recording Vegetation Using Dominant Plant Species Dominant plants are the species having the largest portion of the vegetation composition by cover in the quadrat. To be considered dominant, the plant must represent at least 25 percent of the plant composition by cover within the quadrat. The exception is where a mature tree or mature shrub overstory occurs. Mature trees or shrubs with any portion of the canopy covering the quadrat are considered dominant. Mature trees and shrubs are defined in Tables 2 and 3 (woody regeneration). This exception applies only to mature trees and shrubs; seedlings and young plants that overhang the plot are not counted as dominant unless they are rooted within the plot and have 25% vegetation composition by cover. When only a single species is found in or over the quadrat, it is recorded as the dominant species. When two or more species make up a majority of the composition in or over the quadrat and are of approximately equal proportions, each is recorded as dominant. Sub-dominant plants occur when the composition of a particular plant species or group of plants, e.g., mesic forbs, is less than the dominant species. Subdominant plants do not have to exhibit 25 percent vegetative composition by cover within the quadrat (although it is possible). An example of this would be if the quadrat contained 75 percent water sedge (Carex aquatilis) and 1025 percent Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). In this case, the sedge would be recorded as dominant and the bluegrass as sub-dominant. See Appendix H for a list of common dominant species in the intermountain area. 1. How to address overstory vegetation: Riparian vegetation structure may occur in three layers: trees, shrubs, and herbaceous. Mature plants, with any part overhanging the plot (e.g. willows) are always

16

recorded as dominant vegetation. Seedlings and young plants must be rooted within the plot to be counted, and are treated the same as understory vegetation. For example, when quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) occurs with an understory of red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), both the taller plant layers of quaking aspen and the red-osier dogwood are recorded as dominant plants. A third dominant plant may be listed if an herbaceous understory is present and makes up at least 25 percent of the understory composition of plants in the plot (anchored rock and wood are also part of the cover). Another example: yellow willow (Salix lutea) occurs in the overstory with a dense mat of Nebraska sedge (Carex nebraskensis) in the understory within the plot. In this case, yellow willow would be recorded as dominant, and the Nebraska sedge would also be recorded as dominant. 2. Recording sub-dominant plants with less than 25 percent composition: Users should record important plants having less than 25 percent of the vegetative composition. Plant species that indicate potential, trend, or invaders may also be included. For example, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) dominates a plot with a minor component of Nebraska sedge (Carex nebraskensis). The Kentucky bluegrass would be listed as the dominant plant, and even though the Nebraska sedge is only a minor portion of the vegetation composition, it is recorded as sub-dominant to track composition trends through time. Plants with equal composition: When two or more plant species, including rock and wood, have about the same amount of plant cover in the plot, and each is over 25 percent of the composition, record each as dominant. Dominant plants are recorded on separate lines under the same plot number. These transition vegetation communities are important in describing the ecological processes occurring along the stream. When this occurs, list the most dominant species first and the second species on the next row. Rock and Wood: Rock and/or wood making up at least 25 percent of the length of the greenline within the quadrat are considered either dominant or sub-dominant, depending on the vegetation in the remainder of the quadrat. Rock is recorded as part of the greenline when it is at least 25 percent of the length of the quadrat. If rock is at least 50 percent of the quadrat length, record rock as dominant. If rock is 2549% of the plot, it is recorded as sub-dominant. Wood is recorded as part of the greenline when it is at least 25 percent of the length of the quadrat. If wood is at least 50 percent of the quadrat length, record wood as dominant or co-dominant. If wood is 2549% of the plot, it is recorded as sub-dominant. For example, if anchored rock were 25 percent of the length of the quadrat and beaked sedge
17

3.

4.

were 75 percent, then beaked sedge would be the dominant and rock the sub-dominant. If rock made up 50 percent of the length and beaked sedge the remainder, rock and beaked sedge would both be dominant. 5. Recording the data: Record data either on a handheld computer or on the Riparian Monitoring Data Sheet (see Appendix F). Vegetation is recorded by dominant and sub-dominant species or riparian community type.

Recording Vegetation Using Riparian Community Types Riparian Community Types may be used when riparian vegetation in the area has been classified. When riparian community types are used, record the riparian community type publication that is being used to classify the vegetation. Riparian Community Type Classification of Utah and Southeastern Idaho is a typical publication. When using riparian community type classification, it is very important to use the keys provided in the publication for consistency. Rock and/or wood making up at least 25 percent of the length of the greenline within the quadrat is classified as a distinct community type. For example, suppose anchored rock is 25 percent of the length of the quadrat, and beaked sedge CT is 75 percent. Beaked sedge would be listed as the dominant and rock the sub-dominant on the data sheet. If rock made up 50 percent of the length and beaked sedge the remainder, rock and beaked sedge would both be dominant. Record riparian community types exactly the same as those listed in the tables in Appendix I or in the tables in the handheld computer. For example, Booths willow (Salix boothii)Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) is recorded SABO/POPR in the appropriate column.

2. Streambank Alteration
General Description The procedure describes a method for estimating the percent of the linear length of streambank that has been altered by large herbivores (e.g., cattle, horses, sheep, bison, elk, and moose) walking along or crossing the stream during the current grazing season. The part of the streambank that is measured using this protocol is a plot 50 cm long and 42 cm wide, centered on the greenline. This portion of the streambank focuses the observation where stability is affected by the erosive effects of water (see Appendix J). Streambank Alteration Definitions
18

Streambank alteration occurs when large herbivores, e.g., elk, moose, deer, cattle, sheep, goats, and horses walk along streambanks or across streams. The animals weight can cause shearing that results in a breakdown of the streambank and subsequent widening of the stream channel. It also exposes bare soil, increasing the risk of erosion of the streambank. Animals walking along the streambank may increase the amount of soil exposed to the erosive effects of water by breaking or cutting through the vegetation and exposing roots and/or soil. Excessive trampling causes soil compaction, resulting in decreased vegetative cover, less vigorous root systems, and more exposure of the soil surface to erosion. Hoof shearing is the most obvious form of streambank alteration. It is common for the shearing action of the hoof to break off a large portion of the streambank. Include as alteration the total length of broken streambank directly associated with an occurrence of shearing, not just the width of the hoof mark (see Appendix J). There are 5 cross-plot lines on the sampling frame used to detect and record occurrences of alteration. These lines are perpendicular to the center rib of the frame and extending on each side. As the center rib is placed on the greenline, alteration lines extend 20 cm into both the vegetated and non-vegetated side of the greenline. If more than one hoof print intercepts this line on either or both sides of the center rib, a value of 1 is recorded. Thus, observations at a single sampling point may range from 0 to 5 hits. The number of alteration intercepts or hits was limited to 5 per sample because: 1) alteration occurs primarily on the non-vegetated side of the greenline only, and double-counting the vegetated side would underestimate the frequency of disturbances along the greenline; and 2) the spacing between intercept lines approximates the diameter of a hoof print, which minimizes double-counting single hoof impressions. Trampling impacts must be the obvious result of current season use. Obvious is defined as being able to readily observe animal hoof impacts from no closer than approximately 2 feet from the streambank. In general, these are impacts that are evident without kneeling close to or lying on the ground. The streambank is considered altered when: streambanks are covered with vegetation and have hoof prints that expose at least 12 mm (about inch) of bare soil; streambanks exhibit broken vegetation cover resulting from large herbivores walking along the streambank that have a hoof print at least 12 mm ( inch) deepmeasure the total depression from the top of the displaced soil to the bottom of the hoof impression; and/or
19

streambanks have compacted soil caused by large herbivores repeatedly walking over the same area even though the animals hoofs sink into and/or displace the soil less than 12 mm ( inch).

