The Freshwater Trust Reference Site Survey Protocol

Transcription

Riparian Survey Program
For use in Eugene Water & Electric Board’s
Voluntary Incentives Program
Final Report I: Reference Site Survey Protocol
April 25, 2014
Prepared by The Freshwater Trust
Version 1.1,
August 8, 2014
Clarifications, expansions, simplifications, and other revisions to this protocol have been made from the
original version based on feedback gained from the implementation experience of desktop and field analysts
at 13 forested reference sites.
Prepared by:
Olivia Duren
Kaola Swanson
Julia Bond
Monique Leslie
For additional information, contact:
[email protected]
The Freshwater Trust
65 SW Yamhill St., Suite 300
Portland, OR 97204
503.222.9091
www.thefreshwatertrust.org
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the VIP partners for their valuable input and guidance essential to this
project. In particular, the experience and feedback of a core review team has been crucial for refining survey
methods and advising development of the riparian function scoring approach. We thank review team
members Karl Morgenstern, Nancy Toth, and Kris Stenshoel from the Eugene Water & Electric Board; David
Richey from Lane Council of Governments; Jared Weybright from the McKenzie Watershed Council; and
Rebecca Ley from the Upper Willamette Soil and Water Conservation District. The methodologies presented
in these reports reflect their recommendations.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................4
A Riparian Survey Program in the McKenzie River Subbasin .....................................................................................1
VIP Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................1
Scope of a Reference Site Survey Program ............................................................................................................4
Selecting Reference Sites .......................................................................................................................................4
Selecting Riparian Function Metrics and Survey Methods.........................................................................................5
Measuring Riparian Function at Reference Sites .......................................................................................................6
Desktop and Field Data Collection Methods ..............................................................................................................8
Data Collection Approach .......................................................................................................................................8
Survey Timing and Roles in Implementation ..........................................................................................................8
Survey Locations .........................................................................................................................................................9
Choosing Reference Sites .................................................................................................................................... 10
Delineating Reference Sites................................................................................................................................. 10
Recording Site Metadata ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Delineating Units within the Reference Site ....................................................................................................... 17
Recording Unit Metadata .................................................................................................................................... 17
Measuring Riparian Function Metrics ..................................................................................................................... 19
Riparian Buffer..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Landscape Connectivity ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Land Use .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Presence of Roads ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Floodplain Connectivity ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Streambank Erosion Potential ............................................................................................................................. 25
Large Wood in the Channel ................................................................................................................................. 27
Presence of Tributary Confluences ..................................................................................................................... 28
Presence of Special Instream Habitats ................................................................................................................ 28
Presence of Current or Historic Anadromous Salmonid Habitat ........................................................................ 29
Presence of Wetlands.......................................................................................................................................... 30
Presence of Special Terrestrial Habitats .............................................................................................................. 32
Canopy Tree Height ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Canopy Closure .................................................................................................................................................... 34
Canopy Cover....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Riparian Forest Seral Stage .................................................................................................................................. 35
Snag Abundance .................................................................................................................................................. 38
Downed Large Wood in the Floodplain ............................................................................................................... 39
Unvegetated Ground ........................................................................................................................................... 39
Native Vegetation Composition .......................................................................................................................... 39
Invasive Plant Species Cover ............................................................................................................................... 40
Photo Documentation ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................................................... 42
Data Management................................................................................................................................................... 42
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 42
Next Steps................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Protocol Review and Adaptation ............................................................................................................................. 44
References Cited...................................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix A – Recommended Number of Reference Sites in each HUC 5 Watershed ........................................... 50
Lower McKenzie River Watershed (HUC5) - Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and
recommended number reference sites............................................................................................................... 50
McKenzie River/Quartz Creek Watershed (HUC5) - Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types,
and recommended number reference sites........................................................................................................ 51
Horse Creek Watershed (HUC5)- Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and
Upper McKenzie River Watershed (HUC5) - Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and
Blue River Watershed (HUC5) - Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and recommended
number reference sites. ...................................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix B – Proposed Reference Sites and their Priority ..................................................................................... 55
Appendix C – Field Gear Check List ......................................................................................................................... 59
A Riparian Survey Program in the McKenzie River Subbasin
The Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) is implementing a Voluntary Incentive Program (VIP) that will
support private landowners in maintaining ecologically important riparian areas in the McKenzie River subbasin
by providing incentive payments for protection. This effort will help EWEB protect drinking water quality for
users within its service area, while also protecting high-quality riparian areas crucial for salmon and other
wildlife habitat. Riparian areas serve as a critical component of a healthy stream network by helping support
good water quality, biodiversity and ecosystem productivity, and by mitigating disturbance events within the
watershed.
EWEB has partnered with The Freshwater Trust to develop a pilot riparian survey program. This program will
begin by surveying reference sites in high-quality riparian areas along perennial streams in the subbasin to help
define those characteristics that constitute an ecologically functional riparian system. A reference site is a
location that exhibits least-degraded conditions, representing the “best of what’s left” for a given area (SER,
2004). Reference site surveys will help define attainable conditions in high-quality riparian forests in the
McKenzie River subbasin under present conditions. The best sites can help define maximum potential
conservation value of riparian areas in the McKenzie River subbasin, thereby serving as a benchmark or
illustrating desired future conditions of local riparian forests. However, even the best reference sites may not
support fully functional riparian systems because many of the landscape-level processes that historically shaped
vegetation composition, structure, and riparian function have been altered since Euro-American settlement; for
these reasons, a site may be most appropriately referred to as a “disturbed reference”. Reference sites
represent presently attainable riparian conditions, and can help define maximum potential conservation value of
riparian areas in the McKenzie River subbasin.
In Phase I of this project, The Freshwater Trust developed recommendations for the scope of a reference site
survey program in the McKenzie River subbasin. The objective was to identify the number of reference sites
needed to adequately evaluate the variability among sites supporting high quality riparian areas, within the
limits of available program resources. The current phase of this project, Phase II, will be implemented in two
steps. First, The Freshwater Trust will design a protocol to guide evaluation of riparian function at reference
sites. Reference site surveys will help describe higher-functioning riparian zones for the subbasin, and will
support development of a riparian function scoring system. In the second step, The Freshwater Trust will
develop a more streamlined protocol to assess riparian function and protection value at properties of willing
landowners interested in being included in the VIP. In coordination with these efforts, the Lane Council of
Governments (LCOG) will develop protocols to direct implementation of geospatial analyses. Finally, third, a
scoring system will be developed to quantify riparian forest function. A review team comprised of staff from
EWEB, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), the McKenzie Watershed Council, and the Upper Willamette Soil
and Water Conservation District will implement the survey and provide feedback useful for refining all parts of
the program. Lessons learned from this pilot will be used to guide development of an expanded VIP program.
This report describes the first step of developing a protocol by which riparian function can be evaluated at
reference sites in the McKenzie River subbasin.
VIP STUDY AREA
The focus area for this pilot project is defined as the area within the VIP boundary. The VIP boundary delineates
the 50-year floodplain (areas with a 2% likelihood of being flooded in any particular year) adjacent to the
1
McKenzie River and lower parts of its larger tributaries within the McKenzie River subbasin (fourth-field
Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]). The VIP boundary was produced by LCOG using the Riparian Buffer Delineation
Model (Abood and Maclean, 2012), which defines areas around a river or stream with similar hydrological and
ecological characteristics, focusing on geomorphology. These areas include the modeled 50-year floodplain, plus
mapped wetlands features and wet soils that are adjacent to the floodplain (Abood and Maclean, 2012). The VIP
boundary was expanded as needed to a minimum of 60 ft on either side of the waterway (personal
communication with D. Richey, Senior GIS Analyst at LCOG).
The VIP focus area includes five watersheds (fifth-field HUCs) within the McKenzie River subbasin (Figure 1):





Lower McKenzie River watershed
McKenzie River/Quartz Creek watershed
Blue River watershed
Horse Creek watershed
Upper McKenzie River watershed
Two other watersheds in the McKenzie River subbasin are excluded from the VIP pilot project area. The Mohawk
River watershed is omitted because it is located below EWEB’s water intake, and therefore riparian protection
here is less directly related to EWEB’s drinking water source protection program. The lower portion of the Lower
McKenzie River watershed below the intake was also excluded. The South Fork McKenzie River watershed is
omitted because it does not contain any area within the VIP boundary.
2
Figure 1. HUC 5 watersheds, perennial rivers and streams, and land ownership within the McKenzie River HUC 4 subbasin.
3
SCOPE OF A REFERENCE SITE SURVEY PROGRAM
No single reference site will represent the historic range of variation acceptable in high-functioning habitats
(SER, 2004). In Phase I of this project, The Freshwater Trust developed recommendations for the number and
distribution of reference sites that would reasonably capture variability in high-functioning riparian areas in the
McKenzie River subbasin, while also working within the constraints of resources available for surveys. A digital
dataset of current land cover and land use types in the subbasin was analyzed in GIS to identify riparian
vegetation types in which protection sites and matching reference sites could be located. We then
recommended the number of reference sites to be surveyed based on unique combinations of HUC 5 watershed
membership and riparian vegetation type, with additional options to provide scalability in effort needed for this
portion of the program. (See the Phase I: Sample Size Analysis report [The Freshwater Trust, 2013].)
Out of several suggested strategies, EWEB chose an approach in which certain vegetation types designated by
the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW, 2006) are automatically included in the protection program in
recognition of their disproportionally high conservation value. Therefore, no reference sites are needed for
these vegetation types. These vegetation types include white oak forest (Douglas-fir is also assumed to be a
component), native grassland, native shrubland and wetland. (Although native shrubland was not included with
the other high-value habitats by the Oregon Conservation Strategy, EWEB chose to add this vegetation type in
recognition of its relative rarity.) Mixed conifer-hardwood forest comprised the remainder of the riparian area
within the VIP boundary. (Montane conifer forest occurred only in higher-elevation areas outside the study
area). The number of reference sites surveyed in mixed conifer-hardwood forest was weighted by the area of
that vegetation type in each watershed, with a minimum of two sites in each of the five watersheds. Based on
this strategy, riparian function surveys were recommended for a minimum of 14 reference sites in the McKenzie
River subbasin. Surveys will include two sites each in the McKenzie River/Quartz Creek, Horse Creek, Upper
McKenzie River, and Blue River watersheds, and six sites in the Lower McKenzie River watershed. (See
4
Appendix A – Recommended Number of Reference Sites in each HUC 5 Watershed for an overview of land cover
and land use types, vegetation types, and recommended number of reference sites in each HUC 5 watershed.
For full analysis methods and recommendations, see the Phase I: Sample Size Analysis report [The Freshwater
Trust, 2013]). Additional sites may be surveyed as time and resources allow.
SELECTING REFERENCE SITES
An initial list of 39 reference sites was developed by EWEB partners and The Freshwater Trust at the November,
2013, monthly VIP meeting, and using an interactive web map of the project area developed by The Freshwater
Trust.
Reference Site Criteria
Individual reference sites were chosen at locations that matched as many of the following criteria as possible,
while recognizing that the availability of suitable reference sites was limited, and no sites were likely to be found
that met all site selection guidelines. Good reference sites were those that:






Were adjacent to a perennial stream,
Were within the same general area as the VIP boundary (i.e., within the 50-year floodplain),
Appeared to support high-quality riparian forest (e.g., good native species diversity, structural diversity,
low invasive species cover),
Had low fragmentation, good landscape connectivity, and minimal human disturbance,
Appeared to have a floodplain width of at least 60 ft, to help ensure that measures related to floodplain
functions were applicable to all sites, and
Were accessible. Sites located on public land or in conservation ownership were preferred to reduce the
time and other resources needed to gain access for surveys.
Because reference sites were not randomly selected within a watershed, they are not meant to be
representative of the watershed as a whole.
Prioritizing Reference Sites
Following the recommended number of reference sites in each HUC 5 watershed, at least two high priority sites
were identified in each watershed except for the Lower McKenzie River watershed, in which six high priority
sites were identified. The proposed reference sites, filtered by the reference site criteria, were prioritized by
EWEB partners and The Freshwater Trust as high, medium, and low using desktop analysis and local knowledge.
Sites were prioritized by:



Accessibility (i.e., in public or conservation ownership, not requiring a boat, not requiring a long hike in),
Spatial distribution (sites adjacent to each other were less likely to both be deemed high priority), and
Representativeness of the basic environmental diversity in the subbasin, such as stream size.
The list of prioritized reference sites is provided in Appendix B – Proposed Reference Sites and their Priority.
Surveying Reference Sites
In some cases, reference sites identified through desktop analysis will be revealed to be unsuitable during field
visits. Criteria for accepting, rejecting, or moving sites identified through desktop analysis are discussed below,
in the “Survey Locations” section.
5
Selecting Riparian Function Metrics and Survey Methods
The goal of this protocol is to evaluate riparian function at reference sites in the McKenzie River subbasin by
measuring a set of metrics that together describe riparian function. A metric is a value resulting from analyzing
or synthesizing one or more measurements taken at a site. The metrics that describe riparian function in this
protocol, and the methods used to measure them, were selected to meet a distinct set of objectives. As much as
possible, metrics and methods were chosen that were:

Rapid to measure
This protocol was developed to require 3-4 hours or less of field assessment time per reference site. This
criterion was a driving force behind protocol development. This brief time precluded more intensive
data collection measures, such as setting up plots or transects. Metrics measured using categorical,
presence/absence, or visual estimation methods were preferred.

Science-based and credible
Metrics were chosen that were directly related to riparian function, and are likely to be sensitive to
differences in function. Measurements were likely to be objective and repeatable among observers.
Measurements were assigned to relatively broad categories so that evaluations of function were more
likely to be resistant to differences among observers, precise location at which measurement was
estimated, the time of survey, etc.

Transparent
Methods and metrics were likely to be easily understood by a variety of stakeholders, including
experienced staff and landowners. Assessment methods were straightforward and could be
implemented by landowners to gauge riparian function on their own properties. Desktop analysis could
be completed using sophisticated technology (e.g., GIS), but this was not required. Methods used
minimal or inexpensive equipment or readily-available digital data, reducing technological barriers.

Efficient
Measurements were useful for evaluating multiple riparian functions.

