Draftvegetationprotocol2

Draft Guidance for
Vegetation Planning and Monitoring in
Western Oregon Wetlands and Riparian Areas:
Using Reference Sites to Help Plan and Evaluate
Vegetation Performance of Mitigation Sites
By John L. Marshall
April 4, 2007

Acknowledgments
This document was developed under the guidance of a primary technical advisory committee and a
number of additional technical advisors. Members of the primary committee include Kathy Pendergrass
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist), John Marshall (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist), Larry
Devroy (Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) Mitigation Specialist), and Robert Frenkel (Professor
emeritus Oregon State University). Other contributors include, George Kral (Tualatin River Keepers),
Larry Reigel (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Geographic Information System Specialist), Dan Perritt (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist), Ron Thom (Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory ), and Paul Adamus
(Independent Consultant). Cat Brown (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist) provided valuable editing
and organizational assistance. Charts, tables, and document creation were provided by Sherry Wachter.

Abstract
This document provides guidance on vegetation planning and monitoring protocols for western
Oregon wetland and riparian areas. It is based on a presumption that reference sites can be used to help
develop vegetation plans and performance standards for compensatory mitigation sites. The guidance
recommends using relatively undisturbed reference sites that closely match the hydrogeomorphic and soil
conditions of the corresponding proposed mitigation sites. By recommending consistent monitoring
protocols and vegetation performance standards, it provides a means to evaluate the abilities of various
mitigation implementation strategies (e.g. dike breaching, drain tile breaking, invasive plant removal, ditch
filling, native vegetation planting, etc.) to meet the targeted design vegetation performance standards and
to compare targeted vegetation outcomes against the actual outcomes. The data collected from
compensatory mitigation projects that use the guidance should be useful in helping resource managers
develop improved vegetation contingency plans, adaptive management strategies, performance
standards, and implementation strategies for future mitigation projects. Iterative applications of this
guidance should help increase the number and quality of compensatory mitigation vegetation successes
in this area over time. A vegetation manager (VEMA) relational database is provided with the guidance to
enable users to automatically record, calculate, and report vegetation performance. Provision of guidance
such as this, which emphasizes vegetation, is not intended to diminish the importance of monitoring and
assessing the performance of other key components of wetlands, such as water regime, soils, wildlife,
and overall function.

Table of Contents
Introduction 1
General Guidance on Reference and Mitigation Site Selection, Classification, and Stratification 2
Reference Site Selection 2
Reference Sites, Contingency Plans, and Adaptive Management 3
Selection of Mitigation Sites 4
Preliminary Planting Plans for Compensatory Mitigation Sites 4
Reference and Mitigation Site Classification 6
Reference and Mitigation Site Habitat Class Stratification 6
Specific Guidance on Using Reference Sites for Determining Planting Plans and
Vegetation Performance Standards at Compensatory Mitigation Sites 8
Primary Performance Standard (Emergent/Herbaceous Habitat Class) 9
Secondary Performance Standard (Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie) 9
Primary Performance Standard (Forest and Shrub Habitat Classes) 9
Office Methods for Reference Site Field Preparation 9
Reference Site Field Methods 12
Establishing the Baseline 12
Establishing the Transects and Sample Plots and Collecting Field Data 13
Emergent/Herbaceous Habitat Class 13
Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie Habitat Class 13
Scrub-shrub Habitat Class 13
Forest Habitat Class 14
Layered Habitat Class 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Manually Calculating Vegetation Performance 15
Emergent/Herbaceous Habitat Class 15
Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie Habitat Class 16
Scrub-shrub Habitat Class 17
Forest Habitat Class 18
Sampling Compensatory Mitigation Sites 20
Summary and Conclusion 22
References 24

Appendices
Appendix I. Guidelines on How to Stratify an Aerial Photograph 25
Appendix II. Field Data Collection Forms 28
Appendix III. Office and Field Equipment Lists 29
Appendix IV. Guidelines on Calculating Site Level Moisture Tolerance Indexes 30
Appendix V. Vegetation Manager (VEMA) Relational Database 31
Appendix VI. Glossary 32
Appendix VII. Selecting and Substituting Plant Species and Plant Genotypes 33
Appendix VIII. Securing Aerial Photographs for Sampling 34
Appendix IX. Additional Data Needs 35

Tables
Table 1. Habitat Systems and Classes in Which Performance 6
Standards and Monitoring Protocols are Applicable
Table 2. Sample Unit and Sample Grid Code 10
Table 3. Vegetation Cover Class Parameters 13
Table 4. Example Use of Reference Site to Help Determine 16
Preliminary Mitigation Site Planting Goal and Performance Standards
(Emergent/Herbaceous Habitat Class)
Table 5. Example Use of Reference Site to Help Determine Preliminary 18
Mitigation Site Planting Goal and Performance Standards
(Willamette Valley Wet Prairie Habitat Class)
Table 6. Example Use of Reference Site to Help Determine Preliminary 19
Mitigation Site Planting Goal and Performance Standards
(Forested Habitat Class)

Figures
Figure 1. Stratification of Sample Units on Aerial Photographs 10
Figure 2. Display of Sample Grids in Sample Units 10
Figure 3. Display of Systematic Sampling from a Random Point 11
Figure 4. Sample Plot Orientation on Transects in Open/Emergent 12
Herbaceous Class Habitat
Figure 5. Sample Plot Orientation on Transects in Scrub-Shrub Habitat Class 13
Figure 6. Sample Plot Orientation on Transects in Forest Habitat Class 14
Figure 7. Sample Plot Orientation on Transects in Layered Habitat Class 15
Figure 8. Sampling Compensatory Mitigation Sites 20
Figure 9. Species-Area Curve (Daubenmire 1968) 20

Draft Guidance for Vegetation Planning and Monitoring in
Western Oregon Wetlands and Riparian Areas:
Using Reference Sites to Help Plan and Evaluate
Vegetation Performance of Mitigation Sites
INTRODUCTION
Compensatory mitigation for loss of wetland and riparian habitat that is beneficial to fish and wildlife is
a common requirement in environmental regulatory actions; such as Federal, State, and local government
permits. Compensatory mitigation performance standards are routinely required as permit conditions and
are subsequently monitored and used to help evaluate the success of compensatory mitigation sites
(National Research Council 2001). The current rates of success for compensatory mitigation sites
nationally and regionally are not encouraging (National Research Council 2001).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and other resource agencies commonly make
recommendations and/or impose direct compensatory mitigation requirements, depending on the
authorities under which an activity is permitted or licensed. Follow-up on monitoring, and subsequent
enforcement of compensatory mitigation performance standards, has been underutilized. Both the
scientific foundation and the administration of monitoring are lacking (National Research Council 2001).
Compensatory mitigation monitoring and reporting are inconsistent both in terms of the methods required
to collect monitoring data and the performance standards used to help gauge compensatory mitigation
success (Devroy 2004).
Vegetation performance standards are routinely used to help evaluate compensatory wetland and
riparian mitigation success. Regulatory agencies often recommend that mitigators use reference sites to
help plan and evaluate compensatory mitigation site vegetation performance standards (Washington
Department of Ecology et al 2004). However, there is very little technical guidance on how to do this.
This guidance document is intended to help fill this technical gap. The guidance has three primary
components: 1) vegetation monitoring protocols for reference and mitigation sites; 2) preliminary planting
plans for compensatory mitigation sites, and 3) vegetation performance standards for compensatory
mitigation sites. By recommending consistent vegetation monitoring protocols and performance
standards, application of the guidance offers a standard means to help evaluate the abilities of various
mitigation implementation strategies (e.g. dike breaching, drain tile breaking, invasive plant removal, ditch
filling, native vegetation planting, etc.) to meet the targeted design vegetation performance standards.
The vegetation data acquired through the application of the guidance will also be available for
comparisons of targeted vegetation outcomes with the actual vegetation outcomes.
The performance standards and monitoring protocol in this guidance document were determined
through a consensus agreement based on the best professional judgements of the members of the
primary technical advisory committee and secondary advisors, including professional compensatory
mitigation consultants in the private sector. They are based on their collective expertise and knowledge

