U.S.D.A. Forest Service National Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Protocol

U.S.D.A. Forest Service
National Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Protocol
Test of Core Protocol: Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont, U.S.
Prepared by
The UVM LANDS Crew
July 2014
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
About LANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Feedback and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Transects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Vegetation Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 3
Fluvial Geomorphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Proposed Data Sheet Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 5
Line Point Intercept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 7
Trees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Geomorphological Analysis of Transect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 9
Test of Core Protocol Data Sheets – Sparks Brook, Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont. . . . . . . 11
1
Introduction
The UVM LANDS Program consists of a team of nine interns who participate in a number of conservation
projects in Vermont throughout the summer. From July 7th through 10th, 2014, the LANDS Crew tested
the USDA Forest Service’s National Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Core Protocol, formulated in the
western U.S., on a mountain stream ecosystem in Vermont’s Green Mountain National Forest. LANDS
collected and analyzed data on vegetation and fluvial geomorphology from five transects along Sparks
Brook using the methods developed by the Forest Service.
Included in this packet are the following materials:
1) Feedback and Recommendations for revising the protocol document
2) Vegetation and tree data sheets from the Sparks Brook transects
3) Revised data sheet templates for vegetation and trees, and a new data sheet template created by
LANDS for fluvial geomorphology
About LANDS
The field of conservation is rapidly evolving to meet the growing demands of society. New ideas
and strategies are changing how we conserve and steward the land; The Land Stewardship Program
(LANDS) is one of these new ideas. During the Great Depression, the Conservation Corps model was
pioneered as a means to promote stewardship in the nation and provide jobs for the unemployed. The
idea has since been reinvented 116 times by local and state corps across the United States. However,
the general theme is the same: young people learning and growing through service. LANDS is an
innovative College Conservation Corps designed to train tomorrow’s conservationist practitioners and
leaders, and is a pilot partnership between the University of Vermont and the Student Conservation
Association in its eighth year of successful programming.
Thanks to college level education and prior experience in environmental science fields, LANDS
interns are able to take on projects that are more technical than the work traditionally done by
conservation crews. LANDS interns draft management plans, map areas of interest using GPS and GIS,
inventory resources, survey for non-native species, survey soils, calculate carbon stocks, and even find
time to build trails. Municipalities, land trusts, state agencies, university researchers, national forests
and parks, and volunteer-managed conservation organizations all benefit from LANDS’s high quality,
affordable services. LANDS interns are advanced undergraduates and recent graduates with natural
resource experience from all over the world, and they bring a wide range of skills and interests to the
program. LANDS is a unique service-learning model that addresses an ever-expanding list of
conservation needs, while training young adults as future environmental leaders.
2
National Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Core Protocol
Feedback and Recommendations
by the UVM LANDS Program and the USDA Forest Service
General Feedback and Recommendations:
• Methods and background info are currently integrated in the written sections, and are not
organized chronologically. The LANDS crew found it difficult to follow the protocol and to locate
specific points while working in the field. User friendliness could be improved by splitting into
methods sections as follows, and by including a numbered step-by-step procedure for each
section (It would also help to include suggested number of people to complete each task.):
-pre-field/office work
-reach identifications
-transect layout
-vegetation sampling (line point intercept method)
-tree sampling (point centered quarter method)
-measurement and classification of geomorphic features
• Needs complete equipment list for entire protocol, as well as specific equipment lists for each
methods section.
• Appendix 1 – could be eliminated and replaced by a more detailed step by step outline. Some
inconsistencies between written protocol and Appendix 1 (example: In Task 2, establishment of
belt transects is listed but not included in the text description. Under Channel Measurements,
Task 2 – in the text, this task is needed in certain site situations but when included in the
Appendix, it appears as required)
• A glossary of terms is recommended. Some terms are defined in the document, while others are
not. Removing in-text definitions and providing a glossary would cut down on the length of
written sections, and improve ease of use.
The
detail of instructions varies in each section, and the targeted audience/knowledge level seems
•
to vary. This should be made more consistent.
Instructions
for addressing landscape variability across geographic biomes could be more clearly
•
explained (example: more detail on calculating necessary number of transects and sampling points
to capture a representative sample based on forest type, stream type, etc. More on this below.)
• Would photos of channel, valley, vegetation, transect, or geomorphologic features be helpful for
analysis?
Transects Feedback and Recommendations:
• A data sheet/ table would help to organize transect calculations and location data (active channel
width, starting distance, number of transects, transect interval distance, etc.)
• A detailed step-by-step guide on how to set up transects could replace Figure 1’s caption. The
figures are helpful.
• Enlarging Figure 1 and labeling in more detail would be helpful in understanding transect set-up.
• Include instructions for finding the compass bearing of the valley and of the active channel.
Should valley bearing be taken on a map, and how should this be accomplished when clear valley
walls are absent? Recommendations for map scale (1:24,000 did not provide an accurate valley
3
bearing for Sparks Brook). For active channel bearing, where should bearing be taken to
determine if cross section should follow channel or valley bearing (or both)?