Adaptable
Methods and metrics considered a variety of riparian conditions. Although riparian function is expected
to be fairly similar among reference sites, methods and metrics were developed to be easily adapted to
the range of variability that may be encountered on landowner sites.
This protocol adapted approaches from other published survey methodologies whenever possible, particularly
the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (NRCS, 2009) and the draft
Oregon Stream Functional Assessment Methodology (Czarnomski and Skidmore, 2013). This was done in hopes
that data produced using this guidance would be reasonably compatible with data produced using other widely
implemented methods.
Methods for assessing riparian forest function focus mainly on terrestrial areas because landowners often have
more control over these conditions on their properties. Although instream conditions are crucial to overall water
quality and ecological health, individual landowners may have relatively little influence on them. For this reason,
this protocol does not include an assessment of common measures of instream function such as hydrology,
6
aquatic macroinvertebrates, or channel unit types. Other protocols that more intensively evaluate instream
function, such as the Oregon Stream Functional Assessment Methodology now being developed (Czarnomski
and Skidmore, 2013) may serve as a useful complement to the riparian assessment protocol presented below.
Measuring Riparian Function at Reference Sites
Riparian areas are transitional zones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and perform important
functions that link land and water (Allan and Castillo, 2007). Primary riparian functions include protection of
water quality, biodiversity and ecosystem productivity, and mitigating disturbance events within the watershed.
Twenty-one metrics (Table 1) were selected to describe these functions in reference site riparian areas based on
the objectives described above.
7
Table 1. Metrics selected to describe riparian function at reference sites.
Riparian Function
Metric
(Indicator of riparian function)
Water Quality
sediment/nutrient/pollutant
filtration, water temperature/oxygen
Biodiversity
wildlife use, sensitive
species conservation
Ecosystem Productivity
groundwater recharge, nutrient
retention, instream productivity
Disturbance Protection
water storage/flood
control, slope stability
Riparian buffer
x
x
x
x
Landscape connectivity
x
x
x
Land use
x
x
x
x
Presence of roads
x
x
x
x
Floodplain connectivity
x
x
x
x
Streambank erosion potential
x
x
x
In-channel large wood
x
x
x
Presence tributary confluences
x
x
x
x
x
Presence special instream
habitats
x
Presence anadromous
salmonid habitat
x
x
x
Presence wetlands
x
x
x
x
Presence special terrestrial
habitats
x
Canopy tree height
x
x
x
x
Canopy closure
x
x
x
x
Canopy cover
x
x
x
x
Riparian forest seral stage
x
x
x
x
x
x
Snag abundance
Floodplain downed large wood
x
x
x
Unvegetated ground
x
x
x
x
Invasive plant species cover
x
x
x
x
Native vegetation composition
x
x
x
x
8
Desktop and Field Data Collection Methods
DATA COLLECTION APPROACH
Methods by which riparian function is assessed were designed to be straightforward and implementable using
minimal or inexpensive equipment or readily-available digital data and tools. This approach was intended to
reduce technological barriers and allow a range of stakeholders to apply this protocol. The desktop and field
analysis methods below are written to allow use of the most readily available technology or equipment. When
more sophisticated technology such as GIS scripts or rangefinders are available, however, the efficiencies they
allow may be taken advantage of by trained users whenever possible. The Lane Council of Governments is
developing a complementary protocol to this one to direct implementation of geospatial analyses using GIS tools
(LCOG, 2014).
SURVEY TIMING AND ROLES IN IMPLEMENTATION
Reference site surveys at 13 sites will occur during the 2014 growing season under full canopy cover conditions.
As much as possible, desktop analysis of riparian function at each site will be completed prior to field surveys so
that desktop measurements can be confirmed on the ground during field surveys. Desktop analysis will be
implemented by LCOG, and field surveys will be implemented by the McKenzie Watershed Council (McK WSC),
the Upper Willamette Soil and Water Conservation District (UW SWCD), and EWEB (
9
Table 2). LCOG will also develop maps for each reference site to be used during field surveys.
A variety of survey approaches will help improve and evaluate data quality. As early as possible in the data
collection process, all field crews will survey two sites together to allow for discussion and consensus building
around assessments of particular metrics. An additional four to six sites will be surveyed independently by
multiple crews to allow a direct quantification of measurement precision. Although this sample size will be
limited, this allows an evaluation of variability among values of the same metric collected at the same site, by
different surveyors. This information will be used in decision-making around retaining or omitting metrics in the
protocol implemented in expanded VIP site assessments. Finally, the effects of reference site size will be
explored by repeating surveys at two sites, using different site sizes. This will allow for a limited evaluation of
variability between values of the same metric collected at the same site, at different site sizes.
In general, sites will be randomly assigned to each survey lead, to avoid surveyors concentrating on those
environments with which they are most familiar. Out of respect for existing landowner relationships, however,
privately-owned sites will be surveyed mostly by McKenzie Watershed Council staff.
10
Table 2. Survey approach and roles in implementation.
Approach
Desktop Analysis
Lead
Simultaneous field
surveys of same sites
Independent surveys
of same sites
Repeat survey of same
sites, different site
sizes
Independent field
surveys of different
sites
Independent field
surveys of different
sites
Total # Sites
LCOG
LCOG
Field Survey Lead
McK WSC
UW SWCD
EWEB
McK WSC
UW SWCD
EWEB
EWEB
(surveys McK WSC sites)
EWEB
(surveys UW SWCD sites)
# Sites
Notes
2
Field staff surveyed sites
together.
2
1-2
1-2
LCOG
McK WSC
or
UW SWCD
2
LCOG
McK WSC
2-3
LCOG
UW SWCD
2-3
Repeat desktop and field
surveys occured within
the same month so as to
represent similar growing
conditions.
Most privately-owned
sites were surveyed by
McK WSC.
13
Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) – led by David Richey, Senior GIS Analyst
McKenzie Watershed Council (McK WSC) – led by Jared Weybright, Projects Coordinator
Upper Willamette Soil and Water Conservation District (UW SWCD) – led by Dave Downing, Watershed Technical Specialist
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) – led by Kris Stenshoel, Vegetation Program Coordinator
Survey Locations
Reference sites will be located adjacent to the perennial river or stream expected to first intercept runoff from a
property. Reference sites will also be located to capture maximum riparian function. In cases where there is a
perennial side channel, the result of these conditions is that sites are likely to be placed along the side channel.
In most cases, however, side channels are expected to be lacking and sites will be located along the mainstem of
a perennial river or stream.
Surveys of riparian function will focus on the area within reference site boundaries. Each reference site will be
further divided into units, each of which will be surveyed separately for riparian function. The sections below
describe how to delineate reference sites and units, and the descriptive data (metadata) to collect for each site
and unit. Although not directly measuring riparian function, metadata can be crucial for accurately interpreting
the meaning of other measurements.
11
CHOOSING REFERENCE SITES
Desktop and field analysts will first target those sites identified as high priority (Appendix B). In some cases,
however, reference sites identified through desktop analysis may be revealed to be unsuitable during field visits.
Reference sites may be rejected in the field if:


Sites are inaccessible or unsafe to survey, or
Current conditions suggest that sites do not match many of the reference site selection criteria (while
recognizing that no sites are likely to be found that meet all site selection guidelines). In particular, sites
may be rejected or moved in the field if floodplain width turns out to be less than 60 ft.
In some cases, the reference site can simply be moved slightly within landowner boundaries. In the case that a
new reference site needs to be selected, surveyors should choose one of the next highest priority sites from the
list (Appendix B) that is within the same watershed.
Field surveyors should use their best professional judgment when deciding to reject or move reference sites.
Because desktop analysis is likely to have already have been completed for the targeted reference site, however,
these changes should be avoided if possible. If field surveyors decide to move a site, they will need to complete
new site metadata, and desktop analysis will need to be completed following the field survey.
DELINEATING REFERENCE SITES
The purpose of a reference site is to evaluate riparian function at that site, to develop a benchmark against
which landowner sites can be compared. The best sites can help define maximum potential conservation value
of riparian areas in the McKenzie River subbasin and illustrate desired future conditions of local riparian forests.
A ‘site’ is an artificial concept that draws superficial boundaries around patches of the landscape. These
boundaries sometimes have little association with ecological patterns, and site size may not always match the
scale at which some natural functions occur. Nonetheless, we must carve out a patch out of the landscape on
which to focus if surveyors are to evaluate riparian function for a specific area. The reference site size
recommended by this protocol was selected for consistency with typical landowner taxlot size, so as to provide
the most relevant benchmark for comparison. Evaluating function within a similarly sized area at both reference
and landowner sites recognizes that many riparian functions vary with scale; this approach was intended to
reduce differences in level of function between reference and landowner sites that were simply due to site size.
The effect of reference site size was explored by repeating surveys at two sites, using different site sizes, as
described in the preceding section.
Reference sites will be approximately rectangular in shape, but should never extend beyond the land ownership
boundaries indicated by taxlots. The reference site width will extend perpendicularly from the nearest bank of
the river or stream, and inland 330 ft, or to the edge of the 50-year floodplain (as indicated by the full VIP
boundary), or to the edge of the taxlot, whichever is narrower. The 330-ft width was a relatively conservative
number chosen based on a meta-analysis of 222 studies that recommended a minimum riparian buffer of 330 ft
where inland land uses were high intensity (Hansen et al., 2010).
12
In the rare case that a reference site is outside the general area covered by the VIP boundary, the edge of
the 50-year floodplain will be estimated by extending the nearby VIP boundary to the site. The edge of the
50-year floodplain can also be identified by considering the following:


For alluvial rivers, the floodplain is often indicated by a distinct topographic break in slope at the valley
margin (Figure 2), and
Alluvial river floodplains may contain evidence of historic channel locations, such as disconnected
backwaters.
Figure 2. Generalized example of hydrological zone boundaries in a riparian area (from Hoag et al., 2001).The
boundary of the 50-year floodplain occurs at the break between the transitional zone and the upland zone.
The reference site length will extend parallel to the river or stream to 450 ft or to the edge of the taxlot,
whichever is narrower. The 450-ft width was chosen based on The Freshwater Trust’s analysis of river frontage
lengths of privately-owned taxlots (i.e., potential landowner sites), which indicated that 75% of these taxlots
have river frontages of 450 ft or smaller (the 25th percentile was 112 ft river frontage, the median/50th percentile
was 209 ft, and the average was 530 ft).
A reference site with dimension 330 ft by 450 ft is about 3.4 acres, which is smaller than the 5-50+-acre taxlot
size that may be the most effective target for protection through the VIP program (K. Morgenstern, Drinking
Water Source Protection, McKenzie Collaborative VIP meeting March 14, 2014). A 3.4-acre reference site,
however, is within the 1-5 acre range that comprises most taxlots within the VIP boundary (analysis by D. Richey,
Senior GIS Analyst at the Land Council of Governments, presented at the VIP meeting March 14, 2014).
As noted above, the effects of reference site size will be explored by repeating surveys at two sites, using
different site sizes. These sites will be surveyed using the standards width of 330 ft, but surveys will be repeated
using a length of 450 ft and of 200 ft (the latter is near the median river frontage length of potential landowner
sites).
13
RECORDING SITE METADATA
The sections below describe data collection methods for each piece of metadata (descriptive data about the
site). The attributes below should be completed for the whole site, regardless of whether the site will be divided
into multiple units. Data collection for most metrics involves both desktop and field analysis. In this section and
for all sections describing data collection, methods are described first for desktop analysis, and then for field
analysis. Complete GIS methods are provided in Appendix D.
Duration of survey
This information will be useful for evaluating resources needed to implement a larger program.
Desktop
Staff will enter the time (in 24-hour format) the desktop survey began and ended for the site.
Field
Staff will enter the time (in 24-hour format) the field survey began and ended at the site.
Date surveyed and staff who surveyed
Desktop
Staff will enter the date the site was surveyed using desktop methods, and the name of the surveyor who
completed the analysis.
Field
Staff will enter the date the site was surveyed in the field, and the name of the surveyor who completed the
analysis.
Basemap data source and date
Basemap data such as a geo-referenced aerial image provide a representation of the reference site at one point
in time. Knowing the source (e.g., aerial image, Light Detection and Ranging [LiDAR] data) and date of
background imagery can be useful for resolving any discrepancies between desktop analysis results and
conditions encountered on the ground.
Desktop
Staff will note the basemap data source(s) used for desktop analysis and the dates of these sources. The same
source should be used for making field maps as is used in desktop analysis.
Field
This metric does not have a field survey component.
Site name
Desktop
Staff will enter the site name, using information found in the Potential Reference Sites list (Appendix B). The site
naming follows this convention:
“HUC 5 name” “Reference site#” (e.g., Lower McKenzie 2). All reference sites are assigned a number in the
Potential Reference Sites list (Appendix B); this number orders sites from west to east within the McKenzie River
14
HUC 4 subbasin. The site name includes the watershed in which the site is located to provide a quick way to
assess general site position within the subbasin, and as a secondary identifier in case of entry errors in the site
number.
Field
New site names should only need to be entered in the field if a new site is being surveyed that is not on the
Potential Reference Sites list. If a new site is being added, enter the name according to the conventions
described above, and assign the site a number of at least 100 or higher.
Site priority
The relative priority of a site will be indicated to guide field surveyors toward surveying those sites deemed to
be highest priority based on expert opinion and desktop analysis.
Desktop
Staff will indicate if a site is high priority, based on the Potential Reference Sites list (Appendix B). If a site is
medium or low priority, this field will remain blank.
Field
Site priority should only need to be entered in the field if a new site is being surveyed that is not on the Potential
Reference Sites list. If a new site is being added, it will be not be high priority, and this field can remain blank.
Site location coordinates
Desktop
Staff will enter the latitude and longitude of the site (in decimal degrees). Coordinates should use the NAD83
datum and the Oregon State Plane South projection in international feet.
Field
Field surveyors will use site location coordinates to navigate to the reference site. Surveyors should ensure that
their GPS unit is set to decimal degree format, and to the NAD83 datum and the Oregon State Plane South
projection in international feet. New site coordinates should only need to be entered in the field if a new site is
being surveyed that is not on the Potential Reference Sites list (Appendix B).
HUC 5 watershed membership
Desktop
Staff will enter the name of the HUC 5 watershed in which the site is located. The watershed of each site is
provided in Appendix B, Potential Reference Sites. HUC 5 membership can also be identified at:
http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/RestorationTool/.
Field
HUC 5 watershed membership should only need to be entered in the field if a new site is being surveyed that is
not on the Potential Reference Sites list. If a new site is being added, enter the watershed membership
according to the conventions described above.
Level III ecoregion membership
15
Ecoregions are areas that support similar ecosystems because they have similar type, quality, and quantity of
key environmental characteristics such as geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife and
hydrology (USEPA, 2013). Most of the project area is in the West Cascades ecoregion. Some sites in the Lower
McKenzie River HUC 5 watershed, however, are in the Willamette Valley ecoregion.
Desktop
After referring to Level III ecoregion data (available at
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii_iv.htm), surveyors will choose either the West Cascades or
the Willamette Valley ecoregion, depending on site location.
Field
This metric does not have a field component.
River name and mile
The site location described by river name and mile may help clarify the area surveyed in situations where a site
is near the confluence of two streams.
Desktop
Staff will enter the name of the perennial river or stream on which the site is located, along with the river mile.
Stream names and river miles can be found at the interactive map located at
http://deqgisweb.deq.state.or.us/llid/llid.html.
Field
This metric does not have a field component.
Stream gradient and order
Because streams of different size have capacity for different riparian functions, basic stream characteristics will
be recorded to guide data analysis.
Desktop
Surveyors will record the gradient of the stream on which the site is located based on data available on The
Freshwater Trust’s interactive web map of the project area (available at
http://freshwatertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=5f5bd8f673e74ccd9cedd
203e9a9e611; click on the ‘River Gradient’ layer). Stream gradient was assigned to segments of 2,000-ft length
by calculating slope from segment start elevation, end elevation and horizontal distance. (The 2,000-ft length
was chosen to balance both site-level and larger-scale resolution.) Gradient was then classified into three
categories (adapted from Rosgen, 1996). Surveyors will record the overall gradient of the site in one of the
following categories:



