RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT
TR 1737-8 1993
Greenline Riparian-Wetland Monitoring
I T T
C 4 1 C
.i *-4 j #
-F92
ft 1 ? f(
199 2
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
blw ubr Ml
k$i&%£icam
ZgjSltcO S’***0”
Copies available from:
Bureau of Land Management
Service Center
SC-657B
P.O. Box 25047
Denver, Colorado 80225-0047
B LM/SC/ST-93/00 1+1737
007MU
y
RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT
r ; \
Greenline
Riparian- Wetland
Monitoring
V _ __ _ J
(L53C*
m
c.3
by
Jim Cagney
Range Conservationist
Bureau of Land Management
Grass Creek Resource Area, Wyoming
■: - /
v>. o. f/‘
:0b-- '
Technical Reference 1737-8
1993
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Service Center
P.O. Box 25047
Denver, CO 80225-0047
Acknowledgements
The concepts associated with the greenline monitoring method were originated by
Alma H. Winward of the Forest Service Intermountain Region. This publication
could not exist without both his ideas and his support of my attempts to apply them.
The author wishes to thank Don Prichard, Todd Christensen, and Dan Tippy for their
support during the 5-year period of trial and error which ultimately led to this publica¬
tion.
The author also wishes to extend a special thanks to Linda Hill, Writer/Editor, and the
Technology Transfer Staff at the Service Center for doing a fine job in editing, layout,
design, and production of the final document.
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction . 1
II. Purpose . 3
III. The Greenline . 5
A. The Greenline Concept . 5
B. Greenline Definition . 5
IV. Riparian Community Types . 7
V. Field Procedures . 9
A. Materials . 9
B. Transect Location . 9
C. Recording Plant Community Data Along the Greenline . 9
D. Woody Species Counts . 14
E. Cross-Section Transects . 15
F. Photopoints . 15
VI. Greenline Monitoring Method Applications . 17
A. Perennial Creek Study . 17
B . Intermittent Creek Study . 23
VII. Relationship and Use with BLM Planning and Implementation
Processes . 29
VIII. Conclusion . 31
Literature Cited . 33
Appendix A - Data Forms . . . 35
Appendix B - Common/Scientific Plant Names and Symbols
43
Greenline Riparian-Wetland Monitoring
I. Introduction
Though riparian areas are not abundant in the landscape, they have great historical
significance. The provide a variety of useful products, such as water, forage, and
firewood. Additional values such as biological diversity, water storage, and sediment
trapping have more recently been attributed to riparian areas. However the ability of
a given site to provide this range of products may be dependent upon the quality of
the vegetation present. For example, a stand of coyote willow will provide building
materials for beaver, whereas a stand of Nebraska sedge will not. Yet the dense root
mass of Nebraska sedge will provide overhanging streambanks, a key fishery habitat
feature, whereas the root system of Kentucky bluegrass will not.
Modem land management plans must address these complex relationships to establish
the best balance of multiple-use activities in riparian-wetland areas. Any activities in
riparian-wetland areas will have an impact on the vegetation community — particu¬
larly grazing. Publications such as Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas in the
Intermountain Region (Clary and Webster 1989); Technical Reference 1737-4,
Grazing Management in Riparian Areas (Kinch 1989); Managing Fisheries and
Wildlife on Rangelands Grazed By Livestock (Platts 1990); and Effects of Cattle
Grazing Systems on Willow-Dominated Plant Associations in Central Oregon
(Kovalchik and Elmore 1990) all contain a dominant theme: different grazing strate¬
gies will result in predictable changes in the vegetation community. Consequently, it
is no longer valid to prescribe grazing management changes based on vague objec¬
tives such as a desire to “improve the range.”
Streamside riparian areas have different vegetation production capacities based on a
range of factors such as soils, hydraulic controls, or slope gradient. Technical Refer¬
ence 1737-3, Inventory and Monitoring of Riparian Areas (Meyers 1989), contains a
comprehensive list of stream segment components affecting potential plant commu¬
nity. Technical Reference 1737-7, Procedures for Ecological Site Inventory (Leonard
et al. 1992), provides the basis for determining the long-term potential vegetation
community associated with a given site. The greenline monitoring method can play
an important role in evaluating whether site-specific riparian vegetation objectives are
being met.
1
II. Purpose
The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) riparian area management policy of
January 22, 1987 (USDI, 1991) contains the following statement:
“Achieve riparian area improvement and maintenance objectives through the
management of existing uses wherever feasible.”
If existing conditions are not established, it will be impossible to determine if condi¬
tions are improving or being maintained. Similarly, if objectives are not established,
success cannot be measured and direction is lost. BLM establishes objectives through
its activity planning process. A well crafted Activity Plan provides clear direction
with five essential features:
1. A description of existing conditions.
2. Measurable objectives.
3. A description of management actions designed to meet the objectives.
4. A description of how progress toward meeting objectives would be monitored.
5. A determination of how and when the plan would be evaluated.
The purpose of the greenline monitoring method is to provide riparian vegetation
information suitable for use in structuring an Activity Plan as described above. The
following sequence can be achieved:
1 . The greenline monitoring method generates baseline data that describe exist¬
ing conditions.