on Oregon vegetation ecology and vegetation field methods. To help facilitate this cooperative approach,
a vegetation manager (VEMA) relational database has been developed and can be downloaded using a
Northwest Habitat Institute FTP site link provided in Appendix V. This database should enable users to
efficiently record, calculate, and share standardized vegetation performance reports.
VEMA is intended to: 1) provide a defensible and reliable vehicle for collecting vegetation data from
reference sites for use in both designing preliminary planting plans and monitoring vegetation at
mitigation sites, 2) aid in the consistency of the vegetation information collected from reference sites and
mitigation sites, 3) provide comparable vegetation performance standards for evaluating the relative
success of compensatory mitigation projects, and 4) ultimately keep a record of data that can be used to
help resource and regulatory agencies steadily improve their ability to prescribe legally and ecologically
defensible mitigation vegetation performance standards.
GENERAL GUIDANCE ON REFERENCE AND MITIGATION SITE SELECTION,
CLASSIFICATION, AND STRATIFICATION
Reference Site Selection. Reference sites should be: 1) in the same watershed (5th or 4th Field
Hydrologic Unit, in order of preference) as the proposed mitigation site, 2) relatively undisturbed, and 3)
closely match the hydrogeomorphic and soil conditions of the corresponding proposed mitigation sites
(Washington Department of Ecology et al 2004). Generally, reference sites should meet the
performance standard thresholds recommended in this guidance.
1
This should help encourage the
selection of reference sites that are relatively undisturbed as compared to the overall watershed in which
they are located.
2
In many urban and urbanizing watersheds, it may be very difficult or impossible to find suitable
reference sites that meet the recommended performance standard thresholds. In those circumstances,
one option would be to go outside the immediate watershed to find an adequate reference site. At a
minimum, the selection of a suitable reference site should be made while considering the following
factors: 1) proximity to the proposed mitigation site (generally the closer the better); and 2) the relative
degree of alteration of the watershed under consideration. If an adequate reference site cannot be found;
access to the only suitable reference site in the area is denied by landowners; or the distance to the next
suitable reference site is impractical, the following is recommended:
1. Look for alternative vegetation data sets collected in the ecoregion of your mitigation site
(e.g.,http://www.nativeseednetwork.org) and, for the habitats that are targeted. Substitute one or
more of the available regional data sets for the data that would otherwise be collected at
1
In some watersheds it may not be possible to find a reference site that meets the performance thresholds
recommended in this guidance. If the ambient conditions of a watershed are judged to significantly limit the ability
of a given mitigation site to meet the recommended performance thresholds, lowering the thresholds through
adaptive management may be the only viable option. Hopefully this option will be the exception and not the rule.
Also, on a case-by-case basis, agencies may determine offsite mitigation is more advisable for impacts to resources
in a given heavily disturbed watershed.
2
Ideally native plant species lists, relative abundances, and performance thresholds derived for both reference site
selection and mitigation site evaluation would be derived through iterative monitoring (using the performance
criteria thresholds in this guidance as initial target goals) of the least disturbed sites in their respective watersheds.

reference sites and retain the use of the performance standards in this guidance to judge
mitigation site success or failure.
For reference sites located on private land, it will be necessary to contact the landowner and ask for
permission to visit their property to collect the reference data. In order to minimize refusals, it may be
helpful to contact the land owner through a local watershed council or through other land owners who
have cooperated with such efforts in the past. It may also be advisable to prepare a brief handout
explaining the purpose and methods of monitoring reference sites as well as the special precautions that
will be taken to help alleviate any misgivings a landowner may have about allowing their property to be
used as a reference site (Adamus 2004).
The physical characteristics used to determine reference site/compensatory mitigation site matches
include but are not limited to: elevation, slope aspect, soils, land form, and hydrology (Washington
Department of Ecology et al 2004). The match determinations between reference sites and proposed
mitigation sites should be made considering the expected conditions at the mitigation sites after all
landform and hydrologic alterations are completed. Reference sites that are reasonably secure from
development because of public ownership and/or that are protected through third party conservation
easements are preferred.
For the purposes of this guidance, mitigation site designers should sample a minimum of one
reference site habitat class for each habitat class targeted at the mitigation site. However, multiple
reference sites for a single habitat class in the same watershed are encouraged. This would allow the
collection of a vegetation data set that better reflects the range of variability of vegetation in the subject
watershed. This data can then be used accordingly in the design of the mitigation site vegetation plan
and performance standards (Adamus 2004).
For mitigation sites targeted to contain forested habitat, it may be advisable to select two or more
reference sites at different stages of succession (Washington Department of Ecology et al 2004). The
reference site representing the earlier successional sere would then be used for determining the initial
species and stem densities for planting. A more mature reference site could be used as a template for
supplemental planting once the mitigation site has acquired a canopy sufficient to protect more shade
tolerant species (e.g., western red cedar, dogwood, vine maple, or western hemlock). Depending on
stand density, partial thinning may be advisable at this time.
Reference Sites, Contingency Plans, and Adaptive Management. In addition to providing planting
strategies and performance standards, reference sites can be used to help determine if a problem
documented at a compensatory mitigation site is likely caused by on-site management factors (e.g., bark
girdling by beavers) or a more regional environmental issue, such as a drought. In other words, if the
same problem documented at the compensatory mitigation site is also documented at the reference site,
it is more likely a regional issue and adaptive management is likely the best solution. If the problem is
only found at the compensatory mitigation site, it is more likely a management issue that can be resolved
using a contingency plan (e.g., replanting and establishing herbivory guards). Of course, deciding
between adaptive management or a contingency plan is a judgment call and reference sites should be
used as just one source of information to help make that decision.

Selection of Mitigation Sites. Where feasible, this guidance recommends strategically placing
compensatory mitigation in areas that either expand the boundaries of existing reference sites or help
connect fish and wildlife dispersal corridors between existing reference sites. Remote sensing imagery
(e.g., aerial photographs) can be used in combination with local natural area inventories and ground
recognizance to help locate potential compensatory mitigation sites.
The selection of mitigation sites will be dependent on a number of social, political, economic, and
ecological factors. These factors may include but are not limited to the following:
1. Whether regulatory agencies are requiring on-site or off-site mitigation;
2. Distance from reference site (generally the closer the better);
3. Locations of adequate sources of hydrology;
4. Locations of areas relatively free of large pockets of nonnative invasive plants and nonnative
predators (e.g., bullfrogs);
5. Locational opportunities to restore native fish and/or wildlife habitat;
6. Locational opportunities to reconnect fragmented habitat areas and provide historic fish and
wildlife passage;
7. Locational opportunities to restore historically depleted habitat or threatened and endangered
species; and
8. Locational opportunities to utilize mitigation sites prioritized in a watershed restoration plan,
endangered species recovery plan, or a similar regional planning strategy.
Preliminary Planting Plans for Compensatory Mitigation Sites. This guidance is based on the
presumption that one or more reference sites can be used to provide a preliminary vegetation planting
plan for the corresponding mitigation site. This presumption is, contingent on the reference site occu-
pying the same hydrogeomorphic class and a similar soil series as the proposed mitigation site.
However, there are a significant number of plant and mitigation site related variables that affect the final
selection of species and relative abundance of species for planting.
For woody species, it is relatively easy to count, by species, the number of live woody stems per acre
documented at the reference site and then to prescribe, by species, that same stem density for planting at
the compensatory mitigation site. Assuming moderate to good survival, the stem density planted can be
immediately calculated and verified to exist on the ground for each of the species planted. Basically, for
each native stem counted at the reference site, there is a stem planted at the mitigation site. However, a
number of other factors need to be considered before establishing a final planting plan (e.g., locally
available stock in sufficient quantities, condition of stock, suitable storage availability, budget, etc.).
Herbaceous species are generally even more problematic than woody species. First, herbaceous
propagules used in mitigation planting plans are often in the form of seed. A number of factors, including
but not limited to the following must be taken under consideration when developing a viable seed mix