<1.4%
1.4-5.0%
>5%
Surveyors will also record the order of the stream on which the site is located (Figure 3). Stream order indicates
“the relative position of stream segments in a drainage basin network: the smallest, unbranched, intermittent
tributaries, terminating at an outer point, are designated order 1; the junction of two first-order streams
produces a stream segment of order 2; the junction of two second-order streams produces a stream segment of
16
order 3; etc.” (USFS, 2010). Stream order should be assessed from waterlines on a 1:24,000-scale topographic
map, aerial image, or National Hydrography Dataset drainage network (the latter is available at
http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html).
Figure 3. Illustration of stream order (from USFS, 2010).
Field
This measure does not have a field component, because measurements taken at field scale are likely to be
inaccurate.
Site elevation
Elevation will be described at the level of the site under the assumption that this characteristic will not
substantially differ among units within the same site.
Desktop
Site elevation, in feet, can be derived from a Digital Elevation Model in a GIS, or found using Google Earth.
Field
Desktop data sources often more accurately represent elevation than do hand-held GPSs. If a new site is being
added for which desktop analysis was not completed, surveyors will record the site elevation, in feet, by reading
this value off of a GPS.
17
Site aspect and slope
Desktop
Surveyors will estimate the overall aspect of the site by producing an aspect raster in a GIS, by inspecting
topographic lines on a map, or by reviewing hillshade on a mapping program such as Google Earth. Surveyors
will record the overall aspect of the site in one of the following categories:









Flat
NW
N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
Surveyors will estimate the overall slope of the site, in degrees. A slope raster can be produced in a GIS, or slope
can be calculated using Google Earth by using:
Arctan ([elevation at inland boundary – elevation at boundary near stream]/horizontal distance to inland boundary)
Surveyors will assign the site to one of the following slope categories:



<5°
5-10°
>10°
Field
Desktop methods used to measure site aspect and slope are preferable to field methods as these attributes may
be difficult to measure accurately at the field scale. These characteristics may need to be measured in the field,
however, in the case that desktop analysis appears inaccurate, or if a new site is being added to the survey.
Surveyors will measure overall aspect of the site using a compass (declination should be set to 15° E), and assign
the site to one of the aspect categories listed above.
If necessary, surveyors will estimate the overall slope of the site (in degrees) perpendicular to the stream
channel, using a clinometer (as is often included in a compass) or another tool.
Site notes
Brief notes concerning overall site characteristics or history can be invaluable for interpreting data. Surveyors
may record any additional information that may influence the outcome of riparian functional assessments, such
as known disturbance history, access issues, instrument malfunctions, etc. Surveyors may also record any
notable site features such as in-channel log jams or other stream features, , or any other features or concerns
not recorded in the metrics.
Desktop
Staff will enter site notes as needed.
18
Field
Staff will enter site notes as needed.
DELINEATING UNITS WITHIN THE REFERENCE SITE
The reference site may be further divided into units, which are portions of the site with relatively homogenous
conditions. Units will be delineated using vegetation height. Each unit within a reference site will be surveyed
separately for riparian function, and each unit will be assigned its own function value.
Desktop
Following Oregon Department of State Lands guidelines (ODSL, 2009), contiguous areas within the reference site
that have median vegetation height of at least 15 ft (i.e., are tree-dominated; FGDC, 1997) and are 0.25 acres or
larger will be delineated into separate units1. Areas that are less than 0.25 acre in area can be ignored (i.e.,
dissolved into the surrounding unit).
For the purposes of reference site surveys, only forested areas will be surveyed for riparian function. Because
most reference sites are entirely mature riparian forest, most sites will have only one unit. Multiple units within
a site are more likely to occur when landowner sites are surveyed in a later part of this project. Note that units
comprising habitat of high conservation value (wetlands, native herbaceous grassland, native shrubland, oak
woodlands or savannas) will be included in VIP protection where they are found and will not require full surveys.
Vegetation height can be estimated from LiDAR data, and can be confirmed by inspecting aerial images (e.g.,
available through Google Earth). If further desktop analysis shows unit boundaries as represented by LiDAR data
to be inaccurate, analysts should modify boundaries to accurately represent areas of homogenous land use and
vegetation height.
Field
Surveyors in the field will confirm that the boundaries around a unit of forested land with similar vegetation
height accurately represent the area actually occupied by forested land on the ground. Any land use that is not
the same as the land use of the overall unit (forested land, in the case of reference sites), and occupies 0.25 acre
or greater, should be excluded from the riparian forest survey. This 0.25 acreage is equivalent to 104 ft x 104 ft
(32 m x 32 m). If surveyors discover areas with different land use or vegetation height that should be separated
into a separate unit or excluded from riparian forest surveys, surveyors will walk a polygon around the area
using a GPS (polygon feature in a Trimble GPS or a tracks feature in a Garmin or recreational grade GPS; tracks
can be later converted to a polygon using desktop analysis). Surveyors should calculate the area, in acres, of the
new, separate unit, and reduce the area of the forested unit by this amount (see ‘Unit area’, below). The fact
that unit boundaries were revised in the field should be recorded in the unit notes, and communicated to
desktop analysts.
RECORDING UNIT METADATA
Unit name
The unit name will be used in concert with the site name so that each unit adopts the stream order, topography,
etc. of the site, but also has a unique identifier within the site.
1
GIS methods used in the pilot used a cell size of 1 ft and grouped vegetation patches 14 ft or closer together; patches
<0.25 acre were then screened out. Internal gaps within patches were dissolved if <0.25 acre. Edges of resulting units were
smoothed to a 3-ft tolerance. Complete GIS methods are provided in Appendix D.
19
Desktop
Reference sites will occur only in forested land. Each unit within a site will be named with a letter. For example,
a site with two forested units, units would be named Unit A – forest and Unit B – forest.
Field
New unit names should only need to be entered in the field if a new site is being surveyed that is not on the
Potential Reference Sites list. If a new site is being added, enter the unit name according to the conventions
described above.
Unit area
The area of the riparian forest being assessed may be useful for evaluating the effect of site size on riparian
function assessment outcomes.
Desktop
The area of the unit, in acres, will be measured using a GIS or Google Earth tool. If field analysts discover that
unit boundaries need to be revised, unit area will be recalculated.
Field
Unit area will be recorded based on desktop analysis. If, however, a new unit is delineated in the field, the area
(in acres) of the riparian forest unit should be reduced by the size of any new units. If the GPS used in the field is
not able to calculate area on the fly, unit area will need to be calculated and updated once back in the office.
Unit location coordinates
Desktop
Staff will enter the latitude and longitude of the unit (in decimal degrees). Coordinates should use the NAD83
datum and the Oregon State Plane South projection in international feet. If field analysts discover that unit
boundaries need to be revised, unit location coordinates will be revised.
Field
Field surveyors will use unit location coordinates to navigate to the correct unit within the site. Surveyors should
ensure that their GPS unit is set to decimal degree format, and to the NAD83 datum and the Oregon State Plane
South projection in international feet. New unit coordinates should only need to be entered in the field if
desktop analysis has not already been completed for the unit.
Unit notes
Brief notes concerning overall characteristics or history specific to the unit can be invaluable for interpreting
data. Surveyors may record any information that may influence the outcome of riparian functional assessments,
such as known disturbance history, access issues, instrument malfunctions, etc. Field surveyors should also note
if unit boundaries developed through desktop analysis need to be revised based on field visits, and the reason
for that revision. Surveyors may record any notable unit features such as sizeable wetlands, presence of oldgrowth forest, indications of leaking septic tanks, presence of snags or downed wood that’s too small to record
otherwise, confidence in downed wood counts given weed cover, prominent invasive species on site, or any
other features or concerns not recorded in the metrics.
20
Measuring Riparian Function Metrics
The sections below outline a brief rationale for why each selected metric is an important indicator of riparian
function, and describes data collection methods for each metric. Data collection for most metrics involves both
desktop and field analysis; methods are described first for desktop analysis, and then for field analysis. If at all
possible, desktop analysis should be completed prior to field surveys. Data produced by desktop analysis can
then be ground-truthed in the field to ensure that riparian function is evaluated based on the most up-to-date
conditions. For metrics that are recorded in categories, surveyors should revise desktop estimates only if field
conditions appear to diverge enough from conditions as represented by desktop analysis as to put the unit in a
different category. If conditions fit more than one category, surveyors should choose the category representing
the lowest level of function.
Except where indicated, conditions should be evaluated within each unit within a reference site, so that a value
for riparian function can be assessed for each unit. A preliminary walk through of the unit should be completed
before field surveying begins, allowing the surveyors to familiarize themselves with the unit as a whole. In
general, data on field observations should be recorded after surveyors walk through the unit at least once. If at
all possible, surveyors should walk through the unit a second time or more while estimating a particular metric.
Field surveyors should ensure that they have all the needed documentation and equipment prior to leaving for
the field visit to avoid the need for improvisation once on site (see Appendix C, Field Gear Checklist).
RIPARIAN BUFFER
The capacity of a riparian area to sustain ecological function increases with size (NRCS, 2009). Riparian buffers
provide essential services including terrestrial habitat, shade and cooler water temperatures, reduced bank
erosion, sediment retention, nutrient filtration, and contribution of large wood and debris to support in-stream
habitat complexity (Wegner, 1999; Naiman and Decamps, 1997; Osborne and Kovacic, 1993). Many studies have
tried to identify the optimum width of riparian buffers to provide a specific service (Osborne and Kovacic, 1993).
The recommended NRCS minimum buffer width for filtration of sediments, nutrients and pesticides is 35 ft
(NRCS, 2010). Another study suggested that, while specific functions of a riparian buffer are dependent on the
plant species that comprise that buffer, buffers in North America between 35 ft and 100 ft may effectively
maintain water temperatures (Osborne and Kovacic, 1993). However, a meta-analysis of 222 studies indicated
that wider buffers are more protective of biodiversity. This meta-analysis recommended scaling buffer width to
account for inland land use so that a minimum buffer of 330 ft would be used in situations of high land use
intensity, 230 ft for moderate intensity, and 130 ft would be used for low land use intensity (Hansen et al.,
2010). The approach outlined below evaluates the proportion of the floodplain within the unit occupied by a
riparian buffer; this recognizes the value of wider buffers while also avoiding penalty to sites with narrow
floodplains.
Buffers of certain vegetation types can be better at providing specific ecosystem services. For example, forested
buffers provide better shade over streams and contribute wood to support instream habitat complexity (Hansen
et al., 2010). Other services, however, can be provided by a range of vegetation types: forest, grassland, and
wetland are all effective at filtering near-surface nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment (Wegner, 1999). Nonnative types are may not be as good as native communities at some ecosystem services such as preventing
erosion (Maze, 2013) or providing wildlife habitat (Hansen et al., 2010). For the purposes of this project, buffer
21
width will include only forest because other vegetation types (e.g., native grassland vs. non-native grassland)
cannot be distinguished using LiDAR and other remote sensing data
The width of the riparian forest buffer will evaluated for the site as a whole, and the value of this measurement
will be assigned to all units within the site.
Desktop
After defining the site (described above), desktop surveyors will calculate the width of the riparian forest buffer.
Desktop assessment of buffer should be conducted using LiDAR data analyzed in GIS, if available.
If LiDAR data are not available, desktop measurements of the buffer should be conducted using measurement
tools provided in remote sensing applications (e.g., Scribble Maps, Google Earth, ArcGIS). Surveyors will measure
the width of riparian forest vegetation at three representative points within the site (upstream end, middle, and
downstream end). At each point, buffer width should be measured from the point closest to the stream bank,
along a line perpendicular to the stream, outward to the site boundary. Gaps in riparian vegetation larger than
25 ft should be omitted from the measurement (this is about the canopy width of one full grown riparian tree).
Surveyors will record the riparian forest buffer width in one of the following categories:




> 300 ft
> 200 to ≤ 300 ft
> 120 to ≤ 200 ft
> 60 to ≤ 120 ft
To be considered for protection value, riparian buffers will average more than 60 ft in width to be consistent
with minimum requirements of many riparian ordinances and regulations (Community Planning Workshop,
2009). This distance should be measured from the Ordinary High Water Line (line to which high water ordinarily
rises annually, excluding very high water), but can be approximated as the top of bank or the beginning of
vegetation for measurements using desktop analysis.
Field
Buffers measured from an aerial photo or LIDAR data should be confirmed on the ground. If field conditions
substantially differ from those expected (i.e., a different buffer category would be assigned to the site based on
field conditions), the buffer should be re-measured in the field. Surveyors will measure the new forest buffer
width at three representative locations in the site as described above for desktop analysis, but will measure
using pacing or chaining2 from the normal water line or bankfull elevation. Surveyors will average the three
measurements and assign one of the categories described above. In some cases, the riparian forest as observed
on the ground may extend beyond the modeled VIP boundary. For the purposes of this project, however,
assessment of buffer width and other metrics should be for the area within the VIP boundary.
LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY
Longitudinal connectivity of riparian areas supports terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, providing essential travel
corridors and seasonal inputs of organic matter (Wegner, 1999; NRCS, 2007). It is typically easier and cheaper to
2
Pacing or chaining is a method commonly employed in forestry, where the surveyor calibrates their average pace (one
step with each foot is equal to one pace) by walking consistently and measuring the distance covered by 10 paces (Bardon,
n.d.).
22
restore or maintain existing connected riparian corridors than to create new ones, but overall quality of habitat
is increased when fragmented patches are restored with native vegetation (Bentrup et al., 1999). The method of
evaluating landscape connectivity below considers whether the unit is important for creating contiguity with
adjacent areas.
Desktop
Using measuring tools, surveyors will estimate the percent of the outside edge of the unit within 200 ft of
adjacent natural cover (Czarnomski and Skidmore, 2013), defined as vegetation that is > 3 ft tall (ideally, natural
cover would also be mostly native, but this information is not often available during desktop analysis). In some
cases, natural cover may be across a waterbody. Surveyors will record the connectivity of the unit with adjacent
natural cover in one of the following categories:




>75% of the unit is within 200 ft of adjacent natural cover
51-75% of the unit is within 200 ft of adjacent natural cover
25-50% of the unit is within 200 ft of adjacent natural cover
<25% of the unit is within 200 ft of adjacent natural cover
Field
Landscape connectivity is ideally measured using desktop analysis, because measurements are difficult to
estimate in the field. Surveyors should confirm desktop measurements in the field, and only re-measure if
conditions appear to have substantially changed from aerial images (i.e., the unit would be placed in a different
category based on current field conditions).
Surveyors will estimate the percent of the unit within 200 ft of adjacent natural cover (defined above), and
record the unit in one of the categories listed above.
LAND USE
Agriculture, grazing, commercial forestry, urbanization, and industrial land uses can each significantly impact
water quality. For example, approximately 50% of sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen loading in the United
States is attributable to agricultural sources (Allan and Castillo, 2007). Grazing by domestic livestock (or high
population densities of native ungulates) can reduce vegetative cover and increase erosion, prevent natural
recruitment of riparian vegetation, and increase levels of fecal coliform bacteria, nitrogen and phosphorus in
streams and rivers (Hubbard et al., 2004; Medina et al., 2005). Timber harvest and associated road building may
affect streamwater concentration of nitrates, calcium, magnesium potassium, turbidity and temperature (Likens
et al., 1970). Urbanization and associated increase in impervious surface can lead to significant decreases in base
flows to streams (Simmons and Reynolds, 1982) and degradation of macroinvertebrate communities (King et al.,
2005), often indicating pollutant increase (Walsh et al., 2001). Even in rural areas, industrial land uses such as
improperly managed mining operations near riparian areas can lead to heavy metal pollution, increased
conductivity, sedimentation and acidification in streams and rivers (Sams and Beer, 2000).
23
Desktop
Human development
Surveyors will indicate the proportion of land within the unit occupied by human development (partially
following Czarnomski and Skidmore, 2013):



0-<25% of area within unit is occupied by human development
25-<50% of area within unit is occupied by human development
>50% of area within unit is occupied by human development
Human development can be identified from aerial photos based on the following anecdotal evidence (Moburg,
2008). Many indicators of human activities often have linear or angular shapes when viewed from above.
Alternatively, LiDAR reflectivity (intensity) can be used as an indicator of asphalt, gravel, building footprints, etc.
This approach would not be able to identify area of structures or roads under vegetation canopies, and would
not be able to differentiate lawn, row crops, or other ‘unnatural’ vegetation from ‘natural’ vegetation. These
potential issues, however, can be resolved when field surveyors ground-truth the value for land use selected
during desktop analysis.