2. From these established existing conditions, measurable riparian vegetation
objectives may be formulated.
3. The site-specific objectives provide the means for selecting a management
strategy.
4. Greenline studies provide the trend data portion of the monitoring plan.
5. Rereading the data in the timeframe specified in the objectives provides the
data necessary for comparative analysis in evaluating the effectiveness of the
plan.
The greenline monitoring method is intended as a tool for land managers to use in
analyzing riparian vegetation. It is considered an addition to, and not a replacement
for, all the existing techniques currently available.
It should be noted that the greenline approach does involve one important limitation.
The central data collection procedure involves a single line intercept transect. With
data from a single transect or plot, statistical analysis, such as confidence intervals,
cannot be computed. However the data generated are not intended as a statistical
sample of the population. Rather they are a description of the transect area popula¬
tion itself. The transect location is carefully, as opposed to randomly, selected.
Regardless, if statistical analysis is to be performed, a different data gathering proce¬
dure may need to be considered.
3
III. The Greenline
A. The Greenline Concept
The greenline concept is designed for measuring vegetation trends on streambanks,
but can be adapted to a variety of circumstances. The method relies on identification
of riparian plant community types on a line intercept transect.
Typically, a soil moisture gradient is exhibited when moving away from the channel
in a riparian area. In a trend transect placed in a typical western floodplain, a differ¬
ent soil moisture could conceivably be encountered at each plot. Attempting to
average the vegetation found in these divergent plots into a single set of data can be
problematic. The greenline is a point of reference that minimizes problems associ¬
ated with changing moisture gradient.
Fixed plots placed in riparian areas are vulnerable to being washed out or silted over.
A greenline transect is a variable plot method that is repeatable independent of peak
flow events.
B. The Greenline Definition
The greenline is defined as that specific area where a more or less continuous cover
of vegetation is encountered when moving away from the center of an observable
channel. Figure 1 is a schematic stream channel cross section illustrating the location
of the greenline. When monitoring a riparian area using the greenline as a point of
reference, the objective is to identify which plant communities occupy the greenline.
By the definition above, a greenline would be encountered at a single point and one
plant community identified. In Figure 1, the greenline on the right side of the
◄ - Upland — - Riparian - — Upland - ►
Green Line Green Line
Figure 1. Stream channel cross section shows the location of the greenline.
5
streambank is a herbaceous vegetation
community. On the left, the greenline is a
shrub-dominated community with a sub¬
dominant herbaceous understory. When
vegetation data are collected, the observer
follows the greenline in a line intercept
transect recording an accumulation of
these points to compile a data set.
The greenline is often, but not necessarily,
located at the water’s edge. Areas such as
unvegetated point bars are handled by
following the line of vegetation behind the
point bar. Vegetation growing in the
channel, and islands of vegetation that do
not form continuous cover, are not part of
the greenline. Figures 2 and 3 are two
examples of locations of the greenline
along stream reaches.
Figure 2. Dotted line shows the location of the
greenline, which follows the continuous
line of vegetation along Trout Creek in
southwest Wyoming.
Figure 3. Dotted line shows the location of the greenline behind a point bar in central Utah.
6
IV. Riparian Community Types
One of the most dramatic differences between upland and riparian vegetation is the
capacity for change with regard to both magnitude and timeframe. Barring major
disturbance, such as fire, a sagebrush/bunchgrass upland plant community is rela¬
tively stable. A realistic objective would involve changes in plant community compo¬
sition over a 30-year period. The sagebrush/bunchgrass community type could be
expected to remain constant. In a riparian area, however, a Nebraska sedge commu¬
nity type could change to a Kentucky bluegrass community type in a fraction of that
period. Furthermore, identification of herbaceous riparian species, one plant at a
time, can be prohibitively difficult, particularly if the area has been grazed. Conse¬
quently, the greenline riparian monitoring method is designed to detect changes in
plant community succession along the greenline rather than change in species compo¬
sition.
The publication Riparian Community Type Classification of Eastern Idaho-Western
Wyoming (Youngblood, Padgett, and Winward 1985) is the prototype for classifying
and developing a knowledge of riparian plant communities. This document contains
an established list of community types that can be determined in the field using a
dichotomous key. Technical Reference 1737-5, Riparian and Wetland Classification
and Review (Gebhardt et al. 1990), provides an overview of comprehensive riparian
classifications available.
If no comprehensive community type classification is available for your area, start
developing one. Riparian community types can be identified by observing dominance
as a function of vegetation cover. Whatever species exhibits the most cover is what is
called the community type. Community types may be defined as a single dominant or
dominant/subdominant combination.
Dominant/subdominants are identified in a size class hierarchy: tree/shrub or shrub/
grass (or grasslike). Community types such as Nebraska sedge with a subdominant of
coyote willow, for example, are not identified. If Nebraska sedge has more canopy
than willow, then the site is recorded as a Nebraska sedge community type. Herba¬
ceous community types normally do not have subdominants, although exceptions
occur. It is normal for community types to occur with several associated species as
minor components.