(Packard and Mutel et al 1997): 1) existing site conditions; 2) vegetation goals; 3) grass-to-forb ratio; 4)
seed quality; 5) seeding rates and seed size; 6). germination rates and reliability of each species; 7)
species specific ecological behavior; 8) efficiency of seeding technique; 9) season of planting; 10) budget;
and 11) seed availability. Asexual propagation is an alternative for many species (Packard and Mutel et
al 1997) but these strategies also come with complications (e.g., restricted genetic diversity, labor
intensive planting, and the vulnerability of injured plant structures to diseases).
Additionally, there is high variability in site preparation treatments depending largely on the existing
mitigation site conditions and targeted design habitats. Seeding and weed control methods alone vary
tremendously depending on site conditions and mitigation goals (Packard and Mutel et al 1997). The
number and magnitude of complicating factors affecting our ability to define relationships between
reference site data and a mitigation site planting plans for all the habitats in western Oregon are beyond
the scope of this guidance.
So, is it feasible to use reference sites to help prescribe planting plans for compensatory mitigation
sites? One potential body of work we can look to for assistance in answering this question are the
publications associated with the restoration of tallgrass prairie, savanna, and woodlands of central North
America. After years of effort, seed planting plans are now being generated for specific central North
American prairie types, on specific soil conditions (Packard and Mutel et al 1997). Most importantly,
these planting plans offer a means to help derive specific vegetation goals from prescribed seed mixes
tested through many iterations of trial and error.
As sophisticated as these seed mixes are, each mitigation site planting is an experiment and,
ultimately, the site will dictate species survival, abundance, and persistence over time. Compensatory
mitigation is an on-going experiment for all parties involved and the collective knowledge on this subject
in the Pacific Northwest is considerably less than our counterparts in the central United States and
Canada (Pendergrass 2004).
We will likely nearly always be shy of taking a plant list directly from a reference site and transferring
the list unchanged into a vegetation planting plan for a mitigation site; especially for the more complex
wetland plant communities such as wetgrass prairie. However, in the interest of improving our chances in
this direction over time, we should continue to try and use reference sites to help establish preliminary
plant lists for compensatory mitigation sites. On a case-by-case basis, final lists will be compiled after
sifting through the full litany of additional considerations, including but not necessarily limited to the
following:
1. Existing mitigation site condition (e.g., soil moisture regime, existing weedy invasive species,
existing seed bank, etc.);
2. Mitigation site preparation plan to meet target reference site condition (e.g., eradication of pasture
grasses, ditch filling, excavation to water table, dike breaching, etc.);
3. Source, availability, quality, and quantity of plant materials;
4. Seeding and maintenance technologies available; and

5. Budget
Despite the formidable hurdles discussed above, this guidance recommends that every effort feasible
be made to retain the fidelity of the preliminary reference site based planting goals. Hopefully, over time,
and many iterations of trial and error, it will become increasingly easier to do so.
Reference and
Mitigation Site
Classification.
Development/mitigation
projects reviewed by
resource and regulatory
agencies are usually
centered around aquatic
environments. The
aquatic environments
most likely affected by
development projects
are wetlands, streams,
rivers and their
associated riparian
areas. Largely following
Cowardin et al 1979 and
Adamus 2001, these
aquatic environments
are modified and
classified in Table 1.
While the performance
standards and the
monitoring protocols in
this guidance focus on
vegetation, there is an underlying presumption that hydrology, geomorphology, and soils play a critical
role in the ability of plant species to establish themselves and persist over time and that they further affect
the floral and structural characteristics of vegetation. Perhaps most importantly, there is a presumption
that the underlying habitat elements associated with vegetation play a critical role in defining specific fish
and wildlife habitat functions and the overall biological integrity of those functions (Johnson and O’Neil
2001).
Mitigation and Reference Site Habitat Class Stratification. In order to ensure we are collecting
data about vegetation types in a way that is useful for documenting, calculating, and reporting vegetation
performance (both within and between sites), we must physically stratify the vegetation by habitat class
(see Table 1). In other words, for the purpose of ensuring correct sampling procedures and performance
assessment, you should draw a boundary line around existing or targeted vegetation that is similar in
character. For the purposes of this guidance, the polygons derived from stratifying habitat classes and/or

vegetation types at reference sites are called sample units and the polygons derived from delineating
target habitat classes and/or vegetation types at mitigation sites are called management units.
Stratification is based on judgments of the similarity or “homogeneity” of the vegetation represented on
the aerial photograph. These judgments are generally based on aerial photo signatures (e.g., texture,
tone, shape, and color) in combination with field verification.
As stated above, there are a number of reasons to stratify habitat classes and/or vegetation types.
For example, it wouldn’t make sense to query a sample from an area that is targeted for a forested
wetland using criteria that are solely intended to judge the performance of a wetgrass prairie. There are
also different sampling strategies for an area targeted to become a forested wetland than an area
targeted to become an emergent wetland. Of course the same considerations apply for existing
vegetation types at reference sites.
It may occasionally be necessary to stratify a vegetation type or hydrologic condition within a habitat
class. For example, if a given sample plot in a management unit indicates an upland plant community
that is intended to be wetland or the significant presence of a nonnative invasive species, the area around
the sample should be surveyed to verify the extent of the area the sample represents. For mitigation sites
less than 100-acres, if the area is 0.25 acre or larger, it should be stratified into a separate sampling unit
on the aerial photograph. For sites larger than 100-acres, the decision on the size a given area must be
to require stratification should be made on a case-by-case basis. By stratifying these areas as separate
units, managers can geographically focus the specific management options necessary to bring these
areas into conformance with their performance standards. Such stratification can also be useful when
calculating available credit for release at mitigation banks.
Three alternative approaches are offered for habitat class stratification for the purpose of vegetation
sampling (Appendix I). The first approach (Low Tech) requires only general familiarity with aerial
photograph interpretation and mapping skills with no specialized equipment needs. The second
approach (Mod Tech) requires knowledge and experience with computer mapping software that is
relatively inexpensive, easily accessible, and requires little specialized training. The third approach (High
Tech) requires knowledge and skills with Geographic Information System computer software that is
relatively expensive and requires a considerable amount of specialized training. All of these approaches
can be used to provide an adequate map displaying the areal extent of the sample and management
units from which vegetation data will be collected, as well as sample plot locations within units. The map
products derived from using the more technical approaches are potentially progressively more interactive
with the data. That is, as the approaches become more technically based, data access and manipulation
opportunities through the map environment increase in diversity and flexibility, thereby allowing users
more sophisticated tools for geographic accuracy, data analysis and reporting.
Under all of these approaches, habitat classes targeted for sampling at the mitigation and reference
sites should be stratified at a large scale (1:1200 to 1:3600) using an aerial photograph (see Appendix I).
Reference site stratification is based on the signatures of the actual vegetation displayed on the aerial

photograph and verification through ground truthing while mitigation site stratification is based on the
areas designated to become the targeted vegetation types delineated in the mitigation plan.
3
The first iteration of vegetation mapping at a mitigation site should include the baseline condition
before any of the site preparation activities are employed. After site preparation actions are completed
(e.g. dike breaching, drain tile breaking, invasive plant removal, ditch filling, native vegetation planting,
etc.), the aerial photo map should be updated to reflect the as-built condition. Mapping updates should
be completed as needed at each iterative period of monitoring and inserted into the accompanying
monitoring report. Each monitoring report should also contain the vegetation sampling data collected at
the same fixed plots used for the as-built report. The map illustrating management units combined with
the vegetation data should be used to track the progress of the mitigation site toward meeting its
vegetation performance standards and habitat class target goals.
For mitigation site map stratification purposes, distinctions between shrub-scrub habitat and forested
habitat will be based on potential height, not actual height. Both forest and scrub-shrub habitat units will
be determined to be on a trajectory (trend) toward success provided that the live stem density
performance standard is met. However, for tracking purposes, the date on which monitoring reveals the
trees in the forested management unit have met or exceeded 6-meters (based on Cowardin 1979) , while
maintaining the minimum live stem density performance standard, should be recorded. At this time there
is no tree or shrub growth rate performance standard.
SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON USING REFERENCE SITES FOR DETERMINING PLANTING PLANS AND
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AT COMPENSATORY MITIGATION SITES
Using this guidance, the vegetation data collected at the selected reference site can to a limited
extent be used to help develop the preliminary planting plan at the compensatory mitigation site. The
data provide the basis for developing a mitigation site preliminary plant species list and to help estimate
the relative amounts of plant materials (e.g., pounds of seed, number of plugs, number of stems, etc.)
required for each species intended for planting. At the discretion of the resource and regulatory agencies,
the person or organization responsible for implementing the mitigation action may choose to not plant all
or portions of their mitigation site; under the presumption that natural plant colonization and succession
will eventually allow the site to meet its targeted vegetation goals. However, except for cases where
unforeseen circumstances persuade resource and regulatory agencies to allow an adaptive management
option, no mitigation site should be considered successful until the date at which the applicable
performance standards prescribed below are met. Ideally, these performance standards should continue
to be met for the full period of time monitoring is required.
In addition to helping the regulated public meet their legal obligations, the data generated through the
application of this guidance are intended to become part of an on-going reference site/mitigation site
vegetation manager (VEMA) relational database (Appendix V). This database is also accessible to
scientists and resource managers interested in using the data to better analyze the causal elements
behind mitigation successes and failures. Any such analyses should, in turn, be provided to resource
3
It is likely the vegetation management unit boundaries established on the mitigation plans will change over time as
natural succession processes interact with management strategies. Maps should be updated accordingly.