Human development indicators:
o Tree harvesting (tree stumps)
o Park/lawn (irrigated grass, recreational equipment)
o Pavement/cleared lot
o Pipes (inlet/outlet)
o Mining
o Landfill/trash
o Buildings
o Outhouse in floodplain
Agricultural development
Surveyors will indicate the proportion of land within the unit occupied by agricultural activities (partially
following Czarnomski and Skidmore, 2013):



0-<25% of area within unit is occupied by agricultural activities
25-<50% of area within unit is occupied by agricultural activities
>50% of area within unit is occupied by agricultural activities
Agricultural activities can be identified from aerial photos based on the following anecdotal evidence (Moburg,
2008). Many indicators of human activities often have linear or angular shapes when viewed from above.
Remote sensing approaches would not be able to identify area of structures or roads under vegetation canopies,
and would not be able to differentiate lawn, row crops, or other ‘unnatural’ vegetation from ‘natural’
vegetation. These potential issues, however, can be resolved when field surveyors ground-truth the value for
land use selected during desktop analysis.
24

Agricultural activities indicators:
o Presence livestock
o Presence crops (e.g., crop furrow lines, circular or linear mowing or irrigation patters, irrigation
equipment such as wheel lines, pipes, sprinklers)
Field
Human development
Surveyors will indicate the proportion of land within the unit occupied by human development in the categories
above.
Human development can be identified in the field based on the following anecdotal evidence (Moburg, 2008):

Human development indicators:
o Tree harvesting
o Park/lawn
o Pavement/cleared lot
o Pipes (inlet/outlet)
o Mining
o Landfill/trash
o Buildings
o Evidence of leaking septic tank
o Wastewater pipe emptying in or near stream
o Outhouse in floodplain
Agricultural activities
Surveyors will indicate the proportion of land within the unit occupied by human development in the categories
above.
Agricultural activities can be identified in the field based on the following anecdotal evidence (Moburg, 2008):

Agricultural activities indicators:
o Presence livestock (e.g., hoofprints, dung, water troughs, cattle gates), or livestock appear to
have unlimited access to stream for some portion of the year
o Presence crops (e.g., tilled earth, monoculture plant species, irrigation ditches or equipment
such as wheel lines, pipes, sprinklers).
PRESENCE OF ROADS
A watershed analysis of the Vida/McKenzie Watershed Analysis Unit (in the Lower McKenzie watershed) found
that 6-35% of roads in this watershed routed runoff directly into streams (BLM, 1996). Roads affect water
quality and stream channel and habitat characteristics by changing hydrologic regimes and sediment delivery.
Roads can increase the chance of slope failure and mass wasting several fold (BLM, 1996), and can increase
channel incision and bank erosion by concentrating water runoff from hillslopes into roadside ditches,
particularly if ditches or erosion gullies flow into or near streams (Beechie et al., 2005). Sediment can cover
gravels used for spawning by salmonids, and fill pools and widen channels, resulting in increased water
temperature and degraded habitat for some macroinvertebrates and salmonids (Beechie et al., 2005). If road
25
traffic is high, petroleum byproducts, heavy metals, and other chemicals produced by vehicles may enter nearby
waterways.
Desktop
Surveyors will record the presence or absence of roads within the unit as indicated by one or more of the
following data sources:



GIS data of mapped roads from the Oregon Geospatial Enterprise
(http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/CIO/GEO/pages/index.aspx)
LiDAR Bare Earth layer
Scribble Maps or Google Earth aerial images
A road on the boundary of a unit may be recorded as present. Because paved roads are likely to have higher
traffic and contribute more impervious surface, surveyors will also indicate whether 50% or more of the road
length within the unit is paved.
Field
Although desktop analysis should provide preliminary indicators of road presence, field surveyors should verify
that this information corresponds to the most up-to-date conditions within the unit. For example, it is possible
that newly constructed roads are not available on digital datasets. Desktop methods may also fail to detect older
roads.
After walking the unit, surveyors will record the presence or absence of any roads within the unit. The presence
of old roads, skid trails, and any other road without woody vegetation growing in the roadbed should be
recorded. Because paved roads are likely to have higher traffic and contribute more impervious surface,
surveyors will also indicate whether they estimate that 50% or more of the road length within the unit is paved.
FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY
Dams, levees, and development within the floodplain reduce interactions among streams and rivers, associated
wetlands and ponds, groundwater and riparian systems, changing the movement of water, sediment, nutrients,
wood and wildlife through the watershed (Pess et al., 2005). Loss of habitat for aquatic species such as listed
salmonids is a major consequence of floodplain encroachment and disconnection, as is the loss of other habitats
of high conservation value such as wetlands and wet meadows. Levees and development constrain river channel
movement, which in turn can result in lower water tables from less frequent floodplain inundation and
increased channel incision (Pess et al., 2005). Riparian vegetation may lose access to lowered water tables and
die (NRCS, 2009). Floodplains can become disconnected (no longer inundated) when overbank flow is prevented
by levees, dams, fill, berms or elevated road or railroad beds. Disconnected floodplains can reduce exchange
between surface water and the hyporheic zone, thereby decreasing the retention and storage of water that
would normally mitigate peak flows, sustain summer base flow, and regulate stream temperature (Pess et al.,
2005). Rivers or streams may also become disconnected from the floodplain by impervious structures that take
up space and reduce water infiltration, and increase runoff peak discharge and total amount, carrying pollutants
to water bodies and further exacerbating channel incision (NRCS, 2009).
26
Floodplain connectivity will be described in terms of the proportion of the site prevented from interacting with
the stream due to structures preventing overbank stream flow, and the extent of impervious surfaces within
each unit of the site.
Desktop
Proportion of floodplain prevented from interacting with stream
This metric does not have a desktop analysis component.
Extent of impervious surfaces
While inspecting aerial images of the unit (e.g., on Google Earth or in a GIS) or LiDAR data, surveyors will note
the extent of impervious surfaces (e.g., building footprints, driveways, etc.) that are likely to block infiltration of
water into the floodplain. Surveyors will record the proportion of the unit occupied by impervious surfaces in
one of the categories below (adapted from Czarnomski and Skidmore, 2013):




<20%
20-<50%
50-80%
>80%
Field
Proportion of floodplain prevented from interacting with stream
While walking the site, surveyors will note the presence of any structures that prevent the waterway from
overflowing its banks onto portions of the site’s floodplain during high water events, including levees,
revetments, dams, fill, berms or elevated road or railroad beds, etc. Surveyors will record the estimated
proportion of the floodplain prevented from receiving overbank flow in one of the following categories:



<50%
50-80%
>80%
If such a structure is present but on-site indicators are observed that suggest that the stream is overflowing its
banks for a distance inland of at least 0.5 times the width of the active stream channel, surveyors should assume
that <50% of the floodplain is prevented from interacting with stream. Such indicators of overbank flow include
the presence of fine sand or silt deposition on floodplain, organic litter wracked on floodplain or in floodplain
vegetation, or scour of floodplain surfaces (Czarnomski and Skidmore, 2013).
Extent of impervious surfaces
While walking the unit, surveyors will confirm the results of desktop analysis indicating the proportion of the
unit that is occupied by impervious surfaces likely to prevent infiltration, including building footprints and paved
or highly compacted areas, in one of the categories above.
STREAMBANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Although healthy stream systems naturally move within the floodplain over time, degraded streams may
experience excessive bank erosion when riparian vegetation is lost, hydrology or sediment inputs have changed,
or the stream has become disconnected from its floodplain (NRCS, 2009). Excessive bank erosion and sediment
27
input into waterways degrade water quality and habitat for aquatic species (Rosgen, 2001). Severe bank erosion
can also result in loss of land and infrastructure, and change water tables (NRCS, 2009).
Streambank erosion potential will evaluated for the site as a whole, and the value of this measurement will be
assigned to all units within the site.
Desktop
Field
Field assessment of bank erosion potential was adapted from a revision of the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI)
(originally developed by USEPA, 2006) that removes the need to measure bankfull height in the field (Rathbun,
2011). To assess the level of streambank erosion, the surveyor will walk along the length of the streambank
along the site, and visually estimate the overall state of four streambank characteristics, illustrated on Figure 4
below:




Bank angle along the surface from bankfull to top of bank,
Density of roots in bank. This characteristic is most easily observed in cuts, but can be assumed to be
100-55% if the bank is fully vegetated.
Surface protection (% of bank covered by plant roots, downed logs, branches, rock, etc.), and
Ratio of root depth to bank height (average). This characteristic is most easily observed in cuts, but can
be assumed to be 100-50% if the bank is fully vegetated.
After visually assessing each streambank characteristic, the surveyor will determine which risk category (low,
moderate, high, or extreme) best represents that streambank characteristic, based on Figure 4. In this figure, the
top row represents low risk for each characteristic, the 2nd row represents moderate risk, the 3rd row is high risk,
and the bottom row represents extreme risk characteristics.
28
Figure 4. Stream bank erosion potential. In the field, the surveyor will assess each of the four streambank
characteristics and determine the appropriate risk rating (low – top row, moderate – 2nd row, high – 3rd row,
extreme – bottom row) corresponding to the observed streambank conditions.
LARGE WOOD IN THE CHANNEL
Large downed wood in the active river channel is essential for fish habitat and other functions. Once recruited
instream, very large wood contributes to pool formation, sediment retention, island formation and hydrologic
diversity (BLM, 1996; Collins et al., 2012), all of which increase fish habitat. Smaller wood can also help
accumulate sediment needed for establishment by species such as cottonwood and willow (Collins et al., 2012),
and organic matter that provides cover and food for macroinvertebrates.
Large wood in the active channel will evaluated for the site as a whole, and the value of this measurement will
be assigned to all units within the site.
Desktop
29
Field
Surveyors will record the presence or absence of large downed wood within the active channel along the site.
Large wood has minimum 12 inches diameter anywhere along the bole and minimum 25 ft length (Maser et al.,
1979; USFS, 2010). To be counted, the bole (tree stem) or rootswell (transition point between the bole and the
roots) must be at least partly within the bankfull channel and so be expected to interact with the water during
bankfull conditions. Large downed wood with only roots in the active channel should not be counted.
PRESENCE OF TRIBUTARY CONFLUENCES
River confluences represent areas of ecologically important dynamic zones where substantial changes in physical
and chemical process occur (Roy, 2008). The result of the interaction between the two flowing waterbodies can
have both a local impact on the river, and alter its downstream characteristics (Roy, 2008), including water
volume, water chemistry, and inputs of sediment and organic matter (Rice et al., 2008). The physical changes to
the water and river channel can have implications for water quality, temperature, and hyporheic flow, which in
turn affect biological communities (Rice et al., 2008).
The presence of tributary confluences will evaluated for the site as a whole, and the value of this measurement
will be assigned to all units within the site.
Desktop
Confluence presence within a quarter-mile upstream or downstream of the edge of the site should be
determined by examining the NHD (http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html) or NHD plus (http://www.horizonsystems.com/nhdplus) digital data layers. Tributaries present on the opposite bank from the site were included
in the evaluation.
Field
Field analysts will indicate the presence of a tributary within the site. (Confirming presence indicated by desktop
analysis is not necessary because desktop analysis will be based on data extending one-quarter mile beyond the
site, and will include tributaries on the opposite bank.)
PRESENCE OF SPECIAL INSTREAM HABITATS
Healthy stream channels provide a diversity of features that allow for variation in sediment deposition,
substrate sorting, flow velocities and channel depths. This type of habitat complexity increases the ability of fish
species to adapt to fluctuations in stream flow (Bustard and Narver, 1975), stream temperature (Petersen, 1982)
and food availability (Lister and Finnigan, 1997). Alcoves, side channels, and seasonally connected ponds or
gravel pits are particularly important for spawning and rearing habitat for juvenile salmon species (Groot and
Margolis, 1991; Nickelson et al., 1992). Some of these important features are described below (descriptions
adapted from Alsea et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2010; ODFW, n.d.).
Alcove: An alcove is a water body that maintains a downstream connection to the main channel at
summer low flow, but has no upstream connection during low flow. They are often formed when a midriver gravel bar enlarges and connects to one of the banks, forming a point bar. As time passes, the point
bar often elongates downstream and vegetation begins to develop. Older alcoves have streamside point
bars that support mature woody vegetation. Substrate is typically sand and organic matter. Alcoves may
also be formed by eddy scour flow near lateral obstructions during extreme flow events, or by beaver
activity. Alcoves are used by juvenile Chinook salmon for refuge and feeding, especially in winter and
spring.
30
Side channel: A side channel is laterally displaced from the main channel with clearly identifiable
upstream and downstream connections to the main channel. Side channels vary significantly in length,
from tens of feet to miles. Side channels can be shallower with lower velocity than the main channel and
therefore may be more likely to support a large population of aquatic insects. Also, side channels are
often more sinuous than the main channel and therefore include a variety of habitat features, including
complex edges and eddies. Side channels may be used by juvenile Chinook salmon for refuge and
feeding, especially in winter and spring.
Bare substrate within the active river channel: The size of rocks, gravels and other materials in the
riverbed is more diverse at areas with bare substrate. Young Chinook salmon congregate in areas with
bare substrate, especially where diverse velocity patterns occur.
The presence of these features will evaluated for the site as a whole, and the value of this measurement will be
assigned to all units within the site.
Desktop
Field
Those special instream habitats located within the active channel will be evaluated for the site as a whole, while
those special instream habitats that may be found inland from the channel will be evaluated for each unit within
the site.
After walking the length of the active channel along the site, surveyors will record the presence of alcoves,
islands and the presence of exposed bare substrate (gravel, cobble, etc.) within the active channel. (Sand, muck,
or silt should not be recorded, as these substrate types tend to be less desirable for salmonids.)
After walking each unit within the site, surveyors will record the presence of side channels seasonally connected
ponds or gravel pits, or other special instream habitats within each unit.
PRESENCE OF CURRENT OR HISTORIC ANADROMOUS SALMONID HABITAT
Because many anadromous salmonid species are sensitive to habitat degradation of waterways and their
floodplains, areas believed to be suitable habitat for these fish can serve as indicators of higher ecological
function. For example, survival of Pacific salmon and steelhead, and the aquatic macroinvertebrates on which
they depend, is impaired by certain metals and pesticides in the water (NOAA, 2012).
This metric will be estimated at the level of the site, and the same value for the presence or absence of
anadromous salmonid habitat will be assigned to each unit within the site.
Desktop
GIS analysis will identify habitat presence or absence directly adjacent to the site based on data provided by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Fish Habitat Distribution,
https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishdistdata). These data indicate areas of suitable habitat
thought to be used currently (within the past five reproductive cycles) or historically by wild, natural, and/or
hatchery salmon, steelhead, trout or whitefish populations (these data omit cutthroat trout distribution). Data
are based on field sampling and modeling in combination with the best professional opinion of natural resources
agency staff biologists. Although there is not always perfect alignment between fish passage barrier presence
31
and fish distribution upstream, biologists have made substantial effort to cross-references fish habitat
distribution data with available fish passage barrier data (personal communication, Jon Bowers, GIS Coordinator,
Fish Division, ODFW).
Field
This metric does not have a field analysis component.
PRESENCE OF WETLANDS
Wetlands provide a number of ecological benefits to aquatic systems, including flood storage, stormflow
modification, groundwater recharge, nutrient cycling, and improved water quality (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007).
The presence of wetland hydrology (flooding, ponding and saturation) and soil inundation for long periods
during the growing season can lead to development of anaerobic (low oxygen) conditions, contributing to the
conditions necessary for the development of hydric soils (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1994; USACE, 2010).
Riparian-wetland soils perform multiple ecological functions, including water storage, water infiltration,
pollutant filtering, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration and energy dissipation (Lewis et al., 2003).
Desktop
Based on our experience implementing this survey protocol, available GIS data (such as the National Wetlands
Inventory data) appeared to have low accuracy in mapping wetlands at the scale required. For this reason,
desktop analysis of the presence of wetlands is omitted.
Field
The presence of wetlands will be identified in the field, without reliance on available GIS data. In most cases,
field surveyors will not be professional wetland scientists; preliminary identifications of any areas that appear to
be wetland is meant to simply recognize the value of these important habitats to riparian protection, and does
not hold any legal or regulatory status. Identification of potential wetlands will be limited to more obvious areas
that have strong wetland indicators.
While walking the unit, the surveyor will identify the presence of any wetlands by noting the indicators
described in Table 3. For the purposes of this survey, wetlands should be located outside the active river
channel, above bankfull. Wetlands are sometimes present in off-channel locations at the toe of a slope,
alongside rivers, or in depressional areas. Wetlands may be indicated by hydrology, such as soils saturated at or
near the surface for most of the growing season, or by vegetation, such as high cover of dominant plant species
such as skunk cabbage that have a wetland indicator status of obligate or facultative wet.
The presence of wetlands within the unit should be recorded if either or both of the following hydrology or
vegetation indicators of wetlands are observed away from an active river or stream channel.
Wetland hydrology indicators
Surveyors will make note of the presence of indicators of wetland hydrology (Table 3).
32
Table 3. Wetland hydrology indicators for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (adapted from
USACE, 2010). Complete descriptions of each indicator are available at
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/west_mt_finalsupp.pdf.
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Group A – Observation of Surface Water or Saturated Soils
Surface water
High water table (within 12” of soil surface)
Saturation (soils often mucky or have ‘rotten egg’ smell)
Group B - Evidence of Recent and Relatively Long-term Inundation
Algal mat or crust
Surface soil cracks when dry
Inundation visible on aerial imagery taken during growing season
Salt crust
Aquatic invertebrates
Wetland vegetation indicators
Surveyors will make note of the presence of plants with a wetland indicator status of obligate or facultative wet;
if such plants comprise at least 20% of the total vegetation cover in the area being considered, then the field
analyst will record wetland vegetation indicators as present. (To find species indicator status, see the National
Wetland Plant List for the Western Valleys, Mountains and Coast Region at
http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL; species not listed are assumed to be upland.) Some common plants
associated with wetlands are provided in Table 4.
33
Table 4. Wetland Indicator Status of selected plants in the Willamette Valley and West Cascades ecoregions.
Common name
white alder
Oregon ash
willow
Pacific ninebark
Douglas spiraea
American water plantain
common camas
impatiens
skunk cabbage
field mint
seep monkeyflower
watercress
water parsley
western buttercup
arrowleaf groundsel
tufted hairgrass
meadow barley
reed canarygrass
slough sedge
spikerush
rush
bulrush, club-rush
Scientific name
Trees
Alnus rhombifolia
Fraxinus latifolia
Salix sp.
Shrubs
Physocarpus capitatus
Spiraea douglasii
Forbs
Alisma triviale (syn. A. plantago-aquatica)
Camasia quamash
Impatiens sp.
Lysichiton americanus (syn. L. americanum)
Mentha arvensis
Mimulus guttatus
Nasturtium officinale (syn. Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum)
Oenanthe sarmentosa
Ranunculus occidentalis
Senecio triangularis
Grasses
Deschampsia cespitosa
Hordeum brachyantherum
Phalaris arundinacea
Ferns/Sedges/Rushes/etc.
Carex obnupta
Eleocharis sp.
Juncus sp.
Scirpus sp., Schoenoplectus sp.
Wetland Indicator Statusa
FACW
FACW
Some species are FACW
FACW
FACW
OBL
FACW
FACW
OBL
FACW
OBL
OBL
OBL
FACW
FACW
FACW
FACW
FACW
OBL
probably FACW or OBL
probably FACW or OBL
most are FACW or OBL
a From the National Wetland Plant List for the Western Valleys, Mountains and Coast Region at http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL
PRESENCE OF SPECIAL TERRESTRIAL HABITATS
Certain unique features such as hollow trees, caves, mines, cliffs, and talus fields are important habitat for
certain wildlife species (Brown, 1985). Riparian areas often support disproportionately high species biodiversity,
and provide important movement corridors for wildlife (Brown, 1985; NRCS, 2009).
Desktop
Field
After walking through the unit, surveyors will record the presence of any of the following special terrestrial
habitats (after Brown, 1985):
34




Caves or mines (openings >3 ft deep)
Cliffs (vertical rock >15 ft tall)
Talus/scree (fields bigger than 15 ft x 15 ft of accumulated rock debris)
Hollow trees or trees with cavities (in trees >15 inches diameter at 4.5 ft from the ground)
CANOPY TREE HEIGHT
The height of riparian trees is correlated with support of ecological conditions including soil moisture, air
temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity (Naiman et al., 2000). Additionally, taller trees can be farther
from the waterbody and still effectively contribute organic material to the stream through litterfall, as well as
provide shade and over the water to help regulate water temperature (Naiman et al., 2000).
Desktop
Height of trees in the overstory canopy within the unit will be estimated based on the most recent LiDAR data
available (see the Oregon LiDAR Consortium for data sources, http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/projects/olc).
Tree heights are calculated using GIS by subtracting the ‘Bare earth’ value from the ‘First return’, or ‘highest hit’
value. The tree height data should then be reclassified according to the height categories defined below. The
surveyor will then assign the unit to a height category based on the median tree height within the unit.
The height categories below are adapted from expected heights of representative riparian tree species (red
alder and Douglas-fir) within the project area at ages corresponding to the open sapling-pole forest
developmental stage (stand age approximately 15-30 years); closed sapling-pole or small sawtimber stage (stand
age approximately 30-80 years); and the large sawtimber or old growth stage (stand age approximately 80 years
or more) (Pollock et al., 2005). (Stages defined by Brown [1985]; see “Riparian Forest Developmental Stage”
section, below, for a description of forest developmental stages). Unit canopy tree height categories are:



>80 ft
40 - 80 ft
<40 ft
Field
Height of trees in the overstory canopy estimated for the unit based on desktop analysis of LiDAR data should be
confirmed in the field in the case that conditions have changed since the date of the data source (e.g., part of
the unit has been logged). If conditions appear to have substantially changed, the surveyor will assign the unit to
a height category by visually estimating the median canopy tree height within the unit (i.e., the height at which
half of the canopy trees are shorter and half are taller). Ideally, heights would be measured with a Rangefinder
able to measure height, but can also be visually estimated. (For visual comparison, a building story and a school
bus are both about 10 ft tall.)
35
CANOPY CLOSURE
A tall, multilayered canopy buffers weather extremes (i.e., wind, insolation and fluctuations in temperature),
providing stable, within-stand microclimates important to many species that depend on riparian forest habitat
(Chen et al., 1999). Tree canopy near waterways provides shade, blocking solar radiation and maintaining cooler
water temperatures. Canopy is often measured by either canopy closure or canopy cover. Canopy closure is the
proportion of a hemisphere blocked by tree canopy, whereas canopy cover is the proportion of the sky blocked
by the vertical projection of tree canopy (Jennings et al., 1999; Figure 5). High canopy closure is an indicator that
sufficient leaves, twigs, and other organic materials are being supplied to streams to support the
macroinvertebrates and other components of the aquatic food web (NRCS, 2009). Canopy closure is more
directly related to light availability, microclimate, and other ecologically important factors than is canopy cover
(Jennings et al., 1999).
Desktop
Canopy closure readings will be recorded at two locations within the unit: at the upstream end of the unit
nearest the stream, and at the downstream end of the unit nearest the stream (regardless of whether the unit
boundary itself is along the stream). These locations were chosen so as to be far enough apart (80 ft) as to be
unlikely to capture canopy of the same tree in both readings; therefore, readings can be reasonably expected to
be independent. (Very small units may only be large
enough for one measurement.) Canopy closure will be
measured in the field, but GPS coordinates for the
locations at which canopy closure measurements are read
will be produced using desktop analysis.
Field
Canopy closure will be determined using a convex
spherical densiometer. The mirror of a convex
densiometer is subdivided into a grid of 24, ¼-inch
squares engraved onto the surface. Surveyors will
mentally divide each square again into four ⅛-inch x ⅛inch squares, each with an imaginary dot in the center, for
a total of 96 dots that can be counted within the engraved
grid.
Figure 5. Comparison of canopy closure (a) with
To estimate canopy closure, the surveyor will hold the
canopy cover (b).From Chianucci, Chiavetta,
instrument level (indicated by the level bubble on
and Cutini, 2014, accessed at:
instrument) at elbow height, just far enough away from
http://www.sisef.it/iforest/contents/?id=ifor09
the body such that the surveyor’s head is just outside the
39-007.
grid. The surveyor then counts the number of dots
representing the smaller (1/8” x 1/8”) squares of canopy openings up to a total of 96. The count is then
multiplied by 1.04 to obtain the percent of overhead area not occupied by canopy. The difference between this
percentage and 100% is the estimated percent canopy closure. At each measurement location, the surveyor will
repeat this count while facing each of the cardinal directions (N, S, E, W). The four canopy closure readings
resulting from these counts will be averaged to produce a canopy closure measure for the location.
36
Canopy closure readings will be recorded at two locations within the unit that are at least 80 ft apart: at the
upstream end of the unit on the boundary nearest the stream, and at the downstream end of the unit on the
boundary nearest the stream (regardless of whether the unit boundary itself is along the stream). Coordinates
for these locations will be produced using desktop analysis, and the surveyor will navigate to each of these
locations using a GPS. Surveyors should also try to observe whether any of the canopy measured from one
location is also measured at the second location, and indicate whether both locations are evaluating some of the
same canopy. This will help evaluate whether measures are truly independent.
In the case that surveyors cannot take canopy closure measurements at the predetermined location due to
access or other issues, they will move away from the center of the unit along the unit boundary nearest the
stream, and measure canopy closure at the nearest accessible location within the reference site. Surveyors will
record the GPS coordinates of the new location.
CANOPY COVER
Canopy cover is a similar measure to canopy closure and is also a good indicator of stream shading, source of
allochthonous inputs, and other functions. While canopy closure is usually measured in the field using a
hemispherical field of view, canopy cover is often measured using desktop methods where the tree canopy is
viewed as a vertical projection over the ground, such as when seen from above in an aerial image or as
represented by LiDAR data. Canopy cover is a good indicator of tree volume or basal area, and is not dependent
on tree height, unlike hemispherical measures such as canopy closure (Jennings et al., 1999). Canopy closure
measured in the field will be compared with canopy cover measured in desktop analysis.
Desktop
Canopy cover readings will be recorded at the same two locations within the unit at which canopy closure is
measured in the field: at the upstream end of the unit nearest the stream, and at the downstream end of the
unit nearest the stream. Preliminary canopy cover measures were collected over a radius of 150 ft from the
measurement point, although this radius will be reviewed to help ensure that canopy cover is measured using
desktop methods over approximately the same space captured by the spherical densiometer in the field. This
will help achieve the purpose of comparing canopy cover with canopy closure.
Canopy cover will be estimated as the percent of the area at each measurement location that is covered by
canopy.
Field
This metric does not have a field analysis component.
RIPARIAN FOREST SERAL STAGE
Riparian forests develop similarly to upland forests, progressing through stand initiation after a stand-replacing
disturbance; to stem exclusion where small, dense trees compete for light and resources, shading out the
understory; to the death of some trees and understory re-initiation in canopy gaps; and finally to a forest
supporting large trees, multi-story canopy structure, and large downed wood that may be recruited into streams
(Pollock et al., 2005). Because disturbance is often frequent and environmental conditions are heterogeneous in
riparian forests, riparian areas frequently consists of diverse patches of successional states and structures,
contributing to overall biological and functional diversity (Pollock et al., 2005; Collins et al., 2012). Large trees
and structural diversity found in older forests are essential habitat for many protected species (Brown, 1985),
and larger downed wood on the forest floor is more effective at creating pools and other habitat once it is
37
recruited instream (Collins et al., 2012). Riparian forest seral stage is also roughly indicative of total amount of
riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation contributes to roughness in the floodplain that slows flow during flood
events (NRCS, 2009). Clearing riparian forests can result in increased runoff peak discharge and total amount,
carrying excessive sediment and nutrients to water bodies and increasing channel incision (NRCS, 2009).
The seral stage of riparian forest within the unit will be determined largely on the basis of structure (canopy
layers and a diversity of tree sizes, including some larger and taller trees), with canopy tree DBH or canopy cover
playing a less important role. Hardwood-dominated riparian forests tend to have smaller average diameter than
conifer-dominated riparian forests and often have less developed canopy structure. Hardwood-dominated
riparian forests may therefore tend to be assigned to earlier developmental stages, and correspondingly lower
value for some functions. Although hardwood-dominated riparian forests are ecologically valuable in the Pacific
Northwest, conifer-dominated riparian forests tend to have higher value for some functions. For example, wood
from conifer species tends to remain in the river valley for a longer time before decomposing or being washed
downstream (Collins et al., 2012); conifer species often reach larger diameters and produce larger downed wood
important for creating instream habitat; and conifer or mixed conifer-hardwood forests tend to have higher
plant and animal diversity, plant height and structural diversity, and amounts of downed wood (Brown, 1985).
Further, conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forests in later developmental stages are valuable protection
targets because these seral stages have been greatly reduced in extent relative to historic conditions by forest
management practices (BLM, 1996).
Desktop
Field
Surveyors will place the forest in one of four developmental categories, guided by visually assessing canopy
structure and health, and measuring tree DBH (diameter at breast height).
Canopy structure
Using Figure 6 as a guide, staff will record the number of overhead dominant canopy, subdominant canopy, and
subdominant tree/tall shrub canopy layers (i.e., excluding young tree and shrub reproduction not yet overhead).
Subdominant tree/tall shrub canopy layer
Figure 6. Tree canopy layers. This figure illustrates a complex canopy structure with three canopy layers (from
Brown, 1985).
38
Canopy tree DBH
The average diameter of canopy trees can help guide surveyors in choosing a forest development category,
although many forests with complex structures will not yield an average DBH that seems to reflect of the
appropriate developmental category. DBH can be used to decide between developmental categories when the
choice is otherwise unclear.
To measure DBH, surveyors will walk through the unit and choose a tree that appears to represent the average
DBH of trees (across all species) in the upper canopy layers. Using a DBH tape, surveyors will measure the
diameter of the tree bole (trunk), in inches, at about 4.5 ft above the ground on the uphill side of the tree.
(Surveyors should ensure that they are using the side of the tape scaled to measure diameter from
circumference.) Bulges, deformities, branches, or other irregularities should be avoided. Surveyors will record
the average canopy tree DBH in one of the following categories (after Brown, ed., 1985):