Large herbivores trampling and trailing on top of terraces, above the active floodplain, is not considered streambank alteration. Hoof marks within the plot with shearing on the streambank and/or terrace wall, and/or trampling at the base of the streambank or terrace wall are considered streambank alteration (see Appendix J, Figure 5). Procedure The procedure uses the entire 42 cm by 50 cm monitoring frame. Five lines are projected across the frame perpendicular to the center pipe (see Appendix D, Figure 1). 1. Looking down at the entire frame, determine the number of lines within the plot that intersect streambank alteration (see Appendix J). Record the number of lines (05) that intersect streambank alteration. Record only one occurrence of alteration, trampling, or shearing per line. This process is repeated at the predetermined interval on each side of the stream. It is important that the observer record only the current years streambank disturbance. When there is a vertical or near-vertical terrace wall, pace in the stream or along the greenline on top of the terrace, and place the center of the frame along the greenline at the end of the toe. Record only direct alteration occurring on the terrace wall or the streambank (see Appendix J, Figure 5). Hoof prints or trampling on streambanks with fully developed, deeprooted hydric vegetation (e.g., Carex spp., Juncus spp., and Salix spp.) is not recorded as alteration unless plant roots or bare soil is exposed. Hoof shearing along the streambank is alteration. Compacted livestock trails on or crossing the greenline that are the obvious result of the current seasons impacts are counted as trampling (see Appendix J, Figures 3 and 4). Roads and tributary streams are not counted. Continue to pace directly across the area until the greenline is reached. Separately record any samples that are on the road or water. Leave the cell blank in the handheld computer or on the form.

2.

3.

4.

5.

20

6.

When obstructions such as trees, shrubs, or other physical impediments are encountered, sidestep at 90 degrees from the transect line and continue pacing parallel to the transect to avoid the obstruction. Project the lines from the end frame to the streambank and record the hits. Record the amount of alteration on the streambank. Most of the time it will be 0. Return to the original transect as soon as possible by sidestepping back to the transect line and continuing. When there is no greenline identified within 6 meters from the waters edge and NG (no greenline) is recorded, the frame is placed on the first terrace above the waterline for measuring the bank alteration (and other appropriate indicators). If no terrace is present, place the frame at the position on the bank 6 meters from the waters edge. The procedure should not be used if a high flow (flood) event occurs prior to monitoring. In that situation, the waters energy and sediment will make it very difficult to determine if the effects are a result of the current grazing season or past grazing seasons.

7.

8.

3. Streambank Stability and Cover

General Description Streambank stability is observed on the bank associated with the quadrat, and is recorded using one of six stability classes (see Streambank Stability Classification descriptions below and Appendix K). Procedure At each plot location, classify streambank stability. (see Appendix K, Streambank Stability Classification Key). The following are steps that are used to the stability class. 1. 2. What kind of bank? Is the bank at the plot depositional or erosional? (See Appendix K.) Where is the bank? The bank evaluated is equal to the length of frame (50 cm) between the scour line and the top of the first terrace. Typical scour line indicators are the elevation of the ceiling of undercut banks at or slightly above the summer low flow elevation; or, on depositional banks, the scour line is the lower limit of sod-forming or perennial vegetation (see Appendix K). Is it covered? Banks are covered if there is at least 50% aerial cover of perennial vegetation; cobbles six inches or larger; anchored large woody debris (LWD) with a diameter of four inches or greater; or a
21

3.

combination of the vegetation, rock, and/or LWD is at least 50 percent of the bank area (50 cm wide from scour line to first terrace). 4. Is it stable? It is stable if none of the following exist: Either a fracture (crack is visibly obvious on the bank); slump (portion of bank has obviously slipped down or has been pushed down by trampling or shearing, etc.); or slough (soil is breaking or crumbling and falling away and is entering the active stream channel); or the bank is steep (within 10 degrees of vertical), and/or bare, and eroding (including bare depositional bars).

Streambank Stability Classification Appendix K provides definitions, key, illustrations, and photographs in regard to Streambank Stability Classification. After assessing the plot, record the data on the Riparian Monitoring Data Sheet or in the handheld computer by one of the following six streambank stability classes: CS - Covered and stable (non-erosional). Streambanks are covered with perennial vegetation, and/or cobble (6 inches or larger), boulders, bedrock, or anchored wood (4 inches in diameter or larger) to protect them from the erosive effects of water. Streambanks do not have indications of erosion, breakdown, shearing, or trampling that exposes plant roots. Banks associated with gravel bars having perennial deep-rooted vegetation along the edge of the floodplain line are in this category (see Appendix K, illustrations and figures). CU - Covered and unstable (vulnerable). These streambanks are covered with perennial vegetation and occur where undercutting by water may cause breakdown, slumping, nicks, bank shearing, and/or fracturing along the bank (see Appendix K, illustrations and figures). US - Uncovered and stable (vulnerable). Streambanks having consolidated soils high in clay, particularly in the lower part of the streambank, may be uncovered and stable. These banks are vulnerable to high flows, particularly winter flows with floating ice. Uncovered and stable banks may also be compacted streambanks trampled by concentrations of ungulates, human trails, vehicle crossings, or other activities that cause compaction. Such disturbance flattens the bank so that slumping and breakdown does not occur even though vegetative cover is significantly reduced or eliminated (see Appendix K, illustrations and figures). UU - Uncovered and unstable (erosional and depositional). These are bare, eroding streambanks and include all mostly uncovered banks that are at a steep angle to the water surface. When the bank is not present due to excessive bar deposition or to streamside trampling, the bank will be
22

classified uncovered/unstable. (See Appendix K, illustrations and figures). FB - False bank (stable). Streambanks have slumped in the past but have been stabilized by vegetation. These banks are usually at a lower level than the terrace and are covered/stable (CS). (See Appendix K, illustrations and figures). UN - Unclassified. Side channels, tributaries, springs, road crossings, etc., cause a break in a streambank. Livestock or wildlife trails are not included in this category, but are included as uncovered/stable (see US above). Streambank Cover Streambanks are considered covered if they show any of the following features: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Perennial herbaceous and/or woody vegetation provide more than 50 percent ground cover of the vertical height of the streambank (Bauer and Burton, 1993). Roots of vegetation cover more than 50 percent of the bank. (Deep rooted plants such as willows and sedges provide such cover.) Cobble-size rocks (at least 6 inches in diameter), boulders, or bedrock cover more than 50 percent of the streambank surfaces. Logs, at least four inches in diameter, cover more than 50 percent of the bank surfaces. At least 50 percent of the bank surfaces are protected by a combination of the above.

Streambank Stability Streambanks are considered stable if they do not show indications of any of the following features: 1. Breakdown: Obvious blocks of streambanks have broken away and are lying adjacent to the bank breakage. 2. Slumping Bank: Bank that has obviously slipped down. Cracks may or may not be obvious, but the slump feature is obvious. 3. Bank Shearing: Occurs when animals walk along the streambank or cross the stream and shear or break off portions of the streambank. Bank shearing is recognized by a shear plane with obvious hoof marks on the streambank. Include the total length of bank disturbance associated with the shearing. 4. Fracture: A crack is visibly obvious on the bank, indicating that the block of bank is about to slump or move into the stream. 5. Vertical and Eroding: The bank is mostly uncovered, and the bank angle is steeper than 80 degrees (178% slope) from the horizontal.

23

6.

Bare Depositional Bar: A depositional bar without adequate ground cover (50%).

4. Residual Vegetation Measurement (Stubble Height)

General Description The objective of residual vegetation (stubble height) measurement is to determine the height of key vegetation species remaining following a period of grazing. The measurement may be used in two ways: first, to determine when livestock should be moved from the riparian area, and second, at the end of the grazing season to determine whether livestock grazing management changes are needed the following year. Procedure Prior to recording stubble height, one or more key specie(s) must be selected. For this protocol, at least one of the key species selected must be a relatively abundant herbaceous forage plant that is commonly used by livestock (preferably hydric species), and able to help address some aspect of streamside conditions and grazing management. In other words, the observer must establish what the species is key to and why it is important to measure. It is acceptable to use more than one key species if desired to help address other important issues. For example, where hydric species are missing or lacking, species such as Kentucky bluegrass or red top can (and should in some instances) be measured if it helps answer grazing-related questions. Normally, key species are chosen to assess livestock use on the desired riparian plants; therefore, palatable hydric species are preferred. Record the measurements by species. Most riparian key species grow tightly together, forming dense mats with little distinct separation of individual plants. As a result, the sampling method uses a 3inch diameter circle of vegetation rather than Figure 1 Residual vegetation height is attempting to separate the measured within a 3-inch diameter circle at mats into individual plants. If the back right-hand corner of the greenline. the plants are distinct and not mat forming, select a 3-inch circle of vegetation nearest the handle of the frame that includes the key species (see Figure 1).