managers and subsequently used to update, revise, and augment this guidance. Over time, this process
should serve to help improve the quality and number of compensatory mitigation site successes.
The following performance standards and monitoring methods are provided to aid in the
implementation of this guidance. We strongly suggest that users of the guidance follow the performance
standards and monitoring methods below as closely as possible. If local site conditions or any other
circumstances require deviation from the performance standards or the monitoring methods, we
recommend that users document both the reason for the deviation and carefully outline the alternative
performance standard(s) and/or monitoring method(s) used. This will allow reviewers of the monitoring
reports to better interpret their content and conclusions.
Primary Performance Standard (Emergent/Herbaceous Habitat Class). Monitoring indicates (see
Appendix V): 1) a minimum of 55% of the relative plant cover (including substrate) is comprised of native
species; 2) </= 15% relative plant cover are non-native invasive species, and 3) moisture index </= 3.0.
Secondary Performance Standard (Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie). Monitoring indicates
(see Appendix V): 1) at least 10 wetgrass prairie species listed in are present, 2) Tufted hairgrass
(Deschampsia cespitosa) is represented by 25% or greater relative plant cover, 3) at least 50% of
the relative plant cover (including substrate) is comprised of native species; 4) no more than 15%
of the relative plant cover is comprised of non-native invasive species; 5) the prairie’s moisture
index is between 2.0 and 3.0; and 6) no more than 5% relative plant cover is by shrubs or trees.
Other Willamette Valley wetgrass prairie plant associations have been described that do not meet
the criteria listed above (Christy et al 2004). For the purposes of this guidance, emergent wetland
plant associations that are not consistent with the secondary performance standard above are
considered emergent wetlands; even if they are considered prairies in other classifications. As
this guidance is applied to areas containing these divergent but related plant associations, it may
be appropriate to then reconsider them as unique prairie types and to tailor specific performance
standards appropriate for their unique flora and structure. The newly recognized prairie types
should then be reclassified as wet prairie and adopted into the guidance.
Primary Performance Standard (Forest Habitat Class). For forested habitat classes: Monitoring
indicates at least 80% of the aggregate species live stem density as compared to the reference site
(natural recruitment of native species stems can be considered in this calculation). Less than 5% of the
relative live stem count should be non-native species and moisture index </= 3.0.
Primary Performance Standard (Scrub-shrub Habitat Class/Layer). For scrub-shrub habitat
classes or scrub-shrub habitat layers underneath a forested habitat canopy: Monitoring indicates at least
80% of the aggregate species live stem density as compared to the number of stems planted.
4
Less than
5% of the relative live stem count should be non-native species and 3) moisture index </= 3.0.
4
Because of the difficulty associated with counting high stem densities in many scrub-shrub stands and the
potentially prohibitive cost of planting at those densities, this performance standard reflects the more commonly
used best professional judgment approach to prescribe planting densities and performance. Reference sites can still
be used to help determine species selection and relative abundances.

Office Methods for Reference Site Field Preparation. To prepare for the field portion of the reference site
data collection, the sampling team will:
1. Use a recent large scale (1:1200 - 1:3600) air photo (Figure 1) to stratify habitat classes (see
Appendix I) intended for sampling (sample and management units). Depending on the location,
there are a number of sources of air photo imagery (e.g., WAC Inc. in Eugene, Corps of
Engineers Photogrammetry Section in Portland, and local municipalities and Councils of
Government (COGs). Orthophotographs are preferable. Digital orthophotos for every county in
the United States are available as free downloads from the following United States Department
of Agriculture website but must be viewed with a GIS or other image processing software:
http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/
2. Use a hierarchical standard sample unit and sample grid code for identifying and locating
samples on the air photograph (see Table 2 and Figure 2). If it becomes necessary to subdivide
a sample unit in the field because of unexpected habitat heterogeneity, small letters will be used
to distinguish the subdivided units (e.g., Sample 1 is subdivided into 1a and 1b).
3. Draw a representative layout of the sample grid on the air photo. The orientation of the grid and
the lengths of the baselines and transects will be variable depending on the configuration of the
sample unit. However, a few general rules should be applied:
a. While baselines and portions of transects can be located outside the sample units, all sample
plots must be in the sample unit.

b. To help ensure samples are representative of their sample unit, a systematic method of
sampling from a random point is recommended (see Figure 3) for both the baselines and the
transects. From the randomly selected point(s), all other points along the baselines (transect
line starts) and transects (sample plots) will be measured at equal intervals (Elzinga et al
1998). The method of randomly selecting the distance to the first transect start or the first
sample plot is discretionary but should be documented in the monitoring report.
It should be noted here that this is not intended to be a statistically representative sampling
strategy. It is intended to provide a reasonable representation of the reference site flora and
stand character with a minimum number of samples.
c. The distances between transect start points along the baseline should be far enough to ensure
that the last point will be near the opposite end of the baseline. Transects should usually be
perpendicular to the baselines.
d. A minimum of 5-points (transect starts) will be marked along the baselines in sample units that
contain trees and shrubs and a minimum of three points (transect starts) will be marked along
the baselines in sample units that contain open herbaceous and emergent vegetation. The
locations of these points
and the subsequent
positions of the sample
plots should be identified
and coded accordingly on
the air photo.
e. Deviations from the
guidelines above rules
may be necessary for
many sample units. For
example, a long narrow
linear sample unit may be
most efficiently sampled
with one long transect line
or a series of shorter
transect lines. When a
deviation to the standard
grid is deemed
necessary, document the
revised grid pattern
selected on the air photo
and provide a description in the monitoring report.
f. Additional sample units and sample grids are discretionary.

g. The most convenient routes to access the intended starting points for each baseline should be
identified on the air photo. It is recognized that it may not be possible to use the baseline and
transect grid system in every case because of site limitations (e.g., impenetrable thickets,
intersections with deep water, etc.).
Reference Site Field Methods. Once in the field and near the desired sample unit boundary, if the
baseline starting point is not easily observed at the point of entry to the sample unit, the sampling team
should mark the point of entry with a rebar stake
5
and record the GPS coordinates (waypoint) at that
location.
ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE.
Using a compass and the air photo
prepared in the office, the sampling team
will then walk to the area where the
mapped starting point of the sample
unit’s baseline is located. The sampling
team will mark that point in the field with
a rebar stake and record the GPS
coordinates (waypoint) for that location.
If any unanticipated field circumstances (e.g., impenetrable blackberries) require that the baseline start at
a point substantially different than that marked on the air photo in the office, the necessary adjustments
should be made on the air photo, and marked using the GPS unit, to reflect the true positions. The
5
If rebar stakes are used to mark sampling grids and/or plots in areas that are managed in a way that requires
equipment such as tractors to have site access, it may be advisable to collect a GPS waypoint at the point locations,
hammer the rebar flush with the soil, and then , during the next sampling site visit, to use the GPS to find the general
locations of the points and a then a metal detector to find the precise locations.