It is important to work from a compiled list of community types prior to running a
transect. Attempting to identify community types concurrent with running a transect
will result in inconsistent decision making in community type identification and
reduce repeatability of the data. If no local list of community types is available, the
stream reach where the transect is to be run is inspected, and a field list of community
types likely to be encountered along the transect is constructed. Field notes that
describe associated species occurring within the community types identified should
be kept, and a local list of community types observed in the planning area should be
built continuously.
7
V. Field Procedures
The greenline monitoring method actually entails three data collection procedures
designed to generate a compatible data set. Greenline composition, riparian cross-
section composition, and woody species density are the data products. Based on the
site-specific circumstances, it is not always necessary to collect all the data options
described. For this reason the text is structured to provide a general overview of the
concepts and procedure, followed by two case studies in which the concept was
applied in two distinctly different ways. The example applications provide guidelines
regarding installation of transects and data analysis.
A. Materials
1. Three forms entitled Greenline Transect Data, Greenline Supplemental Data,
and Cross-Section Composition (see Appendix A).
2. Camera with film.
3. Six fence posts with post pounder or sledgehammer.
4. Compass.
5. Six readily visible markers; engineering pin flags work well.
6. Calculator.
7. One 6-foot rod.
Note: See the Perennial Creek Study section for a detailed description of how each
of these materials are used.
B. Transect Location
The data will be most useful if a transect is located entirely within a reach of compa¬
rable potential. Within a reach, a key area location without obvious changes in
factors such as slope or soils should be selected.
The greenline monitoring method is particularly useful for observing succession and
trends on sites that are relatively stable. This method has the least utility in stream
reaches that are rapidly changing through factors such as channel headcutting or
beaver activity.
C. Recording Plant Community Data Along the Greenline
The greenline is traversed over the length of an established transect and the number of
feet of each community type observed recorded on the Greenline Transect Data form
found in Appendix A. A running tally of each community type observed is recorded,
making no effort to keep track of the sequence in which the community types were
observed. For example, along the greenline there may be 5 feet of a Nebraska sedge
community type followed by 6 feet of coyote willow/Nebraska sedge, which in turn
are followed by 8 feet of Nebraska sedge. This would be recorded as:
Nebraska sedge
5
13
ft.
Coyote willow/Nebraska sedge
6
ft.
9
Recording Nebraska sedge as “5, 8” with the intention to sum the total at the end is
risky practice because “5, 8” can too easily become “58” when the data are analyzed.
1. Greenline Ground Rules
The following ground rules aid in collecting valid, repeatable data:
• Transects should be a minimum of 726 feet along the greenline; this distance
provides an easy conversion to acreage. This length, 6 feet wide, computes to
1/1 Oth of an acre.
• The width of the community type is not a factor when traversing a line inter¬
cept along the greenline. The objective is to identify the first community type
that can be observed moving away from the center of the channel. Many
factors, such as slope gradient, will determine how far this community type
extends away from the channel. If the width of a community type is consid¬
ered important, a line intercept cross section is run through the riparian area as
a separate database as described in the Cross-Section Transects section.
• One foot is the minimum length along the transect a community type may
occupy to be recorded in the database. Community types shorter than this
should be combined with an adjacent community type. A 726-foot transect
could be considered as 726 1-foot plots where vegetation dominance is ob¬
served.
• The vertical downward projection from the canopy determines the vegetation
identified along the greenline. For example, a large cottonwood tree may
dominate a site even though it is not actually rooted immediately in the
greenline area.
• Community types identified do not have to be riparian vegetation; upland
community types can in many cases be the vegetation occupying the greenline
under the definition.
• Site-specific ground rules such as “only perennial vegetation was considered
in identifying the location of the greenline” may be incorporated if docu¬
mented.
• Since this method relies on the ability to step off distance accurately, it is
recommended that a reliable stride be calibrated along a tape.
• Repeatability is significantly enhanced when data are reread at the same
phenological stage as when the original data were collected.
2. Greenline Troubleshooting
• In some instances, a choice may have to be made between two lines of vegeta¬
tion that appear to meet the greenline definition. When a site is recovering
10
Figure 4. Arrows depict upper and lower continu¬
ous lines of vegetation along Little
Spearfish Creek in western South Dakota.
Since both lines are equally continuous,
the lower line forms the greenline.
Figure 5. Arrows depict upper and lower continu¬
ous lines of vegetation along Canyon
Creek in southwest Wyoming. Since the
upper line is more continuous, the
observer has correctly chosen the upper
line as the correct greenline.
from a recent channel incision or period of heavy trampling, a new line of
vegetation often begins to form at the water’s edge below an old, established
greenline. This can occur on a very short-term basis, such as prior to the
turnout of livestock in a pasture. This common situation is illustrated in
Figures 4 and 5. Consequently, a determination of which line to observe will
have a pronounced effect on the database. In Figure 4, a pure stand of sedges
comprises the lower line, and the upper line is a mixture of sedges, shallow-
rooted grasses, and forbs. When this situation occurs, data are collected on
the line that appears to be most continuous; if they appear to be about the
same, the lower line is used. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate rapid movement of the
greenline over a 7-year period. The data collection procedure is designed to
accommodate the rapid change in stream channel morphology evident in the
photographs.