24

Using the frame handle with one-inch increments (or a ruler), measure within the circle to determine an average leaf length (rounded to the nearest inch), as shown in Figure 2. Grazed and ungrazed plants are measured from the ground surface to the top of the remaining leaves. Account for very short leaves as well as tall leaves. Do not measure seed culms. Determining the average residual vegetation height will take some practice. Be sure to include all of the key species' leaves within the sample. The easiest method of doing this is to grasp the sample with the sampler's hand, stand the leaves upright, and then Figure 2 Form hand measure the average height (see Figure into an approximate 3-inch 2). circle, grasp the vegetation and determine the average When the key species does not occur in a leaf height. mat near the handle of the quadrat, but as an individual plant or several individual plants, the 3-inch plot is placed over the key species plants nearest the handle (see Figure 3). Measure the leaves of all the key species rooted within the 3-inch diameter plot. When a key species does not occur within the quadrat, leave the cell blank and proceed to the next plot location.

Greenline

Once the samples are collected, both the Figure 3 When key species plants are not in the median and the mean corner by the frame handle, select the key species (average) height are plant(s) nearest the handle. Identify the 3-inch calculated and circle and measure the average leaf. height of all presented in the Data key species plants rooted within the circle. Analysis Module for the riparian key specie(s). The median is the single mid-point for an odd number of samples, and the average of the two co-midpoints for an even number of samples (USDI, BLM 1999). For example, if the middle two numbers for an even number of samples are 5 and 6 inches, the median is 5.5 inches.

5. Woody Species Regeneration (Modified from Winward 2000)

General Description

25

Woody species regeneration is modified from Winward (2000). The original procedure developed by Winward is a six-foot wide by 110-meter belt transect with the center of the six-foot belt being over the greenline. Woody plants are counted by species and age classed. This modification to facilitate collecting multiple indicators in a more efficient manner uses a 0.42 meter by 2 meter plot, 1 meter either side of the greenline (Figure 4), providing a sample of woody species along the transect from a definable area. This approach increases the precision of the observations. Procedure Identify the plant by species; count the number of plants rooted in the plot, and determine the age class (described below) of each woody plant within the plot.
Streamside Floodplain

Greenline

Figure 4 Woody species regeneration plot is 0.42 meters by 2.0 meters. The plot is defined by placing the monitoring frame perpendicular to the greenline. The frame is placed end-to-end on each side of the greenline. 1. 2. The woody species regeneration plot is .42 meter wide by 2 meters long (one meter on each side of the greenline), as shown in Figure 4. Place the end of the monitoring frame on and perpendicular to the greenline, and count the number of woody plants by species rooted within the monitoring frame. If one stem at ground level is within the plot and several other stems are immediately outside the plot, determine if the stem within the plot is actually connected to those outside the plot. If it is, record the age of the entire plant to which the stem is connected. Generally, stems at ground level within 1 foot of each other are considered the same plant. If it is not connected, consider the stem as an individual plant and record the age class appropriately. Record by species and age class. (Do not count woody species canopy cover as woody species.)

26

3.

Move the monitoring frame away from the greenline, and place it at the end of the first monitoring frame, and repeat the procedure (see Figure 4). Tables 2 and 3 provide descriptions of woody species age classes. It is difficult to age class rhizomatous species such as wolf willow (Salix wolfii), planeleaf willow (S. planifolia), coyote willow (S. exigua), wild rose (Rosa spp.), and golden current (Ribes aureum); therefore, they are not recommended for inclusion in the woody species regeneration. When these species need to be monitored, use the greenline or a line transect.

4.

Table 2 Woody Species Age Classes for Multiple Stem Species Includes clumped willow (Salix spp.) species and shrubby forms of mountain alder (Alnus incana), and water birch (Betula occidentalis) Number of stems at the ground surface 1 stem 2 to 10 stems >10 stems 0 stems alive Age class

Seedling Young Mature Dead Modified from Winward 2000

Table 3 Woody Species Age Class for Single Stemmed Species. Single stemmed species: i.e., birch (Betula spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), and cottonwood or aspen (Populus spp.) Age Class Seedling Cottonwood Stem is < 4.5 ft. tall or < 1 in. diameter breast height (dbh) Stem is 4.5 ft. tall and 1 to < 5 in. dbh, or stem is < 4.5 ft. tall and 1 to < 5 in. dbh 5 in. dbh Other Broadleaf Species Stem is < 3 ft. tall and less than 1 in. diameter at the base Stem is 3 ft. tall and < 3 in. dbh, or < 3 ft. tall and 1 to 3 in. dbh Stem is 6 ft. tall and 3 in. dbh, or < 6 ft. tall and 3 in. dbh, or < 3 ft. tall with multiple branching (hedged) near the top of the stem Entire canopy is dead
27

Young

Mature

Dead Entire canopy is dead Adapted from (Thompson et al. 1998)

6. Woody Species Use (Modified Landscape Appearance Method)

General Description This method is modified from the Qualitative AssessmentsLandscape Appearance Method (also called the Key Forage Plant Method) described in Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements, Interagency Technical Reference (1996). Winward (2000) recommends a similar method based on estimated utilization ranges. The technique is an ocular estimate of woody species (e.g., willow, alder, birch, dogwood, aspen, and cottonwood) use based on the general appearance of the woody species rooted within a plot along the greenline. Estimates are based on a range or class of use of the available current years growth on the plants. Examiners must be trained to recognize the various use classes according to written class descriptions described below. Procedure Woody species use is observed on woody plants along a belt transect 2 meters wide (1 meter either side of the greenline), by the length of the interval between plots. For example, if the spacing between plots is two meters, observe all of the shrubs rooted within 1 meter either side of the greenline for a distance of two meters (the distance from the current plot to the next plot). Use Table 4 and record the mid-point value of each key woody species use class. For cattle, only shrubs with at least 50 percent of the current years leader growth below 5 feet (see Table 5) should be considered. When shrubs have over 50 percent of the active leader growth above 5 feet, the leaders are not generally available to cattle, and the plant usually has adequate leaf area for photosynthesis to maintain plant health. If no shrubs are encountered within the plot, leave the space on the field data sheet blank. Observers examine the woody plants rooted within the belt transect (Figure 5) and classify the use based on the descriptors. The five utilization classes (Table 4) describe the relative degree of use of the available current years leader growth for riparian shrubs and trees. Available current years leader growth (Table 5) is that portion of shrubs or trees that are within reach of the grazing animal.

28

Figure 5 Belt transect for observing woody species utilization. A two-meter measuring rod centered on the greenline is often used to locate plants within the transect. The monitoring frame contains a 1 meter long handle which may also be used to determine if individual woody plants are rooted within the belt.

29

Table 4 Woody Species Use Classes and Descriptions

Class None to Slight

Percent Utilization Range 010 (mid-point = 5) 1140 (mid-point = 25) 4160 (mid-point = 50) 6190 (mid-point = 75)

Description Browse plants appear to have little or no use. Less than 10% of the available current years leader growth is disturbed. There is obvious evidence of leader use. The available leaders appear cropped or browsed in patches and 6089% of the available leader growth of browse plants remains intact. Browse plants appear rather uniformly used and 4060% of available annual leader growth of the plants remains intact. The use of the browse gives the appearance of complete search by grazing animals. The preferred browse plants are hedged, and some clumps may be slightly broken. Only between 10 and 40% of the available leader growth remains intact. There are indications of repeated grazing. There is no evidence of terminal buds. Some patches of second and third years growth may be grazed. Hedging is readily apparent, and browse plants are frequently broken. Repeated use at this level will produce a definitely hedged or armored growth form. Ten to 40% of the more accessible second and third years growth of browse plants has been utilized. All browse plants have major portions broken.