sample team will then field mark the baseline using the air photo and a compass while laying out a field
measuring tape. The first transect start point along each base line will be selected randomly. The
remaining transect start positions will be spaced equidistantly along the baseline and spaced to cover the
entire sample unit. Each interval of each transect start position will be marked in the field with a flag or
stake and its location will be recorded on a GPS unit. The length of the baselines should generally reflect
the size of the sample units being sampled.
ESTABLISHING THE TRANSECTS AND SAMPLE PLOTS AND COLLECTING FIELD DATA
Emergent/Herbaceous Habitat Class. There will be three transect lines established with a
minimum of 10 sample plots per transect (additional
transect lines and plots are discretionary). After the
position of the first sample point is randomly selected on
a transect, the remaining sample positions will be spaced
at equal distances along the right side of the transect line
(facing away from the baseline). The bottom left-hand
corner of each 1-square meter sample plot will be placed
on the corresponding sample point on the transect line
(see Figure 4).
The field team will designate a field team data
recorder and the remaining members of the team will
become data collectors who will report the data to the
recorder. The entire field team will always remain on the
left side of the transect line to avoid disturbing the
samples. The data collectors can use Table 3 to help
make percent cover class mid-point determinations for
each species in each sample and the data recorder will
place the data in the field data sheet provided in
Appendix II and/or in the vegetation manager (VEMA)
relational database linked to Appendix V.
6
The recorder can also use VEMA directly or a printout of its
Plant table
7
to help determine whether a species is native, nonnative noninvasive, or nonnative invasive.
The vegetation manager relational database linked to Appendix V can be used to collect and document
the data as well as to help make the mitigation site performance specifications.
Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie Habitat Class. The same methods used above for the
emergent/ herbaceous habitat class will be used for the Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie Habitat Class.
However, additional data (Table 5) will need to be recorded and tallied: 1. number of prairie cohorts, 2.
plant species moisture indexes, 3. relative percent cover of Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa),
and 4. relative percent cover by trees and shrubs. The vegetation manager (VEMA) relational database
6
Depending on the weather and/or availability of a laptop computer, VEMA data entries may need to take place in
the office.
7
The tables in the data file for VEMA are currently accessible by opening the VEMAData.mdb file and selecting
the “Unhide” option under the window dropdown menu.

linked to Appendix V can be used to collect and document the data as well as to help make the mitigation
site performance specifications.
Scrub-shrub Habitat Class. In Scrub-shrub Habitat Classes, there will be one sample plot
measuring 10-foot square established on each of 5 transect lines (additional transect lines and plots are
discretionary). As with the baseline, the selection of the distance to the sampling point shall be random.
The sample plot will be placed on the right side of the transect line (facing away from the baseline) and
the bottom left-hand corner of the plot will be placed on the sampling point (see Figure 5).
The field team will designate a field team data recorder and the remaining members of the team will
become data collectors who will report the data to the recorder. The field team data collectors will count
the number of stems (at ground level) for each shrub species in each 10-foot square sample plot and
report the data to the recorder who will fill out the on the field data sheet provided in Appendix II.
Forest Habitat Class. In forest habitat classes, there will be one circular plot measuring 30-foot
diameter established on each transect line. As with the baseline, the selection of the distance to the
sample point shall be random. The sample point shall also be the center of the circle plot (see Figure 6).
The field team will designate a field team data recorder and the remaining members of the team will
become data collectors who will report the data to the recorder. The field team data collectors will count
the number of stems (at ground level) for
each tree species in each 30-foot
diameter circle sample plot and report
the data to the recorder who will fill out
the field data sheet provided in Appendix
II. The recorder can also use VEMA
directly or a printout of its Plant table to
help determine whether a species is
native, nonnative noninvasive, or
nonnative invasive. The vegetation
manager relational database linked to
Appendix V can be used to collect and
document the data as well as to help
make the mitigation site performance
specifications.
Layered Habitat Class. Some
samples will have multiple vegetation
layers (e.g., a forest overstory, a scrub-
shrub understory, and/or an herbaceous
understory). If there is a scrub-shrub
understory in a Forest Habitat Unit, the
10 x 10- foot (100-square-foot) Scrub-
shrub sample plots will be placed within
the respective 30-foot diameter circles.

The bottom left corner of each Scrub shrub
sample plot will meet the center point of the
circle it occupies (Figure 7). The percent
cover of understory herbaceous vegetation in
Layered sample units will be estimated using
the boundaries of the largest sample plot. The
field team will designate a field team data
recorder and the remaining members of the
team will become data collectors who will
report the data to the recorder. The field team
data collectors will estimate the percent cover
mid-points for each herbaceous species and
count the number of stems for each tree and
shrub species in each sample plot and report
the data to the recorder who will fill out the
field data sheet provided in Appendix II. The
recorder can also use VEMA directly or a
printout of its Plant table to help determine
whether a species is native, nonnative
noninvasive, or nonnative invasive. The
vegetation manager relational database linked
to Appendix V can be used to collect and
document the data as well as to help make the
mitigation site performance specifications.
Manually Calculating Vegetation Performance. While we recommend entering all the data into the
vegetation manager (VEMA) relational database downloadable through a link in Appendix V to
automatically make the necessary calculations and display:
1. Reference site stand conditions (e.g., stem densities of woody species and relative percent cover
of herbaceous species) to aid in formulating the preliminary mitigation site planting plan; and
2. Report summaries indicating whether mitigation site(s) meet their performance standard(s).
Recommendations on manual calculations using the field data are provided below:
Emergent/Herbaceous Habitat Class. The following procedure will be used for the determination of
relative dominance by native, nonnative non-invasive, and nonnative invasive plant species:
1. For each transect in the Habitat Class sample unit, develop a table (see Table 4) that displays the
following calculations:
a. Determine percent cover of native, nonnative noninvasive, nonnative invasive species, and
substrate by sample plot;

b. Determine mean percent cover of native, nonnative, nonnative invasive species, and
substrate for transect;
c. Sum mean percent cover for all species present and substrate;
d. Sum mean percent cover for all native species present;
e. Sum mean percent cover for all nonnative noninvasive species
f. Sum mean percent cover for all nonnative invasive species
2. Divide each of the sums derived in calculations 1(d), 1(e), and 1(f) by the sum derived in
calculation 1(c) to derive the relative mean percent cover for native species, nonnative
noninvasive species, and nonnative invasive species sampled in the transect.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for each transect.
4. Sum the total relative percent mean covers (native, nonnative noninvasive, nonnative invasive)
for each transect tallied in Step 3.
5. Divide each of the sums derived in step 4 by the number of transects to derive the relative
percent cover for native species, nonnative noninvasive species, and nonnative invasive species
in the Habitat Class represented by the sample unit.
The above calculations are displayed in Table 4 for a simplified hypothetical sample unit. As you can
see from the table, this sample unit would meet its performance standards because greater than 55% of
the relative plant cover is by native species and less than 15% relative plant cover is by nonnative
invasive species.

Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie Habitat Class. The same methods used above for the
emergent/ herbaceous habitat class will be used for the Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie Habitat Class.
However, additional data (Table 5) will need to be recorded and tallied: 1. number of prairie cohorts, 2.
plant species weighted moisture indexes, 3. relative percent cover of Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia
cespitosa), and 4. relative percent cover by trees and shrubs.
A site must meet the following criteria to meet the Willamette Valley wetgrass prairie performance
standards: 1. at least 50% of the relative cover by native species, 2. less than 15% relative plant cover is
by nonnative invasive species, 3. at least 25% relative plant cover is by Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia
cespitosa), 4. at least 10 wetgrass prairie prairie cohort species are present on the site, 5. the site
moisture tolerance index is between 2.0 and 3.0, and 6. less than 5% relative plant cover is by trees
and/or shrubs.
Scrub-shrub Habitat Class. The following procedure will be used to determine species densities to
plant at the mitigation site and the minimum stem density the mitigation site is required to have in order to
meet its performance standard (see Table 6):
1. By species, add the number of live stems in each plot and divide by the number of plots to derive
the mean number of stems per plot;
2. By species, divide the mean number of live stems per plot by the area of each plot (100-square
feet) to derive the mean stem density (stems/square foot);
3. By species, multiply the mean stem density (stems/square foot) by the number of square feet in
an acre (43,560) to derive mean number of stems per acre. The derived live stem density per
species per acre can be used to prescribe the density at which to plant each respective species
at the compensatory mitigation site.
4. Add the mean live stems per acre per species derived in step 3 to derive the total live stems per
acre for all species.
5. Multiply total live stems per acre derived in step 4 by 0.80 to derive the minimum shrub density
performance standard for the mitigation site.
Forest Habitat Class. The following procedure will be used to determine species densities to plant
at the mitigation site and the minimum tree stem density the mitigation site is required to have in order to
meet its performance standard (see Table 6):
1. By species, add the number of live stems in each plot and divide by the number of plots to derive
the mean number of live stems per plot;
2. By species, divide the mean number of live stems per plot by the area of each plot (about 707-
square feet) to derive the mean live stem density (stems/square foot);
3. By species, multiply the mean live stem density (stems/square foot) by the number of square feet
in an acre (43,560) to derive mean number of live stems per acre. This derived mean live stem

density per species per acre can be used to prescribe the density at which to plant each
respective species at the compensatory mitigation site.
4. Add the mean live stems per acre per species derived in step 3 to derive the total live stems per
acre for all species.
5. Multiply total stems per acre derived in step 4 by 0.80 to derive the minimum tree density
performance standard for the mitigation site.