• For densely vegetated areas suggest that reaches and transects should be marked in “leaf-off”
seasons to ensure the most accurate bearings
• It’s unclear how to set up transects if a floodplain is absent (i.e. in deeply incised channels)
• (Appendix 4): Appendix 4 could be replaced by a table of recommendations that lists valley types
and corresponding recommended number of transects and points. (With the understanding that
the recommended numbers could be adjusted based on project goals).
Vegetation Sampling Feedback and Recommendations:
• Laser Point Device – difficult to use in forested riparian areas; replace with another point
•
•
•
•
•
intercept sampling tool such as a pole. As currently outlined in the document, the laser sampling
doesn’t accurately capture species composition and structure, it only records the first species it
hits in each layer (presence/absence of canopy layers). Using a pole or rod or modifying the laser
point method and data sheets may provide a more representative sample of composition and
density.
Protocol (pg. 18) includes recording the height of each vegetation hit but Appendix 1 makes it
optional, and the line-point intercept data sheets is not set up to record those data. Clarify
protocol in regards to position of the device for above ground measurements.
Determining number of points and sampling interval for the point centered quarter method varies
depending on tree density (pg. 19) but tree density is not known until the assessment is
completed. A minimum is recommended but there are no guidelines for determining if an
additional number of points are necessary. The methods (pg. 19) include measuring the distance
to the nearest trees but there is no column to record this on the field sheet.
Similar to previous point, it is unclear how many vegetative sampling points are needed for a
representative sample within each transect in relation to the density of the forest. A minimum is
provided but more guidance is needed (pg. 17)
The height classification measurements are inconsistent between Appendix 1 and the data sheet
(example: for low understory vegetation Appendix 1 classifies low vegetation as (< 1 meter) while
the data sheet labels understory vegetation as (< 1.5 meters)
Suggested data sheet revisions
• Lay out in order from ground to canopy measurements
• Condition classifications do not include dead trees, saplings, and diseases or bark condition
• Fix key to replace one of the “W” options (water/wood)
Fluvial Geomorphology Feedback and Recommendations:
Cross Sections
• Data sheet is needed (see template created by LANDS)
• Feature classifications need more examples in figure 6, along with review of term definitions
• Certain terms/definitions may not be applicable to all channels (example: floodplain(s) may
not exist in an eastern mountain stream where transition to upland from channel is abrupt.
How to identify floodplains vs. terraces; how to characterize riparian buffer when clear
floodplain is absent; how to characterize wetlands in buffer zone that are not upland
communities based on ecology, but are not located in a floodplain – e.g. seeps on valley walls)
4
• Include relevant information on measuring channel cross sections from the referenced paper
(Harrelson et al 1994). The Harrelson document is long and not practical to bring in the field for
reference.
Longitudinal Profile
• Include methods from the referenced paper (Harrelson et al 1994). The Harrelson document is
long and not practical to bring in the field for reference.
• Instructions in the document say to “measure thalweg.” It’s unclear what measurements are
needed (elevation, distance along cross section, etc.). For depth of thalweg, what feature should
be used as a reference point (depth from bankfull or water surface?)
• Include data sheet
5
Proposed Data Sheet Templates
Developed by the UVM LANDS Crew July 2014
6
Riparian Core Protocol Data Form: Line Point Intercept
Study_________________________Date__________Examiner(s)________________________________________
Reach______
Transect
Key:
Distance
From Left
Pin in
__(unit)
Ground
Cover
Species
(Height <1.5m )
Species
(Height
1.5 to 5 m)
Species
(Height
>5 m)
Fluvial
Setting
Ground Cover: Si: bare silt or clay, Sa: bare sand, G: gravel, P: pebble, C: cobble, BL: boulder, BR:
bedrock, H20: water, BV: basal vegetation, BY, bryophyte W: wood, L: litter.
Fluvial Setting: CH: channel, B: bank, FP1: floodplain 1, FP2: floodplain 2, T1: terrace 1, T2: terrace 2,
i: Island, BC: back channel, TR: transition, UP: upland. ETC if other
Study_________________________Date__________Examiner(s)________________________________________
Reach______
7
Riparian Core Protocol Data Form: Trees
Study_________________________Date__________Examiner(s)________________________________________
Reach______
Transect:
Distance From
Left Pin in
__(unit)
Species Name
Tree Diameter
___(unit)
Dist. From
Quadrat
___(unit)
Condition
Class
Condition Class Key
C: critically stressed (>50% of canopy affected), SS: significantly stressed (21-50%),
S: stressed (11-20%), N: normal (5-10%), V: vigorous (<5% of canopy affected)
Special Notation Codes:
SP: Sapling, DT: Dead Tree.
8
Geomorphological Analysis of Transect Worksheet
Study_________________________Date__________Examiner(s)________________________________________
Reach______ Transect #:________
Feature
Distance
Elevation
Notes:
Geomorphological Analysis of Transect Worksheet
Study_________________________Date__________Examiner(s)________________________________________
Reach______ Transect #:________
Feature
Distance
Elevation
Notes:
9
Test of Core Protocol Data Sheets
Sparks Brook, Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont
Collected by the UVM LANDS Crew July 2014
10