Light

Moderate

Heavy to Severe

Extreme

90100 (mid-point = 95)

Table 5. Available Current Years Growth: Height of Grazing (USDI, BLM 1992. Height of Available Leader Kind of Animal Growth (feet) Cattle 5 Sheep, antelope, big horn sheep 3.5 Horses, elk, and moose 7 Deer 4.5
30

Use the appropriate Height of Available Leader Growth for the kinds of animals that are of concern in the area. It is difficult, if not impossible, to discern between shrub use by domestic livestock and wildlife during periods of common use. In those circumstances, attempts to determine the kinds of animal that use the browse should not be made. However, wildlife use can be detected if data is collected before livestock turnout or monitoring is done immediately after livestock vacate a pasture and again at the end of the season.

C. In-Channel Indicators
The following in-channel measures have been included because they are reasonably objective, are strongly associated with livestock grazing influences to stream habitat, and have been found predictive of aquatic health.

7. Greenline-to-Greenline Channel Width (GGW)

General Description Many stream channels are over-widened as a result of vegetative changes and physical disturbance to streambanks over time. Improper livestock grazing can alter stream habitats by channel widening and/or incision (Clary et al. 1996, Clary 1999, Clary and Kinney 2002, Kaufman and Krueger 1984). Under improper grazing, protective vegetation is weakened or removed, and trampling may induce a sloping streambank profile (Clary and Kinney 2002). Subsequent erosion of weakened streambanks during floods results in a wider, shallower stream channel. These changes to stream habitats can be detrimental to biota (Bohn 1986). Clarys (1999) observations at research sites indicated that the stream width of previously over-grazed streams decreases with improved grazing management of riparian zones. The average amount of narrowing was inversely associated with the level of grazing intensity. Between 1990 and 1994, width changes as a proportion of the original measurement were: No grazing41% reduction, light grazing34% reduction, and medium grazing 18% reduction. Stream depth, on the other hand, was variable through time and appeared to change primarily in response to climatic events. After a flood event in 1996, channel depth at the ungrazed site increased to 2.33 times the original depth. This vertical scour likely resulted from the longer-term effect of channel narrowing. Commonly, the width of stream channels is determined by measuring channel width at the bankfull level. Detailed measurements of width and depth are accomplished by surveying channel cross-section profiles. This method is not useful at a large number of positions along the stream because it is timeconsuming and expensive. Too few cross-section measurements do not adequately estimate mean channel geometry, due to site variability.
31

As summarized by Bauer and Ralph (2001), the major concern with use of width measurements at bankfull level is the reliability of the method. Bankfull width is determined by using field characteristics such as sediment surfaces and profile breaks to identify the elevation of the active floodplain surface. These definitions are vague, and the actual selection of bankfull level is, at best, subjective. Other field methods have measured the wetted width of the stream. Although this level in the channel is easily identifiable, unfortunately, wetted width varies dramatically by stream flow. Because it is normally measured during low or intermediate streamflows, it provides little information about the overall channel characteristics of the measured stream. Greenline-to-greenline width (GGW) is the non-vegetated distance between the greenlines on each side of the stream. As stated by Winward (2000): Most often the greenline is located at or near the bankfull stage. As flows recede and the vegetation continues to develop summer growth, it may be located part way out on a gravel or sandbar. At times when banks are freshly eroding or, especially when a stream has become entrenched, the greenline may be located several feet above bankfull stage. Though related to the bankfull stage, the greenline is easier to identify. In a recent meeting of scientists working to achieve greater consistency in riparian monitoring, it was determined that the greenline could be even more objectively determined if a set of rules or criteria could be identified. Using the greenline definition contained in this document will improve the precision greenline-togreenline width. To achieve an adequate sample for estimating the mean width (GGW), take measurements at each plot location. The results are a mean width of the nonvegetated stream channel. As streambanks recover, the stream channel typically narrows and the average non-vegetated GGW is reduced. This indicator helps document stream channel recovery over time. Since the recovery process may be relatively slow, it is recommended that the procedure be repeated every three to five years. The procedure is relatively easy and does not consume a lot of time. Procedure 1. At each plot location, measure the distance between the greenlines on each side of the stream and perpendicular to the water flow. A laser

32

range finder is the most expedient way of measuring the distance. It reduces the time required to do the measurements by about two-thirds. However, those instruments capable of a measuring accuracy of 0.3 meter are about $700.00, while those accurate to 0.03 meter are $2,400.00. Other less expensive options include measuring rods and tape measures. 2. Measure from the greenline associated with the center bar on the quadrat frame (near the toe of the boot (see Appendix C, Figure 2), to the greenline on the opposite side of the stream. The measurement is usually taken from only one side of the stream. If there are an inadequate number of samples, measurements may be taken from the opposite side of the steam. Measure to the nearest 0.25 feet or 0.1 meter. When a vegetated island (at least 25% foliar cover) is encountered along the line, determine the total distance between the greenlines and deduct the length of the vegetated island to determine the nonvegetated GGW (see Appendix L, Figures 3 and 4). Non-vegetated islands are included in the GGW width measurement (see Appendix L, line A in Figure 4).

3.

4.

8. Maximum Water Depth as Measured at the Deepest Point in the Stream (Thalweg Depth)
General Description The bed profile, in a longitudinal direction along the stream, has been found to be an effective index of overall habitat structure and quality (Madej 1999). Increases in the variation of channel depths increase the complexity of aquatic habitat. Channel depth variations are created by in-stream and streamside elements that resist the erosion energies of the stream. Thus, as streams are subject to greater amounts of erosion-resisting streamside vegetation, habitat complexity increases. Recent research by the Pacific Northwest Research Station of the Forest Service concluded that measures of channel geometry, pool frequency, and pool size are viable indicator variables for effectiveness monitoring (Woodsmith et al. 2005). Thalweg depth profiles allow for objective determination of pool frequency and quality. Past methods that rely upon observers to define pool boundaries have been too subjective and not reasonably repeatable. Recent research assessed the relation between fish abundance and thalweg metrics (Mossop and Bradford 2006). In that study, Chinook salmon densities varied greatly among stream reaches, and thalweg metrics explained 57% of the variation. An excellent metric, the variation index (calculated by the standard deviation of population residual depths along the reach), was found to be significant. It will also be possible to objectively
33

estimate pool quality from maximum depth values and substrate sizes (described in indicator 10). Procedure The Thalweg profile is constructed by measuring the depth of water over the channel bed at spaced intervals along the channels thalweg (or thread of maximum depth/velocity). Thus, at each plot location, normally while the observer(s) is measuring greenline-to-greenline width, a measurement of the maximum water depth along that transect is made. The maximum depth represents the deepest point in the cross section, and is found by probing with a depth rod until the deepest point is located. All 80+ plots should include a maximum thalweg water depth to acquire the sample size needed to objectively estimate the habitat metrics. It is important that the plot spacing be recorded in the Header form of the Data Analysis Module for proper calculation of the metrics.

9. Water Width
General Description Water width is easy to measure reasonably precisely. As greenline-to-greenline width is sensitive to changes in streamside vegetation through time, water widths can also reflect vegetation changes. However, water width is influenced by streamflow and will vary according to climatic conditions and season of year. For this reason, water width alone will likely not represent a good monitoring indicator. However, in combination with maximum depth, the ratio Max Depth to Water Width is influenced more by channel cross-section profile than by streamflow. Thus, changes in channel morphology, through time, can be reflective of this parameter (Henderson et al. 2004). Procedure Measure widths between waterlines, with the tape or rod oriented perpendicular to the channel. If islands are present, subtract the width of the island from the total width of both channels. Measure only to the edge of the bank when an undercut bank exists; do not measure beneath the undercut. Measure water widths at all 80+ plot locations and in the same transect as the thalweg depth measure.