• A community type titled “trample” or “barren” can be used to skip over gaps
in the greenline caused by trails, etc. However, vegetation that appears
trampled should be recorded whenever possible because the site will likely
appear as a vegetation community type if observed during even a brief rest or
deferment from grazing.
11
Figure 6. Dotted line shows the location of the greenline along Cottonwood Creek in northwest
Wyoming, August 1982.
Figure 7. Dotted line shows the new location of the greenline along the same stream segment seen in
Figure 6, August 1989, after vegetation growth has narrowed the channel width.
• Cut banks opposite point bars (Figure 8) and areas with slumping soils
(Figure 9) present problems in identification of the greenline when
unvegetated soil goes to the edge of the channel. The arrows in Figures 8 and
9 illustrate natural breaks that are commonly encountered in the greenline.
When this occurs, the first option is to reconsider the site as a suitable key
area. In many cases this problem can be avoided by good transect location.
The second option is to follow the continuous line of vegetation behind the
slump or cut, in which case the community type will normally be upland
12
Figure 8. Arrow indicates where the greenline ends abruptly at a cutbank opposite a point bar along
Red Canyon Creek in northwest Wyoming.
Figure 9. Arrows show where slumping soils create breaks in the greenline along Vermillion Creek in
southwest Wyoming.
could result in too much irrelevant upland data. The third option is to follow
the water’s edge, where a greenline may be anticipated to form, until a normal
greenline situation is reencountered.
A “rock” or “log jam” may also be cited to skip over an unvegetated area if
traversing the greenline vegetation in strict accordance with the definition
would result in lower quality data.
13
• When special situations such as those noted above are encountered, a narrative
of how the site was handled should be provided.
D. Woody Species Counts
Density of woody species is an ideal complement to greenline data. The transect is
retraced while holding a 6-foot rod centered over the inside edge of the greenline.
Woody species of specific concern, which are rooted in the plot formed by the 6-foot
rod are counted. These data are being collected in Figure 5. Appendix A contains a
Greenline Supplemental Data form, which is used to quantify woody species in the
transect area. The form allows for the vegetation to be tallied by either age or height
classes.
1. Multistemmed Species
Multistemmed species such as coyote willow or water birch are best tabulated in
the following age categories:
a. Seedling - This year’s growth only. Multistemmed plants such as willows
exhibit only a single stem at this growth stage.
b. Young - Immature plants that appear to show more than a single season’s
growth. Multistemmed plants exhibit 2 to 10 stems at this stage.
c. Mature <50% Dead - Vigorous healthy plants. Multistemmed plants exhibit
more than 10 stems.
d. Mature >50% Dead/Clubbed - Old declining plants; includes “mushroom”
shaped willows and any plants that exhibit a clubbed appearance from long¬
term heavy browsing.
2. Single-Stemmed Species
Single-stemmed species such as cottonwood are best tabulated in height classes:
0 to 3 feet, >3 to 6 feet, >6 to 10 feet, and over 10 feet. It is common to encounter
trees in atypical form as a result of flood events, etc. These trees are tallied at the
height they occur on the day observed. For example, if a 30-foot tree has been
knocked down but remains alive, the tallest part on the day observed may be the
5-foot height of a lower branch.
3. Woody Species Ground Rules
The following ground rules and tips aid in collecting valid, repeatable data:
• The rod is centered on the greenline in order to detect reproduction on point
bars between the greenline and the water’s edge. Generally, where no point
bars are encountered, half of the rod hangs out over the stream channel. When
14
observing narrow streams, only those plants associated with the bank being
traversed are recorded in order to avoid counting plants twice.
• On some transects, seedlings or young plants may be too numerous to readily
count. It is sufficient to note this in lieu of a tally count.
• Identification of individual plants can be difficult, as some judgement is
required to differentiate between an individual plant and a sprout or stem. If it
cannot be reasonably assumed that two stems share a common root without
excavating soil, the two should be tallied as individuals.
• Dead plants are ignored on woody counts.
E. Cross-Section Transects
Appendix A contains a Cross-Section Composition form used to record the plant
community composition of a riparian area in general. To collect these data, a line
intercept transect is run perpendicular to the riparian area, and data are recorded in the
same manner as described in the Recording Data Along the Greenline section. The
data form is designed to record three cross-section transects. In some areas, up to five
cross-section transects may be desirable. In such cases, a second form can be used.
See the Perennial Creek Study section for more information regarding cross-section
transects.
F. Photopoints
Photopoints provide an excellent record in both interpreting the data and aiding in
repeatability. Pictures are taken to show both the transect location and the data
collected. The Greenline Supplemental Data form (Appendix A) contains a place to
record the content of photos taken.
15
VI. Greenline Monitoring Method Applications
The greenline monitoring method can be adapted to observe riparian vegetation in a
variety of circumstances. Following are examples of two diverse applications.
A. Perennial Creek Study
A goal was established to improve trout habitat by increasing vegetation that shades
the creek and is capable of supporting overhanging streambanks. Data are required to
develop measurable objectives associated with this goal. Because Perennial Creek
contains important resource values and is of high public interest, all the types of data
associated with the greenline riparian monitoring method were collected.