<1”
1-9”
10-21”
>21”
If there is uncertainty that the chosen tree is not representative, or the diameter is near the edge of the range
for a particular seral stage, more trees may be measured and the average DBH adjusted accordingly.
Riparian forest developmental categories
Based canopy structure and diameter of trees in the upper canopy layers, surveyors will assign the riparian
forest unit to one of the following categories using Figure 7 as a guide (adapted from Brown, 1985 and BLM,
1996):




Recent clearcut or other severe disturbance: area is expected to support forest development, but is
currently dominated by herbaceous plants or shrubs; often contains tree seedlings or saplings <10 ft tall.
Open sapling-pole: trees are >10 ft tall but overhead canopy cover is still relatively low and shrubs may
still be dominant. Few overhead canopy layers, simple structure. Small, dense trees compete for light
and resources; understory is often shaded out and poorly developed.
Closed sapling-pole/small sawtimber: Some structural complexity starts to develop, 1-2 overhead
canopy layers, but many trees of similar size; high overhead canopy cover (60-100%) may prevent
development of much understory, although understory may be starting to fill in a bit. Average canopy
tree DBH may be somewhat variable but few trees are larger than 21”.
Large sawtimber or old growth: A diversity of tree sizes contributes to complex structure. Some canopy
openings allow development of multiple (2+) overhead canopy layers and more diverse understory; may
be many snags and downed large wood. Many trees with DBH 21” or larger usually present.
39
Figure 7. Forest developmental stages. (Reproduced from Maser et al., 1979). Large sawtimber and old growth
stages will be considered together for the purposes of riparian function surveys.
Forest developmental categories were developed mainly with conifer-dominated forests in mind, and complex
riparian forests do not always fit well in the category descriptions. In general, the number of canopy layers and a
diversity of tree sizes, including some larger and taller trees, tend to be more important than average canopy
tree DBH or canopy cover for assigning the forest developmental category.
Live crown ratio
Unusually dense forests may have trees so close together that the live crown (green canopy) of many trees is
not able to fully develop. This may be an indication that forest health is suffering. Based on visual assessments,
surveyors will indicate whether, on average, the length of the live crown appears to be less than 20% the length
of the trees within the unit.
SNAG ABUNDANCE
Snags (standing dead trees) are valuable habitat for terrestrial wildlife such as cavity-nesting birds and bats, and
for creating fish habitat when they fall into streams. The absence of snags is a major limiting factor for many
species in the study area (BLM, 1996). Snags with a diameter of at least 15 inches diameter and a height of at
least 10 ft are most useful for wildlife habitat (Brown, 1985), and 15-inch diameter downed wood is effective in
pool formation on channels up to 50 ft wide (Pollock et al., 2005), such as on many tributaries to the McKenzie
River.
Desktop
Field
Field staff will count and record the number of standing snags (minimum 15 inches DBH and 10 ft tall) within the
unit. (DBH is measured using a DBH tape around the diameter of the bole at about 4.5 ft above the ground on
the uphill side of the tree. Bulges, deformities, branches, or other irregularities should be avoided.) Fallen trees
that are still somewhat upright (e.g., caught in the crotch of another tree) should be counted as snags rather
40
than downed wood. Surveyors will also record the presence of numerous snags smaller than the minimum size
to be tallied. Although of lower wildlife value, such snags contribute to nutrient cycling and other services, and
indicate less intensive stand management.
DOWNED LARGE WOOD IN THE FLOODPLAIN
Downed large wood is important as habitat and cover for many terrestrial wildlife species (e.g., amphibians),
provides for tree regeneration sites, and plays an important role in carbon and nutrient cycling (BLM, 1996;
Collins et al., 2012).
Desktop
Field
After walking through the unit, surveyors will count the number of pieces of large wood within the unit (for the
purposes of this project, all of the unit will be within the floodplain, as it is defined by the VIP boundary). Large
wood has minimum 12 inches diameter anywhere along the bole and minimum 25 ft length (Maser et al., 1979;
USFS, 2010). Large wood that has already been recorded as present in the active channel can be included again
in floodplain wood tallies if it extends into the unit. Fallen trees that are still somewhat upright (e.g., caught in
the crotch of another tree) should be counted as snags rather than downed wood. Surveyors will also record the
presence of numerous pieces of downed wood smaller than the minimum size to be tallied. Although of lower
wildlife value, such smaller downed wood contributes to nutrient cycling and other services, and indicates less
intensive stand management.
UNVEGETATED GROUND
Unvegetated ground can affect water quality by contributing to sediment delivery through surface erosion
(Beechie et al., 2005). Unvegetated ground is also an indicator of low plant root density; roots are important for
reducing bank erosion, particularly under high flows (NRCS, 2009).
Desktop
Field
Combined cover of bare ground, litter, wood, rock, non-vascular plants and other ground substrate that is not
live vegetation will be visually estimated after walking through the unit, and recorded in one of the following
categories:




<25% unvegetated ground
25-<50% unvegetated ground
50-75% unvegetated ground
>75% unvegetated ground
Note that open water should not be included in the estimate of unvegetated ground.
NATIVE VEGETATION COMPOSITION
Different tree and shrub species have different rooting habits , streambank stability characteristics and erosion
control abilities (e.g., Crowe and Clausnitzer, 1997) that contribute to the collective ability of a riparian forest to
41
support water infiltration, biochemical processing, erosion control and other functions (NRCS, 2007). A mix of
native riparian species also supports higher biodiversity of mammals, birds, amphibians, insects and other
wildlife dependent on riparian habitats (NRCS, 2007).
Desktop
Field
Vegetation composition will be recorded in terms of native tree and shrub diversity, dominant native woody
species in the canopy and understory layers, and predominant forest type.
Native tree, shrub and woody vine diversity
While walking through the unit, surveyors will tally the number observed of native tree species, and the number
of shrub and woody vine species. After the USDA (n.d.), shrubs are species that usually grow up to 13-16 ft tall
and with multiple trunks. Trees are species that usually are taller than 16 ft and tend to have a single or few
main trunks.
Dominant native woody species
Surveyors will record up to three dominant native woody species in the tree canopy layers (roughly above head
height), and up to three species in the understory layer (about head height and below). Dominant species are
those with estimated cover of at least 20%. Surveys can also optionally record other common native species to
characterize the riparian forest community.
Riparian forest type
Surveyors will assign the riparian forest unit to one of the following categories based on the species composition
of the tree canopy:



Conifer forest (≥75% of the tree canopy is conifer)
Hardwood forest (≥75% of the tree canopy is hardwood)
Mixed conifer-hardwood forest (neither conifer nor hardwood comprises ≥75% of the tree canopy).
INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES COVER
Riparian forests are often easily invaded by aggressive exotic plant species due to their relatively high natural
disturbance frequency (Pollock et al., 2005). Invasive plant species displace native species and degrade habitat
quality for dependent wildlife species (Lucchetti et al., 2005). Invasive plant species often have shallow,
simplified rooting structure that is not as effective at reducing erosion as native species (Maze, 2013). Higher
invasive species cover is also likely to be correlated with lower native plant species cover, which may reduce
wildlife habitat availability (Maze, 2013).
Desktop
42
Field
Surveyors will visually estimate invasive plant species cover by walking through the unit, and recording average
invasive species cover within the unit in one of the following categories (after NRCS, 2009):



<20% cover
20-50% cover
>50% cover
Plant species considered as invasive are those listed on the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s noxious weed
list (see http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/docs/weed_policy.pdf), plus reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea). Surveyors should bring a copy of this noxious weeds list, and any needed plant identification
guides, into the field. Surveyor should also bring a visual percent cover guide to increase accuracy (e.g.,
http://phytosphere.com/treeord/ocularpctscale.gif).
Surveyors will also record which invasive species are present.
Photo Documentation
Field surveyors will help illustrate riparian function at reference sites by taking photos. These photos will be
useful for communicating with landowners about characteristics of healthy riparian areas. Each photo should be
labeled with a brief description of what the photo is meant to illustrate (e.g., “structural diversity with abundant
large downed wood”).
Field surveyors should take photos that document the functions that field metrics are designed to measure, such
as:








Floodplain connectivity, evidence of active floodplains, and structures/impervious surfaces that reduce
floodplain connectivity,
Ranges of streambank erosion potential and the features (root density, bank angle, etc.) that help
determine streambank erosion potential,
Instream habitats that contribute high ecological value (side channels, alcoves, tributary confluences,
etc.),
Terrestrial habitats that contribute high ecological value (wetlands, snags, large trees, talus, caves, etc.)
Well-developed riparian forests with multiple overhead layers, mature trees, and well-developed
understory, as well as forests that are less well-developed,
Large wood present in the active floodplain of reference sites, and examples of large wood instream
that contribute to pool formation and other instream habitat,
Riparian forests dominated by diverse native plant cover, and riparian forests where invasive plant
species are common, and
Anything else that helps demonstrate the functions contributed by healthy riparian forests (filtering,
erosion control, wildlife habitat, flood control, pollination resources, shade and water cooling, etc.).
Keeping in mind that photos may be used for educational or outreach materials, surveyors should take care with
photo framing and lighting to produce useable material.
43
In addition, surveyors should take photos that can be helpful for resolving questions around interpretation of
riparian function within reference sites. Any time there is a question about a metric category or measurement,
surveyors should photograph the feature so the photo can later be used to aid discussion and arrive at
consensus on decisions around metric evaluation.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Surveys will only be implemented by experienced desktop analysts and field surveyors familiar with this
protocol. Before going into the field, staff should ensure that all vegetation monitoring equipment (Appendix C)
has been gathered to reduce the need to improvise in the field. As a first-cut quality control and to help ensure
completeness of data collection, desktop and field surveyors will review and confirm data after completing the
survey of each unit within a reference site. Validation rules in place within the digital data collection application
will also help confirm that data entries are within expected ranges and formats.
As discussed earlier, data collection precision will be increased through simultaneous surveys early in the data
collection season, in which multiple crews survey a site together to allow for discussion and consensus building
around decision-making. Data precision will also be directly evaluated by having different crews independently
survey the same set of four to six sites, to allow an evaluation of variability among values of the same metric
collected at the same site, by different surveyors. This information can be used in decision-making around
retaining or omitting metrics in future revisions of the protocol.
Data Management
As soon as possible after returning from the field, staff will upload the data from the digital data collector (iPad
or equivalent) into the online database. The online database is hosted on The Freshwater Trust’s server, and is
maintained on a regular basis with regular updates and versioning. Data will also be available to desktop and
field analysts through a reporting function in the monitoring application.
If surveyors collected tracks or polygon data in the field (e.g., if unit boundaries needed to be remapped based
on field conditions), these shapefiles should be named according to the reference site name (e.g., LOMR2) and
emailed to desktop analysts at LCOG. If photos were taken with a camera other than the internal iPad camera,
these photos should be downloaded and named according to site and the feature illustrated (e.g.
LOMR03_snag), and uploaded to the appropriate location in the online database.
Data Analysis
A system for scoring riparian function within each unit of each reference site will be developed simultaneous
with desktop and field surveys. Several methods are possible. Scoring could be accomplished using a straight
system in which each metric is given a score on a 1 to 10 scale, and metric scores are averaged to reach a unit
score (e.g., NRCS, 2009). Or, some metrics may be deemed more important than others, and weighted so that
they contribute more heavily to the final unit score (e.g., Czarnomski and Skidmore, 2013). As part of the scoring
process, reference sites will also be reviewed for whether they had the opportunity to provide the function
being scored (e.g., floodplain connectivity should only be relevant for sites with a floodplain).
44
Metrics will also be individually evaluated for utility by reviewing each for:





precision and repeatability among surveyors (for sites at which surveys are repeated),
sensitivity/resolution – metrics are capable of differentiating among sites of differing riparian function,
and the suggested range of values was appropriate for actual site conditions,
transparency and clarity of survey methods and results by a wide range of users, including landowners;
methods can be used by non-specialists to produce accurate results
operational efficiency – methods are not overly time intensive
other indicators of utility as based on feedback from desktop and field analysts.
Next Steps
Successful completion of EWEB’s VIP pilot will depend on collaboration among all partners. Next steps for
project implementation are outlined below.
Next steps in VIP pilot project implementation
Training session in protocol and use of digital monitoring application with
LCOG, McK WSC, UW SWCD, EWEB, others interested
Timelines
Mid May to early June
Reference site survey desktop preparation, desktop and field data
collection, data QA/QC and upload into online database
Mid May to late July
Develop riparian function scoring system for reference sites, synthesize data Early June to late July
and score sites
Develop desktop and field protocol for riparian function assessments at
landowner sites
Early April to late July
Finalize 12-14 landowner sites, gain access, schedule sampling visits
Mid May to late July
Landowner site survey desktop preparation, desktop and field data
collection, data QA/QC and upload into online database
Early August to mid September
Develop riparian function scoring system for landowner sites, synthesize
data and score sites
Mid September to late November
Final report – survey protocols, site assessments, and recommendations
December 31st, 2014
Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) – led by David Richey, Senior GIS Analyst
McKenzie Watershed Council (McK WSC) – led by Jared Weybright, Projects Coordinator
Upper Willamette Soil and Water Conservation District (UW SWCD) – led by Dave Downing, Watershed Technical Specialist
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) – led by Kris Stenshoel, Vegetation Program Coordinator
45
Protocol Review and Adaptation
This reference site survey protocol was developed as part of a pilot test of EWEB’s Voluntary Incentive Program,
and may be revised as needed to improve efficiency, data quality, or other objectives.
Feedback from desktop and field analysts will be crucial for revising this pilot protocol for implementation at
landowner sites, and perhaps for future implementation at new reference sites. Desktop and field surveyors will
be asked to maintain a project notebook and record observations on suggested changes to specific metrics such
as transparency and clarity of survey methods, efficiency, apparent metric sensitivity to differences in riparian
function, difficulties in assessing metric value, whether suggested ranges in metric values were appropriate for
actual site conditions and any other observations on ways this protocol may be improved.
46
References Cited
Abood, S., and A. Maclean. 2012. Modeling and classifying riparian ecotones via GIS utilizing geophysical and
vegetative inputs: a new approach. AWRA 2012 Summer Specialty Conference. Riparian Ecosytems IV: Advancing
Science, Economics, and Policy. June 27-29, 2012. Denver, CO.
Allan, J. D. and M. M. Castillo. 2007. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, 2nd ed. Springer
Science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Alsea Geospatial, Inc., Hardin-Davis, Inc., Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc., and WaterWork Consulting. 2000. McKenzie
River Subbasin Assessment Summary Report. February 2000. Prepared for Mackenzie Watershed Council. Accessed
at: http://www.mckenziewc.org/assessment.pdf.
Bardon, R.E. no date. Woodland owner notes: using a compass and pacing. North Carolina State University and North
Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Cooperative Extension. Greensboro, NC. Accessed at:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/forestry/pdf/WON/won39.pdf.
Beechie, T. J., C. N. Velduisen, E. M. Beamer, D. E. Schuett-Hames, R. H. Conrad and P. DeVries. 2005. Monitoring
treatments to reduce sediment and hydrological effects from roads. Pg 35-65 in Roni, P., ed. Monitoring Stream and
Watershed Restoration. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Bentrup, G., A.C. Henry Jr., D.A. Hosack, C.W. Johnson and D. Rol. 1999. Conservation corridors in the United States:
benefits and planning guidelines. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54: 645-650.
Brown, E. R. ed. 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Publication No. R6-F&WL-192-1985. Information office
of the Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. Accessed at: http://books.google.com/books?id=RpHhv2fCfa0C.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1996. Vida/McKenzie Watershed Analysis. USDI Bureau of Land Management.
Eugene, OR. Accessed at: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/eugene/plans/files/vida.pdf.
Bustard, D. R. and D.W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of the winter ecology of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada, 32: 667-680.
Chen, J., S. C. Saunders, T. R. Crow, R. J. Naiman, K. D. Brosolfske, G. D. Mroz, B. L. Brookshire, and J. F. Franklin. 1999.
Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landcape ecology. BioScience 49: 288-297.
Collins, B. D., D. R. Montgomery, K. L. Fetherston and T. B. Abbe. 2012. The floodplain large-wood cycle hypothesis: a
mechanism for the physical and biotic structuring of temperate forest alluvial valleys in the North Pacific coastal
ecoregion. Geomorphology, 139-140: 460-470.
Community Planning Workshop. 2009. EWEB Source Water Protection project: best management practices and model
ordinance review. June 2009. Community Service Center, University of Oregon. Eugene, OR. Accessed at:
http://www.lanecounty.org/departments/pw/lmd/landuse/documents/flood_dwp/cpw%20bmp%20report_final.pdf
Crowe, E. A. and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Midmontane wetland plant associations of the Malheur, Umatilla, and
Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22-97. Pacific Northwest Region, WallowaWhitman National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Baker City, OR.
47
Czarnomski, N. and P. Skidmore. 2013. Stream functional assessment methodology for Oregon user guide. Beta
version. Environmental Science Associates and Skidmore Restoration Consulting, LLC. Portland, OR.
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1997. Vegetation classification standard. USDI Geological Survey
Report FGDC-STD-005. Vegetation Subcommittee, Reston, VA. Accessed at:
http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/vegetation/vegclass.pdf.
Groot, C. and L. Margolis (eds). 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Listories. UBC Press. Vancouver, BC.
Hansen, B., P. Reich, P. S. Lake, and T. Cavagnaro. 2010. Minimum width requirements for riparian zones to protect
flowing waters and to conserve biodiversity: a review and recommendations. School of Biological Sciences, Monash
University. Melbourne, Australia. Accessed at:
http://www.ccmaknowledgebase.vic.gov.au/resources/RiparianBuffers_Report_Hansenetal2010.pdf.
Hoag, J. C., F. E. Berg, S. K. Wyman, and R. W. Sampson. 2001. Riparian Planting Zones in the Intermountain West.
Riparian/Wetland Project Information Series No. 16. March 2001. USDA-NRCS Aberdeen Plant Materials Center.
Aberdeen, ID. Accessed at: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcarwproj16.pdf
Hubbard, R. K., G. L. Newton and G. M. Hill. 2004. Water quality and the grazing animal. Journal of Animal Sciences
82(Suppl. E):E255-E263. Accessed at http://animalsci.highwire.org/content/82/13_suppl/E255.full.
Jennings, S. B., N. D. Brown, and D. Sheil. 1999. Assessing forest canopies and understorey illumination: canopy
closure, canopy cover and other measures. Forestry 72: 59-74. Accessed at
http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/content/72/1/59.full.pdf+html.
Likens, G. E., F. H. Bormann, N. M. Johnson, D. W. Fisher and R. S. Pierce. 1970. Effects of forest cutting and herbicide
treatment on nutrient budgets in the Hubbard Brook watershed-ecosystem. Ecological Monographs, 40: 23-47.
King, R. S., M. E. Baker, D. F. Whigham, D. E. Weller, T. E. Jordan, P. F. Kazyak and M. K. Hurd. 2005. Spatial
considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams. Ecological Applications, 15: 137153.
Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). 2014. McKenzie VIP Desktop GIS Reference Site Protocol. On file at the
Lane Council of Governments. Eugene, OR.
Lewis, L., L. Clark, R. Krapf, M. Manning, J. Staats, T. Subirge, L. Townsend and B. Ypsilantis. 2003. Riparian area
management: Riparian-wetland soils. Technical Reference 1737-19. BLM/ST/ST-03/001+1737. Bureau of Land
Management. Denver, CO.
Lister, D. B. and R. J. Finnigan. 1997. Rehabilitating off-channel habitat. Fish habitat rehabilitation procedures.
Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Watershed Restoration Technical Circular, 9: 1-29.
Lucchetti, G., K. O. Richter, and R. E. Schaefer. 2005. Monitoring acquisitions and conservation easements. Pg 277-312
in Roni, P., ed. Monitoring Stream and Watershed Restoration. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Maser, C., R. G. Anderson, K. Cromack Jr., J. T. Williams, and R. E. Martin. 1979. Dead and down woody material. Pg.
78-95 in J.W. Thomas, techn. ed. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and
Washington. Handbook No. 553. USDA Forest Service.
48
Maze, D. M. 2013. Watershed health and invasive species. Literature review. Draft May 2013. Bureau of
Environmental Services, City of Portland. Portland, OR.
Medina, A. L., J. N. Rinne, and P. Roni. 2005. Riparian restoration through grazing management: considerations for
monitoring project effectiveness. Pg 97-126 in Roni, P., ed. Monitoring Stream and Watershed Restoration. American
Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Mitsch, J. and J. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. 3rd ed. John Wiley. New York, NY.
Moburg, J. 2008. Field Manual of Scientific Protocols for Habitat Surveys within the Upper Columbia Monitoring
Strategy. Version 3.0. Terraqua Inc. Wauconda, WA.
Moore, K., K. Jones, J. Dambacher and C. Stein. 2010. Methods for stream habitat surveys. Version 20.1, May 2010.
Aquatic Inventories Project. Conservation and Recovery Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis,
OR. Accessed at: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/freshwater/inventory/pdffiles/hmethd10_woFISHMANUAL.pdf.
Naiman, R., Bilby, R., Bisson, P. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific coastal rain forest. Bioscience
50: 996-1011.
Naiman, R. and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review Ecological Systems, 28:
621-58.
National Land Cover Database. 2011. NCLD 2011 land cover classification legend. Multi-Resolution Land
Characteristics Consortium. Earth Resources Observation and Science Center. US Geological Survey. Sioux Falls,
SD. Accessed August 5, 2014, at: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_leg.php.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Water quality - how toxic runoff affects Pacific
salmon and steelhead. Spring 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region. US Department of
Commerce. Portland, OR.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. Riparian systems. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management
Leaflet Number 45. January 2007. Natural Resources Conservation Service and Wildlife Habitat Council. Washington,
DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Stream visual assessment protocol. Version 2. 190-VI-NBH.
National Biology Handbook. Subpart B - Conservation Planning. Part 614. United States Department of Agriculture.
Washington, DC. Accessed at: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NDCSMC/Stream/pubs/NBH_Part_614_Subpart_B_10_Dec_09.pdf.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Conservation Practice Standard, Code 391: Riparian Forest
Buffer. National Handbook of Conservation Practices. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Accessed January 28, 2014 at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_026098.pdf
Nickelson, T. E., J. D. Rodgers, S. L. Johnson and M. F. Solazzi. 1992. Seasonal changes in habitat use by juvenile coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 49:
783-789.
49
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. The Oregon Conservation Strategy. February 2006. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR. Accessed at:
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.asp
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). N.d. Description of habitat-related terms. Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR. Accessed at:
http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/contaminants/portlandharbor/Documents/HabTermsHEA_0967.pdf
Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL). 2009. Routine Monitoring Guidance for Vegetation. Interim draft version
1.0. Salem, OR. Accessed at: http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/PERMITS/docs/dsl_routine_monitoring_guidance.pdf
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2006. Willamette Basin TMDL, Chapter 11: McKenzie Subbasin
TMDL. Salem, OR. Accessed at:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/docs/willamettebasin/willamette/chpt11mckenzie.pdf.
Osborne, L. L. and D. A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream
management. Freshwater Biology, 29: 243-258.
Pess, G. R., S. A. Morley, J. L. Hall, and R. K. Timm. 2005. Monitoring floodplain restoration. Pg 127-166 in Roni, P., ed.
Monitoring Stream and Watershed Restoration. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Peterson, N. P. 1982. Immigration of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) into riverine ponds. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 39: 1308-1310.
Pollock, M. M., T. J. Beechie, S. S. Chan, and R. Bigley. 2005. Monitoring restoration of riparian forests. Pg 67-96 in
Roni, P., ed. Monitoring Stream and Watershed Restoration. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Rathbun, J. 2011. Standard Operating Procedure: Assessing Bank Erosion Potential Using a Modified Version of
Rosgen’s Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI). Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Lansing, MI.
Rice, S. P., P. Kiffney, C. Greene, and G. R. Pess. 2008. The ecological importance of tributaries and confluences, in S.
P. Rice, A. G. Roy and B. L. Rhoads, eds. River Confluences, Tributaries and the Fluvial Network, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd. Chichester, UK.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books. Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D. L. 2001. A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. In Proceedings of the Seventh Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, March 25 to 29, 200., Reno, NV.
Roy, A. G. 2008. Introduction to Part I: River Channel Confluences in S. P. Rice, A. G. Roy and B. L. Rhoads, eds. River
Confluences, Tributaries and the Fluvial Network. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK.
Sams, J. I. and K. M. Beer. 2000. Effects of coal-mine drainage on stream water quality in the Allegheny and
Monongahela River Basin: sulfate transport and trends. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, National
Water-Quality Assessment Program. Reston, VA.
Simmons, D. L. and R. J. Reynolds. 1982. Effects of urbanization on base flow of selected south‐shore streams, Long
Island, New York. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 18: 797-805.
50
Society for Ecological Restoration International (SER). 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration.
Version 2. October, 2004. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group. Accessed
at: http://www.ser.org/docs/default-document-library/english.pdf.
The Freshwater Trust. 2013. Riparian reference site survey program for Eugene Water & Electric Board. Phase I:
sample size analysis. August 15, 2013. Portland, OR.
Torgersen, C. E., J. L. Ebersole, and D. M. Keenan. 2012. Primer for Identifying Cold-Water Refuges to Protect and
Restore Thermal Diversity in Riverine Landscapes. EPA 910-C-12-001. US Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle,