10. Substrate Composition

General Description

34

There is a sizeable literature that supports the contention that excess substrate fines are adverse to salmonids (Bauer and Ralph 2001, McHugh and Budy 2005). The literature also supports use of pebble counts to estimate substrate composition (Bunte and Abt 2001). With respect to riparian vegetation, the literature suggests that loss of bank stability is related to increases in substrate fines. Tests of the pebble counting technique indicate that there is operator bias against the fines fraction in the substrate (Bunte and Abt 2001). However, this bias is presumably consistent; therefore, trends through time should theoretically be detectable. Streams with complex substrate size distributions need more samples than those with simple substrates (Bundt and Abt 2001). The authors state that the precision of a 100-particle pebble count is usually too low to compare particle-size distributions from different sites or over time.... They suggest a minimum of 200 particles from evenly spaced collection points across the scoured channel (the non-vegetated portion of the channel). Thus, the sample size estimator used in the MIM Data Entry Module includes an estimator for this variable. The user should make sure that the 200+ sample size is adequate to confidently predict percent fines and particle size distributions. Substrate metrics include: percent finer than 6 mm (1/4 inch in diameter), D84 particle size, and an estimate of the Mannings roughness coefficient. The latter is used in calculations of estimated discharge, as part of the pool quality index, and as an indicator of the channels ability to dissipate stream energy. The D84 particle size, or that substrate size for which 84 percent of all particles are smaller, has been used to describe substrate quality for fish habitat (McHugh and Budy 2004, Kondoff 2000). Procedure Beginning with the second plot in the survey, samples are collected at every other water-width/depth transect (or 20 total transects), evenly spaced along the entire length of the DMA. Collect and measure the diameter of 10 pebbles at each transect. 1. Visually estimate the number of heel-to-toe steps across the nonvegetated channel width totaling 10 (5 heel and 5 toe samples) and pace accordingly. For very small streams, cross once, then return and collect 5 samples on each crossing of the channel. Sample the entire streambed width at each transect starting with the heel of the boot at the greenline. Samples should be collected within the active channel. Never sample a particle on the streambank above the first terrace or the greenline or on slump blocks. Depositional features (e.g., point bars) are considered streambed material and should be included in the sample. Alternatively, a measuring rod can be used to evenly space samples across the wetted width of the stream.

2.

35

3.

End the count at the greenline or first terrace, whichever is closest to the waters edge, on the opposite side of the stream.

Sample the particle at the toe (or heel) of the foot or below the extended measuring rod. Reach down with the forefinger (without looking at the sample point) and pick up the first particle touched. Measure the middle width (intermediate or B axis) of the particle in mm. Visualize the B axis as the smallest width of a hole that the particle could pass through. A gravelometer is an excellent tool for objectively measuring particle sizes and is highly recommended to avoid subjectivity in selecting and measuring the B axis. A complete description of the device is available in the Stream Systems Technology CenterStream Notes for April, 1996 (on-line at: http://stream.fs.fed.us/news/streamnt/pdf/SN_4-96.pdf). Commercial sources are available for purchasing this instrument at approximately $50.00 each.

DATA INTERPRETATION
Monitoring results must be interpreted considering precision, accuracy, and ability to detect change for each monitoring indicator. The following describes how each were evaluated in testing this protocol. See Appendix N for statistical analysis results of the variability between observers, and estimation of sample sizes needed to achieve 95% confidence in predicting the true mean. Precision: Precision denotes agreement between repeat observations. Observations may be repeated by the same or different individuals. Precision is important for interpreting compliance and trend. If, for example, the stubble height allowable use criterion is 4 inches and the precision of the measurement is .5 inches, an observation of 3.6 inches would not exceed the criterion. With respect to trend, if the objective for bank stability is to achieve 80% stable and the precision is 8%, an 85% observation does not mean that the objective has been met. The coefficient of variation is a good statistic for estimating precision. It is a dimensionless measure calculated as follows: CV = sq root (crew variance) mean*100 Where: CV = the coefficient of variation Crew Variance = variance on repeat samples Mean = the geometric mean value of the repeat samples CV values < 20 are considered as having an acceptable level of precision (Ramsey et. al. 1992). Accuracy: Accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured quantity to its actual or true value. Accuracy is often associated with the bias in statistics. Bias is the difference between the population mean of a measured indicator and
36

some reference value. The reference value is represented by a sub-population of samples for the indicator. Thus accuracy is strongly influenced by the size of the sample. Larger samples come closer to the true mean value for the indicator. A good statistic for accuracy is the confidence interval. The confidence interval is calculated using the sample mean and standard deviation.

is the upper critical value of the standard where is the sample mean, normal distribution which is found in the table of the standard normal distribution, is the known population standard deviation, and N is the sample size. Note that as sample size increases, the confidence interval plus and minus the mean value decreases. In other words, the interval is closer to the mean. Electronic data entry may be used to assess sample size levels while collecting field data. This protocol uses an Excel workbook, the Data Entry Module, designed for use with PDAs, and that allows computation of sample sizes for various levels of confidence (Appendix E). Ability to detect change: The ability to detect change is critical to effective monitoring results. In natural stream and riparian systems change is a relatively frequent natural process. The ability to isolate changes due to management requires that the method be robust, precise, and accurate. A good statistic for detecting change is the Signal-to-Noise ratio. Signal-to-Noise is stream variance divided by crew variance. This ratio compares the level of a desired signal (such as music) to the level of background noise. The higher the ratio, the less obtrusive the background noise is. Thus, Signal-to-Noise compares the level of change through time or differences between streams (Signal = Stream Variance) to the differences between repeat samples (Noise = Crew Variance). Values >10 indicate reasonably high detection capability. Discussion and Interpretation of Metrics Seventeen metrics were created to evaluate and summarize the data. These metrics are calculated using an MS EXCEL workbook, the Data Analysis Module (See Appendix E for details). Refer to the Module for a description of each metric and how it is calculated.

1. Successional Status Ecological Status

Successional status (Winward 2000) is weighted by the percentage of plants by successional status along the greenline (see Table 6). Dominant plants are
37

double weighted in the spreadsheet calculations. Anchored rock and anchored wood are considered as late seral. Successional status vegetation data must be included for any new species added to the dominant or community type list for the analysis module to operate correctly. Local riparian plant association or community type classifications usually provide that type of information. The following table summarizes class ratings for ranges of ecological status as reflected by the successional status of the plant or community type, substrate, stream gradient, and presence/absence of the woody vegetation component (see Winward 2000).

Table 6 Greenline Ecological Status (Winward 2000) Summary Value Descriptor Class Rating 015 Very Early 1640 Early 4160 Mid 6185 Late 85+ PNC Results of testing (54 tests) produced the following results: CV = 17.1 S:N = 23.6 Average difference between observers = 9.2 Same observers = 6.9% Different observers = 15.2%

2. Vegetation Erosion Resistance Rating (Greenline Stability Rating)

The vegetation erosion resistance rating (synonymous with Greenline Stability Rating Winward 2000) is based on the relative ability of a plant species (or rock and wood) to withstand the erosive forces of water. Computations result in a weighted average for the transect; dominant plants are double weighted. Generally, an average over 7 is considered adequate to protect the streambank and allow streams to function properly (see Table 7). Some early seral species such as Eleocharis spp. and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepisis) growing together along the greenline provide a higher erosion resistance rating of 7 (see Appendices H and I).

38

Table 7 Vegetation Erosion Resistance Index (referred to as the Vegetation Stability Rating in Winward 2000) Summary Value 02 34 56 78 910 Descriptor Class Rating Very Poor (very low) Poor (low) Moderate Good (high) Excellent (very high)

Results of testing (56 tests) produced the following results: CV = 4.99 S:N = 16.9 Average difference between observers = .62 Same observers = .52 Different observers = .74 Ranges of variability between observers produced an average difference of 1.29. However, when samples are repeated by the same observer, the difference between repeat samples averages .75 (on a scale of 1 to 10).

