U.S.D.A. Forest Service. National Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Protocol. Test of Core Protocol: Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont, U.S.

Transcription

1 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

2

3 Table of Contents Introduction About LANDS Feedback and Recommendations General Transects Vegetation Sampling Fluvial Geomorphology Proposed Data Sheet Templates Line Point Intercept Trees Geomorphological Analysis of Transect Test of Core Protocol Data Sheets Sparks Brook, Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont

4 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 7 th through 10 th, 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

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 Proposed Data Sheet Templates Developed by the UVM LANDS Crew July

9 Study Date Examiner(s) Reach Riparian Core Protocol Data Form: Line Point Intercept Study Date Examiner(s) Reach Transect 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 Key: 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 7

10 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

11 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

12 Test of Core Protocol Data Sheets Sparks Brook, Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont Collected by the UVM LANDS Crew July

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32