SAMPLING COMPENSATORY MITIGATION SITES
Once a compensatory mitigation site has been established under this guidance, it will be necessary to set
up a sampling strategy designed to collect the same type of data collected at the corresponding reference
site(s). We recommend using the same plot sizes used for the reference site(s). However, depending on
the size and complexity of the mitigation site, a larger number of samples will generally be needed at the
mitigation site than the number collected at the reference site. That is because the sampling goal at the
mitigation site is different than at the reference site.
The sampling goal at the reference site is to collect the minimum number of samples needed to
roughly characterize the flora and stand characteristics of the reference site. The sampling goal at the
mitigation site is to determine, over the entire area of the mitigation site, whether the site has met its
vegetation performance standards or, if not, if it is on a trajectory towards meeting those performance
standards. This goal requires a more representative sampling strategy and, hence, generally a higher
number of samples.
Forest Habitat Class Unit. A 30-acre forest vegetation management unit would require about 92
sample plots (3 plots per acre) if each plot were approximately 707-square feet (roughly the area of a 30-
foot diameter circle). Reduction of the sample numbers may be appropriate based on site circumstances
(e.g., a fairly evenly distributed ash stand). Decisions to reduce sample numbers should be made on a
case-by-case basis and be in conformance with all regulatory requirements.

Scrub-shrub Habitat Class Unit. A 30-acre scrub-shrub vegetation management unit would require
about 653 sample plots (22 per acre) if each plot were 100-square feet (the area of a 10-foot square).
Reduction of the sample numbers may be appropriate based on site circumstances (e.g., a fairly evenly
distributed stand of Spirea). Decisions to reduce sample numbers should be made on a case-by-case
basis and be in conformance with all regulatory requirements.
Emergent/Herbaceous Habitat Classes Unit. The following steps should generally be followed to
determine the minimum number of plots required using a species/area curve method (Daubenmire 1968):
1. Plot a graph (Figure 9) with
the vertical axis (y)
representing the
cumulative number of
species and the horizontal
axis (x) representing the
number of sample plots
used;
2. Establish a preliminary
transect within the
appropriate habitat class
unit following the transect
and sample design in
Figure 4;
3. Plot the number of new
species counted in each
respective sample plot on the graph established in step 1;

4. Continue step 3 for several plots after the species/area curve plotted begins to flatten;
5. Plot the x/y coordinate that best represents the sample number where an insignificant number of
new species are being counted and use that sample number for the habitat class unit being
sampled.
Since homogeneity in the environment typically decreases rapidly with increasing area, it is important
to correlate specific plant communities with specific soil and microclimate conditions (Daubenmire 1969).
This consideration is important both from the standpoint of planting species suitable to a particular
location within a compensatory mitigation site and in determining the adequate sample number necessary
to evaluate the performance of the vegetation planted. In order to document change over time, all sample
plots at the mitigation site should be established as permanent plots (clearly marked in the field) and
mapped to scale in a manner that they can be easily located during each future iteration of monitoring.
Also, the coordinates of each transect starting point should be determined on a GPS unit and logged on
the field data collection sheets and/or the vegetation manager (VEMA) relational database (Appendix V).
The above sample number recommendations for the different habitat class units are provided as
guidelines. Depending on the complexity of the area being sampled, more or fewer samples may be
warranted. However, a decision to use fewer sample numbers should be accompanied by an explanation
of the specific circumstances that were considered when making that decision.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This document provides guidance on vegetation planning and monitoring protocols for western
Oregon wetland and riparian areas. It is based on a presumption that reference sites can be used to help
develop preliminary vegetation planting plans and performance standards for compensatory mitigation
sites. The guidance recommends using relatively undisturbed reference sites that closely match the
hydrogeomorphic and soil conditions of the corresponding proposed mitigation sites.
By recommending consistent monitoring protocols and vegetation performance standards, the
guidance provides a means to evaluate the abilities of various mitigation implementation strategies (e.g.
dike breaching, drain tile breaking, invasive plant removal, ditch filling, native vegetation planting, etc.) to
meet the targeted design vegetation performance standards and to compare targeted vegetation
outcomes against the actual outcomes. The data collected from compensatory mitigation projects that
use this guidance should be useful in helping resource managers develop improved vegetation
contingency plans, adaptive management strategies, performance standards, and implementation
strategies for future mitigation projects. With iterative applications of this guidance, compensatory
mitigation vegetation success should increase substantially in this area over time. A vegetation manager
relational database linked to Appendix V can be used to record, calculate, and report vegetation
performance based on the field data collected in sample and management units. It can also be used to
set iterative performance thresholds for gauging a given site’s vegetation success.
While the fundamental goal of this guidance is to provide a means to ultimately increase the success
of compensatory mitigation actions, it is limited in terms of the contribution it can make toward this end. It
provides a reference site based framework for establishing mitigation goals, performance standards, and
follow-up monitoring. If consistently applied, over time, it should help facilitate the collection of high-

resolution vegetation data for a significant number of sites regionally scattered (with a probable bias
toward urban areas). However, even after a prolonged period of application, it will not have contributed to
the collection of data necessary to calculate the full range of vegetation variability by ecoregion and
subwatershed.
Future wetland and riparian mitigation successes are highly contingent on the use of regionally
collected vegetation data. Fortunately, there are a number of ecoregion and watershed scale vegetation
data collection efforts currently underway (e.g., west Eugene wetlands, the Native Seed Network, the
Willamette Valley and Oregon Coast wetland and riparian hydrogeomorphic guidebooks, Columbia River
Estuary Long-term Monitoring Program, etc.). If a cooperative relationship can be established that would
allow the users of this guidance to share their data with those working at the regional levels, the benefits
would very likely trickle down to all mitigation practitioners. Of course, if adopted, this cooperative
approach would require a concerted effort by all the parties in the network to work toward the following
goals:
1. Consistent data collection methods and measures; and
2. A shared GIS based automated system for data storage and access.
If this guidance plays any part in helping achieve these goals, it will have served the intended
purpose of the author. Finally, Provision of guidance such as this, which emphasizes vegetation, is not
intended to diminish the importance of monitoring and assessing the performance of other key
components of wetlands, such as water regime, soils, wildlife, and overall function.

References
Adamus, P.R. 2000. A Preliminary Interpretation of Hydrogeomorphic and Botanical Reference Data
from 62 Willamette Valley Riverine and Non-riverine Wetland/Riparian Sites. Oregon Wetland-
Riparian Assessment Project, Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, Oregon.
Adamus, P.R. 2001. Guidebook for Hydrogeomorphic (HGM)-based Assessment of Oregon Wetland
and Riparian Sites: Statewide Classification and Profiles. Oregon Department of State Lands,
Salem, Oregon.
Adamus, P.R. 2004. Personal Communication. Wetland Ecologist.
Christy, J.A. 2004. Native Freshwater Wetland Plant Associations of Northwestern Oregon. Oregon
Natural Heritage Information Center, Oregon State University.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. Biological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C., 103 pp.
Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant Communities: A Textbook of Plant Synecology. Harper and Row, New
York, Evanston, and London.
Devroy, L. 2004. Personal Communication. Wetland Mitigation Specialist. Oregon Department of
State Lands.
Elzinga, C. L, D.W. Salzer, and J.W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and monitoring plant populations.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM National Business
Center, Denver, Colorado.
Johnson, D. H. And T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northwest Habitat Institute, Oregon State University
Press.
Kuchler, A.W. 1966. Analyzing the physiognomy and structure of vegetation. Ann. Assoc. Amer.
Geog., 56:112-126.
National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act.
Division of Earth and Life Sciences, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Packard, S. And C.F. Mutel. 1997. The tallgrass restoration handbook: For prairies, savannas, and
woodlands. Society for Ecological Restoration, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9). U.S. Department of the Interior, Biological Report 88(26.9).