3. Wetland Rating
The wetland rating (Coles-Ritchie 2005) is a weighted number (see Table 8) based on the wetland indicator status (Reed 1988 and USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The wetland indicator status (Table 8) is the frequency that individual plant species occur in saturated (hydric) soils. For descriptive purposes only, these have been categorized according to Table 9. Using only the values generated by the procedures described above may not give an adequate depiction of the condition of a vegetation community (including anchored rock and anchored wood). Careful review of all species described is important and should be considered in every data interpretation. Vegetation communities in transition may be deceptive if only dominant vegetation is considered. Those interpreting the data must also consider subdominant species, as these species frequently provide valuable indicators of potential change. For example, if Nebraska sedge (Carex nebraskensis) is present on a site dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and/or red top (Agrostis stolonifera), there is potential for deep-rooted species to dominate the site. Vigorous Nebraska sedge in the site described above is usually an indicator of an improving trend. Sometimes interpreting the data can be difficult; an example of this may be where undesirable plants such as noxious weeds occur as sub-dominant species. This may be an indicator of a trend away
39

from the desired condition or it may be an intermediate step toward the desired condition. In these instances, it is important to carefully examine all previous data to confidently determine the direction of change. It is common for noxious weeds such as thistle (Cirsium spp.) to quickly manifest themselves after long periods of disturbance. Often, many of these weeds will slowly decline as the riparian vegetation recovers. Table 8. Wetland indicator Status Rating (Coles-Ritchie 2005) Wetland Indicator Status OBL OBL FACW + FACW FACW FAC + FAC Wetland Indicator Value 100 92 83 75 67 58 50 Wetland Indicator Status FAC FACU + FACU FACU UPL + UPL Wetland Indicator Value 42 33 25 17 9 0

Because vegetation composition monitoring is usually done over the long-term, the same people often do not repeat the initial measurements. This, along with the observers ability or lack of ability to identify plant species, can create problems interpreting the data. Those analyzing the data must know the area, the potential plant species at the site, and understand these potential limitations in order to make a correct interpretation of the condition and trend on the site. Table 9 Site Wetland Rating Wetland Indicator Value 015 1640 4160 6185 85+ Descriptor Class Rating Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Results of testing (54 tests) produced the following results: CV = 5.0 S:N = 38.8 Average difference between observers = 4.1 Same observers = 3
40

Different observers = 5.3

4. Streambank Stability (Percent Streambanks Stable and Percent Streambanks Covered)

The streambank is that portion of the channel between the scour line and the top of the first terrace on either side of the stream. The streambank stability measurement provides an indication of the ability of streambanks, with their associated vegetation, anchored rock, anchored wood, and/or consolidated soils high in clay or compacted, to buffer the forces of water during conditions of high stream flow, floating ice, or debris. The results are expressed as a percentage of the stream in each of six classification categories, covered/stable, covered/unstable, uncovered/unstable, uncovered/stable, false banks, and unclassified. Increased streambank stability on disturbed sites usually lags behind the recovery of herbaceous and woody vegetation. Streambank stability recovery rates will vary depending on the current stage of channel evolution. Recently incised channels will have a longer recovery rate because the channel must develop a new floodplain, which requires eroding streambanks to deposit material to create new point bars. This new deposition must then be occupied by deep-rooted vegetation species before the streambanks begin to stabilize. This process can take from a few years to decades to complete. When collecting streambank data, record false banks separately, as they are an indication of streambank recovery. Consider streambank alteration, greenline vegetation composition, woody species regeneration, woody species use, and photographs to reach conclusions concerning the trend of streambank stability. Results of testing (56 tests) produced the following results: CV = 10.6 S:N = 36.6 Average difference between observers = 7% Same observers = 6.9 % Different observers = 7.2 %

5. Streambank Alteration (Percent)

Tests of streambank alteration using the plot-with-line intercept method suggest that observer error varies according to site complexity and level of grazing use. On-site variability requires sampling enough observations along the streambank to confidently predict an accurate level of bank alteration. Our data suggest that at least 80 plots, each with 5 transect lines (or 80 x 5 = 400 observations) is needed to achieve a confidence interval of 4 to 6% of the mean. Thus if 80 plots result in a mean of 20%, the confidence interval is approximately 20%*.05 or plus and minus 1%. These observations suggest that bank alteration is
41

measurable at a site, with reasonably narrow ranges of variability. It is true that levels of alteration can vary between sites under the same levels of grazing use. Depending upon the amount of soil moisture in the banks, the vegetation types, and the amounts of rock, logs, and other obstructions inherent to streambanks of the site, bank alteration may vary significantly. For example, a streambank dominated by deep-rooted vegetation and/or rock and logs will deform much less, when exposed to the pressure of an animal hoof, than a bank consisting of loose, moist soil covered by shallow-rooted vegetation. Thus potential bank alteration will vary according to streambank characteristics. In addition, the ability of streambanks to recover after disturbance also varies from one site to another. Since streambank alteration is estimated from 400 individual observation along the greenline, % streambanks altered is a metric that represents the percent of hits (or lines intercepting hoof prints or shears) lineally along the greenline. Thus it is a mostly lineal proportion, or at least a very narrow areal proportion, aligned with the greenline on the streambank. Results of testing (32 tests) produced the following results: CV = 19.9 S:N = 15 Average difference between observers = 5.6% Same observers = 5.4% Different observers = 7.7 %

6. Residual Vegetation (Mean and Median Stubble Height)

Residual vegetation is used as an indicator of the amount of livestock or wildlife use on dominant key vegetation species. It provides information concerning whether current grazing management is allowing adequate vegetation growth to maintain or enhance vigor and reproduction of the plants. Interpretation of residual vegetation is not complicated. The result is the median residual height of the key herbaceous species in inches (mean or average may be used if desired). Do not interpret a measured value beyond the precision and accuracy for the method. For example, suppose 5 inches of residual vegetation height has been determined to be the amount necessary to meet riparian objectives for a site. The residual height of the key herbaceous species at the prescribed time (either during the grazing season or after plant re-growth and after livestock grazing has concluded for the season) was measured at 4.7 inches. The precision and accuracy tests, at the 95 percent confidence level, indicate a range of plus or minus one-half inch. Because the measured data (4.7 inches) was within the range of variability ( 0.5 inches), it cannot be considered below the recommended height. It does provide information suggesting that annual grazing is at or below the recommended level, and that the long-term (trend) should be carefully watched to detect any undesirable changes in the
42

vegetation or channel conditions. These conditions and concerns must be conveyed to those involved in livestock management. Residual vegetation should be used, along with greenline vegetation composition, to determine if livestock management is achieving resource objectives. Streambank alteration, streambank stability, photographs, and other stream/riparian indicators should also be considered prior to reaching a conclusion concerning the condition and/or trend of a riparian area. Results of testing (32 tests) produced the following results: CV = 11.0 S:N = 508 Average difference between observers = .81 inch Same observers = .8 inch Different observers = .82 inch

7. Woody Species Regeneration

The calculation in the data analysis module for woody species regeneration is based on the proportion of woody plants encountered in all plots for each of the three age classes (saplings and young, mature, dead). Woody species regeneration will likely have the largest variability of any of the protocols. This is particularly true on greenlines with few woody species present. Consequently, levels of precision and accuracy can be problematic for some sites (see test results below). Winward (2000) indicated that most streams with gradients of more than 0.5 percent have the potential for woody species. Conditions that promote the establishment of woody plants do not frequently occur on streams with less than 0.5 percent gradient. Highly disturbed streams, devoid of woody species, may require 10 to 20 years before woody species can re-colonize the streambank. Data from the woody species regeneration and woody species use procedures, along with photographs, usually provide a good indication of changes in numbers, size, age, and abundance of the plants. Increasing numbers of seedlings and young plants may be an indication of early improvement along the greenline. Changing from a dominance of seedlings and young plants toward an abundance of mature plants is usually an indication that the shrub community is maturing. After disturbance, when stream channels are building lateral and point bars, it is common for an initial establishment of seedlings and young plants to occur. As the bar continues to grow, seedlings and young plants may become dominant along the greenline. Results of testing (31 tests) on % seedlings/saplings produced the following results: CV = 23.8 (slightly exceeds the desired precision level of 20) S:N = 101.9 (high detection due to strong differences between stream reaches)
43

Average difference between observers = 13.1% Same observers = 12.6 % Different observers = 15.2 %

8. Greenline-to-Greenline Channel Width (GGW)

Greenline-to-greenline channel width is the average non-vegetated distance between the greenline on either side of the stream. It provides an indicator of the stream channel width. As disturbed, usually over-widened streams recover, the channel will narrow. Hence, narrowing greenline-to-greenline widths are indicators of stream recovery. Objectives specific to GGW should be developed from reference sites when such information is available. Data from GGW should be used with greenline vegetation composition, streambank stability, streambank alteration, and residual vegetation height. Results of testing (54 tests) produced the following results: CV = 6.7 S:N = 728 (a very strong detection ability) Average difference between observers = .5 meter Same observers = .39 meter Different observers = .77 meter