WA. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/water/torgersen_etal_2012_cold_water_refuges.pdf.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Version 2.0. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. US Army Engineer Research
and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. Accessed at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/west_mt_finalsupp.pdf.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). N. d. Growth habits codes and definitions. USDA Plants Database. USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://plants.usda.gov/growth_habits_def.html.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. July 13, 1994. Federal Register 59:
35680-35681.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. EPA Region 10 guidance for Pacific Northwest state and tribal
temperature water quality standards. EPA 910 B-03-002. US Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle, WA. Accessed
at: www.epa.gov/r10earth/temperature.htm.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. WARSSS – Watershed Assessment of River Stability & Sediment
Supply. US Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/tools/warsss/index.cfm.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Ecoregion maps and GIS resources. Webpage. Western Ecology
Division. Corvallis, OR. Accessed on April 14, 2014 at: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm.
US Forest Service (USFS). 2010. Stream inventory handbook. Level I and II. Version 2.10. Pacific Northwest Region.
Region 6. Portland, OR. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_023934.pdf.
Walsh, C. J., A. K. Sharpe, P. F. Breen and J. A. Sonneman. 2001. Effects of urbanization on streams of the Melbourne
region, Victoria, Australia. I. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology, 46: 535-551.
Wegner, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent, and vegetation. Office of Public
Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, GA. Available at:
http://www.chathamnc.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2525
51
Appendix A – Recommended Number of Reference Sites in each HUC 5 Watershed
For full analysis methods and recommendations, see the Phase I: Sample Size Analysis report [The Freshwater Trust, 2013].
LOWER MCKENZIE RIVER WATERSHED (HUC5) - Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and recommended number reference sites.
% Of Targetc Riparian
# Reference Sites Original Land Cover/Land Use Typea
Acresb
Simplified Vegetation Type
Acres
in HUC 5
Selected Program
Douglas Fir-W. Hemlock-W. Red Cedar Forest
Mixed Conifer/Mixed Deciduous Forest
Red Alder Forest
Douglas Fir/White Oak Forest
Oregon White Oak Forest
Grass-shrub-sapling or Regenerating young
forest
Palustrine Forest
NWI Palustrine Forest
Palustrine Shrubland
NWI Palustrine Shrubland
NWI Palustrine Emergent
Urban
Agriculture
Open Water
Total Target Riparian Area in HUC 5 (acres)
Total # Reference Sites Needed in HUC 5
9763
1932
390
186
127
2715
286
35
16
2
119
220
1619
1545
15571
Mixed conifer/hardwood forest
Douglas-fir/white oak forest
12085
77.6
6
313
2.0
None - conserve all sites.
Native grassland
unknown
Native shrubland
unknown
Unknown
(17.4 or less)
Unknown
(17.4 or less)
Unknown
(17.4 or less)
n/a (lower conservation
value, excluded)
Regenerating forest
n/a
Palustrine forest
321
2.1
Palustrine shrubland
18
0.1
Palustrine emergent
n/a
n/a
n/a
119
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6 sites
a Source: Oregon Current Vegetation Types digital dataset (Northwest Habitat Institute, 2000). Land cover/land use types present on private land (i.e.,
types in which conservation sites could be located) are included, while types present only on public land are omitted.
b Area occupied by each vegetation type includes all land within 120 ft of a perennial stream.
c Target riparian area includes all vegetation types in which conservation sites may be located, and excludes cover types outside the scope of a riparian
conservation program, such as open water and agricultural areas.
52
MCKENZIE RIVER/QUARTZ CREEK WATERSHED (HUC5) - Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and recommended number
reference sites.
Acres
Simplified Vegetation
Type
Acres
% Of Target Riparian in
HUC 5
# Reference Sites - Selected
Program
True Fir-Hemlock Montane Forest
187
Montane conifer forest
187
6.6
0 (no Montane conifer forest within
VIP boundary)
Douglas Fir-W. Hemlock-W. Red Cedar Forest
Red Alder Forest
1933
192
36
Mixed conifer/hardwood
forest
2161
76.5
2
Original Land Cover/Land Use Type
Grass-shrub-sapling or Regenerating young
forest
Open Water
Total Target Riparian Area in HUC 5 (acres)
478
262
2826
Native grassland
unknown
Native shrubland
unknown
Regenerating forest
n/a
n/a
n/a
Unknown
(16.9 or less)
Unknown
(16.9 or less)
Unknown
(16.9 or less)
n/a
n/a (lower conservation value,
excluded)
n/a
2 sites
53
HORSE CREEK WATERSHED (HUC5)- Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and recommended number reference sites.
% Of Target Riparian
# Reference Sites Original Land Cover/Land Use Type
Acres
Acres
in HUC 5
Selected Program
Subalpine Fir-Lodgepole Pine Montane
Conifer
Douglas Fir-W. Hemlock-W. Red Cedar
Forest
Red Alder Forest
Grass-shrub-sapling or Regenerating
young forest
Alpine Fell-Snowfields
Open Water
Total Target Riparian Area in HUC 5
(acres)
18
1675
35.2
0 (no Montane conifer
forest within VIP
boundary)
2719
57.2
2
1657
2617
81
21
168
64
94
26
1
6
Native grassland
unknown
Native shrubland
unknown
Regenerating forest
n/a
Palustrine forest
Palustrine emergent
n/a
n/a
64
94
26
n/a
n/a
Unknown
(3.5 or less)
Unknown
(3.5 or less)
Unknown
(3.5 or less)
1.3
2.0
0.5
n/a
n/a
value, excluded)
n/a
n/a
4753
2 sites
54
UPPER MCKENZIE RIVER WATERSHED (HUC5) - Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and recommended number reference sites.
Acres
Acres
in HUC 5
Selected Program
Subalpine Fir-Lodgepole Pine Montane
Conifer
Forest
Red Alder Forest
young forest
Lava Flow
Open Water
(acres)
50
1118
16.0
forest within VIP
boundary)
4215
60.3
2
1068
4071
112
32
1497
21
100
42
1
10
Native grassland
unknown
Native shrubland
unknown
Regenerating forest
n/a
Palustrine forest
Palustrine emergent
n/a
n/a
21
100
42
n/a
n/a
Unknown
(21.4 or less)
Unknown
(21.4 or less)
Unknown
(21.4 or less)
0.3
1.4
0.6
n/a
n/a
value, excluded)
n/a
n/a
6993
2 sites
55
BLUE RIVER WATERSHED (HUC5) - Land cover and land use types, simplified vegetation types, and recommended number reference sites.
Acres
Acres
in HUC 5
Selected Program
Forest
Red Alder Forest
young forest
132
132
3.3
forest within VIP
boundary)
3267
80.7
2
3202
61
4
650
Native grassland
unknown
Native shrubland
unknown
Regenerating forest
Open Water
(acres)
10
n/a
Unknown
(16.1 or less)
Unknown
(16.1 or less)
Unknown
(16.1 or less)
value, excluded)
n/a
4049
2 sites
56
Appendix B – Proposed Reference Sites and their Priority
Access information has not been completed for low priority sites under the presumption that they are unlikely to be surveyed. An interactive map of
these sites is available at: http://freshwatertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=5f5bd8f673e74ccd9cedd203e9a9e611.
Site Name
(Number orders sites
West to East)
Preliminary Site
a
Name
Site Notes
Priority
(private)
Springfield Oxbow
(MRT owned) is
adjacent, to W on
inside bend of river
High
Lower McKenzie
Lower McKenzie 3
(LOMR3)
(private)
Island with large side
channel, several nice
spots.
High
Lower McKenzie
Lower McKenzie 4
(LOMR4)
(private)
large buffers
High
Lower McKenzie
High
Lower McKenzie
Lower McKenzie 2
(LOMR2)
Lower McKenzie 5
(LOMR5)
Lower McKenzie 13
(LOMR13)
Lower McKenzie 14
(LOMR14)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
20 (MRQC20)
Blue River 23
(BLUE23)
(private)
Martin Creek
(BLM)
Ben and Kay
Dorris State Park
(ODOT)
Elk Creek trib
(public)
Blue R Parks and
Rec District
Trib
side channels, intact
forest
Late Successional
Reserve. sm, steep,
fish-bearing.
Public land. Rose St
appears to go through
site, but no other sites
suitable. Understory
likely to be dominated
by invasive ivy.
Access Notes
a
Latitude
a
Longitude
a
HUC 5 Watershed
High
Hike up thru public land
from Goodpasture Rd
44.1196890
-122.5247666
Lower McKenzie
High
Hwy 126
44.1303323
-122.5228140
Lower McKenzie
High
Elk Cr Rd past High School
44.1579714
-122.3642872
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
High
Rose St
44.1566444
-122.3361587
Blue River
57
Site Name
West to East)
Preliminary Site
a
Name
Blue River 24
(BLUE24)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
27 (MRQC27)
Blue River Parks
and Rec 2
Horse Creek 29
(HORS29)
Horse Creek
floodplain (USFS)
Upper McKenzie
River 33 (UPMR33)
Horse Creek 36
(HORS36)
Upper McKenzie
River 38 (UPMR38)
Upper McKenzie
River 39 (parking)
(UPMR39)
Lower McKenzie 7
(LOMR7)
Lower McKenzie 8
(LOMR8)
Site Notes
Public land, no access
permisison needed.
Understory likely to be
dominated by invasive
ivy, but no other sites
available.
McK R (Delta CG,
USFS)
McK R (USFS)
public
Lost Creek lower
Parking for Lost
Creek sites (38
and 41)
(private)
City of Eug Koldar Isl(?)
Access Notes
High
Rose St then Walk
upstream from Blue R
Community park
High
floodplain, braiding,
hardwoods. 2639-116
trail.
Side channels.The side
channel is part of the
McKenzie River
floodplain that is well
over 150 feet wide at
this site.
High
High
just below confluence
mid-order, midgradient, fish
High
parking
n/a
cottonwood gallery,
low canopy, dynamic understory may be
dominated by
invasives
Med access
intact forest, side
channels
a
Priority
High
Med access
Delta Campground, Old
Growth trail
NF 164 (through
neighborhood)/King Rd
and 2639-100. 2639-116
now a trail.
N Bank Rd/Rd -280.Park bf
gate on private land.
NF-2638 (Horse Creek Rd),
park on public land
Park at Hwy 126 or Rd
2600-345
Latitude
a
Longitude
a
HUC 5 Watershed
44.1583993
-122.3338413
Blue River
44.1657873
-122.2848180
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
44.1705163
-122.1746443
Horse Creek
44.1820084
-122.1155385
Upper McKenzie
River
44.1556580
-122.0966830
44.1884558
-122.0643374
Horse Creek
Upper McKenzie
River
44.1877172
-122.0618268
Upper McKenzie
River
Lower McKenzie
? From Rodman Isl to E.
Access requires a boat
(EWEB can provide). Be
prepared to survey.
44.0750463
-122.7620777
Lower McKenzie
58
Site Name
West to East)
Lower McKenzie 9
(LOMR9)
Lower McKenzie 12
(LOMR12)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
15 (MRQC15)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
22 (MRQC22)
Upper McKenzie
River 34 (UPMR34)
Upper McKenzie
River 41 (UPMR41)
Upper McKenzie
River 39 (parking)
(UPMR39)
Lower McKenzie 1
(LOMR1)
Lower McKenzie 6
(LOMR6)
Preliminary Site
a
Name
Site Notes
Priority
City of Eug Rodman Isl(?)
Waterboard Bark
(City Eug)
intact forest, side
channels
altered hydrol, just
above dam
Med access
Med hydrology
HJ Morton State
Park
public, mature, side
channel
Med access
McK R (public)
off rd 1900-408
Med
public
Lost Creek Upper
(USFS)
Parking for Lost
Creek sites (38
and 41)
flat enough?
mid-order, midgradient, fish
Med
parking
n/a
Lower McKenzie 10
(LOMR10)
Lower McKenzie 11
(LOMR11)
Demo forest
Leaburg Dam Rd
Hwy 126, wade across side
channel
Hwy 126 to Quartz Cr Rd
bridge, then Rd 1900-408
under powerline, hike
down to site
Hike upstream on
MckKenzie R Trail
Park off Hwy 126 or
Belknap Spr Rd
Latitude
a
Longitude
a
Relatively intact, not
sure about access
check location.
tributary, intact forest
location unsure. sm.
crk w some nice
forested area
Low - access
HUC 5 Watershed
44.0776823
-122.7461132
Lower McKenzie
44.1392337
-122.6066062
Lower McKenzie
44.1252150
-122.3820756
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
44.1511051
-122.3364995
44.1825938
-122.1099090
44.1862863
-122.0599171
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
Upper McKenzie
River
Upper McKenzie
River
44.1877172
-122.0618268
Upper McKenzie
River
Low, a bit
outside
project area
(private)
Lane Co
Leaburg
Forest/Johnson
Crk (EWEB)
Med
a
Access Notes
? Off Deerhorn Rd thru
public land, then wade.
Access requires a boat
(EWEB can provide). Be
prepared to survey.
Lower McKenzie
Reached by boat (EWEB
can provide); overland
access through
unresponsive landowner.
44.0618026
-122.8878626
Lower McKenzie
Low, not in
floodplain
44.1118555
-122.6722559
Lower McKenzie
Low - not in
floodplain
44.1154286
-122.6512846
Lower McKenzie
59
Site Name
West to East)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
16 (MRQC16)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
17 (MRQC17)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
18 (MRQC18)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
19 (MRQC19)
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
21 (MRQC21)
Blue River 25
(BLUE25)
Blue River 26
(BLUE26)
Upper McKenzie
River 28 (UPMR28)
Preliminary Site
a
Name
Elk Creek
Elk Creek
Elk Creek trib
(public)
McKenzie High
School
Blue R
confluence
McKenzie School
District
public
McKenzie R main
(USFS)
Site Notes
Late Successional
Reserve. sm, steep,
fish-bearing.
public. flat? matches
other VIP?
Late Successional
Reserve. sm, steep,
fish-bearing.
McKenzie School
District - will need
access permissions.
confluence may skew?
owner?
Priority
Access Notes
a
Latitude
a
Longitude
a
HUC 5 Watershed
Low, outside
floodplain
44.1586487
-122.3758529
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
Low
44.1560394
-122.3713014
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
44.1630820
-122.3662613
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
44.1524369
-122.3657224
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
44.1522829
-122.3430119
McKenzie
River/Quartz Creek
44.1598156
-122.3323607
Blue River
44.1637408
-122.3318564
44.1761183
-122.1826695
Blue River
Upper McKenzie
River
Low, outside
floodplain
Low - near
parking and
field
Low - access
Narrow floodplain
floodplain only 50 ft
wide, too narrow
Low, narrow
Low
Walk upstream
Lucky Boy Rd then cross
river. Location flexible.
Low - access
Wade across river
Low - no
floodplain?
44.1613272
-122.1431659
Horse Creek
44.1598340
-122.1369861
44.1868253
-122.0963049
44.1886229
-122.0693730
Horse Creek
Upper McKenzie
River
Upper McKenzie
River
44.2032437
-122.0409201
Upper McKenzie
River
Horse Creek 31
(HORS31)
Horse Creek
floodplain (USFS)
field ver.
field-ver. midgradient, mid-order,
fish, hardwood
Horse Creek 32
(HORS32)
Upper McKenzie
River 35 (UPMR35)
Upper McKenzie
River 37 (UPMR37)
Horse Creek side
channel (USFS)
field-verif. mid-order,
mid-gradient, fish
Low - no
floodplain?
Public
Low
Bigelow
flat enough?
Likely a highfunctioning site
Upper McKenzie
River 42 (UPMR42)
Upper McK R
(USFS)
Access from rd 2650
near Frissell Boat
Ramp
Low
Low extreme E
end of
project area
in Paradise campground
Access thru private or
wade across river
a Some information has been redacted for privacy of non-public land holders.
60
Appendix C – Field Gear Check List
Printed site map or aerial image (backup for iPad)
Compass with correct declination (15° E)
Landowner contact information, access permission, access
stipulations
Clinometer (may be included on compass)
Road gazetteer, directions to site
Measuring tapes (min. 50 ft) to calibrate
pacing
Densiometer
Printed copy of survey protocol and list of reference sites
iPad data collector, associated cables/charger, cleaning
cloth, water proof/resistant case (with case opener and case
user’s guide), harness, stylus
DBH tape (preferably with straight inches
on one side)
StreamBank Monitoring application User Quick Guide
Mophie Juice Pack Powerstation PRO or equivalent mobile
device charger, Mophie charger, and user’s guide
High accuracy GPS with batteries/charger
Radios for each staff with batteries/charger (optional)
Backup camera with batteries/charger
Rangefinder with ability to measure height (optional)
First aid kit
Field notebook for recording protocol feedback and other
observations; also serves as backup for data collection
Percent cover guide
Invasive plant species list (ODA noxious plant species + reed
canary grass)
Wetland plant and other plant identification guides
Mechanical pencils
Flagging
Sharpie
61

The Freshwater Trust Reference Site Survey Protocol

Transcription

Similar documents

Colleen Farrow - All Occasions Management

vegetation ecology of floodplain forests

! Sun Casino Montecarlo !

Aschbacher-Hecher-Development plan

Using hydroscapes to maximize the benefits of

PDF

Roger ID`s Homemade Canopy

Mickey Mouse Bush / Ochna Ochna serrulata

1878 Full Silver MacDougall Bagpipes

Introduction to Windows Vista Appendix A: Wallpaper Your Desktop