Washington Department of Ecology, Seattle District US Army Corps of Engineers, and Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10. 2004. Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part
2: Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals. Publication No. 04-06-
013B.

Appendix I.
Guidelines on How to Stratify an Aerial Photograph
Low Tech
1. Secure a recent aerial photograph that displays the area of concern. The photograph should
generally be displayed at a scale no smaller than 1-inch equals 300 feet;
2. Overlay pre-cut clear plastic acetate sheet over the aerial photograph or mount on poster board
and laminate;
3. Use a permanent Sharpie pen (the ink can be erased from the plastic by using a wetted pencil
eraser) to delineate the boundaries of sample units on the aerial photograph;
4. Use the aerial photo signatures (e.g., texture, tone, shape, and color) to determine sample unit
boundary locations and to label sample unit habitat types;
5. Number polygons; and
6. Field check sample unit polygons and make any necessary boundary and habitat classification
adjustments as needed.
Mod Tech
1. Open Terrain Navigator Pro Software and load Maptech 2.0 Professional USGS Topographic
Series CD for the area that contains the site you wish to stratify;
2. Zoon to scale at which aerial imagery are automatically downloaded (generally 1:12,000 or
larger);
3. Choose a zoom level (e.g., 2:1) that allows you the best view of the aerial photo signature;
4. Per the guidance in step 4 under Low Tech, use the distance tool to draw a line around each of
the habitat classes or vegetation types you wish to stratify;
5. Right click each polygon immediately after you close the line and choose convert to Track;
6. Use the edit option to give the track a full name and a GPS name and fill in any comments you
wish to record about the habitat class;
7. Use the label tool to label the habitat class polygons; and
8. Select the print option to organize your map layout and to print the aerial photo with polygon and
annotation layers.

Appendix I.
Guidelines on How to Stratify an Aerial Photograph (Cont)
High Tech
1. Open ArcMap in ArcGIS 9.1 or 9.2 software;
2. Add raster file containing orthophotograph imagery for the county that contains the site you wish
to stratify;
3. Left click windows Start, select Explore, and navigate it to a folder you wish to place the shapefile
for the polygons you will create during the sample/management unit stratification process for the
habitat classes;
4. Create a subfolder specifically to contain the sample or management unit polygons you will
create;
5. Close windows directory and go back to ArcMap with the added raster image;
6. Open ArcToolbox and select the Search tab at the bottom of the directory;
7. Type the words “create feature class” and select the “Search” button;
8. Double left click “Create Feature Class” after it populates the toolbox window;
9. A “Create Feature Class” form will display on your computer screen;
10. Under Output Location, navigate to the shapefile folder you created in step 4 above;
11. Type the name you wish to give your shapefile under Output Feature Class (be sure geometry
type selected is polygon);
12. Select OK and wait for the feature class to be created and to show up in the table of contents;
13. Close ArcMap and Open ArcCatalog;
14. Navigate to the shapefile you have just created and select properties;
15. Click the X/Y Coordinates tab and click the Select a predefined coordinate system;
16. Choose Geographic Coordinate System (e.g., North America, North American Datum 1983.prj,),
select Add, and then OK ;
17. Close ArcCatalog and Open ArcMap;
18. Click Editor down arrow to open drop down box and select “start editing.”

Appendix I.
Guidelines on How to Stratify an Aerial Photograph (Cont)
19. Make sure the task widow on the editor tool bar contains “start new feature” and the target
window on the editor toolbar contains the name of your shapefile;
20. Zoom to a scale appropriate to stratify the sample or management units and select the “sketch
tool” to the right of the editor down arrow;
21. Right click to place vertices as you use your mouse to sketch around the habitat classes you wish
to stratify. Double click to close each sketch and to create a polygon representing the sample or
management unit;
22. After all the polygons are complete, under the editor dropdown box, click “save your edits” and
then click “stop editing.”
23. Right click on the feature class you are editing in the table of contents and select “Open Attribute
Table;”
24. Click the options button at the bottom of the table and click “Add Field;”
25. Name the Field Sample Units and Select Float under “Type” then close the Attribute Table;
26. Click start editing and reopen the Attribute Table;
27. Click the records under the Field you just added and place a number to represent the sample or
management unit that record is associated with;
28. After you have placed the numbers of each sample or management unit in the appropriate record,
click save your edits and stop editing;
29. Right click properties and select “Symbology;”
30. Select the drop down arrow next to the Value Field window and select the Field you just added
and edited;
31. At the bottom of the Symbol and Value window, select the “Add All Values” button and then Click
each Label and change it to reflect the label you want to give the polygon it represents (e.g.,
Sample Unit 1, Sample Unit 2 . . . .) and then click OK;
32. At the bottom of the ArcMap window hit the Map Layout icon and insert title, north arrow, legend,
scale, etc as desired.
33. Save your map (mxd file) to a selected folder and select Export Map under the File button on your
toolbar. Use dropdown arrow under “Save as Type” and select the file type you wish to export
the map to (e.g., pdf, jpg, emf). Close ArcMap.

Appendix II.
Field Data Collection Form
VegetationManagerDataBaseFieldSamplingForm
Date:__________________SiteName:___________________Surveyor:____________________Ecoregion:__________________________HUC:___________________________
State:__________________________County:_______________________TRS:________________________________Assoc.Stream_________________________RM________
SampleUnit:ReferenceUnit/ManagementUnit
Lat.________________________________Long.___________________________________HGMClass/Sub-class:______________________________________________________
CowardinSystem:_________________________________________CowardinClass/Modifier:________________________________________________________________________
ExistingHabitatType:____________________________________________________TargetedHabitatType:___________________________________________________________
SoilSeries:_____________________________________________________________
Baseline:
Number___________Bearing_______________________________________________StartLat./Long._______________________________________________________________
EndLat./Long._____________________________________________________________________________________________Length____________________________________
Transect:
Number___________Bearing_______________________________________________StartLat/Long.________________________________________________________________
EndLat/Long.______________________________________________________________________________________________Length_____________________________________
Transect
Number
Sample
Plot
Number
PlotSizePlantSpecies/Exposed
Substrate
Moisture
Index
TSH
FEES
Percent
Cover
Stem
Count
NNNIGrassForbWoodyPrairie
Cohort
GPS
Way-
point
T=Tree;S=Shrub;H=Herb;FE=FloatingEmergent;ES=ExposedSubstrate:(Br=Bedrock,Co=Cobble,Gr=Gravel,Sa=Sand,Si=Silt,Cl=Clay,Li=Litter,Du=Duff,Th=Thatch,
Pe=Peat,Mu=Muck);N=Native;NN=Nonnative;I=NonnativeInvasive.
PercentCoverClasses:1:0–5(3);2:5–25(15);3:25–50(38);4:50–75(63);5:75–100(88).

Appendix III.
Office and Field Equipment Lists
1. Aerial photograph/plastic cover;
2. Rebar stakes (for marking baseline, transect, and sample locations);
3. Write-in-the-rain field data sheets;
4. Two 300-foot measuring tapes;
5. 2 one-meter square plot frames;
6. 1 camera;
7. One GPS unit;
8. 1 box of plastic plant collection bags;
9. A compass; and
10. A random number generator.