Figure 10 is a drawing of how the greenline and three cross-section transects were
established on Perennial Creek. This was accomplished through the following steps:
Step 1 - A witness post was located in upland vegetation at the edge of the ripar¬
ian vegetation zone adjacent to where the greenline transect will be initiated.
Step 2 - A second post was located in upland vegetation across the riparian zone
in a location where a line between the two posts would be perpendicular to the
riparian zone, not the creek. A pin flag was left on the greenline where it inter¬
sects this line between these two witness posts as seen on Figure 10. These two
posts and the pin flag formed the first cross-section transect and the starting point
of the greenline transect. The compass bearing or azimuth of the cross-section
transect was recorded.
Note: Witness posts were located in upland vegetation to prevent them from being
washed out, and to allow for a potential increase in the width of the riparian zone
itself.
Step 3 - The greenline was traversed upstream from the initial pin flag, placing
pin flags at 100, 200, 300, and 363 feet. The stream was crossed and the
greenline traversed back down the opposite bank 363 feet. A final pin flag was
placed there to mark the end of the greenline transect. These markers help the
observer keep track of location within the transect and provide valuable reference
points for photographs.
Note: The final pin flag is not expected to be directly opposite the starting pin
flag.
Step 4 - The second cross-section transect was installed by locating witness posts
in the same manner as in step 2, with the flag at 200 feet at the point of intersec¬
tion along the greenline. In order to be perpendicular to the riparian zone, this
cross-section transect crosses the stream three times (see Figure 10).
17
Key Area T ransects Layout
END OF GREEN LINE
© TRANSECT PIN FLAG
Y (726 FT)
RIPARIAN EDGE
STREAM FLOW
DIRECTION
200 FT PIN FLAG
GREEN LINE TRANSECT
STARTING POINT-
FIRST PIN FLAG
WITNESS POST &
CROSS SECTION
TRANSECT #1
WITNESS POST &
CROSS SECTION
TRANSECT #2
WITNESS POST &
CROSS SECTION
TRANSECT #3
FT
300
363 FT
PIN FLAG
PIN
FLAG
100 FT PIN FLAG
Figure 10. Key area transects layout for the Perennial Creek Study.
Step 5 - The third cross-section transect was installed with the pin flag at 363 feet
as the point of intersection along the greenline.
Note: If the stream channel moves between the time the transects are installed
and reread at a later date, the cross sections will no longer intersect the greenline
at the points 200 and 363 feet along the greenline. However the greenline transect
is always initiated at the point of intersection between the first cross-section
witness posts.
Following installation of the witness posts and marker flags, the greenline and cross-
section transects were traversed according to the general instructions. Figures 1 1 and
12 illustrate data collection on the field forms. Appendix B contains a cross-reference
of all plant names and symbols used in this document.
Note: While traversing the transect, a calculator is helpful because the data do not
provide a running total of the distance along the transect traveled without adding the
sum of all the plant community types observed. It is valuable to stop and sum the
total communities observed at each marker, in order to keep tabs on the consistency
of your stride. At the end of the transect, the sum of all community types observed
came out to 730 feet, which is close enough to the 726 feet traversed when the mark¬
ers were left. A difference greater that 5 percent is considered excessive.
18
Woody species were counted in age classes because the vegetation on the key area is
comprised of multistemmed willows and birches. Figure 13 is an example of data
form tabulation.
GREENLINE TRANSECT DATA
RESOURCE AREA Green River OBSERVER Jim Cagney DATE 7~51~91
KEY AREA NAME Perennial Creek ALLOTMENT # 4007 LOCATION T' 12 N>’ P' 106_^’ 5ec- 7
NWNW
PLANT COMMUNITY # FEET OBSERVED PERCENT
CANE
21
SAEX/CANE
&3147
06
SAEX
TO 16 37 51
07
AGST
3,16 24 31 3740
05
ELPA
^TO 16 25 31 44
06
Trample
SRTS 2£ 31 34
05
DECA
H7
01
Mesic Forbs
x&ii
02
EQAR
%%16T6 2127
04
REOC
15 23
03
ARCA
'SORTS 14 21
03
ARTR/AGDA
16 22 30 35 44 5162 71
10
JURA
615 16 37 45 50 70 75 90
12
REOC/CANE
1216 30 31
04
POPR
05 1§ 27 26 34 44 46
06
ARCA/JURA
6610 20 25 25 33
05
TOTALS 730
100
Figure 11. Example of greenline data collection.
19
CROSS-SECTION COMPOSITION
RESOURCE AREA Green River OBSERVER Jim Cagney DATE 7~51~91
KEY AREA NAME Perennial Creek ALLOTMENT #4007_ LOCATION T. 12 N., R. 106 W., Sec. 7
NWNW
PLANT COMMUNITY and # FEET OBSERVED
TRANSECT #1 BEARING £5°W _ TOTAL RIPARIAN WIDTH 195'
ARTR/JUPA X12
POPR X23 2£3S
SAEX XXX 12
Creek 2
JURA H 22 27
CANE XX 14
TRANSECT #2 BEARING
ARTR/JUPA XI# a 22
POPR XXI 40
JUPA XT2 T# 23
SAEX/CANE XX12
ANRO X15
Creek XX 7
TOTAL RIPARIAN WIDTH 1g>0'
PECA X7
SAEX XI# 24
AGST 25
TRANSECT #3 BEARING
5°N
TOT A I . RIPARIAN WIDTH 65'
ARTR 4
PECA 1RX 20
CANE 3
SAEX X16
Creek 4
SAEX/CANE XX 14
POPR XI# 24
Figure 12. Example of cross-section data collection.