9. Woody Species Use

Woody species use estimates are made using the value associated with classes (none to slight, light, moderate, heavy to severe, and extreme -- see Table 4). The degree of use should not be interpreted to a scale finer than a class (or range) since woody species use can only be reliably estimated at a coarse scale. For example, if the average calculated use is 59 percent, the conclusion should be that the use is moderate to heavy. If the use is 41 percent, the conclusion should be that the use is light to moderate. Woody species use indicators should be set by use class and not by specific numbers such as 35 percent. Results of testing (34 tests) produced the following results: CV = 38.9 (well above the desired precision level) S:N = 561 (due to the high variability between stream reaches) Average difference between observers = 3.1% Same observers = 2.4 % Different observers = 8.6 %

10. Thalweg Depth Variation Index

As used by Madej (1999), the Depth Variation Index is simply the standard deviation of thalweg depth measurements. Therefore, it is a statistical measure of the spread or variability in water depths along the length of the stream. The greater the variability, presumably the greater the habitat complexity and quality. Because streams are variable in water depth as streamflow rate changes temporally, the standard deviation is indexed to the average depth of the stream. Thus, in the Data Analysis Module, the Thalweg Depth Variation Index is
44

calculated using the Coefficient of Variation, or ratio of the standard deviation to the arithmetic mean of all depth measurements. The coefficient of variation is a dimensionless number that allows comparison of samples through time while minimizing the effect of streamflow level on the variation of thalweg depths. Results of testing (3 tests) produced the following results: CV = 8.1 S:N = NA Average difference between observers = .02 meter Same observers = NA Different observers = .02 meter

11. Water Width-Maximum Depth Ratio

This metric is calculated by dividing the average water width by the average thalweg depth. The W/D ratio indexes the shape of the wetted channel, whether narrow and deep, or wide and shallow. Because streams are variable in both width and depth, this dimensionless index allows comparisons of samples through time. The assumption here is that MIM samples are ALWAYS collected in late summer when streams are usually flowing within the active channel and within a relatively narrow range of discharge. In such conditions, depth changes are proportional to width changes. Thus, as channels tend towards stability, the index value decreases. As channels destabilize, the index value increases. However, if the channel is strongly entrenched (vertical banks), widths may not change with changes in depth. In this case, variability in the W/D ratio through time would reflect changes in discharge. Results of testing (3 tests) produced the following results: CV = 7.1 S:N = NA Average difference between observers = 2.5 Same observers = NA Different observers = 2.5

12. Percent Substrate Fines (<6 mm)

Surface fines represent that fraction of the pebbles sampled less than 10 mm in size. Kondoff (2000), in evaluating the biological significance of substrate for salmonid fishes, recommended using less than 10 mm (.39 inch) as the fraction that would potentially affect salmonid fry emergence. This means that pebbles fitting the 1, 2.8, 4, 5.6, and 8 mm slots in the gravelometer would be considered fine sediment. On the Wentworth Scale, particles less than 10 mm are the fine gravel and smaller substrate types. Ranges of variability between observers have not yet been evaluated for this metric.

45

12. D84 Substrate Particle Size Diameter and percent fines

This metric estimates the particle size for which 84% of the substrate is smaller, for all pebbles in the sample. As stream channels stabilize through riparian vegetation restoration and increased bank stability, the D84 size normally increases. As channels stabilize, they resist erosion, tend towards a narrower and deeper profile allowing higher levels of bed scour, and increase in sediment transport capability. These physical variables combine in determining the coarseness of the substrate. As stated in the method description, above, this metric is useful for evaluating fish habitat substrate quality. Results of testing (3 tests) % fines produced the following results: CV = 6.3 S:N = NA Average difference between observers = .2% Same observers = NA Different observers = .2 %

13. Stage from Estimated Discharge

Discharge is the rate of water, in cubic feet per second, flowing in a stream channel. It is calculated by multiplying the cross-sectional area of the wetted stream channel by the water velocity, or Ft^2 x Ft/second, (or Ft^3/second). Discharge can be estimated using Mannings Equation, which is an empirical prediction derived from the channel velocity, flow area, and channel slope. Channel velocity is determined from the wetted perimeter (length of the wetted streambed perpendicular to the flow direction) and from Mannings n, a coefficient that represents friction. Mannings n is called the roughness coefficient and can be estimated from substrate data. Table 1 in the Data Analysis Module Substrate worksheet shows the n values that are applied to various median particle sizes calculated from the pebble count data. Thus, discharge is estimated from field information on water width, depth, gradient, and substrate particle size. It is used to approximate the streamflow rate at the time of the survey. Streamflow differences between sampling may be important in interpreting trends in Width-to-Depth ratio and the Thalweg Depth Variation Index. Stage is the depth value used in the equation to estimate discharge. Stage is an important source of calibration for assessing trends in wetted widthto-depth ratio.

14. Roughness Coefficient

Derivation of the Mannings roughness coefficient is described above in the section on discharge. Mannings n is presented as a metric that has bearing on hydraulic friction in the channel and indexes substrate quality. If the roughness coefficient changes through time, such shifts are reflective of the channels ability to transport water and sediment.

46

15. Pool Quality Index

High frequency of good quality pools is critical to sustaining salmonids in streams and rivers (Bauer and Ralph 2001). They are used at virtually every life stage, and are critical to providing space for rearing, feeding, resting, spawning, and incubation. A thalweg depth of .3 meter is considered critical as cover for salmonids. Substrate is a critical component of pool habitat for salmonids, particularly for juvenile overwinter rearing. The larger the median particle size, the greater amount of cover is available. Thus, the Pool Quality Index is calculated from a substrate score using both percent thalweg deeper than .3 meter, and the average particle size. The following table (Table 10) describes scores applied to the Pool Quality Index.Table 10 Water Depth and

Substrate Scores Used to Calculate the Pool Quality Index

% Deeper than .3 meter > 50% 30 50% 20 30% 10 20% 5 10% < 5% Depth Score 5 4 3 2 1 0 D50 > 180 mm 64 180 mm 32 64 mm 16 32 mm 8 16 mm < 8 mm Substrate Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

The depth score is added to the substrate score, and the total is multiplied by 10 to derive the Pool Quality Index. This index ranges from 0 to 100. Results of testing (3 tests) produced the following results: CV = .01 S:N = NA Average difference between observers = 1 Same observers = NA Different observers = 1

16. Photographs
Photographs described in this protocol are designed to help validate data obtained using measured and observed protocols described in this document. They are not intended to be adequate to provide quantitative data.

17. PFC Validation

We suggest that the MIM protocols can be used to validate Riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessments. PFC assesses a much broader reach of stream; however, it is a qualitative method for assessing the condition of
47

riparian-wetland areas, and is not designed to be a long-term monitoring tool. The PFC assessment uses hydrology, vegetation, and erosion/deposition (soils) attributes and processes to qualitatively assess the condition of riparian-wetland areas. Many of these same attributes can be quantitatively measured using the MIM procedure. Procedures for PFC assessment are found in the BLM Technical Reference 1737-15, Riparian Area Management; A User Guide to Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Use the Data Analysis Module to address or validate PFC checklist items and final ratings. Column N in the Data Summary Worksheet (located in the Data Analysis Module) presents quantitative values for several of the checklist items in the PFC assessment. As stated in 1737-15: there will be times when items from the checklist need to be quantified. Also: These quantitative techniques are encouraged in conjunction with the PFC assessment for individual calibration, where answers are uncertain, or where experience is limited. The PFC Validation Table in the Data Analysis Module provides a listing of indicators and their quantitative values for the applicable checklist item(s), along with a note describing the indicators relevance to the item.

18. Winward Greenline Calibration (Winward 2000)

The Data Analysis Module contains a calibration for predicting the vegetation metrics using the Winward (2000) method. This calibration is intended for those users who desire to predict trends using MIM, where previous samples were collected using the Winward (2000) method. Data for developing the calibration model were collected in 2006 from 31 samples. These samples were derived from a variety of stream/riparian types across southern and central Idaho. The calibration is based upon simple regression.