Appendix IV.
Guidelines on Calculating Site Level
Moisture Tolerance Indexes
1. Assign each of the plants
in the sample plot a
number based on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service National List of
Plant Species that Occur
in Wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9) wetland
indicator status (e.g.1 =
obligate, 2 =FACW, 3 =
FAC, 4 = FACU, and 5 =
UPL).
2. Determine percent cover
for each species and
then sum the percent
cover for each species in
a sample;
3. Multiply the percent
cover of each species by
its respective moisture
tolerance index to derive
a weighted percent cover
for each species;
4. Sum the weighted percent cover for each species in the same sample;
5. Divide the sum in step 4 by the sum derived in step 2 to derive sample plot average moisture
index (SPMI);
6. Average sample plot moisture indexes in the transect to derive transect average moisture index
(TMI); and
7. Average transect moisture indexes to derive site average moisture index (SMI).

Appendix V.
Vegetation Manager (VEMA) Relational Database
Click here to download the database.
ftp://nwhi.org
Login: vema
Password: vema
To download it onto your computer, create a file named "VEMA" on your C drive (C:VEMA), drag the zip
file from the FTP site directly into your VEMA folder and use winzip to "extract to here." There will be
four folders: Help, Images, Logs, Reference; a text file; and two mdb files: VEMA.mdb and
VEMAData.mdb. You access the database through the VEMA.mdb (applications file).
NOTE: All the data you enter in the applications file is stored separately in tables in the VEMAData.mdb
(data file). You can send a copy of this datafile to any other user of VEMA and they can then "point" their
applications file at it and generate vegetation performance reports related to their customized queries of
the data. Or you can export your reports to excel files, word docs, etc. and file those reports in your
windows directory and/or attach them to e-mails or CDs and send them to others.
Once you open the applications file you will be in a form called: "About VEMA." At the top left corner of
your screen above your toolbar but below the title of the database in black letters there is a dropdown list
box titled: VEMA: Sites; Site Visits; About; Exit. Click the dropdown list and choose "Sites." That is
where you begin entering the data necessary to set up your Site, Site Visit and vegetation data entry.
There is also a Help link you can use to further explain and assist you in your use of the database.
The next goals are to: 1. convert VEMA into a geodatabase, 2. enable it to be used on mobile data
collection/GIS-GPS devices for direct field data entry, and 3. develop a common protocol for an internet
based system for data access and sharing.

Appendix VI
Glossary
Biological Integrity. A habitat condition that is characterized primarily by native species and native
plant communities; and/or a habitat condition that is characterized by a structure that provides
opportunities for the multiple life-cycle requirements of a diverse or abundant native fauna; and/or
a habitat condition that is characterized by a structure that provides opportunities for the life-cycle
requirements of a specialized fauna that is currently rare or federally listed as threatened and
endangered.
Compensatory Mitigation. The restoration, enhancement, or creation of habitat to compensate for
the unavoidable loss of habitat.
Emergent Wetland Habitat Class. An area dominated by herbaceous vegetation with an overall site
moisture index less than 3.
Forested Habitat Class. An area dominated by woody vegetation equal or greater than six meters
(about 20-feet) in height (Cowardin et al 1979).
Habitat Class. A classification of biotic and abiotic attributes in a defined area. It is used to compare
similar and to contrast distinct animal and plant assemblages. There is variation both within and
among habitat classes. Habitat classes experience cyclic variations in environmental conditions
daily, seasonally, and through historic and geologic time. Habitat classes may also experience
successional or catastrophic changes.
Habitat System. The complex of habitats that share the influence of similar hydrologic,
geomorphologic, chemical, or biological factors (Cowardin et al 1979).
Non-native Invasive Plant Species. Non-native plants that have demonstrated consistent trends
toward invading and dominating or totally replacing native plant communities over a relatively
short period of time after they initially become established. Invasive species include but are not
limited to: Purple loostrife; Reed cannarygrass; Japanese knotweed; Yellow iris; Eurasion water
millfoil; and Himalayan blackberry.
Open Emergent/Open Herbaceous Habitat Class. Herbaceous vegetation with no tree or shrub
overstory.
Sample Unit. A habitat class delineated on an air photograph and numbered for sampling purposes.
Scrub-shrub Habitat Class. An area dominated by woody vegetation less than six meters (about
20-feet) in height (Cowardin et al 1979).
Substrate. Bare ground, including both mineral and organic soil, a wide variety of soil and rock
partical sizes, and/or a wide variety of organic debris types.

Willamette Valley Wetgrass Prairie. Wet prairie grassland with a tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia
cespitosa) component and other grasses and forbs. The underlying soils are typically saturated to
the surface during the early part of the growing season and gradually dry out during the summer
with a moisture index between 2 and 3.

Appendix VII.
Selecting and Substituting Plant Species and Plant Genotypes
We recommend mitigation site designers develop planting plans using the same native species and
genotypes (collectively referred to as plant materials) documented at the reference site for planting the
mitigation site. It is usually preferable to salvage the desired plant materials from existing vegetated
areas on or near the proposed compensatory mitigation site. However, this option may be partially or
completely unavailable. If that is the case, native plant nurseries can be used. Many nurseries keep
track of the geographic origins of their stock. Also, if the order for plant materials can be placed far
enough in advance of the development action(s), some nurseries will gather the ordered plant materials,
propagate them, and hold them until the plant materials ordered are needed.
Giving deference to best professional judgment, we generally recommend against substituting for
species documented at the reference site with species that are not present at the reference site because
of suitable plant material unavailability. If one or more species documented at the reference site is
unavailable, we recommend filling the gap with species that are documented at the reference site and are
obtainable. For example, if there are 300 alder, 100 Oregon ash, and 10 cottonwood per acre at the
reference site, and cottonwood are unavailable, we would recommend planting 110 Oregon ash or alder
per acre at the mitigation site instead of substituting another "selected" species for the cottonwood.
Diversity goals should be considered within the context of the landscape. It may be inappropriate to try
and obtain high species diversity at the project level at many mitigation sites.

Appendix VIII.
Securing Aerial Photographs for Sampling
Acquisition of Planimetrically Correct Aerial Photographs. Aerial photographs are commercially
available for most areas in Oregon and flights are run almost every year. Enlarging the centers of small
scale aerial photographs in areas that are relatively low relief topographically, typically results in
photographs that are, within acceptable parameters, planimetrically correct. For many urban areas,
orthographic photos are readily available from local and regional planning authorities.
Digital orthophotos for every county in the United States can be downloaded from the following United
States Department of Agriculture web site but are only viewable with a GIS or other image processing
software:
http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/
Plotting Sample Points on Aerial Photographs Downloaded From the Internet. A precision
lightweight global positioning system receiver (PLGR+96) can be used to electronically collect and map
sample points (waypoints) in the field (accuracy is about +/- 25-feet in open fields):
1. The field marked sample points (waypoints) are recorded on the GPS unit (setup for a North
American 1983 datum using a universal transverse mercator (UTM) coordinate system for UTM
Zone 10 and Zone Designator T.). Be sure to collect waypoints in the same datum and projection
that you will use to map the locations.
2. The waypoints (sample points) are then downloaded from the unit and entered as individual
markers in the Terrain Navigator Pro mapping software program.
3. Download the digital orthographic quads (1:12000) from the vendor(s internet site and layer the
individual markers (sample points) on the base orthographic quads (photographs) in the Terrain
Navigator Pro mapping software program.
4. Re-scale the quads to an appropriate scale to view the individual markers (sample points).
5. Print the selected orthographic quad (photograph) section in a large output format using a HP
Design Jet 1055CM Plus plotter or it(s equivalent.
Waypoints can also be exported from Terrain Pro Navigator Software as a shapefile to a folder in
your windows directory. From there, the shapefile can then be added to ArcMap using ArcGIS software
and projected onto digital orthopotos along with other GIS layers.

Appendix IX.
Additional Data Needs
1. Vegetation height class;
2. Numeric plant salinity tolerance index;
3. Sequential ground photographs of the compensatory mitigation action taken from
permanent photo stations;
4. Sequential aerial photographs of the compensatory mitigation site;
5. Shallow ground water well data or peizometer data;
6. Surface water staff gauge data; and
7. Wildlife use behavior by habitat class.

Draftvegetationprotocol2

Related slideshows

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

More Related Content

Similar to Draftvegetationprotocol2

Similar to Draftvegetationprotocol2 (20)

Draftvegetationprotocol2