GREENLINE SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
RESOURCE AREA Green River observer Jim Cagney DATE 7"51-91
KEY AREA NAME Perennial Creek ALLOTMENT # 4007 LOCATION T. 12 N., P. 106 W., Sec. 7
NWNW
WOODY SPECIES COUNTS
AGE CLASS OPTION
SPECIES
SEEDLING
YOUNG
MATURE
MATURE
<50% DEAD
>50% DEAD
SAEX
numerous
S3
: ©
©
SEOC
a:: ®
■j ©
: ©
HEIGHT CLASS OPTION
SPECIES
0-3'
>3-6'
>6-10'
>10'
PHOTOS TAKEN/REMARKS:
Transect located on Perennial Creek, 1.7 miles east of Uncle Silly’s Cabin on county
road #17.
- Utilization of CANE is about 35%; cattle currently using the area.
Photos:
1) First cross section witness post. 2) Start marker in foreground, 100' marker in
background. 3) 300' marker foreground, 363' marker background. 4) 363' marker in
foreground looking upstream beyond the transect area. 5) 2nd cross section.
6) 3rd cross section.
Figure 13. Example of multistemmed woody species data collection.
21
Greenline data may be analyzed as shown in Table 1. In this example, plant commu¬
nities were identified as “preferred,” “undesirable,” or “other” according to their
value for watershed stability, ability to shade the creek, ability to form overhanging
banks, and forage.
Table 1. Data Analysis — Perennial Application
Description of the Perennial Creek Key Area
Preferred
Undesirable
Other
Community Types
Community Types
Community Types
(Percent)
(Percent)
(Percent)*
Plant communities observed in the greenline transect:
SAEX
07
ARCA
03
ARCA/JUBA
05
CANE
21
ARTR/AGDA
10
ELPA
06
BEOC
03
TRAMPLE
05
EQAR
04
JUBA
12
POPR
06
AGST
05
DECA
01
MESIC FORBS
02
BEOC/CANE
04
SAEX/CANE
06
TOTAL
54
26
20
Plant communities observed (in aggregate) in the cross-section transects:
DECA
07
POPR
28
ARTR/JUBA
09
CANE
11
ANRO
04
AGST
07
SAEX
07
ARTR
01
SAEX/CANE
07
CREEK
02
JUBA
15
TOTAL
47
33
18
Other community types include features that are neither preferred nor undesirable,
such as some creek crossings, rock outcrops, and some vegetation communities.
Communities having similar values were grouped together to establish the desired
plant community objectives shown on Table 2. Desired plant community objectives
were based on the specific site capability and formulated by an interdisciplinary team
Additional objectives were developed from the other data collected, involving the
amount and age structure of key woody riparian species, and the width and composi¬
tion of the riparian area itself.
Note: The occurrence of additional willow and sedge species would be considered
advantageous; however, only species currently present were cited in the 5-year term
desired plant community objectives. Use of short-term objectives is recommended
when the long-term potential cannot be determined with an acceptable degree of
confidence. However, it should be clearly stated that the short-term objectives are
considered an incremental step to be updated at the scheduled evaluation.
22
Table 2. Riparian Community Type Objectives
Greenline Plant
Community Types (CTs)
1992
Desired Plant Community
1997
SAEX-BEOC DOMINANT CTs
20%
INCREASE TO
30%
CANE
21%
INCREASE TO
30%
JUBA
12%
MAINTAIN AT
15%
POPR, FORB, ARTR, & ARCA CTs
26%
DECREASE TO
10%
OTHER
21%
DECREASE TO
15%
By 1997:
• Increase the dominance of preferred community types in the cross-section
transects by 10 percent, with a corresponding decrease in undesirable community
types.
• Maintain or increase existing average riparian width of 123 feet.
• Allow at least 10 of the young or seedling willow and birch plants to reach the
mature stage and maintain the existing age structure, given all size classes repre¬
sented, with the younger classes most numerous.
B. Intermittent Creek Study
The Intermittent Creek Drainage is an important source of sedimentation in a major
river system. A goal was established to increase those plant communities that pro¬
mote channel stability. Site-specific data were needed to evaluate grazing manage¬
ment in an allotment containing 2 miles of the creek.
In this 2-mile reach, flow volume and duration are greater in the upper reaches,
declining steadily lower in the drainage. While a greenline is apparent in the upper
reaches, intermittent, unreliable flow in the lower reaches produces areas of spotty
riparian vegetation establishment, particularly on point bars, where no greenline can
readily be observed. Because this stream produced riparian vegetation in sporadic
patches, a determination was made that the cross-section transects would not provide
meaningful information; consequently, they were omitted from the study.
The stream was divided into three key area reaches of similar site potential as a
function of water availability. These reaches of similar potential are of unequal
length as shown on Figure 14. Materials needed included the Greenline Transect
Data and Greenline Supplemental Data forms and a camera with film.