48

REFERENCES
Archer, E.K., Roper, B.B, R.C. Henderson, N. Bouwes, S.C. Mellison, and J.L. Kershner. 2002. Testing common stream sampling methods: How useful are these techniques for broad-scale, long-term monitoring? U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit, Logan, UT. GTR-0602. Bauer, S.B. and S.C. Ralph. 2001. Strengthening the use of aquatic habitat indicators in Clean Water Act programs. Fisheries Vol 26, No. 6. pp 14 24. Bauer, S.B. and T.A. Burton. 1993. Monitoring protocols to evaluate water quality effects of grazing management on western rangeland streams. Idaho Water Resources Research Institute; for US EPA. EPA 910/R-93-017. Benngeyfield, P. and D. Svoboda. 1998. Determining allowable use levels for livestock movement in riparian areas. Proceedings: Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources. American Water Resources Association. Middleburg, VA. Bohn, C. 1986. Biological importance of streambank stability. Rangelands 8:5556. Bunte, K. and S.R. Abt. 2001. Sampling surface and sub-surface particle size distributions in wadeable gravel- and cobble-bed streams for analysis in sediment transport, hydraulics, and streambed Monitoring. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Experiment Station, General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-74. 450 pp. Burton, T. A. 1999. Bank stability monitoring in Bear Valley Basinan overview. USDA, Forest Service, Boise National Forest. Unpublished. Burton, T.A., E.R. Cowley, and S.J. Smith. 2006. Monitoring Streambanks and Riparian Vegetation Multiple Indicators. Version 2.0. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office. Boise, ID. Challis Resource Area. 1999. Photographic guide to median stubble heights. Technical Bulletin No. 99-01. Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho. Clary, W.P. 1999. Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing. Journal of Range Management 52 - 3.218227. May 1999.

49

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-263, Ogden, UT. Clary, W.P., C.I. Thornton, and S.R. Abt. 1996. Riparian stubble height and recovery of degraded streambanks. Rangelands 18:137140. Clary , W.P. and J.W. Kinney. 2002. Streambank and vegetation response to simulated cattle grazing. Wetlands, Vol 22, No. 1. pp 139148. Coles-Ritchie, M.C., R.C. Henderson, E.K. Archer, C. Kennedy, and J.L. Kershner. 2004. The repeatability of riparian vegetation sampling methods: How useful are these techniques for broad-scale, long-term monitoring? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-138. Fort Collins, CO. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Experiment Station. 18 p. Coles-Ritchie, Marc C. Utah State University. 2005. Evaluation of riparian vegetation data and associated sampling techniques. Utah State University, Logan UT. 184 p. Cowley, E.R. 2004. Monitoring the current year streambank alteration by large herbivores. Unpublished Report. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. Boise, ID. Dunne, T and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA. pp 818. Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1993. Stream hydrology, an introduction for ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England. pp 337338. Hansen, P.L., R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B.J. Cook, J. Joy, and D.K. Kinckley. 1995. Classification and management of Montanas riparian and wetland sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, The University of Montana, Miscellaneous Publication No. 54, Missoula, MT. p 640. Harelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Heitke, J. and R. Henderson. 2004. Precision of three streambank alteration assessment methods. Salt Lake City, Utah. Society for Range Management Annual Meeting.
50

Henderson, R., E. Archer, A. Anderson, and D. Dugaw(PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring Program Staff). 2004. Effectiveness Monitoring For Streams and Riparian Areas Within the Upper Columbia Basin Sampling Protocol for Integrator Reaches Stream Channel Parameters. Multi-Federal Agency Monitoring Program. USDA Forest Service. Logan, UT Interagency Technical Reference. 1996. Utilization studies and residual measurements. Interagency Technical Reference. BLM/RS/ST96/004+1730. pp 25, 5156. Kaufman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian plant communities, and streamside management implications, A Review. Journal of Range Management 37(3):430437. Kershner, J.L., E.K. Archer, M. Coles-Ritchie, E.R. Cowley, R.C. Henderson, K. Kratz, C.M. Quimby, D.L. Turner, L.C. Ulmer, and M.R. Vinson. 2004. Guide to effective monitoring of aquatic and riparian resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 57 p. Kondoff, G.M. 2000. Assessing Salmonid Spawning Gravel Quality. Transactions American Fisheries Society. Volume 129, Issue 1. pp 262 281. Leopold, L.B. 1994. A view of the river. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. pp 131133. Madej. M. 1999. What can Thalweg Profiles Tell Us. A Case Study from Redwood Creek, California. US Geological Survey, Redwood Field Station, Arcata, CA. Miller, J.R., K. House, D. Germanoski, R.J. Tausch, and J.C. Chambers. 2004. Fluvial geomorphic responses to Holocene climatic change. In: Great basin riparian ecosystem: ecology, management, and restoration, Eds: J.C. Chambers and J.R. Miller. Society for Ecological Restoration International. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp 4987. McHugh P. and P. Budy. 2004. Patterns of spawning habitat selection and suitability for two populations of spring chinook salmon, with an evaluation of generic versus site-specific suitability criteria. Transactions Am Fisheries Society. V 133, pp 8997. McHugh P. and P. Budy. 2005. A comparison of visual and measurementbased techniques for quantifying cobble embeddedness and fine sediment

51

levels in salmonid-bearing streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Volume 25: pp 1208-1215. American Fisheries Society. Mossop B., and M.J. Bradford. 2006. Using thalweg profiling to assess and monitor juvenile salmon (Onchorhynchus spp. )habitat in small streams. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. V63. Pp 1515-1525. Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, Ed: W.R. Meehan. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD. pp 389423. Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P.Cuplin, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monson, J.R. Sedell, and J.S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-221. Ogden, UT. Ramsey, M.H., M Thompson, and M. Hale. 1992. Objective Evaluation of Precision Requirements for Geochemistry Analysis using Robust Analysis of Variance. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 44:23-36. Reed, Porter B. 1988. National list of plant species that occurs in wetlands: 1988 national summary. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://www.fws.gov/nwi/bha/list88.html> Accessed 2006 April 9. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Saunders, C.W. and K. D. Fausch. 2007. Improved Grazing Management Increases Terrestrial Invertebrate Inputs that Feed Trout in Wyoming Rangeland Streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. V 136, pp 1216-1230. Thompson, W.H., R.C. Ehrhart, P. L. Hansen, T.G. Parker, and W.C. Haglan. 1998. Assessing Health of a Riparian Site. American Water Resources Association. Proceedings: Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources Thorne, C.R. 1982. Processes and mechanisms of river bank erosion. In: Gravel bed rivers. Eds: Hey, R.D., Bathurst, J.C. and Thorne, C.R. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. New York, New York. pp 227271.

52

Thorne, M.S., P.J. Meiman, Q.D. Skinner, M.A. Smith, and J.L. Dodd. 2005. Clipping frequency affects canopy volume and biomass production in planeleaf willow (Salix planifolia var. planifolia Prush). Rangeland Ecology and Management 58(1):4150. University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Team. 2004. University of Idaho stubble height study report. Submitted to Idaho State Director, BLM and Regional Forester, Region 4, US Forest Service. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID. 26 p. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Rangeland inventory & monitoring supplemental studies. Technical Reference 4400-5, Denver, CO. p 87. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Riparian area management: process for assessing proper functioning condition. Technical Reference 1737-9, National Applied Science Center, Denver, CO. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Riparian area management: a user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. Technical Reference 1737-15, National Applied Science Center, Denver, CO. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Photographic guide to median stubble heights. Technical Bulletin 99-01, Idaho State Office, Boise, ID. pp 23. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. National list of plant species that occurs in wetlands: northwest region 9 supplement. http://www.fws.gov/nwi/bha/list88.html Accessed 2006 April 9. Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-46. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p. Woodsmith, R.D., Noel, J.R., Dilger, M.L. 2005. An approach to effectiveness monitoring of floodplain channel aquatic habitat: channel condition assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 72: 177204. Zar, J.H. 1996. Biological Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

53