23
Figure 14. Transect layout — Intermittent Creek study.
A preliminary evaluation revealed four preferred riparian community types, including
Nebraska sedge, baltic rush, coyote willow, and narrowleaf cottonwood. A greenline
transect was traversed along both banks of the creek. When preferred riparian com¬
munities were encountered, their lengths were recorded according to the general
instructions. When other community types excluded from this list (such as rabbit¬
brush, Canada wildrye, and wheatgrasses) were encountered along the greenline, or
no greenline was apparent, no data were recorded until another reach exhibiting a
preferred community type was encountered. Collection of this information continued
for the entire length of Intermittent Creek in the allotment. In essence, an inventory
of the entire riparian resource was conducted, except to save time, only selected
community types were observed. The field data sheets were generated in the same
manner shown in the Perennial Creek application, and the organized results are
shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Intermittent Creek Riparian Community Type Data (1992)
Riparian Community Type
Number Feet Observed
Upper
Reach
II
Reach
Lower
Reach
Total
Coyote willow
295
670
379
1,344
Nebraska sedge
191
477
272
940
Narrowleaf cottonwood
36
168
102
306
Baltic rush
90
323
165
578
Aggregate Total
612
1,638
918
3,168
24
Cottonwood trees were counted in the four height classes shown in Table 4. The data
display the number of individuals in each height class. The entire riparian area was
observed, in all three key area reaches. Consequently Table 4 displays all the indi¬
vidual trees known to exist in the entire allotment.
Table 4. Intermittent Creek Tree Species Data ( 1992)
Cottonwood Height Class Distribution (Feet)
Key Area
Reach
0-3
>3-6
>6-10
>10
Total
Upper
03
07
02
02
14
II
07
36
14
05
62
Lower
18
38
13
03
72
Total
28 (19%)
81 (55%)
29 (19%)
10 (7%)
148 (100%)
Fifteen mapped, readily identifiable photopoints were established in support of the
vegetation data.
As noted, the key area reaches derived by streamflow duration were not equal in
length. Table 5 shows the percentage of all four preferred riparian plant communities
considered in aggregate, relative to the total length of the reach. Table 5 demon¬
strates that the four preferred community types decline in abundance in the lower
reaches.
Note: The linear length shown on Table 5 was computed by measuring the length of
each reach on the 1:24,000 topography map scale. The vegetation data were collected
by traversing the greenline along the creek incorporating each meander at its actual
length. The percentages shown on Table 5 are an index of abundance because they
compare actual field-scale vegetation data to map-scale linear length of reach data.
Table 5. Percentage of Preferred Riparian Community Types ( CTs)for Each Key Area Reach
Key Area
Reach
Aggregate
Length, All
Preferred CTs
Linear Length
of Reach
Preferred CT
Percentage
Upper
612
1,200
51
Middle
1,638
4,200
39
Lower
918
5,100
18
Totals
3,168
10,500
25
Table 6 depicts the number of cottonwoods in each key area reach adjusted to address
divergent reach length. The length of each reach was divided by the total number of
trees observed to yield the number of feet per tree (feet/tree), a relative measure of
tree species density. The lower the feet/tree observed, the greater the abundance of
cottonwoods. Table 6 shows that the cottonwood numbers did not appear to decline
in the lower reaches in conjunction with reliability of surface water, as do the com¬
munity types shown in Table 5. This is considered an important determination in
assessing site potential.
Table 6. Abundance of Cottonwoods by Reach
Key Area
Reach
Linear Length
of Reach
Total Number
of T rees
Observed
Number of
Feet/Tree
Observed
Upper
1,200
14
86
Middle
4,200
62
68
Lower
5,100
72
71
Tables 4 and 6 indicate that while ample tree species regeneration exists, the trees
were concentrated in the lower height classes and were not “releasing” into height
classes above 6 feet. Table 7 shows an analysis of the height class distribution for
each of the three key area reaches, when the trees are classified as either greater than
or less than 6 feet tall.
Table 7. Riparian Tree Species Height Class Distribution
Key Area
Reach
Total Number
Riparian Trees
Number
up to
6 Feet
Number
Greater Than
6 Feet
Upper
14
10
4
Middle
62
43
19
Lower
72
56
16
Totals
148
109
39
Given these data and subsequent analysis, the following objectives were established
for Intermittent Creek over a 5-year period (1997):
1. Increase the preferred community type percentages depicted on Table 5 for
each reach by a minimum of 5 percent. This objective will have to be consid¬
ered in conjunction with streamflow volume data, as noted in the discussion
associated with Table 5.
2. Maintain or increase cottonwood numbers. It is expected that these cotton¬
wood objectives can be achieved independently of streamflow volume.
26
3. Allow sufficient release of tree species such that a minimum of 10 percent
(approximately 10 trees) of those individuals currently less than 6 feet tall
release into the height classes over 6 feet. About half that total should occur
in the lower key area reach.
27
VII. Relationship and Use with BLM Planning and
Implementation Processes
BLM will “prescribe management for riparian values that is based upon site-specific
characteristics and settings” (USDI, 1991). While Resource Management Plans may
contain general objectives or goal statements of broad intent, Activity Plans require
site-specific measurable objectives designed to be achieved within established
timeframes. The greenline monitoring method provides the means for establishing
baseline data from which site-specific objectives can be determined. Desired plant
community objectives can be developed in accordance with BLM Manual H- 1734-1,
Vegetation Management Handbook.
29
VIII. Conclusion
Riparian objectives must be developed through an interdisciplinary approach. Prior
to establishing transects, the overall goals must be established by an interdisciplinary
team in order to determine where and what type of studies will be required. Once this
information has been derived, the greenline monitoring method is a viable alternative
for developing the vegetation portion of an Activity Plan. Greenline vegetation data
are an ideal complement to data collected by wildlife and fishery biologists, soil
scientists, and hydrologists, in order to evaluate the complex relationships found in
riparian areas.
Literature Cited
Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the
Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11pp.
Gebhardt, K., S. Leonard, G. Staidl, and D. Prichard. 1990. Riparian area
management: Riparian and wetland classification and review. USDI, BLM/YA/
PT-9 1/002+ 1737, Denver, CO. 56pp.
Kinch, G. 1989. Riparian area management: Grazing management in riparian areas.
USDI, BLM/YA/PT-89/02 1 + 1737, Denver, CO. 48pp.
Kovalchik, B.L., and W. Elmore. 1991. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-
dominated plant associations in central Oregon. In Ecology and Management of
Riparian Shrub Communities Symposium Proceedings. Sun Valley, ID, pp. 111-
119.
Leonard, S., G. Staidl, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, W. Hagenbuck, and D. Prichard. 1992.
Riparian area management: Procedures for ecological site inventory. USDI, BLM/
SC/PT -92/004+ 1737, Denver CO. 137pp.
Meyers, L.H. 1989. Riparian area management: Inventory and monitoring of riparian
areas. USDI, BLM/YA/PT-87/022+1737, Denver, CO. 89pp.
Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock.
Nevada Department of Wildlife. 96pp.
USDI. 1991. Riparian-wetland initiative for the 1990’s. BLM/WO/GI-9 1/00 1+4340,
Denver, CO. 50pp.
Youngblood, A.P., W.G. Padgett, and A.H Winward. 1985. Riparian community type
classification of eastern Idaho- western Wyoming. USDA, FS/P4-ECOL-85-01,
Salt Lake City, UT. 78pp.
33
Appendix A
Data Forms
GREENLINE TRANSECT DATA
RESOURCE AREA _ OBSERVER _ DATE _
KEY AREA NAME _ ALLOTMENT # _
LOCATION _
PLANT COMMUNITY # FEET OBSERVED PERCENT
37
CROSS-SECTION COMPOSITION
RESOURCE AREA _ OBSERVER _ DATE
KEY AREA NAME _ ALLOTMENT # _
LOCATION _
PLANT COMMUNITY and # FEET OBSERVED
TRANSECT#! BEARING: _ TOTAL RIPARIAN WIDTH
TRANSECT #2 BEARING _ TOTAL RIPARIAN WIDTH
TRANSECT #3 BEARING _ TOTAL RIPARIAN WIDTH
GREENLINE SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
RESOURCE AREA _ OBSERVER _ DATE _
KEY AREA NAME _ ALLOTMENT # _
LOCATION _
WOODY SPECIES COUNTS
AGE CLASS OPTION
SPECIES SEEDLING YOUNG MATURE MATURE
<50% DEAD >50% DEAD
HEIGHT CLASS OPTION
SPECIES 0-3' >3-6’ >6-10' >10'
PHOTOS TAKEN/REMARKS:
Appendix B
Common/Scientific Plant Names
and Symbols
Symbol
Common Name
Scientific Name
AGDA
thickspike wheatgrass
Agropyron dasystachyum
ANRO
rose pussytoes
Antennaria rosa
AGST
red top
Agrostis stolonifera
ARCA
silver sage
Artemisia cana
ARTR
big sagebrush
Artemisia tridentata
BEOC
water birch
Betula occidentalis
CANE
Nebraska sedge
Carex nebraskensis
CHVI
green rabbitbrush
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus
DECA
tufted hairgrass
Deschampsia caespitosa
ELPA
creeping spikesedge
Eleocharis palustris
EQAR
horsetail
Equisetum arvense
JUBA
baltic rush
Juncus balticus
POPR
Kentucky bluegrass
Poa pratensis
POAN
narrowleaf cottonwood
Populus angustifolia
SAEX
coyote willow
Salix exigua
.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993—774-003 / 62021 REGION NO. 8
45
• -r n, V
• 1
!
• . y
*
*
*•
koG-.^
C*H^C° .
ni.-7
■£ '
o
o
3
a
f — H
O
a
<D
tD
i-j*
a
.fc*
ft
i—*
o
H-
a
a
„n
M-
15
ts
4
VJQ
a
>d
H*
,n
n ■
rr$
CU
ro
•a
a
Q
l-'
• *
QH 541,5 , "R 5 ? C 3 3 6 1 99 3 c .
Gref n l i ri e r i p a r a n ~ wet 1 a n *1
i.
mc-n i t or i nq : r ipar i an at e
blm library ...
f ENVER federal center
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11